Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 106

Thread: Some provisional calculations for haplogroup R1a based on the first FGC result

  1. #1
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,682
    Sex
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-L1280>FGC41205
    mtDNA (M)
    H2a2(b)
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1a-L1029>YP517
    mtDNA (P)
    H5a2

    Poland European Union

    Some provisional calculations for haplogroup R1a based on the first FGC result

    Here are some very provisional calculations based on the recently received full Y chromosome sequencing results for a first member of our R1a1a and Subclades project tested at FGC (kit 208920, clade L1029). Of course, this will be refined once we receive his raw data (bam file) and once more R1a members are tested.

    TMRCAs for R1a 01.jpg

  2. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Michał For This Useful Post:

     Calamus (10-29-2013),  Clinton P (10-25-2013),  cmorley (10-25-2013),  Humanist (10-26-2013),  jdean (10-25-2013),  Jean M (10-25-2013),  kaiono (04-28-2014),  lgmayka (10-27-2013),  Mehrdad (01-25-2014),  Muircheartaigh (10-26-2013),  NK19191 (10-26-2013),  parasar (10-25-2013),  Sein (11-25-2013),  Silesian (10-26-2013),  TigerMW (11-29-2013),  Tomenable (09-19-2016)

  3. #2
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,873

    Michał ,

    Thanks!
    So it is within the realm of possibility that that Siberian Baikal 24000ybp Y could well be R1. Now we need an R2 to test to capture that string length.
    Last edited by parasar; 10-25-2013 at 06:38 PM.

  4. #3
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,873

    CTS4385 and Z283 must have branched very close in time ~ just a few hundred years!

  5. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,682
    Sex
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-L1280>FGC41205
    mtDNA (M)
    H2a2(b)
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1a-L1029>YP517
    mtDNA (P)
    H5a2

    Poland European Union
    Our R1a1a and Subclades project is looking for more R1a members who are ready to spend their money on sequencing their entire chromosome Y.
    Here is a list of all FGC testees from the R1a haplogroup who are known to us:

    Branch L664
    ???

    Branch Z93
    221090 (Y57)
    241703 (CTS6)
    251286 (CTS6)

    Branch Z284
    ???

    Branch M458

    208920 (L1029) - already completed

    Branch Z280
    46500 (CTS1211*) Old Carpathian - just completed!
    199037 (CTS3402* or CTS8816?) Volga-Carpathian
    211024 (CTS3402* or CTS8816?) Volga-Carpathian
    152839 (?) (CTS1211/CTS3402?) Southern Baltic type, unclustered
    E4464 (L1280)
    B1578 (L1280)
    B1171 (L1280)


    It's a pity that we don't have any L664 and Z284 members in the above group. Also, it would be good to have at least one result for such large clades like L658, L260 and Z92 (and of course for both L448 and Z287). Additionally, I would love to see some CTS4385*, Z93*, Z94*, CTS2124* Z283*, Z282*, Z280*, Z284* and M458* members being sequenced.

    Please let us know about any R1a people who are missing on the above list.

  6. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,682
    Sex
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-L1280>FGC41205
    mtDNA (M)
    H2a2(b)
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1a-L1029>YP517
    mtDNA (P)
    H5a2

    Poland European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    CTS4385 and Z283 must have branched very close in time ~ just a few hundred years!
    This is indeed quite interesting. The very close distance between the founders of the Z93, M458, Z280 and Z284 branches is also very intriguing. Actually, the founders of the M458, Z280 and Z284 branches (and all major lineages from the paragroup Z282*) could have been just members of one large family that was suddenly expanding in different directions.

    Another thing that has been already suspected based on the STR results (but is now clearly confirmed by the SNP data) is the very large distance (about 2000 years) between the initial separation of the two major subclades of M458 (L1260 and CTS1962/L1029) and their subsequent (much more recent) massive explosion. This characteristic structure of branch M458 resembles a bit a structure of its Scandinavian sister branch Z284 (where two major sub-branches L448 and Z287 are both relatively young and all indicates that this is related to the very recent expansion of the Norse Vikings). All this, however, is in a huge contrast to the predicted structure of the Z280 branch that has significantly expanded shortly after its birth (producing multiple sublineages that have managed to survive till today in very different regions of Europe, ranging from Ural to Ireland and from Finland to the Balkans) but neither of its subclades was able to undergo such massive expansion in the more recent times (though Z92 and the hypothetical clade CTS8816 have also significantly expanded at about the same time as CTS11962/L1029 and L260). This suggests that the initial localization and the subsequent fate were quite different in the case of M458 and Z280, respectively, although it seems also evident that at some point these two branches (or at least their major portions) became a part of the same phenomenon, likely associated with the expansion of the Early Slavs.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Michał For This Useful Post:

     Jean M (10-26-2013),  T101 (10-28-2013)

  8. #6
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,873

    Quote Originally Posted by Michał View Post
    This is indeed quite interesting. The very close distance between the founders of the Z93, M458, Z280 and Z284 branches is also very intriguing. Actually, the founders of the M458, Z280 and Z284 branches (and all major lineages from the paragroup Z282*) could have been just members of one large family that was suddenly expanding in different directions.

    Another thing that has been already suspected based on the STR results (but is now clearly confirmed by the SNP data) is the very large distance (about 2000 years) between the initial separation of the two major subclades of M458 (L1260 and CTS1962/L1029) and their subsequent (much more recent) massive explosion ...predicted structure of the Z280 branch that has significantly expanded shortly after its birth...
    Something similar looks possible for L657 too - a major massive expansion like M458, while Z2124 looks more like Z280.

    I will not be surprised if Z93 was also a member of that large family!

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to parasar For This Useful Post:

     Michał (10-27-2013)

  10. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    7,567
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    I would think the opposite. The calculations seem very unlikely to suggest that IMO. Archaeologically it is hard not to see the big branching explosion around the Z282 and Z93/94 expansion phases as linked to anything other than the Yamnaya and related phases.

    Archaeological calibration might be speculative but worth a go -

    Z645, the shared not too distant ancestor of both the European and Asian R1a lineages is only a couple of SNPs older than Z282 which is ancestor of most European R1a. If Z645 is the shared ancestor of most of the big R1a expansion then its almost impossible not to place that ancestor just before Yamnaya and Afanasievo divided -- no later than 3500BC and probably no older than 4000BC.

    I would expect Z282 to date to between 3300 and 3000BC if its the common ancestor of Yamnaya lines who headed west in the Yamnaya expansion and was partly incorporated into corded ware from 3000BC.

    M458 sounds most likely to be corded ware linked to me, perhaps including links to Fatyanovo and Abashevo which had corded ware links. That would be expected to date maybe to 2800BC or so from memory.

    M417xz645 with its odd unexpected distribution is hard to find an archaeological link and also its branching and its convergence dates are so far apart that its hard to say. The impression I get is not much happened between M417 and Z645 so I would date M417 no later than 4000BC.

    So, when I look at the table,the dates in the bolded right hand most column fits almost freakily well with the archaeological expectations for R1a lineages. So, I think that column makes by far the most archaeological sense and must be on the money.

    The upshot of the column being correct is that R1 is about 2500 years younger than the R boy at Mal'ta. When for example the far left column is looked at there is a very poor correspondence with archaeological expectations.

    So Michal congradulation on that- you might need to tweak the R1a tree (which I desperately need when reading work on R1a) unless it already has been - the link is a few months old now.

    http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ection=results

    The fit is just so incredibly good I would say you had rigged it if you were not the honest man we know you are :-)



    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    Michał ,

    Thanks!
    So it is within the realm of possibility that that Siberian Baikal 24000ybp Y could well be R1. Now we need an R2 to test to capture that string length.
    Last edited by alan; 10-26-2013 at 05:48 PM.

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:

     lgmayka (10-27-2013),  Michał (10-27-2013),  T101 (10-28-2013),  Tomenable (07-29-2015)

  12. #8
    Legacy Account
    Posts
    7,362
    Sex
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Nationality
    British
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    United Kingdom
    Quote Originally Posted by Michał View Post
    This is indeed quite interesting. The very close distance between the founders of the Z93, M458, Z280 and Z284 branches is also very intriguing. Actually, the founders of the M458, Z280 and Z284 branches (and all major lineages from the paragroup Z282*) could have been just members of one large family that was suddenly expanding in different directions.
    I am taking notes!

    Another thing that has been already suspected based on the STR results (but is now clearly confirmed by the SNP data) is the very large distance (about 2000 years) between the initial separation of the two major subclades of M458 (L260 and CTS1962/L1029) and their subsequent (much more recent) massive explosion.
    A perfect fit for the early Slavs, as you say. For new readers coming in - the distribution of M458 is pretty solidly Slavic. So we can picture M458 enjoying a long quiet period in successive cultures of the Middle Dnieper before the Post-Roman explosion.

    All this, however, is in a huge contrast to the predicted structure of the Z280 branch that has significantly expanded shortly after its birth
    Its present distribution is reminiscent of the Battle Axe Cultures, is it not? Linguistically that would partly fit with waves of IE spreading up river from the Middle Dnieper into Fatyanovo (3200 BC-2300 BC) and then up to the Baltic, gradually spreading the Baltic family, but thinly.
    Last edited by Jean M; 10-26-2013 at 06:51 PM.

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jean M For This Useful Post:

     gottex (10-28-2013),  Michał (10-27-2013),  Tomenable (07-29-2015)

  14. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    7,567
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    If you look at the central column which dates R1 to 17325 years, it makes all the SNPs much too young to make sense. That is interesting and suggests Karafet's fairly similar rough estimate centrepoint of 18500 years for R1 is too young. The right hand bolded column just fits so well archaeological expectations that it is hard not to conclude that your estimate of 21560 years of age or c. 19500BC is an improvement on Karafets estimate. It still all implies that the R boy at Mal'ta must be R*. (although I have raised the outside and much less likely possibility that he could be R2 in theory at least).

    Anyway, assuming this new date for R1 is correct then it is interesting in that it pushes it back a 2000 years. That actually would mean that R1 emerged within the later part of the LGM period rather than just after its end. I think that could have some implications for the history of R1. There is a lot of debate but I think the strongest cards are held by those who think Siberia was most abandoned shortly after the R Mal'ta boy was buried. That would confirm the suspicion that R* had headed off shortly after the Ma'ta boy was buried c. 24000 years ago and that R1 seems to have been born c. 2500 years later after the evacuation of most of Siberia and in a place no further north than the southermost fringes of Siberia or south/south-westwards of there.

    That also raises the question of R2. It allegedly arose before R1 and therefore would have existed in parallel with R* lineages for the first 3000 years or so of its existence. Perhaps R2 arose among the first of the R* lineages to move south as conditions deteriorated c. 25-26000 years ago or so while some other groups of R* remained in the harsh conditions of Siberia until around the time of the boy's burial. By then R2 might have sewn up the more pleasant climates of LGM in the Indian subcontinent leaving the rest of R* to wander further west.

    I dont know the details but it is possible that not leaving Siberia until the LGM had a grip may have made a journey into the Indian subcontinent through the mountains not an option for the late R* stagglers who didnt move as fast as the R2 lines. That might explain why the R* line ancestor soon to lead to R1* appears to have moved west rather than more directly south.

    If that is correct then the ancestors of R1 arrived as late R* lines coming from Siberia heading west As far as I understand it was a desert in what is now central Asia from the Caspian to China so that now seems an unlikely route to me.

    I cannot see an LGM escape from Siberia south on these maps:

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/euras18k.gif

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tation_map.png

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/euras(2.gif

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen...S/eurasia1.gif

    This actually might shift my opinion on the route of escape the R* ancestors of R1 took. A route south after 22000BC/24000 years ago would not seem rational. To head south would seem to head towards temperate and polar deserts, glaciers and polar alpine area of mountains. It would be far easier to simply move directly west along the steppe tundra belt that was their more familiar environment. That belt would lead them west and stretch the length of Europe and western Asia at a certain latitude.

    However, just because in theory they could move that length doestnt mean they did - they dont seem to have judging by modern clades.

    There is also growing evidence that even the hardened hunters on the steppe-tundra were squeezed towards its southern edges and less harsh spots at the height of the LGM. So, a route following the southerNmost edge of the steppe-tundra belt would seem the most likely to me. That would lead more to the Caspian NE corner than the south as I had previously thought.
    Last edited by alan; 10-26-2013 at 07:46 PM.

  15. #10
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,682
    Sex
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-L1280>FGC41205
    mtDNA (M)
    H2a2(b)
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1a-L1029>YP517
    mtDNA (P)
    H5a2

    Poland European Union
    @Alan

    Please keep in mind that all those TMRCA estimates provided in my first post were based on just one FGC result for a single L1029 member, so we should avoid jumping to any definite conclusions regarding the age of R1 or any of its subclades. It seems very likely that after testing more R1a (and R1b!) members, the (average) number of mutations downstream of R1 will significantly change. Also, when assuming that the age of R1 is roughly in the range of 18-25 ky, it will be practically impossible to provide any TMRCA estimates for such an old haplogroup that would place an age of R1 within the margin of error that is less than 3 or 4 ky.

    Additionally, the huge problems with choosing an appropriate calibration method make any attempt to provide an absolute age for any clade very insecure. Therefore, all we can quite safely assume based on those data is a relative age of particular clades and subclades only.

    As for the R1/R2 issue in the context of the recent Siberian finding, it seems obvious to me that these two ancestral lineages were born (founded) at the same moment, as they are obviously derived from just two brothers descending from the same father. Thus, even if one of those lineages is likely to have expanded earlier than the other, it is still possible to find an R1 member once we know that the R2 lineage had already existed at given moment. Of course, we donít know the sequence in which particular mutations defining the R1 and R2 clades were arising, which makes this situation a bit complicated, as we are currently unable to exclude the possibility that a member of haplogroup R who is negative for M420 is in fact a very early member of clade R1 (letís say positive for L62). The same applies for a hypothetical ancient member of haplogroup R who is negative for M479, as he can easily represent an early (extinct) sublineage of R2 or even a major sublineage of R2 (just before the M479 mutation first arose). Only by identifying a mutation specific for R2 or by excluding any single mutation that arose before R1 and R2 were separated, we will be able to exclude that this Siberian male was representing an R1 lineage.


    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    So Michal congradulation on that- you might need to tweak the R1a tree (which I desperately need when reading work on R1a) unless it already has been - the link is a few months old now.
    http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ection=results
    The fit is just so incredibly good I would say you had rigged it if you were not the honest man we know you are :-)
    I should again remind all of you that all credits for creating this beautiful tree should go to our main admin Łukasz Łapiński.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Michał For This Useful Post:

     Jean M (10-27-2013)

Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-18-2020, 04:15 PM
  2. How do I interpret Ancestry haplogroup result?
    By doctorg in forum AncestryDNA
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-12-2018, 01:40 PM
  3. E-M35 predicted haplogroup result?
    By Deftextra in forum E
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-24-2016, 03:01 PM
  4. ISOGG provisional markers
    By vettor in forum Other
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-28-2014, 08:21 PM
  5. Y-STR Calculations Update?
    By J Man in forum General
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-17-2013, 08:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •