开云体育

?

In connection with our recent discussions here, and also in the context of recent threads discussing possible connections between Wales and Ireland in the Late Iron Age, please can I bore you with some of my thoughts in this regard. I’m afraid this is a rather long and difficult read, but I’d be really grateful if some of you could take the time to work through it and destroy my arguments as you see fit!

?

In order to assist as a guide to this rambling missive, I think perhaps I should start by publishing my conclusions, and my questions arising therefrom:-

?

1. The Ui Liathain and Deisi Muman formed the ancestral core of the settlers who left southeast Munster for Wales in the early 4^th century – this is an undoubted fact
2. There might be some basis in fact for the origins of the Deisi Muman and Ui Liathain found in Indarba na nDéssi, the Expulsion of the Deisi – maybe, but the scholarly community are generally agreed that the central narrative of the tale is likely a fabricated myth, however the genealogies quoted for the Welsh Deisi are in general agreement with later 12^th century genealogies in Harley MS 3859 and other sources
3. The Deisi and Ui Liathain may be partially, or substantially, found in A151+ subclades of CTS4466 – unlikely: the Irish genealogical tracts indicate a high level of ancestral diversity in the Deisi Muman. Nevertheless there is a clear pattern established of significant interaction between the Viking era in Ireland and A151, which is not seen in other haplotypes of CTS4466 to any comparable degree. This is perhaps suggestive that the ancient DNA of the A151+ haplogroup might belong to a coastal people settled in east Cork and south Waterford, and individuals may have been taken as slaves to the Viking city of Waterford, or perhaps allied to the Norsemen of Waterford as warriors for hire (or both) There is, however, no evidence for a smattering of A151+ along the south east coast of Ireland in modern DNA – but time may tell another tale. ?
4. CT14 at Claristown, Co. Meath may give some credence to the central narrative of the Indarba na nDéssi – A stretch too far perhaps: one swallow does not a Summer make, but it is nevertheless interesting to find an A151+ burial in the hinterland of Tara and Leinster, far from their historic base in Munster. The dating suggested by Cassidy also seems to match closely enough to the events recorded in the Expulsion of the Deisi, their wanderings throughout Leinster and the settlement of the Ui Liathain and Deisi in Wales
5. 颁罢厂4466…/A151+ is a haplotype associated with the settlement in Dyfed – too early to say – there’s precious little DNA evidence as yet to work towards a definitive conclusion. Overall there is a regrettable paucity of yDNA evidence emerging from the modern Welsh population to detect the presence of Munster DNA in the population – particularly in the south of Wales. However early indications suggest that the Dyfed settlement may be associated with the two branches of 础151/…贵罢11485, viz. FT74196 and A714. Both cousin blocks appear to show a connection between south east Munster and a small amount of modern DNA found with early modern ancestry from Wales and Somerset.
6. In particular there is a reasonable case to be made that one branch of FT11485, FT74196 has a close Ui Liathain connection – The matching of the O’Connells of Derrynane high upstream to A151 is interesting as the Ui Liathain and the O’Connell branch of the Ui Fidgenti are deemed to have a very remote common ancestor in the genealogical tracts. However, again, it is too early to say. There is very little DNA evidence collected from family surname types with a known connection to the Ui Liathain, such as the Uí Meic Caille of Cloyne, who are possibly to be found in modern Curran surname types. No single Curran sample from this sept group is observable in any DNA project, so it is to be assumed that none have tested to date. Testing of Curran surname types from West Cork and Kerry to see if they match to FT74196, or higher upstream to FT11485, or even A151+, might yield some interesting results. This might be a good place to start
7. The matching of Jones type BY21620 to O’Brien type FT132319 is also interesting, particularly in the context of the possible connection of BY21620 to the Welsh royal house of Powys and FT132319’s established connection to the hinterland of Cork city – it is interesting, but again one swallow does not a summer make. The Welsh sample has a convincing connection to an ancient Welsh pedigree, but it isn’t cast iron. The connection of the Virginia family of Jones with the Welsh house of Trevor should be established with DNA testing taken from the modern Trevor family itself, where there has been no interruption in the male line. Many branches of the Trevor family also settled in Ireland, particularly in Ulster, so it mightn’t be too difficult to track down a willing sampler. In any case whilst the timeline is right for an ancient Welsh pedigree of Irish origin, the location is wrong. This family is a northern Welsh royal house, with no obvious male line descent from the Kings of Dyfed. Nevertheless it’s a positive first step and also a good place from which to proceed.

?

?

There is some excellent literature on the Irish settlement of South Wales, in the context of the Deisi Muman of Munster, which consider the main genealogical sources and also (of course) the principle origin myth Expulsion of the Deisi, as well as a brief (though unsatisfactory) analysis of the archaeological evidence.

?

Most of the scholarly sources for Welsh settlement references two articles in particular:-

?

• ? Cathasaigh, Tomás. 1984. The Déisi and Dyfed. ?igse 20 1984 ?? ?

?

• Coplestone-Crow, B. 1981/2: 'The dual nature of the Irish colonization of Dyfed in the Dark Ages', Studia
  Celtica 16/17, 1-24

?

And there is some interesting newer work on the Romanisation of Irish settlers in Dyfed, which make for interesting reading:-

?

• Andrew Breeze Roman Tribunes and Early Dyfed Kings (The Welsh History Review, Volume 21, Number 4, December 2003, pp. 757-760(4)

?

• Philip Rance Attacotti, Déisi and Magnus Maximus: The Case for Irish Federates in Late Roman Britain Britannia , 2001, Vol. 32 (2001), pp. 243-270 (this one I think is particularly important)

?

?

I’ve given some consideration to John’s comments about the possibility of westward emigration from Ireland to Britain prior to the Roman withdrawal, particularly Wales, and the possibility that Irish/Barbarian settlers were incorporated during the late stage of Roman occupation, as foederati in western Britain. I’ve also considered his points in regard to Christian transmission.

?

Using Barbarian ‘federates’ was a model used with Germanic tribes on the Rhine frontier, and effectively led to a process of ‘Romanising’ the barbarian tribes pushing on the western Imperial borders, settling them on lands inside the frontier, and recruiting them as a military bulwark to protect the frontier from other tribal incursions.? Outsourcing your migration problems to 3^rd parties isn’t exactly a new phenomenon - plus c,a change!

?

Of course the policy ended in disaster for the Roman Empire as Romanised barbarians such as the Goths, Franks, Alemanni and others ushered in the death of the Western Empire in Late Antiquity, resulting in the birth of the early medieval era; the splintering of Roman provinces into Germanic successor kingdoms, and the emergence of pre-modern Western Europe. There’s no reason to believe that the western Roman Britain was any different, though this is speculative – but there is some definite archaeological evidence for contacts between east Munster and Wales, and Ireland generally, and Roman Britain in terms of artifacts found. There are also speculative claims about Christian communities in east Munster prior to the arrival of Patrick.

?

To consider the latter point first, it is, I think, important to realise that Romanisation and Christianisation do not necessarily go hand in hand in the context of Late Antiquity. The Goths, Franks and Alemanni might be considered Romanised Barbarians, but they were not Christians - at least orthodox Christians. The Goths were heretical Arians and the Franks were undoubtedly still Pagan in the Late Imperial era.

?

It is tempting to speculate that the presence of pre-Palladius and Patrick Christian groups in south-east Ireland, if indeed any did exist, is indicative of a level of Romanising influence from brothers across the sea, and strong contacts between eastern Munster and Roman Britain. If Irish settlers in South Wales are to be considered as a conduit for Christianisation in Ireland, it largely follows that they must have been culturally immersed in Roman Britain before withdrawal. Of course we know that Roman occupation was ended there by 400AD and we also know that the early formal Christian missions to Ireland arrived probably around the mid-5^th Century AD – some 50 years after the Romans had evacuated. Therefore it follows that Irish settlement must have begun prior to 400AD in order for Christianity to take hold amongst the Irish in Wales, and drift backwards towards the ancestral homeland.

?

Of course Christianity itself only officially became the State religion in the Roman Empire in 380AD, 20 years before withdrawal from Britain, and the last Emperor to actively persecute Christians was Diocletian, who died in 316AD. Therefore the timeline for settlement and conversion of the Irish in Wales is exceptionally tight. Nevertheless it is known that Roman Britain had reached it’s greatest epoch by the early 3^rd Century, and Christianity began to be adopted quickly by the Romano-British elites, though not necessarily by the common folk. The Roman era in Britain was also shuttered to a very abrupt end, which started from 367 onwards, with increased incursions from the west by Scots and Atticotti (probably both from Ireland), as well as the Picts and Saxons from the north and east. However it is clear that these raiders did not come as settlers in the first instance, but nevertheless must have been increasingly immersed in the Roman culture of the Province.

?

? Cathasaigh gives some consideration to the Christianisation of the Irish in Wales, and when they might have arrived as settlers. He speculates that settlement and conversion was well under way by 450AD, and the colony was definitely Christian by two generations later. He doesn’t rule out that the Munster men may have already been converted before they left Ireland. He points out that some scholars, such as Miller, have made a good case that Ardmore in Co. Waterford was a pre-Patrician foundation, which is cited in the Life of St Declan. He also considers Binchy’s theory that there is evidence that ‘considerable areas in the east and south of Ireland had been Christianised by British missionaries before the sending of Palladius’.

?

One must be careful however – early Christianisation in Ireland may well have come along trading routes from southern Europe and North Africa in particular, and it is now universally agreed in the scholarly community that the structure of the early Irish Christian Church owed a particular influence to North Africa and was less ‘Apostolic’ in nature and more monastic than the formal Roman Church. It took several hundred years for an effective Roman diocesan structure to cement in in Ireland, even during the early Irish Church’s golden age. Then of course there was the ongoing controversy on calculating Easter, settled finally for Ireland and Northern Britain at the Whitby Synod in 664. These are entirely different questions from our consideration of Irish settlement in Wales, though tempting enough to mention. ?

?

O’Cronin in Early Medieval Ireland tends to balance in favour of the early Irish settlers in Wales not being Christianised in the first instance, regardless of when they arrived, and so the Irish colony isn’t a significant source for conversion. The archaeological evidence seems to confirm this. Some Roman gold objects discovered at Newgrange suggest themselves as belonging to the late 4th Century, including a fragment of a gold bracelet, which was significantly deposited in the most sacred place of pre-Christian Ireland, on the banks of the River Boyne (see Robert Janiszewski The Journal of Irish Archaeology , Vol. 20 (2011), pp. 53-6).. These are contemporaneous with a number of hordes in stamped Roman silver ingots found in Derry and Co. Limerick, evidence of which suggests payment for services in the Roman military apparatus. As such these late 4th Century hordes do suggest closer Imperial contact, but not necessarily the transmission of new religious ideas.

?

Indeed O’Cronin argues that Christianity was perhaps not sufficiently embedded in western Britain in the period of Late Roman occupation for this to happen and he states that the evidence suggests that Christianity was even slow to take root amongst the Romano-Britons themselves during the Roman period. Surviving accounts of the Irish Barbarian incursion, such as those of Gildas (who was born nearly 100 years after Roman withdrawal), seems to indicate that the Barbarian Irish in Dyfed of his age were nominally, but not culturally Christianised even by the 6^th Century. Of course Gildas must be considered in the context of an early Christian apologist, whose purpose was to encourage rulers to see the world differently. De Excidio Britanniae is therefore particularly critical of the local British rulers of his age, presenting them in a savage light, even though they may well have been something more than nominally Christian.

?

On balance O’Cronin tends to favour the traditional route and that Christian British slaves in Ireland, as well as prisoners of war in Britain, were possibly one of the channels of pre-Patrician Christianity in Ireland – of course Patrick himself being one of many unfortunate slaves taken on Irish raids. There’s an apparent contradiction in this as an argument, of course. If Christianity hadn’t taken root in Wales, how could British slaves in Ireland have been Christian? Whilst O’Cronin doesn’t consider this contradiction in depth, he does argue that Patrick’s own status hints that Christianity was probably a religion only of the British elites in the first instance, who were likely fortunate enough to have survived raids and taken as slaves, hence the drip westwards.

?

As such, it is probably fair to speculate that Christianity in Ireland is probably not significantly present in the period of Late British Roman occupation. It probably had begun a very tentative establishment after 388-400AD, immediately after Roman withdrawal, but prior to Palladius and Patrick. As such it is tempting to view this as coinciding with the development of Ogham script in the 4^th or 5^th Century (if it can be agreed that is when the script formed) and lends itself to confirm Cathy Swift’s theory that Ogham stones and the introduction of early Christianity are contemporaneous. Stifter himself is agnostic on whether Ogham script formed in Western Britain and was imported into the South of Ireland from the east, but the evidence clearly suggests that the phenomenon of Ogham stones themselves appear to be a westward Irish import into Britain – whilst the origin of the script may well have been imported eastwards into Ireland. This point is well agreed by all scholars – the origin of the script is uncertain, but the culture of standing stones is brought by the Munster men to Wales. The employment of the script in primitive Irish, and their concentration in southwest Ireland, and spread into South Wales settles the point pretty conclusively, in the absence of any contradictory evidence.

?

Ogham is certainly a script of southern Munster - but not so much in the rest of Ireland and the adoption of the Latin alphabet in the Irish manuscrip tradition is a feature of the Armagh Church, which is of course the centre of the cult of Patrick. This does seem to suggest parallel, but different channels of transmission of Christianity. Of course, this dichotomy and argument is specious given that the Irish Latin manuscript tradition comes a good couple of hundred years after the 5^th Century, but Ogham was still very much alive in the early period of Old Irish manuscripts, but well past its heyday.

?

Leaving Christianity aside, what can the pace pf Romanisation of the Barbarian Irish in Wales tell us about their likely time of arrival? Breeze argues that the Irish in Wales were, like other Barbarian peoples on the continent, quick learners where it came to absorbing Roman culture. He notes the work of Leslie Alcock, in his consideration of ?Vortipor - a 6^th Century King of Dyfed.? Vortipor is often identified with an Ogham stone at Castelldwyran in south Wales which is inscribed with the commemoration Memoria Voterporigis Protictoris – ‘the monument of Voteporix, Protecto’r’. We know much about Uortiporius, or Vortipor, via Gildas and his father’s name is recorded as Aergul Lawhir , or Agricola in Latinised form, and his father was named Triphun – a name Alcock proposes is derived from the Latin Tribunus – a commander of a cohort of infantry.

?

Tryffin ruled in the early 6^th century and appears in the Life of St David (Latin version) and the Book of Llandaff, as well as in the standard surviving Welsh genealogies. Breeze does not concur with Alcock’s conclusion in relation to this name and argues that the contemporary structure of Welsh dialectical pronunciation does not lend itself to the name ‘Tryffin’ having been borrowed from Tribunus, and it is likely related to the Welsh personal name Triphun. However Breeze does nevertheless find plenty of evidence in south Wales, and indeed in Ireland, for the title Tribunus being widely used amongst Irish settlers, in either a military or political context. The Rialton standing stone, for instance, in Cornwall records an inscription ‘Bonemimori Trubvni’ in Roman script, with no accompanying ogham, which he suggests was placed in memory of an Irish man of exalted rank amongst the Britons of post-Roman Cornwall. Breeze also argues that the Old Irish title Trebann, equivalent to a chief or warrior, is a clear borrowing from the Latin Tribunus, appears often in early Irish poetry.

?

So, good, the Welsh settlers in Ireland were quickly Romanised and speedily Christianised. However what does that tell us about when they arrived and began to settle? Myles Dillon (Celtica 12, 1977) argues that the Irish arrived in Wales at the end of the 3rd Century, but this has been challenged by Mollie Miller (Studia Celtica, 1977) who considered a far later date of around 400 to 425 AD.

?

Coplestone-Crow identifies two clearly marked periods in Irish colonial history in Wales. The first incursion he believes came from the Deisi and their co-filiates the Ui Laithain around the late 300s, and he argues that an Irish chieftain, Eochaid Allmuir, was appointed a client King by Magnus Maximus, the Roman Governor of Wales and subsequent Western Emperor. The Ui Liathain cast their net wider than Dyfed, and Nennius mentions that this tribe not only settled in modern Pembrokeshire and Gower, but also crossed the Bristol channel into Cornwall.? According to the Sanas Cormaic, the Ui Liathain divided the lands of the Cornish Britons and established a fortified base at Dind Map Lethan – the fort of the sons of Liathain.

?

The second incursion by the Irish Coplestone-Crow identifies took place around 480AD, which was an opportunistic attempt at expansion by the colony, halted by the sons of Cunedda - the obscure eponymous ancestor of the Royal House of the Gwynedd. Some sources date this conflict much earlier (Bartrum for instance), and it is claimed that Cunedda was a Pictish foederati in the service of Magnus Maximus which suggests that this event took place in the late 300w However this has been discounted by much of the subsequent scholarship.

?

Coplestone-Crow, drawing on research from Melville Richards, argues that inscriptions on Ogham stones contemporaneous with the second settlement period are demonstrative of a ?people who were comfortably settled, and had formed a native aristocracy in Wales, though one that was still able to draw assistance from the ancestral homeland in Ireland. As such he argues that the period of renewed Irish settlement was undertaken by a ‘ruling class and not to common raiders and freebooters’, as had characterised the first phase of settlement in Dyfed at the end of the 4^th or beginning of the 5^th Century. This second episode in Irish colonisation, he argues, was a ‘less turbulent one than the earlier settlement of the Deisi and the Ui Liathain’.

?

Drawing on the 12^th Century source of the Life of St. Carantoc, he offers the names of Briscus, Thuibaius, Machleius and Anpacus as the leaders of the late 5^th Century campaign. Machleius, he suggests, can be identified with Lugaid mac Lóegairi, grandson of Niall of the Nine Hostages, who himself succeeded to the High Kingship of Ireland in 482. Of course it is also noteworthy that Lugaid’s mother is accepted to have been a daughter of (Ailill) Tassach of the Ui Liathain.

?

Thuibaius may have been Muiredach Mac Eogain, Lugaid’s cousin and also a grandson of Niall Niugiallach. Anpacus he considers to be Anlach, the father of Brychan Brycheiniog, who married Marchel, heiress of the Welsh kingdom of Garthmadrun, bringing that territory into the orbit of the Irish of Dyfed. Briscus, he states, is Aed Brosc, a grandson of the colony’s acknowledged founder, Eochaid Allmuir.

?

Coplestone-Crow also states that the early history of the Irish colony was one of turbulent expansion, which continued into the 550s, during which time the Irish in Wales had to intermittently call upon the assistance from allied Irish Kings to protect their settlements. However these expeditions ceased by the middle of the 6^th century, and Wales was peaceably divided between two powerful kingdoms during this time, with the Britons retaining control over the north in Gwynedd and the Irish controlling Dyfed. At this time expansion and further settlement from Ireland appears to have ceased.

?

Philip Rance (see Epiphanius of Salamis and the Scotti:New Evidence for Late Roman Irish Relations) notes that the earliest offical date for incursions by the Scotti into Roman Britain is reported in the Res gestae of Ammianus Marcellinus, compiled in Rome during the mid- to late 380s. However there is some extant commentary that dates the commencement for raids to some time before, and Ammianus reports that there was a breach of an agreed peace between the Imperial government and the Scots in the Winter of 359, which necessitated the despatch of a task-force under the magister equitum Lupicinus.

?

Rance states that all the evidence points to an escalation of Scotti raids from the early 360s, culminating in the so-called ‘barbarica conspiratio’ in A.D. 367, which he identifies as co-inciding with enhanced naval capabilities from Ireland, as well as military co-ordination with other Barbarian opportunists.

?

The question, of course, is who were these Scots? - a term almost unknown in Ireland before this time. Martin Counihan (see (Counihan The Problem of the Scots 2019) proposes that the Scots were an
Irish military group recruited into the Roman army in the late 3rd Century, who had came from the Wicklow region to support the would-be emperor Carausius. He notes that a ‘tribe called the Scothraige is mentioned in the Book of Ballymote (140R) as one in a long list of Aithechtuatha (vassal tribes). As such he suggests that all peoples on the Island of Ireland were lumped together as Scots in Roman accounts following the 3^rd Century, as this group were the first Irish tribe with whom there had been greatest contact.

?

He also notes that Rawlinson B 502 begins with a section on the Laigin, a tuath of Leinster, which makes mention of one ‘Fiac mac Muiredach’ who came from ‘the family of Cillíne, the Scot-that-was’. He posits that this Fiac mac Muiredach descended from a tuath, or group, who were ‘once the dominant people in what is now the province of Leinster….[and] included a subsection…[of] the Ui Bairrche, a group which in ancient times controlled much of the coastal region of south-east Ireland and which corresponds to the Brigantes [sic in the map] of Ptolemy of Alexandria’.

He also finds evidence for a people called the ‘Scothbán’, meaning the ‘fair flower’, and suggests that the Scothban homeland was somewhere in Wexford north of Arklow.

?

Rance (see Attacotti, Déisi and Magnus Maximus: The Case for Irish Federates in Late Roman Britain) notes that another people called the Attacotti are always mentioned in conjunction with the Scotti in relation to raiding on the western shores of Roman Britain, and in particular Ammianus and St Jerome tend to link them together as the 'Scotti et Attacotti'.

?

It is now well agreed that the Attacotti were probably an Irish tribe or tuath, and they appear in several 4^th and 5^th Century Roman texts and are noted for their particular cruelty and barbarism which, according to Jerome, extended to cannibalistic activities such as eating the buttocks of herdsmen and consuming the breasts of their wives! In the 360s that they are noted as a threat to Roman Britain, and the ‘Laterculus Veronensis, dated to 312-314, lists in its appendix of 'gentes barbarae quae pullulaverunt sub imperatoribus’ ?the Scoti and Attacotti, Picti, Calidoni as hostile peoples of the British Isles.

?

Rance notes that the Attacotti appear some time later in the Notitia Dignitatum lists as having been co-opted into the service of the Roman Military in the 4^th and 5^th ?Centuries and were posted ‘补mong the auxilia palatina stationed in Gaul, Italy, and Illyricum, and in the last instance their presence is also attested in epigraphic sources, including in a marble grave- stone from Thessalonica, dated to fifth or sixth century, which is inscribed 'mem(oria) Leonti/ani mil(itis) de n/um(ero) Ategu/ttorum', and a further, probably fourth-century, sarcophagus at Salona in Dalmatia has been interpreted as that of a soldier 'e numero Ata[cottorum]'.

?

Rance suggests that the word Attacotti is Irish in origin, and appears to be a Latin rendering of the Old Irish 补颈迟丑别肠丑迟丑ú补迟丑, ‘补 generic term for the lower status tribes or tadatha among the many inhabiting Ireland – ‘补 less successful tribal group reduced in the political struggle to the status of a rent-paying people'. He also suggests that the Attacotti were invited to settle in South Wales at the invitation of the Governor, Magnus Maximus, and in the period afterwards, the evidence suggests that Roman coastal defences were limited to North Wales.

?

Rance’s association of the Attacotti with the Irish 补颈迟丑别肠丑迟丑ú补迟丑 is not a particularly original argument and scholars as distinguished as the Great O’Conor Don, Charles O’Conor, noted the similarity between Attacotti and 补颈迟丑别肠丑迟丑ú补迟丑a as early as the 18^th Century. Other scholars such as Rudolf Thurneysen, in the 19^th Century, noted that in primitive Irish 补颈迟丑别肠丑迟丑ú补迟丑 would be 础迟别?颈ā肠辞迟ō迟ā蝉, and he deemed the primitive Irish term to be too far removed from the Latin form Attacotti in order to be credible. Nevetheless the identification of the Attacotti with 补颈迟丑别肠丑迟丑ú补迟丑 has persisted to the present day

?

James MacNeill in Early Population Groups etc., notes that there were different grades of tribes of Tuath in early Ireland:-

?

‘three grades of tuatha can be distinguished in early documents: (1) Soerthuatha, not subject to tributes; (2) Fortuatha, retaining internal autonomy but tributary to an external overking; (3) Aithechtuatha, vassal communities paying rent to local chiefs of free race. Genealogically, the fortuatha were held to be outside of the kindred of the overking and his people, and therefore subject to them; the aithechtuatha were regarded as of unfree race descended from the pre-Gaelic inhabitants’.

?

As such, the suggestion made by Rance, is that early Irish freebooters like the Scotti and Attacotti were base raiders and pirates, and not connected to the Irish elites, hence their push west. He notes that the sources supply the names of only two groups, the Deisi and Ui Liathain, as having been the earliest settlers of Dyfed in South Wales in the aftermath of Roman withdrawal. He argues that ‘in the historical period the Deisi and Ui Liathain were tributary peoples of the Eoganachta, the group of septs that dominated Munster…. and ….. would be designated aithechthuatha in a general pejorative sense’. He also notes that the name 'Deisi' itself derives directly from d'isi, a generic term meaning 'vassals' or 'rent-payers', which occurs in various parts of Ireland [sic. and] in the protohistoric period, it seems that a large strip of Munster from south-east to north-west was inhabited by a number of indigenous communities collectively calledthe Deisi, simply 'the vassal peoples'.

?

Arguably this is a strawman argument, Rance is attempting to take an unproved association of Attacotti and 补颈迟丑别肠丑迟丑ú补迟丑, and then take it a step forward and argue that the Attacotti of the Roman sources are the Deisi of South-East Munster. But let’s run with it for a while and see how it might fit in as a theory with other scholarship and sources.

?

? Cathasaigh conducts a deep analysis of the Exile of the Deisi and the medieval Welsh secular genealogies hosted in collections at the British Library (Harley 3859 (c.1100)) and the collection in Oxford, Jesus College 20 (c.1400), and accepts that it is perhaps reasonable to conclude, based on all sources, that the Irish colony in Wales was settled from south east Munster, and was peopled by affliates of the Déisi muman. The origins of the Déisi muman, of course, are described in the Irish pseuo-history, the Exile of the Deishi.

?

It is most important to bear in mind that ? Cathasaigh, and most scholars indeed, regard the core Origin myth as a fabrication. In this regard I again would draw you back to the warning of O’Corrain, quoted at length in my last missive, that Irish (and indeed English and Welsh) genealogies most not be regarded as biological. ? Cathasaigh quotes David Thornton, who cautions that intrusive dynasties tended to appropriate the names of their vanquished dynastic rivals, without necessarily claiming direct agnatic descent from their rivals’ dynastic ancestors. Clan or sept affiliations, therefore, are not to be regarded in the same light as modern surnames – as we understand them. They have a more political and geographic significance

?

In lectures, and elsewhere, O’Corrain was always keen to note that whilst ancient Irish society was intensely aristocratic in nature, it was also socially fluid.? FJ Byrne (See Tribes and Tribalism in Early Ireland) states that the Irish genealogies ‘must be taken as often expressing political status rather than racial origin. For this fact, which otherwise might be inferred from a study of the genealogies, we have the testimony of Gilla in Chomded Hua Cormaic, a twelfth-century poet (LL 144 a 24): —

‘Failet se muid sain mebair ??? cummaiscit craeb ngenelaig
totinsma daerchland ic dul ??? i-lloc saerchland re slonnud
Torrchi mogad mod mebla ??? ocus dibad tigerna
serg na saerchland étig uath ??? la forbairt na n-aithechthuath
Míscribend do gné eolais ??? do lucht uilc in aneolais
nó lucht ind eolais ni ferr ??? gníit ar múin miscribend.
Six ways there are of special note that confound the tree of genealogy:
intrusion of base stocks usurping the place of free stocks by name;
migrations of serfs, a way of shame; and decay of lords;
withering of the free races, dreadful horror; with overgrowth of the vassal folks;
miswriting, in the guise of learning, by the unlearned of evil intent’.

?

As such, even to the shame of the noted Gilla quoted, it was perfectly possible for vassals and serfs to insinuate their way into the elites and genealogical narrative with the assistance of the monastic spin doctors of the Gaelic world, who were under their patronage as they consolidated power.

?

I’ll perhaps pause here for a bit of a diversion, and remind us all that finding a continuum in the Eoghanacht lineage has been a particular problem is the CTS4466+ project as a whole, where no satisfactory single genetic profile can be identified for the Eoghanacht federation. The genealogies would seem to suggest a split in the line between Cenél Fíngin, representing modern southern affialtes like the O’Sullivans, and the Clann Faílbe, perhaps the lineal ancestors of the McCarthys.

?

McCarthy Mor are L36 under DF21 – controversial I know, but let’s work with it. The great interlopers, the Dal Cais of Great O’Brien, is in a different direction at L226. Both as you know are not CTS4466 haplotypes. Then, of course, there are the elite Eoghanacht surname types which are CTS4466+ positive. Therefore no case can be made for all the affiliates having a common ancestor in Eoghan Mór, the legendary progenitor of the Eóganachta. As such, many of the lines of Munster men have historically insinuated themselves into the genealogical narrative of a single heroic ancestor as and when its time came. Therefore the Eoghanacht must be regarded as a political and geographical unit, and not a biological one.

?

Downey points out, a lineal ancestry from Conall Corc appears to be the core line of the ‘true’ Eoganachta, and the most important and powerful polities in Munster in the early period emphasised this descent. Other family groupings in Munster, most particularly the Ui Fidgenti and Ui Liathain claimed to belong to the Eoganacht federation, but modern scholars have shown that these claims were later inventions. As such, descent from Conall Corc was what distinguished the ‘true Eogancht from aspirant families in the genealogical record’. (see C Downey Purple Reign – the naming of Conall Corc 2009)

?

Donnchadh ? Corráin gives some consideration to the origins of the 补颈迟丑别肠丑迟丑ú补迟丑a in the medieval tracts that list the vassal peoples of Ireland. The term ‘补颈迟丑别肠丑迟丑ú补迟丑a’, he argues ‘has no racial or ethnic connotations but simply denotes a less successful tribal group reduced in the political struggle to the status of a rent-paying people. Far from being static, early Irish society was dynamic and dynasties rose to power and declined to insignificance in reasonably short periods of time though this is partly concealed by the tendency of the professional recorders of the past to rewrite history in the interest of the later holders of power (see Donnchadh ? Corráin, ‘On the ‘补颈迟丑别肠丑迟丑ú补迟丑a’ tracts’, ?igse, 19 (1982–3), 159–65)

?

The great leading Eoghachta Septs that have proved CTS4466 are of course S1121+ and this subclade is, as I understand it, the most numerous SNP type found amongst Irish Type II men – nearly 60%. Breeding survival, to be crude, is indicative of success. A151, of course, is not S1121+ positive, and a less successful subclade overall, in the modern phylogenetic tree ,than it’s S1121+ cousins. This perhaps indicates that A151+ men were at the lower end of the social strata for much of the early period in Munster.

?

It Is by no means proven that the Deisi Muman are indeed A151+ positive, though in terms of DNA distribution, there is growing evidence for this subclade being found in the Ui Liathain at least – but a long way to go yet. On a basic numbers game A151+, as I understand it, are around 10% of the A541 Irish Type II subclade. Early emigration to Wales could explain this and the scales might rebalance when more Welsh data is acquired (the Welsh yDNA project has notably far less participants than its Irish and Scottish equivalents). Also the unsettled nature of the early Irish colonies in Wales, and their failure to expand territorially, will undoubtedly mean that known ‘Irish’ clades were probably far less successful in establishing there than was clearly the case in Scottish Dal Riada. It is also possible that A151+ is a ‘clinger on’ from the great bottleneck era and the Irish Bronze Age lull, and if the Deisi and Ui Liathain can indeed be identified as being associated with A151+, it is by no means certain that all men of this group were positive for this haplotype. Indeed the ancient sources make reference to 50 tribes of Deisi. Also there was massive immigration into Wales from Ireland in the 19^th Century following the boom in coal mining and iron foundries. The results of modern DNA, as and when discovered, is not necessarily indicative of ancient settlement, unless the kit owners have an ancient pedigree to prove it. ?

The Expulsion of the Deisi, the origin myth of that tribe, claims that Echaid Allmuir was one of the 4 sons of Artchorp, and the sons of Artchorp are the fulcrum around which the narrative forms. Artchorp is named of the seed of Fiachrach Suighe (the Dal Fiachra Suighe), grandson of the 1^st Century High King, Túathal Techtmar – lineal ancestor of the O’Neills, and as such the eponymous ancestor of the Deisi Muman. The saga therefore stresses the sound genealogical credentials of the Deisi:-

‘ ….the race of the Déssi was good, namely the offspring of Fíacha Suigde son of Fedelmid Rechtaid son of Túathal Techtmar’

The text version of the saga names the same Echaid Allmuir as the leader of the Deisi, who crossed the Irish Sea to Dyfed and settled there with his children. In Harleian 3859 the eponymous ancestor named first in the line of kings of Dyfed is a variation of the same Echaid Allmuir. Of course the 12^th Century Harleian genealogies of the Royal house of Dyfed are written much later than the early versions of the Expulsion of the Deisi, and do not acknowledge the Irish ancestry or origins of the south Wales dynasty at that time, preferring instead to emphasise a classical ancestry for this line from Roman luminaries such Magnus Maximus and St Helena, which is clearly fake.? All scholarship is agreed that the ancestry of the Dyfed line is from south east Ireland. Myles Dillon, for instance, states that ‘there is no reason to doubt that the migration of the Deisi did take place at the end of the third century, and that the dynasty of Dyfed in the eight century was descended from an Irish family’. However, the dynastic priorities of the House of Dyfed clearly changed with time, necessitating changes to be made to their ancestral line by the monastic spin doctors within their territory. An Irish ancestry was not quite as de rigour in the context of 12^th Century Wales!

? Cathasaigh and others have identified many clear parallels between the Dyfed Royal genealogies as they appear in the earliest version of the Expulsion of the Deisi, and the textual genealogies as recorded some 400 years later in Harleian, which give optimistic grounds to hope that some of the events recorded in the main saga may also have some historical rather than pseudo-historical basis. He points out that the Expulsion of the Deisi was a particularly popular tale in Irish monastic houses in the Medieval period, and of the Expulsion myth survives in seven surviving manuscripts of varying antiquity. There is a very obvious and notable break in the stemma codicum of the oldest extant version, and its successor texts, and it is only in the earliest surviving manuscript that there is any reference to the migration of the Deisi to Wales, and a detailed genealogy given of the House of Dyfed. This material is absent from the successor texts.

The earliest manuscript version, he says, is probably as old as the 7^th Century and he detects a strong influence brought to bear from Wales itself, proposing that the House of Dyfed probably sponsored the inclusion of its pedigree into the earliest version of the saga for propaganda purposes. It is a brazen declaration that the time of the Deisi had come, and the ancestral origins of House of Dyfed now stood on an equal footing with the Eoghanactha, and could also claim a distant descent from the same kindred as the Ui Neill.

The earliest version of the saga can perhaps be dated to around 750AD, around 300 years after the establishment of the Kingdom of Dyfed. It’s design, therefore, was probably a fabrication with the useful purpose of ‘enabling the writer of the origin myth to provide the Southern Desi with a descent from an alleged brother of Conn Cetchathach (my note the alleged direct male line ancestor of Niall Noigallach) placing them in descent from the Irish High Kingship and into the central orbit of Tara:- ???

‘we can doubtless dismiss any notion that the Irish literati kept a record from generation to generation of the pedigree of the ruling dynasty of Dyfed. It must be assumed, therefore, that the ED and Harleian 3859 pedigrees (to the extent that they correspond) have their origin in a common Welsh source, and that the pedigree was transmitted to Ireland during the time of Tewdws and of his brother Tewdwr, and we know that Maradudd son of Tewdws died in 796. It was on this evidence that Zimmer (1893: 88) dated the composition of the early version of ED to the mid 8^th 颁别苍迟耻谤测’.

Stressing the Royal origins of the south Welsh dynasty had an important propaganda purpose, and ? Cathasaigh points out that the Deisi are an unusual group in early Ireland because their name ‘seems to be in origin the plural of a common noun: deis, meaning a ‘vassal’ and the original meaning of Deisi, as applied to population-groups would have been ‘vassal or rent-paying tribes’. This is a point also noted by no less a scholar than Eoin MacNeill, and it is this very point that has attracted more recent scholars such as Rance to make certain conclusions about who the Attacotti tribe might have been, and that the Deisi may have originated from base stock, and not from the elite aristocracy of Tara and the Eoghanta as suggested in the origin myth.

?

? Riain argues that the Indarba na nDéssi makes clear that the status of the Deisi Muman was reduced to that of Aithechtuatha following the events at Tara, and were settled in south east Munster as vassals of the Eóganacht Chaisil. Perhaps one of the reasons for the popularity of the text in the medieval era is that it is not concerned with the dominant in society, but rather is a saga of the 补颈迟丑别肠丑迟丑ú补迟丑a. It’s central theme focuses on the trials and tribulations of the Deisi and their suppression by dominant powers, but also on the significant power that they themselves possessed in the face of adversary. As such the moral of the tale is that vassal people could have a role in royal succession and in the forging of alliances (see I’ve misplaced the source, but I believe it is Pádraig ? Riain).

? Cathasaigh also makes a very interesting point in relation to the Dal Fiachrach Suighe. He argues that the Dal Fiachrach Suighe cannot necessarily be considered the ancestors of the Deisi tuath and this appears to be borne out in the later genealogies. Indeed the later genealogical texts make a specific distinction between the Dal Fiachrach Suighe and the Deisi proper, and it is noted in the texts that ‘there are fifty migratory bands among the Deisi….and it is these migratory bands which are called Deisi, for they are under the rent and legal obligation and ‘croft rent’ (bothachas) of vassals to the lord. That is, to Dal Fiachrach Suighe, and the latter are not called Deisi’. As such, it seems clear, that the Deisi of South-east Munster were not of the same biological line as the Dal Fiachrach Suighe, but rather vassals. The principle purpose of the early version of the Expulsion of the Deisi was therefore overcome this handicap and put the dynasty of Dyfed on an equal footing to other Irish dynasties, though this imperative faded with time.

So, the consensus amongst various scholars seems to agree on the point that the Expulsion of the Deisi, in its earliest form, is a propaganda tool for the Deisi, and House of Dyfed in particular. However the rest of the tale, it is agreed, is probably a fabrication. However it’s earliest form is very much tied in with migration of the Deisi to Wales, which might suggest that it was first conceived in the 4^th or 5^th century, before being recorded in written form in the 8^th Century. Might there actually be some substance to the wider pseudo-history of the Deisi? Modern DNA might tell its own story and some flame might just be perceivable in the smoke.

?

It is of course now well known amongst us that CT14 at Claristown, Co. Meath may be A151+ (R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3a2(a1d?)), though taking on board that the asterix on this sample might cast some doubt over its veracity. This is one of 15 burials found inside an early Iron Age ring ditch, and burial 14 is an adult male placed centrally within the ring, in a lintel grave. This might suggest that this burial was of an individual of some importance. Radio carbon dating on the remans is estimated at 1790±80 BP (Beta-185252), or 60-420 AD in real time. Given the large margin of error for this radiocarbon result, as well as the burial context, Cassidy suggests Burial CT14 probably dates closer towards the end of this estimation, pushing it possibly towards the beginning of the 5^th Century. This date might perhaps bring us close to the events recorded in the Expulsion of the Deisi, and also close in time to the Welsh migration. What, one may ask, is the CT14 A151 burial– a subclade of CTS4466 - doing so far away from its ancestral homeland in Co. Meath? Could this individual be the remains of an important man of the displaced Deishi, set to journeying throughout Meath and Leinster following their expulsion from Tara by the blinded King, Cormac MacAirt?

?

Undoubtedly, in terms of modern DNA, R-A151 are a scattered bunch in an Irish context, with A151+ positive individuals found with an ancestry in Tipperary, Kilkenny, Kerry and Cork. There is no central focus on any particular Irish Sept, and surnames as diverse as Molloy (Tipperary); Sionnach (Kilkenny); Brazil (Wexford) and O’Brien (Cork) have been found. However it has also been discovered that in terms of more aristocratic lines the O’Connells of Derrynane are probably A151+ positive (A151>B42). The O’Connells of Derrynane also, according to the genealogies, share an ancestry with the Ui Liathain of East Cork, whose territory stretched west of Cork harbour as far as Carrigaline, and deep east into Cloyne. The ancient territory of the O’Connells was in south Limerick, before being pressed down into Kerry arising from the O’Brien McCarthy feud of the 11^th and 12^th centuries, and the incursions of the Norman era.

?

According to the genealogies the Ui Liathan and Ui Figenti share a common ancestor in Dáire Cerbba, a proto-Eoghanacht progenitor who was allegedly born at Brega, Co. Meath. Of course as John has pointed out, this is problematic given that the modern Donavan profile – also Ui Fidgenti in origin, is likely not A151+ positive, which it should be according to the genealogies and there is also no known genetic profile as yet identified for the Ui Liathain.

?

In terms of modern DNA, there is some case to be made that the Ui Liathain, at least, may be found in CTS4466../A151+, and there descendants may be found in Wales today. Unfortunately there isn’t much yDNA to work with – the Welsh DNA project is pretty far behind its Scottish and Welsh equivalents. Another issue is one which bedevils are yDNA projects and that is the absence of modern DNA from Irish and Welsh born men, on the whole. In most cases the DNA we are working with is that from descendants in far flung colonies and the modern United States, which tends, perhaps, to be more scattergun than native DNA, and often foreign born men of Irish and Welsh descent may not necessarily know who there ancestors were.

?

However within the 础151/…贵罢11485, there are two child blocks, FT74196 and A714, which indicate that there may be ancient Munster DNA carried by men today who are of more recent early modern Welsh descent, linking them back to a deep ancestral settlement of the Deisi and Ui Liathain in the early 5^th Century.

?

I think John is probably better able to describe how 础151/…贵罢11485>A714 has filled out in recent years, however I do note a number surname Hill kits, who have a verified ancestry back to early colonial America, with a verified descent from Ralph Hill of Plymouth, Mass., who died around 1638. The terminal of this line has been identified as BY187664, and they have a possible connection to the Hill family of Somerset, not far from around the Bristol channel area where it is known that the Ui Liathain settled.

?

I’ll leave it to John to flesh out any further discoveries that have been found for 础151/…贵罢11485>A714.

础151/…贵罢11485> FT74196 is perhaps a little more interesting, and there is one particular group who have a more defined deep ancestry in Wales, with a probable connection to the Royal houses of North Wales.

?

There are 4 snip blocks under 础151/…贵罢11485> FT74196>BY21620 who have undoubted deep ancestry in England and Wales. The snip progression of each of the 5 blocks pretty much establishes that BY21620 probably formed on the island of Britain at some early stage in the 5^th Century.

?

There are 5 surname types in BY21620:-

?

• BY21620>BY21619 are? surname split between two surname types, one a group of Riches and Ritchies found in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The second group are Pearsons with ancestry in Ullock, Cumbria on the Scottish border.
• BY21620>BY57987 are a group with the surname Willis, found in colonial era America. One kit has the surname Simmons, but a bit of research easily finds where a very recent NPE (in the last 200 years) took place. Nothing is know of their British heritage
• BY21620>….. is a single kit with the surname Wood. This family settled in the 17^th Century in Mass., and possible came from the English midlands, but this is by no means certain
• BY21620>FTA831303, surname Jones, is hot off the press. Their snip results have been published in the last 8 weeks, and they are undoubtedly the most interesting.

?

?

?

It is known that the region of Dyfed was extensively raided and pillaged by Vikings in the 8th, 9th and 10th Centuries. As such the scattering of BY21620 types into Scotland and Northern England is perhaps a result of Viking interference (the effects of A151+ and the Viking era is discussed in greater detail below). However this can’t be said with any certainty.

?

BY21620>FTA831303, Jones, are descended from Captain Peter Jones of Virginia, one of the earliest colonial settlers of the colony and founder of one of its leading families. I was talking to an American acquaintance about this family some time ago, and they remarked ‘you do realise that these people are kinda famous!’; I kinda didn’t at the time, but I do now.

?

I have a particular personal interest in 础151/…贵罢11485> FT74196, because I match this haplotype myself, with deep ancestry in the Cork region just outside Cork city at Ballinhassig, (with surname Brien) moving to Bandon in the mid 19th Century. I am not a downstream match to BY21620.

?

When my results were posted over two years ago I had no matchers at y111 STR level, which is somewhat unusual. I had a number of matchers at y67 level, all of whom (except one) turned out to be false matchers due to convergence. This was confirmed once my snip results came through, and belonged at an entirely different branch of CTS4466 from A151. I did have a single ySTR O’Brien matcher who matched at a level of 61/67 (at the very edge of establishing a relationship in genealogical time) and this kit owner consented to snip test, though we agreed to take an entirely new sample from another individual closely related to the family. This took a bit of time to knuckle down, but the results are just published, creating a new snip block under 础151/…贵罢11485> FT74196>FT132319, which runs parallel to its sibling block, 础151/…贵罢11485> FT74196>BY21620. The two kits match at 101/111 on ySTR matching.

?

Both individuals in 础151/…贵罢11485> FT74196>FT132319 have surname O’Brien, and whilst one branch emigrated to Scranton Penn. in the 19^th century, they both have deep ancestry in the Cork region. FT132319 is a long unbroken block, and both kits share a continuous ancestry which is only broken by 5 private variants, which indicates that both kit owners are very distant relatives and confirmed the distant ySTR match. Neither have an autosomal match.

?

I had also noted a degree of similarity in the ySTR pattern of individuals who were BY21620 positive. By trawling through various family and haplotype projects, I built up a ySTR profile of over 50 kits and when lined up a clear pattern emerged. All kits were positive for the standard CTS4466 markers, and also the following mutations, which are the calling cards of this line:-

?

R-FT74196 identifying markers

DYS439 = 11 or 12 (CTS4466 value reverts to Atlantic modal occasionally)

DYS458 = 18

DYS437 = 14

DYS537 = 11

DYS638 = 12

DYS452 = 31

DYS525 = 11

DYS504 = 17

?

I did not match to any of these kits within the margin of genealogical relationship – they were well outside a match at y67 or y111, but the O’Brien kits shared the STR ?mutations listed above with the others who were FT74196 positive. Therefore it seemed clear that the two O’Brien kits had diverged from the FT74196 haplotype ySTR pattern, but shared a deep ancestry long before genealogical time.

?

I noted this to John, sent him a report of the kits, and also reminded him of the Jones match, which I had been looking at closely. John doggedly tracked down two individuals in this family, who were very distant cousins, but undoubted descendants of Captain Peter Jones. Both proved very receptive and had already completed an impressive level of research into their own family, some of which has been recently published.

?

John emailed me and asked me to talk to them, and we had a number of interesting conversations about the ancestry of Peter Jones which were analysed in depth.

?

The family were adamant that their descent came from the Trevor family of Chirk in north Wales, in descent from Edward Jones b. 1545, of Garth Gynan, Denbighshire. Captain Jones’ father had left Wales in the aftermath of the English Civil War, where he had served as a cavalier officer, and settled in Virginia during the Commonwealth era, but retained business interests in Bristol following the restoration. Captain Jones’ descendants also carried the shield of the Trevor family in their Coat of Arms, which was issued to this branch of the Jones family by a grant of Arms by the Norroy King of Arms during the reign of Henry VIII. The grant confirms the family’s descent from Tewdor Trefor, founder of the Tribe of the Marches, and records that ‘E[dward]: J[ones]: of Diff[ryn Clwyd]: in the Count[y] of D[enbigh]:gent, ys Lyneally descended from the wo[rthie] Familye of .T[revor]. of C[hirk]. in the said Count[y] . of D[enbigh]. and was the first of that Familie that did assume the surname of J[ones]’.

?

Also in the possession of family is a Toledo sword presented to Major Cadwallander Jones in the 1780s by the Marquis of Lafayette, which bore on the hilt the family Arms and is described in Augusta Fotheringill’s history of the family as engraved with a crest and Arms "Per bend sinistererm and ermines a lion rampant with a border engraved or. Crest: a lion's head." This sword descends in the line of Major Jones’ grandson, also called Cadwallander, who served in the Confederate war as colonel of the Twelfth Regiment, North Carolina Volunteers, Greeg's Brigade.

?

?

The evidence for a connection to the House of Trevor is strong, but not water tight. However it is notable that all branches of the Denbighshire Trevors descend from Tudur Trevor (fl. 940), son-in-law of and reputed 'king' of the borderland from the Maelors down to Gloucester. His second son (died 1037) inherited lands round Chirk, now represented by the Brynkynallt estate, and the surname became fixed in the time of his descendant John Trevor hên, who died 1453. This family is a direct lineal branch of the ruling house of Powys.

?

So, not exactly in the right place for the descendants of the House of Dyfed, but a good reference point all the same! However it appears to be a very old line in pedigree, and the match to a family with deep ancestry in Cork perhaps suggests an Ui Liathain connection. Time will tell.

?

For reasons that are not particularly well understood, there is now ample evidence that the Viking era undoubtedly had a very significant effect upon CTS4466/…..A151+, in a manner which is not seen in the other branches of the CTS4466 family. If A151+ can be identified most closely with the various regional polities that made up the Ui Liathain and Deisi Muman, then this may explain why there is a scattering of various A151+ haplotypes around the Irish sea, and beyond, which seems to coincide with the Viking era. It is therefore credible to make an argument, at least, that the CTS4466/…..A151 of medieval Ireland were a coastal people of southeast Munster.

?

As a coastal people the Ui Liathain and Deisi Muman were at the forefront of the earliest Viking raids and later settlement, and it is perhaps appropriate here to give some consideration to the Norse Age along the east Munster coast, to give this some context.

Readers are no doubt aware that the VK202 Viking burial at Orkney was placed at R-A151 based on his positive result for A152 (A151 has no coverage). A large smattering of A151+ positive individuals with the MacAuley surname are found in the island of Lewis under snip block FGC29779, another area of prominent Viking settlement in Scotland. Modern DNA samples found in 2 living Norwegian men have also been discovered A151+ under snip block A661 (surnames Johnsen and Romunstad), and another Danish man (surname Stryhn) has also been discovered, though with no downstream matcher off A151 so far. As such, the evidence for A151+ interaction with the Viking world is now pretty much conclusive, both in terms of modern DNA and ancient DNA.

Downham states that initial Viking raids in Ireland were of a a ‘hit-and-run’ type from the 790s to the 820s, proceeding to more intensive campaigns in the late 830s when the first annalistic references to Viking-bases, sometimes called longphort (‘ship-ports’), are found ?(see Clare Downham The historical importance of Viking-Age Waterford University of Aberdeen The Journal of Celtic Studies, 2004). Initial Viking raids were concentrated on Ulster and the east coast of Leinster, but by the 820s the Vikings extended their raiding to the southeast coast, eventually creating three major settlements in Leinster and Munster at Waterford, Youghal and Wexford.

?

Downham states that there is evidence for early wintering upstream from Waterford harbour, perhaps as early as 822, and the church at Inis Doimle was ransacked in this year, by Vikings basing themselves at a Longphort recently identified by Máirín Ní Dhonnchadha as Great Island on the River Suir. Waterford harbour was therefore an important port and a key riverine access point to the heartlands of Munster, Leinster, and Ossory and the monastic settlements lying along the shores of these rivers. However Waterford city may not necessarily have been their first port of call.

Archaeological surveys at Woodstown, Co. Waterford (see Ian Russell and Maurice F. Hurley Woodstown: a Viking-age settlement in co. Waterford) establishes the presence of a mid 9th century ‘Longphort’ that predates Waterford city. It is one of the most extensive of such sites in these islands. As well as a safe base for raiding, a broad spectrum of industrial activities occurred there between the middle of the 9th century, including iron smithing and smelting, jewellery production and boat repair. John Sheehan’s and Patrick Wallace’s analysis of the silver and weights finds at Woodstown indicate that there was also a substantial volume of small-scale trade at this site.

The Annals record extensive raiding along the east and southern coasts by Vikings from the early 9th Century (see A COUNTY BY COUNTY REFERENCE LIST FOR VIKING ACTIVITIES IN? IRELAND AS DESCRIBED IN THE ANNALS). ). In 822 there were raids in the centre of Ui Liathain territory at Cloyne, who moved on to plunder Cork and Inis Temhni (or Inisdoimhle) [Little Island – Hogan] and Bannchair [Beggary Island] (CS, MB 819, AFM 820, CGGV), as well as Inis Daimle (CS, AU, AFM 823). In 832 the Vikings plundered and burned Lismore and Kilmolash (CS, AFM 831), and a great number of the people of Desmond were slaughtered (AU, AI, MB 830, CGG VII. O’Corrain states that by the mid-8th Century there is extensive evidence for raiding for slaves, and the Vikings had possibly begun wintering on islands, where they could hold numerous prisoners and hostages (see THE VIKINGS IN SCOTLAND AND IRELAND IN THE NINTH CENTURY DONNCHADH 6? CORRAIN Peritia, 1998-01-01 (12), p.296-339).

Sheehan (John Sheehan The Longphort in Viking Age Ireland Acta Archaeologica vol. 79, 2008, pp 282-295) points out that Woodstown was positioned on the border of the Déisi Muman and Osraige, and relations with the local Deisi tribes were not initially hostile. For instance the Annals of the Four Masters recounts how Maelseachlainn, King of Ireland, marched into Munster in the early 800s and, upon arrival at Indeoin na nDéisi, enforced hostages and submission from them ‘for they had given him opposition at the instigation of the foreigners’. As such Sheehan argues that Longphorts were tolerated by local rulers for a time, who hoped to benefit from trading opportunities, as well as mercenaries.

However relations appeared to have quickly soured. In 866 the annals mention the destruction of a Viking longphort at Youghal and ‘补 victory was? gained? over the fleet? of Eochaill? [Youghal]? by the? Deisi’(AFM? 864). The following year the Viking Olaf again attacked Lismore (AI, CGG, XXIX). Soon afterwards in 867 Gnimbeolu, the ‘toiseach’ of the Gall Corcaighe, ?is recorded as dying at the hands of the Déisi. Around the same time Colphin (ON. Kolfinnr) and the fleet of Dún Médoin fell at Cenn Curraig at the hand of Rechtabra mac Brain, identified in Chronicum Scotorum and ‘The Annals of the Four Masters’ as the son of Bran, king of the Déisi, who died in 876.

?

Downham argues that is credible that Waterford itself was founded by 860, or perhaps even earlier in 853 by the Viking chieftain Sitric, and the port eventually supplanted the Woodstown site as the centre of Viking activity in the south east. The relative violence in the southeast of Munster quietens for a period after the 860s, with notable interruptions to the peace. For instance in 873 a Dublin fleet under Baraid and Olafson ravaged Munster from Cork (CS, AI, AFM 871, CGG XXV). In 883 Lismore was again burned by the Ivarsson (AI, CGG XXVII). In 892 Riacán son of Dúngal, King of the Deisi, slaughtered the foreigners of Waterford, Wexford, and St Mullins, and two hundred heads were left behind (AFM 888.6). Nevertheless several Longphort settlements were abandoned in the 860s as the Vikings retreated to assist their allies in England, and many Longphorts were destroyed by the Irish Kings in their absence, including that of Youghal. In the 870s the ruling Ivar dynasty of Dublin were expelled, and there was a lull in Viking activity for over 30 years.

?

The annals are relatively quiet for the southern coast for a number of years, however the Ivarssons returned in 914, and initially Waterford served as their headquarters, until they were strong enough to return to Dublin in 917. The struggles of the Vikings in Lochlainn (Viking Scotland), to whom the Irish Vikings owed allegiance, resulted in a new wave of raids for slaves in the 10th Century, as the Scottish Vikings and their Irish Norse allies raided along the coasts for warriors to recruit into the Scottish war. In 915 the annals record that the Vikings of Waterford came out to plunder along the coast, attacking Lismore & Aghaboe (CS, MB 910, AFM 913). Several annals note that in 918 Ragnall, king of Black Vikings, and Jarl Oitir and Jarl Gragabai left Waterford harbour for Scotland to fight against Constantine, son of Aedh, king of Scotland. Gothfrith grandson of Ivar formed a battalion, the 2 jarls another and Ragnall a third. Oitir and Gragabai were killed there (AU, AFM 916, CGG XXIX). In 924, Gothfrith grandson of Ivar sailed along the south coast taking hostages as far as Roscarbery (AI).

In 962 the annals recall that Cobh was plundered by Olaf’s son and a fleet of Lagmanns, who had started at Howth and worked their way around the coast, ?plundering around Waterford, but were ultimately defeated in a naval encounter with the Ui Laithain (AFM 960). As late as 1013 it is reported that the King of Ui Liathain was fighting off a late Viking raids (AI).

?

Viking attacks in Munster were by no means limited to the east of the province, and the Shannon basin and Munster midlands, as well as the rest of the island, were u as extensively raided and unsettled by the Norsemen. Nevertheless the Viking presence in the north of the province had a consolidating effect, and it is from this region that the Norse in Ireland were brought to heel, and the entire island eventually brought under the (albeit brief) centralised control of the Ua Briain. O’Corrain notes that long before Clontarf ‘the Norse had become a minor political force in Irish affairs’, and FJ Byrne states that the Viking invasions ‘ultimately ruined the structure of Irish politics which the Ui Neill had built up over centuries’. Between 919 and 956 Niall Glundub and three of his successors at Tara, were killed at the hands of the Irish political rivals in alliance with various regional Norsemen, and this had set the Ui Neill paramountcy into decline and confusion (see Jaski The Vikings and the Kingship of Tara, Peritia 1995). However, unlike in England, the Viking presence in Ireland never really threatened to overwhelm the ultimate centres of power, but it had a lasting effect and undoubtedly disturbed and brought about a considerable amount of change in the regional political structures of the various polities that had held on to power for centuries without challenge.

?

The historical record, and indeed the DNA evidence, very much appears to suggest that the Viking era, and the rise of the Dal Cais in the north of the province, may have had an exhausting effect on the eastern part of Munster in particular, and whilst the later Viking era is very much characterised by the rise of the Sil mBrian of Brian Boru in north Munster, other polities in Munster suffered an irreversible decline from which they never recovered. Undoubtedly there were many factors at play which ultimately led to the partitioning of the province into Thomond under the O’Briens and Desmond under the Meig Carthaigh in the aftermath of the Viking era – but it is nevertheless arguable that the arrival in Ireland of the Vikings was the catalyst that changed the political dynamics in Munster and beyond. ?

?

During the struggles between the upstart O’Briens, the Callaghans and the McCarthys in the late 11th and 12th centuries for pre-eminence in Munster and control of Eoghanacht capital of Cashel, the Ui Liathain in particular appear to have been largely marginalised, and on the eve of the Norman invasion seem to have been subject to the rising regional power, the Eóganacht Glennamnach – Meig Carthaig affiliates - who centred their authority within Ui Liathain territory in Cloyne in the territories of Fir Maige and Múscraige. Cotter states that it is unclear whether this lordship extended over Uí Liatháin itself at this juncture, but the contemporary annals of the period do not suggest any especial prominence for the Ui Liathain by this time (see Cotter , 2006, Journal of the Cork Historical and Archaeological Society). Perhaps it is for this reason 颁罢厂4466…/A151+ does not survive in any particular powerful Sept or clan in the South East of Ireland – or maybe the Ui Liathain and Deisi Muman never really existed within a single haplotype, but was a federation of various differing ancestral lines – which is most likely the case.

?

However O’Corrain (see O’Corrain Onomata ?riu , 1979, Vol. 30 (1979), pp. 165-180) rather patriotically reminds us that the Ui Charrain affiliates of the Ui Liathain were rulers of the petty kingdom of Ui Meic Caille as late as the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and centred their power around the O’Liathain monastic centre of Cloyne. The overkingdom of Ui Liathain, to which they belonged, ‘was occupied by a number of aristocratic lineages, apparently of different origins, which included Ui Buirich, Ui Chuirp, Cen Dallain, Ui Thassaig and Ui Meic Caille. The early kings of Ui Liathain belonged to Ui Meic Caille and they controlled the important monastery of Cloyne. In the twelfth century, Ui Charrain and their kinsmen, Ui Glaissin and Ui Anmchada, were ousted by Ui Meic Tire, apparently the later descendants of Ui Thassaig, and Ui Meic Tire continued to maintain themselves in some strength until the early thirteenth century’.

?

The events to which O’Corrain refers concerns the final period of the great instability in Munster in the 11^th and 12^th centuries, where Domnall Mor Ua Briain, King of Thomond, and Diarmait Mor Mac Carthaig, King of Desmond struggled for the crumbs of the old Eoghanacht pre-eminence, which by that time had exhausted an effective Irish resistance to increased Norman incursion, and was an increasing irrelevance.? In 1177 it appears that the Uí Meic Caille (Ui Corrain) fled westwards across the Lee and settled in Kerry, bringing an end to the Ui Liathain power base there.

?

It is noteworthy that neither the CTS4466 + FTDNA project, nor the Munster DNA project carry a single DNA sample for a Curran surname kit at present. The Ireland yDNA project does contain 6 kits, but none of them exhibit any of the typical ySTR characteristics of CTS4466 and it is to be noted that there are at least 3 Septs of the name on the island of Ireland, none of which have any historic or geographic connection inter se. It is therefore clear that the Curran/Ui Charrain surname of the Uí Meic Caille sept of the Ui Liathain are entirely absent from any DNA analysis at present.

It should be reminded to readers at this juncture that the genealogy of Uí Meic Caille sept of the of the Ui Liathain is recorded as in descent from Eochu Liathán ("Eochu the Grey"), son of Daire Cerbba. It is noteworthy that the Derrynane O’Connells, a branch line of the Ui Fidgenti ?(Uí Chonaill Gabra sept of Limerick) according to the genealogies, are also recorded as descendants of Daire Cerbba via a different male line, and that this family is believed to be CTS4466/..A151 positive (B52), which is perhaps of some significance. Of course these Kerry O’Connells are not a good match to their O’Donovan ‘cousins’ in the context of a common Ui Fidgenti ancestry. As the Munster DNA project notes, a cluster of Donovans are found under CTS4466/….Z21065, which subclade accounts for about 35% of A541. The most frequently found names here are Donovan and Regan (and variants) in the subclade defined by the path Z21065>A195>A761>A88>Z16259, where they are accompanied by Hayes and O’Hourihane.? The article “Irish Type II explored through Uí Chairpri Aebda” -? - concludes that, although the name Donovan and some other surnames under Z21065 can have origins among the peoples of the Corca Laidhe, the presence of the Regans and numerous other surnames of possible Thomond (North Munster) extraction, and even more northerly origins, supports an Uí Chairpri Aebda provenance. The Uí Chairpri Aebda were purportedly a division of the Uí Fidgeinti, whose homelands were centred on Bruree, in the south-east of present day Co. Limerick. ?

Little consideration is given in the discussion to the provenance of the Uí Chonaill Gabra sept, who clearly do not fit into this narrative. Nigel’s article sidesteps any connection of the Donovans and Regans to a common ancestry with the Ui Liathain, which he says is difficult to establish given the paucity of any DNA for that particular polity. This is a fair point. In the Munster project the Uí Chonaill Gabra are listed under a Corca Dhuibhne haplotype, and there is some indication that there may be a relationship to the O’Sheas – though modern O’Connells heavily outnumber O’Sheas under A151../B52. Indeed the evidence appears to suggest that the O’Sheas of ?Corca Dhuibhne are not CTS4466 positive, and the identifying snip for that line is probablt R-BY402

So, in summation, what exactly has and has not been established in this rather long email? Well, firstly my training and formation as an historian (albeit an amateur hack) would never allow me to supplement hard facts for fairy tales, and there’s no doubt that much that has been written above is wildly speculative without any hard evidence, but I have tried to frame the narrative in the context of scholarly literature. However, whilst conscious that many before me have withered on the vine in regards to making predictions about where the future path of yDNA may lead, I think there is a case to be made for some of the following conclusions. Before listing these conclusions, I should say that in essence much of the following narrative is based on theories formulated by John Brazil, and I am merely fleshing out the bones of his thesis:-

?

8. The Ui Liathain and Deisi Muman formed the ancestral core of the settlers who left southeast Munster for Wales in the early 4^th century – this is an undoubted fact
9. There might be some basis in fact for the origins of the Deisi Muman and Ui Liathain found in Indarba na nDéssi, the Expulsion of the Deisi – maybe, but the scholarly community are generally agreed that the central narrative of the tale is likely a fabricated myth, however the genealogies quoted for the Welsh Deisi are in general agreement with later 12^th century genealogies in Harley MS 3859 and other sources
10. The Deisi and Ui Liathain may be partially, or substantially, found in A151+ subclades of CTS4466 – unlikely: the Irish genealogical tracts indicate a high level of ancestral diversity in the Deisi Muman. Nevertheless there is a clear pattern established of significant interaction between the Viking era in Ireland and A151, which is not seen in other haplotypes of CTS4466 to any comparable degree. This is perhaps suggestive that the ancient DNA of the A151+ haplogroup might belong to a coastal people settled in east Cork and south Waterford, and individuals may have been taken as slaves to the Viking city of Waterford, or perhaps allied to the Norsemen of Waterford as warriors for hire (or both) There is, however, no evidence for a smattering of A151+ along the south east coast of Ireland in modern DNA – but time may tell another tale. ?
11. CT14 at Claristown, Co. Meath may give some credence to the central narrative of the Indarba na nDéssi – A stretch too far perhaps: one swallow does not a Summer make, but it is nevertheless interesting to find an A151+ burial in the hinterland of Tara and Leinster, far from their historic base in Munster. The dating suggested by Cassidy also seems to match closely enough to the events recorded in the Expulsion of the Deisi, their wanderings throughout Leinster and the settlement of the Ui Liathain and Deisi in Wales
12. 颁罢厂4466…/A151+ is a haplotype associated with the settlement in Dyfed – too early to say – there’s precious little DNA evidence as yet to work towards a definitive conclusion. Overall there is a regrettable paucity of yDNA evidence emerging from the modern Welsh population to detect the presence of Munster DNA in the population – particularly in the south of Wales. However early indications suggest that the Dyfed settlement may be associated with the two branches of 础151/…贵罢11485, viz. FT74196 and A714. Both cousin blocks appear to show a connection between south east Munster and a small amount of modern DNA found with early modern ancestry from Wales and Somerset.
13. In particular there is a reasonable case to be made that one branch of FT11485, FT74196 has a close Ui Liathain connection – The matching of the O’Connells of Derrynane high upstream to A151 is interesting as the Ui Liathain and the O’Connell branch of the Ui Fidgenti are deemed to have a very remote common ancestor in the genealogical tracts. However, again, it is too early to say. There is very little DNA evidence collected from family surname types with a known connection to the Ui Liathain, such as the Uí Meic Caille of Cloyne, who are possibly to be found in modern Curran surname types. No single Curran sample from this sept group is observable in any DNA project, so it is to be assumed that none have tested to date. Testing of Curran surname types from West Cork and Kerry to see if they match to FT74196, or higher upstream to FT11485, or even A151+, might yield some interesting results. This might be a good place to start
14. The matching of Jones type BY21620 to O’Brien type FT132319 is also interesting, particularly in the context of the possible connection of BY21620 to the Welsh royal house of Powys and FT132319’s established connection to the hinterland of Cork city – it is interesting, but again one swallow does not a summer make. The Welsh sample has a convincing connection to an ancient Welsh pedigree, but it isn’t cast iron. The connection of the Virginia family of Jones with the Welsh house of Trevor should be established with DNA testing taken from the modern Trevor family itself, where there has been no interruption in the male line. Many branches of the Trevor family also settled in Ireland, particularly in Ulster, so it mightn’t be too difficult to track down a willing sampler. In any case whilst the timeline is right for an ancient Welsh pedigree of Irish origin, the location is wrong. This family is a northern Welsh royal house, with no obvious male line descent from the Kings of Dyfed. Nevertheless it’s a positive first step and also a good place from which to proceed.

?

?

?

?

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of O'Brien, Neil via
Sent: Wednesday 8 September 2021 21:35
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.
R?OMHPHOST SEACHTRACH: Tháinig an ríomhphost seo as áit éigin taobh amuigh de O? Gaillimh. Ná cliceáil ar naisc agus ná hoscail ceangaltáin mura n-aithníonn tú seoladh ríomhphoist an tseoltóra agus mura gcreideann tú go bhfuil an t-ábhar sábháilte.

?

Hi John,

?

Thanks for your email. Firstly Stifter himself makes the same point as you do – that it is very likely that Ogham (or Ogam if you prefer) was obviously not merely a written form that was purely transmitted through the medium of stone. It is very likely that it was also written on wood, which as you say, does not survive. However he is insistent that the writing form was likely the product of a single inventor – he says it more than once. He makes no firm conclusion as to when the form was devised, or from where the script emerged. He summarises the established scholarship that it was anything between the 1^st and 5^th Century, with the 4^th Century as plausible, but doesn’t come down in favour of one argument or the other. ??

?

Irish is the oldest written language in Northern Europe, besides Latin, and the Irish language is fortunate because its ancient roots survives. As Stifter points out, the morphology into Old Irish from Primitive Irish took place in as little as 100-200 years towards the end of the 5^th Century, and was a near total revolution making primitive Irish as distinguishable from Old Irish as Latin from French. However this trend is not unique in Ireland, it is a trend seen in most Northern European languages almost at the exact same time – people were on the move as Roman authority disintegrated.

?

The stones are indeed the gift that keeps giving – they are the earliest form of written Irish in existence and provide a glimpse of how the language morphed (rather quickly) from primitive origins into Old Irish. The majority of surviving Ogham stones are from the so-called ‘orthodox’ period and are written in primitive Irish – there is no difference really between ‘orthodox’ Welsh and Irish stones, except that Welsh stones frequently have identical translations in Latin and Brythonic – sometimes both. As such, I would argue that the Welsh stones represent a mingling of cultures which is absent in Ireland. That would suggest to me, at any rate, that the transmission of Ogham is west-east, following Irish settlers into Wales after the Roman withdrawal. We know this settlement is true historically and increasingly the DNA evidence is also pointing in this direction and indicating that Irish settlement into Wales was likely from the south of Ireland. I think our recent Jones discovery was particularly significant in this regard, particularly with this line’s convincing connection to the Royal house of Powys.

?

As you yourself have noted, the stones also seem to travel a path of concentration from the Southwest, along the south Irish coast, and travelling eastwards and into south Wales. You’re not the first to note this – scholars have identified a connection between Ogham, Ireland and Wales for a long time, but you’re the first to suggest that this is connected to the A151 subclade. This is a theory well worth exploring and early results are promising.

?

So-called ‘classical’ Ogham stones demonstrate a transition into Old Irish, and Ogham as a written form uniquely continues in the Pictish region well into the early Viking era, though the eastern Scottish stones are not written in Irish, but in an undecipheral language – probably the language of the Picts. Early Irish manuscripts provide a key for translating Ogham and primitive Irish. This ‘Rosetta stone’ does not exist for Pictish dialects.

?

I take your point about the eastwards travel in the Roman period – the archaeological evidence is there, in Ireland at least, for interaction between the Roman World and Iron Age Ireland, but it is not substantial – it would be a mistake to overstate it. Ireland was on the periphery of the Roman World, but it is well known that the Romans tolerated Barbarian settlement and incursion inside its borders, well before the Empire collapsed. The same trend as might be observed in Iron Age Ireland is also seen on the Rhine frontier, and increasingly Germanic tribes pushed southwards from the third century onwards for reasons that are not fully understood – at least not when I was a student over 30 years ago. Back then climatic factors were also hypothesised as a means for this push southwards, however climatic conditions are deemed favourable in 3rd Century Rome, so it doesn’t correspond with the Iron Age Lull in Ireland. I’ll have to do a bit of revision and look at the new scholarship. However a critical factor in the Roman World was the so-called Crisis of the Third Century – a mixture of political upheavals and the arrival of major pathogen during the 2nd century reign of the Emperor Antoninus Pius, and the 3rd Century Cyprian Plague. However the quick recovery of the Empire was facilitated by a new political system of governance and very favourable climatic conditions.

?

In terms of your comment on 'history not documented and attested are fairy stories', I am somewhat in the same school of thought. Looking at one of the most famous Irish text, the Book of Invasions, there’s a superb summary of the standard scholarly interpretation of this text from John Carey (Donn, Amairgen, ?th and the Prehistory of Irish Pseudohistory Journal of Indo - European Studies volume 38, Number 3 & 4, Fall/Winter 2010) of UCC. Given that various Irish sagas and genealogies, written Early and Middle Irish in Irish Monastic Foundations, are subject to extensive Christian and classical interpolation, it’s often impossible to separate a genuine ancient Irish oral inheritance from myth.

?

Nothing too controversial there, I’m sure we’ll all agree.

?

Texts such as the Lebor Gabála enjoyed a level of popularity in the 19th Century as a means of demonstrating Irish exceptionalism and a resistance to Anglicisation and national revival. In the early 20th Century assumed certainties were subjected textual criticism and analysis, notably from the Dutch and German Celtic philologists A. G. van Hamel and Kuno Meyer, all the way up to Carney and beyond.

?

Meyer approved of van Hamel’s methodology which uncovered that much of the narrative of the Lebor Gabála derived its material source from ‘misunderstood passages from classical authors’. In the 1980s Mark Scowcroft reflected that ‘students of early Irish tradition have too often pursued a kind of literary archaeology, excavating (sometimes ?creating) documentary ruins out of which to reconstruct pagan antiquity …..and they may fail to see that their reconstructions rest on cruciform foundations….belonging [sic] to the architecture
of medieval learning rather than to its vernacular building-materials’.

?

Kim McCone states that the ‘the Bible provides the overarching context within which Irish events are situated; and the parallelism between the early Gaels and the Israelites, and between the successive settlements of Ireland and the ‘world kingdoms’ of Eusebius’ Chronicle, are not only evident in themselves but are in fact
explicitly acknowledged in the text. It could indeed scarcely be otherwise, for the raison d’être of Lebor Gabála - as of other pseudohistorical works produced in other countries - is to close the embarrassing gap between native tradition on the one hand, and on the other the imposing tableau of universal history which had been elaborated by the scholars of the early Church’.

?

Nevertheless there are also those how support the ‘no smoke without fire’ approach. Carey notes that Lebor Gabála has survived the ashes of such withering criticism and whilst it could be said that the text remains ‘ubiquitous in those areas of popular culture and ‘fringe’ speculation’, it has still not been banished entirely from academics. Notable champions are Alwyn and Brinley in their 1961 book, Celtic Heritage, who took it for granted that ‘the structure of the whole, reflect(s) a primordial Celtic
vision of reality’. In the 1940s Marie-Louse Sjoestedt argued that whilst it was ‘retouched, no doubt, by clerics anxious to fit the local traditions into the framework of Biblical history... its pagan quality has not noticeably been altered’. Proinsias Mac Cana concluded that ‘despite its transparent fabrications, there is much in this account that is evidently traditional’

Carey himself is a sceptic, and notes that overall the text is a hallow accounts of names and sketchy narrative associations, and ‘no certain conclusions’. He describes the
family of Míl Espáine as ‘patently artificial’. He notes that a number of the central characters are designed merely to amplify the contemporary dynastic zeitgeist of the era when the text was first written. The ‘doings of ?remón (ancestor of the Uí Néill, the Connachta, the Laigin, and other population-groups) and of ?ber Find (ancestor of the Eóganachta and others) are a ‘sort of genealogical and toponymic lore which makes so much of Lebor Gabála such pedestrian reading’. The story of ?th, son of Bregon, whose wrongful death is the catalyst for the invasion ‘is as clear an example of the latinate artificiality of the pseudohistorical schema as one could wish for’.

?

So much for ‘smoke without fire’ in this regard!

?

Just as Christian and Classical interpolation influenced the origins of the Book of Invasions as received, Carey (as a discipline of Meyer), finds echoes of earlier Indo-European myth cycles which influence the text, which he believes forms the more authentic original oral narrative. The text, he argues, contains ‘clues, and suggestive ones, which indicate that some elements in the Irish pseudohistorical construct come to us, not from Orosius or Eusebius or Genesis, but from ancient native stories of the first settlement of the land: stories which find echoes in beliefs attributed to the druids, and which may in part go back as far as the naming of Ireland itself’.

?

Carey, as many before him have, notes that only two of the sons of Míl Espáine make up the second strand of the Lebor Gabála. These are warrior Donn, the eldest of the brothers, and Amairgen, the poet and judge. Donn is drowned during the second landing of the sons of Míl in Ireland and leaves no descendants after him. In spite of Donn’s drowning in the saga Carey argues that it is possible that the Pagan Gaels believed in their common descent from an ancestor Donn, conveniently killed off by a Christian author, and the Middle Irish account frequently points back to Donn as the primordial ancestor. Donn is believed to have been the God of death, whose dwelling was an island to which all true Gaels would travel after their deaths.

?

Carey follows in the tradition of Meyer, who first noted the importance of the character Donn, who he identified as the exact counterpart of Dis Pater, the ancestor and death God of the Gauls. Meyer argues that Donn/Dis-Pater is not only a common character of ‘Celtic’ myths, but also an Indo-European entity, also seen in the Indic Yama. Most scholars, Carey states, have accepted Meyer’s interpretation. As such, the Lebor Gabála preserves the recollections of the central myths of the Celtic people.

?

Carey also notes the role played by the brother Amairgen, the poet and judge. He and Donn appear both ‘in conjunction, but also in opposition, representing the rival claims to authority of the warrior and the sage’. As the sons of Míl set sail to conquer the land, it is Amairgen who calms the magical wind of the Tuatha Dé Donann, with a chant in which he invokes the land itself in terms of its various features, and a recognition that Ireland is personified in the ‘vast woman ?riu’. Donn, however, pledges to conquer the with ‘spear and sword’, but is drowned in the wind for his arrogance.

?

Carey concludes that the propose of the author of the text is to divide the sons of Míl into two groups: ‘补 collection of two-dimensional ancestor figures, whose artificial-looking names are almost all that we know about them’. Donn and Amairgen, he argues, are the central characters in the actual story and ‘feature as a pair’ in other texts, ‘补s far ?back as the early eighth century: in the cryptic treatise known ?as ‘The Caldron of Poesy’.

?

Carey finds parallels for Donn and Amairgen in many other Indo-European traditions from Romulus and Remus, up to Yama in Indian mythology. Yama being the God of death and his brother Manu is celebrated for his wisdom and is the ancestor of mankind. However he notes that Amairgen is not named as the ancestor of the Gaels. Rather his role is that of ‘prototypical poet and legal expert, an embodiment of the powers of the word, set over ?against his elder brother Donn, the leader and man of action’. Carey notes this duality is seen in the Gaulish world where the society was divided into druids and warrior nobility. This duality is seen in other Irish sagas too and Carey argues that ‘the filid or professional poets, in transmitting these ancient tales, gave them a slant calculated to enhance the standing of their own profession’.

?

As such, therefore, to follow Carey (and many before him) the Lebor Gabála draws strongly from 3 sources. Firstly the interpolation of Christian and Classical myths into Irish history, much of which forms the core saga. Secondly the insertion of contemporary dynastic genealogies into the text for obvious political purposes which had more importance to the dynamics of the time in which the test was written, and thirdly the echoes of earlier origin myths which are not purely Irish in origin, but form part of a wider Indo-European cycle.

?

Now to the Irish genealogical tracts themselves, firstly I should introduce this with a tribute. One of the great pleasures of my life was the years I spent under the tutelage of the late, great Professor Donnchadh O’Corrain. Donnchadh came from a generation of Irish historical scholars in the 1970s-1990s who were like none ever seen before, but even amongst these greats he was part of a small coterie that stood tall above the others. He carved out a truly international profile in his work on early Ireland, Irish laws, the early Irish Church and, of course, his expertise on the Viking World, from which his international reputation was largely built. A pugnacious character, with a sardonic sense of wit, he was never afraid to criticise staid methods of earlier generations of Irish historians – his particular scorn on his old teacher, Professor Daniel Binchy was legendary.

?

One particular area of interest of his was Gaelic genealogies – a study that he noted was largely ignored by scholars in the early 20^th century, dismissed by Eoin McNeill himself as ‘补? wilderness? of names from which it would be vain to expect any light’.

?

O’Corrain notes (Creating the past: the early Irish genealogical tradition – Peritia Vol. 12 Pages: pp. 177-208) that the published genealogies of the twelfth century and before contain the names of about 12,000 individuals, though likely more extensive from unpublished tracts, which brings the total to over 20,000. The genealogies cover the prehistoric/mythological period, the proto-historic times and the historic period proper from AD 550 onwards.? He notes that well over two-thirds? of the? individuals? named? in? the? corpus? are probably? historical giving roughly? 21? generations for? 12 000? persons from various dynasties.

The surviving manuscripts are undoubted copies of earlier manuscripts written in the 7th, 8th and and 9th Centuries. The earliest tracts are MS? Rawlinson B? 502 in Bodleian Library dating from about 1130, and the Book of Leinster at TCD, with a number of other texts, the most famous and recent being that of the great Irish Boethius, Dubaltach? Mac? Firbhisigh’s? Great Book? of Genealogies.

In terms of DNA study, O’Corrain makes a very important point, and it is worth quoting at length

‘One may not take ideas? such? as? ‘descent’,? ‘补ncestor’,? ‘kin’? too? narrowly.? There really is no conclusive evidence that the makers of the records understood? these? terms? in? a? narrow? biological? sense ?(in? any? case,? their understanding? of? biology? differed? from? ours),? in? a? logical? positivist? way. Geographical? contiguity? can? be? expressed? in? genealogical? form.? In? the twelfth-century? genealogies? and? survey? of? Corcu? Loigde……the? eponyms? of eight? or? more? small? land-owners? form? an ascending line in the genealogy of Ul Flaind Arda.? Clearly, what at first sight is? a? genealogy? of Ui? Flaind? Arda? is? an? aetiological construct to? explain the relationship between? a group? of landowners? and their overlord? and this? in a context? in? which? there? can? be? no? doubt? that the? tract preserves? a historical record? of the? land-owning? families? at? the? time? of writing. ‘Descent’ and ‘kinship’ can be metaphors for other processes: subjugation of one dynasty by another,? dynastic ?replacement,? contiguity,? establishment? of hierarchy? or? an order of precedence’.

As such, it isn’t particularly easy therefore to assign clan or familial relationships to a particular DNA type – as I think the Project is very well aware. The grouping of Septs of regional entities were less biological in nature and kinship was more a series of relationships based on alliance or convenience.

?

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of john brazil via
Sent: Wednesday 8 September 2021 15:51
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.
R?OMHPHOST SEACHTRACH: Tháinig an ríomhphost seo as áit éigin taobh amuigh de O? Gaillimh. Ná cliceáil ar naisc agus ná hoscail ceangaltáin mura n-aithníonn tú seoladh ríomhphoist an tseoltóra agus mura gcreideann tú go bhfuil an t-ábhar sábháilte.

?

Many thanks for this Neil.

?

No, you have not misrepresented my speculations ?!

?

This is a seriously complex period of history and our ability to tease apart the various strands of this complexity is much constrained by our lack of evidence. Notwithstanding the view? of a noted Irish historian who said to me that 'history not documented and attested are fairy stories'!

?

We seem to have had a population bottleneck in the Late Iron Age evidenced by genetic data that seems to be corroborated by pollen studies and dendrochronology. It does not appear to have been associated with any deterioration in climate, indeed Britain seems to have enjoyed good climatic conditions during this period. So Elizabeth's speculation that this might have been associated with plague or pestilence of humans or stock is tempting. Perhaps introduced from Britain as it became integrated within the Roman Empire.

?

The extent of trade between Ireland and Britain (and also the Classical World of Rome and Greece) over this period seems to have flowed and ebbed (see Philip Freeman's 'Ireland and the Classical World - 2001 - University of Texas). Again, there appears to have been a 'lull' in the 3rd century - though Freeman acknowledges there is a dearth of 3rd century sources.

?

The timing and extent of Irish colonies in Wales (and perhaps other parts of western Britain) is also complex. We need to be careful not to fall into the mistake of extrapolating directly from the subsequent history of the Norse in Ireland and Britain, namely a sequence of raiding, trading and settlement. It is likely that some Irish colonies existed in western Britain, most likely in south Wales, before the withdrawal of the Romans to Europe and certainly in the immediately subsequent sub-Roman period. These seem to have been at least contemporaneous with, or possibly pre-date, raids by other Irish tribes / polities including the one that originally brought Patrick to Ireland.

?

The origins of Ogam, and where this might have occurred, are similarly a subject of great speculation as Neil has detailed below (thanks Neil for alerting me to David Stifter's work). But I might argue his point that Ogam was 'delivered' whole and complete without evidence of experimentation, thus pointing to its invention by a single individual? No less than our deeper human history, the evidence left on stone down the ages to us merely points up the absence of evidence of innovations made on more perishable materials that have not survived. The Vindolanda and Bloomberg tablets are remarkable instances from Roman Britain that have survived. It seems entirely plausible to me that an 'experimental' phase of developing Ogam would have utilised similar perishable materials now lost to us? Perhaps up 100 years before it appeared fully-formed on stone?

?

My understanding of the orthography of Ogam stones from different locations and times is very limited as is my knowledge of the rapid evolution of Irish from that period forward. As for locations, unfortunately many of these have been relocated or re-utilised down the centuries making modern archaeological techniques such as luminescence dating (used recently to identify and date the quarry in west Wales where the smaller 'Blue Stones' at Stonehenge were sourced) unusable. All I can say is that the Ogam stones in west Wales seem to use older / more conservative Irish than those in Ireland?? Whether this is evidence for these being older is moot since it is also likely that the Irish spoken by the colonists in Wales in a multi-lingual environment remained conservative (akin, perhaps, to the retention of some 'archaic' features of American English and Hiberno-English compared to 'Standard' English?. Certainly the evolution of the Irish language seems to have been driven by the new Christian religion and increased exposure to Latin.

?

The introduction of Christianity into Ireland is another major strand in this complex. And, again, the histories handed down seem to have been 'glossed'. Palladius was sent to Ireland in AD 431 to minister to the Christians already living in Ireland. Although apparently most active in Leinster he seems to have baptised Ailbe of Emly who played a major role in (pre-Patrician?) Christian Munster. Ailbe aka Elvis clearly also had contact with Wales since he baptised St David! But the roles of the 'Munster Saints' (also including Declan of Ardmore) seems to have been downplayed as the part played by Patrick was emphasised by the Diocese of Armagh and its supporting Uí Neills. Christianity seems to have reached Roman Britain long before all of this, perhaps as early as AD 200, well before the persecutions of Christians in the Empire was ended by Constantine in 313.

?

The concentration of Ogam stones in Kerry is remarkable and certainly seems to reflect a great enthusiasm for them there. But whether this means that Ogam was invented there is moot. I know Elizabeth and many authors feel that it did travel from west to east but, equally, other authors (including Matthew Stout whom I have mentioned in a previous email) suggest it was developed in west Wales and this is a view that I tend to. On the other hand, Cathy Swift suggested in a chapter published in 'Ireland and Wales in the Middle Ages' back in 2007 that the association of Ogam with the Déisí and Uí Liatháin colonies in west Wales might have been emphasised by later documentary sources influenced by their patrons (though the Uí Liatháin at least seem not to have retained any prominence in the documentary source for long!). I need to contact Cathy again (I was last in touch with her about our 10th century Viking R-A151+ in Orkney - VK202).

?

The R-A151+ O'Connells (of Derrynane and elsewhere) remain enigmatic, at least to my mind. Traditionally they have claimed ancestry from the Uí Fidgenti together with O'Donovans and O'Collins (and others) but their genetics doesn't back this up. An association between the Uí Fidgenti and the Uí Liatháin is recognised in the Annals and genealogies, as is their 'special relationship' with the Eoghanachta but trying to tie any of this to the genealogies is problematic (as Nigel well knows!).

?

Incidentally the spellings Ogam and Ogham seem to be used interchangeably - and both pronounced either O'am or Og'am. I don't speak Irish (born and brought up in England) so I don't know what might be right or wrong ?! Damian McManus uses Ogam as his preferred spelling.

?

John.

?

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 2:37 PM O'Brien, Neil <neil.obrien@...> wrote:

More and more Ogham stones have been documented since the 1940s, and more continue to be discovered. It is thought that there are about 400 in Britain and Ireland, the majority (330) are found in Ireland. ?

?

The main concentration of Ogham activity is in the south, particularly the southwest, with a clustering in Kerry, stretching out along the southern coast, up through Waterford, Wexford and up to south Wicklow.

?

In Cornwall and Devon, together, there are a dozen stones. England has a single stone known. There are 8 on the Isle of Man. There are 6 in Gaelic Dál Riata Scotland, but 29 found in areas of former Pictish Kingdoms, mainly along the east-coast of Scotland, the Orkneys, and the Shetlands. Uniquely the Pictish stones appear are in a non-Irish in language, the rest are exclusively in primitive Irish, with accompanying Latin alphabet script found in Wales.

?

Undoubtedly Waterford-East Cork has an old dynastic link with Wales and it is suggested by many commentators, including David Stifter from Maynooth, that ‘this connection suggests itself as a channel of transmission for the art of writing between those two countries’. However the direct of travel is impossible to ascertain. The concentration in southwest Ireland might well suggest a west-east source of travel.

?

Stifter also points out that scholars in the early and middle part of the 20th century, including Carney, were inclined to see in Ogham an Irish invention of great antiquity, going back to the 1st century A.D. (e.g. Carney 1975) or even earlier. Whereas the current thinking is that they are a phenomena that belongs to the early 5th Century (Sims-Williams). Harvey argues, given that the majority of Ogham stones belong to the ‘orthodox’ phase of Ogham stone creation, and are overwhelmingly written in primitive Irish, any time between the 1st and 5th century is possible, before the transition to old Irish in the 6^th Century during the ‘Great Upheaval of the Phonological System’.

?

Radio carbon dating is not effective on stone, and neither have the sites been satisfactorily archaeologically investigated. However the archaeological evidence of the Silchester Stone (dating to around 496) supports a late Antiquity origin. It is also noted that the emergence of Ogham could coincide with the arrival of Christianity in Ireland. Swift argues that Ogham was devised as a vernacular counterpart to Latin literacy - a prerequisite for embracing the Christian tradition.

?

Therefore the emergence of ‘orthodox’ Ogham stones in the 4th Century or so (to split the difference) does not coincide with any particular shift in language, which might be expected if Ogham was associated with external settlement into Ireland.? That being said, however, it is known that Irish, and primitive Irish, was spoken in areas of Irish settlement in Britain, most particularly Wales (especially Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire, Gwynedd, and Anglesey). As such it is not surprising to find that British Ogham stones have Irish inscriptions. Nevertheless of the 50 or so Ogham inscriptions that are known from the area of Roman Britain only five stones are monolingual Irish. The others are bilingual and usually contain Latin or Old British equivalent versions of the Irish text. This is suggestive of an intermingling of cultures in Britain which is absent in Ireland, and perhaps illustrates that the emergence of Ogham script in Britain is a result of Irish immigration into Britain in Late Antiquity, and not vice versa at an earlier stage.

?

As such, Ogham stones are far too late to be suggestive of any significant settlement into Ireland from Wales after the 1st Century, and Ogham probably emerged in Ireland far later than 250AD. Indeed the opposite might indeed prove the case –Iron Age commemorative standing stones (if that was indeed their purpose) seem to be an Irish phenomenon if one employs the metric of crude statistical clustering.

?

It is arguable that the script itself may have been devised on the island of Britain, and imported into Ireland. Ireland did not exist in splendid isolation. The archaeological evidence, particularly from sites such as Newgrange, clearly establish that from the 1st millennium, there was significant interaction with Roman Britain. The late Professor O’Kelly of UCC used to describe the discovery of Roman coins at Newgrange as evidence of ‘Roman tourists in Ireland’. Subsequent archaeological surveys have found evidence of Roman trading posts in Co. Dublin. As such it is undoubtedly certain that the Irish had come into contact with the Latin alphabet.

?

It is commonly accepted that Ogham script was probably invented by someone, perhaps in Britain. Stifter argues that the uniformity of the writing system from the earliest times, without evidence for a period of experimentation, points to the inventor being a single individual, perhaps familiar with Latin writing and the Latin grammatical tradition, but it is impossible to specify a place. The motivation for the invention may have been to give the Irish language a cultural status of equal prestige alongside Latin.

?

Stifter also makes a convincing argument that Ogham, as a phenomenon, is probably continuously associated with the south of Ireland. He points out that the written manuscript tradition of Old Irish sets towards the end of the classical Ogam period (roughly from the middle of the 7th Century onwards) are written in Latin script, and the first centres of manuscript writing in Old Irish were located in the north-east of Ireland (e.g., Bangor, Armagh). Whereas Ogam activities continued in the south and southwest of the island for some time afterwards, which he identifies as a curious dichotomy. Though of course some Ogham manuscripts do survive, and the intermingling of Ogham and Latin text is a feature of the Irish manuscription tradition.

?

I think the core of John’s argument is that the A151 subclade is most associated with the Uí Liatháin and Irish migration into Wales and the Ogham tradition followed with them. It might be no co-incidence that the O’Connells of Derrynane are an A151 cluster,? given the concentration of Ogham stones in territory of the Corca Dhuibhne. I may be misrepresenting his position, and if so apologies for that.

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Elizabeth via
Sent: Tuesday 7 September 2021 09:35
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.
R?OMHPHOST SEACHTRACH: Tháinig an ríomhphost seo as áit éigin taobh amuigh de O? Gaillimh. Ná cliceáil ar naisc agus ná hoscail ceangaltáin mura n-aithníonn tú seoladh ríomhphoist an tseoltóra agus mura gcreideann tú go bhfuil an t-ábhar sábháilte.

?

The Book of Invasions (written? in the 11^th century) says the Partholonians, the second group to settle in Ireland, died from a pestilence.? You can’t help but wonder if a plague/pandemic (a real one) occurred during that 40 BC to 250 AD period and was incorporated into the myths.?

?

Might our FGC11134… gents have survived?? Or might a second wave of that haplogroup arrived later?

?

John, does Stout indicate if this lull affected the whole island equally?? I know you shared with me privately last month that Stout believed that Ogham was developed in west Wales rather than southern Ireland.? I’m getting that book…

?

Elizabeth

?

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of john brazil
Sent: 06 September 2021 19:22
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-CTS4466-Plus] Y-DNA Warehouse Tree Tech Demo

?

Neil,

?

A potential contributor to a SNP bottleneck might be the phenomenon known as the 'Late Iron Age Lull'?

?

Discussed briefly (since it antedates his main focus) by Dr Matthew Stout in his 2017 book entitled Early Medieval Ireland 431-1169, he points to a marked downturn in human agricultural activity in Ireland from around 40 BC to 250 AD as evidenced by pollen analysis. He suggests that this must have been associated with a marked decline in population, further supported by a 'gap' in building construction over the same period. This does not seem to have been associated with a deteriorating climate - indeed the corresponding period in Britain is known as the 'Roman Warm Period'.

?

It certainly could provide both a SNP bottleneck but also a marked incentive for some to 'investigate' opportunities on the eastern shore of the Irish Sea?

?

John.

?

?

On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 6:28 PM O'Brien, Neil <neil.obrien@...> wrote:

On 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 – 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 – the conclusion is obvious.

?

?

?

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of O'Brien, Neil via
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.
R?OMHPHOST SEACHTRACH: Tháinig an ríomhphost seo as áit éigin taobh amuigh de O? Gaillimh. Ná cliceáil ar naisc agus ná hoscail ceangaltáin mura n-aithníonn tú seoladh ríomhphoist an tseoltóra agus mura gcreideann tú go bhfuil an t-ábhar sábháilte.

?

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 – 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
Sent: Monday 6 September 2021 17:24
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [R1b-CTS4466-Plus] Y-DNA Warehouse Tree Tech Demo

?

If we’re agreed that CTS4466 probably didn’t form on the island of Ireland, but in Wales – 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
Sent: Monday 6 September 2021 17:16
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.
R?OMHPHOST SEACHTRACH: Tháinig an ríomhphost seo as áit éigin taobh amuigh de O? Gaillimh. Ná cliceáil ar naisc agus ná hoscail ceangaltáin mura n-aithníonn tú seoladh ríomhphoist an tseoltóra agus mura gcreideann tú go bhfuil an t-ábhar sábháilte.

?

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

?

On Sep 6, 2021, at 10:50 AM, Joe Carroll <jcarroll2@...> wrote:

?

To all:

This time/SNP thing intrigues me greatly (as I assume it does others). Let’s do a little kindergarden math:

?

Elizabeth notes that James has?CTS4466 formed 3,000 ybp and its’ TMRCA at 1,700 ybp.

?

There are 20 SNPs in the CYS4466 block making the time between forming and the TMRCA yield an average SNP rate of (3000-1700)/20 = 65 yrs/SNP.

?

There are two Lee’s near me who, with their 2 private variants, are some 37 SNPs below CTS4466’s TMRCA. If we assume that this takes us all the way to the ‘present’, then using James’s value of 1700 ybp for that time frame, we get another estimate: 1700/37 = 45.9 yrs/SNP. Of course, the two Lee’s likely do not lead us up to the present; there are more SNPs to be discovered, thus making the ’37’ larger and the yrs/SNP smaller.

?

Then if we do these together, we get 3000/57 = 52.6 yrs/SNP. And that’s a max number. So 50 yrs/SNP is perhaps a better guess.

?

Comments?????

— joe

?