PDA

View Full Version : Q-L569 from Europe?



JKJ
01-13-2019, 02:38 AM
I recently found that I am of haplogroup Q-L569, but my forefather is recorded to be from Europe around 1700-1800 from what I have been told by family, so this is quite odd. He also probably came from Germany. Has anyone heard of this haplogroup being associated with any other people from Europe? I was told it's basically just a Native American haplogroup, but if that's the case, then would it be due to:

1. Native Americans that lived in Europe? I believe I've heard stories that Columbus reportedly spoke of Native Americans he had seen in Ireland before going to the Americas.
2. Siberians that had this haplogroup that traveled west instead of east.

#1 would be more interesting, but not sure which is more likely. Some individuals that understand the Q haplogroup and genetics much better than myself said it's more likely that it's truly from Native American origin. I got the result from 23andMe since they updated to the v5 chip.

xenus
01-13-2019, 04:59 AM
Your nationality says you're from the United States so it's most likely one of a few things. A "non paternity event", a knowing family cover up of member with native blood, or a child adopted secretly or not long ago. People would leave their kids with family or friends if they had to travel or people would take in kids after the death of a parent etc.

Táltos
01-13-2019, 07:54 AM
I recently found that I am of haplogroup Q-L569, but my forefather is recorded to be from Europe around 1700-1800 from what I have been told by family, so this is quite odd. He also probably came from Germany. Has anyone heard of this haplogroup being associated with any other people from Europe? I was told it's basically just a Native American haplogroup, but if that's the case, then would it be due to:

1. Native Americans that lived in Europe? I believe I've heard stories that Columbus reportedly spoke of Native Americans he had seen in Ireland before going to the Americas.
2. Siberians that had this haplogroup that traveled west instead of east.

#1 would be more interesting, but not sure which is more likely. Some individuals that understand the Q haplogroup and genetics much better than myself said it's more likely that it's truly from Native American origin. I got the result from 23andMe since they updated to the v5 chip.

Congratulations on your result! Q-L569 is downstream to the Native American branch of Q-Z780. We all have at least 2-3 branches of our family tree that we think are from one place, when in reality it is another. ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-Z780
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-Z780/

Ruderico
01-13-2019, 08:20 AM
My advise is to not give too much importance to what your family told you, cases of mistaken heritage are extremely common in the US, particularly so far back. Unless you have paper trail, of course.

The odds of your Nat Am patrilinear ancestry being from Europe at one point are very, very low

geebee
11-18-2019, 03:54 PM
My advise is to not give too much importance to what your family told you, cases of mistaken heritage are extremely common in the US, particularly so far back. Unless you have paper trail, of course.

The odds of your Nat Am patrilinear ancestry being from Europe at one point are very, very low

Except for the "unless you have a paper trail" part, I'd agree with what you're saying. But just like family stories, paper trails -- including any supporting documentation -- can also be wrong.

"Documentation" is not usually based entirely on physical evidence, such as a DNA test. It may be based, at least in part, on eye witness testimony, but even that isn't always true. For example, several censuses report my 3rd great grandfather as having been born in Pennsylvania -- including censuses in which he was the head of house, and quite likely the source of the information.

However, in a later census -- where my 3rd great grandfather's son-in-law was the head of house, and possibly the person who provided the information -- my 3rd great grandfather was suddenly born in "Switzerland". My 3rd great grandfather was not living in the household, and in fact may no longer have been living at all. But it was his grandfather who immigrated from Germany. His son-in-law -- or whoever else provided the information -- simply got it wrong, whether by accident or by design. (It was a time when "Germany" was a very unpopular place to be from, in the U.S., but my 3rd great grandfather was simply "from" Pennsylvania.)

Birth certificates, too, can be wrong. Usually, they aren't wrong about the mother's identity, but they can certainly be wrong about the father's identity. If they're created years after the fact, it's possible that it's wrong about both parents. This may be true of the man my mother always believed to be her father. He was not, if he was the biological son of the couple who raised him -- since they cannot have been my grandmother's biological grandparents.

However, my mother's father -- or at least, her mother's husband and the man who helped raise her -- may have been adopted but never told. All I can say with certainty is that the couple who raised him never registered his birth (even though that was the law at that time). He was apparently unaware of this until he applied for a copy of his birth record when he was 59. Upon learning that there wasn't one, he filed an "Application to Register Birth or Correct Birth Record". His only real "supporting documentation" was in the form of affidavits filed by two of his three surviving siblings -- his brothers. His sister did not provide an affidavit.

Both affidavits attested to the relationship between the affiants and the applicant (brother), that they were familiar with the "allegations" in the application, and that those allegations were true. Only, at least one "allegation" was patently false. My mother's father (?) stated that his mother only had two children in addition to himself -- which would have to have been the two brothers who provided the affidavits. But all three men were aware of the existence of a living sister (as well as a deceased sister), who didn't provide an affidavit.

Why was she omitted? Possibly because she didn't provide an affidavit. But why didn't she provide one? I don't know, but she did have a relationship with my mother's biological grandparents. She was there daughter-in-law, since she married one of their sons.

I believe it's possible that the man my mother knew as "Daddy" was also their son, but for some reason adopted out to the couple who raised him. Who in fact raised him without ever telling him that he was not their biological child. If so, they would naturally have not been able to register his birth in a county hundreds of miles from where he was actually born.

Further, his older siblings would also have had to have been told never to tell him. So when he asked them to provide affidavits, they could either provide them or they could refuse -- but on what basis? And neither brother submitted the affidavits in person; both lived in other states, and the affidavits were notorized in those states and mailed in.

But -- the sister who was married to a man who may have been her "brother's" biological brother? Perhaps that may have been why she didn't submit an affidavit.

Of course, the other possibility is that my mother's "Daddy" was not her biological father. In fact, it's possible that her "Daddy's" sister-in-law's husband was the biological father. But in either case, one of the two documents must be wrong -- and therefore the paper trail is also wrong. I just can't be absolutely sure which, either my mother's birth record or my grandfather's.

My point again is, paper trails also can be wrong -- even when supported by "official documents". I'd certainly trust the DNA over either "family stories" or a "paper trail".

As you say yourself, "The odds of your Nat Am patrilinear ancestry being from Europe at one point are very, very low." You just don't really need to condition this on whether or not the OP has a paper trail. At least, not unless that paper trail goes back to Europe after first being in America. I don't think this is what the OP is suggesting.

artemv
11-25-2019, 05:07 PM
I recently found that I am of haplogroup Q-L569, but my forefather is recorded to be from Europe around 1700-1800 from what I have been told by family, so this is quite odd. He also probably came from Germany. Has anyone heard of this haplogroup being associated with any other people from Europe? I was told it's basically just a Native American haplogroup, but if that's the case, then would it be due to:

1. Native Americans that lived in Europe? I believe I've heard stories that Columbus reportedly spoke of Native Americans he had seen in Ireland before going to the Americas.
2. Siberians that had this haplogroup that traveled west instead of east.

#1 would be more interesting, but not sure which is more likely. Some individuals that understand the Q haplogroup and genetics much better than myself said it's more likely that it's truly from Native American origin. I got the result from 23andMe since they updated to the v5 chip.

This happlogroup is Native American. This means that your direct male ancestors are Native Americans, unless they have mixed you with someone else in 23andme (never heart about such cases, frankly speaking).

What is your autosomal 23andme result, is it the same with paper trail?
And what about your eye color and other predictions from 23andme, do they match?