Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MyOrigins geography error: Anglo Saxon?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MyOrigins geography error: Anglo Saxon?

    I'm pretty excited about the MyOrigins feature, it seems to work really well. Except for one slight error, not in the page but rather in the DNA analysis. The page says 26% of my DNA is from Britain, and I have no ancestors from Britain. Not even close in time nor space. Period.

    I had seen these geographical matches on the Family Finder page but this really brings the problem into focus. By Britain you may mean "Anglo-Saxon". After all, Anglo-Saxon genes are widely distributed throughout Britain although they are a relative newcomer to that region. In all honesty, I could not possibly have any British genes, but I could well have Anglo-Saxon genes.

    It can make sense because my great-grandfather was from Denmark (Jutland) where the Angles migrated from. And it can also make sense because my great-grandmother was from Saxony where the Saxons migrated from (actually Bavaria, which borders Saxony). If one was full-blooded Angle and the other was full-blooded Saxon, then my grandmother really was Anglo-Saxon without having any British ancestors. That would make me ΒΌ Anglo Saxon, agreeing with your 26% on MyOrigins. There is no other way to explain it, since my pedigree is well researched several generations back.

    If this is what is going on, it is more serious than just an error identifying the geography of some genes. It means there are relatively pureblooded Angles and Saxons lingering in their ancestral homeland, the remnants of those who did not flee the Catholic invasion of Germany and Denmark in the 5th century. It also means that these people will erroneously show their origin in England, not where they are really from. This is actually the confusion I had been dealing with for some months.

    On the upside, this explains a big mystery about my family on two branches, and I'm excited! If this leads to some new understandings of Anglo-Saxon genetics I'm doubly excited.
    Last edited by Gnarlodious; 6 May 2014, 07:07 PM.

  • #2
    And Britain would have lots of Danish DNA from the Danish invasions.

    It all gets mixed up. I have ancestors from Jutland and some of them are Frisian, whose cousins settled Kent.

    Comment


    • #3
      I was beginning to wonder about the Anglo-Saxon possibility in another thread. 3 of my mother's 4 grandparents came from Germany and France (or their parents did), but she has no European Coastal Plain. The other grandparent was colonial American.

      One of them had Westphalian ancestry (surnames: Harpring, Buttermann, Gohmann, Hartkemeyer, Kaisekamp, Reckendrees, Wessendorf, Beerman, Steffan). Perhaps the Anglo-Saxon problem could account for the higher than expected European Coastal Islands.

      But the others had ancestors from the Moselle and Bas-Rhin, departments of France, from the city of Luxembourg, and from just east of Trier. Can anyone think of a similar theory for these groups showing up as North Mediterranean Basin and/or European Coastal Islands?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MoberlyDrake View Post
        I was beginning to wonder about the Anglo-Saxon possibility in another thread
        Refer me to that discussion and I'll read it.

        My suspicion is that the statistical sample for DNA is taken from a large number of Britishers while very few Danes and/or Germans have participated. I noticed this effect while looking into my Norwegian genetics. They are not really a people who are well represented in the database, so if that were all you were looking at you might assume they don't exist.

        Likewise if east/north Germans-Danish are not well sampled, but British are, we may be seeing more origins from England than they deserve. I can't emphasize enough that I absolutely do not have any ancestors from the British isles, and yet the page tells me I have 26% British genes, the highest proportion of any group!

        Or possibly its just not well understood what the genetics are in merry olde England (a Danish word BTW). I realize a lot of pro-Roman/Catholic propaganda was put forth early on that muddied the historical waters considerably. Maybe we are on the verge of sorting it all out with these new genetic tools.

        As to exactly what these genetic markers might be, I don't know. I am more of a genealogist than a geneticist.

        Comment


        • #5
          There's no reason to read it. It was just the one sentence "I wonder if . . ." I didn't discuss it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gnarlodious View Post
            I'm pretty excited about the MyOrigins feature, it seems to work really well. Except for one slight error, not in the page but rather in the DNA analysis. The page says 26% of my DNA is from Britain, and I have no ancestors from Britain. Not even close in time nor space. Period.
            Maybe our results got mixed up, lol. I do have British ancestry and AncestryDNA says my British genes are 55% but myOrigins has zero British results. I am thinking they got lumped into European northlands and European coastal plain instead, which are much higher than AncestryDNA equivalents, due to Viking and, like you say, Germanic tribe influences on Britain. It's just frustrating because I know FTDNA are underestimating my British genes, I don't know whether ACOM are overestimating it or not. Clearly something has gone wrong with FTDNA differentiating British, Scandinavian, and Germanic tribes.

            Comment


            • #7
              I know of no ancestor directly from what they are terming European Northlands. The Vikings were just about everywhere, but one tends to think in terms of their influence on the British Isles.

              My mother got 72% European Coastal Islands and 9% European Northlands. That amounts to about 81% that could only be attributed to her one Colonial American grandparent. If they can't distinguish between Westphalian (Anglo-Saxon?) and English, I can add one more grandparent, making 50%. But 81% is still too high.

              And her 19% North Mediterranean Basin is inexplicable unless they are picking up on the Roman occupation of Gaul and England. Ancestry.com gives her 4%.

              So is there some way that Ancestry.com and 23And me can confine themselves to recent times while FTDNA is only focusing on ancient populations?

              My two double cousins and I have no European Coastal Plain either. So whatever is causing them to miss my mother's roughly 75% European Coastal Plain equally affects all of us. My double cousins, especially one of them, get a lot fewer Family Finder matches than I do. My conclusion was that their father gave them more of his DNA from his father's Alsatian and German paternal grandmother than from his Colonial American paternal grandfather. And this may be the case. Our figures are:

              Me
              40% North Mediterranean Basin
              31% European Coastal Islands
              6% European Northlands
              5% Trans-Ural Peneplain
              19% Middle Eastern

              Double cousin A
              48% North Mediterranean Basin
              21% European Coastal Islands
              12% Trans-Ural Peneplain
              19% Middle Eastern

              Double cousin B
              46% North Mediterranean Basin
              18% European Coastal Islands
              11% Trans-Ural Peneplain
              4% European Northlands
              11% Middle Eastern
              10% Jewish Diaspora (not sure where this is coming from as no one else has any Jewish. I have a feeling it should be Middle Eastern. If so, it would give her roughly the same percentage of Middle Eastern as her brother and I have, and a little more than half of what my father has.)

              My father and their mother are half Sicilian and half southern Italian. For reference, my father has 64% North Mediterranean Basin and 36% Middle Eastern.

              Comment


              • #8
                OK now I don't feel so bad. Obviously this is an evolving technology!

                But my complaint goes beyond this new service. My complaint is that any genes that look like Anglo or Saxon are automatically assumed to be from the British Isles. I think that as evidence builds that these genes are still in Jutland and Saxony, more people will notice something is wrong with the maps.

                There are more errors like yours that I am not mentioning since this post addressed the most glaring one and I am trying to stay on topic. But it makes me wonder if any scientists read these boards for feedback. Some of us have done extensive genealogical research and our knowledge just doesn't coincide with the cavalier results on this site. Sometimes it seems like they are tossing pretty colors at customers without a whole lot of accuracy.

                About your question, 23 and me was a medical genetics service until this year when the FDA cracked down on their gig. FTDNA has a much more extensive database on population and history, especially Jewish.

                BTW I should mention that its likely your 19% and 40% are the result of Sephardic, since you also appear to be J2 kohen. I'm getting the same treatment, where Mediterranean is being called European and Turkic is called "Middle Eastern", when in fact they are both Sephardic. I know this from real live genealogy.
                Last edited by Gnarlodious; 7 May 2014, 12:14 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Germanica View Post
                  Maybe our results got mixed up, lol. I do have British ancestry and AncestryDNA says my British genes are 55% but myOrigins has zero British results. I am thinking they got lumped into European northlands and European coastal plain instead, which are much higher than AncestryDNA equivalents, due to Viking and, like you say, Germanic tribe influences on Britain. It's just frustrating because I know FTDNA are underestimating my British genes, I don't know whether ACOM are overestimating it or not. Clearly something has gone wrong with FTDNA differentiating British, Scandinavian, and Germanic tribes.
                  I have a virtually identical situation. What should have been around 30% Irish seems to have been added to my Northlands, which should have only been around 6%. My Irish ancestry (note my location) is not from areas that were mercilessly raided or settled by Vikings, either. Meanwhile, Dr McDonald saw my data as 100% English.

                  I have to question whether the explanation for these odd results could be ancient populations. How ancient is ancient? My Haplogroup is W which has peak concentrations in Pakistan and Finland. However, I got no circumpolar (Finland) or any Middle Eastern, which I had previously had under the old PF. They did manage to find 1% Trans-Ural, but that probably came from my Pomeranian great grandmother who gave me my W Haplogroup.

                  That said, I do think they are moving in the right direction and it is a huge improvement over the old PF. I am just glad to see I'm not the only one who got head scratching results.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You're not alone.

                    No complaints from me because I have adoptions on both sides, so I really do not know what is accurate. What does have me confused is the great disparity in results between MyO and the utilities at Gedmatch.

                    Gedmatch utilities, using the oracle 4 mixed mode population, generally has me at about 30% Baltic(Hungarian/Lithuanian), 30% North eastern Europe (Russia_North, Sweden, Norway, Germany- strange I know, Denamrk), and very little British Isles (less than 5%).

                    On MyO, it has me at 0% Baltic/Russia/Scandinavia/Germany!! But 48% British Isles. Obviously there are some questions about methodologies. Being that I do not have a real paper trail to reference, this is just a fun and complex game that I am playing for now.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What proportion of Welsh sampling is included in My Origins?, I'd imagine people with 100% Welsh ancestry would be a better sample base for ECI as opposed to Germanic or Viking parts of the Isles.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Zaru View Post
                        What does have me confused is the great disparity in results between MyO and the utilities at Gedmatch.
                        What has me really confused is my 93% PF result being Orcadian. MO result being 0% ECI. Result from Doug McDonald reading my raw FTDNA file 100% English.

                        Again, today, I have another match on my paternal Irish lines thanks to people who have tested at Ancestry and uploaded to Gedcom. I have been working with them and one member of a sibling group here at FTDNA who has also uploaded to Gedcom. As luck would have it, they and I have ethnic lines that cannot reasonably be related within the time frame suggested by our generational distance. When all of those lines are excluded that leaves us with a handful of Irish born in the early 1800's as our potential match lines.

                        C'mon, FTDNA. MyOrigins is touted as a method to determine our ancestry and where we came from. Maybe that bit should be left out of the FF and should instead be included under the fun factoid cocktail-conversation novelty section.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I don't think any DNA scientists read this thread or care how we feel in regards to the new inaccuracy of the myorigins results. Don't get me wrong I don't say it isn't in general correct, it is to a degree. But it could save people the worry and be tons more specific. As they were in their older system.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X