"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.

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). 

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.

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.