Supplementary Materials
Selection of autochthonous surnames
A list of selected surnames for each community was collected based on extended
archival research. All surnames which are known to be present in each
community since the first occurrences of surnames until the year 1575, were
compiled using 'buitenpoorter' (extern burgher) lists of several Flemish cities (e.g.
lists of Aalst and Geraardsbergen) and using real property or notarial records in
archived documents specific for each region, e.g. the so called 'Penningkohieren'
for Idegem, the 'Gichten' in Limburg (Alken and Tongeren) and the 'Ommelopers'
for West-Flanders (Snellegem and Oudenburg). For some regions, large parts of
these surname lists were already compiled by earlier historic studies as for
Oudenburg1
and
Velzeke2.
Finally,
surnames
were
considered
to
be
autochthonous within the regional samples when the name occurred before the
year 1575 in the regional archival documents, as documented in Flemish
anthroponymical sources3.
Selection of communities
Six villages and towns, further referred as 'communities', were selected within
contemporary Flanders based on their geography and historical development (Fig.
1). The six communities are classified geographically in three pairs with a pair by
the coast in the province West-Flanders, namely Oudenburg and Snellegem; a
pair in central Flanders in the province East-Flanders, namely Velzeke and
Idegem; and a pair in the most eastern part of Flanders in the province Limburg,
namely Tongeren and Alken (Fig. 1). Within each of these three pairs, one
locality is well known to be populated since the Roman period (58 BC - circa 410
AD; further referred to as 'Gallo-Roman' or 'GR' research group); namely
Oudenburg (presumably portus Epatiacus as mentioned in the early 5th century in
the
Notitia Dignitatum), where an important Roman castellum
with an
accompanying settlement was situated4; Velzeke (presumably Feliciacum), which
was a well-known small town or vicus on the crossroad of two important Roman
1
roads2,5;
and
Tongeren,
which
was
the
only
Roman
town
(Municipium
Tungrorum) within the borders of contemporary Flanders6. The other community
in each pair is known to be a settlement which mainly developed since the Early
Middle Ages (further referred to as 'Early medieval' or 'EM' research group);
namely Snellegem, which was a known Carolingian fiscus (Fiscus Snetlinghehem)
with indications of Norman invasions7,8; Idegem and Alken which are both
mentioned in several archival records since the end of the 10th century9,10.
Y-chromosome genotyping
A buccal swab sample from each selected participant was collected for DNA
extraction by using the Maxwell 16 System (Promega Corporation, Madison, WI,
USA) followed by real-time PCR quantification (Quantifiler Human DNA kit
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA). Y-STR loci were
genotyped for all samples as described in previous studies11,12 but instead of
PowerPlex® Y the recently developed PowerPlex® Y23 System (Promega
Corporation) was used13,14. As such a set of 42 Y-STR loci was genotyped for
these samples instead of 38 Y-STRs like in the previous studies on the Y
chromosomal diversity in Flanders11,12. The whole process was reproduced with
new primer sets for all individuals that showed non-amplified loci to exclude
technical errors or mutations in the standard primer positions. All haplotypes
were submitted to Whit Athey’s Haplogroup Predictor15 to obtain probabilities for
the inferred haplogroups. The samples were assigned to specific Y-SNPs assays
to confirm the inferred haplogroup and to assign the sub-haplogroup according to
the Y chromosomal tree used in previous studies on the Flemish population to
make the required comparison between the communal samples with earlier
genotyped
regional
data16.
The
sub-haplogroups
were
called
using
the
nomenclature proposed in van Oven et al.17. A total of 17 multiplex systems with
120 Y-SNPs were developed using SNaPshot mini-sequencing assays (Thermo
Fisher Scientific) according to previously published protocols18,19. All primer
sequences and concentrations for the analysis of the Y-SNPs are available from
the authors upon request.
2
Relatedness analysis
Differences in the rate of positive Y chromosomal matches (i.e. number of
positive Y chromosomal matches to the total number of combinations) between
three types of couples of DNA donors were calculated. The subsets of DNA
donors are defined in the figure:
Figure A Representation of all DNA donors in the relatedness analysis; with the
donors within ‘communities’ A-F; with the donors within the ‘regions’ G (here
defined without donors of A and B!), H (here defined without donors of C and D!)
and I (here defined without donors of E and F!); and with the donors within
‘Flanders’ J (here defined without donors of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I!).
The three types of couples of DNA donors are:
1. All couples with a DNA donor of a community and another DNA donor of the
same community. I.e. all couples of DNA donors within subsets A, B, C, D, E
and F (defined as in legend of Figure A). In total there were 5,376
combinations.
3
2. All couples with a DNA donor of a community and another DNA donor of the
region to which the community belongs (including the DNA donors of the other
community of the region but excluding the DNA donors of its own community).
I.e. all couples of DNA donors with one from subset A and one from subset B
(A & B); A & G; B & G; C & D; C & H; D & H; E & F; E & I; F & I (defined as in
legend of Figure A). There were 27,166 combinations.
3. All couples with DNA donors of Flanders (excluding between DNA donors of the
same region). I.e. all couples of DNA donors with one from A and one from C
(A & C); A & D; A & E; A & F; A & H, A & I, A & J, B & C, B & D; B & F; B & F;
B & H; B & I; B & J; C & E; C & F; C & G; C & I; C & J; D & E; D & F; D & G; D
& I; D & J; E & J, F & J, G & H; H & I; G & I; G & J, H & J, I & J, and all
couples of DNA donors within J (defined as in legend of Figure A). There were
153,227 combinations.
4
Results of the redundancy analysis (RDA)
The RDA was performed with the R software and the vegan package20 to study
the influence of geography - namely the three regions NW-Flanders, SE-Flanders,
and S-Brabant - versus history (GR and EM research groups) on the distribution
of the Y chromosomal lineages in the six communities. The RDA was not powerful
due to the low number of degrees of freedom. Nevertheless, the difference in the
results of Model 1 and Model 2 gave clear indications for an influence of
geography on the distribution of the Y chromosomal lineages instead of the
influence of the history of the communities (Table A).
Table A Results of the RDA analysis.
Sub-
Constrained R²
haplogroups
variables
R² adj
Pvalue
model
Model 1
History
19.58 %
0.00
% 0.5033
(neg. result)
Model 2
Region
61.06 %
35.10 %
0.0656
R²: the coefficient of determination; R² adj, adjusted R² or the variance in
frequencies of haplotypes explained by the constrained variables.
5
Supplementary figure
Figure S1 Rarefaction curves of the Y chromosomal diversity of the four regions
(NW-Flanders, SE-Flanders, S-Brabant & S-Limburg) and six communities under
study.
6
Supplementary tables
Table S1 Overview of all applied criteria in the sampling protocol to select or
exclude DNA donors until obtaining the ultimate dataset for the six selected
communities, the four regions and Flanders. ORPA: Oldest reported paternal
ancestor; Y-chr: Y chromosomal.
Community
Region / Flanders
Surname criterions Occurrence of surname in community before 1575
No toponym in surname from outside community
No surname in dialect/language from outside community
Occurrence of surname in region/Flanders before 1575
No toponym in surname from outside region/Flanders
No surname in dialect/language from outside region/Flanders
ORPA criterions
ORPA lived in community (radius 5 km) before 1800
ORPA is not a foundling or illegal child
ORPA lived in region/Flanders before 1800
ORPA is not a foundling or illegal child
EPP criterion
No donors with same ORPA but no Y-chr match
No donors with same ORPA but no Y-chr match
Patrilineal criterion One donor per couple with same surname and Y-chr match One donor per couple with same surname and Y-chr match
Table S2 Results of the nine independent couples of the DNA donors with a
genealogical common ancestor (GCA). As the individuals within each couple were
assigned to the same subhaplogroup at the highest phylogenetic resolution and
as their haplotypes revealed no more than seven Y-STR differences out of 38 YSTR loci, then the GCA is also the biological common ancestor (BCA).
Pair Number of meioses Subhaplogroup Y-STR differences GCA = BCA?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
7
7
9
9
10
10
15
17
17
R-U106*
J-M241*
R-Z195*
R-M529*
R-P312*
R-L48
R-L2*
E-V13*
R-U198
2
3
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
7
Table S3 Distribution (N) and frequency (f) of the Y chromosomal subhaplogroups within the six selected communities and four regions within Flanders.
The sub-haplogroups were called using the nomenclature proposed in van Oven
et al.
17
.
(Sub-)haplogroup
Oudenburg
Snellegem
Idegem
Velzeke
Tongeren
Alken
NW-Flanders
SE-Flanders
S-Brabant
S-Limburg
N
f
N
f
N
f
N
f
N
f
N
f
N
f
N
f
N
f
N
f
E-M34*
E-V12*
E-V13
E-V65
E-M123*
E-M215*
E-M81*
E-V22*
G-P15*
G-U8*
G-M406*
I-M223*
I-M227*
I-M253*
I-P215*
I-P37.2
I-P109
I-P95
I-M284
J-M12*
J-M241*
J-M410*
J-M92*
J-P58*
J-M267*
J-M319
J-M67*
L-M317*
N-M231
Q-P36.2*
R-L2*
R-L20
R-L48
R-M198*
R-M269*
R-M412*
R-M529
R-P297*
R-P310*
R-P312*
R-SRY2627
R-U106*
R-U152*
R-U198
R-Z18
R-Z195*
R-Z381*
R-P25*
R-SRY10831.2*
T-L208*
T-L131*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
10
1
0
0
3
1
0
5
0
0
1
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.3
2.8
27.8
2.8
0.0
0.0
8.3
2.8
0.0
13.9
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
2.8
5.6
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
7
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
8
3
0
1
5
0
2
7
0
1
1
2
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
14.3
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
16.3
6.1
0.0
2.0
10.2
0.0
4.1
14.3
0.0
2.0
2.0
4.1
4.1
2.0
6.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
8
0
0
0
2
0
1
6
3
0
0
3
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
2.3
0.0
20.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
18.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.7
0.0
2.3
14.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
2.3
2.3
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
8
2
1
0
0
0
1
3
1
1
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
2.8
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
0.0
22.2
5.6
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
8.3
2.8
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.6
11.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
6
2
0
0
1
0
1
5
1
0
2
2
2
1
3
0
0
1
0
0.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
2.3
2.3
7.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
4.7
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
2.3
0.0
14.0
4.7
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
2.3
11.6
2.3
0.0
4.7
4.7
4.7
2.3
7.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
5
0
0
4
0
0
8
1
0
3
2
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
2.2
0.0
4.3
2.2
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
2.2
0.0
0.0
4.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
2.2
4.3
10.9
0.0
0.0
8.7
0.0
0.0
17.4
2.2
0.0
6.5
4.3
2.2
4.3
4.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
8
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
2
11
3
1
0
4
1
0
12
2
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
1.5
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.0
1.5
0.0
11.8
2.9
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.3
2.9
16.2
4.4
1.5
0.0
5.9
1.5
0.0
17.6
2.9
0.0
2.9
0.0
1.5
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
5
0
23
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
1
13
3
1
0
9
0
0
10
0
1
5
1
2
3
14
1
0
0
1
0.8
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
4.2
0.0
19.2
0.8
2.5
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
1.7
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.2
0.8
10.8
2.5
0.8
0.0
7.5
0.0
0.0
8.3
0.0
0.8
4.2
0.8
1.7
2.5
11.7
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.8
1
1
9
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
6
0
14
6
1
2
1
1
0
1
4
0
2
1
2
3
1
0
2
7
4
20
7
6
0
8
0
2
17
1
1
5
1
2
3
11
0
0
0
0
0.6
0.6
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
2.5
0.0
3.8
0.0
8.9
3.8
0.6
1.3
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.6
2.5
0.0
1.3
0.6
1.3
1.9
0.6
0.0
1.3
4.4
2.5
12.7
4.4
3.8
0.0
5.1
0.0
1.3
10.8
0.6
0.6
3.2
0.6
1.3
1.9
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
1
2
1
1
3
0
8
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
4
1
0
0
4
0
1
13
1
2
4
1
3
2
6
0
1
0
0
1.4
0.0
1.4
0.0
1.4
0.0
2.8
1.4
2.8
1.4
1.4
4.2
0.0
11.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.9
1.4
5.6
1.4
0.0
0.0
5.6
0.0
1.4
18.1
1.4
2.8
5.6
1.4
4.2
2.8
8.3
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
Total
36
49
43
36
43
46
68
120
158
72
References
1
Gysseling M: Toponymie van Oudenburg. Brussel, Naaml. Venn. Standaard-Boekhandel, 1950.
8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
van Durme L: Toponymie van Velzeke-Ruddershove en Bochoute. Gent, Secretariaat van de
Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 1986.
Debrabandere F: Woordenboek van de familienamen in België en Noord-Frankrijk.
Amsterdam/Antwerpen, L.J. Veen/Het Taalfonds, 2003.
Vanhoutte S: Onrust aan de kust: een Romeins castellum in Oudenburg tijdens de 3de en de
4de eeuw; in: De Clercq W (ed): Over vlees en bloed - Menapische boeren en soldaten aan de
rand van het Romeinse Rijk. Velzeke, pamVelzeke, 2011, pp 82-85.
Rogge M: Een legerplaats uit de vroeg-Romeinse tijd te Velzeke. Hermeneus: maandblad voor
de antieke cultuur 1980; 52: 71-75.
Lendering J, Bosman A: De rand van het Rijk. De Romeinen in de Lage Landen. Amsterdam,
Athenaeum-Polak & van Gennep, 2010.
Noterdaeme J: De fiscus Snellegem en de vroegste kerstening in het westen van Brugge.
Handelingen der Maatschappij voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde te Gent 1957; 11: 49-128.
Koch ACF: Vikingen in Vlaanderen? Een 10de-eeuwse lijst met persoonsnamen uit Snellegem
(bij Brugge). Naamkunde 1984; 16: 183-200.
Decrits M, Van Isterdael H: Idegem (1610-1800). Brussel, Algemeen rijksarchief, 2000.
S.N.: Alken - Tussen mammoet en computer. De geschiedenis van een gemeente. Alken,
Gemeentebestuur Alken, 1994.
Larmuseau MHD, Vanoverbeke J, Gielis G, Vanderheyden N, Larmuseau HFM, Decorte R: In
the name of the migrant father - Analysis of surname origin identifies historic admixture
events undetectable from genealogical records. Heredity 2012; 109: 90-95.
Larmuseau MHD, Vanderheyden N, Jacobs M, Coomans M, Larno L, Decorte R: Microgeographic distribution of Y-chromosomal variation in the central-western European region
Brabant. Forensic Science International-Genetics 2011; 5: 95-99.
Thompson JM, Ewing MM, Frank WE et al: Developmental validation of the PowerPlex (R) Y23
System: A single multiplex Y-STR analysis system for casework and database samples.
Forensic Science International-Genetics 2013; 7: 240-250.
Purps J, Siegert S, Willuweit S et al: A global analysis of Y-chromosomal haplotype diversity
for 23 STR loci. Forensic Science International-Genetics 2014; 12: 12-23.
Athey WT: Haplogroup prediction from Y-STR values using a Bayesian-allele-frequency
approach. Journal of Genetic Genealogy 2006; 2: 34-39.
Larmuseau MHD, Vanderheyden N, Van Geystelen A, van Oven M, Kayser M, Decorte R:
Increasing phylogenetic resolution still informative for Y chromosomal studies on WestEuropean populations. Forensic Science International-Genetics 2014; 9: 179-185.
van Oven M, Van Geystelen A, Kayser M, Decorte R, Larmuseau MHD: Seeing the wood for
the trees: a minimal reference phylogeny for the human Y chromosome. Human Mutation
2014; 35: 187-191.
Caratti S, Gino S, Torre C, Robino C: Subtyping of Y-chromosomal haplogroup E-M78
(E1b1b1a) by SNP assay and its forensic application. International Journal of Legal Medicine
2009; 123: 357-360.
van Oven M, Ralf A, Kayser M: An efficient multiplex genotyping approach for detecting the
major worldwide human Y-chromosome haplogroups. International Journal of Legal Medicine
2011; 125: 879-885.
R version 2.13.0 (2011), The R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
9