Starting the New Year off right
So here we are on the first Sunday — and first day! — of 2017, and it’s time again for The Legal Genealogist to stop for a minute and take stock on the DNA side of genealogy.
It’s the perfect time to stop, and think, and look back and ask myself: What am I doing right, what am I doing wrong, and what could I be doing better in 2017?
And judging from reader comments and complaints, there were loads of New Year’s Resolutions we all made back in January 2016 to make ourselves better genetic genealogists — and then promptly broke. Boy, am I guilty on that score…1
Not on everything, mind you. I have taken two institute courses in DNA in the last two years, so I think I understand the complexities better than ever before. So I’m going to give myself a pass on the education.
And through blog posts and other research efforts, I think I’ve done a fair amount of work distinguishing between and among the testing companies — and there will be a new Bang-for-the-Buck a little later in 2017. So I’m going to give myself a pass on researching the companies too.
But … sigh … that still leaves three big ones.
So… in the hopes that at least this genetic genealogist will do better in 2017, here are my suggestions for three critical resolutions we can all make that would benefit us all as genetic genealogists.
Resolution Number 3:
I will do my paper trail genealogical homework.
I get it. I really do. I understand only too well how much we all want DNA testing to be the magic bullet. Just take this test, click on that little icon2 and — presto! — all of our genealogical brick walls will come tumbling down.
It’d be wonderful!
It’d be amazing!
And it’d be fantasy, not reality.
At least so far, in the real world, DNA testing just doesn’t work that way. The simple fact is that, as much as I really really really want to know who the parents were of my scoundrel second great grandfather George Cottrell, I’m not going to get the answer by DNA testing alone.
Barring any cousins marrying cousins at that level, we all have 32 third great grandparents — 16 sets of them. And we can test ourselves and our cousins until the cows come home, but without the paper trail research we’re not very likely to figure out whether any given match is from this set of third great grandparents or that set of third great grandparents — or from some other ancestral couple further back in time.
As much as I’d love to wave the magic DNA wand and get the answer, the reality is that DNA testing is just one more type of evidence that has to be used in conjunction with — alongside — hand-in-hand with all the other types of evidence we collect along the paper trail. It’s something we use with our other tools, not instead of our other tools.
So I resolve to do my paper-trail homework.
Resolution Number 2:
I will take ethnicity estimates not merely with a grain of salt but with the whole darned salt lick.3
If I had a nickel for every question I get about these blasted ethnicity estimates, I’d be rich. Filthy rich even. “Why does AncestryDNA say I’m 31% Scandinavian when I have no known Scandinavian ancestors at all?” “Why doesn’t the test show Native American when my great great grandmother was Lakota Sioux?” “Why are my ethnicity results different from my sister’s?”
Folks, seriously, they’re called estimates for a reason. The term I’ve used before is cocktail party conversation pieces.4 And frankly, the term I’d be more inclined to use these days is WAGs — a lovely American acronym that means “wild-assed guesses.”5
Understand that what these estimates do is take the DNA of living people — us, the test takers — and they compare it to the DNA of other living people — people whose parents and grandparents and, sometimes, even great grandparents all come from one geographic area. Then they try to extrapolate backwards into time to estimate (or guess) what the population of, say, Ireland or Egypt looked like 500 or 1,000 years ago. Nobody is out there running around, digging up 500- or 1,000-year-old bones, extracting DNA for us to compare our own DNA to.
Please… read up on the limits of ethnicity estimates. And then put that aside in favor of all the things DNA tests really can do for genealogy.
Resolution Number 1:
I will not delay in getting that older member of the family tested.
Goes without saying, doesn’t it? How many of us bid a sad farewell to a loved one in 2016? How many of us will have to bid farewell to someone we love in 2017? How many of us ourselves will not be here to ring in the New Year of 2018?
Particularly when it comes to autosomal DNA — the kind we inherit from both parents that changes and mixes and recombines from generation to generation6 — DNA is a finite resource. The amount of DNA passed down from an ancestor through autosomal DNA drops dramatically with every generation until, after only a few generations, there may not be enough from that ancestor to be detectable. (Which, by the way, explains a lot of those weird ethnicity estimates, particularly when something you expect to see isn’t in the results.)
With autosomal DNA, then, getting a grandparent to test is better than getting a parent to test, and getting a parent to test is better than testing yourself. Every generation further back that we can test means a more complete database — and more and better matches.
So the number one priority resolution for 2017 — as it was in every year before — has to be not to lose that genetic legacy. Let’s get our oldest generations tested.
SOURCES
- See Judy G. Russell, “DNA resolutions for 2016,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 3 Jan 2016 (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : accessed 23 Dec 2016). ↩
- A little shaky leaf, perhaps… ↩
- City dwellers may not be familiar with salt licks. They are blocks of salt set out for cattle, horses and other animals to lick. It’s a way to get essential minerals into the animals’ diet. “What is a Salt Lick?” WiseGeek (http://www.wisegeek.com/ : accessed 2 Jan 2016). Think a grain of salt on steroids. ↩
- Judy G. Russell, “Those pesky percentages,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 27 Oct 2013 (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : accessed 23 Dec 2016). ↩
- InternetSlang (http://www.internetslang.com : accessed 23 Dec 2016), “WAG.” ↩
- ISOGG Wiki (http://www.isogg.org/wiki), “Autosomal DNA,” rev. 19 Sep 2016. ↩
I would love to print this out so that I can hand a copy to everyone who wants DNA to tell them who their ancestors are without doing any ‘paper’ research; those who want me to tell them who their great-grandmother is based on the ethnicity estimates; and finally, those who have not tested anyone else in their family.
I know… I know… 🙂
Amen to that! If I might use a construction analogy, it’s like trying to build something complex with just a hammer and no other tool in your toolbox.
Resolution Number 1:
Darn diddle darn, I am the oldest generation still living in my tree. Many years to late for this action and both parents were cremated.
Best of luck with yours.
I know the feeling, Norm — both of my parents were long gone when testing came around. But look out there for distant cousins and more — I found (and will forever remain grateful to) a cousin of my grandmother who tested for me.
I’ve been waiting forever (well, 2-plus months) for the results from National Genographic on my father. But I feel like I should maybe get another autosomal test for him as well? I guess your comment about not delaying is hitting home… I’d also like to get some results so I can encourage other older members of the family to test. But so far the only result is: gosh, this is taking a long time to process!
Oh I absolutely would get him tested at AncestryDNA as well and with some luck by the time you get that result Family Tree DNA will be accepting transfers of AncestryDNA autosomal data again.
Marjorie, I work at FTDNA, the lab that processes Geno tests purchased before Nov. 2016. I can tell you that’s probably too long for normal processing unless you’re counting from the time you mailed. Even then it’s suspect. You can contact my team at groups @ ftdna .com (include the GPID) and we can check on it for you to see if there’s been a failure or something. Once your results are in, you can transfer to FTDNA and may be able to unlock Family Finder, if you have the right version of the Geno test. You can also bank some additional sample for future Y-DNA testing on your dad, just by asking us to send out a backup kit.
Thank you, Janine! It does seem overlong.
All three of these are very worthwhile advise and I am glad you put it in writing to start the year off. Hard for me to say which is more important, I think they all go hand in hand.
Yep, they all do march in lockstep, for sure.
I managed to take advantage of the FTDNA sales to do my own and my brother’s autosomal DNA. I’d already upgraded him to Y-67, so I think I’ve done what I can with the $ I have. Next is to see if one of my cousins are able & willing to do an atDNA test this coming year when they go on sale again (Father’s Day? Mother’s Day? etc). Like the others above who’ve commented here, we’re all of us the ‘elders’ in our families, so it’s feeling a bit urgent. In the meantime, I’m reading, watching webinars, and poking at our results, learning as I go. You’re very inspiring, Judy. Happy New Year!
Good for you, Celia!! I have sooooo much work to do with mine…
My problem – I AM the oldest living relative. Yes, I have done my DNA but my children are not particularly interested in DNA or genealogy. I have hopes for my granddaughter.
Even if the next generation doesn’t understand it yet, you have given them (and all who follow) an amazing gift by having yourself tested.
Don’t just test your older relatives — Interview them! Bring pictures and documents and ask a lot of questions about the places and times that they experienced that you didn’t. Each relative is an encyclopedia of information and lose it all when they pass away!
That’s the paper trail part, too, Gloria, but yes — you’re so right to emphasize this.
Yes! I think the vast majority of people who have DNA tests have no idea just how many ancestors they need in their (for example) Ancestry.com tree in order to have ANY hope of matching others with their own family.
I have some close matches there (and on Myheritage and 23andMe) who continue to have *no* family tree, a private tree, or one with only a handful of ancestors. I suppose some folks are genuinely unlucky and have few known ancestors. But most just don’t get it.
I’ve had the best luck if the other tree has 10K+ ancestors, some success with 5K, and very limited success even if they have 1000. Many also don’t realize that you can’t put in just your direct line. All of their siblings are useful in finding cousins who lead to other cousins. It takes around 8 generations of direct line ancestors to get over 1000 (lost count!). And even that is not very useful without all the siblings to provide the cousin matches. Of course, I’m preaching to the choir here on your blog.
I enjoyed your talk at FGS!
Having a big robust family tree will be most helpful, but even a relatively small tree is better than no tree at all!
Judy,
I think I’ve said this before, but I couldn’t agree with you more. My brother did his last year and got some weird “estimates” that we know from our research are wrong. We wanted to ask our 100 yr old mother to do hers–she was the last of her generation. Note the “was.” She died in 2016. She had no interest, would have been confused, and didn’t understand it at all when we discussed it. It was just gross to her. We chose, perhaps wrongly, not to ask her. My brother gave me a kit for Christmas and all I have to do now is spit. And do the paperwork that will help us figure out who the people really are.
Thanks for the work you do, and Happy New Year!
Doris
Sorry you missed the chance to test your mother — but your results and your brother’s will take you down the road a bit anyway. Happy New Year!
Judy,
I just thought of something else. Do you mean get the oldest person left in the family, or the oldest generation? Our dad has two cousins left. One is in her 80s, older than we are, the other is younger. We’ve been thinking that we have to “settle” for asking those in our generation. Would we get more information by asking these two, in an older generation regardless of their age compared to ours?
Thanks,
Doris
Oldest BY GENERATION, not by age. If these two are your father’s first cousins, then you absolutely want to test them!!
Judy,
Good to know. One of them, at least, I’m sure will say yes. The other, I’m not sure of. But one is better than none! Thanks for clarifying that.
Doris
Good luck!!
Ok, so, I got #1 done. Instead of doing myself, I bought four of the test kits from Ancestry on the Black Friday sale, then at Christmas, gave them to my parents and inlaws. We are still eagerly awaiting the results, but all four are currently undergoing testing.
Regarding #3: Thing is, I started working on my tree decades ago, began on old microfilm reels, showing up at various local libraries all over the region, etc. I finally transferred my tree up to Ancestry so I could make use of their app. (I still don’t subscribe to them, just can’t afford that, but once all of the results are back, I intend to make swift use of the limited trial period.) I don’t expect any DNA surprises, though… I expect it to confirm what I already have documented. What I have been trying to do, though, is go back and better document things: I used to be sloppy, would just jot down a few notes, add it to the tree, then proceed on: I’m redoing a lot of my early work, trying to properly document all of those old odd bits from which I began. Still a lot to do, and a lot of mistakes to prune out, but, it’s an improving work-in-progress.
Good for you! Keep plugging away!