Dear all,

?

I've updated the with a new section looking at the origins of R-L151 in relation to ancient DNA and its archaeological surroundings. Our (very!) old U106+ family member PNL001 was buried 2892 BC, and sets the minimum age for R-U106 and, by inference, R-L151.

?

I've used the argument that we don't see any R-L151 basal clades that look like they come from outside the Corded Ware Culture (e.g. are found only in easternmost Europe or west Asia) and the need to have the R-ZZ11 (-> U152, DF27) spilt inside the Corded Ware Culture as limits to the oldest possible R-L151 date. From this, I get the TMRCA of R-L151 to be 3115 BC, with confidence intervals at 3222-3029 BC (68% c.i.), 3366-2972 BC (95% c.i.) and 3507-2937 BC (99.5% c.i.). These are much narrower than the dates Family Tree DNA gives (95% c.i. = 3754 - 2409 BC).

?

Contrary to my previous expectations, this really means that R-L151 was probably reasonably well established before the CWC migrations happened, and that it might have been at about the split of R-P312, R-U106, R-S1194 and R-A8053 that the CWC migration begins. This young family of a few generations might still be small enough to travel together, or otherwise be small enough that any lines remaining where they came from were able to die out.

?

I'm a little shaky on the archeaology here, since it's not my area of expertise. I'd appreciate any input that people have on the ideas behind it.

?

Cheers,

?

Iain.

?

?

Hi folks,

?

Thanks for the input.

?

Brian - you'll remember that many of these changes were done in response to GDPR. Sadly, legal fears always trump reasonable requests, since a few bad actors always have a disproportionate effect and spoil things for the rest of us. Some kind of researcher-level access to anonymised data might be possible, but I don't know how the EKA information would factor into that. Meanwhile, all we can do is progress with these kinds of encouragements.

?

Bruce - thanks for catching my typo. The 5 and 8 are close on the keypad!

?

Joe - as others have mentioned, the EKA information is primary data. We need this to be genealogical information, free of interference by ideas generated from DNA. This lets us put our own spin on what the DNA tells us.

?

Cheers,

?

Iain.
?

开云体育

开云体育

开云体育

Dear all,

?

I've begun to look again in earnest at the phylogeography of R-U106. To begin that, I've started some ground-work. A details the current status of phylogeography and assesses the availability of information. Family matters will likely keep me from this for a while over Christmas, but I have almost completed an analysis of ancient DNA and how it charts the spread of R-U106 as well that I will append to it when I can.

?

The take-home message from this document is to make sure your earliest-known ancestor information is up to date. To find this, log into your account, go to your name in the top right, and choose Account Settings. Click on the "Genealogy" tab, then the "Earliest known ancestors" tab below it. You should have a series of text boxes for your paternal ancestor with three pieces of information: a name and birth/death date, a country of origin, and a location.

?

R-U106 has 70,626 modern descendants. Of those, 9126 (13%) are in our project (though many of the rest are recent Family Finder additions). Of these, 5805 have stated that their ancestry comes from a specific European country. Of these, 4696 have also given either a identified origin along with the name of their ancestor or a latitude/longitude. Of these, 41% do not match each other. In most cases, this is testers given an earliest-known ancestor in America and a country of origin in the British Isles. This means that we only have complete and fully correct data for 20% of our members. So:

?

• Please make sure your earliest-known ancestry is up to date and as accurate as possible (especially including specific locations).
• Please ensure all three boxes are complete and that the information matches between them.
• Please use modern country boundaries where possible (e.g. if your ancestor was from the Austro-Hungarian empire, don't put Austria or Hungary down unless your ancestor came from within their modern boundaries).
• Please don't quote a European country of origin unless you have good reason to believe it's true. Surnames alone aren't necessarily useful: as we've found out, just because you're a Johnson doesn't mean you weren't originally a Johannsson. Neither is the fact your ancestor was born in a British colony.
• If you do have good reason to believe your ancestry comes from Europe but can't prove it, briefly say why in the first textbox (e.g. emigrated from Bristol) and update the latitude/longitude to that location. The more complete you can make this information, the better.

The situation is not dire - we can still make reasonable predictions from the 20% of correct data and reasonable assumptions about the 29% of mis-matching data. However, it would be really helpful to have more of this information believable, self-consistent and complete. By doing this, you will be able to improve our estimates of where our ancestors came from. If you speak to your matches, or if you run another project, please also encourage those testers to do the same.

?

Best wishes,

?

Iain.

开云体育

开云体育

开云体育

Thanks Vince,

?

To expand on "may not be in their exact positions":

?

It can be that mutations are only recorded in some tests both not others. This could be because some tests are the old BigY-500 tests, while others are the current BigY-700 tests. Or sometimes it's because a SNP is only picked up in some BigY-700 tests and not others. To illustrate why this is a problem, consider the following imaginary haplogroups:

?

R-X1
R-X1 > X2
R-X1 > X3
R-X1 > X3 > X4
R-X1 > X3 > X5

?

A SNP is found in two individuals. One is in R-X4 and one is in R-X5. So we know that at least haplogroup R-X3 should be positive for the SNP. But if no-one in R-X2 has tested positive or negative for the SNP (and no-one who is in R-X1 but not in R-X2 or R-X3 has either) then we don't know if all R-X1 are positive or negative for the SNP or not, so we don't know whether the SNP should be placed as part of R-X1 or only as part of R-X3.

?

Cheers,

?

Iain.

As an addition to this even a member that is pending lab results that had already tested to 111 has disappeared

It appears in our surname project anyone with big y has disappeared from the spreadsheets and results pages but they appear to be their in member subgrouping