DNA-R1B1C7-L ArchivesArchiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2011-09 > 1315172664
From: Brian Caulfield <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] j
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 14:44:24 -0700
A point of clarification: the 1995 paper by Daniel Bradley's group at the
Smurfit Institute of Genetics "A Y-Chromosome Signature of Hegemony in
Gaelic Ireland <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380239/>" seeks
only to explain why M222 seems so common among families with origins in
certain parts of the Ireland. Bradley and his group weren't trying to find
the origins of M222, and the paper didn't assert that the genetic signature
it examined is exclusive to Ireland or the Irish. I think we're complicating
things more than necessary if we criticize Bradley, and those who follow his
work, for things they do not assert.
Q: Why is this email five sentences or less?
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Susan Hedeen <
> All you say is true, but, does any it have anything to do with the
> origins of M222. What we do or do not know regarding Ireland and the
> Irish of many cultures before there were nations all previous to the 5th
> century really has nothing to do with the origin of M222 except in
> answering an emotional question -- which is why is it so important for
> it to have developed in Ireland?
> Personally, I don't care where it formed up. If indeed it is Ireland,
> wonderful since that has been declared my genetic Celtic make up -- at
> least at the moment since M222 is presently defined there and my
> immigrant ancestors lived and farmed there previous to hopping the
> pond. Am I going to be upset if it formed up in Scotland, Brittany,
> near the Alps, in Iberia, Turkey, or Cashel, or any of the other places
> where Celtic society migrated in and out of? Absolutely not.
> The current popular theory seems to be short, yet is highly popular
> and considered as fact when indeed it is yet simply a theory based on
> statistical data which was quantified too soon in the game. I think
> that is all John and Bill and several others are saying, and I
> personally thought that previous to joining this group, and I will
> continue to believe it until the theory is really tested right along
> with others with a larger and more diverse testing pool.
> On 8/19/2011 4:51 PM, Bernard Morgan wrote:
> > >
> > > I believe in the entire Nial saga ignored migrations aspect completely.
> > > Someone had an emotional need to link the heroes, lore and legend. That
> > > is my personal opinion, and I'll admit that I am no geneticist, either;
> > > so that remark simply is an opinion, I will acquiesce to being ill
> > > informed if anyone can conclusively prove me wrong.
> > >
> > Surely migration is an aspect, however I think reference to the Nial
> > Saga (name of an actual Norse saga) ignores the written tradition of
> > Ireland that began in the 5th century. In Ireland we are dealing with
> > the third oldest written history in Europe. Hence the movement of the
> > people of claim descent from Neill is well document and publish in
> > numerous academic works, such as Prof. Brynes "Irish Kings and High
> > kings". Writers like Beresford point out the vast majority of Irish
> > manuscripts remain un-translated and it seem un-transcribed.
> R1b1c7 Research and Links:
> 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