Hi Nelda: A few years ago there was something in the news re either Jesse James or Billy the Kid... I forget, but think it was JJ. Seems two towns claimed to have his body buried in their cemetery. A paper chase ensued and the descendents of Jesse's mother's sister [if I recall correctly], who happened to be male, had their mtDNA tested against the buried remains to identify who the real Jesse James was... and where he was buried. So, yes, after a fashion, mtDNA can be used to corroborate paper genealogy research. However, to take a stab in the dark and say that all those in a given area at a certain point in time, with the same surname perhaps, are closely related, simply due to sharing mtDNA, could be dead wrong. Case in point..... Cal Boyd, genealogist emeritas and former Boyd DNA Project Manager, used to share my home. We have the same surname. Our paternal genealogy would point to a probable common ancestor circa 1205, but not in the closer sevreral hundred years [unless my brother will relent to testing]. For all intent and purpose, we are "not related." However, we do share the same mtDNA. He has a bit more mutation on his than I have on mine. He is just as "related" to me as Bennet Greenspan. Yet, again, we have no maternal lines that connect in recorded history. My maternal lineage goes back to Bavaria in the 1700s. His leads to Ireland. We are cousins, with 50% probability, within 10,000 years and no closer. That is as close as the mtDNA can bring us. Same place, same time, same surname. And... his sister Sandy would have the same mtDNA. Still not related, even were she to live in the same town as I, which she does not. And his nieces to my nieces. We were not born in the same area, nor grew up in the same community. We connected via our Scottish Clan organization. I might add that we were both *extremely* surprised to find that we share the same Ancient Mother. What are the odds? Yours Aye, Lauren H CRS 315.1c