Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chinese among the Cherokee

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

  • Chinese among the Cherokee

    > DNAPrint Genomics' Ancestry e-Symposium Now Available for Streaming
    > or Download

    http://www.genengnews.com/news/bnitem.aspx?name=3622406

    The first speaker persuasively puts forth evidence that Chinese ships got shipwrecked off the coast of North Carolina in the 15th century, and proposes DNA testing to find their survivors.

    Unfortunately, he suggests autosomal testing, which frankly will not convince anyone. The more obvious method is yDNA testing. He can start with these two individuals in Ysearch who are of haplogroup O, one of them confirmed by SNP testing. Note the euphemism, bordering on deception, in calling 'rare' a haplogroup that may have the most members of any on earth.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sanders, TU5NH
    Not including other members of the Sanders family, the nearest Ysearch matches at 25 markers are a genetic distance of 17 away: a Native American, CC7SD, and Stout, URH7R. But note the green (confirmed) status of Hg O on the Sanders web site.

    http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....rsdna/dna.html

    http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read...-03/1141400536
    ---
    O-- 5% of our members are this haplogroup. A very old haplogroup, and fairly rare in all populations. It appears to have arisen in Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan region).
    ---

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Montgomery, N92EW
    At 37 markers, Montgomery's nearest Ysearch match is a Singaporean named Fan, JGCEY, who is a genetic distance of 19 away and who is also of Hg O

  • #2
    And how would they differentiate them from descendants of the Chinese who immigrated in the US in the 19th century? I think it would be as difficult as finding descendants of those Vikings who settled America in the early 11th century.

    Originally posted by lgmayka
    > DNAPrint Genomics' Ancestry e-Symposium Now Available for Streaming
    > or Download

    http://www.genengnews.com/news/bnitem.aspx?name=3622406

    The first speaker persuasively puts forth evidence that Chinese ships got shipwrecked off the coast of North Carolina in the 15th century, and proposes DNA testing to find their survivors.

    Unfortunately, he suggests autosomal testing, which frankly will not convince anyone. The more obvious method is yDNA testing. He can start with these two individuals in Ysearch who are of haplogroup O, one of them confirmed by SNP testing. Note the euphemism, bordering on deception, in calling 'rare' a haplogroup that may have the most members of any on earth.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sanders, TU5NH
    Not including other members of the Sanders family, the nearest Ysearch matches at 25 markers are a genetic distance of 17 away: a Native American, CC7SD, and Stout, URH7R. But note the green (confirmed) status of Hg O on the Sanders web site.

    http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb....rsdna/dna.html

    http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read...-03/1141400536
    ---
    O-- 5% of our members are this haplogroup. A very old haplogroup, and fairly rare in all populations. It appears to have arisen in Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan region).
    ---

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Montgomery, N92EW
    At 37 markers, Montgomery's nearest Ysearch match is a Singaporean named Fan, JGCEY, who is a genetic distance of 19 away and who is also of Hg O

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Eki
      And how would they differentiate them from descendants of the Chinese who immigrated in the US in the 19th century? I think it would be as difficult as finding descendants of those Vikings who settled America in the early 11th century.
      The most persuasive evidence would be to find East Asian (or Scandinavian) haplogroups living on American Indian reservations. The assumption is that in the 19th and 20th centuries, virtually no intermarriages--or at least no offspring of intermarriages--would remain so closely tied to the tribe as to end up on a reservation. This assumption could, of course, be overturned by significant contrary evidence.

      Otherwise, the best evidence we have is what genealogists have always used: paper trails. For example, the genealogist can attempt to show that no Chinese were living in a particular North Carolina county in a particular year when an ancestor was born, etc.

      It is a truism that people who refuse to be convinced, won't be. But that's their problem, not ours! The truth is that all of history involves formulating hypotheses, gathering evidence, coming to conclusions which, yes, might be overturned later by contrary evidence, etc. It is a major fallacy to place one's entire blind faith in academics who are not gods but investigators themselves, and who are just as subject to both simple mistakes and significant biases.
      Last edited by lgmayka; 27 July 2006, 09:33 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by lgmayka
        The most persuasive evidence would be to find East Asian (or Scandinavian) haplogroups living on American Indian reservations. The assumption is that in the 19th and 20th centuries, virtually no intermarriages--or at least no offspring of intermarriages--would remain so closely tied to the tribe as to end up on a reservation.
        I'm sure some European trappers and hunters had children with Native American women without any written evidence. And I think I've heard there were lots of Chinese who worked building railroads. It's not likely that their whereabouts were always known:

        http://cprr.org/Museum/Chinese.html

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Eki
          I'm sure some European trappers and hunters had children with Native American women without any written evidence. And I think I've heard there were lots of Chinese who worked building railroads.
          European trappers' yDNA might confuse the search for Viking descendants but not Chinese ones. Chinese immigration did not really begin until the Gold Rush of the 1840s, and for many decades thereafter affected mostly the Western states, not the original Southeastern homeland of the Cherokee and related tribes:

          http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features.../chinese2.html

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lgmayka
            > DNAPrint Genomics' Ancestry e-Symposium Now Available for Streaming
            > or Download

            http://www.genengnews.com/news/bnitem.aspx?name=3622406

            The first speaker persuasively puts forth evidence that Chinese ships got shipwrecked off the coast of North Carolina in the 15th century, and proposes DNA testing to find their survivors.
            Well, I didn't find him persuasive and neither, it seems, do many others.

            http://hnn.us/articles/1308.html
            http://baheyeldin.com/pseudoscience/...the-world.html
            http://www.kenspy.com/Menzies/

            Confusing a Dutch windmill for a Chinese lighthouse is an easy mistake for someone to make I guess.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by vineviz
              Well, I didn't find him persuasive and neither, it seems, do many others.

              http://hnn.us/articles/1308.html
              http://baheyeldin.com/pseudoscience/...the-world.html
              http://www.kenspy.com/Menzies/

              Confusing a Dutch windmill for a Chinese lighthouse is an easy mistake for someone to make I guess.
              Maybe the maps he claims to have been Chinese were actually Viking maps that had ended up in China? Heyerdal believes the blond Caucasian mummies in China were from 1800 BC, but the Chinese believed they were descendents of Vikings:

              http://www.vikingart.com/Mill/Ar_Thor01.htm

              "We had contact with Russia, Latvia, Ukraine to Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea and China," Dr. Heyerdahl announced. "In China, they have excavated mummies of Nordic type, which the Chinese believed must have been descendents of the Vikings. They had the cranium, blond hair, blue eyes; all the aspects of Scandinavia. What we had to do was to piece their information with what we got from the rest of the world," the veteran explorer and anthropologist explained.

              "We learned that Nordic people, the Caucasian type, had spread from the Caucasus into China, 1800 years before Christ. They passed from the same Caucasus area up through Europe, first in Denmark then to Sweden and then to Finland and Norway in the beginning of the Christian era, the end of the first century after Christ. "All this you can piece together by bringing archeology, history, all the documents together. When you do, you come to the conclusion that the Scandinavian countries and particularly Norway and Iceland were not the wild Vikings that we think they were," the famous anthropologist emphasized.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lgmayka
                The most persuasive evidence would be to find East Asian (or Scandinavian) haplogroups living on American Indian reservations. The assumption is that in the 19th and 20th centuries, virtually no intermarriages--or at least no offspring of intermarriages--would remain so closely tied to the tribe as to end up on a reservation. This assumption could, of course, be overturned by significant contrary evidence..
                You lost me here - if your hope/expectation is to find a descendant of an Asian/Scandinavian haplogroup on an Indian reservation then why would you pose the assumption that no descendant of any "alien" haplogroup would be found there. Are Asian/Scandinavian haplogroups immune in Indian communities?

                By what process would "alien" haplogroups from the 19th and 20th centuries (and whatever source) be "weeded-out"?

                Contra yours - I do not think the impediment to the discovery you imagine is the "blindered" scientific community but rather Indian peoples themselves. Having lost the GREATEST part of "The Americas" to European hegemonists, what would it gain Native peoples to submit to any tests that might further undercut their fragile status?

                The TRUTH?

                And, finally, it is not incumbent on the researching community to prove you wrong, but incumbent on you to prove your point.

                Tom

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tomcat
                  You lost me here - if your hope/expectation is to find a descendant of an Asian/Scandinavian haplogroup on an Indian reservation then why would you pose the assumption that no descendant of any "alien" haplogroup would be found there. Are Asian/Scandinavian haplogroups immune in Indian communities?

                  By what process would "alien" haplogroups from the 19th and 20th centuries (and whatever source) be "weeded-out"?

                  Contra yours - I do not think the impediment to the discovery you imagine is the "blindered" scientific community but rather Indian peoples themselves. Having lost the GREATEST part of "The Americas" to European hegemonists, what would it gain Native peoples to submit to any tests that might further undercut their fragile status?
                  ...
                  And, finally, it is not incumbent on the researching community to prove you wrong, but incumbent on you to prove your point.
                  1) You missed my distinction between 19th-20th century admixture vs. earlier admixture. My point was that in the 19th or 20th century, a marriage of a Chinese man and a Native American woman would almost certainly not end up on a reservation. On the other hand, the same marriage in the 15th century might indeed result in descendants who eventually end up on a reservation.

                  2) You are correct that no investigation can be conducted unless Native Americans themselves agree to be tested.

                  3) You fundamentally misunderstand a major concept of scientific investigation. The scientist who asserts a negative faces the very highest standard of proof. So for example, a scholar who insists that only yDNA haplogroups C and Q, and mtDNA haplogroups A, B, C, D, and X, are genuinely Native American, and that all other haplogroups found among alleged Native Americans must be due to post-1492 admixture, must make an extraordinarily strong case. Otherwise, he has no scientific right to make such assertions, and should simply say something like, "We have not yet found compelling evidence that any other haplogroups are genuinely Native American."

                  In order to refute the strong assertion of a negative, others need only make a solidly plausible alternative hypothesis, and describe a reasonable method to test that hypothesis. Given a solidly plausible alternative hypothesis, the negative assertion must be admitted to be as yet unproven.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by lgmayka
                    1) You missed my distinction between 19th-20th century admixture vs. earlier admixture. My point was that in the 19th or 20th century, a marriage of a Chinese man and a Native American woman would almost certainly not end up on a reservation. On the other hand, the same marriage in the 15th century might indeed result in descendants who eventually end up on a reservation.

                    2) You are correct that no investigation can be conducted unless Native Americans themselves agree to be tested.

                    3) You fundamentally misunderstand a major concept of scientific investigation. The scientist who asserts a negative faces the very highest standard of proof. So for example, a scholar who insists that only yDNA haplogroups C and Q, and mtDNA haplogroups A, B, C, D, and X, are genuinely Native American, and that all other haplogroups found among alleged Native Americans must be due to post-1492 admixture, must make an extraordinarily strong case. Otherwise, he has no scientific right to make such assertions, and should simply say something like, "We have not yet found compelling evidence that any other haplogroups are genuinely Native American."

                    In order to refute the strong assertion of a negative, others need only make a solidly plausible alternative hypothesis, and describe a reasonable method to test that hypothesis. Given a solidly plausible alternative hypothesis, the negative assertion must be admitted to be as yet unproven.
                    1) What is implausible about a 19c mixed-race union resulting in reservation residency of their descendants? And, I note, there are four centuries between the 15th and 18th - a lot of stuff can happen in four hundred years.

                    2) Indians used to like presents. Heck, everyone likes presents, So with some trade goods and a story you might be able to swing a study.

                    3) Otherwise you will have to wait.

                    Tom

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Early oriental dna in North Carolina, land of the Cherokee...Chang & Eng Bunker (the original "Siamese" twins), born 1811 in Siam, died 1874 Mount Airy, N.C. In the 1840's they married sisters Sarah & Adelaide Yates of North Carolina. The families lived on 2 adjoining properties just west of Mount Airy, N.C. Together they fathered between 20 & 23 children, exact # not known, some of which died in childhood. Some of their descendants owned slaves & fought for the Confederacy. Some of their descendants still live in the Mount Airy area. Though they married white women, possibly there were other oriental men who came to the east coast areas & married Indians, they just weren't as famous as Chang & Eng. More oriental men than women came to America to look for work. Marrying an Indian would at the time have been more acceptible than marrying white women in most places. Just because most of the oriental immigration took place after the 1840's doesn't mean that none took place before then. (Like I've always read that the 1st immigrant Norwegian boat sailed to the US in I believe 1827 with more heavy immigration starting in the mid 1840's. Imagine my surprise to find a [identified as such in the record] Norwegian female in a heavily Germanic settled area in Pennsylvania in the 1790's, dying I believe, I think she was in her 50's or 60's--when I wasn't looking for one! Not a relative however, I was tracking my elusive German branches.) There is always some oddball who was more adventuresome than most, who breaks the standard truisms & screws up our neat theories or paper trails...or dna tracks...but that the fun of it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ragnar
                        Chang & Eng Bunker (the original "Siamese" twins), born 1811 in Siam, died 1874 Mount Airy, N.C. In the 1840's they married sisters Sarah & Adelaide Yates of North Carolina. The families lived on 2 adjoining properties just west of Mount Airy, N.C. Together they fathered between 20 & 23 children, exact # not known, some of which died in childhood. Some of their descendants owned slaves & fought for the Confederacy. Some of their descendants still live in the Mount Airy area.
                        Interesting find! I wonder if their descendants have exhaustively mapped out the family tree, or whether genetic testing might find "strays" who are unaware of their famous progenitors.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I have no idea. It sure would be great if some of the descendants got interested in the dna testing offered here.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by tomcat
                            2) Indians used to like presents. Heck, everyone likes presents, So with some trade goods and a story you might be able to swing a study.
                            Tom
                            Think before you speak. I did. My post started out much nastier. There are First Nations people here on FTDNA.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ragnar
                              Imagine my surprise to find a [identified as such in the record] Norwegian female in a heavily Germanic settled area in Pennsylvania in the 1790's, dying I believe, I think she was in her 50's or 60's--when I wasn't looking for one! Not a relative however, I was tracking my elusive German branches.
                              I just want to correct this part of my earlier posting. I ran across the info I had written down about the early Norwegian in America. "Members of the Warwick Congregation (Moravian) interred at St. James Graveyard" --- list includes this: "1757 Anna Ramsberg (b.) Jan 26, 1706; died in Lititz (Lancaster Co., PA) Oct 28. General Superintendent of the Single Sisters in the Pennsylvania Co. Congregations. A Norwegian." This is the earliest Norwegian I have heard of in colonial America. Are there any others, I wonder, earlier than her. (Leif Erikson doesn't count----)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X