Experiences with Family Finder and PF

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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 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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

I do happen to know that some tribes in VA are considered extinct according to paper. They maybe be out there somewhere but you will not find paper. meaning you cant claim tribe if you dont have paper stating tribe. I do know people who have proven Indian ancestors Though Y-DNA from VA that can not even prove tribe on their ancestors because the tribes they may be of are considered extinct.


Being that there are so many tribes. Some may have also branched off each other, some may have records and some dont. In my experience researching it is very rare even if you have an Indian ancestor that you will find a record outside tribal enrollment that will state tribe. If you find a record with a tribe listed outside enrollment you just found the equivalent of the holy grail!


My MT-DNA does match 2 federal US tribal members at a distance. Both those tribal members are of different tribes and my ancestor is NOT of either tribe. MT-DNA is solid where % is not and my MT DNA can not prove tribe.

% tests cant be accurate if they are not using samples from all populations. This is why PF is in its beta phase and will not be 100 % accurate anytime soon. 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.

If someone wants solid proof of confirming they have an Indian ancestor, the best thing they can do is Y and MT-DNA test those lines. It will not prove tribe but will confirm if that one line ancestor is Indian. Especially if your paper fluctuates on race form White, to Negro to Mulatto. All 3 of these does not mean Indian. Usually someone who is listed Mulatto more times than not has African mix in that line. The term Mulatto has a much different meaning than say Mexico. Race classifications in Mexico are actual blood % ( Casta)

You might also check surname projects for your ancestors to see if any of your cousin lines may have come forward to DNA test for any of your direct line ancestors that you can not Y and MT DNA test for.

I have more than enough proof to claim I am genetically in part Indian but I dont run around claiming I am Indian because I am not a tribal member. I descend from Indians. There is a difference.

[DelawareNative]

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.

[desley]

results from Dr McDonald

I received this response about my raw Illumina file from Dr McDonald. See the first post in this thread for my data from FTDNA.

As shown below, the quantitative does not discover the Native American.

kit 173139-autosomal-o-results.csv
Most likely fit is 87.4% (+- 10.8%) Europe (all Western Europe)
and 12.6% (+- 10.8%) Europe (various subcontinents)
which is 100% total Europe

The following are possible population sets and their fractions,
most likely at the top
French= 0.486 Irish= 0.514
French= 0.352 Orcadian= 0.648
Orcadian= 0.859 Tuscan= 0.141
French= 0.760 Finland= 0.240
Irish= 0.779 Tuscan= 0.221
Spain= 0.163 Orcadian= 0.837
Spain= 0.257 Irish= 0.743
French= 0.758 Lithuani= 0.242
Orcadian= 0.837 Italian= 0.163
Irish= 0.744 Italian= 0.256

It shows a typical British person, with a mixture that you are
solidly in Britain. The PCA (speckle)plot agrees.

However, since you suggested Native American, I looked
carefully at that green spot on the chromosomes. It is small
but very strong, and quite possibly is real, but still,
it is too small to be 99% sure. Maybe 70%.


He included a chromosome diagram that shows a small but definite native american area on my chromosome 8, and a speckle diagram showing populations I match.

I'm hoping that more DNA data from North American natives will improve the accuracy in the future, but this is very helpful to me.

[Yaffa]

I had missed that. I made an assumption based on his name. You are correct about determining tribe via DNA. It's hard enough to identify NA vs. East Asian. I don't think any test can identify down to the level of tribe, and if a test claimed it could, I would be highly skeptical. PF is not making that claim. It's only reporting the sample populations a person is most like, and Pima/Maya is about it for North America as far as sample populations go. Y-DNA and MtDNA are good when they are positive for NA haplogroups, but they can't disprove NA ancestry since they represent less than 2% of your ancestry 7 generations back.

I also agree with what I think you are saying, i.e. that claiming Native American ancestors was the safe explanation among families in the south to explain physical traits actually attributable to African ancestors. This is just my opinion based on doing southern genealogical research for many years. I'm not saying this is the case for DelawareNative, I'm speaking generally now.

Where are you researching in the SE? I know there were a lot of Free African Americans in the Granville/Orange/Chatham Area of NC. Some of them claimed Indian when they were African/European Mixed. There were also Indians in the area. Some of them could be tri racial. I also know some of the people in that area did come from Maryland, VA etc. They move south to NC and then west or further south.