MacGregor DNA Project 2023
Welcome to the MacGregor DNA Project blog for 2023. I began last year’s DNA blog looking at how SNP results could be used to understand historical connections between surname groups and how different family groupings are suggested by subgroupings of the results. Over the past year, there has not been considerable development in terms of DNA testing other than the fact that individuals have realised the usefulness of Y700 for identifying closer family relationships. I am going to use the initial part of this blog to explore further this idea based on the fact that family tree DNA have introduced a new feature which uses scientific tools to explore potential connections between participants. I am taking examples taken from the MacGregor project and based on the main Argyllshire line as we already have some traditional sources which suggest when family groups split off from the main branch.
I want to begin with an example which appears to show a family connection within the last 250 years, and which suggested that individuals that appeared in two family trees could in fact be brothers – which in turn led to a search in parish registers for an appropriate family living in the area from where it was believed these individuals lived. In this ftdna example our 2 participants are suggested to have close familial connection dating to approximately 1802. As it happens that is slightly too late as we appear to be dealing with two brothers but given the proximity to 1800 of the averaging process it was determined that these two participants ancestors were more than likely related.
Fig 1: two closely genetically related individuals – with SNP BY23340.
It seems that BY23340 is a relatively modern terminal SNP as can be seen in this graphic analysis:
Fig 2a: graphic representation of the DNA relationship between two individuals and Fig 2b the Mean which suggests a date of 1802.
In Fig 3. we see how this is projected forward:
Fig 3: How this translates into two related lines today.
This parish register research suggested that two brothers James and Robert were the children of Alexander who lived in Stevenston, Ayrshire in the second half of the 18th century.
SNP – R-S696
In the MacGregor results one SNP, which was identified almost a decade ago by Jim Walker, has significance as it is borne by the Chief’s family and two others (both related to emigrants to America whose earlier histories are not recorded). The SNP is labelled R-S696.
Fig 4: The genetic descendant to S696
The graphic in Fig 4 is slightly misleading as it only relates two SNPs whereas in fact R-A14374 is a descendant of S690 and we already know that S690 arose about 1300-1350. The suggested split of A14374 sometime in the early to mid 1500s seems very likely, and that S696 did indeed happen not too long after the banning (proscription) of the MacGregor name following the Massacre of Glenfruin in 1603. The fact that two of the participants with S696 ended up in America but with no known genealogies available suggests that they may have gone there during the time of proscription to escape the personal danger and legal difficulties that were in force at that time. Proscription lasted from 1603 to 1660 when Charles II became King after the Commonwealth collapsed. Proscription was reimposed in 1692 following the unsuccessful attempt to restore the catholic King James II to the throne since the MacGregors were largely supporters of the Stuart cause. The second period of proscription was principally legal in nature but lasted through to November 1774.
Fig 5: other lines related to S696.
You can see from this diagram that there is a younger line (FT140264) from the same descent. One of these participants has a genealogy suggesting a Glengyle MacGregor connection which has been discussed in the last three blogs (Rob Roy MacGregor was a Glengyle). In summary: there was a gap in the documentary evidence at c1800 which threw doubt on that family connection and that instead this participant comes from the main MacGregor family (that is, of Brackley)
One final example will show, I hope, how accurate this scientific predicting could turn out to be. It is well known within MacGregor genealogies that the main line split into 4 main houses – Glengyle or more correctly Dugall Keir (as later epitomised by Rob Roy), as mentioned, was one, MacGregor (main line – Brackley) another, Roro (based on a location in Glenlyon near Fortingall in Perthshire) was a third and the family (Sleik [sliochd = tribe]). of Gregor vcIan.
The family based in Roro were known to be there from about 1460, so this Time Tree for SNP R-BY54364, carried by a descendant who has a good claim to have Roro descent, is therefore suggestive that the claim is accurate.
Figs 6a/b: the genetic split that suggests the origin of the Roro family of MacGregors
The above discussion of SNP connections is clearly still somewhat speculative, but, since we know that S690 split off around 1300, or slightly later, leading to the establishment of the MacGregor main bloodline, then the results do begin to help us identify family groupings post 1300. We can see that so far there are seventeen family lines currently identified, some reaching back to the late Medieval/early Renaissance, and others (as in Fig 1) much later. This shows the importance of as many individuals undertaking the Y700 test, particularly those who have more comprehensive genealogies, so that more inter-family relationships can be established. To end this section here is the current family descent tree for S690 as revealed by Y700.
Fig 7: MacGregor Y700 test results as at December 2022
For the second half of this blog I want to go back to questions I am often asked:
1) What is a clan?
Six hundred years ago this question was quite simple to answer. You would have been born with the name or you would have adopted it, rather than being called by a patronymic (e.g. John MacPatrick vicDonald = John son of Patrick son of Donald). The name itself then becomes complicated with non-standardised spelling and attempts to render Gaelic into English which meant that, in the MacGregors’ case, the word might be expressed as Gregor, Grigor, MacGregor, McGrigor, McGregor with a whole range of alternative spellings. There were also accepted variants, such as Grierson, or Grier, Greig/Grieg/Grig etc. These were understood to be shortened (or ‘anglicised’) versions of the main clan name. So, Grier-son equals Gregor-son and Grier is the same name without the ‘son’ on the end. Whether or not the people bearing these accepted names were genetically related to the main family line was not the point, since the clan was composed of members using a collection of related surnames who recognised, as Chief, the head of the main line (the Chief of the MacGregors for example).
The time of Proscription (when using the name MacGregor was banned), also caused a great many different surnames to be associated with Clan Gregor, many as the result of the adoption of an alias (such as Stirling, Drummond, Bain, Black, Campbell – hence Rob Roy’s alias of Robert Campbell).
2) What is a sept?
Other clan members bearing different names were from septs or associated groups of the clan. Sometimes the same name can appear on several lists of accepted septs for different clans. This is the case for the surname King, for example: for MacGregors this surname was certainly thought to connect to the clan motto ‘Royal is my Race’.
3) We have male MacGregors in our tree, how can they test?
Go to www.familytreedna.com, use the surname search box for ‘MacGregor’ and follow hotlinks on that name until you get to the project join page then select Y chromosome testing for one of the males – do at least 37 markers or any number of markers above this number.
4) Why are there no family grids/list of results for Ancestry/Family Finder results and can I not prove my genetic connection to MacGregors that way and appear on the list?
From here I am largely repeating some text from my 2017 blog.
There has been a noticeable increase in the number of individuals taking the test known as ‘Family Finder’, or something similar, rather than Y chromosome or mtDNA tests. This has probably been as a result of quite aggressive marketing by Ancestry.com [it has a variety of website endings depending on where it is based] in particular. This has promoted the equal use of DNA testing for both males and females, and tied it into the submission of family trees which individual testers can use to identify the same family name(s) with others who have tested and submitted their genealogies. What has perhaps been rather glossed over in this is the fact, firstly, that DNA gets ‘lost’ over time – if it didn’t, we would have the DNA of billions of ancestors in our bodies, and, secondly, that it is only a tiny portion of our DNA which is currently being examined for genealogical purposes.
You do not inherit 25% of your autosomal ancestry from each of your 4 grandparents. This is because your autosomal DNA is randomly recombined, and not in equal proportions from each parent, and so the more you go back in time the percentage inherited from people in a particular generation becomes smaller and smaller and therefore the more distant the ancestor is the more difficult it becomes to identify what you received from that person. What then are the chances of that same bit of DNA being preserved from a specific ancestor in yourself and someone else? For example, if your name is, say, Smith, and your male MacGregor ancestor lived 10 generations ago on your mother’s side it is really not feasible with today’s technology to identify that ancestor’s DNA by looking at your DNA today. The tests which are offered by Ancestry, Family Tree DNA etc. only try to identify links to 5/6 generations back. The key thing to remember is that if you and someone else have, say, people called Brown in your trees it does not necessarily mean that you have a recent ancestor in common, or indeed that you have any ancestor called Brown in common at all. For these tests of connection to work properly, you, and the person you are comparing with, need to have as much genealogical information as possible on every ancestral line in your respective trees, going back 5 or 6 generations (and that you both have a significant shared portion of DNA). This test works best for up to third cousin. You have 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents and 16 great great grandparents and beyond that it is usually very difficult to have all ancestral lines documented.
So, you and the person you are comparing with both have to put all your family information into one of the computer genealogy programs (like Family Tree Maker, Reunion etc.), save it as a GEDCOM file, and upload it to whichever DNA company with which you have both tested your autosomal DNA. The possible links between the two family trees are then highlighted in some way which allows a comparison of ancestry to be made in order to explore if there is a family match on some surname. As /I said in the previous paragraph the fact that there is a match on surname does not necessarily mean that it is the same family, only that there is a surname in common. Clearly the more unusual the surname, the more likely that the match will be with the same family.
I give an example from my own ancestry. Using the compare options on the top of the page I find this result:
Fig 8: comparison results for FMS (full mitochondrial sequence) and X-match.
For x-match the x means ‘not a match’ and the ‘-‘ means no result. The 9 matches that I do have all have 3 variants except for two individuals who match me either exactly or with one variant. For obvious reasons I have edited out the names if those who match. This is My mother’s side (and her mtDNA) and unfortunately her family history knowledge was non-existent.
Fig 9: a search using Family Finder
I have 171 pages of matches, and this is fairly common, but almost all are 3rd to 5th cousin or distant, and only one is described as a first cousin to second cousin. In fact I am his second cousin. Interestingly his son is described as my second to fourth cousin, and he is actually my second cousin once removed. None of the other participants show surnames I can relate to, and about half of the participants have given no family genealogy background at all which means that it is impossible to work out the relationship, although in most cases a contact email is available. My experience here is quite typical of what happens with Ancestry-based tests and it would be good if more people who do DNA tests for genealogy could be encouraged to upload trees – or even just a list of ancestral surnames.
As a project administrator I am very aware of the need to keep participants’ personal details secure and in familytreedna I can only undertake changes if given ‘Advanced Access’ (and the default for familytreedna is ‘Limited’ so I am unable to update most participants’ earliest known ancestor tab which means that the results grid has gaps). I would encourage everyone who reads this to update their information – it helps both the participant and others.
To end with, I repeat my final paragraph from last year’s blog, which can easily be accessed from the side menu:
You will have noticed that again I have not used spider diagrams. I now prefer to offer individuals the possibility of seeing a spider diagram (Y chromosome only) for their own result, generated for them alone. You can see the sort of spider diagrams I mean by looking at previous versions of this blog. If you would like me to generate one for you, ask me offline and suggest up to 12 individuals with whom you would wish to be compared by reference to their kit number (for me to be able to do that these 12 need to be in the MacGregor project). You can email me on chairmanATclangregor.org [change AT to @ - I just want to avoid spam!).