PDA

View Full Version : East Iberia?.



Ron from PA
02-08-2020, 02:49 PM
Any thoughts what this represents?. I have no known ancestry from that area. My LDNA test gives me 19% and my ancestry upload gives me 15%. However my MyHeritage gives me 0 putting most in South Germany and a few % in Britain. All three results give me South Germany as my main ancestry which is correct based on paper trail research.

El Prudente
02-15-2020, 01:24 PM
Do you get any sardinian or French in the other tests?

Ron from PA
02-15-2020, 01:52 PM
I got a small amount of French pre update. And ancestry used to give me about 5%. Last update it was eliminated.

El Prudente
02-15-2020, 02:54 PM
Have you done GEDmatch?

Ron from PA
02-18-2020, 03:24 AM
I have. I've tested several places. This is the only test with this result. I should mention my upload result at LDNA splits the East Iberia between Germanic and British.

ChildofMud
02-18-2020, 07:28 PM
False positive? Picking up EEF ancestry? East Iberia is the least "Moorish," so that's my guess.

JJJ
02-18-2020, 08:31 PM
False positive? Picking up EEF ancestry? East Iberia is the least "Moorish," so that's my guess.

I don't think that's why, some with Portuguese ancestry have been getting Eastern Iberian. Most likely reason: random factor.

geebee
02-18-2020, 10:14 PM
Any thoughts what this represents?. I have no known ancestry from that area. My LDNA test gives me 19% and my ancestry upload gives me 15%. However my MyHeritage gives me 0 putting most in South Germany and a few % in Britain. All three results give me South Germany as my main ancestry which is correct based on paper trail research.

I have to admit to extreme puzzlement here. You say you have no ancestry from East Iberia yet get 19% at LivingDNA. Meanwhile, both of my maternal grandmother's grandfathers were Menorcan immigrants. This would make my grandmother half Menorcan -- which is very much East Iberian -- my mother half, and me a quarter (12.5%). What I actually get from LivingDNA is only 6.7% since the update, which is down from 7.9% "Iberian Peninsula".

They've also reduced my "Germanic" ancestry from 26.3% to just 16.4% -- and they're calling it "Northwest Germanic". That's very unlikely. My "German" ancestry consists of Palatine immigrants who arrived in America during the colonial period, meaning they were more likely to have been south and west Germans and Swiss. This accounts for about 34.4% of my ancestry.

I also have a tiny amount of Swiss ancestry from my mother. In addition, one of my grandmother's Menorcan grandfathers that I mentioned earlier married an Alsatian immigrant. The Swiss only accounts for 1.2% of my ancestry, and the Alsatian is 6.25%.

But what does LivingDNA think? Well, before the update they saw me as more "France" than anything else: 45.5%. In actuality, I do have a bit of French ancestry -- but only 3.1%. So obviously they were counting a lot of other ancestry as part of France. Among other things, this is probably where some of my Menorcan ancestry went, since at that time LivingDNA's map showed the Balearic islands of Mallorca and Menorca both as part of the "France" region. Now it's included in "East Iberia", but I still think they're missing some of it.

And before the update, LivingDNA saw only 20.6% of my ancestry as being from Great Britain and Ireland. None of that was from England -- 12.6% they attributed to "Ireland" and 7.7% they attributed to "Northwest Scotland". This better fits my known British and Irish ancestry, although it's lower than what my paper trail shows: 40.6% "British and Irish". Still, most of my "British" ancestry appears to have been Scottish or Scots-Irish, not so much English.

Now, though, LivingDNA is convinced that 76.9% of my ancestry is from Great Britain and Ireland. My paternal grandmother alone is over 90% "German", although my grandfather is probably closer to half German, half British. But there's no way I'm even half British myself, let alone over three fourths.

What it seems pretty obvious they've done is add a lot of German segments in together with British segments and then assigned it to some of the more "Anglo-Saxon" regions of Great Britain. I have, according to LivingDNA:


19.2% South Central England
15.8% Central England
14.2% Southeast England
6.1% East Anglia
5.8% Northern Ireland and Southwest Scotland
4.3% Cumbria
3.7% Northwest Scotland
3% Ireland
3% South Wales
1.9% Lincolnshire

As I said, I think many of these are fictitious. I believe that what has somehow happened is that my more northerly British ancestry is so entwined with my southwestern German ancestry that LivingDNA's algorithm "sees" it as simply an Anglo-Saxon component.

EDIT:

I wonder just how many of us descendants of German "Palatines" of the colonial era this has happened to? It isn't that I don't have British ancestry as well, just that I have a much more even split between German and British but somehow LivingDNA (and Ancestry, but not 23andMe) manage to blend it all together and treat it as overwhelmingly British -- when it is definitely not.

geebee
02-19-2020, 12:27 AM
My suspicion is that LivingDNA's update has done the same sort of thing to me that FTDNA has clearly done with my father. My father's ancestry is basically only two things: German and British. All of his ancestry from the colonial era consists of descendants of "German Palatines" and "British" -- the latter meaning, primarily, Scottish and Scots-Irish with at most a small amount of "other" British.

So what does FTDNA say, when my father's paper trail shows he's about 68% German? 76% "British Isles". How much "West and Central German"? None. However, it does show 15% "Southeast Europe" and 8% "East Europe". If you could see the map, you'd notice that these ancestries form a hole between them. What's in that hole? Germany.

Somehow, instead of being able to "see" that my father's ancestry is more German than anything else, and only secondarily British, FTDNA's algorithm has given him the surrounding ancestries. So instead of western and southern German, he's given a lot of extra "British Isles", "Southeast Europe", and "East Europe".

Ron from PA
02-19-2020, 02:13 PM
My suspicion is that LivingDNA's update has done the same sort of thing to me that FTDNA has clearly done with my father. My father's ancestry is basically only two things: German and British. All of his ancestry from the colonial era consists of descendants of "German Palatines" and "British" -- the latter meaning, primarily, Scottish and Scots-Irish with at most a small amount of "other" British.

So what does FTDNA say, when my father's paper trail shows he's about 68% German? 76% "British Isles". How much "West and Central German"? None. However, it does show 15% "Southeast Europe" and 8% "East Europe". If you could see the map, you'd notice that these ancestries form a hole between them. What's in that hole? Germany.

Somehow, instead of being able to "see" that my father's ancestry is more German than anything else, and only secondarily British, FTDNA's algorithm has given him the surrounding ancestries. So instead of western and southern German, he's given a lot of extra "British Isles", "Southeast Europe", and "East Europe".


I think you are on to something. FTDNA gives me 0 Central Europe and around 80% British. 3/4 of my grandparents have German last names. Paternal line from Baden another from Alsace the other i'm not sure but I suspect either Baden or the Rhineland area. Remaining grandparent line Scotch Irish. Ancestry used to give me 10-15% Iberian. Latest update correctly 0%.

geebee
02-19-2020, 06:20 PM
I think you are on to something. FTDNA gives me 0 Central Europe and around 80% British. 3/4 of my grandparents have German last names. Paternal line from Baden another from Alsace the other i'm not sure but I suspect either Baden or the Rhineland area. Remaining grandparent line Scotch Irish. Ancestry used to give me 10-15% Iberian. Latest update correctly 0%.

You figure that for many of us with both Palatine German and British ancestry from the colonial era, they started mixing with each other fairly early. My 3rd great grandfather on my surname line appears to have had only German ancestry, even though he was 3rd generation in the country. However, he married a woman whose father was of Scots-Irish descent, and whose mother was of German descent.

This couple's oldest son, my 2nd great grandfather, married a woman of either English or Scots-Irish descent, and their only surviving son -- my great grandfather -- married a woman of mixed Scottish and German descent. My great grandparent's oldest son, my grandfather, married a woman of almost exclusively German descent. My point, though, is that each generation of mixing probably makes "unraveling" extremely complicated -- especially since the British themselves have some German descent. (Though, of course, this is far less true of the Scots.)

Then when you consider the fact that it's unlikely that FTDNA makes any real attempt at phasing the data, it's no wonder that there are problems.

Ron from PA
02-20-2020, 02:12 PM
You figure that for many of us with both Palatine German and British ancestry from the colonial era, they started mixing with each other fairly early. My 3rd great grandfather on my surname line appears to have had only German ancestry, even though he was 3rd generation in the country. However, he married a woman whose father was of Scots-Irish descent, and whose mother was of German descent.

This couple's oldest son, my 2nd great grandfather, married a woman of either English or Scots-Irish descent, and their only surviving son -- my great grandfather -- married a woman of mixed Scottish and German descent. My great grandparent's oldest son, my grandfather, married a woman of almost exclusively German descent. My point, though, is that each generation of mixing probably makes "unraveling" extremely complicated -- especially since the British themselves have some German descent. (Though, of course, this is far less true of the Scots.)

Then when you consider the fact that it's unlikely that FTDNA makes any real attempt at phasing the data, it's no wonder that there are problems.

Very true. I'm mainly German with a heavy dose of British. Something i've wondered about these tests, in particular with 23andME. They claim to go back 300-500 years if thats true should'nt I be 75% German?. But it seems they do pick up more recent as well. I get 60% at 23. Though LDNA shows more then that and MyHeritage though very unreliable finds no British at all.

sktibo
02-23-2020, 05:23 AM
I really dislike these claims of "going back X number of years" because it's just so misleading. They use samples from people who are living or were alive in our lifetimes - modern people. I think their claims of ~500 years come from the assumption that the people who comprise these reference panels have completely certain genealogies. The POBI samples, which Living DNA uses for Britain, were taken from people who had four grandparents living within 50 miles from one another. If we're being conservative, that isn't going back even 200 years. If we take the Tuscany region, which Living DNA compiled outside of a public project that I am aware of, we see a lot of problems with this region. It is common on the current version of the test for someone to get Tuscan without any ancestry from that region. Living DNA has said on a Facebook group that they intend to check over their Tuscan reference problems to try and identify this, indicating that some of their reference populations' genealogies may not be infallible. Thus, if all of a reference's ancestors are not from a single region back 500 years, then the test should not be claiming to be representative of a consumer's ancestry 500 years ago. I think it's actually just a cheap cop-out used to answer general questions about why one's test results are not as expected.

Caius Agrippa
03-28-2020, 02:44 PM
I really dislike these claims of "going back X number of years" because it's just so misleading. They use samples from people who are living or were alive in our lifetimes - modern people. I think their claims of ~500 years come from the assumption that the people who comprise these reference panels have completely certain genealogies. The POBI samples, which Living DNA uses for Britain, were taken from people who had four grandparents living within 50 miles from one another. If we're being conservative, that isn't going back even 200 years. If we take the Tuscany region, which Living DNA compiled outside of a public project that I am aware of, we see a lot of problems with this region. It is common on the current version of the test for someone to get Tuscan without any ancestry from that region. Living DNA has said on a Facebook group that they intend to check over their Tuscan reference problems to try and identify this, indicating that some of their reference populations' genealogies may not be infallible. Thus, if all of a reference's ancestors are not from a single region back 500 years, then the test should not be claiming to be representative of a consumer's ancestry 500 years ago. I think it's actually just a cheap cop-out used to answer general questions about why one's test results are not as expected.

Excellent response. That's the pattern I'm seeing with most tests apart from 23andme (that is usually quite accurate to guess correctly ancestry proportions). The references they use to measure 500 years of recent ancestry are mostly based on samples from people they assume to have ancestry from that area from around 500 years ago. But I doubt they really check all of those genealogies.

That's why tests like MyHeritage, FTDNA and, on a lesser scale, LivingDNA and AncestryDNA can sometimes pop up with random results. After the recent update, in which they supposedly sampled much more people, my LivingDNA results changed considerably, but I'm not sure if they are more accurate than pre-update results.