GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2007-08 > 1186189110
From:
Subject: Re: Famous medieval DNA - the Plantagenet project
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 01:58:30 +0100 (BST)
References: <mailman.44.1185962129.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com><1185995710.722143.228160@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com><mailman.87.1186043658.31452.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com><1186165128.988261.164360@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <1186165128.988261.164360@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
>> Apart from a couple, whose male lines both originated in south
>> Lincolnshire around 1800, these 9 have random haplotypes. This is
>> consistent with expectation for a surname that originated from a single
>> ancestor, since, in the centuries since then, about half of the lines
>> are expected to have a false paternity event (FPE) somewhere in the line
>> of descent (unfaithful wife, adoption, unmarried mother giving child her
>> own surname, etc). This phenomenon of FPEs is widely documented in
>> DNA-genealogy literature.
>
> The phenomenon has been widely discussed, but not widely documented.
> To document it, you actually have to show that people who 'should'
> have the same ancestor don't have the same type. All too often, though
> this is assumed rather than documented. Are any of yours documented
> FPEs?
>
> taf
>
The Plant lines studied are just those of amateur genealogists who have
traced themselves back typically to around 1800, sometimes further. In one
case, the finding that a Plant did not match the main Plant family
reinforced the idea that his surname traced back to an IGI record for an
unmarried mother.
For documentation on FPEs, a Google Scholar search on "non paternity
events" brings up a lot.
John
This thread: