My only slightly informed speculations as a retired sociologist/demographer: 1. There must have been a stable tribal base for M222 to proliferate as it did over many centuries. Isolated individuals did not prosper or indeed long survive in the late Neolithic and the early Middle Ages. Remember as well that life expectancy then would be in the low 30 years with 40% infant mortality even in the best of circumstances. Further, the mutation must have been especially well established in a very prosperous ruling male elite which had repeated non-casual sexual access to a wide range of women. It would almost certainly involve slavery I would think. The multiplier required to produce 3 million carrier males worldwide now in the space of perhaps 2,000 low-life-expectancy/high-mortality years is extraordinary. 2. That all Celtic tribes of the Neolithic age initially derive from Anatolia, beginning 12,000 years ago via Greece and then southern Europe, is now simply a truism. The published dissipation maps of R1b clearly show the east to west gradient. The groups moved slowly with their cereal grains and their livestock. The animals were initially for meat ("blood month" in late fall for slaughter was a widespread tradition) and then later for dairy after lactose tolerance emerged as a result of routine feeding of surplus milk to young children, some few of which had tolerance (or more properly, had lost the intolerance gene) and became lifelong consumers probably in what is now The Netherlands or northern Belgium. I would very interested to know if any M222 individuals now proved to be lactose intolerant. It would seem unlikely. 3. The arrival of separate tribes in Great Britain is thus a question of timing and circumstance since the tribal communities clearly did not all arrive at once. Each probably had its own version of a genesis myth which would muddy the whole matter. How separate the separate tribes really were then is an empirical question. Were they like cousins or enemies? Or like the separate but non-contending tribes in the 6 Nations Confederacy such as the Mohawk and the Iroquois? Did they have specialized skills, good and bad reputations? Probably we shall never know unless a great batch of chronicles emerges from some field like a gold and silver horde. There is abundant evidence that the first large group finally reached the west coast of Ireland 7,000 years ago, the migration from Anatolia thus taking 5,000 years to complete. Their extensive stonework animal pens are still there buried in the peat in western Ireland, several feet down and would have taken hundreds of thousands of manhours of labour to create by hand over centuries. This finding in turn means to me that the initial tribes had the means to transport young livestock by sea by means now unknown. No conveyance now known could have transported adult animals at that time. Taking young animals implies planning, an investment strategy, a supply within the community of capital of some sort which could be ventured, possibly stored cereal grain and precious metals. 3. The current geodistribution of M222 (as it is now seen in yet rudimentary form) is suspiciously similar to the territory of the Kingdom of Dal Riata (roughly 500-800 AD, including the sponsored establishment of the Iona community, St. Columba, and so on.). If I may quote from the sometimes dubious Wikipedia, "Dál Riata (also Dalriada or Dalriata) was a Gaelic overkingdom on the western coast of Scotland with some territory on the northeast coast of Ireland. In the late 6th and early 7th century it encompassed roughly what is now Argyll and Bute and Lochaber in Scotland and also County Antrim in Ireland....What is not in doubt is that Irish Dál Riata was a lesser kingdom of Ulaid....Columba brokered the alliance between Dál Riata and the Northern Uí Néill." Note: an alliance with O'Neill, not identity or kinship with. Dal Riata was the kingdom in which the kingly investiture hill fort of Dunadd is located. Judging by the archeology, it was a very wealthy and well-defended fortress. Dal Riata formed the base for the Kenneth MacAlpin assemblage of a unified kingdom of Alba in the mid 800s after the expulsion of the Vikings. And yes, Dal Riata did have long timber ships of the Viking sort quite capable of moving livestock and stored grains (and slaves of course). Again, from Wikipedia, "Linguistic and genealogical evidence associates ancestors of the Dál Riata with the prehistoric Iverni and Darini, suggesting kinship with the Ulaid and a number of shadowy kingdoms in distant Munster. The Robogdii have also been suggested as ancestral. Ultimately the Dál Riata, according to the earliest genealogies, are descendants of Deda mac Sin, a prehistoric king or deity of the Érainn." I am in no position at all to assess this list of possible tribal sources. But I doubt anyone really is in the present era. However, the derivation is probably written somewhere in the y-dna if it could ever be weedled out and deciphered. For fans of the movie The Eagle, I am sort of rooting for The Seal People as ancestors. They are my kind of people and had large deerhounds to run escaping slaves down, at least in the movie. More likely to be a bunch of rutting Druids I guess. What is the police adage?: motive, method, opportunity and ability.

Good presentation, Craig. -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Craig McKie Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 3:53 PM To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: [R-M222] Speculations on Celtric Tribes My only slightly informed speculations as a retired sociologist/demographer: 1. There must have been a stable tribal base for M222 to proliferate as it did over many centuries. Isolated individuals did not prosper or indeed long survive in the late Neolithic and the early Middle Ages. Remember as well that life expectancy then would be in the low 30 years with 40% infant mortality even in the best of circumstances. Further, the mutation must have been especially well established in a very prosperous ruling male elite which had repeated non-casual sexual access to a wide range of women. It would almost certainly involve slavery I would think. The multiplier required to produce 3 million carrier males worldwide now in the space of perhaps 2,000 low-life-expectancy/high-mortality years is extraordinary. 2. That all Celtic tribes of the Neolithic age initially derive from Anatolia, beginning 12,000 years ago via Greece and then southern Europe, is now simply a truism. The published dissipation maps of R1b clearly show the east to west gradient. The groups moved slowly with their cereal grains and their livestock. The animals were initially for meat ("blood month" in late fall for slaughter was a widespread tradition) and then later for dairy after lactose tolerance emerged as a result of routine feeding of surplus milk to young children, some few of which had tolerance (or more properly, had lost the intolerance gene) and became lifelong consumers probably in what is now The Netherlands or northern Belgium. I would very interested to know if any M222 individuals now proved to be lactose intolerant. It would seem unlikely. 3. The arrival of separate tribes in Great Britain is thus a question of timing and circumstance since the tribal communities clearly did not all arrive at once. Each probably had its own version of a genesis myth which would muddy the whole matter. How separate the separate tribes really were then is an empirical question. Were they like cousins or enemies? Or like the separate but non-contending tribes in the 6 Nations Confederacy such as the Mohawk and the Iroquois? Did they have specialized skills, good and bad reputations? Probably we shall never know unless a great batch of chronicles emerges from some field like a gold and silver horde. There is abundant evidence that the first large group finally reached the west coast of Ireland 7,000 years ago, the migration from Anatolia thus taking 5,000 years to complete. Their extensive stonework animal pens are still there buried in the peat in western Ireland, several feet down and would have taken hundreds of thousands of manhours of labour to create by hand over centuries. This finding in turn means to me that the initial tribes had the means to transport young livestock by sea by means now unknown. No conveyance now known could have transported adult animals at that time. Taking young animals implies planning, an investment strategy, a supply within the community of capital of some sort which could be ventured, possibly stored cereal grain and precious metals. 3. The current geodistribution of M222 (as it is now seen in yet rudimentary form) is suspiciously similar to the territory of the Kingdom of Dal Riata (roughly 500-800 AD, including the sponsored establishment of the Iona community, St. Columba, and so on.). If I may quote from the sometimes dubious Wikipedia, "Dál Riata (also Dalriada or Dalriata) was a Gaelic overkingdom on the western coast of Scotland with some territory on the northeast coast of Ireland. In the late 6th and early 7th century it encompassed roughly what is now Argyll and Bute and Lochaber in Scotland and also County Antrim in Ireland....What is not in doubt is that Irish Dál Riata was a lesser kingdom of Ulaid....Columba brokered the alliance between Dál Riata and the Northern Uí Néill." Note: an alliance with O'Neill, not identity or kinship with. Dal Riata was the kingdom in which the kingly investiture hill fort of Dunadd is located. Judging by the archeology, it was a very wealthy and well-defended fortress. Dal Riata formed the base for the Kenneth MacAlpin assemblage of a unified kingdom of Alba in the mid 800s after the expulsion of the Vikings. And yes, Dal Riata did have long timber ships of the Viking sort quite capable of moving livestock and stored grains (and slaves of course). Again, from Wikipedia, "Linguistic and genealogical evidence associates ancestors of the Dál Riata with the prehistoric Iverni and Darini, suggesting kinship with the Ulaid and a number of shadowy kingdoms in distant Munster. The Robogdii have also been suggested as ancestral. Ultimately the Dál Riata, according to the earliest genealogies, are descendants of Deda mac Sin, a prehistoric king or deity of the Érainn." I am in no position at all to assess this list of possible tribal sources. But I doubt anyone really is in the present era. However, the derivation is probably written somewhere in the y-dna if it could ever be weedled out and deciphered. For fans of the movie The Eagle, I am sort of rooting for The Seal People as ancestors. They are my kind of people and had large deerhounds to run escaping slaves down, at least in the movie. More likely to be a bunch of rutting Druids I guess. What is the police adage?: motive, method, opportunity and ability. 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

Let follow some of Craig's words > Isolated individuals did not prosper or indeed long survive in the late Neolithic and the early Middle Ages. In Ireland the basic unit of society was the derbfhine (or variant), comprising all the patrilineal descendants over a four-generation group, i.e., back to common great-grandfather. The derbfhine held typical five or four rath/tech i.e. homesteads, which formed a Baile. Twenty Baile form a Tuath or Tricha Cet, the basic kingdom level. Population remains constant until such things as agricultural improvements; therefore population growth is a constant sum game, i.e. if the M222+ population expansion is at the expense of someone else’s male descendants. M222 population could expand territorially, however you have to wars and tribal politics, so a simpler method is to push the weaker members of the tribe to the edges. Smith shows this his book "Celtic Leinster". So non-M222 population is forced to marginal land or contested frontier, and so are in decline. (Probably also there male access to reproduction was a constant sum game to, won by those with great recourses.) How this applies to M222? Well M222 would have grown in a clump for mutual support and when large enough a clump breaks away and form new colonies. This organic grow is what is described in the branching pedigrees and the geographical movements can be followed in the annals. Hence have the information to know who should be M222 (if telling the truth) due to tribal claims. In Scotland this lack the annals its harder, yet there are Gaelic tribal descriptions. However the Clan confederation dominates our understanding of Scotland. Without the history and genealogical records we know little about origin of the Gall-Gael. I think the fundamental issue with Scotland is that no one have yet written the Gaelic history of Scotland, or as the Scots would have described it, the Irish history of Scotland….

Neil or his immediate ancestors are supposed to have lived in ca. 400 CE or later. Even if we put the date back some what we are still looking for a relatively recent historical background. What is there to explain the great increase of population that descendants of Neil benefited from? They now number ca. 2 to 4 million or more only on the male side. This is the only dynasty that was so blessed and whose blessing has been confirmed by DNA, assuming DNA is correct. [The spread of descendants of Genghis Khan in Asia is another possibility but a less certain one.] Some people would consider this a blessing. The blessing is not only in the fact but also in the fact being known to those involved. I deal in Biblical Exegesis, in legends, in historical studies, in obscure facts, and other such matters. My researches would not be considered academic but rather, in the eyes of some, those of an eccentric (to be polite about it.). Nevertheless here and there I seem to have come across points that have been appreciated by academia. Anyway, for what it is worth: In my opinion researchers would do well to keep the following possibilities in mind. Many descendants of Neil would regularly have had more than one wife. On the whole their wives must have remained relatively faithful. So too, in general they did not involve themselves with the women of other men. This explains the relatively close correspondence of genealogical traditions with DNA findings. It also denotes a consciousness of wanting to expand. They had robust constitutions giving them more resistance to the vicissitudes of nature and environment. They were exceptionally fertile or else simply exceptionally lacking in infertile cases. It may be that over a long run all of R1b has a greater statistical male-child predominance. This may be especially pronounced in R-M222.

Just some comments on this highly unusual posting. First, there is no evidence that there was a great increase in population numbers attributable to Niall or his descendants over and above the increase in the general population of either Ireland or of the world. Second, I don't see where you got the number 2-4 million, only on the male side. What's the reference? Third, this so-called dynasty has not been confirmed by DNA with any degree of certainty. Fourth, the statement that there is, in this instance, a relatively close correspondence of genealogical traditions with DNA findings is both unproven and appears to represent more of a speculative hope on the part of the poster. Fifth, there is no evidence, DNA or otherwise, that they had robust constitutions giving them more resistance to the vicissitudes of nature and environment or that they were exceptionally fertile or lacking in infertile cases. Finally, there is no evidence that, over the long run all of R1b has a greater statistical male-child predominance. If that were the case scientists would have shown it by now. Nor is there a shred of evidence that male dominance is especially pronounced in R-M222. And, ….. the Celts came to Ireland after the origin of M222 -- many hundreds of years afterwards. - Bye from Bill Howard On Oct 2, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Yair Davidiy wrote: > > Neil or his immediate ancestors are supposed to have lived in ca. 400 > CE or later. > Even if we put the date back some what we are still looking for a > relatively recent historical background. > > What is there to explain the great increase of population that > descendants of Neil benefited from? > They now number ca. 2 to 4 million or more only on the male side. > > This is the only dynasty that was so blessed and whose blessing has > been confirmed by DNA, assuming DNA is correct. > [The spread of descendants of Genghis Khan in Asia is another > possibility but a less certain one.] > > Some people would consider this a blessing. > The blessing is not only in the fact but also in the fact being known > to those involved. > > I deal in Biblical Exegesis, in legends, in historical studies, in > obscure facts, and other such matters. > My researches would not be considered academic but rather, in the > eyes of some, those of an eccentric (to be polite about it.). > Nevertheless here and there I seem to have come across points that > have been appreciated by academia. > > Anyway, for what it is worth: > > In my opinion researchers would do well to keep the following > possibilities in mind. > > Many descendants of Neil would regularly have had more than one wife. > On the whole their wives must have remained relatively faithful. > So too, in general they did not involve themselves with the women of other men. > > This explains the relatively close correspondence of genealogical > traditions with DNA findings. > It also denotes a consciousness of wanting to expand. > > They had robust constitutions giving them more resistance to the > vicissitudes of nature and environment. > > They were exceptionally fertile or else simply exceptionally lacking > in infertile cases. > > It may be that over a long run all of R1b has a greater statistical > male-child predominance. > This may be especially pronounced in R-M222. >

At 11:51 PM 10/2/2011, you wrote: >Just some comments on this highly unusual posting. >First, there is no evidence that there was a >great increase in population numbers >attributable to Niall or his descendants over >and above the increase in the general population >of either Ireland or of the world. Note: I am answering your queries/challenges from URLs I picked off the Web. This is in order to save time but academic sources saying the same also exist. R-M222 shows either increase or simply survival rate way beyond that of all others. Otherwise why is this the only group that increased or survived to such a degree whereas all others did not? See: http://www.familytreedna.com/landing/matching-niall.aspx 21% (or more) in Northwest Ireland and ca. 8% in the rest of Ireland. Why do these figures only apply to them? When they began they were one out of a 100,000 or much more (possibly ca. 300,000) and now they are one out of 12. Do these figures not indicate higher survival rates or higher fertility or higher male children ratios? Here it is implied that they all go back to Neil. Other sources stress that the brothers of Neil (the Connachta) were just as important. Either way it is not that far back in time and it only applies to them. >Second, I don't see where you got the number 2-4 >million, only on the male side. What's the reference? This number is quoted often. I am surprised you are not familiar with it. See: Niall of the Nine Hostages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_of_the_Nine_Hostages#cite_note-SundayTimes-13 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The geneticists estimated that there are about 2-3 million males alive today who descend in the male-line from Niall.[14] ^ Battles, Jan (January 15, 2006), "High King Niall: the most fertile man in Ireland", The Sunday Times (Times Newspapers Ltd.), http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article788652.ece, retrieved 2009-08-06 >Third, this so-called dynasty has not been >confirmed by DNA with any degree of certainty. It has been shown to relate to areas controlled by the U Neil and Connachta and on the whole to be associated with their families. >Fourth, the statement that there is, in this >instance, a relatively close correspondence of >genealogical traditions with DNA findings is >both unproven and appears to represent more of a >speculative hope on the part of the poster. It is not something I invented. It is what the academic findings and the popular press reported and still does. e.g. Laoise T. Moore,1,* Brian McEvoy,1,* Eleanor Cape,1 Katharine Simms,2 and Daniel G. Bradley1 A Y-Chromosome Signature of Hegemony in Gaelic Ireland 1 Smurfit Institute of Genetics and 2School of Histories and Humanities, Trinity College, Dublin Am. J. Hum. Genet., 78:334-338, 2006 http://www.dnaancestryproject.com/ydna_intro_famous.php?id=niall Quote: It shows a significant association with surnames purported to have descended from the most important and enduring dynasty of early medieval Ireland, the U?Nill. This suggests that such phylogenetic predominance is a biological record of past hegemony and supports the veracity of semimythological early genealogies. >Fifth, there is no evidence, DNA or otherwise, >that they had robust constitutions giving them >more resistance to the vicissitudes of nature >and environment or that they were exceptionally >fertile or lacking in infertile cases. I did not say there was any evidence. I said that these were possibilities that may deserve looking into to. Otherwise how do you explain their relative demographic expansion as compared to others? >Finally, there is no evidence that, over the >long run all of R1b has a greater statistical >male-child predominance. If that were the case >scientists would have shown it by now. Again I merely suggested that this is something that may be worth looking into. It is not my idea. I saw it expressed regarding R1b in general and think it may (or may not) also apply (possibly even more) in this case. > Nor is there a shred of evidence that male > dominance is especially pronounced in R-M222. See the above answer. Has anybody checked this? Have you asked around? Other R-M222 have made comments suggesting this possibility. >And, ….. the Celts came to Ireland after the >origin of M222 -- many hundreds of years afterwards. Maybe. Did I mention Celts? What I wrote is found below. Do you see the word Celts there? >- Bye from Bill Howard Bye to you too. Yair Davidiy Jerusalem Israel >On Oct 2, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Yair Davidiy wrote: > > > > > Neil or his immediate ancestors are supposed to have lived in ca. 400 > > CE or later. > > Even if we put the date back some what we are still looking for a > > relatively recent historical background. > > > > What is there to explain the great increase of population that > > descendants of Neil benefited from? > > They now number ca. 2 to 4 million or more only on the male side. > > > > This is the only dynasty that was so blessed and whose blessing has > > been confirmed by DNA, assuming DNA is correct. > > [The spread of descendants of Genghis Khan in Asia is another > > possibility but a less certain one.] > > > > Some people would consider this a blessing. > > The blessing is not only in the fact but also in the fact being known > > to those involved. > > > > I deal in Biblical Exegesis, in legends, in historical studies, in > > obscure facts, and other such matters. > > My researches would not be considered academic but rather, in the > > eyes of some, those of an eccentric (to be polite about it.). > > Nevertheless here and there I seem to have come across points that > > have been appreciated by academia. > > > > Anyway, for what it is worth: > > > > In my opinion researchers would do well to keep the following > > possibilities in mind. > > > > Many descendants of Neil would regularly have had more than one wife. > > On the whole their wives must have remained relatively faithful. > > So too, in general they did not involve > themselves with the women of other men. > > > > This explains the relatively close correspondence of genealogical > > traditions with DNA findings. > > It also denotes a consciousness of wanting to expand. > > > > They had robust constitutions giving them more resistance to the > > vicissitudes of nature and environment. > > > > They were exceptionally fertile or else simply exceptionally lacking > > in infertile cases. > > > > It may be that over a long run all of R1b has a greater statistical > > male-child predominance. > > This may be especially pronounced in R-M222. > > > > > R1b1c7 Research and Links: > >http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/

Mr. Davidiy, a poster from Jerusalem, Israel, wrote earlier: "I deal in Biblical Exegesis (i.e., interpretations of Scripture), in legends, in historical studies, in obscure facts, and other such matters. My researches would not be considered academic but rather, in the eyes of some, those of an eccentric (to be polite about it)." Yes, I can see that. I should have realized that I was dealing with someone who appears to be dealing with faith rather than with science. He did put into his subject line that his posting dealt with Celtic tribes — much after the appearance of M222. I note that Mr. Davidiy has lectured on the whereabouts of the lost tribes of Israel and has apparently been trying to connect the carriers of the M222 SNP with his beliefs. See http://britam.org/ I stand by the paper on M222 that John McLaughlin and I wrote. It deals with genetics and science, not with faith. Mr. Davidiy has tried to make the facts fit his beliefs. He should tailor his beliefs to fit the facts. This reminds me of when the Church's faith in an earth-centric solar system clashed with the facts put forth by Copernicus that we live in a sun-centric solar system. The facts won out in the end. Let's discuss facts and their interpretation, not matters of faith. I consider this exchange to be at an end. - Bye from Bill Howard