Would anyone know how to trace very unexpected DNA?
I have just started on this website,but have been researching my family tree for years now. I've managed to trace back nearly all lines to at least the 1700's. They have all been in either North America or Western Europe.
I recently took a DNA test and got the expected results, northern Europe30%,Italy16%, Scotland20% were my top three but fourth down the line was India! 14% That seems like a very high percentage considering my great grandma is from scicily and my Italian is 16%. That would make me think this is realatively recent.
I know for a fact that none of my great grandparents were in India. They were either from long time northeast families moving between New York,New England, and Canada quite frequently. These seem to have known each other, because of frequent marraiges. The only 18th or early 19th century branches who came in were German and Scicilian.
So, my question is how do I find this mysterious Indian ancestor? I can only find names that are common to the country of origin.
Any help at all would be most appreciated. Thank you.
답변들
-
That is an interesting phenomenon. Before you go crazy trying to locate this possible ancestor, do you have other close relatives who have done their DNA? compare your results to theirs. Does it narrow down which of your ancestral lines this Indian DNA might be on? Do your siblings have DNA done? Do they show a similar amount of Indian DNA? You might consider waiting another 6 months or so for the next update of DNA in your system, as the nationalities and percentages do change! My father is grandson of a full-blooded Sicilian, however, currently his DNA shows that his ethnicity is Greek, rather than Italian. His 1st cousin shows hers as Italian/Sicilian. Previously, his DNA showed Italian/Sicilian. We're waiting to see what the next update shows. We do recognize this is relevant, however, because his ancestral town in Sicily was founded by Albanian refugees in the 1490s after the Turks invaded Albania. He shows 17% Greek for his grandfather rather than the 25% you'd expect...the numbers sure are interesting. Hope this helps somewhat with the concept you are looking at.
0 -
I don't put a lot of faith in these heritage "estimates." It has been shown time and again that at the continental level they are pretty accurate but as soon as they try to break things down below the continental level things get really dicy. I got that Indian result (mine was 9% or something like that) at one of the companies recently. I am just chalking it up to a problem in their algorithm.
Remember these estimates are really for your more ancient ancestry. You might have traced your ancestors back to say Ireland but they could be descendants of Viking raiders. Or you have "German" ancestry (which really doesn't exist) but you could be descended from Maygars or Huns from western Asia, or my favorite England but the ancestors are really Norman descendants from France.
At best admixtures are a work in progress at best.
0 -
Good answer. Basically, there is no DNA that matches to a "nationality"or "ethnicity." People have been mixing for many years, especially in Europe. Not only the Vikings, but think of Saxons and others who ended up in what is now Great Britain! Poland and other countries in Europe have been "mixing" and changing hands and people for hundreds or thousands of years. Getting you "ethnicity" or "heritage" DNA, however, is a great marketing tool.
Also, the sample used to compare is based on today's DNA and those who have had a DNA test to compare. Sample comparisons along today's political borders doesn't help on ethnicity. (Note - some European countries have more than one "ethnicity" even today! True in some countries of Asia as well.)
So, a good tool to find or locate some of our ancestors but not a good tool for determining your "heritage" or ethnicity.
0 -
DNA ethnicity results do NOT claim to prove which country your very specific immigrant ancestors came from
they tell you which countries your DNA matches with as to other person who have also been tested. Tthis does not mean your immigrant ancestors came from these countries necessarily.
the flaw in most of these wethnicity tests - is it doesnt give you a time reference
(how long ago did you ancestors live in these countries???)
You probably have a good idea of where your immigrant ancestors came from - - - dont take these DNA test as a challenge to what you know
the links to these countries in your test results - could have been THOUSANDS of years go - and your family ancestors could have migrated from one place to another.
this link may be of interest
0 -
The best things I ever learned from a DNA genealogists were:
1. DNA ethnicities are only 30% accurate, depending on the data pool of the DNA company; and
2. Your best DNA tool is cousin connections.
Also, remember your DNA can be different from your family tree because of genetic recombinations. Mine says 3% German ethnicity although it's 30% of my tree! Apparently my Irish DNA is what I inherited more of!
0 -
It is important to remember that parts of India were "British colonies" with a strong military presence there for many years. It was not uncommon for the consulates and military men from Great Britain (aka United Kingdom) to have relationships or marry the native Indian women, and men who were stationed in India for many years had children born there who also could have intermarried or had relationships with the native population. It is very possible that your (East) Indian DNA comes from this type of relationship. It may be worthwhile to search British military records to see if any of your direct line ancestors or their descendants spent time in India.
0 -
one key underlying factor one has to absolutely understand in all this DNA confusion
is that all of these DNA tests - are NOT matching your DNA to deceased people that lived hundreds or thousands of years ago
they are matching your DNA to other LIVING people - who may live in regions like Italy, England, India etc,
when one realizes this some of the confusion is explained.
[click "expand post" ]
DNA matching - is matching two LIVING people
and this ethnicity testing is still based on that fact of matching living people
yes - they do various extrapolations and statistics and probabilities (including what is known about historical migrations - - which is a very imperfect science.
0 -
DNA is interesting but the accuracy of results seem to be all over the place. Remember there was a large group of Roma (Gypsies) in Europe. This was one ethnic group that was targeted for extinction by the German government beginning in the 1930s. Many Roma fled the country at that time. This group is fascinating to me because their roots are in India. Perhaps you have already found your "Indian" ancestors in your European lines.
0 -
To a large degree though - this is often because we are making assumptions and interpetations of the DATA that arent based on the underlying facts - and not that the test is "all over the place".
a few examples:
1) even if a DNA test result was perfectly accurate (from the perspective of the DNA)
that doesnt mean it would perfectly match our pedigree chart and where are ancestors lived.
We dont inherit the DNA of our ancestors in equal proportion -its the luck of the draw when we are conceived - and different siblings will not inherit the same percent of DNA from each of their ancestors. and back 10-15 generations - the amount that one specific ancestor gave to us as far as genes - is almost nothing.
2) DNA isnt controlled by where a person lived. A person who was born in Australia - may have genes that point at CHINA and not Australia. A family may have migrated numerous times over the past 1000 years - the DNA test has no way of knowing the path of migration for one specific family.
3) Just because we have an ancestor that immigrated from country X - doesnt mean the DNA test - will show an ethnicity from that Country. We may have had an ancestor who immigrated from England - but their ancestor could have originally come from numerous places, France, Germany, Italy . . . A DNA test cannot really prove (all by itself) - which country one specific immigrant came from. It is a composite of all of our ancestors.
4) We tend to think of ourselves n the light of 4 or so different families and where they came from. But if you go back 10 generations - you have over 1,000 family lines - each one with a unique story and origin. we are a composite of millions of ancestors.
5) ETHNIC DNA test results are based on how we match with OTHER LIVING people - and not hw we match to the DNA of deceased people. A lot of statistics and probabilities are used to extrapolate the test results. Based on some assumptions and parameters that are based on what science knows today about past historical events and migration patterns. Those assumptions can change over time and are vey subjective. but again our DNA does not have a marker that says "ancestor X was born in Country Y" - because DNA doesnt respect geopolitical boundaries.
0 -
Ok. So, I get everything that everyone is saying. The truth is I don't really know where or when most of my ancestors emigrated from. Almost all of the research I have done has dropped off in North America in the 1700s. No births, no ship passage, nothing until they are listed on their children's documents. That was the whole reason I got a DNA test, because I really don't know. But, I guess I will never know from what everyone is saying. The commercials make it sound so easy! Lol.
0 -
I have checked into that. I only have one line that was still in Great Britain that long ago. Couldn't find any of them in the military or trading records. That was one of my first thoughts,too.
0 -
Great explanation, Dennis! Thanks!
0 -
DNA Testing is not a silver bullet
it is one of many tools in our genealogical toolbox.
0 -
Love this tread. Thank you for all who are participating. Autosomal tests can be used to help you with relationships that are fairly close - like a non-paternal event for your father, etc. But the ethneticy results are just fun to look at and not a lot more at this point. I have my DNA at multiple sites and it is fun to see the different takes on all of the sites. All I can really say is they agree that I am 96 to 99% European. That is fine with me. All the things mentioned above are part of the equation - migrations, etc. - many times these factors will never be known to us because they occurred beyond where records can take us.
I have loved using the autosomal results to help me with some relatively close brick walls. In two three cases in my mother's lines we had brick walls and feel that we have "solved" them though most of the evidence is secondary. But when you put together a family (the supposed siblings and parents of your brickwall) and all the siblings come back with shared DNA matches it really validates what you are doing. If you aren't absolutely correct then you have to be very close in connecting things up. This is one way DNA can work with you as you research.
0
