Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1117883616

From: "Andrew and Inge" <>
Subject: Lancaster Project
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 13:13:36 +0200

Does anyone have any remarks about these 2 cases from the recently started
Lancaster project?

1. I have one participant who has started with 12 markers, but already seems
to be an R1b with a very odd 385b=16. Compared to WAMH he also has 390=25
and 389ii=29. Has anyone got any theories about this signature? I could not
see any pattern within Europe on the YSTR database, but on Ybase and Ysearch
the closest match is a Greene, from the US. But then again Greene could be
an anglicised European name. I presume this mutation may have happened a few

2. My own E3b markers have a closer hit to Satterfields on the Sorensen
database than to one of the 2 Lancasters on the database. My question is
about significance, and I'd just like to know if my opinions seem correct as
I know comparisons between surnames is controversial. Here are the numbers:

The way the Sorensen database counts, there are 25 markers (inlcuding 3
double markers) which overlap between what most of their clients have, and
my 37 marker FT DNA test. With these 25 or 28 markers...
-I have a perfect "25/25" match with one Satterfield
-I have a 24/25 with the other Satterfield
-I have 23/25 with an American Lancaster, known to have come from the same
part of Britain as my ancestors (Craven on the border between Lancashire and
the West Riding of Yorkshire, key parishes in the story being Colne, Bingley
and Addingham) which I presume can not be a conincidence as my sort of
haplotype is not very common in Britain.

The differences between the Lancasters are that the American one has 385 of
17,18 and 447 of 27. The clear modal values for these markers for all people
within a distance of 1 from Dennis Garvey's typical set of markers would be
16,18 and 26. So there is a good chance that the other Lancaster (myself)
has the ancestral values, which are also the same as the Satterfield values.

The differences between the Satterfields is at 458, where again the
individual with the non modal value is the individual that does not match
the other surname.

If we presume that despite first appearances the unusual values were the
ancestral ones, then the maximum difference between the Satterfield MRCA and
the Lancaster would 3 out of the 25 or 28 markers (385a, 447 and 458).
However it seems more likely that they were a perfect match.

Given that there must be a connection between the 2 Lancasters, I use the
Sorensen one as a proxy to study the other Sorensen markers, giving 11 more.
This shows a perfect match between the 2 Satterfields and a 1 point
difference with the Lancaster at 441. (In this case, just looking at the
Sorensen matches, it is the Satterfields who are unusual.)

I suppose there might always be chance convergence but at this stage it
seems that the match is now highly improbably...

In Sorensen terminology the distances between the 3 individuals on their
results page is 35/36 between the Satterfields and 33/36 and 34/36 for the
Lancaster and the 2 Satterfields. BUT, taking my other Lancaster results (37
markers from FT DNA) and assuming that this Lancaster, me, has the same 11
extra marker results as his fellow Lancaster, would give a match of 35/36
and 34/36 to the Satterfields, implying that he still could be closer to
them than to the other Lancaster.

By the way, the names Satterfield and Lancaster are likely to have come from
parishes which are very close to each other and also a well known family of
Satterfields lived very close to my Lancaster ancestors in Manchester in the
early 19th century.

In opinion of the people on this list, how likely is it that this idle
speculation has struck upon a real proven connection between these two

Best Regards

This thread: