On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 1:08:13 PM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > 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. Unfortunately, to a degree this is a double-game they are playing, reminiscent of the mullet - business in front, party in back. In the scientific literature, they are very careful about never even hinting that it is Niall. However, when they gave interviews for the popular media (and even for commentary in the scientific media, they were a lot less reserved. For example, the respected science journalist Carl Zimmer, writing for Forbes.com said, ". . . the Ua Neill dynasty is traditionally thought to have been founded by a fifth-century warrior known as Niall of the Nine Hostages. Recent genetic studies suggest that Niall bequeathed his Y chromosome to over 2 million Irish men alive today." Now, Zimmer likely didn't make this up or research it himself - it was fed to him by the people who did the study. The popular media does not like nuance so if you can allow them to put a name to the mysterious common ancestor, you will get more publicity. That being said, the McEvoy paper came out and said it, "The IMH is significantly associated with surnames derived from the early medieval Ui´ Neill kingdom and this haplotype structure represents the signature or legacy of its founder (‘‘Niall of the Nine hostages’’) and his clan." taf

On 6/8/2016 4:57 PM, taf via wrote: > On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 1:08:13 PM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin via wrote: > >> 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. > Unfortunately, to a degree this is a double-game they are playing, reminiscent of the mullet - business in front, party in back. In the scientific literature, they are very careful about never even hinting that it is Niall. However, when they gave interviews for the popular media (and even for commentary in the scientific media, they were a lot less reserved. For example, the respected science journalist Carl Zimmer, writing for Forbes.com said, ". . . the Ua Neill dynasty is traditionally thought to have been founded by a fifth-century warrior known as Niall of the Nine Hostages. Recent genetic studies suggest that Niall bequeathed his Y chromosome to over 2 million Irish men alive today." Now, Zimmer likely didn't make this up or research it himself - it was fed to him by the people who did the study. The popular media does not like nuance so if you can allow them to put a name to the mysterious common ancestor, you will get more publicity. Todd, I don't disagree with what you are saying, but don't forget that you are one of those rare individuals who is an expert in both fields. To a scientist who doesn't really understand the genealogical and historical evidence, the statement probably seemed like a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the results. It might very well be that Zimmer was unaware of how much he was distorting the statement, and it is a pretty good bet that it was "fed" to him by one of the scientists (who might not have understood the distinction as well as he thought) and not by the historian involved in the research. One of the problems in interdisciplinary studies involving two fields as widely separated as these is the difficulty in communication between members of the different fields. > That being said, the McEvoy paper came out and said it, "The IMH is significantly associated with surnames derived from the early medieval Ui´ Neill kingdom and this haplotype structure represents the signature or legacy of its founder (‘‘Niall of the Nine hostages’’) and his clan." That statement rubs me the wrong way too, although the quotes around "Niall of the Nine Hostages" and the words "significantly associated" make the statement technically correct. It would be interesting to know how much input Katharine Simms (the historian involved) had with regard to the statements like this made in the paper. Not as much as she would have liked, I would guess. To those who prefer to see things in black and white, it is difficult to explain the degree of "fuzziness" which "Niall of the Nine Hostages" has as an allegedly "historical" figure, and the fact that the vast majority of novices (and also many who believe themselves to be "experts") in Irish genealogy don't understand this doesn't help matters. One of the points I was trying to make is that those working in "genetic genealogy" need to make more of an effort to include qualified genealogists, and the difficulty that non-genealogists have in recognizing which genealogists know what they are doing is a good part of the problem. Stewart Baldwin