DNA Lineages
On this page:
Haplogroup I1 (Lineage 1) Intro:
Given that Runciman is considered an occupational surname, we are delighted to find we have four separate paper trail lines showing as a dna match:- 1a contains a representative of the line from Wanton Walls, and from one of the two Michigan families whose papertrail joining them up has now also been found. The project is still looking for a representative of the other Michigan family that also ties into this lineage, that of James and Isabella (CARTER) RUNCIMAN.
- 1b that of William RUNCIMAN of Crail - two matching representatives
- 1c that of Thomas & Alison (GRIEVE) RUNCIMAN of Innerwick, with two matching representatives
- 1d with three representatives from the line of Alexander & Janet (HENDRIE) RUNCIMAN of Meikle Pinkerton (there are results from three other papertrail/presumed descendants who do not match this signature, or each other)
Phylogenetic tree for Haplogroup I1 Runcimans
The analysis behind this chart shows the matching cluster of I1 trees as predicted to share a common ancestor about 340 years prior to the average birth years of the testees, say 1605, or 1695 for the closer three lineages. Scale 10 = 403 years
The analysis behind this chart shows the matching cluster of I1 trees as predicted to share a common ancestor about 340 years prior to the average birth years of the testees, say 1605, or 1695 for the closer three lineages. Scale 10 = 403 years
Chart courtesy of the late Bill Howard.
A post on the RootsWeb GENEALOGY_DNA list, gave his approach to producing clusters on a dated phylogenetic tree as depending on correlating pairs of STR haplotype strings.
The correlation technique had been calibrated by using the TMRCAs of over 100 pairs of testees, each of whose MRCA is known(refer also to his presentation on you tube).
The number of years that has elapsed between a testee pair and their MRCA divided by the revised correlation coefficient (RCC) has shown that for 67 marker strings, 10 RCC is equal to about 403 years.
What this appears to translate to for our four matching lineages is that their common ancestor was born about 1605.
However, leaving Alexander of Meikle Pinkerton out of the mix, the remaining three lineages are indicated to share an ancestor born around 1695 - which fits within the lifespan of our earliest tentative paper trail, that of William of Crail's suggested ancestor William RYNCIMAN who married Jean WHITE. William and Jean are documented as having children in North Berwick 1701 to 1712.
A post on the RootsWeb GENEALOGY_DNA list, gave his approach to producing clusters on a dated phylogenetic tree as depending on correlating pairs of STR haplotype strings.
The correlation technique had been calibrated by using the TMRCAs of over 100 pairs of testees, each of whose MRCA is known(refer also to his presentation on you tube).
The number of years that has elapsed between a testee pair and their MRCA divided by the revised correlation coefficient (RCC) has shown that for 67 marker strings, 10 RCC is equal to about 403 years.
What this appears to translate to for our four matching lineages is that their common ancestor was born about 1605.
However, leaving Alexander of Meikle Pinkerton out of the mix, the remaining three lineages are indicated to share an ancestor born around 1695 - which fits within the lifespan of our earliest tentative paper trail, that of William of Crail's suggested ancestor William RYNCIMAN who married Jean WHITE. William and Jean are documented as having children in North Berwick 1701 to 1712.
RUNCIMAN Lineage 1 - overall dna results - differences only | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 12 | 13 | 15 | 25 | 26 | 31 | 34 | 36 | 55 | 58 | 68 | 69 | 71 | 73 | 94 | 95 | 98 | 100 | 101 | 108 | |||
| # | Kit Identifier | Hap | 3 9 0 | 3 8 9 - 2 | 4 5 8 | 4 5 9 b | 4 6 4 d | 4 6 0 | 6 0 7 | C D Y a | 4 4 2 | 5 3 4 | 4 8 1 | 7 1 0 | 4 8 5 | 4 9 5 | 7 1 4 | 7 1 2 | 5 9 3 | 7 1 5 | 5 1 3 | 5 6 1 | 5 1 0 |
| Modal | 22 | 28 | 16 | 9 | 15 | 10 | 15 | 34 | 12 | 16 | 24 | 32 | 12 | 17 | 23 | {26,28} | 15 | 25 | {13,14} | 15 | 20 | ||
| Lineage 1 a-d | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | Modal | 22 | 28 | 16 | 9 | 15 | 10 | 15 | 34 | 12 | 16 | 24 | 32 | 12 | 17 | 23 | {26,28} | 15 | 25 | {13,14} | 15 | 20 | |
| 1 | Jerry (R-2) | I-A11399 | 22 | 28 | 16 | 9 | 15 | 10 | 15 | 34 | 12 | 16 | 24 | 32.2 | 12 | 18 | 23 | 28 | 15 | 25 | 13 | 14 | 20 |
| 1 | David (R-1) | I-A11399 | 22 | 28 | 16 | 9 | 15 | 10 | 15 | 34 | 12 | 16 | 25 | 33.2 | 12 | 17 | 23 | 26 | 14 | 24 | 13 | 15 | 20 |
| 1 | Jere (R-18) | I-M170 | 23 | 28 | 16 | 9 | 15 | 11 | 15 | 34 | 12 | 16 | 25 | ||||||||||
| 1 | Peter (R-12) | I-A11393 | 22 | 28 | 17 | 9 | 15 | 11 | 15 | 34 | 12 | 16 | 24 | 32.2 | 12 | 17 | 23 | 26 | 15 | 25 | 14 | 15 | 19 |
| 1 | 808980 | 22 | 28 | 16 | 9 | 15 | 11 | 15 | 34 | 12 | 16 | 24 | |||||||||||
| 1 | D A. (R-19) | I-A11400 | 22 | 28 | 16 | 10 | 15 | 11 | 15 | 35 | 12 | 16 | 24 | 32.2 | 13 | 17 | 24 | 25 | 15 | 25 | 14 | 15 | 20 |
| 1 | RJW (R-11) | I-M253 | 22 | 28 | 16 | 9 | 15 | 10 | 15 | 34 | 12 | 17 | 24 | ||||||||||
| 1 | Jim (R-10) | I-A9096 | 22 | 28 | 16 | 9 | 15 | 10 | 16 | 34 | 12 | 17 | 24 | 32.2 | 12 | 17 | 23 | 27 | 16 | 25 | 14 | 15 | 20 |
| 1 | W R-20 | 22 | 28 | 16 | 9 | 15 | 10 | 15 | 34 | 12 | 16 | 24 | |||||||||||
| 1 | Kevin (R-8) | I-A9096 | 22 | 28 | 16 | 9 | 16 | 10 | 15 | 34 | 12 | 16 | 24 | 33.2 | 12 | 17 | 23 | 28 | 15 | 24 | 13 | 15 | 20 |
| 1 | Jim (R-7) | I-M253 | 22 | 28 | 16 | 9 | 15 | 10 | 15 | 34 | 11 | 16 | 24 | ||||||||||
| 1 | Alan (R-17) | I-M253 | 22 | 29 | 16 | 9 | 15 | 10 | 15 | 34 | 13 | 16 | 24 | ||||||||||
Markers signifying specific lines:
It is assumed that those markers differing from the mode and occurring only on one line, are indicative of that particular lineage.(The following needs updating in light of the newly in (Feb 2017) 6 BigY results showing branching for two of the lineages below the overall I-A9096 aka I-Y22033 fork in the I1 haplogroup tree around 1400.)
However with only 11 matching participants, from 4 paper trails and family evidence we can only surmise that:
- the modal for all the matching Lineage 1 families is that of Jerry with 481 = 24. This latter value occurred only in 9% of the I1 haplogroup population analysed here, whereas 25 is the modal for this marker, occurring in 40% at the time of analysis
- marker 481 = 25 no longer (Jun 2014) seems to signify the subset of descendants of David & Janet (LOCKIE) RUNCIMAN as David has been joined by R-18 with this value, a descendant of Alexander and Janet (HENDRIE) RUNCIMAN
- marker 460 = 11 appears to signify a descendant of Alexander & Janet (HENDRIE) RUNCIMAN as we now have three matching participants for this line.
- marker 534 = 17 appears to signify a descendant of Thomas & Alison (GRIEVE) RUNCIMAN's grandson Thomas (marr. Isabella CRAIG), occuring in both representatives. This value occurred in 18% of the I1 populaton in the above analysis, with the modal of 16 that the other participants have occurs in 36%
- marker 442 = 11 appears to signify a descendant of William of Crail & Elizabeth (JAMIESON) RUNCIMAN's grandson William (marr. Jean COCKBURN)
- marker 464d = 16 appears to signify a descendant of William of Crail & Elizabeth (JAMIESON) RUNCIMAN's grandson John (marr. Isabel COMB), but this is a faster mutating marker.
Comparison with overall I1 haplogroup:
The less common marker values from our representatives when compared to the sampled I1 population number 13 over the 67 markers in total.Five of these are faster mutating markers.
The three least common slower mutating values exhibited by our RUNCIMANs, compared to the sample I1 population, are
| Marker | Overall I1 sample commonest value/frequency | Runciman value/frequency |
| 537 | 11 - 84% | 12 - 15% |
| 607 | 14 - 71% | 15 - 13% |
| 640 | 11 - 78% | 12 - 21% |
We have begun exploring our finer placement on the overall, rapidly evolving, I1 Haplogroup tree, hoping to advance further down towards present day than the initial "I1 - M253" predicted haplogroup.
As this sort of analysis doesn't need all of our representatives to partake, one each of our main trees has been joined up to the I1 project, with one, Kevin (R-8), undergoing more specific SNP testing.
To date he has tested: Z59+, Z60+, Z140-, Z2539-
Branch names change as new SNPs are found, but as at Jan 2014 on the ISOGG I1 tree, Z59+ is I1a2a, Z60+ is I1a2a1. We are still looking for the next downstream SNP.
Results from the overall I1 Haplogroup project may be viewed here.
Lineage 1 Genetic Distances (GD)
Genetic Distance and Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA) tables (which will most definitely lag behind in updates), will be shown here.