GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-05 > 1117231213
From: "Roberta J. Estes" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Middle Eastern ancestral markers on new Euro 1.0 test
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 18:00:13 -0400
I guess my question is this - how could the Huns as invaders have NOT
left at least some recognizable genetic footprint in the invaded
population? I guess the possible reasons I could think of would be:
1. They brought their own females and therefore did not
"integrate" with the local women. Is there any evidence of this?
2. They killed all the locals, so whether they first left their
DNA is irrelevant. Was this the MO if the Huns?
3. The local population at that time is no longer the local
population. If they left enmasse, totally abandoning the area (like
after the 30 years war) or they left in small groups, over time, the Hun
DNA would be widely dispersed and no longer recognizable as such,
especially since there is no trace where we are looking.
4. They took the local women they wanted with them, so we would
instead see European mtdna in the "Hun" population instead of Hun Y-line
in the European DNA.
5. We're looking in the wrong place and they didn't invade
where we think they did.
6. Their y-line DNA does not look like what we think it does.
Can anyone think of any other reason that we wouldn't find traces of the
And one last question - the mongol birthmark at the base of the spine is
still found if I recall in quite high numbers in some location(s) in
France (this is from deep memory someplace). Has that population group
been tested specifically - that local group and separately those who
show that birthmark which is supposed to be indicative of Hun ancestry?
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:13 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Middle Eastern ancestral markers on new Euro 1.0 test
Charles et al.:
In general, SNP - based technology for biogeographical testing provides
only low resolution capability. These measures will likely prove
flawless in the determination of majority ancestry, and are higly
reliable (repeat testing yielding the same results) - but what we are
discussing here is validity - is it measuing what it claims to measure.
In theory increasing the number of markers from say 170 to 350 should
provide substantially increased information provided that each of these
markers has been carefully chosen due to their ancestral informative
quality - otherwise it is pointless, giving only the illusion of a more
What is absolutely key here is the reference population - both size and
representativeness. The test will not "work" unless they can locate
relatively isolated groups from Northern Europe, Southern Europe the
Middle East and so on. The bold fact is that for example those from
Southern Europe have been receiving wave upon wave of genetic input from
the Middle East and over-run by Northern "barbarians" to the degree that
I maintain that there is no "pure" reference population they could used
for the purpose. Some might point to Scandinavia but I have persuasive
evidence that there was a very large migration of Hunnish peoples to
Sweden then Norway circa 420 AD.
What we are discussing here, however, is whether the Huns or other
Central Asisns, left a lasting genetic trace in genetic structure of
Germany. If this was true we should see indicators in the Y-DNA. There
is, however, no haplogroup C which one would expect from the time of
Ghengis Khan, nor any Q if we are looking at an earlier period such as
Attila the Hun.
Central Asians have a substantial proportion of R1a1 which is seen at
low levels in Germany but better explained by the presence of the
proximal Slavs who, in Poland for example, are about 50% R1a1. I have
databases for all the Central Asian tribal groups and the modal
haplotypes do not in any way resemble those of Poland but are very close
to the modal in Shetland and other Norse Colonies (Norway probably being
likely a mixture of R1a1 Slavic origin and R1a1 Central Asian origin
haplotypes). Thus if people are going to posit that the Huns made a
signfincant contribution to the genomic structurre of the Pennsylvania
Deutch they are going to have to find haplotypes other than R1b. The
occasional N is not persuasive as there was contact between people of
the Sweden - Finland area with Germany in historic times (see Doug
My opinion, the Euro test at this point in time (the future will
hopefully bring refinements) is a step or two above the face recognition
test we discussed about a year ago. Secondly, there is no convincing
evidence of any permanent Hun presence in Germany or Germans. If I am
wrong where is the evidence? Everything I have heard so far involves
theories and specutlations. Does anyone have genetic, archaeological,
historical, or linguistic evidence to bring to bear on the discussion?
If not then, just like my speculations about alcohol influencing
replication slippage, the matter should just be dropped.
-------------- Original message --------------
> No, I'm not talking about a genealogical time frame as to the source
> the AIMs. I'm thinking the AIM markers are old and probably ancient. I
> consider a genealogical time frame to be the period when surnames were
> adopted in the area of interest. In the area of Europe where my
> ancestors come from that is from 500-1000 years ago. However, most of
> traditional genealogists who trace our lines to the "Palatine" areas
> the Rhine River areas can't get back much farther than the early
> and the start of the Reformation period.
> Surely the Great Khan was not the only Asian tribe to invade the
> The Middle Eastern content was in the founders of my PA Deutsch
> ancestors, and it was probably in the river valleys for many, many
> centuries before that. Probably brought there by the Roman Legions.
> my thinking is that with the Middle Eastern folks brought there by the
> Romans some Asian markers where in the genomes of the those Middle
> Eastern folks which the Romans brought into Swiss and Southern German
> areas. But if the Asian markers didn't come into the PA Deutsch
> population piggy-backed with the Southeastern European and Middle
> Eastern populations migrating into that area, then it must have gotten
> their more directly via Scythian, Hun, or Mongol invasions of Europe
> directly. We know the Huns did make it into the Palatine areas of
> Europe. The Hun source for the Asian markers is my hypothesis and
> motivation for starting my PA Deutsch Ethnic Group DNA Project over
> years ago. But this new Euro 1.0 test introduces some thoughts in my
> mind as to another mode of arrival too, imo.
Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
|RE: [DNA] Middle Eastern ancestral markers on new Euro 1.0 test by "Roberta J. Estes" <>|