It’s listed under “Cha-Ka”
Ancestry is owned by Mormons. I don’t know where the church stands on the idea that Neanderthals, as a separate species, existed, but they are very firm that there was no cross breeding, so there is no way anybody could have non-human DNA. They can’t report that which doesn’t exist.
LOL, I knew it was gonna be that before I even clicked.
Personally I like the Byzantine depictions of Jesus the best. Byzantine art has the most striking human figures.
Our family has a castle in Scotland, MacDougall Castle Loch Laich.* This, the surname of MacDougall, and gr-greats immigrating directly from Scotland would, I think, have strong DNA results - but nuthin. I got mostly English and Dutch, which are correct, but what happened to my proud Scots bits?
*As in, the American side is 83,745th in line of inheritance.
thanks for that tip! :D:D
I did a little googling, and it appears that the only major company that does Neanderthal DNA is 23&me. Ancestry.com doesn’t.
If I ever do this, and I probably will, I definitely want to know my Neanderthal part, so 23&Me it will be!! It looks like Ancestry is the best if you’re looking to find living relatives, but that doesn’t interest me at all. I know I have more than I care to know about in the US.
I am puzzled that my immediant family shares no last names with my “DNA relatives” lists that 23&Me periodically emails me.
I have 312 Neanderthal variants, whatever that means.
Sounds like someone was adopted. Not necessarily you. Ask your father if he or his father were.
Or someone’s real father was the milk man.
They don’t email you the whole list, you have to log in and look at your DNA relatives b/c it can change daily. And many people list Anonymous as the name others see; your last name relatives could be any number of those.
Thanks!
I disagree.
I’ve done both, and 23 is far better for finding relatives. It comes down to names and money.
On 23, you have to provide a name, but on Ancestry, you can be tested under an alias. On Ancestry, I am related to C.F., prattj9292, treyboy16, shchvh, and ChewChewBug (it’s like AOL). If the Ancestry user has a family tree, and they make it public, you still need to be a paying member to see it (and pay every month, it’s a subscription). All Ancestry tells you about your matches is how closely you are related. You then have to send a message to the person to work it out.
23 provides all that, plus a pretty graph of which segments of which chromosomes you share, and list shared relatives, and you can see which DNA segments you all 3 share. It also allows you to share your family names, a link to a family tree, and any other information you want to share. And it’s all available without paying anything extra.
On 23, I have a DNA relative who was adopted. He has names for his birth parents, but doesn’t know anything about them. While I don’t have those names in my family tree, I do know who his 2 to 4Ggrandparents are (yes, I’ve shared it with him).
I’ve also been able to let another adopted relative know who her mom was (adopted lady wanted to know, the mom is long dead, the dad was maybe the milkman (no clue who he was), and her half-siblings wanted to find her also. It wouldn’t have been near as easy on Ancestry, if it was even possible.
Keep in mind that with both services, sharing options are, well, optional. You are not required to share. But, if you do want to share and find others in your family, 23 is really much better.
One of my relatives (I don’t know who) did our family tree on Ancestry, and I have full access to it. I’ve never joined and I’ve never paid a dime.
Judging by the way it’s filled out at my generation level, I’m guessing it’s one of my 2nd or 3rd cousins who did it. I don’t know a single one of my 2nd or 3rd cousins, so I don’t know who. In fact, I don’t even know all my 1st cousins! 
Punchline to an old joke: “His mother’s husband has been dead for ten years; his father is still fishing off of the coast of Norway.”
DesertWife was involved in a DNA project* shortly after she got her BS in the mid-60s and said quite often when they could get a whole family to contribute, the kid’s genomes did not match up with mom and pop’s. They would not mention this to the family. They really liked working with Amish (readily available in Iowa) because their reported ancestry was always accurate.
*She mentioned drawing a DNA molecule out of a petri dish and winding it onto a glass rod, something I found fascinating.
I have run my “Raw Data” through three different services, Ancestry (which had me as mostly British with traces of virtually everything else in the world), FTDNA (which has me as mostly Central European and 12% Ashenazi Jewish), MyHeritage (which has me at half British and Scandinavian, about 30% Central European, and 15% Italian, 5% Turkish/Persian…) and so on.
GED Match has many different calculators, and while they vary with labels, they are pretty consistent with finding I am about half northwestern European, a third Mediterranean, with about 5-10% from West Asia and 1% North Asian and 1% African, which I suppose, the average of all the others indicate. But at the end of the day, I think there are a lot of issues such as sampling bias (many test-takers seem to be American, some nations and communities such as Germany have strict privacy laws).
I think the most effective part of these sites is finding second and third cousins. In most cases, they seem to be directly related…though one person identified as close/kin and perhaps a first cousin is someone who has no apparent connection to my family! That may take a while to figure out and I am not sure how far I want to go there.
The more
How many people know who their second cousins are, especially if they are on maternal lines with completely different surnames? Both of my grandparents had a ton of brothers and sisters, many of them had children and grandchildren who are a complete mystery to me.
It just takes one randy great-uncle to generate a lineage of close kin who you’ve never heard of.
Mine came back, and pretty much proves what family historians already knew, except I went with Ancestry because I wanted a breakdown between England, Ireland, Wales & Scotland, and my results are 54% Great Britain 41% Western Europe (Belgium, Netherlands & Germany) and 5% of something undetectable. We have some branches of the Family Tree that are untraceable, we don’t know the names of the parents of my maternal great-grandfather, only that he was probably born in a cabin on the side of a mountain somewhere in Appalachia. So whatever his ancestry is, it is the same European amalgam of the branches we do know.
My ex-husband did his using Ancestry, and he did get a breakdown of the British Isles, showing percentages of Irish and Welsh. So does that mean mine wasn’t distinctive enough to say? Maybe my ancestors moved around all those areas too much to pin down any one certain strain?
And in yet another case of family folklore proving to be caca-doody, my ex-husband’s father always said his mother (ex’s grandmother) was “a full-blooded Crowe Indian”. Her maiden name was Crowe, and even though she died when my ex was a young boy, he recalled enough about her that he can say she was short and fat and had very long jet black hair. She was a sharecropper’s wife in South Alabama and had 14 children, most of them at home, so that explains why she didn’t live to be that old. Anyhoo, my ex’s DNA was pretty much 3 equal parts Irish-Welch, Scandinavian, and Iberian peninsula. If he had a full Native American grandmother, I would think something would have showed up. The Scandinavian was a surprise, and he is quite happy about that. His father is deceased, and we have no idea why he would have told that lie for so many years, unless that is what he was told. It is strange.
It sounds like the family name Crowe caused them to make an incorrect assumption about the Native American ancestry. The tribe is called Crow, anyway, with no ‘e’ at the end. (Spelling was totally inconsistent in earlier centuries, so it may indeed have been spelled that way on some official documents.)
I am thinking she may have been more Black Irish than anything else, and that may explain the Iberian peninsula that showed up. Plus, all her children were ruddy faced redheads and strawberry blondes.
I’m not sure the “black Irish” phenomenon is even real, in the sense of the idea that Irish people with dark features are some kind of separate group. Irish get stereotyped as “gingers” but it’s really Scotland where that phenotype is more commonly seen. I feel like there are more Irish people with dark hair and eyes, than not. The British Isles has a really wide variety of phenotypes, you’ll see guys like Rowan Atksinson just as easily as guys like David Beckham.
And as for the Crowe with an “e”, I also have to take into account that these were people with very little education, so it could easily be a corruption of some other name. Nothing is known about her parents or family at all, so we will never know more about her, other than she very likely wasn’t full Native American. Before my former father-in-law died, I was asking him about family ancestry, and he shared very little, and really just didn’t want to talk about his childhood at all. The one story I pried out of him made him cry, and I felt lower than pig tracks, so I let it be. He did say that he never asked his mother about her parents, they were too busy trying to work and survive to care about such things.
The reason we don’t know anything about my maternal great-grandfather is simply because nobody ever asked. He lived to be over 100 and into the 1970s, but people didn’t care about this stuff then. It is a cryin’ shame. My mother says she could kick herself for never asking him.