David: I remember you from those days :-). I started with Alf Christophersen and Cliff Manis at the University of North Dakota .... and then the resulting transfers to other locations. The resulting "discussions" regarding the "SmartList" and the bridge to the newsgroups and splits caused a big ruckus. Alf has written up the history from his point of view and it's still available on some of the lists. I currently manage the SCOT-DNA project with some pretty wide open requirements. Anyone with potential for scotttish dna is welcome ... and there has been cases of finally obtaining a reasonably close genetic distance from other tests in the database. My point here is that I agree that there should not be a verification test for this. There are some projects with very narrow defined requirements for other reasons. The Orkney Project and the Shetlands projects come to mind. Their objectives are somewhat different than ours with genealogy at the core. There are 4 of us assisting in this project and we still need someone to assist in the technical analysis. We have 4 components in the project: a: a mailing list ( maintained by Lauren Boyd). This discussion could be held on the Scot-Dna-L@rootsweb.com and could bring about 250 people to the discussion that have a specific interest in the British and Scottish DNA analysis. The archives of this mailing list have an extensive 3 year history already of discussions on some of these aspects. b: a private web site to post the database and genealogy backgrounds including gedcoms ( maintained by Charlotte Braun). We plan to stay private since we have had numerous requests to not allow wide and public distribution of the DNA and written history ( Gedcoms). You noted below that you have had some difficulty in getting that information as well. I can share numerous emails etc expressing that concern in very vivid and direct commands :-) " Thou shalt not " etc. Remember the Scottish people by nature are a very private people that Americans sometimes find hard to understand. My recommendation, therefore is to not automatically put the test results in Y search but to give an option to have the project do it for them. This gives the option to do it ... and eliminates the hesitancy of them doing it ( technical hurdles, cost, etc). c: A database ( administered by Marsha Smith). d: the testing program at Family Tree . I know we could NOT have maintained the pace of processing without the support of these people. Your concerns about the support is very much on point. BTW: You can see more details at www.brigadoon.net ( go to Scottish dna). The bridge is the auld brig over the river Doon at Alloway ( Ayr). My wife and I spent a lot of time here and our wedding reception was held here). The auld brig was made famous in the poem ( Tam O' Shanter) by Robert Burns. We process an average of 5 to 10 inquiries per week and sometimes as high as 25 inquiries per week when we get a mention in a journal or some PR. We have accepted over 1100 test results in the database currently. This is not a lot.. but it starts to become statistically significant and gives some idea of the various locations of specific clans, families etc as tied to geography at certain periods. It would appear to me offhand that the discussion of doing this on a county ( shire) basis is perhaps a bit optimistic seeing the 1100 Scottish DNA test results . We see some remarkably close genetic distance results ( less than 5 mutations) from results that are from the Northern Highlands according to the normal Clan maps to the Southern Border ( Reivers country). It appears to me that we can perhaps obtain another 4-5000 test results over the next 12 months with a strong program to get all Scottish descendants tested ( including Europe, New Zealand , Australia, Canada etc etc). You make a very valid point below about the correlation of results. The difficulty that I see is the technical analysis and the correlation of the results in a easier manner than the current methods. There are lots of documents and gedcoms, written history, ridings, church documents etc that are emerging. But these don't mean much if the Clan and Family aren't tied together with DNA testing. I think the biggest gaps are twofold: A: the lack of of correlation of DNA to Clans, and Family ( regardless of location ) with gedcoms, written history, ridings, and church documents etc. that are emerging. B: correlation of the DNA results across Clans and Families. But these documents and results don't mean much if the Clan and Family aren't tied together with DNA testing. Surnames and Clans were very flexible in the period before say ca. 1700 with lots of name and Clan changes taking place in 1745 as one datapoint or instance of culture disruption. The Clans and Border Family were active and warring with each other for food and territory. Non Paternity events were common, affiliations and names were based on protection, food and various other compensation agreements. The Scottish were ( and still are) a very vibrant people and have wandered far and wide across the world. Entire families have disappeared from Scotland and relocated during the Highland Clearances for instance. The last results that I noted was that there are about 5 million people in Scotland and over 30 million in other countries :-). Good Luck on the project and hope this gets going in some form. Best Regards John A Hansen -----Original Message----- From: David B. Strong [mailto:dbsandmd@allstream.net] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 12:32 PM To: rhite@netwalk.com; jahansen@brigadoon.net; fauxdk@yahoo.com; margaretlj@eircom.net; austinrock@eircom.net; aulicino@hevanet.com; jvance@tiac.net; Richard Barton; Terry Barton; derek@4ed.info; hdpth@earthlink.net; apeiron@vif.com; Katherine Hope Borges Cc: John D. Armstrong; leahw@familytreedna.com Subject: Re: New DNA project proposal Roy and Katherine... I've been following your messages with interest, and mulling the proposal over in my mind. First, let me say that the idea has merit. However, I think the devil is in the details of how to implement the concept. What you are talking about is a massive project, and requires more administration than I think is possible... eg., I think there is an inherent "span of control" problem. One person can't manage a project of the scope you propose... and governance by an email committee is likewise impossible. Some years ago, a number of us who were members of the Strong List [back in the days of the Maiser computer at the University of Indiana] were contemplating constructing an on-line project for researching all of the various Strong/Strange lineages which we knew existed. We soon realized that there was a real problem in administering such an overall project. The solution was to decentralize the project... and allow those who were interested to proceed with the construction of their own websites, designed along lines which they desired, with only a loose coordination in the sense that we all endeavored to provide links to our colleagues in the project. That worked fairly well for a time... and considerable progress was made which has been useful in the long run. Perhaps ANY progress is better than none... so to the extent I can, I am willing to support the project, provided someone else is doing the heavy lifting. I agree with the comments Katherine has made in the message below... and would add to her comment about not restricting join requests that yes, you do lose participants if you try to "vet" each person who joins the project. However, when you allow open joinder, you also lose control over the participants to the extent that often the administrator knows little or nothing about the participant and their reasons for joining the DNA Project. My experience in the admin of the Donegal Bay and Enniskillen Families Geographic project is that many of the participants simply don't respond to my requests for info about their lineages and connections to the geographic area. I know a number of the participants are doing so purely on speculation. And, frankly, I don't have the time to persue them all to try to wheedle the info out of them. Another suggestion is that the Project Administrator should put everyone who joins the project on notice that they will be entered in Y-Search by the Administrator. This policy has been implemented with considerable utility by Jim Elliott, the administrator of the Elliott and Border Reivers DNA Project; I have hesitated in the past to do so, largely based on the concept that each participant should be responsible for managing their own research. However, it is apparent to me that while Y-Search has huge benefits for all who participate in it, one can lead many to the horse-trough, but can't make them voluntarily participate or drink! Putting everyone on prior notice and then automatically entering them in Y-Search eliminates the bottlenecks poised by those who won't take the steps necessary in order to participate. Another suggestion would be that each geographical project should opt to generate an automatic webpage chart of the participants DNA results using FTDNA's utility for that purpose; for example, as found at: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/armstrong I have found it difficult if not impossible to keep track of the allele patterns displayed by the various members of the Donegal Bay project, and intend soon to go to the FTDNA display as an aide to all concerned in addition to the Results page I maintain at: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/donegal_bay.htm A large part of the problem has to do with the fact that we have a rather disparate number of lineages involved, with various haplogroups and haplotypes. On top of that must be added the problems of interpretation caused by mutations, and surname changes, etc. A review of Jim Elliott's Border Reivers by Haplotype data will demonstrate some of what I am concerned about here: See: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/dna_by_haplogroup.htm and notice the occurances of different surnames associated with similar haplotypes. Given the foregoing, I am wondering how one could keep overall track of the haplotypes demonstrated by the various participants in all of the various county or regional projects as proposed, and how to adequately cross-reference and coordinate the data in order to be able to make any purposeful use of it... I'm open to further suggestions and discussion from anyone who is interested in the project. Dave Strong ... Administrator of: Donegal Bay and Enniskillen Families Geographic DNA Project Strong/Strange Surname DNA Project Co-Admin of: Border Reivers DNA Project Armstrong Surname DNA Project, and DNA Study Coordinator & webmaster: Book I: RESEARCHING STRONG(E) AND STRANG(E) IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/contents.htm Database and manuscript. See especially Chap. 13, entitled "Lineages"; and Chapt. 15, "DNA Study" http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/dnastudy.htm & Book II: THE DONEGAL STRONG PUZZLE: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegalstrongs/indxdrft.htm Research and study of Counties Donegal and Fermanagh Strongs and related families. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Katherine Hope Borges" <kvjjmmborges@msn.com> To: <apeiron@vif.com>; <hdpth@earthlink.net>; <derek@4ed.info>; <terry@bartonsite.org>; <richb@bartons.org>; <dbsandmd@allstream.net>; <jvance@tiac.net>; <aulicino@hevanet.com>; <austinrock@eircom.net>; <margaretlj@eircom.net>; <fauxdk@yahoo.com>; <jahansen@brigadoon.net>; <rhite@netwalk.com>; <JuliaFWood@aol.com>; <ndaven@frontiernet.net> Cc: <leahw@familytreedna.com> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 9:12 AM Subject: Re: New DNA project proposal > Dear Roy, > > Here's another person for you to contact about your proposal as this project > just debuted > yesterday: > http://www.familytreedna.com/public/east%5Fanglia/ > > I'm the administrator of six geographical/heritage projects, all of them > were established > in 2005. I've learned much in one years time through trial and error, and > some reading this > e-mail do not agree with my methods and philosophies, but I will share with > you what I've > learned through my experience: > > My first geographical project was Laurens County, South Carolina. Laurens > has over 200 > years of documented history and no court-house fires! Many families in > Laurens are > autonomous in that they married their neighbors and cousins and never left > the county. > While I don't live anywhere near Laurens, I know more about Laurens than any > county > in which I've ever lived and as you propose, I offer resources for research > on my project > website. Not only is there a resources links pages, but I also offer > cemetery transcriptions > and a referral to a professional Laurens genealogist which is a rare person > to find. So with > this experience, I'd recommend that potential county/region administrators > have knowledge > and interest in the regions they adopt. If they don't have the first-hand > knowledge, then > they should recruit a co-administrator who does. > > I learned last year to not restrict my projects with a "Join Request". It > is much easier to > have someone join your project, then discuss their qualifications, and if > they don't qualify, > then they can be transferred out. I've lost probably as many as 20 people > from joining > by having my projects restricted. > > I'm fine with helping someone with the regional/county projects in Scotland, > but I think > it would be difficult for them to do. Speaking on behalf of my Scottish > ancestors, they > were all over the place, they did not stay for many generations in one > county. I also > own a map of Scottish clan distributions, and again, speaking on behalf of > my familial > clans, they didn't confine themselves to one region or county. That's not > to say that > autonomy in Scotland doesn't exist, but it's probably more likely to be > found in the > Shetlands, isles, or in remote parts of Scotland. > > The bulk of your participants will be Americans. Americans are the ones > primarily > desiring and researching their ancestral origins. For the most part, those > is Britain know > where they came from. So you'll want to be receptive to Genographic > participants. > Probably the largest number of Geno participants in Britain are in England. > The beauty > of the Geno Project, is that it brings the participants and the data to us. > > I hope what I've shared is helpful. > Best regards, > Katherine > > >>From: "Roy Keys" <apeiron@vif.com> >>To: "Katherine Hope Borges" <kvjjmmborges@msn.com>, <hdpth@earthlink.net>, >> <derek@4ed.info>, <terry@bartonsite.org>, <richb@bartons.org>, >> <dbsandmd@allstream.net>, <jvance@tiac.net>, <aulicino@hevanet.com>, >> <austinrock@eircom.net>, <margaretlj@eircom.net>, <fauxdk@yahoo.com>, >> <jahansen@brigadoon.net>, <rhite@netwalk.com>, <JuliaFWood@aol.com>, >> <ndaven@frontiernet.net> >>CC: <leahw@familytreedna.com> >>Subject: Re: New DNA project proposal >>Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:36:57 -0500 >> >>Dear Catherine, >> >>I thank you for your response and take your comments to heart. I agree that >>it may prove difficult to locate individuals whose ancestry can be traced >>to 17th century sources. However, if the time-frame of the study were >>limited to the 19th century, for example, would the situation improve >>significantly? Certainly the population base in the 19th century is larger, >>and more persons may be able to trace ancestry to, say, an 1861 census. But >>would the study then reflect a period sufficiently remote from the present >>that the resulting map would differ substantially from a map based on a >>purely modern sampling. Obviously some kind of compromise is necessary, but >>in what direction? >> >>At the other extreme, a pan-British Isles project could simply draw on >>membership from existing geographical (i.e., county based) projects and >>surnames, without any other restriction as to membership. Maybe this is the >>best way to begin, as refinements could be added later when membership >>grows. The initial database of surnames would then include an earliest >>known ancestor (with date), and information about the ancestor's >>geographical situation (county, town or parish, townland, etc.). It would >>be something of a patchwork, but it would not have the built-in restriction >>on growth that the 17th century project might face. >> >>In any event, I believe that a vital part of the project would be to ensure >>that access is provided through the project to such censuses and other >>genealogical sources as do exist, whether by external links or by >>incorporating these sources into the project's own website. Perhaps a lot >>of work, but this is going to be a long-term project, and if people are >>willing to chip in... >> >>As a start, what if we encourage the creation of county and regional >>projects for all the British Isles? The administrators could then >>coordinate their project work with the aim of building a DNA map, and >>engage in active recruitment to bring in more counties and more surnames >>for each county. >> >>Sincerely, >>Roy Keys >> >> >> > > > >