Your Ancestry

[pj3000]

Me: total mutt

Maternal
Ireland: 45%
Norway: 5%

Paternal
Poland: 30%
France: 10%
Spain (Basque): 5%
N Africa: 5%

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

Like you, I'm Brazilian (My parents are from Minas Gerais), but, I was born in New York City and moved to Florida at 6years old (I'm 43 now). I do have dual citizenship

My Results:
36% Azores
32% Portugal
13% Northern Spain
6% Spain
5% East Midlands
3% Eastern South America
2% Quebec (this one is strange to me)

We're quite similar. The difference is that big Northern Italian ancestry that I wasn't expecting.

[MolsonExport]

Mark Zuckerberg

My Results:
100% Alien

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But we do know that Neanderthals did NOT contribute a ton to the genetic makeup of modern humans.

But it DID contribute, and that's the point. I suppose you use the standard dictionary definition of "ancestors", like anyone else. The father of the father of the father etc. of your father, or the mother of the mother of the mother etc. of your mother. Then 200,000 years ago, some of them lived in Europe already, they were Homo heidelbergensis. It is not true to say 100% of them lived in Africa 200,000 years ago, and even less true to say we descend from a single couple that lived in Africa 200,000 years ago.

According to the latest discoveries, these are the oldest sites where early humans are attested in Europe, Maghreb, and the Middle East. That long predates the arrival of Homo sapiens.

[Steely Dan]

Wow, I didn't know my joke about how we're all ultimately African if you go back far enough would ignite such fierce debate.


Anyway, I've never done the genetic ancestry thing because I hate spending money, but from family tree research, my maternal line is mainly German with some French (Alsatian), while my paternal line is mostly Irish, with some English and Scottish.

I think "German & Irish" is one of the rarest kinds of white people you can find in Chicago.

[JManc]

My DNA results are due any day now but for now, I at least know I am English/ Italian/ German/ Polish and Scandinavian.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

But it DID contribute, and that's the point. I suppose you use the standard dictionary definition of "ancestors", like anyone else. The father of the father of the father etc. of your father, or the mother of the mother of the mother etc. of your mother. Then 200,000 years ago, some of them lived in Europe already, they were Homo heidelbergensis. It is not true to say 100% of them lived in Africa 200,000 years ago, and even less true to say we descend from a single couple that lived in Africa 200,000 years ago.

I literally already said this lol.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That's not wrong to say. If you're able to read these words and interpret them then you did descend from a specific being in Africa around 200,000 years ago. Those beings that descended from that person came into contact with other branches of the homo genus, and yes, there is some shared DNA. But Neanderthals are generally not considered to be the same species as modern human beings. However, that is under debate with proof that there was at least some ability for the two groups to create fertile offspring. But we do know that Neanderthals did NOT contribute a ton to the genetic makeup of modern humans.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

According to the latest discoveries, these are the oldest sites where early humans are attested in Europe, Maghreb, and the Middle East. That long predates the arrival of Homo sapiens.

There is no evidence of homo sapiens outside of Africa before 50,000 years ago. The only human groups that would have contributed to YOUR gene pool would have had to have either 1) come into contact with homo sapiens within Africa, before Homo sapiens began migrating out of Africa, OR they would have had to come into contact with Homo sapiens after they left Africa. Neanderthals and Denisovans never lived in Africa AND they went extinct about 40,000 years ago. That leaves MAYBE about a 10,000 year overlap between when homo sapiens left Africa and when those other groups went extinct. That sounds like a lot, but assuming homo sapiens immediately encountered those groups, that overlap accounted for about 3% of the time that Homo sapiens have existed. So for 97% of the ENTIRE time that homo sapiens have existed, they have not been in contact with any other branch of the homo genus. Your human genetic makeup is overwhelmingly of homo sapiens that originated about 300,000 years ago from a common ancestor.

[jmecklenborg]

I don't understand why people are interested in genealogy or family history beyond a certain point (i.e. much more than 100 years ago). Family myths that we tell ourselves and pass down can be very dangerous things.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There is no evidence of homo sapiens outside of Africa before 50,000 years ago. The only human groups that would have contributed to YOUR gene pool would have had to have either 1) come into contact with homo sapiens within Africa, before Homo sapiens began migrating out of Africa, OR they would have had to come into contact with Homo sapiens after they left Africa. Neanderthals and Denisovans never lived in Africa AND they went extinct about 40,000 years ago. That leaves MAYBE about a 10,000 year overlap between when homo sapiens left Africa and when those other groups went extinct. That sounds like a lot, but assuming homo sapiens immediately encountered those groups, that overlap accounted for about 3% of the time that Homo sapiens have existed. So for 97% of the ENTIRE time that homo sapiens have existed, they have not been in contact with any other branch of the homo genus. Your human genetic makeup is overwhelmingly of homo sapiens that originated about 300,000 years ago from a common ancestor.

