Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Subjective Paradigm Shift in Genealogy?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Subjective Paradigm Shift in Genealogy?

    I have just finished a 15 year research project involving medieval genealogy and my findings lend themselves to the very subjective nature of genealogy. More precisely, it is my opinion, that I have substantiated that many families thought to have been English in origins are actually Dutch, German, Danish, etc. Many families thought to have been French are actually Belgian. Many families thought to have been Welsh were actually Norman as well.

    This ultimately could lead to a paradigm shift in how we view migratory patterns with regard to haplogroups R1b, R1a, I1. My research was NOT genetically based, but rather, genealogically so.

    The problem is, that many American families who are participants have submitted their origins as English, when in reality, many of them are probably not.

    When researching the 1617 and 1618 enumerations in London, one sees many families once thought to have been of English or French origin, to actually have been Dutch or German. This is an incredible resource that all who are of "English" origin but cannot get across the pond, should consider researching. Once one does then they can make the appropriate adjustment to their "ancestral origins" page and then the database can actually do the job that it was designed for.

    This science is really subjective to the individual's paper history, and if there are flaws, then so too will the supplementary genetic information have them.

  • #2
    Subjective is right. My maternal line looks elegant and full of royals and knights. But there are potential weak points that could change that. One point is around the Henry VIII era, where my tree seems to be connected to. They had manors in the country, but were also spending time in London. I mean, which Fisher family was it really? If it was an alternate Fisher family, they came from Kent. But Kent is where the Danish Jutes settled, so my direct maternal line would probably still be of Danish origins; just not via Normandy.

    Comment


    • #3
      Did the ethnic misidentification happen in America, or generations earlier in Europe. I ask this because a lot of Americans consider their ancestors to be English simply because the colonies were started by England.

      I describe myself as 1/8 Swiss (my great grandfather came from canton Luzern, Switzerland) and 7/8 Colonial American (which means generally English & Scottish with all sorts of minor northwestern European ethnicities).

      Earlier, back in Europe... I know that some European countries were intolerant of dissenters, many of whom fled to friendly principalities (eg, the Palatinate) & moved from there to America; so French families appeared to be coming from Germany.

      Timothy Peterman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
        Did the ethnic misidentification happen in America, or generations earlier in Europe. I ask this because a lot of Americans consider their ancestors to be English simply because the colonies were started by England.

        I describe myself as 1/8 Swiss (my great grandfather came from canton Luzern, Switzerland) and 7/8 Colonial American (which means generally English & Scottish with all sorts of minor northwestern European ethnicities).

        Earlier, back in Europe... I know that some European countries were intolerant of dissenters, many of whom fled to friendly principalities (eg, the Palatinate) & moved from there to America; so French families appeared to be coming from Germany.

        Timothy Peterman
        Therein lies the obfuscation for many. The ship rolls from England during that time were extremely limited and thousands of ancestors are unaccounted for. So assumptions were made because their names were anglicized. The Dutch were here prior to the "English" colonists, the Spaniards and the French were here before them, and well, we also have the Africans and the Natives to account for.

        With that said, I am speaking solely to the point of the occurrences happening in England. Many of my "Puritan English" lines were actually of Dutch origin. I was only able to decipher this by triangulating primary sourced materials, such as the 1617 and 1618 state papers, as well as the Dutch Church records with geological locations in similar timeframes. In those records I witnessed their names morph from very Dutch or German names, such as Joanes Selig into John Seeley. If you did not have these records available to you, why wouldn't you assume that John Seeley was anything but English?

        My journey was excruciatingly rewarding, and I recommend that anyone with big holes in their English research search through these records. The period of the Reformation created much upheaval and mass immigration to England.

        Comment


        • #5
          I too suspect that many of our "English" ancestors were largely so because of politics and culture and language -- not necessarily genetics or distant family history. It's been around 3-4 years now since I have delved into genetics. And only recently have I done much paper pre-immigration research. What I have seen so far indicates to me that North America's melting pot began long before the New World became a haven for European settlers.

          Except for a few exceptions, I've come to the conclusion that a family's sense of ethnic identity is less based on genetics and more based on how long family members have lived in one place. Identity seems to be firmly established after 2-3
          generations of living in one country.
          Last edited by mixedkid; 27 April 2013, 11:56 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            I guess in the end we're all of african origin, no?

            Genealogy is a very exact science: everyone has one biological father and one biological mother. These relationships - when put to paper - define the exact biological ancestral relationships and lines. There is nothing else to it.

            Inferring ancestral lines or 'origins' from dna is a probablistic science, i.e., relationships are defined by probabilities. Many people read a lot of hokus pokus into this, but in reality it is just (another) tool to assist in family research (as well as anthropology and demographic studies, but that's something else)

            Medieval times are a long way before the 1600's or even the reformation. Medieval is 800-1000+ years ago, or 30-40 generations. Also in those times (and before) most European countries didn't exist like they do today. There were lots of smaller kingdoms. It's probably better to talk about regions than countries pre-1500.

            From the period of the reformation in the 16th century up to early 1800 was a very turbulent period in Europe where movement of people was relative easy. Also remember that surnames came into existence for common people early in that period (at least in most countries). There are - for obvious reasons - in pretty much every language/country/(ethic) region gazillions of people named Smith. But it doesn't mean anything. So it is usefull to study the ethymology of names.

            I think it is agreed and everyone sort of knows that the listed 'origins' are nothing else than the earliest known location (be it birth or otherwise) of the most time-distant ancestor. That's all. In that sense, while it is somewhat useful, it is also confusing and potentially misleading. Agree.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by lc0 View Post
              I guess in the end we're all of african origin, no?
              Not necessarily. That is one theory and it is the one that is promoted by the establishment due to its social implications; but it isn't the only theory and the multiregional hypothesis has yet to be disproven and cannot be ruled out, even though the establishment has a vested interest in trying to discredit it because it does not support their diversification of society agenda.

              Comment


              • #8
                At what point would a person stop being English and start being Dutch?

                My ancestors came to the colonies in the 1600s from England, but our deep clade for our surname says we are Frisian II, and part of a mass migration to England around 700 BC.

                So would you consider us English or Dutch?


                Sue

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sue Crowley View Post
                  At what point would a person stop being English and start being Dutch?

                  My ancestors came to the colonies in the 1600s from England, but our deep clade for our surname says we are Frisian II, and part of a mass migration to England around 700 BC.

                  So would you consider us English or Dutch?


                  Sue
                  If your ancestors immigrated to Britain (there was no England then) in 700 BC from what is now Friesland, they would have been neither English nor Dutch, but most likely part of an ancient confederation of Gallic tribes (that included the Cimbri) called the Belgae:

                  The Belgae are mentioned by Julius Caesar writing in his account of the Gallic Wars:

                  "The mainland of Britain is inhabited by a people who claim to be indigenous to the island, on the coast live the immigrant Belgae, who crossed over for war and pillage, but settled to cultivate the land...Those living inland do not sow grain but live on milk and meat and wear clothes of animal hides. All Britons paint their skin with woad which makes them blue and more terrifying to confront in battle."
                  Is your haplotype R1b1b2a1a1* by any chance?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sue Crowley View Post
                    At what point would a person stop being English and start being Dutch?

                    My ancestors came to the colonies in the 1600s from England, but our deep clade for our surname says we are Frisian II, and part of a mass migration to England around 700 BC.

                    So would you consider us English or Dutch?


                    Sue
                    In my personal case, my ancestors were born in Amsterdam, fled to London and had three sons, two of which fled to the colonies at the ages of 18 and 26. In London they were considered to be "Dutch Strangers", in the colonies they anglicised their surname and became thoroughly entrenched in the Puritan and early "American" history. In short, in London they were Dutch, in the colonies they had no delineation on record other than colonists.

                    But the point of my original post might have deeper implications of the migratory patterns that are accepted.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      agreed.

                      Originally posted by Steven Akins View Post
                      Not necessarily. That is one theory and it is the one that is promoted by the establishment due to its social implications; but it isn't the only theory and the multiregional hypothesis has yet to be disproven and cannot be ruled out, even though the establishment has a vested interest in trying to discredit it because it does not support their diversification of society agenda.
                      I for one do not categorically accept the out of Africa theory.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lc0 View Post
                        I guess in the end we're all of african origin, no?

                        Genealogy is a very exact science: everyone has one biological father and one biological mother. These relationships - when put to paper - define the exact biological ancestral relationships and lines. There is nothing else to it.

                        Inferring ancestral lines or 'origins' from dna is a probablistic science, i.e., relationships are defined by probabilities. Many people read a lot of hokus pokus into this, but in reality it is just (another) tool to assist in family research (as well as anthropology and demographic studies, but that's something else)

                        Medieval times are a long way before the 1600's or even the reformation. Medieval is 800-1000+ years ago, or 30-40 generations. Also in those times (and before) most European countries didn't exist like they do today. There were lots of smaller kingdoms. It's probably better to talk about regions than countries pre-1500.

                        From the period of the reformation in the 16th century up to early 1800 was a very turbulent period in Europe where movement of people was relative easy. Also remember that surnames came into existence for common people early in that period (at least in most countries). There are - for obvious reasons - in pretty much every language/country/(ethic) region gazillions of people named Smith. But it doesn't mean anything. So it is usefull to study the ethymology of names.

                        I think it is agreed and everyone sort of knows that the listed 'origins' are nothing else than the earliest known location (be it birth or otherwise) of the most time-distant ancestor. That's all. In that sense, while it is somewhat useful, it is also confusing and potentially misleading. Agree.
                        This is true, to add that I was not inferring that the 1617/1618 papers were the medieval period. It's only when I began to see the issues that I described. I have realized through my research that orthography and identifying the unique patterns of phonetics are crucial in identifying potential geographic "hotspots" for ancestral origins of one's family. But the sentiment of your "out of Africa" holds weight, ultimately one's origins will end at a finite place, at a finite time, wherever that may be.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Zaru View Post
                          In my personal case, my ancestors were born in Amsterdam, fled to London and had three sons, two of which fled to the colonies at the ages of 18 and 26. In London they were considered to be "Dutch Strangers", in the colonies they anglicised their surname and became thoroughly entrenched in the Puritan and early "American" history. In short, in London they were Dutch, in the colonies they had no delineation on record other than colonists.

                          But the point of my original post might have deeper implications of the migratory patterns that are accepted.
                          London has a long history of attracting immigrants from all over Europe. Besides several Huguenot ancestors that went to England prior to their arrival in 17th century colonial America, I have one ancestor by the name of Bartholomeo Taliaferro who was born in Venice and later migrated to London where he met and married an English woman and fathered a family from which my colonial Virgina Taliaferro ancestor was born to, giving me the 2.4% Southern European ancestry that shows up in my DNA.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Steven Akins View Post
                            London has a long history of attracting immigrants from all over Europe. Besides several Huguenot ancestors that went to England prior to their arrival in 17th century colonial America, I have one ancestor by the name of Bartholomeo Taliaferro who was born in Venice and later migrated to London where he met and married an English woman and fathered a family from which my colonial Virgina Taliaferro ancestor was born to, giving me the 2.4% Southern European ancestry that shows up in my DNA.
                            There are a significant amount of Venetians listed in the state papers indeed. But by and large the vast majority of the immigrants in the period of 1555-1640 were Dutch. Then it rapidly turned into Huguenots.

                            I think (if I remember correctly)there is a Crystal Taliaferro who sings backup sometimes with Bruce Springsteen.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Zaru View Post
                              There are a significant amount of Venetians listed in the state papers indeed. But by and large the vast majority of the immigrants in the period of 1555-1640 were Dutch. Then it rapidly turned into Huguenots.

                              I think (if I remember correctly)there is a Crystal Taliaferro who sings backup sometimes with Bruce Springsteen.
                              As far as I know, most of the Taliaferros in the U.S. are descended from Bartolomeo's grandson Robert, my 10th great grandfather, who was born in Stepney, Middlesex, England in 1626 and died in Gloucester Co., Virginia in 1687. Robert and his descendants owned slaves, so it is possible that one of them my have been an ancestor of the singer you mention. The "T." in Booker T. Washington's name stood for Taliaferro, the last name of his (white) father.
                              Last edited by Steven Akins; 28 April 2013, 10:37 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X