DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2008-09 > 1222436918


From: "David Ewing" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA-R1B1C7] Questions??
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 07:48:38 -0600


Marie Kerr's point that one is apt to find Y-DNA haplogroups
disproportionately represented within ethnic groups and to find Y-DNA
haplotype clusters disproportionately represented within families is well
taken. The point I was trying to make is that this information is NOT
contained in the Y-chromosome, but depends on other sorts of research.

I wish I could give you a reference on a very interesting story I read a few
years ago about a couple of crusty Scots neighbors on one of the Western
Isles, all of whose ancestors had lived there for as long as anyone knew
about. There was certainly no doubt about their ethnic group (which is not
such a difficult concept to define as long as you stay clear of the
edges--mainly it has to do with shared language and customs), but their
Y-DNA haplogroups were wildly different from one another and from all the
rest of the men in the community. I don't remember the exact facts of the
matter, but it was as if one of them had Y-DNA of a sort more commonly found
in Eskimos and the other had Y-DNA of a sort more commonly found in Africa.
So, was the fellow with "Eskimo" Y-DNA in the "Eskimo tribe?" Would we
expect him to have an inborn gift for kayaking or a taste for seal blubber?
Of course not. This is just silly.

I am certainly not against using the hints we might find in Y-STR analysis
to find second cousins in the old country; indeed, this is exactly what many
of us are trying to do. I am working like the devil to recruit Ewing project
participants who are still living in Scotland to see if we can find a nest
of them somewhere with Y-DNA haplotypes that place them within the large
cluster we have found among American Ewings. This is very interesting and
great fun.

John McLaughlin's points are also well taken, and as always, I have respect
verging on awe for his erudition. Certainly the Ui Neill was a "tribe," but
there is absolutely no way that I could be construed as a member of the
tribe, notwithstanding that I have R1b1c7 Y-DNA. When I first started doing
genealogy and learned that Ewing was a Scottish name, I began speaking an
imitation brogue, talking proudly of my Scots heritage, and considered
buying a kilt. As my research progressed, I learned that in fact my
genealogic "ethnicity" (in quotes now because we are getting close to an
edge) turns out to be 25% Swedish, 6.25% German (those two from recent
immigrants), 12.5% Irish Catholic, a tiny sprinkle of Dutch, maybe 6.25%
Scots-Irish, and most of the rest English (though at least some of the
"English" lines originate in Danelaw and have Y-DNA haplogroups suggesting
Scandinavian origin). My Ewing 6th great grandfather, Alexander Ewing b1693,
who is my immigrant ancestor, brought my Y-chromosome from the old country
and also contributed a grand total of 3.9% to the rest of my overall genetic
make-up. I have no idea what Alexander's "overall genetic make-up" may have
been, but you can bet your bippy that he was not 100% pure anything, because
there is no such thing.

What is more, I don't speak Irish, I don't even know what religion the Ui
Niall practiced, and I can't tell you over a couple of sentences about their
social and political structure or their lifestyle, though I can only imagine
that they spent an awful lot of time cold, wet and hungry. Furthermore,
there were surely members of the Ui Niall tribe of yore that did NOT have
R1b1c7 Y-DNA. I think a pretty good argument could be made that there are no
living members of this tribe, though the Y-DNA characteristic of some of
them lives on. What's my tribe now? Plain old American, I'm afraid.

What is more, I have had a heck of a time figuring out how my Scots
ancestors ended up with "Irish" DNA. We have worried a little that a
particularly fecund but nonetheless sainted Scots Ewing grandmother of ours
somehow got cross pollinated by an Irishman in the Ulster Plantation, but
have decided to stick with the story that ours was long-time Scottish R1b1c7
that had nothing to do with the Ui Niall.

So, what is the harm of talking as if we R1b1c7s are the Ui Neill? None, I
suppose, if it stops there. The problem is that arguments about racial,
ethnic, and genetic purity can go and have gone terribly wrong in history.
In our own country there was once debate about what made a person "black,"
and I believe laws were made holding that even "one drop of black blood"
made a person black, and therefor not entitled to the same treatment as
folks who did not have (or did not know they had) that drop. There is a
back-story to Yair's apparently innocent questions that I don't want to
dignify with a big discussion, but which makes me worry enough to feel
compelled to speak up. You can find it by Googling his name or the name of
his organization, Brit-Am.

David Ewing

This thread: