Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

9RA Autosomal Native American Marker

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

  • #16
    Like to see this

    Originally posted by purple flowers
    I can't find it now but I know it is the study that had the Cherokee/Iroquois woman a B I think who also had the 270 mutations. in that study it says that southern Cherokee were closer related to Sioux than too other SE tribes.. thus chances are that some parts of the Sioux also came from the direction of the rising sun like some parts of the Cherokee or the main body of Cherokee . not the setting sun like many other tribes . plains SIOUX are included in this study, but it is about MTDNA .
    If you wish to see that study I will continue to look for it , but only if you need it but it is about mtdna.
    They say HG B is found mainly on the west coast of N and S America and the Rio Grande. So far I do find this to be true being I am Hg B2 - Rio Grande.
    I have 85 matches that are consistant with the West Coast in N America, Mexico, S America and the Rio Grande.

    The Cherokee are not a Sioux speaking tribe. The Catawba were living close to the Cherokee and are a Sioux speaking tribe. If this woman was " Proven" Cherokee meaning either on paper or a tribal member, it's very possible that she may be inter-tribal marriage somewhere and there may be no record on paper of this if her MT-DNA matches closer to a Sioux tribe.

    The Saponi from VA also went to live with the Catawba in NC for many years. They also speak a Sioux language

    My family came from Western NC and I can tell you there was a lot of Indian traffic going though Indian trading paths with several diffrent tribes.

    I know some Cherokee Tribal memebers and they can understand some but not all the language of 6 nations of NY who speak an Iroquoian language like the Cherokee.

    Tuscarora became the 6th nation of NY in the early 1700's due to Indian slavery in the 1600-1700's. They are from Eastern NC.

    I don't buy that the Cheorkee came from a Sioux tribe in general unless there was an inter-tribal marrage somewhere.
    Last edited by Yaffa; 6 September 2008, 07:06 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DKF
      I have land deeds, diaries, obituaries and so on in relation to my Native American ancestors - they are well documented back to the 1600s. The same as my European ancestors. I have found out just about everything one can imagine about my European ancestors, why not explore what can be found about those who were First Nations?

      One of my Mohawk ancestors was Mary Hill Kateriunigh (She Carries the News) the head woman, matron (chief maker) of the Bear Clan, of Tionondeoge (Ft. Hunter) and later resident of the Tyendinaga Reserve, Deseronto Ontario. The rest settled on the Six Nations Reserve of the Grand River Ontario Canada. Why would having DNA evidence be any different than finding yet another record? Actually I can answer that - because it is interesting and if you don't think so I think you need to look for another hobby. Did you read your words before posting. If so that is very disturbing. Have you heard of something like spell check.
      Well, you seem offended. So I guess you DID understand the general theme behind my message, your dependence upon spell check not withstanding.

      You say you have excellent paper trail. That's great.

      So what more do you expect to learn from some flakey tribes test? How many NA languages do you speak? Are you an enrolled tribal member? How do you contribute to the well being of the tribe or culture?

      As regards the validity of the tests themselves, well. They have to be based on the premise that peoples of the various cultural groupings carry uniform biological markers that are unique to them alone, therefore that there was never any significant intermarriage w/ other people from other cultural groupings. Oh, by the way, those unique markers are not specific to any particular chain of transmission (line of descent), so good luck on testing results to paper trail.
      I am at a loss as to which of those ideas is the most hillariously silly.

      How's the air in your ivory tower?

      Jack

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by purple flowers
        http://www.worldfamilies.net/mtdna/u5/disc
        sorry THE LINK IS BROKEN .
        by accident or on purpose!
        hum ? maybe someone didn't' like what it suggested
        sorry!
        but it was in that study which the link doesn't work now.


        and sorry I will not do autosomal .

        now when if my daughter has a daughter and she just found out she is pregnant , we will do her mtdna .
        This link states that people report having Cherokee Ancestry. Reporting Cherokee ancestry and having proven Cherokee ancestry are 2 different things. I have seen may claim they have a Cherokee ancestor that is unproven. Not stating that these people could not have an Indian ancestor but as I stated before there were many different tribes in NC as well as VA and I know researchers that do have documented paper trial and DNA that VA tribes did move into NC and further west. At this moment in time, DNA can not prove tribal affiliation.

        If you do have a granddaughter or a grandson, she or he will have your MT-DNA that you passed down to your daughter. So why would you need to do the baby's MT- DNA? You or your daughter could test

        Comment


        • #19
          Maps

          Originally posted by PDHOTLEN
          The siouan-speaking Catawbas in the Carolinas had early contact with colonial settlers; also the Souan-speaking Tutelo-Saponis of Virgnia (according to an old Nat Geo map I have). One of my apparent (i.e. if I traced right) ancestors (a Jacob Falconbury, b.1757) was from Anson County, NC; which was Catawba country. I wonder how he got along with them.

          U5b2 & R1a1*
          Some other maps and Indian trail maps if your family was in NC, TN and GA

          http://www.ancestraldesigns.com/smarc/formation.htm

          Comment


          • #20
            Offend

            Originally posted by Clochaire
            Well, you seem offended. So I guess you DID understand the general theme behind my message, your dependence upon spell check not withstanding.

            You say you have excellent paper trail. That's great.

            So what more do you expect to learn from some flakey tribes test? How many NA languages do you speak? Are you an enrolled tribal member? How do you contribute to the well being of the tribe or culture?

            As regards the validity of the tests themselves, well. They have to be based on the premise that peoples of the various cultural groupings carry uniform biological markers that are unique to them alone, therefore that there was never any significant intermarriage w/ other people from other cultural groupings. Oh, by the way, those unique markers are not specific to any particular chain of transmission (line of descent), so good luck on testing results to paper trail.
            I am at a loss as to which of those ideas is the most hillariously silly.

            How's the air in your ivory tower?

            Jack
            I think it is you that needs to check your air supply in your Ivory Tower! You have not only OFFENDED DKF but also myself and Im sure others in this forum. Especially those who do descend from the Native people. I find your comments "Hilarious, Silly and OFFENSIVE"

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Nagelfar
              I have no known Native American ancestry and 19 repeats there, being that 17 repeats is supposed to be common in European populations I suppose it isn't unheard of to get to 19 within the European range? (This is why I like autosomal SNPs better than STRs, the factor of certainty)
              Not a single person within the group of Europeans, nor any from the Middle East had the 19 variation. It is unique to Native Americans and a straight line trail (it looks like a direct path) of people from Mongolia southwest to Afghanistan and one Muslim tribe in Africa. No one else in that long list of groups has 19 so it seems very rare and very specific. I will eventually have population geneticists give me their take on it. The distribution seems anything but random. Hopefully as the marker offerings expand each one of us will locate a number which have specificity and a story to tell.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Clochaire
                Well, you seem offended. So I guess you DID understand the general theme behind my message, your dependence upon spell check not withstanding.

                You say you have excellent paper trail. That's great.

                So what more do you expect to learn from some flakey tribes test? How many NA languages do you speak? Are you an enrolled tribal member? How do you contribute to the well being of the tribe or culture?

                As regards the validity of the tests themselves, well. They have to be based on the premise that peoples of the various cultural groupings carry uniform biological markers that are unique to them alone, therefore that there was never any significant intermarriage w/ other people from other cultural groupings. Oh, by the way, those unique markers are not specific to any particular chain of transmission (line of descent), so good luck on testing results to paper trail.
                I am at a loss as to which of those ideas is the most hillariously silly.

                How's the air in your ivory tower?

                Jack
                Dude, you have "issues". FYI I wrote a book that was published so that my cousins on the Six Nations (I lived there) could use it to trace their ancestry. Is this sufficient in your world for making a cultural contribution.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I have done some brief explorations into the orgins of the Sioux and it appears that they originated in the regions where the Catawba and Tuscarora lived and so anyone with ancestry from the Eastern Seaboard (including the northeast considering the number of Catawba captives brought there), might want to consider testing for this marker. if they did obtain an allele value of 19 and had no eastern Arab, Tibetan or Mongolian ancestry then this could be interpreted as a clear signal from NA ancestors (also of course the 9 repeats which is the slam dunk).

                  Here is a snippet that gives the migration trajectory: "While social migrations have yet to be definitively worked out, linguistic and historical sittings indicate a southern origin of Siouan people, with migrations over a thousand years ago from North Carolina and Virginia to Ohio, then both down the Ohio River to the Mississippi and up to the Missouri, and across Ohio to Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota, home of the Dakota." (Wikipedia, Siouian Languages).

                  Originally posted by Yaffa
                  They say HG B is found mainly on the west coast of N and S America and the Rio Grande. So far I do find this to be true being I am Hg B2 - Rio Grande.
                  I have 85 matches that are consistant with the West Coast in N America, Mexico, S America and the Rio Grande.

                  The Cherokee are not a Sioux speaking tribe. The Catawba were living close to the Cherokee and are a Sioux speaking tribe. If this woman was " Proven" Cherokee meaning either on paper or a tribal member, it's very possible that she may be inter-tribal marriage somewhere and there may be no record on paper of this if her MT-DNA matches closer to a Sioux tribe.

                  The Saponi from VA also went to live with the Catawba in NC for many years. They also speak a Sioux language

                  My family came from Western NC and I can tell you there was a lot of Indian traffic going though Indian trading paths with several diffrent tribes.

                  I know some Cherokee Tribal memebers and they can understand some but not all the language of 6 nations of NY who speak an Iroquoian language like the Cherokee.

                  Tuscarora became the 6th nation of NY in the early 1700's due to Indian slavery in the 1600-1700's. They are from Eastern NC.

                  I don't buy that the Cheorkee came from a Sioux tribe in general unless there was an inter-tribal marrage somewhere.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Clochaire
                    Well, you seem offended. So I guess you DID understand the general theme behind my message, your dependence upon spell check not withstanding.

                    You say you have excellent paper trail. That's great.

                    So what more do you expect to learn from some flakey tribes test? How many NA languages do you speak? Are you an enrolled tribal member? How do you contribute to the well being of the tribe or culture?

                    As regards the validity of the tests themselves, well. They have to be based on the premise that peoples of the various cultural groupings carry uniform biological markers that are unique to them alone, therefore that there was never any significant intermarriage w/ other people from other cultural groupings. Oh, by the way, those unique markers are not specific to any particular chain of transmission (line of descent), so good luck on testing results to paper trail.
                    I am at a loss as to which of those ideas is the most hillariously silly.

                    How's the air in your ivory tower?

                    Jack
                    Evidently you don't know that David Faux (DKF) has been one of the strongest critics of autosomal testing for genealogical purposes, at least so far as the current technology and interpretation provided by the companies doing it. He has taken a lot of flack from those on this board who live and die by the latest update they can get from these companies.

                    David's posting of this thread indicates that he has nothing against the concept of autosomal testing, just the poor state of the science involved at this point in time. As he and others in this thread have pointed out, it seems that a count of 9 on this autosomal marker is unique to Native American populations. So at least one can "hang their hat" on this result if they are interested in investigating possible Native American ancestry.

                    I feel the same as David does. Autosomal testing is something that may be useful, but needs further development. This autosomal marker, indicating Native American ancestry, indicates the potential. There have been postings on the Rootsweb list and at dna-forums.org about scientific studies using hundreds of thousands of SNPs to show how western European ancestry can be regionalized based on autosomal testing. That's still only a rough approximation, but as these studies refine the knowledge and find ethnic/national-specific SNPs (ancestry informative markers, AIMs) and the commercial testing companies adopt that knowledge, then autosomal testing will be a much more useful tool in genetic genealogy. Of course, as you point out, you still won't be able to pinpoint specific lines that carry the ethnic/national-specific SNPs, unless you have a very good paper trail.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by DKF
                      I have done some brief explorations into the orgins of the Sioux and it appears that they originated in the regions where the Catawba and Tuscarora lived and so anyone with ancestry from the Eastern Seaboard (including the northeast considering the number of Catawba captives brought there), might want to consider testing for this marker. if they did obtain an allele value of 19 and had no eastern Arab, Tibetan or Mongolian ancestry then this could be interpreted as a clear signal from NA ancestors (also of course the 9 repeats which is the slam dunk).

                      Here is a snippet that gives the migration trajectory: "While social migrations have yet to be definitively worked out, linguistic and historical sittings indicate a southern origin of Siouan people, with migrations over a thousand years ago from North Carolina and Virginia to Ohio, then both down the Ohio River to the Mississippi and up to the Missouri, and across Ohio to Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota, home of the Dakota." (Wikipedia, Siouian Languages).
                      I have attached a map of the distribution of the Siouian languages - very extensive really, and perhaps a hint as to where the most probable genetic snapshot from the recent article concerning the 9AR variant might be located (in addition to the one site chosen for the study).
                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Yaffa
                        They say HG B is found mainly on the west coast of N and S America and the Rio Grande. So far I do find this to be true being I am Hg B2 - Rio Grande.
                        I have 85 matches that are consistant with the West Coast in N America, Mexico, S America and the Rio Grande.

                        The Cherokee are not a Sioux speaking tribe. The Catawba were living close to the Cherokee and are a Sioux speaking tribe. If this woman was " Proven" Cherokee meaning either on paper or a tribal member, it's very possible that she may be inter-tribal marriage somewhere and there may be no record on paper of this if her MT-DNA matches closer to a Sioux tribe.

                        The Saponi from VA also went to live with the Catawba in NC for many years. They also speak a Sioux language

                        My family came from Western NC and I can tell you there was a lot of Indian traffic going though Indian trading paths with several diffrent tribes.

                        I know some Cherokee Tribal memebers and they can understand some but not all the language of 6 nations of NY who speak an Iroquoian language like the Cherokee.

                        Tuscarora became the 6th nation of NY in the early 1700's due to Indian slavery in the 1600-1700's. They are from Eastern NC.

                        I don't buy that the Cherokee came from a Sioux tribe in general unless there was an inter-tribal marriage somewhere.
                        it wasn't saying they were the same, they are not..
                        this study showed Cherokee are not close genetically to any other southeastern people. THE closest is plains siouan. which was so odd... this must have to do with some kind of deep origins , something we do not now understand for it to be true.I think the answer is found in south America.. because the plains was a ice berg for at least 1000 years and the Sioux couldn't have been there then .
                        PS I'm a Collins. and a PONI ( 'big foot PONI Indian' supposed to be 'Blackfoot saponi ' is what I called it as a child)..:P I know all about that eastern Sioux stuff..

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Yaffa
                          This link states that people report having Cherokee Ancestry. Reporting Cherokee ancestry and having proven Cherokee ancestry are 2 different things. I have seen may claim they have a Cherokee ancestor that is unproven. Not stating that these people could not have an Indian ancestor but as I stated before there were many different tribes in NC as well as VA and I know researchers that do have documented paper trial and DNA that VA tribes did move into NC and further west. At this moment in time, DNA can not prove tribal affiliation.

                          If you do have a granddaughter or a grandson, she or he will have your MT-DNA that you passed down to your daughter. So why would you need to do the baby's MT- DNA? You or your daughter could test
                          my great aunt tested. really my great grandma's sisters granddaughter .. but we call her 'aunt' because she is our oldest female in our family tree . . now MY grandaughter will test.. her father is african american not indian, part indian, or white.. just going to check for ourselfs.. to see if it makes any differences who or what the dad is and if it effects the mtdna. just our own experiment!
                          Last edited by purple flowers; 6 September 2008, 11:19 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Yaffa
                            http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=2375964

                            This paper show that not just 9 repeates show up in NA but only 9 repeats show up in NA and no other ethnicity
                            OK now..looking at this link my 15-16 shows up higher in the Aleut population than the 9 repeat?

                            It would be MORE significant if I had a 9 ?
                            I am 15-16 and my sister is 17-18 so our parents were 15-16-17-18 in some comination..

                            I am FRIGHTFULLY slow on this one..is it real abstract?
                            We are mostly Irish but had an unknown possibly Polish GF.. Grandfather on maternal side is Sardinian I1b but on Tipperary/Limerick border for 500 years before coming to NJ in 1869..

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by MMaddi
                              Evidently you don't know that David Faux (DKF) has been one of the strongest critics of autosomal testing for genealogical purposes, at least so far as the current technology and interpretation provided by the companies doing it. He has taken a lot of flack from those on this board who live and die by the latest update they can get from these companies.

                              David's posting of this thread indicates that he has nothing against the concept of autosomal testing, just the poor state of the science involved at this point in time. As he and others in this thread have pointed out, it seems that a count of 9 on this autosomal marker is unique to Native American populations. So at least one can "hang their hat" on this result if they are interested in investigating possible Native American ancestry.

                              I feel the same as David does. Autosomal testing is something that may be useful, but needs further development. This autosomal marker, indicating Native American ancestry, indicates the potential. There have been postings on the Rootsweb list and at dna-forums.org about scientific studies using hundreds of thousands of SNPs to show how western European ancestry can be regionalized based on autosomal testing. That's still only a rough approximation, but as these studies refine the knowledge and find ethnic/national-specific SNPs (ancestry informative markers, AIMs) and the commercial testing companies adopt that knowledge, then autosomal testing will be a much more useful tool in genetic genealogy. Of course, as you point out, you still won't be able to pinpoint specific lines that carry the ethnic/national-specific SNPs, unless you have a very good paper trail.
                              Thanks Mike. Yes, we are now in the process of moving out of the doldrums in autosomal testing and a reliance on "early bird" tests whose "performance characteristics" left much to be desired.

                              It seems that every month brings a new study that has direct relevance for those of us interested in "deep ancestry". It is almost overwhelming. It is to be expected that the methodologies reported in these papers will be converted to a commerically viable test or tests very soon. The future looks exceedingly bright.

                              As you know a paper was published very recently by Lao et al. (2008) entitled, "Correlation between Genetic and Geographical Structure in Europe". It showed that there was enough genetic differentiation to place individuals into a very circumscribed area of Europe - within a circle that may be just a few hundred miles in extent. The procedure also worked for the individuals in the CEPH panel, individuals from Utah presumed to be of northwest European descent. The testing showed a very clear cluster, despite some mixing that may have occured in North America. It is papers such as this which convince me that we are on the very cusp of a new era in DNA testing - finally.

                              I believe that there are copyright restrictions or I would upload the entire article, but here is a link to the Lao paper:

                              http://www.current-biology.com/conte...60982208009561

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Kathleen Carrow
                                OK now..looking at this link my 15-16 shows up higher in the Aleut population than the 9 repeat?

                                It would be MORE significant if I had a 9 ?
                                I am 15-16 and my sister is 17-18 so our parents were 15-16-17-18 in some comination..

                                I am FRIGHTFULLY slow on this one..is it real abstract?
                                We are mostly Irish but had an unknown possibly Polish GF.. Grandfather on maternal side is Sardinian I1b but on Tipperary/Limerick border for 500 years before coming to NJ in 1869..
                                Assuming you and your sister both had the same parents, then she must for sure have either your 15 or your 16 (one came from your mother and the other from your father) but the other allele is unknown. Your sister could have the exact same motif as you, or It could also be the allele that your mom has or the allele that your dad has that was not passed on to you. Only testing could determine this - but she will have a 15 or 16 as one of the alleles.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X