World Families Forums - Study reveals 'extraordinary' DNA of people in Scotland

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 17, 2014, 11:44:24 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Study reveals 'extraordinary' DNA of people in Scotland
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Study reveals 'extraordinary' DNA of people in Scotland  (Read 7103 times)
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2012, 01:51:38 PM »

My comments, right or wrong, were developed trying to trace the Dalriadic scottish origins.  I am pretty sure they were Q celtic and thus I have assumed their ancestors spoke the same language?

The Gaelic of Scotland and the Isle of Man, as written down, developed from Old Irish of the period 8th-10th AD. Old Irish was not written down until quite late (compared to some Continental languages). But linguists can tell that it derives from an old variety of Celtic, because it has some archaic features. That old variety arrived in Ireland long, long, long ago - before history. So Caesar can't tell you anything about it. No Classical author knew anything about it except a few place-names. They didn't know when it arrived in Ireland, or from where. So they can't tell you. It all happened in prehistory.  

You don't need to be a linguist or historian. You don't need to try to interpret what Caesar said. There are academics out there who do that sort of thing for a living. You have some good books on early Scottish history on your shelves. Why not let them take the strain?
 
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 01:53:21 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2012, 02:13:34 PM »

I agree with your comments.  I had an interchange with Dr. Wilson re: whether clan gregor are scots or picts.  He believes, and it may be in his results (?), that the clans such as Gregor, Buchanan, MacMillan, R1b of Clan Donald etc. are Picts.  I don't agree with that assessment and have traced them and the Campbells to the SE Irish.  I believe the distinguishing differentiation between a Pict and a Scotti is the 10 At 391 for the scottis and the 11 for the Picts.  We shall see?

Which types of Campbell, Buchanan, etc. are you referring to? There are several STR signature varieties, just within L21. There are 21-NW Irish M222+, 21-425null DF21+, 11-13 L513+, and 9919-A types, but the vast majority of the very numerous L21 Campbell's and Buchanan's are 1030-A-Sc (Scots modal) types.


Didn't Dr. Wilson attribute the Scots cluster folks as descendants of Picts? Or was that another subclade of L21?

I am sceptial about that.  the distibution is actually a rather good match for earlier Gaelic in Scotland.  I am not going to get into the whole did they or did they not come from Ireland thing (which is hopeless anyway because the Irish Dalriadic population left not a single line down to surnames and was in an area where the population was replaced twice over) but I think the Scots cluster is a terrible match for Picts in general in distribution.  Also, the Gaels of Scotland were sort of shunted eastwards by the Vikings in the west and the move of Gaelic lineages into the east which could give very weird results.  All I know is that map I have seen of this had a very early Gaelic feel to it.  I wont get into the who linguists vs revisionists thing about Dalriada etc but the the Dalriadic 1st king in Scotland of the late 400s could  have been a crowning moment (sorry about the pun) at the end of a long period of movement that might be reflected in stray finds linking to Ireland of the earlier centuries AD (think this is discussed by Warner in 'From the Stoneage to the forty-five' book.  Personally I dont believe the Gaelic link with western Scotland is older than the 2nd or 3rd centuries AD as there is quite a lot of evidence of a P-Celtic substrate in NW Scotland, vastly more than is usually realised (records of entire dynasties of P-Celtic groups).   There is a large amount of archaeological reasons to think this too including a long period of very strong divergence between Ireland and Argyll from 700BC-200AD which makes the identic languages of the two areas in the Early Christian period very hard to think has a very deep origin.  In general Celtic Britain's west was (or had become P-Celtic) in the Iron Age according to what little evidence survives and that is true whether it was Wales, Cornwall, Cumbria, Strathclyde. Kintyre, Islay, Skye, Ross, Orkney etc.  Its pretty absurd to suggest that Q-Celtic world just so happened to consist of Ireland and Argyll when the two were very divergent 700BC-200AD.  The Iron Age (BC and early AD) contacts of Argyll were with other Britons not with Ireland as far as we can see in the remains. 
Logged
ironroad41
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2012, 02:31:04 PM »

I have emails from Jim claiming that the Picts are the Scots modal for what its worth.  It will be interesting to see, what the current clan chief of Gregors autosomal results are like, he is part of the current study on scotland mentioned elsewhere.

As I said earlier, there were Picts in northern ireland early on and I'm sure there was a lot of cross channel crossing (14 miles?) in early times.  If the Dalriadic scots are descendants of Belgic tribes, as I think they are, they didn't arrive in Britain till late BC or early AD so I think your comment re: when is correct.

What we may not have a good feel for in Scotland, is the total decimation created by the Vikings of the native Caledonians/Maetae.  I'm also not sure how well the Picts fared on the east coast.  However you think of it, the scottis came out ahead and forged a nation.
Logged
ironroad41
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


« Reply #28 on: July 18, 2012, 02:37:48 PM »

My comments, right or wrong, were developed trying to trace the Dalriadic scottish origins.  I am pretty sure they were Q celtic and thus I have assumed their ancestors spoke the same language?

The Gaelic of Scotland and the Isle of Man, as written down, developed from Old Irish of the period 8th-10th AD. Old Irish was not written down until quite late (compared to some Continental languages). But linguists can tell that it derives from an old variety of Celtic, because it has some archaic features. That old variety arrived in Ireland long, long, long ago - before history. So Caesar can't tell you anything about it. No Classical author knew anything about it except a few place-names. They didn't know when it arrived in Ireland, or from where. So they can't tell you. It all happened in prehistory.  

You don't need to be a linguist or historian. You don't need to try to interpret what Caesar said. There are academics out there who do that sort of thing for a living. You have some good books on early Scottish history on your shelves. Why not let them take the strain?
 
  I believe there were at least two Q celtic invasions, one much earlier than the Belgic tribes.  It may be that Z 253 were those invaders since we are 11/10 also?

I don't fully agree with the books on scottish history I have, there is little or no discussion of DNA in their work, contrary to what you are trying to understand.

As alan said, Jims position on the Picts is questionable and it represents the view held by the authors of those books.  The current genetic work by Jim will be interesting to read when it is published.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 18, 2012, 04:07:39 PM »

I agree with your comments.  I had an interchange with Dr. Wilson re: whether clan gregor are scots or picts.  He believes, and it may be in his results (?), that the clans such as Gregor, Buchanan, MacMillan, R1b of Clan Donald etc. are Picts.  I don't agree with that assessment and have traced them and the Campbells to the SE Irish.  I believe the distinguishing differentiation between a Pict and a Scotti is the 10 At 391 for the scottis and the 11 for the Picts.  We shall see?

Which types of Campbell, Buchanan, etc. are you referring to? There are several STR signature varieties, just within L21. There are 21-NW Irish M222+, 21-425null DF21+, 11-13 L513+, and 9919-A types, but the vast majority of the very numerous L21 Campbell's and Buchanan's are 1030-A-Sc (Scots modal) types.

Who are you tracing to Southeast Ireland? or are you talking about a specific variety of people?

Scots Modal folks.  Which I believe traces back to SE Irish?

What's the basis for asserting that the 1030-A-Sc (Scots modal) group of related people are from SE Ireland?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 04:36:06 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
ironroad41
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2012, 04:31:01 PM »

I agree with your comments.  I had an interchange with Dr. Wilson re: whether clan gregor are scots or picts.  He believes, and it may be in his results (?), that the clans such as Gregor, Buchanan, MacMillan, R1b of Clan Donald etc. are Picts.  I don't agree with that assessment and have traced them and the Campbells to the SE Irish.  I believe the distinguishing differentiation between a Pict and a Scotti is the 10 At 391 for the scottis and the 11 for the Picts.  We shall see?

Which types of Campbell, Buchanan, etc. are you referring to? There are several STR signature varieties, just within L21. There are 21-NW Irish M222+, 21-425null DF21+, 11-13 L513+, and 9919-A types, but the vast majority of the very numerous L21 Campbell's and Buchanan's are 1030-A-Sc (Scots modal) types.

Who are you tracing to Southeast Ireland? or are you talking about a specific variety of people?

Scots Modal folks.  Which I believe traces back to SE Irish?

What's the basis for asserting that the 1030-A-Sc (Scots modal) group of related people are from SE Ireland?
[/quote

go to: www.mysite.verizon.net/timdesmond/files/dna_southirish.htm.  I took the modal he shows there and showed that about 200 BC or the Clans: Gregor, Buchanan, MacMillan, R1b of Clan Donald and the Campbells all converged to that modal. I think you've referenced tims site before?  Its been a while since I did the work, but this is my best recollection.  That modal is the same/similar to the scots modal.
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #31 on: July 18, 2012, 04:40:06 PM »

I agree with your comments.  I had an interchange with Dr. Wilson re: whether clan gregor are scots or picts.  He believes, and it may be in his results (?), that the clans such as Gregor, Buchanan, MacMillan, R1b of Clan Donald etc. are Picts.  I don't agree with that assessment and have traced them and the Campbells to the SE Irish.  I believe the distinguishing differentiation between a Pict and a Scotti is the 10 At 391 for the scottis and the 11 for the Picts.  We shall see?

Which types of Campbell, Buchanan, etc. are you referring to? There are several STR signature varieties, just within L21. There are 21-NW Irish M222+, 21-425null DF21+, 11-13 L513+, and 9919-A types, but the vast majority of the very numerous L21 Campbell's and Buchanan's are 1030-A-Sc (Scots modal) types.


Didn't Dr. Wilson attribute the Scots cluster folks as descendants of Picts? Or was that another subclade of L21?

I am sceptial about that.  the distibution is actually a rather good match for earlier Gaelic in Scotland.  I am not going to get into the whole did they or did they not come from Ireland thing (which is hopeless anyway because the Irish Dalriadic population left not a single line down to surnames and was in an area where the population was replaced twice over) but I think the Scots cluster is a terrible match for Picts in general in distribution.  Also, the Gaels of Scotland were sort of shunted eastwards by the Vikings in the west and the move of Gaelic lineages into the east which could give very weird results.  All I know is that map I have seen of this had a very early Gaelic feel to it.  I wont get into the who linguists vs revisionists thing about Dalriada etc but the the Dalriadic 1st king in Scotland of the late 400s could  have been a crowning moment (sorry about the pun) at the end of a long period of movement that might be reflected in stray finds linking to Ireland of the earlier centuries AD (think this is discussed by Warner in 'From the Stoneage to the forty-five' book.  Personally I dont believe the Gaelic link with western Scotland is older than the 2nd or 3rd centuries AD as there is quite a lot of evidence of a P-Celtic substrate in NW Scotland, vastly more than is usually realised (records of entire dynasties of P-Celtic groups).   There is a large amount of archaeological reasons to think this too including a long period of very strong divergence between Ireland and Argyll from 700BC-200AD which makes the identic languages of the two areas in the Early Christian period very hard to think has a very deep origin.  In general Celtic Britain's west was (or had become P-Celtic) in the Iron Age according to what little evidence survives and that is true whether it was Wales, Cornwall, Cumbria, Strathclyde. Kintyre, Islay, Skye, Ross, Orkney etc.  Its pretty absurd to suggest that Q-Celtic world just so happened to consist of Ireland and Argyll when the two were very divergent 700BC-200AD.  The Iron Age (BC and early AD) contacts of Argyll were with other Britons not with Ireland as far as we can see in the remains.  

It is true that Wilson and Moffat maintain that 1030-A-Sc/Scots modal (I think the original term was R1bSTR47 by John McEwan) are Pictish, not ancient Scotti/Gaels from Ireland.

I haven't looked at it for a while, but about a year ago when I compared variance it appeared that 1030-A-Sc was more diverse in Scotland than in Ireland. We need to find an SNP or two for these guys. They were nearly as prolific as the 23-NW Irish/M222+ guys. My speculation was that may be the Cruithe or whatever they were of Scotland crept across into northern Ireland pre-Dál Riata inter-married with the local Gaels and then came back home to dominate Scotland as Dál Riata.  That may be a wild speculation, but I don't know why it couldn't be true.  I'll review the numbers again.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 04:44:52 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
sernam
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #32 on: July 19, 2012, 01:16:46 PM »



“Given the distribution of the marker and its bias to Ulster and especially to men with the O’Neill and O’Donnell surnames,
O'Neill's largest Ulster group is not M222. M222 is #2 among Ulster O'Neills IIRC

It's also interesting a Scots MacAmlaiobh may well be related to eoganacht MacAmlaiobh's
Logged
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #33 on: July 19, 2012, 02:57:26 PM »

My comments, right or wrong, were developed trying to trace the Dalriadic scottish origins.  I am pretty sure they were Q celtic and thus I have assumed their ancestors spoke the same language?

The Gaelic of Scotland and the Isle of Man, as written down, developed from Old Irish of the period 8th-10th AD. Old Irish was not written down until quite late (compared to some Continental languages). But linguists can tell that it derives from an old variety of Celtic, because it has some archaic features. That old variety arrived in Ireland long, long, long ago - before history. So Caesar can't tell you anything about it. No Classical author knew anything about it except a few place-names. They didn't know when it arrived in Ireland, or from where. So they can't tell you. It all happened in prehistory.  

You don't need to be a linguist or historian. You don't need to try to interpret what Caesar said. There are academics out there who do that sort of thing for a living. You have some good books on early Scottish history on your shelves. Why not let them take the strain?
 

Old Irish specifically dates to the period of the 6th to 10th centuries. Scots Gaidhlig and Manx actually diverge during the Middle Irish period, though in case of Scots it maintained a common literary language with Irish during the "Early Modern Irish" period up to about 1600. It then began to diverge on the written level as well. In general the linguists would put the actual spoken spilt in and around 1200 which of course the end of Middle Irish period.

The oldest form of Irish is of course Archaic Irish, which is the language of Ogham stones. It's considerably more archaic then Old-Irish, been quite close to Gaulish other then the fact that it didn't contain linguistic innovations in Gaulish such as the shift from Q -> P (and other sound changes). It even perserves Proto-Celtic V/W which shifted to f in Old Irish. In general the earliest Ogham stones are dated to 4th century at the earliest.

Archaic Irish: VELITAS
Old Irish: filed (genitive clause)
Modern Irish: fili ( (genitive clause) -- nominative = file

The Fili of course were the elite class of poets in Ireland. Who would have been classed as seers during pagan times. One of the reasons no doubt they maintain their position of authoritiy until the destruction of Irish society during the 16th-17th century.

Some of course regarded Archaic Irish as been an intentionally archaising form which reflect the language of religous practise during the late pagan era.
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #34 on: July 19, 2012, 08:00:55 PM »

I agree with your comments.  I had an interchange with Dr. Wilson re: whether clan gregor are scots or picts.  He believes, and it may be in his results (?), that the clans such as Gregor, Buchanan, MacMillan, R1b of Clan Donald etc. are Picts.  I don't agree with that assessment and have traced them and the Campbells to the SE Irish.  I believe the distinguishing differentiation between a Pict and a Scotti is the 10 At 391 for the scottis and the 11 for the Picts.  We shall see?

Which types of Campbell, Buchanan, etc. are you referring to? There are several STR signature varieties, just within L21. There are 21-NW Irish M222+, 21-425null DF21+, 11-13 L513+, and 9919-A types, but the vast majority of the very numerous L21 Campbell's and Buchanan's are 1030-A-Sc (Scots modal) types.


Didn't Dr. Wilson attribute the Scots cluster folks as descendants of Picts? Or was that another subclade of L21?

I am sceptial about that.  the distibution is actually a rather good match for earlier Gaelic in Scotland.  I am not going to get into the whole did they or did they not come from Ireland thing (which is hopeless anyway because the Irish Dalriadic population left not a single line down to surnames and was in an area where the population was replaced twice over) but I think the Scots cluster is a terrible match for Picts in general in distribution.  Also, the Gaels of Scotland were sort of shunted eastwards by the Vikings in the west and the move of Gaelic lineages into the east which could give very weird results.  All I know is that map I have seen of this had a very early Gaelic feel to it.  I wont get into the who linguists vs revisionists thing about Dalriada etc but the the Dalriadic 1st king in Scotland of the late 400s could  have been a crowning moment (sorry about the pun) at the end of a long period of movement that might be reflected in stray finds linking to Ireland of the earlier centuries AD (think this is discussed by Warner in 'From the Stoneage to the forty-five' book.  Personally I dont believe the Gaelic link with western Scotland is older than the 2nd or 3rd centuries AD as there is quite a lot of evidence of a P-Celtic substrate in NW Scotland, vastly more than is usually realised (records of entire dynasties of P-Celtic groups).   There is a large amount of archaeological reasons to think this too including a long period of very strong divergence between Ireland and Argyll from 700BC-200AD which makes the identic languages of the two areas in the Early Christian period very hard to think has a very deep origin.  In general Celtic Britain's west was (or had become P-Celtic) in the Iron Age according to what little evidence survives and that is true whether it was Wales, Cornwall, Cumbria, Strathclyde. Kintyre, Islay, Skye, Ross, Orkney etc.  Its pretty absurd to suggest that Q-Celtic world just so happened to consist of Ireland and Argyll when the two were very divergent 700BC-200AD.  The Iron Age (BC and early AD) contacts of Argyll were with other Britons not with Ireland as far as we can see in the remains.  

It is true that Wilson and Moffat maintain that 1030-A-Sc/Scots modal (I think the original term was R1bSTR47 by John McEwan) are Pictish, not ancient Scotti/Gaels from Ireland.

I haven't looked at it for a while, but about a year ago when I compared variance it appeared that 1030-A-Sc was more diverse in Scotland than in Ireland. We need to find an SNP or two for these guys. They were nearly as prolific as the 23-NW Irish/M222+ guys. My speculation was that may be the Cruithe or whatever they were of Scotland crept across into northern Ireland pre-Dál Riata inter-married with the local Gaels and then came back home to dominate Scotland as Dál Riata.  That may be a wild speculation, but I don't know why it couldn't be true.  I'll review the numbers again.

The problem is that Scots modal has an uncanny resemblance to Dal Riada and its earlier expansions outwards.  It has the complete reverse distribution you would expect.  It even ties in with the clans who claim Dalriadan royal lineage the most.  I dont think the Irihs connection can be ruled out.  Unlike most Irish kingdoms, the Dalriadan in Ireland left not a single surname.  The Irish homeland was resettled by Normans, then highland Scots, then lowland Scots.  I think you are looking at the strong possibility of the root having dissapeared in its point of origin.  Dalriada in Ireland was a small place.  Really only really occupying a fifth of one county.  I would say the number of people who have long proven roots in that specific area is utterly tiny.  What people need to remember is that the part of Dalriada back in Ireland was not poweful.  It was the Scottish half where the expansion opportunities were. 
Logged
ironroad41
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


« Reply #35 on: July 20, 2012, 03:50:45 PM »

I agree with your analysis Alan.  I don't think it would be appropriate to share the Jim Wilson ltrs with you, but his logic is almost the opposite of yours in that he believed they came from Ulster and there is no trace left of them except for displaced highland and lowland scots by James I and others.  He argued that STR 43 and 47 were kin (which they are).  He really questioned though any Irish connection.

My argument was that the DalRiada were originally settled in SE Ireland (Munster) and moved as the Ui'Neills moved in and finally left Ireland as the Romans were leaving and the Ui'Neill pressure was intense.

The way I showed the correlation was by comparing modal haplotypes of each of the three entities. STR 43, 47(scots) and South Irish.  I used 1960 as the average birth year of the entries?   I calculate that 43 and 47 had a common founder c. 1060.  Further there is another 1000 years between that founder and the S Irish modal yielding 50 BC as the time of common convergence. (edit )

That coincides very closely to the time of Belgic migrations to southern England and Ireland.  This is also consistent with a q-celtic speaking origin of the dal riada scots.  
« Last Edit: July 21, 2012, 10:23:36 AM by ironroad41 » Logged
razyn
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


« Reply #36 on: July 20, 2012, 07:04:28 PM »


I have the 1030-A-Sc(Scots) and 1511-T2 (Irish II) interclade common ancestor (according to Nordtvedt's tool with 67 length haplotypes) as being much older than 1000 BC, more like 1500 AD.

Huh?
Logged

R1b Z196*
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 20, 2012, 07:07:33 PM »


I have the 1030-A-Sc(Scots) and 1511-T2 (Irish II) interclade common ancestor (according to Nordtvedt's tool with 67 length haplotypes) as being much older than 1000 BC, more like 1500 BC (EDIT by MW).

Huh?

Oops, Yes.  More like 1500 BC to 2000 BC so not that much older, but we are reaching back towards the time of L21's MRCA so I don't think the 1511-T2/South Irish and 1030-A-Scots are much more closely related than to each other than most of the rest of L21, DF49/DF23/M222 excepted.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2012, 07:11:00 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #38 on: July 20, 2012, 09:09:33 PM »

This is the Gen111T version at 67 markers

YrsPerGen*   Count   AGE   Generations   YBP   Founder   Generations   YBP
30   N=16   1511's GA coal=   41.8   1,255.1   GA=   46.5   1,395.8

YrsPerGen*   Count   AGE   Generations   YBP   Founder   Generations   YBP
30   N=29   1030's GB coal=   56.6   1,699.0   GB=   63.6   1,907.8
                     
59 of 67 Markers      1511 vs 1030 Interclade               
TMRCA      Founder   Generations   YBP         
30      GAB=   94.4   2,833.2         
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
ironroad41
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


« Reply #39 on: July 21, 2012, 07:00:50 AM »


I have the 1030-A-Sc(Scots) and 1511-T2 (Irish II) interclade common ancestor (according to Nordtvedt's tool with 67 length haplotypes) as being much older than 1000 BC, more like 1500 BC (EDIT by MW).

Huh?

Oops, Yes.  More like 1500 BC to 2000 BC so not that much older, but we are reaching back towards the time of L21's MRCA so I don't think the 1511-T2/South Irish and 1030-A-Scots are much more closely related than to each other than most of the rest of L21, DF49/DF23/M222 excepted.
That wasn't Wilson's point.  He was arguing that STR 43 and 47 were related and they are.  But the tie to the S Irish is a key point, regardless of the exact date ( I only worked with 37 dys loci),  If they do, genetically, merge with the S. Irish and maybe it was closer to 1000 BC and O AD, that makes them non-picts?  His argument is that the scots modal never came from nor was in Ireland!

p.s.  My estimate of the time of convergence (not the origin) of the the 3 modals is a least time since I am working with dys loci which probably have mutated many more times than just once over the course of two plus centuries.  I have publicly acknowledged earlier that estimates of over 2K years are very questionable, my point is that they are of one lineage and not as Wilson claims.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2012, 07:39:38 AM by ironroad41 » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #40 on: July 21, 2012, 11:25:36 PM »


I have the 1030-A-Sc(Scots) and 1511-T2 (Irish II) interclade common ancestor (according to Nordtvedt's tool with 67 length haplotypes) as being much older than 1000 BC, more like 1500 BC (EDIT by MW).

Huh?

Oops, Yes.  More like 1500 BC to 2000 BC so not that much older, but we are reaching back towards the time of L21's MRCA so I don't think the 1511-T2/South Irish and 1030-A-Scots are much more closely related than to each other than most of the rest of L21, DF49/DF23/M222 excepted.
That wasn't Wilson's point.  He was arguing that STR 43 and 47 were related and they are.  But the tie to the S Irish is a key point, regardless of the exact date ( I only worked with 37 dys loci),  If they do, genetically, merge with the S. Irish and maybe it was closer to 1000 BC and O AD, that makes them non-picts?  His argument is that the scots modal never came from nor was in Ireland!

p.s.  My estimate of the time of convergence (not the origin) of the the 3 modals is a least time since I am working with dys loci which probably have mutated many more times than just once over the course of two plus centuries.  I have publicly acknowledged earlier that estimates of over 2K years are very questionable, my point is that they are of one lineage and not as Wilson claims.

The old R1bSTR designations are obsolete. They were assigned based on 37 STRs and without knowledge of SNPs like L21.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2007-09/1190211238

What cluster or SNP does R1bSTR43 represent? Is it Irish Type II?  or something else? I don't have confirmation of this.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
ironroad41
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


« Reply #41 on: July 22, 2012, 10:10:00 AM »

I know this nomenclature is no longer in use.  It was created by Dr. John McEwan, one of the earlier rootsweb contributors, like Leo Little and John Heald, all of whom I have great respect for.  His web site is still available, but hasn't been kept up to date.  you can find all his modals at: www.mcewanjc.org/p3modal.htm.

Some of his R1b STR's had names, some didn't.  47 is the scots modal.

In the mid 2000's with John and others, rootsweb was a much more interesting site.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2012, 10:10:39 AM by ironroad41 » Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #42 on: July 22, 2012, 02:11:18 PM »

What is SNP status of the McGregor clan that you mentioned in your posts? They all have a common ancestor going back seven hundred years.
Logged
ironroad41
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


« Reply #43 on: July 22, 2012, 02:30:52 PM »

What is SNP status of the McGregor clan that you mentioned in your posts? They all have a common ancestor going back seven hundred years.
They are simply R -L21 for now, nothing more.  The current clan chief is having his full autosomal profile being measured in the US.  The work will be completed in about 3 months, I am told.  (This is just the Ian Cam of Clan Gregor who descend from Gregor of the golden bridles. c. 1350 AD).
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #44 on: July 22, 2012, 07:31:11 PM »

I know this nomenclature is no longer in use.  It was created by Dr. John McEwan, one of the earlier rootsweb contributors, like Leo Little and John Heald, all of whom I have great respect for.  His web site is still available, but hasn't been kept up to date.  you can find all his modals at: www.mcewanjc.org/p3modal.htm.

Some of his R1b STR's had names, some didn't.  47 is the scots modal.

In the mid 2000's with John and others, rootsweb was a much more interesting site.


I often wonder about him. He was a real power in genetic genealogy a few years ago, and a real nice guy, as well.

He was working on his PhD in something related to the dna of sheep and cattle, last I heard.

It was weird how a black hole just seemed to open up and swallow him.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #45 on: July 22, 2012, 08:05:37 PM »

I know this nomenclature is no longer in use.  It was created by Dr. John McEwan, one of the earlier rootsweb contributors, like Leo Little and John Heald, all of whom I have great respect for.  His web site is still available, but hasn't been kept up to date.  you can find all his modals at: www.mcewanjc.org/p3modal.htm.

Some of his R1b STR's had names, some didn't.  47 is the scots modal.

In the mid 2000's with John and others, rootsweb was a much more interesting site.


I often wonder about him. He was a real power in genetic genealogy a few years ago, and a real nice guy, as well.

He was working on his PhD in something related to the dna of sheep and cattle, last I heard.

It was weird how a black hole just seemed to open up and swallow him.

Oh, I wanted to add that I really really really agree with ironroad41's last sentence above.

Rootsweb used to be a lot more interesting. It used to be a source of real information, news, and learning.

Now it's just flat and not what it once was.
Logged

sernam
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #46 on: July 22, 2012, 08:59:42 PM »


My argument was that the DalRiada were originally settled in SE Ireland (Munster) and moved as the Ui'Neills moved in and finally left Ireland as the Romans were leaving and the Ui'Neill pressure was intense.

As I remember Leinster was SE Ireland , Munster is SW Ireland .  DalRiada was in NE Ireland  although supposedly related to Eirrainn tribes from the SW.
The Ui Niall were historically in the NW & E ( Meath ) they weren’t in Munster nor known for putting pressure on it.  A general rule was when Cenel Eoghain or S Ui Niall were kings confrontations were w Leinster, when cenel Conaill were kings it was against Connacht. Beyond that there was expansion by Cenel Eoghain eastward & other confrontations by Cenel Conaill against east Ulster too. However,  DalRiada for the most part was an ally w the Cenel Conaill unitl domnall brecc.

Romans weren’t leaving Argyll or the isles, they just weren’t there.

You may be confusing the the DalRiadan Scots with Deisi Scots that went to Wales from SE Ireland & formed the kingdom of Dyfed in late Roman Britain.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2012, 09:01:39 PM by sernam » Logged
ironroad41
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


« Reply #47 on: July 23, 2012, 07:21:22 AM »


My argument was that the DalRiada were originally settled in SE Ireland (Munster) and moved as the Ui'Neills moved in and finally left Ireland as the Romans were leaving and the Ui'Neill pressure was intense.

As I remember Leinster was SE Ireland , Munster is SW Ireland .  DalRiada was in NE Ireland  although supposedly related to Eirrainn tribes from the SW.
The Ui Niall were historically in the NW & E ( Meath ) they weren’t in Munster nor known for putting pressure on it.  A general rule was when Cenel Eoghain or S Ui Niall were kings confrontations were w Leinster, when cenel Conaill were kings it was against Connacht. Beyond that there was expansion by Cenel Eoghain eastward & other confrontations by Cenel Conaill against east Ulster too. However,  DalRiada for the most part was an ally w the Cenel Conaill unitl domnall brecc.

Romans weren’t leaving Argyll or the isles, they just weren’t there.

You may be confusing the the DalRiadan Scots with Deisi Scots that went to Wales from SE Ireland & formed the kingdom of Dyfed in late Roman Britain.

The term really is South Irish, not SE Irish.  Munster is the South Irish Region.

re: the invasion of Scotland c. 420 AD, see Gildas the groans of the britons where the combined invasion by the Picts, Scottis, Angels etc. was condemned.

The history of Ireland 0 AD to 400 AD is little known. I am certainly not a student of that history.  All I can say is that is appears that the genetic makeup of the South Irish (Eoghanachts: see tim desmonds site mentioned above) is very similar to the scottis and in particular the Dalriada and their 3 to 4 cinelas.  How the Dalriadic tribes got to Antrim and why is not understood, but I think part of the reason they settled Argyll was war with O'neills?   The other part was part hate and part fear of the Romans (remember the Romans destroyed the Belgic tribes c. 50BC). Another factor causing migration in those early days was famine which was rife in western europe in those days.
Logged
Castlebob
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #48 on: July 23, 2012, 12:47:46 PM »

Tried to PM some info to you just now, Ironroad 41. I can't tell if it went OK. If you haven't got it, let me know.
Cheers,
Bob
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b1b2a1b P312+ Z245- Z2247- Z2245- Z196-  U152-  U106-  P66-  M65-  M37-  M222-  M153-  L459-  L21-  L176.2-  DF27-  DF19- L624+ (S389+)
mtDNA: U5b2b3
sernam
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #49 on: July 23, 2012, 06:27:23 PM »

The term really is South Irish, not SE Irish.  Munster is the South Irish Region.

re: the invasion of Scotland c. 420 AD, see Gildas the groans of the britons where the combined invasion by the Picts, Scottis, Angels etc. was condemned.

The history of Ireland 0 AD to 400 AD is little known. I am certainly not a student of that history.  All I can say is that is appears that the genetic makeup of the South Irish (Eoghanachts: see tim desmonds site mentioned above) is very similar to the scottis and in particular the Dalriada and their 3 to 4 cinelas.  How the Dalriadic tribes got to Antrim and why is not understood, but I think part of the reason they settled Argyll was war with O'neills?   The other part was part hate and part fear of the Romans (remember the Romans destroyed the Belgic tribes c. 50BC). Another factor causing migration in those early days was famine which was rife in western europe in those days.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Keltoi_Tribes.PNG

http://macdonnellofleinster.org/6th%20Century%20Ireland%20map.jpg

As you can see Ireland was split N & S in historical times w the N being Leth Conn & the part below the red  McMason O’Dixon Line, Leth Moga.  
Leth Moga Contained 2 kingdoms Leinster (east) & Munster( west) (BTW I'm not comfortable w  Cenel Eoghain being as far west on te map). From the Keltoi tribes map based on Ptolemy you can see Iverni tribe in the SW (Kerry, Cork area). That was the Eirainn, supposed relatives of the  the Dalriadans. It seemed quite a few of those names, from the website you reference, are commonly from that area ( O’Shea, Desmond, , Fitzgerald, Sullivan, O'Connor, O’Leary, Donahue,  Hennessey, Regan, O’Donovan, Collins, Crowley, Callahan, Lynch, Healy,  Dennehy, O'Hea, O'Keefe, Mihigan aka Meehan, & maybe more). Most may be related to the  Eoganacht but some names are definitely not ( Desmond, , Fitzgerald) & some most likely not . Plus there were many other possible non  Eoganacht origins elsewhere for many of the Eoganacht names.

From the Trinity McEvoy 2008 paper http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/McEvoy2008.pdf & a follow up criticism http://www.eoganachtsepts.com/trinity2008haplogroupresults.htm
 it seems clear it’s a regional marker anyway & at least more heavily among Eoganachta, but it’s interesting that it’s in the area of the Errainn/Iverni.

It's possible going to Scotland was a result of war w the Ui Niall if one takes the 3 collas story as a version of Ui Niall/Connacta attacks on Ulster. If so, by the time history began being recorded by Irish they were allies of the early historical Ui Niall kings. It’s also possible it was from pressure from other Ulster tribes or not from pressure at all. But it’s all conjecture.

As for being Belgic I’m very skeptical & as far as fear or dislike of Romans 100’s of years after an expulsion from Gaul well I think they probably would have more on their minds
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 07:06:51 PM by sernam » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.145 seconds with 19 queries.