DF27 General Discussion Thread

[SeanDVincent]

I understand DF27 may not be the most well understood of the R-P312 lineages and my journey may or may not be typical of a DF27 male but the way Ftdna presents data has a way of looking at my lineage in a different light.

[ArmandoR1b]

I understand DF27 may not be the most well understood of the R-P312 lineages and my journey may or may not be typical of a DF27 male but the way Ftdna presents data has a way of looking at my lineage in a different light.

That page has it's uses but can cause erroneous conclusions. For instance La Almoloya 47 is R-FTC605 See https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...05/classic

Your path is R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269>L23>L51>P310>L151>P312>Z46516>ZZ11>DF27>Z195>Z274>Z209>FGC83504>ZZ40_1>FGC23351>FGC23349>FGC23353>FGC23343>FT372222

The path of La Almoloya 47 is R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269>L23>L51>P310>L151>P312>Z46516>ZZ11>DF27>Z195>Z198>FTC605

You and Almoloya 47 do not share Z274. That is your path. That is the one you want to concentrate on for your ancestry.

The ancient specimens that you share Z274 with are at https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z274/classic

There are no ancient specimens at or downstream once you get to R-FGC23351 https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...51/classic

If you want to see the R-DF27 ancient specimens, their midpoints, and their subclades go to https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-DF27/classic

[SeanDVincent]

I understand DF27 may not be the most well understood of the R-P312 lineages and my journey may or may not be typical of a DF27 male but the way Ftdna presents data has a way of looking at my lineage in a different light.

That page has it's uses but can cause erroneous conclusions. For instance La Almoloya 47 is R-FTC605 See https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...05/classic

Your path is R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269>L23>L51>P310>L151>P312>Z46516>ZZ11>DF27>Z195>Z274>Z209>FGC83504>ZZ40_1>FGC23351>FGC23349>FGC23353>FGC23343>FT372222

The path of La Almoloya 47 is R-M207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269>L23>L51>P310>L151>P312>Z46516>ZZ11>DF27>Z195>Z198>FTC605

You and Almoloya 47 do not share Z274. That is your path. That is the one you want to concentrate on for your ancestry.

The ancient specimens that you share Z274 with are at https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z274/classic

There are no ancient specimens at or downstream once you get to R-FGC23351 https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...51/classic

If you want to see the R-DF27 ancient specimens, their midpoints, and their subclades go to https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-DF27/classic

 Correct me if I'm wrong but from that page for example, I read that Almoloya 47 lived around 2000-1750 BCE. The next line saying we share a common ancestor from 2650 BCE. Not that Almolya 47 is Z274. 

My closest  ancient connections from that page is ZZ40_1 from samples Szegvár 7 and Zapateria 2.
Both samples with an estimated common ancestor from 2100 BCE.

[ArmandoR1b]

Correct me if I'm wrong but from that page for example, I read that Almoloya 47 lived around 2000-1750 BCE. The next line saying we share a common ancestor from 2650 BCE. Not that Almolya 47 is Z274. 

My closest  ancient connections from that page is ZZ40_1 from samples Szegvár 7 and Zapateria 2.
Both samples with an estimated common ancestor from 2100 BCE.

Yes, you are right. I just wanted to verify that it was understood that the specimens are from different branches because people in the past have misconstrued what the information means and how it applies to them.

The most important take away is that none of the ancient specimens accepted to be DF27 by FTDNA are C14 dated even within 300 years of the TMRCA of DF27 which is c. 2650 BCE. The raw data of Quedlinburg 806 does show it to be derived for DF27 and El Hundido 2 does not have a read for DF27 disallowing it be proven or disproven to be DF27.

The oldest P312 specimens in western Europe are Osterhofen 563, El Hundido 2, Kolín 5216, Canada Farm 5379 and West Heslerton 41.

Since DF27 descends from P312 it is also important to take into consideration the location and dates of those specimens. Unfortunately FTDNA does not provide information of no-calls of specimens. Those can be very important just like the no-call of DF27 of El Hundido 2.

There are still not enough samples, and there are too many with insufficient coverage, for an assessment of DF27 or even P312 that everyone can agree with.

FTDNA does a very good job with some things and fails with others. Using the Discover site provides a lot of good information but it doesn't provide all of the information and it does not explain what data is lacking and why. The ancient connections page is just one of several of those pages that provides just a piece of the overall picture.

[Mitchell-Atkins]

A possible route for how DF27 entered southern Britain in 2nd millennium BC

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Trad..._284811960

[Mitchell-Atkins]

A possible route for how DF27 entered southern Britain in 2nd millennium BC

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Trad..._284811960

It was late when I posted above and I didn’t include a map image.  
I know there is at least one older DF27 sample in Britain, but this may in part, explain the higher concentration of DF27 along the English Channel.

[Webb]

The House of Burgh, modern Burke, are now in FTDNA's Discover Tool Notable Connections. The house progenitor is listed as Walter de Burgh, born around 1130 CE. Ancestral path:

DF27>Z195>Z274>Z209>FGC83504>ZZ40_1>S21184>S19290>S16785>FT18440>S15337>FT16553>FT56516>BY21030>BY21032>BY21031>BY32583>BY32581>BY32580>BY32577>BY32575