World Families Forums - Here's a Question

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 25, 2014, 04:52:37 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Here's a Question
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Here's a Question  (Read 1538 times)
k.o.gran
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2012, 05:49:01 AM »

There must be some positive energy flowing right now, because I may have finally broken down the wall and made it back to the home land.

Congratulations! It's a great feeling, isn't it? :-)
I'm a Norwegian, so I've been feeling like the only one on FTDNA _not_ trying to connect from the US to Europe. However, I was quite recently able to connect my great great grandfather Peter Lowden to a Lowden family from Dundee, Scotland through sponsored Y-DNA tests. My great grandfather was born in Norway. A 130 year old mystery finally solved!

It seems Rich is getting closer too! I hope to see that brick wall fall in the near future! :)

-Kai
Logged

R-DF63+
stoneman
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #26 on: September 20, 2012, 06:54:20 AM »

You could run your matches plus your haplotype through the Mcgee utility and create a modal.Then use that modal to find other matches at ysearch within a 10 gd range.Then check out the location of those who are closest to the modal.You may find an answer.
It works for the M222 people and the Clan Colla as well.






Ever since I started in genetic genealogy back in 2006, I have had my y-dna ancestral homeland listed as "Unknown Origin" on my FTDNA "Most Distant Ancestors" page. That's how it shows up in all the projects in which I am a member. The reason for that listing is that I do not yet know who my y-dna immigrant ancestor was or where he came from.

Since setting that "Unknown Origin" listing, however, I have gotten a 65/67 match with a man born in Worcester, England, whose family, he says, has always lived in Shropshire. All of my closest 67-marker matches have British Isles surnames, and I have tested P312+ L21+ DF13+ DF41+, all of which are not exactly rare in the British Isles.

I am tempted to exchange that "Unknown Origin" setting for "United Kingdom". Should I do it? Or should I be strict and stick with "Unknown Origin"? I think the preponderance of the evidence, given my surname, my matches, and my SNP test results, is that my y-dna immigrant ancestor was of British Isles origin.

What do you think?

You're not going to hurt my feelings on this, so fire away.
Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #27 on: September 21, 2012, 04:05:10 AM »

You could run your matches plus your haplotype through the Mcgee utility and create a modal.Then use that modal to find other matches at ysearch within a 10 gd range.Then check out the location of those who are closest to the modal.You may find an answer.
It works for the M222 people and the Clan Colla as well.

I have done that in the past, and I have a pretty solid haplotype cluster, which Mike calls 41-1123 (the 41 is for DF41+).

Most of my matches (and cluster brothers) are Americans with English and Welsh surnames. There is one native-born Englishman (now a Canadian citizen), but he has the Welsh surname Beddoes. He is my closest out-of-surname match, at 65/67.

He doesn't match any other Beddoes, but he does match a bunch of us Stevenses/Stephenses.





« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 04:05:46 AM by rms2 » Logged

gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #28 on: September 21, 2012, 07:16:06 AM »

IMO "unknown" in the origin field means "lacks documentary proof" and people ought to be encouraged to enter only what they have documentary evidence for.

Nonetheless, it would help greatly if such databases provided a second field to allow users to qualify the stated origin as being either 'certifiably-documented' or 'suspected'.
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #29 on: September 21, 2012, 07:27:24 AM »

That would definitely increase the number of "unknowns" exponentially.

I tend to think that what you see listed as the person's mdka is the best he has in terms of what can be proven, although some folks go out on a limb even there.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #30 on: September 21, 2012, 11:13:03 AM »

IMO "unknown" in the origin field means "lacks documentary proof" and people ought to be encouraged to enter only what they have documentary evidence for.

Nonetheless, it would help greatly if such databases provided a second field to allow users to qualify the stated origin as being either 'certifiably-documented' or 'suspected'.

I agree totally. There should be a "risk factor" field associated with the MDKA information. I think there should be a surname/language ethnicity data field as well.
Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #31 on: September 21, 2012, 07:55:42 PM »

What counts as "documentary evidence", and who decides? We don't have anything like the Mayflower Society or The Daughters of the American Revolution application and screening process in genetic genealogy projects.

I've seen guys who list "Charlemagne" as mdka. I seem to recall one guy who used to belong to the R-P312 and Subclades Project who listed an Egyptian pharaoh or a biblical patriarch, I can't remember which.

And some folks have "documentary evidence" for "ancestors" who aren't likely theirs.

Obviously, those who have what they believe is documentary evidence back to the immigrant like making that a requirement. Generally, that amounts to a record of a fairly recent arrival (those are easier to get and easier to verify). Others, like me, who got into genetic genealogy to actually try to find out where their immigrant ancestor came from, like using the preponderance of the genetic evidence. After all, it's all we've got.

If your ancestor came to North America yesterday, relatively speaking, you are far more likely to know about it and be able to get hold of some record of it.
Logged

Mike Walsh
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2963


WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 21, 2012, 09:00:21 PM »

What counts as "documentary evidence", and who decides? We don't have anything like the Mayflower Society or The Daughters of the American Revolution application and screening process in genetic genealogy projects.

I agree with this too. We have no means or time to lay judgement on these issues. I have no desire whatsoever to ... and just because the "power to be" (such as the DAR) decide something doesn't mean it is real anyway. We have to trust the haplotypes owners.

What I agree from the prior post is that there should be a data field to allow the haplotype owner to somehow describe the level of confidence in the MDKA information. I think that there should be two origins.  One, the genealogicall confident MDKA origin and, two, the lore/expected origin (if one has the inclination or other information to add this.)   Actually, there should be a third origin location too. the surname origination, but maybe this should be calculated/derived via a system with a display of #1, 2 and 3 most common origins.

You may think I'm nuts for thinking of this granularity of data, but I do have an analyst and IT background. You could do a lot better analysis if you had multiple origin "types" of information. A good developer would let analysts have their choice of any combination or all in determining a group.

Back to the haplotype owners and the data collection. We do need to trust them, but we could collect additional information that is objective, such as ... father and mother locations, grandfather and grandmother locations, year of immigration to current country, etc.  By "we could collect" I mean FTDNA/National Geno Project should collect. The original time of data collection (survey) is critical.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 09:05:24 PM by Mikewww » Logged

R1b-L21>L513(DF1)>L705.2
OConnor
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676


« Reply #33 on: September 21, 2012, 09:14:31 PM »

when people are unsure about a date they add a "c' (circa)
Perhaps something as simple as that would work? c/Ireland


Logged

R1b1a2a1a1b4


R-DF13**(L21>DF13)
M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P108+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P297+, P305+, P310+, P311+, P312+, P316+, M173+, M269+, M343+, P312+, L21+, DF13+, M207+, P25+, L11+, L138+, L141+, L15+, L150+, L16+, L23+, L51+, L52+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M269+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, P69+, P9.1+, P97+, PK1+, SRY10831.1+, L21+, L226-, M37-, M222-, L96-, L193-, L144-, P66-, SRY2627-, M222-, DF49-, L371-, DF41-, L513-, L555-, L1335-, L1406-, Z251-, L526-, L130-, L144-, L159.2-, L192.1-, L193-, L195-, L96-, DF21-, Z255-, DF23-, DF1-, Z253-, M37-, M65-, M73-, M18-, M126-, M153-, M160-, P66-

12 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 18


Mark Jost
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #34 on: September 21, 2012, 11:00:24 PM »

So what is the concensus now on the issue?

MJost
Logged

148326
Pos: Z245 L459 L21 DF13**
Neg: DF23 L513 L96 L144 Z255 Z253 DF21 DF41 (Z254 P66 P314.2 M37 M222  L563 L526 L226 L195 L193 L192.1 L159.2 L130 DF63 DF5 DF49)
WTYNeg: L555 L371 (L9/L10 L370 L302/L319.1 L554 L564 L577 P69 L626 L627 L643 L679)
gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #35 on: September 21, 2012, 11:29:23 PM »

What counts as "documentary evidence",

I used the term certifiably-documented, that is some sort of certificate issued by the appropriate authority.

Yes, there can be mistakes in those, but it sure beats supposition, family myth, etc.




Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
gtc
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 238


« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2012, 11:34:19 PM »

when people are unsure about a date they add a "c' (circa)
Perhaps something as simple as that would work? c/Ireland

Yes, that's the sort of thing I'm suggesting: a confidence indicator. Given the opportunity to state that they don't know for sure, I feel that the majority of people would use it appropriately.
Logged

Y-DNA: R1b-Z12* (R1b1a2a1a1a3b2b1a1a1) GGG-GF Ireland (roots reportedly Anglo-Norman)
mtDNA: I3b (FMS) Maternal lines Irish
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #37 on: September 22, 2012, 04:05:43 AM »

So what is the concensus now on the issue?

MJost


I think it's on a case by case basis, and you have to decide for yourself. If you feel pretty confident in what you want to list as your place of ancestral origin, then go ahead and list it.

In my case, I don't feel confident enough to list a specific country, but I feel really confident that my immigrant ancestor came from somewhere in the British Isles. So, "United Kingdom" is a good compromise for me. I think "Unknown Origin" is far less accurate, because it's really not at all true that I have no earthly idea whatsoever where my immigrant ancestor came from. I actually do have a pretty good idea of where he came from, at least to the degree of resolution that a listing like "United Kingdom" provides.

You can see from my mdka entry that I can only get my y-dna line back to my 3rd great grandfather, and that he was born in West Virginia in 1804. The "United Kingdom" listing next to that means I am pretty sure that's where my y-dna line came from. If I had solid documentary evidence that included actually knowing who my immigrant ancestor was, I would list a specific country, like Wales or Scotland, instead of the  "United Kingdom".
« Last Edit: September 22, 2012, 05:05:48 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #38 on: September 22, 2012, 05:26:38 AM »

What counts as "documentary evidence",

I used the term certifiably-documented, that is some sort of certificate issued by the appropriate authority.

Yes, there can be mistakes in those, but it sure beats supposition, family myth, etc.

Those are good, yes, but they tend to get a little thin on the ground the further back in time one goes. I have birth and death certificates on my y line that give me documentation back to my 2nd great grandfather. But that gets me only back to 1835, when he was born (I don't have his birth certificate, but he is named as the father on my great grandfather's death certificate). I also have his military record from the National Archives (he was a Confederate soldier). The best documentary evidence I have, in my opinion, is primary source material in the form of a family history book written by one of my great grandaunts, the daughter of my 2nd great grandfather and sister of my great grandfather. She was a contemporary of most of the people about whom she wrote. She knew who her paternal grandfather was, where he is buried, and even what killed him (yellow fever), so her testimony provides the documentation back to my 3rd great grandfather, especially since I have been able to verify what she wrote, in part by visiting the graveyard where she said my 3rd great grandparents are buried, finding their tombstones and photographing them. Of course, I also have the other usual sorts of documentary evidence: census records, etc.

Some family traditions are myths, to be sure, but I wouldn't characterize most of them that way. Tradition can be true and probably is most of the time.

Solid genetic evidence trumps paperwork, in my opinion, but the best evidence is a combination of genetics and documents, when they support one another. When they conflict, the prudent go with the genetic evidence.

« Last Edit: September 22, 2012, 05:44:25 AM by rms2 » Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #39 on: September 22, 2012, 06:14:03 AM »

What counts as "documentary evidence",

I used the term certifiably-documented, that is some sort of certificate issued by the appropriate authority.

Yes, there can be mistakes in those, but it sure beats supposition, family myth, etc.

Those are good, yes, but they tend to get a little thin on the ground the further back in time one goes. I have birth and death certificates on my y line that give me documentation back to my 2nd great grandfather. But that gets me only back to 1835, when he was born (I don't have his birth certificate, but he is named as the father on my great grandfather's death certificate). I also have his military record from the National Archives (he was a Confederate soldier). The best documentary evidence I have, in my opinion, is primary source material in the form of a family history book written by one of my great grandaunts, the daughter of my 2nd great grandfather and sister of my great grandfather. She was a contemporary of most of the people about whom she wrote. She knew who her paternal grandfather was, where he is buried, and even what killed him (yellow fever), so her testimony provides the documentation back to my 3rd great grandfather, especially since I have been able to verify what she wrote, in part by visiting the graveyard where she said my 3rd great grandparents are buried, finding their tombstones and photographing them. Of course, I also have the other usual sorts of documentary evidence: census records, etc.

Some family traditions are myths, to be sure, but I wouldn't characterize most of them that way. Tradition can be true and probably is most of the time.

Solid genetic evidence trumps paperwork, in my opinion, but the best evidence is a combination of genetics and documents, when they support one another. When they conflict, the prudent go with the genetic evidence.



Here's an example of what I mean about the combination of documents and genetics.

I had all the documentary stuff I mentioned above and then, a few years ago, I got an exact 37-marker match with a 2nd cousin once removed (my dad's second cousin). Our most recent common ancestor is my 2nd great grandfather, my match's great grandfather.

Of course, that doesn't get me across the Pond.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.146 seconds with 18 queries.