GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-08 > 1282721420
From: "Julie Frame Falk" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Frames and Hamiltons
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:30:20 +1000
Ken Nordtvedt said:
<I did not say incorrect; it may even be the most likely explanation of how 19 got to 21 at YCAIIa. But that's just two steps, so I don't see how a sequence of two one-step mutations? What if we find a population of haplotypes with 20-21 at YCA and otherwise similar? In fact, I will go look for some in my database. >
Ken I don't want to hijack your time nor the List's unnecessarily; so just to round up from my perspective: I don't know how your search of your database went, but I temporarily modified YCAIIa to 20 on the 8-marker account I use at YSearch to find hap. I1 RecLOHs. There were several single incidences with YCAIIa,b = 20,21: Wiatt, Taylor, Matthews, Throne, Hutto, Freeman, Wiley, Meirer, McKenzie and Kamman with various geographical locations - so I guess there is no reason to suspect anything other than random mutations. There were a couple each of Kunnemanns (Germany) and Aultman/Altmans all closely related to each another. The only other surname was Reid (Scotland) and there was a cluster of 13 who matched on these 8 markers. I randomly chose one (FCYYC) to compare with Frame A and he matched the modal 37=11. He matched Hamilton T 37-9. I don't believe there is anything useful there, but you may have other thoughts? I may be wrong, but I still feel that the YCAIIa,b = 21,21 shared by Frame A, Scruggs, Hamilton C was likely a RecLOH event.
RE Frame A and Frame B (nearest individuals GD 19): Having the tMRCA in the direct male line described as 'well before surnames were established' might be the most prudent phrase for me to use. I think attempting to quantify tMRCA seems more problematic. I really don't think it is coincidence that members of these two Frame groups were living alongside each other in the same villages, even the same farm. The three men in Frame B descend from the one man born c1741-44. The movements and interaction of both the Frame A and Frame B families in Lanarkshire really does suggest they were of the same kinship group despite some change in the Y-DNA.
In your recent post you said: <I had not heard that Group-C claimed to be founder's clade? >
Nor have I heard that this is being claimed by Hamilton C; however, I suppose I am not surprised that the question has now been raised. I have no idea as to the answer, but just for the record: unlike Hamilton, Frame was pretty much in historical oblivion and it was DNA that helped reveal the unknown connections. After being contacted by matching folk, I subscribed to the Crispin Cousins forum at Yahoo (open forum, anyone can join). One of the members is an English researcher (I believe a professional and not an advocate of DNA testing). He has no connections to the family of Frame. However, as part of his research into Frame origins through the forum, he compiled many notes on a website called Frame Family Origins. The author proposes many peripheral family connections, including Hamilton and Harris. I must stress that they are his personal views, and thus, if anyone has questions regarding the content, they should be directed to the author himself via the email address on his website, or by joining in the research efforts at Crispin Cousins.
On the other hand, the Origins page at the Frame DNA Project website is a place where I am still exploring at my own pace; very slowly I might add, and some conclusions may never be drawn! I am happy to personally discuss anything included on this page, but perhaps best off-site to spare the Listers. I certainly link to the other Frame website, but include an appropriate disclaimer. Apologies All; unfortunately I've again run to too many words. Many thanks for sharing your thoughts, Ken.
Julie Frame Falk