DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2007-07 > 1185394037


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] R1b1c7 in Scotland
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:07:17 +0000


Hi John,

I do understand Irish dynasties and that younger sons were within tanistic reach of the throne. However it still means there was one and only one king. That king ascended by killing off all his brothers, cousins, and uncles, or by somehow forging political unions so they supported him or were lucky enough to have had another princeling kill off the competitors so he was the last man standing. The Scottish clans apparently did the same. Sometimes they merely blinded the competitor so he was no longer in the running. Not a compassionate system or one that would make for close family ties.

There definitely are well known cases amongst the McDonalds where sons founded new clans in new territories. Apparently for this we need lots of avaible territory that can be colonized by sons who didn't want to be ard righ or prefered life to death or maiming. This successful strategy on the part of the McDonalds increased their dominion. When they were forced to leave their hereditary lands in Scotland, Ian Mhor expanded into Antrim which it claimed based on a medieval marriage (Bissett).

I am also well aware that Ireland was not feudal -- nor large areas of Scotland. I tend to think of their holding of land more like the American Indians, which also held their land by right of conquest.

No one is implying that the ancient world was 'free and open' as you seem to think I am. However at least in Scotland there was land to be settled and claimed. There were clans who moved into the border areas of Scotland from the highland areas (including a group of McGregors who became border Griersons). There is also some evidence of migration of clans in Ireland, some of the non-Ui Neill clans who settled in Ulster, apparently migrated there in pre-history from Kerry due to a famine. I would be surprised if they didn't have to fight for the land they settled in in Antrim.

> > This goes back to the Anradan legend of the 1400s
> > and later, and is not in
> > the least proven.

Actually DNA research has proven it, according to one man who has published the research. Also they are not related to the Anradan kindred, the McSweenies, yada, yada, but apparently to the Ui Neills.

I will contact the person who did the research to see if he'd like to share it so we can all evaluate it.

Linda Merle

This thread: