GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2003-11 > 1067768050
From: "Malcolm Dodd" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] DNAPrint NA reported as EA
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 10:14:10 -0000
Good to hear from you. I am very pleased to discuss the lousy marketing of
DNPrint and what their results truly mean.
If my ancestry is Shawnee or Mohawk you say that "we know" that this can
read East Asian. (By the way are the Shawnee or Mohawk results EA AND NA or
The highest EA results are for Ana who is of known Taino/Tano amerindian
ancestry. Charles Kerchner insists that his paper trail is 100% accurate and
that his assumption is that his high EA percentage is very ancient Asian.
However I can only say that I have my parents 1942 marriage certificate and
my 1945 birth certificate and baptismal certificate but that does not make
the father named my biological father. Charles is entitled to take a
different view but my considered opinion is that the East Asian of above 20%
cannot come from the Huns or ancient asian ancestry in Europeans and their
"recent" USA descendants, i.e. last 200 years.
Above 20% EA I believe there shows Indian/Aleut/Chinese (pre 1700)
You will need to use the following link to see "THE PINK". In HTML it does
not show on my screen.
Look at figure 2.
It is very difficult to read the small print, but what DNAPrint have told me
is that the pink Asian WHICH IS 100% FOR ASIANS shows from nil to around 50%
in some Americans - those with recent Asian ancestry.
See the DNAPrint explanation where they specifically mention Aleuts-
If you are reasonably certain the ancestor was not him/herself admixed and
was recent in your family tree, there are two other possibilities. Some of
the cases we have processed are probably explained by Aleut heritage and
others are probably explained by admixture that occurred on the North
American continent prior to European colonization.
The remainder of the cases may reflect significant and recent East Asian
admixture with Native Americans prior to European colonization. Although
highly speculative, this is a very interesting possibility because several
recent publications have propounded the idea that East Asians were the first
to discover North America based on archaeological data (1421: The Year
China Discovered America by Natalie Danford, William Morrow & Co; January 7,
2003). Furthermore, Asian and Native American ancestries are evident in
Russians and other Europeans (Science Magazine Genetic Structure of Human
Populations, fig. 1 k=6 references that Russians and the Adygei both have
more non-European ancestry, primarily East Asian and Native American, in the
first figure and then more Central Asian in the second figure). This idea is
controversial, but if this is true, it may explain your result to a certain
extent. Even so, we simply do not know yet the verity of this, which tribes
harbor East Asian admixture, or even whether there is a tribe-to-tribe
difference at all. As we learn more, well update this FAQ list
From: Raymond Whritenour [mailto:]
Sent: sábado, 1 de Novembro de 2003 22:00
Subject: [DNA] DNAPrint NA reported as EA
Your citation of the FAQ section from DNAPrint's marketing material in
no way constitutes "evidence" that their EA results actually mean "NA."
You quoted only the first paragraph of their answer. In the next two,
they speculate that this is due to admixture with Aleuts or Chinese
sailors! Of course your EA reading may really be NA, but only if
DNAPrint's test results are phony (or your an Aleut descendant)--which
they adamantly insist they are not.
By the way: Is there any claim, by DNAPrint, that they have actually
tested Aleuts and found them to test out as East Asians? Anybody? We
know that Shawnee and Mohawk descendants test as EA, but DNAPrint
doesn't say anything about this!
To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go
|RE: [DNA] DNAPrint NA reported as EA by "Malcolm Dodd" <>|