Surprising DNA

Let me start by saying I'm not an expert on DNA testing for genealogy. In fact, I've only recently started to get into this new world. This blog post represents my first attempt to really formalize my thoughts and communicate what I've learned from my test results.

I used Ancestry.com's autosomal DNA test. Autosomal chromosomes are those we inherit from both parents as opposed to mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) which is passed down from mothers only and Y chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) which is passed down only from fathers to sons. Information provided by Y-DNA testing is limited to the direct paternal line and of course is only available for males. In a pedigree chart this is the upper most line. Information provided by mt-DNA testing is limited to the direct maternal line or the lowest line in a pedigree chart. By contrast, analysis of autosomal DNA provides a more complete picture of one's ancestry including ethnic estimates of all collateral ancestral lines. In addition, Ancestry.com DNA test participants are matched with likely relatives among other participants which is useful in extending a family tree and confirming relationships.

I've been collecting information about my family for nearly thirty years, so I thought I'd have a good idea of what my DNA results would look like. Turns out, I was completely surprised. Not so much by the ethnicities it revealed, but by the composition of those ethnic groups.

First of all, I expected my British and German ancestry to be in fairly equal proportion. My father's family is predominantly English and Scottish. We've always believed the German influence to be strong in my mother's family through both the Menges and Fox lines with the understanding that Fox is an anglicanization of Fuchs. And of course I knew that recent ancestors came from Sweden, Poland, and France. And more recently we had determined that my great-grandmother's birth father was most likely Jewish. So how do these expectations compare with reality?

According to Ancestry.com's estimate, it turns out I'm more British than I thought, much less German, and surprisingly much more Eastern European. Estimates are an average of forty separate analyses run for a region. In addition to the average, the probable range is also reported. The smaller the probable range the more accurate the estimate. So here's my summary:

Great Britain: 56% (36%-79%) - the typical native is 60%. Lines this blood probably came from include Pusey, Morris, Stevenson, Wood, Cornell, and others we have yet to learn more about such as Oliver, Hill, and Jarrett.
Europe East: 16% (7%-25%) - This was my biggest surprise as I was positive Europe West would be in second place. Lines this came from are likely mostly on my mother's side, but truly have yet to be identified other than Monheit and Gourski/Gureski.
Scandinavia: 8% (0%-22%) - As my Swedish ancestry, the Hanson line, is well documented this is no surprise.
European Jewish: 6% (3%-9%) - This was the next biggest surprise. Not the Jewish blood, but that the percentage came ahead of Europe West. Again this is the Monheit line.
Europe West: 5% (0%-18%) - Still shaking my head over this being so low. I honestly would not have been surprised if this region was my largest percentage, which makes it all the more intriguing that it comes last. Lines I expected to be in this group are Hoseit, Menges, and Culver. But now the question is whether these lines have eastern European origins.

In addition there were trace amounts of DNA from Ireland, Italy/Greece, Iberian Peninsula, Africa North, Caucasus, and Asia South. Trace amounts of DNA are considered much less reliable than the areas included in the full estimates. They are so small they may be an anomaly rather than part of one's ethnicity. However, having seen my great aunt's DNA estimates, her results also included trace amounts from some of these regions. And when you consider Rome's onetime occupation of Britain or the shared Celtic heritage in both Ireland and Britain it is not hard to imagine how some of these trace regions might have ended up in my DNA.

So what does this all mean? For one thing, Europeans are of just as much mixed blood as Americans. I used to think of Germans as full-blood Germans, French as full-blooded French, and so on. Studying DNA demonstrates that migration over centuries has mixed up DNA everywhere. For another, we have a lot more work to do on all of our supposedly German lines of ancestry. For example, Johann Adam Menges may have immigrated from western Germany, but where did his ancestors come from?

It would also be really interesting to have more family members participate in Ancestry.com's DNA testing and see what turns up because DNA does vary between family members. Close family members such as parents/children and siblings share about 50% of their DNA. Grandparent/grandchild share about 25%. First cousins typically share 12.5%. And the more distant the relationship, the less DNA is shared and the less confidence there is in the DNA analysis. Family Tree DNA provides a chart which shows the expected amount of DNA shared between family members of varying degrees.

In my next post I will talk about the Monheits and the reason I decided to have my DNA tested.

Soldier at Heart

A few weeks ago I, along with Union College Director of Public Relations Ryan Teller who came along to record the interview, had the very special privilege of visiting with 98-year Orason Lee Brinker. As a teenager attending Campion Academy in Colorado, Brinker had planned to continue his education at the United States Military Academy at West Point. But a conversation with Dr. Everett Dick during a Union College recruiting visit changed the course of Brinker's life.

At the time, Dick was a professor of American history. As a teenager himself during World War I, Dick had voluntarily enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. Although raised in a devout Adventist home, Dick was an uncommitted Christian. But as an adult he renewed his commitment to the church of his parents. From both his own experience and from the negative experiences of other Seventh-day Adventists during World War I, Dick realized that young Adventist men would have a challenging time in any future war. In the fall of 1933, Dick proposed a solution to Union College president Milian Lauritz Andreasen. Andreasen was attending the Autumn Council of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists where he received Dick's letter asking him to share an idea with the church's Young People's Department leaders. His idea was a pre-induction training program of military etiquette and medical first aid for young men of draft age. His idea was rejected by church leaders, but when Andreasen returned to College View, Nebraska, he encouraged Dick to start such a program at Union. The first class was held January 8, 1934. And it was about this time that Brinker met Dr. Dick.

During that conversation at Campion Academy, Dick shared with Brinker how difficult it would be to maintain his principles of not taking human life and honoring the sanctity of the Sabbath. Dick convinced Brinker to attend Union College where he quickly became an officer in the newly formed Union College Medical Corps, renamed Medical Cadet Corps (MCC) in 1939 when the program was finally adopted by the denomination. For the next twenty-four years Brinker worked with the MCC first at Union College, and then in the Pacific Northwest starting the program at Walla Walla College. During the summers he also worked at Camp Desmond T. Doss in Grand Ledge, Michigan. Brinker was acquainted with all of the major figures of both the MCC and the Servicemen's Organization (forerunner of the Adventist Chaplaincy Ministry) including not only Everett Dick, but also Carlyle B. Haynes, George Chambers, Clark Smith, Desmond Doss, and many others. 

I was hoping Brinker would be able to tell us about specific experiences and give us details about the people he knew, but not many of those memories surfaced during our interview. He much more readily remembered his opinions about individuals which ranged from deep admiration and respect to complete disgust. Several things were very clear though. Brinker was passionate about the role he played in the MCC during World War II, deeply loyal to the United States, and proud of his family's history of military service, a tradition he firmly feels he followed during his MCC days. Brinker may have played a civilian role during World War II, but he was a soldier at heart.

Conducting this interview required overcoming many challenges. Funding, scheduling, and traveling were the first hurdles. Then once the interview was scheduled, we had to hope for two good days with Brinker. While his mind was sharp and even witty, his memory was not as clear. But the biggest obstacle proved to be his hearing. To ensure a good recording, we tried these tips:

1. Plan multiple interview sessions. Given the constraints of our schedules, we were able to meet with Brinker twice for about three and a half hours each time. The first session was in the afternoon, the second session was the following morning.

2. Write questions on paper. This allowed Brinker to read the questions instead of trying to hear what I was asking which was a frustrating exercise for both of us.

3. Let the interviewee wander. Asking open ended questions allowed Brinker to take the conversation where he wanted to go. This might not have answered the questions I was hoping for, but it did allow us to record what he remembered, what was important to him, and reduced frustration on his part. From my perspective it revealed new and interesting information for which I never would have asked.
4. Be patient with repeated telling of a story. Sometimes repetition was just repetition. But sometimes repetition revealed new details.

5. Look through artifacts together. While we hoped this would stimulate some memories (which I still believe it can) it didn't work so well this time. Still we were able to view some original documents and photographs which were very interesting. When recording family history this is a very important strategy for passing information on to a new generation.
7. Check facts using reliable records. No one has a perfect memory all of the time. Memories are very good for learning about subjective information like thoughts, feelings, opinions, and significance. But for facts, memories need to be backed up with documentation if it is available.

6. Keep the camera rolling. A story or valuable information can pop up any time during a conversation. Don't turn off the video camera or voice recorder too soon. And don't worry about long silent segments. They can be edited out later.
 

Orason Lee Brinker with the author. Photo by Ryan Teller.