Just for clarification: the obelisk may be from the first century BC, but if the ogham dates back that far it’s the earliest example by several centuries. A fourth century AD date is considered early for ogham.
ETA: I don’t want to sound like a jerk. I think it’s enormously cool. I just wondered whether “it” in the second sentence meant “obelisk” or “inscription.”
What standard of verification are we using? I’m sure there’s some noble somewhere who claims to have written documentation of agnatic descent from Genghis Khan. And a simple DNA test could confirm that he does, in fact, have the Khan Y chromosome. Should that be considered verification of the written documentation? It’s quite possible, of course, that he’s actually descended via some other path.
Ideally I would like documented lineage; X is the son of Y who is the son of Z who is the son of… etc.
There was an ancient body found (in a bog I think) in England or Scotland, and DNA analysis showed that some people in the nearby village were descendants; unfortunately, google is failing me on the details.
That was Cheddar Man, whose mitochondrial DNA matched to some current local residents of the village of Cheddar.
Thank you.
One of my uncles traced our family, with documentaion for each step, to the 11th century, but the price goes to a former student of mine whose gradfather (claims to have) traced his family to both Egypt’s fisrt dynasty and Hammurabi’s line.
This is essentially the process that serious genealogists follow: document that A was the child of B and C, born at place P on date D, then that B was the child of D and E, and C of F and G… etc. Bureaus of Vital Statistics, parish registries, contemporary entries in family Bibles, etc. are considered documentation; family stories about who we’re descended from are not unless you can chase down that sort of evidence. Each step needs documentation. However, the job is made immensely easier by the work of geneaqlogists of the past who linked your great-grandmother (or more accurately their father her brother) back to his New England or Bavarian origins.
You’re right. My uncle spent several thousand dollars tracking baptismal records in progessively tinier Navarre villages in Spain.
There’s a not-that-documented claim to being descendants of Hugh Capet and Inca lines, but no real paperwork for those.
Of course, this not important, just fun to know.
You rang? Yes, my family has that DNA marker, but not only that, we’ve managed to trace it. Through his nephew, St. Columba. The reason we can do so is that Columba left Ireland for Scotland circa 550 ADish, and established a chain of monastaries, which our DNA line follows. (St. Columba, among other things, was the first person to record a sighting of Nessie. Aug 22, 565 AD.) It’s a unique DNA variant and traceable. We wandered back and forth a few times, winding up as, among other things, neighbors of William Wallace. Literally next house over.
As far as precise historical backing… well. It’s not easy. We can trace the family lineage, but not who was born from who. It’s more of a loose scrummage than a tree right now. It doesn’t help that 2/3rds of the males have the same first name. We can say, for certain, where we were at any point, but not specifically who was whose parent.
It doesn’t help we spent a good few years in the Scottish Borders.
Are you saying that St Colmcille had a son, from whom you are descended?
No, not precisely: we’re related to someone who went to Scotland with St. Columba. The general reasonable assumption is that it’s someone in that clan, related. He didn’t go alone to found that monastery. My dad is working with the 1718 project in this. He’s a former market research specialist, and a genius at statistical geography. It helps that we did spend that time in Scotland, in the ‘wrong’ country, with no more than 600 of us in the century between 1600 and 1700, and we did have an ancestral ‘castle’ named after us. (wrecked by Vikings, if I remember right. But hell, we survived.) We have a unique pattern in the atlantic modal haplotype, 11-12 at DYS 385, if it helps, and tracing that back through various, what’s the word, cadet branches, shows where the patterns merge. We’re R1b1a, if it helps.
I’m willing to blab on about this at reasonable length, given that I don’t want to reveal my actual name.
On the other hand, on my grandmother’s side, we have an ancestral relative that fought in 1066 as a squire with William the Conquerer. We know this because his descendants basically stayed in this 80-person town for 1000 years till they went to America.
Random trivia: Apparently Mordred, according to some stories, was a member of the Sacred Kindred of St. Columba.
I love history. It’s all kinds of effed up.
We know that Colmcille didn’t go to Scotland alone. He went with other monks that he studied with. While it’s possible that he was related to some of them, it’s far short of a “reasonable assumption”.
I’m sorry if it seems I’m applying an unreasonable degree of scepticism to your claims. It’s not that anything you are saying about your ancestry is impossible, it’s just that you’re presenting as settled fact what looks more like unverifiable speculation. At the time of Colmcille and in the succeeding centuries, there was plenty of population exchange between Ulster and Scotland (Dal Riada) with plenty of opportunities for one of your male-line ancestors to have moved to Scotland.
At the same time, it is perfectly possible that the common male-line ancestor actually lived in Scotland, and was nothing to do with Niall.
Just to note, celibacy wasn’t strictly practiced among Irish monks in the early medieval period. There are plenty of examples where a son succeeded his father as abbot. If Colm Cille had children, his hagiographer Adomnán would probably have mentioned them, but Adomnán himself was a relation and it’s reasonable to suppose a lot of others were too.
ETA further: Your other point is a good one. Plenty of linguistic evidence, at least, for population exchanges before Dál Riada.
Oh, yes, but the key is that the family populations grow along with the monasteries Columba established. Further, there aren’t that many of us, and we don’t seem to exist in Scotland before that point. It also matches some scattered documentation where people with the distinctive first name show up in places that we live in later. It’s not solid-solid, but it’s fairly not-bad. Further, the distinctive sub-mutation is clearly Irish in origin. County Armagh, mostly. There may be other evidence that my dad didn’t share, but he seemed fairly certain about it, and the 1718 project seemed fairly sure as well.
My point here is that Columba was Niall’s great-grandson, as I recall. If, and it is something of an if, we are related to him as seems more probable than not, then that distinctive DNA pattern called the Niall pattern could very well have come through Niall.
I’m loving this - it’s absolutely fascinating. But I’m not a geneticist, historian, or geneaologist, so would someone please tell me what “agnatic” means?
I first read of the King’s Knot == Round Table connection in the interesting
(I’ve no idea whether the theory espoused there has any validity.)
My recent fascinations with history and myth also began via genealogy. My own ancestor-hunting hasn’t gone far: I can trace back to several early immigrants to America, but in almost all cases the trail can be traced back little or not at all prior to Atlantic crossing. (For example, one ancestor was a Monmouth Rebellion prisoner but Googling Books listing such prisoners has yielded no clues.)
On another matter, I’m surprised some do not accept that the MRCA lineage of the “Niall haplotype” was certainly a lineage of powerful Kings. In modern times, with condoms, healthy underclass, and the elite having access to non-sexual diversions like drugs, operas and private jets, it’s easy to imagine that the most procreatively successful individuals might be farmers, musicians, or whatever. Many centuries ago, however, the most procreatively successful were certainly Kings.
ag·nate
adj.
You have 16 g-g-g-grandfathers, but only one of them (your father’s father’s father’s father’s father) is an agnatic g-g-g-grandfather.
Charlemagne has a billion descendants or more but, as far as genealogists know, zero of them are agnatic descendants (males who inherited Charlemagne’s Y-chromosome, or the daughters of such males).
Thank you.
Second question: The current fad for genetic testing indicationg where in Africa some black people come from is based, if I recall right, on mitochondrial DNA, which is carried in the female line. So why is lineage based on this agnatic line? Isn’t it harder to know who your father was than who your mother was, if there’s any question? In times before DNA testing, it would have been virtually impossible, barring aberrant genetic inheritances, by means other than family folklore.