Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

American Indian admixture in White Americans

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

  • Originally posted by smallaxe View Post
    While I don't know that I consider myself "Appalachian", I have a lot of genealogical connections with those folks. My grandfather is from Georgia, and his people are a fairly typical southern, early settlers family. Most moved to Georgia either from Virginia or the Carolinas in the late 1700's and early 1800's. In most cases where one of my ancestors moved to Georgia, some of their siblings moved to Kentucky or Tennessee. My southern ancestors were very mobile. Almost never did any particular ancestor stay in the county where they were born. I have some likely black admixture and possible Amerindian (it's a lot harder to identify that) as described here: http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/top..._1#entry226390
    Our family doesn't have an oral story of either black or native American ancestry. The likely source is a branch of the family that came to Georgia from Robeson County NC in 1801, but I so far have not been able to find paper evidence of either black or amerindian ancestors. I have found a number of cases where an ancestor's brother married a native American. Based on my 30 years doing traditional genealogy on my southern ancestry, I'd say that native American and black admixture is probably common in southerners that go back to colonial times, but the amount of admixture percentage-wise is likely to be pretty tiny.

    Something that pertains a little to this discussion is this interesting simulation someone did that shows how likely or unlikely it is for you to have detectable DNA from any particular ancestor past 5 generations: http://www.genetic-inference.co.uk/b...share-our-dna/
    Since colonial sources of admixture are typically greater than 5 generations back, it's quite possible for a person to have a genealogical ancestor from colonial USA that is non-white, but have no discernable genetic material from that ancestor.
    Robeson County was known for the Lumbee tribe. this is on the NC/SC border. I have heard People say they do have African in their lines. I have never confirmed this myself. My family was not near the Lumbee. My family in Western NC was closer to NE border of TN

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Yaffa View Post
      Robeson County was known for the Lumbee tribe. this is on the NC/SC border. I have heard People say they do have African in their lines. I have never confirmed this myself. My family was not near the Lumbee. My family in Western NC was closer to NE border of TN
      On google images some of the Lumbee have African features while some look Amerind others look European. They seem to be a very mixed tribe.

      I heard something on the history channel about some Cherokee being part Jewish, has anyone heard more on this?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Barreldriver View Post
        On google images some of the Lumbee have African features while some look Amerind others look European. They seem to be a very mixed tribe.

        I heard something on the history channel about some Cherokee being part Jewish, has anyone heard more on this?
        Yes the Lumbee are mixed LOL


        I hear this all the time about the Cherokee being Jewish and mixed with Crypto ( Sephardic) Jews. The Cherokee will tell you no this did not happen. Appalachia was not an area for the Spaniards and the Cherokee were not in good staining with the Spanish. They need to look to Mexico/New Mexico for this issue. I have spoken to some of my distant MT DNA matches in Mexico and they tell me they have stories of Sephardic Jews in their family. The Spanish inquisition was going on in Europe the same time the Spaniards invaded over here.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by smallaxe View Post
          Not just lost to slicing and dicing down to being too tiny. Also from simply being lost in total. For example suppose your father has a 15 cm segment on Chr 2 and a 7 cm segment on Chr 11 from his 6th great grandfather on his father's side, and that is all he has from that particular ancestor. For those areas of those chromosomes, you just happen to get from your father the genetic material he got from his mom, not his dad. Now you don't have any material from that ancestor. Every generation there are loses like this. In fact, fully 50% of each parent's genetic material is lost in the making of a child's genome each generation. It is recombination that actually increases how long a particular ancestor's genes last downstream. If it wasn't for recombination, for any particular chromosome, all of the material contributed by each parent could only come from one of their parents.
          I had read that females have a higher recombination rate than males, if recombination makes it easier for admixture segments to get passed down would that suggest that females are more likely to show up mixed on one of these tests?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Barreldriver View Post
            Do you even know the extant of the RHHcounter analysis? It can detect admixtures going back to the bloody middle ages, was used in a recent study reporting previously unfound African admixture in White Utahns, I cleared the bill with the RHH counter so your claim is rather dubious.
            Obviously, you understand very little about Mendelian genetics. It seems you still think genes mix in the same fashion paints mix. Now, you pattern of though -of confusing Africans with Amerindians, or mixing the examples together- clearly show how your brain works.
            Nope sir, the "purest" European you cite as an example can very well descend from an African or a Chinese, and you would never tell by searching the DNA. Genetics don't work that way.
            Listen me, because I won't repeat:

            (1) Genetic markers can prove a person has certain ancestors.

            but the opposite is not true.

            (2) Genetic markers can't prove a person lacks certain ancestors.

            To understand why, get into genetics.


            Originally posted by Barreldriver View Post
            The only segment I had wasn't even found by the admin of the project but by myself when I took a closer look, and it was a 333 generation old segment. When I say an unadmixed European, I mean a European who descends in full from those who were among the various waves of prehistoric settling of the region, and you're foolish if you believe they do not exist, various analysis show that there are people of such a background in existence.
            As the matter of fact, I am not interested in unadmixed Europeans. Actually, that's not the topic of this thread.

            Originally posted by Barreldriver View Post
            And my point with the admixture rates was, I have never met someone who claimed Amerindian ancestry that actually had it (i.e. they were not able to provide a specific tribe, or ancestor, or region, just the general tale over a cup of tea that they descend from some lone Amerindian back in the day),
            Perhaps you haven't notice that Amerindian ancestry is not the same that Amerindian membership.
            There are millions of White Americans with Amerindian features showing right on theirs faces, which are not aware theirs origins, and believe they are the purest of the Europeans.


            Originally posted by Barreldriver View Post
            I'm not denying that admixture occurred ever, but to say that it was universal among all folks of Appalachia at all times is a fallacy given that there are Appalachians who are not admixed with Amerindians, also the discussion is not out of topic because the topic of "Amerindian Admixture in American Whites" can go two ways, discussing the existence or non-existence of the admixture. Good day.
            You are denying admixture occurred. I don't known why to keep saying "I am not denying" when that is precisely what you are doing.
            And as I said before, you are in the wrong thread.
            Last edited by kawashkar; 2 January 2011, 06:08 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by kawashkar View Post
              Obviously, you understand very little about Mendelian genetics. It seems you still think genes mix in the same fashion paints mix. Listen me, because I won't repeat:

              (1) Genetic markers can prove a person has certain ancestors.

              but the opposite is not true.

              (2) Genetic markers can't prove a person lacks certain ancestors.

              To understand why, get into genetics.
              Now you are just trying to stir crap, if you were not you would have seen the posts exchanged by me and smallaxe which cleared up my confusion on how the RHHcounter analysis worked, I had made a mistake on that regard and admitted it here: http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...&postcount=974

              Further discussion was had about it here: http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...&postcount=975


              In my posts I found the mistakes in my understanding, I admitted it and sought more explanation, then an exchange of Q&A occurred between me and smallaxe, which just so happened to be right above your current post, either you are blind or willingly ignoring these posts of and intentionally trying to start crap.


              Now, you pattern of though -of confusing Africans with Amerindians, or mixing the examples together- clearly show how your brain works.
              I never once confused Africans with Amerindians in this thread, the only time I mentioned Africans was to cite the RHHcounter, the only reason I brought that up is because it's the latest utility in gauging admixture, and I was giving an example of the success of its analysis when dealing with White Utahns.

              How you missed that is truly a testament to how your mind works.

              Nope sir, the "purest" European you cite as an example can very well descend from an African or a Chinese, and you would never tell by searching the DNA. Genetics don't work that way.
              And you have little understanding of how ethnic groups work, the Africans and Asians responsible for the European ancestors are not the same as modern day Han Chinese and Subsaharan Africans, they are archaic homo sapiens sapiens, ancient Eurasians (which are closer to Siberians and such than Han Chinese), and African groups that more than likely don't even exist in Africa anymore, so to call them African and Asian in the modern sense of someone who belongs to a current native African ethnic group or East Asian ethnic group is idiotic as the identity changed, extremely in a cultural level then at a clinal level.


              As the matter of fact, I am not interested in unadmixed Europeans. Actually, that's not the topic of this thread.
              I don't give a crap what you are interested in, you are insignificant, given that this thread titles states "American Indian Admixture in White Americans" the discussion can go both ways. That's how language works, so deal with it. It deals with the topic of admixture in general, which there can be a lack of admixture or an abundance of admixture, good for you that you wish to discuss its abundance, I wish to discuss the other side (the lack).


              Perhaps you haven't notice that Amerindian ancestry is not the same that Amerindian membership.
              There are millions of White Americans with Amerindian features showing right on theirs faces, which are not aware theirs origins, and believe they are the purest of the Europeans.
              There are also millions who don't have these features, and I don't care about them, I can only speak for myself and I as an Appalachian have not these physical features, no traditional genealogical proof of Amerindian ancestors, and the various DNA tests I and my cousins have done do not suggest admixture, hence as an Appalachian, and a White American, my example is useful in gauging the extant of admixture among White Americans because I'm an example of the other side of the story which deals with those who have no strong case to be made for admixture.



              You are denying admixture occurred. I don't known why to keep saying "I am not denying" when that is precisely what you are doing.
              And as I said before, you are in the wrong thread.
              How you are getting this is beyond me, I'm saying it occurred in some, not in all, how the heck does that say "admixture never occurred"?

              All my statements in this thread said is I've yet to witness an example of genuine admixture with an Amerindian (until I've talked with some members here that is), and I doubt that Amerindian admixture occurred in every single Appalachian, that's a bold claim that is not supported by any facts, rather the facts state that some mixed, some did not.

              I have said this multiple times in this thread, the fact that you cannot read English is your own fault.
              Last edited by Barreldriver; 2 January 2011, 12:00 PM.

              Comment


              • Since my edit time expired let me rephrase this before you take it out of context:

                All my statements in this thread said is I've yet to witness an example of genuine admixture with an Amerindian (until I've talked with some members here who showed their example of being mixed), and I doubt that Amerindian admixture occurred in every single Appalachian, that's a bold claim to state that all Appalachians are mixed as it is not supported by facts, rather the facts state that some mixed, some did not.

                Then with this post, needs to be rephrased to:

                "There are also millions who don't have these features, and I don't care about those who look the way you describe atm, I can only speak for myself and I as an Appalachian have not these physical features, no traditional genealogical proof of Amerindian ancestors, and the various DNA tests I and my cousins have done do not suggest admixture, hence as an Appalachian, and a White American, my example is useful in gauging the extant of admixture among White Americans because I'm an example of the other side of the story which deals with those who have no strong case to be made for admixture because the evidence is not there (whether lost to generations or never been there is irrelevant as it's not there to be found in me period, so the picture that can be painted can be done only with the colors that can and have been found).

                And an addition to this comment:

                Now you are just trying to stir crap, if you were not you would have seen the posts exchanged by me and smallaxe which cleared up my confusion on how the RHHcounter analysis worked, I had made a mistake on that regard and admitted it here: http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...&postcount=974

                Further discussion was had about it here: http://forums.familytreedna.com/show...&postcount=975

                In my posts I found the mistakes in my understanding, I admitted it and sought more explanation, then an exchange of Q&A occurred between me and smallaxe, which just so happened to be right above your current post, either you are blind or willingly ignoring these posts of and intentionally trying to start crap.

                Given the exchange between me and smallaxe I understand that DNA tests cannot prove the lack of ancestors, only the existence of those ancestors whose material managed to get passed down, and regarding my case admixture cannot be proven because I did not inherit anything that indicates it and I have no paper trail links to Amerindian ancestors (only links to cousins who have ancestors with admix whose admixture came from a line unrelated to myself).
                Last edited by Barreldriver; 2 January 2011, 12:24 PM.

                Comment


                • On another note

                  This could be interesting: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2011/0...in-baltic.html

                  "Amerindian-like sequences in Baltic Finns (aka. phased data and extended haplotypes are the way forward)"

                  "The above two plots show that Baltic Finns carry sequences that are most similar to those of Amerindian populations, and not because of a lack of reference samples from across Siberia. These sequences don’t appear to be all that unusual in my Finnish samples. What this means is that we’re not just looking at noise here, but genuine links between Finns and Amerindians. I have no idea how old this stuff is, but probably really old. I suspect it got to Europe with the aforementioned Uralic migrants of the Bronze Age, but I’m not really sure. I doubt Eskimos ever made it to Finland.

                  The other interesting thing is that, usually, when I’m searching for non-European segments in one sample, I pick them up in some of the other individuals present in the analysis. Note some of the Chuvash and North Russians streaming towards East Asia on the plots above – they most likely have Siberian sequences in the areas tested. However, I’m yet to see any native Europeans other than Finns showing the links to the Americas I identified here, even when checking small areas of the genome of around 5 megabases.

                  I haven’t tested Germanic Scandinavians like this yet, but soon will, and I have a feeling they too will score some hits in the Americas, due to their results in some of my ADMIXTURE runs."
                  How is this relevant to Amerindian Admixture in American Whites? Well, some American Whites have Scandinavian Germanic ancestry or Balto-Finnic ancestry, so for those Americans with such ancestral backgrounds there can be some Amerindian segments that aren't attributed to recent admixture but to more ancient movements.

                  An article from naturenews for those who doubt the validity of the Eurogenes Project and related projects: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1012...l/468880a.html

                  "They are not amateurs. They are far from being amateurs," says Doron Behar, a population geneticist at Rambam Health Care Campus in Haifa, Israel, who studies human history. "I cannot stress enough the level of appreciation I have for their efforts."
                  Last edited by Barreldriver; 2 January 2011, 01:39 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Family history of 500 African American families who were free in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland and Delaware from the colonial period until about 1820.


                    and a link for all William L Byrd III books. All his books are transcribed court records from NC for both Free People of Color and slaves Indian and African

                    Last edited by Yaffa; 2 January 2011, 02:57 PM.

                    Comment


                    • To tie back to the original post that started this thread... the problem for anyone, such as genealogists and historians, to prove via paper trail that any particular person did or did not marry a native American is that for folks on the frontier there is often little or no paper trail in existence. Any person that has spent time trying to trace their southern family is probably familiar with the typical dead end: the wife for whom all you know is a first name. Was one of them all or part native American? There may be no evidence in existence to be able to say one way or the other. This is how most of my dead ends are.

                      Just as there were whites that merged into various tribes (check out the early Cherokee census - there are both white men and women living with Cherokee spouses on Cherokee lands), there were native Americans that merged into the white population. But I don't think this explains the depopulation of many native tribes. One only has to read first hand accounts of the time to know the fate of the unfortunate many, and that fate was death by disease, and secondarily by armed conflict.
                      Last edited by smallaxe; 2 January 2011, 03:59 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by smallaxe View Post
                        To tie back to the original post that started this thread... the problem for anyone, such as genealogists and historians, to prove via paper trail that any particular person did or did not marry a native American is that for folks on the frontier there is often little or no paper trail in existence. Any person that has spent time trying to trace their southern family is probably familiar with the typical dead end: the wife for whom all you know is a first name. Was one of them all or part native American? There may be no evidence in existence to be able to say one way or the other. This is how most of my dead ends are.

                        Just as there were whites that merged into various tribes (check out the early Cherokee census - there are both white men and women living with Cherokee spouses on Cherokee lands), there were native Americans that merged into the white population. But I don't think this explains the depopulation of many native tribes. One only has to read first hand accounts of the time to know the fate of the unfortunate many, and that fate was death by disease, and secondarily by armed conflict.
                        So true about the dead ends and also many who dont match surname on DNA or have bastardy bond records. Some of the tribes were matriarchal like the Cherokee where child followed mother clan not father.

                        Now I have been watching documentaries and many believe and so do I there were more Indian's here than recorded by the Europeans. The Indians were not recording the history, the Europeans were. Hopefully more DNA testers might prove this one day. Not all were wiped out by smallpox. The biggest killer to the Indian's was the church with conversion and assimilation into European culture. Just for example researching Mexico most if not all are mostly Indian with smaller mixtures of Spanish and African.. Many historians in Mexico will tell you this by studying all the records there. My Indian ancestors in Mexico remarry a few times because their spouses die. It could have been disease, murder, Child birth. Many dont realize how many women may have died in childbirth. I have many ancestors who remarry because a wife or husband has died. Some women recorded to be childbirth.

                        Comment


                        • Indian Slavery

                          Forgot to add-- the books I posted by William L Byrd III--- there are many Indian Slavery records in those books and they are court records. Many Indian tribes got taken into the Islands as slaves.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by smallaxe View Post
                            To tie back to the original post that started this thread... the problem for anyone, such as genealogists and historians, to prove via paper trail that any particular person did or did not marry a native American is that for folks on the frontier there is often little or no paper trail in existence. Any person that has spent time trying to trace their southern family is probably familiar with the typical dead end: the wife for whom all you know is a first name. Was one of them all or part native American? There may be no evidence in existence to be able to say one way or the other. This is how most of my dead ends are.

                            Just as there were whites that merged into various tribes (check out the early Cherokee census - there are both white men and women living with Cherokee spouses on Cherokee lands), there were native Americans that merged into the white population. But I don't think this explains the depopulation of many native tribes. One only has to read first hand accounts of the time to know the fate of the unfortunate many, and that fate was death by disease, and secondarily by armed conflict.
                            This part right here makes it even less likely for families like mine to be mixed because we had nothing but violent encounters with the natives, got a number stories of ancestors having to fight and/or evade capture by natives. Plus my folks were very close to Andrew Jackson in the day (after fighting in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and the New Orleans campaign).

                            There was an exception in Overton County, with a place called Alpine (if mixing was to happen in Overton County, Tennessee it would have happened there), however my folks in Overton County were nowhere near Alpine in their settlement, we were from Livingston/Rickman and before that either Monticello, Wayne County, Kentucky (even these folks in my family were originally Lunenburg/Mecklenburg, Virginia folks that just moved into Kentucky) and Lunenburg/Mecklenburg County, Virginia (our stay in North Carolina was just a pit stop to get to what became Tennessee) then Europe, really no room for something to slip in. The rare exception that occurred in my kingroup was where a brother of an ancestor went into Alpine, Tennessee and got an Amerindian wife, key here was he had to go into Alpine. And places like Wayne County, Kentucky are known for violent encounters with natives, not really the setting for regular weddings to be happening.

                            The mixtures happened, but for people like kawashkar to say that every single Appalachian did this is incorrect, as there were factors in play that impeded it to a degree.
                            Last edited by Barreldriver; 2 January 2011, 04:40 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Barreldriver View Post
                              This part right here makes it even less likely for families like mine to be mixed because we had nothing but violent encounters with the natives, got a number stories of ancestors having to fight and/or evade capture by natives. Plus my folks were very close to Andrew Jackson in the day (after fighting in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend and the New Orleans campaign).

                              There was an exception in Overton County, with a place called Alpine (if mixing was to happen in Overton County, Tennessee it would have happened there), however my folks in Overton County were nowhere near Alpine in their settlement, we were from Livingston/Rickman and before that either Monticello, Wayne County, Kentucky (even these folks in my family were originally Lunenburg/Mecklenburg, Virginia folks that just moved into Kentucky) and Lunenburg/Mecklenburg County, Virginia (our stay in North Carolina was just a pit stop to get to what became Tennessee) then Europe, really no room for something to slip in. The rare exception that occurred in my kingroup was where a brother of an ancestor went into Alpine, Tennessee and got an Amerindian wife, key here was he had to go into Alpine. And places like Wayne County, Kentucky are known for violent encounters with natives, not really the setting for regular weddings to be happening.

                              The mixtures happened, but for people like kawashkar to say that every single Appalachian did this is incorrect, as there were factors in play that impeded it to a degree.
                              The Cherokee actually Helped Andrew Jackson and web mentions the Battle of Horseshoe Bend

                              This is the Official Eastern Band Cherokee Web on Andrew Jackson




                              BTW there were a lot of mixed people in TN too. This is why I posted the map site for NC so you could see where all the Indian tribes were. That map site includes other states on Indian territories

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Yaffa View Post
                                The Cherokee actually Helped Andrew Jackson and web mentions the Battle of Horseshoe Bend

                                This is the Official Eastern Band Cherokee Web on Andrew Jackson




                                BTW there were a lot of mixed people in TN too. This is why I posted the map site for NC so you could see where all the Indian tribes were. That map site includes other states on Indian territories
                                During the battle yes, but after Jackson became President he was responsible for extensive Indian Removal legislation. Basically once Jackson was done using the Cherokee for military purposes he wanted nothing more to do with them.

                                I know there's mixed people in Tennessee too, but for the point of my knowledge base I deal with Overton County (which the area in Overton County that's more likely to have admix it seems is Alpine because of Nettle Carrier, others in Overton County that were like my family were very Jacksonian on Indian matters (A type of Manifest Destiny where our kind were inspired by pioneering by force, we were the "yeomen" by status but Jacksonian by terms of Indian Removal and a willingness to go out and take territory), the rare exception occurred when a brother of an ancestor went into Alpine and took an native wife).

                                After the War of 1812 there was very very very poor relations between the Cherokee and Jackson (and those connected to Jackson's politics).
                                Last edited by Barreldriver; 2 January 2011, 05:25 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X