DNA-R1B1C7-L ArchivesArchiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2012-04 > 1333996787
From: tuulen <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Surname Sampling
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:39:47 -0400
I am M222 and I agree with Sandy, that the earliest known ancestor
locations could be misleading, especially of the M222 group, as migration
between Ireland and Scotland has been going on for the past couple of
thousand years or so, since long before surnames came into use, and fair
numbers of M222 can be found in both of those places. The trouble is that
family records often do not reliably go beyond a few hundred years or so,
and often far less than that. So, it seems there could be statistical
limits on the available genetic data, at least until some ancient corpses
could be found and tested, perhaps "The Buried Bog Men of Ireland and
Scotland" or something like that.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Colin Ferguson <>wrote:
> on page 4, lower left: "The Ui Neill sample (n = 57) showed a
> significantly higher affinity with the IMH (P < .001) than with a
> general R1b3 northwestern Ireland geographic population (n = 166)."
> >I'm not too keen on using the geographic area of earliest known ancestor
> idea, mainly because I doubt the accuracy of this information.
> I've come to realize just how tremendous an advantage there is to
> sampling data of people still living in the area of their ancestors.
> If I toss out ambiguous info such as the country of origin field
> saying Ireland but the place of birth stated as South Carolina then at
> what level do you doubt the accuracy of info filled in for the
> earliest known ancestor? I can see where the uncertainty would vary
> from most to least by county, province and then country. I think
> people get it right most of the time for country of origin based on
> census records.
> 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