PDA

View Full Version : McElrea discoveries and questions re: DF49



David Mc
07-06-2014, 12:29 AM
Good things come to those who wait, according to Guinness. Well, we (in the McElrea Project) have waited a very long time, and this past month has been a good one indeed.

Our paper trail goes back to 1750 in Northern Ireland. That date ended up becoming an impenetrable wall for us…we couldn’t get around it, or over it, or under it. We could find similar sounding names in Ireland and Scotland, but there was no way to prove any connections with them. Genetically, things were just as hard-going. We’re DF49*, and the closest matches we had (which weren’t very close at all) inevitably turned out to be from another subclade. At 37 markers and above, our only matches were McElreas.This was a bit bemusing. I had expected to find at least some matches, even from other surnames, that would at least suggest common kinship groups from before the solidifying of surnames, but we had nothing.

Then some time back, one of our Project Administrators made contact with a Mylrea who was interested in genetic testing. This brings us to a few weeks ago, we received our first match at 37 markers.

The Mylreas are a family from the Isle of Man. The earliest account of the surname is from 1510 (as McGilrea). It later became McYlrea, and then in the 19th century, the c was dropped—which was becoming the custom in Man, and they became Mylrea. It seems that patience has been rewarded, and we’ve finally managed to uncover a bit more of the deeper family history. Being an obsessive type, I want to go back even further, of course. I’m still waiting for the results of the Big-Y test in hopes that it will suggest some of those older kinships that could reveal more about our family and (I hope) DF49.

The Isle of Man was settled by a number of different groups, including the Irish (either the Cruithin or the Ulaid, depending on who you read), the Britons/Welsh, the early Northumbrians (Bernicia and Deira) under King Edwin, as well as the Norwegians and Danes, the Scots, and the English.

I would dearly like to know which population movement would have brought our line to Man.

I would also like to have a better understanding of the origins of DF49*. I suspect the answer to this might be connected to the question above. When people talk about M222, they often think Ireland. As far as I can see, though, most of the DF49* people are not, in fact, Irish.

Any thoughts?

Dubhthach
07-06-2014, 08:47 AM
Well Manx (which technically became extinct -- though it's been revived) is a Goidelic language related to Modern Irish and Scottish Gaidhlig. All three share common ancestor in form of Old Irish (600-1000AD) and Middle Irish (1000-1200AD -- as a written standard anyways). There's some debate about when "Old Irish" arrived in Man, some have suggested that if anything it's ascendancy in Man is due to arrival of the Vikings (gaelicised vikings for example -- like nearby Galloway in Scotland). My own opinion is that most DF49 that we've seen so far is "Insular Celtic", particulary DF23 (and all way down to M222). Using terms of "nationality" such as Irish doesn't really help in sense with such old SNP's as they predate our modern concepts of seperateness. If anything if DF49 is say 2,500-3,500 years old then it dates to a period when the difference between the Insular Celtic languages (namely Goidelic and Brythonic) was quite small and not huge leap to switch between the two.

Needless to say your surname is Goidelic at a minimum. :)

As a parallel DF41 likewise appears spread across the "Insular Celtic" world.

jdean
07-06-2014, 10:06 AM
DF49 x M222 is a bit of a mystery in my view

I'd say it's quite a bit too old to be Insular Celtic and even if you just concentrate on DF23 that's already got quite a hi representation on the continent.

If you look at the distribution of DF49 x M222 it's surprisingly low in the south and west of Ireland, if it'd been in the Isles since dot I'd have expected it to have been more evenly spread and a tad more common !!

Also there is the general lack of clustering in DF49 x M222, even if you look at the groups emerging via Big Y there is little (if nothing) to tie them together. Using the branch I'm on as an example there are now four people tested to the level of ZP54 - 57 (two of which are on the ZP41 to 44 level).Taking the modal value for the later level (just to keep things simple) the minimum GD at 67 loci is 24. In fact the only thing that ties us all together is 15-15-16-17 and I'm not going to start suggesting folk test the ZP54 - 57 SNPs (when they become available) based on that !!

Overall my impression is DF49 x M222 came to the Isles relatively late but if that is so, why ? and from where ?

I keep coming back to the Scandinavian area but there is the detail mentioned above of DF23's distribution so I think generally it's safer to say the jury's still out but it's going to be fun trying to figure all this out : )

David Mc
07-06-2014, 11:55 PM
Hi Dubhthach,

McElrea is clearly a Gaelic name, you are right, and seems to be an Anglicization of Mac Gille Riabhach. I’ve been reading a fair bit on the Manx language recently, and it seems to be particularly influenced by the Ulster and Scottish dialects. As you note, some of this is bound to be due to the influence of the Gall-Ghàidheil of Galloway and the Hebrides. Man was a part of this larger sea kingdom, and many of the “Vikings” had adopted the Gaelic language and a hybrid Gaelic/Norse culture that would last for some centuries, even beyond the eventual collapse of Norse power in Britain.

This is all very interesting, but it’s also a bit disconcerting. I’ve chased the surname for decades, always assuming it was of either Scottish or Irish. On the Isle of Man, though, as with the West of Scotland, Gaelic names don’t necessarily mean Gaelic origins. I’ve always known this in principle, but this is the first time I’ve felt the full weight of the matter. Again, the Isle of Man was held by the Ulaidh, the Northumbrians, the Welsh, the Dal Riata, the Vikings, the Scots and later the English. There are a lot of possible origin points for us there.

This is where the beginnings of DF49 come into play for me. I understand that it is an old haplotype—in fact, I would probably have gone for an even earlier date than you did (but I could be wrong). I would also agree that M222, and possibly DF23, represent insular Celtic stock. I’m beginning to wonder about DF49xDF23, though. The question for me is, when, and even more importantly, where did DF23 split off from DF49? Did it split off in the Isles, or somewhere else in Europe, in which case DF49* may represent a separate influx—it might have come in separately and later. I don’t have an answer, but I look forward to the time when the picture clarifies for us.

David Mc
07-07-2014, 12:17 AM
Hi Jdean,

I get where you’re coming from, I think. Given the lack of cohesiveness (clusters) and dispersion for DF49* in the Isles, it could look like it came in more recently. If that’s the case then perhaps DF23 (or part of it, at least, migrated to Britain in the Bronze Age and fathered M222 somewhere along the on the westerly side of Great Britain, or in Ireland itself.

DF49xDF23, then, would have come in separately at a later date. As you ask, when and how?

As for the “when” question, how far back can we go before we expect to see a larger foot print with more clearly defined clusters? If we have a window of 2000 years, that can include Gallic or Belgae incursions into the Isles. If we have a 1500 year window, we might look to the Anglo-Saxon migrations. If we have less than that, the Vikings (or perhaps Normans) begin to look like better candidates.
As you say, fun is coming (I hope).

Dubhthach
07-07-2014, 08:12 AM
Hi Dubhthach,

McElrea is clearly a Gaelic name, you are right, and seems to be an Anglicization of Mac Gille Riabhach. I’ve been reading a fair bit on the Manx language recently, and it seems to be particularly influenced by the Ulster and Scottish dialects. As you note, some of this is bound to be due to the influence of the Gall-Ghàidheil of Galloway and the Hebrides. Man was a part of this larger sea kingdom, and many of the “Vikings” had adopted the Gaelic language and a hybrid Gaelic/Norse culture that would last for some centuries, even beyond the eventual collapse of Norse power in Britain.

This is all very interesting, but it’s also a bit disconcerting. I’ve chased the surname for decades, always assuming it was of either Scottish or Irish. On the Isle of Man, though, as with the West of Scotland, Gaelic names don’t necessarily mean Gaelic origins. I’ve always known this in principle, but this is the first time I’ve felt the full weight of the matter. Again, the Isle of Man was held by the Ulaidh, the Northumbrians, the Welsh, the Dal Riata, the Vikings, the Scots and later the English. There are a lot of possible origin points for us there.

This is where the beginnings of DF49 come into play for me. I understand that it is an old haplotype—in fact, I would probably have gone for an even earlier date than you did (but I could be wrong). I would also agree that M222, and possibly DF23, represent insular Celtic stock. I’m beginning to wonder about DF49xDF23, though. The question for me is, when, and even more importantly, where did DF23 split off from DF49? Did it split off in the Isles, or somewhere else in Europe, in which case DF49* may represent a separate influx—it might have come in separately and later. I don’t have an answer, but I look forward to the time when the picture clarifies for us.

David,

Well it's probable that the closet dialects to it are the now extinct "East Ulster" (Irish) and Galloway (Scottish) dialects. Of course in context of middle ages you are talking about a dialectical continuum between Kerry in South of Ireland and as far north as Caitness in Scotland. Neighbouring dialects would have been closest, obviously there was a standard enough written/learned dialect. (I compare the situation to taking a bunch of someone from Appalachia, someone from Glasgow and a Corkman and putting them in a room -- they'll eventually work out they are speaking the "same" language ;) )

Here's what Woulfe has in his 1923 book
---
Mac GIOLLA RIABHAIGH—IV—M'Gillereogh, M'Calreogh, M'Calreaghe, M'Callerie, MacGillreavy, MacGilrea, MacElreavy, MacIlravy, MacElreath, MacElwreath, MacIlwraith, MacIlrea, MacAreavy, MacArevy, Gallery, Callery, Killery, Kilgray, Gray; 'son of Giolla riabhach' (the grey youth, from riabhach, grey, brindled); the name (1) of a family of the Ui Fiachrach, seated at Creaghaun, in the parish of Skreen, Co. Sligo; and (2) of a Clare family who were servants of trust to the Earls of Thomond, and held the castle of Craigbrien, in the parish of Clondagad. The family is still in Thomond, but the surname is now always anglicised Gallery. In the midlands, it was sometimes made Callery, and sometimes translated Gray. Kilgray is a half translation, Mac Giolla riabhaigh is also a Scottish surname. According to Dr. MacBain, it is anglicised MacIlwraith, &c.
---

The Norse in Ireland became heavily gaelicised, so you see for example the "Kingdom of Dublin and Man" let alone for example the Outer Hebrides which today are the stronghold of Scottish Gaidhlig. (how they pronounce their vowels sounds scandinavian to my ear).

From looking at the 1901 census for Tyrone there were 21 McElrea's in Tyrone, 11 of them were "Church of Ireland" (Anglican -- Episcopalian in US) and 10 were Presbyterian.

http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/search/results.jsp?searchMoreVisible=true&census_year=1901&surname=mcelrea&firstname=&county19011911=&county1821=&county1831=&county1841=&county1851=&parish=&ward=&barony=&townland=&houseNumber=&ded=&age=&sex=&ageInMonths=&relationToHead=&religion=&education=&occupation=&marriageStatus=&yearsMarried=&birthplace=&nativeCountry=&language=&deafdumb=&causeOfDeath=&yearOfDeath=&familiesNumber=&malesNumber=&femalesNumber=&maleServNumber=&femaleServNumber=&estChurchNumber=&romanCatNumber=&presbNumber=&protNumber=&marriageYears=&childrenBorn=&childrenLiving=&search=Search

I see you are doing "BigY", there are a number of DF49* who have done this from what I can see on Alex Williamson's tree:
http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/NGS/Tree.html

-Paul
(DF41+)

David Mc
07-07-2014, 09:49 AM
Hi Paul, and thanks. I believe you are right; the connection was to the extinct East Ulster and Galloway dialects. I appreciate the linguistic insights-- fascinating that you can detect a Scandinavian flavour in the Hebridean dialects even today!

My father comes from Newtownstewart in Co. Tyrone. Some of the census records are those of our family-- or all of them in one sense. Every McElrea we've tested (including those whose relationships were unknown) has come up as a match. Our paper trail only goes back to 1750; my initial quest was to move beyond that. I'm familiar with Woulfe, and when I began to consider (largely due to the spelling of our name) that we may actually have been native Irish, rather than Planter stock, the Ui Fiachrach Mac Giolla Riabhaighs from Sligo seemed like they might be a likely option, not being too far away from Tyrone. The problem was, our genetic fingerprint doesn't seem to match the Ui Fiachrach ones-- nor any other Irish ones, really. I've continued to keep an eye on the Irish front, but I began looking at Scottish sources-- and there are plenty to choose from. Again, no matches (or else false matches at 25 markers).

The Mylrea match is a tight one, though, hitting all our off-modals, so it seems the initial mystery was solved. It's possible that we will find a happy little DF49* cluster yet, either in Ireland or in Scotland-- maybe even with one of the related surnames, but I'm not holding my breath at this point. I suspect the most important future matches will be of families whose relationship to us goes back before surnames became set in stone. But that would be just as good, in some ways. In fact that would take us to the deeper levels that I've been reaching for. Hopefully the Big-Y will help on that front. Jdean and company have been doing stellar work on mapping out the new branches of DF49, which has to be challenging given the sparse numbers. My fear is that we might compose a mysterious little branch of our own, but I continue to hope that we'll fit somewhere in the grand scheme of things.

We had one match that seemed suggestive, but we don't know for sure if they're DF49 (I believe there has been no success in contacting them) and moreover, they are Finnish... I don't really know what to do with that. Even if they were DF49, what has Finland to do with the Isle of Man?

David Mc
07-07-2014, 10:47 AM
Moving back to DF49* origins in the Isles, and following Jdean's Scandinavian DF49* theme, I note that the two other families with a fairly strong association with Ireland are the McCrearys and the McCabes, both of whom are likely Gallóglaigh families (Norse-Gaelic mercenaries from Kintyre and the Western Isles of Scotland), and not native Irish.

Just thinking out loud...

Dubhthach
07-07-2014, 11:04 AM
I should point out though that the Gall-Ghaeil (to use modern Irish spelling) aren't necessary just Gaelicised Norse, they were also "norse-ified" (if such a term exists) Gaels. (in turns of behaviour such as naval tactics/raiding etc.). The term in sense is quite unique as it's symbolises a hybridisation. Whereas for example during medieval period Cambro-Norman's who had become Gaelicised were still often termed "Gall" (sean-Ghall = old foreigners -- to separate them from the "New English" of Tudor period onwards).

The Gallóglaigh (Gallowglasses -- "Gall" = foreigner, Óglach = "youth" literally "volunteer"/"soldier") in sense also have this strangeness in that they Gaels, but were outside of Ireland. In sense Scotland had been literarlly regarded as an extension of wider Gaeldom (for example stories of Fionn and Fianna travelling there etc.) from middle ages of course you see the arising of a centralising scottish state which might in sense tie in with "foreignness" -- of course you often then see "Albannach" (scotsman) added as a nickname, an intersting example been one of the Burkes (gaelicised Normans):

Edmond Albanach de Burgh (due to the time he spent as a hostage in Scotland as youth), of course words can be funny in way the word "Gall" in Irish originally meant someone from "Gaul" (Gallia).

Gael in sense is an actual pan-national term, after all a Kerryman speaking Irish a Manxman speaking Manx and someone from Outer Hebrides speaking Scottish Gaidhlig are all Gaels.

I wouldn't get hung up over terms like "native Irish" etc. All us Gaels are blow-ins anyways, along with rest of our L21 brethren across Ireland and Britain ;)

-Paul
(DF41+)

David Mc
07-07-2014, 06:05 PM
Hi Paul,

I am certain that some of the Gallóglaigh families (and a great number of the the Gall-Ghàidheil as a whole) were of older Gaelic stock, but many of them were actually Gaelicised Norse. We agree that theirs was a hybrid culture. My points are these:

1. So far, all of the DF49* who have unambiguously Gaelic names would seem to have origins outside of Ireland.
2. All of us seem to come from those islands (Man, Kintyre, and the Hebrides) that were part of the Norse Suðreyjar, or "Southern Isles," whose population was an admixture of earlier Pictish, Gaelic, and later Norwegian and Danish populations. All spoke Gaelic, but not all had Gaelic "roots."
3. This would seem to throw in bit of a genetic wildcard for us that needs to be considered, at least, as we think about when and how DF49* entered the British Isles.

My use of the term "native Irish" is simply a means of distinguishing the older stock from the newer Plantation stock. One of the reasons I'm in this is because I want to know where my direct lines of descent were at different points in history. Where were they and to what cultures did they belong? If I look at the Heaneys on my mother's side, I have little problem answering that question. My paternal line is something else now.

David Mc
07-07-2014, 06:15 PM
The other wildcard is the wide dispersion of DF49xDF23 within the British Isles. We have one family who seem to come from Cornwall, some from Shropshire, some from Man, some (probably) from the West Coast of Scotland. This dispersion isn't just a geographical one. Many of the surnames sound quite Anglo-Saxon (e.g. Allred), while others sound English (Pruett), but share their branch with a Swedish DF49*.

jdean
07-07-2014, 07:29 PM
The other wildcard is the wide dispersion of DF49xDF23 within the British Isles. We have one family who seem to come from Cornwall, some from Shropshire, some from Man, some (probably) from the West Coast of Scotland. This dispersion isn't just a geographical one. Many of the surnames sound quite Anglo-Saxon (e.g. Allred), while others sound English (Pruett), but share their branch with a Swedish DF49*.

Jersey can be added to that list as well, he's an interesting case too as he appears to be DF49* though I need to get my sticky mitts on his raw data to be sure. Most likely a Z2980 should be ordered as well as this position normally doesn't show up in Big Y tests at all.

Fingers crossed at the very least he'll join the project !!

I'm sure you'll find the wiki entry on Jersey interesting : )


BTW don't forget Mr Pettit, his ancestry came from Sussex, his near match (Mr Burgess) has a surname match from there as well.

David Mc
07-07-2014, 08:30 PM
I lived not far away from Burgess Hill in West Sussex a few years back. I have no family links in Sussex, so it doesn't mean anything. The name just reminded me of the town.

Either way, you've served up some more good examples for us. It would be interesting to see how Jersey fits in.

jdean
07-07-2014, 11:20 PM
I lived not far away from Burgess Hill in West Sussex a few years back. I have no family links in Sussex, so it doesn't mean anything. The name just reminded me of the town.

Either way, you've served up some more good examples for us. It would be interesting to see how Jersey fits in.

Small world, my eldest daughter went to Plumpton Collage : )

Dubhthach
07-08-2014, 09:47 AM
Another DF49+ result there in Ireland project. 323711 (McCabe) -- belongs to Hopkins-McCabe cluster, at least one member of which is due a BigY result. This group also has SNP's L319/L302 if memory serves me right (found in older FTDNA testing)

-Paul
(DF41+)

Dubhthach
07-08-2014, 10:09 AM
By the way great tree on the DF49 project, it makes it lot clearer the branching substructure. It'll be interesting to see where David falls in this once he's gotten his BigY results:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10258680/Draft%20DF49%20x%20M222%20Tree%20v8.png

-Paul
(DF41+)

jdean
07-08-2014, 11:48 AM
Cheers Paul

Funnily enough I've just updated it a little to try and reflect the distance of M222 and S7073 from Z2961 but without cluttering the diagram with the plethora of equivalent M222 SNPs

Something I've been thinking about, Jim Wilson has 193 M222 folk in his 2000 sample spreadsheet, all of which are positive for another 23 SNPs not found in any of the Z2961 kits.

I think most folk are thinking M222 originated in the north of England now bit with this many equivalent SNPs isn't it more likely this was the expansion point ?

Dubhthach
07-08-2014, 12:49 PM
Indeed the structure under M222 is fairly amazing at the moment, here's Iain Kennedy's "SNP only" tree. Which would basically attach onto the bottom of your diagram:

http://www.kennedydna.com/M222_tree.png

The separation between Z2961+/M222- definitely seems quite deep. If we could get BigY on Leister (M222-, but showing traits of haplotype) then we might be able to spilt out these SNP's a bit better.

-Paul
(DF41+)

jdean
07-08-2014, 01:16 PM
Yes fingers well and truly crossed for a Leister Big Y !!!

You may also be interested in kit no. 43417 in the Walker project.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/walker%20dna%20project%20mtdna%20results

Originally he was tested P312 neg as well as M222 but FTDNA reviewed his SNP tests at my suggestion, I was extremely surprised when they insisted he was still M222 negative as you can imagine !!!

jdean
07-08-2014, 01:24 PM
Just for completeness I thought I'd also post this link as well, which of course you've posted here before.

http://www.kennedydna.com/S474.jpg

David Mc
07-08-2014, 11:14 PM
Just thought I could complicate things a bit further. Because why not? I've been doing a bit of reading on the origins of some of the surnames in DF49xDF23, and discovered that a good few of them may have a French etymology (Allison, Burgess, Noel, Pettit. Note I say "French etymology," and not (necessarily) French origin. The language of the English Court was French from 1066 until the time of Edward III, if I recall my history correctly, so a good many Englishmen would have taken French appellations of one sort or another for one reason or another (place names, vocational names etc.). On the other hand, it could point to Norman origins. If at least some of our DF49* came in with the Normans, it could point to Scandinavian origins, which idea we've been playing with, but it could also open up the horizon to other points of origin. But it might not. As I understand it, the "Normans" of 1066 fame were not limited to the descendants of those Vikings who received lands and titles in Normandy. Jean Manco, on her Ancestral Journeys website writes:

"The army that William the Conqueror brought to Britain included Bretons, Flemings and French, as well as his own Norman barons and their men. The Normans themselves were a mixture. The Germanic Franks had imposed their control on the Gallo-Roman people of Gaul as the Roman Empire crumbled in the West..." (See http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/normans.shtml).

Just exploring the options with this one, (and trying to release some of the frenetic energy that builds up waiting for test results to come in).

David Mc
07-09-2014, 06:54 AM
Jdean, do you have any idea as to the current estimates for DF49*'s age? I've been toying with some ideas, but it occurs to me that without an estimate (even a rough one), I might end up using time that could be better spent exploring other options.

Paul has suggested a possible age of 2,500-3,500 years. I've been working on the assumption that it was older. Just want some clarification, in case I've missed a development somewhere.

Thanks.

Dubhthach
07-09-2014, 08:05 AM
From looking at BigY results there doesn't seem to be any SNP's that are equivalent to DF49. It's a singular under DF13, if you look at DF41 in comparison we have something like 9 SNP's that are appear equivalent to it (eg. all DF41+ men are positive for other 8).

At a minimum we can say then that DF49 "diversified" early, it wasn't caught in a bottleneck where SNP's accumulated before it divided into distinct branches. Given that there are no SNP's so far seen between DF49 and DF13 (after BigY and FGC) it would imply it's old. The question is then how old is DF13. You are probably looking at at least the Bronze Age for both of course the question would be when during the Bronze age.

-Paul
(DF41+)

David Mc
07-09-2014, 08:33 AM
Thanks, Paul. I think jdean had said elsewhere (?) that he suspected DF49 was almost as old as DF13. If that is true, then the age of DF13 will do nicely. The older it is, the more options we have for its place of origin and initial dispersion (stating the obvious, I know). I was guessing at least the Bronze Age, maybe even the Chalcolithic, but I'm too aware of my own limitations to be confident here.

Dubhthach
07-09-2014, 10:09 AM
Well you bump up against the age of L21 itself, obviously TMRCA isn't a science, but generally I've hard ages of 3700-4200 years for L21. Which would put you in the ballpark of 2200BC-1700BC. Some people have been talking about the Beakers as a possible vector for P312 (and thus L21, U152, DF27, DF99, L238 etc.), generally beaker period 2800-1800BC.

The ancient-DNA retrieved in Kromsdorf (Beaker) was R1b-M269 (xU106), they didn't test for P312, some have speculated that this which is earliest R1b in Europe known so far were probably P312 (if not then next bet would be L11 (parent clade of both U106 and P312 and)

-Paul
(DF41+)

jdean
07-09-2014, 10:31 AM
Well there's a coincidence I was just working on a very similar response to Paul's : )

As Paul said there are so far no equivalent SNPs to DF49, despite at least 4 FGC tests that cover the three known branches of DF49 a bunch of Big Y tests that again cover all three branches and 1000 genomes that cover the DF23 branch.

Presumably the safest estimate for the age of DF49 is it's only a little bit younger than DF13.

Currently the SNP counting method is still evolving but folk seem to think this is going to push the estimates based on STR evaluation upward by a bit (but not that much ?)

Personally I've always thought Ken Nordtvedt's interclade method for estimating the age of the MRKA about the best and according to him using two groups of about the same age provides the most accurate results.

So using reasonably large samples of unique confirmed M222 (212) and L1065 (75) haplotypes tested up to 111 loci and popping them into Ken's latest 111 loci spreadsheet (slightly modified to allow for 389 I & II data) produced a range of 140 to 165 generations or about 2600 BC using an average generation gap of 30 yrs.

As I said before the folk working on SNP counting think these estimates will move upward so probably it would be best to consider this a minimum age for DF13 and DF49 being about 2500 BC ?

Dubhthach
07-09-2014, 10:54 AM
There is of course a question is 30 years too much for an average generation gap over such a long period (considering lower life expectancy etc.) I'm trying to think if there was a study recently about this but I can't recall, obviously you will see calculations using either 25 or 30 as an average.

-Paul

jdean
07-09-2014, 11:38 AM
There is of course a question is 30 years too much for an average generation gap over such a long period (considering lower life expectancy etc.) I'm trying to think if there was a study recently about this but I can't recall, obviously you will see calculations using either 25 or 30 as an average.

-Paul

Yes the controversy still rages over those dates, personally I think 30 yrs is a little too short : )

There are relatively recent studies of contemporary hunter gather societies and they found these groups had very similar age per generation to other groups.

A point about low age expectancy that made sense to me is the average was driven down by people who died in childhood and early adulthood (still a risky period) but these people didn't contribute to your ancestors.

From a personal observation of my own tree (and other UK based research) it appears most men didn't settle down and marry until about the age of 30 (going back to the 16th C. but also supported in the studies). My 10 x great-grandfather was born about 1540 (just prior to the start of parish records where he lived but based on the birth of his eldest son) which gives about 36 yrs per generation in my case (lot of youngest sons of youngest sons : )

jdean
07-09-2014, 01:48 PM
Article quoting a few studies into generation length.

http://www.ancestry.ca/learn/learningcenters/default.aspx?section=lib_Generation

alan
07-09-2014, 03:17 PM
I also think that for the Bronze Age to Medieval period that 30 years may be acceptable. I say that because it seems clear that the y DNA of western Europe was spawned by a relatively small amount of men who caused major branching. Now I realise this is partly down to multiple partners but I would also tend to think that

a. The elite would have longer lifespans and therefore longer breeding spans than the norm

b. The survival rate of males into breeding age was likely better than the population norm due to food resource hogging and better overall conditions

A longer breeding span could have driven up the average generation age as sons could have been born to a father over a long span of time which would bring up the average age a given male's father was at the time of his birth. It also might be that only on succession to some sort of chiefship did an elite individual get the chance to step up the breeding. If most of the surviving lines relate to elites then this could be a major consideration for suggesting a generation age a little on the older side.

The closest I can think of resolving this is to look at the late survival of kinship lineage systems that we see in Medieval Scotland and Ireland and look at the typical age of death for the kings and clan chiefs. I am sure that for Ireland at least the annals, genealogies and other sources would provide at least the possibility of getting some statistics on this for the Medieval era. I know its not a perfect proxy for the Bronze or Iron Ages but it is about as close as we can get. We do know from classical sources that the Gauls also had a similar social structure with secular nobility, a druidical class, peasants and slaves as well as the use of clientship and obsession with bloodlines. We know they were more developed and had larger polities, coinage and some proto-urban settlements etc so in a sense they were probably most comparable with Ireland c. 1100 then Ireland c. 500AD. That is not a bad thing IMO as the potential data for elite lineages in Ireland get betters as time goes on.

alan
07-09-2014, 03:56 PM
Here are some examples of the very top of he pre-Norman Irish elite - the provincial kings who became high kings -

Brian Boru lived into his mid 70s. He was a provincial king then high king from the age of about 37 though to the age of around 74. He had at least 4 known wives and 10 recorded children. His grandsson Turlough who also became high king lived to 77. Muirchertach the son of the latter lived to the age of c. 69. Again he had become a king of a province by his mid 30s and later high king.

Turlough O'Connor lived into his 70s and was an important king of a provance then high king over a span of 50 years from the age of 18 to 68. He has 6 known wives - I think sequentially and he had at 20 odd known sons.

These are examples of the very top of the Irish hierachy in the most developed period of pre-Norman society so they are probably a little extreme. However they do show that at the top of the pyramid these guys lived to ripe old ages, had many wives and children but often didnt approach the upper end of the pyramid until their 30s. These kind of players likely had an extraordinary out of proportion impact on spawning male lineages.

So, if many of today's L21 lineages are from the uppermost strata of society then it must be noted that high power maybe didnt often come young and that these guys lived to ripe old ages and tended to have serial wives who died much younger and retained a wive until ripe old ages - presumably a lot younger than them. These silver foxes must be taken into account when thinking of average generation length for Celtic fringe L21 lineages in particular. It also makes you wonder if this habit of the very top kings living into modern retirement kind of ages and having a series of wives would not also increase the mutation rate due to the age they were when they had their final children at a fairly old age. Also note that the annals and geneaologies will by no means pick up all of the offspring of a king and the Irish laws allow for multiple wives (although with one head wife) and many grades of concubines. So, known numbers of sons may be well short of the real total.

jdean
07-09-2014, 03:57 PM
Cheers for the input Alan, as you've mentioned a few times the problem with the younger age estimates is they don't sit well with the extraordinary spread of P312.

Got to be honest though I'm not entirely convinced this need be explained by elites, I've been watching a fictionalization of the War of the Roses recently and its occurred to me if you wanted to see your grandchildren in those days you be better placed in middle management : )

alan
07-09-2014, 04:26 PM
Further to my examples of Irish high kings ages, marriage and offspring just posted, it must also be recalled that L21 is kind of unique in that so much of it falls into the very areas where clan and deep lineage systems of a Celtic type continued very late. So, it may have sustained peculiar characteristics such massive top-down lineage expansion as well as bigger average generation spans inherent in that sort of system. The Roman's smashed any similar systems that existed among the continental Celts and probably Lowland Britain too c. 2000 years ago while the 'Celtic fringe' peoples kept a system until 275-500 years ago meaning the effect of these super-breeder chiefly lineages was much longer sustained and more drastic. The shocking truth might be that these Medieval Celtic fringe super-lineages of randy silver fox kings having tons of sons could have meant that the surviving average father to son generation spans was really surprisingly high - perhaps well over 30. It cannot be overstated how unusual this system of breeding your own private army with all sons part of the clan regardless of whether legitimate or illegitimate was incredibly out of steppe with the Feudal system where marriage rules were more strict and more than one son was considered a problem dealt with by packing them off on crusades, trying to gain more lands or pushing them in the direction of the church. This contrast continues late. I am familiar with British and Irish upper class estates of c. 1600-1900 through historical research and far from being superbreeders, they often had few surviving children and their main male lines kept going extinct after a few generations leading to it passing through the daughter.

jdean
07-09-2014, 04:36 PM
Talking of Romans, it occurred to me M222 and L1065 may have arrived in Britain as refugee tribes fleeing the Romans ? Both groups seem to have a common ancestor around the 200 AD to dot mark and have long strings of equivalent SNPs to their name.

Dubhthach
07-09-2014, 07:16 PM
Here are some examples of the very top of he pre-Norman Irish elite - the provincial kings who became high kings -

Brian Boru lived into his mid 70s. He was a provincial king then high king from the age of about 37 though to the age of around 74. He had at least 4 known wives and 10 recorded children. His grandsson Turlough who also became high king lived to 77. Muirchertach the son of the latter lived to the age of c. 69. Again he had become a king of a province by his mid 30s and later high king.

Turlough O'Connor lived into his 70s and was an important king of a provance then high king over a span of 50 years from the age of 18 to 68. He has 6 known wives - I think sequentially and he had at 20 odd known sons.

These are examples of the very top of the Irish hierachy in the most developed period of pre-Norman society so they are probably a little extreme. However they do show that at the top of the pyramid these guys lived to ripe old ages, had many wives and children but often didnt approach the upper end of the pyramid until their 30s. These kind of players likely had an extraordinary out of proportion impact on spawning male lineages.

So, if many of today's L21 lineages are from the uppermost strata of society then it must be noted that high power maybe didnt often come young and that these guys lived to ripe old ages and tended to have serial wives who died much younger and retained a wive until ripe old ages - presumably a lot younger than them. These silver foxes must be taken into account when thinking of average generation length for Celtic fringe L21 lineages in particular. It also makes you wonder if this habit of the very top kings living into modern retirement kind of ages and having a series of wives would not also increase the mutation rate due to the age they were when they had their final children at a fairly old age. Also note that the annals and geneaologies will by no means pick up all of the offspring of a king and the Irish laws allow for multiple wives (although with one head wife) and many grades of concubines. So, known numbers of sons may be well short of the real total.

Not necessarily multiple wives at same time as oppose to divorce. There's an english account from 15th/16th century which claims that 90% of marriages among the "Gentry" in Munster were civil so that the relevant parties could avail of divorce (see Nicholl: Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the Middle Ages). You find accounts of men on 4th marriage marrying woman on their third marriage. There's at least two famous case of "noble/royal women" been married to different kings who were enemies (obvioulsy not at same time). Gormlaith (Gormfhlaith) for example who was married in turn to:


Amlaíb Cuarán (Óláfr kváran) Norse-Gael king of Dublin (d. 981 in Iona)
Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill -- High King of Ireland of Southern Uí Néill (Clann Cholmáin) who had defeated Amlaíb forces at battle of Tara in 980
Brian Boru


Anyways a good extract that I've reposted many times from "Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the Middle ages" (I transcribed it so I probably have spelling mistakes in it)



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 phenomenon, 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 possession of at least three-quarters of the total soil of Fermanagh, having displaced or reduced the clans which had previously held it. The rate at which an Irish clan could multiply itself must not be underestimated. Turlough 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 sons 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.


As you can see with example of Burke above even the Cambro-Norman's got in on the act. Here is a image I saw which has details on "Turlough of the Wine" in this case the text is in Irish followed by translation into English.

http://www.familyhistoryireland.com/media/k2/items/cache/2ff2ba0051687eef5ca0459cf942940c_XL.jpg

-Paul

Dubhthach
07-09-2014, 07:31 PM
Regarding length of Rule there is an interesting list in "Age of Atrocity: Violence and Political Conflict in Early Modern Ireland"

Table 4: The passing of the old order, 1511-20



Ruler's name
Death
Title
Length of Rule


Murrough Ballach Kavanagh
1511
king of Leinster
35 years


Cathair O'Connor Faly
1511
lord of Offaly
37 years


Niall Mór O'Neill
1512
lord of Clandeboy
30 years


Garret Mór Fitzgerald
1513
8th earl of Kildare
35 years


Rossa MacMahon
1513
lord of Oriel
16 years


Thomas Butler
1515
7th earl of Ormond
38 years


Phelim O'Connor Sligo
1519
lord of Carbry
24 years


Maurice Bacach Fitzgerald
1520
10th earl of Desmond
33 years



Another interesting table which for example shows the fact that violence within families was quite common is below:

Table 3: Causes of death of Irish rulers, 1501-40


Date:
Died Peacefully
Killed by Kin
Killed by others


1501-10
68
27
29


1511-20
60
14
64


1521-30
38
22
31


1531-40
32
31
40



Both these tables are specifically in the essay "The escalation of violence in sixteenth-century Ireland" by David Edwards.

David Mc
07-09-2014, 08:27 PM
Thank you all so much! So here’s why I asked for the dates. Please note, this is just an exploratory exercise, and I’m happy to hear alternative points of view.

If the minimum age for DF13 and DF49 is set at about 2500 BC, as David has suggested, then the following model could open up some interesting possibilities, I think. I’ll be using Jean Manco’s model for the spread of R-L21 as the backdrop to what follows.

If the Rhenish Beaker Folk (2700-2000 BC) carried R1b/M269/R-L21 west down the Rhine, as seems likely, and DF49 appeared somewhere around 2500 BC, it is conceivable DF49’s first homeland was somewhere around the mouth of the Rhine.

The following map (Jean’s) points to this being the location from which the Rhenish Beaker People went in different directions:

2063

Note that some are show crossing the channel to the British Isles, while others go north towards Denmark and Norway. The next map shows some of the Beaker hotspots in these countries:

2064

Is it feasible, then, that the DF49 branch that accompanied the Beaker folk into Britain was DF23, with some of DF23 remaining on the continent and spreading south into what would become Gaul, while DF49xDF23 travelled north into Denmark and Norway?

I realise it is impossible to give a solid affirmation given the lack of testing for subclades under R-L21 in Scandinavian countries, but again, this is just an exploratory exercise, and it’s one of the only ways I can envision later DF49* people coming to Britain from Scandinavia (if they did).

What about statistics? Do they support a northward versus southwestward movement of R-L21? Looking at Busby and Myres statistics for R-L21 below, one can see how the haplogroup’s history may have unfolded in northern Europe:

Netherlands: 5.7%
Friesland: 5.3%
Germany East: 2.1%
Germany West: 1%
Germany North: 3.1%
Denmark Southeast: 4.1%
Sweden South (Malmo): 7.2%
Denmark North: 9.5%

Note the drop in R-L21 as one moves north from the Netherlands towards Germany and then the rise again as one moves towards northern Denmark. U106 largely displaces R-L21 in Germany, but R-L21 remained strong in the South (France) and maintained a foothold of some kind in the north, particularly in Denmark and South Sweden. Eventually they were assimilated into a wider Germanic culture, as well, but they seem to have survived quite well when compared to their immediate neighbors to the south.

If the above model is viable, we may have an idea as to how DF49xDF23 comes into the Isles as a separate and later intrusion. The two most likely periods would seem to be during the early migration period, with the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes and/or the during the later migration period with the Vikings.

I know that this is “spit-balling” to some extent as we don’t have enough hard data, but I’d appreciate your thoughts.

alan
07-09-2014, 09:33 PM
I think the core problem of finding origin point of L21 or indeed the first people of any clade or subclade is that by definition it starts with one guy. If the mutation occurs when the lineage is on the move geographically then very few of the clade may remain at origin point. The way I look at is clades underwent expansion when opportunity allowed. I think there would have been a tendency for opportunity to knock when a geographical move was made and gave someone or some line virgin territory to expand in - back at origin the opportunities may have been sewn up.

I think the apparent fact that P312 is divided into three major blocks which have very marked differences in geography suggests that P312 was geographically expanding at the same time as it was branching. There are other possibilities but IMO it does hint at that.

Applying the beaker model focused on a clan of people with a grip on metalworking, trading etc does fit quite well IMO. If P312 was spreading out across Europe and largely being welcomed in places where their skills were wanted or even previously unknown then I suspect that branching represents someone or their clan finding a geographical niche in which they could expand due to demand for their skills. IMO L21 looks like it hit one of the jackpots by arriving in areas like the English Channel part of the continent, NW France and the isles where they found areas with both metal ores occurring and no pre-existing groups exploiting them. It was also an area where marine travel was natural and that was far better than land travel in those days.

U152 most likely found a niche in the Alps. Pre-beaker metallurgy did exist among Corded Ware groups but they seem to have relied especially on ore from the Carpathians which may have put people in west-central Europe rather down the chain. If they founded or controlled new sources in the northern Alps etc then they may have got their niche that way.

DF27 has a distribution suggestive of SW European Iberia-centred exploitation and distribution of ore.

Certainly the three main poles of metal sources in Europe in the copper age during the beaker period were Atlantic Iberia, NW Atlantic and west-central Europe. It seems too much of a coincidence that those are respectively the focuses of DF27, L21 and U152. Especially when some date the origins of those major divisions to the beaker period.

That leaves close cousin U106 as unclear. There has been debate on where it is oldest with many seeing east-central Europe as likely. Its obviously not an open shut deal. However, I tend to look at where they may have found an early niche within the beaker network. The Amber Road from the Baltic to the Austria-Hungary border area could be a possibility for a Bronze Age route that U106 could have controlled.

http://derstandard.at/1227288656187/Die-Route

I wonder too about the Csepel beaker group in Hungary. Noone really has tried to identify a lineage for this group near Budapest who seem likely to be a trading pocket living on islands. I cant see what they would be doing there if it were not something to do with Carpathian metals.

alan
07-09-2014, 10:16 PM
Another pattern I see in L21 is that it increases with access to the north-west European seas and falls away from there. No doubt the pattern has been modified by later movements but there is still a strong suggestion that L21 may have ruled the north-western waves.

Although we tend to think of Scandinavia as an area of advanced boats, they actually appear to have been well behind Britain and the channel coast of the continent in maritime technology 4000 years ago at the end of the beaker period. Scandinavian boats seem to have had evolved out of late log boats. There move towards the amazing clinker built boats was slow. They also were very late to the sail compared to the Celts who probably encountered the idea through contacts with the Phoenicians in SW Iberia c. 1100BC (I suspect this innovation may have led to the sudden appearance of trading with the isles and NW France soon after).

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260575623_Nordic_Maritime_Evolution


Thank you all so much! So here’s why I asked for the dates. Please note, this is just an exploratory exercise, and I’m happy to hear alternative points of view.

If the minimum age for DF13 and DF49 is set at about 2500 BC, as David has suggested, then the following model could open up some interesting possibilities, I think. I’ll be using Jean Manco’s model for the spread of R-L21 as the backdrop to what follows.

If the Rhenish Beaker Folk (2700-2000 BC) carried R1b/M269/R-L21 west down the Rhine, as seems likely, and DF49 appeared somewhere around 2500 BC, it is conceivable DF49’s first homeland was somewhere around the mouth of the Rhine.

The following map (Jean’s) points to this being the location from which the Rhenish Beaker People went in different directions:

2063

Note that some are show crossing the channel to the British Isles, while others go north towards Denmark and Norway. The next map shows some of the Beaker hotspots in these countries:

2064

Is it feasible, then, that the DF49 branch that accompanied the Beaker folk into Britain was DF23, with some of DF23 remaining on the continent and spreading south into what would become Gaul, while DF49xDF23 travelled north into Denmark and Norway?

I realise it is impossible to give a solid affirmation given the lack of testing for subclades under R-L21 in Scandinavian countries, but again, this is just an exploratory exercise, and it’s one of the only ways I can envision later DF49* people coming to Britain from Scandinavia (if they did).

What about statistics? Do they support a northward versus southwestward movement of R-L21? Looking at Busby and Myres statistics for R-L21 below, one can see how the haplogroup’s history may have unfolded in northern Europe:

Netherlands: 5.7%
Friesland: 5.3%
Germany East: 2.1%
Germany West: 1%
Germany North: 3.1%
Denmark Southeast: 4.1%
Sweden South (Malmo): 7.2%
Denmark North: 9.5%

Note the drop in R-L21 as one moves north from the Netherlands towards Germany and then the rise again as one moves towards northern Denmark. U106 largely displaces R-L21 in Germany, but R-L21 remained strong in the South (France) and maintained a foothold of some kind in the north, particularly in Denmark and South Sweden. Eventually they were assimilated into a wider Germanic culture, as well, but they seem to have survived quite well when compared to their immediate neighbors to the south.

If the above model is viable, we may have an idea as to how DF49xDF23 comes into the Isles as a separate and later intrusion. The two most likely periods would seem to be during the early migration period, with the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes and/or the during the later migration period with the Vikings.

I know that this is “spit-balling” to some extent as we don’t have enough hard data, but I’d appreciate your thoughts.

alan
07-09-2014, 10:34 PM
Certainly it can be seen that a lot of the top of the pile big kings had a long rule that must have taken many well into middle age and even old age by modern standards. So, they could well have been begating sons for a long period. That seems like more evidence that the average age of the father of royal sons might have been quite high. Lets say a lot of them seem likely to have been putting it about from 20-60 which would make the average age of sons possibly knocking on the door of middle age i.e. around 40. Obviously the people you and I have cited are very powerful people but then again the theory - which seems well supported - that they provided a huge amount of the next generation of males thereby pushing from the top down means the top of the elite had a way out of portion impact to their small numbers. That pattern seems well testified in the 500-1600AD era so such a system had at least 1000 years of dominance - maybe 30 generations of it. So, again I would suggest that places like Ireland, Celtic Scotland and Wales who had these kinds of lineage systems for very long times probably had higher average generation spans between a father and a son who survived to form a surviving line. I would comfortably say the average would have been at least 30 and I wouldnt have a heart attack if it proved to be even bigger than that. As you posted, it was a top-down squeeze with the poor probably barely able to keep a surviving male line going.

I would also still wonder what the mutation rate effect would be with those silver fox kings having sons deep into middle age and beyond.

I have to say I am fascinated by the Gaelic system but by god I am glad not to have lived in it - unless I was king/head poet/brehon or some cushy number like that :0)


Regarding length of Rule there is an interesting list in "Age of Atrocity: Violence and Political Conflict in Early Modern Ireland"

Table 4: The passing of the old order, 1511-20



Ruler's name
Death
Title
Length of Rule


Murrough Ballach Kavanagh
1511
king of Leinster
35 years


Cathair O'Connor Faly
1511
lord of Offaly
37 years


Niall Mór O'Neill
1512
lord of Clandeboy
30 years


Garret Mór Fitzgerald
1513
8th earl of Kildare
35 years


Rossa MacMahon
1513
lord of Oriel
16 years


Thomas Butler
1515
7th earl of Ormond
38 years


Phelim O'Connor Sligo
1519
lord of Carbry
24 years


Maurice Bacach Fitzgerald
1520
10th earl of Desmond
33 years



Another interesting table which for example shows the fact that violence within families was quite common is below:

Table 3: Causes of death of Irish rulers, 1501-40


Date:
Died Peacefully
Killed by Kin
Killed by others


1501-10
68
27
29


1511-20
60
14
64


1521-30
38
22
31


1531-40
32
31
40



Both these tables are specifically in the essay "The escalation of violence in sixteenth-century Ireland" by David Edwards.

David Mc
07-09-2014, 11:14 PM
Rory Cain, I think, had wondered along the same lines with regard to some of the groupings that appear in Ireland. Some have argued that the Belgic Menapii migrated en masse to escape the twin pressures of the Romans to the south and the Chauci to the north. Then there are the possibilities of former auxiliary units (often drawn from tribal groupings) finishing their service and taking lands of their own.


Talking of Romans, it occurred to me M222 and L1065 may have arrived in Britain as refugee tribes fleeing the Romans ? Both groups seem to have a common ancestor around the 200 AD to dot mark and have long strings of equivalent SNPs to their name.

alan
07-10-2014, 01:52 AM
On new thing that I found out only recently is that Koch derives the Irish name of the Leinstermen, Laigin, from Latin Legion. It had defied plausible Celtic derivation so I think that is a very interesting possibility and ties in nicely with the Leinster concentration of external sounding tribal names like Menapii, Brigantes, Coriondi and Domnainn as well as apparently Romano-British pagan elements in the Leinster literary cycle and archaeological evidence for Romano-British material concentrated in Leinster. I think its highly probably that there were several incursions into Leinster from 0 to 200AD. Not exclusively Leinster but concentrated there.


Rory Cain, I think, had wondered along the same lines with regard to some of the groupings that appear in Ireland. Some have argued that the Belgic Menapii migrated en masse to escape the twin pressures of the Romans to the south and the Chauci to the north. Then there are the possibilities of former auxiliary units (often drawn from tribal groupings) finishing their service and taking lands of their own.

David Mc
07-10-2014, 05:16 AM
Jersey can be added to that list as well, he's an interesting case too as he appears to be DF49* though I need to get my sticky mitts on his raw data to be sure. Most likely a Z2980 should be ordered as well as this position normally doesn't show up in Big Y tests at all.

I missed this the first time around. Does Z2980 show up sometimes, then? I had assumed it had originally been uncovered in the Big-Y results.

David Mc
07-10-2014, 05:35 AM
Another pattern I see in L21 is that it increases with access to the north-west European seas and falls away from there. No doubt the pattern has been modified by later movements but there is still a strong suggestion that L21 may have ruled the north-western waves.

Although we tend to think of Scandinavia as an area of advanced boats, they actually appear to have been well behind Britain and the channel coast of the continent in maritime technology 4000 years ago at the end of the beaker period. Scandinavian boats seem to have had evolved out of late log boats. There move towards the amazing clinker built boats was slow. They also were very late to the sail compared to the Celts who probably encountered the idea through contacts with the Phoenicians in SW Iberia c. 1100BC (I suspect this innovation may have led to the sudden appearance of trading with the isles and NW France soon after).

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260575623_Nordic_Maritime_Evolution

I'm afraid I wasn't able to access the linked journal, but how do you understand the development of the sewn-plank boats like the Hjortspring boat? Rock carvings generally classified as being Bronze Age seem to suggest that the same style of vessel had been used for a very long time. Of course, they could have originally been dugout canoes, as well, finally evolving into the sewn-plank and then the clinker-built vessels. Or do you see these being a possible result of the cultural exchange between Beaker and earlier groups?

jdean
07-10-2014, 07:49 AM
I missed this the first time around. Does Z2980 show up sometimes, then? I had assumed it had originally been uncovered in the Big-Y results.

Z2980 doesn't tend to show up in Big Y results, I've seen a few M222 kits with a return for it but generally it's missed.

We knew it was above M222 from David Reynold's research into the Z29xx SNPs but were only able to work out it's exact position via the FGC tests.

Most likely Mr Marsh's Big Y results won't include Z2980 so a test for that SNP would likely be necessary to work out were he sits in the tree, assuming of course there isn't something else hidden away in his raw data.

Dubhthach
07-10-2014, 07:54 AM
Certainly it can be seen that a lot of the top of the pile big kings had a long rule that must have taken many well into middle age and even old age by modern standards. So, they could well have been begating sons for a long period. That seems like more evidence that the average age of the father of royal sons might have been quite high. Lets say a lot of them seem likely to have been putting it about from 20-60 which would make the average age of sons possibly knocking on the door of middle age i.e. around 40. Obviously the people you and I have cited are very powerful people but then again the theory - which seems well supported - that they provided a huge amount of the next generation of males thereby pushing from the top down means the top of the elite had a way out of portion impact to their small numbers. That pattern seems well testified in the 500-1600AD era so such a system had at least 1000 years of dominance - maybe 30 generations of it. So, again I would suggest that places like Ireland, Celtic Scotland and Wales who had these kinds of lineage systems for very long times probably had higher average generation spans between a father and a son who survived to form a surviving line. I would comfortably say the average would have been at least 30 and I wouldnt have a heart attack if it proved to be even bigger than that. As you posted, it was a top-down squeeze with the poor probably barely able to keep a surviving male line going.

I would also still wonder what the mutation rate effect would be with those silver fox kings having sons deep into middle age and beyond.

I have to say I am fascinated by the Gaelic system but by god I am glad not to have lived in it - unless I was king/head poet/brehon or some cushy number like that :0)

Well in sense the "poor" (eg. peasants) weren't actually badly treated. For example it was regarded as nearly taboo to kill non-combants such as peasants in their fields. In the above quoted book (Age of Atrocity: Violence and Political Conflict in Early Modern Ireland) it basically says that the "Gaelic Intelligentsia" (my coinage) were deeply shocked by the killing of peasants in their fields by Tudor "incursions"/"raids" etc by the Dublin castle regime. Of course that concern only really sense went for the intentional killing of "civilians" the same lords etc didn't have any problems carrying out Cattle Raids/Scorched earth raids (burning of crops) which often inadvertently led to starvation.

If you read Nicholl I think the section of society that was perhaps most at risk of the "expanding top down displacement" of ruling classes were the likes of "Freeholders" etc. These obvioulsy held their own land but had to pay tribute ("protection money"/accommodation and entertainment for the Lord and his troop certain number of nights during year/accommodation & food for certain number of troops etc.). Usually as ruling lineage expanded this group (not really the "Middle classes") would get squeezed. The peasants were basically just tenanat farmers so it was basically "say goodbye to old boss, say hello to new boss".

I believe that Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh (author of Leabhar na nGenealach) wrote in the 17th century dismissively of "churls" that they didn't even know who their great-great-grandfather was. In a society where your eligibility to be elected lord depended on been in 4-generation kin group (descended from a previous ruler) knowing your genealogy was essential to keeping one's position. :)

-Paul

jdean
07-10-2014, 08:03 AM
Rory Cain, I think, had wondered along the same lines with regard to some of the groupings that appear in Ireland. Some have argued that the Belgic Menapii migrated en masse to escape the twin pressures of the Romans to the south and the Chauci to the north. Then there are the possibilities of former auxiliary units (often drawn from tribal groupings) finishing their service and taking lands of their own.

Yep that's another possibility. Been a while since I've looked into the Scots Modal but I'm sure Mike Walsh pointed out it looked oldest in the North of England, as well, which was the Roman Britain frontier

alan
07-10-2014, 03:57 PM
Its a pity you cant open that. I couldnt open it myself till I did it a certain way. Anyway the upshot is the smart money is now on the nordic style of boat building to have essentially evolved from logboats - and it is the latter that are shown on some famous prehistoric Rock carvings. The idea is that they slowly added overlaping wooding boards to raise the height of logboats and eventually they morphed into clinker built ships. In the isles and northern France etc boats took a different evolution and first we hear that area featured both sewn plank boats from c. 2000BC and skin boats are also attested in some of the earliest records c. 6th century BC and probably have a deep history and then you have the classic Veneti type boats. It also seems clear that the sail arrived in that zone relatively early in the late Bronze Age - most likely influenced by Iberians in contact with Phoenicians. In comparison Scandinavia seemed to have a tradition of logboats becoming elaborated to make them more seaworthy and they didnt take up the sail until the historic period, long after its use had caught on among the Celts. They became masters but they were slow starters.

When we try and think through the reasons why boat traditions go different ways I think availability and relative 'cheapness' of materials may have been a factor. Log boats are bound to remain a more viable model where there are forests with huge trees. Parts of Scandinavia long retained massive pines with diameters over a metre. On the other hand Scandinavia also was agriculturally margin in many areas and the cost of using cattle skins may have been a lot more than wood. This may have contrasted with other areas where massive trees would have been less plentiful but cattle plentiful and 'cheap' which might have encouraged the skin boat tradition. I dont think any remains of seaworthy vessels exists in northern Europe before 2000BC which makes me think that the predecessors of the sewn plank boats were boats of skin in a wicker frame - a type that is unlikely to survive. Its clear that some sort of seaworthy boats existed around the isles in the Neolithic.


I'm afraid I wasn't able to access the linked journal, but how do you understand the development of the sewn-plank boats like the Hjortspring boat? Rock carvings generally classified as being Bronze Age seem to suggest that the same style of vessel had been used for a very long time. Of course, they could have originally been dugout canoes, as well, finally evolving into the sewn-plank and then the clinker-built vessels. Or do you see these being a possible result of the cultural exchange between Beaker and earlier groups?

alan
07-10-2014, 04:17 PM
I was once in the Dublinia museum and it was striking that the population of towns like Dublin lived in a little bubble mainsteam European type urban commerce, trading etc such as you would find in trading towns across northern Europe. Just a very different world from most of Ireland. Reminded me of the lifestyle seen in Jorvic centre in York and the Hanseatic type Medieval world. I dont know what way of life would have been better if you had to go back to the Medieval world. The immediate pre-Norman period in Ireland where the Viking towns had been absorbed, kings were very powerful, coinage had come into being etc is one of those great 'what if' periods where you wonder how the Irish would have developed if the Normans hadnt come in. Possibly Scotland gives an idea of the way Ireland could have headed towards a more centralised state by absorbing a lot of mainstream European ideas without actually being conquered.


Well in sense the "poor" (eg. peasants) weren't actually badly treated. For example it was regarded as nearly taboo to kill non-combants such as peasants in their fields. In the above quoted book (Age of Atrocity: Violence and Political Conflict in Early Modern Ireland) it basically says that the "Gaelic Intelligentsia" (my coinage) were deeply shocked by the killing of peasants in their fields by Tudor "incursions"/"raids" etc by the Dublin castle regime. Of course that concern only really sense went for the intentional killing of "civilians" the same lords etc didn't have any problems carrying out Cattle Raids/Scorched earth raids (burning of crops) which often inadvertently led to starvation.

If you read Nicholl I think the section of society that was perhaps most at risk of the "expanding top down displacement" of ruling classes were the likes of "Freeholders" etc. These obvioulsy held their own land but had to pay tribute ("protection money"/accommodation and entertainment for the Lord and his troop certain number of nights during year/accommodation & food for certain number of troops etc.). Usually as ruling lineage expanded this group (not really the "Middle classes") would get squeezed. The peasants were basically just tenanat farmers so it was basically "say goodbye to old boss, say hello to new boss".

I believe that Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh (author of Leabhar na nGenealach) wrote in the 17th century dismissively of "churls" that they didn't even know who their great-great-grandfather was. In a society where your eligibility to be elected lord depended on been in 4-generation kin group (descended from a previous ruler) knowing your genealogy was essential to keeping one's position. :)

-Paul

David Mc
07-10-2014, 09:13 PM
Yep that's another possibility. Been a while since I've looked into the Scots Modal but I'm sure Mike Walsh pointed out it looked oldest in the North of England, as well, which was the Roman Britain frontier

This ties in rather nicely with the earlier migration option I suggested in my hypothetical model (post # 37). The Angles, Saxons, and Frisians were a few of the groups the Romans brought into Britain as foederati. If there was a Vortigern in real life who invited the Saxons in as a buffer against the Picts et al. he was simply strengthening communities of foderati who were already firmly ensconced in the north and in the eastern coast lands of Britain. The Batavians were, interestingly, a mixture of both Germanic Chauci and old Menapii. Carausius, who died while trying to establish himself as Emperor of Britain, was Menapian.

Again, this is about possibilities, not probabilities. I still wonder if the STR diversity in DF49 points to an even later migration, but maybe the early migration period is late enough to accommodate this. Is anyone able to do the maths here?

David Mc
07-10-2014, 09:16 PM
More importantly (to me) does post #37 look like a workable hypothesis for DF49*'s expansion-- granting we don't have enough data to actually pitch our tents on it?

David Mc
07-11-2014, 08:58 PM
Yes fingers well and truly crossed for a Leister Big Y !!!

You may also be interested in kit no. 43417 in the Walker project.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/walker%20dna%20project%20mtdna%20results


Originally he was tested P312 neg as well as M222 but FTDNA reviewed his SNP tests at my suggestion, I was extremely surprised when they insisted he was still M222 negative as you can imagine !!!

So is it possible we're actually seeing a backwards mutation from M222 to DF23? I don't even now if that's possible, but he clearly looks like he fits into the Walker M222 cluster.

David Mc
07-15-2014, 12:42 AM
I’ve been looking again at the McElrea Project members’ 37 marker matches. With the exception of one person, our only matches are McElrea/Mylrea names. That one person, though, has matches with a Reid (FTDNA 134731) and a Reed (FTDNA 178647). You can find them here:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/reed/default.aspx?section=yresults

Both of these show up as R-P311. I’m wondering if anyone can tell from the results page if they have been designated this way because they’ve tested negative for clades below R-P311, or if they simply haven’t done any further testing. Their STRs diverge from ours in odd ways, so it might just be a false match, but I was wondering if they could still be DF49.

Cheers,

David

David Mc
07-15-2014, 05:56 AM
As an addendum to the above, I've been in contact with William Reid, and would appreciate any advice on further testing. I don't want to ask him to test for DF49 if he clearly isn't. Does he fit within the parameters? The 11-12 at DYS385 kind of threw me, but we have Burgess and Pettit who have 11-11 at the same marker. Thanks in advance.

jdean
07-15-2014, 05:08 PM
As an addendum to the above, I've been in contact with William Reid, and would appreciate any advice on further testing. I don't want to ask him to test for DF49 if he clearly isn't. Does he fit within the parameters? The 11-12 at DYS385 kind of threw me, but we have Burgess and Pettit who have 11-11 at the same marker. Thanks in advance.

Hard to say David, they aren't clearly DF49- but then again they aren't clearly DF49+ either.

One of the closest matches I could find (GD wise) was kit no. 86086 in the Z253 project, if you can call 12 off at 67 close. However this gent has a hoplotype pretty close to WAMH.

All said and done, though they do look reasonable candidates for L21 I think I'd advice testing that first before trying for downstream SNPs, or Chromo2.

David Mc
07-15-2014, 06:30 PM
Thanks very much, David. I'll suggest he begins with L21, and we'll see what happens from there. If he comes back positive, I'll point him towards the R-L21 Project, as well.

David Mc
07-29-2014, 11:28 PM
I just found out that the first Mylrea has also tested DF49+. It isn't a surprise, but it's nice to have the final confirmation.

jdean
07-29-2014, 11:52 PM
I just found out that the first Mylrea has also tested DF49+. It isn't a surprise, but it's nice to have the final confirmation.

Good news : )

David Mc
10-10-2014, 07:58 PM
So my Big-Y results finally came through... now to figure out what they have to tell us!

dp
10-10-2014, 09:09 PM
So my Big-Y results finally came through... now to figure out what they have to tell us!

Ditto !!!
dp :-)

David Mc
10-10-2014, 09:59 PM
Congrats, David!

David Mc
10-12-2014, 07:23 PM
So Dave has moved the McElreas (of Manx origins) from "vanilla" DF49* to ZP20* We join Officer from Scotland, Allred and Perry from England, Kendall (presumably English, as well), and Johnson, origins unknown-- a geographically diverse group, although still confined to the British Isles at present. I can only assume by the wide variance in STRs that ZP20 is also quite old. Fingers crossed that someday, somehow we'll hit the genetic jackpot either in some obscure British mountain valley or on the continent and get a better idea where we come from!

dp
10-13-2014, 05:53 PM
Dear David,
I can believe that ZP20 is of venerable antiquity because its members dont appear to have z2980. It will be interesting to see what the coalescence estimates will come out for the various SNPs under DF49.
dp :-)

David Mc
10-15-2014, 04:21 AM
So here is a list of DF49xDF23 names, gathered from the DF49 Projects results page and organized into earliest known place of origin with notes. I keep on re-examining it, wondering if there's some pattern to be discerned that might suggest its origins, but I'm still largely stumped:

England
Allred
Biddick
Burgess
Culver
Harrison
Holladay
Kendall
Perry
Pettit
Pruett/Pruitt/Prewit
Stedman

Scotland
Allison
Blair
Gillespie (could be Irish)
Goff
Murray
Officer

Ireland
Byrne
Hopkins
McCabe
McCreary
McGee
Morgan (Welsh?)
O’Dea
Wilson

Isle of Man
McElrea

Sweden
Bengtsson

Unknown
Bowers (English?)
Johnson
Mason
Miller
Noel (French?)
Smith
Thomson

dp
12-01-2014, 10:54 PM
Hey David,
Stopped by Alex W.'s Big-Y L21 Tree (Little Scottish Cluster). He indicates there were 2 rejected SNPs that group me as a sidebranch coming off that formed by that of laurie joyce and Thomas. Looks like I might lose my z2961** status, and finally have a branch to call home. I tried to order the SNPs (ZZ29=20622642T-C, ZZ30=25383948T-G) but FTDNA doesn't have them yet.
dp :-)

David Mc
12-02-2014, 12:44 AM
Congratulations! It's great to see some of us getting some traction finally.

dp
12-06-2014, 05:08 PM
In Mike W's Big-Y comparison spreadsheet Joyce [N108400] & Thomas [B2944] share 21 SNPs. To figure out their MRCA
21*one mutation per 268.5 years(*)=5,638 ybp.
What do you all think?
dp :-)

(*) = Pille Hallast et al., The Y-chromosome tree bursts into leaf: 13,000 high-confidence SNPs covering the majority of known clades, Molecular Biology & Evolution, Advance Access published December 2, 2014.; [pg 20 in the pdf]
am I reading the mutation rate right?
I'm going to have to read up on the rho statistic...

David Mc
12-06-2014, 11:59 PM
While your math seems good to me, given the info in the paper, doesn't that push the dates for DF23 back far beyond the previous estimates for DF49 (and even DF13)? I would have guessed at a later MRCA for all of us in DF49...

Dubhthach
12-07-2014, 09:58 AM
At the moment I don't think there is any accepted figure for average time between SNP's occuring in a lineage. I'd imagine we'd need a study containing a couple dozen 4th/5th cousins this way you could at least average out the number of new SNP's to arise in each lineage originating from a common ancestor (in the 19th century?)

jdean
12-07-2014, 12:26 PM
In Mike W's Big-Y comparison spreadsheet Joyce [N108400] & Thomas [B2944] share 21 SNPs. To figure out their MRCA
21*one mutation per 268.5 years(*)=5,638 ybp.
What do you all think?
dp :-)

(*) = Pille Hallast et al., The Y-chromosome tree bursts into leaf: 13,000 high-confidence SNPs covering the majority of known clades, Molecular Biology & Evolution, Advance Access published December 2, 2014.; [pg 20 in the pdf]
am I reading the mutation rate right?
I'm going to have to read up on the rho statistic...

Not that it makes much difference but of the 21 SNPs that we've got (presumably the same set as Mike) one shows up all over the shop so should probably be ignored.

I emailed Alex about these two SNPs, it turns out they are in palendromic zones so he was concerned FTDNA may struggle with producing Sanger tests for them

ZZ29_1 20622642 T C
ZZ29_2 21021527 A G

ZZ30_1 25383948 T G
ZZ30_2 25305197 A C

I've emailed FTDNA about this and they have assured me that they will be able to deal with it but due to the nature of mutations in palindromic zones they won't be able to tell if the mutations are ZZ29_1 or ZZ29_2 and ZZ30_1 or ZZ30_2

Hats off to Alex for spotting these mutations !!!

MacUalraig
12-07-2014, 06:12 PM
In Mike W's Big-Y comparison spreadsheet Joyce [N108400] & Thomas [B2944] share 21 SNPs. To figure out their MRCA
21*one mutation per 268.5 years(*)=5,638 ybp.
What do you all think?
dp :-)

(*) = Pille Hallast et al., The Y-chromosome tree bursts into leaf: 13,000 high-confidence SNPs covering the majority of known clades, Molecular Biology & Evolution, Advance Access published December 2, 2014.; [pg 20 in the pdf]
am I reading the mutation rate right?
I'm going to have to read up on the rho statistic...

That is if you only sequence 3.7Mb like they did. Typical BigYs did 13Mb, my FGC was 22Mb. That's why the actual quote is 'A SCALED rate of one mutation per 268.5 years was used, based on 1.0 x 10-9 mutations/nucleotide/year'.

dp
12-10-2014, 06:35 PM
Thanks.
The scaling aspect was confusing me. It wasn't until later that I started matching the graphics of Big-Y coverage to their's that I noticed differences.
dp :-)

David Mc
04-15-2015, 07:56 PM
Just an update. I still have no idea as to whether my #37 holds any water. The YFull experimental YTree now has DF13 forming 4700 ybp, with the TMRCA at 4200 ybp, and DF49 at 4200 ybp (or roughly 2200 BC). This, at least, still fits in with my very tentative suggestion. Mark Jost has suggested a much later date for DF13, at ca. 1436 BC. If he is right, my model is wrong by default.


Thank you all so much! So here’s why I asked for the dates. Please note, this is just an exploratory exercise, and I’m happy to hear alternative points of view.

If the minimum age for DF13 and DF49 is set at about 2500 BC, as David has suggested, then the following model could open up some interesting possibilities, I think. I’ll be using Jean Manco’s model for the spread of R-L21 as the backdrop to what follows.

If the Rhenish Beaker Folk (2700-2000 BC) carried R1b/M269/R-L21 west down the Rhine, as seems likely, and DF49 appeared somewhere around 2500 BC, it is conceivable DF49’s first homeland was somewhere around the mouth of the Rhine.

The following map (Jean’s) points to this being the location from which the Rhenish Beaker People went in different directions:

2063

Note that some are show crossing the channel to the British Isles, while others go north towards Denmark and Norway. The next map shows some of the Beaker hotspots in these countries:

2064

Is it feasible, then, that the DF49 branch that accompanied the Beaker folk into Britain was DF23, with some of DF23 remaining on the continent and spreading south into what would become Gaul, while DF49xDF23 travelled north into Denmark and Norway?

I realise it is impossible to give a solid affirmation given the lack of testing for subclades under R-L21 in Scandinavian countries, but again, this is just an exploratory exercise, and it’s one of the only ways I can envision later DF49* people coming to Britain from Scandinavia (if they did).

What about statistics? Do they support a northward versus southwestward movement of R-L21? Looking at Busby and Myres statistics for R-L21 below, one can see how the haplogroup’s history may have unfolded in northern Europe:

Netherlands: 5.7%
Friesland: 5.3%
Germany East: 2.1%
Germany West: 1%
Germany North: 3.1%
Denmark Southeast: 4.1%
Sweden South (Malmo): 7.2%
Denmark North: 9.5%

Note the drop in R-L21 as one moves north from the Netherlands towards Germany and then the rise again as one moves towards northern Denmark. U106 largely displaces R-L21 in Germany, but R-L21 remained strong in the South (France) and maintained a foothold of some kind in the north, particularly in Denmark and South Sweden. Eventually they were assimilated into a wider Germanic culture, as well, but they seem to have survived quite well when compared to their immediate neighbors to the south.

If the above model is viable, we may have an idea as to how DF49xDF23 comes into the Isles as a separate and later intrusion. The two most likely periods would seem to be during the early migration period, with the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes and/or the during the later migration period with the Vikings.

I know that this is “spit-balling” to some extent as we don’t have enough hard data, but I’d appreciate your thoughts.

Laurie McCreary-Burke
09-18-2015, 09:26 PM
This discussion is very interesting. I am co-administrator of the McCreary DNA project at FTDNA. My father is one of a group of McCrearys who are DF49+ DF23-. We share SNPs downstream from DF49 with Blair, McKinney and McWilliams (BY2606..By2627). We share our very rare STR signature 49z43813 with the aforementioned surnames as well as with MacDougall, Lucas and (Mc)Taggert and perhaps Moore, Stanley and Spencer as well. I have identified 54 people who have this signature. DYS438=13, DYS449=26 or 27 (we have only one 28) and DYS572=10. There are also a number of other STR values we share in the 1 to 67 marker panel but the first three mentioned are all it takes to differentiate our group from all others. We have a number of mutations in common in the 68 to 111 panel but there are so few of us who have tested that far that I wouldn't yet want to draw definite conclusions.

There are 10 unrelated McCreary lines in our YDNA project so it makes it really hard to figure out whether a McCreary name on a hearth money roll in Ireland or on a parish register in Scotland is actually an ancestor. Right now I am trying to connect with McCrories in Ayrshire to get them to test. I have reason to believe my McCreary line migrated from Ayrshire to Down/Antrim with Hamilton and Montgomery then migrated on to South Carolina in the mid 18th century.

Just thought you might like more background on the McCrearys who are DF49xDF23.

Laurie

dp
09-18-2015, 09:40 PM
This discussion is very interesting. I am co-administrator of the McCreary DNA project at FTDNA. My father is one of a group of McCrearys who are DF49+ DF23-. We share SNPs downstream from DF49 with Blair, McKinney and McWilliams (BY2606..By2627). We share our very rare STR signature 49z43813 with the aforementioned surnames as well as with MacDougall, Lucas and (Mc)Taggert and perhaps Moore, Stanley and Spencer as well. I have identified 54 people who have this signature. DYS438=13, DYS449=26 or 27 (we have only one 28) and DYS572=10. There are also a number of other STR values we share in the 1 to 67 marker panel but the first three mentioned are all it takes to differentiate our group from all others. We have a number of mutations in common in the 68 to 111 panel but there are so few of us who have tested that far that I wouldn't yet want to draw definite conclusions.

There are 10 unrelated McCreary lines in our YDNA project so it makes it really hard to figure out whether a McCreary name on a hearth money roll in Ireland or on a parish register in Scotland is actually an ancestor. Right now I am trying to connect with McCrories in Ayrshire to get them to test. I have reason to believe my McCreary line migrated from Ayrshire to Down/Antrim with Hamilton and Montgomery then migrated on to South Carolina in the mid 18th century.

Just thought you might like more background on the McCrearys who are DF49xDF23.

Laurie

Thanks alot for your post. We definetely want any information relating to DF49xM222 kits :-)
dp
PS: there's a laurie in the group so I'll call you Laurie M in my posts to save confusion. :biggrin1:
PPS: Welcome to Anthrogenica! (normally your dad being a DF49xM222 trumps my normal format. B)

David Mc
09-19-2015, 05:16 AM
Hi Laurie,

Welcome indeed! It's nice to be able to connect with some of the "near relations" (or at least early DF49 relations). Thanks for sharing a little about your research-- I hope you have success in recruiting a McCrorie.

MacEochaidh
09-19-2015, 05:21 AM
I'm a Doherty DF23* and also find this thread very interesting. I certainly would like to think that DF23 came to the Isles with the Beaker Folk.

David Mc
05-08-2016, 12:10 AM
Perhaps it's time for an update again. The past year hasn't allowed me as much time as I would have like to pursue things on the forum, but as genetic genealogy is an ever-shifting field, some things need to be noted.

Firstly, the discovery of DF21 in the Rathlin remains seem to push the origins of DF13 (and therefore DF49) back significantly farther than the alternative dates mentioned in post #73.

Secondly, a new paper has just been published by Dr. Joe Flood which has some bearings on the origins of DF49. While many will have already read it, I will include a link here: https://www.academia.edu/24686284/The_phylogenealogy_of_R-L21_four_and_a_half_millennia_of_expansion_and_red istribution

There are a number of points where I disagree with the paper, particularly with regards to (a) an insular origin for R-L21 and (b) a West-to-East movement of Bell Beaker which fails to distinguish between Maritime and Rhenish Beaker "packages." Nonetheless, Flood offers some suggestions as to the origins of DF49 which may be significant and echo some of Jean Manco's observations re DF49 (or at least M222) and the presence of La Tene type artifacts in Ireland.

Both Manco and Flood suggest that "DF49" could represent late-comers to Ireland. Flood suggests it represents Dumnonii settlers from Cornwall; Jean has suggested (I believe) northern British settlers; others on this forum have suggested Strathclyde Britons, and others have suggested Gallic or Belgic origins. While there are obvious differences between each of these models, both in time and in cultures, all of them view DF49 as latecomers... at least in an Irish context. This is getting close to the heart of what I would love to know.

The rarity of DF49XM222 in the Isles still makes me wonder if M222 (and perhaps DF23) were not part of a separate story-- an earlier migration to the Isles, that didn't include their "parents." If this is the case, DF49 (xM222) could have arrived hundreds of years later. For this scenario, I direct you back to post #37 on page 4 of this thread.

If DF49, DF23, and M222 were part of one early movement to the Isles, though, the migrating tribe(s) option would seem to make sense. Most (but not all) DF49 seem to belong to the western seaboard of Great Britain. Hopefully the coming years will see more data and new hypotheses flowing in.

MacUalraig
05-09-2016, 07:19 AM
Perhaps it's time for an update again. The past year hasn't allowed me as much time as I would have like to pursue things on the forum, but as genetic genealogy is an ever-shifting field, some things need to be noted.

Firstly, the discovery of DF21 in the Rathlin remains seem to push the origins of DF13 (and therefore DF49) back significantly farther than the alternative dates mentioned in post #73.

Secondly, a new paper has just been published by Dr. Joe Flood which has some bearings on the origins of DF49. While many will have already read it, I will include a link here: https://www.academia.edu/24686284/The_phylogenealogy_of_R-L21_four_and_a_half_millennia_of_expansion_and_red istribution

There are a number of points where I disagree with the paper, particularly with regards to (a) an insular origin for R-L21 and (b) a West-to-East movement of Bell Beaker which fails to distinguish between Maritime and Rhenish Beaker "packages." Nonetheless, Flood offers some suggestions as to the origins of DF49 which may be significant and echo some of Jean Manco's observations re DF49 (or at least M222) and the presence of La Tene type artifacts in Ireland.

Both Manco and Flood suggest that "DF49" could represent late-comers to Ireland. Flood suggests it represents Dumnonii settlers from Cornwall; Jean has suggested (I believe) northern British settlers; others on this forum have suggested Strathclyde Britons, and others have suggested Gallic or Belgic origins. While there are obvious differences between each of these models, both in time and in cultures, all of them view DF49 as latecomers... at least in an Irish context. This is getting close to the heart of what I would love to know.

The rarity of DF49XM222 in the Isles still makes me wonder if M222 (and perhaps DF23) were not part of a separate story-- an earlier migration to the Isles, that didn't include their "parents." If this is the case, DF49 (xM222) could have arrived hundreds of years later. For this scenario, I direct you back to post #37 on page 4 of this thread.

If DF49, DF23, and M222 were part of one early movement to the Isles, though, the migrating tribe(s) option would seem to make sense. Most (but not all) DF49 seem to belong to the western seaboard of Great Britain. Hopefully the coming years will see more data and new hypotheses flowing in.

M222 has been linked to the Dumnonii by others in the past, most notably by Paul Conroy in his paper a few years ago.

David Mc
05-09-2016, 07:50 AM
M222 has been linked to the Dumnonii by others in the past, most notably by Paul Conroy in his paper a few years ago.

True. He also recognized that DF23 was separated from M222 by as many as 2000 years, and suggested that it was born in Central Europe. At the same time, if M222 is only ca. 1600 YBP, DF23 is still standing in the background. That's where things get hazy, at least for me.

David Mc
05-14-2016, 11:21 PM
After further reflection on Flood's linking of DF49 to the Dumnonii (of Cornwall and Devon), I just don't see it. There isn't enough DF49 in the southwest to suggest there was ever a cluster there that have given birth to DF49-rich Fir Domnann. As a whole DF49 is hard to pin down (one of the reasons I've wondered if insular DF49 represents a separate branch that arrived later). If we were to identify any patterns at all and try to define an ancient population in which it lay, I would think the west coast, roughly from Wales up to Scotland would make the most likely candidates. If I was to narrow it down even more, I would suggest it was most common in "Yr Hen Ogledd" (the Old North) and is likely Brythonic. I can trace my own people to the Isle of Man ca. 1500. My closest SNP matches would be from Lancashire, Cumbria (I believe, given the surname in question) and Scotland (although the Scot in question believes his family came from elsewhere).

It would be nice if the results from the Cramond bodies (possibly four from Gododdin and one from Strathclyde) would fill that picture in for us. My guess re: the movement of DF23 and M222 (and maybe DF49 itself) into Ireland is that it is either Brigantian or it is descended from one of the northern British war bands that seem to have been active in Ireland during the first centuries after Christ-- perhaps from Strathclyde or even Rheged.

laurie
02-15-2018, 11:18 AM
Hi DP did you ever end up testing for ZZ29 and ZZ30? Thomas Allen, Ronald Phillips and I all have a current terminal SNP of FGC34047.
Here is the hierarchy on the Big Y tree that we've tested postive for

ZZ29
ZZ30 FGC34050
Z17591 ZP69
Z17592
Z17593
Z17594
Z17595
Z17596
Z17597
Z17598
Z17599
Z17600
Z17601
Z17602
Z17603
Z17604
Z17605
Z17606
Z17607
Z17608
Z17609
Z17610
5690607-A-G
FGC34047
FGC34048