U152 Age Estimates

[Richard Rocca]

I've run the age estimates for U152's three main sub-clades (L2, Z36 and Z56) using Kenneth Nordtvedt's Generations 7 method.

L2 Clade MRCA Age	4.1 ybp (4.4-3.8)  N=224
L2 Clade Coalescence Age	3.6 ybp (4.0-3.3)  N=224
Z36 Clade MRCA Age	3.6 ybp (3.9-3.3)  N=29
Z36 Clade Coalescence Age	3.2 ybp (3.5-2.9)  N=29
Z56 Clade MRCA Age	6.3 ybp (6.7-5.9)  N=26
Z56 Clade Coalescence Age	5.6 ybp (6.0-5.2)  N=26
Z56 Clade MRCA Age (incl. DYS492=14)	5.1 ybp (5.4-4.8)  N=43
Z56 Clade Coalescence Age (incl. DYS492=14)	4.7 ybp (5.0-4.4)  N=43
L2 and Z36 Interclade MRCA Age	4.0 ybp (4.2-3.8)  N=253
L2 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age	9.2 ybp (9.7-8.6)  N=250
L2 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age (incl. DYS492=14)	7.8 ybp (8.3-7.2)  N=267
Z36 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age	9.1 ybp (9.7-8.5)  N=55
Z36 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age (incl. DYS492=14)	7.7 ybp (8.3-7.1)  N=72

Based on these estimates, the MRCA for all three sub-clades would date to the Copper Age, with major expansions during the Early-Middle Bronze Ages.

Z56 seems to be a good deal older than either L2 or Z36. L2 and Z36 look to be about the same age, seem to have expanded at about the same time, and their MRCA ages with Z56 are almost identical.

[Diana]

Great progress. Thank you.

[Maliclavelli]

Where have gone the dates of Vizachero & others? Certainly Nordtvedt has always been one of the most open to my critics and the most prepared by a scientific point of view, but we should see how his ideas have changed in these last years. I think that neither these calculations have arrived to the true date, but we begin to reason.
And where has gone your idea (and of the others of Dna-forums) that L2 was more ancient than Z56? Why my idea, Diana/PommesBleu, will win? Because I have always done the best calculation and probably I have always had the deepest knowledge of all the other factors: archaeological, historic, linguistic and infinite others.
I have no time now, but to Diana, if her maternal ancestress is Italian, I repeat to do an FGS, because she could be a very ancient (some tens of thousands of years) U5b*.

[Richard Rocca]

Where have gone the dates of Vizachero & others? Certainly Nordtvedt has always been one of the most open to my critics and the most prepared by a scientific point of view, but we should see how his ideas have changed in these last years. I think that neither these calculations have arrived to the true date, but we begin to reason.
And where has gone your idea (and of the others of Dna-forums) that L2 was more ancient than Z56? Why my idea, Diana/PommesBleu, will win? Because I have always done the best calculation and probably I have always had the deepest knowledge of all the other factors: archaeological, historic, linguistic and infinite others.
I have no time now, but to Diana, if her maternal ancestress is Italian, I repeat to do an FGS, because she could be a very ancient (some tens of thousands of years) U5b*.

1. Regarding the dates: Your idea that Italian agriculturalists populated Iberia, etc. around 7,500 BC fits perfectly with the interclade estimates above. The interclade numbers are the most important for determining the true age of U152 as it also takes into account the dead branches of the U152 tree that are not represented in the modern U152 gene pool.

2. Regarding the ages of L2 and Z56: At the time Diana's kit tested Z144+, what I said to her was that the first U152 male was DYS492=12 as it is the value of its parent (P312) and all of its siblings (L21, Z196, etc.). That still holds true and is unquestionable. If I thought or said that L2 was older than Z56, then clearly I was wrong. Ken's credentials as a physicist and as a mathematician are on a level many times higher than any genetic genealogist, so I trust that his numbers are as close to reality as we can get without ancient DNA. As you know, I am "agenda free" in my search for the path taken by my forefathers. Therefore, I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with better data.

[Diana]

Yes Rich you have always maintained that. Hello Gio!  My maternal side is from Italy only to a certain point. They came from Spain. .My fathers mothers Surname was Frisina from Reggio Calabria.

  Hope you are doing well.

[Maliclavelli]

Yes Rich you have always maintained that. Hello Gio!  My maternal side is from Italy only to a certain point. They came from Spain. .My fathers mothers Surname was Frisina from Reggio Calabria.

  Hope you are doing well.

If you are the “Diana” who replied to a post yesterday, but I don’t understand how you could begin an account with this name, which was already used by you. Anyway if your mt is U5b, it would be interesting to test it by an FGS. This haplogroup matches above all persons from the British Isles, but you know that my old theory is that they came from Italy. These calculations of Rich Rocca, as usual, are very interesting, and he is without prejudices and very helpful.
I am very well, and, as you see, tempered by steel in spite of the banishments. Like I said to you on Dna-forums: we shall overcome, I have no doubt.

[Diana]

Hi Gio,

  Yes it is me. I was able to change my username. Diana is quite a common name but it seems nobody here was using it. I am Diana/pommesbleu....

[Mikewww]

I've run the age estimates for U152's three main sub-clades (L2, Z36 and Z56) using Kenneth Nordtvedt's Generations 7 method.

L2 Clade MRCA Age	4.1 ybp (4.4-3.8)  N=224
L2 Clade Coalescence Age	3.6 ybp (4.0-3.3)  N=224
Z36 Clade MRCA Age	3.6 ybp (3.9-3.3)  N=29
Z36 Clade Coalescence Age	3.2 ybp (3.5-2.9)  N=29
Z56 Clade MRCA Age	6.3 ybp (6.7-5.9)  N=26
Z56 Clade Coalescence Age	5.6 ybp (6.0-5.2)  N=26
Z56 Clade MRCA Age (incl. DYS492=14)	5.1 ybp (5.4-4.8)  N=43
Z56 Clade Coalescence Age (incl. DYS492=14)	4.7 ybp (5.0-4.4)  N=43
L2 and Z36 Interclade MRCA Age	4.0 ybp (4.2-3.8)  N=253
L2 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age	9.2 ybp (9.7-8.6)  N=250
L2 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age (incl. DYS492=14)	7.8 ybp (8.3-7.2)  N=267
Z36 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age	9.1 ybp (9.7-8.5)  N=55
Z36 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age (incl. DYS492=14)	7.7 ybp (8.3-7.1)  N=72

...
Z56 seems to be a good deal older than either L2 or Z36. L2 and Z36 look to be about the same age, seem to have expanded at about the same time, and their MRCA ages with Z56 are almost identical.

Thanks, RRocca.  Great work. 
I hate to open a can of worms, but did you make any adjustments for probably multi-step or other aberrations?
Ken Nordtvedt says we should, but how do we know what is multi-step versus not other than perhaps RecLOH kinds of events.
The reason I ask is I've looked at Z56 and it is the eldest as you say.  I suspect that that a two step jump on DYS492 might be making it look a little older than it is as far as how it connects with the rest of U152.

In any case, I think U152 is the eldest brother of P312 and sets the tone for P312's age.

[Maliclavelli]

I suspect that that a two step jump on DYS492 might be making it look a little older than it is as far as how it connects with the rest of U152

That DYS492=14 is a multistep mutation is undemonstrated and indemonstrable. This hypothesis has been done also by someone on Dna-forums, only because this calculation gives reason to my hypotheses and is against all my enemies who have known so far only to ban me. The large presence of DYS492=13 amongst some subclades of R-U152 makes this hypothesis ridiculous. But we should do the opposite hypothesis, i.e. my mutation around the modal and to think that also 12 could be not a "modal" 12 but a back mutation from 13 etc. Some mutations are around the modal, but are those gone for the tangent that demonstrate the real number of mutations. For this I have said that also the Nordtvedt's calculation risks to be underestimated.

[Richard Rocca]

Thanks, RRocca.  Great work.  
I hate to open a can of worms, but did you make any adjustments for probably multi-step or other aberrations?
Ken Nordtvedt says we should, but how do we know what is multi-step versus not other than perhaps RecLOH kinds of events.
The reason I ask is I've looked at Z56 and it is the eldest as you say.  I suspect that that a two step jump on DYS492 might be making it look a little older than it is as far as how it connects with the rest of U152.

In any case, I think U152 is the eldest brother of P312 and sets the tone for P312's age.

Mike, I changed the values of the Z56 samples to DYS492=12 and I got the following:

Z36 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age	7.1 ybp (7.5-6.8)  N=55
Z36 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age	5.9 ybp (6.2-5.5)  N=72 (Incl. DYS492=14 samples)
L2 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age	7.2 ybp (7.6-6.9)  N=250
L2 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age	5.9 ybp (6.2-5.6)  N=267 (Incl. DYS492=14 samples)

As expected, the age of Z56 didn't change, and it still looks to be younger than either L2 or Z36. The interclade age of U152 went down slighly, but still looks to be some time during the Copper Age/Early Bronze Age.

[alan trowel hands.]

Mike-what do you get for U152 using your own refined method? I suspect you have already posted it but my brain is getting maxed out these days with all the new info.  If you have already posted it can you direct me to it/post a link.   

[alan trowel hands.]

Thanks, RRocca.  Great work.  
I hate to open a can of worms, but did you make any adjustments for probably multi-step or other aberrations?
Ken Nordtvedt says we should, but how do we know what is multi-step versus not other than perhaps RecLOH kinds of events.
The reason I ask is I've looked at Z56 and it is the eldest as you say.  I suspect that that a two step jump on DYS492 might be making it look a little older than it is as far as how it connects with the rest of U152.

In any case, I think U152 is the eldest brother of P312 and sets the tone for P312's age.

Mike, I changed the values of the Z56 samples to DYS492=12 and I got the following:

Z36 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age	7.1 ybp (7.5-6.8)  N=55
Z36 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age	5.9 ybp (6.2-5.5)  N=72 (Incl. DYS492=14 samples)
L2 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age	7.2 ybp (7.6-6.9)  N=250
L2 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age	5.9 ybp (6.2-5.6)  N=267 (Incl. DYS492=14 samples)

As expected, the age of Z56 didn't change, and it still looks to be younger than either L2 or Z36. The interclade age of U152 went down slighly, but still looks to be some time during the Copper Age/Early Bronze Age.

What is the distribution of Z56?  If that age is nearly correct its well and truly pre-beaker.   It would be very interesting to look at the age and distribution together and consider against the archaeology record.

[Richard Rocca]

Alan, if you go to the U152 results page:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-U152/default.aspx?section=results

There is a link to the Z56 map called: "Z56 and derived SNPs". As you know however, maps based on FTDNA samples are all Anglo-Palatine biased and must be taken very lightly. The area of central Italy is extremely undersampled. In the 1000 Genomes Project samples, 7.8% of all males from Tuscany were Z56+. In Modena, Italy, which is about 75km south of the central Po River, the frequency could be as high as 18% (based on STR values of R1b samples). As I've speculated on DNA-Forums, of the three major U152 sublcades, it looks like Z56 (or at least its Z144 subclade) has the best chance of having originated in Italy.

[alan trowel hands.]

If there was an early U152 clade that links Italy and central Europe it might relate to the older beaker zone stretching from Portugal to Italy somehow linking in to younger beaker world of central and NW Europe.  It might give a clue as to the route too.   I have always fancied the Rhone as the link between the two areas and it does coincide with a high variance area for p312.  I have an open mind as to the origins and spread. 

[alan trowel hands.]

Alan, if you go to the U152 results page:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b-U152/default.aspx?section=results

There is a link to the Z56 map called: "Z56 and derived SNPs". As you know however, maps based on FTDNA samples are all Anglo-Palatine biased and must be taken very lightly. The area of central Italy is extremely undersampled. In the 1000 Genomes Project samples, 7.8% of all males from Tuscany were Z56+. In Modena, Italy, which is about 75km south of the central Po River, the frequency could be as high as 18% (based on STR values of R1b samples). As I've speculated on DNA-Forums, of the three major U152 sublcades, it looks like Z56 (or at least its Z144 subclade) has the best chance of having originated in Italy.

Hopefully some day the sample tested to that level will mean that variance can be looked at at on an area to area basis

[alan trowel hands.]

By the way I have to say the U152 site is very impressive

[Richard Rocca]

By the way I have to say the U152 site is very impressive

Thanks Alan. It is in bad need of an update however.

[Maliclavelli]

I suspect that that a two step jump on DYS492 might be making it look a little older than it is as far as how it connects with the rest of U152

That DYS492=14 is a multistep mutation is undemonstrated and indemonstrable. This hypothesis has been done also by someone on Dna-forums, only because this calculation gives reason to my hypotheses and is against all my enemies who have known so far only to ban me. The large presence of DYS492=13 amongst some subclades of R-U152 makes this hypothesis ridiculous. But we should do the opposite hypothesis, i.e. my mutation around the modal and to think that also 12 could be not a "modal" 12 but a back mutation from 13 etc. Some mutations are around the modal, but are those gone for the tangent that demonstrate the real number of mutations. For this I have said that also the Nordtvedt's calculation risks to be underestimated.

Lawrence Mayka writes on Rootsweb:
“Your worry is entirely justified. And the more individuals tested, the more common these cases of "coincidental convergence" will be.
Consider this Ysearch pair:
- 982W3 of Finland, L22+
- N2997 of Poland, L22-
Their GD on 67 markers is only 6. Among the 54 slower markers, they differ only at DYS446. Yet their common patrilineal ancestor lived perhaps 4000 years ago.
I spent extra money attempting to "prove" a lab error in this case, but to no avail. The lab is right. The clustering is simply unreliable”.

Does anyone of you mind my 1) mutations around the modal 2) convergence to the modal as time passes 3) some mutations go for the tangent and are the closest to the mutations really happened?

Lawrence Mayka was responsible of my first banishment at the end of 2007 from Rootsweb. I can say now that he has arrived to understand this many years after me.

[rms2]

. . .
Lawrence Mayka was responsible of my first banishment at the end of 2007 from Rootsweb. I can say now that he has arrived to understand this many years after me.

He did you and us a favor. You are better off here than at Rootsweb.

We like you here.

[Maliclavelli]

He did you and us a favor. You are better off here than at Rootsweb.
We like you here.

I thank you, Rich, and to the other Rich (actually a good person and clever in our field) I would say that he didn’t understand my last banishment from Dna-forums:
1)   they deleted my greetings for your birthday (even though fictitious) whereas they maintained the greetings to you but with other persons
2)   they deleted from a posting of mine what I said to Jean Manco who had defined “folly” my theories, because I said that I hadn’t offended her and that I couldn’t use for her the word “folly” because to a woman would have been more appropriate the entry “hysteria” like Freud taught us.

It is always the same case: someone offends me, but if I reply…

[Richard Rocca]

He did you and us a favor. You are better off here than at Rootsweb.
We like you here.

I thank you, Rich, and to the other Rich (actually a good person and clever in our field) I would say that he didn’t understand my last banishment from Dna-forums:
1)   they deleted my greetings for your birthday (even though fictitious) whereas they maintained the greetings to you but with other persons
2)   they deleted from a posting of mine what I said to Jean Manco who had defined “folly” my theories, because I said that I hadn’t offended her and that I couldn’t use for her the word “folly” because to a woman would have been more appropriate the entry “hysteria” like Freud taught us.

It is always the same case: someone offends me, but if I reply…

Gioiello, I don't think you have to worry about banishments here.

[Diana]

Has it been 14 days?

He did you and us a favor. You are better off here than at Rootsweb.
We like you here.

I thank you, Rich, and to the other Rich (actually a good person and clever in our field) I would say that he didn’t understand my last banishment from Dna-forums:
1)   they deleted my greetings for your birthday (even though fictitious) whereas they maintained the greetings to you but with other persons
2)   they deleted from a posting of mine what I said to Jean Manco who had defined “folly” my theories, because I said that I hadn’t offended her and that I couldn’t use for her the word “folly” because to a woman would have been more appropriate the entry “hysteria” like Freud taught us.

It is always the same case: someone offends me, but if I reply…

Gioiello, I don't think you have to worry about banishments here.

[Diana]

Hello,

  Can you please explain to me why L2 and Z36 always show as being above Z56 in the R1b phylogenetic tree? Shouldn't it be on top of the others if it is quite a bit older?
 http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

  Maybe I don't understand how to read the tree...

  Thank you

I've run the age estimates for U152's three main sub-clades (L2, Z36 and Z56) using Kenneth Nordtvedt's Generations 7 method.

L2 Clade MRCA Age	4.1 ybp (4.4-3.8)  N=224
L2 Clade Coalescence Age	3.6 ybp (4.0-3.3)  N=224
Z36 Clade MRCA Age	3.6 ybp (3.9-3.3)  N=29
Z36 Clade Coalescence Age	3.2 ybp (3.5-2.9)  N=29
Z56 Clade MRCA Age	6.3 ybp (6.7-5.9)  N=26
Z56 Clade Coalescence Age	5.6 ybp (6.0-5.2)  N=26
Z56 Clade MRCA Age (incl. DYS492=14)	5.1 ybp (5.4-4.8)  N=43
Z56 Clade Coalescence Age (incl. DYS492=14)	4.7 ybp (5.0-4.4)  N=43
L2 and Z36 Interclade MRCA Age	4.0 ybp (4.2-3.8)  N=253
L2 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age	9.2 ybp (9.7-8.6)  N=250
L2 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age (incl. DYS492=14)	7.8 ybp (8.3-7.2)  N=267
Z36 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age	9.1 ybp (9.7-8.5)  N=55
Z36 and Z56 Interclade MRCA Age (incl. DYS492=14)	7.7 ybp (8.3-7.1)  N=72

Based on these estimates, the MRCA for all three sub-clades would date to the Copper Age, with major expansions during the Early-Middle Bronze Ages.

Z56 seems to be a good deal older than either L2 or Z36. L2 and Z36 look to be about the same age, seem to have expanded at about the same time, and their MRCA ages with Z56 are almost identical.

[Richard Rocca]

Hello,

  Can you please explain to me why L2 and Z36 always show as being above Z56 in the R1b phylogenetic tree? Shouldn't it be on top of the others if it is quite a bit older?
 http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html

  Maybe I don't understand how to read the tree...

  Thank you

Since nobody can quite agree on the best approach to dating SNPs, it is definitely not based on age. The SNPs are usually shown in the order that they are found, so that is why L2 is showing first. Z36 and Z56 were probably found on the same day, so again, just a matter of which mutation got named first.

[razyn]

Has it been 14 days?

Gioiello, I don't think you have to worry about banishments here.

I think it's only been nine, he was still posting here on Oct. 4th.  Btw I noticed that Rich was congratulating Gioiello, and rightfully so, for getting a new terminal SNP (Z2105+) on this other thread, yesterday:

http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=11114.msg141134#msg141134