Charles and list, I wrote a rather comprehensive summary of the origins of WEBB and some of the earliest occurrences in the WEBB Surname DNA Project Newsletter some months back. All the past issues can be found at our website www.webbsurnamedna.org . I'll hit the highlights here, though. 1000 years ago is about right for the adoption of surnames, which occurred first in royalty and nobility. le Webbe, Webbe, Webb, Webster, Web, Webs, and other variants are occupational titles derived from the weaving/cloth trade. There was apparently an Anglo-Saxon given name of Webba (or something like that) and some think the name derived from that in some occurrences. English records show Webbes rather soon after 1000 A.D., which suggests that at least some of the early WEBBs had grown prosperous enough to using surnames, or at least the occupational designation, and to be recorded in deeds and wills and other official documents. By the 1300s some of the WEBBs were wealthy and powerful enough to have become "Sir." The rise of the guild system controlled entrance to the weaving occupation, and it became increasingly hereditary. This doesn't mean that all WEBBs were related in the beginning by any means. Moreover the records show that many WEBBs were moving out of the weaving industry altogether by the 1300s. They show up in records as shipwrights and ship masters, merchants, solicitors, ministers, bishops, and money men (factors, bankers). Others are shown as carpenters, farmers, labourers, architects and the like as the 1600s and 1700s pass. While it would be impossible to determine the number of separate WEBB lines without much more knowledge of the genealogies than I think any one person could amass in a lifetime, or without many, many more DNA samples than have been collected, I can tell you that the WEBB Surname DNA Project has identified at least 22 different WEBB lines among our 100+ participants. I would suspect that "thousands of individual Webb lines who are not related or don't have a common ancestor DNA match until you go back to the ice age" is an over-estimation at this point in time. Probably never was true that there were that many to begin with. I would be surprised if the number of distinct lines topped 100 and very surprised if it made it to 200 distinct lines, although I have nothing to back up that "gut estimate" other than the following facts. 1. The use of surnames (and laws regulating them) has been pretty well entrenched for about 400 years, meaning that new WEBB lines can arise only through a limited number of mechanisms a. legal adoptions in which a new DNA line may be introduced, b. a male child of a WEBB woman using his mother's surname instead of his biological father's c. legal name change to WEBB d. illegal name changes. I have no idea which of these would contribute the most new WEBB lines, but I'd guess that altogether they don't amount to anywhere near 1000s of new lines arising annually or even within a decade. 2. Lines "daughter out," end in childlessness, have their sons wiped out in wars, accidents, etc with some regularity. This means there is probably a larger likelihood the number of lines has diminished since say 1600 rather than increased. 3. Smaller family sizes in industrialized nations which means that #2 has probably accelerated somewhat in the last 200 years or so An example: My Webb Line Elias Webb (c. 1785, NC/GA?-1850/60, GA?) had 6 sons born between 1815 and 1839. 1/3 of the 6 sons died in the Civil War. Of the remaining 4 sons, one had three sons, one had one son, my greatgreatgrandfather had 7 sons - 2 dying as infants, and one had 4 sons. My greatgrandfather had 4 sons, one dying at 20 childless, one had only one child and that was a girl, one had two sons one of whom had no sons and the other of whom had three sons -- and only two of them have sons (1 apiece), and one had one son who had one son who had one son who has one son -- and he does not carry the WEBB name. Similar patterns hold on the lines of the other 4 sons of my oldest known WEBB ancestor. I haven't counted up, and granted I haven't traced every little twig, but it doesn't look as if this line of WEBBs will be around in 100 years. Fortunately, we have 5 DNA matches which means this DNA line continues. The WEBB DNA Surname Project hopes to be able to answer questions like those Charles has asked. How many WEBB lines ARE there which aren't recently related? Anne

Anne, Thanks for the reply. I was phishing for a reply from you when I sent the email. I generally read the newsletter but missed this topic. Your reply was what I was looking for. I'm sure it was of interest to the Webb List also. I will print it out and add it to my Webb folder. Charles Webb --- [email protected] wrote: > Charles and list, > > I wrote a rather comprehensive summary of the > origins of WEBB and some of > the earliest occurrences in the WEBB Surname DNA > Project Newsletter some months > back. All the past issues can be found at our > website > www.webbsurnamedna.org . I'll hit the highlights > here, though. > > 1000 years ago is about right for the adoption of > surnames, which occurred > first in royalty and nobility. le Webbe, Webbe, > Webb, Webster, Web, Webs, and > other variants are occupational titles derived from > the weaving/cloth trade. > There was apparently an Anglo-Saxon given name of > Webba (or something like > that) and some think the name derived from that in > some occurrences. English > records show Webbes rather soon after 1000 A.D., > which suggests that at least > some of the early WEBBs had grown prosperous enough > to using surnames, or at > least the occupational designation, and to be > recorded in deeds and wills > and other official documents. By the 1300s some of > the WEBBs were wealthy and > powerful enough to have become "Sir." > > The rise of the guild system controlled entrance to > the weaving occupation, > and it became increasingly hereditary. This doesn't > mean that all WEBBs were > related in the beginning by any means. Moreover the > records show that many > WEBBs were moving out of the weaving industry > altogether by the 1300s. They > show up in records as shipwrights and ship masters, > merchants, solicitors, > ministers, bishops, and money men (factors, > bankers). Others are shown as > carpenters, farmers, labourers, architects and the > like as the 1600s and 1700s > pass. > > While it would be impossible to determine the number > of separate WEBB lines > without much more knowledge of the genealogies than > I think any one person > could amass in a lifetime, or without many, many > more DNA samples than have been > collected, I can tell you that the WEBB Surname DNA > Project has identified > at least 22 different WEBB lines among our 100+ > participants. > > I would suspect that "thousands of individual Webb > lines who are not related > or don't have a common ancestor DNA match until you > go back to the ice age" > is an over-estimation at this point in time. > Probably never was true that > there were that many to begin with. I would be > surprised if the number of > distinct lines topped 100 and very surprised if it > made it to 200 distinct lines, > although I have nothing to back up that "gut > estimate" other than the > following facts. > > 1. The use of surnames (and laws regulating them) > has been pretty well > entrenched for about 400 years, meaning that new > WEBB lines can arise only > through a limited number of mechanisms > a. legal adoptions in which a new DNA line > may be introduced, > b. a male child of a WEBB woman using his > mother's surname instead of > his biological father's > c. legal name change to WEBB > d. illegal name changes. > I have no idea which of these would contribute the > most new WEBB lines, but > I'd guess that altogether they don't amount to > anywhere near 1000s of new > lines arising annually or even within a decade. > 2. Lines "daughter out," end in childlessness, > have their sons wiped out > in wars, accidents, etc with some regularity. This > means there is probably a > larger likelihood the number of lines has diminished > since say 1600 rather > than increased. > 3. Smaller family sizes in industrialized nations > which means that #2 has > probably accelerated somewhat in the last 200 years > or so > > An example: My Webb Line Elias Webb (c. 1785, > NC/GA?-1850/60, GA?) had 6 > sons born between 1815 and 1839. > > 1/3 of the 6 sons died in the Civil War. > Of the remaining 4 sons, one had three sons, one had > one son, my > greatgreatgrandfather had 7 sons - 2 dying as > infants, and one had 4 sons. > My greatgrandfather had 4 sons, one dying at 20 > childless, one had only one > child and that was a girl, one had two sons one of > whom had no sons and the > other of whom had three sons -- and only two of them > have sons (1 apiece), and > one had one son who had one son who had one son who > has one son -- and he > does not carry the WEBB name. Similar patterns hold > on the lines of the other 4 > sons of my oldest known WEBB ancestor. I haven't > counted up, and granted I > haven't traced every little twig, but it doesn't > look as if this line of WEBBs > will be around in 100 years. Fortunately, we have > 5 DNA matches which > means this DNA line continues. > > > The WEBB DNA Surname Project hopes to be able to > answer questions like those > Charles has asked. How many WEBB lines ARE there > which aren't recently > related? > > Anne > > > ==== WEBB Mailing List ==== > <<Webb Genealogy; History and Family Traditions >> > To change list modes, leave, or contact list admin > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/surname/w/webb.html > Use < > http://resources.rootsweb.com/surnames/w/e/WEBB/ > > To connect to your list website and post your web > links and family pages > To Webb notes see http://www.wvi.com/~wb > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com