World Families Forums - England: Data From the Busby Study

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 30, 2014, 05:21:37 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)
| | |-+  England: Data From the Busby Study
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: England: Data From the Busby Study  (Read 4122 times)
MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #25 on: September 02, 2011, 09:00:57 AM »

And of course we shouldn’t exclude that some degree of Roman (or of Roman Empire Peoples) genes were amongst the same Britons and why not amongst the same Anglo-Saxons. ...
I've read that people think the Roman garrisons in some areas of Britain were manned by people from SE Europe.  We know the Roman armies on the continent included Germanic peoples like Aleric (too bad for the Romans they didn't handle his career development seriously.) Were Germanic peoples included with the Roman military in Romano-Britain?

A couple of years ago I found a website on Roman Britain and Hadrian's wall though, I can't remember the name.  However, it had some of the unit names of the troops stationed in various areas.  There were some from the Balkans and the lower Rhine like Batavians, but that may just be where the unit was originally formed.  I've also read that most of the troops came from Gaul and not as much from Germania.  So, essentially more R1b and L21? to layer over the pre-existing R1b.
Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #26 on: September 02, 2011, 09:06:40 AM »

This would seem to argue for U198 having been in England for quite a while before the Anglo-Saxons since the traces of it are so remote as you move towards and up the Jutland Peninsula.

I'm not too sure what you are getting at here as I am not familiar with the R1b subclades but, the migration period is not the only factor. Major changes occur in Jutland and the danish islands around 550 AD. All those germanic cremation cemetaries stop for example. Power appears to shift from tribal units and their territories and is replaced by power centralised around several places, by which we assume individuals on whom the new wealth was concentrated.

best
authun
Logged
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2964


WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 02, 2011, 09:45:41 AM »

This would seem to argue for U198 having been in England for quite a while before the Anglo-Saxons since the traces of it are so remote as you move towards and up the Jutland Peninsula.

I'm not too sure what you are getting at here as I am not familiar with the R1b subclades but, the migration period is not the only factor. Major changes occur in Jutland and the danish islands around 550 AD. All those germanic cremation cemetaries stop for example. Power appears to shift from tribal units and their territories and is replaced by power centralised around several places, by which we assume individuals on whom the new wealth was concentrated.

In the thread on U106(S21) variance we discussed the possibility that the U198 subclade of U106 along with probably some U106* folks got to England well before the Anglo-Saxon timeframe.
http://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10012.0
My reply #21 along with
GoldenHind's reply #46
and Rms2's reply #31 (on Terpen)
would catch you up on that.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 01:08:47 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>S6365>L705.2(&CTS11744,CTS6621)
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #28 on: September 02, 2011, 11:18:30 AM »

I refuse to believe King Arthur, if he existed, was descended from a Roman family, except in the sense that it was Romano-Briton, but that is just a matter of my own L21 sensibilities. Arthur is ours. ;-)
I read a book, of Barber if I remember well, where King Arthur and his family was reconstructed by an historic point of view and he descended from a Roman officer, with the three Roman names. It doesn't mean he was of Roman descent, probably not, because his surname seemed a foreign surname Latinized.
Unfortunately my 30000 books are piled up in my house rooms, but when I find it, certainly I'll send you author and title.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #29 on: September 02, 2011, 11:43:07 AM »

To Rich:

Chris Barber- David Pykitt, Journey to Avalon. The Final Discovery of King Arthur, Samuel Weiserm Inc., 1993, 1997.
Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #30 on: September 02, 2011, 04:53:38 PM »


Authun,

I would also like to know your response to the question I posed to you in my post #14 on the previous page of this thread.
Logged
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #31 on: September 02, 2011, 05:41:00 PM »

I would also like to know your response to the question I posed to you in my post #14 on the previous page of this thread.

Not so easily answered I'm afraid. There doesn't appear to be an overview of early settlement since Blair in 1953. Most archaeological assessments are published by county. for example, from "An Archaeological Resource Assessment and Research Agenda for the Early and Middle Anglo-Saxon Period (c. 400-850) in the East Midlands"

"There have been several national surveys of the archaeology and history of the British Isles which cover all or part of the 5th to 9th centuries. However, the period suffers to a great extent from being treated as the final chapter of any survey of Roman Britain or the first chapter of any work on the Vikings in Britain, or medieval England."

"Within the counties of Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire there is a need to collect archaeological data about almost all aspects of the period from the 5th to the mid 9th centuries. For topic after topic we can only interpret what little we have from the region by reference to fieldwork and excavations elsewhere. This is clearly not a satisfactory situation, since one of the themes which we would wish to pursue is to see whether at any point there are distinctive, regional differences in the archaeology of the region in comparison to its neighbours."

Both Weale and Capelli however show central england as having a high anglo saxon input, Capelli suggesting a cline of 75% in the east to 49% in the west.

The only areas I am familiar with are East and West Yorkshire, anglian Deira and celtic Elmet. Leeds would have been in Elmet and shows no signs of early anglian settlement. Although the neighbouring area of deira is strongly anglian, it is important to remember that the two kingdoms were largely separated with the only access being via the York to Chester roman road. The intriguing fortifications to the west of Tadcaster, Becca Banks and Grimms ditch may date back to this division, but dating has been largely elusive.

Gravesend is west of Faversham which was sampled by Capelli. It appears that jutish settlement increased further east and the settlement there may have been associated with the Saxon shore and laeti. 'Lats' still appear as a separate social grouping in the early law codes of the 7th cent. of Kent. These law codes are written in a jutish dialect and the area lacks the distinctive 'Frisian segment' on Thomas' map. The archaeology however does show affinities with northern Jutland rather than southern Jutland so this may reflect the difference in paternal lineages shown in this area. At the time of Capelli, nearby Faversham had an estimated germanic input of 49.5% and was seen as surprisingly low.

Exeter is fairly late as far as anglo saxons are concerned and I know little about it.

Of interest however is Chippenham and the upper thames valley area which is the area settled early, by the Gewissae. Capelli has it as 71% anglo saxon input and Thomas has it as one of the highest areas for instances of his 'frisian segment'. This is interesting as it is outside of the Danelaw area.

best
authun
Logged
GoldenHind
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 731


« Reply #32 on: September 02, 2011, 07:53:21 PM »



That is what I think happened. Once the Anglo-Saxons established a foothold in SE Britain, that provided a base for the continued immigration of their relatives and friends.


[/quote]

I agree with the scenario that the Anglo-Saxon intrusions very likely continued over a century or two. I suspect it was in some respects like the settlement of North America by Europeans, a gradual process.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #33 on: September 02, 2011, 08:01:44 PM »

To Rich:

Chris Barber- David Pykitt, Journey to Avalon. The Final Discovery of King Arthur, Samuel Weiserm Inc., 1993, 1997.

Thanks, Gioiello. Sounds good.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #34 on: September 02, 2011, 08:07:05 PM »


. . .

Of interest however is Chippenham and the upper thames valley area which is the area settled early, by the Gewissae. Capelli has it as 71% anglo saxon input and Thomas has it as one of the highest areas for instances of his 'frisian segment'. This is interesting as it is outside of the Danelaw area.

best
authun

I mentioned this in connection with Thomas' map on another thread, but I would beware the "Frisian segment" if it is based on a short haplotype. There are a fair number of us with 390=23 who match Oppenheimer's six-marker Frisian Modal Haplotype but who are U106- and probably not what is ultimately intended by it.
Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #35 on: September 02, 2011, 08:24:56 PM »

I think the last time I read and discussed Weale's paper was 2006, maybe 2007, so I am a little rusty on it. It's one of those funky, older papers that used old, cumbersome designations for y haplogroups. Isn't its hg2 really y haplogroup I? I seem to recall that as being right, but the paper says "hg2=BR*(xDE,JR)". If I am deciphering that correctly, that is basically y hap I, just as hg1, "P*(xR1a)", is basically just R1b.

If hg2 is y hap I, and I think it is, then the English samples show a substantial amount of it, especially in the east, in Bourne, Fakenham, and N. Walsham. Of course, not all of it would be I1, but probably most of it is. If a large amount of that came in with the Anglo-Saxons, along with U106, then that would indicate a substantial population input during the Migration Period.

If one accepts, for simplicity's sake, that R-U106 and I1 are Anglo-Saxon (and I know the true picture is more complex than that), then the A-S proportion of  English y-dna would range from a low of about 35% in Southwell to a high of around 60% or more in Fakenham.

The question is: How much U106 and I1 was already in what would become England when the Anglo-Saxons got there?

Short of aDNA from Ango-Saxon remains, wouldn't comparing the GD of Danish, German, and possibly the Low-Countries members with today's English give us an indication.  This A-S migration to the Isles was only about 1600 years ago and
maybe lasted a few centuries in the form of cross-channel movements.  At the 67 marker level, I think we would see Continental connections with the Isles with a small GD roughly in the 5-10 range on medium and fast markers.  I say 5-10 only as an example, realizing the uncertainty of STR variance and mutation behavior.
Quote from: rms2
I randomly picked a U106 guy from Ysearch: Harris, Ysearch CTJBS, who says his mdka came from Kent. I believe he is actually R-L48, but I did pick him randomly.

He has a lot of neighbors within 12 markers away at 67 markers. Here are a few continentals within a reasonable distance (there were a few more, but I got tired of writing them down).
The spreadsheet I have of U106 haplotypes allows me to compare everyone in the spreadsheet to any one person by GD (only at 67.) This is what I was trying to indicate in the thread about U198. The GD's are larger than 1600 ybp would indicate.  That's all STR variance calculations are, a way of reflecting GD's statistically.
U106* in England is also quite old but since it is a paragroup, that is less meaningful. I didn't really look at L1 and L48 yet.  Good news on the L48 front is they are finding more SNPs.

Mike, Can you elaborate on that?  How much larger are the GDs than would be expected for 1600 ybp?
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #36 on: September 02, 2011, 08:44:33 PM »

Do genetic distances for U198 in England greater than 1600 ybp necessarily indicate that U198 predates the Anglo-Saxons there, or merely that U198 itself is older than that? I can see how the U198 lines that came to Britain, perhaps with the Anglo-Saxons (perhaps not), and that have survived to this day, may not have been that closely related to each other. Why should we expect all of English U198 to coalesce at about the Migration Period? Doubtless it had a certain level of age on it before it ever got to Britain, assuming it wasn't born there.

If you took the variance of the L21 haplotypes in the Mid-Atlantic states of the USA, for example, I am guessing it would indicate an age of greater than 400 ybp. Does that mean L21 in, say, Pennsylvania predates European colonization of the region and can be attributed to the Amerindians?

« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 08:48:58 PM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #37 on: September 02, 2011, 09:03:56 PM »

Do genetic distances for U198 in England greater than 1600 ybp necessarily indicate that U198 predates the Anglo-Saxons there, or merely that U198 itself is older than that? I can see how the U198 lines that came to Britain, perhaps with the Anglo-Saxons (perhaps not), and that have survived to this day, may not have been that closely related to each other. Why should we expect all of English U198 to coalesce at about the Migration Period? Doubtless it had a certain level of age on it before it ever got to Britain, assuming it wasn't born there.

If you took the variance of the L21 haplotypes in the Mid-Atlantic states of the USA, for example, I am guessing it would indicate an age of greater than 400 ybp. Does that mean L21 in, say, Pennsylvania predates European colonization of the region and can be attributed to the Amerindians?


Correct me if I am wrong, but I think what you are looking at with the variance of a clade in a geographic region is a top-end age boundary. In other words, if a clade appears to be 3,000 years old in France, then it probably did not arrive there before that (plus or minus whatever the margin of error is). But that does not mean it actually did arrive there 3,000 years ago. The actual arrival of the clade in the region could have been much later. Variance does not really indicate how recently a clade might have arrived in a region.

It's kind of like using your metal detector and finding an 1880 silver dollar in a field near your home. You know it could not have arrived in the field before 1880, but you don't really know exactly when it did get there. Maybe it was dropped in the field in 1880 or maybe last week.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 09:12:30 PM by rms2 » Logged

MHammers
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


« Reply #38 on: September 03, 2011, 04:43:16 AM »

Here is a link on Roman Britain and what units served along Hadrian's wall.  I'm not sure how reliable it is, but it is interesting.  Even though the unit origins are diverse, the replacements over time probably came from Gaul and within Britain.

http://www.roman-britain.org/frontiers/hw_notitia.htm

Logged

Ydna: R1b-Z253**


Mtdna: T

OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #39 on: September 03, 2011, 07:24:00 AM »

And of course we shouldn’t exclude that some degree of Roman (or of Roman Empire Peoples) genes were amongst the same Britons and why not amongst the same Anglo-Saxons. ...
I've read that people think the Roman garrisons in some areas of Britain were manned by people from SE Europe.  We know the Roman armies on the continent included Germanic peoples like Aleric (too bad for the Romans they didn't handle his career development seriously.) Were Germanic peoples included with the Roman military in Romano-Britain?

A couple of years ago I found a website on Roman Britain and Hadrian's wall though, I can't remember the name.  However, it had some of the unit names of the troops stationed in various areas.  There were some from the Balkans and the lower Rhine like Batavians, but that may just be where the unit was originally formed.  I've also read that most of the troops came from Gaul and not as much from Germania.  So, essentially more R1b and L21? to layer over the pre-existing R1b.


Archaeologists working near the village of Dunning, found an Iron Age broch which has evidence of early contact between the Picts and the Roman Empire.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14730005

It appears that this site would be near the Antonine Wall.
Constuction of the wall started in the year 142, though no year has been given for the Roman type building.

