GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-09 > 1127139302


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Basics on Ethnic Groups - Celts, Scots, Picts
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:15:02 EDT



In a message dated 9/19/2005 12:05:00 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
writes:

When the people emigrated they did not know there haplogroup. Those left
behind would have the same percentage of different haplogroups as those who
left.



I'm not quite sure why this would be assumed. Mind you, I'm not arguing
that if a group migrated from a mixed haplogroup population to an unsettled
area, it wouldn't be a mixed group. However, I see no reason to assume the
percentages would be the same, regardless of whether they knew their haplogroup or
not. Given that we are talking about tribal/clan/kinship societies, I can
easily envision a situation in which some kind of conflict arises between two
rival leaders, and one migrates, taking with him his kinship group primarily
(and there is reason to assume that whether they knew their haplogroup, they
proabably shared it to a great degree).

Say the original population was 35% R1a, 15% R1b, 10% J2, 5% G2, and the
rest assorted haplogroups. now let's suppose one rival is R1a and one is R1b.
And let's suppose the R1b decides to go elsewhere. Presumably his sons and
brothers and cousins would be most likely to go with him. The rest of the
group might be made up of some his wife's kin and his daughters spouses.
Therefore the departing group might well be 60% R1b, with 15% R1a, 5% J2, 2% G2,
and the rest assorted haplogroups. (I picked random numbers here, but I'm
illustrating a point). If I have missed something, please explain to me what
argument exists for assuming roughly equivalent percentages among those leaving
and the original or remaining populations. Seems to me that such a
situation would be more likely to require them to have known their haplogroups!

Anne


This thread: