GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives
Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-10 > 1191251893
From: David Faux <>
Subject: [DNA] Solutrean hypothesis
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 08:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
Lawrence wrote:> [mailto: DisplayMail('rootsweb.com','genealogy-dna-bounces'); ] On Behalf Of David Faux > I have recorded every known instance
> where there was a union between a First Nations member and
> someone of European ancestry. The vast majority are residing
> off - Reserve among the general population.
What possible relevance does such work have to this discussion?
The Solutrean hypothesis that Dora brought up, and which you so
contemptuously dismissed, focuses on the period around 17,000 ybp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis
If an Atlantic migration westward occurred around that time, and if any DNA from that migration survives to the present day, it could be almost anywhere in North America (or even South America!) by now. A researcher would then logically focus on reservations and other full-blooded populations specifically to minimize the recent admixture.
> None of this has anything to do with Neolithic population
> movements, nor is there any need to posit such a migration
> without more substantive archaeological evidence.
The Solutrean hypothesis suggests a Paleolithic, not Neolithic, migration.
My point was that we have a great need for unbiased research into the haplogroups found among apparently full-blooded Native Americans--beyond the "accepted" ones--and I am frankly amazed that anyone on this list would narrow-mindedly scorn such research in advance.
_________________________________________________________
Lawrence:
You are cherry picking my comments. The above was not the point of my posting. I spoke of my published study of admixture among the Six Nations of Ontario Canada. I indicated that a substantial proportion of the surnames on the Reserve today are via European males via documented marriages or liasons with First Nations women. I listed some examples. My point is that among the First Nations people of the Eastern half of the Continent, since the 1500s there has been Y-line genetic input, largely from adoption of captives. Hence I would expect that there will be some C and Q on the Res today, but largely R1b1c and a substantial amount of others including E3a (I explained why).
What you may not know if you have not lived on a Res is that the term "full - blooded" is an anacronism. On Six Nations it was recorded by an anthropologist studying these people that the last "full - blooded" person died in 1868.
Please read Doug's posting for the rest of what I think germaine to the discussion.
I don't know why people have to get so enmeshed (angry) in relation to a topic they have not specifically researched. The use of terms such as "contemptuously dismissed" and "narrow minded" is uncalled for, and in any other venue an appology would be expected. Of course I believe that anything is possible, but I spent considerable time in my posting showing that any R1b1c found in the First Nations populations of today has a much more parsimonious explanation. I spent many years researching this topic and published my findings in 2002 to excellent reviews in such venues as the publication of the New England Genealogical and Historical Society.
David K. Faux.
This thread:
| [DNA] Solutrean hypothesis by David Faux <> |