Monday, April 11, 2016

So who do you think you are?

DNA land has a new algorithm for ancestry composition. When I looked at my mom's I was a bit shocked. It said she was 4.4 percent Italian and I was 3 percent. Hmm, even with the few unknowns I have in my tree, I am pretty confident that no one was Italian for the last 200 years. Had I seen something like that on the admixtures at gedmatch, I may give it a bit more credence, but to be honest, sometimes I don't know which groups those admixtures are referencing.

.Mom's maternal grandmother comes from immigrant English stock. Even with the difficulties of researching overseas I have managed to get her tree back to the 18th century, and she comes from common English workers. Lucky for me most were nonconformist, which does make them a bit easier to track.

On her maternal grandfather's side we do end with both 2nd great grandparents. One was an immigrant from England born in 1823 and the other was born in England or Canada about the same time. Either way, Italian doesn't seem to fit. The other side is pure early colonial with roots in Massachusetts and Connecticut just a few years after the pilgrims arrived at Plymouth. The latest immigrant there is a 3rd great grandfather from Ireland. And I am not even lucky enough to have a non British surname in the bunch.

I think that the later English immigrant lines are one of the reasons mom's maternal line segment map on her DNA is so poorly identified. I don't know if they just don't test, but we just don't have that many matches I can identify in England. The colonial tends to show up in greater percentages and we have identified some of those segments.

Mom's paternal grandfather came from a mixture of British Isles and German descent. I think if anything this is what is picking up as Italian.  The Mangum, Collins, Adams, Hager, Whitley, and Stokes family on this side all came through Tennessee from North Carolina. We do seem to probably connect somehow to the Estes/Estep family from North Carolina. The Barnett and Bagwell family came from North Carolina to South Carolina and Georgia. All of these families though were present prior to the American Revolution, most having qualifying patriots for the DAR.

Mom's paternal grandmother is again a mixture, this time though it's British Isle and Choctaw. The Adams, Rogers, Wallen, Blevin and (not proven) Anderson family all came from Virginia to Tennessee. All of these lines also were present prior to the American Revolution. The Wallen and Blevin line has a bit of  tendency to remain strong in my mom's dna. She shares a 1 percent DNA segment with multiple descendants of Elisha Wallen and Mary Blevins in common with Doswell Rogers Descendants.

The Choctaw side while a mixture is a mixture of pre American revolution immigrants to Spanish Territory (those identified origins have been from Virginia) and of course the Choctaw.

So 4.4 percent Italian, hmm.. I don't think so. Even if I didn't have the genealogy, the DNA matches have identified most of these family lines at this point as accurate. The only non British Isles family I know of are the Hagers, and I suspect highly that the colony in Lincoln may have been an offshoot of those from Pennsylvania (the German surnames in both places mirror each other).

I still think everyone should do their DNA. It's interesting what all you can learn.

Speaking of  segment maps. Here is the latest on what I have identified on Mom's DNA.



8 comments:

  1. Hi Jennifer, you sent me a document from Going Snake District (Exhibit 71) dated November 27, 1892, about Joseph (Jefferson?) Rogers being a Cherokee Indian. The person who testified was Matt Christy. Do you have any other documents regarding the case? Such as, Joseph Rogers' testimony?? I discovered another person's family tree on Ancestry who stated Joseph Jefferson Rogers' wife, Susie Shue, was full Cherokee. I cannot find any supporting documents. Do you know if she was Cherokee. I think we are following the same Rogers' line. Thank you so much, Kathy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. there isn't any more documentation. It's important to remember that when they made the claim they claimed it on the husband and not Susan. Also, the genealogy has disproved that Joseph Rogers was Cherokee at all. Neither does it appear that Susie was.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jennifer, is this new algorithm used by one of the particular DNA testing companies, the donations-based GEDMatch service or all of the companies? Thanks for telling us about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no it's what DNA land uses with the dna files from the companies they accept. It's data they themselves have come up with

      Delete
  5. Hello Jennifer. Can you please decipher all of the verbage in the letter from Matt Christy regarding Joseph Rogers. For me, it is very hard to read a few of the words and a little clarity on the missed words will allow me to more clearly absorb the information. Thanks, Gene

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In a nutshell Matt Christy's letter said he knew Joseph Rogers and Joseph had a son Henry Rogers. John Rogers is Henry's son. He knew them in Georgia.

      However, what we know of Joseph, and what is documented, is he didn't live in Georgia

      Delete