World Families Forums - New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 11, 2014, 09:40:58 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: New Geographic terms for Haplogroups/Subclades  (Read 2204 times)
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« on: August 08, 2012, 01:38:45 PM »

I think we should start using terms like "Western European", "Central and Western European", and "Atlantic and Western European" when describing Haplogroups/Subclades like P312, U106, L21 etc. The terms could be broadened to include Northern, Southern, and Eastern European, and I think that "bleeding over at the edges" would be understood.

This might put an end to terms like Germanic, Irish, Iberian etc. when describing geographic locations of Haplogroups/Subclades.
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2012, 03:04:26 PM »

I think we should start using terms like "Western European", "Central and Western European", and "Atlantic and Western European" when describing Haplogroups/Subclades like P312, U106, L21 etc. The terms could be broadened to include Northern, Southern, and Eastern European, and I think that "bleeding over at the edges" would be understood.

This might put an end to terms like Germanic, Irish, Iberian etc. when describing geographic locations of Haplogroups/Subclades.

I'm not sure I get what you mean, Miles.

Well, let's take your DF23 for instance, Miles. DF23 is a Western European Subclade. You might even define it as an Atlantic Subclade, which would include The Isles and Atlantic parts of the European Continent. This seems a bit vague, Miles. Not really, people will try to precisely define Atlantic Europe, but most people will get the idea and the "bleeding over " part should help. Look Miles, if DF23 is found in La Rochelle then it's French! No, you could call it Atlantic Facade or Bay of Biscay Atlantic. Still, Western European or Atlantic Subclade should get people their basic understanding.

Do you work parties, Miles. No, no parties and no weddings.
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2012, 04:27:24 PM »

Well I would vote

L21-north Altantic
U152-central European
U106-north European Plain
L23 (or its major subclades)-SW European

However, its pretty messy and objections could be raised to most of these
Logged
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2012, 04:42:02 PM »

Yea, but an objection to North European Plain isn't as bad as an objection to Polish or Germanic. And when you say "North Atlantic", people will understand that it is most prevalent in that area with "bleed over" south and east. It's better than saying L21 is an Isles Subclade or a Celtic Subclade. I think you could say that M222 is an Atlantic Isles Subclade and not get into too much trouble.

EDIT: By the way, this really simplifies things for a guy like me who is of mixed heritage (75% Irish/Scots-Irish and 25% French-Canadian). I can say that my Autosomal DNA matches that of Atlantic Europeans. That actually covers perfectly Ireland, Scotland, Brittany, Normandy and La Rochelle which accounts for most of my DNA results. My DF23 is Atlantic European and my T2g is Neolithic found in Brittany.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 04:54:21 PM by eochaidh » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2012, 04:58:11 PM »

I think we should start using terms like "Western European", "Central and Western European", and "Atlantic and Western European" when describing Haplogroups/Subclades like P312, U106, L21 etc. The terms could be broadened to include Northern, Southern, and Eastern European, and I think that "bleeding over at the edges" would be understood.

This might put an end to terms like Germanic, Irish, Iberian etc. when describing geographic locations of Haplogroups/Subclades.

I agree with you. The languages and ethnicities as we know them are NOT one for one overlaid with much more ancient branches of the R1b-L11 Y DNA tree.

However, I don't even like the geographic labels much. I'll be a bit cantankerous her, so forgive me and have a laugh.

Why shouldn't R1b-L21 be called a North American subclade? or a Boston subclade? or R1b-DF27 Latin American subclade? or R1b-U152 a San Francisco fisherman subclade (think Joe DiMaggio), etc., etc.

... but the European centric labeling make sense, right? We think we know that R1b-L21 didn't enter North American until the Exploration Age. I agree that it is probably true, which means we are not really calling subclades like R1b-L21 out by their current frequency but by their pre-Exploration Age probable high frequency areas. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just that that is always assumed in the label by those who know.  However, it's not necessarily assumed by casual DNA testers. They may misunderstand all the qualifiers that go with the label.

You may think that this is all obvious and even the most casual observer knows about the Exploration Age and would assume that is implicit in the labeling system. However, everything is only as of a snapshot in time. What if we backup another 500-700 years from the Exploration Age to the pre-Viking Age, and/or the pre-Germanic Wandering Ages. Things might have looked different, so every label is for a snapshot in time.

What's the harm?  Unfortunately casual testers in some of the most critical locations may lose interest in testing because their ethnicity may appear to be only recently adopted to them. In fact, it could be the opposite, although not modern ethnicity-wise. They could be sitting in the true homeland of their subclade.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 05:03:42 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2012, 05:16:56 PM »

Wow... I think even an idiot like me who might be an absolute causal DNA guy who got a DNA test as a gift would want to know where the Boston L21 Subclade originated. Truly, even an idiot like me knew that DNA would be somewhat divided by race and geography. Plus, I'm a native San Franciscan and I don't know one person so stupid (and my friends are idiots) that they would take a test and be happy to say, "Hey! I'm a San Francisco Fisherman DNA!" with no further investigation. Well, come to think of it, I don't know anyone so stupid that when asked, "What's your ethnicity, or what's your ancestry?" they would answer, "San Franciscan".

I could be way off base , but I think even average people understand etnicity and acestry from an early age. And, even if they went to a Public School, they would know that Europeans came to America and that before that Amerindians lived in North and South America. This, in spite of the fact that they wouldn't be able to read and write.

So, using terms like "Western European" or "Southern European" would be helpful without being absolute about the origin of the guys "San Francisco Fisherman" DNA.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 05:41:00 PM by eochaidh » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
Dubhthach
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2012, 06:11:10 PM »

and here was me thinking the "North American subclade was some branch of Q (or in some cases some branch of Haplogroup C3) ;)

*gets coat*
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2012, 07:25:28 PM »

. . .

This might put an end to terms like Germanic, Irish, Iberian etc. when describing geographic locations of Haplogroups/Subclades.

Doubt it.

It won't stop people taking a look at the evidence and putting two and two together.

If using bland, non-committal geographic terms is designed to spare the feelings of those who get a result they don't like or didn't expect, it will fail there, too, as soon as they see a distribution map or read a thread in which reasonable people are making inferences and drawing conclusions.
Logged

eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2012, 07:38:26 PM »

. . .

This might put an end to terms like Germanic, Irish, Iberian etc. when describing geographic locations of Haplogroups/Subclades.

Doubt it.

It won't stop people taking a look at the evidence and putting two and two together.

If using bland, non-committal geographic terms is designed to spare the feelings of those who get a result they don't like or didn't expect, it will fail there, too, as soon as they see a distribution map or read a thread in which reasonable people are making inferences and drawing conclusions.

You, know, it just makes more sense to use terms that are Geographical rather than Political or Ethnic. If people like you insist on identifying  4,000 year old Subclades with their current Political distribution, then so be it.

To me L21 is a Western European Subclade. To you it's something else. No problem.





Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2012, 07:46:08 PM »

. . .

If people like you . . .


Try to respond to what I wrote without making it personal, which it's not. Use of the second person singular personalizes this unnecessarily.

People will make inferences and draw conclusions based on the evidence. They are not likely to stop at overly broad geographic designations.

And yes, that includes people like me.




« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 07:46:51 PM by rms2 » Logged

eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2012, 09:06:16 PM »

Okay, let me rephrase.

"If some posters want to identify 4,000 year old Subclades with their current Political distribution, then so be it."

I apologise to Rich and all of the posters who were offended by my comment. Using a second person singular was out of line.

« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 09:13:33 PM by eochaidh » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2012, 10:35:29 PM »

I like the idea of breaking up Europe into more distiguishable parcels. From there particular subclades could be added to the conversation.

I would tend to get a little lost if someone was to use N/W Europe as a focal point. It seems so broad.

Or..did I miss the point?

(Edit:)Sorry..but I don't think we are at the place where we can geographically do this with subclades accurately. maybe down the road in 20 years?

just my opinion
« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 10:41:49 PM by OConnor » Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


eochaidh
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2012, 11:01:09 PM »

I like the idea of breaking up Europe into more distiguishable parcels. From there particular subclades could be added to the conversation.

I would tend to get a little lost if someone was to use N/W Europe as a focal point. It seems so broad.

Or..did I miss the point?

(Edit:)Sorry..but I don't think we are at the place where we can geographically do this with subclades accurately. maybe down the road in 20 years?

just my opinion

So, would it be better to say it's too early to say that L21 probably originated in Western Europe? How about if I were to say that L21 probably originated in Europe?

When someone uses a term like Northwest Europe, do most people think of Spain? Or, do they think of The Isles and the northwestern parts of the Continent and Scandinavia? I would think almost anyone on these forums would think that Northwest Europe was The Isles and the northwestern part of the Continent. Some may include Brittany north and others may not. However, as soon as someone mentions Northwest Europe I know what they're talking about. I am certain they don't mean Spain, Italy or Switzerland.

 I think we're 20 years out (perhaps) from pinpointing the place (by present Country) of origin, but not the region of origin.

« Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 11:34:05 PM by eochaidh » Logged

Y-DNA: R1b DF23
mtDNA: T2g
Heber
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #13 on: August 09, 2012, 01:51:10 AM »

Dr. Jim Wilson concludes his book "The Scots a Genetic Journey" with

“There is a new revolution taking place in genetics whereby the DNA of entire genomes can be read cheaply – all six billion letters of the genetic code. Once we make sense of all this information, it will provide a level of detail far beyond that which we have today, potentially identifying the very fjord a Viking set sail from, and building a family tree for all Scots and all mankind. My six billion letter sequence was completed last week and we will begin the analysis tomorrow.”

I prefer the terms Celtic, Viking, Isles, Scots, Irish, English etc as they are descriptions we can relate to.  I look forward to the day in the near future when we can be more precise and describe provincial, county, townland and village patterns. After all that is what the "The People of the British Isles" and "The Irish DNA Atlas" projects are attempting to do.
Logged

Heber


 
R1b1a2a1a1b4  L459+ L21+ DF21+ DF13+ U198- U106- P66- P314.2- M37- M222- L96- L513- L48- L44- L4- L226- L2- L196- L195- L193- L192.1- L176.2- L165- L159.2- L148- L144- L130- L1-
Paternal L21* DF21


Maternal H1C1



Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 09, 2012, 02:16:51 AM »

... I prefer the terms Celtic, Viking, Isles, Scots, Irish, English etc as they are descriptions we can relate to.

I prefer those terms too. We can all relate to cultures and stories, not necessarily to a hill or valley we've never seen. However, the question is not what is pleasing? The question is what is accurate? These ethnic terms may be misapplied at many of the ancient subclade levels we are aware of today. Ultimately it comes down to a lineage by lineage thing, with the possibility that a particular lineage switched from one ever changing culture to another from one time to time.

 I look forward to the day in the near future when we can be more precise and describe provincial, county, townland and village patterns.

I don't how far we'll get. In some cases, the people from the old villages will be gone. I guess a lot of grave digging/testing can resolve that if really go that far.

I absolutely look forward to much better resolution.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2012, 02:18:24 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #15 on: August 09, 2012, 07:59:03 AM »

When I got my first 37-marker results and the then-current "R1b1" prediction, I discussed it with some of my colleagues at work. A friend of mine who happens to be black, when he heard my g*e*n*e*r*i*c* "Western European" result, jokingly remarked that I could have given him ten dollars and he would have told me I was a white guy and saved me a lot of money.

I remember laughing about that. It was a good one.

I pretty much knew I was a white guy with Western European ancestry before I ever had my y-dna tested.

It is possible even now, at this early stage in genetic research, to get far better resolution than that.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2012, 08:00:22 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #16 on: August 09, 2012, 08:11:09 AM »

Okay, let me rephrase.

"If some posters want to identify 4,000 year old Subclades with their current Political distribution, then so be it."

. . .


Current political distribution?

We don't know what people were calling the areas where they lived four or five thousand years ago (with the exceptions of the Egyptians and Mesopotamians and maybe one or two other groups), so we're kind of stuck with what we call them today.

How are terms like "Europe" or "Atlantic Europe" any more appropriate than "England" or "Ireland"?

Just because a y haplogroup was born four or five thousand or even twenty thousand years ago doesn't mean its bearers were immune to the rest of history and did not move from an unknown prehistoric ethno-linguistic status to a known ethno-linguistic status.

It is possible to look at the distribution of a y haplogroup and, using what we know of history, archaeology and linguistics, to make some statements about it that are generally true. Notice I said generally true. That means that you can say things about the haplogroup as a whole that don't necessarily apply to each and every last particular individual member of it.

That should be obvious, I think.

But what's all this about, really? It is, ONCE AGAIN (and again and again), about a couple of Irish guys who got a U106+ result and are dissatisfied and unhappy because U106's connection to Germanics is as obvious as a hammer to the head.

Veritas.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2012, 08:19:12 AM by rms2 » Logged

Richard Rocca
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 523


« Reply #17 on: August 09, 2012, 08:37:59 AM »

Seems like there is a lot of nitpicking (and wasted effort) going on lately about cultural tags for SNPs and folks telling others what they can or can't call them. I have a novel idea - how about we call them whatever we fell appropriate in relation to the topic at hand?

It feels to me that this constant nitpicking is the primary cause for very interesting topics getting locked.
Logged

Paternal: R1b-U152+L2*
Maternal: H
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #18 on: August 09, 2012, 08:46:01 AM »

Seems like there is a lot of nitpicking (and wasted effort) going on lately about cultural tags for SNPs and folks telling others what they can or can't call them. I have a novel idea - how about we call them whatever we fell appropriate in relation to the topic at hand?

It feels to me that this constant nitpicking is the primary cause for very interesting topics getting locked.

I agree, but in this case the source of the recent trouble is pretty obvious.

We're supposed to tiptoe around the idea that U106 might be generally Germanic because that bothers a couple of people who have shown up here recently with an axe to grind about it.

As a consequence, we're supposed to abandon any really meaningful statements about any other y haplogroups, as well, lest we offend.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2012, 08:46:35 AM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 09, 2012, 09:15:06 AM »

I think you were responding to me since you mention Boston and San Francisco and I brought them in to the conversation.
Wow... I think even an idiot like me who might be an absolute causal DNA guy who got a DNA test as a gift would want to know where the Boston L21 Subclade originated. Truly, even an idiot like me knew that DNA would be somewhat divided by race and geography. Plus, I'm a native San Franciscan and I don't know one person so stupid (and my friends are idiots) that they would take a test and be happy to say, "Hey! I'm a San Francisco Fisherman DNA!" with no further investigation. Well, come to think of it, I don't know anyone so stupid that when asked, "What's your ethnicity, or what's your ancestry?" they would answer, "San Franciscan".

I could be way off base , but I think even average people understand etnicity and acestry from an early age. And, even if they went to a Public School, they would know that Europeans came to America and that before that Amerindians lived in North and South America. This, in spite of the fact that they wouldn't be able to read and write.

So, using terms like "Western European" or "Southern European" would be helpful without being absolute about the origin of the guys "San Francisco Fisherman" DNA.

There's no need to bring in language like "even an idiot like me". I in no way implied you were not intelligent. I even agreed with you in my opening line.

I agree with you. The languages and ethnicities as we know them are NOT one for one overlaid with much more ancient branches of the R1b-L11 Y DNA tree.

However, I don't even like the geographic labels much. I'll be a bit cantankerous her, so forgive me and have a laugh.

Why shouldn't R1b-L21 be called a North American subclade? or a Boston subclade? or R1b-DF27 Latin American subclade? or R1b-U152 a San Francisco fisherman subclade (think Joe DiMaggio), etc., etc.

... but the European centric labeling make sense, right? We think we know that R1b-L21 didn't enter North American until the Exploration Age. I agree that it is probably true, which means we are not really calling subclades like R1b-L21 out by their current frequency but by their pre-Exploration Age probable high frequency areas. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just that that is always assumed in the label by those who know.  However, it's not necessarily assumed by casual DNA testers. They may misunderstand all the qualifiers that go with the label.

You may think that this is all obvious and even the most casual observer knows about the Exploration Age and would assume that is implicit in the labeling system. However, everything is only as of a snapshot in time. What if we backup another 500-700 years from the Exploration Age to the pre-Viking Age, and/or the pre-Germanic Wandering Ages. Things might have looked different, so every label is for a snapshot in time.

What's the harm?  Unfortunately casual testers in some of the most critical locations may lose interest in testing because their ethnicity may appear to be only recently adopted to them. In fact, it could be the opposite, although not modern ethnicity-wise. They could be sitting in the true homeland of their subclade.

Please notice that I thought about your point (before you brought it up) and addressed the concern you brought up about idiots knowing about Boston or San Francisco subclades when I said "You may think that this is all obvious and even the most casual observer knows about the Exploration Age and would assume that is implicit in the labeling system."  

I get it but my larger point is that "every label is for a snapshot in time."  The people mix in the Boston may have been different pre-1500 than post 1700 and they may have been different again post 1860 and different again post 2000.  The same things might well have occurred to some degree in places in Ireland. the people mix in pre-1840 (before the Potato famine) Ireland might be different than the ones there now. The mix prior to 1650 (Cromwell and Ulster Plantation) was probably different. Before that we have 1350 and the Plague which supposedly hit the Normans harder than the Gaels and before that the Normans of 1170, and before that Viking incursions, etc., etc.

Nothing stays the same, even in place like Ireland. That's the folly of the anti-migrationist and indigenous wannabe line of thinking. I'm not saying you or anyone else here falls into that line of thinking, but it is an apparent line of reasoning (or lack thereof.)

I'm an equal opportunity advocate for my points.

We're supposed to tiptoe around the idea that U106 might be generally Germanic because that bothers a couple of people who have shown up here recently with an axe to grind about it.

No one has to tip toe around anything but U106 is a an ancient haplogroup, around long before Germanic languages. It's all in the use of the word "generally".  Generally I agree with you that specifically at a point in time a large portion of U106 people were in Germanic speaking groups. Not necessarily all where, though, so I wouldn't generally label U106 as Germanic, particularly since it is way older.  I also wouldn't label L21 as Irish or Britano-Irish.  Most were probably, but not all and before there was an Irishman and before there was a German, both U106 and L21 were something else... maybe even almost essentially the same thing.. Western IE or Central/NW IE.  For all we know the Hallstat people brought U106 into a mix of people that would be come the Jastorf culture.

Quote from: Wikipedia
The Jastorf culture is an Iron Age material culture in what is now north Germany, spanning the 6th to 1st centuries BC, forming the southern part of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The culture evolved out of the Nordic Bronze Age, through influence from the Halstatt culture farther south.

By the way, a large portion of L21 people are now in Germanic speaking groups, mostly speaking English. Since I have bit of English I can't say I'm not English, but my lineages were mostly other things. I have several lineages that were Slavic, including Bohemia, named for ancient Celtic tribes there. So an R1b line from Bohemia is Celtic or Slavic?
« Last Edit: August 09, 2012, 09:31:14 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
vineviz
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 191


« Reply #20 on: August 09, 2012, 09:21:48 AM »

We're supposed to tiptoe around the idea that U106 might be generally Germanic because that bothers a couple of people who have shown up here recently with an axe to grind about it.

People who have known me for a while will probably agree that getting me to use ANY sort of label (ethnic, national, geographic, etc.) involves something akin to pulling teeth.

I'm sympathetic to the desire to adjectify haplogroups, though my opinion is that it is best avoided.  

But if not avoided, I don't see any reason to favor vague geographic adjectives over other types:  all sorts need to be accompanied by the same class of caveats about uncertainty, specificity, attribution of origin, etc.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #21 on: August 09, 2012, 09:30:29 AM »

We're supposed to tiptoe around the idea that U106 might be generally Germanic because that bothers a couple of people who have shown up here recently with an axe to grind about it.

People who have known me for a while will probably agree that getting me to use ANY sort of label (ethnic, national, geographic, etc.) involves something akin to pulling teeth.

I'm sympathetic to the desire to adjectify haplogroups, though my opinion is that it is best avoided.  

But if not avoided, I don't see any reason to favor vague geographic adjectives over other types:  all sorts need to be accompanied by the same class of caveats about uncertainty, specificity, attribution of origin, etc.

I agree about the necessity of caveats. That is why I said we can say things that are generally true but not necessarily true for every last particular member of a y haplogroup.

For example, suppose some Bashkirs showed up here who object to calling U152 a Central European y haplogroup. Would they be wrong?

Similarly, there are quite a few East European Jews who are L21+. North Atlantic? Not in their cases.

It's possible to raise objections to any sort of handle for a y haplogroup, geographic or otherwise.

Are the exceptions to prevent us from saying anything meaningful about a y haplogroup with sufficient brevity to render it intelligible? Or must we direct every inquirer to all that is known about a y haplogroup with the admonition, "Figure it out for yourself"?
« Last Edit: August 09, 2012, 09:31:28 AM by rms2 » Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 09, 2012, 09:39:24 AM »

When I got my first 37-marker results and the then-current "R1b1" prediction, I discussed it with some of my colleagues at work. A friend of mine who happens to be black, when he heard my g*e*n*e*r*i*c* "Western European" result, jokingly remarked that I could have given him ten dollars and he would have told me I was a white guy and saved me a lot of money....

This probably is an area I should tip toe around.

This doesn't always work the way it is "supposed to". In this case if the shoe was on the other foot the answer wouldn't have necessarily been as superficially logical.

As another case, I know a very Native America looking fellow, my father-in-law, who is Hg T, which is supposed to a Middle Eastern / Med based trader/merchant or possibly religious disapora. What's obvious isn't always so. Such is the problem with general labeling of ancient haplogroups.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2012, 09:43:35 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2012, 09:42:52 AM »

When I got my first 37-marker results and the then-current "R1b1" prediction, I discussed it with some of my colleagues at work. A friend of mine who happens to be black, when he heard my g*e*n*e*r*i*c* "Western European" result, jokingly remarked that I could have given him ten dollars and he would have told me I was a white guy and saved me a lot of money....

This probably is an area I should tip toe around.

This doesn't always work the way it is "supposed to". In this case if the shoe was on the other foot the answer wouldn't have necessarily been as superficially logical.

As another case, I know a very Native America looking fellow, my father-in-law, who is Hg T, which is supposed to a Middle Eastern / Med based trader/merchant or possibly religious disapora. What's obvious isn't always so. Such is the problem with general labeling of ancient haplogroups.



You missed the point of my story, which wasn't that y dna tests have no value and can't tell us a thing we don't already know.

The point was that bland, broad, non-committal labels don't tell us much. If that's all we could possibly get for the price of a dna test, then dna testing would in fact be a waste of money.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2012, 09:47:22 AM »

When I got my first 37-marker results and the then-current "R1b1" prediction, I discussed it with some of my colleagues at work. A friend of mine who happens to be black, when he heard my g*e*n*e*r*i*c* "Western European" result, jokingly remarked that I could have given him ten dollars and he would have told me I was a white guy and saved me a lot of money....

This probably is an area I should tip toe around.

This doesn't always work the way it is "supposed to". In this case if the shoe was on the other foot the answer wouldn't have necessarily been as superficially logical.

As another case, I know a very Native America looking fellow, my father-in-law, who is Hg T, which is supposed to a Middle Eastern / Med based trader/merchant or possibly religious disapora. What's obvious isn't always so. Such is the problem with general labeling of ancient haplogroups.



You missed the point of my story, which wasn't that y dna tests have no value and can't tell us a thing we don't already know.

The point was that bland, broad, non-committal labels don't tell us much. If that's all we could possibly get for the price of a dna test, then dna testing would in fact be a waste of money.

I agree that bland, broad non-committal labels don't tell us much. I also place Germanic in that category, but I'm not offended nor overly proud that I have some Germanic blood and speak a Germanic language. I don't speak Gaelic but I probably had ancestors that did and I'm not offended nor overly proud that I have some Gaelic blood, etc. etc.  

I was generally speaking of multiple lineages within the time back my genealogy can see. However, please consider:
1) As we go back 4-5000 years, even an single lineage may have many ethnicities. It all depends on a reference point in time. People were not static. They moved, they adjusted, they integrated, they fled, the overtook.
2) Ethnicities have probably not been very pure of any given 4000 year old haplogroup, at least any recent ethnicities that we might identify with.

That pretty much exhausts my thought on this. I'm not a big stickler (initiator of ethnic concerns) on all of this but like to counter-argue. Time to move on.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2012, 09:52:06 AM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.15 seconds with 18 queries.