How many generations back before you stop caring?

[Anglo-Celtic]

I have a rule for that in most cases. I emphasize the immigrant ancestor's origins. I almost never trace their forebears past 1600 unless they have very cool stories. I read somewhere that not much matters past your grandma's and grandpa's great-grandparents as far as inheritance is concerned.

[Anglo-Celtic]

It's certainly more interesting for deep-rooted Americans, as every line can potentially be traced to an arrival from somewhere different. For Europeans, once you get a few generations back, you know your ancestors were in the same places since time immemorial. That's when it's better to think of local genepools than individuals.

That's exactly right. At the moment, I can trace to about a dozen English counties and about a dozen Irish counties just from forebears who arrived at varied times from varied places. The same pattern holds true for Scotland, as well as for Wales. It's almost like I'm pan British Isles rather than "all forebears came from Yorkshire".

[NSXD60]

As soon as a contrary board member's kin shows up the rooting ends.

[CordedWhelp]

I’d say for myself that after 1/64, stuff feels too distant to feel on too much...

[SilverKnight]

Adam / Eve.

[rothaer]

1. For individual ancestors in your tree
2. For minor ethnicities in your ancestry

For me it is after about 5 or 6 generations, 1/32 or 1/64 of my ancestry. That mostly goes back to around the early 19th century, which is conveniently when reliable records began to be kept. It also tends to be the limit of family memory. After that point I don't find genealogy very interesting, for anything that's less than 1% of your ancestry. Then there's the the common non-paternity events, which cast a shadow of doubt over all old genealogical lines.

1.
A good question. I voted for the farest time back, but that is related to me being an ancestry researcher, hence some form of hobby collector of such information. I've items and pictures of ancestors that are 10 and more generations back present in my household. Should I better stop caring?

But there is a permanent intellectual struggle for keeping things in proportion. Often people are cherry picking some ancestors that they like and then they get completeley out of proporion important. Like you refer to the 1% one always has to be aware of that you already 7 generations back are dealing with 1/128 with means less than 1%. 10 generations back, i. e. 1/1024, you are dealing with neatly one promille. So if you are intellectually capable (most will not be) to give that information just the importance of one promille, you are still on the right track.

As for the own identity, defined by ancestry, I think 1/16 is already a rather good resolution. I consider 1/64 the upper limit of where you can mentally handle single individuals still in proportion. Beyond that, forcing yourself to a statistical approach will be preferable. And indeed, if you will find out any notable change in statistics if you go farther back, is questionable. Very likely there will not be a notable change anymore, because a sngle individual doesn't matter much.

2.
In your question you distinguish the ethnicity aspect. And I think this is correct. Because ethnicity is not defined by ancestry alone, however in Europe, when it's about neighboring people that are commonly somewhat exchanging. We know that abt. 30% of surnames of Czechs are German in origin, impliying 30% German ancestry per abt. 1350. But it would be nonsensic to conclude that Czechs are no ethnic Czechs. Of course they are and they belong fully to the Czech people (ethnos). Because this is the Czech people. Regularly someone is ethnic Czech that has 3/4 Czech grandparents (gp) and 1/4 German gp. But however, if he has 7/8 ggp Czech and 1/8 ggp German, he will always be. Also the other way around, an individual that has 7/8 ggp German and 1/8 ggp Czech will fully and without any reservation be an ethnical German. So to state HE is ethnically 1/8 Czech and 7/8 German would actually be wrong, while you well can state the fact that his ancestry is like that.

So I think in regard to the ethnicity of an individual one has to make a more coarse grained approach. If it's about neigboring people 1/4 or 1/8 will be suitable. If a minority ancestry will be more deviant, it will likely matter more. But as for ethnicity in a "standard situation" imo things beyong 1/8 will not matter.

[Mortimer]

As far back as possible or all I can discover but it is only a curiosity not my ethnicity

[rothaer]

(...)

As an European I'm not touched by that myself, but I've repeatedly experienced extremely poor information on German immigrants to the USA, even in the 20th century. They can often not be identified if they are to be traced back to Germany, Poland or Russia. This is so incredibly poor that I ask myself if that was even intended by the US administration. Could there have been an interest in cutting off the roots of immigrants for better intergration? And did you face such things iregarding your ancestors from the British Isles?

Another problem are American researchers that assess the question whether an information is significant or not erroneously. If they have an "Johann Hinrich Ihde" from "Mecklenburg" they go into a database and take a fitting one, not being aware of that there may be 250 fitting ones. And then they go on building the correct huge tree for this very likely wrong individual.

[Smitty]

As an European I'm not touched by that myself, but I've repeatedly experienced extremely poor information on German immigrants to the USA, even in the 20th century. They can often not be identified if they are to be traced back to Germany, Poland or Russia. This is so incredibly poor that I ask myself if that was even intended by the US administration. Could there have been an interest in cutting off the roots of immigrants for better intergration? And did you face such things iregarding your ancestors from the British Isles?

Another problem are American researchers that assess the question whether an information is significant or not erroneously. If they have an "Johann Hinrich Ihde" from "Mecklenburg" they go into a database and take a fitting one, not being aware of that there may be 250 fitting ones. And then they go on building the correct huge tree for this very likely wrong individual.

Regarding the latter, as I've repeatedly heard from genealogical experts, it's vital to identify the town a German immigrant came from. Without that, it is indeed all too easy to latch onto the wrong individual. And that does leave a lot of us stumped. I have an ancestress whose birthplace, try as I might, I can't identify. Only one source gives an actual town, and that town doesn't seem to exist in Germany.

[Smitty]

It's certainly more interesting for deep-rooted Americans, as every line can potentially be traced to an arrival from somewhere different. For Europeans, once you get a few generations back, you know your ancestors were in the same places since time immemorial. That's when it's better to think of local genepools than individuals.

A good point. But at the same time, genealogy in the Old World can be so much simpler and more successful. Maybe that even detracts from its enjoyment. American genealogy prior to 1850 is incredibly challenging, especially in certain areas. So many lines just peter out without a trace. If you don't find a detailed will or land records, you're out of luck. And even where I've found a strong clue that I'm descended from a particular family, it's often very difficult or impossible to prove.