My Origins

[KNQGEQ]

I'm not sure if this is the correct forum or not, but it seems to be the closest to my question.
With the previous version of "My Origins," my ethnicity was pretty accurate. Now, it shows 55% west and central European and 44% British Isles. Both of my paternal grandparents came from Denmark, and I'm able to trace them back to about 1759. Another researcher has been able to go back even further. Why does it not show Scandinavian ethnicity, when I'm half Danish?

[KATM]

Probably the "myOrigins Basics" sub-forum, under "Universal Lineage Testing (Autosomal DNA)" would have been a more appropriate place to post your question, since Y-DNA tests do not give your myOrigins results; Family Finder (autosomal DNA test) does that.

What were your myOrigins 1.0 estimates? Did you have roughly 50% Scandinavian?

Razib Khan, who developed myOrigins for FTDNA, says this on the "myOrigins: Unraveling Ancestries" page in the FTDNA Learning Center:

"The goal of myOrigins was to give geographically relevant answers to people about their deep ancestry."

Note the phrase "deep ancestry." I believe that most of the companies that provide ethnicity estimates say that the estimates are for 500 to 1,000 years in the past, which is beyond many genealogists' ability to trace their ancestors.

Then, there is this excerpt from the British Isles cluster description, from "Population Clusters in myOrigins" in the Learning Center (my bolding):

"Starting in the late 8th century CE, the British Isles were invaded and settled by Viking parties during the Viking expansion. Normandy later invaded and solidified cultural and economic connections between the British Isles and continental Europe. To this day, these ancient occupations and trading practices left a lasting impression on the genetic relatedness between populations in the British Isles cluster and Southeast Europe, Scandinavia, and West and Central Europe clusters."

Regarding the ability to discern Danish/Scandinavian from other populations: from the Learning Center, on the "myOrigins 2.0 Update" page,

". . . please keep in mind that these Population Clusters are meant to reflect regions rather than, often changing, geopolitical borders. For example, Europe has had a high rate of migration and admixture throughout history, tightly connecting many of the seemingly distinct regions. Today, nationalities are commonly understood as distinct genetic groups; however, nationalities and your myOrigins results are not one in the same."

(my bolding; I think "one in the same" is more correctly "one and the same," but we get the drift)

Even so, if your father had two Danish parents, he would get 50% Danish (Scandinavian) from each of them, so 100% total (IF each of their parents, and grandparents, also were Danish or other Scandinavian). 1759 is perhaps, what, back to 4th or 5th great-grandparents? If the paper research shows all your paternal ancestors, from those paternal 4th or more g-grands down to your paternal grandparents, were Danish or Scandinavian, you are right in expecting that you would have 50% Scandinavian from your father. But, if there are any outliers in the generations (a Viking who traveled far and wide may have brought back a bride from elsewhere, or more recently, people may have come to Denmark of their own free will, and taken Danish names), it could alter the percentages. Germany, for example, is near Denmark; western Germany is in the West and Central Europe cluster. These regions all mix and mingle over the centuries, as the second quote above indicates.

But that doesn't explain the change from your different results from myOrigins 1.0 to 2.0. Many people complained at the time of the change to myOrigins 2.0, so you are not alone.

[jimbirk]

My brother and I are 25% Danish, 25% Irish and 50% Polish.

myOrigins says for me British Isles 9%, East Europe 63% and West and Central Europe 28%. For my brother British Isles 12%, East Europe 81% and Scandinavia 7%.

Not very much Scandinavia for our 25% Danish. And too much East Europe.

None of the DNA testing companies appear to give high Scandinavian ancestry for Danish people. I see many complaints from people of Irish and UK ancestry complaining about significant Scandinavian percentages with no known Scandinavian ancestors, but Danish people don't get high Scandinavian percentages.

It seems that it is not easy to sort out Western European DNA.

[Gwailo]

My brother and I are 25% Danish, 25% Irish and 50% Polish.

myOrigins says for me British Isles 9%, East Europe 63% and West and Central Europe 28%. For my brother British Isles 12%, East Europe 81% and Scandinavia 7%.

Not very much Scandinavia for our 25% Danish. And too much East Europe.

None of the DNA testing companies appear to give high Scandinavian ancestry for Danish people. I see many complaints from people of Irish and UK ancestry complaining about significant Scandinavian percentages with no known Scandinavian ancestors, but Danish people don't get high Scandinavian percentages.

It seems that it is not easy to sort out Western European DNA.

I think one of the issues that descendants of Danes are facing is the lack of Danish testers within the FTDNA database. If their Ydna representation is anything to go off, as of today there have only been 998 people whose paternal ancestor is marked as Danish from a country with a population of 5.7 million vs 6213 people listing a Swedish ancestor from a country with a population of 10.1 million. So while Sweden has twice the population of Denmark they have 6 times the amount of people Ydna testing. In my view this has to have some bearing with how the Scandinavian algorithm is applied. The under representation of Danes in Y testing particularly has been puzzling me for some time.

[John McCoy]

There are hidden assumptions here! For example, that samples from modern people who claim to have only Danish ancestry (the "reference group") adequately represent the genetic diversity of the entire population of Denmark (either today or at some undefined time in the past). The smaller the "reference group" is, the less likely it is to meet that goal. Also, the reference groups have probably been "pruned" of outliers, and there is no way to verify that the actual ancestors of the people in the reference group were actually "Danish", whatever we may mean by that. All of this begs a more basic question, is it even possible to distinguish, say, Norwegians from Danes through their DNA, with any degree of certainty? I have to say I find that claim doubtful.

[Ivar Kristensen]

All of this begs a more basic question, is it even possible to distinguish, say, Norwegians from Danes through their DNA, with any degree of certainty? I have to say I find that claim doubtful.

Indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark%E2%80%93Norway

[Gwailo]

Indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark%E2%80%93Norway

Yes that's true they were together for a long time so there will certainly be folks who are indistinguishable from each other genetically but there will also be others of more southerly Danish origins where there has been considerable encroachment of Western and Eastern Germanic dna (which might include some Slavic) as they moved & settled northwards since the middle ages. The latest PCA plot (attached) from the popular Eurogenes blog shows the average modern Norwegian clustering with an ancient Anglo Saxon (presumably from in or near the Denmark region) and it would be interesting to see if the average modern Dane would sit between Norwegian & Swedish or between Norwegian and Dutch. We will just have to wait & see. It's very interesting for me personally to see how closely related Czechs and East Germans are genetically as they cluster side by side.Czechs appear far closer related to East Germans than to their Slavic neighbours (including Slovakia)