Millennium-old results from Gaelic Medieval Graveyard

[Mark Monroe]

Like most, I use genealogy and genetic genealogy research to find answers of where my roots are and how my ancestors lived. My time of interest is from the DNA timeframe of R-A260 to the present. New paper trails from the present going back to the R-A260 timeframe where R-BY3338 and R-A5902 split have all but dried up.

See: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 1.full.pdf

Millennium-old Pathogenic Mendelian Mutation Discovery for Multiple Osteochondromas from a Gaelic Medieval Graveyard researches two individuals from the Gaelic Irish Medieval burial ground of Ballyhanna, Co. Donegal. Geographically, the burial ground is just outside of the County Cavan area I have been focused on. Interesting aspects from the study reveal the time and location where these individuals and dating methods the researchers used, and where the DNA samples were taken from the individuals.

The results from skeleton Sk197 places him M207; M343; M269; P312; S245; L21; M222; DF106; DF104; DF105
The results from skeleton Sk331 places him M207; M343; M269; P312; S245; L21; M222; DF106; DF104; DF105; A259; A260

Skeleton Sk331 is the individual I am focusing on since he is just before the BY3338 and A5902 split under A260.

[Mark Monroe]

Another related article of interest regarding the medieval diet:

https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bit ... reland.pdf

[Webmaster]

Mark,

Re Sk331, from Maurice Gleeson in an email exchange with Paul Duffy:

Indeed, Paul … Sk331 is the younger of the two individuals (dated AD 1031-1260) so it is possible that he could be associated with a specific surname, something to which a BAM file analysis might generate significant clues. Interestingly, most individuals from the site were interred between 1200 and 1650 AD so they would have borne surnames.

I wonder why they only focussed on specific SNPs rather than doing a more comprehensive BAM file analysis?? And why use the always-outdated ISOGG tree rather than the more “up-to-date but still experimental" Big Tree or the Big Y Block Tree or the DCG Cladogram? Hmmmm …

Here’s what the paper states:

Y haplogroups were investigated by calling representative SNPs of likely haplogroups from the International Society of Genetic Genealogy 2020 Y-DNA tree (v. 15.58) 13. Base calls across these loci were generated for both samples using GATK’s pileup tool, and loci with derived alleles were flagged. These were then manually assessed to call Y haplogroups.

And a further exchange pointed out that the referenced version of the ISOGG Y-Haplotree DID NOT go below R1b-A260. So as Maurice points out, we have NO idea of what Sk331's terminal clade is. Care must be taken in understanding what these papers are actually saying, especially in the context of the purpose of the study, which was medical/disease oriented, not genealogical.