With our paternity in question and just more confusion in the world of DNA, I decided to go back and look at the people around Levi again. I'm sure I've noted in the past that the person living next door to Levi in Van Buren Indiana in 1860 is a Stonemason and wondered openly if that is where Levi got his start in that trade. This time I looked more closely at the people involved. There are actually two stone masons living next door to Levi and interestingly enough, one of them is a Hollingsworth from Pennsylvania.
That name always gets my attention so I decided to follow up on him. He is around the same age as Levi, living in the same area, also with a seemingly unrelated family (Levi is living with the Brodericks) and he's from Pennsylvania. Worth looking into.
It turns out he is not alone. The rest of his family is in Fairmount, Grant, Indiana. Just a few miles away from the Alexandria area. In 1870 John B. Hollingsworth ends up living in Grant with his parents (nice) and just like Levi he seems to forget where he was born. Close families often travel together, so I thought I would look through Grant Indiana for some Thompsons.
There are two families of Thompsons I've found so far. One is the family of a James Thompson who lives there in 1850 as well and is from Virginia. The other is the family of Samuel R. Thompson who is a brother of Howell D. Thompson who is well remembered in the history of Madison County Indiana. Howell D. Thompson's father John L. Thompson lives in Randolph Indiana and is from York Pennsylvania. (He is also a suspect. His wife dies in 1839. I haven't gotten a good 1850 record for him, Howell D is living separately in Pendelton Indiana in 1850.)
Neither Samuel R. or James from VA shows a Levi or even a male child of a similar age, so...darn. Of course I've already been through Grant County in the past and didn't find Levi there, but it's worth a try.
Next I stepped back in time to 1850 to see where the Hollingsworths were and who lived around them. With John B. Hollingsworth's whole family for reference, he was actually pretty easy to find. In North Butler, Butler County, Pennsylvania.
Hold the phone! Things I know about Levi Thompson, he's born in Butler County Pennsylvania and moves to Madison Indiana sometime before 1855. He is a farmer but after the war becomes a stonemason or Tombstone manufacturer.
Things I now know about John B. Hollingsworth, he's born in Butler County Pennsylvania and moves to Madison Indiana sometime before 1860. He's a stonemason. Now that is a bit weird.
I started to wonder about a lot of things, like why are these guys so similar? How is it that I can find John B. Hollingsworth, practically a clone of Levi Thompson (or maybe the other way around) but I can't find Levi? What kind of ninja is Levi Thompson?
Well, then my next step was to go through the 1850 census in North Butler, Butler Pennsylvania and look for Thompsons..which I would expect to find because Butler PA is awful with Thompsons. I find three families of Thompsons.
One family consists of several Thompson children living with a Bayer or Boyer family. No Levi Thompsons. The second is a family of Thompsons who is lead by a man listed as Carles (there is no H) and his wife. Carles is from Massachusetts his wife is from Vermont. Again, No Levi Thompsons. The other Thompson family is one I've seen before. It's Jane (Stephenson/Stevenson) Thompson and her son David and Nathaniel Stevenson Thompson. Their father John Thompson is dead. He is sometimes linked with John, James and Matthew threesome of brothers who settle in Center and Franklin, Butler PA. No Levi Thompsons.
Again here, I've already been through the Butler censuses for 1850 and didn't see Levi Thompson then either so no big surprise there. Given our DNA results, I thought maybe I should do a search for males who were not Thompsons but were about the right age and came up with a laundry list of 15 year olds in North Butler.
Of course the Hollingsworths were there, but also scattered around the Stephenson Thompsons were just plain old Stephensons. The Stephenson Thompsons are living in a cluster of Stephensons in 1850. Nathaniel Stevenson Thompson is named after Jane Thompson's father Nathaniel Stevenson who is a pioneer from Scotland I believe. Jane and her sons must have been living around what I imagine is her sibling's family. Among these Stephenson's there was one record that was interesting. A male child listed as (something) N. Stephenson at the end of a list of Stephensons. I believe he is not a direct descendant of the head of household because he is listed after the entire family down to a 2 year old (which is what I see often with unrelated children). Although I'm sure I'm imagining it, the first letter looked a lot like an L to me.
I was at the point that I was convincing myself it was an L I was seeing and that the census taker had mislabeled that last boy as a Stephenson when he obviously was L. N. Thompson. Then I conjectured that Levi Thompson was obviously this L. N. Thompson the son of John Thompson and Jane Stephenson and that he left Pennsylvania with a friend named John B. Hollingsworth and moved to Madison Indiana with him. That was when I realized that it is way too easy to assign too much meaning to these coincidences.
Still, even without that last bit of fever dream, there are an awful lot of similarities with these two men John B. Hollingsworth and Levi Thompson with their proximity in 1860 and the same birthplace and later the same occupation. I think it will be worth further investigation.
Sorting out the Puzzle Pieces in My Big Messy Family
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Friday, August 17, 2012
Stinsons
Last year while working with two different genetic matches at 23 and me, I noticed that they shared the same Stinson and Bailey family. In particular they shared James Bailey and Margaret Stinson. Because these two people matched me on different chromosomes, I put it off as an interesting coincidence among people with roots in Virginia. Since I also have roots in VA, it's possible our match is there somewhere.
Here is a link to a family tree containing the Baileys: http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/b/l/a/Norman-R-Blankenship-VA/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0237.html
This year working with two more matches, this time they do share a match on the same chromosome, I found that one of them has a Stinson family and that the match is most likely on the branch of their family tree with the Stinson in it married to a Burkett. Their Stinsons go to the Carolinas. They also overlap with a person who has Stinsons, Barbers and Boulwares from South Carolina:
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=marciamcclure&id=I5678
It turns out the Stinsons are Stephensons from Scotland. So I independently have four matches with Stinson/Stephenson connections.
There is a yest another person in this research mix who has no Stinsons (call her J) that I have seen so far, but does have a lot of Scots who move into Canada. On my grandmother's side, I also have Scots who move into Canada, but no Stinsons.
On the list of names from the memorial linked above, I do see some I recognize like the Strouds that appear to be linked to so many of my genetic matches and the Johnstons from J's family tree. I also see Baileys from my matches last year (along with Stinsons of course). So this group from South Carolina may have more meaning for me than I can fully realize now. Should I be looking for Stinsons and Stephensons in Indiana. Could these be a clue to Henry Williamson's wife or mother? Are they connected to my Finks or McQueen family? Is there more for me in Canada than I have seen so far?
Here is a link to a family tree containing the Baileys: http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/b/l/a/Norman-R-Blankenship-VA/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0237.html
This year working with two more matches, this time they do share a match on the same chromosome, I found that one of them has a Stinson family and that the match is most likely on the branch of their family tree with the Stinson in it married to a Burkett. Their Stinsons go to the Carolinas. They also overlap with a person who has Stinsons, Barbers and Boulwares from South Carolina:
http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=marciamcclure&id=I5678
It turns out the Stinsons are Stephensons from Scotland. So I independently have four matches with Stinson/Stephenson connections.
There is a yest another person in this research mix who has no Stinsons (call her J) that I have seen so far, but does have a lot of Scots who move into Canada. On my grandmother's side, I also have Scots who move into Canada, but no Stinsons.
On the list of names from the memorial linked above, I do see some I recognize like the Strouds that appear to be linked to so many of my genetic matches and the Johnstons from J's family tree. I also see Baileys from my matches last year (along with Stinsons of course). So this group from South Carolina may have more meaning for me than I can fully realize now. Should I be looking for Stinsons and Stephensons in Indiana. Could these be a clue to Henry Williamson's wife or mother? Are they connected to my Finks or McQueen family? Is there more for me in Canada than I have seen so far?
Royal Pain
One of our family stories is that we're British. The next family story is that we're in some way Native American (Cherokee) and the third part of the story is that we're related to the British Royal family in some way. Possibly through Mary Queen of Scots.
It's not really important for me to follow up on the Queen of Scots thing except that the mythology of it may point me in the right direction to find the Thompsons. There is a family of Thompsons from Pennsylvania, Juniata I think, that marry some Stewarts and claim a Royal line through that. Here is a link to the text of the Descendants of John Thomson: http://archive.org/stream/descendantsofjoh00mcal/descendantsofjoh00mcal_djvu.txt
Specifically looking at:
So those are good Stewart/Thompson matches. The thing is that when I think about these stories I have to remember also that "The Aunts" were Ida Williamson's daughters too. Their father Albert seemed to have no knowledge of where his father Levi was from and then Albert died young. It is possible that many of the stories of my Thompson family are actually stories of the Williamsons. Along those lines I decided to have a look at the Stewart I found in my recently discovered Williamson family tree. Hugh Williamson born around 1720 marries Elizabeth Stewart born around the same time. Elizabeth Stewart is listed as the daughter of John Stewart born in 1687 in Scotland who marries Mary Shaw.
There are two rumor trees assigned to John Stewart, one of them seems unlikely given that it says John's parents were born in the Americas while listing him as being born in Scotland. The other cycles through several generations of Scots Stewarts until it reaches the High Stewards of Scotland that became the Stewart Kings of Scotland.
I'm pretty sure no one will haul out the stone of destiny so I can be crowned king of Scotland, but it would be reasonable to think that the Aunts would have known about Hugh Williamson and Elizabeth Stewart. That by itself (without the lengthy royal tree) would be enough to spawn a family legend.
As I've examined my family, I think I've grown accustomed to the idea that most of any Native American heritage we may have would come from our Finks (and associated) family. I show none of that genetically, but I think that might be where the story comes from.
Finding this Stewart in my Williamson tree makes me think the Royal connection is there. The Williamsons who were lost to me because of Henry's missing dad may have been readily apparent and known to Ida Williamson and her daughters (The Aunts).
For reference here is the rumor tree back to a Scottish Stewart:
It's not really important for me to follow up on the Queen of Scots thing except that the mythology of it may point me in the right direction to find the Thompsons. There is a family of Thompsons from Pennsylvania, Juniata I think, that marry some Stewarts and claim a Royal line through that. Here is a link to the text of the Descendants of John Thomson: http://archive.org/stream/descendantsofjoh00mcal/descendantsofjoh00mcal_djvu.txt
Specifically looking at:
- Branch No. 10, Andrew and Jane Stewart
- 55 — Andrew Thompson and Rebecca Stewart
- 52 - John Thompson and Rachel Stewart
So those are good Stewart/Thompson matches. The thing is that when I think about these stories I have to remember also that "The Aunts" were Ida Williamson's daughters too. Their father Albert seemed to have no knowledge of where his father Levi was from and then Albert died young. It is possible that many of the stories of my Thompson family are actually stories of the Williamsons. Along those lines I decided to have a look at the Stewart I found in my recently discovered Williamson family tree. Hugh Williamson born around 1720 marries Elizabeth Stewart born around the same time. Elizabeth Stewart is listed as the daughter of John Stewart born in 1687 in Scotland who marries Mary Shaw.
There are two rumor trees assigned to John Stewart, one of them seems unlikely given that it says John's parents were born in the Americas while listing him as being born in Scotland. The other cycles through several generations of Scots Stewarts until it reaches the High Stewards of Scotland that became the Stewart Kings of Scotland.
I'm pretty sure no one will haul out the stone of destiny so I can be crowned king of Scotland, but it would be reasonable to think that the Aunts would have known about Hugh Williamson and Elizabeth Stewart. That by itself (without the lengthy royal tree) would be enough to spawn a family legend.
As I've examined my family, I think I've grown accustomed to the idea that most of any Native American heritage we may have would come from our Finks (and associated) family. I show none of that genetically, but I think that might be where the story comes from.
Finding this Stewart in my Williamson tree makes me think the Royal connection is there. The Williamsons who were lost to me because of Henry's missing dad may have been readily apparent and known to Ida Williamson and her daughters (The Aunts).
For reference here is the rumor tree back to a Scottish Stewart:
John Stewart (1687 - 1774)
is your 8th great grandfather
Daughter of John
Son of Elizabeth
Son of Alden
Son of Hammond
Son of Joseph
Daughter of Henry H
Son of Ida Rachael
Son of Ray Bishop
my dad
Son of Charles Paul
me
Thursday, August 9, 2012
By Any Other Name
Tonight my wife asked me if I would change my name if I found out we were definitely related to Elmers. For a lot of people, I think this is a very serious issue. I've known people who have done just that. I haven't asked them about their motives, but my guess would be that they always felt different and wanted to put things right. Maybe they grew up hearing about the mystery of a relative's paternity and solved the puzzle. I'm sure the reasons to do it are many.
I do not plan to do that. I am a Thompson. I can't really see myself being something else at this point. Maybe because of autosomal DNA and having that reminder of how important moms are, even though they give up their last names, or maybe because I have my own children, it seems less important to me. There isn't really anything for me to fix, just things for me to learn.
Depending on how close the crossover is, it may be supremely interesting to figure out where a missing branch of my genetic family is today. Really, even if it were my grandfather, I can't see myself changing. My family has assigned meaning to our name. We feel unique in our huge crowd of Thompsons. We have a way of being that identifies us and we've used our name to identify it. I don't think I could give that up.
Thompson is a name people picked when they wanted to fit in. I told my wife tonight that maybe it's a name that picks you. I owe the Thompsons something for making this life possible. I intend to honor our odd little branch of this giant sequoia in the world of names.
We may not be Thompsons from the beginning of the use of surnames which is a loss. On the other hand, since my father is named Thomas, I am every bit as qualified to wear this name as the very first Thompson to crawl out of a bog a thousand years ago.
I do not plan to do that. I am a Thompson. I can't really see myself being something else at this point. Maybe because of autosomal DNA and having that reminder of how important moms are, even though they give up their last names, or maybe because I have my own children, it seems less important to me. There isn't really anything for me to fix, just things for me to learn.
Depending on how close the crossover is, it may be supremely interesting to figure out where a missing branch of my genetic family is today. Really, even if it were my grandfather, I can't see myself changing. My family has assigned meaning to our name. We feel unique in our huge crowd of Thompsons. We have a way of being that identifies us and we've used our name to identify it. I don't think I could give that up.
Thompson is a name people picked when they wanted to fit in. I told my wife tonight that maybe it's a name that picks you. I owe the Thompsons something for making this life possible. I intend to honor our odd little branch of this giant sequoia in the world of names.
We may not be Thompsons from the beginning of the use of surnames which is a loss. On the other hand, since my father is named Thomas, I am every bit as qualified to wear this name as the very first Thompson to crawl out of a bog a thousand years ago.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Swiss Family Thompson?
I decided to take a minute to think about the Swiss. For many reasons. My Steiner match is the first person to make me think about this. Without many other Swiss matches, it seems less likely but my really close Elmer match (with a really late census record saying Ephraim's dad was from Germany) brings it back to mind. Elmer is a Swiss name too. It's a place name from Elm Switzerland.
The Elmer tree that runs to England seems really solid, but I began to stew on the Swiss and think that I gave them short shrift. When I look at my map of German matches a few are up north but a few are in the south west in and around the Rheinland-Pfalz area.
This from the article on Rheinland Pfalz:
"Certain colonies in the United States were settled by major groups of poor Palatines—then refugees in England—passage paid for by Queen Anne to reduce the number of impoverished families who had taken refuge in London. In 1710 the English used ten ships to transport nearly 3,000 Germans to the colony of New York. Many died en route, as they had been weakened by disease. They were settled in work camps along the Hudson River, where they developed naval stores for the English to work off their passage. Churches set up in both the East and West Camps provided some of the earliest population records in New York. In 1723 the first hundred heads of families were allowed to acquire land west of Little Falls, New York along the Mohawk River, in what was called the Burnetsfield Patent after the governor. This became Herkimer County. The Germans and their descendants were important in the defense of the Mohawk Valley during the American Revolutionary War."
Note that the article mentions Herkimer County by name where Ephraim Elmer is from. These Elmers from New York live among Helmers, but keep their Elmer name rather than take on the more common name Helmer. It could be for differencing because they are English Elmers or it could be a direct reference to being Swiss Elmers from Elm Switzerland. It could also be a quirk of the family and have nothing to do with their origins at all.
I read in several articles that Swiss Mennonites left persecution in Switzerland and settled in the Palatinate, later Palatines made the journey mentioned above to England and then on to the Americas. This is probably the migration my Finks family made, so it's not unfamiliar territory.
How would this connect to my Thompsons from Pennsylvania, well, like my Steiner match, many Swiss and German immigrants settled in Pennsylvania. One good reason I've been on the lookout for German Thomassons.
So there is my reasonable doubt about English-ness. They may just be close genetic relatives of Saxon ancestors or they could be a buried connection to my Pennsylvania family. Either way, I can't afford to ignore the Swiss or Germans just yet.
The Elmer tree that runs to England seems really solid, but I began to stew on the Swiss and think that I gave them short shrift. When I look at my map of German matches a few are up north but a few are in the south west in and around the Rheinland-Pfalz area.
This from the article on Rheinland Pfalz:
"Certain colonies in the United States were settled by major groups of poor Palatines—then refugees in England—passage paid for by Queen Anne to reduce the number of impoverished families who had taken refuge in London. In 1710 the English used ten ships to transport nearly 3,000 Germans to the colony of New York. Many died en route, as they had been weakened by disease. They were settled in work camps along the Hudson River, where they developed naval stores for the English to work off their passage. Churches set up in both the East and West Camps provided some of the earliest population records in New York. In 1723 the first hundred heads of families were allowed to acquire land west of Little Falls, New York along the Mohawk River, in what was called the Burnetsfield Patent after the governor. This became Herkimer County. The Germans and their descendants were important in the defense of the Mohawk Valley during the American Revolutionary War."
Note that the article mentions Herkimer County by name where Ephraim Elmer is from. These Elmers from New York live among Helmers, but keep their Elmer name rather than take on the more common name Helmer. It could be for differencing because they are English Elmers or it could be a direct reference to being Swiss Elmers from Elm Switzerland. It could also be a quirk of the family and have nothing to do with their origins at all.
I read in several articles that Swiss Mennonites left persecution in Switzerland and settled in the Palatinate, later Palatines made the journey mentioned above to England and then on to the Americas. This is probably the migration my Finks family made, so it's not unfamiliar territory.
How would this connect to my Thompsons from Pennsylvania, well, like my Steiner match, many Swiss and German immigrants settled in Pennsylvania. One good reason I've been on the lookout for German Thomassons.
So there is my reasonable doubt about English-ness. They may just be close genetic relatives of Saxon ancestors or they could be a buried connection to my Pennsylvania family. Either way, I can't afford to ignore the Swiss or Germans just yet.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Z14 Waiting Again...Anxiously
I ordered the Z14 test today as that seemed like the most likely group for me to fit in. I've had my eye on Z18 for some time and planned on testing for that, but it turns out that quite a few people in the group within Z18 that I have watched, are Z14. So my Elmer match and I ordered ours at the same time.
Although these results may not be exciting in the Y DNA community, or to anyone really, they are of particular interest to me. If the Elmer match and I are both Z14 then I continue to pursue the NPE. If we both aren't, then I continue to pursue the NPE. If one of us is but the other is not, then I'll move forward on the assumption that we are incredibly similar Y chromosomes, but probably unrelated in a genealogical timeframe.
Like the Emperor in StarWars, I'm on both sides of this fight. Either way I win and either way I'm going to suffer some form of "loss".
On the one hand, I've been a Thompson all my life. I don't know any other way (you Thompsons will understand this because we DO have a way). I got into this to try to find my roots and specifically to find my Thompson family and learn about them. I have learned a lot, but I've also been snagged for quite a while. Am I ready and willing to concede defeat in the face of overwhelming unknown-itude? So, some part of me hopes that we're Thompsons from the beginning and that there were no Thompsons before us and that everyone else has been using our name without paying any royalties. Part of me wants to be THE Thompsons and to be able to say I did it. I did what people said I could not do. I found them and completed my mission!
Then there is the other part of me. This part is excited because there is something new to learn and it may mean an answer to why this entire process has been sort of an uphill battle. This part of me is excited to have a close match no matter how it plays out. I want to show that I was right to group all these Knowltons and Coens and Damrons and Elmers together because we are really part of a group and that group is labelled Z14 and it's particularly common near the channel in England. This part of me is seeking answers to my questions and learning to adapt to what is returned.
So when I look at most recent common ancestor models and I see that it's likely the Elmer and I share an ancestor within 200 to 300 years, which makes a crossover in the 1700s a viable option, I am at once excited and fearful. That is a lot closer than 2000 years ago as an estimate for Z18. 200 to 300 years is within record keeping here in the U.S.
Of course for those estimates to really play out, we have to be within the same haplogroup, which is where the Z14 test comes in. If we're both Z14 then we know we're related sometime between 2000 years ago and now and then we look at those STR values and the 200 to 300 year TMRCA and take it as a marker to look for such a crossover.
That evidence of SNPs and TMRCA plus the evidence of another Elmer at SMGF who is one away from the FTDNA Elmer and three away from me means that if the SMGF Elmer had chosen FTDNA, he would be in my match list as well. That creates a pattern of similar Elmers and at this point they would be the only people anywhere to match me at this level.
How could this all fall apart? Several ways I can think of and probably several more I'm not thinking of. The quickest way would be to have two different SNPs like I said above. He's Z14 and I'm not, something like that.
The next way I can think of is that our STR match is a fluke. We may well both be Z14, but if I'm reading all the results correctly, he and the Elmer from SMGF (utah to connecticut) are more closely related than he and I are. That leaves open the possibility that I've randomly mutated to have a closer match with this particular Elmer than I should, or that he's mutated away from that Elmer enough that he now matches me. At the very least, it would make me think that he and the other Elmer are closer to each other in time than he an I are. Of course it would be better if we were all FTDNA at this point, but I've got what I've got.
This is where it would be best for me to get some Thompson ringers to test. If I match with my other Thompson relatives at all, then we could figure out a modal and see how close the Elmers are to that. It would also be excellent to find the SMGF Elmer and get him tested with FTDNA so that we are looking at apples to apples comparisons.
The third way is if we upgrade to 67 markers and don't remain close.
Other ways revolve around actual genealogical records. What if the SMGF Elmer was wrong about their family tree and they don't go back to England and intertwine with Thompsons at all? That could blow my theory out of the water, although in truth it wouldn't make us any less related.
For the next month or so, waiting for results, I'm sure I'll waffle back and forth between disappointment and excitement as the possibilities in either camp grow in my mind. I'll probably see more pitfalls and find more holes in my own logic. That's good though. No matter what, this is a learning experience and even if we are Elmers, all that means is I have another cool family to learn about and people to work with in putting the pieces together.
Although these results may not be exciting in the Y DNA community, or to anyone really, they are of particular interest to me. If the Elmer match and I are both Z14 then I continue to pursue the NPE. If we both aren't, then I continue to pursue the NPE. If one of us is but the other is not, then I'll move forward on the assumption that we are incredibly similar Y chromosomes, but probably unrelated in a genealogical timeframe.
Like the Emperor in StarWars, I'm on both sides of this fight. Either way I win and either way I'm going to suffer some form of "loss".
On the one hand, I've been a Thompson all my life. I don't know any other way (you Thompsons will understand this because we DO have a way). I got into this to try to find my roots and specifically to find my Thompson family and learn about them. I have learned a lot, but I've also been snagged for quite a while. Am I ready and willing to concede defeat in the face of overwhelming unknown-itude? So, some part of me hopes that we're Thompsons from the beginning and that there were no Thompsons before us and that everyone else has been using our name without paying any royalties. Part of me wants to be THE Thompsons and to be able to say I did it. I did what people said I could not do. I found them and completed my mission!
Then there is the other part of me. This part is excited because there is something new to learn and it may mean an answer to why this entire process has been sort of an uphill battle. This part of me is excited to have a close match no matter how it plays out. I want to show that I was right to group all these Knowltons and Coens and Damrons and Elmers together because we are really part of a group and that group is labelled Z14 and it's particularly common near the channel in England. This part of me is seeking answers to my questions and learning to adapt to what is returned.
So when I look at most recent common ancestor models and I see that it's likely the Elmer and I share an ancestor within 200 to 300 years, which makes a crossover in the 1700s a viable option, I am at once excited and fearful. That is a lot closer than 2000 years ago as an estimate for Z18. 200 to 300 years is within record keeping here in the U.S.
Of course for those estimates to really play out, we have to be within the same haplogroup, which is where the Z14 test comes in. If we're both Z14 then we know we're related sometime between 2000 years ago and now and then we look at those STR values and the 200 to 300 year TMRCA and take it as a marker to look for such a crossover.
That evidence of SNPs and TMRCA plus the evidence of another Elmer at SMGF who is one away from the FTDNA Elmer and three away from me means that if the SMGF Elmer had chosen FTDNA, he would be in my match list as well. That creates a pattern of similar Elmers and at this point they would be the only people anywhere to match me at this level.
How could this all fall apart? Several ways I can think of and probably several more I'm not thinking of. The quickest way would be to have two different SNPs like I said above. He's Z14 and I'm not, something like that.
The next way I can think of is that our STR match is a fluke. We may well both be Z14, but if I'm reading all the results correctly, he and the Elmer from SMGF (utah to connecticut) are more closely related than he and I are. That leaves open the possibility that I've randomly mutated to have a closer match with this particular Elmer than I should, or that he's mutated away from that Elmer enough that he now matches me. At the very least, it would make me think that he and the other Elmer are closer to each other in time than he an I are. Of course it would be better if we were all FTDNA at this point, but I've got what I've got.
This is where it would be best for me to get some Thompson ringers to test. If I match with my other Thompson relatives at all, then we could figure out a modal and see how close the Elmers are to that. It would also be excellent to find the SMGF Elmer and get him tested with FTDNA so that we are looking at apples to apples comparisons.
The third way is if we upgrade to 67 markers and don't remain close.
Other ways revolve around actual genealogical records. What if the SMGF Elmer was wrong about their family tree and they don't go back to England and intertwine with Thompsons at all? That could blow my theory out of the water, although in truth it wouldn't make us any less related.
For the next month or so, waiting for results, I'm sure I'll waffle back and forth between disappointment and excitement as the possibilities in either camp grow in my mind. I'll probably see more pitfalls and find more holes in my own logic. That's good though. No matter what, this is a learning experience and even if we are Elmers, all that means is I have another cool family to learn about and people to work with in putting the pieces together.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Saxons Anyone?
I decided to post yet another map of matches. These are my 25 marker matches at FTDNA and my lone 37 marker match along with several people at the U106 project who seem to follow my pattern of DYS390 = 25, DYS385b = 11, YCA2a and b = 19 and 22. Within the spreadsheet for U106 those markers are enough to make the modal look like me and give my values for several other markers like DYS447 = 24, without even trying. Blue guys are people who match that self imposed pattern. Red are 25 matches, Yellow is the 37. London is unfairly represented because if people just said "England" I plopped them into London. I also plunked my Boettcher German FTDNA match in Neidersachsen based on House of Names.
So this is why I'm guessing Saxon English for us. I should note here that even though my matches are English many have names that are assigned to Belgium by House of Names like Dameron or Huguenots like Pipkin. House of names is not the trusted source for all surnames of course, but it makes me think about my 23 and me matches to people with Huguenots from Ulster and New Paltz New York. Still, I have a much stronger showing among Germans as far as bulk goes so I'm left back with the most obvious Saxon conclusion until evidence to the contrary presents itself. My best guess, knowing what little I know is that we're among some group of Anglo Saxons who made their way to England after about 400ad.
I hate to lose my Danish matches but I imagine we are just more distantly related to some common ancestor farther back in time.
Again, according to FTDNA, IF I shared a surname with that yellow Elmer we would most likely be related within the time frame of the common use of surnames in Europe. So, I think we're talking about the 1100s on up. If we share a common SNP and still remain close at 67 markers..then I think the time frame would be much closer.
If there is a crossover, I suspect that it would happen with the Thompsons from New Jersey in the 1700s or the Thompsons from Braintree Massachusetts and farther back in Braintree England in the 1600s to early 1700s as both Thompsons and Elmers exist in those areas at the same time and at least in the case of the New Jersey Thompsons, definitely intermarry.
At a minimum, I think we and the Elmers are at least people from the same area, possibly from the same town and we're definitely related because we share the U106 SNP. The only question left is WHEN are we related. Our common ground could be in England in the 1600s...or even farther back.
I have my doubts about "The Aunts" knowing this when they related to my father that we were "English" Thompsons. So much of what I'm doing is chasing things they may have already known, but I think if they knew we were secretly "Elmers" they would have related that as well. That leads me to think that they were aware of a family of English Thompsons here in the U.S. and that they had tied us to it, rightly or wrongly.
I am trying to be evidence based of course but I'm at the point where I can't ignore the "English" story any longer. I'm not unbiased, I've been considering it the whole time, but I do remain skeptical of it on principle. I've looked at it, thinking there was a grain of truth, but I have to think now that it is just a truth truth. I also think most people would have accepted it at face value and moved on so I think I've done my fair share of homework on it. I may be coming to the wrong conclusion, but I don't think after these past years, that I am jumping to it.
Since I can't really dispute "English-ness" without better or further evidence, I should probably take them at their word and see what English Thompsons I can come up with. This is difficult. Irish and Scots Thompsons I can get by the bucketful. English Thompsons are a bit harder to come by right now. Among Thompsons anti-English sentiment is still running pretty high (after hundreds of years). I wonder if it was different when "The Aunts" were doing their search.
Time has moved on and things have gotten lost. I cannot go back to talk to them.
So this is why I'm guessing Saxon English for us. I should note here that even though my matches are English many have names that are assigned to Belgium by House of Names like Dameron or Huguenots like Pipkin. House of names is not the trusted source for all surnames of course, but it makes me think about my 23 and me matches to people with Huguenots from Ulster and New Paltz New York. Still, I have a much stronger showing among Germans as far as bulk goes so I'm left back with the most obvious Saxon conclusion until evidence to the contrary presents itself. My best guess, knowing what little I know is that we're among some group of Anglo Saxons who made their way to England after about 400ad.
I hate to lose my Danish matches but I imagine we are just more distantly related to some common ancestor farther back in time.
Again, according to FTDNA, IF I shared a surname with that yellow Elmer we would most likely be related within the time frame of the common use of surnames in Europe. So, I think we're talking about the 1100s on up. If we share a common SNP and still remain close at 67 markers..then I think the time frame would be much closer.
If there is a crossover, I suspect that it would happen with the Thompsons from New Jersey in the 1700s or the Thompsons from Braintree Massachusetts and farther back in Braintree England in the 1600s to early 1700s as both Thompsons and Elmers exist in those areas at the same time and at least in the case of the New Jersey Thompsons, definitely intermarry.
At a minimum, I think we and the Elmers are at least people from the same area, possibly from the same town and we're definitely related because we share the U106 SNP. The only question left is WHEN are we related. Our common ground could be in England in the 1600s...or even farther back.
I have my doubts about "The Aunts" knowing this when they related to my father that we were "English" Thompsons. So much of what I'm doing is chasing things they may have already known, but I think if they knew we were secretly "Elmers" they would have related that as well. That leads me to think that they were aware of a family of English Thompsons here in the U.S. and that they had tied us to it, rightly or wrongly.
I am trying to be evidence based of course but I'm at the point where I can't ignore the "English" story any longer. I'm not unbiased, I've been considering it the whole time, but I do remain skeptical of it on principle. I've looked at it, thinking there was a grain of truth, but I have to think now that it is just a truth truth. I also think most people would have accepted it at face value and moved on so I think I've done my fair share of homework on it. I may be coming to the wrong conclusion, but I don't think after these past years, that I am jumping to it.
Since I can't really dispute "English-ness" without better or further evidence, I should probably take them at their word and see what English Thompsons I can come up with. This is difficult. Irish and Scots Thompsons I can get by the bucketful. English Thompsons are a bit harder to come by right now. Among Thompsons anti-English sentiment is still running pretty high (after hundreds of years). I wonder if it was different when "The Aunts" were doing their search.
Time has moved on and things have gotten lost. I cannot go back to talk to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)