GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-01 > 1170047522
From: Jonathan Day <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Worth getting yet more extras?
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:12:02 -0800 (PST)
Oh, I don't disagree with your reply at all. And that
is precisely the part I find puzzling. It is a rare
mutation. Rare mutations are, well, rare and therefore
extremely localized and almost certainly only occurred
The problem I'm having can be stated thus:
1. The closest Norse entries I can find most likely
diverged from my branch at least a thousand years
prior to the known and dated archaeological events
which I believe may be associated with the 392:12
marker in Ireland. (The Ulstermen, during the wars
over the High King, had Norse allies who settled
I can't account for that time at all - there should be
intermediate entries with that marker in areas
associated with the Nordic trading empire (as far east
as Kiev, some say Moscow, and as far south as Egypt -
those guys made the Romans look like amateurs).
2. ySearch turns up people who are genetically closer
than anyone I have found with the 392:12 mutation.
Someone cannot be both a more recent and a more
distant cousin at the same time. The mathematics of
mutation rates produces a very different result from
the mathematics of inheritance and I can't get the two
3. The few close genetic matches with the marker show
up on known trading areas of the Norse, but so far
nowhere on any on the raiding areas, so my deduction
would have to be that this was a somewhat aristocratic
trading family who could afford to go around buying
and selling kingdoms.
How on Earth do you go about hiding an entire town of
fanatically insular, thousand-year anachronistic,
hyper-rich merchants in the middle of Norway? Between
the ancient records, the archaeological digs and the
surviving legends of the time, you'd think that
something like that would stick out a mile, even
assuming the town doesn't still exist. (And if it did,
it really WOULD stick out a mile - that kind of
history stays with a place.)
In summary, I can produce a perfectly plausible
history by genetic distance, genetic markers or by
archaeology, but I cannot produce a self-consistant or
reliable history with any two of those, and I cannot
produce any history at all by all three.
Now, I don't expect to find my
however-many-great-grandfather's grave with testable
DNA, tafl board and a personal diary. I do expect to
be able to find intermediate data points that make
sense - you couldn't do much in the way of genealogy
otherwise! - and I would like to be able to put
together a plausible hypothesis that isn't totally
invalidated by what I already know.
It irks me to no end that I cannot produce even a hint
of a theory - of when/where the family name came from,
of when the Norse ancestors came over, where they
landed or where they came from, who I am related to
(across surnames), how and when, and how the marker in
question is both unmistakably ancient (the maximum
genetic stance of a person who carries the same
mutation suggests it is a paleolithic mutation) and so
rare at the same time, without dying out.
The marker isn't the cause of all my problems, but it
isn't consistant with any of the more obvious
solutions to any of them, and that is why it is so
--- Ken Nordtvedt <> wrote:
> Why are you so upset by a measly 12 at 392?
> Mutations happen. The rest of
> your haplotype looks like a quite normal Norwegian
> type (your 464 values) of
> I queried the entire SMGF database. 8 out of 347
> Norse I1a haplotypes had
> 12 at 392. It's a rather rare mutation, but it had
> to happen to somebodies.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Day" <>
> To: "RICHARD M PAYTON" <>
> Cc: <>
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 6:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Worth getting yet more extras?
> > Richard,
> > Thanks for the offer of help. At this point,
> > help I am well and truly stuck. On Ysearch, I'm
> > as 3M9XT. I'm listed as I1a. The first few markers
> > as follows:
> > 393 13
> > 390 23
> > 19 14
> > 391 10
> > 385a 14
> > 385b 15
> > 426 11
> > 388 14
> > 439 11
> > 381-1 12
> > 392 12
> > 389-2 28
> > 458 15
> > 459a 8
> > 459b 9
> > 455 8
> > The 392 value is the first of the weird markers -
> > check on FTDNA and YSearch show that virtually all
> > I1a's who are even remotely close have a value of
> > whereas my value of 12 seems to be definitely
> > What makes it more unusual is that those who are
> > who have a value of 12 in that position are in
> > geographically dislocated regions and have no
> > surname. Ok, maybe that's not too bad - I1a is
> > associated with the Norse and the one thing the
> > are associated with is travelling.
> > Problem is, not a single I1a in Norway that I can
> > has a value of 12 at 392. Unless the Norseman in
> > question mutated in transit, I can't explain the
> > rarity, dispersion and lack of an origin.
> > It gets more complicated when I look at the table
> > the Day DNA Project. I have a 23 at 390, whereas
> > few other Days who are classed as Is have values
> of 22
> > or 24. At 385a, I have a 14, whereas all other
> Days in
> > the project have a 13. At 392, I have a 12 but all
> > other Days have an 11.
> > Since I'm a distance of 1 from people with other
> > surnames, I would venture to guess I'm essentially
> > unrelated to all these other Day families.
> > Another problem is that the more markers I look
> > the greater the genetic distance becomes. At 37
> > markers, there is nobody closer than 3. At 57
> > the closest is 12 and the median is closer to 20.
> > is for all surnames and all regions.
> > It does not help that those who have tested up to
> > markers and share the strange marker values are a
> > greater genetic distance than those who have
> > the same number of markers but do NOT share those
> > markers.
> > Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I seem to
> > mention of markers reverting to earlier values.
> > might be what has happened here, but if that
> really is
> > the case, I'm totally stuck on how I make use of
> > information I have.
> > This leads back to the original question, of
> > further testing is going to be of any value. At
> > present, the data I have is telling me nothing on
> > genealogical timeframe and is giving me
> > answers over a longer timeframe. It seems to me
> that I
> > need something more to break one of these logjams,
> > what is the more that I need?
> > One thing I've considered is getting in touch with
> > known very distant relatives who are also directly
> > descended on the male line to the Day family, in
> > hope that I can isolate whatever has changed in
> > past 150 years. That might cover one or two
> > but it's not going to explain away ten to twenty,
> > I don't have reliable family history data further
> > sideways than that.
> > (The family tree, as it is known, doesn't go back
> > far and is mostly concerned with how multiple
> > are interrelated to mine. Interesting for
> > genealogists but not so helpful when studying
> > family history.)
> > Jonathan
> > --- RICHARD M PAYTON <>
> > wrote:
> >> Jonathan: I never saw a response to your e-mail
> >> GENEALOGY-DNA.
> >> There is plenty of expertise on the list to help,
> >> but I think they will need
> >> more information.
> >> You say you have on weird marker. What is that
> >> marker and what is the weird
> >> value?
> >> What haplogroup has FTDNA assigned you to? The
> >> SNP test is of far more
> >> value in some haplogroups (with lots of
> >> diversity) than others.
> >> If you have your results on Ysearch, you might
> >> your Ysearch id to the
> >> list. Plenty of people will take a look at your
> >> haplotype and weigh in if
> >> you do that.
> >> I am no expert, but if you tell me your
> >> and what is weird about
> >> your weird marker, I will take a stab.
> >> Richard Payton
> >> Payton/Peyton Surname Y-DNA Project
> >> Patton Surname Y-DNA Project
> >> Denver
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From:
> >> [mailto:] On
> >> Behalf Of Jonathan Day
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:32 PM
> >> To:
> >> Subject: [DNA] Worth getting yet more extras?
> >> Hi,
=== message truncated ===
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
|Re: [DNA] Worth getting yet more extras? by Jonathan Day <>|