- This topic has 4 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
Hi All:
I’ve been researching my maternal GG Grandmother, Martha Cook b. 1831 GA d. 1894 Poinsett Co., AR who m. John aka James P. Phillips.
When I did my mtDNA, I got a Haplotype of U5 – rather rare from the Near East originially & 60,000 years old of the Ursala Clan. I have one other match who chose to not identify herself – frustrating to say the least. We are directly related and I can’t contact her. I was looking for an A – B – C – D or X Haplotype/NA as my Grandmother is Native American. Not understanding how this could be, I’ve tried to get further information.
Tonight I was reading a study of Haps. for Southeastern US. Since so many U5 participants report Cherokee blood lines or suspected Cherokee ancestors, the U5 mtDNA site has also been looking at this.
At any rate, the study/article I read indicated that a mtDNA Bottleneck is suspected to have happened where it is possible that some U5’s may be NA, especially Cherokees. This article also stated that the Cherokee may have originated in the Ohio VAlley and Michigan but moved to the Southeastern areas very early on. If you’re interested, just google the U5 mtDNA Project. The study/article is a link on the bottom.
Any female Cooks at Saponi Town with Georgia ancestors? Whose done DNA testing? Would be interested in hearing about any of your results.
Clydene
Hello,
I am glad to see that more people are doing DNA testing. I have had several clients come up with haplogroups that are not associated with the Native American Haploggroups. Including one that you mentioned. That haplogroup to the best of my knowledge is not of Native American Origin, although new studies and findings may try to connect the two. A good person to clarify this is Bennett Greenspan of Ftdna. Go to the site and write to him. He is great at getting back to you. I had a hard time convincing my clients that that is not traditonally a Native American Lineage. The other one was Haplogroup T and they refused to belive it was not a Native American Haplogroup. Many people intermingled and possibly lived with and took on the identity of other groups it can really be hard to say.
Thanks Shoshone:
DNA is quite interesting and I think I understand the basics but I also know my Grandmother was Cherokee. When I got the results back I did contact Kathleen at ftDNA. Let me see if I can explain it the way she did.
The first basic thing to remember about DNA is that the male (Y-DNA) results will never cross over back to the female (mtDNA) and vice versa!! If your documentation proves you have a NA female family member and you have mtDNA results that are not a NA Haplotype, that can simply mean that a maternal great grandfather was Native American and not your mother’s mtDNA line. So, one of my Cook Great Grandfather’s has to be NA.
Kathleen was not saying my Grandmother and Great Grandmother were not Cherokee but only that the Cherokee had to come from the YDNA not the mtDNA. That means my Great Grandmother Cooks husband (John P. Phillips) or her father (unknown) had to be Cherokee. At this point, I have not documented who the Cook 2nd great grandfather is.
So not getting a mtDNA Native American Hap. does not mean you are not NA but points you to the right family member who is.
But then I read the genetic study of U5 which does indicate they are studying it because of the high rate of donars who have documented or a family history of Cherokee Blood, I was interested, to say the least; as my family history indicates that my mtDNA is the line that contains our NA Blood.
This is one I will have to be very patient with and hope for results from a Phillips donar (I have no living Phillips male descendants that I can find) or the Genetic Study to prove something further about the Cherokee U5 Bottleneck.
Shoshone, If you find anything further, I’d be very interested.
Clydene
Hello Clydene,
Thanks for the reply. Yes you are very correct that if the Native Mtdna is inherted through a male then he has a daughter then you have to test the correct family member in order to check for Native Ancestry as this male will not pass on His Maternal Native DNA to niether son nor daughter.
DNA to date is the most powerful aspect of helping people trace thier ancestral lineage. I would Also recommend Reading the Book “Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project” by Dr. Spence Wells who is one of the foremost researchers and authorities on Genetic Anthropology. It gives a comprehensive look at all of the haplogroups as they branched off from the ancestral L haplogroup(s) and spread out all over the world. Each Haplogroup has it’s own write up. Dr. Spence Wells as we speak is taking, classifying, and researching Haplogroups found amongst what is left of Tribal, indigenous peoples throughout the world. He basicaly has set the standards with his indepth research in this area of Human Genetic Diversity.
If I come across any more information I will be glad to pass it on.
This is one I will have to be very patient with and hope for results from a Phillips donar (I have no living Phillips male descendants that I can find) or the Genetic Study to prove something further about the Cherokee U5 Bottleneck.
One of my ex wives was a Phillips from Hillsville VA and she said they were Flatheads. Just some superfulous info…
as far as Phillips someone in shoeboots aka Turtle at home aka Tuskingo aka “white owls son” etc etc…. family married a Phillips in IT .. because dolly , his last wife is living with them in choctaw territory during the civil war years . jack is right .. choctaw are also some of those who were called flatheads I do believe” but I would suspect chickasaw flathead if it is connected to Shoeboots and I won’t say why … or his sisters or his oldest kids… just FYI!!
on your guys and mine U5 dna
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/08/ancient-megalithic-mtdna-from-france.html
x2 and N1 has been found in amtdna in the americas… a good question is would scientist even acknowledge if they found U5 in amtdna ? I mean what would it do to their bad theories of origins anyway.
and even read any of the dna studies.
they remove what they want too.. and they use lots of terms like “unambiguously’ even in this megalithic study. so what was the ambiguous mtdna that they removed from our consideration anyway??
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
