genetic facts [was: Ashby, botanical facts
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.
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
: 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_
: 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
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
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