World Families Forums - Here's a Question

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 10, 2014, 02:23:03 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)
| | |-+  Here's a Question
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Here's a Question  (Read 1516 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« on: September 19, 2012, 02:03:20 PM »

Ever since I started in genetic genealogy back in 2006, I have had my y-dna ancestral homeland listed as "Unknown Origin" on my FTDNA "Most Distant Ancestors" page. That's how it shows up in all the projects in which I am a member. The reason for that listing is that I do not yet know who my y-dna immigrant ancestor was or where he came from.

Since setting that "Unknown Origin" listing, however, I have gotten a 65/67 match with a man born in Worcester, England, whose family, he says, has always lived in Shropshire. All of my closest 67-marker matches have British Isles surnames, and I have tested P312+ L21+ DF13+ DF41+, all of which are not exactly rare in the British Isles.

I am tempted to exchange that "Unknown Origin" setting for "United Kingdom". Should I do it? Or should I be strict and stick with "Unknown Origin"? I think the preponderance of the evidence, given my surname, my matches, and my SNP test results, is that my y-dna immigrant ancestor was of British Isles origin.

What do you think?

You're not going to hurt my feelings on this, so fire away.
Logged

Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2012, 02:10:10 PM »

Not vague enough. How about "Indo-European"? :)

All kidding aside, you have the trifecta of "United Kingdom" lineages (Surname, L21, STR match), so I don't see why you couldn't change it.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2012, 02:12:26 PM »

Not vague enough. How about "Indo-European"? :)

All kidding aside, you have the trifecta of "United Kingdom" lineages (Surname, L21, STR match), so I don't see why you couldn't change it.

Thanks, Rich. I have a great deal of respect for you, so your recommendation goes a long way.
Logged

Mike23
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2012, 02:18:03 PM »

Change it to the Uk. Just don't claim your ancestors are from Wexford.

Regards,

Mike Hannan
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2012, 02:20:11 PM »

Change it to the Uk. Just don't claim your ancestors are from Wexford.

Regards,

Mike Hannan

I have some Irish matches, but, of course, that wouldn't be UK.

My surname (Stevens), however, is most common in Cornwall and in the West Midlands of England, although it occurs just about everywhere in the British Isles.

A few years ago, my wife, my youngest daughter, and I were at Colonial Williamsburg here in Virginia. We ran into some visitors from Cornwall. When we told them our names they laughed and said they knew a lot of Stevenses back home.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 02:21:55 PM by rms2 » Logged

stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2012, 02:26:17 PM »

 England until you find out more?
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2012, 02:31:01 PM »

England until you find out more?

I think so. The 65/67 match I mentioned has a Welsh surname, and his family came from Shropshire hard by the Welsh border. I also have some matches to some Prices (Price is a Welsh surname, ap Rhys) not much more distant.

So, it could be Wales.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2012, 02:38:49 PM »

England until you find out more?

I think so. The 65/67 match I mentioned has a Welsh surname, and his family came from Shropshire hard by the Welsh border. I also have some matches to some Prices (Price is a Welsh surname, ap Rhys) not much more distant.

So, it could be Wales.

I don't know if there is a right and wrong way.  It is apparent that many people in surname projects at some point reach a decision that one cluster is related and they pick the best/most distant genealogy they have for that cluster.

As far, picking a place, I have pet peeve to try to pick a country, i.e. Wales or England, but not the  United Kingdom. That could mean Northern Ireland.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2012, 02:43:34 PM »

England until you find out more?

I think so. The 65/67 match I mentioned has a Welsh surname, and his family came from Shropshire hard by the Welsh border. I also have some matches to some Prices (Price is a Welsh surname, ap Rhys) not much more distant.

So, it could be Wales.

I don't know if there is a right and wrong way.  It is apparent that many people in surname projects at some point reach a decision that one cluster is related and they pick the best/most distant genealogy they have for that cluster.

As far, picking a place, I have pet peeve to try to pick a country, i.e. Wales or England, but not the  United Kingdom. That could mean Northern Ireland.

I agree. I cannot pinpoint the country, but UK is pretty general and I think catches all the likely places, except the Republic of Ireland.

In my case, I think Wales is very likely or Cornwall or the very west of the West Midlands.

Of course, Heber says Stevens is a sept of the Scottish Clan MacTavish.

I really like that idea. I'm holding out for that.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 02:45:25 PM by rms2 » Logged

seferhabahir
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2012, 02:48:43 PM »

I think UK is fine for you to use.

I had to settle on Belarus when I know that is not where my ancestors came from, just where my more recent ancestors all lived before they showed up in the U.S. Helps me though because almost all my matches are in the same predicament, and my nearest match also lists Belarus. There's no way I can trace back more than about 250 years with paper trails.

« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 02:49:27 PM by seferhabahir » Logged

Y-DNA: R-L21 (Z251+ L583+)

mtDNA: J1c7a

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2012, 02:55:50 PM »

I think UK is fine for you to use.

I had to settle on Belarus when I know that is not where my ancestors came from, just where my more recent ancestors all lived before they showed up in the U.S. Helps me though because almost all my matches are in the same predicament, and my nearest match also lists Belarus. There's no way I can trace back more than about 250 years with paper trails.



Thanks.

I have gone ahead and made the change. I won't change it back to "Unknown Origin" unless someone comes along and makes a really devastating argument that I should do so.
Logged

Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2012, 03:26:52 PM »

Rich,

As a general rule I have more confidence in terminal SNPs which tend to be absolute than matching STRs, which can be arbitrary.
If we look at many of the DF41 results they show a Scottish, Gaelic, Hebridian look.
Most of these trace their clan affiliations to Dal Riadia Genealogies.
IF we then look at the surrounding DF13 with clades greater than 5% (DF41 is 3%) we get a dominantly Gaelic signature.

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763708372/

If this is correct it raises the interesting case of the Stewart Royal Line (FitzAlen) downstream of DF41 (L744,L745,L746) could have Gaelic blood lines after all.

I find it useful to plot my top 5 STR matches and my top 5 SNP matches on a map to extrapolate my Genetic Homeland. I find this methodology is useful in eliminating false trails due to NPEs or late adoption of patrilinial surnames.

http://www.irishorigenes.com/

My guess would be a Scottish Gaelic and Hebridian origin possibly linked to the McTavish clan.
Of course I could be completely wrong on this. More SNPs will give us better granualarity. I hope the Geno 2.0 paper throws some more light of this including my DF21 line.



« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 05:56:13 PM by Heber » Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2012, 03:40:18 PM »

... IF we then look at the surrounding DF13 with clades greater than 5% (DF41 is 3%) we get a dominantly Gaelic signature....

I generally don't attach ethnicities to STR signatures nor haplogroups but sometimes it does apply, at least in general terms.

What do you mean by a "Gaelic signature"?   Do you mean any lineage that predominately spoke Irish, Scottish or Manx Gaelic languages?

I don't know if it can be considered that the Irish language was spoken much before 300-400 AD. That's the reason I ask.  Are you attaching some kind of probable timeframe?

If instead you just mean any Q-Celtic speaker that could go all the way back to the time of the Bell Beakers.

I assume that you would consider P-Celtic Brythonic or Gaulish speakers to not be Gaelic, right?
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 03:42:14 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2012, 03:42:12 PM »

As much as I would like that to be true, Heber, I am not convinced we have enough information on DF41 yet. The initial results showed hits mostly in Scotland and the north of Ireland, but now results are starting to pop up in Wales and SW England, as well. I know there was a great deal of Irish settlement in Wales, so that might not contradict what you have written, but we now have one in Wiltshire (Self). I'm not sure there was much Irish settlement there.

And we have a couple of French DF41 tests currently in the oven. If they turn out to be DF41+, that will change the entire complexion of the question.
Logged

Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #14 on: September 19, 2012, 03:50:31 PM »

... IF we then look at the surrounding DF13 with clades greater than 5% (DF41 is 3%) we get a dominantly Gaelic signature....

I generally don't attach ethnicities to STR signatures nor haplogroups but sometimes it does apply, at least in general terms.

What do you mean by a "Gaelic signature"?   Do you mean any lineage that predominately spoke Irish, Scottish or Manx Gaelic languages?

I don't know if it can be considered that the Irish language was spoken much before 300-400 AD. That's the reason I ask.  Are you attaching some kind of probable timeframe?

If instead you just mean any Q-Celtic speaker that could go all the way back to the time of the Bell Beakers.

I assume that you would consider P-Celtic Brythonic or Gaulish speakers to not be Gaelic, right?

Mike,
In general they would be derived from Q Celtic and correspond to the Gaelic Genealogies described in Leabhar an nGenealach, The Great Book of Irish Genealogies. This also included for example Scottish Dal Riadian genealogies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leabhar_na_nGenealach

"Described by Eoin MacNeill "by far the largest and fullest body of Irish genealogical lore", it contains roughly twice as much material as found in the Book of Ballymote and the Book of Lecan. It preserves notes on families from all parts of Ireland, Gaelic Scotland, the pre-Gaelic, Viking and Old English peoples of Ireland. It features an eighteen page preface, nine 'books' or divisions and a seventy-four page Clar or general index in double columns. It consists of eight hundred and seventy one pages, 95% of which is in Mac Fhirbhisigh's handwriting. The remainder is in the hand of an unknown amanuensis, and incorporates some pages written in 1636 by Mícheál Ó Cléirigh."
Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #15 on: September 19, 2012, 04:03:31 PM »

I have to say yes with the surname history and matches your have as well. UK.

(Previous post I made was move to a new topic. Sorry)

MJost
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 04:40:44 PM by Mark Jost » Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2012, 04:21:40 PM »

"North Atlantic facade" it's suitably vague ;-)

As for DF41, personally I would regarded it as at least "Insular Celtic" obviously we don't know about distribution on the continent but I wouldn't be trying to assign branches of "Insular Celtic" languages to it (eg. exclusively Goidelic or Brythonic).

Given the ages been proposed for TMRCA for DF41 it could date from time when both branches were basically dialects of a wider language contact area (akin to say Swiss German and "Standard" German).

Some of dates I've seen for beginning of seperation between the two branches is about 1000BC, of course for several hundred years after that they would have still been very close with gradual divergence due to different sound shifts (everyone thinks of Q->p but there's also V/W -> F (Goidelic) vs. V/W -> Gw (Brythonic))

Leaving aside that there's also fact that Ireland and Western Britain were tightly held together in period after Roman fall first by raiding/settlement of Irish in Britain as well as by fact that the christianisation of Ireland was driven by Brythonic speaking missionaries. The early church in the 5th-7th century was heavily Brythonic in character as a result.

Obviously Archaic-Irish is recorded on Ogham stones in Wales and in Cornwall/Devon. If anything probably the oldest writing in Irish language is from an Ogham stone found in a well in the Roman town of Silchester in modern Hampshire. This has been dated to late 4th/early 5th century. This along with roman finds in Ireland from same time period show there was definite traffic in both directions.

Personally I prefer fact that it's ancient, mainly as it makes the it "borderless", though of course it's part of a wider cultural-linguistic area -- which heavily contracted after 50BC.

-Paul
(DF41+)
Logged
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2012, 04:45:14 PM »

United Kingdom is what I think you should put, and I wish more people would make logical conclusions like that. Especially French-Canadians on 23andMe's Ancestry Finder!

Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #18 on: September 19, 2012, 05:16:14 PM »

... IF we then look at the surrounding DF13 with clades greater than 5% (DF41 is 3%) we get a dominantly Gaelic signature....

What do you mean by a "Gaelic signature"?   Do you mean any lineage that predominately spoke Irish, Scottish or Manx Gaelic languages?

I don't know if it can be considered that the Irish language was spoken much before 300-400 AD. That's the reason I ask.  Are you attaching some kind of probable timeframe?

If instead you just mean any Q-Celtic speaker that could go all the way back to the time of the Bell Beakers.

I assume that you would consider P-Celtic Brythonic or Gaulish speakers to not be Gaelic, right?

Mike,
In general they would be derived from Q Celtic and correspond to the Gaelic Genealogies described in Leabhar an nGenealach, The Great Book of Irish Genealogies. This also included for example Scottish Dal Riadian genealogies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leabhar_na_nGenealach ..

Heber, It looks like you agree that Brythonic and Gaulish speaking lineages don't qualify as Gaelic. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting your answer.

I think the book you are talking about is only related to Medieval Times. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you agree we are talking about a traditional definition of Gaelic versus an expansive "all Q Celts" ever definition.

If so, DF41 and its predecessor DF13, may have been around before the times of the Gaelic speakers and could have significant proportions of lineages from non-Gaelic lineages.  Probably there are some lineages that even spoke Q-Celtic, then Brythonic and then Gaelic.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2012, 05:54:31 PM »

Mike,

I see Q Celtic, Goidelic and Gaelic as a continuum.
I try to show a rough timeline here.

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763708372/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goidelic_languages

I don't know a lot about Gaulish or Brythonic genealogies, but would be willing to learn, if you can point me to a source.


Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Arwunbee
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2012, 06:42:39 PM »

Do you have a history of your male line using "Stephens" instead?  According to the GB Surname Profiler 1881 census of the UK, Stephens is much more common than Stevens in Wales.  Regardless, your Welsh and near Welsh matches seem to be saying the one thing.
Logged

Map of L44 subclade (of U106): http://g.co/maps/9xswy
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2012, 08:34:27 PM »

Do you have a history of your male line using "Stephens" instead?  According to the GB Surname Profiler 1881 census of the UK, Stephens is much more common than Stevens in Wales.  Regardless, your Welsh and near Welsh matches seem to be saying the one thing.

My family has been using the "v" spelling of Stevens exclusively as long as I know, which goes back to my 3rd great grandfather, who was born in 1804 in Wheeling, West Virginia (part of Virginia back then).

Here is a photo of my 3rd great grandfather's tombstone.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I do have a 64/67 match with a man whose family spells the surname with a ph, however.

I took that tombstone photo back in 1989. You'll notice the stone has been broken over and is now embedded in the grass. I'm guessing it was knocked over by a riding lawnmower driven by a thoughtless groundskeeper.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2012, 08:45:50 PM by rms2 » Logged

avalon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2012, 04:52:50 AM »

Do you have a history of your male line using "Stephens" instead?  According to the GB Surname Profiler 1881 census of the UK, Stephens is much more common than Stevens in Wales.  Regardless, your Welsh and near Welsh matches seem to be saying the one thing.

My family has been using the "v" spelling of Stevens exclusively as long as I know, which goes back to my 3rd great grandfather, who was born in 1804 in Wheeling, West Virginia (part of Virginia back then).

Here is a photo of my 3rd great grandfather's tombstone.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I do have a 64/67 match with a man whose family spells the surname with a ph, however.

I took that tombstone photo back in 1989. You'll notice the stone has been broken over and is now embedded in the grass. I'm guessing it was knocked over by a riding lawnmower driven by a thoughtless groundskeeper.


According to the book "The Surnames of Wales" by John Rowlands the difference between Stephens and Stevens may be due to Welsh pronounciation and the roots of the name. Basically, there is no letter 'v' in the Welsh alphabet so in Welsh "ff" is pronouced as in effort and "f" as v in wave.

The Welsh forename Steffan may therefore have been taken on as Stephens as a late patronymic surname in Wales, whereas Stevens may have been the medieval English pronounciation and spelling. The forename Steven is found in small traces during 15C in South East Wales.

The book also says many Stephens who went to America may have become Stevens.
Logged
samIsaack
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2012, 05:21:33 AM »

There must be some positive energy flowing right now, because I may have finally broken down the wall and made it back to the home land.

I was browsing the Devon dna project and happened to view the ungrouped R1b1a2 section at the bottom of the page and to my surprise an Isaacs was in it. Upon further examination I discovered that we are at a Gd of 1 to 2 at 37 markers, depending on which person you are comparing him to from my group.

He even has the same unusual DYS392=14 which is modal for my family grouping.

Can't believe I didn't see this sooner! This also makes sense for my haplo with regards to SRY2627 being more common in this area of the Isles.

Sorry if this is off topic to the op!
Logged

Y-Dna: R1b-SRY2627

Mtdna: J1c8
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2012, 05:42:45 AM »

Mike,

I see Q Celtic, Goidelic and Gaelic as a continuum.
I try to show a rough timeline here.

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763708372/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goidelic_languages

I don't know a lot about Gaulish or Brythonic genealogies, but would be willing to learn, if you can point me to a source.




By default Proto-Celtic is "Q-Celtic" in nature, given that the sound is actually a feature of Proto-Indo-European. So for example compare:

Proto-IE: *h₁éḱwos
Latin: Equus
Proto-Celtic: *ekwos
Gaulish: epos
Old Irish: Ech (Modern Irish: Each)
Welsh: Eb (p -> b, also seen with map/ap -> mab/ab)

The concept of some sort of "them" and "us" division between P and Q celtic is false, it's basically a dialectical sound shift that occurred in one part of Celtic speaking world that eventually spread. Some have even argued that the shift was encouraged by fact that prestige may have been lent to the pronunciation of the phoneme as a P due to it been prevalant form among a La Tene trading elite.

Brythonic and Goidelic are more closely related to each other then either are to Gaulish, leaving aside the fact that both Gaulish and Brythonic feature the Q->P shift. There are sound shifts in Gaulish that never occurred in either Goidelic or Brythonic. You could theorise following:

Proto-Celtic (Q)
--> Continental Celtic
      -----> Celtiberian (Q)
      -----> Leptonic (Q -> P)
        -----> Gaulish (Q -> P)
--> Insular Celtic
       ----> Brythonic (Q -> P)
              ----> Old Welsh ---> Welsh
              ----> SouthWest Brythonic                       
                        ----> Cornish
                        ----> Breton
       ----> Goidelic (Q)
              ----> Old Irish (Q -> K -- most people forget this subtle sound change!)
                    -----> Middle Irish
                          -----> Modern Irish (Gaeilge -- Gaedhilge before spelling reform)
                          -----> Scottish Gaidhlig
                          -----> Manx Gaelg

The point that Celtiberian and Goidelic groups are both Q-Celtic doesn't imply that they are more closely related to each other. Instead it shows the preservation of "archaic" features in this case the Q phoneme in areas that were at the periphery of the them Celtic world in time 500BC-0AD (given the rise of La Tene material culture).

The thing is we don't know when "Proto-Brythonic" underwent the sound shift of Q->P, it could have been quite late and due to Gaulish migration/settlement into SouthEastern Britain (the tribes that minted coins for example).
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 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 0.297 seconds with 20 queries.