Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can DNA testing pinpoint an area of a country?

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

  • Can DNA testing pinpoint an area of a country?

    We've hit the genealogy "brick wall" with my father's paternal line and my brother wants to try the DNA route.
    We know the name of our g-grandfather (dad's paternal grandfather), Peter Casey, know that he came to the USA from Ireland in the mid-1850's, naturalized in Cincinnati in 1858, married our g-grandmother, Elizabeth Casey (yes, unfortunately that's her maiden name) in 1869, then settled in Louisville, Ky the next year. My grandfather was the only child of this marriage who lived to adulthood.
    I was never able to find out what part of Ireland they came from, or if Peter had siblings who came to the USA also. A Patrick Casey was the witness on his naturalization papers, but there was no other real information. The arrival date he gave then doesn't correlate to any ship's passenger list, and the age he gave then is 5 years older than the birth year on his tombstone.

    So my question is if my brother, as a direct male descendant, takes a DNA test, is there a chance it could connect us to a specific cluster of Caseys in Ireland or here in the states? We subscribe to Ancestry.com and I see that they also provide the testing.
    Evidently there is already a surname group for Caseys in DNA studies, but this is all like Greek to me! I would love some advice as to what tests would provide the best results for us, and also which DNA testing site would be a good fit for us.
    I would so appreciate any help you can give me.

  • #2
    There are Casey results in the Ireland Project:
    http://www.familytreedna.com/public/IrelandHeritage

    This does not mean all Casey's on the planet match these Caseys. Best case you have a match to Caseys already tested with FTDNA. Another possibility is you match a different surname, but this is probably less likely. Worse case you have no match and have new Casey in FTDNA database and just need to wait for more Caseys to test.

    In the FTDNA database now:
    Michael Casey, b.~1815, Cty Tipperary, Ireland
    Maurice Casey, b. 1798
    Last edited by thetick; 27 February 2012, 12:18 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      There are quite a few more Caseys then the two listed above.
      There's a Casey project with many more: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ion=ycolorized which has about 50 or so entries.

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi flahagan,

        thetick has already posted a link to the Casey surname group. I suggest you contact one of the Casey group administrators and ask for advice. I'm sure they will be happy for another Casey in their project.

        You can find their email addresses here: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/CASEY/default.aspx

        -Kai

        Comment


        • #5
          If Peter Casey was old enough to serve in the Civil War, he may have. There are a few Peter Casey's listed, on both sides.

          Here is a search site:
          http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/index.html

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks for the suggestions. I have written to the administrators of the Casey surname project and will await their recommendations.
            As to the Civil War, I have found a Peter Casey in the enlistment records in Louisville during that time, the year the "draft" was instituted, but I can't find anything about his serving in the war. So while he was registered, I don't think he actually served.

            Comment


            • #7
              Ancestry Family Trees

              There are several family trees on ancestry.com which say that Patrick Casey and Mary Connor were the parents of your Peter Casey. I don't know if the trees are accurate, but you could email the owners of the trees.

              Sue

              Comment


              • #8
                The tree owned by Tom Casey has photos.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yes, Tom Casey is my first cousin whom I know well! Unfortunately, he has no idea who Peter's parents are either, he just found a couple who had a son named Peter, who would have married YEARS after our Peter was born, in Rhode Island instead of Ky. or Ohio, "chose" them to be "ours," as his wife says he is wont to do, and plugged them in. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that these could be our ancestors, yet he doesn't realize that this false information could seriously affect others who may be searching also. He tries to do the same thing with his wife's family tree, but she makes sure they don't stay in!
                  It goes to show you that you HAVE to have back-up documentation, i.e., census, death records, baptism certificates, etc. and not take everything that pops up on Ancestry as a certainty. I sure hope there aren't too many out there doing the same thing.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Oh, and the photos on Tom's tree are mine - so at least I know THEY'RE accurate.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by flahagan View Post
                      It goes to show you that you HAVE to have back-up documentation, i.e., census, death records, baptism certificates, etc. and not take everything that pops up on Ancestry as a certainty. I sure hope there aren't too many out there doing the same thing.
                      Ancestry.com is a poll of theft, guessing and blatant deception. Many people are more interested in filling in a family tree regardless if it's real. I even found morons tracing back to Jesus even Adam and Eve! Just disgusting. Anyway if you recheck all leads you can get some very good information from Ancestry.com.

                      I should state from personal experience I have found two whole sides of my family that were just the wrong person, same name and nearly identical birth /death dates and location. So not all people are deceptive, but that does not mean their associations are correct.
                      Last edited by thetick; 28 February 2012, 09:55 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by thetick View Post
                        Ancestry.com is a poll of theft, guessing and blatant deception. Many people are more interested in filling in a family tree regardless if it's real. I even found morons tracing back to Jesus even Adam and Eve! Just disgusting. Anyway if you recheck all leads you can get some very good information from Ancestry.com.

                        I should state from personal experience I have found two whole sides of my family that were just the wrong person, same name and nearly identical birth /death dates and location. So not all people are deceptive, but that does not mean their associations are correct.
                        You are so right. It can be a fabulous resource when used correctly, but some people don't realize how important it is to back everything up with documentation.
                        It did help me find my Murphy ancestors and put me in touch with 2nd and third cousins I didn't know existed, but it only happened after I located my g-grandfather Murphy on the 1860 census. When I plugged that information into my tree, the place lit up! I was able to go back 2 more generations and two more surnames, and even found pictures of the old homestead with 3 walls still standing in County Mayo. Very exciting!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          One problem is how they word their add screens.

                          "Enter at least a first or last name for your family member. Even a guess can help."

                          I wish there was some way I could label someone as "speculative" when I find a record and it MIGHT be who I'm looking for. I don't want to say "yes this is him" but I don't want to lose track of the record either.

                          This is why all of my DNA speculation trees are private with no search capabilities - which recently became a problem when I tried to copy information from one tree to another. I couldn't understand why "those people" weren't coming up in a search - then it hit me - because I set that tree to NOT come up in a search.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Gaye, I can only say I have LOADS of possibles in my "shoebox" on Ancestry, because like you, I don't want to lose track of them. It's quite a hunt, isn't it?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              This thread makes me chuckle a little, after ending last evening by slamming my hand down on the desk and declaring my entire paternal line "a bunch of &*$^ liars!" (based upon variance in dates/names and a "born at sea" entry on a 1900 census) I've calmed down now.

                              It gets frustrating. Then I get a lead. Then it gets frustrating. But the excitement of the chase keeps me going. The little inaccuracies of some records can be frustrating , but as you narrow it down, it's hard to quit and go to bed at a proper time.

                              I'm debating taking the ancestry.com plunge just to have access to more records. I'm one name and one boat ride from tracking my paternal ggg-grandfather back to Germany, probably Baden-Wurtemburg...which is frustratingly only about a 2.5 hour drive from where I'm sitting right now. If I could just get that clue, I could be sitting amongst dusty old church records taking pictures and making notes! Maybe even having coffee with distant cousins!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X