Genealogy Chat

My cousin in the NE just called us to tell us a bout a genetic study into the surname Robson that has happened over there. Robson is a very common surname for that part of the country. The 6 month study found that of 100 men swabbed, 90% shared a common male ancestor, using the assumption of a new generation every 21 years they reckon that the common ancestor dates to 2000 years ago. You can find a news report of the study by googling Genetic Study Robson (on a uk search) and it should be the first result.

With having a science background myself (and an interest in the Robson clan), I find the idea behind this study fascinating. I do however see a number of flaws in the study: - 100 males is quite a small sample for such a popular surname. - It claims that twenty of the participants were found to be 'common clan', however, it also states in the article that some of the participants were father and son - of course they would come out as close clan. How many in the study were already close relatives? - It doesn't allow for the fact that somewhere along the line a man may have been given his mother's maiden name or the name of a man who wasn't his biological father. Interesting as it is, the results should be treated with caution I feel. It is conceivable of course that all Robson's came from one very randy man 2000 years ago, but a bigger sample is needed and not just from the north east (as many have migrated out of the area) and they should only be one male from each distinct line, ideally, it shouldn't contain anyone who shares an identifiable relative (parent/grandparent). Genetics for genealogy is something that really interests me, I'd love to see what mine says about my ancestry. Liz

Liz I share your misgivings - it is also very likely that they share the Y chromosome with NON Robsons too! My brother was approached by a group doing DNA testing on Holdens (our family name). They have a website, on which they have published the results (so far). Five main groups, four of which are very closely related. But the fifth group - which all five groups have in common - shows that all five groups definitely share a common male ancestor, who 'lived sometime in the last 10,000 years!' LOL! As the four 'sub groups' already KNOW, by conventional research, that they are related, I am a bit stumped to work out what advantage DNA testing has been to them - and I watch with interest to see if they discover the name of their common male ancestor! OC

Agreed OC, If you go back far enough we should pretty much all be related shouldn't we? And yes, if the groups already know they're related from the paper research (so to speak) then it was really an exercise in proving the point. The only way the research is valid is if you have a control group who aren't related at all and then compare the results. Any good scientist knows you always need a control group. How else can you hope to show anything of any worth. As you said, there's a good chance they share the y chromosome with any number of other men in the NE. If carried out properly, it could be an excellent study. Liz

Liz Yes, I have often thought there would be far more point in offering Y tests in a general sort of way, and THEN putting you into a Common group, never mind what your surname is - that would be far more interesting and productive. For example - if you finished up in the Robson group, but your surname was Snodgrass, surely that would be a much more useful tool in researching your ancestors? OC