GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-06 > 1181402311


From: "R. & G. Stevens" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Megalith Builders
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 11:17:56 -0500
References: <182228.3451.qm@web52109.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


----- Original Message -----
From: "ellen Levy" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Megalith Builders


Ellen wrote:

> I don't think this scenario was originally presented
> to the list as speculative hypothesis (and I'm not
> stating your the one who originally presented the
> argument. Furthermore, the Celts at some point got
> mixed up in the whole R1b=centum IE hypothesis,
> needlessly confusing the whole thing) where comments
> and criticisms were invited and eagerly received.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For me it is entirely speculative. No one knows the answer, and I suspect no
one ever will. It should be a fun topic to discuss. Unfortunately, it's not.
This subject is inordinately controversial, perhaps because the
Indo-Europeans, whoever and if ever they were, are imbued in the popular
imagination with the status of demi-gods. Then there's the old Nazi "Aryan"
bugaboo: whenever anyone suggests that any actual, living Europeans might be
descendants of the Indo-Europeans, he is immediately suspected of being a
closet fascist. Recall that when, a couple of weeks ago, Peltosalo (a member
of y-haplogroup N, by the way) first suggested the R1b/centum Indo-European
thing, he was accused of being some kind of "racist" because he had posted
in an anthropology forum that uses terms like "Dinaroid" and "Cro Magnoid."
Had he appeared on this forum to assert that prehistoric R1bs were peaceful,
Mother-Earth-goddess-worshipping aborigines, his posts would have passed
virtually unnoticed, except by those who felt inclined to reply with their
assent or praise.

Now I agree his approach could have been better, politer, humbler. But
Peltosalo is a young man and used to being smarter than his classmates. And
he was not exactly received in the most understanding manner by some of the
older members here, who should know better. One in particular (who seems to
be gunning for the title, "List Curmudgeon") referred to him repeatedly as
"the masquerader." Nice.

I agree with you that this topic needs a comprehensive approach. It is
important to put all of the pieces together - linguistic, archaeological,
anthropological, historic, genetic, psychological - to form a whole picture.
I wish I had the time and the wherewithal to do it myself. My ideas are too
simple, perhaps too uninformed, but they are my own, and they have nothing
whatsoever to do with demigods or Aryan "supermen." The real problem with
bucking the "Iberian Aborigines" hypothesis is that everbody and his brother
comes out of the woodwork spouting Oppenheimer, chapter and verse. It gets a
little overwhelming, and what should have been fun becomes doubleplusungood.

Once again, everything I have posted is my own opinion. I can claim no real
expertise or privileged knowledge, and I am fully aware that there are
plenty of reasonable people - people I like and even admire (like you,
Ellen) - who disagree with me.

Rich


This thread: