Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Forensic Genealogy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    The Scottish contribution was a bit of a surprise. I came across a hint in that direction some time ago which I dismissed because it seemed to be contradicted by another record that made more sense.
    Don't tell me you're going to go with the Ancestry DNA result over the documented record!



    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by San Fran View Post

      Don't tell me you're going to go with the Ancestry DNA result over the documented record!


      No. One documented record seemed at odds with others. The Ancestry results have led me to reconsider it.

      When it comes to the POB recorded on census forms, they are frequently wrong.

      Comment


      • #63
        Ancestry's Ethnicity breakdowns has improved a lot in the last four years. So I'd go with the DNA.

        I'm not saying it's more accurate; I'm just saying it better weds the "ethnicity" with the modern political map, which most people relate to. Although, your map wouldn't have changed that much.

        The mid percentages should still constitute more recent settlement or migration. I'd say 200 years or so ago. I'd say my 15 percent is closer to 300 years ago. It's goes beyond my family tree but I only go back to great grandfather on that side.

        Comment


        • #64
          The newest ethnicity updates look completely watered down. All of my Balkan and Sardinian and most of my French is now Northern Italian.

          I guess they realized how heterogeneous the regions were and decided to homogenize them geographically.

          I don’t know how Howard’s Italian/Greek turned Balkan and my Balkan turned Italian. The Serbs must have kicked me out!

          Comment

          Working...
          X