Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-03 > 1111815845

From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: Ashkenazi, Native Americans, DNAPrint, Yadda, Yadda (was [DNA] in light o...
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:44:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: 6667


I had never interpreted the postings as stating that
Ashkenazim descended from Native Americans or vise
versa. And everyone, if you go back far enough,
shares a common ancestor with everyone else. The
question is: how far back in time must you go?

Frankly, no one knows or truly understands the
relationship between autosomal results and Y
chromosome haplogroups. If they did, we might be able
to address Ken's questions to the List regarding eye
pigmentation and its relationship to haplogroups.

Malcolm's argument is based on Ashkenazi R1a & Q
results. We really don't know how these haplogroup
results are reflected (if at all) in the autosomal
makeup of the Ashkenazi population. Furthermore, if
the so-called Ashkenazi/Native American genetic
"affiliation" is truly traceable to haplogroups R1a &
Q, the there should be an even closer
Scandinavian/Native American link. Scandinavians have
twice as much R1a and just as much Q as Ashkenazim.
And Eastern Europeans, from whom the Ashkenazim
probably obtained much of their R1a and who display
between 50-60% R1a results, should display plenty of
Native American ancestry on the DNAPrint test as well.

But AncestrybyDNA never talks about the
Scandinavian/Native American genetic "affiliation" (if
it even exists, which I seriously doubt). Why?
Because its not quite as titillating as the
Ashkenazi/Native American link. How many early
American settlers and religious groups (contemporary
and in the past) insisted on viewing the Native
Americans as one of the so-called Lost Israelite
Tribes? And how many people on this List have
insisted over & over again that such a genetic link
exists, despite the lack of Y chromosome & MtDNA
evidence supporting such contentions. The DNAPrint's
alleged affiliation between these groups perpetuates a
mythical link, not a real genetic one.

Malcolm further suggests that the DNAPrint test might
be used for proof of Native American ancestry if there
are double digit results. However, this would allow
populations from India, who apparently display up to
30% Native American ancestry, to use their results for
Native American tribal enrollment? Why not, under
your theory? 30% may be a higher frequency than if
you had 100% Native American grandparent and took the
DNAPrint test!

Ellen Coffman

--- wrote:
> > Ellen and Malcolm, I'd have to go back and parse
> of your messages to be
> sure, but I'm getting the impression that you are
> talking at cross-purposes.
> Ellen, there is no "Ashkenazi=Native American link."
> Neither population is
> ancestral to the other, but they have do have common
> ancestors somewhere back in
> time. Malcolm is speculating on when and where that
> might be, based on the
> papers he can access, but I'm sure he'd be glad to
> study more.
> I'd have to go back to square one to explain the
> DNAPrint test, which I don't
> have time to do right now, but I think it's
> important for everyone to
> understand, so I'll put that on my ToDo list. I'm
> posting another message today with
> references to DNAPrint.
> Side note to everyone: the fact of common ancestry
> is trivially true for any
> two populations. However, "somewhere back in time"
> may be surpisingly recent.
> Search the archives for the keyword Rohde for some
> simulations on the MRCA of
> "all" [=most] living people.
> Ann Turner - GENEALOGY-DNA List Administrator
> Search or Browse the archives, Subscribe or
> Unsubscribe at
> ==============================
> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death
> Records.
> New content added every business day. Learn more:

This thread: