Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
11-01-2019, 09:49   #31
pinkypinky
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,734
It's about 200 years but they're all southerners! No Yankees
pinkypinky is offline  
Advertisement
11-01-2019, 17:08   #32
metaoblivia
Registered User
 
metaoblivia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,105
Send a message via AIM to metaoblivia
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkypinky View Post
It's about 200 years but they're all southerners! No Yankees
Yes, but east coast doesn't necessarily mean NYC or Boston. Baltimore, Savannah, Charleston, Norfolk - they were all Southern port cities. And, what Americans call Scots-Irish or Ulster Scots played a large role in settling parts of the South, especially the Carolinas. And it wouldn't be uncommon for people to arrive in the late 1600s/early 1700s, spend a few generations on the East coast, north or south, and then move westward once they had saved up some family money. My mom's family did exactly that (but they were mostly Yankees ).

New Orleans was a major port city too that hit it's stride around 1820. French-Canadian definitely makes sense there, as it does with Arkansas and Texas being so close. However, both Texas and Arkansas took on a lot of settlers from the East too. And Kentucky makes me think of Virginia, since Kentucky was part of Virginia before Virginia allowed it to become its own state.

You probably know all of this, I'm just spitballing!
metaoblivia is offline  
Thanks from:
14-01-2019, 18:36   #33
Lirange
Registered User
 
Lirange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,911
Meta...

Your comments reminded me of a programme (wish I could remember the name) I'd seen on the BBC about 4 or 5 years ago. I watched because I was interested in the Irish (or more specifically those from Ireland and northern Britain) contribution to the gene pool of Iceland when Norwegian vikings took slaves from these shores as their wives. But that programme also did a feature on the Azores and the significant part emigrants from Flanders (Dutch speaking Belgium) had in settling them. And they are reckoned to have left a big impact on the overall genetic profile of the islands. From memory I think they comprised about 20% or 25% of the total genetic profile of all long established Azoreans. Portugal enticed a varied group of settlers aside from Portuguese to develop the islands. However whilst many of the other groups left after a few generations, the Flemish sustained themselves and were somewhere around half of what were considered the founding families. So consequently that could have some impact on your father's profile. Since the Azores, though obviously tied to Portugal, have their own unique genetic background. Although how it would be labelled I have no idea...French/German? Do the ancestry kits even have a label for Belgian or Dutch, the low countries?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_people#History


Quote:
Originally Posted by metaoblivia View Post

Name changes. Some of my family members changed the spelling of their names shortly after coming to the US. I had one ancestor enter the US as a Haughey in 1848. Within a generation, that become Hoey. Then it changed back to Haughey. Then it became Hay. And then it became Hoey again. The Portuguese were even worse with their 2 surnames which always got whittled down to one. The sons of Antone and Maria Pereira Oliveira may have started life as Joao Pereira Oliveira and Stephano Pereira Oliveira but ended up as John Oliver and Steven Perry in later records.
Steve Perry? Yer wan from Journey? Who is also from California and changed his surname from Pereira. What a coincidence!
Lirange is offline  
Thanks from:
15-01-2019, 02:31   #34
metaoblivia
Registered User
 
metaoblivia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,105
Send a message via AIM to metaoblivia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lirange View Post
Meta...

Your comments reminded me of a programme (wish I could remember the name) I'd seen on the BBC about 4 or 5 years ago. I watched because I was interested in the Irish (or more specifically those from Ireland and northern Britain) contribution to the gene pool of Iceland when Norwegian vikings took slaves from these shores as their wives. But that programme also did a feature on the Azores and the significant part emigrants from Flanders (Dutch speaking Belgium) had in settling them. And they are reckoned to have left a big impact on the overall genetic profile of the islands. From memory I think they comprised about 20% or 25% of the total genetic profile of all long established Azoreans. Portugal enticed a varied group of settlers aside from Portuguese to develop the islands. However whilst many of the other groups left after a few generations, the Flemish sustained themselves and were somewhere around half of what were considered the founding families. So consequently that could have some impact on your father's profile. Since the Azores, though obviously tied to Portugal, have their own unique genetic background. Although how it would be labelled I have no idea...French/German? Do the ancestry kits even have a label for Belgian or Dutch, the low countries?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_people#History




Steve Perry? Yer wan from Journey? Who is also from California and changed his surname from Pereira. What a coincidence!
You bring up interesting points! Ancestry does have a category called Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium & Luxembourg. Neither Dad nor I have any ancestry in that group, according to them. However! Dad's mix is 44% Irish/Scottish, 3% English/Northwestern Europe, 32% Portuguese, 3% Spanish and 18% French.

And we have the records, so we know all of his maternal relatives immigrated from Ireland, between 1849-1851 and all of his paternal relatives immigrated from the Azores in the 1880s. I also have some French percentages and those don't come from my mom's side. However, from what we know of our Azorean ancestors, we've traced some lines back to the original Portuguese settlers. But we haven't been able to trace all lines back. One of dad's great grandparents on that side was left on a church step in Ribeira Grande in the 1850s as a baby. We have no way of tracing her lineage. So as of now, I can't explain the French. Maybe it goes back to the Flemish and Ancestry just needs to do more in depth testing in the Azores? It is a fairly unique population, having been isolated in the middle of the Atlantic for centuries.
metaoblivia is offline  
15-01-2019, 12:02   #35
pedroeibar1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaoblivia View Post
Y.......... it goes back to the Flemish and Ancestry just needs to do more in depth testing in the Azores? It is a fairly unique population, having been isolated in the middle of the Atlantic for centuries.
That’s not really correct– the Azores are isolated geographically, about 1000 miles from Portugal and 2,500 from the Americas, but they were not isolated genetically. Discovered in the 1400’s, by the 1500's they were a base for a motley crew of pirates, mercenaries and diverse settlers. They were hugely important from c 1600 to c1850 as being the last supply point (water and fresh food) for transatlantic sailing ships. After the 1850’s the islands were supply depots and coaling stations for steam ships and later were important as key connection points in the transatlantic submarine cable telegraph network. They also were used as supply bases in WW1. Each of those activities brought an influx of fresh genes from very diverse places, so genetically they are a 'stew'.
pedroeibar1 is offline  
Advertisement
15-01-2019, 18:57   #36
metaoblivia
Registered User
 
metaoblivia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,105
Send a message via AIM to metaoblivia
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedroeibar1 View Post
That’s not really correct– the Azores are isolated geographically, about 1000 miles from Portugal and 2,500 from the Americas, but they were not isolated genetically. Discovered in the 1400’s, by the 1500's they were a base for a motley crew of pirates, mercenaries and diverse settlers. They were hugely important from c 1600 to c1850 as being the last supply point (water and fresh food) for transatlantic sailing ships. After the 1850’s the islands were supply depots and coaling stations for steam ships and later were important as key connection points in the transatlantic submarine cable telegraph network. They also were used as supply bases in WW1. Each of those activities brought an influx of fresh genes from very diverse places, so genetically they are a 'stew'.
I think this is a space where we're both kind of right. It's true that there was a lot of genetic diversity, especially in the early settlement years between the Portuguese, the New Christians, the French, the Flemish and other groups. However, that doesn't mean that the population didn't experience a higher level of isolation than mainland Europe.

Take the island of Flores, for example. Ships did stop there on their way to the Americas as its the farthest flung out island in the archipelago. And it did get raided by pirates quite a bit. But a DNA study of the island of Flores in 2003 found that people on that island exhibited around a 90% genetic ancestry with mainland Portugal. People from other cultures were visiting, but the majority weren't staying or leaving a mark.

And the Azores is a population where you're likely to have a higher level of false matches when DNA testing because the population was so small and isolated. It may have been diverse in that there were several different groups represented - but it was still a small population. I also know, from my own background, that several of my lines trace back to the same people
metaoblivia is offline  
Thanks from:
27-01-2019, 22:06   #37
limericklad87
Registered User
 
limericklad87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 618
Got my results yesterday.... 100% Irish/Scottish

Was chatting with a few people through ancestry that I was sure I had common ancestors....

Happy enough that the DNA confirmed the same
limericklad87 is offline  
(3) thanks from:
03-02-2019, 23:02   #38
Nigel Fairservice
Registered User
 
Nigel Fairservice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 359
I logged into my ancestry account recently and my DNA result went from 85% Ireland/Scotland/Wales to 100%. The remaining 15% of my previous profile was:

Europe West 7%
Finland/Northwest Russia 3%
Europe East 1%
European Jewish 1%
Iberian Peninsula <1%
Caucasus <1%
Asia South <1%
Scandinavia <1%

I was intrigued by the Finland/Northwest Russia and the European Jewish ones. Ancestry has discounted all of that now and says I'm 100% Ireland/Scotland/Wales. I would have thought I would have had some Norman/Viking heritage somewhere but the Western European/Scandinavian options no longer seem to apply.
Nigel Fairservice is online now  
Thanks from:
05-02-2019, 10:28   #39
dubhthach
Registered User
 
dubhthach's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,135
Viking period is too long ago for it to show up in an autosomal test, given 1,000 years of recombination in wider Irish gene pool you wouldn't expect to see any 'Scandinavian components', Y-chromosome in men would be a different story though as it doesn't undergo recombination. Even then most Irish men who test are generally R1b-L21 (well specifically one of it's sub-branches)
dubhthach is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet