World Families Forums - Are the modern Irish really an admixture?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 24, 2014, 07:11:53 AM
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)
| | |-+  Are the modern Irish really an admixture?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Are the modern Irish really an admixture?  (Read 4894 times)
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #50 on: July 17, 2012, 08:37:15 PM »

Like I say, I'd be very surprised if I didn't have at least one male Irish ancestor who was U106. If a person goes back to their 10x great grandparents, that's 4,096 ancestors of which 2,048 are male. Certainly any Irish guy would expect that some of those male ancestors were R1a, U106, U152, M222, G2a, J2a4, and so on. If even half of 1% of an Irish person's male ancestors were U106, that would be 10.5 at 10x great grandparent range. That .5 guy would have a hard time standing.

My male line is DF23, but that certainly doesn't mean that I'm more "Irish" than some guy born in Ireland that is U106 on his Y-Line. My Irish dad could have been U106, or G2a, or U152, or R1a.... and he could have had a Norman name, or a Scots name, or a Welsh name, or whatever. I'm not Irish because my name is Kehoe and I'm DF23, I'm Irish because my family is from Ireland. And ya know what? My Taaffe family is Irish because they live in Ireland and have so for over 800+ years! And they could be J2a4 and they'd still be Irish. Go tell a J2a4 Montgomery that he isn't a Scot!

Again, Cromwell knew what an Irish guy was and he had no way of testing DNA and he didn't check IDs for Irish names. As far as I know, no Irish guy was given a "U106" or "Norman name" pass back then.

I don't think anybody has said anybody is less or more Irish based on there Y DNA, nor should they. Likewise for the Welsh, English, French, German etc. etc.

I agree. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case. I'd love to see everyone agree with you! Maybe they will :) And, perhaps I'll win the lottery!
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #51 on: July 17, 2012, 08:46:09 PM »

Like I say, I'd be very surprised if I didn't have at least one male Irish ancestor who was U106. If a person goes back to their 10x great grandparents, that's 4,096 ancestors of which 2,048 are male. Certainly any Irish guy would expect that some of those male ancestors were R1a, U106, U152, M222, G2a, J2a4, and so on. If even half of 1% of an Irish person's male ancestors were U106, that would be 10.5 at 10x great grandparent range. That .5 guy would have a hard time standing.

My male line is DF23, but that certainly doesn't mean that I'm more "Irish" than some guy born in Ireland that is U106 on his Y-Line. My Irish dad could have been U106, or G2a, or U152, or R1a.... and he could have had a Norman name, or a Scots name, or a Welsh name, or whatever. I'm not Irish because my name is Kehoe and I'm DF23, I'm Irish because my family is from Ireland. And ya know what? My Taaffe family is Irish because they live in Ireland and have so for over 800+ years! And they could be J2a4 and they'd still be Irish. Go tell a J2a4 Montgomery that he isn't a Scot!

Again, Cromwell knew what an Irish guy was and he had no way of testing DNA and he didn't check IDs for Irish names. As far as I know, no Irish guy was given a "U106" or "Norman name" pass back then.

I don't think anybody has said anybody is less or more Irish based on there Y DNA, nor should they. Likewise for the Welsh, English, French, German etc. etc.

I agree. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case. I'd love to see everyone agree with you! Maybe they will :) And, perhaps I'll win the lottery!

Perhaps if we try and move the conversations off what defines this or that national identity (which shouldn’t include anybody’s Y haplogroup anyway) and onto identifying where these various groups more likely originated then I think the discussions here would be more productive and happier.

Best of luck with the lottery by the way, you probably have a better chance than me. As the old joke goes, meet me half way buy a ticket :)
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #52 on: July 17, 2012, 09:52:41 PM »

I think someone is confusing y-dna with nationality and/or ethnic identity. Certainly a person born and raised in Ireland is Irish, regardless of his y-dna.

Since that was never the issue in any of these discussions, and it is pretty obvious it never was the issue, one has to wonder why someone would attempt to cloud matters by confusing nationality and ethnic identity in Ireland with y-dna and its history there.

Take as an example of this type of issue the famous Henry Louis Gates, Harvard professor. Dr. Gates is African-American, and he looks like an African. I am pretty sure he identifies with other African-Americans. Who would argue that he is not? Yet Dr. Gates is R-M222 in his y-dna.

So, is Dr. Henry Louis Gates not an African-American because he belongs to a European y-haplogroup? Certainly he is African-American, and no doubt his ancestry is mostly Subsaharan African. But his y-dna is not African. It tells a different story on that one single line.

In the same way, there are undoubtedly some Irish people who are indisputably Irish and yet whose y-dna, like that of Dr. Gates when it comes to Africa, tells a different story on that one single line.

That is not hard to understand, and there is nothing unreasonable or hateful in telling the truth about it.

Now if anyone wants to argue that this or that less-than-very-common y-haplogroup in Ireland got there in prehistoric times, fine. Just leave me the heck out of it. Don't quote this post or drag any of my posts over here to whine about them.

Thanks!
Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #53 on: July 17, 2012, 10:39:45 PM »

As per 23andme not only does Dr.Gates have a European haplogroup, but most of his genetic ancestry is derived from Europe, (i.e. 60%)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2axq6BApuUg/T9GRRL4r1rI/AAAAAAAAB5U/RlBwkNJ6VZE/s1600/SkipGatesAP2.jpg

source

In fact he is only 34% African, so he is most definitely not the best example to use, and his ancestry is most definitely not mostly SubSaharan African but significantly European. As for him being African American or not, that is another issue, he is African American as he derives part of his ancestry from Africa, but he is more European American genetically than he is African American, that much is true.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 10:40:47 PM by JeanL » Logged
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #54 on: July 17, 2012, 11:07:52 PM »

Oh, if only a certain Irish U106 could read this!
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 01:02:13 AM by eochaidh » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #55 on: July 18, 2012, 04:29:55 AM »

I think that you are one of a few people that knows something about genetics on this forum.


quote author=JeanL link=topic=10788.msg134513#msg134513 date=1342579185]
As per 23andme not only does Dr.Gates have a European haplogroup, but most of his genetic ancestry is derived from Europe, (i.e. 60%)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2axq6BApuUg/T9GRRL4r1rI/AAAAAAAAB5U/RlBwkNJ6VZE/s1600/SkipGatesAP2.jpg

source

In fact he is only 34% African, so he is most definitely not the best example to use, and his ancestry is most definitely not mostly SubSaharan African but significantly European. As for him being African American or not, that is another issue, he is African American as he derives part of his ancestry from Africa, but he is more European American genetically than he is African American, that much is true.
[/quote]
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #56 on: July 18, 2012, 06:06:44 AM »

I was not aware of Gates' 23andMe results.

The point I was making is still valid, and that much is pretty obvious. In fact, come to think of it, Gates' European genetic background might make him an even better example than I originally thought, since it makes his ethnic identification (as an African-American) even less genetically based.

There are plenty of people whose sense of ethnic or national identity might not exactly fit their y-haplogroup, which they derive from one single line in their entire family tree. So, here we have an example of a man whose ethnic identity not only does not fit his y-dna,  but does not fit much of the rest of his dna either.

So, far from the one-upmanship and petty sense of triumph desired in posting Gates' 23andMe results, those results actually make my point even stronger: that ethnic or national identity and dna test results aren't necessarily connected.

That is even more the case when it is only the y-haplogroup that seems out of sync with one's ethnic or national identity.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 07:26:12 AM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #57 on: July 18, 2012, 09:43:12 AM »

I think someone is confusing y-dna with nationality and/or ethnic identity. Certainly a person born and raised in Ireland is Irish, regardless of his y-dna....

Exactly, but I think it is much more complicated as well.

In terms of genetics/genealogy our lineages are potentially of different cultures at different points in time. Therefore it is important to specify the timeframe when trying to associate a lineage with a culture.  For instance, I've seen the term "Old Irish" used and it appears that it generally refers to the Gaelic people of Ireland (and maybe Scotland - not sure?) from the pre-Anglo-Saxon era.

A particular lineage may very possibly have switched more than once. I don't know, but I think there is a very real possibility that there are lineages that were Celtic in the pre-Roman era in Germany, became Germanic, moved to England and Ireland and eventually became Irish... only later to pick up modern English. How about that?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
A.D.
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


« Reply #58 on: July 18, 2012, 10:02:58 AM »

Mike that is exactly what people do now and other than technology  we haven't changed a bit. I often wonder if people of ancient times only reproduced within there own small isolated tribes how many defects would have arisen through inbreeding.
Logged
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #59 on: July 18, 2012, 10:10:33 AM »

U106 is at least 6000 ybp and there was more than one migration of this haplogroup into Ireland. Why does some people have a problem with that?
It is the same for all the other haplogroups in Ireland.


I think someone is confusing y-dna with nationality and/or ethnic identity. Certainly a person born and raised in Ireland is Irish, regardless of his y-dna....

Exactly, but I think it is much more complicated as well.

In terms of genetics/genealogy our lineages are potentially of different cultures at different points in time. Therefore it is important to specify the timeframe when trying to associate a lineage with a culture.  For instance, I've seen the term "Old Irish" used and it appears that it generally refers to the Gaelic people of Ireland (and maybe Scotland - not sure?) from the pre-Anglo-Saxon era.

A particular lineage may very possibly have switched more than once. I don't know, but I think there is a very real possibility that there are lineages that were Celtic in the pre-Roman era in Germany, became Germanic, moved to England and Ireland and eventually became Irish... only later to pick up modern English. How about that?
Logged
inver2b1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #60 on: July 18, 2012, 10:21:14 AM »

I think someone is confusing y-dna with nationality and/or ethnic identity. Certainly a person born and raised in Ireland is Irish, regardless of his y-dna....

Exactly, but I think it is much more complicated as well.

In terms of genetics/genealogy our lineages are potentially of different cultures at different points in time. Therefore it is important to specify the timeframe when trying to associate a lineage with a culture.  For instance, I've seen the term "Old Irish" used and it appears that it generally refers to the Gaelic people of Ireland (and maybe Scotland - not sure?) from the pre-Anglo-Saxon era.

A particular lineage may very possibly have switched more than once. I don't know, but I think there is a very real possibility that there are lineages that were Celtic in the pre-Roman era in Germany, became Germanic, moved to England and Ireland and eventually became Irish... only later to pick up modern English. How about that?

Did they become different or did they end up getting called somethign different, I'd say over time you had more or less the same groups of people getting called different names.
Logged

I-L126
H3
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #61 on: July 18, 2012, 10:52:57 AM »

I think someone is confusing y-dna with nationality and/or ethnic identity. Certainly a person born and raised in Ireland is Irish, regardless of his y-dna....

Exactly, but I think it is much more complicated as well.

In terms of genetics/genealogy our lineages are potentially of different cultures at different points in time. Therefore it is important to specify the timeframe when trying to associate a lineage with a culture.  For instance, I've seen the term "Old Irish" used and it appears that it generally refers to the Gaelic people of Ireland (and maybe Scotland - not sure?) from the pre-Anglo-Saxon era.

A particular lineage may very possibly have switched more than once. I don't know, but I think there is a very real possibility that there are lineages that were Celtic in the pre-Roman era in Germany, became Germanic, moved to England and Ireland and eventually became Irish... only later to pick up modern English. How about that?

Did they become different or did they end up getting called somethign different, I'd say over time you had more or less the same groups of people getting called different names.

My speculation is there are multiple ways this could have happened.

There were just changes of affiliation. There could easily have been families or clans that clashed with each other and affiliated with a larger confederation of a similar culture. They just switched sides and eventually cultural practices/languages.

Another thing that could have happened was intermarriages between tribes for alliance purposes.  One lineage moved into the the other tribe's protection and culture in this case.

There could be forced changes too, such as the aftermath of a conflict where one tribe imposes its culture on another.

Of course, explorers or adventurers (or outcasts) could have found survival in another tribe.

This kind of stuff happens all of the time and is well recorded in historical records. Why would we think it didn't happened in prehistory?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 10:55:10 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #62 on: July 18, 2012, 12:56:24 PM »

Like I say, I'd be very surprised if I didn't have at least one male Irish ancestor who was U106. If a person goes back to their 10x great grandparents, that's 4,096 ancestors of which 2,048 are male. Certainly any Irish guy would expect that some of those male ancestors were R1a, U106, U152, M222, G2a, J2a4, and so on. If even half of 1% of an Irish person's male ancestors were U106, that would be 10.5 at 10x great grandparent range. That .5 guy would have a hard time standing.

My male line is DF23, but that certainly doesn't mean that I'm more "Irish" than some guy born in Ireland that is U106 on his Y-Line. My Irish dad could have been U106, or G2a, or U152, or R1a.... and he could have had a Norman name, or a Scots name, or a Welsh name, or whatever. I'm not Irish because my name is Kehoe and I'm DF23, I'm Irish because my family is from Ireland. And ya know what? My Taaffe family is Irish because they live in Ireland and have so for over 800+ years! And they could be J2a4 and they'd still be Irish. Go tell a J2a4 Montgomery that he isn't a Scot!

Again, Cromwell knew what an Irish guy was and he had no way of testing DNA and he didn't check IDs for Irish names. As far as I know, no Irish guy was given a "U106" or "Norman name" pass back then.

I totally agree, but there are some people who have an unhealthy need to prove they are part of the oldest possible elements in the population as if it makes you more 'real' Irish or whatever.  Its nonsense of course.  I think some people still feel a bit that way and especially want a pre-Norman root.  One of the mantras of old style nationalism in Ireland was '800 years of oppression'.  Problem with that is a significant amount of Irish catholics are the descendants of the original Medieval oppressors and I dont think that is an easy  to swallow for some people.  That of course also must be a conflict for the many African American who are descended from both the oppressed and the oppressor (I have seen the confused emotions that causes on Who Do You Think You Are'.  Believe me there will even be R1b Irish people who are dissapointed that their male  lines are Copper Age because they have a self image of being uber-natives that were supressed rather than people who squeezed out the male lines of the Mesolithic and Neolithic people who had been there far longer.  It just doesnt sit well with their self image as much as the idea of being the orignal hunters did.  I personally think that that wish to have everything black and white is a lack of imagination and grey matter and a lack of an ability to appeciate all the shades of grey in history and life.  No matter what your haploype of clade is its all real and there is an interesting story to be learned.  If I was haplotype E or something it would be just as fascinating.        
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 03:47:24 PM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #63 on: July 18, 2012, 01:09:20 PM »

As I said before, things like U106 in Ireland should and CAN be looked at on the basis of individual matching on their FTDNA homepage.  Only they (or possibly some admins) can do that.  It would be very interesting to know if Irish U106 folks have only Irish matches and no close matches outside Ireland within the last 2000 years OR whether they have (non-Irish surnamed) matches in England and the continent in a much more recent times span (say the last 1200 years).  Its not infallible given changes of surnames etc but surely to goodness that would give you a good idea of the reality. I know that info is confidential but when people argue about this it would be very interesting to hear that sort of evidence rather than just assertions.  I do notice that matches are not generally mentioned by Irish U106 and U152 people in these arguements. 
Logged
Jdean
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 678


« Reply #64 on: July 18, 2012, 01:16:20 PM »

Like I say, I'd be very surprised if I didn't have at least one male Irish ancestor who was U106. If a person goes back to their 10x great grandparents, that's 4,096 ancestors of which 2,048 are male. Certainly any Irish guy would expect that some of those male ancestors were R1a, U106, U152, M222, G2a, J2a4, and so on. If even half of 1% of an Irish person's male ancestors were U106, that would be 10.5 at 10x great grandparent range. That .5 guy would have a hard time standing.

My male line is DF23, but that certainly doesn't mean that I'm more "Irish" than some guy born in Ireland that is U106 on his Y-Line. My Irish dad could have been U106, or G2a, or U152, or R1a.... and he could have had a Norman name, or a Scots name, or a Welsh name, or whatever. I'm not Irish because my name is Kehoe and I'm DF23, I'm Irish because my family is from Ireland. And ya know what? My Taaffe family is Irish because they live in Ireland and have so for over 800+ years! And they could be J2a4 and they'd still be Irish. Go tell a J2a4 Montgomery that he isn't a Scot!

Again, Cromwell knew what an Irish guy was and he had no way of testing DNA and he didn't check IDs for Irish names. As far as I know, no Irish guy was given a "U106" or "Norman name" pass back then.

I totally agree, but there are some people who have an unhealthy need to prove they are part of the oldest possible elements in the population as if it makes you more 'real' Irish or whatever.  Its nonsense of course.  I think some people still feel a bit that way and especially want a pre-Norman root.  One of the mantras of old style nationalism in Ireland was '800 years of oppression'.  Problem with that is a significant amount of Irish catholics are the descendants of the original Medieval oppressors and I dont think that is an easy  to swallow for some people.  That of course also must be a conflict for the many African American who are descended from both the oppressed and the oppressor (I have seen the confused emotions that causes on Who Do You Think You Are'.  Believe me there will even be R1b Irish people who are dissapointed that their male  lines are Copper Age because they have a self image of being uber-natives that were supressed rather than people who squeezed out the male lines of the Mesolithic and Neolithic people who had been there far longer.  It just doesnt sit well with their self image as much as the idea of being the orignal hunters did.  I personally think that that wish to have everything black and white is a lack of imagination and grey matter and a lack of an ability to appeciate all the shades of grey in history and life.  No matter what your haploype of clade is its all real and there is an interesting story to be learned.  If I was haplotype E or something it would be just as fascinating.       

My father in law was absolutely deleted to find he was E-M84, he's pure bred Somerset for as far back as we can trace and probably a lot longer than that :)
Logged

Y-DNA R-DF49*
MtDNA J1c2e
Kit No. 117897
Ysearch 3BMC9

whoknows
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #65 on: July 18, 2012, 01:27:43 PM »

I think many would be very interested to learn on what empirical basis you make the assertion that

"Problem with that is a significant amount of Irish catholics are the descendants of the original Medieval oppressors" (Emphasis Added)

Sure reasoned estimates, well argued speculation can present a claim, but of itself it is not evidence in the manner understood by science, so any definitive sources that can definitively support your statement would be helpful.

Secondly even IF there was any significance to the assertion it is a touch fallacious to argue that simply due to some lineage connection over 800 years ago, Irish men or women of a republican or nationalist cause are somehow uneasy at such a thought, after all ethnicity, national identity are cultural and that is a considerable number of generations from which to forge a profound national and cultural identity.

Lastly in my view there is a touch of misunderstanding and misrepresentation taking place concerning the views of fellow contributors who are merely advancing opinions and questions relating to  R U106, that could at one time have links with the Celtic Hallstatt Culture and Germanic peoples. If that is so, and I believe this is the real motivation of those who are trying to discuss this matter, then the question naturally follows: was it present on the British Isles (including Ireland) before the Anglo Saxon invasions? Could it have arrived in Ireland at an early stage along with other Haplogroups?

Of themselves these are reasonable questions and possessed of the same validity as any other inquiry regarding the movements and settlement of particular Haplogroups across Western Europe. From what I have read on this thread from fellow contributors it's not a fragile and insecure sense of personal or family identity that motivates questions on this subject, but simply an interest and curiosity to consider alternative views, including a speculation that R U106 may have entered Ireland before the Germanic expansions.

« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 01:41:55 PM by whoknows » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #66 on: July 18, 2012, 02:17:28 PM »

This is off-topic, but I just wanted to add that Dr.Gates being mostly European genetically and still having his ethnic identification as African American doesn't support the point that nativity doesn't equal y-DNA Haplogroup. I actually agree that nativity =/= y-DNA Haplogroup, I simply think Dr.Gates is a poor example, because had he been born in England he wouldn't have been Afro-English, he probably would have been Multi-Racial, had he been born in South America, he would have been a Mulatto. So in a sense it should come as no surprise that even though he is mostly European genetically he still identifies as African American, because due to the Ethno-Racial policies that ensued in the US until recently, anyone with a drop of African blood would still be considered African. So hypothetically, if Dr.Gates was 60% Italian and 34% English, he would have been thought off as being Italian-English, however due to the ODR, he is still thought off as being African American. So in a sense it is not correct to extrapolate ethno-racial labels used in the US to the rest of the world. 
Logged
ironroad41
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


« Reply #67 on: July 18, 2012, 02:49:01 PM »

This is off-topic, but I just wanted to add that Dr.Gates being mostly European genetically and still having his ethnic identification as African American doesn't support the point that nativity doesn't equal y-DNA Haplogroup. I actually agree that nativity =/= y-DNA Haplogroup, I simply think Dr.Gates is a poor example, because had he been born in England he wouldn't have been Afro-English, he probably would have been Multi-Racial, had he been born in South America, he would have been a Mulatto. So in a sense it should come as no surprise that even though he is mostly European genetically he still identifies as African American, because due to the Ethno-Racial policies that ensued in the US until recently, anyone with a drop of African blood would still be considered African. So hypothetically, if Dr.Gates was 60% Italian and 34% English, he would have been thought off as being Italian-English, however due to the ODR, he is still thought off as being African American. So in a sense it is not correct to extrapolate ethno-racial labels used in the US to the rest of the world. 
  I think that the words race and ethnicity are overused and rapidly becoming a little nonsensical?  Consider Clan Gregor and the Ian Cam, since there are now 111 STR's available, the current clan chief now has had three mutations since the founder.  The current Ian Cam who has the least mutations, I am told, is from Jamaica and guess his color?  His male ancestry goes one way and his MtDNA goes another. so what label do we put on this gentleman?
Logged
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #68 on: July 18, 2012, 02:57:37 PM »

Yes the modern Irish really are an admixture.
My understanding of the principal inbound and outbound migrations is as follows:

Inbound
1) Mesolithic Settlers
2) Neolithic Settlers
3) Megalithic People
4) Celtic People
       Atlantic Celts
       River Celts
       Central European Celts
       Copper, Bronze, Iron Ages
5) Vikings
6) Normans
7) Anglo Saxons
8) Plantations (Ulster, Leinster, Munster)
9) Huguenot French
10) Palatine Germans
11) Modern Migrants (Polish, etc.)

Outbound
1) Dal Riada
2) Celtic Monastic Movement
3) Viking Slaves
4) Flight of the Earls
5) Wild Geese
7) Scots Irish Emigration
6) The Great Famine
8) 20th C Migration
9) 21st C Migration

Lots of opportunities for I, J, R1b, L21, U152, U106 and others to mix.
My objective is to identify the traces of these migrations.
I have tried to illustrate it on the following boards (work in progress).

http://pinterest.com/gerardcorcoran/


« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 03:15:26 PM by Heber » Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #69 on: July 18, 2012, 03:22:44 PM »

As I said before, things like U106 in Ireland should and CAN be looked at on the basis of individual matching on their FTDNA homepage.  Only they (or possibly some admins) can do that.  It would be very interesting to know if Irish U106 folks have only Irish matches and no close matches outside Ireland within the last 2000 years OR whether they have (non-Irish surnamed) matches in England and the continent in a much more recent times span (say the last 1200 years).  Its not infallible given changes of surnames etc but surely to goodness that would give you a good idea of the reality. I know that info is confidential but when people argue about this it would be very interesting to hear that sort of evidence rather than just assertions.  I do notice that matches are not generally mentioned by Irish U106 and U152 people in these arguements. 

I have 900 12 marker matches  in the Isles and 300 25 marker matches but most of them are not SNP tested. I have one 37 marker match and he is a relative. We are both Z156*
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #70 on: July 18, 2012, 03:31:22 PM »

I think many would be very interested to learn on what empirical basis you make the assertion that

"Problem with that is a significant amount of Irish catholics are the descendants of the original Medieval oppressors" (Emphasis Added)

Sure reasoned estimates, well argued speculation can present a claim, but of itself it is not evidence in the manner understood by science, so any definitive sources that can definitively support your statement would be helpful.

Secondly even IF there was any significance to the assertion it is a touch fallacious to argue that simply due to some lineage connection over 800 years ago, Irish men or women of a republican or nationalist cause are somehow uneasy at such a thought, after all ethnicity, national identity are cultural and that is a considerable number of generations from which to forge a profound national and cultural identity.

Lastly in my view there is a touch of misunderstanding and misrepresentation taking place concerning the views of fellow contributors who are merely advancing opinions and questions relating to  R U106, that could at one time have links with the Celtic Hallstatt Culture and Germanic peoples. If that is so, and I believe this is the real motivation of those who are trying to discuss this matter, then the question naturally follows: was it present on the British Isles (including Ireland) before the Anglo Saxon invasions? Could it have arrived in Ireland at an early stage along with other Haplogroups?

Of themselves these are reasonable questions and possessed of the same validity as any other inquiry regarding the movements and settlement of particular Haplogroups across Western Europe. From what I have read on this thread from fellow contributors it's not a fragile and insecure sense of personal or family identity that motivates questions on this subject, but simply an interest and curiosity to consider alternative views, including a speculation that R U106 may have entered Ireland before the Germanic expansions.



I dont know, I know guys personally with ambigous surnames who wouldnt even do their paper geneaology in case they found a planter there!  However, you are right that Irish nationalism on the whole is not an ethnic centred one.  

 Anyway returning to the main point, I  think its pretty certain that people like the Normans who had power in parts of Ireland for 100s of years would have left a demographic inprint on the y lines although maybe fairly limited in terms of overall DNA.  Given that in some areas of Ireland the Normans in stages went native or lasted until the reformation and in the 16th century assimilated into the general Irish catholic genepool and identity, I think its even more likely that they left a significant imprint.  Surnames would say so, fallable though they are.  Its also extremely hard to believe that the townspeople of Ireland didnt have a significant Viking remanant.  They were still there when the Norman's arrived.  They were all over Ireland doing what they did for hundreds of years numbering many thousands at least.  It would be simply incredible if they didnt leave an impact on genes in areas of Ireland.  Also, the cities of the southern half of Ireland under both the Vikings and Normans would have been places where people came to settle as traders and craftsmen from all over northern and Atlantic Europe.  They were outside the normal Irish clan systems.  I think all inputs contributed to the Irish and there are no first class and second class roots.  Its all good.    

I agree that unless people pursue and ask questions about minority clades in Ireland and their origins then silly assumptions will be made.  Like I say, I wish someone would post something about the individual matches of U106, U152 and all non-L21 Irish and then we would have a much better idea.  Individual matching seems to me to be the best way to go.

Here is a question - what are the matching of Irish E and I people?  Are they generally only matched with other Irish or not?
Logged
inver2b1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #71 on: July 18, 2012, 03:43:30 PM »

I'm I-L126 which is down stream of M284; I match two people on FTDNA with variations of the surname McMillan, my name is Mullen and as far as I can make out both surname share the same gaelic origin (McMaolain/O'Maolain).
One of my matches (according to FTDNA we most likely have our common ancestor at 24 generations) can trace his line to Scotland to about 1400 with no one arriivng in Ireland and he has ancestors in the US (he's more or less in the epicentre of Scots irish country in the US) who used the name McMullen.
My other match (at roughly 20 generations) only has an idea going back to the 1800's in the US (he also has someone using McMullen).
According to our family lore the most distant ancestor we know of fled from Mayo to Donegal for taking part in the 1798 rebellion (supposedly his ancestors were riven from Donegal to Mayo after the plantation). Long story short, would many catholics have come over during the plantation?
Also when I look at surnames in the M223 project those in L126 seem heavily weighted towards names you would associate with Scotland and the plantation but there is a few you could call more irish gaelic, but the wide range of surnames suggest the adoptions of surnames were very haphazzard.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 03:44:03 PM by inver2b1 » Logged

I-L126
H3
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #72 on: July 18, 2012, 03:49:59 PM »

I'm I-L126 which is down stream of M284; I match two people on FTDNA with variations of the surname McMillan, my name is Mullen and as far as I can make out both surname share the same gaelic origin (McMaolain/O'Maolain).
One of my matches (according to FTDNA we most likely have our common ancestor at 24 generations) can trace his line to Scotland to about 1400 with no one arriivng in Ireland and he has ancestors in the US (he's more or less in the epicentre of Scots irish country in the US) who used the name McMullen.
My other match (at roughly 20 generations) only has an idea going back to the 1800's in the US (he also has someone using McMullen).
According to our family lore the most distant ancestor we know of fled from Mayo to Donegal for taking part in the 1798 rebellion (supposedly his ancestors were riven from Donegal to Mayo after the plantation). Long story short, would many catholics have come over during the plantation?
Also when I look at surnames in the M223 project those in L126 seem heavily weighted towards names you would associate with Scotland and the plantation but there is a few you could call more irish gaelic, but the wide range of surnames suggest the adoptions of surnames were very haphazzard.

I am curious about Irish I.  Has anyone ever estimated the % of each clades and any speculation on the origins.
Logged
inver2b1
Senior Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #73 on: July 18, 2012, 04:01:44 PM »

As far as I can make out there are three main sub groups of I in Ireland;
There is the group called something like I2a2a (in old terminology); there is an isles branch and another called dinaric. These are very old and is thought to be the one of the first to move into the isles post ice age. I’ve heard the surnames O’Driscol, O’Grady and Keane mentioned as having peaks of this group.
There is the I1 group which is very common on the Scandanavia/North Sea area and this is thought to represent Vikings, Danes, Saxons, etc
Then you have M223 (there have been some recent snp’s discovered which is breaking the group out a bit); m223 itself is quite old so M223* could technically be post ice age. There are other groups called continental but I know very little of them. Then there is M284 which some have linked to the cruithin, and L126 which is supposedly about 1,500 years old, as I said this one seems to be weighted towards the plantation from a surname point of view.
For I altogether i have seen estimates of 10% to 12% for Ireland.
Jeans site has a good overview.
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/haplogroupi.shtml
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 04:02:05 PM by inver2b1 » Logged

I-L126
H3
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #74 on: July 18, 2012, 04:38:25 PM »

As far as I can make out there are three main sub groups of I in Ireland;
There is the group called something like I2a2a (in old terminology); there is an isles branch and another called dinaric. These are very old and is thought to be the one of the first to move into the isles post ice age. I’ve heard the surnames O’Driscol, O’Grady and Keane mentioned as having peaks of this group.
There is the I1 group which is very common on the Scandanavia/North Sea area and this is thought to represent Vikings, Danes, Saxons, etc
Then you have M223 (there have been some recent snp’s discovered which is breaking the group out a bit); m223 itself is quite old so M223* could technically be post ice age. There are other groups called continental but I know very little of them. Then there is M284 which some have linked to the cruithin, and L126 which is supposedly about 1,500 years old, as I said this one seems to be weighted towards the plantation from a surname point of view.
For I altogether i have seen estimates of 10% to 12% for Ireland.
Jeans site has a good overview.
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/haplogroupi.shtml


Is there any noticeable distribution pattern of the old group vs the I1 group in terms of geography and surnames?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 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 0.128 seconds with 19 queries.