Do Amerindians have a Baltic/North Euro element to their genes?

[Sikeliot]

I have seen GEDmatch results for a few predominantly Native Mexicans and Guatemalans, and they have nearly 10% of some sort of North European element on the calculators, and almost no Atlanto-Med, so it is clearly not from the Spanish.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I would not be surprised if the conquistadors had some norman blood. Some of the fully spanish people in the americas are more spanish than the spanish "hyper-iberian". I am not sure that they were the same then, just like the french are not the same today as back then and many french colonials have crazily high northern european levels.

[Sockorer]

Amerindians and Northern Euros share Ancient North Eurasian ancestry.

[Sikeliot]

I would not be surprised if the conquistadors had some norman blood. Some of the fully spanish people in the americas are more spanish than the spanish "hyper-iberian". I am not sure that they were the same then, just like the french are not the same today as back then and many french colonials have crazily high northern european levels.

Normans didn't conquer Spain... they conquered southern Italy, a small part of North Africa, and they were the primary people we refer to as "Crusaders" when discussing the Near East.

French colonials with higher North Euro means they mixed with British Canadians.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Normans didn't conquer Spain... they conquered southern Italy, a small part of North Africa, and they were the primary people we refer to as "Crusaders" when discussing the Near East.

French colonials with higher North Euro means they mixed with British Canadians.

Normans didn't conquer spain, they helped spain with the reconquista. I would be completely unsurprised if some of them were also part of the conquest of the new world, and those genes from the initial conquests (in the exact areas you name) would have a huge founder effect.

[Sikeliot]

Normans didn't conquer spain, they helped spain with the reconquista. I would be completely unsurprised if some of them were also part of the conquest of the new world, and those genes from the initial conquests (in the exact areas you name) would have a huge founder effect.

Norman genes are low anywhere they conquered.. they seem present in VERY small amounts (1-3%) in some Sicilians and in Lebanese Muslims (who come up with a small North Atlantic component compared to their Christian and Druze countrymen on Eurogenes/Dodecad).

[Prisoner Of Ice]

Norman genes are low anywhere they conquered.. they seem present in VERY small amounts (1-3%) in some Sicilians and in Lebanese Muslims (who come up with a small North Atlantic component compared to their Christian and Druze countrymen on Eurogenes/Dodecad).

These genes are in the right area, and this is the plausible route for them to get there. Something like 1/10 of all mexico has a certain defective genes that came from ONE SINGLE CONQUISTADOR.

You didn't even know this had occurred, so don't try to correct me on it. Conquistadors are probably the hugest founder effect in the time of recorded history, so this is perfectly plausible.

The amerindian input from europe is all labeled 'american indian' and shows up in irish etc. as native american, not baltic. There's no reasonable way for the genes to have gotten there in prehistoric time. Unless there is some big baltic migration in historic time I don't know about, nothing else would make sense (if the phenomenon you speak of is even a real thing).

[Sikeliot]

Well, you're wrong. These Amerindians score almost 0% Atlanto-Med or anything Med.

[Carignan]

I am not sure that they were the same then, just like the french are not the same today as back then and many french colonials have crazily high northern european levels.


French colonials with higher North Euro means they mixed with British Canadians.

Are you guys sure about that? I guess I'll have to do a 23andme test to clearly this point, as I am 99.9% Colonial French

[Sikeliot]

Are you guys sure about that? I guess I'll have to do a 23andme test to clearly this point, as I am 99.9% Colonial French

I mean if a French Canadian scores differently than the French, it means they have outside influence since they arrived in Canada.

[Carignan]

I mean if a French Canadian scores differently than the French, it means they have outside influence since they arrived in Canada.

Well France is diverse and most settlers were from Western and Northern France.

Results from a fellow French Canadian on this forum, he may have UK ancestry at some point.

http://oi60.tinypic.com/90wmyu.jpg

[Empecinado]

I would not be surprised if the conquistadors had some norman blood. Some of the fully spanish people in the americas are more spanish than the spanish "hyper-iberian". I am not sure that they were the same then, just like the french are not the same today as back then and many french colonials have crazily high northern european levels.

There's not Spanish colonial people who are fully Spanish, nowadays virtually all have some degree of Amerindian ancestry.

Also, Normans were never in Spain, the only French who had some presence were Occitans.

[Stimpy]

Might be because of shared ancient North-Eurasian ancestry. Or maybe there's some truth to the Solutrean hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

[Petalpusher]

Well France is diverse and most settlers were from Western and Northern France.

Results from a fellow French Canadian on this forum, he may have UK ancestry at some point.

http://oi60.tinypic.com/90wmyu.jpg

Right, most of the settlers were from the North. Protestants/Huguenots rather exclusively from the North.

I have similar results than this guy.