Re: Y-DNA Warehouse Tree Tech Demo
|
Thanks, James. ? John, did you have any luck clarifying point 1? ? Re second point, have the genetic genealogy number crunchers considered trying to adjust their average SNP mutation rates to coincide with ancient DNA results?? There are plenty of other ancient DNA results in other haplogroups, so this affects all of us.? I realize that the older the sample, the harder it would be to obtain adequate results to check all the way down the tree.? I believe it was mentioned previously that there is a possible A151 sample from Meath dated 60-420 AD. ? E ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of James Kane
Sent: 06 September 2021 21:44
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-CTS4466-Plus] Y-DNA Warehouse Tree Tech Demo? 1) I don¡¯t have the raw data for the ancient sample. ?I someone has the ENA identifier for the data, I can go retrieve it. 2) We can¡¯t really draw conclusions at this time. ?Radio carbon dating is more accurate than rudimentary SNP counting. James
? I see two issues here ¨C? 1. I don¡¯t know that we know if the FGC11134 ancient DNA was tested far, if at all, beyond FGC11134 itself.? James, you were looking at what raw data you had access to ¨C did you see if any SNPs downstream of FGC11134 were even checked?? As CJ points out, A212 would be a real possibility for that geography up north. 2. It is my opinion that the early dates identified for FGC11134 tells us that, provided we can trust the carbon dates, our dating calculations are off significantly.?? James has ¡®MRCA: 1350BC [ 2750BC - 0AD 95% confidence using 174 NGS samples ]¡¯ for FGC11134. ? Alex has ¡®¡the median age of this block is 3751.26 YBP (1802 BC). The 95% confidence interval is 2396 BC to 1226 BC¡¯ for FGC11134.? He shows: Measure?????????? Age (YBP) Mean?? ??????????? 3744.5 Mode?? ??????????? 3780.0 I¡¯ve translated the ybp carbon dates below to dates BC in red.? ¡®Our¡¯ dates are a bit closer to low end of the Sligo remains, but generally estimated younger.? I wonder if anyone has seriously considered this as suggesting a re-evaluation may be in order? If we¡¯re agreed that CTS4466 probably didn¡¯t form on the island of Ireland, but in Wales
If CTS4466 TMRCA is 250CE then IMO it?clearly?increases the likelyhood of it being of Irish rather than Welsh origin.?? I will point out (again) that FGC11134 (parent of CTS4466) remains were carbon dated in: - Fermanagh (4370-4156 ybp)?????????????????????2349 ¨C 2135 BC - Sligo (4036-3779 ybp)??????????????????????????????????2015 ¨C 1758 BC As has been noted in this group there is zero known small scale elite migration to Ireland from the native Welsh (with the possible exception of the Roman conquest of Mon c. 80AD) in the first part of the first millennium CE. There IS some ¡°elite¡±/small scale return migration recorded of Irish settlers living in Wales BACK to Ireland plus PLENTY of recorded migration of Irish migration to Wales 100BCE-450CE, including starting royal dynasties there.
?
|
