Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-10 > 1130704531

From: Philip Ritter <>
Subject: Re: [DNA]
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:35:31 -0800
References: <><001101c5dd88$d4d72f10$47edfea9@denisebndh1av9>
In-Reply-To: <001101c5dd88$d4d72f10$47edfea9@denisebndh1av9>

We've had two African-Americans tested in our projects, one in the
Bachmann/Baughman project (with the surname Baughhman) and one in the
Ritter project (with the surname Ritter). The Ritter male had been told
his Ritter ancestor was a slave-owning Ritter from one of the families
already in our project. In both cases, the male tested typical E3a
values. The Ritter participant (tested by FTDNA) had their closest most
recent-ethnic origin matches and haplogroup matches to Senegal, Gambia,
Africa (in general), Jamaica and African American. In these cases it is
clear the individuals' partilineal anceators were African not European (the
story about the slave-owner paternity might still be true but with a
non-paternal intervening event). As Glen points out, if the participants
had had more typical European haplotypes (R1a, R1b or I) then it would have
been helpful to have the test of a descendant of the putative European
(slave owner) ancestor of the line to compare with. Thus may answer would
be, if you have an unbroken male line from the suspected son of the
putative ancestor then a test would likely provide evidence one way or
another but may not be conclusive.

At 11:33 AM 10/30/2005, you wrote:

>Does anyone know if testing a black male to determine if he was a descendant
>of a white slave owner in the late 1700s of any use. In other words, would
>European ancestry, in this case from Wales, show up in a present day black
>male if he were tested for Y-DNA?
>Search Family and Local Histories for stories about your family and the
>areas they lived. Over 85 million names added in the last 12 months.
>Learn more:

This thread: