GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-12 > 1166052714


From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Ellen's Paper
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:31:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <REME20061213144100@alum.mit.edu>


John has stated in his words precisely what I was trying to articulate.

I reviewed the Haak paper which Ellen uses as a pillar of her perspective. My assertion in previous posts is that ANY European specimen assigned to a haplogroup when the specimen is determined to contain the 16223 mutation is highly suspicious due to the propensity for a false reading at this spot due to selective post mortem damage. Among the samples in the Haak paper all 6 have the 16223 "mutation". Hence there is no reason to posit a previous occupation by haplogroup N of any stripe, presently seen almost exclusively in Asia, when the most parsimonious interpretation of the weight of data is that many studies have misattributed haplogroup assignments. The reason is that an ancient specimen of H or a V (common today in Basque Country) is likely to "morph" into something else due to 16223 and the others noted in the Thomas paper being likely to glow "as if" they were C, D, L3, or N etc.

David Faux.

John Chandler <> wrote:
Rich wrote:
> If the flaws in her paper are "fatal," then that means they are
> fatal to the main points of her argument

Regardless of what Aaron's objections are, I think it's safe to say
that David's objection (if true) is entirely fatal. Briefly, Ellen's
paper depends crucially on the finding that mtDNA haplogroup V is
common in present-day Basques, but absent in tests of ancient bones in
and around Basque country. David says that post-mortem damage to
mtDNA makes haplogroup V look like N1 instead. If this is true, and
if, in particular, the aDNA results in question show N1 as a common
result, then the absence of V is easily explained without invoking any
population replacement. So far, Ellen's response has not dealt with
David's assertion, unless her comment about "N1a" being found in the
aDNA samples should be taken as a refutation, and not a confirmation,
of the predicted appearance of "N1". Meanwhile, David has hedged by
saying that his assertion is only his opinion, and he'd like some
comment on it, and has not said whether post-mortem damage would
produce the appearance of N1a in particular.

It seems to me that a little more discussion of the details of
DNA damage and haplogroup assignments would be in order.

John Chandler


This thread: