Nope. Sorry Kaye. Your mtDNA is not going to prove a direct link to Robert Burn's YDNA. Yours Aye, Lauren

Dear All: The third update of the Year 2005 is now posted in the web site files. This is a "split screen" version of the 26 Sept 2005 Scot DNA Database. You can remove the split screen by merely going under the "Windows" Tabs on the top and remove splits. This database contains over 1100 samples. We are still in need of a Excel wizard to try and complete the grouping of Haplotypes. It appears to me, based on some email from some experts , that Fluxus may be the way to go. To determine if there is a potential match ...you would merely: A: Add your specific DNA results in line 16 B: Scroll the screen to each DNA entry to compare the results. There is also the capability of using the arrows to set a particular group of test scores in the box and that will then bring up all tests that match that particular setting. Charlotte Broun gets the credit for this particular creative method :-). Be careful to note that you are then rearranging all the entries so only change one entry at a time to compare results. Some of you may also have results and also want to be included in this database . You can send your test results to DNACLANS@brigadoon.net or to Marsha at: rms54549@tca.net She will then convert to the standard format for the database. Marsha has done a great job of entering these data samples and we really appreciate all the volunteers extra hours working so hard on all these various aspects of this genealogy research. Many of you know that Marsha lives in Texas and completed these updates during the chaos of Hurricane Katrina and then more closely to home with Rita. I'm not sure how she kept her Internet connection through all that and kept the computer running but she never missed a beat :-). Best Regards John A Hansen

Dear Listers: Please -- no "roll calls." Lists of names/locations merely provide false positive hits when folks search the archives. It would be more relevant for listers to post messages with genealogical content relative to the topic of this list, rather than just interest surveys. Yours Aye, Lauren Scot DNA List Admin

Hey, Maggie, I don't match your surnames, but I love that you sent us the list. I'd like to see more people do that, especially because I'm often looking for 'in-law' connections, neighbors, migration patterns, etc. Some people, me included, sometimes can't see the forest for the trees, so it's a good exercise to look at other peoples' trees (surnames). Mike Stewart > > From: "Maggie Barron" <Maggie.Barron@cas-satj.gc.ca> > Date: 2005/10/11 Tue AM 09:26:58 PDT > To: SCOT-DNA-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SCOT-DNA] Surname Interests > > BARRON (Banffshire & Aberdeenshire) > SEIVWRIGHT / SIVEWRIGHT (Banffshire) > REID (Banffshire) > GORDON (Banffshire) > MACKAY (Banffshire) > MARR (Banffshire & Aberdeenshire) > KEITH (Banffshire) > MACCHATTIE / MACHATTIE (Banffshire) > TAYLOR (Banffshire) > FRASER (Banffshire) > ACHINOCHY / ACHYNACHY / AUCHINACHY (Banffshire) > SHIELLS (Borders area) > MUIR (Ayrshire) > BOA (Roxburghshire) > SMAILE (Roxburghshire) > HISLOP / HYSLOP (Roxburghshire) > CANDLISH / MCCANDLISH (Ayrshire) > GALBRAITH (Ayrshire) > LINDSAY (Borders area) > SMITH (Ayrshire) > TENNANT (Ayrshire) > DRAUYHALL / DRAGHILL (Roxburghshire) > TAIT (Borders area) > FAIRBAIRN (Borders area) > HOLM (Roxburghshire) > PONTANE (Roxburghshire) > THOMSON (Roxburghshire) > TURNBULL (Roxburghshire, Lanarkshire) > FRIER (Roxburghshire) > MURDOCK (Ayrshire) > BROWN (Ayrshire) > CRICHTON (Ayrshire) > FAIRRIE (Ayrshire) > HUNTER (Ayrshire) > ARTHUR (Ayrshire, Fife) > DRUMMOND (Fife) > GRAY (Fife) > MYRTONE (Fife) > DOW (Anywhere) > GRANT (Inverness) > MCCUAIG / MCLEOD (Islay & Argyll) > MACGREGOR (Islay & Argyll) > MACKENZIE (Islay & Argyll) > GRAHAM (Islay & Argyll) > CAMPBELL (Islay & Argyll) > JAMIESON (Islay & Argyll) > MACALLISTER (Islay & Argyll) > SHAW (Islay & Argyll) > > Anyone with links to the above families, you can contact me via this > list and/or by email at rothycat@hotmail.com > > Thanks! > Maggie Barron > > > ==== SCOT-DNA Mailing List ==== > DNA Results are also being posted on the web site. > Email to dnaclans@brigadoon.net if you want to join the > web site. For privacy reasons, this is a closed web site. > > ============================== > View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find > marriage announcements and more. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx >

BARRON (Banffshire & Aberdeenshire) SEIVWRIGHT / SIVEWRIGHT (Banffshire) REID (Banffshire) GORDON (Banffshire) MACKAY (Banffshire) MARR (Banffshire & Aberdeenshire) KEITH (Banffshire) MACCHATTIE / MACHATTIE (Banffshire) TAYLOR (Banffshire) FRASER (Banffshire) ACHINOCHY / ACHYNACHY / AUCHINACHY (Banffshire) SHIELLS (Borders area) MUIR (Ayrshire) BOA (Roxburghshire) SMAILE (Roxburghshire) HISLOP / HYSLOP (Roxburghshire) CANDLISH / MCCANDLISH (Ayrshire) GALBRAITH (Ayrshire) LINDSAY (Borders area) SMITH (Ayrshire) TENNANT (Ayrshire) DRAUYHALL / DRAGHILL (Roxburghshire) TAIT (Borders area) FAIRBAIRN (Borders area) HOLM (Roxburghshire) PONTANE (Roxburghshire) THOMSON (Roxburghshire) TURNBULL (Roxburghshire, Lanarkshire) FRIER (Roxburghshire) MURDOCK (Ayrshire) BROWN (Ayrshire) CRICHTON (Ayrshire) FAIRRIE (Ayrshire) HUNTER (Ayrshire) ARTHUR (Ayrshire, Fife) DRUMMOND (Fife) GRAY (Fife) MYRTONE (Fife) DOW (Anywhere) GRANT (Inverness) MCCUAIG / MCLEOD (Islay & Argyll) MACGREGOR (Islay & Argyll) MACKENZIE (Islay & Argyll) GRAHAM (Islay & Argyll) CAMPBELL (Islay & Argyll) JAMIESON (Islay & Argyll) MACALLISTER (Islay & Argyll) SHAW (Islay & Argyll) Anyone with links to the above families, you can contact me via this list and/or by email at rothycat@hotmail.com Thanks! Maggie Barron

