| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Eric Stevens
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:00 am Post subject: Prince Henry Sinclair and all that |
 |
|
There seems to be some activity.
First there is
http://www.atlanticconference.org/AtlanticConference-2/08overview.htm
which seems to lack only Uncle Tom Cobbley.
Then there is:
http://mailman.geo.uu.nl/pipermail/maphist/2008-February/011342.html
"I run the Sinclair DNA project worldwide and we’ve used our DNA to
test certain hypotheses in our family. For instance, if Prince
Henry St. Clair were here, he or his men may have left children
behind with Native women. Native North Americans have a very
different set of DNA markers known collectively as Haplogroup Q3.
Western Europeans show very little of the Q and none of the Q3.
Instead they, and the Sinclair family, are Haplogroup R1b. In
testing a Native North American tribal leader we found him to be
Haplogroup R1b and closely related to one of the Sinclair DNA
lineages. “Oh, glory be, we’ve proven that Prince Henry did indeed
discover North America,” right? I’ve already picked out my suit to
wear on my History Channel interview. But the truth could be very
different. (1) Certainly he could be mistaken about his line of
descent and be the product of a liaison between his g-g-great
grandmother and a British soldier. (2) He could be telling a lie
about who he is. (3) He could be the result of an adoption back in
time. We’ve seen those in our family’s DNA project. Or (3) he could
be the product of early trans-Atlantic contact. It is one
possibility that we’re forced to consider in light of Mi’kmaq oral
traditions which speak of three waves of migration across the
Atlantic, the earliest supposedly in about 400 AD. Such oral
traditions have been successfully used in law cases in Canada at
the highest levels. That doesn’t make them right, and so we
continue to look for more Natives to test and other ways to crack
this.
.... Kind Regards,
Steve St. Clair
The Atlantic Conference
The Sinclair DNA project investigation is unique as far as I know but
from the reaction of Steve St Clair it seems to be being run on a
level headed basis. It will be interesting to see what comes out. One
way or another it should serve to settle a few arguments.
Eric Stevens |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Tom McDonald
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 9:56 pm Post subject: Re: Prince Henry Sinclair and all that |
|
|
Eric Stevens wrote:
[quote]There seems to be some activity.
First there is
http://www.atlanticconference.org/AtlanticConference-2/08overview.htm
which seems to lack only Uncle Tom Cobbley.
[/quote]
The overview is not as interesting to me as are the brief bios
and previews of the speakers' work:
http://www.atlanticconference.org/AtlanticConference-2/speakers.htm
or:
http://tinyurl.com/5v2z3o
Of course, there are the Usual Suspects -- Olshin, Hristov,
Thompson, Wolter and others. The information in the snippets
seems to be either provided by the participants, or gleaned from
other sources about the participants. Not surprising; and there
is no indication on the page of any one person having written
them all up.
What struck me was the listing of Mark and Wendy Phillips. They
are listed as being of the 'Anishinaabe Tribe'.
There is, to my knowledge, no single 'Anishinaabe' tribe, but
rather an Algonquian group comprising several (five or six, I
think) Anishinaabe groups such as the Ojibwe, Cree and others.
Unless this usage of 'Tribe' is some term of agglomeration of
which I am innocent, perhaps relating to the 'one people
separated by many years who soon will be reunited', it seems an
odd misuse of a recognized anthropological term.
This seems especially so as the 'one people separated by many
years who soon will be reunited' seems to be butted up against
the business of pre-Columbian contact between unspecified folks
and said Anishinaabe people.
I note that this does not explicitly state that the 'one people'
includes the pre-Columbian non-Anishinaabe folks; and indeed
seems to refer to this contact as something in addition to the
reunification of the 'one people'. Perhaps the purpose of the
blurb is to spur just the sort of question I am raising here; to
wit -- What has this reunification to do with the purported
pre-Columbian contact? If anything?
My frantic googling hasn>t come up with anything useful about
Mark and/or Wendy Phillips, or Mark>s teacher, Wilson Ashkewe.
This seems a bit odd. In this day, when 2012 is looming on the
horizon, and it seems that every scrap of Native American history
and legend has been given a woo-woo-ward, New Age-y twist to sell
something, this sort of story would seem tailor-made for the
Interweb tubes-not-trucks.
On the one hand, this may be a good thing; but on the other, it
makes this a difficult story for me to get my teeth into with the
time and interest available to me.
Any ideas of what this all means?
[quote]Then there is:
http://mailman.geo.uu.nl/pipermail/maphist/2008-February/011342.html
"I run the Sinclair DNA project worldwide and we’ve used our DNA to
test certain hypotheses in our family. For instance, if Prince
Henry St. Clair were here, he or his men may have left children
behind with Native women. Native North Americans have a very
different set of DNA markers known collectively as Haplogroup Q3.
Western Europeans show very little of the Q and none of the Q3.
Instead they, and the Sinclair family, are Haplogroup R1b. In
testing a Native North American tribal leader we found him to be
Haplogroup R1b and closely related to one of the Sinclair DNA
lineages. “Oh, glory be, we’ve proven that Prince Henry did indeed
discover North America,” right? I’ve already picked out my suit to
wear on my History Channel interview. But the truth could be very
different. (1) Certainly he could be mistaken about his line of
descent and be the product of a liaison between his g-g-great
grandmother and a British soldier. (2) He could be telling a lie
about who he is. (3) He could be the result of an adoption back in
time. We’ve seen those in our family’s DNA project. Or (3) he could
be the product of early trans-Atlantic contact. It is one
possibility that we’re forced to consider in light of Mi’kmaq oral
traditions which speak of three waves of migration across the
Atlantic, the earliest supposedly in about 400 AD. Such oral
traditions have been successfully used in law cases in Canada at
the highest levels. That doesn’t make them right, and so we
continue to look for more Natives to test and other ways to crack
this.
.... Kind Regards,
Steve St. Clair
The Atlantic Conference
The Sinclair DNA project investigation is unique as far as I know but
from the reaction of Steve St Clair it seems to be being run on a
level headed basis. It will be interesting to see what comes out. One
way or another it should serve to settle a few arguments.
[/quote]
Steve may have to watch his back. This sort of normal-science
tentativeness stuff might get him marginalized in his own clan. :-)
But I have to say, as a fellow Scot, I like the way he seems to
be proceeding.
--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Eric Stevens
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:19 am Post subject: Re: Prince Henry Sinclair and all that |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:56:14 -0600, Tom McDonald
<tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote:
[quote]Eric Stevens wrote:
There seems to be some activity.
First there is
http://www.atlanticconference.org/AtlanticConference-2/08overview.htm
which seems to lack only Uncle Tom Cobbley.
The overview is not as interesting to me as are the brief bios
and previews of the speakers' work:
http://www.atlanticconference.org/AtlanticConference-2/speakers.htm
or:
http://tinyurl.com/5v2z3o
Of course, there are the Usual Suspects -- Olshin, Hristov,
Thompson, Wolter and others. The information in the snippets
seems to be either provided by the participants, or gleaned from
other sources about the participants. Not surprising; and there
is no indication on the page of any one person having written
them all up.
What struck me was the listing of Mark and Wendy Phillips. They
are listed as being of the 'Anishinaabe Tribe'.
There is, to my knowledge, no single 'Anishinaabe' tribe, but
rather an Algonquian group comprising several (five or six, I
think) Anishinaabe groups such as the Ojibwe, Cree and others.
Unless this usage of 'Tribe' is some term of agglomeration of
which I am innocent, perhaps relating to the 'one people
separated by many years who soon will be reunited', it seems an
odd misuse of a recognized anthropological term.
This seems especially so as the 'one people separated by many
years who soon will be reunited' seems to be butted up against
the business of pre-Columbian contact between unspecified folks
and said Anishinaabe people.
I note that this does not explicitly state that the 'one people'
includes the pre-Columbian non-Anishinaabe folks; and indeed
seems to refer to this contact as something in addition to the
reunification of the 'one people'. Perhaps the purpose of the
blurb is to spur just the sort of question I am raising here; to
wit -- What has this reunification to do with the purported
pre-Columbian contact? If anything?
My frantic googling hasn>t come up with anything useful about
Mark and/or Wendy Phillips, or Mark>s teacher, Wilson Ashkewe.
This seems a bit odd. In this day, when 2012 is looming on the
horizon, and it seems that every scrap of Native American history
and legend has been given a woo-woo-ward, New Age-y twist to sell
something, this sort of story would seem tailor-made for the
Interweb tubes-not-trucks.
On the one hand, this may be a good thing; but on the other, it
makes this a difficult story for me to get my teeth into with the
time and interest available to me.
Any ideas of what this all means?
Then there is:
http://mailman.geo.uu.nl/pipermail/maphist/2008-February/011342.html
"I run the Sinclair DNA project worldwide and we’ve used our DNA to
test certain hypotheses in our family. For instance, if Prince
Henry St. Clair were here, he or his men may have left children
behind with Native women. Native North Americans have a very
different set of DNA markers known collectively as Haplogroup Q3.
Western Europeans show very little of the Q and none of the Q3.
Instead they, and the Sinclair family, are Haplogroup R1b. In
testing a Native North American tribal leader we found him to be
Haplogroup R1b and closely related to one of the Sinclair DNA
lineages. “Oh, glory be, we’ve proven that Prince Henry did indeed
discover North America,” right? I’ve already picked out my suit to
wear on my History Channel interview. But the truth could be very
different. (1) Certainly he could be mistaken about his line of
descent and be the product of a liaison between his g-g-great
grandmother and a British soldier. (2) He could be telling a lie
about who he is. (3) He could be the result of an adoption back in
time. We’ve seen those in our family’s DNA project. Or (3) he could
be the product of early trans-Atlantic contact. It is one
possibility that we’re forced to consider in light of Mi’kmaq oral
traditions which speak of three waves of migration across the
Atlantic, the earliest supposedly in about 400 AD. Such oral
traditions have been successfully used in law cases in Canada at
the highest levels. That doesn’t make them right, and so we
continue to look for more Natives to test and other ways to crack
this.
.... Kind Regards,
Steve St. Clair
The Atlantic Conference
The Sinclair DNA project investigation is unique as far as I know but
from the reaction of Steve St Clair it seems to be being run on a
level headed basis. It will be interesting to see what comes out. One
way or another it should serve to settle a few arguments.
Steve may have to watch his back. This sort of normal-science
tentativeness stuff might get him marginalized in his own clan. :-)
But I have to say, as a fellow Scot, I like the way he seems to
be proceeding.
[/quote]
I posted my original message in haste. Since then I have done some
digging and found:
http://www.sinclairresearch.co.uk/dna/aboutorg.htm which announces the
DNA project.
http://www.stclairresearch.com/ which describes the DNA project in
more detail. It seems to be much more than an investigation into
possible North American settlement.
http://www.sinclairresearch.co.uk/dna/starting.htm - 'Getting
Started'.
Eric Stevens |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Tom McDonald
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:08 am Post subject: Re: Prince Henry Sinclair and all that |
|
|
Eric Stevens wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:56:14 -0600, Tom McDonald
tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote:
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]Then there is:
http://mailman.geo.uu.nl/pipermail/maphist/2008-February/011342.html
"I run the Sinclair DNA project worldwide and we’ve used our DNA to
test certain hypotheses in our family. For instance, if Prince
Henry St. Clair were here, he or his men may have left children
behind with Native women. Native North Americans have a very
different set of DNA markers known collectively as Haplogroup Q3.
Western Europeans show very little of the Q and none of the Q3.
Instead they, and the Sinclair family, are Haplogroup R1b. In
testing a Native North American tribal leader we found him to be
Haplogroup R1b and closely related to one of the Sinclair DNA
lineages. “Oh, glory be, we’ve proven that Prince Henry did indeed
discover North America,” right? I’ve already picked out my suit to
wear on my History Channel interview. But the truth could be very
different. (1) Certainly he could be mistaken about his line of
descent and be the product of a liaison between his g-g-great
grandmother and a British soldier. (2) He could be telling a lie
about who he is. (3) He could be the result of an adoption back in
time. We’ve seen those in our family’s DNA project. Or (3) he could
be the product of early trans-Atlantic contact. It is one
possibility that we’re forced to consider in light of Mi’kmaq oral
traditions which speak of three waves of migration across the
Atlantic, the earliest supposedly in about 400 AD. Such oral
traditions have been successfully used in law cases in Canada at
the highest levels. That doesn’t make them right, and so we
continue to look for more Natives to test and other ways to crack
this.
.... Kind Regards,
Steve St. Clair
The Atlantic Conference
The Sinclair DNA project investigation is unique as far as I know but
from the reaction of Steve St Clair it seems to be being run on a
level headed basis. It will be interesting to see what comes out. One
way or another it should serve to settle a few arguments.
Steve may have to watch his back. This sort of normal-science
tentativeness stuff might get him marginalized in his own clan. :-)
But I have to say, as a fellow Scot, I like the way he seems to
be proceeding.
I posted my original message in haste. Since then I have done some
digging and found:
http://www.sinclairresearch.co.uk/dna/aboutorg.htm which announces the
DNA project.
http://www.stclairresearch.com/ which describes the DNA project in
more detail. It seems to be much more than an investigation into
possible North American settlement.
http://www.sinclairresearch.co.uk/dna/starting.htm - 'Getting
Started'.
[/quote]
Yes, this seems much more to do with learning about the
background of the Clan than anything else. I wonder whether this
sort of thing is going on in other Clans, or in other groups
around the world?
--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
st. bubba, avocational ap
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:57 am Post subject: Re: Prince Henry Sinclair and all that |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:56:14 -0600, Tom McDonald
<tmcdonald2672@charter.net> wrote:
[quote]Eric Stevens wrote:
There seems to be some activity.
First there is
http://www.atlanticconference.org/AtlanticConference-2/08overview.htm
which seems to lack only Uncle Tom Cobbley.
The overview is not as interesting to me as are the brief bios
and previews of the speakers' work:
http://www.atlanticconference.org/AtlanticConference-2/speakers.htm
or:
http://tinyurl.com/5v2z3o
Of course, there are the Usual Suspects -- Olshin, Hristov,
Thompson, Wolter and others. The information in the snippets
seems to be either provided by the participants, or gleaned from
other sources about the participants. Not surprising; and there
is no indication on the page of any one person having written
them all up.
What struck me was the listing of Mark and Wendy Phillips. They
are listed as being of the 'Anishinaabe Tribe'.
There is, to my knowledge, no single 'Anishinaabe' tribe, but
rather an Algonquian group comprising several (five or six, I
think) Anishinaabe groups such as the Ojibwe, Cree and others.
Unless this usage of 'Tribe' is some term of agglomeration of
which I am innocent, perhaps relating to the 'one people
separated by many years who soon will be reunited', it seems an
odd misuse of a recognized anthropological term.
[/quote]
quoting from "The Encyclopdia of Native American Tribes, 3rd ed. by
Carl Waldman (p.66-67):
"The Chippewa ... are also known as the Ojibway, Ojibwa, or
Ojibwe....The former name is commonly used in the United States and
the latter in Canada. Both names, different versions of an Algonquin
phrase, refer to a puckered seam in teir style of moccasins. The
Chippewa Native name Anishinabe or Anishinaabe ... meaning "first
people", is becoming widely used.
'The Anishinabe were one of the largest and most powerful tribes in
North America. They inhabited the country of the western Great Lakes,
especially around Lake Superior. When they migrated to the region,
before the arrival of non-Indians, the Anishinabe were supposedly one
popeles with two other Algonquian-speaking tribes, the Ottawa and
Potawatomi."
abvhiael |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
