The origin of R-M222 and the peopling of Ireland - oh boy here we go again!

[vineviz]

Commenting on archaeology is perfectly acceptable. Proclaiming genetic genealogy is dependent upon archaeology or that archaeology holds the answers to understanding genetic genealogy is not. 

But archaelogy does hold  answers to understanding genetic genealogy.  It does not hold  all the answers, of course, but then again no one claimed that it did.

VV

[vineviz]

OK, I have just re-registered. 

Welcome.  Your insights will be valued.

VV

[Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen]

I’ll agree that it may have some value. Archaeology cannot and should not be our primary focus in the genetic genealogical community. And I welcome you to this forum, also.

[vineviz]

Archaeology cannot and should not be our primary focus in the genetic genealogical community.

There's not much risk of that, I think.  I am glad to have some people here who are well-versed in it, to keep the rest of us from going too far astray.

VV

[Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen]

As you are aware, archaeology will have more value to genetic genealogists when archaeologists routinely add SNP and STR data to archaeological studies. As it stands today, I view archaeology of limited value to genetic genealogy. Perhaps, that will change in the future. You are well versed in genetic genealogy, and it is a pleasure to have your participation on this sub-forum.

Thanks,

[susanrosine]

Commenting on archaeology is perfectly acceptable. Proclaiming genetic genealogy is dependent upon archaeology or that archaeology holds the answers to understanding genetic genealogy is not. 

I think of Genetic GENEALOGY as a separate category from what we're discussing here. Genealogy is tracing your ancestors--using paper trails--written records. If your last name is Baker, and you match other Bakers, and you've all traced your Baker line back to a specific man---that's genetic genealogy.
Once you get into haplogroups and age of subclades, etc.  you have no surnames or written records. At that point I believe archaealogy must be used as a tool, because all we have is the archaelogical evidence.

[rms2]

I think of Genetic GENEALOGY as a separate category from what we're discussing here. Genealogy is tracing your ancestors--using paper trails--written records. If your last name is Baker, and you match other Bakers, and you've all traced your Baker line back to a specific man---that's genetic genealogy.
Once you get into haplogroups and age of subclades, etc.  you have no surnames or written records. At that point I believe archaealogy must be used as a tool, because all we have is the archaelogical evidence.

Exactly right, and that is an important distinction to make, between genealogy on the one hand and "Deep Ancestry" on the other.

Archaeology is essential to understanding Deep Ancestry, as are linguistics, history (where documents and inscriptions are available), climatology, and on and on.

[Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen]

I don't see the distinction between genealogy and deep ancestry to which "archaeology is essential to understanding Deep Ancestry". Say what you must, however, I have been reading Irish genealogy and deep ancestry for many years.

I am into genealogy and genetic genealogy. I don't find a reliance on archaeology essential at all.
  

http://www.maryjones.us/jce/LGEGenealogy.pdf

Genealogy - Lebor Gabala Erren

http://www.maryjones.us/jce/LGEoverview.pdf

Overview - Lebor Gabala Erren

[rms2]

I don't see the distinction between genealogy and deep ancestry to which "archaeology is essential to understanding Deep Ancestry". Say what you must, however, I have been reading Irish genealogy and deep ancestry for many years.

I am into genealogy and genetic genealogy. I don't find a reliance on archaeology essential at all.
  

http://www.maryjones.us/jce/LGEGenealogy.pdf

Genealogy - Lebor Gabala Erren

http://www.maryjones.us/jce/LGEoverview.pdf

Overview - Lebor Gabala Erren

Why not start a separate thread about how one understands prehistory - the aeons for which no written documentation is available - without reference to archaeology?

That ought to be fascinating!

[Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen]

I'll leave that to the anthropologist and archaeologist. That is their chosen field of study.