GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-01 > 1137713051
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: Niall of the Nine Hostages DNA
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:24:11 -0700
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <43cc35c6@news.ColoState.EDU> <email@example.com> <dqjiev$193$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <43cd8a95@news.ColoState.EDU> <email@example.com> <43cedb4e@news.ColoState.EDU> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
>>I was talking about the ones before Ecgbert.
> In other words you see Anglo-Saxon genealogies that find no support in
> any near-contemporary Anglo-Saxon annals as equivalent to Irish
> genealogies that find frequent support in contemporary or
> near-contemporary Irish annals. Hardly a valid equivalence I would have
Umm, no. In other words, when the right to rule is vested in a
particular lineage, those without a descent are likely to 'acquire' one
(as apparently happened in some of the Wessex and Mercian lineages).
That is why it is important to evaluate the pedigrees based on the
support they find in contemporary or near-contemporary annals.
Evaluating pedigrees based on the quality or lack thereof of other
pedigrees is the antithesis of what I am suggesting.
>>My only point here was that there was more to it than tracing to Adam
>>and fitting in with Isadore's concept of the peopling of the world -
>>there were also right-to-rule issues in linking in to these fabular
> So on what basis do you regard Niall as a fabular nation founder?
I don't. I regard Heremon, Milesius and Scotia as fabular nation-founders.
Since I apparently have not made my positions clear, let me restate them.
1) The claim made in the news story that Niall has a lot of descendants
because of how common the markers are is invalid. The markers only
indicate descent from a male-kindred. This does not mean that no one
with the marker descends from Niall, and I am not questioning such a
descent for those with a valid pedigree, confirmed by the annals. It
only means that Niall himself was part of a larger male-kindred, and _in
the absence of a well-documented pedigree_, a family could just as well
have those markers because they descend from his brother or cousin - any
of the other members of this male kindred group in Niall's time.
2) Just because a family has a genealogy that traces them from Niall
doesn't make it valid, even if they also have the marker. It would not
be out of the realm of human behavior for a descendant of Niall's
kindred to 'upgrade' his pedigree by making himself a descendant of
Niall, or even of more rescent Niall-descended kings. Again, this does
not mean I think that all such pedigrees are invalid, some clearly are
valid. It just means I think each of these pedigrees needs to be
individually assessed, and that the DNA doesn't really help all that much.
3) That the invented lineages of the Irish kings, uniting with Heremon's
immediate family, served not only to link in with the developed
Christian traditions of the peopling of the globe after the flood, but
also served to provide the Irish royalty with a unified royal
right-claim, as descendants of Heremon and his immediate kin, as well as
codifying into a genealogical context the concept of national identity.