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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 29, 2014, 10:07:12 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)
| | |-+  The origin of R-M222 and the peopling of Ireland - oh boy here we go again!
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The origin of R-M222 and the peopling of Ireland - oh boy here we go again!  (Read 4626 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« on: June 26, 2009, 07:00:34 PM »

RMS2 suggested once that I might restart this topic.  I think it is time.  I do have some new news but I'll start with, in my opinion, a very nice summary of an archaeological perspective of the peopling of Ireland. 

Quote from: an archaeologist
What archaeology tells us about Irelands peopling is this:

1. Mesolithic-Ireland was likely settled from north Britain c. 8000BC by peoples who probably were located in the southern/mid North Sea area prior to arriving in the isles.

2. Early Neolithic-Ireland and Britain seem to have been mainly settled very quickly and homogeneously by a single group who likely arrived from NE France to SE England and spread through the isles from there across a 400 year period. There was probably another more minor input into western Britain and Ireland from NW France.

3. Mid- Later Neolithic-Ireland had strong contacts with all of western Britain from Cornwall to the Orkneys indicated by exchange items. There was possibly some much lighter contact with NW France shown by similar ideas in monuments, art etc although this was shadowy, did not extend to mundane artefacts and was clearly mainly contact rather than settlement.

4. Beaker period-Ireland suddenly became part of a really major network that extended beyond the isles for the first time. The beakers that have an agreed origin point to the Middle and Lower Rhine and south, eastern and northern Britain while the burial traditions and deposition habits of beaker are more like western Britain and NW France. It is suspected that Ireland's paramount position in NW European metallurgy came from Atlantic contacts via NW France. It seems likely that NW France is the common denominator or link between the NW European beaker types and the Atlantic burial and metallurgical traditions and it was likely crucial in terms of the beaker influence in Ireland.

5. Bronze Age-A lot of the mundane culture and burial traditions are purely insular with no continental parallels. There is a lot of similarity of mundane culture and ritual monuments/burial traditions within and between the isles but not much with the continent. The exception is metalwork where ideas seem to have flowed in a confusing network whose directions seem to have varied greatly over time although Central European influence seemed to steadily grow as the period went on. Ideas like 'Atlantic Bronze Age' have no real basis. On the basis of settlement, burial, ritual etc traditions it is very hard to see continental settlement on any sort of scale into the isles in this period although trade contact shown in metalwork, ore and influences must have been frequent.

6. Iron Age-influences came from west-Central and Europe via Britain in the Hallstatt C and La Tene periods. The influences are relatively weak and like the Bronze Age largely confined to metalwork. Ireland is especially insular in terms of the monuments, burial traditions and mundane material culture and seems different from both the continent and Britain (which itself has a lot of insularity-house shapes etc). This has lead many to feel that no large scale invasions took place in the Iron Age in Ireland although I think there is enough to suggest some small scale. I would say the same is also true for Scotland and much of the rest of Britain.

In general I would think that most archaeologists feel that the main populating events were the Mesolithic and/or the Early Neolithic with a much lesser (but ultimately significant??) input in the beaker period, very little movement in the Bronze Age other than flotsam brought by elite contact (marriages, craftsmen etc??) and perhaps some small groups of war bands etc in the Iron Age. I doubt many archaeologists would disagree hugely with that summary.

You will note that Iberia is conspicuously absent from this summary which I would say few archaeologists would find much to disagree with.
To a Milesian believer, some of this might be considered heresy.

Please note, my paternal lineage is genealogically proven to be from Ireland so I take pride in being "Irish", although I found out that with a little genetics help that I was probably not Old "Gaelic" Irish.  My family lived in County Kilkenny for almost 700 years so I think that counts as Irish.  My paternal lineage inter-married with Gaelic named people like the Kelly's so I've got some Gael in me, maybe a lot.

EDIT: I changed the title.  Originally I included the word "Gaels" but shouldn't have as that is broader than R-M222.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2009, 09:31:24 PM by Mike » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2009, 07:17:54 PM »

A question popped up on the Wales DNA group that it makes sense to visit on this forum.  A researcher, Robert H, was looking at Welsh R-L21* folks and trying to determine if R-M222 might have some common origination point with an R-L21* cluster. R-M222 is sometimes associated with the NW Irish and Scottish elements so it thought by some to be associated with Gaels.  However, the Welsh were not Q Celtic speakers.  On the other hand, obviously, the first R-M222 man's father had to be an R-L21* man and there are a lot of R-L21* folks in Ireland AND in Wales, England, Scotland and the Rhine Valley and a few other places.

I have a spreadsheet of confirmed R-L21* folks so I thought I'd check it out.  Vince V indicated that the differentiating marker for R-M222 is DYS481=25.  It is DYS481 that sets R-M222 apart from the rest of R-M269, he feels.

I queried all of the non-duplicate R-L21* haplotypes in the FTDNA projects and Ysearch that I could find. Of the 329 with 67 markers, I found 25 or 8% of the R-L21* have DYS481=25, plus or minus 1.   Twelve of the 25 also have 413a=21 and nine of these twelve were also above WAMH at 449. Here are the 25:

Ashley - England    2RNBW
Bretheim - Seattle, Washington, USA   XZXCC
Robert Caldwell, b.1750, York County, PA    GDYM6
Dickens - Unknown    BRSW3
John Elliott, b. 1878, Donegal, Ireland    XQR3K
John Gough, 1805, Gilford, County Down, Ireland   2B579
Michael Hannan, b.c. 1847, Dublin, Ireland    MGPP9
Stephen Harding b 1623 MA d 1698 RI    EZJKE
Griffith Humphrey, b.1792, Llangwnnadl, Caernarvon    BPHSG
Mogue Kehoe b. 1799 Co. Wexford, Ireland    FSH3F
Martin Kelly b 1862    W2QBJ
Richard Lewis, b.1592 Monmouthshire, Wales   3QPGN
John McLea, b. 1790, Isle of Bute, Scotland    WZCV3
Hugh McKean, Dunluce, County Antrim    ZAPBQ
Thomas Meek 1708-1776 near Cearfoss,Hagerstown, MD    B9URX
Miller - Coupar Angus, Angus, Scotland    V6MVZ
Mitchell - Indiana, USA    KKYYY
Nevins - Galway City, Ireland    9Y23H
Anders Nielsen, Vejle Amt, Denmark   46R5B
Thomas Phillips, Beverly, Randolph Co., West Va.    Z4XH2
Pruner - Unknown    U7VY3
Ephraim Stephens, bc1710 Scotland (ancient Welsh?)    X3TH6
John Traynor, c.1798, Ireland, Co Cavan    F8S6Y
Warner - Unknown    EBU2V
Williams - Morrilton, Arkansas, USA    U3R4E

I've been asking for feedback on the list to see if anyone sees any correlations.  Do you?    This question was totally innocent, but I did get at least one extensive answer.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2009, 08:39:00 PM »

On the original topic, my vote right now is for Hubert's idea that the Goidels or Gaels came from Germany to Britain and thence to Ireland. P-Celtic could have come later and spread very easily throughout Britain, since the inhabitants already spoke Celtic languages. P just didn't quite have the oomph to make the leap to Ireland, where the older Q-Celtic survived.

I think the R-L21* starting to show up in Spain is Celtic mostly, and came by way of Gaul.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2009, 08:52:35 PM »

On the original topic, my vote right now is for Hubert's idea that the Goidels or Gaels came from Germany to Britain and thence to Ireland. P-Celtic could have come later and spread very easily throughout Britain, since the inhabitants already spoke Celtic languages. P just didn't quite have the oomph to make the leap to Ireland, where the older Q-Celtic survived.

I think the R-L21* starting to show up in Spain is Celtic mostly, and came by way of Gaul.
Are the Gaels and Goidels in reality the same?  In other words, the Gaels are the remnant that keep most of the old Goidelic culture intact?
« Last Edit: June 26, 2009, 08:52:56 PM by Mike » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2009, 08:57:00 PM »

This is all highly speculative and based on limited data, but here is the first reply (on another forum) that I received to my request for input on the list of 25 haplotypes included in this thread earlier.
Quote from: an archaeologist
Certainly the Celtic fringe is overrepresented and England seems underrepresented given how much bigger England is. I think the only pattern I can see is a concentration of locations or surnames originally from along the western seaboard of Britain. Several of the Irish look to have Scottish surnames and the remainder seem geographically unpatterned in Ireland.

Note that the NW of Ireland where M222 is concentrated in Ireland today is not represented but the part of Scotland where M222 is well represented today does seem to be represented by places or surnames. I think that is significant. My guess would be that M222 originated among some British L21* Celts in the area between Wales and SW Scotland and spread from there to Ireland in the late Iron Age where it mushroomed.

I have always thought this anyway because in detail the Irish (NW) and main Scottish (central and south) concentrations of M222 are not in the correct areas of either country to be explained by Irish sub-Roman movements to Britain which actually went from NE, east and south coast Ireland to Wales, Cornwall and NW Scotland. That has made a prehistoric movement seem much more likely to me.

Given that M222 has less than half the variance of L21, a late prehistoric date for the movement seems likely. If L21 is Bronze Age in date then that can only mean that M222 was Iron Age in date. If it is Iron Age in date, it must be noted that until the Roman's hold started to weaken, the flow of influence in the Iron Age was very much Britain to Ireland than the other way round.

This string of logic makes me think that M222 originated in Britain in the Iron Age and was brought to Ireland soon after. There are hints in the Ui Neill and Connachta (who have a lot of M222) legends of British links, perhaps origins."
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2009, 09:24:31 PM »


Are the Gaels and Goidels in reality the same?  In other words, the Gaels are the remnant that keep most of the old Goidelic culture intact?


In the beginning, yes. The later Gaels, the ones who started the Dalriadic kingdom, were descendants of the original Goidels, but obviously there were other Godielic descendants who were not those later Gaels.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2009, 09:33:02 PM »

You are right... the Gaels are much more than R-M222 which is what I was really focusing on.  I changed the title to the topic.
Are the Gaels and Goidels in reality the same?  In other words, the Gaels are the remnant that keep most of the old Goidelic culture intact?
In the beginning, yes. The later Gaels, the ones who started the Dalriadic kingdom, were descendants of the original Goidels, but obviously there were other Godielic descendants who were not those later Gaels.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2009, 12:13:43 AM »

“This string of logic makes me think that M222 originated in Britain”

I have seen no evidence that M222 originated in Britain. Does your unnamed archaeologist have any thing to offer in this industry beyond anonymous speculation?
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2009, 02:58:48 AM »

“This string of logic makes me think that M222 originated in Britain”

I have seen no evidence that M222 originated in Britain. Does your unnamed archaeologist have any thing to offer in this industry beyond anonymous speculation?
The only reason I don't name the archaeologist is I don't want to distract from the discussion.

I understand the logic string he is talking about.  It has to do with where possible brothers of the first M222+.  We are doing that by looking for similar haplotypes.  If M222+'s brothers are located in a particular geography, that provides some evidence as to where M222+ is likely to be from as well.

It also has to do with the age/variance of M222+ versus R-L21*.

Is this guaranteed proof of anything?  Absolutely not, it's just a possible alternative.
Logged

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

Posts: 6


« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2009, 08:23:49 AM »

OK, I have just re-registered.  After recent experiences I had laid off posting for a while and made my first posting on DNA in ages the other day on DNA forums.  As with the last time I see comments on the post appeared here first.  Anyway, all I am giving on this or other sites is an opinion and if I wish it to be an anonymous one then that is my choice.  I do have some useful related professional knowledge and training but this is not why I post.  It is a personal and amateur interest in DNA and what it can tell us about the broad picture past that is the reason I post.  So please just take my posts and discuss the logic of them, not me or my credentials.  I am invovled as a private individual and my profession is a seperate issue.  That said, I cant help the fact I do have some knowledge on the past from my own discipline and training and I can hardly be expected to blank out my knowledge when it clearly has an overlapping brief: the past and movement of people. 
I think my background plus my more recent interest in DNA means I can make a useful contribution to discussions.  I like this site as discussion is generally conducted in a mature and respectful fashion.  I would like to contribute here as long as disucssion about me (as opposed to my post) ceases. 
Logged
alanarchae
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2009, 09:12:33 AM »

Mike

Thank you.  My logic in pure DNA terms is that the the proto-M222 L21* folk (can we call the L21* with M222-like STRs  but not the M222 SNP that?) are in the same areas (or surnames originally from those areas) as the M222 in Scotland BUT in Ireland the proto-M222 L21 people on that list are not located in NW Ireland where Irish M222 concentrates and indeed are somewhat scattered around the country and from different unrelated lineages.  You could take that as evidence that M222 arrived in a fully formed state in NW Ireland but their L21 proto-M222 ancestors came from somethere else.  Obvously you then look to a place where both M222 and proto-M222 L21 people are both located to find the likely location of the mutation.  To me southern or western Scotland is the likely origin if you follow this logic.  Of course, it is possible that this is all wrong and modern lines' distributions are down to chance of survival.  Also, I cant vouch for the logic of the approach of STR comparison to look for proto-M222.  Thats your idea and I will leave that for you to defend :0).  I think Miles (of DNA forums and I think here too) had come up with a very similar concept of proto-M222 STRs some time back.
all the best
Alan

Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2009, 09:37:07 AM »

“This string of logic makes me think that M222 originated in Britain”

I have seen no evidence that M222 originated in Britain. Does your unnamed archaeologist have any thing to offer in this industry beyond anonymous speculation?


Please, let's not ruin this thread the way the last one on this subject got wrecked.

I don't earn my living from dna testing or genealogy, so I don't feel I'm involved in an "industry". For me, and I think for most here, this is a HOBBY.

Speculation is what it's all about. It should be fun.

Deal with the arguments and leave the persons out of it. No need to demand real names, resumes, or home addresses. The argument stands or falls on its own. As far as I know, the Pope hasn't signed on here to make ex cathedra pronouncements. In other words, we don't accept things based on authority; there are plenty of highly papered people who are as wrong as wrong can be.

Geez, how controversial should the origin of M222 be anyway? Personally, I couldn't care less about it (no offense intended). In fact, when Mike changed the subject from the Gaels to the origin of M222, I was a bit disappointed and thought, "Well, that's that for that!"
Logged

alanarchae
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2009, 10:06:18 AM »

If M222 has perhaps 40-50% of the variance of L21* and L21 is really only 3500-4500 years old then that would make M222 date to late Iron Age/Roman era.  If, as some think L21 is older, say early Neolithic (6000 years ago), then that still places M222 in fairly late prehistory.  I personally feel that increases the likelyhood that it was created somewhere in the west of the isles.

Has anyone ever seperately calculated the variance of:

1. All Irish M222
2. Ui Neill surnamed M222
3. Irish M222 without Ui Neill surnames
4. Scottish/British M222
5. The L21 folk who look a bit like M222 but are not

If the sample size was sufficient, that could tell us something about the chronology and priority of areas and therefore possibly its origins
Logged
Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2009, 11:31:30 AM »

I am not R-M222 and do not wish to be controversial, but this archaeologist cannot and does not separate his personal views from his professional views. He states, “I am invovled as a private individual and my profession is a seperate issue.” Fine, I’ll accept that, however, in the next sentence he states, “I do have some knowledge on the past from my own discipline and training and I can hardly be expected to blank out my knowledge when it clearly has an overlapping brief: the past and movement of people.

I think my background plus my more recent interest in DNA means I can make a useful contribution to discussions.”

Certainly, we can all make useful contributions, but this is not an archaeological forum. And I am not an archaeologist. Plus, I’m not a fan of anonymous speculation especially by people in other disciplines regarding genetic genealogy.

I do, however, agree with the following statement made by this sub-forum moderator.

“In other words, we don't accept things based on authority; there are plenty of highly papered people who are as wrong as wrong can be.”

So, alanarchae welcome to the forum. I will leave you to your anonymous speculation regarding R-M222.

Thanks, have fun.
Logged
EL21
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2009, 12:18:43 PM »

What percentage of Irish males are M222? 

I had wondered if M222 might have arrived with Gallowglass in N/W Ireland.

"The first record of gallowglass service under the Irish was in 1259, when Prince Aodh Ó Conchobhair of Connaught received a dowry of 160 Scottish warriors from the daughter of the King of the Hebrides. They were organised into groups known as a "Corrughadh", which consisted of about 100 men. In return for military service, gallowglass contingents were given land and settled in Irish lordships, where they were entitled to receive supplies from the local population. By 1512, there were reported to be fifty-nine groups throughout the country under the control of the Irish nobility. Though initially they were mercenaries, over time they settled and their ranks became filled with native Irish men."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallowglass
« Last Edit: June 27, 2009, 12:19:13 PM by EL21 » Logged
alanarchae
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2009, 12:44:15 PM »

Glenn

I will respect the fact this is a DNA forum and keep the archaeology and history to the minimum.  I have already done that in my first couple of posts here today.  To be honest, I myself have slowly concluded that until DNA dating is even broadly agreed among geneticists there is not much point in trying to compare DNA with the archaeological record.  When western R1b is variously dated by different people from the ice age to the late bronze age (a difference of 10s of thousands of years) then I wouldnt even know what period to try to compare anyway.     

Thank you for the welcome

Alan
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2009, 02:12:39 PM »

I'm certainly no expert, and although I did well in math at school, I left that subject behind long ago. Just the same, I can follow the drift of the arguments and the basic reasoning.

I cannot see anything compelling in the arguments of those who would make R1b and R1b1b2 date back 25,000 years or more. Their reasoning seems to be based on the idea that R1b and R1b1b2 ought to be that old and so they must be that old.

The arguments of those who make R1b and its offspring much younger are based on actual observed father-to-son mutation rates and the comparison of large numbers of extended haplotypes. That method makes sense to me. It makes no assumptions up front; it just looks at the facts and says, "Here they are. Make of them what you will!"

Besides, look at R1b1b2. If it so damned old, how come it is so flipping difficult to sort the haplotypes of its subclades? Why is its growth more like a bush - with a lot of short branches - and less like a tree?

If someone offers the answer "bottleneck", I would respond that the bottleneck argument is a convenient form of special pleading used to explain away the fact that the evidence points to a relatively young age for R1b1b2 and its subclades. The bottleneck argument is circular: "We know R1b1b2 must be 30,000 years old, therefore it only looks younger because of bottlenecks. We have no proof R1b1b2 is that old or that any bottlenecks severe enough to make it look five times younger than it really is actually occurred, but because we believe the one, we must argue for the other!"
« Last Edit: June 27, 2009, 02:15:09 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2009, 02:23:09 PM »

Here is another thing that I find very compelling: the SNP trail.

Look at the R1b trail, which has arrows along it pointing in the direction of travel. Those arrows appear to point from the East or Southeast to the Northwest, from Western or SW Asia into E or SE Europe and finally to Western and NW Europe.

There are greater numbers of men who parted company from the R1b pedigree that leads to the Western subclades the farther east one travels across Europe, and there seems to be a progression backwards down the R1b tree as one moves in that direction.

Take the ISOGG R Tree and move backwards toward R1b along it from the Western subclades like P312 and U106. As you do so, you are moving east and perhaps southeast toward Anatolia and NOT southwest into Iberia, which appears to be overwhelmingly P312+.

It seems to me the SNP trail is nearly plain enough for a blind man to follow.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2009, 02:25:18 PM by rms2 » Logged

Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 27, 2009, 04:38:35 PM »

"What percentage of Irish males are M222?"

These are several years old.

http://www.geocities.com/mcewanjc/M222.htm

R1b1c7 haplogroup M222 SNP aka North West Irish Variety, IMH and R1bSTR19Irish

John McEwan

"Briefly it makes up around 20% of R1b of Irish origin and is also prevalent in western Scotland."

http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/gael.pdf

A Y-Chromosome Signature of Hegemony in Gaelic Ireland
Logged
Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 27, 2009, 04:46:16 PM »

"I cannot see anything compelling in the arguments of those who would make R1b and R1b1b2 date back 25,000 years or more. Their reasoning seems to be based on the idea that R1b and R1b1b2 ought to be that old and so they must be that old.

The arguments of those who make R1b and its offspring much younger are based on actual observed father-to-son mutation rates and the comparison of large numbers of extended haplotypes. That method makes sense to me. It makes no assumptions up front; it just looks at the facts and says, "Here they are. Make of them what you will!"

I agree. I think assumptions were made early on that are no longer valid. As for the math, I will leave that to Ken and others in the amateur genetic genealogy community. They have a much better grasp of that then I could ever hope to have.
Logged
alanarchae
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2009, 06:48:33 PM »

I would like to know if the Ui Neill surname M222 group is younger than M222 as a whole.  The mutation and the huge expansion of descendants of someone with that mutation are not the same thing.  The mutation in all likelihood happened some time before someone with that mutation happened to found a very successful line stemming. (Niall or otherwise).  Unless by pure chance the gap between the mutation and the founding of the succcessful dynasty was short then there should be a  detectable group who are not Ui Neill but who have M222 and who are older.  I dont know if a seperate study was been made comparing the age of M222 with Ui Neil surnames against  those M222 folk without these surnames (whether Irish or British).   
Logged
alanarchae
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2009, 07:19:48 PM »

I think that the evidence is very clear that R1b moves from ancestral to derived forms from SE to W/NW.  I Think VV has conclusively shown that although sorting the detail of the route would need a much bigger sample, especially of the SE Europe, Turkey, SW Asia and Steppes areas. 

The Ice Age refugia in Iberia and SW France did exist of course but the linking of those remains with R1b seems to have been a mistake.  That was based on a peak there after a crude headcount of all R1b or M269 before it was broken down into clades.  If there had been a long standing refuge there we would expect far older ancestral forms of R1b that had been trapped there by the ice age for a long time before spreading out and we would expect much younger and derived forms as we headed north and east along the post-ice age expansion routes.  That just does not seem to be the case.  In fact it is the reverse of what we see according to VV's work. 
So, it seems very like R1b overwintered in the east somewhere.  It would be very interesting to know where our ancesters lived then.  I also do not really get how R1b could be 10s of thousands of years old in Asia yet not appear in Europe according to variance dates until it suddenly moved there in the later Neolithic and Bronze Age and yet somehow contributes half of the male lineages in western Europe.  Such a late entry also suggests that  R1b were not in the main path of the early farmers who entered Europe from Turkey/SW Asia some millenia before. Makes you wonder where R1b was skulking before the late Neolithic.  The Steppes/Caucuses?
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2009, 03:33:15 PM »

As I understand it, the most current TMRCA estimate for M222 is about 1400 years or so. If that is right, then the first M222+ man was born sometime after the death of Niall of the Nine Hostages, who is supposed to have died around AD 405 (or perhaps as late as 450). Of course, I guess the confidence interval would stretch to include King Niall, but maybe he himself wasn't M222+ at all.

Then again, is the inclusion of Uí Néill haplotypes skewing the TMRCA estimates to the young side?
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2009, 07:45:00 PM »

Glenn

I will respect the fact this is a DNA forum and keep the archaeology and history to the minimum.  I have already done that in my first couple of posts here today.  To be honest, I myself have slowly concluded that until DNA dating is even broadly agreed among geneticists there is not much point in trying to compare DNA with the archaeological record.  When western R1b is variously dated by different people from the ice age to the late bronze age (a difference of 10s of thousands of years) then I wouldnt even know what period to try to compare anyway.     

Thank you for the welcome

Alan
Personally, I hope you continue to comment on archaeology and history as it possibly relates to DNA. I have found your comments along those lines very interesting. That some people don't agree with your views shouldn't prevent you from sharing them.
If you feel you have to wait until there is broad agreement amongst geneticists on dating questions, some of us might not live long enough to learn your views.
Logged
Nolan Admin - Glenn Allen Nolen
Project Coordinator
Old Hand
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2009, 10:48:55 AM »

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. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 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 0.095 seconds with 19 queries.