DNA-R1B1C7-L ArchivesArchiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2012-04 > 1334062536
From: Susan Hedeen <>
Subject: [R-M222] Surname Sampling
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:57:05 -0400
Sampling for any study is always an issue. With the on site Irish
studies one of the concerns has to be funding thus a set number and
construct is determined previous to onset. With the exception of
geographic area and surname choices, then it is the luck of the draw.
In Moore the theory of social selection has its merit up to a point. In
present day and perhaps the last (say throw out a number) 700 years it
may be more applicable, however. In former days particularly when
geographic areas were territorial and breeding practices less restricted
and more culturally upheld less so. Unless a union was arranged for
political reasons among tribes the social selection was with-in the
geographic territory of the tribe, and thus if through polygamy on a
hierarchical scale with the assumption that tribal leaders would have
the lion share of the picks and breeding rights, social selection is out
the window as the proliferation of the Y through the leadership within
the tribe and geographical area of the tribe would be higher than if
these cultural practices were not at play.
I suppose it would depend on the authors definition of social selection
as well and who was doing the selecting. Throw in the issue of surname
selection and use, which indeed was likely as much of a political choice
as a family unit choice, there is introduced another assumption that the
lineages are intact which few are.
With any of these studies there are a lot of assumptions made; to some
extent there is no way around making those assumptions. Migration
issues with-in this region is always one which is under played on the
one hand and over played on the other. Migration into Ireland seems
nearly always under discussed while migration out of Ireland is nearly
always employed as and explanation of proliferation out of Ireland of
those previously defined and believed Irish specific dna.
Coalescence has fostered these assumptions to which indeed there is
merit; however it shuts the door in considering alternatives.
Additionally the many factors contributing to coalescence are often not
fully considered, and in the case of most of these studies the
assumption has nearly always led back to chasing lineages to tie them to
the decided on conclusions pertinent to M222 of Niall and the Ui Neill
rightly or wrongly.
There is great value in all of these studies, again, up to a point; many
conclusions based on assumptions with scant data, too few markers, and
questionable constructs all of which are nearly endemic to these kinds
of studies has unfortunately left a climate in which there is hesitancy
to repeat the studies with better constructs to test their validity
beyond the reconstruction of the conclusions using the same data. Susan
|[R-M222] Surname Sampling by Susan Hedeen <>|