Hey,
I got the results of my DNA Print test but am unclear how to interpret them in terms of the question that inspired the test. I have established that two of my ancestors were classified as mulatto in colonial tax records but as white in the 1790 census. At least two others are probable but unproven members of the same category. Local tradition insists that these mulattoes were mostly NA, but Paul Heinegg's research suggests they were predominantly African American.
My numerical score of 100-0-0-0 offers no help in resolving this question, but the bar chart shows a 1/3 possibility of as little as 92% EU and up to 8% NA or EA and 2% AF (formerly SA.) At least I think that's what it means when it says that the 100% score is "twice as likely" as the alternatives.
While awaiting an answer from DNA Print on the results, I'll ask if anyone here can interpret. Does it mean that my mulatto ancestors were 4 times as likely to be either NA or EA than AF? Or that their mixture was likely 4 parts NA or EA to one part AF? Is there *anything* that these results imply about the disputed ancestry of these colonial mulattoes?
KPJ
I got the results of my DNA Print test but am unclear how to interpret them in terms of the question that inspired the test. I have established that two of my ancestors were classified as mulatto in colonial tax records but as white in the 1790 census. At least two others are probable but unproven members of the same category. Local tradition insists that these mulattoes were mostly NA, but Paul Heinegg's research suggests they were predominantly African American.
My numerical score of 100-0-0-0 offers no help in resolving this question, but the bar chart shows a 1/3 possibility of as little as 92% EU and up to 8% NA or EA and 2% AF (formerly SA.) At least I think that's what it means when it says that the 100% score is "twice as likely" as the alternatives.
While awaiting an answer from DNA Print on the results, I'll ask if anyone here can interpret. Does it mean that my mulatto ancestors were 4 times as likely to be either NA or EA than AF? Or that their mixture was likely 4 parts NA or EA to one part AF? Is there *anything* that these results imply about the disputed ancestry of these colonial mulattoes?
KPJ
Comment