Experiences with Family Finder and PF

[nathanm]

I have heard you have to have the roots to get useful DNA samples. It probably is much more expensive too if you don't use the standard spit or swab samples.

Well yes if someone has a good DNA sample that might have been left by that deceased male. I dont know any living family of mine who might have DNA samples of hair on deceased relatives. Dont they need the root of the hair not just a clipping of a hair sample??

To answer both of you at once, yes, it'll definitely be more expensive to get hair or any other non-buccal swab DNA test. For nuclear DNA (the autosomes, X, & Y chromosomes), you do need the root, but mtDNA can often be extracted from hair, long after its owner died.

In many of the mummified remains found in bogs, tombs, etc., they've managed to isolate mtDNA, but have trouble finding enough fragments of nuclear DNA to test. A special sub-clade of maternal haplogroup K was created just for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman#Genetic_analysis"]

[Yaffa]

To answer both of you at once, yes, it'll definitely be more expensive to get hair or any other non-buccal swab DNA test. For nuclear DNA (the autosomes, X, & Y chromosomes), you do need the root, but mtDNA can often be extracted from hair, long after its owner died.

In many of the mummified remains found in bogs, tombs, etc., they've managed to isolate mtDNA, but have trouble finding enough fragments of nuclear DNA to test. A special sub-clade of maternal haplogroup K was created just for [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman#Genetic_analysis"]

Thanks. I would think it would be expensive. There are many people out there who will not even spend the money for FGS so I cant imagine them willing to spend money on testing hair. I guess some people would if they want that DNA bad enough.

[Yaffa]

Clarification:

-) I'm from Delaware

-) I'm Native American physically...and other things mixed in. I believe I'm tri-racial because I've found whites, 'mulattoes' and 'negroes' on many records, so finding anything and everything in my lineage is expected.

-) Unless it's a connection we haven't discovered, I'm not from one of Delaware's state recognized tribes. Doesn't make me less "DelawareNative" - just clarifying.

-) DNA might carry you specifically to a tribe in North America, or anywhere in the world, depending on any DNA companies' test populations, and of course I'd like to find "my peoples" anywhere in the world they are, indigenous or not. You might be "orcadian" - tribes are merely groups of peoples, not necessarily one in the US that you can "join" by having the right Indian ancestors. I've never said that I'm looking for any specific tribe by way of FTDNA, but I myself can narrow down my people by logical deduction using Family Finder results, Population Finder results (well, maybe not for me yet) and paper trails.

-) In speaking with professional genealogists, I've gleaned that I have red ties to Virginia and Maryland at a minimum, and maybe NC. It's a few tribes coming together, not just one relative way down the road; it's several families on both sides from different states. Most people from Delaware are mixed blood of many races, but they either don't know it or don't want to admit it - and that's the truth I have witnessed myself.

-) I understand that this is somewhat 'bleeding edge' technology, and my results may vary. Daily.

-) I'm a private investigator

-) I'm a woman



Just the facts, ma'am.

As smallaxe posted they too research our area of VA/NC and has also found free African American or mixed African/Europeans claiming Indian.

I dont know what surnames you are researching but if you do fall in the lines of Paul Heinegg's research http://freeafricanamericans.com/

DNA on Y and MT is backing up and confirming Paul's research as many of these people being African and White. You may find results for some of these people DNA in the Melungeon DNA project here at FTDNA. The DNA results are public.

[c_thompson_68]

It seems that many people in Puerto Rico have NA ancestry from the mother's mtDNA (http://www.centrelink.org/KearnsDNA.html) as this article indicates. I think in the Spanish colonies, it was safer to not be a Native American from the Limpieza de sangre concept if you wanted to own property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpieza_de_sangre) as this article explains.

There are people in the United States, such as adoptees like myself, that have a large percentage of NA DNA, but cannot identify the tribe due to birth-records being sealed by the state. In my case, the NA is probably from Mexico, but I cannot still identify the tribe as little is known about my birth-father.

We also know Spain had a large Jewish and Phoenician population at one time. During the Inquisition, Spanish jews, like Native American, found it safer to identify themselves as Spanish if they could pull it off. So people in Latin American may have both NA and middle-eastern ancestry and not know it as it was covered-up. The autosomal DNA tests are helping to establish family history. Not sure how the colonial conditions of Delaware compared to Latin America.

[Yaffa]

It seems that many people in Puerto Rico have NA ancestry from the mother's mtDNA (http://www.centrelink.org/KearnsDNA.html) as this article indicates. I think in the Spanish colonies, it was safer to not be a Native American from the Limpieza de sangre concept if you wanted to own property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpieza_de_sangre) as this article explains.

There are people in the United States, such as adoptees like myself, that have a large percentage of NA DNA, but cannot identify the tribe due to birth-records being sealed by the state. In my case, the NA is probably from Mexico, but I cannot still identify the tribe as little is known about my birth-father.

We also know Spain had a large Jewish and Phoenician population at one time. During the Inquisition, Spanish jews, like Native American, found it safer to identify themselves as Spanish if they could pull it off. So people in Latin American may have both NA and middle-eastern ancestry and not know it as it was covered-up. The autosomal DNA tests are helping to establish family history. Not sure how the colonial conditions of Delaware compared to Latin America.

Most of the people from the Islands like yourself are consistent with being tri-racial, Spanish, Indian and African. This goes for Puerto Rico, Cuba, etc.
Many people in the islands claim Taino. This was the original tribe in the Islands. Then you also have Indian slavery where tribes from the US were taken to the Islands as slaves.

Delawarenative also posted some of the lines they are researching as possibly being Indian are not from Delaware but from VA and NC where there were a lot of free African Americans. The are stating their records do not state Indian but state White, Negro, Mulatto. This does not mean Indian. I do know a lot of surnames in the area they are researching and have seen DNA results. Without knowing what surnames they are researching, I cant say if they possibly do have Indian in their lines or not.

[Yaffa]

The Taino tribe of the islands per the US Government are extinct. DNA can prove our Government wrong. My Guess is either you descend from the Tiano and or possibly US Indian slaves that were taken to the islands

http://www.healing-arts.org/spider/tainoindians.htm

[DelawareNative]

The DelMarVa area is saturated with mixed race people starting back to it's settling in Colonial times, therefore, sorting all the races out on paper can be daunting for some of us. It's said that if you're "from" Delaware, you'll have Indian blood in there somewhere, as there were very few Euro women that came over with the original settlers - white men married Indian women many times over and had children. Not that I live by race alone, but I have to be aware of it when researching family from this area, looking in unusual places sometimes. It's fun for me, but facts come slowly since I don't live up there, so I'm hiring a professional genealogist up there to shortcut things. I've been to most of the known websites that particularly relate to mixed races in that area, i.e. Mitsawokett (even met Dr. Blum last month), read all the Heinegg reports, researched at the Nabb Library, etc., and while all were very helpful, a pro can find more than I ever could and put it all together.

Side note - when the US government renders a tribe "extinct", you can be assured they only killed the paper trail...I won't be surprised if/when Indian tribes are "resurrected"

[Yaffa]

The DelMarVa area is saturated with mixed race people starting back to it's settling in Colonial times, therefore, sorting all the races out on paper can be daunting for some of us. It's said that if you're "from" Delaware, you'll have Indian blood in there somewhere, as there were very few Euro women that came over with the original settlers - white men married Indian women many times over and had children. Not that I live by race alone, but I have to be aware of it when researching family from this area, looking in unusual places sometimes. It's fun for me, but facts come slowly since I don't live up there, so I'm hiring a professional genealogist up there to shortcut things. I've been to most of the known websites that particularly relate to mixed races in that area, i.e. Mitsawokett (even met Dr. Blum last month), read all the Heinegg reports, researched at the Nabb Library, etc., and while all were very helpful, a pro can find more than I ever could and put it all together.

Side note - when the US government renders a tribe "extinct", you can be assured they only killed the paper trail...I won't be surprised if/when Indian tribes are "resurrected"

I dont research Delaware off hand so I wont even comment on what may have gone on over there.

This much I can state if you are researching free people of color, there are a lot of people who will not match surname on DNA and it may not be on record. You could hire someone to do all the paper research and then DNA test which will prove paper wrong. With Free people of color DNA ( Y and MT) can be more important than paper. This is why I mentioned checking the DNA projects on Y and MT DNA for your direct line ancestors

I so far have 7 lines born to single mothers. 5 on record and 2 more that have Y-DNA tested and dont match surname with no record why. These 2 lines that Y DNA tested that dont match surname have no close matches to a surname to know who may have or could have fathered these men. I do suspect as more people DNA test that I may have more people not matching surname.

Some Indian tribes practiced Mother clan and may have been given their children mother's surname instead of fathers.

The 5 people I do know on record to have gotten their surnames from their mother, 2 are in my Tex/Mex Indian lines. The other 3 connect to the Cherokee who were mother clan.

all the people I have born to single mothers happens around Indian removal or before.

And even if like the Taino can be so called resurrected through DNA it will not resurrect paper. all the destroyed or missing paper, or not on record.. These people who claim Taino could also descend from US tribes that were taken in to slavery in the Islands. Without paper no way to prove tribe to back up DNA results.

The same thing goes with US tribes. I know people who have Indian DNA and will probably never be able to prove tribe because there is no record. You cant resurrect a tribe without having paper to prove tribe

[DelawareNative]

I hear you, Yaffa, and as a private investigator I'm hoping both the Family Finder portion and the Population Finder will help pick up where some papers drop off. I'm not looking for the paper trail so much as the DNA evidence of my heritage, obviously the DNA being the superior standard. I'm hoping that eventually it'll answer my questions because as we know, documents can be destroyed or falsified; paper trail evidence is only as good as the truth that's in it - your DNA is truth no matter what the records say.

[Yaffa]

I hear you, Yaffa, and as a private investigator I'm hoping both the Family Finder portion and the Population Finder will help pick up where some papers drop off. I'm not looking for the paper trail so much as the DNA evidence of my heritage, obviously the DNA being the superior standard. I'm hoping that eventually it'll answer my questions because as we know, documents can be destroyed or falsified; paper trail evidence is only as good as the truth that's in it - your DNA is truth no matter what the records say.

With PF and FF they are not good sources in finding out of wedlock children or race/Ethnicity. These tests are autosomal and do not confirm the ancestor the autosomal markers gos to. Your matches could be anywhere in any direct line or cousin line. With this test you must have paper proof to connect the lines. Also with % tests you can get different % with each company. If the % test was accurate every company testing % should be giving out the same result no matter where you test. Indian tribes will not acknowledge % test as being accurate proof you have an Indian ancestor. They will however acknowledge that Y and MT DNA are accurate as proving you do have an Indian ancestor even though it does not prove tribe. Unlike autosomal tests Y and MT DNA test no matter what company you test with, results should all come out the same. Y and MT DNA goes to a specific ancestor. Y and MT DNA I believe are accepted in courts of law if done legally (not mail in your own DNA). I dont believe autosomal race % is accepted.

Having an ancestor who has Indian Y or MT DNA haplogroup can stand alone as proof you have an Indian ancestor without paper proof but autosomal tests need paper to back them up. This FF test is designed for you to find cousin lines you try to connect paper to. The test will not prove any relationship without paper

The only way to find out of wedlock lines is through Y DNA on males. No way to get proof of Y father line on any deceased females who might have been born out of wedlock.

[dawer]

Mexican NA

You are showing NA because your family is from Mexico. Most Mexicans are Indian. It does not matter Affy or Illumnia. FTDNA only has some NA samples for Central and South America not North America.

Someone might have answered already, but since I'm just now reading this, I'll give my feedback on this comment.

Most Mexicans are NOT Indian. Many Mexicans ARE Native Americans, but most Mexicans are actually of mixed race -- Mestizo. In 1921, only 30% self-identified as full Native American, and the rest where Mestizos of mixed race (about 60%), the rest where either White (1-2%) or no response. If you look on Wikipedia, you'll see that the data they quote ranges between 10-15% of people in Mexico who self-identify as Indigenous. Although I must say that Mexico doesn't truly track race, but language.

It is a very safe guess that in terms of race, the percentages from 1921 likely still hold true - 30% NA, 60% Mixed, 10% others (Including White, Afrodescendant, Asian, Middle Eastern, etc.).

To say MOST Mexicans are Native American implies that over 75% of Mexicans are Native American which is just not the case. Don't want this to spin off into another full on debate, just wanted to clarify this piece of info.

[dawer]

Clarification:

-) I'm from Delaware

-) I'm Native American physically...and other things mixed in. I believe I'm tri-racial because I've found whites, 'mulattoes' and 'negroes' on many records, so finding anything and everything in my lineage is expected.

-) Unless it's a connection we haven't discovered, I'm not from one of Delaware's state recognized tribes. Doesn't make me less "DelawareNative" - just clarifying.

-) DNA might carry you specifically to a tribe in North America, or anywhere in the world, depending on any DNA companies' test populations, and of course I'd like to find "my peoples" anywhere in the world they are, indigenous or not. You might be "orcadian" - tribes are merely groups of peoples, not necessarily one in the US that you can "join" by having the right Indian ancestors. I've never said that I'm looking for any specific tribe by way of FTDNA, but I myself can narrow down my people by logical deduction using Family Finder results, Population Finder results (well, maybe not for me yet) and paper trails.

-) In speaking with professional genealogists, I've gleaned that I have red ties to Virginia and Maryland at a minimum, and maybe NC. It's a few tribes coming together, not just one relative way down the road; it's several families on both sides from different states. Most people from Delaware are mixed blood of many races, but they either don't know it or don't want to admit it - and that's the truth I have witnessed myself.

-) I understand that this is somewhat 'bleeding edge' technology, and my results may vary. Daily.

-) I'm a private investigator

-) I'm a woman



Just the facts, ma'am.

Thank you for the clarification, I've been wondering about this and hearing it from you helps us understand how best to comment and provide guidance, wherever we may help

[dawer]

clarification

...FTDNA even told me that they dont have enough samples to prove that some DNA is in fact Indian so they may be classified elsewhere in a different population that fits closest at the moment.

FTDNA actually told me the opposite. They told me that because they only have a limited number of reference populations they report our strongest matches to the sample populations. The only caveat being genetic and migratory flow. So if you have any ancestry from Europe it is statistically possible for one to have ancestry from North Africa, Middle East, South Asia, etc. So, just a different perspective.

...Race classifications in Mexico are actual blood % ( Casta)

Mexico has not used race classifications or blood % since at least 1821. The Census tracks things like language and national origin but not race, certainly not blood %. In Colonial Mexico this was certainly the case and the idea of "blood purity" lived on until independence from Spain. So, you might find birth records prior to 1850 in Mexico showing designations like "Indigenous; Mulato", etc. But after 1850 this practice all but disappeared and by 1900 this was gone. The most in terms of race that the government will track is skin color, and for purposes of identification for say, a voter id card or passport. So, in summary, before 1850 yes; after 1850 no.

[Yaffa]

Someone might have answered already, but since I'm just now reading this, I'll give my feedback on this comment.

Most Mexicans are NOT Indian. Many Mexicans ARE Native Americans, but most Mexicans are actually of mixed race -- Mestizo. In 1921, only 30% self-identified as full Native American, and the rest where Mestizos of mixed race (about 60%), the rest where either White (1-2%) or no response. If you look on Wikipedia, you'll see that the data they quote ranges between 10-15% of people in Mexico who self-identify as Indigenous. Although I must say that Mexico doesn't truly track race, but language.

It is a very safe guess that in terms of race, the percentages from 1921 likely still hold true - 30% NA, 60% Mixed, 10% others (Including White, Afrodescendant, Asian, Middle Eastern, etc.).

To say MOST Mexicans are Native American implies that over 75% of Mexicans are Native American which is just not the case. Don't want this to spin off into another full on debate, just wanted to clarify this piece of info.

I dont research Mexico in the 1900's. My ancestors left Mexico in 1870. By the 1900's you have immigrants coming into Mexico. Even people fleeing the holocaust. Frieda Kahlo. Father was Jewish http://www.fridakahlo.com/

I do happen to know professional genealogists and historians in Mexico who do a lot of research and also go look at the Mexico DNA project. These are people researching their ancestors before the 1900's. If you read Mexico records ( marriage, baptism) the race classifications are blood %. They will fluctuate from record to record as you get closer to the 18 th century because they can not keep up with who is mixing with who. Per DNA most have a higher % of Indian than Spanish. African % being at the bottom. Also not all people in Mexico descend from Mexican Indian tribes. In the 1800's you have many US tribes running back and forth across the US/MEX border . Apache, Comanche, Kickapoo, Cherokee just to name a few. My ancestors happen to not be Spanish

[Yaffa]

FTDNA actually told me the opposite. They told me that because they only have a limited number of reference populations they report our strongest matches to the sample populations. The only caveat being genetic and migratory flow. So if you have any ancestry from Europe it is statistically possible for one to have ancestry from North Africa, Middle East, South Asia, etc. So, just a different perspective.

They told me they have no US American Indian samples. Those Tribes may not match the samples they do have from Central and South America. I posted a few pages back why they have samples of Pima/Maya and it has to do with a diabetes study.

I do have other Indian in my family from the US. My Affy test showed more mixture than my Illumina. This test is far from being accurate for some of us who do have close admixture. I do have an FF match to someone from a US tribe. I should email them to see what their PF is reading