Just How Accurate Are Your Updated Ancestry DNA Origins?

Ancestry rolled out their updated DNA Origins today. It's an update many users have been anxiously awaiting. It's touted as their "most ambitious update ever". I suppose saying "most ambitious" could be true. It's really only a comparison to how ambitious previous update projects have been, right? It doesn't necessarily mean the changes will be earth shattering...or accurate.

For me, there were no big surprises. I won't bore you with my 14 ancestral regions. Suffice it to say, I was solidly Great Britain and German before, and 10 of my 14 regions still show this to be true. Perhaps predicted sub-regions are more defined, but the only change I truly find interesting is I'm now up to 12% Scottish. I do love castles and a dreamy Scottish brogue...but I digress. I have yet to find even the slightest hint of anyone from Scotland in my tree, though I certainly hope I do!

While there are definitely more specific areas being pinpointed, I don't necessarily believe they should be considered accurate. This is nothing more than my opinion. From the AncestryDNA® Regions and Journeys FAQ:

"Your ancestral origins include results based on two different scientific processes: the ancestral region reference panel and Genetic Communities™ technology."

The ancestral region reference panel is made up of families with "documented roots" in a given area. Unfortunately, we don't know how much weight is given to the reference panel as compared to the Genetic Communities™. Herein lies the problem for me.

"...Genetic Communities™ technology identifies ancestral journeys, which are groups of AncestryDNA members who likely share fairly recent ancestors from the same region or culture."

Ok, I admit, this is a fairly solid statement. With massive computing power and harnessing AI to review data, it's easy enough to find DNA matches who likely share a common ancestor. This is indeed a "scientific" process. The key, for me, is exactly where were these common ancestors from? And this is where I start to have an issue...

"we look for patterns in ancestral regions and data from family trees linked to AncestryDNA test results..."

It's no secret there are massive numbers of user trees with incorrect and/or undocumented facts. While there are plenty of researchers who provide well documented trees, for every one of them, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of questionable trees out there. With the popularity of direct to consumer DNA testing, by in large, the bulk of testers are more likely to be casual users than dedicated family history researchers. By this, I mean they point, click and save - propagating the spread of poorly documented information. By no means am I saying this is intentional on the part of these users. It's more likely misdirected enthusiasm to find hints and create a quick narrative (perhaps one supporting family stories, whether they're true or not). True researches know this is rarely a quick process. Evaluating records takes time, patience, and dedication. Researchers often spend decades on their family trees. Casual users can link themselves back to Adam and Eve in a matter of days. 

By utilizing often questionable data for information such as birth or death location (merely examples), Ancestry is producing potentially flawed predictions. I'm not in any way saying their regions are actually inaccurate. Perhaps they give more weight to the reference panel than the Genetic Communities™, we simply don't know. Could the predictions point the way to a new region to investigate - absolutely! But should you accept them as true because Ancestry says so? No, I don't believe you should. 

Do I enjoy looking at updated ancestral regions? Of course I do! Though I must admit, after about 2 minutes, I'm done with it. I spend little to no time investigating new areas. I prefer to let the records guide me. Could I find them useful in the future? Sure, maybe. They're a novelty. Just like my fascination with ancient DNA results on some sites (but at least those are based entirely on the DNA results themselves and don't muddy the waters with user trees.) Ancestral regions are a tool, a fun one no doubt!...but still just a tool to help guide us as we wind our way back in time.

Image by Sophia Hi from Pixabay