I have what strongly appears to be a late medieval group of families. They have very similar haplotypes, and share the rare SNP Z17926, which is a subclade of a rare sister branch to DF29, in haplogroup I1. The haplogroup I1 project previously categorized them as the AS121210 haplotype cluster. They have a recognizable group of STR values that they share that set them apart, and Ken Nordvedt was who first recognized it. Not me. Now it and the I-A8100 project confusedly have one line of them with downstream SNPs, and another with a different downstream SNP, even though when I checked I found that they all in fact have all of those SNPs. I think maybe the project admins are confused about the endpoint SNPs because most people wouldn't submit their results to YFull.
Ken Nordvedt thought the group's age is Saxon, but that's not what I"m seeing in the genetic distance, even by my own counting.
There seems to be little interest or will among hte 50 families in the group to do the Big Y, though two lobes have tested and a third is in progress.
What we appear to have is groupings of families, often with some degree of geographical clustering as well, who are clearly related to each other within four hundred or five hundred to seven hundred years, and several lone people with similar genetic distance, separated from each other by several degrees of genetic distance.
There is no other clear pattern to the variation, such that, for instance, one could begin to build a hierarchical tree.
One gets the idea that between 1100 and 1400 AD, somebody with the resources to do so were galloping around England, southern Scotland and Wales leaving babies behind. Someone who suddenly appeared in England between 1100 and 1400 AD came from northern France or medieval Flanders. All three Z17926 people who do not belong to this cluster come from the upper Rhine, central western France (specifically in an area populated by Celts who migrated from another location directly to the north), and eastern Scotland. The age of Z17926, and the directionality of I-A8100/ Z17954 is consistent with Celtic distribution; you'd expect to find this SNP in western France or medieval Flanders, if it wasn't already in eastern Britain, but nothing suggests that it was. Most tellingly, the people who WERE in Eastern Britain in 1100 AD didn't spend the next 300 years galloping around the island on horses, nor did they own the multiple manors that could have people traveling around and leaving babies all over the place.
This family also had several geographical areas of common behavior. In Scotland there was no socioeconomic selection, unless that explains why the Earls of Hunter or whatever appear to share the DNA. The western Scottish group spread their Y DNA to coastal Wales. The East Anglian group are huge, dispersed, genetically similar - they may really ahve a gd of only 7 - and they contained no poor people, but gave rise to several successful Puritan families and wealthy and powerful Virginia gentry, who proceeded to contribute his own personal Y DNA to ten other very similar neighbors. One of the west Scottish group were extremely wealthy skinners of London in the mid 17th century; a member sat on the committee that ran Bermuda, and sent his brother to Bermuda, where he loaned his Y DNA to another family.
I'm currently supposed to be helping the latest NPE of this group figure out how she connects to a Murray line that couldn't spell their name. She was able to identify her husband's father, but the line dead ends in Texas. "May you have interesting Y DNA".
The problem I'm faced with, is Family Tree DNA keeps telling me that large chunks of this group, which exact people get picked up as matches varying from who in the group tested, have a genetic distance from each other of only 7.
When I count, I get genetic distances across the group between 8 and 11, which is consistent with everything I just said about discrete subgroups and several SNPs separating them in time. It's also very consistent with suddenly appearing around or just after the 11th century.
I've been over it with Family Tree DNA. Most of the difference in the genetic distance counting methods is specifically revolving around the behavior of cdy a and cdy b. Get people in this cluster with 9 to 11 points in genetic distance, and half of it is almost always changes in cdy a and cdy b. Occasionally there are also multiple changes or multiple point changes in DYS 464.
Family Tree DNA counts changes in cdy a and cdy b as follows. For either cdy a or cdy b, multiple points of change are 1 point. Change in each of them counts as 1 point.
So I guess, over thousands of years of genetic distance, Family Tree DNA is assuming cdy a and cdy b would have changed by a maximum of 2 points?
I suspect that the truth is that Family Tree DNA's methodology doesn't take old family groups into account.
My group is hardly alone; one of the Hamilton Y DNA groups is medieval in age, and its Norman origins are known. I've got a Doolittle family group that traces by paper trail to the 1400s, with a genetic distance across the group of 9. My brother in law's McKinstrys trace by paper trail to the 14th century, with genetic distance across the group of atleast 8. They all have the same haplotype but never all match each other within 7 degrees of genetic distance. The matches 85% overlap.
I need to know how to accurately judge the TMRCA of this group.
I'd appreciate ideas, and also referrals to who would have the expertise.
Thanks!
Yours,
Dora Smith
Ken Nordvedt thought the group's age is Saxon, but that's not what I"m seeing in the genetic distance, even by my own counting.
There seems to be little interest or will among hte 50 families in the group to do the Big Y, though two lobes have tested and a third is in progress.
What we appear to have is groupings of families, often with some degree of geographical clustering as well, who are clearly related to each other within four hundred or five hundred to seven hundred years, and several lone people with similar genetic distance, separated from each other by several degrees of genetic distance.
There is no other clear pattern to the variation, such that, for instance, one could begin to build a hierarchical tree.
One gets the idea that between 1100 and 1400 AD, somebody with the resources to do so were galloping around England, southern Scotland and Wales leaving babies behind. Someone who suddenly appeared in England between 1100 and 1400 AD came from northern France or medieval Flanders. All three Z17926 people who do not belong to this cluster come from the upper Rhine, central western France (specifically in an area populated by Celts who migrated from another location directly to the north), and eastern Scotland. The age of Z17926, and the directionality of I-A8100/ Z17954 is consistent with Celtic distribution; you'd expect to find this SNP in western France or medieval Flanders, if it wasn't already in eastern Britain, but nothing suggests that it was. Most tellingly, the people who WERE in Eastern Britain in 1100 AD didn't spend the next 300 years galloping around the island on horses, nor did they own the multiple manors that could have people traveling around and leaving babies all over the place.
This family also had several geographical areas of common behavior. In Scotland there was no socioeconomic selection, unless that explains why the Earls of Hunter or whatever appear to share the DNA. The western Scottish group spread their Y DNA to coastal Wales. The East Anglian group are huge, dispersed, genetically similar - they may really ahve a gd of only 7 - and they contained no poor people, but gave rise to several successful Puritan families and wealthy and powerful Virginia gentry, who proceeded to contribute his own personal Y DNA to ten other very similar neighbors. One of the west Scottish group were extremely wealthy skinners of London in the mid 17th century; a member sat on the committee that ran Bermuda, and sent his brother to Bermuda, where he loaned his Y DNA to another family.
I'm currently supposed to be helping the latest NPE of this group figure out how she connects to a Murray line that couldn't spell their name. She was able to identify her husband's father, but the line dead ends in Texas. "May you have interesting Y DNA".
The problem I'm faced with, is Family Tree DNA keeps telling me that large chunks of this group, which exact people get picked up as matches varying from who in the group tested, have a genetic distance from each other of only 7.
When I count, I get genetic distances across the group between 8 and 11, which is consistent with everything I just said about discrete subgroups and several SNPs separating them in time. It's also very consistent with suddenly appearing around or just after the 11th century.
I've been over it with Family Tree DNA. Most of the difference in the genetic distance counting methods is specifically revolving around the behavior of cdy a and cdy b. Get people in this cluster with 9 to 11 points in genetic distance, and half of it is almost always changes in cdy a and cdy b. Occasionally there are also multiple changes or multiple point changes in DYS 464.
Family Tree DNA counts changes in cdy a and cdy b as follows. For either cdy a or cdy b, multiple points of change are 1 point. Change in each of them counts as 1 point.
So I guess, over thousands of years of genetic distance, Family Tree DNA is assuming cdy a and cdy b would have changed by a maximum of 2 points?
I suspect that the truth is that Family Tree DNA's methodology doesn't take old family groups into account.
My group is hardly alone; one of the Hamilton Y DNA groups is medieval in age, and its Norman origins are known. I've got a Doolittle family group that traces by paper trail to the 1400s, with a genetic distance across the group of 9. My brother in law's McKinstrys trace by paper trail to the 14th century, with genetic distance across the group of atleast 8. They all have the same haplotype but never all match each other within 7 degrees of genetic distance. The matches 85% overlap.
I need to know how to accurately judge the TMRCA of this group.
I'd appreciate ideas, and also referrals to who would have the expertise.
Thanks!
Yours,
Dora Smith
Comment