DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2012-01 > 1325613199


From: Steven Lominac <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Anatole's Method
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 11:53:19 -0600
References: <14851.5f99ea76.3c348707@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <14851.5f99ea76.3c348707@aol.com>


"I don't yet know why Anatole prefers 25 years/gen. but it seems an odd choice to me."

Someone just posted some info on sept rules for coming of age (available for marriage) and I believe one of the links I read said 14 for girls, 17 for boys. Given those ages, 25 doesn't seem a stretch to me that a couple might have had more children by age 25 then above. Indeed, 30 could be the stretch. It has been many centuries since these rules have been in place but there were probably a lot of M222 generations born before parent age 20 much less 25 and frankly, it's only been the last couple of generations that a more controlled method of being able to have children by a certain age has been available. Perhaps splitting the difference is in order. 27.5 years x 57.6 puts you almost right on top of Niall.

Regards, Steve


> From:
> Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 11:30:00 -0500
> To:
> Subject: [R-M222] Anatole's Method
>
> I'm working my way through Anatole's method (slowly). One important
> difference appears immediately: He uses 25 years per generation in all his
> calculations. That makes a difference.
>
> For example, he gives a figure of 1440 +/- 140 bp for M222. That works
> out to 57.6 generations and would or 571 AD. In contrast, the ASD methods
> of the Janzen spreadsheet the highest number of generations is given as
> 50.3 at 67 markers which comes out to 501 AD. using 30 years per generation.
> Use Anatole's 25 years instead and that 501 AD becomes 754 AD.
>
> If you take Anatole's 57.6 generations at 30 years per generation you get
> 283 AD. I assume the SD would be the same at +/- 140. So you would get a
> possible range in dates of 143 AD. to 423 AD.
>
> Those dates seem more reasonable to me than anything over 500 AD. Any
> date after the alleged time of Nial seems suspect to me. (400 AD), mainly
> because of the Connachta who were admittedly pre-Nial. If they were others
> were too. We know it's a young clade (except for Bill Howard's estimates).
> But later than the time of Nial has never made sense to me.
>
> I don't yet know why Anatole prefers 25 years/gen. but it seems an odd
> choice to me.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R1b1c7 Research and Links:
>
> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message


This thread: