On the other hand I had my DNA tested almost 5 years ago and cannot see the point of it. I have only matched one other person with the same surname since. As we are unlikely to share a common ancestor since 1750 and as he is a little precious with his family research then it seems we both wasted our money getting tested. Philip Maddocks ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wendy Reeve" <wendy.reeve@xtra.co.nz> To: <Essex-UK@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 6:11 PM Subject: [Ess] DNA >I read Liz Jones email with interest. I too have been involved using DNA to > support my genealogical research for almost a year now. Using it, I had a > wonderful breakthrough on a brick wall that had blocked 3 of us for over > 20 > years with an illegitimate birth in 1801. I found a male descendant of > this > line and tested his YDNA (a simple cheek swab is all that is needed). To > our joy - he matched almost exactly with another person in the > familytreedna > database. We corresponded and discovered this persons ancestor had worked > and lived in the same area, at the same time as my ancestor was born and > also had other illegitimate children - some of whom were named in his > will. > At the time in question he was between wives, so one can imagine what may > have happened. Now I can take that line back further with confidence, > although with a different name. > >

I have empathy with Philip's comment, "On the other hand I had my DNA tested almost 5 years ago and cannot see the point of it", as it has never been explained to me why tracing DNA will be of real value to family historians. I can see why tracing DNA in its male or female lines is a seriously important tool in tracing the origins of migratory groups of peoples and bringing some understanding to how areas were populated in prehistory and perhaps where there has been more modern population movements, but to link it to family history seems to me to be a less useful application of DNA analysis. Family history is by the nature of the study of history a study of documented record. Like history, more generally, family history records may be informed by other disciplines including medical records to corroborate or explain specific gaps in knowledge left by more conventional historical record - in the same way as archaeology informs the history of place or of culture. Given the experience in the UK of the development of surnames then I start to lose the plot a bit about DNA analysis; the historical record for the greatest part of the population is scant or even non-existent before the reign of Henry VIII, about the same time that the modern surname was fully settling down. Earlier than this then even surnames themselves are unreliable as an intergenerational link. However, unless we are going to disinter numerous possibly related corpses then how is the DNA connection going to be proved within a family going back in time? I fully understand the possibility of a link where a living person might provide DNA samples to provide evidence of a link to long dead people where the linkage is already assumed and it is important to prove the identity of the dead - such as in the case where Prince Philip, and others. Provided DNA samples to help in the identification of the probable Romanov grave inhabitants, but otherwise I see little value other than a very simple link with other living people. I was invited to take part in a DNA project by an American gentleman with a similar, but not identical, surname to me. I declined for all the reasons that I have given; his response, and that of his associates in the project, were quite convinced that a large number of people with our shared surname or derivatives would be linked - for the reason that we all came from a similar part of the world. I tried explaining that in surname lists the name Orchard ranks at about 1400 in the most common surnames in the English speaking world, which is actually quite high. I pointed out that in the old Kingdom of Wessex, it was significantly higher and that as a surname that almost certainly derives its cultural roots from the Anglo-Saxon naming traditions and that Wessex was, if nothing else, an Anglo-Saxon hot-spot, this was not altogether surprising - who in England would not know that the heart of the cider growing throughout the ages has been in the areas bounding upon Somersetshire? Having a relatively common work-related surname which has high densities across several counties of the old kingdom of Wessex, is a fairly good indicator that the DNA linkages will be weak rather than strong. Given that surnames were historically late in becoming fixed to ordinary families it is nonsensical to believe that the people with a particular surname would be recently related to others since to have a close familial link in such circumstances would indicate that many, if not all, fruit gardeners of the Tudor period were related to each other but never to any other tradesman from which trade they might equally validly have taken their family name. Perhaps someone might explain to us the real value of this quest for DNA from the perspective of family historians, Regards John Orchard

you aren't acknowledging the autosomal, which covers all ancestors, not just the direct line paternal and maternal lines. the basic purpose of dna; to verify the paperwork to fill in where paperwork fails due to war, natural disaster, careless record keeping, careless storage, and neglect. to discover ones complete ancestry, not just the visable ancestry but deep ancestry as well. because some people are honestly curious and last but not least, because it's the only way for some people to learn who their contemporary relatives are (especially adoptees) it does work, you can learn these things and much more from it, but a negative mind gets negative returns. you reap what you sew. the paper work is important, even invaluable, but sometimes it just doesn't exist. some never did, some has been destroyed. when that happens, turning your back on DNA is like turning your back on potatoes when there's a famine. Cornelia On 31.12.2012 15:20, John Orchard wrote: > I have empathy with Philip's comment, "On the other hand I had my DNA tested > almost 5 years ago and cannot see the point of it", as it has never been > explained to me why tracing DNA will be of real value to family historians. > I can see why tracing DNA in its male or female lines is a seriously > important tool in tracing the origins of migratory groups of peoples and > bringing some understanding to how areas were populated in prehistory and > perhaps where there has been more modern population movements, but to link > it to family history seems to me to be a less useful application of DNA > analysis. > > Family history is by the nature of the study of history a study of > documented record. Like history, more generally, family history records may > be informed by other disciplines including medical records to corroborate or > explain specific gaps in knowledge left by more conventional historical > record - in the same way as archaeology informs the history of place or of > culture. Given the experience in the UK of the development of surnames then > I start to lose the plot a bit about DNA analysis; the historical record for > the greatest part of the population is scant or even non-existent before the > reign of Henry VIII, about the same time that the modern surname was fully > settling down. Earlier than this then even surnames themselves are > unreliable as an intergenerational link. However, unless we are going to > disinter numerous possibly related corpses then how is the DNA connection > going to be proved within a family going back in time? I fully understand > the possibility of a link where a living person might provide DNA samples to > provide evidence of a link to long dead people where the linkage is already > assumed and it is important to prove the identity of the dead - such as in > the case where Prince Philip, and others. Provided DNA samples to help in > the identification of the probable Romanov grave inhabitants, but otherwise > I see little value other than a very simple link with other living people. > > I was invited to take part in a DNA project by an American gentleman with a > similar, but not identical, surname to me. I declined for all the reasons > that I have given; his response, and that of his associates in the project, > were quite convinced that a large number of people with our shared surname > or derivatives would be linked - for the reason that we all came from a > similar part of the world. I tried explaining that in surname lists the name > Orchard ranks at about 1400 in the most common surnames in the English > speaking world, which is actually quite high. I pointed out that in the old > Kingdom of Wessex, it was significantly higher and that as a surname that > almost certainly derives its cultural roots from the Anglo-Saxon naming > traditions and that Wessex was, if nothing else, an Anglo-Saxon hot-spot, > this was not altogether surprising - who in England would not know that the > heart of the cider growing throughout the ages has been in the areas > bounding upon Somersetshire? Having a relatively common work-related > surname which has high densities across several counties of the old kingdom > of Wessex, is a fairly good indicator that the DNA linkages will be weak > rather than strong. Given that surnames were historically late in becoming > fixed to ordinary families it is nonsensical to believe that the people with > a particular surname would be recently related to others since to have a > close familial link in such circumstances would indicate that many, if not > all, fruit gardeners of the Tudor period were related to each other but > never to any other tradesman from which trade they might equally validly > have taken their family name. > > Perhaps someone might explain to us the real value of this quest for DNA > from the perspective of family historians, > > Regards > > John Orchard > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Any problems, please contact the List Admin: Essex-UK-admin@rootsweb.com > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ESSEX-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message