Paul, thank you for sharing this article from "Princes, prelates and poets in medieval Ireland" (2013). Catherine Swift's article has neatly summarized some of the key issues that have been discussed on and off on this forum in the past. Her point about the Clann Cholmain and Cenel Eogain is well justified, as the power base of the of Clann Cholmain was located in the eastern midlands of Ireland and by the ninth century, the power base of the Cenel Eogain had shifted into eastern Tyrone. In these areas, one would reasonably expect to find a higher preponderance of the IMH/M222, which the Trinity College Dublin team either didn't capture or uncover in their study. Catherine's article also ties in with another article written by her in 1994, which Brian Lacey cites in relation to 'Tirechan's Collectanea'. For those who have not ready her article, a copy can be downloaded from the following site. http://dspace.mic.ul.ie/bitstream/10395/1744/2/Swift,%20C.(1994),%20'T%C3%ADrech%C3%A1n's%20Motives%20in%20Compiling%20the%20%22Collectanea%22%3A%20An%20Alternative%20Interpretation'(Journal%20Article).pdf She highlights in her article the great churches founded by St. Patrick in Ireland and what she believed are Tirechan's motives for writing his book, and suggests Tirechan was seeking to elevate the Ui Neill and in particular, the family of Conall son of Niall. This was Conall Cremthainne to distinguish him from Conall Gulban, founder of the Cenel Conaill. An English translation of Tirechan's Collectanea can be found in the following link: http://www.confessio.ie/more/tirechan_english# It is interesting that in Catherine's article 'Tirechan's Motives in Compiling the Collectanea', she accepts the genealogical claim that Conall Gulban was the son of Niall. However, her position significantly changes in 'Interlaced Scholarship: genealogies and genetics in twenty-first-century Ireland', where she now refers to Conall Gulban as being the 'putative' son of Niall. In her 1994 article, she makes another interesting observation in relation to the way Tirechan applies royal status through the use of the word 'rex'=king and notes, he limits the use of this Latin word to the Ui Neill kings. However, where he names Loegaire, Cairpre, Conall and Fiachu from the southern Ui Neill the sons of Niall, no such patrimony is given to Conall of Co. Donegal. Coupled with Adomnan's life of St. Columba, Tirechan's Collectanea adds further weight to that statement made about Columba's relationship with the Ui Neill, that they were "my friends by kinship" (Andersons) and if the Ui Neill are identified with the southern Ui Neill, this would point to a different type of relationship with the Cenel Conaill. Since the Irish M222 is largely attached to NW Ireland, it would also beg the question, which Brian Lacey asked (p. 155), if the Cenel Conaill and Cenel Eogain did not really belong to the Ui Neill, then who were they? Have either you or anyone else familiar with Brian Lacey's book 'Cenel Conaill and the Donegal Kingdoms' considered his alternative genealogy for the Cenel Conaill? Alan -----Original Message----- From: Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ <pduffy81@gmail.com> To: dna-r1b1c7 <dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com> Sent: Mon, 26 May 2014 17:33 Subject: Re: [R-M222] Niall haplotype 'dubious' - Professor Mark Thomas 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 > ------------------------------- 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

Alan, It's worth considering that the bulk of territory held by Clann Chólmain became "sword land" after 1170. Been conqueored by the de Lace's and incorporated into the "Lordship of Meath" (possibly the most important Norman lordship in Ireland before the rise of "Kildare" -- Geraldines) They were obviously displaced from bulk of their territory and reduced to one barony in what is now westmeath. Even now there's some debate on wether their main lineage still exists as a valid surname (most people think it was gradually anglicised to either O'Loughlin or McLoughlin. They basically lost everything in the 17th century. Often during what we could term the "Gaelic Reconquista" of the late 14th century to late 15th century (early 16th century), we often see land coming under the rule of not the original pre-invasion dynasts but under new groupings, who were often marginal before hand. We have to consider fact that outside of "East Ulster" (East of the Bann) that the rest of what we call Ulster today (Back in day only east of Bann was still classed as "Ulster") remained under Irish rule until the end of 9year war in 1603. I do wonder if it was just a case that they had sample basis due to their method of collecting samples (phone books, using a list of surnames) from the 1901 surname I see that there are at lest 250 people in Westmeath who bore surnames of order O'Loughlin, Loughlin, Laughlin, McLaughlin etc. We do have some southern Uí Néill names that appear to be M222. Namely Molloy (Cénel Fiachra -- Fir Cell) and McGeoghan (Cénel Fiachra). There's also the fact of the high number of Connachta surnames namely Uí Bhriúin (O'Connor, McManus, O'Rourke, Concannon) and Uí Fhiachrae (O'Shaughnessy, O'Dowd) who show up M222+. I'll have to dig out Lacey's book but from what I recall of it his argument that the "Northern Uí Néill" were actually Cruithin (Dal nAraide) was based on the presense of one personal name in both lineages. He used this as his starting point and went from there. Regarding the Ó Néill (Ua Néill -- O'Neill surname) there's been debate for last hundred years or so about their lineage potentially been dubious, given there displacement from the "throne of the north" (In Tuaisceart -- Aileach) for over 120+ years by the Ó Lochlainn/Mac Lochlainn. It it's true it's kinda ironic because alot people would argue that "Aodh Mór Ó Néill" (Hugh O'Neill -- 2nd Earl of Tyrone) himself was part of an NPE into this line (his father Feardorcha aka Matthew Baron of Dungannon -- the supposed son of Kelly the Blacksmith of Dundalk). Feardorcha mother claimed on her deathbed that he was the son of Conn Ó Néill (1st Earl of Tyrone) -- quite a common occurence in Gaelic Ireland -- Conn was known to say "that he never forsoke a son claimed to be his" (an extra swordsman is always a bonus). The problem of course is that the English then put Feardorcha as Conn successor (after "Surrender and Regrant"), this set Séan (Shane the proud) the oldest surviving son (by marriage) on the warpath. >From what I can see the "O'Neill variant" haplotype that John McLaughlin wrote about is DF27+ (Z196-). It's rather interesting of course that after the destruction of the power of the Mac Lochlainn that the powerbase shifted to what is now "East Tyrone", the Cénel nEoghain having been based in Inishowen (now part of Donegal) for the previous 700years. -Paul (DF41+) On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 10:47 AM, <alanmill10@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul, thank you for sharing this article from "Princes, prelates and poets > in medieval Ireland" (2013). Catherine Swift's article has neatly > summarized some of the key issues that have been discussed on and off on > this forum in the past. > > Her point about the Clann Cholmain and Cenel Eogain is well justified, as > the power base of the of Clann Cholmain was located in the eastern midlands > of Ireland and by the ninth century, the power base of the Cenel Eogain had > shifted into eastern Tyrone. In these areas, one would reasonably expect > to find a higher preponderance of the IMH/M222, which the Trinity College > Dublin team either didn't capture or uncover in their study. > > Catherine's article also ties in with another article written by her in > 1994, which Brian Lacey cites in relation to 'Tirechan's Collectanea'. For > those who have not ready her article, a copy can be downloaded from the > following site. > > > http://dspace.mic.ul.ie/bitstream/10395/1744/2/Swift,%20C.(1994),%20'T%C3%ADrech%C3%A1n's%20Motives%20in%20Compiling%20the%20%22Collectanea%22%3A%20An%20Alternative%20Interpretation'(Journal%20Article).pdf > > She highlights in her article the great churches founded by St. Patrick in > Ireland and what she believed are Tirechan's motives for writing his book, > and suggests Tirechan was seeking to elevate the Ui Neill and in > particular, the family of Conall son of Niall. This was Conall Cremthainne > to distinguish him from Conall Gulban, founder of the Cenel Conaill. An > English translation of Tirechan's Collectanea can be found in the following > link: > > http://www.confessio.ie/more/tirechan_english# > > It is interesting that in Catherine's article 'Tirechan's Motives in > Compiling the Collectanea', she accepts the genealogical claim that Conall > Gulban was the son of Niall. However, her position significantly changes > in 'Interlaced Scholarship: genealogies and genetics in > twenty-first-century Ireland', where she now refers to Conall Gulban as > being the 'putative' son of Niall. > > In her 1994 article, she makes another interesting observation in relation > to the way Tirechan applies royal status through the use of the word > 'rex'=king and notes, he limits the use of this Latin word to the Ui Neill > kings. However, where he names Loegaire, Cairpre, Conall and Fiachu from > the southern Ui Neill the sons of Niall, no such patrimony is given to > Conall of Co. Donegal. > > Coupled with Adomnan's life of St. Columba, Tirechan's Collectanea adds > further weight to that statement made about Columba's relationship with the > Ui Neill, that they were "my friends by kinship" (Andersons) and if the Ui > Neill are identified with the southern Ui Neill, this would point to a > different type of relationship with the Cenel Conaill. Since the Irish M222 > is largely attached to NW Ireland, it would also beg the question, which > Brian Lacey asked (p. 155), if the Cenel Conaill and Cenel Eogain did not > really belong to the Ui Neill, then who were they? > > Have either you or anyone else familiar with Brian Lacey's book 'Cenel > Conaill and the Donegal Kingdoms' considered his alternative genealogy for > the Cenel Conaill? > > Alan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ <pduffy81@gmail.com> > To: dna-r1b1c7 <dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Mon, 26 May 2014 17:33 > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Niall haplotype 'dubious' - Professor Mark Thomas > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

A note about east Down which is an example of the Fourteenth century "Gaelic Reconquista" by a different group. The Clandeboye O'Neill (Clann Aodha Buí) were a minor branch of the Tyrone O'Neill who retook the area of Down and Antrim that had been called by the Normans the Earldom of Ulster, in the 1330s. In his book about the Diocese of Down and Connor, O'Laverty states that most of the Catholic families in east Down are descendants of the Clandeboye. -----Original Message----- From: dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:dna-r1b1c7-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Paul Ó Du??aig Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:30 PM To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [R-M222] Niall haplotype 'dubious' - Professor Mark Thomas Alan, It's worth considering that the bulk of territory held by Clann Chólmain became "sword land" after 1170. Been conqueored by the de Lace's and incorporated into the "Lordship of Meath" (possibly the most important Norman lordship in Ireland before the rise of "Kildare" -- Geraldines) They were obviously displaced from bulk of their territory and reduced to one barony in what is now westmeath. Even now there's some debate on wether their main lineage still exists as a valid surname (most people think it was gradually anglicised to either O'Loughlin or McLoughlin. They basically lost everything in the 17th century. Often during what we could term the "Gaelic Reconquista" of the late 14th century to late 15th century (early 16th century), we often see land coming under the rule of not the original pre-invasion dynasts but under new groupings, who were often marginal before hand. We have to consider fact that outside of "East Ulster" (East of the Bann) that the rest of what we c! all Ulster today (Back in day only east of Bann was still classed as "Ulster") remained under Irish rule until the end of 9year war in 1603. I do wonder if it was just a case that they had sample basis due to their method of collecting samples (phone books, using a list of surnames) from the 1901 surname I see that there are at lest 250 people in Westmeath who bore surnames of order O'Loughlin, Loughlin, Laughlin, McLaughlin etc. We do have some southern Uí Néill names that appear to be M222. Namely Molloy (Cénel Fiachra -- Fir Cell) and McGeoghan (Cénel Fiachra). There's also the fact of the high number of Connachta surnames namely Uí Bhriúin (O'Connor, McManus, O'Rourke, Concannon) and Uí Fhiachrae (O'Shaughnessy, O'Dowd) who show up M222+. I'll have to dig out Lacey's book but from what I recall of it his argument that the "Northern Uí Néill" were actually Cruithin (Dal nAraide) was based on the presense of one personal name in both lineages. He used this as his starting point and went from there. Regarding the Ó Néill (Ua Néill -- O'Neill surname) there's been debate for last hundred years or so about their lineage potentially been dubious, given there displacement from the "throne of the north" (In Tuaisceart -- Aileach) for over 120+ years by the Ó Lochlainn/Mac Lochlainn. It it's true it's kinda ironic because alot people would argue that "Aodh Mór Ó Néill" (Hugh O'Neill -- 2nd Earl of Tyrone) himself was part of an NPE into this line (his father Feardorcha aka Matthew Baron of Dungannon -- the supposed son of Kelly the Blacksmith of Dundalk). Feardorcha mother claimed on her deathbed that he was the son of Conn Ó Néill (1st Earl of Tyrone) -- quite a common occurence in Gaelic Ireland -- Conn was known to say "that he never forsoke a son claimed to be his" (an extra swordsman is always a bonus). The problem of course is that the English then put Feardorcha as Conn successor (after "Surrender and Regrant"), this set Séan (Shane the proud) the oldest surviving son (by marriage) on the warpath. >From what I can see the "O'Neill variant" haplotype that John McLaughlin wrote about is DF27+ (Z196-). It's rather interesting of course that after the destruction of the power of the Mac Lochlainn that the powerbase shifted to what is now "East Tyrone", the Cénel nEoghain having been based in Inishowen (now part of Donegal) for the previous 700years. -Paul (DF41+) On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 10:47 AM, <alanmill10@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul, thank you for sharing this article from "Princes, prelates and > poets in medieval Ireland" (2013). Catherine Swift's article has > neatly summarized some of the key issues that have been discussed on > and off on this forum in the past. > > Her point about the Clann Cholmain and Cenel Eogain is well justified, > as the power base of the of Clann Cholmain was located in the eastern > midlands of Ireland and by the ninth century, the power base of the > Cenel Eogain had shifted into eastern Tyrone. In these areas, one > would reasonably expect to find a higher preponderance of the > IMH/M222, which the Trinity College Dublin team either didn't capture or uncover in their study. > > Catherine's article also ties in with another article written by her > in 1994, which Brian Lacey cites in relation to 'Tirechan's > Collectanea'. For those who have not ready her article, a copy can be > downloaded from the following site. > > > http://dspace.mic.ul.ie/bitstream/10395/1744/2/Swift,%20C.(1994),%20'T > %C3%ADrech%C3%A1n's%20Motives%20in%20Compiling%20the%20%22Collectanea% > 22%3A%20An%20Alternative%20Interpretation'(Journal%20Article).pdf > > She highlights in her article the great churches founded by St. > Patrick in Ireland and what she believed are Tirechan's motives for > writing his book, and suggests Tirechan was seeking to elevate the Ui > Neill and in particular, the family of Conall son of Niall. This was > Conall Cremthainne to distinguish him from Conall Gulban, founder of > the Cenel Conaill. An English translation of Tirechan's Collectanea > can be found in the following > link: > > http://www.confessio.ie/more/tirechan_english# > > It is interesting that in Catherine's article 'Tirechan's Motives in > Compiling the Collectanea', she accepts the genealogical claim that > Conall Gulban was the son of Niall. However, her position > significantly changes in 'Interlaced Scholarship: genealogies and > genetics in twenty-first-century Ireland', where she now refers to > Conall Gulban as being the 'putative' son of Niall. > > In her 1994 article, she makes another interesting observation in > relation to the way Tirechan applies royal status through the use of > the word 'rex'=king and notes, he limits the use of this Latin word to > the Ui Neill kings. However, where he names Loegaire, Cairpre, Conall > and Fiachu from the southern Ui Neill the sons of Niall, no such > patrimony is given to Conall of Co. Donegal. > > Coupled with Adomnan's life of St. Columba, Tirechan's Collectanea > adds further weight to that statement made about Columba's > relationship with the Ui Neill, that they were "my friends by kinship" > (Andersons) and if the Ui Neill are identified with the southern Ui > Neill, this would point to a different type of relationship with the > Cenel Conaill. Since the Irish M222 is largely attached to NW Ireland, > it would also beg the question, which Brian Lacey asked (p. 155), if > the Cenel Conaill and Cenel Eogain did not really belong to the Ui Neill, then who were they? > > Have either you or anyone else familiar with Brian Lacey's book 'Cenel > Conaill and the Donegal Kingdoms' considered his alternative genealogy > for the Cenel Conaill? > > Alan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Ó Duḃṫaiġ <pduffy81@gmail.com> > To: dna-r1b1c7 <dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Mon, 26 May 2014 17:33 > Subject: Re: [R-M222] Niall haplotype 'dubious' - Professor Mark > Thomas > > > 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?c > > > c=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 > > > > ------------------------------- > 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