GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-11 > 1068750785
From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] BBC, the Celt Map, and Some Rethinking
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Hello Shane at al.:
There is an answer out there, the truth is out there, I am just trying to assemble all the facts to make a "best stab" at latching on to what is. As a scientist I am always prepared, and rejoice in, changing my mind, if new facts / evidence surfaces to alter the perspective on things. It is possible, just possible, that the answer is in fact very simple (and being well versed in the law of parsimony I know that one should always chose the most straightforward explanation).
I am now reasonably convinced that my paternal ancestors resided in Norway in 800AD. Fine, but I am not going to be entirely satisfied with that knowledge. Where were they in 800BC? If the evidence I have examined recently is accurate, then the answer is, probably somewhere in west - central Europe, and would have been known to their neighbours as Celtic people. By the time they reached Norway - they were soon Norwegians, and by the time they reached France they were soon Normans, and by the time they reached England they were soon English.
Recall that all of us R1b types presumably descend from one ancestor. As a genealogist, I am becoming almost as interested in early origins (deep ancestry) as in tying all the Fauxes into their respective family lines in England and the Colonies.
The search continues.
Shane <> wrote:
Since the Celtic culture only became identifiably distinct around
1000-800BC, it isn't correct to say R1b is of original Celtic stock. As John
pointed out recently, the fact that Celtic culture is thought to have begun
in central or even eastern Europe, seems to contradict R1b being exclusive
to Celticness. Just when it was starting to clear up, it gets muddy again.
Dr. David K. Faux, P.O. Box 192, Seal Beach, CA, 90740, USA
|Re: [DNA] BBC, the Celt Map, and Some Rethinking by David Faux <>|