DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2010-09 > 1283628015

Subject: Re: [R-M222] Clann Lugach mac Laoghaire
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 15:20:15 EDT

In a message dated 9/4/2010 4:22:16 A.M. Central Daylight Time,

I've combined 37-marker M222 haplotypes of McLaughlin, Doherty and McGovern
into one file and estimated a combined TMRCA of only 22.55 generations,
which takes us back to about 1335AD, far short of 400AD.

That's a good example of why I don't trust TMRCA estimates. Based on
everything known from history that should be impossible.

The McLaughlins and Dohertys are alleged to descend from different sons of
Nial ca. 400 AD. The McGoverns are part of the Connachta, descended from
alleged half brothers of Nial. To some extent you can trace out the
genealogy of each family in the Irish annals and not just rely on the official
pedigrees. The Dohertys are pretty much untraceable prior to 1200-1300 AD.
The McLaughlins are much more traceable (to 1050 AD). I'm not sure of the
McGoverns. But their territory was in a completely different part of
Ireland far from the Inishowen peninsula of Donegal (Co. Cavan)

There is a reference to Dohertys in the annals in 1180 AD. As far as I
know that's the first reference to the family (Ua Dochurtaigh). By pedigree
they are related to the ruling O'Donnells. There is no proof of that
though. The first reference to MacLochlainn is in 1051 AD. By everything known
to Irish historians that implies these were separate lines (septs) by at
least these dates. They also were to be found in different territories.
The Dohertys ruled as sub-chieftains in Ard Miodhar in mid Donegal. The
McLaughlins were centered near Derry and Inishowen further north. I don't kinow
the exact dates the McGoverns are first mentioned. I'll have to check.
There is a McGovern mentioned in 1335. But their territory was much further
south in Co. Cavan.

It's inconceivable these three septs had a common ancestor ca. 1335 AD.

I say this not to criticize your estimate but simply because it doesn't
fit any facts I know of.

One may not trust the pedigrees but the annals are a different animal.
That's what historians rely on. They are not reliable in the early periods
but solid from perhaps 800 AD. and later.

Thanks for running those estimates. I just can't make sense of them.


This thread: