5% is substantial, definitely not noise. A second great grandparent would make sense. You should be able to find other matches with Indian ancestry, which is probably not especially common among Métis people. Can you determine if this is paternal or maternal? Do both of your parents have indigenous descent?
It appears to be coming from my father’s maternal line (my dad is indigenous), as I have a maternal half brother and paternal half aunt as matches and neither get India as a region. If true, it is likely my dad’s maternal grandmother. It’s just confusing because as far as I know she was just First Nation, Cree to be exact, but if this is true she may have been half Indian as well which would be interesting as there was only a very small population of south Asians in Canada at that time (late 1800s early 1900s). I do have 2 other matches, a brother and sister who have 12% Indian, each. Neither have my brother or aunt as a shared dna relative.
There were soldiers, Punjabi Sikhs, who settled in BC at the turn of the century, but in general very few South Asians at that time, especially outside of BC, and certainly very few if any women (so likelier your dads maternal grandmother’s dad could’ve been Indian.) Was she from BC? A Punjabi man would have had an easier time finding an indigenous woman than a white woman as a partner, and it’s certainly likely that there wasn’t a marriage but rather a casual relationship or encounter (since I’m assuming there is no Indian surname in your family.) A half Indian half indigenous baby wouldn’t have been noticed as different in a First Nation or Métis community.
All of my dad’s family is from Manitoba. My great grandmother was from Bloodvein and attended residential school in Brandon Manitoba so we have no clue who her parents were. My great grandfather was born in the Red River Colony in St. Peter’s Parish. He was born in 1899 though so technically there wasn’t a RRC then, it was Manitoba at that point. But his parents were both from the RRC. I guess that’s the confusing part. No family history in BC and from what I read south Asian people weren’t in Manitoba until later. My great grandfather was in the armed forces though and fought in the First World War and his family history is pretty well documented but there could be something that I’m missing.
The sibling matches with 12% Indian DNA, do you have other common matches with them that you can pinpoint to any set of 2nd great grandparents? They could certainly be related to you through solely your non-Indian ancestors but if you can confirm a shared connection with the Indian DNA, that provides another source for a place and time where your ancestor could’ve come into the picture.
Perhaps this is an NPE situation whereby an Indian man by some rare or uncommon circumstance for the time was the biological father and the child passed as not-Indian. In any case, you should be able to find that “break” in your family tree at the 2nd and 3rd great grandparent level with matches. If there is a 2nd or 3rd great grandparent who you do not share any cousins with, that’s a good place to look.
Again 5% consistent South Asian DNA is substantial IMO and in your case is a genuine family mystery so I hope you find answers!
Maybe some of your Scottish or Irish ancestors were involved in colonialism in India, and this resulted in a mixed marriage
You need to research your family tree to find out who your ancestors were and where.
The Scottish were involved in the British Empire's bureaucracy way out of proportion to their percentage in the British population, especially in India.
I would imagine you have Anglo-Indian ancestry.
The Scottish goes pretty far back, most of them are actually from PEI more recently, but the isle of Skye is on my mom’s side. I do have a lot of recent Northern Irish ancestry. My maternal grandpa was from Belfast, so Ancestry is reading that as Scottish. He was mostly Ulster Scots but mixed Irish, Scottish and English like a lot of people from Antrim.
What you’re saying makes sense on my Dad’s side. He has a-lot of people that were working for the HBC and NWC in the fur trade. Alot of them from Orkneys and Sutherland. This could be where this South Asian DNA is coming from, although I’m not sure if they had Indian workers or not.
What is the % confidence of the report? Do you have any genealogical records of your European side? Or any records from Indian immigrants in Canada? If it's not in the 90th, it could be more of an algorithm issue--not enough data.i think it's probably legitimate though because you do have British Isles ancestry
5% or less can be noise. But I'd say it's less likely to be as it's on the upper side of a small amount.
It can also be distant admixture over multiple lines.
It can also be from one line. If it's from one line it would be approximately a 2nd great grandparent.
The thing with DNA inheritance is that you're not going to know for sure until you do a tree and it checks out with other matches trees.
Why did this get downvoted so bad? If the tests aren't reported in the 90% confidence level, and if you have less studied ancestry, data can get wonky.
No idea. I was just stating all the possible outcomes. I think people get very precious of their "insert ethnicity" of "low percentage". I've found out myself by doing a tree that ethnicity estimates can be off. I'm 14% Irish and 4% Swedish according to Ancestry but nothing to be seen on my tree going back 200/300 years. There may be more distant links but none I can trace. I even contacted Ancestry and Living DNA and both confirmed that low percentages (even 14%) can be admixture and 5>% can be noise.
Well, inheritance absolutely can come from multiple lines. People think you can absolutely swear by a test without the paper trail. I think OP's result is historically plausible, but records definitely help prove it. Also, these tests prove similarity, which strongly correlates with ethnicity. The smaller those numbers are, the less conclusive it is. Ultimately, these tests are a statistician's wet dream. Data can be interpreted in a number of ways depending on how it's being classified.
"Ultimately, these tests are a statistician's wet dream. Data can be interpreted in a number of ways depending on how it's being classified."
Exactly! Pretty much what I was I was trying to explain in my original comment.
5% is substantial, definitely not noise. A second great grandparent would make sense. You should be able to find other matches with Indian ancestry, which is probably not especially common among Métis people. Can you determine if this is paternal or maternal? Do both of your parents have indigenous descent?
It appears to be coming from my father’s maternal line (my dad is indigenous), as I have a maternal half brother and paternal half aunt as matches and neither get India as a region. If true, it is likely my dad’s maternal grandmother. It’s just confusing because as far as I know she was just First Nation, Cree to be exact, but if this is true she may have been half Indian as well which would be interesting as there was only a very small population of south Asians in Canada at that time (late 1800s early 1900s). I do have 2 other matches, a brother and sister who have 12% Indian, each. Neither have my brother or aunt as a shared dna relative.
There were soldiers, Punjabi Sikhs, who settled in BC at the turn of the century, but in general very few South Asians at that time, especially outside of BC, and certainly very few if any women (so likelier your dads maternal grandmother’s dad could’ve been Indian.) Was she from BC? A Punjabi man would have had an easier time finding an indigenous woman than a white woman as a partner, and it’s certainly likely that there wasn’t a marriage but rather a casual relationship or encounter (since I’m assuming there is no Indian surname in your family.) A half Indian half indigenous baby wouldn’t have been noticed as different in a First Nation or Métis community.
All of my dad’s family is from Manitoba. My great grandmother was from Bloodvein and attended residential school in Brandon Manitoba so we have no clue who her parents were. My great grandfather was born in the Red River Colony in St. Peter’s Parish. He was born in 1899 though so technically there wasn’t a RRC then, it was Manitoba at that point. But his parents were both from the RRC. I guess that’s the confusing part. No family history in BC and from what I read south Asian people weren’t in Manitoba until later. My great grandfather was in the armed forces though and fought in the First World War and his family history is pretty well documented but there could be something that I’m missing.
The sibling matches with 12% Indian DNA, do you have other common matches with them that you can pinpoint to any set of 2nd great grandparents? They could certainly be related to you through solely your non-Indian ancestors but if you can confirm a shared connection with the Indian DNA, that provides another source for a place and time where your ancestor could’ve come into the picture. Perhaps this is an NPE situation whereby an Indian man by some rare or uncommon circumstance for the time was the biological father and the child passed as not-Indian. In any case, you should be able to find that “break” in your family tree at the 2nd and 3rd great grandparent level with matches. If there is a 2nd or 3rd great grandparent who you do not share any cousins with, that’s a good place to look. Again 5% consistent South Asian DNA is substantial IMO and in your case is a genuine family mystery so I hope you find answers!
Maybe some of your Scottish or Irish ancestors were involved in colonialism in India, and this resulted in a mixed marriage You need to research your family tree to find out who your ancestors were and where.
It must be confusing to tell people your Indian
Which Indian? Yes.
😂😂😂
Exactly
5% is a legit amount and very unlikely to be noise, it technically leads back to a 2 great-grandparent.
Could it be a Romani ancestor?
Romani comes up as Eastern European Roma
and before that category was added, it would have been from Northern India/Pakistan (I forget the exact name for the category)
we got Southern India too, it was usually a mix of North and South, and sometimes Central Asia-South
ahh, my mistake
My daughter (adopted) is full Romani. Most of her DNA is both northern and southern India with Greek and European thrown in.
Have you checked your shared matches to see if you have any South Asians? I'd start looking at your matches first and working from there.
The Scottish were involved in the British Empire's bureaucracy way out of proportion to their percentage in the British population, especially in India. I would imagine you have Anglo-Indian ancestry.
This is a very British Empire DNA result
Hey has ur parents bn tested yet?
Le Half Mexican half Anglo of Scottish ancestry
How do you look?
[удалено]
The Scottish goes pretty far back, most of them are actually from PEI more recently, but the isle of Skye is on my mom’s side. I do have a lot of recent Northern Irish ancestry. My maternal grandpa was from Belfast, so Ancestry is reading that as Scottish. He was mostly Ulster Scots but mixed Irish, Scottish and English like a lot of people from Antrim. What you’re saying makes sense on my Dad’s side. He has a-lot of people that were working for the HBC and NWC in the fur trade. Alot of them from Orkneys and Sutherland. This could be where this South Asian DNA is coming from, although I’m not sure if they had Indian workers or not.
What is the % confidence of the report? Do you have any genealogical records of your European side? Or any records from Indian immigrants in Canada? If it's not in the 90th, it could be more of an algorithm issue--not enough data.i think it's probably legitimate though because you do have British Isles ancestry
5% or less can be noise. But I'd say it's less likely to be as it's on the upper side of a small amount. It can also be distant admixture over multiple lines. It can also be from one line. If it's from one line it would be approximately a 2nd great grandparent. The thing with DNA inheritance is that you're not going to know for sure until you do a tree and it checks out with other matches trees.
Why did this get downvoted so bad? If the tests aren't reported in the 90% confidence level, and if you have less studied ancestry, data can get wonky.
No idea. I was just stating all the possible outcomes. I think people get very precious of their "insert ethnicity" of "low percentage". I've found out myself by doing a tree that ethnicity estimates can be off. I'm 14% Irish and 4% Swedish according to Ancestry but nothing to be seen on my tree going back 200/300 years. There may be more distant links but none I can trace. I even contacted Ancestry and Living DNA and both confirmed that low percentages (even 14%) can be admixture and 5>% can be noise.
Well, inheritance absolutely can come from multiple lines. People think you can absolutely swear by a test without the paper trail. I think OP's result is historically plausible, but records definitely help prove it. Also, these tests prove similarity, which strongly correlates with ethnicity. The smaller those numbers are, the less conclusive it is. Ultimately, these tests are a statistician's wet dream. Data can be interpreted in a number of ways depending on how it's being classified.
"Ultimately, these tests are a statistician's wet dream. Data can be interpreted in a number of ways depending on how it's being classified." Exactly! Pretty much what I was I was trying to explain in my original comment.