GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives
Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-10 > 1191277624
From: David Faux <>
Subject: [DNA] Solutrean hypothesis
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Lawrence wrote: From: "David Faux" < DisplayMail('yahoo.com','fauxdk'); >
> What you may not know if you have not lived on a Res is that the term > "full - blooded" is an anacronism.
What you may not know is that the United States is a very different country from Canada, with a very different history. Your claim that not a single full-blooded Native American exists in Canada may or may not be true, but is not relevant to the United States and, I daresay, extremely unlikely in our context. I have certainly never encountered a similar assertion in United
States historical or anthropological literature, from any source whatsoever on any side.
> I don't know why people have to get so enmeshed (angry) in relation to a
> topic they have not specifically researched. The use of terms such as
> "contemptuously > dismissed" and "narrow minded" is uncalled for, and in
> any other venue an appology would be expected.
I agree that you owe Dora an apology for contemptuously referring to her hypothesis (actually the well-known Solutrean hypothesis) as "discredited" and "put me to sleep," but I wasn't going to press the point.
> Of course I believe that anything is possible, but I spent considerable
> time in my posting showing that any R1b1c found in the First Nations
> populations of today > has a much more parsimonious explanation.
First, you showed absolutely nothing of the sort, and I am shocked that you can possibly imagine that you did. You did not test any DNA at all, much less examine 67-marker haplotypes for similarity to modern European ones.
You may have shown that recent admixture is very common, perhaps almost universal, among the First Nations of eastern Canada, but to then project that interesting factoid into a sweeping dismissal, without examination, of every R1b1c Native American in the Americas, is simply ridiculous.
But more importantly, I have no idea why you focus exclusively on R1b1c, a haplogroup that in my opinion probably did not exist 17,000 years ago. If I were going to look for genetic evidence of the Solutrean hypothesis, I would certainly focus more on older haplogroups than younger ones, and perhaps more on mtDNA than yDNA.
In any case, I must reiterate my point that we need a thorough and unbiased study of Native American DNA outside the "accepted" haplogroups.
___________________________________________________________
Lawrence:
You are getting a tad hot under the collar here and apparently are not reading what I write in toto. Did I really "shock" you with statements of fact. BTW1: I never said anything about any lister as you state - but did say that the work of Barry Fell has been discredited; and the TV program did in fact put me to sleep. How my words get so twisted, well I don't know.
BTW2: The Six Nations all came from Upstate New York, Delaware and North Carolina.
For me the thread ends. There is no use in discussing the matter further. The words that I place in print, in Canadian English, are not being read correctly, and the tone of replies are tinged with overt emotionality (e.g., expressions such as "simply ridiculous"). Why the anger.
David K. Faux.
This thread:
| [DNA] Solutrean hypothesis by David Faux <> |