SRY2627

[samIsaack]

I should clarify. Initial expansion begin from coastal regions, final expansions move over the crest and then downstream until a major body of water is encountered (this again renews the expansion, quite rapidly I must say). Lands divide though they are bridged, Seas Connect because they are crossed by faster moving ships than people or horses in heavily forested terrain.

Arch

I agree. Thats kinda what I was saying when I mentioned that the Urnfielders (and when I say I urnfield I don't necessarily mean those as far north as southern Germany, Probably Switzerland, Southern France regions,) were the ones who carried the bulk of our subclade down to Iberia and then moved up the rivers you describe to places like the atlantic coast. Expanding mostly due to the more advanced maritime travel of the later phase of the Bronze age. Though I do believe there were outliers who broke off from the main pack, so to speak, and made incursions further North and East and didn't make it to the Atlantic springboards.

The main reason for my last post was mostly to get things shaking and moving again!

[samIsaack]

Jason how far are we from eachother DNA wise? On the French DNA group I'm in the A0 Family Group my FTDNA is 148371

Dear Brousse,

Using the "expanded" Brousse DNA signature (kit 36452), we are a genetic distance of 18 out of 67 markers.  This works out to be approximately 1320 years ago (common ancestor c. 693 AD).

How do you calculate the number of years for a gd? I have a gd of 15 at 67 markers with a French SRY2627 person and was wondering what the time frame would be.

Thanks!

[Jason Bourgeois]

Jason how far are we from eachother DNA wise? On the French DNA group I'm in the A0 Family Group my FTDNA is 148371

Dear Brousse,

Using the "expanded" Brousse DNA signature (kit 36452), we are a genetic distance of 18 out of 67 markers.  This works out to be approximately 1320 years ago (common ancestor c. 693 AD).

How do you calculate the number of years for a gd? I have a gd of 15 at 67 markers with a French SRY2627 person and was wondering what the time frame would be.

Thanks!

Here is what I do.  Go to this webpage:  http://www.mymcgee.com/tools/yutility.html?mode=ftdna_mode

Change mutation rate to FTDNA, and years/generation to 33. 

Paste a string of DNA markers for each of the two people you are comparing (this can be a bit tricky) and click execute.  It will tell you the GD and estimated years between the two.

[samIsaack]

How do you calculate the number of years for a gd? I have a gd of 15 at 67 markers with a French SRY2627 person and was wondering what the time frame would be.

Thanks!
[/quote]

Here is what I do.  Go to this webpage:  http://www.mymcgee.com/tools/yutility.html?mode=ftdna_mode

Change mutation rate to FTDNA, and years/generation to 33.  

Paste a string of DNA markers for each of the two people you are comparing (this can be a bit tricky) and click execute.  It will tell you the GD and estimated years between the two.
[/quote]

Thanks! It was a bit aggravating trying to copy paste all of the values into the given box. But I finally just copy pasted the values onto a seperate sheet that didn't cause the large spacings and then re-copy pasted it into the given box. Worked just fine that way.

Its saying our (Mine and the Frenchmans) tmrca was around 1056 years ago ( 957 AD) meaning a Breton/Briton migration origin for our line wouldn't have been as likely as I once assumed. The more I learn the less I know! Given the time-frame, I am beginning to also look at possible Germanic theories and dare I say it... Vikings!

They were raiding during this time in both Devon and Brittany. I don't see why one of them couldn't have left a few children here and there. I know its not likely, but hey, this is a hobby. Whats the point of it if you can't have a bit of fun speculating on something you'll probably never be able to prove or disprove anyways!? An interesting note is that the Frenchmans family didn't speak Breton and instead spoke Gallo. They were actually located in Ruca, Brittany.. Closer to Normandy.

"The Vikings started to raid the Seine Valley during the middle of 9th century. After attacking and destroying monasteries, including one at Jumièges, they took advantage of the power vacuum created by the disintegration of Charlemagne's empire to take northern France. The fiefdom of Normandy was created for the Scandinavian Viking leader Rollo (also known as Robert of Normandy). Rollo had besieged Paris but in 911 entered vassalage to the king of the West Franks, Charles the Simple, through the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. In exchange for his homage and fealty, Rollo legally gained the territory which he and his Viking allies had previously conquered. The name "Normandy" reflects Rollo's Viking (i.e. "Northman") origins.
 
The descendants of Rollo and his followers adopted the local Gallo-Romance language and intermarried with the area's original inhabitants. They became the Normans – a Norman-speaking mixture of Scandinavians, Hiberno-Norse, Saxons, Orcadians, Anglo-Danish, and indigenous Franks and Gauls."

Not saying this is for sure, just looking at all the angles. The period that we last shared a common ancestor was during the Viking age and his family roots are very close to Normany and in a village very close to the coast. I dunno, maybe I'm reading too much into it.

[Webb]

How do you calculate the number of years for a gd? I have a gd of 15 at 67 markers with a French SRY2627 person and was wondering what the time frame would be.

Thanks!

Here is what I do.  Go to this webpage:  http://www.mymcgee.com/tools/yutility.html?mode=ftdna_mode

Change mutation rate to FTDNA, and years/generation to 33.  

Paste a string of DNA markers for each of the two people you are comparing (this can be a bit tricky) and click execute.  It will tell you the GD and estimated years between the two.
[/quote]

Thanks! It was a bit aggravating trying to copy paste all of the values into the given box. But I finally just copy pasted the values onto a seperate sheet that didn't cause the large spacings and then re-copy pasted it into the given box. Worked just fine that way.

Its saying our (Mine and the Frenchmans) tmrca was around 1056 years ago ( 957 AD) meaning a Breton/Briton migration origin for our line wouldn't have been as likely as I once assumed. The more I learn the less I know! Given the time-frame, I am beginning to also look at possible Germanic theories and dare I say it... Vikings!

They were raiding during this time in both Devon and Brittany. I don't see why one of them couldn't have left a few children here and there. I know its not likely, but hey, this is a hobby. Whats the point of it if you can't have a bit of fun speculating on something you'll probably never be able to prove or disprove anyways!? An interesting note is that the Frenchmans family didn't speak Breton and instead spoke Gallo. They were actually located in Ruca, Brittany.. Closer to Normandy.

"The Vikings started to raid the Seine Valley during the middle of 9th century. After attacking and destroying monasteries, including one at Jumièges, they took advantage of the power vacuum created by the disintegration of Charlemagne's empire to take northern France. The fiefdom of Normandy was created for the Scandinavian Viking leader Rollo (also known as Robert of Normandy). Rollo had besieged Paris but in 911 entered vassalage to the king of the West Franks, Charles the Simple, through the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. In exchange for his homage and fealty, Rollo legally gained the territory which he and his Viking allies had previously conquered. The name "Normandy" reflects Rollo's Viking (i.e. "Northman") origins.
 
The descendants of Rollo and his followers adopted the local Gallo-Romance language and intermarried with the area's original inhabitants. They became the Normans – a Norman-speaking mixture of Scandinavians, Hiberno-Norse, Saxons, Orcadians, Anglo-Danish, and indigenous Franks and Gauls."

Not saying this is for sure, just looking at all the angles. The period that we last shared a common ancestor was during the Viking age and his family roots are very close to Normany and in a village very close to the coast. I dunno, maybe I'm reading too much into it.

[/quote]

Keep in mind that usually there is a "plus/minus" for those calculations.  If it is 950 at a common ancestor, it might be "plus/minus" however many years.  950 is not too far off from 1066, and there were Bretons who invaded England with the Normans.  Just a thought.

[samIsaack]

Thats true. Also, There was such an intermingling amongst the people who would become the Normans, that it is nearly impossible to tell. Normans were actually next on the list of "what if's?".

[Webb]

Thats true. Also, There was such an intermingling amongst the people who would become the Normans, that it is nearly impossible to tell. Normans were actually next on the list of "what if's?".

That's about the same genetic distance I am from the Vanderhoof's of the Netherlands.  So same deal.  We could have arrived in Britain in a few different scenarios, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman, or Flemish weavers.  My line in Britain is no older than Saxons and no newer than Flemish weavers.

[Brousse]

  I think it would be cool to figure all of our GD from each other and locations we maybe able to do a little detective work and figure what wave we came in on . Like some one from the same ancient family group in different locations. I don't know how rare this is  but All of my 5th Great Grandfathers descendants still match at 67 markers after over 200 years I only have a 37 marker test but match his descendants at 37  with this being the case how can we judge 33 years as a Generation ?

[Arch Y.]

How do you calculate the number of years for a gd? I have a gd of 15 at 67 markers with a French SRY2627 person and was wondering what the time frame would be.

Thanks!

Here is what I do.  Go to this webpage:  http://www.mymcgee.com/tools/yutility.html?mode=ftdna_mode

Change mutation rate to FTDNA, and years/generation to 33.  

Paste a string of DNA markers for each of the two people you are comparing (this can be a bit tricky) and click execute.  It will tell you the GD and estimated years between the two.

Thanks! It was a bit aggravating trying to copy paste all of the values into the given box. But I finally just copy pasted the values onto a seperate sheet that didn't cause the large spacings and then re-copy pasted it into the given box. Worked just fine that way.

Its saying our (Mine and the Frenchmans) tmrca was around 1056 years ago ( 957 AD) meaning a Breton/Briton migration origin for our line wouldn't have been as likely as I once assumed. The more I learn the less I know! Given the time-frame, I am beginning to also look at possible Germanic theories and dare I say it... Vikings!

They were raiding during this time in both Devon and Brittany. I don't see why one of them couldn't have left a few children here and there. I know its not likely, but hey, this is a hobby. Whats the point of it if you can't have a bit of fun speculating on something you'll probably never be able to prove or disprove anyways!? An interesting note is that the Frenchmans family didn't speak Breton and instead spoke Gallo. They were actually located in Ruca, Brittany.. Closer to Normandy.

"The Vikings started to raid the Seine Valley during the middle of 9th century. After attacking and destroying monasteries, including one at Jumièges, they took advantage of the power vacuum created by the disintegration of Charlemagne's empire to take northern France. The fiefdom of Normandy was created for the Scandinavian Viking leader Rollo (also known as Robert of Normandy). Rollo had besieged Paris but in 911 entered vassalage to the king of the West Franks, Charles the Simple, through the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. In exchange for his homage and fealty, Rollo legally gained the territory which he and his Viking allies had previously conquered. The name "Normandy" reflects Rollo's Viking (i.e. "Northman") origins.
 
The descendants of Rollo and his followers adopted the local Gallo-Romance language and intermarried with the area's original inhabitants. They became the Normans – a Norman-speaking mixture of Scandinavians, Hiberno-Norse, Saxons, Orcadians, Anglo-Danish, and indigenous Franks and Gauls."

Not saying this is for sure, just looking at all the angles. The period that we last shared a common ancestor was during the Viking age and his family roots are very close to Normany and in a village very close to the coast. I dunno, maybe I'm reading too much into it.

[/quote]

Keep in mind that usually there is a "plus/minus" for those calculations.  If it is 950 at a common ancestor, it might be "plus/minus" however many years.  950 is not too far off from 1066, and there were Bretons who invaded England with the Normans.  Just a thought.
[/quote]

I wonder what the Poitevin connection might be with the Norman Conquest of 1066 AD. I think the Bretons were mostly archers which can be seen on the Bayeux Tapestry. I really would not be surprised to see a Norman connection with a large percentage of SRY2627 since it gets us closer to L165 with a Norse connection and Normans were found all over the place such as Sicily, El Hierro Island, Tunisia, etc.

[Late Night Edit] I am more convinced though of a Roman connection than anything past the 400 AD mark for the subclade. With the huge diaspora created with the Roman expansion anything afterwards is just more layers of tinier diasporas (diasporae?) LOL. Let's face it, the molecular age of the subclade is about the most accurate thing we have stretching back between 800 BCE to c. 1500 BCE. Then we need to account for the "Celtic diaspora" of the earlier Iron Age or Late Bronze Age which was probably greater than the Roman epic diaspora of several peoples/tribes.

I wished we had more data from Roman remains and maybe work back from there. Anybody know the status of the Roman dig in Paris just a year or so ago? I recall they were on an ambitious project to get DNA samples.

Arch

[Brousse]

Arch when the tribes of the Bay of Biscay built the ships for Rome for the invasion of England no doubt they would have manned the ships with experienced locals that may have been trading there for years IMO.

[Jason Bourgeois]

Keep in mind that usually there is a "plus/minus" for those calculations.  If it is 950 at a common ancestor, it might be "plus/minus" however many years.  950 is not too far off from 1066, and there were Bretons who invaded England with the Normans.  Just a thought.

Yes, I think Breton would be the most likely cultural association for a common ancestor in 950.  There was much crossing of the channel between Brittany and Devon/Cornwall, and the Breton and Cornish languages are very closely related.  The Bretons would have been in Normandy long before the invasion by Norsemen in that region as well.

[samIsaack]

I wonder what the Poitevin connection might be with the Norman Conquest of 1066 AD. I think the Bretons were mostly archers which can be seen on the Bayeux Tapestry. I really would not be surprised to see a Norman connection with a large percentage of SRY2627 since it gets us closer to L165 with a Norse connection and Normans were found all over the place such as Sicily, El Hierro Island, Tunisia, etc.

[Late Night Edit] I am more convinced though of a Roman connection than anything past the 400 AD mark for the subclade. With the huge diaspora created with the Roman expansion anything afterwards is just more layers of tinier diasporas (diasporae?) LOL. Let's face it, the molecular age of the subclade is about the most accurate thing we have stretching back between 800 BCE to c. 1500 BCE. Then we need to account for the "Celtic diaspora" of the earlier Iron Age or Late Bronze Age which was probably greater than the Roman epic diaspora of several peoples/tribes.

I wished we had more data from Roman remains and maybe work back from there. Anybody know the status of the Roman dig in Paris just a year or so ago? I recall they were on an ambitious project to get DNA samples.

Arch
[/quote]

Yes, it probably was introduced via the Normans. I agree with that. 957 AD isn't far from 1066 AD and given the uncertain accuracy of these tmrca predictors it may have been closer to the time of the Normans. "William assembled a large invasion fleet and an army gathered not only from Normandy but from all over France, including large contingents from Brittany and Flanders."

My cousin's family history... "Our family story is this that our surname originated during or after the Crusade of Richard I (Lion-Heart) in the 1190s and that our farm was bestowed by him in reward of Crusader service.  (I've read that returning crusaders often gave their children Old Testament names to showcase that religious/political service--although my family claims that Richard I personally bestowed the Isaac name.)  When surnames became common in England around 1500, some of those crusader names became censused as surnames."

The fact that Richard was also the Duke of Normandy and the fact that my family seemed to have a great respect for him, makes a Norman connection all the more irresistible.

I'd say ancient ethinicity was Gaulish and eventually blended with the Normans during their time period. I don't see Breton as a likely source, as the Frenchman I share this connection with has roots in the Gallo speaking region of Brittany. His surname "Grouazel" is also Gallo derived. So our common ancestor was likely from Brittany, but I wouldn't say that he was of Breton stock.

*Also

"The many great estates subsequently held by William’s barons in Devon were known as "honours". Chief amongst them were Plympton, Okehampton, Barnstaple, Totnes and Harberton."   

Perhaps this is how my family ended up in Devon? The family seems to have always had a military association, that exists to this day. We may not have been Barons of said cities, but we could have been something in the ranks of military/guard service to these Barons.

[Brousse]

Many Families that came with the Duke in 1066 can find tax info in the Doomsday book

[samIsaack]

Many Families that came with the Duke in 1066 can find tax info in the Doomsday book

Thanks for the info, but I don't think it would be of much help to me. My surname didn't come into existence until a hundred or so years after the Norman invasion, maybe longer. I have no idea what their name would've been before the adoption of Isaac as a surname.

[samIsaack]

I wanted to test to see how far off the tmrca predictor was, so I chose to compare myself with a family member. My family member and I last shared a common male ancestor 219 years ago. Our tmrca was predicted as being 297 years ago. So, there was only a 78 year difference. Not bad. I applied this same bit of info to my connection with the Frenchman and that puts us at a Tmrca occuring in 1033 AD as opposed to 957 AD. Of course if I take that same 78 year difference and subtract it from our base tmrca of 957 then we end up sharing a common ancestor in 879. If we even share a common ancestor at all. Its a pretty faint connection and I'm starting to wonder if its worth pursuing.

[Brousse]

Again I don't see how we can figure this . Without a paper trail or way more markers tested .If you still match a cousin after 200plus years 100% what good is GD on guessing the age of any clade? I have a complete family history and some of my matches  that are 37 for 37 for me and the ones with 67 maker are 67 for 67 all of us descend from My 5th Great Grandfather Arnold Bruce Rev War Veteran of NC we are talking over 200 years and still match. Now a mutation did happen between Arnold and his Brother the number 12 Marker mutated from 30 to 31 Arnolds line having the newer 31

[razyn]

If you still match a cousin after 200plus years 100% what good is GD on guessing the age of any clade?

GD is not a particularly precise science, or term of science.  It's a creation of genealogists and is kind of useful in their near-term comparisons, such as the one you mention in which a difference of one allele on the relatively fast mutator DYS 389-2 indicates descent from a different uncle.  That may not be the only mutation, up or down, in this lineage; it's one you know about.  Other lineages have more, or fewer (mine has more) in two or three hundred years.

The more scientific term is variance, and its more scientific use is in comparing significantly larger samples, that are significantly less closely related via paper trails, etc.  These data become subject to the "law of large numbers" and thus statistically meaningful.  One allele can still go up and down randomly, more in one person than another and therefore (sometimes) more in one clade than another; but the large numbers tend to level this effect.

It is often alleged in our circles that SNP testing (and the STR variance calculation that may be able to date it, relative to other SNPs) is for anthropology, not genealogy.  I don't agree with that, and think that formulation reflects a tendency toward myopia in genealogists as a class.  But people who have both interests, or skill sets, don't see the need to separate the goals and methods of the one (genealogy) from the other (anthropology).

The same researcher can look at a sunset, the full moon, the moons of Jupiter, the Andromeda "nebula," or a photo from the Hubble telescope showing a few thousand galaxies in one frame.  It doesn't make you a different person to look farther away.  But it might put your revolutionary war veteran, or your Huguenot refugee ancestor, or William the Conqueror, in a little different frame of reference.  Those guys were not all that long ago, if one is also interested in one's paternal line from genetic Adam.

[Brousse]

Thanks Razyn My Family Anglitized the surname of Brousse to Bruce here in America. I'm not related to the Duke of Normandy that I know of

[samIsaack]

If you still match a cousin after 200plus years 100% what good is GD on guessing the age of any clade?

GD is not a particularly precise science, or term of science.  It's a creation of genealogists and is kind of useful in their near-term comparisons, such as the one you mention in which a difference of one allele on the relatively fast mutator DYS 389-2 indicates descent from a different uncle.  That may not be the only mutation, up or down, in this lineage; it's one you know about.  Other lineages have more, or fewer (mine has more) in two or three hundred years.

The more scientific term is variance, and its more scientific use is in comparing significantly larger samples, that are significantly less closely related via paper trails, etc.  These data become subject to the "law of large numbers" and thus statistically meaningful.  One allele can still go up and down randomly, more in one person than another and therefore (sometimes) more in one clade than another; but the large numbers tend to level this effect.

It is often alleged in our circles that SNP testing (and the STR variance calculation that may be able to date it, relative to other SNPs) is for anthropology, not genealogy.  I don't agree with that, and think that formulation reflects a tendency toward myopia in genealogists as a class.  But people who have both interests, or skill sets, don't see the need to separate the goals and methods of the one (genealogy) from the other (anthropology).

The same researcher can look at a sunset, the full moon, the moons of Jupiter, the Andromeda "nebula," or a photo from the Hubble telescope showing a few thousand galaxies in one frame.  It doesn't make you a different person to look farther away.  But it might put your revolutionary war veteran, or your Huguenot refugee ancestor, or William the Conqueror, in a little different frame of reference.  Those guys were not all that long ago, if one is also interested in one's paternal line from genetic Adam.

Good post. I completely agree.