Hello to ALL CADDELL & variation researchers:
Well, the DNA test results are back. We had three testees of CADDELL(D) surname.
None proved to be related within the time period 1000 AD until now. Any
possible common relationship would have been prior to the time when surnames
bagan and probably from 3,000 to 10,000 years ago.... Now that's distant cousins :).
I still would like to see a CADDELL male descendant from the James Banks CADDELL
line be tested in comparison to the others. We do, however, have a CALDER
descendant that has been tested. I do not know the results of his test.
Sheryl best summarized it: "...the only thing that you could probably reliably
say is that they have disproved a "Y" genetic relationship existed between the 3
people tested (not even lines) within 1000 years - based on what is known about
DNA testing today? - Sheryl Alvernaz "sheryl(a)beatware.com".
--------------------------------------------------------
Know Information:
The Three Testees - CADDELL surname, no know relation
Ancestor of Testee #1
Born: c1620s, Scotland
Ancestor: Testee #2
Born: c1730s, Scotland
Ancestor: Testee #3
Born: c1668, Scotland
MARKER.............#1.........#2.........#3
DYS385a............E..........D..........B
DYS385b............E..........E..........E
DYS388.............14.........14.........12
DYS389I............12.........12.........13
DYS389II...........28.........28.........29
DYS390.............23.........22.........24
DYS391.............10.........10.........11
DYS392.............11.........11.........13
DYS393.............13.........13.........13
DYS394.............14.........13.........14
DYS426.............11.........11.........12
DYS437.............16.........16.........15
DYS438.............10.........10.........12
DYS439.............14.........12.........12
DYS460.............10.........10.........11
DYS461.............11.........11.........11
DYS462.............13.........12.........11
GGAAT1B07..........11.........11.........10
YCAIIa.............D..........D..........D
YCAIIb.............F..........F..........D
Y-GATA-A10.........12.........12.........13
Y-GATA-A4..........14.........12.........12
Y-GATA-C4..........21.........21.........23
Y-GATA-H4..........26.........27.........27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Re: [DNA] DNA Test Results
From:
"John F. Chandler" <JCHBN(a)CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Date:
Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:06 EDT
To:
GENEALOGY-DNA-L(a)rootsweb.com
Bill wrote:
Know Information:
The Three Testees - same surname, no know relation
Ancestor of Testee #1
Born: c1620s, Scotland
Ancestor: Testee #2
Born: c1730s, Scotland
Ancestor: Testee #3
Born: c1668, Scotland
I'll sum up: the differences among the three are large.
1 vs 2 5 1-step + 2 2-step
1 vs 3 9 1-step + 8 2-step + 1 3-step
2 vs 3 9 1-step + 7 2-step
The latter two comparisons are examples of the phenomenon I described
yesterday -- there are so many differences that the mutations are
starting to saturate and partly cancel. The best guess for the
number of single mutations between 2 and 3 is therefore 37, and the
expected time to the common ancestor is nearly 400 generations, or
10.000 years (counting both ways). Even 1 and 2 are far enough apart
that the random-walk regime has probably set in, so the best guess
there is not 7 or even 9, but 13 steps between them, which is over
3000 years. Of course, there are wide uncertainties on these estimates
-- over 1000 years either way -- but you can be sure that the
coincidence of surnames is just a coincidence.
John Chandler
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello, John & ALL:
John Chandler wrote: "...Of course, there are wide uncertainties on these
estimates. -- over 1000 years either way -- but you can be sure that the
coincidence of surnames is just a coincidence."
Assuming that all three CADDELL lines were residents of Scotland when surnames
began...So what we are saying is that, probably, ( each of) the three testee's
early Scottish ancestor derived his surname, not by hereditary means, but were
in an area/or association with others, where the group began using a common surname.
According to antiquity, the use of surnames or descriptive names appears to have
commenced in France about the year 1000. Such names were introduced into
Scotland through the Normans during the next 50 years, and then only
occasionally used until they became commonly used in the mid twelveth century.
According to William Stewart in a general council at Forfar, Scotland in 1061 AD
during the reign of King Malcolm Ceannmor, he directed his chief subjects to
adopt the use of Surnames from their territorial possessions after the custom of
other nations.
Bill Caddell
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
RE: [DNA] DNA v GENEALOGY
From:
"Sheryl Alvernaz" <sheryl(a)beatware.com>
Date:
Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:24:20 -0700
To:
GENEALOGY-DNA-L(a)rootsweb.com
On reading this a little further would it be safe to say that, the only
thing that you could probably reliably say is that they have disproved a
"Y" genetic relationship existed between the 3 people tested (not even
lines) within 1000 years - based on what is known about DNA testing
today?