DNA-R1B1C7-L ArchivesArchiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2012-02 > 1328931464
Subject: [R-M222] Paper on M222
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:37:44 -0500 (EST)
I just put the paper Bill Howard and I wrote on M222 online at the M222
It was recently published in Familia, the journal of the Ulster
Genealogical and Historical Guild (Number 27, 2011).
The most controversial part of the paper will probably the dating of the
origin of M222 which we've covered extensively on this list. In the
article Bill quotes John McEwan, Trinity college and a web site:
The dates are:
Howard (1400-2000 BC)
McEwan (1357 BC)
Trinity College (275 AD)
web site (1000 BC)
I have been unable so far to locate this date on the web site above. John
McEwan's date may be found here:
In the article Bill did not mention other dates proposed for M222, the
main two being the ASD methods of Nordvedt et al and Anatole Klyosov.
Anatole (1450 bp +/- 160 (ie, 550 AD)
Nordvedt (Janzen spreadsheet - 500-600 AD).
Anatole does add that this date reflects the current population of M222
which was due to a bottleneck. He places the actual origin around the time
of the AD/BC break. So 0 AD. might be more appropriate for his date.
It should also be noted that the Trinity study included a small sub-set of
M222 taken from Irish surnames said to be descendants of Nial.
As far as I know Sandy Patterson and others using similar methods have
arrived at dates similar to those of the Janzen spreadsheet. Lots of dates
have been thrown around by different people. Most seem to center around 400
AD. or later.
John McEwan in one of his web pages describes using ASD methods to obtain
his results. It is an ongoing puzzle to me why he arrived at such earlier
dates than those supposedly using the same methods.
It obviously makes a difference in how we view M222 if it originated in
1400-2000 BC or 400 AD.
I have no dog in this fight. I'd just like to know which date is right
(or close to being right).