European tribe in pre-Columbian America?

[PDHOTLEN]

North Atlantic Gyre

I haven't bothered to do much researching on this subject (Possible European Tribes in the Pre-Columbian Americas), but the very nature of the currents and trade winds of the North Atlantic sets up a strong possibility of Europeans making landfalls in the Americas over thousands of years. But deliberate colonization is another matter, I would think.

R1a1 & U5b2

There's a lot of stuff here, where to start.

Columbus -- he died convinced he'd reached Asia. Sad, but he never did know where he'd really gone.

The 'Inca' in Norway. That's a newspaper article, do people really trust newspapers to get it right? Ignoring the fact that the skeleton was older than the Incas, the bone in question is not unique to any particular group.
See http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeo...uy_was_not.php

In fact, the 'Inca bone', isn't only found in the Inca. Rare, yes, but found all over the world.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1468202

There is no reason to think that this person didn't come from somewhere in Eurasia.

There is quite a bit of confusion about what is in fact very difficult and tricky field, genetics, specifically here Haplogroup X which in the case of Native Americans should be X2A. There's a discussion here:

http://www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?1,464788,page=1

which features people of very different viewpoints -- Gisele is the real expert there.

Finally, the poor Chachapoyas. There is a pdf file here which has a lot of useful stuff

http://anthro.colstate.edu/Church2006.pdf

The guy pushing the blue-eyed claim the most is Gene Savoy, who also claims his son represents the second coming of Christ.

Doug

[GregKiroKHR1bL1]

This article speaks about the universal characteristic of the Iberian colonization of the Americas. It also speaks about how differently people think about other people. One person suggested (me), how many reports of bearded and multi-color hair Amerindians were in America when Columbus landed? I always thought this was an interesting solution to the pre-Columbian America problem.

We propose an explanation based on the understanding that elevated genomic contributions from European males and Amerindian or African females depend not only on directional mating, but also on the “racial” and social category of the children born from these relations. In this respect, social practices in Brazil and in the United States diverge considerably. In Brazil, socially significant “races” are particularly categorized by the physical appearance of the individual (Harris and Kotak, 1963). There seems to be no descent rule and it is possible for two siblings differing in color to belong to completely diverse “racial” categories. Let us take as an example, the historically common Brazilian mating of a white European male with a Black African slave woman: the children with more pronounced physical African features would be considered Black, while those with more European features would be considered White (Parra et al., 2003). This created ample opportunity for the introgression of African mtDNA lineages into Whites and of European Y-chromosomal lineages into African Brazilians. Mutatis mutandis; the same would have occurred with Amerindians.

In the United States, descent appears to be much more important than physical appearance (Harris and Kotak, 1963) as shown by the “one drop rule” and other hypodescent stipulations (Hickman, 1997). Thus, all the offspring of the historical mating of a White European male with a Black African woman would be considered Black regardless of physical appearance. This allows the introgression of Y-chromosomal lineages into Blacks, but not of African mtDNA lineages into American Caucasians.

Sex-biased gene flow in African Americans but not in American Caucasians
V.F. Gonçalves, F. Prosdocimi, L.S. Santos, J.M. Ortega and S.D.J. Pena
Departamento de Bioquímica e Imunologia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais,
Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil
Corresponding author: S.D.J. Pena
E-mail: [email protected]
Genet. Mol. Res. 6 (2): 156-161 (2007)
Received March 14, 2007
Accepted March 14, 2007
Published May 9, 2007

[Guy]

Prince Madoc

Since I'm of Welsh decent on my y-dna side, I thought this was very interesting.

http://www.geocities.com/ourmelungeons/welsh-indians.html

[rainbow]

Here is the story of Henry Sinclair coming to Nova Scotia:

http://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/9318/sinclair.html

"European fishermen probably crossed to the Grand Banks regularly by the mid-14th Century, although being illiterate, they didn't record these passages, which consequently went ignored by those who wrote history. But the first European to reach these shores who could be called a "cruising sailor" of sorts, may well have been Henry Sinclair, Earl of Orkney. There is reason to speculate that Sinclair visited Nova Scotia in 1398 -- 94 years before Columbus' "voyage of discovery"

Columbus may have been aware of a Sinclair voyage. Sinclair's grandson, John Drummond, settled in the Portuguese Madiera Islands c. 1430. Columbus spent time in the service of the Perestrello family in Madeira, eventually marrying Felipa Perestrello. The Perestrellos were related by marriage to the Madiera Drummonds, and Columbus very likely knew Henry Sinclair's great-grandson John Affonso Escorcio ("The Scot") Drummond."

I totally believe that Columbus knew something beforehand. I think he wanted the glory & all the credit of 'discovering' new land. And from what I've read about how Columbus treated the Indians, he was extremely cruel to them, he could have been just as mean before that.

[Pleroma]

Here is the story of Henry Sinclair coming to Nova Scotia:

http://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/9318/sinclair.html

"European fishermen probably crossed to the Grand Banks regularly by the mid-14th Century, although being illiterate, they didn't record these passages, which consequently went ignored by those who wrote history. But the first European to reach these shores who could be called a "cruising sailor" of sorts, may well have been Henry Sinclair, Earl of Orkney. There is reason to speculate that Sinclair visited Nova Scotia in 1398 -- 94 years before Columbus' "voyage of discovery"

Columbus may have been aware of a Sinclair voyage. Sinclair's grandson, John Drummond, settled in the Portuguese Madiera Islands c. 1430. Columbus spent time in the service of the Perestrello family in Madeira, eventually marrying Felipa Perestrello. The Perestrellos were related by marriage to the Madiera Drummonds, and Columbus very likely knew Henry Sinclair's great-grandson John Affonso Escorcio ("The Scot") Drummond."

[rainbow]

My understanding is that the mtDNA X found in about 3% of native americans likely orginates in the Caucacus, unlike most of the other NA haplogroups which originate in East Asia. However, that does not mean any contact between Europe and the americas in the past 13,000 years. I have not seen any studies suggesting any population movement of Xs in a "recent" timeframe.

I am not familiar with mtDNA haplogroup K being found in native americans. Do you have a source for this?

John

I've seen it on this forum, somewhere. A few people who are American Indian have posted that their mtdna is K. I just can't seem to find it now.

[rainbow]

The talk of Europeans coming to America thousands of years ago has been something I've read about and researched for awhile, all very interesting.
The Solutreans of were Spain is today, they were the cave painters, they lived in the Spain area around 17,000 years ago.
Some Scientist think they came to the Eastern seaboard of North America, sailing along the ice sheets, and were here before Clovis, Clovis was a spear point made around 10,000 years ago, most Clovis is found in the eastern part of North America.
If you look up Solutreans on search, you'll find lots about them.
They think this is were the X marker from Europe came from that show up in some Native American people's genes.

Fascinating. Thank you Guy.

[Guy]

The Solutreans

The talk of Europeans coming to America thousands of years ago has been something I've read about and researched for awhile, all very interesting.
The Solutreans of were Spain is today, they were the cave painters, they lived in the Spain area around 17,000 years ago.
Some Scientist think they came to the Eastern seaboard of North America, sailing along the ice sheets, and were here before Clovis, Clovis was a spear point made around 10,000 years ago, most Clovis is found in the eastern part of North America.
If you look up Solutreans on search, you'll find lots about them.
They think this is were the X marker from Europe came from that show up in some Native American people's genes.

[Johnserrat]

That was an old conclusion, from about 2003, based on sparse evidence. That claim was that Native American mtDNA X contained 4 mutations (and usually a 5th) that were not found elsewhere. One of these distinctive mutations always found was 200G, and another usually found was 16213A.

However, MitoSearch finds 200G in English people, too:

http://www.mitosearch.org/haplosearch_view.asp?haplo=X&viewuid=MY7X6&p=0

http://www.mitosearch.org/haplosearch_view.asp?haplo=X&viewuid=REEKC&p=0

This would then imply that Native American mtDNA X is closest to English mtDNA X. On the other hand, English descendants are hyper-represented in MitoSearch in comparison to other ethnic groups; it is certainly possible that we will find 200G in the Caucasus, or Lithuania, or who knows where, given enough sampling.

The other 3 distinctive mutations were in the coding region, so they will not show up until enough people have submitted their full mitochondrial sequences to GenBank.

I suppose another explanation is that these people could be descendants of native americans brought to England during the colonial period. Very interesting stuff.

Are you aware of any research on this subject since 2003?

John

[lgmayka]

My understanding is that the mtDNA X found in about 3% of native americans likely orginates in the Caucacus, unlike most of the other NA haplogroups which originate in East Asia.

That was an old conclusion, from about 2003, based on sparse evidence. That claim was that Native American mtDNA X contained 4 mutations (and usually a 5th) that were not found elsewhere. One of these distinctive mutations always found was 200G, and another usually found was 16213A.

However, MitoSearch finds 200G in English people, too:

http://www.mitosearch.org/haplosearch_view.asp?haplo=X&viewuid=MY7X6&p=0

http://www.mitosearch.org/haplosearch_view.asp?haplo=X&viewuid=REEKC&p=0

This would then imply that Native American mtDNA X is closest to English mtDNA X. On the other hand, English descendants are hyper-represented in MitoSearch in comparison to other ethnic groups; it is certainly possible that we will find 200G in the Caucasus, or Lithuania, or who knows where, given enough sampling.

The other 3 distinctive mutations were in the coding region, so they will not show up until enough people have submitted their full mitochondrial sequences to GenBank.

[Johnserrat]

Maybe that'll help explain why Native American mtdna X is found in both Northeast North America and Western Europe (France & British Isles).
Or maybe the Vikings that left North America to go back to Europe brought along their Indian wives who were X mtdna.
I wonder if the Vikings that settled Vineland brought some mtdna K women with them to America? Maybe that's why some full-blood Indians have K mtdna?

http://www.ftdna.com/forum/showthrea...light=nicotine

My understanding is that the mtDNA X found in about 3% of native americans likely orginates in the Caucacus, unlike most of the other NA haplogroups which originate in East Asia. However, that does not mean any contact between Europe and the americas in the past 13,000 years. I have not seen any studies suggesting any population movement of Xs in a "recent" timeframe.

I am not familiar with mtDNA haplogroup K being found in native americans. Do you have a source for this?

John

[rainbow]

I should have attached the link to the Inca reference: http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...cle1856505.ece

In any case, there is ample proof that the Vikings made it to the americas hundreds of years before Columbus.

John

p.s. Here are some people trying to prove your point: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6294786.stm

Thanks for the links.
I haven't read the Inca link yet, but I did just read about the reed boat. It's based on a cave painting from 10,000 years ago And the article mentions the nicotine & cocaine found in Egyptian mummies

I don't think it's a great idea to set sail in the middle of the year. During the summer? Early Spring would be the best time to set sail, I think. But what do I know, I've never been on the Atlantic ocean. At least they set sail from New York and not Florida. I'd worry about hurricane season & the Bermuda Triangle drowning them I hope they took life vests with them.

I knew about Vikings in North America.
I think the Egyptians bought stuff that was transported between South America and Africa. Maybe from Brazil to Africa, then around east Africa, then to various places, then eventually to Egypt.
But the New York to Spain trip looks fascinating. Maybe that'll help explain why Native American mtdna X is found in both Northeast North America and Western Europe (France & British Isles).
Or maybe the Vikings that left North America to go back to Europe brought along their Indian wives who were X mtdna.
I wonder if the Vikings that settled Vineland brought some mtdna K women with them to America? Maybe that's why some full-blood Indians have K mtdna?

http://www.ftdna.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4029&highlight=nicotine

[Johnserrat]

I have heard of Roman jars found in (northeast?) Brazil.
I haven't heard, until today, of an Inca found in Norway, and an American Indian found in the Azores. I totally believe all the stories.
Trade/travel involving the Americas didn't begin with Columbus.
I know nearly everyone takes it as gospel that Columbus was the first. But even the bible has more to it than the gospel. This is like finding out about Leviticus, or something. Or the Gospel of Mary

I should have attached the link to the Inca reference: http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...cle1856505.ece

In any case, there is ample proof that the Vikings made it to the americas hundreds of years before Columbus.

John

p.s. Here are some people trying to prove your point: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6294786.stm

[rainbow]

I have heard of Roman jars found in (northeast?) Brazil.
I haven't heard, until today, of an Inca found in Norway, and an American Indian found in the Azores. I totally believe all the stories.
Trade/travel involving the Americas didn't begin with Columbus.
I know nearly everyone takes it as gospel that Columbus was the first. But even the bible has more to it than the gospel. This is like finding out about Leviticus, or something. Or the Gospel of Mary