PDA

View Full Version : Is there any Native American ancestry in Europeans?



Milkyway
10-12-2019, 11:54 PM
We know that the % of Native American ancestry is rather low (<1%) in U.S. Americans and Canadians of European descent, which is in contrast with what we observe in most Central and South American countries (>20%). Since most of the time gene flow goes in both directions, I'd also expect to find some Indigenous American DNA in Europe, especially in countries like Spain and Portugal. Has any study quantified the % of Indigenous American DNA (or mtDNA) in European residents?

JerryS.
10-13-2019, 02:12 AM
I would predict very little. the "new world" was for exploitation and only a little colonization. the men came to the new world and left their DNA and the offspring from that was usually treated as a local. I don't think there was much bringing back of the women, it was more like use them and leave them there. the only people allowed to bring a wife back were usually the ship captains/regents/local governors... and they were usually from higher society and would not accept an Indian among them back home in Europe.

RCO
10-13-2019, 04:01 AM
There are only few cases. Sometimes people could return to Europe from America, Africa and Asia with their companions or servants and join European lineages, that's the case of Lady Di mtDNA from Asian or Indian Eliza Kewark, Prince William's mtDNA. I think the Swedish Royal House, Queen Silvia of Sweden can have Amerindian mtDNA, sometimes important Colonial Families could move to Europe with Native American mtDNA and join the local European nobility, just like the Portuguese Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, 1st Marquis of Pombal. In general terms the American Colonial Elite was far richer than in Europe and they would not return to Spain or Portugal, only exceptions and sometimes Europeans can discover Amerindian mtDNA in 23andMe and FTDNA as a big surprise.

Milkyway
10-13-2019, 09:54 AM
There's this study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/) that explored Native American ancestry in European Americans (among other ancestral components, like African and European).

"Excluding countries that had major and minor ports in the Atlantic with strong connections to the slave trade (namely Portugal, Spain, France, and United Kingdom) and Malta, which has been the site of migrations from Africa and the Middle East, we obtain a data set of 9,701 Europeans, where we find African and Native American ancestry is virtually absent, with only 0.04% of individuals carrying 1% or more African ancestry and 0.01% carrying 1% or more Native American ancestry, within the margins of survey error estimates."

So it is almost negligible.

FionnSneachta
10-13-2019, 11:35 AM
My Irish dad gets Native American percentages with FTDNA and GEDmatch calculators. He gets <1% South American with FTDNA. These are my dad's Amerindian percentages on GEDmatch:

MDLP K11: 2.63 Amerindian
MDLP K16: 1.72 Amerindian
MDLP K23b: 1.86 Amerindian
MDLP World-22: 0.69 Mesoamerican, 0.75 South-America_Amerind, 0.93 North-Amerind
MDLP World: 0.96 Arctic_Amerind, 1.73 Mesoamerican

Eurogenes K13: 2.27
Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15: 1.89 Amerindian
Eurogenes K9b: 3.34 Native American
Eurogenes K9: 1.87 North Amerindian + Arctic
Eurogenes K10: 1.82 North Amerindian + Arctic
Eurogenes K11: 1.54 North Amerindian + Arctic
Eurogenes K12: 1.50 North Amerindian + Arctic
Eurogenes K36: 1.22 Amerindian

Dodecad: World9: 2.32 Amerindian

HarappaWorld: 1.39 American

puntDNAL K10: 2.58 Amerindian
puntDNAL K12 Ancient: 2.78 Amerindian
puntDNAL K12 Modern: 2.78 Amerindian
puntDNAL K13: 3.27 Americas
puntDNAL K15: Amerindian 2.23

He gets an Amerindian percentage in every calculator that has it as a population. It dips at 1.22 and peaks at 3.34. I don't know what these percentages actually represent since Amerindian ancestry would seem unlikely. I recently had someone look at my family's DNA files and see what Irish population they most closely. None of my family matched up to the expected populations but he was wondering if the Native American in my dad could be real and if he is from Canada or the US. My dad has always lived in Ireland and the first time he ever went abroad was in 2005 which was only to England. His grandfather went to America but returned to Ireland where he married. I find it funny to think that his grandfather born in 1878 has travelled further than my dad ever has (or me for that matter).

Milkyway
10-13-2019, 12:44 PM
My Irish dad gets Native American percentages with FTDNA and GEDmatch calculators. He gets <1% South American with FTDNA. These are my dad's Amerindian percentages on GEDmatch:

MDLP K11: 2.63 Amerindian
MDLP K16: 1.72 Amerindian
MDLP K23b: 1.86 Amerindian
MDLP World-22: 0.69 Mesoamerican, 0.75 South-America_Amerind, 0.93 North-Amerind
MDLP World: 0.96 Arctic_Amerind, 1.73 Mesoamerican

Eurogenes K13: 2.27
Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15: 1.89 Amerindian
Eurogenes K9b: 3.34 Native American
Eurogenes K9: 1.87 North Amerindian + Arctic
Eurogenes K10: 1.82 North Amerindian + Arctic
Eurogenes K11: 1.54 North Amerindian + Arctic
Eurogenes K12: 1.50 North Amerindian + Arctic
Eurogenes K36: 1.22 Amerindian

Dodecad: World9: 2.32 Amerindian

HarappaWorld: 1.39 American

puntDNAL K10: 2.58 Amerindian
puntDNAL K12 Ancient: 2.78 Amerindian
puntDNAL K12 Modern: 2.78 Amerindian
puntDNAL K13: 3.27 Americas
puntDNAL K15: Amerindian 2.23

He gets an Amerindian percentage in every calculator that has it as a population. It dips at 1.22 and peaks at 3.34. I don't know what these percentages actually represent since Amerindian ancestry would seem unlikely. I recently had someone look at my family's DNA files and see what Irish population they most closely. None of my family matched up to the expected populations but he was wondering if the Native American in my dad could be real and if he is from Canada or the US. My dad has always lived in Ireland and the first time he ever went abroad was in 2005 which was only to England. His grandfather went to America but returned to Ireland where he married. I find it funny to think that his grandfather born in 1878 has travelled further than my dad ever has (or me for that matter).

I think that some companies like 23andme can estimate when did a particular ancestral component enter your gene pool. I presume this has something to do with the DNA track's length (the longer, the less generations have passed because recombination tends to make them shorter). I've seen 23andme results for some U.S. Americans with a small % of Native American or African DNA whose ancestors were inferred to have lived in the XVIII or XIX century. If your dad's Native American DNA tracks are very long, it is likely that this Native American ancestor is relatively recent. If, on the contrary, they're very short then they were incorporated into your genome a long time ago (before Columbus set foot in the Americas) and they're perhaps more related to extinct populations like ANE (Ancient North Eurasians) that contributed to both American Indians and Europeans during the Paleolithic.

msmarjoribanks
10-13-2019, 01:31 PM
There's this study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/) that explored Native American ancestry in European Americans (among other ancestral components, like African and European).

"Excluding countries that had major and minor ports in the Atlantic with strong connections to the slave trade (namely Portugal, Spain, France, and United Kingdom) and Malta, which has been the site of migrations from Africa and the Middle East, we obtain a data set of 9,701 Europeans, where we find African and Native American ancestry is virtually absent, with only 0.04% of individuals carrying 1% or more African ancestry and 0.01% carrying 1% or more Native American ancestry, within the margins of survey error estimates."

So it is almost negligible.

I was going to quote the same study.

Almost negligible excluding the places where one would expect to find some (Spain, Portugal, the UK, and France) doesn't really answer the question, however. What is it in those countries, or in the most likely portions of those countries.

The whole thing is difficult to quantify as at a certain point it's impossible to tell from noise anyway.

msmarjoribanks
10-13-2019, 01:38 PM
I think that some companies like 23andme can estimate when did a particular ancestral component enter your gene pool. I presume this has something to do with the DNA track's length (the longer, the less generations have passed because recombination tends to make them shorter). I've seen 23andme results for some U.S. Americans with a small % of Native American or African DNA whose ancestors were inferred to have lived in the XVIII or XIX century. If your dad's Native American DNA tracks are very long, it is likely that this Native American ancestor is relatively recent. If, on the contrary, they're very short then they were incorporated into your genome a long time ago (before Columbus set foot in the Americas) and they're perhaps more related to extinct populations like ANE (Ancient North Eurasians) that contributed to both American Indians and Europeans during the Paleolithic.

I don't think 23andMe can do that (I think there are some kinds of studies that perhaps could).

If you look at 23andMe, all they are doing is going from total amount (and it's not all that accurate). For example, they tell me French & German (meaning German) between 1850 and 1910, but mine is all pre-Revolution. It's just sufficient numbers to get the more recent estimate. It's identical to what I get for Scandinavian, but the Swedish is from a g-grandmother born in the 1890s who was 100% Swedish, and the German is from multiple ggggg (etc) grandparents born in the early 1700s. They can't tell this apart, or at least don't try to.

Milkyway
10-13-2019, 03:41 PM
I don't think 23andMe can do that (I think there are some kinds of studies that perhaps could).

If you look at 23andMe, all they are doing is going from total amount (and it's not all that accurate). For example, they tell me French & German (meaning German) between 1850 and 1910, but mine is all pre-Revolution. It's just sufficient numbers to get the more recent estimate. It's identical to what I get for Scandinavian, but the Swedish is from a g-grandmother born in the 1890s who was 100% Swedish, and the German is from multiple ggggg (etc) grandparents born in the early 1700s. They can't tell this apart, or at least don't try to.

I was talking about this (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5mS_oT48mME/WHlmDIb1VvI/AAAAAAAAB0M/Qma3qdJoq0A1e5boL6gexi1bOzFNwcLJQCLcB/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2017-01-13%2Bat%2B6.38.27%2BPM.png) and this (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Zm9aIIBcOLA/WH_2byLpuqI/AAAAAAAAwU8/oHjFVcP1bq4F07pGq1Sx2XeiT_B32eQkACLcB/s1600/timeline.png). I don't know how 23andMe does it exactly (it must be explained somewhere) but it could probably be helpful to know whether your "minority" ancestries are more or less recent (the gene flow took place in historical times) as in the case of Europeans with Indigenous American ancestry.

Milkyway
10-13-2019, 04:12 PM
I was going to quote the same study.

Almost negligible excluding the places where one would expect to find some (Spain, Portugal, the UK, and France) doesn't really answer the question, however. What is it in those countries, or in the most likely portions of those countries.

The whole thing is difficult to quantify as at a certain point it's impossible to tell from noise anyway.

In the Supplementary Material of that study (Table S8) they identified 21 mtDNA haplogroups of Native American origin in Europeans. It seems that 14 of them are only found in Spain (they drop to only 7 haplogroups when Spain is excluded). So it seems that there's "something", but it's probably much lower than the N.A. ancestry in European Americans (~0.1%) and it may be difficult to tell from noise as you said. I was also surprised by the low amount of N.A. and African ancestry in Latinos (Table S5). For example, the average Cuban is "only" 4% Native American and 6% African (I say "only" because I met a Cuban that looked 100% Sub-Saharan African or "black").

C J Wyatt III
10-13-2019, 04:56 PM
Consider this. We had almost 300 years of colonization in the Americas before the female population caught up with the male population. I am sure many Native American women became wives of the male settlers one way or another. For various reasons, especially after the American Revolution, we had descendants of these colonists move away from the New World. And of course, you had American seamen all along spreading their uh, DNA, around the globe.

Even though NA may be a small percent, I find it hard to dismiss it out of hand as noise.

Genetic genealogy is not a mature science.

msmarjoribanks
10-13-2019, 05:53 PM
I was talking about this (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5mS_oT48mME/WHlmDIb1VvI/AAAAAAAAB0M/Qma3qdJoq0A1e5boL6gexi1bOzFNwcLJQCLcB/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2017-01-13%2Bat%2B6.38.27%2BPM.png) and this (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Zm9aIIBcOLA/WH_2byLpuqI/AAAAAAAAwU8/oHjFVcP1bq4F07pGq1Sx2XeiT_B32eQkACLcB/s1600/timeline.png). I don't know how 23andMe does it exactly (it must be explained somewhere) but it could probably be helpful to know whether your "minority" ancestries are more or less recent (the gene flow took place in historical times) as in the case of Europeans with Indigenous American ancestry.

I figured this is what you were talking about, but it's not very accurate (we were talking about it on another thread not too long ago), and seems to be largely influenced by total amount. Many people with only colonial (even 1600s) English ancestry will appear to have more recent, because the percentages are high. (I do have some more recent English ancestry, but it looks more recent than it is even so, putting it between 1880 and 1940.) That's what happens with my German too. My Scandinavian looks older than the German (1820 to 1880), but that's only because it's a little understated.

It's not surprising that it's not that accurate. It's going to be pretty hard to tell apart someone of half English and half German background whose ancestors came to the US in 1850 and someone of half English and half German ancestry whose ancestors came to the US in the 1650s and 1720s and perhaps intermarried within their specific communities for a couple of generations and then intermarried. This is especially true since colonial settlers might be more likely to have some degree of pedigree collapse vs. people in Europe, depending on the specific area.

With Native American, I suspect it won't show up beyond noise amounts on a test like 23andMe unless it's relatively recent (American colonial times or in many cases later), and would be more likely to show up if there are multiple lines (which is more common in certain geographical areas than others). 23andMe doesn't really identify ancient ancestry. With Gedmatch, you are more likely to see it, but it's less likely to be other than noise.

Milkyway
10-13-2019, 07:12 PM
I figured this is what you were talking about, but it's not very accurate (we were talking about it on another thread not too long ago), and seems to be largely influenced by total amount. Many people with only colonial (even 1600s) English ancestry will appear to have more recent, because the percentages are high. (I do have some more recent English ancestry, but it looks more recent than it is even so, putting it between 1880 and 1940.) That's what happens with my German too. My Scandinavian looks older than the German (1820 to 1880), but that's only because it's a little understated.

It's not surprising that it's not that accurate. It's going to be pretty hard to tell apart someone of half English and half German background whose ancestors came to the US in 1850 and someone of half English and half German ancestry whose ancestors came to the US in the 1650s and 1720s and perhaps intermarried within their specific communities for a couple of generations and then intermarried. This is especially true since colonial settlers might be more likely to have some degree of pedigree collapse vs. people in Europe, depending on the specific area.

With Native American, I suspect it won't show up beyond noise amounts on a test like 23andMe unless it's relatively recent (American colonial times or in many cases later), and would be more likely to show up if there are multiple lines (which is more common in certain geographical areas than others). 23andMe doesn't really identify ancient ancestry. With Gedmatch, you are more likely to see it, but it's less likely to be other than noise.

Yes, and I think it'd take a lot of time to calculate exactly how many generations ago a given ancestor lived based on DNA track length. These are quick tests, and you get the results within a couple of weeks or so. I assume they use the same standardized protocol for all samples. It'd even take more time considering the complexities you mentioned (that is, some communities are more endogamous than others, and most of our ancestors were a mixture of several ethnicities rather than 100% something).

JerryS.
10-13-2019, 07:12 PM
6 generations ago is about 150 years ago (after the American Civil War-1861-65) if you are 50ish years old today. that would leave about 3% from a full blood Indian relative, 7 generations ago (1840s) is a little over 1%, earlier than that would be for the most part undetectable. how many full blood American Indians do you think have gone to Europe since the 1840s and had offspring with Europeans that stayed there?

C J Wyatt III
10-13-2019, 07:17 PM
6 generations ago is about 150 years ago (after the American Civil War-1861-65) if you are 50ish years old today. that would leave about 3% from a full blood Indian relative, 7 generations ago (1840s) is a little over 1%, earlier than that would be for the most part undetectable. how many full blood American Indians do you think have gone to Europe since the 1840s and had offspring with Europeans that stayed there?

Of course, you are assuming that only one ancestor in the tree has some Native American admixture. For someone who has a lot of American colonial ancestry, that is probably a bad assumption.

JerryS.
10-13-2019, 07:22 PM
Of course, you are assuming that only one ancestor in the tree has some Native American admixture. For someone who has a lot of American colonial ancestry, that is probably a bad assumption.

I have a lot of colonial American ancestry (1757 is the earliest) and its from the Virginia colony and then the mid-Appalachians after that. I'm not saying in America there aren't a handful of European descendants that have a trickle of American Indian DNA that even shows up (I don't) but we are talking about it being in Europeans still in Europe.

C J Wyatt III
10-13-2019, 07:59 PM
I have a lot of colonial American ancestry (1757 is the earliest) and its from the Virginia colony and then the mid-Appalachians after that. I'm not saying in America there aren't a handful of European descendants that have a trickle of American Indian DNA that even shows up (I don't) but we are talking about it being in Europeans still in Europe.

New World DNA could get to the Old War plenty of ways in the late 1700s. We can disagree as to whether it amounted to much.

JerryS.
10-13-2019, 08:14 PM
New World DNA could get to the Old War plenty of ways in the late 1700s. We can disagree as to whether it amounted to much.

I am disagreeing that it amounted to much as the data available shows this to be so. do you have data that supports the opposite?

msmarjoribanks
10-13-2019, 08:28 PM
I am disagreeing that it amounted to much as the data available shows this to be so. do you have data that supports the opposite?

The only particularly reliable ways to tell, given how small the percentages are going to be (same within the US and Canada) is to look at Y and mtDNA.

Milkyway's citation of the supplement from that one study is interesting:

"In the Supplementary Material of that study (Table S8) they identified 21 mtDNA haplogroups of Native American origin in Europeans. It seems that 14 of them are only found in Spain (they drop to only 7 haplogroups when Spain is excluded). So it seems that there's "something", but it's probably much lower than the N.A. ancestry in European Americans (~0.1%) and it may be difficult to tell from noise as you said."

This seems not nothing, especially in Spain, although it's not a lot. (I would expect mtDNA to be a lot more likely than YDNA.)

JerryS.
10-13-2019, 08:36 PM
The only particularly reliable ways to tell, given how small the percentages are going to be (same within the US and Canada) is to look at Y and mtDNA.

Milkyway's citation of the supplement from that one study is interesting:

"In the Supplementary Material of that study (Table S8) they identified 21 mtDNA haplogroups of Native American origin in Europeans. It seems that 14 of them are only found in Spain (they drop to only 7 haplogroups when Spain is excluded). So it seems that there's "something", but it's probably much lower than the N.A. ancestry in European Americans (~0.1%) and it may be difficult to tell from noise as you said."

This seems not nothing, especially in Spain, although it's not a lot. (I would expect mtDNA to be a lot more likely than YDNA.)

yes, you agree, there is very little of it [American Indian DNA] in European populations today.

FionnSneachta
10-13-2019, 09:41 PM
6 generations ago is about 150 years ago (after the American Civil War-1861-65) if you are 50ish years old today. that would leave about 3% from a full blood Indian relative, 7 generations ago (1840s) is a little over 1%, earlier than that would be for the most part undetectable.

That is going to vary among families. My dad is 61 and only 3 generations before him, he has an ancestor born before the 1860s. His mum was born in 1924, his grandfather in 1878 and great grandfather in 1838. The same goes for my mum. She's 56 and her dad was born in 1915, her grandfather in 1880 and her great grandfather in 1824.

C J Wyatt III
10-13-2019, 09:51 PM
That is going to vary among families. My dad is 61 and only 3 generations before him, he has an ancestor born before the 1860s. His mum was born in 1924, his grandfather in 1878 and great grandfather in 1838. The same goes for my mum. She's 56 and her dad was born in 1915, her grandfather in 1880 and her great grandfather in 1824.

Six generations on my patrilineal line gets me back to the mid-1700s.

Milkyway
10-13-2019, 10:06 PM
yes, you agree, there is very little of it [American Indian DNA] in European populations today.

Wait another 50 years and I think we're going to find non-negligible amounts of Am. Indian DNA in most European countries (as well as African, Asian... ;)).

msmarjoribanks
10-13-2019, 10:14 PM
yes, you agree, there is very little of it [American Indian DNA] in European populations today.

Yeah, I think that's true, and I think in most areas (there are exceptions) white Americans have little Native American ancestry too (although on average more).

But the question was whether Native American ancestry in a European is necessarily noise, and while I'd assume it most likely was, it's not necessarily, and the mtDNA results are examples of when it is not.

Milkyway
10-13-2019, 10:20 PM
The only particularly reliable ways to tell, given how small the percentages are going to be (same within the US and Canada) is to look at Y and mtDNA.

Milkyway's citation of the supplement from that one study is interesting:

"In the Supplementary Material of that study (Table S8) they identified 21 mtDNA haplogroups of Native American origin in Europeans. It seems that 14 of them are only found in Spain (they drop to only 7 haplogroups when Spain is excluded). So it seems that there's "something", but it's probably much lower than the N.A. ancestry in European Americans (~0.1%) and it may be difficult to tell from noise as you said."

This seems not nothing, especially in Spain, although it's not a lot. (I would expect mtDNA to be a lot more likely than YDNA.)

Aside from Spain, in the article it's also mentioned they found N.A. DNA in the UK, France and Portugal. However, I haven't been able to find any reference to these countries in the Supplementary Material. Maybe they did the tests but did not make the results available? In any case, I'd have expected to find a much higher contribution in Spain, because they colonized the most densely populated areas of Central America. They also didn't mention if the % of N. A. varies between cities or regions within Spain; that might be interesting to explore. I'd say that this is the most likely scenario considering that African DNA is not evenly distributed in Iberia (it is substantially higher in SW Iberia, if I recall it correctly). Regarding the UK, I've found this piece of news: Native American DNA found in UK. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6621319.stm). I suppose it's very anecdotical.

JerryS.
10-13-2019, 10:28 PM
That is going to vary among families. My dad is 61 and only 3 generations before him, he has an ancestor born before the 1860s. His mum was born in 1924, his grandfather in 1878 and great grandfather in 1838. The same goes for my mum. She's 56 and her dad was born in 1915, her grandfather in 1880 and her great grandfather in 1824.

a generation is generally 20-25 years from the next. if a small group of people aren't reproducing every 20-25 or so years they are the exception, not the norm.

JerryS.
10-13-2019, 10:31 PM
Yeah, I think that's true, and I think in most areas (there are exceptions) white Americans have little Native American ancestry too (although on average more).

But the question was whether Native American ancestry in a European is necessarily noise, and while I'd assume it most likely was, it's not necessarily, and the mtDNA results are examples of when it is not.

so, again, you agree with my initial assessment.

JerryS.
10-13-2019, 10:31 PM
Six generations on my patrilineal line gets me back to the mid-1700s.

again, exception, not norm.

FionnSneachta
10-13-2019, 11:07 PM
a generation is generally 20-25 years from the next. if a small group of people aren't reproducing every 20-25 or so years they are the exception, not the norm.

I would not consider my family an exception when it's similar on every line. The youngest of my dad's great grandparents was born in 1864 while the youngest of my mum's great grandparents was born in 1860. The age when people married and women stopped having children might differ between countries.

For an average, I'd put it at about 30 years per generation. For it to be at 20 years, your ancestors would have to have always been about the first born child every generation whereas some generations it could be the youngest child (one of my ancestors had 16 children). For a 50 year old born in 1969, that would put their great grandparent born in 1879 (90 years). 6 generations before for someone born in 1969 (180 years) would be in 1789.

JerryS.
10-13-2019, 11:37 PM
I would not consider my family an exception when it's similar on every line. The youngest of my dad's great grandparents was born in 1864 while the youngest of my mum's great grandparents was born in 1860. The age of marriage on average might differ between countries. Marriage might be at a younger age for Americans back in the 1800s on average than in Ireland (at least rural Ireland where my family were from).

For an average, I'd put it at about 30 per generation. For a 50 year old born in 1969, that would put their great grandparent born in 1879 (90 years). 6 generations before for someone born in 1969 (180 years) would be in 1789.

yes, you will find people in America married younger, especially the females, even more so in the rural areas. a 16 year old girl being married off to a 25 year old man was fairly common.

FionnSneachta
10-13-2019, 11:44 PM
yes, you will find people in America married younger, especially the females, even more so in the rural areas. a 16 year old girl being married off to a 25 year old man was fairly common.

I edited the post to make a point about it not being the first born every generation who was your ancestor. I have an ancestor that married at 16 but the ancestor who was their child was not the first born and they had lots of children which widens the generation gap if your ancestor was the youngest child. For example, my dad's cousin was in the same class as his aunt because his aunt was the youngest in a family of 9 while her older sister married young.

JerryS.
10-13-2019, 11:51 PM
I edited the post to make a point about it not being the first born every generation who was your ancestor. I have an ancestor that married at 16 but the ancestor who was their child was not the first born and they had lots of children which widens the generation gap if your ancestor was the youngest child. For example, my dad's cousin was in the same class as his aunt because his aunt was the youngest in a family of 9 while her older sister married young.

none of that matters for this topic. I still stand on the fact or at least I haven't seen anything to the contrary that the amount of American Indian in current European populations is very minimal. yes, I'm sure out of 10 million people in Spain or Portugal there will probably a couple dozen people with some measurable trace of it, but they are still less than half of 1%...

fridurich
10-14-2019, 01:08 AM
a generation is generally 20-25 years from the next. if a small group of people aren't reproducing every 20-25 or so years they are the exception, not the norm.

Thanks so much for your post and your interest in these topics. I think we have to consider are we talking about the generation length of today's American's, Europeans, etc., or are we talking about the generation length of the Americans, Europeans, etc. in the 19th, 18th, 17th centuries etc?

The reason for this differentiation is that Americans, Europeans, etc. have fewer children today than their ancestors. So for today's Americans, Europeans, etc., many of whom have only 2 or 3 children, the generation length could be about 20-25 years. I and some of my cousins have done a lot of genealogical work and I have seen a lot of pedigrees going back into past centuries, and I can tell you that people back then had a lot more kids than they do now!

Thanks to God, a good number of my lines have been traceable into the 17th, or 16th Centuries, or even beyond. What I have noticed from generation lengths on my pedigree charts so far is there seems to be an average of 30 years per generation, giving about 3 generations per century. This isn't just on one line, but on practically all of them that I have seen generation lengths on that go back 200 or 300 years or more. Also, most of my pedigrees would show this 30 year average for the 19th Century on my total pedigree chart.

Why is there such a large time frame for a generation here? Answer: tons of children, who had tons of children, who had tons of children! At least two or three of my ancestors from different lines had 14 children. I think one or two may have had 16 kids.

Well, whoever comes from the line of the youngest child of the youngest child of the youngest child, etc. could have a generation length of 20-25 years for even 2 or 3 centuries ago. But what about the line that has the oldest child of the oldest child of the oldest child, etc.? This line could have a much greater generation length. So, the average generation length is going to be somewhere in between.

Lets say women got married at 20 (it could be earlier of course, or, it could be later) and had kids all of the way until menopause at about 40 or 45 years old. Then the average age a woman was when a child was born would have been about 30 years old. So, about 3 generations per century.

My direct paternal line immigrant ancestor, Michael O'Hair has been documented to have married twice and had at least 14 children. Solid evidence for the rumor of a third marriage hasn't been found. The child of his that I descend from was his last and was born posthumously after Michael died at about age 63. Out of Michael's 14 kids, 12 of those also had kids of their own, and families were usually very large. So, my ancestor Michael O'Hair had over 140 something grandchildren (in just 2 generations!!)! I believe there were probably at least 400 great grandchildren (conservative estimate), if not 600, or more.

With large families like this, it can be next to impossible to have their generations average about 20 or 25 years.

Kind Regards
Fred

Milkyway
10-14-2019, 10:47 AM
Thanks so much for your post and your interest in these topics. I think we have to consider are we talking about the generation length of today's American's, Europeans, etc., or are we talking about the generation length of the Americans, Europeans, etc. in the 19th, 18th, 17th centuries etc?

The reason for this differentiation is that Americans, Europeans, etc. have fewer children today than their ancestors. So for today's Americans, Europeans, etc., many of whom have only 2 or 3 children, the generation length could be about 20-25 years. I and some of my cousins have done a lot of genealogical work and I have seen a lot of pedigrees going back into past centuries, and I can tell you that people back then had a lot more kids than they do now!

Thanks to God, a good number of my lines have been traceable into the 17th, or 16th Centuries, or even beyond. What I have noticed from generation lengths on my pedigree charts so far is there seems to be an average of 30 years per generation, giving about 3 generations per century. This isn't just on one line, but on practically all of them that I have seen generation lengths on that go back 200 or 300 years or more. Also, most of my pedigrees would show this 30 year average for the 19th Century on my total pedigree chart.

Why is there such a large time frame for a generation here? Answer: tons of children, who had tons of children, who had tons of children! At least two or three of my ancestors from different lines had 14 children. I think one or two may have had 16 kids.

Well, whoever comes from the line of the youngest child of the youngest child of the youngest child, etc. could have a generation length of 20-25 years for even 2 or 3 centuries ago. But what about the line that has the oldest child of the oldest child of the oldest child, etc.? This line could have a much greater generation length. So, the average generation length is going to be somewhere in between.

Lets say women got married at 20 (it could be earlier of course, or, it could be later) and had kids all of the way until menopause at about 40 or 45 years old. Then the average age a woman was when a child was born would have been about 30 years old. So, about 3 generations per century.

My direct paternal line immigrant ancestor, Michael O'Hair has been documented to have married twice and had at least 14 children. Solid evidence for the rumor of a third marriage hasn't been found. The child of his that I descend from was his last and was born posthumously after Michael died at about age 63. Out of Michael's 14 kids, 12 of those also had kids of their own, and families were usually very large. So, my ancestor Michael O'Hair had over 140 something grandchildren (in just 2 generations!!)! I believe there were probably at least 400 great grandchildren (conservative estimate), if not 600, or more.

With large families like this, it can be next to impossible to have their generations average about 20 or 25 years.

Kind Regards
Fred

True, most women likely started having children at 20-25 but they didn't stop until they were close to or beyond 40.

In my case I think that generation time is also closer to +30 than to 20-25 years. My father (the fifth of six children) was born to +40-year-old parents, and he was almost 45 when I was born. My maternal grandparents were in their mid-20s when my mother was born, but she was 40 when she gave birth to me.

C J Wyatt III
10-14-2019, 12:24 PM
True, most women likely started having children at 20-25 but they didn't stop until they were close to or beyond 40.

In my case I think that generation time is also closer to +30 than to 20-25 years. My father (the fifth of six children) was born to +40-year-old parents, and he was almost 45 when I was born. My maternal grandparents were in their mid-20s when my mother was born, but she was 40 when she gave birth to me.

I said that 6 generations on my patrilineal line took me back to the mid-1700's. However I was born circa 1950, so that is 200 divided by 6, or around 33 years average between generations. That is a little high, but not that high.

Back to the original topic, my question would be has any admixture calculator ever be proven to be correct? I do not think that is possible. It is all opinion and judgement. I think we are mistaken to try to place any preciseness with them.

Milkyway
10-14-2019, 12:55 PM
I agree with msmarjoribanks: if there's something, we should be able to find Amerindian mtDNA haplogroups. In this study (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0159735#pone.015 9735.s001), A+B+C+D haplogroups exist in several Spanish provinces (Catalonia, Andalusia, Valencia, Aragón, Madrid) at a frequency of ~1% (Figure 1 and Figure S1). So it seems that they're more prevalent in the Mediterranean Coast.

Curiously, they say this about Portugal: "The polyphyletic cluster A+B+C+D represents the Native American ancestry existing in Iberia, mainly explained by modern South and Central American (Ecuador Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, etc.) immigration into Iberian territories (Instituto Nacional de Estadística: http://www.ine.es). The Native American ancestry of this collapsed category is coherent with the fact that it is only present in Iberia and virtually absent in Portugal (where immigration of Native American communities is much lower than in Spain; Instituto Nacional de Estatística: https://www.ine.pt/)."

After reading this, I wonder when did these Native American haplogroups arrive in Iberia. It's likely that most of them belong to first- or second-generation Latinos.

msmarjoribanks
10-14-2019, 02:39 PM
so, again, you agree with my initial assessment.

No, I was agreeing with the poster who said it's not necessarily noise. More information is needed to confirm that, including the type of test in question and the amount in the results, and family history research (such as possible New World connections) would be of interest.

msmarjoribanks
10-14-2019, 02:44 PM
Thanks so much for your post and your interest in these topics. I think we have to consider are we talking about the generation length of today's American's, Europeans, etc., or are we talking about the generation length of the Americans, Europeans, etc. in the 19th, 18th, 17th centuries etc?

The reason for this differentiation is that Americans, Europeans, etc. have fewer children today than their ancestors. So for today's Americans, Europeans, etc., many of whom have only 2 or 3 children, the generation length could be about 20-25 years. I and some of my cousins have done a lot of genealogical work and I have seen a lot of pedigrees going back into past centuries, and I can tell you that people back then had a lot more kids than they do now!

Thanks to God, a good number of my lines have been traceable into the 17th, or 16th Centuries, or even beyond. What I have noticed from generation lengths on my pedigree charts so far is there seems to be an average of 30 years per generation, giving about 3 generations per century. This isn't just on one line, but on practically all of them that I have seen generation lengths on that go back 200 or 300 years or more. Also, most of my pedigrees would show this 30 year average for the 19th Century on my total pedigree chart.

Why is there such a large time frame for a generation here? Answer: tons of children, who had tons of children, who had tons of children! At least two or three of my ancestors from different lines had 14 children. I think one or two may have had 16 kids.

Well, whoever comes from the line of the youngest child of the youngest child of the youngest child, etc. could have a generation length of 20-25 years for even 2 or 3 centuries ago. But what about the line that has the oldest child of the oldest child of the oldest child, etc.? This line could have a much greater generation length. So, the average generation length is going to be somewhere in between.

Lets say women got married at 20 (it could be earlier of course, or, it could be later) and had kids all of the way until menopause at about 40 or 45 years old. Then the average age a woman was when a child was born would have been about 30 years old. So, about 3 generations per century.

My direct paternal line immigrant ancestor, Michael O'Hair has been documented to have married twice and had at least 14 children. Solid evidence for the rumor of a third marriage hasn't been found. The child of his that I descend from was his last and was born posthumously after Michael died at about age 63. Out of Michael's 14 kids, 12 of those also had kids of their own, and families were usually very large. So, my ancestor Michael O'Hair had over 140 something grandchildren (in just 2 generations!!)! I believe there were probably at least 400 great grandchildren (conservative estimate), if not 600, or more.

With large families like this, it can be next to impossible to have their generations average about 20 or 25 years.

Kind Regards
Fred

Yes, good point.

For example, I can think of one line where my gg-grandfather was born in 1830. He had children both before and after the CW, and my g-grandfather was the youngest child (b. in 1872). Then my grandmother was his youngest child (of only 5), and my dad the youngest (but of only 2). There are a few others like this -- my g-grandmother (mom's grandmother) was the second youngest of children born between 1872 and 1894.

C J Wyatt III
10-14-2019, 04:05 PM
Continuing with the off-topic discussion of time between generations, according the latest report that I can find, two of the 10th US President John Tyler's grandsons are still living:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-two-of-president-john-tylers-grandsons-are-still-alive/

This later report confirms that in the last sentence, but you have to read through an interesting bit of history first, which I had not seen before:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/accidental-presidents-part-6-cabinet-catastrophe-and-a-president-in-love

evon
10-14-2019, 05:32 PM
I know of a few cases, from Romania, Iceland and UK, but all in all it is rare, except via modern day migration from the Americans. Here in Norway we have allot of south Americans, especially from Chile..

Milkyway
10-14-2019, 10:10 PM
There are only few cases. Sometimes people could return to Europe from America, Africa and Asia with their companions or servants and join European lineages, that's the case of Lady Di mtDNA from Asian or Indian Eliza Kewark, Prince William's mtDNA. I think the Swedish Royal House, Queen Silvia of Sweden can have Amerindian mtDNA, sometimes important Colonial Families could move to Europe with Native American mtDNA and join the local European nobility, just like the Portuguese Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, 1st Marquis of Pombal. In general terms the American Colonial Elite was far richer than in Europe and they would not return to Spain or Portugal, only exceptions and sometimes Europeans can discover Amerindian mtDNA in 23andMe and FTDNA as a big surprise.

I think Isabel Preysler (https://ethnicelebs.com/isabel-preysler) might also belong to one of these "important Colonial Families". I didn't find out she was Filipina until recently (she's of mixed ancestry, including Kapampangan, Spanish and distant Austrian according to that site).