Suggestions for improving the African breakdown on AncestryDNA

In previous blog posts I have demonstrated how the current African breakdown on AncestryDNA can be very insightful to gain a greater understanding of the regional African roots for people across the Afro-Diaspora as well as actual Africans themselves. Despite several shortcomings as well as the continued need for correct interpretation. My survey findings on a group level have still been reasonably in line with either historical plausibility or actual verifiable genealogy.

A new version of AncestryDNA’s Ethnicity Estimates has been provided gradually (and quietly..) to a subset of Ancestry’s customers for at least since April 2018. I do not have all the needed information in place yet to make a proper assessment. Therefore I reserve my final judgment on this intended update for later. However in this blog post I will discuss some suggestions on how to improve on the current African breakdown hopefully ensuring that Ancestry’s update will be a step forward and not a step backwards. Below a short summary of these suggestions. If you continue reading I will provide more details.

  1. Maintain current coherency of African breakdown and improve by creating less overlapping and more predictive regions
  2. Add more historically relevant African samples to Ancestry’s Reference Panel. In particular from Angola, Burkina Faso, Guinea Bissau/Conakry, Liberia, Madagascar, Mozambique and Sierra Leone.
  3. Create new regions and/or migrations centered around these historically relevant samples.
  4. Bring back the continental breakdown display (subtotals specified for each continent)
  5. Create new African “migrations”, a.k.a. genetic communities. In particular for Nigeria & Ghana, as sufficient customer samples may already exist.
  6. Mention the “aggregate ethnicity estimates” for each migration/genetic community.
  7. Enable the Ethnicity Estimate Comparison feature for all customers and not just USA-based smartphone users. [DONE as of October 2018]
  8. Show ethnicity/admixture of shared DNA segments with your matches.
  9. Avoid misleading labeling of ancestral regions. Providing a false sense of accuracy.

Updated results for a Nigerian (Bini, Itsekiri, Urhobo & Isoko)

***(click to enlarge)

NAIJA updatea

Even when these are only individual results this outcome for an actual Nigerian could possibly imply that also for other people of (southern) Nigerian descent Ancestry’s update may lead to a substantial decrease of “Nigeria” amounts. While the “Benin/Togo” as well as the “Cameroon, Congo, and Southern Bantu Peoples” regional scores may drastically increase. Undoing the imperfect yet still reasonably predictive accuracy of the “Nigeria” region in the current set-up. See also: Nigerian AncestryDNA results.



Upcoming Update?

***(click to enlarge)




It is sometimes said that your DNA results are only as good as the next updateSo it’s best not to get too attached to them 😉  After all it is just a snap shot of how your DNA compares with the reference samples in Ancestry’s current database according to their current algorithm. Given scientific advancements and a greater number of relevant African reference samples hopefully a greater degree of accuracy may be obtained in the near future. But naturally no guarantees are given that any given update will automatically lead to an improvement (or at least not on all fronts).

As shown above one major change in regards to AncestryDNA’s current African breakdown might be the combining of the “Cameroon/Congo” and “Southeastern Bantu” regions into one single region labeled: “Cameroon, Congo & Southern Bantu Peoples”. In regards to Central/Southern African DNA this change therefore seems to be leading to more generic rather than specific results. Although the appearance of the new region labeled “Eastern Africa” in itself could represent an improvement enabling the identification of Northeast African DNA.

Another change concerns Ancestry’s algorithm which now “reads longer stretches of your DNA at once“. This might also be an improvement in itself as it may lead to a decrease of trace region reporting and a greater focus on a genealogically meaningful timeframe (going back 500 years or so). It might also be that some of the 13,000 newly added samples in Ancestry’s Reference Panel (partially) apply to the already existing African regions. Although I have not seen any specification yet of these newly added samples. At the moment of writing this blog post there is still some remaining uncertainty if AncestryDNA’s intended update will indeed be implemented or remain stuck in beta phase (as happened in 2016). I will therefore refrain from any in-depth judgement for now. For more details about the update:

Again I will need more data to make a detailed assessment of how Ancestry’s proposed update will work out for the African breakdown. I have however already seen more than a dozen updated results. Including for several African Americans, Cape Verdeans as well as a few Africans. Based on just these results and at the risk of speaking prematurely I find it regrettable to say that I am doubtful that Ancestry’s intended update will be an improvement for the African breakdown1. Rather I am quite concerned that it will lead to more people being confused and even mislead by their DNA results. Due to the often drastic and seemingly incoherent changes compared with the current set-up it might understandably also lead to a loss of confidence in admixture analysis. Even when I strongly believe that this aspect of DNA testing can provide very valuable information as long as it interpreted correctly and even more so when combined with other ancestral clues (population averages to be used as regional benchmarks, DNA matches, haplogroups, genealogy, relevant historical context etc.). See also these blog posts:

 Updated results for a Cape Verdean

***(click to enlarge)


This Cape Verdean person went from having one of the highest “Senegal” amounts in my survey to having one of the highest “Mali” %’s. Which is remarkable even more so because receiving “Senegal” as a top region was a very consistent outcome of my Cape Verdean survey (90/95) while it was quite rare to have “Mali” show up as biggest region (3/95). Still this is not a completely random change as in my survey I have been treating socalled “Senegal” and “Mali” as closely related *Upper Guinean* regions. Not sure if such changes will be commonly seen. However it must be noted that “Senegal” would be a more fitting proxy labeling for Cape Verde’s Upper Guinean lineage (which is more so coastal, incl. Guiné Bissau, rather than interior: see this link)


Suggestions for improving AncestyDNA in regards to Tracing African Roots

What is about to follow partially represents my own subjective point of view as an Ancestry customer and an interested layman. However it is also based on the many observations I was able to make during my survey of AncestryDNA results among Afro-Diasporans and Africans, which I started five years ago already. I have also been inspired by the frequent interaction I have had with people sharing their results with me or when engaging in online discussion boards. This overview is not meant to be exhaustive. The suggestions being made are also not per se ranked in any particular order of priority. Not wishing to come across as overtly demanding I have attempted to balance feasibility with valid needs/wishes for an improved regional framework to describe the African roots of people from the Afro-Diaspora as well as actual Africans. For previous discussion on this topic see also:

Regional descriptions for “Benin/Togo”: current version and updated version

***(click to enlarge)

Benin Togo region (current)

Current map and regional description on Ancestry’s website given for “Benin/Togo”. Notice how due to genetic similarity this region (despite the modern day country name labeling) is also found in: Ghana, Nigeria and Mali. At first perhaps confusing but given proper follow-up research still more or less manageable: How to make more sense of “Benin/Togo” scores

***(click to enlarge)

Benin Togo region (new)

This map and regional description for “Benin/Togo” is being provided on Ancestry’s website for people whose results have been updated. Notice how the map has greatly expanded! Covering almost all of West Africa! Despite its seemingly exact labeling socalled “Benin/Togo” is now to be found as far west as Sierra Leone and as far south as Gabon. Decreasing rather than increasing its predictive accuracy!


1) Maintain the coherency of the current African breakdown and improve by creating less overlapping and more predictive regions. I fully realize that this is by no means an easy task given the inherent trade-offs to be dealt with when aiming for regional delineation despite genetic similarities. Many hurdles and pitfalls are to be overcome while designing an appropriate regional configuration. In my opinion the current African breakdown on AncestryDNA was a pioneering initiative which already did succeed in providing a very useful tool for Tracing African Roots, given correct interpretation. It would be a true shame if this accomplishment goes down the drain due to perhaps inadequate QA or unintended side-effects of Ancestry’s upcoming update…

Reviewing the current 9 African regions there is indeed much room for improvement. Many shortcomings however may be dealt with quite effectively and with relatively little effort:

  • Senegal“: despite the minimal sample size (n=28) this region has been very useful already in singling out Upper Guinean lineage. Its very high predictive accuracy for the “typical native” (100%) being confirmed by the results of in particular Cape Verdeans and Hispanics but also for example for Hausa-Fulani. In order to reduce its current coverage/overlap into Sierra Leone and even Liberia more defining samples are however needed. Perhaps Wolof or other Atlantic samples being more suitable than the presumably Mandenka samples being used right now (see also suggestion 3).
  • Mali“: this region is probably most in need of additional and appropriate sampling (along with “Southeastern Bantu”). Right now only 16 samples being available with a very low predictive accuracy for the “typical native” from Mali (39%). But going by my survey results this region is still reasonably predictive of Upper Guinean lineage for Afro-Diasporans. Then again it still remains ambivalent because of genetic overlap with Burkina Faso and surrounding areas in Ivory Coast/Ghana/Togo/Benin. The creation of a new region based on Gur samples could very well solve or atleast diminish this issue (see also suggestion 3).
  • Ivory Coast/Ghana“:  a rather robust region already (n=99). Even if also covering ancestral ties with Liberia and Sierra Leone. There is fewer overlap to the east though which is helpful for distinguishing between possible Akan and Gbe lineage. Replacing the current “Ivory Coast/Ghana” region with three separate and properly labeled regions to describe and measure genetic affiliations with either Kru, Akan/Kwa or southwestern Mandé samples could increase its informational value tremendously. See also:
  • Benin/Togo“: also a fairly robust region based on underlying sampling (n=60) and prediction accuracy for the “typical native” (82%). But again overlapping with neighbouring countries, especially (eastern) Ghana and (southern) Nigeria. It was probably the most confusing region in the current set-up. Especially for African Americans it was often unexpected when reported as main region (for Brazilians & Haitians however it was in line with historical plausibility). Highly unfortunate therefore that in the proposed update it seems “Benin/Togo” will be even more wide-ranging across borders! The creation of a more narrowly focused region to describe and measure genetic affiliations with Gbe samples from not only Benin and Togo but also Ghanaian Ewe would be much more beneficial. It will probably remain difficult to decrease the inevitable overlap with fellow Volta-Niger speaking southern Nigerians. Just as a tweaking idea it might be worthwhile to for once dispense with the ubiquitous Yoruba samples for the “Nigeria” region (all too often used as a generic stand-in for West African DNA). See also:
  • Nigeria“: one of the most admixed regions according to Ancestry’s own data (along with “Mali”) and therefore tending to underestimate genuine Nigerian ancestry. Even if my Afro-Diasporan survey findings for this region were mostly in line with historical expectations. For many Afro-Diasporans the crucial question to be answered is if their Nigerian lineage is either Yoruba or Igbo. I suspect however that making this very specific distinction could prove to be quite difficult still, given genetic similarities among southern Nigerians. And in stead of feeding into false hope it might be best to maintain the status-quo. Still possibly by including Middle Belt Nigerian samples a higher prediction accuracy may be obtained than right now: 69% for the “typical native” (n=67) but only around 50% according to my survey findings which now have a higher sample size (n=73) than Ancestry’s Reference Panel! Other tweaking possibilities based on adding various Nigerian sample sets may also be explored. However a northern shift of this region does not seem recommendable given the mostly southern Nigerian roots of Afro-Diasporans! Integrating Ancestry’s migration feature (based on the number of IBD matches with either Yoruba or Igbo customers/samples) could possibly also be very helpful (see also suggestion 5).
  • Cameroon/Congo“: this region was probably one of the most robust regions together with “Senegal”. High prediction accuracy for the “typical native” (92%; n=115) and also confirming historically known patterns of Central African heritage among Afro-Diasporans. The geographical range of this region was larger than indicated by Ancestry itself though. According to my African survey reaching into Zambia, Zimbabwe and even Madagascar! As I have argued from the beginning the inclusion of Cameroonian samples (despite ample availability..) should be reconsidered in order to create a clear distinction between Bight of Biafra origins and proper Central African roots. Given prevailing slave trade patterns this is a crucial issue for Afro-Diasporans! I do not know if the current Cameroonian samples might be genetically compatible with any southeast Nigerian samples. But if so then a new region centered on southeast Nigeria & Cameroon might be a very good alternative! The remaining Congolese samples preferably to be amplified with Angolan samples to create a genuine Central African region (see also suggestion 3). Such a region will be much more suited then to uncover historically documented Central African lineage for the Afro-Diasporans. See also:
  • Southeastern Bantu“: this region was undersampled (n=18) and had its inherent flaws because it was mislabeled and based on wideranging samples from presumably Kenya, Namibia and South Africa. Southwestern Bantu origins from Angola/DRC Congo also being covered. While additionally also an overlap with Northeast African DNA was implied. Due to a lack of Northeast African samples in Ancestry’s Reference Panel. The creation of the new “Eastern Africa” region in the update is certainly appropriate therefore. Given correct interpretation the distinction being made between “Cameroon/Congo” and “Southeastern Bantu” was still very useful for Afro-descendants as well as many Africans. This was demonstrated most clearly by the frequency of top-ranking scores for “Southeastern Bantu” for my Brazilian and Mexican survey participants, corroborating their strong ancestral ties with Angola (see this blog post). I would therefore strongly urge Ancestry to cancel the proposed “Cameroon, Congo and Southern Bantu Peoples” region. As this will only lead to less specification rather than more! And instead I would argue for the creation of two separate regions for describing Congolese/Angolan origins (“western Bantu”) and Mozambican/Malagasy (“southeastern Bantu”) DNA. This will be most relevant and highly informative for African Americans as well as other Afro-Diasporans and actual Africans!
  • South-Central Hunter-Gatherers“: this region is currently based on very genetically distinctive samples (n=35) from the Khoi-San & Pygmy people. Its predictive accuracy is quite solid (86% for the “typical native”). Still it almost always showed up as a minimal trace region for most people. Therefore its informational value was rather limited. Especially given that usually very ancient ancestral ties were indicated rather than anything from a genealogical meaningful timeframe (~500 years). Main exception being South Africans, and in particular South African Coloureds. Judging from a few updated Northeast African results as well as the new map it seems that Ancestry might have replaced its Pygmy samples by Sandawe samples from Tanzania instead. Another much studied yet very marginalized hunter-gathering population. This has resulted in peculiar and inflated “Hunter Gatherer” scores for Northeast Africans undoing the in itself useful addition of the new “Eastern Africa” region. For example see this screenshot for a Sudanese person. Frankly I do not believe there is much added value in reporting these genetic affinities with marginalized hunter-gathering populations (no matter how distinctive and fascinating in itself) as they usually go back thousands of years. It only leads to confusion while also the labeling may be perceived as akward by some people. I would only keep in the Khoi-San samples as they are meaningful and relevant to describe the recent origins of especially South Africans. See also:
  • Africa North“: this region showed an impressive prediction accuracy for the “typical native”: 100%! Still going by the results of actual mainstream North Africans in my survey it seems that the 26 samples used by Ancestry may not have been the most representative ones (most likely Mozabite Berbers from Algeria). This region usually was only reported in trace amounts or just absent for African Americans and West Indians. For Cape Verdeans and Hispanics it showed up more regularly, but still almost always below 10% (see this overview). In most cases inheritance by way of an Iberian or Canarian ancestor seems most plausible for them. In the current set-up especially Portuguese people tended to score quite consistent “Africa North” scores of around 5%. Given the creation of new regions for “Portugal” and “Spain”, such “Africa North” scores might actually decrease or even disappear as these improved Iberian regions might tend to incorporate older genetic affiliations. An ancestral scenario involving a Fula ancestor could also theoretically be possible in selected cases. As afterall according to my survey (n=42) the Fula could have around 13% “Africa North” on average. I suppose after the update such scenario’s might be easier to distinguish. Especially when Ancestry decides to implement a chromosome browser or starts mentioning the ethnicity/admixture of shared DNA segments with your matches (see suggestion 8). See also:

2) Add more historically relevant African samples to Ancestry’s Reference Panelin particular from Angola, Burkina Faso, Guinea Bissau/Conakry, Liberia, Madagascar, Mozambique and Sierra Leone. All of these countries currently missing from  AncestryDNA’s regional set-up. This historical relevancy is to be determined by the documented ethnic/regional provenance of people from the Afro-Diaspora in the first place. As this group of Afro-descendants is after all most reliant on admixture analysis to learn more about their background. The selection of ethnic groups & individual samples within these countries should naturally be done very carefully. Avoiding people with known mixed backgrounds (also in intra-African terms) such as the Krio people from Sierra Leone, Americo-Liberians, as well as Mestiço’s from either Angola or Guiné Bissau, who aside from having minor Portuguese lineage at times may also be partially Cape Verdean. Generally speaking there’s always much ado about the lack of African sampling in DNA testing. The difficulties involved may be underestimated to some extent. However it seems no more than reasonable to me that at least some of these badly needed African samples may be obtained in the following ways:

  • customer samples: based on my ongoing survey of African AncestryDNA results I would estimate that there could very well be hundreds of Africans (incl. 1st and 2nd generation migrants living in the USA or Europe) already within Ancestry’s customer database. I have personally seen results from practically all African countries already! However some countries tend to be overrepresented (such as Nigeria & Ghana) while others are underrepresented (such as Angola & Burkina Faso). Obviously also consent for research purposes would be required.
  • academic databases:  Ancestry is already making use of the HGDP database as well as its own Sorenson database. However several other academic collections of African DNA samples exist. Possibly restrictions may be in place against commercial use etc.. However the following collections might provide a very valuable source of appropriate African samples:
    • 1000 Genomes database (incl. samples from Gambia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Kenya)
    • MalariaGEN database (incl. no less than 1,266 individuals (!) from Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Tanzania)
  • creative recruiting of African samples: through targeted marketing for example offering free kits among African migrant associations in either the USA or Europe. Or else also by crowd-sourcing: third parties/ individuals travelling to Africa in order to test local Africans. Afterall where there is a will there is a way 😉  When carried out effectively the costs involved may be quite minimal while the added value could be enormous! For some very praiseworthy examples:

3) Create new regions centered around these historically relevant samples. Whenever possible and provided that the current coherency of the African regional framework as a whole is not compromised.

  • Atlantic samples from either Senegambia (Wolof, Sereer etc.) or Guiné Bissau (Balanta, Papel etc.) may be used to solidify the current “Senegal” region (hundreds of Gambian samples from various ethnic groups are possibly to be obtained via the MalariaGEN database!). Helping to pinpoint such lineage while also creating a sharper delineation for the “Senegal” region. Given sufficient genetic differentiation and appropriate sampling I suppose a very helpful distinction between northern Senegambian versus southern Senegambian/Guinean origins may also be enabled.
  • Mande samples from either Guinea or Mali may be used to solidify the current “Mali” region. Helping to pinpoint such lineage while also hopefully enabling a sharper delineation with the “Senegal” region.
  • Southwestern Mande samples from either Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast or Guinea might be used to create a separate region. Helping to pinpoint such lineage while also hopefully contributing to a sharper delineation of both the “Mali” and “Ivory Coast/Ghana” regions.
  • Kru samples from Liberia and/or Ivory Coast may be used to create a new region. Helping to pinpoint such lineage while also contributing to a sharper delineation of the “Ivory Coast/Ghana” region, which would then become even more predictive of especially Akan lineage.
  • Gur samples from Burkina Faso might be used to create a greatly needed intermediate region to cover the genetic legacy of people nowadays found in northern areas of Ivory Coast, Ghana, Benin and Togo as well as Burkina Faso itself. It may also result in a sharper delineation of especially the “Mali” region which will become more strictly suggestive of Upper Guinean roots.
  • Angolan & Mozambican samples (preferably from relevant and currently undersampled populations such as the Mbundu and the Makua) might be used to solidify any Bantu orientated region. But given sufficient genetic differentiation I suppose an extremely useful distinction between western and southeastern Bantu origins may also be realized.

***(click to enlarge)


Both of these results belong to the same Brazilian person. Notice how on the left the continental breakdown is still in place creating a more organized overview. On the right we can see how a “Portuguese” migration is being mentioned, which actually also includes Brazilians and therefore is quite informative. Having migrations in place for either Angolans or Mozambicans could have an even greater informational value! Notice also the useful distinction being made between “Southeastern Bantu” and “Cameroon/Congo”. Something which will be lost when combining both regions.


4)  Bring back the continental breakdown within the Ethnicity Estimate display. With subtotals specified for each continent. This used to be standard until it was changed about a year ago without any explanation why (as far as I am aware).  Right now the display merely shows you a seemingly haphazard listing of regions sorted from biggest to smallest amount, regardless of continent. This creates a lot of inconvenience for people who are also interested in knowing their continental percentages. This is especially relevant for Afro-Diasporans given their generally admixed genetics.

5)  Create new African “migrations”, a.k.a. genetic communities.  As far as I am aware currently there are only two “migrations” in place for Africans. One of them centered on South Africans (in particular Afrikaners & Coloureds, see this screenshot). And the other one based principally on Cape Verdeans (see this screenshot). Even when misleadingly labeled “Portuguese Islander”2. I understand that this potentially very insightful “migration” feature is a work under progress. Naturally a certain minimum number of DNA tested Africans with a common background will be required to create new genetic communities. Then again from my ongoing survey of African AncestryDNA results I have learnt that there could very well be hundreds of Africans (incl. 1st and 2nd generation migrants) already within Ancestry’s customer database. Especially for Nigerians and Ghanaians I would imagine something could already be set up. Even more so when appropriate academic samples can be added. Given the pressing need for more specification of African lineage I would argue for a loosening of certain thresholds and/or requirements provided that a minimum level of robustness for this “migration” tool can still be maintained.

6) Mention the “aggregate ethnicity estimates” for each migration / genetic communityThis aggregate was basically an average of the ethnicity estimates for all people belonging to a certain migration. It was briefly available for customers in 2017 with access to the beta version of the “migration” tool, being mentioned in a third tab called “insights” (see this screenshot). This information can be very useful as some sort of regional benchmark in order to see how you yourself or others fit in the bigger picture. Keeping in mind variations around the mean any statistically significant deviations could possibly still provide valuable ancestral clues. Functioning much in the same way as the very helpful admixture averages being provided by Ancestry for the “typical native” (see this link). And also very similar to the group averages I have been calculating during my survey of AncestryDNA results. As a crucial precondition Ancestry should however single out people who have 4 grand parents from the same area as mentioned in the migration. Given their access to people’s familytrees this should not be very difficult I imagine.

7) Enable the Ethnicity Estimate Comparison feature for *all* customersincl. PC users and people outside of the US. As far as I am aware this comparison feature (see this screenshot) is now only available for smartphone users who have downloaded the Ancestry app, which is restricted to the USA. Obviously it is not a fair policy to deprive other customers of this potentially very insightful tool! Basically by using this feature you can compare the ethnicity estimates of yourself with each one of your DNA matches. Very useful for example when wanting to find out a plausible background of a possibly African match! For more details see also this informative blog post:

8) Show ethnicity/admixture of shared DNA segments with your matches. This can be very useful for many purposes. For example when reviewing your African matches ideally you will want to verify if the shared DNA segment is showing up as a certain region, let’s say “Ivory Coast/Ghana”. Because that way you could have more certainty that these matches will indeed relate to your own “Ivory Coast/Ghana” amount. Given that most Africans when tested by AncestryDNA tend to be described as a composite of adjacent regions and not just one single one. Regrettably this potentially very insightful information is not available because Ancestry so far has not implemented a chromosome browser. See also:

9) Avoid misleading labeling of ancestral regions. Providing a false sense of accuracy. Even when in my opinion the current country name labeling by AncestryDNA is to be preferred above ethnic labeling. Ancestral categories named after ethnic groups will tend to be overlapping across ethnic boundaries just as much and therefore will be even more misleading!

Generally speaking the whole framing if you will of admixture analysis can be misleading and is often catering to unrealistic expectations. Specifically in regards to how ancestral categories should conform exactly to a person’s family tree and all the known ethnic lineage it may contain. Even when there are still so many misunderstandings and uncertainties about the genetic underpinnings of ethnicity. And to add to complexity ethnic groups are of course to some extent also social constructs due to fluid ethnic identities and inter-ethnic unions.

None of this is to deny the potential informational value to be gained from admixture analysis. As always I prefer to see the glass as half full rather than half empty 😉 However correct interpretation is a must! On the one hand this requires an educational effort on part of DNA testing companies. But frankly I believe that customers have their own responsibility in this matter too and should invest more time in informing themselves about inherent limitations etc..  A good start is by taking a proper look at the regional maps integrated in your Ethnicity Estimate. Compared with other DNA testing companies I actually find that Ancestry does a rather good job at providing helpful sections/pages offering guidance and context. I sincerely hope they will continue to do so. For example see this overview:


***UPDATE 11-10-2018

Ancestry’s update has been fully rolled out to all its customers in September (see this blogseries for an evaluation). Unfortunately none of my suggestions have been taken into account. But a new update seems to already be in preparation. As Ancestry has acknowledged that their updated African breakdown has not been an improvement. So just to add to my suggestions in the hope Ancestry will take note of it this time:

  • It seems prudent to me that already existing African customers should be actively engaged and stimulated to fill in their family tree details or at least provide places of birth in Africa. This would help tremendously for Afro-Diasporans wanting to connect with their African DNA matches. Plus it may also facilitate the recruiting of new African samples for Ancestry’s Reference Panel.
  • Another potentially very helpful suggestion might be to enable DNA matching with all the African samples contained in Ancestry’s Reference Panel. Possibly also to be combined with Ancestry’s migration tool. Creating new African genetic communities as mentioned in suggestion 5.
  • The very insightful “genetic diversity” tabs should be brought back to optimize Ancestry’s transparency towards its customers. Before the update these tabs were available within everyone’s ethnicity estimate page and included detailed statistical information about the predictive accuracy of each single region. But now they seem to have been discontinued.
  • Lastly I would like to implore that knowledgeable scholars of African & Afro-Diasporan history will be involved in a re-writing of the regional descriptions. For example the current overview for “Cameroon, Congo and Southern Bantu people” is quite misleading and definitely incomplete. Most historians will agree that the captives from the Bight of Biafra were overwhelmingly from southeastern Nigeria. While the number of Angolan/Congolese captives far exceeds the ones taken from Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea (see this link for references):

Appeal for true commitment 

Especially a few years ago I often got the notion that some DNA companies simply blurt out their admixture reports as well as their updates just like that. Without realizing or caring about what kind of additional questions they might raise or even what kind of emotional reactions they might trigger. Providing a minimum of context is the least thing they could do in my opinion. It is often still the customers themselves who need to put two and two together. The much hyped but eventually underwhelming update of 23andme’s Ancestry Composition earlier this year brought back memories of previous updates carried out in a rather cynical manner by that company3. In particular 23andme’s lack of clarifying communication and general indifference towards its customers over the years. Despite lip service and FIVE years of building up expectations 23andme is still not able to give any helpful insight into the African origins of Afro-descendants…

I am of Cape Verdean descent myself and I am personally not expecting any special treatment or favours from profit-driven companies such as 23andme or Ancestry. Even when I can easily imagine that as an USA-based company some degree of consideration for African Americans is in order. Afterall due to historical circumstance Afro-Diasporans are arguably in most pressing need of receiving finer regional resolution of their admixture results (aside from adoptees). Most people in the Afro-Diaspora do not have any detailed knowledge about their African roots and are usually very eager to learn more. Not anything with “100% accuracy” even but just something meaningful and relevant which goes beyond the lump category of “West African”. Again this sets them apart from customers with verifiable background who have the luxury to be snobbish about admixture analysis.

Unfortunately it seems that many DNA testing companies are either not able or do not have a true commitment to cater to the particular needs of Afro-Diasporans when it comes to admixture analysis and other aspects of DNA testing. I always thought Ancestry was an exception but I might have to change my mind after this upcoming update…  Again I do not have a full scope on what will effectively be implemented and how this might impact AncestryDNA’s current African breakdown. But based on what I have seen sofar maintaining the current African breakdown seems like a better option right now.

Although ultimately of course we would want to see an update that actually improves on how African DNA is being described in regional terms. Leading to greater insights and further specification rather than confusion and running the risk of being mislead about your ancestry. Given Ancestry’s ample resources, incl. probably the biggest number of African tested customers, I do think they can do so much more. Which is why I have presented this overview of suggestions for improvement.

It is quite sad as up till now I have always regarded AncestryDNA’s African breakdown as the best on the market.4 Certainly not without shortcomings but still very insightful already for understanding the roots of both Africans and people across the Afro-Diaspora. It would be a true loss if Ancestry’s pioneering analysis of especially West African DNA will turn out to have been downgraded rather than upgraded…

Updated results for an African American

***(click to enlarge)

AA 2xa

Take note of how the combined sum of previous “Cameroon/Congo” + “Southeastern Bantu” scores (23%) seems inconsistent with the 47% “Cameroon, Congo, and Southern Bantu”! Also striking how the formerly predominant region of “Benin/Togo” has decreased by more than 20% without any increase of neighbouring regions! Also very peculiar how “Nigeria” was only reported as a minimal trace amount and even absent after the update. But after analyzing this person’s matches using my filtering method this African American seems to have atleast 5 Nigerian matches out of most likely 10 African matches! These kind of seemingly incoherent discrepancies are not going to increase people’s confidence in their results!


I normally don’t actively plead for my blog posts to be shared on social media. However given that the stakes are quite high and as they say strength is in numbers 😉 I want to urge everyone who is in agreement with the main outline of these suggestions to share this blog post on Facebook, Twitter etc. as well as with as soon as your results have been updated. Because you will then be given the opportunity to let them know if you found the update to be helpful or not. I am not sure how exactly they will handle such feedback but it might just be that given sufficient complaints Ancestry will rethink this update or atleast the African part of it…Of course you are free to personalize this feedback and add your own suggestions as well! In fact I would also very much like to encourage my blog readers to discuss these suggestions in the comment section below. In order to get a fruitful and constructive exchange of ideas going on which again hopefully Ancestry will take notice of starting from this Independence Day!



1) It might be different story for the European and Asian breakdowns. I have actually seen quite encouraging updated results in this regard. And generally speaking they could be an improvement indeed. The non-African regional breakdowns are however not a topic of discussion in this blog post.

2) I strongly urge Ancestry to change the labeling of the socalled  “Portuguese Islander” migration into “Cape Verdeans”. This will be much more appropriate given that from what I have seen the vast majority of people being assigned to this genetic community share common Cape Verdean lineage. I understand there might be an overlap with actual Portuguese Islanders from the Azores & Madeira. However there are already several separate “migrations” in place for them.

3) Eventhough 23andme’s recent update of its Ancestry Composition was widely regarded as an anti-climax (see this discussion thread). It still did have some merit too. The addition of the socalled Recent Ancestor Locations potentially does have added value (even when they strike me as just being a stripped down version of the former Countries of Ancestry tool). But by setting up high thresholds which only cover potential ancestry from “the last two hundred years” it was bound to leave out any African matches (measured by dots) for most Afro-Diasporans. History teaches us that their African origins are mostly to be traced back to the 1700’s or even earlier (depending on specific background, see this link). This basic aspect about the Afro-Diaspora seems to have escaped 23andme for some reason…

Then again on the European side things looked more positive (for those willing to explore that side of their ancestry). Historically plausible matches from the UK & Ireland (measured by dots) being reported for African Americans, French ones for Haitians, Spanish ones for Hispanics and Portuguese ones for Cape Verdeans and Brazilians. In this aspect 23andme might be said to have gained the upperhand on Ancestry. Because the socalled migration feature on Ancestry is generally speaking not picking up on recent European connections for New Worlders. For an interesting comparison read this blog post:

4) A very promising development is however taking place with a new DNA testing company called: Living DNA. Something which I hope to be covering in greater detail in the near future. See the map on their West African project page, it looks very ambitious to be honest but even if only half of the intended resolution will be achieved this could be MAJOR!


    “Living DNA, working with the world’s leading academics, scientists and genealogists are seeking your help. Together we are looking to map the world’s genetic ancestry to the finest scale possible, one where we identify patterns of DNA within countries. Following our collaboration with the academic team involved in the landmark publication “The fine-scale genetic structure of the British population”, we are now looking to extend the level of genetic detail throughout West Africa. Our preliminary research indicates at least 55 areas of West Africa may have distinct genetic differences.

    The aim of the project is to confirm whether the proposed genetic boundaries are correct, and redefine them based upon the genetic data submitted by participants that fall within these regions. By participating in this project, you will help us to map the genetic heritage of west Africa and show how we are all connected based on our DNA.”

61 thoughts on “Suggestions for improving the African breakdown on AncestryDNA

  1. “Replacing the current “Ivory Coast/Ghana” region with three separate and properly labeled regions to describe and measure genetic affiliations with either Kru, Akan/Kwa or southwestern Mandé samples could increase its informational value tremendously.”

    A question, aren’t the Gbe languages in the Kwa family? Has science found these Kwa-speakers to be different from the Kwa speakers further west in Ghana/Ivory Coast? It’s weird because I’ve seen much talk of how well “Benin/Togo” matches with Gbe-speakers, genetically. But that doesn’t seem to mesh with language maps which show while Kwa languages pretty clearly end at the Benin/Nigerian borderlands that no such language distinction seems to exist between, say, Ewe speakers and Akan speakers.

    I’ve also been surprised by this seeming genetic cluster (Gbe-speakers) since Ancestry specifically makes note of the culture of Togo being closer to Ghana (Akan) and the culture of Benin being closer to Nigeria (Yoruba). So is the argument here that the “Akan/Kwa” needs to included “Benin/Togo” Gbe-speakers or that that region is in fact a defined genetic cluster that needs to be left out of this proposed “Akan/Kwa” region?


    Liked by 1 person

    • My argument is for a separate region centered on Akan samples and a separate region centred on Gbe samples (incl. Ewe). Because from my survey findings it seems that Ancestry is able to make a reasonable distinction despite inevitable overlap. See also this chart where a group average of nearly 90% “Ivory Coast/Ghana” is shown for my Akan samples and a group average of around 70-80% for “Benin/Togo” for my Ewe and Beninese samples. The sample size is admittedly rather minimal however I have seen more results in preview which seem to confirm these preliminary patterns:

      About the linguistic classification of the Gbe languages, it seems to have changed recently due to new insights (see wikipedia). Formerly they appear indeed to have been grouped under the Kwa language family along with Akan languages and even Kru languages from Liberia at one time (these are now seen as forming their own group though!) However a new language family called Volta-Niger has been proposed lately which combines the Gbe languages rather with southern Nigerian languages such as Yoruba and Igbo. I do not speak any of these languages so obviously i have no way of knowing if such a classification is better suited, lol. But I find it striking that it does seem to fit quite well with my survey findings. I discuss this in more detail in section 3 of this page:

      I have a section on my blog which features several language maps (see this link). It’s good to keep in mind though that due to different definitions and new insights they will often not look exactly the same! Also it seems there may be different linguistic theories in Francophone countries as opposed to the Anglo mainstream. Either way this map shows the new Volta-Niger group in purple , combining Gbe with southern Nigerian languages.

      Btw about the comment on Ancestry’s website that Togolese culture is geared more so toward Ghana (Akan) and Benin is closer to Yoruba culture. This could indeed be true. I’m far from an expert on Ghanaian culture but I’ve read that the Ewe have incorporated several Akan elements in their culture. Given their proximity and historical power balance that would kind of be as expected. Then again the adoption or similarity of cultural practices does not negate possibly different origins/genetics.


      • See, this is what I don’t quite understand. Whether they are grouped with Kwa or “Volta-Niger” it appears that the main languages spoken in Benin/Togo are not a seperate branch. And then given how genetically so many Southern Nigerians get “Benin/Togo” as a primary or even major secondary region, it makes me wonder the usefulness of “Benin/Togo” as a seperate genetic region. Are they really so much less genetically diverse than “Nigeria” – and thus distinct in being more homogenous population that speaks “Volta-Niger” languages – that they can justify having their own region apart from southern Nigeria?

        I’m just genuinely curious, as I’m not 100% convinced of this region, yet. Is there enough of a delineation from “Nigeria” do you think?

        Thanks! Love the discussion, Fonte.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yes I also love this discussion, very stimulating! Honestly I think there will always be trade-offs to made with admixture analysis. You can’t always have clear delineation on all fronts. I understand why you would want to question the “Benin/Togo” region as it seems to have caused a great deal of confusion for many people when appearing as a main region. Legitimate ancestral ties with southern Nigeria and eastern Ghana are being obscured by it. And I’m afraid with the way Ancestry’s update seems to be set up right now this will happen even more so after everyone has had their results updated.

          For me the usefulness of this region lies mostly in its delineation to the west. As discussed it may not be a perfect measure but it allows for a distinction to be made between Gbe and Akan speakers. In my survey among the Afro-Diaspora (see this chart) for example this is seemingly confirmed by how “Benin/Togo” shows up very strongly (as expected) for Haitians. Also for Brazilians “Benin/Togo” is clearly prevailing over “Ivory Coast/Ghana”. It’s less clearcut for Jamaicans and Barbadians, who also show high levels of this region. But they could in fact have more Gbe lineage (also dating from earlier time periods) than people usually tend to be aware of, given the narrative of predominant Akan ties. For African Americans it’s probably most ambivalent as I have already blogged about elsewhere. And the degree of any genuine ancestral ties with either Benin or Togo might be the least for them. However also for African Americans it might pinpoint such lineage. See for example:

          To the east, into southern Nigeria, there’s indeed too much overlap though. I wouldn’t know how to solve it. I have suggested taking out the Yoruba samples, just as a tweaking idea, to see what kind of results will then be obtained. Intuitively it seems to me that a greater degree of delineation may be obtained by including populations on the far ends of the range, to avoid too much overlap. By cutting out the “middle men” so to speak and having only Igbo or otherwise southeastern Nigerian + perhaps also Middle Belt samples for “Nigeria” it may result in a greater prediction accuracy. But I’m not sure.

          If major genetic overlap is indeed inevitable between Gbe and southern Nigerians then perhaps combining the Gbe samples with Yoruba samples might make for a workable alternative? This would then by necessity be a broader region. But historically you could then correlate this with the slave trade records from the Bight of Benin. In turn you might want to set up a new region combining Igbo and other southeastern Nigerian samples with appropriate Cameroonian samples to create a proxy region for covering Bight of Biafra ties. I’m doubtful people would want to forsake the current regional specification though.

          Again I have no personal experience with admixture modeling myself. But I have been part of a very early endeavour called the African Ancestry Project by Razib Khan:

          This experience taught me how you can manipulate the admixture results just by adding or leaving out certain reference populations and also by increasing or decreasing the number of preset clusters (K=..). Furthermore it ingrained to me from early on how the labeling of ancestral categories (or rather clusters) is subjective to some degree and therefore not to be taken as gospel haha.

          So what are your thoughts on this? Would you rather just have a region for Ghana and one for Nigeria with nothing in between? Also how do you feel about the other suggestions I made? Curious to know especially about 4, 7 & 8.


          • I actually really like your idea for these two regions: Bight of Biafra and Bight of Benin. I guess thee one issues that’s been sticking with me is how the Benin and Togo political borders seem particularly artificial even as artifically drawn borders go. And, I guess it depends on what any individual thinks of the importance of the Gbe-speaking peoples as distinct cluster, and particularly in the disaspora. I guess as an American in the diaspora, I see them as much more a historical branching off of proto-Yoruban people than some sharp dilenation from them, but I imagine that that would be offensive in their eyes.

            Like you said, there are trade-offs either way you go. I like the geographical regions of Biagra and Benin as opposed to the political regions. And like you said, the dileneation at the western border is fairly clear for this region, so then you could have an Akan-centered “Gold/Ivory Coast” region that takes in the Kwa-speakers and maybe some southern/eastern Kru-speakers. The whole “Ghana/Ivory Coast”, “Benin/Togo” and “Nigeria” just seems to confuse too many people on their first viewing of the names of these regions.

            I’m still unsure of what to do west of Ghana, though, and most of that is my ignorance of the genetics and their delineations to the west. “Windward Coast” could be a region, but that would seem to overlap with a “Ghana/Ivory Coast” region. Maybe “Ghana/Ivory Coast” would go as far west as the middle of Ivory Coast’s shoreline and then “Windward Coast” would pick up the Kru-speakers west of that line.

            In any case, as you can see, I’d like the use of the more historic and geographical names than the current political names for the regions if the genetics show those delineations.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Benin & Togo do indeed really have extra artificial borders. Especially Togo is an extreme example of a wider pattern within that area (Lower Guinea) of borders generally running from south to north delineating sometimes very narrow landstrips or otherwise rectangular shapes. Throwing together coastal areas that have been christianized for the most part with interior areas that are muslim mostly. It’s the opposite in Upper Guinea, where borders seem to run first from west to east, Gambia being the perfect counterexample of Togo.

              I do also think the use of historical or geographical names could work better than political or ethnic labels. But it might be tricky to find appropriate names which will find broader acceptance. Of course you can’t always please everyone. But I imagine that some people might also take offense to the usage of historical regions devised by Europeans during the Slave Trade period. No matter how instructive such labeling might actually be. Then again for Africans themselves it would not be informative at all. It’s again a trade-off I think.

              I suspect most people prefer ethnic labeling but I’m opposed to it because I find it highly misleading and catering to unrealistic expectations about the exact pinpointing of ethnic lineage when currently the science simply isn’t there yet. I’m very curious to know how Living DNA is going to solve this issue. They seem to go with ethnic clusters for now. For example for Benin & Togo they have identified potential clusters named: Fon, Adja, Aizo, Ewe, Somba, Bargu etc.. I’m pretty sure though that given wide spread inter-ethnic unions and shared origins from ancient times actual Beninese & Togolese people are probably going to come out as a composite of these regions. Instead of just being “100% Fon” or “100% Ewe” as people might expect given their self-identification.

              Perhaps a more broader grouping based on linguistic (sub) families such as Gbe or Akan could work better although it could still be potentially misleading as well in cases of overlap. Again providing a false sense of accuracy. I do believe customers have their own responsibility in informing themselves about the inherent limitations of admixture analysis. But perhaps something must be included explicitly within the regional labeling to indicate right away that it’s only meant as an approximation. Could something like “Gbe proxy” or “Akan affiliation” work?


    • Hi there, thanks a lot for the offer! I am definitely interested in viewing the AncestryDNA results for a person from Malawi! This would be very helpful and much appreciated!


        • Thanks so much for sharing not only one but even two profiles with me! This make for a very valuable contribution to my survey as sofar I only was able to include 1 single result from Malawi.

          Just so I can place these results in their proper context can you please tell me more about the ethnic background of the profiles you shared with me? Are their families from the same area within Malawi?

          I find it striking to see the variance in “Southeastern Bantu” and “Cameroon/Congo” scores among them. Eventhough this could merely reflect genetic recombination in some cases I suppose. And basically speaking both breakdowns show an intermediate position between both regions. Still on a group level the distinction being made between these two regions was already quite insightful. Despite minimal sample size and other shortcomings a sketchy grouping or rather a gradient of Central African versus East African and Southern African Bantu origins does seem to be forthcoming based on preliminary group averages:


          • There are about 9 major ethnic groups with subgroups with more languages and dialects in Malawi. The sample with 63% Cameroon/Congo is 1/2 Chewa (broadly Nyanja) from the central region and 1/2 Yao from the Southern region but now based in the Central region (very recent in-country migration, 19th-20th century perhaps). The sample with more Africa Southeast Bantu (55%), again only accounting for the most recent ethnic heritage, has 1/4 Yao from the Southern region, I/4 Ngonde from the Northern region, and 1/2 Ngoni (broadly Nguni in Southern Africa), supposedly, a breakaway group originally from the central region now established in the Southern region. I hope this helps

            Liked by 1 person

            • Excellent! Thanks a lot for confirming! I have added their data into my spreadsheet (right now rows 134 & 136). If you have no objections i will add anonymous screenshots of their results on my blog (on this page).


              I find it really intriguing how the sample with more “Southeastern Bantu” (55%) is half Ngoni with relatively recent ancestral ties (1800’s) with South African peoples such as the Zulu (see this wikipedia article). Very fascinating how they have retained their distinctive cultural identities. And also very insightful how the increased proportion of “Southeastern Bantu” seems to be in line with such ancestry! Afterall as far as I am aware the samples being used by AncestryDNA for this region are hailing from South Africa (as well as Kenya & Namibia)! Although other ethnic groups within Malawi might also show such genetic similarities it makes perfect sense this would be more pronounced for people with a Ngoni background.

              Also very interesting to me is how the increased proportions of “Cameroon/Congo” might possibly be correlated with the socalled Maravi kingdom which is said to have been founded by migrating people from the southern parts of presentday Congo in the 15th century. I am not well read about Malawi’s (pre) history at all. But I’m guessing several presentday ethnic groups within Malawi were associated with this kingdom at one time, incl. the Chewa?

              Interesting also to see the mixed ethnic background of both samples. How common would that be for people in Malawi in your experience? I suspect this kind of ethnic inter-marriage is often underestimated among people from the Diaspora. I was already aware of the Yao people who also live in Mozambique and played an important role in trading networks with the Portuguese. I had to read up on the Ngonde people though. They are also known as Nyakyusa right? It seems they have been described by European explorers/missionaries in rather great detail. Also very fascinating accounts on their traditions of ancestral origin.

              The addition of these Malawi samples to me reinforces once again how the proposed “Cameroon, Congo and Southern Bantu Peoples” region will really be doing a huge disservice to not only people from the Afro-Diaspora but also actual African Ancestry customers!


          • You have my consent to add the screenshots.

            The Nyakusya people are also the Ngonde people though I know very little about the Ngonde or the Nyakusya.

            There are no original people groups of Malawi as they all migrated into Malawi at some point. Thus, no direct descendants of ancient groups exist today. I believe the “original” people would have been pygmies/Mbuti akin to the Khoi/San people of Southwest Africa. The Chewa kingdom is associated with the Maravi kingdom. From what I recall, the Chewas reportedly came from the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire).

            The inter-ethnic (or inter-tribal) marriages are more common and socially acceptable in recent generations than in past generations. It was also more socially acceptable for folks from the Southern region to marry folks from the Central region and vice versa than for Northerners to marry non-Northerners. As education increased in Malawi post colonialism (at secondary and, especially, tertiary levels), people travelled away from their villages and hometowns for school and met people from other ethnic backgrounds. Also, increased labour migration from rural areas to urban areas within the same region or across regions where there would be a mix of tribes in big towns and cities contributed to the acceptability or inevitability of inter-ethnic marriages.

            Now in sample 2’s case, the Yao paternal grandfather was returning from World War I having fought presumably with the King’s African Rifles, travelling through the Northern region via Tanzania when he met his future bride in Karonga, home of the Ngondes. He married her, and they lived in the South. The daughter of this family was travelling to Karonga in the North in the 1930s when she met her future Ngoni spouse who was visitng there for work but lived in the South. They eventually married and settled in the South.

            Liked by 1 person

              • I’m curious if you added any of my African matches to your samples, or were they unneeded? I believe I did send you an email a few weeks back updating you on everything I found if you were interested in following up. Mine were mostly West African, of course, so you probably already had enough of them, but a few were Cameroonian, Zimbabwean, etc.

                Liked by 1 person

                • I’m always interested in adding more African samples to my ongoing survey. I wasn’t able to see the full breakdown of your African matches though. As I don’t have access to the compare feature on Ancestry.


                  • Oh, I was confused. I just realized the person above seems to have managed the test of two other people, so that’s why you’re able to include them.

                    BTW, is there an easier way to see all “recent comments,” or at least a way to be alerted to just replies to my comments? I’m sure I’ve missed a few of your replies. I see the only options seem to be to be alerted to ALL new comments or just new posts you make. But is that a subscription to the WHOLE site and ALL new comments? I’m confused. I’d marked some of these before and was getting alerts to comments that didn’t particularly concern me or my interests here.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • Lol i’m actually also a bit confused by the comment alerts. So I can’t really help out. I do have a socalled widget with recent comments on the left side menu but it doesn’t seem to refresh in real time. I have just adjusted the settings so it shows the 10 most recent comments, perhaps it will work better.


  2. Fonte, looking at my DNA Story again, I am slightly surprised by my high “Upper Guinea” scores. At 8% “Mali” and 3% “Senegal”, when weighted only for my African ancestry it’s a full 18%. I think in your full African American study you got 6% weighted “Mali” (mine was 13%). It really does make me wonder about who these 16 samples are for for Mali. With only 39% of the samples tested getting “Mali” as their primary region, I imagine they must have been sampling everywhere from the mostly North African Taureg in the north ot the various Mande peoples in the south. lol I imagine the Mande peoples – who make up a full half the population of Mali, and who are BY FAR the largest single ethnic group – cluster pretty closely together, so you wouldn’t expect it to be so underrepresentative of the population of Mali if they were the main source of these 16 samples. But maybe I’m wrong; maybe Mandé peoples in Mali only share a language and are quite genetically different from one another; I don’t know.

    Like we discussed, delineating new coastal Upper Guinea regions would be a game-changer, and they also need to tighten up their “Mali” sample, maybe turn it into a “Mali Mande” sample to delineate it from Senegal better. From an African American diaspora perspective, I am kind of curious from where Mande slaves from Mali in particular would have been brought to and shipped from to the Americas? Would it have more likely been ports in Senegal or further south in Sierra Leone or Liberia? I believe geographically, exchange was easier between Mali and Senegal than to the southwestern coasts, right? In between Mali and the coast is hilly/mountainous Guinea, correct?

    I guess it’s also entirely possible that my “Mali” isn’t actual Mali, at all; it could just as easily be Fula from Guinea, maybe. It seems it would be difficult to give the Fula an Ancestry category or even a region given how hetereogenous a people they are They’re a people stretched all the way from Ethiopia to Senegal, coast to coast, really.

    Liked by 1 person

    • In my survey for African Americans I found that about 17% of their scaled African breakdown is very likely to be traced back to Upper Guinea. With “Senegal” and “Mali” having similar contributions of around 8-9% but the “Mali” scores being more likely to also include higher outliers.

      I do think that Mali has a great deal of genetic differentiation indeed. Mandé culture is of course quite dominant in the whole area. But historically speaking they have absorbed many different peoples within their ranks during their expansion.

      I believe hat most Malian captives (often termed “Bambara” in contemporary sources) would have been routed by way of Gambia into the US. As this is where the English had their main trading post. at James island. But at times French slave trading posts in Senegal were also occupied for several years by the English. Given local disturbances or price variation i do also think that at times African slave traders would opt for other overland routes into either Sierra Leone/ Guinea or even into the Gold Coast. But overall speaking this must have been uncommon due to unfavourable logistics indeed.

      I have still not seen any announcement about which specific samples will be used for Ancestry’s update. But I find it very peculiar how sofar all 4 updated Cape Verdean results I have seen had a major increase of their “Mali” scores while their “Senegal” scores decreased into secondary place. As I said in my last blog post:

      “Any major shift in this outcome may very well lead to unnecessary confusion or a decrease of people’s confidence in their results. After all a generalized predominance of so-called “Mali” scores will be obscuring Cape Verde’s varied roots across the Upper Guinean area. Even though again both “Senegal” and “Mali” regions are ultimately indicative of Upper Guinean lineage. But due to the country name labeling people might get the wrong impression about Cape Verde’s Upper Guinean roots really being much more coastal, incl. Guiné Bissau, rather than interior”

      About the Fula, i intend to blog about them soon. I have already collected quite a few of their results. See this link for an overview:


      • I see I was indeed confused, then, about the average percentage of Upper Guinea heritage African Americans have. At 18% my number isn’t unusual in the least bit up against your averages. Within Upper Guinea, mine may be SLIGHTLY more weighted towards Mali, but certainly with a standard range.

        Yes, I misspoke about the trade route out of the interior (Mali) to the coast, conflating “Senegal” to mean Senegal and Gambia, though knowing the two seperate colonial histories of the two. I imagine the Gambia River must have made transport much easier near the end of the route toward the coast. I’d still be interested to see what kind of trade routes there were between the coast and wherever the Malian captives came from. The Gambia River doesn’t provide direct access to the coast anywhere in Mali, but perhaps the terrain the ancient roads are not as perilous/logistically difficult between Mali and Senegal than I’m imagining.

        I’ve found the “Mali” bit the most interesting, because it’s very easy in a general sense to trace African American heritage from the coasts of Africa. But speaking for myself, it’s much harder to visualize just how deep into the continent the trade extended. So even despite it not be incredibly far from the coast, a place like Mali seems SO much further away, physically and culturally, then say Benin or Togo or Ghana or etc….I’d imagine if you ask a 100 random African Americans on the street here in the State about where they think their heritage comes from, an overwhelming majority of them would answer with “Nigeria” first, and then maybe Ghana a distant Nigeria looms large in our psyche; while even your research clearly shows it as a major component of African American heritage, it is not an overwhelming component all by itself. Looking at those averages, Ghana and the Ivory Coast and West-Central Africa should loom just as large, but we seem way less able to visualize the connection to the Congo or Cameroon (even though they have coasts) and places like Mali than Nigeria.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yes I also find the “Mali” scores intriguing even when I do think that the country name labeling can be somewhat misleading. As I mention in this blogpost it’s not even an exclusive marker of Mande ancestry because it’s greatly overlapping with “Senegal” . And in addition Gur speaking origins in neighbouring countries to the southeast such as Burkina Faso etc. may also be indicated by “Mali” scores. For me initially when I started out with my AncestryDNA survey among African Americans I had this idea that high “Mali” scores might be in line with the whole Blues tradition in the Deep South. Which is often said to be heavily influenced by musical traditions from West Africa’s interior (Sahel) and in particular Mali. But since then i’ve come to the realization that it’s not as simple as that as the transfer of cultural practice is not per se correlating with genetical inheritance 😉 Intuitively I still find it a nice idea though. The somewhat elevated level of “Mali” scores among people from Louisiana and South Carolina also seem to make historical sense. Even when other ancestral scenarios, incl. coastal ones (Guinea, Sierra Leone) can also be implied by “Mali” scores.

          About the trade routes between Senegambia and the interior I think that transport by river would indeed have made things easier. Not only the Gambia river but also the Senegal and Niger rivers. Also to the south (Guinea Bissau/Conakry) it is often mentioned in contemporary reports how river transport was very common. The Niger river providing the main acces to the interior I imagine with some overland transport in between. I have some maps featured on my blog (see this link) about the trade routes in this area. Taken from “Economic change in precolonial Africa: Senegambia in the era of the slave trade” (P.D. Curtin, 1975). A bit sketchy but still insightful. What I personally find most useful to get a better understanding is to read historical travel accounts describing West African trade. One book which is still on my list being Mungo Park‘s work.


          • I can see, now, how you’d have gotten people from around Bambara to British-controlled ports. You have the Gambia-Niger routes, which are mostly overland except for the last part of the trip down the Gambia like I suspected. I’m mostly interested in how people from the interior “Mali” would have made it to the United States, so that’s why my interest in focused on British ports. I don’t suspect most would have come down the Senegal River, then, as that was French controlled, right? Those slaves would have went to French colonies.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. ““Benin/Togo” is now to be found as far west as Sierra Leone and as far south as Gabon. Decreasing rather than increasing its predictive accuracy!”

    I wonder why they did this? The Benin/Togo region is covering almost all of West Africa!

    I’m VERY skeptical of the updated results for those of us with majority African ancestry. I’ve seen the new results of many African Americans (via official update or unofficial ‘transition tricks’) and I noticed that all but one had Benin/Togo and Cameroon/Congo as the top two regions that made up a significant amount of the overall DNA. Sure, people can have similar results, but almost everyone?? Sometimes people jump from <10% Benin/Togo to like 40%+ Benin/Togo! haha Makes me raise my eyebrow a bit. At least in the ‘old’ version there was more diversity in the results. It was way more believable.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes you and me both! I have by now also seen the updated results of actual Senegambians, Ghanaians, Liberians, Nigerians, Central Africans, East Africans, Southern Africans etc., all people who are sharing profiles with me. In most cases the new breakdowns look far less informative than they used to be. I will blog about it as soon as I know that this update will be final and after it has been rolled out to everyone.

      In the meanwhile if Ancestry asks you about your feedback please forward them this link (when in agreement of course 😉 ):

      Suggestions for improving the African breakdown on AncestryDNA


    • I’d forgotten about the expansion of the new “Benin/Togo” region, and if that is the case, it really does make is useless. My “Benin/Togo” actually more than doubled from 12% and my fourth biggest region to 29% and my first biggest region. It’s funny, because I did the “trick” on my grandmother’s test and her “Benin/Togo” actually went DOWN, though only about a point, but her “Cameroon/Congo” more than doubled from 10% to 24%.

      It feels like they’ve generalized Africa and have “Benin/Togo” as a generic/default stand-in for West Africa and “Cameroon/Congo” a stand-in for West-Central and Southern Africa. I think for most people this will (and should be) a huge disappointment. But then there are folks like me were the update could be seen as an improvement in a sense. knowing historical patterns of slavery a bit, my 22% of Ivory Coast/Ghana was likely highly overstated and most likely weighed toward the western enge of this region. The only Ghana or Ivory Coast match I’ve found is a Ewe from Ghana, and she probably matches on the Benin/Togo region.

      The big problem is the generalization, though, especially along the western part of this region. For reasons that escape me, I don’t know how they can do Senegal and Mali, but then skip all the way over to Ivory/Coast and Ghana when you’ve got at least three regions in between (Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea) where significant amounts of the diaspora comes from. So while my “Ivory Coast/Ghana” may be more accurate, I’m betting a lot of my ancestry from the Windward Coast is actually being combined with Benin/Togo, which will be highly confusing or misleading given that the region is to the east even Ivory Coast/Ghana.

      I also think that to the southeast, if the Bantu peoples are really not that highly differentiated or at least relative to West Africans, and that if they aren’t going to add more categories (aside from the Cameroon/Congo and Africa Southeastern Bantu regions) to this vast region, that they should probably at least relabel “Cameroon/Congo” as “Bantu Homeland” or “African Northwest Bantu.” Cameroon/Congo is such awkward construction; there are like three or four countries in between those two depending on how you see it. Even just labeling it “Cameroon-TO-Congo” would be less awkward.

      Lastly for Africa, I noticed that just in looking and my grandmother’s test and mine that all of our “Senegal” is gone, and in neither case can you really deduce that it was added into the Mali numbers as both our Mali numbers are gone. I remember you displaying a few results, Fonte, that seemed to show this with others, Mali getting a boost and/or Senegal falling. I wonder what’s happening with Senegal in their new analysis? For both me and my grandmother the Senegal were trace regions, and Mali was a main region. So I guess it’s not totally surprising they disappeared, but trace also doesn’t preclude these from being actual DNA markers you possess, either.

      BTW, Fonte, I asked this in the other thread, but is the new “AmericaN” Native American? I just want to be sure.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes I think so even if Ancestry’s update will have several additional regions describing Native American DNA.

        “Benin/Togo” indeed seems poised to describe generic West African DNA. Quite ridiculous when you take into consideration that this region performed relatively well given correct interpretation in the current version. Below is a preview of a Liberian person, most likely of Kru descent who had 97% “Ivory Coast/Ghana” in the current version. Only 58% is left over, and aside from a considerable gain in “Mali” also all of sudden a hefty chunk of 20% “Benin/Togo” is appearing. Which hardly makes any sense even if you disregard the country name labeling and allow for regional overlap. It’s interesting to also look at the confidence intervals as this may provide some indication on how the new algorithm is performing. Let’s hope there’s still time left for Ancestry to tweak this 😉



        • @ Damon: Moving your comment below as it may be more fitting in this section;-)

          Damon said ” Just got my dad’s results back. Yep, big improvements and confirmations on European heritage and also continued funkiness with the African results. All three of us (myself, my dad and my grandmother) have significant Iberian Peninsula results in the current breakdown, which had always surprised me having hear nothing about these ancestors. They went from 9%, 13%, and 12% respectively to 1%, 0%, and 0% respectively. It’s all been folded into Anglo-Saxon which goes 26%, 22%, and 37% respectively. This completely makes sense.

          Like my is mother (my grandmother), his Benin/Togo actually inched down from 23% to 21% in the new update, but also like her his Cameroon/Congo shot up from 19% to 35%. It also looks like my dad was passed on the minimal Native American my grandmother had in the new results; they both get 1%. It seems to have skipped over me, though.

          So…1. All of the “Spanish” people of significant or predominately English ancestry are getting seems to be major false positives. That’s now three kits in a row of related people I’ve seen this for, and 2. The Benin/Togo and Cameroon/Congo regions are going to be grossly overrepresented with African results with this new update.”


  4. Comment by Chris Robinson, 3 September 2018 at 15:35

    “I think this is acknowledgement that the previously regional segmentation was inaccurate and they are now showing the generalized results to reflect their limited regional African database. Their bias is showing. I hope all testing companies care more to test this region, which is by far the most genetically diverse area of the world.”


    • @ Chris, I have to disagree on the first part of your comment. In the last past years when I did my AncestryDNA survey among Afro-descendants and actual Africans I did find that regionally speaking the previous version of AncestryDNA was reasonably in line with either historical plausibility or actual verifiable genealogy. Despite several shortcomings as well as the continued need for correct interpretation. So without any unrealistic expectations of 100% accuracy the current version of AncestryDNA’s African breakdown was already providing quite valuable information in my opinion. It’s a real shame that this update looks to be a step backwards rather than forwards…

      I do fully concur about the pressing need of more relevant African sampling by not only Ancestry but also other DNA testing companies.


      • Hi Fonte,

        With all due respect, is there a reason why you say “actual Africans”? That is a little hurtful for those of us that are proud to be African despite the horrific slave trade. I can’t imagine someone saying, ‘actual asians’ because someone wasn’t born and raised on their ancestral continent. “Afro” is a bit unsettling, but I can understand the abbreviation for those from Latin America and such. Perhaps Continental African? I truly appreciate your site and great help as I come in peace. Sorry if I am a bit sensitive. Thanks so much sir. Have a great day.


        • Thanks for your comment David. I understand and respect your reasoning. I was not aware before that my phrasing of “actual Africans” could be considered offensive. This was certainly not my intention! I am not a native English speaker so perhaps I am not always in tune with some of the finer subtleties of the English language. However basically in this blog post I wanted to underline that AncestryDNA’s African breakdown used to be insightful to both people from the Afro-Diaspora as well as Africans. Nothing more and nothing less. Given that Africans usually tend to be already well informed about their ethnic origins while this is generally not the case for people from the Afro-Diaspora I wanted to emphasize that AncestryDNA’s African breakdown was still useful to both groups of people in search of greater understanding of their regional African roots. In particular for Africans I believe that the sometimes more ancient migrations and ethnic intermingling suggested by their results were often illuminating, when interpreted correctly. Furthermore my African AncestryDNA survey also served as an independent measure of verifying the accuracy of AncestryDNA results being reported for people from the Afro-Diaspora.


          • After me kind of admonishing you about being to delicate with my African American brothers and sisters…and then one of the sensitive ones show up. lol No, what you said wasn’t offensive. We don’t consider ourselves “Africans,” which would be historically weird, anyway, given the admixture and the many generations away from the continent. No, we are not “actual Africans.” Forgive my overly-sensitive brother. lol


  5. Comment by Chris Robinson, 3 September 2018 at 19:07

    “I understand. YMMV. I’ve been with with Ancestry for over 12 years. I’ve seen it evolve. Not looking for 100% accuracy as that does not exist. It would say though that it helped many with their journey. I’ve led many a group where this has been the case. Nothing wrong with seeking improvement. Testing companies make adjustments with new insights along the way. I hope the evolution continues. So, the logic is basically this (2×2):
    – old algorithm was wrong, new algorithm is worse
    – old algorithm was wrong, new algorithm is better and represents their population
    – old algorithm was right, new algorithm is worse
    – old algorithm was right, new algorithm is better and represents their population

    If it is the 4th, they are acknowledging what they know today. If it is the 3rd, they better create a incident report and stop the rollout.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes I agree given sufficient indications that their new algorithm’s performance is worse than it used to be they should stop the rollout. At least in regards to the African breakdown. Regrettably Ancestry’s communication about this update has been very minimal sofar… I would very much like to know if any additional West African samples have been added to their Reference Panel. And also how that may have impacted these newly updated results.

      I do know that for the new region called “Eastern Africa” most likely Luhya samples from Kenya are now being used. As this is showing up as the code name when having a preview of updated results for East Africans. Most likely also Sandawe samples from Tanzania have been added as an extra Hunter-Gather population. In my opinion very much irrelevant even though they are a fascinating group. From what I’ve seen it is resulting in highly distorted African breakdowns for East and Southern Africans.

      Given the composition of Ancestry’s customers of African descent I would have expected that adding historically relevant samples from western & central Africa would have been a priority…


  6. Looks like the new “transition hack” was blocked, so perhaps those were not the final updated results. Hopefully they are changing it, especially the African regions.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I wouldn’t necessarily take this as a sign that they will be changing anything, rather more simply that they probably found out the hacking. I hope they’ve read some of the criticism, too, but I don’t think this is any evidence of them having second thoughts.


  7. Looks like the update is officially out for everyone. My results are not as accurate as the original at all (I have a parent from an African country and its region decreased greatly in favor of Benin/Togo). I will be sending this link to them since they asked me for feedback!

    Liked by 1 person

      • Yep, seems like it’s out for everyone. I got my update this evening. I posted it in your “About Me” thread after using the trick, but here it is with extra information (the increase/decrease in parentheses):

        Benin/Togo: 29% (+17)
        England, Wales & Northwestern Europe: 26% (+22)
        Cameroon, Congo & Southern Bantu Peoples: 21% (+7)
        Ivory Coast/Ghana: 8% (-14)
        Germanic Europe: 7% (refined from 3% “Europe West”)
        Mali: 5% (-3)
        Norway: 2% (refined from 16%” Scandinavian”)
        Ireland and Scotland: 1% (-1)
        Spain: 1% (refined from 9% “Iberian Peninsula”)

        What I’m confused about is that I no longer see high and low confidence. Did they stop doing this, or are all mine simply high confidence? In any case, I lost my Senegal, Caucasus, African Southeastern Bantu, Nigeria, and Europe East, which combined accounted for about 10% of my previous estimates. They say the new update contains 13,000 more samples and 17 additional regions. I’ve retained my migrations.

        As I said on the other post about this, it majorly increased accuracy of what I know my European ancestry to be. I’ve have overwhelmingly English documented ancestry, and then the next largest documented European ancestry is German; and then lastly I have a few documented Irish and Scottish lines. My previous estimates did not show this at all; it split my European heritage largely into “Scandinavia” and “Iberian Peninsula” which was rididiculous. The new estimates capture what I know my European ancestry to be perfectly. For those European regions I don’t have documented ancestry from, they now make more sense. Your average British people has minor (historic) Norwegian and (ancient) Spanish ancestry.

        As for Africa, Benin/Togo and Cameroon, Congo & Southern Bantu are practically useless, now. Though, the Ivory Coast/Ghana region MAY be more accurate for me even though I know what happened is that they probably put what is probably some Liberian and Sierra Leone heritage into “Benin/Togo” since the region stretches that far, now. So the Ivory Coast/Ghana is made more accurate by making the Benin/Togo number less accurate, so that’s basically a wash. For the Nigerian diaspora in America, Ancestry continues to not be able to accurately catch it. The vast majority of my African matches are Nigerian; not only was my “Nigeria” percentage negigble to begin with, but now it’s completely disappeared. They have GOT to do better by the disapora and modern Nigerians if they want to be taken seriously in Africa and with African Americans.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Hello,

          As a reply to your 2nd paragraph, you have to accept the updates in order to see your confidence level and see the increase/decrease percentages disappear. AncestryDNA said they encounter more challenges with Africa because it is too diversified, please see below what they stated in their FAQ:

          “Africa presents special challenges.
          The African continent is the ancient birthplace of humanity, and humans there are the most genetically diverse on earth. This makes Africa a tricky place for ethnicity estimation because you need lots of DNA samples to account for all that diversity. We’re working to increase the number of African samples in our reference panel so we can take full advantage of our new methods of analysis and provide even better estimates for Africa.”

          They know they messed up with the African estimates. They should consider Fonte’s feedback into account to improve their African’s regional breakdown. As an African myself these new estimates do nothing for me. My Benin/TG increased by 21% and I know another Ivorian whose Benin/TG increased from 0% to 21%….most of his African matches are Ghanaians Akan with very high %IVC/GH (3 of them with 100% IVC/GH), so we don’t even know where that that sudden rise of %Benin/TG is coming from. They surely improved other regions, they should now focus on Africa and fix the mess.

          Liked by 1 person

          • I mean, I accepted the update; how do you think I got my updated numbers? But I no longer see them broken down into high confidence and low confidence regions. What I was asking was whether they still using the breakdown of low confidence and high confidence, because I don’t see that page, even though some of the regions are obviously very low, percentage-wise.

            Thanks for linking to the FAQ, but that is still a bad cop-out. If what they say is true, then their African regions should be getting LESS broad and more accurate, not more broad and meaningless, and that is precisely what happened with this most recent update.

            BTW, thanks for putting a piece in this puzzle. As is what happened to me, it does now seem that Akans from Ghana and Ivory Coast are being subsumed under “Benin/Togo.” And given how large a group of people that is in both countries, you then have to wonder what “Ivory Coast/Ghana” is even measuring if it’s not measuring Akan ancestry?

            As I’ve suspected “Benin/Togo” seems to now be a catch-all for nearly all of Coastal (and inland a bit) West Africa. I mean, yes, they are ancestrally related, largely, anciently. But many of these groups have been settled for long enough that you can’t argue that they are an undifferentiated ancestry group.

            I do really hope Fonte’s suggestions reach them, because some of the solutions are rather simple and easy to implemenet without having to have massive increases in sampling. There’s literally stuff they could do, tomorrow, with their existing samples to make their African results many times more accurate than they currently are…but they aren’t doing them.

            Liked by 1 person

            • I misread your comment! Apologies! Thought you were talking of the lower-upper confidence range % for each region, but as an FYI you don’t have to accept your updated estimates to be able to see them. They give you the option to accept the new estimates or to keep your old estimates. If you decide to keep the old estimates you will be the only one able to see your new estimates, as your matches will still see your old estimates when using the app.

              Liked by 1 person

            • And concerning the FAQ, I posted their words in order to highlight the fact that they are well aware of the mess they created with the African region. It is clear that in their statement they are trying to justify their flaws by indexing the diversity in Africa. They probably increased considerably the number of samples in their reference panel concerning other regions reason why they were able to get more specific, but concerning Africa (except the East Africa region they added) personally, I think they probably did not increase very much the number of African samples they have in their reference panel. If so, they should have stick to their old algorithm concerning the African region until they get enough samples to use the new one.

              Liked by 1 person

  8. BTW, has this been the description for Benin/Togo prior to the update, or was this recently added?

    “For years anthropologists and others looked at African ethnic groups as being mostly solitary and static. However, historians now know that huge empires and kingdoms, with administrations and armies, diplomatic corps and distant trading partners, have long been part of Africa’s fabric. This is especially true of West Africa, where migrations, conquests and intermarriage within allied kingdoms help explain why, for example, 43% of people from our Benin/Togo region have DNA that looks similar to the profile for our Ivory Coast/Ghana region, and 28% appear to have links to our profile for Nigeria.”

    It seems like a round-about way of them apologizing in advance for this being such a prevelant region for those Western African ancestry. I feel if that last sentence is truly the case, then maybe it’s not worth having it’s own region? Give Togo to “Ivory Coast/Ghana” and Benin to “Nigeria” until they can figure out which groups they are wanting to measure in these two countries. I mean, the seond largest group in Benin are the Yoruba, and if the Gbe-speakers are really as genetically close to the Akan in Ghana as they are saying, then they don’t need a seperate region.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes that description is exactly the same as it was prior to the update! I actually have a screenshot of it on this page which I wrote in 2015:

      Pretty sloppy. Although perhaps it might be that Ancestry is still preparing an overhaul of their regional descriptions. But one thing I’ve noticed also is that right now they have disabled the generic diversity tabs, which used to be provided for each region and included very useful statistical information about the prediction accuracy for the “typical native” which in fact was based on their own samples.


    • In some cases it might be indeed. I know several African DNA testers from various countries who have partial Krio lineage.


  9. This is my take on how Africa should be broken down but of course backed up by enough samples:

    Senegambia (rename from Senegal)

    Guinea (both Guineas)

    Mali (Southern 1/3)/Burkina Faso

    Sierra Leone/Liberia

    Ivory Coast/Ghana



    Cameroon (Central + Eastern)

    Congo/Angola (Bantu)– DRC, RC, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Zambia, Rwanda, and Burundi

    Swahili (Bantu)– Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda

    Horn of Africa (Cushitic)– Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, and Djibouti

    Sahel- Mauritania, Mali (Northern 2/3), Niger, and Chad

    Sudan (Nilotic)- Sudan, South Sudan, and Central African Republic

    Northern Africa

    Southern Africa (Bantu)– South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Swaziland, Malawi, Mozambique, and Madagascar

    Africa Hunter-Gatherers (should include mapping of parts of West Africa especially around Sierra Leone and Liberia)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Excellent maps! Thanks a lot for sharing! Ancestry should take a cue from this 😉 This pretty much visualizes what I have in mind myself as well.


    • Why do you have Africa Hunter-Gatherers located in Liberia/Sierra Leone, though? Speaking of those two countries, while I’m not sure if the languages will correspond to DNA, Kru speakers span the border of Liberia and Ivory Coast. The northern half of Liberia is culturally similar to Sierra Leone which is Atlantic and Mande-speaking. So perhaps it would not be best to link these two into a single region. The Ivory Coast/Ghana region should also only tak in the eastern half of Ivory Coast because of this. I’d personally name this region “Akan” as I suspect they are genetically distinct from the Kru speakers to the west.

      All in all, though, this would be a huge improvement over what Ancestry has now for its regions.


  10. This is how I would also break down the Americas




    Central & Eastern US/Canada Natives

    Southwestern US/Northwestern Mexico

    Gran Chaco



    Western US

    Northwestern North America


    Liked by 1 person

    • Awesome maps again! How do you feel about the predictive accuracy of the new Native American regions Ancestry has introduced with their update?

      I welcome the attempt to break the Americas down, as they should. It also seems that the former overlap with “Asia Central” and “Asia East” has mostly been solved. But I do find it peculiar how the new “Andean” region is showing up for so many people outside of the expected area. It must be quite confusing for people who tend to take the labeling too literally.

      Also very inconvenient that Ancestry has not brought back the continental breakdown yet. As you now have to add up several Native American categories in order to arrive at a total!

      Good news though is that last week Ancestry implemented the Compare Ethnicity tool for all customers! So that’s one suggestion at least which can be taken from the list haha.


      • I’ve been under the impression that people of predominate Native American ancestry are rather genetically homogenous given their relatively recent arrival on the continent by ancient human terms. Given that, I don’t think it’d be super-accurate to have more than a few regions. But maybe I’m wrong. But I think that’s why Andean is showing up in so many folks with no history down that way; because genetically they are largely of the same stock and those folks who remained to the north. They moved down the coast very, very quickly and relatively recently.


        • Native American DNA has been very understudied compared to other continental populations leading us to believe that they’re all the same whether they’re from North, Central, or South America which is not quite true. It’s all about common sense too because if you think about it Native Americans have been in the Americas for ~12K to 20K years giving them a good amount of time to isolate and diverge into various DNA regions, cultures, and languages different from the founder population. Also they did spread out very quickly but actually very early on right after crossing the Bering Strait and that added more time to isolate and diverge. If the Ashkenazi Jews diverged into their own unique population after arriving in Southern Europe then Eastern and Central Europe within only 2K years, why wouldn’t a population that’s been spread throughout a continent that’s over 5x the size of Europe diverge into separate regions?

          Liked by 2 people

          • I didn’t say they were all the same, but studies have shown the different groups and tribes to not be nearly as divergent as lots of other older peoples. Yeah, you can genetically differentiate between say the Inuit and a Muskogee, but there is not huge differences outside of a few exceptions. This is especially true as you go further South where the movement down the coast was even faster.

            There needs to be more studies, of course, but it’d be pretty pointless to try and divide up Native Americans into as many groups as pictured above.


            • If it’s pointless to divide up Native Americans into more than a few DNA regions then it was pointless to divide up Africa and Europe even further. I mean all Africans look the same don’t they and same for Europeans they all have blond hair and blue eyes and pale skin? Come on now of course we need to widen the lens to look deeper into the diversity of each continent including pre-Columbian Americas.


            • And plus this is just my opinion you don’t have to fall into it! But now how would you divide the Americas by your standards? I want to hear opinion!


      • Thanks! Slightly better since the update but still ambiguous labeling the region outside “Native American-Andes” just “Native American-North, Central, South”. What I don’t get is the mapping of “Andes” extending into the Amazon and %s showing up in proportionate ratios to the “North, Central, South” region in Central Americans, Hispanic Caribbeans, and other South Americans like Brazilians and Uruguayans.

        Hope they collect samples from more Native American groups outside the Andes with willing participants especially native groups from the US and Canada. If they collect, they should focus more on quality over quantity. I think with one full blooded sample should be enough. This link should nail the quality over quantity perspective:

        Hope they bring back the continental labels. That would make it would way easier to understand! I would label them like this:

        That’s great they did that! I also agree with you on creating more genetic communities outside Europe and the Americas and specifying more on already existing communities.

        Stay tuned for my mappings on Europe, Asia, and Oceania!

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s