Tom Robinson's Blog: Recent Comments

Comment on Genghis Khan or Not? That is the Question.

Kent H. Pryor — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:01:52 GMT

Oxford Ancestors notified Tom Robinson and their press release readers that Robinson is a descendant of Genghis Khan and is the only tested man outside of Central Asia matching their Genghis profile. But they only identified a seven-marker-out-of-nine match, and Robinson investigated further, concluding that he was probably not a Genghis Descendant blog at http://trrobinson.com/2006/06/16/genghis-khan-or-not--that-is-the-question.aspx . This is an attempt to put some numbers to that, and show that the probability of Robinson being a descendant is below one and one-half percent, and more likely is much m,uch closer to zero.

To improve on the accuracy of Oxford’s comparison, Robinson selected thirteen markers to compare between his Y-DNA and FTDNA’s Genghis Khan benchmark. Let us use them to estimate the number of generations back to the common ancestor between Robinson and whatever male Mongol passed these thirteen markers down to eight percent of today’s male Central Asians. Then we want to look at its probability distribution to guess how likely that the common ancestor was around the time of Genghis Khan.

There are thirteen markers available that are represented for both the Robinson composite and the Unofficial Mongolian Benchmark, with ten comparing exactly. The other three markers differ by two, two, and one mutations, for a total “distance” of five. Ghengis Khan (1165-1227) did his main breeding about 800 years ago, which is about 40 generations back (using a popular figure of 25 years per generation).

The FTDNA web site provides TMRCA (Time to most recent common ancestor) probability curves for the 12, 25, and 37 marker matches possible with their standard tests, and only for exact matches. To apply the Robinson data for 13 markers, we go instead to Doug McDonald’s calculator on the Web at http://dna-project.clan-donald-usa.org/tmrca.htm and change the mutation rate from .0033 to .002 to correspond with the more common 12 markers to represent these 13.

This calculator does not expressly take into account the size of each marker mismatch. If we enter the literally correct 10 matches for a 13-marker set, the calculator places the 50% cumulative probability for TMRCA at 160 generations, or 120 generations before Genghis Khan. But if our minimum five mutations had occurred in five markers instead of three, presumably just as likely, the 50% TMRCA is at 275 generations. This more conservative calculation is probably more accurate. The cumulative probability that the TMRCA is within the 40 generations since Genghis Khan is .015 for the first assumption, and is still zero (to three decimal places) for the second. Either way, it is very improbable that the common ancestor lived around Genghis Khan’s time or later.

If there is an inheritance available to Robinson from this more ancient ancestor, it has almost surely passed through other individuals than Genghis Khan.

Comment on Genghis Khan or Not? That is the Question.

Bill Lipton — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:08:39 GMT

LOL You walked into my little Silk Road Modal Haplotype (SMH) project -- the focus is on DYS 19/388/390/391/392/393

In your case, the mutation rate of DUS 388 is the stickler -- apparently accepted to be once in 2500 generations (62,500 years +/-) Yours is 12 the one "assumed" for Genghis Kahn is 14 -- no way can you two be related.

However, numerous research papers show that other Mongolian DYS388 are 12. Thus it it depends on the "probility" that Genghis was a 14 being wrong.

What you do have is a typical six value Ashkenazi-Levite modal. AND YES this Modal traveled to Mongolia at least 800 years before Genghis was born. So he too could have been what, today, would have been identified as Ashkenazi (R1a).

Actually, given the age of the Modal, and its origin in Turkey/Black Sea region, the Modal is Hyksos/Pheonician/ and -- duh -- Brahmin ... it got around ... traveled the full length of the Silk Road, hence my naming it SMH ...

Your conclusion of being R1a is correct -- or a hell of a lot of people are really C ... The problem here is two fold -- one, assumed Kahn values; two, the basic distaste for the idea that Kahn's family/clan/tribe might have had it's origins in the Caucasus and been historically (c 4000 BCE) Canaanite and part of Hittite Dispora.

Comment on Genghis Khan or Not? That is the Question.

Wanda Redfern — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 07:32:02 GMT

Hi Tom it was very interesting reading your blog I am also a Mayton whos ancestors migrated from Virginia to Florida I can share what knoledge I have on that side of the family We decend from the French Huegenots who fled France during the French persecution back in 1700's they fled to England then US There is a family book that has already been researched John Mayton is the ancestor that came from Virginia and that family's decendents went to North Carolina ,Tennessee ,Alabama and to Florida It would be nice to connect to other members of the Mayton family Which Mayton are you decending from? I have names and so forth of 10 generations back If interested in the info contact me thru the email I provided sincerely Wanda Mayton Redfern

Comment on News Articles Today

Tuby — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:02:31 GMT

I'm a Mongolian who live in South Miami, Fl. I've read the article in Miami Herald and I was kind of upset about the tone of it about Genghis khan. It's been revised by historians about his false reputation of brutal murderer.

Comment on Genghis Khan or Not? That is the Question.

Laura Icken — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:02:10 GMT

Not true. 25% of Norwegians and around 15% or more of Swedes are R1a (and Danes, too...)

Comment on Genghis Khan or Not? That is the Question.

Laura Icken — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 20:01:47 GMT

Isn't Robinson a typical surname of Scandinavian origin (your people could have come from Scotland, etc. and descended from vikings)? Names with "son" tend to be such. Laura, whose son is an R1a.

Comment on Genghis Khan or Not? That is the Question.

Staci Siler — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:45:50 GMT

Well, it was an interesting Arthur Dent connection. (Hitchhiker's Guide) though I am not trying to liken you to the hapless supervisor of the destruction of Dent's home. I was surprised you didn't think it would be noted -seeing Douglas Adams has been read by quite a few people, though granted the eccentric and drug-laden predominate the group.
On the plus note, your Andy Warhol moment (though I am sure there were/are many more in your chosen venue) was handled very well, tactful and proper. Congratulations! :~)
Staci

Comment on Genghis Khan or Not? That is the Question.

Tom Robinson — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:12:25 GMT

I did have more markers done. I only presented those that were relevant for matching against the research papers on the Genghis descendants.

Comment on Genghis Khan or Not? That is the Question.

Tom Robinson — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:10:00 GMT

I agree with you. While I also stated my conclusions I could have said it more directly. So now I will- Given a Haplogroup of R1a, I would not be descended from Genghis Kahn as I understand the SNP test.

Comment on Genghis Khan or Not? That is the Question.

Doug McDonald — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:59:11 GMT

That R1a haplotype is a rather ordinary Eastern European one. It is not Norse. It is common anywhere from Germany through
Poland into Russia, Ukraine, the southern Baltic countries, and even down into Slovakia. You would learn more with more than 12 markers, for genealogical purposes.