Arm=
strong
DNA Update 18 March 05
It'= s time for an update regarding the Armstrong and Border Reivers Y-DNA Project.&nbs= p;We have a new set of Armstrong Y-DNA Results for Kit #29377. I'm g= oing to take this opportunity to draft a "primer" for participants in = the project. Warning: this message is getting rather long... T= here may be some problems sending this message through the various servers and v= irus 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 take= n 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<= span class=3DGramE> Project and for the Donegal Bay Geogr= aphic 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:
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 Bo=
rders
area. The largest majority of the Y-DNA Ha=
plotypes
belong to Haplogroup R1b, w=
hich
seems to be Celtic in origin. Another large proportion of the D=
NA 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
Wha= t 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 ident= ifying 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 ancest= ry with other test subjects. So, what have we got to th= is point in time?
The Armstrong Results are posted on my webpage at:
The= se 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 participat= ion by the decedent's son. Referring to the eleven sets of resul= ts 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 Legionari=
es
who were stationed in or retired in the British Isles; or from
such legionaries who were associated with the predecessors of the
and
compare certain features of the various surnamed results appearing
there. All of the results on that page are R1b results. &n=
bsp;
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 ha=
plotypes,
the
Mos=
t 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=3D12, 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=3D32 results, with one exceptional 31. That
"32" distinguishes the Armstrongs from all of the other surnames.=
Similarly, see the two Elliott Haplotypes, where
DYS458=3D18 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
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:
Not= ice on the first set of markers, Kit#293= 77 varies not at all from the "Assumed" Haploty= pe. 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&q= uot; Haplotype, but with the other Armstrong R1b kits, whi= ch are similarly close to the modal Armstrong R1b values.&n= bsp; What can we do with this from a genealogical viewpoint?
First, we can eliminate the necessity of considering relationships with th= e 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 w= ill 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 wi= th other surnames.]
Second, we can share contact information and p=
aper
research with the other researchers involved in the Armstrong R1b kits.&nbs=
p;
There are various ways to do this... direct
contact via the "A" List or private emails or sna=
il
correspondence. Participants can ask the project administrators
which other researchers are involved in particular kits. A good
step is to Up=
load the kit results to Y-Search.&n=
bsp;
This can be done by going to the participant's Personal Page on the FT=
DNA
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,&n=
bsp;
such as opportunity to provide geographic migration information,
pedigree information, and three choices regarding contact with you: No Cont=
act;
Direct Contact with a publicly displayed email address; or the most popular
choice, Contact only through FTDNA, which can forward messages to you witho=
ut
disclosing your email address. It is also possible =
to
go to the Y-Search main page, http://ww=
w.ysearch.org/ and
then clicking on the "Create a New User" tab. You wil=
l 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, Herit=
age
DNA, to which you can also upload the results by going to the following pag=
e,
and entering results for each marker along with certain other information.
See: http://ybase.org/defaul=
t.asp
Third, we can try to match lineages. Th= is 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 o= f 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 info= rmation 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 Ances= tor 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 s= econd calculation below, I ESTIMATED that there was no Common Ancestor known betw= een the two kits used as an example during the previous 4 generations. &nb= sp; This estimate can be changed based on actual knowledge:
Family Tree DNA Time Predictor*<=
span
style=3D'font-size:13.5pt'>
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 ye=
ars 27.04% |
200 ye=
ars 57.49% |
300 ye=
ars 77.60% |
400 ye=
ars 88.85% |
500 ye=
ars 94.66% |
600 ye=
ars 97.50% |
|
|
|
|
|
Refine your results with paper trail input
Obv= iously, 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 shou= ld be searching for that Common Ancestor.
Int= erested? Join the Armstrong DNA Project by following the menu at:
Reg= ards,
Dav= e Strong