> Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:50:19 +0100 > From: Dave Newburuy <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [WOR] Worcs Gene Pool > To: Bob New <[email protected]> > Did I not say this subject is closed > > PLEASE lets get back to list business as before > > Dave I'm sorry, I missed your posting that the subject was closed. My posting took a day to think about and compose during which time I failed to follow the thread. And I haven't saved those postings so I still don't know what they contained. I used the thread to make a statement about the work of the Surname NEW Y-DNA Testing Project, particularly in Worcestershire, and about the genealogy of the NEW family long established there, and to appeal for more contributors of DNA for mine and other projects. What exactly in my statement is not "list business"? Some staffers at Rootsweb have in the past been unsympathetic to any mention of DNA, and have been known to remove postings from lists. One suspects that they emanate from the Bible Belt in Middle America where DNA seems to be the work-of-the Devil, but the last time I looked Worcestershire was still safely in England. I thought I understood that that policy has changed over the past year or so. I think Rootsweb is now owned by Ancestry.com, and all probably owned by the Mormon Church. Ancestry.com have themselves recently entered the DNA testing market, and I think that their testing is done by the Sorenson Foundation's laboratories. (I mention Sorenson in my posting, and Sorenson are in Salt Lake City.) I think Ancestry.com's prices were mentioned in one message in the thread. I have never made an exact note of this ownership business because I never expected to have to get into a legalistic debate about it. So the question remains - what exactly in my postings is objectionable to this list? Bob New > On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 12:34 +0100, Bob New wrote: >> I qualify to join this thread by being a Worcestershire man and the >> coordinator of the Surname NEW Y-DNA Testing Project. A William NEW was >> recorded in the 1327 Glos. Subsidy Roll in Northway, between Ashchurch >> and Tewkesbury, just 10 miles away from Evesham where I was born over 600 >> years later. The NEW family of Evesham are well documented from c.1600 >> and three of us, distant cousins, have been Y-DNA tested, and match. In >> total, 27 generations separate the three of us. Our most recent common >> ancestor, James NEW, was born c.1655 and died in 1725. We don't know for >> certain who his father was. It was soon after the English Civil War(s) >> and may be obscured by an association with the Quakers. One of James's >> properties exists today as one of those in the frontage of the Quaker >> Meeting House on Cowl Street, Evesham. >> >> However, a representative of a NEW family that came from Defford, just 8 >> miles from Evesham, and moved to Eldersfield 12 miles further away about >> 1749 has been Y-DNA tested and doesn't match us from Evesham. This is >> unexpected because of the geographical proximity and also because the >> I.G.I. (on www.familysearch.com) claims that the Richard NEW of Defford >> is the same as a Richard NEW who was the grandson of the James NEW, >> c.1655-1725, mentioned above. The IGI records were however "submitted by >> members of the LDS church". The mismatch remains to be explained, and we >> need another contributor from that family. >> >> I have genealogies for a NEW family of Ripple and a NEW family of >> Worcester, but need DNA contributors from both. >> >> A map of the distribution of the NEW name in England from the 1881 Census >> clearly indicates (but doesn't prove) that the name originated perhaps >> once only in the southern counties, Hampshire or Wiltshire, and spread >> from there. It was/is commonest in Portsmouth. Of the 17 contributors >> to the Surname NEW Y-DNA Testing Project the nearest to the three of us >> from Evesham is a 10/12 marker 'match' with a NEW who originates from the >> Isle of Wight. This 10/12 score is not good enough to claim a real >> match; 12 markers isn't enough, but it does raise hopes. >> >> Most of the other NEWs tested are from North American. Five of them >> match, and one of them has a good paper trail to (another) Richard NEW >> c.1620-c1681 a pioneer in Virginia. For none of these North American >> NEWs can we yet establish an English origin (or even continental if the >> name was originally NEU). Incidentally, one 'British' NEW who claimed a >> Huguenot origin 'matched' 10/12 a NEU in America who also had a family >> tradition of a Huguenot origin. As I said before 12 markers isn't enough >> to be certain. >> >> Another aspect of the Y-DNA testing is our "haplogroups". Most of the >> NEWs are R1b, as indeed are, say, 70% of the 'English' population. The >> Welsh are about 90% and the Irish more than 95%, with similar figures for >> the Iberian peninsula, with the Basques at nominally 100%. In direct >> male line we are descendants of the original Palaeolithic >> hunter-gatherers who repopulated these Isles after the end of the Ice Age >> 12,500 years ago. The reason I don't look Basque is because of all the >> women partners of my male-line ancestors. That's where the differences >> come from. My ancestors have also changed their language. From >> something originally shared with the Basques, and perhaps last spoken in >> this country by the Atecotti (in 'Scotland'), to Celtic and then to >> English. >> >> One of the NEWs and a NEU were E3b indicating an origin with the >> agriculturists from the Middle East, and another NEW was I1b1 from the >> Balkans, perhaps via a Roman mercenary. We can only speculate! >> >> DNA contributors of any and all surnames are needed. There may well be a >> Surname group who will snap up a result. >> Try http://www.dnalist.net/ for your surname. Population and Migration >> route studies depend on a mass of results. Your DNA result will still be >> useful in 100 years or for much longer into the future. What else can >> you leave that will be so useful (besides descendants!)? The costs of >> tests has already appeared in this thread and I don't dare to repeat them >> (too commercial) but there are FREE tests offered by the Sorenson >> Foundation http://www.smgf.org/ . Select Y-database or mtDatabase at >> the bottom LHS of the page. Results take up to 2 years or more to appear >> in their databases; your identity (except surname) is concealed but you >> can recognise your result from the pedigree that you supply. The test >> involves a mouthwash or scrapping the inside of your cheek with a cotton >> bud. >> >> Bob New >> coordinator of the Surname NEW Y-DNA Testing Project >> coordinator of the SAYCE Y-DNA Testing Project >> admin. of the [email protected] list

Bob New wrote: > I'm sorry, I missed your posting that the subject was closed. My posting > took a day to think about and compose during which time I failed to follow > the thread. And I haven't saved those postings so I still don't know what > they contained. The mailing list is archived. April 2008 is at: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/ENG-WORCESTER/2008-04 While I think the discussion itself was fascinating, I think Dave's concern is that it was clear that the poster who started it (Mr. Happy) had quite clearly spammed many, many of these mailing lists, with virtually the same post. I don't think the desire to shut down the discussion was anything more than trying to stop the original poster from benefitting from their spam.