RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: JJ114 on Monday 03 February 14 00:47 GMT (UK)
-
Hi everyone, Has anyone had a successful Pictish DNA result and what were the markers? Many thanks for any reply. JJ114
-
I'm afraid it is not possible to identify "Pictish" markers, "Viking" markers, "Norman" markers or any other markers associated with particular groups. This pamphlet from Sense About Science explains why:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/119/Sense-About-Genetic-Ancestry-Testing.pdf
-
I'm afraid it is not possible to identify "Pictish" markers, "Viking" markers, "Norman" markers or any other markers associated with particular groups.
Someone should tell FTDNA this as they market a "Jewish DNA" test. Will you please tell them this Devon? :)
-
Someone should tell FTDNA this as they market a "Jewish DNA" test. Will you please tell them this Devon? :)
[/quote]
Where are you finding this test? I can't see anything on their website?
-
It has always been displayed prominently on their homepage in a rotating advertisement but they have just changed the cosmetics around very recently but can still be accessed on the site.
"Discover your Jewish Ancestry, our Jewish comparitive databases are the largest in the world..... ORDER YOUR TEST NOW!"
http://www.familytreedna.com/landing/jewish-ancestry.aspx (http://www.familytreedna.com/landing/jewish-ancestry.aspx)
Kerching!
So can you put an ethnic label, i.e. "Picts" and "Jewish", on DNA groups or can't you? That is the question...
-
I'd forgotten about that page but it's not really describing a "Jewish DNA test". I agree those old revolving pages were somewhat misleading and I would hope that with the website redesign they will eventually be consigned to history.
There are two aspects to your question. Jews are a slightly different case because we have living people who are Jewish with documented Jewish ancestry. We can't say the same for historical groups like the Picts, Vikings and Normans, and their DNA is now diluted in the present-day population. So it is perfectly feasible to take a DNA test to find genealogical matches with other Jewish people. In fact there are some mtDNA and Y-DNA subclades that are almost exclusively confined to Jewish people, and there have been numerous papers published in the scientific literature. It's much more difficult to use DNA to extrapolate about the origins of Jews from several thousand years ago, especially based only on Y-DNA and mtDNA, though again there have been many scientific papers on the subject.
Perhaps I should rephrase my original statement and say that "it is not possible to identify "Pictish" markers, "Viking" markers, "Norman" markers or any other markers associated with particular historic groups".
-
I'd forgotten about that page but it's not really describing a "Jewish DNA test".
Yes it is. It says "Discover your Jewish Ancestry... ORDER YOUR TEST NOW!" You can't get much clearer.
So it is perfectly feasible to take a DNA test to find genealogical matches with other Jewish people.
Absolutely, but FTDNA are not marketing it as a living person matching service. They are marketing it as a Jewish ANCESTRY test. It implies that you will discover something related to having Jewish ancestors if you pay them money.
What happens if you are Jewish and you pay FTDNA to take the test and they then tell you that you do not have Jewish DNA (I am sure they phrase it a bit better than this but that is how it will come across)? Money well spent? Very Dubious.
Conversely, what happens if you are not Jewish, and there is no trace whatsoever of Jewish ancestry in your tree, and yet you match FTDNA's definition of "Jewish DNA"? A good example (last I heard anyway) were the Cohanim markers found in some of the Jewish priesthood. Although, it does occur in a large chunk of this section of Jewish society the problem is it also is widespread throughout the entire middle-east. There is no way it can be labelled as "Jewish DNA". Perhaps it should be called "Assyrian/Babylonian DNA" as well?
Jewish people have history too you know. They can convert to and from the religion; many Jews from 3000 years ago are now Christians, Muslims or Atheists and they can even have NPEs. In other words the modern day Jewish population and geography does not reflect that of ancient times. If you find that there is a subset of the present day Jewish community that share some particular DNA it does not necessarily mean that they had Jewish ancestors 1000 years ago.
Your argument about not being able to say there is Pictish DNA also applies to Jewish DNA, they both have experienced geographical movement and dilution. Just as it is impossible to exactly pinpoint what is Pictish DNA, it is also impossible to exactly define what is Jewish DNA, but FTDNA are cashing in on the concept nevertheless, and using it as a marketing angle.
You also say that
"it is not possible to identify ... markers associated with particular historic groups".
So why do FTDNA sell tests to see if you are descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages?
http://www.familytreedna.com/landing/matching-niall.aspx (http://www.familytreedna.com/landing/matching-niall.aspx)
They say
"suggesting that the 5th-century warlord known as "Niall of the Nine Hostages" may be the ancestor of one in 12 Irishmen"
Either you're wrong, or FTDNA are wrong. Which is it?
-
A certain prominent genealogical DNA-testing organisation claims to have discovered a Pictish DNA marker and they will test you for Pictishness if you cross their palms with enough silver. I once read a very detailed rebuttal of this claim online, but it seems to have been pulled as I can no longer find it. I know that the managing director of the company in question threatened to sue anyone who criticised his company and its methods, and that's why I'm choosing my words with great care.
On the other hand, let's not dismiss the Picts out of hand. The conventional wisdom among pre-historians now seems to be that they were simply the indigenous inhabitants of Scotland north of the Forth-Clyde line, and it's unlikely that they all conveniently sailed away into the west like the elves in "Lord of the Rings" when the Scots invaded from the west and the Angles from the south. Similarly, I don't think anyone nowadays believes that the Angles and Saxons completely replaced the Celtic Britons all over England. Clearly the Picts lost their language and along with it, their separate identity, but genetic genealogists like Brian Sykes and Stephen Oppenheimer of Oxford University have identified subtle differences between the R1b "Celtic" haplotypes found in the west of Scotland ("Dalriadic") and the east and north-east, former Caledonia or Pictland.
I had my DNA tested by FTDNA, the 67-marker test, and am R1b1a2a1a1b4, the common as muck Scottish norm. I get regular updates when they find a new match for me, and I have sometimes noticed that I have several matches with the same surname, a sure sign that there is a DNA One-Name project that these people have signed up to. A while ago I noticed that I was matching several people called Matheson, a name that appears nowhere in my family-tree, so I went looking for the Matheson project online. When I found it and checked their results, I discovered that my own results most closely matched those that the project director had put in a sub-section entitled "R1b - Pict". This made sense, as I was brought up in the village in Fife where my father's family has certainly lived since at least the time of the earliest parish records in 1577, and probably for much longer. And Fife was of course part of Pictland.
Harry
-
.......... I know that the managing director of the company in question threatened to sue anyone who criticised his company and its methods, and that's why I'm choosing my words with great care.
He would find it much harder to sue now, the libel laws were reformed at the beginning of the year
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25551640
-
A certain prominent genealogical DNA-testing organisation claims to have discovered a Pictish DNA marker and they will test you for Pictishness if you cross their palms with enough silver. I once read a very detailed rebuttal of this claim online, but it seems to have been pulled as I can no longer find it.
You might be thinking of the blog post from Roberta Estes:
http://dna-explained.com/2013/08/24/you-might-be-a-pict-if/
-
.......... I know that the managing director of the company in question threatened to sue anyone who criticised his company and its methods, and that's why I'm choosing my words with great care.
He would find it much harder to sue now, the libel laws were reformed at the beginning of the year
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25551640
That's in England and Wales. Scots Law is different.
Harry
-
A certain prominent genealogical DNA-testing organisation claims to have discovered a Pictish DNA marker and they will test you for Pictishness if you cross their palms with enough silver. I once read a very detailed rebuttal of this claim online, but it seems to have been pulled as I can no longer find it.
You might be thinking of the blog post from Roberta Estes:
http://dna-explained.com/2013/08/24/you-might-be-a-pict-if/
That's not the article I was thinking of, but it says some of the same things.
Harry
-
The articles just linked to are all inaccurate and I would not recommend anyone waste time reading them.
BritainsDNA never have offered a Pictish test, they just offer a Paternal line Y-DNA test comparable but more up to date than National Geographics Geno 2 test. They both determine a man's SNPs which can be used to learn more about their ancestry.
The Pictish tag only comes in because in order to make the results more understandable to non-DNA experts they have categorized some of the SNP results into labled groups like Pictish etc just as FTDNA use the term "Jewish DNA" or "Niall of the 9 Hostages DNA" which are equally oversimplifed. Why is it you are not attacking FTDNA over this? If it really is accuracy you are interested in then please write some threads/articles on FTDNA's oversimplifications. If you do not then you are clearly biased.
Regarding the "Pictish" SNP, if you scroll down to the "Haplogroup Frequencies Graphic" graphic on the Chromo2 test example ( http://www.britainsdna.com/demos/chromo2 (http://www.britainsdna.com/demos/chromo2) ) you will see the bubble with R1b-S530 Pictish 4.9% alongside many others.
My own take on it is that it is early days in testing but results from all testing companies do point to it being very "Scottish-centric" and looking like it has been in Scotland for a long time. Whether that makes it a "Pictish" marker is another issue as different people define the Picts as different things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picts)
I am not Scottish but know that a lot of Scots do consider them to be of Pictish blood so perhaps that is all that is what the label is saying. The Pictish Kingdom merged with other Kingdoms in 900AD. As it was one of the largest parts of what went on to become Scotland you would expect a lot of modern day Scots to be descendants of them.
As I said, it is early days yet but I am sure we will learn more about these S530 men in the next few years.
If any man is interesting in testing there are 3 options I would recommend at this point in time
1) If you just want to test for this single SNP (only recommended for people who have already tested R1b+) the internationally respected Thomas Krahn's DNAFingerprint is the way to go (single SNP tests cost between £3 to £8). http://www.dna-fingerprint.com/ (http://www.dna-fingerprint.com/)
2) The entry level test most will be interested in at present is BritainsDNA Chromo2 Raw test @£129 http://www.britainsdna.com/demos/chromo2 (http://www.britainsdna.com/demos/chromo2)
3) The ultimate option is a Full Y Genome test which will be the only Y-DNA test you will ever take and tests STRs as well as SNPs such as FullGenomes £700 test https://www.fullgenomes.com/ (https://www.fullgenomes.com/)
-
Roberta's post is accurate and I would recommend that everyone reads it. The claim to have discovered a Pictish marker comes from ScotlandsDNA/BritainsDNA themselves. They issued a press release about their "research" which was picked by a number of newspapers:
http://www.scotlandsdna.com/files/press-release/Press%20Release:%20Who%20are%20the%20Picts%20[ScotlandsDNA%2025-03-2013].pdf
There is, to my knowledge, no paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal to back up these claims. Modern DNA cannot serve as a proxy for Picts, Vikings, etc. If there are any inaccuracies in Roberta's post perhaps Supermoussi could highlight them here so that we can discuss them.
Thomas Krahn's company DNA Fingerprint was in fact taken over by Family Tree DNA. Thomas now has his own company called YSeq which offers single SNP testing:
http://www.yseq.net/
Single SNP testing is still offered by Family Tree DNA.
In addition to the options mentioned by Supermoussi it should be noted that the Genographic Project offers a similar test to Chromo 2. While Chromo 2 is currently the preferred deep ancestry test for people of British ancestry it's not necessarily so good for other ethnicities. There is a new Geno chip in the works and no doubt a new Chromo chip as well so people need to do research before ordering to decide which test is best for them at the time. In addition to the Full Genomes comprehensive Y-DNA test there is also a mid-priced Y-sequencing alternative from Family Tree DNA known as the BIG Y. Neither product tests the full Y-chromosome and there is always the possibility that bigger and better Y-SNP tests will become available in the future.
