Armstrong
DNA Update 18 March 05

It's time
for an update regarding the Armstrong and Border Reivers Y-DNA Project. We
have a new set of Armstrong Y-DNA Results for Kit #29377.   I'm going
to take this opportunity to draft a "primer" for participants in the
project.  Warning: this message is getting rather long...  There
may be some problems sending this message through the various servers and virus
filters.   If it doesn't make it though to you, I will be posting
this Primer as a General Comment webpage very soon.

As many of
you know, our "A" List Administrator, John D. Armstrong, has taken on
the job of DNA Project Administrator.    Bob Armstrong and I are
co-administrators.   I am also co-admin for the Elliott and Border
Reivers DNA Project, administered by Jim Elliott.    I
am also the Project Administrator for the Strong/Strange Surnames DNA  Project and for the Donegal Bay Geographic
DNA Project.   Jim Elliott is also involved as a co-administrator for
the Liddel DNA Project.    The interlocking nature of our
projects makes it possible for us to share information and DNA data results
quite well.

Jim Elliott
has accumulated about 1000 (that's one THOUSAND !!)
Y-DNA test results in his study of the Border Reivers.  You can see the
results of his study at:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/elliott_border_reivers_dna.htm

and the
linked pages.    The Border Reiver's
DNA Project has demonstrated that there are a wide variety of Y-DNA Haplogroups to be found in the Anglo-Scottish Borders
area.   The largest majority of the Y-DNA Haplotypes
belong to Haplogroup R1b, which
seems to be Celtic in origin.   Another large proportion of the DNA Haplotypes belong to Haplogroups
R1a, I, I1a, I1b, and I1c.  These Haplogroups
seem to be associated with the various Viking and other northern European
groups which invaded the British Isles through
past centuries.   And, finally, there are certain Haplogroups,
and "sub-clades", including C, E, G,
J2, and R1b1c, etc., which seem to have either arrived in the British Isles
with Roman legionary troops from various parts of the Roman Empire spread
around the Mediterranean Sea, or to have arrived with some of the barbarian
invaders or the Normans during the 1st millenium, AD.

What does
all that have to do with Armstrong Y-DNA?   Well, it helps us
identify certain DNA test results with the various ethnic origins... giving
some insight into the origins of the lineages...  and a means of identifying
particular sets of results with particular lineages.  That
also has consequences for the traditional paper researcher, in that
identification with particular haplogroups and
lineages helps eliminate others, and increases focus for further
research efforts.   Close matches can also point to common ancestry
with other test subjects.    So, what have we got to this
point in time?

The
Armstrong Results are posted on my webpage at:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/armstrong.htm

These
results are drawn from several sources, including members of the Strong DNA
Project, the Elliott and Border Reivers DNA Project, and the more recently
established Armstrong DNA Project.    To this point in time, we
have eleven sets of Armstrong results.   Additionally, there are at
least two more currently in progress.   Unfortunately, one
participant died before a sample could be obtained; the researcher involved is
attempting to obtain  substitute participation by
the decedent's son.    Referring to the eleven sets of results
to date, we have representatives of four Haplogroups....
I, R1b, R1b1c, and, subject to further testing, either a variant of I or
J2.

The two
definite "I" kits most probably descend from Vikings.   The
two R1b1c and J2 kits probably descend from either the Roman Legionaries
who were stationed in or retired in the British Isles; or from
such legionaries who were associated with the predecessors of the Normans while still in France.    The
largest group, seven R1b kits, probably represent the original Celtic stock
which was present in the British Isles before
Roman times.      It seems particularly
remarkable that the Armstrong R1b kits actually vary very little from each
other... and have certain characteristics which so far distinguish them from
other R1b haplotypes associated with other Border
surnames.   This is in sharp contrast to what might have been
expected of folks descended from Reivers...   so much hype about
rapine, trial marriages, fostering, adoptions, shifting allegiances, and the
like may be over-blown.   We need a lot more evidence before we can
say that for sure, but please take a look at my Border Reivers DNA Results
page:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/reiver_families_r1b.htm

and
compare certain features of the various surnamed results appearing
there.   All of the results on that page are R1b results.
We have a wide variety of haplotypes there, but we
have identified certain "dominant" or "prevailing" haplotypes as "Assumed" general haplotypes associated with certain of the
surnames.   See the two main Elliott haplotypes,
the Irvine haplotype(s), the Liddel/Lyttle/Little
haplotypes, and the Armstrong haplotypes.

Most of
these R1b results are quite similar in that the numbers
("alleles") for particular DNA "markers" are the same
[see for example, DYS385a, with an allele of 11 for the most part; and see
DYS388=12, with a single exception].  However, I have highlited certain key differences either with a light
yellow background, or with red type.  Notice  the
Armstrong DYS449=32 results, with one exceptional 31.  That
"32" distinguishes the Armstrongs from all of the other surnames.
Similarly, see the two Elliott Haplotypes, where
DYS458=18 in one haplotype, and 17 in the
other.   There are two emerging prevailing Irvine Haplotypes,
differing at DYS391, where there are values of 10 vs11.   The Liddels are distinguished by DYS385b=11 and
DYS389-2=30.   There are other emerging haplotypes
as well.... but this is more than enough to illustrate the point.
For the most part, the DNA results associated with these haplotypes tend to run true to their prevailing
"Assumed" Haplotype.  I have imputed
the various "Assumed" Haplotypes from the
prevalence of marker values involved... looking for the modal allele values occuring most often in connection with the surname in question.
There is a mixture of observation, science, and art involved... enhanced by a
bit of experience.  {:-)  And, as the database grows, changes DO
sometimes occur.

Our latest
set of Armstrong Results, for Kit#29377, fits right in with the Armstrong
"Assumed" R1b  Haplotype.
Take a look at the kit on the Armstrong results page:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/armstrong.htm

Notice on
the first set of markers, Kit#29377
varies not at all from the "Assumed" Haplotype.
On the second set of markers, he is off just 1 step from the
"Assumed" Haplotype.   An excellent match, not only with the imputed "Assumed" Haplotype, but with the other Armstrong R1b kits, which are
similarly close to the modal Armstrong R1b values.
What can we do with this from a
genealogical viewpoint?

First, we can eliminate the necessity of
considering relationships with the
four of the eleven sets of results
which are not R1b and don't
match... the I, J2, and R1b1c
kits.   [Note, given enough other participating researchers, we will
have other research focus available for those kits... they concentrate on
the I, J2, and/or R1b1c kits....  and this can lead to some interesting
possibilities.... other matches within the Armstrong surname, or matches with
other surnames.]

Second, we can share contact information and paper
research with the other researchers involved in the Armstrong R1b kits.
There are various ways to do this... direct
contact via the "A" List or private emails or snail
correspondence.   Participants can ask the project administrators
which other researchers are involved in particular kits.   A good
step is to Upload the kit results to Y-Search.
This can be done by going to the participant's Personal Page on the FTDNA
website, clicking on  the Y-DNA Matches tab, and
you then see an

explanation and a link for the upload to Y-Search.  By following the
instructions, you can automatically upload the results to a new page at
Y-Search;   you will be given some options,
such as opportunity to provide geographic migration information,
pedigree information, and three choices regarding contact with you: No Contact;
Direct Contact with a publicly displayed email address; or the most popular
choice, Contact only through FTDNA, which can forward messages to you without
disclosing your email address.     It is also possible to
go to the Y-Search main page, http://www.ysearch.org/ and
then clicking on the "Create a New User" tab.   You will be
taken to a page where you can directly upload each marker and enter the
personal information mentioned above.  Note,
there is another database, called Y-Base, run by a competing company, Heritage
DNA, to which you can also upload the results by going to the following page,
and entering results for each marker along with certain other information.
See: http://ybase.org/default.asp

Third, we can try to match lineages.  This is
the importance of having good pedigree information available for each
kit.   It is the stuff of traditional genealogy.... where is the
Common Ancestor in two or more lineages?    Can we link onto
other longer pedigrees, extending further back in time?   [And
notice... we can verify the validity of the research... someone may claim a
connection... but DNA testing can show his line to be unrelated!]

Fourth, in the absence of a clear identification of a Common Ancestor,
we can use some of the tools made available to us by FTDNA to try to
estimate the time period in which a common ancestor may have lived.
[Obviously, this does not identify the Common Ancestor... we still have to do paper
research for that.   However, we can focus on a most likely time
period, and hopefully, given sufficient migrational
and other background information, identify a particular geographic locale in
which to do further research.    Again, sharing of such information
between researchers is most helpful.]    What tools are
available from FTDNA to help estimate the time to a Common Ancestor?  FTDNA has developed a Family Tree DNA
Time Predictor calculator program, FTDNATip, which
can be used to estimate the probability a participant shares a Common Ancestor
with another participant, within differing perameters
including centuries elapsed and # of known generations in which a Common
Ancestor did NOT occur.  Built into the calculator program is a factor
based on direct research of the mutation rates of the particular DNA markers
being compared.   Below is an example of the
use of the FTDNATiP calculator; Note, for the second
calculation below, I ESTIMATED that there was no Common Ancestor known between
the two kits used as an example during the previous 4 generations.
This estimate can be changed based on actual knowledge:

FTDNATiP™
Report

Family Tree DNA Time Predictor*

Version 1.1 - Patent Pending

In comparing 25 markers, the probability that Kit #29377
and Kit #20946 shared a common ancestor within the last...

100 years

is

27.04%

200 years

is

57.49%

300 years

is

77.60%

400 years

is

88.85%

500 years

is

94.66%

600 years

is

97.50%

Refine your results with paper trail input

The numbers below represent how the probabilities have changed after adding
your genealogical information into the FTDNATiP
calculations.

Knowing that Kit #29377 and Kit #20946 could not have
had a common ancestor in the last 4 generations, their 25 marker comparison
shows that the probability that they shared a common ancestor within the
last...

100 - 200 years

is

39.46%

300 years

is

67.47%

400 years

is

83.62%

500 years

is

92.08%

600 years

is

96.28%

700 years

is

98.29%

Enter a new value in the box, if you want to see if it would affect your
results.

Kit #29377 and Kit #20946 did not share a common ancestor in the last generation(s).
(FTDNA counts 25 years per generation).

* The FTDNATiP™ results are based
on the mutation rate study presented during the 1st International Conference on
Genetic Genealogy, on Oct. 30, 2004. The above probabilities take into
consideration the mutation rates for each individual marker being compared.

Since each marker has a different mutation rate, identical Genetic Distances
will not necessarily yield the same probabilities. In other words, even
though Kit #20946 has a Genetic Distance of 2 from Kit
#29377 someone else with the same Genetic Distance may have different
probabilities, because the distance of 2 was prompted by mutations in different
markers, with different mutation rates.

More questions? Please refer to the FTDNATiP™ FAQ page.

Obviously,
the range of research possibilities is still quite broad... but at least you
have some good statistical estimates as to the time frame in which you should
be searching for that Common Ancestor.

Interested?
Join the Armstrong DNA Project by following the menu at:

http://www.familytreedna.com/surname_join.asp?code=K58255&special=True

Regards,

Dave Strong

Co-Administrator

Previous
Page