Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[walesdna] Re: Who Killed the Men of England?

Expand Messages
  • David.E Smith
    I remember a scene in one of the Peanuts classics in which Linus is playing tunes on his piano attempting to duplicate a song that Charlie Brown has heard
    Message 1 of 12 , Jul 21 6:26 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      I remember a scene in one of the "Peanuts" classics in which Linus is playing tunes on his piano attempting to duplicate a song that Charlie Brown has heard and when he hits it, Charlie yells in excitement and Linus tumbles head over heels away from his piano. A kodak moment to be sure. I feel a little like good ole' Charlie right now. I'd heard of this "Clade" testing but I never knew what to make of it. My closest match/s are still 2 markers away at the 37 level so under this criteria I don't have use for it at the moment but I'm fascinated by the technology. I'm utterly caught up in the notion that we can look with such clarity into the distant past to see things we could never have dreamed of even ten years ago. For the first time the present can be linked to the distant past in a meaningful way. Fascinating.
      Other than being a confirmed Powell prodigy I don't have much else to go on though until I get a closer match. I do think the trail leads to Kentucky within the last two hundred years though. I just don't know when more results are going to show up from there. I'll stay tuned though. Thanks a bunch. David (Kit # 31545)

      David E.Smith
      TDOT/Reg #3/Right of Way/Excess Land
      6601 Centennial Bvld, 2nd Floor
      Nashville, TN 37243
      David.E.Smith@...
      (615) 350-4229
      fax (615) 350-4291/4410


      >>> On 7/20/2009 at 5:44 PM, in message <h42rvt+td57@...>, "mwwalsh" <mwwalsh7@...> wrote:

      David,

      I think you mean "clade" thing, right?

      Here is the definition of a clade according to answers.com: "A group of organisms, such as a species, whose members share homologous features derived from a common ancestor."

      You, siblings, all of your of you and your siblings' children are in a clade with the common ancestor being your father and also in another clade with a common ancestor being your mother.

      I think of it has a family, but it could be a super-family.

      We use SNP mutations to help identify clades, but regardless of any discovered SNP's, a clade is a group with a common ancestor.

      In the posting below, the author uses the word clade just like you might normally use the word haplogroup, but in reality they are not quite the same meaning.

      Mike

      --- In walesdna@yahoogroups.com, "David.E Smith" <david.e.smith@...> wrote:
      >
      > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=*
      Reply Requested: Wednesday, July 22, 2009
      +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=*

      > Huh? Okay, somebodies gonna have to explain this clad thing to me. I was with you guys until we got into the clad testing. Somebody stop this merry-go-round! I want 'a get off! David
      >
      > David E.Smith
      > TDOT/Reg #3/Right of Way/Excess Land
      > 6601 Centennial Bvld, 2nd Floor
      > Nashville, TN 37243
      > David.E.Smith@...
      > (615) 350-4229
      > fax (615) 350-4291/4410
      >
      >
      > >>> On 7/20/2009 at 1:14 PM, in message <h42c5o+5j0k@...>, "basenji_luvr" <basenji_luvr@...> wrote:
      >
      > Here is a posting from the Rootsweb Mailing List 'genealogy-dna' discussing the article. I think there are many valid points here. Susan
      >
      > From: Alan R <al_r25@...>
      > Subject: Re: [DNA] Who killed the men of England -
      > Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
      >
      > Is there anything new in this? All the rubbish written about Anglo-Saxons replacing Britons is predicated that you take the modern Welsh to represent the ancient Britons of the whole of Britain and then simply look at how different in terms of y-DNA SE England is to Wales and how similar SE England is to Holland etc. Well, the idea that the Welsh can be taken to represent the pre-Roman Britons of SE England is frankly nonsense. It is highly likely that the slow transformation of SE England to more resemble the low countries than Wales was well underway long before the Anglo-Saxons. For a start we know of the Belgi who were in the Low Countries and SE England but not in Wales (other than a small number of refugees much later). The slow trickle of genes between the NW continent and SE England that didn't make it to Wales and the west in any numbers was probably going on for 3000 years before the Anglo-Saxons showed up and probably probably
      > peaked with the Belgi who straddled the Low countries and SE Britain.
      >
      > It is very likely that before the Romans reached Britain SE England and Wales were already far from identical in terms of genes, even if they did all fall into the umbrella term 'Britons' and spoke British Celtic. In fact we are told on arrival that the Romans observed major phenotype differences between the Welsh (the Silures tribe to be precise) and the average Briton. The Welsh were compared to Iberians (dark complexions and curly hair being cited), the Caledoni tribe of northern Scotland were compared to Germans (reddish hair and burly build being cited). The Romans also contrasted the shorter but blonder SE Britons (who would have included the Belgi) with the taller but darker haired 'interior' (north and west) Britons. The latter observation also included discussion of the SE Britons having some awareness of having been settlers from the continent in the past while for the interior Britons their origins were time out of mind
      > and they considered themselves indigenous). This all suggests that the Britons were to some degree heterogeneous in origin and different in mix. I know phenotype is based on autosomal genes not y-DNA but most gene flow in later prehistory that injected different elements into some of the Britons was probably heavily male in origin and therefore the different autosomal DNA was likely carried by the vector of predominantly male migration. So, its fair to say that those phenotype differences may well have been reflected in different y-DNA haplotype/clade proportions in the different areas.
      >
      > There are differences today across Britain in y-DNA count. I think there is a strong case that the Britons of different areas of Britain would have had different mixes of y-DNA before the Romans arrived. The likely differences were at least tending towards those of today with the SE having more input from NW Europe (from the Belgi back to the beaker people) with more of a tendency towards older y-lines and far less later input from the continent arriving in Wales and the west. So, I think there is a lot of evidence that the differentiation of SE England from Wales and interior Britain probably was well underway before the Anglo-Saxons. The Romans pretty well said as much. They specifically stated the physical and cultural resemblances of the south-east Britons and the north-east Belgic (Low Countries) area. So its quite wrong to attribute the y-DNA differences between SE England and Wales or the resemblance of SE England and the
      > Low Countries as all/largely being down to the post-Roman Gerrnanic invasions. The Anglo-Saxons likely simply topped up an existing difference between Wales and the west and SE England and an existing similarity between the SE England the the Low Countries etc. What proportion they topped up this difference by is unknown (opinions range from very little to substantial). However, there is clear evidence that a substantial amount of what makes SE England look more like NW Europe (Low countries etc) and different to Wales and the west is attributable to pre-Roman influx of genes which climaxed during the Belgic movements.
      >
      > Take away the silly idea that the modern Welsh (or indeed the ancient Welsh) were identical to the pre-Roman Britons of south-east England and most of the basis of the DNA argument for dramatic population replacement in England evaporates. In terms of specific groups, the detail is confusing but I am sure that there was plenty of S28 and probably S21 and NW European I clades folk among the Britons of SE England before the Romans. So, how do you do a headcount of DEFINITE Anglo-Saxon clades? As far as I can see you cant other than proven late post-100AD clades. I guess Ken is far more qualified to tell us how many clades of I can with reasonable certainty be attributed to the Anglo-Saxons and not earlier pre-Roman trickle (or larger Belgic) movement into SE England from NW Europe. I believe the numbers of such indisputable clades of a date and distribution that means that Anglo-Saxon attribution is certain is very small and if you
      > added up the proportion of people in SE England who have indisputably Anglo-Saxon (as opposed to simply NW European) clades you would have a very small total.
      >
      > Most of these Anglo-Saxon genocide scenarios simply attribute everything to the Anglo-Saxons other than the non-S21, non-S28 R1b (i.e effectively what we now know as L21 and subclades). As it so happens the vast majority in the west and north do seem to be L21 then bingo you get a phantom wipe-out. This is almost certainly nonsense and its perfectly possible that the Britons of the south and east had a good number of clades like S21 and S28 and several NW European I caldes that these studies attribute to the Anglo-Saxons simply because they are rate in the west. Well the SE and the west was already different in pre-Roman times and the Romans specifically state this in terms of culture, phenotype and even the Britons variable idea of their own origins (as blow-ins in the SE and indigenous in the 'interior'). The SE of England and the west were probably getting more and more different from the Copper Age (when the beaker impact was far
      > stronger in the south and east than the west) onwards through the Bronze Age and the differences were likely substantial after the Belgi arrived. So people doing these studies please stop (for reasons just discussed) using the silly simplistic formula:
      >
      > Haplotypes/clades found in SE England minus Haplotypes clades found in Wales=DNA brought by the Anglo-Saxons...
      >
      > .....and also the spin-off of this warped reasoning:
      >
      > pre-Anglo-Saxons=L21 (with a few old I clades)
      >
      > Its a gross oversimplification of the likely reality and its hugely skewing the figures towards the big Anglo-Saxon genocide theory. In fact if you represent the Anglo-Saxons by only the clades that must have been brought from the Anglo-Saxon homelands after the Romans then I am sure we would be looking at a very small input. That of course would be a minimum and almost certainly a big underestimate. The truth probably lies in between i.e. a substatial but very much minority input.
      >
      > Glad I got that off my chest : 0)
      >
      > Alan
      >
      > --- In walesdna@yahoogroups.com, "ljcrain" <ljcrain2@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > July-August 2009 > Features
      > > Who Killed the Men of England?
      > > The written record of history meets genomics, evolution, demography, and molecular archaeology.
      > > by Jonathan Shaw
      > >
      > > There are no signs of a massacre--no mass graves, no piles of bones. Yet more than a million men vanished without a trace. They left no descendants. Historians know that something dramatic happened in England just as the Roman empire was collapsing. When the Anglo-Saxons ?rst arrived in that northern outpost in the fourth century a.d.--whether as immigrants or invaders is debated--they encountered an existing Romano-Celtic population estimated at between 2 million and 3.7 million people. Latin and Celtic were the dominant languages. Yet the ensuing cultural transformation was so complete, says Goelet professor of medieval history Michael McCormick, that by the eighth century, English civilization considered itself completely Anglo-Saxon, spoke only Anglo-Saxon, and thought that everyone had "come over on the May?ower, as it were." This extraordinary change has had rami?cations down to the present, and is why so many people speak English rather than Latin or Celtic today. But how English culture was completely remade, the historical record does not say.
      > >
      > > Then, in 2002, scientists found a genetic signature in the DNA of living British men that hinted at an untold story of Anglo-Saxon conquest. The researchers were sampling Y-chromosomes, the sex chromosome passed down only in males, from men living in market towns named in the Domesday Book of 1086. Working along an east-west transect through central England and Wales, the scientists discovered that the mix of Y-chromosomes characteristic of men in the English towns was very different from that of men in the Welsh towns: Wales was the primary Celtic holdout in Western Britannia during the ascendance of the Anglo-Saxons. Using computer analysis, the researchers explored how such a pattern could have arisen and concluded that a massive replacement of the native fourth-century male Britons had taken place. Between 50 percent and 100 percent of indigenous English men today, the researchers estimate, are descended from Anglo-Saxons who arrived on England's eastern coast 16 centuries ago. So what happened? Mass killing, or "population replacement," is one possible explanation. Mass migration of Anglo-Saxons, so that they swamped the native gene pool, is another.
      > >
      > > cont.
      > >
      > > http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/07/who-killed-the-men-england
      > >
      >
    • Douglas Neslund
      Trust me, David, most of us have been in your shoes (or moccasins) and euphoria is contagious in the early going! In my own search, I am back to the year 1567
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 21 6:40 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Trust me, David, most of us have been in your shoes (or moccasins) and euphoria is contagious in the early going! In my own search, I am back to the year 1567 (or thereabouts) and believe me, things can get pretty murky as one travels back in time. 

        You will have read lots of email exchanges amongst the experts in these groups on weighty questions of, for instance, the origin of the ubiquitous L-21* of which I am a member. Everyone is full of gas: did they originate in Iberia, southern Germany, Romania, somewhere in Scotland or even Sweden?! The L-21s tends to be clumped in a few specific areas and that looks promising until you note that a lot of people from those two areas have been tested, versus other parts of the Isles and Europe that have not yet provided returns against which we who wait can be compared. So the L-21* class is waiting for the discovery of that magic marker that will split the group into two identifiable (somewhat) smaller groups.

        The waiting is the hard part!

        Best wishes on a successful search,
        Douglas Neslund (born Griffeth)
        Y-Search ID 2KJBR

        On Jul 21, 2009, at 6:26 AM, David.E Smith wrote:

        I remember a scene in one of the "Peanuts" classics in which Linus is playing tunes on his piano attempting to duplicate a song that Charlie Brown has heard and when he hits it, Charlie yells in excitement and Linus tumbles head over heels away from his piano.  A kodak moment to be sure.  I feel a little like good ole' Charlie right now. I'd heard of this "Clade" testing but I never knew what to make of it.  My closest match/s are still 2 markers away at the 37 level so under this criteria I don't have use for it at the moment but I'm fascinated by the technology.  I'm utterly caught up in the notion that we can look with such clarity into the distant past to see things we could never have dreamed of even ten years ago.  For the first time the present can be linked to the distant past in a meaningful way.  Fascinating. 
        Other than being a confirmed Powell prodigy I don't have much else to go on though until I get a closer match.  I do think the trail leads to Kentucky within the last two hundred years though.  I just don't know when more results are going to show up from there.  I'll stay tuned though.  Thanks a bunch. David (Kit # 31545)
         
        David E.Smith
        TDOT/Reg #3/Right of Way/Excess Land 
         6601 Centennial Bvld, 2nd Floor
        Nashville, TN 37243
        David.E.Smith@...
        (615) 350-4229
        fax (615) 350-4291/4410


        >>> On 7/20/2009 at 5:44 PM, in message <h42rvt+td57@...>, "mwwalsh" <mwwalsh7@...> wrote:
         

        David,

        I think you mean "clade" thing, right?

        Here is the definition of a clade according to answers.com: "A group of organisms, such as a species, whose members share homologous features derived from a common ancestor."

        You, siblings, all of your of you and your siblings' children are in a clade with the common ancestor being your father and also in another clade with a common ancestor being your mother.

        I think of it has a family, but it could be a super-family.

        We use SNP mutations to help identify clades, but regardless of any discovered SNP's, a clade is a group with a common ancestor.

        In the posting below, the author uses the word clade just like you might normally use the word haplogroup, but in reality they are not quite the same meaning.

        Mike

        --- In walesdna@yahoogroup s.com, "David.E Smith" <david.e.smith@ ...> wrote:
        >
        > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=*
        Reply Requested:  Wednesday, July 22, 2009
        +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=*

        > Huh? Okay, somebodies gonna have to explain this clad thing to me. I was with you guys until we got into the clad testing. Somebody stop this merry-go-round! I want 'a get off! David
        >
        > David E.Smith
        > TDOT/Reg #3/Right of Way/Excess Land
        > 6601 Centennial Bvld, 2nd Floor
        > Nashville, TN 37243
        > David.E.Smith@ ...
        > (615) 350-4229
        > fax (615) 350-4291/4410
        >
        >
        > >>> On 7/20/2009 at 1:14 PM, in message <h42c5o+5j0k@ ...>, "basenji_luvr" <basenji_luvr@ ...> wrote:
        >
        > Here is a posting from the Rootsweb Mailing List 'genealogy-dna' discussing the article. I think there are many valid points here. Susan
        >
        > From: Alan R <al_r25@...>
        > Subject: Re: [DNA] Who killed the men of England -
        > Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
        >
        > Is there anything new in this? All the rubbish written about Anglo-Saxons replacing Britons is predicated that you take the modern Welsh to represent the ancient Britons of the whole of Britain and then simply look at how different in terms of y-DNA SE England is to Wales and how similar SE England is to Holland etc. Well, the idea that the Welsh can be taken to represent the pre-Roman Britons of SE England is frankly nonsense. It is highly likely that the slow transformation of SE England to more resemble the low countries than Wales was well underway long before the Anglo-Saxons. For a start we know of the Belgi who were in the Low Countries and SE England but not in Wales (other than a small number of refugees much later). The slow trickle of genes between the NW continent and SE England that didn't make it to Wales and the west in any numbers was probably going on for 3000 years before the Anglo-Saxons showed up and probably probably
        > peaked with the Belgi who straddled the Low countries and SE Britain.
        >
        > It is very likely that before the Romans reached Britain SE England and Wales were already far from identical in terms of genes, even if they did all fall into the umbrella term 'Britons' and spoke British Celtic. In fact we are told on arrival that the Romans observed major phenotype differences between the Welsh (the Silures tribe to be precise) and the average Briton. The Welsh were compared to Iberians (dark complexions and curly hair being cited), the Caledoni tribe of northern Scotland were compared to Germans (reddish hair and burly build being cited). The Romans also contrasted the shorter but blonder SE Britons (who would have included the Belgi) with the taller but darker haired 'interior' (north and west) Britons. The latter observation also included discussion of the SE Britons having some awareness of having been settlers from the continent in the past while for the interior Britons their origins were time out of mind
        > and they considered themselves indigenous). This all suggests that the Britons were to some degree heterogeneous in origin and different in mix. I know phenotype is based on autosomal genes not y-DNA but most gene flow in later prehistory that injected different elements into some of the Britons was probably heavily male in origin and therefore the different autosomal DNA was likely carried by the vector of predominantly male migration. So, its fair to say that those phenotype differences may well have been reflected in different y-DNA haplotype/clade proportions in the different areas.
        >
        > There are differences today across Britain in y-DNA count. I think there is a strong case that the Britons of different areas of Britain would have had different mixes of y-DNA before the Romans arrived. The likely differences were at least tending towards those of today with the SE having more input from NW Europe (from the Belgi back to the beaker people) with more of a tendency towards older y-lines and far less later input from the continent arriving in Wales and the west. So, I think there is a lot of evidence that the differentiation of SE England from Wales and interior Britain probably was well underway before the Anglo-Saxons. The Romans pretty well said as much. They specifically stated the physical and cultural resemblances of the south-east Britons and the north-east Belgic (Low Countries) area. So its quite wrong to attribute the y-DNA differences between SE England and Wales or the resemblance of SE England and the
        > Low Countries as all/largely being down to the post-Roman Gerrnanic invasions. The Anglo-Saxons likely simply topped up an existing difference between Wales and the west and SE England and an existing similarity between the SE England the the Low Countries etc. What proportion they topped up this difference by is unknown (opinions range from very little to substantial) . However, there is clear evidence that a substantial amount of what makes SE England look more like NW Europe (Low countries etc) and different to Wales and the west is attributable to pre-Roman influx of genes which climaxed during the Belgic movements.
        >
        > Take away the silly idea that the modern Welsh (or indeed the ancient Welsh) were identical to the pre-Roman Britons of south-east England and most of the basis of the DNA argument for dramatic population replacement in England evaporates. In terms of specific groups, the detail is confusing but I am sure that there was plenty of S28 and probably S21 and NW European I clades folk among the Britons of SE England before the Romans. So, how do you do a headcount of DEFINITE Anglo-Saxon clades? As far as I can see you cant other than proven late post-100AD clades. I guess Ken is far more qualified to tell us how many clades of I can with reasonable certainty be attributed to the Anglo-Saxons and not earlier pre-Roman trickle (or larger Belgic) movement into SE England from NW Europe. I believe the numbers of such indisputable clades of a date and distribution that means that Anglo-Saxon attribution is certain is very small and if you
        > added up the proportion of people in SE England who have indisputably Anglo-Saxon (as opposed to simply NW European) clades you would have a very small total.
        >
        > Most of these Anglo-Saxon genocide scenarios simply attribute everything to the Anglo-Saxons other than the non-S21, non-S28 R1b (i.e effectively what we now know as L21 and subclades). As it so happens the vast majority in the west and north do seem to be L21 then bingo you get a phantom wipe-out. This is almost certainly nonsense and its perfectly possible that the Britons of the south and east had a good number of clades like S21 and S28 and several NW European I caldes that these studies attribute to the Anglo-Saxons simply because they are rate in the west. Well the SE and the west was already different in pre-Roman times and the Romans specifically state this in terms of culture, phenotype and even the Britons variable idea of their own origins (as blow-ins in the SE and indigenous in the 'interior'). The SE of England and the west were probably getting more and more different from the Copper Age (when the beaker impact was far
        > stronger in the south and east than the west) onwards through the Bronze Age and the differences were likely substantial after the Belgi arrived. So people doing these studies please stop (for reasons just discussed) using the silly simplistic formula:
        >
        > Haplotypes/clades found in SE England minus Haplotypes clades found in Wales=DNA brought by the Anglo-Saxons. ..
        >
        > .....and also the spin-off of this warped reasoning:
        >
        > pre-Anglo-Saxons= L21 (with a few old I clades)
        >
        > Its a gross oversimplification of the likely reality and its hugely skewing the figures towards the big Anglo-Saxon genocide theory. In fact if you represent the Anglo-Saxons by only the clades that must have been brought from the Anglo-Saxon homelands after the Romans then I am sure we would be looking at a very small input. That of course would be a minimum and almost certainly a big underestimate. The truth probably lies in between i.e. a substatial but very much minority input.
        >
        > Glad I got that off my chest : 0)
        >
        > Alan
        >
        > --- In walesdna@yahoogroup s.com, "ljcrain" <ljcrain2@> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > July-August 2009 > Features
        > > Who Killed the Men of England?
        > > The written record of history meets genomics, evolution, demography, and molecular archaeology.
        > > by Jonathan Shaw
        > >
        > > There are no signs of a massacre--no mass graves, no piles of bones. Yet more than a million men vanished without a trace. They left no descendants. Historians know that something dramatic happened in England just as the Roman empire was collapsing. When the Anglo-Saxons ?rst arrived in that northern outpost in the fourth century a.d.--whether as immigrants or invaders is debated--they encountered an existing Romano-Celtic population estimated at between 2 million and 3.7 million people. Latin and Celtic were the dominant languages. Yet the ensuing cultural transformation was so complete, says Goelet professor of medieval history Michael McCormick, that by the eighth century, English civilization considered itself completely Anglo-Saxon, spoke only Anglo-Saxon, and thought that everyone had "come over on the May?ower, as it were." This extraordinary change has had rami?cations down to the present, and is why so many people speak English rather than Latin or Celtic today. But how English culture was completely remade, the historical record does not say.
        > >
        > > Then, in 2002, scientists found a genetic signature in the DNA of living British men that hinted at an untold story of Anglo-Saxon conquest. The researchers were sampling Y-chromosomes, the sex chromosome passed down only in males, from men living in market towns named in the Domesday Book of 1086. Working along an east-west transect through central England and Wales, the scientists discovered that the mix of Y-chromosomes characteristic of men in the English towns was very different from that of men in the Welsh towns: Wales was the primary Celtic holdout in Western Britannia during the ascendance of the Anglo-Saxons. Using computer analysis, the researchers explored how such a pattern could have arisen and concluded that a massive replacement of the native fourth-century male Britons had taken place. Between 50 percent and 100 percent of indigenous English men today, the researchers estimate, are descended from Anglo-Saxons who arrived on England's eastern coast 16 centuries ago. So what happened? Mass killing, or "population replacement, " is one possible explanation. Mass migration of Anglo-Saxons, so that they swamped the native gene pool, is another.
        > >
        > > cont.
        > >
        > > http://harvardmagaz ine.com/2009/ 07/who-killed- the-men-england
        > >
        >


      • David.E Smith
        Thanks for the encouragement. I need it. But, I have to say that just from what I ve learned so far has been enough to stir me. It sounds like I m bragging
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 21 7:02 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for the encouragement. I need it. But, I have to say that just from what I've learned so far has been enough to stir me. It sounds like I'm bragging and I'm really not but the Powell name (as well as many others) seems to have quite a place in history and it's neat knowing I'm at least a small part of that. A small part indeed but a part nonetheless and from someone who is adopted and thought he'd never know anything this is quite a story already. And I can't thank the people I've met and conversed with enough for sharing with me. I can't wait to see where many of these stories go. It's like being in the theater and watching the introductions before the big movie. I got my popcorn and a good seat! David

          David E.Smith
          TDOT/Reg #3/Right of Way/Excess Land
          6601 Centennial Bvld, 2nd Floor
          Nashville, TN 37243
          David.E.Smith@...
          (615) 350-4229
          fax (615) 350-4291/4410


          >>> On 7/21/2009 at 8:40 AM, in message <E085361F-5DD7-43C3-8796-7A1631E66B2F@...>, Douglas Neslund <justusla@...> wrote:

          Trust me, David, most of us have been in your shoes (or moccasins) and euphoria is contagious in the early going! In my own search, I am back to the year 1567 (or thereabouts) and believe me, things can get pretty murky as one travels back in time.


          You will have read lots of email exchanges amongst the experts in these groups on weighty questions of, for instance, the origin of the ubiquitous L-21* of which I am a member. Everyone is full of gas: did they originate in Iberia, southern Germany, Romania, somewhere in Scotland or even Sweden?! The L-21s tends to be clumped in a few specific areas and that looks promising until you note that a lot of people from those two areas have been tested, versus other parts of the Isles and Europe that have not yet provided returns against which we who wait can be compared. So the L-21* class is waiting for the discovery of that magic marker that will split the group into two identifiable (somewhat) smaller groups.


          The waiting is the hard part!


          Best wishes on a successful search,
          Douglas Neslund (born Griffeth)
          Y-Search ID 2KJBR



          On Jul 21, 2009, at 6:26 AM, David.E Smith wrote:


          I remember a scene in one of the "Peanuts" classics in which Linus is playing tunes on his piano attempting to duplicate a song that Charlie Brown has heard and when he hits it, Charlie yells in excitement and Linus tumbles head over heels away from his piano. A kodak moment to be sure. I feel a little like good ole' Charlie right now. I'd heard of this "Clade" testing but I never knew what to make of it. My closest match/s are still 2 markers away at the 37 level so under this criteria I don't have use for it at the moment but I'm fascinated by the technology. I'm utterly caught up in the notion that we can look with such clarity into the distant past to see things we could never have dreamed of even ten years ago. For the first time the present can be linked to the distant past in a meaningful way. Fascinating.
          Other than being a confirmed Powell prodigy I don't have much else to go on though until I get a closer match. I do think the trail leads to Kentucky within the last two hundred years though. I just don't know when more results are going to show up from there. I'll stay tuned though. Thanks a bunch. David (Kit # 31545)

          David E.Smith
          TDOT/Reg #3/Right of Way/Excess Land
          6601 Centennial Bvld, 2nd Floor
          Nashville, TN 37243
          David.E.Smith@...
          (615) 350-4229
          fax (615) 350-4291/4410


          >>> On 7/20/2009 at 5:44 PM, in message <h42rvt+td57@...>, "mwwalsh" <mwwalsh7@...> wrote:


          David,

          I think you mean "clade" thing, right?

          Here is the definition of a clade according to answers.com: "A group of organisms, such as a species, whose members share homologous features derived from a common ancestor."

          You, siblings, all of your of you and your siblings' children are in a clade with the common ancestor being your father and also in another clade with a common ancestor being your mother.

          I think of it has a family, but it could be a super-family.

          We use SNP mutations to help identify clades, but regardless of any discovered SNP's, a clade is a group with a common ancestor.

          In the posting below, the author uses the word clade just like you might normally use the word haplogroup, but in reality they are not quite the same meaning.

          Mike

          --- In walesdna@yahoogroups.com, "David.E Smith" <david.e.smith@...> wrote:
          >
          > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=*
          Reply Requested: Wednesday, July 22, 2009
          +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=*


          > Huh? Okay, somebodies gonna have to explain this clad thing to me. I was with you guys until we got into the clad testing. Somebody stop this merry-go-round! I want 'a get off! David
          >
          > David E.Smith
          > TDOT/Reg #3/Right of Way/Excess Land
          > 6601 Centennial Bvld, 2nd Floor
          > Nashville, TN 37243
          > David.E.Smith@...
          > (615) 350-4229
          > fax (615) 350-4291/4410
          >
          >
          > >>> On 7/20/2009 at 1:14 PM, in message <h42c5o+5j0k@...>, "basenji_luvr" <basenji_luvr@...> wrote:
          >
          > Here is a posting from the Rootsweb Mailing List 'genealogy-dna' discussing the article. I think there are many valid points here. Susan
          >
          > From: Alan R <al_r25@...>
          > Subject: Re: [DNA] Who killed the men of England -
          > Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
          >
          > Is there anything new in this? All the rubbish written about Anglo-Saxons replacing Britons is predicated that you take the modern Welsh to represent the ancient Britons of the whole of Britain and then simply look at how different in terms of y-DNA SE England is to Wales and how similar SE England is to Holland etc. Well, the idea that the Welsh can be taken to represent the pre-Roman Britons of SE England is frankly nonsense. It is highly likely that the slow transformation of SE England to more resemble the low countries than Wales was well underway long before the Anglo-Saxons. For a start we know of the Belgi who were in the Low Countries and SE England but not in Wales (other than a small number of refugees much later). The slow trickle of genes between the NW continent and SE England that didn't make it to Wales and the west in any numbers was probably going on for 3000 years before the Anglo-Saxons showed up and probably probably
          > peaked with the Belgi who straddled the Low countries and SE Britain.
          >
          > It is very likely that before the Romans reached Britain SE England and Wales were already far from identical in terms of genes, even if they did all fall into the umbrella term 'Britons' and spoke British Celtic. In fact we are told on arrival that the Romans observed major phenotype differences between the Welsh (the Silures tribe to be precise) and the average Briton. The Welsh were compared to Iberians (dark complexions and curly hair being cited), the Caledoni tribe of northern Scotland were compared to Germans (reddish hair and burly build being cited). The Romans also contrasted the shorter but blonder SE Britons (who would have included the Belgi) with the taller but darker haired 'interior' (north and west) Britons. The latter observation also included discussion of the SE Britons having some awareness of having been settlers from the continent in the past while for the interior Britons their origins were time out of mind
          > and they considered themselves indigenous). This all suggests that the Britons were to some degree heterogeneous in origin and different in mix. I know phenotype is based on autosomal genes not y-DNA but most gene flow in later prehistory that injected different elements into some of the Britons was probably heavily male in origin and therefore the different autosomal DNA was likely carried by the vector of predominantly male migration. So, its fair to say that those phenotype differences may well have been reflected in different y-DNA haplotype/clade proportions in the different areas.
          >
          > There are differences today across Britain in y-DNA count. I think there is a strong case that the Britons of different areas of Britain would have had different mixes of y-DNA before the Romans arrived. The likely differences were at least tending towards those of today with the SE having more input from NW Europe (from the Belgi back to the beaker people) with more of a tendency towards older y-lines and far less later input from the continent arriving in Wales and the west. So, I think there is a lot of evidence that the differentiation of SE England from Wales and interior Britain probably was well underway before the Anglo-Saxons. The Romans pretty well said as much. They specifically stated the physical and cultural resemblances of the south-east Britons and the north-east Belgic (Low Countries) area. So its quite wrong to attribute the y-DNA differences between SE England and Wales or the resemblance of SE England and the
          > Low Countries as all/largely being down to the post-Roman Gerrnanic invasions. The Anglo-Saxons likely simply topped up an existing difference between Wales and the west and SE England and an existing similarity between the SE England the the Low Countries etc. What proportion they topped up this difference by is unknown (opinions range from very little to substantial). However, there is clear evidence that a substantial amount of what makes SE England look more like NW Europe (Low countries etc) and different to Wales and the west is attributable to pre-Roman influx of genes which climaxed during the Belgic movements.
          >
          > Take away the silly idea that the modern Welsh (or indeed the ancient Welsh) were identical to the pre-Roman Britons of south-east England and most of the basis of the DNA argument for dramatic population replacement in England evaporates. In terms of specific groups, the detail is confusing but I am sure that there was plenty of S28 and probably S21 and NW European I clades folk among the Britons of SE England before the Romans. So, how do you do a headcount of DEFINITE Anglo-Saxon clades? As far as I can see you cant other than proven late post-100AD clades. I guess Ken is far more qualified to tell us how many clades of I can with reasonable certainty be attributed to the Anglo-Saxons and not earlier pre-Roman trickle (or larger Belgic) movement into SE England from NW Europe. I believe the numbers of such indisputable clades of a date and distribution that means that Anglo-Saxon attribution is certain is very small and if you
          > added up the proportion of people in SE England who have indisputably Anglo-Saxon (as opposed to simply NW European) clades you would have a very small total.
          >
          > Most of these Anglo-Saxon genocide scenarios simply attribute everything to the Anglo-Saxons other than the non-S21, non-S28 R1b (i.e effectively what we now know as L21 and subclades). As it so happens the vast majority in the west and north do seem to be L21 then bingo you get a phantom wipe-out. This is almost certainly nonsense and its perfectly possible that the Britons of the south and east had a good number of clades like S21 and S28 and several NW European I caldes that these studies attribute to the Anglo-Saxons simply because they are rate in the west. Well the SE and the west was already different in pre-Roman times and the Romans specifically state this in terms of culture, phenotype and even the Britons variable idea of their own origins (as blow-ins in the SE and indigenous in the 'interior'). The SE of England and the west were probably getting more and more different from the Copper Age (when the beaker impact was far
          > stronger in the south and east than the west) onwards through the Bronze Age and the differences were likely substantial after the Belgi arrived. So people doing these studies please stop (for reasons just discussed) using the silly simplistic formula:
          >
          > Haplotypes/clades found in SE England minus Haplotypes clades found in Wales=DNA brought by the Anglo-Saxons...
          >
          > .....and also the spin-off of this warped reasoning:
          >
          > pre-Anglo-Saxons=L21 (with a few old I clades)
          >
          > Its a gross oversimplification of the likely reality and its hugely skewing the figures towards the big Anglo-Saxon genocide theory. In fact if you represent the Anglo-Saxons by only the clades that must have been brought from the Anglo-Saxon homelands after the Romans then I am sure we would be looking at a very small input. That of course would be a minimum and almost certainly a big underestimate. The truth probably lies in between i.e. a substatial but very much minority input.
          >
          > Glad I got that off my chest : 0)
          >
          > Alan
          >
          > --- In walesdna@yahoogroups.com, "ljcrain" <ljcrain2@> wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > July-August 2009 > Features
          > > Who Killed the Men of England?
          > > The written record of history meets genomics, evolution, demography, and molecular archaeology.
          > > by Jonathan Shaw
          > >
          > > There are no signs of a massacre--no mass graves, no piles of bones. Yet more than a million men vanished without a trace. They left no descendants. Historians know that something dramatic happened in England just as the Roman empire was collapsing. When the Anglo-Saxons ?rst arrived in that northern outpost in the fourth century a.d.--whether as immigrants or invaders is debated--they encountered an existing Romano-Celtic population estimated at between 2 million and 3.7 million people. Latin and Celtic were the dominant languages. Yet the ensuing cultural transformation was so complete, says Goelet professor of medieval history Michael McCormick, that by the eighth century, English civilization considered itself completely Anglo-Saxon, spoke only Anglo-Saxon, and thought that everyone had "come over on the May?ower, as it were." This extraordinary change has had rami?cations down to the present, and is why so many people speak English rather than Latin or Celtic today. But how English culture was completely remade, the historical record does not say.
          > >
          > > Then, in 2002, scientists found a genetic signature in the DNA of living British men that hinted at an untold story of Anglo-Saxon conquest. The researchers were sampling Y-chromosomes, the sex chromosome passed down only in males, from men living in market towns named in the Domesday Book of 1086. Working along an east-west transect through central England and Wales, the scientists discovered that the mix of Y-chromosomes characteristic of men in the English towns was very different from that of men in the Welsh towns: Wales was the primary Celtic holdout in Western Britannia during the ascendance of the Anglo-Saxons. Using computer analysis, the researchers explored how such a pattern could have arisen and concluded that a massive replacement of the native fourth-century male Britons had taken place. Between 50 percent and 100 percent of indigenous English men today, the researchers estimate, are descended from Anglo-Saxons who arrived on England's eastern coast 16 centuries ago. So what happened? Mass killing, or "population replacement," is one possible explanation. Mass migration of Anglo-Saxons, so that they swamped the native gene pool, is another.
          > >
          > > cont.
          > >
          > > http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/07/who-killed-the-men-england
          > >
          >
        • Douglas Neslund
          The science of it all is the most fascinating! The fact that some genius somewhere can create a chip that can analyze and deduce differences that ten years ago
          Message 4 of 12 , Jul 21 7:11 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            The science of it all is the most fascinating! The fact that some genius somewhere can create a chip that can analyze and deduce differences that ten years ago would not have been possible, is what gives all of us hope.

            FWIW, I too am adopted - and have TWO great families to cherish and love! (It only got tough on Mother's Day and Christmas, but love will find a way ...)

            Doug

            PS. Looks like you are in Tennessee government. I have a nephew living in that beautiful state.



            On Jul 21, 2009, at 7:02 AM, David.E Smith wrote:

            Thanks for the encouragement.  I need it.  But, I have to say that just from what I've learned so far has been enough to stir me.  It sounds like I'm bragging and I'm really not but the Powell name (as well as many others) seems to have quite a place in history and it's neat knowing I'm at least a small part of that.  A small part indeed but a part nonetheless and from someone who is adopted and thought he'd never know anything this is quite a story already.  And I can't thank the people I've met and conversed with enough for sharing with me.   I can't wait to see where many of these stories go.  It's like being in the theater and watching the introductions before the big movie.  I got my popcorn and a good seat!  David
             
            David E.Smith
            TDOT/Reg #3/Right of Way/Excess Land 
             6601 Centennial Bvld, 2nd Floor
            Nashville, TN 37243
            David.E.Smith@...
            (615) 350-4229
            fax (615) 350-4291/4410


            >>> On 7/21/2009 at 8:40 AM, in message <E085361F-5DD7-43C3-8796-7A1631E66B2F@...>, Douglas Neslund <justusla@...> wrote:
             

            Trust me, David, most of us have been in your shoes (or moccasins) and euphoria is contagious in the early going! In my own search, I am back to the year 1567 (or thereabouts) and believe me, things can get pretty murky as one travels back in time. 


            You will have read lots of email exchanges amongst the experts in these groups on weighty questions of, for instance, the origin of the ubiquitous L-21* of which I am a member. Everyone is full of gas: did they originate in Iberia, southern Germany, Romania, somewhere in Scotland or even Sweden?! The L-21s tends to be clumped in a few specific areas and that looks promising until you note that a lot of people from those two areas have been tested, versus other parts of the Isles and Europe that have not yet provided returns against which we who wait can be compared. So the L-21* class is waiting for the discovery of that magic marker that will split the group into two identifiable (somewhat) smaller groups.

            The waiting is the hard part!

            Best wishes on a successful search,
            Douglas Neslund (born Griffeth)
            Y-Search ID 2KJBR

            On Jul 21, 2009, at 6:26 AM, David.E Smith wrote:

            I remember a scene in one of the "Peanuts" classics in which Linus is playing tunes on his piano attempting to duplicate a song that Charlie Brown has heard and when he hits it, Charlie yells in excitement and Linus tumbles head over heels away from his piano.  A kodak moment to be sure.  I feel a little like good ole' Charlie right now. I'd heard of this "Clade" testing but I never knew what to make of it.  My closest match/s are still 2 markers away at the 37 level so under this criteria I don't have use for it at the moment but I'm fascinated by the technology.  I'm utterly caught up in the notion that we can look with such clarity into the distant past to see things we could never have dreamed of even ten years ago.  For the first time the present can be linked to the distant past in a meaningful way.  Fascinating. 
            Other than being a confirmed Powell prodigy I don't have much else to go on though until I get a closer match.  I do think the trail leads to Kentucky within the last two hundred years though.  I just don't know when more results are going to show up from there.  I'll stay tuned though.  Thanks a bunch. David (Kit # 31545)
             
            David E.Smith
            TDOT/Reg #3/Right of Way/Excess Land 
             6601 Centennial Bvld, 2nd Floor
            Nashville, TN 37243
            David.E.Smith@ tn.gov
            (615) 350-4229
            fax (615) 350-4291/4410


            >>> On 7/20/2009 at 5:44 PM, in message <h42rvt+td57@ eGroups.com>, "mwwalsh" <mwwalsh7@gmail. com> wrote:
             

            David,

            I think you mean "clade" thing, right?

            Here is the definition of a clade according to answers.com: "A group of organisms, such as a species, whose members share homologous features derived from a common ancestor."

            You, siblings, all of your of you and your siblings' children are in a clade with the common ancestor being your father and also in another clade with a common ancestor being your mother.

            I think of it has a family, but it could be a super-family.

            We use SNP mutations to help identify clades, but regardless of any discovered SNP's, a clade is a group with a common ancestor.

            In the posting below, the author uses the word clade just like you might normally use the word haplogroup, but in reality they are not quite the same meaning.

            Mike

            --- In walesdna@yahoogroup s.com, "David.E Smith" <david.e.smith@ ...> wrote:
            >
            > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=*
            Reply Requested:  Wednesday, July 22, 2009
            +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=*


            > Huh? Okay, somebodies gonna have to explain this clad thing to me. I was with you guys until we got into the clad testing. Somebody stop this merry-go-round! I want 'a get off! David
            >
            > David E.Smith
            > TDOT/Reg #3/Right of Way/Excess Land
            > 6601 Centennial Bvld, 2nd Floor
            > Nashville, TN 37243
            > David.E.Smith@ ...
            > (615) 350-4229
            > fax (615) 350-4291/4410
            >
            >
            > >>> On 7/20/2009 at 1:14 PM, in message <h42c5o+5j0k@ ...>, "basenji_luvr" <basenji_luvr@ ...> wrote:
            >
            > Here is a posting from the Rootsweb Mailing List 'genealogy-dna' discussing the article. I think there are many valid points here. Susan
            >
            > From: Alan R <al_r25@...>
            > Subject: Re: [DNA] Who killed the men of England -
            > Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
            >
            > Is there anything new in this? All the rubbish written about Anglo-Saxons replacing Britons is predicated that you take the modern Welsh to represent the ancient Britons of the whole of Britain and then simply look at how different in terms of y-DNA SE England is to Wales and how similar SE England is to Holland etc. Well, the idea that the Welsh can be taken to represent the pre-Roman Britons of SE England is frankly nonsense. It is highly likely that the slow transformation of SE England to more resemble the low countries than Wales was well underway long before the Anglo-Saxons. For a start we know of the Belgi who were in the Low Countries and SE England but not in Wales (other than a small number of refugees much later). The slow trickle of genes between the NW continent and SE England that didn't make it to Wales and the west in any numbers was probably going on for 3000 years before the Anglo-Saxons showed up and probably probably
            > peaked with the Belgi who straddled the Low countries and SE Britain.
            >
            > It is very likely that before the Romans reached Britain SE England and Wales were already far from identical in terms of genes, even if they did all fall into the umbrella term 'Britons' and spoke British Celtic. In fact we are told on arrival that the Romans observed major phenotype differences between the Welsh (the Silures tribe to be precise) and the average Briton. The Welsh were compared to Iberians (dark complexions and curly hair being cited), the Caledoni tribe of northern Scotland were compared to Germans (reddish hair and burly build being cited). The Romans also contrasted the shorter but blonder SE Britons (who would have included the Belgi) with the taller but darker haired 'interior' (north and west) Britons. The latter observation also included discussion of the SE Britons having some awareness of having been settlers from the continent in the past while for the interior Britons their origins were time out of mind
            > and they considered themselves indigenous). This all suggests that the Britons were to some degree heterogeneous in origin and different in mix. I know phenotype is based on autosomal genes not y-DNA but most gene flow in later prehistory that injected different elements into some of the Britons was probably heavily male in origin and therefore the different autosomal DNA was likely carried by the vector of predominantly male migration. So, its fair to say that those phenotype differences may well have been reflected in different y-DNA haplotype/clade proportions in the different areas.
            >
            > There are differences today across Britain in y-DNA count. I think there is a strong case that the Britons of different areas of Britain would have had different mixes of y-DNA before the Romans arrived. The likely differences were at least tending towards those of today with the SE having more input from NW Europe (from the Belgi back to the beaker people) with more of a tendency towards older y-lines and far less later input from the continent arriving in Wales and the west. So, I think there is a lot of evidence that the differentiation of SE England from Wales and interior Britain probably was well underway before the Anglo-Saxons. The Romans pretty well said as much. They specifically stated the physical and cultural resemblances of the south-east Britons and the north-east Belgic (Low Countries) area. So its quite wrong to attribute the y-DNA differences between SE England and Wales or the resemblance of SE England and the
            > Low Countries as all/largely being down to the post-Roman Gerrnanic invasions. The Anglo-Saxons likely simply topped up an existing difference between Wales and the west and SE England and an existing similarity between the SE England the the Low Countries etc. What proportion they topped up this difference by is unknown (opinions range from very little to substantial) . However, there is clear evidence that a substantial amount of what makes SE England look more like NW Europe (Low countries etc) and different to Wales and the west is attributable to pre-Roman influx of genes which climaxed during the Belgic movements.
            >
            > Take away the silly idea that the modern Welsh (or indeed the ancient Welsh) were identical to the pre-Roman Britons of south-east England and most of the basis of the DNA argument for dramatic population replacement in England evaporates. In terms of specific groups, the detail is confusing but I am sure that there was plenty of S28 and probably S21 and NW European I clades folk among the Britons of SE England before the Romans. So, how do you do a headcount of DEFINITE Anglo-Saxon clades? As far as I can see you cant other than proven late post-100AD clades. I guess Ken is far more qualified to tell us how many clades of I can with reasonable certainty be attributed to the Anglo-Saxons and not earlier pre-Roman trickle (or larger Belgic) movement into SE England from NW Europe. I believe the numbers of such indisputable clades of a date and distribution that means that Anglo-Saxon attribution is certain is very small and if you
            > added up the proportion of people in SE England who have indisputably Anglo-Saxon (as opposed to simply NW European) clades you would have a very small total.
            >
            > Most of these Anglo-Saxon genocide scenarios simply attribute everything to the Anglo-Saxons other than the non-S21, non-S28 R1b (i.e effectively what we now know as L21 and subclades). As it so happens the vast majority in the west and north do seem to be L21 then bingo you get a phantom wipe-out. This is almost certainly nonsense and its perfectly possible that the Britons of the south and east had a good number of clades like S21 and S28 and several NW European I caldes that these studies attribute to the Anglo-Saxons simply because they are rate in the west. Well the SE and the west was already different in pre-Roman times and the Romans specifically state this in terms of culture, phenotype and even the Britons variable idea of their own origins (as blow-ins in the SE and indigenous in the 'interior'). The SE of England and the west were probably getting more and more different from the Copper Age (when the beaker impact was far
            > stronger in the south and east than the west) onwards through the Bronze Age and the differences were likely substantial after the Belgi arrived. So people doing these studies please stop (for reasons just discussed) using the silly simplistic formula:
            >
            > Haplotypes/clades found in SE England minus Haplotypes clades found in Wales=DNA brought by the Anglo-Saxons. ..
            >
            > .....and also the spin-off of this warped reasoning:
            >
            > pre-Anglo-Saxons= L21 (with a few old I clades)
            >
            > Its a gross oversimplification of the likely reality and its hugely skewing the figures towards the big Anglo-Saxon genocide theory. In fact if you represent the Anglo-Saxons by only the clades that must have been brought from the Anglo-Saxon homelands after the Romans then I am sure we would be looking at a very small input. That of course would be a minimum and almost certainly a big underestimate. The truth probably lies in between i.e. a substatial but very much minority input.
            >
            > Glad I got that off my chest : 0)
            >
            > Alan
            >
            > --- In walesdna@yahoogroup s.com, "ljcrain" <ljcrain2@> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > July-August 2009 > Features
            > > Who Killed the Men of England?
            > > The written record of history meets genomics, evolution, demography, and molecular archaeology.
            > > by Jonathan Shaw
            > >
            > > There are no signs of a massacre--no mass graves, no piles of bones. Yet more than a million men vanished without a trace. They left no descendants. Historians know that something dramatic happened in England just as the Roman empire was collapsing. When the Anglo-Saxons ?rst arrived in that northern outpost in the fourth century a.d.--whether as immigrants or invaders is debated--they encountered an existing Romano-Celtic population estimated at between 2 million and 3.7 million people. Latin and Celtic were the dominant languages. Yet the ensuing cultural transformation was so complete, says Goelet professor of medieval history Michael McCormick, that by the eighth century, English civilization considered itself completely Anglo-Saxon, spoke only Anglo-Saxon, and thought that everyone had "come over on the May?ower, as it were." This extraordinary change has had rami?cations down to the present, and is why so many people speak English rather than Latin or Celtic today. But how English culture was completely remade, the historical record does not say.
            > >
            > > Then, in 2002, scientists found a genetic signature in the DNA of living British men that hinted at an untold story of Anglo-Saxon conquest. The researchers were sampling Y-chromosomes, the sex chromosome passed down only in males, from men living in market towns named in the Domesday Book of 1086. Working along an east-west transect through central England and Wales, the scientists discovered that the mix of Y-chromosomes characteristic of men in the English towns was very different from that of men in the Welsh towns: Wales was the primary Celtic holdout in Western Britannia during the ascendance of the Anglo-Saxons. Using computer analysis, the researchers explored how such a pattern could have arisen and concluded that a massive replacement of the native fourth-century male Britons had taken place. Between 50 percent and 100 percent of indigenous English men today, the researchers estimate, are descended from Anglo-Saxons who arrived on England's eastern coast 16 centuries ago. So what happened? Mass killing, or "population replacement, " is one possible explanation. Mass migration of Anglo-Saxons, so that they swamped the native gene pool, is another.
            > >
            > > cont.
            > >
            > > http://harvardmagaz ine.com/2009/ 07/who-killed- the-men-england
            > >
            >




          • David.E Smith
            A kindred spirit. Contact me offline when you have the time and we ll talk. It sounds as if we have parallel journey s going on here. I m very much
            Message 5 of 12 , Jul 21 7:14 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              A kindred spirit. Contact me offline when you have the time and we'll talk. It sounds as if we have parallel journey's going on here. I'm very much interested in what you have learned. David

              David E.Smith
              TDOT/Reg #3/Right of Way/Excess Land
              6601 Centennial Bvld, 2nd Floor
              Nashville, TN 37243
              David.E.Smith@...
              (615) 350-4229
              fax (615) 350-4291/4410


              >>> On 7/21/2009 at 9:11 AM, in message <71B38371-451D-41B0-9E6C-DF4AC92E566F@...>, Douglas Neslund <justusla@...> wrote:

              The science of it all is the most fascinating! The fact that some genius somewhere can create a chip that can analyze and deduce differences that ten years ago would not have been possible, is what gives all of us hope.


              FWIW, I too am adopted - and have TWO great families to cherish and love! (It only got tough on Mother's Day and Christmas, but love will find a way ...)


              Doug


              PS. Looks like you are in Tennessee government. I have a nephew living in that beautiful state.






              On Jul 21, 2009, at 7:02 AM, David.E Smith wrote:


              Thanks for the encouragement. I need it. But, I have to say that just from what I've learned so far has been enough to stir me. It sounds like I'm bragging and I'm really not but the Powell name (as well as many others) seems to have quite a place in history and it's neat knowing I'm at least a small part of that. A small part indeed but a part nonetheless and from someone who is adopted and thought he'd never know anything this is quite a story already. And I can't thank the people I've met and conversed with enough for sharing with me. I can't wait to see where many of these stories go. It's like being in the theater and watching the introductions before the big movie. I got my popcorn and a good seat! David

              David E.Smith
              TDOT/Reg #3/Right of Way/Excess Land
              6601 Centennial Bvld, 2nd Floor
              Nashville, TN 37243
              David.E.Smith@...
              (615) 350-4229
              fax (615) 350-4291/4410


              >>> On 7/21/2009 at 8:40 AM, in message <E085361F-5DD7-43C3-8796-7A1631E66B2F@...>, Douglas Neslund <justusla@...> wrote:


              Trust me, David, most of us have been in your shoes (or moccasins) and euphoria is contagious in the early going! In my own search, I am back to the year 1567 (or thereabouts) and believe me, things can get pretty murky as one travels back in time.


              You will have read lots of email exchanges amongst the experts in these groups on weighty questions of, for instance, the origin of the ubiquitous L-21* of which I am a member. Everyone is full of gas: did they originate in Iberia, southern Germany, Romania, somewhere in Scotland or even Sweden?! The L-21s tends to be clumped in a few specific areas and that looks promising until you note that a lot of people from those two areas have been tested, versus other parts of the Isles and Europe that have not yet provided returns against which we who wait can be compared. So the L-21* class is waiting for the discovery of that magic marker that will split the group into two identifiable (somewhat) smaller groups.


              The waiting is the hard part!


              Best wishes on a successful search,
              Douglas Neslund (born Griffeth)
              Y-Search ID 2KJBR



              On Jul 21, 2009, at 6:26 AM, David.E Smith wrote:


              I remember a scene in one of the "Peanuts" classics in which Linus is playing tunes on his piano attempting to duplicate a song that Charlie Brown has heard and when he hits it, Charlie yells in excitement and Linus tumbles head over heels away from his piano. A kodak moment to be sure. I feel a little like good ole' Charlie right now. I'd heard of this "Clade" testing but I never knew what to make of it. My closest match/s are still 2 markers away at the 37 level so under this criteria I don't have use for it at the moment but I'm fascinated by the technology. I'm utterly caught up in the notion that we can look with such clarity into the distant past to see things we could never have dreamed of even ten years ago. For the first time the present can be linked to the distant past in a meaningful way. Fascinating.
              Other than being a confirmed Powell prodigy I don't have much else to go on though until I get a closer match. I do think the trail leads to Kentucky within the last two hundred years though. I just don't know when more results are going to show up from there. I'll stay tuned though. Thanks a bunch. David (Kit # 31545)

              David E.Smith
              TDOT/Reg #3/Right of Way/Excess Land
              6601 Centennial Bvld, 2nd Floor
              Nashville, TN 37243
              David.E.Smith@...
              (615) 350-4229
              fax (615) 350-4291/4410


              >>> On 7/20/2009 at 5:44 PM, in message <h42rvt+td57@...>, "mwwalsh" <mwwalsh7@...> wrote:


              David,

              I think you mean "clade" thing, right?

              Here is the definition of a clade according to answers.com: "A group of organisms, such as a species, whose members share homologous features derived from a common ancestor."

              You, siblings, all of your of you and your siblings' children are in a clade with the common ancestor being your father and also in another clade with a common ancestor being your mother.

              I think of it has a family, but it could be a super-family.

              We use SNP mutations to help identify clades, but regardless of any discovered SNP's, a clade is a group with a common ancestor.

              In the posting below, the author uses the word clade just like you might normally use the word haplogroup, but in reality they are not quite the same meaning.

              Mike

              --- In walesdna@yahoogroups.com, "David.E Smith" <david.e.smith@...> wrote:
              >
              > +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=*
              Reply Requested: Wednesday, July 22, 2009
              +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=*



              > Huh? Okay, somebodies gonna have to explain this clad thing to me. I was with you guys until we got into the clad testing. Somebody stop this merry-go-round! I want 'a get off! David
              >
              > David E.Smith
              > TDOT/Reg #3/Right of Way/Excess Land
              > 6601 Centennial Bvld, 2nd Floor
              > Nashville, TN 37243
              > David.E.Smith@...
              > (615) 350-4229
              > fax (615) 350-4291/4410
              >
              >
              > >>> On 7/20/2009 at 1:14 PM, in message <h42c5o+5j0k@...>, "basenji_luvr" <basenji_luvr@...> wrote:
              >
              > Here is a posting from the Rootsweb Mailing List 'genealogy-dna' discussing the article. I think there are many valid points here. Susan
              >
              > From: Alan R <al_r25@...>
              > Subject: Re: [DNA] Who killed the men of England -
              > Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
              >
              > Is there anything new in this? All the rubbish written about Anglo-Saxons replacing Britons is predicated that you take the modern Welsh to represent the ancient Britons of the whole of Britain and then simply look at how different in terms of y-DNA SE England is to Wales and how similar SE England is to Holland etc. Well, the idea that the Welsh can be taken to represent the pre-Roman Britons of SE England is frankly nonsense. It is highly likely that the slow transformation of SE England to more resemble the low countries than Wales was well underway long before the Anglo-Saxons. For a start we know of the Belgi who were in the Low Countries and SE England but not in Wales (other than a small number of refugees much later). The slow trickle of genes between the NW continent and SE England that didn't make it to Wales and the west in any numbers was probably going on for 3000 years before the Anglo-Saxons showed up and probably probably
              > peaked with the Belgi who straddled the Low countries and SE Britain.
              >
              > It is very likely that before the Romans reached Britain SE England and Wales were already far from identical in terms of genes, even if they did all fall into the umbrella term 'Britons' and spoke British Celtic. In fact we are told on arrival that the Romans observed major phenotype differences between the Welsh (the Silures tribe to be precise) and the average Briton. The Welsh were compared to Iberians (dark complexions and curly hair being cited), the Caledoni tribe of northern Scotland were compared to Germans (reddish hair and burly build being cited). The Romans also contrasted the shorter but blonder SE Britons (who would have included the Belgi) with the taller but darker haired 'interior' (north and west) Britons. The latter observation also included discussion of the SE Britons having some awareness of having been settlers from the continent in the past while for the interior Britons their origins were time out of mind
              > and they considered themselves indigenous). This all suggests that the Britons were to some degree heterogeneous in origin and different in mix. I know phenotype is based on autosomal genes not y-DNA but most gene flow in later prehistory that injected different elements into some of the Britons was probably heavily male in origin and therefore the different autosomal DNA was likely carried by the vector of predominantly male migration. So, its fair to say that those phenotype differences may well have been reflected in different y-DNA haplotype/clade proportions in the different areas.
              >
              > There are differences today across Britain in y-DNA count. I think there is a strong case that the Britons of different areas of Britain would have had different mixes of y-DNA before the Romans arrived. The likely differences were at least tending towards those of today with the SE having more input from NW Europe (from the Belgi back to the beaker people) with more of a tendency towards older y-lines and far less later input from the continent arriving in Wales and the west. So, I think there is a lot of evidence that the differentiation of SE England from Wales and interior Britain probably was well underway before the Anglo-Saxons. The Romans pretty well said as much. They specifically stated the physical and cultural resemblances of the south-east Britons and the north-east Belgic (Low Countries) area. So its quite wrong to attribute the y-DNA differences between SE England and Wales or the resemblance of SE England and the
              > Low Countries as all/largely being down to the post-Roman Gerrnanic invasions. The Anglo-Saxons likely simply topped up an existing difference between Wales and the west and SE England and an existing similarity between the SE England the the Low Countries etc. What proportion they topped up this difference by is unknown (opinions range from very little to substantial). However, there is clear evidence that a substantial amount of what makes SE England look more like NW Europe (Low countries etc) and different to Wales and the west is attributable to pre-Roman influx of genes which climaxed during the Belgic movements.
              >
              > Take away the silly idea that the modern Welsh (or indeed the ancient Welsh) were identical to the pre-Roman Britons of south-east England and most of the basis of the DNA argument for dramatic population replacement in England evaporates. In terms of specific groups, the detail is confusing but I am sure that there was plenty of S28 and probably S21 and NW European I clades folk among the Britons of SE England before the Romans. So, how do you do a headcount of DEFINITE Anglo-Saxon clades? As far as I can see you cant other than proven late post-100AD clades. I guess Ken is far more qualified to tell us how many clades of I can with reasonable certainty be attributed to the Anglo-Saxons and not earlier pre-Roman trickle (or larger Belgic) movement into SE England from NW Europe. I believe the numbers of such indisputable clades of a date and distribution that means that Anglo-Saxon attribution is certain is very small and if you
              > added up the proportion of people in SE England who have indisputably Anglo-Saxon (as opposed to simply NW European) clades you would have a very small total.
              >
              > Most of these Anglo-Saxon genocide scenarios simply attribute everything to the Anglo-Saxons other than the non-S21, non-S28 R1b (i.e effectively what we now know as L21 and subclades). As it so happens the vast majority in the west and north do seem to be L21 then bingo you get a phantom wipe-out. This is almost certainly nonsense and its perfectly possible that the Britons of the south and east had a good number of clades like S21 and S28 and several NW European I caldes that these studies attribute to the Anglo-Saxons simply because they are rate in the west. Well the SE and the west was already different in pre-Roman times and the Romans specifically state this in terms of culture, phenotype and even the Britons variable idea of their own origins (as blow-ins in the SE and indigenous in the 'interior'). The SE of England and the west were probably getting more and more different from the Copper Age (when the beaker impact was far
              > stronger in the south and east than the west) onwards through the Bronze Age and the differences were likely substantial after the Belgi arrived. So people doing these studies please stop (for reasons just discussed) using the silly simplistic formula:
              >
              > Haplotypes/clades found in SE England minus Haplotypes clades found in Wales=DNA brought by the Anglo-Saxons...
              >
              > .....and also the spin-off of this warped reasoning:
              >
              > pre-Anglo-Saxons=L21 (with a few old I clades)
              >
              > Its a gross oversimplification of the likely reality and its hugely skewing the figures towards the big Anglo-Saxon genocide theory. In fact if you represent the Anglo-Saxons by only the clades that must have been brought from the Anglo-Saxon homelands after the Romans then I am sure we would be looking at a very small input. That of course would be a minimum and almost certainly a big underestimate. The truth probably lies in between i.e. a substatial but very much minority input.
              >
              > Glad I got that off my chest : 0)
              >
              > Alan
              >
              > --- In walesdna@yahoogroups.com, "ljcrain" <ljcrain2@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > July-August 2009 > Features
              > > Who Killed the Men of England?
              > > The written record of history meets genomics, evolution, demography, and molecular archaeology.
              > > by Jonathan Shaw
              > >
              > > There are no signs of a massacre--no mass graves, no piles of bones. Yet more than a million men vanished without a trace. They left no descendants. Historians know that something dramatic happened in England just as the Roman empire was collapsing. When the Anglo-Saxons ?rst arrived in that northern outpost in the fourth century a.d.--whether as immigrants or invaders is debated--they encountered an existing Romano-Celtic population estimated at between 2 million and 3.7 million people. Latin and Celtic were the dominant languages. Yet the ensuing cultural transformation was so complete, says Goelet professor of medieval history Michael McCormick, that by the eighth century, English civilization considered itself completely Anglo-Saxon, spoke only Anglo-Saxon, and thought that everyone had "come over on the May?ower, as it were." This extraordinary change has had rami?cations down to the present, and is why so many people speak English rather than Latin or Celtic today. But how English culture was completely remade, the historical record does not say.
              > >
              > > Then, in 2002, scientists found a genetic signature in the DNA of living British men that hinted at an untold story of Anglo-Saxon conquest. The researchers were sampling Y-chromosomes, the sex chromosome passed down only in males, from men living in market towns named in the Domesday Book of 1086. Working along an east-west transect through central England and Wales, the scientists discovered that the mix of Y-chromosomes characteristic of men in the English towns was very different from that of men in the Welsh towns: Wales was the primary Celtic holdout in Western Britannia during the ascendance of the Anglo-Saxons. Using computer analysis, the researchers explored how such a pattern could have arisen and concluded that a massive replacement of the native fourth-century male Britons had taken place. Between 50 percent and 100 percent of indigenous English men today, the researchers estimate, are descended from Anglo-Saxons who arrived on England's eastern coast 16 centuries ago. So what happened? Mass killing, or "population replacement," is one possible explanation. Mass migration of Anglo-Saxons, so that they swamped the native gene pool, is another.
              > >
              > > cont.
              > >
              > > http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/07/who-killed-the-men-england
              > >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.