Top | Newest First | Oldest First
ArishMell · 70-79, M
No.
I don't see any value in them. They might be fun, and rather romantic, but that's about all.
It has too little scientific, social and cultural credibility for it to anywhere near accurate for most people living now, especially in "The West".
The DNA pattern itself is probably accurate, but the results using it are based on crude, wide generalising and tenuous correlating.
'
Its biggest flaw is that it ignores the 2s-power rule of genetics. Each individual animal, including human, inherits about half of his or her genetic material from Mum, the other half from Dad. (Not quite half but near enough for this.)
Each parent, half each in turn.
Grandparents: ditto.
So in just 4 generations, about 1/16 of each Great-great-Grandparent's. That is roughly within just a century, assuming 4, maybe 5 generations per 100 years. (Possibly 5 or 6 in the past as many modern couples form families later.)
Geneology by the traditional, "Hatch, Match & Despatch" and Census records is much more reliable, provided those and perhaps inherited domestic records are traceable. My own family is hard to trace though, lacking key starting information. (One of my grandfathers is thought to have been brought up by an aunt, but we do not know for certain, let alone her identity, place of residence and the reason - perhaps he was an orphan.)
'
There was though, a serious use of DNA analysis about 10 years ago, for an archaeological find a few miles inland from the Southern English coastal town of Weymouth. Excavations for a new road inland revealed a mass grave of decapitated skeletons, with their heads all piled in one corner. We can't know if the beheadings had been executions or [i]post-mortem [/i]insults; but the victims appeared to have been killed violently anyway.
Various tests of age, origin and historical context suggested the victims could have been a Viking raiding-party ambushed and killed by the locals.
Now, while a DNA test might have shown possible Scandinavian origins for those poor souls, we need realise that despite various migratory waves across Europe, most individuals did not move far in those days, well over 1000 years ago. So a DNA-regional test would be more valid on their remains, than it could be on you, me or anyone else living now.
On the other hand the migrations mean most of we of European descent are likely to be right mongrels whose very distant ancestors could have been from almost anywhere, and met spouses from almost anywhere else, if we work back a millenium or so!
For in the centuries since that fight, the human population has risen at an accelerating rate, and become much more mobile. The DNA test may suggest an approximate region for an ancestor or two, but is hardly tracing one's origins in any real way.
I don't see any value in them. They might be fun, and rather romantic, but that's about all.
It has too little scientific, social and cultural credibility for it to anywhere near accurate for most people living now, especially in "The West".
The DNA pattern itself is probably accurate, but the results using it are based on crude, wide generalising and tenuous correlating.
'
Its biggest flaw is that it ignores the 2s-power rule of genetics. Each individual animal, including human, inherits about half of his or her genetic material from Mum, the other half from Dad. (Not quite half but near enough for this.)
Each parent, half each in turn.
Grandparents: ditto.
So in just 4 generations, about 1/16 of each Great-great-Grandparent's. That is roughly within just a century, assuming 4, maybe 5 generations per 100 years. (Possibly 5 or 6 in the past as many modern couples form families later.)
Geneology by the traditional, "Hatch, Match & Despatch" and Census records is much more reliable, provided those and perhaps inherited domestic records are traceable. My own family is hard to trace though, lacking key starting information. (One of my grandfathers is thought to have been brought up by an aunt, but we do not know for certain, let alone her identity, place of residence and the reason - perhaps he was an orphan.)
'
There was though, a serious use of DNA analysis about 10 years ago, for an archaeological find a few miles inland from the Southern English coastal town of Weymouth. Excavations for a new road inland revealed a mass grave of decapitated skeletons, with their heads all piled in one corner. We can't know if the beheadings had been executions or [i]post-mortem [/i]insults; but the victims appeared to have been killed violently anyway.
Various tests of age, origin and historical context suggested the victims could have been a Viking raiding-party ambushed and killed by the locals.
Now, while a DNA test might have shown possible Scandinavian origins for those poor souls, we need realise that despite various migratory waves across Europe, most individuals did not move far in those days, well over 1000 years ago. So a DNA-regional test would be more valid on their remains, than it could be on you, me or anyone else living now.
On the other hand the migrations mean most of we of European descent are likely to be right mongrels whose very distant ancestors could have been from almost anywhere, and met spouses from almost anywhere else, if we work back a millenium or so!
For in the centuries since that fight, the human population has risen at an accelerating rate, and become much more mobile. The DNA test may suggest an approximate region for an ancestor or two, but is hardly tracing one's origins in any real way.
View 2 more replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Carazaa Thank you!
I think the Scandinavians have long been among the more adventurous among Europeans. The Norwegians are used to sea-faring as boats were so important even for local transport along the coast, and still are for many. Perhaps also the climate and geography encouraged many them to look further afield for more comfortable places with milder Winters and where farming would be easier.
'
Our family has not traced itself back more than about 4 or 5 generations back, and then only on my mother's side, but our surname slightly suggests Scots in there somewhere.
It seems we had a relative who emigrated to the USA, married there and had a son who joined the Air Force. Sadly, he died in a plane crash in Antarctica when supporting a research base.
Obviously DNA testing would not reveal historical details, but anyone from English ancestry is likely to have traces of anything and everything, because the land was either invaded or settled by people from much of Europe for thousands of years. Most came from the Scandinavian and Germanic lands, and the Northern English dialect and place-names are rich in Norwegian plus Celtic and Gaelic.
'
Even in a physically small country like England, many people never travelled far from their area for generation after generation.
A friend from one Midlands cluster of towns illustrated one effect of that to me. His home area has very strong and distinctive local accents and dialects. He said that not so long ago people from one of those towns would find it hard to understand those from another, barely ten miles away. The towns are all more or less one big conurbation now, in which people are a lot more mobile in it, so the linguistic differences are a lot lower though the accents remain.
I think the Scandinavians have long been among the more adventurous among Europeans. The Norwegians are used to sea-faring as boats were so important even for local transport along the coast, and still are for many. Perhaps also the climate and geography encouraged many them to look further afield for more comfortable places with milder Winters and where farming would be easier.
'
Our family has not traced itself back more than about 4 or 5 generations back, and then only on my mother's side, but our surname slightly suggests Scots in there somewhere.
It seems we had a relative who emigrated to the USA, married there and had a son who joined the Air Force. Sadly, he died in a plane crash in Antarctica when supporting a research base.
Obviously DNA testing would not reveal historical details, but anyone from English ancestry is likely to have traces of anything and everything, because the land was either invaded or settled by people from much of Europe for thousands of years. Most came from the Scandinavian and Germanic lands, and the Northern English dialect and place-names are rich in Norwegian plus Celtic and Gaelic.
'
Even in a physically small country like England, many people never travelled far from their area for generation after generation.
A friend from one Midlands cluster of towns illustrated one effect of that to me. His home area has very strong and distinctive local accents and dialects. He said that not so long ago people from one of those towns would find it hard to understand those from another, barely ten miles away. The towns are all more or less one big conurbation now, in which people are a lot more mobile in it, so the linguistic differences are a lot lower though the accents remain.
Carazaa · F
@ArishMell
Thanks for the info about Englands migrations. Interesting! History is so fascinating to me.
In Sweden the dialects are very distinct. I can tell exactly where someone is from one town to the next. In the southern parts its hard for me to even understand what they are saying because they roll their r's like in Denmark or France. The news media a few years ago made it mandatory to speak "riks svenska" My grandpa was on the radio every week and he had to practice the "correct" Swedish, not from West coast dialect. It's like saying to an American broadcaster you can't speak with a southern dialect or a new York dialect but "correctly" But now that is changing and people are accepted for their dialects as news broadcasters which makes me change the channel because its harder to understand the Malmo and southern dialects.
Thanks for the info about Englands migrations. Interesting! History is so fascinating to me.
In Sweden the dialects are very distinct. I can tell exactly where someone is from one town to the next. In the southern parts its hard for me to even understand what they are saying because they roll their r's like in Denmark or France. The news media a few years ago made it mandatory to speak "riks svenska" My grandpa was on the radio every week and he had to practice the "correct" Swedish, not from West coast dialect. It's like saying to an American broadcaster you can't speak with a southern dialect or a new York dialect but "correctly" But now that is changing and people are accepted for their dialects as news broadcasters which makes me change the channel because its harder to understand the Malmo and southern dialects.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Carazaa I think most large countries have distinctive regional dialects and accents, but I recall reading one that has lost its dialects is Poland.
It adopted a Standard Polish long ago, probably equivalent to "Riks Svenska", to help maintain its own identity after being invaded, certainly by the Nazis then Soviets, but maybe earlier still.
I think most Britons have some appreciation of the differences between Northern and Southern USA accents, if only thanks to films and more accurately, news reports. The difficulty with films is that the actors might be from anywhere in the USA even if the story is set in a particular area, although for a modern narrative that would be true to life.
I've wondered how faithful American-historical films, especially Westerns, can be to voices. They have to use modern actors but it would have taken a time for the American accents to develop among the first few generations of settlers from many different countries and regions.
'
The BBC drama department used to have a somewhat similar problem with English accents for radio plays, so created stereotypes to help the listener identify characters. So actors put on plummy Received Pronunciation for any military officer but a harsh version of Cockney for the ordinary ranks (like Dick van Dyke' character in [i]Mary Poppins[/i]); a pastiche SW English voice for all civilian seamen, pirates and rural folk; and a vague Northern English sound when playing manual workers (reflecting the industrial Northern cities).
Archive recordings of old BBC Radio broadcasts now sound very stilted because most of its presenters spoke in an artificial accent called "Received Pronunciation", exaggerated from the Home Counties accent (the area around London). It was a rather unfortunate effect of ensuring diction clear enough for any listeners or interviewees (including senior politicians etc), especially those for whom English was their second language.
The practice started to die out in the 1960s, and presenters became expected to speak reasonably well, with appropriate levels of gravity of informality, but allowed to retain their own accents.
It adopted a Standard Polish long ago, probably equivalent to "Riks Svenska", to help maintain its own identity after being invaded, certainly by the Nazis then Soviets, but maybe earlier still.
I think most Britons have some appreciation of the differences between Northern and Southern USA accents, if only thanks to films and more accurately, news reports. The difficulty with films is that the actors might be from anywhere in the USA even if the story is set in a particular area, although for a modern narrative that would be true to life.
I've wondered how faithful American-historical films, especially Westerns, can be to voices. They have to use modern actors but it would have taken a time for the American accents to develop among the first few generations of settlers from many different countries and regions.
'
The BBC drama department used to have a somewhat similar problem with English accents for radio plays, so created stereotypes to help the listener identify characters. So actors put on plummy Received Pronunciation for any military officer but a harsh version of Cockney for the ordinary ranks (like Dick van Dyke' character in [i]Mary Poppins[/i]); a pastiche SW English voice for all civilian seamen, pirates and rural folk; and a vague Northern English sound when playing manual workers (reflecting the industrial Northern cities).
Archive recordings of old BBC Radio broadcasts now sound very stilted because most of its presenters spoke in an artificial accent called "Received Pronunciation", exaggerated from the Home Counties accent (the area around London). It was a rather unfortunate effect of ensuring diction clear enough for any listeners or interviewees (including senior politicians etc), especially those for whom English was their second language.
The practice started to die out in the 1960s, and presenters became expected to speak reasonably well, with appropriate levels of gravity of informality, but allowed to retain their own accents.
stratosranger · M
stratosranger · M
They have used them for criminal investigations...but did not get anyone’s consent in which to do so. Hopefully you or your family members will never leave some DNA evidence in a place that later becomes a crime scene. Should any other evidence be lacking, you or your family members will become the prime suspect(s) by default. @Carazaa
Carazaa · F
@stratosranger I gave consent to send my results to anyone. Why would I mind?
Carazaa · F
@stratosranger Don't you want to help the police solve crimes? I do!
Temporallube · M
exexec · 61-69, C
@Carazaa Good. Like you, I have research going back 300 years or more, so I know most of my origins. I can account for everything except Scandinavian connections. They are all through female lines, and last names were often omitted in older records. I know they are there, because I have lots of Scandinavian people who are matches through mtDNA.
Carazaa · F
@MougyWolf I understand. I was just hoping I have some Jewish, and I might have that the 2% left. My grandma always said she came from a family from the Hague in Netherlands so I was curious. God makes us all beautiful and its inconsequential where we are from but I think we should be proud of who we are and where we came from. Cultures are very different and sometimes it can explain family patterns.
Zeusdelight · 61-69, M
Carazaa · F
@Zeusdelight Cool! Why is everyone Irish this month?😆
Zeusdelight · 61-69, M
@Carazaa 'Cause they are sensible:)
PrivateHell · M
SirBenedictTheSecond · 22-25, M
Carazaa · F
@SW-User 👍
Coletracer · M
JupiterDreams · 31-35