 According to the law, we do not have to view the law. OK, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to move over now to a fascinating project. And this is a joint presentation by Jim Barry and Renee Gaper. And Jim is joining us by Skype as we talk and is listening to us from his American residence. And Jim is the administrator of the Barry DNA Project and a member of the Earl's Barry Moore Project. The first effort to do DNA testing of the remains of a member of the Irish aristocracy. Jim's been an amateur genealogist for more than 30 years and a genetic genealogist for more than five. Educated as a social scientist, he was a professor of politics at George Mason University and a researcher in conflict resolution at the University of Maryland. And Jim has published in the field of international politics, negotiation, and artificial intelligence. And of course, his family is from Berry Row County Cork. Jim got into genetic genealogy as one of the beta testers for ancestry.com. And shortly thereafter began YDNA testing with Family Tree DNA and founded the Barry DNA Project in 2013. Now, Renee, on the other hand, and Renee will be starting the presentation. And Renee is a freelance consultant forensic anthropologist. He trained as a medical disector, pro-sector in Berlin, Heidelberg and Dusseldorf, and pursued doctoral research studies in forensic anthropology and human anatomy at University College Dublin in Ireland. He got involved with genetic genealogy by accident because he was contacted by Roger DeBerry and James Berry of Barrymore DNA Project. They were looking for some advice on the possible sampling and testing of human remains located in a crypt in Castle Lions County Cork. And he was able to help them with the licensing issues and suggested analyzing the remains from a forensic anthropological perspective prior to any destructive sampling. So it gives me great pleasure to present Jim and Renee to talk to us about the Barrymore Project and the forensic anthropology a bit to start off with Renee first. Ladies and gentlemen, Renee Gutert. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you. Well, before I start, I should warn you that there will be images of human remains in this presentation. So if it is of a sensitive nature, so I'd like you to respect that, please. And if you feel a little bit uncomfortable with it, you know, there's no problem if you want to stop outside. OK, so as Morris said, and first of all, thanks very much for the invitation to present here at this fantastic conference. This is my first time delving into genealogy. And so I tell you a little bit about what the forensic anthropologist, what I do here. Now, what is forensic anthropology? Anthropology or forensic anthropology deals with the analysis of recent human remains. And the main purpose of using a forensic anthropologist together with other forensic scientists is the identification of the deceased. That is the very first step in any criminal or unknown person investigation. We try to identify the person to lead the investigation into the right ways. Now, contrary to some things that you might see on TV or read and box about forensic anthropology, we don't only deal with dry bones. Here's a typical example of a scene of found bones. And as you can see, we don't have usually a nice skeleton that is laid out in an anatomical position. It's all scattered about we have to try and identify first what bones we are dealing with. But we also deal with burnt remains, mutilated remains, mummified and badly decomposed remains. Any remains that are problematic to the identification process or for the forensic pathologists to do their general work, which is post-mortem examination followed by identifications and the manner and course of death. We are also not only dealing with the actual remains, but sometimes more often nowadays, we're dealing with digital representation, such as digital x-rays, or more commonly now, post-mortem computer tomography. So we analyze the remains using post-mortem computer tomography, but using anthropological methods. Now, the first question in any case that we deal with is, is it human or not? But that, you know, it's the most important question that the police can ask you. And depending on the answer, either the investigation is immediately shut down or it leads on to further investigations. So here, just to give you an idea of some of the difficulties that can be experienced at the scene up here, that looks quite identified as maybe looking a bit like a human hand. Here are single bones. This here is actually not a human hand. It is something very common around the coastal areas of Ireland. It is a seal flipper. OK? So the anatomy of each of these small bones here will give the forensic anthropologist an idea of if you're dealing with a human or non-human. So it's the morphology. These collections here of both, these are human bones, hand bones. Just to give you an idea of the differences. And also something that is very important in our investigation but that proves very difficult for, let's say, a general practitioner who might come out to the scene as a police surgeon or other people who might be asked first instead of forensic anthropologists. And unfortunately, we have to. We have other people coming out to the scene rather than forensic anthropologists. And you might come across something like this. Now, the size of these bones, Tony, is maybe about this. Two inches, maybe. Now, on the right, that's your chicken dinner, right? That's chicken bones. Adult chicken bones, I can see that because the bone ends here are fused, they're all complete. But on the left, I have a neonate chin bone, human neonate chin bone. So it's not only do we need to know the adult skeleton, but the adult skeleton and the variation in the adult skeleton looks like. But we need to know the development from feeder development all the way up to adult skeleton of the skeletal system. We need to know, if you want to identify someone, we need to know the progression in the development of the skeleton up to adult. So after we have answered the question, if it's human or non-human, the next question is, let's say it's human, so that's a coroner's act, then kicking in. The coroner will then direct the investigation and say, look, I need to know, is it forensic or historical? We might have something like this from the context and from the surrounding evidence that you can't see here. This is an archaeological. These are archaeological remains. Whereas this here is a case of forensic interest. Burn marks, we have much pressure appearance of the bones. We have some fatty contents left inside the bone. There's quite a different aspect to the remains here. So in a forensic case, the coroner will investigate further. State patons just get involved and so on. And we do a full forensic investigation. In a historical case, the coroner says, I'm not interested anymore. It's not a forensic case. And I'm closing my investigation. So immediately after here in Ireland, the coroner's act sees us and the National Monument Act kicks in. So the remains now have to be reported to the National Museum in Ireland, who are the legal repositories for ancient human remains throughout Ireland. So only because something is not a forensic interest doesn't mean that the law stops. OK, so we have decided they are of forensic interest. Then we are looking at how many people are we actually dealing with here? Are we dealing with one individual, two more? Like in this situation here, where we have a human rights violation situation with mass graves. In that case, we have to separate and try separate each individual in the laboratory to provide the best possible avenue for identification. Or in this case here, the case I had for Koti Kildare, which turned out to be historical in the end. What you see, these were the remnants here. The remains found. And then pieced it together to see if I'm dealing with one or two individuals or more. By counting the both, by putting them together. And these represent only one individual. At the same time, I also have to examine each of the fracture margins to see if any of these might point to suspicious fractures. Or are these fractures that were caused by taking the remains out of the ground, by digging and so on? That's very important, but can be very difficult to identify. So after that, we established a biological profile. The biological profile will be used to help the investigating officers in identifying the person. And for us, the ancestry or ethnicity of the person is very important. Age at death and the biological sex of the person, if we have the bones available to estimate the stature. And any pathology on trauma. So mostly for the ancestry determination, like a geographic background, what we need is a scope. And I'm basing all this, the biological profile, all of this is based on non-destructive methodology. These are methods that we can use by observing, by taking measurements, by scanning anything by taking a section or bone sample out of it. And that is the first step, because we have to be conscious of the fact that the remains, after we are finished as a forensic anthropologist, is finished analyzing the remains. They will go to other forensic specialists. So anything you do to the remains has to be recorded. And if you can avoid destructive analysis, you do so, because you are creating another artifact in the remains. So we use cranometric analysis, statistical analysis for ancestry determination. There are certain programs that we can use. And also the morphology of the facial region gives us an idea. But it gets more and more difficult nowadays. How do you mean ancestry? Ancestry in this case means a geographic origin. It doesn't necessarily mean here in the wider sense of ancestry, a family relationship. In this case, it means we are trying to identify where that person most likely originated from geographically or what type of geographic group they might fit in. So it gives the police an idea what the person might have looked like, what they're looking for. Then the age at death. This is just an example here, cranial suture analysis. But they are not that great to use. There's other ways here. We can use the dentition. If we have the dentition, we can use some of the long bones. The younger the person is that died, the easier it is to define an age range for that person. Because, well, the skeleton develops from inside the womb up until about age 30. The skeleton develops at certain stages. When you reach around age 30, that's it. It's going downhill from then on. So because of that, we only have degenerative traits that we can look at. And they will only allow us to look at a very wide range, overlapping range of ages. So the younger the person, particularly infants, adolescents, we can really be quite specific about an age. Because we know when a certain tooth has to develop, what size a bone has to be when they develop, what the facial features have to develop when they have to develop. Then the biological sex estimation here. Usually use the pelvis and the skull. And if you have a full skeleton or a part skeleton that allows you to always use the pelvis for a sex estimation before the skull. The skull can be ambiguous. The pelvis can also be ambiguous, but usually gives you a better clue. Why? Because the pelvis is designed by nature to be different between men and women. Whereas the skull is only reacting to muscle mass and some genetics, some morphology, but muscle mass mostly. The pelvis is designed for parturition in females, so it gives us a much better idea. And stature, if you have the long bones, particularly the lower limb bones of the remains, then we can attempt stature estimation. Now this is an estimation and it's always given in ranges. When I see something on TV and they say, oh, he was six foot one or he was one meter 85 or something like that, I always cringe because I say, well, what's the standard deviation? Well, I mean, what's the range? You're talking about the average for that person. That person is not necessarily six foot one. Is it better to give the police maybe the average, let's say six foot one and the standard deviation that you have come up with through the formula taken from the bone measurements and say, look, you're looking at someone between five foot eight and six foot two, right? Something like that. So you don't lose someone from a missing person list that you want them to look at. And then we're looking at pathologies. For example, here we have a very nice healed but angular fracture of the forearm. So that has healed quite a long time before death, maybe a few years, but it has healed at an angle so it wasn't rightly set so we can see that. Or here like this, quite a recent case. In red, I've marked the fracture line here. This is an autopsy cut. And this was a section taken out by the pathologist during autopsy. But when we got the remains, I cleaned the whole area. There was still soft tissue in some places attached. And then I examined and we had this very fine fracture line running all the way into the orbit. And that was what we call a perimortum fracture, a fracture that occurred around the time of death. So that was suspicious. Moving on to the baby. But so now you know broadly what a forensic anthropologist does in a normal forensic case, what they follow through. And the biological profile is one of the most important reports that we have to write for the police. Now, in the Barrymore case, when I was approached by Jim and Roger Duberry, I first thought, jeez, I have no idea. I've never done it before. I have no idea how to help them. But what I have done before and what I have gone through before is the licensing issues. And I'm aware of the different laws and regulations that apply to human remains in Ireland. So when I was approached about how do we go about taking samples and to test human remains that are located in the most leo somewhere in County Cork, I said, well, you know, there are different steps that you have to go through. You cannot just go in and take the samples. And the other question for me was, there has to be a good reason behind testing human remains. Only because we can access and test remains doesn't mean we have, we should. You know, there are ethical implications here. And I think when Roger and Jim explained to me what they were looking for and I saw the historical questions coming out and the family questions, yes, of course, but particular historical Irish history. Here's a family, Irish historical family that's quite important and it provides us with a opportunity to actually look into what the dead can tell us and what the living can tell us because we had the DNA from the very descendants as well. And for me, quite selfishly, the interest was how would that be possible to use an forensic application? How would I be able to use results from here? How could I incorporate that in a forensic investigation? So it was something that I wanted to learn about as well. And so after talking at length and talking about the issues involved, I decided, yes, I would be happy to help. And so the first step was to find out if there were any direct surviving relatives of the Barrymore family, because if there were, this is the first part of call for any permission to touch or examine the remains. No question about it. But the direct line stopped as far as I was concerned. It stopped, I think, the Earl's of Barrymore with Richard Barry, but I cannot be absolutely sure. I think Jim knows more about that. Anyway, we did not have a direct surviving line there. So who do you ask for permission? If you don't have to find, who do you ask for permission to access and test the remains? Now, in this case, the coroner? Well, the coroner's not interested in the historical case, but anyway, we asked the coroner just to make sure, got their opinion on it because they'd like to be asked. So we did that and said, no, that's fine, nothing to do with us. Church authorities, because that mausoleum is on church ground, and it belongs to the church. But there's a unique, there's a very unique situation here where the mausoleum is on church ground, but it falls outside the church authority. And it also falls outside the county council authority. So they were not responsible for it either. Nobody was responsible for it. It was looked after, the mausoleum was looked after by the local caretaker, John Sisk, and he does a fantastic job without any extra help, any financial help or anything like that. And just because he feels that's something that he needs to do. And he's a lovely man. I met him there, very helpful. So none of them now, no coroner's act here. Do they then fall under the National Monument Act because they're ancient, and they do, yeah? They're old, their ancient remains they fall under the National Monument Act. Even if you go up to 1916, these remains fall under the National Monument Act if there's no relative surviving. So just to cut that a bit shorter, I went and I applied for a license. It's a license to alter an archeological object. This is what the remains are under the legislation. And we got the license 5756 to take samples from the remains in the Barrymore Crypt. Now, if they hadn't been buried or hadn't been deposited in the Barrymore Crypt, if they had been below ground, if they had been buried in the soil, you would have also have to apply for a license to excavate. And that is a completely different organ. It's the same institution that you have to apply to, but, and then we have to, because we send samples over to the US and to the, and we didn't send it to the UK, just to the US, but if you were going to send something also for where you come later in the future, which is going to Belfast, we also have to have a license to export an archeological object. So I was able to help Jim and Roger with all this, got through the license system, we got the license in place, and I visited the mausoleum in Castle Lines, that's a lovely spot. And you see, there's the side entrance, it's the main part, but the main part doesn't lead to the crypt, it's the side entrance here. It's a very fascinating place, Castle Lines. And if you ever want to have a look at that cemetery, it's had so much history, so much family history as well. We had to actually, when we were walking down there, my colleague, Dr. Mario Novak and I, we had a bus stopping there, and I think there were some American tourists who came out to look up their families in the graveyard. And if you're, and usually because of Castle Lines, it's for more, you would want to stay, the loudest thing. And I tell you one thing, the best pint I ever had wasn't for more. Oh yes. You know, for a much, to forge bar and grill. Sorry, head to, but it was, I was just about done. So, this is how we prepared. This is Dr. Mario Novak, an archaeologist and myself. And everything that you see here, all the instrumentation that we have here, everything, the lighting system, everything is powered by batteries because there's no access to electricity. And what's most important, it was all crowdfunded because we had absolutely no funding for that project. There was no university funding, it's a normal research grant for that, which had the crowdfunding did the job. And it's actually a very good way of getting these projects funded. So, set all this up down in the crypt. And then we access the coffin, coffin one and two, that's coffin one when you come in. It's also called in the other talk by Jim Barrymore one. And that's coffin two, Barrymore two. This is the skull found in coffin one. I'm just flying through it now because I'm aware of the time. And we had a problematic fit with the mandibles lower jaw that was found in coffin one. It didn't anatomically fit that skull. So again, here comes the part where you start because we know that these coffins have been opened many times over the last century. There has been vandalism down there in that crypt. And when we approach this, we don't know who is in these coffins. There were no coffin plates. We saw where the coffin plates used to be on the lid, but they weren't there. So we don't know who we were dealing with. So we are just saying, okay, we open mine. We're trying to just give a biological profile to each of these individuals and see who they might fit. So that was the first thing that we saw that something had been misplaced because then we saw that that mandible fitted the skull in the other coffin. And then the other coffin here we see there's a lot of dried skin still left on that skull. There's a lot of mummification still in the lower limbs as well. We found some interesting pathologies. And we found evidence of interference. First of all, here, there's a upper arm bone in coffin two that actually belonged to the individual in coffin one. So again, something has been mixed up. And then in coffin one, we found this newspaper. There were lots of fragile newspaper remnants here. You see the date, 1894. That coffin was supposed to be buried in 1753. So it had been opened at the very least at that date. And unfortunately for coffin two, particularly very more true, fire has been set inside the coffin as well in the area around the pelvis and the lower legs and has also destroyed it. So we found matchboxes in there as evidence as well. And then we also found evidence of Charlotte Smithbury was supposed to be an urn down there in that crypt placed in 1933. And this is, I found this wedge between two cobblestones in the crypt. It is evidence that the urn was there at some stage but it had been destroyed. Then we found these pathologies, they're evil syndrome. Here's just an elongated cellar process here. Not necessarily anything bad. It's just nice to notice. A lot of back problems here, particularly in individual two, but also in individual one, arthritis of the jaw, the fractures here, they're clearly all post-mortem that either due to vandalism or when they were taken out. I'm not sure exactly when, but it wasn't anything perimodal. And here's severe arthritis of the lumbar vertebrae in your lower region of the spine here. So something very interesting. And then the DNA sampling, see our setup inside the crypt. And we took samples from the thigh bones here in coffin two. This is from coffin one. And you can see how short but very thick these bones. The bones are very thick. And that is something interesting because we know these people, the berymoth or the part of the berymoth, they were all horse riding. Most of the time they spend their time on horses. And you have a very thick cortical bone here in both cases. And that could be indication of the activity, of some physical activity that they actually carried out on a daily basis. We thought we got some good material here because when you cut the bone with a saw like that, it gives you an idea of the collagen content by the smell. So when you smell it, okay, I should have very good collagen content here. Okay, so then the profile forensic, we had an European Caucasian ancestry in both cases from the skull. In individual one, the sex was clearly male, determined to be male. In two, it was the skull and the pelvis that was very gray-silve and very ambiguous. We later heard from DNA that it was a male, but the morphological analysis was very, very ambiguous. And so we couldn't determine it morphologically. Also, this part of the pelvis that was of importance for sex determination was destroyed through the fire. And then the older adults here, we could only say that it was above 50 years at the age of deaf, maybe up to 70, but we didn't want to give too short an age determination range because we hadn't been able to examine the whole of the remains because some of them were still covered in soft tissue, mummified soft tissue. And then the other one in a coffin to middle adult 35 to six, well, it's a very broad range, but again, we only had certain parts of that as gotten available to look at. So at the next step, we want to go down and have a look again. And then the stature, this is quite interesting. The coffin inside length of coffin one measured 188.5 centimeters. Using different formula for stature estimation, the person in there was somewhere 163, 165 centimeters. So quite small, right? So you have this quite large coffin and a very small person in there. I wonder if there's something to do with how they wanted to appear in their flow, you know. And the stature, actually for the other one, unfortunately the femoral parts were just, for the full measurements were destroyed in the fire and in some cases covered still by soft tissue. We didn't want to take the soft tissue off. So we only measured the length, the inside length of the coffin. That's actually 170, much smaller. So then something to look at just that we saw, we can't be sure of course who these people are yet. But when we look at portraits and unfortunately, they are quite fuzzy because of, they were pulled from the internet. But their portraits exist and if we need to access them, then I think the next step would be to do some photo superimposition with the skulls and the portraits and the bust. Photo superimposition. So I have to go back and I have to laser scan the skulls in the crypt so that I have a 3D representation of that. And because the nasal traits of the berry are here, this is the fourth era of berry, are quite distinct. And in both cases of the skulls, we see quite a strong nasal representation there. So we want to have a look at that. And you can see here is actually contemporary caricature 1791 of Richard Berry, Berry the seventh Earl of Berrymore and his brothers. So they came after, but you can still see even in the caricature and particularly in the caricature, the nasal part. So this is quite important. This is something to follow up. So possibilities for further analysis, non-destructive where we do a full chronometric examination of the two skulls again and do a 3D scanning. Usually I prefer CT, but because we can't take the remains out, bring a laser scanner or light scanner down there and take a scan of these and compare these to the portraits and boths. There's also the possibility of then printing, 3D printing the skulls from the scan and send them for facial reconstruction to our colleagues in Dundee in Scotland. So we can have a look at, if the facial reconstruction represents the portraits. And then destructive analysis, we can retake some samples for DNA analysis and this time we're not going for the femur, we're going to try the middle and inner ear part of the temporal bone. And also send samples for Berrymore 1-2 radiocarbon dating to make sure that that is the fourth Earl if the radiocarbon dates fall within his time of death. Thanks very much. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me, send me an email or check out the website and thanks again for the opportunity to present here today. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're now going to switch over to Jim's slides and I'm just going to get them up here and there are Jim's slides. We're not doing too badly for time. We have about 25 minutes left, Jim. So what I'm going to do is, I'm going to put the microphone beside you. And I think you'd probably be preferred to have, to be seeing the slides rather than the audience or do you have a preference? Great, okay. Well, I'm going to position this here. I think the, now can you speak a little, Jim, and we'll see if you can hear them at the back. Okay, try speaking. Yeah? Okay, we are receiving you louder than clear. I'm not going to leave that down there. Jim, where are you speaking from? Can you tell us? I'm speaking from my home. Can you all hear that? Yeah, yeah. Okay, fine. Well, then I think we're ready to go. Let me change this over here and these are the, let me get rid of that and then do that. Fine. Okay, Jim, take it away. This project also, as Renee mentioned, all of our work here has been privately funded, so I would like to express my appreciation to our generous contributors, as well as to the members of the very project who provided DNA results for comparison and our several laboratory partners. Next slide, please. One of the things that is important about this kind of work is that you have to start with a goal. Simply digging up remains in order to test them is not very productive, unless you know what you're looking for, which of course is common to all DNA research. And in our case, we wanted to attempt to identify Barrymore one and Barrymore two. We knew that the crypt had been constructed for James Barry, the fourth girl of Barrymore, but we also knew that it had been vandalized and that over time, other remains had been placed in the crypt and later removed. So we wanted to determine if possible who the individuals remaining in the crypt were. We wanted to find out whether or not any living men with the Barry surname might be related to these individuals and therefore find some important, useful historical information about the origins and evolution of the family. We were aware that this initial testing was unlikely to be conclusive, so we wanted to use the initial results to establish research priorities and also more generally, we wanted to determine whether this kind of work actually is useful for genealogical and historical research. On the next slide, let's see that we began with DNA testing and extraction. Renee and his colleague Mario Novak took three samples. They took three from the femur of Barrymore one and two from the femur of Barrymore two. We decided at the outset that although it would have been useful to try to attempt next-generation sequencing, that the samples were likely to be of such poor quality that we probably wouldn't have been successful. That sort of testing requires very large and robust samples. So what we decided to do was to test a small number of short-tentum repeat, STR markers, and then see what conclusions we could draw. We were very fortunate that one of the technicians at Family Tree DNA, Gene by Gene, the parent company of Family Tree DNA got interested in this and was willing to work with it, although it is not a common product line over the commercial laboratories. So what she did is did a basic extraction, a PCR extraction, isolation and amplification and then using primers that had been developed by government laboratories or in-house at Gene by Gene. She then proceeded on to do STR testing, which is shown in the next slide. So basically she did PCR amplification and fragment isolation, and then used an applied biosystems 3730 frequency analyzer. And she actually had to sequence each STR individual. And she had to go back and do multiple sequencing for DYS-19. So this was all very detailed, very complex, hands-on work that required a great deal of effort. Also we were careful to be concerned about contamination. So Renee and Mario did YDNA testing and we're happy to report that they did not contaminate the remains during their examination. On the next slide you'll see our initial STR results from Barry Moore-Wine. Barry Moore-Wine's results were quite limited, but we didn't manage to get 14 markers, which were adequate for some preliminary analysis. From Barry Moore-Wine, we were disappointed only in being able to get two samples. May 5th shows the 14 results that we got from Barry Moore-Wine. If you've been in genetic genealogy, YDNA testing for some time, some of those patterns may look familiar to you. We took the first 12 markers and used them to try to predict a haplogroup. YDNA testing, this is not a big surprise for an Irish, we did want to double check it. So we went to one of the newer predictors, which is on the next slide. This is the Nephjian percent probability of R1B. So we are quite confident that Barry Moore-Wine, whoever he was, was in haplogroup R1B. Shows our attempt at doing STR matching. This was initially a challenge for us because there were no STR matches in the family 3D and a database, which uses a genetic distance that is a number of mismatched markers of one as it's default. So nobody in their database of thousands of people matched Barry Moore-Wine at a genetic distance of one. This was due to the fact that in the results for Barry Moore-Wine, there are three very unusual op-votal markers. We think that these may have been unique to his line or there may have been subsequent mutations so that those marker values are no longer present in descendants of the Barry family. We did find a number of matches in the various haplogroup projects and these were concentrated in three particular subplates which will be familiar to you if you've done research in Irish families. L21, U152 and DF27. Those two compare results from the Barry DNA project. We established this several years ago to investigate the Barry family that came to Ireland in the Campo Norman invasion of the 12th century. We actually think that rather than Norman, the family is of Flemish origin which becomes important for some of our later analysis. But there are at least six different surname origins for the Barry family. In addition to the Anglo-Norman or Flemish, there are three Irish plans, a Scottish Barry and English or French Berries who often anglicized their names or converted their names to Barry. So this is quite challenging to sort out. We do, however, have about 125 test results available from either Family Tree DNA or other companies where we're able to access the results online. What we discovered is that there are in this project at least 30 distinct, unrelated paternal lineages. The participants in the Barry project are in R1B. And it's not surprising that because most of them trace their ancestry to Ireland, almost half of them are in and have the group L21. But when we look more deeply at L21, we find that there are at least 20 unrelated subplates. So the clusters here are quite small. The largest cluster in the project is in Z49, a subplate of U152, with about a quarter of the participants falling into that group. So our next step then was to take a look at the family histories and see which ones of these groups are the best candidates to be related to Barrymore1. And so we looked at those on the next slide. There, because of the possibility of Irish records prior to the 18th century, very few families can document their relationship to earlier individuals. And in fact, there are very few people in the Barry projects who have categories that go back before that time. But in terms of who might be related to the girls of Barrymore, certainly the largest group in the project with a common Barry ancestor back in the 12th century is a good candidate. The second largest group is in the subplate of L21. These are people whose families came from County Limerick. But our guess is, because they're in a half a group which is labeled the Irish C half a group, that they're more likely to have been descended from an Irish family rather than an Anglo-Normal or Flemish family. We do have 10 men who have paper documentation of a relationship to the girls of Barrymore through some Eastcork and Dublin branches of the family. These are based on privately published family histories and the primary source for this is a family Bible. However, when we've done testing of these individuals, what we discovered is that they fell into three distinct epilogue groups. So they're clearly not related to one another. And when we look more deeply into the documentation, we found that there are gaps and inconsistencies. So there are questions about the legitimacy of those pedigrees, but they are certainly more an investigation. On the next slide, you'll see what happens when we went into the family tree DNA matching algorithms and tried to see what happened when we compared Barrymore 1 to the members of the Barry project. This is a tool that's available to project administrators and you can see that we can measure up to a genetic distance of three and it goes back 24 generations. We have a small but plausible probability that Barrymore 1 was a match to the Z49 group that is the largest group in the project and also to the L159.2 group because they have identical 12 marker capital types. They do differ at 25 markers and beyond. Now, importantly, Z49 is found in significant numbers in both Normandy and Flanders while L159.2 is entirely absent in the results with ancestry regions. We do have one other man who's results matched. He's a South African and it's probably just going settle. But importantly, what we've included is all of the other groups in the Barry project are unrelated to Barrymore 1 and this includes the men whose K for categories indicate that they might have been related. Now, on the next slide, you can see what happens if we go beyond the 24 generations that the family tree DNA gives us and this calculates. If we extrapolate, we can see that over the past 900 years or so since the Barry family has been in Ireland, the probability of a common ancestor between the Z49 group and Barrymore 1 may be greater than 50%. If you go to the next slide, I've done a detailed comparison not only with the individual results and the modal results. We also took a look at the range, the high and low, the maximum and minimum ranges within each project. Let me take a look, for example, at D-YS 392, the third line from the bottom. You can see that Barrymore 1 had a value of 12. The modal for Z49 is a 13, so that's a mismatch. But the range within the project is 12 to 13, so it does fall within the rank. If we look at the ranges rather than the modal, we can find that the key, the edit distance between the Z49 group and Barrymore 1 could be as low as one, which is quite plausible for the difference in time. That's displayed graphically on the next chart, which shows three lines representing connect distances of five at the bottom in purple, three in the middle in, I guess, that's teal, and a one at the top. And what you can see is that there is quite a significant probability, maybe somewhere between 40 and 80%, that is a match to the Z49 group with a common ancestor sometime shortly after the Campbell-Gorman invasion of Ireland. So many mismatches, Barrymore 1 and 2, and clearly unrelated. Our guess is that Barrymore 2, many have been a nephew through a maternal line, or possibly the husband of one of the female members of the Barry faint, but we need further research to determine whether that's the case. So if we turn now to our conclusions, this is what we can tentatively determine, I believe. It is possible that Barrymore 1 was James Barry IV through all of Barrymore. He's the individual for whom the crypt was constructed. Renee's analysis is consistent with that conclusion, although not conclusive, and he does have a potential match to the largest group of men in the Barry project. Unfortunately, we were unable to confirm that because SNP testing in U-152 and Z49 and family tree DNA failed, and the sample that is there is now depleted. Also, if you want to have left family tree DNA and we no longer have anyone there to do the testing. So our most critical task is to confirm his identity, his haplogroup and his subclimate. The results for Barrymore 2, unfortunately we're so fragmentary that we are not able to draw any significant conclusions about him, and his sample is also complete. So, one of our goals was to determine a research strategy, and what we are planning to do next is, as Renee stated, some continuing effort to confirm Barrymore 1's identity through these physical traits using the methodologies that Renee described. We are also initiating some new DNA tests using existing samples. Unfortunately, we were unable to get any of either the commercial or the academic labs to agree to collaborate with us. So at the moment, we are not able to use the most advanced next generation sequencing techniques, but we are currently partnering with two labs in Germany. One is a forensic lab, and the other is a lab that specializes in YDNA testing to see if we can draw some conclusions. Those tests are now underway in the, just as described in the next slide. Unfortunately, the first attempt at extraction by the forensic lab failed. So the second lab is now attempting to do an extraction, see if we can get Sanger sequencing, and we're gonna focus on the three major subplades, and in particular, Z49, to see if we can confirm that relationship. We also may do some additional SNP and STR testing, because in that Z49 group, we have eight sets of results from a comprehensive big Y testing. So we actually have identified three subplades that are private and exclusive to the Barry families of County Cork. And if we're fortunate enough to get a match between Barry wall one and one of those subplades, then we will have essentially conclusive evidence of the relationship. We're also gonna continue working at Barrymore II and keeping our fingers crossed there. Let me move in the next slide to some general lessons because I know there's a lot of interest in the possibility of doing this with other families. The first lesson, of course, is that this is hard. There are legal, logistical, financial, and technical challenges that have to be overcome. There are no precedents and every case is unique. And it's very important that collaboration among forensic anthropologists, historians, and genetic genealogists be the watch working, acts like this. Also, our experience tells us that the results may be complete, they may be frustrating, and you may just have to keep working at it to try to get useful information. So there are some significant challenges which are evident from the next slide here. First of all, to do thorough background research, this background research needs to include not only historical research, it needs to include very comprehensive wide DNA tests. There are legal and ethical considerations that have to be taken into account. There are significant hurdles to surmount, as Renee has indicated, in terms of extraction and exporting samples. And if these are buried on above ground, as Renee indicated, additional permissions are required and costs will then skyrocket. On the next slide, you'll see that special expertise like Renee's is required not only genetic genealogy but forensic anthropology needs to be part of this. As Renee indicated, we had a terrible sense of time. We took samples from the femur because that was the standard at the time. Subsequently, academic researchers have discovered that samples taken from the peckress bone are much more reliable, so that's one of the things that we are planning to look at, possibly when we get back. Perhaps the most challenging part of the whole is finding laboratories that were willing to do this kind of work. What we discovered is that we had to use multiple laboratories and several rounds of testing. So, if we move to the final slide, projects are costly. They cost in the thousands of dollars or euros. Some projects like this may be as much as tens of thousands of euros or dollars. There are no dedicated funding sources. There are no grants for this kind of work. They are not covered by current academic research programs. So, ours was entirely funded by private contributions. It appears that, at least in the near term, this sort of ancestral DNA testing is probably not a viable product line for the commercial laboratory and requires special equipment. And we were very fortunate to find one technician who was willing to work with us, but that technician has left and the company is no longer doing this sort of work. We would prefer to collaborate with the academic laboratories, but I think there's a reality. This sort of work is generally regarded to fall outside the area of population genetics, which is the field in which the major academic DNA testing labs are working. Those tend to deal with prehistory. Anything really after the Bronze Age is not a current focus of research. Also, unless there's something very interesting methodologically or historically about the findings, most of the high quality academic journals are not particularly interested in genetic genealogy publications. So what we need to do is to get support from the genetic genealogy community, try to enlist the assistance of some of the academic labs that have the highest quality of equipment and research expertise and see if we can move this along. And our hope is that if we can just continue pressing ahead with this project and get published in a good quality journal, that that will occur. So on the final slide, we have the website for our project and this is my direct email, jfary6899.me.com. And I see by the clock that I have come in one minute under the hour, so I don't know if we have any time for questions or not. But if we do, I would be happy to try to entertain some. Great. Thanks very much, Tim. Thanks for a few questions. So what I'm going to do is turn you around to pace your audience. And both Renee and Jim will be available for questions. So congratulations to both of you, first of all, because this is such a fascinating project. It's the first time that we've actually dug up our ancestors and actually tried to link their DNA to the DNA of living descendants today. So a couple of questions for Jim. Gerard and Loud Voice, because Jim has got the microphone. Congratulations. This is an amazing project and probably hopefully the first of many. The breakthrough in heterospelling testing was done by the Pinhalti Lab in UCD. Is there any possibility of all? I understand all of the constraints you mentioned about your considered population genetic. Is there any way they could help out? I can answer that, because I know Ron, I used to work in UCD until quite recently. And no, there is no possibility. That's clear. We have a question from John Reid at the back there. I guess I project. You mentioned at the end of your presentation the possibility of radiocarbon dating of this and there are other isomers, not isomers. Isotope. Isotopes that are used in this kind of testing. Is that, would that be a priority? And maybe not necessarily a priority. I think the digital or the virtual capture of the remains is important, particularly the facial and the rest of the head region would be the priority. Radiocarbon, for very more one, yes. It will give us a further clue. It would be another stone in the mosaic, but let's say isotope testing, I put that in there if you want a really rounded project. And as Jim said, something that we can publish in a good journal. We need to find something more. And the stabilisotopes, for example, would tell us maybe something about that individual, like what the diet was, what the exact geographical where he or she spent a formative for years and so on. But so it wouldn't be a priority as such, but it would be something that I would consider if we had the financial means to do it, to round off the whole thing. And also to suggest it to other researchers and other projects that when you're looking into family research, there's one thing to find out about the DNA and how everything is linked. But another thing is, while you have the ability to do it, what about that individual? You're actually that person, that deceased person. We might have some records or something from them in writing, but wouldn't it be great to put a little bit more flesh onto the bone so to speak, where we say like, okay, he or she suffered from these kinds of illnesses and we see in their diary, yes, they have that. Or look, their main diet was consistent of marine food or terrestrial food, things like that, just to give a little bit more information to the individual we are actually examining here. But no, the priority would maybe be the radio carbon dating for very more one, particularly the scanning of the skulls like that. I have just a couple of thoughts. First of all, John, I want to thank you very much for your question and for your resistance a couple of months ago. John, as you probably know, has published a fascinating article on Richard III, the tests that were done on Richard III, in which he used Bayesian analysis to try to determine the probability that those remains were Richard's own. He was very kind to comment on a Bayesian analysis that I did which indicated that there was somewhere between an 80 and a 99% probability that Barrymore one is indeed James Barry, the fourth Earl of Barrymore. As Renee has indicated, radio carbon dating is something that we may want to do for completeness, but it's my understanding that the standard deviation of a result from 18th century remains may be as great as 200 years. So we might be able to determine with confidence that this individual lived sometimes, say, between 1700 and 1900, but it doesn't, in itself, necessarily provide unique information. The isotope analysis, of course, is quite expensive, but it could be very interesting because James Barry, the fourth Earl of Barrymore, was a soldier. He was a lieutenant general and he served in the low countries and also in Spain. And in fact, he was imprisoned in Spain. So it's conceivable that some traces might be found that could provide additional supporting information that that individual had spent time on those particular regions. In any event, I think at the moment, our priority is trying to get some additional more comprehensive DNA analysis and this other supporting analysis, while useful, will probably wait until we have those results. Okay, we have one final question from Conor O'Brien. A question on how far back you can go. What is the cell by date for taking DNA and going back 900 years? Is it successful or is there a couple areas where you can't get anything more over? We're going back to 6,000 years and we'll be hearing about that from Professor Dan Bradley later on this afternoon by four o'clock. He's actually sampled Neolithic as well as Bronze Age. Bronze Age about what, 4,000 years ago? Neolithic about 6,000 years ago? And Neanderthal, 14,000 years ago. Neanderthal, 40,000 years ago? More than that, isn't it? Not from Dan Bradley. It's from Cambridge. Yes, so the cell by date is going back all the time. You know, it's better than milk. I think it also depends on... I'm looking from a forensic perspective now and even in recent cases, there are problems extracting viable DNA. And it all depends on how the remains were deposited, what the surrounding environment was over the time that they were deposited. You know, has anything happened like the fire, for example? Fire is, you know, if you have remains in a house fire or something like that, it's very bad for DNA. What kind of water environment they might have been lying in? You know, I mean, there are so many different factors that will determine if we can extract viable DNA, that we cannot say for sure at the beginning, but if we know some of the surrounding, what we call chaffonomy for these bodies, you know, the conditions that acted upon the remains where then we could give a good idea of, say, look, you probably won't be able to get good DNA, or yes, you might have a chance. And also, what part of the body is actually available? In this case, actually, in very more case, when I applied for the testing, I hadn't seen the remains. So I applied for testing sections of the long bone, as well as teeth. But when I actually came and looked at them, you saw the skull, there were no teeth. So we couldn't, we could only go with the femoral sections in the end. So, yeah, it depends on what's there, but it is, it can be very much a hit and miss. And that's not necessarily, depending on the age of the remains. It's even in recent cases when we work with you there. You know, TB shows my show, great DNA, is to be on the end of forensic science. It is not. And there, we have to leave it, unfortunately, because we're biting into Dennis Wright's time. He'll be talking about the DNA of the Dalcassians in about two minutes' time. But can I ask you all to put your hands together and give a big thank you to Chris and Dennis. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Can you just dash off now, because your wife is with me. Wait. Yeah, we're just a pity. I would love to talk to the people who have been there. We are. We are. We are happy to talk to you.