Dunning is in Perth and Kinross
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_and_Kinross
Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #40 on: September 03, 2011, 08:21:33 AM »


Archaeologists working near the village of Dunning, found an Iron Age broch which has evidence of early contact between the Picts and the Roman Empire.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14730005

It appears that this site would be near the Antonine Wall.
Constuction of the wall started in the year 142, though no year has been given for the Roman type building.

Dunning is in Perth and Kinross
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_and_Kinross


Very interesting.

"Evidence shows that the Roman dwelling was destroyed by fire and then probably reoccupied by a Pictish warlord."
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #41 on: September 03, 2011, 01:38:28 PM »

Here is a link on Roman Britain and what units served along Hadrian's wall.  I'm not sure how reliable it is, but it is interesting.  Even though the unit origins are diverse, the replacements over time probably came from Gaul and within Britain.

http://www.roman-britain.org/frontiers/hw_notitia.htm

It is interesting that the Cornovii not only served as auxiliaries in the Roman Army but were allowed to so in their own tribal province (Cheshire and Shropshire in England, Powys in Wales).

Quote from: Dillon and Chadwick, The Celtic Realms, p.52

. . . [T]he Cornovii, the chief ancient tribe of the western border provinces, were in a position of great insecurity, owing to the disaffection and mountain raids of the Ordovices immediately to the west. Consequently they already held an exceptional responsibility and exceptional privileges under the Romans. They were the only British tribe that gave its own name to the unit of Imperial auxiliary troops; and this unit, also contrary to custom, continued to serve in its own province.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 01:42:45 PM by rms2 » Logged

authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #42 on: September 03, 2011, 01:41:01 PM »

I mentioned this in connection with Thomas' map on another thread, but I would beware the "Frisian segment" if it is based on a short haplotype. There are a fair number of us with 390=23 who match Oppenheimer's six-marker Frisian Modal Haplotype but who are U106- and probably not what is ultimately intended by it.

It was Capelli who found the 71% in Chippenham.

best
authun
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #43 on: September 03, 2011, 01:43:49 PM »

I mentioned this in connection with Thomas' map on another thread, but I would beware the "Frisian segment" if it is based on a short haplotype. There are a fair number of us with 390=23 who match Oppenheimer's six-marker Frisian Modal Haplotype but who are U106- and probably not what is ultimately intended by it.

It was Capelli who found the 71% in Chippenham.

best
authun

How many markers were in the haplotype he used? I don't recall.
Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #44 on: September 03, 2011, 02:22:55 PM »

I mentioned this in connection with Thomas' map on another thread, but I would beware the "Frisian segment" if it is based on a short haplotype. There are a fair number of us with 390=23 who match Oppenheimer's six-marker Frisian Modal Haplotype but who are U106- and probably not what is ultimately intended by it.

It was Capelli who found the 71% in Chippenham.

best
authun

I assume you are talking about Capelli et al's A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles.

Can you show me where he found 71% "Frisian segment" in Chippenham? I am not trying to argue with you or otherwise be contrary.

Chippenham seems too far west, and from what I can see of Capelli, in Table 1, IxI1b2 has a frequency there of just 6%, which would seem to indicate that the A-S component there wasn't that large. Also it has "AMH+1" in Chippenham at 49% and "R1xR1a1" as 16%. I don't see how that leaves room for a 71% Frisian segment.

I must confess that I don't recall what "2.47+1" is, other than some kind of y-hap I. Nor do I recall what "3.65+1" is, other than some kind of R1a. Maybe "2.47+1" is I1. If so, that would bring the I1 (presumably part of the  A-S component) frequency in Chippenham up to 14%, which could signify greater A-S presence there.

The nomenclature in older reports like Capelli's is aggravating.

I see that Capelli used just six STR markers.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 02:32:58 PM by rms2 » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #45 on: September 03, 2011, 02:27:22 PM »

Do genetic distances for U198 in England greater than 1600 ybp necessarily indicate that U198 predates the Anglo-Saxons there, or merely that U198 itself is older than that? I can see how the U198 lines that came to Britain, perhaps with the Anglo-Saxons (perhaps not), and that have survived to this day, may not have been that closely related to each other. Why should we expect all of English U198 to coalesce at about the Migration Period? Doubtless it had a certain level of age on it before it ever got to Britain, assuming it wasn't born there.

If you took the variance of the L21 haplotypes in the Mid-Atlantic states of the USA, for example, I am guessing it would indicate an age of greater than 400 ybp. Does that mean L21 in, say, Pennsylvania predates European colonization of the region and can be attributed to the Amerindians?



I thought Mike was referring to GD of matches between English and continental U198.  That would arguably tell us something. If the U198 on the continent are a remnant of the Anglo-Saxons who stayed behind then then at least some matches should be close enough to have been within the last 1600 years.   If not then that would be interesting if not conclusive.  
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #46 on: September 03, 2011, 02:38:11 PM »

Do genetic distances for U198 in England greater than 1600 ybp necessarily indicate that U198 predates the Anglo-Saxons there, or merely that U198 itself is older than that? I can see how the U198 lines that came to Britain, perhaps with the Anglo-Saxons (perhaps not), and that have survived to this day, may not have been that closely related to each other. Why should we expect all of English U198 to coalesce at about the Migration Period? Doubtless it had a certain level of age on it before it ever got to Britain, assuming it wasn't born there.

If you took the variance of the L21 haplotypes in the Mid-Atlantic states of the USA, for example, I am guessing it would indicate an age of greater than 400 ybp. Does that mean L21 in, say, Pennsylvania predates European colonization of the region and can be attributed to the Amerindians?



I thought Mike was referring to GD of matches between English and continental U198.  That would arguably tell us something. If the U198 on the continent are a remnant of the Anglo-Saxons who stayed behind then then at least some matches should be close enough to have been within the last 1600 years.   If not then that would be interesting if not conclusive.  

He may have been, but it seemed to me the general trend of the conversation here and on that thread about U106 variance has been that U106 and U198 are too old in England to be attributed to the Anglo-Saxons. I don't think their variance in England can be used to rule out the possibility that most of the U106 and U198 in England arrived there with the Anglo-Saxons.

I also think that, since U198 is a smallish clade, with only a handful of continental exemplars that can be checked for matches, we might not be getting an accurate picture of possible continental connections.

It is interesting that in Busby's Scottish data, U198 only shows up in Orkney.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 02:41:46 PM by rms2 » Logged

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

Posts: 2012


« Reply #47 on: September 03, 2011, 03:08:23 PM »

That is interesting because the east of Scotland between Berwick and Stirling as well as the extreme south-west along the Soloway was settled by Angles.  So, if it was associated with them it is odd that its not found there.  If it is only found in the Orkneys then that area was settled by Picts then Norse then lowland Scots. 
Logged
authun
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #48 on: September 03, 2011, 04:56:58 PM »

Can you show me where he found 71% "Frisian segment" in Chippenham? I am not trying to argue with you or otherwise be contrary.

He doesn't. That's Thomas. Separate thing altogether, hence my statement:

"Capelli has it as 71% anglo saxon input and Thomas has it as one of the highest areas for instances of his 'frisian segment'."

For Capelli's MCMC admixture analysis, you have to refer to the Supplementary Data. The figures for England are:
(EDIT Input from North Germany/Denmark calculated by MCMC.)

Morpeth 57.1%
Penrith 54.4%
York 70.6%
Southwell 52.9%
Uttoxter 49.6%
Norfolk 72.5%
Chippenham 70.8%
Faversham 49.5%
Midhurst 24.4%
Dorchester 36.0%
Cornwall 57.7%

best
authun
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #49 on: September 03, 2011, 06:03:03 PM »

Can you show me where he found 71% "Frisian segment" in Chippenham? I am not trying to argue with you or otherwise be contrary.

He doesn't. That's Thomas. Separate thing altogether, hence my statement:

"Capelli has it as 71% anglo saxon input and Thomas has it as one of the highest areas for instances of his 'frisian segment'."

For Capelli's MCMC admixture analysis, you have to refer to the Supplementary Data. The figures for England are:
(EDIT Input from North Germany/Denmark calculated by MCMC.)

Morpeth 57.1%
Penrith 54.4%
York 70.6%
Southwell 52.9%
Uttoxter 49.6%
Norfolk 72.5%
Chippenham 70.8%
Faversham 49.5%
Midhurst 24.4%
Dorchester 36.0%
Cornwall 57.7%

best
authun

Then we must have been talking about two different things, because I mentioned the "Frisian segment" and short haplotypes, and you said Capelli had Chippenham at 71%. I did not mention admixture; I was talking just y-dna, as usual.

Here's the exchange I mean (Reply #42 above):

I mentioned this in connection with Thomas' map on another thread, but I would beware the "Frisian segment" if it is based on a short haplotype. There are a fair number of us with 390=23 who match Oppenheimer's six-marker Frisian Modal Haplotype but who are U106- and probably not what is ultimately intended by it.
Quote from: authun
It was Capelli who found the 71% in Chippenham.

best
authun
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 06:09:08 PM by rms2 » 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 0.124 seconds with 19 queries.