PDA

View Full Version : Northumbria region: Where are your ancestors from?



sktibo
05-09-2017, 08:26 PM
As some of you may know, I landed a freakishly high Northumbrian percentage (29.8%) on Living DNA.
So, for those of you who have ancestry from this region and or got a decent percentage on Living DNA, I want to know where your ancestors were from (England, Scotland, both?) I'm particularly interested in those of you who have North Ireland or Scotch Irish ancestry, as I suspect at the time being that my Northern Irish ancestors were genetically linked to this region.

According to Living DNA "Our Northumberland population crosses the Scottish borders and is ancestrally equally Scottish and Northern English."

Anything you can tell me about the locations of your ancestors would be fantastic, thanks!

Jessie
05-10-2017, 05:24 AM
I don't have a large amount but get 3.1% Northumbria. I don't have any ancestry from there so I presume it's picking up some Irish but hopefully this will be clarified with the update that is due shortly.

sktibo
05-10-2017, 07:09 AM
I don't have a large amount but get 3.1% Northumbria. I don't have any ancestry from there so I presume it's picking up some Irish but hopefully this will be clarified with the update that is due shortly.

I suspect your results will change a fair bit, that they are in need of correction.. you were one of the early people to get results, right?
However, if you end up keeping some Northumbria, that might count as evidence for my North Irish theory as one of the possibilities for that region.

Jessie
05-10-2017, 07:14 AM
I suspect your results will change a fair bit, that they are in need of correction.. you were one of the early people to get results, right?

Yes relatively early. I was one of the first who ordered but it took a bit longer to get to Australia and back again. I do expect the results will change when they update with the Irish samples. I'll be interested with their Irish breakdown as I have longstanding ancestry in certain areas. I'll be interested if I retain some British areas as well.

I agree with you that you're Northumbrian is most likely due to your Northern Irish as they had a lot of input from Northern English.

ollie444
05-10-2017, 10:44 AM
I have 9.7% and don't have more than a couple of percent on my tree. I am a quarter Scottish (Aberdeenshire) so I guess it could be coming from there, especially as I was only given 4.1% Aberdeenshire.

My grandad's results show 5% Northumbrian and he has no ancestors from there or Scotland. He also comes up with Cornwall and Orkney, though has no ancestry from either of those places.

I'm wondering if some trace Northumbrian is a bit like most people seeming to get some Cornish? I must admit your percentage is a bit to high for that though, must be your Scottish/N.I showing as Northumbrian.

I think the Irish and Scottish projects will really help for the regions on boundaries between countries.

05-10-2017, 11:36 AM
Will feedback, once my results have been updated, currently is a large cluster for me, with Northumberland,Cumbria, S Yorkshire, and N Yorkshire, with no known ancestry. Of course this still could be real.

Edward J
05-10-2017, 12:58 PM
My nearest English family is from Sunderland...haven't taken living DNA, so this probably doesn't help you at all.

JonikW
05-10-2017, 03:11 PM
I have 1.2% Northumbrian on the test and my only known ancestry from that general direction is a great, great, great grandfather who was an Armstrong. I know from the census that he was born in Scotland in 1832, but haven't found out where. Given that Armstrong was a border family this might account for my Northumbrian. Incidentally, as a Brit I still haven't been able to account for my 23.5% Germanic, although the result sparked a renewed interest in genealogy and I have since uncovered a five times great grandfather from near Nuremberg. That surprised me and made me think there may be a more recent line too, if only I can find it.

mancio78
05-10-2017, 04:56 PM
I got 6% Northumbria (and 6% Cumbria) even though all of my UK ancestors (going back to GGGG-GPs) are Scottish or Irish. So I've assumed that these regions overlap with Scotland/Ireland.

Also, I calculated that I should have about 3% SW Scotland, but I got none from Living DNA, and my Ireland result is about 3% down on what I would have expected. So this could have been interpreted as Northumbria/Cumbria by Living DNA.

avalon
05-10-2017, 05:38 PM
I have 9.7% and don't have more than a couple of percent on my tree. I am a quarter Scottish (Aberdeenshire) so I guess it could be coming from there, especially as I was only given 4.1% Aberdeenshire.

My grandad's results show 5% Northumbrian and he has no ancestors from there or Scotland. He also comes up with Cornwall and Orkney, though has no ancestry from either of those places.

I'm wondering if some trace Northumbrian is a bit like most people seeming to get some Cornish? I must admit your percentage is a bit to high for that though, must be your Scottish/N.I showing as Northumbrian.

I think the Irish and Scottish projects will really help for the regions on boundaries between countries.

Well, Orkney, Cornwall and Northumbria were all regions that were very well sampled by POBI, as opposed to other areas such as Scottish Highlands, Central Wales, Shropshire, etc, that were not. So it could be that people are getting elevated % from these areas due to the sampling. Eg, Orkney, for its size, was very heavily sampled and this might have an impact on the test.

Problem is, LivingDNA didn't publish any of their methodology so we don't know if they weighted samples or anything.

ollie444
05-10-2017, 06:06 PM
Well, Orkney, Cornwall and Northumbria were all regions that were very well sampled by POBI, as opposed to other areas such as Scottish Highlands, Central Wales, Shropshire, etc. So it could be that people are getting elevated % from these areas due to the sampling. Eg, Orkney, for its size, was very heavily sampled and this might have an impact on the test.

Problem is, LivingDNA didn't publish any of their methodology so we don't know if they weighted samples or anything.

Sounds likely.

sktibo
05-10-2017, 09:13 PM
I have 9.7% and don't have more than a couple of percent on my tree. I am a quarter Scottish (Aberdeenshire) so I guess it could be coming from there, especially as I was only given 4.1% Aberdeenshire.

My grandad's results show 5% Northumbrian and he has no ancestors from there or Scotland. He also comes up with Cornwall and Orkney, though has no ancestry from either of those places.

I'm wondering if some trace Northumbrian is a bit like most people seeming to get some Cornish? I must admit your percentage is a bit to high for that though, must be your Scottish/N.I showing as Northumbrian.

I think the Irish and Scottish projects will really help for the regions on boundaries between countries.

The aberdeen and northumbria regions have fife in common, so I suppose that means they have some overlap. I do notice that orkney seems to be a "cornwall" region, in that a lot of people get it without having ancestry from that area. northumbria does seem to be very common also, although unlike cornwall and orkney, it's a very large region

sktibo
05-10-2017, 09:18 PM
I got 6% Northumbria (and 6% Cumbria) even though all of my UK ancestors (going back to GGGG-GPs) are Scottish or Irish. So I've assumed that these regions overlap with Scotland/Ireland.

Also, I calculated that I should have about 3% SW Scotland, but I got none from Living DNA, and my Ireland result is about 3% down on what I would have expected. So this could have been interpreted as Northumbria/Cumbria by Living DNA.

SW Scotland shows as Cumbria for a lot of people, (While people who are expecting highland or NW Scottish seem to get the SW Scottish region instead a fair bit of the time) I'm pretty sure that's what happened there. Living DNA referred to Cumbria as a "Scottish Border Region" so I'd say in your case that is accounted for. So without any English ancestors (really? you don't have a single English ancestor?) I suppose that would group all of these regions you got into the Scottish category.

Here's the quote from Living DNA (Thanks to LaurenceMacD)
"We do all tend to view the geographical borders we are familiar with as the boundaries for nationality, but in the regions that have been studied and the population samples that have been identified the areas that these were discovered do not always sit neatly with in our current divisions. Our Northumberland population crosses the Scottish borders and is ancestrally equally Scottish and Northern English. Similarly, our Cumbria population is a Scottish borders population."

As you can see, the term "Cumbria" is fairly misleading for what I think this region may actually represent in Living DNA's test. While they state that Northumbria is equally Scottish and North English, it looks like Cumbria may be more Scottish.

What I would really like to know is if your Irish ancestors were verified Native Irish or if some of them may have been lowland Scots / Ulster plantation Irish?



I have 1.2% Northumbrian on the test and my only known ancestry from that general direction is a great, great, great grandfather who was an Armstrong. I know from the census that he was born in Scotland in 1832, but haven't found out where. Given that Armstrong was a border family this might account for my Northumbrian. Incidentally, as a Brit I still haven't been able to account for my 23.5% Germanic, although the result sparked a renewed interest in genealogy and I have since uncovered a five times great grandfather from near Nuremberg. That surprised me and made me think there may be a more recent line too, if only I can find it.

IIRC You were one of the very first to receive your results, I think your results would be in dire need of correction. I wouldn't be surprised if that Germanic percentage cleared up if they re ran your test without incorrect calls. If I were you I would contact living DNA and request they correct your autosomal results.
However it is very interesting that you were able to find a Germanic ancestor, but surely 23.5% is too high for you still.

mancio78
05-11-2017, 09:57 PM
Thanks for your very informative response, skitbo.


What I would really like to know is if your Irish ancestors were verified Native Irish or if some of them may have been lowland Scots / Ulster plantation Irish?

My knowledge doesn't go back that far but there is no Ulster in my Living DNA results, only Southern Ireland.

sktibo
05-11-2017, 10:04 PM
Thanks for your very informative response, skitbo.



My knowledge doesn't go back that far but there is no Ulster in my Living DNA results, only Southern Ireland.

Glad I could help. Ok, so it's possible then for you that your Northumbria could be linked to an ancestor from Ireland, although, judging by what you've shared from your ancestry it looks more likely that this region would be linked to your Scottish ancestry. Thanks!

avalon
05-12-2017, 06:49 AM
Regarding Northumbria, Southern and Eastern Scotland and Ulster, I think that essentially the genetic links between these regions are deep and can be tied to the spread of the Lowland Scots dialect (derived from Old English), beginning in the 13th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language


Northumbrian Old English had been established in what is now southeastern Scotland as far as the River Forth by the seventh century, as the region was part of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria.[29] It remained largely confined to this area until the thirteenth century, continuing in common use while Gaelic was the language of the Scottish court. The succeeding variety of Early northern Middle English spoken in southeastern Scotland, also known as Early Scots, began to diverge from that of Northumbria due to twelfth and thirteenth century immigration of Scandinavian-influenced Middle English-speakers from the North and Midlands of England.[30] Later influences on the development of Scots were from Romance languages via ecclesiastical and legal Latin, Norman French[31] and later Parisian French due to the Auld Alliance as well as Dutch and Middle Low German influences due to trade and immigration from the Low Countries.[32] Scots also includes loan words resulting from contact with Gaelic. Early medieval legal documents include a body of Gaelic legal and administrative loans.[33] Contemporary Gaelic loans are mainly for geographical and cultural features, such as ceilidh, loch and clan.

From the thirteenth century Early Scots spread further into Scotland via the burghs, proto-urban institutions which were first established by King David I. The growth in prestige of Early Scots in the fourteenth century, and the complementary decline of French in Scotland, made Scots the prestige language of most of eastern Scotland. By the sixteenth century Middle Scots had established orthographic and literary norms largely independent of those developing in England.[34] From 1610 to the 1690s during the Plantation of Ulster large numbers of Scots-speaking Lowlanders, some 200,000, settled there.[35] In the core areas of Scots settlement, Scots outnumbered English settlers by five or six to one.[36] Modern Scots is used to describe the language after 1700 when southern Modern English was generally adopted as the literary language though Scots remained the vernacular.

Here is another very useful page, goes into a lot of detail about this topic.

http://www.dsl.ac.uk/about-scots/history-of-scots/origins/

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/History_of_Scots_in_Scotland_and_Ulster.png

sktibo
05-12-2017, 07:05 AM
Regarding Northumbria, Southern and Eastern Scotland and Ulster, I think that essentially the genetic links between these regions are deep and can be tied to the spread of the Lowland Scots dialect (derived from Old English), beginning in the 13th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language



Here is another very useful page, goes into a lot of detail about this topic.

http://www.dsl.ac.uk/about-scots/history-of-scots/origins/


When I was trying to trace which of my Perthshire ancestors lived in long lasting Gaelic speaking areas and which of them lived in Scots speaking areas I put this image together from a great 10 part article on the development and history of these two Scottish languages.

15879

I think you're probably right in that the linguistic situation may be tied to the genetic situation. By 1400, and certainly 1600, 2/4 of my Perthshire 3rd Great-Grandparents would likely have been in the "Red" Scots speaking zones. They don't fall into any of the Northumbrian areas exactly, but they certainly fall into the linguistic category. I suspect that Living DNA is incorrect in stating that Stirlingshire and Perthshire ancestry would fall under their NW Scotland category.
I also just heard back from a DNA relative who shares my Northern Irish ancestors (And he just confirmed that they were from Northern Ireland), this is very big for me, although I've long suspected it. I recently obtained some more censuses in which they list their tribal or racial origins as "Scotch". This accounts for 1/2 of my Irish ancestry, and hopefully I'll be able to find out more.

Currently, if I consider Northumbria to represent lowland Scots (excluding Ayrshire ancestors) outside of the boundaries given by Living DNA, that would put me at 18.75% Northumbria, a number which starts to appear like it is actually possible to get the massive percentage I have for this region.
However, before I get too carried away, I'm hoping some more folks with lots of Northumbrian ancestry will chime in here and share what they can... I'm hoping Angscoire will notice this thread and share some of the information on his ancestors with me.

I started my DNA Journey in search of highland Scottish and Irish roots but if Living DNA is indeed correct it's my lowland Scottish ties which are the strongest genetically speaking. You don't always know what you're going to get when you enter the world of DNA testing I suppose!

avalon
05-12-2017, 10:55 AM
When I was trying to trace which of my Perthshire ancestors lived in long lasting Gaelic speaking areas and which of them lived in Scots speaking areas I put this image together from a great 10 part article on the development and history of these two Scottish languages.

15879

I think you're probably right in that the linguistic situation may be tied to the genetic situation. By 1400, and certainly 1600, 2/4 of my Perthshire 3rd Great-Grandparents would likely have been in the "Red" Scots speaking zones. They don't fall into any of the Northumbrian areas exactly, but they certainly fall into the linguistic category. I suspect that Living DNA is incorrect in stating that Stirlingshire and Perthshire ancestry would fall under their NW Scotland category.
I also just heard back from a DNA relative who shares my Northern Irish ancestors (And he just confirmed that they were from Northern Ireland), this is very big for me, although I've long suspected it. I recently obtained some more censuses in which they list their tribal or racial origins as "Scotch". This accounts for 1/2 of my Irish ancestry, and hopefully I'll be able to find out more.

Currently, if I consider Northumbria to represent lowland Scots (excluding Ayrshire ancestors) outside of the boundaries given by Living DNA, that would put me at 18.75% Northumbria, a number which starts to appear like it is actually possible to get the massive percentage I have for this region.
However, before I get too carried away, I'm hoping some more folks with lots of Northumbrian ancestry will chime in here and share what they can... I'm hoping Angscoire will notice this thread and share some of the information on his ancestors with me.

I started my DNA Journey in search of highland Scottish and Irish roots but if Living DNA is indeed correct it's my lowland Scottish ties which are the strongest genetically speaking. You don't always know what you're going to get when you enter the world of DNA testing I suppose!

I do agree that LivingDNA's labelling of regions needs some improvement, in theory with lots more samples they could break down the UK genetically on a county by county basis but to get this level of detail they would need thousands of samples. I sympathize with them though because they had to draw regional boundaries somewhere based on the reference set they had.

Perthshire and Stirlingshire are probably especially difficult because they are on the border between the Highlands and the Lowlands so what you'll probably find is that in Perthshire some people have ancestry that leans towards the POBI Gaelic Highlands cluster whereas other people have ancestry that leans towards POBI's Northumbria cluster, it just depends on an individual's ancestry.

sktibo
05-12-2017, 07:39 PM
I do agree that LivingDNA's labelling of regions needs some improvement, in theory with lots more samples they could break down the UK genetically on a county by county basis but to get this level of detail they would need thousands of samples. I sympathize with them though because they had to draw regional boundaries somewhere based on the reference set they had.

Perthshire and Stirlingshire are probably especially difficult because they are on the border between the Highlands and the Lowlands so what you'll probably find is that in Perthshire some people have ancestry that leans towards the POBI Gaelic Highlands cluster whereas other people have ancestry that leans towards POBI's Northumbria cluster, it just depends on an individual's ancestry.

I do have one third great grandparent that comes from well within the Gaelic zone of Perthshire, I know it's not a lot to go on, but I think this might be how I got my Aberdeenshire percentage. It could also be the SW Scotland percentage I received which represents some Highland ancestry.. appears to be that way for some folks here. Further, about half of what I consider to be within my lowland Perthshire category I don't actually have pinned down, there are people with Gaelic family names who I can't seem to trace past Stirling still, but there are hints that they also came from Perthshire. I've just gone "worst case scenario" and included these people in the lowland category- because despite all of their surnames being of Highland or Gaelic origin I cannot be sure based on that alone. I probably gave a misleading impression that most or all of my Perthshire ancestors were of lowland origin, while it's possible most are, I'm not 100% sure that's the case. I gather that Stirling and Perthshire are tied together genetically to some degree, as Stirling appears to be the city where people from this region migrated to. Of course I would need more people with Perthshire ancestry to test and share results to be sure, but currently I suspect that even Gaelic/Highland Perthshire doesn't show as NW Scotland on this test, and that's why I think that.

deadly77
05-13-2017, 02:26 PM
We've talked a bit before regarding Northumbria, but I'll add a bit more detail here. LivingDNA results were 26.4%. I have a lot from there - myself, parents, all grandparents, 7/8 greatgrandparents, 10/16 greatgranparents all born within the region defined by LivingDNA. Most I would say, especially more recently are from South Tyneside (Gateshead, South Shields, Jarrow, Hebburn, Boldon) and some from the two major cities in the area (Newcastle and Sunderland). Also some from a bit further south in what is now County Durham (Chester Le Street, Moorsley) and a bit further north in present Northumberland (Stannington, Longframlington, Stamfordham, Warkworth, Ponteland, Morpeth). Quite a few surnames with strong association to the Redesdale valley a bit further Northwest but paper trail hasn't got me there yet.

sktibo
05-13-2017, 07:51 PM
We've talked a bit before regarding Northumbria, but I'll add a bit more detail here. LivingDNA results were 26.4%. I have a lot from there - myself, parents, all grandparents, 7/8 greatgrandparents, 10/16 greatgranparents all born within the region defined by LivingDNA. Most I would say, especially more recently are from South Tyneside (Gateshead, South Shields, Jarrow, Hebburn, Boldon) and some from the two major cities in the area (Newcastle and Sunderland). Also some from a bit further south in what is now County Durham (Chester Le Street, Moorsley) and a bit further north in present Northumberland (Stannington, Longframlington, Stamfordham, Warkworth, Ponteland, Morpeth). Quite a few surnames with strong association to the Redesdale valley a bit further Northwest but paper trail hasn't got me there yet.

thank you deadly77, i appreciate the full listing here. would you mind posting your map again or refreshing my memory as to your percentages? thanks very much

deadly77
05-16-2017, 05:29 AM
Do you mean my Living DNA map and percentages? I'll add screenshots here. Apologies, I don't know how to do the large image post
16064
16065

sktibo
05-16-2017, 06:55 PM
I asked Angscoire about his ancestry and he told me I could share our conversation. Here is the breakdown of his ancestry he gave me along with some notes on it:

"Great x3 grandparents ;

Paternal :

'Ireland' 1
Scotland 3 (1 Inverness , 1 Coldstream and 1 'Scotland' )
England 11 ( 5 Newcastle , but 1 of these possibly Scottish born , and anothers father was from London , 4 Durham ,1 Norham, 1 Northampton )
1 unknown ( gave birth to children and died in Newcastle with Northampton born husband .)

Maternal :

'Ireland' 4
Scotland 8 ( 2 Edinburgh , 2 Perthshire , 3 Angus , 1 Moray) ,
England 4 ( 2 Hampshire , 1 Dorset , 1 Surrey ).

So going back 5 generations, a reasonable estimate is 35-40% 'Northumbria' according to Living DNA's regions -and they gave me 15.9% , less than expected but - the test likely picks up much deeper ancestry than that , and some of the surnames of these great x3 Northumbrian ancestors are rarities there (eg Lister, Gammond, Peacock) suggesting more complex origins."

Angscoire got 15.9% Northumbria but was expecting much more, as you can see from his list of ancestors. This looks to be similar to Deadly77's results, and it makes me think that something is off with this category for people with much documented ancestry from the region to be getting a minimal amount, and someone such as myself with very little documented ancestry from the region getting almost a third of my autosomal DNA attributed to it.

ollie444
05-16-2017, 07:53 PM
I asked Angscoire about his ancestry and he told me I could share our conversation. Here is the breakdown of his ancestry he gave me along with some notes on it:

"Great x3 grandparents ;

Paternal :

'Ireland' 1
Scotland 3 (1 Inverness , 1 Coldstream and 1 'Scotland' )
England 11 ( 5 Newcastle , but 1 of these possibly Scottish born , and anothers father was from London , 4 Durham ,1 Norham, 1 Northampton )
1 unknown ( gave birth to children and died in Newcastle with Northampton born husband .)

Maternal :

'Ireland' 4
Scotland 8 ( 2 Edinburgh , 2 Perthshire , 3 Angus , 1 Moray) ,
England 4 ( 2 Hampshire , 1 Dorset , 1 Surrey ).

So going back 5 generations, a reasonable estimate is 35-40% 'Northumbria' according to Living DNA's regions -and they gave me 15.9% , less than expected but - the test likely picks up much deeper ancestry than that , and some of the surnames of these great x3 Northumbrian ancestors are rarities there (eg Lister, Gammond, Peacock) suggesting more complex origins."

Angscoire got 15.9% Northumbria but was expecting much more, as you can see from his list of ancestors. This looks to be similar to Deadly77's results, and it makes me think that something is off with this category for people with much documented ancestry from the region to be getting a minimal amount, and someone such as myself with very little documented ancestry from the region getting almost a third of my autosomal DNA attributed to it.

16077

Northumbria does seem to be a big mash in the study, lots of Cumbria and SWS/NI overlap. I am also wondering whether, if one's Northumbria ancestors are from Newcastle/Sunderland, being from a large city throws up lots of different regions in the results.

avalon
05-16-2017, 07:55 PM
Do you mean my Living DNA map and percentages? I'll add screenshots here. Apologies, I don't know how to do the large image post
16064
16065

So if your Northumbria is lower than expected then I'm wondering if some of your Northumbria ancestors had deeper roots in North West England? The regions are fairly close geographically so it wouldn't take much movement from one to other. Surnames might provide a clue if you've got any with a local origin in NW England.

NW England is my biggest region but I've noticed from results posted at anthrogenica that not many people get it as a region, not in significant amounts at any rate.

sktibo
05-16-2017, 07:58 PM
16077

Northumbria does seem to be a big mash in the study, lots of Cumbria and SWS/NI overlap. I am also wondering whether, if one's Northumbria ancestors are from Newcastle/Sunderland, being from a large city throws up lots of different regions in the results.

Well, I'm not sure if Living DNA added anything to this population. Their statement about their Northumbria population being ancestrally equally Scottish and English makes me think they added some to it, as there's way less Scottish dots on that map than English... and if I understand them correctly, it's 50/50.

You absolutely make a good point in that large city ancestry can be from a wide variety of regions, and that could be what is throwing some results off.

sktibo
05-16-2017, 08:02 PM
So if your Northumbria is lower than expected then I'm wondering if some of your Northumbria ancestors had deeper roots in North West England? The regions are fairly close geographically so it wouldn't take much movement from one to other. Surnames might provide a clue if you've got any with a local origin in NW England.

NW England is my biggest region but I've noticed from results posted at anthrogenica that not many people get it as a region, not in significant amounts at any rate.

Yeah it seems like a relatively rare region for people to get, perhaps even one of the least commonly assigned regions from what we've seen

avalon
05-16-2017, 08:17 PM
I asked Angscoire about his ancestry and he told me I could share our conversation. Here is the breakdown of his ancestry he gave me along with some notes on it:

"Great x3 grandparents ;

Paternal :

'Ireland' 1
Scotland 3 (1 Inverness , 1 Coldstream and 1 'Scotland' )
England 11 ( 5 Newcastle , but 1 of these possibly Scottish born , and anothers father was from London , 4 Durham ,1 Norham, 1 Northampton )
1 unknown ( gave birth to children and died in Newcastle with Northampton born husband .)

Maternal :

'Ireland' 4
Scotland 8 ( 2 Edinburgh , 2 Perthshire , 3 Angus , 1 Moray) ,
England 4 ( 2 Hampshire , 1 Dorset , 1 Surrey ).

So going back 5 generations, a reasonable estimate is 35-40% 'Northumbria' according to Living DNA's regions -and they gave me 15.9% , less than expected but - the test likely picks up much deeper ancestry than that , and some of the surnames of these great x3 Northumbrian ancestors are rarities there (eg Lister, Gammond, Peacock) suggesting more complex origins."

Angscoire got 15.9% Northumbria but was expecting much more, as you can see from his list of ancestors. This looks to be similar to Deadly77's results, and it makes me think that something is off with this category for people with much documented ancestry from the region to be getting a minimal amount, and someone such as myself with very little documented ancestry from the region getting almost a third of my autosomal DNA attributed to it.

It does seem strange but we may have to factor in post medieval or early industrial or pre-industrial movement from other parts of England to Northumbria. Particularly as ollie44 says, regarding towns and cities in the north East where people may not have local, rural roots.

Industrial areas more likely to have immigration from outside the region and a lot of this from 1700s might pre -date a paper trail.

avalon
05-16-2017, 08:26 PM
Yeah it seems like a relatively rare region for people to get, perhaps even one of the least commonly assigned regions from what we've seen

Yep, could just be random chance amongst anthrogenica members. With large cities like Manchester and Liverpool a lot of people will have ancestry from the region.

deadly77
05-17-2017, 06:06 AM
Perhaps this will help with the discussion - I had put this in a thread that Calas had started in the Genealogy section about where do your great-great-great-grandparents come from but probably repeat here while we're all in the same discussion for the most recent five generations:
16091
I had put it into the LivingDNA regions, so things like Tyne and Wear and County Durham will show up as Northumbria.
As you can see, I had several migrations into the Northeast from other regions - South Yorkshire, Norfolk, Cumbria, Ireland, Scotland but also a lot of lines that were in the region before that.
I don't have any known Northwest England. The closest points are my South Yorkshire (on different parents sides) and Barrow-in-Furness. I'm not sure the latter is really worth considering - it was in Lancashire at the time but it's part of Cumbria these days. But more importantly - my great-grandmother was just born there - her parents came from Ireland and Scotland so not a previous connection to the area. On several of the South Yorkshire lines on my Dad's side I've managed to get back to early 1600s/1500s - they don't seem to have been very mobile, staying around Dewsbury, Mirfield, Thornhill and Heckmonwicke. On my Mam's side back to the 1600s and mostly around Leeds - again not very mobile as far as I can tell.
My Northumbria ones don't all go back that far - fairly good coverage throughout the 1800s on most lines and on more than half of them back to the early 1700s. The surnames I have from this region are pretty closely tied to the Northeast. I'm not sure what surnames are closely associated with Northwest England.
As Avalon points out, pre-paper trail migrations may be a factor in this. But this is the data that I have. My ancestors did congregate around Newcastle but I have a fair bit of paper trail of my Northeast ancestors in more rural areas in Northumberland or County Durham before that - goes a bit further back that the picture I'm sharing in this post.

sktibo
05-17-2017, 07:14 AM
Perhaps this will help with the discussion - I had put this in a thread that Calas had started in the Genealogy section about where do your great-great-great-grandparents come from but probably repeat here while we're all in the same discussion for the most recent five generations:
16091
I had put it into the LivingDNA regions, so things like Tyne and Wear and County Durham will show up as Northumbria.
As you can see, I had several migrations into the Northeast from other regions - South Yorkshire, Norfolk, Cumbria, Ireland, Scotland but also a lot of lines that were in the region before that.
I don't have any known Northwest England. The closest points are my South Yorkshire (on different parents sides) and Barrow-in-Furness. I'm not sure the latter is really worth considering - it was in Lancashire at the time but it's part of Cumbria these days. But more importantly - my great-grandmother was just born there - her parents came from Ireland and Scotland so not a previous connection to the area. On several of the South Yorkshire lines on my Dad's side I've managed to get back to early 1600s/1500s - they don't seem to have been very mobile, staying around Dewsbury, Mirfield, Thornhill and Heckmonwicke. On my Mam's side back to the 1600s and mostly around Leeds - again not very mobile as far as I can tell.
My Northumbria ones don't all go back that far - fairly good coverage throughout the 1800s on most lines and on more than half of them back to the early 1700s. The surnames I have from this region are pretty closely tied to the Northeast. I'm not sure what surnames are closely associated with Northwest England.
As Avalon points out, pre-paper trail migrations may be a factor in this. But this is the data that I have. My ancestors did congregate around Newcastle but I have a fair bit of paper trail of my Northeast ancestors in more rural areas in Northumberland or County Durham before that - goes a bit further back that the picture I'm sharing in this post.

Looks to me like you got a big chunk of ancestry from places you have none from... South Central England, Central England, S Wales Border, and of course NW England, and then you didn't get any Norfolk or South East English... It's just starting to make me wonder... is this test actually capable of breaking down these regions in the British Isles? Clearly it's correct about some things, but, I dunno, maybe there's a major flaw in their system or something. I can sort of wrap my head around my results... and that's stretching it, I'm not sure I can do the same with yours. Seeing it side by side with your Living DNA results doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I wish Living DNA gave Avalon a more specific answer about the NW England region when he asked.
This makes me think that perhaps I could be looking too closely into my Northumbria number, when what it might actually represent is just "Something northern British" If Living DNA published a white paper that might give us a chance to figure some of this out. As you may be able to tell from my writing style here, I'm pretty confused! One would think that NW England percentage is somehow tied to your Northumbrians, but it's not like the borders line up. However, I think after looking at your ancestry chart that's the only way this could remotely make any sense.

Unfortunately, I feel we'll be left in the dark for a quite a while yet. It doesn't look like Living DNA is going to complete and release the Irish project anytime in the immediate future.. but I'm looking forward to that as I think everyone will have their results re-run when they update their dataset?
Here's to hoping that Complete mode gets released before summer's end and that it can shed some light upon this. At the rate Living DNA has been going, I have my doubts as to whether or not I'll actually live long enough to see the Scotland update... which would probably be the one to clear this Northumbrian problem up.
I do want to thank you for sharing your info here on this thread, and I very much hope I am wrong about the rate of Living DNA's future updates.

ollie444
05-17-2017, 10:49 AM
At the rate Living DNA has been going, I have my doubts as to whether or not I'll actually live long enough to see the Scotland update... which would probably be the one to clear this Northumbrian problem up.
I do want to thank you for sharing your info here on this thread, and I very much hope I am wrong about the rate of Living DNA's future updates.

KEEP THE FAITH... :P

JMcB
05-17-2017, 04:01 PM
Quote Originally Posted by avalon:

So if your Northumbria is lower than expected then I'm wondering if some of your Northumbria ancestors had deeper roots in North West England? The regions are fairly close geographically so it wouldn't take much movement from one to other. Surnames might provide a clue if you've got any with a local origin in NW England.

NW England is my biggest region but I've noticed from results posted at anthrogenica that not many people get it as a region, not in significant amounts at any rate.



Yeah it seems like a relatively rare region for people to get, perhaps even one of the least commonly assigned regions from what we've seen


I have some NW England but I wouldn't call it a significant amount and unfortunately, I don't have a paper trail that extends all the way back to the British Isles. I do have one line that came over with William Penn in the late 1600s, which does seem to align with what D.H. Fischer says in Albion's Seed about the Quakers and the settlement of Pennsylvania. Some pretty thin gruel I confess but nevertheless. ;-)


Albion's Seed
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion's_Seed

angscoire
05-17-2017, 06:43 PM
It does seem strange but we may have to factor in post medieval or early industrial or pre-industrial movement from other parts of England to Northumbria. Particularly as ollie44 says, regarding towns and cities in the north East where people may not have local, rural roots.

Industrial areas more likely to have immigration from outside the region and a lot of this from 1700s might pre -date a paper trail.

Yes . Regarding my paternal ancestry : my father, and his parents, were born in Newcastle . So you can see that between my great x3 grandparents and grandparents generation , that city sucked in rural ancestors from closeby (County Durham and Northumberland) and from much further afield (Scotland , Ireland , Northamptonshire and London ) and that's just going back about 200 years in most cases.

deadly77
05-18-2017, 05:58 AM
Looks to me like you got a big chunk of ancestry from places you have none from... South Central England, Central England, S Wales Border, and of course NW England, and then you didn't get any Norfolk or South East English... It's just starting to make me wonder... is this test actually capable of breaking down these regions in the British Isles? Clearly it's correct about some things, but, I dunno, maybe there's a major flaw in their system or something. I can sort of wrap my head around my results... and that's stretching it, I'm not sure I can do the same with yours. Seeing it side by side with your Living DNA results doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I wish Living DNA gave Avalon a more specific answer about the NW England region when he asked.
This makes me think that perhaps I could be looking too closely into my Northumbria number, when what it might actually represent is just "Something northern British" If Living DNA published a white paper that might give us a chance to figure some of this out. As you may be able to tell from my writing style here, I'm pretty confused! One would think that NW England percentage is somehow tied to your Northumbrians, but it's not like the borders line up. However, I think after looking at your ancestry chart that's the only way this could remotely make any sense.

Unfortunately, I feel we'll be left in the dark for a quite a while yet. It doesn't look like Living DNA is going to complete and release the Irish project anytime in the immediate future.. but I'm looking forward to that as I think everyone will have their results re-run when they update their dataset?
Here's to hoping that Complete mode gets released before summer's end and that it can shed some light upon this. At the rate Living DNA has been going, I have my doubts as to whether or not I'll actually live long enough to see the Scotland update... which would probably be the one to clear this Northumbrian problem up.
I do want to thank you for sharing your info here on this thread, and I very much hope I am wrong about the rate of Living DNA's future updates.

Yes, that is what I thought when I got my initial results from LivingDNA. I was initially surprised by the lack of East Anglia but I tried to rationalize it as being covered under the large red cluster of POBI. IIRC, forum members such as Norfolk didn't get a large East Anglia percentage despite a lot of documented ancestry from there. On paper trail my Norfolk ancestors go back to the 1600s. Since LivingDNA, I have more recently done AncestryDNA and I have two people who match DNA and paper trail who did not move to the Northeast of England.

Regarding the other regions that I didn't expect - South Wales, Devon, SW Border and of course NW England - I can't account for this in my paper trail. It was really unexpected. As Avalon points out, it may be migrations pre-1500s - I really can't rule that out. But it seems really high, especially when the POBI diagrams I have seen don't really have that as a separate region, so I'm not sure how LivingDNA defines NW England region.

Of course, paper trails are only as good as what is recorded. I have two known illegitimacies in my tree but they are both fairly far back where I wouldn't expect a percentage of the magnitude that LivingDNA reports. First one is a ggg-grandfather born in Gateshead, but I have two people of separate descent at FTDNA who match paper trail and DNA on the chromosome browser for an ancestor of his wife, so fairly sure that it's not a recent NPE. The other one is a gggg-grandmother from Norfolk branch but have an AncestryDNA match from a different descendant. In total with paper trail and DNA - 3 confirmed at FTDNA and 8 at AncestryDNA covering a fair few of the regions my ancestors are from.

I am intrigued that Angscore got lower than expected Northumbria despite a lot of ancestry from there. It makes me wonder if I'm thinking about this backwards - rather than LivingDNA picking up pre-industrial migrations, perhaps it could be picking up more recent movement (3-4 generations ago) from Northumbria to other regions.

As Ollie444 says, keep the faith. We're early on in this and no one has tried to do this level of regional testing for direct to consumer before. I don't expect it to be perfect on first attempt. Let's see how things progress.

sktibo
05-18-2017, 06:49 AM
Yes, that is what I thought when I got my initial results from LivingDNA. I was initially surprised by the lack of East Anglia but I tried to rationalize it as being covered under the large red cluster of POBI. IIRC, forum members such as Norfolk didn't get a large East Anglia percentage despite a lot of documented ancestry from there. On paper trail my Norfolk ancestors go back to the 1600s. Since LivingDNA, I have more recently done AncestryDNA and I have two people who match DNA and paper trail who did not move to the Northeast of England.

Regarding the other regions that I didn't expect - South Wales, Devon, SW Border and of course NW England - I can't account for this in my paper trail. It was really unexpected. As Avalon points out, it may be migrations pre-1500s - I really can't rule that out. But it seems really high, especially when the POBI diagrams I have seen don't really have that as a separate region, so I'm not sure how LivingDNA defines NW England region.

Of course, paper trails are only as good as what is recorded. I have two known illegitimacies in my tree but they are both fairly far back where I wouldn't expect a percentage of the magnitude that LivingDNA reports. First one is a ggg-grandfather born in Gateshead, but I have two people of separate descent at FTDNA who match paper trail and DNA on the chromosome browser for an ancestor of his wife, so fairly sure that it's not a recent NPE. The other one is a gggg-grandmother from Norfolk branch but have an AncestryDNA match from a different descendant. In total with paper trail and DNA - 3 confirmed at FTDNA and 8 at AncestryDNA covering a fair few of the regions my ancestors are from.

I am intrigued that Angscore got lower than expected Northumbria despite a lot of ancestry from there. It makes me wonder if I'm thinking about this backwards - rather than LivingDNA picking up pre-industrial migrations, perhaps it could be picking up more recent movement (3-4 generations ago) from Northumbria to other regions.

As Ollie444 says, keep the faith. We're early on in this and no one has tried to do this level of regional testing for direct to consumer before. I don't expect it to be perfect on first attempt. Let's see how things progress.

You raise a very good point: "maybe we're thinking about this backwards" after all, didn't the POBI testing only go to the grandparent level? That's a fact I often overlook.

And you're right, it's the first of its kind, perhaps I can muster up a little more faith! Thanks for your input, as always

deadly77
05-18-2017, 02:18 PM
You raise a very good point: "maybe we're thinking about this backwards" after all, didn't the POBI testing only go to the grandparent level? That's a fact I often overlook.

And you're right, it's the first of its kind, perhaps I can muster up a little more faith! Thanks for your input, as always

As long as it's not blind faith - a little skepticism is healthy too. ;)

Yes, four grandparents from the same region for POBI. I think one of the reasons for that was likely to encourage participation - most people know who their grandparents were, while the average person may not know earlier generations. If I was still living in the UK, I'd meet the criteria of four grandparents from same region, although I have a fair amount of ancestors from other regions further back. I wonder if this skews the data somewhat.

avalon
05-19-2017, 09:28 AM
Perhaps this will help with the discussion - I had put this in a thread that Calas had started in the Genealogy section about where do your great-great-great-grandparents come from but probably repeat here while we're all in the same discussion for the most recent five generations:
16091
I had put it into the LivingDNA regions, so things like Tyne and Wear and County Durham will show up as Northumbria.
As you can see, I had several migrations into the Northeast from other regions - South Yorkshire, Norfolk, Cumbria, Ireland, Scotland but also a lot of lines that were in the region before that.
I don't have any known Northwest England. The closest points are my South Yorkshire (on different parents sides) and Barrow-in-Furness. I'm not sure the latter is really worth considering - it was in Lancashire at the time but it's part of Cumbria these days. But more importantly - my great-grandmother was just born there - her parents came from Ireland and Scotland so not a previous connection to the area. On several of the South Yorkshire lines on my Dad's side I've managed to get back to early 1600s/1500s - they don't seem to have been very mobile, staying around Dewsbury, Mirfield, Thornhill and Heckmonwicke. On my Mam's side back to the 1600s and mostly around Leeds - again not very mobile as far as I can tell.
My Northumbria ones don't all go back that far - fairly good coverage throughout the 1800s on most lines and on more than half of them back to the early 1700s. The surnames I have from this region are pretty closely tied to the Northeast. I'm not sure what surnames are closely associated with Northwest England.
As Avalon points out, pre-paper trail migrations may be a factor in this. But this is the data that I have. My ancestors did congregate around Newcastle but I have a fair bit of paper trail of my Northeast ancestors in more rural areas in Northumberland or County Durham before that - goes a bit further back that the picture I'm sharing in this post.

A couple of points I'd make is that the LivingDNA test claims to go back 10 generations, so if this is the case, then for each of us that is a potential 1024 direct ancestors! Even at 9 generations that is 512 ancestors, which is a lot of people.

Personally, I am pretty confident of my paper trail back to 5 generations but beyond that the number of ancestors just gets so big that I doubt anyone can actually have a complete paper trail with all names and birthplaces recorded beyond generation 7.

Yeh, sure people can trace certain lineages back to maybe 1500s-1700s but this is usually only on certain branches with an easy to track male surname. A lot of the maiden names are lost through marriage and are harder to track and therefore don't feature on a paper trail.

If we then factor in movement of people around Britain before industrialisation then there is plenty of scope for us to have ancestors that we don't know about within the 10 generation time frame.

Pylsteen
05-19-2017, 10:50 AM
A couple of points I'd make is that the LivingDNA test claims to go back 10 generations, so if this is the case, then for each of us that is a potential 1024 direct ancestors! Even at 9 generations that is 512 ancestors, which is a lot of people.

Personally, I am pretty confident of my paper trail back to 5 generations but beyond that the number of ancestors just gets so big that I doubt anyone can actually have a complete paper trail with all names and birthplaces recorded beyond generation 7.

Yeh, sure people can trace certain lineages back to maybe 1500s-1700s but this is usually only on certain branches with an easy to track male surname. A lot of the maiden names are lost through marriage and are harder to track and therefore don't feature on a paper trail.

If we then factor in movement of people around Britain before industrialisation then there is plenty of scope for us to have ancestors that we don't know about within the 10 generation time frame.


These are things to reckon with.

Keep in mind though the pedigree collapse which occurs more frequently than one would expect. For example, even though I have ancestry from different regions, I have at most 1012 out of 1024 ancestors, due to 12 double ones. There may be more double ones, since about 50% of this generation is unknown.
An effect of pedigree collapse should be the conservation of older genetic signals. One example in my tree is the occurence of two Flemish guys that went to the Northern Netherlands around 1600. Because of centuries of intermarriage in the region, I descend them both four times. If I would have descended them only once, they together would have given me on paper 0,05% Flemish, but the reality is 0,2% Flemish. Still not much, but significantly more than otherwise would have happened. Now, how many more of those cases exist within the 90% of unknown ancestors from around 1600?

Now to my British side (at most 1%). I have two independent lines going back to Devon. One of them first went to Dublin, I think it was a civil servant during William and Mary's reign. I don't know where he got his wife, but I think she might be English rather than Irish. Their son went to the Netherlands as a soldier.
His great-granddaughter got an illegitimate son, which I descend from. Because of given names and witnesses, I believe that she had begotten him with her own cousin. This would elevate the British ancestry.

The other line lived near late 18th century Plymouth, and went in the Napoleontic time to British India. They generally descend from farmers of the region, though a few names point to Leicestershire influence.

Wow, now I think about it: I lumped them all under "Devon", but looking more closely, they too might be mixed more than I thought, and that before 1750.

As is the case of the county of Holland, where in 1600, 10% of people (up to 2/3 in cities as Leiden, Haarlem) were Flemish and Brabant refugees, this might indeed also point to a lot of migration before industrial times.

deadly77
05-19-2017, 01:50 PM
A couple of points I'd make is that the LivingDNA test claims to go back 10 generations, so if this is the case, then for each of us that is a potential 1024 direct ancestors! Even at 9 generations that is 512 ancestors, which is a lot of people.

Personally, I am pretty confident of my paper trail back to 5 generations but beyond that the number of ancestors just gets so big that I doubt anyone can actually have a complete paper trail with all names and birthplaces recorded beyond generation 7.

Yeh, sure people can trace certain lineages back to maybe 1500s-1700s but this is usually only on certain branches with an easy to track male surname. A lot of the maiden names are lost through marriage and are harder to track and therefore don't feature on a paper trail.

If we then factor in movement of people around Britain before industrialisation then there is plenty of scope for us to have ancestors that we don't know about within the 10 generation time frame.

Great points Avalon.

avalon
05-19-2017, 08:10 PM
These are things to reckon with.

Keep in mind though the pedigree collapse which occurs more frequently than one would expect. For example, even though I have ancestry from different regions, I have at most 1012 out of 1024 ancestors, due to 12 double ones. There may be more double ones, since about 50% of this generation is unknown.
An effect of pedigree collapse should be the conservation of older genetic signals. One example in my tree is the occurence of two Flemish guys that went to the Northern Netherlands around 1600. Because of centuries of intermarriage in the region, I descend them both four times. If I would have descended them only once, they together would have given me on paper 0,05% Flemish, but the reality is 0,2% Flemish. Still not much, but significantly more than otherwise would have happened. Now, how many more of those cases exist within the 90% of unknown ancestors from around 1600?

Now to my British side (at most 1%). I have two independent lines going back to Devon. One of them first went to Dublin, I think it was a civil servant during William and Mary's reign. I don't know where he got his wife, but I think she might be English rather than Irish. Their son went to the Netherlands as a soldier.
His great-granddaughter got an illegitimate son, which I descend from. Because of given names and witnesses, I believe that she had begotten him with her own cousin. This would elevate the British ancestry.

The other line lived near late 18th century Plymouth, and went in the Napoleontic time to British India. They generally descend from farmers of the region, though a few names point to Leicestershire influence.

Wow, now I think about it: I lumped them all under "Devon", but looking more closely, they too might be mixed more than I thought, and that before 1750.

As is the case of the county of Holland, where in 1600, 10% of people (up to 2/3 in cities as Leiden, Haarlem) were Flemish and Brabant refugees, this might indeed also point to a lot of migration before industrial times.

Yes, that's a good point about pedigree collapse. 1024 is the maximum direct ancestors it can be if none are double counted, ie, through descent from second cousin marriage.

This article is very informative on the subject: https://thewildpeak.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/how-many-ancestors-do-you-have/

Pylsteen
05-19-2017, 09:45 PM
Yes, that's a good point about pedigree collapse. 1024 is the maximum direct ancestors it can be if none are double counted, ie, through descent from second cousin marriage.

This article is very informative on the subject: https://thewildpeak.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/how-many-ancestors-do-you-have/


That's a neat article. I really like finding doublet ancestors, because it often shows an unexpected connection between lines, (and it saves labour looking for new ones).

ollie444
05-20-2017, 09:25 AM
That's a neat article. I really like finding doublet ancestors, because it often shows an unexpected connection between lines, (and it saves labour looking for new ones).


Yes, that's a good point about pedigree collapse. 1024 is the maximum direct ancestors it can be if none are double counted, ie, through descent from second cousin marriage.

This article is very informative on the subject: https://thewildpeak.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/how-many-ancestors-do-you-have/

Plenty of first cousin marriage on my mother's side! Means that I have far less than 1024.

firemonkey
05-20-2017, 11:31 AM
I have the following on my mother's maternal side. 8th = 7generations back. I wonder what it reduces the 1024 to.

16181

deadly77
05-20-2017, 03:20 PM
I looked through mine and I have a rather paltry 14 known out of 1024 potential ancestors at 10 generations. And out of those 14, for two of those I only have first names for the ladies. So definitely a lot of unknown at that 10 generation level - 1012/1024=98.8%!

Pedigree collapse is also an interesting point - I don't have any direct examples - I have some intermarriage between families such as a sister and brother from one family both marrying a brother and sister from an unrelated family, but not that I'm aware of between cousins. However, looking at the population of England (not wishing to exclude other parts of the British Isles, but easier numbers to find and a reasonable approximation) during that time period estimated to be just over 5 million - as the gene pool gets lower it's inevitable that there would be multiple lines of descent from an individual the further back you go.

Also interesting - wow, the Black Death really did a number on the population - absolutely plummets and takes three centuries to recover: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_England

Pylsteen
05-21-2017, 03:48 PM
I have the following on my mother's maternal side. 8th = 7generations back. I wonder what it reduces the 1024 to.

16181


If you yourself are generation 1, then generation 8 is 128 people. Seeing you have two double couples, you have 124/128 in generation 8. This means at most 992/1024 ancestors.
If these are 8 generations back, then they are part of the 256 generation, then 252/256 -> 1008/1024 ancestors.