GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1155662402


From: Alan R <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Irish/ Scots clans, Dalriada, R1b etc
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:20:02 +0100 (BST)
In-Reply-To: <2b17c32d0608150753s6237b039nde9dd12caaa46cf8@mail.gmail.com>


Re-Scots-Ulster history. I am not sure what period
you are referring to. If it is Ulster-Scots/
Scots-Irish material, this term conventionally refers
to post-1600AD. I am afraid I am no expert on this
that saw the plantation of British Protestant settlers
into Ulster. Very good books on the subject include
'The plantation of Ulster' by Philip Robinson and
George Hill's book of a very similar title. Robert
Bell's 'The Book of Ulster Surnames' is by far the
best book on the origins specific surnames. There are
many other reliable texts on the subject, including
ones focused more exclusively on the large Scottish
component in the plantation. Unfortunately, I cannot
really comment on them or remember the details, having
only skimmed a few a number of years ago. There are
also less academic popular books on the Scots-Irish/
Ulster-Scots cultural history although I have heard
some are a good read.

The contacts between Scotland and Ireland are much
older than 1600AD but, as far as I am aware, these
earlier phases would not conventionally be seen as
part of the Ulster-Scots/ Scotch-Irish history which
generally relates to the history of Scottish lowland
Protestant settlers in Ulster between c. 1610 and 1700
or so and their descendants movement to America.

Attempts to greatly deepen Ulster-Scots Irish history
by tagging the much earlier Cruithin tribes of east
Ulster onto Ulster-Scots histories and pedigrees are
considered, without exception, by academic historians
and archaeologists to be very contrived and totally
misleading. The concept that the plantation of Ulster
(especially Antrim and north Down) by lowland Scots
was somehow an en-masse return to lands that had once
been their ancestor's is considered a huge distortion
of reality. That is not to deny that a very small
component in the Ulster plantation from the Rinns of
Galloway area may have included some individuals who
were the descendants of refugees from the Ulster
Cruithin clans who could have fled to south-west
Scotland (around the 11th-13th century when the
fortunes of these clans badly wained??) (the most
likely source for the term 'Picts of Galloway'??) but
any reasonable books on the Ulster plantation will
show that only a portion of the planters came from
this area. It seems very ulikely that surname
evidence of Scottish planters also would provide
evidence of a significant imput of returning Cruithin
refugee descendants during the plantation.

In fact, as noted elsewhere in this thread, there are
people who are clearly descendants of Ulster clans
that appear to have been considered Cruithin: people
with names like McCartan and Maguiness, Lynch and
possible many more but these are families which in
modern Northern Ireland (where identity is a sensitive
issue) are considered to be largely Irish Catholic
names and would not be considered part of the
Ulster-Scots identity at all. These names are the
subject of a major DNA study.

This is not to say that there has not been a large
amount of gene swapping between Ireland and Scotland.
There clearly has. Ireland was probably first settled
about 8000BC from the Atlantic seaboard of Scotland
(or perhaps the extreme NW of England via the Isle of
Man), Scotland itself having been settled only
fractionally earlier. Neolithic settlers may have
taken a very simiar route. There are many
Irish-Scottish similarities in the succeeding periods
although significant differences mean that contact and
trade rather than major population movements are
suspected. The most famous (and culturally very
significant) movement was that of the (non-Cruithin)
Dalriada tribe of north-east Antrim in Argyle and the
islands. This eventually led to Gaelic language and
culture transferring to most of Scotland. Although
not fashionable at present, this must have involved a
significant transfer of genes (jury is out on how
much). There were then limited movements of
mercenary/ military galloglass families from the
Hebrides into north and western Ireland but the next
big movement between the countries was the catholic
Gaelic Scots highlanders/ hebridians represented by
the McDonnells and others who settled in numbers in
north Antrim from 1400 (I think). This in many ways
was like a reverse of the earlier Dalriada settlement
and involved the same general areas. Although very
restricted in the area that it affected (N. Antrim),
it is generally considered (on the basis of
surnames)that a majority of modern rural Antrim
Catholics are descended from these settlers.

In contrast, the Ulster plantation, which formed the
basis of Scotch-Irish/ Ulster-Scots populations
involved a sudden and total realignment of
Ulster-Scotland relations that had up to then been
Gaelic/Catholic contact involving mainly north Antrim
and Argyle and the Hebrides. Now the connection was
with English/ Scots speaking, Protestant lowland Scots
from the extreme south-west and the borders area, a
connection that had not previously been prominent.




--- Wayne Morgan <> wrote:

> Can you suggest some quality references for
> Scots-Ulster history.
>
> Thanks
>
> Wayne
>
>
> On 8/15/06, <>
> wrote:
> >
> > > However, I feel that
> > > the interpretations and even the approaches to
> > > archaeogenetics in my areas of interest have
> often
> > > been affected by the excellent genetics being
> married
> > > to confused/ partial/ oversimplified historical
> and
> > > archaeological interpretations and assumptions.
> Early
> > > Irish and Scottish history and clan genealogies
> > > represent very specialised areas of knowledge
> that are
> > > total minefields unless you really know your
> stuff. I
> > > hope to shortly make a few contributions in
> these
> > > areas and find time to post my thoughts on the
> issues
> > > of R1b NW Irish, R1b Scots, Dalriada and suggest
> new
> > > approaches/ interpretations.
> > >
> > > Alan
> > >
> >
> > Well said. We certainly need all the expertise we
> can muster in these
> > "minefields" of contentious pedigrees & murky
> history. People with
> > Irish & Scottish surnames quantify a hefty part of
> the "privately
> > tested" database (as well as some academic
> studies) & I feel
> > confident that the database within the next few
> years will begin to
> > reveal a great deal of forgotten history about the
> clans. With some
> > of the larger clan surnames reporting in with 100+
> participants (some
> > with 200+??), very distinctive clusters are
> beginning to emerge from
> > the fog, & in the not too distant future, we will
> begin to see
> > patterns that support or dispel specific reputed
> clan pedigrees. I
> > believe we are already seeing that to some limited
> degree. The
> > structure of the clan was such that many pedigrees
> were absorbed into
> > the clan over the centuries, culminating in
> specific patriarchal
> > haplotypes that cross over from clan to clan,
> resulting in the
> > diversity of haplotypes that are found within any
> large surname
> > project. The challenge will be to gather enough
> data to determine
> > which historic (& perhaps "prehistoric")
> patriarchal dynasties left
> > us some of the more common modals that we now
> encounter. Your
> > insights are needed & appreciated. Thanks, Pat
> Tagert
> >
> >
> > ==============================
> > Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million
> records added in the
> > last 12 months. Largest online collection in the
> world. Learn more:
> > http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx
> >
> >
>
>
> ==============================
> Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million
> records added in the
> last 12 months. Largest online collection in the
> world. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx
>
>

This thread: