GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266281484


From: John Mclaughlin <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Fwd: FTDNA v. ISOGG R1b haplotree comparison updated
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:51:24 -0600
References: <22110.41f6011f.38a9ccf4@aol.com> <35bbfc2c1002141417w1cfdc364r37264a75d32b120e@mail.gmail.com> <F2606FF9AC4747CE939DE33529512691@elizabethod> <35bbfc2c1002151144n6a313177q69ce177aa8de9119@mail.gmail.com><35bbfc2c1002151322t78e49539g399bed6bd4f3479d@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <35bbfc2c1002151322t78e49539g399bed6bd4f3479d@mail.gmail.com>


On 2/15/2010 3:22 PM, Janet Crawford wrote:
> 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.

< 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.

I gave no reply to your post. I chose to ignore it. I was replying to
other posts in the same thread.

What does it matter when the genealogies were written down? As any
Irish historian will tell you it matters a lot. In general the earlier
the more reliable they are. As time passed more and more obvious
fabricated pedigrees appear in genealogical compilations especially from
the time of the Books of Ballymore and Lecan. Genealogies written
without antecedent in the 17th century are virtually worthless.

The genealogies themselves have pedigrees. Laud 610 (1000 AD) and
Rawlinson B.602 (ca. 1120 AD) share nearly identical tracts. Both
contain material at odds with the Book of Leinster (ca. 1170 AD). New
material is introduced in Ballymote and Lecan, often of dubious
authority. It gets worse with later dates of compilation.



John





This thread: