World Families Forums - Normandy Y-DNA Project

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 20, 2014, 10:37:19 AM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Normandy Y-DNA Project
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Normandy Y-DNA Project  (Read 3648 times)
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« on: October 25, 2009, 12:16:46 PM »

I have started the Normandy Y-DNA Project at Family Tree DNA:
 
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Normandy/default.aspx
 
WHO CAN JOIN?
Anyone who can actually trace his y-dna (father-to-son) line back to Haute-Normandie, Basse-Normandie, or the Channel Islands (Îles Anglo-Normandes) of Jersey or Guernsey is eligible to join the Normandy Y-DNA Project.

Women can join the Normandy Y-DNA Project by submitting the y-dna test results of a male relative who meets the project membership requirements.

Note: Merely finding that one's surname might have come to the British Isles with the Normans, and/or that a possible earlier French version of it exists, does not by itself constitute tracing one's y-dna line to Normandy.
 
This project is really for those who can actually trace their y-dna ancestry back to Normandy. I realize there are many folks with ancestry in the British Isles who think they are or may be descended from one or more of the Normans who came to Britain with William the Conqueror, but one should have pretty solid evidence of that before joining the Normandy Y-DNA Project.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2009, 12:45:27 PM »

Good project to start!

First question related to "Normans" for me is:
Are "old" Normans, the ones who invaded England 1066AD genetically similar to current day Normans?  Has the population/demographics of Normandy remained stable since then?

Second question:
Are R-L21* current day Normans similar, haplotype-wise, to R-L21* current day Bretons, or at least some subset thereof?

Third question:
What was true old territory that the Normans of the Invasion of England came from?  I assume political boundaries have changed since then.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2009, 01:29:14 PM »

Good project to start!

First question related to "Normans" for me is:
Are "old" Normans, the ones who invaded England 1066AD genetically similar to current day Normans?  Has the population/demographics of Normandy remained stable since then?

Second question:
Are R-L21* current day Normans similar, haplotype-wise, to R-L21* current day Bretons, or at least some subset thereof?

Third question:
What was true old territory that the Normans of the Invasion of England came from?  I assume political boundaries have changed since then.


Third question first: the boundaries aren't much different, except there are small parts of what was once old Normandy that are now in Eure-et-Loir, Mayenne, and Sarthe. I am leaving it to folks with ancestry in those places to make the case for their inclusion in the project.

Second question: Not as far as I can tell, but I have not examined the sets of haplotypes closely. We have six Normans and four Bretons in the R-L21 Plus Project. Unless I missed something, they don't match each other or otherwise show up on each other's haplotype radar.

Your first question is THE sixty-four-thousand-dollar question for all of genetic genealogy, or at least for that part of it concerned with deep ancestry. I think the genetic make-up of Normandy has been fairly stable, up until recently, that is. I don't know how the current flood of Islamic immigrants to France has affected Normandy.

The "old Normans" you mention are of some concern to me and are why I hesitated to even announce this project. One of my fears is that the project will get clogged up with - pardon the expression (and I mean no offense to anyone) - "Norman wannabes". If that happens, its data won't be of much use to anyone. So I have to force myself to maintain fairly rigid standards of membership so that the project will be useful to those who really want to find out something about the y-dna profile of Normandy.

I myself am not a member. I don't meet the standards of membership and am not claiming Norman ancestry. I started the project because I went looking for such a project one day and couldn't find one (which floored me) and also because we started picking up quite a few Normans in the R-L21 Plus Project, and that piqued my interest.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2009, 01:33:36 PM by rms2 » Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2009, 03:53:41 PM »

There are probably a lot of people living in Normandy today who came there from elsewhere in fairly recent times. But since you are restricting the project to whose ancestors lived in Normandy some time ago, I think that problem should be minimzed. I am not aware of any major population movements into Normandy since the 11th century. More problematic might be the population movement out of Normandy in the 11th century. Were those who left for England and Italy genetically representative of Normandy as a whole, or might they have been more likeley to have been descendants of the Scandinavian element, who may have been disproportionally represented in the knightly and aristocratic classes?
In any case, I think it is a very valid enterprise.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2009, 08:58:10 PM »

There are probably a lot of people living in Normandy today who came there from elsewhere in fairly recent times. But since you are restricting the project to whose ancestors lived in Normandy some time ago, I think that problem should be minimzed. I am not aware of any major population movements into Normandy since the 11th century. More problematic might be the population movement out of Normandy in the 11th century. Were those who left for England and Italy genetically representative of Normandy as a whole, or might they have been more likeley to have been descendants of the Scandinavian element, who may have been disproportionally represented in the knightly and aristocratic classes?
In any case, I think it is a very valid enterprise.

I don't think the knightly class totally flew the coop during the Normans' expansionist phase. After all, they had holdings in Normandy, too.

I just want to see what we can see in terms of y lines that can be reasonably traced to Normandy. I know there are a lot of expectations where Normandy is concerned, and a lot of assumptions about what its y dna should like (the expectation of loads of I1 for one thing).

Given enough time, it should be enlightening.
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2009, 03:07:24 PM »

There are probably a lot of people living in Normandy today who came there from elsewhere in fairly recent times. But since you are restricting the project to whose ancestors lived in Normandy some time ago, I think that problem should be minimzed. I am not aware of any major population movements into Normandy since the 11th century. More problematic might be the population movement out of Normandy in the 11th century. Were those who left for England and Italy genetically representative of Normandy as a whole, or might they have been more likeley to have been descendants of the Scandinavian element, who may have been disproportionally represented in the knightly and aristocratic classes?
In any case, I think it is a very valid enterprise.

I don't think the knightly class totally flew the coop during the Normans' expansionist phase. After all, they had holdings in Normandy, too.

I just want to see what we can see in terms of y lines that can be reasonably traced to Normandy. I know there are a lot of expectations where Normandy is concerned, and a lot of assumptions about what its y dna should like (the expectation of loads of I1 for one thing).

Given enough time, it should be enlightening.

When King John lost Normandy to the French in 1204, those who possessed lands in both lands were forced to chose between one or the other. Most opted for their English possessions and forfeited those in Normandy. True, some split the lands with one branch taking the English lands and the other the Normandy ones, but I don't believe this was often the case.
That aside, I am in full agreement with the objects of the project. What I think you will find difficult is excluding those whose paper trails to Normandy probably wouldn't withstand a close scrutiny.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2009, 08:25:36 PM »


When King John lost Normandy to the French in 1204, those who possessed lands in both lands were forced to chose between one or the other. Most opted for their English possessions and forfeited those in Normandy. True, some split the lands with one branch taking the English lands and the other the Normandy ones, but I don't believe this was often the case.
That aside, I am in full agreement with the objects of the project. What I think you will find difficult is excluding those whose paper trails to Normandy probably wouldn't withstand a close scrutiny.

I think by 1204 there were plenty of Anglo-Norman lines who had relatives resident in Normandy to take the place of those who chose their holdings in England. I doubt if the result was abandoned castles taken over by "genetic interlopers", but I guess anything is possible.

I can't run the Norman equivalent of the Mayflower Society, so the possibility of bad paper trails exists, just as it does in every dna project. Thus far all but one of our members is an actual Frenchman.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 08:29:35 PM by rms2 » Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2009, 10:11:41 PM »


When King John lost Normandy to the French in 1204, those who possessed lands in both lands were forced to chose between one or the other. Most opted for their English possessions and forfeited those in Normandy. True, some split the lands with one branch taking the English lands and the other the Normandy ones, but I don't believe this was often the case.
That aside, I am in full agreement with the objects of the project. What I think you will find difficult is excluding those whose paper trails to Normandy probably wouldn't withstand a close scrutiny.

I think by 1204 there were plenty of Anglo-Norman lines who had relatives resident in Normandy to take the place of those who chose their holdings in England. I doubt if the result was abandoned castles taken over by "genetic interlopers", but I guess anything is possible.


Unfortunately it didn't work like that. Phillip Augustus, the French king, simply confiscated the lands in Normandy which belonged to the Anglo-Norman aristocracy. A very few families abandoned England for Normandy, but the vast majority of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy simply lost all their possessions in Normandy. Thereafter they became English rather than Normans.
No, I'm not suggesting they were replaced by genetic outsiders, though some of them may well have been. I just add a cautionary note that the separation of much of the Norman aristocracy from Normandy in 1204 may mean that the pre-Conquest composition may have been somewhat different from that of a more modern time.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 11:52:38 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2009, 07:45:33 PM »


Unfortunately it didn't work like that. Phillip Augustus, the French king, simply confiscated the lands in Normandy which belonged to the Anglo-Norman aristocracy. A very few families abandoned England for Normandy, but the vast majority of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy simply lost all their possessions in Normandy. Thereafter they became English rather than Normans.
No, I'm not suggesting they were replaced by genetic outsiders, though some of them may well have been. I just add a cautionary note that the separation of much of the Norman aristocracy from Normandy in 1204 may mean that the pre-Conquest composition may have been somewhat different from that of a more modern time.

I know Phillip II ran the English out of Normandy, but is there any evidence he ran all the Norman nobility out, as well? I don't mean that in an argumentative way. I would be interested to know if Phillip went in and replaced Norman lords with nobles from elsewhere in France or even elsewhere in Europe.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2009, 07:46:14 PM by rms2 » Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2009, 09:21:17 PM »


Unfortunately it didn't work like that. Phillip Augustus, the French king, simply confiscated the lands in Normandy which belonged to the Anglo-Norman aristocracy. A very few families abandoned England for Normandy, but the vast majority of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy simply lost all their possessions in Normandy. Thereafter they became English rather than Normans.
No, I'm not suggesting they were replaced by genetic outsiders, though some of them may well have been. I just add a cautionary note that the separation of much of the Norman aristocracy from Normandy in 1204 may mean that the pre-Conquest composition may have been somewhat different from that of a more modern time.

I know Phillip II ran the English out of Normandy, but is there any evidence he ran all the Norman nobility out, as well? I don't mean that in an argumentative way. I would be interested to know if Phillip went in and replaced Norman lords with nobles from elsewhere in France or even elsewhere in Europe.
The vast bulk of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy, ie those who possessed lands in both England and Normandy, were separted from Normandy forever in 1204. As I said, there are a few notable examples who chose to be French subjects and were allowed to retain their lands and position in Normandy. The others weren't so much run out as not allowed to return. Who Phillip gave their lands to, and who replaced the former aristocracy are good questions, and I freely admit I don't know the answers. There might be something in Powicke's Loss of Normandy, but I don't have it. The basic problem for people like me who don't read French is that English historians lose all interest in Normandy after 1204.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2009, 09:24:57 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2009, 12:23:38 AM »


Unfortunately it didn't work like that. Phillip Augustus, the French king, simply confiscated the lands in Normandy which belonged to the Anglo-Norman aristocracy. A very few families abandoned England for Normandy, but the vast majority of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy simply lost all their possessions in Normandy. Thereafter they became English rather than Normans.
No, I'm not suggesting they were replaced by genetic outsiders, though some of them may well have been. I just add a cautionary note that the separation of much of the Norman aristocracy from Normandy in 1204 may mean that the pre-Conquest composition may have been somewhat different from that of a more modern time.

I know Phillip II ran the English out of Normandy, but is there any evidence he ran all the Norman nobility out, as well? I don't mean that in an argumentative way. I would be interested to know if Phillip went in and replaced Norman lords with nobles from elsewhere in France or even elsewhere in Europe.
The vast bulk of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy, ie those who possessed lands in both England and Normandy, were separted from Normandy forever in 1204. As I said, there are a few notable examples who chose to be French subjects and were allowed to retain their lands and position in Normandy. The others weren't so much run out as not allowed to return. Who Phillip gave their lands to, and who replaced the former aristocracy are good questions, and I freely admit I don't know the answers. There might be something in Powicke's Loss of Normandy, but I don't have it. The basic problem for people like me who don't read French is that English historians lose all interest in Normandy after 1204.
Regardless of the Norman royalty, what about the "peasants" in the famous Norman feudal system?  What's the ratio of knights to tenants in chief and then Peasants to knights? 
Surely many had to remain to tend to the land and produce the food for everyone.  The knights and nobles might kill each other, but it does no good to kill the laborers.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2009, 11:00:04 AM »

Regardless of the Norman royalty, what about the "peasants" in the famous Norman feudal system?  What's the ratio of knights to tenants in chief and then Peasants to knights? 
Surely many had to remain to tend to the land and produce the food for everyone.  The knights and nobles might kill each other, but it does no good to kill the laborers.

You are absolutely right, of course, but I think Goldenhind is getting at the general interest in identifying the viking element in Normandy (if there was much of one, genetically speaking), which probably was greater among the landed class than among the peasants.

I suspect there was a thin veneer of descendants of Scandinavians among the Normans and that most of the people descended from the old Gallo-Roman population.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2009, 12:34:37 PM »

Regardless of the Norman royalty, what about the "peasants" in the famous Norman feudal system?  What's the ratio of knights to tenants in chief and then Peasants to knights? 
Surely many had to remain to tend to the land and produce the food for everyone.  The knights and nobles might kill each other, but it does no good to kill the laborers.

You are absolutely right, of course, but I think Goldenhind is getting at the general interest in identifying the viking element in Normandy (if there was much of one, genetically speaking), which probably was greater among the landed class than among the peasants.

I suspect there was a thin veneer of descendants of Scandinavians among the Normans and that most of the people descended from the old Gallo-Roman population.
That would be my guess as well.  Many are likely old Romano-Gauls.  Some may be prehistoric Bretons, if there is such a thing, or re-cycled Briton-Bretons.  I guess there could be some old Frank's... right?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2009, 06:49:50 PM »

That would be my guess as well.  Many are likely old Romano-Gauls.  Some may be prehistoric Bretons, if there is such a thing, or re-cycled Briton-Bretons.  I guess there could be some old Frank's... right?

My guess is that the Frankish element was never all that large either, which is why the French speak a Romance language whose speech patterns were strongly influenced by the native Celtic language of the people.
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2009, 11:19:19 PM »

No one really knows what the genetic composition of Normandy is or was. It has suffered a number of invasions, by Celts, Romans, Saxons, Franks and finally Scandinavians, and what portion each group contributed is a matter of speculation to a certain degree. Historians have hotly debated the extent of the Scandinavian settlement, and tend to fall into one of two opposing camps.
Historian D. C. Douglas adapts a middle ground. His words may be of interest.

"The crucial question thus arises as to how far ...[Normandy] ... had been modified during the ninth and tenth centuries by the Scandinavian settlement in Normandy.
It is generally agreed that Normandy in 1066 was an exceptional province, and it is both plausible and very usual to account for this individuality by reference to the intrusion of a Scandinavian population into this area of Gaul. Nor is evidence wanting to support this suggestion. The number of Rolf's followers who were given land in Neustria is not known, but the region in which they were settled had been subject to continuous visitations from Scandinavia for nearly a hundred years. The exceptional violence of the Viking attack in the valley of the lower Seine is well attested, and Norman chroniclers of a later date are unanimous in asserting that considerable depopulation then took place.  Due allowance must here be made for exaggeration, but the testimony albeit late is not to be wholly set aside easily. The process, moreover, did not end with the coming of Rolf. It is known that considerable migration into this region took place during the central decades of the ninth century, and the agrarian revolt in Normandy which marked the close was so remarkable that it is tempting to explain it by the survival among a newly settled warrior pesantry of traditions of personal freedom comparable to those which the peasantry of the North Mercian Danelaw retained until the time of Domesday.
...[T]he surprising number of [Scandinavian place-names] ...has been held to indicate that the settlement of large groups of peasant warriors from Scandinavia in Neustria was, to say the least, exceptional.
Doubtless Scandinavian influence varied from district to district in Neustria, and certainly it was stronger in the west than in the east."
« Last Edit: November 01, 2009, 11:22:06 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2009, 08:43:20 AM »

Interesting. Sounds like he comes down on the side of extensive Scandinavian settlement in Normandy, especially in the West.

When I was communicating with Turpin, who is of Norman descent, belongs to the R-L21 Plus Project but who has not yet joined the Normandy Y-DNA Project, I found out that his surname is supposed to have been derived originally with the viking given name Thorfinn.

I didn't give it that much thought because I know there are many such etymologies out there, and I'm not sure of their credibility.

But, anyway, if there was extensive Scandinavian settlement in Normandy, shouldn't we see a lot of I1 there? Maybe we will eventually, but we haven't yet.

I didn't mention any of the R1b or R1a clades because their Scandinavian origin will be disputed and probably attributed to something else, except for maybe some U106 and subclades, which many people have already decided is Germanic or Scandinavian wherever it shows up. I don't think there is much R1a in Normandy, although I could be surprised.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2009, 09:35:54 AM »

No one really knows what the genetic composition of Normandy is or was. It has suffered a number of invasions, by Celts, Romans, Saxons, Franks and finally Scandinavians, and what portion each group contributed is a matter of speculation to a certain degree. Historians have hotly debated the extent of the Scandinavian settlement, and tend to fall into one of two opposing camps.
Historian D. C. Douglas adapts a middle ground. His words may be of interest.

"The crucial question thus arises as to how far ...[Normandy] ... had been modified during the ninth and tenth centuries by the Scandinavian settlement in Normandy.
It is generally agreed that Normandy in 1066 was an exceptional province, and it is both plausible and very usual to account for this individuality by reference to the intrusion of a Scandinavian population into this area of Gaul. Nor is evidence wanting to support this suggestion. The number of Rolf's followers who were given land in Neustria is not known, but the region in which they were settled had been subject to continuous visitations from Scandinavia for nearly a hundred years. The exceptional violence of the Viking attack in the valley of the lower Seine is well attested, and Norman chroniclers of a later date are unanimous in asserting that considerable depopulation then took place.  Due allowance must here be made for exaggeration, but the testimony albeit late is not to be wholly set aside easily. The process, moreover, did not end with the coming of Rolf. It is known that considerable migration into this region took place during the central decades of the ninth century, and the agrarian revolt in Normandy which marked the close was so remarkable that it is tempting to explain it by the survival among a newly settled warrior pesantry of traditions of personal freedom comparable to those which the peasantry of the North Mercian Danelaw retained until the time of Domesday.
...[T]he surprising number of [Scandinavian place-names] ...has been held to indicate that the settlement of large groups of peasant warriors from Scandinavia in Neustria was, to say the least, exceptional.
Doubtless Scandinavian influence varied from district to district in Neustria, and certainly it was stronger in the west than in the east."
What is the origin of the "Vikings" who entered Normandy?   Are they from Atlantic Norway, Southern Sweden, Denmark?

Has much R1a been found in Normandy and is it more the East European (possibly LBK) kind or a Scandinavian kind?
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2009, 04:12:33 PM »

No one really knows what the genetic composition of Normandy is or was. It has suffered a number of invasions, by Celts, Romans, Saxons, Franks and finally Scandinavians, and what portion each group contributed is a matter of speculation to a certain degree. Historians have hotly debated the extent of the Scandinavian settlement, and tend to fall into one of two opposing camps.
Historian D. C. Douglas adapts a middle ground. His words may be of interest.

"The crucial question thus arises as to how far ...[Normandy] ... had been modified during the ninth and tenth centuries by the Scandinavian settlement in Normandy.
It is generally agreed that Normandy in 1066 was an exceptional province, and it is both plausible and very usual to account for this individuality by reference to the intrusion of a Scandinavian population into this area of Gaul. Nor is evidence wanting to support this suggestion. The number of Rolf's followers who were given land in Neustria is not known, but the region in which they were settled had been subject to continuous visitations from Scandinavia for nearly a hundred years. The exceptional violence of the Viking attack in the valley of the lower Seine is well attested, and Norman chroniclers of a later date are unanimous in asserting that considerable depopulation then took place.  Due allowance must here be made for exaggeration, but the testimony albeit late is not to be wholly set aside easily. The process, moreover, did not end with the coming of Rolf. It is known that considerable migration into this region took place during the central decades of the ninth century, and the agrarian revolt in Normandy which marked the close was so remarkable that it is tempting to explain it by the survival among a newly settled warrior pesantry of traditions of personal freedom comparable to those which the peasantry of the North Mercian Danelaw retained until the time of Domesday.
...[T]he surprising number of [Scandinavian place-names] ...has been held to indicate that the settlement of large groups of peasant warriors from Scandinavia in Neustria was, to say the least, exceptional.
Doubtless Scandinavian influence varied from district to district in Neustria, and certainly it was stronger in the west than in the east."
What is the origin of the "Vikings" who entered Normandy?   Are they from Atlantic Norway, Southern Sweden, Denmark?

Has much R1a been found in Normandy and is it more the East European (possibly LBK) kind or a Scandinavian kind?
Studies of Scandinavian personal names in Normandy indicate the vast bulk of them came from Denmark, though there are indications of a Irish/Norwegian element in the Cotentin peninsula. Many of the latter probably came by way of Ireland.
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2009, 04:34:24 PM »

Interesting. Sounds like he comes down on the side of extensive Scandinavian settlement in Normandy, especially in the West.

When I was communicating with Turpin, who is of Norman descent, belongs to the R-L21 Plus Project but who has not yet joined the Normandy Y-DNA Project, I found out that his surname is supposed to have been derived originally with the viking given name Thorfinn.


The reliable Oxford Dictionary of English Surnames (3rd. rev. ed.) says : "Þorfinnr is found in Normandy where the earliest examples of Turpin occur and the modern surname is common." The surname is also found in England and is given that same origin.

Douglas isn't really in the camp that emphasizes the Scandinavian impact on Normandy. The historian David Bates, who is regarded as minimizing the Scandinavian impact, spends several pages assessing the evidence for the amount of the Scandinavian settlement and gives this summary:

"On balance, the the Norman place-name evidence seems to be indicative of a heavy settlement during the first decades of the province's history. This would conform with the steady extension by Rollo and William Longsword of the territory under their control, a development which encouraged continuing immigration, some of it from England and Ireland [referring  primarily to Scandinavian settlers in those nations], and with the instability prevalent during these early years. The settlement was in some respects merely that of a new, highly militarised, ruling group, but in many regions there was also a large settlement of farmers." (from Normandy Before 1066).
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2009, 05:09:24 PM »

This map shows the density of Scandinavian place-names in Normandy.

http://www.viking.no/e/france/place_name_map.html
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2009, 08:41:06 PM »

This map shows the density of Scandinavian place-names in Normandy.

http://www.viking.no/e/france/place_name_map.html

Yes that map shows that even in Normandy, Norse settlement was only in part of the region.  This is also true of British names in Brittany.  On a bigger scale it is also true of the Germanic Frankish language which only left placenames in any desnsity in NE France although they governed the whole country and more.   
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2009, 08:49:26 PM »

The Irish annals are full of stuff about wars with and settlements of Vikings in Ireland and the founding by them of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Wexford. (bascally most of southern Ireland's major early secular towns.  There are plenty of Norse placenames.  Yet there is practically no trace of them in the DNA.  So, a phase of settlement does not necessarily leave a lasting impact genetically.
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2009, 10:10:53 PM »

The Irish annals are full of stuff about wars with and settlements of Vikings in Ireland and the founding by them of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Wexford. (bascally most of southern Ireland's major early secular towns.  There are plenty of Norse placenames.  Yet there is practically no trace of them in the DNA.  So, a phase of settlement does not necessarily leave a lasting impact genetically.
I think it may be a little premature to dismiss any Scandinavian genetic impact in Ireland altogether. However there is a significant difference between Ireland and Normandy. In Ireland, unlike Normandy, most of the Vikings were eventually ejected.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2009, 08:41:28 PM »

If the L21 in Norway is native and not of foreign provenance, then some of the L21 in Ireland could be Norwegian, as well. It might be hard to sift it, but it is possible.
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #24 on: November 03, 2009, 10:18:28 PM »

If the L21 in Norway is native and not of foreign provenance, then some of the L21 in Ireland could be Norwegian, as well. It might be hard to sift it, but it is possible.
Agreed. I don't think we have a very good handle at all on Scandinavian DNA at present. What testing has been done for various studies relies on "bikini haplotypes, " whiich for R1b at least, makes it difficult to distinguish from other R1b. I think we are going to have to identify a number of further downstream SNPs before we can make any sense of the history of R1b in Europe. Some thorough testing in the east would also help determine where some of these subclades arose. Are the Greek L21 and the Ukrainian P312* merely outliers, or were these subclades born somewhere in eastern Europe?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.16 seconds with 19 queries.