MacDonald DNA project

Bachuil · Post by **Bachuil** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:15 am

I am afraid I am having some problems with the press release of February 2004 which stated

Andrew Lancaster5 · Post by **Andrew Lancaster5** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 12:40 pm

Hi Niall Yes. We have been in contact with the MacDonalds involved in coming to these conclusions. In releasing this press statement I suppose they are getting more confident about this conclusion, but it is still my impression that it is less certain than the Somerled signature which they also helped discover and confirm. In fact I'll ask them to look at this post and correct me... They are not only based upon MacDonald DNA. Other clans compared to include Livingstone, Buchanan, and Campbell. The Livingstone DNA, including yours, is in fact one of the prime examples they use if I understand their reasoning correctly. In fact, as you point out yourself, the leaders of that clan have a different DNA anyway (the Somerled R1a type) so the MacDonald DNA involved in this conclusion has more to do with the general MacDonald population, so to speak. At this time I do not feel confident to have a strong opinion about this, but I do wonder if the name Colla is too specific. They do seem to have found an lineage of Argyll Scots from Northern Ireland. (Irish families were also compared to.) Andrew Lancaster Rob's apprentice on the DNA project

Andrew Lancaster5 · Post by **Andrew Lancaster5** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 12:44 pm

I just realised I should also address the non-DNA aspect of your question. The short answer is yes: the family trees of that time are very variable and semi-mythical. On the other hand, successful guesses can sometimes be made: as I understand it, some historians already felt that Somerled might have been of a Viking Scot, and only related to the clan Colla (if this is a valid term) through a marriage or a female line. One thing we should always keep in mind when interpreting these old king lists is that it was important to create an impression of unbroken succession. Therefore adoptions, and contested successions are edited out. Best Regards Andrew

Rob Livingston2 · Post by **Rob Livingston2** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:23 pm

I have taken a careful look at the MacDonald results as they appear in "y-search", and though there is a large group that obviously comes from the same ancient stock (a common ancestor within the last 1200 to 2500 years ago), the individuals are not closely related at all - they are scattered all over the map.

Andrew Lancaster4 · Post by **Andrew Lancaster4** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:57 pm

I think this DNA type is meaningful on the other hand, and I understand that you agree. I think people are a little biased towards identifying DNA from an area with famous incomers, whereas I think most DNA, at least until recently, seemed to stay in it's own area for a long time. So this DNA type may reflect "Argyll" ancestry from long before Fergus Mor Mac Erc. It would be odd in fact to think that large percentages of the Argyll clans now descend from that one family, which was so relatively recent. And that is how I understand the current theory. When, on the other hand, the chiefs show a special DNA pattern, that is more remarkable, and that was the case with the Somerled pattern.

Grant South1 · Post by **Grant South1** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 12:41 am

Colla-da-Crioch, Colla Uais and Colla Meann, are recorded to be paternal uncles to the later Niall Mor. If this is the case, the Ui'Neill haplo-motif and the Clan Colla should be aligned with due STR variance over the approx. distance. Based on the markers recorded by various leading families in Argyll and the Isles, it is suggestive of an early tribal elite. A seemingly related R1b STR enclave is found. Clan Colla is a logical choice given the historical account. Further testing may reveal if the various families are native to Alba or Ulster. Having said that I am also reminded that Jura and Islay form the early post-LGM land bridge to Ulster and as we know the movement of folk in the area was seasonal until recent times. Some have suggested that the Irish colonisation of Argyll did not happen on the scale once thought. This is based on the lack of Irish derived finds in the material record of Argyll. All the best.

Andrew Lancaster4 · Post by **Andrew Lancaster4** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 9:56 am

Here is an analysis of all the 37 marker Y search individuals (I think about 4000 people). You'll see the clustering of the Livingstones with other Scots. http://www.geocities.com/mcewanjc/p3analysis.htm

Grant South1 · Post by **Grant South1** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 12:19 pm

Andrew- thank you for the link! Interesting tree, do you know if the fast moving STR's were weighted according to the estimated FTDNA mutation rates?

Andrew Lancaster4 · Post by **Andrew Lancaster4** » Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:22 pm

No, they were not. John is discussing this as we write, over on the Rootsweb DNA Genealogy List. If I understand correctly he also sees this as a flaw. The other thing he cautions about is that relatedness, even within this model, is not represented by position vertically, but should only be judged by going back to see how many steps or nodes are between two individuals and their last common ancestor. Still, this is by far the best effort of its type so far, and John has continued to improve this over the last months. Regards Andrew

Grant South1 · Post by **Grant South1** » Wed Sep 07, 2005 4:26 am

Andrew, The reason I ask is that I am working on a connection. There are a few Stirling family lines which are not far from the Bachuil. These folk are thought to be connected with the Stirlings of Fairburn whom are known MacGregors. I also see that I share a MRCA within a 1000 yrs of an I1c Stirling line from Scotland. One of these I1c Stirling folk also has a MacGregor oral tradition. All the best!