Hello All: Forgive me if you receive this more than one time. I am cross posting it to several group send lists. I have no idea how many of you have family, friends or clansmen that may be in the area hit by Hurricane Katrina. However, for those of us that do, we have been looking for resources to find out if there has been any contact or news. It is a strange feeling indeed to be seeking human beings in the lost and found section of www.craigslist.com I can report that Cal managed to evacuate from Chalmette, LA to Missouri and is now at his neice's in Oklahoma. Were it not for the good graces of his upstairs neighbor, he would be dead or sitting on a rooftop. His daughter, son, first wife, grandchildren and their in laws are gratefully moslty safe. One daughter in law has not been heard from. Three family pets and everything the family owned are lost. They have been scattered to 4 states, yet they are alive and well. Due to the Murphy Refinery spill one of the homes must be torn down and cannot be rebuilt. As Sam said.... "once was twice too many." They, too, will look to start anew elsewhere. Family of the House of Boyd Society's Georgia Convenor also evacuated their home near Lake Ponchatrain. They have moved to two states in the last week. Recent report says that they are not only fine, but it seems their house may still be standing. They are dealing with the guilt of being among the lucky ones. A close family friend's former husband --her children's father, aunts and cousins have not been heard from. They had resided in a town near Chalmette and New Orleans. It is my hope that it is just the catastrophic events that have prevented their communications and that they will be heard from soon. So far, I have not found Denver's name on any of the lists. It is my hope that my daughter will not have to console her best friend for the loss of her father... that he and his family will be found safe. A local friend and Clan Cian kinsman has not heard from her cousins -- two families -- in the Slidell area. So far, I also have not found their families listed on any of the lists. Duffy and Duryea. This morning in doing some of my volunteer duties I discovered that Rootsweb -- the genealogical consortium -- has created a message board that is described below. ............................................... Hurricane Katrina Message Board: 2005-09-01 The aftereffects of Hurricane Katrina, which hit several U.S. states recently, will be felt for some time. A message board has been created to enable you to post inquiries about your loved ones, friends, neighbors, and 'genie friends' who may have been in harm's way. Hopefully, when they are able to get online, they will post here to let us know they are OK and to share their stories of survival. Queries and news about archives, libraries, repositories, cemeteries, and other items of genealogical interest are also appropriate for this board. Offers to help the victims of the hurricane should be directed the appropriate agencies, such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, religious groups, etc. The board is at: http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec?htx=board&r=rw&p=hurricanekatrina2005 ................................................................. I am grateful to live in California, on the San Andreas Fault, where we have the occasional earthquake. They are over in less than a minute. We are either fine or we are not. Gratefully, my family has been fine after even the 1906 quake. Suffered loss of property, but not of lives. My heart goes out to all those in the south and their family and friends. Yours Aye, Lauren Lauren M. Boyd, FSA Scot President, House of Boyd Society President, Scottish Information Society Chair, Genealogical Committee, Clan Stewart Society in America Rootsweb Volunteer since 1996 Host, Tartan Dinner Group

Dear All: Please be more mindful that your subject lines match the content of your messages. Using the subject line that mentions "Digest #... etc." is meaningless and many will delete on sight as it does not catch their attention, nor hint at the content of the message. Please take a moment before hitting the send button to ensure your subject line indicates the content of your message. Your fellow listers and those that browse the archives will appreciate your attention to this detail. Yours Aye, Lauren Scot-DNA List Admin

David, ============== You said "As for being Scot, the word was not even invented till around a thousand years ago..." ============== The word Scot is much, much older than "a thousand years ago". http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/claudian.htm The Roman poet Claudian, writing of the Roman general Stilicho's campaigns in Britan, used the word Scot several times in his writtings. Claudian lived circa 370-406AD. He used the Latin words: Scotus, Scotia, & Scoto. Claudian is the easiest source to quote, but I doubt he was the first to use the word Scot in writting. How could a poet in 406AD, (2005-406=1599 years ago) use derivations of "Scot", if the word hadn't been invented yet? Patrick, There was considerable flight from Scotland to Norway & Poland during 1645-1745 Union of the Crowns and Wars of Succession by Scots who lost in the risings. Many of the Scots, especiially the military men, moved into the service of forgein nations, specifically Norway & France. Scotland, France, & Norway formed the original "Auld Alliance." If your link were "Norse" the genetic link would be more in a timeframe of 800-1200AD, and might be so mutated as to not even really "match" by now. If you've actually found a match, you might consider checking military records of your brick walls, more around 1700AD (just a thought). Whether Scot or Norse or Pict or Saxon, all are Celtic and shared many cultural similarities. As the nation of Scotland solidified from 400AD-present, they all became "Scottish," irreguarless of their former homeland. In the big picture, their ancestors had moved to Norway from somewhere else to become "Norse" some 500-1000 years before that, so every! one is eventually from somewhere else. -- Kenneth Scott (researching Scott families of the American Revolution) David Rorer <drorer@fuse.net> wrote: Considering the number of Norse who settled/raided in the west of Scotland, the most likely thing is that you have an ancestor who came from Norway. As for being Scot, the word was not even invented till around a thousand years ago and signifies a cultural group not an ethnic origin. David Rorer -----Original Message----- From: patrick tagert [mailto:ptagert@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 4:16 AM To: SCOT-DNA-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: SV: [SCOT-DNA] Re: SCOT-DNA-D Digest V05 #78 Hello, Nils. Very good to hear from you. I have a Scottish surname & I have found a man named Buseth from Trondheim who is almost an exact match for my Scottish haplotype? This man also has a very solid pedigree in the Trondheim area. So you have a posed a good question - Scots or Norse Vikings haplotype? Tagert is a spelling variant of Taggart which is derived from MacTaggart, which is derived from the Gaelic Macant'sagairt (son of the priest). So, Scots or Norse? Pat Tagert --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

