tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57048371702172136892024-03-12T21:14:00.986-06:00Genealogical MusingsThoughts, finds, ideas, and suggestions in my journey of discovering my family history.History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.comBlogger236125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-64378908027543149192022-09-24T10:55:00.004-06:002022-09-25T14:16:58.430-06:00Eurogenes K13 Charts and Maps<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4i7KXUFWdrxxi76Etn8v7hnbgR9jMy4SGu6EKGkPkfGmkmG1JJkFAQz4_jSL-jhZztHCiGHVeHv_6INxbuyv-C9RflKRN3QVa4wKPCgQNW59Ske3xa3lkPeUZRjaCQ9clPL6A8dbEssvuZudUd5wbz-fAh4jUcCoACna9cMk4Fw3Vfq68O7scJT1c/s1000/Screenshot%202022-09-23%20161844.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="792" data-original-width="1000" height="253" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4i7KXUFWdrxxi76Etn8v7hnbgR9jMy4SGu6EKGkPkfGmkmG1JJkFAQz4_jSL-jhZztHCiGHVeHv_6INxbuyv-C9RflKRN3QVa4wKPCgQNW59Ske3xa3lkPeUZRjaCQ9clPL6A8dbEssvuZudUd5wbz-fAh4jUcCoACna9cMk4Fw3Vfq68O7scJT1c/s320/Screenshot%202022-09-23%20161844.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>I know for many people like myself who are visual people, seeing a map of where exactly each region covers can be really beneficial to understanding your Gedmatch Admixture results. There's already some official European maps available for <a href="http://bga101.blogspot.com/2013/10/eurogenes-k15-now-at-gedmatch.html" target="_blank">Eurogenes EUtest V2 K15 from the Eurogenes blog</a>, and you can sometimes find some unofficial ones for other calculators, but I haven't seen any for Eurogenes K13, so I gave it my best shot.<br />
<br />Anyone can make these maps with the right tools - the data is readily available from the Population Spreadsheets for each calculator. The difficult part is that the tool I used to create the map was in Google Spreadsheets Charts, which only recognizes modern country names. So I had to categorize every specific population into a modern country. Not easy considering many countries included several populations (I simply averaged them) and many of the populations span several countries (I just put the data in all relevant countries). But still, it wasn't easy, so it's safe to say these are very much unofficial maps, not endorsed by the Eurogenes creator. They are interactive, so hover over each region for the percentage. If anyone can recommend a better free mapping program, please let me know!<div><br /></div><div><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSJp5oMrbR9eG9C4kQvDy61YkiOP5T8nDJJr8TrL0b50prcLB3KwQdr8BVuhBxyM0yPEp2Md2GoDn8m/pubchart?oid=1217743384&format=interactive" target="_blank">K13 North Atlantic Map</a> - essentially a "Northwest Europe" region primarily including British Isles, Scandinavia, and Germanic Europe, though as you can see, it also includes most of Europe to some degree.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSJp5oMrbR9eG9C4kQvDy61YkiOP5T8nDJJr8TrL0b50prcLB3KwQdr8BVuhBxyM0yPEp2Md2GoDn8m/pubchart?oid=1120469893&format=interactive" target="_blank">K13 Baltic Map</a> - primarily the Baltic States (though data is missing for Latvia) and surrounding areas, though again, you can see most of Europe is included to some degree.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSJp5oMrbR9eG9C4kQvDy61YkiOP5T8nDJJr8TrL0b50prcLB3KwQdr8BVuhBxyM0yPEp2Md2GoDn8m/pubchart?oid=1431963532&format=interactive" target="_blank">K13 West Med Map</a> - primarily areas that border the western portion of the Mediterranean Sea (both Europe and North Africa), also including the eastern portion of the Mediterranean area to a lesser degree.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSJp5oMrbR9eG9C4kQvDy61YkiOP5T8nDJJr8TrL0b50prcLB3KwQdr8BVuhBxyM0yPEp2Md2GoDn8m/pubchart?oid=62642666&format=interactive" target="_blank">K13 West Asian Map</a> - peaks in the Caucasus region, includes surrounding areas (does not include all of Russia, there's just no way to break down the maps more).</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSJp5oMrbR9eG9C4kQvDy61YkiOP5T8nDJJr8TrL0b50prcLB3KwQdr8BVuhBxyM0yPEp2Md2GoDn8m/pubchart?oid=509504868&format=interactive" target="_blank">K13 East Med Map</a> - primarily areas bordering the eastern portion of the Mediterranean Sea (leaning more heavily to the North African and Middle Eastern areas), though it appears to peak in Yemen, that's due to the Yemen Jewish sample getting the highest results in this category.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSJp5oMrbR9eG9C4kQvDy61YkiOP5T8nDJJr8TrL0b50prcLB3KwQdr8BVuhBxyM0yPEp2Md2GoDn8m/pubchart?oid=618129936&format=interactive" target="_blank">K13 Red Sea Map</a> - mainly be areas bordering the Red Sea, though data in some African areas is missing, it peaks in the Arabian Peninsula and Horn of Africa, yet also includes all of North African to some degree.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSJp5oMrbR9eG9C4kQvDy61YkiOP5T8nDJJr8TrL0b50prcLB3KwQdr8BVuhBxyM0yPEp2Md2GoDn8m/pubchart?oid=444086034&format=interactive" target="_blank">K13 South Asian Map</a> - peaks in India, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan, including surrounding areas in varying degrees.</div><div><br /></div><div>K13 East Asian Map -coming soon.</div><div><br /></div><div>K13 Siberian Map - coming soon.</div><div><br /></div><div>K13 Amerindian Map - coming soon.</div><div><br /></div><div>K13 Oceanian Map - coming soon.</div><div><br /></div><div>K13 Northeast African Map - coming soon.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSJp5oMrbR9eG9C4kQvDy61YkiOP5T8nDJJr8TrL0b50prcLB3KwQdr8BVuhBxyM0yPEp2Md2GoDn8m/pubchart?oid=364079724&format=interactive" target="_blank">K13 Sub-Saharan Map</a> - the area south of the Saharan desert, peaking in West Africa and Bantu regions, but also covering parts of North Africa to a much lesser degree. Data for some areas is missing.<br />
<br />
I also created charts showing what percentage each sample population got for each region, so you can get an idea of what each region includes even for the areas I haven't done maps for yet:<div><br /></div><div><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vThlO3Pa4UnZ2YWhffGjOI_bWa9ZKhzzZYnIWgaEbVXRFDhWU3qTpZPtbVmZCVQ2Yf3LY9csUp1I9IQ/pubchart?oid=1693246613&format=interactive" target="_blank">K13 Population Chart</a> (by population)</div><div><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vThlO3Pa4UnZ2YWhffGjOI_bWa9ZKhzzZYnIWgaEbVXRFDhWU3qTpZPtbVmZCVQ2Yf3LY9csUp1I9IQ/pubchart?oid=1690021462&format=interactive" target="_blank">K13 Reverse Population Chart</a> (by region)</div></div><div><br /></div><div>Despite having done all this, I do want to clarify that Gedmatch's Admixture calculators have not been updated in many years, and the reference panels used for them are very small in comparison to the consumer testing companies, so you should definitely take the results with a large grain of salt.</div>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-73512439893817023862022-08-10T09:34:00.002-06:002023-05-11T07:43:57.125-06:00Understanding Marriage BondsIt's really important that we understand what certain records are before we try to extract information about them. In your research, you may periodically come across marriage bonds, which are not be to confused with a marriage license or marriage banns. Recently, I noticed someone had mistook a marriage bond for a marriage license and was wrongly assuming that the high amount money quoted on the marriage bond (500 pounds, or $1,000 depending on the time period) was a marriage license fee. As a result, they thought only wealthy people could afford to get married at all. Here's an example below from Brunswick County, North Carolina, 1856 (click to enlarge).<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiduLYE8EPo_ZnQT-hcsUL1jB_L7c3JDb5o-AQl_svuKAVd8G1kWJDQSP2KUzd6OkV4WnZOMSLL9R2mDqCY5lt6eR5FzN_9MFyoYp_zON66vjLbe78l3MIlbclakgPPRTZ9yci0Yqpqr3VAK4qUIyqu4EvTnV4wJ-Cf5btjKepYy2FZldEzBnLQqrLn/s3676/42091_327640-00003.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2795" data-original-width="3676" height="304" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiduLYE8EPo_ZnQT-hcsUL1jB_L7c3JDb5o-AQl_svuKAVd8G1kWJDQSP2KUzd6OkV4WnZOMSLL9R2mDqCY5lt6eR5FzN_9MFyoYp_zON66vjLbe78l3MIlbclakgPPRTZ9yci0Yqpqr3VAK4qUIyqu4EvTnV4wJ-Cf5btjKepYy2FZldEzBnLQqrLn/w400-h304/42091_327640-00003.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div><div><br /></div><div>This was admittedly a lot of money for that time period. In 1856, $1,000 would be equivalent of about $36,000 today. Imagine paying a marriage license fee of $36,000! Some people would have nothing left for the actual wedding ceremony and reception, and some people wouldn't be able to afford it at all. Imagine not being able to afford to get married! </div><div><br /></div><div>But that wasn't actually the case. Especially in history when it was really important for people to be married when they had kids. There's no reason the government would put such high restrictions on getting married for the average citizen to make it impossible or undesirable to get married, they would only be encouraging people to have children out of wedlock, and that doesn't make sense for the time period.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>So what was this $1,000? A marriage bond was like a legal promise to marry, and the fee helped assure that there would be no legal impediments to the marriage because you and your co-signers only had to pay the fee if it was discovered that there was some sort of legal impediment to the marriage. One example of this is when the bride or groom was actually still married to someone else and not free to marry again. Since that didn't happen very often, most of the time, that $1,000 never needed to be paid. another example might be if the bride or groom was legally too young to marry without their parent's or guardian's approval, which they didn't have. If they lied about their age but then the truth was discovered so they couldn't legally marry, that fee would have to be paid.</div><div><br /></div><div>Notice the terminology on the record:</div><div></div><blockquote><div>"...now in case it should not hereafter appear that there is any lawful cause or impediment to obstruct such marriage, then the above obligation is to be void..."</div><div></div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>So if there's no reason they can't be married, then the obligation to pay the fee is void (they don't have to pay the fee). </div><div><br /></div><div>This was to help prevent things like bigamy or young people lying about their age, because the bride or groom won't be likely to sign an agreement saying they owe $1,000 if it turns out they're already married to someone else or too young to marry. Some people might have done it, thinking no one would find out, but most people will definitely think twice about committing bigamy or lying about their age if it means paying a $1,000 fine, equivalent to $36,000 today. </div><div><br /></div><div>Doesn't it make a lot more sense that the government would impose a high fee if it was discovered someone was trying to or did commit bigamy, than the government trying to discourage and even prevent some people from getting married at all? This is why it's so important to understand records instead of making our own assumptions about what they mean. If your assumption doesn't seem to make much sense, there's probably a more logical explanation. If you don't know what something means, usually a quick Google will help, and in the case of a more niche or nuanced topics, there are typically experienced researchers who can help in various genealogy communities. There are plenty of communities on Facebook, Reddit, Wikitree, FamilySearch, etc.</div>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-52937467047052410922022-07-20T22:08:00.002-06:002022-07-20T22:09:53.296-06:00A Chromosome Painter Comparison<p>Recently AncestryDNA added yet another feature to their DNA tools, a Chromosome Painter. It shows us which portions of our chromosomes they have identified as coming from which regions. It's found under SideView because there's also a breakdown by Parent 1 and 2. AncestryDNA joins 23andMe and FamilyTreeDNA in offering this feature (leaving MyHeritage as the odd man out), so I decided it was time to compare them.</p><p>For me, it's easiest to analyze my Italian ancestry since it's genetically more distinct from the rest of my ancestry which is Northwest European. At Ancestry, it's mostly identified correctly as Southern Italy (22%), and some as Northern Italy (9%). At 23andMe, it's primarily put into Italy (23.6%), with a little bit in Greece/Balkans (1.6%), Cyprus (3.2%), and Anatolia (1.6%). A few other less than 1% results in various Southern Europe/West Asia areas add up to only 1.2%. FamilyTreeDNA isn't quite as accurate, but at least they get most of it in Southern Europe, with 28% in Greece/Balkans and only 8% in the Italian Peninsula. However, as you can see, the totals add up to approximately the same amounts at each company: 31% at AncestryDNA, 31.2% at 23andMe, and 36% at FTDNA. This is consistent with the fact that my paternal grandmother was Italian and since my paternal grandfather tested, I know I share 18-19% (depending on the company) with him, leaving 31-32% I obviously got from my Italian grandmother (totaling the 50% from my dad).</p><p>Knowing that the percentages are fairly consistent, I wanted to see if the individual segments identified in these regions would be consistent across all companies as well. Overall, there was reasonable consistency between 23andMe and AncestryDNA, but FTDNA was all over the place. Let's look at it chromosome by chromosome, at least on a few of them (I don't think I need to go over all 22 of them).</p><p><b>Chromosome 1</b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp0W4BnpQBEY1vcJrldDAaToaqmKAxRGOdz8PcrYL9JITeZYRq27xVcTnpsZOVzokmpSQtIdsrwuo-YNLzNPoI7Y-0prB3KM_Nw2Zx7-qO0qL9nMJzY6tzDxyUYc5-VRWCMHagAhXVP_BNHhaCdh-12T8Hiprat-_YiIb0nsRJmdSB6j_6Cr3FNz-5/s937/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20195159.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="62" data-original-width="937" height="26" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp0W4BnpQBEY1vcJrldDAaToaqmKAxRGOdz8PcrYL9JITeZYRq27xVcTnpsZOVzokmpSQtIdsrwuo-YNLzNPoI7Y-0prB3KM_Nw2Zx7-qO0qL9nMJzY6tzDxyUYc5-VRWCMHagAhXVP_BNHhaCdh-12T8Hiprat-_YiIb0nsRJmdSB6j_6Cr3FNz-5/w400-h26/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20195159.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><p>AncestryDNA shows almost the full length of one side of chromosome 1 is Southern Italian (above), apart from a small portion at the end. 23andMe shows the first and last portions of the chromosome as Italian (below, first), with the middle bit missing, but interestingly, it seems at least some of that middle bit is identified as Cypriot (below, second).</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAkNuLCoSMSMnK7SqB3ts_PKOpLXpFbQG63Jvh1G17aUgr5__rohnzgGBZH2tZXHbmWrzhFusMejEZi4f7ZqHvYYnwAd1qTMUtY046Ft4MyuOFKj40b7QtxQrcym0BAOXaI64L2soHPmlYR0f-nahDmiwrHr-1htyBSvFNVARVXYlyFgEvmXttVeIT/s813/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20205859.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="47" data-original-width="813" height="22" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAkNuLCoSMSMnK7SqB3ts_PKOpLXpFbQG63Jvh1G17aUgr5__rohnzgGBZH2tZXHbmWrzhFusMejEZi4f7ZqHvYYnwAd1qTMUtY046Ft4MyuOFKj40b7QtxQrcym0BAOXaI64L2soHPmlYR0f-nahDmiwrHr-1htyBSvFNVARVXYlyFgEvmXttVeIT/w400-h22/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20205859.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1hNW8rbWRw4Pc3LAPcgGHC_eFEUvWO89s3_VktbUw8TeqPBeJIjF1TwugrG-TUfEzqajDmL9fGFr3bx9s7XoXZJGESvrTJt3dqcOLNYB7AN_1Itmnk6MNv4y3O_BCojTFOeYpLHJOS3j88dZCVtzcNtE4G0Sobbt48cQ-nr8PsIYSSwmpI1BNcU5E/s815/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20195410.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="50" data-original-width="815" height="25" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1hNW8rbWRw4Pc3LAPcgGHC_eFEUvWO89s3_VktbUw8TeqPBeJIjF1TwugrG-TUfEzqajDmL9fGFr3bx9s7XoXZJGESvrTJt3dqcOLNYB7AN_1Itmnk6MNv4y3O_BCojTFOeYpLHJOS3j88dZCVtzcNtE4G0Sobbt48cQ-nr8PsIYSSwmpI1BNcU5E/w400-h25/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20195410.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>Obviously, there's some overlap there and it's saying they're on opposite sides, but there's no way either Italian or Cypriot is coming from my mom's side since she is 100% Northwest European - British, German, Norwegian. So although it may not align perfectly, it does seem to suggest nearly the full length is coming from Italy/Cyprus, which is mostly consistent with AncestryDNA.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOSNydVe_YSU8YG8euEzGDVnNnIDPv9FSfIxK5LRoqlGfm_Xgo3bTUDKYxdWxbGmMuJIVsq0XYDTOQ486OopbyOKVuOskGtSW2EfUMMuYN-Cj_HpMlMOwOth8i5BDk2VhRvxJDC0CCzL7zHIKb74GYoAh8XNcbCh2J7iG1Y75dZdR98_PVYUEGFLFt/s1107/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20201730.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="72" data-original-width="1107" height="26" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOSNydVe_YSU8YG8euEzGDVnNnIDPv9FSfIxK5LRoqlGfm_Xgo3bTUDKYxdWxbGmMuJIVsq0XYDTOQ486OopbyOKVuOskGtSW2EfUMMuYN-Cj_HpMlMOwOth8i5BDk2VhRvxJDC0CCzL7zHIKb74GYoAh8XNcbCh2J7iG1Y75dZdR98_PVYUEGFLFt/w400-h26/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20201730.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>Unfortunately, FTDNA isn't as consistent with the other two companies. As you can see (above), the Southern European (light blue) portions are much more broken up, although I suppose one side does seem to be be mostly Southern European. The dark blue portions are Western European, FTDNA's chromosome painting doesn't offer any more breakdown than that and doesn't allow me to isolate the different regions in the visual.</p><p><b>Chromosome 2</b></p><p>On chromosome 2, AncestryDNA (below, first) and 23andMe (below, second) are almost exactly the same. They both put essentially the entire length of one side of the chromosome in Italy (Northern Italy at AncestryDNA), though there's a tiny sliver at the end at 23andMe which they deemed Broadly NW European, that's probably not a significant amount.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKTr86pEgNPJOPGbkiTDUMBlR-VVLfhxE-jM3FobTzhzD0jV75kGpLiV5sfJTJAtkK-618uycPsxhN1-wpT2N-wwt0hFpyDf-cYQ2BFljVbiD_SsBZ6aP7kDi8C15YTk6fkRZVfUSezE7D4rSv8CpZv_uMXvKAIIIge9er-qzs2nDgcxza4Ad3EB00/s915/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20202210.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="48" data-original-width="915" height="21" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKTr86pEgNPJOPGbkiTDUMBlR-VVLfhxE-jM3FobTzhzD0jV75kGpLiV5sfJTJAtkK-618uycPsxhN1-wpT2N-wwt0hFpyDf-cYQ2BFljVbiD_SsBZ6aP7kDi8C15YTk6fkRZVfUSezE7D4rSv8CpZv_uMXvKAIIIge9er-qzs2nDgcxza4Ad3EB00/w400-h21/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20202210.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVJoSmJG4ag2cNtLKI-UHox9g2bbowNbJcB0RZmZyRXhQVRrXGCGY1NpOq1axS5iPDgpVG_O9iSe5pm7qBHYHxvbu7CYKlOiVlcfUjTAk_6iEYbyxoRPrYWiddIjvpAKIj8wervgBdqtvPf49r7m-Q5EmgJQaA6bwFwaEGDJS0NLPQtrOpdSxsBLn_/s801/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20202231.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="51" data-original-width="801" height="25" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVJoSmJG4ag2cNtLKI-UHox9g2bbowNbJcB0RZmZyRXhQVRrXGCGY1NpOq1axS5iPDgpVG_O9iSe5pm7qBHYHxvbu7CYKlOiVlcfUjTAk_6iEYbyxoRPrYWiddIjvpAKIj8wervgBdqtvPf49r7m-Q5EmgJQaA6bwFwaEGDJS0NLPQtrOpdSxsBLn_/w400-h25/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20202231.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>But here again, at FTDNA, the results are so inconsistent that it almost seems random (below).</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOM6EPOPnpKT6trAVTIzawll-rd2wvbe8cmtkK51V8kmFbQsqkcYQGIKuUyzGIoHAAqBDUfUKmk6O7Ec0nTC8DWxP8aScBlNVS1eCh99YpxTH6_nbeNTO4u4vtnRzWcrCVCnet5du0lwzhFG_dNw7i1OHNm9CSoiqMraoQ6F5m6jnxN3xy2yOUBY9z/s1081/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20202306.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="62" data-original-width="1081" height="22" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOM6EPOPnpKT6trAVTIzawll-rd2wvbe8cmtkK51V8kmFbQsqkcYQGIKuUyzGIoHAAqBDUfUKmk6O7Ec0nTC8DWxP8aScBlNVS1eCh99YpxTH6_nbeNTO4u4vtnRzWcrCVCnet5du0lwzhFG_dNw7i1OHNm9CSoiqMraoQ6F5m6jnxN3xy2yOUBY9z/w400-h22/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20202306.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>Although one side has more Southern European (light blue) than the other, it's so broken up and looks so similar to chromosome 1, it just doesn't seem very reliable.</p><p><b>Chromosome 3</b></p><p>The results on chromosome 3 are exactly the same at AncestryDNA (below, first) and 23andMe (below, second), while FTDNA (below, third) is once again not as consistent.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGhTSYC4c53d64Z5oKw0qV3V0ZqBOlCqz3KwvXieom6qSXvuU47Oepwja_uv3vxW4DLRnVNo7iTybL75GPymH7AU5ahE_qygKigOR8S-TwZpixYFq24gZa8LpHTVDnH6MVsPPFQftcUIsDWG4Envz144Yx1ACiIbBKihZQGtDIT645fKwGnsIK_S5q/s767/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20203414.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="55" data-original-width="767" height="29" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGhTSYC4c53d64Z5oKw0qV3V0ZqBOlCqz3KwvXieom6qSXvuU47Oepwja_uv3vxW4DLRnVNo7iTybL75GPymH7AU5ahE_qygKigOR8S-TwZpixYFq24gZa8LpHTVDnH6MVsPPFQftcUIsDWG4Envz144Yx1ACiIbBKihZQGtDIT645fKwGnsIK_S5q/w400-h29/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20203414.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiuOrAQox2j2l1MxvpPXwo3n7MDmxMkpSIyQLHzNEu-lD-vEzF779BMBR8H6hhBx_hpwtdA3WDY4SomNIEoAyuhAkbRtrdRxZc0rR-QQEQ1zqhcMfwr2ATp3aWyMWUtOoiL559rA4jFtKryKsOCelERU-vYT267d4bLIAInb2cIcdsdO6eBx4obfEh/s663/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20203432.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="47" data-original-width="663" height="29" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiuOrAQox2j2l1MxvpPXwo3n7MDmxMkpSIyQLHzNEu-lD-vEzF779BMBR8H6hhBx_hpwtdA3WDY4SomNIEoAyuhAkbRtrdRxZc0rR-QQEQ1zqhcMfwr2ATp3aWyMWUtOoiL559rA4jFtKryKsOCelERU-vYT267d4bLIAInb2cIcdsdO6eBx4obfEh/w400-h29/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20203432.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBHaAeW0B8MS_zBtjC2RF9oHnGsiEh9UcWs_eK1LPC68kPfvC459g5FVizaXBwvc8V_mA9yjrLYNAVHpuMXUQo6mgeJBFBWvhAJd65dCJM_-IK6XbgTL86vELRCgPS4i08OMA4CXY-nCSuoY0u_70iI-EMa-TE_BlpIidm32q1p3WuTTS12pa8Hlsv/s900/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20203451.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="61" data-original-width="900" height="28" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBHaAeW0B8MS_zBtjC2RF9oHnGsiEh9UcWs_eK1LPC68kPfvC459g5FVizaXBwvc8V_mA9yjrLYNAVHpuMXUQo6mgeJBFBWvhAJd65dCJM_-IK6XbgTL86vELRCgPS4i08OMA4CXY-nCSuoY0u_70iI-EMa-TE_BlpIidm32q1p3WuTTS12pa8Hlsv/w400-h28/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20203451.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>I suppose FTDNA has a little more solid light blue than previous chromosomes, but it's not the full, unbroken length we see at AncestryDNA and 23andMe. That little sliver of green is Middle East.</p><p><b>Chromosome 4</b></p><p>This one is also very consistent between AncestryDNA and 23andMe, but for the opposite reason - both companies say no portion of either side of chromosome 4 comes from anywhere in Southern Europe or West Asia. Here we can analyze some of my Northwest European ancestry a little bit. 23andMe (below, second) says both sides of the chromosome are NW European, primarily from France/Germany (light blue), with smaller portions unable to narrow down and identified as Broadly NW European (grey/missing portions). At AncestryDNA (below, first), the entire length of one side is identified as Scottish (lime green), and the full length of the other side is categorized as Norwegian (light blue). This is extremely consistent with my known ancestry - my paternal grandfather was mostly German and Scottish, while my mom is part Norwegian. 23andMe only gives me a small percentage of Scandinavia though, with none of it on chromosome 4. None of this surprises me, since British, Germanic, and Scandinavian have a lot of genetic overlap and are difficult to tell apart, so who knows which company is right, but at least they both agree that both sides of chromosome 4 are NW European.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhO1poyXp7zvPmRzuI1Z7lyXg80iesAcMgGva8iVrdzdjxC_uE9vKc69Ux72eKWWVf1cgn_xGZR3RGcv-x6tUCLCFpGKKMAGzvP7UHQ3AwMCfi_y3Lx9DgwBQr8XMPloHXXmSawP5q_cxv6UnXSiD30aPiNm85hdCJzvp3Q5y59SGey6ATC6FUfcsI/s732/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20204424.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="56" data-original-width="732" height="30" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhO1poyXp7zvPmRzuI1Z7lyXg80iesAcMgGva8iVrdzdjxC_uE9vKc69Ux72eKWWVf1cgn_xGZR3RGcv-x6tUCLCFpGKKMAGzvP7UHQ3AwMCfi_y3Lx9DgwBQr8XMPloHXXmSawP5q_cxv6UnXSiD30aPiNm85hdCJzvp3Q5y59SGey6ATC6FUfcsI/w400-h30/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20204424.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqAxtiRZihdhFxnH6k0ksKkTdx5UzMJhik2Ydum7C-yiQ5QL0_cUehaJkhux2hilQfiFjr3HYQQIOyIYkCniHCPsNOVY5vls5BqklISRdRl-xd1EPUiSMxIX2EiA4QnRH0V04PrGlY6WhapqgDWj9SdzyyQ8xhaIaVQXdNcvt_ymSTwN6eftNrG9zf/s640/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20204457.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="43" data-original-width="640" height="28" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqAxtiRZihdhFxnH6k0ksKkTdx5UzMJhik2Ydum7C-yiQ5QL0_cUehaJkhux2hilQfiFjr3HYQQIOyIYkCniHCPsNOVY5vls5BqklISRdRl-xd1EPUiSMxIX2EiA4QnRH0V04PrGlY6WhapqgDWj9SdzyyQ8xhaIaVQXdNcvt_ymSTwN6eftNrG9zf/w400-h28/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20204457.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>Not so much with FTDNA (below). Although they do identify most of both sides as Western Europe (dark blue), there are still portions of Southern Europe (light blue) seemingly randomly thrown in there.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaWJT6ncZy52ix32nSow1_5Bok_Ceg8zLpZKJLv8U512V2tUHpoACd2did8_CIlowVMDvRRladVNk0fmtr7IShyrdVFMhul0F2T_I_4bvxRTnw-kwkYV6fbHXUrJxYA9Dvkd5sBCLj828SJ4Y7Or2NpGLtY99Nqjxq9Az4isnlh64aiD3BTDFrLgsm/s872/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20204516.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="66" data-original-width="872" height="30" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaWJT6ncZy52ix32nSow1_5Bok_Ceg8zLpZKJLv8U512V2tUHpoACd2did8_CIlowVMDvRRladVNk0fmtr7IShyrdVFMhul0F2T_I_4bvxRTnw-kwkYV6fbHXUrJxYA9Dvkd5sBCLj828SJ4Y7Or2NpGLtY99Nqjxq9Az4isnlh64aiD3BTDFrLgsm/w400-h30/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20204516.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>At this point, it doesn't even seem worth carrying on comparing FTDNA. The rest of every chromosome is pretty much the same as what I've already shown here. Although the amounts of Western vs Southern Europe vary somewhat in vague keeping with the other two companies, the minimal variation is not worth going into a detailed comparison.</p><p><b>Chromosome 8</b></p><p>I want to skip ahead now to chromosome 8. Chromosomes 5, 6, and 7 are exactly the same at both AncestryDNA and 23andMe - both companies identified the exact same portions as either Italian or Southern European. Chromosome 8 is the first time we really see a significant difference in what the two companies report.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlhQ8DY5XelFl7Yt0W5p_0XSRo0-5hUqCtgqmw6q-9l7FfEyKS0t16_yOTw6oEGnrqr2_vIaTksXwgkJHecKxrusB4hchojb9TOIeo5CdL03bLNUbYpizlLdi6A1BLBkUMLhIWlCj4NrLDC7V_lrpkWFSEqYB45f30UAytuYmJwR7UiIePeC5iDkZl/s572/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20211302.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="51" data-original-width="572" height="36" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlhQ8DY5XelFl7Yt0W5p_0XSRo0-5hUqCtgqmw6q-9l7FfEyKS0t16_yOTw6oEGnrqr2_vIaTksXwgkJHecKxrusB4hchojb9TOIeo5CdL03bLNUbYpizlLdi6A1BLBkUMLhIWlCj4NrLDC7V_lrpkWFSEqYB45f30UAytuYmJwR7UiIePeC5iDkZl/w400-h36/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20211302.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhknZfgwE8uB9ezUbxQJxIkMyKFCrXFFhR4ZiL2oesM31k9BD1VkIjio3uS6J2MpJB2ezF8Wbq1WxpLFwQer8M4R_SElhM7Pqj8o7fFpXsDmMs6RF8EIw0RUA-m-7Yw04rTDkOsS0MRqwMxNRxTK_0mmAfHD0v0HOZmz3rgipHM_i1dGWbn_Yw9RflX/s508/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20211322.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="46" data-original-width="508" height="36" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhknZfgwE8uB9ezUbxQJxIkMyKFCrXFFhR4ZiL2oesM31k9BD1VkIjio3uS6J2MpJB2ezF8Wbq1WxpLFwQer8M4R_SElhM7Pqj8o7fFpXsDmMs6RF8EIw0RUA-m-7Yw04rTDkOsS0MRqwMxNRxTK_0mmAfHD0v0HOZmz3rgipHM_i1dGWbn_Yw9RflX/w400-h36/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20211322.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>AncestryDNA (above, first) estimates that roughly the second half of one side of chromosome 8 is from Southern Italy (teal), while the first half is Scottish (lime green), and the other side is supposedly from Sweden/Denmark (pink). I don't have any ancestry from Sweden or Denmark, and AncestryDNA puts my combined Scandinavian percentage a little high, and my Germanic a little low, so I'm assuming it's probably coming from my German ancestry.</p><p>However, 23andMe (above, second) doesn't identify any Italian or Southern European (or West Asian, for that matter) on chromosome 8 at all. It estimates one side is entirely French/German (light blue), and the rest (grey) is mostly Broadly NW European with a small portion in Scandinavia.</p><p>So the portion AncestryDNA deems Italian, 23andMe says is Germanic.</p><p><b>Chromosomes 9-22</b></p><p>The rest of my chromosomes probably aren't worth going into visual detail, but here's a quick summary:</p><p>Chromosome 9 - AncestryDNA estimates the full length of one side is Northern Italian while 23andMe says only half of that side is Italian/Southern European.<br />Chromosome 10 - AncestryDNA claims about the first third of one side is Southern Italian, but 23andMe puts that portion (which is more like the first half of the chromosome) in Cyprus.<br />Chromosome 11 - AncestryDNA puts the full length of one side in Northern Italy, and 23andMe says most of that is Anatolian.<br />Chromosome 12 - AncestryDNA reports no Italian ancestry at all, but 23andMe says about half of one side is Italian.<br />Chromosome 13 - Again, nothing Italian from AncestryDNA and this time, 23andMe agrees (nothing from Southern Europe of West Asia).<br />Chromosome 14 - Ancestry estimates the full (tested) length of one side is Southern Italian. 23andMe says most of one side is either Italian or Arab/Egyptian/Levantine.<br />Chromosome 15 and 16 - Both companies agree the full (tested) length of one side is from Italy (specifically Southern Italy at AncestryDNA).<br />Chromosome 17 and 18 - Both companies agree there's no sign of Southern European or West Asian ancestry at all.<br />Chromosomes 19, 20, 21 - Both companies agree the full (tested) length of one side is from Italy (specifically Southern Italy at AncestryDNA).<br />Chromosome 22 - Both companies agree the full (tested) length of one side is from Italy (specifically Northern Italy at AncestryDNA).</p><p>Although there's some variations on a few chromosomes, overall I'd say the AncestryDNA and 23andMe are very consistent with each other. FTDNA was so inconsistent I literally gave up comparing it.</p><p>Here it's worth noting that 23andMe include ethnicity on the X chromosome where neither AncestryDNA or FTDNA do. To my knowledge, 23andMe are the only ones to use the X chromosome for ethnicity, though admittedly I don't know about MyHeritage since they neither offer a white paper or a chromosome painter. At 23andMe, it identifies one side of my X chromosome as French/German (my mom's side) and the other side as mostly Italian (dark blue) from my dad's Italian mother. The small portion at the end of that side is classed as Broadly Northwest European (lightest blue).</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0QlaN3wzMfKh5d0_E5tiUdG_iDWy7Lk6x3abf_usFdq6pMkkRuOJjwE_3TpLKzrjn_rxR3k4gFdaHC3nQCJ1snp9xV6DQ-SriJidmZHZCnVCB7nt-cvQAQgQejiy8_7a2edNANaB2EfKPXyo_uo5WRC1llQImbjzQTiWqRccXNhbC6pgh_xbaPyMi/s537/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20215733.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="47" data-original-width="537" height="35" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0QlaN3wzMfKh5d0_E5tiUdG_iDWy7Lk6x3abf_usFdq6pMkkRuOJjwE_3TpLKzrjn_rxR3k4gFdaHC3nQCJ1snp9xV6DQ-SriJidmZHZCnVCB7nt-cvQAQgQejiy8_7a2edNANaB2EfKPXyo_uo5WRC1llQImbjzQTiWqRccXNhbC6pgh_xbaPyMi/w400-h35/Screenshot%202022-07-20%20215733.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><p>For the record, X-DNA makes up only about 5% of all your chromosomes. Some people point out that at 23andMe, a man's ethnicity report will include more DNA from his mother than his father because men only get X-DNA from their mother, not their father. Women get one X chromosome from their mother, one from their father, meaning it's still 50/50 just like with the autosomal chromosomes. Instead, men get one X chromosome from their mother and one Y chromosome from their father, but Y chromosomes aren't used for ethnicity (ever), so they will have slightly more DNA from their mother than their father on the ethnicity report. This is true, but it's worth noting that one X chromosome only amounts to about 2.5%, which is also within "noise" level amounts. So we're not talking about a significant or noteworthy difference. </p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-26071757986322008082022-04-13T15:14:00.001-06:002022-04-13T15:25:39.008-06:00More Ethnicity Updates from AncestryDNA<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQhUbWZzDRv3O_3e9AEpZBZKzYXhJCDqNkoovgDq8qGM1feQ0WSS41PoN7fEu-5f0Q0oZJu-Ihwy5tf0Dd3yHa-cgmJqPA92dVWKYL5hkPbEP1VNlZ_B9NZaIIsfmbBk5iLf91iLY0U1u_XKfrp_yCaJXBCFmFXYN9PgQpR6ixuNB5CfgC--JcN7mo/s882/My%20Parent%20Breakdown.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="460" data-original-width="882" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQhUbWZzDRv3O_3e9AEpZBZKzYXhJCDqNkoovgDq8qGM1feQ0WSS41PoN7fEu-5f0Q0oZJu-Ihwy5tf0Dd3yHa-cgmJqPA92dVWKYL5hkPbEP1VNlZ_B9NZaIIsfmbBk5iLf91iLY0U1u_XKfrp_yCaJXBCFmFXYN9PgQpR6ixuNB5CfgC--JcN7mo/s320/My%20Parent%20Breakdown.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>AncestryDNA is maintaining their annual ethnicity updates, and it's a little early this year. But it's a new kind of update - rather than the usual changes to either the reference panel, or algorithms, or both, this one introduces a new feature called SideView. It is essentially phasing our DNA with our DNA matches to determine which ethnicities come from one parent or the other. It also means adjustments to our individual percentages, which should theoretically be an improvement. Phasing is usually done with parents or other very close family members, so I was skeptical about AncestryDNA doing it with our more distant matches. Your parents don't have to have tested for this new feature to work, but I was hopeful that my parents having tested would make it more accurate.<p></p><p>I find the parental breakdown (shown above) is very reliable - at least, it's as reliable as it can be given how accurate (or not) each of my kits are to begin with. For example, it correctly identified that my Norwegian and Italian ancestry are from opposite sides of my tree, and that is true: Norwegian is on my mom's side, Italian is on my dad's side. But it puts all of my Germanic ancestry on my dad's side because my mom's results still don't include Germanic despite having a great grandfather of full German descent (dozens of DNA matches on this branch confirm there's no NPE) and several other German branches further back. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxjRKg9r_omYnBFpMRdOmPaDC7o8fDM43EVpaCEG5CXJ1E5aFh-fVSYM3bLFzNRrZKIxS71nsgHYtVDoZGltStDDXWhaSvuy0G1LdCyKYb0C2ADJev2CSj7Jfl8u18HSgbOwYVOIGiKLT9s5fqfya6h59jWvC4lzmZDVh5waiXfXlxjVRhNTeVpQIr/s1008/Moms%20Parent%20Breakdown.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="1008" height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxjRKg9r_omYnBFpMRdOmPaDC7o8fDM43EVpaCEG5CXJ1E5aFh-fVSYM3bLFzNRrZKIxS71nsgHYtVDoZGltStDDXWhaSvuy0G1LdCyKYb0C2ADJev2CSj7Jfl8u18HSgbOwYVOIGiKLT9s5fqfya6h59jWvC4lzmZDVh5waiXfXlxjVRhNTeVpQIr/w400-h190/Moms%20Parent%20Breakdown.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><p>Looking at my mom's parental breakdown, shown above, (neither of her parents having tested), there is less reliability, that's partly due to the fact that her Norwegian ancestry is grossly exaggerated. She now gets a whopping 47% in Norway despite only having had one Norwegian (or Scandinavian) grandparent (so she should be about 25%, although it may vary, it shouldn't be more than about 36%). The majority of her Norwegian results does get put on one side, but that means there's not much room left for the other 25% on her mom's side that should be mostly English. Most of her English results get put on her other side, which isn't exactly wrong, she does have some English ancestry on that side too. But her dad's side should be mostly Germanic, and again, she gets no results in Germanic. If the percentages were more reliable to begin with, the split up would be more reliable too.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBmtnU4fLtOWQ66-EJtTuX8_OhRSd1ooZjsctxQJ2OVL361KAnsVJeybzBj3IP9bVIJ0KoE7RQI09nllGnZuiAxPehW8SW6oLquoUsZ3BbAfqJYRjl66gnId1BM0KvesAfsur3ibSX9FMX4VKwt52U3u3vn6q20Pr-W2gixol7Jh0KlQmzCFgc6rjD/s1002/Dads%20Parent%20Breakdown.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="470" data-original-width="1002" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBmtnU4fLtOWQ66-EJtTuX8_OhRSd1ooZjsctxQJ2OVL361KAnsVJeybzBj3IP9bVIJ0KoE7RQI09nllGnZuiAxPehW8SW6oLquoUsZ3BbAfqJYRjl66gnId1BM0KvesAfsur3ibSX9FMX4VKwt52U3u3vn6q20Pr-W2gixol7Jh0KlQmzCFgc6rjD/w400-h188/Dads%20Parent%20Breakdown.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><p>My dad's parental breakdown is very accurate, probably partly because his father tested but also because there is more genetic distinction between his mom and dad's sides - his mom was Italian, his dad mostly German and some Scottish and English. The split up (shown above) correctly shows all his Italian (Southern and Northern even though his ancestry is only Southern) plus trace amounts in Cyprus and Levant (obviously coming from his Italian ancestry) on one side, equaling exactly 50%. On the other side it correctly places all the rest of his ethnicities, although they are not all accurate - he wrongly gets results in Scandinavia where he has no known ancestry.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjLvkjmzJmHIL-h1by6u9A1EFNA0fEDiL7qTN2KD8TUiTuKiVTGCLlu9loDuoVv_5Ofnwyqo8a3TCzT8vj2Hr-3BtM578XPhsWIahy9FALNyL6D-fQLO4S6lr7xEtZhtkzkh5eTqW54lfrIzwqsGsPb-LRmbprwESOaEInYPQo2mLGCjs6zWfET_gA/s996/Pops%20Parent%20breakdown.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="456" data-original-width="996" height="184" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjLvkjmzJmHIL-h1by6u9A1EFNA0fEDiL7qTN2KD8TUiTuKiVTGCLlu9loDuoVv_5Ofnwyqo8a3TCzT8vj2Hr-3BtM578XPhsWIahy9FALNyL6D-fQLO4S6lr7xEtZhtkzkh5eTqW54lfrIzwqsGsPb-LRmbprwESOaEInYPQo2mLGCjs6zWfET_gA/w400-h184/Pops%20Parent%20breakdown.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><p>My paternal grandfather's parental breakdown is surprisingly very consistent with his tree, considering neither of his parents tested. On his paternal side, he is German with some English. On his maternal side, he's German and Scottish, with some English. Although his percentages are overall off (too much English, not enough German), the split up is accurately reflected here. English on both side, German on both sides (though barely), and Scottish on only one side.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXhKIiE-LiORWAcHKXMTbnsTtSlICr_3yPh02uRUaNaZRO_UCb7jsVcgkTi8ZBrgQ8HPG8UY62V85cRPgUFcO2rvE8Hw1G8vd3hpVFCiuE7gAXE1AalnQUX2J3PFB3tV6LwAWGy1EB6jnlXS3oaOLv1ek4lIQOXZdaY258UgKbv9Wf6yq9ITICHpWb/s881/Husbands%20Parents%20Breakdown.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="881" height="185" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXhKIiE-LiORWAcHKXMTbnsTtSlICr_3yPh02uRUaNaZRO_UCb7jsVcgkTi8ZBrgQ8HPG8UY62V85cRPgUFcO2rvE8Hw1G8vd3hpVFCiuE7gAXE1AalnQUX2J3PFB3tV6LwAWGy1EB6jnlXS3oaOLv1ek4lIQOXZdaY258UgKbv9Wf6yq9ITICHpWb/w400-h185/Husbands%20Parents%20Breakdown.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><p>My husband's parental breakdown (shown above) is also as accurate as possible given his percentage results and the fact that neither parent tested. It correctly identifies the majority of his Irish ancestry on one side and all of his English ancestry on the other side. His father was Irish, his mother was mostly English. He overall gets 40% in Ireland (a decrease from previous 47% which was much more accurate), and 36% is assigned to one side, his dad's side (shown below). His mother does have one Irish branch from much further back, which would amount to about 3%, and interestingly it puts 4% Ireland on his mom's side. Not bad. It then splits his Scottish results up more evenly on both sides - he does indeed have one Scottish 2nd great grandparent on his mother's side, so the Scottish portion being assigned to his father's side is obviously just due to the genetic overlap between Ireland and Scotland. His Scottish percentage is exaggerated to begin with: 22% when it should be more like 6% and probably no more than 12%, but interestingly the amount that is put on his mom's side is 9%, which is consistent with the Scottish 2nd great grandfather on his mom's side. Again, not bad, AncestryDNA, not bad. However, he has no Welsh or Norwegian ancestry, so those are obviously coming from genetic overlap with England.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOt_JHO8KaFKKcJeJwi0C0311_PgAT2cbII5ViYSsNojeeqVudZc_kQW_rbGF1yhzmoqU874jwfnLPEM1Pma3HKC1mNn-L2QzSwaETsBe4oyJzKM60dLeHd63ZHZy-t5J8r4F7R7wAWWzFgsg4DGmWuwrga8iJtHkRCBY2MhxPNxWsYxcR26VR9O_L/s682/Husbands%20parental%20percentage%20breakdown.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="462" data-original-width="682" height="271" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOt_JHO8KaFKKcJeJwi0C0311_PgAT2cbII5ViYSsNojeeqVudZc_kQW_rbGF1yhzmoqU874jwfnLPEM1Pma3HKC1mNn-L2QzSwaETsBe4oyJzKM60dLeHd63ZHZy-t5J8r4F7R7wAWWzFgsg4DGmWuwrga8iJtHkRCBY2MhxPNxWsYxcR26VR9O_L/w400-h271/Husbands%20parental%20percentage%20breakdown.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><p>So overall, the split ups among most of my kits were very reliable, but I can't say the percentages have benefited from the phasing. For example, my Scottish results wrongly shot up from 12% to 29% - based on my tree, the former is more accurate. And as mentioned, my mom is still lacking any Germanic results at all when she should be at least 12%, while her Norwegian results were already too high to begin with (43%) and just went up even more (47%). My dad's results didn't change by much, but he's now getting small percentages in incorrect regions that he didn't get before. In fact, most of my kits have seen this too - most of them now have small percentages in Ireland which they didn't have before. To my knowledge, all of my so-called "Irish" ancestors were actually Scots-Irish. So previous results were more accurate and the sudden appearance of Irish in results is disappointing (only because it's not accurate, not because there's anything wrong with being Irish, lol - obviously, my husband is half Irish).</p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-42531827554711577602022-02-27T12:45:00.002-07:002022-02-27T12:45:35.331-07:00What exactly is the AGBI and how do we use it?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiDQOlnpShavISJespN113Yv-FGQii--phZo-7msbZupD_iH2jaeY3jV4h2J7EdzSOCZiNBmuLLRWBvWvadhLlNo_rY2JNixRnx0hcAjoMLIDsgM8qtkt8aTRo-Uw8i6QiedNdziqzA0NuzOG-upOnWRzsA5Ed_2i_6psYP4cWvhILCgqgFMjffy44y=s641" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="381" data-original-width="641" height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiDQOlnpShavISJespN113Yv-FGQii--phZo-7msbZupD_iH2jaeY3jV4h2J7EdzSOCZiNBmuLLRWBvWvadhLlNo_rY2JNixRnx0hcAjoMLIDsgM8qtkt8aTRo-Uw8i6QiedNdziqzA0NuzOG-upOnWRzsA5Ed_2i_6psYP4cWvhILCgqgFMjffy44y=s320" width="320" /></a></div>By now, you've probably occasionally come across a source known as AGBI, or American Genealogical Biographical Index, and maybe you've even attached it to your tree because it comes up as a hint for your ancestor, and everyone else has attached it to the same ancestor, and you don't want to miss out, right? But the details are usually vague, what is it even referencing and how do you know the records are for the right person?<p></p><p>The AGBI on Ancestry is basically an index of an index. It's referencing a big series of books that indexes tons of sources on early Americans. I don't know why Ancestry's index doesn't include all the data included in the book's index, but it doesn't. So to find the original source, you first have to look up the AGBI book index. You can find the books in a number of places online, I usually use <a href="https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/193375" target="_blank">the one at FamilySearch</a> because it's free and accessible from home (it's not a restricted collection) - scroll all the way down (passed the listings that say off-site storage). </p><p>Ancestry's index should include a volume and page number, although weirdly the books don't include page numbers, that's okay, because they're in alphabetical order. So simply open the volume you're looking for, and then find the name you're researching in alphabetical order. There will likely be several entries for the name you're looking for, but you can usually tell which one you need from the location and/or time period included in Ancestry's index. Even so, the AGBI books can be seemingly as vague as Ancestry's index is, and sometimes it takes some understanding and/or Googling of what it's referencing. </p><p>For example, "Pa. Archives" is not a reference to the Pennsylvania State Archives, it's a reference to another series of books that includes primary records from early Pennsylvania called the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Archives" target="_blank">Pennsylvania Archives</a> - there should be a series number, a volume number, and a page number. The Pennsylvania Archives are also available online at various sites, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=pennsylvania+archives" target="_blank">Google Books</a>, <a href="https://archive.org/details/texts?query=pennsylvania+archives">Archive.org</a>, <a href="https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2206/" target="_blank">Ancestry</a>, <a href="https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/221762" target="_blank">FamilySearch</a>, <a href="https://www.fold3.com/title/450/pennsylvania-archives/description" target="_blank">Fold3</a>, etc.</p><p>Another example is a source just called "Transcript" - this is a reference to the Boston Evening Transcript, a newspaper that ran a genealogy column from 1906-1941, including details on ancestors not exclusive to Boston or Massachusetts. Obviously, it's very much a secondary source, so I'd be careful with it, but it's available from Newspapers.com covering the years 1848-1914, and at <a href="https://www.americanancestors.org/search/advanced-search" target="_blank">American Ancestors</a> covering 1911-1941 (select the Boston Evening Transcript from "Database").</p><p>You'll also see references to Revolutionary War Rolls and Pensions, those are fairly self explanatory. There's also states with "Heads Fams" which is referring to the names of the Heads of Families listed on the 1790 census. Since the 1790 census is already widely available online and probably already attached to your tree when appropriate, this isn't a very useful citation anymore. There's lots of other sources included in the AGBI, but usually they are self explanatory, or you can find out what they mean with a little bit of Googling.</p><p>It's really important that you find the original record the AGBI is referencing because the index is so vague, there's really no way to know from it whether it's for the right person you're researching or not. You may often find that once you look up the original record, it's not actually a reference to the person you're researching after all. Probably, researchers on Ancestry just attached it to their tree because the name and perhaps location and/or time period fit, without looking into it further probably because they simply don't know how to find the original. But particularly with common names, you can't assume that means it's for the correct individual, and now you don't have to be one of those people.</p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-41281650210116789152022-02-01T09:48:00.001-07:002022-02-01T09:48:28.866-07:00TellMeGen Review<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiySmpGppb_HeCriT4p6wY66Bl-jAy8_wInyIBYusYTB1lfJ5Qprje92VdihXQwpFjHmz86Lc_0_Ql9n9_7kJeSs8ZIJfo1UzS1PTphhTfdQIiNDWRiOI3U-DiinC1Hhlzk7L7Dbogb_qhRzeBJ2mgAzdFwpeWVFCfN6AoIMj6OVkAwzd8W8Vjn6hCV=s908" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="565" data-original-width="908" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiySmpGppb_HeCriT4p6wY66Bl-jAy8_wInyIBYusYTB1lfJ5Qprje92VdihXQwpFjHmz86Lc_0_Ql9n9_7kJeSs8ZIJfo1UzS1PTphhTfdQIiNDWRiOI3U-DiinC1Hhlzk7L7Dbogb_qhRzeBJ2mgAzdFwpeWVFCfN6AoIMj6OVkAwzd8W8Vjn6hCV=s320" width="320" /></a></div>New DNA companies with the option to upload raw DNA data from other companies keep popping up, and honestly, it's hard to keep track of them. But recently, I tested one called <a href="https://www.tellmegen.com" target="_blank">TellMeGen</a> out of curiosity. They offer reports on disease risk, traits, wellness, ethnicity, and even offer matching with other testers, all for free. But you know the saying, "you get what you pay for"? That's a little bit true here.<div><br /></div><div>I can't really complain about the health and traits reports, they are easy to understand but also include the technical data if you want to explore that. They include reports on a lot of common health issues people want to know about, like cancer and heart problems. They correctly identified me as probably lactose intolerant, and having decreased levels of vitamin D. There aren't many Monogenic Diseases included, but that may just be because I uploaded from another company, so the data may not be there for some reports. It's always best to test with the company when they offer their own kit, but I can't afford to be buying all the DNA tests available out there.</div><div><br /></div><div>But what we're focusing on is the ethnicity report, and I have to say it was not very consistent with my known ancestry at all.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhCJNOPwSp4wh6HgKyMvO5mfm32zNFpKKtqU8cRVnvsPym-S6qw1vqaxhsifAUd-9PnL1spjZlhVq5uljlCeuyGfPe5IewuGeTrLEdcpsD1oXjG7ij5CZ0kXf6UTFx_H8Nl0gfXsQ6ZtoEfGLLsI8DNy5yQ8_1JrDNXhvt6OgGk1CgsmBZOQgngigWA=s1503" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="875" data-original-width="1503" height="233" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhCJNOPwSp4wh6HgKyMvO5mfm32zNFpKKtqU8cRVnvsPym-S6qw1vqaxhsifAUd-9PnL1spjZlhVq5uljlCeuyGfPe5IewuGeTrLEdcpsD1oXjG7ij5CZ0kXf6UTFx_H8Nl0gfXsQ6ZtoEfGLLsI8DNy5yQ8_1JrDNXhvt6OgGk1CgsmBZOQgngigWA=w400-h233" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><div> French 43.7%</div><div> Scandinavian 37.7%</div><div> Turkish, Caucasian and Iranian 9.5%</div><div> Bedouin 4%</div><div> Egyptian, Levantine and Arab 3.2%</div><div> Basque 1.1%</div><div> Sardinian 0.5%</div><div> Ashkenazi Jew 0.3%</div></div><div><br /></div><div>The only location/population here that's accurate is Scandinavian. I do have Norwegian ancestry, but it is not this high - more like 12.5% (one great grandparent), and other companies usually peg it even lower than that, suggesting I may have gotten than expected from my Norwegian great grandfather. I'm guessing that my inflated Scandinavian percentage includes my British ancestry, knowing there is genetic overlap between them.</div><div><br /></div><div>I do have some very early colonial French Huguenot ancestry too, from the 1600s - but it amounts to less than 1% of my tree, so I do not consider it relevant to DNA ethnicity reports. Probably, the high amounts in France are coming from my neighboring Germanic ancestry.</div><div><br /></div><div>Adding up the Middle Eastern results, I get 16.7%, which I can only imagine is coming from my Italian ancestry, though why it didn't come up Italian, I can't say. But even adding the Basque and Sardinian results in for 18.3%, it still doesn't add up to my expected amount of Italian ancestry, which I've detailed here many times as being about 32%. </div><div><br /></div><div>Although the 0.3% Ashkenazi is small enough to just be noise, knowing how endogamous the Ashkenazi population is and how reliable results in this category normally are, and should be, getting any results at all in this population when I have no known Jewish ancestry and get no results for it at any other company, is just another point against TellMeGen.</div><div><br /></div><div>In short, my results simply do not make much sense. While it's not totally unreasonable to get some results in neighboring regions, this is a bit extreme, and if I have to jump through hoops to make sense of my results, it's not a reliable report.</div>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-81583103244901490232022-01-05T09:41:00.000-07:002022-01-05T09:41:51.587-07:00How Far Back Can We Go?<p>How far back can we research our family tree? It's a question that comes up periodically, especially from beginners who are sometimes overwhelmed with finding other people's trees going back very far. In practice, the answer will vary greatly depending on your tree. One branch might dead end in the 18th century, another might go back to the 16th century, and another yet might link to royalty and date back to Charlemagne (8th-9th century). But how far back is it plausible or realistic? At what point exactly do all these trees that date back to ancient times, mythical figures, Adam and Eve, etc become impossible? </p><p>In general, the simplest answer for European research that has no known connection to royalty or nobility is that the 1500s is the end of the line. Like I say, not all your branches will likely even go back that far. Many times, the trail simply runs cold well before that point. For example, if you're American, you may never be able to find the specific origins of an immigrant ancestor. But if you're lucky, you may find a few branches here and there that go back to the 1500s.</p><p>Why the 1500s? Because that's when parish records began to be mandated in Europe. England was among the first to do so. In 1534, England separated from the Catholic Church and formed the Church of England, a protestant church, all so that Henry VIII could divorce his wife and marry his mistress. A mere 4 years later, England required that their brand new church begin keeping parish records of baptisms, marriages, and deaths/burials in 1538. Around the same time in 1540, the Lutheran Church also started requiring parish records be kept throughout their rapidly expanding churches in central Europe. In 1563 at the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church ordered that parishes keep baptism records, and in 1579, another order required marriages and deaths/burials. This meant essentially most churches in Catholic or Protestant Europe were expected to keep parish records from that point onward.</p><p>However, not all churches began adhering to these requirements right away. Many were slow to start keeping records, so depending on the location, you may not find parish records going back quite this far. In England, only 14.8% of parishes were keeping records by 1555, and that had risen to 54% by 1600. Most parishes in Italy didn't start keeping records until about 1595, but at the same time, a few Italian parishes (namely Palermo and Firenze) had taken it upon themselves to keep records long before the Catholic Church mandated it, sometimes going back as far as the 14th century! In France, general compliance wasn't until around the mid-1600s, and most Reformed churches were keeping records by 1650 as well. So in many places, you may only be able to go back to the 1600s.</p><p>Additionally, even when records were kept from this early on, not all have not survived to today. Many were damaged, lost, or destroyed over time, through natural disasters or war, or simply deteriorated over time. Some from the 16th century may have survived but there might be large gaps, making it impossible to connect the dots. </p><p>So, how far back parish records go, and whether they've survived to today or not really depends on the specific location in Europe, but in general, it's safe to say the 1500s are the furthest plausible cut off point. Unless a branch has genuine links to royalty or nobility (and there's a lot of false links out there, so be careful), or you're among one of those rare exceptions of parish records going back to the 14th century, a tree extending beyond the 1500s is probably not accurate or reliable.</p><p>That doesn't mean every tree going back to the 1500s is reliable though, just that you would have to look more deeply to determine that. As I mentioned earlier, in some cases, your trail may dead end with your immigrant ancestor. If you can't find the specific origins of your immigrant European ancestor, it doesn't even matter how far back European parish records might go. And just because parish records may go back this far doesn't necessarily mean you can use them to reliably trace your lineage. Parish records are notoriously vague, containing very little information that can often make it impossible to say for sure if the records you're looking at are for the right person you're researching. Especially when you only have access to an index and not the original documents (which is common for early parish records like this). All it takes is more than one person with the same name born around the same time and location to completely throw their identity into question. Or one ancestor moving across the country with no record of it, and having no idea where to find them. Records can be so scarce, it's safe to say that if you're not descended from a somewhat notable lineage that was better documented, like wealthy land owners, merchants, or holding some sort of position like a sheriff (not necessarily nobility), there's a very good chance you'll never be able to reliably research back as far as the 1500s, even if the parish records exist.</p><p>Now, I keep saying "unless you have a genuine connection to royalty or nobility". So what if you do? Despite the amount of false links out there to royalty, some of them are genuine, and in those cases, it is possible (likely, even) to go back much further than the 1500s. Most royal and noble lines are well documented even before parish records were kept, because their titles were inherited, so documenting their lineages, especially male lineages, was very important. How far back they go depends entirely on the lineage, but many royal lines go back to Charlemagne, who ruled much of Western Europe in the late 8th century and early 9th century. Charlemagne's ancestry has also been traced back to his 5th great grandfather, a 6th century nobleman named Ansbert, whose wife, Blithilde (or alternate spellings), has been claimed to be the daughter of Chlothar I, but this is highly debatable. Ansbert is generally considered the end of the royal line, and not all lines will go back that far.</p><p>As you can see, even royal lines only go back to about the 6th century at the most, so proving European descent from BC is just not possible. There are many theories out there, but none are proven. Any tree that goes back to BC is highly speculative at best. That's not to say the family trees of people who lived in ancient history can not be traced within Antiquity, just that there's a known genealogical gap in between Antiquity and the Middle Ages.</p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Sources:</span></p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-size: x-small;">FamilySearch Wikis:</span></li><ul><li><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/England_Church_Records" target="_blank">England Church Records</a> </span></li><li><a href="https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Italy_Church_Records" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Italy Church Records</span></a></li><li><a href="https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/Germany_Church_Records" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Germany Church Records</span></a></li></ul><li><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="https://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/" target="_blank">Medieval Lands</a> - A prosopography of medieval European noble and royal families (using primary sources)</span></li><li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_antiquity" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Descent from Antiquity</span></a></li></ul><p></p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-26455734470634428312021-12-30T11:45:00.000-07:002021-12-30T11:45:05.903-07:00Antenati's New Site Design - is it Actually Better?<p>Not too long ago, the Italian Archives website, Antenati, or "Ancestors Portal" got a face lift. At first, everyone raved about what an improvement it was, and admittedly, the ability to find and navigate to the records you're looking for has been a great improvement. Unfortunately, it has come at the cost of the Archives no longer supplying an inherent way to download full resolution images, which means we can't save copies of the records for our personal reference. We can take a screenshot, but to get the whole document, it will be too small to read. And if we zoom in to take a screenshot, we won't get the full document.</p><p>There is a way around this - but it's basically a hack, and who knows if it will remain available forever. It's also complicated and includes several steps involving the html code. But if you're brave enough, here's how to do it:</p><p>Step 1: Navigate to the image you wish to download, and click the icon with 3 horizontal lines located in the upper left corner of the image viewer window (see screenshot below, the icon is highlighted in yellow, click to enlarge).</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhHhKmMczq4V8yH0xHkIWXPeKYRT-y_uiagAVoPGOt00TZl_1VQi3Inw_2p_RUgaTIm75KPbxFwd7CFXme9TQeo3qyQ_NRov3AW3UPbvDH98ZJ-X9xQkYOOaffZ_cVtaQP8t5OjN0EDg7ZB_EdYkPLYJj7iEbgUmX6fhJb0RQpSLlTppkOuCBFTzsrY=s1782" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="936" data-original-width="1782" height="210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhHhKmMczq4V8yH0xHkIWXPeKYRT-y_uiagAVoPGOt00TZl_1VQi3Inw_2p_RUgaTIm75KPbxFwd7CFXme9TQeo3qyQ_NRov3AW3UPbvDH98ZJ-X9xQkYOOaffZ_cVtaQP8t5OjN0EDg7ZB_EdYkPLYJj7iEbgUmX6fhJb0RQpSLlTppkOuCBFTzsrY=w400-h210" width="400" /></a></div><p>Step 2: This will bring up a side bar on the left with information. Note the page number listed here (highlighted in yellow in screenshot below), because you'll need that later.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgiefU_UOC1TSux_puY92szOjuqS6uQqci_SfIDbv9mEkH4yTtvDlMKD7ww8_sWZmSempdrqOwaNrN5U5hQ_PSWsd8aLGbh2LkdOq3EO_dEGD7AwV9-ZT_MxcfZl7Uq_CzsbyhGtGKYxfx015oOQXdV9XyqrE7YltZH5CtpTGYneUWjIEl3oR7IUby3=s1783" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="933" data-original-width="1783" height="209" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgiefU_UOC1TSux_puY92szOjuqS6uQqci_SfIDbv9mEkH4yTtvDlMKD7ww8_sWZmSempdrqOwaNrN5U5hQ_PSWsd8aLGbh2LkdOq3EO_dEGD7AwV9-ZT_MxcfZl7Uq_CzsbyhGtGKYxfx015oOQXdV9XyqrE7YltZH5CtpTGYneUWjIEl3oR7IUby3=w400-h209" width="400" /></a></div><p>Step 3: Scroll down the side bar to the bottom where you'll see a link just below where it says "IIIF manifest". Click the link (highlighted in yellow in the screenshot below).</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEidlWikUUbHZE-Hx2bzQMovyhiwwuaei7AMJsR9NrG0YXrCZTiDoDM_GwHcPsdzr4KEt2jPUejmifMGoWzi-jR8uBT3vdgJliZzzrQQgdb801rbpEB7mhnBjq90EAvCzuAApxxDjTakwnUR-EQmNNZBiza8gPCpliVGFmcdlucm5Uus7bCvjLL36YKX=s1786" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="935" data-original-width="1786" height="210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEidlWikUUbHZE-Hx2bzQMovyhiwwuaei7AMJsR9NrG0YXrCZTiDoDM_GwHcPsdzr4KEt2jPUejmifMGoWzi-jR8uBT3vdgJliZzzrQQgdb801rbpEB7mhnBjq90EAvCzuAApxxDjTakwnUR-EQmNNZBiza8gPCpliVGFmcdlucm5Uus7bCvjLL36YKX=w400-h210" width="400" /></a></div><p>Step 4: Here's where it gets tricky. The link opens a page with a bunch of html coding. Different browsers seem to display it differently - if you're lucky, it will be organized with nested lines and different colors, making it easier to find what you're looking for, and the URLs will be clickable links. If you're unlucky like me, you'll see a big long block of text/coding with no links, no colors (shown below). What you're look for first is the page number you took note of in step 2. In the code, it will say "label":"pag. 31" (or whichever page number you're looking for). If you're having trouble finding it, you can use your browser's "Find" or "Find in Page" option to search for it (the screenshot below shows the page number 31 highlighted because I searched for it).</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEih7IFPXwLgYIAjI_wNsOzU0_Y_VojKMhfrHLGkXmCmSupbWUP5E1j01FmBKmmkB6i9WTMzMmNFfZ7f1qSU_6soM5JK_wo2LhJs5IHs5M56Rscq7qxD-DBIfsHamc4hw1t3kaRYbvfhyl-S8biyPgeWd_l1639W3IrWgGHp3ItjIY_8C3Opql07w9XK=s1877" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="935" data-original-width="1877" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEih7IFPXwLgYIAjI_wNsOzU0_Y_VojKMhfrHLGkXmCmSupbWUP5E1j01FmBKmmkB6i9WTMzMmNFfZ7f1qSU_6soM5JK_wo2LhJs5IHs5M56Rscq7qxD-DBIfsHamc4hw1t3kaRYbvfhyl-S8biyPgeWd_l1639W3IrWgGHp3ItjIY_8C3Opql07w9XK=w400-h199" width="400" /></a></div><p>Step 5: Look just above your page number in the code for a URL that looks like this: <b>https://iiif-antenati.san.beniculturali.it/iiif/2/wrZgxjz/full/full/0/default.jpg</b> (URL is highlighted in grey and shows relation to the page number in the screenshot below) - the part that says "wrZgxjz" in my URL will be different for you. That's okay, that's what you want. That's the specific image code you're looking for. Copy and paste the whole URL (or click on it if it's clickable) into a new browser tab.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgat_G5L6Ol_JDGGe1rZU_Y1GMTjHKO-BkjzHZwqW7My0ueLOIpsm7N-BJAJIvP1ozgECL7vmIYXgzP581d22qaC7zzz4uagYLj62Z0aJi-erFz2NPE4moybWW8sJwfx52-zEieOaa5bNIcsdqf2WSunV_hTequYFzYFmGredak3JgLrHyzdYDCa1sw=s1861" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="931" data-original-width="1861" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgat_G5L6Ol_JDGGe1rZU_Y1GMTjHKO-BkjzHZwqW7My0ueLOIpsm7N-BJAJIvP1ozgECL7vmIYXgzP581d22qaC7zzz4uagYLj62Z0aJi-erFz2NPE4moybWW8sJwfx52-zEieOaa5bNIcsdqf2WSunV_hTequYFzYFmGredak3JgLrHyzdYDCa1sw=w400-h200" width="400" /></a></div><p>Step 6: If you're unlucky like me and the URL you copied and pasted includes duplicate slashes so you're getting a "Page not found" result, remove the duplicate slashes. The URL should look like this: <b>https://iiif-antenati.san.beniculturali.it/iiif/2/wrZgxjz/full/full/0/default.jpg</b>, not like this: https:\/\/iiif-antenati.san.beniculturali.it\/iiif\/2\/wrZgxjz\/full\/full\/0\/default.jpg or like this: https://iiif-antenati.san.beniculturali.it//iiif//2//wrZgxjz//full//full//0//default.jpg. If it's annoying to delete all those extra slashes every time, you can always just bookmark the proper URL and then just copy and paste the image code into the URL.</p><p>Step 7: Once you get the correct image to load, you can right click it and save the full resolution image.</p><p>Although the new site might be faster and easier to navigate, the inability to save crucial documents (which you'd think was the entire purpose of the site) is a huge step backwards. This hack is cumbersome, but for now, it's the only option. Good luck.</p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-47701276200252351312021-12-18T12:05:00.000-07:002021-12-18T12:05:04.095-07:00Outlander and the Development of Surnames<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhPYJjUOJakg4-ElHkqi5UEIpXCJbBQ4oSd3y9kLnLOmkh70ZSOKOiVrlKFcZ6UEvHpHfzoPhwwSQpXGa67cMRQ0tlDQbOaKgWLAQcAIcAZlOZFLHi4jseDr1itOzOAFPYsW8TFCOKgUU4IVbCs4KfufNglTd6NYV_UzuTDszPwmGmzKdw9-K1qnXlY=s1800" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1800" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhPYJjUOJakg4-ElHkqi5UEIpXCJbBQ4oSd3y9kLnLOmkh70ZSOKOiVrlKFcZ6UEvHpHfzoPhwwSQpXGa67cMRQ0tlDQbOaKgWLAQcAIcAZlOZFLHi4jseDr1itOzOAFPYsW8TFCOKgUU4IVbCs4KfufNglTd6NYV_UzuTDszPwmGmzKdw9-K1qnXlY=s320" width="320" /></a></div>For the record, I have never read the Outlander book series, but I have watched the TV show, and as a genealogist, there was one scene in particular about surnames that struck me as hugely unrealistic. It was the suggestion that a somewhat abandoned child never had a surname. There's a few reasons why this seems rather ridiculous to me.<p></p><p>This isn't really a spoiler, because it's not really a scene that's crucial to the plot, though I guess it's relevant to character development, I still don't consider it very important but other's might, so you've been warned, read at your own risk.</p><p>In the TV show, our male lead character, Jamie, comes across a young pickpocket, Claudel, while in Paris, who never knew who his parents were (his father was unknown, and his mother was probably one of the prostitutes at the brothel where he lives, but he's never been told which one). They have a conversation in which they both agree Claudel isn't a very good name, suggesting that it isn't a very strong or masculine name. Jamie recommends the name Fergus instead, and Claudel, now Fergus, agrees, and they return to Scotland with Fergus as Jamie's foster child. Fast forward to when Fergus is all grown up, now a young man marrying his sweetheart (who happens to be Jamie's step-daughter - it's best not to examine that too closely), and the officiant asks what his last name is. Everyone pauses as they remember he doesn't have a last name, before Jamie graciously steps in and gives Fergus his own surname, Fraser. It was a touching acknowledgement of their father/son relationship. While it's maybe understandable Fergus may not have been given a surname at birth (though even this is a stretch, more on that later), it doesn't make much sense that by this point in his life, he would not have developed an informal surname that he likely would have used on a marriage record.<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh9XyIGPw2OgezgBcx8uas74hNxudSr1SjmNuXMNIvVEEL5N7LQqN2pSdy2t5w9QuDy5TCXPuiUkJWY-MlnVkaOObeFwhcJXZUqNIk_OHQsjbC0Mif6evOgLRu1dxNgz1KSXYp6NVWdcIw5Sv-Cx1LhHt6JidYvECuy2wpNoFaXiXp4Sr8BAFfKosjV=s864" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="486" data-original-width="864" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEh9XyIGPw2OgezgBcx8uas74hNxudSr1SjmNuXMNIvVEEL5N7LQqN2pSdy2t5w9QuDy5TCXPuiUkJWY-MlnVkaOObeFwhcJXZUqNIk_OHQsjbC0Mif6evOgLRu1dxNgz1KSXYp6NVWdcIw5Sv-Cx1LhHt6JidYvECuy2wpNoFaXiXp4Sr8BAFfKosjV=w400-h225" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Fergus gets married with Jamie's surname</td></tr></tbody></table></p><p>Remember, at this point in history, there were no birth certificates and forms of identification. There were parish records, so there would have been a baptism record, but people didn't keep or travel with copies of their baptism record for identification. Names were more fluid and the concept of an official or legal name hadn't really developed yet. So even though no one gave him a surname at birth doesn't mean one wouldn't have developed over time. Claudel was probably a fairly common name in France at the time, and Paris was a big city, so there were likely other young boys named Claudel, and people would have needed a way to identify or distinguish them. If one of them didn't have a last name, they would have used a description, which would have then naturally been shortened overtime into a surname. Especially as Claudel/Fergus was a bit of a troublemaker, certainly, people would have been talking about him periodically, and needed a way to identify him.</p><p>The same would have happened in Scotland, if it never had a chance to happen in Paris, or if the names didn't follow him from France. There was likely more than one Fergus in the area of Scotland they lived in, so people would have identified him in the most obvious ways, probably either something like, "Jamie's ward", "Jamie's foster child", or "the French boy." Overtime, they likely would have gotten shortened to just "Ward", "Foster", or "French," and all three of them could have even been in use at the same time. Therefore, when asked what his surname was, he probably would have picked whichever one of the three he liked better, or was more common. When you think about it, these three names are all very real surnames in use today, and they sometimes come from situations exactly like this one. </p><p>But that fact doesn't have to have ruined the moment. A name like "Ward" or "Foster" kind of identifies one's undesirable origins (and a name like French among a bunch of Scots kind of does too), so it could have been a source of pain or embarrassment for Fergus, and Jamie still could have stepped in and said, "No, it's not Ward, it's Fraser."</p><p>Also, let's not forget how easy it was to change or make up a new name. Again, there were no birth certificates and remember how Claudel simply changed his name to Fergus just by deciding that's what he wanted to be called now? So, if he's able to just make up a new first name, there's no reason he couldn't have just made up a surname at the same time. I'm not saying he definitely would have done that, just that if his lack of a surname was a source of embarrassment for him, he could have just given himself a surname, and picked whatever he wanted. This idea that he could change his first name on a whim, but oh no, he's stuck without a surname his whole life until Jamie steps in to save the day, is a little bit silly. </p><p>And I'll even go so far as to say the fact that he didn't have a surname at birth was silly to begin with. Children born out of wedlock were typically given their mother's surname. Fergus didn't know who his mother was, which is weird to begin with, because she's supposedly the reason he was living at the brothel (so was he even actually "abandoned" to begin with if he was living with his mother?). I've been told that he had no surname because "nobody cared enough about him to give him a surname". But what about the fact that someone cared enough about him to let him live at the brothel that his mother worked at? Someone cared enough about him to feed and clothe him, a financial burden to them, when they didn't have to, when they could have dropped him off at an orphanage or foundling hospital (the first of which opened in Paris in 1670), which would have taken him in, and given him a surname. Foundlings were a common part of history, and they were given surnames by this point in time because by the 18th century, surnames had long been in full use in France and Western Europe. But that's not what happened. He was kept at the brothel, supposedly because someone wanted him there, probably his mother, so why would she not identify herself and give him her surname? Even if she died when he was an infant, someone else at the brothel must have cared enough to keep him there even when they didn't have to, and that person surely would have known who his mother was and told him, and therefore he would have used her name. </p><p>So it just doesn't make any sense that even an abandoned child in 18th century Western Europe would not have a surname to begin with, and that even if for some reason he didn't, that one wouldn't have developed out of a nickname over the course of his young life. </p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-5103556046360515922021-10-08T17:10:00.004-06:002023-03-15T11:30:40.345-06:00What was Immigration Like in History?<p>Part of understanding our ancestor's journey is understanding the laws and regulations at the time. The topic of immigration laws and restrictions, and when they began is one that comes up frequently. There's a very good <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/timeline-1790" target="_blank">Timeline of Major US Immigration Laws from 1790 - 2006</a>, but it also includes a lot of laws on naturalization, deportation, and changes to enforcements of these laws. So, here's my breakdown of the most important parts:</p><p>The first federal immigration act to restrict who could come into the country was the <b>Page Act of 1875</b>, which prohibited the entry of East Asian forced laborers and "immoral" East Asian women, which is less racist than it sounds. It was an attempt to reduce the amount of Chinese women being trafficked into the country for prostitution. In 1870, roughly half of Chinese women in the US were prostitutes, keeping in mind many of those not recorded as prostitutes were children, so it's probably safe to say most adult Chinese women in the US were prostitutes. It was difficult to prove one wasn't a prostitute, so it was effectively a ban on most, if not all, Chinese women. It was heavily enforced, much more so that the ban on forced laborers.</p><p>It was shortly followed by the much more significant <b>Immigration Act of 1882</b> and the <b>Chinese Exclusion Act</b>. The Immigration Act banned anyone considered a "convict, lunatic, idiot, or person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge." You may think that would only affect the mentally or physically disabled, or sick, but it could also include pregnant or single women considered to not have financial support from a man, like a father, brother, husband, etc. It also put a tax of 50 cents on each incoming foreigner, to be paid by the ship's owner. I imagine this may have driven up the cost of passenger tickets, making it harder (but not impossible) for the most destitute of people to immigrate, though I can't say that was the intention - the intention was merely to raise funds for the regulation of immigration.</p><p>The Chinese Exclusion Act was pretty much as racist as it sounds, it suspended immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years. Over the next 20-some years, there continued to be additional laws that further restricted Chinese immigration, and allowed for easier deportation of existing Chinese residents, such as the <b>1888 Scott Act</b>, which prohibited lawful Chinese residences from returning to the US if they left. Also, the <b>1892 Act to Prohibit the Coming of Chinese Persons into the United States </b>aka the <b>"Geary Act"</b>, which required all Chinese citizens living in the US to obtain certificates proving their lawful residence, and any Chinese person found unlawfully living in the US, instead of being deported, could be imprisoned and sentenced to one year of hard labor. Fortunately, the hard labor part was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1896 under the 5th Amendment, but it was probably a small win for the Chinese who continued to be harshly discriminated against.</p><p>Also worth noting is that although there was never a law with specifics, from 1892 to 1924, the determination of who was likely to become a public charge was left to the discretion of immigration officers, who typically required immigrants have a certain amount of money at the time of immigration. The amounts varied by the immigration officer, but if you did not meet their requirement, you could be deported. How unfair to not have a set national limit on this so immigrants were prepared and could save up enough money. However, there was a backup option if you didn't have enough money: there were immigrant aid societies who would sometimes cover the missing required funds. Some people refer to this as a "sponsorship" but sponsors as they are today (someone who promises to support an immigrant and be financially responsible for them until they get a job and can support themselves) were not required until during the Great Depression in the 1930s.</p><p>In 1917, the harsh laws restricting Chinese immigration were extended to essentially most of Asia and the Middle East with the <b>1917 Immigration Act</b>. It also prevented immigration of anarchists, persons previously deported, and all individuals over 16 who are deemed "physically capable of reading" but who cannot read (of any origin).</p><p>But basically, if you were literate, not a convict, not likely to become a public charge, and not Asian, there were no restrictions on your entry up to this point. That changed starting in 1921, and became even worse in 1924.</p><p>The <b>1921 Emergency Quota Act</b> was the first to set "quotas" based on nationality, meaning it limited the number of immigrants from each foreign nation allowed in. The limit was set to 3% of the number of existing residences from those nations based on the 1910 census. So if there were 1,360,000 people on the 1910 census who were born in Italy, only 3% of that, or 40,800 Italians would be allowed to immigrate per year. This significantly reduced the amount of overall immigrants into the country.</p><p>In 1924, the quota was reduced to a mere 2% with the <b>1924 National Origins Act</b>, and more than that, it was based on the 1890 census instead of the 1910 census. It may seem like an odd choice to go with an older census year, as it would be less up to date, but it was a strategic, and arguably discriminatory decision, as it restricted southern and eastern Europeans more than others. Most southern and eastern Europeans immigrated after the 1890s, so basing the quota on the 1890 census meant their numbers were smaller, making their quota smaller. This was the first act to discriminate against certain Europeans (good thing all my Italian ancestors were here by 1914). There were exceptions: students, citizens of Western Hemisphere nations, people of certain occupations, and wives and children of US citizens were all exempt. The act also for the first time required visas be obtained abroad before entry.</p><p>Granted, in 1927 the discriminatory selection of the 1890 census was changed to the 1920 census. However, you can see the dramatic drop in immigration due to these two acts in the historical stats. In 1910-1919, the number of people immigrating from Europe was 4,985,411, but in 1920-1929, there were only 2,560,340. By the 1930s, there were only 444,399 immigrants from Europe. The Golden Age of Immigration was over.</p><p>The next major immigration changes came in the 1940s, when they actually allowed for more immigration due to the war. During the war, Mexican temporary agricultural workers were allowed in with the <b>1942 Bracero Agreement</b>, and following the war, the <b>War Brides Act</b> (1945) accepted foreign wives and children of US soldiers into the country. Finally, the <b>Displaced Persons Act of 1948</b> allowed for 200,000 people displaced from their homelands by Nazi persecution into the US, which actually doesn't seem like a huge number in comparison to the millions that were immigrating prior to 1921. </p><p>In 1965, regulations shifted from the quota based system to one of united families. The <b>1965 Immigration and Nationality Act</b> based admittance on immigrants relationship to a US citizen or lawful permanent resident family member or US employer. However, caps were placed on the total number of immigrants admitted each year in most family and employer based categories. Additionally, a limit of 120,000 was placed on the total number of permanent residents admitted from the Western Hemisphere.</p><p>There were also a number of refugee acts in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, and I could go on up to modern times, but it becomes more and more complicated, and this is only a look at the history of immigration laws and regulation. Hopefully, it's helped you have a good understanding of your ancestor's experience in coming to the US, depending on the time period.</p><p>Sources:<br /></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/timeline-1790" target="_blank">Timeline of Major US Immigration Laws 1790-Present</a></li><li><a href="https://www.infoplease.com/us/immigration-legislation" target="_blank">Immigration Legislation Timeline</a></li><li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882" target="_blank">Wikipedia Immigration Act of 1882</a></li><li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924" target="_blank">Wikipedia Immigration Act of 1924</a></li><li><a href="https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/our-history/overview-of-ins-history/early-american-immigration-policies" target="_blank">USCIS Early American Immigration Policies</a></li><li><a href="https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/lpc-hist-bckgrnd-final-long-92018.pdf" target="_blank">USCIS Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Law: A Brief Historical Background</a></li><li><a href="https://www.familytreemagazine.com/records/immigration/genealogy-qa-researching-departures-home-country/#sponsors-required" target="_blank">Family Tree Magazine Genealogy Q&A Researching Immigrants' Homeland Departure</a></li><li><a href="https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook" target="_blank">Yearbook of Immigration Statistics - Homeland Security</a></li></ul><p></p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-17245229945497029802021-09-19T14:20:00.006-06:002022-01-07T13:25:46.666-07:00How to Group Your DNA Matches to Help Break Down Brick Walls<p>How do you break down a brick wall with DNA? It's what everyone wants to know - after all, what is the point of getting a DNA test if the ethnicity report is unreliable? Everyone says the true value of the test is in your DNA matches, but how do you utilize them to actually be useful in your research? To break down brick walls? To do what paper research couldn't?</p><p>This sort of ties in with my instructions on how to find unknown biological ancestors with DNA, though that was targeted more at NPE or adoption situations. However, the same basic process and workflow can be applied to breaking down brick walls. In the past, I've detailed specific cases where I've used DNA to break down a brick wall, but some of them are a little unique - every situation might be a little different, and therefore might require a bit of a different process. But here's the basics. </p><p>In my post about finding unknown biological ancestors, in Step 1, it says, "Look for your closest DNA match that you can't identify as being from another known branch of your tree."</p><p>But wait - how do we even get to the point of finding a match you can't identify? You do that by identifying and grouping as many matches as you can. This is how my workflow goes, it works best for me, your mileage may vary, but in my experience, this is how most people do it in some way or form. Some maybe use a spreadsheet and the "Leeds Method", but ultimately, it's just a matter of grouping your matches by what branch of your tree they belong to, and since AncestryDNA have a built in grouping tool, I find that works best for me.</p><p><b>Grouping your matches.</b></p><p><b>Step 1</b>: Create a group for each "branch" of your tree. Which branches? I recommend a group for each of your sixteen 2nd great grandparents, unless any of those 2nd great grandparents were from the same specific location, or endogamous population, because they will be difficult to tell apart. For example, my 2nd great grandparents who both came from the same tiny town in Italy called Monteroduni got grouped together because I have no other branches from there, and since the town is so endogamous, it would be difficult to always tell them apart. So I just have one group for "Monteroduni". Don't group by broader locations, like country. I did that by grouping my other 2nd great grandparents together because they were both from Norway, but now I regret that because they came from totally different parts of Norway, so there's no endogamy between them. So although I recommend a group for each 2nd great grandparent, depending on your ancestry, you may want to sometimes group them differently. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5byv5oGMD2A/YUeSphW0Y4I/AAAAAAAAMgM/E38CNN2DLXgSQK1LgJUaBj8GuujEty8LgCNcBGAsYHQ/s482/Screenshot%2B2021-09-19%2B134002.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="482" data-original-width="315" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5byv5oGMD2A/YUeSphW0Y4I/AAAAAAAAMgM/E38CNN2DLXgSQK1LgJUaBj8GuujEty8LgCNcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B2021-09-19%2B134002.png" width="209" /></a><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SnvMbXnO-7U/YUeSpqai8mI/AAAAAAAAMgQ/ugduGQKO008KWaHRK0Ey6SwTeJ8bEu5bQCNcBGAsYHQ/s478/Screenshot%2B2021-09-19%2B134128.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="478" data-original-width="308" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SnvMbXnO-7U/YUeSpqai8mI/AAAAAAAAMgQ/ugduGQKO008KWaHRK0Ey6SwTeJ8bEu5bQCNcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B2021-09-19%2B134128.png" width="206" /></a></div><p>16 groups does mean that it will fill up a lot of your available groups, AncestryDNA only allows you a maximum of 24, so you will only have 8 groups left to do with whatever you want. So like I say, you may want to group them differently, but this is what worked best for me.</p><p><b>Step 2</b>: Start at the top of your match list and work your way down. Do you recognize your top match? Or can you see from their tree (if they have one) what ancestor you share? Is there a ThruLines/common ancestor hint for them that you can verify? If you already know the match or can identify how you're related to them, mark the branch you share by adding them to a group you've created for that branch. <i><u>Do not assume a shared surname alone is the source of your shared DNA, it must be an actual common ancestor.</u></i></p><p>You may also want to add a note of your common ancestors, so you can see who they are more easily, and also so you know there's identified common ancestors (though I also have a group for MRCA - matches that have identified a most recent common ancestor).</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HoFTO1nzK3w/YUeVZXA5veI/AAAAAAAAMgc/rqOjnCaLJiA99YSgw8Oq3Ca7mnQ7pRHaQCNcBGAsYHQ/s973/Screenshot%2B2021-09-19%2B135344.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="743" data-original-width="973" height="305" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HoFTO1nzK3w/YUeVZXA5veI/AAAAAAAAMgc/rqOjnCaLJiA99YSgw8Oq3Ca7mnQ7pRHaQCNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h305/Screenshot%2B2021-09-19%2B135344.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">My top matches are all my Italian cousins, you can see how<br />I've grouped them and added our MRCA to notes</td></tr></tbody></table><p><br /></p><p><b>Step 3</b>: Do the same for the next match, and the next - keep going until you can't identify a match. When that happens, look at your Shared Matches with that person. Are any of them the people you've already identified with a common ancestor? If so, they are likely also from the same branch (especially if there's more than one match they share from the same ancestor/branch), so add them to that same group. </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9yVI-m-LPnU/YUeXVjxUlNI/AAAAAAAAMgk/gGih35D5RjMHvS6m_iIq9hcLCHzWbmuaQCNcBGAsYHQ/s1585/screenshot-shared%2Bmatches.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1585" data-original-width="1340" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9yVI-m-LPnU/YUeXVjxUlNI/AAAAAAAAMgk/gGih35D5RjMHvS6m_iIq9hcLCHzWbmuaQCNcBGAsYHQ/w339-h400/screenshot-shared%2Bmatches.png" width="339" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I don't know my MRCA with Bettye because she hasn't added a tree, <br />but I can tell she's from my Smith branch because she matches <br />several people who are confirmed Smith descendants</td></tr></tbody></table><p>If they have a tree, even a tiny one, build on it until you can find the connection to the branch you know they are likely from (focus on lines that come from the same/nearby location). If you can't find a common ancestor, that's okay, leave them in that group and you can come back to them another time.</p><p><b>Step 4</b>: Keep doing this, ideally for all your estimated 4th cousins and closer (20+ cM). That's a lot, I know (I currently have 1,048 matches that share 20+ cM with me). It takes time, it's a lot of work, but in the end you'll wind up with 3 types of matches: those with identified common ancestors, those who likely come from an identified branch, and those you have no clue how you're related, not even a potential branch.</p><p><b>What to do with these groups? </b></p><p>This is where there will be some overlap in my instructions on finding an unknown biological ancestor. Look at the closest match that you haven't even been able to group into a certain likely branch (or a common ancestor). Even if they don't have a tree, that's okay - look at your Shared Matches with them and open any match that has a viable tree. Compare the trees - do any of them share an ancestor with each other that you don't recognize? If so, research that ancestor and build a tree for them, you may find it links up with yours somehow, maybe even by breaking down a brick wall, or that it leads to an NPE - when someone's parent(s) is/are not their biological parent(s).</p><p>Additionally, you can look at your closest match that you haven't identified a common ancestor with, but you have grouped them into a likely branch. If they have a tree, again, build on it, and keep researching until you can find a connection. <a href="http://genealogical-musings.blogspot.com/2020/08/major-breakthrough-with-dna.html" target="_blank">See my case example of Emma Elizabeth Sherwood</a>.</p><p>This method of grouping your matches to single out the ones you can't identify at all can help lead you to some enlightening revelations, but they tend to be rather random. You don't know what you're going to find, you don't know which brick wall it might break down. Even the matches you can group into a likely branch but you're still searching for the common ancestor might surprise you - in my example of Emma Elizabeth Sherwood (above), I knew the match was related to my Mills branch (Emma's husband), but I had no idea it would finally break down the Sherwood brick wall that had been blocking me for 12 years.</p><p><b>Other methods.</b></p><p>There's other methods of breaking down a brick wall with DNA, ones that are more targeted for a specific brick wall, but they heavily rely on the surname you're looking for not being a very common one. You basically just search your matches trees for the surname you're looking for, and then compare the trees of the matches in the results, looking for a common ancestor among them. It can work well when the name isn't common, because it's likely most of the matches in the results will be the ones you're looking for. But the more common the name is, the more matches there will be in the results that aren't related to the branch you're looking for. That's why this never worked with Emma Elizabeth Sherwood (in my above example), because Sherwood was too common of a surname, I only found her family by using the more random grouping method and not knowing where an unknown match would lead me.</p><p>The surname search method would be much more effective if AncestryDNA would offer a very simple feature: the option to search for a surname within a specific location. At the moment, you can search for a surname or location, but not a surname in a location. So you can search for Smith OR Christian County, Kentucky, and you can search for them both at the same time, but it will include results for match's trees that have either the surname Smith, OR the location Christian County, Kentucky. And even if the tree includes both, it's not necessarily for the same branch or ancestor, it might be their Jones branch that's from Christian County, Kentucky, while their Smith branch is from Pennsylvania. For common surnames, we need a way to narrow it down, and the best way to do that is by looking for surnames within a specific location. At the moment, we can only do that manually by searching for a surname, and going through each match in the results to see for ourselves if that branch is from the right location. If so, then we can look for a specific common ancestor. It's very time consuming, and the more common the surname is, the less realistic it is to go through all those matches manually, yet there's a very simple way to make it easier, if AncestryDNA would just listen to their customers.</p><p>The surname search works a lot better if it's not a common surname. I successfully used this <a href="http://genealogical-musings.blogspot.com/2019/10/breaking-down-more-brick-walls-with-dna.html" target="_blank">method with the surname Deaves</a>, and also a <a href="http://genealogical-musings.blogspot.com/2019/01/breaking-down-brick-walls-with-dna.html" target="_blank">suspected maiden name of Brannin</a>.</p><p>You can also search by just location, but this only really works if your ancestors are from a very small, unique town, especially where there's endogamy. In my above example about my 2nd great grandparents who came from a tiny Italian town called Monteroduni, it's safe to say that the town is so small and endogamous that anyone who has ancestry from Monteroduni is probably related. Certainly, any DNA match of mine that has ancestry from Monteroduni, it's safe to say that's very probably how we are related. So I can very easily search my matches trees for the location of Monteroduni and even if I can't find a common ancestor between us, most likely that's probably where our common ancestors were from. Brick walls are difficult with endogamy though, so that might be the most I'll ever be able to determine. Searching by location may not break down any brick walls in your tree, but it does help you identify and sort your matches into groups/branches, which can help you find other unknown matches that may lead to a brick wall.</p><p>Like I say, sometimes breaking down a brick wall with DNA can be unique to the situation. Sometimes you have to think about what you're looking for, and consider the best way to come at the problem. But this should give you the basics to get you started. Feel free to share your success stories!</p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-38707902687834909872021-09-07T15:35:00.002-06:002021-11-06T20:00:07.086-06:00ThruLines is not the enemy<p>I see a lot of skepticism out there about ThruLines, and some of it is warranted, because it is based on family trees, which can have errors that get copied multiple times. But that doesn't mean you should dismiss ThruLines entirely, there are ways to get reliable use out of it, and not just by finding records that confirm them. There are ways to use DNA to find biological relatives or break down brick walls in your tree even when there's no written records of the lineage, and ThruLines is just one tool that can help you do this.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AuOJ7Bxmc8s/YTfWbpfqlMI/AAAAAAAAMf8/utQb_a7SIgM31opz6ji0turEv1amSpw9QCNcBGAsYHQ/s1807/Screenshot%2B2021-09-07%2B151437.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="211" data-original-width="1807" height="46" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AuOJ7Bxmc8s/YTfWbpfqlMI/AAAAAAAAMf8/utQb_a7SIgM31opz6ji0turEv1amSpw9QCNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h46/Screenshot%2B2021-09-07%2B151437.png" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><p>It's basically a matter of probabilities. The more people you match who are descended from multiple siblings of your ancestor, especially when all those descendants all or mostly match each other to form a cluster, the less likely it becomes that it's an error. When the matches mostly all match each other to form a cluster, you know they are all related and descended from the same branch/ancestor - you just need to identify which branch/ancestor, which is where trees and ThruLines come in. Each sibling that those matches descend from would have to be an error for trees/ThruLines to be wrong, so the more siblings you match descendants of, the more likely the trees are accurate. If you match 20 people (who mostly all match each other too) descended from 5 siblings of your ancestor, what are the chances there's been an error in the trees for each of those 5 siblings, plus your own ancestor? Extremely unlikely. In the example above (click to enlarge), there's 41 matches descended from 8 siblings of Elizabeth Mertz, so for this all to be wrong, there would have to be 9 different errors. This amount of evidence is really very conclusive, and I can probably confirm this family now.</p><p>Even assuming there's only one error and those siblings are indeed siblings to each other, but your ancestor is the lone error, and not actually their sibling, what are the chances you would match that many people from a certain family, if you weren't related to that family somehow? Using the example above again, what are the chances I match 41 people descended from those 8 siblings, if Elizabeth Mertz is not one of their siblings? Again, it's very unlikely - and the only way this would be possible is if there was a lot of endogamy involved, but even so, it would still be pointing you towards a specific population you're likely descended from (and matching surnames from the same endogamous population means you're probably related to that specific family somehow), so you don't want to dismiss it.</p><p>Granted, it doesn't confirm who exactly the parents of those siblings are, only that they are indeed siblings. For that, you'd have to go up another generation and do the same thing - look for people descended from siblings of the alleged father and mother. In the example above, it doesn't really confirm that Phillip Mertz is the father of Elizabeth and all her siblings, only that they are siblings from the same parent(s), whoever that may be. But for now, it's probably safe to add Phillip Mertz at least as a placeholder until more research can be done (it really is okay to add speculative data to your tree as long as you know it's speculative!).</p><p>In the example below, you can see how this ThruLines doesn't confirm descent from Benjamin Butler - the 6 DNA matches are descendants of children of David Butler, so this really doesn't confirm this potential ancestor at all.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZqwOURTayc4/YTfPbpG4mcI/AAAAAAAAMfw/VwH1FgPlmIgcm0rjYlqulCHTZZAr1P-ygCPcBGAYYCw/s840/Screenshot%2B2021-09-07%2B144311.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="840" data-original-width="362" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZqwOURTayc4/YTfPbpG4mcI/AAAAAAAAMfw/VwH1FgPlmIgcm0rjYlqulCHTZZAr1P-ygCPcBGAYYCw/w173-h400/Screenshot%2B2021-09-07%2B144311.png" width="173" /></a></div><p>And there's other limitations, mainly the fact that the Shared Matches tool (which is the only way to confirm if matches match each other and form a cluster) only includes estimated 4th cousins or closer (20+ cM). AncestryDNA really need to provide something more comprehensive. They say it's limited to 20+ cM because it would tax the server too much if they expanded it to include all matches. But at the very least, they could expand it to 15+ cM segments, which have a 100% chance of being identical by descent. That would still exclude most matches (8-15 cM) and therefore not be as taxing on the server, but include all matches that have a 100% chance of being IBD, which would make ThruLines so much more useful and reliable. At the moment, they are excluding hundreds, even thousands of IBD matches from the Shared Matches tool, which is extremely debilitating. Alternately, they could offer another tool that would be less taxing on the server - a simple one-to-one comparison. Pop in two match usernames, which would tell us whether those two matches match each other or not. Very simple, not very taxing, but it would get the job done.</p><p>Even so, it's still possible to get reliable usage out of ThruLines. Remember, ThruLines is only automating a process that people used to manually do (and still do when the relationship exceeds ThruLines' 5th great grandparent limit). If it weren't possible to use DNA to confirm relationships when there is no written record of it available, what use would DNA be, and how do you think all these NPEs are being discovered? While it's true that you do have to watch out for tree errors being replicated in ThruLines, if you understand how DNA and ThruLines work, there is useful data you can get out of it. To often, I see people who seem to completely dismiss ThruLines, as though it's not reliable at all, but you're only hindering your own research by thinking that.</p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-90101879786881587072021-08-10T15:08:00.002-06:002022-01-06T09:20:46.785-07:00Finding Unknown Biological Ancestors with DNA<p>This is a topic that comes up regularly in genealogy circles, because DNA testing often reveals cases of unknown adoptions, or what we call "non-paternity events" (NPE), when someone's father is not their biological father. Once there's enough suggestion that something like this has happened, the question then becomes, how do I identify this unknown biological ancestor? It can be done, although the further back on your tree it occurred, the more difficult it will be (far enough back and it might not be possible). Whenever possible, it's best to have someone from the oldest generation descended from this event to test. Like if you're looking for Grandma's unknown biological father, have Grandma take the test, or if she is unable or unwilling, have your relevant parent take the test. At the same time, if the person you're looking for is actually still living (like if you're adopted and looking for living biological parents), it will be difficult to research since lots of records on living people are private (that's a whole different ballgame and you often have to rely more on information and communication from your DNA matches). Additionally, if you're working with an endogamous population, you may be out of luck. With all that in mind, here's how it works.</p><p><b>Step 1</b>: Look for your closest DNA match that you can't identify as being from another known branch of your tree. If they don't have a family tree added, that's okay because first you want to look at their Shared Matches, and open any matches that do have family trees (the bigger, the better).</p><p><b>Step 2</b>: Compare the family trees of those Shared Matches, looking for ancestors any two or more (the more, the better) of them have in common with each other (especially if those matches also match each other) - ancestors who are not found in your tree. Yes, this may take some time because you have to manually compare the trees - I find it best to start with the surname list on the match review page and find surnames they have in common with each other, then see if those surnames actually lead to a common ancestor among them. If the ancestor is found in your tree, then you know this group isn't from the branch you're looking for and you can label them and move on.</p><p><b>Step 3</b>: Build a descendant tree for the ancestor you found. Make a note of any descendants who were in the right place at the right time at the right age, but we're not done yet.</p><p><b>Step 4</b>: Repeat this process with the next closest match you can't identify (who isn't a part of the first group).</p><p><b>Step 5</b>: Look for a descendant who appears in <i>both </i>the trees you've built - so someone who descends from <i>both </i>the ancestors you've identified. This is probably either the person you're looking for, or a close ancestor of theirs, like a parent or grandparent. If you don't find one, keep repeating this process until you do.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vNUKNSaB_as/YRLlgC5839I/AAAAAAAAMfE/tjUQHPMAXpcoPCjU5t-v_nIRpX3RiyHCACNcBGAsYHQ/s2313/Finding%2BBio%2BAncestors%2BChart%2B1.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="764" data-original-width="2313" height="133" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vNUKNSaB_as/YRLlgC5839I/AAAAAAAAMfE/tjUQHPMAXpcoPCjU5t-v_nIRpX3RiyHCACNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h133/Finding%2BBio%2BAncestors%2BChart%2B1.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Chart showing the two different DNA matches groups and their shared ancestors. <br />Click to enlarge.</td></tr></tbody></table><p>For example (shown above - these names are made up but the situation is real and came from my tree): I was looking for my grandfather's unknown biological father, so I had my grandfather take the test before he died. I first found a group of his matches (who mostly all matched each other) who were all descended from a colonial ancestor named John Smith (I told you I changed the names, lol), so I built a descendant tree for John Smith. I then found another group of matches who all descended from another colonial ancestor called Christopher Jones, and built a descendant tree for him. By building those trees, I found a descendant of John Smith - named Isaac Smith - had married a descendant of Christopher Jones - her name was Carrie Jones. This suggested that the man I was looking for was probably a descendant of Isaac Smith and Carrie Jones, and based on the dates, it could only really be one of their sons, specifically one of their four oldest sons. Eventually, a close descendant of one of the four sons tested and confirmed which of the four sons was my grandfather's biological father (below).</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3cNQvE5Tcoo/YRLlxigAX1I/AAAAAAAAMfM/Jn-oJgiSYDgYRM5NnI0gy1dg8nzoVmh1wCNcBGAsYHQ/s1259/Finding%2BBio%2BAncestors%2BChart%2B2.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="611" data-original-width="1259" height="194" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3cNQvE5Tcoo/YRLlxigAX1I/AAAAAAAAMfM/Jn-oJgiSYDgYRM5NnI0gy1dg8nzoVmh1wCNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h194/Finding%2BBio%2BAncestors%2BChart%2B2.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Chart showing the closer matches that eventually showed up and allowed me to figure out<br />which of the 4 brothers was my grandfather's bio father.</td></tr></tbody></table><p>Granted, there could have been another descendant of John Smith who married a different descendant of Christopher Jones, and that could have led me to the wrong family - this is why too much endogamy can throw you off. But as long as there's not too much of it, you can document each case of it and using your DNA matches and how much DNA you share with them, you should be able to figure out which descendants are the ones you're looking for. But a highly endogamous population might be too complex. If I was looking for an unknown bio ancestor on my mom's Mennonite branch, I'm not sure it would be possible. I can sometimes share up to about 5 ancestor couples with matches on my Mennonite branch. And the unknown father of my Italian ancestor who was from a tiny, highly endogamous town in Italy where everyone there is related to everyone else somehow? Forget it.</p><p>However, this is the same type of method that professional Genetic Genealogists like CeCe Moore employ to identify individuals from DNA left at crime scenes (either suspects or unidentified victims). It can be done (for the most part), it just takes work, and sometimes some patience for the right matches to come in.</p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-26883891569582871832021-08-05T15:07:00.000-06:002021-08-05T15:07:02.465-06:00Understanding Admixture and Genetic Overlap at MyHeritageDNAMyHeritage is generally known for not having the most reliable ethnicity results. This is probably because they were latecomers to the DNA field, and they haven't yet updated their percentage reports. But of course, all ethnicity percentages are merely an interpretation of our DNA, and not necessarily very reliable anyway. And what MyHeritage does do a great job of (unlike AncestryDNA), is showing us lots of data on all the genetic overlap among neighboring regions, so we can understand how it works. Not only do they show us all available regions and the areas they cover (below), but they have a section called "Ethnicity Maps" that shows us "the most common ethnicities in each country and the top countries for each ethnicity, according to MyHeritage DNA users' data." Although this is all based on data from MyHeritage, it's still a valuable learning tool for understanding admixture in general.<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2mncJIJpM6E/YQW6y8i0uAI/AAAAAAAAMec/06d4pijpSOM-GcDpNQg15qpVgzEI495JQCNcBGAsYHQ/s1916/Screenshot%2B2021-07-31%2B150349.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="676" data-original-width="1916" height="141" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2mncJIJpM6E/YQW6y8i0uAI/AAAAAAAAMec/06d4pijpSOM-GcDpNQg15qpVgzEI495JQCNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h141/Screenshot%2B2021-07-31%2B150349.png" width="400" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>The percentages in the Ethnicity Maps show us the portion of testers in each country who get results in each ethnicity, or the portion of testers with results in each ethnicity within each country.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-igzv5CU7ftY/YQW5fqGeYwI/AAAAAAAAMeU/or0gxm47E60bhrG0nRBVsViliXPczzHRwCNcBGAsYHQ/s1317/Screenshot%2B2021-07-31%2B145741.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="823" data-original-width="1317" height="250" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-igzv5CU7ftY/YQW5fqGeYwI/AAAAAAAAMeU/or0gxm47E60bhrG0nRBVsViliXPczzHRwCNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h250/Screenshot%2B2021-07-31%2B145741.png" width="400" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>For example, looking at the data by country, if you click on Germany, you'll see 55.7% of people living in Germany get results in the "North and West European" ethnicity (above). We don't know what average percentage they get for "North and West European" because the data doesn't include that, but it's probably pretty high. It then goes on to list another 19 ethnicities down to 1.2%, from all over Europe, Asia, Africa, and even Native America. That is not all due to genetic overlap, but simply because there may be, for example, a few Asians living in Germany who took the test. For genetic overlap, it's probably best to look at the top 5 ethnicities - which is likely why their default view is the top 5. What that shows us is that lots of people in Germany also get results in East European (48.9% of testers), Scandinavian (43.6%), Balkan (38.1%), and English (23.3%), illustrating the strong genetic overlap Germany has with those nearby areas. That means if you have known German ancestry, it would not be uncommon to get results in any of those neighboring regions, especially (though not exclusively) from MyHeritage's results.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Laagap_a8vM/YQW_85cVyqI/AAAAAAAAMek/fcFjrREFwesuUYgkOKDaThHZHeRXGDZjQCNcBGAsYHQ/s1307/Screenshot%2B2021-07-31%2B152546.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="797" data-original-width="1307" height="244" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Laagap_a8vM/YQW_85cVyqI/AAAAAAAAMek/fcFjrREFwesuUYgkOKDaThHZHeRXGDZjQCNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h244/Screenshot%2B2021-07-31%2B152546.png" width="400" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>On the flip side, when you look at the Ethnicity Maps by ethnicity, it shows us the most common countries each ethnicity is found in. This gives us a good understanding of two things: the top 5-10 countries show us the areas covered by that category (although our own Ethnicity Estimate already gives us that, this can give us an understanding of just how broad that area could really be), and the full list of countries shows us how much emigration there's been from each country around the rest of the world. For example, 36.7% of people in the USA get results in North and West European, which is not surprising, considering how many German immigrants there have been to the USA over history. This doesn't really show us genetic overlap, but it is very useful for understanding modern migration patterns.</div><div><br /></div><div>Hopefully, as MyHeritage update their ethnicity reports, they will also update this very useful data and not retire it like AncestryDNA keep doing.</div>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-85643247076075118932021-08-01T13:41:00.005-06:002023-05-11T08:54:19.773-06:00Understanding Admixture and Genetic Overlap at AncestryDNA<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Vfz513HQHHg/YQQ4l3g3bjI/AAAAAAAAMeM/rmQAaYOSlZc3qZk8YYCUU1DZhnlt7KpaQCPcBGAYYCw/s1247/AncestryDNA%2BEthnicity%2B2020%2BPCA%2Bchart.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1037" data-original-width="1247" height="266" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Vfz513HQHHg/YQQ4l3g3bjI/AAAAAAAAMeM/rmQAaYOSlZc3qZk8YYCUU1DZhnlt7KpaQCPcBGAYYCw/s320/AncestryDNA%2BEthnicity%2B2020%2BPCA%2Bchart.png" width="320" /></a></div>I talk a lot about the genetic overlap that exists among neighboring regions and how that influences ethnicity percentages, or admixture. Unfortunately, AncestryDNA keeps taking away valuable learning tools for understanding these relationships between various populations, making it harder to illustrate them. First, they removed the Average Admixture Chart, then they removed the Genetic Details page, and now they've even removed our ability to click on "see other regions tested" and explore the maps and details of any region to understand the overlap they have with neighboring regions. The only thing left is the PCA chart in the Ethnicity White Paper, but even that has always been limited to Europe. <p></p><p>The Average Admixture Chart (below) used to show us what the results of a typical native of every region would expect to get. It showed how much or how little each population was admixed. So for example, if you were of 100% British descent, you could expect to actually only get about 60-70% in Great Britain (this was before they decided to attempt to split up Britain), and around 8-10% in Europe West, Ireland, and/or Scandinavia. This illustrated the common overlapping DNA among the British, Germanic people, and Scandinavians, and also the close relationship between the British and Irish (sorry, Ireland). Europe West was even more admixed, averaging less than 50% results in Europe West, and the rest coming from pretty much everywhere else in Europe except Finland/NW Russia. Scandinavia was less admixed, averaging between 80% to 90% in Scandinavia, and only small amounts from Europe West, Great Britain, Finland/NW Europe, Ireland, and a smidge from Europe East. The chart made it clear just how admixed Europeans themselves are, or can be, and to AncestryDNA, that is apparently a bad thing that they are now trying to hide, because it means ethnicity percentages, by nature, aren't always very reliable, and can't always be broken down into more specific regions. That's something customers are frustrated by, so one by one, they keep taking away the learning tools that would help customers understand this.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_xJYvN7nP4Q/YQQRVx2yBxI/AAAAAAAAMdo/t3XpiR7x0O8g_paYbNtVe3e3E067xj0DACNcBGAsYHQ/s1617/AncestryDNA%2BAverage%2BAdmixture.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1617" data-original-width="993" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_xJYvN7nP4Q/YQQRVx2yBxI/AAAAAAAAMdo/t3XpiR7x0O8g_paYbNtVe3e3E067xj0DACNcBGAsYHQ/w393-h640/AncestryDNA%2BAverage%2BAdmixture.png" width="393" /></a></div><p>The loss of the Average Admixture chart wasn't too unfortunate, because the same/similar data could essentially be found on the Genetic Details page. Previously, when you clicked on a region, and then clicked "More info", there would be a page with two tabs - one which still remains with the detailed history of the population and their migrations, and the other had genetic details that helped us understand the genetic overlap that region had with nearby regions. That second page is now gone. It showed us two very important charts that basically replaced the data in the Average Admixture chart. The first one (below) showed us the average percentage that a native of that area would likely get for that region (same as you would find on the Average Admixture chart). </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--3aTdW9-PsY/YQQURL7_itI/AAAAAAAAMdw/s74XfOh90Yw9plsnQNZfRu_9w1KCBPUuQCNcBGAsYHQ/s1533/AncestryDNA%2BGreat%2BBritain.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1533" data-original-width="948" height="640" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--3aTdW9-PsY/YQQURL7_itI/AAAAAAAAMdw/s74XfOh90Yw9plsnQNZfRu_9w1KCBPUuQCNcBGAsYHQ/w396-h640/AncestryDNA%2BGreat%2BBritain.PNG" width="396" /></a></div><p>The second chart (above) showed us "Other regions commonly seen in people native to [this region]". This wasn't exactly the same data from the Average Admixture chart - it rather detailed the amount of people native to that region who got any amount of results in which neighboring regions. So it didn't tell us the amount a native would expect to get in those other areas, but how common it was for a native to get results in those other areas. Not exactly the same data, but still valuable data for understanding common overlap.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r9yrZeZMlKs/YQQ4LwU5b9I/AAAAAAAAMeA/Qyp4o2cwPic5zpr1TJ-WLz3ncicuxQNBACNcBGAsYHQ/s1353/Screenshot%2B2021-07-30%2B113402.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="832" data-original-width="1353" height="246" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r9yrZeZMlKs/YQQ4LwU5b9I/AAAAAAAAMeA/Qyp4o2cwPic5zpr1TJ-WLz3ncicuxQNBACNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h246/Screenshot%2B2021-07-30%2B113402.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><p>With these two vitally important learning tools gone, I often turned to the simple map and details of each region to illustrate how each region often covers neighboring regions as well. If you click on "Read full history" for each region, you can find not only the areas "primarily found" in that region, but the areas "also found in" that region too (above). Unfortunately, AncestryDNA has neglected to add the "Read full history" link to some of the newer regions (like Scotland) they added recently! An oversight? Or an indication they may also be retiring this page altogether now too? And on top of that, a new revamp of the appearance of our ethnicity results (may not be available to everyone yet) seems purely aesthetic at first, until you notice the link to "See other regions tested" is now gone too (below). </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7scAfm80jIk/YQQ3TwPoPSI/AAAAAAAAMd4/nPu5SMyre7YrJcjU3cHYd_5UTkuYYooBwCNcBGAsYHQ/s407/Screenshot%2B2021-07-30%2B112937.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="333" data-original-width="407" height="262" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7scAfm80jIk/YQQ3TwPoPSI/AAAAAAAAMd4/nPu5SMyre7YrJcjU3cHYd_5UTkuYYooBwCNcBGAsYHQ/w320-h262/Screenshot%2B2021-07-30%2B112937.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>It's as though they don't want people to understand how much genetic overlap there is between certain regions, even though it would greatly help people to understand their results. And now, anytime people ask, "If I get results in X, is it coming from my Y ancestry?" and it's not a region I have results in, I can't answer them because I can't look up the map and details of regions I didn't personally get results in. This kind of question gets asked so frequently in social media, and frankly, people like me basically wind up fielding these questions for Ancestry's customer support, and they keep making it more and more difficult. I guess if they really want a huge increase in the load on their customer support, that's fine, but if that's the case, they really shouldn't have gotten rid of their support email (you can now only contact them by phone, or social media like Facebook). So, they're making it harder for customers to understand their results, and harder for customers to contact them about it. Epic fail on customer service, AncestryDNA.</p><p>Edit: AncestryDNA did later re-add the "see other regions tested" link. Apparently it was just an oversight during their updates at the time.</p><p>The only remaining tool is the PCA chart (top), which is limited to Europe and therefore not much help in understanding results outside of Europe, or any relationships that might exist in the crossroads between Europe and other continents. And frankly, I have some concerns that voicing this will lead to them to remove the PCA chart too.</p><p>The percentage range included in our results is also useful for understanding that the percentages are very much an estimate, but not very useful for understanding the genetic overlap between regions. Still, hopefully they don't retire this feature either, but the ongoing trend doesn't bode well for it. </p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-20460775143513416932021-05-26T13:53:00.000-06:002021-05-26T13:53:42.153-06:00Add Specific Relationship, AncestryDNA's Latest Feature<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YOjlD2_tB-c/YK6iR3idbZI/AAAAAAAAMYo/28dN4tQcBvItMYFj2R36OwfYU-XT9MJLACPcBGAYYCw/s962/Screenshot%2B2021-05-26%2B133204.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="372" data-original-width="962" height="223" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YOjlD2_tB-c/YK6iR3idbZI/AAAAAAAAMYo/28dN4tQcBvItMYFj2R36OwfYU-XT9MJLACPcBGAYYCw/w577-h223/Screenshot%2B2021-05-26%2B133204.jpg" width="577" /></a></div><br />It sounds like it hasn't been rolled out to everyone yet, but it should be coming soon - AncestryDNA is (finally) adding the ability to change the estimated relationship range with a DNA match to a specific, known relationship instead. They're a few years behind 23andMe and FTDNA (although 23andMe still don't have shareable family trees so 23andMe is no better overall), but better late than never.<p></p><p>In the process of adding the specific relationship, it asks you which side of your tree the match is from, your mother's side, father's side, or both. And for matches you're unsure of the specific relationship, but you know which side of your tree they come from, there's an option to select which side and then instead of choosing a specific relationship, you can click "I'm not sure". It will then display "Mother's Side" or "Father's Side" (or both) without a exact relationship (the original estimated range will remain). </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ES_yEWLYJ6M/YK6i16r9rCI/AAAAAAAAMYs/0GL7Jtrl_Ks7oPF13qPBIYjWOvnfC5QTwCNcBGAsYHQ/s342/Screenshot%2B2021-05-26%2B123536.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="342" data-original-width="278" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ES_yEWLYJ6M/YK6i16r9rCI/AAAAAAAAMYs/0GL7Jtrl_Ks7oPF13qPBIYjWOvnfC5QTwCNcBGAsYHQ/w163-h200/Screenshot%2B2021-05-26%2B123536.jpg" width="163" /></a></div><p>Unfortunately, it does have some limitations. The main one is that it only goes out to 5th cousins, and any more distant relationships only have an option for lumping them all into a general "Distant Relationship" label. Not only does this rather defeat the purpose of being able to add a specific relationship if it's not actually a specific relationship, but it's also inconsistent with ThruLines, which at least goes out to 6th cousins (though that too is arguably a little limited). So essentially, ThruLines is going to show us our exact relationship with many 5th cousins once removed and 6th cousins, yet the new feature offers no way to add those specific relationships. The least they could do is expand it to the 6th cousins so it's consistent with ThruLines.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mmEtkvSO1PE/YK6jb7QNfiI/AAAAAAAAMY0/MKD71IlBevUUTsu0r0_8h4BEFj5DYnAawCNcBGAsYHQ/s572/Screenshot%2B2021-05-26%2B133701.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="572" data-original-width="377" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mmEtkvSO1PE/YK6jb7QNfiI/AAAAAAAAMY0/MKD71IlBevUUTsu0r0_8h4BEFj5DYnAawCNcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B2021-05-26%2B133701.jpg" /></a></div><p>The other limitation is that it doesn't let you select more than one relationship, which is a complete oversight when it comes to lots of people who have endogamous branches of their tree, and identifiable endogamy (more than one set of most recent common ancestors) with many matches. Even when you select "Both Sides", it doesn't give you the option for more than one relationship. If it's a close match, assumes you've selected both sides because the person is someone like a niece or nephew, or full sibling, etc. Someone who shares your whole ancestry. If they aren't a close match, it seems to assume that although you may have two different relationships, they must be more distant than 5th cousins and only gives you the option to select "Distant Relationship". I suppose they're trying not to over complicate it for newcomers, but for people who use this for heavy research and breaking down brick walls in their tree, noting multiple relationships is vital.</p><p>It should also be noted that if one or more of your parents have tested, the system will automatically assign a match to your mother's side or father side depending on who they match. If for some reason, the system got it wrong, or only selected one when they actually match both, you can edit this by simply clicked the back button in the upper left corner of the side window (highlighted in yellow in the screenshot below).</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VpD0Mc1QZEk/YK6kq39lLpI/AAAAAAAAMY8/fG-XWjreOWcPypzbUwO1Rmc-MEUqNw0ZQCNcBGAsYHQ/s1245/Screenshot%2B2021-05-26%2B134158.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="678" data-original-width="1245" height="318" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VpD0Mc1QZEk/YK6kq39lLpI/AAAAAAAAMY8/fG-XWjreOWcPypzbUwO1Rmc-MEUqNw0ZQCNcBGAsYHQ/w587-h318/Screenshot%2B2021-05-26%2B134158.jpg" width="587" /></a></div><br /><p>That pretty much sums it up. In general, it's great they finally added this option, I know lots of people have been asking for it for a while. And I have gone through and selected known relationships for all the matches I've identified. But you may notice I have, for a very long time now, always noted the relationship and shared ancestor(s) in the notes field (along with emojis I used before groups were available). Unfortunately, due to the limitations of the new feature, I will have to continue noting the relationship myself in the notes field instead of relying solely on Ancestry's tool.</p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-61229238695012853212021-01-20T11:08:00.002-07:002021-01-20T11:08:46.510-07:00Augusta's Confederate Monument and My Family History<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yoovPYox0zY/YAhubIFXMAI/AAAAAAAAMSk/n4Lht-ctlo8MX35UUhoF-oIuWf0bXmc3ACNcBGAsYHQ/s533/Cobb-Thomas-1167.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="327" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yoovPYox0zY/YAhubIFXMAI/AAAAAAAAMSk/n4Lht-ctlo8MX35UUhoF-oIuWf0bXmc3ACNcBGAsYHQ/w245-h400/Cobb-Thomas-1167.jpg" width="245" /></a></div>Sometimes, genealogy and modern politics have some overlap. <p></p><p>In Augusta, Georgia, a giant, imposing obelisk stands as a memorial to Confederate soldiers. In particular, it hosts four life-sized statues of infamous Confederate military leaders, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, William H.T. Walker, and Thomas R.R. Cobb (shown left), the latter of which is my 2nd cousin 6 times removed. It's a distant relation, for sure, but a significant one, given why this monument was erected in 1878 by the Ladies Memorial Association of Augusta.</p><p>Let's be clear about one thing - statues, monuments, and memorials are built in honor, respect, and celebration of the people, places, or events they represent. Monuments like this one are made in memory and respect of men whose only or primary contribution to history was to lead armies in the name of slavery. And when monuments like this are inscribed with quotes like the following, that fact becomes impossible to deny:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: center;">"No nation rose so white and fair </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: center;">None fell so pure of crime."</p></blockquote></blockquote><p>I'm not sure how anyone could say this is anything but blatantly racist, and this is the inscription found emblazoned under the feet of my cousin. That makes this a little bit personal for me - southerners like to shout about how this is their history, and their heritage. But for me, it literally is. </p><p>And I say, tear it down.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MqVKIZ5Gx2I/YAhuuRLNOFI/AAAAAAAAMSs/yZPHya0tBsI7PFsoJs1SbRo_H8U6HzxyQCNcBGAsYHQ/s662/Screenshot%2B2021-01-20%2B105158.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="662" data-original-width="503" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MqVKIZ5Gx2I/YAhuuRLNOFI/AAAAAAAAMSs/yZPHya0tBsI7PFsoJs1SbRo_H8U6HzxyQCNcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B2021-01-20%2B105158.png" /></a><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wi_N4_fmUzM/YAhuucpiM5I/AAAAAAAAMSw/iWAZCBwnOTMb-owQs-gf6V5exFTdsaY5wCNcBGAsYHQ/s602/Screenshot%2B2021-01-20%2B105322.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="602" data-original-width="426" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wi_N4_fmUzM/YAhuucpiM5I/AAAAAAAAMSw/iWAZCBwnOTMb-owQs-gf6V5exFTdsaY5wCNcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B2021-01-20%2B105322.png" /></a></div><p>The removal of statues like this isn't the removal of history. History belongs in museums and history books, which there is no lack of. There are plenty of Civil War and Confederate artifacts and memorials to be found in museums, where people can study and learn from them, and this monument could be one of them instead of being revered in the middle of town. When a memorial is erected in honor and celebration of Confederate leaders, it's honoring and celebrating slavery and racism. By not only leaving such a monument standing, but actively refusing to remove it, the government is not-so-subtly condoning a symbol of racism. We would never tolerate a statue of Hitler standing proudly in the middle of a city, paying homage and reverence to him, so why do we allow it for Confederate leaders?</p><p>Even if we remove all the slavery and racism from such symbolism (which isn't really possible, but just for the sake of argument), you're still left with a monument honoring men who tried to tear our nation apart with war and violence. Are we now going to see statues of the leading faces among the rioters who broke into the Capitol Building? Because they too are talking about civil war, they too are waving the Confederate flag, and they too believe their violence to be "fair" and "pure of crime". In reality, they are traitors, and so were Confederate leaders. And actually, many (if not all) of the rioters are also proud racists, just like Confederate leaders, as proven by the presence of white supremacy groups and Neo Nazi symbolism during the Capitol riot. Confederate leaders were also unabashed racists. This direct quote from my own cousin, Thomas R.R. Cobb, a Confederate General, proves it:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">"This inquiry into the physical, mental, and moral development of the negro [sic] race seems to point them clearly, as peculiarly fitted for a laborious class. The physical frame is capable of great and long-continued exertion. Their mental capacity renders them incapable of successful self-development, and yet adapts them for the direction of the wiser race. Their moral character renders them happy, peaceful, contented and cheerful in a status that would break the spirit and destroy the energies of the Caucasian or the native American."</p></blockquote><p>None of this means that every statue of every historical figure who ever did anything unethical should be removed. Yes, I am aware of the fact that most of our founding fathers were slaveholders, and that's certainly something I don't think we should hide from - we should talk about it, and we should teach it in schools. Our founding fathers were flawed, and that's something we have to accept. But the difference is, statues of founding fathers were not constructed in honor of them being slaveholders, they were erected in honor of all their positive achievements. Statues of Confederate leaders are produced in honor of their fight for slavery, and supporting that in the name of "history" or "heritage" is, frankly, bullshit. It's not in the name of history, it's in the name of racism and hatred. </p><p>And if your heritage is racist, it's not something you should celebrate. Read about it in a history book, or visit a museum, or find something else about your heritage to celebrate that's not based on slavery, but do not protect a symbol of hate standing proudly in the middle of a city. </p><p>Shame on the Augusta, Georgia government, and shame on everyone who enables them.</p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-74360223957471412262021-01-08T12:09:00.000-07:002021-01-08T12:09:12.237-07:00Small but Significant Changes at Ancestry.com<p>Ancestry is rolling out some new tweaks to their website that has everyone in a tizzy and I don't really know why, because in many ways they seem like an improvement to me. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-otZw60R5qkc/X_iqTEP_UsI/AAAAAAAAMRE/O-VsA3OcA38DlMuu4sqdRYn5pebyuVYDQCNcBGAsYHQ/s1150/Screenshot%2B2021-01-07%2B192519.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="413" data-original-width="1150" height="144" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-otZw60R5qkc/X_iqTEP_UsI/AAAAAAAAMRE/O-VsA3OcA38DlMuu4sqdRYn5pebyuVYDQCNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h144/Screenshot%2B2021-01-07%2B192519.png" width="400" /></a></div><p>One of the changes was the removal of the clickable alphabet at the top of our List of All People. It allowed us to jump to surnames that start with any letter by clicking on the letter. I know the removal of this seems like a negative, but it's really not. What remains are two name search fields, one for first name, the other for last name. They were always there, and they always offered the ability to do what the alphabet list offered too, which I imagine is why the alphabet was removed - there is no point in having two different tools that do the exact same thing. You can still jump to surnames starting with any letter by simply putting that letter into the surname search field. But even better than that, the search fields offers way more versatility than the alphabet did, because you can also do the same for the first name field (shown above), and you can use more than one letter, so you can quickly bring up all "Mc" or "Mac" surnames, for example (shown below). I believe this was always an option, a lot of people just apparently didn't realize it.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BQdvK_Kk_L4/X_iq4ckh6wI/AAAAAAAAMRM/zfcVQI4Bg_g0OnGiuJyEgas2cSBVNsFeACNcBGAsYHQ/s1112/Screenshot%2B2021-01-08%2B115619.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="277" data-original-width="1112" height="100" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BQdvK_Kk_L4/X_iq4ckh6wI/AAAAAAAAMRM/zfcVQI4Bg_g0OnGiuJyEgas2cSBVNsFeACNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h100/Screenshot%2B2021-01-08%2B115619.png" width="400" /></a></div><p>The bigger change is in hints, clicking on a hint now brings up a side bar to preview the hint (shown below) instead of it loading a whole new page. People are complaining that it requires more clicks to confirm and attach the hint now, but that's just not true. In the past, you had to click on the hint, it loaded a new page where you could review the record, then you clicked "yes" to the hint being correct and it loaded the page that allowed you to edit the data you're adding, then you click "save to your tree" and you were done. That's 3 clicks.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CDs5VaPRqqs/X_irMDeGrpI/AAAAAAAAMRU/eBJjxcfH74w8QIVY8REDWxVSCzTy9d77wCNcBGAsYHQ/s1842/Screenshot%2B2021-01-08%2B115224.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="802" data-original-width="1842" height="174" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CDs5VaPRqqs/X_irMDeGrpI/AAAAAAAAMRU/eBJjxcfH74w8QIVY8REDWxVSCzTy9d77wCNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h174/Screenshot%2B2021-01-08%2B115224.png" width="400" /></a></div><p>It's the same now. You click on the hint, but instead of it loading a new page, the side bar pops up. Instantly, I felt this was an improvement because you haven't left the person's profile page, so you can still fully view and compare all their data, and sources, etc. You can click on Facts, Gallery, etc and the side bar remains up, allowing for a full comparison (shown below). In the past, the only way to do this was to right click the hint and open it in a new tab, which you can still do, but now there's no need. I always did this, because I generally want to refer back to the profile while checking a hint. Now, finally, I don't have to open a new tab, which is going to make my workflow much more efficient. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MiYB3lYbuyY/X_isYX1ohXI/AAAAAAAAMRg/vLR9pDp0jx0cqaqw59fR47xxyuLo6yQPwCNcBGAsYHQ/s1838/Screenshot%2B2021-01-08%2B115255.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="803" data-original-width="1838" height="175" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MiYB3lYbuyY/X_isYX1ohXI/AAAAAAAAMRg/vLR9pDp0jx0cqaqw59fR47xxyuLo6yQPwCNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h175/Screenshot%2B2021-01-08%2B115255.png" width="400" /></a></div><p>Even if you didn't open the hint in a new tab in the past like me, the number of clicks is still the same. After clicking on the hint and the side bar popping up, you click "yes" to the hint being correct and it loads the page where you can edit the data you're adding, and then you click "save to your tree" just like before. That's 3 clicks.</p><p>So I'm really not sure what the fuss is all about. The changes either won't slow your workflow, or they will actually improve it. Give it a chance, you might find it works better.</p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-87574318845651532082020-12-30T11:44:00.000-07:002020-12-30T11:44:04.534-07:00Shotgun Weddings<p>Ever pay attention to the dates a couple married followed by the birth date of their first born child? It's not always possible because we sometimes don't have exact dates for either the wedding or the child's birth, and I think because of that, I don't always pay close attention to them when I do have them. But at one point, I made an effort to go through my tree and identify all known "shotgun weddings" - that is, weddings that took place less than 9 months before the birth of their first child. *Nudge, nudge, wink, wink*</p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xGNB7rHSLV4/X9u1FlUP3tI/AAAAAAAAMQI/53QaadHr8o8bF5vJOKBYHZmiO7_Fk83YQCNcBGAsYHQ/s592/Screenshot%2B2020-12-17%2B124322.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="216" data-original-width="592" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xGNB7rHSLV4/X9u1FlUP3tI/AAAAAAAAMQI/53QaadHr8o8bF5vJOKBYHZmiO7_Fk83YQCNcBGAsYHQ/s16000/Screenshot%2B2020-12-17%2B124322.png" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Above: Oh dear, there's no hiding this! Anna gave birth less than 2 months after her wedding, so she was likely about 7 months pregnant when they married and probably very visibly pregnant.</td></tr></tbody></table><p><br /><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Granted, some of them could just be premature births. But in other cases, the length of time between the wedding and the birth is too short to have just been premature, especially in a time before modern medicine could help preemies survive, such as the example above.</p><p>Thanks to Ancestry.com's custom tagging option, I now have all potential shotgun weddings labelled as such, and it's kind of amusing how many there were. 15 couples in my ancestry have been identified so far as having a child less than 9 months after their wedding. And again, that's not including the couples who I haven't yet found a marriage record for, and/or don't have an exact date for the first child's birth. There could be even more among those if I could just find the right dates. It's also not including those who simply had children out of wedlock. That's a whole different tag, and there's at least 6 cases of those. </p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-honPu6sqiZ8/X9u2a3RsP5I/AAAAAAAAMQY/bbEiGQCDTGU1m_DnkDgkYagzmhynvN7FgCNcBGAsYHQ/s572/Screenshot%2B2020-12-17%2B124945.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="297" data-original-width="572" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-honPu6sqiZ8/X9u2a3RsP5I/AAAAAAAAMQY/bbEiGQCDTGU1m_DnkDgkYagzmhynvN7FgCNcBGAsYHQ/s16000/Screenshot%2B2020-12-17%2B124945.png" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">In this case, my ancestors Agostino and Rosaria had a child out of wedlock, then waited more than three years before getting married, which was then a shotgun wedding! Rosaria was about 3 months pregnant when they married.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>It kind of makes you wonder how many of our ancestors actually waited until they were married to have sex, like they were "supposed to", or like the stereotype that is always taught to us about sex and marriage in history. Because there must have been even more ancestors who lost their virginity before getting married, but it didn't result in a pregnancy, so there was no evidence of it. In one case, I have love letters between ancestors which seem to suggest they may have been intimate before marriage, even though they did not have a shotgun wedding.</p><p>When you consider all those factors, it really seems plausible that just as many people didn't wait until marriage to have sex as those who did. Maybe even more. </p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-15288440032764199192020-12-17T11:43:00.004-07:002020-12-17T11:53:22.474-07:00Is it Okay to Feel Ashamed of Our Ancestors?This is a topic that comes up a lot in genealogy, so I'm going to say my peace about it here. I'm probably going to say some things that will make some people uncomfortable (because when I say them in social media, there are always people who get very angry), so if exploring our feelings about immoral things our ancestors did, like for example, owning slaves, or accusing someone of witchcraft, makes you uncomfortable, I suggest you stop reading now.<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WFHe4DJ4paU/X9uiNipaxJI/AAAAAAAAMP0/CzYxdbWTdykCMeln5eGt4fE79jEDGJnkACPcBGAYYCw/s2000/Gilbert%2BSmith%2BHouse-web.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1230" data-original-width="2000" height="308" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WFHe4DJ4paU/X9uiNipaxJI/AAAAAAAAMP0/CzYxdbWTdykCMeln5eGt4fE79jEDGJnkACPcBGAYYCw/w400-h246/Gilbert%2BSmith%2BHouse-web.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><blockquote>Above: A photo of my once-slave owning relatives alongside their black servants who were probably once slaves if they were old enough - this photo is from the 1890s. I also have ancestors who were slave holders but no photos of them alongside former slaves. Is it okay to feel ashamed of this photo and the relatives in it?</blockquote></span></div><p><br />I'm not going to beat around the bush, I'm just going to say it: don't let people tell you your feelings are wrong if you feel ashamed of something an ancestor did that was really heinous. </p><p>I know what people will argue. "But it's not your fault! You had nothing to do with it! You're not responsible for your ancestors actions!"</p><p>And yeah, that's all true. But feeling ashamed of what someone else did doesn't mean you're responsible for it or had anything to do with it. Those things are not mutually inclusive. Feeling ashamed of an ancestor doesn't mean feeling ashamed of yourself.</p><p>Because let's flip things for a moment. Have you never once felt pride in something great, something positive that an ancestor did or accomplished? I'm pretty sure we all have - it's a large part of genealogy. We all feel some kind of ties or connections to our family history and our ancestors, because why else would we do this? Genealogy sort of loses all meaning if we don't feel some kind of connection to our ancestors. And if it's okay to feel pride in our ancestors through these ties we feel to them, why would we not also be allowed to feel ashamed of them when appropriate? Isn't it a little bit hypocritical to feel pride in our ancestors when they do something wonderful, but shrug it off with "nothing to do with me" when they do something terrible? Isn't it just a little too convenient to have the luxury to only claim a connection to the good stuff? And again, to be clear, that connection doesn't make you responsible.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to shame people. I'm not saying anyone <i>should </i>feel ashamed - certainly not of themselves. I just think people who do feel ashamed of an ancestor or relative shouldn't be insulted, mocked, told they are wrong, or given a hard time for it in any way, and yet this something I see a lot whenever the topic comes up. On the contrary, I think people who are able to explore those feelings, and understand they can feel ashamed of an ancestor without being personally responsible for their actions, are very emotionally mature and intelligent. It seems to me that people who can't accept that dual reality are uncomfortable with something their ancestors did and instead of processing that emotion, they just shut it down. The fact that other people are able to process it makes them doubly uncomfortable, and so they lash out. And if what I have to say about that makes some people angry, that kind of just proves my point. </p><p>Just let people feel whatever they feel. It doesn't mean they're consumed with guilt, it doesn't mean they can't still enjoy genealogy. Ultimately, it's not anyone's place to tell anyone else how they should or shouldn't feel. </p><p>So yes, it is okay to feel ashamed of something an ancestor did, just like it's okay to feel proud of something an ancestor did. It can even be the same ancestor you can feel both ashamed and proud of at the same time. Human beings have the emotional complexity for both those feelings to exist at the same time. That doesn't mean you should or have to feel ashamed of an ancestor, but it does mean when you come across someone who does, just respect their feelings because they're not wrong to feel that way.</p></div>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-524854334279127062020-12-07T18:23:00.000-07:002020-12-07T18:23:52.881-07:00FamilyTreeDNA Updated Ethnicity Results<p>FTDNA have jumped on board the update wagon, and a few months ago, released myOrigins 3.0. They've broken down some regions into more specific locations, but not a huge amount and of course, they still find it impossible to accurately tell apart the British Isles, Scandinavia, and Germanic trifecta (though that's not unusual for most companies).</p><p>Here's my result history with FTDNA:</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ivUxdBJbnNA/X87R-enwefI/AAAAAAAAMO8/PGi_ABYQErAuc1QGitGUb4ZSd7hqP81vACNcBGAsYHQ/s1312/My%2BFTDNA%2BV3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="897" data-original-width="1312" height="274" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ivUxdBJbnNA/X87R-enwefI/AAAAAAAAMO8/PGi_ABYQErAuc1QGitGUb4ZSd7hqP81vACNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h274/My%2BFTDNA%2BV3.png" width="400" /></a></div>myOrigins 1.0:<br />Scandinavia 34%<br />Western/Central Europe 26%<br />Southern Europe 20%<br />Finland/Northern Siberia 3%<br />Asia Minor 12%<br />Eastern Middle East 5%<p></p><p>myOrigins 2.0:<br />British Isles 54%<br />Southeast Europe 33%<br />West and Central Europe 6%<br />Finland < 2%<br />East Middle East 3%<br />West Middle East < 2%</p><p>myOrigins 3.0:<br />England, Wales, & Scotland 48%<br />Scandinavia 11%<br />Ireland 5%<br />Greece & Balkans 28%<br />Italian Peninsula 8%</p><div>With Version 3, they've wrongly put most of my Italian ancestry into Greece, whereas most other companies are able to tell the difference better than this (I usually only get trace amounts in Greece, if anything, except at MyHeritage). Added up, it still equals about 36% Southern European though, which isn't far off the mark (should be about 32%).</div><div><br /></div><div>And as noted, I have no results for Germanic now (previously West/Central Europe, now simply called Central Europe), when I should have around 20-25%. That means my British results (England, Wales, & Scotland) are somewhat inflated. Scandinavia is consistent with my tree though, since I had one Norwegian great grandparent. And they've finally managed to get rid of the trace amounts in unlikely locations (like Finland and Middle East). Considering it's common for companies to not be able to tell British from Germanic, the results aren't entirely off base.</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-njaoNAPntL0/X87SaAZ-OaI/AAAAAAAAMPE/2j9XbnMBn7UPoQLUQwnakK449ZeEP2_3ACNcBGAsYHQ/s1362/Moms%2BFTDNA%2BV3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="817" data-original-width="1362" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-njaoNAPntL0/X87SaAZ-OaI/AAAAAAAAMPE/2j9XbnMBn7UPoQLUQwnakK449ZeEP2_3ACNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h240/Moms%2BFTDNA%2BV3.png" width="400" /></a></div>My mom's kit probably saw the biggest change (she did not test early enough for Version 1):</div><div><br /></div><div><div>myOrigins 2.0:</div><div>Scandinavia 42%</div><div>British Isles 35%</div><div>East Europe 18%</div><div>Southeast Europe 3%</div><div>East Middle East < 2%</div><div>West Middle East < 2%</div><div><br /></div><div>myOrigins 3.0:</div><div>England, Wales, & Scotland 91%</div><div>Scandinavia 9%</div></div><div><br /></div><div>My mom's tree is also about 20-25% Germanic so the lack of any results in that area yet again seems to suggest their results lean towards Britain instead. Likewise, her Scandinavian results went from one extreme to another and most of it went to Britain. She had one Norwegian grandparent, so should be about 25% Scandinavian. The fact that they can't get this anywhere near close suggests my Scandinavian results being fairly accurate might just be a coincidence.</div><div><br /></div><div>Although they managed to eliminate the trace results in inconsistent locations like Southeast Europe and Middle East, and also removed the high percentage in East Europe where my mom has no ancestry, I'm not sure I'd say the update is a huge improvement for my mom.</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pCcytTAzKlQ/X87TG156k8I/AAAAAAAAMPM/RiCcXnIM-vk5717qdZmj5QqyQfeQd_jYgCNcBGAsYHQ/s1310/Dads%2BFTDNA%2BV3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="861" data-original-width="1310" height="263" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pCcytTAzKlQ/X87TG156k8I/AAAAAAAAMPM/RiCcXnIM-vk5717qdZmj5QqyQfeQd_jYgCNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h263/Dads%2BFTDNA%2BV3.png" width="400" /></a></div>My dad's results (again, no Version 1):</div><div><br /></div><div><div>myOrigins 2.0:</div><div>West and Central Europe 65%</div><div>Southeast Europe 8%</div><div>Asia Minor 22%</div><div>East Middle East < 2%</div><div>North Africa < 1%</div><div>Scandinavia < 2%</div><div>West Middle East < 2%</div><div><br /></div><div>myOrigins 3.0:</div><div>Italian Peninsula 38%</div><div>Malta & Sicily 15%</div><div>Scandinavia 22%</div><div>England, Wales, & Scotland 14%</div><div>Central Europe 8%</div><div>Ireland <2%</div><div>Anatolia, Armenia, & Mesopotamia <2%</div></div><div><br /></div><div>They've at least managed to correctly put his Italian ancestry in Italy instead of Greece! My dad is half Italian (Southern Italian), and his results add up to 53%, so that's very close. However, I don't know where that Anatolia, Armenia, & Mesopotamia is coming from - if it's from his Italian ancestry, that adds up to 55%, which is moving away from accurate. Additionally, his British ancestry should be about 20%, so 14% is not far off from that.</div><div><br /></div><div>Unfortunately, it's downhill from there. My dad has no Scandinavian ancestry, so 22% is really high, but he does have a lot of German ancestry (about 30%), so only 8% in Central Europe is very low. I guess I should just be pleased he got any results in Central Europe at all, given that my mom and I don't!</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YB6FdXrx4DA/X87TRw0ZOrI/AAAAAAAAMPQ/-q3KCndGTdw2uG2QkyM9Hy87HN1Dpn1RACNcBGAsYHQ/s1221/Pops%2BFTDNA%2BV3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="861" data-original-width="1221" height="283" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YB6FdXrx4DA/X87TRw0ZOrI/AAAAAAAAMPQ/-q3KCndGTdw2uG2QkyM9Hy87HN1Dpn1RACNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h283/Pops%2BFTDNA%2BV3.png" width="400" /></a></div>My paternal grandfather's results:</div><div><br /></div><div><div>myOrigins 1.0:</div><div>Scandinavian 48%</div><div>Southern Europe 32%</div><div>British Isles 11%</div><div>Jewish Ashkenazi Diasporia 5%</div><div>Central Asia 4%</div><div><br /></div><div>myOrigins 2.0:</div><div>West and Central Europe 84%</div><div>Scandinavia 8%</div><div>Asia Minor 7%</div><div>Ashkenazi < 2%</div><div><br /></div><div>myOrigins 3.0:</div><div>England, Wales, & Scotland 62%</div><div>Central Europe 26%</div><div>Scandinavia 11%</div><div>Malta & Sicily <1%</div><div>Ashkenazi Jewish <1%</div></div><div><br /></div><div>I really don't know why FTDNA insist on giving him Ashkenazi results when no other company does and has no known Jewish ancestry. His results really should be very straight forward - he's roughly 40% British and 60% German. And for the first time ever, FTDNA is giving him significant amounts in both Britain and Central Europe (usually it's one or the other), though if the numbers were swapped, it would be more consistent with his tree.</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W0RnNXHZ6k0/X87Te-566tI/AAAAAAAAMPU/t1x-4vae_EU_mxr5V6n-lKO2Kkdd6ydYwCNcBGAsYHQ/s870/Steve%2BFTDNA%2BV3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="786" data-original-width="870" height="361" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W0RnNXHZ6k0/X87Te-566tI/AAAAAAAAMPU/t1x-4vae_EU_mxr5V6n-lKO2Kkdd6ydYwCNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h361/Steve%2BFTDNA%2BV3.png" width="400" /></a></div>Finally, my husband's results:</div><div><br /></div><div><div>myOrigins 2.0:</div><div>British Isles 97%</div><div>Ashkenazi < 2%</div><div>Northeast Asia < 1%</div><div>West Africa < 1%</div><div>Iberia < 1%</div><div>Oceania < 1%</div><div><br /></div><div>myOrigins 3.0:</div><div>England, Wales, & Scotland 60%</div><div>Ireland 35%</div><div>Scandinavia 2%</div><div>Magyar 2%</div><div>Ghana, Togo & Benin <1%</div></div><div><br /></div><div>My husband being a British native/citizen with no known ancestry outside the British Isles, if we dismiss the low results in Scandinavia, Magyar, and Ghana/Togo/Benin as noise, his results are probably the most consistent with his tree yet. He's basically half British and half Irish, so 60% British isn't too bad. Version 2 lumped them both together though, which meant 97% British Isles was probably even more accurate. This is a good example of how the broader the regions are, the more reliable they are.</div>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-37054723452224439112020-11-27T13:15:00.002-07:002020-11-30T09:30:32.267-07:00Which DNA Company Should I Test With?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-L8hZSEJ-O78/X8FcblnXGBI/AAAAAAAAMOg/uQAVUYr8_c83mJ3Hp3dtfmHVRLgaMbpXgCNcBGAsYHQ/s550/DNA%2BKit-Box-Front%2BView.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="116" data-original-width="550" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-L8hZSEJ-O78/X8FcblnXGBI/AAAAAAAAMOg/uQAVUYr8_c83mJ3Hp3dtfmHVRLgaMbpXgCNcBGAsYHQ/s16000/DNA%2BKit-Box-Front%2BView.png" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div>I did a guide for this a few years ago, but it's already kind of out of date, so let's look over the options again, especially since all the holiday sales are starting to happen. The main question when asking which DNA test/company to go with, is what are your reasons for testing? Instead of detailing each company, I'm going to answer the four main reasons people want to take a DNA test: </div><p></p><p><b>1. I'm a genealogy hobbyist and want to use DNA as an additional research tool. </b></p><p>AncestryDNA have the biggest database of testers, and because they are a genealogy website, they are the most likely to have DNA matches with family trees (which is the best way to get the most usage out of your DNA matches). Particularly, if you already subscribe there or have a tree there, it's easiest to have all your work in one place, including DNA. Even if you don't have an Ancestry.com subscription, you'll still benefit from testing at the biggest autosomal DNA database (you will be able to contact your DNA matches even without a subscription, and you can add a tree for free too).</p><p>Additionally, because AncestryDNA don't accept raw DNA data from other companies, but other companies (like MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA) do accept raw DNA data from AncestryDNA, it's ideal to test with AncestryDNA and then upload your raw DNA data to sites like MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA (they have free uploads, but there's a small fee to unlock your full results). You'll get the most out of your money this way, and have access to several databases.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vi6ccg5YVvY/X8FYNBEKQMI/AAAAAAAAMOM/qiBAgfFhnsgeva5O8gyRJLTFvtL7_d_QQCNcBGAsYHQ/s608/Screenshot%2B2020-11-27%2B124848.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="608" data-original-width="391" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vi6ccg5YVvY/X8FYNBEKQMI/AAAAAAAAMOM/qiBAgfFhnsgeva5O8gyRJLTFvtL7_d_QQCNcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B2020-11-27%2B124848.png" /></a></div>MyHeritage are best for foreign DNA matches, particularly from certain places where MyHeritage is popular (for example, I have lots of DNA matches living in Germany, but only a few from Italy, despite having more recent ancestry from Italy). They also make it easy to find/sort by foreign matches, whereas other companies don't. You may choose to test with MyHeritage for this reason, especially if you already have a subscription/tree there, but again, be aware that you can upload an AncestryDNA test to MyHeritage, but not vice versa. (Right: a screenshot of my number of matches from various countries at MyHeritage).<p></p><p>23andMe are not ideal for genealogy, since they don't host shareable family trees, and they are not a genealogy website. They also cap your DNA match list at about 1,500 people (in comparison, most people at AncestryDNA get about 20,000+ DNA matches), unless you upgrade to a monthly subscription which still only expands it to 4,000 matches (the subscription also includes some additional health report benefits). Some people might cite 23andMe's inclusion of haplogroups in their reports as a reason to test there, but haplogroups generally aren't useful to recent genealogy. Sharing a haplogroup usually just means sharing a most recent common ancestor (on the patrilineal or matrilineal lines) from thousands of years ago, which long pre-dates recorded genealogy.</p><p>FamilyTreeDNA do allow you to upload a gedcom, but their database is small and since you can upload your raw DNA data, it makes more sense to test elsewhere and then upload to FTDNA if desired.</p><p><b>2. I want health reports.</b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--7dW787AfuE/X8FXBRrKKuI/AAAAAAAAMOA/LexHt1MRT5EwM0IHf03fTPm6lcRiXgeMgCNcBGAsYHQ/s1235/23andme-predisposition.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1235" data-original-width="1192" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--7dW787AfuE/X8FXBRrKKuI/AAAAAAAAMOA/LexHt1MRT5EwM0IHf03fTPm6lcRiXgeMgCNcBGAsYHQ/s320/23andme-predisposition.png" /></a></div>23andMe are best for health results. They have the most useful of health reports, and while other companies like AncestryDNA and MyHeritage have added a few "traits" or health reports, they are very minimal and not as useful or extensive as 23andMe's. (Right: an example of 23andMe's Health Predisposition report - their healh reports also include Carrier Status, Wellness reports, Traits, etc).<p></p><p>Whatever company you test with, uploading to Promethease.org for a small fee will provide the most extensive health reports, though it is not super user friendly (and they do not offer testing, it's strictly an upload site). If you're willing to deal with the learning curve, testing at AncestryDNA and uploading to Promethease is a good option for those who want the test for both genealogy and health reasons. Otherwise, you'll have to prioritize one over the other because there's no testing company that's ideal for both.</p><p>Also be aware that if you have a specific health report in mind, you might want to consider a test more specific to it. For example, for reports on your genetic predisposition of cancer, I would recommend a more comprehensive test like <a href="https://www.color.com/" target="_blank">Color</a>.</p><p><b>3. I'm looking for an unknown biological parent/relative (like in the case of adoption).</b></p><p>First test with AncestryDNA, since they have the biggest database of testers and host family trees. Then upload your raw DNA data to MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA for small fees to unlock your full results. You can also upload to Gedmatch for free (but Gedmatch isn't a testing company, just a place to upload, so I won't mention them much in this article). </p><p>If your budget allows, also test at 23andMe (because like AncestryDNA, they do not accept uploads, so you have to test with them to be on their database). Although they aren't ideal for genealogy, which may make it difficult to make use of your DNA matches, when looking for unknown biological relatives, you want to maximize your chances of finding the closest DNA relative possible, and that means putting yourself on every database available.</p><p>If you are male, and looking for a biological father, or paternal grandfather, you should also consider taking a Y-DNA test at FamilyTreeDNA. Although more expensive than an autosomal DNA test, and there's no assurance that Y-DNA results will be useful because it depends on who else has tested, when it is useful, it can really help, especially in combination with your autosomal DNA matches. Because Y-DNA follows the patrilineal line, it's essentially linked to biological surnames. So excluding other NPEs (non-paternity events) or Y matches whose most recent common ancestor pre-dates the development of surnames, your Y matches surname should theoretically tell you your biological surname. That doesn't always happen, because again, it depends who has tested. But when it does, you can then take that surname and search your autosomal DNA matches trees for it, which should then point you to a most recent common ancestor.</p><p><b>4. I want to learn more about my ethnic ancestry!</b></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-chxCuhr7zi8/X8FdD4dGZsI/AAAAAAAAMOo/2Cg38tTeB6INAaJsw4W_kaz5aEw8zlE4wCNcBGAsYHQ/s1500/Ancestry-Composition-Example-w-moble-2.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="1500" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-chxCuhr7zi8/X8FdD4dGZsI/AAAAAAAAMOo/2Cg38tTeB6INAaJsw4W_kaz5aEw8zlE4wCNcBGAsYHQ/w200-h200/Ancestry-Composition-Example-w-moble-2.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>I would strongly discourage from taking the test purely for the ethnicity percentages. I know they have great appeal, I know they seem like a quick, easy, and not too expensive way to learn more about your ancestral background, but the fact is, and I can't stress this enough, <i>they are only estimates or interpretations of your DNA and are not particularly reliable</i>. Different companies will likely give you different results, and every company periodically updates their ethnicity reports, which generally changes them, sometimes quite drastically. There is no one company that has the most reliable ethnicity percentages for everyone - which one is more consistent with your personal family tree really depends on the individual, and that could always change with the company's next update. <p></p><p>That said, there are elements of the ethnicity report that can be more reliable. On a continental level (European vs Sub-Saharan vs East Asian vs Native American, etc), the percentages are generally much more reliable, so if you're of mixed race, the report might be enlightening. But the more specific the regional or sub-continental the percentage breakdown is, the more speculative it becomes, with only some exceptions in populations with high levels of endogamy (like Ashkenazi Jewish, or certain islander populations). So while it may be tempting to go with the company that offers the most percentage breakdown into specific nations, keep in mind that this will likely make it less reliable. </p><p>Ethnicity percentages are fun to explore, but you can't take them very literally. It's better to view them on a broader scale, covering bigger areas, but of course that's not what most people want. 23andMe's percentages have categories like "Broadly Northwest European" which covers a large area, and therefore is more reliable, but then people complain it's not specific enough.</p><p>You may notice I keep specifying ethnicity percentages, or percentage breakdown. That's because some companies offer sub-regional reports that don't include percentages because they are calculated a different way. At AncestryDNA, they are called Genetic Communities, and unlike the percentages, positive results in Genetic Communities tend to be very specific to small areas, and highly accurate. Not getting results in a GC doesn't mean you don't have ancestry there though, you generally need significant ancestry from a specific area to get results in a GC. When you do get GC results, you can be 99% sure you have ancestry from that area, you just won't know how much because there's no percentage. 23andMe have similar sub-regional results with no percentages, but in my experience, they are not as reliable as AncestryDNA's Genetic Communities. </p><p><b>Conclusion</b></p><p>In short, here's my recommendations:</p><p><span> <span> </span></span>For <b>genealogy </b>- AncestryDNA</p><p><span> <span> </span></span>For <b>foreign matches</b> - MyHeritage (or test at AncestryDNA and upload to MyHeritage for the best value).</p><p><span> <span> </span></span>For <b>health reports</b> - 23andMe</p><p><span> <span> </span></span>For <b>unknown biological family</b> - AncestryDNA, plus uploading to other companies, and if budget allows, also testing at 23andMe.</p><p><span> <span> </span></span>For <b>ethnicity </b>- if this is your <i>only </i>reason for testing, please reconsider. If you really insist, then I'd recommend either AncestryDNA or 23andMe, for the same reasons I've detailed above: you can upload raw DNA data from AncestryDNA and 23andMe to MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA (for additional ethnicity results), but not vice versa. If your interests lean more towards health, go with 23andMe. If you think you may develop an interest in genealogy or family history at any point in the future, go with AncestryDNA.</p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-16578445973698423732020-10-22T13:06:00.001-06:002020-11-30T09:25:30.048-07:0023andMe: Worse and Worse<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QrOSJN1o55Q/X5HXeBA5q0I/AAAAAAAAML4/1cXkLLqoLnkOSKpeEYk4Wyn0HzIaiNC1ACNcBGAsYHQ/s537/Screenshot%2B2020-10-22%2B130126.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="537" data-original-width="293" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QrOSJN1o55Q/X5HXeBA5q0I/AAAAAAAAML4/1cXkLLqoLnkOSKpeEYk4Wyn0HzIaiNC1ACNcBGAsYHQ/s320/Screenshot%2B2020-10-22%2B130126.png" /></a></div>It's never been a secret that I feel 23andMe is the worst DNA option of the 4 main companies when it comes to using it for genealogical purposes. While they do seem to still have the most reliable ethnicity percentages, and they offer the easiest way to get health reports that may actually be useful, when it comes to using our DNA matches for genealogy research, 23andMe are an epic fail, and over the years it has just become worse and worse. Between not hosting family trees/gedcom uploads, and capping our match list more and more, it's hardly surprising I've gotten very little use out of it and now it's only gotten worse. <div><br /></div><div>Years ago, back when I originally tested, they hosted uploaded gedcoms (family trees). Anyone who has done DNA based tree research knows this is essential to getting use out of your DNA matches. But not long after, 23andMe obviously decided this was a waste of their server space, but they at least attempted to provide an alternative. They did a deal with MyHeritage (long before MyHeritage got involved in DNA themselves), where gedcoms at 23andMe could be moved to MyHeritage, and a link to your MyHeritage tree would automatically appear in your 23andMe profile. Unfortunately, this didn't last long because at MyHeritage, you have to subscribe to view other people's trees, and probably a lot of 23andMe users weren't going to subscribe just for that reason. So it quickly became apparent that this was rather useless for most people. And of course, MyHeritage eventually began to sell their own DNA test, so they didn't want to be associated with any other DNA company at that point. </div><div><br /></div><div>For a while, 23andMe simply didn't host any trees at all. They did offer a spot in your profile to paste a link to an off-site tree. But most people didn't bother, and just like at MyHeritage, viewing trees at Ancestry.com also requires a subscription (though they now have a sharing option, they didn't at the time). So unless your tree was available somewhere for free, this was still useless, which is why most people didn't bother. It seemed like 23andMe had abandoned any pretense they ever had at being genealogically useful.</div><div><br /></div><div>Recently, they did trial an option where you could link your FamilySearch tree to your 23andMe account. This finally seemed like a great solution - it's free, and it's integrated, not just a link to an off-site tree, but something you could view at 23andMe. Sadly, not many people participated in the beta trial, and after months of beta testing, instead of officially adding it as a feature, it disappeared without a word from the company (something that happens a lot). I don't know if it's because not many people tested it out so they thought it wouldn't get used, or if it was something else, but one day it was just gone, so once again we're left with nothing.</div><div><br /></div><div>Granted, they have recently added a tree feature that let's you add your ancestors and DNA matches to it, which helps visualize how you are related to some of your closest matches. But it only goes back to 2nd great grandparents (3rd cousins), and more importantly, this is for your own private usage only, no one else can see it. If no one else can see it, no one else can make any use of your tree for genealogical purposes. So this is not really what we actually need.</div><div><br /></div><div>I did also notice they are advertising a "free quote for a genetic genealogy research package offered by Legacy Tree" which I assume includes a family tree. But not only does that cost a lot of money, it's totally unnecessary if you've already build your own tree. And even if you have a tree built at Legacy Tree, it's not integrated into 23andMe.</div><div><br /></div><div>If that's not disappointing enough, let's talk about our match list, called "DNA Relatives". 23andMe has always capped our match list. At one point, it was capped at 1,000, then they upped it to 2,000, which was great. And more than that, they offered way to search for and find other people you shared DNA with, that you could connect with and add to your match list. But over time, they gradually removed those features, making it harder and harder to expand your match list. Of course, your match list still expanded as more people tested - it's not like people got bumped off the end of the list as new ones came in. Apparently, 23andMe have decided that these essential matches are taking up too much server space and have quietly reduce our match list to just 1,500 people. </div><div><br /></div><div>In comparison, I have over 22,000 matches at AncestryDNA, and that's not just because more people have tested there, it's because AncestryDNA's matching threshold is 8 cM. At 23andMe, capping my list at 1,500 people (actually 1,454 for me, whereas previously I had over 1,800) means my most distant matches share 20 cM with me. I regularly point this out, but shared segments of 15+ cM have a 100% chance of being identical by descent. That means 23andMe are excluding thousands and thousands of matches that have a 100% chance of being identical by descent. It's always been a real bummer, and in some ways I'm not sure that losing a mere 400-500 matches is that big of a deal since I never got much use out of 23andMe's matches anyway, thanks to their lack of hosting shareable trees/gedcoms. But here's the worst part about the new changes at 23andMe...</div><div><br /></div><div>They are offering an option to expand your match list to 4,500... great, right?! Except it's going to cost you. Firstly, if you haven't tested on the V5 chip and/or haven't paid to include Health reports, you'll have to upgrade your test. The expanded service only applies to people with an Ancestry+Health V5 test (because it includes extra health reports too, not just the extended match list, and that requires the raw data in the V5 chip). If you tested previously on an old chip, you can upgrade to V5 Ancestry+Health for $99 (normally $199). If you're already on V5 but don't have Health reports, the upgrade to Health will cost $125.</div><div><br /></div><div>And on top of that, you will have to pay a yearly subscription of $29. While that is not a huge amount of money, no other DNA company requires a subscription to access extra DNA matches. Especially when you consider that even the expanded match list you have to pay extra for is only a small fraction of what you'd get at AncestryDNA for no extra cost, this offer seems of poor value, unless of course you're actually after the extra health options that come with it, that AncestryDNA doesn't even offer. </div><div><br /></div><div>What that tells us, is that just like always, 23andMe are really more about the health and ethnicity side of DNA testing, whereas AncestryDNA are geared more towards genealogy. That's not surprising, since Ancestry.com are, after all, a genealogy website, whereas 23andMe are not. But it still means that for us genealogists, 23andMe is not the ideal company to test with. </div><div><br /></div><div>For more info, see 23andMe's page on their "<a href="https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/360042867394-23andMe-?fbclid=IwAR2XSp7fAopKjBRRJbYAADE0F5gdRyRzMSIMcN9jfFE16Ad__gpcN-KNHeU" target="_blank">23andMe+ Experience</a>".</div>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-38215029167219412722020-10-08T13:57:00.002-06:002020-12-30T11:47:02.933-07:00Giving Birth on the Atlantic Ocean<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nUFVQjM9AKw/X39Nv_CcFrI/AAAAAAAAMLk/QLEgtbQwYDI5UExqHnJdZ8XGlRladcJ2gCNcBGAsYHQ/s400/SS%2BAustralia.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="249" data-original-width="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nUFVQjM9AKw/X39Nv_CcFrI/AAAAAAAAMLk/QLEgtbQwYDI5UExqHnJdZ8XGlRladcJ2gCNcBGAsYHQ/s320/SS%2BAustralia.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>I have two documented cases in my tree of ancestors giving birth on board the ship taking them from Europe to America, one during colonial times, and the other from the late 19th century. It always makes me wonder why a woman would ever travel like this while pregnant, especially during the last trimester. It's not as though travel by ship, even in history, took nine months and she couldn't have known, but in both cases in my tree, it was a matter of the journey taking longer than expected. Not nine months long, but long enough that she could have reasonably expected to have arrived at the destination long before the birth, and maybe even before the last trimester. Maybe it was even a combination of a longer than expected journey and a premature birth. In the second case, I think that may have been likely, because the baby sadly did not survive.<div><br /></div><div>The first case is of a well documented ancestor, Rachel de Forest, the daughter of noteworthy Jesse de Forest, and wife of equally well known Jean/Johannes de la Montagne. While perhaps not exactly famous in mainstream history, Montagne actually has a <a href="http://delamontagne.org/index.htm" target="_blank">Society of Descendants</a>, and was a notable figure in colonial New Amsterdam, serving on the New Netherland Council and as First Councillor to both Director <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Kieft" target="_blank">Willem Kieft</a> and Director-General <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Stuyvesant" target="_blank">Peter Stuyvesant</a>. Jean and his wife Rachel left Holland (Netherlands) for New Amsterdam on 25 Sep 1636 on board the Rensselaerswyck, obviously while Rachel was pregnant. Exactly how far along she was, we can't say for sure, but she gave birth 25 Jan 1637 while at sea, and the reason is probably because the journey wound up taking a surprising 23 weeks, not arriving until 5 March 1637. Normally, at this time in history, the journey across the Atlantic took about 6-12 weeks. It was common for the ship to make several stops in Europe before making the crossing, but this usually only tacked on a few weeks, not the 14 weeks it wound up adding to the trip. If they left in September and the journey was only supposed to take 3 months at most, Rachel might have reasonably assumed they would be in New Amsterdam by or around Christmas, and if she wasn't due until late January, she would have no reason to think she might give birth on board the ship. What went wrong? Why did the journey take so long? </div><div><br /></div><div>First, immediately after leaving Holland, the ship hit heavy storms in the English Channel that left them at the mercy of the battering winds and sea swells for a brutal six weeks. During this time, another woman on board actually gave birth as well, though I am not related to her. Anna Van Rotmers had a son she appropriately named "Storm". Though the boy's father's surname was Bradt, Storm later adopted the surname "Vanderzee" which literally means "from the sea". Seems he was quite proud of being born at sea during a brutal storm.</div><div><br /></div><div>The ship made attempts to dock at either Falmouth or Plymouth in England, and although they got close, the storm ultimately made it impossible to dock. The ship's sails were all badly damaged and it wasn't until November 16th that it finally limped into the harbor of Ilfracombe, in Devonshire, England. </div><div><br /></div><div>This wasn't the end of their troubles. Not only did the bad weather continue, making it difficult for the ship to set off again once repaired, but while they waited out the storms in Ilfracombe, the blacksmith (who was being sent to the colony by the Dutch West India Company) argued with his assistant, which resulted in the assistant killing the blacksmith! The ship's officers immediately turned the murderer into the authorities at Ilfracombe, but to be sure they wouldn't leave during the investigation, the authorities moored their ship and removed the rudder. Between this and the weather, they were delayed another eight weeks. </div><div><br /></div><div>They finally left England (presumably with no blacksmith or assistant) on 9 Jan 1637 and the crossing of the Atlantic took a mere two months, as expected, but by now, Rachel was much further along than she had originally planned and wound up having her 5th child, Maria, on 25 Jan 1637 while still on board the Rensselaerswyck. Fortunately, both Rachel and Maria survived the ordeal, and Maria went on to marry my 9th great grandfather, Jacob Kip (a clerk for the council Jean served on). By the time they left England though, Rachel must have known that she was nearing her due date, and I wondered why she didn't choose to stay in England for the birth, and catch another ship to New Amsterdam afterwards. Maybe they didn't have the money - they had, after all, already paid for their trip on the Rensselaerswyck and staying in England would mean paying for room and board somewhere, plus the cost of another ship later on, all presumably without income while they waited. Additionally, waiting for the next ship may have meant waiting for months after the birth, not just a few weeks. However terrifying the thought of giving birth on board a ship must have been, it's likely that Rachel didn't have a choice at that point. Fortunately though, her own husband was a physician, so at least he was there by her side to help her through it.</div><div><br /></div><div>The second case in my tree took place much later in history, in 1880. My 3rd great grandfather, Giovantomaso Scioli, was a poor Italian farmer, who was apparently intent on making sure his first child was born in America, because he and his wife would leave for the US just weeks before she was due to give birth. A risky choice, if you ask me.</div><div><br /></div><div>After marrying my 3rd great grandmother Lorenza Palladino on 27 Feb 1879 in Monteroduni, Italy, they left a year later for the US on board the SS Australia (shown above, from <a href="http://NorwayHeritage.com">NorwayHeritage.com</a>) from London, England on 14 Feb 1880, while Lorenza was, of course, heavily pregnant. I do not know when or how they got from Italy to England, but the journey from England to the US should have taken about 1-2 weeks, yet the steamer did not arrive in New York City until 10 Mar 1880, about 3 and a half weeks from when it departed. We know why the ship was delayed, because it was documented in the newspaper as having had engine problems while at sea. Described only as a "disabled engine", it must have been running at only about half the speed it was normally capable of.</div><div><br /></div><div>In addition, I believe Lorenza may have also given birth prematurely. On 28 Feb 1880, she gave birth to a little girl named after the steamship she was born on, Australia Domenica Scioli, who sadly died a mere 2 days later. In history, infant deaths were not uncommon, even if they weren't premature, but it could help explain how Lorenza wound up giving birth at sea. Let's say she wasn't due for another 5-6 weeks when they left, so a journey that should have only take a week or two, or maybe even three at the most like it did, should have still meant she would safely be in NYC weeks before her due date. Only if the baby was a week or two early would it have been a problem, and unfortunately that's exactly what may have happened. Of course, it's also important to remember that due dates in history weren't as exact as they are today and Lorenza could have thought her due date was later than it actually was.</div><div><br /></div><div>The idea of giving birth in history seems daunting enough to begin with. Before modern medicine, the leading cause of death among women of child bearing age was child birth. Add to that having to do it on board a ship (pre-stabilizers, which help reduce the motion of the ship), in some cases probably without a doctor or even a midwife present, sounds terrifying. Unless you were lucky enough to marry a doctor like Rachel, the most you could hope for was another woman on board who had experience either giving birth and/or assisting in a delivery to help you through such an uncertain event. When you consider all this, it's a miracle both Rachel and Maria survived in the first case, even with her doctor husband, and that Lorenza survived in the second case, even if Australia Domenica didn't.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sources:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2135" target="_blank">Liner Transatlantic Crossing Times, 1833 – 1952 (in days)</a>, The Geography of Transport Systems</li><li><a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Walloon_Family_in_America.html?id=JWlGAAAAMAAJ" target="_blank">A Walloon family in America; Lockwood de Forest and his forbears 1500-1848 Vol 1</a>, Westward Again, Pages 75-80.</li><li>Birth of Australia Dominica Scioli, 28 Feb 1880, <a href="https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/390616?availability=Family%20History%20Library" target="_blank">Register of births at sea of British nationals, 1875-1891</a>, FHL Film Number 1483321, Page 78</li><li>Death of Australia Domenica Scioli, 02 Mar 1880, <a href="https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/389993?availability=Family%20History%20Library" target="_blank">Register of deaths at sea of British nationals, 1875-1888</a>, FHL Film Number 1483315, Page 92.</li><li><a href="http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1880-03-11/ed-1/seq-8/" target="_blank">New-York tribune. (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, March 11, 1880, Page 8, Image 8</a>. Library of Congress, Washington, DC.</li></ul></div>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5704837170217213689.post-21812390847249500482020-09-16T12:38:00.003-06:002020-09-16T12:38:16.411-06:00Why All the Scotland?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jWfodAt-wls/X2IyAeaWjUI/AAAAAAAAMKw/kE2HdhsVVJscsLcM1Y2AAd_sQgHwWs4JACNcBGAsYHQ/s1278/2020-09-11%2BScotland.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="590" data-original-width="1278" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jWfodAt-wls/X2IyAeaWjUI/AAAAAAAAMKw/kE2HdhsVVJscsLcM1Y2AAd_sQgHwWs4JACNcBGAsYHQ/s320/2020-09-11%2BScotland.png" width="320" /></a></div>Since AncestryDNA's latest update introduced Scotland as it's own population, separate from Ireland, separate from England, lots of people are getting unexpectedly high results in Scotland. Even people with no known Scottish ancestry are getting significant percentages in that category. And of course, everyone is asking "why?"<p></p><p>For once, <a href="https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2020/09/11/why-your-latest-results-could-include-more-scotland-in-your-ethnicity-estimates/" target="_blank">Ancestry actually honestly addressed this</a> by explaining that natives to the British Isles have a lot of genetic overlap and can be difficult to tell apart, highlighting the fact that this is still just an estimate or interpretation of our DNA, and it should not be taken too literally.</p><p>But Scotland also has a lot of genetic overlap with mainland Europe, and I wanted to share some data and visuals that help illustrate all this. Firstly, although they haven't added the link for it yet, if you pull up the "full history" of the Scotland category (add "/ethnicity/Scotland/history" to the URL after the long that ID number), you'll see it lists all the surrounding areas included in "Scotland" (screenshot above):</p><p></p><blockquote>Primarily located in: Scotland, Northern Ireland<br />Also found in: Belgium, Channel Islands, England, Faroe Islands, France, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Luxembourg, Wales</blockquote><p></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9zSZUZ6eGyc/X1paS1_0HeI/AAAAAAAAMJg/zZXvWRg_LgszXoq9s80vVrA_fBPxmI7HwCPcBGAYYCw/s1247/AncestryDNA%2BEthnicity%2B2020%2BPCA%2Bchart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1037" data-original-width="1247" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9zSZUZ6eGyc/X1paS1_0HeI/AAAAAAAAMJg/zZXvWRg_LgszXoq9s80vVrA_fBPxmI7HwCPcBGAYYCw/s320/AncestryDNA%2BEthnicity%2B2020%2BPCA%2Bchart.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />That's a big area this category is covering and makes the title of solely "Scotland" seem a little misleading. So is the map, which, apart from Brittany, half of Northern Ireland, and a sliver of Northern England, isn't covering any of the other locations listed here. Brittany, the seemingly rogue area in France that is included in the Scotland map, might seem out of place, but it actually makes a lot of sense. Brittany, as the name suggests, is actually heavily Celtic. In the 5th century, Celtic Britons fled the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain and went to what is now Brittany, France. In fact, people there still speak a Celtic language called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breton_language" target="_blank">Breton</a> that bares a similarity to Scottish Gaelic. But Scotland and France were often allies throughout history (united by their shared enemy, the English), so it wouldn't be unusual to see genetic similarities to other parts of France too.<p></p><p>And there's more.</p><p>I reference the PCA chart in the <a href="https://www.ancestrycdn.com/dna/static/pdf/whitepapers/Ethnicity2020_white%20paper.pdf" target="_blank">ethnicity white paper</a> a lot, and there's a reason for that. It shows us upfront just how much genetic overlap there is among different regions. The latest PCA chart (shown right) is the most detailed yet, including a break down of countries that are lumped into bigger regions in our results.</p><p>It can be a little difficult to tell some of the icons apart, so I actually overlaid some colored blobs to show the overlapping regions. Even that can be difficult to tell apart because the overlap is <i>so </i>significant for the British Isles alone. This is why the rest of the British Isles is included in the "also found in" details.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oNBkhlxNHy0/X2I0LMfXOqI/AAAAAAAAMK8/ZYsU5o6tiAQcZs3lwqIk-7Bojd7YjMWlwCNcBGAsYHQ/s1247/AncestryDNA%2BEthnicity%2B2020%2BPCA%2Bchart%2B-%2BBritish%2BIsles.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1037" data-original-width="1247" height="333" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oNBkhlxNHy0/X2I0LMfXOqI/AAAAAAAAMK8/ZYsU5o6tiAQcZs3lwqIk-7Bojd7YjMWlwCNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h333/AncestryDNA%2BEthnicity%2B2020%2BPCA%2Bchart%2B-%2BBritish%2BIsles.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>The light blue blob is Ireland, dark blue is Scotland, red is Wales, and dark grey is England. Scotland, Wales, and England in particular are almost indistinguishable, and Ireland still have significant overlap with them. So it's hardly surprising if your break down of the British Isles isn't exactly what you'd expect.</p><p>And Scotland has some noteworthy overlap with a lot of mainland Europe too, not all of which are included in the "also found in" details. According to the PCA chart, European countries that have overlap with Scotland include Germany, France, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, and even Sweden.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IN0vshDqog4/X2I1v813GWI/AAAAAAAAMLI/Llz_q4icCtUzjRPINgtJWNkDYnitG7pbgCNcBGAsYHQ/s1247/AncestryDNA%2BEthnicity%2B2020%2BPCA%2Bchart%2B-%2BScotland%2Boverlap.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1037" data-original-width="1247" height="333" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IN0vshDqog4/X2I1v813GWI/AAAAAAAAMLI/Llz_q4icCtUzjRPINgtJWNkDYnitG7pbgCNcBGAsYHQ/w400-h333/AncestryDNA%2BEthnicity%2B2020%2BPCA%2Bchart%2B-%2BScotland%2Boverlap.png" width="400" /></a></div><p>It's difficult to even see which countries are included because there's so much overlap.</p><p>So basically, if you have ancestry from any of these regions, including the ones in the "also found in" details or the ones in the PCA chart, it could theoretically be turning up in your Scotland results. So the final inclusive list should be more like:</p><p>Northern Ireland<br />England<br />Wales<br />Ireland<br />Netherlands<br />Denmark<br />Norway<br />Germany<br />Luxembourg<br />France<br />Belgium<br />Channel Islands<br />Faroe Islands<br />Iceland<br />Isle of Man<br />Sweden</p><p>That's all of the British Isles, and the majority of Scandinavia and Northwest Europe.</p><p>Granted, AncestryDNA's algorithm may have been able to weed out the likelihood of some of those areas showing up under Scotland (I know they remove PCA outliers), and perhaps that's why not all of these areas are listed in the full details, but that's not necessarily foolproof, so I would still keep in mind that all of these places have some genetic overlap with Scottish samples. </p><p>The PCA chart is very enlightening and anytime you have a question about DNA ethnicity and unexpected results, this chart might be able to answer it. AncestryDNA aren't always very forthcoming about the fact that Europe is so genetically mixed and neighboring regions often share too much DNA to accurately tell them apart, but the PCA chart doesn't lie (though you can generally exclude extreme outliers). I just wish they'd release ones for other parts of the world too, and some for areas where continents mix. For example, I'd love to be able to see how much genetic overlap Southern Italy might have with the Middle East and Northern Africa. I'd also like to see what populations Ashkenazi Jews most closely match (at one point, they were on the European PCA chart, but due to the fact that they were so dissimilar to any other group in Europe, they were obviously removed - I'd love to see if perhaps they are more closely related to Middle Eastern samples than European ones). And of course, not everyone is white and it'd be great if AncestryDNA provided as much background data about other parts of the world as they do with Europe. Providing PCA charts for them would be a great start.</p><p>Additionally, AncestryDNA used to have a chart that showed the average admixture for their samples (for people native to each region). For example, it showed us that the average person from the region which was "Italy/Greece" could expect to get about 10% results in the Middle East or Caucasus. It was highly informative in illustrating how genetically mixed some areas are (and also how distinct other populations can be). I have begged AncestryDNA support multiple times to make this data available again, but they refuse. I think they don't want to "confuse" customers too much, but in my experience, the less information you give people, the more confused they'll be. The constant questions about this I see on social platforms prove it.</p>History Chickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07984934236728821742noreply@blogger.com0