Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
siabair
Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
[Links copied from the contributions of others to another group]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... 72,00.html
'Geneticists have identified Ireland's most successful alpha male. As
many as one in 12 Irish men could be descended from Niall of the Nine
Hostages, a 5th-century warlord, according to research conducted at
Trinity College Dublin'
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/j ... 32/brief/4
3032.abstract.html
'Seventeen-marker simple tandem repeat genetic analysis of Irish Y
chromosomes reveals a previously unnoted modal haplotype that peaks in
frequency in the northwestern part of the island. It shows a significant
association with surnames purported to have descended from the most
important and enduring dynasty of early medieval Ireland, the Uí Néill.
This suggests that such phylogenetic predominance is a biological record
of past hegemony and supports the veracity of semimythological early
genealogies. The fact that about one in five males sampled in
northwestern Ireland is likely a patrilineal descendent of a single
early medieval ancestor is a powerful illustration of the potential link
between prolificacy and power and of how Y-chromosome phylogeography can
be influenced by social selection'
--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost, 'phantom', 'spectre'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... 72,00.html
'Geneticists have identified Ireland's most successful alpha male. As
many as one in 12 Irish men could be descended from Niall of the Nine
Hostages, a 5th-century warlord, according to research conducted at
Trinity College Dublin'
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/j ... 32/brief/4
3032.abstract.html
'Seventeen-marker simple tandem repeat genetic analysis of Irish Y
chromosomes reveals a previously unnoted modal haplotype that peaks in
frequency in the northwestern part of the island. It shows a significant
association with surnames purported to have descended from the most
important and enduring dynasty of early medieval Ireland, the Uí Néill.
This suggests that such phylogenetic predominance is a biological record
of past hegemony and supports the veracity of semimythological early
genealogies. The fact that about one in five males sampled in
northwestern Ireland is likely a patrilineal descendent of a single
early medieval ancestor is a powerful illustration of the potential link
between prolificacy and power and of how Y-chromosome phylogeography can
be influenced by social selection'
--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost, 'phantom', 'spectre'
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
siabair wrote:
As with the 'Somerled haplotype', they are overinterpreting the data to
suggest that everyone with the haplotype descends from Niall. Were you
to accept that this is his lineage, it would only show a descent from
his male kin-group. Given what happens in tribal societies, this may,
even in his own time, have represented a significant portion of his people.
Of couse, the Irish genealogies show all of the rulers of all of the
dynasties to be descended from the same male line . . . .
taf
[Links copied from the contributions of others to another group]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... 72,00.html
'Geneticists have identified Ireland's most successful alpha male. As
many as one in 12 Irish men could be descended from Niall of the Nine
Hostages, a 5th-century warlord, according to research conducted at
Trinity College Dublin'
As with the 'Somerled haplotype', they are overinterpreting the data to
suggest that everyone with the haplotype descends from Niall. Were you
to accept that this is his lineage, it would only show a descent from
his male kin-group. Given what happens in tribal societies, this may,
even in his own time, have represented a significant portion of his people.
Of couse, the Irish genealogies show all of the rulers of all of the
dynasties to be descended from the same male line . . . .
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
< Of couse, the Irish genealogies show all of the rulers of all of the
< dynasties to be descended from the same male line . . . .
<
< taf
Maybe they were.
dr
< Of couse, the Irish genealogies show all of the rulers of all of the
< dynasties to be descended from the same male line . . . .
<
< taf
Maybe they were.
dr
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I would say it is about as (un)likely as all of the Anglo-Saxon royal
lines actually tracing to Woden.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Of couse, the Irish genealogies show all of the rulers of all of the
dynasties to be descended from the same male line . . . .
taf
Maybe they were.
I would say it is about as (un)likely as all of the Anglo-Saxon royal
lines actually tracing to Woden.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
< I would say it is about as (un)likely as all of the Anglo-Saxon royal
< lines actually tracing to Woden.
<
< taf
Maybe they do.
dr
< lines actually tracing to Woden.
<
< taf
Maybe they do.
dr
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
It's FAR worse with Niall, since his purported haplotype is
far more common, and far closer to the whole-population modal.
Somerled, being R1a, is in a far smaller population segment
just because of that (only a few percent in Scotland), and
he has several markers, especially YCAIIb, that are quite rare.
Doug McDonald
siabair wrote:
[Links copied from the contributions of others to another group]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... 72,00.html
'Geneticists have identified Ireland's most successful alpha male. As
many as one in 12 Irish men could be descended from Niall of the Nine
Hostages, a 5th-century warlord, according to research conducted at
Trinity College Dublin'
As with the 'Somerled haplotype', they are overinterpreting the data to
suggest that everyone with the haplotype descends from Niall.
It's FAR worse with Niall, since his purported haplotype is
far more common, and far closer to the whole-population modal.
Somerled, being R1a, is in a far smaller population segment
just because of that (only a few percent in Scotland), and
he has several markers, especially YCAIIb, that are quite rare.
Doug McDonald
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Douglas Richardson wrote:
Yes, and maybe Bjorn Bearsson was actually son of a bear.
I would say it is about as (un)likely as all of the Anglo-Saxon royal
lines actually tracing to Woden.
Maybe they do.
Yes, and maybe Bjorn Bearsson was actually son of a bear.
-
siabair
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Whatever you might think about marking everyone in the world with this
haplotype as a 'descendant of Niall' the marked localisation of the
haplotype in the northwest of Ireland among males of certain families
with documentary male line genealogies showing common ancestry in Niall
is very significant. Doesn't Occam's Razor suggest that we should not
assume the common ancestry is other than that which is documented?
The complete body of Irish medieval genealogies trace back to many early
historical progenitors. That these were subsequently given common
ancestry to integrate them into the Christian idea of history with
ultimate descent from Adam is neither here nor there.
--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost, 'phantom', 'spectre'
As with the 'Somerled haplotype', they are overinterpreting the data
to suggest that everyone with the haplotype descends from Niall.
Were you to accept that this is his lineage, it would only show a
descent from
his male kin-group. Given what happens in tribal societies, this may,
even in his own time, have represented a significant portion of his
people.
Whatever you might think about marking everyone in the world with this
haplotype as a 'descendant of Niall' the marked localisation of the
haplotype in the northwest of Ireland among males of certain families
with documentary male line genealogies showing common ancestry in Niall
is very significant. Doesn't Occam's Razor suggest that we should not
assume the common ancestry is other than that which is documented?
Of couse, the Irish genealogies show all of the rulers of all of the
dynasties to be descended from the same male line . . . .
The complete body of Irish medieval genealogies trace back to many early
historical progenitors. That these were subsequently given common
ancestry to integrate them into the Christian idea of history with
ultimate descent from Adam is neither here nor there.
--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost, 'phantom', 'spectre'
-
siabair
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Doug McDonald wrote:
This seems to ignore the marked geographical/genealogical localisation
of the 'Niall haplotype'.
--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost, 'phantom', 'spectre'
It's FAR worse with Niall, since his purported haplotype is
far more common, and far closer to the whole-population modal.
Somerled, being R1a, is in a far smaller population segment
just because of that (only a few percent in Scotland), and
he has several markers, especially YCAIIb, that are quite rare.
This seems to ignore the marked geographical/genealogical localisation
of the 'Niall haplotype'.
--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost, 'phantom', 'spectre'
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
siabair wrote:
Occam's Razor is a tool, not a rule, but to answer your question, no.
Given the general nature of genealogies written in the 10th century
purporting to trace to the 5th, I don't think you can automatically give
them the benefit of the doubt. Further, the same genealogies show
descents from Niall's brother, and he too would have the same haplotype.
What is to say that any particular person with the DNA markers
descends from Niall and not his brother, uncle or
third-cousin-twice-removed? Depending on the original social structure
the entire 'tribe' Niall led could have represented the descendants of a
warband made up of a group of brothers, nephews, and cousins along with
their wives and children, and hence many members of the 'tribe' at
Niall's time could have had the same Y haplotype, and equally be
candidates as potential male-line ancestors (and not coincidentally,
they would have been from the same geographic locality as Niall). After
the fact, who is a 10th century family derived from this group likely to
choose to trace their descent from? Niall, the tribal hero, or the
third-cousin-twice-removed?
Lest someone misinterpret this: individual pedigrees must be evaluated
on their own, and if they prove a descent from Niall, the DNA is
superfluous. At least one (really two from different sons) such
pedigree must be upheld in order to conclude that the potential ancestor
in question even belonged to the haplogroup being studied. If the
pedigree does not stand up to critical scrutiny, the DNA cannot serve as
a proxy to 'prove' that they have such a descent, because it only
identifies the agnatic kinship group to which one belongs, not specific
ancestors.
But some of the lines traced to 'early historic progenitors' were done
so 'creatively'.
That these were subsequently given common
It was not just to trace to Adam that they were linked, but to show
common descent from a unified Irish foundation legend and hence their
rights to rule as representatives of the original foundation. These
founders were then traced to Adam to fit in with the Christian ideal.
It is a similar pattern to that seen elsewhere. The Anglo-Saxon rulers
are all forged back to Woden. Then Woden is forged back to Geat (the
'ancestor' of all of the Germanic Goths), then Geat is forged back to
Adam. These are sequential steps in the process, and the pedigree did
not yet lead to Adam at the time the shared links to Woden were created.
I don't expect the Irish to have been any different.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
As with the 'Somerled haplotype', they are overinterpreting the data
to suggest that everyone with the haplotype descends from Niall.
Were you to accept that this is his lineage, it would only show a
descent from
his male kin-group. Given what happens in tribal societies, this may,
even in his own time, have represented a significant portion of his
people.
Whatever you might think about marking everyone in the world with this
haplotype as a 'descendant of Niall' the marked localisation of the
haplotype in the northwest of Ireland among males of certain families
with documentary male line genealogies showing common ancestry in Niall
is very significant. Doesn't Occam's Razor suggest that we should not
assume the common ancestry is other than that which is documented?
Occam's Razor is a tool, not a rule, but to answer your question, no.
Given the general nature of genealogies written in the 10th century
purporting to trace to the 5th, I don't think you can automatically give
them the benefit of the doubt. Further, the same genealogies show
descents from Niall's brother, and he too would have the same haplotype.
What is to say that any particular person with the DNA markers
descends from Niall and not his brother, uncle or
third-cousin-twice-removed? Depending on the original social structure
the entire 'tribe' Niall led could have represented the descendants of a
warband made up of a group of brothers, nephews, and cousins along with
their wives and children, and hence many members of the 'tribe' at
Niall's time could have had the same Y haplotype, and equally be
candidates as potential male-line ancestors (and not coincidentally,
they would have been from the same geographic locality as Niall). After
the fact, who is a 10th century family derived from this group likely to
choose to trace their descent from? Niall, the tribal hero, or the
third-cousin-twice-removed?
Lest someone misinterpret this: individual pedigrees must be evaluated
on their own, and if they prove a descent from Niall, the DNA is
superfluous. At least one (really two from different sons) such
pedigree must be upheld in order to conclude that the potential ancestor
in question even belonged to the haplogroup being studied. If the
pedigree does not stand up to critical scrutiny, the DNA cannot serve as
a proxy to 'prove' that they have such a descent, because it only
identifies the agnatic kinship group to which one belongs, not specific
ancestors.
Of couse, the Irish genealogies show all of the rulers of all of the
dynasties to be descended from the same male line . . . .
The complete body of Irish medieval genealogies trace back to many early
historical progenitors.
But some of the lines traced to 'early historic progenitors' were done
so 'creatively'.
That these were subsequently given common
ancestry to integrate them into the Christian idea of history with
ultimate descent from Adam is neither here nor there.
It was not just to trace to Adam that they were linked, but to show
common descent from a unified Irish foundation legend and hence their
rights to rule as representatives of the original foundation. These
founders were then traced to Adam to fit in with the Christian ideal.
It is a similar pattern to that seen elsewhere. The Anglo-Saxon rulers
are all forged back to Woden. Then Woden is forged back to Geat (the
'ancestor' of all of the Germanic Goths), then Geat is forged back to
Adam. These are sequential steps in the process, and the pedigree did
not yet lead to Adam at the time the shared links to Woden were created.
I don't expect the Irish to have been any different.
taf
-
Douglas Richardson
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
< Occam's Razor is a tool, not a rule.
Around here Occam's Razor is only cited when one poster thinks his
theory is better than someone else's. Otherwise it is ignored.
I find that when posters do mention Occam's Razor, they are usually
guilty of trying to oversimplify something that in reality is very
complex. So, Occam's Razor, while worthwhile, has limited usefulness,
both as a debating technique and in practicality. Only if simple
matters are being discussed can it be used correctly.
The current subject of DNA and its genealogical applications seems far
too complex to me for Occam's Razor to be applied to it.
dr
< Occam's Razor is a tool, not a rule.
taf
Around here Occam's Razor is only cited when one poster thinks his
theory is better than someone else's. Otherwise it is ignored.
I find that when posters do mention Occam's Razor, they are usually
guilty of trying to oversimplify something that in reality is very
complex. So, Occam's Razor, while worthwhile, has limited usefulness,
both as a debating technique and in practicality. Only if simple
matters are being discussed can it be used correctly.
The current subject of DNA and its genealogical applications seems far
too complex to me for Occam's Razor to be applied to it.
dr
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Dear Todd,
You have Polarised that well
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
You have Polarised that well
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I would say it is about as (un)likely as all of the Anglo-Saxon royal
lines actually tracing to Woden.
Maybe they do.
Yes, and maybe Bjorn Bearsson was actually son of a bear.
-
siabair
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
siabair wrote:
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
As with the 'Somerled haplotype', they are overinterpreting the data
to suggest that everyone with the haplotype descends from Niall.
Were you to accept that this is his lineage, it would only show a
descent from his male kin-group. Given what happens in tribal
societies, this may, even in his own time, have represented a
significant portion of his people.
Whatever you might think about marking everyone in the world with
this haplotype as a 'descendant of Niall' the marked localisation of
the haplotype in the northwest of Ireland among males of certain
families with documentary male line genealogies showing common
ancestry in Niall is very significant. Doesn't Occam's Razor suggest
that we should not assume the common ancestry is other than that
which is documented?
Occam's Razor is a tool, not a rule, but to answer your question, no.
Given the general nature of genealogies written in the 10th century
purporting to trace to the 5th, I don't think you can automatically
give them the benefit of the doubt. Further, the same genealogies
show descents from Niall's brother, and he too would have the same
haplotype. What is to say that any particular person with the DNA
markers
descends from Niall and not his brother, uncle or
third-cousin-twice-removed? Depending on the original social
structure the entire 'tribe' Niall led could have represented the
descendants of a warband made up of a group of brothers, nephews, and
cousins along with their wives and children, and hence many members
of the 'tribe' at Niall's time could have had the same Y haplotype,
and equally be candidates as potential male-line ancestors (and not
coincidentally, they would have been from the same geographic
locality as Niall). After the fact, who is a 10th century family
derived from this group likely to choose to trace their descent from?
Niall, the tribal hero, or the third-cousin-twice-removed?
Lest someone misinterpret this: individual pedigrees must be evaluated
on their own, and if they prove a descent from Niall, the DNA is
superfluous. At least one (really two from different sons) such
pedigree must be upheld in order to conclude that the potential
ancestor in question even belonged to the haplogroup being studied.
If the pedigree does not stand up to critical scrutiny, the DNA
cannot serve as a proxy to 'prove' that they have such a descent,
because it only identifies the agnatic kinship group to which one
belongs, not specific ancestors.
Of couse, the Irish genealogies show all of the rulers of all of the
dynasties to be descended from the same male line . . . .
The complete body of Irish medieval genealogies trace back to many
early historical progenitors.
But some of the lines traced to 'early historic progenitors' were done
so 'creatively'.
That these were subsequently given common
ancestry to integrate them into the Christian idea of history with
ultimate descent from Adam is neither here nor there.
It was not just to trace to Adam that they were linked, but to show
common descent from a unified Irish foundation legend and hence their
rights to rule as representatives of the original foundation. These
founders were then traced to Adam to fit in with the Christian ideal.
It is a similar pattern to that seen elsewhere. The Anglo-Saxon
rulers are all forged back to Woden. Then Woden is forged back to
Geat (the 'ancestor' of all of the Germanic Goths), then Geat is
forged back to Adam. These are sequential steps in the process, and
the pedigree did not yet lead to Adam at the time the shared links to
Woden were created. I don't expect the Irish to have been any
different.
taf
-
Terry
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
But more likely the son of a Bear, was this a common name?
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Terry L. Mair
Mair's Photography
158 South 580 East
Midway, Utah 84049
435-654-3607
http://www.mairsphotography.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I would say it is about as (un)likely as all of the Anglo-Saxon royal
lines actually tracing to Woden.
Maybe they do.
Yes, and maybe Bjorn Bearsson was actually son of a bear.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Terry wrote:
Actually, Bjorn means 'bear'. I was being facetious, but in fact the
theory is that he was Berasson, son of Bera, a woman's name.
taf
But more likely the son of a Bear, was this a common name?
Actually, Bjorn means 'bear'. I was being facetious, but in fact the
theory is that he was Berasson, son of Bera, a woman's name.
taf
----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd A. Farmerie"
farmerie@interfold.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Douglas Richardson wrote:
I would say it is about as (un)likely as all of the Anglo-Saxon royal
lines actually tracing to Woden.
Maybe they do.
Yes, and maybe Bjorn Bearsson was actually son of a bear.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
siabair wrote:
Some of the pedigrees are so supported. Others are not. What I want is
for each to be evaluated on its own merits.
Going back to the original issue, the story claimed that X% of Irish
descended from Niall. Certainly that same percent don't have pedigrees
tracing back to Niall. You seem to be saying that because some who can
legitimately trace to Niall might have this haplotype that everyone who
has this haplotype traces from Niall. This is like "all whales are
mammals so all mammals are whales" thinking.
Umm, then why would the later Wessex kings apparently forge male-line
descents from Cerdic? Niall, as founder of the dynasty, was the one
from whom they all, even the usurpers, must trace to 'justify' their
position.
But that is more or less the case - if you have a valid pedigree, the
DNA doesn't make it 'more valider'. If you don't have a valid pedigree,
you still don't after you include the DNA.
But there would be no need for all of the royal pedigrees to trace from
Heremon and Scotia and the foundation legend if it was just about
connecting with Adam.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Given the general nature of genealogies written in the 10th century
purporting to trace to the 5th, I don't think you can automatically
give them the benefit of the doubt.
Even assuming that this pessimistic dating is correct (and the body of
medieval Irish genealogies contain stratifiation indicating periodic
updating since the 7th century) the filiations obtain confirmation from
patronymics in annals maintained contemporaneously since around 550AD.
Many in this group would have no qualms creating the genealogy of an
Anglo-Norman baron from scratch using the type of material found in
these annals. Medieval Irish genealogy offers genuine medieval
genealogical texts cross-referenced to a seperate document tradition,
generations counted, etc. How much more do you want?
Some of the pedigrees are so supported. Others are not. What I want is
for each to be evaluated on its own merits.
Going back to the original issue, the story claimed that X% of Irish
descended from Niall. Certainly that same percent don't have pedigrees
tracing back to Niall. You seem to be saying that because some who can
legitimately trace to Niall might have this haplotype that everyone who
has this haplotype traces from Niall. This is like "all whales are
mammals so all mammals are whales" thinking.
After the fact, who is a 10th century family
derived from this group likely to choose to trace their descent from?
Niall, the tribal hero, or the third-cousin-twice-removed?
You ignore the stratifiation indicating periodic updating since the 7th
century. You are also missing an important dynamic. Ruling groups
segment and the genealogical imperative for the competing segments is to
define a closer and more exclusive descent from a more recent common
ancestor than that of the wider group. Power transmits from the
near-present rather than the remote past. In a 10th century context a
descent from Niall is unremarkable.
Umm, then why would the later Wessex kings apparently forge male-line
descents from Cerdic? Niall, as founder of the dynasty, was the one
from whom they all, even the usurpers, must trace to 'justify' their
position.
Lest someone misinterpret this: individual pedigrees must be evaluated
on their own, and if they prove a descent from Niall, the DNA is
superfluous. At least one (really two from different sons) such
pedigree must be upheld in order to conclude that the potential
ancestor in question even belonged to the haplogroup being studied.
If the pedigree does not stand up to critical scrutiny, the DNA
cannot serve as a proxy to 'prove' that they have such a descent,
because it only identifies the agnatic kinship group to which one
belongs, not specific ancestors.
You seem to be creating a scenario of choice in which either the DNA is
irrelevant or the genealogy is invalid.
But that is more or less the case - if you have a valid pedigree, the
DNA doesn't make it 'more valider'. If you don't have a valid pedigree,
you still don't after you include the DNA.
It was not just to trace to Adam that they were linked, but to show
common descent from a unified Irish foundation legend and hence their
rights to rule as representatives of the original foundation. These
founders were then traced to Adam to fit in with the Christian ideal.
It is a similar pattern to that seen elsewhere. The Anglo-Saxon
rulers are all forged back to Woden. Then Woden is forged back to
Geat (the 'ancestor' of all of the Germanic Goths), then Geat is
forged back to Adam. These are sequential steps in the process, and
the pedigree did not yet lead to Adam at the time the shared links to
Woden were created. I don't expect the Irish to have been any
different.
They were different. The Irish origin legend as we have it was based
from the outset on the Christian idea of history as given by Isidore of
Seville.
But there would be no need for all of the royal pedigrees to trace from
Heremon and Scotia and the foundation legend if it was just about
connecting with Adam.
taf
-
siabair
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
I cannot disagree with that. It just seems to me that the medieval Irish
genealogies (and I mean only those in the historical period) are too
easily dismissed out of hand as being fabulous without any real
understanding of the degree of confirmation that they obtain from other
document strands. I am not sure that the methodology to be adopted when
a medieval genealogy actually exists in the first place is really
understood here.
I do not claim that. I claim that the marked haplotype localisation
among families in a small area having pre-existing medieval genealogies
tracing to Niall is significant. I do not make any general claim on this
haplotype.
How many non-descendants of Alfred among the descendants of Cerdic were
subsequently kings of Wessex/England?
I would say that DNA can provide additional confirmation of a valid
pedigree.
What foundation legend? The Irish foundation legend (if any) that
existed prior to the Christian-inspired foundation legend that survives
to us is unknown. In the Christian-inspired foundation legend
convergence with biblical lines to Adam is achieved through a mixture of
individuals who appear to be legendary, mythological or fictional.
--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost, 'phantom', 'spectre'
Some of the pedigrees are so supported. Others are not. What I want
is for each to be evaluated on its own merits.
I cannot disagree with that. It just seems to me that the medieval Irish
genealogies (and I mean only those in the historical period) are too
easily dismissed out of hand as being fabulous without any real
understanding of the degree of confirmation that they obtain from other
document strands. I am not sure that the methodology to be adopted when
a medieval genealogy actually exists in the first place is really
understood here.
Going back to the original issue, the story claimed that X% of Irish
descended from Niall. Certainly that same percent don't have
pedigrees tracing back to Niall. You seem to be saying that because
some who can legitimately trace to Niall might have this haplotype
that everyone who has this haplotype traces from Niall. This is like
"all whales are mammals so all mammals are whales" thinking.
I do not claim that. I claim that the marked haplotype localisation
among families in a small area having pre-existing medieval genealogies
tracing to Niall is significant. I do not make any general claim on this
haplotype.
Umm, then why would the later Wessex kings apparently forge male-line
descents from Cerdic? Niall, as founder of the dynasty, was the one
from whom they all, even the usurpers, must trace to 'justify' their
position.
How many non-descendants of Alfred among the descendants of Cerdic were
subsequently kings of Wessex/England?
But that is more or less the case - if you have a valid pedigree, the
DNA doesn't make it 'more valider'. If you don't have a valid
pedigree, you still don't after you include the DNA.
I would say that DNA can provide additional confirmation of a valid
pedigree.
But there would be no need for all of the royal pedigrees to trace
from Heremon and Scotia and the foundation legend if it was just about
connecting with Adam.
What foundation legend? The Irish foundation legend (if any) that
existed prior to the Christian-inspired foundation legend that survives
to us is unknown. In the Christian-inspired foundation legend
convergence with biblical lines to Adam is achieved through a mixture of
individuals who appear to be legendary, mythological or fictional.
--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost, 'phantom', 'spectre'
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
siabair wrote:
I was talking about the ones before Ecgbert.
My only point here was that there was more to it than tracing to Adam
and fitting in with Isadore's concept of the peopling of the world -
there were also right-to-rule issues in linking in to these fabular
nation-founders.
taf
Umm, then why would the later Wessex kings apparently forge male-line
descents from Cerdic? Niall, as founder of the dynasty, was the one
from whom they all, even the usurpers, must trace to 'justify' their
position.
How many non-descendants of Alfred among the descendants of Cerdic were
subsequently kings of Wessex/England?
I was talking about the ones before Ecgbert.
But there would be no need for all of the royal pedigrees to trace
from Heremon and Scotia and the foundation legend if it was just about
connecting with Adam.
What foundation legend? The Irish foundation legend (if any) that
existed prior to the Christian-inspired foundation legend that survives
to us is unknown. In the Christian-inspired foundation legend
convergence with biblical lines to Adam is achieved through a mixture of
individuals who appear to be legendary, mythological or fictional.
My only point here was that there was more to it than tracing to Adam
and fitting in with Isadore's concept of the peopling of the world -
there were also right-to-rule issues in linking in to these fabular
nation-founders.
taf
-
siabair
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
In other words you see Anglo-Saxon genealogies that find no support in
any near-contemporary Anglo-Saxon annals as equivalent to Irish
genealogies that find frequent support in contemporary or
near-contemporary Irish annals. Hardly a valid equivalence I would have
thought.
So on what basis do you regard Niall as a fabular nation founder? By
analogy with Cerdic? The Iona Chronicle begun around 550AD has a
near-present portion populated with entries relating to the doings of
people described as sons and grandsons of Niall. Dumville (the
arch-sceptic and slayer of the notion of a historical Arthur) has
considered these early annals and states that it would be wise to treat
them with respect.
--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost, 'phantom', 'spectre'
I was talking about the ones before Ecgbert.
In other words you see Anglo-Saxon genealogies that find no support in
any near-contemporary Anglo-Saxon annals as equivalent to Irish
genealogies that find frequent support in contemporary or
near-contemporary Irish annals. Hardly a valid equivalence I would have
thought.
My only point here was that there was more to it than tracing to Adam
and fitting in with Isadore's concept of the peopling of the world -
there were also right-to-rule issues in linking in to these fabular
nation-founders.
So on what basis do you regard Niall as a fabular nation founder? By
analogy with Cerdic? The Iona Chronicle begun around 550AD has a
near-present portion populated with entries relating to the doings of
people described as sons and grandsons of Niall. Dumville (the
arch-sceptic and slayer of the notion of a historical Arthur) has
considered these early annals and states that it would be wise to treat
them with respect.
--
SIABAIR (Old Irish) /shabba/ 'ghost, 'phantom', 'spectre'
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
siabair wrote:
Umm, no. In other words, when the right to rule is vested in a
particular lineage, those without a descent are likely to 'acquire' one
(as apparently happened in some of the Wessex and Mercian lineages).
That is why it is important to evaluate the pedigrees based on the
support they find in contemporary or near-contemporary annals.
Evaluating pedigrees based on the quality or lack thereof of other
pedigrees is the antithesis of what I am suggesting.
I don't. I regard Heremon, Milesius and Scotia as fabular nation-founders.
Since I apparently have not made my positions clear, let me restate them.
1) The claim made in the news story that Niall has a lot of descendants
because of how common the markers are is invalid. The markers only
indicate descent from a male-kindred. This does not mean that no one
with the marker descends from Niall, and I am not questioning such a
descent for those with a valid pedigree, confirmed by the annals. It
only means that Niall himself was part of a larger male-kindred, and _in
the absence of a well-documented pedigree_, a family could just as well
have those markers because they descend from his brother or cousin - any
of the other members of this male kindred group in Niall's time.
2) Just because a family has a genealogy that traces them from Niall
doesn't make it valid, even if they also have the marker. It would not
be out of the realm of human behavior for a descendant of Niall's
kindred to 'upgrade' his pedigree by making himself a descendant of
Niall, or even of more rescent Niall-descended kings. Again, this does
not mean I think that all such pedigrees are invalid, some clearly are
valid. It just means I think each of these pedigrees needs to be
individually assessed, and that the DNA doesn't really help all that much.
3) That the invented lineages of the Irish kings, uniting with Heremon's
immediate family, served not only to link in with the developed
Christian traditions of the peopling of the globe after the flood, but
also served to provide the Irish royalty with a unified royal
right-claim, as descendants of Heremon and his immediate kin, as well as
codifying into a genealogical context the concept of national identity.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
I was talking about the ones before Ecgbert.
In other words you see Anglo-Saxon genealogies that find no support in
any near-contemporary Anglo-Saxon annals as equivalent to Irish
genealogies that find frequent support in contemporary or
near-contemporary Irish annals. Hardly a valid equivalence I would have
thought.
Umm, no. In other words, when the right to rule is vested in a
particular lineage, those without a descent are likely to 'acquire' one
(as apparently happened in some of the Wessex and Mercian lineages).
That is why it is important to evaluate the pedigrees based on the
support they find in contemporary or near-contemporary annals.
Evaluating pedigrees based on the quality or lack thereof of other
pedigrees is the antithesis of what I am suggesting.
My only point here was that there was more to it than tracing to Adam
and fitting in with Isadore's concept of the peopling of the world -
there were also right-to-rule issues in linking in to these fabular
nation-founders.
So on what basis do you regard Niall as a fabular nation founder?
I don't. I regard Heremon, Milesius and Scotia as fabular nation-founders.
Since I apparently have not made my positions clear, let me restate them.
1) The claim made in the news story that Niall has a lot of descendants
because of how common the markers are is invalid. The markers only
indicate descent from a male-kindred. This does not mean that no one
with the marker descends from Niall, and I am not questioning such a
descent for those with a valid pedigree, confirmed by the annals. It
only means that Niall himself was part of a larger male-kindred, and _in
the absence of a well-documented pedigree_, a family could just as well
have those markers because they descend from his brother or cousin - any
of the other members of this male kindred group in Niall's time.
2) Just because a family has a genealogy that traces them from Niall
doesn't make it valid, even if they also have the marker. It would not
be out of the realm of human behavior for a descendant of Niall's
kindred to 'upgrade' his pedigree by making himself a descendant of
Niall, or even of more rescent Niall-descended kings. Again, this does
not mean I think that all such pedigrees are invalid, some clearly are
valid. It just means I think each of these pedigrees needs to be
individually assessed, and that the DNA doesn't really help all that much.
3) That the invented lineages of the Irish kings, uniting with Heremon's
immediate family, served not only to link in with the developed
Christian traditions of the peopling of the globe after the flood, but
also served to provide the Irish royalty with a unified royal
right-claim, as descendants of Heremon and his immediate kin, as well as
codifying into a genealogical context the concept of national identity.
taf
-
Stewart Baldwin
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:15:38 -0000, "siabair" <siabair@h=tmail.c=m>
wrote:
This is just a popular media item, apparently written by somebody who
read the report, and then juiced it up by further (evidently low
quality) research. Pretty worthless, it seems to me.
This at least is the abstract of the paper claiming to give the
result. It will be interesting to see if the paper actually provides
supporting evidence, but the claimed conclusion ("supports the
veracity of semimythological early genealogies") is so strong and is
stated so casually that it invites skepticism, especially when the
abstract does not mention any historical or genealogical analysis
which would seem to be a prerequisite for such a conclusion.
Stewart Baldwin
wrote:
[Links copied from the contributions of others to another group]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... 72,00.html
'Geneticists have identified Ireland's most successful alpha male. As
many as one in 12 Irish men could be descended from Niall of the Nine
Hostages, a 5th-century warlord, according to research conducted at
Trinity College Dublin'
This is just a popular media item, apparently written by somebody who
read the report, and then juiced it up by further (evidently low
quality) research. Pretty worthless, it seems to me.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v78n2/43032/brief/4
3032.abstract.html
'Seventeen-marker simple tandem repeat genetic analysis of Irish Y
chromosomes reveals a previously unnoted modal haplotype that peaks in
frequency in the northwestern part of the island. It shows a significant
association with surnames purported to have descended from the most
important and enduring dynasty of early medieval Ireland, the Uí Néill.
This suggests that such phylogenetic predominance is a biological record
of past hegemony and supports the veracity of semimythological early
genealogies. The fact that about one in five males sampled in
northwestern Ireland is likely a patrilineal descendent of a single
early medieval ancestor is a powerful illustration of the potential link
between prolificacy and power and of how Y-chromosome phylogeography can
be influenced by social selection'
This at least is the abstract of the paper claiming to give the
result. It will be interesting to see if the paper actually provides
supporting evidence, but the claimed conclusion ("supports the
veracity of semimythological early genealogies") is so strong and is
stated so casually that it invites skepticism, especially when the
abstract does not mention any historical or genealogical analysis
which would seem to be a prerequisite for such a conclusion.
Stewart Baldwin
-
Stewart Baldwin
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
On 16 Jan 2006 21:40:38 -0800, "Douglas Richardson"
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
The fabrication of the pre-Christian part of the Irish pedigrees to
show a common male line descent has been well covered in the
literature, and given the evidence that these dynasties sprung from
different population groups, the common descent myth is a very
unrealistic scenario.
Stewart Baldwin
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote:
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
Of couse, the Irish genealogies show all of the rulers of all of the
dynasties to be descended from the same male line . . . .
taf
Maybe they were.
The fabrication of the pre-Christian part of the Irish pedigrees to
show a common male line descent has been well covered in the
literature, and given the evidence that these dynasties sprung from
different population groups, the common descent myth is a very
unrealistic scenario.
Stewart Baldwin
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Stewart Baldwin wrote:
.. . . has been known to happen.
Also note the following new release, apparently derived from the same
research.
Hum Genet. 2006 Jan 12;:1-8 [Epub ahead of print]
Y-chromosomes and the extent of patrilineal ancestry in Irish surnames.
McEvoy B, Bradley DG.
Smurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland,
dbradley@tcd.ie.
Ireland has one of the oldest systems of patrilineal hereditary
surnames in the world. Using the paternal co-inheritance of Y-chromosome
DNA and Irish surnames, we examined the extent to which modern surname
groups share a common male-line ancestor and the general applicability
of Y-chromosomes in uncovering surname origins and histories. DNA
samples were collected from 1,125 men, bearing 43 different surnames,
and each was genotyped for 17 Y-chromosome short tandem repeat (STR)
loci. A highly significant proportion of the observed Y-chromosome
diversity was found between surnames demonstrating their demarcation of
real and recent patrilineal kinship. On average, a man has a 30-fold
increased chance of sharing a 17 STR Y-chromosome haplotype with another
man of the same surname but the extent of congruence between the surname
and haplotype varies widely between surnames and we attributed this to
differences in the number of early founders. Some surnames such as
O'Sullivan and Ryan have a single major ancestor, whereas others like
Murphy and Kelly have numerous founders probably explaining their high
frequency today. Notwithstanding differences in their early origins, all
surnames have been extensively affected by later male introgession. None
examined showed more than about half of current bearers still descended
from one original founder indicating dynamic and continuously evolving
kinship groupings. Precisely because of this otherwise cryptic
complexity there is a substantial role for the Y-chromosome and a
molecular genealogical approach to complement and expand existing sources.
taf
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:15:38 -0000, "siabair" <siabair@h=tmail.c=m
wrote:
[Links copied from the contributions of others to another group]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... 72,00.html
'Geneticists have identified Ireland's most successful alpha male. As
many as one in 12 Irish men could be descended from Niall of the Nine
Hostages, a 5th-century warlord, according to research conducted at
Trinity College Dublin'
This is just a popular media item, apparently written by somebody who
read the report, and then juiced it up by further (evidently low
quality) research. Pretty worthless, it seems to me.
.. . . has been known to happen.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v78n2/43032/brief/4
3032.abstract.html
'Seventeen-marker simple tandem repeat genetic analysis of Irish Y
chromosomes reveals a previously unnoted modal haplotype that peaks in
frequency in the northwestern part of the island. It shows a significant
association with surnames purported to have descended from the most
important and enduring dynasty of early medieval Ireland, the Uí Néill.
This suggests that such phylogenetic predominance is a biological record
of past hegemony and supports the veracity of semimythological early
genealogies. The fact that about one in five males sampled in
northwestern Ireland is likely a patrilineal descendent of a single
early medieval ancestor is a powerful illustration of the potential link
between prolificacy and power and of how Y-chromosome phylogeography can
be influenced by social selection'
This at least is the abstract of the paper claiming to give the
result.
Also note the following new release, apparently derived from the same
research.
Hum Genet. 2006 Jan 12;:1-8 [Epub ahead of print]
Y-chromosomes and the extent of patrilineal ancestry in Irish surnames.
McEvoy B, Bradley DG.
Smurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland,
dbradley@tcd.ie.
Ireland has one of the oldest systems of patrilineal hereditary
surnames in the world. Using the paternal co-inheritance of Y-chromosome
DNA and Irish surnames, we examined the extent to which modern surname
groups share a common male-line ancestor and the general applicability
of Y-chromosomes in uncovering surname origins and histories. DNA
samples were collected from 1,125 men, bearing 43 different surnames,
and each was genotyped for 17 Y-chromosome short tandem repeat (STR)
loci. A highly significant proportion of the observed Y-chromosome
diversity was found between surnames demonstrating their demarcation of
real and recent patrilineal kinship. On average, a man has a 30-fold
increased chance of sharing a 17 STR Y-chromosome haplotype with another
man of the same surname but the extent of congruence between the surname
and haplotype varies widely between surnames and we attributed this to
differences in the number of early founders. Some surnames such as
O'Sullivan and Ryan have a single major ancestor, whereas others like
Murphy and Kelly have numerous founders probably explaining their high
frequency today. Notwithstanding differences in their early origins, all
surnames have been extensively affected by later male introgession. None
examined showed more than about half of current bearers still descended
from one original founder indicating dynamic and continuously evolving
kinship groupings. Precisely because of this otherwise cryptic
complexity there is a substantial role for the Y-chromosome and a
molecular genealogical approach to complement and expand existing sources.
taf
-
Stewart Baldwin
Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:39:54 -0000, "siabair" <siabair@h=tmail.c=m>
wrote:
I agree that the analogy between Irish and Anglo-Saxon genealogies is
not a good one. The fact that the Irish genealogies are so good for
the early medieval period is the main reason that they make such a
seductive target for this type of research. However, I have to agree
with Todd that the descriptions of the project which we have received
do not inspire confidence. In particular, it is absurd to suggest
that vast, sweeping statements can be made about the Y-DNA of a person
(or alleged person) in the semimythical past, when the basic
background studies of determining the Y-DNA of numerous members in the
less distant early historical past have apparently not yet been done.
(If they have, this newsgroup has been awfully quiet about them, with
the exception of Somerled) In particular, there are a number of Irish
figures from the eighth through tenth centuries from whom modern day
individuals could produce a pretty good paper trail of descent. These
could be used to attempt to determine the Y-DNA of various historical
individuals, with varying degrees of accuracy depending on how many
sons left descendants who were tested, the quality of the paper trail,
and so forth. From these, one might be able to form reasonable
opinions of the pedigrees that are just beyond the horizon of
historical verifiability. If done in a careful, systematic way, DNA
genealogy could be a useful tool, but these attempts to come to
spectacular conclusions at an early phase of development of this
method is a major "red flag", in my opinion.
Stewart Baldwin
wrote:
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
I was talking about the ones before Ecgbert.
In other words you see Anglo-Saxon genealogies that find no support in
any near-contemporary Anglo-Saxon annals as equivalent to Irish
genealogies that find frequent support in contemporary or
near-contemporary Irish annals. Hardly a valid equivalence I would have
thought.
I agree that the analogy between Irish and Anglo-Saxon genealogies is
not a good one. The fact that the Irish genealogies are so good for
the early medieval period is the main reason that they make such a
seductive target for this type of research. However, I have to agree
with Todd that the descriptions of the project which we have received
do not inspire confidence. In particular, it is absurd to suggest
that vast, sweeping statements can be made about the Y-DNA of a person
(or alleged person) in the semimythical past, when the basic
background studies of determining the Y-DNA of numerous members in the
less distant early historical past have apparently not yet been done.
(If they have, this newsgroup has been awfully quiet about them, with
the exception of Somerled) In particular, there are a number of Irish
figures from the eighth through tenth centuries from whom modern day
individuals could produce a pretty good paper trail of descent. These
could be used to attempt to determine the Y-DNA of various historical
individuals, with varying degrees of accuracy depending on how many
sons left descendants who were tested, the quality of the paper trail,
and so forth. From these, one might be able to form reasonable
opinions of the pedigrees that are just beyond the horizon of
historical verifiability. If done in a careful, systematic way, DNA
genealogy could be a useful tool, but these attempts to come to
spectacular conclusions at an early phase of development of this
method is a major "red flag", in my opinion.
Stewart Baldwin