World Families Forums - R1b in Iberia (includes DF27, Z196, U152, L21, etc.)

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 11, 2014, 07:11:33 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  R1b in Iberia (includes DF27, Z196, U152, L21, etc.)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: R1b in Iberia (includes DF27, Z196, U152, L21, etc.)  (Read 6062 times)
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« on: March 28, 2012, 04:19:35 PM »

About a month ago, the 1000 Genomes Project made the data available for their Iberian samples. Here is my analysis of the 27 samples. Please note that there were originally 74 samples, of which half were women, some were related (son-father pairs) and some did not have low coverage data.

Here is the breakdown: 

SNPFrequency
DF27+44.4% (12 of 27)
... DF27*14.8% (4 of 27)
... Z196+25.9% (7 of 27)
... Z225+3.7% (1 of 27)
L21+7.4% (2 of 27)
U152+7.4% (2 of 27)
L23*3.7% (1 of 27)
P312*3.7% (1 of 27)
U106+3.7% (1 of 27)
Total R1b70.4% (19 of 27)


- Not surprisingly, R1b is quite high (70.4%). This is in line with published papers (Busby, Myres, Cruciani, etc.).

- As can be seen, the overall frequency of DF27 is almost half the total (44.4%).

- DF27's main subclade, Z196, makes up a quarter of the Iberian male samples (25.9%).

- Originally I had found Z225 in Latin American samples and speculated that perhaps they may be the product of a colonial founder affect. With an Iberian Z225+ sample, that now seems very unlikely.

An update on the DF27 primers: Thomas has them working, but they are nested. Since nested primers require two PCR passes and is outside of their current single SNP ordering process, they are still trying to decide how to price it. Hopefully that will not deter them from making it available to the public. I'll keep you all informed when I get more info.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2012, 04:31:32 PM »

About a month ago, the 1000 Genomes Project made the data available for their Iberian samples. Here is my analysis of the 27 samples. Please note that there were originally 74 samples, of which half were women, some were related (son-father pairs) and some did not have low coverage data.

Here is the breakdown: 

SNPFrequency
DF27+44.4% (12 of 27)
... DF27*14.8% (4 of 27)
... Z196+25.9% (7 of 27)
... Z225+3.7% (1 of 27)
L21+7.4% (2 of 27)
U152+7.4% (2 of 27)
L23*3.7% (1 of 27)
P312*3.7% (1 of 27)
U106+3.7% (1 of 27)
Total R1b70.4% (19 of 27)


- Not surprisingly, R1b is quite high (70.4%). This is in line with published papers (Busby, Myres, Cruciani, etc.).

- As can be seen, the overall frequency of DF27 is almost half the total (44.4%).

- DF27's main subclade, Z196, makes up a quarter of the Iberian male samples (25.9%).

- Originally I had found Z225 in Latin American samples and speculated that perhaps they may be the product of a colonial founder affect. With an Iberian Z225+ sample, that now seems very unlikely.

An update on the DF27 primers: Thomas has them working, but they are nested. Since nested primers require two PCR passes and is outside of their current single SNP ordering process, they are still trying to decide how to price it. Hopefully that will not deter them from making it available to the public. I'll keep you all informed when I get more info.
Wow, DF27 is a big one.  Must be old since Z196 has pretty good age all on its own.

Maybe this is finally a brother for U152 that can rival U152 in age and also do a lot for positioning P312's launch.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2012, 04:38:34 PM »

- DF27's main subclade, Z196, makes up a quarter of the Iberian male samples (25.9%).

I don't mean to divert your thread for my pet project, but I thought a couple of new posts from the RootsWeb list might be germane -- showing some not entirely irrelevant stats from another source altogether:

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2012-03/1332872001

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2012-03/1332901384

Well, my impression anyway is that it's relevant.  You may get a different impression. 
Logged

R1b Z196*
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2012, 06:05:55 PM »

About a month ago, the 1000 Genomes Project made the data available for their Iberian samples. Here is my analysis of the 27 samples. Please note that there were originally 74 samples, of which half were women, some were related (son-father pairs) and some did not have low coverage data.

Here is the breakdown: 

SNPFrequency
DF27+44.4% (12 of 27)
... DF27*14.8% (4 of 27)
... Z196+25.9% (7 of 27)
... Z225+3.7% (1 of 27)
L21+7.4% (2 of 27)
U152+7.4% (2 of 27)
L23*3.7% (1 of 27)
P312*3.7% (1 of 27)
U106+3.7% (1 of 27)
Total R1b70.4% (19 of 27)


- Not surprisingly, R1b is quite high (70.4%). This is in line with published papers (Busby, Myres, Cruciani, etc.).

- As can be seen, the overall frequency of DF27 is almost half the total (44.4%).

- DF27's main subclade, Z196, makes up a quarter of the Iberian male samples (25.9%).

- Originally I had found Z225 in Latin American samples and speculated that perhaps they may be the product of a colonial founder affect. With an Iberian Z225+ sample, that now seems very unlikely.

An update on the DF27 primers: Thomas has them working, but they are nested. Since nested primers require two PCR passes and is outside of their current single SNP ordering process, they are still trying to decide how to price it. Hopefully that will not deter them from making it available to the public. I'll keep you all informed when I get more info.
Wow, DF27 is a big one.  Must be old since Z196 has pretty good age all on its own.

Maybe this is finally a brother for U152 that can rival U152 in age and also do a lot for positioning P312's launch.

very interesting. Any variance for DF27 'all'?
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2012, 07:42:02 PM »

very interesting. Any variance for DF27 'all'?

No variance yet Alan. STR data is almost impossible to get from the 1000 Genomes data.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2012, 03:37:44 PM »

About a month ago, the 1000 Genomes Project made the data available for their Iberian samples. Here is my analysis of the 27 samples. Please note that there were originally 74 samples, of which half were women, some were related (son-father pairs) and some did not have low coverage data.

Here is the breakdown: 

SNPFrequency
DF27+44.4% (12 of 27)
... DF27*14.8% (4 of 27)
... Z196+25.9% (7 of 27)
... Z225+3.7% (1 of 27)
L21+7.4% (2 of 27)
U152+7.4% (2 of 27)
L23*3.7% (1 of 27)
P312*3.7% (1 of 27)
U106+3.7% (1 of 27)
Total R1b70.4% (19 of 27)


- Not surprisingly, R1b is quite high (70.4%). This is in line with published papers (Busby, Myres, Cruciani, etc.).

- As can be seen, the overall frequency of DF27 is almost half the total (44.4%).

- DF27's main subclade, Z196, makes up a quarter of the Iberian male samples (25.9%).

- Originally I had found Z225 in Latin American samples and speculated that perhaps they may be the product of a colonial founder affect. With an Iberian Z225+ sample, that now seems very unlikely.

An update on the DF27 primers: Thomas has them working, but they are nested. Since nested primers require two PCR passes and is outside of their current single SNP ordering process, they are still trying to decide how to price it. Hopefully that will not deter them from making it available to the public. I'll keep you all informed when I get more info.

Excellent work, and very instructive. I think it gives a much better picture than the Busby data.

It demonstrates the importance of the yet untested DF27 to the story of R1b. I am a little surprised that when DF27 is removed from what had previously been lumped together as P312*, the latter becomes quite rare in Iberia- in fact, the same amount as U106 (1 out of 27). Previously P312* had been thought to be very common in Iberia.

Should you have the time and energy, I think a similar breakdown of R1b subclades in two other 1000 Genomes areas- GBR and CEU- would make for a very interesting comparison.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2012, 05:03:33 PM »

So DF 27 is the biggie in the Iberian Peninsula.  Very interesting.  Also very interesting that it seems to be the majority of what was once P312*.  Makes me wonder how much P312* elsewhere is DF27?   
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2012, 05:20:30 PM »

So DF 27 is the biggie in the Iberian Peninsula.  Very interesting.  Also very interesting that it seems to be the majority of what was once P312*.  Makes me wonder how much P312* elsewhere is DF27?   

Me too. Thus my request above.
Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2012, 05:39:27 PM »

Makes me hope that its being the biggie in Iberia, in 2012, does not lead anyone to think it was there first, and spread subsequently to the Ukraine via Finland.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 05:39:58 PM by razyn » Logged

R1b Z196*
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2012, 05:55:06 PM »

Makes me hope that its being the biggie in Iberia, in 2012, does not lead anyone to think it was there first, and spread subsequently to the Ukraine via Finland.

We already know that all DF27 subclades do not have an identical distribution, and that it has both northern and southern elements. Still, I doubt that will prevent some people from formulating a one-size-fits-all theory, which seems to be the general rule of thumb.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2012, 06:12:56 PM »

Now, now folks. I was only wondering. No need for an acid attack. :)
Logged
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2012, 06:39:17 PM »

Makes me hope that its being the biggie in Iberia, in 2012, does not lead anyone to think it was there first, and spread subsequently to the Ukraine via Finland.

No, but there is nothing at this time to rule out an Iberian origin either. Let's not get hung up on a few samples far off from the core, as all P312 sub-clades exist in places like Finland and the Ukraine.

As for me, I would feel a little more comfortable with something in southern France (Rhone?).
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2012, 08:05:06 PM »

As for me, I would feel a little more comfortable with something in southern France (Rhone?).
Well, I know... that was why I sent you a PM when I was in Aix, last October.  (Didn't find any academics at work, I was there on a weekend.)  Anyway, I have only this week become aware of the excellent Olivier Lemercier in Dijon -- where I had spent most of the preceding week.  It would have been nice to have a chat with him about Campaniformes, and all.  I did get to visit the archaeology museum there, twice.  Our stateside museums tend to be a little weak in Atlantic Bronze Age materials, so I hadn't previously seen much of it, apart from photos.

I'm trying my best not to get hung up, in my dotage, and I greatly admire Jean M.  I expect most of us here can still play nicely -- even if we may harbor doubts about the odd detail, here and there, of one another's theories.
Logged

R1b Z196*
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2012, 03:33:31 PM »

@ razyn - don't worry.  I am a great believer in dialogue. Theories need to be tested. But I haven't got a theory on this one yet. I was just thinking aloud.
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #14 on: March 31, 2012, 03:56:54 PM »

Now, now folks. I was only wondering. No need for an acid attack. :)

I sincerely hope you didn't misinterpret my comment as an attack on you. As you know, we disagree on one or two things, but I am in general agreement with most of your thinking.

I was merely lamenting the tendency to ascribe a cultural/archaeological identity to a new R1b subclade before we know much of anything about it.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2012, 06:39:13 PM »

@ Goldenhind

There are two principles here. Both are important.

1) We must distinguish between the general and the particular. It is wildly unlikely than any ethnic group was ever composed of just one haplogroup, except perhaps very briefly, if it began as a single family. We may see a correlation between the distribution of  haplogroup X and language Y or archaeological culture Z, but this does not mean that there is a one-to-one match now or ever was in the past. These broad correlations are interesting, because they can be used to track migrations and tell us something about the European past. But it would be huge mistake to assign an individual today by his haplogroup to an ethnicity which seems foreign to him. People are who they feel themselves to be. There could be all sorts of explanations to what at first seems a mismatch, from prehistoric wandering to very recent events. The quest for the individual is not the same as the quest for the Big Picture.  

2) The right to free speech and thought, which is vital in science. People must be allowed to speculate and argue and wonder. They may not be right. It is highly unlikely in fact that every early idea will be right, and quite likely that even some very late ideas after years of reflection will be wrong. But stopping all speculation for fear that it might be wrong is stopping the whole process of discovery. We lurch along a path towards knowledge through a good many wrong turnings. :)
« Last Edit: March 31, 2012, 07:27:39 PM by Jean M » Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2012, 10:11:01 PM »

@ Goldenhind

There are two principles here. Both are important.

1) We must distinguish between the general and the particular. It is wildly unlikely than any ethnic group was ever composed of just one haplogroup, except perhaps very briefly, if it began as a single family. We may see a correlation between the distribution of  haplogroup X and language Y or archaeological culture Z, but this does not mean that there is a one-to-one match now or ever was in the past. These broad correlations are interesting, because they can be used to track migrations and tell us something about the European past. But it would be huge mistake to assign an individual today by his haplogroup to an ethnicity which seems foreign to him. People are who they feel themselves to be. There could be all sorts of explanations to what at first seems a mismatch, from prehistoric wandering to very recent events. The quest for the individual is not the same as the quest for the Big Picture.  

2) The right to free speech and thought, which is vital in science. People must be allowed to speculate and argue and wonder. They may not be right. It is highly unlikely in fact that every early idea will be right, and quite likely that even some very late ideas after years of reflection will be wrong. But stopping all speculation for fear that it might be wrong is stopping the whole process of discovery. We lurch along a path towards knowledge through a good many wrong turnings. :)


I wouldn't disagree at all with either point. I certainly concur that we don't know the full extent of ancient wanderings, or the full effect they may have had on modern populations.

Nor would I want to discorage speculation. I sometimes enagage in it myself. Speculation is part of the fun of this study. What I find problematic is when speculation becomes set in stone and turns into dogma, and any suggestion of any possible divergence from what may a general rule is attacked. I think this is especially the case when this science is so new, and the data we have at the moment so inadequate.

All I am attempting to do is suggest people keep an open mind until additional data helps better resolve some of these issues). As I have tried to emphasize over and over, when one becomes too devoted to any particular hypothesis, one's mind, even if subconsciously, will search for ways to interpret the facts in a way which reinforces the hypothesis.

Please note none of this is meant as personal criticism of you or any of your positions. But there are people on this and other forums who don't distinguish between the general and the particular.

Let me provide an example. There are people with Ydna ancestry in Ireland and Scotland who have been told their ancestors could only have got there as the result of a Germanic incursions or an NPE of some kind. As they perceive themselves as having a Celtic identity, this naturally upsets them. I am personally aware of several of them who now are refusing to get involved in any further SNP testing or research. I have seen pleas, some public, some private, from more than one person involved in researching U106 for suggestions on getting these people to change their minds and participate in further testing.  So I have little doubt that "one-size-fits-all" theories aren't helpful to expanding our knowledge.
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #17 on: April 01, 2012, 05:48:49 AM »

Goldenhind - I understand perfectly your concerns, and have understood them since you first expressed them to me back in early 2009, when I first joined DNA Forums. You don't want individuals to be upset in  the same way that you were obviously deeply upset to be assigned by your haplogroup (as it appeared) to Celtic status back in the days when people detected a rough Celtic/Germanic distinction between P312 and U106 and knew little at that stage of subclades. It has become a passion with you to take up the cause of those similarly distressed and to fight for delay in conclusions, since (as you see it) delay might bring similar relief that you took from the discovery that not all subclades of P312 have what we see today as a Celtic distribution.

But not all cases are similar to yours. Not all distressed individuals will ultimately find themselves in a subclade that fits what they see as their identity. Many will. As we get down to sub-sub-subclades that can be matched to surnames, many men who might currently protest violently against the idea, for example, that M222 could have an origin outside Ireland may find themselves in a subclade of M222 that was obviously Irish in origin, and so feel entirely happy with their haplogroup. :)

But what of the curious case of the haplogroup A1a (M31), found in a family of the Yorkshire surname Revis? Genealogical detective work established that the Revis males who carried A1a fitted onto two family trees going back to the 18th century in Britain. So this A1a does not mean that the family is a recent arrival in Britain. The surname goes back into the Middle Ages. I have speculated about how the haplogroup could have arrived in Yorkshire. I could be completely wrong. But the important point here is that Y-DNA haplogroup does not equal ethnic identity. It is a tiny part of a person's genetic make-up. The haplogroup does not make the Revis family "foreign". It is just an interesting footnote to the family history. Fighting desperately to try to change the perception of the A1a haplogroup as mainly found in Africa is not the way forward. There isn't a "one-size-fits-all" answer to male haplogroup distress.  

I don't like people to be distressed any more than you do, but I have had over 20 years to become inured to the fact that almost every publication of mine upsets someone. And I'm talking here just about building history! People are upset because I have outdated their work, contradicted their views, or put paid to their much-loved theory that Queen Elizabeth slept in their house. The range of ways that I offend people in the pursuit of truth is infinite. But I am not going to stop aiming for the truth.    
« Last Edit: April 01, 2012, 08:40:50 AM by Jean M » Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #18 on: April 01, 2012, 10:07:23 AM »

There isn't a "one-size-fits-all" answer to male haplogroup distress.
Love it -- have we ever had a thread about MHD, or did you just make that up?
Logged

R1b Z196*
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #19 on: April 01, 2012, 10:31:27 AM »

I made it up. And I admit to giggling. But it is a serious topic. We need to warn people against the nonsense of "certificates of ethnicity" based on Y-DNA.
Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #20 on: April 01, 2012, 01:07:33 PM »

@ Jean M, that Yorkshire family with haplogroup A1a (Revis) could have gotten a bad case of MHD, but they actually got into the science of it, in a very positive way.  I had read their case study in a book about which you blogged -- back when you had a site to host your blog --  Surnames, DNA, & Family History (Oxford U. Press, 2011), 201-04.  And I see that it's a cited source on your aforementioned speculation page.
Logged

R1b Z196*
Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2012, 01:07:50 PM »

I made it up. And I admit to giggling. But it is a serious topic. We need to warn people against the nonsense of "certificates of ethnicity" based on Y-DNA.

I admit to having MDH, and knowing is the first step to recovery. They say the first sign of MHD is associating one's own Y-DNA with a culture that made good use of battle axes, bows, prestige daggers, halberds, etc.

:)
« Last Edit: April 01, 2012, 01:08:40 PM by Richard Rocca » Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #22 on: April 01, 2012, 01:23:19 PM »

@ Jean M, that Yorkshire family with haplogroup A1a (Revis) could have gotten a bad case of MHD, but they actually got into the science of it, in a very positive way.

Yes it was a pleasure to read. The case remains a bit of a mystery.
Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


« Reply #23 on: April 01, 2012, 01:47:37 PM »

They say the first sign of MHD is associating one's own Y-DNA with a culture that made good use of battle axes, bows, prestige daggers, halberds, etc.
One of the things I miss from DNA-Forums is your cool Ligurian helmet.
Logged

R1b Z196*
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #24 on: April 01, 2012, 04:18:56 PM »

Goldenhind - I understand perfectly your concerns, and have understood them since you first expressed them to me back in early 2009, when I first joined DNA Forums. You don't want individuals to be upset in  the same way that you were obviously deeply upset to be assigned by your haplogroup (as it appeared) to Celtic status back in the days when people detected a rough Celtic/Germanic distinction between P312 and U106 and knew little at that stage of subclades. It has become a passion with you to take up the cause of those similarly distressed and to fight for delay in conclusions, since (as you see it) delay might bring similar relief that you took from the discovery that not all subclades of P312 have what we see today as a Celtic distribution.

    

I'm afraid your attempt to analyze the reasons for my positions is off the mark. When I first began this hobby, there were only three known SNPs below M269. The consensus view was that U106 were the Germanics, U198 pre-Anglo-Saxon Britons and U152 the Celts. The rest of us were designated "Atlantic facade aboriginals" with origins in paleolithic Iberia. I was deeply upset at first, but eventually came to terms with it, and began telling people I was a certified Hispanic. We were confidently informed at the time that there were no more R1b SNPs to be found.

A few years later P312 was discovered, and the consensus view altered to proclaim P312 as the new Celtic SNP. I became deeply suspicious of the flavour of the day and the practice of assigning Iron Age cultures to Bronze age SNPs, and decided to do a little research to determine if the division was valid. It soon became obvious that "Celtic" P312 was just about as common in Scandinavia as "Germanic" U106. With a little more work I discovered that Nordtvedt's R1b-Norse cluster was actually a subclade of P312, which again didn't fit the Germanic U106/Celtic P312 divide. So I have since taken on the mission of puncturing this dogma whenever I have found another bit of data which is inconsistent with it, and that has occurred with some frequency. I am hopeful that eventually we will identify SNPs which can be correctly divided into Celtic and Germanic haplogroups, but I am quite confident they will be some distance below P312 and U106.

It really has nothing to do with a desire for a Germanic origin for my Y line, as others beside yourself have suspected. In fact, the line from which I believe I may be descended is said to ultimately have a Breton origin, so a "Celtic" assignment for my subclade would not be a great disappointment to me. In fact, I was disappointed when I tested negative for L21, and even re-tested for L459 just to confirm that there hadn't been a lab error.  I have ancestors from England, Wales, Scotland, Denmark and Sweden, so it is patently obvious to me that I have roots in both Germanic and Celtic worlds, and that is an identity I am comfortable with.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2012, 04:55:05 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.111 seconds with 18 queries.