Scandinavian in results - confused.

[ajc347]

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]

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]

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

You're welcome!

[JohnHowellsTyrfro]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[[email protected]]

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!

[evon]

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]

I would blame the Vikings!

I think I'll have to!