Ui Briuin Seola Vassals (mac Diarmata?), Ua Conchobair, Cland Maíl Ruanada?

[BuckeyeMike]

This is my first attempt at matching genealogies with genetics. David suggested in April that I look into “Cland Maíl Ruanada Mac Diarmata and Mac Dondcháda” and study records for the Barony of Boyle and Moylurg. In May we discussed the territory of “Cland Maíl Ruanada” which are supposed to be near the eastern and southern borders of Coolcarney, where O’ Rothlain was a principle chief in the 13th century. At the time, there was confusion about the proprietors of Coolcarney. The ancient tribe were the Calraige, who over the centuries, were absorbed into what would become the Mac Dermott clan. According to “Celtic Ireland West of the River Shannon “ by Patrick Lavin, 2003, p. 91; “MagRiabhaig, Nail, son of, lord of Callraighe, died”, which seems to indicate that the McGreeveys were still the cheifs, but their genealogy does not exclude McDermott bloodlines. So the territory became known as Calraidhe Cuile or Cuil-Cearnadha (Coolcarney); and thus, Dal Cuinn.

I began by using the DCG Cladogram Group BY20593. If my understanding is correct, my TMRCA calculations are:
FGC5939 → 760-870 AD
BY20602 → 820-930 AD
A6925 → 880-990 AD
BY20593 → 1060-1170 AD for Mac Diarmada, O’ Cormican, O’Flannacains, O’ Dubuidir, O’Rothlain, O’Donnachada, and Mac Lochlainn. (These last 2 are from my FTDNA matches at BY20593).
@ 1120-1230 AD. Mac Diarmada, O’ Cormican, O’Flannacains, O’ Dubuidir, O’Rothlain branch out;
@ 1180-1290 AD Mac Diarmda FTA43921 and O’ Cormican FT27347 branch further.

I found that the name “Lochlann” is only found in 4 charts for Connaught; Ui Conchobair, Clann Ruaidri; Clann Muirchertaig twice; and Ui Mailruanaid, Mac Diarmata, Mac Donnchada.

The only chart with “Lochlann” along with Diarmait, Cormack, and Donnchada is Dr. Jaski’s ‘Ui Mailruinaid’ chart listing the sons of Tadg Mor as Donnchad, Lochlann, and Diarmait. Cormac is listed as Dairmait’s great grandson.

I compared Dr. Jaski’s ‘Ui Mailruinaid’ charts and "Mac Dermot of Moylurg: The Story of a Connacht Family" Dermot Mac Dermot, 1996, to “fill in the gaps”. I came across these discrepancies:
1. Dr. Jaski : ‘Tadg Ua Conchobair’ (956 AD) and
Moylurg : ‘Conchobar mac Tadg’ (967 AD) imply the same person with 2 dates.
2. Dr. Jaski : ‘Muirchartach’ date of 967 AD matches Moylurg :‘Conchobar mac Tadg’, but the name Moylurg : ‘Muirchertach mac Maelruanaidh Mor’ suggests he was the son of Dr. Jaski : 'Ruinaida’ (Ua Mailruinaid).
3. Given these men were rather obscure it is not unexpected to see dates mixed between names, it is reassuring to see the names are the same.
4. Both charts agree that Dr. Jaski :‘Diarmait ‘(Mac Diarmata) 1159 AD and Moylurg : ‘Dermot mac Tadhg Mor’ 1124-1159 AD were first to use “Mac Diarmata”, but differ on dates.
5.’ Muirgius mac Tadhg More’ is not listed in Dr. Jaski’s chart, possibly a misplaced generation?
6. Both charts reconnect with Conchobar (Conchobar mac Diarmata) in 1187 AD.

*”Kings of Magh Luirg” state that the ‘Dermot mac Tadhg Mor’ 1124-1159 AD was “vassal and kinsman of the O' Conchobhair”.

When I include all BY20602 men; a TMRCA @ 820-930 AD closely ties into Dr. Jaski’s Ua Conchobair @ 848 AD.

Using TMRCA of 1060-1170 AD corresponds with the #3 paradox of 'Maelruanaidh' and 'Tadhg' relationships. This indicates that all 7 men would arise from a common Mail Ruanada ancestor. Dr. Jaski’s ‘Mael Ruinaida (Ua Mailruinaid)’ is my bet, @ 956-967 AD

I’m not sure how clans are placed onto the Cladogram, but is this a possibility?:
Ui Briuin Sil Fergusa [A260] → Ui Briuin Seola Vassals (mac Diarmata?) [FGC5939] → Ua Conchobair [BY20602] → Ui Mailruanaid [A6925]?

[Webmaster]

Mike,

To answer your last question first: ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

The Uí Conchobair are R1b-BY18120+ as proven by the recent O’Conor Don test results. That is pretty much nailed down solidly now. This clade is fairly separated from the R1b-A6925 clade we are talking about with yourself and the 2 McDermott and one McDonagh gentlemen. The Síl Muiredaig, Cland Cathail Ó Flandacáin are almost certainly the R1b-FT12117+ gentlemen, not the R1b-FTA43254+ gentlemen. These latter Ó Flandacáin are currently a mystery, although they MAY be the Uí Maini, Uí Fiachroí Find family settled around Moinmoy and Eyrecourt, Co. Galway.

This is the crux of the current conundrum: if the R1b-A6925+ McDermott and one McDonagh gentlemen ARE indicative of the Cland Maíl Ruanada, they are completely genetically out of sync with the traditional genealogies, which means the traditional genealogies are completely broken for at least the origin of the Cland Maíl Ruanada.

The same applies to you: if you ARE a descendant of the Coolcarney Ó Rothláin, then you are completely genetically out of sync with the traditional genealogies, which again means the traditional genealogies are completely broken for at least the origin of the Coolcarney Ó Rothláin.

This is what we are trying to determine with the various tests currently in process. If these test results corroborate what we are currently seeing, then this is a BIG discovery that changes centuries of genealogies.

[BuckeyeMike]

Thanks David! I appreciate the time you are taking to help me learn!

If you don't mind; I would appreciate another lesson...

Using Dr. Jaski’s Charts:

#63 Sil Muiredaig: Ui Diarmata (Ua Concennain)

Muiredach Muillethan (696-702) → Indrechtach? (707-723) → Murgal (????) → Tomaltach rex Ai (774) → Muirguis? (792-815) → Tadg Mor (810) → Conchobar (848-882) → Cathal (900-925) → Tadg (925-956) → skips to Mael Ruinaid (Ui Mailruanaid) (no date) → *Mac Diarmata (See 66, 7)

#66 Ua Mailruanaid, Mac Diarmata, Mac Donnchada

Tadg Ua Conchobair (956) → Mael Ruinaida (Ua Mailruinaid) (????) → Muirchartach (967) → Tadg (1040?) → Mael Ruanaid ((fl.) 1048?) → Tadg Mor (????) → **Diarmait (Mac Diarmata) (1159)
*no dates
**Diarmait (Mac Diarmata) “ri ML 7 na hAtcidheachta cend comairle of Connacht”

I think I got lost here: #63 omits Muirchartach (967) → Tadg (1040?) → Mael Ruanaid ((fl.) 1048?) → Tadg Mor (????).
I assumed that the sequence would be: Muiredach Muillethan (696-702) → Indrechtach? (707-723) → Murgal (????) → Tomaltach rex Ai (774) → Muirguis? (792-815) → Tadg Mor (810) → Conchobar (848-882) → Cathal (900-925) → Tadg (925-956) → Tadg Ua Conchobair (956) → Mael Ruinaida (Ua Mailruinaid) (????) → Muirchartach (967) → Tadg (1040?) → Mael Ruanaid ((fl.) 1048?) → Tadg Mor (????) → **Diarmait (Mac Diarmata) (1159).

After re-reading the titles of the 2 charts, and taking into consideration that Diarmait (Mac Diarmata) (1159) is mentioned as a "*Vassal and kinsman of the O Conchobhair", I put Ui Briuin Seola Vassals with Ua Conchobair in error. If chart #63 (Sil Muiredaig, Ui Diarmata, (Ui Concennain)) is connected to #66 (Ua Mailruanaid, Mac Diarmata, Mac Donnchada) through Diarmada, could this be the "vassal" connection, and maybe even a genetic admixture of some kind?

I know I've gotten confused trying to find the link Ui Briuin Seola Vassals and Cland Maíl Ruanada.
Question #1, are the Sil Muiredaig, Ui Diarmata, (Ui Concennain) and Síl Muiredaig, Cland Cathail Ó Flandacáin related?
Question #2, what do you think are the best, most accurate genealogical sources?
Question #3, how close are my date estimations?

[Webmaster]

Mike,

It is my pleasure to help the best I can.

I think you have conflated the Cland Uí Diarmata, who adopted the Ó Concennáin surname with the Cland Maíl Ruanada, who later adopted the Mac Diarmata surname. Dynastic/tribal names were almost always different than the surnames those groups chose for themselves. The dynastic/tribal name came from an early ancestor, typically before the common use of surnames, and the patronymic surname was adopted from a more recent ancestor. This is darned confusing and an easy mistake to make.

Both families are supposed to descend from Muiredach Muillethan, d. 702 AD, so yes they are related, but they are definitely 2 different family groups.

Re the dating and time frames question, I am going to beg off for now, until we get a better idea if the Cland Maíl Ruanada are indeed R1b-A6925+.

[BuckeyeMike]

Ah yes; I went and re-read Chronicum Scotorum p. 311:
1101 AD “Muirghius Ua Concennain, King of Ui-Diarmada’ moritur.” I read this to be: Concennain (tribe); Diarmada (surname) instead of the other way around.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around Dr. Jaski’s 2 charts which seem to converge on the same Mac Diarmata in 1159 AD. His notation on chart #63 indicates that Tadg → Mael Ruinaid → Mac Diarmata (See 66, 7) is a reference to Diarmait (Mac Diarmata) on chart #66. If so, wouldn’t this link the Cland Maíl Ruanada Diarmait to the Ui Diarmata Diarmait? Is this where the genealogies go haywire?

Curious, what clues are we looking for in the other tests currently in process to answer our questions? (Can you tell I'm a little excited by all this? )

[Webmaster]

Mike,

Excitement about the old genealogies is a very good thing.

Yes, the Cland Uí Diarmata and the Cland Maíl Ruanada both descend from Muiredach Muillethan, supposedly:




Does that clear up the confusion?

And no, the possible break in the genealogies is that Máel Ruanaid (d. ?) may not be the son of Tadc in Túir ua Conchobair (d. 956 AD); or at least one of his immediate descendants was an SCE. And looking at the dates just now, Tadc in Túir ua Conchobair died in 956 AD, and Máel Ruanaid's son, and thus Tadc in Túir ua Conchobair's grandson, Muirchertach is shown as dying in 967 AD. Unless Muirchertach died fairly young, those dates do look hinky. That is only 11 years between the deaths of a grandfather and grandson.

There are a couple of different men descended from the Cland Maíl Ruanada Mac Dermottroe and Mac Donagh lines who are currently testing to see if they are A6925+. This will confirm there is a major break in the genealogies sometime beginning with Máel Ruanaid if they are.

[BuckeyeMike]

Well, I thought that would do it until I noticed something when you "stacked" them. Unless 2 Tadg's died in the year 956 AD, one of the charts is definitely out of whack. On chart #63, 'Tadg' [925-956 AD] is the son of 'Cathal' [900-925 AD]. I think Tadg Ua Conchabair who starts chart #66 is Cathal's brother Tadg (888-900)! I think Máel Ruanaid is the son of Tadg mac Cathal. I think Dr. Jaski may have started chart #66 with the wrong Tadg!

When the 'correct' man is placed at the head of Ua Mailruinaid, Chart #66: Tadg mac Cathal (925-956), is the father of Mael Ruinaid mac Tadg, Muirtedach mac Tadg [Jaski does not list him on #66, but does on #63], and Conchobar mac Tadg (966-973).

Replacing Tadg mac Cathal, the genealogy is a near identical match to the "Mac Dermot of Moylurg: The Story of a Connacht Family", Dermot Mac Dermot, 1996 line.
Kings of Magh Luirg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1el ... r_mac_Tadg
1 Cathal (macConchobar)? - 900-925
2 Tadg mac Cathal - 925-956 [Father of 3 & 4]
3 Máel Ruanaid Mór mac Tadg - 956-967 ["Founder of Moylurg and Clann Mail Ruinada"]
4 Conchobar macTadg - 967-973
5 Muirchertach mac Maelruanaidh Mor - ????
6 Tadhg mac Muirchertach - ????-1080?
7 Maelruanaidh mac Tadhg - (1080?-????)
8 Tadhg Mor mac Maelruanaidh - 1120-1124
9 Maelsechlainn mac Tadhg Mor - 1124-1124 [Father of 10 & 11]
10 Dermot mac Tadhg Mor* - 1124-1159
11 Muirgius mac Tadhg More - 1159-1187
12 Conchobar mac Diarmata - 1187-1196
13 Tomaltach na Cairge MacDermot - 1197-1207

Then again.....I've been wrong before

[Webmaster]

Mike,

I apologize, I am just not seeing any point of confusion. The Tadc in Túir ua Conchobair (d. 956 AD), son of Cathal, generation 44, on chart #63 is the same man as Tadc ua Conchobair (d. 956 AD) on chart #66. Dr. Jaski is not continuing the line directly from chart #63, but backs up a couple of generations to provide context. In other words, Tadc in Túir ua Conchobair and Máel Ruanaid at the bottom of chart #63 are the same men as Tadc ua Conchobair and Máel Ruanaid at the top of chart #66, just like the Máel Ruanaid at the bottom of chart #66 is the same man as the Máel Ruanaid at the top of chart #67.

[BuckeyeMike]

I apologize for my inability to explain, the surnames are what seem to be off to me. I shouldn't say it's the wrong man, I think it's the wrong surname.
If: {Given name} mac {Fathers name} (ex. Tadg mac Cathal --> Máel Ruanaid Mór mac Tadg , then it follows that Tadg's father is Cathal.
Chart #63 would be: Conchobair mac Tadg Mor (40a.) --> Cathal mac Conchobair (43) --> Tadg mac Cathal (44)

Cathal then, (generation 43), on chart #63, has a son Tadg (generation 44). This Tadg is not given a specific patronym by Jaski. Following the naming pattern, he would be Tadg mac Cathal, not Tadg Ua Conchobair. Tadg Ua Conchobair would be generation 42, Cathal's brother.

I do see the connection he makes from the bottom of chart #63 and the top of #66. The only difference is the omission of Tadg's son Muiredach; (which, from the date on chart #66 of 967, infers this is Mail Ruinaid's brother and this is where the confusion between Jaski and Mac Dermot begins until they neatly mesh back together with Diarmait gen 2 on chart 66 (1159 AD) ); and he adds the 'Ua Conchobair' surname which is not on chart #63.
Our quandary is the father of Mael Ruinaid. 'Tadg' is definitely his first name. If it's the Tadg (gen 44) from chart 63, his patronomic should be 'mac Cathal'. The genealogies:
Cathal (900-925) --> Tadg mac Cathal (956)--> Mael Ruinaid mac Tadg(?) *
* "Maelruanaidh was a son of Tadg mac Cathal (King of Connacht 925–956) and brother to Conchobar mac Tadg, who succeeded as king in 967." Kings of Magh Luirg

It also matches:
Kings of Magh Luirg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_of_Magh_Luirg [ref."Mac Dermot of Moylurg: The Story of a Connacht Family", Dermot Mac Dermot, 1996.]
1 Cathal (mac Conchobar) - 900-925 ----------------------------------gen 43, chart 63
2 Tadg mac Cathal - 925-956 [Father of 3 & 4]-------------------------gen 44, chart 63 and 1st man on chart 66
3 Máel Ruanaid Mór mac Tadg - 956-967 ["Founder of Moylurg and Clann Mail Ruinada"]
4 Conchobar mac Tadg - 967-973
5 Muirchertach mac Maelruanaidh Mor - ????--------------son of 3
6 Tadhg mac Muirchertach ????-1080?
7 Maelruanaidh mac Tadhg -1080?-????
8 Tadhg Mor mac Maelruanaidh - 1120-1124
9 Maelsechlainn mac Tadhg Mor - 1124-1124
10 Dermot mac Tadhg Mor* - 1124-1159---------------------------Diarmait, gen 2 on chart 66 (1159 AD)
11 Muirgius mac Tadhg More - 1159-1187
12 Conchobar mac Diarmata - 1187-1196
13 Tomaltach na Cairge MacDermot - 1197-1207

I'll figure out a way to share my comparative spreadsheets, hopefully they will make more sense than my explanation.

Thanks again for 'listening'!

[Webmaster]

Mike,

mac = son of
ua = grandson of

so Tadc mac Cathail = Tadc ua Conchobair if Cathal is the son of Conchobar. At this stage of Irish history they are literally saying Tadc son of Cathal or Tadc grandson of Conchobar. The fixed surname is just about to become the norm. In this case, we also have the epithet "in Tuir", or "the Lord/Chief/Hero". So Tadc in Tuir mac Cathail = Tadc in Tuir ua Conchobair.

And yes, Dr. Jaski just didn't bother to add Muiredach to chart #66 because he was not germane to the Cland Maíl Ruanada genealogy on that chart.

And my bad, the numbers are not generations, but the order of the chieftains. Remember, the succession of the chieftaincy in Ireland was not by primogeniture like the Norman Vikings, but by selection by the derbfine, the "tribal council" comprising all the patrilineal descendants over a four-generation group with a common great-grandfather. This is why the Irish kept such meticulous genealogies. It was to determine who was eligible to be part of the derbfine and thus eligible for the chieftaincy.