Maliclavelli's assessment on the early branches of R1b

[Maliclavelli]

Now that the caprice, and I’d say more the arrogance than the knowledge, has brought some hobbyists or citizen scientists (actually anyway probably of no scientific value), to wander from a forum to another, and that I think having gained the demonstration of all my theories, I want that a thread of Anthrogenica, due not to me but to the moderator, is known also on the forums that I never abandoned.

1

An interesting haplotype is this one. True R1b1*. It would be great for him to test for L389.
216826 Kaikhosro Javakhishvili M343+, P25+, P297-, M18-, M269-, M335-, M73-, V88-
216826 Javakhishvili Kaikhosro Javakhishvili, b.c. 15??, Georgia R1b1 R-P25 M18-, M269-, M335-, M343+, M73-, P25+, P297-, V88-

_R1b1* (L389+) Cluster B1 [M335-]
216826 Javakhishvili Kaikhosro Javakhishvili, b.c. 15??, Georgia Georgia R1b1

From www.worldfamilies.net:

Re: Is Javakhishvili R-M335? by Maliclavelli

Re: Vizachero&Behar: the reassessment of R1b1* by Maliclavelli

Re: Answer to Jarman about the Robbins (R-L23/L150+) by Maliclavelli

Re: A Change in Research Paradigm RE R1b? by Mikewww

2
 Originally Posted by Mikewww 
[Please explain in sentences what your reply is about rather than list subject lines and provide a  URL and letting us do multiple searches, if that is what you had in mind. I'm good with having reference links but please explain what your points are. Essentially, this is devoid of content and could be deleted. :speaking as a Moderator]

I take it someone thinks this guy is L389+. Do we know?

This I wrote like Maliclavelli:
“Now we have had the reassessment of the reassessment: R1b1 has a Cluster B1 (with Javakhishvili too), B2 (R-M335) and C (Joshi). Vineviz said that this reassessment is due to a matrix plot, and this is right. How can we solve the question by me posed of the YCAII values?

If we take the 22 slow mutators of Anatole Klyosov (DYS 426, 388, 392, 455, 454, 438, 531, 578, 395S1a, 395S1b, 590, 641, 472, 425, 594, 436, 490, 450, 617, 568, 640, 492) we have these modals:

R1* 12 12 13 11 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 11 11 11 12
R1a (cluster 1) 12 12 13 11 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 11 8 12 10 12 12 8 12 11 11 12
R1a (cluster 2) 12 12 13 11 12 12 9 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 12 11 11 12
R1b1 (cluster A1) 12 13 13 11 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 11 11 11 12
R1b1 (cluster A2) 12 14 13 11 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 13 12 8 11 11 11 12
R1b1 (cluster A3) 11 13 13 11 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 11 11 11 12
R1b1(cluster A4) 12 13 12 10 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 11 11 11 14
R1b1 (cluster B1) 12 12 13 11 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 12 11 12 11
R1b1(cluster B2) 12 12 13 11 12 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 12 11 12 11
R1b1 (cluster C) 12 12 13 11 12 11 11 8 15 16 8 11 8 12 10 12 12 8 12 11 11 11
R1b1a-P297 12 12 13 11 11 11 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 11 11 11 12
R-M73 12 12 13 11 11 10 11 8 16 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 11 11 11 12
R-M269 (46835) 12 13 13 11 11 12 11 8 15 16 8 10 8 0 10 12 12 8 11 11 11 12
R-M269 11 12 13 11 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 8 12 10 12 12 8 12 11 11 12


Now we can reconstruct all the trees and a first question is if we have to admit that the haplotypes so far found are of the same line of the subclades (thus we should presuppose some back mutations) or if they continue a parallel haplotype with that mutation that didn’t affect the main subclade. It is the case of DYS426=13 of R-L51 for instance or DYS426=11 of R-M269*.
Anyway we see clearly that as to R1b1 the clusters B1, B2 and C were the same cluster and had the mutations DYS617 from 11 to 12 and DYS492 from 12 to 11. After Cluster C separated and cluster B1 and B2 had the mutation DYS640 from 11 to 12. After each of this clusters had (or hadn’t) its own mutation(s). Then what may we say about YCAII? Cluster B1 has 21-23, cluster B2 has 18-23, cluster C has 20-24. We may hypothesize that from a hypothetical original 18-23 or 19-23 they had the same values till they formed the same cluster and that the actual values are due to their own history after the separation.

About Joshi (cluster C) I’d want to say that he is Indian, but, as he says in his ySearch account, “vajaseniya shukla madhyandin deshastha brahman vatsa gotra”, then of Brahmanic descent, one of the few R1b amongst them, but probably of Western Eurasian origin”.

Javakhishvili would be interesting if he were R-M335, the first found out of Europe and for me a proof of the origin of R-L389 and R-M335 in Europe (they have all YCAII=18-23 and this haplotype is the ancestor of the subclades and not the Eastern R1b1* with YCAII=21-23or 23-23). But Javakhishvili isn’t R-M335 but R-L389. This confirmed my theory.

