GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-11 > 1288748667


From: "Andrew McEachern" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R1a1 - L176.1
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:44:27 -0400


Doug

Analysis of the Scottish Branch which is ancestral to the Clan Donald branch of the R1a1 tree shows that it splits into two different lineages.

Both lineages appear to have a common ancestor somewhere around 300AD. Perhaps a bit earlier.

In order to differentiate these lineages I am calling them the Lowland and Highland sub branches. It is the Highland sub branch which is ancestral to the Clan Donald branch. The Lowland branch has only Lowland Clan or House names associated with it. The Highland branch has Highland names associated with it.

All the haplotypes in the Lowland branch carry the "supposed" Somerled pattern YCAII = 19,21, DYS 458 = 15 and DYS 459 = 8,10. This pattern must be differentiated from the Clan Donald pattern of YCAII = 19,21, DYS 458 = 16 and DYS 459 = 8,10. One testee in this branch is negative to the SNP L176.1. Other tests from members of this branch are being performed as I write this. Since this testee that is negative, sits relativelly "young" in the branch, I presume all members will also test negative. Time will tell.

Three different Clans in the Lowland branch individually claim a man called Cospatrick or Gospatrick as their common ancestor and the haplotree shows that they all do indeed have a common ancestor. Cospatrick was centered in Northumbria and Cumbria. Using two different methodologies to analyse this branch common ancestor date the result is either 1170 or 1172 give or take a hundred years or so. Data on the three Cospatricks shows that this date range for the common ancestor fits to any one of them. Cospatrick is well identified in history. One of the Lowland clans claims and to some extent there is some evidence to suggest this is true, that Cospatrick was related to Crinan of Dunkeld. Crinan was known as being of the Kindred of St Columba. Crinan is well identified in history. However in reality there is as much hard evidence to suggest Crinan as the common ancestor of this branch as there is to suggest Somerled is the common ancestor to the Clan Donald branch. ie none.

In the 67 marker format the base haplotypes between the Lowland and Highland Branches have as many as 20 mutations between them.

>>L176.1 is, as far as I know, indeed "private" to what amounts to
the Clan Donald and other people who could reasonably be thought of
as McDonald bastards from 500 years ago

Doug, read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_MacEacharn

My many thousands of dead ancestors will be turning in their graves with the thought that they are Clan Donald bastards. My many, 50 or so, male relatives living in Australia, all of whom have the same common ancestor who died in 1856, and all of whom will have relativelly similar haplotypes to me and who would all test positive to L176.1 (presuming no cuckoos in the nest) would be somewhat displeased to be called MacDonald bastards. It is quite unreasonable to think of my family as being MacDonald bastards. It is also quite unreasonable to consider MacAlisters and Alexanders, MacDonald bastards. I also think it would be unreasonable to think of the grouping of MacNeill's and MacInnes (Scottish Branch) who show a common ancestor date around 1350AD as MacDonald bastards. This CA date is curiously close to the date the Clan MacInness chief and sons were killed at the orders of Lord MacDonald, by Clan Gillean (MacLean) at Ardtornish Castle. As you know the MacNeill's in this br!
anch are totally unrelated to any other MacNeill's who show R1b. They form a small group in the MacNeill project. Somehow I get the feeling that Clan MacInness Chief and sons were not murdered because of the "commonly thought of reason", being that the Chief of Clan MacInness made some remark about Lord MacDonald's wifes housekeeping skills. I get the feeling that they were all murdered because they claimed they held the senior ancestral line to Clan Donald.

None of the Lowland clans / Houses who form the Lowland Branch have ever claimed "viking" ancestry. Some claim Anglo Saxon heritage and some claim French heritage, but ultimately like the R1a1 Highland clans, they are unsure.

Questions that still remain to be answered with positive proof and not conjectural misinformation or spurious claims are:

Where (geographically) did these two branches split? Scotland or elsewhere?
Did the Highland Branch split off from the Lowland branch in Scotland's Lowlands or elsewhere?
Did the Lowland Branch split off from the Highland Branch in the Highlands or elsewhere?
How did the Lowland branch get so far south in Scotland and into England by 1100AD? Did it travel up through England?
Did these two branches take alternative migration paths after they branched? Given the branch date of around 300AD, neither branch was of "viking" ancestry at that time. So, as postulated above, did they split and follow a path into Scotland (or from within Scotland) together, or did they split and follow totally separate migration paths through different geographic areas with both branches eventually ending up in Scotland?

It is quite obvious that the SNP L176.1 did not originate with Clan Donald or any of its "bastard" families. It originated somewhere and sometime in the Highland sub branch of the Scottish Branch. The Scottish branch has some relativelly young sub branches and some relativelly old sub branches. In one small sub branch with a CA date of around 900AD there exists a member (Alexander) who is positive to the L176.1 SNP.

When analysing two sub branches for a CA date, one with the Alexander and the other one with me in it (both branches show SNP L176.1 as positive) the CA date is around 760AD. So your comment "and probably well before 1100." is probably correct. I note this date for the SNP is going further back in time and expect it to, with more research and haplotypes, to go further back in time again. Probably to the point where the two sub branches of the Scottish branch split.

Can you please tell me what hard evidence you have to show that both the Highland sub branch of the Scottish branch and the Clan Donald Branch have viking ancestry? You can not keep on tacitly denying the existence of the Scottish branch Highland sub branch by claiming we are all Clan Donald bastards. Can you?

Data and analysis for all the above will be published soon.




Andrew






-----Original Message-----
From: "Doug McDonald" []
Date: 26/10/2010 12:16 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [DNA] R1a1 - L176.1

On 10/24/2010 8:28 PM, Andrew McEachern wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Shouldn't there be enough positive results to take L176.1+ off the private list for the R1a1
> tree? I know of at least 5 positive results and one negative result for this SNP. Also I am quite
> sure there would have to be a plethora of positive results for this SNP from the Clan Donald
> project?
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew
>
>


L176.1 (which is R1a) is very simple. It is a SNP that parallels
the "Somerled" pattern YCAII = 19,21 and DYS 459 = 8,10, in
addition to the underlying pattern of Scandinavian R1a.

It is a subset of M198 with one new intervening SNP (M417) in between.
M417 seems to be positive in all other subsets of M198 also.

L176.1 is, as far as I know, indeed "private" to what amounts to
the Clan Donald and other people who could reasonably be thought of
as McDonald bastards from 500 years ago. It clearly is
not found in Scandinavia. All the Scandinavians I have gotten to
test are negative. That said, however, it is a very large "private" set of people.
It probably is the dominant set of R1a1 in the highlands of Scotland.

It could of course have originated before some Viking brought it
to Scotland, but have died out in Scandinavia, or could have occurred
in Scotland. We know now that it occurred before 1190, and probably
well before 1100.

Doug McDonald


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message




This thread: