At 02:34 PM 10/10/2011, you wrote: >Here is my reply to Yair Davidiy's recent posting: > >John McLaughlin and I have shown by a relatively unique, >straightforward and reproducible method that the M222 SNP originated >sometime between about 1400 and 1900 BC - we call it 1680 +/- 300 years SD. You used an outdated mutation rate. The newly accepted rate is twice as frequent meaning that the distance in time should be halved. This brings us to within the time-frame attributed to Neil, assuming your system is otherwise correct, and it probably is not. >There is no evidence that people who carry the M222 SNP are in any >way unique by being stronger, more manly, healthier, great leaders >(or lovers!), Maybe. On the other hand there may be some men (and women?) on this list who disagree. [ I am joking. ] Survival of a DNA mode may be an outcome of genetic factors that are less prosaic. > or that their SNP population expanded at a rate that would set > them apart from the rest of the population at the time they lived. > Although the Trinity study showed two concentrations in their > rather limited data, our M222 paper showed no explosion in the M222 > population that was any different from the explosion that was > taking place around them. Other than the fascination with carrying > a SNP that may have been shared by Naill, this SNP appears to be no > more unique than others of its kind. If something expands from almost zero to ca. 12% of the population and ca. 3 million (or more people) in ca. 1600 years and it is the ONLY known Mode in the world that does so, then I would say that is exceptional. Even with your figures it exceptional. The experts say that there was no know R1b of ANY KIND in Europe before ca. 1000 BCE. You claim that R-M222 was gallivanting around the place 2000 years earlier ands that you have proof of it. Why have none of the experts heard of you? >- Bye from Bill Howard

I am RM222 and would like to know if there is any STR by STR analysis of the modal YDNA for RM222 that would indicate what various differences to the modal might mean for an individual? Bob Quinn President&CEO Quinn Specialty Chemical Consultants Partner at Bay Street Investors/Bay Street Partners Co-Chair ACS GCI Manufacturer's Roundtable 27 Langton Lane Newtown Square, Pa, 19073 T:610-331-4920 e-mail:raaq@live.com Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/bobquinnspecialtychemicals > From: alexanderpatterson@btinternet.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:49:54 +0100 > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series > > Ken Nordtvedt has issued a challenge in the Rootsweb genealogy-dna forum and > is happy that I issue the same challenge on his behalf in the M222 forum. > > Here is what he says: > > > [From time to time peoPle discuss software they are using to reconstruct > trees from a collection of final STR haplotypes. I'm wondering if any blind > tests have been done, or whether any people with such software wish to try a > blind test? > > I can produce a collection of a few dozen haplotypes, each of 20 or so STRs, > and all descendants from a common ancestor from about 100 generations ago. > I will know the true demographic tree, and furthermore I will know on which > tree branch segments each of the STR mutations happened on. But this > information will be withheld; only the final several dozen haplotypes will > be given along with the mutation rates for each of the STRs. > > The quality of the software reconstruction or inference of the tree along > with its estimate of STR mutation locations (if the software includes such) > can then be made after the software does its thing. > > Any takers? I am particularly interested in how the software fares in its > reconstruction of the earliest era of the tree. > > Ken] > > > Sandy > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bill Howard > Sent: 10 October 2011 13:35 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series > > Here is my reply to Yair Davidiy's recent posting: > > John d and > reproducible method that the M222 SNP originated sometime between about 1400 > and 1900 BC - we call it 1680 +/- 300 years SD. Mr. Davidiy may not > sufficiently understand that conclusion, and the method, because it is a new > approach based on the results of a phylogenetic tree. I must also point out > that a DNA line on the tree is NOT the same as a line on a pedigree chart. > Different people on the line of a pedigree chart will have the same DNA > until there is a mutation. This means that the number of lines of descent on > a tree is not the number of lines on a pedigree chart. > > There is a lot of discussion on this posting site, thinking erroneously that > it originated with Naill who lived in 400-500 AD -- that he was the > progenitor of the SNP. The fact of Niall's existence is somewhat debatable, > but even if he was real and not an Irish myth, and even though he may have > carried the SNP, the SNP certainly did not originate with him. > > Because it was so easy to make the transit between what is now lowland > Scotland and northern Ireland from the BC era until now, it is virtually > impossible to say where the SNP's progenitor happened to be living when the > mutation occurred. He could have gone from one island to the other the week > before, or the week after the mutatIon occurred! In our M222 paper, John > and I stated clearly that it is not really possible to determine where it > happened but we did give heuristic arguments to the effect that at that > early date there was still probably a migration from east to west, with more > people being in that part of Scotland, but we really don't know. The testing > that was done by the Trinity study suggested Ireland but they did not test > sufficiently broadly to give that suggestion much credibility. Moreover, > they used only part of the M222 SNP. Such testing should be repeated. > > There is no evidence that people who carry the M222 SNP are in any way > unique by being stronger, more manly, healthier, great leaders (or lovers!), > or that their SNP population expanded at a rate that would set them apart > from the rest of the population at the time they lived. Although the Trinity > study showed two concentrations in their rather limited data, our M222 paper > showed no explosion in the M222 population that was any different from the > explosion that was taking place around them. Other than the fascination with > carrying a SNP that may have been shared by Naill, this SNP appears to be no > more unique than others of its kind. > > - Bye from Bill Howard > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Ken Nordtvedt has issued a challenge in the Rootsweb genealogy-dna forum and is happy that I issue the same challenge on his behalf in the M222 forum. Here is what he says: [From time to time people discuss software they are using to reconstruct trees from a collection of final STR haplotypes. I'm wondering if any blind tests have been done, or whether any people with such software wish to try a blind test? I can produce a collection of a few dozen haplotypes, each of 20 or so STRs, and all descendants from a common ancestor from about 100 generations ago. I will know the true demographic tree, and furthermore I will know on which tree branch segments each of the STR mutations happened on. But this information will be withheld; only the final several dozen haplotypes will be given along with the mutation rates for each of the STRs. The quality of the software reconstruction or inference of the tree along with its estimate of STR mutation locations (if the software includes such) can then be made after the software does its thing. Any takers? I am particularly interested in how the software fares in its reconstruction of the earliest era of the tree. Ken] Sandy -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Bill Howard Sent: 10 October 2011 13:35 To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series Here is my reply to Yair Davidiy's recent posting: John McLaughlin and I have shown by a relatively unique, straightforward and reproducible method that the M222 SNP originated sometime between about 1400 and 1900 BC - we call it 1680 +/- 300 years SD. Mr. Davidiy may not sufficiently understand that conclusion, and the method, because it is a new approach based on the results of a phylogenetic tree. I must also point out that a DNA line on the tree is NOT the same as a line on a pedigree chart. Different people on the line of a pedigree chart will have the same DNA until there is a mutation. This means that the number of lines of descent on a tree is not the number of lines on a pedigree chart. There is a lot of discussion on this posting site, thinking erroneously that it originated with Naill who lived in 400-500 AD -- that he was the progenitor of the SNP. The fact of Niall's existence is somewhat debatable, but even if he was real and not an Irish myth, and even though he may have carried the SNP, the SNP certainly did not originate with him. Because it was so easy to make the transit between what is now lowland Scotland and northern Ireland from the BC era until now, it is virtually impossible to say where the SNP's progenitor happened to be living when the mutation occurred. He could have gone from one island to the other the week before, or the week after the mutation occurred! In our M222 paper, John and I stated clearly that it is not really possible to determine where it happened but we did give heuristic arguments to the effect that at that early date there was still probably a migration from east to west, with more people being in that part of Scotland, but we really don't know. The testing that was done by the Trinity study suggested Ireland but they did not test sufficiently broadly to give that suggestion much credibility. Moreover, they used only part of the M222 SNP. Such testing should be repeated. There is no evidence that people who carry the M222 SNP are in any way unique by being stronger, more manly, healthier, great leaders (or lovers!), or that their SNP population expanded at a rate that would set them apart from the rest of the population at the time they lived. Although the Trinity study showed two concentrations in their rather limited data, our M222 paper showed no explosion in the M222 population that was any different from the explosion that was taking place around them. Other than the fascination with carrying a SNP that may have been shared by Naill, this SNP appears to be no more unique than others of its kind. - Bye from Bill Howard R1b1c7 Research and Links: http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

To Mr. Davidiy, I stand by what I have written and I will let the readers decide who to believe. I shall not respond further to you. Good luck in trying to prove that you can find the Lost Tribes of Israel. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x4AuGYuZHw]. Your faith seems to far exceed your science. - Bye from Bill Howard

Further info from Kirsten on M222 WTY testees: 137003 - Mannion - 99,190 base pairs tested 17624 - McGonigal - 100,169 bp tested 192014 - McNeely - 214,996 bp tested ----- Original Message ----- From: pabloburns@comcast.net To: "dna-r1b1c7" <dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 9:48:53 AM Subject: M222 and WTY I am sure we all were hoping that with all the new SNPs being discovered, one would be identified to divide M222. Apparently, no such luck. I asked David Reynolds if it would help for me to take the WTY test. David replied that only one M222 has been tested, but the young age of M222 may mean no additional SNP. He suggested I wait until the current backlog of WTY orders is run through, and after 2-3 months he will look at this again. I then queried Kirsten Saxe, and she replied that the Finch2 data indicates that three M222 have been tested--137003 (Mannion), 17624, and 192014. Kirsten did not have names for the latter two, but I found 192014 (McNeely) on the M222 project list. I could not identify 17624. Can anyone confirm that three M222s have been WTY tested with no new SNPs discovered? If only one has been tested, I am willing to hazard the $750 cost, but if three have been tested with no additional info discovered, perhaps I should wait for a future increase in the size of the test. Paul

Thanks, Bill. I was hoping the analysis of YDNA vs modal could lead to the determination of family clusters, not for health information. I can see how complicated that sort of analysis could be. I did have the confirming SNP test done, even though my marker values led to the R-M222 determination. Let me know if any discussions could be productive. Bob Bob Quinn President&CEO Quinn Specialty Chemical Consultants Partner at Bay Street Investors/Bay Street Partners Co-Chair ACS GCI Manufacturer's Roundtable 27 Langton Lane Newtown Square, Pa, 19073 T:610-331-4920 e-mail:raaq@live.com Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/bobquinnspecialtychemicals > From: weh8@verizon.net > Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:48:23 -0400 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Summary of a distracting series > > To Bob Quinn and the list, > > As far as I know, there has been no study of the sort about which you inquired. If you are seeking health information, Y-DNA usually does not speak to those issues. > > I am not a fan of the use of modals in analysis since a modal may be, but may not be, that of the progenitor of a group you are interested in. So I ignore modals in my Y-DNA analysis. > > As I understand it, the definition of M222 has slightly changed with more and more research done on the SNP. FTDNA offers a test, but others say that if certain marker values in your haplotype coincide with the marker values that are characteristic of the SNP, then you belong to M222 and that you don't need the test. I ascribe to that thought. > > The fact that markers in your M222 haplotype might be different from markers of other carriers of the SNP will certainly be a strong indicator of the family cluster within M222 to which you belong. Little research has been one on marker by marker comparisons among surname clusters and, were that to be done via a pretty complicated computer analysis, we might know a lot more about the evolution of surname clusters within groups like M222. I have been hoping that some computer-savvy person might work with me to do that, but there have been no takers so far. It needs to be done via sets of one-on-one phone sessions or Skype conversations because there are important nuances in the approach that must be avoided. > > Email is to inform; phone is to discuss. > > - Bye from Bill Howard > > On Oct 10, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Bob Quinn wrote: > > > > > I am RM222 and would like to know if there is any STR by STR analysis of the modal YDNA for RM222 that would indicate what various differences to the modal might mean for an individual? > > > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thank you Bill Howard for adding these clarifications regarding both M222 origins in regard to yours & John's paper and the possible shortfall of the Trinity study conclusions. Having read your paper several times your answer is consistent with what is published there, and there seems no confusion about it to me. I also happen to agree with the idea of Trinity repeating the study with expanded data now available. Susan

I am sure we all were hoping that with all the new SNPs being discovered, one would be identified to divide M222. Apparently, no such luck. I asked David Reynolds if it would help for me to take the WTY test. David replied that only one M222 has been tested, but the young age of M222 may mean no additional SNP. He suggested I wait until the current backlog of WTY orders is run through, and after 2-3 months he will look at this again. I then queried Kirsten Saxe, and she replied that the Finch2 data indicates that three M222 have been tested--137003 (Mannion), 17624, and 192014. Kirsten did not have names for the latter two, but I found 192014 (McNeely) on the M222 project list. I could not identify 17624. Can anyone confirm that three M222s have been WTY tested with no new SNPs discovered? If only one has been tested, I am willing to hazard the $750 cost, but if three have been tested with no additional info discovered, perhaps I should wait for a future increase in the size of the test. Paul

To Bob Quinn and the list, As far as I know, there has been no study of the sort about which you inquired. If you are seeking health information, Y-DNA usually does not speak to those issues. I am not a fan of the use of modals in analysis since a modal may be, but may not be, that of the progenitor of a group you are interested in. So I ignore modals in my Y-DNA analysis. As I understand it, the definition of M222 has slightly changed with more and more research done on the SNP. FTDNA offers a test, but others say that if certain marker values in your haplotype coincide with the marker values that are characteristic of the SNP, then you belong to M222 and that you don't need the test. I ascribe to that thought. The fact that markers in your M222 haplotype might be different from markers of other carriers of the SNP will certainly be a strong indicator of the family cluster within M222 to which you belong. Little research has been one on marker by marker comparisons among surname clusters and, were that to be done via a pretty complicated computer analysis, we might know a lot more about the evolution of surname clusters within groups like M222. I have been hoping that some computer-savvy person might work with me to do that, but there have been no takers so far. It needs to be done via sets of one-on-one phone sessions or Skype conversations because there are important nuances in the approach that must be avoided. Email is to inform; phone is to discuss. - Bye from Bill Howard On Oct 10, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Bob Quinn wrote: > > I am RM222 and would like to know if there is any STR by STR analysis of the modal YDNA for RM222 that would indicate what various differences to the modal might mean for an individual? >

Mr. Yair Davidiy is wrong in several of the following ways: 1) The mutation we have been using is the average rate over one locus per generation. It is the Chandler rate and appears in his paper at: http://www.jogg.info/22/Chandler.pdf. The RCC time scale we used in our M222 paper has been calibrated with over 100 pedigrees and the phylogenetic tree from which the date of origin of the M222 SNP was derived uses the RCC time scale. It is consistent with, but does not depend on, the Chandler rate. Naill, if he even lived, MAY have carried the SNP but we don't know with any certainty that he lived OR carried the SNP. I won't get into any argument about what mutation rate should be used in other related calculations and I note that Mr. Davidiy did not quote the number he thinks is correct, nor what that number should be. We stand by our date of 1680 BC +/- 300 years SD. 2) I shall leave it to others if they wish to argue about whether a carrier of the M222 SNP is in any way superior (as Mr. Davidiy maintains) to anyone who does not carry the SNP. The M222 has not been around long enough to make any conclusions as to its ability to survive better than other SNPs. Right now, such arguments belong in the pigeonhole of belief; it is not science. 3) One cannot conclude, as Mr. Davidiy apparently does, that "If something expands from almost zero to ca. 12% of the population and ca. 3 million (or more people) in ca. 1600 years and it is the ONLY known Mode in the world that does so, then I would say that is exceptional." We do not know the number of people who carry the M222 SNP today. Mr. Davidiy's 1600 years is wrong; it is more like 3600 years. The numbers of 12% and 3 million people are guesses based on sets of assumptions that are not apparent. I do not remember seeing any calculation where its details, including its assumptions, have been made. In the absence of such evidence, the M222 SNP and its growth rate appears not to be exceptional at all. 4) The origin of R1b was 22,000 years ago -- plenty of time to be in Europe by 1680 BC. See: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_haplogroups_timeline.shtml See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)#.3D_R1b1a2a1a1b4b_.28R-M222.29_.3D R1b was well-established in Europe by 1680 BC. Mr. Davidiy's contention that "the experts" say that there was no know R1b of ANY KIND in Europe before ca. 1000 BCE is not supported by scientific fact; it appears to be a belief. - Bye from Bill Howard

At 04:40 PM 10/7/2011, John Carey <johnca@quickclic.net> wrote: >One consequence of Yair Davidiy's distracting series of messages is that it >stimulated me to re-read Howard and Mclaughlin's paper. One thing that >struck me this time was the statement Let us end this matter with a summary of the findings: (1. When did the "ancestor" live? >Howard and Mclaughlin's paper >use a mathematical device that is based on the rate of mutations. This may or may not be acceptable but based on the latest accepted findings even using their own system the putative ancestor of R-M222 lived around the time that Neil lived. i.e. Neil or someone who lived at his time was the ancestral figure. (2. Did they originate in Scotland? It is obvious that Neil, or whoever he was, had forefathers and these may have come from elsewhere. It could have been Scotland since R-M222 is also found (at a lower rate than Ireland) in part of the Lowland area. The Scottish finds however may just as well have originated in Ireland. There is no proof either way. (3. How and Why did R-M222 expand so well compared to other recognizable DNA Modes? It has been suggested that their leadership positions were the major factor explaining the expansion? Other suggestions evoke vigorous knee-jerking objections. Who cares? Anything I suppose is possible. To my mind the leadership factor, though it may have existed, does not seem the whole story. Yair Davidiy Jerusalem Israel.

Here is my reply to Yair Davidiy's recent posting: John McLaughlin and I have shown by a relatively unique, straightforward and reproducible method that the M222 SNP originated sometime between about 1400 and 1900 BC - we call it 1680 +/- 300 years SD. Mr. Davidiy may not sufficiently understand that conclusion, and the method, because it is a new approach based on the results of a phylogenetic tree. I must also point out that a DNA line on the tree is NOT the same as a line on a pedigree chart. Different people on the line of a pedigree chart will have the same DNA until there is a mutation. This means that the number of lines of descent on a tree is not the number of lines on a pedigree chart. There is a lot of discussion on this posting site, thinking erroneously that it originated with Naill who lived in 400-500 AD -- that he was the progenitor of the SNP. The fact of Niall's existence is somewhat debatable, but even if he was real and not an Irish myth, and even though he may have carried the SNP, the SNP certainly did not originate with him. Because it was so easy to make the transit between what is now lowland Scotland and northern Ireland from the BC era until now, it is virtually impossible to say where the SNP's progenitor happened to be living when the mutation occurred. He could have gone from one island to the other the week before, or the week after the mutation occurred! In our M222 paper, John and I stated clearly that it is not really possible to determine where it happened but we did give heuristic arguments to the effect that at that early date there was still probably a migration from east to west, with more people being in that part of Scotland, but we really don't know. The testing that was done by the Trinity study suggested Ireland but they did not test sufficiently broadly to give that suggestion much credibility. Moreover, they used only part of the M222 SNP. Such testing should be repeated. There is no evidence that people who carry the M222 SNP are in any way unique by being stronger, more manly, healthier, great leaders (or lovers!), or that their SNP population expanded at a rate that would set them apart from the rest of the population at the time they lived. Although the Trinity study showed two concentrations in their rather limited data, our M222 paper showed no explosion in the M222 population that was any different from the explosion that was taking place around them. Other than the fascination with carrying a SNP that may have been shared by Naill, this SNP appears to be no more unique than others of its kind. - Bye from Bill Howard

>From the Book of Ballymote: Clann Commain annso sis. 400. Maelmithigh & Cuchailli & Murcad & Gillacoluim .iiii. mc. Aedha m. Maelfabaill m. Conaingen m. Dalaigh m. Duinailead m. Muircertaigh m. Murcadha m. Loingsich m. Cathmogha m. Anaileadh m. Commaeine mc. Fergna find m. Feradaig m. Muiredaigh m. Eogain m. Neill .ix.g. 401. Rige dorat Padraic do Muiredach Muirech as & Tacad & Octigern as do Fergus, gaiscidh do Bindech gais do Feidlimidh, Cruth do Cormac Fearg do Aenghus, Diumus do Dallan Feile do Illand, Buaidh clercechta do Ailill, Claine {75f} & Cosaitige do Eichen .i. Muinter Uchtchain .i. uiri maigh & .H. Comaltan in Ardmacha & .H. Raiten & .H. Lorcain mc. Naindenaigh Muindter tiri dibh Amalgaidh .H. Lorcain Clann Eichen mc. Eogain andsoin. 402. Cland Oililla .i. Muinter Muighe Bili .i. .H. Forcellaig & .H. Laighne & Sil Mc. Cluaissi isin craib is dibh .H. Loimdearg. I thiink ".H. Lorcain mc. Naindenaigh Muindter tiri dibh Amalgaidh" means that the O Lorcain are in Ui Amalgaidh (Barony of Tirawly, Co. Mayo)? I also remember the Ui Beccon in north Westmeath are said to be Ui Amhalgaidh. I believe Tir Beccon would be within the same area as the O'Lorcain lords of Caille Follamhain?

Paul, That's what I thought too. I flipped through Bardon just now and he says on p4 'although rising sea levels had severed Ireland from Britain - the last land bridge is thought to have run from Inishowen to Islay - geologically they remained closely linked, especially in Ulster'. The claim is not referenced unfortunately. Has anyone come across any such claim before? Iain > From: pconroy63@gmail.com > Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:32:08 -0400 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Location of land bridge between Scotland and Ireland > > John, > > The land bridge was way before the advent of R-M222, so doesn't apply. Also > the bridge connected at Antrim/Down, not Donegal. > > But the other issue is that, as I've mentioned countless times here before, > the main form of transport in those days was on foot or by boat - boat was > much faster, and so seas/rivers were the highways of their times. The > peoples on both sides of this very narrow channel were the same breeding > population, same culture and language. > > R-M222 didn't originate with the Ui Neill families, but seems to have > expanded disproportionately in their descendants. > > I'm the R-M222 member most removed from the Modal STR values, and my > ancestry goes back to Northern Ossory (aka Osraighe)/Western Laois, which > has no real connection to the Ui Neills AFAIK. My closest matches are > Dunn/Dunne people, and Daltons from Northern Ossory/Western Laois, then > Breifne clans (especially O'Reilly) and Nith Valley Cluster members (Grier, > Grierson and Milligan). One of the next furthest from the modal is a > Galyean, who I believe is French. > > Enough said. > > Cheers, > Paul > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:17 PM, John Carey <johnca@quickclic.net> wrote: > > > Thanks for your reply , Bill. > > > > I have read that the land bridge between the U.K. and the continent is > > thought to have split about 7500 years ago so you are correct that it was > > far before the origin of the M222 SNMP. > > > > However, from what I have learned about the post-glacial history of the > > Great Lakes area of North America where I live, some post-glacial events > > that have shaped our current terrain took place much more recently. For > > example, it is thought that Lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan were part of > > a much larger lake and only separated a couple of thousand years ago due > > largely due to continuing rebound. In Sweden, the area around Stockholm > > was once an arm of the Baltic Sea that is thought to have separated around > > 1200 AD. According to what I have read, in Great Britain the last > > glaciation affected Scotland but not southern England so that the > > post-glacial rebound is still causing the northern part to rise and the > > southern part to fall to this day, albeit slowly. > > > > So, I was wondering if we know what the area that currently lies between > > Scotland and Ireland might have looked like several thousand years ago, > > particularly if, as it seems, the south-eastern portion of the current > > North > > Channel is much deeper than the north-western part. I certainly don't > > disagree that it takes little imagination to conclude that so small a sea > > barrier would provide little barrier to exploration. I just wonder if a > > land connection closer to Donegal persisted close enough to the time we are > > interested in for it to be interesting. > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

John, I agree - good link. Cheers, Paul On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:01 PM, John Carey <johnca@quickclic.net> wrote: > Paul > > I see what you are saying but it doesn't take into account depression of > the > land surface under the weight of ice and the isostatic adjustment after the > ice retreats. > > In any case, I have found a study that has modeled sea level change for > Ireland and the Irish Sea. I do not have access to the Figures for some > reason but it appears to conclude that the southern bridge was the only one > that existed and that there has been no land bridge between Ireland and > Britain since about 14000 years ago. > > http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3721/is_199611/ai_n8743782/?tag=cont > ent;col1 > > It looks like a pretty careful study so unless there are some holes in it, > it appears that I have my answer and that a northern land bridge could not > have been important since it probably didn't exist. > > Thanks. > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Paul Conroy > Sent: October-07-11 2:29 PM > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Location of land bridge between Scotland and Ireland > > John, > > Look at the map carefully, when the North Eastern "ice-bridge" was it > effect > it barely touched Inisowen, but was concentrated in the Antrim/Down > corridor > to the nearest parts of Scotland. Sea levels were at their lowest at this > time, and if there is no ice bridge going to Inishowen, then there can't > have been a land bridge later as the ice began to melt, right?! > > But, like I said it's irrelevant anyway - unless people feel that R-M222 is > 7,000-10,000 years old or more?? > > Cheers, > Paul > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM, John Carey <johnca@quickclic.net> wrote: > > > Paul > > > > I'm afraid that this link is of little help. The land bridge on the > > map is from southern Ireland to southern England and was essentially > > destroyed > > 12000 years ago when the Irish Sea flooded. Ulster was still under > > ice then. > > > > I can't find a reference to a later land bridge between County Down > > and Scotland and I'm confused as to how it could have existed if a 200 > > metre deep trench lay in between. A link between Inishowen to Islay > > as suggested by Iain's message is much more plausible since it would > > involve the shallower portion of the North Channel. If it really > > existed, it would be nice to have a scientific opinion at to its dates > > before we conclude it is irrelevant. > > > > John > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Paul Conroy > > Sent: October-07-11 1:08 PM > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Location of land bridge between Scotland and > > Ireland > > > > Ian, > > > > There's a rough map of the Land Bridge here: > > > > http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/pre_norman_history/ic > > eage.h > > tml > > > > My point was that the land bridge was irrelevant, this was one > > breeding population, sharing the same culture and language > > > > R-M222 came much later, and probably from the Continent, and if I'm > > correct probably came in more than one stream to Ireland, as Southern > > and Eastern > > R-M222 may not be related closely to the main body of Northern R-M222. > > > > Cheers, > > Paul > > > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Iain Kennedy > > <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > > > > > > > > Paul, > > > That's what I thought too. I flipped through Bardon just now and he > > > says on > > > p4 > > > > > > 'although rising sea levels had severed Ireland from Britain - the > > > last land bridge is thought to have run from Inishowen to Islay - > > > geologically they remained closely linked, especially in Ulster'. > > > The claim is not referenced unfortunately. Has anyone come across > > > any such claim before? > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Paul I see what you are saying but it doesn't take into account depression of the land surface under the weight of ice and the isostatic adjustment after the ice retreats. In any case, I have found a study that has modeled sea level change for Ireland and the Irish Sea. I do not have access to the Figures for some reason but it appears to conclude that the southern bridge was the only one that existed and that there has been no land bridge between Ireland and Britain since about 14000 years ago. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3721/is_199611/ai_n8743782/?tag=cont ent;col1 It looks like a pretty careful study so unless there are some holes in it, it appears that I have my answer and that a northern land bridge could not have been important since it probably didn't exist. Thanks. John -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Paul Conroy Sent: October-07-11 2:29 PM To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] Location of land bridge between Scotland and Ireland John, Look at the map carefully, when the North Eastern "ice-bridge" was it effect it barely touched Inisowen, but was concentrated in the Antrim/Down corridor to the nearest parts of Scotland. Sea levels were at their lowest at this time, and if there is no ice bridge going to Inishowen, then there can't have been a land bridge later as the ice began to melt, right?! But, like I said it's irrelevant anyway - unless people feel that R-M222 is 7,000-10,000 years old or more?? Cheers, Paul On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM, John Carey <johnca@quickclic.net> wrote: > Paul > > I'm afraid that this link is of little help. The land bridge on the > map is from southern Ireland to southern England and was essentially > destroyed > 12000 years ago when the Irish Sea flooded. Ulster was still under > ice then. > > I can't find a reference to a later land bridge between County Down > and Scotland and I'm confused as to how it could have existed if a 200 > metre deep trench lay in between. A link between Inishowen to Islay > as suggested by Iain's message is much more plausible since it would > involve the shallower portion of the North Channel. If it really > existed, it would be nice to have a scientific opinion at to its dates > before we conclude it is irrelevant. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Paul Conroy > Sent: October-07-11 1:08 PM > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Location of land bridge between Scotland and > Ireland > > Ian, > > There's a rough map of the Land Bridge here: > > http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/pre_norman_history/ic > eage.h > tml > > My point was that the land bridge was irrelevant, this was one > breeding population, sharing the same culture and language > > R-M222 came much later, and probably from the Continent, and if I'm > correct probably came in more than one stream to Ireland, as Southern > and Eastern > R-M222 may not be related closely to the main body of Northern R-M222. > > Cheers, > Paul > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Iain Kennedy > <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > > > > > Paul, > > That's what I thought too. I flipped through Bardon just now and he > > says on > > p4 > > > > 'although rising sea levels had severed Ireland from Britain - the > > last land bridge is thought to have run from Inishowen to Islay - > > geologically they remained closely linked, especially in Ulster'. > > The claim is not referenced unfortunately. Has anyone come across > > any such claim before? > > Iain > > > > > > > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > R1b1c7 Research and Links: http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

John, Look at the map carefully, when the North Eastern "ice-bridge" was it effect it barely touched Inisowen, but was concentrated in the Antrim/Down corridor to the nearest parts of Scotland. Sea levels were at their lowest at this time, and if there is no ice bridge going to Inishowen, then there can't have been a land bridge later as the ice began to melt, right?! But, like I said it's irrelevant anyway - unless people feel that R-M222 is 7,000-10,000 years old or more?? Cheers, Paul On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:21 PM, John Carey <johnca@quickclic.net> wrote: > Paul > > I'm afraid that this link is of little help. The land bridge on the map is > from southern Ireland to southern England and was essentially destroyed > 12000 years ago when the Irish Sea flooded. Ulster was still under ice > then. > > I can't find a reference to a later land bridge between County Down and > Scotland and I'm confused as to how it could have existed if a 200 metre > deep trench lay in between. A link between Inishowen to Islay as suggested > by Iain's message is much more plausible since it would involve the > shallower portion of the North Channel. If it really existed, it would be > nice to have a scientific opinion at to its dates before we conclude it is > irrelevant. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Paul Conroy > Sent: October-07-11 1:08 PM > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Location of land bridge between Scotland and Ireland > > Ian, > > There's a rough map of the Land Bridge here: > > http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/pre_norman_history/iceage.h > tml > > My point was that the land bridge was irrelevant, this was one breeding > population, sharing the same culture and language > > R-M222 came much later, and probably from the Continent, and if I'm correct > probably came in more than one stream to Ireland, as Southern and Eastern > R-M222 may not be related closely to the main body of Northern R-M222. > > Cheers, > Paul > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Iain Kennedy > <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > > > > > Paul, > > That's what I thought too. I flipped through Bardon just now and he > > says on > > p4 > > > > 'although rising sea levels had severed Ireland from Britain - the > > last land bridge is thought to have run from Inishowen to Islay - > > geologically they remained closely linked, especially in Ulster'. > > The claim is not referenced unfortunately. Has anyone come across any > > such claim before? > > Iain > > > > > > > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Paul I'm afraid that this link is of little help. The land bridge on the map is from southern Ireland to southern England and was essentially destroyed 12000 years ago when the Irish Sea flooded. Ulster was still under ice then. I can't find a reference to a later land bridge between County Down and Scotland and I'm confused as to how it could have existed if a 200 metre deep trench lay in between. A link between Inishowen to Islay as suggested by Iain's message is much more plausible since it would involve the shallower portion of the North Channel. If it really existed, it would be nice to have a scientific opinion at to its dates before we conclude it is irrelevant. John -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Paul Conroy Sent: October-07-11 1:08 PM To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] Location of land bridge between Scotland and Ireland Ian, There's a rough map of the Land Bridge here: http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/pre_norman_history/iceage.h tml My point was that the land bridge was irrelevant, this was one breeding population, sharing the same culture and language R-M222 came much later, and probably from the Continent, and if I'm correct probably came in more than one stream to Ireland, as Southern and Eastern R-M222 may not be related closely to the main body of Northern R-M222. Cheers, Paul On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > > Paul, > That's what I thought too. I flipped through Bardon just now and he > says on > p4 > > 'although rising sea levels had severed Ireland from Britain - the > last land bridge is thought to have run from Inishowen to Islay - > geologically they remained closely linked, especially in Ulster'. > The claim is not referenced unfortunately. Has anyone come across any > such claim before? > Iain > > >

Ian, There's a rough map of the Land Bridge here: http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/pre_norman_history/iceage.html My point was that the land bridge was irrelevant, this was one breeding population, sharing the same culture and language R-M222 came much later, and probably from the Continent, and if I'm correct probably came in more than one stream to Ireland, as Southern and Eastern R-M222 may not be related closely to the main body of Northern R-M222. Cheers, Paul On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > > Paul, > That's what I thought too. I flipped through Bardon just now and he says on > p4 > > 'although rising sea levels had severed Ireland from Britain - the last > land bridge is thought to have run from Inishowen to Islay - geologically > they remained closely linked, especially in Ulster'. > The claim is not referenced unfortunately. Has anyone come across any such > claim before? > Iain > > > > > > From: pconroy63@gmail.com > > Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 12:32:08 -0400 > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Location of land bridge between Scotland and > Ireland > > > > John, > > > > The land bridge was way before the advent of R-M222, so doesn't apply. > Also > > the bridge connected at Antrim/Down, not Donegal. > > > > But the other issue is that, as I've mentioned countless times here > before, > > the main form of transport in those days was on foot or by boat - boat > was > > much faster, and so seas/rivers were the highways of their times. The > > peoples on both sides of this very narrow channel were the same breeding > > population, same culture and language. > > > > R-M222 didn't originate with the Ui Neill families, but seems to have > > expanded disproportionately in their descendants. > > > > I'm the R-M222 member most removed from the Modal STR values, and my > > ancestry goes back to Northern Ossory (aka Osraighe)/Western Laois, which > > has no real connection to the Ui Neills AFAIK. My closest matches are > > Dunn/Dunne people, and Daltons from Northern Ossory/Western Laois, then > > Breifne clans (especially O'Reilly) and Nith Valley Cluster members > (Grier, > > Grierson and Milligan). One of the next furthest from the modal is a > > Galyean, who I believe is French. > > > > Enough said. > > > > Cheers, > > Paul > > > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:17 PM, John Carey <johnca@quickclic.net> > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for your reply , Bill. > > > > > > I have read that the land bridge between the U.K. and the continent is > > > thought to have split about 7500 years ago so you are correct that it > was > > > far before the origin of the M222 SNMP. > > > > > > However, from what I have learned about the post-glacial history of the > > > Great Lakes area of North America where I live, some post-glacial > events > > > that have shaped our current terrain took place much more recently. > For > > > example, it is thought that Lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan were > part of > > > a much larger lake and only separated a couple of thousand years ago > due > > > largely due to continuing rebound. In Sweden, the area around > Stockholm > > > was once an arm of the Baltic Sea that is thought to have separated > around > > > 1200 AD. According to what I have read, in Great Britain the last > > > glaciation affected Scotland but not southern England so that the > > > post-glacial rebound is still causing the northern part to rise and the > > > southern part to fall to this day, albeit slowly. > > > > > > So, I was wondering if we know what the area that currently lies > between > > > Scotland and Ireland might have looked like several thousand years ago, > > > particularly if, as it seems, the south-eastern portion of the current > > > North > > > Channel is much deeper than the north-western part. I certainly don't > > > disagree that it takes little imagination to conclude that so small a > sea > > > barrier would provide little barrier to exploration. I just wonder if > a > > > land connection closer to Donegal persisted close enough to the time we > are > > > interested in for it to be interesting. > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > > > > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without > the > > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

John, The land bridge was way before the advent of R-M222, so doesn't apply. Also the bridge connected at Antrim/Down, not Donegal. But the other issue is that, as I've mentioned countless times here before, the main form of transport in those days was on foot or by boat - boat was much faster, and so seas/rivers were the highways of their times. The peoples on both sides of this very narrow channel were the same breeding population, same culture and language. R-M222 didn't originate with the Ui Neill families, but seems to have expanded disproportionately in their descendants. I'm the R-M222 member most removed from the Modal STR values, and my ancestry goes back to Northern Ossory (aka Osraighe)/Western Laois, which has no real connection to the Ui Neills AFAIK. My closest matches are Dunn/Dunne people, and Daltons from Northern Ossory/Western Laois, then Breifne clans (especially O'Reilly) and Nith Valley Cluster members (Grier, Grierson and Milligan). One of the next furthest from the modal is a Galyean, who I believe is French. Enough said. Cheers, Paul On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:17 PM, John Carey <johnca@quickclic.net> wrote: > Thanks for your reply , Bill. > > I have read that the land bridge between the U.K. and the continent is > thought to have split about 7500 years ago so you are correct that it was > far before the origin of the M222 SNMP. > > However, from what I have learned about the post-glacial history of the > Great Lakes area of North America where I live, some post-glacial events > that have shaped our current terrain took place much more recently. For > example, it is thought that Lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan were part of > a much larger lake and only separated a couple of thousand years ago due > largely due to continuing rebound. In Sweden, the area around Stockholm > was once an arm of the Baltic Sea that is thought to have separated around > 1200 AD. According to what I have read, in Great Britain the last > glaciation affected Scotland but not southern England so that the > post-glacial rebound is still causing the northern part to rise and the > southern part to fall to this day, albeit slowly. > > So, I was wondering if we know what the area that currently lies between > Scotland and Ireland might have looked like several thousand years ago, > particularly if, as it seems, the south-eastern portion of the current > North > Channel is much deeper than the north-western part. I certainly don't > disagree that it takes little imagination to conclude that so small a sea > barrier would provide little barrier to exploration. I just wonder if a > land connection closer to Donegal persisted close enough to the time we are > interested in for it to be interesting. > > John > > > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > > http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >