03-12-2008, 10:33 AM
Quote:Are you guys saying (in Genetican) that Oppenheimers acertion that the pre-Roman inhabitants of the British Isles (i.e. Wales & Ireland in particular) could not be "Celts" as they had Basque DNA and were consequently ethnically pre-Celtic ... is not proven?
Sort of, yes. Some lines do go back to the paleolithic, but not all. As far as those that don't are concerned, we don't have any data as to where they did come from or how many there were.
It's hard to comment on Oppenheimer's work because he uses his own system of markers which are not used by peer science. He hasn't published either his methods or how his gene clusters are defined. To find out, one has to use one of the companies who do the 'Oppenheimer Test'. They will test you for standard markers and then tell you which of Oppenheimer's clans you belong to.
The peer science has always made it clear that the 'Basque hypothesis' was unproven. Jim Wilson stated this very clearly. Subsequent studies such as Weale's or Capelli's have always referred to this stating that Wilson 'suggests' or Wilson 'argues'.
If the Basques are not 100% paleolithic and have experienced introgression either during or after the neolithic, then some of the similarities between the Basques and insular Celts may not be because one came from the other, but because they both came from somewhere else. Alzualde above claims that this could have been between 3000 BC and 500 AD.
There is a good article in the Journal of Genetic Genealogists which explains the situation in reasonably plain english at:
http://www.jogg.info/22/Coffman.htm
best
Harry Amphlett
Harry Amphlett
