GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268543925


From: David Faux <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] English Genealogists
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 21:18:45 -0800
References: <5c574.15ef7532.38cd8848@aol.com><3970199420865527845@unknownmsgid>
In-Reply-To: <3970199420865527845@unknownmsgid>


Jim,

I am not talking about benefit. Some cannot get past the 1841 census,
others don't hit a wall until the Middle Ages. The point is that many are
"happy" with the status quo, or don't consider the end worth the means. I
don't suspect that the Bullocks of Lincolnshire are of the same lineage as
those of Derbyshire; however as we know from one of the earliest published
studies on the link between STRs and surnames, most Sykes descend from one
ancestor originating in Yorkshire. Although why would a Bullock from
whatever shire or county care if they are G2 or I1 unless these designators
could be linked to English history.

It is all about how much one wishes to know. Many English are happy to
simply know the parish of the earliest known ancestor, which is probably no
more than 30 miles from where they live (which is true of my grandfather
whose 14th Century ancestor lived a few miles down the coast of East
Anglia).

It was pretty easy to get a group of us Fauxes to test since all ancestors
were from the same general area, and the surname was quite unique. We had
little doubt that we were related so the testing was confined to a yes or no
- largely answered with 25 markers. We have however formed a large research
group (all others reside in England) to learn about land ownership by
sifting through the Manorial records (some of us learning how to read
Medieval Latin to facilitate the task). I am the only one who tested to 67
markers since with 37 and even 25 markers we only matched each other. What
else did we need to know that further genetic testing could reveal?
Entering the STR values in a public database did not really enter the
picture (except myself because I had been socialized to the North American
viewpoint) since to do so would not have advanced our work in any palpable
way. It is just a somewhat different perspective on things.

David K. Faux.
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Jim Bullock <>wrote:

> >> Unless adopted or with a known NPE, most from say England already know
> their English roots (to a sufficient degree) and have no "Pond" to cross.
> <<
> -----------------------
>
> The English may not have a "pond" to cross, but how many would know where
> their ancestors were 500 years ago. In checking for Bullocks in England I
> know that there were many separate origins for the surname, and that is
> supported by DNA studies. In the 1500s I can find Bullocks in every part
> of
> England. Some are R1b, others I1a, and still others G2.
>
> I doubt that the Bullocks in England today can safely assume that their
> ancestors have been in the same area of England for the last 500 years.
> Unless they've been doing some serious genealogical research, they probably
> don't know their origins. I think they would benefit as much from DNA
> studies as I would.
>
> Jim B.
>
>


This thread: