Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Beginner with CMH and J1 questions

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

  • Russ Lipton
    replied
    Doh Alert

    Silly amateur me. A few posts ago, I engaged in cunning speculation about three adoptions in Great Falls. I was correct about the way adoptions were often done but had neglected to not only trust but verify my court helper in Great Falls.

    On a first call four weeks ago, I had asked for relevant records between 1914 and 1916. So I assumed ...

    On a second call, I asked if she would now go back and give me all the details on the Gilbert Clark adoption. She did. Only, you see, well, it turns out she had grabbed that record the first time from 1923.

    Stifling the urge to say horrible things, I thanked her politely, hung up and then said horrible things. And made a note to self ....

    Meanwhile, help, advice and tips from other professional genealogists out here have me spinning with 'homework' that may be helpful to the search; but encouraged. They say I've got talent for this (gak) but I know better

    Something I'm learning for sure - Montana was one weird place in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Between fur traders, Blackfeet, ranchers, Crow, Jewish traders, Flatheads, ladies of the night, pioneer kids, Clarks, Cherokee, fortune seekers, missionaries and folks hiding out from the rest of the country, it was, shall we say, interesting. No film or novel I have ever read or heard of has done it justice for sure. 'Course, justice was just the thing lacking out here too many times ...

    Will be back when the 37-marker results come in; meanwhile, maybe another noobie can profit from my mistakes.
    Last edited by Russ Lipton; 9 September 2006, 01:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Judy
    replied
    Originally posted by Russ Lipton

    It is by no means clear that he (Hirsch HaCohen) is an ancestor of mine, though it is genetically possible - especially if he was a Mets fan.
    J2f, J, and E3b Mets fans here
    Judy

    Leave a comment:


  • Judy
    replied
    Originally posted by Russ Lipton
    Consultation with those wiser than me seems to suggest initially:

    A DNA friend wisely reminded me this morning that no DNA or genealogical discovery changes who we really are in the lives we have made. So true! Even if descended from a real human being who was a Cohen, I am just ..... Russ. That's a comfort, not a problem. I want this to remain a delight; not a trouble. I think my ancestors within me - whoever the heck they are - would approve.

    And, if not, that's their issue and they can all shut up ;-).
    Beautifully said!
    Judy

    Leave a comment:


  • Russ Lipton
    replied
    Minor Correction and Mets fan ...

    When I referred to near-matches to a known ancestor in my previous post, I meant, of course, an ancestor known to those who launched the particular surname project.

    It is by no means clear that he (Hirsch HaCohen) is an ancestor of mine, though it is genetically possible - especially if he was a Mets fan.

    Leave a comment:


  • Russ Lipton
    replied
    25-Marker Results

    Consultation with those wiser than me seems to suggest initially:

    1. Confirmation of J1 haplotype.

    2. Possibility of uncovering MRCA sooner perhaps than later in near-historical period (1600s or later), probably with Eastern European location.

    Four of six one-marker distant matches are with documented members of a known Lithuanian ancestor ... with suggested emigration of some later members to Poland given other matches emerging in the database. Another match also appears somewhat meaningful.

    3. Suggestive confirmation of specific Cohen genealogical ancestry, though still very provisional.

    Intuitively, I feel encouraged that the day may come (ten or twenty years from now) when a more complex exact match(es) will be made.

    Next up:
    37-marker test update (me).
    Father's MT-DNA plus (who the heck was his mother's ..... mother?)
    My half-uncle's Y-DNA test (was my father adopted or not)?
    Autosomal testing .... sigh .... money .... who ..... when ....
    Continued genealogical work to find my dad's birth parents.

    A DNA friend wisely reminded me this morning that no DNA or genealogical discovery changes who we really are in the lives we have made. So true! Even if descended from a real human being who was a Cohen, I am just ..... Russ. That's a comfort, not a problem. I want this to remain a delight; not a trouble. I think my ancestors within me - whoever the heck they are - would approve.

    And, if not, that's their issue and they can all shut up ;-).

    Leave a comment:


  • Russ Lipton
    replied
    25-Marker Results In

    Judy,

    Thanks, didn't know that detail but do know of the history - increasingly

    ..... On the run but my 25-marker results have just come in two and a half weeks early. They seem interesting to me ... but then they would, wouldn't they?

    Later ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Judy
    replied
    Russ, I don't know if this fits in with your hypotheses, but there were orphan trains for Jewish children, I think funded by Baron de Hirsch, from the New York City area to the midwest. I don't know any details, but I remember reading about them.
    Judy

    Leave a comment:


  • Russ Lipton
    replied
    For the Cognoscenti

    .... on the adopted child suggestion ....

    There were three children adopted in the requested time frame under the requested names (Clark, Bartlett, Lipke) in Great Falls:

    Gilbert Clark, Lawrence Bartlett, Annie Marie Bartlett

    (I have no other details on them yet).

    All three of these (wanted) children then disappear forever after from federal, state and local records so far as we know - census, military, marriage, death. None of them appear before that time frame either. The latter is less odd since they may all have been infants.

    One such disappearance would not be unusual; three is odd but explicable *given* guardianship and adoption practices then common - including subsequent renaming by the final adopting family.

    'Gilbert Clark' is reasonably close to my father's subsequent given name of Delbert Clark Lipke. Indeed, it could even be a transcription error ('G' for 'D' and 'i' for the intended 'e'). He would be 'Bert' in any case.

    If the speculation is plausible, the name Clark could have been retained initially by Mrs J. Bartlett because of the baby having the country sheriff (albeit a Hamilton himself) as a forebear. She would have been ten years younger than the sheriff - both were active in Choteau and must have known one another.

    Hey, it's all just for fun .... probably.

    Leave a comment:


  • Russ Lipton
    replied
    Update on Pater Search

    There is so much to say; I will stick to the minimum.

    I haven't had a breakthrough in the search for my father's birth parents yet - confirmation from my half-uncle's Y-DNA test will itself be vital in this process. Maybe we really are Lipkes! Fine with me. However, the genealogical evidence points strongly in the direction of adoption.

    I have identified, with early help from the Great Falls court, an adopted child record that just possibly might be that of my father under a related but different name. We suspect that the woman who placed him may have registered a number of children under her surname (a common practice of the time) before transferring him to the adopted parents. This assumes she herself was not my father's mother; plausible but doubtful in our mind and those who have carefully analyzed the letters shared between her and my 'grandmother'.

    We have identified a person from Great Falls who may be the Mrs J. Bartlett of the letters - while excluding many Bartletts who cannot fit by reasons of age, spouse, timing, etc.

    We have also located a particular family's records (and only one family) that could fit my father's parental heritage *given* the implications of the Cohen gene and *if* the family story that he was a Clark is accurate and *if* my father is part-Blackfoot - also according to the family mythos.

    We hope his MT-DNA will shed light on Indian background in a few weeks. Fortunately, most marriages were between white males and Indian squaws.

    In germ, the the father (Malcolm Clarke) was mixed Caucasian-Indian; his own father was white. The mother (Emma Hamilton Clarke) was mixed Caucasian-Indian; her father was white (and, at one time, the sheriff of Teton County). In both cases, we have some circumstantial evidence to suspect that the Caucasians may well have been Jewish. There is a gap in child-bearing at the time my father was born that could fit as well.

    Most likely, these speculations will be false and one (e.g., me) will look silly. No harm, no foul. Hypothesize, test, fail, learn, hypothesize ...

    Another line of thought has us considering orphan trains. Now, there is a historical subject unknown to most Americans! Under that search hypothesis, the story about Indians and Clark (with allusions always supplied to Lewis & Clark) would turn out to have been a red (blush) herring.

    Since we are talking sparsely populated frontier Montana (not exactly metro NYC) as well as, surprisingly, fairly decent record-keeping (an exhaustive census of the Blackfoot tribe in 1910 and a fair bit of data back to 1880), the data found so far is suggestive, if nothing else.

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by Russ Lipton
    Mike -

    Thanks, helpful, cuz

    Someone knowledgeable in the ways of DNA told me they believe MT-DNA is primarily helpful in excluding potential relationships, not confirming them (or, at least, not confirming them in a relevant fashion).

    So, I can be sure that I do not have matrilineal relatives - along that specific line - who were not T5. While this is true for Y-DNA, Y-DNA can do a far better job of identifying possible positive matches in historically-relevant time frames.
    I believe you're correct about that. All your maternal line ancestors were T5, up to the point that some woman, whose mother was a T, had the mutation(s) that started T5. And before that woman, all your maternal line ancestors were T, up to the point that some woman, whose mother was a JT, had the mutation(s) that started T.

    So one use of mtDNA results is to exclude that you and someone else are related in your maternal lines. If you're a T5 and someone else is a U5a1a or whatever, there's no way you share a maternal line ancestor - unless you go back to "mitocondrial Eve" in Africa 100,000 years ago.

    Originally posted by Russ Lipton
    While one could find that frustrating, I found it helpful. Would you agree with that? Is it likely to change as the state-of-the-art advances? I am not thinking so much of database growth but more subtle analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Or is it baked into the cake due to the nature of the case?
    My personal opinion is that there will be improvement in the ability to use mtDNA results to prove relatedness, possibly even within a genealogical timeframe. I think that will come through a combination of bigger databases giving us a better look at the various groups and where they're more predominant, along with a better scientific understanding of mtDNA and how it mutates and technical improvements to find the mutations. However, given how slowly mtDNA mutates in comparison to yDNA, I don't think it will ever catch up. Just my personal opinion, as a layman who is trying to learn (since July of last year) as much as I can about genetic genealogy and population genetics.

    Originally posted by Russ Lipton
    I was also told that T5 is rather rare at this point. True?
    Well, somewhat rare. I think the estimate of T's in people of European ancestry is 10%. Since T5 is a smaller segment of that, it's probably just a few percent.

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • Russ Lipton
    replied
    Exclude relationships?

    Mike -

    Thanks, helpful, cuz

    Someone knowledgeable in the ways of DNA told me they believe MT-DNA is primarily helpful in excluding potential relationships, not confirming them (or, at least, not confirming them in a relevant fashion).

    So, I can be sure that I do not have matrilineal relatives - along that specific line - who were not T5. While this is true for Y-DNA, Y-DNA can do a far better job of identifying possible positive matches in historically-relevant time frames.

    While one could find that frustrating, I found it helpful. Would you agree with that? Is it likely to change as the state-of-the-art advances? I am not thinking so much of database growth but more subtle analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Or is it baked into the cake due to the nature of the case?

    I was also told that T5 is rather rare at this point. True?

    Leave a comment:


  • MMaddi
    replied
    Originally posted by Russ Lipton
    I will furnish an update on the search for my father's birth parents in another post later today. Meanwhile, I would appreciate a bit of help on my mother's MT-DNA plus results (tested on me); received today.

    Haplotype: T5

    Here:
    HVR1 differences: 16126C, 16153A, 16294T, 16519C.
    HVR2 differences: 41T, 73G, 150T, 263G, 309.1C, 315.1C

    My HVR1 matches:
    England 2
    Germany 6
    Hungary 1
    Ireland 2
    Malta 1
    Poland 2
    Russia 4
    Scotland 1
    Slovenia 1
    Spain 1
    Ukraine 1 (Ashkenazi)
    UK 1
    Yugoslavia 1
    28 persons are listed by name for low-resolution matches.

    HVR2 matches:
    none

    What I get from this (Family Tree verbiage) is that my matrilineal line originated from the Middle East yea many moons ago and were probably part of Neolithic migrations into Europe. As to what we know, my great-grandmother was either Austrian or Polish. My 81-year old mother can't remember her grandmother's maiden name but I may be able to find it when I visit my parents in mid-October. My family is just a fount of knowledge on their origins. Not.

    I did not expect this test to show anything relating to Jewishness. However, because I have had Y-Jewishness on my mind lately (hmm, I wonder why), these are my hesitant conclusions to date:

    1. The K haplotype is the one most positively correlated with Jewish matrilineal descent.

    2. T5 is more compatible with genetic Jewish (e.g., Israel-specific) descent than some haplotypes might be, but only marginally so.
    Russ,

    Welcome back. It's great to hear that you're continuing to discover more about your ancestry, even if it's in bits and pieces and in a general way.

    The specific reason I'm writing today is to let you know we're distant cousins, in the thousands of years most likely. I say this because my mtDNA haplogroup is T5 too. I have 2 or 3 more HVR1 mutations than you, so that tells me that our common maternal line ancestor lived thousands of years ago. The most distant maternal line ancestor I know of was about born 1820 near Naples, in southern Italy. So you can see that the ancestors of us T5's spread all over Europe from the Near East.

    Originally posted by Russ Lipton
    (I am cognizant of the general differences between Y-DNA and MT-DNA relative to origins, both with precision and dating).

    These are a couple of questions:

    1. Is it useful to look into the specific mutations and how would I best do that?

    2. Broadly, what is the meaning of the HVR1 matches and the lack of HVR2 matches, if any, at this early stage in genetic testing?
    To answer your questions:

    1. The first thing to do, if you haven't yet is to upload your mtDNA results to mitosearch.org. You do that from your FTDNA personal page. Click on the mtDNA matches tab and look for the link, which will probably say "Click here," that will upload your results to the mitosearch.org database.

    Once your results are on mitosearch you can easily compare your results to others, either using specific mutations or by searching for a specific haplogroup. The last time I checked by haplogroup there were 42 T5's on mitosearch, so you should be #43. My mitosearch ID is 6M79M.

    2. As I mentioned above, because I have a few more HVR1 mutations than you do, our common ancestor was several thousands years ago. My understanding is that even with a perfect match for both HVR1 and HVR2 mutations, the best that can be said statistically is that the two people share a common ancestor in the last 700 years. Of course, if their ancestors came from the same area, that increases the chances that the ancestor may have been more recent. The main reason you don't have any HVR2 matches is that probably most people who test mtDNA only test HVR1.

    Mike Maddi

    Leave a comment:


  • Russ Lipton
    replied
    My maternal DNA results

    He's baaaack

    I am awaiting results on the following tests:
    My Y-DNA 37-marker upgrade (approx. 9/27)
    My father's MT-DNA plus test (approx 10/15)
    My half-uncle's Y-DNA 12-marker test (approx 10/22)

    (I am very grateful my just-discovered half-uncle was willing; this may help establish whether my father was adopted as the also just-discovered letters about his infancy strongly suggest).

    I will furnish an update on the search for my father's birth parents in another post later today. Meanwhile, I would appreciate a bit of help on my mother's MT-DNA plus results (tested on me); received today.

    Haplotype: T5

    Here:
    HVR1 differences: 16126C, 16153A, 16294T, 16519C.
    HVR2 differences: 41T, 73G, 150T, 263G, 309.1C, 315.1C

    My HVR1 matches:
    England 2
    Germany 6
    Hungary 1
    Ireland 2
    Malta 1
    Poland 2
    Russia 4
    Scotland 1
    Slovenia 1
    Spain 1
    Ukraine 1 (Ashkenazi)
    UK 1
    Yugoslavia 1
    28 persons are listed by name for low-resolution matches.

    HVR2 matches:
    none

    What I get from this (Family Tree verbiage) is that my matrilineal line originated from the Middle East yea many moons ago and were probably part of Neolithic migrations into Europe. As to what we know, my great-grandmother was either Austrian or Polish. My 81-year old mother can't remember her grandmother's maiden name but I may be able to find it when I visit my parents in mid-October. My family is just a fount of knowledge on their origins. Not.

    I did not expect this test to show anything relating to Jewishness. However, because I have had Y-Jewishness on my mind lately (hmm, I wonder why), these are my hesitant conclusions to date:

    1. The K haplotype is the one most positively correlated with Jewish matrilineal descent.

    2. T5 is more compatible with genetic Jewish (e.g., Israel-specific) descent than some haplotypes might be, but only marginally so.

    Correct? What nuances am I missing?

    (I am cognizant of the general differences between Y-DNA and MT-DNA relative to origins, both with precision and dating).

    These are a couple of questions:

    1. Is it useful to look into the specific mutations and how would I best do that?

    2. Broadly, what is the meaning of the HVR1 matches and the lack of HVR2 matches, if any, at this early stage in genetic testing?

    I am reading 'Trace Your Roots With DNA' as a general introduction. What are the best current sources for learning more about the MT-DNA state-of-the-art?

    As always, thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • tomcat
    replied
    Russ,

    Please continue to post here. I want to know how this shakes-out. Everyone does. The story of this/your process is absolutely germane to this forum.

    Tom

    Leave a comment:


  • josh w.
    replied
    Russ, good luck in your continuing search. I bet that there will be yet more surprises down the road.
    Josh

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X