Joined: 24 May 2007 {Posts: 130 } Location: Danville, VA
Posted: Tue 03 Jul 2007 19:47 Post subject: East Asian vs. Native American scores on AncestrybyDNA 2.5
Hello,
I've been having an interesting email exchange with someone whose scores are remarkably similar to mine; we're both 94% European on the AncestrybyDNA 2.5 test, and we had similar scores on the EuroDNA test. What was different was that his non-EU 6% was NA (Native American) while mine was EA (East Asian.) This was equally unsatisfying in both cases. I was looking for clues about the ethnic background of five lines of "free mulatto" ancestry in colonial North Carolina, not a place frequented by East Asians. He was of Eastern European background with oral history traditions about Mongolian ancestry, hence found NA as incredible as I found EA. Charles Kerchner has a website where people can post their DNA test results and comment on them. He and his brother both scored 90% EU, but one brother scored 10% NA and the other 10% EA. This and abundant customer comments lead me to think that this test simply cannot distinguish between EA and NA reliably.
Frank has commented on this weakness of the test to me, saying the two populations diverged too recently for markers to be reliable in distinguishing them. My correspondent wrote that at first the people at DNAPrint were adamant that EA and NA were readily distinguished, but later admitted that several waves of NA migration came at different times and with different degrees of differentation from EA.
The folks at DNAPrint say that Romani ancestry usually accounts for Europeans with high South Asian scores, but not always. I'd love to claim Gypsy ancestors, but find 1/16 South Asian hard to explain in light of genealogical evidence. Wonder if my high South Asian score might distort the results for NA vs. EA.
I think old family photographs can provide clues about what branch of the family is a likely source of the Mongolian or Native American DNA. I will try and see if there is a conversation where something like this is being discussed, and post more details there.
Last edited by Kimalexis on Thu 19 Jul 2007 01:36; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 18 Jul 2007 14:00 Post subject:
Paul:
Native Americans have overlapping genetics with Central Asians; hence, a European with "Native American" markers but no known Native American ancestors really has Central Asian markers. These markers are quite common in Eastern Europeans (Hungarians, Romanians, Russians, etc.) and Southeastern Europeans (Greeks, Turks, etc.).
Europeans with East Asian markers are also not uncommon. Baltic peoples, Scandinavians, and various Eastern Europeans (including Russians) often have these. It does not necessarily mean such an individual has recent East Asian ancestry. Over the centuries and millennia, with migrations and gene flow, such admixture is conceivable. One must remember that one's genetics go deep into the past. Some of the invading tribes, such as the Huns and Avars, came from the border region between Central and Eastern Asia.
Also see the below reply to an e-mail I sent on the subject:
Quote:
Dear Bill:
Thank you for your inquiry.
Our autosomal AncestryByDNA test will definitely differentiate between East Asian and Native American genetics (not necessarily only "Amerindian" since Native Americans arrived in the Western hemisphere in three separate linguistically divided groupings: Amerindian - up to 30,000 years ago, Na-Dene 16,000 or so years ago and Eskimo Aleuts - 6,000+/- y.a.). If there were any test errors these would be negated by our Quality Control testing procedures - we do not send out results if there are too many testing errors or marker failures, so if you did receive your results they are quite accurate (certainly within 95% Confidence Limits). Additionally, test "errors" would not show up systematically for some populations and not others, and certainly not in clusters of populations radiating from a historical source of that type of admixture.
Native Americans have overlapping genetics with Central Asians, not East Asians. Migrations of people with these Central Asian genetics (e.g. - Southern Siberia, Kazhakstan, Uzbekistan, etc.) certainly led them North and East across the Bering Land Bridge into the Western Hemisphere, but also they probably migrated South and Westward through Turkey, Greece and Italy into Europe. (Because the Ural Mountains blocked direct passage from Asia to Europe, the main entrepot to Europe from Asia was a southerly route through Turkey.) They probably also went into the Middle East. For these reasons, the genetics of the populations in these areas (e.g. - Turks, Greeks, Italians and some Middle Easterners) do show the Native American markers in their DNA. (I know, as I am of pure southern Italian descent and have 10% or more Native American genetic markers in my own DNA.) Thus, the Native American markers seen in some Europeans (and this may be somewhat widespread when one considers the influence of the Roman conquerors over all of Europe for more than 1000 years), did not come from Latin American migrations to Europe, but most likely from the migrations from Central Asia into Europe described above.
Emanuela I. Charlton, Ph.D.
Customer Service
You might also want to check out the explanations on their website, if you haven't done so already. Here is an interesting quote:
Quote:
For example, both we and Rosenberg et al., 2003 and have found that there is significant East Asian admixture in Russians and (from our data) some Eastern Europeans.The extent to which the Mongolian and Hun invasions may have contributed to this admixture over a long time period remain a tantalizing mystery.
Joined: 24 May 2007 {Posts: 130 } Location: Danville, VA
Posted: Wed 18 Jul 2007 20:06 Post subject: NA vs. EA
Dear Bill,
Thanks for following up on this. I'm beginning to feel that I've thrown away a large amount of money, as nothing anyone is telling me or that I find online helps answer the question that motivated the test. I have four solid, and one possible, lines of "free mulatto" ancestry in colonial North Carolina. My latest DNAPrint result shows an MLE of zero Native American, zero Subsaharan African-- yet those are the only two possibilities for the admixture in light of the region's history. All I can go on is the much higher percentage of NA than SA in the second confidence interval.
You wrote:
"Native Americans have overlapping genetics with Central Asians; hence, a European with "Native American" markers but no known Native American ancestors really has Central Asian markers....Europeans with East Asian markers are also not uncommon. Baltic peoples, Scandinavians, and various Eastern Europeans (including Russians) often have these. It does not necessarily mean such an individual has recent East Asian ancestry."
This explains my correspondent's confusing results but says nothing about my opposite situation. 245 of my 251 known European ancestors were from England, with the other six from Scotland, France, and western Germany. Nothing from the Baltic, Scandinavia, or Eastern Europe. (Or anywhere else in the world, for that matter.) I'm struck by the 35% Southeastern European score on the EuroDNA, so analyzed the locations of my known English ancestors. They were concentrated in southeastern England which due to invasions would probably have a higher Southeastern European score than parts of the country further from the continent.
"Over the centuries and millennia, with migrations and gene flow, such admixture is conceivable. One must remember that one's genetics go deep into the past. Some of the invading tribes, such as the Huns and Avars, came from the border region between Central and Eastern Asia."
That would explain my 8% South Asian score on the EuroDNA test, which makes no sense in terms of recent history but turns out to be typical of US Americans who take the test. My result is unusual, it turns out, in the zero Middle Eastern score and not the 8% South Asian.
You quoted their email:
"Our autosomal AncestryByDNA test will definitely differentiate between East Asian and Native American genetics"
Knowing that they would assert this has kept me from even asking for an explanation. To believe this, I'd have to believe that East Asian ancestry so deep that it is historically inexplicable shows up in my DNA, while the Native American or Subsaharan African heritage of multiple recent (relatively) North Carolina "free mulatto" ancestors does not show up at all.
Guess it is worth a try to see what they will say.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Wed 18 Jul 2007 20:47 Post subject:
Hello, Paul:
I wouldn't agree that you've thrown away money. The test is merely showing you things about yourself you didn't know. This is often the case. No one can ever know all of their ancestors. If you go back ten generations, you have over 1,000 ancestors; 20 generations, and you have over a million!
Your ancestors in England may not have been pure Northwestern Europeans, in a genetic sense. Few people or populations are pure anything, owing to migrations, etc. over the millennia. An 8% South Asian score is not necessarily unusual for Britons or those descended from them. Remember, Britain controlled India for a long time (and traded with them even longer), and British soldiers often returned with Indian wives. Other genetic markers of the sort (Hemoglobin D, if memory serves) have been found in people of the British Isles. The same sort of thing happened in Holland, but with Indonesians, rather than Indians.
Regarding the lack of Native American and sub-Saharan markers, despite your known descent from "free Mulattoes," I can say that about 5% of those Americans who identify as Black have no detectable sub-Saharan ancestry! In other words, the way one chooses to identify and the true genetic admixture are not necessarily one and the same. The extent to which your "free Mulatto" ancestors were genetically sub-Saharan and/or Native American was probably not very much, despite how they identified or were recorded. If you factor in that the majority of your known ancestors were European, then it makes sense that you would show some of the forms of admixture that Europeans can show.
In effect, baptism brought about a change of status, from persons with Indian heritage to an officially recorded racial class of 'colored' or 'mulatto.' The resultant of this process of virtual "pleckerization" was a population of Native-descended people in Delaware whose recorded history became inseparable from colored persons of other ethnic derivations.
As these factors came together, the perceptions of white record-keepers changed. Where they had once seen simply farmers and neighbors, they began to see people of color. What color was often in doubt, as certain families who had never been slaves were also obviously too brown, too exotic, and somehow too different, to be any more just like the rest of the neighbors. As law and expectation began to demand the classification of these people by race, record- keepers grasped at whatever terminology their society and their prejudices allowed. As the record-keepers assumed that the Indians had all "gone west" there had to be a category for these people. The category of convenience was "free mulatto." Slightly more careful record-keepers used the alternative term, "free person of color" when classifying. But classify they did, and that classification had a virulent effect on the future of the undocumented, settled Indians.
Historians have tended to uncritically accept old racial labels, so that the history of these people has been masked. Some writers, notably Deal (1988) and Davidson (1991), have swept the study of local Native Americans into "free black" history, continuing a long tradition of misperception.
Joined: 24 May 2007 {Posts: 130 } Location: Danville, VA
Posted: Thu 19 Jul 2007 14:29 Post subject: Re: Antebellum use of term "mulatto"
Powell wrote:
The antebellum use of the terms "mulatto" or "free person of color" often included people with no traceable or recent African ancestry.
Hi Powell,
What is most shocking is that this continued well into the twentieth century. If my EA score really means NA, as I think it does, then my father being more than 1/16 Native American was officially "colored" by Virginia law and his marriage to my mother was illegal. Even though the other 15/16 was European! Of course they had no DNA tests to go on, but the standard of evidence for declaring heretofore white or Indian people "colored" was extremely low. Someone heard a rumor that some ancestor of yours might have been nonwhite; presto! your kids are expelled from the white schools. Frank's study was a real eye opener on the dark side of recent Virginia history.
Plecker was a monster whose reign of terror is only recently being subjected to the public scrutiny it has long deserved. The Melungeons are doing a lot to raise consciousness here in Virginia, as are the Indian tribes he redefined almost out of existence.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 19 Jul 2007 14:55 Post subject:
Paul wrote:
If my EA score really means NA, as I think it does, then my father being more than 1/16 Native American...
I stand firm in my belief that your East Asian score is just that. Your father's being more than 1/16 Native American does not necessarily mean that his genetic makeup is 1/16 Native American (unless of course he was tested genetically). There exist Native Americans today who have very little or no Native American genetics, and this was brought to my attention by Dr. Charlton of DNAPrint.
Did you see my posting above Powell's, replying to yours of yesterday?
In effect, baptism brought about a change of status, from persons with Indian heritage to an officially recorded racial class of 'colored' or 'mulatto.' The resultant of this process of virtual "pleckerization" was a population of Native-descended people in Delaware whose recorded history became inseparable from colored persons of other ethnic derivations.
As these factors came together, the perceptions of white record-keepers changed. Where they had once seen simply farmers and neighbors, they began to see people of color. What color was often in doubt, as certain families who had never been slaves were also obviously too brown, too exotic, and somehow too different, to be any more just like the rest of the neighbors. As law and expectation began to demand the classification of these people by race, record- keepers grasped at whatever terminology their society and their prejudices allowed. As the record-keepers assumed that the Indians had all "gone west" there had to be a category for these people. The category of convenience was "free mulatto." Slightly more careful record-keepers used the alternative term, "free person of color" when classifying. But classify they did, and that classification had a virulent effect on the future of the undocumented, settled Indians.
Historians have tended to uncritically accept old racial labels, so that the history of these people has been masked. Some writers, notably Deal (1988) and Davidson (1991), have swept the study of local Native Americans into "free black" history, continuing a long tradition of misperception.
And viceversa. Many mulattos chose an Indian or Mestizo identity at times.
Joined: 24 May 2007 {Posts: 130 } Location: Danville, VA
Posted: Thu 19 Jul 2007 18:01 Post subject: Firm belief?
[quote="William"]
Paul wrote:
If my EA score really means NA, as I think it does, then my father being more than 1/16 Native American...
I stand firm in my belief that your East Asian score is just that.
PJ-- I have written to DNAPrint asking for comment. Since you know little of my genealogical background, it seems premature to have any firm belief about what my test scores mean. Likewise, my lack of understanding of molecular anthropology makes me unable to have any firm belief about they mean. When one lacks expertise one can only turn to the experts. But one of our resident experts, Frank, has commented that he considers the test's NA/EA distinction unreliable (but a fix might be in the works). And the company seems to have quite a few dissatisfied customers on this EA/NA issue judging by online comment, whereas no one seems to be complaining about SA vs. IE etc.
Bill-- Your father's being more than 1/16 Native American does not necessarily mean that his genetic makeup is 1/16 Native American (unless of course he was tested genetically). There exist Native Americans today who have very little or no Native American genetics, and this was brought to my attention by Dr. Charlton of DNAPrint.
PJ-- My point was that if I'm 1/16 non-European (based on my 6% EA score, whether it means Cherokee or Chinese) and all evidence of admixture is on the paternal side, my father wouldn't qualify as white under Virginia law when he was born. I doubt that his 1/16+ could be East Asian based on genealogy and history, but even if it was that-- rather than NA misread as EA-- the point would stand. Mixed = colored according to Plecker. The Pocahontas clause allowed up to 1/16 Native American to escape the colored designation.
Did you see my posting above Powell's, replying to yours of yesterday?
PJ-- Yes, and rather than reply directly I'll just post the gist of query to DNAPrint. I'm also interested in the NE/SE balance and how it varies in different parts of Europe.
Joined: 24 May 2007 {Posts: 130 } Location: Danville, VA
Posted: Thu 19 Jul 2007 19:14 Post subject: My query to DNAPrint
William and all,
Much of this was cut and pasted from previous posts so I'll edit to reduce redundancy:
Last month I received results from my second BGA test, which I took because the results of the first were ambiguous. Unfortunately, the second results were more definite but completely baffling... abundant comments online lead me to think that this test cannot distinguish between EA and NA reliably. But I have seen comments from your staff insisting that it can and does. My correspondent wrote that at first the people at DNAPrint were adamant that EA and NA were readily distinguished and could not be confused, but later admitted that several waves of NA migration came at different times and with different degrees of differentation from Central Asian progenitors. But while this might explain someone without any possible recent NA ancestry getting a significant NA test result, it cannot help me understand my opposite situation. My latest DNAPrint result shows an MLE of zero Native American, zero Subsaharan African-- yet those are the only two possibilities for non-European admixture in light of the region's history. Perhaps all I can go on is the much higher percentage of NA than SA in the second confidence interval? This was found also in the original test which gave an MLE of 100% IE.
[I understand that East Asian markers are not uncommon in Eastern Europe, the Baltic, and Scandinavia, but] 245 of my 251 known European ancestors were from England, with the other six from Scotland, France, and western Germany; none from the Baltic, Scandinavia, or Eastern Europe. All of the thousand or so US ancestors I've identified had English surnames; all who can be identified as first generation Americans arrived by 1720. [William-- this would rule out the South Indian score coming from recent rather than deep ancestry, I think.]
85% of my closest matches on Y DNA gave British Isles as their recent origins, and the remaining 15% were in western Europe. This makes it hard to credit the notion of any significant East Asian ancestry. I know that in any genealogical chart the unknowns outnumber the knowns, but historical information defines fairly clearly the ethnic mix of colonial northeastern North Carolina and excludes East Asian (whether from East Asia or via the Baltic, Scandinavia, or Eastern Europe) as a possibility.
As to the EuroDNA results...I see in your map that the line between NE and SE runs through northern France, which I assume represents the area where scores would be equal; can we then assume that SE scores would be higher in the southeasternmost part of England than further north, as it is closer to this line?
Back to the subject of the AncestrybyDNA 2.5 result, I would really appreciate your explanation as for years I have been writing a book about mixed-race family history in the South. The EA estimate (and zero estimates for NA and SA) throws a huge monkey wrench into the works, when the historical question is clearly NA vs. SA admixture. It is hard to understand how East Asian ancestry so deep that it is historically inexplicable shows up in my DNA, while the Native American or Subsaharan African heritage of multiple recent (relatively) North Carolina "free mulatto" ancestors does not show up at all.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Thu 19 Jul 2007 19:32 Post subject:
Okay, you may be right and I may be wrong about DNAPrint's inability to distinguish between East Asian and Native American (or Central Asian) markers. That is possible. But I stand firm on this for the time being because each time I have written them on this, they assure me that their tests do indeed distinguish between these two large population groups, and that Native American genetics overlap with Central Asian genetics, not East Asian genetics. Until there is something substantial showing otherwise, I will defend my theory that DNAPrint's tests can distinguish properly between Native American markers and East Asian markers.
I do not pretend to know your genealogy, other than what you posted. I am trying to make sense of the data available, without resorting to claims that something simply must be wrong with the test's results.
Paul wrote:
PJ-- My point was that if I'm 1/16 non-European (based on my 6% EA score, whether it means Cherokee or Chinese) and all evidence of admixture is on the paternal side, my father wouldn't qualify as white under Virginia law when he was born. I doubt that his 1/16+ could be East Asian based on genealogy and history, but even if it was that-- rather than NA misread as EA-- the point would stand. Mixed = colored according to Plecker. The Pocahontas clause allowed up to 1/16 Native American to escape the colored designation.
You are missing my point entirely, and conflating two completely different concepts.
You are conflating two concepts because genetic admixture and the way one identifies (either by choice or by force) are two entirely different things. A person can consider himself to be a Native American, belong to a tribe, and have an oral history of being a member of this ethnic grouping. However, he may have little or no what are considered Native American genetics (i.e., those markers specific to the pre-Columbian populations of America).
You are missing my point because I'm merely saying that the East Asian genetics you show could have been a part of your ancestors' makeup in Europe already, since some Europeans (including some Britons, as my friend's test results show) show East Asian genetics. This may have been completely unknown by those carrying the markers, and would have nothing to do with the oral traditions of your family's having Native American ancestors. Again, the lack of Native American genetics in your genetic profile may indicate that the Native American ancestors you've heard of had little pre-Columbian Native American markers. Whatever distant ancestors had these markers, if any, they have been almost eliminated through centuries of intermarriage. Conversely, the small amount of East Asian admixture you show could have been maintained all this time by your ancestors' marrying those near them, with similar genetic backgrounds.
This is all I am saying. I'm not pretending to be an "expert" (whatever your definition of that word is). DNAPrint's mailboxes (according to Dr. Charlton) are full of mail from people disputing their results, because they claim they can't be this or that, since oral tradition or genealogy shows otherwise. As Dr. Charlton explains, people's genetics reach far into the past and data obtained by studying this often cannot be reconciled with that of the paltry few generations of the few lines we can trace.
Clearly I've exasperated you, so I'll drop the subject too after this followup. Perhaps we're missing *each other's* points.
[quote="William"]Okay, you may be right and I may be wrong about DNAPrint's inability to distinguish between East Asian and Native American (or Central Asian) markers.
PJ-- It's not about you and me, but about what seems to be a large number of dissatisfied customers on this one particular issue. And a company that comes across as stonewalling, dismissive, dogmatic. It's not the science I distrust, but the commercial interest involved. They are defending an expensive product, and that raises alarms for me that would not be ringing if this were academics defending pure science.
snip
William-- Until there is something substantial showing otherwise, I will defend my theory that DNAPrint's tests can distinguish properly between Native American markers and East Asian markers.
PJ-- "DNAPrint's tests" is too broad for both our purposes. The only reason I shelled out another $400+ for the AncestrybyDNA 2.5 is because 2.0 did not distinguish at all between the two for me. It gave a MLE of 100% IE and 0% everything else, but at the second confidence interval said that NA and EA could both be up to 8% and SA up to 2%. That level of admixture and the 2.0 number of markers was apparently insufficient to distinguish between the probabilities of NA and EA. So with more markers, 2.5 did make a clear distinction-- but not one that makes any sense historically. As my reply from DNAPrint makes clear, their answer is to hell with recorded history, this is all about prehistory or very remote history. Well, if they said that up front I'd never have spent close to a thousand dollars trying to answer a historical question with a tool inappropriate for such a purpose. I specifically outlined my historical question and the ambiguity of the previous test in correspondence with them and asked whether it was worthwhile to take the 2.5. I was encouraged to proceed.
William-- I do not pretend to know your genealogy, other than what you posted. I am trying to make sense of the data available, without resorting to claims that something simply must be wrong with the test's results.
Paul-- I'm in no position to make any claims, other than that the results make no sense in terms of recorded history and shed no light on the historical question that inspired me to take it. The fact that so many complaints along this line have been registered MIGHT mean that the disappointed customers are all just ignoramuses, or it might mean there is a flaw in the algorithm.
William-- You are missing my point entirely, and conflating two completely different concepts.
Paul-- I think not. My comment about Plecker was specifically related to Powell's post and not the preceding discussion.
William-- You are conflating two concepts because genetic admixture and the way one identifies (either by choice or by force) are two entirely different things.
Paul-- But Plecker's goal in life was to make them one and the same, albeit with much weaker tools to measure admixture. It is he who conflated the two concepts, or rather several. If he could have used DNA testing, God only knows the percentage of Virginians he'd throw in the "colored" bin.
snip
William-- You are missing my point because I'm merely saying that the East Asian genetics you show could have been a part of your ancestors' makeup in Europe already, since some Europeans (including some Britons, as my friend's test results show) show East Asian genetics...
Paul-- Understood as a possibility. But 6% seems awfully high, and 0% awfully low for the more historically plausible NA and SA.
William-- This may have been completely unknown by those carrying the markers, and would have nothing to do with the oral traditions of your family's having Native American ancestors. Again, the lack of Native American genetics in your genetic profile may indicate that the Native American ancestors you've heard of had little pre-Columbian Native American markers.
Paul-- But we aren't exactly talking about "lack of Native American genetics" since at the second confidence interval the possible NA has actually RISEN from 8% in the 2.0 test to 11% in the 2.5 (while EA rose from 8% to 13%). Rather, we're discussing ambiguous evidence and uncertainty about what it means. The range of possibilities at the second confidence interval makes perfect sense to me in light of history, so my only real qualm is with the MLE calculation.
snip
William-- As Dr. Charlton explains, people's genetics reach far into the past and data obtained by studying this often cannot be reconciled with that of the paltry few generations of the few lines we can trace.
Paul-- OK, but in light of that I'd recommend against anyone in my position, trying to make sense of recorded mulatto ancestry in American history, taking this test in hopes of finding useful information. Perhaps, though, the marker information will turn out to be useful down the road if there is progress on the algorithms yielding NA/EA scores.
Hello,
I also just received my results from AncestrybyDNA and my DNA was estimated to derive 51% from Sub-Saharan Africa, 38% from Europe, 7% from East Asia and 4% from Native American populations. This makes no sense--far more likely would be 11% Native American--we have genealogical info dating back to the early 1800s and my maternal ancestors had sevral indivduals who were probably Cherokee and/or Creek from Geogia. My father was adopted at birth but from his birth certificate his father was an Ashkenazi Jew (confirmed by my Y chromosome) and the Ancestryby DNA samples who are Ashkenazi have little East Asian admixture (some Native American). I am sure that the parental Native American sample that Ancestryby DNA used to generate the admixture data could be somewhat restricted and perhaps other Native American groups could appear to have a larger East Asian admixture (this is certainly true for the Y chromosome and mtDNA studies of Native Americans).
Roy
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Mon 17 Dec 2007 16:01 Post subject:
I have come to believe that the NA vs. EA problem is one of nomenclature. What the AncestryByDNA folks call NA is really Central Asian (from southwestern Siberia, Uzbekistan, etc.). Y-chromosome and mtDNA tests have established that Native Americans descend from Central and East Asians. The very fact that AncestryByDNA results for those of purported Native American ancestry very often come up with EA results further proves this. (Of course, it must also be taken into account that folks aren't always descended from the groups they think they are.)
So, in short, the AncestryByDNA test is not flawed, but the way they advertise it is. The NA category should be changed to CA (for Central Asian). Of course, this doesn't help those who want definitive proof of Native American ancestry. The markers categorized as "Native American" may have been inherited from southern European ancestors, who have significant amounts of these Central Asian markers; and the East Asian markers may have been inherited directly from East Asian ancestors, or even from Eastern Europeans, who sometimes type with them. Native Americans, strange as it may seem, just haven't been isolated for long enough to develop distinct genetic lineages.
Posted: Sat 05 Jan 2008 10:00 Post subject: EA versus NA
This EA versus NA situation is very interesting. People who would not be surprised to find NA ancestry appear with significant (like 12%) EA ancestry even though there is not even a legend of EA ancestry in the lineage.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
