See also this article: THE DNA GENEALOGY SCAM
(Sample Tainting Effect Illustration below)
Footnotes for
DNA Testing Tainted by Haplogroup Hybridization
(1)The following page states “mtDNA Proven Origins” with links to living descendants that have been genetically tested. http://www.acadian-home.org/frames.html Genealogist Steven White acknowledged as providing support for “proven” origin.
(2)“tainted” refers to the inadequacy of modern genealogical DNA testing. For a better understanding of DNA testing rules and problems with DNA in genealogical research go to website: “DNA Accuracy in Genealogy is a Fallacy” http://newfrancemetis.blogspot.ca/
(3)“hybrid” is the combination of two unique and distinct haplogroups.
(4)“Aa” indicates a Native North American male (haplogroup A)who also carries his mothers Native haplogroup A. “H and U” similarly, are European haplogroups combined to indicate a male who carries his mothers haplogroup. The mother’s DNA cannot pass to her son’s offsprings. Read about haplogroups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup
(5)Haplogroup refers to a grouping of people in a population who carry the same human DNA mutation markers and their world migration patterns over time. See also: http://www.familytreedna.com/understanding-haplogroups.aspx
(6)For basic DNA inheritance rules see link on footnote #2
(7)In a recent inquiry to Family Tree DNA, the manager of the Acadian DNA Project (assumed) refused to admit that Viking DNA had any appreciable influence on the aboriginal gene pool:
“.......It is unlikely that there was much interbreeding between early Scandanavian populations visiting North America and Native Americans...” Watson, FTDNA (unqualified)
It is not known if Family Tree DNA geneticists back this stance. Other proponents include genealogists, historians and individuals attempting to clarify ancestral European origins using DNA as “proof” of ancestry. See link on footnote #1. Also suggesting otherwise see : “American Indian Sailed to Europe With Vikings?”National Geographic Daily News http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/101123-native-american-indian-vikings-iceland-genetic-dna-science-europe/ (Is this the tip of the iceberg?)
Other links:
The Innu Discovery of Europe?
"Exploration can be a two way street. A party of Beothuk from Newfoundland may have been the first native North Americans to reach Europe. There is an 1153 AD medieval legend from Lubeck, Germany telling the story of the arrival in Europe of a canoe with Indians from the coast of "Baccalaos - the Basque word for codfish - which was on the same latitude as Germany. Other accounts suggest these aboriginals were rescued from a canoe drifting in the Atlantic Ocean."
“Native American DNA found in English women”
Some hybridization certainly occurred in the indigenous population over the Viking age within the indigenous population of north eastern North America.
(8)See link: http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/intro.html There is a considerable amount of information on the internet. Google various descriptions including the word “Viking”.
(9)See footnotes #7 and #8
(10)“Basque people......Made regular visits to North America long before Columbus to fish and to trade for beaver skins. (Recently unearthed British customs records show large Basque imports of beaver pelts from 1380-1433)...” Possibly as early as 1200. http://vaticproject.blogspot.ca/2011/12/so-what-about-basque-people-rh-neg.html
“...Recently unearthed British customs records show large Basque imports of beaver pelts from 1380-1433. The invention of a sophisticated navigational device called an "abacus." (No relation to the common abacus.)...” http://www.reptilianagenda.com/research/r110199a.shtml
....Early 16th century....
(11)“....Jaques Cartier 1535 sailed the same route, he came across more than a 1000 Basque fishing vessels; presumably busy doing what they had always been about: fishing cod at the banks.....” http://medievalhistories.com/newport-ship/
(12)See footnote #7
(13)French in Acadia and New France
(14)See footnote #7
(15)“...Haplotype is a group of genes, which is inherited together by an organism from a single parent....” http://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/haplotype-haplotypes-142
(16)Metis organizations and some new First Nation bands in Canada, may now---but more so in future, allow DNA as a qualifying factor for membership, though the legal definition of Metis no longer requires blood quantum, at least, for Metis membership. http://www.metisnation.org/registry ,
Some Native Reserves in the US seem to be cleaning house using DNA as an aid to justify their membership exclusions. “......This testing helps to determine whether or not individuals are in fact from a real Native American heritage or not.........modern tribes of today generally require that people have a minimum of one grandparent or great-grandparent who was Native American....” though, “.....Many tribes feel that tribal law is in fact what determines the status of an individual tribe, not DNA test results.....” http://dna.accessgenealogy.com/dna_native_american.htm
(17)Use of the word “proven” http://www.acadian-home.org/frames.html Link: “mtDNA Proven Origins”
(18) Our complete gene composition. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome
Today whether it is about paternity testing or any other criminal activity, DAN testing is acceptable as a most effective proof in all judicial system. Even in stem cell therpy also it has an effective role. Thank you very much.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree. I purposely stated this topic to get attention and emphasize how incomplete DNA testing can be when applied to genealogy. In some cases testing can lead to the correct family but as to "proving" we are hybrids it falls far short!
ReplyDeleteWhat we need to do is establish the DNA of the reserves and combine that with the family names we know are from that band then put them together in one professional database so more people can get their status.
ReplyDeleteI understand! But what about those who are hybrid but show a European haplogroup only. Testing needs to improve a great deal more before it can be used accurately. Also what about adoptions not to mention that Canadian Courts refuse to use DNA in genealogy for fear of the Nazi effect. (We need to fear this also!) I think the Powley case of Sault St. Marie and the Daniel's case as well (before the supreme court of appeal) have it mostly right! If we can trace ancestry to any known historical period where there was a "mixing" of Native/European peoples, then we are indeed indigenous. Sadly, the Indian Act has separated our people and continues to do so. The government needs to understand that we are all indigenous people--for those who wish to claim this heritage!
ReplyDeleteRoly, Elder
Matching people with the same last name can be extremely accurate in tracing DNA back to a place where mixing occurred. For example one person I know was able to give his DNA to a well known company with a large database which made a connection for him with someone else living in a completely different country however when they emailed each other sure enough they both had the same family story of being from a small town on the border of Italy via their grandparents. The two sets of grandparents were the first persons to basically incorporate the town some 100 years ago and the surname which is very rare elsewhere is thriving in that town do date. The place I am thinking of is a reserve in Manitoba and the names of Europeans can be traced back to the first HBC workers who married Cree woman then it stems from there with the surnames in most cases being passed down until the surnames is one of the most common among the the band members(2013). Most band members have white and Cree backgrounds here-there must be some form of common DNA shared by the majority who come from the the first marriages between the Europeans and Natives in the area at that time in our history-a history that is very well documented. If someone not already on the band list can trace their lineage back to the same people and has the proof that somewhere along the line there was mixing for example with a group from Scotland and there are indicators of Native that should be more than enough after all it's documented. There are plenty of marriage certificates that clearly state Scotsman married to Cree woman or birth certificates that state father was Scotch breed and mother was Cree woman right down to the parents of the applicant seeking status. The only problem is that the government stopped putting whether or not the mother or father for that matter had native in them-if they had not stopped doing this simple task it would be a whole lot easier nowadays to determine status because this labeling practice only stopped a couple generations ago-once when my great grandmother was still in the womb of her mother who got commutation-not like she had a choice. I realize that being on the band list versus being registered as a a status Indian are different but these are all just secret lists after all which do nothing to further our claims or status.
ReplyDeleteGot your drift about using DNA to find family. I think as a purely genealogical family name bases it does work provided other family members test and record DNA in some sort of public database.
DeleteAssuming that every Native In the Reserve system will agree to a DNA test classified on a national database, it is conceivable that many relatives off Reserve would be found. What then? The climate at this time for allowing new status Indian membership on Reservations is nil-- I have a close (white adopted) friend who is attempting to get status from a registered parent and grandparents. Hard to say if he will get recognized. It seems that both the Reservations and the government are doing everything they can to avoid spreading the support dollars any less than it is now. Even with genetic evidence I doubt that Indian Affairs would accept an application because it doesn’t prove a “status” succession of rights under the present rules.
From Canadian courts we know that a genetic determination or documentation is not necessary to be aboriginal. The determination is made from the historical circumstances.
I think if we are patient, we will be regarded as “Indian” under the Canada Constitution Act and the rights that we deserve will be realized. Failing this we would need to prove our rights in court yet again.
The question is: Do we need the government to say that we are Aboriginal-----and do we have the commitment to survive as a group regardless of government support?
Roly, Elder
Montagnais First Nation Metis
We have been tested before when commutation was introduced as with my great great grandma who was said to not need the reserve because her husband made good money-literally stated on the official document. Another example is taking the labeling ability of the church away so that Indian wouldn't be placed on vital stat documents anymore. These two examples were followed by a gap in in coverage worse than any modern day insurance policy that any customer would refute if damages were not covered after a claim was made. Next up in the great scheme to reduce the costs of status Indians, the introduction of Bill C-31 meant to allow those who could prove their parents were both entitled to status(NOT LIKELY IF DNA IS INCONCLUSIVE). This was marketed as more fair to woman(Indian) and doing them justice if in the past they lost their status after leaving the reserve. This was done with government knowledge that most claimants parents agreed under duress to take commutation over staying on the reserves which were running low on funds back then too as trade was focused in Winnipeg and controlled by the majority of European descent. The scheme also sought to reduce overall claims since many woman left the reserves for marriage to a European man so the kids would't ever be entitled. As the population expanded-more than a hundred years running the government finally gave into the fact that the the Peguis band needed more land to grow economically and provide for themselves. The value of the claims adjusted to there rates in the market today equate to about a dollar-five dollars no more no less but the land now that is the prize to keep us going strong. Gaining more land and resources if not already prospected and off limits for reserve designation by the government would be a substantial gain to our peoples and Canada. Although there are less of us now within the general population of Canada today, we are certainly not going to just forget our roots and leave for Europe with the money.
DeleteFrom the land rights point of view I certainly agree that something must be done where there is an historical agreement that has never been fulfilled. (eg. Red River Metis land ruling March 6, 2013) Also a restoration of rights to people linked to reserves must also be recognized and rectified!
ReplyDeleteWhat was done by the government and many Europeans in the past lacked fairness and justice. Also the Indian Act was the worst piece of social legislation ever created, but it did isolate and maintain the genetic consistency of Status Natives.(Poor compensation!)
While it would be advantageous to solve all Aboriginal rights issues together, it seems that everyone has different agendas. At this point we can only pressure the justice system individually (supporting those groups you agree with) to recognize all rights holders (without prejudice)and begin the long process of negotiating a fair and equitable settlement. A good place to start is the premise that we are all "Indians" under the Canada Constitution Act. (Decided recently by the Supreme Court of Canada).
Roly, Elder
Montagnais First Nation Metis
A major problem with the DNA testing is that many people go in with tunnel vision. For example, if an Acadian female ancestor yields a Scandanavian MtDNA haplogroup, this means, what exactly?
ReplyDeleteIt means very far back on her mother's side in the maternal line only, she has a Scandanavian ancestor.
It does NOT mean that that specific Acadian ancestor came off a boat from Europe, but it also does NOT necessarily mean that she has a viking ancestor somewhere down the line and that every other ancestor is Mi'kmaq.
It only means somewhere she has a Scandanavian ancestor.
It is equally possible that that Acadian ancestor came from Europe as it is that she was Mi'kmaq and had a viking ancestor. Because vikings went EVERYWHERE and brought women with them.
DNA is not the be all end all that some genealogists have made it to be. Written historical records + Oral History + DNA can give us a good clue about ancestry, but even then, we can only ever be 99.9% sure...
If an ancestor has no boat records... is commonly known as being Mi'kmaq in oral history, is referenced as a "Sauvagesse", has children that were known as mixed blood, and provides a Scandanavian origin - I'm inclined to believe the Viking ancestor but Mi'kmaq still story over the "she's from the boat and everything else is invalid" version some genealogists go with.
DNA testing can be very helpful, but only if people keep an open mind and truly understand it and analyze all aspects of history...
Some people... some Acadian genealogists specifically, who run a website but shan't be named but everyone probably knows who I mean... don't often like other opinions, and will frequently shut out other ideas. I've even seen some of them go so far as to delete comments on social media group discussions that don't agree with their view, as well as using condescending remarks to try and belittle the other person, even deleting people from groups and being rather harsh about the "group qualifications" for a social media genealogy forum... No matter that records are missing and oral history and some records strongly suggest the opposite of their opinion, to them, the DNA test can only be interpreted one way. Some people prefer to silence other opinions. This blog however, and this community, has always been open to other views and opinions, which is more than I can say for some.
For your information, if DNA is so inclusive, then why is it being used in medical research, the highest courts as proof, We can now tell genealogically how far the dinasors came from and what about research using DNA, we have come a long ways and you are trying do discredit these findings. You would not stand a chance in a court of law.
ReplyDeletethe whole world uses DNA in scientific data, criminal courts and so on. Your opinion wouldn't stand a chance in a court of law worldwide.
ReplyDelete“My opinion”?? The whole article was about the use of DNA to “PROVE” an ancestor’s BIRTH ORIGIN. Some misguided genealogists and writers have used DNA to “prove” that a distant ancestor was NOT indigenous. THIS IS NOT A VALID USE!
DeleteDNA is valid anywhere it is used to compare one sample with another to determine some specific outcome. For example we could compare our DNA to determine 1) if we are related or 2). If we have a common distant ancestor and what the possible migration route is. But nothing specific unless one DNA sample of a living person is compared with an actual sample of DNA from a specific distant ancestor! (This means finding and exhuming a body many hundreds of years old - if that’s possible!)
DNA is useful for DIRECT (father to son or mother to daughter) for determining migration of ancestors BUT it does not “prove” birthplace” of a specific distant ancestor. Also there are only 20 DIRECT grandparents in 10 generations and 100's of grandparents who are INDIRECTLY related to every respective living person.
DNA cannot determine, for certain, the birth place of anyone (only the general migration route) without corroborating documentary evidence. Though yDNA & mtDNA (Direct lineage) can indicate immediately if a person has indigenous ancestry. The test cannot DISPROVE that there are not INDIRECT indigenous ancestors. Or “PROVE” the country of birth (if the test is on a living person whose haplogroup is European).
If you carefully study and use the DNA succession rules you will find this out for yourself. As for legality in the courts—no judge will allow DNA to be used to “prove” any kind of ancestry or any special consideration. Read the supreme court of Canada Powley case!
Having said all this, the new “autosomal” (ALL GRANDPARENTS) DNA test shows great promise! So far, though, it remains inadequate to be used in genealogy to “prove” anything unless, of course, if it is used to compare one DNA sample with another!
What I find most fascinating is when DNA results seem to disagree with historical record - and I don't just mean genealogy for individual ancestors. I mean the entire population. The results that Lucie gives on her website show almost all the Acadian women as having French origins - although... primary documents from the period seem to say... otherwise. And I don't mean these individual women either, necessarily, but again, the whole population.
ReplyDeleteVarious French governors found the Acadian "mixed bloods" irritating for their apparent disloyalty to the French Crown (even before the English took over for good, the Acadians were not willing to just obey orders). The British commented on the Acadian "halfbreeds" as well in the 18th century, and so did New Englanders, yes, those terms, specifically. Priests commented that they were soon not going to be able to tell the difference between the Acadians and Mi'kmaq because of the sheer frequency with which intermarriage happened. Acadians worried that their mixed heritage would result in the British not trusting them.
Various historians have discussed these things. All seem to fall short of suggesting that Acadians were by nature a Metis group, though, some historians have actually TAKEN that leap even so, and they have good arguments based on primary sources describing these people much the same way that Riel's Metis were. And the real kicker is, supposedly, these Acadian half-breeds were mostly of French origin according to Lucie's website, and then some people have complained "hey wait, I got a Native origin for her!" only to not have it published, or they get "X", which... isn't even really entirely understood yet or super conclusive. It makes everything really interesting. Bonus point of interest: Many of the historians who point out these Acadians being called half-breed or discuss high rates of intermarriage... Lucie doesn't like them or their work, and will just say their work "contains errors" - she doesn't elaborate on that, what errors they apparently contain to her, we do not know...
Lucie is stuck on proving that most women in early Acadia were from France (or Europe) using DNA that has not been verified from each generation from the ancestor in question--not very scientific!
ReplyDeleteHi Roland,
ReplyDeleteInteresting recent discovery in Canada - “ Ice-Age Village in Canada is One of Oldest North American Settlements” – April6/17. Archaeologist recently discovery of one of the oldest settlements in North America known as Triquet Island village, a BC island in Canada. The settlement was found to date back to the period of the last ice age. It is 14,000 years old—thousands of years older than ancient Rome or the Egyptian pyramids. The article goes on to say - It challenges the traditional story of how the first humans arrived in the Americas. That theory argues that the earliest arrivals came to the region by crossing a land bridge connecting modern-day Siberia to Alaska some 13,000 years ago. But according to more recent research, the land bridge route may not have offered enough resources to support the earliest migrants during their crossing. Instead, humans may have traveled via boat, and entered North America along the coast. The discovery of the settlement reaffirms a lot of the oral history of an aboriginal group in the area, identified as the Heiltsuk Nation.
See the links below for additional information.:
http://www.history.com/news/ice-age-village-in-canada-is-one-of-oldest-north-american-settlements
I would think that if this could happened on the Canadian west coast that the same could happen on the east coast regarding the arrival of humans by boat around the ice age.
Then there's the study Roberta Estes did on the remains of the Anzick child here https://dna-explained.com/2014/09/24/new-mitochondrial-dna-haplogroups-extrapolated-from-anzick-match-results/
ReplyDeleteShe contradicts her findings in this article 2 years later where she states that X2b has never been found in native american DNA https://dna-explained.com/2016/09/14/haplogroup-x2b4-is-european-not-native-american/
And again in this article which is specifically about Radegonde Lambert who's mtDNA is X2b4 she denies that X2b or X2b4 has ever been found in native American DNA. Rare as hen's teeth she says, but apparently not in Acadians or why this huge argument that has raged on for so many years...
https://dna-explained.com/2016/09/18/radegonde-lambert-16211629-16861693-european-not-native-52-ancestors-132/
This is an outright lie!! Intentional, unintentional or forced it is still a lie. I have listened to other geneticists who have indicated (without actually saying it) that the true results indicate that the Acadians were indeed for the most part native American. They are still under attack after all these years!!
The Acadians were in fact in this country long before the treaty of Paris and the Royal Proclamation were drafted in 1763. When the RP was ratified in 1764 at Fort Niagara the agreement made then coupled with the text of the Royal Proclamation are what defines Indigenous rights in the 13 colonies. Nationhood is not about DNA, pedigree or the tyranny of Queen Victoria, it's about who was here at the time of British conquest. That's what defines who's indigenous and who's not. The RP states it applies to "Indians or any of them" it is not arguable in any court of law, it is International law.
Is DNA accurate for determining native ancestry?? Not very likely at all.
Well said!!
ReplyDelete