Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Native American issue

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Native American issue

    The mtDNA results place me in the U5a1a haplogroup. According to family legend, tales, anecdotes, whatever... My mother was born on the Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota. The earliest photograph I have was of her on a Lakota blanket in eastern Wyomming. I have a photograph of all 4 of her parents standing in front of a log cabin built on the Rosebud. I've discovered some research articles having identified U5a1a individuals in graves in China and Mongolia...directly on the migration route to North America. In the National Geographic and Mitosearch maps, there is an instance of the "U" haplogroup in the vacinity of the Lakota nation. So....
    Are there any others in this haplogroup who are relatively certain that their lineage is Native American?
    Why is the "U" haplogroup excluded from the Native American lineage?
    Jess curious.....

  • #2
    Scholars tend to place almost blind faith in the research studies of their colleagues, sometimes almost to the exclusion of any other evidence. In this case, a few studies took samples from a sample of Native American tribes, and based on those initially accepted only mtDNA haplogroups A, B, C, and D as "genuine" Native American. Later, after considerable new evidence, scholars grudgingly accepted a certain variety of mtDNA haplogroup X as well.

    More recently, as real people (not just "samples") get genetic testing, we are finding numerous examples of Native Americans with various ancient Middle Eastern and Asian haplogroups such as M*, N1b, HV*, and U5. Scholars have not yet accepted any of these as "genuine" Native American.

    The spectacle of a professor coming to an Indian reservation and telling old women (whose families have lived in the tribe for generations) that they're not "genuine" Native American would be comical if it were not tragic.


    To be fair, scholars point out that many Native Americans may actually descend from captured European settlers, or settlers who joined a tribe in order to avoid starvation. This may be a plausible explanation for Native Americans whose DNA looks to be modern Western European (e.g., mtDNA haplogroups H and V). But scholars cannot explain why the anomalous haplogroups found among Native Americans are usually ancient Middle Eastern and Asian ones.
    Last edited by lgmayka; 13 July 2006, 06:09 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      assorted findings

      Most of the DNA material I am still absorbing and some of it is making some sense!? It is still confusing to me. My indian ancestry is mix blood or Metis (European married to American Indian, mostly French) I have documented this through various Church baptisms, marriage etc (the Catholic Church in New France, the Old NorthWest and Quebec kept excellent records) Anyway there are at least three maybe four tribes married to French men, fur traders voyageurs etc in my lines. Bottom line I am a "H" what gives? It seems the indian blood comes from my Maternal G Grandfather . I need a male from that line to verify the DNA, or have been told as such. Did a profile before the MTDNA and Y tests and it showed 15% with Indian and some East Asian. This is all confusing to me. So my empathy is with you who are going through the same results with various Hap groups. It is somewhat off the original thread but would interested in anyone giving a better explanation.

      I am not trying to be reconized by any particular tribe just wanting for future generations in my family to show thier indian heritage in my genealogy. No indian Princesses or wannabes just ancestry. Thanks for listening.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by lgmayka
        To be fair, scholars point out that many Native Americans may actually descend from captured European settlers, or settlers who joined a tribe in order to avoid starvation. This may be a plausible explanation for Native Americans whose DNA looks to be modern Western European (e.g., mtDNA haplogroups H and V).
        The observation has a lot of merit as it breaks with conventional wisdom about Native Americans always at the receiving end. The same may apply to many other peoples who fought back when being colonised and, in the process, managed to enslave the colonists' women. It surely explains presence of U5 in what should have been C or D!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Criquetpas
          It seems the indian blood comes from my Maternal G Grandfather . I need a male from that line to verify the DNA, or have been told as such.
          Yes, you need to find a male who is patrilineally descended from that particular great-grandfather.

          Patrilineal is the strict father-to-son, father-to-son line.

          Comment


          • #6
            Haplogroup U found in association with A,B,D,F and J

            Interestingly enough I ran across a research project listed as:
            "Nuclear and Mitrochondrial DNA Analysis of a 2,000 -Year-Old Necropolis in the Egyin Gol Valley of Mongolia", Am J. Hum. Genet, 73:247-260, 2003.

            These folks took DNA samples from 62 human skeletal remains located from the Xiongnu period around the 3rd century BC. As stated in the article, 89% of the sequences can be classified as belonging to an Asian Haplogroup (A,B4b,C,D4,D5aq, or F1b) and 11% belong to (U2, U5a1a, and J1). Apparently these groups not only comingled but were found in burial sites intermingled with the very groups that have been dubbed as "genuine" Native American. Plus, this is directly in the migration path somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 years ago. So, at the very least, the 11% being Native American is plausible.

            The other issue involves the paternal DNA. In my case, mom married a German whose lineage we have documented for several hundred years and originating in Paterborn, Germany. So, the Y-DNA path is not really an option, unless someone happens to be tested that matches my mothers dad. So, the Y-DNA stuff could be a little convoluted.

            Anyway, Thank You to all for sharing their thoughts. Through open discussion, maybe something will fall.
            Last edited by docplo; 14 July 2006, 01:20 PM. Reason: typo

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by lgmayka
              Scholars tend to place almost blind faith in the research studies of their colleagues, sometimes almost to the exclusion of any other evidence. In this case, a few studies took samples from a sample of Native American tribes, and based on those initially accepted only mtDNA haplogroups A, B, C, and D as "genuine" Native American. Later, after considerable new evidence, scholars grudgingly accepted a certain variety of mtDNA haplogroup X as well.

              More recently, as real people (not just "samples") get genetic testing, we are finding numerous examples of Native Americans with various ancient Middle Eastern and Asian haplogroups such as M*, N1b, HV*, and U5. Scholars have not yet accepted any of these as "genuine" Native American.

              The spectacle of a professor coming to an Indian reservation and telling old women (whose families have lived in the tribe for generations) that they're not "genuine" Native American would be comical if it were not tragic.


              To be fair, scholars point out that many Native Americans may actually descend from captured European settlers, or settlers who joined a tribe in order to avoid starvation. This may be a plausible explanation for Native Americans whose DNA looks to be modern Western European (e.g., mtDNA haplogroups H and V). But scholars cannot explain why the anomalous haplogroups found among Native Americans are usually ancient Middle Eastern and Asian ones.
              I thought the first Europeans who came to the American continent included Middle Eastern and Jewish people. The Iberian peninsula was made up of a large number of Middle Eastern and Jewish people and they were on the ships that brought the first people here and the women eventually followed. I wonder why it's confusing to scholars that Native Americans are mixed with them. It's recorded in history.
              Last edited by haplogroupc; 14 July 2006, 11:53 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by docplo
                The mtDNA results place me in the U5a1a haplogroup. According to family legend, tales, anecdotes, whatever... My mother was born on the Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota. The earliest photograph I have was of her on a Lakota blanket in eastern Wyomming. I have a photograph of all 4 of her parents standing in front of a log cabin built on the Rosebud. I've discovered some research articles having identified U5a1a individuals in graves in China and Mongolia...directly on the migration route to North America. In the National Geographic and Mitosearch maps, there is an instance of the "U" haplogroup in the vacinity of the Lakota nation. So....
                Are there any others in this haplogroup who are relatively certain that their lineage is Native American?
                Why is the "U" haplogroup excluded from the Native American lineage?
                Jess curious.....
                I think the trouble with mtDNA is that it's so ancient. In a way it has nothing to do with who we are today. If one ancestor from thousands of years ago married into a different race and since then everyone else has been from that new race, the mtDNA will remain the same regardless. So it doesn't reflect who we are. I just don't think mtDNA is the answer to figuring out who we are. It simply tells us who one person was long ago. Big deal. The real question is, who has everyone else been since then? That's who we are.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by haplogroupc
                  I thought the first Europeans who came to the American continent included Middle Eastern and Jewish people. The Iberian peninsula was made up of a large number of Middle Eastern and Jewish people and they were on the ships that brought the first people here and the women eventually followed. I wonder why it's confusing to scholars that Native Americans are mixed with them. It's recorded in history.
                  First, your argument would only to Spanish and Portuguese colonies, not those of the British, French, or Dutch.

                  Second, your argument only applies to the yDNA and mtDNA haplogroups found in Spain and Portugal today, not to the ones found only in the Middle East or Asia. The European Jewish gene pool is not identical to that of the Middle East, due to a strong "founder effect" as well as intermarriage.

                  Third, the only people of Jewish ancestry allowed to remain in Spain (and Portugal, I think) during this period were Jews who converted (or apparently converted) to Catholicism. During most of this period, an apparent Catholic who wandered into a British colony would (almost literally) have been shot on sight, so there would have been very little mixing between colonies of disparate mother countries. Even besides the issue of religion, the mother countries were rivals, often at war with each other, and hence their colonists would not have mixed freely for fear of starting such a war.

                  Fourth, you are making sweeping assumptions about intermarriage, not only between European men and Native American women, but also about European women and Native American men. No one doubts that such events might have occurred--the issue is, How often? And were the offspring able to successfully marry and have children, or were they "advised" to become monks and nuns (a common medieval prescription for anyone who was "different").

                  In short, what you describe is certainly a possibility, but it is far from explaining the haplogroups among Native Americans that we are actually observing.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by haplogroupc
                    I just don't think mtDNA is the answer to figuring out who we are.
                    No, not in any profound sense. But many people search for answers to how they got to be who they are. Genetics and genealogy can be helpful in that regard.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by lgmayka
                      First, your argument would only to Spanish and Portuguese colonies, not those of the British, French, or Dutch.

                      Second, your argument only applies to the yDNA and mtDNA haplogroups found in Spain and Portugal today, not to the ones found only in the Middle East or Asia. The European Jewish gene pool is not identical to that of the Middle East, due to a strong "founder effect" as well as intermarriage.

                      Third, the only people of Jewish ancestry allowed to remain in Spain (and Portugal, I think) during this period were Jews who converted (or apparently converted) to Catholicism. During most of this period, an apparent Catholic who wandered into a British colony would (almost literally) have been shot on sight, so there would have been very little mixing between colonies of disparate mother countries. Even besides the issue of religion, the mother countries were rivals, often at war with each other, and hence their colonists would not have mixed freely for fear of starting such a war.

                      Fourth, you are making sweeping assumptions about intermarriage, not only between European men and Native American women, but also about European women and Native American men. No one doubts that such events might have occurred--the issue is, How often? And were the offspring able to successfully marry and have children, or were they "advised" to become monks and nuns (a common medieval prescription for anyone who was "different").

                      In short, what you describe is certainly a possibility, but it is far from explaining the haplogroups among Native Americans that we are actually observing.

                      I would like to see some sources for your "apparent" thesis that other Mt haplogoups are found in sufficient numbers among Native populations so as to over turn the standard view that Native populations are (primarilly) comprised of Mt-ABCDX.

                      And I would also like to hear the story or stories you are promoting. Is this about colonization of the New World by Chinese, Vikings, Irish monks or what?
                      Whatever your story may be it has no more authority, on it's face, than what Haplogroup C suggests.

                      Are you saying that these disparate haplogoups are only found among Native populations that only had contact with the British, French, and Dutch? Or are you asserting that no contact occurred between the Spanish and Native peoples through the North American south and west?

                      As you must know, slavery was a worldwide phenomenon in the colonial period in the Americas. That slavery, in the greater Mediterranean region, had an unbroken history from ancient to modern times as it was not supplanted by serfdom as occurred in Europe. That all the European peoples who colonized the Americas kept slaves and that the slaves they imported to the Americas might have come from anywhere in the world. Africans constituted the majority of slaves held in the Americas only because they could be taken in great numbers, at little cost, and were comparatively defenseless as compared to the more cosmopolitan slave-candidate populations in North Africa, Asia Minor, South Asia and elsewhere.

                      Of course American Natives trafficed in slaves as well. They raided for slaves, kept slaves, and traded slaves with one another and the Europeans with whom they had contact. That traffic went in every geographic direction and included every sort of slave-stock available - Native, European, African and mixed-race captives.

                      I do not think that Haplogroup C overestimates the possibility of inter-racial progeny, but that you take no cognizance of the widespread (and documented!) Native custom of adoption and inclusion, or their generally benign treatment of desirable slaves. (Google "indian captivity" to sample the large selection of memoir and history on these topics).

                      Tomcat

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Beyond the ususual suspects, there were also Russian and Swedish colonies in the Americas. But whatever the ethnic denomination, colonies were ethnically heterogenous as colonial stock and charter companies could, and did, draw widely on Old World human resources for skilled workers both indentured and free.


                        Tom

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by lgmayka
                          First, your argument would only to Spanish and Portuguese colonies, not those of the British, French, or Dutch.

                          Second, your argument only applies to the yDNA and mtDNA haplogroups found in Spain and Portugal today, not to the ones found only in the Middle East or Asia. The European Jewish gene pool is not identical to that of the Middle East, due to a strong "founder effect" as well as intermarriage.

                          Third, the only people of Jewish ancestry allowed to remain in Spain (and Portugal, I think) during this period were Jews who converted (or apparently converted) to Catholicism. During most of this period, an apparent Catholic who wandered into a British colony would (almost literally) have been shot on sight, so there would have been very little mixing between colonies of disparate mother countries. Even besides the issue of religion, the mother countries were rivals, often at war with each other, and hence their colonists would not have mixed freely for fear of starting such a war.

                          Fourth, you are making sweeping assumptions about intermarriage, not only between European men and Native American women, but also about European women and Native American men. No one doubts that such events might have occurred--the issue is, How often? And were the offspring able to successfully marry and have children, or were they "advised" to become monks and nuns (a common medieval prescription for anyone who was "different").

                          In short, what you describe is certainly a possibility, but it is far from explaining the haplogroups among Native Americans that we are actually observing.
                          lgmayka,

                          Do you know much about Native American history? It was not uncommon for Native American men to take European women as wives. And I'm not talking about the type of marriage that is decided by both people out of mutual feelings for one another. It was a custom for Native Americans to take European people as slaves when Europeans killed their own people. So it's not impossible that women with ancient Middle Eastern DNA came to the American continent and ended up in Native American tribes in large numbers.

                          By the way, the Moors who ruled in Spain for 700 years were originally from the Middle East. One of the rulers was from today's Iraq, I think. They ruled in many areas of Europe, not just Spain. The people who came on ships to the American continent carried that DNA with them, including women. Women also came on the Manilla Galleon from Asia. Native Americans used to go to Asia on these ships and take Asian wives and bring them back with them. Women from India also came on those ships from British colonies. And as tomcat said, Native Americans have wandered all over the American continent either by choice or as slaves and the DNA went with them.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I will end my participation in this thread simply by pointing out that if what you describe occurred to the degree you suggest, geneticists would have thrown up their arms in despair at getting any idea of what haplogroups the indigenous Native Americans belonged to.

                            Obviously, geneticists did find a remarkable degree of homogenity in Native American yDNA and mtDNA. Just as obviously, they based their work on small samples from a sample of tribes--even the best research can't afford to sample everyone everywhere. Obviously, then, it is entirely possible that there were occasional outlier cases that the researchers missed--especially since their own research papers often referred to rare "anomalies" that they were not willing to invest the effort to investigate.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              When explorers first went to the Americas they would have been males who would have had relationships with native women and quite often married them and had families with them. When women started to arrive in the Americas and were taken by tribes they would have married and had children and many remained with their native husbands even when given the opportunity to return to white society. Quanah Parker's mother was white and when "rescued" tried many times to run away back to her husband. After the death of her young daughter from her marriage to her native husband she stopped eating and died. Quanah and his brother were brought up by their father's family but he did meet with his mother's family later in life.

                              The type of racial prejudice that seemed/seems normal in white society did not exist in native society and when non-natives were adopted into the tribes they were treated the same as "full bloods".

                              The marriage of whites with natives was quite common in many countries as happened in India, it was considered quite normal until white women started to arrive when it became something shameful and many such marriages were hidden.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X