DNA-R1B1C7-L Archives

Archiver > DNA-R1B1C7 > 2008-12 > 1228160700


From: "Paul Conroy" <>
Subject: Re: [R-M222] Tribal Origins of DNA
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:45:00 -0500
References: <e0d2d2870812010644t8ee6236rfa88e42177c99226@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e0d2d2870812010644t8ee6236rfa88e42177c99226@mail.gmail.com>


David,
I guess people in Ireland or Scotland, who are members of the R-M222
project, have a different perspective than American members, as in Ireland
particularly, a person is likely to be closely related to other people from
the specific geographical region they hail from.

So a typical question on meeting a stranger in Ireland would be, "What
countyman are you?" - meaning which county are you from. But this doesn't
mean the same in the US as in Ireland, as in Ireland it says a great deal
more about your ethnicity. So for any given Irish person to be R-M222 from a
particular region - say County Donegal - tells you much more than an
American from Las Vegas being R-M222.

To put it in American term, most Americans are mixed European, and
increasingly mixed European and some other race, so being R-M222 doesn't say
much about the person at all. For instance, American actor Eddie Murphy
could be R-M222 for all I know.

So I think context is key to understanding why people see associations
between R-M222 and other traits.

Cheers,
Paul

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM, David Ewing <> wrote:

> 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
> R1b1c7 Research and Links:
>
> http://clanmaclochlainn.com/R1b1c7/
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

This thread: