Hi "This occurred in 1937 when two Egyptian sailing ships, dated to around 1400 B.C., were discovered in a Yorkshire estuary, on the north west coast of England" I live in Yorkshire and I can assure you its on the North East coast of England. Ed On 27 June 2011 08:00, <dna-r1b1c7-request@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > Today's Topics: > >   1. Re: O'Cathain, off modal matches, 448=16 (Bill Howard) >   2. Two Egyptian  ships, dated to around 1400 B.C.,   were >      discovered in Yorkshire UK (GAshley923@aol.com) >   3. Re: 111-Marker RESULTS (Lochlan@aol.com) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:58:23 -0400 > From: Bill Howard <weh8@verizon.net> > Subject: Re: [R-M222] O'Cathain, off modal matches, 448=16 > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <45F16D27-F12F-4852-B0D8-E78CF26E5F9F@verizon.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hello, Charles et al, > As you know, I don't work with GDs, but rather with RCCs. > I am glad that your studies have borne our my time scale. Be careful of over-interpretation because mutations can occur in DNA that will not be reflected in the position on the phylogenetic tree. > You raise an interesting point in your email -- > The junction points on the tree are where mutations took place that cause surname branching. > I have not spent a lot of time trying to tie down just which markers are the ones that have changed. They could be any one of them, including the set that are often referred to (by others, not me) as modal values. > I think there is gold to be discovered if researchers were to look at the junction points on the tree and see which DYS markers did the changing. > With best regards to all, > - Bye from Bill > PS - I taught at the University of Michigan between 1959 and 1964 in the astronomy department. I see you have a U of M email address. Are you there, or are you an alumnus?  Both our kids were born in Ann Arbor and we enjoyed our stay there. > > On Jun 26, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Charles Cain wrote: > >> Looking at Sandy's chart, I am struck by how "unrelated" in GD terms >> we all are although that is a relative concept I suppose.  Under each >> new name on the chart, the most closely related subject almost always >> jumps to a GD of over 10 with around 15 being the most common (too >> lazy to compute the average "jump"). The value of off-modal markers >> becomes obvious from this chart. >> >> In my own case, the jump in GD is only 4 to a Kane.  We have compared >> notes because I noticed several years ago the we share an off-modal >> match at marker 448. In M222 this marker is uniformly 18 repeats. >> However, 4 "Cain/Kanes" have 448=16, extremely rare and not shared (to >> my knowledge) by anyone else. >> >> In contacting these people, one 25 marker Cain (GD=0), turned out to >> be related on paper back to a common ancestor just before 1800.  If >> fact, the father of this common ancestor was at Valley Forge in the >> Revolutionary War, always an interesting fact to turn up.  Also, his ( >> Mr. Valley Forge's) father was the likely immigrant from Ireland to >> New Jersey in 1740. So DNA helps! >> >> Another 448=16 colleague (the other Kane/Cain with 111 marker results) >> is unlikely to be related before the 1740 date mentioned above.  This >> is based on lack of common spelling of our last name, different family >> religious affiliations, and different arrival times of our immigrant >> ancestors. So we are related only before 1740. >> >> On one of the DNA tree charts  (I think based on Bill Howard's >> computations), we reach a common branch at about RCC=9, or some 400 >> years ago, or around 1600. This is entirely consistent with what is >> likely true from other considerations. >> >> Moreover, both of us (Cain and Kane) trace back to the next branching >> of the "RCC tree" at around RCC=22, or some 950 years.  If Bill >> Howard's computations are sensitive to rarity of mutations at each >> site, that is a good guess for when the 448 =16 mutation (from 448=18) >> occurred. If true, I am related to no other O'Cathain with 448=18 >> after the year AD 1000. That seems like a useful piece of data. >> >> In that regard, if you want to know who to contact regarding possible >> common ancestors, look at rare off-modal matches.  I has worked for my >> 448=16 colleagues and myself. >> >> Bill Howard may want to comment on my use of his data in the above >> exercise...particularly my use of his data to "estimate" when the >> 448=16 mutation occurred. >> >> Charles >> >> >> >> >> R1b1c7 Research and Links: >> >> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/ >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DNA-R1B1C7-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:21:59 EDT > From: GAshley923@aol.com > Subject: [R-M222] Two Egyptian  ships, dated to around 1400 B.C.,       were >        discovered in Yorkshire UK > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <ab38.450188a6.3b38e0d7@aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > > > _ > Scotland's past links with Ancient  Egypt_ > (http://www.sacredconnections.co.uk/holyland/scotlandegypt.htm) > This occurred in 1937 when two Egyptian  sailing ships, dated to around > 1400 B.C.This occurred in 1937  Yorkshire estuary, on the north  west coast of > England ... > www.sacredconnections.co.uk/holyland/scotlandegypt.htm -_Cached_ > (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c6q0_W8PwE4J:www.sacredconnection > s.co.uk/holyland/scotlandegypt.htm+Yorkshire+estuary,+on+the+north+west+coas > t+of+England&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com)  - _Similar_ > (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS421&q=related:www.sacredco > nnections.co.uk/holyland/scotlandegypt.htm+Yorkshire+estuary,+on+the+north+w > est+coast+of+England&tbo=1&sa=X&ei=cTQHTpqHNKnw0gHwrrnGCw&ved=0CB8QHzAA) > > _YouTube - King Tut Unwrapped - King  Tut's DNA R1b | Royal Blood_ > (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNmZQJsRjrc) > Mar 14, 2010 ...  King Tut Unwrapped - King Tut's DNA R1b | Royal Blood. > GundisalusMenendiz  59 videos. Subscribe Alert icon Subscribed ... > www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNmZQJsRjrc - _Similar_ > (http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=similarPages.search&v_t=client_searchbox&o_q=king tut > DNA&q=related:www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNmZQJsRjrc+king tut DNA) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:19:34 EDT > From: Lochlan@aol.com > Subject: Re: [R-M222] 111-Marker RESULTS > To: dna-r1b1c7@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <3a844.2cbe0f8f.3b392696@aol.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > In a message dated 6/26/2011 1:46:11 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > alexanderpatterson@btinternet.com writes: > > That's  my point, except that most of them also have DYS439=13. But only > two > off-modal matches doesn't convince me. > > I don't find it overwhelmingly convincing either.  Hence my  description of > a "wimpy modal."   Yet the surnames match, only one  group of M222 Cains > has been identified with a few non matching M222 strays, and  there are plenty > of samples so close to the M222 modal that almost nothing can  be said > about them by comparing them to the M222 modal to look for  differences.  I'm > not sure anything can be done with these except to   use genetic distance. > > <You may not yet be convinced, but I am. > > Convinced of what?  I'm not sure I even know what your theory  is. > > > John > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of DNA-R1B1C7 Digest, Vol 5, Issue 165 > ****************************************** >