GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-05 > 1243803509


From: Steven Bird <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] revised TMRCA calcuations for the R-L21 results
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 16:58:29 -0400
References: <544691.61496.qm@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <544691.61496.qm@web111412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>


It's not that the wealthy had larger families; it is theorized that they had a higher probability of their children surviving to adulthood, to reproduce on their own.

Steve Bird





> Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 12:12:52 -0700
> From:
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] revised TMRCA calcuations for the R-L21 results
>
> Hi Janet,
>
> I am not saying this is/was a scientific study: just an observation on my part that the few wealthy families in the villages we documented seemed to have had much smaller families (four kids or less).
>
> I just question the assumption that the wealthy and privileged always had larger families. This assumption gets repeated as "fact" on this list frequently and I don't believe it's necessarily so.
>
> Beth
>
> --- On Sun, 5/31/09, Janet Crawford <> wrote:
>
>
> From: Janet Crawford <>
> Subject: Re: [DNA] revised TMRCA calcuations for the R-L21 results
> To:
> Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 11:50 AM
>
>
> Beth, I hesitate, but if most of your group were of the lower class, I
> would guess your "elite" class is too small to determine a proper
> average number of children for elites compared to lower classes?
>
> "The folks in our project (five Hungarian villages of Bukovina;
> 1780-1941) were almost all dirt-poor..."
>
> Janet
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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

_________________________________________________________________
HotmailĀ® goes with you.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009


This thread: