Is R1a older than it is usually thought?

[Maliclavelli]

This posting of mine, posted here and published also by Dienekes, is waiting some response, above all from Anatole Klyosov:


An interesting haplotype of R1a1a (M17) has been found in the paper of Gunjan Sharma et al., Genetic Affinities of the Central Indian Tribal Population, PLoS one,  February 2012:
DYS19=18
DYS385=14-17
DYS389=15-30
DYS390=28
DYS391=12
DYS392=14
DYS393=13
DYS437=17
DYS439=13
DYS448=22
DYS456=17
DYS458=17

At first sight it could seem we have found the R-M420 not found so far in India with its DYS492=14, which presupposes a 13, whereas all the other R1a1a haplotypes have 11 or 10 and 12 from 11, but this haplotype has been tested for M17, then it isn’t an R-M420. Also the extremely large variance of the other markers makes us think that this value 14 derives from a modal 11 (or what was the modal at the origin of this subclade). Then again all the discourses about “modal” and “variance”, as I have supported many times, are worth nothing.
But I think it would be something to say about the TMRCA of 10.97+/-1.86 kya (25 y for generation) even though calculated by the Zhivotovsky rate. It is clear that these R1a1a-s belong to different clades and the massive presence of the clade most usually found falsifies the calculation. It is clear that this haplotype is an outlier, but for this more interesting, because testifies all the mutation gone mostly for the tangent and not around the modal. If we calculate the intraclade between two of these haplotypes, for instance with this closer to the modal: 15, 11-14, 14-32, 24,10, 11, 12,14,10, 20, 15,16 we have 32 mutations. Also using the usual mutation rate of 0,0022, we have:
(454x32)/28=518
518x25=12,950
and I have used a generation of 25 years and not 32 as I use usually, and I haven’t considered  other mutations around the modal.

Conclusions? The ancientness of the haplogroups is much much more than it is usually thought.

[thetick]

Also the Eurogene's author has an interesting write up on his R1a R1b origins and expansion theories:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/on-origins-and-expansions-of-r1a-and.html

[Maliclavelli]

Also the Eurogene's author has an interesting write up on his R1a R1b origins and expansion theories:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/on-origins-and-expansions-of-r1a-and.html

Je vous remercie beaucoup. This is one of the possible solution, I’d say one of the most followed, but not for this the most likable, I think. There are also many reasons against it:
1)   R1a-M420 is present massively in Europe, and above all in the British Isles, and we don’t understand why it should have migrated to the far West and not nearby: I don’t know of some R1a-M420 Southward the Caucasus.
2)   R1b1* is present there, but that with YCAII=21-23 or 23-23, not the ancestor of the subclades, and out of Italy practically zero R-L51+.
3)   Perhaps we may hypothesize that from that R1b1* was born R-V88+, migrated after to North Africa, but Europe (and Italy: Sardinia have the whole R-M18) have it too.

I think that it should be more prudent to wait for the aDNA.

[Elkate]

In A-T haplogroup vertical (164 SNPs) we receive the result 102,500 ybp,
i.e. about 103,000 ybp.
It means 1 SNP per 628 years.

And:
In C-T: average 115 SNPs; x 628 = 72,000 years
In R1b: average 30 SNPs, x 628 = 18,800 years
In R1a: average 25 SNPs, x 628 = 15,700 years

See:
http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10906.25