The days of haunting the Archives are not over for me (plus it's a lot of
fun). A DNA match only shows you have an ancestor in common with someone
else. The further back you go looking for a match, the more likely it is you
have more than one ancestor in common. For instance you might be trying to
match your SMITH ancestor with another person's SMITH ancestor that was
born ~ 1700. You don't realize it but you also have a JOHNSON ancestor in
common too. You get a DNA match and therefore assume that your SMITH ancestor
is the same as the other persons, when it could be the JOHNSON ancestor. I'm
even related to myself as I have two cases already where I have the same
pair of Grandparents, once on my Maternal side and once on my Paternal side.
In a message dated 3/14/2011 2:43:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
I must second Bill's advice about DNA testing. I had my nephew DNA
tested. After being in a Hall program family and lots of 12 and 37
marker matches with no recent connections, a new family entry solved my
30 or more years search. Although I was 90% sure my ancestor originated
in Gloucester Co., Va., the new entry proved it and connected me to the
original immigrant from England. I still have gaps in the line, but I
now know about Thomas Hall and that completes my search. Now I just idly
look at lists, not seriously. The days of haunting the library are over.
On 3/14/2011 12:06 PM, Bill Davidson wrote:
> While it is only part of the solution, I wish that more people would
> have a man....with the surname of interest....take the DNA test. DNA
> has already shown that some "approved" DAR lineages are "flat wrong,"
> and many such other "myths" have also been "busted" by this
> technology. It is not an "end all/be all answer," but to not take
> advantage of it, where such a male with the correct surname can be
> found, is a huge omission in most cases. It amazes me that people
> will spend thousand of hours (and who knows how much money?)
> researching in courthouses and libraries (and Ancestry.com) for years
> and years, but they won't spend a few minutes and $150 for a 37 marker
> DNA test.
>
> My own DNA test confirmed that my Davidson family in Cumberland Co.,
> VA was part of the same Davidson family as the one in Buckingham Co.,
> VA....and that helped me to "trace" the overall family back to James
> City Co., VA by at least the 1680s. I also learned that I have a
> "Viking heritage" versus the more common "Celtic heritage" for my
> surname. I never could find anything in "conventional documentation"
> that proved a "connection" between the families in those two counties
> in VA.
>
> My mother's family had even more interesting results. Her male cousin
> with the surname of "Brown" took the DNA test, and we found that he
> was actually a "blood Smith" versus a "blood Brown." Since my
> maternal gg-grandfather was named Smith W. Brown, I guess that we
> should not have been too surprised by that result....but nothing other
> than the DNA test would have ever shown this. My "biological maternal
> Smith family" has been in VA since at least the 1650s, and I am proud
> to be a member of that family (and I am happy to finally know the
> truth....that only DNA testing could have provided).
>
> In closing, when I get frustrated with all of the bad data that is
> "out there," I remind myself that it is "just genealogy." Compared to
> what is going on in the world these days (like in Japan), trying to
> prove who my gggggggg-grandfather was seems far less critical.
>
> Bill Davidson
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
> instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
|
