Determining Native American Ancestry

[rainbow]

I've been waiting for the results for my grandmother on D9S919 for a while now, just in case. If it turns out it's something other than 9, then back to square one, minus $20. If it turns out equal to 9, then this might confirm the story of her mother being 1/2 NA, taken with a grain of salt of course, as discussed earlier in thread.

If true, then your grandmother would be about 25% Native American. Was her mother's father Native American Indian? Or her mother's mother? If your grandmother's maternal grandmother was NAI, your grandmother might have an Indian mtdna haplogroup. Did your grandmother take an mtdna test? I would suggest a percentages test also. Problem is that the results may vary widely. Maybe ask FTDNA to send your grandmother a swab kit, so she can take a sample. I think the samples would keep for a while until you place an order for FTDNA's FamilY Finder when they get Population Finder up and running.

[Yaffa]

I am still fairly new to mtDNA testing. How do you know which of the female lines the NAI ancestry came from? How do you know how far back on the direct female line the DNA is going back. How are mtDNA results assigned? For example, which surname are they assigned to if the surname changes every generation that goes back?

MT-DNA can go back thousands of years. It goes beyond your last known ancestor on paper. If your MT-DNA came up Indian your Indian ancestor would have to be within the past 500-600 years form the time of European invasion to present. You need to have paper to figure out where and when your last known Indian ancestor falls on the tree. Without paper record it would be hard to tell how long your line stayed Indian and when they started mixing with European

[Yaffa]

I am still fairly new to mtDNA testing. How do you know which of the female lines the NAI ancestry came from? How do you know how far back on the direct female line the DNA is going back. How are mtDNA results assigned? For example, which surname are they assigned to if the surname changes every generation that goes back?

Forgot to answer this. MT DNA does not get assigned to a surname. You would list last known female ancestor for MT DNA. It's only Y-DNA that gets placed as surname and last known ancestor in that line

[Yaffa]

I would suggest a percentages test also. Problem is that the results may vary widely.

""Problem the results vary widely"" is exactly why these tests are useless in researching genealogy. They are not accurate or are these companies testing ALL YOUR DNA that they would be able to give you an accurate % of admixture and you have no idea which ancestor would be from what back round

Have any of these % test actually helped you in genealogy research in finding out who each one of your ancestors were?

I know Indian Tribes that will accept Y and MT DNA as proof you have an Indian ancestor but It does not prove tribe. You need paper to prove tribe. I know no tribe that will accept a % test as proof that you have an Indian ancestor

[msc_44]

""Problem the results vary widely"" is exactly why these tests are useless in researching genealogy. They are not accurate or are these companies testing ALL YOUR DNA that they would be able to give you an accurate % of admixture and you have no idea which ancestor would be from what back round

Have any of these % test actually helped you in genealogy research in finding out who each one of your ancestors were?

I know Indian Tribes that will accept Y and MT DNA as proof you have an Indian ancestor but It does not prove tribe. You need paper to prove tribe. I know no tribe that will accept a % test as proof that you have an Indian ancestor

The point of taking a percent test like Ancestry by dna is to prove for a fact you do have it even though a tribe will tell you that you don't have any because they don't want any more tribal members, besides that Ancestry by dna has one flaw they say native americans are east asians so if you get east asian its actually native american. I also found this test made it easier to pin point were the percents came from but if you don't have a complete or almost complete family tree then that could stop you from finding the right ancestor the percents belongs to.

[Yaffa]

The point of taking a percent test like Ancestry by dna is to prove for a fact you do have it even though a tribe will tell you that you don't have any because they don't want any more tribal members, besides that Ancestry by dna has one flaw they say native americans are east asians so if you get east asian its actually native american. I also found this test made it easier to pin point were the percents came from but if you don't have a complete or almost complete family tree then that could stop you from finding the right ancestor the percents belongs to.

This is not true at all that they wont accept a % test because they dont want more tribal members. You have to prove you belong to a tribe with paper. Dr's have even posted on these boards that do not own DNA companies that will tell you ABDNA and other % race tests are not accurate. They give false positive and false negative. These tests are not accepted in a court of law so why would a tribe accept them.

If you have paper you have an Indian ancestor or Y and MT DNA test proving an Indian ancestor this is a different story.Only paper will prove tribe not DNA

[msc_44]

This is not true at all that they wont accept a % test because they dont want more tribal members. You have to prove you belong to a tribe with paper. Dr's have even posted on these boards that do not own DNA companies that will tell you ABDNA and other % race tests are not accurate. They give false positive and false negative. These tests are not accepted in a court of law so why would a tribe accept them.

If you have paper you have an Indian ancestor or Y and MT DNA test proving an Indian ancestor this is a different story.Only paper will prove tribe not DNA

Its only obvious they wont except it that's why I posted "a tribe will tell you that you don't have any" but In my situation my uncle has papers to prove it they have the same dad different mothers but my dad was gave to his half uncle half brother of his mother when he was born so he has the wrong parents on his birth certificate but he's done a half sibling test and it says there brothers but a tribe wont except the half sibling dna test ether they will only take birth certificate's but the %'s are very accurate you may not want to believe it but they are every one is mixed with something maybe you got results you were not expecting that's why you don't think there accurate and its only a matter of time before they are accepted in court just like regular dna test are now. Also don't forget if you get say 15% native american its 50% from each parent 1 might have 10% and parent 2 20% or 25% and 5% or 15% and 15% or 30% and 0% or any combination.

[Yaffa]

If your paper is messed up a tribe surely will not accept it as proof. You can believe your % test if you want. I know many who have taken different % tests and all their tests come up different from each other on % so its not accurate. Autosomal tests can not prove which ancestor goes to what therefore it is not proof. With tribe it must be proof of a direct line ancestor that goes to that specific tribe on paper. There is NO DNA TEST that will prove tribe

[msc_44]

If your paper is messed up a tribe surely will not accept it as proof. You can believe your % test if you want. I know many who have taken different % tests and all their tests come up different from each other on % so its not accurate. Autosomal tests can not prove which ancestor goes to what therefore it is not proof. With tribe it must be proof of a direct line ancestor that goes to that specific tribe on paper. There is NO DNA TEST that will prove tribe

no you should already know what tribe your from the dna test is to give you a more accurate percentage instead of guesses passed down, also to prove what ancestor it comes from is up to you not the dna test but with the percentage you know roughly how far back to look.

[Yaffa]

Again I will disagree with you that everyone knows what tribe their ancestors were of. There are many tribes that are not recognized by the government and have no records. Or books will say they are extinct when they are not. They just blended in with society. And since all % tests give different % it is no proof of how much Indian blood you might think you have.

I have met many who claim Cherokee only to find out that their ancestors were not Cherokee. Just for an example there were many many tribes in NC but only the Cheorkee are federal or accepted by the federal government. I believe also the Catawba that were of NC are also federal but they are now in York SC. The Tuscarora of NC moved to NY early 1700's because of Indian slavery and are now a federal NY tribe not a NC tribe

My ancestor has no tribe on her records although listed Indian and MT DNA to back it up. My ancestor was shunned from her family because her first husband was white.

[gijoeinfinity]

If true, then your grandmother would be about 25% Native American. Was her mother's father Native American Indian? Or her mother's mother? If your grandmother's maternal grandmother was NAI, your grandmother might have an Indian mtdna haplogroup. Did your grandmother take an mtdna test? I would suggest a percentages test also. Problem is that the results may vary widely. Maybe ask FTDNA to send your grandmother a swab kit, so she can take a sample. I think the samples would keep for a while until you place an order for FTDNA's FamilY Finder when they get Population Finder up and running.

That was part of my thinking too... if her mother is 1/2, then my grandmother would technically be 1/4, so perhaps there is a chance that she may have inherited the 9 at D9S919?

We don't know who her parents were. That's the real problem. Can't find anything earlier than a 1920 Census record on her mother. No birth/death/marriage records, nada. My grandmother believes she intentionally lied about her age when the census taker came around (she apparently lied to doctors). If she lied about her age, is it possible she also gave false information on other personal details? Is this why I can't find her anywhere before 1920? Nevertheless, I have other ancestors that apparently gave false information (distrust of government), but I was still able to find plenty of information on them. She's been the exception.

She obviously looked European enough to be labeled white in the Census record. My guess she could possibly be less than 1/2 NA, if at all. She does look like a mixture of Northern European and either Spanish/Indian/or perhaps some other Mediterranean ethnicity. The Full Genome Sequence mtDNA result came back as H1. She only had two lower-level (HVR1) matches and that's it. These two "matches" did not take anything higher than the HVR1 and it's possible they aren't in the same haplogroup since many U5's match the same HVR1 sequence. Furthermore, H1 is so widespread, it's impossible to narrow this down to a region without somebody matching at the FGS level (and knowing their ancestry of course). So the mtDNA result haven't been that helpful at all.

My grandmother did take the FF test and she does have some intriguing matches. However, I've not been able to make contact with the majority of them.

[msc_44]

Again I will disagree with you that everyone knows what tribe their ancestors were of. There are many tribes that are not recognized by the government and have no records. Or books will say they are extinct when they are not. They just blended in with society. And since all % tests give different % it is no proof of how much Indian blood you might think you have.

I have met many who claim Cherokee only to find out that their ancestors were not Cherokee. Just for an example there were many many tribes in NC but only the Cheorkee are federal or accepted by the federal government. I believe also the Catawba that were of NC are also federal but they are now in York SC. The Tuscarora of NC moved to NY early 1700's because of Indian slavery and are now a federal NY tribe not a NC tribe

My ancestor has no tribe on her records although listed Indian and MT DNA to back it up. My ancestor was shunned from her family because her first husband was white.

If your Indian ancestor was way back in 1700's you don't have any blood left today its all gone and if they mixed with other Indians down the line they were probably from a different tribe so you wouldnt be able to claim the 1700 Indian because there not even the same tribe and your blood relation is no longer there.

[Yaffa]

no you should already know what tribe your from the dna test is to give you a more accurate percentage instead of guesses passed down, also to prove what ancestor it comes from is up to you not the dna test but with the percentage you know roughly how far back to look.

PS if you need a DNA test to tell you how far back to look if you have an Indian ancestor it would not be close to the living and obviously you dont have paper record of tribe. story in the family stating tribe is not proof. Paper is.

No autosomal DNA will NOT tell you which ancestor. Y and MT DNA will. It goes to one direct line ancestor

[Yaffa]

If your Indian ancestor was way back in 1700's you don't have any blood left today its all gone and if they mixed with other Indians down the line they were probably from a different tribe so you wouldnt be able to claim the 1700 Indian because there not even the same tribe and your blood relation is no longer there.

My ancestor is not in the 1700's but the 1900's. My living family is not white and my mother line is not the only Indian I have in the family. My ancestor in the 1900's was FULL BLOODED but from Mexico where there is NO CARD.

Thank you for telling me how much Indian blood you think I have.

This is why tribal members get mad at people like you. My X is Eastern band Cherokee Tribal Member. I do post on boards with other federal tribal members. Nothing worse than people outside who try to rewrite tribal history to conform to there genealogy when they are not accepted as Indian.

[msc_44]

PS if you need a DNA test to tell you how far back to look if you have an Indian ancestor it would not be close to the living and obviously you dont have paper record of tribe. story in the family stating tribe is not proof. Paper is.

No autosomal DNA will NOT tell you which ancestor. Y and MT DNA will. It goes to one direct line ancestor

mtdna haplogroup shows you thousands of years ago not recent

ydna haplogroup shows your thousands of years ago not recent

ps my great grandmother was on the Indian rolls and I still cant get enrolled and im looking for Indians on all branches not just one that's why you need it to help you figure it out what other ancestors had Indian I already know what my great grandmother was and have proof with DNA and Indian rolls. also its always best to double check something instead of believing anything your family passes down to you a lot of it is totally bogus or family lies to cover stuff up.


I never told you how much indian you are I said if there from the 1700's ok so yours is from 1900's in mexico well mines from 1900's in Oklahoma on the Indian rolls and they had a card.