Talk:Haplogroup X (mtDNA)

X Haplogroup might have come from America

Could it be that the group moved from America to Europe rather than the other way around? It is most commonly found there...

Meznaric (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the highest diversity is in Near East, specially in Druzes. --Maulucioni (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Altaia

I've pulled this paragraph:

Nevertheless, Derenko's study asserts that the recent European admixture cannot explain the presence of haplogroup X in the Altaians. Hence, these study allow us to suggest that haplogroup X was the part of the ancestral gene pool for Altaian populations, being found both in northern and southern Altaians. As shown by computer analysis, this DNA sequence is not a late European admixture. Rather, the Altai variant X is ancient and can be close to the ancestral form of the variants of contemporary Europeans and Amerinds. The mtDNA studies have shown that both northern and southern Altaians exhibit all four Asian and American Indian–specific haplogroups (A–D). Therefore, they may represent the populations which are most closely related to New World indigenous groups. The candidate source population for American Indian mtDNA haplotypes therefore may include the populations originating in the regions to the southwest and southeast of Lake Baikal, including the Altay Mountain region. The presence of X mtDNAs in Altaians is generally consonant with the latter conclusion.

Derenko's 2001 conclusions were drawn from tests for key markers on the Altay samples; it is essentially superseded by Reidla's 2003 work, based on much more extensive sequencing of samples from all known Haplogroup X populations. It confirms that the Altaian Hg X samples, given the subclade X3e, have a different ancesty to the most commonly found subclades in Europe. Rather, subclade X3e is particularly associated with the South Caucausus, where it is estimated to have arisen in about 10,000 BC. But the detailed similarity of the Altaian sequences suggest that they share a common ancestor much later than this, very unlikely to have been earlier than 4,700 BC. In contrast, subclade X2a is estimated to have been separately developing in North America, isolated from all the other subclades, since 16,000 BC; and it is as different to X2e as it is to any other subclades.

The ancestors of the X2a subclade might have passed through Altaia on their journey to North America. But the modern-day X2e samples are essentially irrelevant to this question - they have nothing to say about it, neither one way nor the other. Jheald 10:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

In response to the poster that stated that Reidla's research allegedly "superseded" Derenko & co.'s research; it must also be noted that Reidla's position has also been thoroughly refuted and superseded by the 2008 research and conclusions of Fagundes & co. who have proved that haplogroup X is part of a single founder effect coming from Siberia across the Bering Strait. This is in Fagundes et al. 2008 article entitled "Mitochondrial Population Genomics Supports a Single Pre-Clovis Origin with a Coastal Route for the Peopling of the Americas"; quoting from this article: "Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration models." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427228/?tool=pmcentrez --Historylover4 (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A discussion on some hypotheses + possible additions to this article

I think that some important points may be missing here:

a) Let us first assume that mtDNA haplogroup X arrived in North America and the Caribbean from Europe, carried by individuals of the Solutrean culture, which is almost identical to the Clovis one, circa 16000 YBP. This event is perfectly possible, and certainly not unheard of even among Palaeolithic peoples. At any rate, if there were such an arrival of populations distinct from those of the main migrations that subsequently brought mtDNA haplogroups C, D, B and A to the Americas along with the widespread Y-chromosome haplogroup Q (and possibly an earlier YAP haplogroup, reportedly found in isolated pockets, besides the obviously latecomer C with Na-Dene speakers), we might also expect a different Y-DNA haplogroup, distinct from Q, to have been carried along through the male population. The question is, where is it, and crucially, what Y-chromosome haplogroup would it be, specifically? X-carrying populations do not generally differ from other Amerind populations when it comes to the paternal side: they almost exclusively present Q or C. Have the earlier paternal line(s) been wiped out by the incoming Q-carrying warrior groups? Interestingly, the estimated time of arrival of Y-DNA Haplogoup Q to the Americas is of ~14.000 years, shortly after the hypothesized arrival of X-carrying groups. That might explain the limited geographical extent of haplogroup X and the absence of a Y-DNA migratory counterpart: before it could spread westwards and southwards, another population wave came along, eliminating much of the male subjects and subsuming the female population. This might not be unique of the populations carrying haplogroup X, since haplogroups C and D (belonging to macrohaplogroup M) have expansion times significantly greater than that calculated for Y-chrom. haplogroup Q. Can this be explained by the suspected divergence in the “genetic clocks” of mtDNA and Y-chromosome? Maybe it is not necessary, since the time estimated for the arrival of mtDNA haplogroup A agrees almost perfectly with Y-DNA haplogroup Q. So, on the other hand, the A haplogroup dominant in North America and decreasing in frequency toward the south would be the latecomer alongside haplogroup Q (probably in the same migration wave), and all other mtDNA haplogroups would have arrived earlier, in distinct migrations and in groups whose male population has been all but replaced by the more recent wave.

b) But then what if a X-carrying population had crossed from Western Eurasia through the Siberian Steppes and later the same Steppes were depopulated by Ice-age geological events? I have seen a study suggesting that a gigantic lake might have formed in Central Siberia – effectively causing depopulation – and that would mean that the current haplogroups could have arrived later and would explain the missing link. This would also better account for the absence of an “outlier” mtDNA haplogroup with geographical variation in the Americas without corresponding outlying Y-DNA groups, since the dominant Y-DNA group in the Americas, Q, is present in both ends of Siberia (with those sequences most similar to a majority of Amerindian Q subgroups being found precisely at the frontier of Western Eurasia, among Samoyedic populations). Alternatively, though, the occurrence of extreme geological events in parts of Siberia might explain the absence of archeological remains similar to those of Solutrean and Clovis cultures, and so obscure this link also on the material level, although I personally believe that this is probably unlikely. At any rate, however, this second hypothesis apparently fails to explain the extremely limited geographical occurrence of haplogroup X, when compared to the more common C, D, B and A, even considering genetic drift or bottleneck effects, as well as the already mentioned divergence in coalescence times. What do you think? There are many more issues here, of course, and a better clarification of these questions by genetics would have wide-reaching consequences for the history of Palaeolithic migrations. This article, as well as all the related articles, should address these issues as well, and I believe that some of the above mentioned facts should be somehow included. Before, though, I’d have to search my files and in the papers for some specific references. Would also appreciate if you know of any other studies that might somehow add up to the discussion and be mentioned in the main article.

Origin of Haplogroup X

I thought Haplogroup X originated in the Middle East, not Asia? 67.83.173.186 20:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The article states now that "Other suggestions which do not involve boats state that a population of Ukranian origin possessing haplogroup X migrated rapidly eastward across Russia as a single group, ultimately crossing the Bering land bridge and entering North America. This group left few people behind, as evidenced by the scarcity of Haplogroup X within Asia" with a reference to an article mtDNA haplogroup X: An ancient link between Europe/Western Asia and North America? . But the article does not contain such information. Instead, it states: "Given the apparent absence of haplogroup X in modern eastern and northern Asia, it is difficult to define a source population for haplogroup X in the Americas" and presumes different possible ways of how haplogroup X occurs in mtDNA of Native Americans. One of possible ways is indeed "that this mtDNA was brought to Beringia/America by the eastward migration of an ancestral Caucasian population, of which no trace has so far been found in the mtDNA gene pool of modern Siberian/eastern Asian populations", but there is no mention of "a population of Ukrainian origin", which along with the Russians and Russia came to exist a few thousand years later. I presume that the story about Ukrainians and Russia and haplogroup X is an original research and should be corrected. A.I.K. (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is X stronger in North American populations than in Europe?

After reading the article I was confused by the stated percentages and "origins" of Haplogroup X. It's stated that certain populations of Algonquins in North America display a 25% presence of this genetic marker while only 2% of Europe's population displays it. Seeing that Europe has a much larger population and documented history of Paleolithic interaction throughout the European Continent, why has the X gene lost prominence?. Shouldn't there be at least a 20% presence of X within the European population in general? Also, since there is no conclusive evidence that Solutreans contained this genetic marker how can it be assumed that they even had the X gene?--208.54.15.161 19:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Different Haplogroups. X2a in North America is not the same as the X strain in Europe. Can anyone find a source for the 25% figure anyway? Dougweller 16:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the entries: founder effect and genetic drift. They are self-explainatory (I hope). --Sugaar (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent Research pointing to a Beringian 'Standstill'

Research published this year argues for a founding population travelling through and remaining in Beringia for some time. I'm not sure how this affects this article. The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 82, Issue 3, 583-592, 3 March 2008, Mitochondrial Population Genomics Supports a Single Pre-Clovis Origin with a Coastal Route for the Peopling of the Americas Nelson J.R. Fagundes, Ricardo Kanitz, Roberta Eckert, Ana C.S. Valls, Mauricio R. Bogo, Francisco M. Salzano, David Glenn Smith, Wilson A. Silva, Marco A. Zago, Andrea K. Ribeiro-dos-Santos, Sidney E.B. Santos, Maria Luiza Petzl-Erler and Sandro L. Bonatto

PLoS ONE. 2007 Sep 5;2(9) Beringian standstill and spread of Native American founders. Tamm E, Kivisild T, Reidla M, Metspalu M, Smith DG, Mulligan CJ, Bravi CM, Rickards O, Martinez-Labarga C, Khusnutdinova EK, Fedorova SA, Golubenko MV, Stepanov VA, Gubina MA, Zhadanov SI, Ossipova LP, Damba L, Voevoda MI, Dipierri JE, Villems R, Malhi RS.

Achilli A, Perego UA, Bravi CM, Coble MD, Kong QP, et al. (2008) The Phylogeny of the Four Pan-American MtDNA Haplogroups: Implications for Evolutionary and Disease Studies. PLoS ONE 3(3)

The American Journal of Human Genetics article says "Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration models."--Doug Weller (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The AJGH paper is very interesting. The skyline plot of likely effective population size, and the scenario of a long bottleneck period before a marked expansion, looks very plausible. However, I think the word "refute" is a bit strong. I can't see anything in the paper to show that the Solutrean hypothesis is impossible -- I don't think they have enough data to say. IMO a fairer summary would be to say that the paper demonstrates that the Solutrean hypothesis is not necessary to expain the present distribution of Haplogroup X2a, regionally concentrated in a few areas in North America, and apparently absent in Asia.

The evidence from Haplogroups A, B, C and D is of a founder population with an effective population size of about 1,000 females becoming separated from an ancestral population in Asia for a period of about 5,000 years, before undergoing a rapid population expansion soon after the end of the last LGM. The haplotype X2a data also fits this scenario, with a similar coalescence time. The present geographical distribution is compatible with it initially having been present at a much lower frequency than the other four haplogroups, so that in most descendent populations it has not been preserved; except for a few areas, where by chance it may have been stronger in the initial founder population and then "surfed" a subsequent sudden range expansion.

But it seems to me that that same scenario - with that same timescale - would apply equally well to the Solutrean hypothesis. The real problems AFAICS with the Solutrean hypothesis are different: namely, if one accepts it, why didn't any other "European" mtDNA haplogroups come over too? And why doesn't it seem to be accompanied by any corresponding Y-DNA "European" haplogroups?

So it seems to me the paper does a persuasive job of showing the Solutrean hypothesis is unnecessary. But I don't think the argumentation is developed to actually refute it - at least, not in the paper itself. Jheald (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ineresting point. It's fascinating that suddenly we have several papers, all arguing for a Pre-Clovis migration with a Beringian standstill. I don't think the AJGH paper was just aimed at the Solutrean hypothesis, but it certainly targets it. The sentence "Our results strongly support the hypothesis that haplogroup X, together with the other four main mtDNA haplogroups, was part of the gene pool of a single Native American founding population; therefore they do not support models that propose haplogroup-independent migrations, such as the migration from Europe posed by the Solutrean hypothesis" might be more to your liking. I rarely think 'refute' is final anyway.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What I think is interesting is that their Phylogenetic Tree (in the "refuting" paper) shows that haplogroup X is anomalous compared the Beringian groups (A, B, C and D) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427228/figure/fig4/ Their own paper estimates the number of X2a mutations at being <= 2 until ~ 12kya. By that time A,B,C, and D were already over 10, some over 20. That seems odd for a paper purporting to "refute" a non-shared migration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrostatic1 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

X2a

according to the article linked,

"if we assume that the two complete Native American X sequences (from one Navajo and one Ojibwa) began to diverge while their common ancestor was already in the Americas, we obtain a coalescence time of 18,000 ± 6,800 YBP, implying an arrival time not later than 11,000 YBP."

this leaves open the question whether the ancestor of X2a reached America together with the main migration across the Bering straight, or at a later date around the LGM. dab (𒁳) 11:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Science on Wikipedia

I've just changed two occurances of BC to BP. Am I wrong? Is there a Wikipedian rule I don't know about, suggesting a Christ-centric view of the scientific world? I'm a Christian myself, and some of my colleagues are giving us a bad name by realistically trying to hijack science ... I try to not impose my beliefs on others, and feel this is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.32.33 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's very good of you, I wish everyone was like that. WP:styleguide is what you want:

"Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE system, but not both in the same article. AD appears before or after a year (AD 1066, 1066 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE-AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other. Uncalibrated (bce) radiocarbon dates: Do not give uncalibrated radiocarbon dates (represented by the lower-case bce unit, occasionally bc or b.c. in some sources), except in directly quoted material, and even then include a footnote, a [square-bracketed editor's note], or other indication to the reader what the calibrated date is, or at least that the date is uncalibrated. Calibrated and uncalibrated dates can diverge surprisingly widely, and the average reader does not recognize the distinction between bce and BCE-BC."

When I last read that I realised I've seen several cases recently of BP being incorrectly used.

The earliest relevant version uses BC, so that is the way it should be (to my regret as in archaeology and history BCE/CE is used more and more).--Doug Weller (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

South America

Someone dropped in South America in 2006 and it's been left there. It appears to be wrong: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 000:000–000 (2005)

Is Haplogroup X Present in Extant South American Indians?

Claudia L. Dornelles,1,2 Sandro L. Bonatto,2 Loreta B. de Freitas,1 and Francisco M. Salzano1* ABSTRACT A total of 1,159 mitochondrial DNA samples from two Mongolian, two Siberian, and 25 South Native American populations was surveyed for the presence of the C16278T mutation, frequently found in haplogroup X. Material from 25 carriers of that mutation was then sequenced for the hypervariable segment I (HVS-I) control region, and those that still were not classifiable in classical Amerindian haplogroups were further studied. The tests involved all the control region, as well as the presence of characteristic mutations in seven coding fragments, totalling 5,760 base pairs. The results indicate that haplogroup X is not present in these samples.
dougweller (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Haplogroup X being introduced by Solutreans

Since I'm not a genetic scientist I just wanted to ask for some clarification on how DNA is carried on for future generations.

In the Solutrean Hypothesis, it argues that the Haplogroup X (mtDNA) marker may have been contributed by a population of Solutreans who intermixed with Asian travelers into North America. If this intermixing did happen, wouldn't MORE DNA markers from the Paleo-European population be found in the modern day North/South American populations with genetic heritage from ancient Amerinds? Or is it safe to argue that over time, European genetic markers like I, J, K, T, W, etc got "washed-out" over time? Is the argument that a number of Solutreans intermixed with a number of Amerinds or just one Solutrean male did the job and founded the legacy that is X found in both North and South America? --71.189.120.175 (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to most of your questions, but it definitely was not 'one European male', because mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) only comes from one's mother.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sykes' "Xenia"

I apologise in advance, since this is trivial / popular-culture stuff... but I had to nitpick the Sykes section. As Sykes told the fictional / speculative account of "Xenia" he implied that one daughter went to Europe and the other to America. (Of course Sykes is not a Solutrean.) That means Xenia is X2. He did that either because he was not aware of X1 or else, knowing, understood that X1 was not among European ancestors and so doesn't count. --Zimriel (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of going off into Pseudoscience Land

William Penn might have been onto something when he speculated that the Lenape of the Philadelphia area were remnants of the Ten Lost Tribes, although he might not have been accurate. If X haplotype is most diverse among peoples of the Near East, and if it shows up among Algonquins, which the Lenape are, then something might have happened. He described the Lenape as having something more of a European appearance than an Asian appearance, although they had dark skin, their noses and faces were more of a European appearance.

The geographical distribution of the X haplotype suggests that it might have come over the north Atlantic with the Vikings and begun spreading among Native Americans when "skraelings" intermixed with the Northmen. I wonder if Jews or Arabs or traders might have sailed with those Vikings...

Of course, the Phoenicians might have beaten the Vikings to the punch. They sailed around Africa, after all, and so someone might have fled the Punic Wars. But that is, also, speculation.

Unfortunately, another problem is that this doesn't seem to be reflected in Algonquin/ Lenape language. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong; I'm no linguistic expert.) Shouldn't there be some sort of Viking/Punic /other Semitic remnants in the Lenape/Algonquin languages, if Vikings or Phoenicians (or Jews or Arabs) settled among the skraelings? If so, where are they? 198.151.130.45 (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Ignore the above commentary, as it appears that the haplogroup X2A seems to have emerged from founders 11,000 years ago, well before any Phoenicians or Vikings existed. Oops. 198.151.130.45 (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless you have a different interpretation of the Scientific Evidence and don't thin the world is even 11,000 years old.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Minoan copper miners?

Your lead line reads "In human mitochondrial genetics, Haplogroup X is a human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup. It has a widespread global distribution but no major regions of distinct localization."

Just to the right you display a picture which appears to contradict that statement, showing significant localization in the area of the eastern Mediterranean Sea and in the area surrounding the Great Lakes in North America. This is an observation which proponents of the notion that Michigan copper drove the European Bronze Age like to use in support of their thesis, as it shows haplogroup X concentrated in the known trading area of the Minoans and including the copper producing region of Lake Superior. Likewise it fails to show any enhancement along the land route which led across Beringia along which the first Americans are thought to have come. The main thing left unsettled for the Minoan hypothesis is a convincing demonstration of their capacity for trans-Atlantic voyaging. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hardly. We can identify sources of copper, so you'd have to show Lake Superior copper in Minoan contexts, and Minoan artefacts at Lake superior. In any case, see [1] which says "These findings may explain the presence of mitochondrial lineage X in Native Americans." and "the study concludes that two distinct Old World populations led to the formation of the First American gene pool: one related to modern-day East Asians, and the other a Siberian Upper Palaeolithic population related to modern-day western Eurasians." and "The presence of a population related to western Eurasians further into northeast Eurasia provides a more likely explanation for the presence of non-East Asian cranial characteristics in the First Americans, rather than the Solutrean hypothesis that proposes an Atlantic route from Iberia." Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Um...Gosh, I think I was pointing to the disconnect between statement and picture. As to my last statement, I agree it sounds more positive than I had intended. That being said, have you or "we" in fact identified sources of copper for a representative range of Eurasian Bronze Age artifacts? Have the characteristics of Lake Superior native coppers likewise been identified and excluded as a possible source? Does the presence of .GT. 99.5% pure copper in the "oxhide" ingots recovered from the shipwreck at Uluburun admit of a source, given metallurgical smelting methods thought to exist prior to 1200BC, other than Lake Superior copper, particularly as they are lacking in the sulfur and arsenic typical of known European copper, and have been declared to be "non-Aegean metal..."? Is there a plausible explanation for small silver inclusions in a few European copper artifacts other than an origin in the deposits at Lake Superior? Have you a plausible explanation for the great disparity between apparent copper usage in the Americas prior to 1200BC and the amount of effort which seems to have gone into digging some 5 to 10 thousand pits to extract at least half a billion pounds of copper on Isle Royale and the Keweenaw Peninsula also before 1200BC? (And no, I don't buy the argument that the amount of copper is greatly inflated. Assays of adjacent ore-bearing rocks done in the 1800's found from 4% to 15% native copper. The half-billion pounds took the amount of rock removed from about 5000 of the ancient pits multiplied by 5%.) As regards the putative populations suggested as an alternative source of the haplogroup x distribution, and given no evidence of long distance ocean voyaging, how does your reference explain the lack of any evident x enhancement along the only apparent (land) migration route? The article makes a blue sky guess based on little beyond the DNA of one or 2 ancients. If the purport is that the trait came over the land bridge, where is any evidence of that, or even that the trait existed that long ago? There is no mention that haplogroup x was part of the examined DNA. I hadn't intended to make any arguments vis-a-vis Solutreans at all, the Cinmar blade notwithstanding. I understand this to be a touchy subject in contemporary American anthropology/archaeology. There seems little reason to suppose that any putative Minoan involvement resulted in much cultural diffusion other than perhaps via intermarriage which would have left its mark in a regional haplogroup x enhancement, as the picture seems to purport. I would then naively suppose that Minoan copper mining would fall more into the same category as the now acceptable (per recent excavations at L'ans en Meadows) notion of some tentative pre-Columbian Norse involvement in the Americas. As for possible evidences of European presence, I recommend "Prehistoric Copper Mining in the Lake Superior Region" by Drier & Du Temple (1961). It seems to have been fashionable at the time to declare unexpected artifacts to be hoaxes. (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Susan Martin is considered to be the expert on this. She kindly gave me permission to host her article on the subject - she doesn't think much of Drier & Du Temple.[2] The Cinmar blade - more differences than similarities to Solutrean I understand, and coming up in the same dredge obviously proves nothing. You might want to read this discussion[3] also as it discusses the genetic arguments with more current information. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to Ms. Martin. I will certainly have a look. As for what is a proof or not, as you may know they are rather different beasts between science and mathematics. Preponderance of evidence is about as well as one can do in science, and all scientific conclusions are forever at the mercy of the next bit of evidence or experiment. As I noted above, I don't really have a dog in the Solutrean hunt, however, it does annoy me when possible evidence is tossed away on some pretext. Science shouldn't behave like Judge Judy's courtroom. A rather substantial amount of evidence seems to be building up behind the Minoan hypothesis, any part of which can certainly be questioned, but to really slay the notion is becoming increasingly difficult. I wouldn't doubt that Ms. Martin doesn't much care for the authors of "Rocks and Rows" either. But I think they're onto something. Another tome would be "World Trade and Biological Exchanges Before 1492" which traces food and medicinal plants/animals & diseases found in both east and west hemispheres. This strikes a body blow to the notion that Europeans invented deliberate trans-oceanic voyaging (excepting Vikings) in late 1400's. As to Drier and Du Temple book, it takes a bit of getting past differences in scholarly and mundane writing styles from past times, as the book is a compendium of old papers just sort of lumped together. One frustration is that a paper will refer to some source which is not referenced by the compilers at all. You have to go back and dig it out yourself (sort of appropo in a book about mines, I suppose). Contrary to practice at Wikipedia, I have come to like early/first-person accounts, as the vetting process (which I suppose is the reason to prefer secondary sources) seems as likely to toss out useful information as to reject questionable stuff. Again, thanks for your feedback. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have had a cursory look at Ms. Martins' site and your hosting. I can certainly see why she dislikes Drier & Du Temple. I also note that she teaches American Indian Political Issues and Heritage management at Michigan Tech. This is not the resume of an impartial observer when applied to questions of pre-Columbian cultural diffusion between Europe and North America. A glance at her FAQ on ancient copper page suggests that she just rejects outright much putative evidence that supports non-native American involvement in the prehistoric mines at Lake Superior. I see there some flat-out denials of statements made in Drier & Du Temple, as for instance:

Drier & Du Temple: PRE-HISTORIC MINING IN THE COPPER COUNTRY (Roy W. Drier): "Father Allouez said that the Indian Legends contained no reference to mining or to the miners. In fact the Indians did not know where the mines were. A report of a Chippewa legend says that an old one states that their forefathers drove out a white race who might have been the miners."

Susan Martin FAQ: "Some people argue that native Americans were not aware of the mines or of mining, and that the mining was done by a lost tribe of unknown people. Is this true?

No. There is no evidence of any lost tribe. Copper materials are found in association with native sites and artifacts throughout the Upper Great Lakes. There are many early accounts of Europeans who depended on native people to show them where the copper was. However, in general many of the native people did not want the Europeans to occupy their lands, and were reluctant to show the places where the copper was for fear the newcomers would take it. Time proved them right about this. After the Treaty of LaPointe (1842-3), the Lake Superior basin was the scene of the first American mineral rush, which pushed many native peoples away from their original lands."

Sooo, maybe the indigenous were just lying to Father Allouez. However, the reported conversation took place before 1660, well before the Treaty of LaPointe. As to "A report of a Chippewa legend says that an old one states that" which sounds kind of lame until you recall that the event in question probably happened, if at all, at least 1000 years before that and maybe 2500 years before. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This is way off topic, I'm sorry I got involved. All I can say is that she is the recognised expert in the field of ancient copper mining. You think she's biased, that's your privilege. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize! Guess when I get going I have trouble shutting down. You've been most patient and helpful and I'm sure Susan Martin has much to offer. Thanks again for your help and inputs. In fact, as I look at the last post, it seems rather unkind and rude. So I am cancelling it. Again my sincere apologies. I guess this is a learning experience for me. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Just by the by, I grew up near Butte Montana, which at one time was the most productive copper mine in the world. So I guess the mention of copper mining triggers things for me. Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Just ran across this analysis of Wolter's show on this claim[4] Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Minoan copper miners revisited

Two considerations occur which run contrary to considering the haplogroup X distribution map as indicative of Minoan presence in the Great Lakes 3 to 5 thousand years ago:

1) As noted in the article, Native Americans almost exclusively have the X2a variant, which is almost unknown in the eastern hemisphere, including the Minoan trading region. X2a appears to have branched away from other X2 variants between 11,000 and 25,000 years ago, well before any evidence of extensive Lake Superior copper mining. Refer to Ref 13 in the article (Reidla et al, 2003).

2) X Haplogroups are from mitochondrial DNA and transmitted via the maternal lineage. A naïve expectation would be that any putative Minoan copper miners would have been mostly male. Therefore, a map of Y-chromosomal variance distributions would better address this issue, probably in some other Wiki article.

Note that the article at upublish.info, The Enigmas of Maternal Haplogroup X by Robert Henvell (8/2013) speaks of a newly discovered (@2009) X2 variant (X2j) from North Africa, which shares a mutation with X2a. However making a derivative connection between the 2 would be highly speculative at this point.

Jwilsonjwilson (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by the authors of "Does Mitochondrial Haplogroup X Indicate Ancient Trans-Atlantic Migration to the Americas?"

See [5] Doug Weller talk 15:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Haplogroup X (mtDNA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229152305/http://download.cell.com/AJHG/mmcs/journals/0002-9297/PIIS0002929709001633.mmc1.pdf to http://download.cell.com/AJHG/mmcs/journals/0002-9297/PIIS0002929709001633.mmc1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100622001311/http://www.genebase.com/tutorial/item.php?tuId=16 to http://www.genebase.com/tutorial/item.php?tuId=16
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100417052022/http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_N.htm to http://www.phylotree.org/tree/subtree_N.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haplogroup X (mtDNA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927015036/http://www.bauuinstitute.com/Publishing/DNAbook.html to http://www.bauuinstitute.com/Publishing/DNAbook.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Obsolete.

@Doug Weller: Which one is later? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"Origin and diffusion of mtDNA haplogroup X" which is dated 2003, the one just before it is dated 2001. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I kept it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)#cite_note-Reidla-10 --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually I think the main thing is to keep it chronological, and we might want to use more of the Raff article. We should say something in the lead about it also, the lead is much too short. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Agree. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sidoroff-B: Thanks. But I'm drafting an ArbCom case and may not have time to work on this. Doug Weller talk 16:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)