Cymru DNA Wales

[avalon]

For those interested in Welsh DNA, this program will air on S4C (the Welsh language channel) on Sunday. Thanks to Debbie Kennett for posting at her blog.

http://www.s4c.cymru/cymrudnawales/e_index.shtml

http://cruwys.blogspot.com.au/

They have said this in their blurb -


The coming of farming changed lives utterly and it was brought to Britain by migrations of men, first a group that may be identified by the DNA haplogroup G and later innovators known as the BeakerPeople. Around 2,500 they brought a DNA Y chromosome haplogroup labelled R1b-S145.


It is common in Wales and all down the west of Britain – and it is our hypothesis that the farmers came with an early version of theWelsh language in their mouths. Dialects of Old Welsh were spoken all over Britain and it is our belief that it was the earliest language to describe the landscape, animals and people. DNA and the movement of languages are often closely linked and we will attempt to answer a question – how long have the Welsh spoken Welsh?

[Anglecynn]

Kind of unclear whether they are saying an ancestor/relative of Welsh was brought by Beaker People or by G carriers.

[avalon]

Kind of unclear whether they are saying an ancestor/relative of Welsh was brought by Beaker People or by G carriers.

I think they are saying Beaker but refer to them as farmers in the same vein as the G people.

[TigerMW]

It is common in Wales and all down the west of Britain – and it is our hypothesis that the farmers came with an early version of the Welsh language in their mouths...
If they are saying this, there seems to be a disconnect in their logic.

The first farmers did not have the full suite of Proto-IndoEuropean things with them. As a result they did not have the full set of Proto-IndoEuropean words. One could speculate that the early farmers in Britain spoke some pre-Indo-European language, but we don't have any evidence that is true. It could have been anything. Do they say there there is a reason they think the first farmers on Britain spoke an IE language, or even a pre-PIE language?

[TigerMW]

I think they are saying Beaker but refer to them as farmers in the same vein as the G people.
If they are tying Beaker folks to the first farmers or somehow mixing a description of both into the same timeframe, that's a bit "loosey-goosey", similar to how politicians can speak. This kind of cloudy speech allows one to later claim that one's self was right no matter what the reality.

[rossa]

Sounds similar to this blurb from Ireland's DNA.
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/martyn-turner/is-distinctive-dna-marker-proof-of-ancient-genocide-1.1426197

[alan]

Sounds similar to this blurb from Ireland's DNA.
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/martyn-turner/is-distinctive-dna-marker-proof-of-ancient-genocide-1.1426197

Allegedly Moffat shows a number of traits an amateur dabbling in archaeology there. The idea of an early arrival of farming in any permanent way as early as the date he quotes seems based on the anomolous Ferriter's Cove cattle bone but more recent analysis of radiocarbon dating now date the first lasting settlement of farmers in Ireland around 3850BC and Kerry is a very unlikely spot for first arrival. The culture of the first farmers clearly shows they either came via Britain or from an identical source.

I also a kind of amazed he is still peddling the Iberia link. I think within months of L21 being discovered it was clear that most Iberians other than the Basques-who may be originally from SW France- are negative for L21 and have turned out to be DF27. L21 and of course the autosomal patterns of the Irish would appear to suggest a much more northerly intrusion in post-Neolithic times that makes the Irish cluster with north Sea coast countries. This is mostly down to high ANE and a relative drop in ENF.

[alan]

Am seriously not a fan of Moffat and his populist theories that seem to tap into discredited legends. The Milesian thing of course couldnt fail to be partly correct as it covers Scythia to Iberia which is basically the whole length of Europe. The Scythia link is of course related to a Latin historians linking it with Scotti - itself a term that was appears to be a Roman invention of the early 4th centuries AD.

[alan]

As a total aside, it is interesting that the term Scotti first appears in Nomina Provinciarum Omnium (Names of All the Provinces), which dates to about A.D. 312. This is a short list of the names and provinces of the Roman Empire. At the end of this list is a brief list of tribes deemed to be a growing threat to the Empire, which included the Scoti.

Its never been satisfactorily explain in either Latin or Gaelic. I personally think the nickname was probably given by the legions protecting the west coast of Britain at the time of its appearance. It would be interesting to look at the ethnic composition of those legions to see if it came from another language.

Also I wouldnt rule out the possibility that the same really was some sort of insult nickname comparing the Irish raiders to Scythians by some Roman legionnaires. Perhaps it was a lazy pejorative for barbarians the Britons found particularly nasty. The Bible includes a single reference to Scythians in Colossians 3:11, immediately after mentioning barbarians, possibly as an extreme example of a barbarian.

[avalon]

If they are tying Beaker folks to the first farmers or somehow mixing a description of both into the same timeframe, that's a bit "loosey-goosey", similar to how politicians can speak. This kind of cloudy speech allows one to later claim that one's self was right no matter what the reality.

I agree. I get the impression that BritainsDNA are trying to generate popular interest in DNA testing and so we have seen some fairly outlandish claims in the media. I know that Debbie Kennett has referred to this as "genetic astrology."

By the way, for people interested, this program will soon be on the S4C website and I am sure they will have English subtitles.

[avalon]

Allegedly Moffat shows a number of traits an amateur dabbling in archaeology there. The idea of an early arrival of farming in any permanent way as early as the date he quotes seems based on the anomolous Ferriter's Cove cattle bone but more recent analysis of radiocarbon dating now date the first lasting settlement of farmers in Ireland around 3850BC and Kerry is a very unlikely spot for first arrival. The culture of the first farmers clearly shows they either came via Britain or from an identical source.

I also a kind of amazed he is still peddling the Iberia link. I think within months of L21 being discovered it was clear that most Iberians other than the Basques-who may be originally from SW France- are negative for L21 and have turned out to be DF27. L21 and of course the autosomal patterns of the Irish would appear to suggest a much more northerly intrusion in post-Neolithic times that makes the Irish cluster with north Sea coast countries. This is mostly down to high ANE and a relative drop in ENF.


I must admit that Moffat does seem to lack some credibility but in that Irish Times article he does say that R1b arrived in the Isles around 2500BC and replaced the existing Y-DNA, probably G carriers. Isn't this a theory that many on this forum support, although he has R1b coming from the south rather than the east?

[Caburn]

If any Welsh-speakers are interested then the programme is available on the BBC iPlayer for the next 29 days:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02kfr1l/dna-cymru-pennod-1

Edit: English subtitles are available if you click the 'S' button at the bottom-right of the screen

[J1 DYS388=13]

I've just watched the broadcast (with subtitles; I'm not Welsh, I just live here).

It was slick and well produced. The explanations of DNA, the out-of-Africa theory, and DNA testing were all accurate, so far as I understand.

Skipping to the volunteers' results, and the interpretation of them ---

Rugby legend Gareth Edward has Y-DNA I-M253, described with a Welsh word which appeared to be a transliteration of "Teutonic," and is "most common in northern Germany, Denmark, and Sweden." His mtDNA is H2a2a1, "Arloeswraig," which means "Pioneer." It is "from the Pyrenees, possibly."

Opera singer Bryn Terfel has Y-DNA I-S2606, "Rheinlander," "most common in Scandinavia, southern Scotland, Ulster, and especially in Germany." His mtDNA was not mentioned.

TV personality Siân Lloyd has mtDNA T2a1a, "Forager," which is "very, very rare in Wales." Same type as "Tsar Nicholas II and four British kings."

The Celtic marker R1b-S145 is most prevalent in:
Munster 58%
Wales 47%
Leinster 42%
Connacht 38%
Yr Alban De Orllewin (Southwest Scotland, if the online dictionary is correct) 31%
Yr Alban Gogledd Ddwyrain (Northeast Scotland, if the online dictionary is correct) 28%
Ulster 23%
England 16%

The last part was so unclear to me that I hesitate to write it up. The program advanced a theory that in 515 AD a British king with a few followers migrated west to Wales to get away from the Saxons. One of the presenters suggested that king was the legendary Arthur. This may have been the source of a quintessentially Welsh haplogroup called "Ancient Welsh," R1b-S300, "which is very rare, even in Wales." "3% of Welsh people may belong to this group." "There's no sign of it elsewhere in the world" except for a small number of people in the south of England.

The rest was basically an advert for DNA Cymru (Britain's DNA). Earlier today I saw an objection to that commercial angle, because we pay a TV licence here. But S4C is a hybrid channel, partly commercial, so I don't know if any licence payer money went towards this program.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[Caburn]

For ref: some of Britain'sDNA Haplogroup nicknames:

http://www.isogg.org/wiki/BritainsDNA_haplogroup_nicknames

[greystones22]

I've just watched the broadcast (with subtitles; I'm not Welsh, I just live here).

It was slick and well produced. The explanations of DNA, the out-of-Africa theory, and DNA testing were all accurate, so far as I understand.

Skipping to the volunteers' results, and the interpretation of them ---

Rugby legend Gareth Edward has Y-DNA I-M253, described with a Welsh word which appeared to be a transliteration of "Teutonic," and is "most common in northern Germany, Denmark, and Sweden." His mtDNA is H2a2a1, "Arloeswraig," which means "Pioneer." It is "from the Pyrenees, possibly."

Opera singer Bryn Terfel has Y-DNA I-S2606, "Rheinlander," "most common in Scandinavia, southern Scotland, Ulster, and especially in Germany." His mtDNA was not mentioned.

TV personality Siân Lloyd has mtDNA T2a1a, "Forager," which is "very, very rare in Wales." Same type as "Tsar Nicholas II and four British kings."

The Celtic marker R1b-S145 is most prevalent in:
Munster 58%
Wales 47%
Leinster 42%
Connacht 38%
Yr Alban De Orllewin (Southwest Scotland, if the online dictionary is correct) 31%
Yr Alban Gogledd Ddwyrain (Northeast Scotland, if the online dictionary is correct) 28%
Ulster 23%
England 16%

The last part was so unclear to me that I hesitate to write it up. The program advanced a theory that in 515 AD a British king with a few followers migrated west to Wales to get away from the Saxons. One of the presenters suggested that king was the legendary Arthur. This may have been the source of a quintessentially Welsh haplogroup called "Ancient Welsh," R1b-S300, "which is very rare, even in Wales." "3% of Welsh people may belong to this group." "There's no sign of it elsewhere in the world" except for a small number of people in the south of England.

The rest was basically an advert for DNA Cymru (Britain's DNA). Earlier today I saw an objection to that commercial angle, because we pay a TV licence here. But S4C is a hybrid channel, partly commercial, so I don't know if any licence payer money went towards this program.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Thanks for posting this overview.

I declare a conflict of interest here, I am working on an academic project addressing the genetic history of Wales.

For me there were a few issues. First the advertorial nature of the programme. At a couple of points the narrators say "everybody is welcome to join" which is true but also is miss-selling since you are only welcome if you pay £200 (presumably)

Secondly the interpretation of test results. There has been some dialog between the TV company and members of the public about the science. I would personally have liked them to ditch the britainsdna "story" of the results, and present them as questions."What does this tell us?". To which the answer could be "we need to see if this crops up elsewhere in Wales and then try to establish a testable hypothesis to explain the occurrence and distribution". But instead of that we got "you are a forager" which is a load of nonsense.

Finally where were the "experts"? I didn't see any evidence that this programme had academic or scientific rigour. I don't just mean genetics here, I mean archaeology, history, and geography.

We are supposed to be moving forwards with public understanding of science. This programme was a fantastic opportunity, but sadly it seems to have misfired.

[GoldenHind]

For ref: some of Britain'sDNA Haplogroup nicknames:

http://www.isogg.org/wiki/BritainsDNA_haplogroup_nicknames

I believe this list is somewhat out of date. The nickname for S116 (akaP312) was changed from Hunter-Gatherer to Bell Beaker some time ago. I don't know if others have changed as well. In any case, I don't recommend taking them too seriously. I suspect they are primarily a marketing tool.

[Anglecynn]

I believe this list is somewhat out of date. The nickname for S116 (akaP312) was changed from Hunter-Gatherer to Bell Beaker some time ago. I don't know if others have changed as well. In any case, I don't recommend taking them too seriously. I suspect they are primarily a marketing tool.

Yeah, there's nothing to be gained in terms of knowledge by giving them recognizable names, i think it's just for marketing and also to help with a bit of jargon busting for people who only have a passing interest - so that they remain interested. Can understand it, but it's also annoying.

[avalon]

Thanks for posting this overview.

I declare a conflict of interest here, I am working on an academic project addressing the genetic history of Wales.

For me there were a few issues. First the advertorial nature of the programme. At a couple of points the narrators say "everybody is welcome to join" which is true but also is miss-selling since you are only welcome if you pay £200 (presumably)

Secondly the interpretation of test results. There has been some dialog between the TV company and members of the public about the science. I would personally have liked them to ditch the britainsdna "story" of the results, and present them as questions."What does this tell us?". To which the answer could be "we need to see if this crops up elsewhere in Wales and then try to establish a testable hypothesis to explain the occurrence and distribution". But instead of that we got "you are a forager" which is a load of nonsense.

Finally where were the "experts"? I didn't see any evidence that this programme had academic or scientific rigour. I don't just mean genetics here, I mean archaeology, history, and geography.

We are supposed to be moving forwards with public understanding of science. This programme was a fantastic opportunity, but sadly it seems to have misfired.

I have to say that this program was disappointing for the reasons you have given. The problem is, if it's aimed at the general public, they can't make it too technical. And IMO most of the British public have a very limited knowledge of British history and archaeology.

As an aside, they did make a clear link between L21 and the Beaker people so perhaps BritainsDNA have been reading anthrogenica! ;)

[DebbieK]

I've only just seen this thread but in case it's of interest I've written two blog posts on the subject:

http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/the-saga-continues-cymrudnawales-s4c.html

http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/more-on-s4c-dna-cymru-controversy-and.html

The controversy has also been covered in the latest edition of Private Eye:

https://twitter.com/dylanllyr/status/573173578813849600

Sense About Science have issued a Welsh translation of their pamphlet Sense About Genetic Ancestry Testing because of concerns about the programme:

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/news.php/434/welsh-translation-of-sense-about-genetic-ancestry-testing-ahead-of-s4c-documentary

I've updated the ISOGG Wiki page with the list of BritainsDNA haplogroup nicknames. If anyone knows of any other changes do go ahead and edit the page.

[Dubhthach]

I see they showed this on S4c at weekend, it seems to be watchable online with subtitles:

http://www.s4c.cymru/clic/c_level2.shtml?programme_id=523140734

Their L21 league table was laughable, as it seems to exclude all L21 subclades (eg. it's L21**), thence ridiculously low figures for Connacht/Ulster, their bit about "Ancient Welsh" for L371 and bit about a putative Iron age warlord was silly as well, no mention that L371 is subclade of L21/S145. Mentioned it was 3% of sample, which would bring L21+ figure up to at least 50%.

Are there more episodes planned?

[GoldenHind]

I mentioned this a couple of years ago on the P312** thread, but it didn't attract much notice, so I thought I would try again. There is a strong P312** element in Wales. It has a very distinctive STR signature. There are several listed in the P312** section of the FTDNA R-P312 and Subclades Project. They are easy to spot as they all have the otherwise unusual 14 at DYS392. Most of them share eight different off modal marker values, including 16,18 at DYS464c/d. A close variant is also found in England. Those who are Welsh tend to have 23 at DYS390, while the English variety tend have the modal 24 there instead. This does not appear to be a particularly rare group, at least in Wales. With all the people working on YDNA in Wales, I'm surprised no one has identified the SNP(s) which distinguish this subclade.

If anyone is interested, I would be happy to share details.

[avalon]

I see they showed this on S4c at weekend, it seems to be watchable online with subtitles:

http://www.s4c.cymru/clic/c_level2.shtml?programme_id=523140734


Are there more episodes planned?

I think there are more episodes due in the autumn. The program is aimed at at a general viewership so it I guess it just isn't technical enough for many anthrogenica posters.

[Dubhthach]

I think there are more episodes due in the autumn. The program is aimed at at a general viewership so it I guess it just isn't technical enough for many anthrogenica posters.

Well it depends on what they actually release. For example if they have large enough number of Welsh people tested as part of it they might release some interesting states on haplogroup distrubution, though hopefully not like their L21 "rugby table" (with Munster on top, even though it was only looking at L21**)

[DebbieK]

I see they showed this on S4c at weekend, it seems to be watchable online with subtitles:

http://www.s4c.cymru/clic/c_level2.shtml?programme_id=523140734

Their L21 league table was laughable, as it seems to exclude all L21 subclades (eg. it's L21**), thence ridiculously low figures for Connacht/Ulster, their bit about "Ancient Welsh" for L371 and bit about a putative Iron age warlord was silly as well, no mention that L371 is subclade of L21/S145. Mentioned it was 3% of sample, which would bring L21+ figure up to at least 50%.

Are there more episodes planned?

This was a repeat of the programme that was originally shown in February this year. See my post below dated 3rd August and the links therein. I'm surprised to see that S4C repeated the programme after all the complaints they received about it.

There are supposed to be four further programmes on S4C in the autumn but I don't yet know when they are due to be go out.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

I have contacted Cymru DNA to ask whether there have been any further UK test results since I tested which match my unusual U106 sub-group which I was told is "little understood". Surely it can't be that much of a rarity in the UK? Awaiting a response, but I don't know if I will learn anything new

[DebbieK]

I have contacted Cymru DNA to ask whether there have been any further UK test results since I tested which match my unusual U106 sub-group which I was told is "little understood". Surely it can't be that much of a rarity in the UK? Awaiting a response, but I don't know if I will learn anything new

John, As you are U106 can I suggest that you join the U106 mailing list:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/R1b1c_U106-S21/info

The admins of the U106 Project will be able to advise you.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

John, As you are U106 can I suggest that you join the U106 mailing list:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/R1b1c_U106-S21/info

The admins of the U106 Project will be able to advise you.


Thank you DebbieK. I have joined and have been advised to undertake a further test with FTDNA. I suppose I was partly curious about what Cymru/Britain's DNA are doing in terms of the data they are collecting, like are they looking for matches. plotting results etc.?

[DebbieK]

Thank you DebbieK. I have joined and have been advised to undertake a further test with FTDNA. I suppose I was partly curious about what Cymru/Britain's DNA are doing in terms of the data they are collecting, like are they looking for matches. plotting results etc.?

BritainsDNA don't currently offer any sort of matching service but I think it would be very helpful if they could. They do provide maps showing the distribution of the different haplogroups. I'm afraid I don't know what they're doing with the data collecting but so far they haven't published any of their research and I suspect they are unlikely to do so.

[MacUalraig]

Thank you DebbieK. I have joined and have been advised to undertake a further test with FTDNA. I suppose I was partly curious about what Cymru/Britain's DNA are doing in terms of the data they are collecting, like are they looking for matches. plotting results etc.?

They did release a lot of anonymised data last year (2000 samples) which has been mined by the relevant SNP experts. People were able to request what their id in the spreadsheet was if they couldn't figure it out. Its unlikely therefore to tell you anything your local SNP consultant doesn't already know - and it is anonymised to stop you knowing names to contact.

Dr. Jim Wilson also issued sporadic updates to local SNP trees including M222 based on the data. We in turn do the same for him.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

They did release a lot of anonymised data last year (2000 samples) which has been mined by the relevant SNP experts. People were able to request what their id in the spreadsheet was if they couldn't figure it out. Its unlikely therefore to tell you anything your local SNP consultant doesn't already know - and it is anonymised to stop you knowing names to contact.

Dr. Jim Wilson also issued sporadic updates to local SNP trees including M222 based on the data. We in turn do the same for him.

To be honest my interest is not so much in finding specific relatives it's more a curiosity about any geographical distribution patterns and whether there may be signs of a cluster somewhere. Thank you for the information.

[Jean M]

The second programme in the series aired on Sunday: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5868-TV-DNA-Programme

The website makes it crystal clear that they do distinguish between three components of the European gene pool.


From the earliest days, the Welsh have asked major questions such as 'Who are we?' 'Where did we come from?' 'What connects us with the rest of the world's people?' 'What makes us different?'

In the first programme, entertainer Caryl Parry Jones, broadcaster Roy Noble and Wales and Scarlets hooker, Ken Owens hear that they belong to three different groups who came to Wales after the Ice Age – the earliest Hunter-Gatherers; the First Farmers; and the Beaker People These are the three pre-historic influxes mainly responsible for the genetic composition of the people of Europe today.

Scientists have discovered that Caryl Parry Jones can trace her mother's ancestry back to maternal predecessors belonging to the haplogroup U, women who were among the first hunters to live in Europe and Northern Asia in the Mesolithic period after the Ice Age.

Roy Noble was delighted to discover he had an interesting link to the Neolithic period – the New Stone Age. Scientists working on the project discovered that Roy belongs to the haplogroup G2a which is uncommon in Wales and which dates back to the first people to bring farming to Wales from Europe and the Near East, six thousand years ago.

With his roots deep in Carmarthenshire, it wasn't a surprise perhaps that Ken Owens, the player who recently was in Warren Gatland's Rugby World Cup 2015 squad is Welsh through and through. Learning that the genetic markings of both his mother and father's family lines were more common in Wales than anywhere in the rest of Britain pleased Ken. On his father's side, Ken belongs to the haplogroup R1b – S145 which is more common in Wales compared to the rest of Britain. Scientists believe that this haplogroup came to Wales with the Beaker People, the first people to work with metal, around 2000BC. The haplogroup R1b – S145 is part of a wider Group R1b who came to Europe from Western Asia towards the end of the Neolithic Age.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

The second programme in the series aired on Sunday: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5868-TV-DNA-Programme

The website makes it crystal clear that they do distinguish between three components of the European gene pool.

I thought it was interesting that they said that the early "Welsh" for want of a better term, reflected different periods of migration. Looking back on their first programme ( which I bought into at the time) there was a lot of mumbo-jumbo about which kings celebrities were descended from. I'm not keen on the celebrity focus, but I had the impression this was a more balanced programme. One thing I would question though, which I have mentioned before is whether some of this "early" DNA could have been brought into Wales by people migrating at a later date. My mother line is first farmers but it doesn't necessarily mean my maternal ancestors have been in Wales for this whole period.

[Jean M]

One thing I would question though, which I have mentioned before is whether some of this "early" DNA could have been brought into Wales by people migrating at a later date. My mother line is first farmers but it doesn't necessarily mean my maternal ancestors have been in Wales for this whole period.

I agree entirely, and have mentioned this issue on the other thread. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5868-TV-DNA-Programme&p=122404&viewfull=1#post122404

[rms2]

It really is too bad for those of us of Welsh ancestry or likely Welsh ancestry that BritainsDNA/CymruDNA does not offer some form of matching. They would have to offer STRs to do so with y-dna, since Chromo2 does not go as far with y-dna SNPs as the Big Y does.

CymruDNA probably has the database I want but not the right kind of testing, while FTDNA has the testing and the matching services but lacks a significant native-born Welsh database.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

It really is too bad for those of us of Welsh ancestry or likely Welsh ancestry that BritainsDNA/CymruDNA does not offer some form of matching. They would have to offer STRs to do so with y-dna, since Chromo2 does not go as far with y-dna SNPs as the Big Y does.

CymruDNA probably has the database I want but not the right kind of testing, while FTDNA has the testing and the matching services but lacks a significant native-born Welsh database.

Yes I agree, very frustrating. It seems such a waste, data not being fully utilised.

[avalon]

This episode was definitely an improvement on the first. My only gripe with S4C was overuse of hwntws among presenters/celebrities and not enough gog representation. ;)

Anyway on a serious note, they mentioned "Brymbo Man" from Wrexham as a possible Beaker skeleton to test for DNA. This would be useful but my understanding is that there aren't many Beaker skeletons in Wales and one of the general problems in Wales is that the largely acidic soil does not tend to preserve human remains very well.

[MacUalraig]

It really is too bad for those of us of Welsh ancestry or likely Welsh ancestry that BritainsDNA/CymruDNA does not offer some form of matching. They would have to offer STRs to do so with y-dna, since Chromo2 does not go as far with y-dna SNPs as the Big Y does.

CymruDNA probably has the database I want but not the right kind of testing, while FTDNA has the testing and the matching services but lacks a significant native-born Welsh database.

Adding STRs would be a big backwards step technically in my view. As for matching I suspect they figure that if they add that, lots of Americans will try to recruit their customers away to family tree so there is nothing for them to gain and much to lose. It isn't impossible to sweep up folks though, I've attracted quite a few via my website just by talking positively about the test and showing a vendor neutral chart of results that isn't just a front for another company.

[rms2]

Adding STRs would be a big backwards step technically in my view.

It would be if they had something equivalent or superior to the Big Y. As things stand, they don't have STRs or a SNP array with sufficient resolution for meaningful matching.



As for matching I suspect they figure that if they add that, lots of Americans will try to recruit their customers away to family tree so there is nothing for them to gain and much to lose. It isn't impossible to sweep up folks though, I've attracted quite a few via my website just by talking positively about the test and showing a vendor neutral chart of results that isn't just a front for another company.

It seems to me it is a lot easier for BDNA customers to be stolen away now than it would be if BDNA actually became competitive by offering matching services. People are attracted by things they cannot get where they are and not so much by things they already have.

[Caburn]

Although the current DNA Cymru programme (screened Sun 22nd Nov at 8pm) can be watched online using this S4C link:

http://www.s4c.cymru/clic/e_level2.shtml?programme_id=523140752

it is also available, along with the original programme (screened last March) via the BBC iPlayer:

Original programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02kfr1l/dna-cymru-pennod-1

Current programme (first of three): http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p037l69j/dna-cymru-pennod-2

~

[rms2]

Wish I understood Welsh!

[Jean M]

Wish I understood Welsh!

Just click the S at bottom right for English subtitles.

[DebbieK]

Here are my thoughts on Part 2 of the DNA Cymru series:

http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/my-review-of-dna-cymru-part-2.html

It was better than the first programme but there are still a lot of concerns, particularly about the way that the speculative storytelling was mixed with the real science.

[rms2]

Just click the S at bottom right for English subtitles.

Thanks, Jean. I finally watched Part 2, with the English subtitles. I enjoyed it. I thought that overall it was pretty well balanced and the thinking up to date and based on ancient dna results. There was speculation, of course, but I thought it was reasonable.

[Jean M]

There was speculation, of course, but I thought it was reasonable.

Yes they avoided the more sensationalist and questionable claims. The idea of genocide of the farmers was balanced against the possibility of outbreeding said farmers. The claim that pretty well every male in Wales is descended from a prince in the direct male line did not rear its head. And since Mark Thomas was not among those present we didn't get the claim that we are all descended from Charlemagne.

[DebbieK]

Yes they avoided the more sensationalist and questionable claims. The idea of genocide of the farmers was balanced against the possibility of outbreeding said farmers. The claim that pretty well every male in Wales is descended from a prince in the direct male line did not rear its head. And since Mark Thomas was not among those present we didn't get the claim that we are all descended from Charlemagne.

A male line can also become dominant purely by chance. As always there are many different explanations for any pattern that we see in the data. All population geneticists will tell you that we are all descended from Charlemagne as will any statistician: http://humphrysfamilytree.com/ca.html

[rms2]

Forgive me if I misheard or misunderstood, and I don't feel like watching the whole show over again to find out, but did they say that R1b-L21/S145 has a frequency of 70% in Wales? Or were they talking about R1b as a whole (which seems likelier)?

[Jean M]

All population geneticists will tell you that we are all descended from Charlemagne as will any statistician:

The whole problem is that the claim was made by a statistician, based on questionable assumptions about mating patterns. Unless you understand the actual mating patterns of a population, you cannot create a model that will predict correctly the chances of any specific individual having any specific ancestor. Charlemagne makes a wonderful headline, I grant you. I can see the temptation to fight fire with fire. But is it really a good idea?

I'd say that Prof. Mark Thomas weakened his case against phylogeographers by the kind of exaggeration, blanket dismissal and colourful comparison that fits better in journalism than science. "Astrology", " homeopathy", "has never been shown to work". In fact, as I said in Ancestral Journeys, phylogeography using only modern mtDNA showed the Out-of-Africa migration of mankind. It seems to work well at intercontinental level. Subsequent migrations have muddied the picture in modern DNA to such an extent that phylogeography (and any other method using modern DNA alone) is a dubious tool at any finer level, where we need ancient DNA.

A lot of the conclusions built on phylogeography have been dramatically overturned by the results from ancient DNA. But then the conclusions of Mark Thomas on lactase persistence (based on computer modelling) have been dramatically overturned by the results from ancient DNA. I don't intend to hand out a public lashing. Scientists have to work with the tools and data they have available at the time. That is all any of us can do. I go to print in the full knowledge that I will be outdated. The field will move on.

By the way the word "phylogeography" without any qualifying word is generally used in conversation, was used to me in conversation by Mark Thomas (and indeed has often been used in publications without a qualifying word) to refer to the type of demographic speculation so deplored by him.

[Dubhthach]

Forgive me if I misheard or misunderstood, and I don't feel like watching the whole show over again to find out, but did they say that R1b-L21/S145 has a frequency of 70% in Wales? Or were they talking about R1b as a whole (which seems likelier)?

It is a rather interesting statement, now they didn't tell us how many Welsh men was in their sample set. If I recall they mentioned a thousand welsh samples, but obvioulsy that includes both men and women.

70% of male sample would nearly match what Busby had for L21 among Irish sample.

Of course it would nice if they actually published "supplemntary data" giving break down of various haplogroups along with their subclades. After all L21 by itself doesn't really say much, heck ye could be recent blow-in from somewhere that L21 is also found (recent as in last 200 years). The whole "Pretani" guff is more of their nonsense.

[Jean M]

The whole "Pretani" guff is more of their nonsense.

Actually I can see why they came up with that word. "British" would be confused with the modern nation. "Celt" covers a wider area.

[rms2]

Actually I can see why they came up with that word. "British" would be confused with the modern nation. "Celt" covers a wider area.

And since they were talking about Wales, I think Pretani is okay. It wouldn't make much sense in a show about Ireland, but for Wales, for the most part, it's okay. Of course, it isn't much good for the descendants of Irish, English, Norman, Breton, etc., settlers in Wales who happen to be L21+ (well, I guess the Bretons and English might be happy with Pretani).

[DebbieK]

The whole problem is that the claim was made by a statistician, based on questionable assumptions about mating patterns. Unless you understand the actual mating patterns of a population, you cannot create a model that will predict correctly the chances of any specific individual having any specific ancestor. Charlemagne makes a wonderful headline, I grant you. I can see the temptation to fight fire with fire. But is it really a good idea?

I'd say that Prof. Mark Thomas weakened his case against phylogeographers by the kind of exaggeration, blanket dismissal and colourful comparison that fits better in journalism than science. "Astrology", " homeopathy", "has never been shown to work". In fact, as I said in Ancestral Journeys, phylogeography using only modern mtDNA showed the Out-of-Africa migration of mankind. It seems to work well at intercontinental level. Subsequent migrations have muddied the picture in modern DNA to such an extent that phylogeography (and any other method using modern DNA alone) is a dubious tool at any finer level, where we need ancient DNA.

A lot of the conclusions built on phylogeography have been dramatically overturned by the results from ancient DNA. But then the conclusions of Mark Thomas on lactase persistence (based on computer modelling) have been dramatically overturned by the results from ancient DNA. I don't intend to hand out a public lashing. Scientists have to work with the tools and data they have available at the time. That is all any of us can do. I go to print in the full knowledge that I will be outdated. The field will move on.

By the way the word "phylogeography" without any qualifying word is generally used in conversation, was used to me in conversation by Mark Thomas (and indeed has often been used in publications without a qualifying word) to refer to the type of demographic speculation so deplored by him.

We don't have accurate historical data on past populations and their mating patterns beyond the past few hundred years so all figures are only best estimates. The models are based on the best available data. When you don't have data then models are the only way of getting any sensible answers. However much you adjust the parameters the answers are pretty similar. You only have to go back a thousand years or more before we get to a point where we all have billions of ancestors and the number of ancestors vastly exceeds the population who were alive at the time. It was actually the science journalist Carl Zimmer who came up with the idea of using the name of Charlemagne in an article:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/07/charlemagnes-dna-and-our-universal-royalty/

Whichever historical name you pick the point will still remain that we all share very recent common ancestry. Can you clarify what you mean by questionable dating patterns? The results are broadly supported by genetic data, eg, the work of Ralph and Coop, though they only studied a European population:

http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

There's a time and place for every type of language but if you're trying to overturn misconceptions in the media then it can sometimes help to use terms that are more easily understood, and that will catch the headlines. It's a different matter if you're writing an academic paper.

As I said in my blog post phylogeography is a method of mapping trees to present-day geographical locations. You can't use it to make inferences from the past. The deepest branches of the mtDNA tree are seen today in Africa but that doesn't prove that those branches originated in Africa. The Out of Africa hypothesis is based on multiple strands of evidence, and the story now seems to be getting increasingly complicated.

Something can't work at the continental level and not at a finer level. If a methodology works then it should work for all types of inferences. Migrations have muddied the picture not just in recent times but in ancient times too. The fact that ancient DNA is overturning so many conclusions is a good demonstration of why this speculative approach doesn't work. There have been a lot of papers in the past that have used this type of analysis, but they are now on the wane, as most of the researchers have realised that it doesn't work. Mark Thomas might be one of the most vocal critics but the vast majority of population geneticists feel the same way. There's just a handful of people trying to make questionable assumptions from mtDNA and Y-DNA. Words often do tend to assume different meanings which does rather add to the confusion. Conversations can be easily misinterpreted.

The whole point of building a model is so that you can adjust the parameters as more data became available.

[rms2]

Re Pretani, I guess every guy who gets an S145+ (L21+) result from BDNA et al gets a Fatherline Results page similar to mine:

6719

I do routinely dress like that for dinner. ;)

[Jean M]

We don't have accurate historical data on past populations and their mating patterns beyond the past few hundred years so all figures are only best estimates. ...

Exactly.


You only have to go back a thousand years or more before we get to a point where we all have billions of ancestors and the number of ancestors vastly exceeds the population who were alive at the time.

Yes indeed. And the conclusion we draw is that in the ancestry of any given individual today the same past individuals must appear multiple times. The degree of inbreeding varies by population.

The reason that we find autosomal population clusters by geography is that people tend to inter-marry within a particular geographical range (which will vary in size according to national, natural and/or linguistic borders and also by period and means of transport). They also tend to inter-marry within social boundaries. So one individual today could have multiple descents from Charlemagne, while another could have multiple descents from a founding father of the Viking settlement in Iceland.

What Ralph and Coop found for Europe using IBD was interesting. On average a pair of modern Europeans living in neighbouring populations share around 10-50 genetic common ancestors from the last 1500 years, and upwards of 500 genetic ancestors from the previous 1000 years. But there are marked regional variations in these figures. Southeastern Europeans share large numbers of common ancestors dating to the Slavic expansions around 1,500 years ago. By contrast most common ancestors shared by Italians with other populations lived before 2,500 years ago.

[Dubhthach]

Actually I can see why they came up with that word. "British" would be confused with the modern nation. "Celt" covers a wider area.

Well the word "Pretani" basically means British, applying it to all L21+ men is ridiculous, the word "Pretani" was never used in Ireland for obvious reasons Goidelic languages didn't have a P until it was borrowed from Latin/Old Welsh during Old Irish period.

[Dubhthach]

Societal structure in Gaelic Ireland is quite well know right back to 8th century AD. Mainly as that's the oldest strata of Irish law system (which includes detailed tracts on marriage, inheritance, divorce etc. survive to).

As Nichol point out in "Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the middle ages", lineage attached to major lordships could undergo exponetial growth due to societal structure of Gaelic Ireland which was quite different from rest of Western Europe (examples from 15th and 16th century of lords with up to 50 grandsons etc.)

[DebbieK]

The reason that we find autosomal population clusters by geography is that people tend to inter-marry within a particular geographical range (which will vary in size according to national, natural and/or linguistic borders and also by period and means of transport). They also tend to inter-marry within social boundaries. So one individual today could have multiple descents from Charlemagne, while another could have multiple descents from a founding father of the Viking settlement in Iceland.

But the limitation of autosomal DNA is that we only have a genetic contribution from a tiny percentage of our genealogical ancestors. While it is almost mathematically impossible for anyone not to have Charlemagne in their family tree, it's highly unlikely that they will have inherited any autosomal DNA from him. We're also more likely to inherit the DNA from the people with whom we share multiple lines of descent. If we only have a handful of African ancestors from 2000 years their genetic signal will be lost very quickly. DNA can only ever tell us part of the story.

[Dubhthach]

Just as an aside every English monarch since Henry IV are a descendant of Brian Boru in some form or other ;)
http://humphrysfamilytree.com/Ireland/index.html



THE QUEEN'S IRISH ANCESTORS

Madam

While we are all re-evaluating the Queen as someone who might actually like Ireland, it might be timely to summarise her extensive Irish ancestry.

The two great Norman families of medieval Ireland were the Butlers and the Fitzgeralds. The Queen directly descends from both many times. The most recent descents I can see for her are from James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormonde (died 1688), from James Fitzgerald, 10th Earl of Desmond (died 1529) and from Gerald Fitzgerald, 11th Earl of Kildare (died 1585). Through the latter she descends from Irish heroes Garret Mor Fitzgerald, 8th Earl of Kildare, and Garret Og Fitzgerald, 9th Earl of Kildare. Her ancestor Baron Portlester lies in a spectacular tomb [1] in St.Audoen's church on High Street in Dublin.

In terms of Gaelic families, the Queen descends (remarkably) from the rebel Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone (died 1616) and also from Diarmaid O'Brien, 5th Baron of Inchiquin (died 1624). Through the latter she descends from Connor O'Brien, King of Thomond (died 1540) and Domnall Mor O'Brien, King of Thomond (died 1194). Ultimately, she descends from Aoife Mac Murrough (who married Strongbow in 1170) and from Brian Boru, High King of Ireland (died 1014).

In fact, Ireland is littered with her ancestral homes and her ancestors' tombs. Her most recent Irish-born ancestor was apparently Richard Wellesley, 1st Marquess Wellesley (died 1842). Given all this, it does seem unfair that she was never allowed visit her ancestral homeland until now.

Yours

Mark Humphrys

[Jean M]

Well the word "Pretani" basically means British, applying it to all L21+ men is ridiculous, the word "Pretani" was never used in Ireland for obvious reasons Goidelic languages didn't have a P until it was borrowed from Latin/Old Welsh during Old Irish period.

I get you now. They are using it for L21 in general. Silly me.

[avalon]

The 70% figure for R1b-L21 in Wales doesn't sound right in light of other studies, it must refer to overall R1b. The Busby paper from a few years ago found 45% L21 for North Wales and there is also some sampling from Andy Grierson for North Wales which shows L21 generally at around 50%.

6721

As an aside, I have seen BritainsDNA give a figure of 14% U106 for Wales. My own view is that the bulk of U106 in Wales probably arrived within the last 250 years, but it would be nice to see a breakdown of U106 by English or Welsh surname to know more.

[MitchellSince1893]

The 70% figure for R1b-L21 in Wales doesn't sound right in light of other studies, it must refer to overall R1b. The Busby paper from a few years ago found 45% L21 for North Wales and there is also some sampling from Andy Grierson for North Wales which shows L21 generally at around 50%.

6721

As an aside, I have seen BritainsDNA give a figure of 14% U106 for Wales. My own view is that the bulk of U106 in Wales probably arrived within the last 250 years, but it would be nice to see a breakdown of U106 by English or Welsh surname to know more.

Despite the potential for NPEs and errors in genealogical research, one plus of analyzing the British American results in the FTDNA projects is that median date of arrival in North America is ~300 years ago. So it gives you a glimpse of what y dna might have looked in Britain during that period.

Of the 28 individuals I found for Shropshire (On your map the lower blue county with piechart), 24 listed a birth year with the median being 1713 AD.

15 of 28 were R1b (53.6%)

Of these 15
6 were L21 (40% of R1b, 21.4% of total)
3 were U106 (20% of R1b, 10.7% of total)
2 were DF27 (13.3% of R1b, 7.1% of total)
4 were R-M269 (26.7% of R1b, 14.3% of total)

Of the non R1b haplogroups:
6 were I1 (21.4%)
3 were G (10.7%)
2 were I2 (7.1%)
1 was E (3.6%)
1 was R1a (3.6%)

[MitchellSince1893]

Looking at the 299 confirmed SNPs in the FTDNA Wales project https://www.familytreedna.com/public/walesdna/default.aspx?section=yresults

212 are R1b (70.9%)

Of these:
119 are L21 (56.1% of R1b, and 39.8% of total)
22 are U106 (10.4% of R1b and 7.4% of total)
12 are DF27 (5.7% of R1b and 4.0% of total)
9 are U152 (4.2% of R1b and 3.0% of total)
4 are DF99
19 are P312
27 are R1b (CTS4528, M269, L151, L23, P25)

44 are I1 (14.7%)
16 are I2 (5.4%)
13 are E (4.3%)
8 are G (2.7%)
2 are J2 (.7%)
2 are R1a (.3%)
1 is F (.3%)
1 is Q (.3%)

Statistically approximately 30 of the 46 P312 and R1b may end up being L21. That would put L21 at ~150 out of 299 or 50% of the total for Wales.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

Surnames may not always be reliable I say, being Howells and U106. ;)

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

The 70% figure for R1b-L21 in Wales doesn't sound right in light of other studies, it must refer to overall R1b. The Busby paper from a few years ago found 45% L21 for North Wales and there is also some sampling from Andy Grierson for North Wales which shows L21 generally at around 50%.

6721

As an aside, I have seen BritainsDNA give a figure of 14% U106 for Wales. My own view is that the bulk of U106 in Wales probably arrived within the last 250 years, but it would be nice to see a breakdown of U106 by English or Welsh surname to know more.

Surnames may not always be reliable or maybe things are more complicated than we think ( Howells and U106) ;) Sorry missed quote in above post.

[rms2]

Looking at the 299 confirmed SNPs in the FTDNA Wales project https://www.familytreedna.com/public/walesdna/default.aspx?section=yresults

212 are R1b (70.9%)

Of these:
119 are L21 (56.1% of R1b, and 39.8% of total)
22 are U106 (10.4% of R1b and 7.4% of total)
12 are DF27 (5.7% of R1b and 4.0% of total)
9 are U152 (4.2% of R1b and 3.0% of total)
4 are DF99
19 are P312
27 are R1b (CTS4528, M269, L151, L23, P25)

44 are I1 (14.7%)
16 are I2 (5.4%)
13 are E (4.3%)
8 are G (2.7%)
2 are J2 (.7%)
2 are R1a (.3%)
1 is F (.3%)
1 is Q (.3%)

Statistically approximately 30 of the 46 P312 and R1b may end up being L21. That would put L21 at ~150 out of 299 or 50% of the total for Wales.

As I have mentioned before, I have big reservations about y haplogroup stats drawn from FTDNA project data, but I do think 50% R1b-L21 for Wales as a whole is probably about right. That is certainly huge, when one thinks about it. There are not too many other places in Europe where a single y haplogroup predominates to such an extent (Ireland is another, and I believe Scotland is also close to 50% R1b-L21). I think perhaps they meant R1b as a whole when they gave that 70% figure.

[DebbieK]

Well the word "Pretani" basically means British, applying it to all L21+ men is ridiculous, the word "Pretani" was never used in Ireland for obvious reasons Goidelic languages didn't have a P until it was borrowed from Latin/Old Welsh during Old Irish period.

BritainsDNA give nicknames to all their haplogroups in their customer reports. Pretani is the nickname that they give to L21. There's a full list of the BritainsDNA haplogroup nicknames in the ISOGG Wiki: http://www.isogg.org/wiki/BritainsDNA_haplogroup_nicknames

[rms2]

BritainsDNA give nicknames to all their haplogroups in their customer reports. Pretani is the nickname that they give to L21. There's a full list of the BritainsDNA haplogroup nicknames in the ISOGG Wiki: http://www.isogg.org/wiki/BritainsDNA_haplogroup_nicknames

Caramba! I was familiar with some of them. They're pretty bad. I understand the marketing angle and that probably the practice was taken over from Sykes and Oppenheimer, but it's just a bad idea.

[MitchellSince1893]

As I have mentioned before, I have big reservations about y haplogroup stats drawn from FTDNA project data, but I do think 50% R1b-L21 for Wales as a whole is probably about right. That is certainly huge, when one thinks about it. There are not too many other places in Europe where a single y haplogroup predominates to such an extent (Ireland is another, and I believe Scotland is also close to 50% R1b-L21). I think perhaps they meant R1b as a whole when they gave that 70% figure.

These Wales project numbers are in stark contrast to the numbers I have for the English counties across the border. For the Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire area (haven't done a thorough search of Cheshire and Gloucester yet) I've found 171 samples in FTDNA projects.

6733

84 are R1b (49.1%) of which:
25 are U106 (14.6%)
17 are L21 (9.9%)
15 are DF27 (8.8%)
8 are U152 (4.7%)
13 are R1b ie. M269, P25, P310, P311 (7.6%)
5 are P312 (2.9%)
1 is DF19 (.6%)

35 are I1 (20.5%)
12 are R1a (7.0%)
11 are G (6.4%)
10 are I2 (5.8%)
7 are I (4.1%)
3 are E (1.8%)
3 are J2 (1.8%)
2 are N (1.2%)
1 is F (.6%)
1 is J1 (.6%)
1 is Q (.6%)
1 is R2a (.6%)

As one would expect the the Germanic haplogroups (I1, U106, and some I2, and R1a) are a much higher percentage on the English side of the border...close to 50%.

And the L21 percentage have dropped significantly.

[rms2]

These Wales project numbers are in stark contrast to the numbers I have for the English counties across the border. For the Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire area (haven't done a thorough search of Cheshire and Gloucester yet) I've found 171 samples in FTDNA projects.

6733

84 are R1b (49.1%) of which:
25 are U106 (14.6%)
17 are L21 (9.9%)
15 are DF27 (8.8%)
8 are U152 (4.7%)
13 are R1b ie. M269, P25, P310, P311 (7.6%)
5 are P312 (2.9%)
1 is DF19 (.6%)

35 are I1 (20.5%)
12 are R1a (7.0%)
11 are G (6.4%)
10 are I2 (5.8%)
7 are I (4.1%)
3 are E (1.8%)
3 are J2 (1.8%)
2 are N (1.2%)
1 is F (.6%)
1 is J1 (.6%)
1 is Q (.6%)
1 is R2a (.6%)

As one would expect the the Germanic haplogroups (I1, U106, and some I2, and R1a) are a much higher percentage on the English side of the border...close to 50%.

And the L21 percentage have dropped significantly.

I think that L21 total is too low to be correct, honestly. I think L21 in the West Midlands would be closer to 25%.

6734

[MitchellSince1893]

I think that L21 total is too low to be correct, honestly. I think L21 in the West Midlands would be closer to 25%.

6734
You gotta compare apples to apples. As I posted before I had 21.4% L21 (without allocating the P312 and R1b numbers) for Shropshire (bottom pie chart on the map.
See post # 60 in this thread.
I haven't completed the analysis of Cheshire yet (top pie chart county).

[rms2]

You gotta compare apples to apples. As I posted before I had 21.4% L21 (without allocating the P312 and R1b numbers) for Shropshire (bottom pie chart on the map.
See post # 60 in this thread.
I haven't completed the analysis of Cheshire yet (top pie chart county).

I doubt the total would drop to ~10% over the whole territory colored red in your post #67 above. I guess if these figures -



13 are R1b ie. M269, P25, P310, P311 (7.6%)
5 are P312 (2.9%)


were also actually L21+, that would bump the frequency up to 20.4%. I think that would be closer to right, but still probably a little low.

[rms2]

You can see Part 1 of the Cymru DNA Wales series here, by passing the BBC restriction on viewing outside the UK:


http://www.s4c.cymru/clic/e_level2.shtml?programme_id=523140734

[rms2]

I just finished Part 1. Oi! Part 2 was a big improvement, IMHO. Part 1 was just too much. I'll leave it at that for now. Phew!

[GoldenHind]

Looking at the 299 confirmed SNPs in the FTDNA Wales project https://www.familytreedna.com/public/walesdna/default.aspx?section=yresults

212 are R1b (70.9%)

Of these:
119 are L21 (56.1% of R1b, and 39.8% of total)
22 are U106 (10.4% of R1b and 7.4% of total)
12 are DF27 (5.7% of R1b and 4.0% of total)
9 are U152 (4.2% of R1b and 3.0% of total)
4 are DF99
19 are P312
27 are R1b (CTS4528, M269, L151, L23, P25)

44 are I1 (14.7%)
16 are I2 (5.4%)
13 are E (4.3%)
8 are G (2.7%)
2 are J2 (.7%)
2 are R1a (.3%)
1 is F (.3%)
1 is Q (.3%)

Statistically approximately 30 of the 46 P312 and R1b may end up being L21. That would put L21 at ~150 out of 299 or 50% of the total for Wales.

When you do this sort of exercise, you have to be careful of multiple related examples of the same surname, as they can skew the results. You might have a surname project where a number (say six) of related people obviously have the same terminal SNP result, but if you count them as six instead of one, this will throw off your results. For example your 4 DF99 consist of just two surnames, each with two related individuals. Of course not everyone with the same Welsh surname is related, so you have to look at their STR markers and not just the surnames.

[MitchellSince1893]

FWIW, here are Britain's DNA numbers for L21. It's much larger than my area, but they have 15% for Central England. Their 47% L21 seems to be in the ballpark of the other data points.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f9/05/83/f905837c63e0e92a450a8f343c46bc68.jpg

[rms2]

Their L21 numbers seem low in many places. I'm guessing they're leaving out some of the subclades and counting them separately. They've done that before with M222.

[jdean]

Their L21 numbers seem low in many places. I'm guessing they're leaving out some of the subclades and counting them separately. They've done that before with M222.

They are, this is L21** according to the subclades BDNA give figures for. Chromo2 data for L21 all is

ScotlandNorthEast 49
ScotlandNorthWest 39
ScotlandCentral 45
ScotlandSouthEast 36
ScotlandSouthWest 52
EnglandNorth 24
EnglandEast 17
EnglandYorkshires 22
EnglandCentral 17
EnglandSouthEast 19
EnglandSouthWest 22
Wales 53
Connacht 73
Leinster 70
Munster 73
Ulster 61

[MitchellSince1893]

When you do this sort of exercise, you have to be careful of multiple related examples of the same surname, as they can skew the results. You might have a surname project where a number (say six) of related people obviously have the same terminal SNP result, but if you count them as six instead of one, this will throw off your results. For example your 4 DF99 consist of just two surnames, each with two related individuals. Of course not everyone with the same Welsh surname is related, so you have to look at their STR markers and not just the surnames.

Yes the Welsh numbers were just a quick exercise I did last night of what was in the Welsh FTDNA project. For DF99 there were two samples with the same surname Wynn. The other two were Overton and and Ellis.

Like I'm currently doing for the 43 English counties I will eventually do a thorough search of the FTDNA projects on all the Welsh and Scottish counties/towns and eliminate multiple entries for the same ancestor and multiple entries for the same surname in the same village.

I just didn't have the time do that last night...takes me at least a couple of days per county

[MitchellSince1893]

Their L21 numbers seem low in many places. I'm guessing they're leaving out some of the subclades and counting them separately. They've done that before with M222.

In Central England it seem low based on what source?

Myers had L21 at 12% for Central England

description
N = 25
U106 = 24%
P312xL21,U152 = 12%
L21 = 12%
U152 = 0%

And Busby had L21 at 16% for Central England

Central England (Busby) 53.0780235 -0.9553138
description
N = 165
U106 = 18.2%
P312xL21,U152 = 15.2%
L21 = 16.4%
U152 = 9.7%

In addition
Busby had L21 at 13% for Eastern England

East England (Busby) 52.570244 -0.24369
description
N = 172
U106 = 25.6%
P312xL21,U152 = 17.4%
L21 = 12.8%
U152 = 8.1%

And Myers had L21 at 15% for SE England

England Southeast (Myres) 51.445 0.382
description
N = 52
U106 = 26.9%
P312xL21,U152 = 21.2%
L21 = 15.4%
U152 = 15.4%

I'm confused as to why you think the L21 percentages are low.

[jdean]

I'm confused as to why you think the L21 percentages are low.


The 23% for Ulster is a big clue !!

[MitchellSince1893]

15% for Central England matches what Myers and Busby got in their studies. So why would you think it should be 25% L21 in West Midlands?

What is the source/study that would lead one to that conclusion?

[avalon]

Surnames may not always be reliable or maybe things are more complicated than we think ( Howells and U106) ;) Sorry missed quote in above post.

We always need more data in this hobby but my educated guess would be that a U106 with a Welsh surname could date back to Anglo-Saxon times at the earliest. One possibility might have been a stray Anglo-Saxon man who crossed Offa's Dyke, went "native" and took up a Welsh surname centuries later. There are also records of intermarriage between Welsh and Anglo-Saxon nobility, particularly in the Welsh border area, so that is another consideration.

You also have the Anglo-Norman era, roughly 1063 to 1300 and there is plenty of opportunity there for U106 men to move into the Welsh Marches early on in that period, settle in the newly created castle boroughs, then adopt a Welsh name later.

Obviously, there are also going to be Welsh U106 men with English surnames and again some of these probably arrived in the medieval era but we also have to factor in Tudor period migration into parts of Wales and also the massive changes and internal migration within Britain of the last few hundred years.

[rms2]

15% for Central England matches what Myers and Busby got in their studies. So why would you think it should be 25% L21 in West Midlands?

What is the source/study that would lead one to that conclusion?

One thing about Busby's English L21 results to keep in mind is that their sample locations were skewed to the east. As I recall, the only truly western location they sampled was Exeter, and that came up as ~38% R1b-L21.

What makes me think the figure for the West Midlands is low is that Andy Grierson's figures for the portion of the West Midlands on his map showed around 25% R1b-L21. That makes sense because, while it still amounts to nearly a halving of the L21 frequency on the other side of Offa's Dyke, it is not nearly so unbelievably drastic as a drop to just 10%.

[avalon]

Interesting that Andy Grierson's map shows L21 for Shropshire at about 25-30% but Cheshire is somewhat lower at around 15% to my eye.

Part of the problem with BritainsDNA and the Busby paper maps is that their "regions" are so broad, we can only get a very general idea of y-dna distribution across regions and they tell us nothing about the local variation within the regions. Even within counties, there are going to be variations between urban and rural locations and variations between different towns and villages, depending on the local history.

A case in point would be Llanidloes in Mid Wales. There was quite a substantial English migration into the area in Tudor times and so I would expect the town to have a higher frequency of Germanic y-dna markers than somewhere else like Tregaron, for example, which is more of a "Welsh" town, and only 30 miles to the south west.

[MitchellSince1893]

At the risk of incurring great ridicule on using FTDNA data ;) (all in good fun) here are the Cheshire numbers. 38 samples. 35 samples have a date of birth.

Median year of birth is 1662.

7 are R1b (18.4%)
7 are U106 (18.4%)
5 are I1 (13.2%)
3 are L21 (7.9%)
3 are U152 (7.9%)
3 are E (7.9%)
3 are I2 (7.9%)
2 are G (7.9%)
1 is DF27 (2.6%)
1 is Q (2.6%)
1 is P312 (2.6%)
1 is I (2.6%)
1 is R1a (2.6%)


...Cheshire is somewhat lower at around 15% to my eye...
To be exact it closer to 19%. I will post a image with all the pie chart percentages.

If I extrapolate how many additional R1b and P312 would be L21 it works out to an additional 2 or 13% L21 total.

One reason for the low L21 may be that most the immigration to colonial America (major source for FTDNA data) was prior to the great Irish influx to Lancashire and Cheshire during the Industrial Revolution and Irish potato famine.

More likely it's due to a the small sample size...You really need about 4 times this many samples for this size population to get a reliable result.

If I combine the Cheshire and neighboring Lancashire numbers (haven't completed Lancashire research yet) it totals 127 samples and 21.3% are L21 (before extrapolating R1b and P312 numbers).

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

We always need more data in this hobby but my educated guess would be that a U106 with a Welsh surname could date back to Anglo-Saxon times at the earliest. One possibility might have been a stray Anglo-Saxon man who crossed Offa's Dyke, went "native" and took up a Welsh surname centuries later. There are also records of intermarriage between Welsh and Anglo-Saxon nobility, particularly in the Welsh border area, so that is another consideration.

You also have the Anglo-Norman era, roughly 1063 to 1300 and there is plenty of opportunity there for U106 men to move into the Welsh Marches early on in that period, settle in the newly created castle boroughs, then adopt a Welsh name later.

Obviously, there are also going to be Welsh U106 men with English surnames and again some of these probably arrived in the medieval era but we also have to factor in Tudor period migration into parts of Wales and also the massive changes and internal migration within Britain of the last few hundred years.

My father's family were living very near the Welsh border back to the 1660's at least. It's pretty likely there was inter-marriage in my case I think with the Welsh Christian name Hywel (or similar) being used as a family name prior to use as a surname. West Herefordshire had quite a significant degree of "Welshness" until fairly recent times.

[rms2]

BTW, while I found Part 2 of the tv series enjoyable and pretty balanced, honestly, I thought Part 1 was terrible. The "out-of-Africa-we're-all-one-big-happy-human-family" thing was too saccharine for my taste. Yeah, okay, we're all related. I get it.

The bit at the end about S300/L371 I found to be just a total work of fiction without any factual basis. Where did this idea that it is the subclade of Arthur and the British princes come from? Honestly, it looked like they were just trying to butter up Dafydd Iwan to enlist his support.

[MitchellSince1893]

Here are the approximate percentages for the N. Wales Shropshire, Cheshire map. Should be within 1% of true numbers.

Updated and Original
6752 6753

I took the original image, pasted it in excel and then created and adjusted pie charts percentages to match the image pie charts. Finally, I pasted these pie charts with percentage labels on the original map.

[rms2]

Here are the approximate percentages for the N. Wales Shropshire, Cheshire map.

6752

I took the original image, pasted it in excel and then created and adjusted pie charts percentages to match the image pie charts. Finally, I pasted these pie charts with percentage labels on the original map.

Nice graphic! Good work!

[MitchellSince1893]

Nice graphic! Good work!

Thanks. I just added the original image next to it for comparison.

[GoldenHind]

Here are the approximate percentages for the N. Wales Shropshire, Cheshire map. Should be within 1% of true numbers.

Updated and Original
6752 6753

I took the original image, pasted it in excel and then created and adjusted pie charts percentages to match the image pie charts. Finally, I pasted these pie charts with percentage labels on the original map.

I assume the entire pie is R1b and does not include other HGs.

[MitchellSince1893]

I assume the entire pie is R1b and does not include other HGs.

That is an excellent question. I assumed the pie charts were for all haplogroups, but they may just be R1b. I tried googling to find the answer, but no luck.

[rms2]

I assume the entire pie is R1b and does not include other HGs.

I don't think that is the case. I think the pies represent the total y-dna profile. Otherwise R1b-L21 would only be half of the R1b in Wales rather than half of the total, and I believe ~50% of the total is the correct L21 frequency for Wales overall.

[MitchellSince1893]

Is there a way to get a definitive answer on that?

[Dubhthach]

Well someone could just send an email to Andy Grierson in University of Sheffield about it, though he does post here the odd time as well.

[MitchellSince1893]

Is there a way to get a definitive answer on that?

I found this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzgP_jDByh0

At the 36 min mark Andy Grierson discusses this map saying,


What you can see across North Wales, 50% of men are in this ???? Can't make it out but if you keep listening you can figure out he's saying 50% of all men in Northern Wales are L21.


Old news to many of us, but in a prior study, he found ~30% of men in Albergele, Wales were Haplogroup E-V13.
http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/welsh.html


OBTW, our own Richard Rocca is mentioned in this video at the 12, 14 and 41 min marks.

[rms2]

And Busby's North Wales sample was 45% R1b-L21, which is in the ~50% ballpark, so it does not seem likely those pie charts represent only R1b.

[jdean]

And Busby's North Wales sample was 45% R1b-L21, which is in the ~50% ballpark, so it does not seem likely those pie charts represent only R1b.

The percentages were for all men, this is from another S4C documentary a couple of years ago with Andy explaining the results. With subtitles luckily for those of us that don't understand Welsh : )

6756

[avalon]

Here are the approximate percentages for the N. Wales Shropshire, Cheshire map. Should be within 1% of true numbers.

Updated and Original
6752 6753

I took the original image, pasted it in excel and then created and adjusted pie charts percentages to match the image pie charts. Finally, I pasted these pie charts with percentage labels on the original map.

Thanks, good work. How did you arrive at the actual figures? Can you do that with excel?

[Jean M]

I found this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzgP_jDByh0

At the 36 min mark Andy Grierson discusses this map.

Can't make it out but if you keep listening you can figure out he's saying 50% of all men in Northern Wales are L21.

Thanks for that. Earlier (5.58-6.03) he says that about a quarter of the people in England carry L21 and probably about half the men in Wales, and he goes on to say about three-quarters of the men in Ireland.

[MitchellSince1893]

Thanks, good work. How did you arrive at the actual figures? Can you do that with excel?
Here are the steps

1. Inserted the original map image into excel via the Insert picture function.
2. Made a copy of this image and cropped to each of the individual pie charts as needed.
3. Added "L21", "U106", "Other" to 3 cells
4. Put in some approximate values in the cell next to each e.g. for Shropshire I started with 28 for L21, 20 for U106, and 42 for Other.
5. Inserted a sum function below these 3 values to ensure I always end up at 100 as I adjust these values to match a piechart%
6. Highlight the 6 cells containing the HGs and values (e.g. L21, 20, U106, 20, Other, 42)
7. Insert a pie chart, make the background transparent, remove the colored boundary and key, and change colors to match original map
8. Move the cropped pie chart from the copy of the original map on top of the excel pie chart to see what needs to be adjusted. It will be transparent as you move it over the excel pie chart.
9. Adjust the size of the excel piechart to be the same size as the original cropped piechart.
10. Keep adjusting the values until I have a match: I.e. I change a value, put the original pie chart on top to see how it looks, and repeat until I have a perfect mach.
11. After I recrop the picture in step 2 to the next piechart, I repeat steps 3-10

As the original pie charts are clear with few segments, it's easy to spot even a small difference between the original and excel pie charts.

This is the same technique I used with the POBI charts a couple of years ago. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1280-People-of-the-British-Isles-project-photos-and-maps-from-exhibition-2012&p=12763&viewfull=1#post12763

The Northern Wales piecharts were much easier to read compared to the POBI ones...less sections and colors.

This screenshot may help visualize some of the steps above. You can see the transparent original copy, just below the Cheshire excel pie chart.

6762

Unlike the screenshot, I will zoom in pretty tight when actually doing this to get it as accurate as I can.

It's not "rocket surgery" but you can use this techique to get you in the ballpark for any unlabeled piechart...assuming you have enough image resolution.

[avalon]

The next episode in this series is now available on S4C. http://www.s4c.cymru/clic/e_level2.shtml?programme_id=523140770

As it's Britains/CymruDNA, I had my skeptical hat on but I found it interesting in any case.

A lot about medieval Welsh chieftains so many of the well known names from Welsh history got a mention - Cunedda, Rhodri Mawr, Owain Gwynedd, the Llywelyns and so on.. A bit on Henry Tudor too.

[rms2]

Very interesting. At least they seem to be trying for some genealogical support for the alleged connection of certain y subclades to Welsh noblemen and kings.

I really enjoyed the segment with Colin Charvis. That was pretty cool, IMHO.

[Jean M]

At least they seem to be trying for some genealogical support for the alleged connection of certain y subclades to Welsh noblemen and kings.

Yes indeed. I'm going to have to eat my words. :) I was impressed. The programme was honest about the problems - the late adoption of surnames and the acceptance of illegitimate children. That made a mess of their search for the Y-DNA signature of the royal Tudor line.

Here are the five haplogroups that Jim Wilson identified as apparently Welsh-specific (if I have them correctly):


G-Z6748 [G2a2b2a1a1b1a2 in current ISOGG tree], carried by Alexander Talbot Rice, with a recorded lineage back to Henry Rice Fitz Urien, supposed descendant of (link) Urien Rheged (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urien), semi-mythical king of Rheged in the Old North (northern England and southern Scotland). For more on the Rice family see http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/rice-sir-walter-1562-1635 . This is the strongest link to a possible patriarch that the project has found. Jim Wilson was honest that it needs to be tested further.
R1b-PF5191- carried by a Powell with a claimed descent from kings of Gwynedd, whose line was traditionally traced to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunedda - also from the Old North. The programme did not mention (and its makers may not have known) that this tradition has been rubbished in recent years by revisionist historians. In Blood of the Celts I argue in favour of the tradition.
R1b-S300 [R1b1a2a1a2c1h in current ISOGG tree]. A Jim Williams appeared on the programme as a carrier of this haplogroup. His family claimed descent from Hywel Dda. For more on this group see http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3217-BritainsDNA-project-for-Wales&p=55748&viewfull=1#post55748
R1b-A228
R1b-S4000

[rms2]

Now if Jim Wilson et al would just publish some stats for Wales. As I mentioned before, I wish they would test for STRs, as well, and initiate some matching service or at least post them somewhere.

Otherwise, all the this-celebrity-is-descended-from-that-prince stuff is just dilettantism. Fun to watch, but not of much use.

[Jean M]

Now if Jim Wilson et al would just publish some stats for Wales.

Apparently of the 1000 men tested with at least a paternal grandfather born in Wales, 35 i.e. 3.5% carried L371/S300. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3217-BritainsDNA-project-for-Wales&p=55748&viewfull=1#post55748

[Jean M]

G-Z6748 [G2a2b2a1a1b1a2 in current ISOGG tree], carried by Alexander Talbot Rice, with a recorded lineage back to Henry Rice Fitz Urien, supposed descendant of (link) Urien Rheged (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urien), semi-mythical king of Rheged in the Old North (northern England and southern Scotland). For more on the Rice family see http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/rice-sir-walter-1562-1635 . This is the strongest link to a possible patriarch that the project has found. Jim Wilson was honest that it needs to be tested further.
R1b-PF5191- carried by a Powell with a claimed descent from kings of Gwynedd, whose line was traditionally traced to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunedda - also from the Old North. The programme did not mention (and its makers may not have known) that this tradition has been rubbished in recent years by revisionist historians. In Blood of the Celts I argue in favour of the tradition.
R1b-S300 [R1b1a2a1a2c1h in current ISOGG tree]. A Jim Williams appeared on the programme as a carrier of this haplogroup. His family claimed descent from Hywel Dda. For more on this group see http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3217-BritainsDNA-project-for-Wales&p=55748&viewfull=1#post55748
R1b-A228
R1b-S4000


I should mention that a problem here is that both R1b-PF5191 and R1b-S300 are carried by men claiming descent from Cunedda, since Hywel Dda was of the line of Gwynedd, though he reigned over Deheubarth.

[rms2]

I couldn't find R1b-PF5191 or R1b-S4000 at ISOGG or YFull. Any idea off which major branches of R1b they sprout?

[Jean M]

I couldn't find R1b-PF5191 or R1b-S4000 at ISOGG or YFull. Any idea off which major branches of R1b they sprout?

No. I tried the same places to identify them. I wondered if I had written them down incorrectly.

[MacUalraig]

I couldn't find R1b-PF5191 or R1b-S4000 at ISOGG or YFull. Any idea off which major branches of R1b they sprout?

ybrowse has the latter a synonym for CTS10571

S4000 Details
Name: S4000
Type: snp
Source: point
Position: ChrY:19551264..19551264 (+ strand)
Length: 1
allele_anc: C
allele_der: A
comment: Aka. CTS10571
count_derived: 0
count_tested: 1
isogg_haplogroup: not listed
load_id: S4000
mutation: C to A
primer_f: FGC12305_F
primer_r: FGC12305_R
ref: Jim Wilson
ycc_haplogroup: not listed
primary_id: 104967
gbrowse_dbid: chrY:database

[Jean M]

ybrowse has the latter a synonym for CTS10571

The Y-Full database has it at the level of Y3965, but not on the tree. If that is the correct position, it is in the U106 branch.

[rms2]

Well, I can't find CTS10571 at ISOGG or YFull or in my own list of L21+ SNPs.

Is a clue to its main branch somewhere in that ybrowse info?

[rms2]

The Y-Full database has it at the level of Y3965, but not on the tree. If that is the correct position, it is in the U106 branch.

I see Y3965 on YFull's tree, but not CTS10571 (I see you said that). If that's right and it's a U106+ SNP, it doesn't seem likely that is the y-dna line of a Welsh prince, unless it represents a line of Anglo-Saxon or other Germanic derivation.

[Jean M]

I should mention that a problem here is that both R1b-PF5191 and R1b-S300 are carried by men claiming descent from Cunedda, since Hywel Dda was of the line of Gwynedd, though he reigned over Deheubarth.

Correction. I forgot that the kings of Gwynedd from Merfyn Frych onwards were not descended in the direct male line from Cunedda. Merfyn Frych was the son of a Manx chieftain (not Viking Manx, but British) named Gwriad who married the daughter of the last king of Gwynedd of (traditionally) Cunedda's line. So Hywel Dda was descended in the male line (according to the genealogies) from Merfyn Frych. The line of Cunedda could well have had a different Y-DNA haplogroup. But it seems doubtful that anyone today could trace their direct male line as far back as this first dynasty of Gwynedd.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

I see Y3965 on YFull's tree, but not CTS10571 (I see you said that). If that's right and it's a U106+ SNP, it doesn't seem likely that is the y-dna line of a Welsh prince, unless it represents a line of Anglo-Saxon or other Germanic derivation.
It would set a cat amongst the pigeons if a Welsh Prince was U106. :).

[rms2]

It would set a cat amongst the pigeons if a Welsh Prince was U106. :).

I think it strengthens the claim of the R1b-S300 (L371) folks, since it doesn't seem likely that Hywel Dda was U106+. Anything is possible, but not everything is likely.

[avalon]

It would set a cat amongst the pigeons if a Welsh Prince was U106. :).

The world is full of surprises! :)

The one thing I would say is that from about 400AD to 800AD, Wales more or less drops out of history. This is the "dark ages" and there is a serious lack of documentary evidence. We know about the Romans leaving and we know about Offa's Dyke and Mercia in the 8th century but the bit in between is "smoky" to say the least.

So I suppose that it is possible that in the Early Middle Ages, U106 men may have arrived in Wales, gone "native" and then much later, a descendant of one of these men, may by some quirk of history have become a Welsh prince - and there were a lot of those at one time or another!

[rms2]

Wait a minute. It's S4000/CTS10571 that is U106+, but that's not one of the lines claiming descent from Hywel Dda. Those lines are R1b-S300/L371 and R1b-PF5191, not S4000/CTS10571, and I don't think we know yet which major branch PF5191 is from.

Sorry for the confusion on that; it's my fault.

I don't know what noble or princely y-dna line is claimed for S4000, if any.



. . . So I suppose that it is possible that in the Early Middle Ages, U106 men may have arrived in Wales, gone "native" and then much later, a descendant of one of these men, may by some quirk of history have become a Welsh prince - and there were a lot of those at one time or another!

What seems more likely to me is that a U106+ English (i.e., Anglo-Saxon) or Norman nobleman fathered a number of illegitimi on Welsh women, who raised their sons as Welshmen. Thus you have modern Welshmen descended in their y-dna line from a U106+ progenitor who was not himself a Welshman.

[avalon]

What seems more likely to me is that a U106+ English (i.e., Anglo-Saxon) or Norman nobleman fathered a number of illegitimi on Welsh women, who raised their sons as Welshmen. Thus you have modern Welshmen descended in their y-dna line from a U106+ progenitor who was not himself a Welshman.

Good point. This might explain some cases of U106 with Welsh surnames. I have never really seen any analysis of Welsh U106 by surname but it would be useful to see a breakdown of English surname vs Welsh.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

Good point. This might explain some cases of U106 with Welsh surnames. I have never really seen any analysis of Welsh U106 by surname but it would be useful to see a breakdown of English surname vs Welsh.
I live in hope that it might not all have an English source. (joke) :). If not descent from Harold Godwinson might be acceptable. :). I have come across a few U106 "Howells" like me whilst browsing, but I wouldn't claim it is analysis. I suppose the problem is with the late adoption of fixed Welsh surnames, It would be interesting though to look at long-established Welsh Surnames in England (U106 etc) where surnames might have been fixed earlier or possibly that isn't practical.

[rms2]

I live in hope that it might not all have an English source. (joke) :). If not descent from Harold Godwinson might be acceptable. :). I have come across a few U106 "Howells" like me whilst browsing, but I wouldn't claim it is analysis. I suppose the problem is with the late adoption of fixed Welsh surnames, It would be interesting though to look at long-established Welsh Surnames in England (U106 etc) where surnames might have been fixed earlier or possibly that isn't practical.

You never know. We could be surprised by the ancient dna, if we ever get any from Wales. But it sure looks like U106 came to Britain comparatively late, first with the Anglo-Saxons, then perhaps with the Vikings, the Normans, the Flemings, etc.

[rms2]

I am curious about the frequency of R1b-S524/DF41 in Wales, so I just emailed BritainsDNA and asked them if they have y haplogroup stats for Wales they would be willing to share with me. S524/DF41 is my Chromo2 terminal SNP. Big Y got me another step further downstream, to BY178 aka Z18037.

Of course, we weren't mentioned in the Cymru DNA series, probably because they don't mention the y haplogroup of hunchback cathedral bell ringers, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. Esmeralda! Esmeralda! :wacko:

[Jean M]

Debbie has gone into attack mode on programme three: http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/my-thoughts-on-dna-cymru-part-3-and.html

I must say that I'm glad. I have always felt an unease with the arguments that high frequency/rapid expansion of a Y-DNA haplogroup must point to a high-status patriarch. I'm happy where a progenitor can be identified via pedigree. The Stuart royal lineage - no problem. But Genghis Khan - hmmm.

[rms2]

While what she says is true, sometimes I think Debbie is just a tad too critical of BritainsDNA. For one thing, I doubt the people of Britain are so childlike and in need of protection from rapacious profiteers that they cannot use their own judgment when viewing a tv series like Cymru DNA. Dr. Wilson's private financial interests are no more suspect to my mind than the many other interests that can and do motivate scientists. Is the financial interest of scientists in government grants (often controlled by politicians and always by government bureaucrats) always clearly announced? If not, then why should Dr. Wilson's private financial stake in BDNA be deemed a matter demanding public disclosure? Both are pecuniary interests that could conceivably influence research and its interpretation.

Yeah, sometimes BDNA, and especially Mr. Moffat, go overboard in leaping to sensational conclusions on evidence that is too scanty, but I think adults should be relied on to sift things for themselves (whether most of them can actually do so or not). Sometimes it is fun to have a few people push the envelope of bovine excrement a little. It challenges the rest of us to find out if they could be right.

[DebbieK]

While what she says is true, sometimes I think Debbie is just a tad too critical of BritainsDNA. For one thing, I doubt the people of Britain are so childlike and in need of protection from rapacious profiteers that they cannot use their own judgment when viewing a tv series like Cymru DNA. Dr. Wilson's private financial interests are no more suspect to my mind than the many other interests that can and do motivate scientists. Is the financial interest of scientists in government grants (often controlled by politicians and always by government bureaucrats) always clearly announced? If not, then why should Dr. Wilson's private financial stake in BDNA be deemed a matter demanding public disclosure? Both are pecuniary interests that could conceivably influence research and its interpretation.

The issue with this particular series is that S4C, like the BBC, is a public service broadcaster funded by the taxpayer. It has a duty to maintain editorial independence, and that has not happened in this instance. Many people in Wales have expressed concerns about the commercial nature of the programme. S4C are currently investigating a complaint and have had to refer it to an independent editorial consultant for review. You can read more in this translation of an article in the Welsh-language magazine Golwg:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/genetic-ancestry/guff_documents/S4Ccomplaint

While experts on this list will recognise that CymruDNAWales is a commercial company, the majority of viewers will not know the finer details.

[MacUalraig]

The issue with this particular series is that S4C, like the BBC, is a public service broadcaster funded by the taxpayer. It has a duty to maintain editorial independence, and that has not happened in this instance. Many people in Wales have expressed concerns about the commercial nature of the programme. S4C are currently investigating a complaint and have had to refer it to an independent editorial consultant for review. You can read more in this translation of an article in the Welsh-language magazine Golwg:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/genetic-ancestry/guff_documents/S4Ccomplaint

While experts on this list will recognise that CymruDNAWales is a commercial company, the majority of viewers will not know the finer details.

I would say the real issue is you simply don't like this particular company, and the UCL MACE website editors showed a total lack of interest when I responded to their invitation to submit further examples of 'genetic astrology'. This is good evidence that 'genetic astrology' in general isn't the problem.

[alan]

The issue with this particular series is that S4C, like the BBC, is a public service broadcaster funded by the taxpayer. It has a duty to maintain editorial independence, and that has not happened in this instance. Many people in Wales have expressed concerns about the commercial nature of the programme. S4C are currently investigating a complaint and have had to refer it to an independent editorial consultant for review. You can read more in this translation of an article in the Welsh-language magazine Golwg:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/genetic-ancestry/guff_documents/S4Ccomplaint

While experts on this list will recognise that CymruDNAWales is a commercial company, the majority of viewers will not know the finer details.

I think the BBC has lost all credibility in the last 5 years or so. Its current affairs programs seem to be written by some sort mind control/propaganda department. It once was an amazing broadcaster but its gone to hell in a hand cart very very quickly. It take on world news should be logged under fiction. The problem seem to have started about 5 years back. I dont watch them now and wont return until their are mass sackings in the news/politics section.

[DebbieK]

I would say the real issue is you simply don't like this particular company, and the UCL MACE website editors showed a total lack of interest when I responded to their invitation to submit further examples of 'genetic astrology'. This is good evidence that 'genetic astrology' in general isn't the problem. This is simply untrue. We've expanded the website to include dubious claims from other companies. We have responded to all enquiries. I personally updated the website to include a section about Niall of the Nine Hostages and Genghis Khan after you wrote to us, and suggested we include something about Niall. iGENEA didn't get included because they aren't marketing in the UK. Is there something else that we've missed? I have no problems with the Chromo 2 test. I do have problems with individuals who send out threatening legal letters to my friends and colleagues. I also have issues with the extravagant and misleading claims made by the company in the media which, to my mind, mislead people about what they might expect from a genetic ancestry test.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

I was one of the ones who "bought into" Cymru DNA after the first programme, just an average person, curious about my historic origins. Although the test provided some useful information, it has not provided the clarity or certainty I was expecting from the blurb, no doubt revealing my lack of understanding. However and no offence meant, but the terminology and references used by many on specialist groups is beyond the comprehension of the average "Joe", particularly if you are not scientifically minded ( like me ) and have not studied the complexities. Fortunately I do have a friend who has a very good knowledge of the subject and is able to explain things to me in a way in which I can understand. If I had known him at the time, I would probably have looked at other options.

[Heber]

I have just finished watching episode three and again I was impressed by the content and presentation of the material:
Thanks to Debbie for her extensive notes although I do not agree with some of the editorial comments.
I was especially pleased that a Welsh language programme could produce such an interesting documentary.
Note to the Irish language TG4 to embark on a similar project on Irish DNA.
The Bartrum Welsh genealogies are a treasure and surely a starting point for mapping the ancient genealogies of Wales to the Phylogenetic Tree.
http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org/id70.html
We are trying to achieve a similar goal in Ireland, digitizing and mapping the Great Book of Irish Genealogies, but progress is painfully slow. We may start by digitizing the chiefly genealogies as documented by Bart Jasko.
https://www.pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/irish-genealogies/
I loved Dr Chris Tyler Smith's dead pan delivery and conclusion that we need a new discipline of Historical Genetics. I met him at a conference in Innsbruck in 2012 where he presented his findings on the dramatic expansion of R1b with Wei and Zhu.
Dr. Jim Wilson explained the connection between genetics and genealogy in a very clear and informative manner. We are fortunate to have people like Wilson, Tyler Smith, Bradley, Pinhasy, Cavelleri, Bodmar, Jobling and others working and pushing the boundaries or our knowledge of migration to these Isles.
As Dr Wilson mentioned it will take more testing within and around these clusters to get a clearer picture and hopefully more ancient DNA samples and a willingness on the part of authorities to release ancient DNA samples for testing.
I would have liked to see some discussion on Anglesea (Ynys Mons) and the last stand of the Celts and a potential site of ancient DNA.
http://philipcoppens.com/anglesey.html
In conclusion I learned a lot about Welsh History and Genetics from this series.

[DebbieK]

I was one of the ones who "bought into" Cymru DNA after the first programme, just an average person, curious about my historic origins. Although the test provided some useful information, it has not provided the clarity or certainty I was expecting from the blurb, no doubt revealing my lack of understanding. However and no offence meant, but the terminology and references used by many on specialist groups is beyond the comprehension of the average "Joe", particularly if you are not scientifically minded ( like me ) and have not studied the complexities. Fortunately I do have a friend who has a very good knowledge of the subject and is able to explain things to me in a way in which I can understand. If I had known him at the time, I would probably have looked at other options.

John, Don't be disheartened. We are still in the pioneering stage of genetic genealogy testing. It's also a very exciting time as we are discovering all the SNPs on all the different branches of the Y-DNA tree. Many of these discoveries have come, not from the scientists but from the experienced genetic genealogists who have helped with the interpretation of results. All the companies are struggling to keep up with the rate of discovery, and to give us the tools that we might like, but I suspect in five years' time the landscape will look very different.

[MacUalraig]

This is simply untrue. We've expanded the website to include dubious claims from other companies. We have responded to all enquiries. I personally updated the website to include a section about Niall of the Nine Hostages and Genghis Khan after you wrote to us, and suggested we include something about Niall. iGENEA didn't get included because they aren't marketing in the UK. Is there something else that we've missed? I have no problems with the Chromo 2 test. I do have problems with individuals who send out threatening legal letters to my friends and colleagues. I also have issues with the extravagant and misleading claims made by the company in the media which, to my mind, mislead people about what they might expect from a genetic ancestry test.

You threw away the iGenea example which should have enraged Thomas in particular since claims about Viking DNA are supposedly his pet hate. I can't see what the country of adversiting has to do with it since its a website visible worldwide (and so must count as adveristing in the UK).

The reference to FTDNA is cleverly hidden, there is no reference in the text to the company and the link to them is the fourth in a list of unnamed URLs ('here, here, here and here') and you would have to be very persistent to click through all four of them. In other words you spent some time making sure no-one would see a critical reference to FTDNA. I'm probably the only person who has seen it! However if you want to explain why you did that I would be delighted to hear.

There are some wider issues here that need tackling but I'm not sure what venue is most appropriate. The entire matter of trying to distinguish between 'genetic ancestry' and what you describe as the more legitimate 'genetic genealogy' I think is very dubious. It therefore follows that I don't think companies should be divided up like that, especially if its simply a precursor to you advising customers to avoid one group.

[rms2]

The issue with this particular series is that S4C, like the BBC, is a public service broadcaster funded by the taxpayer. It has a duty to maintain editorial independence, and that has not happened in this instance. Many people in Wales have expressed concerns about the commercial nature of the programme. S4C are currently investigating a complaint and have had to refer it to an independent editorial consultant for review. You can read more in this translation of an article in the Welsh-language magazine Golwg:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/genetic-ancestry/guff_documents/S4Ccomplaint

While experts on this list will recognise that CymruDNAWales is a commercial company, the majority of viewers will not know the finer details.

Wouldn't one have to be pretty stupid not to recognize that CymruDNAWales is a commercial company? Perhaps a little disclaimer at the beginning of each episode would be appropriate, but I don't see that as a big issue.

I thought Part 1 of the series was dreadful, but Parts 2 and 3 were pretty good overall, even though I don't agree with every last thing that was said. I wish Family Tree DNA would undertake something similar.

[MacUalraig]

I think the BBC has lost all credibility in the last 5 years or so. Its current affairs programs seem to be written by some sort mind control/propaganda department. It once was an amazing broadcaster but its gone to hell in a hand cart very very quickly. It take on world news should be logged under fiction. The problem seem to have started about 5 years back. I dont watch them now and wont return until their are mass sackings in the news/politics section.

Well, we are drifting a bit off topic now but I agree and can't stomach their news coverage at all now. I usually watch Al Jazeera and Russia Today, both are somewhat irreverent but at the same time offer opposing views.

[rms2]

I was one of the ones who "bought into" Cymru DNA after the first programme, just an average person, curious about my historic origins. Although the test provided some useful information, it has not provided the clarity or certainty I was expecting from the blurb, no doubt revealing my lack of understanding. However and no offence meant, but the terminology and references used by many on specialist groups is beyond the comprehension of the average "Joe", particularly if you are not scientifically minded ( like me ) and have not studied the complexities. Fortunately I do have a friend who has a very good knowledge of the subject and is able to explain things to me in a way in which I can understand. If I had known him at the time, I would probably have looked at other options.

I guess I was blessed to be introduced to dna testing through an article written by Henry Louis Gates of Harvard, in which he detailed his own genetic genealogical quest without any fantastic promises of mythic connections to princes or noblemen. Dr. Gates recommended Family Tree DNA, so that's where I went first. I'm very glad I did and do not regret a single coin spent on genetic testing, including the money I sent Dr. Wilson's way for testing with BritainsDNA (which was "Ethnoancestry" when I ordered my first test from them).

[MacUalraig]

I guess I was blessed to be introduced to dna testing through an article written by Henry Louis Gates of Harvard, in which he detailed his own genetic genealogical quest without any fantastic promises of mythic connections to princes or noblemen. Dr. Gates recommended Family Tree DNA, so that's where I went first. I'm very glad I did and do not regret a single coin spent on genetic testing, including the money I sent Dr. Wilson's way for testing with BritainsDNA (which was "Ethnoancestry" when I ordered my first test from them).

Just the opposite for me, I was introduced by Sykes and his 'seven daughters' stuff. Some scientists object to populist peers but they can have a knack for exciting a public who would otherwise not be bothered so all power to them. Mind you I did skip his book chapter about the life of my ancestor 'Helena' ;-)

[rms2]

BTW, I guess I should issue my own disclaimer by saying that I like and respect Dr. Jim Wilson very much. I have had at times over the years a number of email exchanges with him. He has always gone out of his way to answer my questions and explain things in terms a layman can understand, and he has always been very friendly and courteous. I think BritainsDNA and its branches comprise a very reliable dna testing company. I would not hesitate to order one or more of their offerings again, and I do not regret the money I spent with them.

If the Cymru DNA tv series recruits more people for genetic genealogy, then I think it's great.

[MacUalraig]

BTW, I guess I should issue my own disclaimer by saying that I like and respect Dr. Jim Wilson very much. I have had at times over the years a number of email exchanges with him. He has always gone out of his way to answer my questions and explain things in terms a layman can understand, and he has always been very friendly and courteous. I think BritainsDNA and its branches comprise a very reliable dna testing company. I would not hesitate to order one or more of their offerings again, and I do not regret the money I spent with them.

If the Cymru DNA tv series recruits more people for genetic genealogy, then I think it's great.

I can still remember helping Jim and David Faux test their S21 SNP test out (that's Debbie's paternal line I believe), not to mention his M222 work. But in his day job he's done a lot of work on the genetics of heart disease in Scotland which I suffer from. His work may literally save lives, even if its not in time for me. He certainly qualifies to be called 'highly respected' in my view.

> > Based on our SNP testing we have determined the following results
> >relating to your order EA:
> >
> > M126 ancestral (negative)
> > M153 ancestral (negative)
> > M160 ancestral (negatie)
> > M269 derived (positive)
> > M37 ancestral (negative)
> > M65 ancestral (negative)
> > S21 ancestral (negative)

[rms2]

I ordered the famous "S Series" test from Ethnoancestry back in 2006, fully expecting to be S21+ (U106+). The first 37 of my STRs are remarkably close to the Frisian Modal Haplotype; in fact, I have a number of haplotype neighbors on my FTDNA matches pages who are U106+, L48+, etc. When I came up S21-, Dr. Wilson retested my sample because he was surprised at the result. It came up negative (i.e., ancestral) the second time through, as well. At the time, I was really disappointed.

Of course, then I got my 67-marker STR upgrade from FTDNA and the telltale 492=12, which is strongly predictive of S21/U106- and P312+ status. Subsequent SNP testing from FTDNA told the rest of the tale, and I have since had the Chromo2 from BDNA, which confirmed my FTDNA results.

One of the benefits of testing with both FTDNA and BDNA is getting an independent second opinion on one's SNP testing results. I feel pretty good that my Chromo2 results confirmed what I got from FTDNA.

[Jean M]

I do have problems with individuals who send out threatening legal letters to my friends and colleagues.

I object to individuals sending threatening legal letters to any scholar to attempt to prevent him or her from making scholarly criticisms well within the normal range of academic discussion. The progress of science requires open debate. It should be possible to publish a range of opinions. There should be no intellectual straight-jacket. There should be no improper use of the power of position to stifle debate and enforce a particular viewpoint. That goes for everyone equally.

[rms2]

I object to individuals sending threatening legal letters to any scholar to attempt to prevent him or her from making scholarly criticisms well within the normal range of academic discussion. The progress of science requires open debate. It should be possible to publish a range of opinions. There should be no intellectual straight-jacket. There should be no improper use of the power of position to stifle debate and enforce a particular viewpoint. That goes for everyone equally.

I agree with that wholeheartedly. I have no problem with Moffat's wild dna speculations, but his litigious side is disturbing and off-putting.

[Jean M]

his litigious side is disturbing and off-putting.

That is the reason that I would not allow my publisher to use the jacket of my book to promote his. It was not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with content.

Normally I have no objection to letting readers know about other books in which they might have an interest, including those which differ considerably from mine in point of view. I have used forums (and my blog when I had one) to point out plenty of books and papers that I might disagree with on some point or indeed completely! :biggrin1:

Debate is healthy. Science is constantly in progress. It is not a body of dogma to be enforced.

[DebbieK]

You threw away the iGenea example which should have enraged Thomas in particular since claims about Viking DNA are supposedly his pet hate. I can't see what the country of adversiting has to do with it since its a website visible worldwide (and so must count as adveristing in the UK).

The reference to FTDNA is cleverly hidden, there is no reference in the text to the company and the link to them is the fourth in a list of unnamed URLs ('here, here, here and here') and you would have to be very persistent to click through all four of them. In other words you spent some time making sure no-one would see a critical reference to FTDNA. I'm probably the only person who has seen it! However if you want to explain why you did that I would be delighted to hear.

There are some wider issues here that need tackling but I'm not sure what venue is most appropriate. The entire matter of trying to distinguish between 'genetic ancestry' and what you describe as the more legitimate 'genetic genealogy' I think is very dubious. It therefore follows that I don't think companies should be divided up like that, especially if its simply a precursor to you advising customers to avoid one group.

I don't see why you're so keen to see critical references to FTDNA. They haven't sent threatening legal letters to anyone and they haven't flooded the UK media with misleading and extravagant claims. The iGENEA claims are only on their website. I'm not aware of them ever having any publicity in the UK. On checking the page I see that the two links to the Genebase website were broken. I've now found the new pages and I've updated the links. I seem to recall when I added the Genebase links that they were the most overtly promotional which was the reason for including them first. FTDNA don't actively promote the Niall testing any more. I seem to remember it used to be linked from their home page but that changed several years ago now. I wouldn't have known that the landing page was there if you hadn't sent the link to me. It therefore doesn't seem appropriate to me to make too much of a fuss about it. At least in the case of Niall and Genghis Khan the claims were made on the basis of published papers. Neither of the papers has been effectively debunked in the scientific literature though Cathy Swift did a good job with her book chapter. That's why I wanted to bring the subject up in my latest blog post in order to open up the debate.

The inferences drawn from DNA tests for deep ancestry are generally pretty dubious, and that includes a lot of the material that has appeared in the literature though the tide is now turning. Everyone is doing a brilliant job at defining all the branches on the tree but trying to work out what it means is a different matter altogether.

I'm not advising anyone to avoid one company. It all depends what someone wants to get out of a DNA test. I wouldn't generally recommend BritainsDNA as a first testing option and I wouldn't recommend Geno 2.0 either but the Chromo 2 test is a perfectly good test for someone who wants a more detailed haplogroup assignment. I quite like their admixture reports too, and I gave them a nice review here: http://cruwys.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/a-first-look-at-chromo-2-all-my.html

[DebbieK]

I can still remember helping Jim and David Faux test their S21 SNP test out (that's Debbie's paternal line I believe), not to mention his M222 work. But in his day job he's done a lot of work on the genetics of heart disease in Scotland which I suffer from. His work may literally save lives, even if its not in time for me. He certainly qualifies to be called 'highly respected' in my view.

No one is disputing that Jim Wilson is a good scientist and has done some good work. That doesn't mean that his company's misleading media claims should be immune from criticism.

[rms2]

No one is disputing that Jim Wilson is a good scientist and has done some good work. That doesn't mean that his company's misleading media claims should be immune from criticism.

I remember when David Faux was a sort of spokesman for Ethnoancestry. He and I bumped heads pretty drastically at times on the old dna forums. Of course, we patched things up via email later and actually got along pretty well.

I recall David threatening legal action against those he regarded as harming his reputation. I don't know if he ever went as far as sending threatening letters. What I saw took the form of posts at Rootsweb and dna forums.

I won't go into details because of the issue's political nature, but we have some extreme examples of the chilling of scientific free speech and inquiry going on right now in the USA. The Attorney General of the State of New York is seeking to prosecute under the RICO anti-racketeering statutes those who hold a particular controversial scientific opinion. There is also a certain rather disreputable scientist who is actually suing those who disagree with him and who have had the temerity to say so publicly.

Very scary.

[Jean M]

Very scary.

It would be tedious to describe the number of ways in which misguided persons have tried to silence me. Trying to stop publication and threatening to destroy my career (and making solid attempts to do so) rather stand out. But some sort of row has featured regularly over my publications since 1986. It's just fate, as I see it. I was designed by destiny to be the person who publishes the stuff that no-one else would touch with a barge-pole, because it will upset someone. :biggrin1:

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

Just the opposite for me, I was introduced by Sykes and his 'seven daughters' stuff. Some scientists object to populist peers but they can have a knack for exciting a public who would otherwise not be bothered so all power to them. Mind you I did skip his book chapter about the life of my ancestor 'Helena' ;-)

It is a bit of a two-edged sword. :) Imagine someone, like me, who was completely new to the subject. The message which is sold is basically "have your DNA tested and discover your ancestral origins" ( Full-stop) whereas it might have been more accurate to say " have your DNA tested and we will give you some information and theories about your POSSIBLE ancestral origins, although a lot of it is based on speculation or is not understood and there seems to be almost a complete absence of ancient DNA which might actually confirm things one way or the other. Oh and by the way, we haven't told you that in order to find out more about your ancestral origins, you are going to have to go and spend more money with someone else because we don't actually share the data we are collecting to help find the truth because we are all in commercial competition with each other":doh: I should have researched it further, I admit. I'm still pondering whether to undertake further tests myself. :)

[MacUalraig]

It is a bit of a two-edged sword. :) Imagine someone, like me, who was completely new to the subject. The message which is sold is basically "have your DNA tested and discover your ancestral origins" ( Full-stop) whereas it might have been more accurate to say " have your DNA tested and we will give you some information and theories about your POSSIBLE ancestral origins, although a lot of it is based on speculation or is not understood and there seems to be almost a complete absence of ancient DNA which might actually confirm things one way or the other. Oh and by the way, we haven't told you that it order to find out more about your ancestral origins, you are going to have to go and spend more money with someone else because we don't actually share the data we are collecting to help find the truth because we are all in commercial competition with each other":doh: I should have researched it further, I admit. I'm still pondering whether to undertake further tests myself. :)

Well, the other lot don't share their full database either although individuals can opt to do so ;-)

Yes some will pursue further and some won't. That happens at all firms. For example a LOT of people stop as soon as they see a Y 'match' list of surnames other than their own. Or an autosomal match list of people supposedly close cousins who don't actually show up in their tree.

[MacUalraig]

It would be tedious to describe the number of ways in which misguided persons have tried to silence me. Trying to stop publication and threatening to destroy my career (and making solid attempts to do so) rather stand out. But some sort of row has featured regularly over my publications since 1986. It's just fate, as I see it. I was designed by destiny to be the person who publishes the stuff that no-one else would touch with a barge-pole, because it will upset someone. :biggrin1:

The mind boggles!

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

Well, the other lot don't share their full database either although individuals can opt to do so ;-)

Yes some will pursue further and some won't. That happens at all firms. For example a LOT of people stop as soon as they see a Y 'match' list of surnames other than their own. Or an autosomal match list of people supposedly close cousins who don't actually show up in their tree.

Well I've been informed by a project group that to find out more about my "little-known" U106 sub-group and to contribute in a small way to understanding it's origins I must undertake a further test with FTDNA. Why can't people share data already collected and why does everyone use different terms for the same things? I probably don't understand the complexities but it all seems a bit dis-jointed to me. Would I recommend the same test to someone else (I did Chromo 2 and quite expensive) - no probably not, not without explaining the limitations anyway. I might find the same thing with other providers, which is why I'm still considering if it is worth my while. I don't really think these practices encourage large-scale public participation in DNA testing.

[MacUalraig]

Well I've been informed by a project group that to find out more about my "little-known" U106 sub-group and to contribute in a small way to understanding it's origins I must undertake a further test with FTDNA. Why can't people share data already collected and why does everyone use different terms for the same things? I probably don't understand the complexities but it all seems a bit dis-jointed to me. Would I recommend the same test to someone else (I did Chromo 2 and quite expensive) - no probably not, not without explaining the limitations anyway. I might find the same thing with other providers, which is why I'm still considering if it is worth my while. I don't really think these practices encourage large-scale public participation in DNA testing.

I think you already answered your own question a little earlier - commercial competition, and how to make money without all your customers buggering off somewhere else.

There are some little havens of cooperation generally amongst small operations such as YFull and GEDMatch, neither of whom sell the actual tests but help customers irrespective of where they tested. I love both of them. To the extent that with a match on GEDMatch I don't even bother to note which firm they came from as it doesn't really matter.

[Jean M]

The mind boggles!

It can be over something that would seem utterly trivial to outsiders. I have published mainly on building and settlement history. It is amazing how heated people can get over the line of a cloister or where the Saxon manor house stood. :biggrin1: All good practice for my controversial plunge into prehistory, which has had so many people hopping mad. If they are not actually tying me to a stake in the market-place, I reckon things could be a lot worse.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

A bit frustrating because although I live in Wales, I couldn't access English language subtitles for last night's TV programme on S4C or the one the week before. :(

[Heber]

A bit frustrating because although I live in Wales, I couldn't access English language subtitles for last night's TV programme on S4C or the one the week before. :(

John, Try a different browser or use a laptop or desktop computer. I could not get the subtitles to work on Android, phone and tablet, but they worked fine on Windows, Chrome or IE. Remember to set the subtitles to English on the text field lower right of screen.

[jdean]

A bit frustrating because although I live in Wales, I couldn't access English language subtitles for last night's TV programme on S4C or the one the week before. :(

That's odd, perhaps it's your box ?

I recorded the programs but can get subtitles for S4C on the TV and when I view the recordings on my laptop. I'm on the Pontypool aerial BTW but I don't think that would make a difference ?

You can watch all of them via catch up at the mo.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

That's odd, perhaps it's your box ?

I recorded the programs but can get subtitles for S4C on the TV and when I view the recordings on my laptop. I'm on the Pontypool aerial BTW but I don't think that would make a difference ?

You can watch all of them via catch up at the mo.

I'm not far from you. Funny, no problem with the earlier programmes.

[J1 DYS388=13]

The live broadcast on S4C is Welsh only. The English subtitles should be on BBC iPlayer.

[jdean]

I'm not far from you. Funny, no problem with the earlier programmes.

Subtitles are on a different stream to the video and audio, sounds like your transmitter may have developed a fault, can you get subtitles on the English channels?

I haven't looked at last nights yet but the subtitles were there in episode three for me.


Edit: Just checked and subtitles were broadcast from the Pontypool transmitter last night.

[avalon]

Just caught up with episode 4 in this series. It was mostly about the Normans but there were bits in there too about the Vikings and the Romans. The most interesting bit was about Pembrokeshire and the Landsker line but in all honesty I didn't really learn anything new from this program.

They tested some local men from Llangwm in Southern Pembrokeshire and CymruDNA suggested there was evidence perhaps of Flemish y-dna but they didn't give any details of SNPs.

Apparently rugby player Alun Wyn Jones has a Norman y-dna signature which was Hg I S27836.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

I finally saw it with subtitles. Just made my possible U106 origins even murkier. :) I didn't really appreciate the close associations ( they claimed) between the Normans and the Flemish and the reference to some "German" presence at Caerleon during the Roman period.

[rms2]

I am curious about the frequency of R1b-S524/DF41 in Wales, so I just emailed BritainsDNA and asked them if they have y haplogroup stats for Wales they would be willing to share with me. S524/DF41 is my Chromo2 terminal SNP. Big Y got me another step further downstream, to BY178 aka Z18037.

Of course, we weren't mentioned in the Cymru DNA series, probably because they don't mention the y haplogroup of hunchback cathedral bell ringers, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. Esmeralda! Esmeralda! :wacko:

I heard back from Dr. Angelika Kritz of BDNA. She did not give me a rundown on all the Cymru DNA y haplogroup stats, but she did tell me about my own R1b-S524, exclusive of the R1b-S388 Royal Stewart lineage and the SNPs L563, S273 and S8311, which she identified as almost exclusively Scottish. Dr. Kritz said S524 (DF41) is most common in Scotland, at 3.9%, followed by Wales at 1.4%, Ireland at 1.0%, and England at 0.5%.

Dr. Kritz did say, ". . . [I]t is likely that there is a Welsh cluster below S524 for which we have yet to find a defining SNP" and mentioned that three of their S524+ customers carry the surname Jones (not surprising in Wales obviously). I have two Joneses among my haplotype matches.

Of course, I think the defining SNP for that Welsh cluster is BY178 (among a number of them), which turned up in Big Y testing of myself and two other members of my cluster and in subsequent SNP testing of another cluster member.

[rms2]

Just caught up with episode 4 in this series. It was mostly about the Normans but there were bits in there too about the Vikings and the Romans. The most interesting bit was about Pembrokeshire and the Landsker line but in all honesty I didn't really learn anything new from this program.

They tested some local men from Llangwm in Southern Pembrokeshire and CymruDNA suggested there was evidence perhaps of Flemish y-dna but they didn't give any details of SNPs.

Apparently rugby player Alun Wyn Jones has a Norman y-dna signature which was Hg I S27836.

I just finished watching episode 4. I thought episode 1 was bad, and episodes 2 and 3 were pretty good. With episode 4, however, I thought the quality slipped a bit again, with sweeping statements about the meaning of this and that y haplogroup. I was also disappointed that they did not name the y haplogroups of those men in Llangwm. I groaned when they told Mr. Pierce Jones that he is "an Iberian". Aarrgghh!

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

I heard back from Dr. Angelika Kritz of BDNA. She did not give me a rundown on all the Cymru DNA y haplogroup stats, but she did tell me about my own R1b-S524, exclusive of the R1b-S388 Royal Stewart lineage and the SNPs L563, S273 and S8311, which she identified as almost exclusively Scottish. Dr. Kritz said S524 (DF41) is most common in Scotland, at 3.9%, followed by Wales at 1.4%, Ireland at 1.0%, and England at 0.5%.

Dr. Kritz did say, ". . . [I]t is likely that there is a Welsh cluster below S524 for which we have yet to find a defining SNP" and mentioned that three of their S524+ customers carry the surname Jones (not surprising in Wales obviously). I have two Joneses among my haplotype matches.

Of course, I think the defining SNP for that Welsh cluster is BY178 (among a number of them), which turned up in Big Y testing of myself and two other members of my cluster and in subsequent SNP testing of another cluster member.

Do you think this lady might reply to me or do you have "special" connections? :) I wrote to Cymru DNA to ask if they had found anyone else in the UK ( anonymous) with my "little known" S11136 sub-type, but didn't get a response. I was curious about possible geographic distribution, which I thought could give some clue to origin.

[rms2]

I just wrote to their help desk folks and not directly to Dr. Wilson. They should answer you.

[Dubhthach]

Dr. Kritz said S524 (DF41) is most common in Scotland, at 3.9%, followed by Wales at 1.4%, Ireland at 1.0%, and England at 0.5%.
.

Nice now I can wear a 1% badge ;)

http://www.stickerthere.com/ebay/decals/onepercenter.jpg

[jdean]

I heard back from Dr. Angelika Kritz of BDNA. She did not give me a rundown on all the Cymru DNA y haplogroup stats, but she did tell me about my own R1b-S524, exclusive of the R1b-S388 Royal Stewart lineage and the SNPs L563, S273 and S8311, which she identified as almost exclusively Scottish. Dr. Kritz said S524 (DF41) is most common in Scotland, at 3.9%, followed by Wales at 1.4%, Ireland at 1.0%, and England at 0.5%.

Dr. Kritz did say, ". . . [I]t is likely that there is a Welsh cluster below S524 for which we have yet to find a defining SNP" and mentioned that three of their S524+ customers carry the surname Jones (not surprising in Wales obviously). I have two Joneses among my haplotype matches.

Of course, I think the defining SNP for that Welsh cluster is BY178 (among a number of them), which turned up in Big Y testing of myself and two other members of my cluster and in subsequent SNP testing of another cluster member.

Good to hear they'll give this level of information out.

BDNA's frequency maps are IMO a fantastic source which can't be far of scientific studies in reliability, but why they don't break down the groups further beats me.

[rms2]

Good to hear they'll give this level of information out.

BDNA's frequency maps are IMO a fantastic source which can't be far of scientific studies in reliability, but why they don't break down the groups further beats me.

I wish BDNA did STRs and would report customer matches the way FTDNA does. They're sitting on a database of Welshmen who are at least S524/DF41+. Some of them might actually be y-line relatives of mine, but I have no way of finding out. Or if Chromo2 had a little more refinement and got as far as my current terminal SNP, BY178, and I could find out who among BDNA's Welsh customers is BY178+, that would be something.

[jdean]

I wish BDNA did STRs and would report customer matches the way FTDNA does. They're sitting on a database of Welshmen who are at least S524/DF41+. Some of them might actually be y-line relatives of mine, but I have no way of finding out. Or if Chromo2 had a little more refinement and got as far as my current terminal SNP, BY178, and I could find out who among BDNA's Welsh customers is BY178+, that would be something.

I find it's very odd FTDNA's the only company focusing on STRs now, their usefulness is self evident.

[rms2]

I find it's very odd FTDNA's the only company focusing on STRs now, their usefulness is self evident.

They are really useful for genealogical matches and purposes. As much as I like deep ancestry and prehistory, etc., genealogy is still my main reason for genetic testing. It seems that BDNA's focus is on discovering some exotic historic or prehistoric ancestry, which explains its tremendous (and often mythic) leaps backwards in time to the Romans, the Vikings, etc.

I just really want to find out who my immigrant y-dna ancestor was.

[Torc Seanathair]

I recorded the programs but can get subtitles for S4C on the TV and when I view the recordings on my laptop. I'm on the Pontypool aerial BTW but I don't think that would make a difference ?


It would be wonderful if these were available on youtube here in the US...

[jdean]

It would be wonderful if these were available on youtube here in the US...

I could try but I'd have to find out how to upload them to Youtube and how to combine the video and subtitle streams into one ?

Have you tried viewing them from S4C's catchup site, normally these are restricted to UK residence but I know folk living in the US have been able to access them.

http://www.s4c.cymru/clic/e_level2.shtml?programme_id=523140770

[Torc Seanathair]

Thank you very much! The link and subtitles are working. Awesome!

[MitchellSince1893]

Good to hear they'll give this level of information out.

BDNA's frequency maps are IMO a fantastic source which can't be far of scientific studies in reliability, but why they don't break down the groups further beats me.

My guess would be the sample sizes would be too small to provide reliable results.

[jdean]

My guess would be the sample sizes would be too small to provide reliable results.


The lack of stats is a week point and no mistake, however

BDNA claim to use grandparent data, same standard as Scientific studies.

They break the Isles down into 16 areas (wish they'd broken Wales down a bit further)

There is only one area (Connacht) that doesn't have at least one Mtdna haplogroup with a frequency of 1%. The minimum there was 2%

There are only two areas (Connacht & Wales) that don't have at least one Y_DNA haplogroup with a frequency of 1%. Again both had a minimum of 2%.


From this I'm guessing there was in excess of 70 samples for at least most of these areas and probably more, which translates to a minimum of about 1100 folk which isn't bad.

[MitchellSince1893]

The lack of stats is a week point and no mistake, however

BDNA claim to use grandparent data, same standard as Scientific studies.

They break the Isles down into 16 areas (wish they'd broken Wales down a bit further)

There is only one area (Connacht) that doesn't have at least one Mtdna haplogroup with a frequency of 1%. The minimum there was 2%

There are only two areas (Connacht & Wales) that don't have at least one Y_DNA haplogroup with a frequency of 1%. Again both had a minimum of 2%.


From this I'm guessing there was in excess of 70 samples for at least most of these areas and probably more, which translates to a minimum of about 1100 folk which isn't bad.

With any region/county with a population over 200000 you need the following minimum number of samples to achieve these CI=confidence intervals, and MoE=margins of error
99% CI, 1% MoE: 14228 samples
99% CI, 5% MoE: 662 samples
95% CI, 5% MoE: 384 samples
90% CI, 5% MoE: 271 samples
85% CI, 5% MoE: 208 samples
80% CI, 5% MoE: 165 samples
95% CI, 10% MoE: 96 samples
90% CI, 10% MoE: 68 samples
85% CI, 10% MoE: 52 samples
80% CI, 10% MoE: 42 samples

http://www.select-statistics.co.uk/sample-size-calculator-proportion

The way I understand it (I'm not a statistician)

Using 95% CI with 5% MoE; if you conducted 100 random y-dna surveys in Northern Wales that had 384 samples, 95 out of 100 surveys would be within +/-5% your survey results.

At 80% CI with 10% MoE; if you conducted 100 y-dna random surveys in Northern Wales that had 42 samples, 80 out of 100 would be within +/-10% of your survey.

In your example of ~70 samples per region (let's call it 68 samples) you are looking at 90 out of 100 surveys using 68 samples would be within +/-10% of BDNA's numbers.

BDNA currently has 47% L21 in Wales. Again if I understand this correctly...if 100 other surveys with 68 samples were taken of Wales, 90 surveys would have figures between 42.3% and 51.7% for L21 (+/-10%).

If you increased the sample size to 662, then 99 out of 100 surveys would be within 5% of your survey results.

Note that it's the odds of your survey being within a certain percentage of 100 other random surveys using the same sample size. It's not the odds of being within a certain percentage of the true number. That would only be known if you surveyed everyone.

Obviously the larger the sample size the greater the odds of being close to the true number.

[jdean]

But I was making a comparison with scientific genetic studies, not the outpourings of the Office for National Statistics : )

[rms2]

I sent Dr. Kritz of BDNA a follow-up email asking her if any of their Welsh S524+ customers has my surname or the ph-spelling variant of it. I also asked her what some of the other surnames of their Welsh S524+ customers are, since she told me that three of them have the surname Jones. We'll see if she responds.

[jdean]

I sent Dr. Kritz of BDNA a follow-up email asking her if any of their Welsh S524+ customers has my surname or the ph-spelling variant of it. I also asked her what some of the other surnames of their Welsh S524+ customers are, since she told me that three of them have the surname Jones. We'll see if she responds.

Fingers crossed

[Heber]

Sounds similar to this blurb from Ireland's DNA.
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/martyn-turner/is-distinctive-dna-marker-proof-of-ancient-genocide-1.1426197

Looking forward to Pinhasy and Bradleys results from their ancient DNA samples.

"Not everyone is convinced, however. “What they [IrelandsDNA] are suggesting is based on a very strong interpretation of a small piece of a genetic pattern,” says Prof Dan Bradley from the Smurfit Institute of Genetics. “There’s no real scientific evidence to warrant the use of terms like ‘genocide’. You can’t link modern genetic variation securely through archaeological strata without ancient DNA testing also. You can certainly have conjecture and there are indeed ways of looking at the time and depth of these things. But they have very wide margins for error. The reality is I don’t think we can securely place any of these DNA marker patterns in time without ancient DNA testing.”
Ancient DNA testing has been ongoing in Ireland for the last two years by Bradley in Trinity and Prof Ron Pinhasi in the UCD School of Archaeology, who is involved with a large project of ancient DNA testing throughout Europe.
“I don’t know of any time in history where a culture came in and completely wiped out another,” says Pinhasi. “You don’t see total wipeouts, unless there is reason for a population to become extinct, like massive climate change. But we have no reason to believe Bronze Age farmers became extinct this way.
“Sure there were a lot of population movements and mixing going on at this time. That’s why modern people don’t look like neolithic people, genetically speaking, but it would have had minimal impact on the gene pool” he says. “You’re not going to have hundreds of thousands of people suddenly coming from Spain but you would definitely have had smaller groups coming in boats. Plus there’s no archeological proof of any massive warfare or battles here at that time.”
The mapping out of ancient genetics of populations from 45,000BC to the Bronze Age, now under way, may very possibly reveal many misconceptions about our past."

[rms2]

Makes one wonder what Dan Bradley meant when, at the recent GGI Conference in Dublin, he indicated that "massive population replacement" took place in Ireland.

Although I don't know for sure, I think he was not talking about total population replacement but about the change in y haplogroups that occurred, probably beginning with the arrival of the Bell Beaker people in the 3rd millennium BC.

[MitchellSince1893]

Finally had some time to sit down and watch the Cymru DNA videos. I found this screen shot interesting when discussing the dramatic differences between L21 in Wales and England (Lloegr).

L21 aka S145 is 47% in Wales and 16% in England.
6928

That's the Offa Dyke in the picture above.


Watching the last episode right now.

[rms2]

I'll have to look at Busby's stats again, but 16% strikes me as too low for L21 in England as a whole. And Busby's sample locations were skewed to the east, where L21 is probably at its lowest ebb. The only truly western English sample location was Exeter, and L21 there was 37% of the total.

[Dubhthach]

What's the odds that their definition of L21/S145 is L21**, if you remember previous maps released by ScotlandsDNA they specifically exclude all the subclades when they did their L21 map.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

I sent Dr. Kritz of BDNA a follow-up email asking her if any of their Welsh S524+ customers has my surname or the ph-spelling variant of it. I also asked her what some of the other surnames of their Welsh S524+ customers are, since she told me that three of them have the surname Jones. We'll see if she responds.

I received a reply from Dr. Kritz about my "little known" U106 sub-type. It seems I am not on my own in the UK. :)
"Your S11136 subtype is most common in men with paternal ancestry from England (0.7%) compared to Wales (0.4%), Scotland and Ireland (0.2%), with the highest frequency in SE England (1.5). We have recently identified a subtype cluster below S11136, defined by the SNP PF740 and seen in approximately 1/5th of S11136+ customers – but you do not carry this marker."
Anyone have any thoughts please on the percentages and distribution, is it just a fairly typical UK U106 type? Does it tell me anything new? Thanks.

[jdean]

What's the odds that their definition of L21/S145 is L21**, if you remember previous maps released by ScotlandsDNA they specifically exclude all the subclades when they did their L21 map.

Very high to a given : )

[glentane]

How queer! I've known about (and transgressed) the Offa-ditch since just about .. forever.
Until now, I had no suspicion that it was actually erected by the Taffs, against the barbarians.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6928&d=1450058803&thumb=1
According to Ancient Law, that is. The spoil is retained on thy side of the dicce. Strong hedges, good neighbours and all that, bachy!

[rms2]

How queer! I've known about (and transgressed) the Offa-ditch since just about .. forever.
Until now, I had no suspicion that it was actually erected by the Taffs, against the barbarians.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6928&d=1450058803&thumb=1
According to Ancient Law, that is. The spoil is retained on thy side of the dicce. Strong hedges, good neighbours and all that, bachy!

I think it was actually erected by the Anglo-Saxons to keep out the Welsh.

[rms2]

I received a reply from Dr. Kritz about my "little known" U106 sub-type. It seems I am not on my own in the UK. :)
"Your S11136 subtype is most common in men with paternal ancestry from England (0.7%) compared to Wales (0.4%), Scotland and Ireland (0.2%), with the highest frequency in SE England (1.5). We have recently identified a subtype cluster below S11136, defined by the SNP PF740 and seen in approximately 1/5th of S11136+ customers – but you do not carry this marker."
Anyone have any thoughts please on the percentages and distribution, is it just a fairly typical UK U106 type? Does it tell me anything new? Thanks.

Glad you heard from Dr. Kritz. Highest frequency in SE England makes it sound Anglo-Saxon, but I think U106 in general has its highest frequency in the Isles in SE England.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

I think it was actually erected by the Anglo-Saxons to keep out the Welsh.

Yes by Offa King of Mercia, according to the history :)

[Heber]

Here is an excellent presentation on Wales DNA by Brian Picton Swann at GGI2015.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AfwB1d2a2Bk&feature=youtu.be

[MitchellSince1893]

I'll have to look at Busby's stats again, but 16% strikes me as too low for L21 in England as a whole. And Busby's sample locations were skewed to the east, where L21 is probably at its lowest ebb. The only truly western English sample location was Exeter, and L21 there was 37% of the total.

Not done going through all the counties on my little FTDNA England project ...but I'm probably 90% complete.

Of the 1827 samples I've found in the various FTDNA projects, L21 makes up 16.6%. That's after I allocate the generic M269 and P312 samples based L21 percentage of M269 hgs and P312 hgs.

So FWIW (worth less to some than others :) ) BDNA's 16% for L21 is consistent with what I'm getting.

[rms2]

Not done going through all the counties on my little FTDNA England project ...but I'm probably 90% complete.

Of the 1827 samples I've found in the various FTDNA projects, L21 makes up 16.6%. That's after I allocate the generic M269 and P312 samples based L21 percentage of M269 hgs and P312 hgs.

So FWIW (worth less to some than others :) ) BDNA's 16% for L21 is consistent with what I'm getting.

Maybe, but I think that figure is too low. Busby's only true western English location (Exeter) had L21 at 37.5%, and its "England Northwest" location, which really wasn't all that far west at all (Leeds), had L21 at 40.4%.

16% is probably about right for the east of England, but I think as one moves west the frequency of L21 increases a great deal.

[MitchellSince1893]

IIR, didn't Busby collect his samples from one town/village for each area?

If so, then his samples may be true for a small area, but caution should be used in extrapolating this to a much larger area. I.e. Exeter may be have been a L21 hotspot that isn't indicative of the larger area..just like ~30% of men in Albergele, Wales were Haplogroup E-V13, isn't indicative of percentage of E-V13 of all of Northern Wales

BDNA has 19% for SW England, which includes Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, and Wiltshire.

For Devon and Corwall alone, I'm getting around 19-20%...still collecting data on these 2 counties.

So yes Busby has more weight as it's a no kidding scientific study, but there is value in knowing the "unscientific" percentages for a much larger area.

I know you have strong feelings on this, but I would ask you to consider the possibility that uncontrolled, but more broadly collected data from Britains' DNA and FTDNA may more indicative of larger areas than the data collected from Busby from one particular location.

Just my two cents.

[Dubhthach]

What would be great is if the "People of British Isles" release Y-DNA data with regards to their dataset. That's assuming they included Y-DNA specific SNP's on their chip.

[MitchellSince1893]

What would be great is if the "People of British Isles" release Y-DNA data with regards to their dataset. That's assuming they included Y-DNA specific SNP's on their chip.

Here Here!

[rms2]

IIR, didn't Busby collect his samples from one town/village for each area?

Honestly, I'm not sure how that worked, whether all those sampled were from the sample location itself or if that was simply the listed central point for a regional collection.



. . . BDNA has 19% for SW England, which includes Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, and Wiltshire.

As mentioned before, BDNA has a habit of excluding certain subclades of L21/S145 from the total and reporting them separately. One would have to know if those figures are total L21 frequency or only partial L21 frequency.



For Devon and Corwall alone, I'm getting around 19-20%...still collecting data on these 2 counties.

So yes Busby has more weight as it's a no kidding scientific study, but there is value in knowing the "unscientific" percentages for a much larger area.

I know you have strong feelings on this, but I would ask you to consider the possibility that uncontrolled, but more broadly collected data from Britains' DNA and FTDNA may more indicative of larger areas than the data collected from Busby from one particular location.

Just my two cents.

I don't trust data gleaned from FTDNA projects because the ancestral locations are supplied by members who very often are wrong and periodically update - and totally change - their ancestral info. This comes from my personal experience having been the group admin and co-admin of a number of different projects. FTDNA project figures have to be taken with a big fat grain of salt.

Does it seem likely to you that L21 would be only about 16% in western England and in northern England and then triple in frequency as one crosses the Welsh border or the Scottish border? That seems pretty drastic.

Busby's figures show an increase in L21 frequency in Wales and Scotland but one that is not quite so drastic. From them it looks like western and northern England are closer to 30-40% L21, rising only about 10-20% above that in nearby Wales and Scotland.

That sounds more like the true picture to me.

[MitchellSince1893]

IMO you are putting a lot of faith in 48 samples from Exeter to speak for the whole of Western England.

Consider the possibility that the Offa Dyke is a genetic as well as political border. Think of all the Britons that chose to go to what became Brittany rather than be ruled by the Anglo-Saxons. Given a choice of moving to Wales or become a slave/servant, I'm sure many chose the former. This combined with the massive Anglo-Saxon immigration into Britain and the inherit advantage of the ruling class to out produce descendants compared to the conquered for a few hundred years is going to have significant effects

Despite all it "worts" I believe the FTDNA data will be in the ball park of late 17th Century England. For every error against a haplogroup, there's probably an error in favor of it...so I don't think it's going to have a huge impact.

If a new more comprehensive scientific study comes out show that shows you are correct and the FTDNA data is crap, I will be the first to say "You were right and I was wrong". I just report what the data shows...even if it's unpopular.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

Here Here!

Well why don't you ask them? :) If you explain what you are doing, they might see mutual benefits. Wouldn't hurt to ask. :)

[rms2]

IMO you are putting a lot of faith in 48 samples from Exeter to speak for the whole of Western England.

I think you are putting too much faith in North American FTDNA customers.

At least Busby et al is a scientific paper that attempted some controls. I know FTDNA projects too well to have too much faith in member info. Some of it is solid, a lot of it is not.



Consider the possibility that the Offa Dyke is a genetic as well as political border. Think of all the Britons that chose to go to what became Brittany rather than be ruled by the Anglo-Saxons. Given a choice of moving to Wales or become a slave/servant, I'm sure many chose the former. This combined with the massive Anglo-Saxon immigration into Britain and the inherit advantage of the ruling class to out produce descendants compared to the conquered for a few hundred years is going to have significant effects

Offa's Dyke is a genetic border. I just don't think it is as drastic a border as you seem to think, with 16% L21 just east of it and nearly 50% L21 just to its west.

BTW, the Britons who fled to Armorica were probably fleeing the Irish and not the Anglo-Saxons, since the Anglo-Saxons had not gotten that far west at the time.



Despite all it "worts" I believe the FTDNA data will be in the ball park of late 17th Century England. For every error against a haplogroup, there's probably an error in favor of it...so I don't think it's going to have a huge impact.

If a new more comprehensive scientific study comes out show that shows you are correct and the FTDNA data is crap, I will be the first to say "You were right and I was wrong". I just report what the data shows...even if it's unpopular.

Well, that is where we differ. I think Busby is more likely to be right, and L21 is probably much higher than 16% in western England.

[MitchellSince1893]

I think you are putting too much faith in North American FTDNA customers.

At least Busby et al is a scientific paper that attempted some controls. I know FTDNA projects too well to have too much faith in member info. Some of it is solid, a lot of it is not.



Offa's Dyke is a genetic border. I just don't think it is as drastic a border as you seem to think, with 16% L21 just east of it and nearly 50% L21 just to its west.

BTW, the Britons who fled to Armorica were probably fleeing the Irish and not the Anglo-Saxons, since the Anglo-Saxons had not gotten that far west at the time.



Well, that is where we differ. I think Busby is more likely to be right, and L21 is probably much higher than 16% in western England.

I would just like to compliment you on maintaining a civil discussion despite our ongoing differences of opinion on this subject. :beerchug:

Often these types discussions can become personal. My goal is to keep it data driven and logical and devoid of emotion.

PS thanks for the info on the external force that caused the Britons to flee to Amorica.

Back to our regularly scheduled Cymru programming.

[rms2]

Thanks.

It would be fine with me if England had only about 16% L21. Whatever the truth is. 16% would suit me fine since it makes for an even greater contrast with Wales, which is where I am about 99% convinced my own y-dna line came from. That would just spice up Wales vs. England rugby matches (as if they weren't spicy enough already). ;)

I just think it likely that western England has an L21 frequency in excess of 25%. Aside from the Busby figures, much of the West Midlands used to be part of Wales, and when it was annexed by England no mass emigration of Welsh people into Wales proper ensued. Celtic peoples and languages also held out longest in western England, so I suspect the Anglo-Saxons had less of an impact there than they did in eastern England.

[moesan]

A. Raude thought the chieftains britton ligneages of Brittany were for the most coming from Strathclud and Rheget, N-W old Britain, based on genealogy and personal names, so flying (for a part) Angles and Scots; some settled definitely in Wales but other preferred go farther South, passing not too far from Cornwall-Devon maybe. Can be debated.

Bretons of today had about 40% of R-L21, Wales the same or a bit more. Cornish people spoke their celtic language until the 18th Cy, even if less and less. I would be amazed if genuine S-W England had only 20% of it: 30% seems to me more credible. I think the Y DNA doesn't illustrate exactly the auDNA and that Central England, spite strongly influenced by Brittons DNA (contrary to the study freshly come out) could have an excess of anglo-saxon Y-DNA; but the western fringes of England I think have surely more R-L21 than the national mean

concerning FTDNA and scientist surveys, Maciamo based upon the total found in ales 12% of Y-I1 when based upon only the second he found only about 6%...This could put somebody to doubt...

[rms2]

From what I have read, the Britons who went to Armorica came primarily from Cornwall and Wales.

Personally, I think northern France was already heavy in L21 before the arrival of the British expatriates.

[rms2]

I guess this has become kind of the catchall thread about Wales, so here's something intriguing. I also administer FTDNA's Red Hair Variants Project (since I carry one of the red hair variants), and yesterday a man from Wales with the surname Thomas joined the project. In a subsequent email exchange, he pointed out that I am an autosomal match for his mother at the site DNA Land, which lists us as speculative 8th degree relatives (e.g., 3rd cousins once removed). His mother's maiden surname was Michael. Mr. Thomas said his mom's family comes from Llanfihangel Aberbythych, near Llandeilo in Carmarthenshire, and he himself grew up in Llandeilo. He said that in census reports he has come across many Stevens living on farms near the farms of his mother's family. That's interesting, given his mom's apparent autosomal connection to me.

These are not Americans, btw. They are native Welsh people. Strange that there would still be an autosomal connection showing up after so many years, and it's fairly substantial: nothing recent, but a total of 129.49 cM in 32 segments. I must confess that I am far from an expert when it comes to autosomal dna, but this is interesting, especially given what Mr. Thomas mentioned about the Stevens living in proximity to his mother's family.

[alan]

Wales have for the first time in a very long time qualified for the finals of the European Championships in France next summer, the biggest soccer tournament for Europeans other than the World Cup. Other than Scotland, all the Celtic nations have made it - something that is extremely unusual. So the beer and fun will be flowing. Shame Scotland didnt make it - they played well but sort of blew it towards the end. England are there too of course but you cant have everything hahahahaha

[alan]

Wales have for the first time in a very long time qualified for the finals of the European Championships in France next summer, the biggest soccer tournament for Europeans other than the World Cup. Other than Scotland, all the Celtic nations have made it - something that is extremely unusual. So the beer and fun will be flowing. Shame Scotland didnt make it - they played well but sort of blew it towards the end. England are there too of course but you cant have everything hahahahaha

Oh and Wales are in England's group so that will be a hell of a match.

[rms2]

I guess this has become kind of the catchall thread about Wales, so here's something intriguing. I also administer FTDNA's Red Hair Variants Project (since I carry one of the red hair variants), and yesterday a man from Wales with the surname Thomas joined the project. In a subsequent email exchange, he pointed out that I am an autosomal match for his mother at the site DNA Land, which lists us as speculative 8th degree relatives (e.g., 3rd cousins once removed). His mother's maiden surname was Michael. Mr. Thomas said his mom's family comes from Llanfihangel Aberbythych, near Llandeilo in Carmarthenshire, and he himself grew up in Llandeilo. He said that in census reports he has come across many Stevens living on farms near the farms of his mother's family. That's interesting, given his mom's apparent autosomal connection to me.

These are not Americans, btw. They are native Welsh people. Strange that there would still be an autosomal connection showing up after so many years, and it's fairly substantial: nothing recent, but a total of 129.49 cM in 32 segments. I must confess that I am far from an expert when it comes to autosomal dna, but this is interesting, especially given what Mr. Thomas mentioned about the Stevens living in proximity to his mother's family.

This is especially curious in light of the fact the my Family Finder myOrigins map now shows me as 100% continental European:

7015

This despite the fact that by far most of the surnames in my pedigree are British and Irish.

[jdean]

I wouldn't worry too much about My Origins Rich, this is my Dad's and he's 90% English & 10% Welsh going back to the early 19th C. : )

7017

[GoldenHind]

I wouldn't worry too much about My Origins Rich, this is my Dad's and he's 90% English & 10% Welsh going back to the early 19th C. : )

7017

Is this from Family Finder?

[jdean]

Is this from Family Finder?

Indeed, at one point they had me as 18% Middle Eastern but it's settled one now.

At the mo I'm about 1/2 way between my parent's but have a Finnish blur that neither of them show : )

[Dubhthach]

Indeed, at one point they had me as 18% Middle Eastern but it's settled one now.

At the mo I'm about 1/2 way between my parent's but have a Finnish blur that neither of them show : )

I've got 2% Finnish/Siberian myself when I imported my 23andme data into familyfinder

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/ftdna-myorigins.png

[jdean]

I've got 2% Finnish/Siberian myself when I imported my 23andme data into familyfinder

Interesting that your 'British Isles' element is so high, I wonder if they are using Irish as a proxy for that area ?

The Finnish could very well be a ghost.

This is me, my mother and father, Dad is (as I said before) about 90% English (all from the west side of the country) and 10% Welsh (SE). Mum conversely is about 90% Welsh (south, east to west) and 10% English (again from the west side).

7020

[Dubhthach]

Personally and no disrespect but I'd have way prefered if they didn't use term "British Isles" ;)

I could be wrong but they probably didn't have a direct Irish sample (probably using Orcadian etc.)

Here's my ancestryDNA one in comparison, which also has 3% Finnish/Russian bit -- that was on a new sample as well.

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/ancestrydna.png

I came back 89% Irish, of course their "Irish component" if you ask me is probably a NW insular one, given they have it showing up at high levels in Western Britain. It rather reminds me of the PoBI admixture analysis that included a distinct Irish cluster (24)

[jdean]

Personally and no disrespect but I'd have way prefered if they didn't use term "British Isles" ;)

That's why I put quotation marks around it : )

[rms2]

Here are my parents' myOrigins maps as of today and mine, which hasn't changed since 14 November.

7023

7024

7025

So, how did I manage so much continental European out of those two people?

[jdean]

Here are my parents' myOrigins maps as of today and mine, which hasn't changed since 14 November.


So, how did I manage so much continental European out of those two people?

Possibly they still need to fine tune their algorithms a tad ? : )

[rms2]

Possibly they still need to fine tune their algorithms a tad ? : )

No doubt. And my parents are so British and Irish in their ancestry that probably 75% "British Isles" would be underestimating things.

[Dubhthach]

It would be interesting to see how ye'd fare with Ancestry's offering Rich, given that they spilt out separate "Irish" component.

[rms2]

It would be interesting to see how ye'd fare with Ancestry's offering Rich, given that they spilt out separate "Irish" component.

I'm not sure I want to spend the money on yet another dna test for myself. We'll see.

[moesan]

From what I have read, the Britons who went to Armorica came primarily from Cornwall and Wales.

Personally, I think northern France was already heavy in L21 before the arrival of the British expatriates.

True because the more evident hyptoheis is L21 came into the Isles through N-W France. But that doesn't explain a supposed too low level of L21 in SW England...

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

I wouldn't worry too much about My Origins Rich, this is my Dad's and he's 90% English & 10% Welsh going back to the early 19th C. : )

7017

To be honest I don't understand how in many cases they can distinguish between "continental" DNA and Britain/Ireland, given that much of "our" DNA came from there in the first place. Appreciate there may be some which is specifically continental.

[avalon]

IIR, didn't Busby collect his samples from one town/village for each area?

If so, then his samples may be true for a small area, but caution should be used in extrapolating this to a much larger area. I.e. Exeter may be have been a L21 hotspot that isn't indicative of the larger area..just like ~30% of men in Albergele, Wales were Haplogroup E-V13, isn't indicative of percentage of E-V13 of all of Northern Wales

BDNA has 19% for SW England, which includes Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, and Wiltshire.

For Devon and Corwall alone, I'm getting around 19-20%...still collecting data on these 2 counties.

So yes Busby has more weight as it's a no kidding scientific study, but there is value in knowing the "unscientific" percentages for a much larger area.

I know you have strong feelings on this, but I would ask you to consider the possibility that uncontrolled, but more broadly collected data from Britains' DNA and FTDNA may more indicative of larger areas than the data collected from Busby from one particular location.

Just my two cents.

Just looking at the Busby paper again, it just gives Exeter as the longitudinal/latitudinal coordinates of its SW England regional sample, it's not clear from my reading of it whether the 48 samples were taken from Exeter itself or from the wider SW England. It's confusing but the discrepancy between the 37.5% L21 per Busby and the 19% L21 per Britains DNA (for the same region) does need some explaining.

I have said this before but I think with enough detailed sampling of Britain we are likely to see variations in L21 frequency from one town or village to the next, depending on the local history. I would expect for instance that in Western Cornwall where Cornish survived longer the frequencies of L21 might be noticeably higher than in somewhere like Dorset. Then again Cornwall has been heavily impacted by English tourists in modern times so who knows.

[GMan71]

JDean
Out of interest - what do you put your dads 8% Southern Europe down to as from your description he is 90% western English and 10% SE Welsh?
I have a 12% southern European show up in my FTDNAOrigins but no known family from there! Paper trail wise I have 50% SE Welsh/Herefordshire, 25% Swedish (Åland), 12.5% SW (?) English (ie Somerset/Devon), 12.5% Prussian (Mecklenburg Schwerin/Brandenburg - so an area with German/Slavic overlap).
FTDNA Origins has me 57% Scandinavian, 24% British Isles, 12% Southern Europe and 8% Eastern Europe.
The southern europe at that level is interesting - unknown paternal event?!

Cheers!

[razyn]

So, how did I manage so much continental European out of those two people?


Possibly they still need to fine tune their algorithms a tad ? : )

Just in case you guys haven't done so -- you can upload your autosomal data from 23andMe, FTDNA or Ancestry (maybe others, if they are still in business or stored on your computer) to Gedmatch. Then use their admixture analysis, select Eurogenes -- there are several choices like K-13 and K-36 that compare against way more populations than those FTDNA maps used.

Of course it's still voodoo genetics, requiring a belief that present day samples are informative about the ancient ancestry of people who think they know where their ancestors all were, anciently. That's variably true, not so true, or insane. Possibly, it's more true in Devon than in West Virginia -- and for many of us this side the pond, 1609 qualifies as "ancient" -- but, still. Nobody knows as much as they think they know; and the ones who know more only map a little better than the ones who know almost nothing.

[GMan71]

Just in case you guys haven't done so -- you can upload your autosomal data from 23andMe, FTDNA or Ancestry (maybe others, if they are still in business or stored on your computer) to Gedmatch. Then use their admixture analysis, select Eurogenes -- there are several choices like K-13 and K-36 that compare against way more populations than those FTDNA maps used.

Of course it's still voodoo genetics, requiring a belief that present day samples are informative about the ancient ancestry of people who think they know where their ancestors all were, anciently. That's variably true, not so true, or insane. Possibly, it's more true in Devon than in West Virginia -- and for many of us this side the pond, 1609 qualifies as "ancient" -- but, still. Nobody knows as much as they think they know; and the ones who know more only map a little better than the ones who know almost nothing.

I had already run these and in both cases my results again show a fair amount of "southern european" - ie K13 13% West Med and 4% East Med while K36 shows 12% Iberian and 7% Italian. I just don't know enough about the samples used to build the various calculators and how far back they go in their assumptions of where the "origins" are. Is my southern european recent ancestry or based on movement of farmers into say Britain thousands of years ago? Who knows but all good fun!

[razyn]

Is my southern european recent ancestry or based on movement of farmers into say Britain thousands of years ago?
Well, that, or their Ancestry Informative Markers are based on movement of soldiers dozens of years ago. Or either your data or theirs may include NPEs that are unknown, and uncharted. Or, you know -- something.

[GMan71]

Or either your data or theirs may include NPEs that are unknown, and uncharted.

I certainly have an unknown paternal event in very recent times in the Welsh side hence interested in the possibility that the unknown paternal event involved a Welsh local (and locals show southern european as standard) or the unknown had in fairly recent times had mediteranean ancestry. All good fun as there is no paper trail there.

[MitchellSince1893]

Just looking at the Busby paper again, it just gives Exeter as the longitudinal/latitudinal coordinates of its SW England regional sample, it's not clear from my reading of it whether the 48 samples were taken from Exeter itself or from the wider SW England. It's confusing but the discrepancy between the 37.5% L21 per Busby and the 19% L21 per Britains DNA (for the same region) does need some explaining.

I have said this before but I think with enough detailed sampling of Britain we are likely to see variations in L21 frequency from one town or village to the next, depending on the local history. I would expect for instance that in Western Cornwall where Cornish survived longer the frequencies of L21 might be noticeably higher than in somewhere like Dorset. Then again Cornwall has been heavily impacted by English tourists in modern times so who knows.

In my study of confirmed SNPs in the FTDNA projects, L21 is even lower than Britain's DNA numbers. Overall it's 226 of 1830 confirmed SNPs (12.6%) of England. However there are over 200 confirmed SNPs that are listed as generic R1b and P312. Some of these will invariably turn out to be L21.

Known L21 is highest in (minimum of 60 SNPs per geographic area):
Cornwall: 12 of 60 confirmed SNPs (20%).
Lancashire and Cheshire: 25 of 132 confirmed SNPs (18.9%).
Devonshire: 28 of 151 samples (18.5%).
Cumberland, Durham, Northumberland, Westmoreland: 20 of 117 samples (17.1%). L21 is the top haplogroup in this area along the Scottish border.


DISCLAIMER: These numbers are based on self reported ancestry of FTDNA members which may be in error.

7173

While the percentages may be lower than expected, the overall pattern on the map is mostly familiar...higher in areas near Scotland and Southwest England.

Lancashire and Cheshire may be higher because of the significant influx of Irish into the area.

[GoldenHind]

Lancashire and Cheshire may be higher because of the significant influx of Irish into the area.

That could well be the case. There has been a significant modern Irish input into Liverpool and the Wirral. Cheshire is also on the border with Wales, and there has been movement across the border since feudal times. However Cheshire was heavily settled with Normans under Earl Hugh Lupus to protect against constant raiding by the Welsh, and the early history of the county under the Normans was one of almost continual warfare with the Welsh.

[Jessie]

Interesting that your 'British Isles' element is so high, I wonder if they are using Irish as a proxy for that area ?

The Finnish could very well be a ghost.

This is me, my mother and father, Dad is (as I said before) about 90% English (all from the west side of the country) and 10% Welsh (SE). Mum conversely is about 90% Welsh (south, east to west) and 10% English (again from the west side).

7020

I think that is the case. Both my brother and myself who had the FTDNA autosomal test done came out as 100% British Isles. Because I was a bit of a dna junkie I've had 23andMe, Ancestry and FTDNA done. For Ancestry I was 91% Ireland, 23andMe 94% British & Irish.

[Jessie]

I certainly have an unknown paternal event in very recent times in the Welsh side hence interested in the possibility that the unknown paternal event involved a Welsh local (and locals show southern european as standard) or the unknown had in fairly recent times had mediteranean ancestry. All good fun as there is no paper trail there.

Not sure but some British Isles people show some southern Europe. I've had 3 tests done myself and 3 other family members tested. My father's ancestry was Sligo/Roscommon and my mother's was Tipperary. I had no Southern European in any tests and neither did any of my family. But then again our results are a bit extreme being Irish.

[rms2]

Just looking at the Busby paper again, it just gives Exeter as the longitudinal/latitudinal coordinates of its SW England regional sample, it's not clear from my reading of it whether the 48 samples were taken from Exeter itself or from the wider SW England. It's confusing but the discrepancy between the 37.5% L21 per Busby and the 19% L21 per Britains DNA (for the same region) does need some explaining . . .

This has been mentioned before, but BritainsDNA often excludes some of the L21 subclades, like M222, from its L21 (S145) count. Doing that reduces the L21 frequency to reflecting only that proportion of L21 that was negative for the subclades they excluded from the count. Busby's frequency report is likely more accurate.

[rms2]

It would be interesting to see how ye'd fare with Ancestry's offering Rich, given that they spilt out separate "Irish" component.

Well, I may find out soon: I've decided to order the Ancestry DNA test, since it's on sale right now for twenty bucks off the usual price. I'll probably order it when I get home today (unless I change my mind before then or the sale ends before I get home).

The price is right, and I would like to have the chance to see whom I match in Ancestry's database, since I'm guessing there are plenty of people in it who have not tested with FTDNA.

[rms2]

. . .

Lancashire and Cheshire may be higher because of the significant influx of Irish into the area.

Shouldn't that be reflected in surnames? Did you see an abundance of Irish surnames in Lancashire and Cheshire listings? It should have been easy to eliminate them on that basis.

Or were you talking about ancient Irish incursions and settlements?

[rms2]

Well, I may find out soon: I've decided to order the Ancestry DNA test, since it's on sale right now for twenty bucks off the usual price. I'll probably order it when I get home today (unless I change my mind before then or the sale ends before I get home).

The price is right, and I would like to have the chance to see whom I match in Ancestry's database, since I'm guessing there are plenty of people in it who have not tested with FTDNA.

Okay, I ordered it, although the sale price looked ten bucks cheaper before they added in shipping. Hate that.

Hope it's worth it.

[rms2]

Did I mention this in this thread before? I apologize if I did.

I administer the Red Hair Variants Project (since I carry one of the red hair variants), and recently a man from Wales with the surname Thomas joined the project. In a subsequent email exchange, he pointed out that I am an autosomal match for his mother at the site DNA Land, which lists us as speculative 8th degree relatives (e.g., 3rd cousins once removed). His mother's maiden surname was Michael. Mr. Thomas said his mom's family comes from Llanfihangel Aberbythych, near Llandeilo in Carmarthenshire, and he himself grew up in Llandeilo. He said that in census reports he has come across many Stevens living on farms near the farms of his mother's family. That's interesting, given his mom's apparent autosomal connection to me.

These are not Americans, btw. They are native Welsh people. Strange that there would still be an autosomal connection showing up after so many years, and it's fairly substantial: not recent, but 129.49 cM in 32 segments.

[rms2]

I have two close y-dna str matches with the Welsh surname Beddoes (they are cousins). One is a 65/67 match, and the other is a 36/37 match. The former has only tested to 67 markers; the latter has only tested to 37 markers. I would really like to see them go to 111 markers and do the Big Y, but neither is very cooperative. In fact, I think the 67-marker match may be dead by now, because he was already in his eighties when we began exchanging emails several years ago, and I have not heard from him in quite some time.

Today I friended another Beddoes on Facebook who lives in Powys, Wales. I am hoping to convince him to test, and I sent him a message about it. He will probably think I am a crazy spammer and just unfriend me, but I had to try.

[rms2]

It would be interesting to see how ye'd fare with Ancestry's offering Rich, given that they spilt out separate "Irish" component.

Well, now I know, Paul:

7849 7850

My first impression is that Ancestry got things closer to right than FTDNA's Family Finder.

[Baltimore1937]

One of my latest matches (9+ cm) gives a name list consisting entirely of Welsh surnames, each given Wales as origin. He may be living in Wales, but I can't tell by his email address. My Welsh connections are back in colonial times (including the sister of Daniel Boone's mother).

[rms2]

Got a report from a genealogist a couple of days ago that a y-dna match of mine commissioned. Lots of interesting stuff. Possibly descended from Augustus and Sophia (Young) Stevens (also frequently spelled Stephens), who were said to be of "Welsh and English extraction". We're in the 1720's or so with them in Ellicott City, Maryland (just west of Baltimore). Anyway, interesting to me. Their sons wound up in Fayette County, Pennsylvania, and they were big time Methodists, some of them preachers. Closely connected to the Murphy family (two Stevens brothers married two Murphy sisters).

[Hockley of Thaxted]

I have an ancestor by the surname of Howard who has the haplogroup G-Z6748 like that of Alexander Talbot Rice. These Howards originated in London in the early 1600s and I think one of the grandsons (he could have been illegitimate) of Rhys ap Griffith (ca 1500 to 1532) who married Lady Katherine Howard (1508 to 1554), daughter of Thomas Howard, 2nd Duke of Norfolk might have adopted the surname of Howard. The Howard Y-DNA is done through the Family Tree DNA company of Houston, Texas, USA. How would I get Alex Talbot Rice's Y-DNA transferred to Family Tree DNA to do a full comparison without spending a wack of money? If anyone knows, please tell me how and I will ask Mr. Rice about it. In the meantime does anyone know the company's website he had his testing done, so I can go and see how his results are displayed? Thank you.

[[email protected]]

My cousin just got his 23andme v5 results, his Y DNA is R-L48 which is downstream from R1b - U106.
He is a Davies (different ,line to mine), with deep roots in Llanelli, as do I.

I should also note his mtdna was X2b, which I believe is quite rare.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

My cousin just got his 23andme v5 results, his Y DNA is R-L48 which is downstream from R1b - U106.
He is a Davies (different ,line to mine), with deep roots in Llanelli, as do I.

I was very interested to hear this. Anything we can get on Welsh results is helpful. More detail DNA wise would be of greater help of course. How far back does he go on his ancestry? I know tracing common Welsh surnames can be difficult. Welsh speaking on the paternal side?
From Census data the Davies surname seems most heavily concentrated in Glamorganshire as far West as the Gower and into Carmarthenshire of course. Map below. John


https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwibqeSo6cfXAhUIOhoKHdp4ChsQFghyMA0&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ancestry.co.uk%2Fname-origin%3Fsurname%3Ddavies&usg=AOvVaw0EtEZgsczb2fyLctXVg43L

[[email protected]]

I was very interested to hear this. Anything we can get on Welsh results is helpful. More detail DNA wise would be of greater help of course. How far back does he go on his ancestry? I know tracing common Welsh surnames can be difficult. Welsh speaking on the paternal side?
From Census data the Davies surname seems most heavily concentrated in Glamorganshire as far West as the Gower and into Carmarthenshire of course. Map below. John



https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwibqeSo6cfXAhUIOhoKHdp4ChsQFghyMA0&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ancestry.co.uk%2Fname-origin%3Fsurname%3Ddavies&usg=AOvVaw0EtEZgsczb2fyLctXVg43L
Hi John,
As far as memory goes his paternal grand father spoke Welsh, and not much is known any further back than that, maybe he will research it one day.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

Hi John,
As far as memory goes his paternal grand father spoke Welsh, and not much is known any further back than that, maybe he will research it one day.

Welsh speaking would suggest a very long ancestry in Wales. It's very difficult to trace common Welsh surnames back before the 1800's as you know. I wonder if he could be Z326 like I am? As far as I know I'm the only one with known ancestry in (or very near) Wales but of course there aren't many results to go on. :)

[[email protected]]

Welsh speaking would suggest a very long ancestry in Wales. It's very difficult to trace common Welsh surnames back before the 1800's as you know. I wonder if he could be Z326 like I am? As far as I know I'm the only one with known ancestry in (or very near) Wales but of course there aren't many results to go on. :)

True, much more testing in Wales is needed, maybe he will get the dna bug, lets see.

[Wing Genealogist]

My cousin just got his 23andme v5 results, his Y DNA is R-L48 which is downstream from R1b - U106.
He is a Davies (different ,line to mine), with deep roots in Llanelli, as do I.

I should also note his mtdna was X2b, which I believe is quite rare.

The v5 chip 23andMe uses does have quite a few SNPs downstream of L48. 23andMe has not updated their Y-DNA assignments to pick them up. If you could access your cousin's raw data, you could (in theory) look them up, but it does take a fair bit of work. I believe 23andMe are still using the old hg19/Build37 positions, which you would need to search for one by one.

The following Google Docs spreadsheet has the information you need (under the second tab)

Published read-only link (Google account not required): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQhEo8_IfiZjGP_WLl01aL1IV939Drm26HIMb20mQE16mFBbk FO72xCn2mEa3Argekny5MGrbIQZXLU/pubhtml

Shared read-only link (Google account not required, allows downloads): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit?usp=sharing

[[email protected]]

The v5 chip 23andMe uses does have quite a few SNPs downstream of L48. 23andMe has not updated their Y-DNA assignments to pick them up. If you could access your cousin's raw data, you could (in theory) look them up, but it does take a fair bit of work. I believe 23andMe are still using the old hg19/Build37 positions, which you would need to search for one by one.

The following Google Docs spreadsheet has the information you need (under the second tab)

Published read-only link (Google account not required): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQhEo8_IfiZjGP_WLl01aL1IV939Drm26HIMb20mQE16mFBbk FO72xCn2mEa3Argekny5MGrbIQZXLU/pubhtml

Shared read-only link (Google account not required, allows downloads): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rpJP0Bt4qUQb9wWBFA7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks Wing Geneologist. Hopefully he will get the bug, I’m trying to get him to upload next to my heritage and then LivingDNA, when I speak to him next, ,lets see how far he proceeds.
Regarding the SNPs downstream is there any indication yet on which might be related to different populations or events in history?

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

Thanks Wing Geneologist. Hopefully he will get the bug, I’m trying to get him to upload next to my heritage and then LivingDNA, when I speak to him next, ,lets see how far he proceeds.
Regarding the SNPs downstream is there any indication yet on which might be related to different populations or events in history?

I was wondering about LivingDNA for him. They correctly identified my Z326 which surprised me a bit. There are quite a few sale offers with different companies around Christmas time. ;) There has been a lot of work done on U106. I suppose it depends on where he fits into the grand scheme of things. I'm no expert and hopefully someone who knows more will reply but it seems to me it depends on the individual SNP ages and matches. You can't tell that much from an individual result. A big thing would be to find a SNP that may have formed in Britain a long time ago. In relation to your cousin Anglo Saxon doesn't seem that likely to me (I'm not saying impossible).
I know with Z326 it appears to be most places in Europe so it could slot into most big migration events perhaps others are more "selective" I'm not sure.

Edit: I did ask about this on the U106 project group. It's been suggested a cost-effective way would be an L48 test with YSEQ and that YSEQ are very helpful. I understand the cost is currently $88.

[Wing Genealogist]

Thanks Wing Geneologist. Hopefully he will get the bug, I’m trying to get him to upload next to my heritage and then LivingDNA, when I speak to him next, ,lets see how far he proceeds.
Regarding the SNPs downstream is there any indication yet on which might be related to different populations or events in history?

23andMe does call for L47 (downstream of L48) and so he is almost certainly L47-. The largest subclade of L48 is Z9 (which 23andMe does NOT call) and it is actually far larger than L47. But there are a handful of clades which are L47- AND Z9- so we cannot be certain without reading the raw data.

23andMe version 5 and LivingDNA both use the same new chip. The chip is designed so each company can add their own SNPs of interest. 23andMe's interest is more on the health side while LivingDNA is more on the British Isles side. As LivingDNA incorporates other ongoing studies (such as the GermanyDNA project they have undertaken) they will almost certainly change some of the SNPs.

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

My cousin just got his 23andme v5 results, his Y DNA is R-L48 which is downstream from R1b - U106.
He is a Davies (different ,line to mine), with deep roots in Llanelli, as do I.

I should also note his mtdna was X2b, which I believe is quite rare.

I've only just noted the X2b. Does his mother have Welsh Ancestry?
A quick read on X2 suggests there is a concentration in Orkney and NW Scotland but I don't know if that would include X2b it seems it's one of the more European groups. I get the impression it is "early" - Neolithic migrations? Fits my theory relating to "Orkney / NW Scotland" percentages on Living DNA and possible migration of people from that region down the Irish sea and into Wales. If you tell me his maternal ancestry is from Kent I shall be disappointed. :)