On the other hand, Lineage 1 B does not connect with the other two until their ancestor in common, Gregory FAUX Sr. via his youngest son Thomas FAUX, born 1642. There have been 10 "transmission events" (father to son) in the interval between Gregory FAUX Sr. via son Thomas FAUX and Kit Numbers 17579 as well as 33685 (participant 1336 is the son of 17579). These individuals are all descendants of Charles Warren Clarke FAUX born 1814 - their most recent common ancestor, and are both 3 "transmission events" removed from this man. Kit Number 90024 is a descendant of the brother of the above Charles Warren Clarke Faux, Emmanel FAUX, born 1823 - and is 4 transmission events from this ancestor. This knowledge is needed in order to understand the likely origin of the mutational differences between the five participants.
An inspection of the 37 marker (Y-STR, short tandem repeats) information on the "data page" on this site indicates that the two descendants of Thomas FAUX (born 1739), despite a total of 12 transmission events only differ on one marker (in the second panel of 13 markers) which is not shared with members of the other lineage and is doubtless an event that occurred in the line leading from Joseph FAUX (since the line from Benjamin matches all the Lineage 1 B individuals where marker DYS449 = 29). Specifically, there is one mutational difference between Kit Number 15060 who has DYS449 = 29; and kit # 15060 who has DYS449 = 28. It is concluded that the ancestral number of STRs is 29 at marker DYS449. Now the other two markers where there is a mutational difference will be examined.
Considering DYS439, the value is 14 found in the two descendants of Gregory FAUX Jr. and 12 in 17579 but 13 in 33685 and 90024, descendants of Thomas FAUX born 1642. Since it is statistically rare for a two step mutation (i.e., 12 to 14) to occur, the most parsimonious interpretation is that the ancestral form is 13 and there has been a one step mutational increase in the Grregory FAUX Jr. line, and a one step decrease in one branch of the Thomas FAUX (born 1642) line. As to when this event occurred - for the Lineage 1A it would have happened prior to Thomas FAUX (born 1739); and for Lineage 1B, it occurred subsequent to Charles Warren Clarke FAUX (born 1814) in the son Robert FAUX line and so is relatively recent.
As to the last difference between the five participants, both individuals likely descending from Gregory FAUX Jr. have DYS390 = 24; and one participant (17579) and his son who descend via Thomas FAUX (born 1642) have a value of 25; while the second cousin of 17579, 33685 as well as the more distantly removed 90024 have the same value of 24 as the two descendants of Gregory FAUX Jr. The most parsimonious interpretation is that 24 is the ancestral value and the 25 mutation was introduced between Charles Warren Clarke FAUX and his great - grandson 17579. Thus it would appear that this branch has seen two mutation occur in three "transmission events" - between second cousins.
The Y-DNA has been upgraded to 37 markers. Here Kit 9330 and Kit 1336 mismatch by one step on DYS576 (16 versus 17) and DYS570 (18 versus 17). It was hoped that the last 13 markers for participant 33685 would help to resolve which of these alternatives is ancestral. The data, now available, is quite unusual. All markers in this panel match except the above two, but to complicate things further, 33685 does not match either 9330 or 1336. Here DYS576 = 18, and DYS570 = 19. Adopting the most parsimonious view and that is that the mutations are at the one step level, then the ancestral haplotype on these two markers is 17, 18. This interpretation was supported when it was determined that 90024 has this motif. Clearly, 90024's DYS391 = 12 is an unusual recent mutation on a "slow" marker.
This line of reasoning has allowed the Project Administrator to construct the likely ancestral haplotype of Gregory FAUX Sr., which is shown graphically on the spread sheet accessed via the data page. Kit Number 90024 most closely matches this pattern, only deviating at a single marker - DYS391.
What is also striking is that despite descriptions of high rates of exrta - marital daliances, adoptions, "illegitimate" births in some families, in all four branches of this Faux lineage, in 10 generations or more, and 46 transmission events where breaks in the biological line could have occurred, there have not been any "non - paternal events".
Another type of testing is for "deep" or "ancient" ancestry of informative markers on the Y-chromosome. Here single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) testing of 1336 showed that he tested positive for M269 and so is classified as R1b1b2 (where a nucleotide base such as adenine was changed at this location from the ancestral version). In addition, subclade testing revealed that 1336 (and therefore all in Lineage 1) was also positive at the S116 / P312 marker position, and and as well S28 / U152 and therefore is placed in the phylogenetic category of R1b1b2h or R-U152 as a shorthand version. Testing was done by EthnoAncestry, Family Tree DNA, deCODEme and 23ANDme with the same finding on each occasion. Most recently, Family Tree DNA found that 1336 was L2+, a marker downstream of U152. It is with this information along with place of origin of the family that one can provide a detailed story of the Y-chromsome and hence the Faux family back through history and pre-history.
Based on the DNA evidence one thing that can be said with certainty: the participant with kit #13,015 is unrelated to those from Suffolk and Norfolk. For this reason he is assigned to Lineage 2. More markers will be needed to obtain information about possible deep ancestral ties, as well as R1b1c subclade YSNP testing.
The Y-DNA results show that the participant's haplogroup is I1c (as denominated by the testing company FTDNA), but in today's parlance (the 2007 ISOGG YSNP Tree) he would be I1b2a. One person who has studied all branches of haplogroup "I" has determined that this participant fits very clearly into the I1b2a - Continental - 1 variety, "whose center of population frequency is Netherlands to Denmark via northwest Germany."
An inspection of match patterns in the FTDNA and other databases suggests that this participant's early ancestors likely came from Southern Sweden or Denmark. The most likely "time of arrival" would be with the "Great Army" of Danes who settled in the Leicestershire area in the late 9th Century.
Considering that there are matches in Switzerland this points to the possibility that, despite very different haplogroup assignments, this participant and those of Lineage 1 may share the same North Jutland, Cimbri tribe link. See Lineage 1 for more detailed information. It is also possible, considering the findings from a Bronze Age cave in Litchenstein, Saxony, Germany that this haplotype has been in the Saxon areas of Germany for many thousands of years. It will be necessary to compare the haplotype data from the participant with the haplotypes obtained via ancient DNA testing in this care in order to arrive at a more reasoned hypothesis about the origin of this lineage in England. The data is in fact available and will be explored for possible connections to the present participant's haplotype.
