Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119035738

From: "Glen Todd" <>
Subject: RE: Norman character : was [DNA] sub rugrat level
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:15:38 -0600
In-Reply-To: <>

> I agree with Mike on this one. Even if you go with the overly
> simplistic concept that the Normans were strictly Vikings, you
> still have at least 3 haplogroups, and no telling how many

Nobody's trying to assign anything to 'the Normans' as a group. We're
talking about one particular subclade that may or may not be related to SOME
Normans (possibly even one particular family line). In other words, even
if this theory is correct (which is still open to considerable debate - I
have merely proposed it as an idea worthy of consideration), while you could
say; "If you are in this subclade, your Y-DNA line was probably Norman," you
could NOT say; "If your male line was Norman, you are probably in this
subclade." See the difference?


This thread: