According to Mike Parker Pearson, there are no Celts in England or Ireland. They are Gauls.
So not to be confusing, let's dispense of "Celt" altogether. It's significant that the U152's later on most probably became Gauls. This link has some excellent maps as well as the material on the Bituriges, who flourished from the 6th century BC is what is now Belgium. They are Celts, too. I'm not sure what the larger category is.
Our Proto-Gaul forefather, then, lived about 1,600 BC, about a 1,000 years before the Bituriges. But the link above references David K. Faux and his "Hypothesis C" which involves U152 and has to do with the connection of this ancestor and the Bituriges.
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
"Our" (Proto-) Celt
The most interesting insight that I've had in the past several days is that I can trace my ancestry back to a particular individual who lived about 1,600 BC in Northern Italy. As I understand it, he is the individual who "started" the U152 subclade. In particular, the gene mutation is the one he passed down to the rest of the U152 line. It is then possible to talk about and research where this U152 line lived and when.
The U152 subclade is a sub-sub-sub-clade of the R1b haplotype, of which I'm a member. A deeper U152 subclade is the L20 of which I am also a member. A comparably deep but different U152 subclade is the L2 of which Jim Maule is a member and I am not. The split occurred sometime after 1,600 BC. Scholars are researching where members of the L20 and L2 subclades lived and moved then. Some ended up in Scandanavia. Others in Belgium and Southern France.
The second most interesting insight that I have had is that some members of these subclades almost certainly became Celts. (The Celts came later than our guy, so I guess we have to call him a Proto-Celt.)
There is far more research on this than I ever imagined. A lot is available on the Family Tree DNA website in the U152 Project. I'm not sure is this is available to the public, but try here.
There are many groups studying this niche, including this one focusing on the U152-L2 branch. I suspect I'll find one for "my" branch of U152-L20. (Both are preceded by "R1b".)
But by far the most comprehensive is a paper in pdf format by David K. Faux. To say it is "comprehensive" is an understatement. In terms of our time frame, 1,600 BC, skip to page 35.
The Bituriges of Belgium were later, but researches are hard at work to connect later U152 people with them. That would in effect mean connecting L2's and L20's with them. The l2's have a slightly closer connection at the present time.
It's very likely that the U152 group is associated with the "Beaker Culture" group of that time. The grouping here is by pottery rather than DNA.
Much data! But the takeaway is person who defined the U152 subclade 3,600 years ago.
The U152 subclade is a sub-sub-sub-clade of the R1b haplotype, of which I'm a member. A deeper U152 subclade is the L20 of which I am also a member. A comparably deep but different U152 subclade is the L2 of which Jim Maule is a member and I am not. The split occurred sometime after 1,600 BC. Scholars are researching where members of the L20 and L2 subclades lived and moved then. Some ended up in Scandanavia. Others in Belgium and Southern France.
The second most interesting insight that I have had is that some members of these subclades almost certainly became Celts. (The Celts came later than our guy, so I guess we have to call him a Proto-Celt.)
There is far more research on this than I ever imagined. A lot is available on the Family Tree DNA website in the U152 Project. I'm not sure is this is available to the public, but try here.
There are many groups studying this niche, including this one focusing on the U152-L2 branch. I suspect I'll find one for "my" branch of U152-L20. (Both are preceded by "R1b".)
But by far the most comprehensive is a paper in pdf format by David K. Faux. To say it is "comprehensive" is an understatement. In terms of our time frame, 1,600 BC, skip to page 35.
The Bituriges of Belgium were later, but researches are hard at work to connect later U152 people with them. That would in effect mean connecting L2's and L20's with them. The l2's have a slightly closer connection at the present time.
It's very likely that the U152 group is associated with the "Beaker Culture" group of that time. The grouping here is by pottery rather than DNA.
Much data! But the takeaway is person who defined the U152 subclade 3,600 years ago.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
So go back at least 2,000 years
My disappointment that the apparent closeness of the Maule/Manley haplotypes did not lead to the discovery of a father for George Manley was partly offset by the discovery that we may have some Celtic ancestors. It was also offset by a better understanding of the haplotype tree, which Jim Maule and I share, but not exactly.
A haplotype is a group of ancestors who lived long enough in a particular place to generate one or more mutations. Our ancestors lived long enough in and about England that it's clear that we are a part of a very general haplotype called the "R1" haplotype.
A lot of people can trace their ancestry back to this big category that includes Europe and England. But with more research, it has become possible to narrow down this big category, becoming more and more precise about where and when our ancestors were. And instead of the long form of representing haplotypes, there are now (happily) short forms. Instead of our haplotype being represented R1b1a2a1a1b3c1 it is simply L20 (sometimes L-20 or even R-L20).
A haplotype is a group of ancestors who lived long enough in a particular place to generate one or more mutations. Our ancestors lived long enough in and about England that it's clear that we are a part of a very general haplotype called the "R1" haplotype.
A lot of people can trace their ancestry back to this big category that includes Europe and England. But with more research, it has become possible to narrow down this big category, becoming more and more precise about where and when our ancestors were. And instead of the long form of representing haplotypes, there are now (happily) short forms. Instead of our haplotype being represented R1b1a2a1a1b3c1 it is simply L20 (sometimes L-20 or even R-L20).
This is known as "subclade" which is nothing but a subdivision of a larger group. It turns out that the R1 haplotype has many subclades (themselves haplotypes, but more specific ones). A key subclade is the U152 subclade. Another is the L2 subclade which is different from the L20 subclade.
Jim Maule and I both are in the U152 subclade, but he is in the L2 subclade of that (think branch and twig), whereas I am in the L20 subclade of the U152.
Note the last row of the table on the previous posting. "...you are not related and the odds greatly favor that you have not shared a common male ancestor with this person within thousands of years. You are probably even in different Haplogroups on the Phylogenetic tree of Homo Sapiens."
Jim and I are in different haplogroups. He is in the subclade L2 and I am in the subclade L20. That creates a genetic distance which may extend several thousand years. But we are both in the larger subclade U152. This means that we share a common ancestor. But that common ancestor lived several thousand years ago. There is a genetic connection, but it is not recent enough to be helpful in genealogy which only goes back 400 years to the time of George Manly.
But this raises the question of how far back? And where? This is where it becomes interesting again. For example, it is possible to locate approximately when the L20's diverged from the L2's and where. Think of that one individual about 1650 BC. It could well be that he is Jim Maule's and my common ancestor! The time frame is about right "thousands of years" (3,600).
Tibor Feher believes that the U152 subclade began with a single individual living in Northern Italy about 1650 BC. Those who test negative for L2 (as I did) and positive for DYS 492=12 (as I did) are regarded as closest to the U152 line. But the L2s and L20's split here, sometime after 1650 BC.We are U152's, but now distinct.
Over the years, descendents from this individual moved out from southern Europe and are found as far away as Scandanavia. Efforts are now being made to link at least one of these groups to the Celts of Belgium, including the Bituriges. Celts and/or Druids in our past? More soon.
Not So Close After All...
I received my Y-67 DNA test results and have concluded that the almost-identical haplotype between Georgius Maule's family line and ours is far from enough to link the two families. The closeness of the two haplotypes (see the chart below) is misleading. A miss in this instance is as good as a mile.
This shows a genetic distance of 37, which is too distant to be of use in our time frame (early 1600's to now). Here is a link to a table showing genetic distance. In this instance I ran the tool on my Y-67 profile (WNKWH) and Jim Maule's Y-67 profile in Ysearch (the "public" side of Family Tree DNA).
The genetic distance (or instances where the individual markers differ) is 37. You may be related if there is a mismatch on up to 6 markers, but not above 11. Take a look at the last line in this partial graph of the link in the previous paragraph.
This means that it is quixotic to continue to look for a connection between George Manly and Thomas Maule, at least on the basis of DNA evidence.
