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

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

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 >

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.

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

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.