Showing posts with label y-dna. Show all posts
Showing posts with label y-dna. Show all posts

Thursday, February 5, 2015

Bering Strait Theory, Pt. 4: The Indisputable Facts in the Artifacts



Bering Strait Theory, Pt. 4: The Indisputable Facts in the Artifacts

7/4/14
In Part 3 of our exclusive series we looked at how the new science of paleoanthropology was being used in Europe while infighting paralyzed it in America when Aleš Hrdlička, stepped forward to end the disputations and promote professionalism and respectability.
RELATED: Bering Strait Theory, Pt. 3: The Theory Becomes a Religious Crusade
By the 1920s, the Bering Strait Theory, and in particular the idea that American Indians had settled in the New World less than 5,000 years ago, had become a rigid dogma that no scientist who valued their career would dare to challenge.
In the end, it was a group of amateurs who exposed the charade. In 1908 George McJunkin, an African-American cowboy born the son of former slaves, was tending cattle at the Crowfoot Ranch near Folsom, New Mexico, when he discovered the remains of an animal that had been uncovered after a recent flood. He recognized the bones as a bison, and surmised that it was of some ancient type.

McJunkin informed a local blacksmith and amateur naturalist, Carl Schachheim, who then informed his friend and fossil hunting companion, Fred Howarth, a banker. After visiting the site, they tried repeatedly to interest paleontologists into excavating it without success. Finally, their persistence paid off in 1926, when Harold J. Cook and Jesse Dade Figgins of the Denver Museum of Natural History agreed to take a look. They quickly found, not only extinct bison, but spear points. This was a “kill site,” the results of a hunt. Since the established dogma insisted that kill sites of extinct animals did not exist, they worked very, very carefully, hoping to find something–anything–that might be conclusive.

On August 29, 1927, an ancient stone spear point was found embedded between the ribs of an extinct bison. This was clearly no accident. Recognizing the importance of the discovery, the find was left intact in the ground to be witnessed by as many eminent archaeologists as they could muster. Although he tried, Hrdlička could not reject this. The indisputable evidence had surfaced, and one glass floor had been shattered.
With the acceptance of the Folsom point, it became clear that humans were in the Americas more than 5,000 years ago. No longer hamstrung by the need to overturn dogma, a flurry of sites were discovered in the next few years which began to change the picture of ancient America. In 1932, near Clovis, New Mexico, a site was uncovered that featured the same type of spear point found at Folsom, and then digging deeper, a different and older set of spear points were found. Humans had been in America at least 10,000 years or more. It had been 68 years since the Europeans accepted the antiquity of humans, but finally, the American paleoanthropologists had joined the club.
It is important to note that it was not the discovery of human remains, so emphasized by Hrdlička, but of human tools in the right context, that changed the perceptions of the past. This was also the case in 1859 in Europe, when the stone tools of Brixham and the Somme led to the acceptance of human antiquity. The value to science of human remains in certain cases may be important, but it has not been decisive.

But if the time frame for human antiquity in the Americas had changed, the story had not. The Bering Strait Theory remained the unchallenged assumption. The line was drawn hard and fast once again, this time at 10,000 BC.

“Clovis First,” the new version of the Bering Strait Theory, was based on the presumption that the Paleoindian culture that had produced the spear points found at the Clovis site were the first settlers. In part, this was because of the Clovis site itself, which had in layer after layer revealed thousands of years of settlement history, but nothing was found in the layer beneath the Clovis culture. The other factor was the growing awareness among paleoanthropologists that the presumed pathway between Asia and the Americas, the Bering Strait, may not have always been open, but may at times have been impassable.
By 1932, geology had progressed to the point that an accurate map of the giant ice sheet could be drawn with reasonable certainty. A general consensus had developed among geologists that the glaciers were impassible approximately 30,000 years ago and very likely through to 10,000 years ago, about the time when the Clovis culture was beginning. The Clovis First Theory naturally dismissed the idea that Paleoindians might have arrived before 30,000 years ago (before the Last Glacial Maximum or LGM).

In 1933, the Canadian geologist William Alfred Johnston proposed that when the glaciers began melting, they broke into two massive sheets, one centered on the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountains (later named the Cordilleran ice sheet), and the other, now known as the Laurentide ice sheet, covering the rest of Canada all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. In between these two massive ice caps, people might have been able to walk from Alaska down into the United States. Two years later, the Swedish-American geologist Ernst Antevs dubbed this route, the “ice-free corridor.”
The date when the melting of the ice sheets opened the ice-free corridor, believed to be around 13,000 BC, seemed to give just enough time for the Clovis culture to walk from Alaska and spread all across the Americas.

Retiring in 1942 as head of the anthropology department of the National Museum, a position he had held for almost 33 years since replacing William Henry Holmes in 1909, Hrdlička died the following year. His legacy, however, continued. The Bering Strait Theory, now in its new incarnation, Clovis First, was upheld with equal dogmatism by a new generation of paleoanthropologists who had grown up with no other perspective.
Bend it like Beckham
As new scientific methods began to play an important role in the examination of artifacts, new battles began almost immediately. Radiocarbon dating, developed in 1949 by Nobel Prize-winning chemist Willard Libby, revolutionized archaeology. By measuring the decay of a radioactive isotope of carbon, carbon 14, in any dead organic matter such as bones, wood, or plants, Libby found an approximate way to date when it had died.

During the construction of a dam in Lewisville, Texas the remains of a bison were uncovered in 1949, leading to a series of excavations that continued until the dam was finished and the site inundated in 1957. The excavations, as archaeologists Wilson W. Crook, Jr., and R.K. Harris wrote in the journal American Antiquity, “yielded remains of more than 21 hearths of an ancient campsite of early man. An extensive Upper Pleistocene fauna has been recovered, much of it actually burned within the hearths themselves, and the remainder closely associated with camp refuse, along with certain distinctive artifacts.” What created a stir was that two of the hearths were radiocarbon dated at more than 37,000 years old.
Since this flew in the face of the Clovis First Theory, the findings were instantly attacked. But given the indisputable (at that time) radiocarbon dating, that was not going to be easy to do. The archaeologists Robert F. Heizer and Richard A. Brooks (both of whom did not visit the site) responded in the Southwestern Journal of Anthropology in a manner that would have made Aleš Hrdlička proud.
The evidence for association of stone tools with the hearths is insufficient to provide a valid case for arguing that the hearths are the result of human agency. If we are to accept the proposition that man has been in the New World for more than 37,000 years, the least we can demand is that the evidence for the belief be unambiguous.
They then proposed that the hearths were actually ancient nests of wood rats, an idea so absurd on its face (presumably the wood rats also cooked the extinct animals found burned in the hearths), that the whole matter was dropped and ignored. Since it could not be disputed, the Lewisville site was consigned to the academic dustbin.
Twenty-five years later, as archaeologists gained experience with radiocarbon dating and learned that a contamination of samples or other factors could influence the dates given, the geologist D. L. Johnson proposed that maybe the Lewisville site had been contaminated by lignite (brown coal) from nearby outcroppings of the Woodbine Formation, which was around 70 million years old. A dry spell in 1979 had allowed for a new excavation and so material from the Lewisville site was sent for reanalysis.
Unfortunately for the Clovis First Theory, a report produced in 1985 by a team from the Illinois State Geological Survey headed by Richard H. Shiley, entitled “Moessbauer Analysis of Lewisville, Texas, Archaeological Site Lignite and Hearth Samples” found that whatever was burned in the hearths, it was not Woodbine lignite.
The rare earth composition of Woodbine Formation lignite and its corresponding ash are very similar to one another, but are not similar to the soil or hearth samples. The rare earth composition of the surrounding soil follows the same pattern as that of the hearth. From this data, it is reasonable to provisionally conclude that the Woodbine Formation lignite was not burned in the hearths.
A second test then found that, “pyrite combustion products were not detected using X-ray diffraction.” Pyrite, found in lignite, when burned should generate a byproduct, but none were found. Whatever was burned in the hearths was not lignite.
A third test, now using Moessbauer spectroscopy, also did not find pyrite byproducts in the charcoal of the hearths tested, but did find trace amounts of hematite, a pyrite byproduct, in the sediment lining of one of the hearths, hearth 22, a hearth that had been excavated in 1979, after the site had been submerged by the reservoir. The Moessbauer test did not find traces of lignite in the hearths excavated in the 1950s by Crook and Harris. By all rights, the radiocarbon dates of more than 37,000 years still stood.
The team, clearly disappointed it had not come up with the expected result, put the best face it could on its findings.
The use of the Moessbauer spectroscopy, on the other hand, produced positive results. Hematite, a pyrite combustion product, was found in hearth 22. We concluded that there is some support for the hypothesis that Woodbine Formation lignite was burned in this hearth, thus increasing the apparent age (radiocarbon date) of the hearth material.
Thankfully the tepid “some support for the hypothesis” was all that was needed. Few were going to bother to read the actual report and nobody wanted to dispute its conclusions. Lewisville was pronounced as having been contaminated by lignite and was no longer a problem for the Clovis First Theory.
The orthodoxy was stronger than ever. No longer under Hrdlička’s iron grip, it was now self-policing. Whatever the scientific data might say, the conclusions would somehow support the theory. Any site that promised to be earlier than Clovis was going to be subject to unrelenting scrutiny until something was found wrong with it. New evidence would be “bent” towards upholding the Bering Strait Theory.
The established dogma could still only be overturned by “indisputable proof,” the nature of this proof being defined by the dogmatists themselves. Despite the discovery of the Folsom point in 1929, the same intellectual stubbornness that Hrdlička had fostered continued to stunt paleoanthropology.
RELATED: Bering Strait Theory, Pt. 1: How Dogma Trumped Science
RELATED: Bering Strait Theory, Pt. 2: Racism, Eugenics and When Natives Came to America
RELATED: Bering Strait Theory, Pt. 5: The Theory Comes Crashing Down
RELATED: Bering Strait Theory, Pt. 6: DNA, Blood Types and Stereotypes
You need to be logged in in order to post comments
Please use the log in option at the bottom of this page



Read more at https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/07/04/bering-strait-theory-pt-4-indisputable-facts-artifacts-155659?nopaging=1

Sunday, December 30, 2012

DNA Accuracy in Genealogy is a Fallacy




Tuesday, August 28, 2012


It amazes me that some people believe that DNA analysis will tell them the truth about their French/native origins in Canada and even in the US. Many websites repeat this fallacy over and over again. I am even more amazed when someone with genealogical or professional credentials repeat the same thing!

Y-DNA and  mtDNA is passed down from father to son.  Mothers can only pass down mtDNA to their Daughters. They in turn pass the same DNA to their boys and girls in the same manner.  DNA lineages can only be accurate if DNA lines are unbroken.


We are the sum of all our grandparents. The science of DNA is being asked to prove, especially in North America, if we have the same DNA as the indigenous people related to the shared history of an ancestor.  Unfortunately, at this point, it cannot, with absolute accuracy, do this. It can point, suggest, infer, advise, propose, hint, intimate, indicate, pose etc, etc. etc. Companies who do the testing are careful to tell you this. They will also tell you that the format in which results are calculated could be faulty and as DNA science improves past errors will be corrected. It is the present rules of DNA that is referenced here. These rules are,so far, irrevocable. It may be possible that future DNA science will circumvent these rules to provide a far more accurate tracking of the identity of individuals as well as the finer footprints in the migration of small and large populations in the world:
  • DNA INHERITANCE RULES AS APPLIED TO GENEALOGY:
  • Both mtDNA from the mother and Y-DNA from the father pass down to a son. When the son marries it is the mtDNA of his wife that passes to their offsprings. The mtDNA from the son's mother cannot pass to his offsprings even though his mother's genes are part of her grandchildren's genome. 
  • Only mtDNA passes down to the female. 
  • Lineage must be direct, son to son or daughter to daughter, for absolute accuracy.
  • To identify an individual in an identical group or family, the term haplogroup is used, and if these groups split off from the main group, the terms subgroup or subclad are used. Family Tree DNA explains this very well using the haplogroup X as an example:  http://www.familytreedna.com/public/x You must remember that there are other identical families as well. For example A, B, C. D, X etc., are indicators of Native peoples in North America. Check this website to see more:  http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf.
  • Groups are determined by identical DNA mutations that, from time to time, appear and are passed down from generation to generation. The emphasis here is time. Mutations in our genes,, appear over time. Genes are those microscopic fragments that determine eye colour, hair colour, etc. The cause of mutations in our genes could be any number of things that are capable of dislodging or changing a part of our genes. This could be environmental, outside radiation, or possibly a result of  genetic processes. In this way by testing a large sample of the world population a migration pattern emerges making it possible to determine approximate historical dates and migration routes all around the world.
  • Haplogroups can mutate into an entirely new haplogroup.
  • Any haplogroup or subgroup can remove the detection of a previous haplogroup or subgroup. The implications of this rule is often traumatic in genealogy!
  • DNA science is in the infancy stage. Until we can map and categorize all mutations or unique genes in our genome, individually, we cannot be sure of the relative accuracy for genealogical use. The genome is the full and complete instruction in each and every one of our cells. Our cells are those little groups of individual, living biological microscopic pieces that tie together in the billions to create what we look like and possibly who we are! You can google the description of cells and how it's put together.
I have provided here a few examples of the application of these rules:
  1. Haplogroup H is a European origin. You have just been tested. The result is your grandmother's (mtDNA)  haplogroup H. Does this tell the truth? Absolutely, for the present, and for you and your unadapted sibblings only! But it can only give a result to a nearest grandmother who is in the  haplogroup H category. If one prior grandmother was native, then the grandmother in  haplogroup H trumped the native grandmother’s A, B, C, D, or X haplogroup. Thus a False outcome! (This does not remove a social kinship with your native grandmother. You're still fully entitled to identify with her culture and include her in your family tree.)
  2. In 1629 the French population of New France was displaced by the British. With the exception of a few people, like Madame Hebert, who had a house full of "mixed blood" and/or Native kids. Most couples and their families were deported to France or disappeared in the woods. These deportees were mostly "mixed blood" families. They made up many of the names in genealogical trees that do not have origins. Suppose a young French male (who’s mother was Native or "mixed blood"), while in France,  marries a French girl. They immigrate to New France (Canada)  in the years following 1632 when the French regained the colony. Do you think that DNA will determine the origin of the young "mixed blood" father who now has a boy and girl? Absolutely not! He cannot pass mtDNA native genes to his children, male or female. His Y-DNA would reflect his fathers European haplogroup and the mothers mtDNA would reflect European origin. Thus a false outcome!
  3. A distant grandmother is thought to be native and there may be an oral tradition in the family which suggests this.—but the problem begins when there is absolutely no documentation on her origin. Several ancestors want to verify this, so why not get a mtDNA test. The test provides a disappointing non-native haplogroup. So on the family tree record is written“born in Europe or France. DNA test confirms this”. What might not be known is that this distant grandmother had a European grandmother absorbed into a tribe. She is culturally identified as native but DNA does not show this. Thus a false outcome!
  4. Many more examples could expose the problem with genealogical DNA. There is nothing about present day DNA testing that should be accepted as the absolute truth about an ancestor. The test should only by used to satisfy your own curiosity and generally indicate the migration routes of ancestors. Canadian and US courts will NOT accept genealogical DNA testing to prove anything even if the test is in favour of a good outcome. It would be an injustice if DNA is arbitrarily included to determine Canadian First Nations status and non-status membership. 
If one is dealing with Family Statistical Genealogy or Family Biological Genealogy only then maybe DNA might be useful—but research in Family Sociological Genealogy is the only valid structure to reflect our cultural heritage. Being genetically or statistically related is not culturally important. We must keep in mind that it is the culture of our ancestors that maintains a strong lineage. It is the emotional bonding of people that creates the bases of family and lineage. We, as free people, can identify with any culture that we wish! Having said all this, there are circumstances that DNA might be useful pacifying the nay sayers.

Case in point. Radegonde Lambert has an unknown origin. Her direct family members got DNA tested. The outcome was inconclusive. She was categorized haplogroup (hg) X and X2b. This haplotype is definitely related to North American indigenous populations. But the hg X, a mutation of hg N, appeared in European populations much earlier than subgroups found in North American indigenous populations. The hg X2b occurred during, or just after the mutations of subgroup (sg) X2a  that were found in the native populations today. Hence, the outcome points to a greater likelihood that she is European.


But this is not all the evidence that is available from the science of DNA. Adding an historical and a
rcheological perspective may logically determine Radegonde Lambert’s origin. There are a number of theories tying to determine how the very rare haplogroup X came into North America. Some say it came with hg A, B, C, and D across the Alaskan land Bridge during the ice age. But others say that this was probably wrong because hg X is not present in Asian populations. Yet another theory is that people with hg X traversed the waters when the ice melted. Still others think that they simply followed the shore along the ice during the ice age somewhere in the Pacific. The problem with these probable routes is that the only population with hg X on the pacific side of North America were, I believe, the Navajo people. No other populations had hg X along the Pacific North American coast and Central Plains. The greatest concentration of hg X was on the North East coast of North American.

Haplogroup X is relatively sparce across Europe but has some concentrated areas in the middle east today. The origin of mutation hg X would have been somewhere in the middle, south Eurasian continent and moved all the way up to the Scandinavian countries in the north. Tests on 1000 year old skeletons of early Vikings indicated a high concentration of hg X. Present day populations have a higher concentration of hg I than hg X. The introduction of hg X as well as hg I into England and France very likely came from Viking raiders. Archeological evidence, such as the Viking settlement in Newfoundland 800 to 1000 years ago would explain the possible introduction of mtDNA hg X2b into a local Newfoundland indigenous population. It is also very likely that the ancient Viking wanderers introduced haplogroup X more recently than 15,000 years ago in North Eastern Canada. More extensive DNA testing of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia native and "mixed blood" residents may verify this postulation. Another possible source of hg X is from the European fishing villages set up during or before 1500 along the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland.


Radegonde Lambert from this perspective would have received her mtDNA haplogroup X or X2b from a European mother who lived 600 - 1000 years ago. She would have had many generations of ancestors among the Mi’kmaw indigenous people!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/acadiametismothers/default.aspx?section=mtresults
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002214