Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: J1 in Ireland

  1. #1

    J1 in Ireland

    Hi all,

    Years ago, my father did the FamilyTreeDNA Y test which showed that we are J1-M267 and recently, I've been trying to figure out some more info about this which led me to this forum. We can trace our oldest patrilineal ancestor to the south coast of Ireland around the early 19th century. Most of my father's family tree is originally from this region. But pretty much everything I've read online shows that J1 is essentially nonexistent in Ireland. I haven't been able to find any information about J1s in Ireland.

    He does have 2 matches on the 37 marker, one of whom shares our very common Irish surname. The J1 project group placed him in the J-Z640 unclustered group. I found a recent paper about this branch which talks about Sephardic Jewish populations in this branch, but it seems like there's no evidence of this branch even existing in Ireland.

    I guess I'm wondering if it's possible that we are part of some very rare branch of J1 that exists only in small numbers in Western Europe. Or would it be more likely that one of our patrilineal ancestors was a more recent migrant to Ireland, perhaps from the Iberian peninsula? We've ordered the J1-Z640 SNP pack to see if that can provide any more clarity, but does anyone have any thoughts/ideas?

    Thanks!

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to teoptole For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-24-2021),  CannabisErectusHibernius (07-16-2021),  KLMDG (06-24-2021),  Táltos (06-26-2021)

  3. #2
    Registered Users
    Posts
    569
    Sex
    Location
    England
    Y-DNA (P)
    J1
    mtDNA (M)
    K1a10a

    United States of America England
    J1 certainly is a stray in Ireland, but it's not Sephardic. If you do a rough TMRCA calculation between Morgan and Walsh using https://clandonaldusa.org/index.php/tmrca-calculator , it suggests they share a common paternal ancestor about 1,000 years ago. Walsh being a version of Welsh, this suggests the Walsh line came to Ireland with the Norman invasion of 1169. You seem to belong to the most detailed branch of J1, a branch originally known as P58. More detail is emerging all the time. You've done the right thing ordering the Z640 SNP pack. If that doesn't answer your question (and it won't unless the other Irish cases order it too), you can try BigY, and even fit yourself into the state-of-the-art Y-DNA tree at https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-P58/
    Last edited by J1 DYS388=13; 06-24-2021 at 08:50 AM.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to J1 DYS388=13 For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-24-2021),  KLMDG (06-24-2021),  teoptole (06-25-2021)

  5. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    29

    error

  6. #4
    Registered Users
    Posts
    29

    could be , it also could be a new branch, it might be Arabian as well
    there are 10's of Arabian clans under J-Z640 and especially many of Zahran and Ghamid members from western Saudi Arabia who eventually reached Iberia 1200+ years ago and actually had governors and other important figures in Al-Andalus
    https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z640/
    i find it weird how some people disregard the majority (whom are the Arabian tribes) under YSC0000234 and make-up Jewish ancestry out of thin air

    we will know once you upgrade your results .. wish you best of luck in your journey
    Last edited by KLMDG; 06-24-2021 at 11:47 PM.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to KLMDG For This Useful Post:

     teoptole (06-25-2021)

  8. #5
    The SNP results are in, and we have been placed in the J-ZS5745 haplogroup. It seems like so far this haplogroup consists exclusively of West Asian and a few Iberian samples, so I guess we are the first Irish sample to be placed within this group. I assume there is still a lot that will probably remain a mystery (at least until there are more Irish samples), but according to Yfull, this haplogroup originated ~3600 years ago. Would I be right to assume that this haplogroup would've originated in the Levant? Perhaps a Phoenician/Canaanite population?

    Would we have to order the Big Y test to see exactly which haplogroup we are within the J-ZS5745? There are still downstream haplogroups that we weren't tested for. I wonder if that would even be worth it though since there are no other Irish samples.

  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to teoptole For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (07-17-2021),  JMcB (07-17-2021),  levantino II (07-17-2021),  Luso (07-17-2021)

  10. #6
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,466
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & British
    Y-DNA (P)
    J-Z18271
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c5
    Y-DNA (M)
    R-U152
    mtDNA (P)
    U7a5

    Israel Israel Jerusalem United Kingdom England Scotland Isle of Man
    Quote Originally Posted by teoptole View Post
    The SNP results are in, and we have been placed in the J-ZS5745 haplogroup. It seems like so far this haplogroup consists exclusively of West Asian and a few Iberian samples, so I guess we are the first Irish sample to be placed within this group. I assume there is still a lot that will probably remain a mystery (at least until there are more Irish samples), but according to Yfull, this haplogroup originated ~3600 years ago. Would I be right to assume that this haplogroup would've originated in the Levant? Perhaps a Phoenician/Canaanite population?

    Would we have to order the Big Y test to see exactly which haplogroup we are within the J-ZS5745? There are still downstream haplogroups that we weren't tested for. I wonder if that would even be worth it though since there are no other Irish samples.
    Odds are firmly in favour of an overarching association between ZS5745 (possibly encompassing Z642 as a whole) and Canaanite speech, its MRCA estimates correspond to the period which saw the innovations defining the Canaanite sub-group (or dialect chain) appear in the epigraphic record (mainly Akkadian and Egyptian sources), that is to say the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the LBA. It is one of the branches of J-Z2331 which we can safely assume will be found in future samples from the ancient Levant, so your assumption is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, Z642 proves to be a much closer counterpart for an association with Canaanite than do other branches of J-Z2331 so far found in remains from the BA Levant (such as Y3081 or FGC4745) if we base ourselves on the classification of Semitic languages as the parallel could potentially be interpreted in the following way as Z1884 (Central Semitic) > Z640 (NW Semitic) > Z642 (Canaanite) with the other main branches of Central Semitic (Arabic and Epigraphic South Arabian) under FGC11:

     


    In this sense Z642 is quite similar to L829, a sibling line that also branched off the common Z1884 trunk and will no doubt show up in Phoenician remains. That being said this view also has quite a few caveats which I won't get into, even though it is peculiarly attractive from a linguistic vantage point.

    One thing I want to add is that your line could easily be Jewish, and unlike what our friend KLMDG seems to think this isn't based on thin air or wishful thinking. First, one of the branches under ZS5745 (J-FGC30554) is a Sephardic (Levitical) one, ZS5769's MRCA right upstream makes a Jewish (and presumably Israelite/northern) origin almost certain, moreover the fact that its the MRCA estimates closely resemble that of many other Jewish branches which makes the parallel almost uncanny, so the Iberian samples you see on the tree here are unlikely to have arrived in Iberia with Phoenician settlement. Second, we're starting to see several Irishmen under ostensibly Jewish branches (J-Y5402, T-Y31473 and Q-Y2200 are examples that immediately come to mind), the actual reasons behind this phenomenon are obscure, one theory attributes these lines to remnants of England's short-lived Jewish community that was driven out of the kingdom with Edward I's 1290 Edict of Expulsion but the truth is that we do not yet know, this also increases the odds that your branch might be a Jewish one. Finally, the Samaritans of the Marhiv clan are J-Z642, which in my view at least strongly hints at an Israelite background for at least some of the branches (despite this clan hailing from Gaza, its deeper roots are certainly to be found in historical Samaria).

    That being said caution is advised and I could easily be wrong on this, still the above ought to be kept in mind.
    Last edited by Agamemnon; 07-17-2021 at 01:59 PM.
    מכורותיך ומולדותיך מארץ הכנעני אביך האמורי ואמך חתית
    יחזקאל פרק טז ג-


    ᾽Άλλο δέ τοι ἐρέω, σὺ δ᾽ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βάλλεο σῇσιν:
    κρύβδην, μηδ᾽ ἀναφανδά, φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν
    νῆα κατισχέμεναι: ἐπεὶ οὐκέτι πιστὰ γυναιξίν.


    -Αγαμέμνων; H Οδύσσεια, Ραψωδία λ

  11. The Following 20 Users Say Thank You to Agamemnon For This Useful Post:

     alchemist223 (07-17-2021),  hartaisarlag (07-21-2021),  Helgenes50 (07-17-2021),  Iyyovi (07-18-2021),  JMcB (07-17-2021),  JoeyP37 (07-17-2021),  Kelmendasi (07-24-2021),  leorcooper19 (07-17-2021),  levantino II (07-17-2021),  Michalis Moriopoulos (07-17-2021),  pegasus (07-17-2021),  Piquerobi (07-20-2021),  Pribislav (07-19-2021),  Principe (07-21-2021),  Shamash (07-17-2021),  StillWater (07-22-2021),  SUPREEEEEME (07-17-2021),  teoptole (07-17-2021),  Viktor Reznov (07-18-2021),  XXD (07-17-2021)

  12. #7
    Registered Users
    Posts
    268
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
    Odds are firmly in favour of an overarching association between ZS5745 (possibly encompassing Z642 as a whole) and Canaanite speech, its MRCA estimates correspond to the period which saw the innovations defining the Canaanite sub-group (or dialect chain) appear in the epigraphic record (mainly Akkadian and Egyptian sources), that is to say the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the LBA. It is one of the branches of J-Z2331 which we can safely assume will be found in future samples from the ancient Levant, so your assumption is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, Z642 proves to be a much closer counterpart for an association with Canaanite than do other branches of J-Z2331 so far found in remains from the BA Levant (such as Y3081 or FGC4745) if we base ourselves on the classification of Semitic languages as the parallel could potentially be interpreted in the following way as Z1884 (Central Semitic) > Z640 (NW Semitic) > Z642 (Canaanite) with the other main branches of Central Semitic (Arabic and Epigraphic South Arabian) under FGC11:

     


    In this sense Z642 is quite similar to L829, a sibling line that also branched off the common Z1884 trunk and will no doubt show up in Phoenician remains. That being said this view also has quite a few caveats which I won't get into, even though it is peculiarly attractive from a linguistic vantage point.

    One thing I want to add is that your line could easily be Jewish, and unlike what our friend KLMDG seems to think this isn't based on thin air or wishful thinking. First, one of the branches under ZS5745 (J-FGC30554) is a Sephardic (Levitical) one, ZS5769's MRCA right upstream makes a Jewish (and presumably Israelite/northern) origin almost certain, moreover the fact that its the MRCA estimates closely resemble that of many other Jewish branches which makes the parallel almost uncanny, so the Iberian samples you see on the tree here are unlikely to have arrived in Iberia with Phoenician settlement. Second, we're starting to see several Irishmen under ostensibly Jewish branches (J-Y5402, T-Y31473 and Q-Y2200 are examples that immediately come to mind), the actual reasons behind this phenomenon are obscure, one theory attributes these lines to remnants of England's short-lived Jewish community that was driven out of the kingdom with Edward I's 1290 Edict of Expulsion but the truth is that we do not yet know, this also increases the odds that your branch might be a Jewish one. Finally, the Samaritans of the Marhiv clan are J-Z642, which in my view at least strongly hints at an Israelite background for at least some of the branches (despite this clan hailing from Gaza, its deeper roots are certainly to be found in historical Samaria).

    That being said caution is advised and I could easily be wrong on this, still the above ought to be kept in mind.
    Why arent you able to see that Z640 is as arabian as FGC11? All the non-arabian subclades are under the downstream Z642, while arabian ones are very diversified

  13. #8
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,466
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & British
    Y-DNA (P)
    J-Z18271
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c5
    Y-DNA (M)
    R-U152
    mtDNA (P)
    U7a5

    Israel Israel Jerusalem United Kingdom England Scotland Isle of Man
    Quote Originally Posted by Squad View Post
    Why arent you able to see that Z640 is as arabian as FGC11? All the non-arabian subclades are under the downstream Z642, while arabian ones are very diversified
    I am focusing specifically on Z642 here, there's no doubt that several of the xZ642 branches are firmly Arabian, just as several of the branches under YSC76 are bound to be Arabian (though perhaps not specifically tied to Old Arabic, some of the pre-Arabic Ancient North Arabian languages might prove to be a better fit). That being said one of the main Azdite branches (ZS9008) is under ZS642, the other being under BY74, which hints at a closer association between Canaanite speech and FGC30542 in particular rather than Z642 as a whole.
    מכורותיך ומולדותיך מארץ הכנעני אביך האמורי ואמך חתית
    יחזקאל פרק טז ג-


    ᾽Άλλο δέ τοι ἐρέω, σὺ δ᾽ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βάλλεο σῇσιν:
    κρύβδην, μηδ᾽ ἀναφανδά, φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν
    νῆα κατισχέμεναι: ἐπεὶ οὐκέτι πιστὰ γυναιξίν.


    -Αγαμέμνων; H Οδύσσεια, Ραψωδία λ

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Agamemnon For This Useful Post:

     hartaisarlag (07-21-2021),  JMcB (07-20-2021),  JoeyP37 (07-21-2021),  Principe (07-21-2021),  StillWater (07-22-2021),  XXD (07-20-2021)

  15. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    268
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
    I am focusing specifically on Z642 here, there's no doubt that several of the xZ642 branches are firmly Arabian, just as several of the branches under YSC76 are bound to be Arabian (though perhaps not specifically tied to Old Arabic, some of the pre-Arabic Ancient North Arabian languages might prove to be a better fit). That being said one of the main Azdite branches (ZS9008) is under ZS642, the other being under BY74, which hints at a closer association between Canaanite speech and FGC30542 in particular rather than Z642 as a whole.
    My theory is that there was movement from the red sea coast of Arabia into the Levant some 3.5kya

  16. #10
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,466
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & British
    Y-DNA (P)
    J-Z18271
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c5
    Y-DNA (M)
    R-U152
    mtDNA (P)
    U7a5

    Israel Israel Jerusalem United Kingdom England Scotland Isle of Man
    Quote Originally Posted by Squad View Post
    My theory is that there was movement from the red sea coast of Arabia into the Levant some 3.5kya
    Such a theory strains credulity, quite frankly. Odds are in favour of a migration from the Levant into Arabia, not the other way around. The reasons for this are numerous, the main constraints being archeogenetic and linguistic:

    • Our most ancient FGC11 individual so far (and as you well know this is the main Arabian branch under Z1884) is a MBA Sidonian radiocarbon-dated 1950-1690 calBCE which places this individual very close in time and space to FGC11's MRCA (c. 3900 yBP according to YFull). Yet another comparable sample under Z1884 would be ALA026 from Alalakh (Amorite), radiocarbon-dated 1736-1645 calBCE, this sample also isn't far removed from Z1884's MRCA (c. 4400 yBP) though admittedly not as close as the MBA Sidonian. With ancient individuals so close in time to Z1884 and its immediate branches' progenitors, there is no convincing scenario where these progenitors were simultaneously living in the Levant and roaming the Tihama coast of Arabia (the only plausible exception being its northernmost extent), this places a very serious constraint when localising Z1884 and its branches' MRCAs, they need to be either within or close to the Levant. The sub-branches of Z1884 might be another story, at this stage the only sub-branch for which we can reasonably posit an origin in Arabia proper would be FGC3723, it's possible BY74 might be concerned as well, but Z640 as a whole? Unlikely to say the least. The only possible caveat here is the absence of ancient data from Arabia, that being said we can be fairly confident that such data won't overturn the current picture.

    • The close correlation between Z1853's phylogeny and the Semitic language tree places another important constraint. The model positing Arabia as the Proto-Semitic homeland with the Peninsula acting as the primal womb from which all Semitic peoples sprang forth, while still immensely popular in the Arab world for reasons I won't get into, is completely obsolete. I won't be getting into arguments that are too complex here either (as I could easily go into details), but the picture that emerges from linguistics is that by the 3rd millennium the earliest Semitic languages we know of are Old Akkadian (in the form of personal names from Sumerian texts of the Early Dynastic III period, so c. 2600-2450 BCE, some argue for an even earlier attestation c. 3200-2700 BCE), Eblaite (c. 2400 BCE) and Amorite (c. 2500 BCE, both in cuneiform and Egyptian sources), that is to say two East Semitic languages and a set of early Northwest Semitic dialects. The most basal split in Semitic is East vs West Semitic, and since two of the languages mentioned here (Eblaite and Amorite) are in the Levant while the third (Old Akkadian) is very clearly intrusive to Mesopotamia, this firmly anchors the homeland in the Levant, or at the very least the split between the western and eastern branches (this split signaling the end of Common Semitic as a spoken language). One possible objection would be that this view is heavily reliant on the proximity of those languages to the early centers of literacy, and is therefore an accident of discovery, but this is just an "argumentum ex silentio", that is to say an argument from silence (not to say special pleading). That being said there almost certainly was an early migration of early West Semitic-speaking nomads into Arabia at that time, which would later give rise to Ethiosemitic and Modern South Arabian, but this is unrelated to the Central Semitic languages that were later spoken there. Moving away from the earliest attestations of Semitic in the epigraphic record, its Afroasiatic context also provides useful clues. As AA is intrusive to the region and with Libyco-Berber being Semitic's closest relative within the macro-family, the regions most proximal to NE Africa are the only convincing contenders for the homeland's location, and here the Levant is yet again an obvious choice as the Semitic Parent Language (SPL) was in all likeliness brought to the area directly from Egypt (where Libyco-Berber was still spoken) through the Sinai peninsula. Finally, a closer analysis of the toponymy and hydronymy in the Levant would enable us to pin down the PS homeland's location either in the Southern Levant in an area encompassing much of the Sinai, Negev and some parts of NW Arabia or in the Eastern Levant (Jordan, Southern Syria), I personally vouch for the former theory. As I said, I could easily go into details and provide examples from Proto-Semitic showing how its lexicon fits best with archeological horizons situated in the more arid parts of the Levant and specifically those tied to groups of pastoral nomads equipped to people deep-desert environments, but this should do for now.


    So unless you are referring to the northernmost areas of the Red Sea coast of Arabia, the above leaves little to no room for an origin of Z1884 or indeed any of its immediate branches in Arabia, it had to be close to or within the Levant. By the way, I am of the mind that in cases where there is a strong correlation between genes and languages (as is the case with Z1853 and Semitic), the former might provide useful clues when trying to resolve the convoluted debates surrounding branching and classification of the family. What I'm getting at is that FGC3723 (which correlates with Sayhadic/OSA) and FGC1723 (diagnostic for Old Arabic, and in turn Proto-Arabic) being branches of FGC11 does suggest that both Sayhadic and Arabic form a node within Central Semitic and might even share common innovations (the presence of lm as the negative particle in the Amiritic dialect of Sabaic, identical to Arabic لم, being a possible example).
    Last edited by Agamemnon; 07-21-2021 at 02:48 AM.
    מכורותיך ומולדותיך מארץ הכנעני אביך האמורי ואמך חתית
    יחזקאל פרק טז ג-


    ᾽Άλλο δέ τοι ἐρέω, σὺ δ᾽ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βάλλεο σῇσιν:
    κρύβδην, μηδ᾽ ἀναφανδά, φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν
    νῆα κατισχέμεναι: ἐπεὶ οὐκέτι πιστὰ γυναιξίν.


    -Αγαμέμνων; H Οδύσσεια, Ραψωδία λ

  17. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Agamemnon For This Useful Post:

     drobbah (07-21-2021),  hartaisarlag (07-21-2021),  Iyyovi (07-21-2021),  JMcB (07-21-2021),  JoeyP37 (07-21-2021),  Kelmendasi (07-24-2021),  KLMDG (07-21-2021),  leorcooper19 (07-21-2021),  Pribislav (07-21-2021),  Shamash (07-23-2021),  StillWater (07-22-2021),  Viktor Reznov (07-23-2021),  XXD (07-22-2021)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. DF17 in Ireland
    By Vertor in forum R1b-DF27
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 06-16-2021, 04:00 PM
  2. N in the U.K and Ireland
    By NomadNick in forum N
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-10-2020, 09:49 PM
  3. N1b1b from Ireland
    By macmegmat in forum N
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-01-2016, 08:40 PM
  4. L513 in Ireland
    By Jon in forum L513
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-22-2016, 07:33 PM
  5. Ancient DNA Ireland?
    By Dubhthach in forum Western
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-20-2015, 05:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •