GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

From:
Subject: Re: [DNA] Success stories [source of DNA]
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 15:45:15 EST

Ann Turner wrote:


> ...That brings up a question: do you all think it's worthwhile for Bill to do
> >some "reverse" genealogy?....

Yes, from my experience, definitely, although I don't know what has already
been done. Having the framework of an overall paper genealogy means fewer
tests are needed.

Researchers have to work from top down as well as bottom up in those cases
where early records are sparse. It is often necessary to construct an
inferential genealogy. This means collecting all records for a surname in a
relevant geographical area, weighing the circumstantial evidence when direct
(by historians' definition) evidence is lacking and picking the best
hypothesis.

It is very different from just tunneling up your own line. You have to fit
people in like a jigsaw puzzle. This can be very difficult for common names,
of course. For DNA purposes, the genealogy does not have to be "proven" to
the standard of clear and convincing evidence, apparently the standard of the
NGS. Any branch may change when the next record shows up.

We did this for our family before testing. Our Colonial records were in
Virginia, which lost a large portion of its Colonial records to various wars
and fires, but mostly to an out-of-control fire in Richmond, where many
county's records were stored for "safekeeping." The fire was thought to have
resulted from the intentional burning of tobacco warehouses ordered by the
Confederate provost marshal near the end of the Civil War.

One of our earliest counties was a "burned" county (Caroline) which was
stereotyped as impossible by older researchers. One of the most useful type
of early records in all counties were the court orders.

Most older genealogists never used them because they had not been
transcribed. We were able to identify 10 grandchildren of our progenitor (b.
ca. 1650). Previously, only 2 could be connected with a father. We were also
able to document the false paternity noted below from these records.

By doing this, we saved a lot of money on tests, since we were able to test
only targeted people needed as our reference subjects. We also tested two
orphan branches thought to be related. With the savings, we were able to pay
for tests of needed people who otherwise would not have participated.

We started testing with three separate early families with good paper
genealogies. We got all 26/26 matches (no single mismatches) within each of
the three families, except for two doubles (in different families). We are
working around the doubles now. Two of the families differ by a single marker.

One of the families turned out to be a false paternity. This accounted for
the inability of researchers to find a connecting record despite years of
intensive research. We tested a member of the suspected family and got a
26/26 match.This alone made the tests worthwhile.

We also tested an orphan branch which matched 26/26 with one of the above
families. We are now looking for a hook on the main branch.

We have tested 11 reference samples and 3 orphans so far. Most of our major
questions should be answered with three more tests, leaving one which can't
be answered due to DNA-shy descendants. We will probably end our tests after
this phase, as it seems fruitless to try to connect further back (to Great
Britain) unless other families have good genealogies and have typed their
family in a similar manner.

We also ended up with one person who was unrelated and couldn't be matched
up. There was no paper genealogy to connect him to either of the three
families, although he was geographically associated with two of them.
However, he was from a minor branch which was uninterested in further testing
to isolate the false paternity.

Bob Stafford

This thread:

• [DNA] Re: by
  • [DNA] Re: by
  • Re: [DNA] by
    • Re: [DNA] by Alan Savin <>