Update for I1 Haplogroup FAIRBAIRNs

With one of the recent BigY sales at FamilyTreeDNA, the opportunity was taken to test four of the Lineage 1e FAIRBAIRNs, and analyse their results at yFull.com.

The latest version (5.04) of the yFull tree now shows that this has resulted in the creation of a new branch of the tree underneath I-Y7277 (which was estimated by yFull as having been formed 3400 ybp TMRCA 3100 ybp) which is where they are currently shown on FTDNA.

The new branch is I-Y32666, with an estimated formation date of 3100 ybp but a TMRCA (time to most recent common ancestor) of 225 ybp, ie 1725.

The DNASurnames Haplogroup tree which shows yDNA tree branches, along with line patriarchs and tested participants (if approved to do so, has been updated (http://dnasurnames.info/dchaplogroupi.htm#a20)

We believe, from papertrails, ySTR testing and a bit of "a miracle happens here" for one or two of the links, that all four tested descend from John FAIRBAIRN and Bessie FLINT whose children were baptized at Melrose, Roxburghshire from  1729 to 1740, and one at Smailholm in 1741.

So how much earlier were all the branches for the matching I1 Fairbairns formed?

That will take an interested party, or two, from any of other groups at
to also test BigY and analyse the results at yFull.
Any takers?

Fairbairn atDNA comparisons

The Fairbairn atDNA page has been updated to include more analysis of how much detectable dna has survived between assorted lines.
At this stage it only includes descendants of John & Bessie (FLINT) FAIRBAIRN, but other lines can be included.
Perhaps you've hit some particularly interesting comparisons across lines only known to be distantly yDNA connected via the FAIRBAIRN line?
As it says on the page, all it takes for that to happen is to let me know the GEDMatch ids of the kits concerned.
Or better still:
- run the (free) Multiple Kit Analysis and the 3D chromosome browser tools GEDMatch provides for the kit numbers concerned,
- save each result as a complete web page and
- send me either a link to the pages on eg Dropbox, or the zipped up pages.
You may care to also provide your own labels for the kits listed, rather than use the kit names.

The grid of total shared cMs below is now attached to John FAIRBAIRN's page on WikiTree as well.

Triangulations of the segments involved is not yet complete to check, if possible, that they are indeed Fairbairn/Flint DNA.

atDNA comes up trumps

Another set of FamilyFinder results in from the family of Robert FAIRBAIRN in Richmond Ontario  by about 1829 (married Kate SCOTT who is reputed to have died at sea en route to Canada abt 1828).
And yes, more matches between the families of Archibald and Alison (CROSSER) FAIRBAIRN, and with the prior test participant, and also to the more distant 7th cousins, descendants of Robert & Agnes (LANDRETH) FAIRBAIRN.
We look to have proven the theory of where Robert belongs - a previously unknown son of Archibald and Alison.

The DNA Lineage pages have all been refreshed, and in particular the Fairbairn FamilyFinder page as been updated to include an updated chromosome map of segments of dna shared by descendants of John and Bessie (FLINT) FAIRBAIRN who married in Melrose, Roxburghshire around 1726.

Click to enlarge

There's an intriguing side effect to our increased number of FamilyFinder tests.
We now have matches between descendants of Archibald and Alison (CROSSER) FAIRBAIRN and descendants of Robert and Elizabeth (CROSBIE) FAIRBAIRN.
yDNA indicates that although these families are indeed connected, their common ancestor was well  back into the 1600s, which makes it seem unlikely that the link is their respective FAIRBAIRNs.
More work needed.

Further results in for one of the "cousins"

Further results are now in for Joe (F-10), one of the sides of the triangle of Hoquiam connected cousins.

What is most interesting is that F-10, is showing marker 391 as "10", rather than the "9" of the group he is supposedly a cousin of (F-3).
Likewise F-1, part of the 391 = "9" cluster, matches the rest of the 391 = "10" group on marker 534, neither of these being faster mutating markers.
This does lead me to believe, rightly or wrongly, that any branching may well still be more recent than John and Bessie (Flint) FAIRBAIRN.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?

There is still one more section of his results to come, so watch this space.