Loomis

  • 124 members

About us

8/16/2023
I want to share updated information from FTDNA. For those who have tested at Big Y 700, FTDNA offers a new tool called Globetrekker. It is similar to Rob Spencer's SNP Tracker. It shows a proposed geographical path for one's SNPs with approximate dates of formation for the SNPs. It uses test results from FTDNA testers, their reported genealogical information, and ancient DNA samples to produce the map. There are some differences between Globetrekker and SNP Tracker, primarily in the geographical location of very ancient SNPs. Dates appear to be fairly close.

Of interest to our project, Globetrekker shows FGC13557 as our earliest SNP originating in Britain with a date of approximately 1650 BC. SNP Tracker shows the possibility that the earliest British SNP in our line could be S21184 with an estimated date of 1770 BC. However, it includes a rather large margin of error that could also place S21184's origin outside of Britain. Either way, this places our family in Britain in the Middle Bronze Age. The data continues to be refined as more men test at Big Y 700. But thus far, the data shows our family in Britain much earlier than the Anglo Saxon period which is what Charles Hoppin suggested in his monograph included in the 1907 edition of Loomis Family in America. So, while the etymological origin of the Loomis surname is Anglo Saxon, the data suggests that the family is not.

Archaeologists believe that the Beaker people migrated to Britain beginning about 2500 BC. There was a turnover in the gene pool from the earlier Neolithic inhabitants of Britain to the Beaker people of about 90%. It is unknown how this happened--disease, war and conquest, or more reproductive opportunities for men in the Beaker culture. But DNA results clearly show the change in the DNA pool. The Beaker culture lasted in Britain until about 1800 BC. A recent study which I will discuss in a later post describes another turnover of DNA beginning about 1500 BC. It is thought that the Celtic language may have arrived in Britain with this group. To summarize, our family appears either to be associated with the end of the Beaker culture or, perhaps more likely, with the people responsible for the second gene pool turnover beginning about 1500 BC who are thought to have brought the Celtic language to Britain.

For those of you who have tested at Big Y 700, if you haven't yet looked at Globetrekker, do so. You will find it by clicking on the Discover Tools link on your FTDNA page. For those of you who have not tested at Big Y 700, our data, knowledge, and understanding of the origins of our family continue to be refined as more men test at Big Y 700. Now would be a good time to upgrade or order a Big Y 700 test while the Summer Sale is going on. It lasts until August 31. We hope many of you will do so!

Howard Loomis

5/19/2023
I was working with the Big Y 700 data we have from the 18 members of the project who have tested at this level. We have a 19th man who is not a member of the project but whose data is included in our Block Tree. We have 3 branches under FT97898 (the block of 33 equivalents in our DNA path). These three branches split into 7 sub-branches. Each of the sub-branches include men who either have one of the recognized variations of our surname or trace their paternal lineage back to such a man.

FTDNA recently added a new tool called the Discover Tool. It provides a variety of interesting information regarding one's haplogroup including an estimate of when the  haplogroup formed. In the case of each of these three branches, FTDNA estimates that they split from FT97898 about 1250 AD. That is an interesting correlation with our genealogical information.

You may recall that Charles Hoppin Jr. wrote a monograph on the English origins of the Loomis family that was included in the 1908 edition of Loomis Family in America. Hoppin stated that the name was Anglo Saxon and originated in the area around Bolton, Lancashire, England. He further stated that the name was first used around the early to mid 13th century. That correlates perfectly with the analysis of the results of the Big Y 700 testers in our project!

The block of 33 equivalents named FT97898 are a group of SNPs shared by all 19 of the above mentioned men. We don't know, however, the order in which they occurred in time. We may never know. It would require that we have testers that split away from the others at each SNP. In other words, men who are positive for A, but not B, C, D, etc. Then other men who are positive for A and B, but not C, D, E etc. If we had testers who broke up the entire block of 33 that way, we could then order them in time. Until then, we call the entire block FT97898.

Putting this information together, this is what we can conclude. The haplogroup of the first man to use the original version of our surname would be the SNP which occurred last in that block of 33 SNPs. Which SNP that was, we cannot say at this time. If the three branches all descend from the same man, he would have had to live in the early 13th century in order to have sons born around 1250 AD. If these three branches descend from two or three brothers, say, then their father would be the first to use the surname and would probably have lived in the late 12th or very early 13th century in order to have grandsons born around 1250 AD. The recognized variations of our surname would trace back to him.

Our DNA results correlate with the genealogical information and support Hoppin's theory that all the recognized variations of our surname descend from the first man to take the original version of our surname. That is fairly unique for surnames. The exceptions to this in our project are men who have variations of our surname but who have known or suspected NPEs in their paternal lineage.

Big Y 700 testing is what has made it possible to obtain this knowledge regarding our family and our origins. We are indebted to the men who have done this testing. But we have much more to learn and hope that many more of you will test at Big Y 700. There will probably be a Fathers Day Sale coming soon. That would be a great time to order or upgrade to Big Y 700!

Howard Loomis


2/12/2023

Our project now has 19 Big Y results. Eighteen of these have tested at Big Y 700 and are members of our project. One is not a member of our project but is included in our Block Trees. He appears to have tested at Big Y 500, but this is a guess as he has chosen to remain private. We currently have seven branches in our greater family, all related within genealogical time. A recent new member split a branch previously occupied by two men which created our seventh branch. Each of these seven branches is connected to one of the variations of the Loomis surname. 


4/8/2022

We now have 15 men who have tested at the Big Y level—14 of them have tested with Big Y 700, and one who has chosen to keep his results private appears to have tested with Big Y 500. With these results, we now have 5 related family lines below FT97898.

 

FT97898 is the SNP name given to a block of equivalent SNPs which cannot be ordered chronologically at this time. To do that, it will require men to test who branch off at each of the various equivalent SNPs in order to know the sequence in which they developed. Previously, this block consisted of 28 SNPs. FTDNA continues to discover more SNPs, and the block now has 33 equivalent SNPs. Using this new data, we can refine our age estimates.

 

The 5 related family lines mentioned above are below this block named FT97898. Using the new data, the time at which these lines diverged from each other was about 1326 AD. That is within genealogical time and after the origin of our surname.

 

The data provided by Big Y testing continues to support the theory that the various iterations of our surname share a common origin within genealogical time. These 15 men have provided us with invaluable information in the search to understand our greater family and how we are related. One of our outstanding goals is to determine when our family arrived in Britain and with which group our family came. To answer those questions, we need more data.

 

There are many of you who have not tested at this level. We need you too to test with Big Y 700, and we encourage you to watch for the next FTDNA sale and upgrade to or order Big Y 700. Your results are vitally important and will provide the data needed to answer these questions.


1/14/2022

We've added some Big Y 700 results to our Loomis surname project. I think we are seeing some interesting results. Charles Hoppin in the 1909 edition of Loomis Family in America proposed that the surname originated in the Manchester, Lancashire area in the early to mid 13th century. He also proposed that the original surname was del Lumhalgh, and that variations such as Lomas, Lomax, and Loomis all descend from that original surname. I think that our Big Y 700 results support his proposals. Looking at the block tree, we have formed 4 branches below a group of 28 equivalents named FT97898. Each of these branches have men with one of these surname variants, or trace their paternal lines to a man with one of these surname variants. Calculating the TMRCA, I get a date of about 1252. I think that this shows that the original surname originated not later than about 1252, and that these surname variants do share a common origin.

Big Y 700 is truly providing us with the information we need to understand who we are, where we came from, and when. We need many more men to test at this level. Please consider upgrading or ordering this test.

10/17/2021

We recently received another Big Y 700 result for a member of our project who has documented descent from Joseph Loomis' son, Joseph. He too is positive for the SNP BY17805. There are now seven men positive for this SNP. One has chosen to keep his results private. The other six are members of our project. Of them, two have NPEs that they have not solved, but we know that they are part of the family since they are positive for BY17805. A third man positive for this SNP and therefore a member of the family thinks they have discovered the link to the Joseph Loomis line, but this is not yet proven. The remaining three have documented descent from three different sons of Joseph Loomis. This is important because it proves that BY17805 must be Joseph Loomis' terminal SNP. It may have originated earlier than with him but could not have originated later than in him. One of the first goals established by Lance Loomis who started our DNA project was to ascertain Joseph Loomis' DNA--this has been accomplished thanks to the individuals who tested at Big Y 700!

One of our next goals will be to determine if this SNP originated with Joseph or before him. To that end, we need to find men who descend from Joseph's brother, Geoffrey, who married Priscilla Whitehead(?), and his uncle, Edward, who married Alicia Perie. By testing descendants of these men, we can determine if BY17805 originated with or before Joseph. If a descendant of Geoffrey is positive for the SNP, we know that it began at least as early as Joseph's father, John. If Geoffrey's descendants are not positive for it, then we know that it must have originated with Joseph. If descendants of Joseph's uncle, Edward, are positive for it, then we know that it originated at least with Joseph's grandfather. If Joseph's and Geoffrey's descendants are positive for BY17805 but Edward's are not, then we know that it must have originated with Joseph's father, John.

We also need to test other families with variations of our surname. There was an Edward Lomas born about 1606 who came from London in 1635. He settled in Ipswich, Massachusetts as early as 1648. His family is said to generally spell the name Lummis. Some have adopted the Loomis spelling, and some Lamos. Another Joseph Lomas born about 1761 was a soldier in Burgoyne's army who remained in America and settled in Andover, Massachusetts. He died in Erie County, New York in 1830. This line generally spells the name Lomas, but some have adopted the Loomis spelling. Finally, we are aware of a William Lomas who came from Wales as a member of the British army and remained in America after the Revolutionary War, settling in East Nantmel, Chester, Pennsylvania. Each of these men had sons. We need to test descendants of these men to determine if they too are part of our greater family.

Our next challenge is to locate such men, recruit them to our project and ask them to test at Big Y700. If you are one of these men, we need you to test at Big Y700. If you know of such men, we need you to invite them to join our project and test. If you are a member of our project but have not tested at Big Y 700, regardless of which group you belong to, we need you to upgrade to Big Y 700. This is the test that is providing and will continue to provide the data we need to meet our project's goals, fully describe our family, and understand how the greater family fits together. 

We have two men positive for SNP FT204469 and one currently positive for FT97898. These men represent lines which remained in England after Joseph emigrated. They trace their lines back to Lomas and Lomax families that are related to the Joseph Loomis line in genealogical time. With our current data, it appears that these lines branched apart before the time that BY17805 originated. But our data is limited at this time. The ability to estimate the time that SNPs originate is less accurate with few testers. The more testers we have at Big Y 700, the more certain our data and conclusions become, and the better we will understand how the greater family fits together.

One final note on our current results--the ten men mentioned above share a very old SNP, FT97898. It appears that this SNP originated about 1900 BC. To this point, all men positive for this SNP are members of our family. With the data we currently have, it appears that FT97898 originated in Britain. If this idea holds true as more data are obtained, it means that the greater Loomis family has been in Britain for a very long time. That is especially exciting for those branches of the family who remain in England to this day!

FTDNA usually has a sale around Thanksgiving--if so, it will be announced in the near future. That would be a very good time to upgrade to or order Big Y 700. Please help us in this great endeavor!

6/13/2021

I mentioned previously that we were waiting for manual review of the results for kit #930233. He has created a third branch on our Loomis haplotree. His current subclade is FT97898. That is the step below FT20286 and is one of 28 equivalents shared by the others who have matched via Big Y 700. He needs men who will match with him to test and bring his terminal subclade closer to the present. We all need our matches at Y37 and higher to test in order to break up that group of 28 equivalents. Please encourage your matches to test at Big Y 700, and please do so yourself if you haven't already done so. The FTDNA Father's Day Sale is going on now--this would be a great time to order or upgrade to Big Y 700! 


12/6/2020

I wanted to give you a brief update on our results. We have a seventh person, kit # 930233, who has matched with us at Big Y 700. The manual review has not yet been done. It will take 2 weeks or so for that to complete. We will see if his subclade changes with that. Right now it is FT97898. As you know, I rely heavily on the expertise of the administrators at the DF27 project to help us understand our results. I requested that they take a look at these new results. The initial reply is below:

"John, I'll answer more later. This looks like what I would call a founder pattern. 350 to 400 ybp there was a nuclear family that had the haplogroup FT97898. It may even have a single ancestor or the at most the Grandson of the creator of FT97898. All three branches of the Loomis/Lomis/Lomax line descend from him. That places him in the somewhere around 1500. You definitely have the foundation for creating a family haplotree."


Since that response, he posted again and noted that the date of of the common ancestor may be a bit earlier than 1500. This information, of course, applies only to the 7 men who have matched so far and the 3 lines they represent. It is estimated that our surname originated in the 13th century. As we do more Big Y 700 tests, we will find more men who join us as fellow descendants of this common ancestor, but other lines as well who share descent from the first man to take our surname.

 

That's pretty exciting. I'll watch for further analysis by the administrators of the DF27 project. As we get more information, I will pass it on. We are starting to get the information we are looking for, but we still need those of you have not yet upgraded to Big Y 700 to do so. And we need more of our STR matches to test at Big Y 700. So, please request that all of your matches at Y37 or higher upgrade to Big Y 700--we need them too!


The Holiday Sale has begun, so now is a good time to upgrade. The price chart is below.


Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

  




*Does not include the Big Y BAM file product.



6/28/2020

We are getting some very interesting data as more men test at Big Y 700.

Currently, we have 5 men who have matched at Big Y 700. The information this test provides is exciting. First, it shows that our family descends through haplogroup FT20286 to FT97898. At that point, our five men split into two branches: BY17805 and FT204469. The two men at FT204469 represent lines that remained in England after Joseph Loomis immigrated to America, and they represent two variations of our surname: Loomes and Lomax. The other three at BY17805 descend from Joseph's son, John.

The administrators at the DF27 project continue to help us understand our results, but some of the information one has provided conflicts with what another has said, and it does not seem consistent with our genealogy. In order to answer questions, we need more men to test at Big Y 700. For those men who descend from Joseph Loomis, we not only need more men to test, but we need men to test who descend from each of Joseph's sons. To that end, I have recently asked two of our members who descend from son Samuel to upgrade to Big Y 700--remember, it takes at least two men to test positive for a SNP for it to be named and placed on the haplotree. As we get results from more of Joseph's sons, we will know more about our haplogroups generally, and we will establish what Joseph's haplogroup was specifically. That in turn will help answer questions referenced above. 

For those of you who do not descend from Joseph Loomis, but match the Loomis DNA, we need you to upgrade to Big Y 700 too. This will help us understand our family connections in England. And when enough men have tested to break up the block of 28 equivalent SNPs that occurred after FT20286 and before BY17805 and FT204469 mentioned above, we will be able to establish the approximate time when our family arrived in England and with which group.

All of this helps us meet the project's goals. We need you to upgrade to Big Y 700--we need your results! Please consider upgrading to help us in this great and fascinating endeavor. And one last thing, the administrators at DF27 have been very helpful and generous with their time and expertise. But in order for them to do that, they need us to join the DF27 project. If you have not done so, please join that project, and give them at least limited administrator access--they need at least that level of access in order to analyze your data and compare it to the rest of us.


1/16/2020

I wanted to update you on the status of our Big Y 700 results, what we know now, and where we need to go to further that knowledge. I am going to share an email exchange I had with Lucas McCaw, administrator of the DF27 project on FTDNA. He provides much detailed information on our results, and makes recommendations on what we need to do as next steps. The exchange is lengthy, but I encourage you to read it in its entirety--it contains much good information.

If you are one of the people he describes as people we need next to test at Big Y 700, I hope you will consider doing so. FTDNA has reduced all prices for 2020 making it more affordable.

Here is the email exchange:


Hi John, 

Sorry about the delay in answering. I was hoping the manual review would have been done by now at FT DNA, but he's got a good backlog I think. So I decided to run through all the mutations and create the branches here. FYI, a few of the mutations shown as "non-matching variants" were actually shared by all 3 of you, and became upper level equivalents. This is a main reason why going off of the standard matching screen info can be misleading..the ones above were low-reads and I had to look at the actual data file to see them. 


To start with: The 3 of you have now created a 2 step branch structure below FT20286 (which first occurred in a distant ancestor of yours around the year 400 BCE, likely in what is now northern Germany, or slightly east of that). That large block goes all the way until the 15th century in England. 


Because of that large uninterrupted block of mutations, at this point I can't say for sure when your branch migrated across the English channel. Given that your nearest branch cousins show Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands as geographic origins, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that your line was probably part of the Anglo-Saxon migration between ~500-800 CE. However, to substantiate this theory, you'd need some new BigY matches showing up from continental Europe a bit closer to this timeframe in order to figure out when you were still on the continent.


The NEW structure that is now in this project data table for your cluster is:

 

DF27>Z195>Z274>Z209...>FT20286>FT97465 [25 equivalents: BY17805, FT97516, FT97518, FT97534, FT97712, FT97730, FT97898, FT98025, FT98172, FT98207, FT98309, FT98371, FT207705, FT98397, FT98434, FT98435, FT98440, FT98479, FT98490, FT98493, FT98532, FT98544, FT98561, FT98589, FT204673] 


(I have moved you all into the new subgroups so you can see for yourself) 


Kit 397951 is HERE. He lists Frederick Loomes (1916-1967) as his most distant known ancestor, so this appears to be a recent NPE/adoption/name change, etc. This kit has 7 private variants. But based on comparison against you (only 1 displayed variant) at the 3rd kit, I believe 7 is a higher than average number of mutations. So I would be a bit more conservative with the estimate. Normally we'd estimate the point of divergence between kit 397951 AND you and kit #774325 is close to ~450-500 years. So taking into account his birth year, I would say that these two lines diverged around the year ~1500. 


As for you and kit 774325, there is a shared SNP mutation that the above kit does NOT have. That is position 6775550 and will therefore put you and he into the branch:

 

DF27>Z195>Z274>Z209...>FT20286>FT97465>FT97841 [0 equivalents]

 

You then have 1 displayed private variant, and kit 774325 has 4. It is possible/likely that you have one or two other private variants, but they are at low-level reads and not displayed currently because they don't meet the automated threshold in the software used by FT DNA. With these counts, we'd assume that you and he share a common ancestor around the year 1700. But if we assume you more more, that pushes the common ancestor back to about the mid 1600s.

 

So, this appears to line up with your genealogy. For you and this closer kit, do you descend from DIFFERENT sons of your ancestor born in 1590? OR do you both descend from one of his sons? In other words, where is your most RECENT common ancestor? 

As well, to further triangulate these lines, I would suggest recruiting a few more of your Y STR matches. There are 2 more at Y111 who have not tested BigY who appear to be good distances away and would be quite useful with the known genealogy. And I see that there is a rich source of matches even at Y37/67, virtually all of whom I would say are good to upgrade. The rule is always to have 1 BigY for a descendant of each identified/documented ancestor. Then you try to get a second descendant of that man, the furthest cousin possible (i.e. from 2 sons of the oldest ancestor). Considering that you seem to have gone far back, it's important to see where everyone branches off, especially if you now have English and American lines.

 

I hope that helps.

 

OH, and are you in contact with all/most of your Y37/67/111 matches? It would be very beneficial if as many of them as possible joined the DF27 Project. Then they could be displayed in the data table with being broken into subgroups a bit better, to show some possible other mutation steps in the STRs. Are you able to contact them and invite them using this link?

 

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r1b-df27 


Please let me know if you can.

 

Thanks, Lucas



Lucas, 

Great information, thank you! I too have been awaiting the completion of the manual review. 


You are correct, kit 397951 did have a recent NPE. Frederick Loomes is his biological grandfather. Kit 774325 also has a NPE and is looking for his biological father. He thinks he knows who this might be, but is not sure. I asked him if he knows the family tree of this person, but he has not responded, so I don't know where our lines might have diverged. We have a third Big Y 700 tester, kit 914714, who also has a NPE. We are waiting for his initial results to come in. I hope he will add to what we know. 


I have contacted all of my matches from Y37 and up previously and requested that they join the DF27 project and consider Big Y testing. The above three are the only ones who responded. I will try again in the future with the others. 


The etymology of our surname is Anglo Saxon. I had considered once the possibility that the family was "Celtic" and the name was Anglo Saxon because the lingua franca at the time the name originated was Anglo Saxon. DNA results ended that speculation. 


You mentioned previously that the family could have arrived with the Anglo Saxons or the Normans. It seems unlikely to me that a Norman family would have adopted an Anglo Saxon name. The name originated in Lancashire in the early to mid 13th century, so my current theory is that the family came with the Angles. But I would very much like to firm that up with DNA. Hopefully, we will get testers who can provide the needed data. 


Your estimate of the point of divergence with kit 397951 at about 1500 is also consistent with my current thinking. My MDKA is Thomas Lummyus who died 1551 in Thaxted, Essex, England. Kit 397951 traces his MDKA to nearby Cambridgeshire--I don't recall the dates, but I think it was in the 1500s also. We have a record of a Helias Lumhales who lived in Suffolk and died before 1514. His son, Helias, inherited the estate and sold it in 1514. At that point, our documentation ends. I can see the possibility that sons/grandsons of the original Helias moved to Essex and Cambridgeshire after the estate in Suffolk was sold. We will have to do a paper search to try to prove that--your divergence estimate gives me hope and motivation to do so. But it would be consistent with your estimated date of divergence. 


While we have to await further results to estimate when the family arrived in England, can you determine from the data we have now what the likely terminal SNP is for my progenitor who was born in 1590? 


Thank you again for your help. We are starting to get the answers we've been looking for, and this is very exciting!



Hey John, 

It's awesome to see how well the BigY data is fitting into known genealogy and also providing new avenues of research. 

As for the origin of the name, our research does seem to help with it being Anglo-Saxon..though also remember that back then as surnames were being established, people would often copy the surname their neighbour chose out of loyalty, or simply adopt a local geographic name. They also would have at times adopted the surname of any feudal lord they might have been working for at the time, even though they weren't actually related to that man. That's why it's a bit "dangerous" to make assumptions about family names when we start using manorial records. The aristocrats/land owners might have adopted a name first, then others took it on later. This is ALSO why you see a lot of one-name studies all trace back to the same location in England, but Y DNA proves they are not related. Then manorial records show there was a feudal land owner with the same name. Then it becomes clear that the surname was geographic in origin, based on the lord or the area (who himself may have taken the name due to a local geographic feature when the aristocrats began using fluid geo-origin surnames)

 

Generally, surnames were not used by peasants/labourers until the mid-late 14th century, when King Richard II needed new taxes to pay for his failing Hundred Years War. Part of that process was having the lower class adopt surnames so they could be better sorted out with tax collection. So when I see families mention they had adopted a surname a century before that, I take it with a pinch of salt. And that would require solid documentation, matched up with theorized family connections confirmed by Y DNA.

 

Hopefully, more of the distant Loomes/Loomis males start upgrading. I find that sometimes it takes the first few to start with a branch/cluster like you've started to establish. THEN after the other non-BigY tested males start to see how things fit, it gets them interested in ALSO getting "plugged-into" the fledgling tree and they upgrade. It becomes a bit of a snowball rolling down a hill. 

As for the haplogroup/SNP of your progenitor from 1590, I need some genealogical information that doesn't appear to be clear yet. If 774325 is searching for his father (assumed to be a Loomis male), then we have a gap. The ONLY way I could tell you was your ancestor's haplogroup is IF you and this male descend from different sons of the ~1590 ancestor.

 

(don't use "terminal SNP"...that's a misnomer, and actually means something different than how most people use it....he will simply belong to a haplogroup branch with multiple SNP mutation branch equivalents, of which you don't know the proper order yet.) 

Your and his haplogroup designation (FT97841) represent the haplogroup of your MOST RECENT common ancestor. SO, if your line and this kit's line are descended from two different sons of the 1590 ancestor, then I can guarantee that ancestor was FT97841. HOWEVER, IF you and this match follow the same male path for a few generations, then it's possible that FT97841 arose in the late 1600s/early 1700s (as the data seems to say). That means that your 1590 ancestor would have been part of the unrefined FT97465 branch. His "terminal SNP" could be any one of these 26 mutations.

 

So the "easiest" way to answer this is to figure out who your match's father was, or at least confirm which branch of the Loomis family he's from. Then trace that back and see what the genealogy says in terms of when he links to yours.


 IF you want to get a possibly quicker answer, find another Loomis male who is documented to have been from a 2nd son of your 1590 ancestor. Have him BigY tested. Then find a male who is documented to be descended from a male just above your 1590 ancestor and have him BigY test. Then you'll start to narrow down the options for SNPs.



Lance, 

Thanks. The origin of our surname was researched by Charles A. Hoppin and published in the 1908 edition of "Loomis Family in America". Professional genealogists still consider it the authoritative study on the origins of the family. But it did leave knowledge gaps that need to be filled.


 It is he who posited that the name originated in early to mid 13th century. He stated that the earliest records likely to document our name would have been the Hundred Rolls of Edward I taken in 1224. He stated that the rolls for Lancashire were one of six counties for which no records had been found in the archives. I'll need to look into that--thanks for your comments reminding me that I need to do that. Hopefully, these records have been found since 1908.

 

Hoppin said the first documentation he found of the name was in the Lay Subsidy Roll done 1333 under Edward III. [Interestingly, this record was from  Pendleton, Lancashire, and the form of the name was Lumhales, the same as noted in the previous email of Helias Lumhales living in Suffolk in the early 1500s.]


I will check again to see if I can find out which son of my 1590 progenitor the near tester descends from. In the meantime, I will try to get others with known descent from another son to test.




9/6/2019

Lucas McCaw, administrator for the DF27 project on FTDNA, provided some detailed and interesting information as he answered questions regarding the Big Y 700 results for kit #B8062 which I think you will find interesting. He discusses our probable origin, data supporting that theory, and where we need to go from here. I would encourage you to view the very interesting video he provided a link for. Here is his post:


"Hope I can answer some of your questions, though with Y DNA haplogroups, we are always gaining new info as more males test (especially the updated BigY700).


One MAJOR thing to keep in mind is that there are NO "articles" that you will ever see that discuss specific haplogroups (unless a private analyst/researcher has taken a special interest in one and gone out of his way to write about it). That's not how haplogroups work..they are simply alphanumeric designations that are created due to shared/identified mutations in BigY data between multiple men. This is not "newsworthy", and since it is stored on private servers, not something available via a Google Search.


You may find online references to some of the much older/upstream mutations in this branch, such as Z209. However, most of what you find in message boards or articles will be years and years out of date. The only place you are going to find up to date information and branch structure for the DF27 tree is IN THIS PROJECT itself. The data here isn't published anywhere, nor is it ever accessed/acknowledged by academia, even though we have 99% of the information about DF27.


Your ACTUAL branch is:DF27>Z195>Z274>Z209>FGC83504>ZZ40_1>S21184>FGC13557>BY32742>FT20286


There is one downstream branch from here, BY56823 (which you are negative for...it will take some time for your haplogroup to be updated by FT DNA's haplotree team). This branch is occupied by a group of Germanic families (such as Wenger), but unfortunately only one of the 2 BigY testers who identified the branch have joined this project. YOU are the ONLY male to occupy the FT20286 branch, as you split the block of this Germanic branch with your new Y700 results.


The only way that you will see a progression down the tree on your own private branch is by having at least one (more is better) of your Y DNA matches upgrading to BigY. There are quite a few Loomis men in your list, so having one of more distant cousins in this family test would be ideal. Even better, having males from other surnames in this list do BigY would help immensely, as that would help with suggesting where your pre-surname ancestor lived (and when). I have invited ALL of your Y DNA matches to the project, but often they are more willing when contacted by an actual match.


Given that you have ~25 reliable private mutations (NOT 13) from your BigY700 test, that places the split between you and the ancestor of the German BY56823 group around the year 140 BCE (obviously in continental Europe). BigY700 SNPs occur every ~83 years, so using 144 is not correct. With very few males tested in this specific branch though, you could be even older, possibly around the 400-300 BCE timeframe. I would say this likely occurred in what is now northern Germany, or very close to it. This is the same timeframe where Germanic peoples were moving south from Scandinavia into traditionally "Celtic" territory. You can see a generalized view of Europe via this (awesome) video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6Wu0Q7x5D0


(400 BCE is around the 9:00 mark, but I encourage you to watch the whole thing to get a better sense of what was going on before and after that).


Having those Y37-Y111 matches with continental origins do BigY would actually tell you approximately WHEN your paternal line ancestor split from them and migrated to England. I am willing to bet that he was part of the Anglo-Saxon migrations (NOT "invasion" as was traditionally used) from the 500s to the 800s.


Given that the males tested in the FGC13557 cluster are all either German, French, Swiss, Swedish, Dutch, Italian, (with some British in parallel branches) this points to an origin point for mutation in central/northern Europe, likely with the Germanic tribes that occupied southern Scandinavia and northern Europe/Denmark 2,000-2,500 years ago. FGC13557 itself originated around 700 BCE in northern/central Europe. Even the upstream mutation, S21184 is heavily Germanic/central European, showing that your paternal line ancestry has been in that region of Europe for easily 3,000 years or more.


I encourage you to build connections with your Y DNA matches to get them to the point of upgrading to BigY in the next sale. That will be the next step to understand your more recent paternal line history better."



8/28/2019

Initial Big Y 700 results for kit B8062 have come in. More information will be received over the next few weeks. But we wanted to update you on what we have received. As a reminder, this member has documented descent from Joseph Loomis, and his Y DNA STRs have matched very closely with other members who also have documented descent from Joseph Loomis. Therefore, we feel confident that this represents the Y DNA of Joseph Loomis.

As you know, our family is part of the major haplogroup, R1b, and its subclades R-M269, R-DF27, and R-S21184. There are more SNPs between R-S21184 and the confirmed haplogroup of this member which is R-FT20286. He also has 26 private variants, meaning that, at this time, he is the only person who has tested positive for them. After at least one other person tests positive for these private variants, they will be named and placed on the haplotree. Once private variants have been named and placed on the haplotree, it will be possible to predict approximate times for when the these SNPs originated. All of this information will make it possible to compare with other members of the family, see where lines diverged, and determine if variations of our surname do, in fact, share a common descent from the first man to use to the original Loomis surname. This is very exciting.

To do that, we need more of you to test at Big Y 700. By finding, analyzing, and naming these private variants, new branches of the haplotree will be found and named. It may even be that we will have a branch which is unique to the Loomis family. But we need more testers. We hope many of you will consider testing. We know Big Y is expensive. We encourage you to take advantage of FTDNA sales when they occur, save up for the test, even get help from other members of the family so that we will be able to accomplish all of the goals of our surname project.

As more information comes in, we will pass it on.

Español
Powered by Localize
English