Thursday, January 26, 2012

I could still be of Scottish Descent

Although my DNA says that I have Maguire DNA, it doesn't say how that came about.  One speculation would be that a McCown ancestor married a Maguire widow with Maguire sons or
perhaps one on the way and then adopted her son(s).  The McCown ancestor would
have had McCown DNA but the adopted sons would have Maguire DNA.  It also
does not address whether they were living in Scotland or Ireland at he time of the
non-paternal event.

One reason I am pursuing this line of reasoning is that Family Tree DNA has a tool called Ancestral
Origins.  That provides percentages of those tested in Scotland, Ireland or wherevere.
Percentages above 4% are said to be especially meaningful in determining where
ancestors live.  The calculation is admittedly based on only 11/12 markers, but the results are of some
interest.  They are Scotland, 6.4%, Ireland, 4.9% and Northern Ireland 4.9%.

Jim McKown is in contact with Bill McKown who has devoted a lot of time to
finding his ancestors and he says that Jim's earliest known ancestor is Scottish.
Jim and I are closely matched and had a Most Recent Common Ancestor about
1661 AD so it is entirely possible for us both to have Maguire DNA but have
Scottish roots.

This brings to the fore the critical need for taking FTDNA's Y-DNA tests because
documented genealogy can be fraudulent, but if it is supported by DNA, that is
considered by FTDNA as being the gold standard of genealogy.  One Maguire and
one McCarthy both attempted to change their genealogy by falsifying their family
trees.  This wasn't detected and rejected many years later after first having been

Many people make the mistake of taking only the 12 marker test when they should
take a minimum of 37 markers to find their most meaningful matches.


Chris McCown said...

I have a different theory for your McCowns. I think that it's most likely that your line used to live Fermanagh about 800ish years ago. Eventually they may have been forced out of Ulster by another tribe( or by an opportunity ) and went to Scotland( probably lowlands ). At some point in this seperation, P66 was born. Then surname culture took root and your line took the name McCown and those left in Fermanagh took Maguire. Your McCowns became Presbyterians in Scotland and eventually returned to Ireland during the Ulster Plantations and then to America. That's my theory.

Chris McCown said...

Not to complicate possibilities... but Airghialla 2 seems like it might be the only L513+(1130) type that is affiliated with Ireland. So maybe I have it backwards. Maybe your McCowns and Maguires original DNA was in Scotland and then the proto-Maguires migrated to Fermanagh leaving your P66 line behind. Now that I think about it, this makes more sense to me... but it's just another theory.

Chris McCown said...

I also have a third theory. During the Ulster Plantations, the Irish were kicked out of Northern Ireland and Maguire is an Irish name. It's possible they took the name McCown so that they would be allowed to stay on their lands and/or be able to travel to America under the pretense that they were from the UK and not Catholic. Assuming that common ancestor age is correct, this theory fits the early 1600s name divergence. But I'm not convinced that common ancestor age is correct. Just look at M222. Lots of M222 surnames haven't diverged from, which means they haven't muted in 1500 years. Same could be said for your lines next to those Maguire lines. It's hard to know for sure who mutated and who didn't and when it happened. Looking at the other non-Maguire surnames might help paint a better picture of the ancient origins.

William McCown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.