GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1267636855


From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Danish "homeland" of Viking Era emigrants to EasternEngland and Normandy
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:20:55 -0800
References: <ea3bd9561003021130r7ce1e8c0na0195ecbc243dd3f@mail.gmail.com><SNT131-w18ED8CB2E907B9C7D4B841BC3B0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <SNT131-w18ED8CB2E907B9C7D4B841BC3B0@phx.gbl>


Tom,

Alpine Austria is a "special case". It was part of Rhaetia, a region that
was always culturally and perhaps genetically different from the surrounding
communities. There is some evidence that large numbers of Etruscans moved
there after the Celtic incursions - which may explain the high instance of
haplogroup G there. It may also have been a hotspot for incoming Germanic
peoples from the Baltic. Rome created a separate province of Rhaetia
reflecting the population structure at the time. "Hotspots" for most
haplogroups will occur in more than one area and it is not particularly
surprizing that Rhaetia differs from Lombardy and may tell us something of
the genetic history of each region - hence the importance of regional sample
- as I have said, particularly in Denmark.

The study you are speaking of is that of Neiderstatter et al. (2007) which
only samples Innsbruck deep in Rhaetia. I have discussed this paper in one
of my manuscripts and will review it again in due course. As I recall
R-U152 made up about 10% of the sample - which is not terribly surprising to
me (although if only 10% was found in the Black Forest region I would be
"shocked to my bootstraps").

David K. Faux.

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Tom Gull <> wrote:

>
> It's all about the signal to noise ratio at such low numbers. If you can be
> convinced of all of that by such low volumes, then you must also be very
> accepting of the concept that Alpine Austria is a U106+ hotspot equal to the
> Netherlands. That's based on the earlier study (not personal test data
> mining) that showed U106+ to be something like almost 70% of R1b1c there.
> But I seem to recall that similarly sized numbers there were discarded as
> being too small a sample to be believable...
>
>


This thread: