World Families Forums - Can you walk like an Egyptian, or rather like R1b1b2 brother King Tutankhamun?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 24, 2014, 01:34:26 AM
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)
| | |-+  Can you walk like an Egyptian, or rather like R1b1b2 brother King Tutankhamun?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Can you walk like an Egyptian, or rather like R1b1b2 brother King Tutankhamun?  (Read 12088 times)
Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2010, 01:15:55 PM »

"Some of those ailments can be found in my family, and relatives.
Perhaps many R1b people have related health issues."

Scoliosis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoliosis

"This condition affects approximately 7 million people in the United States."

"The role of genetic factors in the development of this condition is widely accepted."

Kyphosis aka Hunchback

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyphosis
Logged
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #26 on: February 25, 2010, 10:31:19 AM »

I wonder how K.T. measures up to the R1b in Africa?

Wiki says:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)
In human genetics, Haplogroup R1b is the most frequently occurring Y-chromosome haplogroup in Western Europe, Bashkortostan[3] and amongst speakers of Chadic languages in northern parts of sub-Saharan Central Africa"

aaaaaaaa

Dienekes:
The R1b1*-in-Africa mystery thickens. At first, these typically Eurasian chromosomes had been found in Cameroon, but they seem to be found in many populations
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/04/paternal-traces-of-bantu-expansion.html

« Last Edit: February 25, 2010, 10:40:00 AM by OConnor » Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


argiedude
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


« Reply #27 on: February 25, 2010, 08:53:18 PM »

No one's talking about the TMRCA implications of this supposed R1b sample. Amenhotep III, greatgrandfather of Tutankhamun and apparently R1b, was born about 3400 years ago. The age of the various R1b1b2-ht15 clades is about 3500 years. The apparent haplotype of these pharaos is ht15.

Maybe the sample could also be an ht35, with the occasional 393=13, and this would fit a little better, since the TMRCA of ht35 is 500 to 1000 years earlier than ht15. But then again, at the time of Amenhotep, ht35 would have been only some 700 years old, kind of like M222 today. And that means its diversity would be extremely reduced and it would be a lot rarer to find an ht35 with 393=13, unlike today, in which as many as 10% of ht35 samples have 393=13.

The sample is almost guaranteed to not belong to R1b1*, because it failed in 2 crucial STRs that separate R1b1* from R1b1b2. Almost no R1b1* has DYS19=14, and almost no R1b1* has 385a=11. These 2 values are instead modal in R1b1b2, both ht15 and ht35, and these are the 2 values found in the supposed ancient haplotype, so it's really almost guaranteed that the haplotype is R1b1b2, and not R1b1*. If the sample had been R1b1* there wouldn't be TMRCA issues, because the ages of some of these clades seem to go to 5000 years ago, but in the case of R1b1b2 the timeline just barely fits, and considering the extra problems of the pretty distant center of origin of ht35 and ht15, the whole thing looks pretty bad.
Logged

y-dna: R1b L21
mtdna: U5
vtilroe
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 150


« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2010, 12:41:15 AM »

No one's talking about the TMRCA implications of this supposed R1b sample. Amenhotep III, greatgrandfather of Tutankhamun and apparently R1b, was born about 3400 years ago. The age of the various R1b1b2-ht15 clades is about 3500 years. The apparent haplotype of these pharaos is ht15.

Maybe the sample could also be an ht35, with the occasional 393=13, and this would fit a little better, since the TMRCA of ht35 is 500 to 1000 years earlier than ht15. But then again, at the time of Amenhotep, ht35 would have been only some 700 years old, kind of like M222 today. And that means its diversity would be extremely reduced and it would be a lot rarer to find an ht35 with 393=13, unlike today, in which as many as 10% of ht35 samples have 393=13.

The sample is almost guaranteed to not belong to R1b1*, because it failed in 2 crucial STRs that separate R1b1* from R1b1b2. Almost no R1b1* has DYS19=14, and almost no R1b1* has 385a=11. These 2 values are instead modal in R1b1b2, both ht15 and ht35, and these are the 2 values found in the supposed ancient haplotype, so it's really almost guaranteed that the haplotype is R1b1b2, and not R1b1*. If the sample had been R1b1* there wouldn't be TMRCA issues, because the ages of some of these clades seem to go to 5000 years ago, but in the case of R1b1b2 the timeline just barely fits, and considering the extra problems of the pretty distant center of origin of ht35 and ht15, the whole thing looks pretty bad.


Well, assuming that the haplotype is actually correct, MRCA implications are one reason I doubt Tut was much more recent than L51.  It's highly improbable he's either P312 or U106 - but it would be absolutely stunning if he was.  I just wish Dr. Hawass would agree to run a deep-clade SNP test on the dude so we could know for sure.
Logged

YSearch & MitoSearch: 2GXWW


yDNA: R-U106*


mtDNA: U5a1a1 (Genbank# GQ368895)


R-P312-WTY Project Admin http://tinyurl.com/daertg

vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2010, 12:06:20 PM »

Well, assuming that the haplotype is actually correct, MRCA implications are one reason I doubt Tut was much more recent than L51.  It's highly improbable he's either P312 or U106 - but it would be absolutely stunning if he was.  I just wish Dr. Hawass would agree to run a deep-clade SNP test on the dude so we could know for sure.
I doubt there is enough DNA for a DeepClade test, but any event it pays to remember that TMRCA estimates are just that: estimates.  If someone says that the TMRCA of some clade is 3.5 kya, you should mentally convert that to "between 2.5 and 5 kya" or something like it.

VV
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2010, 01:40:09 PM »

"If someone says that the TMRCA of some clade is 3.5 kya, you should mentally convert that to "between 2.5 and 5 kya" or something like it. VV"

Thank you, Monsieur Lapalisse, but in this case 2.5 is unlikly, being dear Tut dead  more than 3,300 YBP!
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2010, 02:02:14 PM »

"I doubt there is enough DNA for a DeepClade test".  What? They have tested autosomal STRs through all chromosomes. They know very well Tut's Y, but it is a little bit astonishing his haplogroup and they haven't divulged it.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2010, 06:35:48 PM »

Thank you, Monsieur Lapalisse, but in this case 2.5 is unlikly, being dear Tut dead  more than 3,300 YBP!

The date of Tut's death has no bearing on TMRCA estimate for living men.

VV
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2010, 06:56:56 PM »

But, as I have said many times here and elsewhere, that haplotype, very close to many haplotypes of today (and if nobody have said to you that it has 3,300 years you should have taken it for an actual haplotype), demonstrates that mutations happen mostly around the modal and that your calculations (yours and of Klyosov's) are greatly wrong. Next similar tests will demonstrate similar haplotypes not only 3,300 YBP, but probably 5,000, 7,000 and so on.
At this point I hope that someone tests Otzi and other ancient Europeans.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #34 on: February 26, 2010, 08:38:04 PM »

But, as I have said many times here and elsewhere, that haplotype, very close to many haplotypes of today (and if nobody have said to you that it has 3,300 years you should have taken it for an actual haplotype), demonstrates that mutations happen mostly around the modal and that your calculations (yours and of Klyosov's) are greatly wrong.

You can say it many more times in many more places, but you will always be incorrect.  Mutations do not happen "around the modal".  At best, that's terrible description of what is actually going on.  At worst, it betrays a lack of knowledge about genetic processes.

