The Times wants your views: DNA ethnicity results

[Guy Etchells]

DNA falls at the very first hurdle due to the tiny sample of the world’s population that has been taken.
Until a vastly greater number of samples none of the claims made can be substantiated.
Think about it the largest DNA database in the world the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) contained in 2001 just over 9 million records which is about a million more records that the population of New York.
This means that if we exclude New York and another city in the USA it is the equivalent of the rest of the population of the USA having no DNA test done.
The implication of such a tiny dataset is that any assumptions made are at the best theory rather than fact.

If we now concentrate on “ethnicity results” we are again in the realms of assumptions being made rather than facts.

For example what do we class as English are they the Germanic Angles, Saxons and Jutes or are English the Celts pushed west by the later invaders?
What about the Vikings, how do Vikings differ from the other Germanic Europeans who have arrived in England?
Or Scandinavia how can Scandinavia be an ethnic grouping when like England it is mainly Germanic or do we determine the Scandinavian ethnicity as pre Germanic and that the Germanic tribes are in reality of Scandinavian ethnicity due to the push south as the climate grew colder in around 113 BC.

The ethnic groupings do not stand up to scrutiny without some key to determine what exactly is meant by the groupings.
Europe has a history of travel and intermingling of people from all parts of the continent which means that the ethnic grouping of one part of Europe very much depends on what period of time one is referring to rather than a vision that the 21st century ethnic status of a region is the same as what the ethnic status of that same region one thousand or two thousand years previously. 

Cheers
Guy

Correction re Codis the year should be 2011 not 2001

[pharmaT]

DNA falls at the very first hurdle due to the tiny sample of the world’s population that has been taken.
Until a vastly greater number of samples none of the claims made can be substantiated.
Think about it the largest DNA database in the world the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) contained in 2001 just over 9 million records which is about a million more records that the population of New York.
This means that if we exclude New York and another city in the USA it is the equivalent of the rest of the population of the USA having no DNA test done.
The implication of such a tiny dataset is that any assumptions made are at the best theory rather than fact.

If we now concentrate on “ethnicity results” we are again in the realms of assumptions being made rather than facts.

For example what do we class as English are they the Germanic Angles, Saxons and Jutes or are English the Celts pushed west by the later invaders?
What about the Vikings, how do Vikings differ from the other Germanic Europeans who have arrived in England?
Or Scandinavia how can Scandinavia be an ethnic grouping when like England it is mainly Germanic or do we determine the Scandinavian ethnicity as pre Germanic and that the Germanic tribes are in reality of Scandinavian ethnicity due to the push south as the climate grew colder in around 113 BC.

The ethnic groupings do not stand up to scrutiny without some key to determine what exactly is meant by the groupings.
Europe has a history of travel and intermingling of people from all parts of the continent which means that the ethnic grouping of one part of Europe very much depends on what period of time one is referring to rather than a vision that the 21st century ethnic status of a region is the same as what the ethnic status of that same region one thousand or two thousand years previously. 

Cheers
Guy

I completely get what your saying Guy but at the same time I can't help thinking that the best way to increase the data set is for more of us to have our DNA tested.

[Jack2227]

Doing 'DNA' is not my 'thing'; I prefer to just plod along in the usual way, making friends along the way, and , of course, discovering Ancestors.

[lisalucie]

Personally I don't understand that much about it all however:
1) I dont have that sort of money to be wasting.
2) I know who I am! My mom is my mom and my dad is the man who has raised me not the man who I share Dna with.
3) My ggg grandad has no father mentioned on his bc. I am pretty sure his mom's later husband is his dad however I can never prove this. I've still followed his ancestors as though they are mine. To me family history is just that - "family" and family is who loves you and shares their lives with you (in my opinion anyway).
4) I've pretty much traced most my lines back to 1800 and the furthest afield I've got is Ireland and Wales...I very much doubt there's any thing more exotic than that in my bloodline.
5) I have dark hair and eyes. My daughter has blonde hair and blue eyes. It doesn't take a fancy test to deduce that she got them genes from her dad and not me! (Maybe it's all about more complex than that but this is the way I see it lol).
Lisa

[kiwihalfpint]

I have often thought of it, but don't know if it would be much use for me.   My maternal and paternal line is all Scottish. My paternal Grandfather being born here, a few years of arriving in NZ. My father's mother from Ireland.

Mum always reckoned there was Scanadian on our side, and my late FIL, who knew my father as a young one, told us that he thought there was Spanish somewhere as my father was dark looking. 

I am happy with who I am for the time being.... but then there is the niggly thought "What if" etc.

Cheers
KHP

[sugarbakers]

Regarding my own family history I have no interest in DNA testing. I know very well that I have German blood, I've not yet followed up the Irish line, and the possible Scandinavian ancestors may well be too early. Such research would deal in facts, and without having studied DNA testing my impression is that it deals in possibilities.

With respect to my sugar refiners research, I would always advise researchers to go down the conventional routes, for the details gleaned from archives will usually point to a country of origin and I don't think basic DNA testing will tell them which village they came from ... oh that it would 

[jettejjane]

Doing 'DNA' is not my 'thing'; I prefer to just plod along in the usual way, making friends along the way, and , of course, discovering Ancestors.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[Treetotal]

Regarding my own family history I have no interest in DNA testing. I know very well that I have German blood, I've not yet followed up the Irish line, and the possible Scandinavian ancestors may well be too early. Such research would deal in facts, and without having studied DNA testing my impression is that it deals in possibilities.

With respect to my sugar refiners research, I would always advise researchers to go down the conventional routes, for the details gleaned from archives will usually point to a country of origin and I don't think basic DNA testing will tell them which village they came from ... oh that it would 

I couldn't have put it better myself...more chance of finding a match with distant cousins here on RootsChat.

Carol

[RichardK]

Hello

Just putting in my contribution - I've done Ancestry's autosomal DNA test and then transferred the results to Family Tree DNA too. For me, the main thing was about identifying distant cousins to try and help verify / narrow down areas of traditional documentary research. The ethnicity results are a side-product as a curiosity as far as I'm concerned - I don't think in themselves they're reliable enough to form the basis for further research.

For what it's worth, my ethnicity results (from the same raw data) were:

Ancestry:
29% Ireland
28% Scandinavia
24% Great Britain
9% Italy / Greece
5% Europe West   
4% Iberian Peninsula
<1% European Jewish

Family Tree DNA:
55% British Isles
20% Scandinavia
11% Eastern Europe
11% Southern Europe
2% Western and Central Europe

In my documented family tree I have places of birth for all 32 of my 3 x great grandparents, being:
20 English
11 Irish
1 Scottish

Hope that's of some use.
Thanks
Richard.