DNA-R1B1C7-L ArchivesArchiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2010-09 > 1284049160
From: Connie <>
Subject: [R-M222] Ambiguity in M222
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
I have two groups of Gillespies that are M222. Due to the inclusion of Gillespie as an associated surname for Clan Macpherson, most Gillespies in the U.S. consider themselves to be Scots - either Ulster Scots or direct line Scots - even though only a handful can actually trace to Scotland. The surname Gillespie has not existed as a clan on it's own for about 1000 years. Even Clan Macpherson doesn't know how the surname Gillespie became associated with their clan, and there is no one haplogroup that has been established as a core for the Gillespie surname ( there are only a handful of M222 Macphersons and they are not a close match to the M222 Gillespies).
Most early researchers of colonial Gillespies believed that they were cousins - they aren't as they come from different haplogroups - and most of them arrived from Ulster not Scotland. Tracing any of those lines back to Scotland has been a thorn in my side.
This summer one of the Gillespie M222 descendants, of a line that went from England to So. Africa just after 1800, sent me a plaintive message stating that what he really wanted to know was if his Gillespies were Irish or Scottish. We have not been able to tie his Gillespie to those who went from Ulster to America early in the 1700s or those that migrated later.
So what do I tell him? "Both" as an answer comes to mind - LOL - anyone else have an answer?
Connie McKenzie - Gillespie DNA Project Admin, Macpherson DNA Project Co-AdminPS. My own McKenzie line is M222
On 9/8/2010 9:47 PM, Allene Goforth wrote:
>>It's hard sometimes to live with so much ambiguity.<<
There is a lot of ambiguity, isn't there? That's probably why people
get so frustrated at the progress made or not made. They want cut and
dried answers but there aren't any. To tell the truth it drives me a
little batty too.