DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2010-09 > 1284052050

From: "Sandy Paterson" <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Ambiguity in M222
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 18:07:30 +0100
References: <mailman.31.1284015606.6178.dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com><821518.90804.qm@web113516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <821518.90804.qm@web113516.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Hi Connie

My family only arrived in SA during WW2 (my father was an instructor pilot
in the RAF), but from history lessons I've always thought of the 1820
Settlers as English or Scots. I think your SA Gillespie may have arrived in
SA a little later than 1820, but later immigrations of English speakers were
all part of British attempts to 'civilise' the place and the English didn't
really regard the Irish as being civilised.

Then there's the fact that your one Gillespie M222 group (the one that
includes the South African) is solidly 26,14 at DYS481,487. The only other
surname that I've found with this is the small group of Lamont M222,
definitely Scots. Then there's the 11 at DYS442. Only two surnames appear in
M222 with more than one haplotype having DYS442=11, and they are Ewing and
Gillespie. As with Lamont, Ewing is definitely Scots.

Unfortunately this is hardly conclusive, especially given that the matches
to Lamont and Ewing in terms of gd are not compellingly close. Still, my
reply to him would be that the balance of probability favours a Scots
descent. Perhaps he can contact the 1820 Settlers organisation to find out
more about the nationality of the 1820 Settlers and later immigrations. If
they were indeed predominantly English/Scots, I'd be fairly confident that
he is of Scots descent.


-----Original Message-----
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Connie
Sent: 09 September 2010 17:19
Subject: [R-M222] Ambiguity in M222

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.


R1b1c7 Research and Links:

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: