GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-09 > 1159135539
From: Bonnie Schrack <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Oppenheimer article on Celtic prehistory - on preRomanScandivians to England
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:05:39 -0400
>putting aside the lack of an evolutionary path
>from southeast Asia, why would it make any sense to think that if a certain
>haplogroup is now found in western Europe, they went FROM Africa TO
>southeast Asia, evolved there, and (leaving no genetic trail) went all the
>way to Europe, instead of evolved on a shorter and traceable path of
>migration from the Middle Eastern land bridge to Europe? As for American
>Indians, their ancestors did not cross the Aleutian land bridge and follow a
>proven path down the Pacific coast. They took the far more difficult route
>across the Atlantic in rafts and canoes.
Dora, this is getting on my nerves.
Where in the world did you get the notion that Oppenheimer thinks the
people who settled Western Europe migrated from Southeast Asia?
You just finished quoting a (second-hand) description of his theory as
>the founding population of
>Caucasoids (Western Eurasians) originating in Northwest India
Northwest India is a long way from Southeast Asia, isn't it? Like at
least 2500 miles?
And what makes you attribute to him the idea that they "evolved" in
Southeast Asia? That is, they evolved into modern humans from something
more primitive, is that what are you thinking? I am fairly certain
that this is no part of his theories.
As to your question about why a more round-about migration route would
be proposed, than the familiar old one that had people migrating
directly from Africa into the Levant, and from there to Europe, it could
have something to do with a rather large body of evidence which has been
increasingly winning over most scholars in the field to agree that the
southern route across the Red Sea and through Yemen, to Iran and to
South Asia, played a larger role.
As for your statement about how the American Indians reached these
shores, it would be considered laughable by the vast majority of serious
scholars in either archaeology or genetics. But I suppose you can
always argue that the majority of them are deluded, while only the
illuminated few who you are in contact with, have the truth.
I won't even bother to comment on your association of Oppenheimer's
theories with "transpermia."
I would like to think that you're being sarcastic or funny, but I'm
afraid you aren't.
Instead of going on about how he couldn't possibly have anything to
teach you, and how you can't afford to spend money on books that might
clutter up your house, you might try that wonderful resource, the public
library; if they don't yet have a copy locally, you should be able to
have them get you one by interlibrary loan.