Sinclair DNA - Our Lineages
Click any one of these to learn about our family's complete path through time
In this section, I define our family by lineages and get into specifics about what it is that makes us different. On the chart at the beginning of the "Path Through Time" link, you can see how and where our family divides up in very broad terms. In this section, you’ll learn why we differ in much greater detail. I’ll try to identify at least one member of each lineage so future generations can match these up with the results chart, but I won’t list actual project participants so as to protect their privacy. If you’re a member of the project and you’re reading this, you know who you are and to which lineage you belong.
<<< Click these links at left to explore all our Sinclair lineages in detail
By beginning with the slower mutating, more stable alleles (G), I’m able to make very broad divisions in our family. For instance, those who have studied the frequency of mutations among Y chromosome DNA markers indicate that DYS393 has one of the lowest mutation rates of the 12 main markers used to identify a haplotype. The Kayser study of 2000 81 indicated a mutation rate of zero for DYS392 and DYS393, while the Heyer study of 1997 82 recorded a mutation rate of zero for DYS390 and DYS393. Only DYS393 had a mutation rate of zero in both studies. That does not mean that DYS393 never mutates, but it does suggest that it mutates very rarely. On our results page, online, you’ll find our participants divided up with this study, then many others. These sorts of divisions are what define our lineages.
There are many issues relating to exactly how many lineages we have. This is why I'm reluctant to make proclamations at this time.
(1) The accepted definition of a lineage is quite strict. It allows only 2 mutations from another participant. These can be on any markers, even those that are known to mutate rather quickly. A mutation of 2 from another participant (given that you share a surname) means you share a common ancestor possibly in the last 1,000 years or likely sooner.
RESULT: based on this accepted rule, we show over 10 lineages
(2) Many of the participants in our project exist outside the strict definition of a lineage. I've experimented with relaxing the accepted rules to compare only those markers known to mutate more slowly. This was quite revealing as it tightened up only two of our lineages from before but our original lineages pretty much held true and those who were of a lineage stayed with that lineage. In other words, if you're not in a lineage now, there's likely no way to bend the results to make you a part of one.
RESULT: based on the tightening to slower mutating markers we got down to 8 distinct lineages
(3) Citizens of countries that were
colonies of the
CONCLUSION: Better participation would likely give us at least 2 more full lineages making the total about 10-12.
I've looked at the results any number of ways now using all the acceptable (and some less acceptable) methods of analysis. Based on this, and given the above 3 points, we have at least 10 lineage so far and more likely 12.
No one values the intersection of DNA with good documents research more than me. Some in our family believe we have 2 distinct lineages. Depending on how you look at the data, you may decide we have 2 (based on S21+ or S21-), or you may say we have multiple lineages based on our DYS390 Marker (such as DYS390=23, DYS390=24 or DYS390=25), or you can find even more ways to arrive at how many we have. However, the way you define a lineage has very real consequences regarding the timing of the mutation. I'm looking for more recent ways to define our family groups, sometime since the life of Jesus. Dividing our family by S21 is simply too far back in time to be relevant to genealogical records.
I feel very comfortable saying that we have 10-12 lineages in total. Then we have many who will not yet fall into one. Keep in mind that these are DNA lineages. Documented lineages can be very different and confused by other things like names acquired from living on certain land. Of course, the DNA matches go back as far as 20,000 years and perhaps further. By the time land ownership and marriages were being recorded, many could have adopted a surname for various reasons. Of course, there were some who acquired the surname in other ways - taking the name of the laird, changing the name, etc. We’re finding that the answers are not quite so clear cut as we'd like.
AMH | Germany | DYS390=25 | DYS390=23 | S21-U106 | Anglo-Saxon Visigoths
E1b | I1 | R1a | CCR5-Delta-32 | Mutation Rates | Lineage Smugness
Home | Contact | Join Google Discussion Group