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.
I am 1/16 Chippewa, but FTDNA does not reflect this. However, I uploaded my FTDNA results to GEDMATCH, which also accepts 23andMe test results. I used the Gedrosia K12 test, which "has been designed for individuals of predominately South Asian and West Asian ancestry for inferring gedrosian Balochi admixture. Since those populations were mostly used to source allele frequencies, individuals with majority ancestry from outside those regions will most likely find this calculator less accurate and informative. Many Indian tribal populations were used to source S. Indian allele frequencies. Although the West Asian populations used are adequate, an update may be released in the future which will include a few more W Asian populations.
The Balochi signal peaks in the Balochi/Brahui/Makrani populations of Pakistan. The Bronze age Sintashta Steppe Herder signal in this calculator reflects genetic Eurasian steppe admixture in excess of what is included in the Caucasus or Balochi signals. Also, since the genotype rate has been optimized for 23andMe users, users genotyped with FTDNA or Ancestry DNA will have slightly lower accurate results than 23andMe users."
Here is my admixture from HarrappaWorld:
Population
S-Indian 0.37
Baloch 8.93
Caucasian 7.29
NE-Euro 48.80
SE-Asian -
Siberian 0.49
NE-Asian -
Papuan 0.60
American 0.84
Beringian 0.75
Mediterranean 31.26
SW-Asian 0.54
San 0.15
E-African -
Pygmy -
W-African
As you can see, all of the results pick up some Asian DNA, but in differing populations, based on their source populations. I would upload your results and try the various admixture tests.
Did I miss something, how was the mystery solved? It seems three of you were tested and no one showed any NA (Native American) DNA... and the DNA you'd have from believed full blood Cherokee ancestor would be 3.25%, keep in mind that's not a "most" number, just an even split across generations... you could actually have more than 3.25% DNA from that ancestor. This is from a supposed full blood Cherokee 3x great grandmother, so 5 generations away. Most source suggest you should have DNA from all ancestors within 5 generations though it's not a hard rule (just a guess based on how DNA inherits), unless I missed something it seems like this still doesn't really support the family belief?
Also people mistakenly assign ethnicity by judging looks quite commonly. There are actually a variety of European ethnicities that can contribute features often associated with Native Americans (high cheekbones, darker complexion, etc).
Did you find any paper trail to support she was a Cherokee? Did she get any approved Eastern Cherokee claims, was she or any confirmed ancestor on any of the rolls? The third path would be to look if she descends from the many known descendants of white Cherokee traders who had intermixed children, many of which were absorbed into white culture, but that would put your Cherokee ancestry likely much further back.
I found documentation that her FATHER (my great-great-great-grandfather) was a full Cherokee Indian. The records from the period (early 1830s to around 1850) of the 'Trail of Tears' were very inconsistent and I still don't know for certain what happened to my 3rd-great-grandfather (the Cherokee Indian). My great-great-grandmother (half Cherokee) married my great-great-grandfather in 1850. Her mother died, although I don't know the circumstances) in either 1841 or 1843, I have documents with two different years. Her father (Cherokee) was among the holdouts who tried to evade being captured and ultimately fought and was possibly imprisoned at some time around 1852-1853. I found a record of a man that I think is him listed among the Cherokees being held at one of the local 'camps' in North Georgia prior to being herded out west. But I can't find any record of him after that, not locally in Georgia or anywhere that he would have been 're-settled'.
So I have proof that my great-great-grandmother IS half Cherokee because of her father. AncestryDNA has a miscellaneous classification that seems to be a catch all, so there was 11 percent of my DNA which didn't fall under Irish, Welsh or Scandinavian. I suspect that whatever small part of me is Cherokee falls in that 11%. I contacted them to discuss it and the assured me that anything over 5% would be specifically identified, so who knows what the makeup of that 11% actually is.
If nothing else, I'm glad that I had the DNA test done also because my last name could be of German or Welsh origin and I wanted to known which. My last name is Reece (often spelled Reese or Reise among other variations) and there are names that are names from Germany and Wales that have evolved into the current Reece/Reese. So I found out that mine is Welsh.
I should have specified earlier that my test showed British lineage as well as Irish and Welsh. Considering that the surnames of my grandparents are Kelley, Bailey and Davis, the British/Irish part was pretty easy to figure out. I also have been able to trace one of my ancestors back to the early 1600s back to Chester/Cheshire County, England. His name was Nathan Brookshaw. His son James Brookshaw married an Irish girl named Mary Elizabeth O'Harigan and they traveled to the New World in 1674 arriving in Somerset County, Maryland as indentured servants. At the time they entered the country, their last name was changed from Brookshaw to Brookshire (my maternal grandmother's maiden name). According to 10+ years of research and numerous "experts"' on the family, every Brookshire in the U.S. descended from this couple.
I found documentation that her FATHER (my great-great-great-grandfather) was a full Cherokee Indian. The records from the period (early 1830s to around 1850) of the 'Trail of Tears' were very inconsistent and I still don't know for certain what happened to my 3rd-great-grandfather (the Cherokee Indian). My great-great-grandmother (half Cherokee) married my great-great-grandfather in 1850. Her mother died, although I don't know the circumstances) in either 1841 or 1843, I have documents with two different years. Her father (Cherokee) was among the holdouts who tried to evade being captured and ultimately fought and was possibly imprisoned at some time around 1852-1853. I found a record of a man that I think is him listed among the Cherokees being held at one of the local 'camps' in North Georgia prior to being herded out west. But I can't find any record of him after that, not locally in Georgia or anywhere that he would have been 're-settled'.
So I have proof that my great-great-grandmother IS half Cherokee because of her father. AncestryDNA has a miscellaneous classification that seems to be a catch all, so there was 11 percent of my DNA which didn't fall under Irish, Welsh or Scandinavian. I suspect that whatever small part of me is Cherokee falls in that 11%. I contacted them to discuss it and the assured me that anything over 5% would be specifically identified, so who knows what the makeup of that 11% actually is.
Would love to see what paper trail you found if you're willing to share. It hasn't been my complete focus but I have multiple family stories of Cherokee ancestry with my lines that lead through northern Georgia so I've looked through a moderate amount of sources... My grandmother also has two native american DNA segments that I've triangulated to one North Georgia/SC line as well though haven't found where the Native American is from (ironically I have no stories from this line despite the DNA showing something is there somewhere).
I've spent quite a lot of time looking through the Eastern Cherokee claims... there were a *LOT* of rejected claims. People who had heard someone was Cherokee or things like "everyone knew they were Cherokee" etc... Unless they could establish their ancestor was on a roll, a treaty, a reservation record etc, and reasonable evidence that the name on those records are actually their ancestor then they were rejected... and there were quite a few of them (multiple surrounding probable related families of my Northern Georgia lines)...
There were also a bulk of people who went to the Cherokee nation in Okalahoma after the Trial of Tears and were admitted that were later kicked out due to a variety of claims of corruption and bribery and very weak evidence when they reviewed their submissions.
Most of these usually stem from someone thinking an ancestor "looks" Indian or Cherokee. The problem is a variety of ethnicities can result in people "looking" Indian... including Eruopean/African mix... Italians often have a darker complexion and dark hair. Trails like high cheekbones and broad noses can also come from a variety of European sources. Basically I put no stock in anyone saying their ancestor looked Indian (including my own relations who said the same, I have a relative who said their grandmother, my ancestor was well, looked "mostly Cherokee"... but I have found no evidence for this).
Quote:
If nothing else, I'm glad that I had the DNA test done also because my last name could be of German or Welsh origin and I wanted to known which. My last name is Reece (often spelled Reese or Reise among other variations) and there are names that are names from Germany and Wales that have evolved into the current Reece/Reese. So I found out that mine is Welsh.
I would recommend getting a male Reece descendant Y DNA tested (not sure if you are a man or women, obviously if you are a man you can get yourself tested), that would give you the best info on that paternal line... It's very hard to make conclusions about a single ancestral line out of autosomal DNA tests since they represent all your lines and you may not actually have inherited much paternal DNA since it's random.
Quote:
I should have specified earlier that my test showed British lineage as well as Irish and Welsh. Considering that the surnames of my grandparents are Kelley, Bailey and Davis, the British/Irish part was pretty easy to figure out. I also have been able to trace one of my ancestors back to the early 1600s back to Chester/Cheshire County, England. His name was Nathan Brookshaw. His son James Brookshaw married an Irish girl named Mary Elizabeth O'Harigan and they traveled to the New World in 1674 arriving in Somerset County, Maryland as indentured servants. At the time they entered the country, their last name was changed from Brookshaw to Brookshire (my maternal grandmother's maiden name). According to 10+ years of research and numerous "experts"' on the family, every Brookshire in the U.S. descended from this couple.
Thanks for sharing. I would personally caution against any research you hear that says every person of a surname descends from a single couple. Y DNA testing has disprove nearly very case I've seen of this except for extremely rare names.
and it doesn't look many have been tested. All but one do seem to match closely (though they don't share any info on this specific page so I don't know if they all might be closely related cousins)... though the last test doesn't relate at all with the previous ones... the estimated age of shared ancestor between the last test and the one before it is 3480 years (basically unrelated)... So there might be reason to think there's at least one other immigrant source (though that could be a NPE, Non-Paternal Event) as well.
This sort of research conclusion often stands up right with people saying all lines descend from brothers who came over... often further research finds no reason for relation between those supposed "brothers" and Y DNA has disproven many of those.
Don't mean to challenge your genealogy, just seeing some red flags pop up that I've seen before... they may not be issues with yours but they often are.
Given that all homo sapiens evolved out of Africa, it is impossible for his DNA to not include African.
This is a pointless statement. Yes all DNA traces back to Africa, but those who trace from the migrations out of Africa to West Asia, Europe, East Asia, etc... they all have markers that were formed after Africa. Autosomal DNA tests represents mostly the last 500 years or so. There are definitely small clusters of markers that trace to Africa, especially considering the majority of DNA is shared between humans around the world, that DNA is ignored for these sorts of tests and they look for differing markers to identify recent ancestry.
I found documentation that her FATHER (my great-great-great-grandfather) was a full Cherokee Indian. The records from the period (early 1830s to around 1850) of the 'Trail of Tears' were very inconsistent and I still don't know for certain what happened to my 3rd-great-grandfather (the Cherokee Indian). My great-great-grandmother (half Cherokee) married my great-great-grandfather in 1850. Her mother died, although I don't know the circumstances) in either 1841 or 1843, I have documents with two different years. Her father (Cherokee) was among the holdouts who tried to evade being captured and ultimately fought and was possibly imprisoned at some time around 1852-1853. I found a record of a man that I think is him listed among the Cherokees being held at one of the local 'camps' in North Georgia prior to being herded out west. But I can't find any record of him after that, not locally in Georgia or anywhere that he would have been 're-settled'.
So I have proof that my great-great-grandmother IS half Cherokee because of her father. AncestryDNA has a miscellaneous classification that seems to be a catch all, so there was 11 percent of my DNA which didn't fall under Irish, Welsh or Scandinavian. I suspect that whatever small part of me is Cherokee falls in that 11%. I contacted them to discuss it and the assured me that anything over 5% would be specifically identified, so who knows what the makeup of that 11% actually is.
If nothing else, I'm glad that I had the DNA test done also because my last name could be of German or Welsh origin and I wanted to known which. My last name is Reece (often spelled Reese or Reise among other variations) and there are names that are names from Germany and Wales that have evolved into the current Reece/Reese. So I found out that mine is Welsh.
I should have specified earlier that my test showed British lineage as well as Irish and Welsh. Considering that the surnames of my grandparents are Kelley, Bailey and Davis, the British/Irish part was pretty easy to figure out. I also have been able to trace one of my ancestors back to the early 1600s back to Chester/Cheshire County, England. His name was Nathan Brookshaw. His son James Brookshaw married an Irish girl named Mary Elizabeth O'Harigan and they traveled to the New World in 1674 arriving in Somerset County, Maryland as indentured servants. At the time they entered the country, their last name was changed from Brookshaw to Brookshire (my maternal grandmother's maiden name). According to 10+ years of research and numerous "experts"' on the family, every Brookshire in the U.S. descended from this couple.
Also forgot to add that just because an ancestor is a "full Cherokee" doesn't mean they weren't a full "blood" Cherokee. Not all sources of blood were tracked or kept proper record with during certain times... and beyond that there are always things that happen beyond what people know. There was a lot of white and Cherokee intermixing and many of those descendants were full Cherokees that intermixed with the tribe... By the 1800s it's likely a good portion of Cherokees already contained European DNA. This of course could explain why you do see Native DNA show up in your results, since maybe that full Cherokee ancestor didn't have full Cherokee Blood, which would increase the likelihood you might not inherit any. Of course maybe he wasn't Cherokee at all, though you said you did find a paper trail.
My grandmother's grandmother was native American according to my mother who knew her when she was a child. This would be my mother's mother's father's mother. My mother's 23andme results do not show any native American. Is it because of the male (her grandfather) that the test didn't catch it? Would a different test be more accurate? Or is it more likely that someone's child was not really a blood relative? Thanks.
The biggest dream catcher in the world could not "catch it" if you do not have it.
As I'm sure most people have already chanted the proverbial here in explaining DNA to you....23andMe would be able to detect this in your ancestry. If you have one (not more), 3rd great grandparent, you should show at least (considering admixture) 1%-2% in your autosomal.
Most American US Natives have considerable admixture especially tribes from the American Southeast and tribes out West and Plains have a lot of mixed blood. Your lack of an Amerindian halpogroup in the mtDNA or Y factor has nothing to do with proving "recent" ancestry thus pinning to a particular generation (i.e. great grandparent). Rather, autosomal is more assuring you have recent admixture.
Thousands of other's have gone before you in trying to establish their phantom Native American ancestor (but not limited to; Gypsy, Jewish, South Asian) through DNA testing. Most of these people hang onto folklore and absolutely no factual lineal evidence. There is no historical support in the US for a high degree of mixing between the American Indigenous population and Europeans. Both hated one another and the racist and swift actions of the US government against the Indian population (i.e. killing and reservations). However, African slaves and Europeans were side by side and there was lots of intermixing and even this, most Europeans show very little admixture of African ancestry. You may want to review the link below. https://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...f-youre-white/
I've seen someone on 23andMe believing they were a "Cherokee" Indian of the undocumented kind. She tested 100% European. Whenever people posted the same predicament as yourself, she would post as well as espouse, "to pay no attention to autosomal test. The tests are not accurate." I'm sure the the test would be accurate if her results had shown a jot or tittle otherwise. If you want to stay in a state of American Indian bliss...don't test. If you have documented ancestry especially over 4 generations ago and show no Native in your autosomal, due to recombination and loss of SNP hanging right at 4/5 generations is the culprit. You can only hope and not a case of erroneous documentation.
No one in the world is going to care about your DNA test or pay attention to how much of a result you received. If you shown 1% Native and should have received 4% is a matter of nothing is perfect but you are in the ball park. If you are showing zero results, think about that.
Last edited by AppalachianGumbo; 02-07-2016 at 09:07 AM..
It has nothing to do with gender. Autosomal DNA recombines randomly and is not based on gender. There's a few possibilities here.
.....
2. The sample groups for Native Americans are small and mostly from Latin America so if your Native American ancestor was from the USA/Canada, it might not match the Native American DNA category. I believe 23andMe have some from North America though, they seem to be more reliable in picking up Native American heritage from North America, but this is still a possibility.
....
This is also a myth. Native Americans are more closely related one another genomically. While results can be underestimated or vary it won't be very far off. Also considering the fact, lack of clustering to the Native American database will pick up East Asian signal as a broader category in their results. You would see a mixed of Native and E. Asian. Natives and East Asian have no gradient between one another. Essentially Native DNA is Asian although finely filtered by a few unique SNP's.
Last edited by AppalachianGumbo; 02-07-2016 at 09:46 AM..
Is a very good way to put it... I'd even clarify that the story of that recent full blood Native American ancestry is *very* unlikely but some sort of Native American ancestry that served as a kernel of that idea is indeed possible.
Basically in the rankings of genealogical evidence from a scale of 1 being the best evidence you can find... in this case a blood quantum card with a paper trail to that ancestor, or if you find them on a Native American roll with a strong paper trail (probably 1-3 on the scale)... Finding DNA would have also ensured you had Native American ancestry (though not having DNA doesn't disprove it)... to a 10 being extremely unlikely evidence that really either probably isn't true or has no foundation...
Just be careful with this when tribes border US/Canada and people lay claims to the Mohawk for example. The US portion Mohawk uses blood quantum. Canadian First Nations for Mohawk is very different and uses "Indian Status" (defined gender and race, different from membership) which is a legal definition and formed from the Indian Act in 1876 for Canada's Aboriginals. Being legally Indian was defined in the Indian Act. One's ancestor had to be defined legally Indian. They do not use the Blood Quanta system to determine if you could be "legally" Native American. A Native woman taking a non-status Indian or non-NDN, that NDN woman loose status, thus their card. If a Native man marries a non-status, she is given status. Not all Indigenous people in Canada have status and can register. Rules have changed over the years and people can re-claim status.
When someone talks about Mohawk ancestry, they need to define, US or Canada.
Last edited by AppalachianGumbo; 02-07-2016 at 09:59 AM..
This is also a myth. Native Americans are more closely related one another genomically. While results can be underestimated or vary it won't be very far off.
No, it's not a myth at all. There have been registered Native Americans who have taken the autosomal text and not gotten any results in that category. It's a known fact that most samples for this category are from Latin America, not the US and Canada, and there are enough genetic differences between them that people with North American Indian ancestry may not match the overall category.
Here's a map showing the different Native American genetic groups based on autosomal DNA:
According to Wikipedia there is even a high level of genetic diversity between tribes from Eastern South America and Western South America so it's easy to see how there would be genetic diversity between North America and South America too.
Also, according to an article I read in Archaeology magazine, tribes from North America frequently won't consent to a DNA test over concerns of exploitation. This is one of the reasons the sample numbers for North America are small. Here's another article on it: https://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...-of-their-dna/
Quote:
Also considering the fact, lack of clustering to the Native American database will pick up East Asian signal as a broader category in their results. You would see a mixed of Native and E. Asian. Natives and East Asian have no gradient between one another. Essentially Native DNA is Asian although finely filtered by a few unique SNP's.
I never said it wouldn't most likely show up as Asian instead.
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.
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.
