The founding and migration of I2a2b

Wales is a very interesting question and I have not seen anyone post a reasonable suggestion as to why that might be. The clear zone (to whatever extent that it is not just a data artifact) around Dublin does have a probable cause, but not Wales so far as I know. No idea at all.

43 markers should be plenty. Too bad we can't get open access to the data, linking through y-search or some such.

Maybe the 6,000 years relates to the timing of the AB/CD node independent of geography. If the 8,200 years is out, then we need a way to get the continentals back across the channel with their TMRCA of 5,600 years. By 6,000 ya, the English Channel was a serious obstacle.

As to the hair - I yield.
 
Wales is a very interesting question and I have not seen anyone post a reasonable suggestion as to why that might be. The clear zone (to whatever extent that it is not just a data artifact) around Dublin does have a probable cause, but not Wales so far as I know. No idea at all.

43 markers should be plenty. Too bad we can't get open access to the data, linking through y-search or some such.

Maybe the 6,000 years relates to the timing of the AB/CD node independent of geography. If the 8,200 years is out, then we need a way to get the continentals back across the channel with their TMRCA of 5,600 years. By 6,000 ya, the English Channel was a serious obstacle.

As to the hair - I yield.

I'll email Ken and try to find out the up to date breakdown of continental members in the subclades. There is more data than on Aiden's map [good though it is].
 
From March 2010 [Rootsweb], Ken Nordtvedt gave the following breakdown of continental members [Germany, France, Belgium etc] of the subclades of L161 I2a2b-Isles:

Clade A: 0/48
Clade B: 17/51
Clade C: 7/55
Clade D: 6/68

So there were then 30 continentals out of 222 known 'Isles' haplotypes.
 
No Clade A. Surprising.

17 B may be what we expected and C being the next oldest may be expected to be proportional, but D, being the youngest and about equal to C, is another surprise.

Do you have any thoughts on why this shakes out like this?

If the C and D were due to some random back migration over time, why not A? Seems very odd.

-----
222 total is not too far from the number on Aiden's map. Maybe it just needs a minor update.

----
I think KN said he has looked through tens of thousands of tests. I wonder how large the number of total samples is that contains our 222 intrepid souls. A couple of tens of thousands would put us in the 1% range.
 
No Clade A. Surprising.

17 B may be what we expected and C being the next oldest may be expected to be proportional, but D, being the youngest and about equal to C, is another surprise.

Do you have any thoughts on why this shakes out like this?

If the C and D were due to some random back migration over time, why not A? Seems very odd.

-----
222 total is not too far from the number on Aiden's map. Maybe it just needs a minor update.

----
I think KN said he has looked through tens of thousands of tests. I wonder how large the number of total samples is that contains our 222 intrepid souls. A couple of tens of thousands would put us in the 1% range.

JD,
Actually, I have an update for you- Ken emailed me back with some more up to date statistics:

Clade A: 1/53
Clade B: 18/65
Clade C: 5/63
Clade D: 6/80

Maybe he reclassified a few haplotypes, but this is the score as of now. So the latest figure is 30 continentals out of 261 known 'Isles' haplotypes. That we are a little group is beyond doubt. Mind you, I only think of the paternal Y line as part of my ancestry [which it is]. I am equally 'into' my Maternal Grandfather's I1 and my Mtdna U5a1. We are the product of many ancestral lines after all.

As to why C and D pan out the way they do, I haven't really an answer. I think Aiden suggested back-migration. If so, when? What a puzzle this is.

By the way, I can't access the Ancestry.com group and have lost Aiden's home email. If you are in touch, please ask him to contact me.
 
First, lets be clear that I do not understand the mathematics, but I have been looking at the equations on KN's home page.

It seems to me that the built in uncertainties based on statistics of a small number of data points (and 222 is a small number) and somewhat inexact variabilities could easily have a range that would include the 8,200 year event.

6,000 may be the peak on the probability curve, but it is probably a quite wide and flat curve.
 
Y_____, I have sent Aiden a message to contact you.

The new numbers are then:

Britain & Ireland Continent
Clade A: 52 1
Clade B: 47 18
Clade C: 58 5
Clade D: 74 6

This seems regular enough that there may not be any firm conclusions to be drawn. But I will do it anyway.

Clade A O'Driscolls in Cork are thought to include group of seafaring traders with regular trade with France, Spain, and England. Surely somebody must have jumped ship in some port or other. But there is only that one lonely continental. Odd.

I still think the C and D continentals are random events, not back "migrations" - but somebody jumping ship or leaving a "souvenir" during a walk-about - at the rate of about one or two per millenium for each clade. At that really really-low rate, maybe Clade A is not that far off target either.

The B, with fewer than the other clades in UK and more than 25% on the continent, would seem support for the splitting of B with the splitting of Doggerland concept.

I also wonder if the B2 would be selectively in England or B1 on the continent or vv. Could he break it down like that perhaps? That would really be getting into small number statistics.
 
Last edited:
"O'Rahilly's historical model ... distinguished four separate waves of Celtic invaders:
The Cruithne or Priteni (c. 700 – 500 BC)
The Builg or Érainn (c. 500 BC)
The Laigin, the Domnainn and the Gálioin (c. 300 BC)
The Goidels or Gael (c. 100 BC)"

These dates are millenia AFTER Isles people were already in Britain. So, even though this model is known to have errors, it seems that it would be impossible for Isles A to be Érainn or Fir Bolg and for Isles C or D to be Cruithne. We were there long before these later invaders.

In the legends, who was always already there when the invaders arrived?

The Fomorians.

Maybe that's who we are.
 
"O'Rahilly's historical model ... distinguished four separate waves of Celtic invaders:
The Cruithne or Priteni (c. 700 – 500 BC)
The Builg or Érainn (c. 500 BC)
The Laigin, the Domnainn and the Gálioin (c. 300 BC)
The Goidels or Gael (c. 100 BC)"

These dates are millenia AFTER Isles people were already in Britain. So, even though this model is known to have errors, it seems that it would be impossible for Isles A to be Érainn or Fir Bolg and for Isles C or D to be Cruithne. We were there long before these later invaders.

In the legends, who was always already there when the invaders arrived?

The Fomorians.

Maybe that's who we are.

It depends on 'who' you think the Cruthin were. Tim Owen and Ian Adamson regard the Cruthin as the very earliest post-LGM settlers in Ireland. To reiterate, Owen mentions a hotspot for C and D in Rathcroghan, Roscommon; an alleged Cruthin satellite settlement.

Regarding D subclade of 'Isles', there is some in England and Scotland too, including East Anglia and London, and for people with non-Irish surnames. It occurs in Belgium and Germany as well, whether by random event, back-migration or magic, I do not know...
 
So if the Cruthin were Celtic, they were much too late. And If pre-Celtic, then maybe.

Or both:

Considering that Isles may be about 1% of the population, maintaining a cultural identity would seen to be a very difficult thing. We are seeing this in modern times with the on-going extinction of small languages everywhere.

There may be a lower threshold for the ability to maintain a culture and it may be as high as 5% to 10%.

(this is a subject that I know very little about. African-Americans are about 10% of the US population and those efforts to maintain a distinctive culture seem to me to be borderline successful, but unsustainable. So 10% looks to be below the threshold. On the other hand, Latinos with 20% or more in some areas are apparently maintaining theirs. But we are looking at a very short timeline on these events, so we will have to wait to see how it comes out.).

If so, Isles has been below the threshold, basically from the beginning.

This could have resulted in tiny minority pre-Cruthin peoples, like Isles, quickly taking on - melting into - the Cruthin culture, and thus thoroughly clouding the issue.

The same applies to Isles A and the Corcu Shogain of Cork, which appears to have been a tiny and isolated branch of the main Sogain from up in Ui Maine territory. Probably(?) Isles A of Cork melted into the Corcu Shogain which melted into the dominant culture.

-------------------

I'm not sure the surname is important since they were only taken up a few hundred years ago. In my own case, my dna says Cork a long time ago perhaps among pre-Sogain folks, but the surname is apparently from Cheshire about 500 years ago. That leaves a millenium or so for one of those random events to have eventually generated my surnamed ancestor in England.
 
So if the Cruthin were Celtic, they were much too late. And If pre-Celtic, then maybe.

Or both:

Considering that Isles may be about 1% of the population, maintaining a cultural identity would seen to be a very difficult thing. We are seeing this in modern times with the on-going extinction of small languages everywhere.

There may be a lower threshold for the ability to maintain a culture and it may be as high as 5% to 10%.

(this is a subject that I know very little about. African-Americans are about 10% of the US population and those efforts to maintain a distinctive culture seem to me to be borderline successful, but unsustainable. So 10% looks to be below the threshold. On the other hand, Latinos with 20% or more in some areas are apparently maintaining theirs. But we are looking at a very short timeline on these events, so we will have to wait to see how it comes out.).

If so, Isles has been below the threshold, basically from the beginning.

This could have resulted in tiny minority pre-Cruthin peoples, like Isles, quickly taking on - melting into - the Cruthin culture, and thus thoroughly clouding the issue.



The same applies to Isles A and the Corcu Shogain of Cork, which appears to have been a tiny and isolated branch of the main Sogain from up in Ui Maine territory. Probably(?) Isles A of Cork melted into the Corcu Shogain which melted into the dominant culture.

-------------------

I'm not sure the surname is important since they were only taken up a few hundred years ago. In my own case, my dna says Cork a long time ago perhaps among pre-Sogain folks, but the surname is apparently from Cheshire about 500 years ago. That leaves a millenium or so for one of those random events to have eventually generated my surnamed ancestor in England.

Tim Owen and Ian Adamson ['Genes of the Cruthin' blog, 2010] see the Cruthin not as Celts but as the earliest, post-LGM settlers to Ireland. Owen links L161 I2a2b-Isles to them. However, in England and lowland Scotland Owen suggests that some must have arrived via Anglo-Saxons. Re the latter, Bryan Sykes, Anatole Klyoso and Jean Manco share that view.

Your take on the Irish scenario is interesting, JD. You see them as a tiny minority 'joining' the Cruthin. That is a fascinating idea, but if so, who were the Cruthin then? I think they were I2a2b-Isles.

The 'Isles' clades C and D definately have a hotspot in the former Cruthin satellite settlement of Rathcroghan. I don't see any other patterns with early I clades like that. It appears that M26 I2a1 got to the shores before L161 I2a2b-Isles, and maybe I2b1a-English might have, but the German-founded 'Isles' has a 'refuge' type distribution in Ireland most suggestive of a pre-Gaelic folk. Whatever the truth is, one thing is for sure, that in Ireland the R1bs won the demographic war.

I agree with you re surnames. Sometimes they are important but sometimes not. I noticed in the Wirral Project that some men bearing R1a1 and I1 'Viking' signatures bore Anglo-Saxon names.
 
"O'Rahilly's historical model ... distinguished four separate waves of Celtic invaders:
The Cruithne or Priteni (c. 700 – 500 BC)
The Builg or Érainn (c. 500 BC)
The Laigin, the Domnainn and the Gálioin (c. 300 BC)
The Goidels or Gael (c. 100 BC)"

These dates are millenia AFTER Isles people were already in Britain. So, even though this model is known to have errors, it seems that it would be impossible for Isles A to be Érainn or Fir Bolg and for Isles C or D to be Cruithne. We were there long before these later invaders.

In the legends, who was always already there when the invaders arrived?

The Fomorians.

Maybe that's who we are.

The race are known as the Fomoire or Fomoiri, names that are often Anglicised as Fomorians, Fomors or Fomori. Later in Middle Irish they are also known as the Fomóraig. The etymology of the name Fomoire (plural) has been cause for some debate. Medieval Irish scholars thought the name contained the element muire "sea", owing to their reputation as sea pirates.[1] In 1888, John Rhys was the first to suggest that it is an Old Irish word composed of fo "under/below" and muire "sea", concluding that it may refer to beings whose (original) habitat is under the sea.[2] Observing two instances of the early genitive form fomra, Kuno Meyer arrives at the same etymology, but takes it to refer to land by the sea.[3] Whitley Stokes and Rudolf Thurneysen, on the other hand, prefer to connect the second element *mor with a supposed Old English cognate mara "mare" (which survives today in the English word night-mare).[4][5] Building on these hypotheses, Marie-Louise Sjoestedt interprets the combination of fo and the root *mor as a compound meaning "inferior" or "latent demons".[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomorians

Fomor might be corruption of Gomer ...

According to tractate Yoma, in the Talmud, Gomer is identified as the ancestor of the Gomermians, modern Germans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomer

this relation of potentially I2a2-Isles Fomorians with Gomer makes sense as modern Germans do correlate with spread of haplogroup I, namely I1 and I2b

hm, this is fun to read...

In Irish mythology, the Fomoire (or Fomorians) are a semi-divine race said to have inhabited Ireland in ancient times. They may have once been believed to be the beings who preceded the gods, similar to the Greek Titans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomorians

In Islamic folklore, the Persian historian Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (c. 915) recounts a Persian tradition that Gomer lived to the age of 1000, noting that this record equalled that of Nimrod, but was unsurpassed by anyone else mentioned in the Torah.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomer

btw. Serians/Seres whom I believe to be ancestors of I2a2 Serbs also lived long
The Greek geographer Strabo mentioned the Seres in his "Geographia", written early in the 1st century, in two passages. He also alludes to the longevity of the Seres, said to exceed two hundred years, and quotes from "some writers":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seres

btw. you can read more on Serians of Seneca e.g. here
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=362464&postcount=17
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=362515&postcount=22
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=363170&postcount=122

I think that spread of haplogroup I started in Persia in province of Kerman
Historical documents refer to Kerman as "Karmania", "Kermania", "Germania" and "Žermanya", which means bravery and combat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerman_province

for more details see http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=361413&postcount=25

The modern-day Georgian word for hero, გმირი, gmiri, is derived from the word Gimirri.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians

The Hebrew name Gomer is widely considered to refer to the Cimmerians (Akkadian Gimirru, "complete"), who dwelt on the Eurasian Steppes[4] and attacked Assyria in the late 7th century BC. The Assyrians called them Gimmerai ; the Cimmerian king Teushpa was defeated by Assarhadon of Assyria sometime between 681 and 668 BC.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomer

The Cimmerian occupation of Lydia was brief, however, possibly due to an outbreak of plague. Between 637 and 626 BC, they were beaten back by Alyattes II of Lydia. This defeat marked the effective end of Cimmerian power. The term Gimirri was used about a century later in the Behistun inscription (ca. 515 BC) as a Babylonian equivalent of Persian Saka (Scythians). Otherwise Cimmerians disappeared from western Asian historical accounts, and their fate was unknown. It has been speculated that they settled in Cappadocia, known in Armenian as Գամիրք, Gamir-kʿ (the same name as the original Cimmerian homeland in Mannae).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians

Gomer island in Cappadocia in Asia minor and north of Black sea are today I2a2 areas...

402px-Noahsworld_map.png


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Noahsworld_map.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Noahsworld_map.jpg

Haplogroup_I2a.gif




The medieval myth of Partholon says that his followers were the first to invade Ireland after the flood, but the Fomorians were already there: Seathrún Céitinn reports a tradition that the Fomorians, led by Cíocal, had arrived two hundred years earlier and lived on fish and fowl until Partholon came, bringing the plough and oxen. Partholon defeated Cíocal in the Battle of Magh Ithe, but all his people later died of plague.
Then came Nemed and his followers. Ireland is said to have been empty for thirty years following the death of Partholon's people, but Nemed and his followers encountered the Fomorians when they arrived. At this point Céitinn reports another tradition that the Fomorians were seafarers from Africa, descended from Noah's son Ham. Nemed defeated them in several battles, killing their leaders Gann (1) and Sengann (1) (note that there were two Fir Bolg kings of the same name), but two new Fomorian leaders arose: Conand son of Faebar, who lived in Conand's Tower on Tory Island, County Donegal, and Morc son of Dela (note that the first generation of the Fir Bolg were also said to be sons of Dela).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomorians

seafarers may be related to sea peoples...but it also can be about haplogroup E spread from Africa, also because they do origin from Noah's son Ham, while Gomer is son of Noah's son Japhet...

link to fir-Bolgars is interesting... as Bulgars are also among south Slavs and I2a2 is somewhat concentrated in South Slavs...
besides I personally think that names Serbs, Macedonians, Bulgars might be derived from mythical queen of Sheba who was in south of her country known as Makeda, and among Arabs as Balkis....
proto-Bulgars are supposed to be non-Slavic people who were akin to Huns and Avars and took over language from Slavic people over whom they rulled...however some medieval chronicle of south Slavs claims that south Slavs are Goths and that Bulgars did speak same language as them...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_the_Priest_of_Duklja
btw. south Slavs are not Goths...Goths were perhaps I1 or R1b dominant...Slavs are according to Jordanes of Veneti race and I have elsewhere shown indications for that....

Serians might be same as Cimmerians though...and Veneti might be offspring of Cimmerians/Gomer as well...
Riphath (ree-fath)- a crusher, Gomer's second son (Gen. 10:3, 1 Chronicles 1:6), supposed by Josephus to have been the ancestor of the Paphlagonians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riphath

....at the present time, they say, there are no Eneti to be seen in Paphlagonia, though some say that there is a village12 on the Aegialus13 ten schoeni14 distant from Amastris. But Zenodotus writes "from Enete,"15 and says that Homer clearly indicates the Amisus of today. And others say that a tribe called Eneti, bordering on the Cappadocians, made an expedition with the Cimmerians and then were driven out to the Adriatic Sea.16 But the thing upon which there is general agreement is, that the Eneti, to whom Pylaemenes belonged, were the most notable tribe of the Paphlagonians, and that, furthermore, these made the expedition with him in very great numbers, but, losing their leader, crossed over to Thrace after the capture of Troy, and on their wanderings went to the Enetian country,17 as it is now called. According to some writers, Antenor and his children took part in this expedition and settled at the recess of the Adriatic, as mentioned by me in my account of Italy.18 It is therefore reasonable to suppose that it was on this account that the Eneti disappeared and are not to be seen in Paphlagonia. [9]
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...98:book=12:chapter=3&highlight=thracian,eneti

I hold that Eneti separated in Thrace giving Vistula Veneti, Adriatic Veneti and Sarmatian Venedi (who are likely same as Antes)
 
Earliest in Ireland? I don't see how that can be.

The distribution of Isles B is much underrepresented in Ireland such that I think they did not go to Ireland at all until recently in the plantations and such of the past few hundreds of years.

If Isles B had gone to Ireland back around the time of Doggerland, they should outnumber the C and D in Ireland. But they don't. In fact, they are rather scarce looking to Aiden's map.

Who went to Ireland? Isles C did, that seems clear. When did they go? Sometime after their founding about 4,000 BC. Shall we guess 3,500 BC? That would give them barely enough time to build up a population and migrate the distance. It would seem to rule them out as being among the earliest post-LGM settlers, though.

The earliest people in Ireland got there about 7,000 BC, which is a very long time before the Isles C even existed. When the C arrived, the place was already pretty well populated and their migrating band(s) would have found itself as a tiny minority in the general population, therefore subject to being assimilated.

The things I find on the Cruthin date them from times pre-Roman through to the Middle Ages. All of these times are about 3,000 years after C arrived in Ireland. So whoever the Cruthin were, Isles C were pre-Cruthin.

To postulate that Isles were earliest post-LGM and Cruthin requires several very shaky assumptions:
• that Isles B got to Ireland. If so why such small numbers now?
• that their offshoots, the Isles C and D, replaced them somehow.
• that they populated well enough to form a large and powerful tribe and they did it in the midst of other people who did not share that success.
• that then they drastically shrunk down to their present 1% or 2% share of the population.

So here is the timeline:

7000 BC earliest post-LGM settlers.
3500 BC Isles C arrives in Ireland as a small migrating band.
500 BC Cruthin either arrive or develop from the indigenous peoples
500 BC Celts begin to arrive.

The time suggests that the burden of proof is to show that the Cruthin were not Celts, rather than the other way around.

Perhaps the people of Rathcroghan adopted Cruthin/Celtic culture the way the Khazars may have adopted Judaism.
 
Earliest in Ireland? I don't see how that can be.

The distribution of Isles B is much underrepresented in Ireland such that I think they did not go to Ireland at all until recently in the plantations and such of the past few hundreds of years.

If Isles B had gone to Ireland back around the time of Doggerland, they should outnumber the C and D in Ireland. But they don't. In fact, they are rather scarce looking to Aiden's map.

Who went to Ireland? Isles C did, that seems clear. When did they go? Sometime after their founding about 4,000 BC. Shall we guess 3,500 BC? That would give them barely enough time to build up a population and migrate the distance. It would seem to rule them out as being among the earliest post-LGM settlers, though.

The earliest people in Ireland got there about 7,000 BC, which is a very long time before the Isles C even existed. When the C arrived, the place was already pretty well populated and their migrating band(s) would have found itself as a tiny minority in the general population, therefore subject to being assimilated.

The things I find on the Cruthin date them from times pre-Roman through to the Middle Ages. All of these times are about 3,000 years after C arrived in Ireland. So whoever the Cruthin were, Isles C were pre-Cruthin.

To postulate that Isles were earliest post-LGM and Cruthin requires several very shaky assumptions:
• that Isles B got to Ireland. If so why such small numbers now?
• that their offshoots, the Isles C and D, replaced them somehow.
• that they populated well enough to form a large and powerful tribe and they did it in the midst of other people who did not share that success.
• that then they drastically shrunk down to their present 1% or 2% share of the population.

So here is the timeline:

7000 BC earliest post-LGM settlers.
3500 BC Isles C arrives in Ireland as a small migrating band.
500 BC Cruthin either arrive or develop from the indigenous peoples
500 BC Celts begin to arrive.

The time suggests that the burden of proof is to show that the Cruthin were not Celts, rather than the other way around.

Perhaps the people of Rathcroghan adopted Cruthin/Celtic culture the way the Khazars may have adopted Judaism.

According to Nordtvedt, Isles B got to Ireland around 6,000-7,000 years ago from the north German plain and he has conjectured that C and D were 'born' in Ireland.

If you read any of Ian Adamson's books on the Cruthin [eg, 'The Ancient Kindred'], you will encounter vigorous arguments in favour of the Cruthin as the very earliest settlers in Ireland. Adamson puts many accounts of the Cruthin down to Gaelic hegemony etc.
 
Yes, "conjectured", and he could be right. I am not one to disagree at all with KN on facts, but conjecture is another matter.

That scenario requires answers to the questions:
How is it that C and D got back to England and came to outnumber B there?
Why do C and D outnumber B in Ireland, especially considering "plantation effect"?

"It appears that M26 I2a1 got to the shores before L161 I2a2b-Isles, and maybe I2b1a-English might have" Yep, and others too?

I think we agree on this:

Our folk were not first into Ireland, but they were pretty early - a very long time before the famous later invaders.

Certainly there was an indigenous culture. Whether it is the same one that is later identified as Cruthin is a question that time and archaeology may yet resolve.

Here is the problem I have: How could our small group have become so populous that all by themselves they became a large and powerful people and then nearly disappeared?

I think the "all by themselves" may be the problem. A large and powerful culture is generally an amalgam of all the smaller cultures found in that geography. That is how empire building works - the smaller groups are absorbed or they are killed. Our guys were not killed off, at least not entirely.

I agree that our folks were a part of that large powerful culture, but it was not exclusively our folks.

This may be a just semantic situation.
---------
It seems clear that D was born in Ireland, but it does not seem clear at all that C was.

Doggerland+Isles+B.gif
 
Last edited:
JD,
Are you sure that C and D outnumber B in England? I thought that there was more B.

According to Nordtvedt, C was 'born' in Ireland and D is an off-shoot of C.
 
JD,
Are you sure that C and D outnumber B in England? I thought that there was more B.

According to Nordtvedt, C was 'born' in Ireland and D is an off-shoot of C.
I am not sure. That idea is admittedly based on the partial data on Aiden's map, compounded by the very severe lack of knowledge among those individuals reporting samples as to where those data points actually belong. Then there may be substantial data bias by multiple samples from closely related family members. We are many samples and a long time from being able to draw any really firm conclusions.

If C were born in Ireland, then there seems to have been a truly astonishing amount of migration from Ireland to England. That seems the reverse of the generally accepted view of the situation, doesn't it?

I think KN made that conjecture quite some time back and he was careful to note that it was not an established fact. With more data having come in and different ideas floated around, I wonder if he still holds that view. It hasn't been all that long since this was considered an almost exclusively Irish clade. The addition of the English and Scottish and the continentals has caused major revisions to that view and to all the associated hypotheses. Except for those of Mr. Sykes who seems to hold firm despite new information that seems to completely undermine some of them, at least for L161.
 
I am not sure. That idea is admittedly based on the partial data on Aiden's map, compounded by the very severe lack of knowledge among those individuals reporting samples as to where those data points actually belong. Then there may be substantial data bias by multiple samples from closely related family members. We are many samples and a long time from being able to draw any really firm conclusions.

If C were born in Ireland, then there seems to have been a truly astonishing amount of migration from Ireland to England. That seems the reverse of the generally accepted view of the situation, doesn't it?

I think KN made that conjecture quite some time back and he was careful to note that it was not an established fact. With more data having come in and different ideas floated around, I wonder if he still holds that view. It hasn't been all that long since this was considered an almost exclusively Irish clade. The addition of the English and Scottish and the continentals has caused major revisions to that view and to all the associated hypotheses. Except for those of Mr. Sykes who seems to hold firm despite new information that seems to completely undermine some of them, at least for L161.

There has been a lot of migration between Britain and Ireland over the last thousand years, to say the least. However, some of the Cs and Ds in England/Scotland have non-Irish surnames. The same goes for some of the Cs and Ds on the continent. There is a 'Krause' from Germany in D, for example. There are a fair few English and Scots surnames in there. I don't know what to make of this yet. What I do know, based on the continentals and English/Scots distribution, is that we cannot any longer regard L161 I2a2b-Isles as exclusively Irish. I wonder if the 'Isles' tag will apply in a few years time too when hopefully we have more data and more snps to work with?
 
There has been a lot of migration between Britain and Ireland over the last thousand years, to say the least. However, some of the Cs and Ds in England/Scotland have non-Irish surnames. The same goes for some of the Cs and Ds on the continent. There is a 'Krause' from Germany in D, for example. There are a fair few English and Scots surnames in there. I don't know what to make of this yet. What I do know, based on the continentals and English/Scots distribution, is that we cannot any longer regard L161 I2a2b-Isles as exclusively Irish. I wonder if the 'Isles' tag will apply in a few years time too when hopefully we have more data and more snps to work with?
Yes, there has been quite a bit of back and forth, but that wasn't what I was trying to say. Surnames are, I think, really irrelevant. That there is a D with a German name is not a surprise. Could be the result of a meeting between an Irishman on a walk-about or a sailor and a friendly German maid. And If that meeting had happened in the millenia before surnames, the result would still be a German surname. Or if they got married an Irish surname. For now, I would consider these to be outliers, but more data could certainly change that. For Isles B, the "Isles" part now does seem slightly wrong with 25% of the B being on the continent.

Let's assume, for lack of better information, that Aiden's map does represent the approximate distribution of C. It looks like about half of them are in Ireland and the other half on Britain, with a few outliers.

If C were born in Ireland, that would mean that something like half the population of C moved out of Ireland to Britain. And I think we are not able to suggest why it would be only the C moving east. The rest of the population mix would likewise have moved east - some kind of mass migration.

Half! I don't think even the famine gets to that kind of numbers moving east to England, does it? To Boston and New York, maybe, but England?

Much simpler to consider that C was born in England and, early on while the total numbers were still small, some of them moved on to Ireland. We would get the split distribution without having to postulate some great migration back to Britain. Ockham's razor.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 104409 times.

Back
Top