GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-06 > 1180907273


From: "R. & G. Stevens" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Megalith Builders
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 17:46:55 -0500
References: <230715.12388.qm@web52107.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


----- Original Message -----
From: "ellen Levy" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Megalith Builders

Ellen wrote:

> Rich:
>
> The similarity lies in the fact that very complex
> subjects are distilled down into very simplistic,
> agenda-driven theories that appear to be based on
> little to no actual scientific studies, particularly
> DNA studies, though they are often completely bereft
> of archaeological data as well.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
My response:

We all have "agendas", Ellen. If by that you mean we are liars and do not
really believe what we say we believe, then you are mistaken.

I actually think I am right about centum Indo-European and R1b; I don't
merely "say" I believe that to advance any political, religious or other
agenda. Yeah, I'm R1b, so perhaps you suspect I am trying to glorify my
ancestors. Well, that certainly is not the case on the conscious level
anyway. I'm not sure it's any more glorious to be descended from the early
Indo-Europeans than it is be to be descended from Cro-Magnons or Basque
shepherds or fishermen.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ellen wrote:
> I have no problem with theories, as long as they are
> put forth as such (and hopefully in an open-minded
> fashion) and not asserted as scientific truths that
> others must acccept, and if they argue otherwise, they
> are informed they are merely allowing themselves to
> continue wallowing in their ignorance.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
My response:

When have I claimed the centum-R1b hypothesis is established, scientific
fact? As I recall, I have said a number of times that I could be wrong, that
the whole Indo-European problem defies resolution. I believe I have said
more than once that what I argued was merely my opinion.

When have I accused anyone who disagrees with me of "wallowing in
ignorance"?

I am fully aware that those who disagree with me have good reasons for doing
so. I am also fully aware that they may be right and that I may be wrong. If
they are right, fine. If I am right, well, that's even better.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ellen wrote:
> One should be very cautious about utilizing modern-day
> distribution of Y haplogroups to assert theories
> concerning the origins of various linguistic families
> as they are reflected currently in Europe, or ancient
> cultural/political groups like the Celts, or even
> megalithic builders (who, by the way, spanned many
> centuries and many cultural time periods).
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

My response:

I agree. First, I did not make any claims that the megalith builders were
R1b. Second, while it is dangerous to use the modern distribution of
y-haplogroups to make claims about prehistoric people, it is possible to use
them to learn about historical peoples, peoples with a documented tradition
of continuity that extends into the modern era or comparatively recent
times, like the Celts.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Not that I wish to reopen the argument, Rich, but
> there MAY be a correlation TODAY between certain Y
> haplogroups and certain language families. A
> convincing argument still needs to be made based on
> both linguistic and genetic data (archaeological
> information would be supportive as well) that such a
> link actually exists not only today, but also as long
> ago as 8000 years ago, when branches like Greek and
> Hittite began to split from the main IE tree.
>
> Ellen Coffman
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

My response:

There is such a modern correlation, but you are right: in the case of centum
Indo-European, the prehistoric connection remains to be proven. In the
meantime, I think there is a pretty strong case to be made that the early
centum-speaking Indo-Europeans were primarily R1b. There is an even stronger
case to be made that R1bs were responsible for the spread of Celtic
languages.

Are there good reasons to disagree? Sure!

But those contrary opinions have not been proven either nor are their
advocates lacking their own "agendas."

All this is fun speculation and not the province of certainty.

May the Indo-Europeans rise from their kurgans and drive their chariots up
the noses of those who think otherwise! :-)

Rich

This thread: