Hi,
do you think it is, at least partially, correct to subdivide R1b1c (the major portion of R1b) in a Western subclade, roughly corresponding to the AMH, characterized by DYS393=13 and an Eastern subclade, most often occurring in Southeastern Europe and West Asia, in which DYS393=12?
If it is, then why don't they start from here in order to better contextualize, at a geographical extent, such an "ambiguous" indication as the one provided by R1b1c? I mean, as far as I know more than 80% of the R1b European population, from Sicily to Scotland, has got the M269 marker (in my case I don't see any use for a Deep Clade Haplogroup Test at FTDNA). In the near future, if not now, will we have the opportunity to get more exhaustive indications?
I hope my English is intelligible enough
Francesco
do you think it is, at least partially, correct to subdivide R1b1c (the major portion of R1b) in a Western subclade, roughly corresponding to the AMH, characterized by DYS393=13 and an Eastern subclade, most often occurring in Southeastern Europe and West Asia, in which DYS393=12?
If it is, then why don't they start from here in order to better contextualize, at a geographical extent, such an "ambiguous" indication as the one provided by R1b1c? I mean, as far as I know more than 80% of the R1b European population, from Sicily to Scotland, has got the M269 marker (in my case I don't see any use for a Deep Clade Haplogroup Test at FTDNA). In the near future, if not now, will we have the opportunity to get more exhaustive indications?
I hope my English is intelligible enough

Francesco
Comment