GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-04 > 1143942881


From: "Wil Husted" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] an unexpected haplogroup result
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 18:54:41 -0700
References: <20060401215135.16213.qmail@web52106.mail.yahoo.com>


Hello All,

I'm using Ellen's post just to ride along with this discussion that is most
enjoyable and educational. Glen's statement that, "Following them is what
this is all about" says it all for me. I do not have the knowledge to
participate in the discussion but want to pass along something that I
learned as a practicing North American archaeologist. I concluded long ago
that many archaeologists, and probably many of those in other disciplines,
will leave no stone unturned to disprove the obvious. I'm getting faint
vibrations that this is happening in this thread but can't nail it down.
Ignorance is bliss!

I also concluded that some archaeologists, unfortunately too many, will go
down with the ship rather than accept another's explanation or
interpretation. I suspect that there's been a bit of this revealed in some
of the threads in this forum during the past six months or so that I've been
following it.

So, I urge people to be very careful in what they conclude and present to
others. Ya gotta know the territory. I don't, so will leave it here. But
please, be nice to one another.

Wil Husted

----- Original Message -----
From: "ellen Levy" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 2:51 PM
Subject: RE: [DNA] an unexpected haplogroup result


> First of all, have you even bothered to read this
> archaeological study before leveling your criticisms
> against it? Since the authors don't propose to
> "reinterprete" anything in their study concerning
> connections between current populations and those of
> the past, I'm not sure what you are accusing them of
> "wanting to be true." What strikes you as "incredibly
> outlandish" in this particular study?
>
> And they are certainly not arguing for a "deus ex
> machina" explanation either. These are scientists.
> They certainly don't buy into "Deus Ex Machina"
> explanations for things.
>
> There wasn't a "wholesale replacement," but neither
> was there simply a cultural diffusion process. These
> population movements out of the Middle East occurred
> over time and originated from different source groups.
> And the impact on Europe varied greatly from region
> to region. If the region is the Balkans, Greece,
> Cyprus, Crete and Italy, the movement come to
> constitute nearly a wholesale replacement. Cyprus
> was, in fact, settled entirely by Neolithic
> agriculturalists. But by the time you reach the
> fringes of Europe - Scandinavia and the British Isles-
> the movement was probably more one of cultural
> diffusion. Still, even at the fringes, the Neolithic
> groups moved in, though at a much lower frequency. I
> posted recently to the list about the study, "Tracing
> the Phylogeography of Human Populations in Britain
> Based on 4th-11th Century mtDNA Geotypes," by A.L.
> Topf. Although again based on exploration of ancient
> mtDNA evidence in Britain, the authors offer
> explanations for the presence of Neolithic haplogroups
> like J1b1 present in Britain and Scandinavia which
> they suggest may date back to the Neolithic. I
> thought this was a remarkable suggestion that no one
> has yet commented on.
>
> Ellen Coffman
>
> --- Glen Todd <> wrote:
>
>>
>> > > The authors also levelled some rather humorous
>> (and in
>> > > my opinion, fairly valid) criticisms towards the
>> field
>> > > of genetic genealogy and its obsession with
>> > > "interpreting the current gene pool as a legacy
>> of
>> > > past population migrations."
>> >
>> > Well, the current gene pool **IS** a legacy of
>> past
>> > population migrations. That's not debatable,
>> unless you
>> > define "population migration" to mean "wholesale
>> > replacement" as opposed to addition. That may be
>> what they
>> > mean, of course.
>>
>> Or one of the various fanciful deus ex machina
>> explanations where some force
>> or power not in evidence simply bypassed all of the
>> natural laws to create
>> something entirely new that just _happened_ to
>> greatly resemble what had
>> previously existed but is not related to it at all.
>> (Or all the apparent
>> older evidence was just made up by this same force
>> to confuse people.)
>>
>> To reiterate the above point, the current gene pool
>> IS the legacy of past
>> population migrations. It is, as I put it more
>> poetically in another
>> forum, the Book of the Blood, and it does not lie -
>> unlike some other books
>> that purport to tell contradictory stories. The
>> criticism of
>> "interpreting the current gene pool as a legacy of
>> past population
>> migrations" is in all probably another way of saying
>> "the evidence does not
>> support what I _WANT_ to be true, therefore the
>> evidence must be wrong, or
>> must have to be 're-interpreted' in some incredibly
>> outlandish way to make
>> it fit". I know that we've all seen this, both on
>> this list and
>> elsewhere.
>>
>> The 'wholesale replacement', as has been already
>> more than adequately
>> demonstrated, did not happen, but migrations
>> unquestionably did happen.
>> Following them is what this is all about.
>>
>> Glen
>>
>>
>> ==============================
>> 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: