Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268621835

From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] English genealogy
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:57:15 -0700
References: <><><SNT131-ds68AD6AE4850563345A61EBC2F0@phx.gbl><><SNT131-ds6B5B32B5FA77811C3ACC1BC2E0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <SNT131-ds6B5B32B5FA77811C3ACC1BC2E0@phx.gbl>


Please understand that I get extremely frustrated in constantly "defending
myself" and in being "misinterpreted". The last first. I have never ever
said that U152 is THE LaTene - Hallstatt marker, only that it is one of them
and that the geographical distribution of U152 as seen on my Google maps
fits perfectly within but not beyond the boundaries shown for the Celtic
world on the Continent in the most detailed Celtic atlas yet produced (Koch,
2007). This is an easily verifyable fact and to not see the association or
linkage here surely requires wearing blinders.

Never has establishing testable hypotheses, which are based upon data from
other fields of study, gone out of vogue in science - although when I do it
somehow I am just trying to find a way to verify what I expect. In a way
that is entirely correct - but if found to be in error then the only option
is to seek out another hypothesis that is in accord with available data.
All researchers make observations and deductions and if - then statements.
If the end product is something that can be tested empirically then this is
entirely within the purview of science. I will never understand why some
people see what I do as self serving - most of us spend most of our time
researching our own haplogroups - why wouldn't we?

Anyway, back to the point of all this. People should be encouraged not
discouraged from establishing hypotheses about haplogroups (time of origin,
point of origin, present distribution versus probable past distribution,
association with historic tribes, and so on). This is what will press the
buttons of many on the Continent, not the search for STR matches which has
little to no meaning unless it is going to tell someone something about
their early history.

No one makes a leap forward or for that matter gets anywhere by sitting on
one's hands - set out reasonable hypotheses that can either be refuted or
supported and if the former then keep plugging away by coming up with
something else that fits known data. This fires up enthusiasm among Britons
and I would guess many others with inquiring minds who want to know, and are
willing to tolerate errors enroute to feretting out the truth.

I guess being two generations removed from England makes me a hybrid in how
the genetic genealogy world is seen. My surname is common in Belize among
those who are clearly of African heritage. Some day I hope to find out if
this group is related to me in the Y line - a far cry from the Cimbri
research - but the pathways that genetic genealogy can take one are
numerous, and the questions one can ask and answer are legion. Perhaps some
day soon people on both sides of the Pond will see things in much the same
way. For the moment I seem to be the only one keen to learn about a
possible Belize connection.

David K. Faux.

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Tom Gull <> wrote:

> David, did I even mention you or your research? I have read your documents,
> no less. I think you extrapolate a great deal from small and biased
> samples,
> but I think that generally of today's work, so I wouldn't take that
> personally.
> In any case, I was responding to a comment about how Americans dislike
> having their pet royalty hypothesis zapped and noting that Y-DNA and mtDNA
> discussions don't really address that issue. I was also noting that a
> surprising number of Americans may actually have such ancestry (along with
> a
> ton of British cousins in the same boat).
> Other points relating to your tangential message:
> 1. I have no "cause" unless it's to remind people not to jump to
> conclusions too early or with inadequate data.
> 2. I'm fine with whatever valid sources and techniques people use to
> hypothesize probable ancestral origins.
> 3. I'm fine with discarding hypotheses when facts prove them incorrect or
> the evidence is simply too thin. I have removed Mayflower ancestors and
> royal ancestors from my own hypothesized lineage when I have uncovered
> questionable links or facts that simply disprove them. The data rules, and
> poor quality data or insufficient data should always be recognized as such.
> 4. I'm not very frustrated about not being able to trace ancestry back
> across the Pond, actually, since I have over 500 identified immigrant
> couples to date.
> 5. I have no expectations that there is or should be an American or
> British
> mindset towards genealogy or genetic research and have been frankly
> extremely bored by the message traffic going back and forth about it. I
> routinely delete most of those messages now without reading them. They seem
> mostly to be individuals complaining that some other group's behavior
> doesn't match their expectations and that strikes me as being kind of a
> futile concern most of the time.
> 6. If I want to "take a pot shot" at you, I will mention you by name. If I
> don't, please assume you and your work haven't even crossed my mind.
> Thanks / Tom
> -------------------------------
> 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

This thread: