Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My Results, Reference Populations, and What I look Like.

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Armando View Post
    Thanks. It says "The American Indians that were brought here.....most of them are of Nahuatl (Aztec) or Yaqui descent or are Mexican mestizos themselves."

    I wonder if the author understands that Tlaxcalans also spoke Nahuatl.

    Page 24 of Mexico in World History By William H. Beezley states "These expeditions often combined Spaniards with their Tlaxcalan allies, so that the people from what today is Mexico's smallest state left a cultural impact in northern Mexico, the southwestern United States, and the Phillipines - including Tlaxcalan loanwords in local languages"

    https://goo.gl/X730jY
    The printout appears to come from a Wikipedia. Currently English Wikipedia articles do not have that contents, so may be somebody noticed the same as you did...

    W. (Mr.)

    P.S.
    Or may be it is/was from here http://www.statemaster.com/encyclope...he-Philippines
    Last edited by dna; 19th May 2015, 12:31 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      That screenshot I posted was in some forum. The person who write the article, is actually Filipino historian:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Craig

      This is interesting...

      http://www.bitlanders.com/blogs/azte...ppines/1689955

      Comment


      • #18
        Found this, too...(4th paragraph down):

        http://www.mapsofworld.com/languages...d/nahuatl.html

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by kattoo13 View Post
          That screenshot I posted was in some forum.
          That screenshot you posted looked like it was from a website because it had words in grey as if they were hyperlinks. Sure enough the exact same text is at http://www.statemaster.com/encyclope...he-Philippines with the hyperlinks. I think it is actually an older Wikipedia page. So the person that posted that screenshot in the forum got it from the Statemaster website, Wikipedia, or another site that had the exact same info.

          Originally posted by kattoo13 View Post
          The person who write the article, is actually Filipino historian:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Craig
          Austin Craig wasn't the one that wrote the article. The article specifically states "The American Indians that were brought here, according to author Austin Craig, nearly numbered similar to the native population." What I would like to know is if Austin Craig knew that
          "The Tlaxcaltecs were originally a conglomeration of three distinct ethnic groups who spoke Nahuatl, Otomi, and Pinome. Eventually, the Nahuatl speakers became the dominant ethnic group.[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlaxcaltec

          I also wonder if Austin Craig ever had access to an original document that stated which specific tribes the Native Mexicans were from and if not did Austin Craig actually state that they were Aztecs as opposed to Tlaxcaltecas. I say that because document doesn't quote him verbatim. So, I would like to see the original writings of Austin Craig as well as the original documents from Spain. They should be available at Portal de Archivos EspaƱoles http://pares.mcu.es/ but I can't find any documents that mention expeditions to the Philippines in the the 16th century.

          Originally posted by kattoo13 View Post
          However, no sources are cited. The person could just be writing things the way he interpreted them.

          Originally posted by kattoo13 View Post
          Found this, too...(4th paragraph down):

          http://www.mapsofworld.com/languages...d/nahuatl.html
          That site doesn't even mention Tlaxcala (the place) or the Tlaxcaltec people but the Wikipedia entry on Nahuatl mentions both several times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahuatl

          Comment


          • #20
            I would like to see Austin's original writings as well.

            As far as the other person's page, it could be up to their personal interpretation, or it may actually based on fact. It's not completely unfeasible, just because it's difficult to find information on the subject.

            Comment


            • #21
              surprises...or not

              I can't say that my reference population(s) were much of a surprise...or maybe they are...kind of.

              Through genealogical research, so far, I show up as >50% Norwegian and about 25% German, with some Swedish and English thrown in (and small amounts of some other northern/western European as well).

              My Geno2 reference populations...my percentages actually match exactly to the percentages for the German reference population, though Geno2 actually lists Danish first, which I find a little odd. However, with no Norwegian or Swedish reference population...those 2 would seem to be the most likely to be close matches.

              I'm a little surprised to have such a close match to the German population, though I wouldn't expect it to be radically different.

              As to how I look...well, I expect I look pretty northern European. (in the photo with me are my niece and nephew)

              http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/a...02EE7093A5.jpg

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by arkham View Post
                I can't say that my reference population(s) were much of a surprise...or maybe they are...kind of.

                Through genealogical research, so far, I show up as >50% Norwegian and about 25% German, with some Swedish and English thrown in (and small amounts of some other northern/western European as well).

                My Geno2 reference populations...my percentages actually match exactly to the percentages for the German reference population, though Geno2 actually lists Danish first, which I find a little odd. However, with no Norwegian or Swedish reference population...those 2 would seem to be the most likely to be close matches.

                I'm a little surprised to have such a close match to the German population, though I wouldn't expect it to be radically different.

                As to how I look...well, I expect I look pretty northern European. (in the photo with me are my niece and nephew)

                http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/a...02EE7093A5.jpg
                Geno 2.0 doesn't list the two closest reference populations in order of closeness, you can easily see that for yourself, it just lists them alphabetically (granted you could easily see that too, but whatever).

                So it wasn't saying your mix looked closest to the Danish mix. It simply said Danish and German are the closest (and by inspection you can then see that German is a closer match than Danish). You have to read things carefully if you have every mixed ancestry though. If you are mostly from region you can often read, with care, a lot more into it than most people claim though, and sometimes get pretty specific.

                Comment

                Working...
                X