Search for content in message boards

Odd Scandinavian results?

Odd Scandinavian results?

Posted: 13 Mar 2013 7:46AM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 13 Mar 2013 7:46AM GMT
My last name is Hubbard, my father's mother's maiden last name is Stoner, and my Mother's surname was Brown, and her mother's surname was Collins. Both of my parents say their ancestry is English. That makes me English right? Well the ancestry DNA test came back with 52 percent Scandinavian and only 12 percent British Isles. That is very strange. I also got 18 percent Eastern European and 20 percent Southern European.

Someone told me that the Southern European may come from my English ancestry because the original inhabitants of the British Isles did come from modern day Spain a long time ago. I have also been told that Scandinavian in my case is very likely Anglo-Saxon since I have no Scandinavian surnames, all of my family says we are English, and the Angles, and Saxons both came from Denmark before sweeping through Germany, and then into the British Isles. My British Isles ancestry may perhaps be the small bit of Irish I have in my family. Can anyone confirm these hypotheses? The Eastern European may be due to some intermingling a long time ago but I am not worried about that to be honest.

Re: Odd Scandinavian results?

Posted: 13 Mar 2013 8:15PM GMT
Classification: Query
The word from the blogs is that Ancestry's admix is a bit off and quite different than the other major players. [FTDNA, 23andMe and Geno 2.0] I have similar numbers to yours, but 25% of my ancestors are Swedish and another less than 10% are Swiss/German so they may also be considered Scandinavian??? Either the ethnic percentages are wrong or most of my British ancestors were actually Vikings and Romans.

The cousin matches seem quite accurate, so look at those and wait until they "fix" the admix.

Re: Odd Scandinavian results?

Posted: 13 Mar 2013 9:56PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 13 Mar 2013 9:59PM GMT
That is why I believe that "Scandinavian" can imply a lot of things. The Saxons and Danes had similar culture, similar language, and the Saxons came from Denmark. For all intents and purposes the Saxons were Scandinavian. The Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Normans, and Celtic/Britons became what we know now as the English. That explains the large genetic variations among the people of the British Isles. I read that only a small percentage of the English even have Viking ancestry. Is the ancestry Scandinavian? Perhaps. But is it Viking? Probably not. That is my take. I do not have any Nordic surnames in my family. The chances of so many Anglo-Americans having enough Viking ancestry to pass on to me a whopping 52 percent Norse-Scandinavian is quite small. I am writing it off as Saxon or even Angle ancestry. I have even seen an old map of Old England before the kingdoms united into one English kingdom. Most of my ancestral names come from counties that were in the Saxon kingdoms. Stoner is in fact a Saxon name, and was seated in Saxon land, and Hubbard, though apparently Norman in origin, was seated in old Saxon territory after William the Conqueror took the crown. I suppose it is easier if you are like me and have noble heritage. There is far more documentation on where names came from. One day I hope to be able to narrow it all down to exact people and exact dates. But for now this is good enough. I would love to see the raw data from this test .

Re: Odd Scandinavian results?

Posted: 13 Mar 2013 10:10PM GMT
Classification: Query
The way I heard it ("rumor" and I have lost the web link to it also) is that one of the profiles that they are using as a standard for what is "Scandinavian" has since been judged by others in the genetics field as "non-Scandinavian". As in the person(s) thought they were of pure Scandinavian descent and it turns out they were not. Since AncestryDNA is still using that profile as one of their standards they are telling people they are Scandinavian when they might not be.

I'm a perfect example of this. My test came back as 90% Scandinavian, 7% Southern European, 3% unknown.

My mother's is 85% British, 10% Scandinavian, 5% unknown.

Admixture is definitely off.

Re: Odd Scandinavian results?

Posted: 13 Mar 2013 10:49PM GMT
Classification: Query
Edited: 13 Mar 2013 10:54PM GMT
"The cousin matches seem quite accurate, so look at those and wait until they "fix" the admix." Yes. My ethnicity results make no sense at all: 73% Scandinavian although there is none in my known ancestry, among other things. I don't really care. The relative-matching is the thing that makes Ancestry's test results better than its competitors. I have learned so much from these matches, despite the impoverished tools they've given us to analyze the data. If they give us adequate sorting/organizational tools, raw data, and tools to analyze the raw data, Ancestry's autosomal test will be unbeatable. I wish I could afford to buy some stock. :)

Re: Odd Scandinavian results?

Posted: 14 Mar 2013 1:50AM GMT
Classification: Query
So you are saying that British Isles and Scandinavian could have been somehow "switched?"

Re: Odd Scandinavian results?

Posted: 14 Mar 2013 4:56AM GMT
Classification: Query
No, not switched, just misdiagnosed. When they readjust the admixture, the percentages will be adjusted.

Re: Odd Scandinavian results?

Posted: 14 Mar 2013 7:34PM GMT
Classification: Query
I see now. I am sure I will end up with a lot more British Isles ancestry when they do that. In all honesty I may have a little bit of Scandinavian but certainly not that much. I think Southern European could also be BI as well. In that case I would be around 80 percent BI. I guess we will see.

Re: Odd Scandinavian results?

Posted: 21 Mar 2013 11:02PM GMT
Classification: Query
The very same thing happened with my son's autosomal test. I assume that's what you're talking about here. Can someone explain further what is done by adjusting the admixture and if Ancestry then lets you know that your results have changed.

Re: Odd Scandinavian results?

Posted: 21 Mar 2013 11:41PM GMT
Classification: Query
I agree. I would like to know when these results will be fixed. According to everything I have found out the results are not accurate. I also understand that we should be getting the raw data soon. Is this true?
per page

Find a board about a specific topic