World Families Forums - Welsh People Could Be Most Ancient in UK, DNA Suggests

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 14, 2014, 01:03:26 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Welsh People Could Be Most Ancient in UK, DNA Suggests
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Welsh People Could Be Most Ancient in UK, DNA Suggests  (Read 3540 times)
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #50 on: July 27, 2012, 01:36:19 PM »

So for ancestry which test is the most accurate; Autosomal,Y-DNA or mtDNA?

It depends on what you are looking for. If you only wish to know the ancestry of your father's, father's father's, etc. line than a good, deep clade Y-DNA test ins in order. It won't tell you anything about otherlines in your DNA, though.

If you wish to know the ancestry of you mother's, mother's, mother's, etc. line, then a good mtDNA test is in order. It won't rell you anything about your other lines, though.

If you wish to know were your total DNA profile matches up with other testers and their areas of population, then a good Autosomal test is in order. If you test with 23andMe, you will also be given your Y-DNA and mtDNA designation without markers. You will also received medical information.

Once you have your Autosomal data, you can upload it to Gedmatch and run it through several Population Test that will divide your DNA into ancestral populations.

The most common problem I see on these forums, is that posters seem to identify their Y-DNA with their whole ancestry.

I agree that is a silly approach.  I mean even going back to about 1800 many will hit the 128 lines of the ggggg grandparents generation.  Everyones y line is therefore less than 1% of their ancestry of 200 years ago.  Two more generations back into perhaps 1750 or so everyone has 508 lines and the Y of that time is only 0.2% of all your lineages of that generation.  It gets crazy once you get back to c. 1700 and you have about 2000 lines.  By 1600 and early European settlers of America its 16000 lines and your y from c. 1600AD is a ridicolously small portion of your ancestry.  Certainly I dont think anyone should get too puffed up about a y-ancestor of say 1600!  I laugh when some people have some sort of ancestor (perhaps a posh one with a portrait in a castle) from 100s of years ago and try to see a resemblance with them even though their DNA is maybe 0.2% the same as the guy with the wig in the painting.  Daft!  

Also, lately we have had discussions on U106 and Irish guys. First off, as a guy who is 75% Irish/Scots-Irish, I probably have a U106 ancestor myself. And a P312*, and an M222, and a G2a and an R1a and so on. Perhaps most of my male Irish ancesotrs are some variety of L21, but the chances are much in favor that they all aren't!

However, if you take an Irishman, born and raised in Ireland, who has the Y-DNA line of U106 and compare him to me Autosomally, he'll skunk me with his Irishness! I may be Y-DNA DF23, but I'm also 25% French-Canadian.

The U106 Y-DNA Irishman is going to cluster with other Irish people in Autosomal tests in spite of his U106, or their M222.
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
chris1
Senior Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 66


« Reply #51 on: July 27, 2012, 02:36:47 PM »

Yes, the YDNA result is not a birth certificate and is only a small part of your DNA. If it didn't matter, or was of no interest or importance to people at all though, I doubt they would test. I think the captivating, psychological thing about the Y is that it's the biological reason you are a man and it has been physically transferred to you, from one's real, very distant ancestor many times in an unbroken line - and is a tangible link to the past, present in every cell.

I was luck enough to get hold of a photograph of my UK great, great grandad recently. Some family resemblance does seem to get handed down on the male line in my experience. He was born in 1840 but would look like one of the family if he was alive today with modern clothes and haircut. Our lot look like peas in a pod. A fellow YDNA cluster member has a photograph of his great great great grandfather (different surname, b. 1799) in the USA, taken around the same time (1860s). Coincidentally, they look like they could have been father and son, yet the photos were taken on different continents. There is no connection between the families that we know of for many, many centuries. Odd..
Logged
sernam
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #52 on: July 28, 2012, 05:08:41 PM »

I agree that is a silly approach.  I mean even going back to about 1800 many will hit the 128 lines of the ggggg grandparents generation.  Everyones y line is therefore less than 1% of their ancestry of 200 years ago.  Two more generations back into perhaps 1750 or so everyone has 508 lines and the Y of that time is only 0.2% of all your lineages of that generation.  It gets crazy once you get back to c. 1700 and you have about 2000 lines.  By 1600 and early European settlers of America its 16000 lines and your y from c. 1600AD is a ridicolously small portion of your ancestry.  Certainly I dont think anyone should get too puffed up about a y-ancestor of say 1600!  I laugh when some people have some sort of ancestor (perhaps a posh one with a portrait in a castle) from 100s of years ago and try to see a resemblance with them even though their DNA is maybe 0.2% the same as the guy with the wig in the painting.  Daft!  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034796/British-pensioner-creates-worlds-biggest-family-tree--tracing-10-000-ancestors.html

Most definitely, Y is only a tiny percentage. I saw something like this news story online years back. A guy put his ancestry up on a webpage going all the way back to mythical figures (he was aware they were myths) . I believe it was an American whose ancestors came from Ireland & possibly Germany but was able to trace (supposed) lines to Chinese princesses, Roman Emperors, Arab rulers, Biblical figures etc. It must’ve been quite a project. It gives you an idea of just how little a part Y is.
Logged
Bren123
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 208


« Reply #53 on: July 28, 2012, 06:34:38 PM »

According to the Brynmawr review.

Ellen C. Røyrvik (p. 83–106), Brian P. McEvoy and Daniel G. Bradley (p. 107–120) are also reserved regarding conclusions from our present knowledge of the genetics of Britain and Ireland to the linguistic situation. They agree that "population genetics should be able to make a considerable contribution towards the elucidation of Celtic … prehistory" (p. 102), but they also agree that "we are still restricted to examining but a fraction of the human genome’s diversity" (p. 118) and are hence unable to reconstruct prehistory from the genetic diversity. Inconclusive as genetic studies presently are, they look more promising for the future. The genetics of facial features (p. 87), the correlation of surnames and Y chromosomes (p. 114–117), to take just these two examples, are all interesting and encouraging.

Logged

LDJ
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #54 on: July 28, 2012, 09:47:41 PM »

Yes, the YDNA result is not a birth certificate and is only a small part of your DNA. If it didn't matter, or was of no interest or importance to people at all though, I doubt they would test. I think the captivating, psychological thing about the Y is that it's the biological reason you are a man and it has been physically transferred to you, from one's real, very distant ancestor many times in an unbroken line - and is a tangible link to the past, present in every cell.

I was luck enough to get hold of a photograph of my UK great, great grandad recently. Some family resemblance does seem to get handed down on the male line in my experience. He was born in 1840 but would look like one of the family if he was alive today with modern clothes and haircut. Our lot look like peas in a pod. A fellow YDNA cluster member has a photograph of his great great great grandfather (different surname, b. 1799) in the USA, taken around the same time (1860s). Coincidentally, they look like they could have been father and son, yet the photos were taken on different continents. There is no connection between the families that we know of for many, many centuries. Odd..

However appearance is autosmal and the proportion of random autosomal DNA shared with a male ancestor 150-200 years ago is about something like 0.5-1.5%.  I would suggest that the phenomenon where people with so little shared genes with an ancestor seem to show a resemblance is often down to a family living and marrying in a new world location where a lot of other local people also arrived from the same old country area as ones own ancestor and the whole local community in the new country are of a similar mix to the old country. The natural thing for a long standing community is that they will eventually become very homogenised and in genetic terms would probably form some sort of autosomal cluster if it was tested to high definition. 
Logged
Mike Forsyth
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #55 on: July 28, 2012, 10:23:34 PM »

Of course this is off topic but I want to share a story about family resemblances in my Forsyth paternal line.    I have a crooked right little finger that is evident in about 70% of the male generations that I know of since the 1840s.  My g grandfather who was born in 1876 had it and said that his father had it as well.  Whether or not it went beyond that I don't know.  It only shows up in the male Forsyths.  The female members of the family did not inherit it.  One exception is one female in my fathers generation who has a twin brother.  My son and my grandson also have it.  172 years of YDNA passed down....
Logged
susanrosine
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #56 on: July 28, 2012, 10:44:29 PM »

Of course this is off topic but I want to share a story about family resemblances in my Forsyth paternal line.    I have a crooked right little finger that is evident in about 70% of the male generations that I know of since the 1840s.  My g grandfather who was born in 1876 had it and said that his father had it as well.  Whether or not it went beyond that I don't know.  It only shows up in the male Forsyths.  The female members of the family did not inherit it.  One exception is one female in my fathers generation who has a twin brother.  My son and my grandson also have it.  172 years of YDNA passed down....
I don't think the gene for a crooked little finger is carried on the Y-DNA. Just the fact that one female also has it basically proves that. The "Y" chromosome is what makes you a male instead of a female. I mistook pictures of a little girl as pictures of my mom as a kid. She turned out to be a distant cousin of my mother's. X and mtdna didn't cause that, and neither did y-dna. It was luck of the draw (aka autosomal).
Logged

Dad: JAMES:  Ysearch QSCQ3;  R-P312, L21+ (R1b1b2a1b5*)
Dad: mitosearch QSCQ3; T1a; no matches HVR2 or FGS
Mom's brother: LEWTER: Ysearch FYFDA;  R-U106, L48+ (R1b1b2a1a*)
Mom's brother: mitosearch FYFDA, U5b2; 1 exac
Mike Forsyth
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


« Reply #57 on: July 28, 2012, 11:47:49 PM »

I get your point, however, yDNA or autosomal, it is a distinct structural trait clearly present in the male line of my family.  Interestingly, none of the males born to female Forsyths had even a hint of it present in their structure. 
Logged
Castlebob
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #58 on: July 29, 2012, 08:46:42 AM »

Susanrosine, can you tell me if any of your L21- Welsh members are testing for  DF27, DF19 &  L238, please?
Cheers,
Bob
« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 10:09:27 AM by Castlebob » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b P312+ Z245- Z2247- Z2245- Z196-  U152-  U106-  P66-  M65-  M37-  M222-  M153-  L459-  L21-  L176.2-  DF27-  DF19- L624+ (S389+)
mtDNA: U5b2b3
susanrosine
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #59 on: August 03, 2012, 09:59:58 PM »

Susanrosine, can you tell me if any of your L21- Welsh members are testing for  DF27, DF19 &  L238, please?
Cheers,
Bob
Well we don't have many R-L21- people! Kit 63671 tested negative for L238, DF27 and DF19. Kit 21572 tested negative for DF19 and did not test the other ones. There are no pending tests.
Logged

Dad: JAMES:  Ysearch QSCQ3;  R-P312, L21+ (R1b1b2a1b5*)
Dad: mitosearch QSCQ3; T1a; no matches HVR2 or FGS
Mom's brother: LEWTER: Ysearch FYFDA;  R-U106, L48+ (R1b1b2a1a*)
Mom's brother: mitosearch FYFDA, U5b2; 1 exac
susanrosine
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #60 on: August 03, 2012, 10:10:22 PM »

I get your point, however, yDNA or autosomal, it is a distinct structural trait clearly present in the male line of my family.  Interestingly, none of the males born to female Forsyths had even a hint of it present in their structure. 
Yep, if none of the women got the nose of their father, they can't pass it down to their children. Now, back to the topic of the Welsh people.
Logged

Dad: JAMES:  Ysearch QSCQ3;  R-P312, L21+ (R1b1b2a1b5*)
Dad: mitosearch QSCQ3; T1a; no matches HVR2 or FGS
Mom's brother: LEWTER: Ysearch FYFDA;  R-U106, L48+ (R1b1b2a1a*)
Mom's brother: mitosearch FYFDA, U5b2; 1 exac
sernam
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #61 on: August 03, 2012, 11:48:40 PM »

I get your point, however, yDNA or autosomal, it is a distinct structural trait clearly present in the male line of my family.  Interestingly, none of the males born to female Forsyths had even a hint of it present in their structure. 
Yep, if none of the women got the nose of their father, they can't pass it down to their children. Now, back to the topic of the Welsh people.


 Forsyth is Welsh?
Logged
susanrosine
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #62 on: August 04, 2012, 12:22:56 AM »

Exactly! It's Scottish. I would like to know what autosomal Welsh DNA looks like. My Walesd-Cymru project is Y-DNA, and seems to be dominated by R-L21.
Logged

Dad: JAMES:  Ysearch QSCQ3;  R-P312, L21+ (R1b1b2a1b5*)
Dad: mitosearch QSCQ3; T1a; no matches HVR2 or FGS
Mom's brother: LEWTER: Ysearch FYFDA;  R-U106, L48+ (R1b1b2a1a*)
Mom's brother: mitosearch FYFDA, U5b2; 1 exac
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #63 on: August 04, 2012, 03:14:34 PM »

Not this load of nonsense again!

Welsh people could lay claim to be the most ancient Britons, according to scientists who have drawn up a genetic map of the British Isles.
 
Research suggests the Welsh are genetically distinct from the rest of mainland Britain.
 
Professor Peter Donnelly, of Oxford University, said the Welsh carry DNA which could be traced back to the last Ice Age, 10,000 years ago.
 

Peter Donnelly is the statistician working for the People of the British Isles Project as part of the Wellcome Trust survey.

He is correct that Wales has a different genetic profile from England, something Weale noted for yDNA back in 2002. The data Donnelly is referring to is autosomal. Details of the genetic map were posted earlier and can be seen here:

http://sse.royalsociety.org/2012/exhibits/genetic-maps

The Wellcome Trust's newsletter is here:

http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/nl5.pdf

They will publish yDNA and mtDNA maps later.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2012, 03:15:43 PM by authun » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #64 on: August 04, 2012, 06:07:58 PM »

I hope those autosomal data become available for Family Finder comparisons.

Of course, I hope the y-dna and mtDNA data become available, too.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2012, 06:08:25 PM by rms2 » Logged

avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #65 on: August 05, 2012, 04:58:43 AM »

Not this load of nonsense again!

Welsh people could lay claim to be the most ancient Britons, according to scientists who have drawn up a genetic map of the British Isles.
 
Research suggests the Welsh are genetically distinct from the rest of mainland Britain.
 
Professor Peter Donnelly, of Oxford University, said the Welsh carry DNA which could be traced back to the last Ice Age, 10,000 years ago.
 

Peter Donnelly is the statistician working for the People of the British Isles Project as part of the Wellcome Trust survey.

He is correct that Wales has a different genetic profile from England, something Weale noted for yDNA back in 2002. The data Donnelly is referring to is autosomal. Details of the genetic map were posted earlier and can be seen here:

http://sse.royalsociety.org/2012/exhibits/genetic-maps

The Wellcome Trust's newsletter is here:

http://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/nl5.pdf

They will publish yDNA and mtDNA maps later.

It is worth noting that within Wales the map shows two distinct genetic clusters, pink in North Wales and amber in South West Wales. I suspect, of course, that the two Welsh clusters are closer to each other than to the different English clusters.

Welsh scientists Fraser Roberts and Morgan Watkin came to a similar conclusion in the 1950's based on their study of blood groups in Wales. Roberts said that the North Welsh had blood group frequencies simlilar to the Irish and Scots whereas the South Welsh were lower in blood group O.

Morgan Watkin also observed relatively high frequencies of blood group B (which I understand is rare in Western Europe) in isolated, moorland areas of Wales such as the Black Mountain, the Plynlumon range and Mynydd Hiraethog in West Denbighshire.
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v10/n2/abs/hdy195616a.html

Watkin postulated that blood group B was an ancient phenomenon in Wales, linked to the remote places where physical anthropologists Fleure and Davies (1958) claimed to have found the oldest Welsh stock.


Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.109 seconds with 19 queries.