Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tribes scores

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Maria_W
    replied
    DNA Tribes update...

    There will be some who will think the 25.00 will be worth it...

    Maria

    Leave a comment:


  • Maria_W
    replied
    Your welcome...

    Your welcome Gene... Hopefully it will be a little more accurate....

    Maria

    Leave a comment:


  • DKF
    replied
    Originally posted by Maria_W
    New DNA tribes update is expected around August 4th.....

    Maria
    More data to muddy the waters???

    Leave a comment:


  • Maria_W
    replied
    August 4th....

    New DNA tribes update is expected around August 4th.....

    Maria

    Leave a comment:


  • rainbow
    replied
    Originally posted by burto
    Hi Rainbow,
    Thanks for all the info...the reason I said before 1900 was because IF these South Asian scores from both tests are anything to go by, then it would appear that it would be a Grandparent or GGrandparent who would be of South Asian descent, so that they would be born between 1840-1900 roughly...but that's assuming they were 100% South Asian-I don't know if someone of 100% Roma descent would appear as 100% South Asian on these tests.
    I'm keeping an open mind and saving up for DeCodeMe but in the mean time if anyone knows whether any other South Asian people were in the US between those dates then please let me know.
    Hi,

    Did you see this link with 61 people? Most were born between 1840 - 1900.


    Other than that, the Roma could be from Italian-Americans.

    Leave a comment:


  • rainbow
    replied
    Originally posted by burto
    Hi
    I got a reply back about Mum's scores and whether the Central Asian panel/India world matches were significant (baring in mind she got 22% South Asian with DNAP).
    They said:
    "Results are consistent with approximately 1/8 to 1/4 South Asian (Indian) ancestry."
    Her 22% SA would work out at about 1/5 of her total profile...hmm not sure what to think...I'm not aware of any other people other than Roma who are of India Indian descent living in the US before 1900 but then I don't live there and don't know the history that well...it's all 1066 over here at school
    Hi Burto,

    I tried to google Roma/gypsy in the USA in 1900 and found this link:
    Gypsy Folk Tales, by Francis Hindes Groome, [1899], full text etext at sacred-texts.com


    it was from this other link that i haven't fully read : http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=5&gl=us



    In 1715, 9 gypsies were moved from Glasgow, Scotland to the Viginia plantations.
    Wow. I have roots in Virginia. Maybe I have some gypsy?

    Leave a comment:


  • burto
    replied
    Hi Rainbow,
    Thanks for all the info...the reason I said before 1900 was because IF these South Asian scores from both tests are anything to go by, then it would appear that it would be a Grandparent or GGrandparent who would be of South Asian descent, so that they would be born between 1840-1900 roughly...but that's assuming they were 100% South Asian-I don't know if someone of 100% Roma descent would appear as 100% South Asian on these tests.
    I'm keeping an open mind and saving up for DeCodeMe but in the mean time if anyone knows whether any other South Asian people were in the US between those dates then please let me know.

    Leave a comment:


  • rainbow
    replied
    random trivia

    I tried the 1900 census again and put "gypsy" & "roma" in the keyword box and it didn't work, so I put just one word at a time and found out there were 157 women named Gypsy, as a first name.




    And 1,801 people named Roma.





    There isn't a Roma category to search for as an ethnic group.
    Last edited by rainbow; 17 July 2008, 03:00 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rainbow
    replied
    61 India Indians in USA in 1900

    Hi Burto,

    The 1900 United States Federal Census for the entire country, has 61 people who were born in the British Indian Ocean Territory. States include Arkansas and California and Illinois, etc.


    Last edited by rainbow; 17 July 2008, 02:49 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rainbow
    replied
    Hi again Burto,

    You need before 1900?

    Here is a link to the 1900 Ferderal Census for the state of New Jersey. There are just two from the British Indian Ocean Territory, listed as white : Charles H. Shelton (born about 1854), and Cuthin Pintor (born about 1858).




    Last edited by rainbow; 17 July 2008, 02:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rainbow
    replied
    Originally posted by burto
    Hi
    I got a reply back about Mum's scores and whether the Central Asian panel/India world matches were significant (baring in mind she got 22% South Asian with DNAP).
    They said:
    "Results are consistent with approximately 1/8 to 1/4 South Asian (Indian) ancestry."
    Her 22% SA would work out at about 1/5 of her total profile...hmm not sure what to think...I'm not aware of any other people other than Roma who are of India Indian descent living in the US before 1900 but then I don't live there and don't know the history that well...it's all 1066 over here at school
    Hi Burto

    That is great news! It's great to actually get a ballpark figure and an actual ethnicity/population, isn't it.

    Guess what. When I was doing a census search for Native American Indians in New Jersey in 1930 for my own geneaolgy research, I found that the enumerators/indexers mistakenly put many British Indian Ocean Indians of New Jersey in the category of (Native American) Indian.

    New Jersey has a very high India Indian population today, but in 1930 there were 139 India Indians living in/from New Jersey, USA. Maybe that is where your mom's American father was from?

    It's worth a look. Here is the link. I refined it to show just British Indian Ocean.



    There are also lots of Italians in New Jersey. And there are also many other ethnic groups in New Jersey, and many intermarried/blended.

    Leave a comment:


  • burto
    replied
    Hi
    I got a reply back about Mum's scores and whether the Central Asian panel/India world matches were significant (baring in mind she got 22% South Asian with DNAP).
    They said:
    "Results are consistent with approximately 1/8 to 1/4 South Asian (Indian) ancestry."
    Her 22% SA would work out at about 1/5 of her total profile...hmm not sure what to think...I'm not aware of any other people other than Roma who are of India Indian descent living in the US before 1900 but then I don't live there and don't know the history that well...it's all 1066 over here at school

    Leave a comment:


  • RegRiv
    replied
    It's so fun to see the brainstorming going on here. I suppose I'll have to add my two cents into Kerchner's log. (And take time to read the postings over there.)

    I believe we are seeing ancient echoes. I wouldn't give this so much credence if my late Dad's Polish markers weren't so darned accurate. It accurately reflects his Polish heritage. In fact, it dominates a lot of my top hits. (He always said he was 100% Polish.) So, it gives me some faith in the heavy Norway and Iceland counts as being ancient 'Niall' from my Mom. Especially since my Mom's report has it, too at the very top.

    Curiously, we also have Australian results within the top 40 results. Very odd. (And I can only imagine the surprise of seeing Aboriginal as your number one hit, Jim!)

    Regina

    Leave a comment:


  • Clochaire
    replied
    Originally posted by Jim Honeychuck
    . . . Sure enough, one number of each pair of my autosomal markers is either an exact match to the most frequent value in the paper, or only off by 1 and still among the highest values. Bingo.

    Wish I could do that with my Irish side, but as I said I can't find the raw data anywhere.

    Regards,
    Jim
    Maith an fear thu! (Good man in Gaelic)

    That's persistence for you -- if results don't appear to make sense, they probably don't. I will take it as a moral to be more persistent.

    But with most West European populations, I wonder if you can draw many bright lines. Yes, it is striking that Ireland is 90+% R1b1b2* for YSTR, but that's just a narrow piece of the puzzle. In Ireland, alone, I think it is generally acknowledged that the following poulation elements are expected to be significant:
    1. Pre-Celtic aboriginal people
    2. Goedelic Celts
    3. Brythonic Celts
    4. Cruithne (Pictish Celts)
    5. Vikings
    6. Normans
    7. French
    8. Anglo-Saxons
    9. Welsh

    I'm probably leaving some big ones out.

    Jack

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim Honeychuck
    replied
    Originally posted by Clochaire
    Jim,

    Interesting. And of one piece w/ commentary I've seen elsewhere.

    Any thoughts as to whether these odd results are due primarily to poor conduct of the tests by the companies, lack of sufficient data pool, bias in self-reporting of ethnicity or a deeper problem inherent to the technology itself?

    I suppose it may also be worth considering that Y and X tests, while providing a more genealogically relevant data set, cover only a narrow band of the total genetic profile.

    Jack
    The company's explanation for such weird and unbelievable results is basically that the match is valid but possibly ancient.

    I suspect that the numbers could be accidental convergence, but that may not be a concept recognized by the scientists who work with autosomal DNA.

    What I'm doing next is to get original data from scientific papers giving the distribution of autosomal markers in populations, and just comparing my numbers with those. I purchased a new paper about DNA in eastern Slovakia, which is where the other side of my family tree is from. DNA Tribes is not using that Slovakian data yet. Sure enough, one number of each pair of my autosomal markers is either an exact match to the most frequent value in the paper, or only off by 1 and still among the highest values. Bingo.

    Wish I could do that with my Irish side, but as I said I can't find the raw data anywhere.

    Regards,
    Jim

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X