Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-02 > 1138911333

From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] How many lowland/highland Scots are Scots R1b?
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 13:15:33 -0700
References: <000001c627e2$a6524720$4201a8c0@BigMem2> <003101c62820$d8f90220$1802a8c0@WorkGroup> <000401c62823$99d88c70$bec79045@Ken1> <001801c62831$8cdf70c0$1802a8c0@WorkGroup>

The placements of the surnames is done using the SMGF pedigrees. Those go
back different amounts of time, depending on the contributors' knowledge of
their ancestries. But they generally don't go back to ancient times. There
are lots of difficulties right now getting a more accurate count of
percentages or locations within Scotland, or for anywhere else for that
matter. The present databases don't supply the needed data. For instance,
in SMGF I also find a bunch of Scot R1b for people of obviously Scot names
but which give Ulster as place of earliest known ancestor. I did not count
them, because doing so would open up a subjective can of worms. Similarly,
as always, the largest pedigree group is USA --- people who can't cross the
Atlantic with named ancestors. One must not start trying to count where
those surnames came from, because that is also prone to subjective biases.
For individual applications, I tend to feel some are over-interpreting
statistical properties of populations. I understand them more in a
population sense.

When I first started discussing the Scot variety of R1b in 2005, I put out
all the Scot surnames I found in the pedigrees. The reason I did so is
because I thought some of the gurus on the list who follow the Scot clans
closely could peg their historical places or origin and either reinforce or
weaken the perception of a Lanarkshire connection. I thought that might
overcome the expected flow of Scots from all over into the industrial areas
of more recent times.

Whether Buchanan 5 is recently related to Buchanan 1, 2, 3 depends on your
paper trails and matches or mis-matches on other markers. Take away all
that information, as well as surname, and there is no reason why you would
tentatively assign Buchanan 5 to being a descendant of the Scot R1b variety

Don't forget DYS444. It is modal 11 for Scot R1b, with 12 being the
Atlantic R1b modal.


----- Original Message -----
From: "rlivingston1488" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] How many lowland/highland Scots are Scots R1b?

> Hi Ken,
> Two questions for you. First, at what point does somebody get dumped
> out of a "Scots Variety" R1b category and into another? For instance,
> there are a group of obviously related Buchanans that I would definitely
> put into the Scots Variety .
> Buchanan 1 390/391=24/10 389=13/30 YCA=19/24
> Buchanan 2 390/391=24/10 389=13/30 YCA=19/24
> Buchanan 3 390/391=24/10 389=13/30 YCA=19/24
> Buchanan 4 390/391=24/10 389=13/30 YCA=19/23
> Buchanan 5 390/391=24/10 389=13/29 YCA=19/23
> None of these men strays further than 6 steps from the "Scots Variety"
> modal. Yet Buchanan No. 5 does not meet more than 1 out of three of the
> Scots Variety criteria. Would he be eliminated from this variety if I
> didn't have him grouped with the others to show that he was related? I
> imagine attempts are being made to find an SNP to help distinguish this
> haplogroup from others. Is there any progress on that front?
> My second question, I believe you are using some kind of census to help
> place these Scots Variety surnames into a geographical context. What is
> the timeframe for the census? If it is late in the game, I have to
> imagine that it might be biased toward the Lanarkshire region (mainly
> Glasgow and Greenock) because of the influx of highlanders into that
> region due to job opportunities induced by the Industrial Revolution. And
> as soon as highlanders begin a southward migration, they began to dump
> their highland surnames in favor of Englishized surnames that were more
> socially acceptable. This is certainly the case for clans such as the
> MacDonnsliebhes (MacOnleas) and MacGillemichaels, whose surnames were
> almost universally changed to Livingston and Carmichael respectively.
> Rob
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 10:07 AM
> Subject: [DNA] How many lowland/highland Scots are Scots R1b?
>> The ratio of R1b to I1a and other haplogroups (and hence fraction being
>> R1b)
>> will differ depending on whether one samples highland Scots or lowland
>> Scots. The same probably goes for the fraction of R1bs found to be of
>> the
>> Scot variety --- YCA = 19, 24; 390/391 = 24/10; 389 = 13,30. An
>> unscientific look at the hits for the Scot variety suggests they may have
>> had historical connection with the Lanarkshire or NW lowland area.
>> Ken
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "rlivingston1488" <>
>> To: <>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 10:48 AM
>> Subject: Re: [DNA] How many Scots are Scots
>> > John McEwan stated:
>> >
>> >> 4) Approximately 21% of Scottish origin R1b is R1bSTR47Scots.<
>> >
>> > So I guess in order to answer Andrew's question (without pounding on
>> > him
>> > for
>> > asking the question in such an awkward fashion), you have to know,
>> > "What
>> > percentage of Scots-origin men who participated in the testing are
>> > R1b?",
>> > in
>> > order to subtract out the roughly 21% who are R1bSTR47. Is that kind
>> > of
>> > information readily available?
>> >
>> > Rob
>> >
>> >
>> > ==============================
>> > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
>> > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ==============================
>> New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your
>> ancestors at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends.
>> Learn more:
> ==============================
> New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors
> at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more:

This thread: