Scotch-Irish-L ArchivesArchiver > Scotch-Irish > 2010-04 > 1270839279
Subject: Re: [S-I] More on DNA
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 19:07:45 +0000 (UTC)
There's some information here about I1:
Most importantly it says:
"When SNPs are unknown or untested and when short tandem repeat (STR) results show eight allele repeats at DNA Y chromosome Segment (DYS) 455, haplogroup I1 can be predicted correctly with a very high rate of accuracy, 99.3 to 99.8 percent, according to Whit Athey and Vince Vizachero. [ 11 ] [ 12 ] This is almost exclusive to and ubiquitous in the I1 haplogroup, with very few having seven, nine, or another number. Furthermore, DYS 462 divides I1 geographically. Nordtvedt considers 12 allele repeats to be more likely Anglo-Saxon and on the southern fringes of the I1 map, while 13 signifies more northerly, Nordic origins. Nordtvedt has repeatedly argued that, at least for I1, [ 13 ] SNP testing is generally not as beneficial as expanded STR results."
Ken Nordtvedt is very active on the genealogy-DNA list and he is the specialist in this haplo group. As you can see above you should be able to distinguish between two types -- Anglo Saxon and Nordic. Probably there is more information in the archives of the genealogy DNA list including the logic of those who may dispute his analysis.
>Linda, could we assume that the Irish of pre-Plantation times would be
hugely R1b1b2 as Daniel points out "most Celtic Irish [are]" and that
those brought over from Scotland would not necessarily be?
What is "most Celtic Irish"??? WIthin Ireland there is, to a geneticist, a wide variation of percentages of different types of DNA regionally. So where are you talking about precisely? in the true north west most men are northwest Irish, a specific type of R1 but as you shift locations you get different percentages. And then of course what are the others? Various things including other types of R1.
Second problem is 'what is Celtic'? Celtic is a CULTURE. It has nothing to do with DNA. The scientists still debate over whether it was brought to Ireland by actual migrations of people bearing it or taught. If you go now to almost anywhere on the planet you will find evidence of Euro-American culture (blue jeans, for example),
but is that the result of a massive invasion of EuroAmericans or cultural transference. We know usually its
cultural transference. But we don't know (or rather I don't know and my eyes glaze over listening to the
arguments) how it came to Ireland.
What seems true from what I have read, though perhaps I am out of date, is that most of the IRish population
was in place a very long time ago, migrating up the coast of Europe over land bridges. At the Seine, which
then emptied south into the Atlantic (flowing through what is now the English Channel), some went west
to Scotland and some took the valley of the SEine and went up it and into what is now France. The interior
of Wales was mountainous. These people eventually crossed over into Scotland, probably over a land
However since God never towed either away from one another, they were always close, even after the
ice age ended and the land bridges inundated, clever humans built boats and traveled freely among
Ireland, Scotland, and the Nordic lands.
The Nordic lands were settled in a different fashion. You can view these..... But some of these Nordic
types of DNA were in Ireland for thousands of years. Does that mean they aren't "Celtic"? This is hogwash.
Of course they were as Celtic as the next guy. We don't want to end up becoming some
kind of 21st century 'bigot' who claims some poor smuck with an I1 chromo
isn't really Irish when in fact he is. And for all we know, some came up from the Iberian area. They were
not 'pure' haplotypes, even then.
On the other hand too the eastern coast of England/Scotland was settled from the east, not the south,
and it has seen waves of migrations, even in prehistoric times. There is much greater diversity there.
People don't realize that our ancestors were very mobile. I was just reading about the world of Bede,
an 8th century English historian who sheds much light on the Dark Ages at a time when the Anglo
Saxons were still not very Christian and Christianity was still grappling with the neoclassic pagan
heritage (ie re-writing Latin texbooks using Christian stories and not pagan). In the 700s people liked
to go on pilgrimates to Rome. They'd cross to France and travel south, departing by boat from Marseilles.
Took six months or more to get there. Many died on the way, but it was good to die on a pilgrimage.
One person went on six such trips in his life. Later on, before the Vikings destroyed things, the
Anglo Saxon/Irish Christians had great impact on Continental Europe -- many traveled there and
even settled. We find many English manuscripts in Continental libraries from these dark age
centuries. The DNA mixed a lot. The Irish came to England, the English to Ireland, etc, etc,e tc.
The scientists always deal with statistics, so they can tell you 60 percent of your type of DNA is
found here, etc...but you are not interested in the big picture. You want to know about one particular
instance. Maybe you can never know when precisely your ancestor arrived in Ireland because his
DNA will not tell you. Only that it was in Ireland because your ancestor was. You have to seek other
information to even devise theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29 - the migration of R1 is complicated
and some do not believe in the Ibernian origin any more.
How can you really separate planters from Irish? Scientists iare of the opinion that it is not
possible. After all, God towed Ireland next to Scotland a very long time ago and since then people with
legs and boats could travel back and forth. If you actually think the DNA is different in Scotland from the
DNA in Ireland, see me about a bridge i'm selling. It is not. It dffers in percentages. Many Scots clans,
we know, are founded by Irishmen. Their DNA doesn't 'change' just because they moved to Scotland.
The scientists see different types of mutations coming from a common 'root', ie different branches,
but also there is the constant patter of new people in both places.
A person's chromosomes do not determine their ethnicity. An Irish ancestor living in Ireland could have
strange DNA -- maybe he comes from Wales, where there were Irish colonies and where the Irish raided
and took slaves. THe Romans imported slaves to work in Welsh copper mines -- you find all kinds of
eastern Mediteranian DNA there. These people are called "Welsh coalminers". Their Y chromo is
irrelevant. When ancestors were captured and lugged to Ireland, their descendents were "Irishmen".
So if you want to know about your ancestor, you should study the records to see where he lived,
how he lived, and what his religion and social class was. That will tell you who he was -- not his
A Johnston with a I2 Y chromo could culturally have been "Celtic' (whatever that means). he isn't
related to the McShane clan that gave Queen Lizzie and some other O'Neills heart burn in the
1500s. That's all it says. A more detailed inspection by Ken Nordtvedt (or yourself) might suggest
something about where he was before if you have matches. Or you can understand the mutation rates
so you can tell who matches when the FTDNA software doesn't indicate they are matches. Or you
understand the genomap well enough to ID the significance of 'upstream' mutations. I can't do this
and must rely on others.
What we see in projects like the Cumberland Gap project (descendents of people, often 'scotch irish',
migrating west through the Gap into Kentucky) is a lot of north west Irish. What it shows is a lot of
indiginous Irish assimilating into .... what? "Planter"? Meaning they were Protestant in Ireland? "Scotch Irish"
meaning they assimilated in America? I donno <grin>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ruth McLaughlin" <>
Sent: Friday, April 9, 2010 2:12:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [S-I] More on DNA
It's interesting, Dan, that the 1718 Smith family I am tracing and
which we've talked about specifically, is also I1. This family is a
Plantation family, arriving in Ulster from Argyllshire in the first
half of the 17th c — the earliest family member, known about in some
detail, was on one of the "first 5 ships' of 1718, and is always said
in oral tradition to have, in infancy, survived the Siege of Derry.
So, in some sense, I didn't necessarily expect an R1b haplogroup
placement. I wonder if, since your Wilsons seem to have had a somewhat
parallel history to my Smiths in many ways, perhaps there was a
significant pocket of I1s who came to Ulster in Plantation times.
I did, however, get an immediate R1b1b2 for my presumed
reiver-descended Crozier. His antecedents weren't Planter but probably
came to Fermanagh not long after. So both from Scotland but...
Linda, could we assume that the Irish of pre-Plantation times would be
hugely R1b1b2 as Daniel points out "most Celtic Irish [are]" and that
those brought over from Scotland would not necessarily be? could in
fact be left over Danes maybe?
Wouldn't it be interesting to get all the 1718 and post Ulster
families to DNA test and compare haplogroups, to see if it's possible
to separate out Planters from indigenous Irish?
But then sorting out the whys of I1 Argyllshire men from the R1b1b2
lowland reivers is another question. Too many intriguing questions!!
BTW LInda, you said my Johnston might turn out to be a Celtic McShane.
No chance, it seems, since my testor (a late 80s-something cousin) is
I1 whose sub-haplogroup seems, if I am to believe the current talk, to
be one of the so-called Poldean Johnstons of Scotland "whose Y-DNA
signature" says Cliff Johnston, "is [so] distinctive...there is no
mistaking it for any other surname's Y-DNA. Indeed, if one has only
the shortest test available, the 12-markers test, one can tell if he
is a Poldean Johnston immediately."
The amazing part of this Johnston DNA test is that it might never have
'been,' had not been for a persistent Wilcox-cousin in Australia who
developed the super 'super-search' Fermanagh website
<http://www.fermanagh-gold.com/> for his fellow-subscribers to the
Fermanagh-GOLD mailing list (and anyone else who needs Fermanagh data)
— BTW, another Mailing list in the category of Linda Merle's!!
David noticed I had "a Johnston" in MY family tree (big deal!–half the
world has Johnstons in their trees!!); he'd DNA tested and he thought
one of mine ought to, too. I begged off, already being swamped with
DNA, with the comment that Johnstons are a dime a dozen and a chance
of a match was wildly unlikely. Dave persisted, despite my brush off,
saying things like... you had a Crozier who married a Johnston in
Canada... I had a Wilcox from the same area of Ireland who married a
Johnston there & emigrated to Australia... The mother of your Crozier
who married the Johnston was a Wilcox...
So seeing his greater wisdom, I gave in and the test of my Johnston
cousin got done. Voilà a match! — both David and I from Poldean stock,
if Cliff be right (and BTW, I have no reason to question him!). A
35/37 match with David and a 36/37 match with Cliff!
I guess the message is — if you've got a decent paper trail and a few
dollars to spend, despite all the unanswered questions we all have by
times, it's wildly 'worth it' to test!
|Re: [S-I] More on DNA by|