For comparisons between the SNP tests offered by all the different companies see the ISOGG SNP testing comparison chart:
http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Y-DNA_SNP_testing_chart
-
Kevin D. Campbell's article about the geographic spread of R1b in the British Isles was published in the Journal of Genetic Genealogy in 2007, and despite being 7 years old, it's still worth a read.
http://www.jogg.info/31/campbell.pdf
Campbell takes haplotype data from the Oxford Genetic Atlas Project (OGAP) and tries to relate it to data in Brian Sykes's "The Blood of the Isles". He has a blank map of the British Isles, on different areas of which he imposes OGAP numbers, characterising the Fife, Tayside and Grampian areas of east and north-east Scotland as OGAP4. On page 9 he writes:
"It would not be too much of a stretch to label OGAP4 the quintessential Scottish haplotype and the single closest identifier to whatever is considered the indigenous Scottish population. Sykes and Oppenheimer both write that the Picts were as close as anything to the indigenous population of Scotland."
Harry
-
A good read on this subject, "The Scots a Genetic Journey", Alistair Moffat & James F Wilson, Birlinn.
Skoosh.
-
The internet allows us to find much infomation. Unfortunately much of it is written by self-appointed experts and malcontents! ::)
Your link is broken. Here it is (hopefully)
http://www.scotlandsdna.com/files/press-release/Press%20Release:%20Who%20are%20the%20Picts%20%5BScotlandsDNA%2025-03-2013%5D.pdf (http://www.scotlandsdna.com/files/press-release/Press%20Release:%20Who%20are%20the%20Picts%20%5BScotlandsDNA%2025-03-2013%5D.pdf)
The headline does say "Who are the Picts?" but then if you go on it says "R1b-S530 is ten times more common in men with Scottish grandfathers than it is in men with English grandfathers! 10% of over 1,000 Scottish men tested carry R1b-S530 while only 0.8% of Englishmen have it. *** This difference is highly statistically significant and so can be applied to the general population and it is clear evidence of a very Scottish marker"
This and other data imply this marker flourished in what is now Scotland (in the absence of any evidence of large scale immigrations into Scotland during that time period); date estimates make it several thousand years old, which pre-dates the group of people that became what is known as the Picts but a lot of people bearing this marker would likely have been among the Picts from 0-999 A.D. It is early days yet so future data may change things but at the moment it does look to have strong Scottish bias.
Maybe a better name would be "a marker suggestive of some of the people that inhabited the area now known as Scotland a thousand or so years ago"? Hmmm ??? then again, maybe not ;)
*** N.B. I believe the reason for not publishing people's results is that the participants of the survey were promised their results would be used for analysis only and that their personal data would not be made public.
-
http://www.pictishstones.org.uk/pictishstones/pictishstoneshome.htm
Skoosh.
-
The internet allows us to find much infomation. Unfortunately much of it is written by self-appointed experts and malcontents! ::)
Your link is broken. Here it is (hopefully)
http://www.scotlandsdna.com/files/press-release/Press%20Release:%20Who%20are%20the%20Picts%20%5BScotlandsDNA%2025-03-2013%5D.pdf (http://www.scotlandsdna.com/files/press-release/Press%20Release:%20Who%20are%20the%20Picts%20%5BScotlandsDNA%2025-03-2013%5D.pdf)
The headline does say "Who are the Picts?" but then if you go on it says "R1b-S530 is ten times more common in men with Scottish grandfathers than it is in men with English grandfathers! 10% of over 1,000 Scottish men tested carry R1b-S530 while only 0.8% of Englishmen have it. *** This difference is highly statistically significant and so can be applied to the general population and it is clear evidence of a very Scottish marker"
This and other data imply this marker flourished in what is now Scotland (in the absence of any evidence of large scale immigrations into Scotland during that time period); date estimates make it several thousand years old, which pre-dates the group of people that became what is known as the Picts but a lot of people bearing this marker would likely have been among the Picts from 0-999 A.D. It is early days yet so future data may change things but at the moment it does look to have strong Scottish bias.
Maybe a better name would be "a marker suggestive of some of the people that inhabited the area now known as Scotland a thousand or so years ago"? Hmmm ??? then again, maybe not ;)
*** N.B. I believe the reason for not publishing people's results is that the participants of the survey were promised their results would be used for analysis only and that their personal data would not be made public.
Thanks for correcting the link. The internet is indeed full of lots of self-appointed experts and there is also a lot of nonsense published in the press. That is precisely why the scientific process of peer review is so important. For the reasons why read this guide from Sense About Science:
http://www.senseaboutscience.org/blog.php/41/sense-about-genealogical-dna-testing
Any company can issue a press release and make whatever claim they like but we cannot judge whether such claims stand up to scrutiny without the independent process of peer review. Without publication in a proper scientific journal we do not have all the critical facts (eg, how were the samples collected, is there any bias in the sampling process, etc). It also seems rather silly to claim that a marker is "Scottish" when samples have only been collected from the British Isles and we therefore do not know if it is prevalent in other populations. Even if a marker is found today in one population that is not proof that the marker arose in that same region over one thousand years ago. A lot can happen in 1000 years. The picture is clouded by founder effects and genetic drift. Research results are usually aggregated and anonymised but this does not prevent the publication of the results. However, this Pictish "research" has to my knowledge not been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal so there is no way for any independent experts to check it. It is nothing but a PR exercise for the company who wish to get people to buy their test.
-
http://www.pictishstones.org.uk/pictishstones/pictishstoneshome.htm
Skoosh.
Yes, whether or not there is such a thing as Pictish DNA that can be scientifically tested for, we always have the symbol stones which were set up in indisputably Pictish areas of Scotland, and their other legacy is the names they have left in the landscape. Researchers at Glasgow University have now brought out the final volume of the magnificent 5-volume "The Place Names of Fife", in which they discuss the various languages, including Pictish, which have been used over the last
couple of millennia to coin place-names in Fife.
Although the Picts left no written documents, a great deal can be inferred about their language from place-names, many of which are Pictish-Gaelic compounds. In cases where a Fife place-name element is clearly Celtic, but more similar to Welsh than Gaelic (e.g. the Aber- names like Aberdour), the editors of these volumes have concluded that it is probably Pictish.
http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_219418_en.pdf
Harry
-
hdw, another interesting read is "Welsh Origins of Scottish Placenames", by William Oxenham, Carreg Gwalch.
Pictish carvings tend to coincide with sandstone, harder rocks don't carve well but no indication of no Picts.
Skoosh.
-
hdw, another interesting read is "Welsh Origins of Scottish Placenames", by William Oxenham, Carreg Gwalch.
Pictish carvings tend to coincide with sandstone, harder rocks don't carve well but no indication of no Picts.
Skoosh.
Yes, there are lots of Brythonic or early Welsh place-names in the Lothians and Borders, and the earliest poem in any form of the Welsh language is the "Gododdin", which recounts how war-bands of the Votadini from the Edinburgh area headed down the A1 to Catraeth or Catterick to get walloped by invading Angles, the first known humiliation out of many at the hands of the "auld enemy"!
Harry
-
Harry, this author has Old Welsh placenames covering the entire lowlands and right up the east coast. Is Pictish/Old Welsh the same lingo?
Skoosh.
-
Harry, this author has Old Welsh placenames covering the entire lowlands and right up the east coast. Is Pictish/Old Welsh the same lingo?
Skoosh.
They're supposed to be closely related, if not identical. Closer to each other than either of them is to Gaelic. The P-Celtic/Q-Celtic divide.
Harry
-
Any company can issue a press release and make whatever claim they like but we cannot judge whether such claims stand up to scrutiny without the independent process of peer review.
FALSE. Over the last few years thousands of new SNP markers have been found by Geno 2 project, etc. Many have no known significance as they are found in too few individuals but there are also many, like S530, that are more widespread. Other Company's results support the Scottish-centricness of S530 as you would know if you were familiar with Y-DNA SNP testing.
As there are so many SNPs that are being researched it is perfectly understandable that detailed studies of each is not yet done (or proabably ever will be). To make a statement saying initial results point to X is fine if it is of interest to the public, and also help the DNA testing community to find new volunteers. Common sense says that more detailed studies are best left to when we have more results.
It also seems rather silly to claim that a marker is "Scottish" when samples have only been collected from the British Isles and we therefore do not know if it is prevalent in other populations.
FALSE. S530 has been tested for in a wide range of people who originate from all over the world. It is a subgroup of the Western European P312 Haplogroup, separate to other groups like U106, etc, which we already know make up the majority of the British and European population. We know that the overwhelming majority of Europeans or Britains or anyone else do not have the S530 SNP. Of those that do, they are predominantly Scottish.
Even if a marker is found today in one population that is not proof that the marker arose in that same region over one thousand years ago.
And that is not what is claimed in the Press Release. It only says that the SNP was likely found in the Picts i.e., between 0 and 900 A.D. The Press release states that the marker is much older (3000 yrs) but doesn't state where its first occurrence was. As the Picts were a confederation of tribes it could have originally been brought in from England, Wales, Belgium, France, etc, by a small number of people before flourishing in Scotland and multiplying many times.
It is nothing but a PR exercise for the company who wish to get people to buy their test.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with DNA testing companies making press releases informing the public of developments. There should be more if anything!
-
Incidentally someone has produced a little diagram listing surnames of people found so far with the S530/L1335 marker:-
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/94/dd/70/94dd70c30ea42ad1a8244b20c53fbf51.jpg (http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/94/dd/70/94dd70c30ea42ad1a8244b20c53fbf51.jpg)
Seems pretty Scottish orientated...
N.B. I think the size of each surname is proportional to the number of people of that name who have tested +ve
-
FALSE. Over the last few years thousands of new SNP markers have been found by Geno 2 project, etc. Many have no known significance as they are found in too few individuals but there are also many, like S530, that are more widespread. Other Company's results support the Scottish-centricness of S530 as you would know if you were familiar with Y-DNA SNP testing.
The databases of all the genetic genealogy companies are hugely biased towards people of European and especially British origin, with disproportionate numbers of Americans in the databases. You cannot therefore extrapolate from those results because there are so many countries that are either missing or have been poorly sampled. The Genographic Project quite rightly publish the results of their research in scientific journals. It is a shame that BritainsDNA/ScotlandsDNA does not do the same so that we can verify their results.
As there are so many SNPs that are being researched it is perfectly understandable that detailed studies of each is not yet done (or proabably ever will be). To make a statement saying initial results point to X is fine if it is of interest to the public, and also help the DNA testing community to find new volunteers. Common sense says that more detailed studies are best left to when we have more results.
No it is not fine to make such unsupported claims in press releases which then get exaggerated by a gullible press. This misleads people about genetic ancestry testing and gives people false promises. Such questions can only be answered, if ever, by proper scientific studies with carefully controlled sampling.
FALSE. S530 has been tested for in a wide range of people who originate from all over the world. It is a subgroup of the Western European P312 Haplogroup, separate to other groups like U106, etc, which we already know make up the majority of the British and European population. We know that the overwhelming majority of Europeans or Britains or anyone else do not have the S530 SNP. Of those that do, they are predominantly Scottish.
So where is the scientific paper that provides the evidence of this testing in a wide range of people from all over the world? You won't find one because nothing has been published. This is simply anecdotal evidence. It is not science.
And that is not what is claimed in the Press Release. It only says that the SNP was likely found in the Picts i.e., between 0 and 900 A.D. The Press release states that the marker is much older (3000 yrs) but doesn't state where its first occurrence was. As the Picts were a confederation of tribes it could have originally been brought in from England, Wales, Belgium, France, etc, by a small number of people before flourishing in Scotland and multiplying many times.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with DNA testing companies making press releases informing the public of developments. There should be more if anything!
I quote from the press release: "So far, we have found 170 men who carry the Pictish marker. We believe that they are Pictish and Proud!" Why make such a silly claim when it is completely unsupported by the evidence? It is fine for companies to issue press releases about new developments. It is not fine for companies to make nonsensical exaggerated claims which mislead the public.