Keyboard Shortcuts
Likes
- R1b-S6881
- Messages
Search
|
Re: Ancestral Surnames and BigY results
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýOne more thought.? The Vikings are generally in the I haplotree, rather than the R tree.? I should think that most, if not all, natives of the British Isles will have some Viking ancestry, though not necessarily in the direct-male line. It is fascinating that the Lathom estates in Lancashire began with a Viking Family supporting William the Conqueror.? But you say the estate fell to the Stanley Family when Isabel Lathom, last of the Viking family, died in 1414.? Most of our S6881 group appear to descend from the Saxon stock in the area who did not assume surnames until the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries, when they became necessary to identify the ¡°common folk¡± on the estates for taxation purposes.? So our surnames are more likely to have been acquired from the places they lived, their occupations, or physical attributes.? Jim Liptrap ? From: R1b-S6881@... [mailto:R1b-S6881@...]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 10:30 AM To: R1b-S6881@... Subject: [R1b-S6881] Re: Ancestral Surnames and BigY results ? ? Just a few thoughts on your postings, in no particular order. |
|
Re: Ancestral Surnames and BigY results
Just a few thoughts on your postings, in no particular order.
1. On the STR vs SNP discussion, I also am no expert, but my view is that SNP results are definitive, whilst STR results are only indicative. STR mutations are relatively frequent, and bi-directional. Two opposite mutations can cancel out. Also I believe you can have a double jump e.g from 11 to 13 at a particular marker. The upshot is that matches might be random, resulting from many cancelling mutations. I was always told that you need other reasons, such as shared surname or other known link, to verify an STR match. On the other hand we can be pretty sure a SNP match means we have two descendants of the person who originated that SNP. So once you have found the most recent SNPs (shared and singletons) I don¡¯t see the advantage of further STR testing of those individuals. For people yet to test I would use an STR test to identify if they are likely to be S6881, and then use the S6881 panel. In time we should also have panels for the various S6881 subclades. These should give a better indication of the relationships between the various documented family trees, though whether they will help to identify missing links will depend if the relevant genealogical records are in existence. Im my Warburton One-Nmae study I have developed many family trees including about 7 in the Lancashire Group, and it is my hope that DNA may help me produce a tree of trees showing roughly when the trees converge. 2. In Peter¡¯s Latham's history you mention both the Viking term Lathe, and Lathom as a place name. Is it possible that the place name came from the Viking word, and the surname, which would have originated much later, derives from the place? Warburton is a locative name from the village Warburton, but the village was named after a Saxon Saint, Werbergh. 3. I too think Mr S6881 was born in England, and until an S6881 branch is found on the continent this is the best working assumption. It is also clear that some of his descendants were in the village of Warburton. As the village was founded (possibly by Queen Ethelflaeda of Mercia) to guard a ford of the river Mersey I assume it would be populated by loyal Saxon subjects. This is my reason for thinking Mr S6881 was a Mercian. Also the dates of Mercia¡¯s existence 515AD - 918AD encompass Iain¡¯s dates for S6881. When Warburton was founded the Mersey was the northern boarder of Mercia, and subject to Viking incursions (I believe these were Norwegian Vikings rather than Danes). However I¡¯m not sure where the earlier boundary with Northumbria was. I suspect it was variable. So it is unclear whether the S6881s settled in Lancashire before England became a single entity in the 10th century of afterwards. In any event it was probably long before surnames were established. If Latham and Warburton are locative names it implies both places were home to Mr S6881s descendants at the time they were established. 4. Cynthia mentioned the Warburton - Graves link was ancient. There is a curious phenomenon that the S6881 tree indicates a Warburton - Warburton and a Graves - Graves link which are also ancient, clearly predating the adoption of surnames. In the Warburton case I presume that two descendants of an early Warburton villager independently adopted their old village name and finished up in the same area of Lancashire. Incidentally the earliest known presence of a Saxon Warburton in Lancashire (ignoring sons of the Norman Warburtons of Arley Hall) was a Thomas in Tottington (probably Stubbins Halll, Edenfield) who I calculated from Manorial records must have been born around 1490. 5. Peter¡¯s mention of the Stanleys, Earls of Derby is interesting as Wise Piers Warburton, who founded Arley Hall, was a big supporter of the Stanleys in the Wars of the Roses. Following the Stanleys role in the defeat of Richard III at Bosworth, and the ascension of Henry VII, Piers¡¯s son John became a Knight of the Kings Body. My own ancestors subsequently appeared on land that was formerly part of Stanley lands in Hale and I theorise that this may have been granted for services rendered at that time. DNA evidence suggests my line (and the Cheshire group of Warburtons) are related to the Warburtons of Arley, ad thus descended from a Norman knight. Regards Ray Ray Warburton Warburton Website: |
|
Re: Ancestral Surnames and BigY results
?????????????????????????????? 14 February 2017 Dear Chris and Cynthia, Thank you for your support and guidance.? I will write to my Leatham born c 1730 Uster (kit 153191) and Stewart 1690 - 1754 Connecticut (kit 301279) contacts to see whether they will both pursue further the testing and join the U106 and S6881 groups as Chris Noble suggests. There are 4 misleading mistakes in my posting on 13 February 2017.? The Old Norse derivation of the name Latham is thought to be from the dative sigular of the word Hlatha 'hla?a' meaning a barn. The important reference to the curvilinear field patterns at Lathom consistent with Danish/Viking practice should be to Cowell & Philpott 2000 pp 208 to 210.? The reference to Latham possible copyright holders at Upholland should be to 'copyholders'.? The reference to 'Turi Kingat' should of course be to Doctor Turi King of Leicester University. Although Viking ancestry is a glamorous possibility my current understanding is that it may not be very significant genetically. The anthropology appears to be that the blue eyed blond medieval English immigrant Angles, Saxons, Norwegian Vikings and Danes probably all came from the Western Russian Steppes in the early Neolothic period: some up the Danube, and some across Northern Germany with some via Scandinavia.? The main practical differences are probably language and culture including date of adoption of Christianity.? We are just starting to identify the slight genetic distinctions between these groups. I am modestly optimistic that we may be able? to identify a written record of the common paternal ancestor of our Latham variant named group and their close genetic cousins in the period not long before 1690.? From this we may be able to work downstream in the records to break through the brick wall from the other side (to mix the metaphor). I would be happy to volunteer to participate in Dr Turi King's latest Viking ancestry research project.? Are Chris Noble or Ray Warburton in touch with her to relay this, or should I try to contact her direct at Leicester University ?? Kind regards,??????????? Peter Latham. On Tuesday, 14 February 2017, 0:28, "avalea3@... [R1b-S6881]" wrote:
?
Hi Cynthia and group, ? Sorry for the delay in replying. It was definitely a Monday at work today. So my first question is going to be semantics. When you say that you are a 1/3 step match or a 4/6 step match what do you really have? At 111 STRs on your match page do you have a 1 or 3 GD (genetic difference)? And the same with the 4/6. Or are those the 67 and 111 results? I don't know how to read what you have so hard to comment on it. ? ? As to your question about upgrading to 111 STRs for someone who has a BigY test, I think you asked this question once before and I told you it wasn't really necessary. Now I think I want to retract that and say that it might really help. I don't currently have a surname group to be a part of nor any matches with the same surname. So I have to hunt through everyone for quality matches to try to do further testing. I spent a lot of time studying the STR matches, and I'm not talking just
the GD differences?like someone is 4 GDs from me at a certain set of STRs. I really sat down and looked at the actual data to see which STRs we differed on. You can see this data in our U106 project in the DNA results tab. Doing that will help you to see what STRs might be your group signature (if you can find one). And the more STRs the better the signature.This will help you make better choices of people to test against you. I've had people that I thought were going to be a good match and it all fell apart in that last set to 111. So yes, upgrade if you are looking for more information and better matches. Except for the people in our group testing with someone of the same surname we are all at points sharing SNPs before the time of surnames. So don't let the fact that a person has a different surname stop you from finding good matches.? ? As for having other people use the third party services, I think if the $50 is not a strain to th
eir budget then, by all means, have your BAM file analyzed. I do it with all the kits I admin or help with and it's amazing to see the differences of opinion on what is a good SNP. And at YFull they have a sort of tree (not as good or as full as the one we have in the U106 project) that could really use some shaping. The reason it isn't as good is because they don't have the data that the U106 project does. At this point, my kit is stuck at S6881 though we all know there is a group of us below that. But none of my matches have used this service so they haven't expanded the tree on that branch. Also, they will give you 500 STRs and predict which ones are unique to your haplogroup. I have to say that I agree with some of the predictions but for?some they are really wrong. So the extra information really helps and you might find a match at YFull that you don't have at FTDNA. There is also another spreadsheet like the U106 BigY spreadsheet that people that have r
esults from FGC can go on and be compared with people who have done their NGS testing at FGC. So if your best match (that you don't even know exists) did their testing at FGC instead of a BigY now you could take your FGC analysis and upload it to the U106 group and see how well you match up with your FGC match. ? So knowing you are trying to break through a wall your best choice would be trying to find a distant relative, probably a third or fourth cousin, to test and see which of your SNPs they share and which belong just to your own line. That would help you define it better. Your first cousin is too close to get the branching that you are looking for so if you can define your branch better you can maybe find someone in England that would help you break your wall.? ? ?I know this is long and probably confusing so please, anyone who is confused please ask questions. And if you aren't comfortable asking que
stions in an open forum then email me off-line. Thanks. Chris ---In R1b-S6881@..., wrote : Chris, First, this dilemma I am facing might include an interest for others here. Learning how to use BigY results to it's fullest is a stretch for me. Therefore, I want to ask a specific question with the idea that it might also be helpful for others here too... I am therefore a declared newbie yet an eager student! My brother and cousin are FGC5138. Thanks to BigY we now know of two more ancient surname connections: Warburton and Latham. Both of these lines are from the Lancashire area. We have now crossed an ocean and landed in a solid location. Exciting! My brother and cousin
according to the most recent calculation by Dr. Iain McDonald?connect with Warburtons in 847AD and Lathams in 1074AD. At Y67 my cousin/brother have the same three Latham matches, one is eliminated by Y111 (6/8step match). There is a new 1/3step match to a Latham man not on this project, and there is a 4/6step match with another Latham who is a member here. Our connection with the Warburton is so ancient that my brother and cousin do not show as a match. We face a brick wall in Georgia genealogically. Our known and proven ancestor dies there in Lincoln County in 1805. My brother and cousin are currently calculated as sharing a common ancestor in 1618AD, they are a 2step match at Y111 with both STRs being fast mutating.? In a discussion with Iain a few weeks back he made some suggestions that for a newbie like me was a bit over my head. So, I have been thinking about what he said which has given birth to1k?questions.?Our objective ultimately is to push past our brick wall and to learn of our Graves Lancashire ancestry. And, of course the story of our ancient journey, if possible. Too broad a goal, I realize.? So, because of BigY the analysis?of the BAM file by the U106 experts, the further Interpretation by both FGC and Yfull we have learned a lot. And, also from all the many others doing BigY this too has contributed to providing us with greater information.? ---Is there any value to further testing someone when they have BigY results, such as increasing from Y67 to Y111? ---Is there more information we can all benefit from by having others in our group include to their BigY results the additional Interpretations of the BAM file by the two labs? (FGC & Yfull) ---What steps might you consider taking next with this information before you, if you were a newbie like me? Thank you for even reading ALL this. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Cynthia? |
|
Re: Ancestral Surnames and BigY results
If your match is still showing up on your match screen at 111 STRs then it isn't too remote for the game we are playing right now. I'm working with genetic distances of 8 - 10 on my match screen at 111 STRs. I would love it if I could find anything closer. I don't think you will find anyone matching into the period of the 1800s with that much of a difference but on the other hand your A8050 is around the 1000s so if you can make more branches on your part of the tree then go for it. If however you only care about finding successively closer and closer matches then you are correct that the bigger GD is probably not going to get you there. But as you match people into that A8050 area you are probably finding closer matches for others that share that subclade and maybe helping them out too. As they say, this is a team sport :) Chris On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 6:08 PM, prosperity200220815@... [R1b-S6881] <R1b-S6881@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Ancestral Surnames and BigY results
Cynthia, ? ?An 8 GD match to someone isn't a bad match but it might not be as close as one with a smaller genetic distance. However, a lot depends on WHICH marker the difference is on. Some of them are quick-mutating and mean less than a difference on a more stable marker. So while the number matters so does the marker. Peter, ? I went looking and found your Leatham match. He does have 111 STRs so I would definitely see about upping yourself to 111 STRs when you get a chance. You can still try to get your Stewart match to test on out to 111 STRs. If he begins to fall further away from you, he might match up closer with someone else. Both of those men could join our S6881 group if they chose. Stewart is confirmed Z343 and Leatham is predicted M269 but their?result of 14 at the DYS492 marker shows they should be at least S6881. Please invite them to join if they would wish and see if Leatham will join the U106 project too. Thanks. Chris ?? On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 6:50 AM, prosperity200220815@... [R1b-S6881] <R1b-S6881@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Ancestral Surnames and BigY results
Hi Chris,
Thank you for all this. Very helpful. When I was listing the 1/3 step match I was referring to 1/ being the GD for cousin Roy, and /3 being the GD for my brother. Sorry for the confusion. So, let's work with the GD of my brother.? Your point of the additional STRs that increasing Y67 to Y111 provides became helpful with one match we had. My brother has a GD of 3 with ?Andrew Leatham at Y67 but when I advanced to Y111 results he had a GD of 8. My first inclination was to conclude he could not be related to us and discount him. However, am I correct in thinking that there is something to learn from this match or a reasonable GD STR match? Is there a point where the GD is just too remote ? I am so glad to have a place to ask these questions. Again, thank you so much. Must?read the book that Peter is reading!! Cynthia |
|
Re: Ancestral Surnames and BigY results
Hi Peter,
? That's a very interesting history that you bring to the group. Thanks for sharing that. I know the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons are both coming to England in the early centuries AD. I believe the Anglo-Saxons may have gotten there before the Vikings. And there is the whole Danelaw bit too to put into the mix. Iain has tried to take a stab at what group he thinks might be behind our S6881 SNP and is guessing (and only guessing) Anglo-Saxon. But anything could be possible. Take a look at the below link if you haven't already. Iain has put together a sort of tree with the SNPs posted against a time-line of what was happening in Europe and what the climate was doing. Find your last shared subclade (FGC51240, topish?right) and see what was going on.Then look back at the SNPs A11377 and S6881 and see what was going on. I do believe our ancestor S6881 was already in England before having children, and thus before subsequent SNPs. So that might give you clues too. On the other hand, we're all just learning and this could change as new discoveries develop. Some of the Viking project groups seem to concentrate on the I haplogroup more than the R haplogroup but at no point in time was anyone checking haplogroups before people were allowed to join groups or marry into them so any haplogroup is possible. I can see your Stewart match in the U106 group. Is your Leatham match in the U106 group? He doesn't seem to be. I'd see if he'd join the U106 group and then encourage both to do further testing. It might be good to get Stewart to test out to 111 STRs as well as yourself and see if the match still stays close. How many STRs does your Leatham match have? If they seem promising after that I would see if they would do a BigY at one of the sales or test SNPs. There is talk of upgrading the SNP pack that covers our part in U106. The current one I wouldn't recommend testing. Or they could test at YSEQ if they would rather but the results won't come across to FTDNA. Let me know what you think of these ideas. Thanks. Chris |
|
Re: Ancestral Surnames and BigY results
Hi Cynthia and group,
? Sorry for the delay in replying. It was definitely a Monday at work today. So my first question is going to be semantics. When you say that you are a 1/3 step match or a 4/6 step match what do you really have? At 111 STRs on your match page do you have a 1 or 3 GD (genetic difference)? And the same with the 4/6. Or are those the 67 and 111 results? I don't know how to read what you have so hard to comment on it. ? ? As to your question about upgrading to 111 STRs for someone who has a BigY test, I think you asked this question once before and I told you it wasn't really necessary. Now I think I want to retract that and say that it might really help. I don't currently have a surname group to be a part of nor any matches with the same surname. So I have to hunt through everyone for quality matches to try to do further testing. I spent a lot of time studying the STR matches, and I'm not talking just the GD differences?like someone is 4 GDs from me at a certain set of STRs. I really sat down and looked at the actual data to see which STRs we differed on. You can see this data in our U106 project in the DNA results tab. Doing that will help you to see what STRs might be your group signature (if you can find one). And the more STRs the better the signature.This will help you make better choices of people to test against you. I've had people that I thought were going to be a good match and it all fell apart in that last set to 111. So yes, upgrade if you are looking for more information and better matches. Except for the people in our group testing with someone of the same surname we are all at points sharing SNPs before the time of surnames. So don't let the fact that a person has a different surname stop you from finding good matches.? ? As for having other people use the third party services, I think if the $50 is not a strain to their budget then, by all means, have your BAM file analyzed. I do it with all the kits I admin or help with and it's amazing to see the differences of opinion on what is a good SNP. And at YFull they have a sort of tree (not as good or as full as the one we have in the U106 project) that could really use some shaping. The reason it isn't as good is because they don't have the data that the U106 project does. At this point, my kit is stuck at S6881 though we all know there is a group of us below that. But none of my matches have used this service so they haven't expanded the tree on that branch. Also, they will give you 500 STRs and predict which ones are unique to your haplogroup. I have to say that I agree with some of the predictions but for?some they are really wrong. So the extra information really helps and you might find a match at YFull that you don't have at FTDNA. There is also another spreadsheet like the U106 BigY spreadsheet that people that have results from FGC can go on and be compared with people who have done their NGS testing at FGC. So if your best match (that you don't even know exists) did their testing at FGC instead of a BigY now you could take your FGC analysis and upload it to the U106 group and see how well you match up with your FGC match. ? So knowing you are trying to break through a wall your best choice would be trying to find a distant relative, probably a third or fourth cousin, to test and see which of your SNPs they share and which belong just to your own line. That would help you define it better. Your first cousin is too close to get the branching that you are looking for so if you can define your branch better you can maybe find someone in England that would help you break your wall.? ? ?I know this is long and probably confusing so please, anyone who is confused please ask questions. And if you aren't comfortable asking questions in an open forum then email me off-line. Thanks. Chris ---In R1b-S6881@..., <prosperity200220815@...> wrote : Chris, First, this dilemma I am facing might include an interest for others here. Learning how to use BigY results to it's fullest is a stretch for me. Therefore, I want to ask a specific question with the idea that it might also be helpful for others here too... I am therefore a declared newbie yet an eager student! My brother and cousin are FGC5138. Thanks to BigY we now know of two more ancient surname connections: Warburton and Latham. Both of these lines are from the Lancashire area. We have now crossed an ocean and landed in a solid location. Exciting! My brother and cousin according to the most recent calculation by Dr. Iain McDonald?connect with Warburtons in 847AD and Lathams in 1074AD. At Y67 my cousin/brother have the same three Latham matches, one is eliminated by Y111 (6/8step match). There is a new 1/3step match to a Latham man not on this project, and there is a 4/6step match with another Latham who is a member here. Our connection with the Warburton is so ancient that my brother and cousin do not show as a match. We face a brick wall in Georgia genealogically. Our known and proven ancestor dies there in Lincoln County in 1805. My brother and cousin are currently calculated as sharing a common ancestor in 1618AD, they are a 2step match at Y111 with both STRs being fast mutating.? In a discussion with Iain a few weeks back he made some suggestions that for a newbie like me was a bit over my head. So, I have been thinking about what he said which has given birth to1k?questions.?Our objective ultimately is to push past our brick wall and to learn of our Graves Lancashire ancestry. And, of course the story of our ancient journey, if possible. Too broad a goal, I realize.? So, because of BigY the analysis?of the BAM file by the U106 experts, the further Interpretation by both FGC and Yfull we have learned a lot. And, also from all the many others doing BigY this too has contributed to providing us with greater information.? ---Is there any value to further testing someone when they have BigY results, such as increasing from Y67 to Y111? ---Is there more information we can all benefit from by having others in our group include to their BigY results the additional Interpretations of the BAM file by the two labs? (FGC & Yfull) ---What steps might you consider taking next with this information before you, if you were a newbie like me? Thank you for even reading ALL this. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Cynthia? |
|
Re: Ancestral Surnames and BigY results
Peter, thank you for the information you have shared it is so insightful.?
It was Andrew Leatham that I had in mind as I asked the question of the benefit of increasing STRs from Y67 to Y111. At Y67 my brother is a 3 match to him, my cousin a 1step match. But when I moved my brother to Y111 he became an 8step match to Andrew. ?As a result I discounted him as related. HOWEVER... This IS where my newbie status is so constrictive. I can now see it was not helpful to do so. You have just delivered a gift to our branch both genetically and genealogically. ?I wonder if this unfolding S6881 information you are unlocking would be of special interest to Dr. McDonald.?Chris will be able to inform us if there is any value to doing so. I also wonder if there is value to having the folks that manage the Stewart and Leatham kits join our group. Another question for Chris. Since we also match them but I'm not sure how much they have tested beyond Y67. Can you find out for us? It appears that they are only Predicted M269.? Warm Regards, Cynthia |
|
Re: Ancestral Surnames and BigY results
