DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2008-12 > 1228142646


From: "David Ewing" <>
Subject: [R-M222] Tribal Origins of DNA
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:44:06 -0700


John Laughlin said, "For those on this list who don't believe there is any
tribal basis to DNA whatsoever I would advise concentrating on a known part
of Ireland (Donegal) where the leading chieftains are well known from
history."

I have argued in a number of posts that we should be careful of looking for
ethnic, racial or tribal characteristics on the basis of genetics in men who
have been tested and found to share a haplogroup subclade. I don't recall
ever seeing a post saying anything like "there is [no] tribal basis for DNA
whatsoever." This makes me worry that John has misunderstood my point, and
if he has, practically everybody has.

I certainly believe that Y-DNA studies of presently living men can be
revealing about the tribal affiliations of their distant paternal-line
ancestors. What I do not believe, and what I believe can actually be
dangerous in fostering a misguided sort of eugenic chauvinism, is that men
living today are still actually members of the same tribes that their
distant paternal-line ancestors were, and that they share genetically
derived characteristics with them. In fact, what they share with them are
SNPs and STR patterns. If they have a more extensive genetic patrimony than
that, such as skin color and freckles, it is because of genetic factors that
have been passed down on the other chromosomes, through many lines. And if
they share attitudes and "a special gift of gab," this is very likely to be
due to cultural factors that have nothing to do with genetics at all.

Incidentally, the influential genetic genealogist is Ken Nordtvedt, not
"Knordtfeldt," though I admit that I have to look this up myself every time
I go to write it.

David Ewing

This thread: