Confusing large group of DNA matches

[Ayashi]

Among my mother's DNA matches I've found a large Shared DNA group.

So far this group, excluding my mother, is made up of 23 different people, 17 of whom I can trace back to a particular couple via three of their children (so not all descended from the same child). Unfortunately I have no idea whatsoever how that original couple relates to me, by name or by geographical area.

The group are all 4-6th cousins and range between 22cm on 1 to 34cm on 2.

I've been reading a lot on here lately about how smaller amounts of DNA might be "background noise". In theory, if this couple had a coincidental section of DNA that got passed down... In short, how likely is it that this sprawling group is or is not actually related to my mother?

They grew in number today and so does my headache trying to figure it out!

Ayashi

[davidft]

Are you saying you match all of the group from 22cM to 34cM ? if not how much do you match them by, and is this in one segment or over several segments?


You know their common ancestors (correct?). Have you accounted for all your ancestors in that time frame or do you have gaps i.e. misssing ancestors?

[Craclyn]

I would not consider them noise at that level. See if you can divide them into sub-groups and look for common ancestors in each sub-group. You can then develop the trees from those common ancestors further and see if you can figure out the connection to your tree.

[Ayashi]

David- the match with the least in common is 22cm over 1 segment. The match with most in common is 34cm in 2 segments. Most of the others are 1 segment matches with cm numbers in the 20s.
-Edit- one of my unidentified matches is 24cM over 3 segments.

Craclyn, I'm not sure what you mean. I've already got 15 (correction from my OP) of them back to their shared ancestors. The other 8 trees I can't match, mainly because they have little or no tree to look at.

There are trees available which go back a couple of generations from that couple, still with no joy.

I do have some missing ancestors (for example, one of my 2nd great grandfathers was illegitimate). A lot of my tree is covered by other DNA results that suggests paperwork is true on several branches. With 4-6 cousin matches it could be that the shared ancestor is indeed further back than my tree goes. It could mean that someone was born "the wrong side of the sheets" as it were. It could mean my paperwork is wrong somewhere. I don't know, which is frustrating.

At least if they appeared in a geographical location that already appears in my tree then I'd have a starting point to look at, but I have no ancestors in that location at all that I've identified. It would also help if they matched with someone I could identify as being on my side of the tree!

One of the thing that baffles me the most is the sheer number of them. I've got areas in my tree where multiple descendants have tested but this line seems to be particularly family history orientated I guess!

[rlw254]

I'm dealing with the exact same scenario right now. Clusters of 15+ matches that all match each other, many of which have common ancestors within the cluster. The families in these clusters are in a region of the USA that I did not previously have any connection to, though there are 2-3 spaces in my tree where it is theoretically possible.

The problem I'm dealing with is this - some of the shared ancestors within these groups were born in the early 1700s, which I understand begins to approach the limits of autosomal DNA matching. Could I be confusing myself by identifying shared ancestors this far back when the country was just beginning to take off and there was a more limited pool of surnames?

It's an interesting rabbit hole to wander down, especially when my tree is a bit stagnant. Obviously the paper trail isn't sufficient or my brick walls wouldn't be brick walls, so this might all have to just be supposition.

[Ayashi]

I just don't like the mystery of it, but I suppose that's why I'm doing family history in the first place!

This is the second such group that I've noticed- the others are clearly related via my JONES line but their common ancestor appears to come from entirely the wrong end of Wales. I appreciate though that all it would take to move a Jones from North Wales to South Wales would be one mariner or something, but all the same it does make one doubt one's own paperwork!

To make things more confusing, I've now matched two of the previously unidentified members of the 23 to each other... but their common ancestors are not matching by surname or geographical location with the identified 15. Sigh.

[brigidmac]

Hi i have a similar bunch of matches some hints of Russian or Lithuanian origins but no names in common .i think link must be thru 3x great grandmother s parents .i dont know her maiden name and most trees dont go back to pre 1850s in those countries or have name spelt differently so matches dont show .but i.ll keep looking .

[Ayashi]

Revisiting this thread because my brain has turned into a pretzel.

My mother's niece has tested and come back as a DNA match to 26 of the now 29 people in this group.

Their common ancestors are GT (1830-1911) and LG (1827-1893) who started in Gloucestershire and moved to Utah in the 1850s/60s.
8 of 29 are descended from Child 1
4 of 29 are descended from Child 3
4 of 29 are descended from Child 4
13 are not identified (mainly due to no trees)
The three that do not match my cousin are unidentified.

It gets more confusing, because my mother's paternal uncle DOES NOT MATCH this group as a whole, only one single individual who is a descendant of Emma.
My mother's cousin by her maternal uncle DOES NOT MATCH this group as a whole, only one single individual who is unidentified.

My mother's DNA results have a few cousin matches linked back to recent generations, NONE OF WHOM are a match to this group at all.

Before one starts to question my mother's parentage, the icing on the cake is that patient investigation into her DNA results appear to prove her parents, grandparents, great grandparents and most of her great great grandparents.

 

[Galium]

People who moved to Utah in the 19thC are often converts of the Mormons.  One of the reasons for getting a lot of matches descended from such people is the practice of polgamy by the LDS at that time - one man related to your family taking two or three wives might explain all those matches.

Have you looked at the Pioneer Database?
https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/overlandtravel/