GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-02 > 1234114013
From: Daniel Jenkins <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] R1a and other non R1b in Britain
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:26:53 +0000
I have been looking at R1a and English History for about 5 years now .
My R1a1* [ y-search-7BZ4Z]haplogroup from Kent England since about 1300s seems likely to possibly arrived as early as 250 ad
from earliest Frisian migrations , to 449-480ad with largest Jutish,Anglo-Saxon migrations ,
maybe Viking , later Norman influx.
I have many 12 exact matches with names like Zukow,Nioli,Sikanas,Spero, Oekland. Millenium ,Tendler,Valji,Nevas,Kraft,Ringel,Berkowitz , and Feist .
At 25 matches most names are likely English , none even close at 37 .
I then see that I have the most haplotype matches within the Romanian population with most of those among the Csango people .
This draws a mental pictuire for me envisioning ancient forebears from among the Kurgan Culture , slowly
moving westward through upper Europe along the coast , Lithuania, to Northern Germany , Scandinavia[ Denmark, Jutland ,] Belgium and onward into the British Isles .
This seems likely also to be the path of the Vikings and the Belgic and Norman peoples .
The heaviest Jute ,Angle-Saxon migrations were to Southern England and Kent has alsways been the main portal from the Continent even going back to the times of the Doggerland .
So it seems very likely that R1a has been in the isles for much longer than Roman or Viking periods .
I can believe that a lot of R1a came in with Vikings as I have a couple of matches with people with origins in the Wirrall , names like Schoolcraft . But I don't think the Romans would have brought much , if any R1a with them.
> From: > To: > Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 16:29:48 +0100> Subject: [DNA] R1a and other non R1b in Britain> > First, some general comments...> > This is what is called an ad hoc explanation. I am not someone who thinks we> should NEVER consider ad hoc explanations. But I do think we have to keep in> mind what they are.> > We see them very often on this forum. Whenever a haplotype appears somewhere> that current theories say it should not, people post messages proposing that> this must be caused by a soldier, a slave, a travelling salesman or whatever> (though travellers are intrisically unlikely to leave lots of successful> children who might establish strong families). This type of explanation is a> patch to try to save an existing theory which is not explaining everything.> It is not an attempt to come up with a stronger new theory.> > It MIGHT be true that some genetic anomalies are caused by a traveller of> some type who by amazing coincidence had a lot of male line (in this case)> descendents. But it can not explain every anomaly, and really "unexplainable> chance" is not where we should start discussions aimed at trying to EXPLAIN.> > Second, coming to the case under discussion...> > 1. Roman Britain was not sparesely populated, and so not particularly prone> to be the site of amazing founder effects.> > 2. Most crucially, the R1a age that Anatole was talking about was a lot> older than the Romans. After all the Romans and the Vikings were not far> apart in terms of the time scales we are talking about.> > Best Regards> Andrew> > > ---------> From: DARRELL CHADDERTON <>> Subject: Re: [DNA] R1a and other non R1b in Britain> Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 14:06:10 +0000 (GMT)> In-Reply-To: <FBE0ACC60C9444D5A698AC240F2CBAF6@PC>> > Have not read the ariticle but could easily beleive the R1a haplogroup could> have arrived in the UK through east european Roman slaves.> > > > -------------------------------> 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
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
|Re: [DNA] R1a and other non R1b in Britain by Daniel Jenkins <>|