Several cultural or religious groups claim descent from a common ancestor. The extent to which this claimed ancestry is real or socially constructed can be assessed by means of genetic studies. Syed is a common honorific title given to male Muslims belonging to certain families claiming descent from the Prophet Muhammad through his grandsons Hassan and Hussein, who lived 1,400 years ago and were the sons of the Prophet’s daughter Fatima. If all Syeds really are in direct descent from Hassan and Hussein, we would expect the Y chromosomes of Syeds to be less diverse than those of non-Syeds. Outside the Arab world, we would also expect to find that Syeds share Y chromosomes with Arab populations to a greater extent than they do with their non-Syed geographic neighbours. In this study, we found that the Y chromosomes of self-identified Syeds from India and Pakistan are no less diverse than those non-Syeds from the same regions, suggesting that there is no biological basis to the belief that self-identified Syeds in this part of the world share a recent common ancestry. In addition to Syeds, we also considered members of other hereditary Muslim lineages, which either claim descent from the tribe or family of Muhammad or from the residents of Medinah. Here, we found that these lineages showed greater affinity to geographically distant Arab populations, than to their neighbours from the Indian subcontinent, who do not belong to an Islamic honorific lineage.Изготовление зеркал: простота и низкая себестоимос...
The results are pretty simple. First:
1) The Syed lineages don't exhibit a "Syed modal haplotype." What you should see is a Syed haplotype of ~50%, and then a range of other lineages which introgressed through people lying about their origins or women being unfaithful to their husbands. Instead there are a wide range of haplotypes. Being Syed is an honorific.
2) I don't think that they really prove higher Arab ancestry as such. They include really diverse populations, from Algerians to Israeli Arabs to Sudanese. The Islamic Honorific Lineages are somewhat closer to these groups, but that could be generic West Asian ancestry. For example, Persian. Or perhaps more African ancestry in cosmopolitan Syed lineages. Or, perhaps Syeds are just former high caste Hindus, who have more West Asian affinities.
Below is the PCA and list of Y chromosomal haplogroups. The paper is free at the link above.
zack & i are r1a1 fyi.
Would be interesting to see if the Quraysh R1a1 matches this Saudi family's ( http://books.google.com/books?id=sP_hVmik-QYC&pg=PA269 )
M6740 Al-Shibi Al-Qurashi R1a1a R-M198
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-Arabia/default.aspx?section=ysnp
WN6BW http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=WN6BW&viewuid=WN6BW&p=1
New marker L342 may help connect a South Asian (southern?) R1a1 line to the Arab and the Ashkenazi R1a1. We should know soon: https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjnH-bSBYrYTdHV0WWR1ZF80anFmbGh0VmNvbGh6d1E&hl=en_US&authkey=CMjR3ssG#gid=0
M6740 Al-Shibi Al-Qurashi turned out to be L342.2+ and L657+ The first confirmed L657+ outside India.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-Arabia/default.aspx?section=ysnp
New on ISOGG R1a1a1L1a
http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html
J1c3d is a strong candidate as the genetic signature of the Hashemites.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Qurayishj1c3d/default.aspx?section=yresults
No, they are L859. Proven now.
216619 K Khan Qureshi, c. 1830 - 1900 L657+
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/india/default.aspx?section=ysnp
If you read the report, it was only for sunni syed's. So it will be interesting if a similar report can be done for shia syed's in south asia.
I don't expect Shia Syeds to be any different, but it would be nice if some of them participated in Harappa Ancestry Project.
Northern India's Shia, including Sayyids are 28% haplogroup J with 11% J1
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/10/middle-eastern-and-sub-saharan-lineages.html
I read the study in detail and in opinion it is a flawed study in many aspects. Firstly it took into account 56 men. It is laughable to be attempting to find a conclusion from a sample such small. In fact it can easily give an opposite conclusion form the truth. The study wanted to verify if the Syeds were having common ancestry simply by comparing if the genetic diversity in a group is lower than a selected another group that is equally small. This is illogical as DNA diversity at the molecular level can be influenced over several generations by a large variety of factors and cannot prove or disprove anything. There is also a high chance of selection bias. I think the study is an attempt in the right direction but is a piece of scientific junk
Salim would you like to share your credentials, so we can understand the basis of your criticism? I get the feeling you do not understand the methodology, when you said, "DNA diversity at the molecular level can be influenced over several generations by a large variety of factors and connot prove or disprove anything." What do you mean by that statement? Are you questioning the ability to identify patralineal ancestry using Y DNA analysis? In my experience, it seems the results are quite accurate. I recommend that you read the Journey of Man by Spencer Wells and Director of the National Geographic Genographic Project also, Inside the National Genographic Project.
I am a Syed. My complexion is very fair and my father is much fairer. I have golden eyes and had a very slight touch of blondness in my hair wen i was a kid. My dad has green eyes and my grandmother had blue eyes. I am about 5'7" and so is my father. But my uncles are abt 5'10" to 6' . I am from Hyderabad but my grandparents are from Dilawarpur,Andhra Pradesh..,can u trace my ancestory? Plz..
Zaid, if you are interested in finding out whether you are a Sayyid or not, I would recommend that you get yourself tested at one of the several laboratories that analyze Y DNA to see if you belong to haplogroup J. If you do then find out if you belong to J1c3d or J2a4 since these subclades are frequently found among the Quraish in Saudi Arabia and Sayyids of Iran. Here is a lab that is commonly used in the USA and tests for about $34:
http://www.familytreedna.com/
Unfortunately, height, eye color and hair does not mean much. By the way, very few Arabs in Saudi Arabia have blonde hair and blue eyes. In addition, neither Ali nor the prophet p were known to have blonde hair and blue eyes, so I am not sure what that would prove. Good luck.
Hi Sayyid,
What haplogroup are you? Do you belong to J. Are you a Sayyid from India? What Imam to you trace your descent from?
Hi Zaidi,
My paternal ancestry is thru a Naqvi line from a Shia Muslim community in Northern India. Approximately, 29% of Shia of Northern India belong to haplogroup J1 and J2, which is kind of uncommon for native populations in India.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/12/y-chromosomes-of-uttar-pradesh-north.html
To answer your question, yes I belong to haplogroup J. Here is a link to results of a study on Shia Muslim community of Northern India:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/10/middle-eastern-and-sub-saharan-lineages.html
regards,
Sayyid,
The significant think about J1c3d is that its found among descendants of Adnani Arabs, who trace their ancestry all the way to Adnan and Ishmael and is also found in high frequencies among Jew and and people with the Cohen Modal Haplotype-CMH which both show a common link of both peoples to Abraham- Ibrahim. To answer my question do the vast amounts of the Sayyids in the South Asian Sub-Continent n belong to J1c3d? So if you don't have J1 does that mean you don't have any authentic link to Sayyid (Syed) ancestry?
If Sayyids claim to be descended from the line of the Twelve Imam's which goes all the way to the Prophet Muhammad? There should be some Modal Haplotype found among the Sayyids like the Cohen Modal Haplotype. But sadly there have been no effort or credible work done on the Sayyids (Syed) and research has not been that consistent and not a fair overall representation of the Sayyids has been achieved. I hope some credible research can be done on Sayyids on all origins such as Iranian, Arab and South Asian in the near future.
Sayyid,
Do you belong to the J1c3d Haplogroup?
Jaz, About 45% of Cohens belong to J1c3d and 15% belong to J2a4.
The DNA studies suggest that both these populations had recent common ancestors who lived approximately at the same time in the days of Abraham p. So it is believed that these two are signatures of the two founders of the Israelite tribe. However, it is not possible to determine which one is Abraham p and which one is perhaps prophet Nuh's son, Malik e Sadik aka Shem in Bible who was said to be present with prophet Abraham p and who blessed prophet Abraham p.
The strange coincidence is that it is these same two haplogroups that we also find among the Quraish of Mecca, in approximately the same ratio, suggesting that these people (Cohens and Quraish) are very closely related. In fact, there isn't a non Jewish population in the world that is more closely related to Cohens than Quraish, which is a very significant discovery. So, although science isn't able to tell us which one of these two belonged to the prophet p, we have learned to identify who among us is probably not and also confirm that Jews and Quraish are most closely related.
No, Quraish are L859. Proven now through FG sequencing, it will weed out the fake claims.
One cannot be L869 without being +L862 (J1c3d). So who knows what you are talking about?
One cannot be L859 without being A00 first either.
You should try to understand how a tree works. In the case of A00, so far only 12 human specimens have this direct A00 ancestry, they are all from Cameroon/ Nigeria region. So, very tiny portion of Africans actually have this direct paternal line ancestry. So, we do not get to call ourselves the descendant of A00. However, Y Chromosomal Adam is certainly a direct-line ancestor of J so you can call yourself his descendant. Then, there was BT, CT and CF. Most Africans share BT. Many share CT thru his descendant DE. We are descendants of CF. So we don’t get to call ourselves DE. CF had descendants F and C. Those who are Fs are not Cs. F had descendant IJK, H, G and F1-F4. Those who are IJK are not H & G. IJK had descendants IJ and K. Those who are K are not IJ and they are not H, G and F1-F4. Then IJ had descendants I & J. Those who are I are not J. Then J had descendants J1, J2 & J*. If you are J1 then you don’t call yourself J2 or J*. So using the above principle, you do get to call yourself + for J, IJ, IJK, F, CF, CT, BT & Y Chromosomal Adam. You don’t get to call yourself + for K, C, H, G, F1-4 etc and their subclades. This is how a tree works.
Under the same principle, the Quraish situation is very different than yours. You are + for P58* (J1c3). However, you are - for J1c3d (L862). You are also - for PF4843. Also - for YSC 235. Also - for YSC 234, the Cohen terminal SNP. In other words, this is the last SNP shared by all Cohanim. This doesn’t mean that Cohanim don’t have any SNPs after YSC 234. They do but they do not share them with all other Cohanim. For example, one Cohen family went to Sephard and another went to Ashkenaz. Then, these Separdim and Ashkenazi Cohenim may develop other sets of SNPs, but the Ashkenazi will not share them with Sephardi and vice versa. So these are not terminal SNPs. In the case of the Quraish, they are just like the Cohanim, + for all the SNPs including YSC 235, the terminal Cohanim SNP, that every Cohen shares with every other J1c3d Cohen.
How old is the Cohen terminal SNP, YSC 234?
So, far the estimates are between 3.5 to 4k.
And the Arab J1c3d in the Quraysh has the Cohen terminal SNP, was it YSC 235 or 234?
So this would mean the Arab branch of J1c3d split off from the Jewish/Hebrew branch around 3.5-4kya?
The terminal SNP is YSC 234. I noticed I made a mistake and said 235 in one of the sentences. Sorry.
>>So this would mean the Arab branch of J1c3d split off from the Jewish/Hebrew branch around 3.5-4kya?<<
It split off sometime between 1750 BC and 800 CE .
However, it is more complicated than that
Sayyis, you can't be taught anything as you refused to learn. Yours is a hopeless case. I know it very well how the tree works and you are calling the different branches to be the same branch every time that I try to explain it to you. Your mind is made up, you just want to have it your way and that translates into having an agenda. Go argue these points with L859, tell them that L862 and L859 are the same branches of the tree.
It is complicated by the fact that If Quraysh J1 had branched off in the days of Ishmael/ Kananah and lived continuously around Mecca then it would have had other J1c3d markers, ancestral to L859 not just L859 as a terminal SNP. For example, consider the Cohanim clan, they have a terminal SNP that is 3,500 years old. This is what one would expect from a clan that was 3,000 years old.
The young terminal SNP of the J1 Quraysh suggests that their common paternal ancestor was an individual who joined the Quraysh clan, at best, a few hundred years before the prophet was born. The J1 Quraysh are not members of a Quraysh clan that formed 3,000 years ago or 4,000 years ago by Abrahamites who have been living continuously with their family members around the Kabba in Mecca. This is not what they are.
These J1 Quraysh are descendants of a man who was very closely related to the children of Aaron (the Jewish Cohanim). So much so that he shared their terminal SNP. To understand the significance, we have to understand that Abraham and Ishmael etc were before the Israelites went into Egyptian captivity. In contrast, the Aaronites were a small Israelite clan that formed after the Egyptian captivity. This Aaronites remained together for several hundred years after the captivity, so it had plenty of time to develop their own personal terminal SNP that separated and differentiated them from the Ishmaelites. However, no such differentiating SNP has so far been found between Quraish and the Cohanim.
I'm not sure I get it. What is the young terminal SNP of the J1 Quraysh?
The Quraysh terminal SNP is L859. It is a sublcade of the Cohanim subclade YSC234.
The age of L859 is about 1.25k +/- 400 yrs, so its not an old SNP. This is the common ancestor of all J1 Quraysh.
Ah, I see. But why would L859 had to have developed in a Quraysh ancestor outside of Arabia? Couldn't the line have split off 3.5-4kya and then it arose in the descendants of that line in Arabia?
L859 didn’t have to develop outside Arabia, but it did develop outside Quraysh.
The only way that all the J1 men of Quraysh could become descendants of one man who lived 1,500 years ago, was if is there were no other J1 men among the Quraysh before this one man joined the clan. In other words, the original Quraysh men before the prophet were negative for J1. However, the Quraysh tribe claims it was founded by Kananah 3k ybp and it has existed continuously (around Mecca / Kabba) since that time. Assuming this were true, J1 Quraysh population would have been (–) L859 until about 1,500 years ago. Then 1,500 years ago, one man in the entire population of Quraysh would become +L859, the rest were still (–) L859. By the rest I mean the entire clan including his brothers, paternal cousins and everyone else in the world was negative for L859 at that time. Even if this one man L859 was very successful at breeding, Quraysh would be half and half, i.e. half + and half – for L859. It could never be that the entire population would be L859 without anyone trace of the other family members. So, one has to conclude that J1c3d was not a part of the original Quraysh population. There is just one J1 man who was positive for L859 who joined them 1,500 years ago and became supremely successful at dominating this non J1c3 tribe.
Ah, but are all Quraysh J1c3d L859+ or is it just Hashemites? Perhaps just the Banu Hashem were J1c3d L859+? After Islam there was definitely the sort of selection pressure due to political events whereby everyone wanted to try and marry into that specific branch.
It is not just Hashemite or Sayyids. It is all across the Quraish, even other Arabs of Arabia:
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/885/sharif.png
Although, it is not a terminal SNP for the other Arabs
For example look at the Saudi Group at FTDNA
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/SaudiArabia/default.aspx?section=results
I am checking some of the info and I think I might be wrong. You might be right. I took paul gills word for it, L859 might not be the terminal SNP of Quraish.
Here is confirmation L859 is not terminal SNP of Quraysh. I cant believe I let Paul Gill dupe me into believing it was, sorry to you and everyone else reading.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Arab%20Tribes/default.aspx?section=yresults
What does that mean about your earlier explanation? That was a really well worded one, can you correct it so I can save it? (Regarding when the line split off and all that)
What a nonsense. L859 line is declaring them alone being the true Quraish. Why don't you take it up with them?
>>The significant think about J1c3d is that its found among descendants of Adnani Arabs, who trace their ancestry all the way to Adnan and Ishmael and is also found in high frequencies among Jew and and people with the Cohen Modal Haplotype-CMH which both show a common link of both peoples to Abraham- Ibrahim.<> So if you don't have J1 does that mean you don't have any authentic link to Sayyid (Syed) ancestry?<<
Sure, if that is what geneticists decide, but they haven't decided because of 1 and 2.
1. There is also a CMH in haplogroup J2. because there are both J1 and J2 Cohenim.
2. There are dating issues with J1 using germ line methodologies.
Here you can read about the two modal haplotypes among Cohanim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron
Specifically read what the discoverer of CMH says:
Dr. Karl Skorecki,[2] the founder of CMH, reported during a Conference for Kohanim in Jerusalem 2007,[23] that he and his research team have discovered not one but two Cohen Modal Haplotypes, which he called J1 and J2. “Pinchas the zealot mentioned in the Bible may be the origin of J2[24]†said Skorecki.
Besides that do you belong to any of the two haplogroups J1c3d or J2a4 or any other? Have you done your testing through the Genographic Project or Family Tree DNA ? What haplogroups are most frequent among the the Indian Shia Sayyids and will be nice if you could also let me know of the sources and reports, if there are any?
Quraysh are L859
https://my.familytreedna.com/group-join.aspx?group=BaniHashimL859
Cohens are L862
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/J-M267/default.aspx?section=yresults
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Cohen/default.aspx?section=yresults
http://genogenea.com/files/j1-phylogenetic-tree.pdf
My understanding is that Abraham was J1
And I an J1-Z1853* Great great great..........................Grandfather of Noah.
>>What haplogroups are most frequent among the the Indian Shia Sayyids<>do you belong to any of the two haplogroups J1c3d or J2a4<>if you could also let me know of the sources and reports, if there are any?<<
There is a study on Shia Sayyids of Iran:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS1022795409080110
According to this research, the two most common haplotype values for 50 Sayyids from Iran on the following seven markers were:
dys 393=12,13;
dys 390=23,24;
dys 394=14,15;
dys385a=13,12;
dys 385b=15,13/17;
dys 392=11;
dys 389-2=29,30
So, if you decide to get the testing done you can check to see if you match them.
There isn't a study on the Shia Sayyids of India, just the Shia of Northern India, that I shared above. Here it is again:
Click on the figure to enlarge.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/10/middle-eastern-and-sub-saharan-lineages.html
You can see 14% of Shia are J2a, 11% are J1 and 5% are J2 but not J2a.
Finally yes I used FTDNA and was positive.
Yes you used, FTDNA. But what haplogroup did you end up with?
If you don't mind, I would rather not make this discussion about my results.
I was planning to have mine tested by FTDNA or the Genographic Project. But I am not quite sure what will come up in my results. I have done some research here and elsewhere on this. Main thing the tests are also a bit expensive. So may take some time and save up and do it later.
I am a Zaidi Syed from my fathers side. My father's from a place called Azamgargh but migrated to Canada in late 70's, and his family are originally from Muzaffarnagar which are both In Northern India and all I know about my background out of India is that they migrated from a town called Wasit, which is in Iraq in the 14th Century. If I do any of this testing is there anything I should expect in my paternal ancestry results? Like any haplogroup I should expect? Me, myself I have a mixed ancestry my Mother was born in Canada and her parents are from Sicily, which is in Italy. I am still very new to genealogy testing and am learning a lot about genetics. I also am very interested in learning more about my background and heritage as well. So I think geneology testing can help me even further in researching my background.
Hi Zaidi, Your mom's line has no impact on your Y DNA results. The Y DNA markers represent your dad's line. So, your Y signature is your dad's signature and the signature of your paternal cousins.
I am afraid I haven't heard of anyone from your dad's community being tested. so, there is about a 30% probability you belong to haplogroup J. I think it was common for non Arab converts to adopt southern arab family names because non Arab converts had to pay jizya. So, rulers may have bestowed these southern Arab family names as a favor to release them from the obligation of paying taxes.
"non Arab converts to adopt southern arab family names because non Arab converts had to pay jizya" That could be a minor possibility and cannot be ruled out. My dad's family surnames derives from Zayd ibn Ali who is one of the son of Imam Zayn al Abideen who is the the grandson of Imam Husain and all people with last name Zaidi in India are "Sayyids" and trace their ancestry to Wasit in Iraq. Zaidi is also a common last name among Sayyids who live in Iraq. I may as well take a test at Genographic Project. I will order a kit. Will expect results in around 6 weeks or so. I am not that worried if Sayyid ancestry doesn't appear in in the results, I just want to learn and find more about my identity.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaidi_(surname)
The Quraish Tribe is J1-L859 and Cohen Is J1-L862.
Do you have any source for that?
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Qurayishj1c3d/default.aspx?section=yresults
http://www.qur.co/vb/forum/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AB-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AC-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AC-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%A9/89-%D8%AA%D8%A3%D8%AE%D8%B1-%D8%B8%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D8%A9-%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%B5-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%85%D9%8A-%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%84-%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%84
Just google 'quraish are L859' and you will have tons of information and just a few days back it been proven by Full Genome Sequencing that Quraish tribe is L859 and Golden tribe is not.
This is so wrong, it isn't funny. Most of the Quraysh are FGC 11+. Some are L859. You need to stop misleading everyone.
Take it up with the L859 group the direct descendants of Quraish ancestors.
Paul, One cannot be positive for J1- L859 without first being positive for J1-L862. In other words Quraish are a sub-clade of the Cohanim J1-862.
Here you can see that L147.1= L858= L862
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)
Here you can see that L859 is downstream of L147.1=L858 = L862
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Qurayishj1c3d/default.aspx?section=yresults
http://www.qur.co/vb/forum/
http://www.qur.co/vb/forum/
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Qurayishj1c3d/default.aspx?section=yresults
http://www.qur.co/vb/forum/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%AB-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AC-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A6%D8%AC-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%A9/89-%D8%AA%D8%A3%D8%AE%D8%B1-%D8%B8%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D8%A9-%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%B5-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%B4%D9%85%D9%8A-%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AC%D8%A8%D9%84-%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%84
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Qurayishj1c3d/default.aspx?section=yresults
Are you trying to say that quraish were there at Adam's time?
I am also J1-Z1853* but my ancestors' line split off of other J1P58s around 8000ybp.
Is that about 4,000 years before the common ancestor of the Cohens and Quraish was born?
Yes, my line split 4000 yrs before Abraham. Cohen L862 6000ybp, L858 4500ybp, Quraish L859 1500 Ybp.
I have actually seen PF4843 estimated at 4k and L858 at 3.5k. & L859 at 1.2k ybp
Paul, are you Sayyid from India?
I am a Jatt, a Scythian Massagetae from Punjab, India and my Z1853* predates any Sayyid or Quraish which are very late developments in comparison to Z1853* mutation. I have 100% connection to Khabur River in the area of origin of J1P58* mutation and non to Arabs as for as I could see so for.
Wow, your results are quite interesting. Your results, must be rare of course among Jatts and as well as in all of India. I wonder how your ancestors came and ended up in India. This is quite remarkable.Well I am still waiting for Genographic Geno 2.0 kit to come in few weeks. Look forwarding to see my results from that and will post here soon as I get them.
Quite the opposite there are tens of thousands of Z1853* Jatts in India. Khybar Pass may have been named as such by my ancestors. Jatts are mainly R1a1 but they have always been a confederation of related tribes so other lineages been always a part of them but to a lesser extent though.
My ancestors either were the Gutians who ruled Mesopotamia around 4500 BC, Conan the warrior story a part of Scythians in Ukraine area, or they been mercenaries with Dehae the Dahya Jatt tribe who ruled Persia and beyond as Parthians. Could have been Samaratians too as they seem to have more of the J1s among them.
Paul, I ran your GEDmatch kit through the Eurogenes calculators and in line with your theory about your paternal lineage's long history in the region, your European component does break down into a West-heavy admixture. My father is this way as well and he's J2b2* (J-M241) and has some strange North Indian non-Punjabi affinity (like to Nepal) as well.
So far it does seem to me that Brahmins and Jatts (as well as other South Asians) from really old tribal lineages have a West European-heavy admixture whereas other Jatts have Northeast European-heavy admixture. The West European usually is measured in 3 components, North Sea (Germanic), Atlantic (pre-Germanic) and Basque (probably the oldest). If none of these are in the calculator, this will start to bleed into Sardinian/Mediterranean numbers (thus the increased Mediterranean numbers for some people in HAP which has no West Euro component).
All the Gills I've heard of on 23andMe do not have R1a. There's J1 (you), J2b2 (me), a Shergill with J2a1j and three L1c-M357 people.
Gills are mainly from Gilan area around Caspian Sea, so are Bloach and they have lots of L. When lot many Gills get tested you will find that they are mostly R1a1. I am also on 23andMe.
I meant Saramatians nor Samaratians.
I've heard the Sea of Gilan theory before and I'm not entirely convinced. Those theories rely almost entirely on etymology, unless there's some other kind of evidence solidifying that link?
The only thing definite is your Ydna lineage, other information may or may not be true.
Hi,
I participated in Geno 2.0 and I recently got my results back few weeks. I belong to J1c3d and I am also a Syed from India. J1c3d is the authentic Quraish and Cohanim lineage. Plus its not possible for one person who either descends to belong to J1, J2 or E1b1b1a. Cause the origins of these haplogroups date from 10000 year ago and descend from 3 different men and Abraham- Ibrahim only lived at least 4000 years ago. So obviously there must be only one haplogroup belonging to Abraham- Ibrahim, not multiple. There most obvious one belonging to Abraham would be J1c3d. Likely cause Adnani Arabs and their descendants like Hashemites and Sayyids have high frequencies of J1c3d and also Cohanim predominantly belong to J1c3d. So interstingly there is a similarity with both peoples, claiming to be descendant from one person- Arbaram and so their common haplogorup of course must be J1c3d. The reason for multiple haplogroups like J2 and E1b1b1a in Jews and people who claim to be of Sayyid descent could be due to high male intermarriage and later absorption into the populations in the past, through many hundreds and thousands of years.
What is your terminal snp at Geno 2.0?
Also Spencer Wells, Director of National Geographic's Genographic Project explains about J1c3d in a video. At Cornell university there was Genographic Genetic Ancestry Project. Spencer Wells in the Ancestry Results reveal talk, he talk about one particular results one student called Dan Klein.
"Dan Klein who is an Ashkenazi Jew is part of a Middle Eastern genetic lineage, known as J1c3d, that is common among Jewish as well as Adnani Arab tribes. This genetic lineage is also shared by Abraham, the founder of Judaism, along with his oldest son Ishmael, generally considered by the Koran to be the founder of the Arab tribes"
It is pretty interesting, I suggest you start watching from 27:44 and J1c3d topic finishes 30:54. Spencer Wells, explains the topic really well and also talks about the Adnani Arabs and a little about Prophet Muhammad and the Jews and their link of both peoples to Abraham and J1c3d and how genetically common they are.
Here is the link to the vid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIMO1tB3FGs
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.ca/2013/03/on-plausible-ages-of-human-y-dna.html
http://uanews.org/story/human-y-chromosome-much-older-than-previously-thought
@Hussain Abedi,
Quraish are L859 not L862 which is mainly Cohen subclad and may have nothing to do with Abraham but in fact could be Conan(cohen) tribe subclad who became Jews later on. You do know that Abraham did not belong to the Conan Tribe? L862 is about 6000yrs old while L859 is only about 1500yrs old.
@Hussain Abedi,
Would you be willing to share your results for the "Who Am I?" of the test? Thank you in advance.
@HRP0282,
I know your question is for Hussain Abedi, if you like you can read my story under Z1853 at Geno. 2.0. What subclad are you under?
@HRP0282,
My "Who Am I", results came up as 3% North East Asian, 5% Northern European, 2% South East Asian, 42% South West Asian and 47% Mediterranean. My preference population was Iranian. Which makes sense cause my paternal side of my family was originally from Nishapur in Iran and migrated to India to come to serve the princely state of Awadh in the 17th Century and they married local women.
If they married local women then where is the South Asian component?
What South Asian component?
Sorry, I thought you were using Gedmatch numbers while it is actually from Geno 2.0.
Very interesting results Hussein Abedi! Are you going to send your data to Zack? Or have you already done so?
Once again age of a SNP is not as precise as you guys are making it sound. You are confusing people who are trying to understand the science with your own personal conclusions. For example, the evolutionary method may dates you at 8,000 years, but the germ line will date you at around 8,000 / 3 or approximately at 2,666 years. So, if you have a personal reason to not be associated with the 8,000 year date that is your personal choice, but don't make it sound like it is the only way science dates these things.
Similarly, you cannot assume that because there are more J1c3d (P58s) among the Cohanim and Quraish that science suggests that this must the descendants of Abraham. There is a problem with the J1c3d Cohanim because the common ancestor of this group lived just 700 -1,300 ago according to the germ line method of dating. So, it would be impossible for this group to be the descendant of Abraham who lived 4,000 years ago, if germ line is right. So, it is important to separate your personal hope that J1c3d is Abraham because your personal family is J1c3d or that J2a4 is Abraham because your family is J2a4.
There are some people with an agenda to relate P58 to Judaism and they say it is 6000yrs old while other scientist say it actually is 12000 years old.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305145821.htm
I have no agenda. I am not trying to relate myself to any important person or lineage, they all mean nothing to me. I am only trying to understand my roots whatever they may come out to be in the end. Only my lineage is most important to me, because I am in this world today because of my ancestors and not because of some other historical figure no matter how important it may appear to other.
You probably have the agenda to disprove suggestion that your ancestor was affiliated with the Arab / Muslim expansion into India from Central Asia and Iran. Why else would you constantly put down the germ-line method of dating MRCA?
Even if I agree with you, let us assume that germline date for Z1853 Is 8000/3=2667 true. That will make me of Abraham's lineage but not that of Quraish because Quraish lineage is only (1500/3=500) 500 years old according to germline theory.
So for as agenda is concerned, 1, my Z1853 is directly related to Khabur Rivers as we still use this name even today and these are the tributaries of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers and are in the area of the P58 mutation. 2, we never know ourselves as anyone else other than Jatts. 3, we have no direct or indirect affiliation ever known to us with Judaism or Islam. 4, Central Asian Muslims that invaded India were not J1 or Arabians. Fifth, we were already in India before these invasions.
And again if my lineage in future is proven to be from Ethiopia or Congo, I will have no problem accepting it. I have no agenda whatsoever, prove me wrong and I will accept your conclusions.
>>Even if I agree with you, let us assume that germline date for Z1853 Is 8000/3=2667 true. That will make me of Abraham's lineage but not that of Quraish because Quraish lineage is only (1500/3=500) 500 years old according to germline theory.<<
1,500 doesn't get Quraish to Abraham either. So, that is not your concern. Secondly, you don't know how the 1500 was reached. Was it, evolutionary, germline or something else. Do you know?
Check with the so called Quraish Tribe please. They may buy into your theories. Links for Quraish Tribe were given on this page previously for your convenience.
>> let us assume that germline date for Z1853 Is 8000/3=2667 true.<<
Then you would be around the time Northern Kingdom of Israel was destroyed. Those people were known to settle around Khabur. You could be a descendant of them. However, this is only a guess since we don't know if it is 2667 or 8,000. So we wait and let scientists do their thing to narrow down if they can. There is no point in insisting it is one number or the other. Sure we can speculate.
>>Check with the so called Quraish Tribe please.<<
How would they know if it was evolutionary or germline? It is scientists not the Quraish tribe that makes these decisions.
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.ca/2013/03/on-plausible-ages-of-human-y-dna.html
http://uanews.org/story/human-y-chromosome-much-older-than-previously-thought
>>Quraish are L859 not L862 <<
Once again, this is incorrect. One cannot be L869+ without being L862+. I provided links that shows L859 is downstream of L862.
@Sayyid,
It is clear that you do not understand much about Ydna lineage. The common ancestor of L862 and the L859 lineage was the same person. Children of one of his son are still L862 and of the other are now L859. In other words L862 and L859 had a common great great great............................grandfather 6000 years before present. In other words they were related only around 6000ybp.
Paul, I have provided links. The info is there. People can read them and come to their own rational conclusions. They can figure out who does and doesn't understand Y DNA for themselves.
Sayyid, I have no time to waste on such things, let the scientists sort it out first. Latest news as I know are that the age is actually greater than once believed to be.
Once again you appear to lack an understanding of the discovery. The discovery of A00 SNP in no way suggests that there is a problem with the aging system. All it suggests is that scientists discovered a group of humans whose oldest SNP is different than everyone else. It doesn't change the dating for the rest of us. Just the common date between the new group and the rest of us falls back to 320,000 years.
Sayyid, why don't you question the judgment of those who insist to differ with you on the links that I gave you?
I haven't seen any scientist who does. Why don't you write a scientific paper that disagrees so I can post a papers that disagrees with you?
Try, you may find tons of them. I thought you were smart enough to write one, and if you do, please do use 'Divide by 3' as its title.
Chris Morley updates the Y-tree regularly
From his most recent tree,
http://ytree.morleydna.com/ExperimentalGenoPhylogeny20131108.pdf
we see:
J1a2b … L862 …
J1a2b2 … L859 …
Though interestingly also:
I2a1b3a … L862 … (No nearby negative results, but negative results downstream of J1a2b. Recurrent?)
I2a1b3a … L859…(No nearby negative results, but negative results downstream of J1a2b. Recurrent?)…
Are the above recurrent? Likely, but we would have to await complete scans to see if there a common node we are missing.
Complete scans are showing interesting results such as a potential MP-L405 node in a Papuan sample HGDP00542 making all of R and Q SE Asian derived as cousin lines M and S are present in SE Asia.
Another is the discovery of an X-NO node in South Asia in an Andhra sample HG03742 (perhaps a very early migrant from SE Asia along with P or an indication of even more remote South Asian origin of SE Asians).
More relevant to the I, J discussion is the node GHIJK-F1329/M3658 found in a Kinh sample HG02040 from Vietnam and downstream from that HIJK-M578 in a French sample HGDP00528.
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/11/22/000802.DC2/000802-3.pdf
So L862 and L859 are basically useless?
What is your say on Sayyid's germ line theory of dating P58?
My theory is that there are two ways of dating it, so there is a range from evolutionary to germ line. When scientists come to a decision they will let us know. Your theory is that germ line is wrong that evolutionary is correct.
As long as it is a closed population set over a long period (thousands of years), I prefer evolutionary.
STR variations tend to return to their modal state which results in an accumulation of variation at a lower rate than predicted from corresponding father-son pedigree rates.
Anyway, with full genome scans and a more reliable SNP clock, this debate should soon be resolved.
I think with full genome sequencing of family members of people where great grandfathers are still alive, it can be resolved immediately.
^Parasar, is this a personal opinion or is there a paper on this topic? Coz I have read varying opinions on the subject. thanks.
Parasar, am I right that L859 is downstream of L862. So, one cannot be positive L859 without being positive for L862 too? thanks.
Sayyid, you are right, one can't be L859 unless one is also L862. But the trouble is that those who are L862 were related to those who are L859 today only around 6000ybp. L862 > Z2324 > YSC235 > YSC234 > YSC80 > L858 > L859. I hope that you understand it. Be proud of your lineage no matter what.
Paul, I am glad you are seeing your mistakes. I can help you understand the time line issue too, if you want.
Sayyid, I am not seeing my mistakes but pointing at yours. Do you not see the difference between 7000yrs and 1500yrs?
Are you perhaps confusing the MRCA age of your SNP z1853 and L862 with the MRCA of L858 (Cohen) and L859 (Quraish)?
Once again, I agree 100%
>>I am not seeing my mistakes<<
@Parasar, I don't know what you mean? Didn't you say, "Quraish are L859 not L862"
I have tried explaining that one cannot be L859+ without being L862+, so Quraish are both L859 & L862 + and not just L859+ as you have been suggesting. Then you seem to acknowledge your mistake. However, now you are saying you are not seeing your mistakes. I am having trouble understanding what you are saying.
correction: Paul Gill not Parasar.
>>Children of one of his son are still L862 and of the other are now L859<<
@Paul Gill, did you not make this statement above?
Sayyid, I don't really understand why it is so difficult for you to understand the difference between Z1853 which is older than L862 and L859 which is youngest among them. At Z1853 my branch split off of other J1s 8000ybp and then came another branch L862 6000ybp which is not my branch. As I am from Z1853 branch, with Full Genome I may have 80 odd private SNPs that you won't find in L862 branch. and again the L862 branch will probabaly have 60 odd private SNPs which you won't find in L859 branch which again probably have 15 private snps that you won't find in other branches. Once a line spilts off, it becomes a different lineage. I don't think Quraish tribe name was used at Z1853 or L862 level. It is much younger and is the name of L859 individuals' tribe only. All L859 are also Z1853 and L862. Z1853 are neither L862 nor L859. L862 are Z1853 but are not L859. Hope it helps.
First, I said, “About 45% of Cohens belong to J1c3d (L862) and 15% belong to J2a4. … The strange coincidence is that it is these same two haplogroups that we also find among the Quraish of Mecca, in approximately the same ratio, suggesting that these people (Cohens and Quraish) are very closely related.â€
You responded, “No, Quraish are L859.â€
You said, “The Quraish Tribe is J1-L859 and Cohen Is J1-L862. … “Quraish are L859 not L862 which is mainly Cohen subclade and may have nothing to do with Abraham …L862 is about 6000 yrs old while L859 is only about 1500 yrs old.â€
To which I said, “One cannot be L859+ without being L862+â€.
I repeated, “Paul, One cannot be positive for J1- L859 without first being positive for J1-L862.â€
To which you said, “It is clear that you do not understand much about Ydna lineage….Children of one of his son are still L862 and of the other are now L859.â€
But now you are saying, “Sayyid, you are right, one can't be L859 unless one is also L862â€. Well, if you knew this all along, then why did you butt into my conversation when I said Quraish were L862 (J1c3d)?
Paul, if you knew Quraish was L862+, why did you say,
"Quraish are L859 not L862 "?
Why did you butt into my conversation and suggest I was wrong when I said Quraish were J1c3d?
Thanks
Mine, Quraish and Cohen common ancestors 8000ybp. Cohen and Quraish common ancestors 6000ybp. Al Hashemi lineage(branch) L859 started around1500ybp.
Quraish and Cohen MRCA is YSC 234. It's age is between 3.5 to 4k ybp or about 1,500 ybp using germ line.
L 858 is considered 3.5k old by conservative estimates and YSC234 is around 4.5k+. Quraish L859 is only 1200 Yrs old by the same estimate so is only 400 years old by your germline theory. Quraish tribe name did not exist at YSC234 level only at L859 level else all Jews were also called Quraish not Cohen. I had given you the links previously of the real Quraish line and I think you should debate these issue of who is Quraish and who is not Quraish with them not with me, as I have nothing to do with Quraish in any way shape or form.
>>Quraish L859 is only 1200 Yrs old by the same estimate so is only 400 years old by your germline theory.<<
You are misrepresenting what I said about germ line. I said that germline is generally about a third of evolutionary method. Then, I said there is a range. A range doesn't mean germline is right or evolutionary method is right. It means the number is probably in the middle somewhere.
The conservative values are coming down all the time i.e. closer to germ line values.
>>Don't you think the scientists who say that P58 is 12000 years old are not aware of germ line theory?<<
The 12,000 figure was based on evolutionary method. The germ line was a third or 4,000 years. Today scientists date P58 at 4.9k ybp. Do you see how evolutionary method has corrected closer to germ line? This doesn't mean we will divide 4.9 by 3 to get a new germ line number.
correction: Today scientists date P58 at 6k ybp. So we don't divide 6 by 3 to get a new germline figure.
Age is increasing with new findings, not decreasing. It were you who divided 8000 by 3 not me.
Get your FG done and compare it with the other L859 FG results and you will have your answer. There are at least two other ways to know the SNP mutation rate. Testing for the FG of the old remains found at various sites. or FG of the males of families where 4 or 5 generations are still alive. With anyone of this done you can put an end to this debate.
Timeline used by you is used by people who are trying to relate P58 to Judaism. And in others' opinion is flawed due to bias.
Sayyid, as I said before, get in touch with the administrators of L859 project and debate this point with them.
I have nothing to do with L862 or L859 because I am negative for both.
Do you know when the first started using Quraish as a Tribe name? It was not at Z1853 level, else we would have been known as Quraish. It was not at L862 level otherwise they be called Quraish not Cohen today. And to my knowledge it was only used at L859 lineage and they call themselves as the only true Quraish that there are. So please go and debate this point with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L147.1#J-L147.1
"Hammer 2009 disagreed, at least concerning the Cohen modal haplotype. ... They also said that by using more markers and a more restrictive definition, the estimated age of the Cohanim lineage is lower than the estimates of Tofanelli 2009, and it is consistent with a common ancestor at the approximate time of founding of the priesthood which is the source of Cohen surnames."
Here I should point out that Hammer is still using the evolutionary method of dating the MRCA. When scientists such as Anatole Klyosov used germ line it was further lowered by a factor of 3.
http://uanews.org/story/human-y-chromosome-much-older-than-previously-thought
They are using the same system of dating the y chromosome as they did before. The article is saying they have discovered a new y chromosome in about 11 people of the Mbo of Cameroon that is 320,000 years old. The system to date it is the same as before and that system has not changed.
Why do you think other scientists haven't agreed to the germ line theory so for even when it is there for so long?
I don't know any scientist who disagrees with germ line theory. Why don't you post a link to the paper which discredits germ line?
Don't you think the scientists who say that P58 is 12000 years old are not aware of germ line theory? Or they ignore it because they are too dumb to understand it. And again all your links have only dated information, may be scientists missed it because they were not in this world yet. As I said before I could not care less who the historical figures were, I have no agenda here.
Don't you think they could write a paper on it if that were the case? I don't have a PhD in reading tea leaves. If you have one then print your thoughts and share them. In the meantime, I am trying to share where the current science is at.
Not me but it is you who are insisting on it as if you know that theory to be true. I only questioned your approach because if it was the right theory the scientist would have had adopted it by now. Germline theory is more than 100 years old and other link information is from 2009, when we are close to year 2014. You call all that new information?
One thing for sure I know is that the Quraish and the Cohanim cannot come from 2 different lineages, J2 AND J1 these lineages were established by two different men who lived thousands of years ago. And it is notpossible for both groups to descend from Abraham who lived at least 3800 years ago and have descendents who have different haplogroups like J1c3d and J2a4. Remember J2 and J1 are completly different lineages but they do correspond to the same region the middle east. I
Yep, Abraham is either J1 or J2 but not both. However, he probably not a descendant of R, L, C, Q etc.
"Nawab Syed Alam Ali Naqvi, c1500, SirsiSadat,India J2a4" Is this to do with you Sayyid? I found this on FTDNA I found this while browsing through the Y-DNA J Haplogroup Project results. J2a4 could be possibly of Sayyid lineage.
Zaidi, Just because this guy was a Sayyid and J2a4 doesn't mean J2a4 is the true line. He is just one guy. The J2a4 line is significant because it was found among the Iranian Sayyids, Cohanim Jews and Quraish, all of whom claim descent from Abraham. In addition, it dates back to the days of Abraham p. in these populations. So, it has a claim. However, J1 also has a claim because it too exists in the same three populations as well.
So, what I am saying is that reasonable people can probably that Abraham was probably either J1 or J2 but not one of the100 or so other SNPs in the world.
If these people claim to be authentic descendants of Abraham, then why do different haplogroups come up like J2, J1 and
E1b1b1a? Yosef is quite right. There has to be one common haplogroup. Around more then half of Cohanim appeared to be in J1c3d and they were also found to be more closely related then the J2a Cohanim and E1b1b1a Cohanim. I don't whether the same can be said for the descendants of the Quraish. As said by
Hussain Abedi, there could been possibly high male intermarriage and later absorption into the groups in the past, through hundreds and thousands of years and this could have resulted in different haplogroups. And also J1, J2 and E1b1b1a are haplogroups mostly found in Middle Eastern populations, so it makes some sense. In India, J2a also found in high frequencis in mostly upper caste Indians.
Now you are on your way! Good luck
Hi,
I am from Eastern UP, I am a Kazmi Syed. I was wondering whether looks are relevant to genetics or what haplogroup you belong to. Well I look and most of the males in my family look really dark brown and we do look South Indian Dravidian. All I know is that my male side of family came from Middle East at least 700 years ago and female is Indian like as in they are natives and belong to India. Our family does not look a slight touch Middle Eastern like a few other Syeds. I was wondering whether my Middle Eastern male ancestry be shown in my results if I ever do a test, despite my and my family's appearance?
Ali,
When an outside element mixes with the local people of a place, over time the autosomes of the local people gain predominance due to selection pressures, as usually they are more suited to the locality. 700 years is sufficient time to get quite admixed, though there will be some remnants of the non-local element. Your Y line, if Middle-eastern, will still show such an origin as most of Y does not recombine, and this can be confirmed.
Parasar is giving sound advice. I agree with him 100%.
I think the most mixed/arab muslims in south asia would be from places like Sindh and Hyderabad(Deccan). These places have seen a lot of intermarriages between arabs from the arabian peninsula and locals. As for other muslims, from Pakistan/North India, they are more mixed with afghans and central asians, but even among them, it is usually the elite muslims who are mixed, not the majority of people who converted from hinduism
I am Rizvi Syed from India, I felt quite disappointed when I received my results. The results didn't prove any Middle Eastern ancestry. I got placed in haplogroup R1a1. I can't tell whether its a mistake, but I highly doubt it would be a mistake. I am also starting to doubt my Sayyid status. It could have been adopted my family in the past. I told my parents about my results they told me genetic testing is flawed and they claim to be true Sayyids. Well Idk? I am feeling lost...
You don't need that as part of your identity to lead a fulfilling life, including a fulfilling life as a Muslim. Leave your parents to their delusions but now you know better and in not spreading it any further, you are better upholding your religion's ideals (regarding not lying about lineage).
DNA testing sure does let out the truth of your past. There must be many cases like this around the world. Thats why more people should participate in theses tests. They give you credible information about your past and reveal or confirm your identitiy.
@rizvi786
There no such thing as Syeds in India and Pakistan. They are fake Syeds. They are only in the middle east. Thats the obvious one. Your family must of likely adopted the status as Syed. These fake syeds just want to make themselves happy.and claim themselves as some thing they arn't. Dont listen to your parents.there speaking rubbish. Who even cares about having Middle eastern ancestry. There nothing to be proud of being middle eastern all they do is fight and start wars among themselves. Indians have had a great civilisation and better history. I feel for you. But you cant do much. People who claim their sayyids I advise them not do dna testing. Cause when the results they just end up being disappointed. They think too much of themselves. Well you have seemed to have fallen into that trap. Theres better things in life tot think about.
I am a Sri Lankan and my paternal ancestry is Jaffna Tamil. The oral history says our paternal line originated from Kalinga (orissa) in the 12th century.
It seems like I have most matches for being a Seyyid as per Sayyid @ November 26, 2013 at 9:09 pm. My values are after =>
dys 393=12,13; => 12
dys 390=23,24; => 23
dys 394=14,15; => not tested
dys385a=13,12; => 13
dys 385b=15,13/17; => 17
dys 392=11; => 11
dys 389-2=29,30 => 28
Haplogroup J2b2* (not a,b.c.d or e).
You are lucky because all Sayyid are J1-L859 and none are J2.
I am also haplogroup J2b2* but from Punjab. I recommend getting a 37 marker FTDNA Y-STR test (or higher) and joining the J haplogroup project:
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Y-DNA_J
We could use more Indian J2b2*. I am kit # B6225.
If I may ask, why is your ancestry as per oral accounts considered to be from Kalinga? While Kalinga did have maritime connections with Lanka and SE Asia, it was not know to be a Tamil region. Was it by any chance a migration to Kalinga and back during the Chola-Ganga period?
What haplogroup are Iranian Sayyids mostly then??
If I wanted to test for my Sayyid genealogy, should I go with FTDNA or Geno 2.0? Also what is the difference between SNP testing and STR testing? What tests are better to do to confirm Sayyid ancestry and haplogroup??? Please notify me of the similarities and differences between the tests?
I think 5% of Iranian ans Afghanistani J1 are L859.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/J-M267/default.aspx?section=snp-region
Just test for SNP L859 at FTDNA will confirm it if you are a Sayyid or not.
Has any Syed from India or Pakistan got their haplogroup results as J1?
Yes, two individuals in this thread, sayyid and abedi claim that.
But, are they L859?
I recommend you guys to read this interesting article on Y-Chromosomal Materialization of the Biblical Abraham. Not a very long article. Hope you enjoy. http://www.journalacademica.org/Vol2_2JA2012/Daghbouche_68-70(2)2.pdf
Please give any feedback And a Happy New Year to everyone!
Interesting article. Interesting if they could ever do and find a Modal Ahlul Bayt Haplotype and find a comparison with the Cohen Modal Haplotype.
If they are that serious to know, they should dig the graves to find the dna facts about these people, but they won't, because they consider those graves sacred.
If you want to prove your related to Seyyed or related to Quraish you have to have J1c3d* come up in your results. Its the true Abrahamic lineage. Found in the descendants of Abraham for instance Cohanim Jews and Quraish. If you get the usual J2a4 or for instance any other marker its does prove your claim to the Quraish.
If you get the usual J2a4 or for instance any other marker its does not* prove your claim to the Quraish
What is the timeline of Abraham? How old is Quraish tribe name? Quraish claim to be only L859. These are the lower end numbers for the estimated age of J1 mutations. http://genogenea.com/files/j1-phylogenetic-tree.pdf
Jewish theologians estimate around 1900 BC for Abraham. Quraysh can be traced to at least ~2kybp (because they were already established by ~1.3kybp when Islam showed up).
I don't think any Syed Muslims from Indian or either Pakistan have got any results to prove their Syed ancestry. There no reports of any haplogroup J1 in Subcontinent which are extremely common among Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula and as well as Jews. There should be more testing done to prove this. I have look FTDNA and have not found any Syeds in the results which are mainly obvious cause if they have Syed at the start of their name and as well as their surnames and a little to do with their first name whether it of Persian or Arabic origin and so far have spotted none.
There is no J haplogorup in India. Only R, L and H.
There is in some Kerala and Hyderabadi muslims, who were influenced by arabs
I am pretty sure, there were shias in pakistan/north india, who had J1. Alot of Shias in the subcontinent actually came from Iran
I have not seen any results or any proper studies done on Indian Muslims. Have you or anyone you know got J1 in your results? I have also seen a Naqvi Syed's result on FTDNA come up as J2a4, which is a bit strange but its also found the same in Iranian Sadat where there was more J2 then J1 in the results but opposite in Arabs(Iraqi, Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Saudi) who were Syeds(Sharif, Sayyid, Hashemite) there were more J1 then J2. is it possible the J2 men intermarried among the Syeds and claimed the status among their own? I also thing there should be a "South Asian Syed FTDNA Project" which of course include Indian and Pakistani Syeds. Also not many Syeds or even at all participate in these tests. Most Syeds don't even know about these tests or their meaning.
Have you read all the posts above?
Does J1c3d stand for J-Z642?
L862=J1c3d
I know most of the comments above are not about the "Y chromosomes of self-identified Syeds from the Indian subcontinent show evidence of elevated Arab ancestry but not of a recent common patrilineal origin". But I wanted to know if they only tested Sunni Muslims? Is this true?
My understanding is that one is not a Quraish or Syed unless one is J1-L859.
No I was asking about the article above all the comments. I wanted to know whether they only tested Sunni Muslims? So Syed is L859 but in broader sense L862 right?
There is no such thing as an L859 being a L862. Yes, there ancestors 7000 years or so ago were L862. But there were no people known as Quraish or Sayyid then. These are the terms which came into use perhaps 1500 years back only, and if you trace them back to say 500AD, they were all only L859 then.
http://genogenea.com/files/j1-phylogenetic-tree.pdf
So Paul has their been any or at all any Syed who has got L859?
From India?
I am not aware of any in India, if all the Indian Syed families test then we will know who is and who is not really a Syed. To my knowledge they are present in Iran and Afghanistan but are only around 1 to 2% of J1 found In these countries.
Hello everyone. Im indonesian sayyid from hadhramaut. Im the descendant from jafar as sadiq to ahmad bin isa al muhajjir. Than they have son called alawi. From alawi Their descendant become ba'alawi tribe. Im from baalawi tribe or in msa we call it banu alawi. Im from sub family of al jamalullail. My name is faris aljamalullail or indonesianized become faris jamalullail. And all of you south asian syed , if you are really the descendant of ali so you must proof the lineage to ali. All baalawi tribe can trace their lineage to hussein bin ali bin abdul muthalib ra. Thanks
Sorry i mean ali bin abi thalib