DNA uncovers my Cherokee roots. [Archive] - Page 2 - The Apricity Forum: A European Cultural Community

Isleño

09-02-2018, 09:51 AM

This link is literally rubbish, you can discard it. Written by someone with even less knowledge of genetics than you, my friend.

Edit: Reading the rest of the thread, just kek @ you for unironically believing that Cherokees (ie, pre-contact Cherokees) were Middle Eastern. You have got to be joking me. How can you know this fucking little about genetics after 4 years on these sites? Use your brain, man, try to discern what is and isn't a reliable source of information, fucking Jesus.

OP: your results aren't out of the ordinary for African Americans. You're mostly black, significantly european, and a tiny bit native, like most Aframs. Ignore most of what Isleno is saying, he barely knows more than you do.

Wow, really bro? So you come right out the gate with insults? I don’t even think we’ve had a conversation in years. It boggles my mind how you are even allowed to be an admin with the behavior you set forth here. You should really give that some thought. I have plenty knowledge about genetics, you know this. We’ve had complex genetic debate before, utilizing study after study, that half the apricity community would need to become google masters just to comprehend. I think insulting me in such a way should be beneath you. It certainly is beneath me.

Now on to the topic at hand that you have accused me of.

The site in question that you called rubbish is certainly not so. It contains information one can verify as having taken place. DNA testing was conducted on the Qualla reservation in North Carolina, as well as various tribes of Cherokees outside of the reservation, mainly in Georgia and Tennessee. There is also historical information on the site of events that did happen. Of course there is commentary, but I give my opinions on the commentary here in this thread and have differing views to part of it. I guessed you missed that.

But since there is fact contained on the site, we have to consider this for analysis. There are also videos available of other geneticists and historians discussing the haplogroups found among the Cherokee that are not Amerind such as haplogroup T (which make up an astonishing 25% and similar to that of the presence of the haplogroup among Egyptians) and X which make up substantial percentages of their DNA. So to totally trash the site and not considering that there are facts on the site concerning past events and DNA testing that was indeed conducted, I think is a great mistake.

I’ve read reports of settlers being in the US south of other non-traditional backgrounds before such as Middle Eastern or even Jewish. In connection with the Cherokee I’ve also read that there were such settlers in the area dubbed as the Cherokee homeland. Now, I don’t have proof this is the origin of the Cherokee, so it remains a hypothesis and I’ve never said it was definite.

As for ancient, pre-colonial MENA ancestry that could be considered for the Cherokee tribe, this was only a what if to me before. But upon reading that which came from the report on the DNA ancestry of the Cherokee involved in the testing of the Qualla reservation in North Carolina, testing was conducted to try and determine the age of said mixture and it was given by the report that it was old and could be pre-Roman. I offered this information for others to view here by posting it. I never, at any point said that this was the definite answer or my fixed view point.

I have my own opinions on when the ancestry came to America, but it’s premature as I personally feel I need to investigate further to be sure. So I said it could have been colonial or ancient, I’m not sure. I posted a second site that contained a story about black Cherokee freedmen, which gave percentages for those tested by African Ancestry Inc. I commented how the pictures used were a bit frivolous to me, however the information there was a good read. But it was only to read as related material, not to fixate on as it didn’t supply enough fact to build a case on.

So unless you want to offer some evidence about the Cherokee here that can benefit the debate or at least show that what i posted is untrue, by all means post away. But insulting me and what I put forward is a cheap action that we can do without, especially if you were not going to offer any evidence that gives a different origin for the Cherokee, based in fact.

As for the OP, he does have a few percent of actual DNA that is Amerindian, slightly above what is normal for most black Americans. However, his ancestry came back in several oracles as Lumbee or Ashkenazi plus a majority of black American. This is inline with being partially Cherokee based on the DNA findings of the North Carolina Cherokees. Herb’s family is from North Carolina and the surrounding area. It’s certainly possible and from the looks of it, quite probable this ancestry is indeed Cherokee. Unless you wanted to prove it’s not (which you can post your proof at anytime) then making bullshit comments to Herb concerning me or my knowledge base (which you have absolutely no idea of), I suggest you learn to polish off your moral compass mr admin, and just knock it off.

I see you still, after all these years do not come in peace. Hmm.

Herb3.

09-02-2018, 12:51 PM

Wow, really bro? So you come right out the gate with insults? I don’t even think we’ve had a conversation in years. It boggles my mind how you are even allowed to be an admin with the behavior you set forth here. You should really give that some thought. I have plenty knowledge about genetics, you know this. We’ve had complex genetic debate before, utilizing study after study, that half the apricity community would need to become google masters just to comprehend. I think insulting me in such a way should be beneath you. It certainly is beneath me.

Now on to the topic at hand that you have accused me of.

The site in question that you called rubbish is certainly not so. It contains information one can verify as having taken place. DNA testing was conducted on the Qualla reservation in North Carolina, as well as various tribes of Cherokees outside of the reservation, mainly in Georgia and Tennessee. There is also historical information on the site of events that did happen. Of course there is commentary, but I give my opinions on the commentary here in this thread and have differing views to part of it. I guessed you missed that.

But since there is fact contained on the site, we have to consider this for analysis. There are also videos available of other geneticists and historians discussing the haplogroups found among the Cherokee that are not Amerind such as haplogroup T (which make up an astonishing 25% and similar to that of the presence of the haplogroup among Egyptians) and X which make up substantial percentages of their DNA. So to totally trash the site and not considering that there are facts on the site concerning past events and DNA testing that was indeed conducted, I think is a great mistake.

I’ve read reports of settlers being in the US south of other non-traditional backgrounds before such as Middle Eastern or even Jewish. In connection with the Cherokee I’ve also read that there were such settlers in the area dubbed as the Cherokee homeland. Now, I don’t have proof this is the origin of the Cherokee, so it remains a hypothesis and I’ve never said it was definite.

As for ancient, pre-colonial MENA ancestry that could be considered for the Cherokee tribe, this was only a what if to me before. But upon reading that which came from the report on the DNA ancestry of the Cherokee involved in the testing of the Qualla reservation in North Carolina, testing was conducted to try and determine the age of said mixture and it was given by the report that it was old and could be pre-Roman. I offered this information for others to view here by posting it. I never, at any point said that this was the definite answer or my fixed view point.

I have my own opinions on when the ancestry came to America, but it’s premature as I personally feel I need to investigate further to be sure. So I said it could have been colonial or ancient, I’m not sure. I posted a second site that contained a story about black Cherokee freedmen, which gave percentages for those tested by African Ancestry Inc. I commented how the pictures used were a bit frivolous to me, however the information there was a good read. But it was only to read as related material, not to fixate on as it didn’t supply enough fact to build a case on.

So unless you want to offer some evidence about the Cherokee here that can benefit the debate or at least show that what i posted is untrue, by all means post away. But insulting me and what I put forward is a cheap action that we can do without, especially if you were not going to offer any evidence that gives a different origin for the Cherokee, based in fact.

As for the OP, he does have a few percent of actual DNA that is Amerindian, slightly above what is normal for most black Americans. However, his ancestry came back in several oracles as Lumbee or Ashkenazi plus a majority of black American. This is inline with being partially Cherokee based on the DNA findings of the North Carolina Cherokees. Herb’s family is from North Carolina and the surrounding area. It’s certainly possible and from the looks of it, quite probable this ancestry is indeed Cherokee. Unless you wanted to prove it’s not (which you can post your proof at anytime) then making bullshit comments to Herb concerning me or my knowledge base (which you have absolutely no idea of), I suggest you learn to polish off your moral compass mr admin, and just knock it off.

I see you still, after all these years do not come in peace. Hmm.

You did an amazing job with your research. The FTDNA results (that Longbow actually pressed me to present), actually are in perfect alignment with your findings - the Armenia/Turk/Anatolia origins.

Isleño

09-02-2018, 01:36 PM

You did an amazing job with your research. The FTDNA results (that Longbow actually pressed me to present), actually are in perfect alignment with your findings - the Armenia/Turk/Anatolia origins.

I’m not worried about that dude. He busted in here bragging on his IQ, insulting people like the biggest asshole the world has ever seen. Acting like he is the only intelligent person in this thread. It’s truly comical. I’m still baffled how he is allowed to remain an admin according to his behavior here. Not the most mature fruit on the tree. But he is not worth the time to even complain about, so I’ll move on from that.

I furthered my research on Cherokees. It is still in line with my original findings and with the link that whatshisface decided to discredit (which upon further research, the link has provided true findings). I found the DNA Consultants study conducted on Cherokees at Qualla Reservation and it agrees with what we discussed earlier in the thread. As per my final conclusions before Capt. save-a-thread showed up (my investigation and research has been ongoing throughout the thread and my view has evolved with more information found) was that Cherokees are a melungeon-like people of MENA, European and Native American ancestry, possibly,with some sort of Central Asaian, Sub-Saharan or even Anatolian component. I was right.

Well according to the study conducted by DNA Consultants, this what they had to say:

“In DNA Consultants nomenclature, this Cherokee profile matches our Native American Marker II, Thuya Gene, Jewish III Marker, European I Marker, Sub-Saharan African Marker II, First Peoples Gene, Akhenaten Gene, Jewish I Marker, Jewish IV Marker, Native American I Marker (.5), European II Marker and Amerind Gene. These matches suggest Cherokees are a mixed population with Native American, European, Egyptian, Jewish and African components.”

http://https://dnaconsultants.com/enrolled-cherokee-genetics/

So Cherokees seem to be similar to Melungeons, but with an extra MENA component.

Isleño

09-02-2018, 01:39 PM

Isleño

09-02-2018, 01:45 PM

You did an amazing job with your research. The FTDNA results (that Longbow actually pressed me to present), actually are in perfect alignment with your findings - the Armenia/Turk/Anatolia origins.

It seems there is also a case that could possibly be made for ancient ancestry also:

“Yates’ genetically remarkably diverse Cherokee sample, the unique haplotypes represented therein, and the frequencies of the haplogroups found—quite different from those of the larger US populations—are striking: ‘Similar proportions of these haplogroups are noted in the populations of Egypt, Israel and other parts of the East Mediterranean … No such mix could result from post-1492 European gene flow into the Cherokee Nation.’” (pp. 353f.)”

https://dnaconsultants.com/enrolled-cherokee-genetics/

Herb3.

09-02-2018, 01:47 PM

Here’s more info on it from DNA Consultants:

https://dnaconsultants.com/cherokee-unlike-other-indians/Thanks!

I adjusted the link URL for you. :thumb001: :cool:

Amazing findings. Such a hoot that the most widely referenced Native tribe in existence is probably the least pure Indian among other tribes. lol

Herb3.

09-02-2018, 01:48 PM

Here’s more info on it from DNA Consultants:

https://dnaconsultants.com/cherokee-unlike-other-indians/

Here’s more info on it from DNA Consultants:

https://dnaconsultants.com/cherokee-unlike-other-indians/Thanks!

I adjusted the link URL for you. :thumb001: :cool:

Amazing findings. Such a hoot that the most widely referenced Native tribe in existence is probably the least pure Indian among other tribes. lol

Isleño

09-02-2018, 01:52 PM

You did an amazing job with your research. The FTDNA results (that Longbow actually pressed me to present), actually are in perfect alignment with your findings - the Armenia/Turk/Anatolia origins.

Yates has a research book that notes possible Greek origin in some of the Cherokee language words (look at page 23):

https://books.google.com/books?id=qpvJP7WAv1EC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Herb3.

09-02-2018, 02:01 PM

Yates has a research book that notes possible Greek origin in some of the Cherokee language words (look at page 23):

https://books.google.com/books?id=qpvJP7WAv1EC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

It's saying that page 15-206 aren't viewable in preview mode. How did you see it?

Isleño

09-02-2018, 02:08 PM

Thanks!

I adjusted the link URL for you. :thumb001: :cool:

Amazing findings. Such a hoot that the most widely referenced Native tribe in existence is probably the least pure Indian among other tribes. lol
Yes, it seems they have the least Native American. And understand, the Cherokee that became mixed hundreds of years ago (or maybe even thousands if ancient ancestry proved true) are even further mixed today from those that married into whites or blacks since colonial times. Look at the Cherokee picture I posted, it looked like all white people. The Amerind in these people is so small.

My final conclusion is that the Cherokee today are mainly a mix of the Melungeon types with added MENA discussed here today, whites that are partially mixed with that Melungeon type and blacks that are partially mixed with that Melungeon type.

Now for me, the new challenge is to find whether the MENA/European ancestry in Cherokee is colonial or ancient. I will comment more on what I’ve found about this...

Isleño

09-02-2018, 02:12 PM

It's saying that page 15-206 aren't viewable in preview mode. How did you see it?

I just scrolled down the page with my finger until I got to page 23.

Isleño

09-02-2018, 02:14 PM

It's saying that page 15-206 aren't viewable in preview mode. How did you see it?

I just scrolled down the page of the book with my finger until I reached page 23.

Isleño

09-02-2018, 02:20 PM

It's saying that page 15-206 aren't viewable in preview mode. How did you see it?

I just scrolled down the page of the book with my finger until I reached page 23.

Isleño

09-02-2018, 02:27 PM

It's saying that page 15-206 aren't viewable in preview mode. How did you see it?

I just scrolled down the page of the book with my finger until I reached page 23.

Isleño

09-02-2018, 09:33 PM

It's saying that page 15-206 aren't viewable in preview mode. How did you see it?

The possible ancient origin that Yates explores could be a little far fetched and maybe this colonial explanation may be a better explanation of where the ancestors of the Cherokee could have came from (this mentions that some Cherokee words could be of Turkish origin rather than Greek), this is an explanation by one of the nation’s leading experts on southeast Indians, Richard Thornton:

https://peopleofonefire.com/from_armenia_with_love.html

It’s really a puzzle that I’m quite not sure where their ancestors came from and when.

Longbowman

09-02-2018, 09:49 PM

Isleño

09-02-2018, 10:13 PM

Lad, you literally claimed that pre-Colombian Turks existed on the Eastern Seaboard, you can't say that and not expect to be laughed at. You're not even Mormon so there's no excuse.

Anyhow I'm sorry for being aggressive with it but it was a ridiculous thing to say. Now, you pretending there was anything personal to it is clearly a hang up you have.
That’s fine I accept your apology. LBM, I have no beef with you and I’d like you to understand that. I extend my hand in friendship to you. If you want to have a discussion about this Cherokee origin thing and join the debate to help us find out about the origins, I welcome you.

I want you to understand my opinion about this topic has been evolving throughout the thread as information comes available. I was truly not sold on an ancient origin for the Cherokees, so I was just keeping an open mind. DNA Consultants did conduct DNA tests, and they are a DNA company. However, among them is a guy named Yates that has been researching Cherokees for years and he suggested there could have been some sort of ancient origin based on his work. I’m not saying this is true, however I’ve kept an open mind and I need more info before I am sold on anything. I personally think there may be a greater possibility to a colonial origin. I’d like you to join the debate and help us, so can you give your opinion on this piece I found explaining a colonial origin from Richard Thornton, an expert on southeast American Indians. He gives a colonial explanation that may be closer to truth possibly:

https://peopleofonefire.com/from_armenia_with_love.html

Longbowman

09-02-2018, 10:23 PM

That’s fine I accept your apology. LBM, I have no beef with you and I’d like you to understand that. I extend my hand in friendship to you. If you want to have a discussion about this Cherokee origin thing and join the debate to help us find out about the origins, I welcome you.

I want you to understand my opinion about this topic has been evolving throughout the thread as information comes available. I was truly not sold on an ancient origin for the Cherokees, so I was just keeping an open mind. DNA Consultants did conduct DNA tests, and they are a DNA company. However, among them is a guy named Yates that has been researching Cherokees for years and he suggested there could have been some sort of ancient origin based on his work. I’m not saying this is true, however I’ve kept an open mind and I need more info before I am sold on anything. I personally think there may be a greater possibility to a colonial origin. I’d like you to join the debate and help us, so can you give your opinion on this piece I found explaining a colonial origin from Richard Thornton, an expert on southeast American Indians. He gives a colonial explanation that may be closer to truth possibly:

https://peopleofonefire.com/from_armenia_with_love.html

Cheers for accepting it. It is permissible to reject out-of-hand ludicrous opinions, like the pre-contact contact idea. It's absurd on the face of it. In the absence of genetic evidence (because no ancient Cherokee have been analysed that I know of and modern exemplars are obviously not admissible) we use historical and linguistic evidence and the evidence is strongly in favour of a local Algonquin origin.

As for your link: first, if this Thornton fellow wants to be taken seriously he should learn to write better. Second, it should also be obvious to anyone with a brain that no (open) non-Catholics would have been permitted to reside in the extremely limited Spanish settlements of the 16th century (as it was illegal), and for that reason amongst many others I reject the [uncited] argument he presents. It's very clear woo-peddling with little historic basis. After the first two paragraphs he's swallowing local myths and tall tales as fact. His opinion can be dismissed. I don't think he's a 'respected expert' on anything. The idea that the British created a tribe of Sephardic miners who adopted an Algonquin language for no obvious reason and forgot all about their original provenance (in addition to losing their Sephardic YDNA) really shouldn't be entertained, it's ludicrous. When he starts making up nonsense about Sequoyah I stopped reading and started skimming.

He writes this about an equally ridiculous Muslim claim, incidentally:

Once the speculation has been copied and pasted onto another internet blog, it becomes a fact.

Ironic!

What he's done is he's put together unrelated pieces of historical evidence, some true, some not, to concoct a fake picture that seems convincing even though there are no sources. The British encouraged Cherokee nationhood (somewhat true) and there is little evidence for the Cherokee before 1700 (somewhat true) and there were long-established Sephardic mining communities in central Georgia (a lie, and not even a particularly relevant one) therefore the Cherokee cannot have been Natives and must have been Sephardic/Iberian/Antolian (doesn't make sense even if the first thing was true).

Don't fall for it.

Isleño

09-02-2018, 10:43 PM

Isleño

09-02-2018, 11:11 PM

Cheers for accepting it. It is permissible to reject out-of-hand ludicrous opinions, like the pre-contact contact idea. It's absurd on the face of it. In the absence of genetic evidence (because no ancient Cherokee have been analysed that I know of and modern exemplars are obviously not admissible) we use historical and linguistic evidence and the evidence is strongly in favour of a local Algonquin origin.

As for your link: first, if this Thornton fellow wants to be taken seriously he should learn to write better. Second, it should also be obvious to anyone with a brain that no (open) non-Catholics would have been permitted to reside in the extremely limited Spanish settlements of the 16th century (as it was illegal), and for that reason amongst many others I reject the [uncited] argument he presents. It's very clear woo-peddling with little historic basis. After the first two paragraphs he's swallowing local myths and tall tales as fact. His opinion can be dismissed. I don't think he's a 'respected expert' on anything. The idea that the British created a tribe of Sephardic miners who adopted an Algonquin language for no obvious reason and forgot all about their original provenance (in addition to losing their Sephardic YDNA) really shouldn't be entertained, it's ludicrous. When he starts making up nonsense about Sequoyah I stopped reading and started skimming.

He writes this about an equally ridiculous Muslim claim, incidentally:

Ironic!

What he's done is he's put together unrelated pieces of historical evidence, some true, some not, to concoct a fake picture that seems convincing even though there are no sources. The British encouraged Cherokee nationhood (somewhat true) and there is little evidence for the Cherokee before 1700 (somewhat true) and there were long-established Sephardic mining communities in central Georgia (a lie, and not even a particularly relevant one) therefore the Cherokee cannot have been Natives and must have been Sephardic/Iberian/Antolian (doesn't make sense even if the first thing was true).

Don't fall for it.
Interesting opinion. So what do you make out of the DNA test results of the Cherokees of the Qualla Reservation of North Carolina conducted by DNA Consultants and their opinion of the results? Opinions on each please.

“In DNA Consultants nomenclature, this Cherokee profile matches our Native American Marker II, Thuya Gene, Jewish III Marker, European I Marker, Sub-Saharan African Marker II, First Peoples Gene, Akhenaten Gene, Jewish I Marker, Jewish IV Marker, Native American I Marker (.5), European II Marker and Amerind Gene. These matches suggest Cherokees are a mixed population with Native American, European, Egyptian, Jewish and African components.”

https://dnaconsultants.com/enrolled-cherokee-genetics/

“As can be seen, U emerges as the most common anomalous type of Cherokee, modally U5 (n=23, one of the oldest forms of U and MOST COMMON IN MIDDLE EASTERNERS AND EUROPEANS), followed by T and H. The expected haplogroups A-D account for only 7.4 percent of Cherokee lineages according to the DNA Consultants study, suggesting a very divergent type from other American Indians. Mesopotamian and Old European types (including Greek, Egyptian, Israeli, Levantine and others) represent 81.8 percent of lineages. (Here, X is grouped with Levantine, as no firm separation can be established between Old and New World types.)”

https://dnaconsultants.com/cherokee-unlike-other-indians/

“The level of haplogroup T in the Cherokee (26.9%) approximates the percentage for Egypt (25%), one of the only lands where T attains a major position among the various mitochondrial lineages. In Egypt, T is three times what it is in Europe. Haplogroup U in our sample is about the same as the Middle East in general. Its frequency is similar to that of Turkey and Greece. J has a frequency not unlike Europe (a little less than 10%). The only other place on earth where X is found at an elevated level apart from other American Indian groups like the Ojibwe is among the Druze in the Hills of Galilee in northern Israel and Lebanon. The work of Shlush et al. (2009) demonstrates that this region was in fact the center of the worldwide diffusion of haplogroup X.“

https://dnaconsultants.com/anomalous-mitochondrial-dna-lineages-in-the-cherokee/

Longbowman

09-02-2018, 11:17 PM

Interesting opinion. So what do you make out of the DNA test results of the Cherokees of the Qualla Reservation of North Carolina conducted by DNA Consultants and their opinion of the results? Opinions on each please.

“In DNA Consultants nomenclature, this Cherokee profile matches our Native American Marker II, Thuya Gene, Jewish III Marker, European I Marker, Sub-Saharan African Marker II, First Peoples Gene, Akhenaten Gene, Jewish I Marker, Jewish IV Marker, Native American I Marker (.5), European II Marker and Amerind Gene. These matches suggest Cherokees are a mixed population with Native American, European, Egyptian, Jewish and African components.”

https://dnaconsultants.com/enrolled-cherokee-genetics/

“As can be seen, U emerges as the most common anomalous type of Cherokee, modally U5 (n=23, one of the oldest forms of U and MOST COMMON IN MIDDLE EASTERNERS AND EUROPEANS), followed by T and H. The expected haplogroups A-D account for only 7.4 percent of Cherokee lineages according to the DNA Consultants study, suggesting a very divergent type from other American Indians. Mesopotamian and Old European types (including Greek, Egyptian, Israeli, Levantine and others) represent 81.8 percent of lineages. (Here, X is grouped with Levantine, as no firm separation can be established between Old and New World types.)”

https://dnaconsultants.com/cherokee-unlike-other-indians/

“The level of haplogroup T in the Cherokee (26.9%) approximates the percentage for Egypt (25%), one of the only lands where T attains a major position among the various mitochondrial lineages. In Egypt, T is three times what it is in Europe. Haplogroup U in our sample is about the same as the Middle East in general. Its frequency is similar to that of Turkey and Greece. J has a frequency not unlike Europe (a little less than 10%). The only other place on earth where X is found at an elevated level apart from other American Indian groups like the Ojibwe is among the Druze in the Hills of Galilee in northern Israel and Lebanon. The work of Shlush et al. (2009) demonstrates that this region was in fact the center of the worldwide diffusion of haplogroup X.“

https://dnaconsultants.com/anomalous-mitochondrial-dna-lineages-in-the-cherokee/

Come on guy, there's no 'Jewish gene,' we know this. They're talking out their arse. I doubt the Cherokee have [significant] Jewish or 'Egyptian' DNA for the sole reason that these populations were not common in the area. Related groups such as Southern Europeans and Maghrebis that carry much of the same DNA, sure.

U5 is super common amongst Europeans, probably means recent (past 400 years) European admixture. U5 is much more common amongst Europeans than Middle Easterners and even if it wasn't it is more likely to be European than Middle Easterner. Very disingenuous of them to present it otherwise.

In general those results are indicative of the obvious solution: today's Qualla Indians are <20% Native, 80% Old World (mostly European), but that's standard Eastern Seabord admixture.

YDNA T is not solely Middle Eastern, at least one US President had it and it is not uncommon throughout Europe. Yes, it's also Middle Eastern, so what? R1b is common in Cameroon. Clearly further proof of European admixture. If they mean MTDNA then T is common throughout both. My girlfriend is MTDNA T.

Either way these results need a lot more resolution! Who talks about 'YDNA H' without specifying? These are old, mostly out of date findings - but they still support the conventional understanding of European and minor African/MENA admixture in recent centuries.

Profileid

09-02-2018, 11:55 PM

How so? Explain your gripe.

saying cherokee are MENA is fucking ridiculous

Isleño

09-02-2018, 11:58 PM

Come on guy, there's no 'Jewish gene,' we know this. They're talking out their arse. I doubt the Cherokee have [significant] Jewish or 'Egyptian' DNA for the sole reason that these populations were not common in the area. Related groups such as Southern Europeans and Maghrebis that carry much of the same DNA, sure.

U5 is super common amongst Europeans, probably means recent (past 400 years) European admixture. U5 is much more common amongst Europeans than Middle Easterners and even if it wasn't it is more likely to be European than Middle Easterner. Very disingenuous of them to present it otherwise.

In general those results are indicative of the obvious solution: today's Qualla Indians are <20% Native, 80% Old World (mostly European), but that's standard Eastern Seabord admixture.

YDNA T is not solely Middle Eastern, at least one US President had it and it is not uncommon throughout Europe. Yes, it's also Middle Eastern, so what? R1b is common in Cameroon. Clearly further proof of European admixture. If they mean MTDNA then T is common throughout both. My girlfriend is MTDNA T.

Either way these results need a lot more resolution! Who talks about 'YDNA H' without specifying? These are old, mostly out of date findings - but they still support the conventional understanding of European and minor African/MENA admixture in recent centuries.
In my final opinion as it has evolved since the beginning of the thread, there would need to be a lot of uncovering of the settlements of the Appalachian area of the south, scanning for any confirmed Middle Eastern, Jewish or Turk settlements. I mean with confirmed proof of these settlement.

Thornton did give some information in a comment on the page I posted that would have to be confirmed through documentation if possible:

“In 1673, two explorers from Virginia, Gabrial Arthur and James Needham encountered two towns near where Knoxville sits today. One was built out of brick and occupied by Eastern Orthodox Christians. The other was built of wood and occupied by Africans and Arabs.”

And even if this would be true, it would be speculation to assume these were the ancestors of the Cherokees without more DNA testing on both Cherokees and any remains from those sites and comparing the results. But I’m not even sure if remains are available of such a mystical proposed would be site of MENAS.

My only estimation of a more credible solution would be to sequence the DNA for a pre-Columbian Cherokee. But even with this idea, I don’t know if the Cherokee existed as “the Cherokee” pre-1492 and not some other tribe that was later watered down by settlers to create “the Cherokee”. To my knowledge, such a possession of pre-Columbian DNA does not exist from a Cherokee.

My own analysis of the situation from what I’ve read thus far is that yes, the modern Cherokees are not a traditional Amerind tribe as among them, Amerind ancestry is very low and they are mainly West Eurasian. And that there could be possible origins from MENAS or others discussed here, but not enough of the info given in the links have verified sources to them. And without pre-Columbian data, also data from the remains of any possible settlements of MENAS or others mentioned here, I think verification of these mentioned origins could not be confirmed therefore we would have to accept it as only a possibility, nothing more.

However, I remain open-minded to any other information that maybe a case could be built for such through verified evidence of history and possible connection. But just as a judge or jury makes a decision to assume innocence or guilt in the midst of somewhat convincing but inconclusive evidence, one can only make such judgements at the moment.

But I admit some of the historic information given does sound plausible and verification of such history or settlement is needed to suggest if the history indeed could be the case. Even if there is no pre-Columbian DNA to compare to modern DNA, it makes for a great parallel of possibilities.

Isleño

09-03-2018, 12:02 AM

saying cherokee are MENA is fucking ridiculous

Well I kept an open mind in light of the information from possible historical settlement of the area known as the Cherokee homeland in regards to DNA test results of Cherokees tested at the Qualla Reservation. If you want to offer any information on Cherokees other than complaints, that would serve this thread better.

Profileid

09-03-2018, 12:03 AM

Well I kept an open mind in light of the information from possible historical settlement of the area known as the Cherokee homeland in regards to DNA test results of Cherokees tested at the Qualla Reservation. If you want to offer any information on Cherokees other than complaints, that would serve this thread better.

Don't tell me what to say fgt

Longbowman

09-03-2018, 12:06 AM

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 12:24 AM

The modern Cherokee have a very liberal acceptance policy, and you can be a Cherokee and be very minimally Cherokee by blood. For example, the current president of the 500,000+ member Cherokee Nation is 1/32 Cherokee, 31/32 white (although he did grow up on the reservation). However, the United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians insists on 1/4 Native American blood for membership (this can include non-Cherokee) and there are people who claim to be full-blooded Cherokee, quite a lot of them, actually. These are the people who should be sampled. The people in your links are very dishonest in the data they have opted to put forward and the manner they chose to present it.

The actual Needham exploration notes, as seen here (http://www.carolana.com/Carolina/Explorers/jamesneedham.html), directly contradict everything you've been told by these charlatans. Ie, Cherokees mentioned by name in historical documents dating to 1654 (over 50 years before Thornton pretends) as warring the settlers, no 'Orthodox settlements' or any non-Native towns in the region.

People lie, my man. These people are mostly (they even say so in the articles!) people who fancy themselves Cherokee, like Richmondbread, except they're mad enough to try to twist data to redefine the entire concept of being Native American to suit their purposes.

I think the conclusion should be evident: Cherokee Indians are, as conventional wisdom suggest, an Alogonquin people who have become (mostly) very admixed. Simples.
So you think that this is all coincidence? That, in addition to me already knowing of my Cherokee heritage (through family history/my great grandmother's name being Chief, etc.) and having it confirmed through DNA with markers such as Northeast Asia and of course Native American, that my family also has markers that Armenia and Turkey directly - which is in direct correlation with the info that Isleno shared in here?

@ Longbow

Also, I forgot to mention the specific part of the Middle East FTDNA found. "Asia Minor" , or "Anatolia"

These studies that Isleno found on't seem to be very far off at all. Read the bolded text here from Isleno's post. And look at my DNA results.

https://i.imgur.com/e6FwXnj.jpg

When you put it like that, indeed he looks like a regular Afram. It was even noted in one article that some black American populations on the East Coast of the USA had more Amerind than the Cherokees of Qualla Reservation in North Carolina.

But the thing that I think you are overlooking here is that most of the Cherokees in North Carolina are not Amerindian, but are a mixed people...many of them having European admixture and other admixtures like Middle Eastern, Jewish and possible Armenian and Turk. There seems to be a strong sense among some geneticists that it could be Jewish. Others think Egyptian or Iberian or Anatolian. It’s just a mystery.

So that average looking Afram result, given his family history, could indeed be 8%-10% Cherokee.

https://i.imgur.com/e6FwXnj.jpg

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 12:40 AM

And I am in no way trying to diminish or water down Indian history - I am very proud to be of Black Indian descent and wouldn't do anything to disrespect my great grandma Chief or her family's history, as I am sure that she didn't consider herself to be Middle Eastern in any capacity. But my family's DNA results, coupled with these findings, are very interesting.

Profileid

09-03-2018, 12:50 AM

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 01:04 AM

did you post any eurogens calcs?

I spent a lot of time using MLDP - someone suggested it's the best calc for people of predom. African descent.

Isleño

09-03-2018, 01:10 AM

Don't tell me what to say fgt
Surely you can offer the thread something more useful than insults right?

Profileid

09-03-2018, 01:11 AM

I spent a lot of time using MLDP - someone suggested it's the best calc for people of predom. African descent.

post eurogenes k13 and k36

İrle

09-03-2018, 01:31 AM

Surely you can offer the thread something more useful than insults right?

You are talking to the last Cherokee girl in Pennsylvania.

Longbowman

09-03-2018, 01:46 AM

So you think that this is all coincidence? That, in addition to me already knowing of my Cherokee heritage (through family history/my great grandmother's name being Chief, etc.) and having it confirmed through DNA with markers such as Northeast Asia and of course Native American, that my family also has markers that Armenia and Turkey directly - which is in direct correlation with the info that Isleno shared in here?

https://i.imgur.com/e6FwXnj.jpg

It's not coincidence. It's totally misrepresented data, verging on a lie. Your scores go absolutely no way to proving it. The most obvious explanation to you scoring minor middle eastern is that you have a middle eastern ancestor, as, as I have explained in detail (and you have not rebutted a single thing) the arguments presented in these blogs are deceitful.

To put it a bit more clearly: the average full blooded or 'full blooded' Cherokee would not score even as much middle eastern as you did.

Nonetheless your results are consistent with being perhaps 1/32 Cherokee as I said in my first post here and considering that the Cherokee nation accepts and accepted mixed people as citizens your most recent Cherokee ancestor could have lived even more recently than five generations ago as your DNA suggests.

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 01:59 AM

It's not coincidence. It's totally misrepresented data, verging on a lie. Your scores go absolutely no way to proving it. The most obvious explanation to you scoring minor middle eastern is that you have a middle eastern ancestor, as, as I have explained in detail (and you have not rebutted a single thing) the arguments presented in these blogs are deceitful.

To put it a bit more clearly: the average full blooded or 'full blooded' Cherokee would not score even as much middle eastern as you did.

Nonetheless your results are consistent with being perhaps 1/32 Cherokee as I said in my first post here and considering that the Cherokee nation accepts and accepted mixed people as citizens your most recent Cherokee ancestor could have lived even more recently than five generations ago as your DNA suggests.
I come from the Parker family of North Carolina. Parker was a pretty prominent surname among Native Americans back then.

Yes, I'm pretty sure my "100% Cherokee" relative isn't extremely distant. My great grandma's name was Chief and her brother's name was Badger (which is a Native spirit animal). So I knew that there , at the very least, were relatives not too far from me who knew who they were and wanted to honor it in some way.

I appreciate your input on this topic and I definitely appreciate your willingness to protect the genetic integrity of the Cherokees. I'm sure that you could imagine that it wasn't the easiest thing for me to swallow that Cherokees may not be very "Indian" at all. I didn't come in here with intent to push a Middle Eastern theory - just with an intent to proudly say that I am truly Cherokee. This new information kind of caught me off guard. But I am willing to hear all sides which seem to be worthwhile.

Isleno has been extremely helpful and I'm happy that you decided to engage in a real discussion with him, as opposed to the insults. He seems like such a sweet person. I appreciate everyone's efforts and put in here. This is a very interesting topic.

Longbowman

09-03-2018, 02:11 AM

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 02:24 AM

I have no doubt your great grandmother was Cherokee. However she was clearly not 100% native American and thus evidently had ancestors that were not Cherokee, no matter how distant. Indeed this is likely considering the Cherokees' complex history with intermarriage and of course the Cherokee freedmen. All these people would have been full members of the Cherokee nation but not genetically purely Cherokee. I've had similar experiences pushing back on my family tree, discovering that mizrakhi ancestors had Sephardic ancestors, Sephardic ancestors had Ashkenazi ancestors and so on. Have you considered that it may be that your Cherokee ancestors were themselves part sub Saharan African? Even today there are many Cherokee who are mostly or even entirely black.

Most people called parker are not Cherokee BTW. It may be that many Cherokees are called parker but being called parker does not prove Cherokee ancestry or even indicate it.
My great grandmother was definitely mixed with Cherokee. Not 100% , no way. I wouldn't even say she was very close to it. She was a Black person with Cherokee heritage. Like myself.

Her given name "Chief" and her brother's name "Badger" obviously gave hint to the possibility of the story being true. But that just means her family knew who they were and wanted to honor it.

Biggest proof to me is the DNA, not so much the surnames.

I took the test and got my grandmother tested because I wanted closure. Just wanted to get to the bottom of it and find out. Pretty cool to see those markers are actually there.

I honestly doubted the story, although my grandmother never made a huge deal about it at all.

Longbowman

09-03-2018, 02:36 AM

Yeah a lot of people have stories that are just stories about Cherokee and other ancestries. Native american and Sephardic Jew are big ones.

Can you post your grandmother's results?

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 02:43 AM

Yeah a lot of people have stories that are just stories about Cherokee and other ancestries. Native american and Sephardic Jew are big ones.

Can you post your grandmother's results?

Those were her FTDNA results I posted, here were mine:

https://i.imgur.com/Gr7beXG.jpg

Isleño

09-03-2018, 02:45 AM

I come from the Parker family of North Carolina. Parker was a pretty prominent surname among Native Americans back then.

Yes, I'm pretty sure my "100% Cherokee" relative isn't extremely distant. My great grandma's name was Chief and her brother's name was Badger (which is a Native spirit animal). So I knew that there , at the very least, were relatives not too far from me who knew who they were and wanted to honor it in some way.

I appreciate your input on this topic and I definitely appreciate your willingness to protect the genetic integrity of the Cherokees. I'm sure that you could imagine that it wasn't the easiest thing for me to swallow that Cherokees may not be very "Indian" at all. I didn't come in here with intent to push a Middle Eastern theory - just with an intent to proudly say that I am truly Cherokee. This new information kind of caught me off guard. But I am willing to hear all sides which seem to be worthwhile.

Isleno has been extremely helpful and I'm happy that you decided to engage in a real discussion with him, as opposed to the insults. He seems like such a sweet person. I appreciate everyone's efforts and put in here. This is a very interesting topic.
In my opinion, these things we’ve discussed are possible. But whether they are probable is another notion. I think maybe we should do more research before we come to a conclusion. Maybe we were both a bit premature in our conclusions. I admit, earlier we were very enthused about possibly finding out the Cherokee could be significantly MENA. I think the DNA test results of the Qualla Reservation are indeed real results and haplogroups U and T were found in great abundance. But I do wish we had the subclade of those as it would be easier to point a finger.

I do think something that does catch my eye as being a bit out of the ordinary for Europeans (relating to the European admixture in modern Cherokees) is that the frequency of haplogroup T is much higher than its frequencies in Europe and is closer to what we find among Egyptians rather than Europeans. Additionally, DNA Consultants matched a Cherokee profile to genes they have on file including Egyptian genes such as the Akhenaten and Thuya genes. I’m not suggesting the Cherokee are Egyptians, but possibly there is some of that ancestry there. Whether it’s direct or indirect through a European or European Jewish colonial settlers or some other population is another matter in itself and a mystery indeed.

The company tested 63 Cherokees, and another 92 as well as used a sample of 67 from a peer-reviewed genetic study and I agree with LBM that the full blooded Cherokees should have been the ones tested. And in my opinion, they should have been the only ones tested. But I assume that there were at least some full bloods among that those tested, so they would have probably been partially represented by the number tested.

DNA Consultants said the Cherokee profile matched several Jewish related genes, which LBM has said there is no Jewish gene. I don’t know, maybe there is a set of genes in their database associated with Jews that they are calling this. Not sure there. I do see the study says that an 18 marker panel was used, so it could be several genes identified as being most associated with Jews. Whatever the case may be, the DNA from the Cherokee profile matched the named Jewish markers and the Egyptian markers in their database. This information coupled with over 1/4 of Cherokees having haplogroup T, much higher than anything in Europe and closer to Middle Eastern populations, this raises red flags to me, that I can not overlook. However, we don’t have verified proof at the moment linking these genes with any population, so I can’t make anything of it. We really need autosomal results with ADMIXTURE runs and PCA plots like in a peer-reviewed study. So it probably is premature to make the assumptions and conclusions we did.

But it does seem fishy :)

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 02:47 AM

And yes although I love my grandmother to bits, EVERYONE is part Cherokee. So although my grandmother's name was Chief, I still had my doubts.

So amazing to know that I have ancient history right here in America.

As an African-American, I know VERY little to nothing about tribes I came from in Africa for various reason. So it's nice to at least know which tribe I come from right here on the soil I walk on every day. Pretty cool.

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 02:51 AM

In my opinion, these things we’ve discussed are possible. But whether they are probable is another notion. I think maybe we should do more research before we come to a conclusion. Maybe we were both a bit premature in our conclusions. I admit, earlier we were very enthused about possibly finding out the Cherokee could be significantly MENA. I think the DNA test results of the Qualla Reservation are indeed real results and haplogroups U and T were found in great abundance. But I do wish we had the subclade of those as it would be easier to point a finger.

I do think something that does catch my eye as being a bit out of the ordinary for Europeans (relating to the European admixture in modern Cherokees) is that the frequency of haplogroup T is much higher than its frequencies in Europe and is closer to what we find among Egyptians rather than Europeans. Additionally, DNA Consultants matched a Cherokee profile to genes they have on file including Egyptian genes such as the Akhenaten and Thuya genes. I’m not suggesting the Cherokee are Egyptians, but possibly there is some of that ancestry there. Whether it’s direct or indirect through a European or European Jewish colonial settlers or some other population is another matter in itself and a mystery indeed.

The company tested 63 Cherokees, and another 92 as well as used a sample of 67 from a peer-reviewed genetic study and I agree with LBM that the full blooded Cherokees should have been the ones tested. And in my opinion, they should have been the only ones tested. But I assume that there were at least some full bloods among that those tested, so they would have probably been partially represented by the number tested.

DNA Consultants said the Cheroke profile matched several Jewish related genes, which LBM has said there is no Jewish gene. I don’t know, maybe there is a set of genes in their database associated with Jews that they are calling this. Not sure there. I do see the study says that an 18 marker panel was used, so it could be several genes identified as being most associated with Jews. Whatever the case may be, the DNA from the Cherokee profile matched the named Jewish markers and the Egyptian markers in their database. This information coupled with over 1/4 of Cherokees having haplogroup T, much higher than anything in Europe and closer to Middle Eastern populations, this raises red flags to me, that I can not overlook. However, we don’t have verified proof at the moment linking these genes with any population, so I can’t make anything of it. We really need autosomal results with ADMIXTURE runs and PCA plots like in a peer-reviewed study. So it probably is premature to make the assumptions and conclusions we did.

But it does seem fishy :)

That's fair.

At the very least, I wouldn't say it's wild to conclude that Middle Easterners and Cherokees seemed to have intermixed with one another to some extent - but maybe it was more modern than some researchers have concluded. I don't think it's a coincidence that I have those markers and I am of Cherokee heritage.

Doesn't mean that Cherokees ARE Middle Easterners themselves, but I think a more fair and reasonable conclusion at this point would be that there were definitely close relations between the Cherokee and ME's.

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 03:08 AM

Are there any other Cherokees that post here, guys?

Isleño

09-03-2018, 03:09 AM

That's fair.

At the very least, I wouldn't say it's wild to conclude that Middle Easterners and Cherokees seemed to have intermixed with one another to some extent - but maybe it was more modern than some researchers have concluded. I don't think it's a coincidence that I have those markers and I am of Cherokee heritage.

Doesn't mean that Cherokees ARE Middle Easterners themselves, but I think a more fair and reasonable conclusion at this point would be that there were definitely close relations between the Cherokee and ME's.
I’m puzzled as well. It may be that some of the Europeans that mixed with the original Cherokees that were fully Amerind could have been European Jews. This could be a possibility. Also, there were Spaniards and Portuguese in the area of the Appalachians, so any of them could have had Jewish ancestry or be Jewish converts to Christianity or from a family that converted to Christianity. I think these scenarios are highly possible. There are verified accounts of Spaniards and Portuguese in North Carolina in the 1600’s. And who is to say that none of Moorish descendants found their way to the US south through the Spanish and Portuguese? So many possibilities.

I do stick to my original conclusion that the Cherokees started out as Amerinds and became watered down over time until today that Cherokees are highly admixed. Even LBM agreed with me on this. It’s just the origin of the genes that’s the problem.

As for ancient origins, it might be a far fetched hypothesis and unless more proof was offered to make this more believable, maybe we should stay away from that.

I think this thread has been a learning experience for all of us concerning the Cherokee people. These people are one of the least investigated groups by myself and maybe others here.

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 03:18 AM

I’m puzzled as well. It may be that some of the Europeans that mixed with the original Cherokees that were fully Amerind could have been European Jews. This could be a possibility. Also, there were Spaniards and Portuguese in the area of the Appalachians, so any of them could have had Jewish ancestry or be Jewish converts to Christianity or from a family that converted to Christianity. I think these scenarios are highly possible. There are verified accounts of Spaniards and Portuguese in North Carolina in the 1600’s. And who is to say that none of Moorish descendants found their way to the US south through the Spanish and Portuguese? So many possibilities.

I do stick to my original conclusion that the Cherokees started out as Amerinds and became watered down over time until today that Cherokees are highly admixed. Even LBM agreed with me on this. It’s just the origin of the genes that’s the problem.

As for ancient origins, it might be a far fetched hypothesis and unless more proof was offered to make this more believable, maybe we should stay away from that.

I think this thread has been a learning experience for all of us concerning the Cherokee people. These people are one of the least investigated groups by myself and maybe others here.

Makes sense. From what I remember about the Cherokees - we were more likely to engage in mixing than other tribes. Both with Blacks and non-Blacks/Whites.
Which obviously would explain how my Black ancestors came into contact with the tribe.

But it seems like there was way more White/non-Black admixing that occurred.

My family definitely seemed to have assimilated at some point. My great grandma Chief was very sure to let my grandmother know that we are Cherokee, but there didn't seem to be a lot of emphasis placed on the culture, etc.

But I guess when you're an identifiably Black woman raising 12 kids in Jim Crow south, there's not much time to focus on your heritage.
Plus, being "Indian" was nowhere near as acceptable or "sexy" as it is today. Seems like she almost whispered it to my Grandmother and just moved on.

Profileid

09-03-2018, 03:20 AM

post eurogenes k13

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 03:22 AM

post eurogenes k13
North_Atlantic 6.42
Baltic 4.97
West_Med 2.12
West_Asian 1.15
East_Med 1.97
Red_Sea 1.52
South_Asian 1.41
East_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian 1.83
Oceanian 0.27
Northeast_African 5.59
Sub-Saharan 72.75

Isleño

09-03-2018, 03:30 AM

Makes sense. From what I remember about the Cherokees - we were more likely to engage in mixing than other tribes. Both with Blacks and non-Blacks/Whites.
Which obviously would explain how my Black ancestors came into contact with the tribe.

But it seems like there was way more White/non-Black admixing that occurred.

My family definitely seemed to have assimilated at some point. My great grandma Chief was very sure to let my grandmother know that we are Cherokee, but there didn't seem to be a lot of emphasis placed on the culture, etc.

But I guess when you're an identifiably Black woman raising 12 kids in Jim Crow south, there's not much time to focus on your heritage.
Plus, being "Indian" was nowhere near as acceptable or "sexy" as it is today. Seems like she almost whispered it to my Grandmother and just moved on.
Interesting story about your great grandmother and grandmother. I meet whites and blacks often the tell me they are part Cherokee. As I’ve said before, I met a couple that told me they were actual Indians, which was hilarious to me when they didn’t look a lick of Indian. But I’ve met plenty of southerners that told me they were part Cherokee. Maybe some of it is true, maybe most of it is bullshit or just to far back to get any blood. Who knows. It’s just strange now how,Amerinds are romanticized in the USA Today when they were despised before. I live in Louisiana and I often meet Cajuns that are mixed with Choctaw Indian, of which I believe it’s true because they look like mestizos. Most Cajuns however are not mixed race and are white.

But at least you have around 3% real Amerind ancestry. It’s small, but it’s a part of what makes you and without it, you would not be here. Look at the Cherokee chief, he’s 1/32 real Amerind, just like you. I’m sure other Amerind tribes scoff at that, but Cherokees embrace it.

Isleño

09-03-2018, 03:38 AM

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 03:41 AM

Interesting story about your great grandmother and grandmother. I meet whites and blacks often the tell me they are part Cherokee. As I’ve said before, I met a couple that told me they were actual Indians, which was hilarious to me when they didn’t look a lick of Indian. But I’ve met plenty of southerners that told me they were part Cherokee. Maybe some of it is true, maybe most of it is bullshit or just to far back to get any blood. Who knows. It’s just strange now how,Amerinds are romanticized in the USA Today when they were despised before. I live in Louisiana and I often meet Cajuns that are mixed with Choctaw Indian, of which I believe it’s true because they look like mestizos. Most Cajuns however are not mixed race and are white.

But at least you have around 3% real Amerind ancestry. It’s small, but it’s a part of what makes you and without it, you would not be here. Look at the Cherokee chief, he’s 1/32 real Amerind, just like you. I’m sure other Amerind tribes scoff at that, but Cherokees embrace it.

Yeah, I'm proud.

And I agree. Before , Indians were looked down on and almost treated worse than post-slavery Blacks were.

Now , everybody says "I got some Indian up in me" lol.

It's an amazing history.

I feel most connected to it because I know exactly who it comes from - my great Grandma Chief. I've always felt connected with her because although she died before I was born, her beautiful artwork and pottery is all around my grandmother's house. I always knew who she was.

So if this is part of who she was, I'm proud to say it's part of who I am too. I'm sure she told my grandmother because she didn't want us to lose that piece of our history. My grandmother told me, and although I had some doubts and had to get a DNA test lol, I'm glad it's true and I intend to keep it alive.

I almost felt bad for doubting my great grandmother. But I just needed to know for myself. I think it's the tribe maybe. "Cherokee". So cliche lol But I mean we are from North Carolina so it should have made sense to me. lol I didn't know much about the tribe history or origins, though.

I don't plan on putting on an Indian costume or suddenly forgetting about my Blackness LOL, but I definitely plan on honoring it and learning more about the culture when I have time. Definitely something I want to pass on to my kids when I have some.

Isleño

09-03-2018, 03:42 AM

North_Atlantic 6.42
Baltic 4.97
West_Med 2.12
West_Asian 1.15
East_Med 1.97
Red_Sea 1.52
South_Asian 1.41
East_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian 1.83
Oceanian 0.27
Northeast_African 5.59
Sub-Saharan 72.75
What is the oracle-4 for this calc

Isleño

09-03-2018, 03:46 AM

Yeah, I'm proud.

And I agree. Before , Indians were looked down on and almost treated worse than post-slavery Blacks were.

Now , everybody says "I got some Indian up in me" lol.

It's an amazing history.

I feel most connected to it because I know exactly who it comes from - my great Grandma Chief. I've always felt connected with her because although she died before I was born, her beautiful artwork and pottery is all around my grandmother's house. I always knew who she was.

So if this is part of who she was, I'm proud to say it's part of who I am too. I'm sure she told my grandmother because she didn't want us to lose that piece of our history. My grandmother told me, and although I had some doubts and had to get a DNA test lol, I'm glad it's true and I intend to keep it alive.

I almost felt bad for doubting my great grandmother. But I just needed to know for myself. I think it's the tribe maybe. "Cherokee". So cliche lol But I mean we are from North Carolina so it should have made sense to me. lol I didn't know much about the tribe history or origins, though.

I don't plan on putting on an Indian costume or suddenly forgetting about my Blackness LOL, but I definitely plan on honoring it and learning more about the culture when I have time. Definitely something I want to pass on to my kids when I have some.
I think it’s a shame what has happened to the original Amerind Cherokee. The Cherokee today are all mainly whites or blacks with a small amount of Amerind ancestry. I wonder what do the other tribes think of them.

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 03:47 AM

Some of the artwork from my great Grandma Chief <3
It's all around my grandma's house lol.

She wrote "CH D" on the bottom of each piece she designed. Shortened version of her first and surname. Was a super creative/artistic woman.

http://i65.tinypic.com/15rxzly.jpg

http://i66.tinypic.com/346p63b.jpg

http://i67.tinypic.com/2nhm03q.jpg

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 03:50 AM

What is the oracle-4 for this calc

1 Mandenka + Serbian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.712037
2 Mandenka + Serbian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.712037
3 Bantu_S.W. + Serbian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.720852
4 Bantu_S.W. + Serbian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.720852
5 Hungarian + Mandenka + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.745993
6 Hungarian + Mandenka + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.745993
7 Bantu_S.W. + Hungarian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.809628
8 Bantu_S.W. + Hungarian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.809628
9 Mandenka + Moldavian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.919393
10 Mandenka + Moldavian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.919393
11 Mandenka + Romanian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.948195
12 Mandenka + Romanian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.948195
13 Bantu_S.E. + Serbian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.949194
14 Bantu_S.E. + Serbian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.949194
15 Bantu_S.W. + Romanian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.958481
16 Bantu_S.W. + Romanian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.958481
17 Bantu_S.W. + Moldavian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.961473
18 Bantu_S.W. + Moldavian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.961473
19 Bantu_S.E. + Hungarian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 6.041468
20 Bantu_S.E. + Hungarian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 6.041468

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 03:55 AM

I think it’s a shame what has happened to the original Amerind Cherokee. The Cherokee today are all mainly whites or blacks with a small amount of Amerind ancestry. I wonder what do the other tribes think of them.
I wonder how it feels to completely label yourself as "Indian" when it's a fraction of who you are.

But I guess it makes sense - there are some Black/White biracial people who identify as just "Black" even though they're 50/50 White and Black.

But honestly I think that's mostly due to racism and the history of the one drop rule. They're way more easily accepted into Black circles and can easily identify as Black with no issue, but most Whites will never allow a clearly mixed person to get away with labeling themselves as just "White". No matter how close they were to their White family.

So they have an excuse to discard the other half of their ancestry. MAny of them cannot bring themselves to associate themselves with Whiteness in America - especially if the White parent had no part in their upbringing.

I dunno. America is just weird as fuck. lol

Isleño

09-03-2018, 04:07 AM

1 Mandenka + Serbian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.712037
2 Mandenka + Serbian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.712037
3 Bantu_S.W. + Serbian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.720852
4 Bantu_S.W. + Serbian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.720852
5 Hungarian + Mandenka + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.745993
6 Hungarian + Mandenka + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.745993
7 Bantu_S.W. + Hungarian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.809628
8 Bantu_S.W. + Hungarian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.809628
9 Mandenka + Moldavian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.919393
10 Mandenka + Moldavian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.919393
11 Mandenka + Romanian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.948195
12 Mandenka + Romanian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.948195
13 Bantu_S.E. + Serbian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.949194
14 Bantu_S.E. + Serbian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.949194
15 Bantu_S.W. + Romanian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.958481
16 Bantu_S.W. + Romanian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.958481
17 Bantu_S.W. + Moldavian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.961473
18 Bantu_S.W. + Moldavian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 5.961473
19 Bantu_S.E. + Hungarian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 6.041468
20 Bantu_S.E. + Hungarian + Yoruban + Yoruban @ 6.041468
In this scenario, it looks like the Serbian, Moldovian would be the equivalent to,some sort of Western European, maybe British but with that Amerind pushing it toward Moldovians and Serbians. I’d have to call compare them on the spreadsheet.

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 04:17 AM

In this scenario, it looks like the Serbian, Moldovian would be the equivalent to,some sort of Western European, maybe British but with that Amerind pushing it toward Moldovians and Serbians. I’d have to call compare them on the spreadsheet.

That's what I figured.

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 04:20 AM

MDLP World-22

1 Sub-Saharian 74.1
2 Near_East 6.02
3 North-East-European 5.43
4 Atlantic_Mediterranean_Neolithic 3.91
5 Pygmy 3.07
6 West-Asian 2.45
7 North-Amerind 1.76
8 South-African 1.15
9 Mesoamerican 0.61
10 Indo-Iranian 0.58
11 South-America_Amerind 0.46
12 Austronesian 0.25
13 Melanesian 0.12
14 Arctic-Amerind 0.09

1 84% Lemba (derived) + 16% Romania (derived) @ 3.44
2 84.1% Lemba (derived) + 15.9% Bulgarian (derived) @ 3.54
3 84.2% Lemba (derived) + 15.8% Macedonian (derived) @ 3.57
4 84.1% Lemba (derived) + 15.9% Gagauz (derived) @ 3.59
5 84.3% Lemba (derived) + 15.7% Serbian (derived) @ 3.61
6 84.3% Lemba (derived) + 15.7% Montenegrin (derived) @ 3.62
7 83.8% Lemba (derived) + 16.2% Colville (derived) @ 3.63
8 84.5% Lemba (derived) + 15.5% Bosnian (derived) @ 3.8
9 84.5% Lemba (derived) + 15.5% German-South (derived) @ 3.84
10 84.6% Lemba (derived) + 15.4% Hungarian (derived) @ 3.87
11 77.9% Lemba (derived) + 22.1% Lumbee (derived) @ 3.9
12 84.2% Lemba (derived) + 15.8% Swiss (derived) @ 3.91
13 84.6% Lemba (derived) + 15.4% Croatian (derived) @ 3.94
14 84.6% Lemba (derived) + 15.4% Austrian (derived) @ 3.94
15 84.7% Lemba (derived) + 15.3% German_V (derived) @ 3.96
16 84.4% Lemba (derived) + 15.6% Italian_North (derived) @ 4.03
17 84.7% Lemba (derived) + 15.3% German (derived) @ 4.05
18 84.7% Lemba (derived) + 15.3% CEU (derived) @ 4.08
19 84.7% Lemba (derived) + 15.3% CEU_V (derived) @ 4.09
20 84.8% Lemba (derived) + 15.2% Slovenian (derived) @ 4.12

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 04:35 AM

edit

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 04:46 AM

edit

Longbowman

09-03-2018, 07:59 AM

Are there any other Cherokees that post here, guys?

Allegedly.

Your own ftnda results also clearly show minor native American so clearly not just family tales (although ftdna also things I have traces of it and I don't).

If you did some research and proved you had an ancestor on the Dawes roll you might be able to apply for membership of the Cherokee Nation (of Oklahoma)

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 01:18 PM

Allegedly.

Your own ftnda results also clearly show minor native American so clearly not just family tales (although ftdna also things I have traces of it and I don't).

If you did some research and proved you had an ancestor on the Dawes roll you might be able to apply for membership of the Cherokee Nation (of Oklahoma)
I think my family made a conscious decision to stay in North Carolina and assimilate.

Many Natives didn't want to sign onto the Rolls for many reasons, and I could imagine that it was pretty easy for my ancestors to hide their Indian heritage under their Blackness.
Pretty sure they were mixed bloods by that era.

I'll try to search and see if there's anything I can find. But membership isn't as important to me as just knowing and honoring my heritage.

I'm so proud to be African-American and so proud to be Cherokee.

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 01:40 PM

Here's a picture of me without my glasses.

Was taken during a photoshoot

https://i.imgur.com/TtiB24E.jpg

Longbowman

09-03-2018, 02:59 PM

It might be the makeup but you certainly look admixed.

I get you about the membership of a tribe - you weren't raised on the rez, so to speak, so why bother getting it now, I suppose.

Herb3.

09-03-2018, 03:19 PM

It might be the makeup but you certainly look admixed.

I get you about the membership of a tribe - you weren't raised on the rez, so to speak, so why bother getting it now, I suppose.

In everyday life , people usually assume I am a mixed Latino of some sort.

I always identified as Black but as I got older, people began questioning my identity. I always knew of my great grandma Chief but I never was hellbent on telling everyone I'm part Indian or anything. I was pretty OK with being "just Black". But maybe that's because my grandmother never made a big deal about it. She never was walking around in costumes, or trying to speak the language or, trying to find the nearest Pow Wow lol.

But people usually see me as mixed. People's perception of me helped me embrace all of my background. If I have a diverse background and people can see it, why not identify with it?

And you got it correct, regarding my culture. I love Afram culture. The music, the unity, the "flava" lol ....I'm not trading in my R&B/hip-hop anytime soon lol. Or even partially replacing it. I don't see myself getting VERY deep into Native culture, but I am more than open to learning more about it and maybe taking a few morsels from it.

Profileid

09-04-2018, 01:30 AM

This is awesome. We've never had a black goth dude on TA before.

Herb3.

09-04-2018, 02:16 AM

This is awesome. We've never had a black goth dude on TA before.

lol!! :cool:

Herb3.

09-05-2018, 05:53 PM

I was wondering where "Oceania" came from in my grandmother's FTDNA results - thought it was pretty random. Had a feeling it could be part of the NA , but never heard of that region being associated with Natives.

But it happens to be another specific region found to be aligned with us.

http://time.com/3964634/native-american-origin-theory/

The researchers looked at sequenced DNA from bones as well as the sequenced genomes of Native American volunteers with heritage from not only the Americas but also Siberia and Oceania, says according to Rasmus Nielsen, a computational geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley, and one of the authors of the study.

https://i.imgur.com/xjJeuc5.jpg?1

Longbowman

09-05-2018, 05:58 PM

There's some evidence of genetic interchange between Polynesia and northern South America. Thor Heyerdahl proved the passage was possible too. Of course he was also batshit insane.

Isleño

09-06-2018, 12:13 AM

In everyday life , people usually assume I am a mixed Latino of some sort.

I always identified as Black but as I got older, people began questioning my identity. I always knew of my great grandma Chief but I never was hellbent on telling everyone I'm part Indian or anything. I was pretty OK with being "just Black". But maybe that's because my grandmother never made a big deal about it. She never was walking around in costumes, or trying to speak the language or, trying to find the nearest Pow Wow lol.

But people usually see me as mixed. People's perception of me helped me embrace all of my background. If I have a diverse background and people can see it, why not identify with it?

And you got it correct, regarding my culture. I love Afram culture. The music, the unity, the "flava" lol ....I'm not trading in my R&B/hip-hop anytime soon lol. Or even partially replacing it. I don't see myself getting VERY deep into Native culture, but I am more than open to learning more about it and maybe taking a few morsels from it.
I watched this video of the Snowbird Cherokees in an isolated area, away from the Qualla Reservation and many of the people in this video has obvious Native American ancestry. I’d even say some look full blooded and others look mixed blood. These people don’t look like Middle Easterners to me. This leads me to question the DNA findings by DNA Consultants. I see that DNA Consultants did not include the subclades for haplogroups U and T to tell if there is in fact a Middle East connection or a European connection. And even through they got like 7% for Amerind haplogroups, I don’t think they tested Cherokees that look like the Snowbird Cherokees and they probably tested people that look more like the white looking guy from the Qualla Reservation that was in the video or like that Cherokee tribal youth council picture I posted earlier. Judging by that picture I posted of the Cherokee tribal youth of the Qualla Boundary, they looked like white people and they do not look like the Snowbird Cherokees that look like actual Amerinds and mixed Amerinds. However, I did see a couple Cherokees from Qualla Boundary that did look Amerind, so the results from DNA Consultants is a bit confusing.

So this leads me to believe since there are no autosomal results and no subclades posted on the test results of the Qualla Cherokee, nor are the results part of a peer-reviewed study, that they may just be watered down with colonial and modern European ancestry and may only have very small amounts of actual Amerind. Their chief is 3% Amerind for example. Being there are Cherokees that look like actual Amerinds among the Snowbird Cherokees and I did see a couple from Qualla Boundary, I’d say they were Amerind pre-1492 and they were Amerind after that until watered down with European, and in the case of the Qualla Cherokees, watered down to the point they look more like whites than Amerinds. To me that’s not even an Indian.

But Snowbird Cherokees actually look Amerindian. Here’s the video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YyDtu4JxIk0

Herb3.

09-06-2018, 01:17 AM

I watched this video of the Snowbird Cherokees in an isolated area, away from the Qualla Reservation and many of the people in this video has obvious Native American ancestry. I’d even say some look full blooded and others look mixed blood. These people don’t look like Middle Easterners to me. This leads me to question the DNA findings by DNA Consultants. I see that DNA Consultants did not include the subclades for haplogroups U and T to tell if there is in fact a Middle East connection or a European connection. And even through they got like 7% for Amerind haplogroups, I don’t think they tested Cherokees that look like the Snowbird Cherokees and they probably tested people that look more like the white looking guy from the Qualla Reservation that was in the video or like that Cherokee tribal youth council picture I posted earlier. Judging by that picture I posted of the Cherokee tribal youth of the Qualla Boundary, they looked like white people and they do not look like the Snowbird Cherokees that look like actual Amerinds and mixed Amerinds. However, I did see a couple Cherokees from Qualla Boundary that did look Amerind, so the results from DNA Consultants is a bit confusing.

So this leads me to believe since there are no autosomal results and no subclades posted on the test results of the Qualla Cherokee, nor are the results part of a peer-reviewed study, that they may just be watered down with colonial and modern European ancestry and may only have very small amounts of actual Amerind. Their chief is 3% Amerind for example. Being there are Cherokees that look like actual Amerinds among the Snowbird Cherokees and I did see a couple from Qualla Boundary, I’d say they were Amerind pre-1492 and they were Amerind after that until watered down with European, and in the case of the Qualla Cherokees, watered down to the point they look more like whites than Amerinds. To me that’s not even an Indian.

But Snowbird Cherokees actually look Amerindian. Here’s the video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YyDtu4JxIk0

Oh wow, yeah I do clearly see the Amerindian influence heavily.

The Cherokee Nation's FORMER Chief looked Amerindian influenced.

Clearly mixed with White to a degree but also clearly mixed with Native.

http://news.unca.edu/sites/default/files/news_images/smith%2C%20chad%20cropped.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/ChadSmithByPhilKonstantin.jpg/1024px-ChadSmithByPhilKonstantin.jpg