VV
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #35 on: February 27, 2010, 01:03:21 AM »

I have said that mutations happen "mostly around the modal" except when they go for the tangent, and Tut's DYS439=10 is a case of a mutation gone for the tangent from a modal =12, then also this demonstrates its ancientness already 3,300 years ago of what is probably a  R1b1b2-U152+.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #36 on: February 27, 2010, 09:47:37 AM »

I have said that mutations happen "mostly around the modal" except when they go for the tangent, and Tut's DYS439=10 is a case of a mutation gone for the tangent from a modal =12, then also this demonstrates its ancientness already 3,300 years ago of what is probably a  R1b1b2-U152+.

What makes you think Tut is U152+?

We're in danger of that becoming an urban legend. The "Tut might be U152" thing started when someone mistakenly thought he had 393=9, and someone else said the only 393=9 he had ever seen was a U152+. But it turns out Tut's value at that marker is the much more prosaic 13, so it doesn't seem likely he is U152+.

Logged

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #37 on: February 27, 2010, 10:00:52 AM »

If you compare the Tut's data on Ysearch, as I have done, probably the closest are R-U152. My friend Malvolti, I tested at SMGF, is probably a R-U152, being closest to an Italian who lives in a Gallo-Italic town of Sicily, and he is the closest Italian to Tut at a GD of 6. And if it is true my hypothesis that Tut comes from a Shardana, R-U152 is probably the most diffused R1b1b2 among Sardinians. You could say that I haven't proofs, but I have a long experience in finding relatives to a Y data, and I have never been wrong. Certainly we all would be glad that Mr. Hawass gives data he certainly has. But at this point to test ancient DNA  is pretty easy and we'll have soon the answers to all our questions. I hope that someone is testing Otzi now and also the Rozen''s SNPs. The work of the Egyptian team, where there were also Germans and Italians, has been an incredible thing: see the autosomal SNPs.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2010, 02:52:08 AM by Maliclavelli » Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #38 on: February 27, 2010, 10:16:44 AM »

Six is a long way off the few markers that Tarin has been able to decipher for Tut. If money were changing hands, I would bet that Tut is not U152+, but who knows?

I agree that the latest developments in the y-dna testing of very old remains are extremely exciting.

I'm sure that eventually they will dig up the medieval corpse of Slobo the Village Idiot, and then I will get an exact match. ;-)
Logged

Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 27, 2010, 12:36:13 PM »

“I'm sure that eventually they will dig up the medieval corpse of Slobo the Village Idiot, and then I will get an exact match. ;-)”

That cracked me up, Rich.

I’m not the smartest guy around, either, however, I can guarantee you that hunchback exists. I have had what one doctor described as a “hump” surgically removed. It was about the size of two silver dollars stacked four or five high. Not all that big as “humps” go, but it was starting to bother me when I sat in a chair for more than a few minutes. I would characterize it as a buffalo hump, which was extra fat around the upper part of the back where I start to hunch over.

As for Hawass, I doubt if they will reveal a haplogroup any time soon. And I agree with the Sea People assessment.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/seapeople.htm
Logged
argiedude
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


« Reply #40 on: February 27, 2010, 01:08:58 PM »

http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k178/argiedude/TutankhamunTMRCAproblem.gif



Tutankhamun's alleged haplotype is a GD of 7 from the R1b1b2-ht15 modal. Above I made a comparison with Irish M222+, which likely has a similar age as R1b1b2-ht15 had at the time of Tutankhamun.

The 3,500 year old TMRCA estimate for R1b1b2 was obtained several times in different ht15 lineages, greatly reducing the likelihood that this estimate could be off by a huge margin.
Logged

y-dna: R1b L21
mtdna: U5
vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #41 on: February 27, 2010, 03:25:25 PM »

The 3,500 year old TMRCA estimate for R1b1b2 was obtained several times in different ht15 lineages, greatly reducing the likelihood that this estimate could be off by a huge margin.

Of course if you are only using AMH-like haplotypes, you are not actually estimating the TMRCA of R1b1b2 at all, but something more recent than that.

And if you are using intraclade variance, you aren not estimating TMRCA of anything at all.

Plus, even estimating different lines  doesn't increase the precision of your estimate all that much since a portion of the phylogeny is not actually independent for each line.

Never mind the fact that there could be some systematic error (e.g. underestimation or overestimation) that are model dependent, not sample dependent.

The long and short of it is that the statistical confidence interval for any TMRCA estimates of R1b1b2 is going to be +/- 25% or 30% PLUS any uncertainty from the model itself. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

VV
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #42 on: February 27, 2010, 05:58:09 PM »

All this talk of Egyptian ht15 almost the same age as ht15 MRCA dates does remind me of one thing.  It would only take a small amount of ancient y-DNA results to potentially seroulsy change what we think about clade dating.  A small sample is not reliable as negative evidence but it is rock solid positive evidence.  Every sample will create a MINIMUM age for a particular clade, something archaeologgists call a terminus anti quem.  That is why I hope they go for the early Neolithic.  We already have Bronze Age and late Neolithic testing.  I think the earlier you start in period terms the more spectacular the potential knowledge gain.  There are too few pre-Neolithic burials to get our hopes too high for much testing of that period but there is a huge amount of early Neolithic material. 
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2010, 09:45:47 PM »

Six is a long way off the few markers that Tarin has been able to decipher for Tut. If money were changing hands, I would bet that Tut is not U152+, but who knows?


Agreed. Every time some ancient R1b haplotype is found, several people rush forward to proclaim the subclade, and it is no surprise that it usually matches their own. The folly of attempting to predict R1b1b2 subclades from a handful of STR markers has been established over and over.
Logged
NealtheRed
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 930


« Reply #44 on: February 28, 2010, 12:39:49 AM »

Six is a long way off the few markers that Tarin has been able to decipher for Tut. If money were changing hands, I would bet that Tut is not U152+, but who knows?


Agreed. Every time some ancient R1b haplotype is found, several people rush forward to proclaim the subclade, and it is no surprise that it usually matches their own. The folly of attempting to predict R1b1b2 subclades from a handful of STR markers has been established over and over.

LOL I think I'll take Rich's example and use the village idiot scenario - except my folks loved their whiskey!
Logged

Y-DNA: R-Z255 (L159.2+) - Downing (Irish Sea)


MTDNA: HV4a1 - Centrella (Avellino, Italy)


Ysearch: 4PSCK



Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #45 on: February 28, 2010, 06:08:13 AM »

Argiedude, not taking in account the point of departure, i.e. the base modal haplotype (like also Vineviz has pointed out), your diagram demonstrates that the distance of R-M222+ from his base haplotype has a peak (Gauss curve) at GD=2, whereas the R1b1b2 has it at GD=5. Then the distance isn’t of 700 years, but at least 1,750 years from the supposed origin of R-U152+ (if Tut’s  haplotype is really so). Then we should date R-U152+ at least 5,000YBP (and this is the date also of the most distant R-U152 in Germany). If R-U152 has this ancientness, it isn’t unlikely my theory that R1b1b2-L150+ has some thousands of years more. And your presumptions of the base haplotype are all to be demonstrated.

I invite mathematicians like Ken Nordtvedt to exam your diagram, as in it there are all the data of mutations and back mutations.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #46 on: February 28, 2010, 11:54:01 AM »

All this talk of Egyptian ht15 almost the same age as ht15 MRCA dates does remind me of one thing.  It would only take a small amount of ancient y-DNA results to potentially seroulsy change what we think about clade dating. 

Just remember two things, though.

One is that even if you accept the Tut STRs, it does not necessarily follow that he was ht15.  He could quite easily be P310-, for example.  We have extant haplotypes that are P310- and which are DYS393=13, so this isn't hard to imagine.

The other is that, at a broader level, you remember that the TMRCA estimates we make for living R1b1b2 men is not necessarily affected by discoveries of ancient DNA.  There is a long period (the time between  12 kya and 6 kya, more or less) when there were WAY more than one single R1b1b2 man walking around.  We already know this.  So finding a skeleton from, say 10kya which is M269+ wouldn't be telling us anything new.  Finding a 10kya skeleton with a  WAMH-ish STR haplotype would tell us even less if they fail to test for SNPs.

On the other hand, finding a 10 kya skeleton that is L21+ would be quite revealing.  So the devil will (as always) be in the details.

I add these cautions only because I think people in some quarters are developing a romantic vision of what ancient DNA will be able to tell us.  A robust collection of ancient Y haplotypes and genotypes will be great data, but even a wide sample will not necessarily put a bound (upper or lower) on other types of inferences.
Logged
argiedude
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


« Reply #47 on: February 28, 2010, 01:22:27 PM »

your diagram demonstrates that the distance of R-M222+ from his base haplotype has a peak (Gauss curve) at GD=2, whereas the R1b1b2 has it at GD=5. Then the distance isn’t of 700 years, but at least 1,750 years from the supposed origin of R-U152+ (if Tut’s  haplotype is really so).

I did some variance estimates of M222 and it looks like its age would be 1500 years, not the 700 that I've always read about. This would only make my point even pointier, since the alleged Tutankhamun haplotype would then have existed at a time when the diversity of ht15 was half of the diversity of today's M222.

One is that even if you accept the Tut STRs, it does not necessarily follow that he was ht15.  He could quite easily be P310-, for example.  We have extant haplotypes that are P310- and which are DYS393=13, so this isn't hard to imagine.

But current P310- haplotypes are almost indistinguishable from ht15, meaning they probably originated together with other ht15 lineages in a very short period of time, separated by a few hundred years.

The other is that, at a broader level, you remember that the TMRCA estimates we make for living R1b1b2 men is not necessarily affected by discoveries of ancient DNA.

It's about probabilities. The fact that R1b1b2 has a TMRCA somewhere around 4000+ years ago means there was a bottleneck back then. R1b1b2 couldn't have been very widespread geographically, otherwise it would be highly likely many of the R1b1b2 pockets throughout its range wouldn't have suffered a bottleneck, and today we'd be talking about a further back TMRCA for R1b1b2. It's not technically impossible for Tutankhamun to have belonged to a lineage that came into existence just 1000 years earlier in a relatively far away place, but it strongly calls the attention.

I made a similar observation when the Eulau R1a was discovered. Can anyone remind us the age of the Eulau samples? And the non-Zhivo TMRCA of R1a? I think both are around 4500 years?
Logged

y-dna: R1b L21
mtdna: U5
vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2010, 02:44:09 PM »

But current P310- haplotypes are almost indistinguishable from ht15, meaning they probably originated together with other ht15 lineages in a very short period of time, separated by a few hundred years.
The TMRCA of R-M269 could 30% or so greater than the TMRCA of R-P310.  That's enough of a difference to matter in this case to the people who are obsessed with this particular case.

It's about probabilities. The fact that R1b1b2 has a TMRCA somewhere around 4000+ years ago means there was a bottleneck back then.

Your explanation is greatly exaggerating the role that bottlenecks play.  You aren't the only one, but it usually amounts to hand waving.  Buyer beware, in other words.

VV
Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2146


« Reply #49 on: March 01, 2010, 01:06:38 AM »

Vineviz says: “The TMRCA of R-M269 could 30% or so greater than the TMRCA of R-P310.  That's enough of a difference to matter in this case to the people who are obsessed with this particular case”.

If the people is Maliclavelli, alias Gioiello Tognoni, I can say that this is the most important reason of our battle from many years and of all my banishments. It isn’t the same if R1b1* and subclades are 5,000 years old or 10,000 or more and it isn’t the same if they were in Italy or in SW Asia and this is what we’ll be able to see next, very next I think.
In your ancestors’  language these your last words would be said “mettere le mani avanti”.

Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 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 0.119 seconds with 19 queries.