Keyboard Shortcuts
Likes
Search
Re: Y-DNA Warehouse Tree Tech Demo
¿ªÔÆÌåÓýOn final point, if the archaeological evidence doesn¡¯t point to an Iron Age invasion, or if the linguistic evidence doesn¡¯t point to any significant interruption or linguistic revolution in primitive insular Goidelic, then there is a problem ¨C the sequence of events doesn¡¯t fit. The only solution to this problem of such a large continuous snip block is a significant bottleneck in CTS4466, with the modern snip block perhaps representing the survivors. As such, if the modern Irish tree branch has been interrupted by a significant bottleneck, then that implies that the first CTS4466 man in Ireland was a lot older than 250AD. The MRCA of the modern group is just descended from a branch line that survived, the collateral lines perished and as such are absent on the modern phylogenetic tree. If so, it really isn¡¯t possible to date when CTS4466 arrived in Ireland to any accurate degree. ??? ? I suspect I¡¯m not delivering any earth shattering news ¨C the conclusion is obvious. ? ? ? From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of O'Brien, Neil via groups.io
Sent: Monday 6 September 2021 17:36 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [R1b-CTS4466-Plus] Y-DNA Warehouse Tree Tech Demo ? EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of NUI Galway. Do not open attachments or click on links in the message unless you recognise
the sender's email address and believe the content is safe. ? On another point, if CTS4466, particularly R-A541, Irish Type II, is the dominant snip marker in the Southwest of Ireland, 250AD might seem a little recent to establish a founder effect. The other possible chink in the armour is language ¨C Ogham stones might be identified with CTS4466, but we know they were written in primitive Irish and not in P-Celtic Brythonic, as might be expected if CTS4466 came from either Wales or Gaul. ? I take your point though, yFull estimates the TMRCA of A541 to 1750 ybd. ? Best, ? Neil ? From: O'Brien, Neil
? If we¡¯re agreed that CTS4466 probably didn¡¯t form on the island of Ireland, but in Wales ¨C or perhaps further afield, 250AD would be a significant date. It would mean that the arrival of the clade into Ireland coincides with the Irish Iron Age, and most Irish archaeologists have long argued that there is no evidence for any significant population incursion into Ireland in the Iron Age. Mind you, they said the same about the Bronze Age too¡¡¡ ?? ? From:
[email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of James Kane via groups.io ? EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated from outside of NUI Galway. Do not open attachments or click on links in the message unless you recognise
the sender's email address and believe the content is safe. ? The thing about the age estimates is that you only count SNPs that fall inside the regions where there has been work to study the rates of mutations. ?While there are 20 equivalent SNPs only 15 are used for dating the branch. ? As far as the 1700 years that Elizabeth was asking about being different¡ that¡¯s in the same ballpark I¡¯m pretty sure I¡¯ve always been. ?1950 - 1700 = 250AD. ? James ?
? |