GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2008-09 > 1222345297


From: Beth Long <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] What shall R1b1c call themselves now?
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <005001c91ef0$575125d0$2401a8c0@your447023ae6b>


Just to chime in, I use thirty years also. Most of those in our database had large families, with the first child at about 22 (mother's age) and the last at about 43.
The fathers' ages are somewhat older still, especially if it was a second marriage.

If I had to make a wild guess, I would say it is more like an average of 35 (father's age).

Beth Long
Hungarian Bukovina Project

--- On Thu, 9/25/08, Peter Langley <> wrote:
From: Peter Langley <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] What shall R1b1c call themselves now?
To:
Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008, 2:23 AM

Tim,
I for one and I have mentioned on this list before, would support your 30
years per generation
Langleys over the last 25 generations average out at 33.1 and that includes
the fact that over half of them were eldest sons!

One guy back 1300 married for the second or third time and produced two sons
at the age of 50 +.

The figure of 25 assumes that men started producing at the age of 18 and
stopped or had died by 32.
Whereas if men were fathering sons from the age of 18 to 42 and I cant think
that impossible even 4,000 years ago, then you come up with your figure of
30.

Peter in Ireland.








This thread: