Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119652651

From: "Glen Todd" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Haplogroup F*
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:37:31 -0600
In-Reply-To: <000d01c57906$05d27350$5a579045@Ken1>

> The debate over how much of present English or British
> population descends from the pre-Roman inhabitants and
> how much from the many invading groups in historic times
> seems excessively devoid of numbers to suit me. People
> say the aboriginal population is really more important
> as source of present than what previous estimates?

I think that that is pretty much my original point. Simply identifying a
database hit as 'English' is of very little value without additional
information about how that particular line came to BE in England. I tend
to concur with Professor Sykes' comment that talking about 'populations' is
considerably less meaningful than talking about people, and in this case
simply identifying a hit as being AT THAT TIME (earliest identified
ancestor) a member of an English 'population' is of very little value
without knowing how he came to BE a member of that population.

That's pretty much where I am at the moment. I have in hand the names of
several individuals, some in the United States, some in England, and some in
Ireland, all of whose male line ancestors I can establish with reasonable
certainty were at one point part of an English 'population'. That is of a
fairly small amount of interest, however. What IS IMO of interest is the
relationship BETWEEN those lines and how their ancestors may have gotten to
be parts of that 'population'.

That's my interest. I'm emphatically not interested in participating in
the Celtic-versus-Teutonic name calling match as to whether or not the
British Isles were 'taken over' by the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the
Vikings, or whomsoever. I don't CARE whether an R1b is an 'indigenous'
R1b or an 'invader' R1b.

Right now I'm interested in a particular (and apparently rare) sub-cluster
of 'I' because it happens to relate directly to ME.


This thread: