GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1220655338
From: "David Faux" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Age of R1b
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:55:38 -0700
I entirely agree with Dienekes.
One of the most knowledgeable Scottish researchers is Dr. James F. Wilson
who in his 2001 paper noted that while the picture for other haplogroups may
be confused in terms of date of first arrival, R1a1 is the exception. In
the Northern Isles and in probably most of the UK and certainly Ireland,
R1a1 is associated specifically with the Vikings.
In my Shetland Islands database almost all (as well as those from Orkney)
have reasonably close genetic matches in Norway, and occasionally Sweden,
but nowhere else except the UK - and more distantly the Altai. The so
called Somerled haplotype was there long before this one individual came to
possess it. My uncle has the same general unique profile with the
characteristic low values for YCAIIb (generally 21 compared to the standard
23) and DYS385b (generally 31 compared to the standard 29) but has a "super
version" of each making his haplotype likely predating Somerled by a long
while. His only matches (other than Shetland) are Norway and Tibet since
his values are 20 and 33 respectively.
I am willing to go on record as entirely argeeing with Dr. Wilson (ok, he
was my former business partner) in saying that if you are R1a1, are from the
UK, then there is a very high probability that your ancestors were among the
Viking raiders of the 8th and 9th centuries or a migrant from a later date
(to 1066 AD).
David K. Faux.
On 9/5/08, Dienekes Pontikos <> wrote:
> Age of STR variation in a region is not the same as the arrival time
> into that region. The simplest explanation for the presence of R1a1 in
> the British Isles is that it arrived from the continent with various
> Germanic speakers that have settled there.
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:34 PM, <> wrote:
> > Now, according to my calculations of 25-marker English, Irish and
> Scottish R1a1 haplotypes, R1a1 came to England 4800 years BP and to Ireland
> 5200 years BP. I do not insists that the difference is real. It can be
> either way (though Irish would protest, I bet). Stonehenge was erected
> (beginning of it, according to radiocarbon analysis) 4500 years ago. Does it
> fit? I think that a working hypothesis that the Stonehenge was built by R1a1
> is a good one. Objections? Based on what? R1b came to England some 1000
> years later.
> Dienekes' Anthropology Blog
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message