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 clearly outdated technically and it would be fascinating to see what would 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 >