Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268612022

From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] English genealogy
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:13:42 -0700
References: <><><SNT131-ds68AD6AE4850563345A61EBC2F0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <SNT131-ds68AD6AE4850563345A61EBC2F0@phx.gbl>

It is those such as yourself who at every single opportunity dismiss out of
hand any attempts to use multiple data sources to provide the most plausible
origin for someone of British ancestry, who are doing damage to your own

Viking, Angle / Saxon / Jute, Briton, Roman soldier - that is what excites
most Britons. Is the G2 found in "amazing" percentages near the sites of
ancient Roman castra a mere coincidence? Hence when people such as myself
do precisely that, and do offer on a platter that what was requested, some
Americans completely deride the effort (generally without reading the
evidence that has been amassed). This is a hot button topic for me because
I have set out a series of testable hypotheses about such matters e.g., how
did R1a1 with YCAIIa,b=19,21 arrive in Britain and Scandinavia? Another is
a set of precise predictions as to where U152 would be found in Scandinavia
(at the time no one knew if any U152 was there to be observed). It came to
pass that this geographical prediction was spot on with not a single
exception (which is highly unusual), and this important new information
which can link Denmark / Norway to the British Isles is now readily
available. However the untutored who at every turn will attempt to toss a
giant wet blanket on the exercise (their own frustration with their own
inability to cross the Pond is all too palpable) and they are inadvertently
putting the brakes on creating precisely the sort of interest that the
British best relate to. Pity what.

Fortunately those from overseas are intrigued about these hypotheses and
open minded enough to actually read the various manuscripts on my
website detailing everything known about the subject that could be garnered
from all related disciplines (but admittedly leaving out a few articles in
Danish to which I have no access). This is what sparks interest, whether
the surname Grimson for example is connected to the Norwegian occupation of
the Wirrall (see works by Harding and the mega study on the matter funded by
the Wellcome Trust) and whether the surname Winthrop can be associated with
this period in time and this place in British history. Build it and they
will come, disparage it and they will stay away in droves. If Americans do
not understand the British mindset then they need not wonder why more do not
conform to their expectations. I had plenty of discussions with my East
Anglian born grandfather about the subject and doubt me if you will but to
out of hand criticisize those of us who actually do the original research,
and do understand what the expectations of those residing in England are,
is ultimately self defeating - but another attempt to take a pot shot at
what I have done could, I suspect, not be resisted (I predicted that one too
:-). Gosh, what is this - unhelpful critical comment about the Cimbri
research number 18, or is it 19, I have lost track. Why not so much heat
about the proposed Norwegian - Hun connection circa 425 AD? It would seem
to offer more scope for controvery and the opportunity to pull me down
further in the eyes of some who do not know the history of all this

David K. Faux.

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Tom Gull <> wrote:

> You're not going to prove or disprove less recent British royal ancestry
> through Y-DNA or mtDNA testing, so that's kind of a moot point in context.
> However, leaving that behind, it is an example of how people develop
> hypotheses they don't want overturned. We've seen that demonstrated very
> clearly in some of the hypotheses related to tying cultures or "tribes"
> back
> to specific haplogroups - a huge amount of wishful thinking based on not
> too
> many facts.

This thread: