BBC Viking DNA study results
Steve Williamson
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_1689000/1689955.stm
Details of the DNA (Y chromosome) study conducted by UCL & the BBC to see
how much "Viking blood" can still be found in the modern British population:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/genetics_results_01.shtml
I wonder if they'll have a "Viking test" soon, where you can send in a
sample & have it checked (like the Oxford mtDNA, and the "Cohanim" gene
tests)...
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Roz Griston
if your parent(s) prior to your conception had a blood transfusion, or
even yourself receiving a blood transfusion contaminate the truth of a
DNA test? particularily if the blood donor was unrelated.
i'm thinking particularily, of the direct blood donations that would
occur during an emergency operation, such as on or near a battle field.
does the process of turning whole blood in plasma remove the DNA
markers, or whatever they are called?
what brought this thought about was watching a program on 2-4000 year
old caucasian mummies found in china.
the specialist/scientist who took the DNA samples from the mummies
inner thigh or underarms, wore gloves, and face mask to avoid
contaminating the samples with his own caucasian DNA.
the researcher's worry was that a few stray skin cells *could*
contaminate the sample..
regards
roz
Denis Beauregard
in soc.genealogy.medieval:
>a thought regarding DNA crossed my mind recently.
>
>if your parent(s) prior to your conception had a blood transfusion, or
>even yourself receiving a blood transfusion contaminate the truth of a
>DNA test? particularily if the blood donor was unrelated.
>
A "globule" (not sure if the name is correct in English: the
red and white cells in the blood) has a limited life. You
must produce new globules, otherwise you have no protection.
So, the blood you have receive should leave no trace at all
after some times.
But, I am not a biologist so I can be wrong.
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ Web de généalogie: http://www.genealogie.com (français)
|\ Genealogy Web site: http://www.francogene.com (English)
/ |
oo oo Ancestors in Quebec ? What about vacations in your homeland!
Roz Griston
i think the "english" word you may be thinking of is hemaglobulin. (sp)
i received an off list response regarding this topic the person
mentioned, that a bone marrow transplant may effect the permanent DNA
structure.
so, if someone with a background in biology could give some input on
this probability of contamination of true DNA markers, it would also be
appreciated.
while in a sense, this is not medieval genealogy, it could play some
importance for those of us who are considering "going" the DNA route to
confirm ancestry.
regards
roz
-----Original Message-----
From: Denis Beauregard [SMTP:denis...@genealogie.com.invalid]
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 7:36 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: BBC Viking DNA study results
On 9 Dec 2001 20:07:35 -0700, r_gr...@dccnet.com (Roz Griston) wrote
in soc.genealogy.medieval:
>a thought regarding DNA crossed my mind recently.
>
>if your parent(s) prior to your conception had a blood transfusion, or
>even yourself receiving a blood transfusion contaminate the truth of a
>DNA test? particularily if the blood donor was unrelated.
>
A "globule" (not sure if the name is correct in English: the
red and white cells in the blood) has a limited life. You
must produce new globules, otherwise you have no protection.
So, the blood you have receive should leave no trace at all
after some times.
But, I am not a biologist so I can be wrong.
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ Web de genealogie: http://www.genealogie.com (francais)
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> i received an off list response regarding this topic the person
> mentioned, that a bone marrow transplant may effect the permanent DNA
> structure.
>
> so, if someone with a background in biology could give some input on
> this probability of contamination of true DNA markers, it would also be
> appreciated.
Under normal circumstances a blood transfusion will have little
to no effect on the DNA, as the red blood cells have no DNA. A
marrow transplant would replace the patients blood DNA with the
donor's, but just in the blood and marrow. Depending on the
test, blood is not the prefered test material anyhow (too
intrusive, and with the risk of HIV and other infectious blood
diseases, too risky to collect when there are easy
alternatives). A cheek swab or hair root will do the trick
nicely, and a marrow transplant won't affect these.
taf
Chris Dickinson
attempt to present its results as surprising or revealing. The
genetic map seems to be pretty close to the patterns of settlement
already assumed by historians and archaeologists.
Cumbria, for instance, has always been seen as an area of Norse
settlement. So statements in the publicity like:
"Geneticists discovered the area around Penrith has clear evidence
of Norwegian influence."
or
"It seems likely that the Norwegian Vikings who travelled along
the sea road from Shetland down to the Isle of Man may well have
stopped off in Cumbria."
are misleading. The study would have done better to highlight that
its results confirmed existing models.
Phil Moody
What I thought to be particularly silly about this study was the
attempt to present its results as surprising or revealing. The
genetic map seems to be pretty close to the patterns of settlement
already assumed by historians and archaeologists.
PLM: True, but you find virtually no mention of Scandinavians post conquest;
so it is good to see firm evidence that they never left. I think the study
shows that we may be to cavalier in labeling families Anglo-Saxon, when they
are in fact paternally Scandinavian. As Earl Siward named his off-spring
with Anglo-Saxon names; so to might have other Scandinavians, in an effort
to better assimilate into Anglo-Saxon Society.
The study would have been more beneficial for us, if they had targeted the
Peers; so we would have a nice overview of their genetic demographic. I can
see this sort of testing being a valuable adjunct to any future Peerage
written and the novelty of it could make it very lucrative. Burke's Landed
Gentry is the only work in progress that I am aware of that could do this in
a timely manner and it may go a long way in repairing their tarnished
reputation:-) Burke's Scottish Landed Gentry is already published, but the
genetic testing for the Scots could be inserted as an appendix in another
edition. My "hints" are not very subtle:-)
I don't know how you would distinguish Scandinavian from Norman, if the
Norman origin is to be believed, but this kind of testing could be the
definitive answer to separating the Norman "wanna bees" from the real
deal:-)
Best Wishes,
Phil
A Channing
I think only two sites were chosen, but one was near Dublin shows no signs
of Norse DNA. Also none in Wales. - both Wales and Ireland could be
identified as basically celtic rather than Anglo Saxon, a reasonable result
- but not Cornwall. Also why was there no marked increased Norse DNA in NE
England (eg York) and the east cost of Scotland? I understand that there
was a problem in that there was Norse DNA coming via the Norman conquest
and that the Norman ancestors (low Scandinavia) could not be distinguished
from the Viking DNA, but I would have still expected a greater difference.
If one explains this away by subsequent intermingling, why did this not
happen around Penrith? Perhaps it is partly explained by William I's
destruction of the North, if so, it must have been a very thorough
destruction (except for Penrith).
Chris Dickinson wrote:-
> What I thought to be particularly silly about this study was the
> attempt to present its results as surprising or revealing. The
> genetic map seems to be pretty close to the patterns of settlement
> already assumed by historians and archaeologists.
>
> Cumbria, for instance, has always been seen as an area of Norse
> settlement. So statements in the publicity like:
>
> "Geneticists discovered the area around Penrith has clear evidence
> of Norwegian influence."
>
> or
>
> "It seems likely that the Norwegian Vikings who travelled along
> the sea road from Shetland down to the Isle of Man may well have
> stopped off in Cumbria."
>
> are misleading. The study would have done better to highlight that
> its results confirmed existing models.
>
ŠAdrian (Surrey, UK) <ACha...@CompuServe.Com>
NB There should _not_ be an(y) attachment(s) to this plain text message
Roz Griston
taf
thanks todd, would offspring of the individual with the transplanted
marrow carry the original dna or the transplanted dna..i.e. would the
ovum or sperm be effected by the marrow transplant.
hmm..maybe not the ovum, as females are born with the ovum, they just
mature as the female does..but the sperm is constantly being
regenerated? correct?
thanks
roz
malinda
were ethnic Vikings....what sort of genetic differentiation are you expecting/
hoping to find ?
~malinda
D. Stussy
the test were conducted within 6 months of the transfusion. Usually, skin
cells are used from inside the cheek.
Phil Moody
No-one (other possibly than this programme!) ever suggested that
the Norse and Danes had left England. If they had, the incidence
of Scandinavian local placenames would be considerably lower. Nor
would there be so many words of Scandinavian origin in the
English language.
PLM: Perhaps "left" is not the right word:-) Chris, can you tell me what
percentage of those listed in the Domesday surveys can be positively
identified as Scandinavia? This is the absence I was addressing, because my
limited exposure to the Domesday; does not find Scandinavians conspicously
present. Dr. Keats-Rohan is probaly better suited to answer that question
and it is signifigant that there was no Domesday survey of Cumbria and this
is where we have the highest concentration of Scandinavians.
Neither of your arguements above would conclusively point to the presence
of Scandinavians after the Conquest. As Adrian Channing points out, the
genetic survey found no evidense of Scandinavians present in Dublin (Dubh
Linn) or York (Yorvik) and both of these places were founded by the
Scandinavians; so just because a town was founded by Scandinavians, it does
not mean that they were always there.
The Romans also influenced the English language, but I have never seen
anyone use this as an arguement to assert that they never left England.
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Dickinson [mailto:ch...@dickinson.uk.net]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 10:27 AM
To: Phil Moody; GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: BBC Viking DNA study results
Phil Moody writes:
<snip>
>True, but you find virtually no mention of Scandinavians post
>conquest; so it is good to see firm evidence that they never
>left.
<snip>
No-one (other possibly than this programme!) ever suggested that
the Norse and Danes had left England. If they had, the incidence
of Scandinavian local placenames would be considerably lower. Nor
would there be so many words of Scandinavian origin in the
English language.
Certainly in Cumbria the permanence of Norse settlement is
reflected in the county family pedigrees. I don't think that
anyone has ever suggested that the Curwen family (the oldest in
Cumberland), who trace their ancestry back through Gospatric and
Orm, were Anglo-Saxon in origin.
Nathaniel Taylor
<ch...@dickinson.uk.net> wrote:
Worse yet, buried in the study results
is the admission that the team (who swabbed only 2000 subjects) was unable
to find consistent markers to distinguish Danish 'Viking' DNA from Saxon
DNA, so to confirm or deny the basic English demographic identifying
Danelaw settlers and Anglo-Saxons was impossible (they're lumped together
as 'invaders'). What the study touts as 'Viking' DNA is similar to modern
Norwegians, probably much of it contributed after the close of the
'Viking' period--such as, for example, when Orkney and other outlying
areas continued close economic and political ties with Norway well after
the eleventh century. Not surprising that Viking Dublin would not appear
as a demonstrable DNA trace. I expect such studies will get more
ambitious, when means of distinguishing subtler markers develops.
Nat Taylor
Guy Etchells
easy reach of the sea showing a possible link to breeding between the
Viking traders and Anglo Saxons rather than the wider areas occupied by
the Vikings. Is it possible that the raiding parties were mercenary
forces rather than Vikings?
One conclusion I did reach from the program, was that DNA analysis will
surely have to be allowed to develop before any definite conclusions can
be drawn from its use, as it is very much still in its infancy.
Cheers
Guy
--
Wakefield England
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells Transcripts, Parish
Records, Calendar, Scaleable Map of Uk. Link to LDS website,
Abbreviations, Returns of Owners of Lands etc. etc.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~framland/dh/ Whitefield
Transcripts, Etch/ells Transcripts
http://gye.future.easyspace.com Worldwide Cemetery Links, Monumental
Inscriptions, War Graves, etc.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~framland/CHURCH/church.htm
Churches & MIs. in the Wakefield Area
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~framland/Ossett/obmi1.htm
Transcripts of 1st Baptist Burial ground, Ossett
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~framland/tmi.htm Photos of
St. James Churchyard, Wakefield
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~framland/stcr/stjsc1.htm
M.Is. in St. John the Evangelist Churchyard, Staincross
Arthur Murata
traced with mitochondrial DNA.How feasible would such a
study as the BBC one be using women? I recall the attempts
to find an "Eve" hominid and how over time much of that
work was soured. Wouldn't it be interesting to be able to
trace both male and female? What continues to show up in
whom? Would a population be mainly one, perhaps conquering,
ethnic group among the males and a native one, having been
conquered, in the females? Would this carry through
generations of intermarriage? Oh my head hurts. (I only
lasted about one week in a genetics course in the
university). Best, Bronwen Edwards
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
Arthur Murata
at the lack of clear Norwegian DNA in the Dublin area in
spite of the long history of Viking settlement and
sovereignty in the area? By the way, I wonder how they
differentiated between Norman and Viking genes....? Bronwen
PDel...@aol.com
'novel' discoveries1
Peter de Loriol
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> As I understand it, the maternal line can be theoretically
> traced with mitochondrial DNA.How feasible would such a
> study as the BBC one be using women?
Been done already, although not specifically focussed on
Vikings. The primary reason to focus on the Y and not the
mitochondrial is that "Viking invaders" would be primarily male,
and hence leave less trace on the female line, which may actually
show a counter-current flow representing female captives taken
back to the attacking country (this is one possible explanation
for the seemingly English and Celtic mitochondrial lines in
Iceland).
> I recall the attempts
> to find an "Eve" hominid and how over time much of that
> work was soured.
Not really - it is largely still valid, just with a few more
caveats not expressed in the original reports.
> Wouldn't it be interesting to be able to
> trace both male and female? What continues to show up in
> whom? Would a population be mainly one, perhaps conquering,
> ethnic group among the males and a native one, having been
> conquered, in the females? Would this carry through
> generations of intermarriage?
Studies mid-to-high castes in India have shown exactly this -
male line Indo-European, female line south-asian (lower castes
are all south-asian).
taf
Arthur Murata
but I was told by a Danish friend who was visiting in the
U.S. where I live that the term "Viking" was more
occupational than ethnic and that its meaning would be
something akin to "pirate" or, perhaps, "mercenary". He
hated the terms and saw it as insulting.
So who, then, are we discussing? The Germanic tribes living
in northern regions as opposed to the Germanic tribes
directly south and to the west. The Celts would be some,
the Anglo-Saxons would be others...how long do groups have
to be separate before it begins to show up as distinct
lineages through DNA. I know that the more lineages
existing within an isolated population, the longer that
population has been together (whether in that place or
having originated elsewhere). And, as several people have
pointed out, what would be the marker for a "Norman"?
Intermarriage with southerly or even Byzantine regions
would not necessarily set them apart - after all, with the
trading going up and down both the Danube and the Volga
between the Germanic tribes of the north and the Arabs,
there was plenty of opportunity for intermixing - although
one would assume that the traders would be male, so that
any women involved would have remained where they were.
Back to my other question a few posts back - when do we see
a mitochondrial DNA study to track lineages? Best, Bronwen
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Nathaniel Taylor
lostc...@yahoo.com (Arthur Murata) wrote:
>I have no doubt that someone will correct me if I am wrong,
>but I was told by a Danish friend who was visiting in the
>U.S. where I live that the term "Viking" was more
>occupational than ethnic and that its meaning would be
>something akin to "pirate" or, perhaps, "mercenary". He
>hated the terms and saw it as insulting.
>
>So who, then, are we discussing?
Well, there is scholarly disagreement about the etymology of the term, but
IIRC it appears as a sort of gerundive, 'Vikingarr' (or whatever),
connected to a verb (in Old Norse and cognates?) which has no handy gloss
by the original doers: 'to go a-Viking', perhaps? If I recall, it may be
etymologically connected either to some word for camps (such as those
temporary camps seafarers might pitch on foreign shores) or to some word
for inlets (such as those used for access by seafaring people).
Either way, 'Viking' now commonly refers to a group of people who
undertook both opportunistic raiding as well as trading and settlement
across a wide area from Novgorod to coastal Northern & Western continental
Europe (including the Mediterranean). This sort of presence came to be
described as an epidemic by the various peoples who were the target of the
raiding from the end of the eighth century through the first third of the
tenth (particularly representatives of churches in England and continental
Western Europe, which were favorite targets of Viking raiders). The
raiders/traders/settlers seemed to come from what is now Denmark (Jutland
etc.), Sweden, and Norway. Individual groups of people engaged in these
activities formed no greater political, ethnic, cultural or linguistic
unity, other than the kinship of their languages and the similarity of
their styles. The largest coordinated Viking military activity was the
amassed 'Great Army' which ravaged England and France over thirty years
from the 860s to the 890s. The Viking 'kingdoms' of York and Dublin, and
the viking settlement of the duchy of Normandy, represent distinct moments
of 'domestication' of people engaged in an otherwise seasonally nomadic
lifestyle.
No one should really view the term as insulting, unless it implies an
oversimplified and denigratory view of the Vikings. They were, in fact,
quite good at many of the various things they did.
Nat Taylor
Nathaniel Taylor
>In article <2001121101413...@web13301.mail.yahoo.com>,
>lostc...@yahoo.com (Arthur Murata) wrote:
>
>>So who, then, are we discussing?
>
>Well...
I can add a brief list of Viking books (including a couple of basic
picture books) which can give the basic historical / archeological /
demographic overview:
Jones, Gwyn. _A History of the Vikings_. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1984 (orig. pub. 1968). *conventional wisdom, now
dated*
Simpson, Jacqueline. _The Viking world_. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980.
Graham-Campbell, James. _The Viking World_. Foreword David M. Wilson.
New Haven & New York: Ticknor & Fields, 1980.
Richards, Julian D. _Book of Viking Age England_. London: B.T. Batsford
/ English Heritage, 1991. *good archeological survey*
Cohat, Yves. _Vikings: Lords of the Seas_. Abrams Discoveries. New
York: Harry N. Abrams, 1992. 176 pp. *part of an interesting series of
small picture books with pretty good text & credits*
Marsden, John. _The fury of the Northmen: saints, shrines and sea-raiders
in the Viking age, AD 793-878_. London: Kyle Cathie, 1993. *a bad
picture book? Can't remember*
Griffith, Paddy. _The Viking art of war_. London: Greenhill Books;
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books, 1995. 224 pp. *a
commonsense approach to understanding them militarily, though with too
much reliance on conjectural extrapolation from violence in the sagas*
_The Oxford illustrated history of the Vikings_. Ed. Peter H. Sawyer.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. *collection of worthwhile
introductory essays*
Nat Taylor
Arthur Murata
and economic history of the region that I do not possess,
but I wonder about the statement that there would be fewer
surviving children, possibly no surviving children, among
the lower classes.I would think the opposite would be true
for two reasons: (1) struggling families need as many
workers as possible and strive to produce them for the sake
of the family; and (2) they would tend to be somewhat less
inbred than the nobility and royalty who were tending to
have fewer children as time went on. I don't have
statistics for a comparison of infant mortality and mother
mortality among the classes - it would be interesting to
find them. A point of comparison for me has been the
oft-repeated declaration that the poor have large families
they are unable to feed while the wealthy have small
families. To some degree this is an inaccurate stereotype,
but there is also some truth in it. I live in an area with
thousands of Southeast Asian refugees (especially Hmong and
Mien). They continue to have very large families because of
their traditions: cousins are like brothers and sisters,
making a single household for a large extended family; and,
as they themselves will tell you, precisely because there
has been a high infant mortality rate (and more recently a
high adolescent and young adult male mortality rate), it
has been important to have large families so that there
will be more people to work for the common good. In my own
family which is all-American Mutt, my Irish and Scottish
forebears represented middle class folks some of whom had
enormous families (18 children from one mother with about
half of them surviving!) while others had only one or two
surviving children. A quick glance through some of the
royal pedigrees in England, just the Angevins for instance,
shows that families tended to be on the small side with a
very high mortality rate as well....Food for thought anyway
- it's getting much too late at night to make any
sense...:| Best, Bronwen
--- Chris Dickinson <ch...@dickinson.uk.net> wrote:
> Both Adrian Channing and Bronwen have pointed out that
> the Dublin
> result has not supported the historical fact of Norse
> settlement
> there.
>
> I can think of a reason why this may have happened.
>
> In the case of Cumbria and Yorkshire, the pattern of
> land-ownership promotes a very static genetic pool.
> Yeoman
> farming dynasties couldn't easily be ousted from their
> land. They
> tended to marry within a very narrow social and
> geographical
> range. They acted as an oligarchy and ensured that vacant
> tenancies became filled with their own family members.
> They
> managed their possessions with a careful eye to purchase,
> leasing
> and dowry.
>
> In this scenario, it isn't that the population as a whole
> is
> immobile. The landless and younger sons go off to try
> their luck
> in the towns, or Ireland, or America, or Australia; but
> the core
> yeoman families remain rooted in one spot, kings of all
> they
> survey.
>
> In contrast, I would not expect landless non-yeoman
> families to
> survive for any length of time in one place - indeed the
> chances
> of their genes surviving at all must have been
> considerably
> lower. In a competitive world, they wouldn't breed as
> luxuriously
> as their yeomen superiors and would be steadily displaced
> by the
> downwardly mobile progeny of yeoman younger sons.
>
> That may not have happened around Dublin. Land tenure may
> not
> have been on a similar basis. Land ownership around a
> capital
> city was much more likely to change hands [you see this,
> for
> instance, in the coal/tobacco boom around Whitehaven in
> Cumberland 1650-1750. The old yeoman families in the
> immediate
> vicinity sell to to the Earl of Lonsdale, the Gale family
> (tobacco merchants, of Mildred Washington fame), the
> Speddings
> (agents to the Lonsdales), etc.]. I guess the same sort
> of thing
> would have happened around Dublin, but on a much larger
> scale.
>
> Anyway, that's my theory :-)
>
>
> Chris
> ch...@dickinson.uk.net
Steve Williamson
the term is being used here as a shorthand for 'Scandinavian
raiders/traders/settlers.' It's an easily recognized umbrella term that most
people would understand, and the BBC news article was written for a general
audience, not for scholars. If you read the full results, the authors get
much more specific about exactly who they are talking about.
As far as "Celt," "German," "Norman" and such categories go, one could make
distinctions based on language, culture, etc - mostly, I think those are
just convenient labels that have more to do with modern history books than
how the people back then actually perceived themselves (I doubt a Gaulish
tribesman went around thinking, "Gee, I'm a Celt;" most of the Celtic tribes
seem to have hated each other as much as the Romans or the "Germans" - the
Romans very effectively exploited this fact in their conquest of Gaul &
Britain). A lot of the distinctions now made between the "Celtic" &
"Germanic" realms have to do with 19th century concerns over race & the
political identities of France, Germany & England. Such concerns produced
the myth of the cold, logical Saxon or Teuton, and the passionate, mystical
"Celt" - myths that are still believed in today. I think they are convenient
labels, just as long as we remember they are just that.
Genetically, all of humanity is a spectrum (take a look at Cavalli-Sforza's
massive "The History & Geography of Human Genes," for example).
Arthur Murata
on the rhetorical side. I am aware of which groups are
collectively called "Vikings" and have a number of
historical atlases, etc. that detail their comings and
goings (mostly comings and stayings). Best, Bronwen
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> thanks todd, would offspring of the individual with the transplanted
> marrow carry the original dna or the transplanted dna..i.e. would the
> ovum or sperm be effected by the marrow transplant.
No. Only the blood is affected. Specifically, the cells
transplanted are cells which give rise to red and white blood
cells, macrophages, neutrophils - basically circulatory and
immune systems only. It does not affect anything else.
> hmm..maybe not the ovum, as females are born with the ovum, they just
> mature as the female does..but the sperm is constantly being
> regenerated? correct?
Yes, but they are generated from stem-cells - cells in the testes
permanently dedicated to making sperm, and not replaced by the
marrow transplant process (although depending on how careful they
are in killing the recipient's marrow prior to replacement, they
may not produce anything - not a problem these days, as the
radiation is adjusted, but in the old days . . . ).
Even gene therapy on anything but an embryo will not affect
inheritance.
taf
Elin Galtung Lihaug
news:ntaylor-1012...@mid-tgn-ngv-vty8.as.wcom.net...
> Well, there is scholarly disagreement about the etymology of the term, but
> IIRC it appears as a sort of gerundive, 'Vikingarr' (or whatever),
> connected to a verb (in Old Norse and cognates?) which has no handy gloss
> by the original doers: 'to go a-Viking', perhaps? If I recall, it may be
> etymologically connected either to some word for camps (such as those
> temporary camps seafarers might pitch on foreign shores) or to some word
> for inlets (such as those used for access by seafaring people).
You're right on the latter connection - 'vik' is the Norwegian word for
inlet.
Elin Galtung Lihaug
Douglas Richardson
Thank you for posting the information today regarding the Viking
study. I found it most interesting. I'm intrigued by the study for
several reasons. One reason is because I suspect my surname
Richardson derives originally from the North of England and goes back
to Danish or Scandinavian ancestry. I'd like to have my DNA tested
and find out for sure.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
william...@hotmail.com (Steve Williamson) wrote in message news:<F96e7vHZdvXuK...@hotmail.com>...
Phil Moody
The traditional argument against the presence of Scandinavians
after the Conquest is based on the idea that very few settled in
the first place - the Great Army didn't have a Great Settlement
in its wake. Generally I don't think this sort of argument stands
up against the evidence.
PLM: I don't buy the "traditional argument" one bit. For my money,
settlement was hot and heavy, but the question was, what became of them. The
genetics testing did not indicate any Scandinavian descendants south of
Cumbria and even though we both agree that there was a considerable
population of Scandinavians throughout the Danelaw, we must now consider why
these genetics tests did not confirm our beliefs. Now you see'em, now you
don't and I think this illusion would have dumbfounded Harry Houdini as
well:-)
Granted, the testing was random and can in no way be considered accurate by
any means, but it cannot be seen as entirely innaccurrate either.
Of course, Cumbria (Strathclyde) was a buffer state, sometimes
under English control, sometimes Scottish ... so the Conquest was
a much less relevant event there than it was in the rest of
England.
PLM: Cumbria was a possession of Malcolm III at the time of the Conquest and
would provide sanctuary for the Scandinavians who chose not to submit to
William I. They probably had no idea it was going to be a permanent exile,
as the tides of war could have reversed their fortunes at any time.
Steve Williamson
"The genetics testing did not indicate any Scandinavian descendants south of
Cumbria and even though we both agree that there was a considerable
population of Scandinavians throughout the Danelaw, we must now consider why
these genetics tests did not confirm our beliefs. Now you see'em, now you
don't and I think this illusion would have dumbfounded Harry Houdini as
well"
HUH?????? It appears to me that the results DO IN FACT confirm the
historical picture of the Danelaw.
Here's an excerpt from the results: "The highest
percentage of DNA signatures from the invading groups (Angles, Saxons and
Danish Vikings) was found in the North and East of England. Interestingly
the place
with the highest 'invader input' was York, a well-known Viking settlement
site. There was one result in the North and East of England which did not
fit this
pattern. In Penrith a significant proportion of the men tested had Norwegian
DNA signatures on their Y chromosomes." The emphasis there is on NORWEGIAN,
rather than on 'indistinguishable northern Germanic' - the researchers could
not distinguish between Anglo-Saxon & Danish DNA - they're almost identical,
after all: the Angles came from Schleswig-Holstein/southern Denmark; the
Saxons from northern Germany (river Elbe - Saxony).
The study showed that northern & eastern England are MORE Germanic (in terms
of DNA) than southern & western England - this fits with the historical
record of a sparse Celtic population in the North after the Romans left, and
with the Danelaw settlements.
Also, Germanic "Invader" DNA was even found in central WALES, where
"...there was a significant amount of 'invading' DNA found. ...in Wales, it
is
impossible to know whether the DNA of these 'invaders' reached east Wales as
a results of Viking settlement or Anglo-Saxon settlement." I would think
history supports Anglo-Saxon in the case of central Wales.
Chris Dickinson
>but I wonder about the statement that there would be fewer
>surviving children, possibly no surviving children, among
>the lower classes
Yes, I wondered about that too :-)
I was just throwing out a thought, and this probably isn't an
appropriate forum to try and justify it!
Chris Dickinson
<snip>
even though we both agree that there was a considerable
population of Scandinavians throughout the Danelaw, we must now
consider why these genetics tests did not confirm our beliefs.
<snip>
Ah, hold on.
The DNA testing hasn't shown there wasn't a substantial surviving
Scandinavian population. Professor David Goldstein did emphasise
in an interview in the last programme that the presence of
Scandinavian genes in the modern population would likely be
much greater than this study has shown. This study has
merely looked for DNA evidence through one route.
And, as Nat Taylor has already pointed out, there are problems
about the use of markers on this occasion. Early days yet.
The...@aol.com
Hello Roz, Todd, Steve, Bronwen, Peter, Doug, Cris & Phil, (et al. ?),
I have not had a chance to read or see the BBC material, short of the
posts on SGM. It is an interesting subject, much as were the older studies
of Raphael Patai (on 'non-Jewish' physiological evidence in various Jewish
communities).
I do agree with Steve, if the study has shown greater genetic evidence
of more extensive/intensive (northern) Scandinavian 'input' in northern and
eastern England, it tends to confirm earlier knowledge of that area in
general, and Yorkshire in particular. The existence of anomalies (Penrith)
may be explained by the nature of the testing and the sample population used
- I am not going to try to guess here, as I have no knowledge of how the
study was conducted and in what particular areas.
While this study can certainly be useful in making similar general
observations, and even imput information about certain regions (possibly even
parishes ?), its application on an individual level I see as problematic.
Example: An individual surnamed Osborne has his blood tested re:
male-line
DNA, and overhears,
' Suffering Smorgasbord ! He's a regular Bjorn
Ironside ! '
Mr. Osborne [unaware that Bjorn Ironside was probably
Danish
himself] is told he has the appropriate Northern blood,
and is
therefore 'Viking' in the male line. He therefore
assumes he is
descended from a long-settled line of Yorkshire
yeomanry, heirs
of their original Viking forefather who settled (or
'inputed') there.
* Unbeknownst to Mr. Osborne and the geneticists, he is
in fact
the 30th great-grandson of a Norman follower of William
the
Bastard, whose own gg grandfather from Norway had
joined Rollo
in Normandy.
From my experience on a personal level, and not as a professional
genealogist, many (probably most) individuals have extremely limited
knowledge of their forebears - knowing the names of all four grandparents,
and that 'Our family is Irish !' [because the last name is FitzGerald, after
all ! ;) ] is frequently the extent of it. If I were equally unaware of
my ancestry, and had the genetic testing done, in the male line perhaps I
would get an accurate read, but I could not confirm same from genealogical
evidence - beyond my gg grandfather, in fact, certainly unprovable at this
time. In a direct female line, I would certainly get a 'Scandinavian
Scertification' , but given that my gg grandmother and the previous four
generations in the female line were well-established in Kalmar lan, Sweden,
what other feedback should I get ?
I fear the results of such testing, although providing an element of
additional interest, may well become the 'poor man's genealogy' .
Good luck, and good hunting to all.
John *
* John P. Ravilious
Nathaniel Taylor
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote:
>Dear Steve:
>
>Thank you for posting the information today regarding the Viking
>study. I found it most interesting. I'm intrigued by the study for
>several reasons. One reason is because I suspect my surname
>Richardson derives originally from the North of England and goes back
>to Danish or Scandinavian ancestry. I'd like to have my DNA tested
>and find out for sure.
You would be wasting your money. Unfortunately, buried in the follow-up
story was the admission that the study failed to find any genetic markers
distinguishing Anglo-Saxons from descendants of the Danelaw settlers of
Yorkshire or the East of England.
Nat Taylor
Nathaniel Taylor
moody...@prodigy.net (Phil Moody) wrote:
>Chris Dickinson wrote:
>The traditional argument against the presence of Scandinavians
>after the Conquest is based on the idea that very few settled in
>the first place - the Great Army didn't have a Great Settlement
>in its wake. Generally I don't think this sort of argument stands
>up against the evidence.
>
>PLM: I don't buy the "traditional argument" one bit.
Why not?
>The genetics testing did not indicate any Scandinavian descendants
>south of Cumbria.
Once again, the study states that the researchers failed to find any
genetic markers adequately distinguishing Anglo-Saxons from Danish
settlers. So, the testing could not show whether or not there were
Scandinavian descendants. It *could* identify settlers of specifically
*Norwegian* genetic type: these were found in Cumbria. But the
post-Viking settlers of York and East Anglia were in large part Danish,
and so genetically indistinguishable from their Anglo-Saxon neighbors.
Reread the article.
Nat Taylor
Nathaniel Taylor
<egli...@c2i.net> wrote:
Thank you. I don't have my source at hand, but it also pointed out
cognates in Old Norse for the first possibility as well; there may not be
any current cognates, though.
Nat Taylor
The...@aol.com
Hello Nat, Elin et al.,
Not having brushed up on my Norse of late, I do note according to the below website (an implicit caveat there) that "Jorvik", the Norse/Danish name for York, is held to mean "Bay of Horses".
That aside, the site also provides some interesting maps, including one of the distribution of Scandinavian place-names [excluding certain endings, -thorpe, etc.] north of the Humber. Without detailed analysis, it would appear to go well along with the commentary by G. O. Sayles of several years ago, noting not only coastal settlements but also inland locations denoting the effective use of English waterways *.
For the maps & other 'tools' in question, see
http://viking.no/e/england/york/jorvik_(york)_index.html
The site for Jorvik Viking Centre in York is
www.jorvik-viking-centre.co.uk
Ha! Rollo!..... I mean, Good luck, and good hunting.
John P. Ravilious
*definition: Viking longship = Higgins boat of the 9th to 11th centuries
Elin Galtung Lihaug
My "Norrøn"(Old Norse)-Norwegian dictionary says:
*viking* - "hærferd, særl. til sjøs" (= warriors' journey, mainly
by sea), "viking(ferd)" (= viking (journey)), "herjing" (= plundering)
*vik* - "vik" (= inlet)
Elin Galtung Lihaug
Elin Galtung Lihaug
> Tuesday, 11 December, 2001
>
>
> Hello Nat, Elin et al.,
>
> Not having brushed up on my Norse of late, I do note according to the
> below website (an implicit caveat there) that "Jorvik", the Norse/Danish
> name for York, is held to mean "Bay of Horses".
Yes, my Norrøn-Norwegian dictionary lists:
jór - hest (= horse)
vik - vik (= inlet or small bay)
Elin Galtung Lihaug
Amanda Jones
lostc...@yahoo.com (Arthur Murata) wrote:
> . A quick glance through some of the
> royal pedigrees in England, just the Angevins for instance,
> shows that families tended to be on the small side with a
> very high mortality rate as well....Food for thought anyway
> - it's getting much too late at night to make any.
Edward III, for example.......
Amanda
D. Spencer Hines
Food For Thought...
And Rejection.
Scholarship by "quick glance"...
Hilarious!
How Sweet It Is!
This is yet another prattling "educator" speaking.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Amanda Jones" <avj...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2001121...@avjones.compulink.co.uk...
Phil Moody
>Chris Dickinson wrote:
>The traditional argument against the presence of Scandinavians
>after the Conquest is based on the idea that very few settled in
>the first place - the Great Army didn't have a Great Settlement
>in its wake. Generally I don't think this sort of argument stands
>up against the evidence.
>
>PLM: I don't buy the "traditional argument" one bit.
Why not?
PLM: Well, for starters, I have read Alfred Smyth's "King Alfred the Great"
and I get the impression that settlement was on a large scale. Perhaps the
most signifigant indication of their size and importance is Sitric Caech's
marriage to Eadgyth, daughter of Edward the Elder.
If we compare this political marriage to those of her sisters, Eadgifu m.
Charles the Simple, Edith m. Otto the Great and Eadhild m. Hugh the Great of
Francia; then we must accept that Sitric was very powerful to be the equal
of these Great men. Moreover, King Sitric of York and Dublin derived his
power from the Scandinavians in the Danelaw and Dublin and this must have
been considerable, for Wessex to form this marriage alliance.
Apart from all the see saw battles Wessex had against York and the Danelaw;
we have Æthelred II's St. Brice's Day massacre of the Danes in 1002. This
dispicable event was motivated by fear no doubt and I infer that the Danes
were numerous enough at this late date to cause Æthelred to fear loosing his
life and Crown. It is ironic that Æthelred's ill-conceived plan actually
brought about the thing he feared the most:-)
It is unknown how many Danes were murdered by Æthelred, but King Swein
certainly became relentless in his attacks against England, until he was
finally proclaimed king. After a brief interegnum of Danish control, we find
Canute on the throne and the Danes maintained this connection until the
death of Harald II in 1066, bearing in mind, that Earl Godwin's daughter
Edith was in all probability related to the Danish royal house through her
mother, as was Harald II. Therefore even Edward the Confessor's reign had a
Scandinavian on the throne, in the guise of his Queen, Edith
Godwinsdatter:-)
Once again, the study states that the researchers failed to find any
genetic markers adequately distinguishing Anglo-Saxons from Danish
settlers. So, the testing could not show whether or not there were
Scandinavian descendants. It *could* identify settlers of specifically
*Norwegian* genetic type: these were found in Cumbria. But the
post-Viking settlers of York and East Anglia were in large part Danish,
and so genetically indistinguishable from their Anglo-Saxon neighbors.
Reread the article.
PLM: I must confess I have not read the article at all, but I will remedy
this; rather than jump to conclusions based on hearsay:-)
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of
Nathaniel Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 9:39 AM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: BBC Viking DNA study results
David Greene
but I can say that, while he is an important figure in Anglo-Saxon studies,
he is also highly controversial, and his biography of Alfred the Great
demonstrates both qualities. His conclusion that Asser's famous biography
of Alfred is a later fraud is particularly open to question--and this
conclusion about Asser is central to Smyth's work on Alfred the Great.
When Smyth's Alfred biography appeared, it was panned at length in the
English Historical Review; the reviewer even questioned whether Smyth was
able correctly to interpret Latin! (The reviewer had also published
analyses of Asser and was deeply upset that anyone would question its
authenticity.)
DAVID GREENE
"Phil Moody" <moody...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:MABBKIIDLFFPHHHMGNN...@prodigy.net...
> PLM: Well, for starters, I have read Alfred Smyth's "King Alfred the Great"
> and I get the impression that settlement was on a large scale
--
Posted from r-251.112.alltel.net [166.102.251.112]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
D. Stussy
>On the other hand, didn't the study express some surprise
>at the lack of clear Norwegian DNA in the Dublin area in
>spite of the long history of Viking settlement and
>sovereignty in the area? By the way, I wonder how they
>differentiated between Norman and Viking genes....? Bronwen
Is there a difference? The Normans themselves are descendant from Vikings; the
only difference being a mixing with some of the local people they conquered.
However, I'm not certain that such is enough of a difference to show up.
>--- Chris Dickinson <ch...@dickinson.uk.net> wrote:
>> What I thought to be particularly silly about this study
>> was the
>> attempt to present its results as surprising or
>> revealing. The
>> genetic map seems to be pretty close to the patterns of
>> settlement
>> already assumed by historians and archaeologists.
>>
>> Cumbria, for instance, has always been seen as an area of
>> Norse
>> settlement. So statements in the publicity like:
>>
>> "Geneticists discovered the area around Penrith has clear
>> evidence
>> of Norwegian influence."
>>
>> or
>>
>> "It seems likely that the Norwegian Vikings who travelled
>> along
>> the sea road from Shetland down to the Isle of Man may
>> well have
>> stopped off in Cumbria."
>>
>> are misleading. The study would have done better to
>> highlight that
>> its results confirmed existing models.
>>
>>
>> Chris
>> ch...@dickinson.uk.net
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
>http://greetings.yahoo.com
>
>
>
Arthur Murata
--- Elin Galtung Lihaug <egli...@c2i.net> wrote:
>
>
> You're right on the latter connection - 'vik' is the
> Norwegian word for
> inlet.
>
> Elin Galtung Lihaug
>
>
about the word "Viking". When English-speaking people use
the term, how are they thought of in Norway, for example?
How are "Vikings" defined in Norwegian schools? Good
thoughts, Bronwen ;)
Arthur Murata
highest concentrations of emigrant families lived? Maybe
they should swab a few cheeks in the colonies! Best,
Bronwen
Arthur Murata
where you thought to put your food this past
thanksgiving...and it was so cute when you let me tickle
your hairy little fingers and lick all the scholarship from
them! Big smooth right on the lips, Bronwen
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
wrote:
Arthur Murata
where you thought to put your food this past
thanksgiving...and it was so cute when you let me tickle
your hairy little fingers and lick all the scholarship from
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
wrote:
Elin Galtung Lihaug
news:2001121122172...@web13302.mail.yahoo.com...
>
> --- Elin Galtung Lihaug <egli...@c2i.net> wrote:
> > You're right on the latter connection - 'vik' is the
> > Norwegian word for
> > inlet.
> >
> > Elin Galtung Lihaug
> >
> I would be very interested to hear what you have to say
> about the word "Viking". When English-speaking people use
> the term, how are they thought of in Norway, for example?
> How are "Vikings" defined in Norwegian schools? Good
> thoughts, Bronwen ;)
As this is OT in soc.genealogy.medieval, I'll respond privately.
Elin Galtung Lihaug
Renia
Richard.) Simmonds, for example, is predominant in the south, while Simpson is predominant in the north. This seems
to be the case with many patrynimic surnames. My linguistic prowess is not strong enough to know the reason for this.
It's just an observation. I doubt, however, that the surname of Richardson, itself, is Danish or Scandinavian, as
surnames didn't then exist. But it probably evolved in the late 13th or early 14th century. If you have ancestors
from the north (as I have) then it stands to reason that some of them will have been Viking. Identifying which one,
of course, is the problem.
In the 1881 census of England, Wales and Scotland, there were 51,493 people called Richardson, with little or no
variation.
Of these:
7707 born in Yorkshire
4220 born Durham
3964 born Lancashire
3579 born London
3126 born various Scots counties
2375 born Northumberland
1669 born Cumbria
1565 born Sussex
1338 born Essex (covering parts of London)
1323 born Surrey
1242 born Kent (covering parts of London)
1019 born Notthinghamshire
969 born Derbyshire
965 born Cheshire
885 born Staffordshire
656 born Westmorland
601 born Northampton
505 born Suffolk
447 born Cambridgeshire
123 born various Welsh counties (there may have been a few more)
49 born Dorset
28 born USA
(The southern Surrey and Sussex blips I would guess to be people whose family had northern origins, but who had moved
to London at some point, then spreading to nearby Surrey and Sussex.)
For comparison, In the same census, there were 51,799 people called Richards (including Rickard and such variants).
Of these:
17346 born various Welsh counties
6023 born Cornwall
3258 born London
2784 born Devon
1657 born Shropshire
1503 born Somerset
1239 born Kent
1141 born Surrey
844 born York
766 born Gloucestershire
468 born Sussex
428 born Dorset
276 born Durham
205 born various Scots counties
103 born Northumberland
Renia
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Richardson is a name predominant in Yorkshire and the north.
> The southern version is Richards. (Both being son of
> Richard.) Simmonds, for example, is predominant in the south,
> while Simpson is predominant in the north. This seems
> to be the case with many patrynimic surnames. My linguistic
> prowess is not strong enough to know the reason for this.
> It's just an observation.
> In the 1881 census of England, Wales and Scotland, there were
Based on these statistics, I would say that Richards is not so
much southern as western. Excluding London, the top five are
Wales, Devon/Cornwall and two border counties. (Like Surrey and
Sussex for Richardson, I would discount Surrey and Kent here as
London outwash.) If so, then it probably relates to the
Welsh/Cornish patronymic forms, which were in use much longer
than in the rest of England.
taf
Harold Davey
Is there a website or publication that gives the distribution of the
various surnames in the 1881 census?
Harold
----- Original Message -----
From: "Renia" <ren...@btinternet.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: BBC Viking DNA study results
Arthur Murata
that my general impression is correct however in spite of
the exceptions that exist on both sides of the debate. If
we are going head to head, for your Edward III I might add
Richard the "Lion hearted". I will grant that kings had a
much easier time getting mistresses than peasants for
obvious reasons. On the other hand, their siblings and
children were also more likely to kill one another to "get
the goodies". Perhaps it evens out in the end. Best,
Bronwen
D. Spencer Hines
Pure, unadulterated twaddle.
Hilarious!
Zip point nada data.
Deus Vult.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Arthur Murata" <lostc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2001121203571...@web13305.mail.yahoo.com...
Phil Moody
Nat and Stewart can comment much better than I on Alfred Smyth's work,
but I can say that, while he is an important figure in Anglo-Saxon studies,
he is also highly controversial, and his biography of Alfred the Great
demonstrates both qualities. His conclusion that Asser's famous biography
of Alfred is a later fraud is particularly open to question--and this
conclusion about Asser is central to Smyth's work on Alfred the Great.
When Smyth's Alfred biography appeared, it was panned at length in the
English Historical Review; the reviewer even questioned whether Smyth was
able correctly to interpret Latin! (The reviewer had also published
analyses of Asser and was deeply upset that anyone would question its
authenticity.)
PLM: True, it is controversial because Alfred Smyth questions the
authenticity of Asser's work, but this should not detract from what is
otherwise, an outstanding analysis of the time period. I don't have the
expertise in Latin, to enter a debate on the veracity of Asser, even if I
wanted to; so I'll leave that point for others more worthy to the task:-)
The authenticity of Asser's work should not be a taboo subject to academia;
so I'll not hold it against Dr. Smyth for breaching the subject.
I am aware of a minor genealogical error that Dr. Smyth made, but this is
something I can overlook as well, since he is not pretentious enough to call
himself a genealogist:-)
Putting the trivial matters aside, I still think it is the most
comprehensive work of the Scandinavian invasions of England that your likely
to find, for some time to come and I would not hesitate to recommend it to
anyone (academics included!):-)
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of David
Greene
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 2:42 PM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: BBC Viking DNA study results
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> David Greene wrote:
>
> Nat and Stewart can comment much better than I on Alfred Smyth's work,
> but I can say that, while he is an important figure in Anglo-Saxon studies,
> he is also highly controversial, and his biography of Alfred the Great
> demonstrates both qualities.
Let me throw in two other relevant examples - I think his
suggestion about the meaning of Black Foreigners vs. White
Foreigners may just have hit on a promising possibility. On the
other hand, his conclusions regarding the Viking kingdoms in
England and Ireland (specifically his supportof the discredited
Ragnar Lothbrok fable) fits better in the credulous 19th century.
> PLM: . . .
(This is not directed at you, but vent I must.)
> I am aware of a minor genealogical error that Dr. Smyth made, but this is
> something I can overlook as well, since he is not pretentious enough to call
> himself a genealogist:-)
I do wish historians would take their genealogy seriously. If he
were to use an incorrect date, then the reviewers would castigate
him for his inaccuracy and/or lack of care, but screw up a
genealogical table - one which he cribbed from someone else's
book anyhow (and cited poorly at that), well, it's not like it's
a real error, right?
taf
Chris Dickinson
>Richardson is a name predominant in Yorkshire and the north.
<snip>
>In the 1881 census of England, Wales and Scotland, there
>were 51,493 people called Richardson, with little or no
variation.
>Of these:
>
>7707 born in Yorkshire
>4220 born Durham
>3964 born Lancashire
>3579 born London
>3126 born various Scots counties
>2375 born Northumberland
>1669 born Cumbria
<snip>
Richardson does, indeed, appear in Cumbria, but is nowhere as near
as common there (at least in West Cumberland) as other patronymics
from Richard (Dickinson, Dixon, Dickson).
My Cumbrian ancestor, John Dickinson, married (as his first wife)
an Annas Richardson in 1595. So the surname would certainly appear
to be native to the area.
Arthur Murata
--- "D. Stussy" <kd6...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2001, Arthur Murata wrote:
> >On the other hand, didn't the study express some
> surprise
> >at the lack of clear Norwegian DNA in the Dublin area in
> >spite of the long history of Viking settlement and
> >sovereignty in the area? By the way, I wonder how they
> >differentiated between Norman and Viking genes....?
> Bronwen
>
> Is there a difference? The Normans themselves are
> descendant from Vikings; the
> only difference being a mixing with some of the local
> people they conquered.
> However, I'm not certain that such is enough of a
> difference to show up.
Of course, that was my point. On the other hand, someone
posted on this thread yesterday that it might be
interesting to compare samples from peers (or confirmed
relatives of peers) only and see whether that confirms or
skews the data from the random samplilng they used. The
reason why such a study might be more informative if using
this group is simply because of the detailed records kept.
Of course, some of them might get nervous about comparing
the detailed records to the DNA samples...:> Bronwen
Nathaniel Taylor
>David Greene wrote:
>
>When Smyth's Alfred biography appeared, it was panned at length in the
>English Historical Review; the reviewer even questioned whether Smyth was
>able correctly to interpret Latin! (The reviewer had also published
>analyses of Asser and was deeply upset that anyone would question its
>authenticity.)
>
>PLM: True, it is controversial because Alfred Smyth questions the
>authenticity of Asser's work, but this should not detract from what is
>otherwise, an outstanding analysis of the time period...
The myriad negative reviews of this book don't focus just on the
Asser-forgery idea, which is in a sense irrelevant, because having
dismissed it as a forgery, Smyth goes on to talk about the reign using
other sources. Smyth's other revisionist ideas about the reign have also
not proved widely convincing.
>The authenticity of Asser's work should not be a taboo subject to academia;
>so I'll not hold it against Dr. Smyth for breaching the subject.
The point is not that it's a taboo subject, just that most people have
concluded that Asser is largely authentic, and Dr. Smyth's view on Asser
has not convinced many.
> Putting the trivial matters aside, I still think it is the most
>comprehensive work of the Scandinavian invasions of England that you're likely
>to find...
That's simply not the consensus view. There's an enormous amount written
on the period--since long before Stenton in the early 50s (which is still
enormously useful). Perhaps an experienced Anglo-Saxonist can post a
brief list of the best recent works.
Nat Taylor
Douglas Richardson
Thanks for posting the 1881 surname frequency for Richardson. Much
appreciated.
I haven't identified the English origin of my colonial ancestor, Amos
Richardson. According to his own deposition, he was born about 1618,
evidently in England. He first surfaced in Boston, Massachusetts in
1639, when he witnessed a document for Governor John Winthrop. He
later lived in Stonington, Connecticut where he died in 1683. He was
a prominent merchant and owned lands in Massachusetts, Rhode Island
and Connecticut. I've found two contemporaries who referred to him as
"Honest Mr. Richardson," which, given the high Puritan standards for
ethics, was a very high complement. Needless to say, he was a very
interesting man. Sixty plus letters of his have survived in the
Winthrop Collection as well as one of his wife's.
Since we're speaking of surnames, I'm intrigued by the results of the
Viking study vis a vis the earlier study of the Sykes family. If the
Viking study was unable to distinguish between different migrating
groups, how did Dr. Sykes arrive at his conclusions regarding the male
members of his family. Does anyone know? Based on what I'm reading,
I assume the male DNA marker basically indicates if you share the same
common male ancestor in the period, 100-1000 A.D. Is that correct?
Do they have any idea how many different types of male DNA exist?
My daughter Elizabeth Richardson is planning to go into the field of
bio-medical engineering, so she's keenly interested in the Viking
study.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
"Chris Dickinson" <ch...@dickinson.uk.net> wrote in message news:<9v7b1d$bif$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>...
Graeme Wall
lostc...@yahoo.com (Arthur Murata) wrote:
> I have no doubt that someone will correct me if I am wrong,
> but I was told by a Danish friend who was visiting in the
> U.S. where I live that the term "Viking" was more
> occupational than ethnic and that its meaning would be
> something akin to "pirate" or, perhaps, "mercenary". He
> hated the terms and saw it as insulting.
>
[snip]
I suspect he is in a minority, there is a very fine Viking museum in
Roskilde, Denmark.
Quote from: Vikings by Magnus Magnusson[1]:
The word Viking is itself a bit of a puzzle. It may be related to the old
Norse word vik meaning 'bay' or creek'; so a 'viking' meant someone who kept
his ship in a bay, either for trading or raiding. Others look for a
derivation in the Old English word wic, borrowed from the Latin 'vicus'
meaning a camp or a trading place; so a Viking might mean a warrior or trader
- or both.
So I think your Danish friend is not very well up on his own history.
Certainly their enemies regarded the Vikings as pirates, but in Scandinavia
it was a proud tradition, young men would go on Viking expeditions to prove
their mettle.
Trivia question, in the Shetlands they burn a longship as the culmination of
Up-Helly-Ah at midwinter, how old is this tradition?
[1] Icelandic born British TV presenter, probably as close to a pure-bred
Viking as you will find in the 20th/21st Century.
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website:
<http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/index.html>
Phil Moody
So I think your Danish friend is not very well up on his own history.
Certainly their enemies regarded the Vikings as pirates, but in Scandinavia
it was a proud tradition, young men would go on Viking expeditions to prove
their mettle.
PLM: This is a bit harsh, as Magnus Magnusson is not the last word in Viking
studies. Else Roesdahl (a true Dane) writes in "The Vikings":
"The linguistic origin of the word 'Viking' is uncertain and has been much
discussed, but by the end of the Viking age, it was used both for one who
fights at sea - a pirate or a robber (West Norse vikingr) - and for warfare
at sea or harrying (West Norse viking)."
Graeme, it would appear as though you are not familiar with what Danish
scholars are writting of Danish History; so your derogatory remarks toward
this anomymous Dane are not warranted.
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of
Phil Moody
That's simply not the consensus view. There's an enormous amount written
on the period--since long before Stenton in the early 50s (which is still
enormously useful). Perhaps an experienced Anglo-Saxonist can post a
brief list of the best recent works.
PLM: Nat, thank you for the critique, but I am left with the impression that
you have not actually read Smyth's work yourself. I noted that you omitted
any reference to Smyth, when you supplied the short list of books useful for
Scandinavian research and I thought it odd that you neglected Smyth's
Scandinavian Kings in the British Isles, 850-880 (Oxford Historical
Monographs) and Scandinavian York and Dublin : The History and Archaeology
of Two Related Viking Kingdoms. If I have drawn the wrong conclusion,
perhaps you will be kind enough to share your personal thoughts on Smyth's
work?
It appears Alfred Smyth is not letting go of his Asser supposition, as I
just found this title not quite released, at the Amazon web site:-)
The Medieval Life of King Alfred the Great : A Translation and Commentary on
the Text Attributed to Asser
by John Asser, Alfred P. Smyth
This item will be published in December 2001. You may order it now and we
will ship it to you when it arrives.
One author you also omitted from your books on Vikings is Else Roesdahl. I
have not yet read any of her books, but she comes highly recommended by the
Scandinavians I am acquainted with. Two titles available in English are "The
Vikings" and "Viking age Denmark". Curiously, Amazon.com has 17 pages of
"The Vikings" scanned and available for viewing on their web site, where you
will find excerpts, the table of contents and the full index. I rather like
this service Amazon provides and I hope it catches on:-)
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of
Nathaniel Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 8:00 AM
To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: BBC Viking DNA study results
ANNE V. GILBERT
> Trivia question, in the Shetlands they burn a longship as the culmination
of
> Up-Helly-Ah at midwinter, how old is this tradition?
The answer is, no more than about 150 years. The Shetland Islanders
apparently are proud of their Scandinavian roots, but the derivation of "Up
Helly-a" is from "Up Holidays", which apparently means after Christmas and
New Years, locally. So somebody back in, I think, the 19th century, dreamed
up this "Viking festival" which culminated in the burning of a longship
replica. All harmless fun, I guess, when they don't have much else to do.
Anne G
Stewart Baldwin
wrote:
>Nat, thank you for the critique, but I am left with the impression
>that you have not actually read Smyth's work yourself. I noted that
>you omitted any reference to Smyth, when you supplied the short list
>of books useful for Scandinavian research and I thought it odd that
>you neglected Smyth's Scandinavian Kings in the British Isles, 850-880
>(Oxford Historical Monographs) and Scandinavian York and Dublin : The
>History and Archaeology of Two Related Viking Kingdoms. If I have
>drawn the wrong conclusion, perhaps you will be kind enough to share
>your personal thoughts on Smyth's work?
Smyth's work on the Vikings has been very controversial. In
particular, his work "Scandinavian Kings in the British Isles,
850-880" (which tried to argue that Ragnarr Loðbrók was historical)
was raked over the coals in the reviews. See, for example, Donnchadh
Ó Corráin, "High-kings, Vikings and other kings", Irish Historical
Studies 21 (1979), 283-323, which severely criticized Smyth's
methodology (correctly, in my opinion). The book on York and Dublin
was better, but still had its problems, and is particularly bad with
regard to genealogy. One example which shows his sloppiness in his
genealogical arguments is his claim that the king Sitric of Dublin
(grandson of Ivar) who died in 927 was a son of the Sitric (son of
Ivar) who died in 896, his "evidence" being that the younger Sitric
was probably named after his father. He did not even bother to notice
that it was simply not the practice of Vikings of that period to name
a son after the father, so that the fact that the two men had the same
name is actually evidence AGAINST them being father and son. Although
the above two books should be included in any Viking bibliography that
claims to be thorough, I would certainly not put these flawed works at
the top of any recommended reading list on Vikings.
Stewart Baldwin
Nathaniel Taylor
>Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
>
>>That's simply not the consensus view. There's an enormous amount written
>>on the period--since long before Stenton in the early 50s (which is still
>>enormously useful). Perhaps an experienced Anglo-Saxonist can post a
>>brief list of the best recent works.
>
>Nat, thank you for the critique, but I am left with the impression that
>you have not actually read Smyth's work yourself. I noted that you omitted
>any reference to Smyth, when you supplied the short list of books useful for
>Scandinavian research.
You are mistaken in your impression: I have read Smyth's _King Alfred_
(but not the other works you cite). You also mischaracterize my list--it
was a list of books on the 'Vikings' specifically (not on 'Scandinavian
research' nor on the Anglo-Saxons); and I did not claim the list was
exhaustive.
>If I have drawn the wrong conclusion, perhaps you will be kind enough to
>share your personal thoughts on Smyth's work?
The book is interesting in that, with the thesis that Asser's life as a
forgery as a central foundation, Smyth believes he has a strong mandate to
demythologize Alfred, beginning with getting out from under the
biography. This is itself an uncontroversial point, because it is obvious
that the _Life_ mythologizes and distorts Alfred whether or not it is
contemporary. Beyond this, I am not enough of an Anglo-Saxon history
expert to rattle off exactly what others have taken issue with in Smyth's
interpretation of the reign. As Dave Greene and I have both suggested,
going through the reviews in scholarly journals might be helpful.
Stylistically, I found the book ponderous, both in its (interesting but
ultimately unconvincing) discussion of the transmission of the Asser text,
and in its other chapters on the reign.
>One author you also omitted from your books on Vikings is Else Roesdahl. I
>have not yet read any of her books...
Thanks for the addition to the Viking titles I mentioned earlier. You
(and I) may want to read her. I tire of discussing unread texts.
Nat Taylor
James Dempster
Up Helly-A may be no more than 150 years old in its current form but
"Up Helly-Day" is much older and more widespread. In "Primitive
Beliefs in North East Scotland" McPherson notes
"Amongst some of the Northern peoples then month beginning at
Christmas was known as the 'merry month,' for it was spent in
feastings, merry-makings, bodily exercises. There are traces of this
merry month in Morayshire. In the records of Elgin, reference is made
to the time which is superstitiously kept from the 25th December to
the last of January. 'All women and lassis forbidden to resoirt thair
(i.e. the chanonry Kirk and kirkyard) under the paynis of publict
repentance at the leist during this tyme quhilk is superstitiouslie
keippit fra the xxv day of December to the last of Januar nixt
thairefter.'
But there was a more limited celebration, which ended with a fire
festival on Uphellya or Uphaliday, the last day of the Yule
festivities. This was the thirteenth night of Yule and was the
crowning night of the Yuletide revels. There is ample evidence of its
observance in Elgin and neighbourhood. In 151-2 John Annand, provost,
and William Gibson, burgess, 'become surety for Marjory Cumming,
mother to the said William Gibson, that she in no time to come shall
ring basons, brass nor iron morteris, nor no other material vessel
upon Vphelly Even.'
On 5th February, 1581, amongst other statutes, the borough council
enact one forbidding 'All making fires on the King's highway on St
John's or Peter's even, Midsummer, Ruid or St Nicholas Dayor even, or
ring brassings, bells, or any other kind of brazen vessels or metals
used of old on Uphellie Even.'"
McPherson continues with the remainder of a page of examples of the
attempted supression of Uphelly Day continuing in the Elgin area as
late as 1636.
It would appear that Uphelly Day was a pre-reformation (probably pagan
in origin) festival all over northern Scotland and the fact that it
has survived in a modified form in Shetland does not make it a
festival that is necessarily of viking origin.
Source: McPherson, JM, Primitive Beliefs in the North-East of
Scotland, London, 1929 pp 24-25
James
James Dempster (jdem...@easynet.co.uk)
You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.
Renia
> In message <2001121101413...@web13301.mail.yahoo.com>
> lostc...@yahoo.com (Arthur Murata) wrote:
>
> > I have no doubt that someone will correct me if I am wrong,
> > but I was told by a Danish friend who was visiting in the
> > U.S. where I live that the term "Viking" was more
> > occupational than ethnic and that its meaning would be
> > something akin to "pirate" or, perhaps, "mercenary". He
> > hated the terms and saw it as insulting.
> >
> [snip]
>
> I suspect he is in a minority, there is a very fine Viking museum in
> Roskilde, Denmark.
>
> Quote from: Vikings by Magnus Magnusson[1]:
>
>
>
> [1] Icelandic born British TV presenter, probably as close to a pure-bred
> Viking as you will find in the 20th/21st Century.
He was born in Edinburgh while his father was Icelandic consul.
Renia
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Not having brushed up on my Norse of late, I do note according
> to the below website (an implicit caveat there) that "Jorvik",
> the Norse/Danish name for York, is held to mean "Bay of Horses".
I don't recall seeing many bays in the area of York. This may be
the meaning of Jorvik, but it should be kept in mind that the
Vikings did not name the place "Bay of Horses" - they
transliterated the preexisting name, and the sylables that ended
up sounding similar enough to use happened to mean "Horse" and
"Bay". The name in Roman times was Eboracum, from "eburos" - the
British word for the yew (and also a personal name derived from
said plant, so it is unclear whether it was named for the plant
or named for the man named for the plant). As chief city of the
Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Deira, it was Eoforwic "wild boar
settlement" - but just as the vikings later did, this does not
imply intent, but rather is nothing more than an attempt to
represent the unfamiliar name in familiar sylables. The Vikings
then used Jorvik as an approximation to Eoforwic using familiar
word forms. A comparable example would be the manner in which
western names are rendered into chinese - they use characters
with the same sound, which happen to carry definitions of their
own (sometimes much to the amusement of those doing the
transliteration, who take advantage of the opportunity to pun, or
even insult the person that they are naming).
taf
Phil Moody
Smyth's work on the Vikings has been very controversial. In
particular, his work "Scandinavian Kings in the British Isles,
850-880" (which tried to argue that Ragnarr Loðbrók was historical)
was raked over the coals in the reviews. See, for example, Donnchadh
Ó Corráin, "High-kings, Vikings and other kings", Irish Historical
Studies 21 (1979), 283-323, which severely criticized Smyth's
methodology (correctly, in my opinion). The book on York and Dublin
was better, but still had its problems, and is particularly bad with
regard to genealogy. One example which shows his sloppiness in his
genealogical arguments is his claim that the king Sitric of Dublin
(grandson of Ivar) who died in 927 was a son of the Sitric (son of
Ivar) who died in 896, his "evidence" being that the younger Sitric
was probably named after his father. He did not even bother to notice
that it was simply not the practice of Vikings of that period to name
a son after the father, so that the fact that the two men had the same
name is actually evidence AGAINST them being father and son. Although
the above two books should be included in any Viking bibliography that
claims to be thorough, I would certainly not put these flawed works at
the top of any recommended reading list on Vikings.
PLM: Stewart, thank you for the analysis of Dr. Smyth's work and the
reference. My knowledge is limited concerning the all the details
surrounding an historical Ragnar Lodbrok and I know within this circle, he
is thought of as a myth or fabrication, but it is useful to me to know of
sources that support his existance; so I can have a fuller understanding of
the arguements for and against. I happen to think I am in an enviuos
position, precisely because I have no reputation to protect; so I can read a
book with no preconceived bias, and form an opinion based on the material at
hand; juxtaposed against other books covering the same material, of
course:-) In this way, there can be no doubt that my opinion will be the
product of my own conclusions, influenced not by the status quo.
You make a good point concerning Smyth's genealogical charts, and I agree,
he has neglected to give them much thought. In his 'King Alfred', he
reiterates the same Sitric, son of Sitric line which you mention and I agree
it is highly improbable, based on the prevailing Scandinavian naming
pattern. I briefly mentioned that I spotted an error in his charts myself,
in an earlier e-mail and this concerns Sitric (II) Caech, d. 927. Sitric
Caech did marry the daughter of Edward the Elder, Eadgyth and IIRC, this is
recorded in the ASC. Where I disagree with Smyth, is that he names Olaf
Cuaran the son of Sitric BY Eadgyth and I don't believe this is accurate. My
primary concern is that Olaf Cuaran is stated to have been in the battle of
Brunanburh (927) and if I conservatively make Olaf 17 at this time, then
this pushes his D.O.B. to about 910 (died c. 981). Edward supposedly subdued
King Ragnall of York (920/921), Sitric's predessor and I can't see Edward
giving Eadgyth to Sitric prior to this time, which would rule out Olaf being
the son of Eadgyth, as Smyth has it.
Having just affirmed the unreliability of Smyth's genealogical charts, let
me add that this does not detract from Smyth's work, from my perspective,
because I don't rely on his charts at all, or any other chart for that
matter, unless it can be substantiated from reliable primary or secondary
sources. This is one reason I can forgive an error made by a historian in
his genealogical chart, because I will scrutinize it regardless of how much
energy he devotes to it:-)
Best Wishes,
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of
The...@aol.com
Good morning Todd,
The name 'Jorvik' could, as you say, be the Viking phonetic
approximation of Eoforwic; it could also be a name given to the city upriver
from, and closest to, the mouth of the Humber. From Spurn Head west, the
river forms a very nice ' vik ' [with somewhat flatter banks, by Norwegian
standards] .
The Vikings are well known for naming areas out of wishful thinking
(Vinland) or as forms of false advertisement (Greenland). Perhaps 'Jorvik'
was named with the intention of bringing more farming types from their crofts
in Scandinavia ?
Best regards,
John *
* John P. Ravilious
Amanda Jones
> An ignominious retreat indeed.
>
> Pure, unadulterated twaddle.
>
> Hilarious!
It wasn't pure twaddle at all! I merely inserted one example of the
opposite - I didn't meant to cause such vitriol from yourself.
Amanda
D. Spencer Hines
She is so trepidacious and afraid to let the record speak for itself
that she suppresses the entire post to which I was replying.
Pure Unadulterated Twaddle On Her Part.
Afraid of her own shadow.
Ignorant ---- Ergo Quasi-Timorous.
She should have gone whole-hog and eschewed posting about something
where she is obviously pig-ignorant.
Deus Vult.
Dies Irae.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
Warriors ---- "There is much tradition and mystique in the bequest of
personal weapons to a surviving comrade in arms. It has to do with a
continuation of values past individual mortality. People living in a
time made safe for them by others may find this difficult to
understand." _Hannibal_, Thomas Harris, Delacorte Press, [1999], p. 397.
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
-------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Amanda Jones" <avj...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2001121...@avjones.compulink.co.uk...
| In article <aHAR7.750$Po6....@eagle.america.net>,
Arthur Murata
you talk dirty to other women! MMMMMph. Bronwen
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
wrote:
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Where I disagree with Smyth, is that he names Olaf
> Cuaran the son of Sitric BY Eadgyth and I don't believe this is accurate. My
> primary concern is that Olaf Cuaran is stated to have been in the battle of
> Brunanburh (927) and if I conservatively make Olaf 17 at this time, then
> this pushes his D.O.B. to about 910 (died c. 981). Edward supposedly subdued
> King Ragnall of York (920/921), Sitric's predessor and I can't see Edward
> giving Eadgyth to Sitric prior to this time, which would rule out Olaf being
> the son of Eadgyth, as Smyth has it.
Edward did not give Eadgyth (if that was her name) to Sitric at
all. AEthelstan did. They were married for only a brief time
(months) when Sitric turned apostate, and died. There were no
children.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Thursday, 13 December, 2001
>
> Good morning Todd,
>
> The name 'Jorvik' could, as you say, be the Viking phonetic
> approximation of Eoforwic; it could also be a name given to the city upriver
> from, and closest to, the mouth of the Humber.
Existing, thriving cities are rarely renamed. In this case with
the predicessor Eoforwic, there really can be little doubt.
(Just pronounce it as the Anglo-Saxons would, and it basically
sounds exactly the same.) Creative real estate marketing need
not be invoked.
taf
Amanda Jones
> Hilarious!
>
> She is so trepidacious and afraid to let the record speak for itself
> that she suppresses the entire post to which I was replying.
>
> Pure Unadulterated Twaddle On Her Part.
>
> Afraid of her own shadow.
Me? Hardly (-:
I just don't believe in copying endless lines of crap.
Amanda
Janet Ariciu
son name GERHARD LEVERING was born respectively, in 1615 .
I was sent this information on the Levering family and thought of all you.
What can you tell me about the following?
Levering is an old and honored surname of relatively simple deviation, for
tradition and early records indicate that the LEVERING family derived it's
name from the ancient town of Leverington near Ely in Cambridgeshire County,
England.
The town was so named in about the year A.D. 870, and it is known that
John D. Levering was born there in 1250. Some of the later's descendants
migrated to Holland and Germany in the 16th and 17th century in order to
obtain freedom from religious persecution: and in this connection, it should
be noted that ROSIER LEVERING
Janet
Nathaniel Taylor
(Janet Ariciu) wrote:
>ROSIER LEVERING son Wigard John Levering came America in 1685 and another
>son name GERHARD LEVERING was born respectively, in 1615 .
>
>I was sent this information on the Levering family and thought of all you.
>What can you tell me about the following?
>
>Levering is an old and honored surname of relatively simple deviation, for
>tradition and early records indicate that the LEVERING family derived it's
>name from the ancient town of Leverington near Ely in Cambridgeshire County,
>England.
>
> The town was so named in about the year A.D. 870, and it is known that
>John D. Levering was born there in 1250.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For real? As someone often brays, "Hilarious!".
I'm not aware of any 13th-century names that can be rendered in the form
"firstname--middle initial--lastname". So, based on this, I would be very
dubious of all the rest of the info. Get independent verification (the
antiquity of the name, for example, can be verified in some medieval
toponymic register for England; such as the mass-market _Domesday Book_
gazetteer which is pretty widely available). I can't find my _Oxford
Dictionary of English Surnames_ right now, but I would simply check
Levering in that.
Nat Taylor
Janet Ariciu
The only think I can think of is Wigard Levering was to hard of
America/English folks to say , so they call him John. I know middle name
for common people did come in being until after 1770s in America.
I am sorry I did mention that.
Thank you reminding me Janet
Graeme Wall
"ANNE V. GILBERT" <avgi...@prodigy.net> wrote:
1890s IIRC, howver it is great fun, and a good excuse for all the locals to
get drunk out of their skulls
Alan Beattie
The idea of a mid-winter festival is very old. The country tradition
was of guisers in straw costumes while the town of Lerwick, possibly
influenced by Scottish practice, had a developing fire festival. The
two, of course, blended and the "modern" Up-Helly-Aa was born in the
late 19th century. The first burning vessels were tar barrels, then
later models of famous ships. The idea of burning a longship only
started in the early 1900s.
There were fire festivals in the country, but little is written about
them. There are now several "modern" festivals with burning viking
longships throughtout Shetland. All are accompanied by a night-long
dance. It is very much a highlight in the winter social calendar, but
by no means all there is to do!
For those who want to know more there are a couple of books on the subject.
--
Alan Beattie
Tracing my ancestors in Shetland - Arthur, Beattie, Blance, Irvine
and in Sussex - Edwards, Kilner, Mewett, Todman and Tester
ANNE V. GILBERT
> 1890s IIRC, howver it is great fun, and a good excuse for all the locals
to
> get drunk out of their skulls
>
Well, like I said, not much else to do up there in the wintertime. . . .
Anne Gilbert
Blair Southerden
Blair
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nta...@post.harvard.edu>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> ______________________________
Renia
> Renia Simmonds writes:
>
> >Richardson is a name predominant in Yorkshire and the north.
> <snip>
> >In the 1881 census of England, Wales and Scotland, there
> >were 51,493 people called Richardson, with little or no
> variation.
>
> >Of these:
> >
> >7707 born in Yorkshire
> >4220 born Durham
> >3964 born Lancashire
> >3579 born London
> >3126 born various Scots counties
> >2375 born Northumberland
> >1669 born Cumbria
> <snip>
>
> Richardson does, indeed, appear in Cumbria, but is nowhere as near
> as common there (at least in West Cumberland) as other patronymics
> from Richard (Dickinson, Dixon, Dickson).
>
> My Cumbrian ancestor, John Dickinson, married (as his first wife)
> an Annas Richardson in 1595. So the surname would certainly appear
> to be native to the area.
>
> Chris
> ch...@dickinson.uk.net
There were (as you probably know) 19,132 Dickinson/Dickensons in the
1881 census.
4463 born Lancashire
4238 Yorkshire
1030 Lincolnshire
733 Northumberland
721 Durham
519 Cumbria
There were 44,522 Dicksons/Dixons in the 1881 census
6108 born Yorkshire
3406 Durham
2874 Northumberland
2170 Cumbria
and several thousand (without totalling them all) in the various
Scottish counties
Renia
Renia
> ROSIER LEVERING son Wigard John Levering came America in 1685 and another
> son name GERHARD LEVERING was born respectively, in 1615 .
I've seen Gerhard in the 17th century as a female name.
Renia
> I was sent this information on the Levering family and thought of all you.
> What can you tell me about the following?
>
> Levering is an old and honored surname of relatively simple deviation, for
> tradition and early records indicate that the LEVERING family derived it's
> name from the ancient town of Leverington near Ely in Cambridgeshire County,
> England.
>
> The town was so named in about the year A.D. 870, and it is known that
> John D. Levering was born there in 1250. Some of the later's descendants
> migrated to Holland and Germany in the 16th and 17th century in order to
> obtain freedom from religious persecution: and in this connection, it should
> be noted that ROSIER LEVERING
I should imagine his name was John de Levering, that is, his name was
John, and he was of Levering. His son may not have adopted Levering as a
surname; he might have been Johnson, for example.
Renia
>
> Janet
Graeme Wall
nta...@post.harvard.edu (Nathaniel Taylor) wrote:
> In article <010c01c18435$803b7d40$9c967a3f@monkey>, mon...@getgoin.net
> (Janet Ariciu) wrote:
>
[snip]
> >
> > The town was so named in about the year A.D. 870, and it is known that
> >John D. Levering was born there in 1250.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> For real? As someone often brays, "Hilarious!".
>
Could it not be John de Levering?
Graeme Wall
"ANNE V. GILBERT" <avgi...@prodigy.net> wrote:
There is at least one other thing...
Graeme Wall
Alan Beattie <alan.b...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The idea of a mid-winter festival is very old. The country tradition
> was of guisers in straw costumes while the town of Lerwick, possibly
> influenced by Scottish practice, had a developing fire festival. The
> two, of course, blended and the "modern" Up-Helly-Aa was born in the
> late 19th century. The first burning vessels were tar barrels, then
> later models of famous ships. The idea of burning a longship only
> started in the early 1900s.
>
The oldest fire-festival I am aware of is the Burning of the Clavie at
Burghead, which is claimed to go back over 2000 years. It`s a burning
tar-barrel that is carried round the town and ends up at the high point of
the town at midnight on the Julian New Yaer, where it is placed in a special
socket to burn out. Very impressive, but the most spectacular is the
Stonehaven fireballs which parade up and down the High St on the stroke of
midnight of the New Year. I`ve been in amongst them and it is quite scary.