GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

From: "John A Hansen" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] wandering ancestors
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:59:35 -0800
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.02.10212041716500.5541-100000@myp60.mysystem.org>

Dear Steve:

I think we might be splitting hairs here.

There were hundreds of wars and migrations
that caused major disruptions in the life and times
of our ancestors.
A: Crusades
B: Scotland Highland Clearances
C: Irish potato famine
D: The great Migration begins to America
E: Nordic Invasion and also Raiding parties
F: War after War on the continent and around
the world.

etc etc.

My point was that there is an equivalent Genetic Newton
law in effect (A body at rest tends to stay at rest :-)

A: "most" people stayed in their localities
( could be anywhere in Scotland thos
for example).
B: The people in a Clan in the highland ( whether
resident for years or new to the area ) generally took
the surname of the Clan for lots of reasons.
C: People on the farms in the Nordic country almost always
took the surname of
1: Their fathers first name
2: The farm name
3: The owner of the farm.

In many cases the surname of the local ruler ( Clan Chief and
warlords) was taken to show loyalty and be allowed to have a small
patch of soil to raise his family and pay rent to the Laird. He didn't
care what his surname was, he merely wanted to raise his family.

None of this is to downgrade the surname studies. We've gotten
some good results as already shown.

The Blair surname study also happens to make a good example.
The name itself is all of the above: surname, Clan and name
of an area. So while it is labeled a surname project, there
are some other elements at play here. I would suspect that
there will be several test results that are related to each other
and not to the main test body. Their current surname of Blair
is related to the Clan Blair or the Area that their ancestors
were located. I think that will happen amongst many of the
Clan surnames ( Clan Ross is probably another example where
that could happen). The same will be true in Ireland.

I'm suggesting that perhaps some more locality projects should be
considered since that may well also show relationships between
what we currently consider the surnames.

In your response below, you went from "most" ( which I agree
with) to "all" ( which I never said)

" That all of them were locals defies probability."

If you change that one word back to "most or even some" then
we would agree :-) Especially if we use about a 100 mile radius
as the "locals " definition.

The same applies even if you look at our own US east coast.
The original parties landed in a couple of areas: Plymouth, Jamestown
etc. "Most" descendants of those immigrants stayed within a 100 miles
of the first settlement of their ancestors for sometimes 200 years
( 8 generations .. say 1650 to 1850) That could make 16 transmission events
if you are looking at a MRCA probability) . Again there were wars and then
the civil war but the tendency was to stay in the "locality". Some
(a few) families even today are within that radius of their famous
founding fathers. In my family, there are Brownell, Alden, Peabody,
Tripp's still living in the very same town that the original founders
landed
and helped to found.

As transportation capability increased and communication improved;
and events occurred , (the gold rush, the dust bowls, the world wars)
that pattern has changed substantially, but we sometimes lose sight
that what we are currently used to and expect in today's modern times
are not the same conditions that our forefathers and ancestors were
experiencing.

When we work on our written genealogy , I at least look
strongly at the local history in the local area. If I use Soundex
and those surname options , it broadens the possibility of finding
those few precious leads and documents for probates, marriages, etc

I'm suggesting that Genetic Genealogy should do the
equivalent.

And Humans and men being men, the chances of you
having Mongolian blood and genes is actually pretty
high. Take a look at the Nebel and Wilson's studies
for instance.

Best Regards
John A Hansen




> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 3:18 PM
> To:
> Subject: [DNA] wandering ancestors
>
>
>
> > From: John A Hansen <>
> > To:
> > Subject: RE: [DNA] DNA stuff
> > Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:37:13 -0800
>
> > The Geographic relationships are more likely to show
> > results and matches in my opinion. We know that before
> > say 1800 that most people were resident in their immediate
> > area for generations.
>
> Oh really? I don't think we know any such thing at all. Then, as now,
> there were all sorts of reasons that might put the average Joe in some
> locale far from his place of birth.
>
> But even granting that "most" people stayed put and allowing for
> pedigree collapse, the average person is going to have a couple hundred
> ancestors back ten generations. That all of them were locals defies
> probability.
>
> I've not had a DNA test done, and probably won't anytime in the near
> future, but if it shows that my ancestor came from the same area of
> central Europe that my grandfather came from, I won't be surprised. But
> I will also not be surprised if it shows he came from Outer Mongolia,
> someplace in the Near East, or the Iberian Peninsula.
>
> Steve

This thread:

• [DNA] wandering ancestors by

  • RE: [DNA] wandering ancestors by "John A Hansen" <>