On 08/06/16 21:08, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > I have recently read a number of items on the subject of using DNA to > trace early Irish families. Not too surprisingly, there is a lot of > junk out there on the subject, much of which seems to be jumping to > premature conclusions based in part on the following three studies. > > Brian McEvoy & Daniel G. Bradley, Y-chromosomes and the extent of > patrilineal ancestry in Irish surnames, Human Genetics 119 (2006): 212-9. > > Moore et al, A Y-Chromosome Signature of Hegemony in Gaelic Ireland, The > American Journal of Human Genetics 78 (2006): 334-8. > > McEvoy et al, Genetic Investigation of the Patrilineal Kinship Structure > of Early Medieval Ireland, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 136 > (2008): 415-22. > > Although these papers are generally well done, my main concern about > them is that the necessary caveats about the preliminary nature of this > research were not stated clearly enough for non-experts to understand. > Although the presence of Katherine Simms as a co-author on two of these > papers is encouraging, it is seems likely to me that the usual audience > of these papers can easily misinterpret the limitations of the > historical evidence from the descriptions given in these papers. > Appropriately, no claim is made in these papers that there is a DNA test > for descent from the shadowy figure of Niall of the Nine Hostages (as > has been too often claimed), but it is certainly an easy > misinterpretation to make. I remember reading one of these papers (?the Moore paper) some time ago. Firstly I was struck by the fact that twice they shied away from claiming Niall as a historical figure and yet some of the discussion hinged on his status apparently allowing his descendants to father numerous children. Secondly I was struck by the absences in the list of surnames of the subjects: there were no variants on O'Neil or MacNeil. OTOH the distribution of the Y-DNA variants did fit quite nicely with the Northern and Southern Ui Neills as understood from other sources. This set me thinking about an alternative origin for the findings. Firstly what was the possible date for the MRCA? I think the estimate was a little earlier than the supposed date for Niall but my main consideration was the probability distribution. It clearly couldn't be a normal distribution - any distribution which gives a non-zero probability for the true date of a past event lying in the future must be inappropriate. Experience of running the calculations for radiocarbon dating reminded me that such distributions are skewed to the past. I posted a query here and Todd confirmed that this is in fact the case for MRCA estimates. This raises the possibility that the MRCA could lie earlier in the Iron Age. Way back, I used to be a palaeoecologist. I had a site at Gortcorbies at the N tip of the Sperrins. There were massive forest clearances late in the Bronze Age followed by more or less complete and sustained regeneration of the forest until gradual clearance in the last few centuries BC. This signal was repeated at my site at Sluggan, just N of Lough Neagh and in my wife's site at Altnahinch on the Antrim Plateau. It also appeared to be present in other sites further S in the Sperrins although IIRC the emphasis at those sites was in the earlier periods. Once human activity is involved the level of forest cover is some sort of inverse function of the human population. My interpretation was - and is - that the LBA clearances were heavy exploitation, and maybe over-exploitation, of natural resources which briefly supported the wealth of the Irish LBA. It was followed, at least in that area, by some sort of disaster leading to a crash of the human population on a scale at least as great as the famine of the 1840s. The subsequent Iron Age population was eventually rebuilt from either the survivors of the earlier population or from incomers. In either event it had come through a relatively recent bottleneck and likely to be a lot less diverse than might be expected had it developed steadily through the previous few millennia. I'd be inclined to look for the origins of the Ui Neills in this rebuilding. -- Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng at austonley org uk

Being a member of the community in question, I can say that the academic papers have fallen behind the testing. in the last couple of years has seen major changes testing. Prior testing, on which the papers are based, was for to define a persons Haplotype. A collection of markers within the Y-DNA that randomly mutated over the generations. Mutation rates and difference between Haloptypes was used to suggested a time period for a common originator. What was special the "Ui Neill" population was an identifiable signature to their Halpotype allowing for easy identification of the population. A Haplogroup is a population that shares a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) , which occurred in the Y-DNA in a shared male ancestor in the direct male line. Although knowing the Haplogroups is superior to Haloptypes, however it was laborious to identify them. However two years ago new Y-DNA testing (Next Generation Sequencing - NGS) enter the market and since shaken up the world of Genealogical DNA. Now Halpogroups are being found in regard to common ancestors living with the last two millennium. Hence perfect tool for descendants of tribal societies, i.e. the Gael. I could discuss the comparison of genealogical trees of medieval pedigree and the correlation with Y-DNA trees defined by SNP in regard to Irish kingroups. However what is more interesting, especially in a email title 'Royal DNA', is the results for the 'Royal' Stewarts. Stewart NGS testing results can be seen here http://ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=7And the DF41 project (formerly based on Halpotypes) here: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-df-41/about/background The Stewarts's Y-DNA emerges from a common ancestor to the Gaelic tribes of north Ireland and western Scotland. And the originator of the DF41 branch is given a age range of about 2000-2500 years ago. Given that the Stewarts claimed up to the 17th century to native Gaels of Scotland, is it correct that they are descended from a Anglo-Breton? For this idea requires them accept a rhythmer's fantasy as to their origin and for their ancestors to have travel to Brittany before making the return trip (via a circuitous route) back to the homeland of the their ancient relatives. The law of parsimony would suggest we that they never left Scotland and that the Anglo-Breton origin is a product of 18th century Anglicization of Scotland History? Any opinions? Bernard.> Subject: Re: Royal DNA > Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:24:36 +0100 > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > From: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > > On 08/06/16 21:08, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > > I have recently read a number of items on the subject of using DNA to > > trace early Irish families. Not too surprisingly, there is a lot of > > junk out there on the subject, much of which seems to be jumping to > > premature conclusions based in part on the following three studies. > > > > Brian McEvoy & Daniel G. Bradley, Y-chromosomes and the extent of > > patrilineal ancestry in Irish surnames, Human Genetics 119 (2006): 212-9. > > > > Moore et al, A Y-Chromosome Signature of Hegemony in Gaelic Ireland, The > > American Journal of Human Genetics 78 (2006): 334-8. > > > > McEvoy et al, Genetic Investigation of the Patrilineal Kinship Structure > > of Early Medieval Ireland, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 136 > > (2008): 415-22. > > > > Although these papers are generally well done, my main concern about > > them is that the necessary caveats about the preliminary nature of this > > research were not stated clearly enough for non-experts to understand. > > Although the presence of Katherine Simms as a co-author on two of these > > papers is encouraging, it is seems likely to me that the usual audience > > of these papers can easily misinterpret the limitations of the > > historical evidence from the descriptions given in these papers. > > Appropriately, no claim is made in these papers that there is a DNA test > > for descent from the shadowy figure of Niall of the Nine Hostages (as > > has been too often claimed), but it is certainly an easy > > misinterpretation to make. > > I remember reading one of these papers (?the Moore paper) some time ago. > Firstly I was struck by the fact that twice they shied away from > claiming Niall as a historical figure and yet some of the discussion > hinged on his status apparently allowing his descendants to father > numerous children. Secondly I was struck by the absences in the list of > surnames of the subjects: there were no variants on O'Neil or MacNeil. > > OTOH the distribution of the Y-DNA variants did fit quite nicely with > the Northern and Southern Ui Neills as understood from other sources. > > This set me thinking about an alternative origin for the findings. > Firstly what was the possible date for the MRCA? I think the estimate > was a little earlier than the supposed date for Niall but my main > consideration was the probability distribution. It clearly couldn't be > a normal distribution - any distribution which gives a non-zero > probability for the true date of a past event lying in the future must > be inappropriate. Experience of running the calculations for > radiocarbon dating reminded me that such distributions are skewed to the > past. I posted a query here and Todd confirmed that this is in fact the > case for MRCA estimates. > > This raises the possibility that the MRCA could lie earlier in the Iron > Age. Way back, I used to be a palaeoecologist. I had a site at > Gortcorbies at the N tip of the Sperrins. There were massive forest > clearances late in the Bronze Age followed by more or less complete and > sustained regeneration of the forest until gradual clearance in the last > few centuries BC. This signal was repeated at my site at Sluggan, just > N of Lough Neagh and in my wife's site at Altnahinch on the Antrim > Plateau. It also appeared to be present in other sites further S in the > Sperrins although IIRC the emphasis at those sites was in the earlier > periods. > > Once human activity is involved the level of forest cover is some sort > of inverse function of the human population. My interpretation was - > and is - that the LBA clearances were heavy exploitation, and maybe > over-exploitation, of natural resources which briefly supported the > wealth of the Irish LBA. It was followed, at least in that area, by > some sort of disaster leading to a crash of the human population on a > scale at least as great as the famine of the 1840s. > > The subsequent Iron Age population was eventually rebuilt from either > the survivors of the earlier population or from incomers. In either > event it had come through a relatively recent bottleneck and likely to > be a lot less diverse than might be expected had it developed steadily > through the previous few millennia. I'd be inclined to look for the > origins of the Ui Neills in this rebuilding. > > -- > Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng > at austonley org uk > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 6/9/2016 4:24 AM, Ian Goddard via wrote: > I remember reading one of these papers (?the Moore paper) some time ago. > Firstly I was struck by the fact that twice they shied away from > claiming Niall as a historical figure and yet some of the discussion > hinged on his status apparently allowing his descendants to father > numerous children. Secondly I was struck by the absences in the list of > surnames of the subjects: there were no variants on O'Neil or MacNeil. The principle O'Neill family received its name not after Niall of the Nine Hostages, but after his much later (and definitely historical) namesake Niall Glundub (d. 911). Most of the major Irish surnames were named after individuals living between the ninth and eleventh centuries. The thing that struck me the most about this study was that it was driven mainly by the surnames of the testees, without any consideration of what documentary trail might exist between the testee and the ninth-eleventh century individual (or individuals) on whom the surname was said to be based. This was one of the points brought up by Bart Jaski in his excellent article which I cited before. Here, the (perhaps money-driven) desire to make sweeping conclusions and the insufficient input of expertise on the genealogical/historical side are leading the geneticists to make premature conclusions without sufficient preliminary groundwork. In theory, the Y-DNA results of a testee allows the approximate Y-DNA makeup of his male-line ancestors to be determined as well, but this "top-down" approach that seems so common (especially in amateur studies) can lead to erroneous conclusions which may pollute research for years to come. If two modern Irish men have traditional genealogies tracing back to two alleged third century "brothers" (well before the historical period), and their MRCA (most recent common ancestor) is estimated by the Y-DNA to have lived about 1750 years ago, that does not "prove" that their traditional genealogies are valid. On the other hand, if two or three modern men have reasonably well-documented "paper-trail" ancestries going back to two or three brothers living 300 years ago, and their Y-DNA matches with an estimated MRCA in the same time frame, then not only have their genetic ancestries been confirmed to a reasonable degree of certainty, but information about the Y-DNA of their MRCA has also been determined with a reasonable degree of certainty, so that the early man can be regarded as a "virtual testee" in his own right, making it possible to gradually work back earlier if suffucient paper-trail evidence and Y-DNA evidence is available. One of the principle obstacles to this for royal and noble lines is that the individuals with the best paper-trail evidence are often those who have the most to lose by the detection of a false-paternity event, so many of them are reluctant to give samples. (I have a probable false-paternity event in my own male-line ancestry about 300-400 years back, and I am still not crazy about the idea.) One of the things that make the massive early medieval Irish genealogical material so promising is the large number of early medieval brothers who have likely traceable male-line descendants to the present day, so that a "bottom-up" approach which identifies Y-DNA data about historical individuals by working back a few generations at a time could result in numerous "virtual testees" from the early medieval period, which then might result in a more believable test of the reliability of the Irish genealogies from the "traditional" period when there is inadequate contemporary evidence to test their reliability. An additional problem in this case is that for many Irish families, the 700-1500 period is better documented than the 1500-1800 period. Stewart Baldwin