This page contains one note:

LeStrange/Strange/Strang/Stronge/Strong

DNA Study Note #7:

===========================================

 

The subject of this note is a discussion of certain aspects of the history of the Donegal Bay Strong Families and the results of the DNA Study

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnaresults.htm   as it relates to these families.   An overview of the research involving these families may be reviewed at The Donegal Strong Puzzle.  There is a hypothesis that the Donegal & Fermanagh Strongs are descended from George Strong and Thomas Strong (relationship unknown) who appear in a 1665 tax roll in County Donegal, Ireland; testing this hypothesis is one of the objects of the present study.

 

I) Donegal Bay Strong DNA Results: (5 kits):   We have full results for all of the kits posted  on the webpage at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnaresults.htm .   As seen on the DNA Results page, these kits have some rather unique characteristics which distinguish them from the other groups in the study.

Note the value of 12 indicated for DYS 393; note also the value of 10 for DYS 459a. The usual values are 13 for DYS 393 and  9 for DYS 459a.   Apparently the values found for the Donegal Bay Strongs are both highly unusual.   It should be noted that we have complete 25 marker results for each of the kits in this group. Interestingly, the PP3 (additional 13 markers) portion of the results show no further differences between the kits.

DYS 393 is a very stable marker, and a value of 12 is not even mentioned as a usual occurance for the average HG1 member. See: "Y-Chromosome Haplogroups" and especially follow the link to the: frequency distribution for DYS 393 Note the rather low rate of  occurance for an allele value of 12; and note also the standard deviation rates for the alleles in the HG1 data for DYS 393 indicating possibly a low mutation rate for DYS 393, with a standard deviation of .36. Cautioning that there is as yet limited data upon which to convert his data to mutation rates, in a message dated March 3, 2003, Dennis Garvey suggests a method by which a "conversion would be done: DYS390 shows a standard deviation of 0.64, and DYS393 has a standard deviation of 0.36. Let's accept a mutation rate of 0.2% for DYS390. That means that the mutation rate for DYS393 might be about (0.36*03.36)/(0.64*0.64)*0.2% = 0.06% - which is about a third of that for DYS390."   See also Dennis Garvey’s webpage,  “Standard Deviation vs. Mutation Rate” .

Re DYS 459a = 10:   See: "Y-Chromosome Haplogroups" and especially follow the link to frequency distribution for DYS 459a . Again, note the rather low rate of occurance for an allele value of 10; and note also the standard deviation rates for the alleles in the HG1 data for DYS 459a,  indicating possibly a low mutation rate for DYS 459a, with a standard deviation of .27. Dennis Garvey’s proportionality calculation might apply here as well.

I suggest the results indicate a likelihood that the Donegal-Fermanagh Strong lineage has  rather unique markers in DYS 393 and DYS 459a.   Those who bear a value of 12 for DYS 393  and 10 for DYS 459a are very likely related, regardless of how many steps difference there is in total for the other markers, particularly given that these lineages originate in an "endogamous" community (marrying within the group, a broader, looser alternative to the word inbreeding, which seems to imply marriage between closely related people); from geographic locations probably not 25 miles from each other, in a time and local culture in which migration was unusual. Given the close coincidence of markers 393, 459a, 390, and 385b re the Donegal and Fermanagh participants, I think these lines are closer than might otherwise be thought when you consider Kits #5811 & 6643 were initally thought to be 5 steps apart in 25 markers (now the apparent count is down to 4 steps in the 25 markers). Note, 3 of those steps arise because of a 3 step difference on DYS 439, which is one of the rapidly moving markers.

There is considerable controversy whether we can count the 3 step difference as only ONE mutation. Per an email message from Lloyd Horrocks, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry at Ohio State University, and Co-Administrator of our DNA Study, dated Saturday, March 01, 2003 "You should not discount DYS 439 completely, but you could count the 3 steps as one…."   It seems likely to me that the dispute over the 3 step differential on DYS 439 should be resolved in favor of a single mutation. To say that the 3 step differential on just one marker might have occurred in successive mutations over thousands of years is like saying one can hit the jackpot in the lottery 3 times in succession using the same set of numbers... highly unlikely.

Now, if we use the Kinney genetic distance calculation, re the differences on DYS 389-2 and DYS 389-1, the results for kits #5811 and 6643 are then only one step apart on these markers rather than the two which are apparent just looking at the total differences between the two kits. If, per Lloyd Horrocks, we can count the three steps on DYS 439 as only one; then the grand total of the genetic distance is TWO, which might be in the ball park if both lines mutated once on different markers over the course of the ~200 to 350 years from the speculative most recent common ancestor. My "Kinney" calculations re the kits:

 

(DYS 389-2)

-

(DYS 389-1)

= x

 

#6643:

29

-

13

=16

 

#5811:

28

-

12

=16

 

result:

 

 

1

+ 0

= 1

 

 

(DYS 389-2)

-

(DYS 389-1)

= x

 

#13952:

29

-

13

=16

 

#5811:

28

-

12

=16

 

result:

 

 

1

+ 0

= 1

 

There is no differential between Kits #6643 and #13952 at DYS 389-2 and DYS 389-1.  Note that a similar calculation for the results in Kits #6761 & 8431, which each have the same values for DYS 389-2 and DYS 389-1, when compared against Kit #6643 yields a similar result:

 

(DYS 389-2)

-

(DYS 389-1)

= x

 

#6643:

29

-

13

=16

 

#6761:

30

-

14

=16

 

result:

 

 

1

+ 0

= 1

 

Thus, we can conclude there is only a maximum 1 step of difference at DYS 389-2 and DYS 389-1 for kits #6643 and #5811, and for  kits #13952 and #5811;  and for both Kits #6761 and #8431 when compared against Kit #6643.

I have  posted a revised descendancy  chart for Kits #13952 and #6643 at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/6643.htm
and I have posted a hypothesis regarding a part of the overall Donegal Bay decadency, showing the relationships between Kits #5811, #13952 and #6643  at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/13952.htm

Note, I think Kit #13952’s STR results, particularly re DYS439, where he =s12, taken together with his traceable common ancestry with Kit #6643 re Geo.Strong & Eleanor Spence, proves what I have thought all along, eg., that Kit #6643’s DYS439=9 was a mutation from the general haplotype, and  that we are all related.   Given also my previously expressed belief based on certain circumstantial evidence, that Kit #5811’s Geo. Strong I was a son of Geo.Strong & Eleanor Spence, I think the hypothesis at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/13952.htm is reasonable.

I continue to think Kit #6761 and #8431 are descended from Thomas Strong of the 1665 Hearth Money Roll for Killaghtee Parish.   I think
Kits #5811, #13952 and #6643  are descended from George Strong of the same roll.... the only DNA difference being 16 vs 15 at DYS385b.   We continue to need participants, particularly from the Strong lines from Broughton Bay in Australia, and some of the other lines tending to hail from the north side of Donegal Bay.  At present we have no additional kits pending test results regarding this group.

II) The Blair DNA Study Group One:

 

A bit of investigation concerning a close set of markers (within two steps) in a Scottish participant in testing at Family Tree DNA revealed a VERY close relationship between our Donegal Bay Strongs and the Blair Family Society’s Group One. It appears that our Assumed Haplotype is  within two steps of the Modal Haplotype for Blair Group One.  The differences are found at DYS #s 447 & 449, where we have values of 25 and 31 respectively, versus their values of 26 and 30 respectively.   The DNA results for the two groups may be compared by calling up Blair Group One, as well as our own on the   DNA Results page.

 

The following edited group of messages relate to the significance of these findings about the possible relationships between the Donegal Bay Strongs and the Blair Family DNA Study Group One:

 

----- Original Message #1 -----

From: David B. Strong

Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 10:08 AM

Subject: DNA Research Blair vs Strong

 

Hello, John Blair:

 

I am the coordinator of the Strong-Stronge-Strang-Strange-LeStrange DNA Study.   The results of our study can be viewed at the following website:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnaresults.htm

 

It has come to my attention that the members of your Blair Group I  http://blairgenealogy.com/dna/group1.html fit fairly closely with the "DNA Signatures" of two kits in our study, #5811 and #6643; these two kits appear as the Donegal & Fermanagh group in the Strong, etal., study.    We have two other kits which are yet to be tested, #s 6761 & 8431 which may well have the same signature as the first two kits indicated here (ed.note; in fact these kits did prove to have the same DNA signatures).    You will note that #5811 is just two steps away from your kit #4052... with variations on DYS#s (389-2 minus 389-1) and on DYS#447.   Kit #6643 has a 3 step in 12 markers difference all concentrated on DYS#439: we have been advised that this could be a single mutation.  The participant has recently ordered an upgrade from the 12 marker test to the full 25 marker test.   It will be interesting to see the results when they are returned, as well as the results on the two additional kits.

 

The foregoing information is, of course, surprising to us.   We have spent some time reviewing your results and associated webpages in an attempt to assess how and if we may be related to the Blair family.

 

There is no apparent possible relationship between our kits and the ancestor of your participant #4052.   Our speculative ancestors seem to be traced, with some record gaps, to George Strong and Thomas Strong who appear on a 1665 Hearth Money Roll for Killaghtee Parish, Barony of Boylagh and Bannagh, County Donegal, Ireland.  (However,) review of the material on your website yields two or three things which may offer clues to establishing possible relationships with your  ancestry Group I.   I would appreciate being put in touch with persons who may be able to share further information concerning these clues:

 

First:   In reviewing your list of BSGR Major Lines Not Represented in your study to date, http://blairgenealogy.com/dna/bsgrlines.html , I note reference to a John Blair and Margaret Hawthorne, who apparently migrated from Donegal, Ireland to Butler Co., Pennsylvania in the 18th century.   You mention four researchers  who have  info regarding this family.   If possible, I would like to correspond with one or more of these researchers, with a view to determining where in County Donegal their family may have originated... to see if there is any likely contact which might have led to a "non-parental event".

 

Second:  In the Blair Heraldry page, http://blairsociety.org/heraldry.htm the discussion indicates the "Blairs of Blair"  were chief of all Blair families in Ayr, Wigton and Renfrew.   There is some indication in our Donegal Strong research that the settlers of the Barony of Boylagh and Bannagh in County Donegal came largely from Wigtonshire.   I would appreciate being put in touch with some Blair researcher who may be able to elaborate on the contacts of the Blair family with Wigtonshire.

 

Third:   In the A Place Called Blair web page, http://blairsociety.org/blplace.htm 

regarding "Blair Castle - Located at Blair-Atholl, Perthshire, between Perth and Inverness.  Built in the 13th century and restored in the late 18th century, it is the ancestral home of Lord Murray, Duke of Atholl."  Note the mention of Lord Murray.   In our Donegal Strong research of Boylagh and Bannagh Barony, one (John Murray) was one of the principal planters.   The name may occur purely by coincidence, but it strikes me as possible the Murray lineage may be related to both the Blair and Strong lines in question.   Family Tree DNA lists no on-going study of the Murray surname... but it strikes me that the DNA signature of the lines may provide a point of coincidence.   Any contacts you may be able to  direct me to who may have further information about the possible connections between the Murray and Blair families would be appreciated.

 

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to provide.

 

Dave Strong ...
DNA Study Coordinator & webmaster:
Book I:   RESEARCHING STRONG(E) AND STRANG(E)
IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/contents.htm
Database and manuscript.  See especially Chap. 13,
entitled "Lineages"; and Chapt. 15, "DNA Study"
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnastudy.htm
&
Book II:  THE DONEGAL STRONG PUZZLE:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/indxdrft.htm
Research and study of Counties Donegal and Fermanagh Strongs and
related families.
=============================================================

----- Original Message  #2-----

From: John A. Blair

To: David B. Strong

Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 9:28 PM

Subject: Re: DNA Research Blair vs Strong

 

Hi Dave,

I must say, I'm impressed with level of research you've put into making a connection between Blair and Strong. I'm not sure I can be of much help though.

As I'm sure you know, a 23 for 25 match means there is only a 50% probability that TMRCA is with 28 generation. I would estimate the probability of TMRCA being within the time period of the Blair surname is about 65%. This seems rather remote when there is no connection between the surnames that I'm aware of.

Let me take each of your requests one at a time.

First: Researchers of John Blair and Margaret Hawthorne. Of the 4 researchers only one is still an active member of the BSGR. I would have no way of contacting the other three. Due to privacy consideration, I cannot give out any contact information on BSGR members. I will contact this member and let them know of your desire to share information.

Second: Blair families with Wigtonshire connections. Unfortunately I don't know of anyone with connections to Wigtonshire. (The) only thing I can think of that may help is to visit my OPR database at http://blairgenealogy.com/database.html and do a birth and marriage search on the county Wigtown. Leave everything else blank. There are 57 birth records and 17 marriage records in the database.

Third: A Place Called Blair. "The castle is apparently named for its location, for no Blair has ever lived there."  I'm afraid I'm not aware of anyone who may have further information about the possible connections between the Murray and Blair families. I did check the my OPR database and found over 30 Blairs who married a Murray. I also found 6 children born to 3 different Blair-Murray parents. I don't know if you could make any connections from these.

I'm sorry I could be of more help. Please let me know if anything comes of this or if you get any other close matches.
John
-----
John A. Blair
Goffstown NH
http://blairgenealogy.com
mailto:jablair@blairgenealogy.com
BLAIR DNA Project Family Coordinator


==============================================================

----- Original Message #3-----

From: David B. Strong

To: John A. Blair

Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 8:49 AM

Subject: Re: DNA Research Blair vs Strong

 

Hi John...

 

Thanks for your help.   I realize this is something of a longshot... but there is more of a match between us and  Blair Group I than there is with any other group inside of our Strong DNA study.  I suspect we will have to be patient and see how things develop, realizing that the answers may never show up.   I suspect there was some event long ago which might offer the explanation if we could ever find out what it was!  {:-)

 

I did check the marriage and births index you have on line.   I noted the marriage on March 5th, 1738 of John Blair, Laird of Dunskey, an estate in Wigtownshire, and his wife Anne Baronet Kennedy, in Portpatrick, Wigtown.    (I suspect Anne was the daughter of Baronet Kennedy).     Dunskey had an "L-plan tower house featuring a main block and one wing (16th and 17th centuries)".    Dunskey may have been part of the fiefdom of Blair of Blair, and the source of the reference to Wigtown in the Heraldry discussion previously mentioned.

 

I will watch for any development of a Murray DNA study, and will be watching with interest to see if there is any similarity of DNA signatures.

 

Please keep us in mind, and if anything comes up which may be of interest, please let me know.  

 

Regards

Dave Strong

 

(Note, the following message is inserted here because of it’s relevance to certain issues arising out of our findings re the apparent relationships between the Donegal Bay Strongs and Blair Group One:)

----- Original Message #4-----

From: <Ann Turner>

To: <GENEALOGY-DNA-L@rootsweb.com>

Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 9:23 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: [DNA] Surname studies paper-trail and non-paternity

 

In a message dated 04/20/03 11:08:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time, (a list member) writes:

My next question is how these men with a non-paternity event are going to  find their "birth family" - or if they can from DNA. Now we're in the realm  of not sharing the same last name as their biological cousins. Where would  be the best places to look for the biological family? Family? Neighbors?  General community? Or is that too much to ask of DNA? What would any of you  suggest as far as looking for a situation in which this event might have  taken place - say the young death of a woman (died in childbirth - possibly  friends or family raised her infant), a woman widowed early in her  marriage, etc..

This is a general question, so I'll try to formulate some general answers.

No matter how you approach it, it's going to be a very convoluted process.
The very first question is to assess the level of desire to learn more.

Typically, we're talking about a common ancestor who lived a number of  generations ago, and the nonpaternity event (or even more than one) could
have occurred in any one of those generations. It could be painful to discover the nonpaternity event was in a recent generation. Everyone who parti
cipates in a surname study knows this is a theoretical possibility, but feelings can change when the possibility becomes a certainty, and the outcome
might affect many other people. Some people may justifiably elect to leave some ambiguity.

The level of desire also comes into play when considering the time and financial aspects of additional research and testing. You'd need to establish
which generation was impacted by the nonpaternity event. Say the presumed common ancestor was 12 generations back. If you can find someone who descends in a different line from the person at the midway point, 6 generations back, then his results would tell you whether the nonpaternity event occurred in the most recent 6 generations or in the most distant 6 generations. Then you would need to find descendants of someone in the middle of that range and repeat the process.

So the research will be difficult, and you may not even find appropriate candidates. Then if you do find a person, you'll need to convince them to
donate a DNA sample to the cause. That person will either be a total stranger, or a fellow researcher who might be reluctant to learn something
which could unravel all his work. We on this mailing list have to remember we're not a random sample of the population -- we're self-selected because we have an intense interest in genealogy and learning the facts by any means available.

Once you reach the point where you know the generation, then all of your scenarios are plausible ones. By the nature of this research, you're unlikely to find any documentary evidence, just circumstantial evidence. But if you succeed, you've just broadened the scope of your research all over again, looking for male-line descendants of new candidates, who may not be too pleased to learn that their ancestor might have been the responsible party.

I'm painting a rather bleak picture, huh? I wouldn't even start the process myself unless the haplotype was a very rare and distinctive one.

Turning that around, if we find a person with connections to the tested family line  who has a one or two mutation match on 25 markers, might it be important to  look for a non-paternity event? How likely would it be to have a 23 out of  25 match and not share a common ancestor? When Family Tree DNA shows we  have such a match, should we write to that person? What about 12 marker  matches? I have not done that with the 12, but would like to know what the  rest of you do.

ON THE AVERAGE, a nonpaternity event would have many more mismatches, so if you have reasonable documentation, I would not be concerned about a 23 out of 25 match WITHIN a surname project. Further research may pinpoint generations where the mutations occurred, so the whole picture becomes more coherent.

For a RANDOM 23 out of 25 match, the common ancestor is likely to have lived too long ago to be of much interest. From my MRCA calculator, the median number of generations and the 95% confidence interval for finding the MRCA for 0, 1 and 2 mutations is

0       6.9     0.3 to 36.9
1      17.1     2.5 to 56.9
2      27.9     6.4 to 75.4

Ann Turner - GENEALOGY-DNA List Administrator
Search or Browse the archives, Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
https://mailinglists.rootsweb.com/listindexes/legacy/other/Miscellaneous/GENEALOGY-DNA.html

 

There is not a lot to be added to the foregoing information at this time.   There remain some interesting issues for further research as time goes on.   One of the possible avenues of research is explored in the following section.

 

=============================================================

III – Other Family Relationships in the Donegal Bay Community:

 

Ric Mathews maintains a “My Family” website which involves his interest in the Harron and Morrow Families of Arran Township, Bruce County, Ontario which originated in the Donegal Bay community.   One of the Donegal Bay Strong lineages settled in Arran Township, and is closely allied with the Harron and Morrow families of that area.   Additionally, the Arran Township Strong families are related to the Strongs of  Gorrie and Howick Township, Gray County, Ontario.    Recently I forwarded the following message to the “chat” line on Ric’s website: 

 

“I’ve been lurking on Ric Mathew’s My Family website for a long time, and have been busy with my own research, elsewhere.   For several reasons I think it is time to discuss something with you involving all of our research.   What follows is a quickly written overview of  some of my research, leading to a request for assistance.

 

First, as some of you may know, my interest in the Harron lineage is that my gggrandmother was Mary Harron;  she was married to George Strong in Drumhome Parish Church, County Donegal, Ireland in 1820.   They had five children I have identified in my research, all born in Ireland.   After George Strong died circa 1839, Mary and four of the five children emigrated to Pickering Township, Ontario in about 1842.   I believe she emigrated to be near her sister in law, Jane Strong Devitt, and Jane’s husband, Matthew Devitt, who had emigrated from Tullycovady Townland, Templecarne Parish, Co. Fermanagh, to Ontario in about 1827.     To date, I have not nailed down the relationship of Mary Harron to the rest of the Harron line, but I am sure that she was related to all of the Harrons in the area.

 

Second, I have spent about 20 years researching the Donegal and Fermanagh Strongs and related lineages.   As a result of my research, I have come to believe that the entire community of families residing around Donegal Bay, reaching from Killybegs around to Ballyshannon, and east towards Enniskillen, were related through marriage over several generations. The earliest settlers in the community came into Donegal circa 1609 as part of King James’ Plantation of Ireland, and were supplemented by additional settlers from time to time as a result of various events, such as the settlement of  soldiers from Cromwell’s army during the Commonwealth period (1650-1659); the reallocation of lands following the restoration of the monarchy circa 1660; the aftermath of the Revolution of 1689; settlement of Scots looking for something better after a Scottish famine circa 1694, and so on.

 

Third, the Harron surname can, I believe, be traced to a (Patrick) Herron (probably a variant spelling of Heron) who was mustered (see below) in Co. Donegal as one of the settlers brought in by one of the original Planters.   I believe the spelling “Harron” is a locally developed usage, and is unique to the descendancy in Donegal.   Contemporary names include McKie (various spellings), and Morrow (various spellings), among others.   The earliest Strong record I have found is from a ~1665  Hearth Money Roll for Kilaghtee Parish, near Killybegs, and includes a George Strong and Thomas Strong.    I am operating on a hypothesis that all of the Strongs subsequently found in the records around Donegal Bay are descended from  George and Thomas Strong. 

 

Fourth, one of the early planters in the area around Killybegs was a Murray from the southwest area of Scotland…. Generally including Wigtownshire.   Many of the surnames found in the area around Donegal Bay are also found in Wigtownshire, and I believe it is more than pure coincidence.    The plantation scheme set up by King James I was to allocate large tracts of land in Ulster to various “Adventurers”… or investors who were willing to ante considerable sums for the opportunity to gain the lands. One of the quid pro quos was that such planters were required to bring in  settlers who would establish a protestant community to supplant the old gaelic Irish families and their prior control of the land…  Of course that set up the conflict which has continued to this day.   However, the point here is that the Planters brought in Settlers who came from the local areas where the Planters originated… in our case, Wigtownshire, in Scotland.

 

(The following discussion is inserted here to emphasize the foregoing point that the Settlers around Donegal Bay came originally from Southwest Scotland, and may specifically included members of the Murray family… and the lack of mention of the “Morrow” name is significant…. Emphasizing the point that the Morrow name may be a later developed variation of “Murray”:)

 

In Killybegs parish (which apparently originally included the Parish of Killaghtee), the land was granted to Scottish planters, with the exception of 14 Ballyboes of lowland and 14 balliboes of upland belonging to the Church. The Church lands were claimed by the new Protestant Bishop of Raphoe. By the spring of 1610 the final arrangements for the Plantation had been completed and the first civilian planters arrived in Killybegs. The remote and poor land of west Donegal was not attractive to any newcomer. Very few planters came over during the first ten years. Those who came brought the new Protestant faith with them, taking possession of the old parish church of Killybegs.

 

Of the original Scots planters mentioned above, few except Alexander Dunbar spent any time in their new lands in Donegal and started selling them off. About 1620, the estates were regranted as a whole to John Murray, 1st Earl of Annandale, who was a favourite of James VI of Scotland and I of England. Annan is a small and royal burgh of Dumphrieshire, Scotland, on the Annan River, nearly 2 miles from its mouth which opens into the Solway firth. 17 = (Estates: #17)} Murray was originally master farrier to James VI, and helped to save his life on one occasion.

 

The following Muster Roll of  John Murray’s tenants is taken from: http://members.aol.com/lochlan2/muster.htm

====== The Muster Roll of the County of Donnagall 1630 A.D.
As printed in the Donegal Annual:

(Names of interest in the present research of the Donegal Bay Community are “bolded”):
Barony de Boylagh and Bannagh The Earle of Annandall, undertaker of 10,000 acres, the names of his men and armes. Andrew Nesbit Hector Douglas Robert Rinkeny John Gourdon James Read elder Nichol Walker Alexander Tyndy Swords onely Martin Shellan ------------ Andrew Shellan David Greire John mcKilvame John Creighton Sword and Snaphance Robert Creighton ------------------- James Crafford David ffynley Andrew Dunne Archbald Houet younger David Kernes George Molligan Robert Kernes David Jackson younger David Jackson John Reynold John Creighton younger John Kirkpatrick Alexander mcMachan John Hall Patrick Dunbar John Makye Edward Houet George Miller John ffynlay Andrew mcffarlan Thomas Gressy Richard Murray Andrew Keirs Gilbert Shaw Thomas Creighton Walter Leaky Robert mcKnaght James Read younger James mcKnaght younger John William John Shane younger Edward Griffeth John Scot younger John mcClintog Gilbert Shankeland John Menzes John Milligan younger Patrick Herron John Vaux John mcClanes John mcKilmain John mcCartney James Shan younger John Chancellor John Kirkpatrick Robert Walker Alexander Shilan John Creighton John Walker John mcKennet Robert Vaux Thomas Blane John Waker Sampson mcKee Michaell mcKilwayne James Blane Arch Horner William Ellot William Cocheran George Ellot John mcKaughry John Waus John Dunbar John mcKee Gilbert mcClelan p. 15 William mcClaughry Alexander Scot William mcConnell William Douglas John mcConnell Hugh Reed Dunkan mcKilmore Alexander mcCullogh John Camell Thomas mcCullogh Anthony Shaw George mcCullogh Patrick mcHutchin Jo: Small younger John Bagster David Wilson Robert mcHutchen John Karnes John Harvye Robert Maxwell Steaphen Price Thomas Scot James Hugones George Scot David Barnes John Johnston John Smyth William Layser James mcKnoe William Kenedy Alexander Murry John mcKinley James Murry John mcCormick John Murry John Leis Adam Makee William Leies Robert Makee John mcKneilly James Frizsell Patrick Dunbar John Frizell John Camell Thomas Carnes John Dunbar Thomas Carnes younger John Walker ffynlay mcCauley Andrew Dunne Thomas Hutton Andrew Leirs John Kirk John ffynlay Peter Martin George Ellot Andrew Robinson David Jackson Patrick Davison Robert Kernes John mcClaughey elder James Shaw James mcClaughry John Scot No Armes -------

 

John Murray, First Earl of Annandale,  died in 1640; he was succeeded by his son, James Murray, Second Earl of Annandale, who held the estate from 1640 to 1658.  James Murray was succeeded by competing claimants.   The first, Sir Robert Crichton, claimed ownership under the will of James Murray.  The second, Richard Murray of Broughton, Scotland, claimed ownership by virtue of a deed of conveyance.  The situation led to a lengthy legal battle which was finally resolved by a Commission of Grace convened in the reign of King Charles II largely in favor of Murray of Broughton, who held the property until his death in 1685.  What is important for our Donegal Bay Strong research is the observation that the 1665 Hearth Money Roll for Killaghtee Parish, which included George Strong and Thomas Strong, was taken during the period of the legal dispute between Murray of Broughton and Sir Robert Crichton.   All of this MAY be significant in light of the present speculation concerning the possible relationships between the Strong, Murray, and Blair surnames.) 

 

Fifth…. I have for sometime hypothesized that the surname “Morrow” as found in Donegal is a variant spelling of  Murray” (or “Murry”, as it appears in the above Muster Roll)… and I base that in part on the foregoing paragraph, and in part on the fact that spelling of surnames tended to vary depending on the ear of the person making the record and how the name was pronounced to that recorder by the individual bearing the name.    I could point to numerous examples of what I am saying, but for now, please bear with the point.

 

Sixth:  Until recently, I was never sure whether the Strong surname was English or Scottish in origin.   I am now quite sure it was Scots, and was perhaps “originally” Strang… the usual Scots spelling of the surname.   I have made this conclusion as a result of a DNA Study which I am coordinating.   You can see the Results of the DNA Study by logging onto the following website:   http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnaresults.htm

 

Particularly, note the findings relating to the Donegal and Fermanagh grouping… presently [five] persons, ….   We are within two steps of a match on 25 markers on the Y-Chromosome; the differences being, I am fairly sure, a result of single mutations in each of our lines over the last two hundred years.  ….

 

What confirms the Scottish roots for our Strong lineage is the fact that our DNA results closely match the DNA signature of  the BLAIR family!    This came, of course, as something of a surprise.   As I researched the Blair family, I happened to observe that certain Blair locations seem to have coincidence with our roots in Wigtownshire and the association with the MURRAY surname.

 

In the Blair Heraldry page, http://blairsociety.org/heraldry.htm the discussion indicates the "Blairs of Blair"  were chief of all Blair
families in
Ayr, Wigton and Renfrew.   As indicated above,  there is some indication in our Donegal Strong research that the settlers of the Barony of Boylagh and Bannagh in County Donegal came largely from Wigtonshire.  


In the A Place Called Blair web page, http://blairsociety.org/blplace.htm there is mention of  "Blair Castle - Located at Blair-Atholl, Perthshire, between Perth and Inverness.  Built in the 13th century and restored in the late 18th century, it is the ancestral home of Lord Murray, Duke of Atholl."  Note the mention of Lord Murray.   The name may occur purely by coincidence, but it strikes me as possible the Murray lineage may be related to both the Blair and Strong lines in question.  [Ed. Note:  In connection with this possibility, the original progenitor of the Donegal Bay Strong lineages may have been George Murray of Broughton.  See the Notes at  1609-1613.]

 

I also noted the marriage on March 5th, 1738 of John Blair, Laird of Dunskey, an estate in Wigtownshire, and his wife Anne Baronet Kennedy, in Portpatrick, Wigtown.    (I suspect Anne was the daughter of Baronet Kennedy).     Dunskey had an "L-plan tower house featuring a main block and one wing (16th and 17th centuries)".    Dunskey may have been part of the fiefdom of Blair of Blair, and was probably the source of the reference to Wigtown in the Heraldry discussion previously mentioned.

 

It appears likely that the Donegal Strong lineage may be related to the Blair of Blair lineage through the Murray lineage… possibly through adoption, remarriage, rape, or perhaps even dating to events before the adoption of surnames. But, we are Scots… and Scots do it better!  J

 

Finally, here is where I hope some of you will jump in and help on the further research involved.   To date, I am unaware of any DNA Studies involving Harrons or Morrows (or Murrays). I am hoping that either someone of you will start such a DNA Study, with an eye to sharing and comparing the results with me; or that at the least some of you will join my Strong DNA Study to see if our DNA signatures match.   I am hoping to establish a) whether the Murray and Morrow DNA signatures match; b) whether the Murray/Morrow DNA signatures match the Blair and/or Strong DNA signatures; and, c) whether the Harron DNA signature matches any or all of the rest of the DNA signatures.

 

The entire subject of DNA research for Genealogy is very wide-ranging and is developing rapidly. I encourage you to visit my DNA Study webpage and follow the links for an introduction to the subject.   See: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnastudy.htm

 

(Note, it is possible to expand the Strong DNA Surname study to include a Community Group Study of the Donegal Bay Community.   For our purposes, I am presently most interested in having participants involving the following surnames tested:)

Participants must be a male, surnamed Strong, or for purposes of the present discussion, Harron, Morrow, or Murray.   Females do not carry a Y-chromosome, and break the chain transmitting the relevant genes from father to son which are essential to the study.

 

If you are interested in persuing this inquiry, please let me know.   I hope to hear from you… and hope you will be interested in following this research in whatever direction it takes us.”

 

Regards

Dave Strong

 

IV – Where do we go from here?

 

The latest DNA Results are in.... they tend to confirm what we have already hypothesized...   and knew.    Kit #6761 matches Kit #8431, his known cousin, exactly.   We all match fairly closely... with a few mutations here and there, and we all are fairly close to the Blair Group 1.   There is an interesting difference between Kit #6761  and Kit #8431 on the one hand, and Kits #5811, # 6643 and #13952 on the other, at DYS 385b, where Kit #6761  and Kit #8431have a value of 16, and Kit #5811s, # 6643 and #13952 have a value of 15.   The 15 value is consistant with the Blair Group 1 pattern.    I suspect that if we are related to the Blair Group 1 as a branch that developed over 300 years ago, the original haplotype included DYS 385b=15.    This DNA note #7 has been compiled  to present in summary the results of the DNA investigation and research to this point.

I think on the basis of the results to date, we can fairly positively state that all of the Donegal & Fermanagh Strongs are related to each other.   So
far, NONE of the various lines tested have NOT matched fairly closely... and the testing has the interesting aspect that part of my hypothesis is that
Kit #6761  and Kit #8431possibly descend from the Thomas Strong found in the 1665 Hearth Money Rolls of Killaghtee Parish near Killybegs, while Kit # 6643, #5811 and #13592  possibly descend from the George Strong found in the same roll.   The difference at DYS 385b is consistent with this hypothesis.   It would be quite interesting to see whether representatives of the other Donegal Strong lineages have the same difference, consistent with where they are situated in my Hypothetical Descendancy.   Note, I am contemplating putting up a truncated web version of the Hypothetical Descendancy soon, to which we might all link without the necessity of duplicating the presentation  on various personal websites, etc.

Another interesting thing has come to my attention, which concerns the relationship of Blood Groups to certain DNA patterns, perhaps extending to
certain Haplogroups and sub-groups. It seems we may be descendants of  an Asiatic ethnic group!    At least some of the participants in the kits tested are members of Blood Group B.    I refer you to the following article: "Blood Groups and the history of peoples".  Blood Group B is compatible with a diet which is  characterized as "cultured dairy products and blood"... the diet of the nomadic peoples of East Asia.   This may be a significant health-related reason to have yourself DNA tested!  {:-) However, I should caveat that there is considerable dispute about how scientifically valid are the theories expressed in the foregoing article.

I HAVE determined that our Blood Grouping is not a function of the Y-Chromosome. Rather, it is a function of what is called the ABO Gene on Chromosome 9. It is probable that the frequency of occurance of Blood Group B in our Donegal Strongs is a function of the fact that Chromosome 9 has been "traveling" in the same endogamous population as our Y-Chromosomes. For further discussion of the Blood Group phenomenon, see Blood Group B and it's relation to the Donegal Bay Strongs. Refer again to the significant differences between our Haplotype patterns and those of the other participants in the Strong DNA study on the one hand, and on the other hand, the rather unique similarities between our Donegal Bay Strongs and Blair Group One.    I  believe  there is a unique DNA haplogroup or haplotype associated with our Donegal Bay Strongs... which originates in Asia. Our unique haplotype pattern seems to be associated with migration of an identifiable group of people from that area through other parts of Europe and on to Scotland and Ulster…   a 5500 man Sarmatian Heavy Armored Calvary troup who were attached to the 6th Legion, Victrix, along the Hadrian Wall by the Roman Emporer Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 175.    See “BORDER REIVERS DNA STUDY--- Discussion of the Hypothesis” .

If you are in contact with other male Strong members of the Donegal lineages who have not yet joined the DNA Study, I hope you will urge them to join in... this stuff is VERY interesting, and we are compiling significant evidence  to help  prove the hypotheses we are related, and how!   We can now extend the scope of the study to include male members of  other Donegal Bay surname groups as well… so invite them in as well!

Regards,


David B. Strong. (Click for contact information)

DNA Study Coordinator & webmaster:
Book I:   RESEARCHING STRONG(E) AND STRANG(E)
IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/contents.htm
Database and manuscript.  See especially Chap. 13,
entitled "Lineages"; and Chapt. 15, "DNA Study"
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnastudy.htm
&
Book II:  THE DONEGAL STRONG PUZZLE:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/indxdrft.htm
Research and study of Counties Donegal and Fermanagh Strongs and
related families.

 

=============================================================

USE Back Button to return to DNA Study Results page, or click:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnaresults.htm