RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: nelwild on Saturday 06 April 24 15:29 BST (UK)
-
My dads DNA has come back as 29% Scottish,but the only line i can find that goes North of the Border is a single 7xgreat grandfather born in Kelso in 1659.Would that be enough to provide that level of Scottish DNA,or is it likely ive got something wrong,or things are not as they seem from the records.
Any thoughts appreciated.
TIA.
-
According to Ancestry, I am 30 % Scottish, and this can only be through my English mother, who's ancestry was mostly NE England and North Yorkshire based. If you look at where Ancestry defines their "Scottish " ethnicity region, it encompasses parts of northern England as well as part of Northern Ireland and Brittany in France.
It is only once I get back to my maternal 4th gt grandparents, so born 1760 to 1780,where the possibility of there being true Scots may enter my family, as I am stuck on the origins of 2 Thompson lines. So I don't think my "Scottishness" will really be that high.
-
I can see how Northern Ireland and Scotland would be connected. I have ancestors who moved from Ireland to Glasgow in the 19th century. But Brittany seems like any family connection would go back at least a thousand years.
-
I can see how Northern Ireland and Scotland would be connected. I have ancestors who moved from Ireland to Glasgow in the 19th century. But Brittany seems like any family connection would go back at least a thousand years.
Brittany is one of the 6 Celtic Nations.
Scotland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany.
-
And if you go back even further you have the Scotti from Ireland settling in Scotland which was already inhabited by the Picts, another Celtic group.
-
Well yes, if you go back a few thousand years, they may be related. Gildas reported that when the Saxons invaded, British people were pushed back into Wales and Cornwall and then escaped to Brittany. But more recently?
-
No need to go back so far.
Just 500or 600 years!
Classical Gaelic, otherwise known as Early Modern Irish, covers the period from the 13th to the 18th century, during which time it was used as a literary standard in Ireland and Scotland. This is often called Classical Irish, while Ethnologue gives the name "Hiberno-Scottish Gaelic" to this standardised written language. As long as this written language was the norm, Ireland was considered the Gaelic homeland to the Scottish literati.
Later orthographic divergence has resulted in standardised pluricentristic orthographies. Manx orthography, which was introduced in the 16th and 17th centuries, was based loosely on English and Welsh orthography, and so never formed part of this literary standard.
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goidelic_languages
-
Language and DNA are not one and the same.
-
If your dad wants to change his apparent Scottish ethnicity I suggest he
a) waits a while. My brother's Scottish ethnicity decreased from 25% to < 2% in 3 years with Ancestry or
b) tests with another provider. I'm < 2% Scottish on Ancestry and >15% on MH!!!
I strongly suggest you focus on his DNA matches instead. If he really does have Scottish ancestry it will soon become apparent.
-
Ethnicity testing is about as reliable as a horoscope.
There has been so much internal migration around the British Isles over the past 2000 years, the idea of clear separate identities for the various groups (Scots, English, Welsh etc) is just silly. To which I would add that ethnicity has little scientific basis. It's a modern cultural invention. Most scientists avoid it like the plague.
Stick to specific DNA matches.
-
A recent consultation by my with a top consultant revealed poly myalgia is x 20 as prevalent in the UK as it is in France. The reason for this is because the Vikings did not make much of an impression in France whereas they were quite successful at establishing themselves in the north of Britain.
Not so in the south west where hundreds of the remains of Viking raiders in mass graves have been discovered.
For the record. I think highly unlikely that DNA sampling will ever tell anything specific to those at the level of ameuter family researcher. It is a nice not so little earner for the likes of Ancestry.
‘Dam lies and statistics.’
-
My gran was born in County Durham but her mother was from London with some Norfolk, Dorset and French Huguenot further back. But my gran's father's ancestors were mainly NE England as far as I can trace apart from one of his great great grandfathers John Stewart who was born in Selkirk, Scotland in 1738. Those Barrington transcripts for his children's baptisms in 1803 and 1805 say he was a "skinner and native of Selkirk, Scotland". Another ancestor of his was from Dent in far NW Yorkshire.
I guess if I had lots of "Scottish DNA" the NE England ancestry could explain why.
-
According to Ancestry, I am 30 % Scottish, and this can only be through my English mother, whose ancestry was mostly NE England and North Yorkshire based.
My wife's ancestry is mainly from Tyneside or northern Ireland, but the Tyneside members had strains (McKay) who moved from southern Scotland in the mid-19th century. Her DNA analysis from Ancestry claims 65% 'Scottish and NE England'. I suspect that movement from the Edinburgh area to Tyneside was not unusual ?
-
I'm a great believer in ethnicities as shown on ancestry
My mother has exactly 8 percent Scots
Which didn't fit with her 4 other ethnicities from different great grandparents but then she discovered that she did indeed have a Scottish great great grandmother who somehow found herself in Northampton
DNA matches with high Scottish ethnicity are often linked thru this ancestor
As for the other ENGLISH grandparents they were based in Birkenhead across the way from Wales and 6 great grandparents were from Wales
English Welsh ethnicity sometimes merge but I'm impressed that ancestry can now pinpoint regional connections to Cheshire for example
-
Ethnicity testing is about as reliable as a horoscope.
There has been so much internal migration around the British Isles over the past 2000 years, the idea of clear separate identities for the various groups (Scots, English, Welsh etc) is just silly. To which I would add that ethnicity has little scientific basis. It's a modern cultural invention. Most scientists avoid it like the plague.
Stick to specific DNA matches.
Whilst I agree that most ethnicity estimates should be taken with a large pinch of salt, my experience suggests there are some benefits. One of my grandfather's identities was unknown and having extensively researched all my other lines I only found forbears from southern (and mostly south-west) England. When I carried out my Ancestry DNA test the ethnicity result indicated I had 33% Scottish ancestry (later modified to 25%). Diligent research since and some very lucky connections have now identified my Perthshire ancestral family, confirmed by others' DNA results and matches. I now know my great grandparents although which of their sons was my grandfather is still a mystery!
-
My dads DNA has come back as 29% Scottish,but the only line i can find that goes North of the Border is a single 7xgreat grandfather born in Kelso in 1659.Would that be enough to provide that level of Scottish DNA,or is it likely ive got something wrong,or things are not as they seem from the records.
Any thoughts appreciated.
TIA.
Not everyone can be a winner in the lottery of life...
-
My dads DNA has come back as 29% Scottish,but the only line i can find that goes North of the Border is a single 7xgreat grandfather born in Kelso in 1659.Would that be enough to provide that level of Scottish DNA,or is it likely ive got something wrong,or things are not as they seem from the records.
Any thoughts appreciated.
TIA.
There is a link named "Confused by your Scottish results?" or similar on the Ancestry page showing your father's Scottish ethnicity results. Have you read the page it links to?
Additionally, all a particular ethnicity allocation indicates is that regions have been found in the tester's DNA which are similar to regions generally found in populations in that area (i.e. the regions that Ancestry refer to as Scottish in your father's case, which does not solely relate to Scotland). It can indicate that some of your father's ancestors came from the same region as other migrants who are now most commonly found in the regions Ancestry labels as Scotland, which is not identical to the geographic area. But his ancestors may not have ever actually set foot in the geographic country of Scotland.
I think if you read the link I refer to above, it states that a high proportion of English people have at least some percentage of "Scottish" ethnicity in their DNA, irrespective of having no identifiable connection to that region.
Nevertheless, a 29% indication is not insubstantial, but again it is important to realise that the 29% figure stated is an estimate derived from a range. If you drill down through the ethnicity estimates given by Ancestry on the relevant web pages, you can view the range from which the 29% ESTIMATE is derived. Sometimes those ranges encompass a variation from zero to a higher figure. In such cases, Ancestry are saying that they estimate 29% Scottish ethnicity, but that the actual percentage could be higher or lower, within the stated range. And if the range encompasses zero, then there may not actually be any connection at all.
-
Thanks for all the contributions.
My dads 3xgreat grandmother was Jane Orm(i)ston,born 4th Nov 1798 Beadnell,Northumberland.Its back through her lines that ive found Scottish ancestry.She married John Tilly on 1st August 1820 Boughton under Blean.Ive no idea what brought her South.She died in the same area where she married.
My dads paternal line(my grandad),his paternal ancestors,according to my research,were Huguenots who worked in the Faversham Gunpowder Industry.They married into local East Kent families of many generations standing.Grandads maternal line was also very old Kent families,brickfield workers and farm labourers.
My dads mums lines(my nan),her paternal side Surrey/Sussex,then rural Somerset to long before 1800.Her maternal line,all rural Kent and Sussex,going way back.
This is why i cant understand 29% Scottish,unless my research is wrong.There do seem to be quite a lot of DNA matches who only go back to Scotland.
Lee,
-
I have some Scottish ethnicity on my paternal line according to Ancestry. I have no known direct ancestors from Scotland, but my direct paternal line goes back to Kent also for as far back as I have been able to trace it (mid to late 17th century).
But my paternal surname apparently derives from people in north west France around the Brittany/Normandy border - one of the areas of Celtic habitation included in Ancestry's definition of Scotland for ethnicity purposes.
Whether that is the explanation, who knows. Ethnicity estimates are what they say - estimates derived from data which has itself been estimated to lesser or greater extents. I find it can be useful as a comparison tool when looking at DNA matches who have tested with the same company. Other than that, I concentrate on genetically related DNA matches, which are indisputable above low match lengths, and far more useful in my opinion than ethnicity estimates which may or may not be correct, but in either case may deviate substantially from the headline percentages ascribed to them.
-
If I ever hop on the DNA bandwagon I will try to avoid ethnicity estimates as they are as avoidable as the Dallas dream season. ;)
-
I agree with southseal
If he does have pure Scottish ancestry from a hitherto unknown ancestor
it may well become apparent through comparing matches .
But don't dismiss ethnicity out of hand look at the DNA ethnicity breakdown ..it now differentiates between lowland + highland Scottish
My Celtic amounts changed over the decade since testing my DNA
ethnicity got more precise Cornwell is now recognised as having specific regional traits too
-
But don't dismiss ethnicity out of hand look at the DNA ethnicity breakdown ..it now differentiates between lowland + highland Scottish
My Celtic amounts changed over the decade since testing my DNA
ethnicity got more precise Cornwell is now recognised as having specific regional traits too
Aren't these regional breakdowns "communities" rather then ethnicity regions?
-
According to DNA experts some communities have specific DNA ethnicities .
Especially in more isolated regions
For example my friend had Cornish community/ethnicity showing on DNA results for parent 1 before adding his father s side to his tree.
Mother was half African and it also showed which area of Africa before birth father was identified...of course borders aren't the same as political boarders but the divisions were clear and helpful
-
DNA Communities assigned to Ancestry DNA tests are separate from ethnicity and use a completely different method of determination.
Ethnicity regions are determined by direct examination of the subject's DNA and comparison of segments having similarities to those in the DNA of people in the reference panels for various ethnicity regions, which are believed to be common to populations from those areas who are not necessarily genetically related by descent from common individuals. Its aim is to estimate regional ethnic origins from around 500 to several thousand years ago.
DNA communities are determined via an algorithm similar in some ways to Thrulines, which identifies common ancestors amongst all of the people who have taken a DNA test with Ancestry, and trawls through their family trees looking for communities shared between those matches' ancestors. It aims to identify much more recent locations where genetic cousins lived around the same period of time, as would be expected with information derived from family trees, which in most cases is unlikely to be more than 500 years old due to the limitations of paper records and similar evidence on which most of the information in those trees is (or should be) based.
Hence I have no North American ethnicity at all, but I am associated to two DNA communities in the USA. Neither I or any of my direct ancestors have lived anywhere on the American continent, but three half cousins, children of my GGF by a different marriage to his later marriage to my GGM, did emigrate to the US from the NW of England, and have between them more DNA tested descendants by far, who are matches to me, than any of my other lines of descent. Hence Ancestry attaches me to those communities.
Having said that, other communities in England and Wales have recently been split into more localised areas and do show a pretty good degree of accuracy, again perhaps not all that surprising as they are determined from locations found in my trees and those of my genetic cousins.
So Thrulines looks for common individuals and lines of descent in the trees of DNA matches. DNA communities looks for common locations in the same trees.
-
DNA Communities assigned to Ancestry DNA tests are separate from ethnicity and use a completely different method of determination.
Ethnicity regions are determined by direct examination of the subject's DNA and comparison of segments having similarities to those in the DNA of people in the reference panels for various ethnicity regions, which are believed to be common to populations from those areas who are not necessarily genetically related by descent from common individuals. Its aim is to estimate regional ethnic origins from around 500 to several thousand years ago.
DNA communities are determined via an algorithm similar in some ways to Thrulines, which identifies common ancestors amongst all of the people who have taken a DNA test with Ancestry, and trawls through their family trees looking for communities shared between those matches' ancestors. It aims to identify much more recent locations where genetic cousins lived around the same period of time, as would be expected with information derived from family trees, which in most cases is unlikely to be more than 500 years old due to the limitations of paper records and similar evidence on which most of the information in those tress is (or should be) based.
Hence I have no North American ethnicity at all, but I am associated to two DNA communities in the USA. Neither I or any of my direct ancestors have lived anywhere on the American continent, but three half cousins, children of my GGF by a different marriage to the later marriage to my GGM, did emigrate to the US from the NW of England, and have between them more DNA tested descendants by far, who are matches to me, than any of my other lines of descent. Hence Ancestry attaches me to those communities.
Having said that, other communities in England and Wales have recently been split into more localised areas and do show a pretty good degree of accuracy, again perhaps not all that surprising as they are determined from locations found in my trees and those of my genetic cousins.
So Thrulines looks for common individuals and lines of descent in the trees of DNA matches. DNA communities looks for common locations in the same trees.
I agree. Ancestry Communities seem much more believable, meaningful and useful in ascribing your ancestry
-
Great explanation Phil
My paternal cousin has recently tested she has not yet linked her results to a tree but I can compare her ethnicity to mine
She is 58 percent Scottish and 6percent Irish
I'm 48percent Scottish 6 percent Irish from my father's side (& 4percentof my Scottish is from a maternal ancestor ).
Her mother whose dna I manage is 91percent Scottish 7percent Irish 2 percent English has now appeared but it specified northern
( last recalclation had zero English).