GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-12 > 1260489578


From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] R-U152 and R-L21 on the European Continent
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:59:38 -0500
References: <59915.56775.qm@web81103.mail.mud.yahoo.com><06F79C98-398C-4200-8D9C-5BA976ABD233@vizachero.com><ea3bd9560912061730y581da805v54dec4a73733efee@mail.gmail.com><006701ca76ef$d0ab50b0$7201f210$@org><ea3bd9560912071008k310d198dre58efe3f4d2676cc@mail.gmail.com><REME20091207215807@alum.mit.edu><ea3bd9560912072135q35e1dec0te349b82392974c32@mail.gmail.com><REME20091209204831@alum.mit.edu><ea3bd9560912092137j74f9bd08p92917d797a010008@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ea3bd9560912092137j74f9bd08p92917d797a010008@mail.gmail.com>(message from David Faux on Wed, 9 Dec 2009 21:37:05 -0800)


David wrote:
> Perhaps I wasn't entirely clear John. No one living today has a paper trail
> leading to Somerled.

I'm afraid I'll have to let you duke it out with the MacDonalds on that
question.

> I could as easily posit that Somerled the Lord of the Isles was
> the progenitor of my Uncle Williamson and all of the other R1a1 Shetlanders
> with aboriginal surnames - all of whom have a uniquely distincitve motif
> which is about as close to Clan Donald as I can see.

As I pointed out already, you've got it backwards. The "Somerled
motif" was built out of the pedigrees which you want to ignore. If
the pedigrees are no good, then there isn't any Somerled motif after
all. End of story. As I also pointed out already, possessing the
motif would NOT confer descendanthood in any case. Descendancy is
established (or not) by the existence (or non-existence) of a
pedigree. Since you speak as if there IS a motif attributable to
Somerled, you have ipso facto accepted the pedigrees that identified
it. If you want to maintain a consistent position, you'll have to
remember from now on to speak of the "so-called Somerled motif" and
express doubt that Somerled himself had that motif.

> So where exactly are
> these deep rooted pedigrees?

Obviously, the 1000-year pedigrees are tricky, but 400-year pedigrees
are a dime a dozen and figure prominently in the various collections
of pedigree-based mutation data. There is no hint that pedigree-based
mutation rates are lower than father-son based rates.

John Chandler


This thread: