GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-11 > 1131918512


From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Red hair blue eyes etc
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:48:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BKEPIIDHHKEPCMDIEBKBKEDDCMAA.andrew.en.inge@skynet.be>


Andrew & List:

I appreciate your summation of a lot of these topics.


There have been numerous discussions on the list over
the past 18 months on both Tarim Basin Mummies and
Tocharians. Although they are believed to be related,
the genetic connection has yet to be conclusively
proved. The Tocharians were clearly Indo-Iranians, a
branch of the eastern-most Indo-European population.
We know this from the inscriptions they left. The
Tarim Basin mummy remains are older than the
Tocharians. They are potential ancestors to the
Tocharians, but if so, again, we are looking at
Indo-Iranians, not "Europeans."

I find that many assumptions put forth on the list
concerning both phenotypes and genetypes are not based
on a scientific foundation of DNA testing (nor are
they based on other scientific fields such as
archaeology or linguistics). I find even this recent
study by Haak to be guilty of this approach. Again,
people are engaging (in my opinion) in popular genetic
myth-making. If we don't find a Neolithic genetic
connection, then it supposedly lends credence to a
Paleolithic connection.

My response: prove it. That is what good science is
supposed to be about. Not myth. Because all of the
genetic evidence contradict this stance. Pleistocene
Cro-Magnon mtDNA remains tested thus far are of
relatively uncommon European haplogroups - Pre-HV, HV,
N*. It would be a sound assumption (though purely
speculative at this point) that Paleolithic
populations descended from this earlier population
would also contain these haplogroups. The Neolithic
remains tested show many common European haplogroups,
but then again, some very rare ones, including N1a.
Still, if you've read the study, it is noted that N1a
is still found with some frequency in some European
groups. It is not completely absent. And the N1a
remains fit the haplotype of "European N1a." So the
researchers will have too come up with a more
reasonable theory to explain its disappearance,
especially if they are discounting genetic drift. And
it's disappearance later from the Scytho-Siberian
remains from 500 BC - this is no longer the Neolithic,
but much, much later And the disappearance of J and
K from the modern-day Basque. And the sudden late
appearance of mtDNA V among the Basque and Iberians,
who were suppposedly the originators this haplogroup
in the early post-LGM. Not to the mention the lack of
any mtDNA link between Etruscans and modern-day
Tuscans.

Where is the genetic evidence to support a Paleolithic
Hunter-gatherer MtDNA = Contemporary mtDNA link? Such
a theory is in contradiction to all the DNA studies
mentioned above. Those studies seem to indicate a
clear discontinuity, perhaps right through to the
historical period, of genetic mtdna results. But
people don't like this idea much, do they? Because it
means we may NOT be our ancestors, at least the
ancestors from which we like to think we descend.

Oh yes, and let's not forget all the adherents of the
now-popular "the Celtic peoples were indigenous to the
British Isles and closely related to the Basques.
Hence no outsider invader theory need explain the
appearance of Celtic culture, language, design, etc."
Then how to explain the adoption of Indo-European
Celtic language in the British Isles, a language
family that is clearly not "indigenous." I suppose
they just decided it was a nice little language to
start speaking and did away with their other,
non-Indo-European language?

And the final issue: those who left Africa 80,000
years ago and the beginning of those phenotypes we
consider typically "European": Blue eyes, red/blond
hair, fair skin. Are these traits associated with the
Indo-Europeans (who appear to have originated
themselves around the Black Sea)? Possibly. Were they
present in the earlier, pre-Indo-European populations?
Possibly. Were they present 80,000 in the those who
left Africa? Unlikely, given the environmental
selection process there in favor of dark skin, hair
and eyes.

Glen, what about the Schmidt study regarding the
relatively late appearance of blondenss/fair skin
among German populations don't you like? That is
contradicts your viewpoint of early appearance
blondness/fair skin among ancient German populations?
Find me a valid scientific criticism of the study
(which may in fact exist, for all I know) or stop
complaining about how it just simply couldn't be true.
Or find another study that contradicts the findings.
I am not "proving" anything - I am using the DNA
studies to make my point. You should try it sometime.
That is what discussions on the list are supposed to
be about.

Just because a phenotype is dominant in a population
today does not equate to it being predominate in the
past.

Ellen Coffman



This thread: