PDA

View Full Version : Which L21+ Subclades may have originated in The Isles?



MacEochaidh
07-13-2013, 11:03 PM
Are there any L21+ Subclades that may have originated in The Isles, or are they all Continental? Which L21+ Subclades are most likely to have originated in The Isles?

I'm DF23* and I notice that, with early results, it seems that DF49 all comes from The Isles, but those of DF23+ seem to be more scattered. Could this mean that DF23 originated in the Isles at a time when people from The Isles were beginning to to travel to and from the Continent at a greater rate?

Miles Kehoe

rms2
07-13-2013, 11:55 PM
I think many if not most of the oldest branches may have originated on the Continent, but some of their younger offspring may have arisen in the Isles. L226 springs to mind as one that probably arose in Ireland, but its "grandfather" (so to speak), Z253, probably originated on the Continent. (I'm not sure about the intermediate step, Z2534.)

I'm not sure about my own thus-far-terminal SNP, DF41. It seems to be old enough to have originated on the Continent, but we only have one continental DF41+ result so far, from SE France. All the other positives are from the Isles, unless one accepts the Stewarts' tradition of Breton origin, and even that could ultimately be of Isles derivation by way of the Britons who went to Armorica at the end of the Roman Period.

I think L1335 and its offspring, L1065, are probably of Isles origin.

I haven't tried to sort through all of L21's descendants, though.

History-of-Things
07-14-2013, 08:12 AM
Bear in mind there's no direct evidence for SNP geographical origins at all with L21 at this point (at least using Jean's tables there doesn't seem to be any). There is nothing to suggest a continental presence at all for my own youngish subclade of L720+. Its father clade of DF21+ has precious few continental examples, and unlike some, I do not think there is any convincing evidence that these few suggest an origin of any kind. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is far better to base interpretations on what is known.

rms2
07-14-2013, 12:08 PM
It's somewhat frustrating to start up on a new dna discussion forum and then have to rerun all of the old arguments that have already been hashed and re-hashed elsewhere several years ago. There are a number of indications that L21 probably originated on the Continent and not in the Isles. Whether or not haplotype variance is a good indicator of a haplogroup's origin or of its antiquity in a particular place is a matter of controversy, but the last I heard, for L21, it was greatest in France. In terms of SNP diversity, the Continent has a much more varied P312+ milieu than Britain and Ireland. It certainly seems more likely to be the womb of L21 than an environment where the P312 is overwhelmingly of one kind. I mean, if L21 was born in the Isles, where are the branches of P312 from which L21 diverged? They all appear to be on the Continent. There is little P312xL21 in the Isles, and what is there is either concentrated in eastern England or in places where the English later settled. Add to that the fact that L21 in the Isles is mostly DF13+. In fact, in Ireland and Wales, it is - unless I missed something - exclusively DF13+. The DF63 in Britain is markedly eastern, probably an indicator that DF63 arrived later than DF13 and from the Continent.

In the past, I have produced long posts elsewhere detailing the overwhelming British Isles bias in our y-dna databases, or, at least, in FTDNA's database. That bias has plagued us as long as I can remember: certainly from late October of 2008, when, for all real intents and purposes, L21 was discovered. It is problem enough for L21 testing; it is an even more acute problem for the testing of the downstream SNP's. Yet, despite the relative dearth of continentals in FTDNA's database, L21 makes a pretty good showing, especially in France, a showing that was reinforced in Busby et al.

I am not going to go back right now and hunt through the R-L21 Plus Project to produce the equivalent of a college term paper, but I know from experience that our French L21+ tend to have few, if any, haplotype neighbors (otherwise known as "matches"), and they tend to be DF13*. That, as I recall, is true of the Germans, as well. In other words, they don't show any signs of having been derived chiefly from the British Isles.

So, I believe L21 arose on the European Continent, in a P312 milieu far more diverse than the one in the British Isles. Basing my interpretations on what is known, I see no evidence whatsoever that a form of P312 ancestral to L21 went to the Isles and later gave rise to L21 there. From what I can see, L21 went to the Isles as L21 and probably as already DF13. In fact, I think at least some of the major branch DF13+ clades probably came to the Isles from the Continent, as well.

The demand for "direct evidence" in this field is a nearly impossible requirement. It generally means ancient y-dna results, since there are no eyewitnesses available from the Bronze Age, the Copper Age, or the Neolithic Period. There certainly are none, as far as we know, who were conducting y-dna tests for SNP's that were only just discovered in the first decade of the 21st century.

Maybe we will see some news of ancient y-dna testing very soon that answers many of our questions. Until then, there is circumstantial evidence, and logical inferences can be made from what is known.

Dubhthach
07-14-2013, 12:26 PM
As an aside about P312, I see over on Eupedia they finally created a map for just P312+ (as oppose to for L21 or U152 seperately). Though I would have prefered if they had labled it as "P312+" as oppose to "Italo-Celtic"

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Celtic_Europe.gif

rms2
07-14-2013, 12:47 PM
I believe the bulk of the P312xL21xU152 in the Isles is DF27+. As I said before, its distribution seems to indicate that it arrived from the Continent later than L21. The same is true of the U152+ in the Isles. There are no indications of any P312 in the Isles immediately ancestral to L21 that later spawned other supposedly Isles-born P312+ clades.

But I think there are one or two P312* guys of British Isles origin who have ordered full y chromosome sequencing. Perhaps one of them will show positive for a P312+ SNP shared with all the L21+ guys (and not otherwise present on the Continent), which might indicate an Isles origin for L21. I don't think that will be the case, but you never know.

Dubhthach
07-14-2013, 01:08 PM
Well some of the of the DF27+ we see in Ireland is Z196- and these tend to carry native Irish surnames (Ryan, Dwyer, Kennedy, O'Neill etc.). There is obviously DF27+ -> Z196+ -> L176.2+ types as well as those carrying SRY2627+ who probably are indeed later.

I do think as well that a good chunk of the P312* (L21-, U152-) in Britain is probably DF19+ and perhaps also L238+, these two appear to have more of a North-West Europe distrubition when it comes to P312 clades. L238 I believe is associated somewhat with scandinavia.

rms2
07-14-2013, 01:21 PM
That's true, but that Irish DF27 is likely to have come from the Continent, as well.

Dubhthach
07-14-2013, 02:10 PM
That's true, but that Irish DF27 is likely to have come from the Continent, as well.

Sure but ye could say the same for the Irish L21+ ;)

alan
07-14-2013, 03:29 PM
The problem is that so much isles is tested compared to any continental country. 100s isles tested for each continental one from any single country so we have an utterly distorted view of all L21 clades. From what I can see too, the isles L21 has a big aspect of more recent uber-clades while the continental is diverse and unclustered in the main (bar a couple of Iberian ones). Variance is highest in France too. I recall too that, per head, there is a far higher proportion of L21XDF13 on the continent (specifically France and its border area with Spain). I dont think we have anywhere near enough downstream testing of SNPs to understand continental L21. Even if there are 100 isles hits and 1 continental in a clade that probably represents the same per head tested amount. Some people cannot get their head around this but its a fact. I suspect the basal clades of L21XDF13, DF23 and DF21 are continental in origin and arrived in Britain then Ireland.

Webb
07-14-2013, 03:42 PM
I agree with Dubhthach about the Irish variety DF27. All of the Z196 clades have some representation around the North Sea. All of the Z196- varieties are so far only showing in Spain and Britain. The English varieties of Z220 are lining up with the northeast varieties as they are missing the downstream snps of Z216/Z278, Z214, and M153. I am predicting that most of Z220 on the isles are no older than the Anglo-Saxon period, L165 is no older than the same. SRY2627 is perplexing as I think it could be pre-roman up to Norman. But the Irish Z196- is interesting as they seem to be native names. Is it possible that we have the L21 and DF27 thing reversed. What if L21 is much older in Spain, France, and the isles, whereas, DF27 is more representational of the Iron Age. Next to Z214 and M153 amongst the basque is a considerable amount of L21 and it is older as far as the estimations of the clades compared to the Noth/South Variety found amongst the basque.

MacEochaidh
07-14-2013, 06:24 PM
Just to reiterate, this thread was NOT about L21 originating in The Isles!! This thread was asking which Subclades of L21 may have originated in The Isles.

Dubhthach
07-14-2013, 08:52 PM
In my opinion:

L371
L226
L563 (DF41+)
L745 (DF41+/L744+/L746+)
L193 (L513+)
L159.2 (Z255+)
P66 (L513+/L69.4+)
L69.4 (specific to L513)
M222 -- possibly also Z2961 (DF49+/DF23+)
L555
L144

lgmayka
07-15-2013, 03:24 AM
I am not going to go back right now and hunt through the R-L21 Plus Project to produce the equivalent of a college term paper, but I know from experience that our French L21+ tend to have few, if any, haplotype neighbors (otherwise known as "matches"), and they tend to be DF13*. That, as I recall, is true of the Germans, as well. In other words, they don't show any signs of having been derived chiefly from the British Isles.
FG6UV of Poznań (http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=&viewuid=FG6UV&p=1) is DF13* but rather distant from everyone else in Ysearch.

MacEochaidh
07-15-2013, 02:15 PM
FG6UV of Poznań (http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=&viewuid=FG6UV&p=1) is DF13* but rather distant from everyone else in Ysearch.

I don't think it's any surprise to rule out DF13* as a Subclade of L21+ which may have originated in The Isles. It appears that only Dubhtach read the title of the thread and responded.

To me, the question is important. For all of those L21+ Subclades that MAY (may) have originated on the Continent, where was the staging ground and did they filter into the Isles or slam it all in one massive invasion.

Also, is it even a possibility that an L21+ Subclade man who came to The Isles could have had descendants who left The Isles for the Continent? It would seem to me that L21+ Subclades going from The Isles to the Continent may become more spread out and have more possibility to have lines die out than those remaining in the confinement of The Isles. If a line came from Ireland to Boston and lived there for generations before a few of the line moved to Oregon, I would think the line would have an easier time dying out, or at least becoming more spread out, in Oregon than in the smaller confines of Boston.

RobertCasey
07-15-2013, 04:07 PM
I think that the L1335/L1065 YSNPs really point out the issue surround determining the geographic origin of any YSNP. Both are 95 % Isles in origin which imply an Isles origin of both YSNPs. L1335 has two unique fingerprints remaining that have survived that are quite different both YSTR patterns and geographic origins. The L1335-Price fingerprint appears clearly Welsh (5 Welsh and one low match that is Scottish). The main L1335 fingerprint is the same as its son, L1065. This SNP/fingerprint is clearly dominated by Scottish: Scotland 343, Ireland 63, England 24, Norway 2, Wales 1, France 1 and Germany 1. L1065 also has the son L743 which is all Templetons that are Scottish and even lower match non-Templetons are primarily Scottish as well.

Here are conclusion that I make based on statistical odds, low fingerprint matches and weighting fingerprints: 1) The very small counts for L1065 are probably due to immigration to continental Europe or Wales; 2) L1065 is clearly dominated by Scottish (80 %) with significant Irish and English. Statistically, there is 80 % chance of the origin being Scottish, 15 % of being Irish and 5 % chance of being English. I would bet on Scottish origins. Low fingerprint matches show no significant change in origins; 3) the origins of L1335 is a little more problematic. Since L1065 and L743 dominate L1335, it would be easy to conclude that L1335 has Scottish origins as well. However, L1335 has two distinct fingerprints that have survived to date and one branch is dominated by Scottish and the other much smaller branch is dominated by Welsh. So there is a low odds possibility of having Welsh origins. But the only way to explain the differences in the size of these two fingerprints is a genetic bottleneck - a scenario that is lower odds but could happen. Again, Las Vegas odd makers would always go with statistics that bring in the most money as I would. However, our ancestors sometimes take the low odds scenario on regular basis.

alan
07-15-2013, 04:11 PM
This could have been an Irish L21 chap. Who knows?

http://charles-mount.ie/wp/?p=1029

rms2
07-15-2013, 06:29 PM
Just to reiterate, this thread was NOT about L21 originating in The Isles!! This thread was asking which Subclades of L21 may have originated in The Isles.

Too late, Miles. I answered your initial post about subclades, but the origin of L21 itself was introduced in post #3, which was pretty early on.

rms2
07-15-2013, 06:32 PM
I don't think it's any surprise to rule out DF13* as a Subclade of L21+ which may have originated in The Isles. It appears that only Dubhtach read the title of the thread and responded.

To me, the question is important. For all of those L21+ Subclades that MAY (may) have originated on the Continent, where was the staging ground and did they filter into the Isles or slam it all in one massive invasion.

Also, is it even a possibility that an L21+ Subclade man who came to The Isles could have had descendants who left The Isles for the Continent? It would seem to me that L21+ Subclades going from The Isles to the Continent may become more spread out and have more possibility to have lines die out than those remaining in the confinement of The Isles. If a line came from Ireland to Boston and lived there for generations before a few of the line moved to Oregon, I would think the line would have an easier time dying out, or at least becoming more spread out, in Oregon than in the smaller confines of Boston.

Did you bother to read the first response in this thread after your initial post? Evidently not.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1104-Which-L21-Subclades-may-have-originated-in-The-Isles&p=9733&viewfull=1#post9733

Mikewww
07-15-2013, 09:35 PM
... But the only way to explain the differences in the size of these two fingerprints is a genetic bottleneck - a scenario that is lower odds but could happen. Again, Las Vegas odd makers would always go with statistics that bring in the most money as I would. However, our ancestors sometimes take the low odds scenario on regular basis.

I have to agree with Robert and as it pertains to bottlecks. I submit, as I have before, that frequency is not a good indicator of origin. Both SNP early branching diversity and STR diversity are better but there is no conclusive information available. Most alternatives are still probably possible, even if some are more probable.

I think Paul D has given us a pretty decent list of L21 subclades that have higher odds of being of Isles origin, but there will no complete agreement even on those. For instance, I know of L193 people that are convinced they are from the continent because of surname traditions, etc. I can't say the genetic evidence backs it up but we can't absolutely rule that out. L193 may not be older than 1000 years.

[[[ Speaking as a moderator on 7/15/2013, please let's just focus on the topic and not worry about it how we got off track and if we think we need a new thread for something that is off-track let's start it up. ]]]

alan
07-15-2013, 10:57 PM
If this is a genuine question rather than a troll (you do keep asking this question) then I would say I suppose that broadly speaking there is a period when I would tend to think of L21 as coming to the isles and a period where I would feel its more likely to come from the isles and I suppose that comes down to clade date. I think almost by definition the earliest L21 would have come TO the isles. Most of these early L21 people were probably unclustered or in small clusters. However, most of the historic period mega-clusters like M222 seem likely to have originated in the isles as there was not much continental migration to the isles in the early historic period other than Germanics. The problem is I think early on we probably had a pattern rather like in France where it wasnt heavily clustered initially and then much later (apparently largely in the historic period) these super-clusters developed and they make up a lot of isles L21, especially in Ireland. So I think root L21*, DF13*, L23*, DF21*, P314.2 etc probably were continental but some of these developed isles clades and clusters. I am not that familiar with the various clades though so I cannot expand on that. I am not very interested in the later superclusters because I am primarily interested in prehistory rather than the historic period. An awful lot of Irish L21 boils down to a handful or so of historic era guys.

Dubhthach
07-15-2013, 11:05 PM
In Irish case you got what I'd term "amplification" going on, this is probably due to societal structure in medieval Ireland which resulted in top-down replacement been quite common. Again I'll quote my favourite section from Nichol (Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland during the Middle Ages)



One of the most important phenomena in a clan-based society is that of
expansion from the top downwards. The seventeenth-century Irish scholar and
genealogist Dualtagh Mac Firbisigh remarked that 'as the sons and families of
the rulers multiplied, so their subjects and followers were squeezed out and
withered away; and this penomenon, the expansion of the ruling or dominant
stocks at the expense of the remainder, is a normal feature in societies of this
type. It has been observed of the modern Basotho of South Africa that 'there is
a constant displacement of commoners by royals [i.e. members of the royal clan]
and of collateral royals by the direct descendants of the ruling prince;, and
this could have been said without adaptation , of any important Gaelic or
Gaelicized lordship of late medieval Ireland.

In Fermanagh, for example the kingship of the Maguires began only with the
accession of Donn Mór in 1282 and the ramification of the family - with the
exception of one or two small and territorially unimportant septs - began with
the sons of the same man. the spread of his descendants can be seen by the
genealogical tract called Geinelaighe Fhearmanach; by 1607 they must have been
in the possesion of at least three-quarters of the total soil of Fermanagh,
having displaced or reduced the clans which had previously held it. The rate
which an Irish clan could itself must not be underestimated. Tulrlough an fhíona
O'Donnell, lord of Tirconnell (d. 1423) had eighteen sons (by ten different
women) and fifty-nine grandsons in the male line. Mulmora O'Reilly, the lord of
East Brefny, who died in 1566, had at least fifty-eight O'Reilly grandsons.
Philip Maguire, lord of Fermanagh (d. 1395) had twenty sons by eight mothers,
and we know of at least fifty grandsons. Oliver Burke of Tirawley (two of whose
became Lower Mac William although he himself had never held that position) left
at least thirty-eight grandsons in the male line.

Irish law drew no distinction in matters of inheritance between the legitimate
and the illegitimate and permitted the affiliation of children by their mother's
declaration (see Chapter 4), and the general sexual permissiveness of
medieval Irish society must have allowed a rate of multiplication approaching
that which is permitted by the polygyny practised in, for instance, the clan societies
of southern Africa already cited.


What's quite apt about that discussion is going on our current evidence I wouldn't be surprised if the above mentioned Philip was L513+/L69.4+. As an example of "amplification" within two generations he had at least 70 men carrying his y-chromosome (between son's and grandsons).

MacEochaidh
07-16-2013, 02:29 AM
Did you bother to read the first response in this thread after your initial post? Evidently not.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1104-Which-L21-Subclades-may-have-originated-in-The-Isles&p=9733&viewfull=1#post9733

My mistake.

George Chandler
08-20-2013, 10:55 PM
I'm wondering if there is any evidence to suggest L1336 located under DF21 is from Ireland. It doesn't seem that many people have tested for L1336 who are DF21+

George Chandler

Dubhthach
08-20-2013, 11:03 PM
I'm wondering if there is any evidence to suggest L1336 located under DF21 is from Ireland. It doesn't seem that many people have tested for L1336 who are DF21+

George Chandler

Well if it didn't originate in Ireland it's been here for a long time, form looking at men in Ireland project who are L1336+ they all have native Irish surnames mainly form the West of Ireland.

-Paul
(DF41+)

George Chandler
08-21-2013, 03:00 AM
It does look that way regarding L1336 doesn't it.

alan
08-21-2013, 10:52 PM
It may be old in Ireland but Ireland is hugely better tested than anywhere on the continent and I dont think we can say anything about that subclade on the continent. How many continental L21 have even tested to that level? P314.2 is below DF21 and there are strong hints that it may be continental in origin. I dont think we will understand the relationships at this level of resolution through hobbiest testing and it seems to me that only an academic study or several of them will resolve this. Even then, only if they test all the new SNPs.

If L21 was related to a bunch of related lineages who sailed the northern seas in the copper and Bronze Ages and were in and out of ports and interlinked, perhaps with enclaves here and there, then the pattern could be very confusing indeed. This of course would only apply to the earlier clades which existed in that era. That kind of maritime pattern could lead to all sorts of die-offs and displacement of lineages too. You just have to look at the astonishing mortality rate of modern fishermen in the isles with all sorts of modern equiptment to imagine the complex impact a maritime life could have had on groups of people in open boats in the Bronze Age.

Dubhthach
08-22-2013, 08:38 AM
Sure which is what I basically said, though I should point out that there is at least one member of the 21-5909-A cluster who is DF21+/L1336-. This member also has an Irish surname.

-Paul
(DF41+)

Jean M
08-22-2013, 10:12 AM
In my opinion:

L371
L226
L563 (DF41+)
L745 (DF41+/L744+/L746+)
L193 (L513+)
L159.2 (Z255+)
P66 (L513+/L69.4+)
L69.4 (specific to L513)
M222 -- possibly also Z2961 (DF49+/DF23+)
L555
L144


Thank you. I'd love some detail on the reasoning here. What I have in my notes is:


L371 - Thought to be 1000 years old. This is roughly equivalent of what is also known as "17-14-10" or "Wales Modal I. common across Wales but also shows up in Ireland, Scotland and England. Welsh surnames include: Griffith, Jones, Evans, Jenkins, Hugh, Pugh, Spicer, Haney, Hayden, Williams.
L226 - Thought to be 1000-1250 ya. Commonly referred to as Irish Type III or Dalcassian, it is concentrated in central western Ireland and associated with the Dál gCais kindred.
L563 (DF41+) - Brother lineage to L746.
L745 (DF41+/L744+/L746+) - Royal Stewart line. Probable founder Alexander Stewart, 4th High Stewart of Scotland, born circa 1214, or one of his ancestors.
L193 (L513+) - Age estimated at 800-1200 ya. Many surnames with this marker are associated geographically with the western "Border Region" of Scotland. A few other surnames have a Highland association. Also found in Ulster.
L159.2 (Z255+) - Age estimated at 1100-1500 ya. It is mostly found in coastal areas of the Irish Sea, including the Isle of Man and the Hebrides. It also appears in Norway. Includes a number of families associated with Leinster.
P66 (L513+/L69.4+) - 1 Italian & 2 Irish McCown/McKown.
L69.4 (specific to L513) - ?
M222 - Estimated age 1500-2200 ya (T. J.), 1400-2000 BC (Howard and McLaughlin). This subclade is found in the British Isles and particularly associated with Irish and Scottish males. An early study restricted to the Republic of Ireland found it highest in northwestern Ireland and so suggested it as the Y-chromosome haplogroup of the Uí Néill dynastic kindred. However M222 is also found in Northern England and of Scotland. Though this has been interpreted as reflecting Irish migration, Mike Walsh reported Mar 15, 2012 on Molgen that diversity of M222 is higher in England.
L555 - ?
L144 - Irish surnames Whalen and Phelan, derived from the personal name Faeláin, plus Brazile and Welsh surname Prosser and English Kendall, which may reflect the claim made in the Expulsion of the Déisi that one of the royal Déisi line "Eochaid son of Artchorp went over the sea with his descendants to the territory of Demed". Philip Rance argues that they were recruited by the Late Roman authorities to protect Demetia (south-west Wales) from Irish raids. Artchorp (Airtt Chirp) appears as an ancestor of Faeláin in an early pedigree.


Any updates?

Dubhthach
08-22-2013, 10:59 AM
L69.4 is an unstable snp under L513. It's specific to Airghialla II cluster (Oirialla II -- if I was to use Modern Irish). P66 is in turn only so far found in a tiny subset of Airghialla II, the two McKown's are both L513+/L69.4+/P66+ -- other members of same cluster however are L513+/L69.4+/P66- (Maguire, McManus, etc etc.). Points to P66 been semi-private within Airghialla II.

From a point of surname phylogy the Airghialla II surnames are all linked to the Maguire kingship of Fermanagh, which only came into power with the rise of Donn Carrach Mag Uidhir in the 13th century, and lasted until 1607 when CúChonnacht Mag Uidhir (Cúchonnacht == hound of Connacht -- nice name!) took part in the Flight of the Earls. He died in Genoa in 1608.

From what I can see of L193 I don't see any Irish names per say. I would imagine it's presence in Ireland is due to the aftermath of the above mentioned "Flight of the Earls".

M222 not only shows up in the Uí Néill but also shows up in the wider "Dál Cuinn" namely in at least two of the three Connachta. These been the Uí Bhriúin and the Uí Fhiachrach (the third Connachta disapear after the 9th century eg. Uí nAilleo).

Dál Cuinn == "seed" of Conn
Connachta == descendants of Conn

Though in Irish histography the descendants of the three half-brothers of Niall (Brion, Fiachrae and Aillil) are specifically known as the "Three Connachta" to seperate them from their "Uí Néill" Kindred. Thence the province of Connacht was re-named after them.

Pseudo-history of course puts the ancestor of Conn in Britain at a stage during the 1st century AD (got to love Pseudo-History). If you ask me this is a reflection of an earlier history of contact from northern Britiain into northern half of Ireland (Leath Cuinn -- Galway to Dublin) from around 200BC onwards. It should be interesting if DF85 spilts M222 enough to try and seperate M222 in Ireland form Britain (or perhaps other scenarios)

L555 in comparison appears to be a very small fingerprint snp that's basically connected with one surname (Irwin/Irvine etc.), Robert Casey has an analysis here:
http://www.rcasey.net/DNA/R_L21/Analysis/R_L21_Analysis_L555&L557&L561.html

L563 is a fairly tight cluster within DF41. There are men who are close STR wise to L563+ men who have tested L563-. So far it looks specific to Isle of Man and surrounding areas.

-Paul
(DF41+)

saxonlander
09-25-2014, 02:48 AM
No it didn't!! It originated in Central Europe came to the Isles by way of France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

dp
09-25-2014, 06:26 PM
No it didn't!! It originated in Central Europe came to the Isles by way of France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
Are you talking about the L21 haplogroup, or some of it's branching subclades? If you are asserting that L21 "didn't" form any subclades in the British Isles then you must be assuming that it is a recent arrival there. Otherwise, its been there for thousands of years, and with polymorphism rates, SNPs would develop and be passed on. It's been noticed many years ago --for example see "A Y-Chromosome Signature of Hegemony in Gaelic Ireland", that STRs of some Irish men cluster in a specific haplotype. This is attributed to a chap called Niall of the Nine Hostages. He died about 450 A.D. or 1550 b.p. The later dud is estimated to have 3 million descendants living. I direct you to the M222 project and threads.
dp :-)
PS: I refer you to anthrogenica user: Dubhthach

Rory Cain
03-14-2015, 03:39 AM
So I think root L21*, DF13*, L23*, DF21*, P314.2 etc probably were continental but some of these developed isles clades and clusters.

David Reynolds searchied for a Continental DF21 almost like a quest for the Holy Grail. For his stirling efforts, he was poorly rewarded.

rms2
03-14-2015, 12:31 PM
A quick glance through the DF21+ category of the R L21 and Subclades Project will reveal some continental DF21, but there are two factors to contend with. One is the fact that commercial y-dna testing in the Anglophone world is heavily skewed to the British Isles and Ireland, and the second is the fairly obvious fact that L21 reaches its peak frequencies in the Isles. Those same two things could be said of R1b itself, but almost no one now seems to think that R1b originated in the Isles.

I think DF21 probably originated on the Continent.

Rory Cain
03-14-2015, 08:49 PM
A quick glance through the DF21+ category of the R L21 and Subclades Project will reveal some continental DF21,

I think DF21 probably originated on the Continent.

Those DF21+ folks claiming Continental origins are very, very few in number. They are greatly outweighed by those claiming Isles origins. Their STR and SNP matches overwhelmingly bear Isles surnames, except in the case of several Scandinavians whose matches are a mix of Scandinavian and Isles. This opens the possibility of Celtic slaves brought to Scandinavia by the Vikings.

Other than that group, the claimants for Continental origins are largely singletons from several small twigs of an Isles tree rooted in Isles soil. If DF21 has a continental origin, solid evidence is not yet appearing. The Norman theorists have been unable to identify a DF21 hotspot in Normandy, but if that did that would be more compelling than the (lack of) evidence we see at present.

miiser
03-14-2015, 09:24 PM
I think this topic of Continental origin often ends up going nowhere useful, partly because the term "Continental" is often used ambiguously by different people in different ways within a discussion. "Continental" is often used by some individuals to refer specifically to the Normans, and at other times used to refer to any subclade (most of which predate the Normans) which ever resided in mainland Europe before arriving in the Isles. Read any thread regarding L1066, and you can observe this confusion. So before even having this discussion, I think it's important for people to define exactly what they mean by "Continental".

Based on age estimates alone, I think it's a good guess that most of the older subclades, such as DF21, originated in mainland Europe, and the higher concentration in the Isles is due to greater dilution on the mainland. But for many of its younger subclades having Isles centric distributions, there isn't any substantial data to support an origin outside of the Isles.

I often see younger subclades getting labelled as Continental/Norman based on a handful of individuals having Norman surnames and a couple individuals living in France or Spain. In many of these younger subclades, the distribution is very much Isles centric, with a smooth gradient outward in all directions spilling onto the Continent, having a few individuals scattered in Spain, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, etc. Even in these cases, some people are prone to label a group as Norman based on just a couple scattered kits that happen to report an origin near Normandy. I've seen this done even in cases where haplotype variance data does not support an older population on the Continent, and in cases where the Isles centric distribution clearly isn't attributable to the lower Continental sampling rate. There does seem to be a bias among some researchers to identify with a Norman culture.

In many of these lineages labeled as Norman, I think the Norman surnames were probably adopted by natives of the Isles that took on the surname of a local ruling family when surnames became established. I also have seen a large number of cases in which people's genealogy trail tends to gravitate toward well documented families of importance, which often happen to be Norman families possessing heraldry and castles. Heraldry references often clump in several non Norman surnames, possessing no heraldry, along with a Norman surname, so that they can sell heraldry to the largest possible market. As a result of these factors, I think there are a disproportionately large number of lineages that incorrectly trace to Norman surnames, when there really is no genetic connection to a Norman lineage.

I think there is a tendency for subclades to be labelled as Continental/Norman in the absence of any substantial data to support it. There seems to be, in some instances, an over eagerness by researchers to identify subclades as Norman.

rms2
03-14-2015, 09:28 PM
Those DF21+ folks claiming Continental origins are very, very few in number. They are greatly outweighed by those claiming Isles origins. Their STR and SNP matches overwhelmingly bear Isles surnames, except in the case of several Scandinavians whose matches are a mix of Scandinavian and Isles. This opens the possibility of Celtic slaves brought to Scandinavia by the Vikings.

Other than that group, the claimants for Continental origins are largely singletons from several small twigs of an Isles tree rooted in Isles soil. If DF21 has a continental origin, solid evidence is not yet appearing. The Norman theorists have been unable to identify a DF21 hotspot in Normandy, but if that did that would be more compelling than the (lack of) evidence we see at present.

Rory -

FTDNA is an American company and has a database hugely skewed to the Isles, yet DF21 shows up among continentals from time to time. Where has it shown up in ancient remains thus far? In the Hinxton results from about AD1 in an area ascribed to a Belgic tribe, that is, a tribe arrived from the Continent.

Rory Cain
03-14-2015, 10:54 PM
I think this topic of Continental origin often ends up going nowhere useful, partly because the term "Continental" is often used ambiguously by different people in different ways within a discussion. "Continental" is often used by some individuals to refer specifically to the Normans, and at other times used to refer to any subclade (most of which predate the Normans) which ever resided in mainland Europe before arriving in the Isles. Read any thread regarding L1066, and you can observe this confusion. So before even having this discussion, I think it's important for people to define exactly what they mean by "Continental".

Based on age estimates alone, I think it's a good guess that most of the older subclades, such as DF21, originated in mainland Europe, and the higher concentration in the Isles is due to greater dilution on the mainland. But for many of its younger subclades having Isles centric distributions, there isn't any substantial data to support an origin outside of the Isles.

I often see younger subclades getting labelled as Continental/Norman based on a handful of individuals having Norman surnames and a couple individuals living in France or Spain. In many of these younger subclades, the distribution is very much Isles centric, with a smooth gradient outward in all directions spilling onto the Continent, having a few individuals scattered in Spain, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, etc. Even in these cases, some people are prone to label a group as Norman based on just a couple scattered kits that happen to report an origin near Normandy. I've seen this done even in cases where haplotype variance data does not support an older population on the Continent, and in cases where the Isles centric distribution clearly isn't attributable to the lower Continental sampling rate. There does seem to be a bias among some researchers to identify with a Norman culture.

In many of these lineages labeled as Norman, I think the Norman surnames were probably adopted by natives of the Isles that took on the surname of a local ruling family when surnames became established. I also have seen a large number of cases in which people's genealogy trail tends to gravitate toward well documented families of importance, which often happen to be Norman families possessing heraldry and castles. Heraldry references often clump in several non Norman surnames, possessing no heraldry, along with a Norman surname, so that they can sell heraldry to the largest possible market. As a result of these factors, I think there are a disproportionately large number of lineages that incorrectly trace to Norman surnames, when there really is no genetic connection to a Norman lineage.

I think there is a tendency for subclades to be labelled as Continental/Norman in the absence of any substantial data to support it. There seems to be, in some instances, an over eagerness by researchers to identify subclades as Norman.

Nicely put. That would most likely explain the situation in most of the allegedly Continental DF21s that I am aware of. Still looking at a handful of singletons that might have potential to be Continentals so will keep an open mind.

Rory Cain
03-14-2015, 11:21 PM
Rory -

FTDNA is an American company and has a database hugely skewed to the Isles, yet DF21 shows up among continentals from time to time. Where has it shown up in ancient remains thus far? In the Hinxton results from about AD1 in an area ascribed to a Belgic tribe, that is, a tribe arrived from the Continent.

There is no disputing that the evidence we have to work with is incomplete. I join you in lamenting that fact. There may well be alleged Continentals who can put forward stronger claims than those which we see before us at present. Much of what one sees when looking at the DF21 section of the L21 project, already few in number, shrinks further when one examines the Continental claims for any substance. A few remain potentially credible and continue to be examined. On balance though, what strikes one is the near lack of any substantiated Continental DF21s at all- with the possibly exception of a few singletons where one might say that "the jury is still out".

The identification of Belgic tribes in Britain comes from relatively recent sources including Caesar and Ptolomy. Recent that is, compared to the age of DF21. It would be nice if we were less reliant on outsiders looking in, and could leave Roman accounts behind us, and have access to a more complete archeological record and DNA record that established whether DF21 was a recent arrival with the Belgae or a homegrown Isles descendant of older arrivals. The Belgae were recent arrivals compared with so0me native Isles tribes. The most recent of the Belgae likely arrival only a little ahead of the Romans. With an estimated age of ca 4000 years, DF21 could potentially have arrived 2,000 years before the Romans. Or, as you say, with the Belgae just ahead of the Romans. I had in the past favoured the Belgae somewhat as a ptential source of DF21. The Kaptein DF21 > Z246 sample was originally taken as evidence of that until it was learned that he did not match the well-known Kaptein family of Nederland but the Hinckley famly of Hinckley, Leicestershire. I am a bit cautious of singletons now.

miiser
03-15-2015, 12:16 AM
I am a bit cautious of singletons now.

Amen to that.

I'm always careful to review the documented genealogy of my project members. I find that about 1/3 of the time the reported origin is reasonably sound, 1/3 of the time there is little to no documentary evidence for the reported origin, and 1/3 of the time the reported origin is obviously incorrect. In addition, it amazes me how many project members are unwilling to even consider the effect of non paternal events, which are of course ubiquitous, confounding the link between name and genetics.

In my experience, more often than not, outlying kits are just plain wrong. But these minority exceptional kits are used by some as the foundation of an entire argument.

For many old Isles centric groups, such as DF21, I think the available data is consistent with either an Isles origin or a Continental origin followed by an early migration into the Isles. For many of the descendant subclades, there is a very clear concentration at a specific locale within the Isles, and there is no rational reason to conclude that they originated anywhere else.

rms2
03-15-2015, 12:22 AM
I think that, when it comes to L21 and its subclades, most people succumb to the error that high frequency equals place of origin. Big mistake, IMHO.

You've also got the natural tendency of folks to want their y haplogroup to be native to their place of ancestral origin, but I don't think L21 predates the Beaker Folk in the Isles. No P312 does.

miiser
03-15-2015, 12:50 AM
I think that, when it comes to L21 and its subclades, most people succumb to the error that high frequency equals place of origin. Big mistake, IMHO.

I agree. But just as often, I see people make the opposite mistake. People hear of the research by Dr. Nordtvedt and such, and thinking they understand it, they jump to the conclusion that haplotype variance is the only meaningful piece of data, and population distribution has NO significance. And this is, of course, silly. Haplotype variance and population distribution are both informative pieces of data. For many subclades, the population distribution is the ONLY available statistically significant piece of data, and there isn't any significant haplotype variance data that runs counter to the population distribution. And yet some people are still eager to dismiss the population distribution as meaningless in these cases, choosing instead to deduce an origin based on a couple outliers rather than the overwhelming majority, in the absence of any rational reason to do so.


You've also got the natural tendency of folks to want their y haplogroup to be native to their place of ancestral origin, but I don't think L21 predates the Beaker Folk in the Isles. No P312 does.

I think most people in this discussion would agree with you, and I suspect that the perceived disagreement has at least something to do with the previously mentioned confusion over the usage of the term "Continental", sometimes being used to refer to a more recent Norman migration versus an earlier migration from mainland Europe. The original poster of this thread made it clear that he was referring to an Isles origin for younger DESCENDANT subclades of L21, not an Isles origin of L21 itself. And yet some posters keep getting hung up on where L21 itself originated. This is off topic, and I'm struggling to understand why the discussion keeps going back to this. I think most researchers understand that homo sapien did not originate in the Isles, so every haplogroup had an ancestor that was at some point in time NOT in the Isles prior to being in the Isles. I don't think there's a need to argue for this.

The low sampling rate of the Continent is often used as a cop out. Some of these continental areas have a large enough number of members to establish relative populations of various haplotypes with statistical significance, and it is clear in some cases that the frequency of some subclades on the continent, relative to others, is MUCH less than the frequency in the Isles, even taking into account sampling rate and later dilution on the Continent. The Spain project has 1020 members, and the French project has 3872. How many continental samples do we need to get before we can stop using sampling rate as the default argument against an Isles origin for a particular subclade?

rms2
03-15-2015, 12:54 AM
I agree. But just as often, I see people make the opposite mistake. People hear of the research by Dr. Nordtvedt and such, and thinking they understand it, they jump to the conclusion that haplotype variance is the only meaningful piece of data, and population distribution has NO significance. And this is, of course, silly. Haplotype variance and population distribution are both informative pieces of data. For many subclades, the population distribution is the ONLY available statistically significant piece of data, and there isn't any significant haplotype variance data that runs counter to the population distribution. And yet some people are still eager to dismiss the population distribution as meaningless in these cases, choosing instead to deduce an origin based on a couple outliers rather than the overwhelming majority, in the absence of any rational reason to do so. I think most people in this discussion would agree with you, and I think suspect that the perceived disagreement has something to do with the previously mentioned confusion of "Continental" referring to a more recent Norman migration versus an earlier migration from mainland Europe.

I have been around awhile, and I have NEVER seen anyone make that mistake and plenty of people mistake high frequency for place of origin. The whole R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge thing of a few years ago was in part a product of it.

No one is basing the idea that DF21 originated on the Continent on a couple of outliers.

The Hinxton ancient results came from circa AD 1 and in an area inhabited by a tribe described as Belgic. I guess some folks could be hit in the head with a hammer and still attribute it to a summer breeze.

miiser
03-15-2015, 01:27 AM
I guess some folks could be hit in the head with a hammer and still attribute it to a summer breeze.

Who made that attribution? I'm not sure who you're arguing with, because it certainly wasn't me.

If you haven't seen people dismiss population distribution as irrelevant, than you haven't been paying attention.

rms2
03-15-2015, 01:40 AM
Who made that attribution? I'm not sure who you're arguing with, because it certainly wasn't me.

If you haven't seen people dismiss population distribution as irrelevant, than you haven't been paying attention.

No I have not seen that, and I have been paying attention.

I have seen just the opposite, and it's still going on.

miiser
03-15-2015, 02:19 AM
It seems like you're trying to bait me into an argument, and I'm not sure why. You're actually one of my favorite posters on this forum, and I agree with nearly everything you write, so it's not going to happen. You seem to have interpreted some of my comments as an attack on your own opinion and interpretation, but this wasn't the intent of my comments. I agree that many people incorrectly use population distribution as an argument for origin. This thread will quickly become very boring for readers, because I think you're trying to argue with people who don't disagree with you.

Rory Cain
03-15-2015, 03:10 AM
No one is basing the idea that DF21 originated on the Continent on a couple of outliers.[QUOTE]

Outliers and singletons are all there to support the Continental theory, amongst an otherwise Isles-centric DF21 population. After past experience, those searching for Continental DF21s have become wary of singletons. Those outliers and singletons claiming Continental origins appear to fall within miiser's experience of "the thirds", particularly perhaps those who got it wrong- often in the face of other available evidence. Some might have merit and are still under consideration.

[QUOTE] The Hinxton ancient results came from circa AD 1 and in an area inhabited by a tribe described as Belgic. I guess some folks could be hit in the head with a hammer and still attribute it to a summer breeze.

Hinxton was an important find, especially Hinxton 4 who was DF21+. Too bad he was not assigned a sub-clade. Thay would have shed more light. There is nothing which indicates if he was born in Belgica. Perhaps nothing rules it out either? The development of DF21 ca 4000 years ago pre-dates the Belgic migrations still occurring in Caesar's time by 2000 years. Hinxton 4 only demonstrates that DF21 was in the Isles by at least ca 2000 years ago, not whether the DF21 boys always hung out on the Isles block or were the new kids in town. The lack of proven Continental DF21s indicate that it may be wise to remain open to the possibility of DF21 being in the Isles well before Hinxton 4.

Hinxton's modern-day DF21 kinfolks are largely distributed in a band across the centre of Ireland, parallel to and just south of the southern extent of La Tene culture in Ireland, and likewise in Scotland DF21 is distibuted in band across a frontier region, this time the southern edge of the Highland Line dividing Scotland into Highland and Lowland. This would in Jean's words on another thread, make it very old in the Isles. The tribes they form buffers between would appear much older in the Isles than the Belgae of the southeast. That likely means Df21 and its neighbours wre older than the comparatively recent Belgic tribes still in the southeast corner in Caesar's time. Hinxton 4's ancestors could well have been in Britain on their tribal territory before the Belgae muscelled in, and have simply exchanged one set of chiefs for another.

Back when DF21 was a new discovery, the few DF21+ did not have the large genetic diversity it now has, DF21 was considred to be "young". Indeed, about the age of Hinxton 4. A lot has changed since then, with genetic diversity being much greater and the search for undisputedly Continental DF21 being fruitless, there has been a revision in thinking. Some still cling to the notions of 2-3 years ago. I can accept your previous statement that you "think" DF21 is Continental. Perhaps it may prove so. Your line seems to have since hardened in response to others having different opinions. The evidence would not appear to support anything more hardline than "I think", to which extent I think you got it right the previous time.

Rory Cain
03-15-2015, 07:36 AM
Bear in mind there's no direct evidence for SNP geographical origins at all with L21 at this point (at least using Jean's tables there doesn't seem to be any). There is nothing to suggest a continental presence at all for my own youngish subclade of L720+. Its father clade of DF21+ has precious few continental examples, and unlike some, I do not think there is any convincing evidence that these few suggest an origin of any kind. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is far better to base interpretations on what is known.

L720 appears to be a homegrown Isles SNP, although I would not be so bold as to rule out the possibility of the occasional Norman wannabe claiming otherwise.

rms2
03-15-2015, 12:11 PM
It seems like you're trying to bait me into an argument, and I'm not sure why. You're actually one of my favorite posters on this forum, and I agree with nearly everything you write, so it's not going to happen. You seem to have interpreted some of my comments as an attack on your own opinion and interpretation, but this wasn't the intent of my comments. I agree that many people incorrectly use population distribution as an argument for origin. This thread will quickly become very boring for readers, because I think you're trying to argue with people who don't disagree with you.

I'm not trying to bait anyone into anything. You said people are ignoring modern y haplogroup frequency in favor of something else, and I have never seen that.

I remember well when L21 was first discovered - well, first made available for commercial testing, anyway. Within a few weeks, as the initial results came in, heavy on the British Isles and especially Ireland, many people rushed to claim L21 was born in Ireland and that where it was found on the Continent it was the product of randy Irish monks or Scottish merchants, who seemed to have poured out of their respective homelands by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Naturally, the guys who loved the old R1b=aboriginal cavemen scenario loved that. But as time passed, continental L21s appeared (there were actually some in the very first batch of L21+ results, Dale Krueger and Thomas Krahn among them) who did not have any close Isles haplotype neighbors. Eventually, it came to light that Ireland is monolithically DF13+ and thus hardly likely to be the birthplace of L21.

Finally the claim that L21 originated in the Isles seemed to fizzle out, but its place has been taken by claims that this or that subclade first arose in the Isles. Of course, each subclade is a separate issue, and there may be some, especially the smaller, more localized ones, that actually did arise in the Isles.

To me, it seems highly unlikely that DF21 originated in the Isles. For one thing, the claim that continental DF21 is represented by "singletons" is not correct. It isn't the case that there is just one single continental DF21. The fact that the term used is the plural, singletons, with an s, indicates that there are a number of examples from the Continent. The only way continental "singletons" can be classed as singletons at all is perhaps by isolating them by modern political boundaries: for example, by saying there is only one DF21+ in Belgium - aha! a singleton! - and ignoring a number of others in neighboring France or the Netherlands.

It seems unlikely to me that any of the major branches of DF13 originated in the Isles. They are too old, and we know from archaeology and history that the general direction of population flow has been into the Isles rather than the other way around.

I think ultimately ancient y-dna will tell the tale, as it has begun to do. The Hinxton DF21>DF25 was not recovered from some area far in Britain's interior, where the claim could be made that it represented some aboriginal tribe. No, it came from an area inhabited by the Catuvellauni, a Belgic tribe, one of those tribes said by Caesar to have arrived from the Continent within living memory of his own time (the 1st century BC).

miiser
03-15-2015, 12:54 PM
I'm not trying to bait anyone into anything. You said people are ignoring modern y haplogroup frequency in favor of something else, and I have never seen that.

As a project administrator, I have definitely seen cases in which members latch onto a single outlying kit as a possible indicator of origin (to support the outcome they want to see), while willfully ignoring an overwhelming majority (after taking into account sampling rate normalization) that are concentrated elsewhere. In some of these cases, people will attempt to parrot the Nordtvedt type arguments that they've read elsewhere, and say things along the lines of "population distribution is irrelevant". But perhaps I'm unfortunate in having had more than my share of irrational project members.


To me, it seems highly unlikely that DF21 originated in the Isles. For one thing, the claim that continental DF21 is represented by "singletons" is not correct. It isn't the case that there is just one single continental DF21. The fact that the term used is the plural, singletons, with an s, indicates that there are a number of examples from the Continent. The only way continental "singletons" can be classed as singletons at all is perhaps by isolating them by modern political boundaries: for example, by saying there is only one DF21+ in Belgium - aha! a singleton! - and ignoring a number of others in neighboring France or the Netherlands.

My understanding of Rory's usage of the term "singleton" is that, for at least some of these Continental kits, they are singletons in the sense that they are a single sample which is closely related to a number of members of a young subclade, and the other members of that subclade are all reported as being from the Isles. He has specifically reviewed each individual sample, and found that the Continental origin claim is inconsistent with the documentation and/or phylogeny. In other words, those samples are bad data points that should be ignored. Perhaps in these cases, rather than "singleton", a more accurate label would be "bad data point", the bad data being a "singleton" in the sense that the kit is alone in their reported origin, which is contradicted by a larger number of data samples which are all consistent with each other.

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on whether DF21 originated inside or outside Isles. I agree with the basic idea of your argument based on the age of subclades and known migrations. But I haven't seen enough data to give me confidence to draw a line at a particular point in the phylogeny, and assert that everything before that must be Continental in origin.

rms2
03-15-2015, 01:26 PM
As a project administrator, I have definitely seen cases in which members latch onto a single outlying kit as a possible indicator of origin (to support the outcome they want to see), while willfully ignoring an overwhelming majority (after taking into account sampling rate normalization) that are concentrated elsewhere. In some of these cases, people will attempt to parrot the Nordtvedt type arguments that they've read elsewhere, and say things along the lines of "population distribution is irrelevant". But perhaps I'm unfortunate in having had more than my share of irrational project members.

I thought we were talking about continental origin versus Isles origin and public forums like this one, not private encounters with project members who are advancing a particular idea about their own lines.

Modern population distribution is not totally irrelevant, but it is not necessarily a good indicator of origin. Otherwise we might think that R1b originated in Western Europe, for example, or that Q originated in the Americas.

And Dr. Ken Nordtvedt is pretty sharp, so I have found "Nordtvedt type arguments" usually pretty compelling.



My understanding of Rory's usage of the term "singleton" is that, for at least some of these Continental kits, they are singletons in the sense that they are a single sample which is closely related to a number of members of a young subclade, and the other members of that subclade are all reported as being from the Isles. He has specifically reviewed each individual sample, and found that the Continental origin claim is inconsistent with the documentation and/or phylogeny. In other words, those samples are bad data points that should be ignored. Perhaps in these cases, rather than "singleton", a more accurate label would be "bad data point", the bad data being a "singleton" in the sense that the kit is alone in their reported origin, which is contradicted by a larger number of data samples which are all consistent with each other.

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on whether DF21 originated inside or outside Isles. I agree with the basic idea of your argument based on the age of subclades and known migrations. But I haven't seen enough data to give me confidence to draw a line at a particular point in the phylogeny, and assert that everything before that must be Continental in origin.

I think Rory is using the term "singleton" in a way that suits his argument but that is essentially incorrect.

I have already said why I think all of the major branches of DF13 have a continental origin, so I won't bother repeating that again. Obviously that would merely prompt you to repeat yet again what you have already posted several times.

I will repeat one thing I said before: I think ancient y-dna will settle the matter (but perhaps never to the satisfaction of everyone).

miiser
03-15-2015, 02:10 PM
I thought we were talking about continental origin versus Isles origin and public forums like this one, not private encounters with project members who are advancing a particular idea about their own lines.

Then you have once again done me the disservice of attributing to me an argument which I clearly have not made, as you have demonstrated a penchant for doing in the past few posts.


And Dr. Ken Nordtvedt is pretty sharp, so I have found "Nordtvedt type arguments" usually pretty compelling.

I have enough experience with the usage of statistics in scientific analysis to appreciate Dr. Nordtvedt's work, as well as to recognize when his methods are poorly mimicked and incorrectly applied by others. (Based on your previous responses, I expect that you will assume that this comment is a jab at you and your L21 origin beliefs, so I will go out the way ahead of time to clarify that it is not.)


I think Rory is using the term "singleton" in a way that suits his argument but that is essentially incorrect.

I have already said why I think all of the major branches of DF13 have a continental origin, so I won't bother repeating that again. Obviously that would merely prompt you to repeat yet again what you have already posted several times.

I will repeat one thing I said before: I think ancient y-dna will settle the matter (but perhaps never to the satisfaction of everyone).

You once are once again attributing an argument to me that I have not made by claiming that I am making repeat posts of previous arguments, which is factually false. Your accusation would carry more weight if you quoted the specific arguments that I am repeating. I can only assume that the apparent hostility is carried over from previous discussions with other individuals which have left emotional scars, or that you simply enjoy creating strawman arguments so that you can have the pleasure of opposing them.

You attacked Rory's usage of the term "singleton". I defended his usage of the term as a reasonable label for bad data points. You haven't actually responded to his claims that the data points are bad, but just dismissed them out of hand with a diversion into terminology.

rms2
03-15-2015, 06:21 PM
I think continuing this line of discussion is not only a waste of time but ridiculous, as well. I'm not sure what it is you are arguing, and you seem to have a penchant for taking offense.

Rory seems to think DF21 originated in the Isles. That's a position that can be argued. I think it originated on the Continent. That is also a position that can be argued. I'm not sure what you think, except that you seem to think there are people out there who actually have advocated completely ignoring modern y haplogroup frequencies. I said I haven't seen that - just the opposite. I still think that is the case and that modern frequencies are the sole basis for the argument that DF21 originated in the Isles: i.e., there's a lot of it there now; by golly, it must have originated there! That was the same error that gave us R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge.

I think the Hinxton DF21>DF25 result circa AD 1 in Belgic Catuvellauni territory is significant and probably an indicator that DF21 will be found in Belgic territory on the Continent and that it may have come from there to begin with.

GTC
03-15-2015, 09:54 PM
A reminder to all members to keep the tone of posts civil and on topic.

Rory Cain
03-16-2015, 01:52 AM
My understanding of Rory's usage of the term "singleton" is that, for at least some of these Continental kits, they are singletons in the sense that they are a single sample which is closely related to a number of members of a young subclade, and the other members of that subclade are all reported as being from the Isles. He has specifically reviewed each individual sample, and found that the Continental origin claim is inconsistent with the documentation and/or phylogeny. In other words, those samples are bad data points that should be ignored. Perhaps in these cases, rather than "singleton", a more accurate label would be "bad data point", the bad data being a "singleton" in the sense that the kit is alone in their reported origin, which is contradicted by a larger number of data samples which are all consistent with each other.

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on whether DF21 originated inside or outside Isles. I agree with the basic idea of your argument based on the age of subclades and known migrations. But I haven't seen enough data to give me confidence to draw a line at a particular point in the phylogeny, and assert that everything before that must be Continental in origin.

I confess I am using the term singleton as a convenience that can be taken to mean several things. Rather than strain for a definition, may I simple give exampe of the alleged examples of Continental DF21?

E9807 Kaptein, Nederland, DF21 > Z246 > DF25-. No match with the well-konwn Kaptein family of Nederland. Matches the Hinckley family of Hinckley, Leicestershire.

N117038 Arvela, Finland, DF21 > S5488 > Z16294 > Z16281 > Z16289-, by which point in the SNP trail the Ely O'Carroll sept splits into one branch dominated by the surname O'Treasaigh and the other dominated by the surname O'Buaidhaigh. Arvela would appear to have relocated to Findland after the development of surnames in Ireland, which occurred about the Viking era.

319942 Latta, Belgium, DF21 > S5488 > Z16294 > Z16281, so genetically an outlier of Ely O'Carroll. 319942 appears to list Belgium on the basis of the Latta chiefs having an elleged Norman ancestor. There are 22 in Df21+ Latta. The other 21 list an Isles or Unknown origin. I do not pretend to know whether the alleged Norman was ancestor of these 22 Latta or the other 28 Lattas in their project. I don not believe the project admin knows either.

280362 Turner, France, DF1 > S5488 . S7200 > S6003 > Z29592. Mr Turner may have accessed a meaning of surnames book from the pulp-mill press strating that the common British occupational name Turner is equivalent tothe common French occupational surname Tournour, and have taken this to indicate French ancestry. Mr Turners STR and DNA matches are throroughly Scots, as are his upstream SNPs from Z29592.

N28650 Conrardy,Frence. DF21 > FGC3213 > P314.2 > L362-. Grounds for claiming France unknown. Matches various British surnames.

268772 Thomason, Norway. DF21 > S5446, also known as "Aran" and "Galway Bay". Matches numerous Irish surnames from east Galway and surrounds.

285483 Rutell, France. S871 > Z16267 > FGC23375. Understood to have origins in Sicily with a claim toNorman ancestry, hence the reason for listing France. The other member of his two-man sub-group is Harbour from Wales.

61096 Hendrickson, Sweden, DF21 > S971 >Z3000 Airghialla or Clann Colla Type as found in south Ulster.

220430 Osterud, 328342 Osterud, 342420 Osterud, ditto.

158136 Montgomery,France, Df21 > S5488 Miscellaneous, i.e. has not tested for his sub-clade. His matches bear the Scots names Long, Lang, Laing and Jamieson. They list Scotland as their country of origin.

208773 Reith, Germany, DF21 Miscellaneous, i.e. has not tested for his sub-clade. Has DNA with several men bearing the similar sounding surname Reece, from Wales, plus Doty & Griffith.

One of the six Via men once listed France. Now all list Scotland. Matches other Scots named Moore/ Muir. One of the Viars mentioned a Moore NPE in the Viar line.

As you know, I see the weight of evidence as heavily in favour of an Isles origin, and very lightweight - perhaps even wishful thinking - in favour of a Continental origin. The above examples demonstate that better than I could. I wish no offence though to well-meaning folks who have simply inherited a family tradition of Norman, Germanic or any other Continental origin and fell regret at having burst any bubbles. People can be very sensitive about this. Often, where they fear that their wished-for origin may be unravelled by SNP testing, they cease to proceed further. That is the opposite of what I wish to see. Let's get all the evidence out there. Perhaps one or two of the above may yet prove to be genuine Continentals. I am not yet bolting the door on the Continental theory but for the sake of those still clinging to it, I hope that they have more concrete evidence than the above with which to support their case.




.

Kopfjäger
03-16-2015, 02:28 AM
I have already said why I think all of the major branches of DF13 have a continental origin, so I won't bother repeating that again.


Ahh, that's the Rich who ruffled Mr. Faux's feathers back in 19-dickety two. Good call.

Rory Cain
03-16-2015, 03:26 AM
Ahh, that's the Rich who ruffled Mr. Faux's feathers back in 19-dickety two. Good call.

I don't want to get in the middle of that fight. But wasn't the much-maligned David Faux the guy who highlighted a then unknown SNP called s34276300, which contradicted the prevailing theory of Basque cave men recolonising western Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum. Teams went into remote valleys of the Basque Country collected DNA samples. The resultant (and mainly private) Basque SNPs were then promoted for sale through FTDNA's Deep Clade product. I wasted money on a Deep Clade test too, and wish David Faux had written earlier before I ordered that test. Following David's article though, I tested for s34276300 and went from being the descendant of a recolonising Basque cave man to the descendant of a steppe-dweller from north of the Caucasus. You can see why I don't much care if DF21 is native Isles or naturalised citizen from the Continent.

The big bucks I spent on a Deep Clade test full of (largely private) Basque markers gave no value for money, but the $19 for rs34276300 (now P312) sure paid off. I remain indebted to plucky little 23andme for defying conventional "logic" and going with the facts - the Basques lacked the genetic diversity to have repopulated western Europe whereas rs34276300 had a greater genetic diversity in the east than in the west and totally changed our thinking. The big commercial companies still failed to understand the significance of this, and did not promote s34276300. I am indebted to David Faux for that. But perhaps that was not what Richard and Davd argued over for I have seen in Richard's posts some criticism of the cave man from the Iberian refugium theory. Perhaps Richard and David agreed on that point. Unravelling the prevailing Basque theory is a nice example of why we should go where the evidence takes us, whether that be to the steppes for s34276300 or to the Isles for DF21.

rms2
03-16-2015, 11:26 AM
No, Faux was a big supporter of the R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge hypothesis long after others, like Ken Nordtvedt, had abandoned it. As far as I know, he still is.

Dubhthach
03-16-2015, 11:34 AM
Anyways to come back to idea of SNP's/Clades that originated in the isles, I'll put forward A100 as one such one, it's my own personal subclade at moment consisting of 3 confirmed men (and probably at least another 3-4 untested!) ;)

It's currently on ISOGG tree as: R1b1a2a1a2c1i6

rms2
03-16-2015, 11:39 AM
I confess I am using the term singleton as a convenience that can be taken to mean several things. Rather than strain for a definition, may I simple give exampe of the alleged examples of Continental DF21?
. . .

Two things: 1) You are being a little loose with members' privacy, IMHO; and 2) you throw around the term "match" and the verb "matches" (as in he matches so-and-so) without being specific about what you mean. How close are these "matches"? You also refer to clusters that were assigned Isles names but very well might have originated on the Continent. The name a cluster gets is given it by the first person to notice it and have the audacity to name it, like Oppenheimer's six-marker "Frisian Modal Haplotype", to which I belong but do not really belong, for example. Calling a cluster "Clan Colla" or "Cuchulain's Cluster" does not automatically rope it off to a particular geographic area, except in someone's fancy. I could call my own cluster "King Arthur's Cluster", if I wanted. Who is to say I am wrong?

SearchSeeker
03-16-2015, 02:22 PM
Going against my original thoughts (my name should be FlipFlop), I now lean heavily towards L1066 and it's parent snps as being born on the European Continent. I think eventually we may find the different branches of L1066 migrated to the Isles at different periods in time. I know variance calculations from back in 9/2013 seemed to support an Isles origin for Z253 and subclades underneath but I now think that's probably due to the limited number of samples at the time. I would have liked to have seen an Isles origin from a personal note, but as time goes by that really isn't important and seems less plausible. What I do see are other lineages spawned over 3000 years ago on the Continent and making the journey to the Isles as interesting as interesting as the earlier inhabitants. I think no matter how it's looked at currently, it's still up in the air but I'd have to lean back toward the continent for L1066, Z2534, Z253, ZZ10, etc..

SearchSeeker
03-16-2015, 02:24 PM
Lucky you, what are the current age estimates for that SNP?

rms2
03-16-2015, 03:38 PM
Not to get too far off topic, but I think I owe miiser a public apology for the tone of a couple of my earlier posts. I don't mean for them to sound that way, but I really came off as a horse's arse, and I apologize.

Honestly, where DF21 originated macht mir nichts.

SearchSeeker
03-16-2015, 05:16 PM
Sweet, I thought the arse was coming more from the other side but it's good to see ya'll making up.

MJost
03-16-2015, 07:48 PM
I understand the Hinxton site was used for much earlier but there was no permanent settlements according to: http://www.hinxton.org/explore/history/

"Ancient feet had, indeed, once trod upon Hinxton's soil. The archaeologists excavated a number of pits, including a deep chalk shaft, which indicated that our ancestors from the Neolithic period (4400-2000 BC) had once worked in the area. The function of the pit is unknown, although early Bronze-age residents, several hundred years later adopted it as a ritual site and filled it with bits of finely decorated beakers. The prehistoric visitors might have worked in the area, as traces of flint were retrieved from a number of natural ponds; however there is no indication that they lived on the site. "

If that is correct, where did Hinxton's, have permanent residence.

MJost

Rory Cain
03-16-2015, 11:23 PM
Two things: 1) You are being a little loose with members' privacy, IMHO; and 2) you throw around the term "match" and the verb "matches" (as in he matches so-and-so) without being specific about what you mean. How close are these "matches"? You also refer to clusters that were assigned Isles names but very well might have originated on the Continent. The name a cluster gets is given it by the first person to notice it and have the audacity to name it, like Oppenheimer's six-marker "Frisian Modal Haplotype", to which I belong but do not really belong, for example. Calling a cluster "Clan Colla" or "Cuchulain's Cluster" does not automatically rope it off to a particular geographic area, except in someone's fancy. I could call my own cluster "King Arthur's Cluster", if I wanted. Who is to say I am wrong?

Invasion of privacy? When the kit number, ancestral surname & alleged country of origin are on public databases like FTDNA and Search? You and I were looking at the same body of information and drawing totally different conclusions about that same information. Unfortunately though you never said what your evdence was. All I did was to produce the evidence which we were both looking at.

Again I apologise to anyone whose wishlist included Norman, Germanic or other Continental origins for DF21. I appreciate the level to which people can become emotionally attached to such claims. I did not disparage those claims. I simply put forward the evidence.I tried to refrain from drawing conclusions, e.g. it would appear reasonable to conclude the Scandinavian guys to be decendants or slaves (or allies) brought back by the Vikings. I think the Airghiall and Ely O'Carroll project admins make that conclusion. I really tried to present the evidence and make no conclusions, even allowing that one or two Continental claims may well remain open at present - largely due to lack of supporting evidence, so who knows how much hope that offers? Perhaps you have more compelling evidence yet to present? I hope that you were not relying on the self-reported Continental claims discissed in my previous post. They appear to do more damage to the credibility of the Continental theory than it critics.

rms2
03-16-2015, 11:29 PM
"Emotional attachment" works in all sorts of mysterious ways, its wonders to perform. Not everyone is emotionally attached to a continental origin. Many are emotionally attached to an Isles origin.

You never said how close those "matches" were. I usually refrain from using the term "matches" unless I am talking about a possible genealogical relationship.

I know of at least one member you mentioned, some of whose closest matches are not public, i.e., they cannot be found in Ysearch. That's what I meant about privacy.

I am not going to examine each of the continental DF21s you mentioned, mainly because I don't care that much.

I still think that DF21>DF25 result from Hinxton, circa AD 1, in Belgic Catuvellauni territory is significant. Caesar mentioned the arrival of the Belgae from the Continent within living memory of his own time (1st century BC). You will have to claim that Hinxton specimen was not Belgic in order to explain that one away. Ancient y-dna trumps modern stuff every time, at least in my humble opinion.

Rory Cain
03-16-2015, 11:49 PM
"Emotional attachment" works in all sorts of mysterious ways, its wonders to perform. Not everyone is emotionally attached to a continental origin. Many are emotionally attached to an Isles origin.

That is not only inaccurate but rather desperate. I have willingly followed the evidenc eevry step of the way and gone from being Basque to Bulgar with the arrival of P312, later to Belgae when DF21 was thought tobe 2,000years old, then to Briganten when the age of DF21 stretched out further, now to something older than Briganten now that DF21 looks like 4,000 years old. I left David Faux behind in 2008, and left you behind over the last sveralyears,because I contoniued to go with the weight of evidence. Whener the final journey takes me is of no emotion interest but of intellectual interest. Who knows what nationality Iwillend up? I would hate to miss the journey by being stuck in one place like David and, it seems, yourself. Sorry to have to say that. It's your choice though and I will respect it, just as I respect the right of those who choose to be Norman, Germanic or whatever. I don't have to buy it myself, so allow me the right to base my decision on the evidence.

Let me be clear. My reference to emotional attachment was not about you, but about the probably well-meaning folks who have credulously stuck to an increasingly unlikely family tradition in the face of all evidence. Let's just work with the evidence. I take it that you have run out of evidence after the alleged Continental DF21 were exposed to scrutiny. I dont exclude the possibility that some piece of evidence will surface that supports your Continental claim, and if it is compeeling evidence I wil line up for whatever new passport my revised nationality makes me. If it transpires that I join you on the Continent (and I have never totally ruled that out), then so be it.

faulconer
03-17-2015, 01:29 AM
I confess I am using the term singleton as a convenience that can be taken to mean several things. Rather than strain for a definition, may I simple give exampe of the alleged examples of Continental DF21?

E9807 Kaptein, Nederland, DF21 > Z246 > DF25-. No match with the well-konwn Kaptein family of Nederland. Matches the Hinckley family of Hinckley, Leicestershire.

N117038 Arvela, Finland, DF21 > S5488 > Z16294 > Z16281 > Z16289-, by which point in the SNP trail the Ely O'Carroll sept splits into one branch dominated by the surname O'Treasaigh and the other dominated by the surname O'Buaidhaigh. Arvela would appear to have relocated to Findland after the development of surnames in Ireland, which occurred about the Viking era.

319942 Latta, Belgium, DF21 > S5488 > Z16294 > Z16281, so genetically an outlier of Ely O'Carroll. 319942 appears to list Belgium on the basis of the Latta chiefs having an elleged Norman ancestor. There are 22 in Df21+ Latta. The other 21 list an Isles or Unknown origin. I do not pretend to know whether the alleged Norman was ancestor of these 22 Latta or the other 28 Lattas in their project. I don not believe the project admin knows either.

280362 Turner, France, DF1 > S5488 . S7200 > S6003 > Z29592. Mr Turner may have accessed a meaning of surnames book from the pulp-mill press strating that the common British occupational name Turner is equivalent tothe common French occupational surname Tournour, and have taken this to indicate French ancestry. Mr Turners STR and DNA matches are throroughly Scots, as are his upstream SNPs from Z29592.

N28650 Conrardy,Frence. DF21 > FGC3213 > P314.2 > L362-. Grounds for claiming France unknown. Matches various British surnames.

268772 Thomason, Norway. DF21 > S5446, also known as "Aran" and "Galway Bay". Matches numerous Irish surnames from east Galway and surrounds.

285483 Rutell, France. S871 > Z16267 > FGC23375. Understood to have origins in Sicily with a claim toNorman ancestry, hence the reason for listing France. The other member of his two-man sub-group is Harbour from Wales.

61096 Hendrickson, Sweden, DF21 > S971 >Z3000 Airghialla or Clann Colla Type as found in south Ulster.

220430 Osterud, 328342 Osterud, 342420 Osterud, ditto.

158136 Montgomery,France, Df21 > S5488 Miscellaneous, i.e. has not tested for his sub-clade. His matches bear the Scots names Long, Lang, Laing and Jamieson. They list Scotland as their country of origin.

208773 Reith, Germany, DF21 Miscellaneous, i.e. has not tested for his sub-clade. Has DNA with several men bearing the similar sounding surname Reece, from Wales, plus Doty & Griffith.

One of the six Via men once listed France. Now all list Scotland. Matches other Scots named Moore/ Muir. One of the Viars mentioned a Moore NPE in the Viar line.

As you know, I see the weight of evidence as heavily in favour of an Isles origin, and very lightweight - perhaps even wishful thinking - in favour of a Continental origin. The above examples demonstate that better than I could. I wish no offence though to well-meaning folks who have simply inherited a family tradition of Norman, Germanic or any other Continental origin and fell regret at having burst any bubbles. People can be very sensitive about this. Often, where they fear that their wished-for origin may be unravelled by SNP testing, they cease to proceed further. That is the opposite of what I wish to see. Let's get all the evidence out there. Perhaps one or two of the above may yet prove to be genuine Continentals. I am not yet bolting the door on the Continental theory but for the sake of those still clinging to it, I hope that they have more concrete evidence than the above with which to support their case.




.

I would be cautious using this information as evidence against a members reported geo origin. I personally do not find it convincing at all and have no desire to see DF21 as continental or isles.

Rory Cain
03-17-2015, 02:07 AM
I would be cautious using this information as evidence against a members reported geo origin. I personally do not find it convincing at all and have no desire to see DF21 as continental or isles.

Sorry, buddy, you got it back to front - this is the evidence FOR DF21 being Continental - supposedly. I just put it on the table for them seeing as they hadn't. Plus I added a little due diligence, lacking from the Continental clams. Self-reporting is something that most serious studies try to avoid using, but if that's want the pro-Continental guys want to use, then let's look at it, don't you think? Having done so, I agree with your assessment of its value as "evidence".

faulconer
03-17-2015, 02:15 AM
I am not comfortable with being referred to as buddy. It's your information following the kit# and location as evidence against the kits being continental that I do not find convincing (as proof against a continental origin). Matching kits from the Isles is not evidence against having a continental origin. It may very well end up being that DF21 originated in the Isles but I have seen nothing in your posts to support that. I have also detected a bit of an attitude that goes beyond the friendly research that most people are doing here. I wish you well and hope we all will continue to enjoy the incredible research going on today.

Rory Cain
03-17-2015, 02:37 AM
It's your information following the kit# and location...

As Richard stated several time he has DF21 of Continental origin but had not produced any evidence, I produced it for him just so eveything is out in the open. I believe these to be the same kits he was looking at, and the same kits that he would have listed had any of his evidence himself. This, apparently is the proof FOR a Continental origin. If you find it compelling evidence of Continental origins, you're welcome to do so.

faulconer
03-17-2015, 04:20 AM
As Richard stated several time he has DF21 of Continental origin but had not produced any evidence, I produced it for him just so eveything is out in the open. I believe these to be the same kits he was looking at, and the same kits that he would have listed had any of his evidence himself. This, apparently is the proof FOR a Continental origin. If you find it compelling evidence of Continental origins, you're welcome to do so.

I find that to be an interesting way to conduct a discussion. You have provided what you believe would be the evidence for a Continental origin? Specifically, the evidence that the person you are having that discussion with might present... and then suggested that it is not good evidence? Was the additional information (beyond the kit and reported location, eg "No match with the well-konwn Kaptein family of Nederland. Matches the Hinckley family of Hinckley, Leicestershire.") added by this person as well? Or is this your own position, supposed to support the notion that this kit is not actually from the Netherlands? I read that to be your position. If I am mistaken, then I apologize. I have very little at stake when it comes to the geographical origins of DF21. My main concern is new and unexperienced members questioning what they believe to be their family history based on STR "matches" in the Isles as there is a clear bias in terms of number of kits from that location.

Rory Cain
03-17-2015, 06:25 AM
I find that to be an interesting way to conduct a discussion. You have provided what you believe would be the evidence for a Continental origin? Specifically, the evidence that the person you are having that discussion with might present... and then suggested that it is not good evidence? Was the additional information (beyond the kit and reported location, eg "No match with the well-konwn Kaptein family of Nederland. Matches the Hinckley family of Hinckley, Leicestershire.") added by this person as well? Or is this your own position, supposed to support the notion that this kit is not actually from the Netherlands? I read that to be your position. If I am mistaken, then I apologize. I have very little at stake when it comes to the geographical origins of DF21. My main concern is new and unexperienced members questioning what they believe to be their family history based on STR "matches" in the Isles as there is a clear bias in terms of number of kits from that location.

No, you expressed your concern in your previous post when you indicated that you had taken an instant dislike to me. That explains why in your first post you took the aggressive action of misrepresenting what I had said. Richard and I have not found it necessary to do that to each other. Find me a genuine Continental DF21 if you can. But using a wishlist tends to undermine rather than support the Continental cause.

Rory Cain
03-17-2015, 06:36 AM
A post from oneillabu on another thread perhaps did not get as much coverage as it might. In it he identified Irish and Scots chiefs who he believes to be DF21.

[QUOTE}
The McCarthy Mor
The O’Carroll
The McMahon
The O’Sullivan (Beara)
The McGuire
The O’Callaghan
The O’Donaghue Mor
Rory Oge O’Moore (seven septs of Laois)
Lord of the Isles McDonald
Lords of Ivowen Ulster O’Neill’s

There are many others such as Clan Colla, Fiach McHugh O’Byrne etc who could be included due to DF21 surname matches."[QUOTE]

I cannot personally vouch for all these chiefs being Df21+, e.g. Personally I would delete the extinct line of McCarthy Mor and insert the presentday senior line, the McCarthy Reagh who is DF21+ >FGC3213 > P314.2 > L362. Nor do I claim that it 100% inclusive as I do not see Galbraith or Ogilvie included but they tested more recently. There may be others. This group of chiefs would not necessarily rule out Richard's Belgae theory. It would tend to make a common Norman origin for all of DF21 very highly unlikely. I am still amused by faulconer and the like who see a guy sitting in his France rugby shirt in the stadium surrounded by his brothers, uncles and cousins in their Galsgow Rangers rugby shirts, and conclude that the Scots don't count and this is a Norman French gathering of the clans.

rms2
03-17-2015, 07:55 AM
. . . I left David Faux behind in 2008, and left you behind over the last sveralyears,because I contoniued to go with the weight of evidence . . .

In that post you left reason behind.

Your argument, such as it is, is based entirely on modern distribution, a database heavily skewed to the Isles, and your own interpretation of the results of members who claim continental ancestry. Modern distribution tells us one thing: where a clade is now. It does not tell us how it got there or where it came from.

I think you are ignoring evidence, but I am not going to persist in a pointless argument with you about your own subclade, which you, for whatever reason, prefer to see as having an Isles origin. Suit yourself. You think DF21 originated in the Isles, in spite of the ancient Hinxton result in Belgic territory, so be it. Eventually more ancient y-dna will tell the tale.

By the way, in case you missed it, an ancient y-dna result in Belgic territory is really good evidence, much better than modern distribution, unspecified "matches", and clusters with invented names.

SearchSeeker
03-17-2015, 02:49 PM
I enjoy reading all posts from Rory and Rich, good stuff. In alignment with both perspectives, and me trying to understand L1066, Rich is hitting the nail on the head with the comment about needing more ancient DNA. I hope that actually happens within the next couple of years. We definitely have some groups, excluding Rich and Rory here, drawing a conclusion with very weak "evidence" and then cherry picking specific bits of information to fit that theory. I've seen it on at least two occasions, with different surnames and origins. More testing is the only thing I see that can resolve. Personally I'm happy with either Isles or Continental, I just want to know which one so I can thoroughly research and understand the lineage better but to my point, I enjoy the discussions.

Jon
03-17-2015, 06:03 PM
Hi all,

Thanks for all the interesting contributions here. Not to fan the fire, but in regards to the Maguire and/or the Macmahon lines being DF21...as far as I know over at the Maguire FTDNA page, L513 ('Airghialla II type') seems to be dominant, also in lines with a pretty good paper trail back to earliest lines (although I'm taking others' words for this). Any thoughts there?

Rory Cain
03-17-2015, 08:54 PM
Hi all,

Thanks for all the interesting contributions here. Not to fan the fire, but in regards to the Maguire and/or the Macmahon lines being DF21...as far as I know over at the Maguire FTDNA page, L513 ('Airghialla II type') seems to be dominant, also in lines with a pretty good paper trail back to earliest lines (although I'm taking others' words for this). Any thoughts there?

Jon, that's not fanning the fire at all. Thanks for your contribution. I believe that you are right about Maguire and that oneillabu is right about McMahon. I felt that at the time I posted it, but as that list is oneillabu's intellectual property I refrained from altering it. Perhaps he might wish to update it in the light of recent knowledge as it dates back to November 2013, and our knowledge keeps changing.

Jon
03-17-2015, 09:19 PM
Thanks Rory. It's pretty amazing how exclusive the Maguire project is in their little slice of L513 (P66 I believe). It clearly represents some core group - whether or not this is somehow a chiefly line, I have no idea. But the group shares the bigger clade of S5668 with many others, most of whom, as far as I can see, have roots in Scotland and otherwise Ireland. I do think that whoever they were, they were all centered around N Ireland and Scotland, especially SW.

Rory Cain
03-17-2015, 09:21 PM
In that post you left reason behind.

Your argument, such as it is, is based entirely on modern distribution, a database heavily skewed to the Isles, and your own interpretation of the results of members who claim continental ancestry. Modern distribution tells us one thing: where a clade is now. It does not tell us how it got there or where it came from.

I think you are ignoring evidence, but I am not going to persist in a pointless argument with you about your own subclade, which you, for whatever reason, prefer to see as having an Isles origin. Suit yourself. You think DF21 originated in the Isles, in spite of the ancient Hinxton result in Belgic territory, so be it. Eventually more ancient y-dna will tell the tale.

By the way, in case you missed it, an ancient y-dna result in Belgic territory is really good evidence, much better than modern distribution, unspecified "matches", and clusters with invented names.

My OBSERVATIONS of evidence include amongst other things, modern distribution and a database skewed to the Isles. Not ideal. Then again, the only available evidence is not to be discarded. The evidence is what it is. And my own interpretation of claimed Continental origins, just as you used your own interpretation of those very same Continental origins. Sorry it angers you that we came to different conclusions about those particular Continental claims. Or did we? While you made repeated claims of having evidence, it was never forthcoming. Now I can see why. If I was arguing for a Continental origin I would not put such dubious evidence forward either. So I agree with your latest position that the only thing approaching the term "evidence " is Hinxton Man. He's the last man standing from alleged Continentals you were looking at but not disclosing.

Unfortunately Hinxton is not a full corpse and cannot have the pumpernickle bread seeds in his gullet analysed to prove he just stepped off the boat from the Continent. He does give us an age of ca 2000 years old, that does match with the Belgae in southeast England, and he was on the territory of a Belgic tribe. But this fails to rule out that his ancestral line may just as easily have been in the Isles anytime before or afters its formation another 2,000 birth before his birth, especially given the lack of any demonstrable Continental DF21s. More ancient DNA may yield more answers. But as I said earlier, I am reluctant to base an entire hypothesis on a singleton. Feel free to do so if you wish. Its your prerogative.

Look, to end on a conciliatory note, your position now may be like a fashion necktie grew out of fashion over the last four years as Df21 aged with each new discovery, not a demonstably genuine DF21 amonst 'em. But keep your old necktie another 10 years and it will come back into fashion. Look at what has already happen. You kept it for four years after estimates of DF21's age blew out from 2000 years to 4000 years, well and truly predating the Belgae and without a provable Continental DF21 in sight. You held onto the Continental theory long enough for Hinxton to come along and offer you some partial support - although it may just as readily support an Isles origin, Hinxton being in the Isles, you know. Who knows, further discoveries like the ancient DNA you presently pin your hopes on may go your way. If I ever see something conclusive for DF21 being Continental I'll go with you.

Rory Cain
03-18-2015, 12:28 AM
Thanks Rory. It's pretty amazing how exclusive the Maguire project is in their little slice of L513 (P66 I believe). It clearly represents some core group - whether or not this is somehow a chiefly line, I have no idea. But the group shares the bigger clade of S5668 with many others, most of whom, as far as I can see, have roots in Scotland and otherwise Ireland. I do think that whoever they were, they were all centered around N Ireland and Scotland, especially SW.

John, first I must confess that L513 is not my primary field of study. I have encountered L513, through the somewhat obscured lenses of the Cains of Brocks Gap VA. Although united by DNA, they are divided by schisms into adherents of the German theory, the Isle of Man theory and the Scots theory. Thus the earlier ancestor may be listed as Nicholas Kern or Nicholas Cain, born ca 1692/3 or born ca 1715, with country of origin Germany or Isle of Man or Scotland, according to the geographical, political and racial desires of the individual testee. The unfortunate downside is that none will do further DNA testing in case it proves their pet theory wrong. However Bill Kane who won't mind me mentioning his name in case anyone can assist further, matches the Cains of Brocks Gap VA and is a keen SNP tester. Sadly though, he tested negative for every identified sub-clade of L513. Hence, studying this particular family has not been the ideal education in L513. Perhaps though, you can understand my wariness of self-reported geongraphical origins, which are hard to separate from racial preferences.

We have had some success, in that we recruited some Kane and Keane folks from the Shannon Estuary and their STRs aligned with the Cains of Brocks Gap VA. The Manx group have at least one very anti-Irish adherent and refuse to accept this. The German group still cling to Nicholas Kern but now submit that he must have had Irish origins. Although Nicholas Cain's birthplace is unrecorded, his lifelong friend was a Thomas Murley from "near the Shannon". Co-incidence?

The L513 cluster in Fermanagh, DF21 cluster in Monaghan and Z253 cluster in Breifne appear geographically and chronologically consistent with warrior bands originally from south of Connacht's borders being settled on swordland in south Ulster as allies of the Connaughta in their series of advances against the Ulaidh. I wonder if the L513 were from Kerry where the O'Sheas are a leading L513+ sept, and where I suspect the O'Cathains of the Shannon Estuary originated, with some still located on the Kerry shore of the Shannon. But it's not my area of expertise. For L513 sub-clades I would have to refer you to Richard who administers L21 and Subclades (including some L513) and would have abroad view, or to the L513 and "11-13" and Maguire projects. I believe I saw that one of those had identified the Maguire chiefs as L513. As I say, my L513 research has been on the Cain/Kanes of Kilrush area and they appear negative for all known L513 sub-clades. Sorry I cannot help more. Bill Kane would be very interested in any new L513 developments.

oneillabu
03-18-2015, 10:05 PM
I think you are ignoring evidence, but I am not going to persist in a pointless argument with you about your own subclade, which you, for whatever reason, prefer to see as having an Isles origin. Suit yourself. You think DF21 originated in the Isles, in spite of the ancient Hinxton result in Belgic territory, so be it. Eventually more ancient y-dna will tell the tale.



Before you come to any conclusions you must actually look at the evidence for example the S5488 Latta match who gives his origin as Belgium however as I have shown this is actually a Scottish surname and 99% of the people with this surname are from Scotland or Ulster. If we look at the average GD at 111 markers between the L130 S5488 cluster which is ancient Irish in origin and Latta we find an average GD of 31 which is around 300 BC so if this cluster is a Celtic tribe from Belgium then this is when they arrived in Ireland, a perfectly reasonable timeframe I hear you say however if we look at the average GD between Latta and the L720 cluster of S5488 we find that the average GD has increased to 40 at 111 markers which pushes the common IRISH ancestor back another 400 years so the continental origin you are suggesting is not just the continental tail wagging the Irish dog, it is the flea on the tail wagging the dog.

Rory Cain
03-19-2015, 02:33 AM
the continental origin you are suggesting is not just the continental tail wagging the Irish dog, it is the flea on the tail wagging the dog.

Ah, don't the Irish have a way with words, to be sure. They use the English language better than the English. Makes me proud of my heritage. Should Richard succeed in transplanting DF21 to somewhere on the Continent (and that's OK because I love their Continental lagers) , I hope my new found companions will have the same charming turn of phase that the Irish can produce. Meanwhile though the Cross-Channel tickets that I have been offered by the hawkers just look a bit too dodgy to buy. The Irish soil feels a lot firmer under my feet than the shifting Continental sands on offer thus far.

Reith
03-30-2015, 05:46 PM
I confess I am using the term singleton as a convenience that can be taken to mean several things. Rather than strain for a definition, may I simple give exampe of the alleged examples of Continental DF21?

E9807 Kaptein, Nederland, DF21 > Z246 > DF25-. No match with the well-konwn Kaptein family of Nederland. Matches the Hinckley family of Hinckley, Leicestershire.

N117038 Arvela, Finland, DF21 > S5488 > Z16294 > Z16281 > Z16289-, by which point in the SNP trail the Ely O'Carroll sept splits into one branch dominated by the surname O'Treasaigh and the other dominated by the surname O'Buaidhaigh. Arvela would appear to have relocated to Findland after the development of surnames in Ireland, which occurred about the Viking era.

319942 Latta, Belgium, DF21 > S5488 > Z16294 > Z16281, so genetically an outlier of Ely O'Carroll. 319942 appears to list Belgium on the basis of the Latta chiefs having an elleged Norman ancestor. There are 22 in Df21+ Latta. The other 21 list an Isles or Unknown origin. I do not pretend to know whether the alleged Norman was ancestor of these 22 Latta or the other 28 Lattas in their project. I don not believe the project admin knows either.

280362 Turner, France, DF1 > S5488 . S7200 > S6003 > Z29592. Mr Turner may have accessed a meaning of surnames book from the pulp-mill press strating that the common British occupational name Turner is equivalent tothe common French occupational surname Tournour, and have taken this to indicate French ancestry. Mr Turners STR and DNA matches are throroughly Scots, as are his upstream SNPs from Z29592.

N28650 Conrardy,Frence. DF21 > FGC3213 > P314.2 > L362-. Grounds for claiming France unknown. Matches various British surnames.

268772 Thomason, Norway. DF21 > S5446, also known as "Aran" and "Galway Bay". Matches numerous Irish surnames from east Galway and surrounds.

285483 Rutell, France. S871 > Z16267 > FGC23375. Understood to have origins in Sicily with a claim toNorman ancestry, hence the reason for listing France. The other member of his two-man sub-group is Harbour from Wales.

61096 Hendrickson, Sweden, DF21 > S971 >Z3000 Airghialla or Clann Colla Type as found in south Ulster.

220430 Osterud, 328342 Osterud, 342420 Osterud, ditto.

158136 Montgomery,France, Df21 > S5488 Miscellaneous, i.e. has not tested for his sub-clade. His matches bear the Scots names Long, Lang, Laing and Jamieson. They list Scotland as their country of origin.

208773 Reith, Germany, DF21 Miscellaneous, i.e. has not tested for his sub-clade. Has DNA with several men bearing the similar sounding surname Reece, from Wales, plus Doty & Griffith.


.

In all fairness, Reith is pronounced as Right. Their is no th sound in German. So, Reece and Reeth in your example would not hold.

Name became anglicized during WWI to Wright. The Welsh matches are not strong either.

I do not think there was much Welsh migration to Germany ....

Rory Cain
04-02-2015, 12:26 AM
In all fairness, Reith is pronounced as Right. Their is no th sound in German. So, Reece and Reeth in your example would not hold.

Name became anglicized during WWI to Wright. The Welsh matches are not strong either.

I do not think there was much Welsh migration to Germany ....

Fair enough. You have given the "paper-trail" tree a good shake, and that is what fell out. No arguing with that. If you were to give the DNA tree an equally vigorous shake, one can but wonder what would fall out. FGC3213+? (the nearest Y111 guys to you are FGC3213). Or different sub-clade from our existing list? Or an as yet undiscovered Continental sub-clade?

Of all the NGS tests undertaken by DF21+ guys so far, only Dick Ogilvie's Big Y failed to place him in an existing sub-clade. And that could be just a failure of Big Y to read a gene site, as with Brian Fenton's Big Y, which failed to read him as S5488+, although a Sanger test subsequently confirmed him as S5488+.

Reith
04-02-2015, 01:10 PM
Fair enough. You have given the "paper-trail" tree a good shake, and that is what fell out. No arguing with that. If you were to give the DNA tree an equally vigorous shake, one can but wonder what would fall out. FGC3213+? (the nearest Y111 guys to you are FGC3213). Or different sub-clade from our existing list? Or an as yet undiscovered Continental sub-clade?

Of all the NGS tests undertaken by DF21+ guys so far, only Dick Ogilvie's Big Y failed to place him in an existing sub-clade. And that could be just a failure of Big Y to read a gene site, as with Brian Fenton's Big Y, which failed to read him as S5488+, although a Sanger test subsequently confirmed him as S5488+.

Waiting on my FGC3213 results from FTDNA...

Rory Cain
04-03-2015, 11:25 PM
Waiting on my FGC3213 results from FTDNA...

I look forward to moving you out of Group U10 (where most members appear to be likely FGC3903), and into your sub-clade, when identified. Let's hope it's FGC3213.

Wilco
04-04-2015, 07:55 PM
I confess I am using the term singleton as a convenience that can be taken to mean several things. Rather than strain for a definition, may I simple give exampe of the alleged examples of Continental DF21?

E9807 Kaptein, Nederland, DF21 > Z246 > DF25-. No match with the well-konwn Kaptein family of Nederland. Matches the Hinckley family of Hinckley, Leicestershire.



As I found out the Hinckley family of Leicestershire belongs to haplogroup DF27, which is a brother of L21. So Kaptein and Hinckley do not match.

Wilco
04-04-2015, 08:24 PM
I think the Hinxton DF21>DF25 result circa AD 1 in Belgic Catuvellauni territory is significant and probably an indicator that DF21 will be found in Belgic territory on the Continent and that it may have come from there to begin with.

Heerjansdam is very close to Belgium and Kaptein is Z246+ and DF25-. Further Kaptein has no matches that are any where close on the British Illes. But he also has no continental matches so far :(

Rory Cain
04-04-2015, 09:06 PM
As I found out the Hinckley family of Leicestershire belongs to haplogroup DF27, which is a brother of L21. So Kaptein and Hinckley do not match.


Which I acknowledged on Thread: DF21 (L21>DF13>DF21) and Subclades (DF5/S191, P314.2, S190, etc). The other names which you mentioned on that thread, e.g. Banks, etc are on the overlap between the DF27 and DF21/Z246 etc modals. Without a rep from each family discovering SNP markers exist and testing for something, we may never know. Thanks for clearing up Hickley. I never received a reply from him but evidently he went ahead with testing.

Rory Cain
04-04-2015, 09:13 PM
Heerjansdam is very close to Belgium and Kaptein is Z246+ and DF25-. Further Kaptein has no matches that are any where close on the British Illes. But he also has no continental matches so far :(

Another Cold Case for when we have more information? I recall when correspondent Cotswold Hillbilly, uncomfortable with his DF21 lumping him in with Scots & Irish, hailed the discovery of DF21 being "Germanic" based on Kaptein's singleton result. If there are DF21+ anywhere on the Continent then either Belgica or Armorica would appear to be possible locations. Kaptein being discovered in part of the former Belgica was a tantalising discovery but one which has not been backed up by further such discoveries in the same location.

Rory Cain
04-17-2015, 11:18 PM
Waiting on my FGC3213 results from FTDNA...

Congratulations, you are FGC3213+. The two "sons" of FGC3213 are P314.2 and S3058. Your genotype is highly probable to be P314.2, a clade that some felt to be a good chance of containing some Continentals.

Reith
04-18-2015, 06:24 PM
Congratulations, you are FGC3213+. The two "sons" of FGC3213 are P314.2 and S3058. Your genotype is highly probable to be P314.2, a clade that some felt to be a good chance of containing some Continentals.
I was originally found to be P314.2 negative, unless FTDNA made a mistake in my initial tests.

Rory Cain
04-18-2015, 08:59 PM
I was originally found to be P314.2 negative, unless FTDNA made a mistake in my initial tests.

That is possible, and when it happens the negative result is accepted verbatim and the genotype match ignored. So genotype match on it's own may not be sufficient grounds for an appeal. We need to build up the evidence. Now that you have a FGC3213+ result, we now have a 2nd piece of evidence. Other readers please feel free to jump in here and assist further.

Reith
05-08-2015, 10:02 AM
Congratulations, you are FGC3213+. The two "sons" of FGC3213 are P314.2 and S3058. Your genotype is highly probable to be P314.2, a clade that some felt to be a good chance of containing some Continentals.

Should I even bother testing S3058 now that I am confirmed twice P314.2 negative?

Rory Cain
05-08-2015, 09:40 PM
Should I even bother testing S3058 now that I am confirmed twice P314.2 negative?

I am inclined to say no. Your genotype is much closer to P314 than to S3058, dominated by the Little Scots Cluster. The question I would initially ask myself is whether it is worth testing for either or both sons of P314, namely L362 and Z16533. But by rights they should be negative, assuming your P314- results is correct, and only positive if your P314- result is incorrect. So I can't recommend that. I'd be saving the $78 for those two tests and putting it towards a Big Y test next time they offer $100 off, like when my ole buddy Doug Griffeth grabbed that opportnity and placed his order recently. More expensive but at least it will yield results, unlike further shots in the dark which stlll cost money but risk missing any target.

Rory Cain
09-17-2015, 11:12 PM
I extract just two sections from
htttp://cruwys.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-look-at-genetic-homeland-case-reports.html


"2) The Origenes' method takes no account of the biased nature of the Family Tree DNA database. Around 70% of FTDNA customers are thought to reside in the United States, and matches with other surnames may often reflect non-paternity events in the US rather than the origin of a surname in the British Isles. This point is nicely demonstrated in Howard Mathieson's critique of the Irish Origenes' case study of the Kiely surname. Furthermore, the FTDNA database has inevitable gaps, and many British and Irish surnames, particularly lower frequency surnames, are not yet represented.

"3) The Origenes' reports do not appear to make any attempt to verify the SNP status of the people in the match lists whose surnames are used to pinpoint the "genetic homeland". SNP testing is important when investigating matches with other surnames in order to ensure that the matches are not false positives. Two men can have matching Y-STR results, but if they do not share the same SNPs they will belong on different branches of the Y-DNA tree and will not share a common ancestor within the last few thousand years. This problem occurs as a result of convergence. Although 37-marker results are most commonly affected the problem can still occur with more distant matches at 67 markers. Convergence is a particular problem in haplogroup R1b, the most common haplogroup in the British Isles which is found at a frequency of about 70% in England and over 80% in Ireland."

I am thinking that much of this criticism would also apply to those who have observed singletons within L21 sub-clades claiming Contnental origins and have swallowed those claims at face value. I remain open to the possibility that we may yet discover a genuine and unambiguous Continental DF21+. Most of those claims appear to come from out of the United States of America, though, rather than from the Continent itself. Supporting evidence is often in short supply. Surname matches are often with Isles surnames. Often little attempt has been made to verify the SNP status. Some may yet prove to be genuine, if the work is put into verifying the claim. Thus far, DF21 appears to remain Isles.

MCQ
09-27-2015, 08:06 PM
Lord of the Isles is Norse, as all of Clan Donald Chiefs are expect Glengarry and Antrim who comes through the female line. You must be referring to Clan Donald of Clan Kelly of Fermangh. The MSS's are fraudulent when referring to Clan Donald go to Clan Donald DNA project. McQ

Rory Cain
10-10-2015, 08:31 PM
Lord of the Isles is Norse, as all of Clan Donald Chiefs are expect Glengarry and Antrim who comes through the female line. You must be referring to Clan Donald of Clan Kelly of Fermangh. The MSS's are fraudulent when referring to Clan Donald go to Clan Donald DNA project. McQ

Yes, most Macdonald chiefs are R1a and I am seeing S1051 amongst McDonnells from Fermanagh, neither of whom would therefore belong on this R-L21 thread. The Lord MacAllan of Islay claimant, surname Moore, is R-L21 > DF13 > DF21 > FGC3903 > Z246 > DF25 > DF5 > L1403. A legitimate topic of discussion for this thread. However. I have not seen details of his genealogy and
have no comment on it's authenticity or otherwise. I believe some discussion has taken place elsewhere on Anthrogenica.

George Chandler
10-10-2015, 09:38 PM
Yes, most Macdonald chiefs are R1a and I am seeing S1051 amongst McDonnells from Fermanagh, neither of whom would therefore belong on this R-L21 thread. The Lord MacAllan of Islay claimant, surname Moore, is R-L21 > DF13 > DF21 > FGC3903 > Z246 > DF25 > DF5 > L1403. A legitimate topic of discussion for this thread. However. I have not seen details of his genealogy and
have no comment on it's authenticity or otherwise. I believe some discussion has taken place elsewhere on Anthrogenica.

Hi Rory,

R-S1051 is located below DF13.

George

Rory Cain
10-11-2015, 03:59 AM
Hi Rory,

R-S1051 is located below DF13.

George

Thanks George, I named the wrong SNP. I meant to say CTS2457, which several Fermanagh surnames have, and which is also below DF13.

Rory

saxonlander
01-17-2016, 12:38 PM
Are there any L21+ Subclades that may have originated in The Isles, or are they all Continental? Which L21+ Subclades are most likely to have originated in The Isles?

I'm DF23* and I notice that, with early results, it seems that DF49 all comes from The Isles, but those of DF23+ seem to be more scattered. Could this mean that DF23 originated in the Isles at a time when people from The Isles were beginning to to travel to and from the Continent at a greater rate?

Miles Kehoe

R1b-L21 originated in Central Europe, 4,000 years ago!

Muircheartaigh
01-17-2016, 01:48 PM
R1b-L21 originated in Central Europe, 4,000 years ago!

Central Europe perhaps, but probably more than 5000 years ago in a string of 6 SNPs which is currently unbroken, the most recent of which is probably 5000 years old or there abouts.

Leitir Fura
06-23-2016, 05:49 AM
I am L21>S192>S299>S7200 and our lot of clan MacInnes came from Morvern and no doubt operated across the Irish sea. What I am trying to determine is whether S7200 was an early Scottish subclave or an Irish one? I am new to this so excuse me if I am barking up the wrong tree, or just generally barking mad, as my wife seems to think with me on the track of dead ancestors.

Dubhthach
06-23-2016, 09:48 AM
Given age of some of these subclades concepts such as "Irish" and "Scottish" don't really exist, what's evident is that Atlantic Scotland and Ireland maintained contact with each other over a prolonged period of time.

Leitir Fura
06-23-2016, 10:16 AM
When u say in Britain and then in Ireland, are u saying the migration looks to be from Wales / England /Scotland to Ireland, not the other way round? I am new to all this so please excuse me if this is a dumb question?

Leitir Fura
06-24-2016, 10:46 AM
Let me rephrase .... Is there any indication that L720 /S299 originated in Ireland or Scotland, or is there not enough results / data / understanding to tell or hazard a guess?

saxonlander
11-11-2018, 06:07 AM
Are there any L21+ Subclades that may have originated in The Isles, or are they all Continental? Which L21+ Subclades are most likely to have originated in The Isles?

I'm DF23* and I notice that, with early results, it seems that DF49 all comes from The Isles, but those of DF23+ seem to be more scattered. Could this mean that DF23 originated in the Isles at a time when people from The Isles were beginning to to travel to and from the Continent at a greater rate?

Miles Kehoe

No the R1b-L21 originates in Central Europe, most likely Germany. It came to the British Isles by way of the Low Countries, notably the Netherlands.

rms2
11-11-2018, 11:36 PM
No the R1b-L21 originates in Central Europe, most likely Germany. It came to the British Isles by way of the Low Countries, notably the Netherlands.

I agree with you that L21 did not originate in Britain or Ireland, but some of its subclades probably did.

jdean
11-12-2018, 12:03 AM
I agree with you that L21 did not originate in Britain or Ireland, but some of its subclade probably did.

Most definitely even for old branches but with BigY etc. we've probably legions that post date the Middle Ages even.

jdean
11-12-2018, 12:11 AM
Are there any L21+ Subclades that may have originated in The Isles, or are they all Continental? Which L21+ Subclades are most likely to have originated in The Isles?

I'm DF23* and I notice that, with early results, it seems that DF49 all comes from The Isles, but those of DF23+ seem to be more scattered. Could this mean that DF23 originated in the Isles at a time when people from The Isles were beginning to to travel to and from the Continent at a greater rate?

Miles Kehoe



No the R1b-L21 originates in Central Europe, most likely Germany. It came to the British Isles by way of the Low Countries, notably the Netherlands.

Dam got excited there for a bit and thought Miles was back, do miss arguing with him, but see that was a very old post.

rms2
11-12-2018, 12:23 AM
Most definitely even for old branches but with BigY etc. we've probably legions that post date the Middle Ages even.

I'm pretty sure my terminal SNP originated in North America.

jdean
11-12-2018, 01:26 AM
I'm pretty sure my terminal SNP originated in North America.

Most probably, mine definitely originated in the Isles (R-L277 Sted branch) but seeing as it also clearly crops up elsewhere on the tree I don't mention it much : )

Maybe I should talk to some of my surname matches about getting a BigY : )

dkm1987
11-15-2018, 11:08 PM
Which L21 Subs do you think are Isle originals?

rms2
11-16-2018, 11:25 PM
That's not a swamp in which I wish to venture.

IanFitzpatrick
01-11-2019, 12:39 PM
Maybe FGC11134?