GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-02 > 1108791498
From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] Deja Vu
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 00:38:18 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (messagefrom ellen Levy on Fri, 18 Feb 2005 20:56:13 -0800 (PST))
> As to the Irish/Basque R1b question: supposedly, these
> two populations retain the highest frequency of R1b
> (WAMH) with the least admixture from other
> haplogroups. Additionally, the genetics researchers
> are now claiming that the Irish are not truly
> "Celtic," or rather, they received little to no
> genetic imput from the continential culture known as
> the Celts (whatever the Celtic haplogroups were
> supposed to be, apparently the Irish got none of it).
You're overstating the case a little bit. First of all, the important
thing to remember is that the R1b saturation does NOT obtain in the
Irish population as a whole. In order to get to the 98%+ level, you
need to filter out men with non-Gaelic surnames and also filter out
everybody on the eastern side of Ireland. Both of these filters are
designed to weed out recent invaders (as opposed to prehistoric ones).
Second, even if the pre-modern Irish DNA is 98% R1b, that still allows
(for example) a prehistoric invasion force of 4% which was half R1b.
As you point out, the "original" Celtic mix of haplogroups is not
known, and the mix of the Celts who invaded Ireland could very well
include some locals from the AMH zone.
Meanwhile, when you do an informal survey of Irish phenotypes, you
are probably not checking surnames, and probably not shutting
your eyes to Dublin. Therefore, the whole issue of eye and hair
color needs to be tightened up a lot before you can start to be
surprised at the comparison with Basques, or anyone else, for
|Re: [DNA] Deja Vu by (John Chandler)|