Most of the Jewish men named Cohen, or variants thereof, do in fact have the same Y chromosome. So even if they don’t know the specific lineage, them all being descended in the male line from the same man (I think it’s supposed to be Aaron?) is supported by the genetic evidence.
The that situation is described here.
Yes, that is why. I found an article about it.
Funny thing is almost all of my ancestry is a filled with peasants starting not that long ago. English barely registers on my DNA profile.
My entire mother’s family: Italian peasants who came here in the beginning of the20th century. If I knew Italian I could possibly go back a little further through baptismal records.
My paternal grandfather came over from Prussia in the late 19th century. Prussian peasants.
My paternal grandmother’s mother was an Irish peasant. She married a man with a Scottish name. That’s where all the records come from. Not the Scottish side: peasants one and all. One of them married an English descended woman around the time of the Civil War. Her family can be traced back to Edward I. Although she had many prominent relatives in America by pre and post revolution it appears none of the money reached her.
As I mentioned in another thread it wasn’t great scholarship that let me make the connection. It had been family lore for a long time that we had a connection to Abraham Lincoln. I didn’t not have access to the genealogy report my great aunt had but I knew the family name of the connection. It was pretty easy to connect back to the common grandfather I have with Abraham Lincoln. After that the work was all done for me. Every US president has had their genealogy publicly posted. Once you can link yourself to one of them it opens up a ton of information.
There’s this:
Although it’s just related to genetic types, not guaranteed a specific connection -but over 10,000 years.
There’s also Thomas Jefferson, whose DNA from his “official” family descendants and some of Sally Hemmings’ descendants match. There’s however the other (unlikely) possibility that it could be due to some of his immediate male relatives being father of Hemmings children.
IIRC, not exactly what you’re asking, but apparently DNA analysis on royal mummies has established the familial relationships between King Tut and multiple other corpses from about the same time.
Many years ago, while researching some colonial New Jersey history, I stumbled across a volume of one family’s history, and was impressed with how far back they claimed to be able to trace their lineage.
They were able, they said, to go all the way back to Adam, and thence, to God. They may not have known where all us zombies came from, but they felt sure they knew where they came from.
There was a lot of wishful thinking in there, and piggybacking on some genealogies given in the Bible to compile such an impressive record. I suspect they were the only ones who believed it.
Thanks. IIt’s clear you can only be sure of tracing lineage for one generation past a living person. As @Riemann mentioned with better contextual information you could go a little further but that’s usually going to be dicey because it’s hard to rule out hanky-panky, twins, and Chinatown stuff, especially as we go back in time beyond living people.
“ I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive person, of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when I tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule.”
From The Mikado by Gilbert and Sullivan
With Thomas jefferson, I guess sort of - it’s ossible to rule out twins, if none are documented. The problem is the ambiguity comes from looking at the Y chromosome, which indicated direct patriarchal line… but whether that was via Thomas J, his brother, cousin, etc. who’s to say?
The giveaway for a incestuous child is obvious with the excessive number fo matching chromosomes. (Instead of half, the child will have 3/4 of the offender’s Dna - on average).
When they found the bones suspected to be from Richard III, they did do a DNA trace: they found a distant relative of Richard, living in Canada, and concluded from the DNA analysis from that fellow and the bones that the bones likely belonged to Richard III.
After two years he found that a British-born woman who had emigrated to Canada after World War II, Joy Ibsen (née Brown), was a direct descendant of Richard’s sister, Anne of York, and therefore Richard’s 16th generation great-niece.[56][57] Ibsen’s mitochondrial DNA was tested and found to belong to mitochondrial DNA Haplogroup J, which by deduction should be Richard’s mitochondrial DNA haplogroup.[58] The mtDNA obtained from Ibsen showed that the Mechelen bones were not those of Margaret.
Joy Ibsen, a retired journalist, died in 2008, leaving three children: Michael, Jeff, and Leslie.[60] On 24 August 2012, her son Michael (born in Canada in 1957, a cabinet maker based in London, England)[61][62] gave a mouth-swab sample to the research team to compare with samples from the human remains found at the excavation.[63] Analysts found a mitochondrial DNA match among the exhumed skeleton, Michael Ibsen, and a second direct maternal line descendant, who shares a relatively rare mitochondrial DNA sequence,[64][65][66] mitochondrial DNA haplogroup J1c2c.[67][68]
I find it surprising to see that so many people think a few hundreds years at most. For people of European descent, finding a path to Charlemagne is quite common with some work. Mrs. FtG and I are both descended from that guy and I’m also descended from the Viking-era Norse kings.
For me, “reliable” means that the child was acknowledged as the offspring of the parent at the time they lived.
Charlemagne of course has a well documented ancestry going back several generations. There are “guesses” (putting it politely) for going back further to the emperors of the Roman Empire.
One common problem all much of the world is bridging the gap from something like the middle Ages to Antiquity.
The problem I see is that if your ancestors are mundane, you are unlikely to be able to trace them much further than the beginning of official record-keeping for the parish - which in my case, seems to become spotty earlier than 1700. Plus, as others point out, the risk that assorted calamities erased those records that did indeed once exist.
I have to wonder what proportion of the modern population, particulalry those who crossed the ocean to America, hae notable ancestors?
The only reliable DNA that traverses more than a few generations is the Y-chromosome for direct patrilineal descent and the mitochondrial DNA for direct matrilineal descent. Otherwise, it’s luck of the draw whether a particular individual’s chromosomes (or fragments from the crossover process) are found in a distant descendant.
Really, it’s luck of the draw whether the Y and mitochondrial DNA are found in a distant descendant, too. It’s just that it’s luck that’s almost perfectly correlated with a very obvious and well-recorded trait, so we don’t think of it as luck.
In tracing ancestry, there’s also a critical qualititative difference with the Y and mtDNA that they are inherited almost* intact, without meiotic recombination.
(*X and Y recombine only at the tips in spermatogenesis)
In two cases mentioned - King Richard and THomas Jefferson - the flaws of both the Y and mitochondrial DNA are apparent. King Richard could not have been positively identified without a documented direct matrilineal descendant from his mother. Otherwise, all we know is “whoever this is, they are related to this person in that way”. Techincally, it could still be a cousin or such, absent the other clues (grave location, spinal problem).
Similarly, for Thomas Jefferson, some descendants match and some don’t, demonstrating one possible problem with patrilineal descent. Also, it is impossible to rule out his brothers, cousins, or other male relatives as Hemming’s co-respondent… it’s more the preponderance of evidence, than actual proof.
Perhaps more interesting is something like the Cheddar Man, IIRC, where they could demonstrate that some local residents thousands of years later were in fact related, despite a lack of documentation. About as good as it gets.
OTOH, there are several cases where partial DNA matches from relatives have led to a killer. IIRC, the killer of Christine Jessop was caught based on partial matches to two separate families from people as distant as second cousins of the offender - he was the only apparent genetic link between those two families. I wonder how often “pedigree errors” can invalidate these sorts of investigations.
Science is always preponderance of evidence, rather than actual proof. But the case for Jefferson being the father of Hemming’s children is pretty solid. Based only on the genetic evidence, it could be any Jefferson male, but he was in proximity to Hemmings at the time of all of their conceptions, and none of the other Jefferson males were. Plus, of course, his contemporaries noticed interactions between them that made it seem likely, and Hemmings was the half-sister of Jefferson’s wife, and so on.
Yes, I agree. Those who point to other male relatives ignore that apparently she first became pregnant in Paris, where none of the others were around. Considering she returned to Virgina with him, and he freed her children eventually as he’d promised, odds are that Thomas readily believed they were his children. And so on…
Preponderance of evidence, and those who point to toher explanations are likely just looking for excuses.
But to return to the OP’s question, perhaps the main point is that the descendants could trace their ancestry because they were related to a notable person. How likely that less notable, lower class persons and particlarly people who moved frequntly across the USA during the push west etc. could really tally all their family tree from 1776? Let alone back to the 1500’s or earlier?
We know a bit more of Hemings’ ancestry - her father, mother, and grandfather - because it was remarked about at the time. We don’t even know the grandmother’s actual name for sure.
Just to be clear, the mitochondrial match was interesting. But at that distance everyone is related to Cheddar Man, certainly everyone in Europe.
Figuring out the entire family tree is a big ask, but Census records stretch back to 1790, and you only need one member of the Daughters of the American Revolution to get a straight shot to 1776 and beyond. With greater effort, tracing ancestry back to Britain gives access to British burial records and British parish records, which began in 1538.
1500? I dunno about that.
I’m still unclear about the quality of Charlemagne’s ancient family tree. Do reliable links date to before Christ’s birth? Genetics going that far back is meaningless: I’m discussing socially acknowledged (or accepted) parentage.