How Not to Ancestry

[Lusty Murfax]

Regarding DNA. I am amazed that Ancestry can link my DNA to people currently living in England, Scotland and Ireland. The last immigrant from those islands in my tree came over in about 1850. He was the only immigrant from there in the 19th century.

 

[Fairfield]

Regarding DNA. I am amazed that Ancestry can link my DNA to people currently living in England, Scotland and Ireland. The last immigrant from those islands in my tree came over in about 1850. He was the only immigrant from there in the 19th century.

By no means am I an expert on DNA tracing--in fact, I've made the decision to NOT do it. However, it is my understanding the the whole process relies on the markers already in the system and that the accuracy of DNA linking will improve as more and more people turn to it. This may be why so many people are told that they are British and/or Scandinavian. Your Latvian (or whatever) roots will show up later.

 

[John Winn]

Regarding DNA. I am amazed that Ancestry can link my DNA to people currently living in England, Scotland and Ireland. The last immigrant from those islands in my tree came over in about 1850. He was the only immigrant from there in the 19th century.

What they do is to collect samples and look for similarities for people who live in a given place. So, they look at their samples from, say, England and see if there's some common traits. They then assume that the common traits represent the long-term population. When a new client presents a sample they just look to see if it matches any of their common trait samples. If it does they tell you you have roots in those places.

In fact, you may not because your ancestors might have been those who didn't relocate to England (for instance) and stayed in France or some other place but, since many from their region did relocate to England, there's now a number of people in England who share a particular trait. It's not a precise science; just a statistically good guess.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

What they do is to collect samples and look for similarities for people who live in a given place. So, they look at their samples from, say, England and see if there's some common traits. They then assume that the common traits represent the long-term population. When a new client presents a sample they just look to see if it matches any of their common trait samples. If it does they tell you you have roots in those places.

In fact, you may not because your ancestors might have been those who didn't relocate to England (for instance) and stayed in France or some other place but, since many from their region did relocate to England, there's now a number of people in England who share a particular trait. It's not a precise science; just a statistically good guess.

For instance, those who trace back through England to Norman France. Are they English, French, Dane or Scandinavian? And the pre-Norman English. Are they Frisian, Dutch, Dane or German? What does English even mean?

 

[John Winn]

For instance, those who trace back through England to Norman France. Are they English, French, Dane or Scandinavian? And the pre-Norman English. Are they Frisian, Dutch, Dane or German? What does English even mean?

Exactly. The DNA analyses aren't saying you necessarily had ancestors who lived in England but, rather, just that you share traits that are now common in England. Your ancestors may never have left France.

I think one should take those analyses as more of a probability that one or more of your ancestors were from a region: say northern Europe rather than Denmark per se. We have to also realize that these companies have limited numbers of tests for many places so, the fewer tests they have, the less reliable the analyses regarding such regions.

 

[Zella]

For instance, those who trace back through England to Norman France. Are they English, French, Dane or Scandinavian? And the pre-Norman English. Are they Frisian, Dutch, Dane or German? What does English even mean?

This has always been my question. I don't think these results are geared toward people who actually know history.

 

[Lusty Murfax]

Exactly. The DNA analyses aren't saying you necessarily had ancestors who lived in England but, rather, just that you share traits that are now common in England. Your ancestors may never have left France.

I think one should take those analyses as more of a probability that one or more of your ancestors were from a region: say northern Europe rather than Denmark per se. We have to also realize that these companies have limited numbers of tests for many places so, the fewer tests they have, the less reliable the analyses regarding such regions.

And if French, is it Franken French or Gaul French? Hard to stomach being descended from Frenchmen, unless they are French Huguenots. I know my German Great Grandpa was Franken and that at least three sets of Great x 3 or 4 Grandpas/mas were Huguenots from Alsace Loraine. One set was believed French, one German and one unknown/one or the other. Ancestry.com throws the DNA of the English and Northwest Europe into one basket and calls it good.

 

[John Winn]

And if French, is it Franken French or Gaul French? Hard to stomach being descended from Frenchmen, unless they are French Huguenots. I know my German Great Grandpa was Franken and that at least three sets of Great x 3 or 4 Grandpas/mas were Huguenots from Alsace Loraine. One set was believed French, one German and one unknown/one or the other. Ancestry.com throws the DNA of the English and Northwest Europe into one basket and calls it good.

Yep. As @Zella said, most people aren't very educated about the history of the settlement of the western world (or about anything, really). And, of course, the datasets are lacking in a number of ways. Geez, we didn't even know there was DNA until fairly late in the last century and until very recently testing was limited to universities. It's still an interesting - and potentially useful - tool for genealogical research. Right now, though, I think it's mostly really useful to help people who are actually related find one another and perhaps figure out that relationship (surprise sibling anyone ?).

 

[rebelatsea]

Yes and no. I'd advise using both---using the one to help interpret the other. Family history is often way, way off: some people exaggerate, some people try to please the listener and some people just love a good story; it's been my experience (however) that family stories usually contain some core of truth. On the other hand, written documents often reflect inaccuracies of age, relationship and occupation. Sometimes the informant was untruthful or confused, sometimes the information taker misunderstood and sometimes the writer/transcriber made obvious errors.

We've had our fair share of those !

 

[fitzgerc]

One other problem is that census takers in the 19th Century (at least in England) wrote down what they were told, we wasted hours looking for an extra brother who didn't exist - whoever gave the information in one census had him put down as Harry, which turned out to be Harold and a middle name. The census taker had also put him down as Walter, so he was there twice.
Also a lot of them couldn't spell!

Remember if your ancestor wasn't at home, they asked neighbors. That really can make the results unreliable.

 

[fitzgerc]

Here's the main thing to remember. Use trees at Ancestry as guideposts. Always do your OWN documentation. Others in this thread have covered the basics but here it goes; people back-in-the-day were not always as concerned with exactitude and records as we are now...well maybe those with $$, but generally why would they have worried otherwise? People were often illiterate. My great grandfather could not read or write and I doubt he worried much (based on records) about exactly when he was born. Buildings burned, libraries burned, courthouses burned-records are fragile and ephemeral. People LOVE to claim ancestry back to this or that famous person, but once you go much past the early 1800's, depending on place, records with first hand information were few and far between. Anything not primary source is anecdotal. That doesn't prove anything. Prime example. The beloved family Bible of my grandmother, supposedly recorded by my great-grandmother is in at least two different hands and refers to ggrandma in the second person-what does that tell you? If you can trace with good, primary sources back a few generations, you have done really well. If you're lucky and can go a bit further, good on you. But none of that makes you special. Concentrate on the family you can trace. Spend the money or time to look at newspapers and non-traditional sources, collect some good family stories (remembering that sometimes they are just THAT) Pass that on to your kids and give them that sense of who they are. And ENJOY the process.
I write a family blog, where I concentrate of stories I can tease from records and historical events. Some is documented fact, some has some conjecture. I do a lot of research. But I know that the stories have given me the greatest joy. Oh and someone wiser than me said that blogs are "cousin-bait". Some of my best family connections have come about this way. Think about it.
www.leaftwigandstem.blogspot.com

 

[JD Mayo]

When I first started my ancestory I was sick with the flu a year ago. Which was not good at the same time. I went to the hospital blacked out for a week. After fiinding out my lineage. I was so obsessed with it what I founded and should have just stayed with the civil war part but wanted to see the other history but now I just stay with the Civil War part so I don't mess up my family past anymore in my mind. So I know who my Revolutionary War ancestors where and joined SAR. Now that everything is back to normal again a year later never thought I'd be living like they did with a pandemic like covid I can't go to work because of my heart condition. So now I am on here to talk about it. I don't want to talk about it as much now on Facebook because you'll get called a racist. So now I do Instagram instead. Oh yeah, I'm not a racist either. 2020 been a awful year to.

 

[huskerblitz]

2020 been a awful year

I think almost everyone would agree to that!

 

[Howard707]

There is so much information on this topic to absorb. Regarding Ancenstry.com's DNA program, when I completed it several years ago it came back that I was 29% Irish. My mom came back 19% Irish. My dad had passed away before he did his DNA. Neither side of my family have any Irish-type names. Just recently Ancestry.com contacted me to say they were updating my DNA profile. When I looked at the new profile, my Irish heritage dropped from 29% to 5%! As so many members have said, use what you find as a tool, but not hard and fast evidence to go to the bank with.

 

[Fairfield]

There is so much information on this topic to absorb. Regarding Ancenstry.com's DNA program, when I completed it several years ago it came back that I was 29% Irish. My mom came back 19% Irish. My dad had passed away before he did his DNA. Neither side of my family have any Irish-type names. Just recently Ancestry.com contacted me to say they were updating my DNA profile. When I looked at the new profile, my Irish heritage dropped from 29% to 5%! As so many members have said, use what you find as a tool, but not hard and fast evidence to go to the bank with.

I am extremely uninformed about DNA but I've been told that the results are very much a function of the markers--that is, other participants and their results. The greater the overall number, the greater the likelihood that your results will be accurate. Begorrah!

 

[John Winn]

There is so much information on this topic to absorb. Regarding Ancenstry.com's DNA program, when I completed it several years ago it came back that I was 29% Irish. My mom came back 19% Irish. My dad had passed away before he did his DNA. Neither side of my family have any Irish-type names. Just recently Ancestry.com contacted me to say they were updating my DNA profile. When I looked at the new profile, my Irish heritage dropped from 29% to 5%! As so many members have said, use what you find as a tool, but not hard and fast evidence to go to the bank with.

Exactly. These tests don't tell you where your actual ancestors lived; they only say that you share markers with people who now live in places X, Y, and Z. Your ancestors may not have lived in those places at all (i.e. might have been among those whose descendants moved to X, Y, and Z but who themselves never left France or wherever). The numbers change as they get more and more samples. The percentages are just a matter of dividing A by B.

 

[huskerblitz]

Exactly. These tests don't tell you where your actual ancestors lived; they only say that you share markers with people who now live in places X, Y, and Z. Your ancestors may not have lived in those places at all (i.e. might have been among those whose descendants moved to X, Y, and Z but who themselves never left France or wherever). The numbers change as they get more and more samples. The percentages are just a matter of dividing A by B.

Exactly. And Ancestry from the beginning said the indicators and results would change as more and more samples were added to get better and more specific results. I mean, really, it's simple math. The more that submit their DNA, the better they know how to narrow down their percentages.

 

[SeaSoldier]

This may have been covered earlier. I did all the Y-DNA stuff, I am on MyHeritage, and heaven forbid, take other trees with a grain of salt. One DNA "expert" stated that after several generations, we lose links to ancestors. and yet, watching a DNA Expert on a TV show, they showed that the gent was linked to Neanderthals! I mean that connection is beyound a few generations - like 50 or a 100!

 

[Fairfield]

This may have been covered earlier. I did all the Y-DNA stuff, I am on MyHeritage, and heaven forbid, take other trees with a grain of salt. One DNA "expert" stated that after several generations, we lose links to ancestors. and yet, watching a DNA Expert on a TV show, they showed that the gent was linked to Neanderthals! I mean that connection is beyound a few generations - like 50 or a 100!

One of the basic aspects of genealogical research is to analyze confirming--or conflicting--evidence. This isn't possible with DNA research: you must accept it on faith. There aren't a whole lot of neanderthals around to say "Heck no: he's not one of us!"

 

[Story]

Remember if your ancestor wasn't at home, they asked neighbors. That really can make the results unreliable.

Even if your family was home, things could get skewed.

I remember a particular family where there were two brothers separated by a few years, yet (my target) the older one's sex was marked F.

I have $20 that says the younger brother told the Census Taker he had a sister.