GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2002-09 > 1031090544


From: Philip Ritter <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Two Paleolithic Y groups in Europe Before the Third/Neolithic
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 15:02:24 -0700
References: <philr@stanford.edu message <5.1.0.14.2.20020903095814.01acaa10@philr.pobox.stanford.edu>
In-Reply-To: <JCHBN.020903.162453.RC0@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>


Thanks John,

That makes it much clearer. I presume the 60,000 is subject to change as we
expand the number of samples, but might approximate the time of the
y-chromosome Adam. Now Annie's original question makes more sense, but
rephrased as: why did all but one of the male patrilineal lines die out
between 60,000 years ago and the present, while several female matilineal
lines survive from 170,000 years ago down to the present? I presume the
answer is mainly chance, although perhaps greater males mortality might
have been a factor--such as in tribal warfare where women might have been
allowed to live and reproduce when their husbands and sons were killed. As
for Annie's question about those who crossed the Red Sea 80,000 years ago
(has this hypothesis generally been accepted?), there might have been 2, 3
or two dozen distinct y-chromosome lines that made the crossing, but only
one of those survived to the present--only one of the y-chromosome lines
extant 20,000 years later (in 60,000 BP) survive today. It does seem
unlikely to me that all but one of the African lines extant at that time
also died out, but that may be where the 60,000 will be subject to
change--as we get more African samples as well as European we may find an
earlier Adam.

Did I get that more or less correct?

I'm still somewhat confused about the nomenclature for haplogroups. Do the
Eu1 to Eu22 groups described in the article correlate with the simpler Hg1,
Hg2, Hg3 groups referred to earlier?

To expand on John's point about the haplogroups helping show
non-relationship, I recently learned of two Ritter samples that were
submitted to FTDNA independently of my and B Ritter's submittals to
Ancestry/RG. The two new results match each other perfectly on 12 markers
but those results have only 1 out of 12 matches to either B or my samples
(B and I match 10 out of 12 on the FTDNA markers). Based on earlier posted
material, it is clear that the two new Ritters (both believed to be
descended from a Jessie Ritter who settled in NC) are of the Atlantic modal
haplogroup, while B and I (descended from two different Ritters born in PA
in the late 1700's) belong to HG2 and have more in common with other HG2's
of different surnames (such as H. Ledbetter whose results posted here
matched B 12 out of 12 and matched me 10 out of 12) than with unrelated
Ritters. Since Ritter was a name given to various German knights during the
period of the crusades, it is not surprising that it would have multiple
origins with unrelated individuals.

Phil

Here are the 12-marker results for myself, B Ritter and two apparent
descendants of a North Carolina Jesse Ritter (NC1 and NC2):

P. B. NC1 NC2 Loci#
13…13…11….11…DYS385a
14…14…14….14…DYS385b
15…14…12….12…DYS388
12…12…14….14…DYS389I
28…28…30….30…DYS389II
23…22…24….24…DYS390
10…10…11….11…DYS391
11…11…13….13…DYS392
13…13…14….14…DYS393
15…15…14….14…DYS394 / 19
11…11…12….12…DYS426
11…11…12….12…DYS439


At 04:24 PM 9/3/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Phil wrote:
> > The following statement puzzled me. I understand that the Y chromosome is
> > found in nearly all mammals so must be much older than 60,000 years.
>
>Yes, that's true. However, the statement refers just to the level of
>diversity in the present-day human population. In other words, if you
>take into account the mutation rates (known or assumed) for the Y
>chromosome, all presently occurring samples could be explained by random
>mutation from a single individual about 60,000 years ago. This does NOT
>imply that the entire human population 60,000 years ago had just one
>Y haplotype -- in fact, it seems likely that the population at that
>time was just as diverse as it is now. In the meantime, there have
>been floods, fires, earthquakes, famines, wars, and plagues of all
>kinds. Every disaster results in the loss of some diversity. The
>60,000-year figure simply represents the relative importance of
>disasters and mutations in the human male population averaged over
>recent time. The same can be said for the 170,000-year figure for
>mtDNA and the female population.
>
> John Chandler
>
>
>==============================
>To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records,
>go to:
>http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237



This thread: