PDA

View Full Version : Scandinavian in results - confused.



CuriousAboutStuff
06-30-2017, 09:35 PM
Firstly, I'd like to apologise if I'm asking a silly question. I'm new to researching my ancestry, and I'm still learning a lot of new things.

--

I have a small percentage of Scandinavian in my results (1.9%) and I'm wondering how legitimate it is.

My results have come back pretty accurately, but this Scandinavian result has come out of the blue. I emailed Living DNA and they said anything below 2% can be classed as statistical noise, which sounds a bit vague.

I've seen a few tests results from others who used Living DNA, and I've again seen other instances where a tiny fragment of Scandinavian has been picked up. I saw another user who had 1.5% Scandinavian and about 95% British.

I guess my question is, is this likely to be legitimately Scandinavian? If not, any ideas as to where this may have come from? Of course it could be British DNA that they can't quite match, but I'm assuming it's not British DNA since they have picked up a massive amount for me and seems unlikely they'd be unable to pinpoint that final 1.9%

If it's relevant, my results updated recently and got more accurate to what I know to be fact. With regards to the Scandinavian in this aspect, it rose from 1.7% to 1.9%, so I'm not sure what to make of it.

In standard and cautious mode, it disappears to Europe unassigned. I only see the Scandinavian in complete mode.

Any clues?


Thank you.

ajc347
06-30-2017, 09:42 PM
Would you be able to share the Haplogroups they assigned you to? That might help give an idea as to how legitimate the Scandinavian result is.

CuriousAboutStuff
06-30-2017, 09:43 PM
Error

Wing Genealogist
06-30-2017, 09:43 PM
My LivingDNA results "feel" fairly accurate to me, with the exception of my Scandinavian percentage.

They have given me 20% Scandinavian and my known ancestry gives no Scandinavian ancestry at all. In addition, I know of someone else with no known Scandinavian ancestry received a result of 32% Scandinavian, despite having no Scandinavian paper-trail.

I have created a spreadsheet documenting my currently known "paper-trail" genealogy and compared the ethnicity results derived from this to the ethnicity results I have received from various autosomal DNA tests (including LivingDNA, 23andMe, Ancestry DNA, FamilyFinder, and Geno 2.0). Except for the Scandinavian issue, Living DNA does track fairly well with what I know about my ancestry.

Wing Genealogist
06-30-2017, 09:46 PM
I have remarked on another topic where it is possible I may have some Scandinavian ancestry, but it cannot be anywhere near as high as the 20% assigned by Living DNA.

I have some ancestry from Delaware, and there was a New Sweden colony on the Delaware River. However, any such New Sweden colonist in my ancestry would have to have been born prior to ca 1780.

CuriousAboutStuff
06-30-2017, 09:48 PM
My LivingDNA results "feel" fairly accurate to me, with the exception of my Scandinavian percentage.

They have given me 20% Scandinavian and my known ancestry gives no Scandinavian ancestry at all. In addition, I know of someone else with no known Scandinavian ancestry received a result of 32% Scandinavian, despite having no Scandinavian paper-trail.

I have created a spreadsheet documenting my currently known "paper-trail" genealogy and compared the ethnicity results derived from this to the ethnicity results I have received from various autosomal DNA tests (including LivingDNA, 23andMe, Ancestry DNA, FamilyFinder, and Geno 2.0). Except for the Scandinavian issue, Living DNA does track fairly well with what I know about my ancestry.

To be fair I think they've hit the nail on the head with my ancestry. It seems almost perfect to what I know so far. But it's this small percentage which has confused me. It's so small that I think it might just be noise, but it did rise when my results updated. The rest seems spot on to be honest.

I've hardly any paper trail as I've only just started researching my ancestry, but based on what I know, it seems unlikely that I'm going to find a Scandinavian ancestor. Of course, maybe I will actually find a Scandinavian ancestor, who knows?, but as of right now I've no reason to believe it.

CuriousAboutStuff
06-30-2017, 09:54 PM
Would you be able to share the Haplogroups they assigned you to? That might help give an idea as to how legitimate the Scandinavian result is.

I'm female, so no Y-DNA, but my MtDNA has come back as H1.

LivingDNA says this is found in 18% of the Swedish, Danish and Norwegian population, and 16% of the British population.

ajc347
06-30-2017, 09:57 PM
I've been given a 13.2% Scandinavian result in my complete mode and have no documented ancestry from Scandinavia.

I'm not so sure about the cut-off they define for statistical noise though. I was, for example, born in Southern England and have documented paper ancestry in the South Central England area, yet these areas are only assigned 1.3% and 1.6% respectively, whilst some other areas with paper ancestry don't show up in the results at all.

CuriousAboutStuff
06-30-2017, 10:02 PM
I've been given a 13.2% Scandinavian result in my complete mode and have no documented ancestry from Scandinavia.

I'm not so sure about the cut-off they define for statistical noise though. I was, for example, born in Southern England and have documented paper ancestry in the South Central England area, yet these areas are only assigned 1.3% and 1.6% respectively, whilst some other areas with paper ancestry don't show up in the results at all.

I'll just quote a small excerpt from the email they sent me:

"With a figure as low as 1.7% it is likely that this could be, what we would term as, noise in the sample and so may not attribute to a specific person.
Noise will most commonly arise when the sample itself is too small.

We tend to look at the percentage number that's assigned to the DNA call as anything below 2 is likely to be noise in the sample. This could either be a small amount for that population or a partial signature that has been matched to the closest population sample that we hold."


Hope this can help clarify.
They've been very helpful with any queries I've had so far and gone into a lot of detail to help me.

ajc347
06-30-2017, 10:02 PM
I'm female, so no Y-DNA, but my MtDNA has come back as H1.

LivingDNA says this is found in 18% of the Swedish, Danish and Norwegian population, and 16% of the British population.

There's a good guide to Haplogroup H (along with some coverage maps etc) here: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_H_mtDNA.shtml

ajc347
06-30-2017, 10:04 PM
I'll just quote a small excerpt from the email they sent me:

"With a figure as low as 1.7% it is likely that this could be, what we would term as, noise in the sample and so may not attribute to a specific person.
Noise will most commonly arise when the sample itself is too small.

We tend to look at the percentage number that's assigned to the DNA call as anything below 2 is likely to be noise in the sample. This could either be a small amount for that population or a partial signature that has been matched to the closest population sample that we hold."


Hope this can help clarify.
They've been very helpful with any queries I've had so far and gone into a lot of detail to help me.

That has been helpful in helping clarify their stance on it for me - thank you for sharing it. :)

CuriousAboutStuff
06-30-2017, 10:11 PM
There's a good guide to Haplogroup H (along with some coverage maps etc)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it a lot.

I think I might have to go on a paper trail and see for myself. I'm guessing anything roughly 1.9% in my results will be a great-great-great-great-great(?) grandparent, maybe. If I can get that far back and see nothing of Scandinavian, then I'll be relatively sure it's noise.

I think the H1 being 16% in Britain and 18% in Scandinavia is too close to call, and I don't think it's really enough of a difference to be able to distinctively tell me where it's from. My gut is just telling me it's noise in the sample.

Not really sure what to think. Though, thank you once again.

CuriousAboutStuff
06-30-2017, 10:13 PM
That has been helpful in helping clarify their stance on it for me - thank you for sharing it. :)

You're welcome!

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-01-2017, 06:05 AM
Thank you very much, I appreciate it a lot.

I think I might have to go on a paper trail and see for myself. I'm guessing anything roughly 1.9% in my results will be a great-great-great-great-great(?) grandparent, maybe. If I can get that far back and see nothing of Scandinavian, then I'll be relatively sure it's noise.

I think the H1 being 16% in Britain and 18% in Scandinavia is too close to call, and I don't think it's really enough of a difference to be able to distinctively tell me where it's from. My gut is just telling me it's noise in the sample.

Not really sure what to think. Though, thank you once again.

I would be a bit cautious about low percentages, although it might indicate something if it shows up on different tests. I've had as much as 40% Scandinavian and my ancestry is British. :) I think it's quite possible that British Ancestry could be confused with Scandinavian at a low percentage maybe from early shared origins.
I regularly score around 1% Native American or similar descriptions which obviously is unlikely in a British person but it may say something about very early ancient origins because I also score other higher percentages of other groups of apparent "Asian" origin.
When you start down this road it's quite easy to take results at face value, I did myself but it's best to compare different tests and calculators if possible to see if similar results come up. It's always best to have a paper trail if possible.
Family Tree DNA Family Finder is useful and not that expensive but it's not always easy to find the actual connection. People here are very helpful, I still have a lot to learn myself. Good luck.John

deadly77
07-01-2017, 08:02 AM
I often get Scandinavian percentages in autosomal tests from other companies (23andme 3.4%, AncestryDNA 15%, FTDNA 6%) - I don't have any recent known Scandinavian heritage so always assumed that this was from earlier population incorporation into the British Isles. LivingDNA puts me at 100% Britain and Ireland, so 0% Scandinavian. Ideally, someone with recent known Scandinavian drops by to comment.

CuriousAboutStuff
07-01-2017, 08:29 AM
I would be a bit cautious about low percentages, although it might indicate something if it shows up on different tests. I've had as much as 40% Scandinavian and my ancestry is British. :) I think it's quite possible that British Ancestry could be confused with Scandinavian at a low percentage maybe from early shared origins.
I regularly score around 1% Native American or similar descriptions which obviously is unlikely in a British person but it may say something about very early ancient origins because I also score other higher percentages of other groups of apparent "Asian" origin.
When you start down this road it's quite easy to take results at face value, I did myself but it's best to compare different tests and calculators if possible to see if similar results come up. It's always best to have a paper trail if possible.
Family Tree DNA Family Finder is useful and not that expensive but it's not always easy to find the actual connection. People here are very helpful, I still have a lot to learn myself. Good luck.John


I've possibly got back to the mid 1800s through one of my grandparents and they are not of Scandinavian heritage. Based on this logic, and the fact almost everyone I've spoken to can't place any Scandinavian in our family, I'm thinking it's just a mismatched sample - especially since LivingDNA only goes back 10 generations, which is about 300 years if I'm not mistaken. So, I've already reached 200 years through one line and there's nothing.

The only way I could even hypothesise any Scandinavian in my ancestry is if it entered hundreds, maybe even thousands of years ago. That wouldn't leave a trace on the LivingDNA test though.

If I do find something, which, maybe I will, maybe I won't, I'll update this thread. But I'm not expecting to find it. I'm just more confused as to why it rose from 1.7% to 1.9%.

Thanks for your reply.

CuriousAboutStuff
07-01-2017, 08:49 AM
I often get Scandinavian percentages in autosomal tests from other companies (23andme 3.4%, AncestryDNA 15%, FTDNA 6%) - I don't have any recent known Scandinavian heritage so always assumed that this was from earlier population incorporation into the British Isles. LivingDNA puts me at 100% Britain and Ireland, so 0% Scandinavian. Ideally, someone with recent known Scandinavian drops by to comment.

I'd take another DNA test but I don't know what it's really going to tell me. The LivingDNA test has put me at nearly 100% British and the small Scandinavian part. The LivingDNA test has been accurate for me so I don't think I'm going to figure anything out. It's probably just noise.

Thanks for your reply.

07-01-2017, 10:07 AM
I'd take another DNA test but I don't know what it's really going to tell me. The LivingDNA test has put me at nearly 100% British and the small Scandinavian part. The LivingDNA test has been accurate for me so I don't think I'm going to figure anything out. It's probably just noise.

Thanks for your reply.

I would blame the Vikings! :beerchug:

evon
07-01-2017, 11:30 AM
It is worth noting that most, if not all DNA companies, struggle to separate German, British and Scandinavian from one another. So in most cases, when someone get % from a group they have no known ancestry from, I would say it is simply a matter of mislabeling of the %.

A very good example of this is western Norwegians who score between 20-40% British with 23andme and FTDNA, which in all likelihood reflect their known German and Danish ancestry, rather than some hidden British ancestors. The same is true for Germans and Brits who sometimes score high Scandinavian, etc..

For Brits I would say that Scandinavian % in most cases is likely a Saxon DNA signal that is mislabeled as Scandinavian.

CuriousAboutStuff
07-01-2017, 02:47 PM
I would blame the Vikings! :beerchug:

I think I'll have to!

CuriousAboutStuff
07-01-2017, 03:04 PM
It is worth noting that most, if not all DNA companies, struggle to separate German, British and Scandinavian from one another. So in most cases, when someone get % from a group they have no known ancestry from, I would say it is simply a matter of mislabeling of the %.

A very good example of this is western Norwegians who score between 20-40% British with 23andme and FTDNA, which in all likelihood reflect their known German and Danish ancestry, rather than some hidden British ancestors. The same is true for Germans and Brits who sometimes score high Scandinavian, etc..

For Brits I would say that Scandinavian % in most cases is likely a Saxon DNA signal that is mislabeled as Scandinavian.

Thanks for your detailed reply.

Yeah, I think that it's mislabelled DNA. It just seems a bit random and out of place in my results. Of course I'm not denying it might actually be there, but the company themselves said it's probably noise. 10 generations is too soon, I think, for me to have such ancestry.

I just wanted to see if there was any viable explanation for it. I'm no good at history or genetics, so I wasn't sure how close Scandinavian and British DNA actually was, but judging by this, it seems close enough for it to confuse the test.

As I said before, I only see this Scandinavian appear in the complete mode. In standard and cautious it changes to Europe unassigned. Not even British unassigned, just Europe. So I don't know. Confusing.

FionnSneachta
07-01-2017, 03:17 PM
I'd take another DNA test but I don't know what it's really going to tell me. The LivingDNA test has put me at nearly 100% British and the small Scandinavian part. The LivingDNA test has been accurate for me so I don't think I'm going to figure anything out. It's probably just noise.

Thanks for your reply.

I've tested with Ancestry and Living DNA and they both give me small Scandinavian percentages. The raw file I uploaded to MyHeritage and FTDNA gave me 100% Irish and 100% British Isles respectively. Ancestry also gives me 2% Great Britain. I've gone back to the 1700s with no sign of an ancestor from England or Scandinavia. I do think that it might be real but it's from a long time ago and that particular Scandinavian DNA has just happened to be passed down through the generations. I'm not expecting to find any Great British or Scandinavian ancestor. The only link to Scandinavia in my tree is the surnames Knott and Broderick. Knotts are apparently descended from King Canute of Scandinavia and Broderick comes from a personal Norse name. If this is where it comes from, it's from a very long time ago. I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other if it's real or not.

07-01-2017, 03:23 PM
I've tested with Ancestry and Living DNA and they both give me small Scandinavian percentages. The raw file I uploaded to MyHeritage and FTDNA gave me 100% Irish and 100% British Isles respectively. Ancestry also gives me 2% Great Britain. I've gone back to the 1700s with no sign of an ancestor from England or Scandinavia. I do think that it might be real but it's from a long time ago and that particular Scandinavian DNA has just happened to be passed down through the generations. I'm not expecting to find any Great British or Scandinavian ancestor. The only link to Scandinavia in my tree is the surnames Knott and Broderick. Knotts are apparently descended from King Canute of Scandinavia and Broderick comes from a personal Norse name. If this is where it comes from, it's from a very long time ago. I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other if it's real or not.

I totally agree with you, I think it’s from back in the day when the Norse were out and about around our Islands.

CuriousAboutStuff
07-01-2017, 03:44 PM
I totally agree with you, I think itís from back in the day when the Norse were out and about around our Islands.


I've tested with Ancestry and Living DNA and they both give me small Scandinavian percentages. The raw file I uploaded to MyHeritage and FTDNA gave me 100% Irish and 100% British Isles respectively. Ancestry also gives me 2% Great Britain. I've gone back to the 1700s with no sign of an ancestor from England or Scandinavia. I do think that it might be real but it's from a long time ago and that particular Scandinavian DNA has just happened to be passed down through the generations. I'm not expecting to find any Great British or Scandinavian ancestor. The only link to Scandinavia in my tree is the surnames Knott and Broderick. Knotts are apparently descended from King Canute of Scandinavia and Broderick comes from a personal Norse name. If this is where it comes from, it's from a very long time ago. I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other if it's real or not.

So am I correct in saying you both think this could be legitimate? Is this a case where it's the random 50% from each parent and it just so happens that this tiny Scandinavian could be from an extremely long time ago, and by chance, it's lasted long enough to pop up in my DNA?

could anyone tell me how I upload my raw data to ftdna or my heritage? It might clear something up.

I said in a previous post however, when I change it to cautious and standard mode in LivingDNA, it disappears to Europe unassigned. Just Europe unassigned and not British unassigned. Could this mean anything?

FionnSneachta
07-01-2017, 04:10 PM
So am I correct in saying you both think this could be legitimate? Is this a case where it's the random 50% from each parent and it just so happens that this tiny Scandinavian could be from an extremely long time ago, and by chance, it's lasted long enough to pop up in my DNA?

could anyone tell me how I upload my raw data to ftdna or my heritage? It might clear something up.

I said in a previous post however, when I change it to cautious and standard mode in LivingDNA, it disappears to Europe unassigned. Just Europe unassigned and not British unassigned. Could this mean anything?

My Scandinavian percentage also only appears in complete mode and is unassigned in standard. If it was a percentage from Asia or something I'd put it down to be noise but since there is a history of Scandinavians coming to Britain and Ireland, I don't think it's impossible and I do think that it could possibly be real. You can believe whatever you want. Either way I wouldn't get bogged down on it because you're not going to ever be able completely prove if it's real or not. I'm happy enough to believe it's real since it's such a small percentage and yet that small percent when mentioned always interests people because of the Vikings. My paternal aunt was disappointed when she didn't get any Scandinavian percentage on Ancestry (which actually matches up with the Knott and Broderick surnames since they're both on my mum's side). It's such a small percentage that it's not going to impact on your identity or anything.

Since it's unassigned, Living DNA aren't confident that you actually have DNA from this region but it comes up in complete because it may provide clues. However, in cautious mode they were confident that I had 13.7% Southeast England related ancestry when I don't so make of that what you will. It's funny because Scandinavia is the only result that I'm happy with on Living DNA. I never had any issue with that result but was happy that it matched with Ancestry.

Unfortunately you can't upload your raw DNA to MyHeritage or FTDNA at the moment since they're not compatible.

CuriousAboutStuff
07-01-2017, 04:38 PM
My Scandinavian percentage also only appears in complete mode and is unassigned in standard. If it was a percentage from Asia or something I'd put it down to be noise but since there is a history of Scandinavians coming to Britain and Ireland, I don't think it's impossible and I do think that it could possibly be real. You can believe whatever you want. Either way I wouldn't get bogged down on it because you're not going to ever be able completely prove if it's real or not. I'm happy enough to believe it's real since it's such a small percentage and yet that small percent when mentioned always interests people because of the Vikings. My paternal aunt was disappointed when she didn't get any Scandinavian percentage on Ancestry (which actually matches up with the Knott and Broderick surnames since they're both on my mum's side). It's such a small percentage that it's not going to impact on your identity or anything.

Since it's unassigned, Living DNA aren't confident that you actually have DNA from this region but it comes up in complete because it may provide clues. However, in cautious mode they were confident that I had 13.7% Southeast England related ancestry when I don't so make of that what you will. It's funny because Scandinavia is the only result that I'm happy with on Living DNA. I never had any issue with that result but was happy that it matched with Ancestry.

Unfortunately you can't upload your raw DNA to MyHeritage or FTDNA at the moment since they're not compatible.

Thank you very much.

All of my known ancestry is from England and nowhere but. One of my relavties was under the impression we had some small, distant Irish ancestry which seems legitimate since I've relatives from a city which is was settled by a lot of Irish, but nobody is sure. Aberdeenshire came up in my results at 6%. Apparently this is either Scottish or Irish. I'm thinking this might be the Irish that was mentioned seeing as I don't have any idea at all of any Scottish. But the Scandinavian is a random result. I researched my surnames in my family, and only one comes up as having a possible Scandinavian origin, though it's also of English origin as well.

I'll be going around in circles. I guess you're correct to say that it may be something I'll just never know. My results might update to something clearer in the future.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-01-2017, 05:22 PM
Thank you very much.

All of my known ancestry is from England and nowhere but. One of my relavties was under the impression we had some small, distant Irish ancestry which seems legitimate since I've relatives from a city which is was settled by a lot of Irish, but nobody is sure. Aberdeenshire came up in my results at 6%. Apparently this is either Scottish or Irish. I'm thinking this might be the Irish that was mentioned seeing as I don't have any idea at all of any Scottish. But the Scandinavian is a random result. I researched my surnames in my family, and only one comes up as having a possible Scandinavian origin, though it's also of English origin as well.

I'll be going around in circles. I guess you're correct to say that it may be something I'll just never know. My results might update to something clearer in the future.

To be honest the more you test the more "odd" things you will come up with. Some of it will be one thing taken for another for example English mistaken for Scandinavian. Some may reflect ancient origins. Not all the DNA we inherit is from recent ancestry. Some people get matches with samples that are thousands of years old obviously passed down the generations. Some people have Neanderthal DNA. As I mentioned I get "Asian" with the probability that it goes back to around the Neolithic. Some of my calculators show Basque, but that doesn't mean I have recent Basque ancestry. :) John

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-01-2017, 05:34 PM
I've possibly got back to the mid 1800s through one of my grandparents and they are not of Scandinavian heritage. Based on this logic, and the fact almost everyone I've spoken to can't place any Scandinavian in our family, I'm thinking it's just a mismatched sample - especially since LivingDNA only goes back 10 generations, which is about 300 years if I'm not mistaken. So, I've already reached 200 years through one line and there's nothing.

The only way I could even hypothesise any Scandinavian in my ancestry is if it entered hundreds, maybe even thousands of years ago. That wouldn't leave a trace on the LivingDNA test though.

If I do find something, which, maybe I will, maybe I won't, I'll update this thread. But I'm not expecting to find it. I'm just more confused as to why it rose from 1.7% to 1.9%.

Thanks for your reply.

I think this only means they can only identify your specific ancestors for about 10 generations because before that it all gets too mixed and murky ( too many ancestors, at 10 generations you will have over 1,000 ancestors at 11 generations over 2,000 ) but the DNA we all inherit goes back thousands of years. John

CuriousAboutStuff
07-01-2017, 05:37 PM
To be honest the more you test the more "odd" things you will come up with. Some of it will be one thing taken for another for example English mistaken for Scandinavian. Some may reflect ancient origins. Not all the DNA we inherit is from recent ancestry. Some people get matches with samples that are thousands of years old obviously passed down the generations. Some people have Neanderthal DNA. As I mentioned I get "Asian" with the probability that it goes back to around the Neolithic. Some of my calculators show Basque, but that doesn't mean I have recent Basque ancestry. :) John

This is my first test, so I think I've taken the results at face value. I just assumed it would all be recent ancestry, but I didn't account for the fact that it could be an old sample that's come down the lineage to me.

It doesn't change anything for me, I was just very curious. Though I appreciate your input in helping me clear this up.

Amerijoe
07-01-2017, 07:37 PM
To be honest the more you test the more "odd" things you will come up with. Some of it will be one thing taken for another for example English mistaken for Scandinavian. Some may reflect ancient origins. Not all the DNA we inherit is from recent ancestry. Some people get matches with samples that are thousands of years old obviously passed down the generations. Some people have Neanderthal DNA. As I mentioned I get "Asian" with the probability that it goes back to around the Neolithic. Some of my calculators show Basque, but that doesn't mean I have recent Basque ancestry. :) John

John, John, John, look at you in your big boy pants. I remember joining this forum at last year's beginning and reading your posts. Many of your posts apologetic due to your perceived lack of knowledge or training, but filled with useful rock solid reasoning. Now here you are aiding those wandering through an unfamiliar maze, trying to make sense of information beyond the grasp of many an individual. You give us seasoned members great hope in our quest for knowledge. To a cousin from a far, I say Kudos to you my friend. :) Joe

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-01-2017, 07:55 PM
John, John, John, look at you in your big boy pants. I remember joining this forum at last year's beginning and reading your posts. Many of your posts apologetic due to your perceived lack of knowledge or training, but filled with useful rock solid reasoning. Now here you are aiding those wandering through an unfamiliar maze, trying to make sense of information beyond the grasp of many an individual. You give us seasoned members great hope in our quest for knowledge. To a cousin from a far, I say Kudos to you my friend. :) Joe

Thank you Joe. To be honest I still consider myself very much a novice compared to many here and I'm only too willing to acknowledge my limitations. Lack of a scientific mind being a big limitation. I suppose you can't help learning something along the way. :) Others helped me, hopefully I can help others a little. John

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-01-2017, 07:57 PM
This is my first test, so I think I've taken the results at face value. I just assumed it would all be recent ancestry, but I didn't account for the fact that it could be an old sample that's come down the lineage to me.

It doesn't change anything for me, I was just very curious. Though I appreciate your input in helping me clear this up.

Don't worry we all have to start somewhere. I was exactly the same and I'm no expert. People will help, don't be afraid to ask questions. John

JonikW
07-01-2017, 10:50 PM
Thank you very much.

All of my known ancestry is from England and nowhere but. One of my relavties was under the impression we had some small, distant Irish ancestry which seems legitimate since I've relatives from a city which is was settled by a lot of Irish, but nobody is sure. Aberdeenshire came up in my results at 6%. Apparently this is either Scottish or Irish. I'm thinking this might be the Irish that was mentioned seeing as I don't have any idea at all of any Scottish. But the Scandinavian is a random result. I researched my surnames in my family, and only one comes up as having a possible Scandinavian origin, though it's also of English origin as well.

I'll be going around in circles. I guess you're correct to say that it may be something I'll just never know. My results might update to something clearer in the future.

I agree. I would wait to see if it disappears on an update. I think if it was from the Vikings it would be common to people in one of the UK regions. You wouldn't have retained it in isolation. It's probably either noise, as the company suggested, or within the past ten generations. Either way, interesting!

CuriousAboutStuff
07-01-2017, 11:11 PM
I agree. I would wait to see if it disappears on an update. I think if it was from the Vikings it would be common to people in one of the UK regions. You wouldn't have retained it in isolation. It's probably either noise, as the company suggested, or within the past ten generations. Either way, interesting!

I'll start working on a paper trail soon. Maybe I'll get some answers that way. I'm thinking it's just noise if it's not an old sample, but I shall find out eventually, I think.

JonikW
07-02-2017, 12:51 AM
I'll start working on a paper trail soon. Maybe I'll get some answers that way. I'm thinking it's just noise if it's not an old sample, but I shall find out eventually, I think.

Once you start researching all your lines properly all kinds of things can turn up. You might even have a Norwegian sailor in there somewhere. Keep us posted

sktibo
07-02-2017, 05:43 AM
Firstly, I'd like to apologise if I'm asking a silly question. I'm new to researching my ancestry, and I'm still learning a lot of new things.

--

I have a small percentage of Scandinavian in my results (1.9%) and I'm wondering how legitimate it is.

My results have come back pretty accurately, but this Scandinavian result has come out of the blue. I emailed Living DNA and they said anything below 2% can be classed as statistical noise, which sounds a bit vague.

I've seen a few tests results from others who used Living DNA, and I've again seen other instances where a tiny fragment of Scandinavian has been picked up. I saw another user who had 1.5% Scandinavian and about 95% British.

I guess my question is, is this likely to be legitimately Scandinavian? If not, any ideas as to where this may have come from? Of course it could be British DNA that they can't quite match, but I'm assuming it's not British DNA since they have picked up a massive amount for me and seems unlikely they'd be unable to pinpoint that final 1.9%

If it's relevant, my results updated recently and got more accurate to what I know to be fact. With regards to the Scandinavian in this aspect, it rose from 1.7% to 1.9%, so I'm not sure what to make of it.

In standard and cautious mode, it disappears to Europe unassigned. I only see the Scandinavian in complete mode.

Any clues?


Thank you.

So first I'd like to point out that Scandinavian is commonly misinterpreted by DNA tests as Germanic. That aside...
Are you of British Isles descent? it's very normal for people of that background to get Scandinavian results, as there was a fair chunk of Scandinavian admixture in the Isles historically as you are probably aware. Really if you have any NW European a small Scandinavian percentage is no surprise. Is it genuine? probably.. Traceable.. probably not! But do hunt for it, as Jonik said, you never know what might turn up.

CuriousAboutStuff
07-02-2017, 09:21 AM
Once you start researching all your lines properly all kinds of things can turn up. You might even have a Norwegian sailor in there somewhere. Keep us posted

I will, thank you!

CuriousAboutStuff
07-02-2017, 09:29 AM
So first I'd like to point out that Scandinavian is commonly misinterpreted by DNA tests as Germanic. That aside...
Are you of British Isles descent? it's very normal for people of that background to get Scandinavian results, as there was a fair chunk of Scandinavian admixture in the Isles historically as you are probably aware. Really if you have any NW European a small Scandinavian percentage is no surprise. Is it genuine? probably.. Traceable.. probably not! But do hunt for it, as Jonik said, you never know what might turn up.

I didn't think the test would be able to pick anything up from that long ago, but as another user kindly pointed out, it's possibly a very old trace of ancestry that's popped up and doesn't have to be recent, necessarily. Or again, it's noise. I'll have to do some digging.

Thank you for your reply.

sktibo
07-02-2017, 04:31 PM
I didn't think the test would be able to pick anything up from that long ago, but as another user kindly pointed out, it's possibly a very old trace of ancestry that's popped up and doesn't have to be recent, necessarily. Or again, it's noise. I'll have to do some digging.

Thank you for your reply.

it's not really that it's ancient it's that British populations have pretty much all had some kind of Germanic genetic influence. The test just finds that a small percentage of your DNA is closest to it's Scandinavian population, and if you have a British isles background, that's probably why that would be

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-02-2017, 06:13 PM
it's not really that it's ancient it's that British populations have pretty much all had some kind of Germanic genetic influence. The test just finds that a small percentage of your DNA is closest to it's Scandinavian population, and if you have a British isles background, that's probably why that would be

You are right on that one Sktibo but maybe it's all "ancient" to some extent, it's not like it all magically appeared from nowhere in Britain less than 10 generations ago. :) John

Amerijoe
07-02-2017, 07:01 PM
You are right on that one Sktibo but maybe it's all "ancient" to some extent, it's not like it all magically appeared from nowhere in Britain less than 10 generations ago. :) John

This has been my contention for some time. I see members doing on the spot admixture to provide proof of reasoning along a particular ethnicity line, but in reality we all have ancient snps mix with contemporary counterparts producing at times conflicting results. The German of yesteryear is not the same German we see today.

There is so much information we just don't possess at the moment. Those in the field are constantly updating and correcting our ancestral record at great expense of time and funds. It's a soup with thousands of ingredients, snps, a recorded 10 million it's said. Trace your snps and take a walk through History, it's fun and informative. :)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-02-2017, 07:54 PM
This has been my contention for some time. I see members doing on the spot admixture to provide proof of reasoning along a particular ethnicity line, but in reality we all have ancient snps mix with contemporary counterparts producing at times conflicting results. The German of yesteryear is not the same German we see today.

There is so much information we just don't possess at the moment. Those in the field are constantly updating and correcting our ancestral record at great expense of time and funds. It's a soup with thousands of ingredients, snps, a recorded 10 million it's said. Trace your snps and take a walk through History, it's fun and informative. :)

It seems to me Joe that sometimes results turn up which just can't be explained as "recent". Some may be errors, some may be mistaking one thing for another but not always maybe. Apparently we get matches with people from several thousand years ago, so that can't be explained by recent ancestry. I tend to get relatively high Steppe/Asian percentages, some Native American, quite consistently, the latter may be noise, but it keeps showing up on various tests. It's very unlikely that came about through recent ancestry I think. :) John

CuriousAboutStuff
07-03-2017, 02:58 PM
It seems to me Joe that sometimes results turn up which just can't be explained as "recent". Some may be errors, some may be mistaking one thing for another but not always maybe. Apparently we get matches with people from several thousand years ago, so that can't be explained by recent ancestry. I tend to get relatively high Steppe/Asian percentages, some Native American, quite consistently, the latter may be noise, but it keeps showing up on various tests. It's very unlikely that came about through recent ancestry I think. :) John

I'm grateful for all the new insight I've received.

I've been thinking about it lately and I might just assume it's an old piece of ancestry. Mostly because my results are nearly entirely British on this test, and I find it a bit odd that it can place over 90% of my ancestry to Britain, but be unable to place 1.9%. It makes me think that it must be something slightly different from the rest of the results. Maybe my logic has fault, but that's just how I'm perceiving it currently. I'm not denying it might have come from a 'British' ancestor of mine, but did it actually originate here? Interesting stuff.

Whether this is a recent or old snippet is a question that I may never have an answer to, however, it's obviously come from somewhere. I accept that there's never going be one perfectly cohesive and definitive genetic standard for the British Isles as there seems to be a bit of a mix of everything, but again, the test has managed to group nearly one-hundred British ancestry together and not this Scandinavian sample.

I'll try to trace it in my family tree. I think it will boil down to one of four scenarios:

1- It's there, and I find a distant relative.
2 - I believe it was common practice for people to change their names to more 'English sounding' variants when entering Anglophone countries, so if that's the case, then again, I'll never know.
3 - Nothing there and it's completely untraceable.
4 - I come back to this thread in some months to tell you my results updated and the Scandinavian disappeared. Haha!


I was wondering if I should take another DNA test to see if it will pick anything up, but I've read that quite a lot of the tests available have a hard time separating the British Isles-Scandinavian-German ancestral groups and therefore it might just confuse me even more.


Nonetheless, it's been interesting to learn more about how DNA plays a role in our ancestry. I'm completely fascinated.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-03-2017, 05:43 PM
I'm grateful for all the new insight I've received.

I've been thinking about it lately and I might just assume it's an old piece of ancestry. Mostly because my results are nearly entirely British on this test, and I find it a bit odd that it can place over 90% of my ancestry to Britain, but be unable to place 1.9%. It makes me think that it must be something slightly different from the rest of the results. Maybe my logic has fault, but that's just how I'm perceiving it currently. I'm not denying it might have come from a 'British' ancestor of mine, but did it actually originate here? Interesting stuff.

Whether this is a recent or old snippet is a question that I may never have an answer to, however, it's obviously come from somewhere. I accept that there's never going be one perfectly cohesive and definitive genetic standard for the British Isles as there seems to be a bit of a mix of everything, but again, the test has managed to group nearly one-hundred British ancestry together and not this Scandinavian sample.

I'll try to trace it in my family tree. I think it will boil down to one of four scenarios:

1- It's there, and I find a distant relative.
2 - I believe it was common practice for people to change their names to more 'English sounding' variants when entering Anglophone countries, so if that's the case, then again, I'll never know.
3 - Nothing there and it's completely untraceable.
4 - I come back to this thread in some months to tell you my results updated and the Scandinavian disappeared. Haha!


I was wondering if I should take another DNA test to see if it will pick anything up, but I've read that quite a lot of the tests available have a hard time separating the British Isles-Scandinavian-German ancestral groups and therefore it might just confuse me even more.


Nonetheless, it's been interesting to learn more about how DNA plays a role in our ancestry. I'm completely fascinated.

I think your logic is valid, in fact I was thinking the same thing myself. If it was Scandinavian being mistaken for English you would think the percentage would be higher. I scored 40% Scandinavian on one test. :) Really over time you could try other tests and calculators and see if it shows up, or something similar. It could be something that jumps out as mainly Scandinavian but that could be just part of the genetic soup lottery. :)
It's worth questioning things though. If you had some ancestry from the NW Scottish ilses, it could say something about a Norwegian presence in the past, as there is a definite Norse influence there, it was part of the Kingdom of Norway at one time or if you had ancestors who came from a large port, there could be a Scandinavian ancestor but I wouldn't make any assumptions just based on a very small percentage in one test result. It's very easy to come up with theories that seem to fit the results and it's best to follow a paper trail too if you can. :) I joined "Ancestry" and found that very helpful. John

CuriousAboutStuff
07-03-2017, 06:39 PM
I think your logic is valid, in fact I was thinking the same thing myself. If it was Scandinavian being mistaken for English you would think the percentage would be higher. I scored 40% Scandinavian on one test. :) Really over time you could try other tests and calculators and see if it shows up, or something similar. It could be something that jumps out as mainly Scandinavian but that could be just part of the genetic soup lottery. :)
It's worth questioning things though. If you had some ancestry from the NW Scottish ilses, it could say something about a Norwegian presence in the past, as there is a definite Norse influence there, it was part of the Kingdom of Norway at one time or if you had ancestors who came from a large port, there could be a Scandinavian ancestor but I wouldn't make any assumptions just based on a very small percentage in one test result. It's very easy to come up with theories that seem to fit the results and it's best to follow a paper trail too if you can. :) I joined "Ancestry" and found that very helpful. John

I do have Aberdeen in my results. However, I read on the LivingDNA website that Aberdeenshire DNA is grouped together with Irish DNA. A relavtive told me we possibly have distant Irish roots via my grandmother who came from a city that has significant Irish ancestry. Whether that's true or not, I'm yet to find out, but that's what I think the Aberdeen section might be picking up. The city in question does have a long maritime history, so it's a potential melting pot. Apart from that, I've no Scottish, or Irish, ancestry on this test, which I think would have given me a more plausible argument for Norwegian ancestry or something similar. I don't even have any North East England ancestry, except a small South Yorkshire percentage, if that counts, which I believe is another Scandinavian hot-spot. I'm all west coast apart from a small bit, and I don't know how much Nordic influence is found there.

I was thinking of joining Ancestry and trying to find more out that way. Without a sufficient paper trail, I will keep going in circles forever. :)

Xtian
07-05-2017, 09:42 AM
My welsh friend has returned 93% British and 7% Scandinavian on LDNA.

He jokes that he has some viking in him- is that actually plausible? He returns 66.4% South Wales, South Wales Borders and North Wales combined. Rest is English regions with <5% Scottish.

His YDNA is R-L21 so original celtic.

07-05-2017, 09:53 AM
My welsh friend has returned 93% British and 7% Scandinavian on LDNA.

He jokes that he has some viking in him- is that actually plausible? He returns 66.4% South Wales, South Wales Borders and North Wales combined. Rest is English regions with <5% Scottish.

His YDNA is R-L21 so original celtic.

I think its plausible, (Almost all British Isles) have some ancestors who would have been Vikings, and settled and intermingled into the gene pool. My YDNA is odd for a Welsh person don't you think?

Look at the Island names off Tenby ( even this names sounds Viking, despite a retarded story trying to explain the name's origin), and further South West.

CuriousAboutStuff
07-07-2017, 07:43 PM
My welsh friend has returned 93% British and 7% Scandinavian on LDNA.

He jokes that he has some viking in him- is that actually plausible? He returns 66.4% South Wales, South Wales Borders and North Wales combined. Rest is English regions with <5% Scottish.

His YDNA is R-L21 so original celtic.

After reading this thread, I think there's probably some truth to the Scandinavian results that pop up. I don't see how the test can pick up such high British percentages and then not match the final small percent.


Besides, I've seen people who do get 100% British on their tests, so I think the Scandinavian is probably legitimate. Whether recent or not, I don't know. LivingDNA told me that anything below 2% is probably statistical noise, or that it could be a real amount, but they can't be sure enough to verify it. Based on this, 7% is of course over that threshold, so there's likely something there. :)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-07-2017, 08:35 PM
After reading this thread, I think there's probably some truth to the Scandinavian results that pop up. I don't see how the test can pick up such high British percentages and then not match the final small percent.


Besides, I've seen people who do get 100% British on their tests, so I think the Scandinavian is probably legitimate. Whether recent or not, I don't know. LivingDNA told me that anything below 2% is probably statistical noise, or that it could be a real amount, but they can't be sure enough to verify it. Based on this, 7% is of course over that threshold, so there's likely something there. :)

If it was me, I would work on the paper trail and try Family Finder to see if you have any matches with Scandinavian ancestry. Good luck. :) John

CuriousAboutStuff
07-07-2017, 08:40 PM
If it was me, I would work on the paper trail and try Family Finder to see if you have any matches with Scandinavian ancestry. Good luck. :) John

Currently trying to trace a potential Irish line as I have some grit with that potentially. No clue where to start even looking for possible Scandinavian. I'll try FTDNA family finder though, thanks; Good place to start I think :)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-07-2017, 09:12 PM
Currently trying to trace a potential Irish line as I have some grit with that potentially. No clue where to start even looking for possible Scandinavian

Well all I can say is joining "Ancestry" helped me a lot because of "hints" from other peoples' trees but you have to be careful not to take everything at face value, people are not always accurate, Try to verify things by looking to see if supported by source documents (birth, marriage records etc.) You just have to work your way back methodically from parents.
It can take a long time. I had a lot of help tracing my father's family in Herefordshire from a researcher at Hereford records office. Some Local Authorities offer such services but I suspect some are better than others.
It didn't cost that much and I doubt I would have found the information otherwise, certainly not as quickly.
With your own possible "Scandinavian" I would maybe looking at ancestors from near sea ports. Cardiff for example had quite a strong Norwegian presence and there is still the Norwegian Church there, but whether the Norwegians left anything locally in terms of DNA, I just don't know.
If I was you and found Cardiff ancestry ( just as an example) I would be looking for someone on the Internet who might know about Cardiff docks history and the Norwegian population. There are British genealogy groups on the Internet too sometimes specific to certain Counties or regions and sometimes they can help. John

CuriousAboutStuff
07-08-2017, 12:55 AM
Well all I can say is joining "Ancestry" helped me a lot because of "hints" from other peoples' trees but you have to be careful not to take everything at face value, people are not always accurate, Try to verify things by looking to see if supported by source documents (birth, marriage records etc.) You just have to work your way back methodically from parents.
It can take a long time. I had a lot of help tracing my father's family in Herefordshire from a researcher at Hereford records office. Some Local Authorities offer such services but I suspect some are better than others.
It didn't cost that much and I doubt I would have found the information otherwise, certainly not as quickly.
With your own possible "Scandinavian" I would maybe looking at ancestors from near sea ports. Cardiff for example had quite a strong Norwegian presence and there is still the Norwegian Church there, but whether the Norwegians left anything locally in terms of DNA, I just don't know.
If I was you and found Cardiff ancestry ( just as an example) I would be looking for someone on the Internet who might know about Cardiff docks history and the Norwegian population. There are British genealogy groups on the Internet too sometimes specific to certain Counties or regions and sometimes they can help. John

Thank you so much.

I'll join ancestry and see what I can get. I'm under the impression I can just pay for a month at a time(?), so I might do it that way. I'm cautious about getting my wires crossed.

As for the Scandinavian, I do have ancestry from a port city, though not Cardiff, and I'll do some research to see if there was any major influence there. I know there's a few place names in that vicinity that are Scandinavian in origin, but not sure if that's really a good indicator or not. Nonetheless, it seems plausible.

Unfortunately nobody in my family really seems to have kept record of anyone with regards to ancestry, births, deaths and so on, so I'm starting from scratch essentially.

Edit: As I was typing this, I found there's a Scandinavian church in that area. It must be common to find such places. I don't know why I didn't think to Google that in the first place to be honest, so thank you for the prompt. It seems there were a good number of sailors passing through in the 1800s. It's a tenuous link, but a link nonetheless. I'm not sure if the 1800s will throw up a result as small as 1.9% though. If recent and not an extremely old trace of DNA, I'll assume that 1.9% would be just one individual.

My concern is that people may have changed their name upon entering the country. If that's the case then I think it will throw up a dead end since I won't know if they were British or not. However, I'd guess if that was the case, that the line would suddenly go 'blank' and it in that instance, would be fairly obvious.

More and more I do think it's something solidly legitimate and I just need to sift through the mass of information to find it. I'll email the church and see what they can tell me and if they can shed some light on any chance of Anglicisation of names.

Thanks again!

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-08-2017, 04:58 AM
Thank you so much.

I'll join ancestry and see what I can get. I'm under the impression I can just pay for a month at a time(?), so I might do it that way. I'm cautious about getting my wires crossed.

As for the Scandinavian, I do have ancestry from a port city, though not Cardiff, and I'll do some research to see if there was any major influence there. I know there's a few place names in that vicinity that are Scandinavian in origin, but not sure if that's really a good indicator or not. Nonetheless, it seems plausible.

Unfortunately nobody in my family really seems to have kept record of anyone with regards to ancestry, births, deaths and so on, so I'm starting from scratch essentially.

Edit: As I was typing this, I found there's a Scandinavian church in that area. It must be common to find such places. I don't know why I didn't think to Google that in the first place to be honest, so thank you for the prompt. It seems there were a good number of sailors passing through in the 1800s. It's a tenuous link, but a link nonetheless. I'm not sure if the 1800s will throw up a result as small as 1.9% though. If recent and not an extremely old trace of DNA, I'll assume that 1.9% would be just one individual.

My concern is that people may have changed their name upon entering the country. If that's the case then I think it will throw up a dead end since I won't know if they were British or not. However, I'd guess if that was the case, that the line would suddenly go 'blank' and it in that instance, would be fairly obvious.

More and more I do think it's something solidly legitimate and I just need to sift through the mass of information to find it. I'll email the church and see what they can tell me and if they can shed some light on any chance of Anglicisation of names.

Thanks again!

I started virtually from scratch too, at least on the paternal side. Perhaps it's no bad thing, you won't be biased by family rumours. Scandinavian place names go back a long way I think. Even if you only pay for a subscription for 6 months or a year, you can find out a lot in that timescale.
I'm doubtful about you finding recent Scandinavian, but you never know until you look. I worked with someone from Newport South Wales which was also a large port and he definitely had recent Scandinavian ancestry and it was obvious from his surname. John

simdadams
07-08-2017, 10:05 AM
Well all I can say is joining "Ancestry" helped me a lot because of "hints" from other peoples' trees but you have to be careful not to take everything at face value, people are not always accurate, Try to verify things by looking to see if supported by source documents (birth, marriage records etc.) You just have to work your way back methodically from parents.
It can take a long time. I had a lot of help tracing my father's family in Herefordshire from a researcher at Hereford records office. Some Local Authorities offer such services but I suspect some are better than others.
It didn't cost that much and I doubt I would have found the information otherwise, certainly not as quickly.
With your own possible "Scandinavian" I would maybe looking at ancestors from near sea ports. Cardiff for example had quite a strong Norwegian presence and there is still the Norwegian Church there, but whether the Norwegians left anything locally in terms of DNA, I just don't know.
If I was you and found Cardiff ancestry ( just as an example) I would be looking for someone on the Internet who might know about Cardiff docks history and the Norwegian population. There are British genealogy groups on the Internet too sometimes specific to certain Counties or regions and sometimes they can help. John

I recommend Ancestry and have done their DNA test too. I don't use others trees by default, will sometimes if I hit a brick wall, but will only make the connection if there is verifiable source. With the other tree connections , there are many trees where the connections back to Lord .... or a particular area are tenuous or fanciful to satisfy some researchers romantic idea of ancestry :)

CuriousAboutStuff
07-08-2017, 11:55 AM
I started virtually from scratch too, at least on the paternal side. Perhaps it's no bad thing, you won't be biased by family rumours. Scandinavian place names go back a long way I think. Even if you only pay for a subscription for 6 months or a year, you can find out a lot in that timescale.
I'm doubtful about you finding recent Scandinavian, but you never know until you look. I worked with someone from Newport South Wales which was also a large port and he definitely had recent Scandinavian ancestry and it was obvious from his surname. John

I'm doubtful I'll find it to, to be fair, but might as well look. I'm on the hunt for some Irish too, so who knows, I might kill two birds with one stone :)

CuriousAboutStuff
07-08-2017, 11:57 AM
I recommend Ancestry and have done their DNA test too. I don't use others trees by default, will sometimes if I hit a brick wall, but will only make the connection if there is verifiable source. With the other tree connections , there are many trees where the connections back to Lord .... or a particular area are tenuous or fanciful to satisfy some researchers romantic idea of ancestry :)

I might just take the test so it can try and source out some relatives. If I'm not mistaken then I can upload these results to FTDNA too, but I'm not sure if it'll let me use their Family Finder that way.

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-08-2017, 12:00 PM
I recommend Ancestry and have done their DNA test too. I don't use others trees by default, will sometimes if I hit a brick wall, but will only make the connection if there is verifiable source. With the other tree connections , there are many trees where the connections back to Lord .... or a particular area are tenuous or fanciful to satisfy some researchers romantic idea of ancestry :)

Yes I always look for something supporting that I can access if I find something on someone else's tree or I try and confirm it myself from paper records, census etc. It can give a good clue to follow sometimes though. I'm no expert it this, just give it a go.
I used to smile at people who claimed ancestry from Hywel Dda because their name was Howell or variations. I've never been a chaser of famous names so it came as a bit of a surprise to find I share paternal ancestry somewhere with the Cecils (Y DNA results). Finding a paper trail is a different matter. You never know what may turn up. :) John

CuriousAboutStuff
07-08-2017, 12:08 PM
I started virtually from scratch too, at least on the paternal side. Perhaps it's no bad thing, you won't be biased by family rumours. Scandinavian place names go back a long way I think. Even if you only pay for a subscription for 6 months or a year, you can find out a lot in that timescale.
I'm doubtful about you finding recent Scandinavian, but you never know until you look. I worked with someone from Newport South Wales which was also a large port and he definitely had recent Scandinavian ancestry and it was obvious from his surname. John

Probably a stupid question, but as I'm mtdna H1, does that mean I'm only related to individuals within H1 specifically, or the whole H haplogroup?

ollie444
07-08-2017, 12:10 PM
Yes I always look for something supporting that I can access if I find something on someone else's tree or I try and confirm it myself from paper records, census etc. It can give a good clue to follow sometimes though. I'm no expert it this, just give it a go.
I used to smile at people who claimed ancestry from Hywel Dda because their name was Howell or variations. I've never been a chaser of famous names so it came as a bit of a surprise to find I share paternal ancestry somewhere with the Cecils (Y DNA results). Finding a paper trail is a different matter. You never know what may turn up. :) John

Some peoples trees are a bit fanciful!:P

A Norfolk L-M20
07-08-2017, 12:11 PM
I recently experimented on Ancestry (I have an annual subscription), by uploading a basic tree, then just going crazy, adding all and every hint from AMTs (Ancestry Member Trees) - just to see what would happen. The Frankenstein creation (before I destroyed it) was horrible. Distorted, ugly, and belonging to the Fiction department. It had father's marrying daughters, people marrying before they were born, people fathering children over a 100 years old. Imaginary siblings everywhere, people hopping suddenly back and forth over hundreds of miles to fit. When you look at the sources for these AMT sources, you often find them to be other badly sourced AMTs. They are like a virus, mutating and distorting further, with every hint, as they spread through the Ancestry forest.

It was an interesting lesson. Don't add from AMTs ever - nothing to do with cheating, but because they are highly unreliable. The problem as I see it is that although genealogy is a lifetime pursuit, we live in a instant gratification consumer society. Everyone that signs up for a short while, or for a free trial, wants to build a complete tree going back to Queen Boadicea or Genghis Khan, in the shortest time possible. So they pluck away with speed - reliability being very secondary to haste.

But the record is usually very incomplete. For example, English records. Some events were never recorded, or recorded with error or dishonesty. Some records were badly recorded - little illegible scribbles on expensive paper. Some of these records, when transcribed for indexing, are transcribed incorrectly. Surprising how many are. Some of the original records are damaged or missing. There are stories of vicar's wives using old parish records to light the vicarage fire. Sometimes parishes are missing. Sometimes they are still at the church or chapel. Some counties are better represented than others - sometimes on different websites. Some CRO (County Record Offices) and FHS (Family History Societies) make deals with different corporate websites and data bases. For example, on Ancestry, I find Norfolk and Oxfordshire very good for images of original parish records. However, for Suffolk it's absolutely trite. FindMyPast if I recall is good for Bedfordshire (I'd need to verify that).

So your average speed-researcher, goes looking for ancestor John X. They find a baptism record for a John X a hundred miles away, and speed click - add them. However, it might be that the website only has THAT John X on their database. In reality, there may have been a dozen other John Xs living closer at that time. Some on lost or missing records, some unrecorded, some simply not on the Ancestry.com database. The speed-researcher, playing their computer game, just added the wrong John X - then quickly start to trace back on the incorrect line.

Then the even faster light-speed researcher on a free trial glut comes along, and with a few clicks, adds that branch from that AMT to theirs. The tree distorts and distorts away from any sort of validity. Mistakes accumulate with every copy, rather like DNA. They have what they want though, a pat on the back from an uncle or aunt - they've "found" the family tree back to Genghis Khan. The free trial or their short term interest ends, and another AMT is abandoned in the forest offering future researchers more - AMT hints.

Sorry for the long slightly off topic rant. Online genealogy is fantastic. Back in the old days I'd have to book appointments with my reader's card, and travel miles to a CRO or the GRO, in order to don white gloves, and hold a pencil, while my request for a precious parish register was processed by the archivist. Now I can use databases to find those strays, encounter records I'd never considered - all from the comfort of my own home. It's brilliant.

However - the trade off is viral inaccuracy from a forest of speed genealogy. Enjoy online genealogy - sure, when desperate at a brick wall, consult the AMTs and see what other's have ascertained - but don't add from them, ever. A good tree will have the resources linked (both on Ancestry.com, and offline or elsewhere). Go look at those resources. Don't trust any old Ancestry or MyHeritage tree.

CuriousAboutStuff
07-08-2017, 12:23 PM
I recently experimented on Ancestry (I have an annual subscription), by uploading a basic tree, then just going crazy, adding all and every hint from AMTs (Ancestry Member Trees) - just to see what would happen. The Frankenstein creation (before I destroyed it) was horrible. Distorted, ugly, and belonging to the Fiction department. It had father's marrying daughters, people marrying before they were born, people fathering children over a 100 years old. Imaginary siblings everywhere, people hopping suddenly back and forth over hundreds of miles to fit. When you look at the sources for these AMT sources, you often find them to be other badly sourced AMTs. They are like a virus, mutating and distorting further, with every hint, as they spread through the Ancestry forest.

It was an interesting lesson. Don't add from AMTs ever - nothing to do with cheating, but because they are highly unreliable. The problem as I see it is that although genealogy is a lifetime pursuit, we live in a instant gratification consumer society. Everyone that signs up for a short while, or for a free trial, wants to build a complete tree going back to Queen Boadicea or Genghis Khan, in the shortest time possible. So they pluck away with speed - reliability being very secondary to haste.

But the record is usually very incomplete. For example, English records. Some events were never recorded, or recorded with error or dishonesty. Some records were badly recorded - little illegible scribbles on expensive paper. Some of these records, when transcribed for indexing, are transcribed incorrectly. Surprising how many are. Some of the original records are damaged or missing. There are stories of vicar's wives using old parish records to light the vicarage fire. Sometimes parishes are missing. Sometimes they are still at the church or chapel. Some counties are better represented than others - sometimes on different websites. Some CRO (County Record Offices) and FHS (Family History Societies) make deals with different corporate websites and data bases. For example, on Ancestry, I find Norfolk and Oxfordshire very good for images of original parish records. However, for Suffolk it's absolutely trite. FindMyPast if I recall is good for Bedfordshire (I'd need to verify that).

So your average speed-researcher, goes looking for ancestor John X. They find a baptism record for a John X a hundred miles away, and speed click - add them. However, it might be that the website only has THAT John X on their database. In reality, there may have been a dozen other John Xs living closer at that time. Some on lost or missing records, some unrecorded, some simply not on the Ancestry.com database. The speed-researcher, playing their computer game, just added the wrong John X - then quickly start to trace back on the incorrect line.

Then the even faster light-speed researcher on a free trial glut comes along, and with a few clicks, adds that branch from that AMT to theirs. The tree distorts and distorts away from any sort of validity. Mistakes accumulate with every copy, rather like DNA. They have what they want though, a pat on the back from an uncle or aunt - they've "found" the family tree back to Genghis Khan. The free trial or their short term interest ends, and another AMT is abandoned in the forest offering future researchers more - AMT hints.

Sorry for the long slightly off topic rant. Online genealogy is fantastic. Back in the old days I'd have to book appointments with my reader's card, and travel miles to a CRO or the GRO, in order to don white gloves, and hold a pencil, while my request for a precious parish register was processed by the archivist. Now I can use databases to find those strays, encounter records I'd never considered - all from the comfort of my own home. It's brilliant.

However - the trade off is viral inaccuracy from a forest of speed genealogy. Enjoy online genealogy - sure, when desperate at a brick wall, consult the AMTs and see what other's have ascertained - but don't add from them, ever. A good tree will have the resources linked (both on Ancestry.com, and offline or elsewhere). Go look at those resources. Don't trust any old Ancestry or MyHeritage tree.

I had a feeling that people would be rewriting their own ancestry to suit their own needs, which is probably why I've been dubious about making an online for so long. I do have plans to make an appointment within a library soon, so I'm hoping it will give me something solid to work with. So far, I've only seen very common surnames in my family so I am nervous about getting things mixed up unintentionally. I also have no idea about how accurate their DNA to relative matching service is, but I'm willing to try anyway.

Pylsteen
07-08-2017, 12:45 PM
I don't like myHeritage. It is a lot of lumping, and in particular, I find it too Anglo-Saxon; women are given their husband's names, with their own one behind (born ...), now, they expand this to all other cultures. It was never a big thing in the Netherlands, and certainly not before the advent of surnames, just imagine a couple Jan Pieters (John Peter's son) and Marie Willems (Mary William's daughter), and MyHeritage listing her as Marie Pieters (born Willems). That is just ridiculous. (Sorry for this rant).
On the other hand, I found some nice pictures of family on myHeritage. I myself am reluctant to post family pictures online, since I view those as private. I maintain my own genealogy website; I have so many names and people; I am in the process of reviewing each family and adding sources where necessary, in the hope that its reliability will increase significantly.

A Norfolk L-M20
07-08-2017, 01:02 PM
I had a feeling that people would be rewriting their own ancestry to suit their own needs, which is probably why I've been dubious about making an online for so long. I do have plans to make an appointment within a library soon, so I'm hoping it will give me something solid to work with. So far, I've only seen very common surnames in my family so I am nervous about getting things mixed up unintentionally. I also have no idea about how accurate their DNA to relative matching service is, but I'm willing to try anyway.

All of my known ancestry is English, but LivingDNA wants to tell me otherwise :)

You know the saying "all history is bunk". I'd agree to an extent, but as historians we strive for more truth in our record. Does my own tree contain errors? Hell yes, it must. So I log on regularly, and keep checking validity, trying improve, recording doubt where there is doubt, recording my sources, looking for correlations - and trimming out bunk when I discover it. That's what we do, year after year.

As for autosomal DNA-for-ancestry tests, they are often taken as indisputable truths. They are not! They are very imperfect. Each has it's own competing array of modern-day reference data sets, arranged across the geography, set to competing algorithms and levels of computing power. As a self-confessed DNA junkie, I am wary of supporting any of the DNA businesses, but I hope that competition will force them to improve. The problem is that 1) all Western Eurasians like us are closely related, and largely descended from the same founder populations in late prehistory - we are not all little isolated populations, and 2) we are all admixed, if not within recorded genealogy, then during medieval and possibly post-medieval periods. The English, particularly the SE English and East Anglians, are particularly admixed - not so much over the past ten generations, so much as during the medieval and classical periods. We are a mix between "British", and "Continental".

My first DNA test with 23andMe said that I was only 32% "British & Irish". A bit of a shock, as an extensive recorded genealogy was very localised and all SE English. It gave me 27% "French & German". Since then, I surveyed English testers on 23 and always found the same recipe, in slight different percentages. Usually, in order of the largest to smallest percentage: 1. British & Irish", 2. Broadly NW European, 3. French & German, 4. Scandinavian. Lots of English testers also had a small percentage of 5. Southern European. 23andMe claim that they filter out short segments and any ancestry older than 300-500 years. Clearly it doesn't work, because what we see are ancient "population background" admixture - NOT always more recent family admixture.

Living DNA seem to make some hiccups, and maybe need to improve QC, however, in general, they actually get us English much better than do the other DNA businesses. However, they still give me a big chunk of Tuscany that I can't account for, and only 50% of what I genuinely believe my East Anglian ancestry to be. However, that they still do get me as East Anglian is I feel pretty awesome, considering how alike we Europeans all are!

By the way, after years of research, and only having English ancestry - I recently, at last, found a 3x great grandparent that I have evidence for being born abroad for. Possibly in Switzerland. However - he can only be responsible for 0-5% of my auDNA flavour.

CuriousAboutStuff
07-08-2017, 01:53 PM
You know the saying "all history is bunk". I'd agree to an extent, but as historians we strive for more truth in our record. Does my own tree contain errors? Hell yes, it must. So I log on regularly, and keep checking validity, trying improve, recording doubt where there is doubt, recording my sources, looking for correlations - and trimming out bunk when I discover it. That's what we do, year after year.

As for autosomal DNA-for-ancestry tests, they are often taken as indisputable truths. They are not! They are very imperfect. Each has it's own competing array of modern-day reference data sets, arranged across the geography, set to competing algorithms and levels of computing power. As a self-confessed DNA junkie, I am wary of supporting any of the DNA businesses, but I hope that competition will force them to improve. The problem is that 1) all Western Eurasians like us are closely related, and largely descended from the same founder populations in late prehistory - we are not all little isolated populations, and 2) we are all admixed, if not within recorded genealogy, then during medieval and possibly post-medieval periods. The English, particularly the SE English and East Anglians, are particularly admixed - not so much over the past ten generations, so much as during the medieval and classical periods. We are a mix between "British", and "Continental".

My first DNA test with 23andMe said that I was only 32% "British & Irish". A bit of a shock, as an extensive recorded genealogy was very localised and all SE English. It gave me 27% "French & German". Since then, I surveyed English testers on 23 and always found the same recipe, in slight different percentages. Usually, in order of the largest to smallest percentage: 1. British & Irish", 2. Broadly NW European, 3. French & German, 4. Scandinavian. Lots of English testers also had a small percentage of 5. Southern European. 23andMe claim that they filter out short segments and any ancestry older than 300-500 years. Clearly it doesn't work, because what we see are ancient "population background" admixture - NOT always more recent family admixture.

Living DNA seem to make some hiccups, and maybe need to improve QC, however, in general, they actually get us English much better than do the other DNA businesses. However, they still give me a big chunk of Tuscany that I can't account for, and only 50% of what I genuinely believe my East Anglian ancestry to be. However, that they still do get me as East Anglian is I feel pretty awesome, considering how alike we Europeans all are!

By the way, after years of research, and only having English ancestry - I recently, at last, found a 3x great grandparent that I have evidence for being born abroad for. Possibly in Switzerland. However - he can only be responsible for 0-5% of my auDNA flavour.

I personally was pleasantly surprised by LivingDNA as they seem to be pretty on point with my larger DNA percentages. My largest non-English segment is down as Aberdeenshire at 6%. The company told me that it's either Scottish or Irish DNA, they group Abderseenshire together with Ireland, and based on that, I've reason to believe it's probably Irish. However, I've not had any solid evidence that it exists - yet. I'm not sure how far back 6% would be so I'll wing it and see what happens.

The only mainland European sample I had attributed to me was Scandinavia. The rest they've put as British/Irish so I think it's accurate enough, in my experience anyway - especially since their company is fairly new, I believe. :)

Thanks for your reply :)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-08-2017, 07:48 PM
Probably a stupid question, but as I'm mtdna H1, does that mean I'm only related to individuals within H1 specifically, or the whole H haplogroup?

I'm no DNA expert so it may be better if someone else comments, but my understanding is that broadly you will have inherited that specific marker from an individual but if you go further back in time that individual would be descended from an earlier "H" ancestor, but I could be completely wrong as I don't know much about mtdna. If you type your group into a search engine, you will probably find some information on the various clades and descent. John

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-08-2017, 07:56 PM
I recently experimented on Ancestry (I have an annual subscription), by uploading a basic tree, then just going crazy, adding all and every hint from AMTs (Ancestry Member Trees) - just to see what would happen. The Frankenstein creation (before I destroyed it) was horrible. Distorted, ugly, and belonging to the Fiction department. It had father's marrying daughters, people marrying before they were born, people fathering children over a 100 years old. Imaginary siblings everywhere, people hopping suddenly back and forth over hundreds of miles to fit. When you look at the sources for these AMT sources, you often find them to be other badly sourced AMTs. They are like a virus, mutating and distorting further, with every hint, as they spread through the Ancestry forest.

It was an interesting lesson. Don't add from AMTs ever - nothing to do with cheating, but because they are highly unreliable. The problem as I see it is that although genealogy is a lifetime pursuit, we live in a instant gratification consumer society. Everyone that signs up for a short while, or for a free trial, wants to build a complete tree going back to Queen Boadicea or Genghis Khan, in the shortest time possible. So they pluck away with speed - reliability being very secondary to haste.

But the record is usually very incomplete. For example, English records. Some events were never recorded, or recorded with error or dishonesty. Some records were badly recorded - little illegible scribbles on expensive paper. Some of these records, when transcribed for indexing, are transcribed incorrectly. Surprising how many are. Some of the original records are damaged or missing. There are stories of vicar's wives using old parish records to light the vicarage fire. Sometimes parishes are missing. Sometimes they are still at the church or chapel. Some counties are better represented than others - sometimes on different websites. Some CRO (County Record Offices) and FHS (Family History Societies) make deals with different corporate websites and data bases. For example, on Ancestry, I find Norfolk and Oxfordshire very good for images of original parish records. However, for Suffolk it's absolutely trite. FindMyPast if I recall is good for Bedfordshire (I'd need to verify that).

So your average speed-researcher, goes looking for ancestor John X. They find a baptism record for a John X a hundred miles away, and speed click - add them. However, it might be that the website only has THAT John X on their database. In reality, there may have been a dozen other John Xs living closer at that time. Some on lost or missing records, some unrecorded, some simply not on the Ancestry.com database. The speed-researcher, playing their computer game, just added the wrong John X - then quickly start to trace back on the incorrect line.

Then the even faster light-speed researcher on a free trial glut comes along, and with a few clicks, adds that branch from that AMT to theirs. The tree distorts and distorts away from any sort of validity. Mistakes accumulate with every copy, rather like DNA. They have what they want though, a pat on the back from an uncle or aunt - they've "found" the family tree back to Genghis Khan. The free trial or their short term interest ends, and another AMT is abandoned in the forest offering future researchers more - AMT hints.

Sorry for the long slightly off topic rant. Online genealogy is fantastic. Back in the old days I'd have to book appointments with my reader's card, and travel miles to a CRO or the GRO, in order to don white gloves, and hold a pencil, while my request for a precious parish register was processed by the archivist. Now I can use databases to find those strays, encounter records I'd never considered - all from the comfort of my own home. It's brilliant.

However - the trade off is viral inaccuracy from a forest of speed genealogy. Enjoy online genealogy - sure, when desperate at a brick wall, consult the AMTs and see what other's have ascertained - but don't add from them, ever. A good tree will have the resources linked (both on Ancestry.com, and offline or elsewhere). Go look at those resources. Don't trust any old Ancestry or MyHeritage tree.

Yes you are right. It's very tempting to add people. Like I have a couple of "Jones" lines. On one I'm 90% certain of their ancestry but I won't consider them "added" until I get some other confirmation. I've found a few "unknowns" through Family Finder which is where the DNA and paper trail can help. I think a little common sense needs to be applied.
On the other hand there is a limit to how much time I'm prepared or able to dedicate to this stuff. I admire people like you who actually put in a lot of effort.
I would rather reconcile myself to not knowing certain things than have a pile of nonsense, as that seems pointless to me. Of course the further you go back, generally the more difficult it becomes. :) John

FionnSneachta
07-08-2017, 08:34 PM
Yes you are right. It's very tempting to add people. Like I have a couple of "Jones" lines. On one I'm 90% certain of their ancestry but I won't consider them "added" until I get some other confirmation. I've found a few "unknowns" through Family Finder which is where the DNA and paper trail can help. I think a little common sense needs to be applied.
On the other hand there is a limit to how much time I'm prepared or able to dedicate to this stuff. I admire people like you who actually put in a lot of effort.
I would rather reconcile myself to not knowing certain things than have a pile of nonsense, as that seems pointless to me. Of course the further you go back, generally the more difficult it becomes. :) John

The only time that I'll add in family tree information is if it's a DNA match and we have a common ancestor in both trees. I'll add in the descendants that they have for that ancestor through the line they descend from. It's more recent and they managed to trace back to the correct ancestors so I'll assume that the information is correct. It's generally American relatives that I do this with since I don't have any way to verify the information unless I have a world subscription. I find it hard to find out what happened to relatives when they go to America so I'm always happy to find a match descended from an immigrant. I don't use tree information to go back further in my tree (since it's pretty much impossible to go further back than I have in Ireland anyway).

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-09-2017, 08:49 AM
accidentally quoted myself. :)

JohnHowellsTyrfro
07-09-2017, 12:39 PM
The only time that I'll add in family tree information is if it's a DNA match and we have a common ancestor in both trees. I'll add in the descendants that they have for that ancestor through the line they descend from. It's more recent and they managed to trace back to the correct ancestors so I'll assume that the information is correct. It's generally American relatives that I do this with since I don't have any way to verify the information unless I have a world subscription. I find it hard to find out what happened to relatives when they go to America so I'm always happy to find a match descended from an immigrant. I don't use tree information to go back further in my tree (since it's pretty much impossible to go further back than I have in Ireland anyway).

It's a bit easier being in the UK. You can look at census records over quite a few years, even get a copy of a marriage certificate which will usually at least confirm the fathers and occupation. Witnesses can often have a family relationship too. The problem with this area is a lot moved in from all over during the industrial revolution, so with a common name, you might hit a brick wall on paper trails. John

FionnSneachta
07-09-2017, 01:40 PM
It's a bit easier being in the UK. You can look at census records over quite a few years, even get a copy of a marriage certificate which will usually at least confirm the fathers and occupation. Witnesses can often have a family relationship too. The problem with this area is a lot moved in from all over during the industrial revolution, so with a common name, you might hit a brick wall on paper trails. John

That is true. The good thing about Irish records is although the earliest complete census was in 1901, both the 1901 census and 1911 census are up for free online. The Irish civil birth records are all up online from 1865 up to 1915, marriage records are from 1882 until 1940 and death records from 1891 until 1965 for free. They are currently working on making the earlier marriage and death records available for free too. Although there aren't quite as many records, we do have easy access to them at least. I'm lucky that my Kellys were farmers and just stayed in the one village over the years. I would have lost them if they had moved around since the name is so common. Most of the families did tend to stay in the one village so they tend to be easy enough to find provided that the records are in existence.

Amerijoe
07-09-2017, 01:43 PM
accidentally quoted myself. :)

John, now you're starting to sound like a politician. :laugh: Joe

Mike_G
07-09-2017, 02:55 PM
Probably a stupid question, but as I'm mtdna H1, does that mean I'm only related to individuals within H1 specifically, or the whole H haplogroup?

You might belong to a narrower/more recent sublclade. I'm H1 on LivingDNA but H1n on 23andme and H1n-T146C! (their exclamation point, not mine) on FTDNA's full mtdna thing.

CuriousAboutStuff
07-14-2017, 10:10 AM
You might belong to a narrower/more recent sublclade. I'm H1 on LivingDNA but H1n on 23andme and H1n-T146C! (their exclamation point, not mine) on FTDNA's full mtdna thing.

Apologies for such a delayed response.

It seems like the more tests you take, the more confusing it gets :)

Mike_G
07-14-2017, 10:40 PM
Apologies for such a delayed response.

It seems like the more tests you take, the more confusing it gets :)

No sweat.

Actually in this instance I think Living DNA came up short. That H1n and its sublclade led back to the northwestern part of Germany and Sweden. That's pretty accurate in my case (GGGGG grand mama came here from Cologne). Seems about right from my mtDNA matches and other research.

If you really want to know, look at FTDNA's mtFull if you've got a little extra cash. Word of warning though: the "advanced tests" that I spent the extra cash on in the cases of Big Y and Y-Full showed nothing more than what Y-67 and Michal Milewski's analysis showed on my initial FTDNA Y test. Caveat Emptor. Even the extra subclade on my H1n probably wasn't necessary. They all lead back to the same old lady in the same geographic region.

CuriousAboutStuff
07-15-2017, 05:51 PM
No sweat.

Actually in this instance I think Living DNA came up short. That H1n and its sublclade led back to the northwestern part of Germany and Sweden. That's pretty accurate in my case (GGGGG grand mama came here from Cologne). Seems about right from my mtDNA matches and other research.

If you really want to know, look at FTDNA's mtFull if you've got a little extra cash. Word of warning though: the "advanced tests" that I spent the extra cash on in the cases of Big Y and Y-Full showed nothing more than what Y-67 and Michal Milewski's analysis showed on my initial FTDNA Y test. Caveat Emptor. Even the extra subclade on my H1n probably wasn't necessary. They all lead back to the same old lady in the same geographic region.

Maybe I'll do another test and see how it matches up to LivingDNA. I might take an Ancestry DNA test, since I believe I can run it through FTDNA, but not the other way around, though I'm not sure. I'll also get my results up onto GEDmatch at some point and see how it matches.

Don't know anything about mtdna if I'm honest.

Thank you :)

Judith
07-15-2017, 08:38 PM
Hi Curious, be aware with the mtdna stuff that depending on your downstream mutations your tmrca may be many 1000s of years ago. So you are related to all H but that will be much more than 10000 years ago. Sometimes taking these tests gradually can be best so that you have time to absorb them slowly. It is a steep learning curve and no substitute for the paper trail hard work. But fun in both activities.

CuriousAboutStuff
07-18-2017, 11:04 AM
Hi Curious, be aware with the mtdna stuff that depending on your downstream mutations your tmrca may be many 1000s of years ago. So you are related to all H but that will be much more than 10000 years ago. Sometimes taking these tests gradually can be best so that you have time to absorb them slowly. It is a steep learning curve and no substitute for the paper trail hard work. But fun in both activities.

Paper trail is starting for me now. Going to be speaking to someone who can help me with my search as I don't really know where to start and I want to be as accurate as possible.

I think taking this test, as you say, has been a steep learning curve for me. I'm grateful that the users here have been kind enough to help me a lot, I appreciate it. Mtdna is something I've no idea about and I'll focus on deciphering these test results before taking another. I don't want to confuse myself, and I'm sure the paper trail will clear a lot up for me.

isgaldo
07-22-2017, 05:24 PM
My partner has a small percent of Scandi about 2.8% but they have no documented ancestors from there...

psampson
07-22-2017, 07:06 PM
I have 2 FTDNA matches with trees entirely in Sweden & match on Chr17 and suggested 4th & 5th to distant cousin relationship, and two others with similar trees that match one of the first two. I haven't done a triangulation before and 3 of these matches have sizable trees, I just haven't had time to delve deeply but I suspect there will be a common connection between four of us at around generation 6 or 7.

On my gran's line in North Meols, Lancashire where Vikings landed in the 10th century, there are several family lines that have 'mingled' at 2nd-5th cousin level more than once over several generations (including my aunt & uncle who, it transpired later, were 5th cousins) Wouldn't that leave a significant genetic signature?

If Ancestry are overstating Scandinavian levels at 24% and LDNA are quite possibly understating them at 3%, have FTDNA got the middle ground right at 14%?