U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-06-2013, 09:40 PM
bjh
 
Location: Memphis - home of the king
26,041 posts, read 22,775,493 times
Reputation: 119671

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
It would be very interesting to know the country of origin of your African Ancestry. For example, being from Nigeria vs. being from South Africa is a big cultural difference. It sort of like having Greek ancestry vs. having German ancestry.
In genealogical DNA testing white South Africans will show up as European because their ancestors were. Sub-Saharan refers to those described as Black in America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2013, 09:47 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,385 posts, read 9,945,414 times
Reputation: 5230
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjh View Post
In genealogical DNA testing white South Africans will show up as European because their ancestors were. Sub-Saharan refers to those described as Black in America.
I wasn't talking about white South Africans. I was referring to the native peoples of Africa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2013, 04:37 AM
 
11,686 posts, read 13,074,643 times
Reputation: 30973
Quote:
Originally Posted by TootsieWootsie View Post
Ancestry.com makes it pretty plain that the Sub-Saharan region is below those thought of as Moorish (Libya, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria). That would make the Sub-Saharan peoples African-American in today's terms I should think unless I misunderstood totally (but don't think I did). Ancestry.com even has a map of this to show you Sub-Saharan, and it isn't the Muslim areas of today at all....
I know you were not the one who first brought up a religious term, by the way.

It is probably best to forget ideas of Muslim or Islamic Africa. Huge swathes of Africa south of the Sahara are predominantly Islamic, and it just confuses things to refer to the continent in religious terms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2013, 10:32 PM
bjh
 
Location: Memphis - home of the king
26,041 posts, read 22,775,493 times
Reputation: 119671
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
I wasn't talking about white South Africans. I was referring to the native peoples of Africa.
That would be Sub-Saharan then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2013, 09:14 AM
 
2,603 posts, read 3,768,521 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
It doesn't necessarily mean that physical traits are going to show up. Many traits are recessive. Many more traits aren't visible like those that contribute to longevity or susceptibility to certain diseases like some forms of cancer.

Furthermore, the people of the Mediterranean area were very mixed because this area was an active trading area among Europe, Asia, and Africa for thousands of years. Whatever the original populations were, they didn't stay isolated for long. There were always new invaders or new trading partners. DNA studies indicate that there was contact between the people on the Horn of Africa and people from North Africa or the Arabian peninsula at least 3000 years ago. In historical times, we know the Persians invaded Greece, the Romans conquered all of the Mediterranean basin, the North Africans invaded the Roman Empire, that the Arabs swept out of the Arabian Peninsula to roam as far as Spain and into France and the Balkans, the Mongols came out of the Asian steppes to overrun parts of Asia Minor, and the Vikings established kingdoms in Sicily and Southern Italy.
The Vikings never got to Sicily and Southern Italy. It was the Normans who were a population of Viking origin but were mostly French.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2013, 01:57 PM
 
5,799 posts, read 4,810,185 times
Reputation: 17499
I got my 23andme results back, and it was SUCH a waste of $.

I think the problem is that the company has limited genetic data for many groups. For example, the only detailed country results I got was British - 16.5%. That's pretty accurate, I think - but I KNOW that I'm mostly French on both sides, and 23andme shows 1.3% French and German, .2% Scandinavian, and 54.2 % "Non-Specific European" (Northern) and 27% Non-Specific European"(Southern). They need more regional genetic data for comparison to make the test worthwhile.

I had wanted to know about one ancestral line that might have been either African or Native American back in the early 1700s (Census shows this family as "Free Non-White" in 1790) 23andme results show .2% Sub Saharan African, .1% South Asian, and .6% Unassigned. Could the Native American (probably Choctaw) be the "Unassigned"? 23andme just doesn't have enough Native American genetic data, I think.

Since 23andme says their results are for the past 500 years only, the .3% African/Asian shouldn't represent the many thousands of years ago migration from Africa and East Asia to Western Europe. But I'm wondering if that is what that .3% really is.

So I'm left still unsure about the ca. 1700 Choctaw and African ancestry, which is what I really wanted to know.

I love being officially 81% "Non-Specific"! That's how I feel some days.

Last edited by 601halfdozen0theother; 08-08-2013 at 02:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2013, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,385 posts, read 9,945,414 times
Reputation: 5230
Quote:
Originally Posted by 601halfdozen0theother View Post
I got my 23andme results back, and it was SUCH a waste of $.

I think the problem is that the company has limited genetic data for many groups. For example, the only detailed country results I got was British - 16.5%. That's pretty accurate, I think - but I KNOW that I'm mostly French on both sides, and 23andme shows 1.3% French and German, .2% Scandinavian, and 54.2 % "Non-Specific European" (Northern) and 27% Non-Specific European"(Southern). They need more regional genetic data for comparison to make the test worthwhile.

I had wanted to know about one ancestral line that might have been either African or Native American back in the early 1700s (Census shows this family as "Free Non-White" in 1790) 23andme results show .2% Sub Saharan African, .1% South Asian, and .6% Unassigned. Could the Native American (probably Choctaw) be the "Unassigned"? 23andme just doesn't have enough Native American genetic data, I think.

Since 23andme says their results are for the past 500 years only, the .3% African/Asian shouldn't represent the many thousands of years ago migration from Africa and East Asia to Western Europe. But I'm wondering if that is what that .3% really is.

So I'm left still unsure about the ca. 1700 Choctaw and African ancestry, which is what I really wanted to know.

I love being officially 81% "Non-Specific"! That's how I feel some days.
At least you know that the majority of your ancestry is European.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2013, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,385 posts, read 9,945,414 times
Reputation: 5230
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjh View Post
That would be Sub-Saharan then.
Correct but understand when I'm using that term, I'm not including White South Africans. I hope this clears up any confusion you might have. I just have a hard time believing that the OP has Sub-Saharan ancestry on her Italian side of the family, if that is the case. It would most certainly have to come from North Africa. It may not seem like a big deal to you which part of Africa the OP's ancestry come from but I do think the regional aspect is important as well.

Last edited by gwillyfromphilly; 08-08-2013 at 04:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2013, 05:12 PM
bjh
 
Location: Memphis - home of the king
26,041 posts, read 22,775,493 times
Reputation: 119671
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Correct but understand when I'm using that term, I'm not including White South Africans. I hope this clears up any confusion you might have. I just have a hard time believing that the OP has Sub-Saharan ancestry on her Italian side of the family, if that is the case. It would most certainly have to come from North Africa. It may not seem like a big deal to you which part of Africa the OP's ancestry come from but I do think the regional aspect is important as well.
I'm not confused, but thanks so much for your thoughtful concern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2013, 05:15 PM
bjh
 
Location: Memphis - home of the king
26,041 posts, read 22,775,493 times
Reputation: 119671
Quote:
Originally Posted by 601halfdozen0theother View Post
I got my 23andme results back, and it was SUCH a waste of $.

I think the problem is that the company has limited genetic data for many groups. For example, the only detailed country results I got was British - 16.5%. That's pretty accurate, I think - but I KNOW that I'm mostly French on both sides, and 23andme shows 1.3% French and German, .2% Scandinavian, and 54.2 % "Non-Specific European" (Northern) and 27% Non-Specific European"(Southern). They need more regional genetic data for comparison to make the test worthwhile.

I had wanted to know about one ancestral line that might have been either African or Native American back in the early 1700s (Census shows this family as "Free Non-White" in 1790) 23andme results show .2% Sub Saharan African, .1% South Asian, and .6% Unassigned. Could the Native American (probably Choctaw) be the "Unassigned"? 23andme just doesn't have enough Native American genetic data, I think.

Since 23andme says their results are for the past 500 years only, the .3% African/Asian shouldn't represent the many thousands of years ago migration from Africa and East Asia to Western Europe. But I'm wondering if that is what that .3% really is.

So I'm left still unsure about the ca. 1700 Choctaw and African ancestry, which is what I really wanted to know.

I love being officially 81% "Non-Specific"! That's how I feel some days.
Sorry your experience hasn't been that satisfying. Maybe if you look at your results based on the speculative instead of standard view that might give a better reading. I don't know. Just a thought. Or maybe some of the DNA relatives can help you in bridging some gaps. If it wasn't for my DNA relatives I wouldn't have been able to get a better idea of where a 2ggm's once unknown origins began.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top