GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-06 > 1180909380


From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Megalith Builders
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 15:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <001501c7a631$15dcd1f0$6401a8c0@Richard>


First:

I think you may be reading elements into my post that
was neither directly stated nor implied. No one is
calling anyone here a liar.

If a theory is advanced without regard to
contradictory evidence (and listers here are very good
about playing devil's advocate or bringing out the
contradictory studies) and without any real supportive
scientific studies or data, than that, in my opinion,
constitutes an "agenda." It doesn't have to be
religious, political or even personal in its makeup.
It merely reflects an inflexibility in approach and
unwillingness to consider other, alternative theories
that are equally reasonable.

We are talking about remote times here of which there
is very little known, either genetically,
archaeologically and linguistically. It is helpful to
rely on what little data we do have and not to assert
theories as if they are absolute truths.

I did not accuse you directly, Rich, of asserting
theories as absolute facts. I think may be taking my
remarks on this a little to personally. If this was
conveyed in any way directly towards you, I do
apologize. However, I do think this perspective was
asserted quite forcefully by some during certain
recent threads on the topic.

No, you don't make any claims about the megalithic
builders and an alleged association with a particular
haplogroup. I never accused you of doing so. I
merely pointed out that both theories tend to be
simplistic in distilling down very complex subjects
into very primitive theories, and often without
supportive scientific data or DNA studies.

You do appear to be asserting something equally
problematic, in my view - that R1b in Europe, as it
exists today in frequency and distribution, is
responsible for either the origins of centum-based IE,
or its movement into Europe. Somehow, this theory
also got tied up with the Celts.

You state the following assertion: that it is useful
to use modern day distribution of of y-haplogroups to
learn about historical peoples, "peoples with a
documented tradition of continuity that extends into
the modern era or comparative times, like the Celts."

Yes, of course that is probably true, with great
caution in its application, hopefully. But again,
what tends to happen is that a theory is asserted as
if it is absolute truth, or gets tied up with our
preconceived ideas of ancestry, without really
examining or utilizing scientific studies which are
avilable and which are often very complex in terms of
their data and their ultimate findings.

For instance, there was a recent study on whether the
ancient Germanic tribe known as the "Cimbri" can be
found today in two populations that claim descent from
this tribe - one in Denmark, the other in Italy. The
study is, "No Signature of Y Chromosomal Resemblance
Between Possible Descendants of the Cimbri in Denmark
and Northern Italy," by Anders Borglum, 2007, Am J of
Physical Anthro. They weren't able to show a
biological relationship between these two groups, by
the way, but the larger point is that if an argument
is going to be made concerning the Celts=R1b=IE Centum
branches, then these types of studies are what should
be brought to the list's attention and utilized in
supporting (or questioning) these arguments.

I don't completely disregard the theory put forth of
R1b=IE centum branches in Europe. But I don't think
any kind of persuasive scientific argument has been
made to support either a modern-day correlation or one
in the deep past. If that means I have an "agenda" in
your definition of such things, so be it.

Ellen Coffman




____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

This thread: