|
The TMRCA Calculations were run online at Family Tree DNA, using their ‘TiP’ method [51]. |
|
Since I am part of the sixth generation born in North America, we know that we did not share any |
|
common ancestor(s) in the last 6 generations, and any possible MRCA (Most-Recent Common |
|
Ancestor(s)) would almost certainly have lived in the British Isles (possibly northern Ireland). |
|
|
|
So, comparing Y-DNA results with each other person ‘p’, knowing that ‘p’ and I did not share a |
|
common ancestor in the last 6 generations, the probability that ‘p’ and Frank shared a common |
|
ancestor within the last ‘n’ generations (beyond 6) generated the following distribution [61]: |
|
8 Generations: 13.0% - 34.41% (range of probabilities from TiP’s on all of the other ‘p’ men) |
|
12 Generations: 49.66% - 72.91% |
|
16 Generations: 80.49% - 91.27% |
|
20 Generations: 94.44% - 97.61% (96% mean, range wider than 3%) |
|
24 Generations: 98.69% - 99.42% (99% mean, range 0.7%) |
|
|
|
So, even for this larger TMRCA (11) focus group, the Time to Most-Recent Common Ancestor |
|
‘TiP’ calculations give the same historical results, and we get the same two TMRCA ranges:: |
|
20 generations TMRCA est. 667 ybp (1950), +/- 100 yrs (15%), range 1180-1385 CE [58], and |
|
24 generations TMRCA est. 800 ybp (1950), +/- 120 yrs (15%), range 1030-1270 CE [59]. |
|
Progress Report, Conclusions, and Future Directions |
|
|
|
As genealogists, we are all ‘genealogical researchers’, and every research effort begins with |
|
questions, hypotheses, and plans. Gathering evidence is an extended and painstaking process; |
|
we seek answers, propose hypotheses, and test them through gathering information and results. |
|
We are here today because our ancestors survived, in what ever period of time they lived, and |
|
wherever they lived, despite the hardships of their lives in those historical times and places. |
|
|
|
We took these Y-DNA tests to further our own personal genealogical research, and, admittedly, |
|
I continue to be confused by the variety of surnames that partially ‘match’ our Y-DNA results, |
|
although these connections are a long time ago, before the widespread adoption of surnames. |
|
|
|
At the start of this informal ‘McAninch Y-DNA’ project, the hope was that the Y-DNA evidence |
|
would be clustered much closer, and would point to common ancestor(s) in the 1600’s / 1700’s. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately, that is not the case, and there appear to be no common ancestors ‘just off-stage’ |
|
(50% probability for Most-Recent Common Ancestor is 10-12 generations, back in the 1500’s, |
|
although ‘1600’s / 1700’s’ is still possible, statistically, just not provable with our current data). |
|
So, we will have to wait for more test data, and hope that further test data will help us find some |
|
earlier ‘genetic genealogy’ male ancestors back beyond the edge of the ‘paper trail’ in the 1700’s. |
|
|
|
To be continued . . . |
|
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
|||
|
McAninch Y-DNA Status Report 2016: 8 of 8: Progress, Conclusions, and Future Directions |
|||
|
McAninch Family History NL v.XXIV n.1 / April 2016 / Copyright Frank McAninch / pg.2016-09 |
|||
|
|
|||