Looking For O'Hair/O'Hare M222 Men In Ulster And Adjacent Areas

[fridurich]

I am an O'Hair who is a direct male line descendant of an O'Hair/O'Hare who was born in 1749 who was also from County Down, in what is now Northern Ireland. My cousin who also is a direct male line descendant, has been confirmed for M222. He is doing another test to see which SNP downstream of M222 that he is. He believes he will be either A259 or A260. From what my cousin has told me and shown me, I believe he will be one of those two SNPs also.

He has matches with many people, including several Hares (also O'Reillys, MacGoverns distantly, etc). One of the Hares is a descendant of a Hare from County Cavan, which is close to County Down. Other Hare matches may be from Ulster, other Hare matches may be from other places in Ireland, or, in at least one instance, a Hare match may be ultimately from Scotland.

The only O'Hare, except for those in a 2006 study, that I see that has done a Y-DNA test, is a descendant of Hugh O'Hare in the Family Tree County Down DNA project! (Hugh is DF41.) So, obviously he isn't M222.

In 2006 or so, there was a DNA study using 12 markers that showed 11 out of 18 O'Hares (most from Ulster) to be M222. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-09/1285200942 I know that since there were only 12 markers used, many of these could be false positives. However, I believe that if these men would do enough testing today, that at least some of them would be M222 confirmed.

According to the genealogist John O'Hart, who I know should be used with caution, the Armagh/Down area O'Hares were descendants of the MacRannalls (many of whom anglicized their name to Reynolds.) The MacRannalls were said to be of the Clanna Rory, the Rudricians. I have seen only one Reynolds or McReynolds who is M222. Many of the Reynolds in the Family Tree Reynolds Family DNA Project have only tested enough to be shown to be M269.

Does anyone know of any websites that show any Ulster or nearby area O'Hares who have done Y-DNA tests (or descend from O'Hares from Ulster or the nearby areas)? It is kind of mind-boggling that so many Hares have done Y-DNA testing, but only one Ulster O'Hare?!! (except for the 2006 study)

Thanks greatly for any help!!!

[A.D.]

All the above names occur in he Craigavon area of county Armagh, specifically Lurgan. Hare is normally the protestant version so if your looking in record that might help. M222 is every here around there.

[fridurich]

Thanks for your reply! I noticed on an episode of Finding Your Roots (don't know if it shows in Ireland or Great Britain), that in at least one Irish record they found for Bill O'Reilly's (of the show The O'Reilly Factor) ancestor, that the ancestor's name was spelled without the O', it was Reilly, or Riley, etc.

So, I wonder if in some of the areas I mention, if at times O'Hare was used, but at other times if they went by Hare.

Bill O'Reilly's ancestors came from County Cavan. Both Bill O'Reilly and Bill Mahre, comedian/T.V. personality, were confirmed M222 through Y-DNA tests. The show's host (Henry Louis?) Gates, a black man, also took a test which confirmed him for M222. Gates knew or suspected he had some white ancestry. They were unable to trace Gate's line out of the U.S.

[fridurich]

Thanks for your reply! I noticed on an episode of Finding Your Roots (don't know if it shows in Ireland or Great Britain), that in at least one Irish record they found for Bill O'Reilly's (of the show The O'Reilly Factor) ancestor, that the ancestor's name was spelled without the O', it was Reilly, or Riley, etc.

So, I wonder if in some of the areas I mention, if at times O'Hare was used, but at other times if they went by Hare.

Bill O'Reilly's ancestors came from County Cavan. Both Bill O'Reilly and Bill Mahre, comedian/T.V. personality, were confirmed M222 through Y-DNA tests. The show's host (Henry Louis?) Gates, a black man, also took a test which confirmed him for M222. Gates knew or suspected he had some white ancestry. They were unable to trace Gate's line out of the U.S.

[A.D.]

http://reckelfamily.com/OHair/KROHairPages/Page035.htm this might help if you haven't already seen it.

[fridurich]

Thanks A.D. I have been on that web site before and it also talks about my ancestor Michael O'Hair (b. 1749, and from Co. Down) and his descendants. One thing I didn't notice, or I forgot, was where it said there lived an O'Heire chief in the barony of Massareene and also that according to O'Dugans topography, this chief was the chief of the Ui Fiachrach clan. I did some online research and found actually the name of the chief of the Hy Fiachrach was O'Heirc, so I guess a typo occurred. I think it is possible that some of O'Hares could have originally be O'Heirc, the two names being similar.

[Dubhthach]

Thanks for your reply! I noticed on an episode of Finding Your Roots (don't know if it shows in Ireland or Great Britain), that in at least one Irish record they found for Bill O'Reilly's (of the show The O'Reilly Factor) ancestor, that the ancestor's name was spelled without the O', it was Reilly, or Riley, etc.

So, I wonder if in some of the areas I mention, if at times O'Hare was used, but at other times if they went by Hare.

Bill O'Reilly's ancestors came from County Cavan. Both Bill O'Reilly and Bill Mahre, comedian/T.V. personality, were confirmed M222 through Y-DNA tests. The show's host (Henry Louis?) Gates, a black man, also took a test which confirmed him for M222. Gates knew or suspected he had some white ancestry. They were unable to trace Gate's line out of the U.S.

I could be wrong on this but I believe O'Reilly and Maher were actually autosomal matches and not matches due to Y-DNA. They both shared a segment etc.

With regards to dropping the O' -- this was quite common during 19th century, of course at end of 19th century there was cultural revival, which led to many people readapting O's and Mac's -- good example of this is surname O'Sullivan. Today O'Sullivan is dominant form in Ireland, however in mid 19th century Sullivan was dominant angliscation, as a result many diaspora community bearers of name are specifically "Sullivan".

Of course the original Irish language form is Ó Súileabháin. Today in Ireland you probably more likely to hear O'Reilly but you do get Reilly by itself as well (outgoing government minister called James Reilly for example)

[Dubhthach]

The mention of an O'Hare in Cavan is interesting with regards to matches with A259/A260 men. Cavan basically maps onto historic "sub-kingdom" of East Bréifne. Bréifne itself consisted of both Leitrim and Cavan and was regarded historically as been part of Connacht (basically "March lands"). The O'Rourkes had expanded the king of Bréifne right throughout the 12th century, taking land from Midhe so for example Kells.

The diocese of Kilmore as created in 1152 basically represents the core of Kingdom of Bréifne in the 1150's.
http://www.kilmorediocese.ie/images/stories/map.jpg

Tigernán Ua Ruairc who was King of Bréifne at this time was one of leading characters in the drama that led to Cambro-Norman invasion of Ireland. He himself was killed at a parley with Hugh de Lacey in 1172 in Meath (At the Hill of Ward, if I recall correctly). Of course given that Hugh de Lacey had basically taken over Meath it's not surprising this would happen. Bréifne subseqently in the next century spilt into two, namely West Bréifne controlled by the O'Rourke's, and East Bréifne controlled by the O'Reillys. A situation which lasted up until the early 17th century.

West Bréifne == Leitrim
East Bréifne == Cavan

One of your closest matches at 111 markers Costigan is actually a McGovern. McGovern like O'Rourke and O'Reilly belong to the Uí Briúin Bréifne (eg. the Uí Briúin of Bréifne). A259 in general seem's to be "enriched" among men who bear Uí Briúin surnames. If your cousin has a match bearing surname Hare with origin in Cavan, this might point at ultimate origin within Bréifne and subsequent movement. After all people did move around particularly given the affects of 17th century in Ireland.

It's quite possible you are looking at angliscation based on assimilation of another surname. I note the following in Woulfe:



Mag FHEARADHAIGH—IV—M'Garee, M'Garrye, Magearrye, M'Gerrye, M'Girrie, MacGarry, Magarry, MacGeary, MacGerry, MacGherry, Megarry, O'Garriga, Garahy, Garrahy, Garrihy, Garry, Gerry, Gery, and, by 'translation,' O'Hare, Hare; 'son of Fearadhach' (manly); a variant of Mac Fhearadhaigh, which see; a not uncommon surname, especially in East Connacht, Tyrone and Antrim; in the spoken language, sometimes corrupted to Ó Giorraidhe, and erroneously translated O'Hare and Hare, as if from 'girrfhiadh,' a hare; sometimes also to Ó Gearaga, anglicised O'Garriga. Compare with Mac Fhearadhaigh.

--
Ó GIORRAIDHE—IV—O'Hare, Hare, Haire; a corruption of Mag Fhearadhaigh, which see; supposed to be derived from 'girrfhiadh,' a hare; hence the anglicised forms, O'Hare, &c.


The East Connacht above could cover in sense Bréifne. Now if you cousin has the M222 bundle on order it will at least test the following

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/a259-m222bundle.png

A883/A887 shows up in a number of O'Reillys who've done both individual SNP testing as well as BigY. Though I should note that McGovern as a surname has lineage that seperates from that of O'Reilly's/O'Rourkes in the 8th century.

[Dubhthach]

I was looking at the Irish Times page with regards to spelling variations of McGarry, one interesting bit here:

Deir de Bhulbh gur deineadh Hare de in Oirghialla as cosúlacht éigin le "giorria"!
Translation:
Woulfe (de Bhulbh) said that the name was made Hare in Oirghialla (Oirialla) because it sounded like "giorria"! (the word for Hare in Irish)

What's interesting here is that Oirghialla (Oirialla in modern written Irish) is basically Monaghan/Louth/Fermanagh and at push comes to shove Armagh, though generally in later medieval period it's restricted to Monaghan and north Louth.

From a geographic point of view you are seeing what appears to be movement from west to east.


numerous: Midlands, Clare etc. Ir. Mag Fhearadhaigh. Fearadhach was a very early personal name, possibly meaning "manly". The name originated in E Connacht and appears in many guises: Garahy, Garrihy, MacGarry and by peculiar mistranslation - O'Hare. SI & SGG.

http://www.irishtimes.com/ancestor/surname/index.cfm?fuseaction=Go.&Surname=McGarry&UserID=

[fridurich]

Thanks for your reply Dubhthach.

I watched the Finding Your Roots episode on computer at http://www.pbs.org/weta/finding-your-roots/. They keep past episodes for a period of time. I watched the parts where it talked about O'Reilly and Bill Maher being confirmed for M222 at least twice, because I wanted to make sure I understood what I heard correctly. Maher, O'Reilly, and Gates, the show's host, all were confirmed for M222. O'Reilly and Maher also were an autosomal match. They were both very surprised to learn that they were related to each other, especially considering how opposite they are politically.

Gates believed he was of Irish ancestry, but I don't know how he could be sure it wasn't Scottish, unless he did further testing. Seems like I have seen a Gates online in a DNA project in the same grouping as other M222s, some of whom were a259 or a260. There was something about it, maybe the area that Gates lived in, or the given name, that made me wonder if this was the same family as the host of Finding Your Roots.

Also, I believe it was on this same show where it said that it is believed that O'Reilly and Maher had a common ancestor who lived in the last 500 years.

I know that a lot of O'Reillys are M222, but I don't know if there are many Mahers that are. Also, I don't know what part(s) of Ireland Maher is commonly found. I forgot where in Ireland they traced Bill Maher's ancestors to. It doesn't seem like it was Ulster, but further south.

During the 16th and 17th centuries, did any of the Gaelic Irish drop the O' and resume it later, or was that basically a 19th century phenomenon?

[fridurich]

Thanks a lot Dubhthach for all of that very interesting info. Nice map too, I have never seen the map of The Diocese of Kilmore before. It is so interesting the history of the area and the kingdom of Breifne. I think you may have been posting the second post, when I was replying to your first post. I didn't notice you had sent another post until I went back to work.

My cousin mentioned the possibility that our O'Hair/O'Hare name could have possibly come from MacGarry, or similar name, by mistranslation, and I think that is possible. I think he is going to test for A259/A260 first, get the results, and then take the Big Y test. Also intriguing is what you point out that a number of O'Reillys are A883/A887, almost as if those SNPs are specific to that surname, but I won't go that far yet.

Once again thanks for the really interesting post!

[Dubhthach]

Thanks for your reply Dubhthach.

I watched the Finding Your Roots episode on computer at http://www.pbs.org/weta/finding-your-roots/. They keep past episodes for a period of time. I watched the parts where it talked about O'Reilly and Bill Maher being confirmed for M222 at least twice, because I wanted to make sure I understood what I heard correctly. Maher, O'Reilly, and Gates, the show's host, all were confirmed for M222. O'Reilly and Maher also were an autosomal match. They were both very surprised to learn that they were related to each other, especially considering how opposite they are politically.

Gates believed he was of Irish ancestry, but I don't know how he could be sure it wasn't Scottish, unless he did further testing. Seems like I have seen a Gates online in a DNA project in the same grouping as other M222s, some of whom were a259 or a260. There was something about it, maybe the area that Gates lived in, or the given name, that made me wonder if this was the same family as the host of Finding Your Roots.

Also, I believe it was on this same show where it said that it is believed that O'Reilly and Maher had a common ancestor who lived in the last 500 years.

I know that a lot of O'Reillys are M222, but I don't know if there are many Mahers that are. Also, I don't know what part(s) of Ireland Maher is commonly found. I forgot where in Ireland they traced Bill Maher's ancestors to. It doesn't seem like it was Ulster, but further south.

During the 16th and 17th centuries, did any of the Gaelic Irish drop the O' and resume it later, or was that basically a 19th century phenomenon?

I was going off second hand information, rather unfortunately PBS have decided to region-lock their video clips on their page, so can't even watch the previews for Maher/O'Reilly/O'Brien show from Ireland!

I did see the following which confirms the M222 result though:
http://www.pbs.org/weta/finding-your-roots/blog/dna-makes-for-strange-bedfellows/

There's some howlers in here, for example mentioning Niall Noígiallach, of course if you believe the genealogy the O'Reilly's as Uí Briúin Bréifne descend not from Niall but his older half brother Brion.

The document above mentions that Bill Maher doesn't match any other Maher's which would make sense as it's a Munster surname so you wouldn't expect M222 to show up in it. Given they also share some autosomnal DNA, you could be looking at NPE at some stage in last couple hundred years.

Interesting enough there was 9 Maher households in Cavan and Leitrim in mid 19th century going off Griffith, see map here:
http://www.irishtimes.com/ancestor/surname/index.cfm?fuseaction=Go.&Surname=Maher&UserID=

As for dropping Ó/Mac well you have to remember that most of Ireland was irish speaking until 1800. In many cases people had both their Irish name and a "English form" for use with officialdom, something that even contuines to this day in Gaeltacht communities. Now I'm going off memory but stuff like State papers from 16th/early 17th century generally saw use of O'Rourke and O'Reilly (or spelling variation of same) when dealing with Tudor state interaction with Bréifne, a good example is "Sir Brian O'Rourke" who having gone to Scotland was extradited to England and executed in London in 1591. The precedence of executing "The O'Rourke" as well as what happened in Monaghan around same time was one of the causes of the Nine Year war (1594-1603).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_O%27Rourke

I'd imagine it was more during 18th and early 19th century that you saw dropping of prefix, mainly as means of fitting into anglo society etc.

[Dubhthach]

Thanks a lot Dubhthach for all of that very interesting info. Nice map too, I have never seen the map of The Diocese of Kilmore before. It is so interesting the history of the area and the kingdom of Breifne. I think you may have been posting the second post, when I was replying to your first post. I didn't notice you had sent another post until I went back to work.

My cousin mentioned the possibility that our O'Hair/O'Hare name could have possibly come from MacGarry, or similar name, by mistranslation, and I think that is possible. I think he is going to test for A259/A260 first, get the results, and then take the Big Y test. Also intriguing is what you point out that a number of O'Reillys are A883/A887, almost as if those SNPs are specific to that surname, but I won't go that far yet.

Once again thanks for the really interesting post!

Well that map comes from official page of Catholic Diocese of Kilmore. The core of dicocesan boundaries in Ireland dates to mid 12th century and reflect political situation at time, eg large "sub-kingdoms" (you could term them nearly Earldom's/Dukedom's) each received a diocese. There was a gradual process of centralisation going on during this period, which of course the arrival of Cambro-Norman's threw a spanner in the works resulting in fragmentation which persisted to Tudor conquest.

Anyways the traditional genealogical account has the Uí Briúin Bréifne seperating from rest of Uí Briúin during mid/late 6th century and expanding eastwards into areas that had previously been dominated by branches of Uí Néill who had been excluded from rule within "Southern Uí Néill" (eg. Cénel Coirpe etc.) as well as various "minor" dynastical groups. Here's a map that purports to show situation around 700 before expansion really set off:

https://web.archive.org/web/20151219015209/http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/gif/breifne2.gif

Ultimately a BigY test would be great (if budget allows it), I believe they might be in process of refreshing BigY, so might be best to hold off on that for a while, so waiting on his current tests to finish.

As far as I know A887 is actually subclade of A883, FTDNA don't have it marked as such on their tree, but some previous testing has shown this. We also have a number of men bearing Uí Briúin Bréifne surnames (which in genealogy are parallel lines) which are A883-

Anyways here's screencaptures of core of genealogy taken from Bart Jaski's work (available on academia.edu)

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/uibriuin-breifne.png

O'Reilly specifically:
http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/uaraigillig.png

[fridurich]

I think you are right about what may be a move of my ancestors from east to west.

I think there is a good chance the O'Reillys descend from the Uí Briúin Bréifne based on what YDNA tests have shown so far, especially the number of Reillys/O'Reillys that are A259 or A260. On the show with O'Reilly/Maher, I was disappointed to see Gates apparently assume any M222 men would be descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages. I feel like it would have been helpful for Gates and researchers with his show, to read up on the most modern findings of M222 DNA (maybe they did). At least they did a show that was Irish focused, and had M222 in it, so I was grateful for that. O'Reilly and Maher might be descended from Niall, but in my opinion, more likely descended from Niall's brother Briuin (I may have the spelling off, not sure if the spelling changes when the Ui prefix is not in front it.) Well, one thing is for sure, O'Reilly, Maher, Gates and all other M222 men are all related, maybe very distantly, because they all share a common ancestor some time in the past.

Thanks for the two pedigree charts and the SNP chart. They could become very helpful. Maybe some time in the near future so many Irish men and diaspora Irish descendants will do so many SNP and Big Y tests that most or all of the pedigree charts can be validated.

You have been very helpful as regards possible earlier surnames for my surname O'Hair/O'Hare, very possible ancient origins, as well as mentioning a very plausible migration route over time. The historical events you mention such as the killing of Tighernan Ua Rairc (my spelling may be atrocious) are very interesting. I'm an American with Irish (also Scottish, Ulster Scot, Welsh, and English) ancestry so I'm use to seeing Irish surnames in an anglicized fashion. I love much of Irish and Scottish history.

[Dubhthach]

Well another thing to mull on if O'Hair/O'Hare's are A260+ is that so far that the A259+/A260- men we have so far have origins in East Roscommon. My feeling is that A259 thus probably arose somewhere around the Northern River Shannon and than underwent expansion. It's generally agree by historians that the Connachta expanded into modern province of Connacht (which is named after them). There were specifically three dynastical kindreds (thence the term "The Three Connachta) namely:

Uí Fiachrach -- literally "grandsons of Fiachrae"
Uí Briúin -- literally grandsons of Brión"
Uí Ailello -- literally grandsons of Ailill"

The three of these in the pseudo-historical narrative were full-brothers, and in turn half brothers to Niall and Fergus Cáecháin (Cáech = blind/one eyed, with dimunitive added so "little one-eyed one") who in turn were full brothers.

The father of all 5 men been specifically Eochaid Mugmedon (Eochaid the "slave-lord").

http://compsoc.nuigalway.ie/~dubhthach/DNA/eochaid-connachta.png

What you are probably looking at here is combination of politics and "inventive" history, it's quite possible that none of these 5 men really existed or if they are they weren't brothers (but perhaps relatives in sense of wider tribal/political confederation). The earliest strata of genealogies are full of what might be term "political decisisons" to show how various groups are supposedly related to each other. One can only give any sorta credence of mapping of individuals in genealogy to real life people from 8th century onwards.

Anyways if we go back to the case of the Uí Briúin they only really come to prominence in late 7th/early 8th century. Eventually eclipsing the Uí Fiachrach and excluding them from Kingship of Province of Connacht. The Uí Ailello were actually wiped out in battle with expanding Uí Briúin during this period (late 7th/early 8th century) after which their name only survived as part of a territorial division Tír Ollíol (Aillil) -- litearly the "Country of Aillil" -- which survives to this day as the "Barony of Tirerril" in county Sligo, in medieval period it was ruled by a branch of Uí Briúin bearing surname Mac Donnchadha (anglicised as McDonagh).

As Uí Briúin expanded in power, the genealogies gradually expanded to increase number of son's that Brión had, eventually reaching something like a total of 24 sons! So it's quite possible there's multiple levels of fabrication going on in the genealogical tradition. However we do see A259 (mostly A260) pop up in some of major branches which hints at least at some connection between these various kindreds, you note above in Bart Jaski diagram that he has a dotted line between two branches with a "?" that's hint that part of genealogy at this point is potentially fabricated (Giving an earlier branching point etc.)

With regards to using Irish language forms of name, by default I tend to follow the trend of historians writing on period, and use Old/Middle Irish forms of names, of course when I pronounce them I use modern Irish pronunciation. In case of Tigernán Ua Ruairc given he lived in 12th century he never would have probably heard english so using an angliscation like "Tiernan O'Rourke" is anachronistic in my mind (it also speaks back to histories written in 19th century)

Tigernán (Old/Middle Irish) -> Tiġearnán/Tighearnán (Early Modern Irish/Modern Irish) -> Tiarnán (Modern Irish -- reformed spelling)

word internal -gh- (written as -g- in Old Irish) became silent in Irish sometime in last 5-600 years, modern spellings tend to strip it out.

ua = grandson
Ua Ruairc = "grandson of Ruarc" (which is a borrowing of a norse personal name into Old Irish)
Ua was standard written form in Old/Middle Irish, now adays it's spelt as Ó -- thence modern irish: Ó Ruairc

plural of Ua = Uí -- used for groupings (eg. dynastical groupings) or for specific gramatical reasons.

Irish like Latin and lot of other Indo-European languages has a case system, so for example a personal name is in the "Nominative case" but when you make a surname based on that you use the "Genitive case" (denoting ownership)

eg. Ruarc = Nominative case, Ruairc = genetive case -- surname based on name would be Ó Ruairc (literally grandson/descedant of Ruarc), generally it's done by adding an "i" which changes the phonectic values of last consonant cluster.

However if the name ends with -ach suffix special rule applies:

Dubhthach (Nominative) --> Dubhthaigh (Genitive)
ergo "Descendant of Dubhthach" = Ó Dubhthaigh -- angliscised as Duffy -- there's been some changes in phonetic realisations, a "modern spelling" would be Ó Dufaigh -- which looses the etymology of the name.


Niall (Nominative) -> Néill (genitive)

[fridurich]

Well, my cousin got his latest test results back and we were surprised that he isn't positive for A259/A260. He is positive for S588 with a terminal snp of BY3347. http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=809

Also, on BY3347 are two Ewings and a Smith. BY3347 isn't the terminal snp for the Ewings. It looks like they have 6 other snps after BY3347. Also, I have heard that Big Y doesn't show snp S603, which I have heard a lot of the Ewings have. Does anyone know about when BY3347 began? I'm trying to figure out when the Ewings and my O'Hair/O'Hare line had a common ancestor. In my opinion, on S588, it looks like a mix of Irish and Scottish surnames.

[MacUalraig]

Well, my cousin got his latest test results back and we were surprised that he isn't positive for A259/A260. He is positive for S588 with a terminal snp of BY3347. http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=809

Also, on BY3347 are two Ewings and a Smith. BY3347 isn't the terminal snp for the Ewings. It looks like they have 6 other snps after BY3347. Also, I have heard that Big Y doesn't show snp S603, which I have heard a lot of the Ewings have. Does anyone know about when BY3347 began? I'm trying to figure out when the Ewings and my O'Hair/O'Hare line had a common ancestor. In my opinion, on S588, it looks like a mix of Irish and Scottish surnames.

I would test him for S603 at YSEQ, this SNP has been firmly established in the tree since 2013. In fact it was sequenced as far back as 2012 amongst two Lamonts from Argyllshire.

http://www.yseq.net/product_info.php?products_id=653

[fridurich]

Thanks for the advice and the link to order S603. It is cheaper than what I thought. I believed it would be about 40 dollars. I will forward my cousin the information. From what my cousin told me, BY3347 is pretty new.

So I'll rephrase my question. Do you or anyone else who reads this have a good idea when S588 began? Seems like I read on an online DNA thread where someone thought S603 began about 1030 A.D. I believe they were basing that on some DNA results they had as of 2014, and, using ancient Irish pedigrees. Also it seems like they were trying to figure out things such as who the common ancestor of the Lamonts and the O'Kanes was. If the 1030 A.D. date is valid, it appears that S588 would have to be further back in time than that. Perhaps now, they may have different conclusions than they did at that time.

At any rate, if anyone can give me a good, reasonable idea about when S588 began, it could still give me a ballpark figure of when the common ancestor of the Ewings, the Smith who was BY3347 (perhaps he was originally a MacGowan?) and my O'Hair/O'Hare family had a common ancestor.

Thanks in advance for any help!

[Dubhthach]

S603 can be ordered via FTDNA but as you figured it will set you back about $39, YSEQ is probably way to go int this case though it will need a new sample. With regards to age of S588, from memory when it came to TMRCA of STR values people were going with between 1,500 and 1,800 years old. Looking at YFULL they have following based on circa 10 S588 NGS tests (BigY/FGS etc.)

R-S588FGC4108/S588 formed 1850 ybp, TMRCA 1550 ybp

Basically much same age as predicted for A259 (and thus A260). What this shows is advantage of doing SNP testing, if we were to rely on your STR results well your closest match at 111 is A260+ -- given level of convergence of M222 haplotypes you are seeing a match with a man who last shared a common ancestor with you somestage at the DF105 stage, so anywhere between 1,500-2,000+ years ago!

I ran a quick Genetic Distance report in the Ireland project, your nearest confirmed S588+ match has a Genetic Distance of 15 at 111 markers. At 67 markers your first confirmed S588+ match comes in with GD of 7. Of course part of wider issue is that many M222+ men haven't done any further testing.

As for origin of S588, it along with DF85 shows a cross North-Channel distrubution which complicates matters, there are certain Ulster surnames which could be classed as Cinéal nEoghain that appear to be "enriched" for S588, likewise we see men with Scottish surnames carrying it. As a result it's quite hard to figure out where it might have originally arose, without obviously further study.

Here is Alex Williamson's current S588 tree based on S588+ men who've done BigY/NGS testing and who have shared their results:

http://ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=576&star=false

Obviously as time goes by more men with do testing which will help give us better idea.

Iain Kennedy also has a M222 tree pdf (not updated since June 2015 though) which shows various branches of M222 with men (denoted by surnames) who've tested positive for these SNP's.
http://www.kennedydna.com/M222.pdf

Here's his simplified tree diagram:
http://www.kennedydna.com/M222_tree.png
8591

[fridurich]

Thanks Dubhthach. That is what I was looking for, a good idea when s588 began. I'm still not clear if I should go by the 1850 or the 1550 ybp as the time when s588 began. It looks like i would go by the 1850 ybp, because that it when it was formed. Thanks for running the genetic distance report, the results are interesting. Also thanks for Alex Williamson's tree and the simplified m222 tree. Yes, it would be great if all m222 men would go ahead and and at least find out what snp(s) below m222 they are. You have been a big help.

[MacUalraig]

Just for general info for others, you should take the TMRCA figure from YFull trees. If you look closely the first figure is just copied down from the level above throughout the tree.

[Dubhthach]

Just for general info for others, you should take the TMRCA figure from YFull trees. If you look closely the first figure is just copied down from the level above throughout the tree.

Well obviously the age of Parent SNP (DF105) will be one limiting factor, of course issue with YFULL I imagine is how many men who've done NGS actually submit their BAM file. Leaving that aside I had look back through my email to see what I had with regards to TMRCA using STR's. Susan Hedeen had posted this to one of the M222 lists back in November last year. Not the biggest sample size I will admit but still food for thought:



The TMRCA for those in the spread sheet who currently at a terminal SNP of S588
This would include:
Adams
Campbell
Cary
Cunningham
Daniels
Harp
Gilmore
Ferguson
Lennon
O'Donnell-Hall
O'Donnell-Hall
MacDonald
MacKenzie
McGee
McMahon
McWilliams
Quinn
Quinn
Redmond
Romanoff
Thomas
Tucker
Wilson
Wilson At 37 STR markers: 1500+/-200 ybp
At 67 STR markers: 1375+/-180 ybp
At 111 STR markes: less than half have extended to 111 markers; hence the calculation for the group has a skew that depresses the age by 1/3.
The average between the 37 and th 67 marker panels is 1440+/-190 ybp


What seems to be happening with DF105 is that we are seeing most of it's major subclades appearing in some period between 1500-2000 years ago. After that we see rapid diversification of sub-clades appearing under each of the major branches. I'll have to rerun analysis of men who did the M222 bundle, but form memory when it came to DF105+ men (who made up 80-90% of men with bundle results) they tended to fall into ~30% DF85+, ~25% S588+, ~20-25% A259/A260+, with rest ~20%+ been DF105+ undifferenated (well they probably fall into unknown branches not included in the bundle).

[fridurich]

Thanks for the information that Susan Hedeen gave and all the help that you have given! So, is BY3347 so new, that no has enough to go on in order to come up with an estimate of when it began? I notice at Family Tree's M222 website https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1c7?iframe=ycolorized that they have BY3347 one snp downstream of S588. However, they show no names of any who have tested positive for it.

[Dubhthach]

Thanks for the information that Susan Hedeen gave and all the help that you have given! So, is BY3347 so new, that no has enough to go on in order to come up with an estimate of when it began? I notice at Family Tree's M222 website https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1c7?iframe=ycolorized that they have BY3347 one snp downstream of S588. However, they show no names of any who have tested positive for it.

Well S603 appears to be above it, however S603 wasn't included in bundle test, and if I recall right doesn't show up in BigY? (I could be wrong on that)

As far as I know S603 has no equivalent SNP's (eg. other SNP's that are found in all S603 men) and is one step down from S588, which likewise lacks any equivalents. Susan had the following on another mail with regards to S603:



_*S603
*_TMRCA of those in the spread sheet that are tested terminally for S603
Carr
Downie

Ewing
Ewing

Ferguson
Lafferty
Lane
Lane
McKown
Pecknold
McAnally
McAnally

McAnally are not included in these calculations as we do not have
their STRs; their Ids have not been shared, and without them we may
not be confident that the STRs we pull would belong to them.

TMRCA without them is: 1400+/-225 ybp (550 CE +/- 225 years)


Not much help on BY3347.

[MacUalraig]

Well S603 appears to be above it, however S603 wasn't included in bundle test, and if I recall right doesn't show up in BigY? (I could be wrong on that)



That is right, S603 is only covered at FGC and Illumina who did the original Lamont sequencing that found it.

[fridurich]

Thanks Dubhthach and MacUalraig. Dubhthach, it was a help when you said s603 appears to be above by3347. I was wondering about that.

[fridurich]

I have a different type question. I didn't know where to put it, but I'll put it here because it because it involves YDNA and I think I can get some good answers here.

In medieval Ireland, when a divorce occurred between a noble, such as a chief of a family or clan, a king, etc, and his wife, where did the children go? Were the children often fostered to another family at an early age, so there would be a fair chance they wouldn't be in the household anyway?

If I remember right, a couple of 16th century Irish chieftains that I read about were sent to a foster family after their mother died. However, back to talking about the rest of the nobility, if the children were with their parents when the divorce occurred, did they stay with the father, or did they go with their mother to live with their mother's family?

Now, the main point. If they left to live with their mother's family, did they drop the father's surname (this is obviously after the time their family group starting using surnames) and start using the mother's surname? If anyone can cite any historical examples, I would welcome it. If they used the mother's surname, this seems to be another thing that could explain why almost all Irish surnames have more than one haplogroup. Additionally, if instances of using the mother's surname this way happened, it could lead to the conclusion that direct male line descendants of the sons were not true members of the mother's family, because YDNA would show they had a different haplogroup than others with the same surname, when in fact they would be descendants, but through the female line.

I know some of the reasons for different haplogroups for most families could have been because of a new sept splitting off an established one, such as MacManus from one of the O'Connor families. Some surnames have been translated into English or Anglicized in other ways. Also, I think undocumented adoptions, rape, and infidelity could play a part. Aside from just talking about the nobility, in my opinion, if a woman had an illegitimate child, I think it is possible the child could use the mother's surname. Moreover, I have read that a large portion of the Irish population in the 16th? or 17th century? still hadn't adopted a surname, so when various branches started using one, (especially if they lived far from each other) I can see different surnames representing the same family. One of Edward MacLysaght's (hope spelling is right) book's on Irish surnames is where I read that a large number of the Irish hadn't started using surnames until the 16th or 17th century and I get the impression this group may have been mainly the lower classes.

Thanks for any insight on this!

[Dubhthach]

Well divorce was quite common within Gaelic Ireland, for example one woman was known poetically as the "Port of three enemies", as she was married in turn to three seperate woman each of whom were mortal enemies! When it came to divorce the children as far as I know stayed with their father's family, as they belonged to their "Father's nation" (the English use the term "Captain of his nation" during Tudor period to talk about chieftains etc.)

The same of course applied in event of death of husband, good example been Gráinne Ní Mháille (aka. Grace O'Malley the "Pirate Queen") who married Dónal an Chogaidh Ó Flaithbheartaigh, on his death she went back to Mayo, subsequently marring Risdeárd an Iarainn Bourke, she thus had son's who were O'Flaherty's and Bourkes (the "Earl of Mayo" descendes from her son Tibbot ne Long Bourke)

Leaving that aside fosterage was actually common practise even when there was no divorce/death of spouse, by default it was a mean's of a Lord to tie his subjects (chief-tenants/freeholders) to him. So for example Seán Ó Néill (Shane O'Neill) was fostered by the Uí Dhonnaile (Donnelly) family, as a result Shane (Shane reflects the Ulster pronounciation of Seán -- which is otherwise anglisced as Shawn -- borrowing of French Jean eg. John) was known as:

Seán Donnghaileach Mac Cuinn Bhacaigh Ó Néill

Donnghaileach reflects his fosterage by the Donnelly's, his father was Conn Bacach Ó Néill (Conn "the Lame") last King of Tír Eoghain (Tyrone) and 1st Earl of Tyrone after surrender and regrant in 1541.

Anyways here's a snippet from Google books showing fosterage was still common in the 1640's:
https://books.google.ie/books?id=2uM5CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT38&dq=gaelic+ireland+fosterage&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJnp6Jz_7LAhXLcRQKHfy1AmwQ6AEIJzAC#v=on epage&q=gaelic%20ireland%20fosterage&f=false

Plus here:
https://books.google.ie/books?id=a7uTAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA309&dq=gaelic+ireland+fosterage&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJnp6Jz_7LAhXLcRQKHfy1AmwQ6AEILDAD#v=on epage&q=fosterage&f=false

A good introduction to Gaelic Ireland is Kenneth Nicholls book:
Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the Middle Ages
http://www.amazon.com/Gaelic-Gaelicized-Ireland-Middle-Ages/dp/1843510030/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

The Price on US Amazon for paperback is bit steep (you can buy it for less than €15 in Ireland!), Kindle price is quite good.

With regards to multiple haplogroups in Irish surnames, it's worth pointing out that often the larger Irish surnames (eg. with most carriers today) are actually made up of multiple independent occurrences. For example there are at least 6 different O'Connor families, all descended from different titular ancestors called Connor, likewise for Murphy and Kelly. In case of McManus as mentioned above there are two distinct families descended from different men called Manus, one been branch of Maguire's of Fermanagh the other branch of O'Connor's of Connacht.

"Sub-septs" might end up taking different names as they gradually fell out of line of secession of family. To become lord you need to be within 4 generations descent of a previous ruler, if your lineage had fallen out of this grouping, you would end up been marginalised, as a result often new "sub-lineages" would be formed, and these would often change their name based on the specific individual they claimed descent from.

Leaving that aside one way that potential NPE could occur is with process where a woman on her death bed could claim that her son's weren't actually the son's of her husband but those of another man. This is basically what happened with Conn Bacach and his son Matthew (Fear Dorcha) who was the son of wife of blacksmith in Drogheda. She claim the son was Conn's. Conn of course had reputation for never denying a son (after all it made for an extra sword), the problem arose when he was made 1st Earl of Tyrone he brought Matthew with him, who was declared his heir by the English (and legitimised), Shane however was his son by legal marriage, and was thus dispossessed, this would setup of a chain of conflict that would last for 50+ years.

Normally of course as Gaelic Ireland didn't have a concept of primogeniture such an event of accepting a son, wouldn't matter, because heir's were elected based on strenght/powerbase and not on position in birth order etc.

[fridurich]

Thanks for all of the interesting information and the snippets from the books! The book by Nicholls looks very interesting, so I'm thinking about getting it. I like to read about the medieval Gaelic culture of Ireland and Scotland.

I have read that a custom called handfasting existed in medieval Ireland and Scotland, where a couple went on a trial marriage for a year, and if they wanted to continue, they would stay married. Otherwise they would part paths. However, other things I have read said that there were no one year trial marriages in Scotland. In reading about the medieval Irish laws on marriage, I see no mention of a one year trial period. So did one year trial marriages exist in Ireland? If so, and they had children, I assume the children went to the father's family if the couple decided to split up.

Yes, I can't believe I missed one of the most obvious reasons for multiple haplogroups with surnames! Like you said before, this happened when the same surname arose independently in different areas of Ireland under different ancestors. I had read about this before!

You mentioned that when a family had members that fell out of the derbfine (spelling may be off), that they became marginalized and could take on a new surname. When this happened, did they elect or someone take the place of chieftain and a new derbfine form, with the chief being the head of nobility of the newly formed family? You mention the prolific procreation of the nobles squeezing out those of lower status. It seems like over a period of time, centuries or so, with so many descendants of chieftains coming from men who fell out of the derbfine, that they could actually form the majority of a surname's descendants. That is, maybe the haplogroup within a given surname that has the most men, was the actual haplogroup of the ancient chieftain. If so, it seems like a large portion of ordinary Irishmen or diaspora descendants today, perhaps the majority, could be descendants of a chief or king.

Now that you mention Conn and his son Matthew. I don't know how to take a deathbed confession of a woman about her son not being the son of the man who was thought to be his father. In one sense, you would think she would want to tell the truth, because she might not want to die with that being the last thing she said, a lie! However, maybe some women would have lied and claimed their son was child of a noble just to get him in the running for being the tanist. Do you feel like Matthew was really not Conn's son? I guess one way to find out would be to find descendants of Matthew O'Neill and descendants of Shane O'Neill today and give them a YDNA test.

I just now wondered what would have become of the child of a noble and a slave woman, back in the time slavery existed in Ireland. If I remember right, seems like slavery ended in Ireland around the 12th or beginning of the 13th century. Do you know if the child(ren) remained with the mother? My guess is they would be considered slaves and would not be considered part of the noble's family, at least not part of the derbfine. I'm thinking that could be another way of more haplogroups being within a surname, because when ever the descendants of that slave woman became free, and after surnames came into being, who knows where they would be living and what surname they would take.

In my other post I mentioned the possibility of a woman having an illegitimate child. It looks like if the child was a son of the noble, he would be part of the father's family and keep the father's surname (in Medieval Ireland). What if the woman was a commoner and had a child with another commoner. Would that child still be considered part of the father's family? I may be wrong thinking that such a child could take on the mother's surname.

Anyway thanks for your very informative posts on this fascinating subject.

[Dubhthach]

Nicholls book is generally the best introduction to medieval Irish society, it's fairly easy read and it's basically small enough paperback (Think Penguin Classic type format), it was first published in early 70's and is still cited to this day (as well as been re-published)

I'm not all together sure if "handfasting" occurred in Ireland, what's evident from Ireland is that among the "gentry"/"nobility" that civil marriage was norm (when marriage occurred) and that divorce was rife. Of course with no concept of illegitimacy produce from unmarried union was just as recognised as a son from actual marriage.

With regards to women naming their son's as son's of other men, Nicholls covers that etc and gives examples, for example one example of a woman trying to disinherit her son (for another) which ended up coming back to bite her etc.

As mentioned there was no concept of illegitimacy in Gaelic Ireland, thus if a woman claimed a son was son of another man, it was basically up to him to accept the son or not. The case of "Matthew Kelly" been prime example of it, in Irish he's often termed "Feardorcha" (which is a personal name but a literal translation is "Dark man" -- poets probably enjoyed that).

It is of course worth pointing out that Matthew was father of the great Aodh Ó Néill, the son's of Shane (there were several) were known as the McShane's overtime. Here's article on medieval Marriage from History Ireland:
http://www.historyireland.com/medieval-history-pre-1500/marriage-in-medieval-ireland-by-art-cosgrove/

With regards to slavery and the like, I've forgotten most of what I've read on it and earliest part (pre-invasion). However from memory some of it is covered in Patterson's "Cattle Lords and Clansmen"

http://undpress.nd.edu/books/P00044
http://www.amazon.com/Cattle-Lords-Clansmen-Structure-Ireland/dp/0268008000

Small snippets here on Google books, when I search for word slave:
https://books.google.ie/books?redir_esc=y&id=eOsMAQAAMAAJ&dq=Cattle+Lords+and+Clansmen&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=slave

There's also Bart Jaski's "Early Irish Kingship and Succession"
http://www.amazon.com/Early-Irish-Kingship-Succession-Jaski/dp/1846824265

https://books.google.ie/books?id=CpVnAAAAMAAJ&dq=editions%3AFQrkWKWKe2YC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=slave

I actually have both of these, though I've only really read first chapter or two of Patterson, both are on my reading list, just haven't gotten around to doing more than quick look through both.

Euro price of that from publisher is better that's for sure:
http://www.fourcourtspress.ie/books/archives/early-irish-kingship-and-succession/

[fridurich]

Thanks for all of the information and the references to the books. You have been very helpful. I just ordered "Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland....". "Cattle Lords and Clansmen" looks really good. I'm seriously thinking about getting it. With over 400 pages, it should have a lot of information.

Speaking of clansmen. This may seem like a dumb question, but is it improper to refer to an Irish family as a clan? The late Edward MacLysaght, who I respect a lot, preferred the term "sept" and if I remember right, he didn't think the Irish families had a clan system like Scotland. However, I have read elsewhere that the Irish families had everything, or most all, in place to constitute a clan.

Yes, I had read about some of the O'Neills becoming McShanes in surname. Also, I read about one O'Neill descendant who immigrated to one of the English colonies and his surname was Johnson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_William_Johnson,_1st_Baronet#Early_life_and_ca reer Hopefully whoever submitted the article to Wikipedia researched it well. So, here it appears that Johnson became the surname out of translation from McShane.

It seems like you know a lot about Irish history, Irish families, the medieval culture, DNA, etc.

Cheers and have a great day!

[Dubhthach]

Well the english definition of "Clan" basically became somewhat of a "dirty word" in Irish genealogical/academic circles. Part of this no doubt been driven by reaction to some of stuff like "Tartan Mania" and the likes in the 19th century and the fact that Irish and Scottish systems were quite different, as a result applying Scottish concept of kindred-ship to Ireland leads to confusion etc.

"Sept" as a term was used in English in Tudor period to cover Irish kindred-groups (as well as term "Nation" eg. "Captain of his Nation"), so it was chosen as term to use, that and you had people basically saying it could be used as angliscation of terms Síol or Slíocht.

What should be noted that in Irish that the word Clann (which is loan of Latin PLANTA via Welsh pland) literally mean's "one's children", so when the word is used in names of dynastical groups it's not been used in context that we think of word "clan" in english, but to denote ancestry so for example Clann Ceallaigh (anglisced as Clankelly) doesn't mean the "Kelly Clan" (eg. "Clan" made up of people bearing surname Kelly) but instead "Children (eg. descendants) of man call Ceallach".

Nicholls use the term "Corporate Clan" to explain family structure within Gaelic Ireland, and talks about for example succession, rotation of "shares" (eg. allocated landed estates) at each change of leader etc. I came across this extract online from Nicholls:



"Medieval Ireland was, of course, a society of clans or lineages - referred to as 'nations' in contemporary English terminology - and the most outstanding feature in the Gaelicization of the Anglo-Norman settlers was the speed with which, within the first century following the invasion, the concept of the clan had become established among them. Irish scholars have shown a curious dislike for the word 'clan', itself an Irish word (clann, lit. 'children', 'offspring') borrowed through Scotland, but as the term is in normal use by social anthropologists to denote the kind of corporate descent group of which I am speaking, I have no hesitation in employing it. The study, however, of clan- or lineage-based societies - which, whether in Medieval Ireland, in Asia or Africa, constitute a particular form of organisation with distinctive features in common - is comparatively recent. In the sense in which I am using it here, a clan may be defined as a unilineal (in the Irish case, patrilineal) descent group forming a definite corporate entity with political and legal functions. This latter part of the definition is an important one, for the functions of the clan in a clan-organised society lie entirely in the 'politico-jural' and not in the 'socio-familial' sphere, that is to say, they are concerned with the political and legal aspects of life and not with those of the family. The earlier term for such a unit was fine, which by late medieval times had been replaced in Ireland (although it survived in Gaelic Scotland) by the term sliocht (literally, 'division') translated into Renaissance Romance-English as 'sept'. Normally a clan would occupy and possess particular lands or territory, its occupation or ownership of the land being one of its most important corporate functions. (This does not, it need hardly be said, imply that the territory was held in common among the members of the clan or that outsiders would not be present within the clan territory. The objection of some Irish scholars to the concept of the clan may owe its origin to a reaction against absurdities of this kind.) As the clan is a corporate entity with functions only in particular spheres and aspects of life it is, of course, absurd to conceive of a clan-based society as being divided into clans as if into compartments; then clan, like a modern company, can be a very variable thing. A clan may be represented by a single individual only, the only member remaining of his descent-group, which nevertheless continues to exist so long as any member of it survives. The small descent-groups within a larger clan may each constitute entities or clans, while remaining part of the larger one, and may again be similarly divided themselves."

"In the case of Ireland, the greater part of the humbler classes certainly did not belong to any recognised clans or descent-groups other than their immediate family groups (father and sons, or a group of brothers). In the case of persons like these, devoid of political influence or property, the clan would have had no functions which could serve to hold it together. Conall Mageoghegan, writing in 1627, refers contemptuously to persons of this sort as 'mere churls and labouring men, [not] one of whom knows his own great-grandfather'. The phrase is significant; in a lineage-based society the keeping of genealogies is of primary importance. Not only is membership of the clan conferred by descent, but the precise details of this descent may determine a person's legal rights in, for instance, the property of the clan. In Ireland the keeping of genealogies was entrusted to the professional families of scribes and chroniclers. In 1635 we find a genealogy of the Butlers of Shanballyduff in County Tipperary prepared by Hugh Óg Magrath 'out of the new and old books of his ancestors written in the Irish language', and in 1662 Arthur O Neill, about to be admitted as a knight of the Order of Calatrava in Spain and asked for his pedigree, referred the Order to 'the chronicler Don Tulio Conrreo', otherwise Tuileagna O Mulconry, who duly produced the required pedigree back to Donnell of Armagh, King of Ireland in 976."

"As the clan was a unit only in a legal and political sense, one must not, of course, expect it to show the sort of internal solidarity one expects of the family. Indeed, causes of tension and conflict might be expected to be highest within the lineage group, where rights over the clan property would be a constant ground for dispute. When we read in an early seventeenth-century law suit, with reference to two Purcell brothers who held in common a minute property in County Tipperary, that 'the said Patrick was killed by the said Geoffrey for some difference betwixt them about the said land', we see what must have been a common outcome of fraternal tension. Where the succession to a great lordship was at stake, violence of this kind would be even more likely and cousins, whose interests would normally be in direct opposition, would be almost automatic enemies. The clan might close its ranks against an outsider and collectively seek vengeance against the slayer of one of its members, but within itself it might equally exist in a permanent state of hostility and division. Such hostility, if continued over generations, would inevitably lead to its division into separate fragments, each of which would function as a separate clan, and the more numerous the clan, the sooner was this likely to happen."

[fridurich]

Thanks for all of this information. It was very interesting what Nicholls had to say about what he called the "clan" in Ireland. I just got my book by Nicholls today! I ordered it from Amazon without expedited shipping and it only took 4 days. Haven't had a whole lot of time to look at it yet. Plan to, before I go to bed. Based on the table of contents it looks real interesting.

Back to a DNA question, which anybody is welcome to answer. My O'Hair cousin who has tested positive for M222, S588, and BY3347, has only 3 markers different from someone descended from a Henry Hare (b. about 1790?) from County Cavan. My ancestor Michael O'Hair/O'Hare was born in 1749 and from County Down. The descendant of Henry Hare hasn't been tested for M222 or done any other advanced testing.

Since my cousin is only 3 markers off at 67 from the descendant of Henry Hare, does this mean that the Henry Hare descendant is likely to be positive for M222 as well as S588? Also, the last name of the Henry Hare descendant is obviously similar to O'Hair.

Another question is, if you are a closer match on STR values to someone who has a different terminal snp than your own, does that mean that you are still more closely related to those who have your terminal snp because after all they have your terminal snp? This may appear to be an ignorant question, but I want to learn. For example, if your terminal snp is S588 and yet your closest STR match is with someone who has a terminal snp of A259 or A260, then I'm thinking you would still be more closely related to the men you match in S588, for the above stated reason, because they have your terminal snp, and the A259 man doesn't have it.

I'm still learning so I may not be using all of the proper terminology for what I'm trying to say. Thanks in advance for any help!

[MacUalraig]

Thanks for all of this information. It was very interesting what Nicholls had to say about what he called the "clan" in Ireland. I just got my book by Nicholls today! I ordered it from Amazon without expedited shipping and it only took 4 days. Haven't had a whole lot of time to look at it yet. Plan to, before I go to bed. Based on the table of contents it looks real interesting.

Back to a DNA question, which anybody is welcome to answer. My O'Hair cousin who has tested positive for M222, S588, and BY3347, has only 3 markers different from someone descended from a Henry Hare (b. about 1790?) from County Cavan. My ancestor Michael O'Hair/O'Hare was born in 1749 and from County Down. The descendant of Henry Hare hasn't been tested for M222 or done any other advanced testing.

Since my cousin is only 3 markers off at 67 from the descendant of Henry Hare, does this mean that the Henry Hare descendant is likely to be positive for M222 as well as S588? Also, the last name of the Henry Hare descendant is obviously similar to O'Hair.

Another question is, if you are a closer match on STR values to someone who has a different terminal snp than your own, does that mean that you are still more closely related to those who have your terminal snp because after all they have your terminal snp? This may appear to be an ignorant question, but I want to learn. For example, if your terminal snp is S588 and yet your closest STR match is with someone who has a terminal snp of A259 or A260, then I'm thinking you would still be more closely related to the men you match in S588, for the above stated reason, because they have your terminal snp, and the A259 man doesn't have it.

I'm still learning so I may not be using all of the proper terminology for what I'm trying to say. Thanks in advance for any help!

Here is the striking thing (or two) about M222. It is incredibly predictable as an overall haplogroup, but very unpredictable internally. If someone is +3 in 67 markers to another who is SNP confirmed M222 then you can bet he too is M222+. Other than that you certainly can't say anything and detailed sub-branch SNP testing is needed for the other guy.

[fridurich]

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it! I understand that M222 is so unpredictable within itself as far as thinking a M222 man will be a certain snp based on his STR values compared to another M222 man when the first man, (or both men) hasn't done any additional testing.

However, I would like to give another example, and ask a very specific question. Let us say three men are confirmed M222. Two of them are confirmed for S588 and the other man is confirmed for A259. Let us say that one S588 man, John, has 7 markers that are different from the A259 man on a 67 marker test. John is twelve markers different on a 67 marker test from the other S588 man, named George. So would John be more closely related to George, than he would be to the A259 man?

There is a lot about genetic genealogy I don't know. I may be wrong, but I would think that John would be more closely related to George than he would be to the A259 man. Why? Because both John and George sit on the same S588 branch while the A259 guy is on an entirely different branch, but of course the A259 guy is still related to the other two because they are all M222. These genetic distances I mention may seem ridiculous, but for one thing, I'm using them for the purpose of an example.

I have been wrong about many things in life, so if this reasoning is wrong, I need the education. Thanks in advance to anyone answering this specific question.

[MacUalraig]

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it! I understand that M222 is so unpredictable within itself as far as thinking a M222 man will be a certain snp based on his STR values compared to another M222 man when the first man, (or both men) hasn't done any additional testing.

However, I would like to give another example, and ask a very specific question. Let us say three men are confirmed M222. Two of them are confirmed for S588 and the other man is confirmed for A259. Let us say that one S588 man, John, has 7 markers that are different from the A259 man on a 67 marker test. John is twelve markers different on a 67 marker test from the other S588 man, named George. So would John be more closely related to George, than he would be to the A259 man?

There is a lot about genetic genealogy I don't know. I may be wrong, but I would think that John would be more closely related to George than he would be to the A259 man. Why? Because both John and George sit on the same S588 branch while the A259 guy is on an entirely different branch, but of course the A259 guy is still related to the other two because they are all M222. These genetic distances I mention may seem ridiculous, but for one thing, I'm using them for the purpose of an example.

I have been wrong about many things in life, so if this reasoning is wrong, I need the education. Thanks in advance to anyone answering this specific question.

You are correct, you have to follow the SNPs. They trump any GD relationship hints. John and George have a more recent common ancestor ie Mr. S588. The common ancestor of all three is further back up the tree.

[Dubhthach]

One of things we seem to see alot is "convergence of haplotypes" (is that even a term), this is particulary prevalent in M222, where men belonging to SNP lineages which are estimated to last share common ancestor 15-1600 years ago appear closer to each other than men who are in same lineage.

SNP's always trump the STR's. Given the size of M222 it's just as well we now have detailed breakdown of it into multiple branches.

[fridurich]

Thanks so much MacUalraig and Dubhtach, you have both been very informative and helpful on this particular issue. You have both confirmed what I thought was probably the way it worked, but I didn't know for sure!! I'm kind of a newbie at these things.

Kind Regards

[fridurich]

My O'Hair cousin has taken the big Y test! As I have posted before, my and my cousin's ancestor Michael O'Hair, was born in 1749, and was from County Down, Ireland. My cousin has tested positive for m222, s588, and by3347. He was off only 3 markers at 67 from a descendant of Henry Hare, who was born about 1774 in County Cavan, Ireland, not terribly far away from County Down.

Well, now this descendant of Henry Hare has also has tested positive for m222, s588, and by3347!

A well known expert on genetic genealogy has told me something like by3347 is in the DYZ19 region that is a highly repetitive region of the Y chromosome. She said it's position isn't fully understood and there is also a question of it's stability. She said that we might not know enough about it and hoped people didn't get too attached to it because of snp pack testing.

Right now, sitting on BY3347 are two Ewings, a Smith (MacGowan originally?), a Morris or Morrison, an O'Hair, and now, a Hare.

The big Y chart hasn't been updated yet to show Morrison, O'Hair, and Hare. Under BY3347 for the Ewings, they appear to have downstream snps under it. http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=576

I wonder if the surname AHayre/AHaire that used to be used in Ayr Scotland could be from immigrant Irish O'Hares to the area.

In Black's book "The Surnames of Scotland" he mentions a Patrick AHayre/AHaire who was bailie of Ayr in 1415,1420. It appears his surname in later dates was shortened to Haire, etc. Some have theorized that Scottish surnames that had the "A" tacked in front, were the equivalent of the Irish "Ua", or "O'" prefix, while others have thought the "A" prefix was a short form of Brythonic Celtic "ap" from "map" meaning "son of". I believe there may have been several "A" surnames in Galloway or nearby.

http://www.amazon.com/Surnames-Scotland-Origin-Meaning-History/dp/1626540594/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463632272&sr=8-1&keywords=surnames+of+scotland

If I remember right, Edward MacLysaght thought that the "A" at the front of the Irish name Ahearne, was originally "Ua" or "O'".

My cousin and I really look forward to new and exciting revelation from this testing. Anyone's constructive thought or input on this is welcome.

[Jessie]

Well obviously the age of Parent SNP (DF105) will be one limiting factor, of course issue with YFULL I imagine is how many men who've done NGS actually submit their BAM file. Leaving that aside I had look back through my email to see what I had with regards to TMRCA using STR's. Susan Hedeen had posted this to one of the M222 lists back in November last year. Not the biggest sample size I will admit but still food for thought:



What seems to be happening with DF105 is that we are seeing most of it's major subclades appearing in some period between 1500-2000 years ago. After that we see rapid diversification of sub-clades appearing under each of the major branches. I'll have to rerun analysis of men who did the M222 bundle, but form memory when it came to DF105+ men (who made up 80-90% of men with bundle results) they tended to fall into ~30% DF85+, ~25% S588+, ~20-25% A259/A260+, with rest ~20%+ been DF105+ undifferenated (well they probably fall into unknown branches not included in the bundle).

My brother is on that list but the surname should be Carroll and not Redmond. He is presently parked at S588. I've been wondering whether getting the Big Y would be any advantage especially when looking at the cost? Any advice would be appreciated.

[Dubhthach]

My brother is on that list but the surname should be Carroll and not Redmond. He is presently parked at S588. I've been wondering whether getting the Big Y would be any advantage especially when looking at the cost? Any advice would be appreciated.

Did your brother do v1 version of the M222 bundle? I know they added SNP's to it subsequently if that was the case. With regards to BigY, if you can afford it I'd say go for it, however to gain most out of it you need to share results via YTree or YFULL. For example on Ytree (Alex Williamson's page) there are currently 34 S588+ men:
http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=576&star=false

As more are added no doubt branching structure will gradually change.

[Jessie]

Did your brother do v1 version of the M222 bundle? I know they added SNP's to it subsequently if that was the case. With regards to BigY, if you can afford it I'd say go for it, however to gain most out of it you need to share results via YTree or YFULL. For example on Ytree (Alex Williamson's page) there are currently 34 S588+ men:
http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=576&star=false

As more are added no doubt branching structure will gradually change.

I think it was v1 but yes I've noticed that they have added no snps and he is negative for them. I might just bite the bullet and get it done for posterity's sake. It will be interesting to see if he gets past S588.

[fridurich]

Well I just recently learned through Ydna tests I took from ftdna that I am positive for M222 and S588, which is one snp downstream of M222!!! I was really excited!!! Also I took the S603 test (pretty cheap, price-wise) test from yseq (yseq.net) and am also positive for S603. I was real happy! My distant O'Hair cousin, is also confirmed for those three: M222>S588>S603

My cousin and I both have the same ancestor Michael O'Hair/O'Hare born in 1749 and from County Down, Ireland. There is also a man with the last name Hare who lives in Canada that is a descendant of Henry Hare born in 1774 in County Cavan, Ireland which is 3 counties from County Down. This Henry Hare descendant is also M222>S588 and I think he would be positive for S603 if they tested for it. I am a genetic distance of 2 to Mr. Hare at 37 markers. I plan on upgrading to 67 markers later. My cousin is also a close match to Mr. Hare. My own theory is that the Hares used to be O'Hares but dropped the O' for some reason.

Additionally, my cousin, myself, and Mr. Hare are ydna matches to a descendant of Peter O'Hare who died about 1830 in County Down. This Peter O'Hare descendant lives here in the U.S. and I'm trying to get his sister (who apparently administers his ftdna kit) to have her brother tested with the r1b m222 snp pack (I think he is going to be positive for S588.).

[fridurich]

I think it was v1 but yes I've noticed that they have added no snps and he is negative for them. I might just bite the bullet and get it done for posterity's sake. It will be interesting to see if he gets past S588.

Jessie, I don't know if your brother found out what branch of S588 he is or not. Dubhthach's advice to do the big Y tests sounds good. My O'Hair cousin did the Big Y and it is helping him now avoid testing for snps that it showed he was negative for.

My cousin is trying to find what branch of S603 we are on. He is going to have some of his novel variants that the Big y test revealed, tested. These, or some of these, novel variants may some day be official SNPs.

I don't know what your surname is, but if you think it is affiliated with any of those that are S603, and if your brother wants to, he could take the S603 test. It was cheap, only about 22 American dollars including shipping, for me. I got my kit in 2 days from Houston, Texas, it only took about 6 days to get to Yseq's lab in Berlin, Germany, and it only took 2 or 2 and a half weeks to get the results after the kit got to Berlin. Yseq's people reply rapidly to emails.

I don't have the web address offhand, but Ian Kennedy's M222 chart also shows some surnames that are positive for S603.

Kind Regards
Fridurich

[Jessie]

Jessie, I don't know if your brother found out what branch of S588 he is or not. Dubhthach's advice to do the big Y tests sounds good. My O'Hair cousin did the Big Y and it is helping him now avoid testing for snps that it showed he was negative for.

My cousin is trying to find what branch of S603 we are on. He is going to have some of his novel variants that the Big y test revealed, tested. These, or some of these, novel variants may some day be official SNPs.

I don't know what your surname is, but if you think it is affiliated with any of those that are S603, and if your brother wants to, he could take the S603 test. It was cheap, only about 22 American dollars including shipping, for me. I got my kit in 2 days from Houston, Texas, it only took about 6 days to get to Yseq's lab in Berlin, Germany, and it only took 2 or 2 and a half weeks to get the results after the kit got to Berlin. Yseq's people reply rapidly to emails.

I don't have the web address offhand, but Ian Kennedy's M222 chart also shows some surnames that are positive for S603.

Kind Regards
Fridurich

Hi Fridurich - He did take the S603 test and is negative. He is on the Kennedy chart but the surname is incorrect because it is my married name which of course isn't relevant. I will most likely get the Big Y done but will wait for the sales. My brother's closest matches appears to be with a couple of men with the surname McGee at the moment.

[Jessie]

My brother is on Kennedy's M222 chart but the surname is incorrect. They have used my married name as his results were initially under my name. He has tested for S603 but is negative so is under S588. I will most likely get the Bit Y done when there is a special on.

[fridurich]

Does anyone know what any of the Irish annals say about the ancestral origin of the Ulster O'Hares? From what I can tell so far, the Ulster O'Hares aren't mentioned very much in Medieval times.

John O'Hart seems to be using O'Farrell's "Linea Antiqua" when he appears to be saying the Ulster O'Hirs are a branch of the Leitrim McRannall chiefs. Line 118 is where it shows an Ior (form of Ir?) MacRannall being ancestor of the O'H-irs. http://www.libraryireland.com/Pedigrees1/Reynolds1Ir.php

MacRannall descendants today usually use the anglicized surname Reynolds, but I have read where Grannell and McReynolds are also forms of MacRannall. O'Hart did a lot of research on a lot of Irish families, but he has been criticized for not being critical enough of the data he discovered or was told. If the O'Hares were a branch of the MacRannalls, maybe this explains why there wasn't much mention of O'Hares in Medieval times, because they were MacRannalls (who were mentioned a lot) until possibly the 15th century A. D.

Interestingly, on the Big Tree where you will see my distant O'Hair cousin's name, there is a McReynolds not extremely far from him. http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=2344

This McReynolds has more mutations shown than my O'Hair cousin, so at first glance, it would seem like O'Hair is the older family, making it unlikely O'Hair could have sprang from the McReynolds. However, I know the Big Y doesn't cover the whole Y chromosome, so perhaps more mutations would be shown for my cousin if his test had been Y Elite. At any rate, I don't know if this McReynolds is a branch of the MacRannalls or not.

If I remember right, in John O'Dugan's Topographical Poem, he mentions an O'Heir(e) chief or chiefs in Ulster. This would seem to contradict O'Hart. O'Dugan died about 1370 A.D., so his O'Heir chief must have lived at least at that time or before. However, looking at the dates in O'Harts MacRannall genealogy, it appears the first man surnamed O'Hir must have been born in the 15th Century A. D. Perhaps the answer is that there was more than one O'Hir Ulster sept at the time, even though I get the sense there was only one.

Also, the O'Hares are said to be an Airgialla sept kin to the O'Hanlons. As far as I can tell, no O'Hanlons or Hanlons have ever YDNA tested, or if they have, they haven't uploaded it anywhere I know about. Seems like O'Hart has the ancestors of the O'Hanlons being from the 3 Collas, and Niall of the Nine Hostages. I have read about the skepticism that the Collas existed.

Based on this 2010 study, accessed by the following link, if accurate, it shows about 9 out of 16 O'Hares in Ulster were M222. This study was an analysis of the Trinity University study done in 2005. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/DNA-R1B1C7/2010-09/1285200942

My O'Hair distant cousin and myself are confirmed M222>S588>S603 Our common ancestor was Michael O'Hair born 1749 from County Down, in what is now Northern Ireland.

The O'Hares that are M222 are obviously related to men who have the Northern Ui Neill surnames who are M222 as well.

Any help on solving the ancestral origins of the Ulster O'Hares would be greatly appreciated and I thank you in advance!

Kind Regards