Pretty sure the ones tested with P310 all post date the New Kingdom period, or come at the very tail end. There are, I believe, three subclades of M343 that could have been present at that time in that part of the world, we do not which one the 18th Dynasty had.
If autosomal DNA can be extracted from a sample, the very first thing that can be revealed with full precision is the deep subclade. There’s no such thing as being able to read M343 but not the rest.
What was leaked in 2010 came from a screenshot of the private data from the study.
No serious genetic researcher would be mentally deficient enough to classify a sample as M269 if it wasn’t. If the R1b tree had been more refined at the time, they would’ve almost certainly revealed the deep subclade by accident.
Besides the ones you mention like P310, I remember there’s one U106 and several U152s that they claim are contaminated—but even a single one breaks the refinement of the entire R1b tree by pushing the dating of L20 back to 3500 BC, and therefore P312 to at least 4000 BC. What’s wrong today is the dating used by all the DNA companies, because they haven’t accounted for that data. In case nobody noticed, there’s a gap of 1000 to 2000 years between L51** and L151**.
The requirements to analyze DNA from a mummy are GOD-TIER. The standards used to date Bell Beakers (basically college students) are NONEXISTENT.
Since many people found Tut’s result hard to believe, they did a second study where they officially confirmed it’s M343.
I’m just trying to explain—as a biologist—that the only thing that truly matters in reconstructing history through subclades is that you can always recover the full Y-chromosome sequence.
Only amateurs give importance to PCA plots, which are the most science-fictional part of the analysis due to low coverage. PCA plots are calibrated based on the datings of Apex subclades like the descendants of U106, U152, DF27, L21 (with 300 million males today), which best align with migration patterns.
The entire Bell Beaker theory is based on 20 tests with questionable datings. So why does everyone believe in that theory, but R1b in the pharaohs seems anachronistic to them?
There’s practically the same amount of empirical evidence for both.
And yet, there seems to be a strange tendency that whenever data doesn’t fit a certain narrative, the “contamination” card gets played.
I think this partly comes from archaeologists who’ve spent their whole lives studying a culture and believing it belonged to a specific ethnic group—only to later find out it didn’t. That can be frustrating, but it is what it is.
