DNA is all the rage in many genealogical circles.
So, let's do a bit of a round-up of genetic fun.....
I recently went to a genealogical club presentation on using DNA in genealogical research. Most of the presentation was technical details, but the speaker made some good points to start:
1. DNA results assist, but do not not replace, traditional genealogy.
2. DNA results can strengthen weak paper trails (see this blog entry for a sample) but weaken strong paper trails
3. Don't do if not prepared for surprises. The speaker used an example from her own results ~ she found out that a family friend was her biological father.....more dramatic than most results, but it does happen.
The hot DNA/genealogy news this week.... the results for the tests done on the body that is almost certainly Richard III of England. Popular accounts here, here, and here, while the scientific paper is here.
As I've
written here before, I've had DNA analysis done, and it hasn't led me to any new discoveries. I'm {technically, my father.....} the sole
McGee family in Group 2 of the McGee project, for example.
Ancestry has once again recently changed how it reports autosomal DNA results. This change is supposed to emphasize quality over quantity in matches.
My Ancestry results? 43% western Europe, 30% Ireland, 11% Iberian Peninsula, 4% Great Britain, and smaller miscellaneous others. It also now reports a range for each ethnicity (the above percentages fall about in the middle of the ranges), so I'm guessing my western Europe is closer to the 22% that is the bottom of the range, as I only have two lines that I've found that don't go back to Britain/Ireland in the 1600 to 1700 range, so even allowing for earlier/prehistoric migrations, 43% seems high....but we'll see ~ I'm sure testing will get much more detailed in my lifetime.
But no actual paper trail matches for me closer than about 8th cousins (and only a couple of those, with a common ancestor from about 1650) so far :-(
I also talked an aunt (my father's only living sibling) into getting tested through Ancestry. Her results were very much what I expected: 58% Ireland, 23% Europe West, 11% Scandinavia, 8% various trace regions. But having her results helps me narrow down which matches are from which side of the family ~ very important, as tangled colonial New England families can produce a fair bit of genetic clutter.
I also had a test done through 23andMe and imported results to FTDNA. Ethnicity results at 23andMe: 76% British/Irish, 5% each French and German, 11% broadly northern European, plus a few misc. odds and ends (mostly Iberian). And no one closer than about fifth cousins.....
At FTDNA: 54% British Isles, 23% southern Europe, 11% eastern Europe, 7% western and central Europe, and 5% Finland and northern Siberia.
What does this show? Well, the three companies are obviously using slightly different ways of judging the data ;-) And people moved around a wee bit.....
One drawback to current DNA testing: Ancestry only sells kits in the US, so most of the testing that has been done in the UK and Ireland (which is where my paternal matches are likely to be) is either spotty/minimal in coverage or not personal ~ it's academic/scientific population results.
If you have autosomal test results, I highly encourage you to look into third party tools, so that you aren't limited to just the results from one company.
I've imported my results to Gedmatch ~ kit M948778.
Despite the lack of success personally, there is a lot of interesting work being done with genealogical DNA testing.
The Daughters of the American Revolution ~ it won't be accepting lines based only on DNA, but it will (as of January 2013) allow Y-DNA evidence to be used with other, more traditional proof of descent for new memberships.
Thoughts on this: guessing it won't really change much in how lineage societies do their memberships, at least as the technology is now. Likely most useful for cases where two unrelated men with the same name settled in the Midwest (or other places, like northeastern PA and northwestern Maine, where land was given in place of cash pensions) after the Revolution and War of 1812, and DNA can sort out which family in older settlements each man belongs to ~ but the research/paperwork to show the DNA connections may be more than the traditional requirements by a fair bit, as proving multiple lines will likely be necessary.
A couple excellent blogs to read if you are interested in the topic:
The Genetic Genealogist
The 23andMe blog ~ one of the other big testing companies (along with FTDNA and Ancestry).....but worth reading.
Also, this entry at a great blog points to a fascinating story ;-)
Some of what is being done is just plain fun ;-)
It's a few years old, but this study of Genghis Khan's DNA is a good example of how one powerful man's DNA can survive.
Another interesting finding was that Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak (despite having the same family name as her husband, with both lines originating in the same small village in Slovakia) didn't share a Y-DNA line (her father was tested) with her husband. Note: video is 17 minutes long ~ we'll wait if you get distracted ;-)
Scientists of identified relatives of Otzi the Iceman, a 5000 year old body found in the Alps in 1991. Similarly, scientists found relatives of 'Cheddar Man' in the same area of England, 9000 or so years later. Another round-up of ancient DNA results ~ only short bits about each finding, but with links to more details. Ditto for this summary of 'famous' DNA.
The International Society of Genetic Genealogy has links to many geographical DNA projects.
An 80 year old man, raised in an orphanage, found his birth family.
So....
Have you have a DNA test done? If so, which kind (Y-DNA {straight paternal line), mitochondrial {straight maternal line}, or autosomal)? Have the results led to any new discoveries?
Have you seen other fun stories about DNA-related genealogical findings?