GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266675172


From: "Tom Gull" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] TMRCA of R1b1b2s to King Tut?
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:12:52 -0500
References: <mailman.5909.1266647674.2099.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><D43FE6D87D54423EBE71C0532BDF4D7D@anatoldesktop>
In-Reply-To: <D43FE6D87D54423EBE71C0532BDF4D7D@anatoldesktop>


The numbers you show below relate to my point, and my point related only to
the "wishful thinking" nature of saying King Tut was U152 based on evidence
presented so far. Your numbers for sibling SNP groups below reflect what I
remembered - that the primary R1b1b2 sibling or close-cousin SNP groupings
have a TMRCA that is so close that identifying the age of one sample of
Y-DNA (Tut in this case) means he lines up with 5-6 of those instead of just
picking one and favoring it. This doesn't have anything to do with your
posts, it's directly related to the U152 hypothesis. Someone else pointed
out that the hypothesis was tied to a specific STR value which has been
identified as incorrect and therefore no indication that this Y-DNA is
likely to be U152 vs any other close variation of R1b1b2.

So having the ages and confidence intervals restated here does help, because
it seems that both the STR and age components of a specific "King Tut was
U152 based on the evidence we can see" hypothesis are weak, and the
interpretation ends up being fun but wishful thinking. That was my original
question, and it looks like two responses have answered it to my own
satisfaction. By now, of course, the hypothesis will be all over the
Internet and assumed to be true! <G>

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 7:19 AM
To: <>
Cc: "Anatole Klyosov" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] TMRCA of R1b1b2s to King Tut?

>>From: "Tom Gull" <>
>>I'm asking a question, not providing an answer. The question is based on
>>memories that the estimates I've seen for the TMRCAs for U152 and U106 to
> their mutual parent a while back were only a few hundred years apart and
> the
> confidence levels overlapped. (...) There any need for me to provide an
> estimate because I'm not proposing an hypothesis, I'm wondering why other
> people settled on one particular one when a number of similar hypotheses
> seem equally probable.
>
> My response:
>
> I do not know who "settled" and on what "particular one", and where is
> "wishful thinking" here.
>...........
> Here are some figures for R1b1b2:
> -- M269 - no less than 6,000 ybp
> -- L23 - 5475+/-680
> -- L51 - 5850+/-860
> -- U106 - 4175+/-430
> -- U106 (null-mutation in DYS425) - 3325+/-450
> -- P312 - 3950+/-400
> -- U152 - 4125+/-450
> -- L2 - 4225+/-450
> -- L20 - 4300+/-610
> -- L21 - 3600+/-370
> -- L21 (null mutation in DYS425) - 2600+/-420
> -- M222 - 1450+/-150
>........
> I hope it would help.
>
> Anatole Klyosov
>


This thread: