DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2008-02 > 1202085306


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] Southern Ui Neill DNA
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 19:35:06 EST



In a message dated 2/3/2008 1:22:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
writes:

Perhaps someone can enlighten me. I'm confused about the significance of
being R1b1c7 in relation to the level of DNA testing. Is a Ui Neill DNA
linkage indicated simply by matching at the 12 marker level? If so, then
that would seem to cast a wide net. I was under the impression that deeper
testing would be more enlightening, and would in fact help in understanding
both the Ui Neill DNA connection as well as migration patterns.



I think David Wilson addressed this question the other day. In the 38-67
range range of markers there are only a couple of markers that stand out as
R1b1c7 indicators, as they differ from mainline R1b. If you really want deeper
testing the SNP M222+ is the ultimate indicator.

Restricting an analysis of R1b1c7 to the British Isles, it appears in
Ireland, Scotland and England, particularly in northern England. Heaviest in NW
Ireland, heavy in parts of Scotland, very light in England. In my own opinion
not all of these are Ui Neill or descendants of Nial. In Ireland R1b1c7
seems to be mostly found in either descendants of Nial or of his alleged
brothers, although the DNA does appear in family lines not associated with the UI
Neill or Connachta (such as the O'Sullivans and McCarthys). I have yet to see
any Irish sept that is a majority of R1b1c7 that is not linked somehow to the
Ui Neill, Connachta or one of the territories held by them. If anyone has an
y knowledge of one I'd be interested in hearing about it.

The problem I have with analyzing R1b1c7 in Ireland is the origin of many
of the surnames is unknown. Only the major chieftains, some herenaghs and
church officials appear in the annals, the pedigree collections or the
topographical poems. Sometimes you can guess by territory. The McGinleys in the
Trinity spreadsheet are a Donegal sept but their origin is unknown. In this
case it's a fairly safe bet they are Ui Neill (either Cenel Conaill or Cenel
Eoghain). But the problem is also compounded by the large number of Scottish
R1b1c7 settled in Ireland especially after the Plantation Period (mostly in
Ulster). Up to 30-40% of some of these counties in 1659 are listed as English
or Scottish.

So far, as David Wilson has stated several times, there is no way to
distinguish between Irish and Scottish R1b1c7. We see only individual family
markers - these can be significant, as in the McLaughlins, Dohertys and Ewings,
three R1b1c7 septs with distinctive markers. But no one yet has come up with
any series of distinctive markers that might differentiate between descendants
of Nial and other R1b1c7. Or even between tribes said to descend from NIal
such as the Cenel Eoghain or Cenel Conaill.

The main reason I personally think not all R1b1c7 are descended from Nial
are the statements of DNA experts that place the origin thousands of years ago
(3,000 minimum, according to John McEwen). Since Nial died c. 400-450 and
M222+ might have originated as early as 1,000 BC. or earlier, that's clearly
long before the time of Nial. Secondarily even Irish records do not claim the
Connachta (very much R1b1c7) are descended directly from Nial. Their alleged
connection through brothers is suspicious but clearly there is a link
somewhere.

I'm not even sure myself we have the right markers yet to successfully
subdivide R1b1c7. As an example, Trinity used a set of markers generally not
tested by FTDNA. Their identification of the IMH or what we'd call NW irish or
R1b1c7 is based on the first 12 markers used by FTDNA plus a few other
markers. Those extra markers are DYS 434,435, 438, 460. A few others Trinity
used were picked up in the FTDNA 38-67 marker set. I've also seen other markers
listed at other testing companies such as Sorenson that seem to have no
counterparts at FTDNA. Maybe one of these other markers or combinations of
markers could turn out to be significant. I'm writing this as a complete DNA
amateur. My own interest and expertise is in the history of Donegal which is
predominantly R1b1c7.

This is just my opinion but I think for the most part you can pick out
R1b1c7 on the basis of the first twelve markers in the FTDNA dataset. There are
exceptions to everything but if the sample does not have DYS 392 = 14 then
it's probably not R1b1c7. There are a few tested (SNP M222+) with a 13 at this
marker but it's unusual. Conversely there are some samples with a 14 that
are clearly not R1b1c7 (including one Wilson sample that consistently tests
negative for M222). If you really examine this DNA sample (Wilson) it might
shake your confidence a little in analyzing R1b1c7 on the basis of STRS alone,
even at 37 markers.

Where do we go from here? I have no idea. If more markers were the answer
I think we'd have one by now. Maybe we just need the right markers. Or
different markers. We've got enough 67 marker R1b1c7 samples out there now and
no one has spotted anything. Right now I think more markers is just a waste
of money for my purposes (deep clan relationships). That might be quite
helpful for those more interested in recent genealogical relationships. I'm
floundering in the dark myself on this. Some light from above would be helpful.



John






**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)

This thread: