Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Viking FGC23343

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It's been a really productive couple of days. I think the aging algorithm I'm using now has some legs.

    https://forums.familytreedna.com/for...870#post331870

    But the bottom line for tracing the Saddingtons and the Vincents to a common ancestor in western Normandy born in or after 1000 A.D. remains about the same--29% probability. Consistent with STR analyses using consensus mutation rates. FT372222 was probably formed about 880 A.D., so there most likely are branches that predate the arrival of the Saddington/Vincent ancestors in Normandy, but the idea that the Saddingtons and the Vincents could be branches of the d'Aubigny/de Mowbray family is plausible--with the current information.


    Originally posted by benowicz View Post

    That 25% represented a rough average of the confidence levels at 1000 A.D. calculated per an SNP and an STR analysis I performed a while ago.

    I just made an attempt to validate the SNP rate I used, and now I change my mind. It's certainly far faster than the rates typically bandied about in the genetic genealogy community, but it actually seems pretty well supported. Yeah, in an absolute sense there could be more sampling done to validate it, but relative to what's available for other estimates, it's pretty good. "Optimistic" is kind of wide of the mark.

    https://forums.familytreedna.com/for...833#post331833

    There's significant disagreement about the correct STR rates to use, too, and all that's complicated by convergence. And I just remember now that there is that fellow named Carroll who actually seems to be a Vincent. Tacking his 67 markers on to SDV's 111 marker profile actually brings the MRCA significantly closer vs. the other FT372222 guys.

    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

    So, realistically, there is maybe a 36% chance that the MRCA between the Vincents and the Saddingtons could have been born as recently as 1000 A.D. That's not bad.

    Comment


    • I see that the new FT372222 fellow is a participant of the Z209+ project, earliest known ancestor named Sebastian Guerrero Molina, born about 1677 in Spain.

      https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

      I would be very happy if there were a further definition of FT372222 related to this fellow--maybe the manual review isn't quite done yet. But I'm not too hopeful.

      In the current situation, I'm not sure there's much I can add. It currently doesn't change the average number of private variants under FT372222, so my previous estimate of an MRCA of 880 A.D. is also unchanged. On the surface the geographic distribution looks a little unusual, but my last post did anticipate branches of FT372222 pre-dating the arrival of the de Rollos family's ancestors in Normandy, so I can't say that was a surprise.

      It's finally great to have some real information on one of the Spanish branches of FGC23343. I just wish there was a little more to work with. I'm far from an expert in the Spanish language or interpreting historical documents from the Spanish Empire, but I have had some success working with families of Costa Rican and Cuban origin, so I think I could learn to work my way around, given enough info. I have the subjective feeling that the family of this new donor is also from a colonial family rather than one with very recent roots in Spain itself, so maybe there are important contextual clues available about Sebastian's birthplace in the history of his nation. I don't know if my other experiences with Latin American genealogy are characteristic of the subject as a whole, but I think these families tend to be very well documented. The surnames Guerrero and Molina alone aren't very telling, being extremely common and widespread throughout Spain.


      Comment

      Working...
      X