For all website access contact Charlotte at cbroun@iprimus.com.au. On 28/08/2005, at 9:11 AM, MCVsh@aol.com wrote: > I registered my DNA on the Scot DNA Clan list in 2002. I have > made no > connections and have tended to ignore all but the messages that I > recieve. I need > to be reminded as to how to access the site having, once again, > lost my > password, and, for that matter no longer knowing what the current > url is for the > site. Whom do I contact to reconnect? > Thanks > Michael Calder > > > ==== SCOT-DNA Mailing List ==== > Mailing List archives are at: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/SCOT-DNA/ > Subscription to this list is free, as are all of > Rootsweb's resources. > > ============================== > Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. > Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx > >

I registered my DNA on the Scot DNA Clan list in 2002. I have made no connections and have tended to ignore all but the messages that I recieve. I need to be reminded as to how to access the site having, once again, lost my password, and, for that matter no longer knowing what the current url is for the site. Whom do I contact to reconnect? Thanks Michael Calder

Hi, This page/link is pretty useful......... has 5 AMH Haplotypes to look at & see if you match and then look at your genealogy and see what (maybe) "fits" :- http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm (same good site given just before - thanks) I match AMH 5 & my 'genealogy' for instance strongly suggests "Central Norway (high probability our MacDomhniall/' Macdonnell' paternal origins based on history, family genealogy, DNA, etc. Can't be others for obvious reasons (eg, I'm not Spanish!) Trail? :- To Hebridean Islands as Norse "Vikings" and then to Antrim Ireland (as "Galloglass") and eventually to Dublin. (I'm not so called "Colla" or "Somerled"). Maybe a "broken clansmen"? "Celts/Picts" obviously got as far as Norway from Ireland/Alba as it is about 30% R1b; either very early (just kept going in their curraghs!), just returned with Norse "mates"; or as slaves. Ian Macdonnell (Ulster spelling - ex Clan Ian Mhor (Dunyveg (Islay) & Glenns (Antrim) - 'Donald South'. ) ----- Original Message ----- From: <r_clarkson@comcast.net> To: <SCOT-DNA-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 2:17 PM Subject: [SCOT-DNA] derek, Scotish dna > Thanks derek, for your fairly "in depth" reply. It appears that we are not much closer to identifying a Celtic area than the generic Iberian "origin". My 3891+2 are 15 +33. . My mothers is Veldan, with a strange twist ( 16188T, 16298C) The database, of course, still appears to be miniscule compared to populations, unfortunately.Your reply is much appreciated. > Rich

