Search

Since the turn of the millennium, DNA testing has helped with establishing the sizes of biological descent families within surnames. Some surnames have a dominant family: their remaining populations can be ascribed either to NPEs (non paternity events)or to smaller separate-origin families. Previously, there was no direct evidence as to how large each male-line family could grow within a surname, considering that real-life plural-origin surnames could contain a few or many separate-origin families of various sizes. However, DNA testing is providing evidence to help indicate in particular the size of the largest male-line medieval descent family in a surname. We here perform statistical analyses of some relevant DNA results. This allows us to compare the DNA results with some predicted findings from our computer simulations.

We here address such questions as: what does a surname mean;is it single origin;and,why do some surnames grow abnormally large? Though most surnames are rare, most people have populous surnames. In this article, we consider in particular the evidence that some frequent surnames could be completely or nearly single origin; this would imply that the whole surname relates to a single family that has grown abnormally large. Some populous surnames have a geographical distribution that might be thought to be consistent with a single origin. As yet, such supposition generally lacks support from adequate DNA evidence. Guided by the empirical evidence, our computer simulations identify various possible reasons for a surname family’s unusually prolific growth. In particular, chance is a main factor. Also, overall population growth conditions vary widely between different counties. This can go a long way towards explaining the large population of Plant, which is apparently the second largest single-family contender in the favourable growing conditions of Staffordshire. This surname shows relatively little evidence of a significant living population that stems from origins other than that of its dominant family. The initial semblance that Sykes could be the second largest single-family contender in West Yorkshire is more open to debate, since there might be more substantial other origins. To explain its dominant family, it seems necessary to invoke some exceptional characteristics such as more favourable growth factors for its homeland than those pertaining in the available data for the whole county. Also, for the computer modelling, we consider the effects of additional factors such as polygyny, resilience to plague,Y-chromosome linked fecundity, or an early start to an hereditary surname. Such factors can be beneficial in seeing a family through initial precarious times, sustaining its survival through to a small but real chance of subsequent proliferation in more favourable Industrial Age growth conditions.

We here address such questions as: what does a surname mean; is it single origin; and, why do some surnames grow abnormally large? Though most surnames are rare, most people have populous surnames. In 1881 for example, 90% of the population of England and Wales had the most populous 4% of surnames; and, in 1998, 80% had the 1% most populous. In this paper, we consider the evidence that some frequent surnames could be single source; this would imply that a single family has grown abnormally large. For some populous surnames, they have a geographical distribution that might be thought to be consistent with a single origin though, as yet, such supposition generally lacks support from adequate DNA evidence. With the onset of DNA testing, some scientists are becoming more active in surname studies and they might be more reluctant than some traditionalists to infer too much from categories of surname meaning. Instead, they are likely to maintain that statistical analyses of the data should be properly performed. For example, King and Jobling (2009) considered forty English surnames and found no statistically significant correlation between the supposed semantic category of a surname and its degree of DNA matching into single male-line families. As a specific example that we here describe in some detail, little can be deduced about the inter-relatedness of those called Plant from the assumption of a semantic category, such as by arguing that it is locative and hence single-origin, or occupational and hence multi-origin. By comparison, more surely, we discuss the DNA evidence that this name’s main family grew unusually. Though motivated initially by the evidence of unusual growth for Plant, we extend our deliberations more generally to other surnames. Guided by the empirical evidence, our computer simulations identify various reasons for a surname family’s prolific growth. In particular, chance is a main factor, along with favourable conditions during the Industrial Age when overall population growth took off, evidently earlier in some regions than in others. Also, the modelling suggests that some additional factor such as polygyny or resilience to plague or favourable economic circumstance, after an early start to a hereditary surname, is beneficial in seeing a family through initial precarious times, sustaining its survival through to a small but real chance of subsequent proliferation in favourable Industrial Age conditions.