GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-02 > 1044323040


From: "John F. Chandler" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] STRUNK Y DNA result
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 20:44 EST
In-Reply-To: sperkins@interaccess.com message <3E3ECB67.16139.3C03D69@localhost> of Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:00:31 -0700


Steven wrote:
> Using a haplotype arrangement as 388, 393, 392, 19/394, 390, 391, his set
> is 12, 13, 11, 17, 25, 10. This is two steps off the Norwegian haplotype
> set in Wilson, J. F., Weiss, D. A., Richards, M., Thomas, M. G., Bradman,
> N., Goldstein, D. B. "Genetic evidence for different male and female
> roles during cultural transitions in the British Isles". Proc. Natl.
> Acad. Sci. U. S. A., vol 98 (9) p5078 (2001)".

Correction: there is no "Norwegian" haplotype, and the paper by Wilson
et al. does not say there is. It does mention haplotype 3.65 which is
two steps away from the above, and it does say that 3.65 is rare in the
Celtic parts of the British Isles and in the source region of the
Anglo-Saxons, but relatively common in Norway, and it further says that
3.65 in the British Isles is therefore an indicator of probable Viking
origin. The name Strunk, though, sounds sort of German, so this is a
whole different ballgame. Haplogroup 3 also happens to be relatively
common in Germany.

Conclusion: the haplotype is not inconsistant with the hypothesis that
the Strunks came from Germany.

> total of 35 matches with 16 Ashkenazim and 4 of those identified as
> Levites.

Are you saying that the Strunks are known to have Ashkenazic origins?
Or that you suspect that may be so from the database matches? Since
the Ashkenazim have roots in Germany, the conclusion applies to them
as well, or at least some of them.

John Chandler

This thread: