GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-11 > 1069172440


From: "Nicholas Penington" <>
Subject: [DNA] Barac et al, 2003, HgI
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:20:40 -0500


Alan,
I think we have had this discussion before. Barac et al simply quote the
2000 paper of Semino et al which claims that M170 is 22,000 years old. In
that very paper they qualify this as a dodgy guess. The first paper that
challenged the assertion of the age of M170 (which defines HG I) was
Hammer and Zegura Ann Rev of Anthropology 2002 31:303-321. They date I at
5,950 years BP +/- 2,450. That in itself does not mean that we "I" folk
were not in Europe for 22,000 years, since M170 came from M89 already in
Europe for millennia. Mike Humphreys noted that the Book by Oppenheimer
(The Real Eve?) seems to agree with this but I have not read it. I read a
paper by Underhill recently (I cannot remember which one, can anyone help
me?) where he subtly casts doubt on the 22,000 year age of M170. Academics
never like to admit they are wrong ( I know I am one!). If I come across
the statement again I will send it to you. Nick



This thread: