MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Matthew Rockefeller
MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
According to "Semigothaisches Genealogisches Taschenbuch
aristokratisch-jüdischer heiraten" the Clan MacDonald was of Jewish
origin
read about it here
http://chivalricorders.org/nobility/nobjews.htm
Matthew
aristokratisch-jüdischer heiraten" the Clan MacDonald was of Jewish
origin
read about it here
http://chivalricorders.org/nobility/nobjews.htm
Matthew
-
Gjest
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
Monday, 22 November, 2004
Dear Matthew,
I note on the webpage you cited that, as far as some families (and
particularly the MacDonalds) are covered in the book in question,
" It also included families whose Jewish origins were
at best uncertain and often mythical (Macdonald, for
example). "
I have no doubt, given the murky origins of most medieval families in
general (and Scots families in particular) that there are families 'of Jewish
origin' - if by that you mean a male line descent from any one particular Jewish
family (medieval or ancient). Likewise, given what internal migration
occurred within the limits of the Western Roman Empire, if one could trace such a
descent (accent on IF) you are as likely - or more likely - to find a
Visigothic, Cappadocian, Armenian or Syrian origin for a medieval Scots or English
family as you are to find a Jewish one.
Re: the MacDonalds in particular, there are many theories for the male
line ancestry of Somerled himself, there is no verifiable ascent beyond the
late 11th century - and what we do have is the subject of much debate (Gaelic vs.
Norse origin). If the book in question wants to call the origin of the
MacDonalds as 'mythically Jewish', I will concur that such a myth exists.
Cheers,
John
Dear Matthew,
I note on the webpage you cited that, as far as some families (and
particularly the MacDonalds) are covered in the book in question,
" It also included families whose Jewish origins were
at best uncertain and often mythical (Macdonald, for
example). "
I have no doubt, given the murky origins of most medieval families in
general (and Scots families in particular) that there are families 'of Jewish
origin' - if by that you mean a male line descent from any one particular Jewish
family (medieval or ancient). Likewise, given what internal migration
occurred within the limits of the Western Roman Empire, if one could trace such a
descent (accent on IF) you are as likely - or more likely - to find a
Visigothic, Cappadocian, Armenian or Syrian origin for a medieval Scots or English
family as you are to find a Jewish one.
Re: the MacDonalds in particular, there are many theories for the male
line ancestry of Somerled himself, there is no verifiable ascent beyond the
late 11th century - and what we do have is the subject of much debate (Gaelic vs.
Norse origin). If the book in question wants to call the origin of the
MacDonalds as 'mythically Jewish', I will concur that such a myth exists.
Cheers,
John
-
Gjest
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
"According to "Semigothaisches Genealogisches Taschenbuch
aristokratisch-jüdischer heiraten" the Clan MacDonald was of Jewish origin read about it here
http://chivalricorders.org/nobility/nobjews.htm
Matthew"
Hardly an outstanding publication.
"It also included families whose Jewish origins were at best uncertain and often mythical (Macdonald, for example). The Semi-Gotha generally gives anyone claiming a title the benefit of the doubt. "
Gives anyone claiming a title the benefit of the doubt.
Origins uncertain and mythical ...
Not a reliable source Matthew.
Will
aristokratisch-jüdischer heiraten" the Clan MacDonald was of Jewish origin read about it here
http://chivalricorders.org/nobility/nobjews.htm
Matthew"
Hardly an outstanding publication.
"It also included families whose Jewish origins were at best uncertain and often mythical (Macdonald, for example). The Semi-Gotha generally gives anyone claiming a title the benefit of the doubt. "
Gives anyone claiming a title the benefit of the doubt.
Origins uncertain and mythical ...
Not a reliable source Matthew.
Will
-
David
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
<Therav3@aol.com> wrote in message news:159.44bb4dd0.2ed3c065@aol.com...
The relevant paragraph from the site
"Macdonald, Duke of Taranto, (according to the S-G the Macdonald family were originally of
Jewish origin). Included mention also of the Scottish Macdonalds. \"
The theory that any of the scots clans were of Jewish origin or descended from the
so-called lost tribes of Israel is in itself a myth and not worthy of perpetuation!
Monday, 22 November, 2004
Dear Matthew,
I note on the webpage you cited that, as far as some families (and
particularly the MacDonalds) are covered in the book in question,
" It also included families whose Jewish origins were
at best uncertain and often mythical (Macdonald, for
example). "
I have no doubt, given the murky origins of most medieval families in
general (and Scots families in particular) that there are families 'of Jewish
origin' - if by that you mean a male line descent from any one particular Jewish
family (medieval or ancient). Likewise, given what internal migration
occurred within the limits of the Western Roman Empire, if one could trace such a
descent (accent on IF) you are as likely - or more likely - to find a
Visigothic, Cappadocian, Armenian or Syrian origin for a medieval Scots or English
family as you are to find a Jewish one.
Re: the MacDonalds in particular, there are many theories for the male
line ancestry of Somerled himself, there is no verifiable ascent beyond the
late 11th century - and what we do have is the subject of much debate (Gaelic vs.
Norse origin). If the book in question wants to call the origin of the
MacDonalds as 'mythically Jewish', I will concur that such a myth exists.
Cheers,
John
The relevant paragraph from the site
"Macdonald, Duke of Taranto, (according to the S-G the Macdonald family were originally of
Jewish origin). Included mention also of the Scottish Macdonalds. \"
The theory that any of the scots clans were of Jewish origin or descended from the
so-called lost tribes of Israel is in itself a myth and not worthy of perpetuation!
-
Mavrik375
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
The theory that any of the scots clans were of Jewish origin or descended from the
so-called lost tribes of Israel is in itself a myth and not worthy of perpetuation!
The 1320 Scottish Declaration of Arbroath would seem to disagree with
that opinion.
http://www.constitution.org/scot/arbroath.htm
Excerpt:
"Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books
of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the
Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from
Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of
Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most
savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however
barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of
Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still
live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly
destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the
Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many
victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear
witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their
kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own
royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner."
Interesting document with the Scottish nobles that signed it named.
Mavrik
-
Gjest
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
Your except says nothing about any of the Scots clan being of Jewish descent however.
Will
Will
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
As far as the first part of your excerpt this at least dates back
to the Historia Brittonum by Nennius. This is what he wrote
of the Scots (ch. 15):
At that period, there lived among this people, with a numerous family,
a Scythian of noble birth, who had been banished from his country
and did not go to pursue the people of God. The Egyptians who
were left, seeing the destruction of the great men of their nation,
and fearing lest he should possess himself of their territory, took
counsel together, and expelled him. Thus reduced, he wandered
forty-two years in Africa, and arrived, with his family, at the altars
of the Philis- tines, by the Lake of Osiers. Then passing between
Rusicada and the hilly country of Syria, they travelled by the river
Malva through Mauritania as far as the Pillars of Hercules; and
crossing the Tyrrhene Sea, landed in Spain, where they continued
many years, having greatly increased and multiplied. Thence, a
thousand and two years after the Egyptians were lost in the Red Sea,
they passed into Ireland, and the district of Dalrieta.
While there are great aspects to this document it also contains a
fair bit of propaganda. Surely you realize this. As much as any good
kilt wearing member of a Clan would like to believe otherwise the
Scots were beaten a number of times and had submitted to others.
Many of those who signed the document were not even Scots!
What is interesting is that DNA evidence is proving the link to
the Iberian peninsula. Any Jewish aspect is another story.
Best wishes!
Peter
At 11:53 AM 30/11/2004 -0800, you wrote:
Peter A. Kincaid
Fredericton, NB, Canada
to the Historia Brittonum by Nennius. This is what he wrote
of the Scots (ch. 15):
At that period, there lived among this people, with a numerous family,
a Scythian of noble birth, who had been banished from his country
and did not go to pursue the people of God. The Egyptians who
were left, seeing the destruction of the great men of their nation,
and fearing lest he should possess himself of their territory, took
counsel together, and expelled him. Thus reduced, he wandered
forty-two years in Africa, and arrived, with his family, at the altars
of the Philis- tines, by the Lake of Osiers. Then passing between
Rusicada and the hilly country of Syria, they travelled by the river
Malva through Mauritania as far as the Pillars of Hercules; and
crossing the Tyrrhene Sea, landed in Spain, where they continued
many years, having greatly increased and multiplied. Thence, a
thousand and two years after the Egyptians were lost in the Red Sea,
they passed into Ireland, and the district of Dalrieta.
While there are great aspects to this document it also contains a
fair bit of propaganda. Surely you realize this. As much as any good
kilt wearing member of a Clan would like to believe otherwise the
Scots were beaten a number of times and had submitted to others.
Many of those who signed the document were not even Scots!
What is interesting is that DNA evidence is proving the link to
the Iberian peninsula. Any Jewish aspect is another story.
Best wishes!
Peter
At 11:53 AM 30/11/2004 -0800, you wrote:
The theory that any of the scots clans were of Jewish origin or
descended from the
so-called lost tribes of Israel is in itself a myth and not worthy of
perpetuation!
The 1320 Scottish Declaration of Arbroath would seem to disagree with
that opinion.
http://www.constitution.org/scot/arbroath.htm
Excerpt:
"Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books
of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the
Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from
Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of
Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most
savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however
barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of
Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still
live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly
destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the
Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many
victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear
witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their
kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own
royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner."
Interesting document with the Scottish nobles that signed it named.
Mavrik
Peter A. Kincaid
Fredericton, NB, Canada
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
Mavrik375 wrote:
Yes it does, but that doesn't say much. Just as the historical fable
recorded by Bede speaks of the British being of Trojan descent, this
Scottish one provides an equaly mythical origin for the Scots.
taf
The theory that any of the scots clans were of Jewish origin or descended from the
so-called lost tribes of Israel is in itself a myth and not worthy of perpetuation!
The 1320 Scottish Declaration of Arbroath would seem to disagree with
that opinion.
Yes it does, but that doesn't say much. Just as the historical fable
recorded by Bede speaks of the British being of Trojan descent, this
Scottish one provides an equaly mythical origin for the Scots.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
"Yes it does, but that doesn't say much. Just as the historical fable recorded by Bede speaks of the British being of Trojan descent, this Scottish one provides an equaly mythical origin for the Scots."
I did not see anything in that document that said they were of Jewish descent. Even the longer quotation does not say they were Jewish.
Will
I did not see anything in that document that said they were of Jewish descent. Even the longer quotation does not say they were Jewish.
Will
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
At 08:04 PM 30/11/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Scottish one provides an equaly mythical origin for the Scots."
It seems that the point in contention is the ancestry of the
MacDonalds. The original Scots were from an area of northern
Ireland known as Dal Riada. The MacDonalds are not now
considered to be part of this tribe of people. There are some who
claimed that Somerled, the MacDonald patriarch, was of Pictish origin.
The Pictish question is unresolved; as would, thus, the ancestry
of Somerled. It seems that some are pushing the Jewish angle.
Of interest is that Bryan Sykes concluded that he determined the
DNA signature of Somerled was Norse in origin. The Clan Donald
project agreed. See
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1080148730
So there you go! Bottom line is that there is so much conflicting material
on the ancestry of the MacDonald's. Your not going to find a quick
answer to this one.
Best wishes!
Peter
P.S. For the record I coordinate the Clan Kincaid DNA project.
Peter A. Kincaid
Fredericton, NB, Canada
"Yes it does, but that doesn't say much. Just as the historical fable
recorded by Bede speaks of the British being of Trojan descent, this
Scottish one provides an equaly mythical origin for the Scots."
I did not see anything in that document that said they were of Jewish
descent. Even the longer quotation does not say they were Jewish.
Will
It seems that the point in contention is the ancestry of the
MacDonalds. The original Scots were from an area of northern
Ireland known as Dal Riada. The MacDonalds are not now
considered to be part of this tribe of people. There are some who
claimed that Somerled, the MacDonald patriarch, was of Pictish origin.
The Pictish question is unresolved; as would, thus, the ancestry
of Somerled. It seems that some are pushing the Jewish angle.
Of interest is that Bryan Sykes concluded that he determined the
DNA signature of Somerled was Norse in origin. The Clan Donald
project agreed. See
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1080148730
So there you go! Bottom line is that there is so much conflicting material
on the ancestry of the MacDonald's. Your not going to find a quick
answer to this one.
Best wishes!
Peter
P.S. For the record I coordinate the Clan Kincaid DNA project.
Peter A. Kincaid
Fredericton, NB, Canada
-
Doug McDonald
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
As a prototypical McDonald, I should say something.
McDonalds, that is descendants of Somerled, are Y DNA
haplogroup R1a1* (recently finally shown for sure by
SNP tests on somebody with an identical STR profile.)
So are a goodly number of Ashkenazi Jews.
However, the STR profiles are different enough for
us to know that the connection was far back in time,
before the people that became the McDonalds split off from
the main group of R1a still in their origin site in
Ukraine. We McDonalds, for example, are closer to
many R1a people in India than to the Ashkenazi.
We don't know yet, for sure, exactly how, that is,
what path, the ur-McDonalds took to get to what is now Norway,
where they were among the Vikings. One would say, at first
glance, that they simply moved from Russia or Poland, where
R1a is the actual majority, up north.
But this is not what the DNA tells us. We, the McDonalds,
as well as a majority of R1a Icelanders, who are closely related to
us, share certain marker traits, especially YCAiia,b = 19,21, with
people who live along a line from Iceland to western Norway along the
northern edge of Scandanavia and on the Kola Penionsula, then through
the northern Urals in such tribes as the Nenets, Kets, and Selkups,
dowm into the Altai mountains of southern Siberia. In other words,
a northern route. There are also Scythian male mummies found
in frozan Kurgans who, miraculously (because of the deep freeze
effect of preserving long DNA stretches) have been found to
be probably the same. These date from 2500 years ago.
This is tentative, a matter of active research. We will know
much more then the Altai people themselves are tested for
YCAii, which is being done right now.
The Ashkenazi Jews did not follow the same path!
Doug McDonald
"Yes it does, but that doesn't say much. Just as the historical fable recorded by Bede speaks of the British being of Trojan descent, this Scottish one provides an equaly mythical origin for the Scots."
I did not see anything in that document that said they were of Jewish descent. Even the longer quotation does not say they were Jewish.
Will
As a prototypical McDonald, I should say something.
McDonalds, that is descendants of Somerled, are Y DNA
haplogroup R1a1* (recently finally shown for sure by
SNP tests on somebody with an identical STR profile.)
So are a goodly number of Ashkenazi Jews.
However, the STR profiles are different enough for
us to know that the connection was far back in time,
before the people that became the McDonalds split off from
the main group of R1a still in their origin site in
Ukraine. We McDonalds, for example, are closer to
many R1a people in India than to the Ashkenazi.
We don't know yet, for sure, exactly how, that is,
what path, the ur-McDonalds took to get to what is now Norway,
where they were among the Vikings. One would say, at first
glance, that they simply moved from Russia or Poland, where
R1a is the actual majority, up north.
But this is not what the DNA tells us. We, the McDonalds,
as well as a majority of R1a Icelanders, who are closely related to
us, share certain marker traits, especially YCAiia,b = 19,21, with
people who live along a line from Iceland to western Norway along the
northern edge of Scandanavia and on the Kola Penionsula, then through
the northern Urals in such tribes as the Nenets, Kets, and Selkups,
dowm into the Altai mountains of southern Siberia. In other words,
a northern route. There are also Scythian male mummies found
in frozan Kurgans who, miraculously (because of the deep freeze
effect of preserving long DNA stretches) have been found to
be probably the same. These date from 2500 years ago.
This is tentative, a matter of active research. We will know
much more then the Altai people themselves are tested for
YCAii, which is being done right now.
The Ashkenazi Jews did not follow the same path!
Doug McDonald
-
Doug McDonald
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
Peter A. Kincaid wrote:
No. He was a Viking.
No. He was a Viking. The Picts were quite certainly R1b, and Somerled
was R1a. The distribution of the exact R1a haplotype of Somerled,
of which I am off by one two step jump at only one fast-moving
marker, clearly shows that he came from Scandinavia, not England,
Wales, Ireland, France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Poland, Russia,
or points south.
Yes, as I say above.
Doug
There are some who
claimed that Somerled, the MacDonald patriarch, was of Pictish origin.
No. He was a Viking.
The Pictish question is unresolved; as would, thus, the ancestry
of Somerled.
No. He was a Viking. The Picts were quite certainly R1b, and Somerled
was R1a. The distribution of the exact R1a haplotype of Somerled,
of which I am off by one two step jump at only one fast-moving
marker, clearly shows that he came from Scandinavia, not England,
Wales, Ireland, France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Poland, Russia,
or points south.
Of interest is that Bryan Sykes concluded that he determined the
DNA signature of Somerled was Norse in origin. The Clan Donald
project agreed.
Yes, as I say above.
Doug
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
At 08:19 AM 01/12/2004 -0600, you wrote:
I believe you have a misconception of what the DNA results tell
you. All that may have been determined is that the majority of
MacDonald descendants are R1a. Actually, I have not seen all
the results posted with their associated genealogies. Thus, I can't say
whether this was what the results of the majority of MacDonald
participants were or whether this was the haplogroup of the
current chief. This does not preclude the possibility that Somerled's
mother or wife (or even daughter-in-law, etc.) was raped or had
consented sex with someone else of R1a origin. Thus, Somerled
and his descendants could have always believed they were Irish
or Pictish but thier Y-DNA was otherwise. There could also have
been an adoption or other non-paternity event somewhere fairly far
back and this line just happened to be the better producers in terms
of surviving offspring. The only way someone could say with certainity
what the background was of some prominent historical figure was to
dig up that person and hopefully find some DNA that can be tested!
Now in terms of the Picts, how can you say that they were R1b
when nobody is sure of any one surname that was Pictish in
origin? For centuries it was believed that the Scots wiped them out
completely. With all the slave trading going on back then it is
clear that some of their DNA survived. Again one would have to
dig up a whole buch of people who were without doubt Picts and
test their DNA. I am not aware of any such study.
This is a new genealogical/historical tool but there is lot of speculative
conclusions being made. Most of it is based on results that is not
supported by typical statistical models since the participants are not
randomly selected (ie. there is a huge bias in many of the surname
studies - particularly of participants from the United States). There is
much yet to sort through. As I stated in my last post you will not
find a quick answer on this one.
Best wishes!
Peter A. Kincaid
Fredericton, NB, Canada
Peter A. Kincaid wrote:
There are some who
claimed that Somerled, the MacDonald patriarch, was of Pictish origin.
No. He was a Viking.
The Pictish question is unresolved; as would, thus, the ancestry
of Somerled.
No. He was a Viking. The Picts were quite certainly R1b, and Somerled
was R1a. The distribution of the exact R1a haplotype of Somerled,
of which I am off by one two step jump at only one fast-moving
marker, clearly shows that he came from Scandinavia, not England,
Wales, Ireland, France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Poland, Russia,
or points south.
I believe you have a misconception of what the DNA results tell
you. All that may have been determined is that the majority of
MacDonald descendants are R1a. Actually, I have not seen all
the results posted with their associated genealogies. Thus, I can't say
whether this was what the results of the majority of MacDonald
participants were or whether this was the haplogroup of the
current chief. This does not preclude the possibility that Somerled's
mother or wife (or even daughter-in-law, etc.) was raped or had
consented sex with someone else of R1a origin. Thus, Somerled
and his descendants could have always believed they were Irish
or Pictish but thier Y-DNA was otherwise. There could also have
been an adoption or other non-paternity event somewhere fairly far
back and this line just happened to be the better producers in terms
of surviving offspring. The only way someone could say with certainity
what the background was of some prominent historical figure was to
dig up that person and hopefully find some DNA that can be tested!
Now in terms of the Picts, how can you say that they were R1b
when nobody is sure of any one surname that was Pictish in
origin? For centuries it was believed that the Scots wiped them out
completely. With all the slave trading going on back then it is
clear that some of their DNA survived. Again one would have to
dig up a whole buch of people who were without doubt Picts and
test their DNA. I am not aware of any such study.
This is a new genealogical/historical tool but there is lot of speculative
conclusions being made. Most of it is based on results that is not
supported by typical statistical models since the participants are not
randomly selected (ie. there is a huge bias in many of the surname
studies - particularly of participants from the United States). There is
much yet to sort through. As I stated in my last post you will not
find a quick answer on this one.
Best wishes!
Peter A. Kincaid
Fredericton, NB, Canada
-
Doug McDonald
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
Peter A. Kincaid wrote:
I most certainly do not. The DNA results show unequivocally,
with high probability, what the 37 marker haplotype of Donald,
the gransson of Somerled, was, modulo perhaps a couple of fast-
moving markers such as YCAii-b.
Most MacDonalds are R1b, not R1a. It is the people who
have paper trails to Somerled that are R1a.
my computer monitor at this moment.
But I can, since I have the data.
This does not preclude the possibility that Somerled's
You are correct here. The data with iron clad paper trail goes through
THREE sons of Ewen "John" the great grandson of the Donald mentioned
above. The descendants of the three sons match. There are also several
MacAlisters with matching DNA. The fraction of matches with MacAlister
is far greater than with MacDonald. MacAlister brances from MacDonald
at the Donald mentioned above, grandson of Somerled. Thus with
very good confidence we can say that Ewen was in fact the male line
grandson of Donald, or at least of a close relative. Given the
excellent paper trail, we consider it to be proven. The only
data we have to connect Donald with Somerled is the paper trail.
you are comparing three sons, as does that of non-paternity,
except with a very close relative.
Perhaps I said that they were not R1a. It is conceiveable that they
were haplogroup I. The presence of R1a in Scotland follows exactly
where it should be if it came with the Vikings. It follows that
the residual DNA of the Picts must be the rest, which is R1b or I.
The participants in the Clan Donald study are a combination of
specially chosen (the clan leaders) and just random MacDonalds.
Selection simply because of interest is likely to be random within
the population from which they come, which is the US and Canada. The
participants in Sykes's Clan Donald group were also selected at random
from people in Scotland, at least fairlty random, thoutgh there
was some spatial selection. The relative frequency of the R1a and
non-R1a people is roughly equal in the two studies.
In what way to you claim "bias" can effect a surname study with self
selected random participants? The only thing in common between these
people is that they are interested in genealogy.
The point of DNA studies is to confirm or deny hypotheses
based on paper. Without DNA paper is, of course, completely
meaningless in terms of "proof" of ancestry, absolutely meaningless.
All it can do is suggest. Especially ith a triple branchpoint, DNA can
provide a very strong additional confirmational tool.
You seem to be trying very had to "knock" DNA. But remember ...
without DNA, there is absolutely no real evidence whatsoever that
there was not a random milkman in a bed or, several in fact.
Doug MCDonald
I believe you have a misconception of what the DNA results tell
you.
I most certainly do not. The DNA results show unequivocally,
with high probability, what the 37 marker haplotype of Donald,
the gransson of Somerled, was, modulo perhaps a couple of fast-
moving markers such as YCAii-b.
All that may have been determined is that the majority of
MacDonald descendants are R1a.
Most MacDonalds are R1b, not R1a. It is the people who
have paper trails to Somerled that are R1a.
Actually, I have not seen all
the results posted with their associated genealogies.
But I have them ... in fact, they sit about 2 inches from
my computer monitor at this moment.
Thus, I can't say
whether this was what the results of the majority of MacDonald
participants were or whether this was the haplogroup of the
current chief.
But I can, since I have the data.
This does not preclude the possibility that Somerled's
mother or wife (or even daughter-in-law, etc.) was raped or had
consented sex with someone else of R1a origin.
You are correct here. The data with iron clad paper trail goes through
THREE sons of Ewen "John" the great grandson of the Donald mentioned
above. The descendants of the three sons match. There are also several
MacAlisters with matching DNA. The fraction of matches with MacAlister
is far greater than with MacDonald. MacAlister brances from MacDonald
at the Donald mentioned above, grandson of Somerled. Thus with
very good confidence we can say that Ewen was in fact the male line
grandson of Donald, or at least of a close relative. Given the
excellent paper trail, we consider it to be proven. The only
data we have to connect Donald with Somerled is the paper trail.
Thus, Somerled
and his descendants could have always believed they were Irish
or Pictish but thier Y-DNA was otherwise. There could also have
been an adoption or other non-paternity event somewhere fairly far
back and this line just happened to be the better producers in terms
of surviving offspring. The only way someone could say with certainity
what the background was of some prominent historical figure was to
dig up that person and hopefully find some DNA that can be tested!
The probability of an adoption goes down dramatically when
you are comparing three sons, as does that of non-paternity,
except with a very close relative.
Now in terms of the Picts, how can you say that they were R1b
when nobody is sure of any one surname that was Pictish in
origin? For centuries it was believed that the Scots wiped them out
completely. With all the slave trading going on back then it is
clear that some of their DNA survived. Again one would have to
dig up a whole buch of people who were without doubt Picts and
test their DNA. I am not aware of any such study.
Perhaps I said that they were not R1a. It is conceiveable that they
were haplogroup I. The presence of R1a in Scotland follows exactly
where it should be if it came with the Vikings. It follows that
the residual DNA of the Picts must be the rest, which is R1b or I.
This is a new genealogical/historical tool but there is lot of speculative
conclusions being made. Most of it is based on results that is not
supported by typical statistical models since the participants are not
randomly selected (ie. there is a huge bias in many of the surname
studies - particularly of participants from the United States).
The participants in the Clan Donald study are a combination of
specially chosen (the clan leaders) and just random MacDonalds.
Selection simply because of interest is likely to be random within
the population from which they come, which is the US and Canada. The
participants in Sykes's Clan Donald group were also selected at random
from people in Scotland, at least fairlty random, thoutgh there
was some spatial selection. The relative frequency of the R1a and
non-R1a people is roughly equal in the two studies.
In what way to you claim "bias" can effect a surname study with self
selected random participants? The only thing in common between these
people is that they are interested in genealogy.
The point of DNA studies is to confirm or deny hypotheses
based on paper. Without DNA paper is, of course, completely
meaningless in terms of "proof" of ancestry, absolutely meaningless.
All it can do is suggest. Especially ith a triple branchpoint, DNA can
provide a very strong additional confirmational tool.
You seem to be trying very had to "knock" DNA. But remember ...
without DNA, there is absolutely no real evidence whatsoever that
there was not a random milkman in a bed or, several in fact.
Doug MCDonald
-
Terry
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
I have a question, as far as I know there are no Mairs who have done this
kind of research, if I where to have a DNA test done on me could it serve
any useful purpose.
Thanks
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
kind of research, if I where to have a DNA test done on me could it serve
any useful purpose.
Thanks
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
Peter A. Kincaid wrote:
There are some who claimed that Somerled, the MacDonald patriarch, was
of Pictish origin.
No. He was a Viking.
The Pictish question is unresolved; as would, thus, the ancestry of
Somerled.
No. He was a Viking. The Picts were quite certainly R1b, and Somerled was
R1a. The distribution of the exact R1a haplotype of Somerled,
of which I am off by one two step jump at only one fast-moving
marker, clearly shows that he came from Scandinavia, not England,
Wales, Ireland, France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Poland, Russia,
or points south.
Of interest is that Bryan Sykes concluded that he determined the DNA
signature of Somerled was Norse in origin. The Clan Donald project
agreed.
Yes, as I say above.
Doug
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
At 02:10 PM 01/12/2004 -0600, you wrote:
[PAK]
Thank you for your further clarification of your thoughts. Let me
respond further.
You stated: "No. He was a Viking." When I read this I see a
certainty. You stated this certainty based on DNA. However,
as you note above, you can't state with certainty what any
ancient person's DNA was. It is, as you note, a matter of probabilities.
The more samples you get of partcipants with "a solid" paper trail to
various children or grand children of Somerled, the more confident
you can be as to what his DNA signature is. What you are in effect
doing here is building a case using the "preponderance of evidence"
approach. It is no means a certainty.
As an example, FTDA generated the following "DNA Estimates
Ancestry Timeline" of my sample and the sample of that of
my father's first cousin who is one mutation away on a fast marker:
100 years is 27.24%
200 years is 57.78%
300 years is 77.85%
400 years is 89.03%
500 years is 94.77%
600 years is 97.57%
The probabilites have no usefulness in terms the actual relationship.
[PAK]
This is puzzling. First of all, let me clarify that the DNA
results for the MacDonald project are private. I could not
locate them. Is this the case?
With DNA the evidence favors the majority (ie. on the
assumption that time generates more descendants). If 90%
of the MacDonalds are R1b then the probabilities should be
that the MacDonald patriarch was R1b (even more so
if the majority of MacDonald participants are also fairly
close in terms of their haplotype results). Does this not
suggest a non-paternity event in the Chief's line?
[PAK]
Again, is this data public?
[PAK]
Are the majority of MacAlisters R1a or R1b. If R1b then one would
assume that someone is just being selective in order to appease the
Chief's results. If the data is being kept private then impartial analysis
could not be done. I have to assume this is not the case.
[PAK]
I agree that DNA evidence can more useful in stating what they
were not versus what they were. I presume that the assumption you
state is that the Norse appear to be R1a so the Picts must be something
else. The problem is that we can't be sure of any surviving Pictish
clusters. So how can one draw any conclusions on what their DNA
might have been? Perhaps they were also originally Scandinavian in
origin (and thus also R1a).
[PAK]
As good old John Chandler will likely point out, the fact that
the participants were chosen, practically eliminates any statistical
inferences about the total population (ie. the MacDonalds as a
Clan). All you can do is make statistical comparisons between
any two participants as to what their most recent common
ancestor might be. I won't get into a statistical debate any further
except to say that either something is random or it is not. If it is not
random then you will get bias (ie. affected by where the participants
were from, whether they had a telephone, whether they could
afford the test, etc).
[PAK]
Agreed.
[PAK]
No. I am a strong advocate for what it really is useful for. I
have seen some brick walls torn down (ie. dead end paper trails)
thanks to it. I am just against some people using it to make some
far reaching conclusions.
Best wishes!
Peter
Peter A. Kincaid
Fredericton, NB, Canada
Peter A. Kincaid wrote:
I believe you have a misconception of what the DNA results tell
you.
I most certainly do not. The DNA results show unequivocally,
with high probability, what the 37 marker haplotype of Donald,
the gransson of Somerled, was, modulo perhaps a couple of fast-
moving markers such as YCAii-b.
[PAK]
Thank you for your further clarification of your thoughts. Let me
respond further.
You stated: "No. He was a Viking." When I read this I see a
certainty. You stated this certainty based on DNA. However,
as you note above, you can't state with certainty what any
ancient person's DNA was. It is, as you note, a matter of probabilities.
The more samples you get of partcipants with "a solid" paper trail to
various children or grand children of Somerled, the more confident
you can be as to what his DNA signature is. What you are in effect
doing here is building a case using the "preponderance of evidence"
approach. It is no means a certainty.
As an example, FTDA generated the following "DNA Estimates
Ancestry Timeline" of my sample and the sample of that of
my father's first cousin who is one mutation away on a fast marker:
100 years is 27.24%
200 years is 57.78%
300 years is 77.85%
400 years is 89.03%
500 years is 94.77%
600 years is 97.57%
The probabilites have no usefulness in terms the actual relationship.
All that may have been determined is that the majority of
MacDonald descendants are R1a.
Most MacDonalds are R1b, not R1a. It is the people who
have paper trails to Somerled that are R1a.
[PAK]
This is puzzling. First of all, let me clarify that the DNA
results for the MacDonald project are private. I could not
locate them. Is this the case?
With DNA the evidence favors the majority (ie. on the
assumption that time generates more descendants). If 90%
of the MacDonalds are R1b then the probabilities should be
that the MacDonald patriarch was R1b (even more so
if the majority of MacDonald participants are also fairly
close in terms of their haplotype results). Does this not
suggest a non-paternity event in the Chief's line?
Actually, I have not seen all
the results posted with their associated genealogies.
But I have them ... in fact, they sit about 2 inches from
my computer monitor at this moment.
Thus, I can't say
whether this was what the results of the majority of MacDonald
participants were or whether this was the haplogroup of the
current chief.
But I can, since I have the data.
[PAK]
Again, is this data public?
This does not preclude the possibility that Somerled's
mother or wife (or even daughter-in-law, etc.) was raped or had
consented sex with someone else of R1a origin.
You are correct here. The data with iron clad paper trail goes through
THREE sons of Ewen "John" the great grandson of the Donald mentioned
above. The descendants of the three sons match. There are also several
MacAlisters with matching DNA. The fraction of matches with MacAlister
is far greater than with MacDonald. MacAlister branches from MacDonald
at the Donald mentioned above, grandson of Somerled. Thus with
very good confidence we can say that Ewen was in fact the male line
grandson of Donald, or at least of a close relative. Given the
excellent paper trail, we consider it to be proven. The only
data we have to connect Donald with Somerled is the paper trail.
[PAK]
Are the majority of MacAlisters R1a or R1b. If R1b then one would
assume that someone is just being selective in order to appease the
Chief's results. If the data is being kept private then impartial analysis
could not be done. I have to assume this is not the case.
Thus, Somerled
and his descendants could have always believed they were Irish
or Pictish but thier Y-DNA was otherwise. There could also have
been an adoption or other non-paternity event somewhere fairly far
back and this line just happened to be the better producers in terms
of surviving offspring. The only way someone could say with certainity
what the background was of some prominent historical figure was to
dig up that person and hopefully find some DNA that can be tested!
The probability of an adoption goes down dramatically when
you are comparing three sons, as does that of non-paternity,
except with a very close relative.
Now in terms of the Picts, how can you say that they were R1b
when nobody is sure of any one surname that was Pictish in
origin? For centuries it was believed that the Scots wiped them out
completely. With all the slave trading going on back then it is
clear that some of their DNA survived. Again one would have to
dig up a whole buch of people who were without doubt Picts and
test their DNA. I am not aware of any such study.
Perhaps I said that they were not R1a. It is conceiveable that they
were haplogroup I. The presence of R1a in Scotland follows exactly
where it should be if it came with the Vikings. It follows that
the residual DNA of the Picts must be the rest, which is R1b or I.
[PAK]
I agree that DNA evidence can more useful in stating what they
were not versus what they were. I presume that the assumption you
state is that the Norse appear to be R1a so the Picts must be something
else. The problem is that we can't be sure of any surviving Pictish
clusters. So how can one draw any conclusions on what their DNA
might have been? Perhaps they were also originally Scandinavian in
origin (and thus also R1a).
This is a new genealogical/historical tool but there is lot of speculative
conclusions being made. Most of it is based on results that is not
supported by typical statistical models since the participants are not
randomly selected (ie. there is a huge bias in many of the surname
studies - particularly of participants from the United States).
The participants in the Clan Donald study are a combination of
specially chosen (the clan leaders) and just random MacDonalds.
Selection simply because of interest is likely to be random within
the population from which they come, which is the US and Canada. The
participants in Sykes's Clan Donald group were also selected at random
from people in Scotland, at least fairlty random, thoutgh there
was some spatial selection. The relative frequency of the R1a and
non-R1a people is roughly equal in the two studies.
In what way to you claim "bias" can effect a surname study with self
selected random participants? The only thing in common between these
people is that they are interested in genealogy.
The point of DNA studies is to confirm or deny hypotheses
based on paper. Without DNA paper is, of course, completely
meaningless in terms of "proof" of ancestry, absolutely meaningless.
[PAK]
As good old John Chandler will likely point out, the fact that
the participants were chosen, practically eliminates any statistical
inferences about the total population (ie. the MacDonalds as a
Clan). All you can do is make statistical comparisons between
any two participants as to what their most recent common
ancestor might be. I won't get into a statistical debate any further
except to say that either something is random or it is not. If it is not
random then you will get bias (ie. affected by where the participants
were from, whether they had a telephone, whether they could
afford the test, etc).
All it can do is suggest. Especially ith a triple branchpoint, DNA can
provide a very strong additional confirmational tool.
[PAK]
Agreed.
You seem to be trying very had to "knock" DNA. But remember ...
without DNA, there is absolutely no real evidence whatsoever that
there was not a random milkman in a bed or, several in fact.
[PAK]
No. I am a strong advocate for what it really is useful for. I
have seen some brick walls torn down (ie. dead end paper trails)
thanks to it. I am just against some people using it to make some
far reaching conclusions.
Best wishes!
Peter
Peter A. Kincaid
Fredericton, NB, Canada
-
Doug McDonald
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
Peter A. Kincaid wrote:
to the R1b participants. The results for R1a (except that
of the back-extrapolated Somerled profile, and the fact that
there are numerous exact 25 marker matches) are known
only to Bennett Greenspan, his lab people, Mark MacDonald,
and me, and perhaps to other R1a participants who have
asked Mark for the privately. That is, except of
course for the people who have posted their own results
on ysearch.org. I'm PUAP2.
No, as I have explained. There are in fact FIVE chiefs, and
a small handful more people with paper trails as good as theirs.
THIS IS THE KEY POINT!!!
IF there were only ONE chief, yes, one would simply not know
if he was indeed a Donald "the eponomous" descendant. But with
numerous people with paper trails, all matching with the exact
expected number of mutations, one can indeed deduce that the
probability of a non-paternity event with a non-related man
is ZERO for these lines. That's clear ... it is ZERO (except
with a close relative of course.) Also note that we have
descendants through TWO sons of Donald and THREE sons of Ewen
"John", Donald'd grest grandson.
You have to comprehend the verifying power of descent through
separate lines from two early breakpoints, on twofold and
one threefold.
No.
I don't know. One would expect R1b, since any "hangers-on"
would be most likely R1b from simple random statistics,
with "I" second. However, a FAR greather than statistical
proportion of MacAllisters are R1a, and ALL of these publicly
identiofied, and essentially all who were explicitly recruited
by Skyes are R1a, and match. This is an indication that they
are indeed descendants of the known paper trail line
to Donald.
You don't need the actual numerical data to do an impartial
analysis. You can thae my word that the exact expected number
of mutations ... expected on the basis of the FTDNA rates I should
add, not the Sorenson rates ... occurs. Just to Burke's Landed
Gentry The Kingdom in Scotland and look up five chiefs. You will
get it mostly right just by luck ... there are more people there
than the number actually tested, but that won't matter. Look at the
lines and count generations.
I should add that if there were NO mutations in all these
lines, there would be a major major problem ... there are enough
generations that several mutations are expected, and they are there.
I have not done the actual numerical statistics of the
probability of success. I don't know how. But the exact numbers are
immaterial ... with five lines in two major pieces, the
numbers will be overwhelming.
Bias in testing depends on what is being tested for. The Clan Donald
study provides three kinds of info:
1) whether of not the paper trail people's DNA confirms that
there is a good DNA basis that the paper trails are correct.
The answer here is YES, modulo of course the possibility of
intra-clan non-paternity events.
2) the proportion of MacDonalds without paper trails who indeed
appear to be descendants of the chiefly lines, and thus of
Donald. Here we find that a vastly higher fraction of MacDonald's
than people of random names (such as Steve Perkins) match the
"Somerled profile". This gives us a rough number for the
fraction of MacDonalds who are either just "hangers-on" or simply
people who chose the surname mac Donald becuase their father happened
to be named Donald when surnames started up. THIS is susceptible
to selection bias as to who the participants are. There are two
groups, the Skyes group and the Clan Donald USA group. There is no
a priori reason why they should give the same fractions, because
there could be a selection bais in who left in Scotland and who
stayed. We KNOW there was a geographic selection bias here.
3) a hint as to the ancestry of Donald "the eponomous". Here we
indeed reach the realm of semi-speculation. We have scads of
paper, plus the DNA. The conclusion reached here, LET IT BE CLEAR,
can be NO WORSE than one reached ONLY using the paper info
left by earlier historians. IF you wish to argue about this
point, you can argue here, but as better place is the
Rootsweb genealogy-dna msiling list, where ethnic origins
are a main subject, and the ancestry of Somerled (actually Donald)
is of specific interest. The DNA evidence has convinced
almost everybody that the traditional descent of Somerled from
Fergus mac Ercc is wrong. This does not contradict what many
scholars already thought. We begin by assuming that indeed the paper
trail from Somerled to Donald ... two generations ... is correct.
Back behind that, if the paper trail is wrong, without DNA we are in
the mists of time and circumstantial evidence of things like
onomastics and intpretations of what the clearly erroneous old line
MIGHT have to really tell us. (Somerled's name, of course, is a
Viking one ... something that should have always been a very
red flag on the tail of the traditional Scottish genealogy,
and in fact was for modern scholars.)
As to R1a ==> Viking, this is in the line of all other
humanities evidence. It is circumstantial. But it fits ... especially
since closely related DNA is clustered strongly on the west
coast of Norway and Iceland, the traditional haunts of the Vikings.
There is more to it than this, of course, but that "more" is of
the sort of stuff of traditional historians, looking at sagas
for clues to reality, etc. It has absolutely nothing to offer
a genealogy newsgroup .... it is more history or ethnology. Unless
somebody discovers a "MacDonald SNP" that can be found in ancient
DNA, the DNA evidence will remain only "near first among equals"
as far as evidence goes.
Doug McDonald
All that may have been determined is that the majority of
MacDonald descendants are R1a.
Most MacDonalds are R1b, not R1a. It is the people who
have paper trails to Somerled that are R1a.
[PAK]
This is puzzling. First of all, let me clarify that the DNA
results for the MacDonald project are private. I could not
locate them. Is this the case?
Indeed it is. The results for R1b have been released only
to the R1b participants. The results for R1a (except that
of the back-extrapolated Somerled profile, and the fact that
there are numerous exact 25 marker matches) are known
only to Bennett Greenspan, his lab people, Mark MacDonald,
and me, and perhaps to other R1a participants who have
asked Mark for the privately. That is, except of
course for the people who have posted their own results
on ysearch.org. I'm PUAP2.
With DNA the evidence favors the majority (ie. on the
assumption that time generates more descendants). If 90%
of the MacDonalds are R1b then the probabilities should be
that the MacDonald patriarch was R1b (even more so
if the majority of MacDonald participants are also fairly
close in terms of their haplotype results). Does this not
suggest a non-paternity event in the Chief's line?
No, as I have explained. There are in fact FIVE chiefs, and
a small handful more people with paper trails as good as theirs.
THIS IS THE KEY POINT!!!
IF there were only ONE chief, yes, one would simply not know
if he was indeed a Donald "the eponomous" descendant. But with
numerous people with paper trails, all matching with the exact
expected number of mutations, one can indeed deduce that the
probability of a non-paternity event with a non-related man
is ZERO for these lines. That's clear ... it is ZERO (except
with a close relative of course.) Also note that we have
descendants through TWO sons of Donald and THREE sons of Ewen
"John", Donald'd grest grandson.
You have to comprehend the verifying power of descent through
separate lines from two early breakpoints, on twofold and
one threefold.
But I can, since I have the data.
[PAK]
Again, is this data public?
No.
[PAK]
Are the majority of MacAlisters R1a or R1b.
I don't know. One would expect R1b, since any "hangers-on"
would be most likely R1b from simple random statistics,
with "I" second. However, a FAR greather than statistical
proportion of MacAllisters are R1a, and ALL of these publicly
identiofied, and essentially all who were explicitly recruited
by Skyes are R1a, and match. This is an indication that they
are indeed descendants of the known paper trail line
to Donald.
If R1b then one would
assume that someone is just being selective in order to appease the
Chief's results. If the data is being kept private then impartial analysis
could not be done. I have to assume this is not the case.
You don't need the actual numerical data to do an impartial
analysis. You can thae my word that the exact expected number
of mutations ... expected on the basis of the FTDNA rates I should
add, not the Sorenson rates ... occurs. Just to Burke's Landed
Gentry The Kingdom in Scotland and look up five chiefs. You will
get it mostly right just by luck ... there are more people there
than the number actually tested, but that won't matter. Look at the
lines and count generations.
I should add that if there were NO mutations in all these
lines, there would be a major major problem ... there are enough
generations that several mutations are expected, and they are there.
I have not done the actual numerical statistics of the
probability of success. I don't know how. But the exact numbers are
immaterial ... with five lines in two major pieces, the
numbers will be overwhelming.
The point of DNA studies is to confirm or deny hypotheses
based on paper. Without DNA paper is, of course, completely
meaningless in terms of "proof" of ancestry, absolutely meaningless.
[PAK]
As good old John Chandler will likely point out, the fact that
the participants were chosen, practically eliminates any statistical
inferences about the total population (ie. the MacDonalds as a
Clan). All you can do is make statistical comparisons between
any two participants as to what their most recent common
ancestor might be. I won't get into a statistical debate any further
except to say that either something is random or it is not. If it is not
random then you will get bias (ie. affected by where the participants
were from, whether they had a telephone, whether they could
afford the test, etc).
Bias in testing depends on what is being tested for. The Clan Donald
study provides three kinds of info:
1) whether of not the paper trail people's DNA confirms that
there is a good DNA basis that the paper trails are correct.
The answer here is YES, modulo of course the possibility of
intra-clan non-paternity events.
2) the proportion of MacDonalds without paper trails who indeed
appear to be descendants of the chiefly lines, and thus of
Donald. Here we find that a vastly higher fraction of MacDonald's
than people of random names (such as Steve Perkins) match the
"Somerled profile". This gives us a rough number for the
fraction of MacDonalds who are either just "hangers-on" or simply
people who chose the surname mac Donald becuase their father happened
to be named Donald when surnames started up. THIS is susceptible
to selection bias as to who the participants are. There are two
groups, the Skyes group and the Clan Donald USA group. There is no
a priori reason why they should give the same fractions, because
there could be a selection bais in who left in Scotland and who
stayed. We KNOW there was a geographic selection bias here.
3) a hint as to the ancestry of Donald "the eponomous". Here we
indeed reach the realm of semi-speculation. We have scads of
paper, plus the DNA. The conclusion reached here, LET IT BE CLEAR,
can be NO WORSE than one reached ONLY using the paper info
left by earlier historians. IF you wish to argue about this
point, you can argue here, but as better place is the
Rootsweb genealogy-dna msiling list, where ethnic origins
are a main subject, and the ancestry of Somerled (actually Donald)
is of specific interest. The DNA evidence has convinced
almost everybody that the traditional descent of Somerled from
Fergus mac Ercc is wrong. This does not contradict what many
scholars already thought. We begin by assuming that indeed the paper
trail from Somerled to Donald ... two generations ... is correct.
Back behind that, if the paper trail is wrong, without DNA we are in
the mists of time and circumstantial evidence of things like
onomastics and intpretations of what the clearly erroneous old line
MIGHT have to really tell us. (Somerled's name, of course, is a
Viking one ... something that should have always been a very
red flag on the tail of the traditional Scottish genealogy,
and in fact was for modern scholars.)
As to R1a ==> Viking, this is in the line of all other
humanities evidence. It is circumstantial. But it fits ... especially
since closely related DNA is clustered strongly on the west
coast of Norway and Iceland, the traditional haunts of the Vikings.
There is more to it than this, of course, but that "more" is of
the sort of stuff of traditional historians, looking at sagas
for clues to reality, etc. It has absolutely nothing to offer
a genealogy newsgroup .... it is more history or ethnology. Unless
somebody discovers a "MacDonald SNP" that can be found in ancient
DNA, the DNA evidence will remain only "near first among equals"
as far as evidence goes.
Doug McDonald
-
Gjest
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
In a message dated 12/2/2004 8:12:03 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
You protest too much.
DNA is a statistical science, as such nothing is ever Zero, and esp not in
CAPITAL LETTERS
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
all matching with the exact
expected number of mutations, one can indeed deduce that the
probability of a non-paternity event with a non-related man
is ZERO for these lines. That's clear ... it is ZERO
You protest too much.
DNA is a statistical science, as such nothing is ever Zero, and esp not in
CAPITAL LETTERS
-
Doug McDonald
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
That depends on what the meaning of the word "related"
is!
Doug MCDonald
In a message dated 12/2/2004 8:12:03 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
all matching with the exact
expected number of mutations, one can indeed deduce that the
probability of a non-paternity event with a non-related man
is ZERO for these lines. That's clear ... it is ZERO
You protest too much.
DNA is a statistical science, as such nothing is ever Zero, and esp not in
CAPITAL LETTERS
That depends on what the meaning of the word "related"
is!
Doug MCDonald
-
Gordon Banks
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
There is no Banks project either, but I donated my DNA to the Sorenson
Molecular Genealogy Foundation in Salt Lake City. They are compiling a
database of DNA, I think mitochondrial as well as Y chromosome. They
request a mouth washing and a GEDCOM. They don't return results to you,
but are compiling an online searchable database by surnames. Obviously,
if they collect enough samples such a database could be very useful.
Unfortunately, their website seems to have changed URL or is down today.
Here is the site according to google:
http://www.smgf.org/
so you can try later.
Another possibility is to start up a Mairs project, if you are
interested.
One of my lines is Davenport. My cousin donated his DNA to that and it
has told us that our line matches fairly closely with Davenports from
Cheshire. There was a Domesday era Davenport, Ormus de Davenport in
Cheshire, whose descendants for several generations appear in Carl
Boyer's books, but I don't believe anyone has solidly connected him to
any of the known Davenport colonists. But DNA from known descendants of
John Davenport of New Haven and Thomas Davenport of Dorchester are
similar to the Cheshire Davenport. You can see what the Davenports have
done at http://www.davenportdna.com, a site run by Dave Davenport.
I think this kind of research has a bright future, as the McDonald case
amply demonstrates.
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 13:59 -0700, Terry wrote:
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
Molecular Genealogy Foundation in Salt Lake City. They are compiling a
database of DNA, I think mitochondrial as well as Y chromosome. They
request a mouth washing and a GEDCOM. They don't return results to you,
but are compiling an online searchable database by surnames. Obviously,
if they collect enough samples such a database could be very useful.
Unfortunately, their website seems to have changed URL or is down today.
Here is the site according to google:
http://www.smgf.org/
so you can try later.
Another possibility is to start up a Mairs project, if you are
interested.
One of my lines is Davenport. My cousin donated his DNA to that and it
has told us that our line matches fairly closely with Davenports from
Cheshire. There was a Domesday era Davenport, Ormus de Davenport in
Cheshire, whose descendants for several generations appear in Carl
Boyer's books, but I don't believe anyone has solidly connected him to
any of the known Davenport colonists. But DNA from known descendants of
John Davenport of New Haven and Thomas Davenport of Dorchester are
similar to the Cheshire Davenport. You can see what the Davenports have
done at http://www.davenportdna.com, a site run by Dave Davenport.
I think this kind of research has a bright future, as the McDonald case
amply demonstrates.
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 13:59 -0700, Terry wrote:
I have a question, as far as I know there are no Mairs who have done this
kind of research, if I where to have a DNA test done on me could it serve
any useful purpose.
Thanks
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
Peter A. Kincaid wrote:
There are some who claimed that Somerled, the MacDonald patriarch, was
of Pictish origin.
No. He was a Viking.
The Pictish question is unresolved; as would, thus, the ancestry of
Somerled.
No. He was a Viking. The Picts were quite certainly R1b, and Somerled was
R1a. The distribution of the exact R1a haplotype of Somerled,
of which I am off by one two step jump at only one fast-moving
marker, clearly shows that he came from Scandinavia, not England,
Wales, Ireland, France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Poland, Russia,
or points south.
Of interest is that Bryan Sykes concluded that he determined the DNA
signature of Somerled was Norse in origin. The Clan Donald project
agreed.
Yes, as I say above.
Doug
--
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
-
Jared Linn Olar
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
I thought I'd read the Declaration of Arbroath before, and I had no
memory of it saying anything at all about the Scots being descended
from the lost tribes of Israel. So I was quite confused by reading
the messages below. So, to refresh my memory, I found a link to an
English translation to this document, and re-read it. Just as I
thought, it says nothing about the Scots having any sort of descent
from the lost tribes of Israel. Rather, it repeats the old legend
that equated "Scot" with "Scythian," tracing the migration of the
Scots from Scythia to Spain, then to Ireland and at last to Scotland
about 1,200 years after the Exodus. That reference to the Exodus, and
a comparison of Robert the Bruce to Judas Maccabaeus and Joshua, are
about the only times the Declaration of Arbroath says anything about
the Jews.
If the Scots had any ancient genetic connection the Israelites, there
is no historical trace of it, and there is simply no way to
demonstrate any such connection, which is in any case extremely
unlikely.
http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/a ... glish.html
At your service,
Jared Linn Olar
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<41ad12da@news.ColoState.EDU>...
memory of it saying anything at all about the Scots being descended
from the lost tribes of Israel. So I was quite confused by reading
the messages below. So, to refresh my memory, I found a link to an
English translation to this document, and re-read it. Just as I
thought, it says nothing about the Scots having any sort of descent
from the lost tribes of Israel. Rather, it repeats the old legend
that equated "Scot" with "Scythian," tracing the migration of the
Scots from Scythia to Spain, then to Ireland and at last to Scotland
about 1,200 years after the Exodus. That reference to the Exodus, and
a comparison of Robert the Bruce to Judas Maccabaeus and Joshua, are
about the only times the Declaration of Arbroath says anything about
the Jews.
If the Scots had any ancient genetic connection the Israelites, there
is no historical trace of it, and there is simply no way to
demonstrate any such connection, which is in any case extremely
unlikely.
http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/a ... glish.html
At your service,
Jared Linn Olar
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<41ad12da@news.ColoState.EDU>...
Mavrik375 wrote:
The theory that any of the scots clans were of Jewish origin or descended from the
so-called lost tribes of Israel is in itself a myth and not worthy of perpetuation!
The 1320 Scottish Declaration of Arbroath would seem to disagree with
that opinion.
Yes it does, but that doesn't say much. Just as the historical fable
recorded by Bede speaks of the British being of Trojan descent, this
Scottish one provides an equaly mythical origin for the Scots.
taf
-
Terry
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
Thanks for the information, what would be the best way to get my DNA tested?
Thanks again
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com>
To: "Terry" <terry@mairsphotography.com>
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
Thanks again
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com>
To: "Terry" <terry@mairsphotography.com>
Cc: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
There is no Banks project either, but I donated my DNA to the Sorenson
Molecular Genealogy Foundation in Salt Lake City. They are compiling a
database of DNA, I think mitochondrial as well as Y chromosome. They
request a mouth washing and a GEDCOM. They don't return results to you,
but are compiling an online searchable database by surnames. Obviously,
if they collect enough samples such a database could be very useful.
Unfortunately, their website seems to have changed URL or is down today.
Here is the site according to google:
http://www.smgf.org/
so you can try later.
Another possibility is to start up a Mairs project, if you are
interested.
One of my lines is Davenport. My cousin donated his DNA to that and it
has told us that our line matches fairly closely with Davenports from
Cheshire. There was a Domesday era Davenport, Ormus de Davenport in
Cheshire, whose descendants for several generations appear in Carl
Boyer's books, but I don't believe anyone has solidly connected him to
any of the known Davenport colonists. But DNA from known descendants of
John Davenport of New Haven and Thomas Davenport of Dorchester are
similar to the Cheshire Davenport. You can see what the Davenports have
done at http://www.davenportdna.com, a site run by Dave Davenport.
I think this kind of research has a bright future, as the McDonald case
amply demonstrates.
On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 13:59 -0700, Terry wrote:
I have a question, as far as I know there are no Mairs who have done this
kind of research, if I where to have a DNA test done on me could it serve
any useful purpose.
Thanks
Terry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
Peter A. Kincaid wrote:
There are some who claimed that Somerled, the MacDonald patriarch,
was
of Pictish origin.
No. He was a Viking.
The Pictish question is unresolved; as would, thus, the ancestry of
Somerled.
No. He was a Viking. The Picts were quite certainly R1b, and Somerled
was
R1a. The distribution of the exact R1a haplotype of Somerled,
of which I am off by one two step jump at only one fast-moving
marker, clearly shows that he came from Scandinavia, not England,
Wales, Ireland, France, Spain, Germany, Denmark, Poland, Russia,
or points south.
Of interest is that Bryan Sykes concluded that he determined the DNA
signature of Somerled was Norse in origin. The Clan Donald project
agreed.
Yes, as I say above.
Doug
--
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com
-
Peter Stewart
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
Jared Linn Olar wrote:
But the Scythians were thought to have been the 10 lost tribes of Israel
to start with - there is a considerable literature about this and the
supposed destiny of the Jewish people in an island that ruled an empire
across the whole world.
Even in the 20th century the contribution of Scotland to the conquest
and administration of the British Empire was linked in some credulous
minds with Biblical prophesy along these lines, and so was the Balfour
Declaration about a homeland in Palestine, due to his Scottish ancestry.
Peter Stewart
I thought I'd read the Declaration of Arbroath before, and I had no
memory of it saying anything at all about the Scots being descended
from the lost tribes of Israel. So I was quite confused by reading
the messages below. So, to refresh my memory, I found a link to an
English translation to this document, and re-read it. Just as I
thought, it says nothing about the Scots having any sort of descent
from the lost tribes of Israel. Rather, it repeats the old legend
that equated "Scot" with "Scythian," tracing the migration of the
Scots from Scythia to Spain, then to Ireland and at last to Scotland
about 1,200 years after the Exodus. That reference to the Exodus, and
a comparison of Robert the Bruce to Judas Maccabaeus and Joshua, are
about the only times the Declaration of Arbroath says anything about
the Jews.
But the Scythians were thought to have been the 10 lost tribes of Israel
to start with - there is a considerable literature about this and the
supposed destiny of the Jewish people in an island that ruled an empire
across the whole world.
Even in the 20th century the contribution of Scotland to the conquest
and administration of the British Empire was linked in some credulous
minds with Biblical prophesy along these lines, and so was the Balfour
Declaration about a homeland in Palestine, due to his Scottish ancestry.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
In a message dated 12/2/2004 8:48:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, Peter Stewart <p_m_stewart@msn.com> writes:
But the Scythians were thought to have been the 10 lost tribes of Israel
to start with - there is a considerable literature about this and the
supposed destiny of the Jewish people in an island that ruled an empire
across the whole world.
And the Stone of Scone is supposed to have been brought there by Jeremiah himself since that kind of rock can't be found anywhere in Scotland but yet is abundant in Palestine according to the perpetrators of this myth, etc.
And supposedly it's the same stone that Jacob set up as a standing stone to God after his Ladder vision. You can find all kinds of blarney like this all over the internet, like this site:
http://members.aol.com/CARADOC28/
Lots of idle hands at work spinning these tapestries.
Will Johnson
But the Scythians were thought to have been the 10 lost tribes of Israel
to start with - there is a considerable literature about this and the
supposed destiny of the Jewish people in an island that ruled an empire
across the whole world.
Peter Stewart
And the Stone of Scone is supposed to have been brought there by Jeremiah himself since that kind of rock can't be found anywhere in Scotland but yet is abundant in Palestine according to the perpetrators of this myth, etc.
And supposedly it's the same stone that Jacob set up as a standing stone to God after his Ladder vision. You can find all kinds of blarney like this all over the internet, like this site:
http://members.aol.com/CARADOC28/
Lots of idle hands at work spinning these tapestries.
Will Johnson
-
Peter Stewart
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Well, here we have the answer - in the course of his visit Jeremiah no
doubt sired a bairn who in turn begot an ancestor of Somerled....
All things will become plain to those who believe, as they have stone in
their heads of a kind that is abundant everywhere.
Peter Stewart
And the Stone of Scone is supposed to have been brought there by
Jeremiah himself since that kind of rock can't be found anywhere
in Scotland but yet is abundant in Palestine according to the
perpetrators of this myth, etc.
Well, here we have the answer - in the course of his visit Jeremiah no
doubt sired a bairn who in turn begot an ancestor of Somerled....
All things will become plain to those who believe, as they have stone in
their heads of a kind that is abundant everywhere.
Peter Stewart
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
With DNA the evidence favors the majority (ie. on the assumption that
time generates more descendants). If 90% of the MacDonalds are R1b then
the probabilities should be that the MacDonald patriarch was R1b (even
more so if the majority of MacDonald participants are also fairly close
in terms of their haplotype results). Does this not suggest a
non-paternity event in the Chief's line?
No, as I have explained. There are in fact FIVE chiefs, and
a small handful more people with paper trails as good as theirs.
THIS IS THE KEY POINT!!!
IF there were only ONE chief, yes, one would simply not know
if he was indeed a Donald "the eponomous" descendant. But with
numerous people with paper trails, all matching with the exact
expected number of mutations, one can indeed deduce that the
probability of a non-paternity event with a non-related man
is ZERO for these lines. That's clear ... it is ZERO (except
with a close relative of course.) Also note that we have
descendants through TWO sons of Donald and THREE sons of Ewen
"John", Donald'd grest grandson.
You have to comprehend the verifying power of descent through
separate lines from two early breakpoints, on twofold and
one threefold.
I disagree with your continual claim of a certainty. You
may be building a case of preponderence of evidence
but you, based on the information you are providing, are
not anywhere near something that is statistically accurate.
I am no expert on statistics but what you propose is against
the basics I learned.
There are two separate issues here. First, you may sample
two people and compare their DNA to determine their relatedness.
This is one thing and I don't argue with this aspect.
The other issue is whether one can infer what the DNA is of a
person who lived 800 years ago based on a hand picked sample of
a handful of known descendants (I could care less whether they were
Chiefs or not). You need a much larger random sample size of the total
population (being all the male descendants of Donald) in order to have
good confidence with the results.
Let's step back and look at a bit of history here. We are dealing
with a person who was an alledged leader of a tribal group. Thus,
presumably most of the males in his tribe were related to him. Assuming
they are all of the same haplogroup, an exact match, or close match, does not
prove that Donald was the DNA ancestor of a handful of descendants
today. They could each have had separate patriarchs who could
have been brothers, cousins, uncles, great uncles, 5th cousins, etc.
This point was made clear recently when it was claimed that DNA
proved that Thomas Jefferson was the father of a child by one of
his black slave girls. The Jefferson family quickly pointed out that it
proves nothing as it could easily have been a close relative of Thomas
Jefferson who was the father. While one might suspect otherwise,
they are right, the DNA test (based on the technology used today)
can't prove it.
Now another angle is that Somerled (as an R1b per say) and a handful
of warriors were not part of the tribal group (being R1a) in the secluded
area of the Isles but were conquerors. Being a very small element in the
total R1a population non paternity events in his descedants would
certainly create many R1a lines who are MacDonalds. Sampling a
handful won't give you a credible picture. Case in point being that most
people in England were found to be so called Celtic in origin rather than
Teutonic as supposed (even though they were the conquerors the Angles,
Saxons, etc were eventually outnumbered in reproduction).
Again, I can't see how one can claim what the DNA of Donald was unless
they dug him up or randomly sampled many, perhaps up to 1000, of his
descendants with good paper trails to boot. I can't speculate on your
data as you guys have "chosen" to keep the information private. In reading
some of your (and Mark MacDonald's) posts to Genealogy-DNA it is clear
that you guys know all about statistics (and surely more than I) and what I
am saying. However, you are pushing certainties which you know are not
based on what has been revealed. This is all I was commenting on. In
reading the posts tonight in Genealogy-DNA I am not the only one who
has this position.
[PAK]
Are the majority of MacAlisters R1a or R1b.
I don't know. One would expect R1b, since any "hangers-on"
would be most likely R1b from simple random statistics,
with "I" second. However, a FAR greather than statistical
proportion of MacAllisters are R1a, and ALL of these publicly
identiofied, and essentially all who were explicitly recruited
by Skyes are R1a, and match. This is an indication that they
are indeed descendants of the known paper trail line
to Donald.
I like this language better (ie. an indication). Given one of
my above comments above, has it not been established that
most of people the Isles are R1a? I am not up to date on this
but this was my understanding.
As manager of a DNA project, I have felt the temptation to
make conclusions based on the data on hand. However,
I am "now" waiting for a larger and more diverse sample size
for our project. Time will tell what the true story is and I assume
the same will apply to your project as well. I hope you consider
making your data available to the public. I certainly have a
personal interest as it is claimed that descendants of Donald
held lands in the immediate vicinity of the Kincaid lands in the
Lennox district.
Best wishes!
-
Doug McDonald
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
Peter A. Kincaid wrote:
What you learnd does not matter. What matters is reality.
Well, not exactly. We are dealing with the RULER of a land area.
Rulers may or may not be of the native inhanitants. They
may be conquerors. Given the fact that this area, the Isles,
had known and extensive conquest by Vikings, a Viking
descendant as "national hero" is not unthinkable. Also,
Donald's grandfather (on paper) Somerled had a name that is
indubitably, unequivocally Norse, despite that his (paper)
father had the Celtic name Gillabride. There's no real help
here ... he could be either Celtic or Norse.
But they are NOT of the same haplogroup. Only a very small fraction
of people in Scotland, and a moderately small fraction in the Isles
are R1a. Most are R1b or I and of course left out completely.
And the exact DNA profile to 37 markers of the Clan leaders
is uncommon within R1a, quite uncommon indeed. There are plenty
of people outside Clan Donald that are close, but the fraction
of MacDonalds and (especially) MacAllisters that match is gigantically
greater than the random population of Scotland or England or even
the Isles.
Of course they could have. And they did, if you go back to
1500. But the paper trail says that in 1200 they didn't. We
are depending on the paper trail here of course. It tells
of no male relatives of Somerled.
Our case is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT and this has ZERO relevance:
ours is the case of a paper trail that is of the most impeccable
possible character ... that is, it is either TRUE or MOST CAREFULLY
FAKED. From the DNA we believe that the earlier parts are indeed
carefully faked (earlier than Somerled's grandfather, roughly ...
we have no way of knowing where the fakery starts.)
But R1a in Scotland and the Isles is a very small part of the
population, which is mostly R1b and I. Non-paternity events into the
purported paper Somerled line would tend to introduce R1b and I people
who would be a very random sort.
Any more than what we have will do little good. I have not tried to
count the "lines" in the Clan Donald online database, but I have it.
So at this point in my writing I will look at it.
****************************************************
It's a mess, of course. It branches like a tree. There are
perhaps 10-12 major lines, of which we have sampled 5 to 7 depending
what what you call major. Sampling more than 10-12 people
based on teh paper trails will not do any good, as it will just
get people who have branched off in the 19th and 20 centuries.
Making the data itself public will not possibly change your opinion.
It can't. All you would learn is the exact names of the people tested
and the exact markers. You would still see a finite number of lines with
a finite number of branch points and mutations. You seem to be asking
for infinity.
Doug McDonald
I disagree with your continual claim of a certainty. You
may be building a case of preponderence of evidence
but you, based on the information you are providing, are
not anywhere near something that is statistically accurate.
I am no expert on statistics but what you propose is against
the basics I learned.
What you learnd does not matter. What matters is reality.
The other issue is whether one can infer what the DNA is of a
person who lived 800 years ago based on a hand picked sample of
a handful of known descendants (I could care less whether they were
Chiefs or not). You need a much larger random sample size of the total
population (being all the male descendants of Donald) in order to have
good confidence with the results.
Let's step back and look at a bit of history here. We are dealing
with a person who was an alledged leader of a tribal group. Thus,
presumably most of the males in his tribe were related to him.
Well, not exactly. We are dealing with the RULER of a land area.
Rulers may or may not be of the native inhanitants. They
may be conquerors. Given the fact that this area, the Isles,
had known and extensive conquest by Vikings, a Viking
descendant as "national hero" is not unthinkable. Also,
Donald's grandfather (on paper) Somerled had a name that is
indubitably, unequivocally Norse, despite that his (paper)
father had the Celtic name Gillabride. There's no real help
here ... he could be either Celtic or Norse.
Assuming
they are all of the same haplogroup, an exact match, or close match,
does not
prove that Donald was the DNA ancestor of a handful of descendants
today.
But they are NOT of the same haplogroup. Only a very small fraction
of people in Scotland, and a moderately small fraction in the Isles
are R1a. Most are R1b or I and of course left out completely.
And the exact DNA profile to 37 markers of the Clan leaders
is uncommon within R1a, quite uncommon indeed. There are plenty
of people outside Clan Donald that are close, but the fraction
of MacDonalds and (especially) MacAllisters that match is gigantically
greater than the random population of Scotland or England or even
the Isles.
They could each have had separate patriarchs who could
have been brothers, cousins, uncles, great uncles, 5th cousins, etc.
Of course they could have. And they did, if you go back to
1500. But the paper trail says that in 1200 they didn't. We
are depending on the paper trail here of course. It tells
of no male relatives of Somerled.
This point was made clear recently when it was claimed that DNA
proved that Thomas Jefferson was the father of a child by one of
his black slave girls. The Jefferson family quickly pointed out that it
proves nothing as it could easily have been a close relative of Thomas
Jefferson who was the father. While one might suspect otherwise,
they are right, the DNA test (based on the technology used today)
can't prove it.
Our case is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT and this has ZERO relevance:
ours is the case of a paper trail that is of the most impeccable
possible character ... that is, it is either TRUE or MOST CAREFULLY
FAKED. From the DNA we believe that the earlier parts are indeed
carefully faked (earlier than Somerled's grandfather, roughly ...
we have no way of knowing where the fakery starts.)
Now another angle is that Somerled (as an R1b per say) and a handful
of warriors were not part of the tribal group (being R1a) in the secluded
area of the Isles but were conquerors. Being a very small element in the
total R1a population non paternity events in his descedants would
certainly create many R1a lines who are MacDonalds. Sampling a
handful won't give you a credible picture. Case in point being that most
people in England were found to be so called Celtic in origin rather than
Teutonic as supposed (even though they were the conquerors the Angles,
Saxons, etc were eventually outnumbered in reproduction).
But R1a in Scotland and the Isles is a very small part of the
population, which is mostly R1b and I. Non-paternity events into the
purported paper Somerled line would tend to introduce R1b and I people
who would be a very random sort.
Again, I can't see how one can claim what the DNA of Donald was unless
they dug him up or randomly sampled many, perhaps up to 1000, of his
descendants with good paper trails to boot.
Any more than what we have will do little good. I have not tried to
count the "lines" in the Clan Donald online database, but I have it.
So at this point in my writing I will look at it.
****************************************************
It's a mess, of course. It branches like a tree. There are
perhaps 10-12 major lines, of which we have sampled 5 to 7 depending
what what you call major. Sampling more than 10-12 people
based on teh paper trails will not do any good, as it will just
get people who have branched off in the 19th and 20 centuries.
I can't speculate on your
data as you guys have "chosen" to keep the information private. In reading
some of your (and Mark MacDonald's) posts to Genealogy-DNA it is clear
that you guys know all about statistics (and surely more than I) and what I
am saying.
As manager of a DNA project, I have felt the temptation to
make conclusions based on the data on hand. However,
I am "now" waiting for a larger and more diverse sample size
for our project. Time will tell what the true story is and I assume
the same will apply to your project as well. I hope you consider
making your data available to the public. I certainly have a
personal interest as it is claimed that descendants of Donald
held lands in the immediate vicinity of the Kincaid lands in the
Lennox district.
Making the data itself public will not possibly change your opinion.
It can't. All you would learn is the exact names of the people tested
and the exact markers. You would still see a finite number of lines with
a finite number of branch points and mutations. You seem to be asking
for infinity.
Doug McDonald
-
Jared Linn Olar
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
A few minutes after posting this message (below), I saw that others
had already posted the link to and excerpts from this translation of
the Declaration of Arbroath, and made the same observations that I
had. So, sorry for wasting everyone's time . . . .
Jared Linn Olar
jolar@pekintimes.com (Jared Linn Olar) wrote in message news:<ac1a3786.0412021408.36c605b@posting.google.com>...
had already posted the link to and excerpts from this translation of
the Declaration of Arbroath, and made the same observations that I
had. So, sorry for wasting everyone's time . . . .
Jared Linn Olar
jolar@pekintimes.com (Jared Linn Olar) wrote in message news:<ac1a3786.0412021408.36c605b@posting.google.com>...
I thought I'd read the Declaration of Arbroath before, and I had no
memory of it saying anything at all about the Scots being descended
from the lost tribes of Israel. So I was quite confused by reading
the messages below. So, to refresh my memory, I found a link to an
English translation to this document, and re-read it. Just as I
thought, it says nothing about the Scots having any sort of descent
from the lost tribes of Israel. Rather, it repeats the old legend
that equated "Scot" with "Scythian," tracing the migration of the
Scots from Scythia to Spain, then to Ireland and at last to Scotland
about 1,200 years after the Exodus. That reference to the Exodus, and
a comparison of Robert the Bruce to Judas Maccabaeus and Joshua, are
about the only times the Declaration of Arbroath says anything about
the Jews.
If the Scots had any ancient genetic connection the Israelites, there
is no historical trace of it, and there is simply no way to
demonstrate any such connection, which is in any case extremely
unlikely.
http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/a ... glish.html
At your service,
Jared Linn Olar
-
Jared Linn Olar
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
But the Scythians were thought to have been the 10 lost tribes of Israel
to start with - there is a considerable literature about this and the
supposed destiny of the Jewish people in an island that ruled an empire
across the whole world.
True, in modern times some writers have put forth the dubious claim
that the Scythians were the lost ten tribes. I know all about that
foolishness, having been raised in an oddball sect that adhered to
"British-Israelism." But, unless I'm sorely mistaken, I don't believe
anyone in medieval times claimed the Scythians were Israelite either
in whole or in part. On the contrary, the Scythians were claimed as
descendants of Magog. (In point of fact, the biblical nation
"Ashkenaz" seems to have been the Skuthai of ancient times, who I
think were called Ashguzaa in Assyrian records, or something like
that.)
Jared Linn Olar
-
Gjest
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
In a message dated 12/3/2004 8:42:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jolar@pekintimes.com writes:
Let alone that there is exactly zero archaeological or linguistic evidence of
any sort of continuation of archaic Hebrew language, customs, material
articles in any Scythian site. I suppose these lost tribes all just got
simultaneous amnesia and forgot their language, how to make a pot, how to shape a statue,
how to make a shoe...
Will
jolar@pekintimes.com writes:
But, unless I'm sorely mistaken, I don't believe
anyone in medieval times claimed the Scythians were Israelite either
in whole or in part.
Let alone that there is exactly zero archaeological or linguistic evidence of
any sort of continuation of archaic Hebrew language, customs, material
articles in any Scythian site. I suppose these lost tribes all just got
simultaneous amnesia and forgot their language, how to make a pot, how to shape a statue,
how to make a shoe...
Will
-
Gjest
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
In a message dated 12/3/2004 7:27:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
Could you give some exactitute to "gigantically" ?
<Grin>
Will
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:
There are plenty
of people outside Clan Donald that are close, but the fraction
of MacDonalds and (especially) MacAllisters that match is gigantically
greater than the random population of Scotland or England or even
the Isles.
Could you give some exactitute to "gigantically" ?
<Grin>
Will
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
I disagree with your continual claim of a certainty. You
may be building a case of preponderence of evidence
but you, based on the information you are providing, are
not anywhere near something that is statistically accurate.
I am no expert on statistics but what you propose is against
the basics I learned.
What you learnd does not matter. What matters is reality.
Whose reality? The one that is or the one which a person
wishes to create?
Assuming
they are all of the same haplogroup, an exact match, or close match, does not
prove that Donald was the DNA ancestor of a handful of descendants
today.
But they are NOT of the same haplogroup. Only a very small fraction
of people in Scotland, and a moderately small fraction in the Isles
are R1a. Most are R1b or I and of course left out completely.
Here is a point which is misused. So what! The character
of the population today could have very little reflection on the character
of the population of Scotland 800 years ago (in particular that of a
specific locale). There are several factors that may have affected the
native nature of the Isles in the intervening years (ie. the Black death,
Wars of Independence, etc.). The R1b Normans certainly had a better
chance to outproduce many of the poorer natives. Where I now live,
eastern Canada, the genetic makeup is almost certainly mostly R1b but
800 years ago there were just native North Americans here.
This point was made clear recently when it was claimed that DNA
proved that Thomas Jefferson was the father of a child by one of
his black slave girls. The Jefferson family quickly pointed out that it
proves nothing as it could easily have been a close relative of Thomas
Jefferson who was the father. While one might suspect otherwise,
they are right, the DNA test (based on the technology used today)
can't prove it.
Our case is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT and this has ZERO relevance:
ours is the case of a paper trail that is of the most impeccable
possible character ... that is, it is either TRUE or MOST CAREFULLY
FAKED.
What could I possibly say to this kind of opinion!
Making the data itself public will not possibly change your opinion.
It can't. All you would learn is the exact names of the people tested
and the exact markers. You would still see a finite number of lines with
a finite number of branch points and mutations. You seem to be asking
for infinity.
Not really. All our results are public and there are no names attached
(just the kit number). There are links to the lineages which stop a
generation
or so before the living relatives. Nobody know who contributed unless that
person wished to reveal their names. Most do. Anyone can analyse the
results and come to their own conclusions. A number of people have joined
together to locate further information one another persons' line (in the hope
of learning more about their own).
Keeping your data private does not allow anyone to see how you reached
your conclusions. When you make claims that you purport can not be
questioned, one has to be suspicious (especially when you note that the
DNA of the Chiefs is different from most other MacDonalds). I certainly
have seen some bold (and unsupportable) lineage claims in Scottish
publications in the past. I give you the benefit of the doubt but will again
suggest you make your data public in some way. What is there to lose?
Anyway, I believe I said all I can say about you making statements that
you say can not be refuted. I understand your position on it and wish
you the best with your ongoing project.
Best wishes!
-
Peter Stewart
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
Jared Linn Olar wrote:
Going by memory - and I am not about to research this dreary matter -
the identification of Scythians with the Jews was taken from Herodotus
and/or Thucydides, one or both of whom made the point that the ten
tribes disappeared from view in the same place and at the same time as
the Scythian people first appeared on the stage of history; and the
identification of Scots with Scythians was partly due to the name the
latter gave themselves before the Greeks renamed them, reported as
"Scolotti" or something similar.
Nennius called the Scots both "Scoti" and "Scyuthoi" (or something
similar), so unless my memory is completely wrong this much-abused fancy
was by no means a modern invention & unkown to medieval scholars before
the declaration of Arbroath.
Peter Stewart
But the Scythians were thought to have been the 10 lost tribes of Israel
to start with - there is a considerable literature about this and the
supposed destiny of the Jewish people in an island that ruled an empire
across the whole world.
True, in modern times some writers have put forth the dubious claim
that the Scythians were the lost ten tribes. I know all about that
foolishness, having been raised in an oddball sect that adhered to
"British-Israelism." But, unless I'm sorely mistaken, I don't believe
anyone in medieval times claimed the Scythians were Israelite either
in whole or in part. On the contrary, the Scythians were claimed as
descendants of Magog. (In point of fact, the biblical nation
"Ashkenaz" seems to have been the Skuthai of ancient times, who I
think were called Ashguzaa in Assyrian records, or something like
that.)
Going by memory - and I am not about to research this dreary matter -
the identification of Scythians with the Jews was taken from Herodotus
and/or Thucydides, one or both of whom made the point that the ten
tribes disappeared from view in the same place and at the same time as
the Scythian people first appeared on the stage of history; and the
identification of Scots with Scythians was partly due to the name the
latter gave themselves before the Greeks renamed them, reported as
"Scolotti" or something similar.
Nennius called the Scots both "Scoti" and "Scyuthoi" (or something
similar), so unless my memory is completely wrong this much-abused fancy
was by no means a modern invention & unkown to medieval scholars before
the declaration of Arbroath.
Peter Stewart
-
jsmith
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
God help them if they are descended from Jews.
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:FBPrd.56639$K7.33020@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Peter Stewart" <p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote in message
news:FBPrd.56639$K7.33020@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Jared Linn Olar wrote:
I thought I'd read the Declaration of Arbroath before, and I had no
memory of it saying anything at all about the Scots being descended
from the lost tribes of Israel. So I was quite confused by reading
the messages below. So, to refresh my memory, I found a link to an
English translation to this document, and re-read it. Just as I
thought, it says nothing about the Scots having any sort of descent
from the lost tribes of Israel. Rather, it repeats the old legend
that equated "Scot" with "Scythian," tracing the migration of the
Scots from Scythia to Spain, then to Ireland and at last to Scotland
about 1,200 years after the Exodus. That reference to the Exodus, and
a comparison of Robert the Bruce to Judas Maccabaeus and Joshua, are
about the only times the Declaration of Arbroath says anything about
the Jews.
But the Scythians were thought to have been the 10 lost tribes of Israel
to start with - there is a considerable literature about this and the
supposed destiny of the Jewish people in an island that ruled an empire
across the whole world.
Even in the 20th century the contribution of Scotland to the conquest
and administration of the British Empire was linked in some credulous
minds with Biblical prophesy along these lines, and so was the Balfour
Declaration about a homeland in Palestine, due to his Scottish ancestry.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: MacDonalds are of Jewish Origin
Peter Stewart wrote:
No, neither Herodotus nor Thucydides have anything to say about the
so-called lost ten tribes of Israel. Herodotus does have an awful lot
to say about the Scythians (I don't know as much about Thucydides'
references to the Scythians, though), but he never even hints that the
lost ten tribes had morphed into the Scythians. That's just a more
recent speculation of the British-Israelists.
Yes, the Scythians (Skuthai) were also known as Skolotoi, according to
Herodotus, a name said to have derived from the name of one of their
ancient, presumably legendary, kings.
The similarity of "Scotti" and "Skuthai" accounts for the medieval
identification of Scots (that is, the Irish) and Scythians. Tales were
told of the Scots migrating from Scythia to Spain, and then from Spain
to Ireland. I think in medieval Irish texts, "Scot" is used for both
the Irish and the Scythians.
Quite so -- the identification of Scots and Scythians is very old
indeed. And if Nennius knew of it, he likely got it from Irish
sources, which means Irish monks had already come up with the theory by
800 A.D.
I should get out my Bede and see what he has to say. I don't remember
if he mentions the Scot/Scythian theory.
Jared Linn Olar
Jared Linn Olar wrote:
But, unless I'm sorely mistaken, I don't believe
anyone in medieval times claimed the Scythians were Israelite
either
in whole or in part. On the contrary, the Scythians were claimed
as
descendants of Magog. (In point of fact, the biblical nation
"Ashkenaz" seems to have been the Skuthai of ancient times, who I
think were called Ashguzaa in Assyrian records, or something like
that.)
Going by memory - and I am not about to research this dreary matter -
the identification of Scythians with the Jews was taken from
Herodotus
and/or Thucydides, one or both of whom made the point that the ten
tribes disappeared from view in the same place and at the same time
as
the Scythian people first appeared on the stage of history;
No, neither Herodotus nor Thucydides have anything to say about the
so-called lost ten tribes of Israel. Herodotus does have an awful lot
to say about the Scythians (I don't know as much about Thucydides'
references to the Scythians, though), but he never even hints that the
lost ten tribes had morphed into the Scythians. That's just a more
recent speculation of the British-Israelists.
and the identification of Scots with Scythians was partly due to
the name the latter gave themselves before the Greeks renamed
them, reported as "Scolotti" or something similar.
Yes, the Scythians (Skuthai) were also known as Skolotoi, according to
Herodotus, a name said to have derived from the name of one of their
ancient, presumably legendary, kings.
The similarity of "Scotti" and "Skuthai" accounts for the medieval
identification of Scots (that is, the Irish) and Scythians. Tales were
told of the Scots migrating from Scythia to Spain, and then from Spain
to Ireland. I think in medieval Irish texts, "Scot" is used for both
the Irish and the Scythians.
Nennius called the Scots both "Scoti" and "Scyuthoi" (or something
similar), so unless my memory is completely wrong this much-abused
fancy
was by no means a modern invention & unkown to medieval scholars
before
the declaration of Arbroath.
Peter Stewart
Quite so -- the identification of Scots and Scythians is very old
indeed. And if Nennius knew of it, he likely got it from Irish
sources, which means Irish monks had already come up with the theory by
800 A.D.
I should get out my Bede and see what he has to say. I don't remember
if he mentions the Scot/Scythian theory.
Jared Linn Olar