KAEGI vs. KAGAY: TWO KAGY DESCENDANTS TAKE THE “BIG Y” DNA

TEST

By Michael Kagay January 2020 (Revised January 31, 2020)

1

CONTENTS

The Test-Takers and The Test ........................................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ 3

Ancestral Haplogroup .......................................................................................................................... 3

Closely Matching Surnames .............................................................................................................. 4

Forrer and Spory ................................................................................................................................ 4

Other Clan Kagy Members .............................................................................................................. 5

Charles Kaegi and Michael Kagay ................................................................................................ 6

Other Surname Matches .................................................................................................................. 7

“Private Variants:” The Power to Force a New Classification ....................................... 7

FTDNA’s Surprise News: Our New Haplogroup ! .................................................................. 9

YFull’s Additional “Interpretation” ............................................................................................. 10

Location of Our New Haplogroup ............................................................................................. 11

Age of Formation ............................................................................................................................. 11

TMRCA ................................................................................................................................................. 11

An Anomaly? ..................................................................................................................................... 12

Living with Imprecision .................................................................................................................... 12

What, Still Not Finished? ................................................................................................................... 13

The Takeaway ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Postscript ................................................................................................................................................ 15

Afterword ................................................................................................................................................ 17

I-SK1258 Chronology Chart ............................................................................................................. 19

Endnotes .................................................................................................................................................. 20

2

KAEGI VS. KAGAY: TWO KAGY DESCENDANTS TAKE THE

“BIG Y” DNA TEST

THE TEST-TAKERS AND THE TEST The two Kagy descendants are Charles Kaegi of Illinois (C.K.) and Michael Kagay of New Jersey (M.K.). They both trace their family origins to Switzerland’s Zürcher Oberland (Zurich Highlands), the hilly region east of Zurich city. Their ancestral villages were located in adjacent districts on the west side of the River Töss which flows through the Highlands northward on its way to the Rhine. And their American surnames are each derived from Kägi, the Swiss-German original. “Kaegi” is the orthographically correct spelling when the umlaut is dropped from the German, while “Kagay” is a variant of “Kagey,” one of several phonetic approximations of the spoken name devised by British Colonial functionaries. However, the two descendants have never met one another and still have little idea exactly how they might be related. Yet related they appear to be: Just not very recently. In earlier Y-DNA testing by Family Tree DNA of Houston (FTDNA) they had each been classified in Haplogroup I-SK1258. That denotes a downstream cluster of mutations off the larger, much older branch known as I-M223. Accordingly, they each joined the 30-member I-SK1258 Haplogroup Project at FTDNA.com where they first became aware of one another. And the TMRCA (Time since Most Recent Common Ancestor) calculator at FTDNA.com estimated their two families probably shared a common ancestor roughly 15 to 20 generations ago. That would place their ancestor back in Switzerland many hundreds of years in the past. Curious to learn more about Kagy genetics and eager to advance Kagy genealogy, each subsequently ordered the “Big Y 700” test from FTDNA. “Big Y 700” is one of the most comprehensive and advanced Y-DNA analyses currently available to consumers. It uses Next Generation Sequencing to analyze 700 STRs (Short Tandem Repeats) and 100,000 SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms). STRs and SNPs (“Snips”) are the two major components of Y-DNA which is transmitted from father to son. So far as is known, this represents the first time two Kagy descendants have taken such a powerful test with a view to consolidating, comparing, and contrasting their results. This essay reports on those new “Big Y” results and offers commentary on what has been learned to date – with the hope that other Kagy descendants will find it of interest and use it as a reference or benchmark. If your own line has not yet

3

been tested, please consider doing so in order to join in the conversation. Your results could help to strengthen (or modify) the tentative conclusions reported here. In all likelihood there are many surprises and complexities yet to be discovered.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In this effort we are pleased to recognize the essential participation of Mary Nelle Kaegi Douglas (M.N.K.D.) of Illinois. The sister of C.K., she is the genealogy researcher in that family and manages his test results. She has spent decades tracing their family via historical records and rigorous proof standards. She generously provided the KagyHistory.org website with copies of 17th Century Swiss church and census records which were invaluable in documenting early Kagys. Johan Forrer, an Administrator of the I-SK1258 Haplogroup Project at FTDNA, first put M.N.K.D. and M.K. in contact with one another which prompted their correspondence and eventually led to further testing and this essay. He kindly updated his I-SK1258 Flowchart for us. He also sought to tutor M.K. in the mysteries of Y-DNA, but bears no responsibility for any remaining confusion revealed in this essay.

ANCESTRAL HAPLOGROUP A person’s Haplogroup is his primary Y-DNA classification, identifying his location on the Y-Haplotree. It is determined by his Terminal SNP, i.e. his line’s most recent mutation, farthest “downstream” on the Y-Haplotree. Entry-level Y-DNA tests often don’t emphasize SNPs, perhaps because major Haplogroups (like I-M223) can apparently be predicted, presumed, or estimated from familiar patterns in the STRs they mainly test for. However, actual SNP-testing – evidently a more complex, expensive, and time-consuming process – is required to verify such predictions and to reveal the finer details of Y-DNA. The “Big Y” results, based on both STRs and SNPs, determined that C.K. and M.K. share Haplogroup I-Y132512. Haplogroup I-Y132512 is within the I-SK1258 “family” or “neighborhood” of mutations, but farther downstream. While I-SK1258 originated in the Bronze Age, I-Y132512 is estimated to have originated about 850 ybp (Years before Present). To follow these mutations and the pathways between them you need a Phylogenetic Tree or Flowchart showing the I-SK1258 “family” or “neighborhood.” (SEE CHART.) That is because the designations have little meaning in themselves. The “I” (eye) signifies one of 20 mega-classifications worldwide, the next letter(s) denote(s) the discovering Laboratory, and the trailing numbers its internal ID.

4

It is important to realize that a person’s Terminal SNP and Haplogroup are not necessarily forever. It is always possible that a new and more recent SNP will be discovered farther downstream. If one tests positive for it, that would become one’s new Terminal SNP, forcing a change in Haplogroup. But that new designation would likely be an offshoot of the old, demoting one’s previous Terminal category to Penultimate status. In other words, I-Y132512 can be superseded but will never go away.

CLOSELY MATCHING SURNAMES One of the reasons many people take a DNA test is in hopes of discovering relatives of whom they were previously unaware. C.K. and M.K. were no different. Therefore any new “match” would constitute welcome news. Forrer and Spory

In the earlier tests the strongest matches for both C.K. and M.K. were with members of the Forrer-Forry-Furrer-Furry-Furr Clan, variations on a surname (Forrer) familiar from the Zurich Highlands. Both C.K. and M.K. matched with the same two individuals from this Clan (C.K. at the 111-STR level of resolution, M.K. at the 67-STR level). Those individuals had previously been classified as Haplogroup I-Y132512. Additional members of that same Clan matched at lower STR levels, depending on which test they took. Those patterns were established prior to the new “Big Y” test, offering an early hint of some of its eventual results. But “Big Y” analysis also injects lots of SNP data into the mix of calculations. Indeed, much of M.K.’s lengthy Lab period (22 weeks) seemed devoted to those 100,000 SNPs since results for the 700 STRs were delivered relatively quickly. So we were especially interested to learn whether “Big Y” would yield any additional or different matches. When the “Big Y” results arrived that same Forrer Clan turned up again. But an additional surname -- Spory -- also appeared as a strong match for both C.K. and M.K. That name represents another family or Clan (Spörri) familiar from the Zurich Highlands. Their Haplogroup is I-Y31069, which is immediately adjacent and ancestral to I-Y132512 on the Haplotree. (SEE CHART) But, while technically distinct, it is closely related – enough so to qualify as a close match. In the previous essay on “Early Speculation about Kagy yDNA” we wondered whether Haplogroup I-Y132512 might best characterize a) just one Kagy Family line, or b) a larger Clan of Kagy families, or c) several different surname Clans originating in the Zurich Highlands, or d) some larger population spilling out into wider Canton Zurich and perhaps beyond. The new “Big Y” results, while not definitively settling that question, now provide some very suggestive evidence.

5

The identification of both Forrer and Spory families as close matches suggests that Hypothesis c), a Highlands Mutation, is the most plausible interpretation. Identifying additional surnames with both the same mutation and the same geographic origin would further strengthen this conclusion. Indeed, such other surnames may already exist, but evidently they haven’t yet taken any of the higher level Y-DNA tests at FTDNA, so they have had no chance to surface and be identified as matches. (See our “Postscript” for a late-emerging example of one such family.) Other Clan Kagy Members

A source of frustration over the years has been the relative rarity of matches with other Kagy Clan members. FTDNA helpfully sends an email notification whenever a new genetic match has occurred. But in our experience, while there have been many notifications, the new matches hardly ever have a surname resembling Kägi, Kaegi, Kaegy, Kagy, Kagey, Keagy or more unusual versions like Kagee, Kagie, and Kaiggey, not to mention equivalents beginning with the letter “C,” like Cagey. Apparently, the Kagy Clan are not by nature the testing kind. Or else the whole DNA testing phenomenon is simply too recent to have swept up people who hold only a peripheral interest in genealogy and family history, and even less in the sub-specialty known as genetic genealogy. And yet there was once the Kagy Biographical Society in the late 19th Century which held annual family reunions and sponsored Franklin Keagy’s monumental 675-page History of the Kägy Relationship in America 1715-1900. One of the motives for recently creating the www.KagyHistory.org website was to revive some of that Clan spirit. Just as the website can function as a virtual society for the Digital Age, so genetic genealogy is simply a modern high-tech addition to our research toolkit. Any match with an actual fellow Clan member is an especially welcome event. The first match was M.K.’s cousin Dale Keagy (D.K.) of Pennsylvania. D.K. and M.K. are 6th great-grandsons of Hans Kägi (c1692-1748) who migrated in 1717 from Pfalz (German Palatinate) to what is now Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Pfalz in Germany (like Alsace in France) was among the exile havens for Mennonites who fled religious persecution in Switzerland. Prior to Pfalz the family lived in Gublen village and Unter-Hittnau village of Pfaffikon District in the Zurich Highlands. D.K. and M.K. first met at the 2017 Family History Conference of the Lancaster Mennonite Historical Society. Afterwards M.K. and D.K. co-authored an article researching Hans Kägi’s spouse. Subsequently D.K. became webmaster of www.KagyHistory.org. On the advice of the Amish & Mennonite DNA Project at FTDNA, he took the “Y-37” DNA test (evidently the test of choice for many genealogy projects) and matched both C.K. and M.K. at that level of resolution. The next match was C.K. himself, represented by his sister M.N.K.D. Their ancestor Johannes “Hans” Kaegi (1816-1874) migrated from Switzerland in 1848

6

and lived in the St. Louis area, southern Illinois, and Kansas where he died. Later generations returned to Illinois. She has traced their ancestral village as far back as the mid-1600s to Hadlikon in Hinwil Parish of the Zurich Highlands. The greater Hinwil District also contains Fischenthal Parish, alleged ancestral seat of the Kägi Clan into the 1500s according to Progeny of Claus Kägi (1981). Then, occasionally, there were other matches, like the Robert Kaegy (R.K.) whose ancestor was one Hans Jacob Kagi (1816-1866), a carpenter from near Wila in the Zurich Highlands, who migrated in 1854 and settled in Highland, Illinois, part of the St. Louis metro area. That Kagy immigration is the subject of Book Five in Franklin Keagy’s History of the Kägy Relationship in America (1899). Both M.N.K.D. and M.K. tried contacting R.K. by email several times but, while our messages never bounced back as undeliverable, we never received any reply. And there were several notable Descendants via Female Lines whose surnames are no longer Kagy or who could not test for Kagy Y-DNA which is transmitted from father to son. We encountered them via Internet genealogy sites and enjoyed lively and informative exchanges with them over the years. But perhaps the most unusual match involved a Kagy descendant whose surname apparently resulted from adoption: Benjamin Howison (B.H.). Curiously, B.H. was one of the strongest genetic matches for both C.K. and M.K. and yet neither recognized that surname. It certainly didn’t look Swiss. It turned out that B.H.’s paternal grandfather was a Kagy, but – whether due to widowhood, abandonment, or parenthood without benefit of marriage – B.H.’s grandmother subsequently married a Mr. H. who evidently adopted her child. Hence the new surname. Genealogy data posted online by B.H. showed that his Kagy line traced back to the 1717 immigrant’s son Henry who had migrated to Shenandoah Co., Virginia and who is also in M.K.’s line. But the fact that C.K. likewise matched so strongly with B.H. demonstrates a powerful Clan inheritance: the most recent common ancestor of C.K. and B.H. would have lived not in Colonial Virginia but rather generations earlier back in Switzerland. We have not yet attempted to contact B.H., having only recently realized an adoption must have been involved. Charles Kaegi and Michael Kagay

All of which made the match between C.K. and M.K. initially puzzling. In the earlier tests C.K. and M.K. were classified as a genetic match at the 12-STR level of resolution, but NOT at higher 25, 37, 67, or 111 STR levels. Normally that would indicate the two “may” be related but not closely or recently. That seemed a perplexing anomaly because both C.K. and M.K. similarly and strongly matched other test takers like Forrer, Spory, B.H., and D.K. And the TMRCA calculator at FTDNA estimated both their families probably shared a common ancestor perhaps a dozen and a half generations ago. (The actual estimates were:

7

50% probability by 12 generations, 75% by 14 generations, 90% by 17 generations, and 95% by 19 generations.)1 “Genetic Distance” is the key criterion used in such estimation. At the 12-STR level C.K. and M.K. had a Genetic Distance of one (1). That means 11 of 12 STRs matched exactly, while a single STR differed by only one unit. But at higher levels of STR resolution – 25, 37, 67, 111 – their Genetic Distance exceeded that required to qualify as a “match.” For instance, at the highest STR level, 100 of 111 STRs matched exactly, while another 10 STRs differed by only one unit each and a single STR differed by 4 units, yielding a Genetic Distance of 14. With a total distance of 10 or less needed, only that single STR prevented them from being classified as a match. That STR is denoted as “CDY.” You can be certain it will be thoroughly investigated! (Note: “CDY” turned out to be notoriously susceptible to rapid mutations.) However, the algorithm used in those earlier tests relied mainly on STR values. Inherent limitations of STR analysis, or quirky artifacts of STR measurement -- or perhaps just testing “noise” -- might have confounded those results. By contrast, the “Big Y” test injects lots of SNP data into the calculations, too, and SNPs determine the all-important Haplogroup classification. Therefore, we were looking forward to the new, more comprehensive “Big Y” test results in case they proved to be more refined, more revealing, more reliable. In the event that proved to be the case: C.K. and M.K. now match much more closely and strongly, according to “Big Y” results. They are now among each other’s top matches (along with Forrer and Spory). Anomaly resolved. It’s all in the SNPs ! Other Surname Matches There are scores of weaker matches also identified by FTDNA, but they all have unfamiliar surnames. We have not yet examined each of them to judge how we might be related. Some may prove to have Swiss roots.2

“PRIVATE VARIANTS:” THE POWER TO FORCE A NEW CLASSIFICATION As part of their “Big Y” results both C.K. and M.K. received puzzling lists of their respective “Private Variants.” We had never heard of Private Variants before, but apparently most people possess some whether they are aware of them or not. We later learned these features are sometimes also called “Novel Variants” or “Non-Matched/Unnamed Variants” or even “Family SNPs.” We came to think of them -- more colloquially -- as “Proto,” “Wannabe,” or “Still Ripening” SNPs that may or may not develop into full-blown SNPhood depending on whether they ever receive a match from outside the test-taker’s close family. DNA research conventions currently require at least two independent cases to match before a Variant can achieve full SNP status, be awarded an official name, and

8

earn a formal place on the Y-Haplotree. Lacking any match, a Variant remains in an ambiguous state: nameless, unrecognized, residing in a kind of genetic limbo. In the event C.K. and M.K. each proved to have 12 Private Variants of which they shared five Variants in common. That may eventually force a revised Haplogroup classification for both their lines. Johan Forrer, the I-SK1258 Project Administrator at FTDNA, is one who thinks so. He emailed: “It is still early but it looks to me you (M.K.) and…(C.K.) will form a new branch off I-Y132512. We will have to wait and see how and when that happens.” He was beginning to suspect there might be a “Swiss Cluster” located both before and after I-Y132512 with possible further offshoots and branches yet to be found. Our five matching Private Variants, as reported by FTDNA, were:

• #10746646

• #11003561

• #15099813 (later labeled “Best Quality”)

• #26631446 (later labeled “Best Quality”)

• #7524147 We refer to these features as puzzling because they are not so well explained or familiar (to laymen like us) as other aspects of Y-DNA. For example, the numerical designations evidently identify positions on the Y-Chromosome. But, when there are multiple matches, as in our case, it is not clear how an analyst (or an analyzing machine) determines which one is the “winner,” i.e. worthy of promotion to Terminal SNP. One reasonable criterion would be recency: a Terminal mutation is normally the farthest downstream. But some measure of perceived quality also apparently comes into play. Two of our five were later labeled as meeting some standard of “Best Quality.” (One of those two proved to be our “winner.”) It was also uncertain in advance whether we were sufficiently independent for any such match to count. If we were deemed too closely related to one another, then the match might be ignored or disqualified. But, as we later learned, only fathers and sons or brothers are considered too close. Seventeenth cousins (or whatever we truly are) proved distant enough. So do C.K. and M.K. now represent a new type or variety of Kagy? Must their Terminal SNP and Haplogroup be revised? If so, which of their five matching Variants will be the determining one? What will be its formal SNP name? Where will it be located on the Haplotree? And is it possible to estimate its age, revealing the era when our last common ancestor lived? At this point the answers to all those questions were not yet clear.

9

It was also unclear (to us) what body officially awards, certifies, or registers such new classifications. Or how the process works and on what schedule. FTDNA is one possible candidate; their Lab tested us and first identified our Private Variants. But it is a commercial firm. ISOGG (International Society of Genetic Genealogy) is also mentioned as a likely candidate since they maintain a widely acknowledged Haplotree. Their website lists a committee of nine who actively work on their Haplotree and an advisory group of about 50 content experts. But such a body may inherently respond slowly. ISOGG describes their organization as run mainly by volunteers. A rough parallel might be the recognition of new physical elements and their placement on the Periodic Table. That process is similarly subject to the rules and procedures of a sanctioning body – the IUPAC, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemists. By report they can sometimes take months or even years to evaluate claims and reach consensus. In the meantime working chemists have to proceed on the basis of their best understanding of the likely outcome of the official process. (We do not mean to imply that discovering a new element and identifying a new Haplogroup have equivalent gravity or consequence.) As a practical matter our certification process may require months (or longer) to play out. If so, we suggest as a temporary category: “Plus Kagys.” C.K. and M.K. are I-Y132512 Kagys “Plus” something else – a something which is yet to be determined. Our “Plus Kagy” motto: “I-Y132512 can be superseded but will never go away!” We plan to issue an eventual Update to report the ultimate outcome. In the meantime YFull.com may be the first to provide an interim clue about that outcome. Both M.K. and M.N.K.D. (for C.K) transferred their files of raw data from FTDNA.com in Houston to YFull.com in Moscow in order to get a second opinion. YFull doesn’t conduct any additional Lab work, but specializes in re-analyzing raw data with its own proprietary algorithms and database and then offering further “interpretation.” For example, they are known for their estimates of the age of various mutations. By reputation they are also fairly aggressive in naming new SNPs and positioning new Haplogroups. Since they update their own Haplotree monthly, their “take” on the matter will likely arrive first -- whether or not it fully presages the ultimate “official” outcome.

FTDNA’S SURPRISE NEWS: OUR NEW HAPLOGROUP ! However, to our surprise, FTDNA delivered first, quietly updating our Haplogroup without fanfare or even notice. One day its website simply substituted Haplogroup I-FT134304 for I-Y132512. They also updated associated features on their website like their innovative “Block Tree” graphic. Since FTDNA’s “Big Y” test had originally discovered C.K.’s and M.K.’s Private Variants it was only fitting that they were the first to spot the matching and carry

10

that finding through to its logical conclusion: Matching Novel Variants ➔ New Terminal SNP ➔ Revised Haplogroup. But several weeks earlier during its own processing YFull had tipped its hand and effectively given the game away by designating that same SNP (I-FT134304) as “Terminal.” Thus YFull was first to reveal the intermediate step that signaled the transformation that was in progress. Final Score: Effectively a tie. Kudos to both organizations for identifying our new Haplogroup -- and for concurring. Their mutual agreement reinforces our confidence in the results. But we would still need to await YFull’s complete report to confirm our tentative location on the Haplotree and the estimated age of our mutation.

YFULL’S ADDITIONAL “INTERPRETATION” When YFull.com rendered its “Interpretation” or Second Opinion on our raw data, the results gave us our best look at what we might expect from an eventual “official” notification at some point in the future. The raw data consisted of about 700 Megabytes each from C.K. and M.K., originally generated by the Lab at FTDNA, equivalent to tens of thousands of printed pages if they were formatted in WORD or EXCEL files of such size. All that just to detail one chromosome! YFull needed 5+ weeks to process it plus more to estimate ages. To summarize YFull’s results: One of our five matching Private Variants (#15099813) triggered a new Terminal SNP (I-FT134304) which in turn forced a new Haplogroup category to be placed on the Y-Haplotree. Or, as we might put it more colloquially: One of our five matching Private Variants (#15099813) rescued one of our “Proto,” “Wannabe,” or “Still Ripening” SNPs from genetic limbo and transformed it into full-blown SNPhood which then at long last qualified for a formal name (I-FT134304) and, being farthest downstream, claimed its rightful place on the Y-Haplotree. Simultaneously this transformation trumped our previous Terminal category (I-Y132512) and demoted it to Penultimate status. (Note: YFull prefers its own nomenclature, referring to our old Terminal category as I-Y102790 and to our new Haplogroup as I-Y180451. But in this essay we have consistently adopted FTDNA’s terminology because their Lab first classified us and YFull performed no additional Lab work.)

11

Location of Our New Haplogroup

I-FT134304 is an offshoot of I-Y132512, located immediately downstream. That placement on the Haplotree makes it technically distinct yet closely related. Since we had only recently learned we were positive for I-Y132512, itself located downstream of our previous and long-familiar I-SK1258, it was not really disruptive to switch so soon again to a slightly farther downstream but still closely related I-FT134304. These Interim results from FTDNA and YFull will have to suffice until we receive an ultimate “official” judgment or notification. That will probably issue from ISOGG (International Society of Genetic Genealogy), though when is not clear. FTDNA will likely be credited with first discovery of the mutation. Just how ancient or modern are such “New Variety Kagys”? YFull’s Age Estimates arrived last of all, weeks after their main results, probably reflecting the extra processing required. Age estimates are something of a specialty with YFull. They conduct no additional Lab work, but apply proprietary algorithms reflecting the theoretical research of their staff. (See their Q & A on this topic on the YFull.com website.) It’s a key reason customers submit raw data for further “interpretation.” Age of Formation

Estimated Age for the Formation of the new mutation (I-FT134304) is 750 ybp which would mean it likely occurred around 1300 A.D. Thus, a new type or variety of Kagy has been walking the earth since that long-ago date before anyone happened to notice it/them/us. But YFull’s stated confidence interval (95% CI = 1300 – 375 ybp) renders that estimate VERY approximate. Still, it is impressive to see researchers with the integrity and transparency to immediately follow up their estimate with an error margin so large that it seriously qualifies and undercuts its precision ! (All dates within that confidence interval are not equally probable. Likelihood diminishes the farther a date deviates in either direction from the best estimate of 750 ybp.)

TMRCA

In addition to ybp since Formation, YFull also offered a second age estimate for the new mutation: TMRCA or Time since Most Recent Common Ancestor. That’s the estimate that most interests us. We care less about when the mutation originated and much more about when it got transmitted to C.K.’s and M.K.’s respective lines. That information, pertaining to the MRCA who links our two lines, cannot identify who that worthy person was, alas, but it does roughly indicate when he lived. YFull’s TMRCA: 725 ybp (95% CI = 1300 – 375 ybp).3

12

An Anomaly?

It initially looked as if YFull’s results contained an anomaly, a potential inconsistency in dates: Our “offspring” TMRCA value is OLDER than that of its “parent” on the Haplotree. I-FT134304 currently has our two test cases (with TMRCA measuring 800 & 651, averaging 725 ybp), while its upstream ancestor I-Y132512 currently has four test cases (with TMRCA measuring 1063, 874, 372, & 217, averaging 631 ybp). Thus the TMRCA of the “offspring” (725 ybp) measures older than the TMRCA of its “parent” (631 ybp). Is such a thing even possible? YFull posted a footnote for these results as a flag to signal the seeming contradiction.4 But the inconsistency is potentially more apparent than real. The FORMATION dates -- 850 ybp for I-Y132512 and 750 ybp for our I-FT134304 -- are in the correct order for parent and offspring. It’s only the TMRCA figures for the current collection of test-takers which seem “wrong.” But that happenstance is potentially quite possible, rather than necessarily being inconsistent. Our resolution: Different groups of modern test-takers carrying the same mutation can descend from different MRCAs. For example, some test-takers may descend from an early carrier of the mutation, while others may descend from a much later carrier. While their most distant common ancestor (with whom the mutation originated) is the same for all, their most recent common ancestor (who links their particular lines) can easily be different. The seeming “anomaly” is an artifact of who happens to get tested and the particular MRCA they happen to descend from. Potential inconsistency resolved !

LIVING WITH IMPRECISION

As more test-takers qualify in the future, estimates will become more precise and their error margins will shrink, clarifying some current mysteries. In the meantime we are prepared to live with inevitable imprecision and ambiguity, feeling reasonably confident our MRCA lived roughly around 1300 A.D. That likely places him during the “Fischenthal Era” of Kägi history, as described in more detail by Progeny of Claus Kägi (1981).5 To celebrate our new classification perhaps we should print up some tee shirts, baseball caps, or buttons with an appropriate slogan on them. If so, consider:

Haplogroup I-FT134304

------------------------------------- But Penultimate I-Y132512

Will Never Go Away Or, if you prefer:

13

KAGY

I-FT134304 ----------------------------

At Last A Mutation to Call Our Own

WHAT, STILL NOT FINISHED? In any case, a future match with some other test-taker could always occur at a later date. C.K. and M.K. each had 12 Private Variants but matched one another on five, leaving seven apiece still available. These features may hold important implications for the future, introducing a potential for further change into what could otherwise become a settled and static situation. We are told that so long as a person retains any novel, unmatched, unnamed Variants he remains a potential candidate for some future match, which could happen at any moment. If located farther downstream, that event would create yet a new Terminal SNP, forcing another change of Haplogroup. The implication: Only when all one’s Private Variants have been exhausted through matching does that vulnerability truly end. So, evidently, both C.K. and M.K. can look forward to a remaining lifetime of potential matches and forced re-categorization, hastened by widespread DNA testing if it continues or, as looks likely, grows even further in popularity. Such sudden change might not prove so disruptive as it initially appears since, presumably, any new Terminal SNP and revised Haplogroup would likely be an offshoot or branch near I-Y132512 and I-FT134304. It would be technically distinct but closely related. It would, however, be sufficient to yield yet another new type, “flavor,” or “model” of Kagy which would then co-exist with the older varieties. It also means neither C.K. nor M.K. should rely on his Haplogroup designation as the secret password for his genealogy accounts, lest it prove merely temporary and need changing too frequently to remember.

THE TAKEAWAY Since the previous essay (“Early Speculation about Kagy yDNA”) we have NOT enlarged our sample size. We will still eventually require a much larger sample – to be achieved by testing many more Kagys, many more Highlanders bearing other surnames, and many more denizens of broader Canton Zurich – before we can confidently project or generalize from the limited patterns we have observed so far.

14

Instead, we have deepened our understanding of Kagy genetics by studying comparable, powerful, and detailed test results from two particular descendants of the Kagy Clan. So at this intermediate stage of our investigation we have pursued intensive case studies rather than a representative survey, opting for depth and nuance rather than breadth and generalizability. Comparing and contrasting detailed “Big Y” test results from C.K. and M.K. have enabled us to:

• Document their ancestral Haplogroup: I-Y132512 (part of a Swiss Cluster?)

• Confirm how strongly they are related to one another: It’s all in the SNPs !

• Examine matching surnames: Forrer & Spory families from the Highlands

• Observe how “Private Variants” can force a new Haplogroup: I-FT134304

• Estimate when their last Common Ancestor lived: c725 ybp or c1300 A.D.

• Establish some initial benchmarks for future testers to use as a reference

We invite other Kagy descendants to obtain their own “Big Y 700” test results and to write up their experience and interpretation, too.6 Our collective understanding is bound to grow in both generalizability and nuance as additional Kagys test. There are surely more varieties (“flavors,” “models”) waiting to be discovered. Thanks again to Mary Nelle Kaegi Douglas for managing C.K.’s test results and for her essential contributions to this project. Michael Kagay January 2020

15

POSTSCRIPT

Future Flash: Our Next Close Match

Our strongest recent match, occurring during the final drafting of this essay, is with Aaron Roeschley (A.R.) who took the “Y-111” test (but not yet “Big Y”) at FTDNA. He matched with both C.K. and M.K. at the 111-STR level and with D.K. at the 37-STR level. His case may be a harbinger of future developments in our project. Of the 3 Kagys and 2 members of the Forrer-Forry-Furrer-Furry-Furr Clan whom A.R. matched, several had previously been classified as Haplogroup I-Y132512. A.R. will need additional SNP-testing (e.g., via “Big Y 700”) to confirm whether he is likewise in that Haplogroup (or perhaps a closely related branch), but his STR-matching with so many I-Y132512s is a very suggestive clue. A.R.’s Genetic Distance (from M.K.) is 10. That just qualifies as a match and typically denotes a long-ago relationship. The TMRCA calculator at FTDNA estimates the probability of a common ancestor (with M.K.) at 50% by 10 generations, 75% by 13 generations, 90% by 16 generations, and 95% by 18. That would place such an ancestor back in Europe hundreds of years in the past, during what we have called the “Fischenthal Era” of Kagy history. (C.K. and D.K. might yield different probabilities, which could be averaged with M.K.’s for an improved time estimate.) A.R. currently lives in Kentucky but grew up in Central Illinois. He reports his ancestors were likely Swiss, but his earliest known ancestor lived in Alsace, France in the 1700s. And here’s the clincher: A.R. says “I am Mennonite on all sides.” That profile would fit a familiar pattern of Swiss Mennonites who escaped religious persecution by migrating down the Rhine into exile at Alsace or Pfalz before some descendant eventually migrated onward (in A.R.’s case to America at mid-19th Century). Roeschley is likely the English rendering of the Swiss surname “Röschli.” There were Röschli families holding hereditary citizenship before 1800 in Buchberg Parish of Canton Schaffhausen, according to Familiennamenbuch der Schweiz. That parish, situated on the Rhine, is not contiguous to the rest of Schaffhausen but thrusts down into Canton Zurich. Located near Tössegg where the River Töss joins the Rhine after flowing through the Zurich Highlands, Buchberg looks on a map as if it could be considered “Zurich Highlands North.” A.R. is currently researching his paternal line and will hopefully follow up on some of these promising hypotheses.

16

This case is obviously still in progress, but current indications are that Roeschley may prove to be one more surname – like Forrer or Spory – closely linked to the Kagy Clan and/or the Zurich Highlands. We always assumed such additional families would eventually emerge. They just hadn’t previously taken any higher-level test at FTDNA. Now one apparently has. If A.R.’s line eventually proves to be I-Y132512 and to originate in Canton Schaffhausen, then he would be the first known case outside the Zurich Highlands. Up to now we could only speculate whether I-Y132512 was a Highlands mutation, or a broader Canton Zurich mutation, or a mutation even more widely dispersed. So we emphasized that additional test-takers would be needed to refine the geographic “scope” of the mutation. The opportunity to clarify that speculation will alone guarantee that we follow A.R.’s future research with interest. Alternatively, if A.R.’s Haplogroup proves to be some closely related branch of I-Y132512 (like the Spory family’s I-Y31069 or the Kagys’ I-FT134304 or some other as-yet-unknown offshoot), it may strengthen evidence for a “Swiss Cluster” on the Haplotree consisting of multiple branches before, after, and adjacent to I-Y132512, further elaborating the I-SK1258 “family” or “neighborhood” of mutations. Of course, since Schaffhausen is immediately north of Canton Zurich and since Buchberg Parish thrusts right down into Zurich territory, one can easily imagine a Highlands lad traveling there long ago, perhaps to practice and develop his tradecraft (as some Guilds once required of aspiring members), then being smitten by a comely Schaffhausen lass, subsequently marrying her, and settling down there near her relatives. That’s one way a Haplogroup can spread….. Finally, A.R. is a timely reminder of how much information is still “out there” waiting to be discovered. His strong genetic match illustrates how the growing popularity of Y-DNA testing is gradually mobilizing many more new test-takers, revealing previously unknown relatives, and adding both complexity and an occasional surprise to our collective knowledge. Many more Roeschley-like families may exist and eventually emerge in the future. Since DNA test-taking is voluntary and self-financed, testers are not a random sample. They are likely skewed toward genealogy hobbyists, early-adopters of tech, and the hopelessly curious, not to mention people with sufficient disposable income. So, while we may currently see only the tip of the genetic iceberg, with continued growth in testing our vision seems sure to improve. But Beware: A close “match” for your own line could be swabbing the inside of his cheek at this very moment. His Y-DNA test results may reveal heretofore unsuspected surprises and complexities. He might even match and animate one of your own Private Variants. The continual chance for discovery and change keeps the whole DNA-testing enterprise exciting.

17

AFTERWORD Some Current Limitations & Disappointments of Genetic Genealogy

DNA testing and analysis have been an exciting adventure for this researcher, previously more accustomed to dusty archives and dim microfilm than to biochemistry, computer algorithms, and Terminal SNPs.

But we have learned that DNA testing and analysis also currently have some limitations in genealogy and family history research.

For example, C.K. and his sister M.N.K.D. are today no closer than they were before to discovering precisely how their Kaegi line relates to the larger Kägi Clan of the Zurich Highlands. This has been their overarching research question for decades. The chief thing they have learned from DNA is that their search is definitely worth pursuing further via traditional records and methods. DNA study has proven that Kagy Clan members share some genetics in common and that, indeed, their own family line shares them too. And TMRCA analysis (at both FTDNA and YFull) establishes there likely was some Common Ancestor who links their line with the Clan – perhaps during the 1300s or 1400s, a century or two before the Reformation, the birth of Anabaptism, and the dispersal of Kagys throughout the Zurich Highlands. But that era is roughly at the limits of the archival record. Whether any written documentation of that long-sought link can ever be found remains an open question. Similarly, as a second example, DNA study has brought M.K. no closer to solving what he refers to as “The Weakest Link in Hans Kägi’s Lineage.” He still lacks confirmation that Jacob Kägi (b. 1659 in Switzerland) was the father of Hans Kägi (b. c1692 in Pfalz). That hypothesized father-son relationship (an “educated guess” by seasoned researcher Richard Warren Davis of MennoSearch.com but as yet uncorroborated by any record) is the “weakest link” because without documenting it there is no way to definitely connect Julius Billeter’s 155-page genealogy of Kagys in the Zurich Highlands with Franklin Keagy’s 675-page genealogy of Kagys in America. M.K. had hoped that DNA analysis might provide a “Brick Wall Buster” that could overcome or cut through the lack of documentary evidence in Pfalz. But no such short-cut has yet materialized. M.K. may have naively expected more from consumer DNA testing and from his own analytic ability as an untrained layman than either can currently deliver. The chief thing M.K. has learned from DNA is confirmation that Hans definitely inherited and passed along the Kagy Haplogroup his ancestors acquired in the Zurich Highlands long before the family’s sojourn in Pfalz. In other words: Hans was surely a Kagy even if his father remains unproven.

So, if DNA technology currently offers only limited help to C.K., M.N.K.D., and M.K. in solving the biggest family mysteries they have struggled with for years, perhaps the promise of genetic genealogy has been over-rated.

18

Or, more hopefully, perhaps we are just at an early stage of discovering the kinds of puzzles that DNA technology can currently solve vs. the kinds that are presently beyond its proper application. That, too, would be a valuable lesson, well worth learning.

Moreover, the adventure itself has all been grand fun!

19

I-SK1258 CHRONOLOGY CHART

20

ENDNOTES

1 Cousin D.K.’s data were used to calculate the TMRCA with C.K. since a time-estime evidently improves with the number of STRs on which it is based. D.K. could offer 37 STRs, while M.K. could offer only 12 STRs for that particular computation. However, we assumed the results would apply equally to all of us. When constrained by a stipulation of no relationship during the last 10 generations (a reasonable stipulation based on genealogies by Julius Billeter and Franklin Keagy), the calculator at FTDNA.com estimated the probability of a Common Ancestor to be 50% by 12 generations, 75% by 14 generations, 90% by 17 generations and, 95% by 19. 2 There is one remaining category of matching that seems particularly promising. Five matching individuals are identified at FTDNA only by their initials: C.K., H.K., H.K., R.K., and W.K. All have email addresses with a numeric user-name at the same server: e.g, 123456@iGENEA.org. “iGENEA.org” seems to be a DNA service based in Switzerland, a European affiliate of FTDNA which apparently performs the Lab work involved. Some of these 5 individuals may be contemporary Swiss Kägis or contemporary Zurich Highlanders bearing other surnames starting with “K.” Whoever they are, they evidently qualify as matches: Two are even classified as I-SK1258, i.e., within our genetic “neighborhood.” We have begun to contact some of them, and intend to pursue that effort further during the next phase of our ongoing investigation. It might get us plugged into a group of contemporary Switzers (whether Kägis or not) who are interested in genetic genealogy and knowledgeable about Swiss genealogy resources. 3 We actually have TWO separate estimates regarding our TMRCA. The first is from YFull expressed in terms of Years Before Present (c725 ybp) and a confidence interval. The second is from FTDNA expressed in terms of a probability distribution for a family of estimates: 50% probability by 12 generations ago, 75% by 14 generations, 90% by 17 generations, and 95% by 19 generations. Can we consolidate or pool these two estimates in some way to yield an improved estimate? We made an attempt to do so, assuming 19 generations (from FTDNA) averaging 30 years each, but its practical impact turned out to be modest. Moreover, in a company Blog in December 2019 FTDNA announced plans to “update” its TMRCA feature during 2020, so its estimate may soon change. 4 We remain a bit confused over the interpretation of YFull’s TMRCA estimates. For instance, they apparently generate an estimate for each individual test case, then pool those values for an average TMRCA for each Haplogroup even if there are many cases involved. By contrast, we were more familiar with a TMRCA computed only for a given PAIR of individuals (as at FTDNA). Perhaps the terminology, calculation, or meaning is not uniform in both organizations. But maybe FTDNA’s coming “update” to its TMRCA will help clarify or reduce the seeming contrast.

21

5 Progeny of Claus Kägi Born about 1520 in Fischenthal (1981) by modern family historian Hans Kägi of Eschenbach, Canton St. Gallen, lists many early Kägis who might be potential candidates for our MRCA. Originally published in Switzerland, the book was translated from German into English and posted online in 2018 by the KagyHistory.org website. In a 1981 letter (in possession of M.K.) the book’s author stated that during the 1500s the Clan dispersed from its ancestral seat in villages of Fischenthal Parish on the River Töss to other locations throughout the Zurich Highlands. Thus, we speculate, during that dispersal some ancestor of C.K.’s and M.N.K.D.’s line may have migrated a few miles south (upriver) to Hadlikon west of Wald, while some ancestor of M.K.’s and D.K.’s line may have migrated a few miles north (downriver) to Gublen near Bauma, each perhaps in pursuit of work, wife, wanderlust – or all three. (We can fantasize, can’t we? At least in endnotes?) 6 The entire organization of this essay reflects our actual experience as our testing developed and its results and analysis unfolded. It is possible we would have adopted a different organization or order if we had initially known how it would all turn out. We understand that some readers may find it a bit contrived or coy that we reserve news of our change in Haplogroup until about halfway through. But this order is authentic: It actually happened this way. In the end we chose to recount our actual testing experience rather than to reorganize this essay based on hindsight or to conform to an inverted pyramid format of presentation.