??????????????????????????????? 13 February 2017 Dear Chris Noble and Ray Warburton, Peter Latham FT DNA? Kit 252305: Big Y S-6881 and R-BY 11973 Like Cynthia I am on a steep learning curve. My earliest rigorously verified paternal ancestor is Peter Latham, a weaver of Upholland, Lancashire born c.1750 who married Ellin Shaw at Wigan All Saints Parish Church on 30 September 1782 and was buried with her at Upholland St Thomas the Martyr Parish Church on 17 January 1815.? There are numeorous other Lathams in the St Thomas the Martyr parish records and on tombstones there back to about 1600 but I have as yet no rigorous proof of consanguinity. I was brought up at Standish, Lancashire in a paternal family that has lived continuously near Upholland for 7 generations since Peter Latham the weaver of c.1750.? I and my 2 brothers all? have blue eyes and had blond hair as children.? Our father had a ring finger Dupytren's contracture strongly indicative of Viking ancestry, (who drank very little) but I forget which hand. The family name Latham is the dative singular of an old Norse name for a barn: Lathe.? The word is obsolete in Norway but still used as the name for a barn in Iceland. Upholland is only about 5 miles from the frormer Lathom House at Lathom in Lancashire.? This former home of the Stanley family, Earls of Derby, was acquired by the Stanleys by marriage with Isabel Lathom (c.1355-1414) the last of the Lathom family descended from Robert de Lathom who died c.1199 whose family were in England before 1067 and who had acquired the land from William the Conqueror on changing sides.? In Harding.S? 'In Search of Vikings' 2015 at Chapter 7 by Philpott .R. at p 121 it is noted that at Lathom curvilinear field blocks typical of medieval Norwegian/Danish origin were found: Cowell and Philpott 2000 pp 2018-210.?? Much of the land around Upholland was held by tenants of the Stanley family when the land was escheated to the Government of Oliver Cromwell on the Earl of Stanley's execution for treason in the English Civil War (though no Lathams were then listed as tenants: so they may have then have been freeholders, copyright holders or landless labourers). Upholland stands on a ridge above Martin Mere, a former swamp as described in 'Martin Mere Lancashire's Lost Lake' by Hale W.G. and Audrey Coney: 2005 Liverpool University Press.? This low occupation marginal famng land may have been attractive to Viking immigrants on their expulsion from Dublin in 902 AD.? See 'The Account Book of Richard Latham 1724-1767 Ed. Weatherill .L OUP 1990 (no proved relation as yet).? His wife wove both flax and cotton to supplement their farming income on Martin Mere. I see that Turi Kingat p.176 in her chapter 11 of 'In Search of Vikings' says that she is leading a large further larger study of genetic legacy of the Vikings across the North of England.? I
am in contact with close Family Tree DNA relations descended from
Andrew Leatham b.1730 Ulster (kit 153191) and? Lt. William Stewart 1690-1754 of Connecticut (Kit 301279). I should be gald to co-operate with any further genetic investigation and would welcome any advice as to value for money further DNA testing to clarify the early Lancashire paternal roots before the Norman Conquest, and the links wth Andrew Leatham (b.1730) and Lt William Stewart (1690-1754) that may identify some common ancestry record (both genetic distance 4). Kind regards,??????????????? Peter Latham.
?
.............................................................................................................................................................................. Chris, First, this dilemma I am facing might include an interest for others here. Learning how to use BigY results to it's fullest is a stretch for me. Therefore, I want to ask a specific question with the idea that it might also be helpful for others here too... I am therefore a declared newbie yet an eager student! My brother and cousin are FGC5138. Thanks to BigY we now know of two more ancient surname connections: Warburton and Latham. Both of these lines are from the Lancashire area. We have now crossed an ocean and landed in a solid location. Exciting! My brother and cousin according to the most recent calculation by Dr. Iain McDonald?connect with Warburtons in 847AD and Lathams in 1074AD. At Y67 my cousin/brother have the same three Latham matches, one is eliminated by Y111 (6/8step match). There is a new 1/3step match to a Latham man not on this project, and there is a 4/6step match with another Latham who is a member here. Our connection with the Warburton is so ancient that my brother and cousin do not show as a match. We face a brick wall in Georgia genealogically. Our known and proven ancestor dies there in Lincoln County in 1805. My brother and cousin are currently calculated as sharing a common ancestor in 1618AD, they are a 2step match at Y111 with both STRs being fast mutating.? In a discussion with Iain a few weeks back he made some suggestions that for a newbie like me was a bit over my head. So, I have been thinking about what he said which has given birth to1k?questions.?<
/span>Our objective ultimately is to push past our brick wall and to learn of our Graves Lancashire ancestry. And, of course the story of our ancient journey, if possible. Too broad a goal, I realize.? So, because of BigY the analysis?of the BAM file by the U106 experts, the further Interpretation by both FGC and Yfull we have learned a lot. And, also from all the many others doing BigY this too has contributed to providing us with greater information.? ---Is there any value to further testing someone when they have BigY results, such as increasing from Y67 to Y111? ---Is there more information we can all benefit from by having others in our group
include to their BigY results the additional Interpretations of the BAM file by the two labs? (FGC & Yfull) ---What steps might you consider taking next with this information before you, if you were a newbie like me? Thank you for even reading ALL this. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Cynthia? |
|
Ancestral Surnames and BigY results
Chris, First, this dilemma I am facing might include an interest for others here. Learning how to use BigY results to it's fullest is a stretch for me. Therefore, I want to ask a specific question with the idea that it might also be helpful for others here too... I am therefore a declared newbie yet an eager student! My brother and cousin are FGC5138. Thanks to BigY we now know of two more ancient surname connections: Warburton and Latham. Both of these lines are from the Lancashire area. We have now crossed an ocean and landed in a solid location. Exciting! My brother and cousin according to the most recent calculation by Dr. Iain McDonald?connect with Warburtons in 847AD and Lathams in 1074AD. At Y67 my cousin/brother have the same three Latham matches, one is eliminated by Y111 (6/8step match). There is a new 1/3step match to a Latham man not on this project, and there is a 4/6step match with another Latham who is a member here. Our connection with the Warburton is so ancient that my brother and cousin do not show as a match. We face a brick wall in Georgia genealogically. Our known and proven ancestor dies there in Lincoln County in 1805. My brother and cousin are currently calculated as sharing a common ancestor in 1618AD, they are a 2step match at Y111 with both STRs being fast mutating.? In a discussion with Iain a few weeks back he made some suggestions that for a newbie like me was a bit over my head. So, I have been thinking about what he said which has given birth to1k?questions.?Our objective ultimately is to push past our brick wall and to learn of our Graves Lancashire ancestry. And, of course the story of our ancient journey, if possible. Too broad a goal, I realize.? So, because of BigY the analysis?of the BAM file by the U106 experts, the further Interpretation by both FGC and Yfull we have learned a lot. And, also from all the many others doing BigY this too has contributed to providing us with greater information.? ---Is there any value to further testing someone when they have BigY results, such as increasing from Y67 to Y111? ---Is there more information we can all benefit from by having others in our group include to their BigY results the additional Interpretations of the BAM file by the two labs? (FGC & Yfull) ---What steps might you consider taking next with this information before you, if you were a newbie like me? Thank you for even reading ALL this. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Cynthia? |
|
Re: New Joiner - Horrell (FTDNA 86268)
Welcome, Justin. By looking at your 111 STRs I can take a guess what path you might end up being on but it would be no more than a guess. What you are going to have to figure out is where you want to end up with this testing. Ray Warburton has put together an S6881 panel at YSEQ that would test below where you currently are. It would cost around $100. What you need to decide though is if you ever?intend to do a BigY or similar test. If so, you'll just retest those same SNPs when you take the NGS test. So you'll have to decide if you want to just save the $100 to put toward a future NGS test (during a sale and with coupons so it is less expensive), take the S6881 panel and not ever worry about what other unfound SNPs you might have, or if your curiosity is so strong you want to take the panel now and see where you are and then take an NGS test sometime in the future. I'm going to guess that you'll end up down the A11376/A11378 path but I don't know how far. Look in the files section at the tree I just posted so you can get a better idea of the path I'm talking about. Let me know if you have any questions or want to discuss this further. Thanks.
Chris |
|
New file uploaded to R1b-S6881
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the R1b-S6881 group. File : /S6881 Yahoo Group 020717.xlsx Uploaded by : cerri37 <avalea3@...> Description : Updated BigY Data 2/7/17 You can access this file at the URL: To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: Regards, cerri37 <avalea3@...> |
|
New file uploaded to R1b-S6881
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the R1b-S6881 group. File : /S6881 Tree Yahoogroup 020717.xlsx Uploaded by : cerri37 <avalea3@...> Description : Updated Tree 2/7/17 You can access this file at the URL: To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: Regards, cerri37 <avalea3@...> |
|
New Joiner - Horrell (FTDNA 86268)
Hi All,
Thanks for accepting me into the group. Happy for any advice on any next steps I can take I am tested positive (single SNP ) for FGC11780 and S6881 by YSEQ about 2 years ago but havent had any further test. I'm short of funds for a BigY test now but could run to few further SNPs at YSEQ if it will help. My Y-ancestry goes back to mid-1600s in Devon. Some indication of Horrell surname in? Devon few hundred years earlier also. Justin |
|
New file uploaded to R1b-S6881
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the R1b-S6881 group. File : /STRs and SNPs.docx Uploaded by : cerri37 <avalea3@...> Description : STRs and SNPs and what you can do with them You can access this file at the URL: To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: Regards, cerri37 <avalea3@...> |
|
New file uploaded to R1b-S6881
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the R1b-S6881 group. File : /BigY Match Screen.docx Uploaded by : cerri37 <avalea3@...> Description : Tour of FTDNA BigY Match Screen You can access this file at the URL: To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: Regards, cerri37 <avalea3@...> |
|
BigY Match Screen
I wanted to include screen shots with this but Yahoo won't let me so if some of the references make you?confused see this document in the files section where I will include them. Okay, I¡¯m going to cover the BigY match screen for those who use it or are confused by it. First off, have very little faith in anything you find on this page. It is full of garbage. There are little nuggets of truth to be gleaned from here so it isn¡¯t a total loss, but unless you really know what you are looking for it isn¡¯t going to be helpful at all. When you get your BigY results make sure that the first thing you do is upload your vcf file to the U106 group to have them analyze it. If that statement sent your head spinning let me know you need help and I¡¯ll give you step by step directions for getting that file and I¡¯ll upload it for you. It¡¯s that important that you do this step! ? So back to the page that is just 99% confusing and mostly plain wrong. The first thing you¡¯ll see when you go to your? BigY Matches tab is a list of people you match to and in the columns across from their name the number of Shared Novel Variants, Known SNP Differences, and Non-Matching Known SNPs. It defaults to show you the match that you share the highest number of Shared Novel Variants and the fewest known SNP differences with. So, if you start out with the first person on your list and click on the number in the Shared Novel Variants column it will open a new screen for you (see examples in file section if needed). On that screen, you will see what novel variants (meaning unnamed SNPs) you share with your match, what novel variants belong just to you, and what novel variants are only his. Let¡¯s start with the shared novel variants. So, I go to the number 32 shared novel variants that the match at the top of my list has and click on it and I find that we actually share 19 SNPs on the pop-up screen. What?!! What happened to the 32 SNPs we share? Who knows? This is the first of many bad pieces of data on this screen. And checking all my matches almost every one of them has a bad number on the first screen. ?
So, let¡¯s deal with that second screen; the one that popped up. The important columns on this screen are the Reference and Genotype columns. First off, know that outside of FTDNA they are going to probably refer to these values as Ancestral and Derived. What this means is that there is a reference sample they use that we all get compared against. So we are looking for any changes or mutations since that reference/ancestral value. If there is a change that will become the Derived value (what it changed to). So if the reference/ancestral value was a G and we now have a derived value of T you will be deemed positive for that SNP. So look down the columns Reference and Genotype and note all the SNPs that have changes. On the screen I posted you¡¯ll only find two SNPs that have changes (the first two) and all the rest are still at the ancestral value. So there is nothing novel about most of these. In fact, in the whole list of 19 that my match and I share only 3 are valid. So we just went from a screen that said 32 variants, to a screen that said 19 variants and when we look at them all only 3 are real. That¡¯s why I say don¡¯t pay attention to those novel variant numbers on your first screen. So one more thing I want to point out, and this is why we have the guys at U106 analyze our results, those 3 variants we share are not very good SNPs and so U106 doesn¡¯t even count them. So what my match and I share just went from 32 to 0. Now, on the Known SNP Difference and Non-Matching Known SNPs, those are pretty much true. If you show 1 Known SNP Difference in your column then it will list that Known SNP in the Non-Matching Known SNP column. You can use it to rule out matches right away by seeing something like Z343 as a non-matching SNP and you will know that this person is not on the same branch as yourself.? But it¡¯s hard to keep all those SNP names in your head and know what SNPs matter and what don¡¯t. So don¡¯t use these columns unless you really want to. Instead, go up to the top of your screen and use the ¡°Filter Matches by Subclade¡± button.?Press the drop-down button and it will show you about four different SNPs above you on the tree and at the bottom it will show you yours.?You can click on any of these and it will show you the people in those subclades. There is a number over to the right and it is how many people are in this subclade. So the fastest way to see who you match is to go to this button. Sometimes it doesn¡¯t populate for me right away so I keep refreshing until it does. ? The data in the tabs for novel SNPs for just you and just your match are fairly true. The problem with some of them is that, again, they might not be quality SNPs so they won¡¯t necessarily get counted in the U106 BigY Spreadsheet but I find the data good to have. ?
One other thing to know about this match screen is that you can go all the way over?to the right where it says Match Date and if you click on it, the screen will resort by date (it¡¯s slow, give it some time). The first click it will sort by oldest match date and then click it again and it will sort by newest match date. So if you want to see if any new match has come along this is the fastest way to find them. Actually, all these different columns can be chosen as the one to sort on but you probably don¡¯t need to do that. So, that ends our little tour of the BigY Match screen. If you have questions or comments let me know. This is the tool FTDNA gives you for seeing your data so know how to use it and know when to ignore it. |