But check the next posting for a possible common ancestor for the Manleys and the Maules.
| User ID | Last Name | Origin | Haplogroup | Tested With | Markers Compared | Genetic Distance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WNKWH | Manley | Talaton, Devon, UK, United Kingdom | R1b1a2a1a1b3c1 (tested) | Family Tree DNA | - | - |
| F4VPQ | Maule | Unknown, England | R1b1a2a1a1b3c (tested) | Family Tree DNA | 67 | 37 |
This shows a genetic distance of 37, which is too distant to be of use in our time frame (early 1600's to now). Here is a link to a table showing genetic distance. In this instance I ran the tool on my Y-67 profile (WNKWH) and Jim Maule's Y-67 profile in Ysearch (the "public" side of Family Tree DNA).
The genetic distance (or instances where the individual markers differ) is 37. You may be related if there is a mismatch on up to 6 markers, but not above 11. Take a look at the last line in this partial graph of the link in the previous paragraph.
| 5-6 | Related | In this case, if you share the same surname (or a variant) with another male and you mismatch by five or six 'points' a 61-62 for 67 match you are related. Because of the volatility within some of the markers this result is slightly tighter then being 11/12, 23/25 or 33/37, and it's most likely that you matched 24/25, 36/37 or 37/37 on previous Y-DNA tests. Your mismatch will most often be found within the second panel at DYS 458, 459a, 459b or within 464a-d, or at DYS 576, 570, CDYa or CDYb in the third panel of markers. Your common ancestor is not very recent, but your mismatch is likely within the range of most well established surname lineages in Western Europe. |
| 7 | Probably Related | In this case, if you share the same surname (or a variant) with another male and you mismatch by four 'points', a 33/37 match you are probably related. Because of the volatility within some of the markers this is about the same as being 11/12 and it's most likely that you matched 23/25 or 24/25 on previous Y-DNA tests. If you matched exactly on previous tests you probably have a mis match at DYS 576, 570, CDYa or CDYb in the newest panel of markers. If several or many generations have passed it is likely that these two lines are related through other family members. That would require that each line had passed a mutation and one person would have experienced at least 2 mutations. The only way to confirm is to test additional family lines and find where the mutations took place. Only by testing additional family members can you find the person in between each of you...this 'in betweener' becomes essential for you to find, and without him the possibility of a match exists, but further evidence must be pursued. If you test additional individuals you will most likely find that their DNA falls in-between the persons who are 4 apart demonstrating relatedness within this family cluster or Haplotype. |
| 8-9 | Only Possibly Related | In this case, if you share the same surname (or a variant) with another male and you mismatch by eight or nine 'points', a 32/37 match you may be related. It is most likely that you did not match 24/25, 25/25 or 35-37/37 in previous Y-DNA tests. If several or many generations have passed it is possible that these two men are related through other family members. That would require that each line had experienced separate mutations and one person would have experienced at least three mutations. The only way to confirm or deny is to test additional family lines and find where the mutation took place. Only by testing additional family members can you find the person in between each of you...this 'in betweener' becomes essential for you to find, and without him only the possibility of a match exists, further evidence should be pursued. If you test additional individuals you must find the person whose DNA results falls in-between the persons that are 8 or 9 apart demonstrating relatedness within this family cluster or Haplotype. |
| 10-11 | Not Related | The 56-57 out of 67 match is too far off to be considered related, unless you can find an “in-betweener’ as for determining ‘Only Possibly Related,’ above. It is important to determine what set of results most typifies the largest number members of the group you are 'close' to matching. You may be 57 out of 67/ with an individual, but 61/67 with the center of the group, and your potential relatedness to him is through the center of the group. |
| > 11 | Not Related | In this case, for 55 out of 67 are worse, you are not related and the odds greatly favor that you have not shared a common male ancestor with this person within thousands of years. You are probably even in different Haplogroups on the Phylogenetic tree of Homo Sapiens. |
This means that it is quixotic to continue to look for a connection between George Manly and Thomas Maule, at least on the basis of DNA evidence.
But check the next posting for a possible common ancestor for the Manleys and the Maules.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Breaking News: A Closer Connection to the Maule Line - and Possibly George Manly's Father
Doug Manley sent a detailed and credible spreadsheet of the data on the earliest Manleys including George Manly. In this spreadsheet, a father to George was listed. This is the first time I have seen that. The name of the father is given as Thomas Manley, b. 1610 in London, Westminster.
This struck me immediately because one of the two DNA candidates for the father of George Manly is named Thomas Maule, b. 1606. The dates are close. (The disparity could be due to the difference between a birth date and a christening date.)
The other candidate is Georgius Maule himself, but he would be older. 1590 is given as one of his birth dates, but they vary from 1541 to 1580. However, the anglicized version of his name appears often in the George Manly line, not just for George, but down the line as well.
So if Thomas Maule = Thomas Manley, we have additional confirmation for a "Thomas" as father to our George Manly. I find this most encouraging.
More: in Doug's spreadsheet, Thomas is listed as coming from Westminster, London. Jim Maule writes about the Maule family as coming from Buckingham, near present day Bletchley outside of London. And that they had homes there. So Thomas Maule and Thomas Manley share a common ancestral location in London and near London.
Doug's spreadsheet does not list a spouse for Thomas, but Thomas Maule is listed as having a spouse named Susana Throckmorton. If we can locate a record of a Thomas Manley with the same spouse, then Thomas Maule and Thomas Manley are very, very likely to be identical. I think the name variation (Maule/Manley) has complicated the search for George's father, but that the DNA linkage adds support for a "Thomas" as father of George.
A next step could be to search the data bases for a Thomas Manley of that approximate birth date and see whether any Throckmorton spouses turn up. That would certainly add support that Thomas Maule and Thomas Manley are the same and that this individual is the likely father of George Manly.
Here are portions the lines from Doug's spreadsheet that relate to the Thomas in question: There are three, but the third has the fullest record. The spreadsheet indicates the source as familysearch.org along with additional sources.
The death place is listed for the 3rd Thomas as Bunbury, Cheshire. Cheshire, of course, is replete with Manleys, including a village named Manley.
This struck me immediately because one of the two DNA candidates for the father of George Manly is named Thomas Maule, b. 1606. The dates are close. (The disparity could be due to the difference between a birth date and a christening date.)
The other candidate is Georgius Maule himself, but he would be older. 1590 is given as one of his birth dates, but they vary from 1541 to 1580. However, the anglicized version of his name appears often in the George Manly line, not just for George, but down the line as well.
So if Thomas Maule = Thomas Manley, we have additional confirmation for a "Thomas" as father to our George Manly. I find this most encouraging.
More: in Doug's spreadsheet, Thomas is listed as coming from Westminster, London. Jim Maule writes about the Maule family as coming from Buckingham, near present day Bletchley outside of London. And that they had homes there. So Thomas Maule and Thomas Manley share a common ancestral location in London and near London.
Doug's spreadsheet does not list a spouse for Thomas, but Thomas Maule is listed as having a spouse named Susana Throckmorton. If we can locate a record of a Thomas Manley with the same spouse, then Thomas Maule and Thomas Manley are very, very likely to be identical. I think the name variation (Maule/Manley) has complicated the search for George's father, but that the DNA linkage adds support for a "Thomas" as father of George.
A next step could be to search the data bases for a Thomas Manley of that approximate birth date and see whether any Throckmorton spouses turn up. That would certainly add support that Thomas Maule and Thomas Manley are the same and that this individual is the likely father of George Manly.
Here are portions the lines from Doug's spreadsheet that relate to the Thomas in question: There are three, but the third has the fullest record. The spreadsheet indicates the source as familysearch.org along with additional sources.
The death place is listed for the 3rd Thomas as Bunbury, Cheshire. Cheshire, of course, is replete with Manleys, including a village named Manley.
| Last Name |
First Name |
Birth/ Christen Date |
A b t |
B | C | Birth/Christen Location |
| Manly | 1598 | |||||
| Manley | Thomas | |||||
| Manley | Thomas | 2-7-1610 | Westminster, London, England |
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Cousins: How to Count Them: Mark and Me
Here are the relations that Mark sent me and which appear earlier: Lazarus is our common ancestor.
Here is the chart that my Sister sent me showing the relationships. This helps. But I'm not sure I've nailed it. My conjecture: Mark and I are 6th cousins, twice removed.
| Mark's Side | Lazarus | Jim's Side |
| William | Brothers | John |
| George | 1st Cousins | John |
| Martin | 2nd Cousins | Ira |
| Benjamin | 3rd Cousins | NT |
| Martin V | 4th Cousins | Lewis N Manley Sr. |
| Ross Holms | 5th Cousins | Lewis N Manley Jr. |
| Stephen Homer | 6th Cousins | Jim |
| Leslie Earl | 6th Cousin Once Removed | To Me |
| Mark | 6th Cousin 2x Removed | To Me |
Here is the chart that my Sister sent me showing the relationships. This helps. But I'm not sure I've nailed it. My conjecture: Mark and I are 6th cousins, twice removed.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Cousin Mark Manley
Family DNA actually found Mark for us, from the DNA and surname. His genetic distance is given at "4". I am still not sure what this means. It can be given in generations or time - I think.
But we have an additional "check" because Mark gave me his Manley family tree back to George Manly of Talaton. Here it is:
Note that Mark's family moved to Los Angeles from Missouri some time after 1855. I wonder, though, whether Ross Holmes Manly knew any of our Manley's in Missouri. Granddad was born in the 1870's and went to Grinnell College in Iowa. NT Manley was living in Carthage, I think.
But we have an additional "check" because Mark gave me his Manley family tree back to George Manly of Talaton. Here it is:
Donald Mark Manley (me) b. 1954 in LA
Leslie Earl "John" Manley (my father) b. 1906 in LA, d. 1975 in LA
Stephen Homer "Steve" Manly (my grandfather) b. 1885 in LA, d. 1958 in LA
Ross Holmes Manly (my great grandfather) b. 1855 in MO, d. 1927 in LA
Martin V. Manley (my 2nd great grandfather) b. 1834 in OH, d. after 1880 (in AR?)
Benjamin Smith Manley (my 3rd great grandfather) b. 1798 in MA, d. 1871 in OH
Martin Manley (my 4th great grandfather) b. 1770 in CT, d. 1844 in OH
George Manley (my 5th great grandfather) b. 1735 in CT, d. 1815 in MA
William Manley (my 6th great grandfather) b. 1703 in MA, d. 1788 in CT
Lazarus Manley (my 7th great grandfather) b. 1668 in England, d. 1747 in CT
George Manley (my 8th great grandfather) b. about 1624 in England
Note where Mark's tree branches. He comes from the line of Lazarus' older brother William (born in 1703 in MA). It's possible to show this link in most ancestry sites. I'm going to link it on WikiTree, but I should be able to link it on Family DNA as well and note it on Cathy Sockol's site.
Question. Does this make Mark my 1st cousin 6 times removed? Or my 6th cousin? :) Seriously!
I think we went through this when we visited the Carharts with Ann.
Lazarus in the New World
That's our Lazarus, of course, son of George Manly of Talaton. It turns out that he was quite an enterprising young man after he had come to the US. He was a millwright, which meant that he designed and built mills. This involved scouting out choice spots to build them, buying the land, building the mill, getting it going, then selling it, and investing the proceeds in a new project. According to Colonial Ancestors, he did this no fewer than ten times!
Colonial Ancestors is a wonderfully-researched book on four colonial families, one of which is ours. It is available online as as a digital download here. Look on page 119 (in the book, not the PDF) and you see the beginning of the account of Lazarus. Here is a screen-save from page 120 showing the "salt box" house that Lazarus lived in in 1706.
The house is located in Southold, Long Island, New York. In particular, "It is situated at the west end of Southold on the corner
of Ackerly Pond Road and Lower Road," says the text on page 121. The legend below the images reads, "Courtesy The Suffolk Times and Joy Bear, the artist."
A Google Maps search of this location comes up with a dead ringer of this artistic rendering.
The foliage makes it hard to set up exactly the same vantage point as the image in the book, but the author attests, "Their charming little house, a saltbox, now with weathered gray shingles and white trim remains in use today as a
private home."
(And, when Googled, for sale. Anyone interested?)
Colonial Ancestors is a wonderfully-researched book on four colonial families, one of which is ours. It is available online as as a digital download here. Look on page 119 (in the book, not the PDF) and you see the beginning of the account of Lazarus. Here is a screen-save from page 120 showing the "salt box" house that Lazarus lived in in 1706.
of Ackerly Pond Road and Lower Road," says the text on page 121. The legend below the images reads, "Courtesy The Suffolk Times and Joy Bear, the artist."
A Google Maps search of this location comes up with a dead ringer of this artistic rendering.
private home."
(And, when Googled, for sale. Anyone interested?)
That Link to the Khazahks
What this means is that my family-member Kazakhstanis and I have a remote common ancestor. It would be fun to find out more out him.
Note: June 28, 2015 - It could be that our ancestors met in Belgium. See posting on this date.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
DNA Test and Updates
It's been some time since I've posted. Genealogical insight seems to come in fits and starts. This past several weeks has seen quite a lot of activity which I want to summarize and record so that it does float away.
I've found three excellent (distant) cousins who are also excellent resources: James Edward Maule, Doug Manley, and Dr. Mark Manley.
James Edward Maule traces his ancestry back to Georgius Maule and beyond - to the Lairds of Panmure (Scotland). He is a lawyer in Pennsylvania and has done a lot of genetic testing and is quite knowledgeable about the tests and their implications. His kit is #14125.
I learned about him in Cathy Manly Sockol's "Manly/Manley Family Tree DNA Project." This project supports Family Tree DNA with the "Manley/Manly/Munley" (and more) surname projects. There are many of them. I think "Maule" is a varient of "Manley" along with "Mawley," "Mawle" and several others.
We've been emailing back and forth in recent weeks, especially in regard to the DNA connection that exists between the Maule family and the Manley family. That connection is discussed here. In particular, notice Cathy Sockol's reply to my question of May 11, 2011. She affirms a genetic connection between the Maule's and Manley's. She puts it at 325 years to the most recent common ancestor (Georgius, or his son Thomas). It's more, but we are talking about a "ballpark" figure.
Jim Maule on the other hand suggested that while the genetic distance was plausible, the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) was much more remote, perhaps as remote as 2,500 years ago. I inclined initially to Cathy's optimistic interpretation, but I've not been able to replicate it. I also note that the intersection on the charts does not fall on a colored cell, indicating a close (or closer) DNA connection. Also, there are individuals from Kazakhstan who share the same (or very similar) haplotype to mine and to Jim Maule's "almost-similar" haplotype. This suggests a more distant remote common ancestor.
I've found three excellent (distant) cousins who are also excellent resources: James Edward Maule, Doug Manley, and Dr. Mark Manley.
James Edward Maule traces his ancestry back to Georgius Maule and beyond - to the Lairds of Panmure (Scotland). He is a lawyer in Pennsylvania and has done a lot of genetic testing and is quite knowledgeable about the tests and their implications. His kit is #14125.
I learned about him in Cathy Manly Sockol's "Manly/Manley Family Tree DNA Project." This project supports Family Tree DNA with the "Manley/Manly/Munley" (and more) surname projects. There are many of them. I think "Maule" is a varient of "Manley" along with "Mawley," "Mawle" and several others.
We've been emailing back and forth in recent weeks, especially in regard to the DNA connection that exists between the Maule family and the Manley family. That connection is discussed here. In particular, notice Cathy Sockol's reply to my question of May 11, 2011. She affirms a genetic connection between the Maule's and Manley's. She puts it at 325 years to the most recent common ancestor (Georgius, or his son Thomas). It's more, but we are talking about a "ballpark" figure.
Jim Maule on the other hand suggested that while the genetic distance was plausible, the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) was much more remote, perhaps as remote as 2,500 years ago. I inclined initially to Cathy's optimistic interpretation, but I've not been able to replicate it. I also note that the intersection on the charts does not fall on a colored cell, indicating a close (or closer) DNA connection. Also, there are individuals from Kazakhstan who share the same (or very similar) haplotype to mine and to Jim Maule's "almost-similar" haplotype. This suggests a more distant remote common ancestor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)