GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-08 > 1091557925


From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] J2 HG in Scotland
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 18:32:05 +0000


Ellen:
Thank you for your very well informed and cogent arguments. I simply have run out of time at the moment, so am unable to address the comments below. I have tossed out some hypotheses for consideration and nothing more. Quite frankly my J2 argument stands on shaky ground - especially since it just occured to me a few days ago and I have not assessed all the implications. Food for thought, nothing else.
As I have said before on repeated occasions, any further discussion of my R1a hypotheses will need to await the "verdict" of my colleague on the 40 page paper which I submitted to him. Considering that he and I have many other more pressing business and research interests this matter is likely going to take a back seat until the Fall. At that point I will announce plans as to how we plan to publish the material (I am sure he will want to make additions and corrections; we need to get permission from the owners of the private databases to publish modal values). At the very least it will be on one of my websites, but I would rather it first see the light of day in a reputable journal. There will be nothing about J2 or E3b in this paper since I have not explored the matter, only offered an opinion for discussion purposes.
It would certainly be reasonable for others to join in on a discussion of the J2 and E3b aspects, and I may chime in from time to time - but time is what I lack at the moment. Or, another approach, considering the perception (probably warranted) of a flimsy foundation is to just let the matter rest.
David.


--
Dr. David K. Faux
P.O. Box 192
Seal Beach, CA 90630


www.davidkfaux.org


-------------- Original message --------------

>
> Hi David, Doug, List:
>
> Whoa, what a minute. Are we talking about J2? Or R1a?
> Or Q? Because these are different groups with
> different histories, origins, and migration patterns.
>
> To try to help clarify matters, I'm going to send a
> separate post about R1a1. I'll list it under "R1a
> Central Asian Matches" because I think these are
> really two separate discussions.
>
> David, I hope you will take all this in the way it is
> intended. I have an archaeology degree, but not a
> genetics degree, so my knowledge of genetics is based
> on what I've been able to pull of the internet, not
> what I learned at a University.
>
> However, if your going to publish your research (which
> I sincerely hope you will), then you will get a lot of
> questions and criticisms about certain points - you
> may as well here some of them now and get prepared,
> right?
> >
>
> Let's go to the Samartians themselves first. First,
> you need to define the area you are talking about -
> between the Black Sea and the Caspian? Further east,
> on the Eastern shores of the Caspian? I'm thinking
> you are talking about the area that is defined as
> between the Black and Caspian Seas - is this correct?
> The area that became the Khazarian Empire in the 7th
> century?
>
> Second, you need to define your Samartian people more
> clearly. Where are you getting that they are
> significantly J2, David? I guess we can look to the
> population in an area very, very close to where the
> Samartians lived (though I'd much rather see a study
> dealing with Russians from Odessa stretching to the
> border of Kazakhstan. This would be more accurate).
> The Georgians are 33% J2 (4% J1). According to
> Semino's paper, there is no haplogroup E found in
> Georgia. Thus, your idea does nothing to explain how
> E3b got to Britain.
>
> Now this means that the Georgians are 67% "other."
> Most likely a very high percentage of R1a1 and (we
> know) very, very high haplogroup G. This isn't what
> we see in Britain. We don't see a large amount of G
> or a very, very high percentage of R1a1 (and it was my
> understanding that most of R1a was brought to Britain
> by the Vikings).
>
> Additionally, the Khazars, who inhabited the area
> between the Black and Caspian Seas, obviously had high
> percentages of haplogroup Q. How do we know this?
> Because other than the Scandinavians, haplogroup Q is
> only found in very low frequencies where the Khazars
> migrated - Hungary, Poland and Lithuania (for those
> interested, I am in the process of designing a webpage
> for Ashkenazi Q results that examines the Khazarian
> evidence closely, including archaeological remains).
> This is essentially it, guys. Q very Asian-specific
> and very rare in Europe. As far as I know, it is not
> found in Britain, with the exception being in Scottish
> areas where Vikings settled, and even then it's rare.
> So the Samartians, who likely had Q (as well as O & C
> and a host of other groups we aren't talking about
> much on the List) didn't bring it to Britain.
>
> However, I do think there was significant gene flow
> between the native British populations and the Romans.
> Italians today have very high percentages (15-30%) of
> J2 and E3b, so it quite possible that some of British
> obtained these haplogroups from the Romans themselves.
> There was a clear merging of the Celtic British
> culture with that of the Romans, as supported by the
> archaeological record in England. There is no reason
> not to think that there was a merging of some of the
> peoples as well over the course of many hundreds of
> years that the Romans occupied England.
>
> But you would have great difficulty trying to
> differentiate between Roman J2 and Middle Eastern J2.
> Almost all the sub-clades appear in both places,
> sometimes in the same proportions. Which brings us
> back to the Neolithic farmers.
>
> David, there is nothing "hypothetical" about the
> Neolithic farmers. It was debated in the archaeology
> community for years whether the culture and farming
> technology of Anatolia was brought to Europe merely
> though the "movement of ideas" or through the actual
> movement of peoples out of this area. By making
> overarching and unfounded statements like that, you
> negate the work of many thousands of archaeologist,
> physical anthropologists and linguists who have
> labored for decades trying to bring these people "to
> life" to the rest of the world. They were real
> people. They really existed.
>
> DNA evidence has now prove quite conclusively that
> there was a significant and massive movement of
> people, not just ideas, out of Anatolia towards Europe
> (and south into the Levant - Syria, Lebanon and
> Israel). This happened because because farming and
> sedentarism brings huge population growth, and those
> people needed some place to go, not to mention land to
> farm. Along with these people moved their culture -
> their particular brand of pottery showing scenes like
> dancing that were not previously found in the
> Mesolithic peoples of Europe. We've also now
> discovered using DNA computer programs that study
> linguistic similarities and differences, that these
> Neolithic farmers brought the first wave of
> Indo-European languages with them - Greek, Albanian,
> Armenian. Pretty amazing stuff. And unlike R1a,
> there movement was peaceful, as far as we can tell in
> the archaeology record.
>
> David, the reason there is little J2 difference
> between Engish and Armenian sources is because these
> people all originated from the same source - from the
> Konya plain of south-central Anatolia. This brings us
> back to Doug McDonald's idea that these populations
> share haplotypes because they arose from the same
> founder populations.
>
> Furthermore, you are just looking at haplotypes here,
> but sub-clades are much more important in this DNA
> scheme. In order to prove your theory, you must prove
> a number of different things, including other European
> populations differ significantly in haplotypes (and
> more importantly, in sub-clades) from those
> populations that best reflect the ancient Sarmartians
> as well as from English J2.
>
> Ellen Coffman
>
>

This thread: