Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Viking FGC23343

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • benowicz
    replied
    Thank you kindly! I've just responded via email. Hopefully 2020 will be a year of answers for this clade!

    Leave a comment:


  • Edgeworth
    replied
    Benowicz! Thank you for all of your work unraveling the mysteries of FGC28369 and FGC23343. I too have been working on this mystery for some time, albeit from an Edgeworth-centric perspective. I'd like to send you a copy of my book, Domesday DNA, to see if you find some useful nuggets to help you discover the truth about FGC28369.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    So this possible connection between the Doreys and the de Forz family is just a coincidence. That Testa de Nevil entry showing a Geoffrey "Dory" at Holland, Lincolnshire in the Honour of Albmemarle is actually referring to one Geoffrey D'Oyry, son of Fulk D'Oyry, whose family were definitely from eastern France and not Poitou. They were long time adherents of the family of the wife of the first William de Forz, Awise.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=Vl...Aumale&f=false

    Not entirely unexpected, since the donor's family have only known a history in the Channel Islands, but a return to the start. Maybe an undocumented Gascon emigrant to the opposite shore of England, where the name is not uncommon, or maybe really part of the colonization of western Normandy from Ireland and Scotland after all, as hypothesized at the beginning of this whole process. Or maybe an NPE with some family like Jamouneau, who are supposed to have been Huguenot refugees of the 18th century from Poitou; the Doreys proper have been in the Islands since the 1500s at least.

    https://www.theislandwiki.org/index.php/Jamouneau

    It would be nice to know whether Henderson and Dorey share any SNPS under FGC23343.



    Originally posted by benowicz View Post
    To my knowledge, that Dorey fellow from the old YSearch database had never been tested for FGC23343, so his apparent "near match" to some members of the FGC28369 could be an extreme example of STR convergence. Certainly there is some level of convergence going on, given the observed level of matching among the various members of the FGC28369 group--it's just a question of how extreme it is. The relationship could be as near as 1000 A.D.

    Anyhow, there is one reference to a Geoffrey Dory in the Testa de Neville, at Holland, Lincolnshire, within the honour of Albemarle.

    https://archive.org/details/liberfeo...1grea/page/548

    The Testa was compiled in 1302 based on records of nearly 100 years earlier, when the de Forz family from Oleron, France that I mentioned earlier were earls of Albemarle.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willia...l_of_Albemarle

    Also mentioned in that entry from the Testa were the de Gresley/de Grelley family of Lancashire, who shared an interest in Ecclestone, Lancashire with the Garnet family at this same time (i.e., Henry III).

    http://www.shissem.com/Hissem_Gernets_of_Halton.html


    For a long time now the Dorey name has been primarily found in the Channel Islands and across the way in Dorsetshire, and there probably is no particular reason to believe that either of those branches relate to this Lincolnshire family. But it is interesting, may be worth noting as a place to begin future research. The de Gresleys were from Avranches on the Cotentin peninsula, as were the d'Aubignys with whom the Garnets allied themselves early on, so maybe that will become significant vis-a-vis the earliest recorded Doreys at Etourville in Manche.
    Last edited by benowicz; 28 May 2020, 01:30 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Thanks for the recommendation, Biblioteque. It's good to cast a wide net when there is so much uncertainty surrounding a case.

    Which obviously held true here. There were a good many 'aha' moments that turned out to be only coincidences until the true composition, depth and haplotype diversity of the de Garnett group became apparent. Now I feel there is a solid foundational core beginning to emerge in the study of this subclade.

    There are still real mysteries remaining, of course. Given the historical bias, there may never be a true resolution to the question of the extent of "viking" FGC23343. If my "de Turenne's army" hypothesis for German FGC23343 is true, it happened recently enough that there is a real, if small, chance that these men turn up with robust matches to donors with deep family histories in Saintonge. In any event, there appear to be at least two distinct lineages of them, so it would be interesting to see whether they share any SNPs under FGC23343.

    Leave a comment:


  • Biblioteque
    replied
    https://www.genealogics.org/

    benowicz: I re-read your entire thread and links; and I appreciate your great research, some of which was an illumination for a few of my "cast of characters."

    For reference (if you have not yet found him), the work of Leo van de Pas (deceased) is greatly respected and is being carried on by others. He previously did work for the Royals.
    Last edited by Biblioteque; 22 May 2020, 02:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Biblioteque
    replied
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305903/

    AndrewRoss: Okay, if you are a Viking, who in your family has Dupuytrens? LOL

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    You seem to have stumbled on to this thread without much background into this specific clade. You need to understand that FCG23343 represents an incredibly tiny pool of donors--less than 50 in total, and only about 11 distinct lineages, discovered only a couple of years ago. It's not like these monstrously large groups with tens of thousands of representatives who, by their sheer numbers can reasonably be expected to yield a statistically reliable geographic distribution.

    If you come from a very ordinary, very common clade whose origins are well-supported and obvious, well good for you. But I wouldn't waste my time writing about something that was so simple and straightforward.

    Luckily the FGC28369 represents a rare opportunity to legitimately leverage Medieval archives. It's hard, requiring a lengthy iterative process of hypthesis and re-evaluation, but it's lightyears better than acritically extrapolating from a base of 5 donors whose pedigrees don't go beyond 1600, as SNP Tracker seems to have done for FGC23343.

    But even so, ZZ40's origins are so obviously in the Basque country that there's just no excuse for SNP Tracker's mistake there. Granted, on a relative basis, ZZ40 and its ancestor Z209 are far from the most common clades in the published databases, but those that are reported clearly cluster in the Basque country and not where SNP Tracker put them. There are at least several thousand of them.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Not saying that anybody is or is not definitely a viking descendant without any more proof than their own say so. But I've just given you tons of excellent reasons to doubt that site.

    At least with respect to FGC23343. It's an incredibly small subclade. Nobody should expect that the EKA of the identified positive donors to date to be a terribly reliable representation of the subclade's ultimate origins.

    On the other hand, their positioning of the center of ZZ40 is obviously way off. That one is a head-scratcher.

    My guess is that they're just not putting a whole lot of effort into researching the origins of subclades. They're probably just dumping in un-tested self-reported data without any effort to qualify their findings. It's probably 'good enough' for certain well-represented clades--the ones whose distribution just coincidentally matches the typical customer profile for these tests. But France is definitely a special case, given legal restrictions on marketing.

    In short: indefensibly way off with regard to FGC23343.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewRoss
    replied
    Some of us really are descendants of Vikings.
    It is very clear on SNP tracker.

    No reason to doubt the site.


    R-FT40329

    R-FT95849

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    My first thought was that there was a very large incidence of NPEs within FGC23343, but on reflection that may not be so. Quite the opposite, it may actually be considerably lower than the population average. Or maybe it's the best estimate of the true incidence available. Here's my thought process:

    Of the roughly 18 FGC23343 families I've seen to date (proven & predicted by haplotype), I think there is reasonable evidence of a change of surname for 50% of them since ~1400 A.D., which I think is the consensus, if arbitrary, date usually assigned to the commencement of hereditary surnames in Western Europe. Call that an NPE or not, but that's about 3% per generation, considerably less than the 10% rate I normally hear bandied about for NPEs.

    FGC23343 is kind of a weird one because it's such a small group and because the current distribution of its donors doesn't reflect at all its most likely place of origin, whether that's due to marketing problems in France or whatever. But that oddness probably provides a unique window on the broader phenom of NPEs that would usually be masked by the relative local homogeneity of Y DNA signatures in Britain, etc.
    Last edited by benowicz; 17 May 2020, 07:07 AM. Reason: Typos

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Another point that just strikes me now--the de Garnetts may well be the ONLY Gascon family recorded in England before the accession of Henry II in 1154. That's not really surprising given the typical profile of the Conqueror's supporters, but it does underscore my expectation that this type of Y DNA signature should be very rare in England, even rarer in mainland Scotland.

    The overall impression of Medieval Gascon immigration to Britain and Ireland is that it started very late, tapered off very early (i.e., after the loss of Gascony to France in 1451) and that even at its height was almost negligible, comprised disproportionately of nobles and merchants. I have read historical accounts of some Gascon sailors from more modest backgrounds congregating in ports of the south-west, but this precariat don't seem to be the sort of people likely to leave a large, enduring footprint in the genetics of the local population.

    The apparently longer-lasting impact of early Gascons in Ireland should probably not be a surprise, though. The Gascons had a reputation as fighters throughout Europe, and they would have found no shortage of opportunity in Ireland. Plus, the studies I've seen regarding the distribution of the so-called sixth-century E Ware pottery in archaeological sites, presumed to have come from the south west coast of France, are heavily concentrated in Ireland, with somewhat fewer in the Inner Hebrides and Argyll, and the least in south western England. There's an enduring connection here that may be one of those really under-studied areas of pre-modern European history.

    I think most population estimates of the Middle Ages show Ireland hovering around a third of the size of England, so we shouldn't expect, in absolute terms, an enormous number of FGC23343+ donors there, either, but I may have come across one, based on a partial haplotype analysis. There are definitely other, currently unexplained Z209+ folks in Ireland. The only evidence I've seen for a large scale Z209+ kindred expansion in Ireland would be the de Burgo/Burke/Bourke family. There are all sorts of speculative pedigrees that give them an origin in La Manche, Normandy, but on closer examination, the oldest authenticated record I can find of them is in Norfolk, England. There are enough donors from their phylogenetic branch, S21184+, in Scandinavia to make me think they may well have had a presence there before the Viking era, but they are significantly older than FGC23343+--estimated age of 3,100 years ago. I think I have also seen a couple of other, non-Burke S21184+ in Ireland.

    If many more FGC23343+ donors turn up with verified ancestry in Britain and Ireland, I think they're most likely to come from 17th century Huguenot settlers.
    Last edited by benowicz; 12 May 2020, 06:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Reviewing these English families of Gascon origin presents an interesting point by contrast with the single Shetland FGC23343+ identified to date--they all came to England through military service, sometimes, at least in the case of the de Foix, fighting AGAINST Scotland. Although obviously located in the modern nation of France, in the High Middle Ages, Gascony was ruled by the English kings, and from 1295 Scotland was always allied with the kingdom of France against England.

    Pre-Jacobean Scots/English relations were complicated, with families constantly defecting across the border in either direction all the time. And Shetland only came to Scotland in the 15th century. But it does seem that the forces driving early Gascon emigration worked against Scotland as a destination. So we should probably expect relatively few incidences of FGC23343+ in Scotland, and those that do exist probably date from the Early Middle Ages or earlier. I guess that is a point, tentative and speculative as it is, for positing a "Viking" origin to Shetland FGC23343.
    Last edited by benowicz; 12 May 2020, 01:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Using the de Garnett/FGC28369+ plus group as a reference point from which to develop the historical context of FGC23343 in Britain and Ireland, I tried to identify all the notable Gascon families who are known to have settled there, at least temporarily, during the High Middle Ages. There really aren't many, and they don't create a confident impression of any kind of unified network. Here they are below:

    de Forz earls of Albemarle: Originally lords of Oleron, one member became admiral to the English king Richard I, who arranged his marriage to the heiress of the earldom of Albemarle, whose lands in England centered on the Scottish borders and Lincolnshire. This line became extinct in the 13th century upon the death of the celebrated heiress, Aveline de Forz. Of all the notable Gascons identified, this family seems most likely to connect to currently identified FGC23343+ donors, although the evidence is very obscure and circumstantial.

    There is an interesting entry in the Testa de Nevil that could possibly refer to the ancestor of one (suspected) FGC23343+ donor, Dorey, but there is a massive gap in the documentary record making this wildly speculative. The Testa reference is to Holland, Lincolnshire, but the name has been almost unheard of there for nearly 800 years, and the donor's family knows of no heritage outside of Guernesey in the Channel Islands--although at its widest extent, the de Forz patrimony also included the Isle of Wight.

    There might also be a plausible, but very oblique connection to Vivian de Garnett, whose patron, Roger 'the Poitevin' de Montgomery had a niece cloistered at Saintes, where the de Forz family were hereditary provosts. St. Vivian was the patron of Saintes.

    By comparison of 67-marker haplotypes, there appears to be some level of convergence going on, as Dorey seems unusually close to the overall modal, and therefore assignment to any specific sub-lineage is very unclear. But the Dorey signature is very close to some branches of FGC28369, especially the Swifts. Maybe, at a very optimistic estimate, Dorey branched off from FGC28369 around 1000 A.D., just before the earliest certain record of the de Garnetts.

    Piers Gaveston, earl of Cornwall: This man, from an obscure background, gained fame through his scandalous association with the English king Edward II. There is an outside possibility that he left an illegitimate daughter who married a yeoman of the royal household, but his line effectively ended with his death.

    de Vivonne of Somerset: There was a Hugh de Vivonne from Poitou who became constable of Bristol and acquired a lot of land in Somerset in the 13th century. His family survived in the male line for only a couple generations after Hugh's death. There is some speculation that his family may somehow have been connected to the de Forz line, but apparently only on the basis of the nickname 'le Fort' being current among the de Vivonnes; I'm unaware of any direct contact between the families.

    de Foix earls of Kendal: Captals of Buch near Bordeaux, one member of this family served in the English army at Bannockburn, and more than a century later another was created earl of Kendal in Yorkshire. They maintained their claim to the earldom even after they transferred their allegiance to the kingdom of France when Gascony was captured, but made Bordeaux their permanent home. I'm unaware of any English descendants, even in the female line.

    Gascoyne of Yorkshire, England, and Co. Cork, Ireland: The earliest origins of this family are obscure, but I am assuming some claimed connection to Gascony based on etymology. There are a handful of records of persons of this name among 14th century royal administrators in southern Ireland, but as far as I know, genealogies of gentry families of this name become reliable really only from the 17th century in Yorkshire. It's not clear to me whether this is the same family as the early colonists in Ireland, but this branches of this Yorkshire family do seem to have acquired land in the south of Ireland by the late 18th century.

    Dardis of Co. Meath, Ireland: Descendants of Jenico D'artois, a talented Gascon mercenary captain of the early 15th century. No known connection to any of the grand families of old Gascony, and never numerous even in Ireland, but the given name Jenico does seem to have become moderately popular among the Anglo-Norman gentry of the Pale among whom his descendants married.

    And that is all I am aware of. There are a couple of other incidents hardly worth remarking: (e.g., the spurious interpretation of the de Cliffords' founding ancestor, whose given name was Pons, being somehow connected to the great Poitevin family of de Pons, derived from a place rather than a personal name), and the temporary administration of the estates of the Irish earl of Ormond's estates by one of his Gascon colleagues after dying while on campaign in France). No really strong, sustained presence, just the sense that occasionally, some rare one-off made it big, but never left a lasting impression.
    Last edited by benowicz; 12 May 2020, 12:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Here's an interesting essay about regional Medieval immigration into England from France that provides some interesting statistics illustrating, on an objective, quantifiable basis, just how ayptical or 'weird' FGC23343 is in comparison to native English clades:

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...468-229X.12924

    An historian has estimated that as of 1440, there was a total of about 30,000 French immigrants living in England, which is equal to about 1.5% of the total population. Of that group, about 2% are thought to have been of Gascon origin. That makes Gascons about 0.03% of the total population. Apparently Gascons were unusual even among the immigrant population, being disproportionately represented by the merchant and gentry classes.

    So FGC23343 and its exotic ancestral clade ZZ40 sticks out like a sore thumb in Britain, requiring a special explanation.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    It occurs to me that it might be useful to make some general comments comparing the sort of atomistic approach to research I've taken here w/ regard to FGC23343 and the typically statistical methods employed to analyse the history of other, larger haplogroup subclades.

    To be blunt, there are simply not enough observations of FGC23343+ to even consider a statistical approach. To my knowledge, to date there have been only 11 distinct FGC23343+ lineages identified, defined as clusters of donors whose SNP status or STR haplotype data suggest they likely share a most recent common ancestor born within the last 1,000 years. In these conditions, there is no hope of obtaining a statistically significant sample size.

    There are two mitigating circumstances particular to FGC23343, however, completely idiosyncratic and without any broader theoretical application to other small clades, and yet completely valid in and of themselves:

    1. One of those lineages is well represented, and just by dumb luck happens to have been founded by an individual with a solid documentary trail, Vivian de Garnett.

    2. FGC23343's ancestral clade, ZZ40, is so unusual with respect to the historical milieu of the founder (i.e., Conquest-era Lancashire) that the number of plausible alternative hypotheses is severely restricted.

    The first point was not perfectly clear when I undertook these analyses, and only became obvious when a decisive number of diverse haplotype donors bearing the Garnett surname published their test results. Maybe other researchers knew or expected this development before I did, but I didn't, and as a result I applied the next-best analytical framework available to me when developing my hypothesis, namely geographical distribution of the earliest known ancestors.

    I was aware from the beginning that this was a kind of methodological mismatch, in the sense that geographical distribution can only be relied upon to deliver accurate results when the sample size of distinct lineages is large enough to support a statistical extrapolation. Clearly I had not satisfied that requirement, but absent any other data, it was *relatively* the best method to construct a working hypothesis around. But such is the nature of research itself, an iterative process of hypothesis, test, failure, and re-formulation until the gap between the data and the explanation is narrowed to a satisfactory degree.

    Only a very small portion of FGC23343+ lineages will share similar histories through the modern era, but this location in early Saintonge/Poitou is still a very useful perspective from which to approach research for the others. For example, searching for historical narratives linking Poitou to the home places of the currently identified German FGC23343+ donors, Leinenbach and (probably) Schoenenberg, did return a satisfyingly coherent explanation in the mid-17th century military campaigns of Henri de La Tour d'Auvergne, vicomte de Turenne and the largest landowner in the isle of Oleron. Now, this is far from conclusive proof, which can only be obtained by a large series of high-resolution matches with correspondingly high quality pedigrees, but I'm convinced that it is the *relatively* best explanation available, and is completely consistent with the hypothesis developed through analysis of the de Garnett analysis. No further refinement to the core hypothesis for FGC23343's ultimate origins seems necessary at this time.

    There's kind of an apple-and-orange problem here, with regard to comparing the level of confidence available through these different research approaches, atomistic vs. statistical. That's kind of frustrating, but just a fact of life. My preference is to always employ statistical methods whenever possible--in fact you could say that my reliance upon the unique character of ZZ40's distribution is fundamentally dependent on statistical analyses of that far larger grouping. But with regard to FGC23343 itself, the sample size is just too small. Luckily there was also an equally unique opportunity in the Medieval history of the de Garnetts.
    Last edited by benowicz; 11 May 2020, 06:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X