I've perused this paper several times over the years, and decided on a whim to glance at it again, last night. Suddenly, I spotted the shocking, 'smoking gun' (figuratively speaking, of course). I found this paper on ancient DNA, when actually I've been seeking data on the Windover, Florida, Bog site (which I'll never find, since it has been intentionally covered up). So, I have no choice but to settle for what I'm given.
What I noticed this time, in Table 1 of the data, is the DNA marker for the "Other" mtDNA haplogroup found in the pre-Columbian Norris Farms site: a specific marker, "16278", which I happen to share, and which is considered an "extra" in my DNA classification.
As an "extra" it means that most people in my classification (now tentatively, W1-T119C / formerly simply "X" at the beginning when this Human origins research all began, around 2006) -- do not share the marker with me.
Note that "Other" is another designation for "X" -- the unwanted step-child of Native American mtDNA. This paper was originally published in 1999, some years before mtDNA research into Human origins really began to make progress.
Here's the 'smoking gun', figuratively speaking:
It is the marker C16278T, listed beside the specimens designated "other" on the table. (The "Standard" for that marker is T16278C, chemically just the opposite).
Bear in mind that these aren't just lab samples; they're the remains of real, pre-Columbian Human beings who once lived in this land. And I just happen to share that particular genetic anomaly with them -- those "others" -- along with significant identifiers in the rest of their genomes, presumably. I also share with all these individuals, markers 16189C and 16223T.
Oddly and mysteriously, a second marker for "other" was left unidentified and designated simply as "?". My question is: why?
It has absolutely nothing at all to do with one of the two so-called "contaminating sequences" mentioned in the footnote, also found in one of the haplogroup A samples. Because the contaminating sequences are not even listed there (they were in fact quite deliberately omitted from this published data table, presumably for good reason).
I wonder how they determined those omitted (yet worthy of mention) sequences were "contaminating"? And I wonder if it might have been a better idea to list those data results as well? But more so, what's with the "?" ? What data was omitted there, that was not the so-called "contaminating sequences"?
Now for comparison, this is my own personal mtDNA report from James Lick's mtDNA calculator (an excellent tool, by the way). I simply uploaded my raw data into his genius program, and it generated a very conveniently detailed report for me:
I also have markers associated with haplogroup "X". In fact, my defining markers are split almost equally between haplogroups X and W. I got on board with Genographic Project mtDNA research, way back near the beginning of it, circa 2006. My haplogroup classification has since been revised several times over the years, thus:
- Originally, officially, X (per the Genographic Project)
- then, officially, W (per FTDNA)
- tentatively estimated, W1 (per various administrators, genetic genealogists, i.e. unofficial 'authorities' on the subject)
- tentatively estimated, W1e (again, per various unofficial 'authorities')
- until presently, W1-T119C is the 'official', 'authorized' verdict. The last is again per FTDNA, following full sequence testing and analysis.
Yet I don't fit perfectly into that group, either; and the only reason there isn't a separate haplogroup classification for my mtDNA type, is because it is so rare.
And while it is true that I definitely have the 119C marker, I still do not fit very well into the European version of that particular clade / sub-clade. As shown both by James Lick and Family Tree DNA, my mtDNA has both, some extras and also some missing markers for that group:
Compared with the RSRS standard.
Compared with the rCRS standard.
Regardless of how you look at it, it all boils down to the same conclusion: I'm very closely related, if not an exact match, to the rare ancient mtDNA found in the Norris site (and probably also to the unfortunately covered-up Windover Bog site), which has been referred to variously as "X" and "Other".
...And which carries so many mysterious question marks, besides the starkly visible one that has tagged them in the c1999 published Norris Farms site data.
Are my ancestors the so-called "Giants" of North America? I know this: my American Indian family members are all unusually tall in height. My own mother and grandmother were both much taller than me, in fact (and I'm average, not short at all).
And that's just one prime example of physical characteristics I've inherited from my maternal lineage. Let us not forget that DNA is a physical characteristic too... Shall we discuss cheekbones? ;)
My DNA is the key that will throw open the closet door to reveal, not skeletons, but the cowardly, greedy, selfish -- real -- "frauds", in the whole "wannabe" controversy.
My maternal grandmother's testimony, in her letter to me. (This is not the whole letter, only the relevant part.) I still have the letter.
My original certificate, issued to me by the Genographic Project. I still have it.
On Mitosearch, although they have me labeled "Not Tested" for HVR2 mutations -- I was indeed tested, so they just need to update that. My HVR2 markers are listed in the FTDNA data tables above.
This chart reports two "exact" (i.e. zero genetic distance) matches for me, who both share the same common ancestor (an "adoptee" mentioned previously). They're no longer listed as "exact" on FTDNA (because, although very close, they're not really exact matches for me).
It shows a total of 25 of the closest matches to me (including myself), in their database. As you can see, some of my closest matches are haplogroups X. Variations of X shown here, are found in Europe, while I am related to the American line. Based on these facts, it is crystal clear to me that Mitosearch does not contain much data for Native American mtDNA.
This simply suggests that Native Americans of the mtDNA X haplogroups generally are reticent about publishing or going public with their personal data. I've met many people (including non-Natives), who are fearful of doing so, for whatever reasons. It is their right to choose, and I don't judge anyone for it, because it is perfectly understandable. (I, on the other hand, personally refuse to fear anything other than God Almighty.)
The defining marker for my present haplogroup classification, T119C, is not found in any of the European X haplogroups listed there. Is it seen in any Native American groups? That question remains unanswered.
While I do not fit exactly into the haplogroup, W1-T119C, it just happens to be the closest match for me based on the current, common mtDNA classifications. On Family Tree DNA, which analyzed my samples, I currently have only 7 matches (which includes the two I mentioned above that are also listed in Mitosearch), and those have shown up just fairly recently, after I completed further testing. For years, I had none, zero matches. Then one or two popped up, which have since been removed. And as seen above, none are exact matches.
The closest match on the list, "MB", with a genetic distance of "1", is from a very old, colonial American family --- much like the paternal side of my own tree, which very reasonably may also carry some Cherokee blood (a completely separate issue, as I'm concentrating here on my mtDNA / maternal lineage, with the aim to prove that it is indeed genetically Native American).
I figure "MB" is probably a maternal cousin of some sort. Likewise, my more distant matches are likely more distant, maternally related cousins.
What has brought me here, is the brick wall I keep running up against, while tracing my maternal lineage. I can't get beyond my gg-grandmother, Cely Bird. I know nothing about her parentage or siblings, or very much of her marital history, other than the facts of her marriage to Steven Hilburn (my gg-grandfather) and evidence of a possible previous marriage to a man named Powers.
The Powers, Hilburns, and Birds were all fairly prominent North Carolina families, in those days. Hilburn is sometimes spelled Hilborn or Hillborn. Their daughter (my g-grandmother) Polly Hilburn's name was misspelled "Dolly" in the marriage books. Polly married George Washington Elkins. Remarriage was very common in those days, as now. However, then it was more often due to death rather than divorce.
Certain 'helpful' genealogists have dared suggest directly to me, that Cely Bird's real surname was Powers. But that is nothing more than false, speculative, conjecture. If you want to learn the facts about a family, ask the family -- don't go to self-appointed "authorities".
If that were true, if Cely Bird's maiden name was really Powers -- where did "Bird" come from? My grandmother didn't just hatch that up from some wild daydream. And she didn't just decide one day to fantasize being American Indian, a persecuted minority. Get real. Anyone who knows my grandmother (and she was quite well-known in her community), would trust her word over that of any stranger to the family. Hell, anyone could LOOK at her, and see the woman (along with her closest family members of past generations) is Cherokee. But she's gone now, so I am left here to defend her and my family, alone.
There are photographs and other evidence, including family testimonials, but the best clue I have is my mtDNA. So, I would be very interested in studying the specific genetic markers for the various "Native American X" haplogroups. But where is that information? It's hidden, that is the problem. Apparently that is some sort of shady State Secret. And that's very unfair to people like me: people whose Native American ancestors "assimilated" into the general society. People whose Native American ancestors married "outsiders".
There is a very rational explanation why I can't find any documentation for my gg-grandmother (Cely Bird), gg-grandfather (Steven Hilburn), and their parents and siblings. It likely either never existed, or has since been destroyed, perhaps deliberately. But that doesn't mean they didn't exist. They existed, and still do -- in my genome.
There are never any good or innocent reasons for intentionally with-holding the truth and covering up facts, especially from your own family. There is never any justification for denying or stealing a person's rightful identity, their family history --- just because you decide to 'disown' them for some petty reason: greed, politics, power.
That's why I am so open and forthright. I have moral standards, learned from my elders. Fear NOTHING, other than God Almighty himself. I know the truth; but I can't stand all the deceit, all the unnecessary confusion, the outright lies.
I would like to begin with the Windover, Florida, Bog People raw data. Where is it? I need to know.
Here is another paper regarding the Norris Farms site:
Awesome! The following paper, published in full, c2015, reports haplogroup X among the ancient mtDNA of particularly significant Mound Peoples (remember, Cherokees were originally Mound-builders, too). X was rare, even then. And while I am not an exact match, I do share the 16189C marker with those individuals. The finding of X is in itself, very encouraging, but also the fact that they're still looking at ancient lineages. Bravo, keep up the good work!
I'm still waiting for Windover Bog site information, nevertheless. I will never forget what happened there. It is unconscionable, what they did.
My most recent, revised certificate from FTDNA: