Comments on: Got Scandinavian? Why your DNA results may have unexpected ethnicities

By: Jesse

Jesse — Mon, 20 May 2013 15:13:47 +0000

I am trying to understand how my father, with many lines tracing back to Jamestown, and almost all lines in Virginia for a long period of time, can be 97% Scandinavian. Wouldn’t all this time in Virginia alone show some British Isles blood? I’m not saying its wrong, but I would love an explanation on how this is possible.

By: Shannon

Shannon — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 02:02:21 +0000

Dorothy & Rebecca, I feel your pain. I’ve done a lot of research on my tree and take pride in it. I have around 10 Mayflower ancestors and many more that came in the great migration. I was really disappointed when no British Isles ancestry showed up in my results. According to Ancestry I am 59% Scandinavian, 17% Central Euro., 15% Southern & 9% uncertain.

The results seem to be the opposite of the tree. Very strange.

By: Rebecca Sonnick

Rebecca Sonnick — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:06:07 +0000

There are 2 parts of the Autosomal DNA ancestry.com results. One is the “Shared Ancestors in Common” cousins results. Which helps find new “cousins” and/or helps to “prove” your paper family tree is going in the correct lineage. The other is the ethnicity results. I find the “cousin” matching part very helpful. I have matched with “cousins” who I know for a fact are cousins. And, I have found that many of the matching “cousins” shown (who I ddn’t know were cousins) I can find 1, 2 or 3 “Shared Ancestors in Common.” I make sure that I review the “very low – low confidence” matching “cousins”, because I have found many shared ancestor’s in common among them. Even some 4th cousins in “very low confidence” results. There are many of the matching DNA “cousins” who have only a few people on their family tree. Of course those “cousins” trees are not helpful at all. All I can figure is that they are adopted people looking for biological parents and siblings? There also are high, moderate, low and very low confidence DNA “cousin” results that I have no idea yet how they would be my “cousin.” But they probably are.. The “Shared Ancestors in Common” probably has not been entered yet on my or their family tree. I am getting good use out of this “cousin matching” results of the DNA test. I have found 3 unknown matching “cousins” who all have the same “mystery person/people” on their family trees. They all are of “high confidence” results. I haven’t so far been able to know how this is, and how I am 3rd and 4th cousins to them. but because of a couple of “dead-end walls” I have on my family tree, I can’t figure it out. But maybe somehow, something will help solve it. Now.. the ethnicity results part of the test is something else.. I think ancestry.com might have their Scandinavian and their British Isles results mixed up somehow. And, I wish they would listen to people’s concerns. Why do so many people who are from strong Scandianian heritage end up having a high percentage of British Isle when they don’t know of a British Isles ancestor? Why do so many people who feel they should have a high percentage of British Isles show up with a high percentage of Scandianivan instead? (and some show 0% British Isle)? It seems to me that somewhere there must be a mistake. Ancestry can try to explain the high percentage of Scandinavian to people who believe they should instead have a high percent of British Isles instead (you know the Saxons’s, the Normans. the Vikings, etc.) But what kind of explanation do they have for the people who are from a strong line of Scandinavian’s and show a high percent of British Isles, when that person knows of no British Isles ancestor? That’s really strange. This does not make sense. I am one who believes my results should have shown quite a bit of British Isles percent, as my grandmother was Scotch, English and a very small amount of German. I have 13 verified Mayflower Prigrim great. great… grandparents. A Scotch lineage – who married into the Royal English families. I also, have many, many ancestor’s who came from England. I know of no one in my very large family tree who was Scandinavian. My results were 50% Scandinavian – WHAT!!, 47% Central European (the European makes sense). and 3% unknown. If people who only have ancestors who were Scandinaivan end up being 40% British Isles..how in the world do I end up with 0% British Isles?? I am very happy to get shared matches to others who have the same English ancstors as I do. Many of my “shared cousin” matches are to my English and Scotch ancestors. The people/cousins I am “matching” are people who show a very high percentage of British Isles ethnicity. Some don’t have any Scandinavian or Central European like I do. So even though I show no British Isles ethnicity. I am matching with others who show only British Isles ethnicity. As I say, I am glad to have these matches, they are the majority of my matches. But I think that ancestry.com show take a very good look at what is going on with their Scandianivan and British Isle results. It’s like up is down and down is up.

By: Dorothy Estelle

Dorothy Estelle — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:32:01 +0000

I, too, am critical of the DNA ethnic test results. Mine said 59% Scandinavian and 41% Central European. The Central European is certainly believable–about what I would expect. I believe the 59% Scandinavian is entirely incorrect. The lines that did not come from France and Germany (the 41%) came to America from the British Isles, mostly in the 1600′s. I belong to the Mayflower Society with 3 Mayflower ancestors. I have direct lines to innumerable British immigrants who came to America during the Great Migration. The latest Scandinavian blood that I believe I have is from Anglo-Norman families who came to the British Isles with The Conqueror. And they inter-married with other Britains. I might believe a tiny bit of Scandinavian, but I cannot believe that most of my DNA is derived from Scandinavia after over a thousand years of mixing with British blood. I wonder what data base was used to determine ethnic origins of our DNA. It appears to me to be defective.

By: May

May — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:06:12 +0000

My test results were surprising in some ways. First was the Scandinavian factor, since I have none of these names for 500 or more years. Then it immediately ocurred to me that my tree had Irish and Scottish ancestors, as well as Normans, so no surprise there, after all. I expected to find more Central European, as my research indicates about 1/3 of my tree is German, but had only 9%. However, the test said 21% Eastern European, and I have discovered no ancestors from Eastern Europe. This was the real surprise.
As for the price, I found it to be remarkably inexpensive. I have had tests done by another company, and paid around $300.

By: Nancy Wright

Nancy Wright — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:08:08 +0000

I must defend the DNA test as I was able to find a third cousin once removed that I had no idea about prior to the test. I now have an entire new branch of my tree! So, at least in that case, the test was very successful.
However, my sister recently had her DNA test done, and I find that we only share six (out of 8 she received and 15 I received) fourth to sixth cousins. I am wondering if anyone knows how this can be?
I am frustrated that Ancestry.com doesn’t have someone available to answer broad questions such as this one. As a matter of fact, I have not been able to find a way to contact Ancestry.com at all to get an individual response.

By: Lewe H. Sessions

Lewe H. Sessions — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 06:54:59 +0000

Unlike most of the others commenting on this article, I do not feel I am in a position to be critical of Ancestry’s methodology. I’m sure it is way more complex than I would be able to understand without quite a bit of technical instruction. Like other writers, I was expecting to see “British Isles” as the leading component of my DNA. When I got my results, it reported that my DNA was 51% Central European, 44% Scandinavian and 5% uncertain. I wasn’t disappointed–I was elated. Although most of the names I have found in researching my genealogy are of British origin, I do have several that are German or German Swiss. I figure that the 51% could probably be attributed largely to Anglo-Saxon influences, while the Scandinavian part probably relates to my Scottish and Northern Irish ancestry. Although most of my known ancestors migrated to North America from the “British Isles”, I am proud of my apparent European and Scandinavian ancestry as well. (My English surname Sessions originated in the northern French province of Soissons.) Considering the usefulness of Ancestry’s DNA program, I value the results that I am obtaining and have already found many new valuable clues to family lines that I have been researching for many years. I’m not going to quibble about estimated percentages of European or Scandinavian DNA; the “bottom line” results–clues to the identity of real ancestors, and potential contacts with real cousins–will continue to fuel my interest in this program; and I thank Ancestry for providing this service.

By: Anne Reeves

Anne Reeves — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 18:16:11 +0000

It would seem that very many people believe that every single ancestor leaves traces of DNA behind in an individual’s own genetic stockpile. But this simply is not the case. Everyone receives fifty-percent of their genetic material from each biologic parent – but that fifty-percent is completely randomly ‘selected.’ Over the generations many gene lines simply do not make it through. Thus, as in my case, there is no trace of “British Isles” genetic material despite having Welsh forebears. But their genetic background could have been well integrated with Saxon and Scandanavian genes through intermarriage among those Welsh who dwelt in those counties that have formed part of England for hundreds of years.

Frankly, there is no substitute for the painstaking digging in the documentary archives, or those that are available to us.

I should like to temper Jeff Zupan’s assertions about those who are from the northern English (and I would add Scottish) counties. Yes the peoples of those counties probably do carry a fair number of Scandanavian genes (so, too, not a few of the Irish, by the way); but they are hardly completely so. Despite rumours to the contrary, many of the early Britons did not flee from the invading Saxons (nor either of them from the Vikings) but rather co-existed and eventually intermarried producing a much blended genetic pool.

Additionally, again considering the British Isles (my background willy nilly of the genes). Aside from what has been discovered (though undoubtedly on a very small sample) about the Welsh and Cornish (they tend to be, seemingly, genetically ‘purer’ than the rest of the Islands’ folks), the rest of the peoples populating the Isles are well-intermingled ethnically. For example, Ireland had Scandanavian invaders and settlers; Anglo-Normans (more Scandanavians and Saxons, some of whom might well have been, in part, Slavic, as well carrying a trace of the Franks, another Germanic group); the Scottish (themselves a blend of Irish, Scots, Scandanavians, and Saxons) and English (a mixture of all the above). Not to mention the occasional Spaniard (shipwrecked from the Armada).

By: Jeff Zupan

Jeff Zupan — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:41:40 +0000

After waiting four months for my invitation, I was absolutely stunned to get the results back in only two weeks!
The results were almost exactly what I would have predicted, 47% Eastern European, 27% Scandanavian and 28% British Isles. Unlike many posters on this thread, the Scandanavian did not bother me. Why? Because I understand the difference between nationality and ethnicity. “Nationality” is an arbitrary, man-made concept, “Ethnicity” is biological. And it’s not based on your great-grandfather, but on your 50x great-grandfather.
When my paternal grandfather was born in 1882, he was Austrian. If he stayed where he was until 1918, he would have been Yugoslavian. If by some miracle he could have hung on until 1991, he would have become Slovenian. But his ethnicity through it all was Slavic (what Ancestry calls “Eastern European”).
Same with Mom’s side. One branch came over from Wales, about the only remaining true “Britons”. A few lines came from Ireland. Again, Irish is a nationality, not an ethnicity. These two groups are the “British Isles”. The other group came from County Durham and, friends, northern England is totally “Scandinavian”. The were a couple of families from northern Germany which, again, is Scandinavian.
Basically speaking, if you had medevial ancestors from Europe, you have LOTS of Scandinavian in you.
I would suggest everyone here check out a couple of books: “The Vikings” by Martin Arnold (2006) and “The Normans in Europe” edited by Elizabeth van Houts (2000) to see just how totally pervasive the Scandinavian domination of Europe was.
And don’t buy the marketing hype. Autosomal DNA testing is like quantum mechanics. It’s based on probabilities, not hard facts.

By: bob bayne

bob bayne — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 20:11:08 +0000

ancestryDNA has been of no use in finding any links. The cartoon pie chart and bar chart are good for a ‘cartoon’. No data is available to support the cartoons. And, since my first notification from them even had a wrong date on it I wonder wvwn more about the cartoons. I’ll be going elsewhere for answers.