GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2009-04 > 1239560838


From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] Fwd: New Matches Found for your DNA Test Results
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:27:18 -0400
References: <E1Lt3ID-00020K-KA@elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <E1Lt3ID-00020K-KA@elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net> (messagefrom Itzhak Epstein on Sun, 12 Apr 2009 13:16:14 -0400)


Itzhak wrote:
> I am struck by how much of this thread assumes that all of us work
> with the same surnaming and mating patterns and with similar
> availability or lack thereof of conventional genealogical
> resources. Likewise -- let's not assume that all of us reside in the
> US, or at least elsewhere in the English speaking world.

Well, let's consider that the same surnaming pattern prevails also in
the Spanish-speaking, French-speaking, Portugese-speaking,
Italian-speaking, German-speaking, Dutch-speaking, Russian-speaking,
and even, since the late 1800s, the Swedish-speaking and
Norwegian-speaking worlds, just to mention a few. As I mentioned in
my previous post, the Iberian custom of retaining the mother's surname
(or, more precisely, the maternal grandfather's) for one generation is
really no different. The Chinese and Hungarian custom is a little
different in that the surname is placed first instead of last, and
Chinese orthography is certainly very different, and, yes, the
Russians do add a feminine ending to the surname carried by a female,
but these are not really exceptions to the pattern.

However, I am intrigued by your reference to "mating patterns".
Are you thinking of things like the pharaonic custom of marrying
one's sister? Or the clan-exogamy or strict patri- or matri-local
rules practiced by certain cultures? Or the predilection for
marrying multiple sisters in certain polygynous societies? I
have certainly run into the latter in the English-speaking world
as it is. If you have other practices in mind that are relevant
to the topic of genetic genealogy, feel free to bring them up for
discussion. But crying "shame" because other people do not
naturally take *your* view-point is extremely silly when you
don't even mention what your view-point is.

John Chandler

This thread: