Why You Should Test Your Grandparents for Ancestry DNA, and other Ancestry DNA Discoveries

 My Maternal Grandmother's DNA Results

 A little over a month ago I received my maternal Grandmother's Ancestry DNA results. It was bright and colorful, showing more regions then I ever imagined having done genealogy work on our family tree.  I imaged she would be heavily Great Britain and Irish, instead the breakdown was:

Europe: 98%

Great Britain: 32% (3%-61%)

Scandinavia: 26% (5%-47%)

Iberian Peninsula: 14% (2%-25%)

Ireland: 11% (0%-27%)

Europe West: 5% (0%-21%)

TRACE REGIONS: 10%

Italy/Greece: 6% (0%-14%)

Europe East: 4% (0%-10%)

West Asia: 2%

Caucuses: 2% (0%-4%)

(Note: What are the percentage brackets?  Why not a set percentage to represent each region?  From Ancestry.com: When we calculate your estimate for each ethnicity region, we run forty separate analyses. Each of the forty analyses gives another estimate of your ethnicity, and each one is done with randomly selected portions of your DNA. Why forty? Ethnicity estimation can be variable from comparison to comparison — different combinations of DNA can give us different information, so doing multiple analyses can give us a more accurate estimate, as well as the likely range.)

(Note: Trace regions are areas where traces are found in the DNA, but the evidence is so small it could be there by chance.)

(Note:  I wasn't familiar about the Caucasus, but it's actually where the term "Caucasian" comes from.  The Caucasus DNA regions are located primarily in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey. It can also include Bulgaria, Jordan, Greece, Italy, Kuwait, Palestine, Romania, Turkmenistan.)     

  I was pretty excited about my Grandmothers results.  So much variety.  Pretty much all of Europe covered.  Regions I haven't found in my paper trail search on my family tree.  I was particularly shocked by the Iberian Peninsula (Spain, Portugal, also found in France, Morocco, Algeria, Italy).

What variety would I find in my DNA?  With roots going back to the 1600's and 1700's in U.S. history, I've got to have a slew genetic regions, right?

But here's the interesting thing about DNA.  We only get what we inherit.  1/2 from my Mom, 1/2 from my Dad, 1/4 from my Grandparents, 1/8 from my Great-Grandparents, 1/16 from my Great-Great-Grandparents, etc.  How much genetic information can be lost in all those divisions?

 My Maternal Grandfather's DNA Results

 When I first administered my Grandfather's DNA test, which involved having him spit into a tube, the first test failed, so I didn't get his results when my Grandmother's results came in.  Thankfully Ancestry DNA sent me another test.

His results came last week, along my Mom and my results.

Here's what his shows.

Europe: 100%

Ireland: 75% (59%-88%)

Great Britain: 20% (5%-36%)

TRACE REGIONS:

Scandinavia: 2% (0%-11%)

Finland/Northwest Russia: 2% (0%-5%)

Iberian Peninsula: <1% (0%-3%)

I wasn't at all surprised by his results, since his lines strongly go back to Ireland via Hallisey, Mahoney, O'Niel, etc.

Note, though, Scotland and Wales doesn't show up as a separate region.  Both can equally show up under Ireland and Great Britain, due to trade, war, lack of mountains, easy travel, etc.  I know my Grandfather has Scottish in him, and it looks like it's showing up under the Great Britain region.

My Mom's DNA Results

 I was really curious to see what my Mom inherited, since she gets 1/2 from my Grandparents, and whatever she gets and doesn't get, I have a 50% of getting or not getting.  What she doesn't inherit I have no chance of receiving, forever lost through whatever posterity I may have.

Her results were interesting.

Europe: 100%

Great Britain: 64% (41%-84%)

Ireland: 25% (8%-42%)

Scandinavia: 5% (0%-16%)

TRACE REGIONS

Iberian Peninsula: 4% (0%-11%)

Europe East: <1% (0%-5%)

Finland/Northwest Russia: <1% (0%-2%)

Italy/Greece: <1% (0%-3%)

 My Mom inherited none of my Grandmother's Europe West region, which was interesting, plus she didn't inherit any of the Caucasus.  She also received a small amount of the Iberian Peninsula, so I still have some chance, right?  Though my Mom is convinced the Iberian Peninsula percent proves we have French ancestry.  I think it would be cool having ancestry going back to Spain and Portugal as well.

 My DNA Results

 There were two things I knew about myself.  One being that I have a strong German linage thanks to my Stufflebeam heritage, and also through my Paternal Grandmother; Second, I have a strong Scottish/Irish/English/and some Welsh from my Mom's side, so I was going to be equal parts U.K. and Germany.

That's not what happened!!!!!

Europe: 98%

Great Britain: 70% (47%-91%)

Ireland: 23% (5%-41%)

TRACE REGIONS

Scandinavia: 4% (0%-14%)

Europe West: <1% (0%-7%)

Asia: <1%

TRACE REGION

South Asia: <1% (0%-2%)

(India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, also found in Myanmar (Burma))

West Asia: <1%

TRACE REGION

Caucasus: <1% (0%-4%)

I have pretty much no German in me!!!!

I was floored.

I was also shocked by how much UK/Irish I have in me.

 Check it out, I have more Great Britain in me then the typical U.K. native!

 I have an average of 70% Great Britain, while the typical native only averages 60%.  With all my deep American heritage how is that possible?  It's all those crazy 1/2 divisions from parent to child.

Iberian Peninsula didn't come up once in my DNA, though it was solid in my Grandmothers.  Essentially this means the Peninsula is every bit apart of my linage, I just didn't inherit any of it, but it's still apart of my identity.

Also, my Mom didn't inherit any of my Grandmothers Caucasus region, which means the trace region I have popping up in my DNA came from my Dad.  I wish he was interested in doing the test. Also, the Trace amount of South Asia come from his side as well, which is fascinating.

Also note, just because 70% of my DNA pops up as Great Britain, I can still have French and German roots in there as well.  The Great Britain DNA region is found primarily in England, Scotland, Wales, but it's also found in Ireland, France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Italy.)

The DNA results are interesting.  I've been linked to a lot of 4th cousins, so I have more work to do.

Another interesting feature of Ancestry DNA is a feature called DNA circles, which is still in BETA.

Hugh Patrick was one of my Hypothetical Ancestors, where I took his information from the research of others, not knowing for sure if that line had correct information.  There's a crazy amount of sloppy genealogy out there, in which I'm guilty of.

 

I was hoping of being connected to Hugh, because of his father, who knew our first President George Washington personally, knowing him long before the Revolutionary war, having served as one of his rangers during the French and Indian War.  James was also a Patriot, serving throughout the Revolution.

 

Thing is, it's hard to prove linage to James through a paper trail, because of the nature of records back then.  From The Patricks of Eastern Kentucky: "The children listed for James Patrick are only guesses. It is probable they are James's children but it has not been proven. It is also probable James had other children and another marriages, but it has not been proven."

 It's not clearly known who James children were, but there are guesses, and I have DNA links from his son Hugh, if he is his son.

James Patrick also has a possible daughter in Mary Ann "Polly" Patrick, and though she isn't on my family tree, I have DNA links to both her and her husband through their descendants.  They had more then one child, and I'm having cousin ties to a few of them, I just don't know where they belong on my tree.

There's still a lot more to discover, and this is really the beginning.  It's such a puzzle!

Hypothetical Ancestors

(Image I found on ancestry.com)

Last Summer I became obsessed with Ancestry.com.  The show "Who Do You Think You Are" helped with that, because I wanted to find historical stories that my family's connected to.  So on the Internet I went, and a few months later I came up for air.

During that time I found a lot of ancestors, but the further back I got, the more questions would pop up.  The problem? I was pulling from the research of other people, and the more people who are involved, and the more research being done, the more opportunity there is for disagreement and misinformation.  Now and then I would look at census records, but I was more concerned with how far back I could get without a thought of proving any of those names, or whether parents and great-grandparents of any name I was looking into were even right.  How many John Smiths are there?  And how do you know if that John Smith belongs to you or not?

So in the end I've managed to find a bunch of ancestors, 697 of them, complete with stories and pictures, that I may or may not actually be connected to.  But the problem is emotional investment!  There are individuals currently sitting happily on my tree that I've grown to love, and I don't want to push them off only to be replaced.

These particular individuals I lovingly call Hypothetical Ancestors.  I'm hypothetically related to them until further research is done to clarify or disprove the fact.

One such individual is a man by the name of James Patrick (1730 Virginia -1835 Kentucky).  Just looking at those dates makes you want to scratch your head.  Hypothetically I come into his line through his hypothetical grand-daughter Mary Polly Patrick who married a Richard H. Stufflebeam, and her father was a Hugh Patrick.  Tracing a Stufflebeam line isn't terribly hard. How many Stufflebeam's do you know?  I had to prove to google that Stufflebeam was a real surname!  They didn't believe me at first.  The problem comes from the way census records were kept in the 1700's and 1800's.  Head of households were mentioned, but the names of those living with the head of house, plus relationships were left out.  That makes tracking difficult.  So there is much debate on whether Mary, Hugh, and James are Grand-Daughter, Son, and Father/Grandfather.

Why do I even care?  Because James Patrick was heavily involved in the Revolutionary War, and claims in his pensions that he knew President George Washington long before the Rev. War, having fought with him in Braddock's Defeat near Fort Duquesne, and he served as one of Washington's scouts during the French and Indian War.  Then during the Revolution James was in and out of the war, constantly reenlisting, First joining March 2, 1776, and the last time February 12, 1781, with many enlistments in between.  It would be cool if I could call him my 5th Great-Grandfather, but I don't think I'll ever find the proof to do so. 

I can just hear all the true genealogist moaning out there!  Oh the sloppiness of my research!  It has been sloppy, and now I must start back with myself and question everything.    

Sarah

Research done on Ancestry.com

and Pension Record found on Fold3.com