DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2008-10 > 1223088240


From: "Donald Milligan" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] MRCA of R1b1b2e as early as 1388 CE??
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 19:44:00 -0700
References: <c70.309d7fb3.3616a609@aol.com><7.0.1.0.2.20081003103116.024aa7f0@netvision.net.il><A10FFD7CE9DF445284951984B214ACA8@DW1>


THANK YOU DAVID!

I'VE BEEN WAITING TO HEAR YOUR MOST CURRENT TAKE ON THE ISSUE!
CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE NW IRISH/ LOWLAND SCOTS MAY HAVE DESCENDED FROM SOME
OF NIALL'S ANCESTORS, RATHER THAN JUST NIALL'S DESCENDANTS?

WOULD IT BE MORE PROFITABLE TO HAVE MY 67 DNA MARKER TEST DONE?

AS A NOVICE, I WOULD THINK THE 67 DNA MARKERS TEST WOULD CONTRIBUTE MORE TO
THE OVERALL MILLIGAN (ETC) TEST GROUP FINDINGS, SUCH AS HELPING TO SHOW
CLOSER RELATIONSHIPS AMONG INDIVIDUALS OF DIFFERENT FAMILIES & MRCA
CALCULATIONS?

THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR GUIDANCE & TIME GIVEN TO THE LIST MEMBERS. DON
MILLIGAN...GALLOWAY, SCOTLAND/ BELFAST AREA BRANCH.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Wilson" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] MRCA of R1b1b2e as early as 1388 CE??


> There are good grounds for thinking that members of the NW Irish/Lowland
> Scots cluster share a fairly recent common ancestor, but I am not sure
> that
> the MRCA need be quite as recent as the TCD researchers calculate.
> Remember
> that their calculations are based on a data base of only 17 STRs in which
> the IMH (as they term the cluster) is distinguished from the more common
> R1b
> modal haplotype at only two locations. Had their calculations included 25,
> 37 or 67 markers, they would have come up with different dates for the
> most
> recent common ancestor, as well as different confidence intervals for the
> proposed time depths.
>
> But to be fair, even calculating from a richer data set won't change the
> MRCA calculation by a huge amount. In general, if you make the simplifying
> assumption that the 67 marker modal haplotype for the cluster reflects the
> haplotype of the MRCA, then any M222+ individual living today has a very
> high probability of being no more than 40 generations downstream from him.
> At 30 years per generation (which is my preferred measure), we are looking
> back 1200 years to the common ancestor with, of course, some margin of
> error
> on either side of that date.
>
> Note that the MRCA need not be the person in whom the M222 mutation first
> occurred, nor does the MRCA need to be the famous Niall of the Nine
> Hostages
> himself, to use the identification proposed by the Trinity College Dublin
> team. Niall (who lived about 1600 years ago) may in fact be a direct
> male-line ancestor, but the MRCA of the cluster could be one of his
> descendants who lived several generations later.
>
> In the last several months new forms of statistical analysis applied to
> different levels of the Y-chromosome tree suggest that the large modern
> European populations in the R branch may have differentiated more recently
> than was long thought. If the S106 and S116 subhaplogroups (which are
> modally quite similar) are no more than 4,000 to 5,000 years old, then it
> is
> completely possible for the M222 group to be less than 2000 years old.
> M222
> is subordinate to S116 and, based on simple mutation tallies, appears to
> be
> half the age of S116 or even a little less.
>
> I once believed that the NW Irish/Lowland Scot cluster represented the
> survivors of the first post-glacial-maximum inhabitants of what we now
> call
> Ireland. At a time when we thought that the majority of the most refined
> Haplogroup R subclades had been in Europe for more than 20,000 years, that
> was not an impossible notion. But now I tend to look at the world with a
> more collapsed time frame. Do I think the common ancestor could have lived
> barely 600 years ago, as the subject line asks? No. Am I open to the
> possibility that the MRCA could have lived between 500 and 1000 CE? Yes.
>
> David Wilson
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of yair
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 12:39 AM
> To:
> Subject: [DNA-R1B1C7] MRCA of R1b1b2e as early as 1388 CE??
>
>
>
> PubMed abstract:
> "Genetic Investigation of the Patrilinear Kinship Structure of Early
> Medieval Ireland"
> Brian McEvoy, Katherine Simms, Brian G. Bradley,
> http://www.irishtype3dna.org/McEvoy2008.pdf
> re Neil lineage.
> Bottom of second paragraph, left colomn, first page) MRCA Traced back to
> 1010 (standard deviation 390) years before present (YBP) i.e. 1388 [998]
> to
> 608 CE!!
> This gives a result Much more recent than ALL previous estimates!
> Have I misunderstood what was I read or does it really trace the ancestor
> of
> IMH (R1b1c7 or R1b1b2e) back to so recent a time??
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1703 - Release Date: 10/2/2008
> 7:46 AM
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

This thread: