Discussion:
Cunningham Clan Origins?
(too old to reply)
Errol
2005-08-23 17:22:35 UTC
Permalink
I am puzzled by some of the historical accounts of the origins of the
Cunningham clan. I have just had my DNA analysed and I am Haplogroup I -
the 'Viking Haplogroup'. According to accounts I have read, the
Viking/Norwegian group won the battle of Largs, not the Scots, and their
chieftans were awarded land in the Ayrshire area. That seems to be borne
out by my DNA as a Cunningham directly descended from the area.
Anyone clear this up??

Errol
Lesley Robertson
2005-08-23 17:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
I am puzzled by some of the historical accounts of the origins of the
Cunningham clan. I have just had my DNA analysed and I am Haplogroup I -
the 'Viking Haplogroup'. According to accounts I have read, the
Viking/Norwegian group won the battle of Largs, not the Scots, and their
chieftans were awarded land in the Ayrshire area. That seems to be borne
out by my DNA as a Cunningham directly descended from the area.
Anyone clear this up??
The fact that your DNA shows this group doe not tell you WHEN it was
imported into Scotland - your ancestors might have come over for a big
battle, as part of an invasion force or as traders or visitors. The image of
each clan as all descending from a single ancestor is mythological - some
did, some married into the clan, some took the name of their local
landowner - members came in different ways.
I can't see, from what you say, why you are puzzled, however.
They came, they saw, they grabbed the land or donated their genetic material
in other ways.
Lesley Robertson
Errol
2005-08-23 17:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Errol
I am puzzled by some of the historical accounts of the origins of the
Cunningham clan. I have just had my DNA analysed and I am Haplogroup I -
the 'Viking Haplogroup'. According to accounts I have read, the
Viking/Norwegian group won the battle of Largs, not the Scots, and their
chieftans were awarded land in the Ayrshire area. That seems to be borne
out by my DNA as a Cunningham directly descended from the area.
Anyone clear this up??
The fact that your DNA shows this group doe not tell you WHEN it was
imported into Scotland - your ancestors might have come over for a big
battle, as part of an invasion force or as traders or visitors. The image of
each clan as all descending from a single ancestor is mythological - some
did, some married into the clan, some took the name of their local
landowner - members came in different ways.
I can't see, from what you say, why you are puzzled, however.
Ah, sorry. I should have explained in more detail. It is claimed
that the Cunningham clan land ownership was in some way confirmed after
the battle of Largs. e.g.
"The first person to take the name Cunningham was Warnebald or perhaps
his son, Robertus, who received a grant of the land of Cunningham
somewhere between 1160 and 1180. It is certain that the Cunninghams
were long settled in their lands and the parish of Kilmaurs by the late
thirteenth century. Hervy de Cunningham, son of the Laird of Kilmaurs,
fought for Alexander III against the Norwegian invaders at the Battle of
Largs in 1263. As a result of this service he received from his King a
charter of confirmation to all his lands."

Thing is, the Scots fled the battlefield according to Kendrick's
History of the Vikings published around 1930, and Haakon awarded
land in the region to HIS chiefs. So the disconnect for me is
whether the Cunninghams were really part of the invading Viking
force (my family line oral history always seemed to confirm this),
and if not, why would Alexander have been generous to Scots who
lost the battle?

Errol
Post by Lesley Robertson
They came, they saw, they grabbed the land or donated their genetic material
in other ways.
Lesley Robertson
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-08-24 13:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Thing is, the Scots fled the battlefield according to Kendrick's
History of the Vikings published around 1930, and Haakon awarded
land in the region to HIS chiefs. So the disconnect for me is
whether the Cunninghams were really part of the invading Viking
force (my family line oral history always seemed to confirm this),
and if not, why would Alexander have been generous to Scots who
lost the battle?
I think you are failing to appreciate the cultural context of that
particular battle.
Strictly speaking the Scots didn't actually 'flee the battlefield' as such -
what happened was that the battle raged all afternoon and at 5pm the pubs
opened.
Then as now, the Scots have very little inate intelligence but a keen sense
of priority.

A W-S
Errol
2005-08-24 13:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Errol
Thing is, the Scots fled the battlefield according to Kendrick's
History of the Vikings published around 1930, and Haakon awarded
land in the region to HIS chiefs. So the disconnect for me is
whether the Cunninghams were really part of the invading Viking
force (my family line oral history always seemed to confirm this),
and if not, why would Alexander have been generous to Scots who
lost the battle?
I think you are failing to appreciate the cultural context of that
particular battle.
Strictly speaking the Scots didn't actually 'flee the battlefield' as such -
what happened was that the battle raged all afternoon and at 5pm the pubs
opened.
Then as now, the Scots have very little inate intelligence but a keen sense
of priority.
Did we sack a village of yours once?

Errol
Madra Dubh
2005-08-24 14:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Errol
I am puzzled by some of the historical accounts of the origins of the
Cunningham clan. I have just had my DNA analysed and I am Haplogroup I -
the 'Viking Haplogroup'. According to accounts I have read, the
Viking/Norwegian group won the battle of Largs, not the Scots, and their
chieftans were awarded land in the Ayrshire area. That seems to be borne
out by my DNA as a Cunningham directly descended from the area.
Anyone clear this up??
The fact that your DNA shows this group doe not tell you WHEN it was
imported into Scotland - your ancestors might have come over for a big
battle, as part of an invasion force or as traders or visitors. The image
of each clan as all descending from a single ancestor is mythological -
some did, some married into the clan, some took the name of their local
landowner - members came in different ways.
I can't see, from what you say, why you are puzzled, however.
They came, they saw, they grabbed the land or donated their genetic
material in other ways.
Silly girl. There's only the one way............
Michilín
2005-08-23 17:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
I am puzzled by some of the historical accounts of the origins of the
Cunningham clan. I have just had my DNA analysed and I am Haplogroup I -
the 'Viking Haplogroup'. According to accounts I have read, the
Viking/Norwegian group won the battle of Largs, not the Scots, and their
chieftans were awarded land in the Ayrshire area. That seems to be borne
out by my DNA as a Cunningham directly descended from the area.
Anyone clear this up??
Errol
Cunningham is not a Viking name.

The Scots won Largs.

The first Cunningham is believed to have been a Flemish man named
Wernibald, who took on the placename as his own when he received a
grant of Kilmaurs in Cunningham, Ayrshire from Hugo de Morville, the
Constable of Scotland, in 1140.

Hervy de Cunningham, son of the Laird of Kilmaurs, fought for
Alexander III against the Norwegian invaders at the Battle of Largs in
1263. As a result of this service he received from his King a charter
of confirmation to all his lands in Ayrshire, according to the clan
history..

Your Viking ancestry is probably from another branch of your family.

Murchadh
Ian Morrison
2005-08-23 18:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michilín
Post by Errol
I am puzzled by some of the historical accounts of the origins of the
Cunningham clan. I have just had my DNA analysed and I am Haplogroup I -
the 'Viking Haplogroup'. According to accounts I have read, the
Viking/Norwegian group won the battle of Largs, not the Scots, and their
chieftans were awarded land in the Ayrshire area. That seems to be borne
out by my DNA as a Cunningham directly descended from the area.
Anyone clear this up??
Errol
Cunningham is not a Viking name.
The Scots won Largs.
Quite. I've never heard anyone dispute that, until now.

Michael Lynch, in his "Scotland: A New History" (1991, ISBN 0712698930)
states -
"The Battle of Largs (1263) when Hakon IV was repulsed by the forces of
Alexander III......There can be no doubt that Hakon's force was
repulsed, but the likelihood that only a fraction of his 120-strong
fleet of ships was involved made the outcome of the battle less
conclusive than many accounts portray it."
Post by Michilín
The first Cunningham is believed to have been a Flemish man named
Wernibald, who took on the placename as his own when he received a
grant of Kilmaurs in Cunningham, Ayrshire from Hugo de Morville, the
Constable of Scotland, in 1140.
Hervy de Cunningham, son of the Laird of Kilmaurs, fought for
Alexander III against the Norwegian invaders at the Battle of Largs in
1263. As a result of this service he received from his King a charter
of confirmation to all his lands in Ayrshire, according to the clan
history..
Speaking as one who lived on the Cunninghame (sic) lands for a while, I
have to agree that the name is entirely local, and one of the older ones
in the area as well.
Post by Michilín
Your Viking ancestry is probably from another branch of your family.
It could have been derived from almost any direction.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Errol
2005-08-23 18:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Michilín
Post by Errol
I am puzzled by some of the historical accounts of the origins of the
Cunningham clan. I have just had my DNA analysed and I am Haplogroup
I - the 'Viking Haplogroup'. According to accounts I have read, the
Viking/Norwegian group won the battle of Largs, not the Scots, and
their chieftans were awarded land in the Ayrshire area. That seems to
be borne
out by my DNA as a Cunningham directly descended from the area.
Anyone clear this up??
Errol
Cunningham is not a Viking name.
The Scots won Largs.
Quite. I've never heard anyone dispute that, until now.
Michael Lynch, in his "Scotland: A New History" (1991, ISBN 0712698930)
states -
"The Battle of Largs (1263) when Hakon IV was repulsed by the forces of
Alexander III......There can be no doubt that Hakon's force was
repulsed, but the likelihood that only a fraction of his 120-strong
fleet of ships was involved made the outcome of the battle less
conclusive than many accounts portray it."
Well, according to Kendrick, Haakon's men won and he awarded land to
his group not the other way around. The Scots beat the Viking group
into a retreat and when their small landing boats foundered in the surf,
they were forced to make a stand and beat the Scots back. Hence they
survived the battle and Haakon granted lands to his chiefs.
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Michilín
The first Cunningham is believed to have been a Flemish man named
Wernibald, who took on the placename as his own when he received a
grant of Kilmaurs in Cunningham, Ayrshire from Hugo de Morville, the
Constable of Scotland, in 1140.
Hervy de Cunningham, son of the Laird of Kilmaurs, fought for
Alexander III against the Norwegian invaders at the Battle of Largs in
1263. As a result of this service he received from his King a charter
of confirmation to all his lands in Ayrshire, according to the clan
history..
Speaking as one who lived on the Cunninghame (sic) lands for a while, I
have to agree that the name is entirely local, and one of the older ones
in the area as well.
I suggest that you may be overlooking the fact that Norse raiders
may have taken on the name of the region and lands they moved into.
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Michilín
Your Viking ancestry is probably from another branch of your family.
It could have been derived from almost any direction.
Ian Morrison
2005-08-23 18:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Well, according to Kendrick, Haakon's men won and he awarded land to
his group not the other way around. The Scots beat the Viking group
into a retreat and when their small landing boats foundered in the surf,
they were forced to make a stand and beat the Scots back. Hence they
survived the battle and Haakon granted lands to his chiefs.
So, you have one historian, writing in 1930, versus any number, writing
much more recently. Lynch is relatively biased towards the Hakon camp,
yet still awards victory in the battle to the Scots. He concludes that
the victory might not have been as conclusive as often depicted, but
victory there certainly was.
Post by Errol
Post by Ian Morrison
Speaking as one who lived on the Cunninghame (sic) lands for a while,
I have to agree that the name is entirely local, and one of the older
ones in the area as well.
I suggest that you may be overlooking the fact that Norse raiders
may have taken on the name of the region and lands they moved into.
Why would they do that in Ayrshire and not elsewhere?
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
O***@gmail.com
2005-08-23 18:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Haplogroup I is not the Viking haplogroup. There is no such thing.
Haplogroup I is a lot older than any Viking. Haplogroup R1B is native
to Britain and Ireland and Western Europe and its holders brought it
here some 10,000 years ago from Iberia. Other haplogroups arrived here
with more recent migrants.

These haplogroup maps might be of use to you -
http://show.imagehosting.us/sh ow/495614/0/nouser_495/T0_-1_4 95614.jpg
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdon ald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

HG1 = R1B
HG2 = I
HG3 = R1A

Just because you are haplogroup I does not mean that most of your
ancestors are R1B.
O***@gmail.com
2005-08-23 18:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Haplogroup I is not the Viking haplogroup. There is no such thing.
Haplogroup I is a lot older than any Viking. Haplogroup R1B is native
to Britain and Ireland and Western Europe and its holders brought it
here some 10,000 years ago from Iberia. Other haplogroups arrived here
with more recent migrants.

These haplogroup maps might be of use to you -
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/495614/0/nouser_495/T0_-1_4 95614.jpg
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

HG1 = R1B
HG2 = I
HG3 = R1A

Just because you are haplogroup I does not mean that most of your
ancestors are R1B.
Lesley Robertson
2005-08-23 19:58:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by O***@gmail.com
Haplogroup I is not the Viking haplogroup. There is no such thing.
Haplogroup I is a lot older than any Viking. Haplogroup R1B is native
to Britain and Ireland and Western Europe and its holders brought it
here some 10,000 years ago from Iberia. Other haplogroups arrived here
with more recent migrants.
We got the message the first time.
Lesley Robertson
Deirdre
2005-08-23 20:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by O***@gmail.com
Haplogroup I is not the Viking haplogroup. There is no such thing.
Haplogroup I is a lot older than any Viking. Haplogroup R1B is native
to Britain and Ireland and Western Europe and its holders brought it
here some 10,000 years ago from Iberia. Other haplogroups arrived here
with more recent migrants.
We got the message the first time.
Three's the charm, Lesley...

I had no idea there was a alt.scottish.clans
newsgroup. Yeeesh.

Deirdre
Errol
2005-08-23 21:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by O***@gmail.com
Haplogroup I is not the Viking haplogroup. There is no such thing.
Haplogroup I is a lot older than any Viking. Haplogroup R1B is native
to Britain and Ireland and Western Europe and its holders brought it
here some 10,000 years ago from Iberia. Other haplogroups arrived here
with more recent migrants.
We got the message the first time.
Lesley Robertson
Sure, but I don't think she's paying attention to her own maps.
This is from www.familytreedna.com:
"I The I, I1, and I1a lineages are nearly completely restricted to
northwestern Europe. These would most likely have been common within
Viking populations. One lineage of this group extends down into central
Europe."

Errol
Glenallan
2005-08-23 23:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by O***@gmail.com
Haplogroup I is not the Viking haplogroup. There is no such thing.
Haplogroup I is a lot older than any Viking. Haplogroup R1B is native
to Britain and Ireland and Western Europe and its holders brought it
here some 10,000 years ago from Iberia. Other haplogroups arrived here
with more recent migrants.
We got the message the first time.
Lesley Robertson
Sure, but I don't think she's paying attention to her own maps.
"I The I, I1, and I1a lineages are nearly completely restricted to
northwestern Europe. These would most likely have been common within
Viking populations. One lineage of this group extends down into central
Europe."
Errol
What is a 'Haplogroup'??
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-08-24 13:50:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenallan
What is a 'Haplogroup'??
Get with it Grandad - it's like a Boy Band, but more clappy.
Lesley Robertson
2005-08-24 07:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Sure, but I don't think she's paying attention to her own maps.
"I The I, I1, and I1a lineages are nearly completely restricted to
northwestern Europe. These would most likely have been common within
Viking populations. One lineage of this group extends down into central
Europe."
And the magic words are "These would most likely have been common within
Viking populations" - not "these are exclusively found in Viking
populations".
There are major limits to the amount of information you can get from DNA
analysis.
Lesley Robertson
Errol
2005-08-24 11:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Errol
Sure, but I don't think she's paying attention to her own maps.
"I The I, I1, and I1a lineages are nearly completely restricted to
northwestern Europe. These would most likely have been common within
Viking populations. One lineage of this group extends down into central
Europe."
And the magic words are "These would most likely have been common within
Viking populations" - not "these are exclusively found in Viking
populations".
There are major limits to the amount of information you can get from DNA
analysis.
Lesley, what is your degree of expertise on DNA? I assume from your
assertions that you are a scientist and dna specialist? You are
at a level with Dr Hammer and others on the Genographic project
at Geographic?

Errol
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-08-24 13:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Errol
Sure, but I don't think she's paying attention to her own maps.
"I The I, I1, and I1a lineages are nearly completely restricted to
northwestern Europe. These would most likely have been common within
Viking populations. One lineage of this group extends down into central
Europe."
And the magic words are "These would most likely have been common within
Viking populations" - not "these are exclusively found in Viking
populations".
There are major limits to the amount of information you can get from DNA
analysis.
Lesley, what is your degree of expertise on DNA? I assume from your
assertions that you are a scientist and dna specialist? You are
at a level with Dr Hammer and others on the Genographic project
at Geographic?
Hey - show a bit of respect junior - Lesley is the undisputed matriarch of
scs.
What she says - goes.

A W-S (?)
S Viemeister
2005-08-24 14:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Hey - show a bit of respect junior - Lesley is the undisputed matriarch of
scs.
What she says - goes.
Lesley is the chief scientific officer of scs - Helen is the matriarch.

Sheila
The Real Fifeshire Bimbo
2005-08-24 15:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by S Viemeister
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Hey - show a bit of respect junior - Lesley is the
undisputed matriarch of scs.
What she says - goes.
Lesley is the chief scientific officer of scs -
Helen is the matriarch.
Thanks Sheila! I'm glad somebody remembers.

I straightened him (and Errol) out, upthread :)

Cheers, Helen
hramsay at cogeco dot ca
Defender of M$OE
The Real Fifeshire Bimbo
2005-08-24 15:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Errol
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Errol
Sure, but I don't think she's paying attention to her own maps.
"I The I, I1, and I1a lineages are nearly completely
restricted to northwestern Europe. These would most
likely have been common withinViking populations.
One lineage of this group extends down into central
Europe."
And the magic words are "These would most likely
have been common within Viking populations" - not
"these are exclusively found in Viking populations".
There are major limits to the amount of information
you can get from DNA analysis.
Lesley, what is your degree of expertise on DNA?
This would have been a legit query.
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Errol
I assume from your assertions that you are a scientist
and dna specialist? You are at a level with Dr Hammer
and others on the Genographic project at Geographic?
This certainly wasn't necessary.

If you Google a bit on scs you'll find out *Dr.* Robertson's
qualifications are then I hope you'll feel ashamed of yourself !
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Hey - show a bit of respect junior -
Excuuuuuse me! *You* show a bit of respect!
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Lesley is the undisputed matriarch of scs.
Not at all! See here ...
http://www.ian-stewart.dsl.pipex.com/z-gallery-1.htm second picture down.

Lesley is far and away too young for that position!
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
What she says - goes.
What I say goes! and I say YOU...ba heid!
--
Cheers, Helen
hramsay at cogeco dot ca
Defender of M$OE
Glenallan
2005-08-23 23:42:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by O***@gmail.com
Haplogroup I is not the Viking haplogroup. There is no such thing.
Haplogroup I is a lot older than any Viking. Haplogroup R1B is native
to Britain and Ireland and Western Europe and its holders brought it
here some 10,000 years ago from Iberia. Other haplogroups arrived here
with more recent migrants.
We got the message the first time.
Lesley Robertson
I would like to have my DNA profile.
(No doubt a common enough issue)

Naturally, I suspect that I am more than just an ordinary mortal.
Who will do this for me and how much may it cost.

If I sent you some DNA, could you organise this for me??
I will make a donation to your museum.

Glenallan
---------
Ian Morrison
2005-08-23 23:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenallan
I would like to have my DNA profile.
(No doubt a common enough issue)
Naturally, I suspect that I am more than just an ordinary mortal.
Who will do this for me and how much may it cost.
If I sent you some DNA, could you organise this for me??
I will make a donation to your museum.
I have a DNA testing kit sitting on my dining room table at the moment.
It was supplied, free of charge, by the Clan Morrison Association of
North America.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Deirdre
2005-08-23 23:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Glenallan
I would like to have my DNA profile.
(No doubt a common enough issue)
Naturally, I suspect that I am more than just an ordinary mortal.
Who will do this for me and how much may it cost.
If I sent you some DNA, could you organise this for me??
I will make a donation to your museum.
I have a DNA testing kit sitting on my dining room table at the moment.
It was supplied, free of charge, by the Clan Morrison Association of
North America.
What measures are taken to ensure the
sample isn't contaminated?

Deirdre
Ian Morrison
2005-08-24 00:00:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre
What measures are taken to ensure the
sample isn't contaminated?
Absolutely none.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Lesley Robertson
2005-08-24 08:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenallan
I would like to have my DNA profile.
(No doubt a common enough issue)
Naturally, I suspect that I am more than just an ordinary mortal.
Who will do this for me and how much may it cost.
If I sent you some DNA, could you organise this for me??
I will make a donation to your museum.
Many thanks, but we don't run these profiles.
Lesley Robertson
Errol
2005-08-24 11:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenallan
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by O***@gmail.com
Haplogroup I is not the Viking haplogroup. There is no such thing.
Haplogroup I is a lot older than any Viking. Haplogroup R1B is native
to Britain and Ireland and Western Europe and its holders brought it
here some 10,000 years ago from Iberia. Other haplogroups arrived here
with more recent migrants.
We got the message the first time.
Lesley Robertson
I would like to have my DNA profile.
(No doubt a common enough issue)
Naturally, I suspect that I am more than just an ordinary mortal.
Who will do this for me and how much may it cost.
Try www.nationalgeographic.com/genographic
it's about $95 if you're not affiliated with any organization or
company that entitles you to a discount.
Post by Glenallan
If I sent you some DNA, could you organise this for me??
I will make a donation to your museum.
Glenallan
---------
Errol
2005-08-23 20:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
Well, according to Kendrick, Haakon's men won and he awarded land to
his group not the other way around. The Scots beat the Viking group
into a retreat and when their small landing boats foundered in the
surf, they were forced to make a stand and beat the Scots back. Hence
they survived the battle and Haakon granted lands to his chiefs.
So, you have one historian, writing in 1930, versus any number, writing
much more recently. Lynch is relatively biased towards the Hakon camp,
yet still awards victory in the battle to the Scots.
What were his sources?

He concludes that
Post by Ian Morrison
the victory might not have been as conclusive as often depicted, but
victory there certainly was.
So Alexander just gave up Arran because? Haakon buried his dead at
the Largs kirk the next day, unmolested? Any evidence to the contrary?
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
Post by Ian Morrison
Speaking as one who lived on the Cunninghame (sic) lands for a while,
I have to agree that the name is entirely local, and one of the older
ones in the area as well.
I suggest that you may be overlooking the fact that Norse raiders
may have taken on the name of the region and lands they moved into.
Why would they do that in Ayrshire and not elsewhere?
Don't know. My family history states that we came from Arran originally
and that we were Norse. Never saw that confirmed until I got the
test results back from National Geographic. The evidence is
that Haplogroup I is found predominantly in Sweden, Denmark,
Norway and with subcomponents in Scotland and Ireland. I would
say that's circumstantial, but compelling.

Errol

Errol
Ian Morrison
2005-08-23 21:29:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
Well, according to Kendrick, Haakon's men won and he awarded land to
his group not the other way around. The Scots beat the Viking group
into a retreat and when their small landing boats foundered in the
surf, they were forced to make a stand and beat the Scots back. Hence
they survived the battle and Haakon granted lands to his chiefs.
So, you have one historian, writing in 1930, versus any number,
writing much more recently. Lynch is relatively biased towards the
Hakon camp, yet still awards victory in the battle to the Scots.
What were his sources?
Professor Lynch is a highly respected professional historian. In this
case his main source seems to be N Reid (ed.) "Scotland in the Reign of
Alexander III" (1990). I'll leave you to follow up that trail, as you're
the one making the extravagant claims, which run counter to all the
conventional wisdom, of which there is much.
Post by Errol
He concludes that
Post by Ian Morrison
the victory might not have been as conclusive as often depicted, but
victory there certainly was.
So Alexander just gave up Arran because? Haakon buried his dead at
the Largs kirk the next day, unmolested? Any evidence to the contrary?
You provide the evidence for your claims, other than the one antiquated
source quoted, and I'll consider it.
Post by Errol
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
Post by Ian Morrison
Speaking as one who lived on the Cunninghame (sic) lands for a
while, I have to agree that the name is entirely local, and one of
the older ones in the area as well.
I suggest that you may be overlooking the fact that Norse raiders
may have taken on the name of the region and lands they moved into.
Why would they do that in Ayrshire and not elsewhere?
Don't know. My family history states that we came from Arran originally
and that we were Norse.
Family histories have been known to be wrong.
Post by Errol
Never saw that confirmed until I got the
test results back from National Geographic. The evidence is
that Haplogroup I is found predominantly in Sweden, Denmark,
Norway and with subcomponents in Scotland and Ireland. I would
say that's circumstantial, but compelling.
To you, perhaps.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Errol
2005-08-23 21:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
Well, according to Kendrick, Haakon's men won and he awarded land to
his group not the other way around. The Scots beat the Viking group
into a retreat and when their small landing boats foundered in the
surf, they were forced to make a stand and beat the Scots back.
Hence they survived the battle and Haakon granted lands to his chiefs.
So, you have one historian, writing in 1930, versus any number,
writing much more recently. Lynch is relatively biased towards the
Hakon camp, yet still awards victory in the battle to the Scots.
What were his sources?
Professor Lynch is a highly respected professional historian. In this
case his main source seems to be N Reid (ed.) "Scotland in the Reign of
Alexander III" (1990). I'll leave you to follow up that trail, as you're
the one making the extravagant claims, which run counter to all the
conventional wisdom, of which there is much.
Hmm. I merely asked about Kendrick's History of the Vikings and
what really happened at Largs. If you can tell me whether Haakon
took Arran (which is apparently where my line comes from)from Alexander,
buried his dead at Largs kirk the next day, and gave his chieftains land
along the coast, then I'll be happy. If you can offer any sort of
rebuttal of Kendrick, other than broad generalization, I'll be happy to
hear it.
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
He concludes that
Post by Ian Morrison
the victory might not have been as conclusive as often depicted, but
victory there certainly was.
So Alexander just gave up Arran because? Haakon buried his dead at
the Largs kirk the next day, unmolested? Any evidence to the contrary?
You provide the evidence for your claims, other than the one antiquated
source quoted, and I'll consider it.
I have given more than you have at this point. What do your sources say
happened at Largs, Arran, and along the coast?
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
Post by Ian Morrison
Speaking as one who lived on the Cunninghame (sic) lands for a
while, I have to agree that the name is entirely local, and one of
the older ones in the area as well.
I suggest that you may be overlooking the fact that Norse raiders
may have taken on the name of the region and lands they moved into.
Why would they do that in Ayrshire and not elsewhere?
Don't know. My family history states that we came from Arran originally
and that we were Norse.
Family histories have been known to be wrong.
True.
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
Never saw that confirmed until I got the
test results back from National Geographic. The evidence is
that Haplogroup I is found predominantly in Sweden, Denmark,
Norway and with subcomponents in Scotland and Ireland. I would
say that's circumstantial, but compelling.
To you, perhaps.
Nothing I can get my teeth into there, just a negative without
anything further.
allan connochie
2005-08-23 22:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Hmm. I merely asked about Kendrick's History of the Vikings and
what really happened at Largs. If you can tell me whether Haakon
took Arran (which is apparently where my line comes from)from Alexander,
buried his dead at Largs kirk the next day, and gave his chieftains land
along the coast, then I'll be happy. If you can offer any sort of
rebuttal of Kendrick, other than broad generalization, I'll be happy to
hear it.
You are making claims that, as Ian has said, are completely contrary to
accepted history. The Battle of Largs was in 1263. The Norse received a
bloody nose and finally gave up all claims to the area just three years
later in the Treaty of Perth. Try reading through The Edinburgh History of
Scotland, Vol 1 by Professor A.A.M Duncan for a grounding of the details,
but really any decent Scottish history book will touch on it.


Allan
Ian Morrison
2005-08-23 23:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
You are making claims that, as Ian has said, are completely contrary to
accepted history. The Battle of Largs was in 1263. The Norse received a
bloody nose and finally gave up all claims to the area just three years
later in the Treaty of Perth. Try reading through The Edinburgh History of
Scotland, Vol 1 by Professor A.A.M Duncan for a grounding of the details,
but really any decent Scottish history book will touch on it.
I just quoted Lynch, because it was to hand and I have generally found
it a reasonably equable "decent Scottish history book". Duncan's series
is also fairly dependable, but I don't think the research on which it is
based is quite as thorough and ground-breaking.

I recently acquired a couple of volumes by David Stevenson, covering the
period 1637-52 in Scotland (Banana Books, Livingston, £2.99 per volume).
It is a very confusing period - to me anyway, and at school, in
Higher History, we skipped from the Reformation in Scotland to the
Thirty Years War, and on from there to the French Revolution (via the
Jacobites), largely missing out on the Covenanters et al.

It is easy to forget that we're actually a lot closer to the 17th
century than the Covenanters, et al, were to the events of Alexander
III's reign, 95 year old cousins notwithstanding......
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Errol
2005-08-23 23:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by allan connochie
You are making claims that, as Ian has said, are completely contrary to
accepted history. The Battle of Largs was in 1263. The Norse received a
bloody nose and finally gave up all claims to the area just three years
later in the Treaty of Perth. Try reading through The Edinburgh History of
Scotland, Vol 1 by Professor A.A.M Duncan for a grounding of the details,
but really any decent Scottish history book will touch on it.
I just quoted Lynch, because it was to hand and I have generally found
it a reasonably equable "decent Scottish history book". Duncan's series
is also fairly dependable, but I don't think the research on which it is
based is quite as thorough and ground-breaking.
I recently acquired a couple of volumes by David Stevenson, covering the
period 1637-52 in Scotland (Banana Books, Livingston, £2.99 per volume).
It is a very confusing period - to me anyway, and at school, in Higher
History, we skipped from the Reformation in Scotland to the Thirty Years
War, and on from there to the French Revolution (via the Jacobites),
largely missing out on the Covenanters et al.
It is easy to forget that we're actually a lot closer to the 17th
century than the Covenanters, et al, were to the events of Alexander
III's reign, 95 year old cousins notwithstanding......
True enough. Seems quite a few Cunninghams gapped it to the colonies
after BPC wandered back to France. Covenanters not politically correct
I suppose. Powers that be, don't want recent examples of successful
Scots sedition/rebellion/victory over England in any way, shape or form?

Errol
Ian Morrison
2005-08-23 23:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
True enough. Seems quite a few Cunninghams gapped it to the colonies
after BPC wandered back to France. Covenanters not politically correct
I suppose. Powers that be, don't want recent examples of successful
Scots sedition/rebellion/victory over England in any way, shape or form?
It's a lot more complicated than Scots versus English. Covenanters and
Jacobites were very different groupings. Had they existed at the same
time, they would likely have been at daggers drawn. A reasonable
comparison with modern times might be between Tories and Whigs. However
it was a lot more complicated than that. Oops, I just said that....

There were also many reasons why people migrated from Scotland to the
"colonies". Economic pressure was probably a far more common cause than
political.

*ngland also had plenty of seditious/rebellious people of its own. Some
of them, IIRC, hopped over the pond and made names for themselves. There
were also the *nglish Jacobites, such as the Manchester Regiment, who
fought with BPC, and were cruelly abandoned by him.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Lesley Robertson
2005-08-24 08:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
True enough. Seems quite a few Cunninghams gapped it to the colonies
after BPC wandered back to France. Covenanters not politically correct
I suppose.
I think that you will find the timline shown here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/scotland/neo_bronze.shtml useful in
sorting your dates out. For a start, you'll see that the Covenanters were
around in 1661-1685, although tthe Covenant was signed in 1638. As for being
"politically correct", many of them were the religious extremists of their
day. Since James VII didn't abdicate the throne until 1688, and the first
Jacobite uprising didn't happen until 1715. BPC's little effort in 1745 was,
again, long after the event.
Post by Errol
Powers that be, don't want recent examples of successful Scots
sedition/rebellion/victory over England in any way, shape or form?
Successful in what way? I can't see that either of the Jacobite rebellions
did much for the ordinary people of Scotland - they were used by ambitious
men when didn't mind how many were killed as long as they got what they
wanted.
Lesley Robertson
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-08-24 14:15:42 UTC
Permalink
"Lesley Robertson" <***@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:186b7$430c2d8e$82a1f636.
Post by Lesley Robertson
For a start, you'll see that the Covenanters were
around in 1661-1685, although the Covenant was signed in 1638. As for
being
Post by Lesley Robertson
"politically correct", many of them were the religious extremists of their
day. Since James VII didn't abdicate the throne until 1688, and the first
Jacobite uprising didn't happen until 1715. BPC's little effort in 1745 was,
again, long after the event.
Geez - gonnae geeza brek annat?
I'm doing my very best to be disrepectfull and disruptive to this thread but
paragraphs like the above don't make my job any easier you know.

A W-S (?)
Errol
2005-08-23 23:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
Post by Errol
Hmm. I merely asked about Kendrick's History of the Vikings and
what really happened at Largs. If you can tell me whether Haakon
took Arran (which is apparently where my line comes from)from Alexander,
buried his dead at Largs kirk the next day, and gave his chieftains land
along the coast, then I'll be happy. If you can offer any sort of
rebuttal of Kendrick, other than broad generalization, I'll be happy to
hear it.
You are making claims that, as Ian has said, are completely contrary to
accepted history. The Battle of Largs was in 1263. The Norse received a
bloody nose and finally gave up all claims to the area just three years
later in the Treaty of Perth. Try reading through The Edinburgh History of
Scotland, Vol 1 by Professor A.A.M Duncan for a grounding of the details,
but really any decent Scottish history book will touch on it.
I accept that is probably true, but Kendrick states that Arran, 'dearly
beloved' of Alexander became Norse. Any information on that being true?

Errol
Ian Morrison
2005-08-23 23:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
I accept that is probably true, but Kendrick states that Arran, 'dearly
beloved' of Alexander became Norse. Any information on that being true?
It certainly wasn't Norse, in any real sense of the word, after the
Treaty of Perth in 1266.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Michilín
2005-08-24 02:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Post by allan connochie
Post by Errol
Hmm. I merely asked about Kendrick's History of the Vikings and
what really happened at Largs. If you can tell me whether Haakon
took Arran (which is apparently where my line comes from)from Alexander,
buried his dead at Largs kirk the next day, and gave his chieftains land
along the coast, then I'll be happy. If you can offer any sort of
rebuttal of Kendrick, other than broad generalization, I'll be happy to
hear it.
You are making claims that, as Ian has said, are completely contrary to
accepted history. The Battle of Largs was in 1263. The Norse received a
bloody nose and finally gave up all claims to the area just three years
later in the Treaty of Perth. Try reading through The Edinburgh History of
Scotland, Vol 1 by Professor A.A.M Duncan for a grounding of the details,
but really any decent Scottish history book will touch on it.
I accept that is probably true, but Kendrick states that Arran, 'dearly
beloved' of Alexander became Norse. Any information on that being true?
Errol
As I have said in an earlier post, it was probably already Norse, with
Norse settlers living on it as it's a very favourable isle to live on
with good arable land.

Loading Image...

Look at that grass! There are people further north who would give
their eye teeth for fertile land like that. Look at the green foliage
of trees growing away up the mountainside and following the burns
streams) coming down. Once you're north and west of Mull, you won't
see trees like that! That's a very desirable property by Hebridean
standards!

Murchadh
allan connochie
2005-08-24 06:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Post by allan connochie
You are making claims that, as Ian has said, are completely contrary to
accepted history. The Battle of Largs was in 1263. The Norse received a
bloody nose and finally gave up all claims to the area just three years
later in the Treaty of Perth. Try reading through The Edinburgh History of
Scotland, Vol 1 by Professor A.A.M Duncan for a grounding of the details,
but really any decent Scottish history book will touch on it.
I accept that is probably true, but Kendrick states that Arran, 'dearly
beloved' of Alexander became Norse. Any information on that being true?
He's made a complete misreading of the situation. The Western Isles and
right down to even the Isle of Man were part of the Norse world prior to
Largs. Only Bute, Arran and the Cumbraes had recently fallen into Scottish
hands. Within three years of Largs the entire Hebrides, Arran included, were
all officially part of the Kingdom of Scotland. On his departue Hakkon gave
out proclamations saying Arran belonged to whom or what but it was empty
rhetoric. He found during his expedition that even many of his subjects on
islands he still supposedly controlled would not support him unless under
duress. In reality as soon as his fleet sailed away from the islands the
Norse control was ended. The Treaty of Perth only made this reality
official.

Allan

Allan
Errol
2005-08-24 11:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
Post by Errol
Post by allan connochie
You are making claims that, as Ian has said, are completely contrary to
accepted history. The Battle of Largs was in 1263. The Norse received
a
Post by Errol
Post by allan connochie
bloody nose and finally gave up all claims to the area just three years
later in the Treaty of Perth. Try reading through The Edinburgh History
of
Post by Errol
Post by allan connochie
Scotland, Vol 1 by Professor A.A.M Duncan for a grounding of the
details,
Post by Errol
Post by allan connochie
but really any decent Scottish history book will touch on it.
I accept that is probably true, but Kendrick states that Arran, 'dearly
beloved' of Alexander became Norse. Any information on that being true?
He's made a complete misreading of the situation. The Western Isles and
right down to even the Isle of Man were part of the Norse world prior to
Largs. Only Bute, Arran and the Cumbraes had recently fallen into Scottish
hands. Within three years of Largs the entire Hebrides, Arran included, were
all officially part of the Kingdom of Scotland. On his departue Hakkon gave
out proclamations saying Arran belonged to whom or what but it was empty
rhetoric. He found during his expedition that even many of his subjects on
islands he still supposedly controlled would not support him unless under
duress. In reality as soon as his fleet sailed away from the islands the
Norse control was ended.
Haakon died soon after his fleet sailed away and his young heir was
Magnus. I'm still waiting to hear if Haakon controlled the Largs field
to bury his dead at Largs the day after the battle.

The Treaty of Perth only made this reality
Post by allan connochie
official.
Allan
Allan
Lesley Robertson
2005-08-24 08:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
You are making claims that, as Ian has said, are completely contrary to
accepted history. The Battle of Largs was in 1263.
I'd forgotten the date of the Battle. Of course this invalidates the claim
that the Battle was a key event in the founding of the Cunninghams. If you
refer back to my post of last evening where I quoted Black's "Surnames of
Scotland", you'll see that the manor and vil of Cunningham were granted to
Werenbald in the mid 12th century, 100 years earlier, and someone was
already using "de Cunningham" as a surname on documents at least 30 years
before the battle.
Lesley Robertson
Lesley Robertson
2005-08-24 08:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Hmm. I merely asked about Kendrick's History of the Vikings and
what really happened at Largs. If you can tell me whether Haakon
took Arran (which is apparently where my line comes from)from Alexander,
buried his dead at Largs kirk the next day, and gave his chieftains land
along the coast, then I'll be happy. If you can offer any sort of rebuttal
of Kendrick, other than broad generalization, I'll be happy to
hear it.
I'm curious about the historical sources for your family tree. Most sources
of documentary eveidence for family history become very scarce in and before
the 16th century, so could you say a little about the information you're
basing your tree on?
Lesley Robertson
Errol
2005-08-24 11:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Errol
Hmm. I merely asked about Kendrick's History of the Vikings and
what really happened at Largs. If you can tell me whether Haakon
took Arran (which is apparently where my line comes from)from Alexander,
buried his dead at Largs kirk the next day, and gave his chieftains land
along the coast, then I'll be happy. If you can offer any sort of rebuttal
of Kendrick, other than broad generalization, I'll be happy to
hear it.
I'm curious about the historical sources for your family tree. Most sources
of documentary eveidence for family history become very scarce in and before
the 16th century, so could you say a little about the information you're
basing your tree on?
Research was done many years ago, paid for by family members.
Don't want to discuss it really, but thanks for asking!

Errol
Deirdre
2005-08-23 21:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
The evidence is
that Haplogroup I is found predominantly in Sweden, Denmark,
Norway and with subcomponents in Scotland and Ireland. I would
say that's circumstantial, but compelling.
Redheads are predominately found in Sweden,
Denmark, Norway and with subpopulations in
Scotland and Ireland. Points of origin and
two points of rapine? Could be. Or maybe it
was just friendly fire, hm?

DNA just says _what_...it can't tell you _when_.

Deirdre
Errol
2005-08-23 22:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre
Post by Errol
The evidence is
that Haplogroup I is found predominantly in Sweden, Denmark,
Norway and with subcomponents in Scotland and Ireland. I would
say that's circumstantial, but compelling.
Redheads are predominately found in Sweden,
Denmark, Norway and with subpopulations in
Scotland and Ireland. Points of origin and
two points of rapine? Could be. Or maybe it
was just friendly fire, hm?
Haha, indeed. I am a black Scot I suppose, dark hair, dark eyes,
go teak in the sun. When I was a lot younger, I had a few faint
red hairs on my arms that you could see in the sun. My sister
is dar, dark eyes, but has red hair and freckles.
Post by Deirdre
DNA just says _what_...it can't tell you _when_.
Oh, I know, that's why you have to have ancestors tested if
you can find them. Fascinating concept though.
Deirdre
2005-08-23 22:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Post by Deirdre
Redheads are predominately found in Sweden,
Denmark, Norway and with subpopulations in
Scotland and Ireland. Points of origin and
two points of rapine? Could be. Or maybe it
was just friendly fire, hm?
Haha, indeed. I am a black Scot I suppose, dark hair, dark eyes,
go teak in the sun. When I was a lot younger, I had a few faint
red hairs on my arms that you could see in the sun. My sister
is dar, dark eyes, but has red hair and freckles.
Hm. Well, I'm a "black" Scot in one sense
of the word, but it has nothing to do with
my colouration.
Post by Errol
Post by Deirdre
DNA just says _what_...it can't tell you _when_.
Oh, I know, that's why you have to have ancestors tested if
you can find them. Fascinating concept though.
The de'il you say. You'll not find me poking about
_their_ bones...we put those honking great stones
atop them for a _reason_, to make ruddy certain
the buggers stayed _put_. They were bad enough
when alive, I can't imagine they've improved their
attitude any in death.

Deirdre
Errol
2005-08-23 23:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre
Post by Errol
Post by Deirdre
Redheads are predominately found in Sweden,
Denmark, Norway and with subpopulations in
Scotland and Ireland. Points of origin and
two points of rapine? Could be. Or maybe it
was just friendly fire, hm?
Haha, indeed. I am a black Scot I suppose, dark hair, dark eyes,
go teak in the sun. When I was a lot younger, I had a few faint
red hairs on my arms that you could see in the sun. My sister
is dar, dark eyes, but has red hair and freckles.
Hm. Well, I'm a "black" Scot in one sense
of the word, but it has nothing to do with
my colouration.
Post by Errol
Post by Deirdre
DNA just says _what_...it can't tell you _when_.
Oh, I know, that's why you have to have ancestors tested if
you can find them. Fascinating concept though.
The de'il you say. You'll not find me poking about
_their_ bones...we put those honking great stones
atop them for a _reason_, to make ruddy certain
the buggers stayed _put_. They were bad enough
when alive, I can't imagine they've improved their
attitude any in death.
You'll be onto the Banshee's next, or vice versa...

Errol
Glenallan
2005-08-23 23:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre
Redheads are predominately found in Sweden,
Denmark, Norway and with subpopulations in
Scotland and Ireland. Points of origin and
two points of rapine? Could be. Or maybe it
was just friendly fire, hm?
My wife has incredibly Scandinavian features.

G
--
Michilín
2005-08-24 03:02:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:58:38 +0100, "Glenallan"
Post by Glenallan
Post by Deirdre
Redheads are predominately found in Sweden,
Denmark, Norway and with subpopulations in
Scotland and Ireland. Points of origin and
two points of rapine? Could be. Or maybe it
was just friendly fire, hm?
My wife has incredibly Scandinavian features.
G
--
Gies a wee keek then! Dinna kip aa the gude phoaties tae yersel, ye
crabbit auld gowk!

Murchadh
Michilín
2005-08-24 03:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre
Post by Errol
Post by Deirdre
Redheads are predominately found in Sweden,
Denmark, Norway and with subpopulations in
Scotland and Ireland. Points of origin and
two points of rapine? Could be. Or maybe it
was just friendly fire, hm?
Haha, indeed. I am a black Scot I suppose, dark hair, dark eyes,
go teak in the sun. When I was a lot younger, I had a few faint
red hairs on my arms that you could see in the sun. My sister
is dar, dark eyes, but has red hair and freckles.
Hm. Well, I'm a "black" Scot in one sense
of the word, but it has nothing to do with
my colouration.
Post by Errol
Post by Deirdre
DNA just says _what_...it can't tell you _when_.
Oh, I know, that's why you have to have ancestors tested if
you can find them. Fascinating concept though.
The de'il you say. You'll not find me poking about
_their_ bones...we put those honking great stones
atop them for a _reason_, to make ruddy certain
the buggers stayed _put_. They were bad enough
when alive, I can't imagine they've improved their
attitude any in death.
Deirdre
cf. my wife's remark - "I shudder to think that your ancestors' blood
runs through my children's veins".

Bugger the children - how did she think I felt!

Murchadh
Errol
2005-08-24 11:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michilín
Post by Deirdre
Post by Errol
Post by Deirdre
Redheads are predominately found in Sweden,
Denmark, Norway and with subpopulations in
Scotland and Ireland. Points of origin and
two points of rapine? Could be. Or maybe it
was just friendly fire, hm?
Haha, indeed. I am a black Scot I suppose, dark hair, dark eyes,
go teak in the sun. When I was a lot younger, I had a few faint
red hairs on my arms that you could see in the sun. My sister
is dar, dark eyes, but has red hair and freckles.
Hm. Well, I'm a "black" Scot in one sense
of the word, but it has nothing to do with
my colouration.
Post by Errol
Post by Deirdre
DNA just says _what_...it can't tell you _when_.
Oh, I know, that's why you have to have ancestors tested if
you can find them. Fascinating concept though.
The de'il you say. You'll not find me poking about
_their_ bones...we put those honking great stones
atop them for a _reason_, to make ruddy certain
the buggers stayed _put_. They were bad enough
when alive, I can't imagine they've improved their
attitude any in death.
Deirdre
cf. my wife's remark - "I shudder to think that your ancestors' blood
runs through my children's veins".
Bugger the children - how did she think I felt!
LOL! Indeed.

Errol
Lesley Robertson
2005-08-24 08:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Oh, I know, that's why you have to have ancestors tested if
you can find them. Fascinating concept though.
And how do you propose to do that?
(a) DNA breaks down under most burial conditions
(b) DNA gets contaminated
(c) Most people didn't have grave markers. Of the small number of grave
markers that remain, many are illegible. Many have been moved (eg into
straight lines to aid grass cutting) and no longer mark the grave they were
set up for.
(d) Most Kirkyards have been reused, you can't be sure that any remains
found are those of the person you're looking for. Most bodies were put in
the grave in just a shroud - the parish coffin was returned to the church to
await the next funeral.
(e) Grave robbing is illegal except under license.
Lesley Robertson
Deirdre
2005-08-24 09:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Errol
Oh, I know, that's why you have to have ancestors tested if
you can find them. Fascinating concept though.
And how do you propose to do that?
(a) DNA breaks down under most burial conditions
(b) DNA gets contaminated
Details. Sometimes, though, you _can_ get
enough out of bones to do the test...they've
had some success with it in Egypt, I under-
stand, but then those bodies were very much
embalmed.

The contamination factor though, I really don't
know how you could get around that. The list
of sources for such would appear to be almost
endless.
Post by Lesley Robertson
(c) Most people didn't have grave markers. Of the small number of grave
markers that remain, many are illegible. Many have been moved (eg into
straight lines to aid grass cutting) and no longer mark the grave they were
set up for.
And some folks may have been misidentified
prior to being planted depending the cause of
death. In the event of a battlefield decapita-
tion, it's not out of the question that the head
and body might not belong to the same individual.
Post by Lesley Robertson
(d) Most Kirkyards have been reused, you can't be sure that any remains
found are those of the person you're looking for. Most bodies were put in
the grave in just a shroud - the parish coffin was returned to the church to
await the next funeral.
Even in the case of my family where most
seem to have been tucked away in crypts or
otherwise encased in stone (never let it be
said we took any chances with them resur-
recting) I doubt that anything scientifically
worthwhile remains...and really, what does it
matter anyway? As long as I know who my
_children_ are, I'm not over-concerned about
my umpty-umpth g-grandparents.
Post by Lesley Robertson
(e) Grave robbing is illegal except under license.
Oh, now you're taking all the adventure out of
it...c'mon, a spot of body snatching is just the
thing to liven up a dull party.

Deirdre
Lesley Robertson
2005-08-24 09:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Errol
Oh, I know, that's why you have to have ancestors tested if
you can find them. Fascinating concept though.
And how do you propose to do that?
(a) DNA breaks down under most burial conditions
(b) DNA gets contaminated
Details. Sometimes, though, you _can_ get
enough out of bones to do the test...they've
had some success with it in Egypt, I under-
stand, but then those bodies were very much
embalmed.
And well-labelled.
Post by Deirdre
The contamination factor though, I really don't
know how you could get around that. The list
of sources for such would appear to be almost
endless.
You take it from the inside of teeth or bones under properly controlled
conditions. That requires a bone or tooth in good condition - as much of the
soil of Scotland is acid, that's pretty rare.
Post by Deirdre
Even in the case of my family where most
seem to have been tucked away in crypts or
otherwise encased in stone (never let it be
said we took any chances with them resur-
recting) I doubt that anything scientifically
worthwhile remains...and really, what does it
matter anyway? As long as I know who my
_children_ are, I'm not over-concerned about
my umpty-umpth g-grandparents.
I do a lot of genealogy, but the trouble with current DNA tests, as flogged
to the general public, is that they'll tell you that you have a common male
or female ancestor on one or the other of the two single gender lines, but
won't tell you who or when. They have their uses - for single name studies
or where historical evidence shows that only one person from that line had
been in the area, or where you're just confirming the identification of
bones with a probable identification (standard example, the Romanov
skeletons), or even proving that someone is NOT from a given line. Too many
people don't understand the limitations before they hand over their money.
Post by Deirdre
Post by Lesley Robertson
(e) Grave robbing is illegal except under license.
Oh, now you're taking all the adventure out of
it...c'mon, a spot of body snatching is just the
thing to liven up a dull party.
Ick. Mind you, they do say that anything that's fun is illegal, immoral or
it makes you fat....
There's a good example of a mort house from the days of Burke and Hare on my
1-place study web site under Kirkyard
http://homepages.ipact.nl/~robertson/index.html
Lesley Robertson
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-08-24 14:10:44 UTC
Permalink
"Lesley Robertson" <***@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:a3929$430c4223$82a1f636.
Post by Lesley Robertson
That requires a bone or tooth in good condition - as much of the
soil of Scotland is acid, that's pretty rare.
Even rarer nowadays - and that's before puberty.
Errol
2005-08-24 11:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lesley Robertson
Post by Errol
Oh, I know, that's why you have to have ancestors tested if
you can find them. Fascinating concept though.
And how do you propose to do that?
"If you can find them". (See above)
Post by Lesley Robertson
(a) DNA breaks down under most burial conditions
(b) DNA gets contaminated
You're explaining the obvious to me again.
Post by Lesley Robertson
(c) Most people didn't have grave markers. Of the small number of grave
markers that remain, many are illegible. Many have been moved (eg into
straight lines to aid grass cutting) and no longer mark the grave they were
set up for.
(d) Most Kirkyards have been reused, you can't be sure that any remains
found are those of the person you're looking for. Most bodies were put in
the grave in just a shroud - the parish coffin was returned to the church to
await the next funeral.
(e) Grave robbing is illegal except under license.
Errol
Michilín
2005-08-24 02:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
Well, according to Kendrick, Haakon's men won and he awarded land to
his group not the other way around. The Scots beat the Viking group
into a retreat and when their small landing boats foundered in the
surf, they were forced to make a stand and beat the Scots back. Hence
they survived the battle and Haakon granted lands to his chiefs.
So, you have one historian, writing in 1930, versus any number, writing
much more recently. Lynch is relatively biased towards the Hakon camp,
yet still awards victory in the battle to the Scots.
What were his sources?
He concludes that
Post by Ian Morrison
the victory might not have been as conclusive as often depicted, but
victory there certainly was.
So Alexander just gave up Arran because? Haakon buried his dead at
the Largs kirk the next day, unmolested? Any evidence to the contrary?
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
Post by Ian Morrison
Speaking as one who lived on the Cunninghame (sic) lands for a while,
I have to agree that the name is entirely local, and one of the older
ones in the area as well.
I suggest that you may be overlooking the fact that Norse raiders
may have taken on the name of the region and lands they moved into.
Why would they do that in Ayrshire and not elsewhere?
Don't know. My family history states that we came from Arran originally
and that we were Norse. Never saw that confirmed until I got the
test results back from National Geographic. The evidence is
that Haplogroup I is found predominantly in Sweden, Denmark,
Norway and with subcomponents in Scotland and Ireland. I would
say that's circumstantial, but compelling.
Errol
Errol
I would guess that when the Western Isles were part of the Norse
Empire, your family moved onto Arran as settlers - we know that's what
the Vikings did with their occupied lands. Once Haakon renounced
ownership of the Western Isles, it's more than likely that such
families would have stayed put, ready to take on all comers who tried
to take over their farms, ploughed lands, etc.

We know that Norse was spoken in the Western Isles as late as the 14th
century but gave way to Gaelic thereafter, at which point they
probably assumed Gaelic ways and l;anguage and became
indistinguishable from the Gaels, retaining only Norse place names
like Stornoway (Steorna's Bay) and translated Norse family names like
Neilsen to MacNeill and Leodsen to MacLeod.

Murchadh
Errol
2005-08-24 11:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michilín
Post by Errol
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
Well, according to Kendrick, Haakon's men won and he awarded land to
his group not the other way around. The Scots beat the Viking group
into a retreat and when their small landing boats foundered in the
surf, they were forced to make a stand and beat the Scots back. Hence
they survived the battle and Haakon granted lands to his chiefs.
So, you have one historian, writing in 1930, versus any number, writing
much more recently. Lynch is relatively biased towards the Hakon camp,
yet still awards victory in the battle to the Scots.
What were his sources?
He concludes that
Post by Ian Morrison
the victory might not have been as conclusive as often depicted, but
victory there certainly was.
So Alexander just gave up Arran because? Haakon buried his dead at
the Largs kirk the next day, unmolested? Any evidence to the contrary?
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
Post by Ian Morrison
Speaking as one who lived on the Cunninghame (sic) lands for a while,
I have to agree that the name is entirely local, and one of the older
ones in the area as well.
I suggest that you may be overlooking the fact that Norse raiders
may have taken on the name of the region and lands they moved into.
Why would they do that in Ayrshire and not elsewhere?
Don't know. My family history states that we came from Arran originally
and that we were Norse. Never saw that confirmed until I got the
test results back from National Geographic. The evidence is
that Haplogroup I is found predominantly in Sweden, Denmark,
Norway and with subcomponents in Scotland and Ireland. I would
say that's circumstantial, but compelling.
Errol
Errol
I would guess that when the Western Isles were part of the Norse
Empire, your family moved onto Arran as settlers - we know that's what
the Vikings did with their occupied lands. Once Haakon renounced
ownership of the Western Isles, it's more than likely that such
families would have stayed put, ready to take on all comers who tried
to take over their farms, ploughed lands, etc.
We know that Norse was spoken in the Western Isles as late as the 14th
century but gave way to Gaelic thereafter, at which point they
probably assumed Gaelic ways and l;anguage and became
indistinguishable from the Gaels, retaining only Norse place names
like Stornoway (Steorna's Bay) and translated Norse family names like
Neilsen to MacNeill and Leodsen to MacLeod.
That makes perfect sense. There was some family thought that our
name was once spelled with a K and resembled something like
Cunningham - mabye Koning or such.

Errol
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-08-24 13:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
I suggest that you may be overlooking the fact that Norse raiders
may have taken on the name of the region and lands they moved into.
Why would they do that in Ayrshire and not elsewhere?
One word; Solanum tuberosum.

A W-S
S Viemeister
2005-08-24 14:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
I suggest that you may be overlooking the fact that Norse raiders
may have taken on the name of the region and lands they moved into.
Why would they do that in Ayrshire and not elsewhere?
One word; Solanum tuberosum.
But - that's _two_ words.

Sheila
O***@gmail.com
2005-08-23 18:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Haplogroup I is not the viking haplogroup. There is no such thing.
Haplogroup R1B is native to Britain and Ireland and Western Europe and
its holders brought it here some 10,000 years ago from Iberia. Other
haplogroups arrived here with more recent haplogroups.

These haplogroup maps might be of use to you -
Loading Image...
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

HG1 = R1B
HG2 = I
HG3 = R1A

Just because you are haplogroup I does not mean that most of your
ancestors are R1B.
Errol
2005-08-23 20:44:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by O***@gmail.com
Haplogroup I is not the viking haplogroup. There is no such thing.
Okay, mabye it was just common amongst Viking populations but
I am only stating what is said on NUMEROUS internet sites.
Just google Haplogroup I and Viking and see what comes up.
If you have anything more significant to add that rebuts that
I would be interested to know with some facts to back it up.
Post by O***@gmail.com
Haplogroup R1B is native to Britain and Ireland and Western Europe and
its holders brought it here some 10,000 years ago from Iberia. Other
haplogroups arrived here with more recent haplogroups.
These haplogroup maps might be of use to you -
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/495614/0/nouser_495/T0_-1_495614.jpg
Seems to show a LOT of HG2 or I in the Sweden, Norway, Denmark
and then recurs to a lesser degree in, Scotland and Ireland.
Not sure what your gripe is. Did you look at your map?
Post by O***@gmail.com
http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf
HG1 = R1B
HG2 = I
HG3 = R1A
Just because you are haplogroup I does not mean that most of your
ancestors are R1B.
Except for the fact that my family tree goes back nearly to
Norman time.

Errol
Deirdre
2005-08-23 21:02:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Except for the fact that my family tree goes back nearly to
Norman time.
Unless you've somehow got proof of spon-
taneous human generation, you'll find that
_everyone's_ family tree goes back to Nor-
man times...

Deirdre
Errol
2005-08-23 21:02:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre
Post by Errol
Except for the fact that my family tree goes back nearly to
Norman time.
Unless you've somehow got proof of spon-
taneous human generation, you'll find that
_everyone's_ family tree goes back to Nor-
man times...
Mabye I should have said 'recorded'? That better?
I'm not interested in getting into a fight with anyone
here, I just want to know what really happened at Largs.

Errol
Deirdre
2005-08-23 21:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Post by Deirdre
Post by Errol
Except for the fact that my family tree goes back nearly to
Norman time.
Unless you've somehow got proof of spon-
taneous human generation, you'll find that
_everyone's_ family tree goes back to Nor-
man times...
Mabye I should have said 'recorded'? That better?
Of course it's "better", precision in prose is always
better than lack thereof.

How much faith are you placing in those records
though? Mine go back that far also, but I'm not
inclined to place too much stock in them..."'Tis
a wise bairn kens his da'." after all.
Post by Errol
I'm not interested in getting into a fight with anyone
here, I just want to know what really happened at Largs.
Barring a time machine, no one will ever know.
History says the Scots won...they probably did
since it's unlikely that would have been corrupted
by time...as to the details? Who can say? For
every person hypothesising one thing, you can
find another saying the opposite.

Why does it matter? The Vikings got around a
bit, you know...

Deirdre
Errol
2005-08-23 22:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre
Post by Errol
Post by Deirdre
Post by Errol
Except for the fact that my family tree goes back nearly to
Norman time.
Unless you've somehow got proof of spon-
taneous human generation, you'll find that
_everyone's_ family tree goes back to Nor-
man times...
Mabye I should have said 'recorded'? That better?
Of course it's "better", precision in prose is always
better than lack thereof.
How much faith are you placing in those records
though? Mine go back that far also, but I'm not
inclined to place too much stock in them..."'Tis
a wise bairn kens his da'." after all.
Post by Errol
I'm not interested in getting into a fight with anyone
here, I just want to know what really happened at Largs.
Barring a time machine, no one will ever know.
History says the Scots won...they probably did
since it's unlikely that would have been corrupted
by time...as to the details? Who can say? For
every person hypothesising one thing, you can
find another saying the opposite.
I know and that's why I am looking for specifics on Arran,
Haakon and the details that Kendrick offers. 'Old' doesn't
necessarily mean 'false'.
Post by Deirdre
Why does it matter? The Vikings got around a
bit, you know...
You're right, and if you follow the trail back to
Olduvai, it seems we were all something else once at various times
since we started off. I just became curious because I had always
assumed that the Scots won at Largs and when I saw my own DNA map,
I started to question what had really happened. I mean, I understand
that DNA moves, migrates, creeps in, fathers aren't the real father
and who's to say a little Pictish maiden didn't rather fancy the
Norwegian boys across the ocean way back?

Errol
Ian Morrison
2005-08-23 22:34:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
You're right, and if you follow the trail back to
Olduvai, it seems we were all something else once at various times
since we started off. I just became curious because I had always
assumed that the Scots won at Largs and when I saw my own DNA map,
I started to question what had really happened. I mean, I understand
that DNA moves, migrates, creeps in, fathers aren't the real father
and who's to say a little Pictish maiden didn't rather fancy the
Norwegian boys across the ocean way back?
The Vikings were renowned for shipping women, from all over the place,
across vast tracts of ocean, willing or not.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Errol
2005-08-23 23:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
You're right, and if you follow the trail back to
Olduvai, it seems we were all something else once at various times
since we started off. I just became curious because I had always
assumed that the Scots won at Largs and when I saw my own DNA map,
I started to question what had really happened. I mean, I understand
that DNA moves, migrates, creeps in, fathers aren't the real father
and who's to say a little Pictish maiden didn't rather fancy the
Norwegian boys across the ocean way back?
The Vikings were renowned for shipping women, from all over the place,
across vast tracts of ocean, willing or not.
Seems like a fine idea to me!

Errol
Glenallan
2005-08-24 00:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
The Vikings were renowned for shipping women, from all over the place,
across vast tracts of ocean, willing or not.
And a bloody good idea too, if you ask me..
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-08-24 13:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenallan
Post by Ian Morrison
The Vikings were renowned for shipping women, from all over the place,
across vast tracts of ocean, willing or not.
And a bloody good idea too, if you ask me..
******* A!
The Whyte-Settlars *still* do it.
Michilín
2005-08-24 02:33:05 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:34:27 GMT, Ian Morrison
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
You're right, and if you follow the trail back to
Olduvai, it seems we were all something else once at various times
since we started off. I just became curious because I had always
assumed that the Scots won at Largs and when I saw my own DNA map,
I started to question what had really happened. I mean, I understand
that DNA moves, migrates, creeps in, fathers aren't the real father
and who's to say a little Pictish maiden didn't rather fancy the
Norwegian boys across the ocean way back?
The Vikings were renowned for shipping women, from all over the place,
across vast tracts of ocean, willing or not.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
That's why there is more Irish DNA in Iceland than Norse. All those
women the Vikings stole from Ireland.

Murchadh
s***@binet.is
2005-08-24 09:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michilín
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:34:27 GMT, Ian Morrison
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
You're right, and if you follow the trail back to
Olduvai, it seems we were all something else once at various times
since we started off. I just became curious because I had always
assumed that the Scots won at Largs and when I saw my own DNA map,
I started to question what had really happened. I mean, I understand
that DNA moves, migrates, creeps in, fathers aren't the real father
and who's to say a little Pictish maiden didn't rather fancy the
Norwegian boys across the ocean way back?
The Vikings were renowned for shipping women, from all over the place,
across vast tracts of ocean, willing or not.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
That's why there is more Irish DNA in Iceland than Norse. All those
women the Vikings stole from Ireland.
Most of the Irish/Scottish DNA in Iceland comes from people that went
there freely, a large part of the "Vikings" were of Irish/Scottish
origin or were of mixed Irish/Scottish/Norse ancestry.
The idea of Vikings stealing women from all over is quite mythical.
Michilín
2005-08-24 15:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@binet.is
Post by Michilín
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:34:27 GMT, Ian Morrison
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
You're right, and if you follow the trail back to
Olduvai, it seems we were all something else once at various times
since we started off. I just became curious because I had always
assumed that the Scots won at Largs and when I saw my own DNA map,
I started to question what had really happened. I mean, I understand
that DNA moves, migrates, creeps in, fathers aren't the real father
and who's to say a little Pictish maiden didn't rather fancy the
Norwegian boys across the ocean way back?
The Vikings were renowned for shipping women, from all over the place,
across vast tracts of ocean, willing or not.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
That's why there is more Irish DNA in Iceland than Norse. All those
women the Vikings stole from Ireland.
Most of the Irish/Scottish DNA in Iceland comes from people that went
there freely, a large part of the "Vikings" were of Irish/Scottish
origin or were of mixed Irish/Scottish/Norse ancestry.
The idea of Vikings stealing women from all over is quite mythical.
Fyrirgefðu

Murchadh
Errol
2005-08-24 11:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michilín
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:34:27 GMT, Ian Morrison
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
You're right, and if you follow the trail back to
Olduvai, it seems we were all something else once at various times
since we started off. I just became curious because I had always
assumed that the Scots won at Largs and when I saw my own DNA map,
I started to question what had really happened. I mean, I understand
that DNA moves, migrates, creeps in, fathers aren't the real father
and who's to say a little Pictish maiden didn't rather fancy the
Norwegian boys across the ocean way back?
The Vikings were renowned for shipping women, from all over the place,
across vast tracts of ocean, willing or not.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
That's why there is more Irish DNA in Iceland than Norse. All those
women the Vikings stole from Ireland.
The Icelandic "dottir's" seem happy enough today.

Errol
S Viemeister
2005-08-24 13:28:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michilín
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:34:27 GMT, Ian Morrison
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
You're right, and if you follow the trail back to
Olduvai, it seems we were all something else once at various times
since we started off. I just became curious because I had always
assumed that the Scots won at Largs and when I saw my own DNA map,
I started to question what had really happened. I mean, I understand
that DNA moves, migrates, creeps in, fathers aren't the real father
and who's to say a little Pictish maiden didn't rather fancy the
Norwegian boys across the ocean way back?
The Vikings were renowned for shipping women, from all over the place,
across vast tracts of ocean, willing or not.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
That's why there is more Irish DNA in Iceland than Norse. All those
women the Vikings stole from Ireland.
Tall, fair, blue-eyed, strong - I doubt 'stealing' was required!

Sheila
Michilín
2005-08-24 15:17:17 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:28:02 -0400, S Viemeister
Post by S Viemeister
Post by Michilín
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:34:27 GMT, Ian Morrison
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
You're right, and if you follow the trail back to
Olduvai, it seems we were all something else once at various times
since we started off. I just became curious because I had always
assumed that the Scots won at Largs and when I saw my own DNA map,
I started to question what had really happened. I mean, I understand
that DNA moves, migrates, creeps in, fathers aren't the real father
and who's to say a little Pictish maiden didn't rather fancy the
Norwegian boys across the ocean way back?
The Vikings were renowned for shipping women, from all over the place,
across vast tracts of ocean, willing or not.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
That's why there is more Irish DNA in Iceland than Norse. All those
women the Vikings stole from Ireland.
Tall, fair, blue-eyed, strong - I doubt 'stealing' was required!
Sheila
(Sheila lets the veil slip momentarily...)

Beware the women of the Mackay tribe!

Murchadh
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-08-24 13:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michilín
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:34:27 GMT, Ian Morrison
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
You're right, and if you follow the trail back to
Olduvai, it seems we were all something else once at various times
since we started off. I just became curious because I had always
assumed that the Scots won at Largs and when I saw my own DNA map,
I started to question what had really happened. I mean, I understand
that DNA moves, migrates, creeps in, fathers aren't the real father
and who's to say a little Pictish maiden didn't rather fancy the
Norwegian boys across the ocean way back?
The Vikings were renowned for shipping women, from all over the place,
across vast tracts of ocean, willing or not.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
That's why there is more Irish DNA in Iceland than Norse. All those
women the Vikings stole from Ireland.
Oh bollocks! - they were queuing up at the jetties - just gagging for it.

A W-S
Post by Michilín
Murchadh
Michilín
2005-08-24 15:18:58 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 01:28:32 +1200, "Adam Whyte-Settlar"
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Michilín
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:34:27 GMT, Ian Morrison
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
You're right, and if you follow the trail back to
Olduvai, it seems we were all something else once at various times
since we started off. I just became curious because I had always
assumed that the Scots won at Largs and when I saw my own DNA map,
I started to question what had really happened. I mean, I understand
that DNA moves, migrates, creeps in, fathers aren't the real father
and who's to say a little Pictish maiden didn't rather fancy the
Norwegian boys across the ocean way back?
The Vikings were renowned for shipping women, from all over the place,
across vast tracts of ocean, willing or not.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
That's why there is more Irish DNA in Iceland than Norse. All those
women the Vikings stole from Ireland.
Oh bollocks! - they were queuing up at the jetties - just gagging for it.
A W-S
Post by Michilín
Murchadh
Reality strikes again...

Murchadh
allan connochie
2005-08-23 22:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Post by Deirdre
Post by Errol
Except for the fact that my family tree goes back nearly to
Norman time.
Unless you've somehow got proof of spon-
taneous human generation, you'll find that
_everyone's_ family tree goes back to Nor-
man times...
Mabye I should have said 'recorded'? That better?
I'm not interested in getting into a fight with anyone
here, I just want to know what really happened at Largs.
The Norwegian Sagas claimed a victory but it was only bravado. The Scots
had the best of it though it seems only a fraction of both armies were
actively involved. The battle itself would have not been seen as all that
decisive at the time, however the Norse retreat from that campaign marked
the end of their dominance in the Western Isles. Hakkon could have granted
all the land he wanted in that area but again it would have been empty
gestures. Alexander was the ruler not Hakkon. Shortly afterwards the Norse
officially renounced claims to the area in return for 4000 merks.


Allan
Deirdre
2005-08-23 22:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
The Norwegian Sagas claimed a victory but it was only bravado. The Scots
had the best of it though it seems only a fraction of both armies were
actively involved. The battle itself would have not been seen as all that
decisive at the time, however the Norse retreat from that campaign marked
the end of their dominance in the Western Isles. Hakkon could have granted
all the land he wanted in that area but again it would have been empty
gestures. Alexander was the ruler not Hakkon. Shortly afterwards the Norse
officially renounced claims to the area in return for 4000 merks.
Hence the phrase "If you pay Danegeld you're
never quit of the Dane"?

Deirdre
Michilín
2005-08-24 02:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deirdre
Post by allan connochie
The Norwegian Sagas claimed a victory but it was only bravado. The Scots
had the best of it though it seems only a fraction of both armies were
actively involved. The battle itself would have not been seen as all that
decisive at the time, however the Norse retreat from that campaign marked
the end of their dominance in the Western Isles. Hakkon could have granted
all the land he wanted in that area but again it would have been empty
gestures. Alexander was the ruler not Hakkon. Shortly afterwards the Norse
officially renounced claims to the area in return for 4000 merks.
Hence the phrase "If you pay Danegeld you're
never quit of the Dane"?
Deirdre
Same with bribing officials.

Murchadh
Errol
2005-08-23 23:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
Post by Errol
Post by Deirdre
Post by Errol
Except for the fact that my family tree goes back nearly to
Norman time.
Unless you've somehow got proof of spon-
taneous human generation, you'll find that
_everyone's_ family tree goes back to Nor-
man times...
Mabye I should have said 'recorded'? That better?
I'm not interested in getting into a fight with anyone
here, I just want to know what really happened at Largs.
The Norwegian Sagas claimed a victory but it was only bravado.
What of Arran?

The Scots
Post by allan connochie
had the best of it though it seems only a fraction of both armies were
actively involved. The battle itself would have not been seen as all that
decisive at the time, however the Norse retreat from that campaign marked
the end of their dominance in the Western Isles.
Haakon died shortly thereafter and it certainly seemed the last gasp.
They did appear to retain a significant presence in the isles though?

Hakkon could have granted
Post by allan connochie
all the land he wanted in that area but again it would have been empty
gestures. Alexander was the ruler not Hakkon. Shortly afterwards the Norse
officially renounced claims to the area in return for 4000 merks.
Danegeld?

Errol
Ian Morrison
2005-08-23 23:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Haakon died shortly thereafter and it certainly seemed the last gasp.
They did appear to retain a significant presence in the isles though?
The Western Isles, down as far as the Isle of Man, became Scottish after
the Treaty of Perth in 1266. The Northern Isles (Orkney and Shetland)
remained Norse until the 15th century.
Post by Errol
Hakkon could have granted
Post by allan connochie
all the land he wanted in that area but again it would have been empty
gestures. Alexander was the ruler not Hakkon. Shortly afterwards the Norse
officially renounced claims to the area in return for 4000 merks.
Danegeld?
The Norse were not Danes.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Errol
2005-08-24 11:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
Haakon died shortly thereafter and it certainly seemed the last gasp.
They did appear to retain a significant presence in the isles though?
The Western Isles, down as far as the Isle of Man, became Scottish after
the Treaty of Perth in 1266. The Northern Isles (Orkney and Shetland)
remained Norse until the 15th century.
Post by Errol
Hakkon could have granted
Post by allan connochie
all the land he wanted in that area but again it would have been empty
gestures. Alexander was the ruler not Hakkon. Shortly afterwards the Norse
officially renounced claims to the area in return for 4000 merks.
Danegeld?
The Norse were not Danes.
I just used it as a term to describe the Scots buying their
way out of something. I don't need the obvious explained, thanks.

Errol
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-08-24 13:32:02 UTC
Permalink
"Errol" <errolbc!hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DbCdnZ2dnZ1rKtyVnZ2dnRbEkd6dnZ2dRVn-.
Post by Errol
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
Post by allan connochie
the Norse
officially renounced claims to the area in return for 4000 merks.
Danegeld?
The Norse were not Danes.
And they drove BMW's anyway.
Post by Errol
I just used it as a term to describe the Scots buying their
way out of something. I don't need the obvious explained, thanks.
They don't care about that either.
I told you already - they're all bastards in this group.

A w-S
allan connochie
2005-08-24 06:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michilín
The Scots
Post by allan connochie
had the best of it though it seems only a fraction of both armies were
actively involved. The battle itself would have not been seen as all that
decisive at the time, however the Norse retreat from that campaign marked
the end of their dominance in the Western Isles.
Haakon died shortly thereafter and it certainly seemed the last gasp.
They did appear to retain a significant presence in the isles though?
Only the Northern Isles. As previously stated even though it was more of a
skirmish than an epic battle, within three years of Largs the Norse had
given up completely all claims to the Western Isles, Arran included.
Post by Michilín
Hakkon could have granted
Post by allan connochie
all the land he wanted in that area but again it would have been empty
gestures. Alexander was the ruler not Hakkon. Shortly afterwards the Norse
officially renounced claims to the area in return for 4000 merks.
Danegeld?
No it was a sale and had been what the Scots were pressing for all along.
The father of Alexander III made repeated offers to buy the Western Isles
which were all at least officially controlled by the Norse and had been for
several centuries. The Norse response was to flatly reject the offers, send
fleets to the area, and send ambassadors to the Scottish court demanding
that the Scots withdraw from the areas they had already managed to gain
control of. Hakon's armada was designed to wrestle complete control back
and knock the Scottish threat on the head for good. He singularly failed to
do that. The sale of the islands came about because the Norse realised they
had little choice. It was a matter of time before the Scots took complete
control anyway. By the Treaty of Perth they made certain guarantees for the
supporters they were abandoning.


Allan
Errol
2005-08-24 11:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by allan connochie
Post by Michilín
The Scots
Post by allan connochie
had the best of it though it seems only a fraction of both armies were
actively involved. The battle itself would have not been seen as all
that
Post by Michilín
Post by allan connochie
decisive at the time, however the Norse retreat from that campaign
marked
Post by Michilín
Post by allan connochie
the end of their dominance in the Western Isles.
Haakon died shortly thereafter and it certainly seemed the last gasp.
They did appear to retain a significant presence in the isles though?
Only the Northern Isles. As previously stated even though it was more of a
skirmish than an epic battle, within three years of Largs the Norse had
given up completely all claims to the Western Isles, Arran included.
Post by Michilín
Hakkon could have granted
Post by allan connochie
all the land he wanted in that area but again it would have been empty
gestures. Alexander was the ruler not Hakkon. Shortly afterwards the
Norse
Post by Michilín
Post by allan connochie
officially renounced claims to the area in return for 4000 merks.
Danegeld?
No it was a sale and had been what the Scots were pressing for all along.
The father of Alexander III made repeated offers to buy the Western Isles
which were all at least officially controlled by the Norse and had been for
several centuries. The Norse response was to flatly reject the offers, send
fleets to the area, and send ambassadors to the Scottish court demanding
that the Scots withdraw from the areas they had already managed to gain
control of. Hakon's armada was designed to wrestle complete control back
and knock the Scottish threat on the head for good. He singularly failed to
do that.
Any evidence that Haakon managed to bury his dead at Largs kirk
the day after the battle?


The sale of the islands came about because the Norse realised they
Post by allan connochie
had little choice. It was a matter of time before the Scots took complete
control anyway. By the Treaty of Perth they made certain guarantees for the
supporters they were abandoning.
Well, Haakon died soon thereafter and according to Kendrick, thats when
it all fell apart. Blamed on Magnus his 'youthful heir' who had no
will or ambition to retain it.

Errol
Post by allan connochie
Allan
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-08-24 13:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
I'm not interested in getting into a fight with anyone
here,
They don't care.
The Scots bastards in this group never tire of punching a new face.
Especially someone who demonstrates weakness by being polite.

A W-S
Michilín
2005-08-24 15:23:39 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 01:24:05 +1200, "Adam Whyte-Settlar"
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
Post by Errol
I'm not interested in getting into a fight with anyone
here,
They don't care.
The Scots bastards in this group never tire of punching a new face.
Especially someone who demonstrates weakness by being polite.
A W-S
Don't take any notice of Adam - he's mostly Scottish but "tainted"
with *nglish blood and has been pestering the Scottish courts for
years for permission to appear in public without the giveaway bone
through his nose - unsuccesfully to date.

Murchadh

Ian Morrison
2005-08-23 21:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
Post by O***@gmail.com
Haplogroup I is not the viking haplogroup. There is no such thing.
Okay, mabye it was just common amongst Viking populations but
I am only stating what is said on NUMEROUS internet sites.
Just google Haplogroup I and Viking and see what comes up.
If you have anything more significant to add that rebuts that
I would be interested to know with some facts to back it up.
You're asking someone to prove a negative. It's not possible.
Post by Errol
Except for the fact that my family tree goes back nearly to
Norman time.
Are you absolutely certain that all your supposed male ancestors were
actually the fathers of their children? Few could make that claim.
Recent studies have shown that around a fifth to a quarter of children
are not the progeny of their supposed fathers. I cannot imagine that the
proportion would have been any less in the past.

It is also a fact that almost all family trees are a bit uncertain in
places, even those for British royalty. Reasonable confidence only comes
with contemporary documentation (parish registers and the like), and
those are far from being 100% reliable.
--
Ian O.
http://www.iomorrison.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Errol
2005-08-23 21:26:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Post by Errol
Post by O***@gmail.com
Haplogroup I is not the viking haplogroup. There is no such thing.
Okay, mabye it was just common amongst Viking populations but
I am only stating what is said on NUMEROUS internet sites.
Just google Haplogroup I and Viking and see what comes up.
If you have anything more significant to add that rebuts that
I would be interested to know with some facts to back it up.
You're asking someone to prove a negative. It's not possible.
Post by Errol
Except for the fact that my family tree goes back nearly to
Norman time.
Are you absolutely certain that all your supposed male ancestors were
actually the fathers of their children? Few could make that claim.
True enough, but I don't have anything else to go on.
Post by Ian Morrison
Recent studies have shown that around a fifth to a quarter of children
are not the progeny of their supposed fathers. I cannot imagine that the
proportion would have been any less in the past.
If I resemble portrait ancestors of mine from 400 years ago, thats
as close as I can get. (Short of digging up graveyards around Ayrshire)
Post by Ian Morrison
It is also a fact that almost all family trees are a bit uncertain in
places, even those for British royalty. Reasonable confidence only comes
with contemporary documentation (parish registers and the like), and
those are far from being 100% reliable.
Well then, the oral history as explained to me by my 95 year old cousin
could just be a co-incidence that the DNA points toward it being
possibly true. Questions remain about what happened at Largs though.

Errol
Adam Whyte-Settlar
2005-08-24 13:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Morrison
Are you absolutely certain that all your supposed male ancestors were
actually the fathers of their children?
That's the big problem with this newly trendy 'ancestry' and 'geneology'
research crap.
One randy milkman and the whole bloody thing turns to custard.
That's why I havn't bothered with it much myself.
I *was* a milkman once so I know.
The interest lies in following the 'name' but it is inconceivable (pun
intended) that there are *any* true lines beyond a few generations.
I blame women for everything - in fact I think I get a kick out of it.
Post by Ian Morrison
It is also a fact that almost all family trees are a bit uncertain in
places, even those for British royalty.
I would say *especially* for British royalty. Diana's youngest brat, for
example, is obviously completely unrelated to anyone in the household. Lucky
for him.

A W-S (?)
S Viemeister
2005-08-24 14:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
I would say *especially* for British royalty. Diana's youngest brat, for
example, is obviously completely unrelated to anyone in the household.
Not quite - he has a half-brother!

Sheila
The Real Fifeshire Bimbo
2005-08-24 15:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Whyte-Settlar
I blame women for everything - in fact I think I get a kick out of it.
You need more than a few well-placed ones IMO.

Does the PFD have an email address where I could reach her?

Cheers, Helen
hramsay at cogeco dot ca
Defender of M$OE
Errol
2005-08-23 18:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michilín
Post by Errol
I am puzzled by some of the historical accounts of the origins of the
Cunningham clan. I have just had my DNA analysed and I am Haplogroup I -
the 'Viking Haplogroup'. According to accounts I have read, the
Viking/Norwegian group won the battle of Largs, not the Scots, and their
chieftans were awarded land in the Ayrshire area. That seems to be borne
out by my DNA as a Cunningham directly descended from the area.
Anyone clear this up??
Errol
Cunningham is not a Viking name.
You cannot possibly say that because the origins of who
adopted the name are lost. If a group moved into a region
that bore that name and called themselves that, then they
could equally be Vikings and Cunninghams. I am certainly
a Cunningham of Viking decent, no doubt of it, and
am from an OLD Cunningham line.
Post by Michilín
The Scots won Largs.
Not according to Kendrick's History of the Vikings.
The Scots prevailed at first, but the Viking raiders
prevailed in a last stand on the beach and the Scots
retreated. Haakon awarded land in the region to his chiefs
according to Kendrick. If you have any factual rebuttal with
sources, I'd love to see it.
Post by Michilín
The first Cunningham is believed to have been a Flemish man named
Wernibald, who took on the placename as his own when he received a
grant of Kilmaurs in Cunningham, Ayrshire from Hugo de Morville, the
Constable of Scotland, in 1140.
Hervy de Cunningham, son of the Laird of Kilmaurs, fought for
Alexander III against the Norwegian invaders at the Battle of Largs in
1263. As a result of this service he received from his King a charter
of confirmation to all his lands in Ayrshire, according to the clan
history..
Your Viking ancestry is probably from another branch of your family.
Incorrect. It is down my Y-Chromosome DNA(male) and my family tree goes
way back. It is Cunningham back down the centuries.

Errol
Lesley Robertson
2005-08-23 19:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Errol
You cannot possibly say that because the origins of who
adopted the name are lost. If a group moved into a region
that bore that name and called themselves that, then they
could equally be Vikings and Cunninghams. I am certainly
a Cunningham of Viking decent, no doubt of it, and
am from an OLD Cunningham line.
Now that I'm home and can get at my library, I can check what Black's
Surnames of Scotland says. Black is regarded as the authority on surname
derivation are proceeded only on documentary evidence. he says that the name
is of territorial origin when Wernebald, a vassal of Hugh de moreville
obtained the manor and vil of Cunningham from his feudal superior. His son
gave one of the churches and some land to the monks of Kelso in 1170. The
earliest use of the word as a surname seems to beRichard de Cunningham who
witnessed a charter some time between 1210 and 1233. Black goes on to give
a whole list of early records.
The point I was tryting to make is that the viking DNA could have come over
at any time. The vikings turned up in Scotland regularly - sometimes as
colonists, other times in the raid and pillage game. People carrying the
viking markers would have come to Scotland when the King was to marry Ann of
Denmark, or even with a scandinavian au pair...
The trouble with DNA analysis is that it doesn't tell you WHEN anything
happened, or who it was, just shows lines of relationships.
Lesley Robertson
Madra Dubh
2005-08-24 14:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Interesting thread on soc.culture.scottish for anyone claiming Cunningham
ancestry.
Post by Errol
I am puzzled by some of the historical accounts of the origins of the
Cunningham clan. I have just had my DNA analysed and I am Haplogroup I -
the 'Viking Haplogroup'. According to accounts I have read, the
Viking/Norwegian group won the battle of Largs, not the Scots, and their
chieftans were awarded land in the Ayrshire area. That seems to be borne
out by my DNA as a Cunningham directly descended from the area.
Anyone clear this up??
Errol
Loading...