The founding and migration of I2a2b

[jdanel]

I'll tell you why you are wrong, if you like. Though, I must say that there is no need for the bold print.

To begin with, Oppenheimer's 5% estimate for Anglo-Saxon contributions to the gene-pool have been hotly contested as a gross under-estimation. Evidence from Capelli et al, Weale et al and others suggest that the Anglo-Saxons made a considerably larger impact. Others who line up against Oppenheimer's 5% claim are Sir Walter Bodmer who has recently conducted a systematic genetic survey of the British people, and Ken Nordtvedt.

Interestingly too, Oppenheimer based a lot of his work on that of Peter Forster. I have had email contact with Forster recently [his company reanalysed my Ydna results] and he agrees with Sykes that Anglo Saxons are a possibility for 'carriers' of I2a2b to Britain. Anatole Klyosov is of the same view, though he agrees with Tim Owen that most came before the advent of the Anglo-Saxons. Recently too, Jean Manco in The Peopling of Europe suggested that Anglo-Saxons may have carried I2a2b to Britain from Germany along with earlier Celts.

To reiterate my view; a percentage of the English and lowland Scots I2a2b is likely to have arrived with the Anglo-Saxons. There is evidence of a continental, mainly German presence for I2a2b, and enough serious scientists like Sykes and Forster consider it less than a 'Flat Earth' idea that Anglo-Saxons carried I2a2. Sykes has said so since the beginning of Oxford Ancestors, when I2a2 was I1b.

The bulk of I2a2b in Britain seems more ancient, and as Tim Owen says may be connected with pre-Gaelic tribes in the Irish context.

In my opinion, it is Oppenheimer who grossly under-estimates Anglo-Saxon contributions, and you have taken his figure of 5% as the 'math' to work from. Oppenheimer's 5% is truly 'utterly absurd'. Sir Walter Bodmer [in Robin McKie's The Face of Britain, 2006] estimated that Northumberland and Durham were 77% Anglo-Saxon; Sussex and Kent were 71% Anglo-Saxon; Cumbria was 56% Anglo-Saxon; Oxfordshire was 49% Anglo-Saxon etc. These results indicate that 5% is the real 'Flat Earth' theory.

Any questions?

Now we are getting somewhere. We are in agreement that "the bulk" is more ancient.

The question is what amount is that bulk. Lets say we have a pre-existing population with a specific (but unknown) percentage of I2a2. The Anglo-Saxons invade. If their percentage of I2a2 was the same, then the percentage in the post-invasion population would not change. If invaders percentage was more then the post invasion population would be higher and vv.

What is the percentage of I2a2 in the source lands? Almost none. 1% of 1%? And this resulted because almost all the I2a2 from the source areas went selectively with the invading army? No?, so where are they?

Are these English areas high in Saxon not also relatively low in I2a2?

OK, so the I2a2 came with the Anglo-Saxons and then, what, selectively dissociated themselves from the Saxons and took off for Ireland leaving England lower in I2a2, producing the "Irish tilt" mentioned by KN?

more math:

If:
Ireland is 2% and that is representative of the whole population including pre-invasion England,
and
post-invasion England is 1% (Irish tilt)
and
the Dark Horror was 50% replacement,
then
the math still requires a 0% content in the invaders.

Maybe the 5% is "flat earth", but I still get zero I2a2b invaders with 50%. Zero or very near to it.

So the bulk = ~99% and the rest are outliers of some kind.

I think I will hang on to the "absurd", but the bold type was really over the top. The basic cause of the absurdity is the lack of an appropriate source population, whether Anglo Saxon or any other.

 

[Yorkie]

Now we are getting somewhere. We are in agreement that "the bulk" is more ancient.

The question is what amount is that bulk. Lets say we have a pre-existing population with a specific (but unknown) percentage of I2a2. The Anglo-Saxons invade. If their percentage of I2a2 was the same, then the percentage in the post-invasion population would not change. If invaders percentage was more then the post invasion population would be higher and vv.

What is the percentage of I2a2 in the source lands? Almost none. 1% of 1%? And this resulted because almost all the I2a2 from the source areas went selectively with the invading army? No?, so where are they?

Are these English areas high in Saxon not also relatively low in I2a2?

OK, so the I2a2 came with the Anglo-Saxons and then, what, selectively dissociated themselves from the Saxons and took off for Ireland leaving England lower in I2a2, producing the "Irish tilt" mentioned by KN?

more math:

If:
Ireland is 2% and that is representative of the whole population including pre-invasion England,
and
post-invasion England is 1% (Irish tilt)
and
the Dark Horror was 50% replacement,
then
the math still requires a 0% content in the invaders.

Maybe the 5% is "flat earth", but I still get zero I2a2b invaders with 50%. Zero or very near to it.

So the bulk = ~99% and the rest are outliers of some kind.

I think I will hang on to the "absurd", but the bold type was really over the top. The basic cause of the absurdity is the lack of an appropriate source population, whether Anglo Saxon or any other.

I suspect that there is more I2a2 'out there' than current estimates show. Remember that Forster tested my I2a2b subclade D2 signal recently on 43 markers and got Germany as a hotspot. I recall too, Bryan Sykes replying to an email of mine and saying that old I1b signatures cropped up fairly frequently in Orkney and Norway. Now, that contradicts the stats elsewhere. Maybe there was more I2a2 in northern Germany then than there is now, and maybe the current estimates of I2a2 in Britain are too low?

Re the bulk being ancient- I have always said that. That is in line with Tim Owen's 'Genes of the Cruthin', where a percentage is thought to be Germanic and the bulk pre-Gaelic.

 

[jdanel]

I suspect that there is more I2a2 'out there' than current estimates show. Remember that Forster tested my I2a2b subclade D2 signal recently on 43 markers and got Germany as a hotspot. I recall too, Bryan Sykes replying to an email of mine and saying that old I1b signatures cropped up fairly frequently in Orkney and Norway. Now, that contradicts the stats elsewhere. Maybe there was more I2a2 in northern Germany then than there is now, and maybe the current estimates of I2a2 in Britain are too low?

Re the bulk being ancient- I have always said that. That is in line with Tim Owen's 'Genes of the Cruthin', where a percentage is thought to be Germanic and the bulk pre-Gaelic.

"I suspect that there is more I2a2 'out there' than current estimates show"

"Maybe there was more I2a2 in northern Germany then than there is now, and maybe the current estimates of I2a2 in Britain are too low?"

These are certainly possible. We are dealing with the statistics of very small numbers where the "nugget effect" or the lack thereof is a very serious problem and the next sample through the door can change everything. It has not been all that long since the presence of the continentals was thought odd. Now that group is well established. Who can even imagine what future data will show? Albanians, maybe.

But to change the algebra, it would take a really massive discovery of such and that seems quite unlikely.

With the data that now exists, any Gaelic or later "waves" are so tiny as to fall well within the margin of error for the sampling, processing, and recording.

That being the case, this "wave theory" should join the "ether theory" in the dustbin - interesting ideas in their time, but now shown to be entirely wrong unless rescued by possible, but unlikely, future discoveries.

 

[Yorkie]

"I suspect that there is more I2a2 'out there' than current estimates show"

"Maybe there was more I2a2 in northern Germany then than there is now, and maybe the current estimates of I2a2 in Britain are too low?"

These are certainly possible. We are dealing with the statistics of very small numbers where the "nugget effect" or the lack thereof is a very serious problem and the next sample through the door can change everything. It has not been all that long since the presence of the continentals was thought odd. Now that group is well established. Who can even imagine what future data will show? Albanians, maybe.

But to change the algebra, it would take a really massive discovery of such and that seems quite unlikely.

With the data that now exists, any Gaelic or later "waves" are so tiny as to fall well within the margin of error for the sampling, processing, and recording.

That being the case, this "wave theory" should join the "ether theory" in the dustbin - interesting ideas in their time, but now shown to be entirely wrong unless rescued by possible, but unlikely, future discoveries.

I don't know if you are joking about the Albanians, but Ken does indeed have three 'outlier' Albanian I2a2b-Isles haplotypes alongside the Germans, Belgians, French etc.

 

[Yorkie]

I was planning on posting the following pictures sometime and this thread seems a good place as they have to do with pre-R1b Ireland. I was sparked to do so by the map entitled Megalithic Ireland which I believe is incorrect.

These maps are taken from a paper derived from a survey done by the Ordnance Survey of Ireland and Professor Ruaidhri (Rory) De Valera. I lost the link to the paper, so I put a PDF of it on my site: http://ringofgullion.com/graphics/dna/Nuallain.pdf

There are seven distinct epochs in prehistoric Ireland and only the last two are R1b related, so the other five tie into the introduction of the I clades into Ireland and this thread.

I wonder how the four different types of Megaliths tie in with the discussion in this thread. There is controversy as to whether each style was introduced by a new people or by the evolution of the original group. Different I2a2b groups?

What I think is interesting is that the artifacts of all but the Bell Beaker Peoples, are almost entirely in the northern half of the island if you take a line from the Shannon estuary on the west and connect it to the Boyne River on the east. Celtic mythology also speaks of the early Celts dividing the island into Eber's half and Heremon's half, along about the same line. So it seems likely that the influence for them came from Scotland and not directly from France or Spain.

The following are the epochs and the rough dates for each.

Mesolithic: about 6,000 - 4,000 BCE

Neolithic: 4,000 - 2,000 BCE
Court Tombs
Passage Tombs
Portal Tombs (Dolmens)
Wedge Tombs

Bell Beaker: 2,000 - about 500 BCE

LaTene: about 500BCE

Mesolithic

Court Tombs (the oldest)

Passage Graves (next oldest)

Portal Tombs/Dolmens (next oldest)

Wedge Tombs (youngest and overlapped the early Bronze age)

Bell Beaker cist graves

LaTene Celts

Thanks for this interesting contribution. Tim Owen ['Genes of the Cruthin' blog] has argued that the oldest subclade of I2a2b-Isles, clade B [B1, B2] probably entered Britain from Germany, via Doggerland, in the late Mesolithic, entering Scotland first before moving on to Ireland. He has conjectured that there may be a link to the Narrowblade culture which replaced the Broadblade culture. Maybe this is your 'from Scotland' influence.

There were other pre-R1b I haplogroup clades supposedly around in the age of Megaliths. According to Nordtvedt, it appears that M26 I2a1 arrived first from Iberia. Other 'rivals' to I2a2b-Isles are I*and I2b1a.

 

[jdanel]

I don't know if you are joking about the Albanians, but Ken does indeed have three 'outlier' Albanian I2a2b-Isles haplotypes alongside the Germans, Belgians, French etc.

I had read about the Albanians. I put that little blue dotted arrow at the mouth of the Danube on the Grandfathers' Path map (message 6 back on page 1 of this thread) just for them.

 

[how yes no 2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomorians

Fomor might be corruption of Gomer ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomer

this relation of potentially I2a2-Isles Fomorians with Gomer makes sense as modern Germans do correlate with spread of haplogroup I, namely I1 and I2b
.....

Gomer island in Cappadocia in Asia minor and north of Black sea are today I2a2 areas...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Noahsworld_map.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Noahsworld_map.jpg

The medieval myth of Partholon says that his followers were the first to invade Ireland after the flood, but the Fomorians were already there: Seathrún Céitinn reports a tradition that the Fomorians, led by Cíocal, had arrived two hundred years earlier and lived on fish and fowl until Partholon came, bringing the plough and oxen. Partholon defeated Cíocal in the Battle of Magh Ithe, but all his people later died of plague.
Then came Nemed and his followers. Ireland is said to have been empty for thirty years following the death of Partholon's people, but Nemed and his followers encountered the Fomorians when they arrived. At this point Céitinn reports another tradition that the Fomorians were seafarers from Africa, descended from Noah's son Ham. Nemed defeated them in several battles, killing their leaders Gann (1) and Sengann (1) (note that there were two Fir Bolg kings of the same name), but two new Fomorian leaders arose: Conand son of Faebar, who lived in Conand's Tower on Tory Island, County Donegal, and Morc son of Dela (note that the first generation of the Fir Bolg were also said to be sons of Dela).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fomorians

seafarers may be related to sea peoples...but it also can be about haplogroup E spread from Africa, also because they do origin from Noah's son Ham, while Gomer is son of Noah's son Japhet...
...

seafarers from Africa could be Garamantes !!
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=365078&postcount=86

but this may more likely be about spread of I2a1 in UK...

 

[[email protected]]

[h=6]My haplogroup is I2a2b. My father has a rare genetic disease called Hereditary hemochromatosis(HHC), which is caused by the C282Y mutation. HHC is present across Europe and prevalent in parts of Scandinavia. I believe my family was in Nance, France before 1066 and participated in the Norman invasion of England in 1066 and settled in Cornwall. Here is a message that I posted in the Nance family genealogy forum: I believe I found "The French Connection". I read in the Cornwall history that our ancestors were believed to have come to England from France with the Norman conquest in 1066. Then, after checking multiple genetic Y-DNA matches with the surname "LYON". I came to the conclusion that Nance and Lyon families have the same ancestor from France. The city of Nance, France and the city of Lyon, France are only 80 miles from each other! I'm going to try and trace the matching Lyon(s) bloodlines that we are genetically related to and see if that leads us to a common ancestor for both families....Chris Nance[/h]

 

[sparkey]

It's very unlikely that anybody from Cornwall with the surname Nance has their surname derived from Nance, France. Nance (properly spelled nans) is Cornish for valley. Also, the Lyons you match with seem to be from Scotland... I'd guess that the derivation of their name is from the English word lion.

 

[[email protected]]

It's very unlikely that anybody from Cornwall with the surname Nance has their surname derived from Nance, France. Nance (properly spelled nans) is Cornish for valley. Also, the Lyons you match with seem to be from Scotland... I'd guess that the derivation of their name is from the English word lion.

If you google "Lyon Family Crest and History" (I can't post links), you will see that the Lyon surname originates in the Norman settlement Lyons-la-Foret in France, before migrating to Scotland. They were granted lands by Duke William of Normandy for their assistance in the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Lyon and Nance bloodlines combine at some point. I'm tracing the Lyon men with Y-DNA matches to me to see how far back I can go. I'm anxiously awaiting my 37 marker test from FTDNA, I only have 12 markers now...Chris Nance

 

[sparkey]

If you google "Lyon Family Crest and History" (I can't post links), you will see that the Lyon surname originates in the Norman settlement Lyons-la-Foret in France, before migrating to Scotland. They were granted lands by Duke William of Normandy for their assistance in the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Lyon and Nance bloodlines combine at some point. I'm tracing the Lyon men with Y-DNA matches to me to see how far back I can go. I'm anxiously awaiting my 37 marker test from FTDNA, I only have 12 markers now...Chris Nance

One thing among many I don't like about House of Names is how it only gives one etymology. Ancestry is better:

Scottish, English and French: from Old French, Middle English lion (Latin leo, genitive leonis), hence a nickname for a fierce or brave warrior, or a habitational name for someone living at a house distinguished by the sign of a lion.

Scottish, English, French, and Dutch: habitational name from the city of Lyon in south central France (English name: Lyons), or from the smaller Lyons-la-Forêt in Eure, Normandy. The name of the former is recorded in the 1st century bc as Lugdunum and is from the name of a Celtic god Lug (or this as a personal name, from a word meaning ‘brightness’) + dunon ‘hill fort’.

Scottish and English: from the name Leo (from Latin leo ‘lion’, or the cognate Greek leon), borne by numerous early martyrs and thirteen popes.

Irish: reduced Anglicized form of Gaelic Ó Laighin (see Lane 2).

Besides, I can guarantee you that you won't find the Lyons to be your closest matches the more you test. Other Nances have already tested 67 markers... see ySearch IDs N8ZUX and GF7U2. They are pretty close to the Lyons (GD of 6 on 67), but even closer to other surnames, namely Grimes and Malone (GD of 0 to 2 on 37).

 

[[email protected]]

Thanks for your help in being an objective voice in my quest for family history. I noticed that Grimes and Malone are close. I'll have to examine it when my 37 marker comes in. I am the co-administrator of the Nance DNA project, so I can go ahead and check with those other Nances. Here is a theory, that I hope to prove with ancestry, but if not, I'll discover the true story someday. I believe the Lyon and Nance families were both Norman invaders in 1066.
The Lyon family that we share ancestry with came to America from Scotland. The Lyon family story is more well known than Nance. The Lyon family were Normans at one time living in Lyons-de-Foret in Normandy France. They were granted huge tracts of land in Scotland for their help in the Battle of Hastings. Robert the Bruce is an example of one of these Lyon families. Yesterday, I traced the Lyon line that I matched genetically back to Scotland, but no further yet.
In the Nance Register(this is available online as pdf), a letter written by Elijah Nance (Padstow, Cornwall) in 1856 says that the same thing happened with the Nance family in Padstow, Cornwall. He says the Nance family came from the city of Nantes in Normandy, France to Padstow, Cornwall, England in 1066 with the Norman Invasion with William the Conquerer. I propose, as Pete Nance did, that Nances are Normans, thus Scandinavian(perhaps Danish) in Origin. Here is a quote from the letter he wrote:
AFTER THAT BATTLE (OF HASTINGS) DETACHMENTS OF THE ARMY WERE SENT INTO ALL PARTS OF ENGLAND TO TAKE AND CONFISCATE WHAT PROPERTY THEY THOUGHT FIT, AND GENERAL PRIDEAUX CAME TO PADSTOW, IN CORNWALL, AND MY FOREFATHER ESTABLISHED HIMSELF OF THE BARTON OF QUANDRADU, SO THAT THE NAME OF NANCE AND PRIDEAUX HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS AT PADSTOW FOR ABOUT SEVEN HUNDRED AND NINETY YEARS LAST PAST.....................
NEARLY FORTY YEARS SINCE I WAS AT THE STEWARDS HOUSE OF THE ESQUIRE PRIDEAUX, THAT GENTLEMAN ASKED ME WHERE MY FAMILY CAME FROM, I TOLD HIM FROM NANTES, IN NORMANDY, AND THAT MY FAMILY WERE ADVENTURERS WITH THE PRIDEAUX FAMILY, HE SAID HE BELIEVED IT, FOR HE SO FREQUENTLY MET WITH THE NAME OF NANCE IN THE WRITINGS OF THE PRIDEAUX.
BE IT REMEMBERED WITH YOU THAT WHEN THE NORMANS CAME TO
ENGLAND THEY HAD BUT ONE NAME (A CHRISTIAN NAME), BUT THEY TOOK TO
THEMSELVES A SURNAME, AND MY FOREFATHER, AS HE CAME FROM NANTES, IN NORMANDY, WROTE HIS NAME NANCE, AS I SUPPOSE, BEING A MILDER WAY OF PRONOUNCING THE NAME CORRECTLY(IN ENGLISH).

 

[[email protected]]

It is also possible that the Malone family in Ireland also came with the Norman invasion of Connacht, Ireland?
The Norman invasion in Connacht, Ireland in 1175 was led by William de Burgh. The Malone name was first found in Connacht after that invasion. The name Grimes is of Norse-Viking pre 7th century origins, and the derivation is probably from the personal name "Grimr", which appears in the Olde Danish and Olde Swedish as "Grim". It does not appear in England until after the Norman invasion. Many of the Normans were Danes. Thus, the Nance, Grimes, Malone, and Lyon could all be of Norman ancestry.

​

 

[MOESAN]

1- names of different origins can be confused in an identical spelling (LYONS, JEKYLL, WIGAN, COHEN...)- it occurred several times for several surnames everywhere where foreign names was assimiliated to local names or autochtonal surnames assimilated to rulers foreign names - for Nance, the dominant opinion is that it is a genuine cornish name 'nans' (welsh 'nant' "valley", breton 'nant'/'ant' "furrow") BUT it could be some 'Nance' of other origin: the hardest is to prove it!!! for Lyons, it is very more evident: town or village name, "lions" (the animal), gaelic names and so on...
2- I found - the only placename NANCE I found in France is in the Jura, not too far from LYONS, in the Rhône valley and the only NANS I found are in Franche-Comté - the Normandy village is LYONS-LA-FORÊT, not the big town of LYON, that surely never procured soldiers to William the Conqueror !?!
3- Norvegians have very few Y-I2a2 ofr I know, Danes and some regions of Sweden (late immigrations of foreigners? see Vaesterbotten) have more - I know it is not a decisive point for some scattered families-
Things are not always simple -
have a good evening and hold on

 

[[email protected]]

The city of Nantes, in Normandy France, is where my the Nance family in England came from according to the letter I cited above from the Nance Register written by Elijah Nance (Padstow, Cornwall) in 1856. He said they came from Nantes, France in 1066. The name was spelled phonetically as NANS instead of Nantes from 1066 until the 1500's when my direct ancestor, John Nance Esquire(1533-1607), changed the spelling from NANS to NANCE, which the spelling has been ever since. John Nance Esquire was married to Margery Nance, maiden name Arundell of Trerice(1543-1610). Her father, Sir John Arundell (1495-1560), nicknamed "Tilbury Jack" (or Jack of Tilbury), was a commander of the English Royal Navy at the time of King Henry VIII and Edward VI and twice High Sheriff of Cornwall. I say this so that it can be noted that this is a documented historical fact. I appreciate the help you all have given me. The Family names that are similar to Nance genetically are LYON (not Lyons), GRIMES, and MALONE. If any of you know of others, I'd appreciate hearing them. Thanks, Chris Nance

 

[[email protected]]

I joined the I2a2b-Isles group on Ancestry.com. It categorized the Nance haplotype as Isles B1. I notice that along with Lyon, Trueblood is an genetically similar surname. My theory is that the Isles B1 group took part in the Norman invasion of England in 1066.

 

[pipinnacanus]

Thanks for your help in being an objective voice in my quest for family history.
In the Nance Register(this is available online as pdf), a letter written by Elijah Nance (Padstow, Cornwall) in 1856 says that the same thing happened with the Nance family in Padstow, Cornwall. He says the Nance family came from the city of Nantes in Normandy, France to Padstow, Cornwall, England in 1066 with the Norman Invasion
Here is a quote from the letter he wrote:
AFTER THAT BATTLE (OF HASTINGS) DETACHMENTS OF THE ARMY WERE SENT INTO ALL PARTS OF ENGLAND TO TAKE AND CONFISCATE WHAT PROPERTY THEY THOUGHT FIT, AND GENERAL PRIDEAUX CAME TO PADSTOW, IN CORNWALL, AND MY FOREFATHER ESTABLISHED HIMSELF OF THE BARTON OF QUANDRADU, SO THAT THE NAME OF NANCE AND PRIDEAUX HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS AT PADSTOW FOR ABOUT SEVEN HUNDRED AND NINETY YEARS LAST PAST.....................
NEARLY FORTY YEARS SINCE I WAS AT THE STEWARDS HOUSE OF THE ESQUIRE PRIDEAUX, THAT GENTLEMAN ASKED ME WHERE MY FAMILY CAME FROM, I TOLD HIM FROM NANTES, IN NORMANDY, AND THAT MY FAMILY WERE ADVENTURERS WITH THE PRIDEAUX FAMILY, HE SAID HE BELIEVED IT, FOR HE SO FREQUENTLY MET WITH THE NAME OF NANCE IN THE WRITINGS OF THE PRIDEAUX.
BE IT REMEMBERED WITH YOU THAT WHEN THE NORMANS CAME TO
ENGLAND THEY HAD BUT ONE NAME (A CHRISTIAN NAME), BUT THEY TOOK TO
THEMSELVES A SURNAME, AND MY FOREFATHER, AS HE CAME FROM NANTES, IN NORMANDY, WROTE HIS NAME NANCE, AS I SUPPOSE, BEING A MILDER WAY OF PRONOUNCING THE NAME CORRECTLY(IN ENGLISH).

OK.
Stop and use your brain for a second.
This letter is supposedly written around the year 1900 by a man making claims concerning events around the year 1066.
If I write a letter today in the year 2012, full of self-serving claims that no actual evidence exists for, concerning events 850 years ago, making up fantasy claims that strike my fancy about my noble warrior heritage,.. what would be the degree of truthfulness or FACTUAL basis that you would attribute to my assertions about alleged claims handed down to me orally from ancestors 850 years ago???

Hopefully, pretty much ZERO% likely factual would be your response. NO ONE has any oral history from that long ago unless they are a couple royal families that are well known and well documented. Anyone claiming this sort of nonsense is making up what suits their own personal fantasy and hoping for dupes to repeat such nonsense.

In the same way I could not possibly speak authoritatively or have any inherited knowledge from paternal line ancestors passed to me in 2012 from 850 years ago.. neither does the guy you are citing from 1900 a.d. claiming personal details about a very pedestrian family heritage from 850 years before his own birth.

This sort of nonsense gets passed around a lot by delusionals who think that because you can get a DNA result or written account of something that goes back 200 years, this means time was frozen in that entire region or area over the preceding millenia and proves whatever their personal fetish is,when its easily refutable and preposterous.

Even in the .005% of the population that has even a fragment of data going back into their purported paternal line ancestry from 850 years ago, its pretty certain that one or more Non-Paternal Events (NPT) of one sort of another happened across nearly a Millenia of generations - It is exceedingly unlikely that your paternal heritage, or even the most royal of families heritage is truly unbroken and constant across a Millenia. The HG/Snp you bear is simply the last time that it was introgressed or adopted, etc..

Lastly, most people within the common population were not even using a surname of 'Lyon' etc.. till many hundreds of after the Norman Invasion, no one would really be cognizant of 'Norman' heritage by that point in time, and literally NONE of the 1900 a.d. account you are paying reverence to has a single ounce of possible truth to it.

There are many different sources for common surnames and most are adopted pretty late in history, they do not relate to one another genetically in most cases, or all the Irish named "King" would share the same Ht and all be descended from the same traceable royals, which is not the case and never has been.

 

[LeBrok]

I agree with last post. Somebody mentioned before that even royals can't trace their heritage more than 800 years, not even British queen Elizabeth the II. Even the best written records loose trace in Dark Ages, Black Death did lots of mess in Europe too, plus every palace and castle, where records were kept, went through big fire several times, not mentioning that people like falsify records all the time, especially when big money come into play.
And even if there are records, to prove that one comes from straight line from a person that lived 1000 years ago it is not easier by any measure. One would need to find remains and run DNA tests to be almost 100% sure.

 

[[email protected]]

156 years ago, he wrote the letter about events that occurred 790 years prior to that.
I take the letter for what it is, a possibility. I personally can only genetically trace my line back to the 1700's.
Two other Nances that I do not know took DNA tests also and we matched and traced our common ancestor back to the 1700s and proved our common ancestor. What I hope to do is find offspring of the ancestor that was prior to the one we confirmed and compare their genetic test results to ours. If you can do this far enough back, you can get closer to confirming you genetic heritage one step at a time. I'm not claiming Royal heritage at all, just claiming that some of the Isles B1 could possibly be of Norman heritage, or maybe something else. There is nothing spectacular about that at all. The whole idea of grouping similar haplotypes together is so that we can form a theory as to the migration and heritage of our early ancestors.

 

[jdanel]

For L161, this is a speculative extension of Nordtvedt's hypothesis.

http://ecbiz126.inmotionhosting.com/~danelu5/page2.html

It is a much improved, updated and clarified version of post #1 in this thread.

I would appreciate your thoughts and corrections.