Ethnicity Testing- Is it really worth it?

[Bob Spiers]

As someone who HAS an Irish connection -at least on my paternal line - and a member of Irish XO (Reaching Out), it was interesting in a recent posting on a Galway (Parish) Blog page to be asked if I had considered taking an autosomal DNA test? I replied I was a DNA testing skeptic, and remained so after reading up on the subject (and reading what others had to say who had tested). I asked what he thought I would gain by undertaking such a test with my Irish connection in mind. I will be interested to hear what he says.

 

[peter]

My next newsletter will be a DNA Special Edition (although not exclusively about DNA, Bob, so you should still take a look). I'm hoping to publish it later today.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

The funny thing is I have a relative who had Irish connections on his maternal grandmother's side but his Irish ancestry only showed up as a trace on Ancestry DNA. So sometimes it seems that those expecting higher Irish results don't get them! Whereas I got high Irish ancestry and wasn't expecting it all. The only place where I think this Irish ancestry might have come from is my Ablitt ancestors as Ablitt might have come from France (they lived in Suffolk). Ancestry lumps Ireland in with France (for reasons best known to themselves) But even so, my result shouldn't be that high on the back of one line of ancestors.

 

[peter]

Ancestry lumps Ireland in with France

Not as far as I can tell - here's an extract from my next newsletter:

I ordered an Ancestry DNA test on 25th April, received it on 26th April and sent it back a day or two later. On May 2nd I was told my sample had arrived at the laboratory and warned that it could take 6 to 8 weeks before my results were available. It turned out they were being over-cautious because on 29th May I received another email to let me know that my results were available - in total that was just under 5 weeks after placing my order, a pretty good turnaround.

What did I learn? First of all I found out that, as expected, Ancestry's Ethnicity Estimates are still of questionable value - as you can see, I was told that I was 20% Irish, despite having found no trace of any Irish ancestry in my tree.



However, if you look at the shaded area which represents Ireland you'll see that it not only includes Ireland but Scotland, all or most of Wales, the whole of northern England and a good chunk of the west of England. Similarly Great Britain includes part of France, plus most of Belgium and the whole of the Netherlands. Europe West includes not just a large chunk of continental Europe, but also part of southern and south-eastern England. And in any case, they're telling me where my ancestors were thousands of years ago, whilst I'll be lucky if I can ever trace them prior to the 16th century.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

I reckon they must have changed it then as I'm sure France was included when I first looked. Perhaps they had some complaints? I wouldn't be surprised about France being included with Ireland, Scotland and Wales because have you noticed how some of the English counties search results are very badly classified in Ancestry?

 

[peter]

have you noticed how some of the English counties search results are very badly classified in Ancestry?

You may be referring to the GRO BMD indexes - this problem that has always existed with these records (see this newsletter article from 2010), but doesn't affect any others to the best of my knowledge.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Hi Peter, No, I've seen it on census results too. If I come across one, I'll post it.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I wouldn't be surprised about France being included with Ireland, Scotland and Wales because have you noticed how some of the English counties search results are very badly classified in Ancestry?

I wouldn't have been surprised, more astounded. Ireland (and here I include the whole of Ireland) and France (indeed western Europe) are on different sides of the British Isles - separated by two different sea channels - so 'never the twain shall meet'. Ancestry may occasionally have some fanciful interpretations of what towns and (mostly) villages exist in what counties - though I've heard worse on answers given in some quiz shows - but other than drawing a circle on a map of Europe to encompass Ireland-UK-Europe they are and should be completely separate entities; DNA or otherwise.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

I knew I wasn't imagining it! This chaps blog goes on about Irish Ancestry also found in France! I read this blog after getting my Ancestry results.

We Are All Irish

 

[Bob Spiers]

I knew I wasn't imagining it! This chaps blog goes on about Irish Ancestry also found in France! I read this blog after getting my Ancestry results.....

A most interesting Blog reaching a conclusion that coincided with my own after reading what others had to say after being told they had Irish ancestry when they could find none in the genealogical research. Ancestry had used a term to imply a country's ancestry (Irish) when surely they mean its Celtic heritage. The (Blog) statement that best sums this up says ..."You don't become Irish just because you have Celtic DNA in your genome". So yes, Ancestry are misleading everyone with the term 'Irish'.

Here is a summary extract from Wikipedia on the subject of 'Celts'

"Continental Celts are the Celtic-speaking people of mainland Europe and Insular Celts are the Celtic-speaking peoples of the British and Irish islands and their descendants. The Celts of Brittany derive their language from migrating insular Celts, mainly from Wales and Cornwall, and so are grouped accordingly."

Wikipedia also tells us the term 'Celtic' covers ethnic, linguistic & cultural aspects so without further geographical area breakdowns -seemingly not possible at this time - even being told one has Celtic ethnicity is still too vague. However it might stop people worrying about not finding Irish ancestry in their research.

Speaking of vague, it reminds me being asked by someone born and living in America asked if I could tell what part of England their grandparents came from just by their surname. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry then and explained I would probably need a little more information!

 

[peter]

Ethnicity Estimates would be pretty meaningless no matter how they were described (Living DNA excepted). As Roberta Estes writes in her blog they're pretty good at identifying which continents your ancestors came from, but beyond that....

(What she actually writes is "I don’t want to discourage anyone from testing, only to be sure consumers understand the context of what they will be receiving. Generally speaking, these results are accurate at the continental level, and less accurate within continents, such as European regional breakdowns.")

 

[jorghes]

Historically speaking - you need to remember the Norman French (although originally Germanic) time in English history which then would have added possible links to French DNA to the English DNA thread. Plus, there were a bunch of Celts which emigrated to France, who speak Breton, a Celtic language highly similar to Welsh and Cornish, for that level of similarity they would have to have common ancestors.

 

[Rhian]

As I speak Welsh I can also talk with Cornish and Breton people, the differences are minor, there is a greater difference with Irish and Scots Gaelic but they are all similar enough to get by. The language would point towards a connected heritage and ancestry, with a small exception of some north Wales people who appear to be a different race who arrived from West Africa and of course over the last few thousand years there is mixing of these groups with neighbours especially along borders.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

All of this still doesn't explain how I get 36% Ireland when I don't have one Irish, Welsh or Scots ancestor up to the 1600s. There's Suffolk, Norfolk, Somerset and Dorset. I have a maternal grandfather whose father is unknown; but even if he were Welsh, Irish or Scots, I wouldn't have thought he would make up to 36% of my Ancestry

 

[peter]

See my report on the People of the British Isles Project.

 

[peter]

All of this still doesn't explain how I get 36% Ireland when I don't have one Irish, Welsh or Scots ancestor up to the 1600s. There's Suffolk, Norfolk, Somerset and Dorset. I have a maternal grandfather whose father is unknown; but even if he were Welsh, Irish or Scots, I wouldn't have thought he would make up to 36% of my Ancestry

I don't understand why anyone is trying to make sense of their Ethnicity Estimates. They're meaningless.

If you watch this WDYTYA? Live presentation you'll see that the sample sizes against which our DNA is compared are small, sometimes minuscule. Why not forget your Ethnicity Estimates and get back to proper genealogy? Anyone who tested with Ancestry has thousands of DNA cousins whose connections are yet to be investigated.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Peter, I have over 7,000 people on my tree. All blood linked apart from spouses and having ancestors and relatives from Norfolk, even some of the spouses are related to me! I've not forgotten proper genealogy or family history at all.

Basically I'm just rubbishing Ancestry's ethnicity results while praising Living DNA's ethnicity results which are more in line with my paper records.

 

[Bob Spiers]

See my report on the People of the British Isles Project.

Sadly did not absorb it as I should first time round, but now that you allow a re-visit I found it absolutely fascinating and very interesting. Thank you for that.

I have a mind to send the press release to my Grandson as he is currently fascinated with historic conquests of the British Isles and what effect they had on the population ethnic wise.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

I was excited to see all the new "cousins" at first on Ancestry DNA but when you see that most of them have no tree/very few people on their tree or (even worse) don't respond to messages, the dairy tends to wear off!

However I did make one decent link that added to the knowledge of my third great grandmother from Norfolk. She had the fairly common surname of Williamson in a parish where many of the records were missing. So a DNA link to another Williamson in the same area was most helpful. Many of the "cousins" I already knew from Genes Reunited days; but at least it confirmed my paper research through DNA.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Basically I'm just rubbishing Ancestry's ethnicity results while praising Living DNA's ethnicity results which are more in line with my paper records.

That reminds me asking a friend why he was reading a different newspaper other than the one I knew he had bought for years. His answer was that he took exception to the results of a political Gallop Poll shown in the paper, so decided to abandon it for a newspaper whose own poll was more in accord with his views.