Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Irish, Danish, or English?

Expand Messages
  • mhbowes11
    It s always so fun and challenging to read your contributions! We have corresponded for some time via email and I apologize if I am bringing up some items that
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 2, 2009
      It's always so fun and challenging to read your contributions! We have corresponded for some
      time via email and I apologize if I am bringing up some items that we may have hashed out
      before. Centralizing all the Bowes (and variants) related info will hopefully help
      (interpretations with sources, etc.). It may take me some time for me to reply again as I sift
      through everything and attend to other matters. So many facets to consider.

      Meanwhile, your information and interpretations help me improve the use of some Links and
      Files I post by helping me refine "editorial" comments below the titles to assist others in their
      interpretations of sources as they apply (or not) to the project. I will include *some* materials
      at the site that could be considered, let's say, not too academic, because they (or information
      they contain) are so heavily relied on by researchers, but hopefully put them in perspective in
      my comments. This way, hopefully, the same questions won't keep resurfacing (unless there
      is actually new information to add) if members get to know the growing body of resources
      and commentary here before posting. But if they do post re: topics already discussed, we can
      simply direct the inquirer to search the archives for prior discussion or to view editorial
      comments at particular links or files.

      More to come ...

      Thanks for your contributions! Martha
    • Allen Bowes
      Martha, a pleasure. Jeff ... From: mhbowes11 Subject: [bowesvariantsdna] Re: Irish, Danish, or English? To: bowesvariantsdna@yahoogroups.com
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 2, 2009
        Martha, a pleasure. Jeff

        --- On Fri, 2/1/09, mhbowes11 <mhbowes@...> wrote:
        From: mhbowes11 <mhbowes@...>
        Subject: [bowesvariantsdna] Re: Irish, Danish, or English?
        To: bowesvariantsdna@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Friday, 2 January, 2009, 3:50 PM

        It's always so fun and challenging to read your contributions! We have corresponded for some
        time via email and I apologize if I am bringing up some items that we may have hashed out
        before. Centralizing all the Bowes (and variants) related info will hopefully help
        (interpretations with sources, etc.). It may take me some time for me to reply again as I sift
        through everything and attend to other matters. So many facets to consider.

        Meanwhile, your information and interpretations help me improve the use of some Links and
        Files I post by helping me refine "editorial" comments below the titles to assist others in their
        interpretations of sources as they apply (or not) to the project. I will include *some* materials
        at the site that could be considered, let's say, not too academic, because they (or information
        they contain) are so heavily relied on by researchers, but hopefully put them in perspective in
        my comments. This way, hopefully, the same questions won't keep resurfacing (unless there
        is actually new information to add) if members get to know the growing body of resources
        and commentary here before posting. But if they do post re: topics already discussed, we can
        simply direct the inquirer to search the archives for prior discussion or to view editorial
        comments at particular links or files.

        More to come ...

        Thanks for your contributions! Martha


      • mhbowes11
        Jeff, you may be entirely right about William de Arcubus. It s certainly clear that the part of the story about the coat of arms being granted long before
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 3, 2009
          Jeff, you may be entirely right about William de Arcubus. It's certainly clear that the part of
          the story about the coat of arms being granted long before crests came into being is
          absolutely false. There's also a good probability that the rest of the story was fanciful. So
          much poor research has served to boost reputations it could easily fall into this category.
          However, I can't yet rule out that, as with many myths, including those of Irish origin, it
          could be part true, part false. I'm skeptical (esp. given the account of Fulco de Bowes), but
          as far as I know, there's nothing in writing to say that William de Arcubus (or Bowes by
          another name) *didn't* live in Bowes Castle at some point, even if the other part of the
          story is false. Is there any record of the castle's inhabitants? Might part of the story be
          true?

          I'm not sure if by asking if "we" can lay the Arcubus story to rest you meant you and I or
          the whole group. For the record, I am inclined for this group to encourage everyone to
          feel comfortable stating what for them is a conclusion, but I'd hate to see finalizing
          matters *as a group* by putting themes to rest for all. Many have to come to conclusions
          in their own time, after their own investigation. I would not want them to feel unwelcome
          or uncomfortable if they are still pondering the complex past and volumes of
          "information," good and bad, available to consider. Many also have long cherished family
          stories that are hard to let go of, even in the face of strong challenges in the record.
          (That's true on the Irish and English side.) I would also want *them* to feel comfortable
          and as if they belong to this group. It's easier to be an open group and have friendly
          disagreements between members than to be an open group if you have to agree to a list
          of points to feel at ease and included.

          On the whole though, the more I think about it, I personally believe you make a good
          case.

          > They were, however, possessed of lands in Bowes at an early period,
          > but it is from this Fulco de Bowes, rather than the traditional
          > William de Arcubus, that their pedigree is to be traced. Sir Adam de
          > Bowes, fourth son of Stephen de Bowes, who was fourth in descent from
          > the above Fulco, was a man "learned in the lawes," whom Edward III.,
          > in 1331, appointed Chief Justice of the King's Bench.

          I have the feeling there are more Bowes lineages from NE England then this one, making
          telling the story of English origins more complex than being able to refer to "them" or
          "they" and a single lineage. Based on some of your other thoughts I have a feeling this is
          how you see it too? Hopefully the DNA project will help confirm or disprove this.

          I agree there is no evidence I've seen of any Bowes having come over with the Normans.
          Great list you posted. I've never seen that. But does it list all who came over? Was there a
          larger "army" of some sort consisting of people less important individually such that they
          didn't make the list? If so, did any of them come from areas outside the general area most
          Normans came to Ireland from? I don't know the answers, and I'm not hoping for a
          Norman Bowes come to Ireland (just interested in what really happened), but for the sake
          of covering bases, I do wonder. Perhaps you've already studied this issue to have ruled
          these possibilities out completely. I tend to leave possibilities open until I'm certain
          they're impossibilities. According to what I know so far, though, I'd say a Bowes coming
          over with Normans is more improbable than probable, but not yet disproved.
          >
          > Final thoughts. The Bowes-Lyon issue is a red, if exotically royal,
          > herring. The Queen Mother's earliest ancestor who bore the name
          > being, John Bowes, 9th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne (July 17,
          > 1737 - March 7, 1776). The point being he was born as, John Lyon,
          > only later adopting the name 'bowes'. In 1767 he married Mary Eleanor
          > Bowes, and upon the request of the bride's father, assumed his wife's
          > name. This change of name required an Act of Parliament. That family
          > came not surprisingly from County Durham a stronghold of the Bowes
          > name. This makes the Queen Mother's connections to the Bowes name
          > somewhat distant and indirect, and certainly has no genuine meaning
          > for those Bowes with English roots, who have perhaps been misinformed
          > about the Bowes-Lyon connection.
          >

          Here I am more inclined to wax clinical and make genetic distinctions. I don't see the
          Bowes-Lyon connection as altogether meaningless to any Bowes today who can prove a
          paper trail to Mary Eleanor Bowes, but if it were me I would do my best to put it in
          perspective. I would determine whether I was a direct descendent of Mary Eleanor Bowes,
          and if so could then say that I and the Queen Mother share a direct descendent in a
          female Bowes. On the other hand, they could share a common ancestor with Mary Eleanor
          Bowes, making them x cousins x times removed, and have an even more distant, yet real,
          genetic relationship to the Queen Mother. You're right that the connection is meaningless
          in the sense of sharing a surname lineage with specific matching Y-DNA markers. The
          Queen Mother has no Y-DNA and her father had Lyon Y-DNA, not Bowes. Further, I
          suspect no one today could claim an unbroken female descent from Mary Eleanor Bowes,
          though it's possible (I haven't examined her pedigree). Assuming the Queen also does not
          have an unbroken female descent from Mary Eleanor Bowes, or even if only one of the two
          lines or the other didn't, a female Bowes today could not claim shared mtDNA with the
          Queen Mother. But, there are always autosomal chromosomes (the non-sex
          chromosomes). If someone can prove relatedness to Mary Eleanor Bowes, I'd say they
          probably have what is by now an invisible and genetically insignificant amount of shared
          autosomal genes with the Queen Mother line. In addition to genetic meaning to
          relationships, many of us value our family's story beyond the Y-DNA surname matches,
          but for me it would be important for the integrity of the story to understand and convey
          the exact relatedness. In this case, as a footnote, but not altogether meaningless. All that
          said, I have no evidence whatsoever of a connection between my male Bowes line and
          Mary Eleanor Bowes and am not looking for one. But I would love to have a "certified"
          male Bowes from that line join the project so we'd know those markers, and I would hope
          that would verify for some other Bowes, many of whom have been told by family they are
          part of the Bowes lineage that married into the royal family (albeit through a female
          Bowes), whether or not that is true. It strikes me as a major part of the Bowes One-Name
          Study, while DNA study results and interpretation provide a means for clarification.

          > In conclusion I feel having read around this subject that the Bowes
          > surname as it relates to Bowes Village in County Durham, has perhaps
          > two lines of origin. One being the earlier Danish/Saxon places name,
          > Bogas, the original name perhaps of the settlement there, the other
          > deriving from two 12/13th Century names, Fulco and Gerrard de Bowes.

          I also feel sure of these. Hopefully the facts of it will emerge over time as we pursue all
          this.

          > I must state here however that I remain slightly unconvinced that the
          > Bowes element of 'de Bowes' is Norman, thus I wonder if the name
          > maybe some later corruption recided by chroniclers? What does appear
          > clear though is that a number of Bowes are documented as have having
          > held land in the area around, and possibly earlier, the time of the
          > Norman conquest. This does not in itself mean they were of 'noble'
          > origins or possessed of any formal titles. Could it be that the Bowes
          > of Durham in question were Saxon landholders of some local status
          > that either adopted or were given more 'Norman' sounding names? This
          > would certainly explain the still, to my thinking at
          > least,unconvincing assertion that Bowes is a Norman name.

          I agree. I especially think Bowes itself is not Norman, but along with the other possibilities
          you mention it's possible Normans (not necessarily nobles or elite as you say) used the
          place name and their own culture's construction to take the name "de Bowes." In line with
          your thinking, I just recalled from a linguistics course I took that French was the official
          language of England for 300 years after the Normans came, so not unlikely some Saxons
          conformed.

          As the risk of straying off topic a tad, I lost the source but here's the note I kept about
          this:

          "French was the official language of England for 300 years after the Norman conquest.
          During that time most of our original English language, which had a grammar more like
          that of Turkish, was lost, along with a rich body of literature and philosophy in Old
          English. The only reason the King's English came to be standard English was that when
          English was reinstituted as the official language of England, the upper classes, who at that
          time were busy acquainting themselves with Latin literature (having lost most of their
          own), controlled and designated as preferred the new English that emerged. But the old
          Greek and Latin perspective, which England adopted, that there is somehow a pure
          language, is totally false from a linguistic perspective. Furthermore, language is spoken
          first (most languages don't even have a written version). It is only in very literate cultures
          like ours that it is mistakenly believed that language is primarily written. Thus, the written
          grammars for English that came from the Latin branches (English originated along another
          language branch entirely) became the model for speech among the well-educated--an
          inversion of the linguistic experience that has only served to make millions of people feel
          inadequate in their use of language."

          I think we're learning a thing or two about the living language of surnames!

          Clarification about the Haplogroup I1 Group 3 having Danish haplotype: I emailed with
          Ken Nordtvedt today and he updated his interpretation in light of his growth in
          understanding the haplogroup. He says they're definitely Anglo-Saxon, but not clearly
          Danish at all. Do you know, Jeff, how concentrated were the Anglo-Saxon in the
          Bowes/Danelaw, England area vs the Danish? Just curious. Ken was more inclined to say
          this group is probably from Germany, but the percentages in the personal pages for
          Recent Ancestral Origins don't yet support that. It says, "You match 1 person out of 8,388
          people from Germany. Which is < 0.1% of the population tested from Germany," not
          making the 2% threshold for "significantly" or the 4% for "highly significantly" indicating
          the place of origin. Maybe as the database grows.

          That's it for now. Will rest my arm awhile.
        • Jeff
          Martha, as to William de Arcubus of course people have every right to consider the tale as being a genuine explanation of the origins of the Bowes surname
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 4, 2009
            Martha, as to 'William de Arcubus' of course people have every right
            to consider the tale as being a genuine explanation of the origins of
            the Bowes surname (in England). My comments were in no way an appeal
            to limit anyone's freedom of interpretation. There are however in my
            view serious questions about the credibility of that tale. For
            example if we accept the story, based on a supposed manuscript from a
            nearby monastery, (released into circulation around 1838 during a
            period when certain Bowes of Durham were forging alliances with some
            very influential 'royal' circles) we have to agree that the Bowes
            name derives from the Norman period as a 'gift' in recognistion of
            the supposed courage of one individual supported by bowmen.

            Apart from the slight problem of heraldic titles and awards not being
            given until much later in English history, we have to also consider
            the placename of Bowes village itself. There are a number of accounts
            that this settlement only came into being in the 12th Century, which
            would, if correct, add some support to the Norman origins of Bowes.
            However, if we look at the various names which the village has had,
            we can see it was first called 'Bogis', a name clearly related to the
            Danish/Saxon 'Bogas'. This suggests pre-Norman beginnings for the
            Bowes settlement and undermines the notion that the village was named
            after William de Arcubus/Bowes. Certainly that region was under heavy
            Saxon and later Danish influence and it would not at all be
            surprising that its beginnings are to be located during that time,
            consider too the Danish sounding, River Greta, which runs past the
            village.

            Below is a rough chronological list of the various names given to
            that settlement:

            Bogis, Boues, Bouys (xii cent.); Bouas, Boghes (xiii cent.); Bouexe,
            Boughes, Bowes (xiv cent.).

            There are indeed no doubt many Bowes lines in County Durham, some
            perhaps the descendents of the landowning Bowes from that region.
            Many others will no doubt have been ordinary folk from humble and
            difficult conditions. One wonders whose versions of history appears
            in the records, thus far we are dazzled by the seeminglky fabulous
            deeds of Norman knights and archers. I suspect the truth is more
            ancient still and rests within the 6th to 10th Century, when Germanic
            speaking peoples, first Saxon, later Danish, settled by the bends and
            bows of the river which now runs alongside Bowes in County Durham.

            Apart from the few hundred Norman knights (captains) which invaded
            Ireland in 1169, the majority of the force were Welsh and Flemish,
            with additional numbers of English troops. These latter came
            predominantly from the West, and South West of England, regions where
            the Bowes name is extremely rare, even today. Moreover at that time
            many ordinaly folk had not then adopted surnames, only the elite had
            begun to use them.

            From: 'Parishes: Bowes', A History of the County of York North
            Riding: Volume 1 (1914), pp. 42-49. URL: http://www.british-
            history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64715 Date accessed: 04 January
            2009.isnot being awardedMy appeal, to lay that character to rest, was
            a general call to focus on more solid ground in the quest for
            establishing probable roots for the name. Regards, --- In
            bowesvariantsdna@yahoogroups.com, "mhbowes11" <mhbowes@...> wrote:
            >
            > Jeff, you may be entirely right about William de Arcubus. It's
            certainly clear that the part of
            > the story about the coat of arms being granted long before crests
            came into being is
            > absolutely false. There's also a good probability that the rest of
            the story was fanciful. So
            > much poor research has served to boost reputations it could easily
            fall into this category.
            > However, I can't yet rule out that, as with many myths, including
            those of Irish origin, it
            > could be part true, part false. I'm skeptical (esp. given the
            account of Fulco de Bowes), but
            > as far as I know, there's nothing in writing to say that William de
            Arcubus (or Bowes by
            > another name) *didn't* live in Bowes Castle at some point, even if
            the other part of the
            > story is false. Is there any record of the castle's inhabitants?
            Might part of the story be
            > true?
            >
            > I'm not sure if by asking if "we" can lay the Arcubus story to rest
            you meant you and I or
            > the whole group. For the record, I am inclined for this group to
            encourage everyone to
            > feel comfortable stating what for them is a conclusion, but I'd
            hate to see finalizing
            > matters *as a group* by putting themes to rest for all. Many have
            to come to conclusions
            > in their own time, after their own investigation. I would not want
            them to feel unwelcome
            > or uncomfortable if they are still pondering the complex past and
            volumes of
            > "information," good and bad, available to consider. Many also have
            long cherished family
            > stories that are hard to let go of, even in the face of strong
            challenges in the record.
            > (That's true on the Irish and English side.) I would also want
            *them* to feel comfortable
            > and as if they belong to this group. It's easier to be an open
            group and have friendly
            > disagreements between members than to be an open group if you have
            to agree to a list
            > of points to feel at ease and included.
            >
            > On the whole though, the more I think about it, I personally
            believe you make a good
            > case.
            >
            > > They were, however, possessed of lands in Bowes at an early
            period,
            > > but it is from this Fulco de Bowes, rather than the traditional
            > > William de Arcubus, that their pedigree is to be traced. Sir Adam
            de
            > > Bowes, fourth son of Stephen de Bowes, who was fourth in descent
            from
            > > the above Fulco, was a man "learned in the lawes," whom Edward
            III.,
            > > in 1331, appointed Chief Justice of the King's Bench.
            >
            > I have the feeling there are more Bowes lineages from NE England
            then this one, making
            > telling the story of English origins more complex than being able
            to refer to "them" or
            > "they" and a single lineage. Based on some of your other thoughts I
            have a feeling this is
            > how you see it too? Hopefully the DNA project will help confirm or
            disprove this.
            >
            > I agree there is no evidence I've seen of any Bowes having come
            over with the Normans.
            > Great list you posted. I've never seen that. But does it list all
            who came over? Was there a
            > larger "army" of some sort consisting of people less important
            individually such that they
            > didn't make the list? If so, did any of them come from areas
            outside the general area most
            > Normans came to Ireland from? I don't know the answers, and I'm not
            hoping for a
            > Norman Bowes come to Ireland (just interested in what really
            happened), but for the sake
            > of covering bases, I do wonder. Perhaps you've already studied this
            issue to have ruled
            > these possibilities out completely. I tend to leave possibilities
            open until I'm certain
            > they're impossibilities. According to what I know so far, though,
            I'd say a Bowes coming
            > over with Normans is more improbable than probable, but not yet
            disproved.
            > >
            > > Final thoughts. The Bowes-Lyon issue is a red, if exotically
            royal,
            > > herring. The Queen Mother's earliest ancestor who bore the name
            > > being, John Bowes, 9th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne (July
            17,
            > > 1737 - March 7, 1776). The point being he was born as, John Lyon,
            > > only later adopting the name 'bowes'. In 1767 he married Mary
            Eleanor
            > > Bowes, and upon the request of the bride's father, assumed his
            wife's
            > > name. This change of name required an Act of Parliament. That
            family
            > > came not surprisingly from County Durham a stronghold of the
            Bowes
            > > name. This makes the Queen Mother's connections to the Bowes name
            > > somewhat distant and indirect, and certainly has no genuine
            meaning
            > > for those Bowes with English roots, who have perhaps been
            misinformed
            > > about the Bowes-Lyon connection.
            > >
            >
            > Here I am more inclined to wax clinical and make genetic
            distinctions. I don't see the
            > Bowes-Lyon connection as altogether meaningless to any Bowes today
            who can prove a
            > paper trail to Mary Eleanor Bowes, but if it were me I would do my
            best to put it in
            > perspective. I would determine whether I was a direct descendent of
            Mary Eleanor Bowes,
            > and if so could then say that I and the Queen Mother share a direct
            descendent in a
            > female Bowes. On the other hand, they could share a common ancestor
            with Mary Eleanor
            > Bowes, making them x cousins x times removed, and have an even more
            distant, yet real,
            > genetic relationship to the Queen Mother. You're right that the
            connection is meaningless
            > in the sense of sharing a surname lineage with specific matching Y-
            DNA markers. The
            > Queen Mother has no Y-DNA and her father had Lyon Y-DNA, not Bowes.
            Further, I
            > suspect no one today could claim an unbroken female descent from
            Mary Eleanor Bowes,
            > though it's possible (I haven't examined her pedigree). Assuming
            the Queen also does not
            > have an unbroken female descent from Mary Eleanor Bowes, or even if
            only one of the two
            > lines or the other didn't, a female Bowes today could not claim
            shared mtDNA with the
            > Queen Mother. But, there are always autosomal chromosomes (the non-
            sex
            > chromosomes). If someone can prove relatedness to Mary Eleanor
            Bowes, I'd say they
            > probably have what is by now an invisible and genetically
            insignificant amount of shared
            > autosomal genes with the Queen Mother line. In addition to genetic
            meaning to
            > relationships, many of us value our family's story beyond the Y-DNA
            surname matches,
            > but for me it would be important for the integrity of the story to
            understand and convey
            > the exact relatedness. In this case, as a footnote, but not
            altogether meaningless. All that
            > said, I have no evidence whatsoever of a connection between my male
            Bowes line and
            > Mary Eleanor Bowes and am not looking for one. But I would love to
            have a "certified"
            > male Bowes from that line join the project so we'd know those
            markers, and I would hope
            > that would verify for some other Bowes, many of whom have been told
            by family they are
            > part of the Bowes lineage that married into the royal family
            (albeit through a female
            > Bowes), whether or not that is true. It strikes me as a major part
            of the Bowes One-Name
            > Study, while DNA study results and interpretation provide a means
            for clarification.
            >
            > > In conclusion I feel having read around this subject that the
            Bowes
            > > surname as it relates to Bowes Village in County Durham, has
            perhaps
            > > two lines of origin. One being the earlier Danish/Saxon places
            name,
            > > Bogas, the original name perhaps of the settlement there, the
            other
            > > deriving from two 12/13th Century names, Fulco and Gerrard de
            Bowes.
            >
            > I also feel sure of these. Hopefully the facts of it will emerge
            over time as we pursue all
            > this.
            >
            > > I must state here however that I remain slightly unconvinced that
            the
            > > Bowes element of 'de Bowes' is Norman, thus I wonder if the name
            > > maybe some later corruption recided by chroniclers? What does
            appear
            > > clear though is that a number of Bowes are documented as have
            having
            > > held land in the area around, and possibly earlier, the time of
            the
            > > Norman conquest. This does not in itself mean they were
            of 'noble'
            > > origins or possessed of any formal titles. Could it be that the
            Bowes
            > > of Durham in question were Saxon landholders of some local status
            > > that either adopted or were given more 'Norman' sounding names?
            This
            > > would certainly explain the still, to my thinking at
            > > least,unconvincing assertion that Bowes is a Norman name.
            >
            > I agree. I especially think Bowes itself is not Norman, but along
            with the other possibilities
            > you mention it's possible Normans (not necessarily nobles or elite
            as you say) used the
            > place name and their own culture's construction to take the
            name "de Bowes." In line with
            > your thinking, I just recalled from a linguistics course I took
            that French was the official
            > language of England for 300 years after the Normans came, so not
            unlikely some Saxons
            > conformed.
            >
            > As the risk of straying off topic a tad, I lost the source but
            here's the note I kept about
            > this:
            >
            > "French was the official language of England for 300 years after
            the Norman conquest.
            > During that time most of our original English language, which had a
            grammar more like
            > that of Turkish, was lost, along with a rich body of literature and
            philosophy in Old
            > English. The only reason the King's English came to be standard
            English was that when
            > English was reinstituted as the official language of England, the
            upper classes, who at that
            > time were busy acquainting themselves with Latin literature (having
            lost most of their
            > own), controlled and designated as preferred the new English that
            emerged. But the old
            > Greek and Latin perspective, which England adopted, that there is
            somehow a pure
            > language, is totally false from a linguistic perspective.
            Furthermore, language is spoken
            > first (most languages don't even have a written version). It is
            only in very literate cultures
            > like ours that it is mistakenly believed that language is primarily
            written. Thus, the written
            > grammars for English that came from the Latin branches (English
            originated along another
            > language branch entirely) became the model for speech among the
            well-educated--an
            > inversion of the linguistic experience that has only served to make
            millions of people feel
            > inadequate in their use of language."
            >
            > I think we're learning a thing or two about the living language of
            surnames!
            >
            > Clarification about the Haplogroup I1 Group 3 having Danish
            haplotype: I emailed with
            > Ken Nordtvedt today and he updated his interpretation in light of
            his growth in
            > understanding the haplogroup. He says they're definitely Anglo-
            Saxon, but not clearly
            > Danish at all. Do you know, Jeff, how concentrated were the Anglo-
            Saxon in the
            > Bowes/Danelaw, England area vs the Danish? Just curious. Ken was
            more inclined to say
            > this group is probably from Germany, but the percentages in the
            personal pages for
            > Recent Ancestral Origins don't yet support that. It says, "You
            match 1 person out of 8,388
            > people from Germany. Which is < 0.1% of the population tested from
            Germany," not
            > making the 2% threshold for "significantly" or the 4% for "highly
            significantly" indicating
            > the place of origin. Maybe as the database grows.
            >
            > That's it for now. Will rest my arm awhile.
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.