genetic facts [was: Ashby, botanical facts

Yuri Kuchinsky yuku at globalserve.net
Fri Oct 23 10:29:02 EST 1998


Paul D. Roughan (pdr27 at csc.canterbury.ac.nz) wrote on Fri, 23 Oct 1998 14:25:16 +1300:
: In your web page, you present Heyerdahl's qoute:

:      ...our expedition doctor, Emil Gjessing, sampled blood from all
:      those islanders who, according to Father Sebastian [the long
:      time island priest who was very knowledgeable about the history
:      of the island], were of pure local lineage.

: You then contest Hagelberg's tests on the basis of their being of
: late-period skeletal remains.

: However, Heyerdahl has only 'a very knowledgeable' priest to rely on for
: the racial purity of his samples. 

Paul,

You're right to pick up on this apparent weakness in this research.
Myself, I see some problems here as well. The problem seems to be that
both the long-ears and the short-ears ultimately derived from America as
per Heyerdahl. So why focus on separating them for the purpose of these
tests?

: I wouldn't trust the priest

But we can go even further and say that ultimately this whole distinction
may be irrelevant -- regardless of whether the priest was correct.

: more than
: the skeletal remains. 

And here you have the false antithesis. In fact, these are different sets
of data that are perhaps unconnected and/or incommensurable. In other
words, Hagelberg's conclusions, as such, even if correct, in fact _do not_
oppose Heyerdahl.

: I have several questions:

: 1)why are there no 'old' skeletons left?

None have been found?

: 2)could you include the method and data parts of the Hagelberg article
: in your web page.  I for one, as an interested islander, would like to
: see the actual data, which you have not included. 

Well, if someone will send it to me, I will include it. I don't have this
data at this time.

But more importantly, I have no problem with Hagelberg's methodology and
conclusions. I'm certainly _not_ contesting them. All I'm saying is that
his conclusions were widely misinterpreted as opposing Heyerdahl. In fact,
logically, THEY DO NOT oppose Heyerdahl.

: 3)why would mtDNA be any less reliable than blood group data?

I say no such thing.

: At least
: mtDNA is strictly maternally inherited, so easier to analyse for genetic
: patterns.

Agreed. I also have latest mtDNA research by Dr. Cann that provides
support for Heyerdahl.

: 4)What is your interest in EI and SA?  Are you SA in origin, or closely
: affiliated.  I sense a strong motivation for your posts, and am
: interested to see how it has arisen.

Oh, I'm just attracted by all the controversy. Unless it's controversial,
I'm not interested... 	:)

I do various areas of ancient history. This is one of them. No special
connection otherwise.

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku

But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.    
Oh, let us never, never doubt    
What nobody is sure about.       
         -- Hilaire Belloc       



More information about the Bioforum mailing list