GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-09 > 1159159408


From: "Lawrence Mayka" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Roman genetic footprints
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:43:33 -0500
In-Reply-To: <e468a0040609242001j50d821d4k7813a77acc87a4a8@mail.gmail.com>


> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of A DesCartes
> Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 10:01 PM
> Since you are dealing with a region that has NO written
> record, no archaeological Y-DNA, and was virtually marking
> time for most of the past few thousands years with minimal
> contact with the developed world,

Are you actually claiming, with a straight face, that the region that
arguably gave us the Indo-European languages was simply 'marking time for
most of the past few thousand years'? And are you actually claiming that
the Scythians and their spawn had 'minimal contact with the developed
world'?

I certainly agree with you that we need more archaeological yDNA. The R1a
haplotype found in a 2000-year-old Mongolian mummy is sometimes said to be
Scythian; but since the mummy is an exact match for someone in the Polish
project, I could just as easily claim that the mummy is Slavic. :)

> From a linguistic standpoint,
> you would be right, it could offer us a clue, if not for the
> fact that the steppe tribes- Mongols, Alans, Sarmatians etc..
> were throughout time recorded as exhibiting extreme ethnic
> diversity. One band would be Gobi desert Asiatics, another
> would be Turkic and another may be blue-eyed Budini.

As written, that statement is nonsensical. Each tribe obviously had its own
language, culture, and genetic history. What I think you are referring to
is the fact that outside observers did not always carefully distinguish one
tribe from another. That is why linguistic cues are essential, to identify
tribes according to their language families.



This thread: