World Families Forums - R-U106(S21) Variance: Round 1

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 28, 2014, 08:03:06 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  R-U106(S21) Variance: Round 1
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: R-U106(S21) Variance: Round 1  (Read 5605 times)
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 23, 2011, 10:35:46 AM »

I assume the times given by Tim Janzen are years before present?
Yes, ybp.


As for the respective apparent scarcity of M222 and U198 in Scandinavia, most people will tell you that a small amount of M222 is found there because their ancestors were Viking slaves, while U198 is scarce there because they all pulled up roots and moved to England with the Anglo-Saxons. Thus nearly identical evidence is interpreted differently because of established preconceptions about what the results "must" be.
There is no doubt there are preconceived notions that drive our thinking in many cases. That's why I like to collect and analyze the genetic (only) data as deeply as possible. I don't want to assume it is this or that. I do think the value is in overlaying it with archeological, linguistic and other types of data, but I like to consider the multi-discipline alignment as a separate step.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 10:36:04 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #26 on: August 23, 2011, 05:44:03 PM »

If U198 really is a very old subclade (as old as U106 as a whole) and its also oldest in England according to variance then it does tend to support the idea that at least some U106 was a prehistoric entry to England.  Or if it did originate on the continent.  The fact that one lineage grew to be bigger in England is suggestive more of a very successful lineage rather than a large folk movement.  However if that happened then surely the variance would be low for some sort of super lineage that mainly expanded in England.  It seems easier to interpret it as a clade founded in England soon after U106 arrived there.  


How much of English U106 is U198?

It definately feels to me that interpreting U198, a mainly English clade (almost as old as U106) with its highest variance in England as a Anglo-Saxon marker is a clear example of preconception.  If the same logic is applied to this as other clades then surely this would be seen a beaker period movement from Holland with the SNP either occurring on the continent shortly before movement to England or just after.   I am not saying that is correct but that would seem more consistent. 
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #27 on: August 23, 2011, 06:42:32 PM »

If U198 really is a very old subclade (as old as U106 as a whole) and its also oldest in England according to variance then it does tend to support the idea that at least some U106 was a prehistoric entry to England.  Or if it did originate on the continent.  The fact that one lineage grew to be bigger in England is suggestive more of a very successful lineage rather than a large folk movement.  However if that happened then surely the variance would be low for some sort of super lineage that mainly expanded in England.  It seems easier to interpret it as a clade founded in England soon after U106 arrived there.  


How much of English U106 is U198?

It definately feels to me that interpreting U198, a mainly English clade (almost as old as U106) with its highest variance in England as a Anglo-Saxon marker is a clear example of preconception.  If the same logic is applied to this as other clades then surely this would be seen a beaker period movement from Holland with the SNP either occurring on the continent shortly before movement to England or just after.   I am not saying that is correct but that would seem more consistent.  

I think it is an entirely reasonable scenario that some U106, including U198, began arriving in Britain as early as the Bronze Age, possibly with Beakers from Holland. It was thought at one time that U198 was actually born in England, but I don't know what the current thinking is on the subject. If it was in fact born on the continent, it is also entirely possible that additional U198 came with the Anglo-Saxons. I have little doubt that much, if not most, of the U106 in England came there with the Anglo-Saxons. What I find highly unlikely is the generally accepted dogma that they were unable to cross the channel from Holland to Britain between the Bronze Age and the 4th century AD.

As to your earlier question, U198 is quite small, but so far the overwhelming majority of it is found in England. It appears to be very sparse on the continent, and, as I said before, all but absent from Scandinavia. This has been explained, as I said above, as due to the fact they all abandoned their Anglo-Saxon homelands and migrated to England.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 06:53:33 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #28 on: August 23, 2011, 09:36:44 PM »

Didn't Bede actually say that the Angles abandoned Angeln? I'm not trying to claim that U198 came from there (personally, I don't much care where it came from), but I do seem to recall a statement from Bede about some of the Anglo-Saxons leaving their homelands pretty much lock, stock, and barrel.

I'll see if I can't find the passage I'm talking about.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #29 on: August 23, 2011, 10:00:43 PM »

Didn't Bede actually say that the Angles abandoned Angeln? I'm not trying to claim that U198 came from there (personally, I don't much care where it came from), but I do seem to recall a statement from Bede about some of the Anglo-Saxons leaving their homelands pretty much lock, stock, and barrel.

I'll see if I can't find the passage I'm talking about.


Here it is. From Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 15:

"From the Angles, that is, from the country which is called Angulus, and is said to have remained uninhabited from that day to this, between the provinces of the Jutes and Saxons, are sprung the East Angles, Middle Angles, Mercians, the entire Northumbrian stock - the people, that is, who live north of the river Humber - and the other people of the Angles."
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #30 on: August 24, 2011, 06:55:35 PM »

Didn't Bede actually say that the Angles abandoned Angeln? I'm not trying to claim that U198 came from there (personally, I don't much care where it came from), but I do seem to recall a statement from Bede about some of the Anglo-Saxons leaving their homelands pretty much lock, stock, and barrel.

I'll see if I can't find the passage I'm talking about.


Here it is. From Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 15:

"From the Angles, that is, from the country which is called Angulus, and is said to have remained uninhabited from that day to this, between the provinces of the Jutes and Saxons, are sprung the East Angles, Middle Angles, Mercians, the entire Northumbrian stock - the people, that is, who live north of the river Humber - and the other people of the Angles."

Yes, that is the basis for the argument that the virtual absence of U198 in the homelands of the Angles proves they must be Angles.  This argument apparently only applies to U198, and not to any other subclades which are either present or absent in the Anglian homelands.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #31 on: August 24, 2011, 07:23:57 PM »

I also seem to remember reading that many of the Terpen (villages built on big mounds of dirt and cow manure) along the North Sea coast were also abandoned during the Migration Period. That used to be used as an argument for mass migration to southern and eastern Britain by the Anglo-Saxons.
Logged

alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #32 on: August 24, 2011, 07:24:14 PM »

well I looked at the U198 maps for Britain and it has a very poor correlation with the former Anglian kingdoms.  Well over half of it is in Saxon or hold-out British Celtic territory.  On the continent it seems pretty scattered in NW Europe.  I dont find a lot of support for the Anglian idea in the maps
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #33 on: August 27, 2011, 09:43:58 PM »

well I looked at the U198 maps for Britain and it has a very poor correlation with the former Anglian kingdoms.  Well over half of it is in Saxon or hold-out British Celtic territory.  On the continent it seems pretty scattered in NW Europe.  I dont find a lot of support for the Anglian idea in the maps

I mentioned this on the DNA forum, but for those who don't participate there, I will repeat it here. I checked the data from the second Myres' study for U198 in England. The highest density was in northwest England at 6.4%. That is nearly double the U198 density in southeast England (3.8%), and triple that in eastern and central England (2.3% and 2.4% respectively). I can't see this being consistent with a marker that is claimed to be exclusively Anglian or even Anglo-Saxon, but I defer to Authun, who undoubtedly knows more about Anglo-Saxon settlement in England than me.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #34 on: August 28, 2011, 07:31:51 AM »

well I looked at the U198 maps for Britain and it has a very poor correlation with the former Anglian kingdoms.  Well over half of it is in Saxon or hold-out British Celtic territory.  On the continent it seems pretty scattered in NW Europe.  I dont find a lot of support for the Anglian idea in the maps

I mentioned this on the DNA forum, but for those who don't participate there, I will repeat it here. I checked the data from the second Myres' study for U198 in England. The highest density was in northwest England at 6.4%. That is nearly double the U198 density in southeast England (3.8%), and triple that in eastern and central England (2.3% and 2.4% respectively). I can't see this being consistent with a marker that is claimed to be exclusively Anglian or even Anglo-Saxon, but I defer to Authun, who undoubtedly knows more about Anglo-Saxon settlement in England than me.

Of course, a lot depends on precisely where we are talking about in NW England, but, in general, in the post-Roman Period it was divided between the old kingdoms of Strathclyde (mostly in SW Scotland) and Rheged.

Rheged was eventually annexed by Northumbria, which was in fact an Anglian kingdom.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 07:34:10 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #35 on: August 28, 2011, 12:01:27 PM »

well I looked at the U198 maps for Britain and it has a very poor correlation with the former Anglian kingdoms.  Well over half of it is in Saxon or hold-out British Celtic territory.  On the continent it seems pretty scattered in NW Europe.  I dont find a lot of support for the Anglian idea in the maps

I mentioned this on the DNA forum, but for those who don't participate there, I will repeat it here. I checked the data from the second Myres' study for U198 in England. The highest density was in northwest England at 6.4%. That is nearly double the U198 density in southeast England (3.8%), and triple that in eastern and central England (2.3% and 2.4% respectively). I can't see this being consistent with a marker that is claimed to be exclusively Anglian or even Anglo-Saxon, but I defer to Authun, who undoubtedly knows more about Anglo-Saxon settlement in England than me.

Of course, a lot depends on precisely where we are talking about in NW England, but, in general, in the post-Roman Period it was divided between the old kingdoms of Strathclyde (mostly in SW Scotland) and Rheged.

Rheged was eventually annexed by Northumbria, which was in fact an Anglian kingdom.

It looks like the sample you were talking about, the one with the highest frequency of U198, was taken from Leeds, or that region.  Leeds was in the 5th-century British kingdom of Elmet but became part of either Mercia or Northumbria (I can't tell which from the maps - maybe authun knows). Either way, both Mercia and Northumbria were Anglian kingdoms.
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #36 on: August 28, 2011, 04:07:57 PM »

well I looked at the U198 maps for Britain and it has a very poor correlation with the former Anglian kingdoms.  Well over half of it is in Saxon or hold-out British Celtic territory.  On the continent it seems pretty scattered in NW Europe.  I dont find a lot of support for the Anglian idea in the maps

I mentioned this on the DNA forum, but for those who don't participate there, I will repeat it here. I checked the data from the second Myres' study for U198 in England. The highest density was in northwest England at 6.4%. That is nearly double the U198 density in southeast England (3.8%), and triple that in eastern and central England (2.3% and 2.4% respectively). I can't see this being consistent with a marker that is claimed to be exclusively Anglian or even Anglo-Saxon, but I defer to Authun, who undoubtedly knows more about Anglo-Saxon settlement in England than me.

Of course, a lot depends on precisely where we are talking about in NW England, but, in general, in the post-Roman Period it was divided between the old kingdoms of Strathclyde (mostly in SW Scotland) and Rheged.

Rheged was eventually annexed by Northumbria, which was in fact an Anglian kingdom.

It looks like the sample you were talking about, the one with the highest frequency of U198, was taken from Leeds, or that region.  Leeds was in the 5th-century British kingdom of Elmet but became part of either Mercia or Northumbria (I can't tell which from the maps - maybe authun knows). Either way, both Mercia and Northumbria were Anglian kingdoms.

Yes, the British kingdom of Elmet was eventually brought under control of the Northumbrians, but unless one posits a greater population replacement there than in the areas first settled by the Angles, there is no reason why the amount of U198 there should be two or three times greater than in the others.

Incidentally someone on another forum has pointed out that the data from Busby also shows U198 amongst the Basques, Corsicans, and in a sample from  the mouth of the Rhone. I guess the Angles really got around.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #37 on: August 28, 2011, 04:14:31 PM »

well I looked at the U198 maps for Britain and it has a very poor correlation with the former Anglian kingdoms.  Well over half of it is in Saxon or hold-out British Celtic territory.  On the continent it seems pretty scattered in NW Europe.  I dont find a lot of support for the Anglian idea in the maps

I mentioned this on the DNA forum, but for those who don't participate there, I will repeat it here. I checked the data from the second Myres' study for U198 in England. The highest density was in northwest England at 6.4%. That is nearly double the U198 density in southeast England (3.8%), and triple that in eastern and central England (2.3% and 2.4% respectively). I can't see this being consistent with a marker that is claimed to be exclusively Anglian or even Anglo-Saxon, but I defer to Authun, who undoubtedly knows more about Anglo-Saxon settlement in England than me.

Of course, a lot depends on precisely where we are talking about in NW England, but, in general, in the post-Roman Period it was divided between the old kingdoms of Strathclyde (mostly in SW Scotland) and Rheged.

Rheged was eventually annexed by Northumbria, which was in fact an Anglian kingdom.

It looks like the sample you were talking about, the one with the highest frequency of U198, was taken from Leeds, or that region.  Leeds was in the 5th-century British kingdom of Elmet but became part of either Mercia or Northumbria (I can't tell which from the maps - maybe authun knows). Either way, both Mercia and Northumbria were Anglian kingdoms.

Yes, the British kingdom of Elmet was eventually brought under control of the Northumbrians, but unless one posits a greater population replacement there than in the areas first settled by the Angles, there is no reason why the amount of U198 there should be two or three times greater than in the others.

Incidentally someone on another forum has pointed out that the data from Busby also shows U198 amongst the Basques, Corsicans, and in a sample from  the mouth of the Rhone. I guess the Angles really got around.

I might have missed something, but I just checked the French stuff pretty thoroughly a little while ago. There was no U198 there at all.

I haven't checked the Spanish or Corsican stuff (if there is Corsican stuff), but I would be really surprised if there was any U198 there. I suspect that other poster is mistaken.

Once again, I don't care where U198 came from, but I don't think you can argue that it is found in England far removed from Anglian territory.

I also think that if you look at the Busby data, it only reinforces the general picture of U106 having a strong connection to the Germanic peoples.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 04:16:43 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #38 on: August 28, 2011, 04:20:18 PM »

Remember, too, that the sample size in Leeds was 47. 6.4% U198 means they found a whole THREE U198 guys there! :-O

I wouldn't want to hang much of any kind of argument about U198 and its origin on three guys.
Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #39 on: August 28, 2011, 04:29:11 PM »

 No, the reporter wasn't mistaken about U198 among the Basques, Corsicans and the sample from the mouth of the Rhone. I have seen it myself in the Busby supplementary data. If there is an error, it must be with the data posted by the study itself.

Because U198 tends to be very small, the number identified in any study is also correspondingly small. One U198 individual in the Myres' data from Denmark was sufficient to give rise to the theory it was an Anglian marker. If one doesn't want to hang one's hat on small numbers of U198, one can't say anything about it at all, which is essentially my position. I take no stand on what it was; my position is simply that the idea that is is exclusively an Anglian marker is completely lacking in proof. 
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #40 on: August 28, 2011, 04:35:06 PM »

I just glanced back through the Busby data at the latitudes and longitudes that could be in Spain or Corsica, and I did not see anything in the "O" column (that's the U198 column) for any of those places. Maybe I missed it.

I take back what I said about France. They did find one U198 guy (out of a sample of 207) in the area of Lambesc, which is north of Marseille. That was it for France, though.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 04:35:35 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #41 on: August 28, 2011, 04:46:58 PM »

I am wondering what Mike's U198 sample size was for calculating its variance. If it's that small, even in England, how can much be said about it at all?
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #42 on: August 28, 2011, 04:57:17 PM »

I just glanced back through the Busby data at the latitudes and longitudes that could be in Spain or Corsica, and I did not see anything in the "O" column (that's the U198 column) for any of those places. Maybe I missed it.

I take back what I said about France. They did find one U198 guy (out of a sample of 207) in the area of Lambesc, which is north of Marseille. That was it for France, though.

Okay, I did find one more (out of a sample size of six) in France, near Bayonne, which may be what that other poster meant by the Basque Country.

I'm glad I didn't start a thread about the French data! That one was not in the same general area of the Excel chart with the other French stuff. I would have missed it. Of course, with a sample size of 6, I wouldn't have been missing much.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 04:57:52 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #43 on: August 28, 2011, 05:15:20 PM »

At last! I did find the Corsican data, sample size 24. It was the entry at 42.0396 9.012893, and it, too, was in kind of an out-of-the-way place on the Excel chart relative to the other stuff of similar latitude and longitude.

Apparently there were two U198 guys there!

Reminds me of an old joke I heard in the past:

"Run away! There are two of them!" ;-)

There was one L21+ on Corsica, too!

« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 05:16:10 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #44 on: August 28, 2011, 05:31:47 PM »

I cannot find any U198 in Busby at what look like Spanish latitudes and longitudes, and I am going to stop trying now. Maybe it's there, but I don't see it.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #45 on: August 28, 2011, 05:41:18 PM »

. . .

The one really strange thing about this is that U198 seems to be oldest subclade of U106. It's most prevalent and oldest in England though.  What do studies show about U198? Would an early form of U106, i.e. U198, have moved into the British Isles before the Anglo-Saxons and the history we know about?

Mike,

Now my curiosity is aroused, which is weird, because I usually don't give U198/S29 much thought at all.

I just looked at the U198 Project: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/U198/default.aspx?section=yresults

It's a sizable project, but it seems really light on continental members. I counted ten of them in the whole thing of however many there are.

Do you have another source of continental U198 haplotypes so that you can get a good variance calculation on them?

It seems to me you have enough Isles stuff there to get a fair idea of U198's age in the British Isles, but I would think ten haplotypes too few to tell you much about U198 on the Continent. But I'm not a math guy, so maybe I'm wrong.

Of course, U198/S29 has been known for at least as long as I've been involved in this hobby. Perhaps it's short on the Continent in reality because it really is Isles-localized.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 05:42:38 PM by rms2 » Logged

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #46 on: August 28, 2011, 08:54:54 PM »

. . .

The one really strange thing about this is that U198 seems to be oldest subclade of U106. It's most prevalent and oldest in England though.  What do studies show about U198? Would an early form of U106, i.e. U198, have moved into the British Isles before the Anglo-Saxons and the history we know about?

Mike,

Now my curiosity is aroused, which is weird, because I usually don't give U198/S29 much thought at all.

I just looked at the U198 Project: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/U198/default.aspx?section=yresults

It's a sizable project, but it seems really light on continental members. I counted ten of them in the whole thing of however many there are.

Do you have another source of continental U198 haplotypes so that you can get a good variance calculation on them?

It seems to me you have enough Isles stuff there to get a fair idea of U198's age in the British Isles, but I would think ten haplotypes too few to tell you much about U198 on the Continent. But I'm not a math guy, so maybe I'm wrong.

Of course, U198/S29 has been known for at least as long as I've been involved in this hobby. Perhaps it's short on the Continent in reality because it really is Isles-localized.

Let me just reiterate my position on U198, which I tried to explain above. My position is simply:

1. The possibility that a not insignificant amount of U198 (and possibly some other U106 subclades) crossed the channel and settled in England prior to the coming of the Romans should not be dismissed out of hand.

2. There is no evidence to support the firmly held belief that U198 is exclusively associated with the Anglo-Saxons.

I might add that I read elsewhere that another U106 subclade (L8) is concentrated in England, and appears to be very sparse in the continent. Once again, apparently none has been found to date in Scandinavia. And once again, this is being explained by the same argument: that they are Angles who abandoned in toto their Scandinavian homeland for England. It's far too early to say how this will all pan out, but I find it exasperating that a strong presence in England and a sparse one in Scandinavia will be explained by abandonment if U106 is involved, but by Viking slavery if P312 is involved.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 09:01:21 PM by GoldenHind » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #47 on: August 29, 2011, 03:13:01 PM »

I don't have a position on U198. Maybe it arose in Britain. Maybe it arose on the Continent.

I do think U106 as a whole is a pretty good match for the Germanic peoples in general, but that doesn't mean all U106ers are descendants of Germanic tribesmen or Vikings. Probably some U106 of some kind got to Britain before the historical period, but who knows how much?

I also think some of the U106 in Scandinavia has to be chalked up to the Viking slave trade, especially in Denmark and Danish-controlled areas, since the old Danelaw in England was probably pretty rank with U106. I doubt the Danes, if they were hauling Anglo-Saxon thralls back to Denmark and what used to be Denmark, stopped to dna test their victims and excluded all the U106 guys.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 29, 2011, 04:57:01 PM »

The one really strange thing about this is that U198 seems to be oldest subclade of U106. It's most prevalent and oldest in England though.  What do studies show about U198? Would an early form of U106, i.e. U198, have moved into the British Isles before the Anglo-Saxons and the history we know about?

Mike,

... I just looked at the U198 Project: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/U198/default.aspx?section=yresults

It's a sizable project, but it seems really light on continental members. I counted ten of them in the whole thing of however many there are.

Do you have another source of continental U198 haplotypes so that you can get a good variance calculation on them?

It seems to me you have enough Isles stuff there to get a fair idea of U198's age in the British Isles, but I would think ten haplotypes too few to tell you much about U198 on the Continent. But I'm not a math guy, so maybe I'm wrong. ...
I copied data from about 15-20 geographic projects as well as U198, U106 and R1b. I could only come up with 14 U198 from the continent, twelve of which are 67 STRs. I don't feel like a a variance calculation on 12 people is reliable but the results seem to be 5-10% higher variance on the continent than on the Isles. Most of the continentals are from Germany or the Netherlands.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #49 on: August 29, 2011, 06:18:11 PM »

The one really strange thing about this is that U198 seems to be oldest subclade of U106. It's most prevalent and oldest in England though.  What do studies show about U198? Would an early form of U106, i.e. U198, have moved into the British Isles before the Anglo-Saxons and the history we know about?

Mike,

... I just looked at the U198 Project: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/U198/default.aspx?section=yresults

It's a sizable project, but it seems really light on continental members. I counted ten of them in the whole thing of however many there are.

Do you have another source of continental U198 haplotypes so that you can get a good variance calculation on them?

It seems to me you have enough Isles stuff there to get a fair idea of U198's age in the British Isles, but I would think ten haplotypes too few to tell you much about U198 on the Continent. But I'm not a math guy, so maybe I'm wrong. ...
I copied data from about 15-20 geographic projects as well as U198, U106 and R1b. I could only come up with 14 U198 from the continent, twelve of which are 67 STRs. I don't feel like a a variance calculation on 12 people is reliable but the results seem to be 5-10% higher variance on the continent than on the Isles. Most of the continentals are from Germany or the Netherlands.

It makes sense that U198 would be born on the continent if its similar in age to U106 and it get round the issue of back migration being required.  However, that doesnt change the fact that the timing suggested by the variance is much older than the Anglo-Saxons if it is interpreted in the same way as all the other clades.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.196 seconds with 19 queries.