I'm sorry but if 7 of your great-grand-parents were from England, and only 1 was an Aboriginal Australian, that doesn't mean your ancestors were all English. You also have ancestors who lived in Australia 10,000 years ago and were Aboriginal, even if they account only for a small percentage of your DNA.

It's the same with the earlier humans who inhabited Europe long before the homo sapiens arrived.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I'm sorry but if 7 of your great-grand-parents were from England, and only 1 was an Aboriginal Australian, that doesn't mean your ancestors were all English. You also have ancestors who lived in Australia 10,000 years ago and were Aboriginal, even if they account only for a small percentage of your DNA.

It's the same with the earlier humans who inhabited Europe long before the homo sapiens arrived.

You're mixing up cultural identity with biological taxonomy lol. I think this discussion has gone as far as it's gonna go.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I don't understand why people are interested in genealogy or family history beyond a certain point (i.e. much more than 100 years ago). Family myths that we tell ourselves and pass down can be very dangerous things.

I don’t think it’s all about family.

Sometimes it’s only history curiosity (my case), others might want to know about cultural affiliation (very common in the US with the hyphenated Americans), others are into genealogy, others obsessed with disease (e.g. my husband).

[Dale]

My gggg-grandfather was quite the hellraiser ...

https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/11/celebrated-notorious-ned-turner/

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You're mixing up cultural identity with biological taxonomy lol. I think this discussion has gone as far as it's gonna go.

No, I think it's a very interesting discussion. Some people stick to their cultural identity/ies and for whatever reason don't want to acknowledge (or have trouble acknowledging) parts of their ancestry.

I was VERY surprised to learn that I was 0.3% Bengali & Northeast Indian, which I thought was very cool, and had no idea that that could even be possible. But my partner even called it; early on in our relationship, he told me "You must be part Indian" because of the waviness of my hair; he even joked that I had "Indian actor hair." Turns out my partner was right! I even have some body hair; most east Asians have very little body hair and bone straight hair on their heads (luckily even though I have over 9% Chinese ancestry DNA, I don't have that Chinese porcupine hair haha).

I find all this DNA ancestry fascinating. I guess too I am very much into human migration and settlement.

Regarding Neanderthals, according to 23andme, I have <2% Neanderthal DNA, and have more Neanderthal DNA than 99% of other 23andme customers. European, Asian, and Indigenous American populations today have between 1-2 percent Neanderthal DNA. Sub-Saharan Africans have very little Neanderthal DNA. While Neanderthal remains have been found close to Africa there is no evidence that Neanderthals ever called the continent home. Neanderthals did not evolve in Africa. They evolved in Europe and Asia from older human ancestors (Homo heidelbergensis or Homo erectus) who had left Africa hundreds of thousands of years earlier. True Neanderthals never lived in Africa. And some scientists say Neanderthals didn't really go extinct, but rather, were absorbed into the modern human population by breeding with them.

How about Denisovans? They are supposedly a close sister group to Neanderthals. For all I know, 23andme will later come out with how much Denisovan DNA I have.

Africa truly is the cradle of humankind; it had and still has the most genetically diverse population in the world, which many say proves that that's where humans began: A point of origin will have more genetic diversity because populations have been living there the longest, having evolved over roughly 200,000 to 300,000 years ago, giving populations on the African continent a much longer time to accumulate genetic mutations and variations than anywhere else on Earth. And those different waves of humans migrated out of Africa to different parts of the earth at different times, and they continued to evolve where they settled and mixed with other different waves of people that came out of Africa at other times and evolved and mixed. That's why the world is the way it is.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

This is correct. I am pretty sure that NB is not an anthropologist, but rather, just another armchair philosopher.

I think the Mark Twain quote applies.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

No, I think it's a very interesting discussion. Some people stick to their cultural identity/ies and for whatever reason don't want to acknowledge (or have trouble acknowledging) parts of their ancestry.

Cultural identity is not a scientific classification. What species you belong to IS a scientific classification. But if you want to analogize it... I assume you are an American citizen. Your ancestors may have been Filipino, Bengali, Indian, etc., but today, if I ask you what your citizenship is, you would probably tell me "American" without nuance. So yes, tens of thousands of years ago some other species may have contributed to your genetic pool, but you are... homo sapien.

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I was VERY surprised to learn that I was 0.3% Bengali & Northeast Indian, which I thought was very cool, and had no idea that that could even be possible. But my partner even called it; early on in our relationship, he told me "You must be part Indian" because of the waviness of my hair, he joked that I had "Indian actor hair." Turns out my partner was right! I even have some body hair; most east Asians have very little body hair and bone straight hair on their heads (luckily even though I have over 9% Chinese ancestry DNA, I don't have that Chinese porcupine hair haha).

I find all this DNA ancestry fascinating. I guess too I am very much into human migration and settlement.

Regarding Neanderthals, according to 23andme, I have <2% Neanderthal DNA, and have more Neanderthal DNA than 99% of other 23andme customers. European, Asian, and Indigenous American populations today have between 1-2 percent Neanderthal DNA. Sub-Saharan Africans have very little Neanderthal DNA. While Neanderthal remains have been found close to Africa there is no evidence that Neanderthals ever called the continent home. Neanderthals did not evolve in Africa. They evolved in Europe and Asia from older human ancestors (Homo heidelbergensis or Homo erectus) who had left Africa hundreds of thousands of years earlier. True Neanderthals never lived in Africa.

How about Denisovans? They are supposedly a close sister group to Neanderthals. For all I know, 23andme will later come out with how much Denisovan DNA I have.

Africa truly is the cradle of humankind; it had and still has the most genetically diverse population in the world, which many say proves that that's where humans began: A point of origin will have more genetic diversity because populations have been living there the longest, having evolved over roughly 200,000 to 300,000 years ago, giving populations on the African continent a much longer time to accumulate genetic mutations and variations than anywhere else on Earth. And those different waves of humans migrated out of Africa to different parts of the earth at different times, and they continued to evolve where they settled and mixed with other different waves of people that came out of Africa at other times and evolved and mixed. That's why the world is the way it is.

The reason that genetic diversity among humans is greater within African than outside of it is BECAUSE modern humans have only lived outside of Africa for a relatively short period of time. The groups that left Africa before the modern methods of transportation were available mostly left on foot and followed the same route from Egypt, through the Middle East, and then on to various parts of the globe. Meanwhile, within Africa there are many groups of Homo sapiens that were relatively isolated in various parts of the continent, but not isolated long enough to create a new species.

ALSO, saying that there is great genetic diversity in Africa doesn't mean that everybody that left Africa is more closely related to each other than they are to those that left Africa. There could be (and likely are) human groups in Africa that have more genetic overlap with the average white British person than they do with groups in other parts of Africa.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You're mixing up cultural identity with biological taxonomy lol. I think this discussion has gone as far as it's gonna go.

I haven't discussed cultural identity whatsoever. Let's rather say you've come to end of your arguments.

[jd3189]

I took a 23&me test a few years ago and I ended up being 93% sub Saharan African with most of it being from Nigeria, Angola, Congo, Ghana, and Liberia. Basically West and Central Africa.

I was around 4% European, surprisingly enough and possibly unfortunate since it may have likely been due to rape during the slavery era in Haiti. But then again, there are white people in Haiti even to this day, so who know, it may have been consensual.

For the European breakdown, it was 4% English, which is strange since Haiti got its independence from France. There was also decimal points for Basque, Scottish ,and Danish roots, no French roots.

I also got some North African ancestry, about 1 percent.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I was VERY surprised to learn that I was 0.3% Bengali & Northeast Indian, which I thought was very cool, and had no idea that that could even be possible.

I wouldn't put too much trust into this. DNA research is not sophisticated enough to say such a thing. There can be so many other factors. Broad categories perhaps (1/3 Mediterranean, 2/3 North European, say), but 0.7% Filipino, 4.3% Iranian, with a pinch of Ethiopian (2.6%) (Amharic or Oromo? which valley precisely?), seriously? Let's not ask too much from DNA.

Contrary to most of you it seems, I have never done a DNA test (I'm not really interested in that, I don't really trust it, and it wouldn't tell me things that I don't already broadly know anyway), but I have done some serious genealogy, going as far back as the 16th century (with firm records, not vague things circulating on the internet), and it's far more interesting (but also far more complex). Genealogy is like a treasure hunt, and in Europe we are fortunate in having the oldest preserved archives in the world, which gives even commoners the opportunity to find their ancestry as far back as the 17th century, especially in the countries where my ancestors hail from, which is a luxury 90% of human beings don't have, as administrative records for them will stop very quickly (like WW2, or even more recently in some cases). Even ancient civilizations like China haven't kept administrative records that would allow their citizens to trace their ancestry several centuries back (everything was destroyed at various times in history, most recently during the Cultural Revolution), whereas in Western Europe we have records going back centuries.

Real genealogy is complex because you very soon need the mastery of ancient handwriting, which becomes harder to read the further back in time you go (I remember when, as a child, I received in the mail the photocopy of my grandmother's birth record, it seemed so hard to read, and now it's so easy for me, having seen way harder handwriting since then). Then you need to be like a police detective: you need to make assumptions, test them, use your brain. Finding an ancestor can be like finding the author of a crime. Any clue can be useful. You often also need to travel in order to find the records. And just finding the records can be a challenge in itself (especially in some European countries that haven't centralized the records like France). You always learn and discover something new, even after all these years. Also, when you have between your fingers the paper that was written on 300 years ago, and when you do that inside the walls of an ancient church in a far away place that is more than 10 hours from your home, it connects you with the past in a way that a DNA test never will. And you meet people along the way.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by jd3189

But then again, there are white people in Haiti even to this day, so who know, it may have been consensual.

"Consensual" is a modern concept. Even White women often didn't choose who they would have to spend the rest of their lifetime in bed with. Or think of the Chinese concubines. They had as little choice as Black female slaves.

Originally Posted by jd3189

For the European breakdown, it was 4% English, which is strange since Haiti got its independence from France.

Which proves that these DNA tests shouldn't be taken too seriously.

In any case, if you have Haitian ancestry, you can probably find your ancestors as far back as the 18th century. Haiti has experienced many revolutions and destruction, but the French colonial authorities, like in all French colonies, kept 3 copies of each baptism, marriage, burial register: 1 for the parish, 1 for the local court, and a 3rd one that was sent to Paris. The 3rd copy was preserved from revolutions and tropical humidity + insects. They are still stored by the French state, which has digitalized them and made them available online.

For example, opening the parish register from Anse-à-Veau ("Calf Cove", literally), Saint-Domingue (Haiti), year 1787, I find this marriage certificate (which illustrates the complexity of colonial society in Saint-Domingue).

This is what it says: "Today January 27, 1787, after the publication of three banns during the sermons of the parish masses on three consecutive Sundays, after having found no civil or canonical impediment, I have joined in mariage before our Holy Mother the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the form prescribed by the Holy Council of Trent and according to the laws of the kingdom, the individual called Georges Marie Athis, free negro according to his deed of manumission passed in Paris on December 6, 1782 in the notary office of Mr. Chaudet, public notary in the said city, the said Georges Marie Athis residing in the asylum of this parish, over the age of majority, stipulating for himself and in his name, of the one part,

And the individual called Marie Françoise, negro woman, his slave, as appears in the sale contract with Mr. Lacroix who sold her to him on October 24, 1786, the said Marie Françoise proceeding under the authority and with the consent of her master [= Mr. Athis], of the other part.

Were present and witnesses to the said marriage the undersigned so asked [to sign]: Guillaume, alias d'Escostier, free mulatto [= half Black, half White], Dominique Fabre, free mulatto, Pierre Malabas, free quarteron [= 1/4 Black, 3/4 White], and Alexis Paufil, free negro [= 100% Black], the four of them from this parish. And they have signed with me, the groom and the bride having declared they did not know [how to sign], on the aforesaid day and year."

The free Black guy signed "Pofile", but the priest spelled it "Paufil" (which is more literary).

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Cultural identity is not a scientific classification. What species you belong to IS a scientific classification. But if you want to analogize it... I assume you are an American citizen. Your ancestors may have been Filipino, Bengali, Indian, etc., but today, if I ask you what your citizenship is, you would probably tell me "American" without nuance. So yes, tens of thousands of years ago some other species may have contributed to your genetic pool, but you are... homo sapien.



The reason that genetic diversity among humans is greater within African than outside of it is BECAUSE modern humans have only lived outside of Africa for a relatively short period of time. The groups that left Africa before the modern methods of transportation were available mostly left on foot and followed the same route from Egypt, through the Middle East, and then on to various parts of the globe. Meanwhile, within Africa there are many groups of Homo sapiens that were relatively isolated in various parts of the continent, but not isolated long enough to create a new species.

ALSO, saying that there is great genetic diversity in Africa doesn't mean that everybody that left Africa is more closely related to each other than they are to those that left Africa. There could be (and likely are) human groups in Africa that have more genetic overlap with the average white British person than they do with groups in other parts of Africa.

What it is is somebody’s ancestor always made the mistake of not taking a Left turn at Albaquerque.