But the news is that the first R-M343 has been tested (from Varanasi in India: see “ht 35 FTDNA Project” and “R1b1 FTDNA Project”). It is interesting because his 12 markers’ values demonstrate my theory of the mutations around the modal, being him so close to the other haplotypes of the subclades of R1b1 whereas it is probably many thousands of years apart; in fact he has 8 mutations only on the PF SNPs from R1b1, whereas all the subclades from R-L23 has the same PF SNPs, and they are separated from many thousands of years:

PF1016+, PF1029+, PF1031+, PF1040+, PF1046+, PF1061+, PF1092+, PF1097+, PF110+, PF1203+, PF1269+, PF1276+, PF15+, PF192+, PF210+, PF212+, PF223+, PF234+, PF258+, PF2591+, PF2593+, PF2599+, PF2600+, PF2608+, PF2611+, PF2615+, PF2624+, PF263+, PF2631+, PF2643+, PF272+, PF2745+, PF2747+, PF2748+, PF2749+, PF2770+, PF278+, PF292+, PF316+, PF325+, PF342+, PF4208+, PF4330+, PF500+, PF5061+, PF5465+, PF5466+, PF5468+, PF5471+, PF5851+, PF5853+, PF5854+, PF5865+, PF5869+, PF5871+, PF5882+, PF5886+, PF5887+, PF5888+, PF5953+, PF5956+, PF5957+, PF5964+, PF5965+, PF5982+, PF6007+, PF601+, PF6063+, PF6145+, PF6246+, PF6249+, PF6250+, PF6263+, PF6270+, PF6271+, PF6272+, PF667+, PF6868+, PF719+, PF720+, PF725+, PF7392+, PF779+, PF796+, PF803+, PF815+, PF821+, PF840+, PF844+, PF892+, PF937+, PF951+, PF954+, PF970+

PF1016+, PF1029+, PF1031+, PF1040+, PF1046+, PF1061+, PF1092+, PF1097+, PF110+, PF1203+, PF1269+, PF1276+, PF15+, PF192+, PF210+, PF212+, PF223+, PF234+, PF258+, PF2591+, PF2593+, PF2599+, PF2600+, PF2608+, PF2611+, PF2615+, PF2624+, PF263+, PF2631+, PF2643+, PF272+, PF2745+, PF2747+, PF2748+, PF2749+, PF2770+, PF278+, PF292+, PF316+, PF325+, PF342+, PF500+, PF5465+, PF5466+, PF5468+, PF5471+, PF5851+, PF5853+, PF5854+, PF5865+, PF5869+, PF5871+, PF5882+, PF5886+, PF5887+, PF5888+, PF5953+, PF5956+, PF5957+, PF5964+, PF5965+, PF5982+, PF6007+, PF601+, PF6063+, PF6145+, PF6246+, PF6250+, PF6270+, PF6272+, PF667+, PF719+, PF720+, PF725+, PF779+, PF796+, PF803+, PF815+, PF821+, PF840+, PF844+, PF892+, PF937+, PF951+, PF954+, PF970+

Differences:
PF4208+, PF4330+, PF5061+, PF6249+, PF6263+, PF6271+, PF6868+, PF7392+,

[Maliclavelli]

3
Originally Posted by Rathna 
How can we solve the question by me posed of the YCAII values?
This assumes, I believe erroneously, that someone other than yourself cares. But, further:
If we take the 22 slow mutators of Anatole Klyosov... we have these modals:
[snip]
Now we can reconstruct all the trees...
No, now we can discuss these modals, i.e. averages of those twice-selected 21st century survivors of these lineages who have (a) survived, and (b) been tested in projects whose results are visible to the public.
Then what may we say about YCAII?
That it's interesting to Jewel, but wasn't to Anatole? Anyway, it's not on that list of the stable modal values we're supposedly examining.
Javakhishvili would be interesting if he were R-M335... But Javakhishvili isn’t R-M335 but R-L389. This confirmed my theory.
Everything confirms your theory, in that you never see what doesn't. Anyway -- whatever this does or doesn't have to do with the actual topic -- I don't see evidence that Javakhishvili has actually tested L389, and would take Mike's word for it that that would be a good test to recommend. Maybe one of us will contribute to the Georgian DNA project for that purpose, if its administrator has authority to order the test. At least that's one way to cut through some of this fog.

There are SNP maps available via the Semargl mapping programs, and L389 has turned up in a couple of guys from this far east. It's unusual, but not exclusive to western Europe. To me, the more interesting data point is that there are 15 of these R1b guys, 14 of them I guess M269 (we don't really know, though). We haven't been seeing this much sampling density for R1b out around the Caucasus, that I recall.

4
Originally Posted by Rathna 
This I wrote like Maliclavelli:
“Now we have had the reassessment of the reassessment: R1b1 has a Cluster B1 (with Javakhishvili too), B2 (R-M335) and C (Joshi). Vineviz said that this reassessment is due to a matrix plot, and this is right. How can we solve the question by me posed of the YCAII values?
This was in the Georgia DNA project thread. The discussion on clusters appears to be about another project, either xP297 or ht35 or M335. I'm not sure.

Anyway since those posts are off-topic of that thread I'm opening up a new thread so it can focused on here.
5
These are the markers values of Raza (demonstrated R-M343*):

267597 Raza Varanasi India R1b 13 24 15 11 11-13 12 12 11 14 13 30

I’d be glad if you calculate the variance and the ancientness of this haplotype as to any other R1b1a2 and subclades. It has 4 mutations as to AMH:

DYS19=15 (14)
DYS385b=13 (14)
DYS439=11 (12)
DYS389I=14 (13)

How many years ?

Actually they are probably 10,000, 15,000 or more.

6
n 19 389i 389ii 390 391 392 393 385 438 439 437 448 456 458 635 ygatah4 576 481 549 533 570 643
5 15 14 30 24 11 13 13 11,13 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 >>
1 15 14 30 24 11 13 13 11,13 12 11 14 18 16 18 23 11 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 >>
1 15 14 30 24 11 13 13 11,13 12 11 14 19 15 16 23 12 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 >>
1 15 14 30 24 11 13 13 11,13 12 11 15 19 15 17 23 12 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 >>
1 15 14 30 24 11 13 13 11,13 12 12 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 >>
1 15 14 30 24 11 13 13 11,13 12 12 14 18 16 18 23 11 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 >>
1 15 14 30 24 11 13 13 11,13 12 12 15 20 15 15 23 12 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 >>
1 15 14 30 24 11 13 13 11,13 12 12 16 18 16 18 23 12 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 >>

It will be interesting to see the other markers of Raza,

7
It seems that

267597 Raza Varanasi India R1b 13 24 15 11 11-13 12 12 11 14 13 30

is positive for L278 and M415, thus not the first R-M343*, but an R1b1*, very different from the other compared above, then probably an Eastern R1b1 which hasn't anything to do with the Western ones.

P.S. Razyn, probably another proof for my theories

8
When who has in his hands the levels of the power will make up his mind to test Raza from Varanasi (India) for the other markers or to test for Geno 2.0 the Eastern R1b1* with YCAII=21-23 or 23-23 everything will be clear.
I bet that YCAII of Raza is 21-23.

9
Originally Posted by razyn 
Everything confirms your theory, in that you never see what doesn't. Anyway [...] I don't see evidence that Javakhishvili has actually tested L389

Javakhishvili has been tested for P25, and, while P25 is on the same level of L388, L389, L278, M415/PF6251, I'd say that arrogance and knowledge aren't on the same plane.

[Maliclavelli]

Explication for not knowledgeable people:

These mutations of the PF series

PF4208+, PF4330+, PF5061+, PF6249+, PF6263+, PF6271+, PF6868+, PF7392+,

present in N16605 Savage (a Jew in the R1b1 cluster A I think of Western European ancestry: he is so far the unique R1b1 tested) aren’t present in the Indian R1b1 Raza. As all the subclades of R1b1 have these mutations, the subclades derive from the Western European R1b1 and not from the Eastern one, which was my theory I have supported from many years.
My theory was based, for instance, upon YCAII=18-23 or 18-22 in the Western R1b1 and upon 21-23 or 23-23 in the Eastern one, that many thought unreliable, but now I have 8 SNPs of difference only in the PF series.

[Maliclavelli]

In the “R1b1 FTDNA Project” M415+ has been put on the same level of M343+, and the split would have been between R1b1/V88+ and R1b2/L389+. But these PF SNPs, absent in Raza but present in R-V88+ (150747: Alvarez) and in R-L389+ and subclades, demonstrates that the split happened after the separation between the Western R/M343/M415/L278+ and the Eastern R/M343/M415/L278+.

[Maliclavelli]

How may we explain that N9149 (Kasdin, R1b1/V88+) has in common with Alvarez (150747, R1b1/V88+) these PF SNPs (PF6249+, PF6263+, PF6271+) but not the others (PF4208, PF4330, PF5061, PF6868, PF7392), which are in common with the R1b1/L389 and subclades?
If these data are reliable, the most economic explication is that the mutation V88 occurred two times: the first in a R1b1/P25+ with the first three mutations and a second time in the ancestor of R1b1/P25 with the other mutations (PF4208, PF4330, PF5061, PF6868, PF7392) from which arose also R-L389 and subclades.
Of course we need more data, but this could explain also the different ethnic origin: the first from Middle East found amongst Jews and the second mostly from Iberia. We should then exclude that the one derives from the other.

P.S. But their markers values are so close that a similar scenario is unconceivable: or Spaniards derive from Jews or the other way around. About these SNPs the test has to be unreliable.

[Maliclavelli]

It seemed  to me that the administrators of the “R1b1 FTDNA Project” had changed the R1b SNPs from M343 to M343/L278. Now they have changed again: M343/M415.