PDA

View Full Version : Were My Ancestors Angles or Danish Vikings?



Tarheel1
03-15-2021, 03:40 AM
Hello, I was wondering if my ancestors were Anglo-Saxons or Danish Vikings. I still haven't been able to determine this. Many of y'all are more knowledgeable than me about this, so I wanted to get y'alls take on this. My Y-DNA haplogroup is I1-A13819, downstream of Z131. Based on Y-DNA alone, it would be hard to determine whether or not my ancestors were Anglo-Saxons or Danish Vikings. This is because Anglo-Saxon and Danish Viking Y-DNA is basically indistinguishable. But maybe I can find out who my ancestors were originally based on where they were from, their surname, and DNA matches. My ancestors migrated from Belfast, Northern Ireland to the United States in the early 1700s. They settled in North Carolina. My ancestors were initially from Scotland before moving to Northern Ireland. I know that both the Anglo-Saxons and the Vikings invaded and settled in Britain at different times. The Anglo-Saxon invasion came first, and then the Vikings settled there later on. If my paper trail is correct, my ancestors lived in Stirling, Scotland. Before that, they lived in Dumbarton, Scotland. But I'm not sure if my paper trail is correct. My surname is Lackey. If my paper trail is correct, then I am descended from the Leckies, who were Scottish lairds. If you look up my ancestor John William Lackey on geni.com (https://www.geni.com/people/John-Lackey/5451120640470109201), you can see that his ancestors were the lairds of Leckie. I'm not sure if that is correct though. An NPE could have occurred in my Y-line. I have several matches with other Lackeys on FTDNA, but I also have several matches with surnames other than my own. In the Lacy DNA project (there is no Lackey DNA project), there are several Lackeys who claim to trace their ancestry through the same Y-line as me, but they are R1b, not I1. So we both can't be descended from the same paternal line. Either my line is descended from the lairds of Leckie or their line is.

Before being changed to Lackey, my ancestors' names were Leckie, and before that de Leky. What's interesting is the participle "de" in their surname. Apparently surnames with the participle "de" are of French origins. So based on the surname evidence, my ancestors could have originally been French, which means that they were originally Normans. But like I said before, I am not sure if my paper trail is correct. I may not even be descended from the lairds of Leckie. The Lackeys who are R1b might be descended from them. So if I my paper trail is correct and I am descended from the lairds of Leckie, does that mean that I am most likely of Norman descent? With regards to DNA matches, I match with seven individuals at the 67-marker level. Six of them have different surnames than me. Their surnames are Affleck, Stokes, Norris, Thaggard, and Claxton. The most interesting match is the one whose surname is Thaggard. His earliest known male ancestor was born in Aalborg, Denmark, so it seems likely that my ancestors came from Aalborg, Denmark before making their way to the British Isles. According to the Wikipedia article on Aalborg, it was ďa thriving Viking community until around the year 1000.Ē So even if my ancestors were not Normans, they still could have been Vikings who settled in Britain during the time of the Danelaw. One of the Affleck matches also lists his earliest ancestor as living in Yorkshire. Yorkshire was settled by both the Angles and the Vikings (who settled there under the Danelaw). There is also the possibility that my ancestors were Angles who settled in Northumbria and then made their way up into Scotland. The Angles settled in the Scottish Lowlands, which is where my ancestors were from.

So there seems to be three different possibilities on who my ancestors were: (1) They were Normans (who were originally Danish Vikings), (2) they were Danish Vikings who settled in Britain under the Danelaw, and (3) they were Angles. Of all the possibilities, I think that #1 and #2 are more likely. Although #3 is possible, I do not think that my ancestors were Angles because of the Thaggard DNA match. His earliest ancestor came from Aalborg, Denmark, which is on the northern tip of the Jutland peninsula. So my ancestors more than likely came from this part of Denmark (assuming that they never moved). The Angles were not from the northern part of Denmark; rather, they were from southern Denmark and northern Germany. For this reason, I tend to think that my ancestors were not Angles. I still think that it is possible that they could have been though. The Jutes were from the northern part of the Jutland peninsula, but they only settled in the southern part of Britain and the Isle of Wight. My ancestors who settled in Britain more than likely settled in Northumbria and then made their way up into Scotland. They did not settle in southern Britain, which is where the Jutes settled. So I tend to rule out the possibility that they were Jutes. Of course, before they settled in Britain and lived in Denmark, they could have originally been Jutes who were later absorbed by the Danes, and then became Danish Vikings. So, with all this information, I was wondering what those on this forum think? Of the three options given above, which one seems the most likely? I am really interested in knowing who my ancestors originally were.

spruithean
03-15-2021, 09:00 PM
It could honestly be any route at this point. The issue with all of these populations is that they are so genetically similar and have similar origins. The Norman option may not even connect to Danish Vikings and could very well be linked to Frankish populations in Normandy. I wouldn't discount the Anglo-Saxon possibility, just because your Danish match is from the northern region of Jutland does not exclude that origin.

Tarheel1
03-26-2021, 11:03 AM
It could honestly be any route at this point. The issue with all of these populations is that they are so genetically similar and have similar origins. The Norman option may not even connect to Danish Vikings and could very well be linked to Frankish populations in Normandy. I wouldn't discount the Anglo-Saxon possibility, just because your Danish match is from the northern region of Jutland does not exclude that origin.

Thanks for the response. Yes, any of the three options are possible. I wish I could know with certainty whether or not my ancestors through my Y-line were originally Anglo-Saxons or Danish Vikings. As you know, the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons fought against each other many times. The Normans also fought against the Anglo-Saxons. I1 men fought on both sides. I1 men fought against I1 men without them even knowing it! I would like to know which side my ancestors were on. Both Anglo-Saxon and Viking history are fascinating to me. The Norman possibility might actually be the least likely if there was an NPE in my Y-line. But if there was no NPE, then it may be the most likely. I still favor the Danish Viking connection under the Danelaw since my close Y-match's earliest known ancestor was from northern Jutland. It seems that my ancestors were Danes or Jutes rather than Angles. If his earliest known ancestor was from southern Jutland, then I would favor the Anglo-Saxon connection, but he was not from southern Jutland. I guess the Anglo-Saxon option still can't be ruled out though.

lana6765
03-26-2021, 12:33 PM
I have so many questions on this myself!

What I can tell from G25 and other calculators is that I have a lot of similarities with people from Norway in particular. I’m British and Irish over the last 150-200 years and this certainly shows on AncestryDNA and 23andme! I initially got 2% Norwegian on AncestryDNA, but this disappeared with an update.

I do match people from Finland and Norway (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?22577-British-and-Irish-Folks-Who-are-your-closest-continental-European-matches&p=759473#post759473) though so maybe it’s not just Vikings. Also I think Anglo Saxons and Scandinavians were somewhat similar to start with. Maybe it’s due to multiple reasons!

modern_pop_averages_scaled

Target: Lana_scaled
Distance: 1.3546% / 0.01354552
43.6 Norwegian
39.8 Irish
8.8 Basque_French
5.4 Cossack_Kuban
1.2 Chuvash
0.8 Spanish_La_Rioja
0.2 Greenlander_East
0.2 Papuan

Edit: Just realised this was in the Y-dna section lol

altvred
03-26-2021, 12:56 PM
Thanks for the response. Yes, any of the three options are possible. I wish I could know with certainty whether or not my ancestors through my Y-line were originally Anglo-Saxons or Danish Vikings. As you know, the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons fought against each other many times. The Normans also fought against the Anglo-Saxons. I1 men fought on both sides. I1 men fought against I1 men without them even knowing it! I would like to know which side my ancestors were on. Both Anglo-Saxon and Viking history are fascinating to me. The Norman possibility might actually be the least likely if there was an NPE in my Y-line. But if there was no NPE, then it may be the most likely. I still favor the Danish Viking connection under the Danelaw since my close Y-match's earliest known ancestor was from northern Jutland. It seems that my ancestors were Danes or Jutes rather than Angles. If his earliest known ancestor was from southern Jutland, then I would favor the Anglo-Saxon connection, but he was not from southern Jutland. I guess the Anglo-Saxon option still can't be ruled out though.

You would probably have to use a time machine to be 100% sure. For what it's worth, looking at your subclade on the FTDNA haplotree and it appears to be a continental Northwest European branch of I-M170 and not Scandinavian. So a Viking forebearer is, IMHO, less likely.

It could have easily arrived initially in England from Northern France with the Normans or even earlier; again, it's hard to narrow it down since there has been a lot of population movement over the channel, and we're dealing with broadly genetically similar people.

mwauthy
03-26-2021, 03:13 PM
My opinion is to look at the ancient dna evidence but to also keep and open mind because ancient dna is minimal to none for the Anglo-Saxon period. I believe all 8 samples were female thus far? The upcoming Anglo-Saxon paper that has 80 samples should shed more light on the matter. Until then I can only go off the Viking Paper and other academic studies.

For my direct patrilineal line the ancient dna evidence points to a southern Sweden origin with sample oll009 from the late Neolithic and then a gradual westward Danish expansion with VK532 in Zealand and then sample VK446 in Funen.

According to Tacitus the Anglii (Angles) bordered the western Baltic Sea along the southern Jutland Peninsula and that their shrine to Nerthus was situated on an island in the ocean which could easily be referring to Zealand or Funen or some other island in the Baltic Sea so in theory my patrilineal ancestors could have intermixed with the Angles during the Late Roman Iron Age. However, until evidence pops up in the Migration Period in Britain it’s only a possibility and the more likely scenario is a Viking Age dispersal from the Kattegat.

Strider99
03-27-2021, 10:34 AM
My opinion is to look at the ancient dna evidence but to also keep and open mind because ancient dna is minimal to none for the Anglo-Saxon period. I believe all 8 samples were female thus far?

There is at least one male Anglo-Saxon sample as far as I'm aware. NO3423 from this study: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10326
He was I1-S107. There could be more male Anglo-Saxon samples that I'm not aware of. But as you say, in the near future we'll know a lot more about their Y-DNA frequencies.

spruithean
03-27-2021, 04:39 PM
Thanks for the response. Yes, any of the three options are possible. I wish I could know with certainty whether or not my ancestors through my Y-line were originally Anglo-Saxons or Danish Vikings. As you know, the Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons fought against each other many times. The Normans also fought against the Anglo-Saxons. I1 men fought on both sides. I1 men fought against I1 men without them even knowing it! I would like to know which side my ancestors were on. Both Anglo-Saxon and Viking history are fascinating to me. The Norman possibility might actually be the least likely if there was an NPE in my Y-line. But if there was no NPE, then it may be the most likely. I still favor the Danish Viking connection under the Danelaw since my close Y-match's earliest known ancestor was from northern Jutland. It seems that my ancestors were Danes or Jutes rather than Angles. If his earliest known ancestor was from southern Jutland, then I would favor the Anglo-Saxon connection, but he was not from southern Jutland. I guess the Anglo-Saxon option still can't be ruled out though.

Issue here with assuming that it was a Dane based off of a close matches most distant known ancestor's place of birth is that people move all the time, his most distant ancestor may have lived in that location, but prior to that they may have lived elsewhere. Anglo-Saxons and Danes are only separated by a few generations and have the same ancestral genetic components as one another, not only that at the time of the Viking Age their two languages were somewhat mutually intelligible. Keep in mind NPEs are after a certain number of generations in the past almost a complete certainty.




You would probably have to use a time machine to be 100% sure. For what it's worth, looking at your subclade on the FTDNA haplotree and it appears to be a continental Northwest European branch of I-M170 and not Scandinavian. So a Viking forebearer is, IMHO, less likely.

It could have easily arrived initially in England from Northern France with the Normans or even earlier; again, it's hard to narrow it down since there has been a lot of population movement over the channel, and we're dealing with broadly genetically similar people.

Yeah, outside of a time machine we'll likely never know or have any clear cut answers. These are cultural groups which are only separated by mere generations.



There is at least one male Anglo-Saxon sample as far as I'm aware. NO3423 from this study: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10326
He was I1-S107. There could be more male Anglo-Saxon samples that I'm not aware of. But as you say, in the near future we'll know a lot more about their Y-DNA frequencies.

There is a possibility that NO3423 is I-DF29 due to derived calls at the DF29 position. But hopefully we can get more I1 samples from new Anglo-Saxon samples and Viking Age samples in Britain.

JMcB
03-27-2021, 05:22 PM
After looking at the Bam flle Deadly has N03423 as DF29

NO3423 I-DF29

description
Norton Bishopsmill, dates to 650–910 AD and was a Christian Anglo-Saxon cemetery excavated in the village of Norton, Teesside, northeast England - sampled 3 individuals
from unfurnished burials of 100 skeletons and selected the best preserved, NO3423, for the study.

Derived SNPs: DF29 2G, CTS9857 1T

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1znTXv7qpl4_2T4u9068jOaLzpsjNf62F&hl=en_US&ll=56.60822220323618%2C8.115568412637003&z=4


I think we also have to consider the fact that we are currently unable to date our branches with any precision. Which is especially problematic in a situation like our’s. Where we’re dealing with a series a migrations, happening in succession. That involved populations who were closely related.

As an example, here is a graph of the 95% Confidence Intervals for my main branch A13248.

44044

While I might be able to shorten those lines by considering other factors. I really can’t do it enough to excluded any of the migrations in question. Even if some are more likely than others.

Tarheel1
03-30-2021, 05:22 PM
You would probably have to use a time machine to be 100% sure. For what it's worth, looking at your subclade on the FTDNA haplotree and it appears to be a continental Northwest European branch of I-M170 and not Scandinavian. So a Viking forebearer is, IMHO, less likely.

It could have easily arrived initially in England from Northern France with the Normans or even earlier; again, it's hard to narrow it down since there has been a lot of population movement over the channel, and we're dealing with broadly genetically similar people.

How are you determining that my subclade is a "continental Northwest European branch of I-M170" by looking at the FTDNA haplotree? Are you coming to this conclusion by looking at the country report under the Variants tab? There are only about a handful of people on FTDNA who belong to my subclade (and by subclade, I assume you are referring to I-A13819 and not more broadly to I-A13821 or I-Z131). I don't think there has been enough testing done to come to the conclusion that my subclade is a continental Northwest European branch of I1. My subclade could have very well had its origins in Scandinavia. After all, I1 has its origins in Scandinavia and initially dispersed from there. And like I said previously, one of my closest DNA matches' earliest known ancestor is from Aalborg, Denmark, so I know that my ancestors more than likely came from Denmark before arriving in Britain. I-Z131 has been found more on the European continent than in Scandinavia, but there are several people on https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Z131/ who lists Sweden as their country of origin. You said that a Viking forebearer is less likely, but you also said that it could have easily arrived with the Normans. You must remember that Danish Vikings are the ones who settled in Normandy and mixed with the local population. If my ancestors were Normans, then they more than likely arrived in Normandy with the Danish Vikings who settled there. I would say that most I1 in Normandy arrived there with the Danish Vikings, although some I1 could have arrived there from earlier migrations.

altvred
03-30-2021, 08:39 PM
How are you determining that my subclade is a "continental Northwest European branch of I-M170" by looking at the FTDNA haplotree? Are you coming to this conclusion by looking at the country report under the Variants tab? There are only about a handful of people on FTDNA who belong to my subclade (and by subclade, I assume you are referring to I-A13819 and not more broadly to I-A13821 or I-Z131). I don't think there has been enough testing done to come to the conclusion that my subclade is a continental Northwest European branch of I1. My subclade could have very well had its origins in Scandinavia. After all, I1 has its origins in Scandinavia and initially dispersed from there. And like I said previously, one of my closest DNA matches' earliest known ancestor is from Aalborg, Denmark, so I know that my ancestors more than likely came from Denmark before arriving in Britain. I-Z131 has been found more on the European continent than in Scandinavia, but there are several people on https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Z131/ who lists Sweden as their country of origin. You said that a Viking forebearer is less likely, but you also said that it could have easily arrived with the Normans. You must remember that Danish Vikings are the ones who settled in Normandy and mixed with the local population. If my ancestors were Normans, then they more than likely arrived in Normandy with the Danish Vikings who settled there. I would say that most I1 in Normandy arrived there with the Danish Vikings, although some I1 could have arrived there from earlier migrations.


I should preface my post with what has already been said in this thread - we're dealing with migrations of genetically related populations that occurred in a relatively brief historical period (around 500-600 years in our case) so we can't with 100% certainty associate a shared genetic marker exclusively with one of these groups.

I mentioned the Normans as just one of the many possibilities, not the most likely one, of how your subclade initially arrived in the British Isles.

An Anglo-Saxon or even non-Germanic origin is possible. I can't reasonably rule out any of these options including the Scandinavian one, I do think that some of them are more or less likely.


I1 has its origins in Scandinavia and initially dispersed from there

Most of the Mesolithic Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers tested so far carried haplogroup I2. The earliest Scandinavian I1 are from the Nordic Bronze Age, so I1 probably originated somewhere else and later spread into Scandinavia with the Corded Ware culture.

I agree that I1 diversified and later spread to the rest of Europe from around modern Denmark, but we're talking about a time period that predates the Vikings by 2000+ years.



How are you determining that my subclade is a "continental Northwest European branch of I-M170" by looking at the FTDNA haplotree?

Your parent branches A13821 and Z131 are most common in the British Isles, France, and to a lesser extent, the Benelux and the rest of Western Europe.

From a purely statistical point of view, the probability of a direct patrilineal ancestor from one of these regions is higher than any alternative.

But it doesn't mean that we can altogether reject the possibility of a Scandinavian ancestor, just that it is less likely than the other options.



one of my closest DNA matches' earliest known ancestor is from Aalborg, Denmark, so I know that my ancestors more than likely came from Denmark before arriving in Britain

It would be best if you also kept in mind that the North Sea wasn't a one-way street and that there have been later population movements long after the Viking-age was over.

There isn't any guarantee that your Danish match's ancestor didn't arrive in Denmark from somewhere else in the last 800 years, or that even if he could trace his direct patrilineal line that far back - there's always the possibility of a non-paternity event occurring that the paper trail will not reflect.

Thanks to the Hanseatic League, there wasn't a shortage of German merchants in Scandinavia, to name just one such possibility.

lana6765
03-30-2021, 09:12 PM
It would be best if you also kept in mind that the North Sea wasn't a one-way street and that there have been later population movements long after the Viking-age was over.

There isn't any guarantee that your Danish match's ancestor didn't arrive in Denmark from somewhere else in the last 800 years, or that even if he could trace his direct patrilineal line that far back - there's always the possibility of a non-paternity event occurring that the paper trail will not reflect.

What population movements are related to Ireland or England <--> Finland or Norway?

I have a lot of compelling matches in Finland and Norway, but less in Denmark and Sweden.

But I'm struggling to understand why someone from Finland would migrate to England 150-500 years ago (or vice versa).

spruithean
03-30-2021, 09:15 PM
What population movements are related to Ireland or England <--> Finland and Norway?

I have a lot of compelling matches in Finland and Norway, but less in Denmark and Sweden.

But I'm struggling to understand why someone from Finland would migrate to England 150-500 years ago (or vice versa).

The Viking Age saw a fairly large slave trade (Dublin was a famous port for this). Also worth considering mercenaries venturing to Finland or nearby.

lana6765
03-30-2021, 09:22 PM
The Viking Age saw a fairly large slave trade (Dublin was a famous port for this). Also worth considering mercenaries venturing to Finland or nearby.

It just seems a bit unlikely: Irish genes end up in Finland and I still match Finnish people 1000 years later.

Edit: Should clarify that I mean autosomal matches (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?22577-British-and-Irish-Folks-Who-are-your-closest-continental-European-matches&p=759473#post759473).

backe001
03-30-2021, 09:51 PM
How close is the Danish 67 str match, and have either of you done big y? I ask because my closest 67 str match has genetic distance of 4, but is in an I1 subclade with estimated divergence (by yfull) of greater than 2000 years ago (actually greater than 3000 years ago). Thus, I personally wouldn’t focus too much on your Danish match unless even closer by str plus same/close terminal snp.

altvred
03-30-2021, 10:09 PM
What population movements are related to Ireland or England <--> Finland or Norway?


I'm not aware of any mass migrations of Finns to Britain and Ireland, but regarding the topic of Finnish autosomal matches, you might find this thread somewhat informative (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23413-Finnish-matches-in-Russian-people).

It seems Finns will often show up as autosomal matches for people far removed from Finland and places that were historically Finnic speaking (an example of that would be Northern Russia, where the language shift from Uralic to Slavic occurred relatively recently, so you would expect Northern Russians to share IBD segments with Finns - Karelians and Veps in particular).

I have 500 Finnish matches on MyHeritage despite not having any known ancestry from that particular region; what's even more peculiar is that some of the IBD segments I share with Finns I also share with Tatars and Bashkirs but not ethnic Russians.

The two main points that people raised in that thread that might explain this phenomenon:

1. Finns being a relatively bottlenecked population.
2. Finns are very well represented across most commercial DNA services due to their high interest in Genealogy and DNA testing.

Do you share the segments you match Finns with Scandinavians as well?

spruithean
03-30-2021, 10:12 PM
How are you determining that my subclade is a "continental Northwest European branch of I-M170" by looking at the FTDNA haplotree? Are you coming to this conclusion by looking at the country report under the Variants tab? There are only about a handful of people on FTDNA who belong to my subclade (and by subclade, I assume you are referring to I-A13819 and not more broadly to I-A13821 or I-Z131). I don't think there has been enough testing done to come to the conclusion that my subclade is a continental Northwest European branch of I1. My subclade could have very well had its origins in Scandinavia. After all, I1 has its origins in Scandinavia and initially dispersed from there. And like I said previously, one of my closest DNA matches' earliest known ancestor is from Aalborg, Denmark, so I know that my ancestors more than likely came from Denmark before arriving in Britain. I-Z131 has been found more on the European continent than in Scandinavia, but there are several people on https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Z131/ who lists Sweden as their country of origin. You said that a Viking forebearer is less likely, but you also said that it could have easily arrived with the Normans. You must remember that Danish Vikings are the ones who settled in Normandy and mixed with the local population. If my ancestors were Normans, then they more than likely arrived in Normandy with the Danish Vikings who settled there. I would say that most I1 in Normandy arrived there with the Danish Vikings, although some I1 could have arrived there from earlier migrations.

Itís not as simple as youíre making it out to be. These are populations separated by mere generations. Saxons settled in Normandy, Franks settled in Normandy, and later Viking Age Scandinavians. Not all Normans were of Scandinavian origin, many were Frankish, Flemish or of Gallo-Roman origins.

The notion of a direct paternal ancestor being a marauding Viking sounds much cooler than a Anglo-Saxon farmer or Flemish weaver migrating to the Isles. I am in a similar boat here, my haplogroup and cousin-branches are restricted to Ireland and Great Britain with no real representation on the European continent at this current time. Were my ancestors Viking raiders or Angles? I donít know, probably never will. To make matters even more confusing, I have a Gaelic surname.

lana6765
03-30-2021, 10:48 PM
I'm not aware of any mass migrations of Finns to Britain and Ireland, but regarding the topic of Finnish autosomal matches, you might find this thread somewhat informative (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23413-Finnish-matches-in-Russian-people).

It seems Finns will often show up as autosomal matches for people far removed from Finland and places that were historically Finnic speaking (an example of that would be Northern Russia, where the language shift from Uralic to Slavic occurred relatively recently, so you would expect Northern Russians to share IBD segments with Finns - Karelians and Veps in particular).

I have 500 Finnish matches on MyHeritage despite not having any known ancestry from that particular region; what's even more peculiar is that some of the IBD segments I share with Finns I also share with Tatars and Bashkirs but not ethnic Russians.

The two main points that people raised in that thread that might explain this phenomenon:

1. Finns being a relatively bottlenecked population.
2. Finns are very well represented across most commercial DNA services due to their high interest in Genealogy and DNA testing.

Do you share the segments you match Finns with Scandinavians as well?

On at least one occasion I do.

Myself, a Finnish person and a Swedish person triangulate. But the Swedish person seems part Finnish.

Tarheel1
03-31-2021, 01:54 AM
How close is the Danish 67 str match, and have either of you done big y? I ask because my closest 67 str match has genetic distance of 4, but is in an I1 subclade with estimated divergence (by yfull) of greater than 2000 years ago (actually greater than 3000 years ago). Thus, I personally wouldn’t focus too much on your Danish match unless even closer by str plus same/close terminal snp.

The Danish match is a genetic distance of 6 at the 67 marker level. I also have a match with the same surname as me, and he is a genetic distance of 4 at the 67 marker level and 5 at the 111 marker level. Because we have the same surname, I know that we have a common ancestor within the last several hundred years. I have done the Big Y-700, but, unfortunately, none of my close matches has. If any of them would do the Big Y, they would probably end up with the same terminal SNP as me.

Tarheel1
03-31-2021, 02:14 AM
The notion of a direct paternal ancestor being a marauding Viking sounds much cooler than a Anglo-Saxon farmer or Flemish weaver migrating to the Isles. I am in a similar boat here, my haplogroup and cousin-branches are restricted to Ireland and Great Britain with no real representation on the European continent at this current time. Were my ancestors Viking raiders or Angles? I don’t know, probably never will. To make matters even more confusing, I have a Gaelic surname.

Yeah, I may give the impression that I would rather my direct paternal ancestor to be a Viking rather than an Anglo-Saxon. I do think that it would be pretty cool if my direct paternal ancestor were a Viking, given the history of the Vikings. I also think that it would be cool if he were a Norman or an Anglo-Saxon. Like I said at the outset, I am just as interested in Anglo-Saxon history as I am Viking history. I know that the Vikings are seen as tough warriors and have a fierce reputation, but the Anglo-Saxons were also mighty warriors themselves. I would be happy with being a descendant of either one of them.

spruithean
03-31-2021, 02:56 AM
The Danish match is a genetic distance of 6 at the 67 marker level. I also have a match with the same surname as me, and he is a genetic distance of 4 at the 67 marker level and 5 at the 111 marker level. Because we have the same surname, I know that we have a common ancestor within the last several hundred years. I have done the Big Y-700, but, unfortunately, none of my close matches has. If any of them would do the Big Y, they would probably end up with the same terminal SNP as me.

I would be careful with those fairly distant 67 marker matches. The same surname ones are worth investigating and encouraging deeper testing, however the non-surname ones at those distances need to be regarded in a different way, my own examples include several 67 marker matches with a genetic distance of 6 to 7, all of which have ended being in sibling or cousin branches of a common root haplogroup, placing our common ancestors quite far in the past beyond genealogical relevance. One of those matches is a member here too!

Alain
03-31-2021, 05:07 AM
Sorry wrong

Tarheel1
05-07-2021, 10:45 PM
The Danish match is a genetic distance of 6 at the 67 marker level. I also have a match with the same surname as me, and he is a genetic distance of 4 at the 67 marker level and 5 at the 111 marker level. Because we have the same surname, I know that we have a common ancestor within the last several hundred years. I have done the Big Y-700, but, unfortunately, none of my close matches has. If any of them would do the Big Y, they would probably end up with the same terminal SNP as me.

One of my 111 marker matches, who is a genetic distance of 7, has done the Big Y-700. In November of last year, I sent emails to all of my close Y matches asking them to do the Big Y-700. It looks like I was successful in getting one of them to do it :). My terminal SNP has changed from I-A13819 to I-A13823. Now hopefully he will upload his results to https://www.yfull.com/