tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post8284222488243416019..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Analysis of Putative Remains of St. BirgittaDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6910924159393315472011-03-31T00:59:56.951+03:002011-03-31T00:59:56.951+03:00Your comments interest me as I inherited a "r...Your comments interest me as I inherited a "relic" of "s. Birgittae<br />vid" It is in cased in a silver-colored locket and is sealed with I<br />believe the papal seal. Above he seal is the inked number 269; below<br />the seal is the number 73.<br />If anyone can shed any light on this subject, I would be appreciative.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05922742905257693482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33897067576138137962010-02-22T00:40:17.973+02:002010-02-22T00:40:17.973+02:00http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=ER7RQ&a...http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=ER7RQ&viewuid=ER7RQ&p=0<br /><br />Tuts STRs. Closest match apparently a Druze sequence.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-91026979558870351362010-02-21T03:39:48.025+02:002010-02-21T03:39:48.025+02:00If anyone is interested it is looking like Tutanka...If anyone is interested it is looking like Tutankamun truly was R1b1b2, or at least his Dad Akenaten was.<br /><br />http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-02/1266545829Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86616351983400441602010-02-20T02:20:16.223+02:002010-02-20T02:20:16.223+02:00Yes although not a particularly significant ones. ...Yes although not a particularly significant ones. Have a look at the most parsimonious trees.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-89165030204278767612010-02-19T18:52:21.424+02:002010-02-19T18:52:21.424+02:00Annie,
So are you saying then that 16189C - with ...Annie,<br /><br />So are you saying then that 16189C - with in T, is indicative of T1, is also a parallel marker in H1??pconroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312469574812832771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32736203107066310492010-02-19T10:21:06.250+02:002010-02-19T10:21:06.250+02:00Looks like the same is happening with Tutankhamun ...Looks like the same is happening with Tutankhamun and his (very close) family. They don't dare clearly state the haplogroups.<br /><br />Anyone got access to the raw data? I can't believe they did STRs. Some guy used the publicity video to try and work out the haplogroup but that may have been stock footage (he identified R1b1b2 from the STR pattern on the screen). <br /><br />Basically if we are interested we are going to have to do it ourselves (like "not St Brigitte" and her "not daughter")Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55546669045395510232010-02-19T09:13:40.645+02:002010-02-19T09:13:40.645+02:00You look to be a T1a, but Individual 1 is not as s...You look to be a T1a, but Individual 1 is not as she does not have 73G, 16129 or 16294 which are required for T. Plus she has 3010 which defines H1.<br /><br />All sequences are defined with respect to H2a2 (rCRS). Basically the more mutations, the futher away from H2a2a. I would not dare to rely just on HVRs these days, which I guess is why the author did not quote the haplogroups in the final paper. :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65163911972893256512010-02-19T02:24:30.001+02:002010-02-19T02:24:30.001+02:00Annie,
I think your analysis of Individual 1 seem...Annie,<br /><br />I think your analysis of Individual 1 seems incorrect?<br /><br />As based on what I've been able to glean from the internet, my own markers are indicative as follows:<br /><br />HVR1 differences from CRS<br />16126C - J/T<br /><br />16163G - T1<br />16186T - T1a<br />16189C - T1<br /><br />16294T - T<br />16519C - H<br /><br /><br />HVR2 differences from CRS<br />73G - H<br /><br />152C - T1a<br />195C - T1a<br /><br />263G - H<br />309.1C - <br />315.1C - <br /><br />So on re-evaluating, I would now say:<br />#1 = T1<br />#2 = T2pconroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312469574812832771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21868787199972686802010-02-19T01:36:52.369+02:002010-02-19T01:36:52.369+02:00They only tested HVR1 and HVR2 with 3010 and 16519...They only tested HVR1 and HVR2 with 3010 and 16519.<br /><br />Individual 1<br />16189C, 263G, 315.1C, 3010A, 16519C<br /><br />315.1 and 16519 are not useable given the high mutation rate.<br />263G means not H2a2.<br />3010A is characteristic of H1.<br />16189 is characteristic of a group of subclades within H1.<br /><br />Individual 2<br />16126C, 16294T, 16296T, 16304C, 73G, 263G, 309.1C, 315.1C, 16519C<br /><br />Again ignore 309.1C, 315.1C, 16519C.<br /><br />263G so not H2a2<br />73G so (probably) not in the R0 group.<br />16126 puts it probably in JT.<br />16294 puts it in T<br />16296 puts it in T2<br />16304 puts it in T2b<br /><br />With a very large pinch of salt.<br /><br />So probably H1 and T2b.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7431550001519390312010-02-18T20:13:03.632+02:002010-02-18T20:13:03.632+02:00Based on my own mtDNA T1a HVR1 and HVR2 markers, i...Based on my own mtDNA T1a HVR1 and HVR2 markers, it would seemthat the first is possibly mtDNA T and the second mtDNA T1??<br /><br />Does anyone know for sure?pconroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312469574812832771noreply@blogger.com