Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3546Re: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet

Expand Messages
  • Cliff. Johnston
    Oct 22, 2013
      I should add that Sir Adam Johnstoun, ca. 1450, had 11 sons by 2 wives that we know of.  Also, it has been suggested by one source that Sir Adam had 4 brothers; however, no names appear to be known for any of the alleged brothers.
      The commonly accepted origin for this family was that a knight by the name of Jeanville came over with William the Conqueror in 1066, moved north and eventually Jeanville became Johnstoun.  A Johnston in France has spent several years researching the Jeanville families in France and has be unable to find anything which verifies even the slightest notion of this connection. 
      A French researcher suggested to Jean-Marie Johnston that he research the heraldry of the Johnstoun family.  It is then that he says that everything fell into place.  The predecessor of the first Johnstoun was an Earl in Northumberland.  When William defeated Harold in 1066 he secured the south of England and then took an army north to lay claim by force or submission to the remaining lands.  The Earl and father of our first Johnstoun was a relative by marriage to William.  When William arrived in Northumberland the Earl swore his allegiance to William.  They enjoyed a family reunion and a much welcomed rest.  The son later went north to Perth, Scotland.  He built a stone tower house with a surrounding stone wall, and in the tradition of his Viking ancestors he took as his surname the name of a nearby settlement, St. Johnstoune, the old name for Perth.  He personalized his new surname by dropping the "e" and becoming our first Johnstoun.  Later his presence was required along the contentious border with England, and he moved into the Annan River valley area. 
      This account of the Johnstoun family name was also supported and reached independently by 2 of the most prestigious Johnston/e family researchers of the late 1900s, Dr. Loran Johnson in the U.S.A. and Robert Shannon in Scotland. 

      From: "texasfalconer@..." <texasfalconer@...>
      To: I-M223@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:37 PM
      Subject: [I-M223] Interpreting our Y-DNA Spreadsheet
      I have posted the our latest Johnston Y-DNA Spreadsheet v.25 in the Files section of our I-M223 group.

      As of today, it is up-to-date and accurate. Bear in mind that we created this spreadsheet for our group based upon a "business man's visual" model. It is not in the traditional geneticists' format. As such when trimmed and taped together to make 3 scrolls one can easily spot groups and trends. The scrolls can be individually unrolled, held or placed on a table and studied leisurely. Some have even trimmed and taped the 3 scrolls together to make one larger "spreadsheet poster" which they lay on the floor or tack to a wall.

      When I first started doing this some 8+ years ago we didn't have much to go on. 37-markers tests were about the best that we could hope for often. Over the years most upgraded to 67 markers and now we are working on upgrading to 111 markers. There are about a dozen names on the spreadsheet who will probably never contribute anything more than the 12-markers test from the Nat.Geo. project. I have contacted most all of them several times. They have little interest in proceeding further. When we started our Spreadsheet someone suggested using Locus #12,DYS 389-2, as a way of grouping the members. I've done this up until now, but when I look at it I have some questions. Anyone game? lol...

      Looking at Locus #57, DYS 444, we have a rather considerable group with the allele value 15, subjects #8-26. There are 16 of them. Of these 2 have the allele value of 33 at Locus #12, while the remaining 14 have the allele value of 32 at Locus #12. In addition there are 3 others, subjects #55, 57 & 68, who also have the allele value of 15 at Locus #57. They are separated from the main group by various changes in other markers.

      Subject #6, Christopher Johnston VI, has a paper trail going back to Sir Adam Johnstoun of that Ilk ca. 1450 - our clan chief in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. Chris is descended from the Johnstons of Poldean, a line eventually issuing from Sir Adam's son Herbert and his issue. From the Poldean line came two others of some significance for a time, the Johnstons of Craigieburn and the Johnstons of Corehead. 2 brothers from the Johnstons of Craigieburn left Scotland together ca. 1600 and became successful merchants. From "History of the Johnstones" by C.L. Johnstone we read:

      "Symon Johnstoun, a son of one of the Johns mentioned in Craigaburn's Will, migrated to Poland, where there was a large colony of Scottish Romanists. He married Anna Becker, and his son, John, an author and naturalist, was born in Sambter, in Posen, in 1603...his father's male descendants are represented by Count Maximilian von Johnstoun und Kroegeborn, Chamberlain to the Emperor of Germany.."

      I have been notably unsuccessful in persuading any of the von Johnston males in Germany to do a Y-DNA test, but yesterday I was contacted by Bob Schlesier, subject #19 on our spreadsheet. Although I need to do some research on his line I can recall reading at one time that some of the Johnstons in Poland from our line changed their surnames to that of the areas in which they had settled. This was a tradition of sorts among Vikings, and our Johnstons are of Danish Viking descent. As the areas were in the contested state of Silesia their nationalities have changed several times over the centuries.

      1. Is it a valid methodology to use Locus #12 allele values to group subjects?

      2. Given that we have a possible date of a common ancestor for both Bob Schlesier, subject #19, and Chris Johnston, subject # 7, of ca. 1560-80, can anything be inferred about the connection of others on the spreadsheet to this approximate time in history?

      3. Locus #12, DYS 389-2, is supposed to be a slower changing marker according to FTDNA than Locus #57, DYS 444, which is supposed to be a faster changing marker. Yet on our spreadsheet we have a range of only 3 allele values for Locus #57, and a range of at least 6 allele values and possibly as many as 9 for Locus #12, depending upon how the SNP tests come back for subject #70, and we make contact with subject #71 and convince him to test for L1290 and L1317 too. Any thoughts on the different rates of changes that we are seeing here? The so-called slower-changing marker is changing faster than the fast-changing marker.

      4. As subjects #55, 57 & 68 have the allele value 15 at Locus #57, DYS 444, how does one explain their distance from the major group with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Are they random and independent changes apart from the major group or are they inherited changes from within the larger group and other changes separated them? Could they all have had a common ancestor with the allele value of 15 at Locus #57? Any thoughts as to when in time this change may have happened originally from the allele value 14 to 15? I am currently attempting to have some of the subjects in the larger group upgrade to 111 markers. So far one has ordered the upgrade to 111 markers (today) and another is getting prepared to order his.

      Any other comments and/or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

      Good hunting,

      Cliff. Johnston

    • Show all 11 messages in this topic