Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1157084250

Subject: Re: [GENEALOGY-DNA] [DNA] More on Chinese mummies
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 00:17:30 EDT

Dienekes Pontikos stated:

"In other words, the fact that Celts settled in
Turkey tells us nothing about whether or not
they settled in Xinjiang province."

At least you admit that the Celts did settle in
Asia Minor! They probably settled in many
more places before that. Just because there
is no current absolute proof of a spatial and temporal relationship
does not mean you should stop looking for one. I find the
similarities between these Asian mummies and the Bronze Age
Celts fascinating to say the least.

If there are common MtDNA patterns that can be
found between these ancient Europoid appearing
people on different continents, and more of the
same patterns could be found in many other
Caucasoid populations, would you still believe
they had no relationships to each other?
What if many more similar mutations
could be found to show more compelling
statistical evidence for common ancestors?
How many coinciding mutations would it take to
be statistically significant in your mind?

I agree that it may not tell you whether the
Caucasoids went east or went west but it seems
like the data would point to a common ancestor.

Do you believe that common mutations along
with similar phenotypes (and these mutations have
nothing to do with causing the phenotypes) just
spontaneously occurred coincidently in different
parts of the world? It seems like there should be
SOME connection,especially when you consider
shared cultural artifacts like the specific
weave of the Xinjiang mummys' clothing.

Does anybody know if the scientists are looking
at MtDNA subclades to further classify and show
common ancestry among the ancient MtDNA?
If so, why are we not hearing about the
subclades in all the studies on the DNA
of mummies and ancient skeletons? Is something
lost in the processing? Or is it such a new test,
that it has not been done? Maybe the information
is out there, and I don't know what I am looking
for because it is not being reported in the
way that genealogists would recognize.


This thread: