|
I’m surprised that the FTDNA group page hasn’t commented yet on Lara M. Cassidy’s 2018 Thesis ‘A Genomic Compendium of an Island’. It was embargoed until this year, briefly released by Trinity College Dublin for less than a day before it was embargoed again until 2023.
Unless I’m missing something it appears to blow a hole in CTS4466 origin theories?
She identifies two separate remains as FGC11134 [she identifies them R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3]
- One in County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland carbon dated to 2349-2135 BCE
- One in County Sligo, West of the Republic of Ireland carbon dated to 2015-1758 BCE
Even though I have less than abundant faith in the date accuracy of carbon dating the further back one goes it surely suggest that:
- CTS4466’s ancestors were in Ireland a lot longer ago than the FTDNA group had previously thought – 300 BCE-ish
- It looks like a possible spread from North to West?
If carbon dating was off by a few hundred years, then you only have to add a couple of hundred years to the estimated, once esteemed and now poo-pooed, date of the Milesian invasion being 1700 BCE [4 Masters date, although I’ve seen people say 1900-1500 BCE] rather than the currently popular 500-300 BCE range. Which would also give a reason for a “Munster” royal Y-DNA signature appearing in the north half of the island. Whoever Eremon and Eber signify presumably they would have had the same or very similar Y- DNA?
?
Either way she concludes that “(t)he predominance of L21 in Irish populations seen throughout time, or more specifically a sublineage of the haplogroup defined by the mutation DF13, strongly suggests male line continuity on the island over the past four millennia. Britain does not show such an obvious continuous trend”
|
So what's the big news ?
And please, don't start with the Milesians again.
She apparently says somewhere in the paper
--?
However, there are some interesting data regarding the Irish Neolithic that confirm previous papers-Irish and Iberian genomes are indistinguishable (we only have to check the uniparental markers because they are identical)- There was therefore a Mediterranean migration but evidently it could not have its origin in Iberia because those genomes are also shared by the French Neolithic cultures, so the first Irish farmers were able to sail from Brittany. I think it doesn't matter much about the exact origin because the Breton, Iberian and southern French farmers were the same people- Archaeologically we have the evidence of Western megalithic culture?
|
If ancestors of cts4466 we're in Ireland c 2000 bce then the big news is that they didn't come from Europe via Wales c 367bce like the cts4466 ftdna group page suggests is "in the mix"!
|
Basically, we really can't draw inference on origins without a lot more testing of continental ancient DNA. ?Here's the modern heat map for R-FGC11134. ?It's nearly everywhere DF13 and more spread that CTS4466. ?Unfortunately, YFULL only has about 1/10 of the samples but things probably don't change a lot.
|
Some guy who belonged to the same genetic group (FGC11134) that CTS4466 belongs to made it to Rathlin etc before the guy who was the ancestor of CTS4466 got to Munster. Picture?an advancing army of FGC11134 splitting in two, one group advancing and the other delaying a while. CTS4466 is born from the trailing army.
If ancestors of cts4466 we're in Ireland c 2000 bce then the big news is that they didn't come from Europe via Wales c 367bce like the cts4466 ftdna group page suggests is "in the mix"!
|
But Cassidy clearly comes to a different conclusion; why the discrepancy between her view that these and others finds represent the ancestors of modern day df13 and the majority view here that either they don't, that it was different "uncle" branch, or that it's impossible to tell?
A) with no snark: what do "we" know that Cassidy/TCD doesn't/has overlooked
B) is it possible to know if the fermanagh/Sligo finds are an anestors of cts4466 or a branch that died off.
C) if the answer is no, why would the automatic assumption be that they weren't, rather than that they were?
Re: Cassidy paper. I don't have it, but have been told that the quote I gave and the two finds in a table of other ancient DNA tested are the only relevant bits for Irish type ii.
|
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 03:14 PM, Ed Aber Leek wrote:
FGC11134) that CTS4466 belongs to made it to Rathlin
PS - it wasn't Rathlin. She only identified 2 remains that were FGC11134 both inland and separated by 300-ish years and another 50 miles inland. Pollnagollum cave Fermanagh and the later sample being in Treanmacmurtagh, Sligo
|
B) is it possible to know if the fermanagh/Sligo finds are an anestors of cts4466 or a branch that died off.
Yes, it may be possible to know if they are a branch that went extinct. ?We need access to the raw data however. ?If they have SNPs beyond FGC11134 not found in the other known branches, they'd be dead ends.
I'd guess this won't be released until after the publishing embargo though.
James
|
Hi James, Elizabeth, and colleagues,
I have been in touch with Lara (Cassidy) over the summer (I was talking to her after her talk at GGI in Dublin last October). I was aware that the initial release date for her PhD thesis was postponed from May of this year pending the publication of her article in Nature in June. But I have not been aware of any further extension of the embargo.
Lara has been out of the office but should be back this month. I can ask her again when her thesis might be freely available. Otherwise she has offered to try to answer any questions I might have about specific haplotypes.
James, her paper in Nature that looks at the Newgrange and Carrowkeel / Carrowmore remains, and other sites, says that the Raw FASTQ and aligned BAM files are available through the European Nucleotide Archive under accession number PRJEB36854. I took a quick look and these seem to be freely available. No point me looking though, I might as well be looking into a ditch??!
All the best,
John.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 12:52 PM James Kane < jkane@...> wrote: B) is it possible to know if the fermanagh/Sligo finds are an anestors of cts4466 or a branch that died off.
Yes, it may be possible to know if they are a branch that went extinct.? We need access to the raw data however.? If they have SNPs beyond FGC11134 not found in the other known branches, they'd be dead ends.
I'd guess this won't be released until after the publishing embargo though.
James
|
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 08:38 AM, john brazil wrote:
her paper in Nature that looks at the Newgrange and Carrowkeel / Carrowmore remains, and other sites, says that the Raw FASTQ and aligned BAM files are available through the European Nucleotide Archive under accession number PRJEB36854. I took a quick look and these seem to be freely available. No point me looking though, I might as well be looking into a ditch??!
Do you happen to know the samples involved? ?The study acension has 534 raw data files... that would take some time to slog through. James
|
First, I do wish everyone would sign their notes – I am not comfortable being unable to begin my notes without a salutation, and many of you never filled in a ‘Display Name’ when you joined the group.? So… ? Hello, Gj3000. ? To put your various email details together, She identifies two separate remains as FGC11134 [she identifies them R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3] - One in County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland carbon dated to 2349-2135 BCE - One in County Sligo, West of the Republic of Ireland carbon dated to 2015-1758 BCE ? She only identified 2 remains that were FGC11134 both inland and separated by 300-ish years and another 50 miles inland. Pollnagollum cave Fermanagh and the later sample being in Treanmacmurtagh, Sligo. ? Cassidy’s conclusion that you quoted was “(t)he predominance of L21 in Irish populations seen throughout time, or more specifically a sublineage of the haplogroup defined by the mutation DF13, strongly suggests male line continuity on the island over the past four millennia. Britain does not show such an obvious continuous trend”. ? I don’t think that anyone has suggested that we necessarily disagree with her view – DF13 is just above L21 on the haplotree and the ancestor of all downstream subclades, including FGC11134 and CTS4466.? I don’t think she suggests that any branch of L21 found in Ireland was here 4000 years ago, or originated here, but in the absence of being able to read the whole paper, I’m afraid I can’t feel comfortable knowing exactly what she meant.? Perhaps John can ask her – glad to hear we have a contact, and sorry I missed her talk at the conference. ? I would suggest that ‘we’ certainly know much more about the genetic history and distribution of CTS4466 than Cassidy/TCD, with the limited data they would have of FGC11134 and/or CTS4466 – unless, of course, they studied our two haplogroup projects and all the data we have accumulated and all the research we have done as a group.? Cassidy’s focus is surely far broader than our branch.? She probably included the data from Rathlin Island. ? Interestingly, Treanmacmurtagh is very near the Carrowkeel Passage Tombs, which are dated to c. 3200 BC.? The Carrowmore Megalithic Cemetery is 30+ km north, dated to c. 3700 BC.? That whole area must have been long populated. ? James has addressed point B. ? To expand on what Ed said - Picture?an advancing army of FGC11134 splitting in two, one group advancing and the other delaying a while. CTS4466 is born from the trailing army. ?– both FGC11134 and CTS4466 could have been formed in Wales or thereabouts, and those ancestors travelled north and across to Ireland at different times.? The population was certainly less in those times, and it could have been only a few men of those genetic lineages who made that journey. ? Elizabeth ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Gj3000
Sent: Thursday 6 August 2020 07:57
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-CTS4466-Plus] Two CTS4466 predecessors in Ireland 4,000 years ago?? But Cassidy clearly comes to a different conclusion; why the discrepancy between her view that these and others finds represent the ancestors of modern day df13 and the majority view here and CTS. that either they don't, that it was different "uncle" branch, or that it's impossible to tell?
A) with no snark: what do "we" know that Cassidy/TCD doesn't/has overlooked
B) is it possible to know if the fermanagh/Sligo finds are an anestors of cts4466 or a branch that died off.
C) if the answer is no, why would the automatic assumption be that they weren't, rather than that they were?
Re: Cassidy paper. I don't have it, but have been told that the quote I gave and the two finds in a table of other ancient DNA tested are the only relevant bits for Irish type ii.
|
James and colleagues,
The individual identifiers in the June Nature paper don't seem to match those in the Archive ?.
BUT ... I just discovered you CAN find one from the other ?.
The Nature paper reference four Carrowkeel individuals (as far as I can see)
car004? ~
CAK530 ~
CAK532 ~
CAK533 ~
But (unless I am missing something - which is entirely possible) these are Neolithic samples with Neolithic haplotypes (3200 to 2000 BCE? Unlike the two L21+ males from Rathlin (2000 to 1500 BCE) which were reported separately?
Have I missed in this thread the specific paper cited?
John.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 3:01 PM James Kane < jkane@...> wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 08:38 AM, john brazil wrote:
her paper in Nature that looks at the Newgrange and Carrowkeel / Carrowmore remains, and other sites, says that the Raw FASTQ and aligned BAM files are available through the European Nucleotide Archive under accession number PRJEB36854. I took a quick look and these seem to be freely available. No point me looking though, I might as well be looking into a ditch??!
Do you happen to know the samples involved?? The study acension has 534 raw data files... that would take some time to slog through.
James
|
Hi Elizabeth and
Gj3000 (?),
We need to see the original text! Unfortunately Lara's talk at GGI 2019 was not recorded (to avoid jeopardising the then forthcoming publication). But I certainly don't remember any mention then of any ancient FGC11134+ males.
I am definitely happy to ask her about this (but, as I said) would be happier to read the original text first.
John.
First, I do wish everyone would sign their notes – I am not comfortable being unable to begin my notes without a salutation, and many of you never filled in a ‘Display Name’ when you joined the group.? So… ? Hello, Gj3000. ? To put your various email details together, She identifies two separate remains as FGC11134 [she identifies them R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3] - One in County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland carbon dated to 2349-2135 BCE - One in County Sligo, West of the Republic of Ireland carbon dated to 2015-1758 BCE ? She only identified 2 remains that were FGC11134 both inland and separated by 300-ish years and another 50 miles inland. Pollnagollum cave Fermanagh and the later sample being in Treanmacmurtagh, Sligo. ? Cassidy’s conclusion that you quoted was “(t)he predominance of L21 in Irish populations seen throughout time, or more specifically a sublineage of the haplogroup defined by the mutation DF13, strongly suggests male line continuity on the island over the past four millennia. Britain does not show such an obvious continuous trend”. ? I don’t think that anyone has suggested that we necessarily disagree with her view – DF13 is just above L21 on the haplotree and the ancestor of all downstream subclades, including FGC11134 and CTS4466.? I don’t think she suggests that any branch of L21 found in Ireland was here 4000 years ago, or originated here, but in the absence of being able to read the whole paper, I’m afraid I can’t feel comfortable knowing exactly what she meant.? Perhaps John can ask her – glad to hear we have a contact, and sorry I missed her talk at the conference. ? I would suggest that ‘we’ certainly know much more about the genetic history and distribution of CTS4466 than Cassidy/TCD, with the limited data they would have of FGC11134 and/or CTS4466 – unless, of course, they studied our two haplogroup projects and all the data we have accumulated and all the research we have done as a group.? Cassidy’s focus is surely far broader than our branch.? She probably included the data from Rathlin Island. ? Interestingly, Treanmacmurtagh is very near the Carrowkeel Passage Tombs, which are dated to c. 3200 BC.? The Carrowmore Megalithic Cemetery is 30+ km north, dated to c. 3700 BC.? That whole area must have been long populated. ? James has addressed point B. ? To expand on what Ed said - Picture?an advancing army of FGC11134 splitting in two, one group advancing and the other delaying a while. CTS4466 is born from the trailing army. ?– both FGC11134 and CTS4466 could have been formed in Wales or thereabouts, and those ancestors travelled north and across to Ireland at different times.? The population was certainly less in those times, and it could have been only a few men of those genetic lineages who made that journey. ? Elizabeth ? ? But Cassidy clearly comes to a different conclusion; why the discrepancy between her view that these and others finds represent the ancestors of modern day df13 and the majority view here and CTS. that either they don't, that it was different "uncle" branch, or that it's impossible to tell?
A) with no snark: what do "we" know that Cassidy/TCD doesn't/has overlooked
B) is it possible to know if the fermanagh/Sligo finds are an anestors of cts4466 or a branch that died off.
C) if the answer is no, why would the automatic assumption be that they weren't, rather than that they were?
Re: Cassidy paper. I don't have it, but have been told that the quote I gave and the two finds in a table of other ancient DNA tested are the only relevant bits for Irish type ii.
|
Hi all,
The paper is available here:????
Search Lara Cassidy.
Cheers,
Sharon
From: "john brazil" <johnkbrazil@...> To: [email protected]Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:14:47 AM Subject: Re: [R1b-CTS4466-Plus] Two CTS4466 predecessors in Ireland 4,000 years ago? Hi Elizabeth and
Gj3000 (?),
We need to see the original text! Unfortunately Lara's talk at GGI 2019 was not recorded (to avoid jeopardising the then forthcoming publication). But I certainly don't remember any mention then of any ancient FGC11134+ males. I am definitely happy to ask her about this (but, as I said) would be happier to read the original text first. John.
First, I do wish everyone would sign their notes – I am not comfortable being unable to begin my notes without a salutation, and many of you never filled in a ‘Display Name’ when you joined the group.? So… ? Hello, Gj3000. ? To put your various email details together, She identifies two separate remains as FGC11134 [she identifies them R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3] - One in County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland carbon dated to 2349-2135 BCE - One in County Sligo, West of the Republic of Ireland carbon dated to 2015-1758 BCE ? She only identified 2 remains that were FGC11134 both inland and separated by 300-ish years and another 50 miles inland. Pollnagollum cave Fermanagh and the later sample being in Treanmacmurtagh, Sligo. ? Cassidy’s conclusion that you quoted was “(t)he predominance of L21 in Irish populations seen throughout time, or more specifically a sublineage of the haplogroup defined by the mutation DF13, strongly suggests male line continuity on the island over the past four millennia. Britain does not show such an obvious continuous trend”. ? I don’t think that anyone has suggested that we necessarily disagree with her view – DF13 is just above L21 on the haplotree and the ancestor of all downstream subclades, including FGC11134 and CTS4466.? I don’t think she suggests that any branch of L21 found in Ireland was here 4000 years ago, or originated here, but in the absence of being able to read the whole paper, I’m afraid I can’t feel comfortable knowing exactly what she meant.? Perhaps John can ask her – glad to hear we have a contact, and sorry I missed her talk at the conference. ? I would suggest that ‘we’ certainly know much more about the genetic history and distribution of CTS4466 than Cassidy/TCD, with the limited data they would have of FGC11134 and/or CTS4466 – unless, of course, they studied our two haplogroup projects and all the data we have accumulated and all the research we have done as a group.? Cassidy’s focus is surely far broader than our branch.? She probably included the data from Rathlin Island. ? Interestingly, Treanmacmurtagh is very near the Carrowkeel Passage Tombs, which are dated to c. 3200 BC.? The Carrowmore Megalithic Cemetery is 30+ km north, dated to c. 3700 BC.? That whole area must have been long populated. ? James has addressed point B. ? To expand on what Ed said - Picture?an advancing army of FGC11134 splitting in two, one group advancing and the other delaying a while. CTS4466 is born from the trailing army. ?– both FGC11134 and CTS4466 could have been formed in Wales or thereabouts, and those ancestors travelled north and across to Ireland at different times.? The population was certainly less in those times, and it could have been only a few men of those genetic lineages who made that journey. ? Elizabeth ? ? But Cassidy clearly comes to a different conclusion; why the discrepancy between her view that these and others finds represent the ancestors of modern day df13 and the majority view here and CTS. that either they don't, that it was different "uncle" branch, or that it's impossible to tell?
A) with no snark: what do "we" know that Cassidy/TCD doesn't/has overlooked
B) is it possible to know if the fermanagh/Sligo finds are an anestors of cts4466 or a branch that died off.
C) if the answer is no, why would the automatic assumption be that they weren't, rather than that they were?
Re: Cassidy paper. I don't have it, but have been told that the quote I gave and the two finds in a table of other ancient DNA tested are the only relevant bits for Irish type ii.
|
Brilliant Sharon.
This is her thesis.?
I was looking through her publications.?
Lots of reading to do ?!?
John.?
On Thu 6 Aug 2020, 17:57 S Shane, < shas2@...> wrote: Hi all,
The paper is available here:????
Search Lara Cassidy.
Cheers,
Sharon
From: "john brazil" < johnkbrazil@...> To: [email protected]Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:14:47 AM Subject: Re: [R1b-CTS4466-Plus] Two CTS4466 predecessors in Ireland 4,000 years ago? Hi Elizabeth and
Gj3000 (?),
We need to see the original text! Unfortunately Lara's talk at GGI 2019 was not recorded (to avoid jeopardising the then forthcoming publication). But I certainly don't remember any mention then of any ancient FGC11134+ males. I am definitely happy to ask her about this (but, as I said) would be happier to read the original text first. John.
First, I do wish everyone would sign their notes – I am not comfortable being unable to begin my notes without a salutation, and many of you never filled in a ‘Display Name’ when you joined the group.? So… ? Hello, Gj3000. ? To put your various email details together, She identifies two separate remains as FGC11134 [she identifies them R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3] - One in County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland carbon dated to 2349-2135 BCE - One in County Sligo, West of the Republic of Ireland carbon dated to 2015-1758 BCE ? She only identified 2 remains that were FGC11134 both inland and separated by 300-ish years and another 50 miles inland. Pollnagollum cave Fermanagh and the later sample being in Treanmacmurtagh, Sligo. ? Cassidy’s conclusion that you quoted was “(t)he predominance of L21 in Irish populations seen throughout time, or more specifically a sublineage of the haplogroup defined by the mutation DF13, strongly suggests male line continuity on the island over the past four millennia. Britain does not show such an obvious continuous trend”. ? I don’t think that anyone has suggested that we necessarily disagree with her view – DF13 is just above L21 on the haplotree and the ancestor of all downstream subclades, including FGC11134 and CTS4466.? I don’t think she suggests that any branch of L21 found in Ireland was here 4000 years ago, or originated here, but in the absence of being able to read the whole paper, I’m afraid I can’t feel comfortable knowing exactly what she meant.? Perhaps John can ask her – glad to hear we have a contact, and sorry I missed her talk at the conference. ? I would suggest that ‘we’ certainly know much more about the genetic history and distribution of CTS4466 than Cassidy/TCD, with the limited data they would have of FGC11134 and/or CTS4466 – unless, of course, they studied our two haplogroup projects and all the data we have accumulated and all the research we have done as a group.? Cassidy’s focus is surely far broader than our branch.? She probably included the data from Rathlin Island. ? Interestingly, Treanmacmurtagh is very near the Carrowkeel Passage Tombs, which are dated to c. 3200 BC.? The Carrowmore Megalithic Cemetery is 30+ km north, dated to c. 3700 BC.? That whole area must have been long populated. ? James has addressed point B. ? To expand on what Ed said - Picture?an advancing army of FGC11134 splitting in two, one group advancing and the other delaying a while. CTS4466 is born from the trailing army. ?– both FGC11134 and CTS4466 could have been formed in Wales or thereabouts, and those ancestors travelled north and across to Ireland at different times.? The population was certainly less in those times, and it could have been only a few men of those genetic lineages who made that journey. ? Elizabeth ? ? But Cassidy clearly comes to a different conclusion; why the discrepancy between her view that these and others finds represent the ancestors of modern day df13 and the majority view here and CTS. that either they don't, that it was different "uncle" branch, or that it's impossible to tell?
A) with no snark: what do "we" know that Cassidy/TCD doesn't/has overlooked
B) is it possible to know if the fermanagh/Sligo finds are an anestors of cts4466 or a branch that died off.
C) if the answer is no, why would the automatic assumption be that they weren't, rather than that they were?
Re: Cassidy paper. I don't have it, but have been told that the quote I gave and the two finds in a table of other ancient DNA tested are the only relevant bits for Irish type ii.
|
I'm looking forward to hearing what you and the others make of it, John!?
Sharon
From: "john brazil" <johnkbrazil@...> To: "R1b-CTS4466-Plus" < [email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 11:06:04 AM Subject: Re: [R1b-CTS4466-Plus] Two CTS4466 predecessors in Ireland 4,000 years ago?
Brilliant Sharon.
This is her thesis.?
I was looking through her publications.?
Lots of reading to do ?!?
John.?
On Thu 6 Aug 2020, 17:57 S Shane, < shas2@...> wrote: Hi all, The paper is available here:???? Search Lara Cassidy. Cheers, Sharon
From: "john brazil" < johnkbrazil@...> To: [email protected]Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:14:47 AM Subject: Re: [R1b-CTS4466-Plus] Two CTS4466 predecessors in Ireland 4,000 years ago? Hi Elizabeth and
Gj3000 (?),
We need to see the original text! Unfortunately Lara's talk at GGI 2019 was not recorded (to avoid jeopardising the then forthcoming publication). But I certainly don't remember any mention then of any ancient FGC11134+ males. I am definitely happy to ask her about this (but, as I said) would be happier to read the original text first. John.
First, I do wish everyone would sign their notes – I am not comfortable being unable to begin my notes without a salutation, and many of you never filled in a ‘Display Name’ when you joined the group.? So… ? Hello, Gj3000. ? To put your various email details together, She identifies two separate remains as FGC11134 [she identifies them R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3] - One in County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland carbon dated to 2349-2135 BCE - One in County Sligo, West of the Republic of Ireland carbon dated to 2015-1758 BCE ? She only identified 2 remains that were FGC11134 both inland and separated by 300-ish years and another 50 miles inland. Pollnagollum cave Fermanagh and the later sample being in Treanmacmurtagh, Sligo. ? Cassidy’s conclusion that you quoted was “(t)he predominance of L21 in Irish populations seen throughout time, or more specifically a sublineage of the haplogroup defined by the mutation DF13, strongly suggests male line continuity on the island over the past four millennia. Britain does not show such an obvious continuous trend”. ? I don’t think that anyone has suggested that we necessarily disagree with her view – DF13 is just above L21 on the haplotree and the ancestor of all downstream subclades, including FGC11134 and CTS4466.? I don’t think she suggests that any branch of L21 found in Ireland was here 4000 years ago, or originated here, but in the absence of being able to read the whole paper, I’m afraid I can’t feel comfortable knowing exactly what she meant.? Perhaps John can ask her – glad to hear we have a contact, and sorry I missed her talk at the conference. ? I would suggest that ‘we’ certainly know much more about the genetic history and distribution of CTS4466 than Cassidy/TCD, with the limited data they would have of FGC11134 and/or CTS4466 – unless, of course, they studied our two haplogroup projects and all the data we have accumulated and all the research we have done as a group.? Cassidy’s focus is surely far broader than our branch.? She probably included the data from Rathlin Island. ? Interestingly, Treanmacmurtagh is very near the Carrowkeel Passage Tombs, which are dated to c. 3200 BC.? The Carrowmore Megalithic Cemetery is 30+ km north, dated to c. 3700 BC.? That whole area must have been long populated. ? James has addressed point B. ? To expand on what Ed said - Picture?an advancing army of FGC11134 splitting in two, one group advancing and the other delaying a while. CTS4466 is born from the trailing army. ?– both FGC11134 and CTS4466 could have been formed in Wales or thereabouts, and those ancestors travelled north and across to Ireland at different times.? The population was certainly less in those times, and it could have been only a few men of those genetic lineages who made that journey. ? Elizabeth ? ? But Cassidy clearly comes to a different conclusion; why the discrepancy between her view that these and others finds represent the ancestors of modern day df13 and the majority view here and CTS. that either they don't, that it was different "uncle" branch, or that it's impossible to tell?
A) with no snark: what do "we" know that Cassidy/TCD doesn't/has overlooked
B) is it possible to know if the fermanagh/Sligo finds are an anestors of cts4466 or a branch that died off.
C) if the answer is no, why would the automatic assumption be that they weren't, rather than that they were?
Re: Cassidy paper. I don't have it, but have been told that the quote I gave and the two finds in a table of other ancient DNA tested are the only relevant bits for Irish type ii.
|
The samples we are interested in are CT14, PG911 and TR116. ?None of these are showing in PRJEB36854 unless I'm being more dense than usual.
If someone finds them, let me know.
James
|
Hello, All. ? Thanks to Sharon and a contribution off-list to finding the paper in question. ? I’ve had a chance to look through it and found this of interest on page 54, which says much the same as the quote sent previously which is on page 174 (of 327 pages): ? Overall, the above observations are suggestive of substantial population continuity in Ireland since the Chalcolithic period. This possibility could be confirmed through more powerful haplotypic analysis of a high coverage Early Bronze Age individual from the north of the island, Rathlin1, who presented inflated sharing with the geographically closest modern populations, a trend not seen in other high coverage genomes analysed. This affinity with Irish, Scottish, and Welsh, emphasises demographic continuity stretching over 4,000 years at the insular Celtic edge of Europe. A weaker signal from modern English populations is likely due to the effects of Anglo-Saxon migrations; (Leslie et al. 2015; Martiniano et al. 2016; Schiffels et al. 2016). While further migration into the island has undoubtedly occurred, including recorded movements of Vikings, Normans and English planters, these appear to have produced a minimal genetic impact on the population, supporting studies of Y chromosomal diversity (Hill et al. 2000). Forthcoming research on the fine-scale population structure of modern Ireland, based on haplotypic analyses, also supports these conclusions. This demonstrates that, while some introgression of European and British haplotypes into Ireland is apparent at horizons of known historical migrations, it is more ancient Celtic population structure that remains the defining characteristic of the Irish population (Byrne et al. submitted). ? (The Rathlin1 sample was tested to DF21.) ? However, in the very next paragraph, Cassidy points out: ? However, it must be noted that substantial prehistoric migration to the island post-dating the Early Bronze Age from closely related populations of similar genetic makeup, particularly those of Celtic Britain or indeed historic Gaul, may not be detectable…. Substantial demographic upheavals in Britain and the continent, such as those linked to the spread of Latin and Germanic languages, may have worked to reduce signals of haplotypic and Y chromosomal continuity with Early Bronze Age Ireland, that could have otherwise extended the affinities of Rathlin1 across a much wider region of western Europe… ? So, the latter does much to negate the former.? Until/unless we see ancient remains with high quality, deep SNP identification beyond FGC11134, we can’t really conclude much about CTS4466.? James has pointed out CT14, from Claristown, Co. Meath (which is not far south of Drogheda) as another possibility that seems to be CTS4466 - R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3a2, but the notation appears to suggest the full identification may a bit be suspect – ‘Y haplogroup placements that may be confounded by post-mortem damage are bracketed with an asterisk (*)’.? And CT14 has an asterisk - R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3a2(a1d?).? If the (a1d?) is correct, …a1d is A151.? Hooray, John!? Wouldn’t it be interesting to see early A151 on the east coast? ? If James can access the raw data, he may be able to shed more light.? The discussion of CT14 on page 260 includes: ? A radiocarbon determination from the remains returned a date of 1790±80 BP (Beta-185252), or 60-420 AD. Given the large margin of error for this radiocarbon result, as well as the burial context, is is suggested Burial 14 dates to the end, rather than middle, of this range (McGarry 2007). ? ? As an FYI, you can see the R haplotree at ISOGG, which Cassidy used when labelling her Y haplotypes - .? R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a is DF13, R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3, as pointed out, is FGC11134, and CTS4466 is R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3a2. ? If I see anything else relevant (or anyone else does) I’ll post more. ? Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Gj3000. ? Elizabeth ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Elizabeth
Sent: Thursday 6 August 2020 15:17
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-CTS4466-Plus] Two CTS4466 predecessors in Ireland 4,000 years ago?? First, I do wish everyone would sign their notes – I am not comfortable being unable to begin my notes without a salutation, and many of you never filled in a ‘Display Name’ when you joined the group.? So… ? Hello, Gj3000. ? To put your various email details together, She identifies two separate remains as FGC11134 [she identifies them R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3] - One in County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland carbon dated to 2349-2135 BCE - One in County Sligo, West of the Republic of Ireland carbon dated to 2015-1758 BCE ? She only identified 2 remains that were FGC11134 both inland and separated by 300-ish years and another 50 miles inland. Pollnagollum cave Fermanagh and the later sample being in Treanmacmurtagh, Sligo. ? Cassidy’s conclusion that you quoted was “(t)he predominance of L21 in Irish populations seen throughout time, or more specifically a sublineage of the haplogroup defined by the mutation DF13, strongly suggests male line continuity on the island over the past four millennia. Britain does not show such an obvious continuous trend”. ? I don’t think that anyone has suggested that we necessarily disagree with her view – DF13 is just above L21 on the haplotree and the ancestor of all downstream subclades, including FGC11134 and CTS4466.? I don’t think she suggests that any branch of L21 found in Ireland was here 4000 years ago, or originated here, but in the absence of being able to read the whole paper, I’m afraid I can’t feel comfortable knowing exactly what she meant.? Perhaps John can ask her – glad to hear we have a contact, and sorry I missed her talk at the conference. ? I would suggest that ‘we’ certainly know much more about the genetic history and distribution of CTS4466 than Cassidy/TCD, with the limited data they would have of FGC11134 and/or CTS4466 – unless, of course, they studied our two haplogroup projects and all the data we have accumulated and all the research we have done as a group.? Cassidy’s focus is surely far broader than our branch.? She probably included the data from Rathlin Island. ? Interestingly, Treanmacmurtagh is very near the Carrowkeel Passage Tombs, which are dated to c. 3200 BC.? The Carrowmore Megalithic Cemetery is 30+ km north, dated to c. 3700 BC.? That whole area must have been long populated. ? James has addressed point B. ? To expand on what Ed said - Picture?an advancing army of FGC11134 splitting in two, one group advancing and the other delaying a while. CTS4466 is born from the trailing army. ?– both FGC11134 and CTS4466 could have been formed in Wales or thereabouts, and those ancestors travelled north and across to Ireland at different times.? The population was certainly less in those times, and it could have been only a few men of those genetic lineages who made that journey. ? Elizabeth ? ? But Cassidy clearly comes to a different conclusion; why the discrepancy between her view that these and others finds represent the ancestors of modern day df13 and the majority view here and CTS. that either they don't, that it was different "uncle" branch, or that it's impossible to tell?
A) with no snark: what do "we" know that Cassidy/TCD doesn't/has overlooked
B) is it possible to know if the fermanagh/Sligo finds are an anestors of cts4466 or a branch that died off.
C) if the answer is no, why would the automatic assumption be that they weren't, rather than that they were?
Re: Cassidy paper. I don't have it, but have been told that the quote I gave and the two finds in a table of other ancient DNA tested are the only relevant bits for Irish type ii.
|
Regarding vikings leaving "minimal impact on the population ". But they settled down and established cities such as Dublin and York etc. Did it not fall down a thought that the "vikings" could belong to the same group??
Espen
Hello, All. ? Thanks to Sharon and a contribution off-list to finding the paper in question. ? I’ve had a chance to look through it and found this of interest on page 54, which says much the same as the quote sent previously which is on page 174 (of 327 pages): ? Overall, the above observations are suggestive of substantial population continuity in Ireland since the Chalcolithic period. This possibility could be confirmed through more powerful haplotypic analysis of a high coverage Early Bronze Age individual from the north of the island, Rathlin1, who presented inflated sharing with the geographically closest modern populations, a trend not seen in other high coverage genomes analysed. This affinity with Irish, Scottish, and Welsh, emphasises demographic continuity stretching over 4,000 years at the insular Celtic edge of Europe. A weaker signal from modern English populations is likely due to the effects of Anglo-Saxon migrations; (Leslie et al. 2015; Martiniano et al. 2016; Schiffels et al. 2016). While further migration into the island has undoubtedly occurred, including recorded movements of Vikings, Normans and English planters, these appear to have produced a minimal genetic impact on the population, supporting studies of Y chromosomal diversity (Hill et al. 2000). Forthcoming research on the fine-scale population structure of modern Ireland, based on haplotypic analyses, also supports these conclusions. This demonstrates that, while some introgression of European and British haplotypes into Ireland is apparent at horizons of known historical migrations, it is more ancient Celtic population structure that remains the defining characteristic of the Irish population (Byrne et al. submitted). ? (The Rathlin1 sample was tested to DF21.) ? However, in the very next paragraph, Cassidy points out: ? However, it must be noted that substantial prehistoric migration to the island post-dating the Early Bronze Age from closely related populations of similar genetic makeup, particularly those of Celtic Britain or indeed historic Gaul, may not be detectable…. Substantial demographic upheavals in Britain and the continent, such as those linked to the spread of Latin and Germanic languages, may have worked to reduce signals of haplotypic and Y chromosomal continuity with Early Bronze Age Ireland, that could have otherwise extended the affinities of Rathlin1 across a much wider region of western Europe… ? So, the latter does much to negate the former.? Until/unless we see ancient remains with high quality, deep SNP identification beyond FGC11134, we can’t really conclude much about CTS4466.? James has pointed out CT14, from Claristown, Co. Meath (which is not far south of Drogheda) as another possibility that seems to be CTS4466 - R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3a2, but the notation appears to suggest the full identification may a bit be suspect – ‘Y haplogroup placements that may be confounded by post-mortem damage are bracketed with an asterisk (*)’.? And CT14 has an asterisk - R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3a2(a1d?).? If the (a1d?) is correct, …a1d is A151.? Hooray, John!? Wouldn’t it be interesting to see early A151 on the east coast? ? If James can access the raw data, he may be able to shed more light.? The discussion of CT14 on page 260 includes: ? A radiocarbon determination from the remains returned a date of 1790±80 BP (Beta-185252), or 60-420 AD. Given the large margin of error for this radiocarbon result, as well as the burial context, is is suggested Burial 14 dates to the end, rather than middle, of this range (McGarry 2007). ? ? As an FYI, you can see the R haplotree at ISOGG, which Cassidy used when labelling her Y haplotypes - .? R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a is DF13, R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3, as pointed out, is FGC11134, and CTS4466 is R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3a2. ? If I see anything else relevant (or anyone else does) I’ll post more. ? Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Gj3000. ? Elizabeth ? ? First, I do wish everyone would sign their notes – I am not comfortable being unable to begin my notes without a salutation, and many of you never filled in a ‘Display Name’ when you joined the group.? So… ? Hello, Gj3000. ? To put your various email details together, She identifies two separate remains as FGC11134 [she identifies them R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a3] - One in County Fermanagh, Northern Ireland carbon dated to 2349-2135 BCE - One in County Sligo, West of the Republic of Ireland carbon dated to 2015-1758 BCE ? She only identified 2 remains that were FGC11134 both inland and separated by 300-ish years and another 50 miles inland. Pollnagollum cave Fermanagh and the later sample being in Treanmacmurtagh, Sligo. ? Cassidy’s conclusion that you quoted was “(t)he predominance of L21 in Irish populations seen throughout time, or more specifically a sublineage of the haplogroup defined by the mutation DF13, strongly suggests male line continuity on the island over the past four millennia. Britain does not show such an obvious continuous trend”. ? I don’t think that anyone has suggested that we necessarily disagree with her view – DF13 is just above L21 on the haplotree and the ancestor of all downstream subclades, including FGC11134 and CTS4466.? I don’t think she suggests that any branch of L21 found in Ireland was here 4000 years ago, or originated here, but in the absence of being able to read the whole paper, I’m afraid I can’t feel comfortable knowing exactly what she meant.? Perhaps John can ask her – glad to hear we have a contact, and sorry I missed her talk at the conference. ? I would suggest that ‘we’ certainly know much more about the genetic history and distribution of CTS4466 than Cassidy/TCD, with the limited data they would have of FGC11134 and/or CTS4466 – unless, of course, they studied our two haplogroup projects and all the data we have accumulated and all the research we have done as a group.? Cassidy’s focus is surely far broader than our branch.? She probably included the data from Rathlin Island. ? Interestingly, Treanmacmurtagh is very near the Carrowkeel Passage Tombs, which are dated to c. 3200 BC.? The Carrowmore Megalithic Cemetery is 30+ km north, dated to c. 3700 BC.? That whole area must have been long populated. ? James has addressed point B. ? To expand on what Ed said - Picture?an advancing army of FGC11134 splitting in two, one group advancing and the other delaying a while. CTS4466 is born from the trailing army. ?– both FGC11134 and CTS4466 could have been formed in Wales or thereabouts, and those ancestors travelled north and across to Ireland at different times.? The population was certainly less in those times, and it could have been only a few men of those genetic lineages who made that journey. ? Elizabeth ? ? But Cassidy clearly comes to a different conclusion; why the discrepancy between her view that these and others finds represent the ancestors of modern day df13 and the majority view here and CTS. that either they don't, that it was different "uncle" branch, or that it's impossible to tell?
A) with no snark: what do "we" know that Cassidy/TCD doesn't/has overlooked
B) is it possible to know if the fermanagh/Sligo finds are an anestors of cts4466 or a branch that died off.
C) if the answer is no, why would the automatic assumption be that they weren't, rather than that they were?
Re: Cassidy paper. I don't have it, but have been told that the quote I gave and the two finds in a table of other ancient DNA tested are the only relevant bits for Irish type ii.
|
Hello, Espen. ? I’m not sure what you mean?? To which group are you referring? ? Elizabeth ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Espen Solheim
Sent: Thursday 6 August 2020 21:55
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [R1b-CTS4466-Plus] Two CTS4466 predecessors in Ireland 4,000 years ago?? Regarding vikings leaving "minimal impact on the population ". But they settled down and established cities such as Dublin and York etc. Did it not fall down a thought that the "vikings" could belong to the same group??
|
