PDA

View Full Version : Genetic Genealogy



DBCoup
06-01-2016, 7:16 AM
Any thought to such a forum so we can educate ourselves in the intricacies of this subject?

Guy Etchells
06-01-2016, 8:27 AM
In its earliest form genetic genealogy has been the basis of genealogy for hundreds of years.
What I mean by that is the earliest form of genetic genealogy is surname research.

However what I assume you are referring to is combining DNA research with the more traditional forms of genealogical research.
As with any data the researcher has to understand what they are working with and what it actually provides.
DNA research is still in its infancy and many of the claims and conclusions that are made are simply false. That does not mean it should be completely discarded as even using traditional methods many claims and conclusions are false.
By the same token we must not assume that DNA is the magic bullet that will reveal a person’s ancestry back to the year dot, it doesn’t work like that.

We don’t inherit half our genes form our mother and half from our father and so on back through history.
Some ancestors donate more genes some less the mix is fluid.

However if used with care DNA research can provide an expensive additional tool for researchers.

Cheers
Guy

Deeny
06-01-2016, 4:19 PM
As someone who has used traditional DNA testing to identify my biological father and has also taken the plunge into the more recently available autosomal DNA testing, I think a forum on this subject could be most useful. Any tips on the best ways to interpret results would be welcome by newbies to this technology.

Genetic genealogy isn't going to replace good old fashioned paper research, but it can be a great tool in the search for ancestral truths. It can also be a lot of fun to make contact with blood "cousins" who have an interest in genealogy and are happy to explore a paper trail back to a mutual shared ancestor.

Deeny.

DBCoup
06-01-2016, 9:01 PM
In its earliest form genetic genealogy has been the basis of genealogy for hundreds of years.
What I mean by that is the earliest form of genetic genealogy is surname research.

However what I assume you are referring to is combining DNA research with the more traditional forms of genealogical research.
As with any data the researcher has to understand what they are working with and what it actually provides.
DNA research is still in its infancy and many of the claims and conclusions that are made are simply false. That does not mean it should be completely discarded as even using traditional methods many claims and conclusions are false.
By the same token we must not assume that DNA is the magic bullet that will reveal a person’s ancestry back to the year dot, it doesn’t work like that.

We don’t inherit half our genes form our mother and half from our father and so on back through history.
Some ancestors donate more genes some less the mix is fluid.

However if used with care DNA research can provide an expensive additional tool for researchers.

Cheers
Guy

Yes using DNA as a tool to complement traditional genealogical research. Any clues extracted using DNA must, if recent enough, be verified using traditional methods. However DNA can help with some aspects and the relatively high cost must be compared to, in my case, 40 years of unsuccessful research.

Do you have an opinion about the value of creating a forum for this topic?

christanel
06-01-2016, 9:19 PM
Hello
I have made Admin aware of your suggestion re a new forum re genetic genealogy.

I must admit that when I start to read anything to do with DNA tests it doesn't take long for my eyes to glaze over so I am probably one of the people who would benefit from a forum to discuss DNA research as an additional tool for researchers.

We will let you know what has been decided re a specialist forum after our discussions over many cups of tea.:smile5:

Christina

DBCoup
06-01-2016, 9:25 PM
Thanks Christina
It may be the blind leading the blind but perhaps we could all learn together.

christanel
06-01-2016, 9:40 PM
Thanks Christina
It may be the blind leading the blind but perhaps we could all learn together.

:biggrin5: :thumbsup:

Christina

Wilkes_ml
06-01-2016, 10:15 PM
I worry that I may get back results that show 25 years of paper research on my paternal side was a complete waste of time 'cos my father wasn't my real biological father :lol: Or my maternal grandfather wasn't really my biological grandfather.....it could throw a few spanners in the works couldn't it?

what do you do if you do find out that a close paternal ancestor wasn't really related after all?

Lesley Robertson
07-01-2016, 7:37 AM
Find out who the milkman was ?

:innocent:

It can take a while for such suggestions to be decided about. In the mean time, such queries can be (and have been) asked in one of the other forums... I must admit that thus far, we haven't had very many of them.

Guy Etchells
07-01-2016, 8:29 AM
That is one possible result that would need to be very carefully researched as has been shown in the past it is perfectly possible for one person to have two sets of DNA in their body.
It is thought this chimerism stems from two eggs/embryos exchanging chromosomes with each other (note both eggs/embryos may not develop in the womb and the mother may have twins or she may only give birth to one child).

There is also another cause of two sets of DNA in one person which has been given the label mosaicism.
This is when a person is born with one set of DNA but during life some cells mutate and change. This causes the DNA in the mutated cell to be different from the DNA in the original cells.
This scenario is actually very common; in fact, most of us are actually mosaics, the trigger for the change could be exposure to sunlight or even the chemicals we eat in our food; minor things we encounter in daily life.

The difference between chimerism and mosaicism is in chimerism the difference between the two sets of DNA may be considerable whereas the difference of DNA in mosaicism is normally minor.

Possibly the most well-known case of chimerism is that of Lydia Fairchild, who nearly lost custody of her children when DNA testing erroneously showed she wasn't related to them. Doctors eventually determined that she had a second set of DNA that matched as with any research DNA research is only as good as the researcher.
Never take any claims (DNA or otherwise) as definitive always look for supporting evidence remember it is not even possible to prove paternity by DNA means only the possibility of paternity.

Finally the claims of ethnic origin made by some companies are nothing short of rubbish.
There is no such thing as a Viking gene or an English gene for instance as these communities are made up of individuals from many countries not just one.
Throughout the history of the world people have travelled far and wide and as a result their genes have been mixed with those from other parts of the world.
The “Romans” in Britain for instance were not all from Italy or Rome but included people from the other states or countries the Romans had conquered and by default their DNA.

Cheers
Guy

Sue Mackay
07-01-2016, 8:49 PM
Admin have set up a DNA forum and so I have moved this thread.

tony vines
07-01-2016, 11:24 PM
Guy as usual makes the considered view of the subject and its complexity very well but I have always in the past majored on Michelle's point made I'm sure half in jest. I do not know enough about the subject to comment on whether she would ever get back results from DNA analysis that make her 25 years of research a complete waste of time. I think it more likely that she would simply not be able to prove some relationship via a DNA test.

This subject comes up all the time on genealogical forums and indeed this forum has had long discussions on the subject on several occasions in the 10 years I've been a member. While the tests have become better and there are now more companies who are doing them it still comes down to whether or not you believe the birth certificate or baptismal record stating that John Smith was the father of Jim Smith. If he wasn't - and frankly how likely is it that you would find otherwise after so many years - the results you would get back from tests on a sample given by a living ancestor would be meaningless in relation to that particular link. Well not exactly meaningless perhaps but because you have no idea that Fred Brown was actually the biological father you would misinterpret the result.

Now put the issue in the historical context of our ancestors where there were virtually no useful contraceptive measures that could be taken (hence the back street abortions so prevalent in those days) and a woman who gave birth before marriage (or conceived a child outside a marriage) was treated as a social outcast. There must have been great secrecy involved when such things occurred and we know that pregnant women were often despatched to distant relatives' homes to have their babies far from nosey neighbours. We all know that there were many instances of children born before marriage (or within a few months of a marriage taking place) where the child was then adopted by the husband - who may or may not have been its biological father. He may have adopted the child in full knowledge that he was not the biological father or he may have been deceived by its desperate mother. While this was obviously far more common before the mid 20th century when effective contraception became available I know from my own research of a father bringing up a child born in the 1940s he believed wrongly to be his own to his dying day.

I know that DNA testing has great value in forensic work and other types of scientific studies but I think that we should treat its claims to be able to create certainty in the world of family history very sceptically. I am with Guy on this.

Megan Roberts
08-01-2016, 10:53 AM
Each of us probably has some degree of curiosity about what DNA might show about ourselves, including perhaps in the case of myself, rather than my heritage being principally Welsh it being shown to be something else.

However, one of the principal joys I get from family history is discovering the stories that attach to people (my ancestors) and how their lives, whether or not they are ultimately shown to have been genetically related to me, have impacted upon mine.

Most if not all of us have skeletons in the family tree, and I don't think that it's worth shaking that tree just for the sake of new scientific developments, as that may reveal things that are best left as they are.

So for me, unless there was a pressing medical reason to try and identify biological bloodlines, I don't think that this is an avenue of research that I will pursue.

Heather Potter
17-01-2016, 7:21 PM
I took the Ancestory DNA in November 2015
It hasn't really helped with tracing any ancestors.
It told me I was 76% English and the rest split through Western Europe.
Not sure really how to read the results.
It certainly did not reveal where more recent Ancestors had lived.
A forum would be a good idea if only to understand the results.
Kind Reards Heather

lockeroots
18-01-2016, 1:19 AM
I am the Admin of the Lock / Locke DNA project which was started a little over a decade ago. When used properly, Y DNA evidence can and will help confirm your paper trail research. There are 13 Locke men from my tree Y DNA tested to date, all 13 confirmed to be a Y DNA match to one another, and they range in kinship from 1st cousin to 6th cousin.
I have been blessed with the fact that my family regardless of genetic distance has been all to willing to participate in the DNA project to help represent their branch of the family tree.

Lock / Locke DNA project is a global DNA project and I would highly encourage Western European Lock / Locke to join the project.
DNA matches have already been found between Locke's of England and Locke's of the USA. There are over 100 men Y DNA tested in the project already, representing over 30 unrelated male lineages of the Lock and Locke surname.

Just to show you an example of what I have done for my own Lock family tree, I have built a chart to show exactly which branches of the tree have been involved in Y DNA testing. That is just the USA side of my tree, the UK side of the tree is not in this image. If you are a male Lock / Locke and wish to participate in the project, please contact me, or google the Locke DNA project and visit the project web page.


https://www.british-genealogy.com/extensions/uploads/d201dd65-e08a-4182-88f5-0ce601ad6c7e.jpg

lockeroots
18-01-2016, 1:26 AM
What that image does not show are the 2 UK Locke participants, they are both descendants of Matthew Lock and Memberance Boswell of England who are a Y DNA match to the descendants of Richard Lock of Frederick County Virginia.
So there are 11 Locke men in the USA Y DNA tested, and 2 in England. While Y DNA has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that Richard Lock of Virginia and Matthew Lock of England shared a common male ancestor, we do not yet know how they are related.

Both the Richard Lock and Matthew Lock branches have tested to the 67 marker level, plus both have done additional SNP testing to confirm they are indeed related Lock branches.

t@nya
18-01-2016, 4:11 AM
I did DNA tests over at FamilyTreeDNA in 2012. From that I confirmed that my paper-trail ancestors George Tickle and Mary Ann Hill were my genetic ancestors as well, by matching another descendant of theirs, which was nice.

Also, I've found a likely connection to my Irish lines which is promising, since that has been one of my tougher ones to crack.

Kiltpin
18-01-2016, 11:32 AM
Two observations -

Firstly, as far as heraldry and the inheritance of arms and titles is concerned, both the Lord Lyon and the College of Arms have firmly set their faces against the use of DNA as proof of a claim. It has been a pillar of UK establishment that if a man says "This is my son", then in law, he is the father of that child, regardless of genetics.

Secondly, be prepared for bad news, in equal measures with good news. An acquaintance of mine developed a degenerative genetic illness. He had three children, all between 16 and 21. All three had steady boy/girlfriends or partners. Everybody was tested. The results came back that not only were the three children not his, but they each had a different father. The family broke down completely and he died a short while later alone and unloved.

So - be careful what you wish for - you might just get it.

Regards

Kiltpin

Jessie 888
21-01-2016, 7:48 PM
I took the Ancestory DNA in November 2015
It hasn't really helped with tracing any ancestors.
It told me I was 76% English and the rest split through Western Europe.
Not sure really how to read the results.
It certainly did not reveal where more recent Ancestors had lived.
A forum would be a good idea if only to understand the results.
Kind Reards Heather

I'm just learning about all this myself but I highly recommend downloading your DNA raw data from Ancestry (which is really easy and that's coming from a tech dummy) and putting it on GEDmatch and Family Tree DNA. I've spent months trying to wade through 50 odd pages of my matches on Ancestry DNA (that's about 2500 matches!) but so many trees are private it gets quite frustrating. GEDmatch and Family Tree DNA make it far easier to contact people and both sites give you tools to compare your matches properly? They've also got lots of 'learning resources' explaining what each test means and how to interpret your results. Pretty useful, I reckon!

Heather Potter
21-01-2016, 8:20 PM
[QUOTE=t@nya;622072]I did DNA tests over at FamilyTreeDNA in 2012. From that I confirmed that my paper-trail ancestors George Tickle and Mary Ann Hill were my genetic ancestors as well, by matching another descendant of theirs, which was nice.

Also, I've found a likely connection to my Irish lines which is promising, since that has been one of my tougher ones to crack.[/QUOT

Heather Potter
21-01-2016, 8:27 PM
Thanks for this Jessie,
I will attempt to download my results, I would be welcome for any advice on how to do this.

Wilkes_ml
21-01-2016, 10:51 PM
Does it matter if your line goes back through a mixture of male & female ancestors now? I notice from Lockeroots that he has male only descendent with y testing..

I would like to see if my illegitimate male ancestors suspected mother is the sister of the female ancestor of a possible contact.

If that is a possibility then I would be very interested in giving DNA testing a try.

lockeroots
22-01-2016, 3:56 AM
For those who are going to use the Family Tree DNA company to do their testing, I highly recommend you join your surname DNA project, and if you are interested in your deep ancestral roots, join your Y Haplogroup or mt Haplogroup project as well.
The Admin's of those projects are typically very informed volunteers who will try to help as much as possible.

Jessie 888
22-01-2016, 8:34 AM
Thanks for this Jessie,
I will attempt to download my results, I would be welcome for any advice on how to do this.

Heather, I'll attempt to start a new thread to explain it simply because it might get lost on this thread and it might help others.

Heather Potter
24-01-2016, 9:08 PM
I have managed to e mail my results to my own address.
I can also copy a link and will try to put this on here.

Heather Potter
24-01-2016, 9:14 PM
Hi Jessie 888
This is my DNA ethnicity link let me know if it is ok.

http://dna.ancestry.com/public/ethnicity/8c407078-713d-4aea-95be-969f73f6e2cc/9cd38b60-f83d-47e8-a794-a8b661ee3e0c

Jessie 888
27-01-2016, 9:16 AM
Hi Jessie 888
This is my DNA ethnicity link let me know if it is ok.

http://dna.ancestry.com/public/ethnicity/8c407078-713d-4aea-95be-969f73f6e2cc/9cd38b60-f83d-47e8-a794-a8b661ee3e0c

Heather, just checking, did you read the other thread I set up for you about 'how to download your raw DNA data from Ancestry?'

You've posted your ethnicity results here but they're just a small part of your results. Forgive me if this is obvious to you but, just in case you haven't found your 'proper' results yet, go to your Ancestry Home Page. Along the top bar you will see a tab called DNA. When you click on that, the screen is divided into two parts. On the left, you will see a link to your Ethnicity results, but on the right you should see a button that says See All DNA Matches. That's the link you need to click. You should find pages of possible matches to explore. Once again, sorry if you knew all that already!

Heather Potter
27-01-2016, 12:20 PM
Hi Jessie,
Sorry I have not seen your previous thread.
I don't mind your advice at all.
Can you point me in the direction of you thread.
Thank you

Lesley Robertson
27-01-2016, 1:32 PM
In answer to #22, y chromosome testing will only give you your direct male line - father's father's father's etc. The y chromosome is the one that makes a baby male. Mitochondrial DNA testing only gives you the direct female line - mother's mother's mother's etc. The mitochondria are energy producers in cells and are present in the egg's cytoplasm (imagine the egg white in a hen's egg), not on the chromosomes in the nucleus, and can only come from the mother. That's why the press make so much fuss about potential "babies with 3 parents" when the nucleus from a maternal egg is injected into a nucleus-free donor egg - the child will have different sources of maternal, paternal and mitochondrial DNA.

Neither y chromosome or mDNA will tell you anything about your other lines where a mixture of males and females are involved.

They also don't tell you who the specific male or female relatives were - it could be man A, it could be his brother, uncle or even a distant cousin if they both have uninterrupted descent of the correct gender. It can tell you that A and B share descent on a specific line, but it can't tell you whether your ancestor was the local landowner or a byblow of his great great grandfather. Life gets a bit easier if you know that A was the only (fe)male from that family in the area at the time.

There are companies that offer information about other lines, but please make sure that you understand what you're being offered, and be sure that it's what you want, before handing over your money. Also, I'd only use a company suggested by informed contacts who have already used them - it's a new field and some companies may less reliable than others....

Tom's post, the first in this forum HERE (https://www.british-genealogy.com/threads/87023-DNA-Research-*READ-BEFORE-POSTING*) is a good place to start.

thewideeyedowl
29-01-2016, 4:13 PM
This is a very interesting thread, discussing one of the current buzz trends in genealogy - and a big 'thank you' for the useful input from Guy and Lesley.

I have been, and remain, deeply sceptical about using DNA testing in researching family history. And as a female, I would have to use autosomal and mitochondrial tests, and rely on co-operative males for Y-DNA samples.

I am now running a small One-Name Study (EZARD) and do not myself wish to embark on an associated Y-DNA project, even though I have close male relatives who might be willing to participate. Interestingly, my document trail takes me, both as a family researcher and as a one-namer, back to a Bastardy Recognizance of 1779, which reveals that father of a male EZARD child was a teenager called George CLARKSON. (The descendants of that teenage 'roll in the hay' are now spread all over the world - and one of them is me.) If interested, check out the thread '1800: The parents are alias EZARD' on the Church Registers' forum.) I will continue those EZARD studies back from the mother of that illegitimate child; not interested in the CLARKSON line.

For me, both my own family researches and now the ONS, are all about the history of the family/the name itself; I am not concerned about going back to a potential 'first' ancestor/EZARD name-bearer. I do not think it matters if an ancestor/name-bearer who has played a part in the development of the family lines/the EZARD name, perhaps centuries ago, were to be proved - via DNA testing - to have been a 'cuckoo in the nest'. That person, perhaps (un)officially adopted/an assumer of the name, played their part. That is what matters.

And as Guy and Lesley have both pointed out, there is an element of what could be termed 'negative proof' in Y-DNA testing, e.g. a result showing a percentage likelihood, which also implies a percentage unlikelihood - say, 98% v 2%. Obviously, it is a lot more complicated than that, but I hope you can see what I am getting at.

Y-DNA projects are currently a Big Thing in the world of One-Name Studies, with researchers trying to establish the original genetic lines of the surname being studied. This might lead back to founding father(s) in a little village somewhere in the far distant mists of time. And that does not interest me at all, heretic that I am. (Sorry, folks.) I would prefer to trace the linguistic development of a name, taking into account dialect and speech.

But what I find interesting - obsessively fascinating - is how my family lines/EZARD name-bearers have been affected by and responded to the times in which they lived. For instance, there has been a lot of migration, within the UK and to distant countries, usually for economic reasons. So, for me, it is the things folk have done, the places they have lived, and - sometimes - the photographs they have left that make for the history and heritage of the family/the name. My family researches have revealed, inter alia, "salt-of-the-earthness", excellent carpentry skills and an alarming tendency for going bankrupt. And the ONS has already thrown up a freed black slave who was Head of Household in a US census (1830), coloured cavalrymen in the US Civil War, ships' captains; and an awful lot of carpenters.

Swooping off now.

Owl

mrshilly
29-01-2016, 9:30 PM
Hi, I'm not well educated on DNA ancestry so I apologise if my question is a bit basic but if I were to do a DNA ancestry test, presumably I would only get matches if other people in my 'family' had also done a DNA test? I mean the result might be a bit disappointing potentially? Or am I not looking at this in the right way?

Deeny
30-01-2016, 4:04 PM
Hi, I'm not well educated on DNA ancestry so I apologise if my question is a bit basic but if I were to do a DNA ancestry test, presumably I would only get matches if other people in my 'family' had also done a DNA test? I mean the result might be a bit disappointing potentially? Or am I not looking at this in the right way?


From my own experience and that of many friends, it seems that if you are English born and bred and get your autosomal DNA tested by either of the 3 main companies (Family Tree DNA, Ancestry and 23andMe) the average amount of genetic cousins you are likely to be related to on their existing database seems to be between 350 and 500 people. If you have one Jewish grandparent you may get 1500 cousins. The databases are growing all the time as more and more people realise the usefulness of genetic testing, so you need to check your on-line account regularly to see when new matches arrive with a potential for interesting discoveries. The level of your relatedness to these cousins is. of course, a lottery. You could potentially find a half sibling you didn't even know about, but are more likely to find 3rd, 4th and 5th cousins with whom you can correspond to explore your mutual family roots.

Y- DNA testing (only available for men) which is linked to surname use and great for one-name studies, will produce a much lower number of results as fewer people get tested and many only test at a low level (for cost reasons) which has less significance. A geneticist friend advised my husband (who used FTDNA) to start at the 37 marker level and at present he has no matches with anyone beyond the 25 marker level. Y-testing can produce confusing results for Jewish men as adoption of surnames in the Jewish community has been a relatively recent thing and there was less uniformity within families, to use the same surname. With FTDNA it is possible to start at a low level of testing and then be tested to a higher level at a later date if a specific name match suggests there may be some benefit to it.

Deeny

lockeroots
31-01-2016, 8:19 PM
Autosomal DNA testing is fine, but I cringe when someone believes Y DNA and mtDNA testing isn't worth the cost or effort.

I want to explain something to you all. Y DNA testing can go way beyond just your surname. I will explain.

I am of British Romanichal Gypsy ancestry, I am in Y Haplogroup H1a - M82 which is South Asian in origin.
Through my Y Haplogroup H DNA project I am able to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that all Romany in H1a - M82 shared a single paternal ancestor, regardless of our clan identity or surnames today. A single genetic marker was identified that links all the Romany in H1a - M82 together, related to one another with in the last 2000 years.

Had we only relied upon autosomal DNA testing, we would not have made that very important discovery!
And with autosomal DNA, it is a hit and miss kind of thing, you may match some cousins but not match other cousins because of DNA recombination.
I have a paper trail proven 5th cousin of the Locke surname, he and I are a 65/67 Y DNA match, but because of DNA recombination, he and I are NOT an autosomal DNA match!

How was my 5th cousin and I to find each other had we only relied on autosomal DNA? We wouldn't have found each other because we do not share enough autosomal DNA in common to be a match, yet we are a Y DNA match.
The more distant the kinship is, the less likely 2 paper trail proven cousins will be an autosomal DNA match because of DNA recombination. It is pure luck of the draw who you will match with if it is a distant kinship, because with each passing generation, DNA recombination adds to the mix, takes away from the mix.

He and I are both direct descendants of the same paternal ancestor Richard Lock, but because we are a distant 5th cousins, enough generations have passed by for DNA recombination to kick in and make us not be an autosomal DNA match.
Respectfully I think it foolish to limit one's self to a single type of DNA test because that one very important match may not be an autosomal match but maybe a Y DNA or mtDNA match.

Deeny
31-01-2016, 10:56 PM
Respectfully I think it foolish to limit one's self to a single type of DNA test because that one very important match may not be an autosomal match but maybe a Y DNA or mtDNA match.


In an ideal world we could all afford every test going, with every company that offers them, so as not to miss any available matches of any type. Women don't have the option of Y-DNA testing (and don't always have a male relative) and mtDNA is no good for anyone hoping to find out more about their paternal line, so if cost is a deciding factor for anyone who is contemplating going down the genetic genealogy route (and a starting point of around £80 can feel like quite an investment when you don't know what you will get out of it) it makes sense to choose a test that will reveal a wide range of matches for general genealogical interest. For anyone on a restricted budget, autosomal testing (like the FTDNA Family Finder) is the obvious, value for money, place to start.

Deeny

lockeroots
31-01-2016, 11:14 PM
I understand the issues Deeny, I do. But I always have the same response at the ready.
Yes your immediate paternal line maybe deceased, but with Y DNA it does not matter which male is Y DNA tested because all the men of that tree of that surname share the same Y chromosome. So even if you have no living males in your immediate tree living, go back in the tree one or two generations and ask a male cousin of that surname to Y DNA test in your place.

As longs as you have a provable paper trail to the Y DNA participant, you accomplish your goal of getting your paternal tree represented in Y DNA testing. All the men of that paternal tree of that surname will all share the same Y chromosome with minor marker mutations. So it doesn't matter if 2 men are 1st cousins or 10th cousins, because they all descended from the the same common male ancestor, 100% of the men of that tree of that specific surname will share the same Y chromosome.

And I of all people understand the financial issues, I am disabled and on a very limited fixed income, so I do know how hard it is to save up for DNA testing. I didn't do all my DNA testing at one time, did one test back in 2004 and have slowly upgraded as I could afford to, and added the autosomal test much later. So I do fully understand the issues. :)

Heather Potter
01-02-2016, 8:33 PM
Thank you for this, I have made a DNA relative connection, I will be asking my brother to do a Y DNA
xHeatherx

kevininlondon
02-02-2016, 1:59 AM
Our American cousins love it, me I believe as above... for the general sweep of history over thousands of years its interesting but there are no names attached... it seems to work where you have a close knit community who lived in relative isolation for 100s of years and practiced endgamy (cousin marriage) so assuming enough people have lodged their DNA you could match into this group.
Then we have autosomal which is good for max 5 generations which in most English peoples case is pointless as we can generally go back at least that far.. so reality for me it was just another way for people like Ancestry to keep you hooked. I had a conversation with WDYTYA they said they had to research so many people to come up with one person whom they could track back more than 4 generation, as to DNA proving religion nope it does not..

lockeroots
02-02-2016, 5:14 AM
As a general rule that is correct Kevin, 5 generations with autosomal DNA but there are many exceptions to that rule.
Again it is a pure luck of the draw who you will match with, and it is very possible a more distant cousin well beyond 5 generations ago could be an autosomal match with you. I have a Romanichal of the Smith surname whom I am a match with, we figured out he and I can not be related any closer then 8 generations ago, though we do not yet know exactly how he and I are related.

His Smith lineage remained in England, while my immediate Lock ancestor for what ever the reasons were, was in Frederick County Virginia USA by 1763, possibly by 1755. So the Smith connection we suspect to be connected with my immigrant ancestor who is 8 generations ago from him to me.

Y DNA does not have the same recombination issues, Y DNA does not recombine in the same way autosomal DNA does.
With Y DNA following the paternal lineage, doesn't matter how distant the kinship is, all the men of that tree of that specific surname will share the same Y chromosome with minor marker mutations.

Right now I am helping an unrelated Locke with his tree, he is a 64/67 Y DNA match to the Lock / Locke lineage of Chittlehampton.
This would be a very distant kinship they both believe that likely dates back to the late 1600's to mid 1700's era of Chittlehampton. One Locke branch came to the American Colonies much earlier then the other branch, they do not know how they are related yet. But Y DNA testing along with some additional SNP testing confirms they are indeed related branches!

The William Buckingham Locke lineage came to the USA much later around the mid 1800's from Chittlehampton, and that branch is a Y DNA match to a Locke branch who has ties to early Colonial Pennsylvania USA who came much earlier.
We would not have known of this kinship with out the use of Y DNA testing and backed up with some Haplogroup ( SNP ) testing to confirm they are indeed in the same Y Haplogroup known as Y Haplogroup R-CTS7822.
So we have solid genetic evidence both Locke branches shared a common male ancestor, they share 64 of 67 genetic markers in common, plus they both have done some SNP testing to confirm both branches are in R-CTS7822.

The evidence of kinship through DNA really doesn't get much better then that! :)

lockeroots
02-02-2016, 5:49 AM
I explain it to 100's of Lock / Locke surname researchers / descendants around the globe, that no Lock / Locke tree can ever be truly complete unless we identify each and every branch and reconnect those branches back together in to the proper tree.
Using both the paper records research with the DNA side of the research, the Locke DNA project has already identified multiple connections between Lock / Locke of England to the USA.

This same strategy can work for any lineage regardless of the surname. Working together across the ocean sharing our records knowledge and backing those paper records up with the genetic evidence, good things have already happened just in one surname project and it can and will work for all surnames projects.

Does not matter where our ancestors got off to, many folks for what ever their reasons were left the UK for other places, some left willingly, others fled for their lives, some were forcefully transported as convicts.
I know many Romany historians talk about the same piece of Romany history, how Romanies were transported over seas as convicts never to be seen again, that they are a dead end.

Not true! Through my genealogical and genetic research, I have already identified at least half a dozen Romanichal paternal lineages through their rare South Asian DNA who can not be mistake with any other population who were in the American Colonies as early as the late 1600's - 1700's era. Just because a story ends with an individual who for what ever the reasons were left the UK, doesn't mean the story is really a dead end because that story could just as well pick right back up over seas and if you hadn't explored those possibilities you may not have thought to look for that ancestor across an ocean.

The Romanichal historians all talk about the Romanichal convicts and they all said the same thing, that is where the story ends once they were transported and that simply isn't the whole truth because many of those Romanichal convicts survived the boat right and started family's over sea's, DNA does not forget!
You can run in to a brick wall in the paper records, the records can be lost due to fire, floods, war or what ever but DNA does not forget kinship, it is being passed down through each generation.

No family tree can ever be truly complete until every branch of the tree can be identified and reattached back to the tree.
Y DNA works exactly as it was intended and when used properly that one test can help find kinship's that you may not have known about because that one male ancestor left the UK.

Lesley Robertson
02-02-2016, 10:02 AM
The trouble being that it only tells you about one line....
Not everyone is doing an ONS. There are many types of family history research, and it's not fair to try and force everyone into the same glass slipper. The people who make you cringe may not be investigating their direct male or female lines.

People should think about what they want to know, look at the limitations and possibilities of each method, and then decide whether any of the DNA analyses can answer that question before handing over money and samples. For example, it won't help with my current research - Father's maternal lines.

lockeroots
02-02-2016, 10:48 AM
Who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything? Bad presumption on your part.
I have Y DNA and autosomal tested, and I plan on mtDNA testing too one day. If you followed what I was saying at all, I was explaining that there is more to DNA testing then just autosomal. That isn't forcing anyone to do anything, just an explanation.

lockeroots
02-02-2016, 11:02 AM
This is why I stopped posting to this forum in the first place, because people like to get butt hurt and twist my words for no reason.
My intentions were good and honest, no ill will meant nor intended. So ok you are doing a different kind of genealogy research, so be it, I never pointed the finger at you and tell you that you must do anything, so why take anything I have to say so personal?
If a post has nothing to do with your line of research, nothing to do with you, why then feel the need to run a person through the mud for no purpose other then you felt offended some how?

Lesley Robertson
02-02-2016, 4:00 PM
I'm not running anyone through the mud. I was reacting to message 33 where you said said that you cringe when people say they're not doing Y chromosome or mitochondrial DNA analysis. It was a reaction to what you said, not a personal attack.

We have a full range of expertises on this forum, and what seems obvious to one person is not obvious to others less expert - I gave an example where the 2 sorts of analysis are not appropriate which is as on topic as the examples you gave where one of them would be.

kevininlondon
11-03-2016, 1:24 AM
Guys, one and all. Lets be clear DNA testing is being promoted like mad by the Genealogy companys, why ? simple most people cant go far back and they want you to keep paying your monthly fees. Our friends at WDYTYA they have to look at numerous people before they find they can trace back.

You need to remember our religion goes through the female line, not the male one.. and ofcourse it can not be used to prove religion, it just covers the sweep of history over thousands of years. The latest game in town is autosomnal which test both male and female BUT only to the 4 cousin.. it sounds far but it is not. What are we left with closed communities such as those in Eastern Europe where 1st cousin marriage was practiced for 100s of years... and !

Guy Etchells
11-03-2016, 6:59 AM
I explain it to 100's of Lock / Locke surname researchers / descendants around the globe, that no Lock / Locke tree can ever be truly complete unless we identify each and every branch and reconnect those branches back together in to the proper tree.
Using both the paper records research with the DNA side of the research, the Locke DNA project has already identified multiple connections between Lock / Locke of England to the USA.



Whilst agreeing with your first paragraph I would point out that DNA does not always include every ancestor.
By this I don’t mean due to the differences between mitochondria DNA and Y chromosome but the fact that due to the way we inherit our DNA from parents half of the DNA is dropped or discarded in each generation.
It does not take many generations before a male ancestor’s line or a female ancestor’s line can be completely missing from the DNA.
It only take one generation to disregard those genes for them never to reappear again.

Cheers
Guy

Break2015
07-04-2016, 11:01 PM
As mentioned autosomal gets you five generations, some of the sites will get you 6, and the further from there the less relatives that show up. If you come from a remote / isolated population that might account for more relatives due to the marriage-to-cousin factor.

As kevininlondon said average person is lucky they can trace their family tree to great-great grandparents yet alone across the pond to another country.


Other than that some DNA [autosomal] testing is like the old child's puzzle - square in your DNA, then you all cluster around the square "hole" regardless of actual relation.


I'm just saying this because we've employed a lot of DNA testing to try and figure out dad's relations. 23&me, gedmatch, familytree, geno 2.0, ancestry, other. Autosomal, Y DNA, and mtDNA.

I guess it is useful if you know absolutely nothing about your relatives - e.g. poor family research and/or adopted - however, if you have any real paper trail research into your family from personal experience DNA to date hasn't added anything of value to our searching and we've employed DNA for a while. In fact what has been found is pretty much akin to building a gigantic stone wall and you'll see why at the end. Still we're probably among some of the original testers to at least one of those sites above.


Let me give you an example seeing as LockeRoots was generous enough to do so.

On some sites - familytree, 23&me, ancestry - it was showing close Swedish relatives that made absolutely no sense. Mum's side is British / German, Dad's is Old French / British. The closest relative was Finnish [so could potentially, depending on the samples used, be called "Swede" in DNA] was in the 1600s which shouldn't really "pop up" or if it did definitely not as a 2nd-3rd cousin category.

Took a while to figure out what was linking me to these Swedish relatives. One of the relative's forefather's was Old French from my family. So I had relation via the French side - maybe in the distant past to the Swedish, but definitely not in recent times. But the way it was presented, due to their own lacking research [as I have found sites like 23&me (even familytree) one - maybe two out of every ten people MAY have anything resembling a family tree that is not just clumped together names via sites like ancestry], it seemed that I had some recent Swedish relative.

Imagine how many people get utterly turned around on such sites due to this - 23&me is bad because of autosomal only testing - however, familytree is not much better I've found. It habitually links through mtDNA for my father to those Swedish relatives because guess what they're not really "Swedish" for me, they're French. But as the chap's family is predominantly Norweigan / Swedish except for one wife (his great-grandmother), how's that for small chance, he's IDed his family as that region on DNA sites. If I knew nothing about my family I'd be going "hey dad, we've got Swedish" or "we're Swedish" for as mentioned the relation is far too close to be knocked off as "noise" or ancient Viking.

Cute, but in a way, useless discovery in the face of reality.


Now I am not knocking DNA period. Used properly it can be useful. DNA between relatives or assumed relatives is probably the most useful - it's how we've proven some France born connections and confirmed one assumed 3rd cousin relation that is pretty funny . However, as like real researchers of paper trails you got to take [U]everything with a big grain of salt unless you can prove beyond a doubt yes, this is accurate.

It's been mentioned a couple times - Y-DNA and mtDNA relates you to the "square" holes in you and everyone else's DNA of the same lineage. It points you but it doesn't exactly tell you how or to whom. And each site offers slightly different DNA testing if you read the tiny print. I've had 2nd cousins on 23&me identified as been separated for 4 even 5 generations on other DNA sites.



gedmatch for example, don't rely on their oracles for origin too much. I've used them all, have yet to find one that gets even remotely close to "correct" given my family history - which has been proven through testing with DNA relatives [both the Acadian / France born side and other]. These are mostly self-identified populations which, of course, means the accuracy is not as great as if the researchers went to the countries in question and tested.

Mistakes can be very readily made through self-identification like this - example one of my forefathers', born in Germany from an old German family, had his name recorded by authorities as a very French spelling upon immigrating. Doesn't make him French - however, if I didn't know that true history and was used as a reference population I'd be putting down French. Probably why a number of people have committed on how DNA sites have difficulty separating French & German based on where your parents / family come from.

Actually pretty much all "origins" DNA is been called quackery right now due to the still very infancy of DNA by a number of scientists, genealogists even - pretty much anyone not related to such sites [23&me for example] says this.

This is a major complaint of Acadians on 23&me [& other sites] - their high "English" % and low "French" % via DNA for origins. Obviously, no one bothered explaining to them that most of the Old French genes - Acadian, Huguenots, etc. - have become integrated into other populations and don't widely belong in the modern French samples been referenced. There is, after all, a lot of Huguenot activity in English history upon and after their exodus from France. Essentially, Old French "square" markers are in Acadians & English [but a lower % in modern French] and like that child's puzzle mentioned above DNA has merely placed the two groups around the "square" hole.

Gedmatch is, for the record, a good way of getting around privacy - if the people don't make themselves private as you can - of other sites.


Now about Lockeroots & their pro Y-DNA / mtDNA that is good & all if one's roots are common [Locke is like Smith, one person for every nearly 10,000 in the USA alone; one per every 8,000 in UK, Canada, Australia as per forebears.io] or if one doesn't come from an isolated population. Some people will not test their DNA - nor will cultures [there are still some rather dominant "purity" mentalities in some groups]. Or for economic reasons DNA testing is well beyond the reach of people in 1st world countries - imagine the likeness of DNA testing in 2nd or 3rd worlds.

Now where Locke is successful.

My father's surname isn't necessarily common [his spelling or the common version] nor is his Y-DNA. So much so we have an "incredible" 18 matches at 12 markers for the Big Y test via familytree DNA. For those that don't know, 12 markers is pretty much the vaguest of relation you have between relatives by the Big Y. We've gone all the way to 111 to see whom was closest.

The "closest" relative has such a generational gap they don't even show up on any other DNA site so that makes it anywhere above 6 to 8 generations we're related if lucky. Sounds simple right? 18 relatives, easy to find relation. Would be if either of us actually had DNA relation with the surname groups outside of our own connection - despite looking up his surname, that might not be "ours" and the other relative has minimal relation to the DNA of other people with his surname. Fantastic - "nameless". Until more DNA relatives pop up or someone figures out the actual tie via paper trail that was indeed money "well wasted" to bash one's head against the countless [predominantly Acadian/French] relatives identified years ago via paper trail.




Whilst agreeing with your first paragraph I would point out that DNA does not always include every ancestor.
By this I don’t mean due to the differences between mitochondria DNA and Y chromosome but the fact that due to the way we inherit our DNA from parents half of the DNA is dropped or discarded in each generation.
It does not take many generations before a male ancestor’s line or a female ancestor’s line can be completely missing from the DNA.
It only take one generation to disregard those genes for them never to reappear again.

Cheers
Guy

Similarly, due to DNA inheritance even full siblings may end up with completely different relatives on sites due to the way in which they inherited DNA in relation to their sibling. It is known as recombination for a reason - not A being passed down as A, B as B.

There's a reason why most serious DNA researchers get more than themselves to test so that you're casting as "wide" a genetic net as possible to avoid missing relatives.

kevininlondon
09-04-2016, 1:14 AM
I assume we are still on the Jewish thread, so here gos

Recently in light of the decision to allow descendants of the Jews expelled in 1492 to claim Spanish citizenship there has been a move to allow the same rights to descendants of Moslem Spaniards who converted to Christianity but expelled from Spain in 1609 give or take. Without getting involved with the politics some DNA study has been done for the simple reason that Paperwork does not exist in Morocco to prove lineage no matter your religeon. Researchers decided to test the DNA expecting to find a difference between those claiming descent and fully indigenous Moroccans. Result Even testing DNA of Familys claiming Spanish descent there was no difference in the DNA profile of the people tested, which proves maybe a pet theory of mine.. that a dominant DNA will over time will completely submerge the subservient one.. the exception ofcourse being closed societys where endamy is practise for generations. This result also compares to some research trying to understand what happened to the Romano/British population of our country after the withdrawl of Rome. Testing has shown that the Welsh and Cornish show a distinctly different DNA (more so in Whales) to the rest of England.. which would classicly infer that the existing Romano/British population either was killed or escaped to the periphery, but this is nonsense there are no records of this archeology has proved that the incomers settled side by side to the original inhabitants and over time merged .. Again Dominant DNA , The conquerors the ruling elite, were healthier stronger and over many generations of interbreeding the English as we became were created, the original inhabitants are still here its us.. My point very seriously is DNA is in its infancy dont be taken in by fine words or indeed complicated ones, treate it as a game do not treat it as fact.. A certain Mr Gates thinks the same. On final point.. A jewish boy went of to the Indies, the climate intolerable for a nice Jewish girl even if she wanted to go... so he and his friends set up home with some of the local girls/slaves. Ah problem so they bring a Rabbi over from Morocco who does three hail marys and converts them to Judaism.. Fast forward 100 years.. the Sephardi Jewish Community of Surinam is 90% black fast forward 200 more years and the majority of the Jewish community of Jamaica is Black and still mainly Sephardi. My point what do you think the DNA will show (If you had told me this a year I would have laughed, but I spent a year looking at the life of Britains greatest black Citizen Mary Seacole)

GakuWolfe
10-04-2016, 12:56 PM
Researchers decided to test the DNA expecting to find a difference between those claiming descent and fully indigenous Moroccans. Result Even testing DNA of Familys claiming Spanish descent there was no difference in the DNA profile of the people tested, which proves maybe a pet theory of mine.. that a dominant DNA will over time will completely submerge the subservient one.. the exception ofcourse being closed societys where endamy is practise for generations. This result also compares to some research trying to understand what happened to the Romano/British population of our country after the withdrawl of Rome. Testing has shown that the Welsh and Cornish show a distinctly different DNA (more so in Whales) to the rest of England.. which would classicly infer that the existing Romano/British population either was killed or escaped to the periphery, but this is nonsense there are no records of this archeology has proved that the incomers settled side by side to the original inhabitants and over time merged .. Again Dominant DNA , The conquerors the ruling elite, were healthier stronger and over many generations of interbreeding the English as we became were created, the original inhabitants are still here its us..


Indeed, DNA is in its infancy. You cover a good point - dominant cultures just didn't bring with them their religion or skin tone. Unless they kept among their own societies their DNA would have integrated into the subjected cultures.

Some countries - England - have been invaded quite a bit. Similarly, forced population movement [Jewish exodus, Huguenot exodus, etc.] & colonization has caused "odd" DNA to pop up. I say "odd" because if one stopped to think about human history it isn't that odd... there's a DNA forum I am part of that I poke my head onto very so often because really they just go round & round recounting the same information. If they understand it, well, that's open to interpretation. Yesterday they were questioning as to why southeast Asians / Indonesians had modern Eurasian DNA, some with quite a high %. It made me wonder if anyone questioning this had ever heard of the Dutch East India Trading [or any of the trading companies that had their own people live & at times marry into the local cultures] in their lives.

This is what makes me laugh with DNA claiming they can relate you to nobility. It is more often than not autosomal based on haplogroup. Unless the nobility were of a completely different culture and magically dominated another culture [e.g. they had no soldiers from their own nation with them] it would be impossible to relate through something as vague as autosomal haplogroup. But the idea of been related to nobility appeals to people and it is a major selling feature [as it been "related" to founding fathers, celebs, etc.] of many DNA sites.

However, if King Joe had Haplogroup B23 then a number of his soldiers, advisors, etc. from the same geographical region would likewise have Haplogroup B23. Doesn't make you anymore King Joe's 15th lost nephew than someone of the same region without the same Haplogroup.


Guy covers it very well in his first response. Recombination. Though you "inherit" a rough 1/2 and 1/2 from your parents, and 1/4 from your grandparents that is the most basic "breakdown". It varies the exact % you actually inherit. If not, full siblings - such as myself & my brother - wouldn't have different DNA % shared on some DNA sites nor would we "find" different DNA relatives.

kevininlondon
11-04-2016, 1:27 AM
Dammit that means I am the direct descendent of Charlemagne, as are 20 million other people !

Guy Etchells
11-04-2016, 7:50 AM
Snip
... Result Even testing DNA of Familys claiming Spanish descent there was no difference in the DNA profile of the people tested, which proves maybe a pet theory of mine.. that a dominant DNA will over time will completely submerge the subservient one.. the exception ofcourse being closed societys where endamy is practise for generations. This result also compares to some research trying to understand what happened to the Romano/British population of our country after the withdrawl of Rome. Testing has shown that the Welsh and Cornish show a distinctly different DNA (more so in Whales) to the rest of England.. which would classicly infer that the existing Romano/British population either was killed or escaped to the periphery, but this is nonsense there are no records of this archeology has proved that the incomers settled side by side to the original inhabitants and over time merged .. Again Dominant DNA , The conquerors the ruling elite, were healthier stronger and over many generations of interbreeding the English as we became were created, the original inhabitants are still here its us.. My point very seriously is DNA is in its infancy dont be taken in by fine words or indeed complicated ones, treate it as a game do not treat it as fact.. A certain Mr Gates thinks the same.
Snip

Not sure if I understand your reasoning here.

Very few true Romans would actually come over to Britain most of the troops and quite a few of the officers would be from other parts of the Roman Empire (mainly the Germanic provinces) and mercenaries. Therefore the DNA of those troops would be very similar to the existing British DNA and in the main hold many of the same markers.

The “Romano British” would tend to be the richer stronger “British citizens” rather than the poorest “peasants”, there is no reason to assume that the “Roman conquerors” were healthier or stronger.
The army was almost certainly better equipped and more disciplined but that is rather different.

The post Roman invasions of Britain by Angles, Saxons and Jutes, brought another wave of people carrying essentially the same DNA (with minor mutations).

Cheers
Guy

stepives
11-04-2016, 7:25 PM
So in general terms, DNA geneology is just another 'gimmic' that's sold to to those who are trying to add weight to a family tree, in regards to companies such as Ancestree sites.

It's all about profit, and making cash for their shareholders and investors.

All I know about DNA, is that my ex wife and I have a strand that rears it's ugly head as Osteogenesis Imperfecta. And when you see the results of this, in an X-ray of our two hour old child, that's when DNA testing is worthy of being done.

So if people want to waste their money, especially trying to put together a family tree......good luck to you, but I would rather you donate your cash to research of such genetic problems.

Read this, before you buy a DNA test.

Type 3 OI is also a severe form of brittle bone disease. It causes bones to break easily. In type 3 OI, your child’s body produces enough collagen but it’s poor quality. Your child’s bones can even begin to break before birth. Bone deformities are common and may get worse as your child gets older.

kevininlondon
13-04-2016, 1:31 AM
Hi Guy

My English can sometimes escape me, as I mentioned in an earlier post I am completely anti DNA testing for Genalogy purposes amd most definately against it to prove religeon. A certain Mr Gates uses it for curiosity purposes only.

So back to the above;
The Moslem /Morisco people who settled in Morocco were Spanish, a number of their ancestors may have been moslems from North Africa or further afield but by 1600 they were Iberian. So you would expect just as the researches did to find a part of their DNA was Spanish not just . But as explained above the researches found no difference, which meant that the Spanish DNA had become so diluted over the past 400 years that it no longer existed.

Roman Britain, dont under estimate the number of Roman or to be more exact citizens of the Empire that came and settled in Britain over nearly 400 years. Even allowing for this the majority of the population was Celtic.. so fast foreward you would expect some part of the modern English DNA to match that of Wales and Cornwell. but it doesnt. Which just as in the case of Morocco a dominant gene has completely removed any trace of the celtic population not famine genocide or war. As to the invaders bringing the same DNA give or take, is wrong as if it were true there would be know massive difference between the Welsh and English DNA,

Guy Etchells
13-04-2016, 6:15 AM
Hi Guy

My English can sometimes escape me, as I mentioned in an earlier post I am completely anti DNA testing for Genalogy purposes amd most definately against it to prove religeon. A certain Mr Gates uses it for curiosity purposes only.

I am not anti DNA testing for genealogy, but I do think far too many claims are being made for DNA.
These claims are made based of relatively tiny samples of population. The sample numbers are so small they are insignificant.


So back to the above;
The Moslem /Morisco people who settled in Morocco were Spanish, a number of their ancestors may have been moslems from North Africa or further afield but by 1600 they were Iberian. So you would expect just as the researches did to find a part of their DNA was Spanish not just . But as explained above the researches found no difference, which meant that the Spanish DNA had become so diluted over the past 400 years that it no longer existed.

What do you mean by Spanish?
Are the “Spanish” the Germanic tribes that pushed in circa 400 A.D. or the Umayyad who conquered on 700 A.D.?
Perhaps you are referring to the Phoenicians, Carthaginians or even the Greeks who all founded trading colonies in the region?
That is the problem the populations of Europe have never been isolated groups alone with no outside influence. There has always been a constant mixing of people and races in Europe throughout history.


Roman Britain, dont under estimate the number of Roman or to be more exact citizens of the Empire that came and settled in Britain over nearly 400 years. Even allowing for this the majority of the population was Celtic.. so fast foreward you would expect some part of the modern English DNA to match that of Wales and Cornwell. but it doesnt. Which just as in the case of Morocco a dominant gene has completely removed any trace of the celtic population not famine genocide or war. As to the invaders bringing the same DNA give or take, is wrong as if it were true there would be know massive difference between the Welsh and English DNA,

I am not underestimating the numbers of “Romans” but I do question the ethnicity of those “Romans” they would in fact be made up of people from all parts of the Roman Empire and indeed mercenaries as well from who knows where.
Some areas of Cornwall and indeed Wales were welcoming to the “Romans” and as a result had very few troops based there, other areas had high populations of troops established for many years to control the resident population.

But there is no reason to believe that the roots of these troops were any different from the roots of the Cornish or Welsh population, i.e. they were made up of a mix of European (from the continent of Europe & north Africa) ethnicities.
DNA has confirmed that rather than Celts being a genetically separate group they actually represent a culture or tradition rather than a racial grouping.
Studies have shown that the DNA of Cornish people is closer to the DNA of England than the DNA of Wales and that the DNA of people of South Wales differs from the DNA of the people of North Wales.

When we talk of DNA however we must remember that all these studies are made from tiny samples of populations rather than samples which cover the whole population of an area and because of this we must treat the conclusions as theories, open to change, rather than facts.

Cheers
Guy

kevininlondon
15-04-2016, 3:06 AM
Hi Guy

Still not sure your defending DNA just being somewhat pedantic.. my comments were observations in a general sense..
Ofcourse Spain has been invaded numerous times just like the whole of Europe, but by 1600 the mix of what we now call Spanish had been cast. So even me the biggest anti dna person on the planet was really quiet suprised at the Test Results in Morocco. Because if this is a true result then it completely undermines people faith in dna tests proving who they are, but it reinforces my thoughts and those of a certain Mr Gates in America. As to the tests done here again I am not arguing with you I am fully aware of the variations (history is my thing). Rome was here for 400 years, Britain was Roman and its people were citizens of Rome.. Look at America it has been in existance for less time and is made up of a huge number of ethnicities and nationalities yet all claim to be Americans.

When I first read the report, I thought its impossible there has to be another explanation but then Spain, 1600 hundred was not that long ago and plenty of familys I am sure know their history. My own family escaped to Morocco over 100 years earlier from Toledo and returned when the British took control of Gibraltar in 1720.even I anti DNA man that I am would have expected some difference, but no difference.