PDA

View Full Version : Ancient Celt from Hinxton DF21+ Z246+



rms2
10-18-2014, 02:04 PM
Hinxton 4, the Iron Age Celt (circa AD 1) is DF21+ Z246+ (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3155-First-ancient-genomes-from-Britain-Celtic-and-Anglo-Saxon)

I am surprised some DF21+ guy hasn't jumped on this news yet.

The body was the best preserved of five unearthed in Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, England, two of which date from about AD 1 (Iron Age). The other three date from about AD 700 (Anglo-Saxon Period).

Hinxton is apparently in old Catuvellauni territory. The Catuvellauni were a Belgic tribe.

Congratulations, DF21ers! (I'm envious.) B)

rms2
10-19-2014, 01:08 PM
There is an update: that sample is now known to be DF25+/S253+.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3155-First-ancient-genomes-from-Britain-Celtic-and-Anglo-Saxon&p=55650&viewfull=1#post55650

Rory Cain
10-26-2014, 04:26 AM
Some dispute that the Catuvellauni were Belgae. Others see the name as the fuller version of the name Catellauni of southern Belgica/ Gaul. My own use of the term Belgae was queried by Alan, a scholarly authority, on cultural and artefact oral grounds. I was using the name in a more geographical context.
As Peter Salway noted on Roman Britain, the Celts North of the Thames "were probably not all Belgic." Tribes such as the Catuvellauni were "formed out of elements related to the Belgae that had come at an earlier stage in the influx of Iron Age Continental people" from South Belgica.

Britons hardly seems the best term for what was just an earlier migration from the same area, and the term Gauls may infer origins somewhat further South again. So what term can one use without being corrected? Like you, I probably have to stick with Belgae.

rms2
10-30-2014, 11:22 AM
The sources I looked at all said the Catuvellauni were a Belgic tribe. One said they comprised a confederation formed of a number of smaller Belgic tribes.

I don't remember all the sources I looked at, but I do remember one was Encyclopedia Britannica.

"Britons" is just a catch-all term for the Brythonic-speaking tribes of what are now England, Wales, and southern Scotland.

Jean M
10-30-2014, 12:01 PM
Some dispute that the Catuvellauni were Belgae.

Here is the relevant entry from Celtic Culture: An Historical Encyclopedia ed Koch (2006):


Catuvellauni was the name of two Belgic tribes of the later pre-Roman Iron Age. In the light of the remarks of Julius Caesar concerning the Continental origins of the Belgae of Britain, it is likely that the British Catuvellauni began as a migratory offshoot of the Gaulish tribe. In historical times, the Catuvellauni on the European Continent were a minor tribe, located in the valley of the river Matrona (modern Marne; see Matronae) and overshadowed by their more powerful neighbours, the Lingones and the Remi. The tribal name survives in the name of the modern town of Châlons-sur-Marne (Latin Catalaunum). It is also recollected in the name of the famous battle of the Campus Catalaunicus ‘Catalaunian plain’, where Attila the Hun was decisively checked by Roman and allied forces under the command of Aëtius in AD 451.

The British Catuvellauni held a territory north of the Thames that included what are now the English counties of Hertfordshire and parts of Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Cambridgeshire, and also Essex and Suffolk, where they had encroached upon the Trinovantes by the mid-1st century BC. The supreme war leader of the British tribes who opposed Julius Caesar’s incursions in 55 and 54 BC was Cassivellaunos, generally assumed to have been king of the Catuvellauni, even though Caesar does not name his tribe. By about 20 bc, a new Catuvellaunian king, Tasciovanos, appears on the tribe’s coinage, although he is unknown to Graeco-Roman historians. Tasciovanos’s son Cunobelinos (r. c. AD 10–42) was the most powerful ruler of the British Catuvellauni. The Roman historian Suetonius refers to him by the title Britannorum rex ‘king of the Britons’. Cunobelinos struck abundant coinage from his two principal oppida—Camulod~non (now Colchester, Essex) and Verulamion (near St Albans, Hertfordshire) (see Allen, Britannia 6.1–19). He was subsequently prominent in the legendary history of Britain, for example, in the Historia Regum Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Following Rome’s invasion under the Emperor Claudius in ad 43, Cunobelinos’ sons, Togodumnos and Caratacos, led the resistance of several allied tribes. Togodumnos died early in the war, but Caratacos continued an intense guerilla action in what is now Wales (Cymru) and northern England until he was
captured and handed over to the Romans by Queen Cartimandua of the Brigantes in ad 51. The dynasty is mentioned in the Old Welsh genealogies, where
we find the sequence Caratauc map Cinbelin map Teuhuant ‘Caratacos son of Cunobelinos son of Tasciovanos’ (Bartrum, EWGT 11, 127n.).

Archaeologically, the British Catuvellauni are not distinguishable from the Trinovantes. Both tribes belonged to the Aylesford-Swarling culture, characterized
by Belgic coinage, oppida, cremation burials, graceful wheel-thrown pottery of a fine light fabric, and metalwork with Late La Tène style ornamentation.
The Aylesford-Swarling culture of the Catuvellauni has striking parallels on the Continent, mainly in northern France, in the general region of the Continental Catuvellauni. Their central oppidum seems originally to have been Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire, which was probably the place where Cassivellaunos made his last stand against Caesar. After Wheathampstead was abandoned, activity begins in Verulamion (about 8 km to the southwest), where a mint and a large amount of imported the Roman world show the significance of the place. During the reign of Cunobelinos, the Catuvellauni moved their principal capital and mint
to the oppidum of Camulod~non, in what had been Trinovantian territory. Following the Roman conquest artefacts from Verulamion and Camulod~non continued as the sites and names of important Romano-British towns, Latinized as Verulamium and Camulodunum. Both were destroyed during the revolt of Boudica in AD
60/61, but were later rebuilt. In Roman Britain, the Catuvellauni formed a civitas or tribal canton, probably centred on Verulamium. That the tribal identity
was maintained is shown by a funerary inscription from the 2nd century ad from near Hadrian’s Wall for a REGINA CATVALLAVNA LIBERTA ‘Catuvellaunian freedwoman [named] Regina’ (Collingwood & Wright, RIB no. 1065). In the post-Roman period, the old tribal name continues as a man’s name, thus Catgolaun Lauhir (Modern Welsh Cadwallon Lawhir) was a ruler of Gwynedd c. ad 500. His great-grandson Cadwallon ap Cadfan (r. c. 625–634/5) was briefly the chief
overlord of Britain. The corresponding Old Breton name Catuuallon appears 13 times in the 9th-century charters of the Cartulary of Redon.

The name Catuvellauni is Celtic [gives details] .[means].. ‘excelling in battle’.

Jean M
10-30-2014, 12:37 PM
There is an update: that sample is now known to be DF25+/S253+.

This is interesting. We have as DF25+ in L21 and Subclades project:

Rhys ap Rydderch, b. circa 1275, Wales
John Lewis d. 1657 Malden, MA [Lewis can be a Welsh name]
Adam C. Lewis, 1885-1928, Kanawha Co., WV
Robert Humphreys, b.c. 1785, Pwllheli, Wales

Richard Nagle, b. ca 1800, d. ca. 1852
John Yabsley b1649 and d.1681 Yealmpton, Devon
Isaac Mitchell Nichols Maryland 1817
Francis Wilkes b. ca 1700 prob. Frederick Co.,VA
William Lyon 1620-1692 >> John de Lyoun 1225-1294
Robert Viar 1798-1877, son Andrew Jackson Viar

Plus some Irish surnames.

Heber
10-30-2014, 07:12 PM
Here is the distribution of R1b-L21-DF21-DF25 by country (from earlier this year).
2820
And an analysis of matching Surnames
2821
Here is the DF25 portion of Alex Williamson's Big Tree from Big Y and FGC results.
My own (Galway) cluster is adjacent to this cluster.
2822
http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/NGS/R-DF21.html
Many of these names belong to the Seven Septs of Laois Cluster, Moore, Dowling, Kelly etc.
http://www.laois.ie/leisureandculture/heritage/historyoflaois/

Is there any known connection between the Seven Septs of Laois and the Catuvellauni?

It is interesting that the paper extract highlights the following finding.

"We find in particular that while the Anglo-Saxon samples resemble more closely the modern British population than the earlier samples, the Iron Age samples share more low frequency variation than the later ones with present day samples from southern Europe, in particular Spain (1000GP IBS)."

http://www.ashg.org/2014meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f140122098.htm

Perhaps Koch is onto something.

http://www.wales.ac.uk/en/NewsandEvents/News/CAWCS/AHRC-grant-awarded-to-CAWCS-for-joint-research-project-on-the-Celtic-languages.aspx

Jean M
10-30-2014, 08:07 PM
Is there any known connection between the Seven Septs of Laois and the Catuvellauni?

It is perfectly possible that some Catuvellauni de-camped to Ireland after the capture of Caratacos. But then any Romano-Briton in trouble with the Roman authorities could have slipped off to Ireland anytime during the Roman period. Then we have all the movement to and fro subsequently.

GoldenHind
10-30-2014, 10:38 PM
This is interesting. We have as DF25+ in L21 and Subclades project:

Rhys ap Rydderch, b. circa 1275, Wales
John Lewis d. 1657 Malden, MA [Lewis can be a Welsh name]
Adam C. Lewis, 1885-1928, Kanawha Co., WV
Robert Humphreys, b.c. 1785, Pwllheli, Wales

Richard Nagle, b. ca 1800, d. ca. 1852
John Yabsley b1649 and d.1681 Yealmpton, Devon
Isaac Mitchell Nichols Maryland 1817
Francis Wilkes b. ca 1700 prob. Frederick Co.,VA
William Lyon 1620-1692 >> John de Lyoun 1225-1294
Robert Viar 1798-1877, son Andrew Jackson Viar

Plus some Irish surnames.

Nichols can also be Welsh. I have Welsh Nichols ancestors from Monmouthshire.

rms2
10-31-2014, 11:01 AM
Here is the distribution of R1b-L21-DF21-DF25 by country (from earlier this year).
2820
And an analysis of matching Surnames
2821
Here is the DF25 portion of Alex Williamson's Big Tree from Big Y and FGC results.
My own (Galway) cluster is adjacent to this cluster.
2822
http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/NGS/R-DF21.html
Many of these names belong to the Seven Septs of Laois Cluster, Moore, Dowling, Kelly etc.
http://www.laois.ie/leisureandculture/heritage/historyoflaois/

Is there any known connection between the Seven Septs of Laois and the Catuvellauni?

It is interesting that the paper extract highlights the following finding.

"We find in particular that while the Anglo-Saxon samples resemble more closely the modern British population than the earlier samples, the Iron Age samples share more low frequency variation than the later ones with present day samples from southern Europe, in particular Spain (1000GP IBS)."

http://www.ashg.org/2014meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f140122098.htm

Perhaps Koch is onto something.

http://www.wales.ac.uk/en/NewsandEvents/News/CAWCS/AHRC-grant-awarded-to-CAWCS-for-joint-research-project-on-the-Celtic-languages.aspx

The little bit by which the two Iron Age Celts from Hinxton exceed the Anglo-Saxon Period bodies in a resemblance to people from SW Europe can probably be attributed to the aboriginal substrate population of Britain, i.e., the people who repopulated the Isles from the FC Ice Age Refuge after the LGM. Those people would not have carried any y-dna R1b, but they formed part of the mix that went into the making of the British, and the Hinxton Celts were closer to them in both time and total autosomal dna than later inhabitants of the Isles were.

On a separate topic having nothing to do with the aboriginal inhabitants of the Isles, O'Rahilly thought Bolg and Belgae were cognates and that the Fir Bolg were an historical reality and actual Belgic immigrants to Ireland. This is not something I have studied much, but given this recent Hinxton 4 result, it may be something to reconsider. Is there some strong reason to discount it?

Jean M
10-31-2014, 06:38 PM
The little bit by which the two Iron Age Celts from Hinxton exceed the Anglo-Saxon Period bodies in a resemblance to people from SW Europe can probably be attributed to the aboriginal substrate population of Britain, i.e., the people who repopulated the Isles from the FC Ice Age Refuge after the LGM.

The big problem with making comparisons only to modern populations is that it does not tell us the direction of flow. There are several possibilities:


Iberia to the British Isles. Mesolithic seems an outsider here, as the flow from Iberia spread right across northern Europe as far as Scandinavia. Copper and Bronze Age we have evidence for, albeit at a lower level than the Rhine route.
British Isles to Iberia. Bronze Age and Post-Roman to Galicia and northern Portugal. Medieval onwards via Portual-England trade and treaty, Wellington's army.
Common source to British Isles and Iberia. My favourite bet, as that looks to be biggest flow i.e. Late Bell Beaker.



On a separate topic having nothing to do with the aboriginal inhabitants of the Isles, O'Rahilly thought Bolg and Belgae were cognates and that the Fir Bolg were an historical reality and actual Belgic immigrants to Ireland. This is not something I have studied much, but given this recent Hinxton 4 result, it may be something to reconsider. Is there some strong reason to discount it?

Linguistically it seems OK. It's just that the archaeology does not match. Alan's your man on this.

Rory Cain
11-02-2014, 10:46 AM
Linguistically it seems OK. It's just that the archaeology does not match. Alan's your man on this.

I recall having much the same conversation with Alan re a lack of Belgic archeological material in Ireland. But I don't like to rely on just one source of information without corroboration. I especially dislike total reliance upon either language or cultural artefacts from archeology, as either can be adopted or discarded as a population chooses, with no change to their genetics.

What about the genetic record? Does it support the notion of a significant Belgic population in Britain that never made it to Ireland?

Jean M
11-02-2014, 11:11 AM
What about the genetic record? Does it support the notion of a significant Belgic population in Britain that never made it to Ireland?

How can we be sure on the basis of modern population alone? U152 today is in the right places to have spread with the Gauls and that could include Belgae. Its absence from the southern third (or less) of Ireland is absolutely what one would predict if it spread with La Tene. On the other hand, if U152 arrived with in Britain with La Tene, we wouldn't expect it to remain in south-east England in the same density after Anglo-Saxon takeover, unless the Anglo-Saxons brought another dose of it, which they could easily have done.

Now we have one R1b sample from Belgic territory revealed to be DF25+/S253+. We cannot be sure that this is actually a Belgic signature until we get more aDNA samples from both Britain and Belgic territory on the Continent. I'm willing to think it might be, but I'm treading a cautious path.

JRW
11-02-2014, 04:25 PM
Although I agree that aDNA is the best means of determining ancient genetic population distributions, using more granular SNP and STR data significantly improves the ability to draw inferences from current population distributions. Unfortunately, the current cost of NGS tests and high marker (e.g., 67 or 110) STR tests seem to limit their use in academic studies. But, that is what is needed. Looking at the distribution patterns of ancient and widely-spread SNPs such as L21, U152, and U106 is much too blunt and unfocused to draw the types of inferences many attempt to do. One needs a greater degree of resolution to clearly identify relationships.

An example of this is with a subclade of L21, which only recently has been discovered through NGS testing. L21>DF13>FGC5494>FGC5496>S1088>CTS2457 is found almost exclusively in the northern half of Ireland. Review of either the 67 or 110 STR marker GDs indicate coalescence to about 2000 years ago. If we were looking at DF13 alone, CTS2457 would be imbedded in the data and mixed into a pool of very distant and undifferentiated cousins. However, if we look at CTS2457's S1088 cousins, we find them only on the continent, in the Palintinate -- not in the Isles. Those cousins, in turn, have no closer genetic relationships in the Isles than with CTS2457 (i.e., no suggestion of back migration). The genetic distances between the two geographic sets indicate an Iron Age common ancestor. Given that most of the Palitinate was territory of the Treveri, a Belgic tribe; CTS2457's distribution; and the SNP/STR relationships, there is no reasonable alternative explanation for CTS2457's presence in Isles other than a Belgic immigration (assuming one would use that term for the enitre Iron Age -- not just the later period). This is reinforced when the distribution patterns for S1088's brother subclades within FGC5496 and FGC5494 are reviewed.

To summarize my long-winded post, I am making two points. The first, is that SNPs such as L21 are just too old and broadly distributed to draw the types of historical population movements most interested parties attempt to do. My second point is that there are genetic relationships using NGS SNP and high STR marker tests that only can be reasonably explained by Belgic immigration to what is now Ireland.

Jean M
11-02-2014, 05:10 PM
L21>DF13>FGC5494>FGC5496>S1088>CTS2457 is found almost exclusively in the northern half of Ireland.

All news to me. I see R1b1a2a1a2c1m (CTS2457.2) on ISOGG and yfull.com directly under DF13.

MJost
11-02-2014, 05:31 PM
See my update on DF13>FGC5494

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1817-FGC5496-(L21-gt-DF13-gt-FGC5496)-and-Subclades&p=57210&viewfull=1#post57210

MJost

alan
11-02-2014, 05:36 PM
The big problem with making comparisons only to modern populations is that it does not tell us the direction of flow. There are several possibilities:


Iberia to the British Isles. Mesolithic seems an outsider here, as the flow from Iberia spread right across northern Europe as far as Scandinavia. Copper and Bronze Age we have evidence for, albeit at a lower level than the Rhine route.
British Isles to Iberia. Bronze Age and Post-Roman to Galicia and northern Portugal. Medieval onwards via Portual-England trade and treaty, Wellington's army.
Common source to British Isles and Iberia. My favourite bet, as that looks to be biggest flow i.e. Late Bell Beaker.




Linguistically it seems OK. It's just that the archaeology does not match. Alan's your man on this.

It just seems that if Belgae made it to Ireland they didnt come with classic Belgic material culture. However, it is possible that Belgic tribes might have arrived after some initial Romanisation and therefore be represented by Roman material which is quite common in eastern Ireland.

alan
11-02-2014, 05:50 PM
I suppose its worth mentioning that the Manapii are the only Irish tribe on Ptolemy whose nearest name parallel is among the Belgae on the continent. They may have been associated with the trade emporium at Drumanagh promontory fort near Dublin which has Roman and some native Iron Age material apparently. I believe the continental Menapii are described as highly maritime and it seems very likely that the name Manannan and the Welsh equivalent is linked to the sea god of those tribes. The names of course in P-Celtic. Very interestingly Menapians were present in Britain-the first reference is early enough to link to Ptolemy perhaps

A cohort of Menapian auxiliaries is attested by inscriptions dating to the 2nd century in Britain.[16] Carausius, the 3rd century commander of the Roman fleet who declared himself emperor of Britain and northern Gaul, was a Menapian, born in Batavia.[17] A legion called the Menapii Seniores is mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum, a 5th-century register of Roman government positions and military commands.[18]

They were a maritime power and had an alliance with the Venetii of NW France too. The wiki page on the Belgic Menapii is a good read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menapii

alan
11-02-2014, 06:17 PM
I have to say it only takes about 10 seconds of googling to see the book Menapia Quest is imaginative semi-fiction IMO

MJost
11-02-2014, 07:34 PM
Dang those pseudo-historical accounts...Even Keating added to the Manannan history adding to the other numerous other Irish literature references.

But Mongan did write about the placenames evidence that are still in play across the isles; Man, Wales, Scotland, Britain and Ireland. And noted other who believe the Belgic stock entered the isles in several waves during La Tene. Hubert suggests that they prior to that time frame as military and traders. I believe DF13 and DF27 were involved in these roles. With DF27 as the metal workers from the continent and northern Gaul DF13 sea traders, warrior farmers as Erainn.

MJost


MJost

Rory Cain
11-02-2014, 07:34 PM
All news to me. I see R1b1a2a1a2c1m (CTS2457.2) on ISOGG and yfull.com directly under DF13.

Don't take that as Gospel!

Jean M
11-02-2014, 08:01 PM
Don't take that as Gospel!

Oh I don't! With the tree growing extra branches and twiglets at its present speed, I can scarcely find my way around it from one day to the next. :biggrin1: It's an exciting time.

Rory Cain
11-02-2014, 09:08 PM
Oh I don't! With the tree growing extra branches and twiglets at its present speed, I can scarcely find my way around it from one day to the next. :biggrin1: It's an exciting time.

Yes, it is. The excitement seems too much for the commercial companies to keep up with and the biggest problem for keen SNP testers is to find an up to date phylogeny somewhere. It used to be Thomas Krahn's at ytree.ftdna.com and despite not being updated since Thomas left it remains more reek net than the version FTDNA use, already obsolete on the day it was introduced.

Chris Morley does an update to his annually and if you get it while it's hot off the press, it's the most up to date. It then falls behind over the remainder of the year.

ISOGG have always been regulation bound and slow-moving, but is well out in front of FTDNA.

With Thomas Krahn's gone from FTDNA, Alex Williamson's Big Tree at his Little Scottish Cluster website is good. To get back to the thread, Alex shows CTS2457.2 as DF13 > FGC5494 > FGC5661 > FGC5496 > S1088 > CTS2547.2 so it has already grown an extra step.

ArmandoR1b
11-02-2014, 09:26 PM
Chris Morley does an update to his annually and if you get it while it's hot off the press, it's the most up to date. It then falls behind over the remainder of the year.

I'm wondering if he is going to update it again since he started the company that analyzes NGS results. The YFull tree is the most up to date tree available to people that are trying to get a general idea of where an SNP exists. It's situations like yours that show there are still some updates needed to YFull but there are a lot of other SNPs that still have no new revelations in the past few months.

Rory Cain
11-03-2014, 12:02 AM
I'm wondering if he is going to update it again since he started the company that analyzes NGS results. The YFull tree is the most up to date tree available to people that are trying to get a general idea of where an SNP exists. It's situations like yours that show there are still some updates needed to YFull but there are a lot of other SNPs that still have no new revelations in the past few months.

Quite right, the Yfull tree is evolving with the times. I guess the reason why I don't mention it is because one has to re-code a lot of SNP that one know by other names and translate them into the double-up name that Yfull has assigned. Folks often object to having to do that. But you're right, it's up to date.

Kwheaton
11-03-2014, 03:32 AM
It seems to me that the most accuarte and up to date trees are the result of daily work by the Haplogroup Project Administrators. If you aren not following them via here or a Yahoo forum you may be light years behind. And FTDNA just completly missed the boat relying so heavily on their association with the Genographic project and not even paying attention to their own Big Y results.....eventually it will get sorted but in the meantime you really have to go to the gurus withing each subgroup for the latest. YFull is the best of the overall bunch but it is still way behing what is going on at the sub-haplogroup level as far as I can see.

Rory Cain
11-03-2014, 12:43 PM
It seems to me that the most accuarte and up to date trees are the result of daily work by the Haplogroup Project Administrators. If you aren not following them via here or a Yahoo forum you may be light years behind. And FTDNA just completly missed the boat relying so heavily on their association with the Genographic project and not even paying attention to their own Big Y results.....eventually it will get sorted but in the meantime you really have to go to the gurus withing each subgroup for the latest. YFull is the best of the overall bunch but it is still way behing what is going on at the sub-haplogroup level as far as I can see.

True enough. Remembering that one of the Hinxton burials is DF21+, the ytree provided by Charles Fueston to the R-DF21 & Sub-classes project is more comprehensive than anything from ISOGG or FRDNA. Charles has shaded in red any SNPs already accepted by ISOGG. FTDNA are so out if date, he didn't bother shading the few SNPs that FTDNA have included on the DF21 section of their ytree. 'Nuff said!

JRW
11-03-2014, 05:37 PM
It just seems that if Belgae made it to Ireland they didnt come with classic Belgic material culture. However, it is possible that Belgic tribes might have arrived after some initial Romanisation and therefore be represented by Roman material which is quite common in eastern Ireland.

Perhaps this is an issue of semantics, but would you not consider La Tene artifacts to be Belgic material? The Marne-Moselle region was essentially home to the the tribes that would eventually be considered the "Belgae" by ancient historians. Although not pervasive, there are La Tene artifacts found in the northern half of Ireland, including ones even Simon James would acknowledge as likely being from the Rhineland.

If CTS2457 is representative of Belgic migration to Hibernia, given its size, one would expect to see some material, but not substantial amounts. Clearly, the genetic evidence does not suggests large scale population movements.

Rory Cain
11-03-2014, 08:32 PM
In the area that was the frontier between the retreating Ulster dynasty and the expanding Connaught dynasty, we see pockets of DNA types where the Connaught dynasty settled their allies on sword land. The "Breifne clans" branch of Z253; the Airghialla branch of DF21, and a mix in Fermanagh that includes more Z263 and that CTS2457 pocket.

Archeologically I believe that it looks like Islands of native culture surrounded by Romano-British, at least in parts. I wonder if Alan and his correspondents are not talking at cross-purposes, and if Alan's Romano-British do not equate with the multiple other writers' Belgae?

Il Papà
11-04-2014, 02:59 AM
Anybody have access to the raw data of his Y-dna ? How many mutations(including private) does he have under L21 ?(I hope the dna coverage is good), btw he is 2000yo right ?

vettor
11-04-2014, 05:07 PM
Anybody have access to the raw data of his Y-dna ? How many mutations(including private) does he have under L21 ?(I hope the dna coverage is good), btw he is 2000yo right ?

one of the men is stated as
Mt-DNA
Mitochondria haplogroup is H1ag1

y-DNA
Y-Haplogroup is R1b1a2a1a2c1g2a1 (R-DF25).

and the other
as
ydna R-L151 mtdna K1a1b1b
no L21 in his SNP's

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7vzRsRM2aOQR1BLbHduVUUxcjQ&usp=sharing&tid=0B7vzRsRM2aOQTENJUlB4OVVWeUE#list

rms2
11-04-2014, 05:15 PM
Didn't that second Iron Age Celt have a Z245+ result? Z245 is currently regarded as equivalent to (on the same level as) L21.

He was probably L21+, and they just could not eke an L21 result out of his old remains.

ArmandoR1b
11-04-2014, 06:06 PM
Didn't that second Iron Age Celt have a Z245+ result? Z245 is currently regarded as equivalent to (on the same level as) L21.

He was probably L21+, and they just could not eke an L21 result out of his old remains.

You are correct. That had been explained to vettor before but he chooses to ignore that fact.

Rory Cain
11-10-2014, 08:42 PM
You are correct. That had been explained to vettor before but he chooses to ignore that fact.

I recall when the first non-Isles Z246+ DNA result appeared, from that part of the former Belgica now known as Netherlands. A southern English guy uncomfortable amongst his Irish and Scots relations immediately seized on this small glimmer of hope to call Z246 "Germanic".

This old DF25 is from further southeast than that living Anglo-Saxon-Germanic racial purist. One might venture to say, outside the present day range of DF25 in the Celtic Fringe plus a pocket in Yorkshire.

If we can get beyond present day racial divisions to piece together an ancient ancestral trail here, that would be a good thing.

rms2
11-11-2014, 04:50 PM
I recall when the first non-Isles Z246+ DNA result appeared, from that part of the former Belgica now known as Netherlands. A southern English guy uncomfortable amongst his Irish and Scots relations immediately seized on this small glimmer of hope to call Z246 "Germanic".

This old DF25 is from further southeast than that living Anglo-Saxon-Germanic racial purist. One might venture to say, outside the present day range of DF25 in the Celtic Fringe plus a pocket in Yorkshire.

If we can get beyond present day racial divisions to piece together an ancient ancestral trail here, that would be a good thing.

I wouldn't chalk such things up to racism or racial divisions, etc. Obviously, Celts and Anglo-Saxons were members of the same race.

Some guys just grew up with the idea that they are Anglo-Saxons or Vikings, etc., hence Germanic, and are fond of the notion. Some people find it very difficult to discard cherished notions in the face of evidence to the contrary. Germanic wannabeism is pretty widespread because the ancient Germans and their descendants are regarded as warlike and brave, successful in battle, etc. Their mythology is widely known and has even spawned a popular comic book and film hero, The Mighty Thor. The epic Beowulf is studied in high school and college literature classes.

When I ordered my very first 37-marker STR test from FTDNA, I was hoping I would be I-M253 (I1 now, "I1a" back then) because I had read that was the "Viking marker" (early 2006). When that didn't pan out, I put my hopes in a U106+ result, and that didn't work out either. The evidence began to mount: my closest matches had Welsh surnames, I was P312+ and then L21+, etc. I don't like to mess with falsehood or with deceiving myself, so I pretty rapidly abandoned my Volsunga Saga fantasies and embraced the truth that was staring me in the face.

That doesn't make me any better than anyone else, but I want to know about my ancestors, not someone else's.

Reith
11-11-2014, 06:33 PM
The Celts were pretty warlike too.

Many historians made mentioned of the similarities in height, stature, hair and skin tone of Celts and Germanics.

I highly doubt a tribe would all be the same Y group. Celts, Italic, Belgae and Germans all made raids and alliances with each other at some point. The alliances had to have marriages to solidify them. Aren't they all L11 (at least paternally)? It seems like they had a lot of similarities even though it seems like with DNA we are looking at the differences.

As far as finding out that I was a small part Celt and most likely had a paternal Celt/Gaul as an ancestor I was happy. What two closer groups (Germans and Celts) would there be as far as warlike behavior and shaping European history (which in turn shaped the world's history) would be better IMO?

Already knew I was heavy Germanic and possibly Scandinavian, but with my autosomal results now; I can eat a bratwurst while drinking some mead and listen to bagpipes:P

Hey rms2, since Iceland has plenty of L21, they had to be someone you are related to in those sagas too :)

rms2
11-11-2014, 06:41 PM
. . .

Hey rms2, since Iceland has plenty of L21, they had to be someone you are related to in those sagas too :)

Yeah, probably Bjarni the Village Idiot. ;)

rms2
11-11-2014, 06:58 PM
The Celts were pretty warlike too . . .

They were, but they ultimately lost to the Romans and, subsequently, to the Anglo-Saxons. That is why, I think, Germanic wannabeism is much more common than Celtic wannabeism. I have not seen much of the latter, in fact. I can only recall a couple of instances of it. They were pretty extreme, however, but were bound up more with Irish nationalism than with the Celts themselves.

The ancient Germans and Scandinavians are also more closely associated with exaggerated ideals of "Nordic beauty" than are the Celts, i.e., golden blond hair, blue eyes, tall stature, etc. Everybody wants to think his or her ancestors were really good looking.

Popular films and tv series perpetuate this sort of thing. I saw the films The Vikings and The Longships when I was a kid and grew up idealizing the Vikings. They were the ultimate manly heroes in my imagination.

I could go on and on about all the stuff out there that contributes to Germanic wannabeism, but I've said enough. There isn't anywhere near as much stuff about the Celts.

Heber
11-11-2014, 07:33 PM
one of the men is stated as
Mt-DNA
Mitochondria haplogroup is H1ag1

y-DNA
Y-Haplogroup is R1b1a2a1a2c1g2a1 (R-DF25).

and the other
as
ydna R-L151 mtdna K1a1b1b
no L21 in his SNP's

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B7vzRsRM2aOQR1BLbHduVUUxcjQ&usp=sharing&tid=0B7vzRsRM2aOQTENJUlB4OVVWeUE#list

As I am H1c1 and DF21-S5456 directly adjacent to DF25, would that make me a close cousin?. I am Clan Cian ancestor of Ely O Carroll and close kin to seven Sept's of Laois, apparantly closest cousin to Hinxton Man.

Rory Cain
11-12-2014, 12:29 AM
As I am H1c1 and DF21-S5456 directly adjacent to DF25, would that make me a close cousin?. I am Clan Cian ancestor of Ely O Carroll and close kin to seven Sept's of Laois, apparantly closest cousin to Hinxton Man.

You would be some sort of cousin, I feel. It used to be that we Irish would claim our ancestors came from Iberia, which supported our aspirations for freedom from English imperialism. We may have to accept that our ancestors more likely arrived from Britain. That's what I meant by following the ancestral trail regardless of the current country name.

That certainly doesn't make us English as there were no English and no England back 2,000 years ago. I'm not sure it makes us Irish or our earliest ancestors to be Britons either, when they may have been relatively recent arrivals from Belgica or Gaul some 2,000 years ago.

If Tadhg mac Cian can be taken to be a real person, he apparently lived only a little later than when these Belgae or Gauls briefly became Britons then a short while later became Irish, possibly after becoming Scots first? I am finding the labels so often used to be so limiting and too much fixated on our own time and modern day Nation States.

alan
11-12-2014, 12:51 AM
They were, but they ultimately lost to the Romans and, subsequently, to the Anglo-Saxons. That is why, I think, Germanic wannabeism is much more common than Celtic wannabeism. I have not seen much of the latter, in fact. I can only recall a couple of instances of it. They were pretty extreme, however, but were bound up more with Irish nationalism than with the Celts themselves.

The ancient Germans and Scandinavians are also more closely associated with exaggerated ideals of "Nordic beauty" than are the Celts, i.e., golden blond hair, blue eyes, tall stature, etc. Everybody wants to thinks his or her ancestors were really good looking.

Popular films and tv series perpetuate this sort of thing. I saw the films The Vikings and The Longships when I was a kid and grew up idealizing the Vikings. They were the ultimate manly heroes in my imagination.

I could go on and on about all the stuff out there that contributes to Germanic wannabeism, but I've said enough. There isn't anywhere near as much stuff about the Celts.

Although to be fair to the Celts the Romans were the greatest European empire with a professional army etc and by the time the Anglo-Saxons came about those Britons in south and east England had been disarmed for 400 years so they didnt really stand a chance when the legions left. In fact I think the general gist of Roman writings and archaeology is the Celts were far stronger than the Germans but as often happens when the Celts started to develop more complex societies with oppida towns, coinage, commerce, even stopping being ruled by kings in some cases, they became vulernable to more backwards but militaristic-orientated tribes. The general impression given in classical writing is that by the last century BC or so the more developed Gaulish tribes had gone a bit soft by having a more advanced and life of luxuries etc. They also commented that in earlier times the Celts had been more like the Germans and had dominated them. You see the exact same pattern in Mesopotamian history where the sophisticated centre kept being taken over by the rougher tribes at the margins until they also 'went soft' and yet more less developed warlike people from the margins would invade.

Even today across the EU if the armies were wiped out the population would be totally defenseless as few people have guns - and most of those who do are just farmers with double barreled shotguns. The army is small and that means very few citizens have ever held a gun. That is not an arguement for guns by the way - I am happy with it that way but there has not been a culture of large numbers of civilians having weapons for a very long time. Probably the last group of people where most men were armed and could form private armies in some way was the Scottish highland clans in 1745. So modern Europeans are kind of in the same position as Roman citizens. Oh I suppose there are a higher than normal amount (although still a very tiny percentage) of middle aged and up people with weapons and explosives experience of an unofficial kind in northern Ireland but let not go there LOL

rms2
11-12-2014, 01:14 PM
I think the Celts put up a good fight, but they got the worst of things in the end, which is one of the reasons Germanic wannabeism is far more common than Celtic wannabeism. The Germans would have fallen to the Romans eventually had they not had the advantage of greater distance from the Romans than the Celts had. The Germans also had the Celts acting as a buffer between them and the Romans for many centuries. In fact, most of the time, when Roman and German met in combat, the Germans lost.

Here is something I posted in another thread awhile back which I think is worth re-posting.

Remember too that for a long time the Britons were staving off the Anglo-Saxon threat and even beating them. One could argue that the Britons might have triumphed over the Anglo-Saxons had not Riothamus taken so many British troops to the Continent in the late 5th century to help the Romans against the Visigoths. Riothamus was only able to go adventuring on the Continent because he was so successful in quelling the Anglo-Saxons at home in Britain.

Another factor, of course, was the inability of the Celts to get together and stay together for long. Their own internecine squabbles were their ruin. Celt fought Celt, and some even fought in alliance with the Anglo-Saxons against their fellow Britons. Witness the assassination of Urien of Rheged as the consequence of a British plot as he was leading a very successful campaign against the Anglo-Saxons.

R.Rocca
11-12-2014, 03:11 PM
I think the Celts put up a good fight, but they got the worst of things in the end, which is one of the reasons Germanic wannabeism is far more common than Celtic wannabeism. The Germans would have fallen to the Romans eventually had they not had the advantage of greater distance from the Romans than the Celts had. The Germans also had the Celts acting as a buffer between them and the Romans for many centuries. In fact, most of the time, when Roman and German met in combat, the Germans lost.

Here is something I posted in another thread awhile back which I think is worth re-posting.

Remember too that for a long time the Britons were staving off the Anglo-Saxon threat and even beating them. One could argue that the Britons might have triumphed over the Anglo-Saxons had not Riothamus taken so many British troops to the Continent in the late 5th century to help the Romans against the Visigoths. Riothamus was only able to go adventuring on the Continent because he was so successful in quelling the Anglo-Saxons at home in Britain.

Another factor, of course, was the inability of the Celts to get together and stay together for long. Their own internecine squabbles were their ruin. Celt fought Celt, and some even fought in alliance with the Anglo-Saxons against their fellow Britons. Witness the assassination of Urien of Rheged as the consequence of a British plot as he was leading a very successful campaign against the Anglo-Saxons.

I don't know how things would have splayed out, but no doubt Justinian's Plague also had a domino effect that allowed German expansion in all of Europe, just like it allowed for Muhammad to bring down Persia. Empires rely heavily on armies, and armies rely heavily on funding, and funding comes from a healthy and expanding tax-paying population (says the over-taxed American). Certainly the death of 25 million tax payers will weaken any empire and make it vulnerable to outside invasion.

Rory Cain
11-18-2014, 08:00 PM
Once we had the SNP markers, an analysis of German DNA demonstrated the notion of a purebred Aryan race to be a total nonsense. The Germanic race is as mongrel-bred as the rest of us, if not more so.

Strangely this notion of racial
purity appears to persist in England. It must have some deep-seated psychological need with nations that have the least racial purity. Hence stories of rivers running red with Celtic blood. As the Anglos conducted whole sale genocides everywhere.

The reality is that the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms must have been largely Celtic, in at least some parts. the Wessex Kingdom was depicted as the Anglo-Saxon pinnacle, but may have been the most Celtic of all. To still be talking of Anglo-Saxon total victory seems to miss the reality that the Anglo genetic footprint js too small to match that scenario.

rms2
11-18-2014, 08:09 PM
I don't know about all that. I recall that Winston Churchill, in his A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, argued that the Anglo-Saxons were never more than a conquering elite and that the English were predominantly of Celtic British ancestry.

I've read a few authors who believed the Anglo-Saxons wiped out and enslaved most of the Britons, driving the rest into Wales, Cornwall, and southern Scotland, but those authors were definitely in the minority and were never very convincing.

I do think there was a substantial input of Anglo-Saxons into what is now England, however. They were more than a thin veneer of elites. That is reflected, IMHO, in the fairly high frequencies of U106, I-M253, and I-M223 in the places where the Anglo-Saxons settled. Those same clades were supplemented by later Viking settlers, as well.

Germany itself does seem to be more diverse in its y-dna variety than the Isles though. I think it had more Near Eastern farmer input than the Isles did, for one thing.

Rory Cain
11-18-2014, 08:44 PM
I don't know about all that. I recall that Winston Churchill, in his A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, argued that the Anglo-Saxons were never more than a conquering elite and that the English were predominantly of Celtic British ancestry.

I've read a few authors who believed the Anglo-Saxons wiped out and enslaved most of the Britons, driving the rest into Wales, Cornwall, and southern Scotland, but those authors were definitely in the minority and were never very convincing.

I do think there was a substantial input of Anglo-Saxons into what is now England, however. They were more than a thin veneer of elites. That is reflected, IMHO, in the fairly high frequencies of U106, I-M253, and I-M223 in the places where the Anglo-Saxons settled. Those same clades were supplemented by later Viking settlers, as well.

Germany itself does seem to be more diverse in its y-dna variety than the Isles though. I think it had more Near Eastern farmer input than the Isles did, for one thing.

The work done on R-U106 in UK and matching it with the R-U106 "Frisian" on the Continent looks like good work of the type we would like to see more of. However I am not so sure that Haplogroup I has been tied down equally as well.

I recalls time when west Coast Irish Haplogroup I were considered Viking descendants, while others hedged their bets and said either Viking or Anglo-Norman. If any Isles racial theory comes under doubt, switch to Norman seems to be the prevailing tactic.

Now I understand that this population of Haplogroup I from west Coast Ireland are now considered pre-Celtic. I assume this could equally well apply to other Haplogroup I populations in the Isles rather than being confined to just west Coast Irish Haplogroup I. So are we on firm ground here with Haplogroup I that we can now be sure it js Anglo-Saxon? You may be right. I am just trying to follow the bouncing ball.

Dubhthach
11-18-2014, 09:39 PM
Most of the Haplogroup I in Ireland that you see with "native surnames" from the west belongs to various clades of Haplogroup I2. In comparison Scandinavia is dominated by Haplogroup I1 (when it comes to I)

Sweden: 37% I1 / 5% I2
Denmark: 34% I1 / 7.5% I2
Norway: 31.5% I1 / 4.5% I2
Netherlands: 16.5% I1 / 7.5% I2
Germay: 16% I1 / 6% I2
England: 14% I1 / 7% I2
Scotland: 9% I1 / 5% I2
Ireland: 6% I1 / 6% I2

(Figures from Eupedia)

Rory Cain
11-18-2014, 11:33 PM
Most of the Haplogroup I in Ireland that you see with "native surnames" from the west belongs to various clades of Haplogroup I2. In comparison Scandinavia is dominated by Haplogroup I1 (when it comes to I)

Sweden: 37% I1 / 5% I2
Denmark: 34% I1 / 7.5% I2
Norway: 31.5% I1 / 4.5% I2
Netherlands: 16.5% I1 / 7.5% I2
Germay: 16% I1 / 6% I2
England: 14% I1 / 7% I2
Scotland: 9% I1 / 5% I2
Ireland: 6% I1 / 6% I2

(Figures from Eupedia)

OK, I can see how one could deduce from those figures that I1 in Ireland is of Viking origin. Not necessarily fact but a reasonable deduction.

I not seeing how that could or should make I2 in Ireland to be Anglo-Saxon. Instead what I would note is. Baseline I2 population spread fairly evenly across Western Europe. If I2 in Ireland were Anglo-Saxon would not England have a higher % which would get watered down in Ireland by the Celtic majority with R1b. If I2 are "invader stock" it should be lower on England than in it's Continental homeland, and lower again in the follow-on colony in Ireland.

The fairly homogeneous spread that we see doesn't appear to have any Anglo-Saxon appearance to it, but looks more consistent with an aboriginal population that possibly predates both Celt and Anglo. Feel free to tell me if I am reading it wrongly.

rossa
11-19-2014, 01:07 AM
Isn't there an I1 clade (M253) hot spot in Mayo?
One interesting thing I noticed about the old I2a2 haplogroup in Ireland is that when I looked at some O'Driscolls (one family associated with the I2 clade that is suposed to be very old in the Isles, another surname associated with it is O'Grady) results on Semargl is that they had close matches with English surnames.
There are some I2 clades (downstream of M223 that are nicknamed continental) that might be associated with Saxons or maybe Normans, I don't know of their breakdown in Ireland.

Rory Cain
11-19-2014, 02:53 AM
Isn't there an I1 clade (M253) hot spot in Mayo?
One interesting thing I noticed about the old I2a2 haplogroup in Ireland is that when I looked at some O'Driscolls (one family associated with the I2 clade that is suposed to be very old in the Isles, another surname associated with it is O'Grady) results on Semargl is that they had close matches with English surnames.
There are some I2 clades (downstream of M223 that are nicknamed continental) that might be associated with Saxons or maybe Normans, I don't know of their breakdown in Ireland.

I think that you are right about an I1 hotspot in Co Mayo. If you are hinting that it might not be of Viking of other Germanic origin, you may be right about that too. I have not seen the evidence that would close the door on some I1 being native to ireland before the Vikings and Anglo-Normans.

Also I don't doubt one bit that you may be able to identify some I2 Irish families that were established by Saxons or Normans. While RMS appeared to make all I2 Germanic, I am not going to go 180 degrees opposite and make all I2 native Irish. But from Heber's statistics, I must wonder whether any I2 which entered with the Anglos came in about the same percentages as that I2 already existing amongst the native Irish, for the percentages in England & Ireland (and included much of western Europe) look pretty much the same all over. I see nothing which rules out the possibility of the I2 existing at low levels right across western Europe after the Germanic invasions as representing a pre-existing (and pre-Germanic, perhaps also pre-Celtic) population.

rms2
11-19-2014, 08:58 AM
You are mistaken. I never said all I2 is Germanic. I would not have said that, since I have never thought that. I said I-M253 (I1) and I-M223 (old I1c) were probably Germanic.

I think that I2 in western Ireland is mostly I-M284, which is supposed to date to after the LGM and the initial recolonization. I-M284 was already old in Ireland by the time DF13 arrived there.

I1 (I-M253) and I-M223 on the other hand, are of more recent provenance. If one looks at the old Rootsi et al paper on y haplogroup I in Europe, he will see that I-M253 and I-M223 in what is now England reach their highest frequencies in the southeast, where the Anglo-Saxons settled, in pretty much the same areas where U106 reaches its highest frequencies. Both are also very frequent on the Continent in the old A-S homelands and in Scandinavia.

Dubhthach
11-19-2014, 09:19 AM
As for Mayo I'm assuming you are talking about the results from Geno 2.0 which only reported Haplogroup I, that's about as informative as reporting "Haplogroup R". They had 7% I/R1a and claimed this represented scandinavian origin.

I1 in Ireland is probably as much reflective of post 1169 as it is of Vikings tbh. Again talking at levels like I1 vs I2 is kinda like talking about R1a (M420) vs R1b (M343) it's basically useless without going into the deep phylogeny of the two haplogroups, (which probably separated from each other over 10-15,000 years ago)

Dubhthach
11-19-2014, 09:24 AM
Enda Kenny the current Taoiseach of Ireland (Taoiseach = chieftain historically -- now mans basically Prime Minister) was tested as part of that National Genographic study, all they reported was that he was "Haplogroup I" given the amount of SNP's tested on Geno 2.0 chip ye'd think they would release detailed stats on what was found in Mayo.



Ó CIONAODHA, Ó CIONAOITH—I—O Kenaith, O Kenny, O Kenna, Kinna, Kinney, Kenna, Kenny, &c.; 'descendant of Cionaodh' (fire-sprung); the name of several distinct families in different parts of Ireland. It was common, in the 16th century, in all parts of Leinster and Munster, and in Galway, Roscommon and Tyrone.

rms2
11-19-2014, 12:58 PM
I must confess I have not kept up with all of the subclades of y haplogroup I. I used to be pretty familiar with them, but that was before the SNP explosion of the last couple of years. I know I-M284 is believed to be native to the Isles and is actually descended from I-M223, but I believe there is a predominantly Germanic clade of I-M223 that used to be represented by the old moniker "I1c".

Anyway, I-M253 (I1) is the main one about which I was speaking. It and old I1c are most frequent in pretty much the same places in Britain in which U106 is most frequent, i.e., the places where the Anglo-Saxons settled most thickly, particularly what is now SE England.

rms2
11-19-2014, 01:00 PM
As for Mayo I'm assuming you are talking about the results from Geno 2.0 which only reported Haplogroup I, that's about as informative as reporting "Haplogroup R". They had 7% I/R1a and claimed this represented scandinavian origin.

I1 in Ireland is probably as much reflective of post 1169 as it is of Vikings tbh. Again talking at levels like I1 vs I2 is kinda like talking about R1a (M420) vs R1b (M343) it's basically useless without going into the deep phylogeny of the two haplogroups, (which probably separated from each other over 10-15,000 years ago)

Isn't the famous Guinness family I-M284? I seem to remember hearing that someplace.

Dubhthach
11-19-2014, 03:37 PM
Isn't the famous Guinness family I-M284? I seem to remember hearing that someplace.

Well the Magenis (Mag Aonghusa) family of County Down appear to be I-M284, however the Guinness family (of beer fame) appear not to be connected, Patrick Guinness has done testing, I believe (but could be wrong that he's M222) he gave a presentation there at Genetic Genealogy Ireland

http://ggi2013.blogspot.ie/2014/09/patrick-guinness-clans-of-north-west.html

Maurice Gleeson had a video of this talk up but I can't seem to find it now. Anyways the Guinness family when they became famous claimed descent from the Down family so much so that they would eventually get given the title of "Earl of Iveagh" (senior branch of family)

-Paul




Mag AONGHUIS, Mag AONGHUSA—IV—Maguiness, Maguinness, Magennis, Maginness, MacGuinnessy, MacGuinness, MacGenniss, Meginniss, &c.; 'son of Aonghus' (one-choice); variant of Mac Aonghuis, Mac Aonghusa; sometimes corrupted to Mag Naois and Mag Raois, which see; the name of an ancient and powerful family in Co. Down. They were originally dynasts of Clann Aodha, a subdivision of Ui Eathach Cobha, but in the course of the 12th century their power greatly increased, and they became chief lords of all Ui Eathach, now the baronies of Upper and Lower Iveagh. Many distinguished chiefs of the name are mentioned in the Irish annals. Towards the close of the 16th century, the name was found in many parts of Leinster and Connacht, and also in Co. Limerick, where the rare anglicised form, MacGuinnessy, is now found.

rossa
11-19-2014, 04:27 PM
I seem to re-call a Eupedia type map showing a higher than usual I1 level in Mayo, after looking for it all I can find is a map showing I only levels across Europe with a hot spot around Mayo. M253 is labelled beside this area, so it is a dodgy map I'm recalling.
You're right that I2 is a bit of a broad term, I think the two main divisions are M223 and L161 (the one that seems a best candidate for being the oldest).
I remember someone before claiming there to be a hot spot around Rathcroghan in Roscommon for L161, Ian Adamson tries to use this as his idea for the Cruithin being aboriginal and then driven to Scotland by gaels. Is there ahigh levels of M222 around Rathcroghan, I wonder if the arrival of both clades could be linked.

rms2
11-19-2014, 04:34 PM
Thanks, Paul. It's good news to hear that famous brewing family is probably M222+. I prefer the idea that one of my favorite beers was invented by an L21+ guy. ;)

OFC47
11-19-2014, 06:38 PM
Patrick Guinness was a little disappointed with that result at the time.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2008-10/1222901582

His line is related to McCartan, also from the same area, Co. Down. Charles DeGaulle descended from a MacCartan, allegedly the noble line so they wouldn’t be related.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/de-gaulle-s-irish-roots-traced-to-co-down-clan-with-military-prowess-1.1899741

http://zythophile.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/arthur-guinnesss-true-genetic-roots/

Rory Cain
11-19-2014, 08:50 PM
I remember someone before claiming there to be a hot spot around Rathcroghan in Roscommon for L161, Ian Adamson tries to use this as his idea for the Cruithin being aboriginal and then driven to Scotland by gaels. Is there ahigh levels of M222 around Rathcroghan, I wonder if the arrival of both clades could be linked.

The M222 appears to be associated with the Ui Fiachra and Ui Briuin dynasties, and are not necessarily centred on Rathcroghan as that was never their capital. Only the later Tara Myth made it so.

The I-L161 around Rathcroghan would appear to support Adamson, except that it's not quite as neat as that. It does not match up with the surnames of the septs of the Six Soghains, traditionally Cruithne descendants.

The numbers of Soghain surnames with DNA test results is small, and suffer the same degree of anglicisation as Gaelic surnames so positive identification can be problematic. Several individuals with Soghain surnames appear to have R-DF21 which is less likely to be Cruithne and more likely to be from the Ciannachta tribes who were a client state and ally of the Connaught dynasty on their frontiers.

To my knowledge, the Cruithne remain somewhat elusive in their DNA. I-L161 was most likely one type, but perhaps not the only type of Cruithne DNA, IMHO of course.

Dubhthach
11-19-2014, 09:02 PM
The M222 appears to be associated with the Ui Fiachra and Ui Briuin dynasties, and are not necessarily centred on Rathcroghan as that was never their capital. Only the later Tara Myth made it so.

The I-L161 around Rathcroghan would appear to support Adamson, except that it's not quite as neat as that. It does not match up with the surnames of the septs of the Six Soghains, traditionally Cruithne descendants.

The numbers of Soghain surnames with DNA test results is small, and suffer the same degree of anglicisation as Gaelic surnames so positive identification can be problematic. Several individuals with Soghain surnames appear to have R-DF21 which is less likely to be Cruithne and more likely to be from the Ciannachta tribes who were a client state and ally of the Connaught dynasty on their frontiers.

To my knowledge, the Cruithne remain somewhat elusive in their DNA. I-L161 was most likely one type, but perhaps not the only type of Cruithne DNA, IMHO of course.

Cruachan Aí indeed was probably long abandoned by the time the Uí Briúin took Mag Aí (Magh nAoi -- literally "Plain of Sheep"). However the site did play an important part for them been used for inaugurations of the rulers of the Uí Briúin Aí (basically the O'Connor family from 10th century onwards). The site does after all have important poetic/quasi-historical connections to them. Even to this day the O'Conor family retains land within the historic Mag Aí which shows continuity of land holding for them back to at least early 8th century.

I'd imagine given that "Cruithne" basically means "someone from Britain" that you are going to see multiple haplogroups, the connection of I2 them was specifically to just one dynastical grouping which is connected to the Dál nAraidi

Rory Cain
11-20-2014, 01:09 AM
You are mistaken. I never said all I2 is Germanic. I would not have said that, since I have never thought that. I said I-M253 (I1) and I-M223 (old I1c) were probably Germanic.

I think that I2 in western Ireland is mostly I-M284, which is supposed to date to after the LGM and the initial recolonization. I-M284 was already old in Ireland by the time DF13 arrived there.

I1 (I-M253) and I-M223 on the other hand, are of more recent provenance. If one looks at the old Rootsi et al paper on y haplogroup I in Europe, he will see that I-M253 and I-M223 in what is now England reach their highest frequencies in the southeast, where the Anglo-Saxons settled, in pretty much the same areas where U106 reaches its highest frequencies. Both are also very frequent on the Continent in the old A-S homelands and in Scandinavia.

Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that I-M284, which you acknowledge as being old in Ireland, is a sub-clade of M223, which you state as being a new arrival and Anglo-Saxon. I had it that the chronological sequence was M223 > CTS616 > Y3721 > M284. Is this incorrect? Or am I not reading you correctly?

www.geni.com/projects/I-M284-Y-DNA/3784 states:
I2b1a (M284) has been found almost exclusively among the population of Great Britain, suggesting that the clade may have arisen in that island. I2b1a is comparatively rare in Ireland. Where it is found in those of Irish descent with Gaelic surnames, and particularly in baronial families with a credible pedigree back to a Cruithin (British) origin, this suggests an ancestor who arrived in Ireland from Celtic Britain. For example it is found in McGuinness and McCartan men descended from the Uí Echach Cobha, a lineage considered Cruithin in the 6th century AD.

The Ui Echach Cobha are the leading branch of the Dal nAraidhe to whom Paul refers. The Ui Echach Cobha septs of Magennis, McCarton & O'Haughey look I2a2b-Isles or I-L161. I dont recall that the other branch ofthe Dal nAradie which includes Coigley, Lynch & McGilmer/McGilmore, etc. provided clear-cut results. Possibly too much M222 intrusion, if I recall? Or else yet another example of miltiple DNA types within a traditional Gaelic pedigree. Back on more familiar turf for me,the Ui Fiachrach Aidhne include M222 in the Cenel Guaire or leading septs, and two clades of DF21 in the outer circle of septs.Even within the Cenel Guaire there appears to be an L513 sept who held the Lordship of Aidhne at one point and eprhaps had to be awarded a royal pedigree to save face for the Cenel Guaire. I would love for the genalogies to match the DNA, but all too often we ain't that lucky.

Salkin
11-20-2014, 09:49 AM
Once we had the SNP markers, an analysis of German DNA demonstrated the notion of a purebred Aryan race to be a total nonsense. The Germanic race is as mongrel-bred as the rest of us, if not more so.

I totally agree that the notion of an Aryan race at all is preposterous, and that the modern German population is heavily admixed. It annoys me how English likes to conflate Germanic with modern German, though. In more sensible languages ( ;) ) we have different terms for "pertaining to the modern nation of Germany" vs. "pertaining to Germanic tribes, their descendants, or modern populations speaking Germanic languages", which makes a great deal of sense since they are rather different concepts.

I don't see "racial purity" as anything inherently desirable, but submit that the least admixed Germanic descendants are probably found in Scandinavia, although they are by no means 100% "pure" either. Y-DNA I1 seems to be considered a Germanic marker and seems to be predominant up here.

rms2
11-20-2014, 01:17 PM
Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that I-M284, which you acknowledge as being old in Ireland, is a sub-clade of M223, which you state as being a new arrival and Anglo-Saxon. I had it that the chronological sequence was M223 > CTS616 > Y3721 > M284. Is this incorrect? Or am I not reading you correctly? . . .


Your mistake was the assertion that I said all I2 in the Isles is Germanic. I never said that and never would, because I know better.

I realize that M284 is a descendant of M223. I was talking about whatever subclade it is of M223 (old "I1c") that shows up mainly in the old homelands of the Anglo-Saxons and in SE England. I must confess (which I did already) that I have not kept up with the most recent profusion of y haplogroup I SNPs, but I recall that there is a variety of old I1c, distinct from I-M284, that has the distribution I described.

I already knew about I-M284, which you should have been able to see from reading my posts.

rms2
11-20-2014, 01:20 PM
I totally agree that the notion of an Aryan race at all is preposterous, and that the modern German population is heavily admixed. It annoys me how English likes to conflate Germanic with modern German, though. In more sensible languages ( ;) ) we have different terms for "pertaining to the modern nation of Germany" vs. "pertaining to Germanic tribes, their descendants, or modern populations speaking Germanic languages", which makes a great deal of sense since they are rather different concepts.

I don't see "racial purity" as anything inherently desirable, but submit that the least admixed Germanic descendants are probably found in Scandinavia, although they are by no means 100% "pure" either. Y-DNA I1 seems to be considered a Germanic marker and seems to be predominant up here.

I don't think people who know what they're talking about conflate the terms German and Germanic, and neither does the English language, really.

Rory Cain
11-20-2014, 09:04 PM
I totally agree that the notion of an Aryan race at all is preposterous, and that the modern German population is heavily admixed. It annoys me how English likes to conflate Germanic with modern German, though. In more sensible languages ( ;) ) we have different terms for "pertaining to the modern nation of Germany" vs. "pertaining to Germanic tribes, their descendants, or modern populations speaking Germanic languages", which makes a great deal of sense since they are rather different concepts.

I don't see "racial purity" as anything inherently desirable, but submit that the least admixed Germanic descendants are probably found in Scandinavia, although they are by no means 100% "pure" either. Y-DNA I1 seems to be considered a Germanic marker and seems to be predominant up here.

If I1 is what Germanic racial purity theory depends upon, then I would have to agree with you, that it makes the Swedes the purest Germanic nation. Just as if it is R1a that represents Slavic purity that Russian nationalism is often linked to, that would actually make Poland the purest Slavic nation.

However the supporters of racial purity theories never the the facts get in the way of their story.

ADW_1981
11-20-2014, 09:23 PM
I don't see "racial purity" as anything inherently desirable, but submit that the least admixed Germanic descendants are probably found in Scandinavia, although they are by no means 100% "pure" either. Y-DNA I1 seems to be considered a Germanic marker and seems to be predominant up here.

I1 is also a hunter-gatherer, non-IE marker as well. For the record, all of these folks to date have been found with brown/black hair. However, it appears some hunter gatherers had blue eyes.

dp
11-20-2014, 10:52 PM
... but submit that the least admixed Germanic descendants are probably found in Scandinavia, although they are by no means 100% "pure" either. Y-DNA I1 seems to be considered a Germanic marker and seems to be predominant up here.
In some regards Danish DNA and Anglo-Saxon are not dissimilar. Norwegian DNA on the other hand is distinguisable from A-S (Germanic). JeanM will know what study I'm thinking of. Got to go.
dp :-)

Salkin
11-21-2014, 08:08 AM
In some regards Danish DNA and Anglo-Saxon are not dissimilar. Norwegian DNA on the other hand is distinguisable from A-S (Germanic). JeanM will know what study I'm thinking of.

The PoBI one with a map showing the Welsh to be Celtic-green Pac-Men? Yes, that was interesting to see. I found the choice of proxy populations somewhat peculiar, but presumably they knew what they were doing.

It may indeed be that Scandinavia follows the same pattern as found in the rest of Europe - greater N/S differences vs. E/W. Denmark has certainly had a lot of interaction with Germany, rather naturally given the geography.

I plot fairly close to Norwegians with a lot of calculators, which makes sense seeing as I'm from the west, not too far from the Norwegian border. And I don't think any of them have mistaken me for Danish.

rms2
11-22-2014, 04:12 AM
A lot of the "racial purity of the Germans" nonsense stems from a famous passage in Tacitus' Germania:



For my own part, I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all taint of intermarriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves. Hence, too, the same physical peculiarities throughout so vast a population. All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion. They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them.

Germania (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html)

Rory Cain
12-01-2014, 05:20 AM
As the Y-tree presently stands, Hinxton 4 being DF25+, he could belong to any of the following known sub-clades of DF25: DF5, CTS3849, S4858 or S6189.

MJost
12-02-2014, 03:16 PM
As the Y-tree presently stands, Hinxton 4 being DF25+, he could belong to any of the following known sub-clades of DF25: DF5, CTS3849, S4858 or S6189.
You might have seen this blog post. It seems that some were a small close knit family cluster.

How the Hinxtons are related to each other?
Felix Chandrakumar
October 31, 2014

http://www.fc.id.au/2014/10/how-hinxtons-are-related-to-each-other.html

(See Charts in his post.)

"Using Interpretome, based on compound segments below is how the Hinxtons are related.

Based on the above tree, Hinxton-2 and Hinxton-5 are closely related. The ancestor of both is closely related to Hinxton-1 than Hinxton-3 and Hinxton-4.


Excluding Hinxton-2, Hnxton-5 and both reveals, Hinxton-1 is closely related to Hinxton-5 and Hinxton-3 is closely related to Hinxton-2. Hinxton-4 is the most distantly related.

Combining the above data, below is how they are truly related, showing pedigree collapse in the hinxton's family tree.

Based on Runs of Homozygosity, we know the following.

•Hinxton-2 parents are first cousins.
•Hinxton-3 parents are first or second cousins.
•Hinxton-5 parents are half siblings.

We know that Hinxton-2, Hinxton-3 and Hinxton-5 are all females, while Hinxton-1 and Hinxton-4 are males. Hinxton-2, Hinxton-3 and Hinxton-5 are not related to each other in genealogical timeframe."

Also
http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/hinxton-dna.html

MJost

Rory Cain
01-07-2015, 09:22 PM
While there are DF21 results from England, they are few and far between compared with results from Ireland and Scotland. The nearest DF21 group to Hinxton may be the Lyon group from Middlesex, who are the DF5 clade of Z246.

rms2
01-08-2015, 01:37 PM
While there are DF21 results from England, they are few and far between compared with results from Ireland and Scotland. The nearest DF21 group to Hinxton may be the Lyon group from Middlesex, who are the DF5 clade of Z246.

Probably the y-dna situation in AD 1 was a lot different than it is now. What is now SE England ("Angle-land") was British (that is, Celtic) territory back then and probably loaded with L21. Maybe most of it in the Cambridgeshire area and the land of the Catuvellauni was DF21. The arrival of the Anglo-Saxons en masse starting in the immediate post-Roman Period changed all that.

Rory Cain
01-08-2015, 10:46 PM
Probably the y-dna situation in AD 1 was a lot different than it is now. What is now SE England ("Angle-land") was British (that is, Celtic) territory back then and probably loaded with L21. Maybe most of it in the Cambridgeshire area and the land of the Catuvellauni was DF21. The arrival of the Anglo-Saxons en masse starting in the immediate post-Roman Period changed all that.

No doubt things are different some 2,000 years later. The Lyon ancestor, John de Lyoun 1225-1294 is about midway between now and AD 1. In addition to change, there is often continuity. perhaps the DF21+ Lyons of Middlesex represent some small degree of continuity. If so, that continuity is possibly stengthened by the two Celtic Hinxton males. The case for (some) continuity is also supported by a paper presented by Arthur Gray: On the Late Survival of a Celtic Population in East Anglia, www.cantabnet/users/michael.behrend/repubs/gray_2_papers/pages/late_survival.html

Gray presents evidence of a population either speaking Welsh or racially identified as Welsh even in this most germanic part of "England". I won't say "Anglo-Saxon" part of "England", as it was within the Danelaw. "England" had shrunk down to Wessex about this time, under Aethelred the Unready. Interestingly, in 991, Aethelred and the Danes each undertook not to abet the Welshmen. From the evidence that Gray present, these are not passport-carrying citizens of Wales, but native Britons living in "England" and/ or the Danelaw. In his coverage of native Britons living there, Gray mentions Lincolnshire, Huntingdon and Cambridge, the country where Hinxton is situated.

Gray notes that the Doomsday Book shows an east-west cline in the number of serfs, highest in the west and lowest in the east. He believes that this represents the native Briton population. He also gives an instance of a provincial king who bears an anglicised name but is identified by popular sources as a Welshman (Briton). So some Welshmen (Britons) also remained at higher social levels than that of self. Therefore it remains possible that the few DF21+ samples we have from gland generally, and from the southeast especially, may nonetheless represent some small degree of continuity with its past population.

As for attributing DF21 to specific British tribes, that remains difficult. I am not aware of any evidence that would make the Catuvellauni DF21+, but am amenable to being educated. One theory regarding the founders of the DF21+ Airghialla in south Ulster is that they were Trinovantes from Colchester, Essex, a county bordering Cambridgeshire. Personally I am waiting for more evidence before attributing DF21+ status to either of these tribes, but I don't deny the possibility exists.

rms2
01-09-2015, 12:47 PM
Of course, I did not say the entire tribe of the Catuvellauni was DF21+, but we do know of at least one ancient man who was DF21+ (and DF25+) and likely a member of that tribe. There may have been more, and it is even possible most Catuvellauni males were DF21+ (although, obviously, we don't know that for sure).

I don't think it is any great revelation that Britons survived everywhere in what is now England. After all, the frequency of L21 is still fairly substantial in eastern and southeastern England. About 12% is its lowest ebb anywhere, according to Busby, and that came at Myres "Central England" sample location. At Myres' "Southeast England" sample location (utilized in Busby), the L21 frequency was 15.4%.

Of course, in terms of L21 in the Isles, the frequencies in eastern England are the lowest anywhere.

Rory Cain
01-09-2015, 10:37 PM
Of course, I did not say the entire tribe of the Catuvellauni was DF21+, but we do know of at least one ancient man who was DF21+ (and DF25+) and likely a member of that tribe. There may have been more, and it is even possible most Catuvellauni males were DF21+ (although, obviously, we don't know that for sure).

I don't think it is any great revelation that Britons survived everywhere in what is now England. After all, the frequency of L21 is still fairly substantial in eastern and southeastern England. About 12% is its lowest ebb anywhere, according to Busby, and that came at Myres "Central England" sample location. At Myres' "Southeast England" sample location (utilized in Busby), the L21 frequency was 15.4%.

Of course, in terms of L21 in the Isles, the frequencies in eastern England are the lowest anywhere.

We are talking about DF21, not L21. DF21 is a smallest percentage of L21. From early and very optimistic estimates of 20 %, I think current estimates of DF21 has shrunk to about half that. So even if L21 was the majority haplotype of southeast England at one time, we cannot say the same thing about DF21. To covert your L21 percentages to DF21, we would probably move the decimal point one step to the left, creating DF21 percentages of 1.2% and 1.54% respectively.

Unless, and this was probably the case, as it is now, that the distribution of DF21 within the L21 gene pool was not uniformly distributed, but had hotspots in Britain as it does in say south Ulster and the belt from Co Laois through east Co Galway. There would not appear to be enough DF21 information coming out of England to ID such a hotspot there, and perhaps due to race change we can no longer do so. I appreciate that you have tried to do your best with very limited information. However if that's all we have to work with, we are in serious need of further information, IMHO.

We are hampered by the present lack of information on DF21, and the use of L21 data to draw inferences regarding DF21 as you have done may well be the only tool available at present.

rms2
01-10-2015, 04:24 PM
But you did talk about the survival of Britons in East Anglia, and that means you were not just talking about DF21, unless you were arguing they were all DF21+ and just didn't say so.

As you said, we don't have much info on the frequency of DF21 is SE England, but we do know that at least one of those two ancient Celts from Hinxton was DF21+. Chances are he wasn't alone in that.

alan
01-10-2015, 04:43 PM
Is the DF21 SNP directly below DF13?

alan
01-10-2015, 04:59 PM
I cannot recall of the top of my head all the details of which tribes in SE England opposed and which became clients of the Romans. I suppose the elites like the Iceni who opposed would have likely been pretty wiped out or scattered by the Roman military machine while those who were friendly like the Atrebates, Dumnoni Dubbuni and others may have survived intact. Such was the power of the Romans that you either had to submit, die or retreat. This gives an interesting summary of relations between British tribes and the Romans

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/iron_01.shtml

Dubhthach
01-10-2015, 05:16 PM
Is the DF21 SNP directly below DF13?

Yup, not only that but it doesn't have any equivalent SNP's at the DF21 level, it looks like it differeniated quite quickly after DF13 (which has only one equivalent snp). See Alex Williamson's chart of DF21 here (based on BigY/NGS testing)

http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/NGS/R-DF21.html

General index page with links to each of major L21 clades:
http://www.littlescottishcluster.com/RL21/NGS/Tree.html

-Paul

Rory Cain
01-14-2015, 02:01 AM
Yup, not only that but it doesn't have any equivalent SNP's at the DF21 level, it looks like it differeniated quite quickly after DF13 (which has only one equivalent snp).
-Paul

And within L21 > DF13 > DF21 > Z246 > DF25, the biggest sub-clade is DF5. It's smaller siblings CTS3849, S4858 & S6189 are either singletons, private or near-private. The "lab rats" apparently couldn't extract any of those SNPs from his old remains. Statistically, the odds would appear to be that Hinxton 4 might well be DF5, like surviving local family Lyon of Fairfield, Middlesex.

Rory

01-14-2015, 10:37 AM
There are quite a number of us who are Z246- so apparently on one of the other branches. The current tree posted on the FTDNA DF21 Project Site.

Rory Cain
01-14-2015, 11:42 AM
There are quite a number of us who are Z246- so apparently on one of the other branches. The current tree posted on the FTDNA DF21 Project Site.

Hi Bill, as you are Z246- it follows that you would also be DF25-, so your group branched off before Hinxton 4. At least two steps before. The SNPs listed in your profile above as tested for are getting dated by newer additions to the DF21 Ytree. The "sons" of DF21 are now S971, FGC3213, FGC3903, S5456 & S5488. On STR markers, you appear closest to the S5488 guys.

01-15-2015, 08:54 AM
Hi Bill, as you are Z246- it follows that you would also be DF25-, so your group branched off before Hinxton 4. At least two steps before. The SNPs listed in your profile above as tested for are getting dated by newer additions to the DF21 Ytree. The "sons" of DF21 are now S971, FGC3213, FGC3903, S5456 & S5488. On STR markers, you appear closest to the S5488 guys.

Right, my thinking as a possibility for S5488. Although I am already neg for three snps of it's sub-branches. Also, S971 seems the only main sub-branch I have not tested from so that is a prospect. Maybe later I will test one or both. For now I am awaiting my 111 STR results.
Take care.
Bill

Rory Cain
02-05-2015, 02:13 AM
Bill, in the R-DF21 Project we have five sub-groups named U01 to U05 who are DF21* and whose sub-clade of DF21 is unknown. Hence the group name starting with U for unknown. A comparison of Y111 results indicates that all five U sub-groups are likely S5489, including your sub-group. I expect that your Y111 will point in the same direction.

This would further add to the existing size, genetic diversity and age of S6488 as we presently know it.

Rory Cain
02-05-2015, 02:14 AM
Damn those typos, which should read S5488.

02-05-2015, 04:21 AM
Okie dokie. Thanks. I'm already neg for L130, L720, & L1336 which are under S5488. I suppose I could be elsewhere one of the main sub-branches.

oneillabu
02-05-2015, 05:51 PM
in the R-DF21 Project we have five sub-groups named U01 to U05 who are DF21* and whose sub-clade of DF21 is unknown. Hence the group name starting with U for unknown. A comparison of Y111 results indicates that all five U sub-groups are likely S5489,



Regarding the Welsh group of James, Evans and Jones the average GD to Wilson is 4 so this indicates a common ancestor of around 400 years ago. Also the average distance between Harris and the Welsh cluster is around 4 so the common ancestor of the cluster lived around 450 years ago and given the Norman origin of both the Wilson and Harris surnames this points to a North Welsh or Scottish border region origin of this common ancestor.

This cluster is almost certainly S5488 amd Z16294 positive because they share the unusual DYS570 value of 13 with Simmons who has tested positive for both of these SNP’s, the distance at 111 markers between Simmons and Evans from the Welsh cluster is 15 which indicates a common ancestor from around 1200 years ago while the distance at 111 markers between the Irish Roscommon L130 cluster who are also Z16294+ and Simmons is 41 which indicates that the common ancestor between the Roscommon Irish and the Simmons/Harris/Welsh cluster is over 3000 years ago.

Unless we have a number of different matches such as Simmons that indicate a distinct split between the Irish and a new Northern British cluster we must assume that the ancestor of Simmons originated in Ireland.

I will look at the other U subgroups later.

Rory Cain
02-06-2015, 09:38 PM
Regarding the Welsh group of James, Evans and Jones the average GD to Wilson is 4 ...
This cluster is almost certainly S5488 amd Z16294 positive because they share the unusual DYS570 value of 13 with Simmons who has tested positive for both of these SNP’s, the distance at 111 markers between Simmons and Evans from the Welsh cluster is 15 which indicates a common ancestor from around 1200 years ago while the distance at 111 markers between the Irish Roscommon L130 cluster who are also Z16294+ and Simmons is 41 which indicates that the common ancestor between the Roscommon Irish and the Simmons/Harris/Welsh cluster is over 3000 years ago.

I will look at the other U subgroups later.

Thanks. I am leaning that way too. It is always problematic for project admins when a group has either done no SNP testing, or when the SNPs tested have been superseded by more recent discoveries. I am persuaded by what you have presented and have beefed up the interim name of this group from "possible S5488" to "likely S5488 > Z16294+".

oneillabu
02-07-2015, 10:10 PM
Regarding the Welsh group of James, Evans and Jones the average GD to Wilson is 4 so this indicates a common ancestor of around 400 years ago. Also the average distance between Harris and the Welsh cluster is around 4 so the common ancestor of the cluster lived around 450 years ago and given the Norman origin of both the Wilson and Harris surnames this points to a North Welsh or Scottish border region origin of this common ancestor.

This cluster is almost certainly S5488 amd Z16294 positive because they share the unusual DYS570 value of 13 with Simmons who has tested positive for both of these SNP’s, the distance at 111 markers between Simmons and Evans from the Welsh cluster is 15 which indicates a common ancestor from around 1200 years ago while the distance at 111 markers between the Irish Roscommon L130 cluster who are also Z16294+ and Simmons is 41 which indicates that the common ancestor between the Roscommon Irish and the Simmons/Harris/Welsh cluster is over 3000 years ago.

Unless we have a number of different matches such as Simmons that indicate a distinct split between the Irish and a new Northern British cluster we must assume that the ancestor of Simmons originated in Ireland.

I will look at the other U subgroups later.

Looking at the Mansfield group U05 I do not see a likely S5488 correlation, the low value for DYS390 together with the 16-16 value for DYF395S1 make 314.2 probably the best test to take but there are other markers that contradict this as well. If he test for S5488 and is S5488+ then it will be a new line not matching any existing patterns.

In group U03 Mahon and Gammie have a GD of 25 at 111 markers so they should be treated separately

Mahon has no match in the project group that points in any particular direction so any test will be a lottery however one interesting slow mutating marker that he also shares with Gammie is a DYS511 value of 9 and this value is to be found in all Clan Colla, one S5488 person, two 314.2 and two DF25 people. The distance between Gammie and B6774 Richard Nagle who is DF25+ and has a DYS511 value of 9 at 67 markers is 11 making this probably the best line of testing for Gammie.

Group U04 consists of two Jones from Wales who come from the same ancestor very recently, I could not find any tangible match to point in any direction so any test of the older SNP’s is possible, S5488 is as good as any to start with because it is simply a process of elimination.

Group U10 Misc

Frederick Reith most likely match is 314.2 with a GD of 18 at 111 markers to 208773 (Sullivan)
George Simpson, no recommendation
306923 Bean (McBain), no recommendation
John Walker, no recommendation

Group U02

GD distance between both Brooks members is 7 at 111 markers indicating a common ancestor from around 500 years ago both from Pately Bridge in Yorkshire. The Brooks surname is locational indicating residency near water and likewise the oldest recording of the Pately Bridge name is Patheslayewathe which can be translated to “A shallow place in water” so this seems to indicate a very old connection to this place. The other member of this group is Leeming who is also from Pately Bridge, the GD between Leeming and Brooks at 37 markers is 12 meaning that the connection between Brooks and Leeming is very old however CDYA and CDYB accounts for 6 of these 12 and these are very fast mutating markers.

All three share a unique pattern of marker mutations in the first 12 markers and I found a Smith (TV4M2) in YSEARCH from Scotland who has this pattern making him a strong candidate for this cluster. I could find no other matches that indicate any direction to take for further SNP testing so again it is a process of elimination.

Group J1d Latta

The last project member I looked at is Latta who is llisted as originating in Belgium in 1050 AD and most likely Pre-Ely O’Carroll. It is very easy to jump to conclusions of European origin when you see this however like I discovered with Ruttelli from Italy when I hastily looked for a BOII connection I soon realised that the truth is often very different.

Rather than investigating the Celtic tribes of Belgium I looked for an answer nearer to home and sure enough I discovered that the name Latta has a Scottish origin from around a thousand years ago associated with William Latta Baron of Scotland. According to Scottish Kith and Kin the name Latta is a form of Laithe which later became Leith of Scotland.

What I did not realise was that there is a project group for Latta with 37 members from Scotland and Ireland all with the same DF21 signature as the Belgium Latta who has a common ancestor with all of these within the timeframe of surnames or around 850 years ago. So much for the Belgium origin for DF21 which shows that there is no substitue for diligent research.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/LATTA-Gene.Society/default.aspx?section=yresults

Rory Cain
02-08-2015, 12:05 AM
Mansfield group U05 I do not see a likely S5488 correlation, the low value for DYS390 together with the 16-16 value for DYF395S1 make 314.2 probably the best test to take but there are other markers that contradict this as well.

U03 Mahon and Gammie have a GD of 25 at 111 markers so they should be treated separately.

Mahon has no match in the project group that points in any particular direction so any test will be a lottery however one interesting slow mutating marker that he also shares with Gammie is a DYS511 value of 9 and this value is to be found in all Clan Colla, one S5488 person, two 314.2 and two DF25 people. The distance between Gammie and B6774 Richard Nagle who is DF25+ and has a DYS511 value of 9 at 67 markers is 11 making this probably the best line of testing for Gammie.

Group U04 consists of two Jones from Wales who come from the same ancestor very recently, I could not find any tangible match to point in any direction so any test of the older SNP’s is possible, S5488 is as good as any to start with because it is simply a process of elimination.

Group U10 Misc
Frederick Reith most likely match is 314.2 with a GD of 18 at 111 markers to 208773 (Sullivan)
George Simpson, no recommendation
306923 Bean (McBain), no recommendation
John Walker, no recommendation

Group U02 Brooks members from Pately Bridge in Yorkshire.
All three share a unique pattern of marker mutations in the first 12 markers and I found a Smith (TV4M2) in YSEARCH from Scotland who has this pattern making him a strong candidate for this cluster. I could find no other matches that indicate any direction to take for further SNP testing so again it is a process of elimination.

Group J1d Latta

The last project member I looked at is Latta who is llisted as originating in Belgium in 1050 AD and most likely Pre-Ely O’Carroll. It is very easy to jump to conclusions of European origin when you see this however like I discovered with Ruttelli from Italy when I hastily looked for a BOII connection I soon realised that the truth is often very different.

Rather than investigating the Celtic tribes of Belgium I looked for an answer nearer to home and sure enough I discovered that the name Latta has a Scottish origin from around a thousand years ago associated with William Latta Baron of Scotland. According to Scottish Kith and Kin the name Latta is a form of Laithe which later became Leith of Scotland.

What I did not realise was that there is a project group for Latta with 37 members from Scotland and Ireland all with the same DF21 signature as the Belgium Latta who has a common ancestor with all of these within the timeframe of surnames or around 850 years ago. So much for the Belgium origin for DF21 which shows that there is no substitue for diligent research.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/LATTA-Gene.Society/default.aspx?section=yresults

I believe you may have overlooked the project SNP results page. Mansfield already tested P314-, ruling out that suggestion. Mahan alteady tested P314-, Z246- & DF25-, ruling out two of the possibilities mentioned for him, leaving S971 and S5488 as possibilities. I amended the name of that group accordingly to "possible S971 or S5488". Gammie's DF21+ and DF5- do not necessarily rule out DF25 which you suggested for him. That's if you are right and Mike Walsh was wrong in making them both "Mike's Variety 21-1159". But if Mike was right, and they are the same genetic group, then Mahan's Z246- & DF25- would tend to make Gammie negative for those also. I accapt the possibility that you may be right and Mike may be wrong, but I would like to wait for more SNP evidence.

I amended "likely" to "possible" where your research indicated that to be so. You have possibly now experienced what project admins encounter in trying to group results when project members cease SNP testing or simply never commenced. groupings and their names will always be somewhat tentative. I don't think Mike Walsh ever pretended otherwise with his Mike's Variety groupings, nor do I where we have tired of waiting for SNP results and have tried to push ahead, as you have just done. I appreciate your effort.

One can get lucky, as you did with Latta. You may have noticed that I found the Nesbitt clan the same way just recently. On this occasion, one of Mike's Varietys was upheld, and grew a bunch of extra members. They should have their own SNP on the ISOGG Y-tree soon enough.

JRW
02-08-2015, 01:06 PM
Group J1d Latta

The last project member I looked at is Latta who is llisted as originating in Belgium in 1050 AD and most likely Pre-Ely O’Carroll. It is very easy to jump to conclusions of European origin when you see this however like I discovered with Ruttelli from Italy when I hastily looked for a BOII connection I soon realised that the truth is often very different.

Rather than investigating the Celtic tribes of Belgium I looked for an answer nearer to home and sure enough I discovered that the name Latta has a Scottish origin from around a thousand years ago associated with William Latta Baron of Scotland. According to Scottish Kith and Kin the name Latta is a form of Laithe which later became Leith of Scotland.

What I did not realise was that there is a project group for Latta with 37 members from Scotland and Ireland all with the same DF21 signature as the Belgium Latta who has a common ancestor with all of these within the timeframe of surnames or around 850 years ago. So much for the Belgium origin for DF21 which shows that there is no substitue for diligent research.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/LATTA-Gene.Society/default.aspx?section=yresults


It would appear your research did not go sufficiently far. According to the Latta family website, the Scottish/Irish Latta’s are likely of Norman origin (see http://www.latta.org/Articles/whats_in.htm and http://www.latta.org/Articles/LetterfromWm.%20Latta.htm). That conclusion would be consistent with the genetic evidence, given the genetic distance the Latta family has with other DF21 Isles clusters (i.e., STR GDs of 13+ at 67 markers). If the family had its origins in the Isles, we would not be observing such a large GD gap with other DF21 clusters in the Isles.

The Scottish/Irish Latta family likely being of Norman origin is also consistent with Rutelli’s ancestry. Based on his family’s origins in Troina (the first capital of Norman Sicily) and his GDs with DF21 Isles clusters, the evidence would suggest that he is of Norman ancestry as well.

zaru7
02-10-2015, 04:24 AM
While there are DF21 results from England, they are few and far between compared with results from Ireland and Scotland. The nearest DF21 group to Hinxton may be the Lyon group from Middlesex, who are the DF5 clade of Z246.

Rory, the Cornwall/Devon cluster that is forming at z16539 must be of great interest at this point. If for nothing else, the closest genetic distance ([email protected]) with the DF21 group. The Kingston fellow who traces back to Devon is now testing Z16539, and I am confident that he will be derived for that. This will give us 4 people in that small cluster, with a possibility of another coming real soon.

The genetic distance is what has me truly curious about this. The haplotypes are quite off modal, and I would have wagered that this group was continental for sure. Now, it appears to be improbable, at least within the last 2000 years.

Rory Cain
02-10-2015, 10:22 AM
Rory, the Cornwall/Devon cluster that is forming at z16539 must be of great interest at this point. If for nothing else, the closest genetic distance ([email protected]) with the DF21 group. The Kingston fellow who traces back to Devon is now testing Z16539, and I am confident that he will be derived for that. This will give us 4 people in that small cluster, with a possibility of another coming real soon.

The genetic distance is what has me truly curious about this. The haplotypes are quite off modal, and I would have wagered that this group was continental for sure. Now, it appears to be improbable, at least within the last 2000 years.

Yes, Z16539 is of considerable evidence to us at the R-DF21 Project. It already has three sub-clades, so in view of that I immediately proposed Z16539 for inclusion on the ISOGG Y-tree and Charles Fueston supported my submission. One of its sub-clades, V75, may also appear on the ISOGG Y-tree shortly. You can see why I pushed that one through, with the GD between its first two members already meeting ISOGG requirement. That leaves your Cornwall sub-group plus the biggest sub-group, from southern Scotland and east Galway. When we settle on a defining SNP for each of those sub-groups, I will lodge further submissions with ISOGG.

DF21 is quite an old clade and there are some big GDs between its members and between its sub-groups. Picking a few at random, I found GDs for the sub-groups as listed below to the nearest other sub-group:
O'Cathain of east Galway: GD 14 @ 67, GD 25 @ 111
O'Beirne of Co Roscommon: GD 13 @ 67
Griffeth (etc.) of north Wales: GD 14 @ 67, GD 23 @ 111
Lyon of Middlesex: GD 9 @ 67, GD 25 @ 111
Z16539 Group A3 of southern Scotland & east Galway, GD 12 @ 67, GD 26 @ 111
Z16539 Group A5 Coberly is GD 10 @ 67, GD 28 @ 111
Z16539 Group A5 Clark is GD 16 @ 67
Z16539 Group A4 of Cornwall & Devon: GD 18 @ 67, GD 34 @ 111

While the GAP Genetic Distance tool gave me a GD of 34 at 111 for one of your group, I am not querying your estimate of GD = 38 @ 111. Your figure may well be more accurate. Either way, it appears to confirm that you are right about the big GDs between your sub-group of Z16539 and other DF21+ kits, even allowing for that fact that GDs of 12, 13 and 14 @ 67, or GDs of 25 and 26 @ 111 are nothing unusual within DF21. Your GD = 34 (or 38) does appear to be very high, given the last estimated age I saw for DF21 was 3,110 years old. That has very likely been revised upwards because DF21 has found a number of new sub-clades since then.

Despite the ever increasing age estimates for DF21, there are very few known Continental DF21 kits. Some are French which has encouraged the Norman theorists, and some are from what are considered Germanic countries nowadays and that has encouraged the Germanic theorists. It is hard to be sure what to make of it with so few Continental DF21+ samples. The vast majority of DF21+ samples are Isles, some with very well established identities which well and truly pre-date events such as the Norman Conquest, the Vikings, the Ango-Saxons and most probably the Romans. However the later arrivals (including later Celtic arrivals) may well have impacted on the specific locations of DF21+ groups in the Isles, which has had a masking effect in that what we see now is not necessarily how it was when DF21 settled in the Isles, or emerged as a local manifestation. I don't believe we know which, whereas it is evident enough that L21 arose on the Continent. The jury is still out regarding DF21. Everyone is welcome to their own theory.

Rory Cain
02-15-2015, 05:49 AM
The Yfull draft y-tree now has a new feature. Just as we discussed sub-clade ages, Yfull now estimates these. I was right about DF21's estimated age of 3,110 years being in need of revision. Yfull estimate it at 5,100 years before present (ybp) with TMRCA of 3,800 ybp. For a clade with so little Continental representation, and almost entirely Isles, that would seem to infer a lengthy residence in the Isles for DF21.

morrisondna
02-16-2015, 11:50 AM
There would seem to be no reason that this lengthy residence in the Isles could not be the case. Post Ice Age settlement should have been well underway at that point.

rms2
02-16-2015, 01:29 PM
There would seem to be no reason that this lengthy residence in the Isles could not be the case. Post Ice Age settlement should have been well underway at that point.

Except it isn't likely that R1b of any kind, including DF21, was anywhere near the Isles immediately following the last Ice Age.

Rory Cain
02-17-2015, 02:27 AM
There would seem to be no reason that this lengthy residence in the Isles could not be the case. Post Ice Age settlement should have been well underway at that point.

The age of DF21 has been a bouncing ball. Remember those early estimates that DF21 would be nearly 20% of L21 and was 3,110 years old? That both overestimated the percentages and underestimated the age of DF21. Trouble is, not everyone has kept up with more recent developments which make DF21 smaller but older than first estimated. Yfull's draft Y-tree v.3.4 is a work in progress, so it will change too, but right now they estimate:
L21 formed ca 5800 ybp and has a MRCA of 5200 ybp
DF13 formed 5200 ybp, MRCA 5100 ybp
DF21 formed 5100 ybp, MRCA 3900 ybp

These are estimates rather than dogma. Nonethless they point to DF21 being older than originally thought. It would look like L21 had an origin on the Continent from whence it arrived in the Isles. DF13 has not had as much research done on it, but as it is only a little younger than L21, we would likely see it arriving in the Isles as part of L21. DF21 is somewhat younger. That factor combined with the very small numbers of DF21+ results from the Continent make it appear reasonable that DF21 developed in the Isles rather than arriving there from the Continent. However that is based on our current level of knowledge and that could well change. But if it developed in the Isles, it's current age estimates would give it a residence of ca 4000 years (based on an estimated MRCA of 3,900 ybp) or more (based on that estimated formation of 5100 ybp). Not as old as the last Glacial Maximum, but older than the Normans as one still sees suggested from time to time.

The question of who first settled the Isles after the last glacial Maximum is another question and one that I am not bold enough to attempt to answer. I cannot help but wonder about the pockets of I-L161 and I-M284 that do not appear to be explained by the later Germanic invasions of Anglos, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings and Normans. But I leave that to others.

rms2
02-17-2015, 02:37 AM
Well, the R1b in the Isles, including DF21, is L23+, and the seven Yamnaya men from the Samara and Orenburg oblasts in Russia were L23+ (and Z2103/Z2105) and dated to about 3300 BC. An R1b1 (L278) hunter-gatherer was also found near Samara, and he was about 7700 years old, the oldest R1b1 thus far found anywhere.

Thus far no R1b has been found in Western Europe dated to earlier than the late Neolithic (the Bell Beaker remains from Kromsdorf, Germany), except the R1b1 (M415) from the Els Trocs site in Spain (~7100 years old), and that one was likely V88. The Mesolithic stuff has generally been I2.

The recent Haak et al paper turned up a Bell Beaker man from the site at Quedlinburg in North Central Germany, circa 2200 BC, who was R1b-P312 (with no-reads at L21, U152, and DF27), and we know the Bell Beaker people settled in the Isles. They are probably the ones who introduced L21 in the Isles beginning about 2300 BC or so. Beaker is pretty close to Yamnaya in autosomal dna, as well. IMHO, the Italo-Celtic speech, as well as L21, arrived in the Isles with Beaker.

IMHO, ancient y-dna beats the heck out of SNP counting and STR variance estimates.

Rory Cain
02-17-2015, 03:53 AM
Well, the R1b in the Isles, including DF21, is L23+, and the seven Yamnaya men from the Samara and Orenburg oblasts in Russia were L23+ (and Z2103/Z2105) and dated to about 3300 BC. An R1b1 (L278) hunter-gatherer was also found near Samara, and he was about 7700 years old, the oldest R1b1 thus far found anywhere.

Thus far no R1b has been found in Western Europe dated to earlier than the late Neolithic (the Bell Beaker remains from Kromsdorf, Germany), except the R1b1 (M415) from the Els Trocs site in Spain (~7100 years old), and that one was likely V88. The Mesolithic stuff has generally been I2.

The recent Haak et al paper turned up a Bell Beaker man from the site at Quedlinburg in North Central Germany, circa 2200 BC, who was R1b-P312 (with no-reads at L21, U152, and DF27), and we know the Bell Beaker people settled in the Isles. They are probably the ones who introduced L21 in the Isles beginning about 2300 BC or so. Beaker is pretty close to Yamnaya in autosomal dna, as well. IMHO, the Italo-Celtic speech, as well as L21, arrived in the Isles with Beaker.

IMHO, ancient y-dna beats the heck out of SNP counting and STR variance estimates.

Thanks for that. It's good to have another and different perspective that another science can bring. No argument with ancient Y-DNA except that there just isn't enough of it. If the Hinxton L21 and DF25 are the oldest of their haplotype(s) in ancient Y-DNA, then this still fits the scenario of L21 arriving from the Continent and DF21 developing from it in the Isles. Nor am I seeing a big difference between Yfull's estimated age of ca 4,000 ybp and your quoted figure of 2,300 BC (which I have no problem with, BTW). Aren't they much the same, just expressed differently? I respect your preference for ancient Y-DNA and wish there was more of it. Nonetheless it seems to me that the ancient Y-DNA and SNP counting are in broad agreement. When one uses two different methods and arrives at much the same answer, that is persuasive. That seems to be the situation here. Thank you.

Muircheartaigh
02-17-2015, 09:31 AM
The recently reported ancient DNA results don't tell us the age of the SNPs. It tells us that the donors were carrying certain SNPs found in present day DNA donors. A year ago my terminal SNP was Z253 and I had no known SNPs below Z253. It now transpires that I have around 40 Big Y SNPs and 60 FGC SNPs downstream of Z253 indicating that Z253 is thousands of years previous to my actual terminal SNP.

The recent tests on Ancient DNA targeted known SNPs found in present day populations and do not report private SNPs. Donors of Ancient DNA will no doubt carry multiple SNPs downstream of the ones reported and not found in present day populations.

In my opinion, Accurate dating of SNPs requires a combination of NGS testing of Ancient DNA to determine known and private SNPs in the donor combined with SNP counting of the private SNPs to count back to a known SNP.

Dubhthach
02-17-2015, 09:57 AM
It depends on level of testing done on ancient remains, if I recall correctly in case of Hinxton they were able to recover a full genome, as a result the Y could be analysed for know SNP's as well as "novel".

In the case of Yamnaya remains I believed they used a "SNP chip" (or equivalent) so they tested them for a set of know SNP's (think Geno 2.0/Chromo 2 etc.). Obviously where possible recovering a high coverage ancient genome is the preferable scenario.

rms2
02-17-2015, 11:22 AM
Ancient y-dna results do set lower bounds, i.e., they tell us the derived SNPs cannot be any younger. When a particular region fails to yield ancient y-dna in a given period, that tells us that y haplogroup probably wasn't there at that time.

And evidently SNP counting isn't telling us the age of the SNPs either, at least not all that accurately. Perhaps future refinements will change that, but ancient y-dna is hard evidence, kind of like a smoking gun.

morrisondna
02-17-2015, 11:28 PM
Except it isn't likely that R1b of any kind, including DF21, was anywhere near the Isles immediately following the last Ice Age.

This is an area that I am just getting into, but I wasn't saying that DF21 was in the Isles immediately following the last Ice Age. The time frame under discussion was 5100 ybp, or about 3100 BC. Wouldn't this be roughly late Neolithic, a time when R1b was present in Germany per your later note?

rms2
02-18-2015, 03:59 PM
This is an area that I am just getting into, but I wasn't saying that DF21 was in the Isles immediately following the last Ice Age. The time frame under discussion was 5100 ybp, or about 3100 BC. Wouldn't this be roughly late Neolithic, a time when R1b was present in Germany per your later note?

No problem. It was just the way your post was worded that made me think you meant settlement immediately after the LGM. We don't have any R1b in Germany any earlier than 2600-2500 BC thus far. The Quedlinburg Bell Beaker man who is P312+ dates from ~2200 BC. He was ancestral for a number of SNPs under P312, but they did not get reads for everything, including U152, DF27, and L21.

Rory Cain
02-20-2015, 11:54 PM
With various dates under discussion here, would it help to have some sort of framework? There is no agreed chronological framework so whoever is first to propose anything at all is going to attract criticism. However here goes, extracted from various sources from which I seek neither credit nor blame, just following the journalists' creed of "publish and be damned":

9,000 BC mesolithic hunter gatherers arrive in the Isles
4,000 BC neolithic farmers arrive with the spread of agriculture from out of the middle east
2,000 BC some say the first Celts arrive as the Erainn and give Ireland its name
c.700-500 BC the Cruithne arrive
c. 500 BC the Belgae arrive, known in Ireland as Fir Belg/ Fir Bolg
c. 300 BC the Laigin, Fir Domnainn and Fir Galioin arrive
c. 55 BC - 400 AD Romano-Britains arrive

I have avoided the most contentious issues such as dating the arrival or P-Celtic and Q-Celtic. Lingusts have never resolved that one. Likewise I have tried to steer clear of the arrival of cultures, such as bell beaker, Hallstatt and La Tene as it is contentious whether this meant new peoples arriving or simple the spread of a culture. I believe current thinking favours the latter. I acknowledge something of an Irish bias in my geographical perspective. Having posiby upset the Brits with that, I may as well upset the Irish too by saying that I suspect that every folk movement to Ireland very likely came through Britain first, like the Cruithne aka Pictae, and the Fir Bolg aka Belgae. The Milesian fable and the later Basque theory were great material for Irish nationalists differentiating themselves from the Anglos, but then most Anglos are not who they think they are anyway. Many are Celts who came to speak Germanic. Don't we all nowadays?

The above model is likely highly imperfect, but at least now we can see where current thinking about the age of DF21 places it and Hinxton DF25+ man. Given the near lack of Continental DF21, and its estimated age of ca 4,000 years, DF21 would seem to have been in the Isles since the arrival of what the Irish call the Erainn and on the "other" island, perhaps what were the first people to be known as what we now call Britons. Of course others will differ and as E.B. White used to say in response to all critics, "You may be right."

ADW_1981
02-21-2015, 12:23 AM
Is this paper out yet?

Rory Cain
02-21-2015, 02:45 AM
Is this paper out yet?

If there is a paper, that would be "Early Irish History and Mythology" by T.F. O'Rahilly, published 1946. I suggest that work might be getting a little dated by now - witness the numerous criticisms of O'Rahilly one reads. My simply mentioning his name is all it takes to draw a few more. Finding folks willing to criticise O'Rahilly is easy. Getting any of them to put foward their own historical model is much more difficult. They clearly don't want to expose themselves to the same criticism that O'Rahilly has incurred. Me - I don't give a damn. I have borrowed freely from several of O'Rahilly's critics in the model above. Any of O'Rahilly's critics happy with me borrowing from them will, conversely, be unhappy with me borrowing something else from a different critic of O'Rahilly. It's almost entertaining how O'Rahilly's 1946 work still attracts so much controversy. It really is time we moved on from O'Rahilly.

One area of agreement amongst O'Rahilly's detractors is that his historical model omitted settlements prior to the Cruithne. It was as if the mesolithic, neolithic and copper ages, and 3/4ths of the iron age never existed in Irish history. Beyond that, each of O'Rahilly's critics pushes their own wheelbarrow and agree on nothing. I guess that's why we don't see a replacement model emerging.

EastAnglian
02-21-2015, 11:43 AM
Dang those pseudo-historical accounts...Even Keating added to the Manannan history adding to the other numerous other Irish literature references.

But Mongan did write about the placenames evidence that are still in play across the isles; Man, Wales, Scotland, Britain and Ireland. And noted other who believe the Belgic stock entered the isles in several waves during La Tene. Hubert suggests that they prior to that time frame as military and traders. I believe DF13 and DF27 were involved in these roles. With DF27 as the metal workers from the continent and northern Gaul DF13 sea traders, warrior farmers as Erainn.

MJost


MJost

Sorry to digress, interestingly a new DF27> L617+ result has been found in a person who's roots go back to Somerset, at the moment it looks like L617 came over as part of the metal trade approximately 3,000 years ago but we do need to see if he's FGC14951+ which so far all British L617 are.

EastAnglian
02-21-2015, 12:22 PM
As I am H1c1 and DF21-S5456 directly adjacent to DF25, would that make me a close cousin?. I am Clan Cian ancestor of Ely O Carroll and close kin to seven Sept's of Laois, apparantly closest cousin to Hinxton Man.

The Anglicisation of Eile to Ely is quite an amusing coincidence in the context of Cambridgeshire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ely,_Cambridgeshire

Rory Cain
02-22-2015, 03:35 AM
The recently reported ancient DNA results don't tell us the age of the SNPs. It tells us that the donors were carrying certain SNPs found in present day DNA donors. A year ago my terminal SNP was Z253 and I had no known SNPs below Z253. It now transpires that I have around 40 Big Y SNPs and 60 FGC SNPs downstream of Z253 indicating that Z253 is thousands of years previous to my actual terminal SNP.

The recent tests on Ancient DNA targeted known SNPs found in present day populations and do not report private SNPs. Donors of Ancient DNA will no doubt carry multiple SNPs downstream of the ones reported and not found in present day populations.

In my opinion, Accurate dating of SNPs requires a combination of NGS testing of Ancient DNA to determine known and private SNPs in the donor combined with SNP counting of the private SNPs to count back to a known SNP.


As I am H1c1 and DF21-S5456 directly adjacent to DF25, would that make me a close cousin?. I am Clan Cian ancestor of Ely O Carroll and close kin to seven Sept's of Laois, apparantly closest cousin to Hinxton Man.

As the Y-tree presently reads, Hinxton 4 is DF21 > FGC3903 > Z246 > DF25+, with no reads for DF5 or it's brother Z29528. The latter was added to the ISOGG Y-tree this month. Hinxton 4 could be either of DF5 or Z29528, or one of the other, smaller SNPs under investigation. I'm not sure we will ever know.

Your sub-clade, S5456, is kinda stand-alone within DF21 at present. That will change in due time.

Rory Cain
02-23-2015, 04:24 AM
Group U10 Misc

Frederick Reith most likely match is 314.2 with a GD of 18 at 111 markers to 208773 (Sullivan)
George Simpson, no recommendation
306923 Bean (McBain), no recommendation
John Walker, no recommendation

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/LATTA-Gene.Society/default.aspx?section=yresults

The DF21+ Miscellaneous group shrunk by one, with Walker jumping one step to DF21 > S5488+ Miscellaneous.

02-28-2015, 04:00 PM
Rory...I have S5488 test ordered. We'll see how it turns out. My upgrade 67 to 111 was ordered Nov 26 2014... still incomplete. They say had mixed readings and ran it again. They say may need to go to my backup vile

Jean M
02-28-2015, 05:56 PM
Finding folks willing to criticise O'Rahilly is easy. Getting any of them to put foward their own historical model is much more difficult.

Rory - I have been perfectly happy to put forward a chronology for Ireland. Been doing it for years, with a bit of jiggling around now and then.

Here is yours, adjusted, with references. All dates approximate:


8000-7500 BC : Mesolithic hunter-gatherers arrived in Ireland. [O'Kelly, Ireland before 3000 BC, in Ó Cróinín, D. (ed.) A New History of Ireland (2005), p. 65; Duffy (ed.), Atlas of Irish History, 2nd edn 2000), p. 10].
3800-3700 BC : Neolithic farmers arrived, but not direct from the Middle East. Farmers had first arrived in Europe millennia earlier. The farmers arriving in Ireland were of a later wave which had embraced dairy farming, very suited to Ireland [Manco 2013, pp. 101-2; radiocarbon dates from Whittle, Healey and Bayliss, Gathering Time: Dating the Early Neolithic Enclosures of Southern Britain and Ireland. 2 volumes. Oxford: Oxbow Books (2011)]
2400 BC: Bell Beaker folk arrived and started copper mining at Ross Island, in Lough Leane, County Kerry. They brought the Copper Age to Ireland. These early Bell Beaker arrivals may have come up the Atlantic seaways from Portugal via Brittany. The language they spoke was probably an early dialect of western Indo-European, known as Old European, which seems to have left its presence in a few place-names. [William O'Brien, Copper mining in Ireland during the later Bronze Age (2013) http://cora.ucc.ie/bitstream/handle/10468/1713/OBrien_2013.pdf?sequence=1 ; Fitzpatrick, A. P. 2013. The arrival of the Bell Beaker set in Britain and Ireland, chapter 2 in Koch and Cunliffe (eds.), Celtic from the West 2: Rethinking the Bronze Age and the arrival of Indo-European in Atlantic Europe. Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books, 41-70; Manco, forthcoming]
2200 BC: There was an upsurge in the Bell Beaker presence in the British Isles as tin was discovered there, and bronze was created with it. Most of the new intake came up the Rhine stream. They probably spoke the earliest Celtic to arrive in the Isles. [Manco, forthcoming]
300 BC: La Tène influence arrived in the northern two thirds of Ireland, mainly from northern Britain.
100 BC: Possibly some Belgae arrived around this time, known in Ireland as Fir Bolg. They were being pushed out of territories east of the Rhine by the expanding Germani. [Manco, forthcoming]
71-3 AD: Some Brigantes probably fled to Ireland when the tribe in northern Britain was beaten and absorbed by the Romans. They are noted in southeast Ireland by Ptolemy 150 AD. Certainly a group from what is now northeast England settled briefly around this time on the small island of Lambay, off the coast of County Dublin. [Manco, forthcoming]
79-80 AD : Some Dumnonii probably fled to Ireland when the tribe in northern Britain came up against the Romans. Alternatively, they could have arrived from south-west Britain at a date difficult to guess.
500 AD: Some Cruithne (British) people arrived in Ireland, first mentioned in Irish annals in 552. [Manco, forthcoming]

Rory Cain
02-28-2015, 08:09 PM
Rory...I have S5488 test ordered. We'll see how it turns out. My upgrade 67 to 111 was ordered Nov 26 2014... still incomplete. They say had mixed readings and ran it again. They say may need to go to my backup vile

A few tests are arriving by the predicted time but most are well overdue. There is quite a backlog. Their marketing capabilities exceed their lab capabilities. Good luck with your S5488. That would narrow the field for you.

Rory Cain
02-28-2015, 08:28 PM
Rory - I have been perfectly happy to put forward a chronology for Ireland. Been doing it for years, with a bit of jiggling around now and then.

Here is yours, adjusted, with references. All dates



Thank you kindly, Jean. Critics of O'Rahilly who never put anything else forward were unconvincing. This is far more convincing. You even have the courage to set dates.

I notice you have deleted the Laighin, even though they were more historical than the other deletions. While some say Fir Bolg, Fir Domnainn & Fir Galioin were three terms for the one people, Laighin, your sources have the Fir Bolg and Fir Domnainn arriving separately rather than as Laighin. Of course the whole concept of the Book of Invasions was a nonsense, with no military capacity for massive D-Day style invasions at that early time. The model of smaller, a separate, tribal-based arrivals is more credible.

Now to identify these waves if arrivals by DNA type, if that is possible!

rossa
02-28-2015, 08:49 PM
Jean, what evidence is there for place names derived from Old European?

Jean M
02-28-2015, 10:12 PM
I notice you have deleted the Laighin, even though they were more historical than the other deletions. While some say Fir Bolg, Fir Domnainn & Fir Galioin were three terms for the one people, Laighin..

Early texts use the group names Laigin and Gáileóin interchangeably, as in "there were three principal peoples in Ireland, namely Féni, Ulaid, and Gáileóin, that is Laigin". Thus the rulers of Connacht and the Uí Néill dynasties were Féni (also used to mean 'Irish'), as opposed to the men of Ulster and Leinster. We may indeed suppose from place-names that some of the Fir Domnainn settled in Leinster. Ptolemy places the Manapii (possibly Belgic) and the Brigantes in what became Leinster too. There were a bunch of foreigners in Leinster, in short.

Rory Cain
03-01-2015, 12:11 AM
Early texts use the group names Laigin and Gáileóin interchangeably, as in "there were three principal peoples in Ireland, namely Féni, Ulaid, and Gáileóin, that is Laigin". Thus the rulers of Connacht and the Uí Néill dynasties were Féni (also used to mean 'Irish'), as opposed to the men of Ulster and Leinster.

Obviously that Feni-Ulaid-Gaileoin model, or Connaught- Ulster-Leinster in the geographical context, is a gross simplification of the checkerboard pattern of settlement in Ireland. It picks out the names of the ruling dynasties alone. Accepting that to be the case, what happened to the Erainn, the people who gave Eire it's name, and what happened to Munster, the missing province above and with which the Erainn were most closely associate?

As you were quoting a source I am not finding fault with your post, but any ideas why an entire people and province should be omitted?

Jean M
03-01-2015, 12:26 AM
what happened to the Erainn, the people who gave Eire it's name, and what happened to Munster, the missing province above and with which the Erainn were most closely associate?

As you were quoting a source I am not finding fault with your post, but any ideas why an entire people and province should be omitted?

I assume that the original was from a northern perspective. In later versions the Érainn are added to the list. See Koch, J. T. (ed.), Celtic Culture: a historical encyclopedia (2006), pp. 738-99.

Jean M
03-01-2015, 12:28 AM
Jean, what evidence is there for place names derived from Old European?

Patrizia De Bernardo Stempel identifies three of the place-names as such from the section on Ireland in Ptolemy's Geography.

Dubhthach
03-01-2015, 12:00 PM
Should be noted that the Eoghanachta though not of Dá Cuinn were also regarded as Féni. This reflects the general pseudo-historical pattern recognised with regards to the two powerbases which was "back-ported" (to use an IT term) into deep history.

see here with regards to Érainn:
https://books.google.ie/books?id=a7uTAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA264&ots=OGiak7s4SU&dq=eoganachta%20f%C3%A9ni&pg=PA264#v=onepage&q&f=false

Dubhthach
03-01-2015, 12:11 PM
I think 500AD is too late for arrival of various groups known as Cruithin in Ireland, my feeling is their origin is in the period of renewed contact between Northern Britain and northern half of Ireland after 300BC. Alex Woolf suggests at least before the 4th century:

https://books.google.ie/books?id=a7uTAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA264&ots=OGiak7s4SU&dq=eoganachta%20f%C3%A9ni&pg=PA196#v=onepage&q&f=false

1000 years later we have similiar situation where Cambro-Normans though heavily Gaelicised (often for 2-300 years) were still termed Gall. By this stage the term for them had specifically genealogical usage.

Jean M
03-01-2015, 12:24 PM
I think 500AD is too late for arrival of various groups known as Cruithin in Ireland, my feeling is their origin is in the period of renewed contact between Northern Britain and northern half of Ireland after 300BC.

I doubt it very much. That was a period of tribes. It is tribes that appear on Ptolemy's map in 150 AD.

The Cruithin appear to belong to the period when tribal society was dissolving, to be replaced by kindreds. Thus they are initially labelled 'British' (rather than by their tribe in Britain) and later by kindred.

Dubhthach
03-01-2015, 01:23 PM
I doubt it very much. That was a period of tribes. It is tribes that appear on Ptolemy's map in 150 AD.

The Cruithin appear to belong to the period when tribal society was dissolving, to be replaced by kindreds. Thus they are initially labelled 'British' (rather than by their tribe in Britain) and later by kindred.

Ptolmey's map when it comes to Ireland is generally believed to reflect an older period then the 2nd century AD. There' also issue that majority of names on it are not attested in subsequent native irish source.

Lets consider this the Soghain of East Galway were conquered/subjugated by the Uí Maine in the 4th century AD within the traditional narrative. What's evident with various groups termed Cruithin in the genealogical tables is that geographically they tend to exist on the boundaries of the major Kingdoms, same goes for Loigís (-> Laoighis thence Laois the modern name of modern County).

Archaeologically speaking Clogher hillfort in Tyrone (in the heart of later kingdom of the Airgíalla -- Oirialla) shows signs of Romano-British influence specifically in period 100-400AD. With pottery and other items from specifically 1st century AD context. See paper by Warner available on Academia.edu

https://www.academia.edu/7150576/Clogher_an_archaeological_window_on_early_Medieval _Tyrone_and_Mid_Ulster

Dubhthach
03-01-2015, 01:31 PM
Also on Academia.edu Alex Woolf has following:

https://www.academia.edu/1502702/Ancient_Kindred_Dal_Riata_and_the_Cruthin




11
Conclusion
I have suggested that the Dál Riata were part of the Cruithni and further that they in
turn may have been in some sense derived from Ptolemy‟s Epidii. The use of the
term Cruithni in Ireland but not in Scotland may relate to dichotomization. It isunlikely that Cruithni was ever a self identifying term for these people but rather theterm used by their Irish neighbours to designate them. Mallory is probably correctthat by the age of chronicles and hagiography there was little that was objectivelyBritish about them and the name ma
y have been „residual‟. A relic from an earlier
age. What they called themselves is lost to us, perhaps something like *Sil Echdach orsome other Old Irish term referring to an apical figure. The frequent occurenceof thename Eochaid and the oft-confused Eochu in this region, the latter even preserved inthe name of Loch nEchach/ Lough Neagh may reflect such an ancestry. TheGaelicization of the Epidii, if this is indeed what happened, is not hard to explain if we recognise that any migration from Britain to Ireland is likely to have occurredbefore the majority of the sound shifts that distinguish British and Irish had occurred.In linguistic terms the two varieties of Celtic were probably close enough to convergerather than to require formal language shift, in much the same way as the NorthGermanic Anglian and Jutish dialects converged with West Germanic Saxon toproduce Old English, or as Scots and Standard English have converged to producemodern Scottish English.. One possibility which serious linguist may want toconsider is whether the distinctive features which mark out Scottish Gaelic and thenorthernmost dialects of Irish, which David Greene and others suggested showedBritish influence might date to this period rather than to the later take over of the Pictswhich one might not have expected to have effected the surviving Scottish Gaelicdialects that much whatever it might have done to the now defunct eastern varieties.As for the origins of Gaelic Argyll I would suggest that a convergence dialectemerging in the north of Ireland may well have become the aspirational acrolect forthe whole Epidian tribal grouping and that as this dialect went through the Neo-Celtictransition in partnership with Irish so speakers on both sides of the sea shared thosechanges. In short I am suggesting that the Irish language was brought to Scotland bypeople migrating from Scotland to Ireland.When might such a migration have taken place? A long time ago! The terminus
post quem
would be the gathering of the da
ta that went into Ptolemy‟s survey, so perhapsAgricola‟s campaigns of the 70s and 80s of the First Millennium. The terminus
antiquem
would be the historical horizon of the earliest Irish chroniclers for they felt noneed to mention it in their narrative of post-Patrician events. The earlier one places itthe fewer the linguistic impediments, presumably? Archaeology may provide hints.As Ewen Campbell pointed out some common phenomena of Early Christian Irisharchaeology, such as
crannóga
do have their origins in Scotland and have a deephistory in Argyll

and maybe the ringfort originated as a beached crannog, which itresembles in plan. In more specific terms one cannot help but draw attention to the Severan coin hordes of County Antrim

almost certainly indicating some sort of relationship of clientage between recipients and Romans. Did the gift take place inIreland or were the coins brought across from Britain after the transaction? Was the Epidian conquest sponsored by the Empire? Or did the Epidii turn there attention to Antrim because their traditional raiding grounds had found powerful protectors? Unless a remarkably explicit archaeological find comes to light it is unlikely we shall ever know the answers to these questions.


(above is copy and paste from pdf so it's badly formatted on my side)

Jean M
03-01-2015, 01:41 PM
Alex Woolf has following..

I have the greatest respect for Alex Woolf, and agree entirely with many points that he makes here and elsewhere. For example, he says in the unpublished paper to which you helpfully linked:


What [the Cruithin] called themselves is lost to us, perhaps something like *Sil Echdach or some other Old Irish term referring to an apical figure.

What he seems to miss is that this is part of the shift in society from tribes to kindreds in Ireland.

Dubhthach
03-01-2015, 02:33 PM
Debatable, some of the "tribal names" are based on titular gods, what we see is the contuination of these into christian times with the mapping of name onto a titular ancestor. Good example for example is the Cenél Lugdach who in later times claim to be part of wider Cenél Conaill descended from a titular Lugaidh a grandson of Conall. Anyways Brian Lacey has argued that the Slí Lugdach/Cenél Lugdach reflect a pre-christian tribal name whose name is based around the god Lugh (Lug in Old Irish):

Lug's Forgotten Donegal Kingdom: The Archaeology, History and Folklore of the Sil Lugdach of Cloghaneely
https://books.google.ie/books?id=WGt2tgAACAAJ&dq=donegal+kingdom&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Nh_zVODtCYHB7AbLGw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA

Probable by the way that these lot were DF85+ given the results for O'Doherty's and O'Donnells (who belong to Slí Lugdach).

The same could be said of Corca Dhuibhne of Munster who are a reflex of pre-christian DOVVINIAS as seen on Ogham stones(based on descent from a goddess called DOVINIA). In this case Woolfe's argument of "Slí Echdach" would reflect a continuation of tribal name of Epidii.

Gaulish Eppos (Horse) = Archaic Irish EQQOS = Old Irish Ech (modern Irish Each). I've seen the same argue of course for the Dál Cuinn, whose oldest name is "Moccu Cuinn" (Tribe of Conn). With Conn been a "tribal ancestor god" -- in pseudo-historical context of course he becomes "Conn of the hundre battles" (most important stories about his right to kingship tie in with god Lugh)

The Venicones that Ptolmey places in Scotland are interesting in context of Dál Cuinn. V (/w/) shifts in Irish to f, thus "Veni" -> feni. It is interesting of course that the only known M222+/S7073- man is from modern Scotland (all the Irish M222+ appear to be S7073+)

Jean M
03-01-2015, 03:00 PM
In this case Woolfe's argument of "Slí Echdach" would reflect a continuation of tribal name of Epidii.

Yes I cover that in my online Celtic tribes: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/celticscothighlands.shtml


Epidii: lived next to the Damnoni, by the promontory of Epidium [Kintyre]. The name means "people of the horse" from Old Celtic equos = horse. The form here is P-Celtic epos. The people may have been horse-breeders, or the horse their tribal totem. Although a connection with the Gallic horse-goddess Epona has been postulated, her worship is unattested outside the Roman Empire.

Interestingly the equestrian theme remained after this area became part of the Gaelic-speaking Argyll (O. Ir. airir "coastland" + Goídel). The first king of Kintyre and Cowell of reasonable historicity is Domangart Réti, whose death in 507 AD is noted in the Irish Annals. Adomnán's Life of Saint Columba refers to Corcu Réti, meaning "descendants of Réta", but réti (Early O. Ir.) or riata (its later form) generally denotes a riding horse.

A separate kin-group which held sway in Islay seems an offshoot of the Dál Fiatach of Ireland (see Darini). By contrast the dominant kindred on Skye (Cenél nGartnait) begins with Pictish names, yet spent three years in exile in Ireland in the 660s. Another three kindreds ruled Lorn. After all these regions were welded together as the Gaelic Kingdom of Dál Riata around 700 AD, a genealogy was concocted giving all the kindreds a descent from an Irish Eochaid ("horseman"). Politically that bestowed parity among them, though the core continuity of the horse-tribe lay in Kintyre.

Bede preserves a probably earlier origin myth which points to the primacy of the Corcu Réti. He claimed that Gaels came from Ireland under their leader Reuda. "They are still called Dalreudini after this leader." How can we reconcile cultural continuity with a change of language? From at least the time of Bede, the explanation seemed simple: Gaels had invaded Argyll. Yet there is no archaeological evidence of this. Material influences seem to have flowed the other way. So the Cruithin mentioned above in Ireland may have been British incomers who mixed with Gaels and adopted Gaelic, while retaining links with kin in what is now Argyll and the Western Isles. Gaelic could have been introduced to Argyll and the Isles through a web of alliances, with threads of religion, politics and marriage. This is not to deny an Irish genetic element in the resulting mix. Dál Riata included territory in Ireland: the far north of what is now County Antrim, with a royal centre at Dunseverick and an ecclesiastical one at Armoy, on the upper reaches of the River Bush.

None of this tells us that Cruithin arrived in Ireland c. 300 BC rather than c. 500 AD.

Dubhthach
03-01-2015, 04:12 PM
Yes I cover that in my online Celtic tribes: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/celticscothighlands.shtml



None of this tells us that Cruithin arrived in Ireland c. 500 BC rather than c. 500 AD.

But whose saying 500BC, renewed contacts with Britain are seen in period 200BC onwards, this is seen in the archaeological context. (Ireland was in an archaeological "Dark ages" for period 800/700BC to 300/200BC) In context of northern half of Ireland the late Iron age (100-500AD) is period of continuity. With highest level of items of "Romano-British" providence been seen in the 1st-2nd century AD. If you are looking for a "push factor" into Ireland if anything the Roman conquest of the north of what is now England (Brigantia) is key if you ask me. This also ties in with the mythological background of Dál Cuinn in Ireland which places their key titular ancestors in the period. (Túathal Techtmar and his grandson Conn Cétchathach ).

In comparison I can't think of any push factor in the late 5th/early 6th century for movement from Britain into Ireland, where if anything the literay context presupposes a movement in the other direction (Dál Riata into Scotland). Again if we go with the literary/genealogical tradition you had Cruithin groups in Ireland at least in the 4th century AD (Sogain and the Loígis).

The use of term Cruithin strikes me akin to later usage of term Gall in Irish texts. For example the Burkes of Connacht by the late 16th century were heavily Gaelicised having abandoned english language/customs and primogentuire, however they were still called Gall, as well as spilt into various branches (Mac William Uachtar, Mac William Íochtar, Clanricarde etc.) so for example "Tibbot ne Long Bourke, 1st Viscount Mayo" regarded himself as a Gall because of his male line descent, even though his own mother was the famous Gráinne Ní Mháille (Queen of Umaill -- the pirate queen)

A rather interesting post from boards.ie with regards to use of such terminology:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77841307&postcount=73

Key bit here:


The Gaelic Irish did not recognise the term 'Irish' as a racial term - it was a cultural umbrella to describe a group of people who were of Gaelic origin and who shared a common culture, language, history and legal code. They were the descendent of the Gaels whose arrival in Ireland is described in the 12th century Book of Invasions. The classification was simple - there were Gael and Gall. Anybody not a Gael was a Gall.

One's 'race' was one's Clan - that was always the context the term was used in the Annals. One's 'race' was determined by one's father - for example take two of the sons of Gráinne Ní Mháille -Murrough na Moar Ua Flaibhertaigh was an 'Gael' of the Uí Flaithbhertaigh 'race' as his father was Domhnall na Chogaid Ua Flaithbhertaigh. Her youngest son - Tibbóid na Long á Búrc - was 'English' as his father Ristead An Iarainn á Búrc (whose mother was Fionnula Ní Fhlaithbhertaigh - sister of Gráinne's first husband) was descended in the male line from a Norman. So Iron Dick Burke considered himself 'English' - he could not speak English, had never been to England, lived as a Gaelic chieftain, went through a Gaelic inauguration ritual, married a Gaelic woman,had several sons with concubines all off whom were of equal legal status to his legitimate son, dressed like a Gaelic man, didn't use a saddle or stirrups, fought against Anglicisation all his life and his mother was Gaelic Irish - was he actually 'Irish'? He didn't think so.

Huntergatherer1066
03-01-2015, 04:33 PM
Just a note, S7073 is within an STR so I would be wary about using it phylogenetically.

alan
03-01-2015, 04:35 PM
But whose saying 500BC, renewed contacts with Britain are seen in period 200BC onwards, this is seen in the archaeological context. (Ireland was in an archaeological "Dark ages" for period 800/700BC to 300/200BC) In context of northern half of Ireland the late Iron age (100-500AD) is period of continuity. With highest level of items of "Romano-British" providence been seen in the 1st-2nd century AD. If you are looking for a "push factor" into Ireland if anything the Roman conquest of the north of what is now England (Brigantia) is key if you ask me. This also ties in with the mythological background of Dál Cuinn in Ireland which places their key titular ancestors in the period. (Túathal Techtmar and his grandson Conn Cétchathach ).

In comparison I can't think of any push factor in the late 5th/early 6th century for movement from Britain into Ireland, where if anything the literay context presupposes a movement in the other direction (Dál Riata into Scotland). Again if we go with the literary/genealogical tradition you had Cruithin groups in Ireland at least in the 4th century AD (Sogain and the Loígis).

The use of term Cruithin strikes me akin to later usage of term Gall in Irish texts. For example the Burkes of Connacht by the late 16th century were heavily Gaelicised having abandoned english language/customs and primogentuire, however they were still called Gall, as well as spilt into various branches (Mac William Uachtar, Mac William Íochtar, Clanricarde etc.) so for example "Tibbot ne Long Bourke, 1st Viscount Mayo" regarded himself as a Gall because of his male line descent, even though his own mother was the famous Gráinne Ní Mháille (Queen of Umaill -- the pirate queen)

A rather interesting post from boards.ie with regards to use of such terminology:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77841307&postcount=73

Key bit here:

Have to agree. The Irish seem to have made a clear distinction between Cruithin and Britons by the historic period. There are episodes in the annals like a band of displaced SW Scottish Britons in county Down - I think it was the 600s - where a clear distinction is made between Cruithin and Britons. Cruithin/Pretani etc is best seen as meaning Britons before or beyond the rule of Rome. Latin sources always made a distinction between Picts and Irish cruithin too - any confusion on this came later. The Cruithin in Ireland appear in Irish tradition to have been considered an ancient stratum in Ireland of significant antiquity and to have once been more powerful than they were by the Christian era. They and the Erainn seem to have both been considered to have been once greater powers on the wain in the historic era.

There seems to be a great deal of evidence for Irish movement into or raiding of western Britain from the late 3rd century to 600AD and that timeframe doesnt look a likely one to me for a movement towards Ireland. The Britons were between the firepan and the fire. A far more likely period for fleeing Britons IMO was the period 0-250AD before the raids from Ireland started to happen. However, I do not believe these people were considered Cruithin either. There seems to be a clear distinction made between the Laigan/Fir Bolg/FirDomnainn/Fir Gallion type invaders fr which the date range I have just quoted above seems plausible due to absence on Ptolemy's map and the population groups called Cruithin. It is also to be noted that time and again the Cruithin appear in largely land-locked buffer zones between kingdoms almost as if they had been settled with consent of older people's to perform a buffer function. Ptolemy's map is probably deficient inland and away from the coast and trade routes. I find the coincidence of the Cruithin tribes and La Tene material too much to be a coincidence. Even the related name appears in the 4th century BC as La Tene material starts appearing in Britain and the name is even interesting as it means people of designs or forms which kind of makes me think of La Tene art.

Jean M
03-01-2015, 04:59 PM
But whose saying 500BC, renewed contacts with Britain are seen in period 200BC onwards, this is seen in the archaeological context.

Yes I fixed the date in my post to 300 BC. 500 BC was just a slip made writing in haste.

Yes I know about the incoming La Tene influence of course. That was in my chronology above. That was in AJ (2013). But that I link to the Ulaid. They do appear on Ptolemy's map.

There was a renewal of contact between Britain and Ireland in the Post-Roman period. That I link to the Cruithin.

Dubhthach
03-02-2015, 05:02 PM
Alan might be better equiped to answer this, but my recollection is the bulk of La Tene material from North-East Ulster is specifically from areas that form parts of various Cruithin kingships, not just Dál nAraide but also Fir Lí etc.

No one working with this period of Irish history regards them as newcomers in period 500AD onwards.
https://books.google.ie/books?id=g6yq2sKLlFkC&lpg=PP1&dq=early%20christian%20ireland&pg=PA54#v=onepage&q&f=false

At maximum extent they controlled most of what is now Derry been pushed back by expansion of the Uí Néill throughout the 6th century.

Jean M
03-02-2015, 06:45 PM
No one working with this period of Irish history regards them as newcomers in period 500AD onwards.


You mean I'm saying something unorthodox? How shocking! ;) Frankly it doesn't matter how many people believe a thing to be true, if the evidence does not support it.

The increased contact between northern Britain and Ireland in the Post-Roman period is the setting for Irish raiding leading to the capture of Patrick, and the formation of Dal Riata from several different kindreds (not all Irish). Christians arrived in Ireland (some perhaps fleeing the pagan Angles) in enough numbers for the Pope to send Palladius as bishop in AD 431. This seems to be the setting for the Cruithin to appear on the scene. Unlike pre-Roman or early Roman arrivals in Ireland from Britain they are not the 'Tribal name X' or the 'Fir Y' or 'Dal Z' initially. They are just immigrants from across the water, who do not appear to have any political cohesion in the first instance. There is not just one ruling lineage. Gradually a leading lineage emerges in the historical period.

Given the date for the arrival of Palladius, I suppose I could push back the date of the Cruithin to AD 410+. But that seems to be the sensible upper limit.

Jean M
03-02-2015, 07:12 PM
my recollection is the bulk of La Tene material from North-East Ulster is specifically from areas that form parts of various Cruithin kingships.

La Tene material is scattered all over the northern two thirds of Ireland. By around 100 BC Black Pig's Dyke had divided the northern part of Ireland, territory of the Ulaid, from the other four early historical provinces. There seems to be that much truth in the Tain. By 150 AD there were four tribes noted within this ancient northern province, including the Volunti, probably a corruption of Uluti. They appear in later literature as the Ulaidh. Their neighbours the Darini are probably another branch of Ulaidh.

It would be fun if the Vennicnii of the northwest were ancestors of the Féni, but the root word is a common one in the formation of Celtic ethonyms (and indeed found in other IE ethnonymns, hence the confusion over Baltic, Celtic, Venetic (Italic?) and Slavic Veneti). The root word weni- is found in Brittonic and Gaulish, with the probable sense of 'family, kindred', preserved in the Breton word gwenn, meaning 'race'. This is the type of word, signifying 'us' as opposed to 'them', that often becomes the basis of ethnonyms.

Dubhthach
03-02-2015, 09:28 PM
You mean I'm saying something unorthodox? How shocking! ;) Frankly it doesn't matter how many people believe a thing to be true, if the evidence does not support it.

The increased contact between northern Britain and Ireland in the Post-Roman period is the setting for Irish raiding leading to the capture of Patrick, and the formation of Dal Riata from several different kindreds (not all Irish). Christians arrived in Ireland (some perhaps fleeing the pagan Angles) in enough numbers for the Pope to send Palladius as bishop in AD 431. This seems to be the setting for the Cruithin to appear on the scene. Unlike pre-Roman or early Roman arrivals in Ireland from Britain they are not the 'Tribal name X' or the 'Fir Y' or 'Dal Z' initially. They are just immigrants from across the water, who do not appear to have any political cohesion in the first instance. There is not just one ruling lineage. Gradually a leading lineage emerges in the historical period.

Given the date for the arrival of Palladius, I suppose I could push back the date of the Cruithin to AD 410+. But that seems to be the sensible upper limit.

I'd hadly call T.M Charles-Edwards or Dáibhi Ó Cróninín orthodox, but hey if you want to write BS pseudo-history (without any evidence) to give LGÉ a run for it's money then you can do that.

Palladius is specifically linked to South-East (eg. Leinster) and not the North-East. Which makes sense given the large amount of Romano-British archaeological remains been found within Leinster. Obviously Patrician hagiographer's would subsequently subject to him Damnatio memoriae by conflating him with Patrick, this includes the redacting of general Patrician story to shift it a generation earlier (this ties in with the change in floruit for Niall Noígiallach, so as to fit into new timeframe)

You still haven't explain how for example the Soghain of Galway are Cruithin let we have no Romano-British remains from the area (sub-roman period), instead we have two of the finest La Tene carved stones on the island both dating probably period from 1st century BC to 1st century AD. Or how within the standard narrative that they get conqueored by the Uí Maine in the 4th/5th century, surely implying their presence there for considerable amount of time (thence the use of term Senchenoil -- "sean chineal" eg. "Old Kindred"), likewise where is the Romano-British items in the territory of the Loigís who are also Cruithin and whose mythology puts them as arriving in the area as military mercenaries from Ulster in the 3rd century. Likewise I'm not aware of any substantial sub-Roman remains from general Cruithin areas of the North-East. Instead we see that some of higest concentrations of La Tene influenced material come from their general territory.

Again what we keep seeing is that groups defined as Cruithin appear to (a) have mercenary usage within overkingship's akin to later Gallowglass (b) occupy territory that is often near province boundaries (specifically the Soghain and the Loigis).

As for the Táin if you going to bring that into the mix you should read it, the Cruithin are specifically mentioned in it.

If you are talking about Romano-British Christians the only term ever used in old Irish for these is Bretnach unsurprising reflecting borrowing of latin Brittōnēs into Irish (with addition of -ach suffix). Cruithin and Bretnach are never conflated as been equivalent in the relevant Old Irish texts.

Jean M
03-02-2015, 09:45 PM
if you want to write BS pseudo-history (without any evidence)

Bit harsh, surely. You haven't read the book yet. How about waiting until it comes out in September, rather than telling me a whole load of stuff now, which you will find is actually included in my text, such as the proposed location of Palladius and the Tain (which I have read). In talking about Post-Roman contacts between Britain and Ireland in general, I was not proposing that all of these relate to the Cruithin, but simply establishing that this is a period in which there was contact between the two islands. There is plenty of evidence for it. That counters your assertion that there was no other possible context for the Cruithin except La Tene.

alan
03-02-2015, 10:07 PM
I a genuinely puzzled at your take n the cruithin. Movements of Christian era Britons do occur in the annals and they are not called cruthin. There is a far better case for Leinster Romano British links but they are never considered cruithin. A pretty strng impression is present in irish sources is given that Cruithin were an older strata and considered different to Britons of the Christian era. Many Christian era Britons in Ireland carried British names but the cruithin seem to not have a trace of that in the records of the cruithin.

Jean M
03-02-2015, 10:17 PM
There is a far better case for Leinster Romano British links but they are never considered cruithin.

I agree with you entirely that the Romano-British material appears in Leinster and seems connected to other arrivals, as I noted in my chronology. Let's have that bit again, with a few extra notes:


300 BC: La Tène influence arrived in the northern two thirds of Ireland, mainly from northern Britain. Probably connected to the Ulaidh, who appear on Ptolemy's map.
100 BC: Possibly some Belgae arrived around this time, known in Ireland as Fir Bolg. They were being pushed out of territories east of the Rhine by the expanding Germani. [Manco, forthcoming] Could be the Manapii, shown on Ptolemy.
71-3 AD: Some Brigantes probably fled to Ireland when the tribe in northern Britain was beaten and absorbed by the Romans. They are noted in southeast Ireland by Ptolemy 150 AD. Certainly a group from what is now northeast England settled briefly around this time on the small island of Lambay, off the coast of County Dublin. [Manco, forthcoming]
79-80 AD : Some Dumnonii probably fled to Ireland when the tribe in northern Britain came up against the Romans. Alternatively, they could have arrived from south-west Britain at a date difficult to guess. Not shown on Ptolemy, but would fit this period, when tribal name was paramount.
500 AD: Some Cruithne (British) people arrived in Ireland, first mentioned in Irish annals in 552. [Manco, forthcoming] This is post-Roman, and they were most probably from north of the Roman border, not Romano-British. For example the dominant kindred on Skye (Cenél nGartnait) begins with Pictish names, yet spent three years in exile in Ireland in the 660s. These people seem to be insertions into the already established pattern of the five provinces. Yes? No?

Rory Cain
03-02-2015, 11:35 PM
71-3 AD: Some Brigantes probably fled to Ireland when the tribe in northern Britain was beaten and absorbed by the Romans. They are noted in southeast Ireland by Ptolemy 150 AD. Certainly a group from what is now northeast England settled briefly around this time on the small island of Lambay, off the coast of County Dublin. [Manco, forthcoming]



Jean, I enjoy reading your posts, which is why I refrained from comment on a Cruithne arrival date of 500AD. I figured that would attract enough comment as it is. Regarding the Brigantes, 71-73 AD is but one of a serious of dates that might be considered within the realm of possibility for any Briganten exodus from Britain and arrival in Ireland:

47AD Briganten unrest ends the Roman campaign in north Wales and marks the emergence of an anti-Roman faction amongst the Brigantes, formerly allies of Rome.

57AD Venutius' rebellion, leading his anti-Roman faction

69AD Venutius rules

73AD Venutius deteafed

100-105AD northern Brigantes revolt

117AD ditto

138AD ditto

154-155 ditto, and that's several generations of Roman rule and being Romanized. The Brigantes just don't give up. It would not appear they the Brigantes themselves ever considered themselves "absorbed by the Romans".

This does not change your inclusion of the Brigantes but rather supports it, and extends the dates over which it may have occurred. The Brigantes may still have been arriving in Ireland at the time of Ptolomey and may have been doing so in waves for the last 100 years.

Jean M
03-02-2015, 11:58 PM
100-105AD northern Brigantes revolt

117AD ditto

138AD ditto

154-155 ditto, and that's several generations of Roman rule and being Romanized. The Brigantes just don't give up.


Very good point Rory. Yes I was thinking of the defeat of Venutius, which marks the end of the Brigantes as a client kingdom and start of their treatment as part of the Roman Empire, but of course anyone within Britannia in trouble with the Romans could have fled to Ireland at any time until Britannia dropped out of the empire. In my Celtic Tribes online, I mention the Roman or Romano-British burial at Stoneyford, Co. Kilkenny as possibly related to the Brigantes. I don't recall if we have a date for it.

Jean M
03-03-2015, 12:03 AM
Jean, I enjoy reading your posts, which is why I refrained from comment on a Cruithne arrival date of 500AD. I figured that would attract enough comment as it is.

:) Yes I thought sparks would fly. The Cruithin have been a political football, with Ian Adamson pushing an incredibly early date for them. I don't feel like cutting him any slack. But in fact I don't go in for any specific date for them in the coming book. I just go for the most obvious interpretation of their name, rather than special pleading to make them more ancient in Ireland.

alan
03-03-2015, 12:22 AM
It is interesting that the Pretanic Islands is plural and that he sailed up the Irish Sea. That could be taken as meaning both islands were considered to have Pretani or Cruithin in them in 325BC. There are radiocarbon hints that there was a modest upturn in site numbers in Ireland that commenced around this time and some would date the earliest La Tene material to survive in Ireland soon after.

alan
03-03-2015, 12:36 AM
It is becoming clear that Ireland had entered the Iron Age in the sense of using Iron not long after 800BC. This makes sense as the knowledge of iron, which is ubiquitous, seems to have destroyed the wealth and reason for being of the elites who controlled copper, tin etc. Iron of course suffers hugely in a wet climate, especially where the tradition of putting metal in wet, boggy, acidic places prevailed. There seems to be a lot of evidence emerging for iron slag on Irish Iron Age sites but almost no finished objects have survived in that 800-300BC period. Obviously there were objects and there are a few examples where Bronze Age type objects have been done in Iron.

Jean M
03-03-2015, 12:50 AM
It is interesting that the Pretanic Islands is plural and that he sailed up the Irish Sea. That could be taken as meaning both islands were considered to have Pretani or Cruithin in them in 325BC.

This misconception is a favourite with those who want to see Ireland as British. :biggrin1: It is not uncommon for an archipelago to be named after its largest island. This is a geographical convenience and continues to this day in the case of the British Isles. That name does not indicate that Ireland belongs these days to Britain, or belonged to it at the time that the equivalent name first appears in history. It does not mean that Ireland was populated by Britons, any more than the Republic of Ireland sees itself today as populated by Britons, simply because it is geographically part of the British Isles. Ireland appears as the ancient equivalent of Eire, populated by the ancient equivalent of Irish, in the earliest reference we have specifically to it. Britain was then Albion, and populated by Albiones.

Rory Cain
03-03-2015, 03:28 AM
79-80 AD : Some Dumnonii probably fled to Ireland when the tribe in northern Britain came up against the Romans. Alternatively, they could have arrived from south-west Britain at a date difficult to guess. Not shown on Ptolemy, but would fit this period, when tribal name was paramount.



I like that, to see someone bold enough to try to pin a date on the Dumnonii, and you have shown how easy that is- if the Dumnonii of Scotland were the source of the Irish Dumnonii and not vice versa, and not Cornwall either. This may be unconnected but after having surveyed the distribution of DF21 in Ireland, I tried to check if the distribution of DF21 in Scotland had anything in common with Ireland. In Ireland DF21 occurs in a belt extending from the Seven septs of Laois through Ely O'Carroll and Ikerrin into east Galway, approximating the frontiers between Leinster and Munster in the south, and Meath and Connaught to the north. DF21 in Scotland is similar in that we can "join the dots" between Islay, Gigha, Morvern, Ayrshire, Glasgow, Siirling, Forfarshire aka Fife, Aberdeen and Inverness. This loosely approximates the Highland Line dividing Highland and Lowland Scotland. DF21 appears to be located along frontiers.

The DF21 band across Ireland also parallels and is to the south of the southern limit of La Tene artefacts. However due to conflicting information I am not so sure this has any parallel in the Scotland with the distribution of La Tene artefacts. The Scottish distribution tends to bear closer resemblance to where several sources place the Dumnonni. In comparing this to Ireland, now it is Ireland where the situation is unclear. There is certainly evidence of the Domnainn in Leinster and legends that make then arrive there. But most Irish would think of Irrus Domnainn in Co Mayo, within the La Tene zone of influence. The answer is possibly as simple as "they moved", perhaps in the service of the Feni/Connachta. But while DF21 occurs in other parts associated with the Domnainn, I am unaware of any DF21 coming out of Co Mayo. Parts of the puzzle are missing. Perhaps wiser heads than mine have more of the answers.

Jean M
03-03-2015, 12:52 PM
But while DF21 occurs in other parts associated with the Domnainn, I am unaware of any DF21 coming out of Co Mayo. Parts of the puzzle are missing.

I doubt whether DF21 can be specifically tied to the Dumnoni/Domnainn at all, but I can provide a slide from Mike Hammer's lecture of 2013.

3905


The DF21 band across Ireland also parallels and is to the south of the southern limit of La Tene artefacts.

In which case it is most likely early in Ireland.

Jean M
03-03-2015, 01:16 PM
I like that, to see someone bold enough to try to pin a date on the Dumnonii.

You give me too much credit (or blame). In the forthcoming book I do not try to pin a date on the arrival of the Domnainn in Ireland. In this thread I was adapting to your desire for a chronology. In my online Celtic Tribes, all I say is:


Domnann: the Fir Domnann (Fir = people) appear in Irish legend as among the invaders of Ireland. They were probably related to the Dumnonii of south-west Britain and what is now the western Scottish Lowlands. The name is based on the Celtic root dumno-, meaning both "deep" and "the world". The name occurs in Inber Domnann (Malahide Bay, Co. Dublin), and more frequently in north-west Mayo as Iorrais Domnann (Erris, Co. Mayo) and the nearby Mag Domnann and Dun Domnann. An early Irish poem describes one of their leaders as the over-king of Leinster. At Ballydavis in County Laois (within Leinster), some some 4km north-east of Portlaoise, an extensive Iron Age complex has been discovered, which bears comparison with the Celtic royal cemeteries of Cruachain and Tara. An unusual cylindrical tinned bronze box (image in the online report) from the site is similar to one from the chariot burial of a woman at Wetwang Slack, Yorkshire. This does not necessarily imply a relationship, but does suggest contacts between north Britain and Ireland during the Late Iron Age.

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/celtictribesireland.shtml

Rory Cain
03-03-2015, 11:18 PM
In which case it is most likely early in Ireland.

That's what I figured about DF21 being in a band parallel to but to the south of the southern extent of La Tene artifacts in Ireland. Due to differing accounts of the distribution of La Tene artifacts in Scotland, I don't know if the distribution of DF21 along the southern part of the Highland Line repeats that same relationship to the La Tene zone. Alan may be the authority when it comes to artefacts.

Rory Cain
08-12-2015, 11:53 PM
The Y-DNA of the former Hinxton 4 has been analysed by several experts and assigned the ID of H12. He remains stuck at Z246, but if I understand it correctly he now has confirmed negative readings for all known sub-clades including L1402, CTS3655, FGC3902, CTS5524, FGC5780.

Rory Cain
08-15-2015, 12:00 AM
79-80 AD : Some Dumnonii probably fled to Ireland when the tribe in northern Britain came up against the Romans.

Irish legend has it that the Fir Domnainn landed at Inver Domnainn, now known as Malahide Bay, Co Dublin. That fits well enough with the location of those Domnainn kings who ruled from Dun Ailinne, Co Kildare. Other Domnainn kings ruled as as sub-kings of the Connachta dynasty well to the west.

If we draw a line connecting these points, that line approximates the southernmost extent of archaic Ulaidh territory as shown on p.224 of O'Connor's Hand of History. That line also approximates the southern extent of La Tene finds in Ireland. And it forms the northern border of a band of DF21+ Y-DNA running east-west across Ireland parallel to and just South of the archaic Ulaidh border and southern extent of La Tene finds.

DF21 looks as if it marks a frontier, containing the Ulaidh to the north during the Connachta-Ulaidh rivalry. The Airghialla later found further to the north may represent a later incursion against the Ulaidh as recorded in the annals.

Could this DF21 band be a remnant of the Domnainn, whose kings were associated with it's eastern and Western ends? One source also makes the Ciannachta in the centre of this DF21 band to be Domnainn. Significantly the Ciannachta include the Ely and the Ui Cairin, who are well represented in DF21+ results. A DNA band that parallels the Archaic Ulaidh border and the southern extent of La Tene potentially represents something.

Rory Cain
08-15-2015, 10:36 PM
...Hinxton man was 1st century British. The Irish settlement of Wales is dated to the 4th century, (as are the earliest Ogham stones)...

Possibly at least two periods of Irish settlement in Wales. The later one that you refer to is reasonably well documented. Likely occurred during the reign of Crimthann Mac Fidag of Munster c. 366-379 when even Irish tribes that acted in competition with Crimthann in Ireland acted with a degree of coordination with him in Wales. These tribes were associated with Munster's western frontier as Crimthann pushed into Leinster. The Leyn Peninsula in Wales appears to take it's name from these Laigin or Leinstermen.

We lack the historical circumstances for the previous Irish settlement by the Gangani, who are shown in the west of Ireland on Ptolomey's 2nd C map, at which time the Leyn Peninsula was called the Gangani Promontory, thus occupied by Connachtmen not Leinstermen at that earlier period.

The the Laigin were brought under control by Cunedda and sons from Scotland, adding to the genetic mix. Haplogroup DF21 could well be connected with any of these as it has a strong band across the waistline of Scotland whence Cunedda originated, and also stretches across the north of Leinster whence came the Laigin, through into Southern Connaught whence came the Gangani.

Rory Cain
08-15-2015, 11:07 PM
... Hinxton may help establish the route to Ireland, which would make you one of the luckiest genetic groups out there (having the ancient DNA to validate the migration). That's not a bad

Neat and concise and surprising that no-one seems to have grasped this previously. A singleton DF21 from Hinxton, Cambridge is rather light on evidence of DF21 being the Belgae, although there little reason to doubt that the Belgae were L21. We don't have to rely on a singleton for that.

While it goes against other evidence, it remains theoretically possible that the Belgae were DF21, but more likely that Hinxton 4 was merely a marker along the migration path of DF21. To give oneillabu his dues, that pathway had likely stretched across Ireland from North Leinster to Galway by 1st Century AD. But a big group remained behind in Strathclyde whence it had possibly lived long before the first Belgae stepped ashore in the southeast of Britain.

Hinxton 4 proves that DF21 was in the Isles by 1st C AD, something that was not in any real doubt, I would think. It does not disprove an earlier arrival, which more ancient DNA may reveal. Samples from Strathclyde would be good, or from other milestones along the way, which is probably all Hinxton represents.

oneillabu
08-16-2015, 06:44 PM
A singleton DF21 from Hinxton, Cambridge is rather light on evidence of DF21 being the Belgae, although there little reason to doubt that the Belgae were L21. We don't have to rely on a singleton for that.

Hinxton 4 proves that DF21 was in the Isles by 1st C AD, something that was not in any real doubt, I would think. It does not disprove an earlier arrival, which more ancient DNA may reveal. Samples from Strathclyde would be good, or from other milestones along the way, which is probably all Hinxton represents.

Hinxton 4 proves a DF21 person existed during Roman times in Britain, like I said before, there could be dozens of different reasons for this, from Roman slaves to Roman collaborators, merchants from Ireland etc, when I pointed out that a Roman Occulist burial was found in Tipperary from this period this was completely ignored, if Romans came to Ireland then surely it must be feasible that some Irish could end up in Roman occupied Britain.

Regarding the Strathclyde Britons, it is my personal opinion that this is the source of the M222 in Ireland which began in the 8th Century when they formed alliances through marriage with the Irish and provided the most formidable fighting machine ever seen in Ireland which quickly vanquished all opponents of the Cineal Eoghain. The vanquished Cineal Connall territories in Donegal were then heavily populated with M222 settlements and the Uladh to which the Cineal Connall belonged were never to regain power again, this account for the rise of the McLaughlins at the expense of the O'Neills who were also of Uladh origin hence the Red Hand, these McLaughlins were erroneously appended to the O'Neill pedigree in a rather crude way which was simply a reworking of the Maolseachlinn pedigree.

David Mc
08-16-2015, 08:58 PM
A singleton DF21 from Hinxton, Cambridge is rather light on evidence of DF21 being the Belgae, although there little reason to doubt that the Belgae were L21. We don't have to rely on a singleton for that.

While it goes against other evidence, it remains theoretically possible that the Belgae were DF21, but more likely that Hinxton 4 was merely a marker along the migration path of DF21. To give oneillabu his dues, that pathway had likely stretched across Ireland from North Leinster to Galway by 1st Century AD. But a big group remained behind in Strathclyde whence it had possibly lived long before the first Belgae stepped ashore in the southeast of Britain.

Hinxton 4 proves that DF21 was in the Isles by 1st C AD, something that was not in any real doubt, I would think. It does not disprove an earlier arrival, which more ancient DNA may reveal. Samples from Strathclyde would be good, or from other milestones along the way, which is probably all Hinxton represents.

You may very well be right, Rory. I certainly wouldn't consider the Belgae to be, en masse, DF21, nor DF21 to be primarily Belgae. It looks as though some of them were, though, and I'd (almost) give my eye teeth for a similar set of remains carrying DF49*.

Rory Cain
08-16-2015, 09:14 PM
...Regarding the Strathclyde Britons, it is my personal opinion that this is the source of the M222 in Ireland ...

I have to concede that M222 overlaps with DF21 in Strathclyde, but whereas DF21 appears strongest on the Ayrshire Coast or thereabouts, M222 appears strongest further South down in Galloway. So perhaps we are seeing a transition zone. That distribution may tend to equate DF21 with the Damnonii and M222 with the Novante.

It has long been thought that M222 has it's greatest genetic diversity in southwest Scotland and migrated to Ireland, perhaps from Galloway. I suspect that much the same applies to it's slightly more northerly neighbour DF21 from Strathclyde.

The relationship between the two is an interesting question. If M222 were the ruling Connacht dynasty as it appears, DF21 would appear to fit the Domnainn and Ciannachta sub-kings who so often fought their battles for the Connachta dynasty. Do you read it any different to that?

Rory Cain
08-16-2015, 09:28 PM
You may very well be right, Rory. I certainly wouldn't consider the Belgae to be, en masse, DF21, nor DF21 to be primarily Belgae. It looks as though some of them were, though, and I'd (almost) give my eye teeth for a similar set of remains carrying DF49*.
Thanks David but you deserve the credit on this one. I accept the logic of your suggestion that Hinxton 4 is just a straggler left behind along the migration route. With Yfull estimating DF21 at 4100 years old, and others reading a Celtic migration from their homeland in the Alps and down the Rhine about 2500 BCE, then DF21 could well have been at the earlier rather than later end of this migration. The Belgae were strictly latter end.

By 1st C AD when Cambridgeshire was Belgae territory, I suspect DF21 had moved on from it's embarkation on the southeast and had been well settled in Strathclyde, long enough to establish a further colony in Ireland. Hinxton 4's ancestor simply stayed behind after other DF21s moved on. I think oneillabu is correct about DF21 settling in Ireland by 1st C, and see no inconsistency between that and your thoughts that Hinxton simply marks an early leg of the total journey.

I have had disagreements with oneillabu in the past when we actually had some common ground, as I think is the case with his Irish DF21 settlement and your DF21 ancestral journey via Cambridgeshire. Both have merit and do not have to be mutually exclusive.

alan
08-16-2015, 09:55 PM
I have to concede that M222 overlaps with DF21 in Strathclyde, but whereas DF21 appears strongest on the Ayrshire Coast or thereabouts, M222 appears strongest further South down in Galloway. So perhaps we are seeing a transition zone. That distribution may tend to equate DF21 with the Damnonii and M222 with the Novante.

It has long been thought that M222 has it's greatest genetic diversity in southwest Scotland and migrated to Ireland, perhaps from Galloway. I suspect that much the same applies to it's slightly more northerly neighbour DF21 from Strathclyde.

The relationship between the two is an interesting question. If M222 were the ruling Connacht dynasty as it appears, DF21 would appear to fit the Domnainn and Ciannachta sub-kings who so often fought their battles for the Connachta dynasty. Do you read it any different to that?

Several interesting tribal names involved Damnoni in Strathclyed, Fir Domanainn and I would also highlight the fact that Novante means new people which suggests recent arrival relative to others.

alan
08-16-2015, 10:02 PM
Possibly at least two periods of Irish settlement in Wales. The later one that you refer to is reasonably well documented. Likely occurred during the reign of Crimthann Mac Fidag of Munster c. 366-379 when even Irish tribes that acted in competition with Crimthann in Ireland acted with a degree of coordination with him in Wales. These tribes were associated with Munster's western frontier as Crimthann pushed into Leinster. The Leyn Peninsula in Wales appears to take it's name from these Laigin or Leinstermen.

We lack the historical circumstances for the previous Irish settlement by the Gangani, who are shown in the west of Ireland on Ptolomey's 2nd C map, at which time the Leyn Peninsula was called the Gangani Promontory, thus occupied by Connachtmen not Leinstermen at that earlier period.

The the Laigin were brought under control by Cunedda and sons from Scotland, adding to the genetic mix. Haplogroup DF21 could well be connected with any of these as it has a strong band across the waistline of Scotland whence Cunedda originated, and also stretches across the north of Leinster whence came the Laigin, through into Southern Connaught whence came the Gangani.

what made you conclude that the Gangani went Ireland to Wales rather than the reverse?

Gray Fox
08-16-2015, 10:44 PM
The discussion can continue here, but any more accusations of any individuals having ulterior motives/agendas will not be tolerated. KEEP IT CLEAN GENTLEMEN

Rory Cain
08-16-2015, 11:13 PM
what made you conclude that the Gangani went Ireland to Wales rather than the reverse?

Me? Why me? I could respond with "What made you conclude that I concluded that?" I freely confess my ignorance here. It's merely what I see in every source I have seen thus far that mentions the Gangani, e.g. in www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/BritainDeceangli.htm "The tribes appear to have been split between Ireland and Britain. While in the latter they were called the Gangani and Deceangli, directly across the Irish Sea their cousins were the Concani or Gangani (in the region which later formed part of Leinster). It seems that they may have first settled in Ireland and then migrated to Western Britain by the first century BC at the latest, as the name 'Leyn' peninsula seems to be derived from Laigin, the older form of Leinster."

Let me assure you though that I do not favour this version over yours at all, whatever your version may be. I can see flaws in the above and may well come to prefer your version, if only I knew what your version is.

Rory Cain
08-16-2015, 11:23 PM
Several interesting tribal names involved Damnoni in Strathclyed, Fir Domanainn and I would also highlight the fact that Novante means new people which suggests recent arrival relative to others.

Thanks Alan. That's about the limit of my Latin, and I confess I discounted it's significance somewhat due to it appearing to be a name imposed on the Novante by outsiders looking in, namely the Romans, just as they imposed the name Picts. The linguists are still arguing over the significance of Picts when it may not have meant anything to the so-called "Picts" themselves. In Ireland it is understood they called themselves Cruithne, which may equate with Creator, the same name we use for God.

You make a nice point about the Novante though. I am curious whether you can enlarge on that.

Rory Cain
08-22-2015, 09:13 PM
You make a nice point about the Novante though. I am curious whether you can enlarge on that.

Never mind now, Alan, I see that Jean has done so on the thread Celtic Tribes of the British Isles. I wondered how likely a tribe would be to call themselves "The New Chums". I tend to like Jean's answer better, that the tribal name Novantes actually derives from a river name akin to the river Nith and Nithsdale.

Rory Cain
08-27-2015, 12:19 AM
That's what I figured about DF21 being in a band parallel to but to the south of the southern extent of La Tene artifacts in Ireland. Due to differing accounts of the distribution of La Tene artifacts in Scotland, I don't know if the distribution of DF21 along the southern part of the Highland Line repeats that same relationship to the La Tene zone. Alan may be the authority when it comes to artefacts.

Never mind about answering that one either, Alan. I certainly didn't intend to throw you one that was "too hard". Actually the answer proved quite simple - the DF21 band across Scotland roughly corresponds with the northern extent of Hallstatt artefacts, whereas in Ireland DF21 roughly corresponds with the southern extent of La Tene artefacts.

Both circumstances may assist to track and date the arrival of DF21.

Rory Cain
09-08-2015, 07:00 AM
Hinxton Z246 remains negative for all known sub-clades as below:

R1b: FGC7494/Y427/PF6104+ Y413x M12190/FGC41/V1501/Y108+ Y106+ FGC75/Y104+ Y102+
PF6263+ PF6255+ V1980/PF6250+ PF6249+ PF6148+ PF6090x V3867/CTS9972/PF6261+
L822/PF6247/YSC0000075+ L761/PF6258/YSC0000266+ L754/PF6269/YSC0000022+
YSC0000224/PF6266/L1345+ M343/PF6242+ PF5466+ CTS8436/PF6259+ V2515/CTS3063+
L780/PF6105/YSC0000254+ Y96+ PF6272+ PF6271+ PF6270+ PF6244/CTS910+
V2997/YSC0001279/CTS4244/PF6257+ PF6096/CTS944+ FGC36/Y409x CTS3625/S4228+ CTS46+
L1068/PF6264/YSC0000223+ L774/PF6245/YSC0000277+ YSC0000231/PF6268/L1349+ Y418+
CTS2229/PF6254x PF6248x V1532/PF6246+ PF6243+ PF1144+
R1b1: M415/PF6251+ L278+
R1b1c: FGC21029/Y8453- FGC21051/Y8448- FGC20968/Y8444- FGC21018/Y8460- Y10834-
FGC20972/Y8457- FGC21066/Y7789- FGC21013/Y7787- FGC20993/Y7786- FGC21036/Y7785-
FGC20979/Y8454- FGC21063/Y7784- FGC21011/Y7783- FGC20975/Y7782- FGC21027/Y8462-
FGC21059/Y7781- SK2064/FGC20999/Y7778- Y7774- FGC20991/Y8446- FGC21033/Y8445-
FGC21028/Y8461- FGC21017/Y8459- FGC20971/Y8451- Z30230/Y7770- Y7768x FGC21015/V3608-
FGC20963/V3544- SK2063/FGC21034/V2197- FGC20992/V1732- PF7545- PF6344- PF6343- PF6341-
PF6338- PF6335- PF6334- PF6333- PF6332- PF6327- PF6324- PF6323- V4036/PF6321- PF6314-
PF6312- PF6311- PF6310- PF6309- PF6307- PF6304- PF6301- PF6299- PF6292- PF6291- PF6287-
PF6277x Z2174/S5025-
R1b1c2: V35-
R-Y7771: Y8439- Y8438- Y8437- Y7790- Y8436- Y8435- Y8441- Y8443x Y8442- Y7771-
SK2071/V1944- V1589- FGC21041/V1227-
R1b1c3: V69-
R-L389: L389/PF6531+ L388/PF6468+
R-P297: Y105+ Y103+ FGC46/Y97+ FGC78/Y94+ FGC71/Y92+ PF6442x PF6433+ PF6417+
CTS7941/PF6472+ CTS6532/PF6465+ FGC69/L320/PF6092+ CTS12612/PF6530+ CTS9018/PF6484+
FGC73/Y407/PF6094+ PF6412+ YSC0000269/PF6475/S17+ CTS11422/PF6519+ PF6418/YSC0000061+
PF6400/CTS329+ PF6436+ CTS11985/PF6523+ CTS3876/PF6458+ L585/PF6499+ L502/PF6487+ Y417+
PF6501+ PF6463+ PF6459/S3848+ PF6440+ L752/PF6483+ PF6516/M4435/Z2129+ CTS10212/PF6491+
R-M478: Y13881- Y14187- Y13878- Y13877- Y13210- Y13209- Y13207- SK2080/Y13876- Y13206-
Y13875- Y13872- Y13204- Y13879- Y13203- Y13886- Y13885- Y13884- Y13883- Y13882- Y13199-
Y13888- Y13871- S3511- L1435- M478-
R-Y14051: Y14192- Y14191- Y14190- Y14189- Y14161- Y14188- Y14062x Y14186- Y14061-
Y14181- Y14060- Y14179- Y14058- Y14177- Y14163- Y14056- Y14174- Y14173- Y14170- Y14055-
Y14054- Y14168- Y14167- Y14165- Y14053- Y14164- Y14052- Y14159- Y14051- A1465-
FGC7545/Z6561- L1433- L1432-
R-M269: FGC76/Y99+ PF6448+ PF6444+ PF6430+ PF6429+ PF6425+ PF6409+ PF6095+ CTS10834+
CTS1738/PF6449+ L773/PF6421/YSC0000276+ L762/PF6450/YSC0000258+
V3721/L757/PF6488/YSC0000293+ L500/PF6481+ L482/PF6427+ YSC0000240/PF6528/L1351+
YSC0000238/PF6521/L1348+ YSC0000219/PF6497- YSC0000213/PF6496+ L265/PF6431+
CTS8591/PF6477+ PF6410/M520+ PF6406+ PF6404+ PF6402+ CTS12478/PF6529+ CTS2664/PF6454+
L753/PF6486/YSC0000018+ L749/PF6476/YSC0000290+ YSC0001293/CTS894/PF6420+
YSC0000203/PF6482+ YSC0000167/PF6452+ PF6419/CTS623+ PF6437+ CTS8627/PF6478+
CTS7659/PF6470+ L1063/CTS8728/PF6480/S13+ PF6508+ PF6507+ PF6504/S4969+ PF6503+ PF6494+
PF6438+ CTS11468/PF6520+ CTS6832/PF6467+ PF6525+ PF6518+ M8209/CTS1422+ CTS8665/PF6479+
CTS8052/PF6473+ CTS2466/PF6453+ CTS1421/PF6423/M8208+ S10/PF6399+
R-PF7562: PH1631/V2850x FGC31931/V2381- PF7562- PF6576-
R-L23: L478/PF6403+ L23/S141/PF6534+
R-Z2103: Z8129/M12145/Y12537- Z8130/S20902- Z8127/M12132/Y12536- M12149/Z8128/Y4371-
PF7585- CTS9416- Z2104/PF7575- Z2105- Z2107/CTS7340-
R-L277.1: Y4368- M12141/Y4364- Y4370- Y4369- M12160/Y4363- M12159/Y4372-
M12155/A367/Y4362- Y4366- M12148/A366/Y4365- L277.1/L277/S334/S334.1-
R-L584: FGC14586/Y13370- FGC14587/Y13095- L584-
R-Z2106: Z2106- Z8131/Y12538-
R-Z2108: Z2108- Z2109/CTS1843-
R-Y14512: Y14421- Y14420- Y14415- Y14414- Y14515- Y14514- Y14512- Y14511-
R-Y16005: Y16158- Y16005-
R-Z2110: S17864- S12460- Z2110/CTS7822-
R-CTS7556: CTS7556-
R-CTS1450: Y5590- Y5589- Y5593- CTS9219- Y5594-
R-Y10789: BY611/A1777/Y10789-
R-Y15982: Y16147- Y16149- Y16141- Y15983- Y16146- Y16145- Y15982- Y16144- Y16143-
Y16151- Y16140- Y16150- BY250-
R-Y5587: Y5587x
R-Y5586: Y5588-
R-V2986: PH3362/Y14305- PH4996/Y11815- Y11816- PH2789/Y14307- Y14302- Y14308- Y14301-
Y11813- Y14079- Y14078x PH2302/Y14304- Y11817- PH5142/Y14303- Y14309- Y11814-
PH2147/Y14300- Y11811- PH963/Y11812- Y11810- V1470-
R-Y14306: Y14306-
R-L51: FGC39/CTS10373/PF6537x Y410x PF6414x PF6535+ L51/M412/S167/PF6536+
R-Z2111: Z2115/CTS5981/S1157- CTS11362- Z2112- Z2116/CTS10379- Z2119/CTS7153x Z2111-
R-Y5141: Y5147- Y5151- Y5146- Y5144- Y5148- Y5143- Y5145- CTS5940- CTS3027- CTS2484-
R-S1141: S1141- CTS6889/S1161- FGC12521/Y11820-
R-A613: A613/FGC19599- CTS11824/PF7592- CTS11659-
R-L151: PF6416+ P311/S128/PF6545+ YSC0000191/PF6543/S1159+ YSC0001249/CTS10353/S1175+
CTS7650/PF6544/S1164+ P310/S129/PF6546+ L151/PF6542+ L52/PF6541+ L11/S127/PF6539+
R-S1200: DF100/S1203-
R-S14328: S14328-
R-S1196: S1196- S6868-
R-U106: M405/S21/U106-
R-Y15627: S21514- ZS4151/S21183- S18632x Y15630- Y15629- Y15628- Y15802- PH1264-
Y15800- Y15791- Y15790- Y15627- Y15804- Y15798- Y15797-
R-FGC3861: FGC7914/Z8058- FGC3852/Z8054- FGC7915/Z8052- FGC3851/Z8051-
R-Y2402: FGC3869/Y2412-
R-L217.1: FGC3879/Y11193- FGC3870/Y11834- FGC3893/Y11847- FGC3891/Y11840-
FGC3890/Y11839- FGC3886/Y11843- FGC3884/Y11832- FGC3878/Y11191- FGC3868/Y2410/S1875-
FGC3867/Y2409/S1873- FGC3864/Y2406/S1861- FGC3863/Y2405/S1859- FGC3862/Y2404/S1855-
FGC3857/Y2403- FGC3855/Y2401/S1847- S1849/L217/FGC7917/L217.1/L217.2/S1849.1/S1849.2x
R-Y3443: FGC429/Y3443- FGC416/Y11144- A278- FGC400/Y3446- FGC396/Y3444-
R-A279: A279- FGC419/Y3451- FGC414/Y3449- FGC410/Y3448-
R-Z19: Z18/YSC0000053/S493- Z19/YSC0000054- Z371/S262- Z369-
R-DF95: Y15645- S11700- S19116- S18344- S11596- S8388- S8387- DF95/S21484-
CTS12023/S3524- CTS5642/S4022-
R-Y15995: Y16116- Y16120- Y15999- Y16117- Y16122- Y15997- Y15996- Y15995- Y16121-
Y16119- Z31375-
R-Z372: Z372/S375-
R-L257: L257/S186- Z374- Z379/S5435- Z376-
R-Z375: Z375- Z377- Z378- Z8188- Z8190/S5741- Z8189-
R-Z8191: Z8191-
R-S3207: S4031-
R-S5673: S5691- Y15100- S5701- S5684- S5673-
R-Y15474: Y15475- A683- Y15474-
R-S263: Z381/S263-
R-Y3965: Y3965- Y3967- S3995- FGC3570/S12350-
R-S497: Z307/S498- Z306/S497- Z8161/S1667- Z304/S265-
R-DF98: S18823-
R-S1911: S1911-
R-DF96: S1794- S1785-
R-S11515: FGC8363/Y8835- S11895- S11515- S1782-
R-L1: S1819- S1812-
R-A411: A531/Y9084- A415- A414- S1791-
R-S25234: S25234-
R-Y13169: Y13831- Y13830- Y13826- Y13173x Y13172- Y13822- Y13171- Y13170- Y13820-
Y13169- Y13834- Y13833-
R-S499: Z301/S499-
R-L259: S22454- Z8164- Z8163- Z8162- M8186- M4025- Z366- Z363- Z152/S377- Z362- Z361-
Z360- Z359- Z358- Z357- Z356- Z353- Z303- F3056- CTS5692- Z154- Z153/S500- L259-
R-U198: S1688- S15627- S1690- S1684- M467/S29/U198-
R-DF89: FGC12307/Y5975-
R-Y14063: Y14209- Y14207- Y14201- Y14206- Y14205- Y14077- Y14210- Y14212- Y14076-
Y14075- Y14074- Y14211- Y14073- Y14070x Y14069- Y14068- Y14066- Y14064- Y14204- Y14202-
Y14063- CTS12226- CTS4089-
R-L48: L48/S162-
R-S5918: S5940- S5918- CTS3104-
R-Y10968: FGC13737/Y10968- S23189-
R-L200: FGC13734/Y9086- FGC13729/Y9085- Y10969- S19579- S11319- S9355- L200-
R-L47: L47/S170- Z4713/S1933-
R-L44: FGC6184/Y5187- FGC8034/Y2732- L163/S352-
R-L46: CTS11988- L46/S172-
R-Z159: Z158/S378- Z350- Z157/S267- Z160-
R-Z4716: Z4715- S19089- Z8182- Z4721/S17947- Z4720- Z4719- Z4718- Z4716- Z4714/S9257-
CTS6353/S3886- CTS3050- CTS1117/S3885-
R-S3249: S18461- S3251x Z8515/S3247-
R-Y6451: Y6464- Y6463- FGC17297/Y6459- FGC17301/Y6458- FGC17300/Y6457- FGC17298/Y6460-
Y6453- FGC17296/Y6452-
R-Y2924: FGC8563/Y2924-
R-Y13229: Y13229-
R-CTS13009: CTS13009-
R-Y3264: FGC8576/Y3264-
R-Y3462: FGC8574/Y5052- FGC8601/Y3466- FGC8587/Y3464- FGC8578/Y3462-
R-Y5051: FGC8573/Y5051x
R-Z9: Z348- Z10/S379-
R-Z331: Z327/S1731- FGC360/Y1409/Z8166/S3391- Z347- CTS12135- Z331/S1743-
R-Z330: Z336- V4030/Z335- Z333/S1747- Z332/S1746- Z330/S505- V1439/Z329/S380-
Z328/S269- FGC358/Z8170- FGC361/Z8167- FGC7506/Y1406/Z8169/S1733x Z337-
R-Z326: Z326x
R-S27466: S27466-
R-Y6669: FGC18842/Y6669-
R-S21728: S23955- S21728- S11136-
R-Z325: FGC530/Z8171- FGC362/Y1407/Z8172- CTS2509/S1734-
R-Y9133: FGC15329/Y9136- FGC15327/Y9122- FGC15321/Y9134- FGC15315/Y9121-
FGC15316/Y9120- FGC23785/Y9126-
R-Y9083: FGC363/Y9083- Z81/S381-
R-Z82: Z82/S506- Z323- Z84/S508- Z321- Z320- Z318- Z315- Z312- Z311- Z83- Z80-
R-Z5054: Z5055- Z5054+ Z5053x Z5052-
R-Z30: Z30/S271- Z32- Z27- Z345-
R-Z2: Z2/YSC0000044/S511-
R-S20054: ZS1850/FGC4314/Y10966x S20054x Z8908/Z4436-
R-Y7374: S15510x S23231- Y7374-
R-Y7369: Y7410- Y7406- Y7371- Y7404- Y7417- Y7403- Y7412- Y7378- Y7377- Y7409- Y7408-
Y7407- Y7373- Y7372- Y7405- Y7370- Y7369- V1061- Y7418- S20654- S8958-
R-Z7: Z8173- Z7/YSC0000049/S272- Z31/S509-
R-S3595: FGC935/Y3157+ FGC901/Y11028x FGC904/S6901- FGC903/S6909- FGC930/Y11027-
FGC914/Y10792- FGC915/S6908- FGC7559/S3590- CTS10893/S3595-
R-A294: A296- A294-
R-Y10790: Y11310- Y11311- Y11307- Y11304- Y11935- Y11305- Y11302- Y10791- Y11309-
Y10790-
R-Z8: Z22- Z5/YSC0000047/S384- Z25/S518- YSC0000046/Z4/S1672- Z3/YSC0000045- Z20-
Z351/S516- V3966/Z26/S517- Z23- Z8/YSC0000050/S515- Z8174- Z21-
R-M365.4: M365.1/M365.4/M365.2/M365/M365.3-
R-Z11: Z342+ Z341- Z339- Z11/S274-
R-Z12: Z12/S385-
R-Z8175: Z8175-
R-Y6598: CTS10742-
R-Y3001: FGC12057/Y3001-
R-S18890: S18890-
R-Z1: Z1/YSC0000043/S275- FGC4137/Z8177-
R-Z344: Z344/S513/S514-
R-Y12853: FGC29423/Y12856- FGC29414/Y12859- FGC29416/Y12855- FGC29415/Y12860x
FGC29412/Y12857- FGC29405/Y12853- FGC29397/Y12863-
R-Z6: Z6/YSC0000048/S276-
R-Z346: FGC7931/Z346/S512- Z2339/CTS7035-
R-Y676: S5231- S5245- Y676- DF101/S5628-
R-Z343: Z343/S387-
R-S3334: FGC7935- CTS5601/S3933-
R-Y10821: Y15889- BY124/Y10823- S14406- CTS7678/S3935-
R-Y15631: Y15892- Y15887- Y15885- Y15888- Y15893- Y15886- Y15632- Y15883-
R-Y15633: Y15633-
R-P312: P312/S116/PF6547+
R-DF99: Z6001/DF99/S11987-
R-Y2832: FGC847/Y2833- FGC7556/Y2832x FGC846/Y2834-
R-Y5046: FGC16981/Y5047- FGC16979/Y5046- FGC16982/Y5049- S23540- S16136-
R-Z2244: Z2248- Z2247- Z2244- Z2250- Z2249- L238/S182-
R-CTS11638: Y11660- Y11664- Y11663- CTS11638-
R-Y10824: PH4678/Y10831- PH2212/Y10829- Y11661- Y10827- Y10825- Y11290- Y11669- Y10833-
Y11666- Y10826-
R-DF19: Z4161- Z8192/S1354- DF19/S232-
R-Z302: S4333- CTS9798- Z302/S233-
R-DF88: S23780- S4274- FGC11836/Y3097- S4267- S4264- S7445- DF88/S4298-
R-Y3096: FGC11833/Y3096- CTS8154/S7442-
R-Y6234: Z17108/Y6235- S4281- S7449-
R-S4268: Z17111/Y6236- S4268-
R-Y11522: Z21749/Y13848- Z21728/Y13843- Y13842- Z29044/Y13840- Z21752/Y13849-
Z21744/Y13846- Z21742/Y13225- Z21741/Y13224- Z21740/Y13223- Z21739/Y13222-
Z21736/Y13220- Z21734/Y13219- Z21733/Y13836- Z21732/Y13218- Z21731/Y13217-
Z21729/Y13215- Z29043/Y13214- Z21727/Y13835- S8139-
R-Y6237: Z17112/Y6237-
R-L644: L644-
R-A275: A275- A274-
R-CTS2617: Y16333- CTS4562- CTS2617-
R-Y16248: Y16248- Y16249- Y16250- Y16332- Y16331- PH1525-
R-Z192: PF6660/Z192-
R-CTS10676: S8163- CTS11900- CTS11712- CTS11594- CTS11424- CTS11022/M4536- CTS11020-
CTS9072- CTS8877- CTS8610- CTS7688- CTS7013- CTS6653- CTS6286- CTS6139- CTS3866-
CTS3493- CTS3152- CTS967- CTS468- CTS36- L1303-
R-PF6652: Y16152- CTS11874- Y16001- Y16000- PF6652-
R-Z56: Z43/S366- Z56/PF6601x
R-L4: L4/S178-
R-S47: Z48/S484- Z45- CTS5325- S47-
R-Z44: Z44/S260-
R-Z145: PF6584/Z146/S483- PF6578/Z145/S371- CTS10851/PF6583- PF6581/Z71/S482-
R-CTS6389: Z72/S258- CTS6389-
R-PF6577: PF6577-
R-Z36: Z36/S206-
R-Y3577: FGC6435/Y3595- FGC6431/Y3593- FGC6430/Y3592- FGC6429/Y3591- FGC6427/Y3610-
FGC6426/Y3589- FGC8068/Y3588- FGC6425/Y3582- FGC6423/Y3580- FGC6422/Y3579-
FGC6421/Y3578- FGC6418/Y3577- FGC6411/Y3608- FGC6417/Y3597- FGC8069/Y3596-
FGC6414/Y3586- FGC8071/Y3584- FGC6412/Y3583-
R-Z37: Z70- Z39/S478- Z37- Z67- PF7626- CTS10641- CTS8492- CTS5531/PF6636- CTS2162x
CTS1595-
R-CTS10146: Z41/S365- S480/Z66- Z40/S208- CTS10812- CTS10222- CTS10146-
R-CTS10276: CTS10755- CTS8894-
R-L2: L2/S139x
R-A197: A197-
R-DF90: FGC14641/Y12051- DF90+
R-Y11232: Y11931- S1573- S1569- S1567- Y11932- PH1389/Y11232- Y11934- Y11935- S1570-
R-Y3961: DF110/Y3962- Y3961-
R-Y3960: Y3960-
R-S14469: FGC4183/S14469- FGC8158-
R-Y15087: Y15087-
R-Z367: Z384x
R-Z34: Z151/S491- Z33/S212- PF6624-
R-Z35: Z35/S487-
R-CTS1073: CTS11514- CTS1073-
R-Z275: Z256- Z257-
R-L20: Z1908/CTS1939-
R-Z291: Z291/S256-
R-Y11785: FGC17204/Y12493- FGC17198/Y12497- FGC17203/Y12487- FGC17199/Y11788-
FGC17194/Y11787- FGC17193/Y12495- Y12492- FGC17185/Y12489- FGC17183/Y12485-
FGC17182/Y12491- FGC17181/Y12490-
R-Z1909: Z1909-
R-Y6789: Y6791- Y6790- Y6792- Y6789- S10708-
R-Y15103: Y15106- Y15120- Y15119- Y15117- Y15210- Y15116- Y15115- Y15114- Y15209-
Y15208- Y15113- Y15112- Y15111- Y15108- Y15107- Y15105- Y15104- Y15103-
R-Z49: Z49- Z68/S485-
R-S8183: S8183-
R-Y4356: FGC31474/Y4356-
R-Y11178: Y12700- Y11185- Y11182- Y12402- Y11181- Y12396- Y12395- Y11183- Y12698-
Y12404- Y12695x Y12403- Y12697- Y11186- Y12405- Y11187- Y11184- Y11179-
R-Y4354: FGC20796/Y4353-
R-Y14088: FGC20791/Y14141x FGC20788/Y14131x FGC20787/Y14140x FGC20786/Y14090-
FGC31491/Y14103- FGC20811/Y14102- FGC20810/Y14133- FGC20809/Y14101- FGC20807/Y14100-
FGC20806/Y14147- FGC20805/Y14099- FGC20804/Y14098- FGC20803/Y14146- FGC20802/Y14097-
FGC20801/Y14132- FGC20800/Y14145- FGC20798/Y14095- FGC20795/Y14094- FGC20794/Y14093-
FGC20793/Y14143- FGC20790/Y14092- FGC20782/Y14138- FGC20780/Y14136- FGC20779/Y14089-
FGC20778/Y14135- FGC20776/Y14134-
R-S18325: FGC22963- FGC22942- FGC22940-
R-L562: Z55-
R-Z57: Z57/S1468-
R-CTS6554: Y12119- Z147- Z65/S370- Z149/S490- Z53/S214- Z52- CTS6554-
R-CTS9462: CTS9462-
R-S7402: Z150/S257-
R-S7404: CTS7970/S7404-
R-Y3140: FGC12379/Y3142- FGC12380/Y3143- FGC12381/Y3140- FGC12382/Y3144-
R-Y9080: FGC12403- FGC12402/Y10985- FGC12401/Y10984-
R-DF27: DF27/S250-
R-L881: L881-
R-BY653: BY653- Y16358-
R-Y11849: FGC20195/Y11850- FGC20199/Y11853- FGC20210/Y11851- CTS5885- CTS6578- CTS7356-
FGC20198/Y11849- FGC20224/Y11855x
R-Y13142: FGC13114/Y13791- FGC31437/Y13792- Y13142- Y13143- FGC13125/Y13806-
FGC13126/Y13149- FGC13127/Y13808- FGC13130/Y13807- FGC13131/Y13150- FGC13132/Y13809-
FGC31442/Y13151- FGC13133/Y13152- FGC13136/Y13799- FGC13137/Y13153- FGC13138/Y13800-
FGC13139/Y13154- FGC13140/Y13155- FGC13141/Y13156- FGC13144/Y13158- FGC13145/Y13159-
FGC13117/Y13794- FGC13121/Y13145- FGC13148/Y13161- FGC31446/Y13162- FGC13151/Y13163-
FGC13153/Y13798- FGC13154/Y13164- FGC13155/Y13165- FGC13156/Y13166- FGC31438/Y13787x
FGC13134/Y13788- FGC13142/Y13789- FGC13157/Y13795- FGC13113/Y13805- FGC13120/Y13804-
R-Y13607: Y13608- Y13607- Y13609- Y14080- Y14081- Y14082- Y14084- Y14085- Y14086-
R-Y14529: FGC30990/Y14529- FGC30997/Y14530-
R-DF79: Z2551- Z2549- Y14471- DF79-
R-Y14469: Y14469- Y14627- Y14470- Y14626- Y14472x Y14473- Y14475- Y14476-
R-V3505: FGC20764/V3505-
R-FGC20767: FGC20767- FGC20770-
R-Y6951: Y6953- FGC20554/Y6954- FGC20540/Y6950- FGC20534-
R-Y6949: FGC20531/Y6949x
R-Y15636: Y15636-
R-Z2573: Z2573-
R-Z29624: FGC32092/Z29624-
R-CTS1090: CTS1090-
R-BY2285: BY2285/FGC31188-
R-Y5058: FGC22210/Y7941- FGC22205/Y5059- FGC22211/Y5060- FGC22192/Y5061x
FGC22194/Y5062x FGC22196/Y5063- FGC22217/Y5064- FGC22212/Y5067- FGC22198/Y5068-
FGC22224/Y5070- FGC22190/Y5076- FGC22203/Y5077- FGC22218/Y7942- FGC22225/Y7940-
FGC22201/Y7366- FGC22200/Y7367- FGC22199/Y7943- FGC31183/Y8719-
R-Y3267: A431/Y3267-
R-Y7363: Y7402- Y7401- Y15851-
R-Y15639: Y15852- Y15850- Y15639- Y15640- Y15641-
R-Z1899: Z1897- Z1899-
R-Y4867: Y4867-
R-Y4865: Y4866- Y4868-
R-Z2568: DF84- Z2568- Z2569- Z2570- Z2572/CTS11567-
R-Y8397: FGC11392- FGC11374/Y8397- FGC11368/Y8838- Y8398- FGC11373/Y8839-
FGC11389/Y8840- FGC11367/Y8399- FGC11395/Y8842- FGC11394/Y8400- FGC11387/Y8401-
FGC11382/Y8404- FGC11411/Y8406- FGC11378/Y8408- FGC11379/Y8409- FGC11370- FGC11386-
FGC11385- FGC11384- FGC11371- FGC11413- FGC11416-
R-Z2552: Z2552-
R-YP4295: YP4295-
R-L617: L617- FGC14934/Y9056-
R-M225: F1225- M225- Z5297- M7948- S14003-
R-DF81: Y7514- Y7351- Z2553- FGC21122/Y7354- Z2556- Z2555- DF81- Z32154/Y13120-
FGC21119/Y7352- FGC21118/Y7355-
R-Y7350: Y7350-
R-Y7357: FGC21125/Y7516- FGC21124/Y7357-
R-Y13238: Z32161/Y13118- Z32159/Y13116- Z32156/Y13236-
R-Y13233: Y13115- Y13234- Y13237- Y13119-
R-Z2559: Z2560- Z2558-
R-Z2562: Z2563- Z2562-
R-Z2565: Z2567- Z2566/CTS9545/S4240- Z2565-
R-Y15647: Y15925-
R-Z225: Z225/F1343/S225- Z229/S359-
R-Y16018: PH2007- Y16018- Y16019-
R-Z222: Z224/S453- Z222- CTS12801- CTS11683- Z234x Z241- Z708/CTS2020- Z707- Z706-
Z704/CTS129- Z703- Z701/CTS234- Z700- Z699/CTS7759- Z698- Z244- Z243- Z242- Z237- Z236-
Z233- Z232/M9664- Z230- Z227/S454- Z223/S360- PF6705/M5900- CTS9385- CTS8226-
R-Y11281: Z29902/Y12090- Z29878/FGC30971/Y11283- Z29875/FGC30948/Y11282-
FGC30949/Y11284-
R-Y12465: FGC30977- FGC30954/Y12465- FGC30955/Y12844- FGC30956/Y12845- FGC30957/Y12466-
Y12469- FGC30963/Y12846- FGC30961/Y12468- Z29884/FGC30967/Y12470- FGC30969/Y12471-
FGC30972/Y12847- FGC30978/Y12842-
R-FGC30968: FGC30986- FGC30982- FGC30964-
R-Z2543: Z2545/CTS8001- Z2544-
R-CTS416: CTS416-
R-Z195: Z195/S227-
R-Z198: Z198/S228-
R-S8825: Z29706- S14445- S11121-
R-S11475: S11475-
R-Y5124: Y5129- Y5125- Y5327- Y5133- Y5124- Y5123- Y5121- Y5117- Y5115- Y5110-
BY209/Y5118- BY134/Y5128- BY132/Y5119- BY131/Y5112- BY130/Y5111- Y5109-
R-Y5108: Y5108- Y5135-
R-Z292: ZS312/Y964/M7953/Y964.2/M7953.2/Y964.1/M7953.1- Z292/S460-
R-Z262: Z688- Z204- Z201/S457- V3130/Z689/CTS4716- FGC11216/Z265/PF1185- M167/SRY2627-
Z262- Z269-
R-Y8421: Y9116- Y9115- Y9114- Y8421- Y8417-
R-Y8410: Y8411- Y8412- Y8413- Y8414- Y8415- Y9123- Y8416- Y9127- Z17640/Y9130- Y8419-
Y9119- Y9124- Y9129- Y9125- Y8422- Y8423- Y16042-
R-Z202: Z266- Z205- Z264- Z203-
R-CTS606: CTS606-
R-Y15065: CTS4117- CTS4278- CTS10903- Y15542- Y15066- Y15068-
R-CTS3555: Z29717/Y8475- Z29716/Y7730- Z29714/Y8474- Y7733- CTS5337- CTS3555-
R-Y7729: Y7729- Y8476- Y8479- Y7731- Y8480- Y7732- Y8482- Z15291/A173-
R-Z206: Z206/S235-
R-Z208: Z693- Z207/S251- Z208/S362-
R-CTS43: CTS43- CTS5447- CTS7223- CTS7480- CTS10409- CTS10925- CTS11118-
R-CTS9762: CTS9762-
R-CTS4299: CTS4299-
R-Z272: Z294- Z272-
R-DF17: Y3469- SK2120/S11695- S1319- S1306- S1313- DF17/S455- CTS13028/S1322- CTS11346-
R-Y14050: Y14050-
R-Y3470: FGC14113/Y3470-
R1b1a2a1a2a1a: Z268/S450- Z215/S357- Z210- Z694- Z296- Z271-
R-Y9087: FGC23359/Y10801- FGC23355/Y9430- FGC23343/Y9432- FGC23350/Y9428-
FGC23351/Y9429- FGC23353/Y9087- FGC23356/Y9088-
R-CTS9050: Z29653/Y11287- Z29650/Y11218- Z29649/Y11219- Y11285-
R-L566: CTS2379- CTS3423- CTS4531- CTS4558- CTS5870- CTS8196-
R-Y11215: Y11215- Y11880-
R-Z419: Z419/PF5310- S21184-
R-S16785: S16785-
R-Z295: Z295/S1217-
R-S1221: Z2355/CTS4065/S1221- S25783-
R-Y13211: S18672- FGC15329/Y9136- FGC23176/Y13446- FGC23178/Y13211- Y13447-
FGC23190/Y13450- FGC23175/Y13445- S12214- S12458- S17990- FGC23184/Y13448-
FGC23189/Y13451- FGC23193/Y13212- FGC23183/Y14502-
R-Y13213: A5001/Y13437-
R-Y7765: FGC15710/Y8717- FGC15713/Y7765- FGC15712/Y8715- FGC15711/Y7766- CTS10029-
R-Y10797: FGC15732/Y10799- FGC15731/Y10798- FGC15737/Y10800- FGC15735/Y11674-
FGC15730/Y10797-
R-FGC15748: FGC15726- FGC15742- FGC15748/Y11809-
R-FGC29721: FGC29748- FGC29744- FGC29721- FGC29720-
R-FGC29724: FGC29757/Y14490- FGC29756/Y14489- FGC29739- FGC29738- FGC29737/Y14482-
FGC29733- FGC29731/Y14481- FGC29730- FGC29729- FGC29728- FGC29727/Y14480- FGC29726-
FGC29725- FGC29755- FGC29754/Y14488- FGC29752- FGC29749- FGC29747/Y14485- FGC29745-
FGC29742- FGC29723/Y14478- FGC29722/Y14477-
R-Z216: Z270/PF7598- Z211/PF7595/S358-
R-Z297: Z297-
R-Z278: Z278/S181- Z273- Z221- Z219- Z213/S452- Z212- Z217- Z695/CTS2608-
CTS12074/S8070-
R-Z697: Z697-
R-Z214: Z214/S348- Z696- Z298-
R-CTS7870: CTS7870-
R-CTS517: CTS517- CTS10744-
R-CTS8087: CTS8087-
R-CTS2142: Z29687/Y9356-
R-CTS9053: CTS9053-
R-PF7203: PF7203-
R-L21: FGC3218/Y2598/S552x Z260+ L459+ Z290/S461x Z245/S245+
R-Y16251: A5845-
R-DF63: DF63/S522/CTS300-
R-CTS6919: A94- A91- A95- Y5306- CTS6919/S3689-
R-S3687: S17772- S6937- F1411- CTS8050- CTS1912/S3687-
R-DF13: DF13/S521/CTS241+ CTS8221/Z2542+
R-CTS2457.2: CTS2457.1/CTS2457/CTS2457.2-
R-L195: L144/S175/L144.1-
R-L679: L679-
R-S1051: FGC9655- FGC9660- S1051-
R-Y9090: A1293/Y11023- A1291/Y11021- A1148/Y11008- A1305/Y11015- A1320/Y11007-
FGC32811/Y11018- Y11017- A1304/Y11014- A1303/Y11011- A1301/Y11010- A1298/Y11012-
PH1831/Y11025- FGC32809/Y9094- A1296/Y9092- A1295/Y11024x A1292/Y11022- A1289/Y11020-
PF1839-
R-Z17967: Z17967- Z17968- Z17969-
R-Y14049: Y14240-
R-Y15071: FGC7448- FGC5512/Y15071- FGC5496-
R-Y16233: MC14-
R-Y16225: Y16284- Y16287- Y16286- Y16283- Y16232- Y16231- Y16227- Y16226- BY246-
Y16225- Y16295- Y16294- Y16292- Y16290- Y16289x Y16288-
R-Y9097: Y15901- Y9097- Y9096-
R-Y9089: Y9101- Y9100- Y9099- Y9089-
R-L371: FGC10050- FGC10079/Y15140x FGC10076/Y15137- FGC10054/Y15133- FGC10085-
FGC10071/Y14499- FGC10070/Y14498- FGC10061- Y15139- Y15136- Y15080- Y15078- Y15074-
Y15073- Y15132- FGC10074/Y14501- FGC10072/Y14500- FGC10069/Y14497- FGC10066-
FGC10064/Y14495- FGC10053/Y14492- FGC10051/Y14491- FGC10041- S300/L371-
R-Y15072: FGC10083/Y15138- Y15086- Y15083- Y15082- Y15081- FGC10052/Y15079- Y15077-
FGC10045/Y15076- FGC10044/Y15075- FGC10037/Y15072-
R-Y15149: FGC30632/Y15149-
R-Y5305: Y16134- Z16500/Y5305-
R-Z17901: Z17901/MC02-
R-Z255: Z16421/Y5760- Z16420/Y5759- CTS12583/S3802- FGC31023/Y5758- Z16424/Y4862-
Z16423/Y4858- Z16422/Y4864- Z29747/Z16419/Y4860- Z16426/Y4861- Z16428/Y4856-
Z16427/Y4859-
R-L159.2: L159.1/S169.1/L159.2/S169.2/L159.3/S169.3/L159/S169-
R-Y12458: Y12458-
R-Y13226: Z16950/Y13227- Z17885/Y13226-
R-FGC11134: FGC11134/Y3550-
R-L96: L96-
R-Y16007: Y16067- Y16015- Y16069- Y16013- Y16012- Y16011- Y16009- Y16008- Y16007-
CTS12024/S3671- CTS7610- CTS6491/S3667- CTS6295/S3675- CTS5721/S3670- CTS5296- CTS1864-
R-CTS4466: FGC11137/A149- CTS5714/S1137- Z3028- S1127- A81/Z3025- CTS11267- S1120-
A114- Z3023-
R-A88: Z16253/A195-
R-Y6238: Z16252/FGC11147/Y6238-
R-A159: A159-
R-DF1: S5194- S5191- S5193-
R-S6365: S6365-
R-CTS3087: CTS3087- CTS750/S8129- Z16370/FGC13409/Y3559- Z16367/FGC13413/Y3552-
Z16365/FGC13415/Y3558- Z16364/Y3557- Z16363/Y3556- Z16362/FGC13412/Y3554-
R-S5668: FGC13493/BY15/A2-
R-S5979: FGC13499/A7- S5979-
R-Y10794: Z17295/Y11638- A6- A5- Z16332/Y11637- Z17299/Y11636- Z17298/Y10795- A8- A4-
A3- S5982- S5990- S5992- L193/S176/L193.1/L193.2x
R-Z251: Z251/S470-
R-S11556: FGC11998/Y11273-
R-S9294: S9294-
R-Y11269: Z18100/Y11276- Z18097/Y11907- Z18095/Y11270- Z18093/Y11906- Y15635- Y15634-
Z18104/Y11275- Z18099/Y11908- Z18098/Y11272- Z18094/Y11910- Z18092/Y11905- Z5303-
R-Y15785: Y15785-
R-Y5833: Z16943/Y5833-
R-L555: Z16930/Y5822- FGC19533/Y5824- Z16946/Y5823- Z16945/Y5820- Z16944/Y5826-
Z16941/Y5829- Z16939/Y5832- Z16938/Y5831- Z16937/Y5830- Z16936/Y5825- Z16935/Y5827-
Z16934/Y5810- Y5806- Z17660/Y5805- FGC19531/Y5804- L555/S393-
R-PF4217: M9609- PF4217x
R-Y7624: FGC13899/Y7624-
R-A228: A258- A257- A253x A251- A247- A245- A250- A248- A246- A240- A238- Y16157- A244-
A242- A228-
R-A241: FGC13933- A243- A254-
R-CTS9686: CTS9686-
R-DF49: DF49/S474- FGC436/Y2599-
R-DF23: Z2980/S6154- Z2976/S476- DF23/S193- Z2986/S6137- Z2985/S7068- Z2983/S475-
R-Z2961: Z2984- Z2961-
R-M222: Z2981/S647- Z2977/S645- Z2974/S642- Z2973/S641- Z2972/S640- Z2971- Z2970/S637-
Z2968/S635- Z2964- FGC438/Y2602/S6149- FGC4079/DF107/Y2603- FGC4124/Y2605- Y2601-
Y2596/FGC449/S7072- Z2991/S6141- Z2990/S6152- Z2989/S652- Z2988/S651- Z2975/S643-
A1/Z2969- Z2962- Z2959/S656- Z2955/S653- PAGES00084/M222/PAGE84/USP9Y+3636-
R-Y3454: FGC4077/Y3455-
R-Y2841: FGC4101/DF109/Y2845/S660- FGC4100/DF106/Y2841/S658- FGC4099/DF104/Y2842/S661-
FGC7927/DF105/Y2843/S659-
R-Y3644: A225/Y3646- A224/Y3644- A223/Y3645-
R-Y13167: BY2708/A2210/Y13566x BY2705/A2209/Y13168- BY2698/A2207/Y13564-
BY2692/A2206/Y13563- BY2688/A2205/Y13556- Y13562- BY2731/Y13561- BY2728/A2203/Y13560-
BY2726/Y13559- Y13567x BY2722/Y13558- BY2720/A2202/Y13557-
R-Y7081: FGC12192/Y7083- FGC12190/Y7091- FGC12187/Y7090- Y7085- FGC12185/Y7084-
FGC12184/Y7082x FGC12183/Y7081- Y7088-
R-S673: S673-
R-DF97: FGC8739/Y7006- DF97-
R-S603: FGC7928/S603-
R-Y12192: A1743/Y12193- A1742/Y12192- FGC23592/Y12191- FGC23595/Y12190-
R-L1335: PT2/FGC9559/Y2985- S5285- S733- SK2131/S5257- S5284- S5263- S745- S739- S715-
S709- S731- S750- S737- S730- S5291- S5264-
R-L1065: CTS7030/S735- CTS6838-
R-Y7359: FGC10127/Y7362- FGC10125/Y7361x FGC10124/Y7360- FGC10121/Y7816-
FGC10117/Y7359- FGC10116/Y7817-
R-Y5739: Z16330/Y5741- Z16331/Y5739-
R-Y12933: BY2747/Y12933-
R-Y15101: Y15478- Y15477- Y15101- Y15476-
R-S691: Z13851/S691-
R-S695: S695-
R-A5291: A5298- A5295- A5294- A5291- A5301- A5299-
R-Y6668: FGC21491/Y6668- CTS4931-
R-Y7845: FGC21484/Y7846-
R-Y11899: A2119/Y11903- A2120/Y11900- A2116/Y11901- A2117/Y11902- A5306/Y11904-
R-A5307: A5310- A5308- A5307- PF5721/PF5721.2-
R-S764: S764-
R-L743: L743-
R-Y11804: FGC32910/Y11807- FGC32907/Y11806- FGC32905/Y12535- FGC32904/Y11805-
FGC32903/Y12534- FGC32902/Y11804- A861/Y12533-
R-Y16252: Y16252-
R-DF21: DF21/S192+
R-Y11789: S5459- S5460/FGC11931/Y12518- S5475- S6296/FGC11957/Y11795- FGC11954/Y11794-
FGC11948/Y11793- FGC11947/Y11792- FGC11946/Y11791- FGC11945/Y11790- Z29558/Y12521-
FGC11944/Y12522- S5468/FGC11940/Y12520- FGC11939/Y12519- S6295/FGC11930/Y11796-
S5470/FGC11927/Y11789- S5483- S5478- S5456-
R-Y15984: Y16080- S7174- Y15992- Y16081- Y16077- Y16076- Y15987- Y16070- Y15986-
Y15985- Y16071- FGC6662- S7172- S7188- S7162- S7185- S7186- S7150- S7180- S7176-
R-S5488: S5488/Y11277-
R-S20620: Y15098- FGC33070- Y15097- Y15095- FGC33063- FGC33062- Y15094- Y15093- Y15092-
FGC33057- FGC33056- FGC33053- Y15091x FGC33050- FGC33049- Y15089x S20620-
R-A50: A63/Z3016- Z3006/S959- A61/Z3014/S968- A58/Z3011/S966- Z16269/Y9438- Z3007/S960-
A55/Z3005/S957- Z3002x A51/Z3001- A50/Z3000/S951-
R-Z3008: Z3004/S956-
R-S953: S953-
R-Y9053: Y9437- Y9055- Y9436- Y9054- Y9435-
R-S3058: FGC3188/S3058- FGC3183/Y2839- FGC3178/S3020- FGC7849/Y2836- FGC7852/S3106-
R-S424: Y2840- FGC3209/Y2837- FGC3207/S423- FGC3187/A78/S3057- FGC3181/A67/S3026-
FGC7851/S3031- FGC3189/S424-
R-S190: FGC3182/A68/S3027- FGC3185/S309- FGC7853/S308/A71- FGC3191/S427- CTS2187/S190-
FGC3177/Z633/S3028-
R-S425: S425- S3033-
R-Y16002: Y16004- Z17999- Y16063-
R-Y16003: Y16003- Y16064-
R-Y2890: Y2892- FGC3900/Y2891/S5199+ FGC3903/Y2890/S5201+ CTS8704/S6375+
R-Z246: Z246/S280+
R-L1402: L1402-
R-CTS3655: FGC3902/Y12652- CTS3655/S3787-
R-L627: L627-
R-CTS5524: CTS5524-
R-Y7346: Y7349- Y7347- S3793- CTS11631/S3797- CTS1365/S3796-
R-L658: FGC5775/Y9360- FGC5769/Y9364- FGC5777/Y9361- FGC5768/Y9362x FGC5765/Y9359-
FGC5763/Y9366x FGC5762/Y9365- FGC5787/Y9071- FGC5786/Y9368- FGC5785/Y9070-
FGC5784/Y9069- FGC5780/Y9367- FGC5772/Y9064- FGC5771/Y9063- FGC5764/Y9060-
FGC8018/Y9369-
R-Y9061: FGC5781/Y9067- FGC5767/Y9062- FGC5766/Y9061- FGC5760/Y9059-
R-Z253: Z252/S471x
R-CTS10596: CTS10596-
R-Z14282: FGC3219/Z14282- PF825.1/M9194/PF825.2/PF825-
R-Y13500: Z18133/Y13501- FGC17446/Y13126- FGC17448/Y13499- Z18132/Y13124-
FGC17442/A507- FGC17437/A506- FGC17439/A505- FGC17441/A504- FGC17454/A503-
FGC17440/A501- FGC17438/A500- FGC17444/A498- FGC17445/A497- FGC17447/A496-
FGC17443/A495- S7879x S7897-
R-S844: FGC8535/A25- FGC8532/A22- FGC8534/A17- S865- S854- A19/S847- S860- S859- S844-
S857- S849- FGC8531- S862- S853- A20/M7983-
R-L1308: FGC20571- FGC20567- FGC20565- FGC20564- L1308-
R-S845: S845- FGC8539/Y14298- FGC8537/Y14297- FGC8533/Y14296- FGC8536/Y14299-
R-Z2534: Z2534/S868-
R-L643: L643-
R-Z2189: S932- V2998/S928- Z2195/S934- Z2191- Z2190- V2227/Z2189- Z2187-
R-DF73: S933- DF73/S923- Z2193- Z2199/S936- Z2200- Z2203- Z2204/S945- Z2205/S946-
R-Z2185: Z17676/Y6066- L1066/CTS1202/CTS1202.1/L1066.1- Z2182/CTS2646/S882- Z2186-
Z2185/CTS9975/S893- Z2184/S883- Z2183-
R-CTS9881: Z18125/Y6062- Z17678/Y6063- Z17673/Y6061- Y6068- Z18124/Y7738- Z18123/Y6067-
FGC32677/Y6065- CTS10558- CTS9881- CTS9251- CTS7513- CTS6906- CTS1788-
L798.1/L798.2/L798- FGC32678/Y7739- Z17675/Y7737- Y7736- CTS11843- CTS11831-
R-CTS4296: CTS4296- Y12453- FGC32679/Y8603x
R-M4884: CTS5370- CTS1775- CTS114/S3427-
R-A2076: A2079- A2078- A2077- A2076/Y12454- A2074-
R-L226: SK1832/FGC5627/Y3129- FGC5626/Y3128- FGC5618/Y3127- FGC5655/Y3136-
FGC5654/Y4013- FGC5652/Y4014- FGC5646/Y3135- FGC5642/Y3134- FGC5636/Y3130-
FGC5624/Y4009- FGC5637/Y3131- FGC5638/Y3132- L226/S168-
R-DC29: DC30-
R-DC8: DC9- DC8-
R-Y12459: FGC12295/Y12935- FGC12297/Y12461- FGC12292/Y12460-
R-Y4010: FGC5628/Y4010-
R-Y5609: DC1/Y5609- Y5610- PF6823-
R-CTS2501: FGC7998/Y2374- SK2221/Y2373/S839- FGC13007/Y2371- FGC8000/Y2370-
FGC5564/Y2369- DF41/S524/CTS6581- FGC8001/Y2372- CTS2501/S836-
R-L563: L563-
R-Y3515: FGC8622/Y3515x FGC8621/Y3532- FGC8645/Y3526- FGC8659/A113/Y3534-
FGC8658/Y3533- FGC8655/A112/Y3523- FGC8652/Y3522- Z17583/Y3530- FGC8647/Y3528-
FGC8643/Y3525- FGC8638/A105/Y3524- FGC8637/Y3521- FGC8636/A103/Y3520-
FGC8634/A102/Y3519- FGC8633/Y3518- FGC8624/Y3516-
R-Y5645: Y5645-
R-Y5626: Y5640- Y5638- Y5627- Y5646- Y5634- Y5644- Y5631- Y5639- Y5637- Y5628- Y5626-
Y5636-
R-A40: FGC5608/Y5661- FGC5588/Y5664- FGC5587/Y5653- FGC5582/Y5651- A44- FGC5583/A40-
FGC5612/A48- FGC5592/Y5659x FGC8002/A41- FGC5596/Y8428- FGC5580/Y7726- FGC15157/Y7725-
FGC5575/Y7724- FGC15155/Y7722- FGC5573/Y8427- Y7721- FGC5606/Y5660- FGC5604/Y5648-
FGC5599/Y5666- FGC5585/Y5652- FGC5597/A45- FGC5594/A43-
R-Y5655: FGC5595/Y5665- FGC5609/Y5655-
R-Y5649: FGC5611/Y5656- FGC5581/Y5650- FGC5603/Y5663- FGC5600/Y5662-
R-Z4486: Z4486-
R-Y12671: BY302/Y12674- BY299/Y12672- BY298/Y12671-
R-L744: L746/S310- S784- S802- S770x S799- Y6097- Z16846/Y4174- Y5845x S778- S786-
S785- S790- S775- S787- S798- Y5844- A475- S777- S797- S792- S788-
R-Y14197: Y14197-
R-Y4954: Z17581/Y4954-
R-A306: A309- A308- A307-
R-Y11635: A889/Y11635-
R-A922: A922-
R-Y14048: A921/Y14230- Y14048-

Jon Grant
12-29-2015, 08:44 PM
Yes, Z16539 is of considerable evidence to us at the R-DF21 Project. It already has three sub-clades, so in view of that I immediately proposed Z16539 for inclusion on the ISOGG Y-tree and Charles Fueston supported my submission. One of its sub-clades, V75, may also appear on the ISOGG Y-tree shortly. You can see why I pushed that one through, with the GD between its first two members already meeting ISOGG requirement. That leaves your Cornwall sub-group plus the biggest sub-group, from southern Scotland and east Galway. When we settle on a defining SNP for each of those sub-groups, I will lodge further submissions with ISOGG.

DF21 is quite an old clade and there are some big GDs between its members and between its sub-groups. Picking a few at random, I found GDs for the sub-groups as listed below to the nearest other sub-group:
O'Cathain of east Galway: GD 14 @ 67, GD 25 @ 111
O'Beirne of Co Roscommon: GD 13 @ 67
Griffeth (etc.) of north Wales: GD 14 @ 67, GD 23 @ 111
Lyon of Middlesex: GD 9 @ 67, GD 25 @ 111
Z16539 Group A3 of southern Scotland & east Galway, GD 12 @ 67, GD 26 @ 111
Z16539 Group A5 Coberly is GD 10 @ 67, GD 28 @ 111
Z16539 Group A5 Clark is GD 16 @ 67
Z16539 Group A4 of Cornwall & Devon: GD 18 @ 67, GD 34 @ 111

While the GAP Genetic Distance tool gave me a GD of 34 at 111 for one of your group, I am not querying your estimate of GD = 38 @ 111. Your figure may well be more accurate. Either way, it appears to confirm that you are right about the big GDs between your sub-group of Z16539 and other DF21+ kits, even allowing for that fact that GDs of 12, 13 and 14 @ 67, or GDs of 25 and 26 @ 111 are nothing unusual within DF21. Your GD = 34 (or 38) does appear to be very high, given the last estimated age I saw for DF21 was 3,110 years old. That has very likely been revised upwards because DF21 has found a number of new sub-clades since then.

Despite the ever increasing age estimates for DF21, there are very few known Continental DF21 kits. Some are French which has encouraged the Norman theorists, and some are from what are considered Germanic countries nowadays and that has encouraged the Germanic theorists. It is hard to be sure what to make of it with so few Continental DF21+ samples. The vast majority of DF21+ samples are Isles, some with very well established identities which well and truly pre-date events such as the Norman Conquest, the Vikings, the Ango-Saxons and most probably the Romans. However the later arrivals (including later Celtic arrivals) may well have impacted on the specific locations of DF21+ groups in the Isles, which has had a masking effect in that what we see now is not necessarily how it was when DF21 settled in the Isles, or emerged as a local manifestation. I don't believe we know which, whereas it is evident enough that L21 arose on the Continent. The jury is still out regarding DF21. Everyone is welcome to their own theory.

What's the latest on Z16539? On Alex's Big Tree, I'm Kit 21340. Following Z16539, I'm Z16540 and then the following:
Z29571
PH172
M9605
Z29572
Z29573
Z29574 BY2875
Z29575
Z29576
PH1499
Z29577
Z29578
PH1885
Z29579
PH4457
Z29580
ZS4682
Z29581
Z29582
Z29583
BY2724
14224525-A-C
BY2668
BY2690
19126276-C-CA
BY2695
22846098-C-T

However, I opted for the Z246 Pack to fill in a region that was not definitive through my Big Y test. I'm just curious to know where my DNA lands in the conversation.

Rory Cain
01-23-2016, 11:39 PM
Jon, we have your very energetic Grant cluster, but the others have done little. There is a large section of the Galbraith clan who would share SNPs with you, but regrettably there are surname-based project admins who appear to regard SNP-based DNA projects as some sort of threat. When we have some Big Y results that align with the Grants, I'll be in a better position to advise further.

omaolchonaire
02-10-2016, 11:09 PM
Thanks Alan. That's about the limit of my Latin, and I confess I discounted it's significance somewhat due to it appearing to be a name imposed on the Novante by outsiders looking in, namely the Romans, just as they imposed the name Picts. The linguists are still arguing over the significance of Picts when it may not have meant anything to the so-called "Picts" themselves. In Ireland it is understood they called themselves Cruithne, which may equate with Creator, the same name we use for God.

You make a nice point about the Novante though. I am curious whether you can enlarge on that.

Eugene O'Curry noted cruit means a form, and Cruithne/Cruitneach means 'formed one' or tattooed person. He also stated that the O'Carrolls of Elie descended "from the British, or Pictish, Kings of Tara".

Rory Cain
02-10-2016, 11:39 PM
Much of the Tara myth has been discredited, so my first reaction was doubt. But other things may align, including the possible association of various DF21+ clusters with the Cruithne, e.g. O'More and O'Lalor from the Seven Septs of Laois; O'Connor, Curtin, Loydan & O'Loughlin from the Clan Corc Dosethe all identify themselves as part of the Clanna Rory. And Tara, while not ruled by the High Kings, a later invention who merely ruled part of Connaught then, was indeed Cruithne territory in early times.

In saying that, I also have to acknowledge that other DF21+ clusters were artificially attached to the pedigrees of the ruling provincial dynasties. It is hard to unravel the fabrications. I have worked through other possibilities and had to discard them. The Cruithne remain "persons of interest". How do you see your clan, who have DF21+ members, as fitting into this?

Rory Cain
03-05-2016, 04:32 AM
Eugene O'Curry noted cruit means a form, and Cruithne/Cruitneach means 'formed one' or tattooed person. He also stated that the O'Carrolls of Elie descended "from the British, or Pictish, Kings of Tara".

My understanding is that cruit is also cognate with "create" and that the tribe might equally have adopted the name of the being they saw as their creator, just as many other tribes also bore names of religious significance. Not that I wouldoverrule a respected authority like O'Curry. Many historians now appear to agree with O'Curry that the Cruithne, not the Connachta offshoot that became the Ui Niall, were the kings of Tara.

omaolchonaire
02-08-2017, 03:32 AM
Much of the Tara myth has been discredited, so my first reaction was doubt. But other things may align, including the possible association of various DF21+ clusters with the Cruithne, e.g. O'More and O'Lalor from the Seven Septs of Laois; O'Connor, Curtin, Loydan & O'Loughlin from the Clan Corc Dosethe all identify themselves as part of the Clanna Rory. And Tara, while not ruled by the High Kings, a later invention who merely ruled part of Connaught then, was indeed Cruithne territory in early times.

In saying that, I also have to acknowledge that other DF21+ clusters were artificially attached to the pedigrees of the ruling provincial dynasties. It is hard to unravel the fabrications. I have worked through other possibilities and had to discard them. The Cruithne remain "persons of interest". How do you see your clan, who have DF21+ members, as fitting into this?

Hey sorry Rory, haven't been on this forum.

The first historical person the O'Maolchonaires descend from is Máiné, King of South Teffia at the time of Saint Patrick. There are about seven different kinds of Conroys and about 3-4 are potentials for DF-21 based on their location. Saint Patrick prophesised that no High Kings would descend from Máiné, but that there would be no High King that did not have one of his descendants at his side after Máiné granted him Ardagh, which became the see of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise. So we see Bec mac Dé was chief poet to Diarmuit mac Cearbhaill, and, at a much later date, Flaithrí Ó Maolchonaire accompanied the Ulster army in their march down to the disaster at Kinsale after landing with the wrecked Spanish Armada, and then accompanying Aodh Ruadh O'Donnell as the Irish ambassadors following that catastrophe. I would suspect this is why our pedigree was attached to that of the Southern Uí Néill, but also we obviously share a common ancestor with the Mac Curtíns and co-relatives. Their pedigree seems to be the one that matches the DNA with the Seven Septs of Laois. Furthermore the spread of ogham monuments seems to coincide quite nicely with the spread of the sons of Fergus mac Roich and Queen Medb.

At this point I am quite convinced of my theory, it is who this Máiné was that puzzles me. Alice Stopford Greene believed he was a brother of Niall's, and it is possible they shared the same mother. I personally think he could be the son of Crimthainn Mór mac Fidaig or some other character of the day.

omaolchonaire
02-08-2017, 03:36 AM
The earliest sources call Máiné a kinsman of Niall's, not a son.

omaolchonaire
04-11-2019, 06:19 AM
I noticed something today. All the different branches of DF-21 diverge about 4000 years ago. Of five major branches we have the descendants of Corc mac Fergus along with the Ulaidh/Dal nAraidhe/Elie Carroll in the one. The descendants of Ciar mac Fergus in the other. The descendants of Conmac mac Fergus in the other. And the descendants of Conall Cearnach in the other. The only other major group are Clan Colla.

These five individuals were three triplets, though one of them seems to have retained their original SNP as their father's uncle Conchobar, and the other two each developed a new SNP, (if that is even possible, not sure !) as well as Conall Cearnach, who was likely a near relative, his father was a poet in the Court of King Conchobar.

Rath Medb at Tara is generally attached to Medb Lethderg, however her personage is associated with Kings like Art mac Cuinn, and definitely not with the timeframe of its construction, 2000 - 1500 BC. However that time does fit nicely with Meadbh Queen of Connacht being alive in 2000 BC when DF-21 split into its various branches.

On the Máiné front, it would seem the Tinneys who are S-5488 but not L-1336 are the family of Fox, or an tSionnach, who were the principal Chieftains claiming descent from Máiné and holding his domain of South Teffia. More interestingly, it turns out what is believed to be his body was dug up at a place called "King Mane's Fort" at Ardagh in Longford in 1967 and is at the Irish Archives. Trying to get the remains tested

01-02-2020, 02:47 PM
I am looking for information regarding the fact with 23 and Me I was designated M222 and then changed to R-Z2961. In researching these seem to be parallel haplogroups or nearly one in the same. Searching for my Moran family in Ireland

Thanks for the help I hope.

Rich Moran

jdean
01-02-2020, 02:51 PM
I am looking for information regarding the fact with 23 and Me I was designated M222 and then changed to R-Z2961. In researching these seem to be parallel haplogroups or nearly one in the same. Searching for my Moran family in Ireland

Thanks for the help I hope.

Rich Moran

Z2961 is ancestral to M222 so all M222 people are positive for Z2961 but there are folk who are positive for Z2961 but negative for M222.