Nancy and Jimmie,   Yes, Nancy, you are correct. And yes, Jimmie, we have indeed had a few "surprises" from the yDNA (paternal line) testing--especially in my own instance. The real expert on DNA testing, of course, is our esteemed cousin David Wilson, but as he may not be able to chip in here, I will do what I can, with my own limited knowledge, and ask that our listmaster Greg please feel free to correct me as needed. I have spent the better part of the last two years furiously learning everything I could about yDNA testing and analyzing the results, but as I have mainly been dealing with so-called "I" haplogroups (since most of my lines belong to this unusual group), I cannot even begin to call myself competent to discuss other unrelated haplogroups (such as R1b, or Q, etc.).    I think what Jimmie means when he says that "with current archeology evidence the native peoples also came from Europe although much earlier," is the fact that several of the eastern seaboard groups of Native Americans (particularly the Eastern Band of Cherokee) have for many years firmly believed that they sprang from European stock, long before known colonization from Europe took place. Currently, though, genetic studies (to my knowledge) have not yet (alas) confirmed any of this belief, tending, rather, to show, as Nancy put it, an Asiatic origin for most of these peoples. I recall reading, not long ago, that the locus of origin for most living Native Americans was somewhere in Northeast Asia, in the area of the Amur River of Northern China, along the borders with Russia and North Korea. This comes from yDNA comparisons between a cross-section of living Native Americans, and living peoples from that area of Asia (and elsewhere).   Not only this, but there is indeed an element of current Archaeology which does now suggest that it is possible that some of the eastern Native groups may have had some level of influx from European yDNA (or at least culture--a much more difficult thing to prove!) in pre-historic times. Groups suggested as origin points for this influence include the ancient Vikings, Libyans, Irish, etc. There is a variety of evidence arrayed to support these claims, including alphabetical, linguistic, lexicographical, archaeological, and semantic. I must stress, however, that this is not yet a fully accepted or mainstream view within the archaeological field (nor do I myself necessarily agree with it). As some of you may know, Dr. Barry Fell, with his book "America B.C.," was the first to popularize this idea (some years ago).   However (and I will explain this), occasionally some Native Americans do indeed show up with European yDNA haplotypes. The most likely explanation for this is historical instances (i.e., within the period of European colonization) of intermarriage with male European lines. Examples of how this can have occurred are: when a European/American male colonist took a native wife, with their descendants identifying as "Native" rather than "Colonial American"; or (equally possible), sad cases of rape of Native women by European/American males (and these probably did occur, at least on a small scale). Adoptions, and/or cases of so-called "kidnapping" of European/American colonial children by Native tribes (and this did sometimes happen, from what we know from the historical record) could also explain the presence of European haplotypes among living "Native" groups.   I know all of this may not be popular with people who have a belief agenda they wish to find evidence to support, but I myself believe that in the search for scientific "truth," we must always make the theories fit the available evidence, not vice-versa, and hope that all of you can agree.   Best regards to all,   Terry           --- On Mon, 7/19/10, Nancy Ross <nlwross@hotmail.com> wrote: From: Nancy Ross <nlwross@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [LL] Indian blood and DNA To: "lovelace" <lovelace@rootsweb.com> Date: Monday, July 19, 2010, 12:11 AM Jimmie- First, the American Indians did not come from Europe but from Asia and thousands of years before the Europeans came. YDNA is most useful to genealogy use for several reasons-it follows the surname, it is what has been tested the most, and all records use the surname of the man involved.  In a well developed surname study the chances of getting matches are pretty good. MtDNA follows the mother, has not been used a lot, female names back several generations, as we all know are very difficult to find, and rarely is the female name on land records, etc.  This makes it very much less useful.  The chance of getting a match to a name that means anything to the donor is almost minuscule. Either test will give you a good idea of where your ancestors originated in a general area-for instance my MtDNA told me my family came from norther Europe and the British Isles-no surprise since I was following Taylor-Ruble-Tyler-Gillespie-Sims (Mother-grandmother-grgrandmother-etc).  I tested because I wanted to find out if I had Indian blood-but since have realized this test did not follow the line that I thought might be Indian, which is my mother's fraternal line, not her maternal line.  The only way I can test this line is to find a male descendant of the line to be tested. Nancy Welty Ross > From: jimmie.ryan@verizon.net > To: lovelace@rootsweb.com > Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:02:46 -0700 > Subject: Re: [LL] Indian blood and DNA > > Thanks cousin, did know about the surname part of DNA, yet was unsure of the > mtDNA which I already understood to be passed by the mother to the child.  I > too am confused as to its use, maybe the other cousins with more experience > then I with this DNA thing can give us laymen an idea of how the Indian > Nations today are using DNA to find other tribal members and/or to prove > Indian Heritage like the Cherokee Nation.  We know all or most of the > settlers of the new world (or east coast at least) came from Europe; with > current archeology evidence the native peoples also came from Europe > although much earlier, yet as you said the list is only looking at Surnames > to match a "known" family lines (well we have had a few with some surprises, > right cousin Terry) within the Lovelace (Loveless) lines; or we discover a > new line completely relying on DNA research from DNA World Project.  My > question to your Gregg is what did you mean by:  "That's not correct?"  You > say the list is only "tracing the ancestry of the surname," which I had > originally stated; you clearly (and very well put forth) stated that the > groups DNA research "have not utilized" the mtDNA testing.  I suppose this > new DNA science continues to evolve and change and the definitions happen > faster than we can keep up with it.  > > I guess my question was:  > > Haplogroup Q3, Q or C3; as stated by Betsy, where would this be when someone > has a DNA test, would these value be listed with this "male to male > offspring" orientated test or would this Haplogroup be only in the mtDNA > testing procedure?  Haplogroup Q3,Q, or C3 would be present in both forms of > testing or not, this confusion comes from seeing the result of the marker > test and not seeing this "Q" value where does the Q3 et al value come from? > > Sorry I do not mean to be ignorant, yet this science is very confusing and I > suppose I was just curious now that there seems to be evidence that the > Eastern bands of Native American (I suppose they are known as the Five > Civilized Tribes) did in fact come from Europe; then would not those Indian > group also have the European Haplotypes present when we test the "surname > DNA test?"   This is the confusing part of this for me; say like when the > discovery channel's latest series on the Origins of Native Peoples of North > American shows that western native people seem to come from China (Orient); > with the eastern native people coming over (or following the ice sheets) an > ice/land bridge from Europe centuries before our "New World history that we > were taught in school (1950 history)?"  How do they make the difference from > native groups of euro-originated Native Americans to the ones that have > European DNA values as they were immigrates (after 1492) to the new world - > if that makes sense at all. > > Thanks again cousin for the explanation, I do really appreciate it.  It > explains a lot for me and gives me the generalities in outline form for me > to follow, except for my curiosity of what the difference is between > European Haplotype and the North/Southern Hemisphere Haplotype values are > derived from. > > Cuz Jimmie > > -----Original Message----- > From: lovelace-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lovelace-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of Greg Lovelace > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2010 3:35 PM > To: lovelace@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [LL] Indian blood and DNA > > At 03:55 PM 7/18/2010, Jimmie Ryan wrote: > >Is there a difference between the female and male DNA test when it relates > >to markers on results?  Our Lovelace list has primarily male DNA test, we > do > >not collect any female DNA data for the purposes of determining Indian > >lineage?  Am I correct in assuming that it is the female line that carries > >that DNA strand and not the male line? > > That's not correct, Jimmie.  Our Lovelace DNA project was developed > mainly to trace the ancestry of those with the > surname.  Traditionally, surnames are passed from fathers to their > offspring, with mothers adopting the surname of the father.  So if > you examine the DNA of males with the surname, you are in effect > tracing the passage of the surname down from father to son.  This is > done by examining specific markers on the y-chromosome, which is > passed only from father to son.  There are times, however, when this > doesn't work as expected.  We have several instances in our own > study, where the tested markers show no close match to any of the > other tested participants.  This can be explained in a couple > ways...  either by the emergence of an totally new line carrying the > surname, or by a case of surname adoption. > > Another test, which we as a group have not utilized, is the mtDNA > test.  mtDNA is located in the mitochondria, small organelles in the > cell which carry separate DNA which really doesn't play into the > genetic code of organisms.  However, the characteristic of mtDNA > which makes it useful for genealogical purposes is that it is passed > from *mother* to offspring.  Therefore, it us useful in tracing > maternal lines for both men and women. > > Neither of these tests is definitive for Native American ancestry, as > far as I know.  However, if there is a definite  haplotype associated > with Native American ancestry, then either of the two main tests > could provide a match to that haplotype and, as a result, possibly > confirm Native American ancestry.  But I really am unfamiliar with > this depth of research.  I know that my ancestry through the > Lovelaces leads back to Europe and is not a match for the Native > American haplotype. > > Maybe Jack, David, or Lou Ann could hop in here at this point with a > better, more detailed explanation. > > Hope this helps. > > Peace, > Part of the Tree, > Greg > >  > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >  > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message                           ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message