Thanks for your thoughts and statements... most refreshing. I appreciate your last paragraph..... I think the general idea that the matching of y dna ONLY means something IF the surnames match seems ridiculous. I would think that the Y DNA signature IS our surname... the surname itself being , perhaps, coincidental. Notice the last word please CO incidental :-) ( with meaning, perhaps synchronous). Rich -- Clarkson Family -------------- Original message -------------- > Lengthy discussions continue in this forum & others about the differences > between culture & ethnicity. One the biggest problems with any such > discussion is how to define ethnicity. Some people imagine that an ethnic > group implies some huge monolithic block of DNA that is invariable among > those who define the particular ethnic group in question. On this list, we > are discussing the idea of being of "Scots" ethnic origin. Does that mean > that all "Scots" are descendants of a handful of primordial hunter-gatherers > who first set foot on the geographic area now defined as Scotland some > 5000-9000 years ago? Perhaps. Does it mean that when someone discusses > "Scots" they are talking about people who made Scotland their home for > dozens or hundreds of generations, no matter what their ancestral origins in > the dim reaches of antiquity? Certainly. Yes, of course, the word Scot > (Scotti) was first used by Roman writers to describe tribes from what is now > Northern Ireland, who in the 6th century AD migrated to the western shores > of Scotland to found what is now usually remembered historically as the > kingdom of Dal Riata. Of course, it is quite clear from any model you can > conceive that the peoples of northern Ireland & the Western Isles of > Scotland have shared the same sea lanes for thousands of years. Was there > commerce & cultural contact between those areas during much of those > thousands of years? Of course. There are a great many people in the world > who imagine our ancestors as hulking brutes incapable of building a boat > that could cross a 12 mile channel 3 or 4 thousand years ago, but no modern > historian would endorse such a view. Traffic in the sea lanes of the Irish > Sea is ancient, as are the cultures & ethnic groups that line those shores. > > I don't really understand the need to divorce culture from ethnicity. It > seems to me more a question of political correctness than anything else. No, > of course there aren't any "pure" ethnic groups. If you believe in human > evolution (no I don't mean linear evolution from a single source), then you > believe that all Homo Sapiens are related. The question about how *related* > any two or more individuals might be must ALWAYS be taken in context with a > time frame. To many people, being *related* to someone is taken to mean only > those who have clear, unambigous records & folklore linking them over a > period of a few hundred years, perhaps 10-12 generations. Most (?) of those > who engage in genetic genealogy have that time frame in mind when they talk > about being related. The ultimate direction of molecular biology as applied > to human history & ethnicity is to create a *global pedigree*, defining the > relationships between all of the "ethnic" groups of the planet, both ancient > & modern. The first step in that quest has been to define the relationships > of extended families who share a surname. When you talk about genetic > relationships between people, the stepwise model is -the nuclear family to > the extended family, to the *clan*, to the tribe, & finally to the *nation*. > Ancient peoples always associated the idea of a nation with a specific > ethnic group that occupied a specific geographic area. Much confusion exists > in the modern world because of the idea of a *nation-state* which occupies a > specific geographic location, but is defined by a governing principle rather > than the ethnic homogeny of it's citizens. The USA is probably the best > example. The Roman empire may be one of the best examples of a nation which > started as an ethnic group & eventually came to be defined as a state based > on a governing principle. In the last centuries of the Roman empire, the > ethnic identity of the nation became increasingly diluted by the vast > numbers of "immigrants" needed to fuel the economy & staff the great armies > needed to maintain order in the empire. It is probably a very politically > incorrect idea to put forth, but it was this diversity that eventually > contributed to the downfall of the Roman empire. Rome's cultural *and* > ethnic identity became too dilute to sustain a "national identity". I have > no doubt that many historians will immediately protest that there were many > greater reasons for the eventual collapse, & I won't enter that debate. > > *Haplogroup/haplotype modal* continues to be a source of confusion for a lot > of people on this & other lists. It has been clearly established for example > that the Atlantic Modal Haplogroup (AMH) may comprise greater than 10% of > the population for western Europe. The figure of 10% is chosen as a > guideline, & is not intended to be a figure written in stone, just a > starting point for discussion. The AMH is a huge can of worms for genetic > genealogy retail testing companies. If 10% of western Europe is comprised of > the AMH, what does that suggest about the origins of those people? Does it > mean that they all started from different origins & finally arrived at the > AMH through a process of genetic drift as the markers mutated over the > millenia? If so, why did they mutate in the same direction until they > finally settled on the AMH? If, on the other hand, they signify a common > origin from some individual in the very remote prehistoric past, it becomes > a dilemma - it is of little use to the thousands of people who hope to use > to DNA to trace their recent ancestry, because they will eventually have > thousands of matches & near matches with men of *different surnames*. Bear > in mind that the number of people tested so far does not represent the > proverbial 'drop in the bucket' - it represents a MOLECULE in the bucket of > the global human population, the tiniest imaginable fraction of the total > population. > > The Scottish Clans DNA project now lists over one thousand participants. > From this haplotype database many projections are being made about the clans > of Scotland, yet I have seen estimates that place the total population of > the Scottish diaspora at possibly 30 million. As much as we wish it were not > so, our database at present is extremely tiny. At the current test rate, it > will be many years until the database has grown enough to draw solid > conclusions. I will state my inequivocal belief that many of the haplotypes > that represent "near matches at high resolution", that is 32 or more out of > 37, or some comparable figure, do indeed represent descendants of common > ancestry. The question of the time frame is the issue. Which brings us to > mutation rates, the next big can of worms. > > Most of the published researchers first suggested a model in which mutation > rates are relatively stable across most of the short tandem repeats of the Y > chromosome. As the database grew, they began to realize that all STRs do not > mutate at the same rate. Some STRs (markers) have been recently discovered > that clearly mutate at a faster rate than others. In fact, the mutation > rates of markers are now seen as a spectrum - some very fast, some very > slow, & some mutating only rarely, while single nucleotide polymorphisms are > believed to represent mutations that stay with descendants forever. > Another new idea among researchers is that even these mutation rates of > specific STRs are not necessarily a constant - perhaps mutation rates have > varied from time to time throughout history, & the record of the past 10 > generations is not necessarily predictive of the patterns throughout > history. > I personally have a lot of difficulty with accepting the premise that > mutation rates are stable across most markers & happen about every 500 years > (or whatever figure) at a relatively constant rate. That appears to me to be > a extremely naive model that was established as a baseline to give some kind > of foundation to a newly emerging discipline of science. I believe that it > is already outdated. Mutation rates are going to be the bugaboo of this > research. Until we get a handle on mutation rates, we are doing a log of > plain, old fashioned guessing. > > In closing, I will affirm & restate my belief that specific haplotype modals > that emerge from specific geographic locations *REGARDLESS OF SURNAME* do > indeed represent common ancestry. It is not just a *coincidence* that 30 or > 40 or 100 men already tested have remarkably similar high resolution > haplotypes & almost all have surnames with Scottish or British Isles origin. > When I refer to the Scots R1b Modal, I am referring the thousands & > thousands of men who are related by being descendants of the R1b founders of > the ancient Scottish population. I don't know how successful we will be in > eventually defining the old clans of Scotland using DNA technology, but it > just makes common sense that men with the haplotype are obviously related - > it's the question of degree that confuses people. I think that our database > will eventually get large enough to define the Scottish Clans pedigree. > Incidentally, I have never intended to suggest that other haplogroups (I, J > etc.) were not also part of the founding population - just that R1b is the > largest group. I am sure that eventually we will see Scots I modals & Scots > J modals, etc. If a founder has thousands of living descendants, the > signature will eventually be seen in the DNA record. > > Happy hunting & good luck to us all, Pat Tagert > > > > ==== SCOT-DNA Mailing List ==== > All posts to this list are archived and cannot be edited from: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/SCOT-DNA/ > Please bear this in mind if you are considering posting > anything of a sensitive nature re your personal DNA. > > ============================== > View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find > marriage announcements and more. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx >

Thanks Patrick this should stop the questions! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Tagert" <macantsagairt@hotmail.com> To: <SCOT-DNA-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 12:56 AM Subject: Re: [SCOT-DNA] RE: [Greetings..Kimbal Anderson... > Lengthy discussions continue in this forum & others about the differences > between culture & ethnicity. One the biggest problems with any such > discussion is how to define ethnicity. Some people imagine that an ethnic > group implies some huge monolithic block of DNA that is invariable among > those who define the particular ethnic group in question. On this list, we > are discussing the idea of being of "Scots" ethnic origin. Does that mean > that all "Scots" are descendants of a handful of primordial > hunter-gatherers who first set foot on the geographic area now defined as > Scotland some 5000-9000 years ago? Perhaps. Does it mean that when someone > discusses "Scots" they are talking about people who made Scotland their > home for dozens or hundreds of generations, no matter what their ancestral > origins in the dim reaches of antiquity? Certainly. Yes, of course, the > word Scot (Scotti) was first used by Roman writers to describe tribes from > what is now Northern Ireland, who in the 6th century AD migrated to the > western shores of Scotland to found what is now usually remembered > historically as the kingdom of Dal Riata. Of course, it is quite clear > from any model you can conceive that the peoples of northern Ireland & the > Western Isles of Scotland have shared the same sea lanes for thousands of > years. Was there commerce & cultural contact between those areas during > much of those thousands of years? Of course. There are a great many people > in the world who imagine our ancestors as hulking brutes incapable of > building a boat that could cross a 12 mile channel 3 or 4 thousand years > ago, but no modern historian would endorse such a view. Traffic in the sea > lanes of the Irish Sea is ancient, as are the cultures & ethnic groups > that line those shores. > > I don't really understand the need to divorce culture from ethnicity. It > seems to me more a question of political correctness than anything else. > No, of course there aren't any "pure" ethnic groups. If you believe in > human evolution (no I don't mean linear evolution from a single source), > then you believe that all Homo Sapiens are related. The question about how > *related* any two or more individuals might be must ALWAYS be taken in > context with a time frame. To many people, being *related* to someone is > taken to mean only those who have clear, unambigous records & folklore > linking them over a period of a few hundred years, perhaps 10-12 > generations. Most (?) of those who engage in genetic genealogy have that > time frame in mind when they talk about being related. The ultimate > direction of molecular biology as applied to human history & ethnicity is > to create a *global pedigree*, defining the relationships between all of > the "ethnic" groups of the planet, both ancient & modern. The first step > in that quest has been to define the relationships of extended families > who share a surname. When you talk about genetic relationships between > people, the stepwise model is -the nuclear family to the extended family, > to the *clan*, to the tribe, & finally to the *nation*. Ancient peoples > always associated the idea of a nation with a specific ethnic group that > occupied a specific geographic area. Much confusion exists in the modern > world because of the idea of a *nation-state* which occupies a specific > geographic location, but is defined by a governing principle rather than > the ethnic homogeny of it's citizens. The USA is probably the best > example. The Roman empire may be one of the best examples of a nation > which started as an ethnic group & eventually came to be defined as a > state based on a governing principle. In the last centuries of the Roman > empire, the ethnic identity of the nation became increasingly diluted by > the vast numbers of "immigrants" needed to fuel the economy & staff the > great armies needed to maintain order in the empire. It is probably a very > politically incorrect idea to put forth, but it was this diversity that > eventually contributed to the downfall of the Roman empire. Rome's > cultural *and* ethnic identity became too dilute to sustain a "national > identity". I have no doubt that many historians will immediately protest > that there were many greater reasons for the eventual collapse, & I won't > enter that debate. > > *Haplogroup/haplotype modal* continues to be a source of confusion for a > lot of people on this & other lists. It has been clearly established for > example that the Atlantic Modal Haplogroup (AMH) may comprise greater than > 10% of the population for western Europe. The figure of 10% is chosen as a > guideline, & is not intended to be a figure written in stone, just a > starting point for discussion. The AMH is a huge can of worms for genetic > genealogy retail testing companies. If 10% of western Europe is comprised > of the AMH, what does that suggest about the origins of those people? Does > it mean that they all started from different origins & finally arrived at > the AMH through a process of genetic drift as the markers mutated over the > millenia? If so, why did they mutate in the same direction until they > finally settled on the AMH? If, on the other hand, they signify a common > origin from some individual in the very remote prehistoric past, it > becomes a dilemma - it is of little use to the thousands of people who > hope to use to DNA to trace their recent ancestry, because they will > eventually have thousands of matches & near matches with men of *different > surnames*. Bear in mind that the number of people tested so far does not > represent the proverbial 'drop in the bucket' - it represents a MOLECULE > in the bucket of the global human population, the tiniest imaginable > fraction of the total population. > > The Scottish Clans DNA project now lists over one thousand participants. >>From this haplotype database many projections are being made about the >>clans > of Scotland, yet I have seen estimates that place the total population of > the Scottish diaspora at possibly 30 million. As much as we wish it were > not so, our database at present is extremely tiny. At the current test > rate, it will be many years until the database has grown enough to draw > solid conclusions. I will state my inequivocal belief that many of the > haplotypes that represent "near matches at high resolution", that is 32 or > more out of 37, or some comparable figure, do indeed represent descendants > of common ancestry. The question of the time frame is the issue. Which > brings us to mutation rates, the next big can of worms. > > Most of the published researchers first suggested a model in which > mutation rates are relatively stable across most of the short tandem > repeats of the Y chromosome. As the database grew, they began to realize > that all STRs do not mutate at the same rate. Some STRs (markers) have > been recently discovered that clearly mutate at a faster rate than others. > In fact, the mutation rates of markers are now seen as a spectrum - some > very fast, some very slow, & some mutating only rarely, while single > nucleotide polymorphisms are believed to represent mutations that stay > with descendants forever. > Another new idea among researchers is that even these mutation rates of > specific STRs are not necessarily a constant - perhaps mutation rates have > varied from time to time throughout history, & the record of the past 10 > generations is not necessarily predictive of the patterns throughout > history. > I personally have a lot of difficulty with accepting the premise that > mutation rates are stable across most markers & happen about every 500 > years (or whatever figure) at a relatively constant rate. That appears to > me to be a extremely naive model that was established as a baseline to > give some kind of foundation to a newly emerging discipline of science. I > believe that it is already outdated. Mutation rates are going to be the > bugaboo of this research. Until we get a handle on mutation rates, we are > doing a log of plain, old fashioned guessing. > > In closing, I will affirm & restate my belief that specific haplotype > modals that emerge from specific geographic locations *REGARDLESS OF > SURNAME* do indeed represent common ancestry. It is not just a > *coincidence* that 30 or 40 or 100 men already tested have remarkably > similar high resolution haplotypes & almost all have surnames with > Scottish or British Isles origin. When I refer to the Scots R1b Modal, I > am referring the thousands & thousands of men who are related by being > descendants of the R1b founders of the ancient Scottish population. I > don't know how successful we will be in eventually defining the old clans > of Scotland using DNA technology, but it just makes common sense that men > with the haplotype are obviously related - it's the question of degree > that confuses people. I think that our database will eventually get large > enough to define the Scottish Clans pedigree. Incidentally, I have never > intended to suggest that other haplogroups (I, J etc.) were not also part > of the founding population - just that R1b is the largest group. I am sure > that eventually we will see Scots I modals & Scots J modals, etc. If a > founder has thousands of living descendants, the signature will eventually > be seen in the DNA record. > > Happy hunting & good luck to us all, Pat Tagert > > > > ==== SCOT-DNA Mailing List ==== > All posts to this list are archived and cannot be edited from: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/SCOT-DNA/ > Please bear this in mind if you are considering posting > anything of a sensitive nature re your personal DNA. > > ============================== > View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find > marriage announcements and more. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx >

aw.... shucks....<blush> Thanks, John. Kind words are never mis-spent. Lauren -----Original Message----- From: John A Hansen <jahansen6@comcast.net> Sent: Aug 26, 2005 9:42 AM To: SCOT-DNA-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [SCOT-DNA] Sampling and Database Size Dear Patrick: <snip> I wanted to again ..... and again... and again express my deep appreciation to the volunteers that have spent so much time over the 3 years to keep the Scottish DNA project alive. Marsha Smith, Lauren Boyd, and Charlotte Braun are exception people that provide countless hours for month after month of service. May you live in interesting times :-) Best Regards John A Hansen

Dear Patrick: Thanks for your dissertation on the Trends and Analysis in the Scottish Project. Very good and on point as regards ethnic vs culture. We must also keep in mind that Surnames were only a first attempt to provide some means of identification as the population was starting to grow to large numbers. The one point that is still in question for me is the sampling size. The recent elections in the US were interesting from a sampling size vs the ability to predict results. Some of the samples were as low as 300 to 600 samples from a population base of 10 to 30 million. If the samples are truly random, then the sample was valid within +_ 3-5%. I haven't counted the last week , but we are now well over 1000 samples of a total base of perhaps 30-50 million ( Scottish, Irish, English etc) and some Vikings. While this is not a great accuracy, I would begin to postulate that the distribution of the specific Alleles Results is getting within a reasonable curve. If you take any given DYS Allele and look at the distribution of values for that DYS , then these results as of today, will be within +_ 5-7% of the final results curve, i.e. the final curve will contain 15% of allele value = 12 etc etc within a 5%* 15 = a range of 14.3 to 15.75 %. Then the question becomes how to cross reference a specific set of Alleles DYS results with a geographic, culture, or ethnic background. Dr Wilson's and Dr. Faux project is interesting from the standpoint of concentrating on a correlating the DYS values to a specific geography and thence the medical history etc. The question of mutations rate is a major factor of course but a larger question is the issue of genetic distance and the methods of correlation between the genetic distance and the precise correlation to the relationship. I've seen several methods of calculating genetic distance ( sum of the squares seems to be the most accurate) but obviously the various methods then has a significant factor on the time lines to the MRCA. I wanted to again ..... and again... and again express my deep appreciation to the volunteers that have spent so much time over the 3 years to keep the Scottish DNA project alive. Marsha Smith, Lauren Boyd, and Charlotte Braun are exception people that provide countless hours for month after month of service. May you live in interesting times :-) Best Regards John A Hansen -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Tagert [mailto:macantsagairt@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 10:56 PM To: SCOT-DNA-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SCOT-DNA] RE: [Greetings..Kimbal Anderson... The Scottish Clans DNA project now lists over one thousand participants. From this haplotype database many projections are being made about the clans of Scotland, yet I have seen estimates that place the total population of the Scottish diaspora at possibly 30 million. As much as we wish it were not so, our database at present is extremely tiny. At the current test rate, it will be many years until the database has grown enough to draw solid conclusions. I will state my inequivocal belief that many of the haplotypes that represent "near matches at high resolution", that is 32 or more out of 37, or some comparable figure, do indeed represent descendants of common ancestry. The question of the time frame is the issue. Which brings us to mutation rates, the next big can of worms.

The Lord Lyon gave a talk to a group of us a year or so ago. After the talk I asked him about DNA testing and he had the response you mentioned. He said he didn't see that it would have any effect on his office as DNA testing cannot absolutely prove that two people are related. The illegitimate aspect is interesting as through the testing I've been told I'm most probably of the Bohuntin branch of the Keppoch MacDonalds, with a supposedly illegitimate 1st of Bohuntin. Ray MacDonald Milwaukee, WI >Interesting article... Thanks.... surprising since I e mailed the Lord Lyons office about two months ago regarding dna sampling of Clans, and the response was pretty well in defense of a paper trail, that genetics would not play a part. In other words, an illegitimate offspring of a Clan Chieftain would not be recognised as even being a Clan member just through a dna match. Perhaps the winds are shifting. Rich >

Interesting article... Thanks.... surprising since I e mailed the Lord Lyons office about two months ago regarding dna sampling of Clans, and the response was pretty well in defense of a paper trail, that genetics would not play a part. In other words, an illegitimate offspring of a Clan Chieftain would not be recognised as even being a Clan member just through a dna match. Perhaps the winds are shifting. Rich >

Thanks derek, for your fairly "in depth" reply. It appears that we are not much closer to identifying a Celtic area than the generic Iberian "origin". My 3891+2 are 15 +33. . My mothers is Veldan, with a strange twist ( 16188T, 16298C) The database, of course, still appears to be miniscule compared to populations, unfortunately.Your reply is much appreciated. Rich 4jdg5 Y Search-------------- Original message -------------- > Hi Rich > I don't think haplotypes are yet established for areas in Scotland, > Ireland,Wales, Spain, Portugal, France. The original rootstock of the > 'British' population was Iberian and can be allocated the R1b haplogroup - > the Atlantic Modal Haplotype (AMH; see Whit Athey's haplogroup predictor > for100% R1b, and the study of common haplotypes at > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/%7egallgaedhil/ ) is a reasonable > reference point. The vast majority of British people originate with these > haplotypes (some think c70% of English and c90% of Irish). The input of > early eastern continental genes is small, and probably highly resticted > (Y-DNA only, I or R1a haplogroup); the maternal genetic pool (X-DNA and > mtDNA) may likely be greater than 70% 'Iberian' since the last ice age - the > common reference in the latter case is mtDNA of type H (Helena in Bryan > Sykes 'Seven Daughters of Eve'). The Iberian haplogroup would be the main > source of Basque/Celtic populations, but they cannot yet differentiate > regions within the British Isles (for distinct permanent modal changes in > DNA markers there would need to be isolation of populations eg in clans or > settled communities, as with 'Darwinian' natural selection processes); > random mutations (commonly thought to be ~500yrs) in a mixing population > would only present a statistical normal distribution about the AMH. Of > course, if there were Y-DNA genetic input from another (eg I or R1a) > haplogroup source, matters would be more clear cut. > In my own case, I have the AMH with exception of DYS389I(14) and > DYS389II(31) - this puts me 72% R1b on the Whit Athey calculator (13:29 > would have indicated100%). My problem is to understand where and when the > difference arose. The surnames I best match with are from Border > Reivers/Ireland, but they in turn might include an admixture from > continental Europe (I can personally discount I or R1a influences). I know > historically that families were forcibly relocated to Ireland from the > Border Reivers area in the 17th century. The problem reduces to whether > minor mutations occured in an isolated region of the Borders area or > migrated to the Borders with Germanic peoples (assuming they are R1b based) > from Anglo-Saxon lands. If Germanic peoples are predominantly I or R1a based > that eases my problem. > My current model is that my Y-DNA originates in the Borders area from the > aboriginal population (where mutations of the DYS389 markers occured ~ > 500-2000 yrs ago in that province). I know my Kidd/Kydd/Kid/Kyd paternal > name probably originated in the Northumbria-East Anglia province c.1300 yrs > ago, when Bishop Cedd(a) converted local communities to Christianity > (Cedd(a) trained at Lindisfarne under Aidan) and established monasteries at > Lastingham, Yorks, and Bradwell and Tilbury, Essex. Several communities > named villages after him (Kedington, Suffolk; Keddington, Lincolnshire; > Kidderminster, Worcs; Kidston, near Peebles). Kedington originates from > tun='farmstead' of ingas='people of' Ked= 'Cydda/Cedda'; the letter K was > very rarely used in Old English, yet it is common in Celtic usage defining a > hard rather than soft sound. Indigenous communities would have used their > own linguistic form. In effect, the surname Kidd may have been the > 'baptismal' surname of a converted community - certainly the Scottish > surnames Cuthbert and Aidan exist. > Regards > Derek Ham > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 2:12 PM > Subject: RE: [SCOT-DNA] RE: [Greetings..Kimbal Anderson... > > > > > > Hello all > > Has a particular set of markers yet been identified for classifying Y dna > > as Scot ? I understand that it is only possible to say that one is Celtic > > at this time. > > Thanks > > Rich ( Mac) ? Clarkson :-) > > > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > > >> Kimbal, there are several Andersons in the Ysearch database. Contact me > >> offline for their names, Pat Tagert > >> > >> _________________________________________________________________ > >> On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to > >> get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement > >> > >> > >> ==== SCOT-DNA Mailing List ==== > >> Have questions about lab cost? Contact the Project Manager, > >> John A. Hansen, directly at dnaclans@brigadoon.net and he will > >> provide a private answer. > >> > >> ============================== > >> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the > >> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: > >> http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx > >> > > > > > > ==== SCOT-DNA Mailing List ==== > > DNA Results are also being posted on the web site. > > Email to dnaclans@brigadoon.net if you want to join the > > web site. For privacy reasons, this is a closed web site. > > > > ============================== > > Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the > > areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months. > > Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx > > > > > > > > ==== SCOT-DNA Mailing List ==== > AOL users are advised to join the AOLers-Rootsweb list: > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/RootsWeb_Support/AOLers-RootsWeb.html > > ============================== > Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. > Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx >

Lengthy discussions continue in this forum & others about the differences between culture & ethnicity. One the biggest problems with any such discussion is how to define ethnicity. Some people imagine that an ethnic group implies some huge monolithic block of DNA that is invariable among those who define the particular ethnic group in question. On this list, we are discussing the idea of being of "Scots" ethnic origin. Does that mean that all "Scots" are descendants of a handful of primordial hunter-gatherers who first set foot on the geographic area now defined as Scotland some 5000-9000 years ago? Perhaps. Does it mean that when someone discusses "Scots" they are talking about people who made Scotland their home for dozens or hundreds of generations, no matter what their ancestral origins in the dim reaches of antiquity? Certainly. Yes, of course, the word Scot (Scotti) was first used by Roman writers to describe tribes from what is now Northern Ireland, who in the 6th century AD migrated to the western shores of Scotland to found what is now usually remembered historically as the kingdom of Dal Riata. Of course, it is quite clear from any model you can conceive that the peoples of northern Ireland & the Western Isles of Scotland have shared the same sea lanes for thousands of years. Was there commerce & cultural contact between those areas during much of those thousands of years? Of course. There are a great many people in the world who imagine our ancestors as hulking brutes incapable of building a boat that could cross a 12 mile channel 3 or 4 thousand years ago, but no modern historian would endorse such a view. Traffic in the sea lanes of the Irish Sea is ancient, as are the cultures & ethnic groups that line those shores. I don't really understand the need to divorce culture from ethnicity. It seems to me more a question of political correctness than anything else. No, of course there aren't any "pure" ethnic groups. If you believe in human evolution (no I don't mean linear evolution from a single source), then you believe that all Homo Sapiens are related. The question about how *related* any two or more individuals might be must ALWAYS be taken in context with a time frame. To many people, being *related* to someone is taken to mean only those who have clear, unambigous records & folklore linking them over a period of a few hundred years, perhaps 10-12 generations. Most (?) of those who engage in genetic genealogy have that time frame in mind when they talk about being related. The ultimate direction of molecular biology as applied to human history & ethnicity is to create a *global pedigree*, defining the relationships between all of the "ethnic" groups of the planet, both ancient & modern. The first step in that quest has been to define the relationships of extended families who share a surname. When you talk about genetic relationships between people, the stepwise model is -the nuclear family to the extended family, to the *clan*, to the tribe, & finally to the *nation*. Ancient peoples always associated the idea of a nation with a specific ethnic group that occupied a specific geographic area. Much confusion exists in the modern world because of the idea of a *nation-state* which occupies a specific geographic location, but is defined by a governing principle rather than the ethnic homogeny of it's citizens. The USA is probably the best example. The Roman empire may be one of the best examples of a nation which started as an ethnic group & eventually came to be defined as a state based on a governing principle. In the last centuries of the Roman empire, the ethnic identity of the nation became increasingly diluted by the vast numbers of "immigrants" needed to fuel the economy & staff the great armies needed to maintain order in the empire. It is probably a very politically incorrect idea to put forth, but it was this diversity that eventually contributed to the downfall of the Roman empire. Rome's cultural *and* ethnic identity became too dilute to sustain a "national identity". I have no doubt that many historians will immediately protest that there were many greater reasons for the eventual collapse, & I won't enter that debate. *Haplogroup/haplotype modal* continues to be a source of confusion for a lot of people on this & other lists. It has been clearly established for example that the Atlantic Modal Haplogroup (AMH) may comprise greater than 10% of the population for western Europe. The figure of 10% is chosen as a guideline, & is not intended to be a figure written in stone, just a starting point for discussion. The AMH is a huge can of worms for genetic genealogy retail testing companies. If 10% of western Europe is comprised of the AMH, what does that suggest about the origins of those people? Does it mean that they all started from different origins & finally arrived at the AMH through a process of genetic drift as the markers mutated over the millenia? If so, why did they mutate in the same direction until they finally settled on the AMH? If, on the other hand, they signify a common origin from some individual in the very remote prehistoric past, it becomes a dilemma - it is of little use to the thousands of people who hope to use to DNA to trace their recent ancestry, because they will eventually have thousands of matches & near matches with men of *different surnames*. Bear in mind that the number of people tested so far does not represent the proverbial 'drop in the bucket' - it represents a MOLECULE in the bucket of the global human population, the tiniest imaginable fraction of the total population. The Scottish Clans DNA project now lists over one thousand participants. From this haplotype database many projections are being made about the clans of Scotland, yet I have seen estimates that place the total population of the Scottish diaspora at possibly 30 million. As much as we wish it were not so, our database at present is extremely tiny. At the current test rate, it will be many years until the database has grown enough to draw solid conclusions. I will state my inequivocal belief that many of the haplotypes that represent "near matches at high resolution", that is 32 or more out of 37, or some comparable figure, do indeed represent descendants of common ancestry. The question of the time frame is the issue. Which brings us to mutation rates, the next big can of worms. Most of the published researchers first suggested a model in which mutation rates are relatively stable across most of the short tandem repeats of the Y chromosome. As the database grew, they began to realize that all STRs do not mutate at the same rate. Some STRs (markers) have been recently discovered that clearly mutate at a faster rate than others. In fact, the mutation rates of markers are now seen as a spectrum - some very fast, some very slow, & some mutating only rarely, while single nucleotide polymorphisms are believed to represent mutations that stay with descendants forever. Another new idea among researchers is that even these mutation rates of specific STRs are not necessarily a constant - perhaps mutation rates have varied from time to time throughout history, & the record of the past 10 generations is not necessarily predictive of the patterns throughout history. I personally have a lot of difficulty with accepting the premise that mutation rates are stable across most markers & happen about every 500 years (or whatever figure) at a relatively constant rate. That appears to me to be a extremely naive model that was established as a baseline to give some kind of foundation to a newly emerging discipline of science. I believe that it is already outdated. Mutation rates are going to be the bugaboo of this research. Until we get a handle on mutation rates, we are doing a log of plain, old fashioned guessing. In closing, I will affirm & restate my belief that specific haplotype modals that emerge from specific geographic locations *REGARDLESS OF SURNAME* do indeed represent common ancestry. It is not just a *coincidence* that 30 or 40 or 100 men already tested have remarkably similar high resolution haplotypes & almost all have surnames with Scottish or British Isles origin. When I refer to the Scots R1b Modal, I am referring the thousands & thousands of men who are related by being descendants of the R1b founders of the ancient Scottish population. I don't know how successful we will be in eventually defining the old clans of Scotland using DNA technology, but it just makes common sense that men with the haplotype are obviously related - it's the question of degree that confuses people. I think that our database will eventually get large enough to define the Scottish Clans pedigree. Incidentally, I have never intended to suggest that other haplogroups (I, J etc.) were not also part of the founding population - just that R1b is the largest group. I am sure that eventually we will see Scots I modals & Scots J modals, etc. If a founder has thousands of living descendants, the signature will eventually be seen in the DNA record. Happy hunting & good luck to us all, Pat Tagert

Considering the number of Norse who settled/raided in the west of Scotland, the most likely thing is that you have an ancestor who came from Norway. As for being Scot, the word was not even invented till around a thousand years ago and signifies a cultural group not an ethnic origin. David Rorer -----Original Message----- From: patrick tagert [mailto:ptagert@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 4:16 AM To: SCOT-DNA-L@rootsweb.com Subject: RE: SV: [SCOT-DNA] Re: SCOT-DNA-D Digest V05 #78 Hello, Nils. Very good to hear from you. I have a Scottish surname & I have found a man named Buseth from Trondheim who is almost an exact match for my Scottish haplotype? This man also has a very solid pedigree in the Trondheim area. So you have a posed a good question - Scots or Norse Vikings haplotype? Tagert is a spelling variant of Taggart which is derived from MacTaggart, which is derived from the Gaelic Macant'sagairt (son of the priest). So, Scots or Norse? Pat Tagert _________________________________________________________________ Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ ==== SCOT-DNA Mailing List ==== All posts to this list are archived and cannot be edited from: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/SCOT-DNA/ Please bear this in mind if you are considering posting anything of a sensitive nature re your personal DNA. ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx