Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Connecting colonial families?

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

  • Connecting colonial families?

    I'm wondering if Y-DNA would be useful for this: There are four main progenitors of the Newcomb surname in the US: Andrew (c. 1650), Frances ( 1605), Baptist (c 1640), John (c 1730) and about a half-dozen others who founded smaller families. Would Y-DNA be able to determine if these men had a common paternal ancestor and how specific would that be? It wouldn't be of much use if Y-DNA said, "Yes, there's a common ancestor in the 3rd Century. and half the males in Britain have the same ancestor."

    I'd really like to see the Childerstone males do this but I can't help there, I don't have that Y-chromosome.

  • #2
    In my opinion, if there is a common ancestor it would probably indicate that, assuming enough people were doing the tests. It's unlikely there would be much precision beyond that as to who the common ancestor was and when they lived.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by DRNewcomb View Post
      I'm wondering if Y-DNA would be useful for this: There are four main progenitors of the Newcomb surname in the US: Andrew (c. 1650), Frances ( 1605), Baptist (c 1640), John (c 1730) and about a half-dozen others who founded smaller families. Would Y-DNA be able to determine if these men had a common paternal ancestor and how specific would that be? It wouldn't be of much use if Y-DNA said, "Yes, there's a common ancestor in the 3rd Century. and half the males in Britain have the same ancestor."
      There is already an FTDNA surname project that includes Newcom, Newcomb, Newcombe, Newcome, Newsam, Newsham, Newsom, Newsome, Newson, Newstrom, Newsum. See: https://www.familytreedna.com/group-...?Group=Newsome

      As I understand it, "Newcombe" was a surname given to someone who was new to a town. It is therefore extremely likely that there are lots of different Newcombe families who are not related within the past 1000 years. YDNA testing (either STR or SNP) would be able to tell which families are clearly not related within the genealogical time period.

      For families that YDNA testing indicated might be related within the genealogical time period, you could get an estimate of how far back the common ancestor was. If STR testing were used, there would be a big margin of error for the estimate. SNP testing "might" be able to give a more accurate estimate, but would depend on how well developed the SNP tree is for the particular branch.
      Last edited by TwiddlingThumbs; 14 March 2018, 09:50 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by DRNewcomb View Post
        I'm wondering if Y-DNA would be useful for this: There are four main progenitors of the Newcomb surname in the US: Andrew (c. 1650), Frances ( 1605), Baptist (c 1640), John (c 1730) and about a half-dozen others who founded smaller families. Would Y-DNA be able to determine if these men had a common paternal ancestor and how specific would that be? It wouldn't be of much use if Y-DNA said, "Yes, there's a common ancestor in the 3rd Century. and half the males in Britain have the same ancestor."

        I'd really like to see the Childerstone males do this but I can't help there, I don't have that Y-chromosome.
        I was surprised that FTDNA does not list a Newcomb Y-DNA project. Apparently it is handled under the Newsome Project:

        https://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/newsome/

        However as of now, it is not letting outsiders look at the results (maybe insiders, too).

        Do you have living people from each of those groups with a Newcomb paternal line? If you get enough participation, you should be able to figure something out. You probably need one person from each Newcomb branch to take a Big-Y test, not exactly the cheapest thing.

        I don't see a study for Childerstone, and I do not see any other study which might include them. Good luck!

        Jack

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ewd76 View Post
          In my opinion, if there is a common ancestor it would probably indicate that, assuming enough people were doing the tests. It's unlikely there would be much precision beyond that as to who the common ancestor was and when they lived.
          That would be great. Say, Mr-X 1500-1600. Just so long as it's not limited to Adam-Y 500-1000 BC. That was sort of my question. If Y-DNA mutates fast enough to pin down a century, not just some far-distant progenitor.

          Originally posted by TwiddlingThumbs View Post
          As I understand it, "Newcombe" was a surname given to someone who was new to a town. It is therefore extremely likely that there are lots of different Newcombe families who are not related within the past 1000 years. YDNA testing (either STR or SNP) would be able to tell which families are clearly not related within the genealogical time period......
          The alternate explanation is that Cwm is Anglo-Saxon for a valley on the side of a hill and that Newcomb is related to Bascom, Slocum, Yocom, Biddlecome and a handful of other similar place names. No one knows for sure. The alternative "Newcomer" and "Newcomen" are clearly "recently arrived".

          Originally posted by georgian1950 View Post
          Do you have living people from each of those groups with a Newcomb paternal line? ....
          They're easy enough to find. Just if they'd be interested in spending the bucks, is the question.
          I don't see a study for Childerstone, and I do not see any other study which might include them. Good luck!.....
          It's a very small family with a history going back to the 1200s but there have never been more than 100 people with the name alive at any one time.

          Thanks!

          Comment


          • #6
            It could very well prove a common paternal lineage with Y-DNA testing. That certainly worked for many in the surname project I am part of. However be aware that many surname projects feature large kin groups and some do not. My own surname project has 2-4 large kin groups with probable progenitors for each branch of the Clan and then everyone else is unrelated to these main groups, at least not related for 1000s of years.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by spruithean View Post
              However be aware that many surname projects feature large kin groups and some do not. My own surname project has 2-4 large kin groups with probable progenitors for each branch of the Clan and then everyone else is unrelated to these main groups, at least not related for 1000s of years.
              I think large kin groups tend to occur in Irish and Scottish clan-based surname projects. Projects based on occupational, locational, and physical characteristic surnames, on the other hand, tend to have lots of smaller kin groups, none of which are closely related to each other. I suspect that Newcombe would be of the latter type.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TwiddlingThumbs View Post
                I think large kin groups tend to occur in Irish and Scottish clan-based surname projects. Projects based on occupational, locational, and physical characteristic surnames, on the other hand, tend to have lots of smaller kin groups, none of which are closely related to each other. I suspect that Newcombe would be of the latter type.
                Agreed. Though some clans appear to have a distinct population of various haplogroups which probably acquired the clan surname for various reasons.

                It would certainly be interesting to figure out if the progenitors of the various Newcombe families OP mentioned were related. Perhaps they are in the Newsome project?

                Comment


                • #9
                  I ordered the bundle with Family Finder, mt and Y-67 when it was on sale for St. Patty's day. They just batched the samples this week. I'm wondering if the Y-67 is adequate to be of use for the Newsome (incl. Newcomb) project or if I need to upgrade to Y-111? I hate to drop the extra $129 if I don't have to. The bundle was already expensive enough. It's not like I have a lot of personal questions I need to resolve. How long do I have to decide if I want to upgrade?
                  Last edited by DRNewcomb; 4 April 2018, 11:31 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If it were me, I would wait for the results to come in, and take some time to explore where they might lead. After the results sink in, your research could change direction.

                    For me, Y-111 did not give me anything beyond what I already found in Y-67, namely, that nobody was a good match for me! Big-Y came along later, and it proved to be very enlightening in the sense that it demonstrated my McCoy family is out on a little twig, not connected with any of the other McCoy families that have been tested -- so I can ignore their genealogy completely!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by John McCoy View Post
                      If it were me, I would wait for the results to come in, and take some time to explore where they might lead. After the results sink in, your research could change direction.

                      For me, Y-111 did not give me anything beyond what I already found in Y-67, namely, that nobody was a good match for me! Big-Y came along later, and it proved to be very enlightening in the sense that it demonstrated my McCoy family is out on a little twig, not connected with any of the other McCoy families that have been tested -- so I can ignore their genealogy completely!
                      I've been meaning to ask for a long time. I've been trying to figure out what Big-Y is. I have through Y-111, but can find no test called Big-Y available. I don't even get any results when I search this forum for "Big-Y".

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ewd76 View Post
                        I've been meaning to ask for a long time. I've been trying to figure out what Big-Y is. I have through Y-111, but can find no test called Big-Y available. I don't even get any results when I search this forum for "Big-Y".
                        Please first readThis is just an introduction, so you may want to additionally read something from the section Further reading in there.

                        FTDNA describes their Big Y test in the Learning CenterBut you may want to read two Big Y reviews from 2014 that are referenced in the Reviews section on this page https://isogg.org/wiki/Family_Tree_DNA#Reviews


                        Good luck in your research - Mr. W.


                        P.S.
                        My family did Big Y tests, and we are very happy that we did.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dna View Post
                          Please first readThis is just an introduction, so you may want to additionally read something from the section Further reading in there.

                          FTDNA describes their Big Y test in the Learning CenterBut you may want to read two Big Y reviews from 2014 that are referenced in the Reviews section on this page https://isogg.org/wiki/Family_Tree_DNA#Reviews


                          Good luck in your research - Mr. W.


                          P.S.
                          My family did Big Y tests, and we are very happy that we did.
                          Thanks,

                          It's a little too pricey for me right now, but maybe eventually.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X