Jim - 

I learned that jumping to conclusions when doing research is NOT a healthy maneuver! That is the problem with some of those who are now learning through DNA that their family might not be who they think they are!

In my surname line I literally had a family history that had been handed down for about 5 generations! I had it in writing, but when I began to look at the line, and really flesh out the documentation, there were just too many 'suppositions'... and actual changes of dates to fit the history, while Thomas Starke's obituary is very definite about his age, how long he had suffered with gout (a disease that usually strikes men over 40 - NOT in the early 20's as would have been the case if the original birth date was correct. Things just didn't look right to me when I first began doing this research over 20 years ago... and I have told other researchers that if something doesn't 'feel right' to you, there is probably a very good reason!

When the DNA for my surname came back, I was SURE that the 'other' descendant had his line wrong! Not us!! However, after more descendants joined the DNA project... well, I had to swallow my pride and admit that we could not possibly descend from the Col. John Starke line - its impossible for even those of us who are not astute in DNA to match a 'G' haplogroup with a 'R1b1' group! Made it simple for me to accept!

As for the 'other' family, my paternal grandmother, well, again there was no doubt, however I had not spent the years researching this family (only about 7 years extensively), and while I am unable to travel due to physical challenges, or lift the large books in the courthouse, although I love how they smell, I have decided to just end each history with the earliest 'proven' ancestor... and that's not too bad! Thomas Starke b. 1724 d. 1794 is not a bad place to start, nor is Captain William York, Rev. War soldier b. abt 1755 (avg. DOB of the Rev. War soldier)! I am sure there are many who wish they could back that far with documentation, and I have done just this! 

My paper files must number in the 1000's, and equally so are my digital files - lots of history and documentation, and lots of time and money spent... however the joy I have brought to myself, and others, through creating a 'family photo' has made it all worthwhile!

I also agree that some jump to conclusions with 'excuses' for shoddy research! Oh, they think, just change a date or two and no one will be the wiser, and then 'it' fits! Doesn't work for me! I want to know it ALL!

Diane S

P.S. - I am on the York and Stark(e)(ey)(s) board and carefully monitor the list, and also McDonald, Evans, Davis, etal., although I have no cousins by these names... oh, and Brown! This might be the only way I will discover facts that have slipped through many fingers!
  ----- 
  Hello Diane

  The Y-DNA signature you disclose below is markedly different.  As you 
  suggest, they are clearly not from the same root genetic stock within 
  the last 10,000 years.

  You suggestion that an adoption occurred, to save an orphan, is sound 
  reasoning.

  If it seemed that I suggested you were jumping to conclusions I 
  apologize...my intent was only to suggest to you, and others on this 
  board, that DNA testing is no reason to jettison hard-won genealogical 
  research.

  If you were to join one of the DNA researcher bulletin boards you would 
  be shocked at the absurd rationale being applied to Y-DNA and mtDNA 
  signatures as they pertain to religious affiliation, dark circles around 
  the eyes, and superstitious belief in things unseen.

  Take care, Diane, and thank you for sharing a bit of your family with us.

  Jim


To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html