Re: [I-M223] M284
- I think it possible that no one knows for sure the migration pattern of M284. I know, for a while Ken Nordvedt favoured a theory of M284 having a British and Irish Isles Genesis. If this is true then M284 on the Continent would be some kind of Back Migration. Others Favour the idea that M284 was mixed in with the Germadic Tribes that settled The British and Irish Isles at the time of the Anglo-Saxon Invasions.
Some like this Anglo-Saxon theory, but would prefer to call them Germadic, and favour their setlement to be over a longer time span than the traditional "Invasion" theory, probably dating from 500BCE at the latest to the time of the Norman Invasion. There is also a strong possibility that the Western European, Isles populations have been going back and forth across the channel for Millenia, Inter-breeding, Inter-marrying, and of very similar cultural and economic make-up right up to the imposition of Hegemony by the Roman Empire in the first few Centuries CE. In fact, the differences between "Celt" and "Saxon/Germadic" could revolve around the degree of conquest and cultural integration the Romans managed to achieve during the time of the Empire.
Another theory suggests that M284 had it's origins on the Mesolithic European mainland and migrated to the Isles with the La Tene Celtic culture in about 500BCE. This theory assumes a DNA link where one does not need to exist. Trade was always far more extensive in Pre-Roman Europe than has ever been allowed in the minds of many. Culture and goods can travel without people travelling. There has never been a "Celtic" language found to be associated with The Austro-Swiss areas of influence. It all begs the question, What is a Celt? The people chatting Cymraeg and Gaelic today are no more related to the people of La Tene and Hallstadt than are the Modern Germans. The "Celtic Migration" to Anatolia was not of people talking a Celtic Language, and nor were they very closely genetically related to the people from modern Celtic Language-speaking Nations.
There are some professional historians and archaeologists that consider the question of "Celtic" to be highly problematic. The areas associated with the Celts, as talked about and recognised by ancient writers, is very different to the places where, today, people talk, what are labelled, Indo-European Celtic Languages. Another theory that was favoured for a while, and visciously expounded in thoroughly uncompromising terms, on many DNA forums, was the idea that Farming spread to Europe with the Indo-European languages, all brought into Europe by R1b, or Y-DNA Hap R generally. However, all Y-DNA so far found places agricultural start-up in Europe firmly associated with Y-DNA Haps E, G, J and enthusiastically taken up by Y-DNA Hap I. No R was found, and so the "CERTAIN" link between Indo-European Languages and Arable Agriculture is probably fallacious. If the Agrarian/Language link is true it can still not be associated with Haplogroup R coming off the Steppes.
Also, I think it probably true that most people of "Western European" Origin will have some Middle Eastern Ancestry. Some may be Jewish, whether it be Ashenaz or Sephardic; however some may be associated with the displacements caused by the "Sea Peoples", and the many Natural Disasters, such as the Santorini Volcano. Many Arabs entered the service of, quite frankly, ignorant Christian Nobles at the time of the Crusades, often employed as scribes, Physicians, architects and administrators to Noble Houses in Europe. Also the Arab Invasions of Spain would lead to a major influx of "Middle Eastern DNA into the European "Blood Stock". Given the education and the status of these ARABS, I for one, would be very proud to have them in my ancestry, just as I am the Sephardic and Romany influences I get from my Maternal Grandfather's line. I am a trifle worried by the racist undertones that seem to form an intellectual back-drop to some people interested in the hobby. Therefore I applaud the reluctance of Dora and others to become too involved in such negative thinking.
I love this forum, and I think all ideas are welcome, but all must be open to the possibility that we are not, totally, who we think we are.
On 27/02/2013 02:37, Wayne Roberts wrote:
Sorry Dora,I know nothing about the origins, travels and distribution of M284 or any of the other branches. You might get a more informed or additional answers posting your query on one of the Rootsweb lists - DNA or Haplogroup I.RegardsWayne----- Original Message -----From: Dora SmithSent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:23 AMSubject: Re: [Bulk] [I-M223] DruidsSorry, I didn’t know I was participating in a religious argument.I did recently ask about the age and distribution of M284. That does have to do with figuring out the Celtic migration. I thought this was about my post.With that said, I’m done with it. Probably M284 as well. Ain’t noone here going to say anything intelligent this week.Dora
- What forum? I’d love to go look at it.DoraIn relation to this topic and similar topics, could we please keep to informative posts and in simple language as many here including me are just coming to grips with genetic genealogy and the whole DNA thing. We have a range of people now on this discussion list from beginners to seasoned veterans and people with English as a second language. Please be considerate. That said, Kenneth wrote in another Forum his views on M284 sector and gave permission to share here:There have recently seen some M284+ sector discussions on other forums which seem surreal in what they neglect to consider.
Some try to treat M284+ as if it is a single clade. For almost all purposes that is folly. That M284+ divided into two different populations --- Isles-Eng and Isles-Scot, different in age and different in geography as well as different in STR haplotype motif, was known and discussed for many years. Only later did the L126 and other snps come along to tag this difference which was apparent in the structure of the extended haplotypes.
Isles-Scot is very young with its tmrca of about 1400 years and two somewhat older cousins clades. While Isles-Eng is almost 4000 years back to its tmrca. Isles-Eng and Isles-Scot had their common ancestor over 5000 years ago. Neglecting those strong distinctions between the two main clades of M284+ will often lead things astray.
See Tree for M223+ x Z161+ for the clade structure of M284+ as known today.
And no sense of time back to key events can be obtained by those who deal with or talk solely about snps. Age estimates for nodes and the foundings of clades depends on the variances that have grown between and within clade populations of haplotypes --- and the more STRs in the haplotypes the better for this purpose. For the immediate future, STR-established clades within our haplotype populations will more finely divide the tree than will SNPs. While SNPs have the virtue of giving us the temporal ordering of tree nodes which are close together in the tree, we are still years away from having the quantity of unbiased snp numbers discovered and made usable in order that snp time estimates can compete with and exceed STR-based time estimates.