GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-05 > 1211473680


From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] S21/S28 Split+m223 stuff
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 12:28:00 -0400
References: <769063.31538.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <769063.31538.qm@web86608.mail.ird.yahoo.com>


The MRCA of R-S29 may or may not have lived more recently than the
MRCA of R-S28. Interpretations of the STR data vary, and it could go
either way.

In either case, the relative youth of the MRCA's won't necessarily
inform our opinion about the time at which their lineages diverged
from each other or from the remainder of R-M269. The difference
between the time of the divergence and the time of the MRCA could be
tremendous.

Further, it is not necessarily true that archaeology can attest to
anything about the time of the divergence or the time of the MRCA.
If we are lucky there may be archaelogical evidence of some cultural
even that corresponds to a population expansion affiliated with one
or more of these subclades, but that may or may not prove to be the
case.

Vince



On May 22, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Alan R wrote:

> I am ignoring the actual suggested dating and concentrating on the
> implications of the new suggested relative seniority of R1b
> clades. For almost all archaeological attested scenarios I can
> think of, the idea that a predominantly west-central R1b clade is
> older than a predominantly northern one makes far more sense. So I
> am relieved to hear that S28 may be older than S21.

This thread: