GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2007-03 > 1174610229


From: Bonnie Schrack <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] mtDNA of H in Native American
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:37:09 -0400


Hi Cheryl,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

> There is nothing sinister about the efforts to "silence dissent and
> quash further research" regarding Pre-Columbian Atlantic crossings.
> Here are a few excerpts from my research.
>
> “Following the discovery of a series of curious artifacts, including a
> few ancient coins, interest in pre-Columbian cultural diffusionism
> mushroomed throughout the United States. Articles that seemed to
> suggest the cultural innovations of the “New” World originated in
> the “Old” World (European or more recently Extra-terrestrial) gained
> popularity. To many this implied that the Native Americans were
> incapable of developing a culture as sophisticated as the Aztec,
> Mayan, Inca, and North American Mound-Builders. Organizations like the
> Smithsonian Institute fortified their conservative position on the
> issue in part to shield the integrity of Native American culture.”
>
> “The battle lines of the debate were first drawn by Cyrus Thomas in
> the 1890’s when the American Bureau of Ethnology struggled to separate
> fact from fanciful theories on the origins of the Native Americans.
> Thomas, a stern pragmatist, absolutely opposed the capricious,
> baseless theories proposed for the origins of the Native Americans. It
> can be argued from the evidence of Professor Thomas’ previous works
> that he entered the positions of director of the mound excavation
> project with the determined goal of disproving those “thousand and one
> wild theories and romances.” The two prevailing theories were that the
> Native Americans were derived from refugees either of the “Lost
> Tribes of Israel” or from the “lost civilization of Atlantis.” Thomas
> opposed both suppositions.”
>
> “An account might be honest or mendacious, but we rarely have
> irrefutable proof to classify it as fraudulent. The same artifacts
> seem to stimulate conflicting schemas. The most apposite finds, of
> course, are those that fit most effortlessly into the model that is
> being promoted by one side or the other. Both treat ambiguous evidence
> as if it matches their specific pattern. Discordant data tends to be
> ignored, distorted, or rejected. Yet, any system of classification
> that ignores the anomalies risks forfeiting confidence. In that these
> coins are anachronistic, they fit into such an anomalous category.”
>
> “The Olaf Kyre coin was found during an excavation of a Viking
> settlement on the coast of Maine. It has been confirmed and published
> as authentic. It should be noted that this is the only coin from this
> study that is accepted as a legitimate “Old” World pre-Columbian coin
> found in the “New” World.”

I admire your very well-written work here. Cheryl, I have no argument
with the idea that some Viking settlements were made in North America,
from which a few people probably survived and joined Native American
peoples. That isn't really controversial at all, as far as I know. That
such a coin would be found doesn't surprise me at all. What I'm
referring to are theories that a substantial population of Europeans
made it over the Atlantic and formed one of the bases of the Native
American population.

For years, I have felt very frustrated by the popularity of the theories
or fantasies you allude to here:

> Articles that seemed to suggest the cultural innovations of the “New”
> World originated in the “Old” World (European or more recently
> Extra-terrestrial) gained popularity. To many this implied that the
> Native Americans were incapable of developing a culture as
> sophisticated as the Aztec, Mayan, Inca, and North American
> Mound-Builders.

I studied the Maya in-depth for a number of years in Central America,
and it has always pained and distressed me to hear people attributing
the great works of their civilization to extra-terrestrials, as if the
people living in Guatemala and Mexico now were not capable of such
highly developed cultural achievements.

But I digress. I'm well aware that neither Lawrence nor anyone on this
list is talking about extra-terrestrials. But I have seen some
tendencies to want to give Europeans a role in ancient North America,
regardless of contrary evidence. I wouldn't want to try to speculate
about the motivations, except that people have a hard time believing
that anything worthwhile could take place without European involvement,
but Lawrence would be the last person I would expect to promote those
ideas.

> I am not a diffusionist, but there does seem to be a long established
> policy to "silence dissent and quash further research" on this issue.
> The mtHaplogroup X among the Northern Native American tribes might
> well be from female survivors of the lost Viking settlement.

I just have to disagree that there is any "policy" of quashing dissent,
since you yourself have outlined how it has simply been a matter of
scholars countering wild-eyed notions about outsiders from Atlantis, the
Lost Tribes, etc., being given credit for Native American cultural
achievements, by putting forward the concrete evidence. Genetic evidence
has been very helpful in this regard, for example, making it impossible
to claim that there are Native Americans who have an Israelite DNA
profile such as would be expected in a Lost Tribe.

As far as mtDNA haplogroup X, those who propose such ideas about it
coming to America from Europe usually seem not to be those who have
actually studied haplogroup X and its subclades. From what I understand,
there are very distinctive mutations that make it clear whether a person
belongs to a European or Native American branch of X. The phylogeny is
getting more developed all the time, and unless someone on the list
knows more and can show evidence that it's otherwise, I would say that
the increasing resolution of the tree is making it harder to talk about
a fuzzy kind of X that would embrace European and Native American
lineages. Also, the broad area covered by populations bearing X mtDNA
would not be compatible with the relatively late time during which the
Vikings arrived; there would not have been sufficient time for their
mtDNA to be spread through such a large area and so many tribes since
the Viking period, I don't think.

I'm troubled by the prospect that people will now begin to tell one
other that HV* could be a Native American haplogroup, despite a complete
lack of evidence to back that up, and this could become a popular theory
in some circles, encouraging a number of people to make claims to the
Native American descent they have always desired.

Bonnie


This thread: