Hello Everyone.
I've posted the latest Armstrong DNA
Results at:
This is an attempt to provide some
discussion detail regarding the results as posted. It is provided for
general information and discussion by interested parties.
First, notice that I have color-coded
the results by Haplogroup; thus, blue represents Haplogroup I, rose
represents Haplogroup J2, plum represents Haplogroup K2, yellow represents
Haplogroup R1a, tan =s Haplogroup R1b, and orange =s a possible sub-clade of
Haplogroup R1b. These color codes are consistent with the color coding used
in my Border Reiver DNA Results pages as well as my Donegal Bay and
Enniskillen Families Geographic DNA Results page. Note, I use a light
yellow background and/or a red font to highlight particular differences
within the various groupings. Also, since I believe "multi-step" mutations
can and do take place, I don't conform to the commonly used method of
counting each unit of variation as a single step of variation; thus I count
each mis-match as a single event [example DYS449=27 vs 29, counts as ONE,
not two, steps of difference]. Notice too, an examination of the results
shown in the columns for each marker appears to show the greatest
variation within those loci which have been identified as having relatively
higher mutation rates.
I think it is important to note the
haplogroups as they provide an initial "sort" of the results, and help us to
identify the haplotype patterns which may be identified with particular
lineages. It is also important that each member of the project upload
their results to Y-Search, and keep their research and contact info
current. The individual's personal pages at FTDNA and at Y-Search are
useful ways of using the databases as a research tool. Provided you have
signed the necessary release forms at FTDNA, you can also use their
FTDNATiP™ calculator to evaluate the possibility you may share a common
ancestor with other matching kits.
Second, and proceeding to discussion of
the various haplotype findings within each haplogroup, in turn:
Haplogroup I:
This haplogroup is generally thought to be of north European origins;
including Scandinavia. Two of the kits have been SNP tested, with
FTDNA's verdict being that they are indeed of Haplogroup I [see green
font in Haplogroup column]. This is somewhat unsatifying, in that it
appears that all four kits are probably members of the I1a subclade of
Haplogroup I. FTDNA and the University of Arizona lab are taking
their time on offering testing for certain subclades, and until they
decide to test for "downstream" subclades, we will continue to speculate
the kits are all members of I1a. The likely source of these
haplogroups within the "Borders" region and elsewhere in the British
Isles is Viking incursions and settlements.
Kits #30404 and 24599:
Superficially, these two kits seem to share some characteristics, and it
is possible there is some shared "deep ancestry". However, they have
enough differences that at present we can't really say they are likely
related in a genealogical timeframe. Perhaps as time goes on and we
have additional information to evaluate we may be able to see some
closer relationships.
Kits #25053 and 36936: These
kits are known to be related. The participants are cousins. It is
perhaps instructive to recognize that even two or three generations
apart, mutations can occur [note DYS19/394=15vs16]. It is also very
interesting to note that Kit #25053 has a 35/37 match with several
members of the Halliday Clan [click on the compare link to examine the
coincidence of markers]. There is a real possibility that there was a
"non-parental event", eg., an adoption, etc., from out of the Halliday
lineage to an Armstrong, establishing this particular Armstrong
lineage. The researcher is continuing to follow up on the
possible match.
Haplogroup J2:
Kits #29084 [Armstrong, member of Armstrong DNA Project & Border Reivers
DNA Project] and #37866 [Robson, member of Border Reivers DNA
Project]: These kits have been speculated by FTDNA as Haplogroup I;
however, the Whit Athey Haplogroup calculator [see link at bottom of
Results page] indicates they are more likely to belong to Haplogroup
J2. The likely deep ancestry source of Haplogroup J2 as found along the
Anglo-Scottish border is probably to be found with members of the Roman
Legions which were stationed along Hadrian's wall. The two kits have
no known common ancestry, yet they match 33/37. They each have no other
matches within either FTDNA's private database or in Y-Search as yet.
Each researcher has requested a SNP test for Haplogroup I, and each has
waited a long time for a result report from FTDNA. We speculate that
FTDNA and the Lab have NOT found the results they were expecting and are
still looking for a correct result. It is impossible at this point to
say which of the two kits comes from the predominate lineage, whether
Armstrong or Robson. Apparently the two clans were from opposite sides
of the Anglo-Scottish border... perhaps a "non-parental event" was
involved. We can hope that over time, testing of additional
participants will produce some further insight re this latter question.
Haplogroup K2:
Kit #37941 has no known matches within either FTDNA's private database
or Y-Search. Haplogroup K2 is rather rare in persons originating
along the Anglo-Scottish border. It seems to have Northeast Asian
origins, and may have arrived along the Borders either with members of
the Roman Legions or with the Vikings. Being unique, if we find a good
match with another Armstrong in the future, we should be able to predict
a common ancestor with a high degree of probability.
Haplogroup R1a:
Kit #42198 is a member of Haplogroup R1a, which was formerly called the
"Viking Haplogroup". It is now known that it is not an exclusive
marker for the Vikings [see for example the I1a Haplogroup discussed
above]. However, R1a seems to occur almost exclusively amongst people
of Scandinavian origin; undoubtedly it arrived in Britain with the
Vikings. The R1a haplogroup is remarkable in that it does not seem to
have a very wide range, implying that it has not had time to diversify
by mutation to any great extent. Note that the modal markers for 22 of
the first 25 markers are apparently the same for nearly all of the
kits found when searching Y-Search for genetic matches. It is only when
examining the last 26-37 markers that much variation appears amongst
different surnames. Until another Armstrong match is found, there is
probably not much point in testing for additional markers at this time.
Haplogroup R1b:
There are several separate groups to be discussed here. Haplogroup R1b
is common to about 60% of the population of Europe, and is thought to be
found in populations of Celtic and North European [read "Anglo-Saxon,
etc."] origin. Within R1b, certain researchers have found it possible
to distinguish between Haplotype 15 [Ht15] where DYS393=13 [see the tan
backgrounds in the chart], and Haplotype 35 [Ht35] where DYS 393=12 [see
the orange backgrounds in the DNA Results charts]. FTDNA's 2004
Haplogroup Chart shows at least eight possible sub-clades within the
Haplogroup, but they are not testing for sub-clade SNP's as yet. As
with the other haplogroups, the method of analysis here involves
searching for patterns of markers showing the least number of mutation
variations.
We now have five Armstrongs who seem
to belong to what we have identified as Armstrong Ancestral Modal
Haplotype #1 [AMHT#1]: Kits #20946, 25874, 26295, 29377, 41606. Most
have the same results; notice that with one exception, all share
DYS449=32. The major area of doubt revolves around DYS458; the modal
value is 19, but it could be 18 or 20. As more individuals are tested,
we may find that these values denote particular sublineages; or they may
merely represent random mutations [note that DYS458 has a fairly high
mutation rate]. We do have a 25/25 match between Kits #29377 and
41606. An upgrade by Kit #41606 to a full 37 markers may be useful
in developing a further FTDNATiP™ prediction whether there is indeed a
common ancestor within a genealogically significant time frame.
Interestingly, we have recently been
contacted by the Administrator of the Rains Surname Group at FTDNA
regarding a possible match with one of her project members. The
Raines member in question, #14172, appears to match the AMHT#1 25/25.
This again may be the result of a non-parental event such as an adoption
out of the Armstrong lineage to a Raines family at sometime in the
past... which perhaps may provide some material for further research.
The next six kits have characteristics
which may mark them either as members of AMHT#1, or as a separate modal
group. There is a hypothesis that certain members of the Armstrong
surname may have originated with the Traynor surname, since "Traynor"
[various spellings] is apparently a celtic word meaning roughly the same
thing as "Armstrong" in border English. Traynor Kit #N3722 is a join to
the Armstrong DNA Project from the National Genographic
Project. Having tested for all 37 markers, there is a rough
coincidence to AMHT#1, with differences at DYS458=17vs19,
DYS459a=9vs10, and DYS449=30vs32 in the first 25 markers. There are
fairly significant additional differences between #N3722 and AMHT#1 in
the remaining 26-37 markers, which is probably consistent with the
probability there could not likely have been a common ancestor any time
before perhaps more than 1000 years ago.
What is perhaps more interesting is
the possible match of Traynor Kit #N3722 with Armstrong Kits #22685 and
#6040943 [known relatives who came to the Armstrong DNA project at FTDNA
after prior testing at Ancestry, which is no longer providing a
separate testing program]. Notice that DYS459a=s9 in each case. There
are four mismatches in markers 13-25; but all are in rather fast moving
markers.... query whether each of the Traynor or Armstrong kits
represents 2 or more mutations from an identifiable modal lineage
marker? And note that Kit #22685 carries DYS449=32, which is common to
AMHT#1. It might be a useful step to have the researcher in Kit
#22685 UPGRADE to a full 37 markers, which would make it possible to
compare the two kits further. One issue is whether we are looking at
an Armstrong lineage which is most closely related to the original
Traynor set of markers? Is there a common Irish origin for these
Armstrong and Traynor lineages?
Other Notes: Kit #41867 Trenor, has
ordered an upgrade to 37 markers, which will make it possible to
meaningfully compare the kit to #N3722, and to Traynor Kit #N5677 [the
latter kit has an anomalous DYS391=12]. Note, Armstrong Oxford
Ancestor's Kit #Y5933 lacks enough marker results to meaningfully
compare with the other FTDNA R1b results.
Then, we have a possibly developing
second Armstrong Modal Ancestral Haplotype, #2 [AMHT#2]. Kits #N10610,
43700, and 21901 all distinctively display DYS385b=15. Two of the kits
have DYS439=11, vs one with 12. Only #43700 has further markers through
37; Kit #21901 has recently ordered an upgrade to 37. Time and
further results will resolve whether we indeed have a separate AMHT#2,
and further research will naturally be needed to establish whether there
is a common ancestry involved.
The final Armstrong R1b [Ht15] result
to be discussed is Kit #33690. This kit does not match the other
Armstrong results. The researchers can trace their Armstrong lineage
back before 1700. It is entirely possible they may represent a unique
Armstrong haplotype with deep Armstrong ancestral roots. Finding
additional Armstrong test results matching this kit in the future would
confirm this hypothesis. However, it is also possible there was a
non-parental event out of another surname to the Armstrong surname. So
far, there has been a rather close 23/25 match with members of the
Renshaw Surname DNA Group at FTDNA; however recent results from an
upgrade to 37 markers by Kit #33690 have shown considerable diversity in
the additional 12 markers. Without doing an FTDNATiP™
prediction, this might be consistent with a Common Ancestor, but one
considerably removed in time; speculatively, perhaps more than 500-750
years ago. This leaves Kit #33690 still looking for additional
Armstrong or other matches.
Haplogroup R1b,
possibly R1b1c or other subclade [Ht35?]:
Since I share DYS393=12, I have a particular interest in this
subcategory. The Donegal Bay DNA Results page shows a number of Strong
results which are all apparently related [click on the "DB" link in the
green column to compare]. So far, the available DNA results show two
separate Armstrong lineages which share the characteristic, plus a
Y-Search Trainor Kit#JCHHS, and Stronge Kit#36440. The latter kit has
been included here because the participant has no matches so far, and I
am continuing to monitor sets of results looking for a match. To
date, Armstrong Kit #39841 does not seem to have a close match with any
other results either in FTDNA's private database or in
Y-Search. Neither does the SMGF#3 kit extracted from the Sorenson
Molecular Genetics Foundation data. We are probably dealing with deep
ancestral roots originating with certain Cavalrymen from central Asia
who were drafted into service with the Roman Legions nearly 2000 years
ago... They probably represent a rather small percentage of the total
population along the Borders, and it may take considerable testing to
find matching test participants.
There is competition between various
testing organizations, including FTDNA, DNA Heritage, Genetree, Relative
Genetics and others. The problem is to be able to compare results amongst
them all. It is possible to work out how particular markers may be reported
slightly differently by these organizations. The real problem occurs when
they report on DIFFERENT markers, making it impossible to compare the
results. Examples of the problem are found on the Armstrong DNA Results
page. Notice the results in DNA Kit #6040943, which was tested by
Ancestry. Ancestry used the same markers as Relative Genetics, and as the
Sorenson Molecular Genetics Foundation. Notice... NO results for most of
markers 13-25, and only partial results for markers 26-37. Kit #22685 had
to purchase a "conversion kit" when joining our FTDNA Armstrong DNA Project
in order to obtain and compare the additional results shown for loci
13-25. There is a similar problem in comparing the Oxford Ancestors
results in Kit #Y5933... and notice the "missing markers" for SMGF#3.
This demonstrates why it is desireable to try to use one testing
organization. However, we will accept results from whatever testing
organization and try to do the best we can with them.
There are other problems in dealing with
results from sources other than FTDNA. Previous contacts and research has
indicated a lack of a public central database within Relative Genetics for
particular surnames. DNA Heritage is closely connected with Y-Base, but
that database is not as useful as the Y-Search database when trying to
search for genetic matches, etc. The Sorenson Molecular Genetics
Foundation database has been relatively "opaque". It hasn't been possible
to simply order up all Armstrongs, for example. Rather, one enters the
results data, and looks for matches.... of any surname. Only those who
have contributed genealogical data are readily useful for genealogical
research, and it is not clear that anyone contributing to SMGF's testing
program will receive independant reports of their particular DNA test
results. It appears SMGF, which seems to be affiliated with the LDS, may
make improvements over time which will make their large database more
useful. However, SMGF's purposes may not necessarily coincide with those
of individual researchers. Some similar comments could probably be made
regarding FTDNA. However, in the absence of a large number of participants
in a managed surname study using the services of another
testing company, I suggest it is desireable to continue with the present
testing company. Two old sayings come to mind: "There ain't no free
lunch", and "You get what you pay for"!
We have some participants who have not yet
sent in their test samples. They are encouraged to do so, and "join in
the fun". We welcome all who are interested in using DNA as a tool for
exploring their genealogy! You can join the Armstrong DNA Project by
following the menu at:
You can order the DNA test kit
on-line and arrange to pay via VISA, etc.
Let us know if you have any questions,
comments or suggestions.
Regards
Dave Strong
Co-Administrator
Armstrong DNA Project, and
Border Reivers DNA Project
Previous page
Back to Border Gatherings