DNA Research Questions?
Charliec
I'm looking into doing a DNA Test (probably Y-DNA) for genealogical
purposes. I see from reading Family Tree Magazine that there are a
number of organizations who can provide the Y-DNA tests. Have
anyone out there use this test and would like to share your thought
on value of resulting information?
Also, have anyone used any of the following organizations for the
test and can share your thoughts and experiences:
-- DNA Heritage
-- FamilyTreeDNA
-- Oxford Ancestors
-- Relative Genetics
-- Trace Genetics
Thanks for any insights and suggestions.
Charlie
Charliec <char...@invalid.address.com>
FamRS...@aol.com
If you want a Y test I assume you are looking for your paternal
line. How many people are you arranging the test for? Have you
already determined that you descend from a common ancestor or do you
have several people of the same surname whose relationship you are
seeking to establish? Do you have unbroken male lineages for each
of these lines, preferably from several sons for each ancestor?
Thomas Shawker has come out with a book through the NGS series on
DNA testing. It's about $20. I think he went over several things
to think about. Oxford Ancestors is one of the oldest headed by the
man who wrote Seven Daughters of Eve. But I do not know how many
locations they test. The book is titled Unlocking Your Genetic
History.
Basically the more locations the better (and more expensive) the
test. I have not heard of any of the other companies but as a
female, the Y test is not an option and there are no brothers.
Julia Coldren-Walker
Charliec
Julia,
Thanks so much for the reply. See my answers below:
Charlie
> If you want a Y test I assume you are looking for your paternal
> line.
Yes I am - I have traced my line (all males) to my
great-great-grandfather who was a slave during the Civil War. I'm
trying to get back past that point and was thinking the DNA Tests
might provide some additional clues as to where he might have come
from.
> How many people are you arranging the test for?
The only person I was looking at testing is myself and then maybe
compare the DNA results to some of the available databases. Is that
not a good start?
> Have you
> already determined that you descend from a common ancestor or do you
> have several people of the same surname whose relationship you are
> seeking to establish?
I don't have anyone that I am trying to establish a possible
relationship with - just trying see if I can gain further info/
possibilities on my g-g-grandfather.
> Do you have unbroken male lineages for each
> of these lines, preferably from several sons for each ancestor?
I do for my father to the 1860-70s
> Thomas Shawker has come out with a book through the NGS series on
> DNA testing. It's about $20. I think he went over several things
> to think about. Oxford Ancestors is one of the oldest headed by the
> man who wrote Seven Daughters of Eve. But I do not know how many
> locations they test. The book is titled Unlocking Your Genetic
> History.
> From the materials I have seen and their web site, Oxford Ancestors
> does look good. So does DNA Heritage.
>
> Basically the more locations the better (and more expensive) the
> test. I have not heard of any of the other companies but as a
> female, the Y test is not an option and there are no brothers.
>
>Julia Coldren-Walker <FamRS...@aol.com>
Charliec
Ron Head
> I see from reading Family Tree Magazine that there are a
> number of organizations who can provide the Y-DNA tests. Have
> anyone out there use this test and would like to share your thought
> on value of resulting information
>
Look into the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation
http://smgf.org/
If you request a test kit from them, you will receive it within a
few days. Send it back along with a consent form and a pedigree
chart in the pre-paid return envelope, and they will test for 36
markers and add your data to their database--no charge whatsoever.
They do not send you your results, and it takes over a year for them
to be added to the database, but once they're there, you can locate
them by matching up your surname, the pedigree you submitted, and
the Y-DNA marker results that are all posted on their website.
It takes a while, and it's not as easy as getting a personal report
from the company that processes your sample, but hey, the price is
right! One of my cousins' results are already posted, and I've
looked at his with great interest--can't wait to compare mine when
they finally come up (we have a mutual ancestor who died in
1846--five generations back from me, four from my cousin).
"Ron Head" <ron...@knology.net>
Mac Main
I've had a years experience with Familytreedna.com and can recommend
them.
A year ago a lady whose maiden name was MAIN got her brother to
submit a sample and start a MAIN surname Y DNA study. She got
reduced "group" rates for the project so a 12 marker test was $99+2
for postage and a 25 marker test was $169+2. Then she started
recruiting participants and I became participant # 2 as $101 seemed
reasonable considering what I'd spent for subscription services and
genealogical travel. Much to our surprise, my sample matched her
brother's 12/12. I then paid another $90 to have my test expanded
to 25 markers and again matched her brothers test 25/25. We still
do not know why or who our common ancestor was way back whenever.
A year later we only have a total of 8 in the MAIN surname study.
Three appear closely related although we still know not how. A
forth is most probably related with a 23 of 25 match. The other four
are not related to us or to each other.
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Main
has our story & data
Recruiting is not easy. People either think $101 is too much, they
don't need to prove anything, or giving a sample is too personal.
FamilyTreeDNA has links from Rootsweb's World Connect pages and is
tied into the the NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC genographic project and I
think does their processing.
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html
Again, I think it's a worthwhile endeavor. One downside is that it
takes six to eight weeks to get results back. When you get a 12/12
match you will probably want to spend more to upgrade to 25 markers
and then you wait some more.
Just my 2=C2=A2 worth.
Mac Main <mmm...@mac.com>
JYoun...@aol.com
While we are discussing DNA issues on this list I'd like to ask
those who know more about DNA research than I do what they think of
this...
On another list I was doing a lookup in church records and found
info the original poster was looking for. She claimed that the
family was English but all the sons had married German wives (this
was in the early to mid 1700s) in Pennsylvania. She claimed the
wives insisted the husbands use German spellings for their names and
name the children German given names. All of the records are in
German Lutheran and Moravian churches.
She says that earlier researchers for this family stated that this
"English" family was in America for three generations (although no
one can really produce any conclusive records) and that the German
wives and German Lutheran ministers are the reason the names all
appear as German. This makes no sense to me. She lists the
following as further evidence:
1) one of the men was a Loyalist during the Revolution--which she
feels indicates strong ties to the Crown of England. (But not all
Germans supported the Patriot cause.)
2) one man's will was written in English and English name spellings
were used--although the signature of the man was an X meaning he
didn't do the writing for the will himself.
And #3...she claims the ultimate proof that the family was English
is that nine men have had Y DNA testing proving they all descend
from the same common ancestor who died in 1760 (the one with the
will noted in #2 above). This is their brick wall ancestor. Now
I'll buy that part so far, but then she goes on to say that the DNA
testing PROVES the family is English and not German because they all
were from a Haplogroup which is ONLY English!
This is the part that boggles my mind. How on earth is it possible
to claim that someone is English and not German by means of DNA? I
would think there was much early "traffic" back and forth between
what is now Germany (and the rest of mainland Western Europe) and
England. So how can a "Western European" Haplogroup PROVE beyond
doubt that a line was English and not German? The specific
Haplogroup is: R1b1.
I think the reason these researchers are staring at a long-standing
brick wall is the fact that they are dead set on looking for an
English ancestor and not a German one. They even used as proof the
fact that one son was named Aaron and claimed no German would have
named a son Aaron--but then an earlier record turned up and showed
this same son listed as Ehrhard--so as far as I'm concerned Aaron
was just an Anglicized version of Ehrhard.
Thoughts on the DNA question above would be appreciated. Thanks!
Joan
Charliec
Thanks all for your responses, this is helpful in my decision process.
Charlie
Charliec <char...@invalid.address.com>
J. Hugh Sullivan
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:10:10 -0800 (PST), Charliec
<char...@invalid.address.com> wrote:
This is the response I got from a friend who is the co-moderator of a
DNA project.
"Hi Hugh,
There is a web site, http://www.ysearch.org/ that is a free public
service. It allows users to upload their DNA results from any
company to one place."
My concern is that we'll have a number of cooks stirring the broth
but no single mess hall. It's a money maker so we'll have a lot of
scams. The above site seems to be a central site that solves my
problem.
Please understand that I am not pushing the testing service that
sponsors the site. I just think we should look at a number of areas
before we make our decision to test.
And my favorite question is, "Suppose 20 of us are proven to have
the same ancestor 300 years ago but no one has the genealogy before
1790." Or, if I have five generations more than anyone else how does
that help me?
DNA is not a panacea.
Interesting discussion so far.
Hugh
sull...@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)
FamRS...@aol.com
What you are looking for is a place that does ethnic typing. That
is different than strict lineage comparison. They can tell you
possible places where your ancestors came from. However, I have my
doubts on it being really useful so haven't looked into it much. To
know that it is 80 percent likely by ancestors came from West Africa
means that there is a 1 in 5 chance that they did NOT. Its just as
valid as saying 80 percent of people named Jensen had ancestors
originating in Sweden. Most of us would ignore such statements.
However, especially with slave ancestry it may be the best you can
do. I know my husband has thought about it as the farthest we can
trace his paternal line is to a slave in Mississippi in 1850.
Good luck and let me know how you get on.
Julia
J. Hugh Sullivan
My unscholarly thoughts are:
Everybody came from somewhere and most everybody went somewhere
else. My impression is that DNA might determine that you are
European or Asian or African but not the specific country.
Also, what you discussed was a theory based on preponderance of
evidence, and the evidence was a mite skimpy. When you don't have
proven facts you really need to keep an open mind.
I have been told that not everyone who speaks and writes English is
from Alabama. 8-)
FamRS...@aol.com
It sounds like these people you speak of have a 20th century
understanding and are trying to apply it to a 18th century problem.
First of all there is no standardized spelling for surname, I
usually say, before birth certificates and social security both of
which are mostly 20th century inventions. People spelled the name
any way they wanted and it was correct. I am not sure I would even
be able to identify a purely German spelling for an English. Don't
for get that the Germans supplied several lines of kings & queens to
England i.e. George I who was Prince of Hanover and then Victoria's
husband. But be that as it may. Words were spelled as the person
writing them down wanted to. Of course the Luthern ministered
spelled them in a "German" fashion. They was no force used. It was
his right to spell them as he saw fit. That is why my James Coldren
was spelled James Koltrin. I have a cousin on the Watters side who
refuses to look at any record where it is spelled Waters even though
we can should it is the same man. He just refuses to look and says
if it is 2 ts then it is a different person.
1) only 1/3 of the people in the colonies supported the American
cause, about 1/3 supported the English and 1/3 could care less. So
being a Loyalist says something about his political persuasion but
not his ancestry.
Did he move back to England. That would show is origins more or
move to Canada? If he continued to live in the US he was not that
strong a supporter.
2) the man's will was written by an English trained person but it
does not mean he would have spelled things that way if he could
write. In fact he could not even spell his name which would mean he
was really un educated.
DNA does not prove a specific ancestor. All it would say was they
had a common ancestor with in the last 500 years or what ever. So
it would not prove they all descend from a man who died in 1760.
They could descend from his father or grandfather and still have the
same DNA.
Julia
JYoun...@aol.com
> Everybody came from somewhere and most everybody went somewhere
> else. My impression is that DNA might determine that you are
> European or Asian or African but not the specific country.
>
That was my feeling too and I didn't know why a DNA testing company
would tell someone a Western European Haplogroup HAD to have been
English. After all--aren't many Englishmen Saxon in origin and
isn't Saxony Germanic? So how would you tell the difference?
I can recall reading an article in Time magazine on African-American
DNA testing on slave descendants to try to determine the African
tribes of origin because the normal genealogical generational links
are often not provable for slave descendants--and this type of DNA
testing can give slave descendants a feeling of knowing where they
came from. The article went on to say that Oprah Winfrey was tested
and one of the tribes she supposedly descended from based on the
Haplogroup was one which never ever had involvement in slave
trading--and the article went on to question the accuracy of this
type of DNA testing.
I can appreciate that Y DNA can prove to nearly 100% accuracy that
various males share a common paternal ancestor, but I can't follow
some of the more obscure testing beyond the very basics of Asian,
African, Western European, etc.
I can't see how it could be more specific that that--and if it can
be--I'd like to know how.
Joan
JYoun...@aol.com
> Words were spelled as the person writing them down wanted to. Of
> course the Luthern ministered spelled them in a "German" fashion.
> They was no force used. It was his right to spell them as he saw
> fit.
>
Yes--I agree with what you are saying--and I can understand a German
minister writing down the SURNAMES as they sounded to him--or in a
Germanic spelling--but what I can't understand is that a German
minister would list children of the family AND the father with
Germanic GIVEN names...for instance:
Wilhelm for someone named William in English or...
Ehrhard for Aaron or...
Jurg Jacob
Jurg Nickolaus and a vast array of other Germanic saint's names and
"rufnames" (call names).
The researchers of this family say that William was proud of his
English heritage and that it was the German wives who insisted on
the children having German "aliases" but this makes no sense to
me--as even William, the father, is listed in all the baptisms as
Wilhelm.
Of course, all of this is incidental to the claim that the DNA
Haplogroup proves English heritage. <sigh>
Joan
FamRS...@aol.com
I am not sure why she thought R1b1 was only English. But I am not
sure this is the same R1b1 your are referring to. If so it says it
occurs in 50% of Germans.
DNAsited(_http://phpbb-host.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=217&start=90&mforum=then
ile&sid=95d90ccc219f81461af1a0f82b8426b7it_
(http://phpbb-host.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=217&start=90&mforum=thenile&sid=95d90ccc219f81461af1a0f82b8426b7it)
said the following:
Dieterlen F, Lucotte G.
Institute of Molecular Anthropology, Paris, France.
We have analyzed Y-chromosome variation in a large sample of males
from Western Europe by surveying p49a,f TaqI polymorphisms.
Haplotype XV (A3, Cl, D2, Fl, Il) is the main Y-chromosome haplotype
in West Europe, with a Basque focus in Southwestern Europe. This
study demonstrates that the geographic distribution of Y-chromosome
variation for p49a,f TaqI haplotype XV reveals an important genetic
identity for populations that live in the Occidental part of Europe.
Thought Posts:
Semino et al.
2000
Population Haplotype Frequency
Dutch Haplotype XV (R1b1) 70.4%
Italian Haplotype XV (R1b1) 62%
French Haplotype XV (R1b1) 52.2%
German Haplotype XV (R1b1) 50%
Greek Haplotype XV (R1b1) 27%
Syrian Haplotype XV (R1b1) 15%
singhals
JYoun...@aol.com wrote:
> While we are discussing DNA issues on this list I'd like to ask
> those who know more about DNA research than I do what they think of
> this...
>
> On another list I was doing a lookup in church records and found
> info the original poster was looking for. She claimed that the
> family was English but all the sons had married German wives (this
> was in the early to mid 1700s) in Pennsylvania. She claimed the
> wives insisted the husbands use German spellings for their names and
> name the children German given names. All of the records are in
> German Lutheran and Moravian churches.
Possible, I suppose, but I'd think it was improbable.
> She says that earlier researchers for this family stated that this
> "English" family was in America for three generations (although no
> one can really produce any conclusive records) and that the German
> wives and German Lutheran ministers are the reason the names all
Possible; although my guys whose baptisms were recorded by a German
Lutheran minister are all recorded with English spellings.
> appear as German. This makes no sense to me. She lists the
> following as further evidence:
>
> 1) one of the men was a Loyalist during the Revolution--which she
> feels indicates strong ties to the Crown of England. (But not all
> Germans supported the Patriot cause.)
Urm -- The King of England WAS German at the time? Georg of Hanover
became George I and brought an awful lot of Germans with him in his
Court.
> 2) one man's will was written in English and English name spellings
> were used--although the signature of the man was an X meaning he
> didn't do the writing for the will himself.
The will itself or the county's record of the will? The county
record would have been in English even if the original holographic
will was in German...or so Cleta Smith told me 10, 15 years ago
about Shenandoah Co. Va.
> And #3...she claims the ultimate proof that the family was English
> is that nine men have had Y DNA testing proving they all descend
> from the same common ancestor who died in 1760 (the one with the
> will noted in #2 above). This is their brick wall ancestor. Now
> I'll buy that part so far, but then she goes on to say that the DNA
> testing PROVES the family is English and not German because they all
> were from a Haplogroup which is ONLY English!
Better run that one by the soc.gen.brit folks. "English" includes
the Normans, the Danes, the Romans, the Celts, the Angles, and the
Saxons.
> This is the part that boggles my mind. How on earth is it possible
> to claim that someone is English and not German by means of DNA? I
> would think there was much early "traffic" back and forth between
> what is now Germany (and the rest of mainland Western Europe) and
> England. So how can a "Western European" Haplogroup PROVE beyond
> doubt that a line was English and not German? The specific
> Haplogroup is: R1b1.
Hypothetically, if the DNA was 100 pure Celt with no admixture of
Saxon, Norman, Roman, or Dane you might could say that. But there
were all those rape-and-pillage episodes ...
> I think the reason these researchers are staring at a long-standing
> brick wall is the fact that they are dead set on looking for an
> English ancestor and not a German one. They even used as proof the
> fact that one son was named Aaron and claimed no German would have
> named a son Aaron--but then an earlier record turned up and showed
> this same son listed as Ehrhard--so as far as I'm concerned Aaron
> was just an Anglicized version of Ehrhard.
Aaron = Aram, which I've seen in a number of Valley German families.
Guy's name was likely Johan Aram Ehrhard AArdvark. (g) Wierder
things've happened.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
singhals
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> I have been told that not everyone who speaks and writes English is
> from Alabama. 8-)
You speak English in 'bama!! who knew?
;)
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
J. Hugh Sullivan
> It sounds like these people you speak of have a 20th century
> understanding and are trying to apply it to a 18th century problem.
>
> First of all there is no standardized spelling for surname, I
> usually say, before birth certificates and social security both of
> which are mostly 20th century inventions. People spelled the name
> any way they wanted and it was correct.
>
I'll confirm that. I have found Sullivan spelled 137 ways so far.
Of course most of the ways are due to illiteracy. People couldn't
read and write a century or two ago and the one who wrote for them
spelled the name the way it sounded.
So what else is new - most people are still poor spellers.
Lesley Robertson
> And #3...she claims the ultimate proof that the family was English
> is that nine men have had Y DNA testing proving they all descend
> from the same common ancestor who died in 1760 (the one with the
> will noted in #2 above). This is their brick wall ancestor.
>
But y chreomosome testing isn't that specific. It shows that a
group of men had the same common male ancestor, but not who he was.
It could have been this #2 guy, it could have been someone else.
For example, a pair of distant cousins with the same male line could
have migrated.... Also, there was frequent movement between England
and Continental Europe so nobody can say that a given chromosome is
exclusively English or German.
Lesley Robertson
"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl>
Lisa Lepore
Julia -
Did anyone watch this program on the US PBS stations during
February?
African American Lives,
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/aalives/about.html
Using genealogy, oral history, family stories and DNA analysis to
trace lineage through American history and back to Africa, the
series provides a life-changing journey for a diverse group of
highly accomplished African Americans: Dr. Ben Carson, Whoopi
Goldberg, Bishop T.D. Jakes, Dr. Mae Jemison, Quincy Jones, Dr. Sara
Lawrence-Lightfoot, Chris Tucker and Oprah Winfrey
I've never been a big fan of DNA as a general tool for genealogy but
some of the research I saw on this program was absolutely
fascinating.
The program was hosted by Henry Louis Gates, Jr, the chairman of the
African & African American studies at Harvard University.
If you take a look at the website, it explains the different types
of DNA testing and research that is being done, and was used in this
program to find the origins of several of the families of the
program guests.
However, the testing these people had done went far beyond the types
of tests being used by these genealogy DNA firms.
On the one hand the program was a little over the top, knowing that
the average person does not have the resources available to consult
with the kind of experts included in this program. But, on the
other hand, using a combination of genealogical research, historical
studies of the people and the areas, and combining this high end
technology, they were able to locate the origins in Africa of 3 of
the guests.
If you have a chance to see the program, check it out. At least
take a look at the web site above. It explains the different
testing used, and where the researchers are located.
Lisa
"Lisa Lepore" <lle...@comcast.net>
Lisa Lepore
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <JYoun...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.methods
To: <GENM...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 1:20 PM
Subject: [GM] Re: DNA Research Questions?
> While we are discussing DNA issues on this list I'd like to ask
> those who know more about DNA research than I do what they think of
> this...
>
> On another list I was doing a lookup in church records and found
> info the original poster was looking for. She claimed that the
> family was English but all the sons had married German wives (this
> was in the early to mid 1700s) in Pennsylvania. She claimed the
> wives insisted the husbands use German spellings for their names and
> name the children German given names. All of the records are in
> German Lutheran and Moravian churches.
>
> She says that earlier researchers for this family stated that this
> "English" family was in America for three generations (although no
> one can really produce any conclusive records) and that the German
> wives and German Lutheran ministers are the reason the names all
> appear as German. This makes no sense to me. She lists the
> following as further evidence:
>
> 1) one of the men was a Loyalist during the Revolution--which she
> feels indicates strong ties to the Crown of England. (But not all
> Germans supported the Patriot cause.)
> 2) one man's will was written in English and English name spellings
> were used--although the signature of the man was an X meaning he
> didn't do the writing for the will himself.
>
> And #3...she claims the ultimate proof that the family was English
> is that nine men have had Y DNA testing proving they all descend
> from the same common ancestor who died in 1760 (the one with the
> will noted in #2 above). This is their brick wall ancestor. Now
> I'll buy that part so far, but then she goes on to say that the DNA
> testing PROVES the family is English and not German because they all
> were from a Haplogroup which is ONLY English!
>
> This is the part that boggles my mind. How on earth is it possible
> to claim that someone is English and not German by means of DNA? I
> would think there was much early "traffic" back and forth between
> what is now Germany (and the rest of mainland Western Europe) and
> England. So how can a "Western European" Haplogroup PROVE beyond
> doubt that a line was English and not German? The specific
> Haplogroup is: R1b1.
>
> I think the reason these researchers are staring at a long-standing
> brick wall is the fact that they are dead set on looking for an
> English ancestor and not a German one. They even used as proof the
> fact that one son was named Aaron and claimed no German would have
> named a son Aaron--but then an earlier record turned up and showed
> this same son listed as Ehrhard--so as far as I'm concerned Aaron
> was just an Anglicized version of Ehrhard.
>
> Joan <JYoun...@aol.com>
Hi Joan -
I sent another message about a PBS program I watched. If you check
out that website, it explains about the haplogroups, etc.
Depending on the type of testing done, it is possible to show that a
certain haplogroup is predominate in a certain area - Germany or
France, say, rather than a broad area like Western Europe, or
Africa.
Before I bought in to your friends' theory, I'd want to know if
their haplotype is really ONLY found in England, or is it more like
60/40, and that's good enough for them?
There were plenty of Germans in North America. In New France
[Canada] they were serving with the French Military. A German
settlement in Nova Scotia in the 1750's, and then the German
Loyalists [Hessions]. Just because a person was a Loyalist does not
make him English. The people who came to be known as Hessions were
military men hired in Germany to aid the English. Did they have
English ancestors, or were they sympathetic to the English cause, or
did they have other personal reasons for signing up?
I don't know, but they were German, not English.
In the mid 1700's, weren't the Germans in Pennsylvania Mennonites
who had gone there for religious freedom?
Regarding the haplotype R1b1 - I was able to find this information
at several different sites -
"Haplogroup R1b1 is the most common haplogroup in European
populations." So, it would seem this test alone is not conclusive
of anything.
I did find a mailing list at rootsweb.com for DNA -
GENEALOGY-DNA-L
maybe someone there can answer your question knowledgeably.
I'm with you, Joan, if these were my relatives, I'd be looking at
Germans first
Let us know what else you find out -
Lisa
"Lisa Lepore" <lle...@comcast.net>
Dave Hinz
> > I have been told that not everyone who speaks and writes English is
> > from Alabama. 8-)
> >
>
> You speak English in 'bama!! who knew?
>
Well, it's kind of like being in Scotland, though; written, you can
understand 'em. Verbal, not so much.
kaye vernon
What is it with Scottish people. Twice in the last week I have seen
Scotts being interviewed on the news and at the end of the story we
look at each other and go "what did they say?" How did they end up
with such a weird interpretation of the English language?
Kaye
www.bananatv.com/familytreechecklist.htm
"kaye vernon" <kjve...@bigpond.net.au>
JYoun...@aol.com
> In the mid 1700's, weren't the Germans in Pennsylvania Mennonites
> who had gone there for religious freedom?
>
> Regarding the haplotype R1b1 - I was able to find this information
> at several different sites -
>
> "Haplogroup R1b1 is the most common haplogroup in European
> populations." So, it would seem this test alone is not conclusive
> of anything.
>
SOME Germans in PA in the mid 1700s were Mennonites but most were
Lutheran or Reformed with a few being Catholic and others being
Moravians, Church of the Brethren, Amish, etc.
And, yes, that was my take on the Haplogroup also--just really
wanted some confirmation that *I* wasn't being biased in my thought
processes.
Joan
kaye vernon
I have told the story before of the case where about twenty people
were listed on a grave in Ireland, all from the one family and there
would have been five different spellings of the same name, so we
can't be precious about spelling. I still don't know if they were
all buried in the grave, it would have been a tight squeeze.
J. Hugh Sullivan
> > I have been told that not everyone who speaks and writes English is
> > from Alabama. 8-)
> >
>
> You speak English in 'bama!! who knew?
>
> ;)
>
I am a trained interpreter of drawl - that's why I understand you
Louisiana gal.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
I hope they do even better in Ireland. Recent discoveries (not
enough data yet) are finding some difference in the McCarthy and
Sullivan haplotypes. The line separated somewhere about 600 AD.
I think the first separations will be Asian, European, African.
Then as history tracks migrations patterns and more DNA testing is
done to parallel migrations there will be a table of probabilities.
Of course miscegenation will prevent absolute narrowing of the
probabilities.
Of course we could say the each of us descends from one of the 3
"known" sons of Noah then all we would have to do is fill in the
gaps.
In case we evolved did T-Rexes and other dinos have names?
J. Hugh Sullivan
> I have told the story before of the case where about twenty people
> were listed on a grave in Ireland, all from the one family and there
> would have been five different spellings of the same name, so we
> can't be precious about spelling. I still don't know if they were
> all buried in the grave, it would have been a tight squeeze.
>
> www.bananatv.com/familytreechecklist.htm
Side by side stones of a husband and wife in Tuscaloosa Co. AL...
One is spelled Sullivant and the other is Sullivan.
Side by side husband and wife also in Tuscaloosa Co....
Stone for Joe Sullivan, wife's stone placed by J. O. Sullivan, Death
cert lists him as Joseph Sullivan and his name was Josiah - middle
initial "T" according to his mom and dad in censuses.
My paternal grandfather was confused but I'm not.
Lesley Robertson
> > And #3...she claims the ultimate proof that the family was English
> > is that nine men have had Y DNA testing proving they all descend
> > from the same common ancestor who died in 1760 (the one with the
> > will noted in #2 above). This is their brick wall ancestor. Now
> > I'll buy that part so far, but then she goes on to say that the DNA
> > testing PROVES the family is English and not German because they all
> > were from a Haplogroup which is ONLY English!
> >
>
> Better run that one by the soc.gen.brit folks. "English" includes
> the Normans, the Danes, the Romans, the Celts, the Angles, and the
> Saxons.
>
You called, Cheryl???
Y chromosome analysis only specifies that a group of males have the
same common male ancestor - it cannot say who that ancestor was. It
could be that one man was responsible, it could be that several
distant (but related through the male line) cousins migrated and the
common ancestor was generatins back in the Old World.
Then, as Cheryl so rightly points out, "english" includes a LOT of
different genetic backgrounds thanks not only to waves of invaders,
but also because people migrated - as well as the lines Cherly
mentioned, a lot of Flemish folk came over for the woollen industry
and for paper making. Depending on who was on the throne, the
french, germans, scandinavians and folk from around the Med all took
root at one time or another. There's probably even some welsh and
scottish in there somewhere....
The most that can be said is that a given haplogroup is most often
found in a given area, not that it's only from a given area.
Lesley Robertson
> What is it with Scottish people. Twice in the last week I have seen
> Scotts being interviewed on the news and at the end of the story we
> look at each other and go "what did they say?" How did they end up
> with such a weird interpretation of the English language?
>
Funny, we often think that about folk from Downunder..... Of course,
they could have been talking scots rather than english.....
Lesley Robertson
JYoun...@aol.com
> Then, as Cheryl so rightly points out, "english" includes a LOT of
> different genetic backgrounds thanks not only to waves of invaders,
> but also because people migrated - as well as the lines Cherly
> mentioned, a lot of Flemish folk came over for the woollen industry
> and for paper making. Depending on who was on the throne, the
> french, germans, scandinavians and folk from around the Med all took
> root at one time or another. There's probably even some welsh and
> scottish in there somewhere....
>
Lesley-
Thanks for the confirmation of I was thinking--It is nice to know
that there wasn't some obscure way in which DNA could "prove"
English heritage as opposed to German. You and others have
confirmed what my "layman's understanding" of DNA testing
indicated.
Joan
singhals
> > > And #3...she claims the ultimate proof that the family was English
> > > is that nine men have had Y DNA testing proving they all descend
> > > from the same common ancestor who died in 1760 (the one with the
> > > will noted in #2 above). This is their brick wall ancestor. Now
> > > I'll buy that part so far, but then she goes on to say that the DNA
> > > testing PROVES the family is English and not German because they all
> > > were from a Haplogroup which is ONLY English!
> > >
> >
> > Better run that one by the soc.gen.brit folks. "English" includes
> > the Normans, the Danes, the Romans, the Celts, the Angles, and the
> > Saxons.
> >
>
> You called, Cheryl???
>
> Y chromosome analysis only specifies that a group of males have the
> same common male ancestor - it cannot say who that ancestor was. It
> could be that one man was responsible, it could be that several
> distant (but related through the male line) cousins migrated and the
> common ancestor was generatins back in the Old World.
>
> different genetic backgrounds thanks not only to waves of invaders,
> but also because people migrated - as well as the lines Cherly
> mentioned, a lot of Flemish folk came over for the woollen industry
> and for paper making. Depending on who was on the throne, the
> french, germans, scandinavians and folk from around the Med all took
> root at one time or another. There's probably even some welsh and
> scottish in there somewhere....
>
> found in a given area, not that it's only from a given area.
>
Ahhh, there you are. (g)
Thanks.
Cheryl
bob gillis
> I have told the story before of the case where about twenty people
> were listed on a grave in Ireland, all from the one family and there
> would have been five different spellings of the same name, so we
> can't be precious about spelling. I still don't know if they were
> all buried in the grave, it would have been a tight squeeze.
>
> kaye vernon
I equate the above story with the three brothers story. Unless kaye
has primary evidence.
bob gillis
bob gillis <robert...@verizon.net>
kaye vernon
> > I have told the story before of the case where about twenty people
>
> I equate the above story with the three brothers story. Unless kaye has
> primary evidence.
>
If you think I am telling a porkie, yes I do have evidence, I will
get hold of a photo and send it to you Bob.
It was the name Cummins..........
Lesley Robertson
I have a baptimal entry where the family surname is spelled 3
different ways in the single entry - it's Baldy in the margin where
the surname of the child is given, Baldie where the name of the
father is given, and Bawdy where it's noted that the child was named
for the paternal grandfather. People just weren't that worried
about exact duplication as we are. All genealogists need to be able
to cope with fuzzy spelling.
annas...@aol.com
I submitted a male cousin's DNA for a Lee study with Relative
Genetics.
We don't use 12 markers because it isn't enough and, in fact, many
of us have paid for 43 markers. For the first year after "my"
sample was added to the study, no one matched it, not even those
people whose ancestors had been thought to be in my line. (They
weren't even close!) But now, there are 4 matches (2 are 43/43 and
2 are 42/43.)
The Lee line has many branches and some of the assumptions or proven
ancestors were doubtful. (One thing, almost everyone has a family
story that they are related to R.E. Lee.) I had been able to trace
my family line back to the mid-18th century with proven documents
but after that, research became confused because of several Lees
with the same first name so I couldn't get past that brick wall.
The DNA project has sorted this out quite nicely, I think, and given
me another road to go down. And out of all the Lees tested no one
yet has been from the R.E. Lee line <grin>.
Of course, I will mention that a study is only as good as your
researchers and their "proofs." If someone says that their earliest
known ancestor is so-and-so just because they found it on the
internet or because someone told them so, then it doesn't do the
study any good.
Supposedly, we are only supposed to name our earliest ancestor that
we can support with documents.
So, Charlie, what I am saying in a long winded way is that DNA has
been helpful to me.
Anna
Hugh Watkins
[ Hugh and all, I apologize. Hugh submitted this post on 02 Mar 06,
and it looks like my mail handling software ate it. I just found
the post, and I'm approving it 10 months late ... - Mod ]
JYoun...@aol.com wrote:
> While we are discussing DNA issues on this list I'd like to ask
> those who know more about DNA research than I do what they think of
> this...
> =
> On another list I was doing a lookup in church records and found
> info the original poster was looking for. She claimed that the
> family was English but all the sons had married German wives (this
> was in the early to mid 1700s) in Pennsylvania. She claimed the
> wives insisted the husbands use German spellings for their names and
> name the children German given names. All of the records are in
> German Lutheran and Moravian churches.
> =
> She says that earlier researchers for this family stated that this
> "English" family was in America for three generations (although no
> one can really produce any conclusive records) and that the German
> wives and German Lutheran ministers are the reason the names all
> appear as German. This makes no sense to me. She lists the
> following as further evidence:
> =
> 1) one of the men was a Loyalist during the Revolution--which she
> feels indicates strong ties to the Crown of England.
American Revolutionary War (1776-1783),
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp
For all that, the Hanoverian period was remarkably stable, not least
because of the longevity of its kings. From 1714 through to 1837,
there were only five monarchs, one of whom, George III, remains the
longest reigning king in British History.
they came from Hanover in Germany
George III was born on 4 June 1738 in London, the eldest son of
Frederick, Prince of Wales, and Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha.
He became heir to the throne on the death of his father in 1751,
succeeding his grandfather, George II, in 1760. He was the third
Hanoverian monarch and the first one to be born in England and to
use English as his first language.
> (But not all
> Germans supported the Patriot cause.)
> 2) one man's will was written in English and English name spellings
> were used--although the signature of the man was an X meaning he
> didn't do the writing for the will himself.
> =
> And #3...she claims the ultimate proof that the family was English
> is that nine men have had Y DNA testing proving they all descend
> from the same common ancestor who died in 1760 (the one with the
> will noted in #2 above). This is their brick wall ancestor. Now
> I'll buy that part so far, but then she goes on to say that the DNA
> testing PROVES the family is English and not German because they all
> were from a Haplogroup which is ONLY English!
the english came from Saxony in north Germany
they spoken saxon (low german) until the norman conquest added a
french speaking upper class
> This is the part that boggles my mind. How on earth is it possible
> to claim that someone is English and not German by means of DNA? I
> would think there was much early "traffic" back and forth between
> what is now Germany (and the rest of mainland Western Europe) and
> England. So how can a "Western European" Haplogroup PROVE beyond
> doubt that a line was English and not German? The specific
> Haplogroup is: R1b1.
> =
> I think the reason these researchers are staring at a long-standing
> brick wall is the fact that they are dead set on looking for an
> English ancestor and not a German one. They even used as proof the
> fact that one son was named Aaron =
biblical name
or german jewish at that time
eg
ETTLINGER, Jakob Aaron, Rabbiner und theologischer Schriftsteller, * 17. =
Marz 1798 in Karlsruhe, gest. 7. Dezember 1871
playing with stammbaum (trees) on german site:de)
could be converts to christianity
>and claimed no German would have
> named a son Aaron--but then an earlier record turned up and showed
> this same son listed as Ehrhard--so as far as I'm concerned Aaron
> was just an Anglicized version of Ehrhard.
> =
> Thoughts on the DNA question above would be appreciated. Thanks!
dna can confirm or deny traditional research
but not replace it
Hugh W
Hugh Watkins <hugh.w...@gmail.com>
JYoun...@aol.com
> the english came from Saxony in north Germany
>
Hugh-
This was precisely my point--that I don't see how a haplogroup could
conclusively prove someone was English or German when you find BOTH
in the group. It may prove African or Asian or European
heritage--but when you get into anything more specific as you noted,
DNA doesn't replace actual research.
Joan
Hugh Watkins
- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: DNA Research Questions?
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:18:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Hugh Watkins <hugh.w...@gmail.com>
Organization: http://www.linkpendium.com/ | The definitive directory to
genealogical resources << I have NOTHING to do with this group
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.methods
References: <du4olf$jan$1...@askin-17.linkpendium.com> << I do not use this
server
==============================================
as many of us know there are serious problems with usenet moderation
clunky software or dozy moderators have killed news:misc.writing.moderated
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing.moderated?gvc=1
and
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mwmDiscussion/
is not being well managed (spam is getting through)
and my own participation in news:soc.genealogy.jewish
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.jewish?lnk=srg
after doing more than one hours research, I had a "look up" based first
post returned by a school marmish moderator as irrelevant for correction
- so I dropped that group because open debate (non-political of
course) was not possible
Just now http://boards.rootsweb.com/ is in a state of ferment
the current owners have hired some programmers to update the technology
see http://bigfile.rootsweb.com/newsroom/?p=29 and sister threads
unfortunately they have destroyed the useabilty of the GUI
some progress has been made
http://bigfile.rootsweb.com/newsroom/?p=36
meanhwile I made an offer on an news board
You are here:Message Boards > Topics > RootsWeb > Administrative >
Boards Administrators
http://boards.rootsweb.com/topics.rw.admin.badmin/mb.ashx
to resume administration of some vacant boards which were created at my
request and which I gave up in August 2004
but no answer
Hugh W
Hugh Watkins wrote:
I did not
Mr Moderator has edited the body of my message which ahs both legal and
copyright implications (do not discuss)
> [ Hugh and all, I apologize. Hugh submitted this post on 02 Mar 06,
> and it looks like my mail handling software ate it. I just found
> the post, and I'm approving it 10 months late ... - Mod ] << sign your real name please
--
a wonderful artist in Denmark
http://www.ingerlisekristoffersen.dk/
Beta blogger
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks
old blogger GENEALOGE
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
Hugh Watkins <hugh.w...@gmail.com>