GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1118306643


From: Robert Davenport <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Non-Participation in Genographic Project
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 01:44:03 -0700
References: <6.2.1.2.0.20050609012118.01df7278@mail.blairgenealogy.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20050609012118.01df7278@mail.blairgenealogy.com>


This message is for Bill Davenport.

They got the Blair of Blair of test.

I think our people can use this, when we try to get the Bromley Davenports
to test.

If Blair of Blair will test, then Davenport of Davenport should test !!!









At 10:21 PM 6/8/2005, you wrote:
>Hi Anne,
>
>I'll be the first to admit I've been very lucky. Not only with my own
>research but with the Blair DNA Project as well. We have been very
>fortunate to get a known descendant of the original Blair of Blair (the
>origin of our surname) to provide his DNA to the project. So far we have
>25 participants who match the Blair of Blair on at least 23 of 25 markers.
>Unfortunately I am not one of them.
>
>Not all of our Blair researchers as lucky as me. We also have many
>researchers who cannot "hop the pond" and also have many who can get back
>to Ireland but not Scotland. One of the objectives of the Blair DNA
>Project was to try to connect the "Irish" Blairs back to Scotland. In many
>cases we have done just that. We have also had success in connecting the
>many of the Blairs trapped in the US to those that traced their roots back
>to Scotland.
>
>You are certainly right when you say that my "genealogy is pushing back
>against the limits at which written record sand confirmations begin to get
>scarce or tenuous." I may be able to get a couple of more generations
>before the paper trail runs out unless I can connect to "nobility".
>Obviously I can't be absolutely "sure that nothing from the NGS could
>possibly ever lead to something that would be a breakthrough for you at
>the back edge of genealogical time", but everything I've read of this
>project makes me very confident that it will not provide any useful
>information over the last 1,000 years, the time frame of the Blair
>surname. The project by it's own admission is to trace ancient migration
>patterns.
>
>You ask "how do you know before it's all said and done that no good reason
>will emerge from someone's analysis?" The answer is "I don't know." Based
>on the stated objectives of the project, the fact they are looking at only
>the first 12 markers, and the only genealogy information they ask for for
>is the country of origin, I can't see any way this project will assist
>those interested in convention genealogy.
>
>I would love to proven wrong but I don't think it will happen. I think
>that anyone who goes into this project with expectation that it will help
>further the conventional genealogical research will end up being disappointed.
>
>John
>
>At 06:10 PM 6/8/2005, you wrote:
>>Dear John,
>>
>>You are certainly lucky in contrast to most of my WEBB and MAYNOR DNA
>>Project participants! Very few of us can "hop the pond," so the NGS is
>>of interest
>>to us because if we can find a "hot spot" of 12/12 matches for our R1b, it
>>might narrow our focus for looking at that side of the pond for origins. Is
>>that "deep ancestry" or "genealogical time?" I'm not sure. I'm not sure
>>anyone can accurately assess, at this point in time, what the value
>>of joining the
>>NGS study is or isn't. I guess my final analysis is that $15 (or $30) is a
>>small price to pay to find out. Shoot! You probably blow more than that at
>>least once a year on a couple of movies tickets for a movie that turns
>>out to
>>be unsatisfying, or a meal that turns out to be a less than stellar dining
>>experience.
>>
>>Your genealogy is pushing back against the limits at which written records
>>and confirmations begin to get scarce or tenuous. Can you be sure that
>>nothing from the NGS could possibly ever lead to something that would be a
>>breakthrough for you at the back edge of genealogical time?
>>
>>
>>Some things in life are just a crap shoot, John, and uploading to the NGS
>>might be one. I guess my point is that, while I understand you
>>don't currently
>>have a good reason to join given your objectives, how do you know before
>>it's all said and done that no good reason will emerge from
>>someone's analysis?
>>
>>Anne
>
>
>
>==============================
>New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors
>at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more:
>http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429
>


This thread: