• 228 members

About us

Updated Oct 5th 2015 (Duncan, Henry3 &  McLean SNP Results)

*Recently some project members have had some questions regarding the results page information. Unfortunately there have been some recent results that have been returned by several different companies that have had errors. Unfortunately companies (like all of us) can make errors from time to time. Each error can make a big difference in an ancient genealogy or suspected branch point. Every effort has been made to try and retest positive reliable SNP's to ensure that the results are in fact genuine as funds become available. There has also been some confusion regarding the lay out of the results discussion. The reason for "crossing out" of certain statements is that as evidence becomes available or changes due to lab errors etc I want to keep the previous statement posted for any while so members can see the change regarding what was posted. A perfect example of this was the McLean1 results which was missing three critical ancient SNP's in the testing or analysis that were later discovered in the validation testing of a cousin. All three SNP's are now being retested for independently as a secondary confirmation. This made a huge difference in validating the  genealogy of the different lines suspected of descending from Erc of Dal Riata. I have made all of the updated information in bold type for those who have previously read the results. Just a reminder that the only way to be 100% regarding the DNA signature of an ancient individual is to test their remains. The next best option is to locate known or suspected descendants and test for both STR and SNP mutations which will increase the probability of an ancestral match. I appreciate all input from members regarding the project and how to improve it.  

The SNP results from the S1051 Project reveal several important facts about this family group's history. The ancestral STR markers for this group have been identified as 9-9 at DYS459, 19-19 at YCAII and 12 at DYS640. The results show that the S1051 group share 5 ancient SNP's below DF13 which that suggests that an event took place which likely reduced the number males greatly (known as a population bottleneck). A rapid expansion of the surviving male S1051 population occurred (approximately 1,500 BC) which is revealed by the many unique SNP lineages within the group, and yet very little branching happened from each subsequent line that you would expect to see from a healthy tree. It can be argued that more evidence may change that view, and which although possible the current STR results and pattern for this group suggest very little branching. Most branching appears in each line after about the 700AD, but there is (in my opinion) a genetic void between the ancient expansion and the 700 AD period. This suggests that other major population bottlenecks have occurred which eliminated large numbers of the family group

The largest of the 9919 types (A1) appears to be the healthiest of the known SNP lines and seems to have the most branching. This group shares a common ancient SNP FGC17906 with the 9919 SP Iberian type, the 9919A Matheson, Flood (Scott)- results posted, Cane, Chamberlin surnames. The Cane (ancestral surname)/Kellogg results show a new unique and ancient linage below FGC17906 linking them to ancient Ireland. There is a new connection between the Chamberlin and Matheson results - both sharing a single SNP below FGC17906 being FGC29039. Results are still pending for many of these kits as they are awaiting validation. The fact that after much testing we have yet to find a older cluster or ancient branch from the 4 oldest SNP's suggest that it's more likely that a back migration occurred from the Isles into Iberia. New evidence may in fact change this theory as a single test kit from the 1,000 Genomes Project identified as Lima Peru/American has tested positive for the ancestral SNP's and yet negative for the FGC17906 SNP. It's still unknown what the ancestry of this person is but safe to say Spanish is a possibility. An ongoing genetic investigation may reveal that the 9919A1's are part of the Clanna Dedad from the Ulster area of Ireland and prior to that what is now modern Scotland. Although the genealogy of Clanna Dedad has them being Gaels descending from the Miletus mythology, there were 2 supposed lines descending from the person by the name of Sin. Another line from him included the Uneil Kings which have already been established to be M222 (another unrelated line going back to and descending from DF13). Given the genealogy of certain other families it is likely the original SNP lineage for Sin was M222.  Many of the family surnames found within the 9919A1 type are part of what is being called the "Mid Argyll Group" and depending on the surname and period originate from either the Argyll area of Scotland or Northern Ireland. Some of the descendants of the Clanna Dedad were Ulster Kings and others went on to become a line of Pictish Kings and nobility. Some good genealogy research into the McCain family of Glassary by Barry McCain have turned up centuries old land records which tie this line to the Eain Mac Eain line of the early 1400's who is theorized to be part of the Giolla Chriost family two centuries before.

This brings us to the cultural origins of the S1051 family group as a whole..who were they and where did they come from? It's likely the 5 ancient SNP's either all originated within the British Isles or shortly before arriving from Mainland Europe. Even though the surnames are diverse and have many different origins what they seem to share genetically is the population bottlenecks then expansion after about 700AD. This suggests they were part of the same culture, geographic area or both with the least affected being the 9919A1's. My theory is that the majority of this family group were found within Pictish culture as many have ancestry going back to what is now Scotland, and also seem to have shared in the same event (or events) which reduced the population size. First identified by the Romans as "painted people" the Picts were a confederation of several different geographic tribes who were likely not a single genetic race but a genetic melting pot just like any other ancient tribe.Another interesting observation is that a large percentage of the Irish Ogham inscriptions have been supposedly located in lands occupied by the descendants of Corcu Duibne and later Pictish stone monuments also have Ogham writing. It should be noted that to date no Pictish stones have been uncovered in Ireland and it is possible that Ogham script found it's way to the Picts from Ireland but it still isn't certain how. One theory being that it came from Christian Missionaries due to the fact the Ogham appears on the Pictish stones close to the same time as Christian symbols appear. Another theory is that it has an ancient Scandinavian origin. Some self identify within the 9919A1 group as being "Cumbric" and again depending on the surname and period may be correct. With the new evidence coming in it's looking more an more likely the FGC17906 are a line of ancient Irish Gaels with a possible ancient family connection to a group of Picts.

New results from the Henry1 and Henry2 testing reveal the branch point of their SNP's after their known MRCA who was born in 1760. The Henry1 line has two identified SNP's and the Henry2 line has two new SNP's which have been validated. The new McLean results show a branch point consistent with the age where the line of Lorn son of Erc of Dal Riada should be in terms of genealogy. A second participant from Scotland is currently testing against the first set of McLean SNP's with both lines having a MRCA being from the 1700's. The second McLean has been tested for all of the SNP's below S1051 and 3 additional SNP's not found in the McLean1 Big Y results (FGC19432, FGC19434 & FGC19435) as a form of quality control of both sequencing and analysis because of it's importance. Now McLean2 has tested positive for all three of these previously negative SNP's. It's not certain what has happened but all three are not found under any level of certainty within the analyzed results for McLean1. So now what has to happen is the McLean1 participant should test all three again to further validate the results from McLean2. The fact that McLean2 has also tested positive for three of the unique new SNP's located in McLean1 results indicates that 19432, 19434 & 19435 are not part of a broken line which happened long ago. The interesting part of this is that it helps to validate the genealogy of the different lines which should be coming from Erc. New results also support the genealogy as the McLean2 test is negative for FGC32877 & FGC32885 which is normal for a MRCA being pre 1751. As stated below (now crossed out) the three SNP's in close succession in the Fergus line didn't make sense and it would be more likely they descended from Gabran (which now doesn't appear to be the case). So now it's advised that with recent issues with Henry 3 results and now this that the McCain/MacKeen lines should also test FGC19432 & FGC19434. There are a few more matches than I anticipated but it's not unreasonable given the genealogy. There are a couple of more tests on other people in the surname project which need to be done to support this. This opens up several questions and possibilities (if in fact true) - first it would provide a possible baseline for SNP's above Erc and second it would validate the point below Fergus Mor his brother. The MacAlpine test detected the SNP FGC19434 and the McAlpin results didn't but both share a common reliable SNP beyond that point. There could be several reasons for this but the SNP should be retested in the McAlpin line to confirm it - until that is done a question mark will be left beside it. A similar situation happened with the McCain1 results for FGC19435 who shares the common SNP below that point (FGC19435) with the MacKeen participant. A second test for McCain2 will hopefully fill in the gap of missing SNP's for this group. The McAlpin results only detected a single SNP (FGC31784) beyond FGC31785 common to both Alpin lines. Another five reliable SNP's were located in the MacAlpine line below that point. Results for the Flood/Scott line indicates another ancient lineage below FGC17906 and have been posted. Testing has revealed that the Duncan shares a more recent common ancestor with the MacLea member. Given that quite a few SNP's were removed from the MacLea results for not meeting Sanger standards I suspect that the common ancestor shared is possibly 1,000 years or more. After several sequencing attempts results were finally obtained for the Henry 3 line. The results are still undergoing Sanger validation but suggest an ancient branch which likely originates from the origin of the name.

New results from the FGC17938 group continue to expand our understanding. This is turning out to be another larger group with the SNP being shared by the surnames Byrnes, Byrne, Schwartzman, Holloway, Leslie and Moore. An interesting connection between the Schwartzman results and the Byrnes family which have FGC17936, FGC17945, FGC17950 and FGC17951 in common. The SNP evidence suggests a possible common ancestor from about 3,000 years ago for the two surnames. The Leslie surname results show a much closer genetic connection to the Holloway surname (again below FGC17938). They share a total of 18 SNP below that point then branch off into their own unique lineages. It's likely they share a common ancestor around 1,300 years ago but the connection is still unknown. Work is still being done to try and understand the ancient origins for this FGC17938 group. 

New results for the McLellan test have been posted and indicate a new and unique SNP lineage. The SNP's FGC9657 & FGC9658 should be confirmed through (though it's highly likely to be positive) 

The cause has been identified regarding odd test results from FGC17970. It was originally thought it may be a back mutation and that was the reason for the negative YSEQ Hamilton result. The problems was an error (my fault) in the position which was sent to YSEQ. The correction was made but YSEQ has determined that the position of FGC17970 is too similar to Chry (22276556..22277557) and therefore problematic to sequence for. So because of that the FGC17970 SNP is being removed from the spreadsheet. All of the SNP's are being checked over again for any possible errors. This is part of the reason for the SNP's not being registered through ISOGG yet - there needs to be time to work out any possible mistakes or unusual results. The new FGC test type for the Kingston participant produced some very good SNP results but because the coverage seems to be much better than previous test types it's difficult to use the number of new SNP's to determine the age for each (on average). Of the 19 new Kingston SNP's only seven were deemed reliable enough to develop primers. Of the seven new SNP's discovered from the Kingston sequencing four of the seven were positive in the Hamilton results and all seven were negative in the Chandler1 sample which helps to support the suspected MRCA for the Kingston Hamilton lines being from the 1500's. There was another (FGC33520) located in the Chandler1 results but it was unfortunately not deemed viable for primer development. There is one new SNP which is in fact located within the previous Chandler results but unnamed until this point. That SNP still needs to pass validation in order to be added to the spreadsheet. The history of this group is still a bit of a mystery but one possibility is that they share a common ancestral location being Cyngestune during Saxon times (later named Sedbury). One possibility to consider is that the area had one of the largest slave trading ports during that period. One reference states that up to 30% of the population within the area were in fact essentially slaves just prior to the Norman conquest of England. The "lore" was that the Chandler line had entered Normandy with Rollo and the Vikings being in fact Danish in origin. Recent testing of a Chandelier line revealed a typical I1 Scandinavian type which could suggest many different reasons for the lines not matching. A recent participant to join the group is testing for S1051 who's origins are Danish, but it's unlikely there will be a close genetic connection during that time period looking at the STR pattern.     

There are some lines who appear to have some recent French ancestry but does that mean they entered into Brittany? Was it a separate ancient line?..possible but unlikely because there should be more branching in those lines. There are a few which are supposed to have Scandinavian ancestry but how did that happen if true? There doesn't appear to be any S1051 cluster found within Scandinavian test results to date*. Two new participants have joined the group with one having a known Danish ancestry (currently in Denmark) and another with a similar STR pattern who's ancestry is less clear. The Danish Larsen kit has tested positive for S1051 and has a unique 18-19 set of values at YCAII. Testing is currently under way for this participant to determine if he belongs to an identified line or something new. Although I don't anticipate any recent connection to the Chandler/Kingston/Hamilton group it may support some sort of Danish ancestry or origin for some. The question I have is "was there some sort of genetic connection between the Pictish Cait/Kat tribe to the north and Scandinavia?". Recent excavations in the Orkney's revealed combs made from Reindeer but were carbon dated as pre-Viking. It's clear (at least to me) given the number of SNP's combined with historical accounts that the 9919A1's are of the Dal Riata group and also predate the Viking contact period. New S1051 positive results have returned for the Riley, Bartley, Watkins, Hall, Grant, Fletcher & Jordan. Both the Fletcher and Jordan participants are testing further and analysis still needs to be completed on the Watkins Big Y results. Results are positive for the Whiteside member and pending for the Brooks participant which are expected sometime in May. Some might argue that this group was likely part of many different Celtic tribes but if so why do they seem to have been reduced in numbers during the same period and yet we don't see the same bottlenecks in many other healthy SNP haplogroups below DF13? We have some who are S1051 with Jewish ancestry - the time period, population bottle necks, rapid ancient expansion of the ancient male lines all fit, but the research has not revealed a paternal link as of yet to the Jewish population. It is possible some have at one time joined with the Jewish population but there should be surnames which match the Jewish priestly lineage and there are none identified as of yet. Even if a connection is found it would be more likely they were descendants of ancient Hyksos or another culture found within the Mediterranean as ancient Maritime Beaker People did have ancient outposts in places like Sicily. 

If this group is proven to have been found within Pictish culture it doesn't mean that we are the true Picts or that we were the only genetic group. Using geographic profiling and genetic testing of suspected surname groups such as Pit (known as a Pictish name) the Scotlands DNA Group have identified a variant of L1335 as being likely Pictish as well. Please note that the L1335 SNP haplogroup "is not part of the R-S1051 Project". It does share a common ancient ancestral SNP known as DF13 but is a completely different ancient line. Anyone interested or positive for that SNP lineage is requested to join the R1b - L1335 Project.  

Testing is still ongoing to identify other S1051 people and connections between different 9919 types. One of the most interesting ancient connections is between what is known as the 9919B type and the 9919A4 type. My opinion is that this ancient line was located in the North East of what is now Scotland, but more testing will have to be done to reveal if this is true. The current self identification by some of the 9919B's is that they were lowland Scots.

Each line is important and each SNP line is being investigated as funding permits. Links to the 2 current SNP result pages are found on this projects "background page". Results showing the same print color, background color and SNP name (FGC17906 for example) indicate the shared ancestral SNP. The "phylogenetic placement" of the 5 ancient SNP's near the top below DF13 are all identified the same way in light blue. The SNP's unique to a certain family surname lineage have had their print color changed to highlight the change. The SNP order or "phylogenetic placement" is still being researched and with each set of results coming in more positions are identifiedThank you to everyone who has been willing to join the project, participate in research, fund testing, contribute genealogy, and historic information to the projects benefit.  

More information regarding specific family surname history and MRCA information (Henry1, Henry2 & Henry3 for example) will be posted as results become available. There will also be genealogy links to some of the specific surnames if people have specific questions.  

George Chandler