GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266268926


From: Janet Crawford <>
Subject: [DNA] Fwd: FTDNA v. ISOGG R1b haplotree comparison updated
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:22:06 +0000
References: <22110.41f6011f.38a9ccf4@aol.com><35bbfc2c1002141417w1cfdc364r37264a75d32b120e@mail.gmail.com><F2606FF9AC4747CE939DE33529512691@elizabethod><35bbfc2c1002151144n6a313177q69ce177aa8de9119@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <35bbfc2c1002151144n6a313177q69ce177aa8de9119@mail.gmail.com>


On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Elizabeth O'Donoghue
<> wrote:

 "so the issue of daughters' lines in Ireland is a
tangential one."

I am sorry, but this is misleading and exactly the opposite to what I
said. It is not "tangential". The sons of the daughters could be
chiefs and could become kings in Ireland, particularly in Munster. Do
you think the Picts were not in Munster? Cuircc married one. Do you
think there was no pict influence in Munster? There was. What does
matter was the time period in which the genealogies were written down
and the influences of that time and who wrote them down, and at that
time the daughters were dropped out. As far as DNA tracking goes, it
is vital to know this, and thus the genealogies are not to be trusted
as we commonly see them with no daughters shown. It is also important
to understand that many tribes take their name from a daughter, not a
son.
You can ignore what I am saying if you like, but you will never
straighten out the DNA if you do.

Janet


This thread: