The Uí Maini Puzzle

[Webmaster]

Sorry, but IDK what Y-DNA evidence you are looking at but R1b-DF105 is ONLY the descendants of Eóchád Muigmedón and NO other branch with the current data. Period. That is the only explanation that fits ALL of the genealogies the best. You keep trying to cherry pick records that support your thesis that the clades under R1b-A18726 except R1b-A259 are the Uí Maini. But that does not fit the Y-DNA data at all.

The two things that all the genealogies are consistent on are the 4 (or 5) sons of Eóchád Muigmedón: Brión, Fiachróe Foltsnáthach, Ailill, and Niall Noígíallach (and Fergus Cáechán?); and then a few generations later the 3 sons of Fergus: Dau Tengae Umae, Fergnóe, and Eóchád Tírmchárnae. Recent Y-DNA data is proving the 3 sons of Fergus to be factual; EXCEPT that the genealogy of the later (after ~1000 AD or so) primary Ó Conchobair lineage is fictional. All the other Y-DNA data so far also corroborates at least the existence of Brión, Fiachróe Foltsnáthach, and Niall Noígíallach EXACTLY as the genealogies relate them to be, as brothers.

You keep ignoring the fact that the Uí Néill, the Uí Fiachroí, the Uí Máille, and the primary Uí Briúin ALL branch directly from R1b-DF105. This fits the genealogies of the sons of Eóchád Muigmedón. You trash that strong correlation just so that ONE group, the Uí Maini, will fit one of two fictional origins, as the descendants of Domnall son of Fiachu Sraibtine. The Y-DNA evidence strongly says that genealogy is just as much a fiction as the later primary Ó Conchobair genealogy is.

Promoting one group at the expense of four groups is just bad/biased analysis. Until/unless we get different data, I reject that thesis utterly and maintain R1b-DF105 is ONLY the descendants of Eóchád Muigmedón and NO other branch. This fits most of the genealogies the best and is my adamant stance, given the current data, as I have explained many times.

The early Uí Maini origins are all blatant fictions as shown by the Y-DNA, no matter how anyone tries to argue otherwise. As I stated above, with the current data, there is NO sign that Domnall son of Fiachu Sraibtine ever existed. His descendants, if he and they ever existed, MUST split the R1b-DF105 phylogenetic node. But this has not happened to date. And no offense, but I will accept Dr. Jaski's translation of that passage over yours or whoever you may be quoting from. The term con-drecat means ‘they converge’, NOT 'confronted'.

With the current data, R1b-A18726 are the descendants of Dau Galach. Period. You and all the other men in the subclades of R1b-A18726 except R1b-A259 are the descendants of his son Ernán. Period. R1b-A259 is the clade of the descendants of Eógan Sríab, his other son. This last statement is indisputable. Interestingly, the Book Of Ballymote MAY be saying that Eógan Sríab usurped Ernán's position:

891. Duach galach dano mc. Briain da mc. lais .i. Eogan sremh .i. rang beag bai na bhel & is uadh in rigraidh
892. Errnin mc. Duach galaig, tri mc. lais .i. Baitin & Fergus cnoc & Scandal

891. Duach Galach, also the son of Brión, had 2 sons belonging to him, that is, Eógan Sríab, that is, of the lesser rank who replaced in kingship the one who had the normal claim and thereafter became the king.
892. Ernán, the son of Dau Galach, had three sons, that is, Báetán, Fergus Cnoc, and Scandal.

https://genelach.org/transcript-book_of ... uachGalaig

I make no claims that my translation of line 891 is the correct translation, but it IS a possible translation. And this is not unreasonable given the extent of the genealogy provided for Ernán's descendants. Almost as if there was some expectation that his line might take the chieftainship and perhaps kingship, but such an event never materialized and so the genealogy was finally dropped.

Given the above Y-DNA data and the consistent genealogies for the sons of Eóchád Muigmedón, I have said all that can be said about R1b-DF105, and have no intention of posting any more without new Y-DNA data that refutes the above STRONG correlation.

[Muireagain]

How do I cherry pick, when I am reporting simply what the genealogies say? I note Father Walsh had no problem: “Ui Maine … These were, it was believed, descended from the Three Collas , sons of Eochu Domlén . But an apparently older account derived Ui Maine from Domnall , son of Fiachu Sraptine , brother of Eochu Domlén …”

“The early Uí Maini origins are all blatant fictions as shown by the Y-DNA”, how do you justify this position? The Sen Ui Maine are constantly identified as being from Fiachach Sraptine:

11th century Laud 610:
Cond, trí maic laiss .i. Condla Coém, Crinna, Art Óenfer. Óenmac Airt .i. Cormac. Cethri maic Cormaic .i. Carpri, Muredach, Cellach, Dáre. Trí maic Corpri .i. Fiacho Sroptine, Eochaid, Eocho Domlén, a quo Airgialla. Dá mac Fiachach Sroptine .i. Muredach Tírech, Domnall, sen Ó Maine. Óenmac Muredaig Eocho Mugmedón.

12th century Rawlinson B.502:
¶744] Trí m. Echach Dompliúin .i. na trí Collai .i. Colla Mend & Colla Fochrí & Colla Uais. Áed & Muiredach & Cairell a n- anmann riasiu no marbtais bráthair a n-athar .i. Fiachaich Sraiptine i cath Duib Chommair &rl.
¶745] Dá mc Fiachach Sraptine: Muiredach Tírech & Domnall sen Úa Maine.

14th century Book of Ballymote:
Fiacha sraiftine atiad a mc. .i. Muiredach tirech a quo in rigraidh & Domnall sen O Maine Chonnacht & Ferghus & Eochu & Feradhach a quo .H. Crimthannan.


Is there any better validation for the concept that Ui Neill, Ui Fiachrach, Ui Briuin, Ui Ailell, all descended from a single group of brothers? Namely, Niall, Fiachra, Brion, Ailell, the sons of Eochaid Mugmedon. What is the proof for this? How is it not the result of a fabrication?

And “With the current data, R1b-A18726 are the descendants of Dau Galach. Period” seems solely based the identification of which O’Malleys ancestors are the claimants to the O’Malley pedigree. Also this 14th century pedigree claims descent from Briain m. Echach Muidhmhedon, connecting the O’Malleys to dominant native family of ruling Connacht at the time, i.e., the descendants of Brion mac Eochaid Mugmedon, does not appear in the earlier 11th and 12th century genealogical collections? The O’Malley yDNA Project, is presently suggesting that this Mayo line of O’Malley are DF105>BY35730. And if this is the true line represent by the pedigree, then does not provide evidence that they descend from Briain m. Echach Muidhmhedon. The lack of definite yDNA connection to the known Ui Briuin line and the lateness of the pedigree, do not provide strong evidence that we can assume that R1b-A18726 are the descendants of Dau Galach.

That the Ui Briuin descend from Domnall m. Fiachach Sraptine and not Muiredach tirech, seems as valid as any claim.

[Muireagain]

Kathryn Cecil Grabowski's Cambridge thesis: "The interaction of politics, settlement and church in mediaeval Ireland : Ui Maine as a case study", contains the following note:

She writes: "Clann Aedagain, Chelleig and the dynasty representad by the, 3rd, 5th, 8th 13th and 15th kings of Ui Maine.50"

with the note: "50. Hereafter referred to as ’Dynasty F'. Tha genealogy of Cenel Cairpri Cruim Is so clearly synthetic that it serves as an excellant example of tha methods of tha senchaide. Tha dynasty supplying tha earlier kings of Ui Maine is noticeably similar in several generations of its pedigree to that of Ui Chellaig’s pedigree. The juncture between tha two lines is awkward and, while the cause of this may lie in a scribal error. It Is possible that tha two lines are artificially joined. Furthermore, the equal political position accorded to Sil nAnmcadha (see below) in the genealogy of Cairpra Cruim Is difficult to accept as reflecting any historical period prior to tha tenth century. The concept of Cenel Cairpri Cruim may have been intendad to express the political relationship between Sil nAnmchada and its rIval, Dynasty F and Ui Chellaig (although, perhaps only the latter). Both sub-segments descend from brothers named Eogain. Extant litarary references attribute to them very similar histories and identical regnal lengths. See, for example, O’Donovan, Tribes and Customs, p. ‘ 16 where he cites the fourteenth-century poem to Ua Madhudhain from Dublin, Trinity College Library, NS H.2.7.
It Is also possible that Cairpre Cruim’s genealoglcal existence Is intended to balance that of Cairpre Mac Fechini — ancestor of Cenel Fechini and Clann Comain. The evidence, here Is less clear cut, but the genealogical relationshlp may have symbolised the opposition of Cenel Fechinli and Dynasty F during the seventh and eighth centuries."

Mac Aedhagain are, in the sources, associated with Clann Cremthainn, thus with the O Murchadhain also associate with Clann Cremthain, implies that FGC40502 contains Clann Cremthainn. While BY20835 contains Sil Anmchadha.

[Muireagain]

Another note in Kathryn Cecil Grabowski's Cambridge thesis:

"106. Fidcellach mac Flainn Is not mentioned In any of the extant Ui Maine pedigrees. See belm. Appendix I. Dluthach mac Fidcellach Is son of Dicuilll In those same pedigrees. Kelleher has suggested that the name 'Flann' be Inserted into the genealogies at the appropriate spot. See *Ui Maine*, p. 68. While this Is perfectly feasible, 0*Donovan suggested connecting Fidcellach to Flann mac Brenainn Dalll of Cenel Fechinl. That Fidcellach's line later claimed the kingship of Cenel Cairpri Cruim argues only for their having assumed this Identity by the mid-eighth century (AFM 785) — perhaps In opposition to Cenel Fechinl (descended from Cairpre Crom*s brother, Cairpre Mac Fechlnl)."

[Muireagain]

Kathryn Cecil Grabowski's Cambridge thesis also notes:

"The failure of Clann Crimthainn to retain control of the kingship left an opening for a new dynasty to fill the void. The rise of Ui ChellaIg Is not documented by the annalistic texts. The link with Cenel Cairpre Cruim made by the genealogical tracts offers an attractive solution to the question of the origins of Ui Chellaig, but the problems associated with the juncture of the Ui Chellaig pedigree to the Cenel Cairpre Cruim genealogy may point to Ui Cellaig ambitions more than to their origins.117 Cellach mac Finnachta maic Allella could have been as closely related as a nephew to Cathal mac Allella. Otherwise the rise of a new dynasty Is completely undocumented."

Note: "117. The pedigree of Ui Chellaig which Is contained In the Ui Maine genealogical tract Is clearly Inserted Into the Ui Maine. It occurs in the section headed *Clann Aedagain* which is inapproprlate. Furthermore, because of a repetition of several of the personal names. It Is unclear exactly where the connexion ought to be made."

So are the O'Kellys simular to the O'Neills inregard to their overlordship of Cenel Eoghain, i.e., foreign overlords?

[Muireagain]

She also writes in Appendix 1 in her review of Ui Maine pedigree:

"The pedigrees of the remaining lines, Lomain Findabrach (18) 29 , Cland Cernaig (20), Ui Mailfhalaid (21), Ui Madadain (22), and Cland Aedagain (23) are of varying character. Those of Lomain Findabrach, Cland Cernaig and Ui Mailfhalaid cannot be dated at all. Those of Ui Madadain and Clann Aedagain prove, upon comparison with the annals, to be later additions which, based upon the evidence of obituary dates for the terminal names given In the two pedigrees, can be said to date from a point no earlier than the fourteenth century!"

Also:
"The Ui Cheallaig lines usually fore a separate section which comes after this earlier one and which, as I have already said. Is also poorly connected to It. It was added, to the earlier tract no earlier than the thirteenth century, but probably at a slightly later point than that."

[Webmaster]

Bernard,

Your statement is possibly correct that both the Ó Cellaig and the Ó Matadáin Uí Maini families are insertions, via whatever mechanism, similar to the Ó Néill Rúad and Clanda Áeda Buide in the Cenél nEógain. OR the other Uí Maini families hitched their genealogical cart to the powerful Ó Cellaig and Ó Matadáin families. The Y-DNA has already indisputably shown that. Regardless, that does not change in one iota the fact that the early Uí Maini genealogies are hopelessly FUBAR, regardless of which progenitor you pick.

[Muireagain]

The issue is one of corelation:

The BY3437+ O'Kelly have no other parellel ydna lines/relatives within the Ui Maine. All lines under BY3437 contain Kellys suggesting that whatever the modern surname, all were originally O'Kellys. As for O'Madden, what is their haplogroup? Are they Z253>BY19652+ group with a sprinkling of local Ui Maine surnames, if so it is presently a very small haplogroup with a strong relationship with populations out of Co. Clare.

There are three identifiable surnames under BY198, the O'Murchadhain from the lands of Clan Cremthainn, the O'Lorcain from Lorrha and the Clan MacAedhagain. Given the pedigrees there is a conflict between the relationship of the O'Murchadhain of Clan Cremthainn, O'Lorcain of Sil Anmchadha and the MacAedhagain of ruling line of Cenel Cairpre Cruim.

However, Kathryn Cecil Grabowski's thesis drawns attention to what see to be a artifitical nature of the ruling line of Cenel Cairpre Cruim, calling it synthetic, and more importantly that the MacAedhagain pedigrees were created in the 14th century. If we put the MacAedhagain pedigree to the side, as I have already mentioned the MacAedhagain are also sometimes associated with Clann Cremthainn.

We have:
BY198>FGC40502>FT177133 - O'Murchadhain of Clann Cremthainn
BY198>BY20835>BY20834>BY21680 - O'Lorcain of Lorrha and Sil Anmchadha

Where FGC40502 and BY20835 mark the split between the Ui Cremhthainn and the Clann Fearadhaigh:

Lugaidh>Cremthand Cael - hence the O'Murchadhain of Clann Cremthainn
Lugaidh>Fearadhach - hence the O'Lorcain of Lorrha and Sil Anmchadha


Now if we bring the Ui Maine associatable surname with smaller sample size:

BY198>BY20835>BY20834>Y36587>FTA56326 Donnellan
BY198>BY20835>BY20834>Y36587>BY139826 Lyon
BY198>BY20835>BY20834>??? Coffey
BY198>BY20835>BY20834>??? Cunningham

Lugaidh>Fearadhach>Cairbre Crom>Cormac>Eogan Buac>Anmchad>Forbasach - hence O'Lorcain of Lorrha and Sil Anmchadha
Lugaidh>Fearadhach>Cairbre Crom>Cormac>Eoghain Finn>Diochuill>Dluthach>Fithcheallach>Dluthach>Breasal - hence O'Donnellan of Clann Breasail
Lugaidh>Fearadhach>Cairbre Crom>Cormac>Eoghain Finn>Diochuill>Dluthach>Fithcheallach>Dluthach>Coscraig>Cearnaig - hence Lyons of Clan Cearnaig
Lugaidh>Fearadhach>Cairbre Crom>Cormac>Eogan Buac>Anmchad>Dondgalaig>Mael Duin>Cobthaig - hence O'Coffey of Sil Anmchadha
Lugaidh>Fearadhach>Cairbre Crom>Cormac>Eogan Buac>Anmchad>Fiangalach - hence Cunningham of Sil Anmchadha

This would support the idea that BY20835 as being Clann Fearadhaigh.

At this stage the only hope is for more results and see if the pattern holds.

(FamilyFinder test for FTDNA is source of the majority of BY20834 results, implying that they have not been tested for their sub-branches.)

[Webmaster]

Bernard,

You are quite correct the issue is one of correlation. Setting R1b-DF105 to be the beginning of the Connachta correlates extremely well with the Y-DNA data for the Uí Briúin, the Uí Fiachroí, and the Uí Néill, which includes dozens of families. Trying to correlate R1b-BY198 with the "Uí Maini" and the one purported progenitor Domnall completely destroys that correlation of dozens of families for the sake of a few families.

That is just plain ridiculous. The whole point of correlation is to MAXIMIZE congruence, in this case between Y-DNA lines and genealogical lines. ONLY correlating R1b-DF105 with the Connachta maximizes the congruence. In this light, trying to correlate R1b-BY198 with the "Uí Maini" lines is disingenuous. It is OBVIOUS that ALL of the early "Uí Maini" lines are badly FUBAR.

Unless some amazing new Y-DNA data is discovered, the current data clearly shows there was NO "Uí Maini" dynastic family. Rather they were a confederation of Uí Briúin, Uí Fiachroí, and Uí Néill families as the Y-DNA data indisputably shows.

And once again, I have said all that can be said on the matter unless remarkable new Y-DNA data is discovered; and so I have locked this topic. If anyone finds any new Y-DNA data that produces a better correlation, feel free to PM me and I will unlock this topic.