Scandinavian DNA

[GBPhotoArt]

Hi,

I recently had my DNA tested and was surprised to find the results showed that 24.2% of my DNA was Scandinavian.
By birth I am English, and having traced back four generations on both my maternal and paternal lines there is no evidence of scandinavian ancestry.

My understanding is that with such a high percentage I should have found some connection.

Can anyone offer advice or explanation for me please.

[4b2]

What company is it with? Ancestry seems to be the best at giving ethnic breakdowns in Europe. My non-European ancestry is really over-weighted though. As are all the other mixed tests I've seen.

In my experience Scandinavian often comes up, as quite a large component of Anglos. My reading is that this is more a reference to deeper ancestry that looks more like Scandinavian than British people with large amounts of deeper Scandinavian ancestry. Someone who is more knowledgeable on this may be able to offer a better answer.

But 24% seems too much to be considered 'noise'.

Upload your test to MyHeritage, if it's not on there. They have a much bigger pool of test subjects from Europe. Ancestry has very few.

If you find you have close Scandinavian matches and no Scandinavian paper trial, then I'd presume you have a line that includes infidelity.

I had a similar situation. Though my aunt's test only says about 7% Scandinavian on Ancestry and MyHeritage. I just assumed it was 'noise' as many other people get. When I uploaded it to MyHeritage I noticed that my biggest cluster of matches were mostly from Norway. The closest appears to be a 3rd cousin. I thought it might be a mistake. But as I researched my DNA results more, I have found that I do indeed have some Scandinavian ancestry. My father's mother was born out of wedlock, father unknown. Having spent at maybe 300 hours going through my matches, completing trees of matches, figuring out the trees who people who are just a name etc. I've been able to determine the Scandinavian ancestry comes from that line. I've been able to triangulate two sets of 4x great-grandparents and presume the other two sets are Norwegian. On MyHeritage, I have a match who is a 2nd cousin via this unknown line. However, I can't figure out how we are related. But she also matches, triangulated on shared segments, with many of my Scandinavian matches.

Using DNA, you can prove many of your lines by finding matches with common ancestry. I've proved most of my lines back to 4X great-grandparents, some 5X, a few 6X and one 7X. There are a couple that I have no matches for and the question there is if I have made a mistake (not the case) or if there is some infidelity on one of my lines or maybe there are just no matches on that line.

In particular my mother' paternal great-great-grandparents are proved, but I have zero matches beyond that. I don't know why at current.

You can identify clusters of DNA matches - multiples matches who match each other. These can possibly relate to any lines that may contain infidelity. When you find them, search the trees of common matches. You will need to pad out many. Identify ancestors in common that line up the the amount of shared DNA.

[phil57]

Firstly, ethnicity ESTIMATES are what the phrase says. They are not set in stone, and regions vary between testing companies depending on how they define and allocate them.

The headline percentage that you see is a median probability, not a fact. When I check one of my estimates that shows a similar 24% ethnicity estimate for a particular region allocated by Ancestry, the range is show as from 10% to 26%.

If you tested with Ancestry (but other providers are similar) they claim that the ESTIMATES are intended to show possible connections to reference populations from 500 to a few thousand years ago. Four generations is really far too short a period of time to reach back that far. How far back do your four generations take you? Possibly mid 19th century at a guess? 150 years or thereabouts.

You may get some replies to this post along the lines of "Ah, but I have XX% Irish ethnicity and my GF was from Ireland". Beware confirmation bias. When a persons ethnicity estimate fits with what they know, there can be a (possibly subconscious) bias to accept that it must be correct. When it doesn't, there may also be a bias to dismiss the whole thing as bunkum. The truth lies somewhere in between, but with the caveat that these are ESTIMATES. The subject is not a precise science, and even the probabilities currently given to you by Ancestry or whoever you tested with, are likely to change over time as they refine their reference populations.

DNA matches by identical segments (the other part of what an autosomal DNA test gives you results for) is a far more accurate and scientific process, and almost certainly correct over about 15-20 cM match lengths.

FWIW I also have a percentage of Scandinavian ethnicity in my Ancestry results. I have no knowledge of anyone from that region in my researched family lines back to around 1700 or so. But my maternal haplogroup migration pattern does suggest that my ancestors likely travelled through, and settled in that region several thousand years ago, before or during which time some would then  have travelled to, and settled in, the British Isles. So it is quite feasible that there are segments in my DNA which match the reference population from that region, even though I have no recent family ancestors who are Scandinavian.

[Biggles50]

I have 22% Irish yet only two in my tree, one born 1840 & the other 1780, so my percentage does not equate.

As has been stated it is an Estimate of what in reality is from a small series of gene pools so do take them with a bottle of salt rather than a pinch.

I charted my proven DNA matches by simply marking a Pedigree chart with a marker pen between the MRCA who I share with the match, it does show zero DNA matches down both my Paternal Great Grandfathers line so I suspect a NPE accounts for my high volume of DNA matches with Irish heritage.  This may help youif you do the same.

I am firmly of the opinion that one can have all the paperwork and citations assigned to people in ones tree but without DNA proof of lineage said line will always be of questionable accuracy there are caveats of course.

Finally Ancestry shows me as 8% Scandinavian, My Heritage shows me as 32% Scandinavian (I have tested with each, the My Heritage is not an upload of Ancestry results).  Make of that what you will as I have zero family from that part of Europe within recent documented time period, I’ll avoid Rollo the Viking who is in my tree as he goes way to far back ;-)

[Ruskie]

To add to the excellent replies above, since you mention 24.2% “Scandinavian” I presume you tested with My Heritage, as that is a classification they use, whereas Ancestry are more specific and assign it as “Sweden and Denmark” - My Heritage tend to throw up a lot more Scandinavian than other companies.

DNA does not Align to countries’ borders, the reference panels in some cases are quite small, and people moved around a lot, which is why these “ethnicity” guesstimates vary and are often not as you expect.

My DNA examples:
Ancestry - 2% “Sweden and Denmark”
My Heritage - 29.4% Scandinavian
FTDNA - 2% “Scandinavian”

[Kloumann]

My partner's results showed up 42% Scandinavian with Myheritage & we can find no links to that part of the world having traced most of her ancestry back to France, Holland, Germany & England. She is now trying Ancestry.  Myheritage produced a 1st or 2nd cousin match but after contacting the match, can find no connection. No faith in Myheritage.

P.S. Welcome to Rootschat GBP

[4b2]

My DNA examples:
Ancestry - 2% “Sweden and Denmark”
My Heritage - 29.4% Scandinavian
FTDNA - 2% “Scandinavian”

Ух ты.

MyHeritage results are certainly the poorest in my experience.

My father on MyHeritage:

88.5% English
5.8% North and West European
5.7% Irish, Scottish and Welsh

His sister:

53.4% English
34.2% North and West European
7.8% Irish, Scottish and Welsh
4.6% Iberian

------

Ancestry has it at:

Wales - 80%
English and Northwestern Europe - 13% (specifically Cheshire, Mersyside & South Lancashire // and The Midlands)
Sweden & Denmark - 6%
Norway - 1%

From a surname count of 4X great-grandparents:

Welsh - 62.5%
English (Marches) - 18.75%
English (Lancashire) - 12.5%
Norwegian - 6.25%

So Ancestry is seeing all the English families in The Welsh Marches as Welsh.

That gives you:

Welsh - 81.25%
English (Lancashire) - 12.5%
Norwegian - 6.25%

Very accurate. I suspect it's most accurate withing the British Isles, as they have the most impetus and data to get that right.

On my mother's side Ancestry have it very wrong. For my maternal aunts they have them as 41%, 32% non-European. While so far on the paper trial I have 0.78125% Indian (though it could be Indo-Portugese). And 1.625% Ashkenazi Jewish. I think this is largely because Ancestry have not put much resources into getting those results better refined.

-------

A lot of people on the street take these tests for the ethnicity estimate. Quite a few people have asked me about buying tests, who don't really have any interest in genealogy. The ethnicity component is often a cold side-dish to be taken with a bowl of salt. Many know the results are not always very reliable. Particularly from MyHeritage.

The instance when such a test might be useful is if, say, you were told your great-grandfather was from Ethiopia, in which case the tests might be able to tentatively confirm that. And if an ancestor was from somewhere like Ethiopia, you will get few to no DNA matches to be able to determine who he was.

[4b2]

My partner's results showed up 42% Scandinavian with Myheritage & we can find no links to that part of the world having traced most of her ancestry back to France, Holland, Germany & England. She is now trying Ancestry.  Myheritage produced a 1st or 2nd cousin match but after contacting the match, can find no connection. No faith in Myheritage.

The best course for DNA tests is buy one from Ancestry and one from 23AndMe; then upload to MyHeritage, FTDNA, LivingDNA, GedMatch. Since Ancestry and 23AndMe don't allow you to upload tests. They should just charge a fee to do so.

Then get as many relatives tested as possible (don't need to test children of someone already tested). If a great-uncle/aunt is alive, that will yield roughly an extra two generations worth of results - pushing you back more towards distant matches cira 1670 than 1730. Testing the nephew of a great-aunt/uncle will likely yield a few extra matches. Testing every sibling you will yield quite a lot of extra more distant matches.

If you have matches from each generation, you can then triangulate the previous generation. e.g. if you have a 2nd cousin, that 2nd cousin will overlap with many 3rd cousin matches. And a 3rd cousin should overlap with some 4th cousin matches. With that you can essentially put together a tree with just DNA matches.

When I build up a few messages with relatives, I will ask if they will share their DNA test, and offer access to mine. More distant cousins may have a considerably different level of inheritance for some lines. And with enough matches you can also see which specific ancestors contributed more or less to your inheritance.

When you are trying to locate more distant matches, having access to these results from more distant cousins can yield a lot of extra matches. You may not match, but have common clusters. Or they may have a better picture of an extra generation of matches, which may help you unlock some brick walls.

[Ruskie]

There are plenty of anomalies with all companies ethnicity estimates, and we all have many examples of that …. with one Irish great grandmother I would expect more than the 9% Irish that Ancestry give me …. with no known Scottish found within many generations I don’t know where my 8% Scottish comes from …