GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-05 > 1115063345


From: "gareth.henson" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Editing help
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 20:49:05 +0100
References: <IGEOKAGLHNEKPCKPADIGMEJHJNAA.bbailey.lowedna@baileyconnection.com> <REME20050502141344@alum.mit.edu>


John

unless someone can *prove* that Wales was 100% R1b at around 600-700 AD
(when "Wales" becomes a meaningful term), then the assertion that someone
who is not R1b is not genetically Welsh in origin (by which I assume you
mean their Y chromosome ancestors lived in Wales between the 7th century and
more modern times) is a probability rather than a certainty.
In fact the modern %ages are - Llangefni 89%, Haverfordwest 91%, Llanidloes
66% (Capelli) Abergele 56% (Weale).
Of course much of the non-R1b proportion is due to admixture since Wales
came into existence (as indeed is an element of the R1b proportion, since
the Saxons, Vikings, Normans etc also included R1bs), but how much?
Yes, with more information you can be more specific e.g. if someone is R1a,
then their Y chromosome presence in Wales (or England) is very very unlikely
to pre-date the Viking era, but if someone is one of the varieties of I
present in Western Europe, or one of the subgroups of E or J common in the
Mediterranean, then there would have been plenty of opportunity for a
paternal ancestor to arrive in Britain long before the Anglo-Saxon
invasions.

Gareth


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Chandler" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Editing help

<snip>
> For example, the RICE
> surname is always described as being of Welsh origin, but we have some
> RICE families with non-R1b haplogroups, even though Wales is
> overwhelmingly R1b. From those facts we can deduce that a lot of
> Rices are not genetically Welsh in origin after all -- but we *can't*
> actually deduce that their surname isn't Welsh.
<snip>
>
> John Chandler



This thread: