Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1156600982

From: Vincent Vizachero <>
Subject: Re: #7 Re: [DNA] `Ultra-Norse`..who is making up this stuff?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 09:03:10 -0500
References: <> <000601c6c7fd$fc68fcb0$6400a8c0@Ken1> <> <000801c6c84f$7af53660$6400a8c0@Ken1> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>

On Aug 26, 2006, at 8:41 AM, A DesCartes wrote:

> If you want to be taken with credibility as pertains to scientific
> puposes
> though, `Ultra- Norse` is rediculous. I suggest that instead of
> laying claim to being the ``ultimate norse`` the alleged discoverer
> instead
> may want to name his alleged discovery after himself, as is oftern
> done for
> scientific purposes, or failing that, name it for the provincial
> capital or
> closest large city in the area from which he claims his haplotype
> is vastly
> predominate.
> `Ultra-Norse` as a DNA designation is (low-quality) `eugenics`
> masquerading
> as science. Many people who are I1a and have bought into this are
> not going
> to want to hear this, becasue, like the original name giver, they
> WANT to be
> Ultra-Norse.

I have no clue what sparked this obsession with eugenics, but if it
is the prefix "ultra" that is causing the hang-up then consultation
with any half-decent dictionary should lay your concerns to rest.

The prefix is widely used in scientific descriptions (ultraviolet and
ultrasonic, for example) without any implicit moral judgement. Think
of Ultra-Norse as representing one end of the geographic cline and
Anglo-Saxon the other end. In between you have Transitional and Norse.

This thread: