The male Y chromosome DNA test follows the single male "surname" line ( in
my case, my Davidson father, my Davidson grandfather, my Davidson
great-grandfather, etc.). As such, the test tells you NOTHING about any of
the females in your line, nor anything about the males (with different
surnames) that those females married (e.g, your mother's father does not
affect the test results, no matter what his surname was). The DNA test
cannot tell you who the "most recent common ancestor" was between you and
another matching/nearly matching DNA donor; it can only tell you that you
have very high "odds" (or not) of sharing such an ancestor with that other
donor in some reasonable "genealogically significant" timeframe (like
roughly 600-700 years ago or less).
Despite the above "problems" with DNA, I would not take a million dollars
for my test results. They prove (over 99% odds within 16 "generations
back") that I share a common male Davidson ancestor with the group of
Davidsons that was in Goochland Co., VA (in the 1740s), and hence, with the
Davidsons who were in James City Co., VA by at least 1682. I had always
suspected that I was probably connected to that Davidson family, but without
DNA, I absolutely, positively could never have proven it (no matter how many
trips I made to the Library of VA or to the applicable courthouses). There
are many "success stories" like this in our Davidson/Davison/Davisson DNA
testing project (ditto other surnames). DNA is just one more (very good)
tool to help us with genealogy, so why not use it? I simply can't imagine
anyone serious about researching a family not taking advantage of it....if
they can find a living male with the correct surname from the family of
interest....and if they can afford it. I sometimes think that some
"genealogists" are simply afraid that the results will prove that much of
what they have believed (and boldly stated) for the last 30 years is
wrong....but the truth, however painful, is all any of us should really
want.
DNA is also great at proving to whom you are NOT related. It is great to
eliminate the "wrong" families with the same surname, especially if the
surname is fairly common. I know many people who were "positive" that they
were part of family "A" (with DAR applications to prove it), only to learn
via DNA that they are positively not a member of that family after all. In
some cases, these folks matched some other donor in some other family with
the same surname, but in other cases, these folks matched no one (so far,
anyway). In some cases, a person has one or more matches, but the match is
only to some OTHER surname. As DNA testing continues, it is becoming more
obvious that adoptions and "affairs" were much more prevalent than most of
us ever thought possible.
I know that Ancestry.com joined with the DNA testing company Relative
Genetics (I don't know "who bought whom"). I will just leave it at
this....I highly recommend Family Tree DNA for DNA testing (and no, I do not
receive any compensation of any kind for saying that).
Bill Davidson
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
|