DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

From:
Subject: Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] Ui Neill & Connachta Surnames
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:37:27 EST

In a message dated 11/24/2007 5:34:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
writes:

The Acannan turn up in the late 1400s. I'm still working on the article on
those surnames starting with the prefix "A" in Ayrshire, Galloway and
Dumfriesshire. I'm incline to agree with you, there are some surnames are
definitely
of independent origin. I do think though there are a certain families, who
are of 'Irish origin'.

To clarify, what is the earliest date to which we can attach a proven
surname or group of families of R1b1c7 origin?



I couldn't give too many exact examples because for many families, they just
spring up in the annals with surnames fully formed. Others can be traced
through the annals to the first usage. And what appears to be a surname in the
annals may not be. Ua in Irish is either grandson of or descendant of and
it can be used in either sense in the annals. In fact prior to 1000 A.D. most
of the Ua forms in the annals are not surnames but a literal rendering of
"grandson of." The same thing is true of the Mac forms.

We can trace the evolution of surnames in two R1b1c7 families, the
O'Neills and McLaughlins, because both are well attested to in the annals.

Domhnall 'of Armagh', the Irish High King who d. 980 A.D. is called "Ua
Neill" in the annals. But he was literally the grandson of Niall glundubh and
this is probably what the annalists intended by calling him Ua Neill. But in
the next generation, his descendants are called "Ua Neill" and this is
probably the first use of the O'Neill surname. You can probably place this
surname event in 1000 A.D. plus or minus 20 years.

The McLaughlin surname first appears with Ardgar MacLochlainn who first
appears in the annals in 1051. He was literally the "son of" Lochlan, so this
usage may not be a surname at this point. But thereafter his descendants are
first called "Ua Lochlan" and at this point we probably do have a definable
surname. Ardgar MacLochlainn died in 1064 so you can probably date this
surname to about 1080 plus or minus 20 years.

We have no idea when the O'Donnell or O'Doherty surnames first originated.
They simply spring up in the annals as O'Donnells or O'Dohertys and their
ancestry is not traceable in any source document.

Byrnes (Irish KIngs and High Kings) notes that surnames were a device used
by the annalists to differentiate between the rapidly proliferating branches
of royal dynasties; and his point is well illustrated in the case of the
McLaughlins and O'Neills, two different branches of the royal stock of the
northern Ui Neill. But I myself would question whether the families themselves
actually used these surnames or whether they were initially just a device
adopted by the scribes to tell the different dynasties apart.

The clan name used for both the McLaughlins and O'Neills was clan Neill, a
reference to an earlier ancestor named Niall Caille (not Niall glundubh).
We know this because a few other families are included in the "clan Neill"
section of Rawlinson B.502 and MacFirbis who are not descendants of Niall
glundubh. Maybe they just thought of themselves as "clan Neill" and not
MacLochlainn or Ua Neill. I have no idea exactly when surnames became part of the
usage of individual families and not just the device of scribes.

I cringe when I read Irish websites that claim their surname is the oldest
in Ireland. Come on now guys, all these surnames cannot be the oldest in
Ireland.

Another thing to bear in mind with Irish surnames is they were first and
exclusively used to describe the royalty which in Ireland translates into
landowning chieftains with a definite territory. These are the men named in the
annals and whose pedigrees are traced in the genealogical manuscripts.
Surnames for the commoners might have originated much later. In the case of the
O'Donnells, we see a side branch named McMenimen that first arose in the 13th
century. The McMenimens from their origin were heavily involved in the
church, a highly respected position in Irish society. Herenagh and other church
officials also probably were given or adopted surnames at an early period.

I think the earliest possible surname in Ireland might be dated to about
950 A.D. in the annals.

MacLysaght says much the same thing in his introduction to "The Surnames
of Ireland."

"Ireland was one of the earliest countries to evolve a system of hereditary
surnames; they came into being fairly generally in the eleventh century and
indeed a few were formed before the year 1000. The traditional belief that
the system was introduced deliberately by Brian Bory is without foundation; it
developed spontaneously in Ireland, as elsewhere, as the population increased
and the former practice, first of single names and then of ephemeral
patronymics or agnomina of the nickname type proved insufficiently definitive."

By ephemeral patynomics, MacLysaght is referring to the casual use of Mac
and Ua to designate men as sons or grandsons of specific ancestors. You see
this constantly throughout the annals even after the 1000 A.D. period and the
unwary are tricked into seeing surnames where none were intended.


John






**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)

This thread:

• Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] Ui Neill & Connachta Surnames by