GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-09 > 1127185517


From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Ethnic Migrations Across Europe
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20050920021340.98820.qmail@web33011.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


Greg:

I beg to differ with you. The map you have posted
does not have god-like accuracy. The origins of R1a
remain quite controversial. We don't even yet know if
there exists an R1a*, but many researchers suspect
not. Some researchers believe R1a (or R1a1)
originated further east of your map, some further
east. I believe it is improper to present the map as
historical fact rather than genetic theory.

Second, I agree that there is a dramatic difference
between cultural/political versus ethnic/genetic.
Furthermore, ethnicity is not always tied to common
ancestry, but can be based on cultural history,
national origin (just look at America) or religion.

Third and most importantly, you are using a
cultural/historical/political/linguistic group (ie,
"Slavic") to define a haplogroup (which is what I'm
guessing you mean by ethnic/genetic, even though a
haplogroup is not "ethnic"). It is no more proper to
call R1a "Slavic" and inform your DNA participants
that they must be of Slavic origin than to tell them
they are of "Scythian" or "Khazarian" ancestry, two
other social/political/ethnic entities that inhabited
Eastern Europe/Central Asia in and around the area
defined on your map as the point of origin for R1a.

Ellen Coffman


--- "Greg W. Moore" <> wrote:

> Ellen,
>
> There is a clear confusion of the definitions here.
> You are obviously talking about the Slavs in the
> cultural terms while the statements you are
> referring to were used in the geographical location
> terms, that is, location which overlaps with the
> original area of "R1a" before Europe got populated -
> see the link with that old map one more time - and
> which also overlaps with the present area of the
> highest Slavic population. That is - please read
> one more time the whole descriptions posted before
> to notice that there is a dramatic difference
> between "ethnic/genetic" and "cultural/political".
> Note also that those postings were made about a year
> ago and since then the understanding of certain
> migrations has changed somewhat.
>
>
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ggmurczyk/Europe_Haplogroup.jpg
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> ellen Levy <> wrote:I think the
> bigger problem here is equating R1a with
> Slavic ancestry, whether it pertains to the Wallaces
> or others of British ancestry.
>
> Historically, the Slavs do not even emerge from
> obscurity until the 6-7th century. The history of
> the
> proto-Slavs is still very controversial. So tracing
> someone's DNA back 2000 years and calling it
> "Slavic"
> is rather misleading. There are many, many peoples
> possessing high frequencies of R1a that clearly do
> not
> have "Slavic" ancestry and never did - the people of
> India, for example.
>
> I would suggest that a more accurate and fair less
> misleading designation for R1a deep ancestry would
> be
> "Eastern European/Central Asian" since most
> researchers believe that this haplogroup originated
> in
> this area. However, this does little justice to
> Scandinavian R1a.
>
> Ellen Coffman
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Search Family and Local Histories for stories about
> your family and the
> areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the
> last 12 months.
> Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13966/rd.ashx
>
>


This thread: