But it is such fun to speculate. True, there is no definitive evidence or proof, but the possibility of such a genetic relationship cannot be entirely ruled out, as a possibility. On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Robert Reid <rreid002@insight.rr.com>wrote: > I agree as you go back 10 generations you have over 1000 ancestors, 20 > generations 1 million etc and if Niall existed as such we would be a > descendant of his. However, I was laulled to glory thinking that he was my > direct paternal Y DNA ancestor and that's where it all falls apart > especially with a certain company from Houston with a Niall banner across > my > page and sinking beaucoup bucks for that glory. However, when studying the > texts and ledgers it becomes quite clear this Niall never was what he was > supposed to be. Now I believe Niall was a minor player in Irish history and > never was a high king of Ireland crowned at the Hill of Tara. In fact, our > M222 certainly has more famous ancestors to discover than the Niall tale > and > lets get off this fictious Niall kick. > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

My Owsley ancestor, John Owsley, was born about 1731 in northern Virginia (most likely Stafford County or King George County) and was the result of a non-paternal event. We tested with Family Tree DNA and our Y-DNA Haplogroup is R-M222. In my family notes concerning John Owsley, I write the following: According to Family Tree DNA, we are possible descendants of Niall of the Nine Hostages. Sometimes I tell other researchers that John Owsley's true biological father was most likely Irish. What would you say in your notes if you were an R-M222 Owsley? What other DNA test would you recommend in an attempt to find my true ancestral family? (NOTE: We match closely with the Wilson, Laws, Quinn, and McCarty families, along with several other families. Out of 37 markers, no exact match has been found, except with other Owsley "Ousley, Housley" participants.) Sincerely, Floyd L. Owsley floydlowsley@yahoo.com Sent from Yahoo! Mail for Windows 8

I agree as you go back 10 generations you have over 1000 ancestors, 20 generations 1 million etc and if Niall existed as such we would be a descendant of his. However, I was laulled to glory thinking that he was my direct paternal Y DNA ancestor and that's where it all falls apart especially with a certain company from Houston with a Niall banner across my page and sinking beaucoup bucks for that glory. However, when studying the texts and ledgers it becomes quite clear this Niall never was what he was supposed to be. Now I believe Niall was a minor player in Irish history and never was a high king of Ireland crowned at the Hill of Tara. In fact, our M222 certainly has more famous ancestors to discover than the Niall tale and lets get off this fictious Niall kick.

My Owsley ancestor, John Owsley, was born about 1731 in northern Virginia (most likely Stafford County or King George County) and was the result of a non-paternal event. We tested with Family Tree DNA and our Y-DNA Haplogroup is R-M222.  In my family notes concerning John Owsley, I write the following: According to Family Tree DNA, we are possible descendants of Niall of the Nine Hostages. Sometimes I tell other researchers that John Owsley's true biological father was most likely Irish. What would you say in your notes if you were an R-M222 Owsley?  What other DNA test would you recommend in an attempt to find my true ancestral family? (NOTE: We match closely with the Wilson, Laws, Quinn, and McCarty families, along with several other families. Out of 37 markers, no exact match has been found, except with other Owsley "Ousley, Housley" participants.) Sincerely, Floyd L. Owsley floydlowsley@yahoo.com Sent from Yahoo! Mail for Windows 8

Yes, if you count mixed lines not just the direct paternal one, I believe mathematicians like Joseph Chang have proved that if you go back far enough, everyone alive at the time was either the ancestor of everyone living or none. See for example http://www.jstor.org/stable/1428340 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/abs/nature02842.html and so on. And we've known since the work of Galston in the 19th century that over a period of a few centuries, almost all lines will die out for purely random statistical reasons, as touched on by Thomas. Invoking prolific warlords isn't necessary although that's not to rule one out. Iain > From: david.maclennan@utoronto.ca > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 17:13:54 +0000 > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Niall haplotype 'dubious' - Professor Mark Thomas > > When I was corresponding with Dr Elin Eyjolfsdottir (Celticist and > Genealogist) about my Icelandic pedigrees, she had these words of wisdom > which I will share with you: > > "As a reference point, in our genealogical records you will not find any > Icelander who is not a descendant of Harald the Fair-haired, King of > Norway in the 10th century, who is much later than Niall of the > fifth/sixth century would have been. This is because as you know, with one > set of parents, two sets of grandparents, four of great-grandparents, > eight great-great-grandparents and so on and so on, you will find at least > one person somewhere who is a descendant of Harald the Fair-haired. It is > almost a genetic impossibility if you are of Irish descent and > particularly of the Ulster region that you are not a descendant of 'a > person' from Niall Noigiallach's era, but you can never be entirely sure > who from². > > > David > > On 2014-05-26, 12:08 PM, "Iain Kennedy" <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Worth a read: http://www.academia.edu/3363365/Interlaced_scholarship_genealogies_and_genetics_in_twenty-first-century_Ireland -Paul (DF41+) On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > I would take a step back and compare and contrast > > 1. The supposed identification of Richard III - to be fully revealed in a > paper by Turi King yet to appear > 2. The task of doing a similar id of a Niall find from the current work at > Faughan Hill in the LIARI project - see Spring 2014 issue of Archaelogy > Ireland and https://www.facebook.com/LateIronAgeAndRomanIreland?filter=1 > 3. The task of proving this claim without a body. > > I can only speak for myself and say the TCD paper now looks very weak. Its > clearly outdated technically and it would be fascinating to see what would > happen if a leading academic revisited it, perhaps in a couple of years > time when the new M222 branches are well fleshed out. > > Iain > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 06:20:01 -0700 > > From: john.plummer@snet.net > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Niall haplotype 'dubious' - Professor Mark Thomas > > > > Professor Thomas used a bad example. There are some very good > scientists and very good genealogists involved in the R-M222 Project and > there is good reason to believe in the Niall of the 9 Hostages origin. > Project heads are very aware of non-paternal events and have identified a > number of them. They expect a percentage of these and allow for them. > Although the study of David Wilson et al originally was based on > population distributions, the study has gone far beyond that. Many surnames > in the study are derived in the traditional Irish pedigrees from Niall. > Not all, but that is to be expected because of the non-paternal effect and > because not all name adoptions are documented. Moreover, the DNA of many > clan chiefs has been obtained. Brian Sykes has been quite successful in > this, for one. A few bogus or mistaken pedigrees have been uncovered, but > generally they appear accurate. > > > > Now, this is not to say that there are not some dubious identifications. > I have produced at least one incorrect one myself. I have used clusters > of close matches among Welsh and other surnames to identify common > ancestors. Say there is a cluster of 5 surnames examples of each of which > are found in Siddons classic reference as descendants of a particular > tribe. That tribe will likely descend from an ancestor of a thousand years > ago, possibly much earlier. But on at least one occasion I have used too > few dna matches and too few tribal associations. Reviewing later with more > information an entirely different result might appear. > > > > So, while Professor Thomas may, almost certainly is, correct in some > instances, a blanket generalization should not be accepted. Each ancestral > identification should be considered separately. > > > > John Plummer > > > > > > On Monday, May 26, 2014 4:24 AM, Iain Kennedy < > ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > List, > > > > I recently contacted Professor Mark Thomas at the UCL Genetics > department who has been vocal in his criticism of 'bad DNA ancestry', > particularly some of the claims from BritainsDNA about Viking, Pictish DNA > etc. > > > > I pointed out that FTDNA are making similar claims about 'matching > Niall' and asked whether he might look into and comment on this too. As a > result he has now updated his page here: > > > > http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/companies > > > > and included the FTDNA marketing blurb under 'Dubious commercial > claims'. I recommend you read the comments; although unsigned there is a > small team who author the pages > > > > >From http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking > > > > "The primary authors are > > > > David Balding, Professor of Statistical Genetics, UCL > > Debbie Kennett, Honorary Research Fellow, UCL > > Mark Thomas, Professor of Evolutionary Genetics, UCL > > Adrian Timpson, Research Associate, UCL > > " > > > > I don't know whether Mark Thomas actually literally wrote the Niall > section but he and Professor Balding can be taken to have endorsed the > remarks. > > > > Note in particular the paper cited within the comments about Ghengis > Khan and Niall, > > > > "Inferring Genetic Ancestry: Opportunities, Challenges, and Implications" > > > > http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2810%2900155-2?cc=y?cc=y > > > > on p667 I quote > > > > "We emphasize, however, that whenever formal inferences about population > history have been attempted with uniparental > > systems, the statistical power is generally low. Claims of connections, > therefore, between specific > > uniparental lineages and historical figures or historical migrations of > peoples are merely speculative." > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 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 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 >

When I was corresponding with Dr Elin Eyjolfsdottir (Celticist and Genealogist) about my Icelandic pedigrees, she had these words of wisdom which I will share with you: "As a reference point, in our genealogical records you will not find any Icelander who is not a descendant of Harald the Fair-haired, King of Norway in the 10th century, who is much later than Niall of the fifth/sixth century would have been. This is because as you know, with one set of parents, two sets of grandparents, four of great-grandparents, eight great-great-grandparents and so on and so on, you will find at least one person somewhere who is a descendant of Harald the Fair-haired. It is almost a genetic impossibility if you are of Irish descent and particularly of the Ulster region that you are not a descendant of 'a person' from Niall Noigiallach's era, but you can never be entirely sure who from². David On 2014-05-26, 12:08 PM, "Iain Kennedy" <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com> wrote:

_THE IRVINGS OF BONSHAW - Clan Irwin Association_ (http://www.clanirwin.org/hbonshaw.php) (http://www.clanirwin.org/index.php) * _Home_ (http://www.clanirwin.org/index.php) * _Join_ (http://www.clanirwin.org/join.php) * _Structure_ (http://www.clanirwin.org/board.php) * _History_ (http://www.clanirwin.org/history.php) * _The Caput_ (http://www.clanirwin.org/caput.php) * _Merchandise_ (http://www.clanirwin.org/catalog.php) * _DNA Study_ (http://www.clanirwin.org/dnastudy.php) * _Events_ (http://www.clanirwin.org/events.php) * _Tours_ (http://www.clanirwin.org/trips.php) THE IRVINGS OF BONSHAW HISTORY. According to ancient family traditions (which are largely supported by known historical fact; and which are first recorded in the very short family history, “The Original of the Family of the Irvines or Erinvines”, written in 1678 by Dr. Christopher Irvine, M.D., Historiographer Royal of Scotland) the Irvings of Bonshaw are descended from DUNCAN, known in the family as 'Duncan of Eskdale', a younger brother of Crinan, the husband of Princess Beatrix and father of King Duncan I of Scotland. The paternal grandfather of Duncan of Eskdale and Crinan was DUNCAN, hereditary Abthane of Dule and lay abbot of Dunkeld. The latter Duncan is now believed to have been a direct descendant of NIALL OF THE NINE HOSTAGES, who was high King of Ireland early in the 5th century A.D and progenitor of the oldest recorded families in Europe that are still extant in an unbroken male line. The Duncan, as Abthane of Dule-an ancient title connected with St. Adamnan’s abbey of Dull, and dating from nearly 200 years before the union of the Scottish and Pictish crowns in 843 A.D.-was of more consequence than any one of the seven Pictish ‘Mormaers’, being second only to the king himself in power and importance. He appears to have been appointed Governor of Strathclyde when that region was conquered by the Saxons and given to Malcolm I of Alban (the early name of Scotland) in 946. His residence in Strathclyde is supposed to have been the old fort of Eryvine, or Orewyn, where the town of Irvine now stands, so we refer to him the ‘1st of Eryvine’. Both Duncan and his neighbour Dubdon, Mormaer of Athole, were killed at the battle of Duncrub c. 965 A.D., while leading their forces against a strong rebel army of their fellow countrymen.* DUNCAN, 1st of ERYVINE, was succeeded by his eldest son and heir, also DUNCAN, about whom we know little except that he also seems to have succeeded Dubdon as Mormaer of Athole, as he is called ‘Lord of Athole’. At the battle of Luncarty (of uncertain date), where the Danes were routed, Duncan commanded the left wing of the Scottish forces, under King Kenneth III. This Duncan is the progenitor of the oldest recorded families in Great Britain; the noble family of Dunbar is certainly descended from him, and traditionally so are the noble families of Irving and Home, all in the male line; not to mention the Royal Family and numerous other families by female descent. DUNCAN, 2ND OF ERYVINE, was succeeded by his eldest son, CRINAN, who married Princess Beatrix (or Bethoc) daughter and heiress of King Malcolm II of Scotland, and by her was father of Duncan I, who reigned as King of Scotland for six years. Crinan was the progenitor in the male line of all the kings of Scotland down to Alexander III (died 1286), and in the female line of all the sovereigns of Scotland down to the present day, with the sole exception of Macbeth, who murdered his son, King Duncan, in 1040, and reigned for the next seventeen years. Tradition tells us that Crinan maintained a residence at Eryvine, but that he was the last of his family to do so, the fortress being used solely for military purposes thereafter. He was killed by Macbeth’s forces in 1045, while trying to avenge his son’s death and grandson’s deposition. *A standing stone on the battlefield just north of the village of Dunning, in Perthshire, still marks Duncan’s tomb. **This article was copied from “THE IRVINGS OF BONSHAW, Chiefs of the Noble and Ancient Scots Border Family of Irving”, written by Alastair M.T. Maxwell-Irving, B.Sc., F.S.A. Scot. (of the House of ‘Irving of Dumfries’), printed in 1968, and partially reproduced here, only changing fonts and style to fit our site. THE NAME. About 1020, DUNCAN OF Eskdale’s eldest son married an heiress of the ancient British royal line of Coel Hen and took up residence at her ancestral home, the ancient hill-fort of Dumbretton (the name means ‘Fort of the Britons’). Shortly afterwards, either she, or one of his descendants, built a new castle in Kirtledale, two miles further east and on or near the present site of Bonshaw; he took up residence there and gave it the name Irwyn which had by then become firmly associated with the family-as Irewyn in Ayrshire, Owyrn in Eskdale, and Heryn (the seat of Crinan's brother Grim, Thane of Strathearn) in Strathearn. BRUCE'S CAVE. The Irvings and Bruces became very close friends and allies. Tradition relates that “The Bruce” was a guest at Bonshaw in 1298, and when he fled from the court of Edward I of England, in 1306, his first night back in Scotland was spent in the security of its fastness. - There is a cave in the Kirtle cliffs at Cove, in which the Irvings ae reputed to have hidden Bruce from the English on at least one occasion around this time. BONSHAW TOWER. Bonshaw Tower and the modern house adjacent to it stand on a piece of level ground, bounded on the east by a high cliff with the Kirtle Water washing its base; on the south by the steep ravine down which the Old Caul Burn runs to meet the Kirtle; on the west by rough ground and the farmyard of Bonshaw Mains (one barn there is dated ‘1764’ and initialed ‘W.I’ ) where ramparts and ditches once stood. To the west lie the lands of Dumbretton, Robgill lies to the south, Woodhouse a little further downstream, and Cove beyond. Wysebie is across the river, and further upstream lies Braes and Old Kirkconnel. Of the numerous Irving towers that once guarded the central Irving territory of Kirtledale, only Bonshaw; the ruins of Woodhouse, Stapleton, and New Kirkconnel (at Ecclefechan); and part of Robgill, incorporated in a modern mansion; now remain. The present tower at Bonshaw is now known to have been built around 1535-50, and probably between 1542 and 1548, the latter date being the known date of erection of the Irvings’ lesser stone tower at Kirkpatrick, (a dated armorial stone from the tower is preserved there.) further down the Kirtle. It successfully withstood four sieges by the Maxwells in 1585-6, during at least two of which cannon was used. The Tower is a solid rectangular keep. A 58-step wheel stair climbs from the ground level basement (prison floor) to the parapet walk above the third floor. The first floor was the Great Hall with a great fireplace, 9ft wide x 7ft high; second floor was the principal family room, serving as withdrawing room and bedroom; third floor, former garret, now serves as the history room, having a long, handwritten ancestral chart hanging on the wall. Mounted just below the top of the north gable is the old clan bell, the only one of its kind known to exist, which once summoned the clan in times of danger. This article was written by Betty Irvin, using some excerpts extracted from 'The Irvings of Bonshaw' by Alastair M.T. Maxwell-Irving, B.Sc., F.S.A. Scot © 2000 - 2014 Clan Irwin Association All Rights Reserved Designed, Hosted, & Maintained by _Picks Pix & Web_ (http://pickspixandweb.com/) (formerly PourHouse Productions)

I would take a step back and compare and contrast 1. The supposed identification of Richard III - to be fully revealed in a paper by Turi King yet to appear 2. The task of doing a similar id of a Niall find from the current work at Faughan Hill in the LIARI project - see Spring 2014 issue of Archaelogy Ireland and https://www.facebook.com/LateIronAgeAndRomanIreland?filter=1 3. The task of proving this claim without a body. I can only speak for myself and say the TCD paper now looks very weak. Its clearly outdated technically and it would be fascinating to see what would happen if a leading academic revisited it, perhaps in a couple of years time when the new M222 branches are well fleshed out. Iain > Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 06:20:01 -0700 > From: john.plummer@snet.net > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Niall haplotype 'dubious' - Professor Mark Thomas > > Professor Thomas used a bad example. There are some very good scientists and very good genealogists involved in the R-M222 Project and there is good reason to believe in the Niall of the 9 Hostages origin. Project heads are very aware of non-paternal events and have identified a number of them. They expect a percentage of these and allow for them. Although the study of David Wilson et al originally was based on population distributions, the study has gone far beyond that. Many surnames in the study are derived in the traditional Irish pedigrees from Niall. Not all, but that is to be expected because of the non-paternal effect and because not all name adoptions are documented. Moreover, the DNA of many clan chiefs has been obtained. Brian Sykes has been quite successful in this, for one. A few bogus or mistaken pedigrees have been uncovered, but generally they appear accurate. > > Now, this is not to say that there are not some dubious identifications. I have produced at least one incorrect one myself. I have used clusters of close matches among Welsh and other surnames to identify common ancestors. Say there is a cluster of 5 surnames examples of each of which are found in Siddons classic reference as descendants of a particular tribe. That tribe will likely descend from an ancestor of a thousand years ago, possibly much earlier. But on at least one occasion I have used too few dna matches and too few tribal associations. Reviewing later with more information an entirely different result might appear. > > So, while Professor Thomas may, almost certainly is, correct in some instances, a blanket generalization should not be accepted. Each ancestral identification should be considered separately. > > John Plummer > > > On Monday, May 26, 2014 4:24 AM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > List, > > I recently contacted Professor Mark Thomas at the UCL Genetics department who has been vocal in his criticism of 'bad DNA ancestry', particularly some of the claims from BritainsDNA about Viking, Pictish DNA etc. > > I pointed out that FTDNA are making similar claims about 'matching Niall' and asked whether he might look into and comment on this too. As a result he has now updated his page here: > > http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/companies > > and included the FTDNA marketing blurb under 'Dubious commercial claims'. I recommend you read the comments; although unsigned there is a small team who author the pages > > >From http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking > > "The primary authors are > > David Balding, Professor of Statistical Genetics, UCL > Debbie Kennett, Honorary Research Fellow, UCL > Mark Thomas, Professor of Evolutionary Genetics, UCL > Adrian Timpson, Research Associate, UCL > " > > I don't know whether Mark Thomas actually literally wrote the Niall section but he and Professor Balding can be taken to have endorsed the remarks. > > Note in particular the paper cited within the comments about Ghengis Khan and Niall, > > "Inferring Genetic Ancestry: Opportunities, Challenges, and Implications" > > http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2810%2900155-2?cc=y?cc=y > > on p667 I quote > > "We emphasize, however, that whenever formal inferences about population history have been attempted with uniparental > systems, the statistical power is generally low. Claims of connections, therefore, between specific > uniparental lineages and historical figures or historical migrations of peoples are merely speculative." > > Iain > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 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

Jerry, it is interesting to consider the overall net effect of the marketing claims. I have already had some people express reservations about further SNP testing, specifically giving as a reason the fear that Niall might not be at the top of the tree (or in it at all?) thus removing their Niall connection. But yes, it may have been a good draw in the first place. I was hooked into DNA testing by the 'Seven daughters of Eve' blurb from Bryan Sykes, a figure who is now regularly lampooned. However, given that we have lots of members already recruited, the question for me is all about pursuing the most robust and scientific methods - but I'm a science graduate and not always such a big fan of historians. Iain > Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 10:43:33 -0400 > From: jberry187@gmail.com > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Niall haplotype 'dubious' - Professor Mark Thomas > > I attended a lecture last year on genetics by a senior geneticist from the > university where the lecture was held. The focus of his lecture was the > reduction in genetic diversity over time. At the end of the lecture during > Q&A, an audience member asked about companies who provide DNA services for > genetic genealogy and their accuracy in relation to matching famous figures > such as Genghis Khan (Niall wasn't mentioned specifically). The speaker was > quick to offer his personal opinion that genetic genealogy was 'dubious at > best'. He went further to say that he found it odd for individuals to try > and 're-invent' themselves through 'GG' and subsequently align themselves > with important historical figures and/or events. > In my opinion, the 'Matching Niall' banner (regardless of the service > providers original intent to generate more revenue) has probably > contributed to the M222 project in a large way by > romanticizing the otherwise mundane (or al least for me anyway) subject of > genealogy. > > > On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 3:40 AM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > > > List, > > > > I recently contacted Professor Mark Thomas at the UCL Genetics department > > who has been vocal in his criticism of 'bad DNA ancestry', particularly > > some of the claims from BritainsDNA about Viking, Pictish DNA etc. > > > > I pointed out that FTDNA are making similar claims about 'matching Niall' > > and asked whether he might look into and comment on this too. As a result > > he has now updated his page here: > > > > http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/companies > > > > and included the FTDNA marketing blurb under 'Dubious commercial claims'. > > I recommend you read the comments; although unsigned there is a small team > > who author the pages > > > > >From http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking > > > > "The primary authors are > > > > David Balding, Professor of Statistical Genetics, UCL > > Debbie Kennett, Honorary Research Fellow, UCL > > Mark Thomas, Professor of Evolutionary Genetics, UCL > > Adrian Timpson, Research Associate, UCL > > " > > > > I don't know whether Mark Thomas actually literally wrote the Niall > > section but he and Professor Balding can be taken to have endorsed the > > remarks. > > > > Note in particular the paper cited within the comments about Ghengis Khan > > and Niall, > > > > "Inferring Genetic Ancestry: Opportunities, Challenges, and Implications" > > > > http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2810%2900155-2?cc=y?cc=y > > > > on p667 I quote > > > > "We emphasize, however, that whenever formal inferences about population > > history have been attempted with uniparental > > systems, the statistical power is generally low. Claims of connections, > > therefore, between specific > > uniparental lineages and historical figures or historical migrations of > > peoples are merely speculative." > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 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

If we assume that what Elin Eyjolfsdottir said below "and so on and so on" was true, we get this contradiction. After 10 generation you would have 2^10 = 1024 ancestors living at one time in your village of 100. After 20 generation you would have 2^20 = 1024 x 1024 ~ 1,000,000 ancestors living at one time in your village of 100. After 30 generation you would have 2^30 = 1024 x 1024 x 1024 ~ 1,000,000,000 ancestors living at one time in your village of 100. In Ireland at least, few people left their tuath and there were about 150 tuath, so people didn't travel far which they would have to do to get 1 billion distinct ancestors living in a village of 100, 750 to 1000 years ago. -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Maclennan Sent: Monday, May 26, 2014 1:14 PM To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] Niall haplotype 'dubious' - Professor Mark Thomas When I was corresponding with Dr Elin Eyjolfsdottir (Celticist and Genealogist) about my Icelandic pedigrees, she had these words of wisdom which I will share with you: "As a reference point, in our genealogical records you will not find any Icelander who is not a descendant of Harald the Fair-haired, King of Norway in the 10th century, who is much later than Niall of the fifth/sixth century would have been. This is because as you know, with one set of parents, two sets of grandparents, four of great-grandparents, eight great-great-grandparents and so on and so on, you will find at least one person somewhere who is a descendant of Harald the Fair-haired. It is almost a genetic impossibility if you are of Irish descent and particularly of the Ulster region that you are not a descendant of 'a person' from Niall Noigiallach's era, but you can never be entirely sure who from². David On 2014-05-26, 12:08 PM, "Iain Kennedy" <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com> wrote: ------------------------------- 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

OK, so the Niall legacy might be no more than a myth. But the architecture of the M222 group is indeed fascinating, as apparently it migrated widely. Doug On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > I would take a step back and compare and contrast > > 1. The supposed identification of Richard III - to be fully revealed in a > paper by Turi King yet to appear > 2. The task of doing a similar id of a Niall find from the current work at > Faughan Hill in the LIARI project - see Spring 2014 issue of Archaelogy > Ireland and https://www.facebook.com/LateIronAgeAndRomanIreland?filter=1 > 3. The task of proving this claim without a body. > > I can only speak for myself and say the TCD paper now looks very weak. Its > clearly outdated technically and it would be fascinating to see what would > happen if a leading academic revisited it, perhaps in a couple of years > time when the new M222 branches are well fleshed out. > > Iain > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 06:20:01 -0700 > > From: john.plummer@snet.net > > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Niall haplotype 'dubious' - Professor Mark Thomas > > > > Professor Thomas used a bad example. There are some very good > scientists and very good genealogists involved in the R-M222 Project and > there is good reason to believe in the Niall of the 9 Hostages origin. > Project heads are very aware of non-paternal events and have identified a > number of them. They expect a percentage of these and allow for them. > Although the study of David Wilson et al originally was based on > population distributions, the study has gone far beyond that. Many surnames > in the study are derived in the traditional Irish pedigrees from Niall. > Not all, but that is to be expected because of the non-paternal effect and > because not all name adoptions are documented. Moreover, the DNA of many > clan chiefs has been obtained. Brian Sykes has been quite successful in > this, for one. A few bogus or mistaken pedigrees have been uncovered, but > generally they appear accurate. > > > > Now, this is not to say that there are not some dubious identifications. > I have produced at least one incorrect one myself. I have used clusters > of close matches among Welsh and other surnames to identify common > ancestors. Say there is a cluster of 5 surnames examples of each of which > are found in Siddons classic reference as descendants of a particular > tribe. That tribe will likely descend from an ancestor of a thousand years > ago, possibly much earlier. But on at least one occasion I have used too > few dna matches and too few tribal associations. Reviewing later with more > information an entirely different result might appear. > > > > So, while Professor Thomas may, almost certainly is, correct in some > instances, a blanket generalization should not be accepted. Each ancestral > identification should be considered separately. > > > > John Plummer > > > > > > On Monday, May 26, 2014 4:24 AM, Iain Kennedy < > ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > List, > > > > I recently contacted Professor Mark Thomas at the UCL Genetics > department who has been vocal in his criticism of 'bad DNA ancestry', > particularly some of the claims from BritainsDNA about Viking, Pictish DNA > etc. > > > > I pointed out that FTDNA are making similar claims about 'matching > Niall' and asked whether he might look into and comment on this too. As a > result he has now updated his page here: > > > > http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/companies > > > > and included the FTDNA marketing blurb under 'Dubious commercial > claims'. I recommend you read the comments; although unsigned there is a > small team who author the pages > > > > >From http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking > > > > "The primary authors are > > > > David Balding, Professor of Statistical Genetics, UCL > > Debbie Kennett, Honorary Research Fellow, UCL > > Mark Thomas, Professor of Evolutionary Genetics, UCL > > Adrian Timpson, Research Associate, UCL > > " > > > > I don't know whether Mark Thomas actually literally wrote the Niall > section but he and Professor Balding can be taken to have endorsed the > remarks. > > > > Note in particular the paper cited within the comments about Ghengis > Khan and Niall, > > > > "Inferring Genetic Ancestry: Opportunities, Challenges, and Implications" > > > > http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2810%2900155-2?cc=y?cc=y > > > > on p667 I quote > > > > "We emphasize, however, that whenever formal inferences about population > history have been attempted with uniparental > > systems, the statistical power is generally low. Claims of connections, > therefore, between specific > > uniparental lineages and historical figures or historical migrations of > peoples are merely speculative." > > > > Iain > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 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 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 >

So as an L21+, M222+, S660+ this now means that my family originated somewhere on the dark side of the moon? OK, but where is that pot o' gold I have heard so much about? :-D Doug On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Susan Hedeen < chantillycarpets@earthlink.net> wrote: > Well, I have to agree with you there...as a result for this project > there has ensued some exceptionally interesting, > thought provoking, informative discussions that may have otherwise not > have been. For that we all benefit IMO > whether or not we have similar beliefs and/or conclusions. > > The flip side to this is that in some cases the agenda for an individual > is to prove something that may not be provable. > This goes to the re-invention phenomena with (or without) ensuing > discussion and debate some that creates hard feelings along with > feelings disenfranchisement forged in others. > > As a hobby, however, there is much to be said for GG. Susan > > On 5/26/2014 10:43 AM, Jerry Berry wrote: > > In my opinion, the 'Matching Niall' banner (regardless of the service > > providers original intent to generate more revenue) has probably > > contributed to the M222 project in a large way by > > romanticizing the otherwise mundane (or al least for me anyway) subject > of > > genealogy. > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

The probability that a man named Niall would actually exist, found a dynasty apart from his native tuath, be remembered in the histories, and have a unique SNP which no one before him possessed, is effectively zero. The probability that an offshoot group of a Connaught tuath would father every single person with this unique SNP, even after the neighboring kingdoms of the Uladh and Laigin existed for 500 years is zero. The date of 94 BC for the wood of the 40 meter structures at both Emain Macha in Armagh and Rath na Rithe at Tara in Meath are fixed points which cannot be ignored. Any model using STRs must be account for what is known through archeology, in particular, dendrochronology. The high proportion of M222 centered around Strabane can be accounted for by founder effect and the new, at the time, 'Kindred' or Cenel, peoples, e.g. Cenél nEógain and Cenél Chonaill. The earlier peoples such as the Dál Cuinn and Dál Fiatach, were not necessarily related by blood. The ruling family, the derbh-fhine, were blood related, but not everyone else. Among the old Dál peoples, it was very common to kill your brothers and nephews among the derbh-fhine to increase you and you sons' prospects to rule. This cut down on descendants and some people such as the Uí Echach na hÁrda of the Ards Peninsula of County Down did die out. The last 5 kings of the Uladh were brothers. The last one of which, Ruaidhrí, killed 2 of his brothers and blinded another. The Kindred peoples, did not have the Senchas or the stature of the older tuaths. What they had, they had by conquest: sword-land, and it was to their advantage to keep the kindred together so that they could conquer more land. The early history of Ireland is the story of the Féini, Ulaidh and Laighin fighting each other. Eventually the Féini as the O'Neill were the victors. They pushed the Laigin out of Meath and the Uladh out of Armagh. They had more land, more power and more sons.

Well, I have to agree with you there...as a result for this project there has ensued some exceptionally interesting, thought provoking, informative discussions that may have otherwise not have been. For that we all benefit IMO whether or not we have similar beliefs and/or conclusions. The flip side to this is that in some cases the agenda for an individual is to prove something that may not be provable. This goes to the re-invention phenomena with (or without) ensuing discussion and debate some that creates hard feelings along with feelings disenfranchisement forged in others. As a hobby, however, there is much to be said for GG. Susan On 5/26/2014 10:43 AM, Jerry Berry wrote: > In my opinion, the 'Matching Niall' banner (regardless of the service > providers original intent to generate more revenue) has probably > contributed to the M222 project in a large way by > romanticizing the otherwise mundane (or al least for me anyway) subject of > genealogy.

I attended a lecture last year on genetics by a senior geneticist from the university where the lecture was held. The focus of his lecture was the reduction in genetic diversity over time. At the end of the lecture during Q&A, an audience member asked about companies who provide DNA services for genetic genealogy and their accuracy in relation to matching famous figures such as Genghis Khan (Niall wasn't mentioned specifically). The speaker was quick to offer his personal opinion that genetic genealogy was 'dubious at best'. He went further to say that he found it odd for individuals to try and 're-invent' themselves through 'GG' and subsequently align themselves with important historical figures and/or events. In my opinion, the 'Matching Niall' banner (regardless of the service providers original intent to generate more revenue) has probably contributed to the M222 project in a large way by romanticizing the otherwise mundane (or al least for me anyway) subject of genealogy. On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 3:40 AM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com>wrote: > List, > > I recently contacted Professor Mark Thomas at the UCL Genetics department > who has been vocal in his criticism of 'bad DNA ancestry', particularly > some of the claims from BritainsDNA about Viking, Pictish DNA etc. > > I pointed out that FTDNA are making similar claims about 'matching Niall' > and asked whether he might look into and comment on this too. As a result > he has now updated his page here: > > http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/companies > > and included the FTDNA marketing blurb under 'Dubious commercial claims'. > I recommend you read the comments; although unsigned there is a small team > who author the pages > > >From http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking > > "The primary authors are > > David Balding, Professor of Statistical Genetics, UCL > Debbie Kennett, Honorary Research Fellow, UCL > Mark Thomas, Professor of Evolutionary Genetics, UCL > Adrian Timpson, Research Associate, UCL > " > > I don't know whether Mark Thomas actually literally wrote the Niall > section but he and Professor Balding can be taken to have endorsed the > remarks. > > Note in particular the paper cited within the comments about Ghengis Khan > and Niall, > > "Inferring Genetic Ancestry: Opportunities, Challenges, and Implications" > > http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2810%2900155-2?cc=y?cc=y > > on p667 I quote > > "We emphasize, however, that whenever formal inferences about population > history have been attempted with uniparental > systems, the statistical power is generally low. Claims of connections, > therefore, between specific > uniparental lineages and historical figures or historical migrations of > peoples are merely speculative." > > Iain > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

The blanket generalization in addition to marketing over reach is what Thomas et. al. is referring to. I've been following the progress of this group in addition to having discussions with Debbie Kennett among others on this very issue. From that vantage point of marketing over reach, lets look at the history of both the IMH and the M222 modal haplotype. If one tests out with in the 1 step either way tolerance in the key alleles of the modal haplotype with FTDNA, what do they get? The Niall badge. What does this infer to those particularly who are unfamiliar with all the legends, myths, and histories (as rewritten with redaction and in some cases out and out fraudulent information etc) regarding the Irish? It infers that Niall was M222 -- and we do not know this, he easily could have been of any other sub-clade with high coalescence in Ireland -- and there are several, not just M222. Then then argument of the surnames comes up as traditionally traceable by surname only from groups that profess Ui Neill descendency. Those same surnames span the sub-clades of L21 and even other haplogroups. Any doubt on that...visit the surname projects. And surnames were not chosen for hundreds of years post Niall...add to this name changes, population movement through migration, slave trade, displacement, military endeavors, ecclesiastical missions, invasions, and all the rest and the picture becomes even muddier beyond the fact that not one person can trace their lineage with confidence back to the time of Niall and few can to the 1500's. Add to this then the populations out side of Ireland that for all intents and purposes have claims that to the best of their research endeavors their historical ancestors never set foot on Irish soil prior to the Ulster Plantation if then. Of course the argument there is always that the marker spread from Ireland. Could have but does not recognize the huge possibility if not probability that the marker sailed into the Isles and marched across them with proliferation and subsequent migration from within. The point here is that any time a genetic signature is assigned to a famous figure which in most cases, if that figure lived prior to the genealogical period and before good reliable record keeping, the pitch is speculative and in some cases not even supportable by all the evidence speculative. Just because someone puts together a report and/or a paper whether or not it goes through the rigors of peer review and academic publishing, does not make any conclusion of that endeavor fact for all --if fact at all. In most cases conclusions are theoretically based on an interpretation of evidence, and in many cases the evidence itself does not support the conclusion in part or in total. "It looks like" is a well worn phrase. "It looks like" isn't "its a fact" This is the issue, not whether or not certain surnames with ancestral claims of affiliations and descent from certain groups may be nor the tested genetic signatures that span the surnames. Thank you Iain for bringing the issue to the forum. Susan Hedeen On 5/26/2014 9:20 AM, JOHN PLUMMER wrote: > So, while Professor Thomas may, almost certainly is, correct in some instances, a blanket generalization should not be accepted. Each ancestral identification should be considered separately.

   I think that most of the people here are aware of the desire of some to want to be related to some historical figure for whatever reason, but usually dismiss it without a word needing be said. IMO this group is seriously searching for the truth of their genetic genealogy by the way they expend so much effort into learning how to understand and read various charts and documents relating to themselves and in some cases, for anyone who asks for help. I'm not saying it is wrong to come up with viable theories on where they are from and when, but they should be treated as theories unless there is enough evidence found to engage in further investigation.    It's too bad that some companies might take advantage of people who are enthusiastic to find their roots only to find that they feel they were taken advantage of. That makes it that much harder for honest groups (M222, R1b-L21, etc...) that are sincerely trying to find connections through genetic genealogy to get people to take the necessary tests to enable successful results. Slainte, Mike McNally On Monday, May 26, 2014 11:06 AM, Susan Hedeen <chantillycarpets@earthlink.net> wrote: Well, I have to agree with you there...as a result for this project there has ensued some exceptionally interesting, thought provoking, informative discussions that may have otherwise not have been.  For that we all benefit IMO whether or not we have similar beliefs and/or conclusions. The flip side to this is that in some cases the agenda for an individual is to prove something that may not be provable. This goes to the re-invention phenomena with (or without) ensuing discussion and debate some that creates hard feelings along with feelings disenfranchisement forged in others. As a hobby, however, there is much to be said for GG.  Susan On 5/26/2014 10:43 AM, Jerry Berry wrote: > In my opinion, the 'Matching Niall' banner (regardless of the service > providers original intent to generate more revenue) has probably > contributed to the M222 project in a large way by > romanticizing the otherwise mundane (or al least for me anyway) subject of > genealogy. ------------------------------- 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

List, I recently contacted Professor Mark Thomas at the UCL Genetics department who has been vocal in his criticism of 'bad DNA ancestry', particularly some of the claims from BritainsDNA about Viking, Pictish DNA etc. I pointed out that FTDNA are making similar claims about 'matching Niall' and asked whether he might look into and comment on this too. As a result he has now updated his page here: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/companies and included the FTDNA marketing blurb under 'Dubious commercial claims'. I recommend you read the comments; although unsigned there is a small team who author the pages >From http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking "The primary authors are David Balding, Professor of Statistical Genetics, UCL Debbie Kennett, Honorary Research Fellow, UCL Mark Thomas, Professor of Evolutionary Genetics, UCL Adrian Timpson, Research Associate, UCL " I don't know whether Mark Thomas actually literally wrote the Niall section but he and Professor Balding can be taken to have endorsed the remarks. Note in particular the paper cited within the comments about Ghengis Khan and Niall, "Inferring Genetic Ancestry: Opportunities, Challenges, and Implications" http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2810%2900155-2?cc=y?cc=y on p667 I quote "We emphasize, however, that whenever formal inferences about population history have been attempted with uniparental systems, the statistical power is generally low. Claims of connections, therefore, between specific uniparental lineages and historical figures or historical migrations of peoples are merely speculative." Iain

Professor Thomas used a bad example.  There are some very good scientists and very good genealogists involved in the R-M222 Project and there is good reason to believe in the Niall of the 9 Hostages origin.  Project heads are very aware of non-paternal events and have identified a number of them.  They expect a percentage of these and allow for them.  Although the study of David Wilson et al originally was based on population distributions, the study has gone far beyond that. Many surnames in the study are derived in the traditional Irish pedigrees from Niall.  Not all, but that is to be expected because of the non-paternal effect and because not all name adoptions are documented.  Moreover, the DNA of many clan chiefs has been obtained.  Brian Sykes has been quite successful in this, for one.  A few bogus or mistaken pedigrees have been uncovered, but generally they appear accurate.   Now, this is not to say that there are not some dubious identifications.  I have produced at least one incorrect one myself.  I have used clusters of close matches among Welsh and other surnames to identify common ancestors.  Say there is a cluster of 5 surnames examples of each of which are found in Siddons classic reference as descendants of a particular tribe.  That tribe will likely descend from an ancestor of a thousand years ago, possibly much earlier.  But on at least one occasion I have used too few dna matches and too few tribal associations.  Reviewing later with more information an entirely different result might appear.   So, while Professor Thomas may, almost certainly is, correct in some instances, a blanket generalization should not be accepted.  Each ancestral identification should be considered separately.   John Plummer   On Monday, May 26, 2014 4:24 AM, Iain Kennedy <ikennedy_msdn2@hotmail.com> wrote: List, I recently contacted Professor Mark Thomas at the UCL Genetics department who has been vocal in his criticism of 'bad DNA ancestry', particularly some of the claims from BritainsDNA about Viking, Pictish DNA etc. I pointed out that FTDNA are making similar claims about 'matching Niall' and asked whether he might look into and comment on this too. As a result he has now updated his page here: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking/companies and included the FTDNA marketing blurb under 'Dubious commercial claims'. I recommend you read the comments; although unsigned there is a small team who author the pages >From http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/debunking "The primary authors are     David Balding, Professor of Statistical Genetics, UCL     Debbie Kennett,  Honorary Research Fellow, UCL     Mark Thomas, Professor of Evolutionary Genetics, UCL     Adrian Timpson, Research Associate, UCL " I don't know whether Mark Thomas actually literally wrote the Niall section but he and Professor Balding can be taken to have endorsed the remarks. Note in particular the paper cited within the comments about Ghengis Khan and Niall, "Inferring Genetic Ancestry: Opportunities, Challenges, and Implications" http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297%2810%2900155-2?cc=y?cc=y on p667 I quote "We emphasize, however, that whenever formal inferences about population history have been attempted with uniparental systems, the statistical power is generally low. Claims of connections, therefore, between specific uniparental lineages and historical figures or historical migrations of peoples are merely speculative." Iain                         ------------------------------- 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