Discussion:
Most recent common ancestors
(too old to reply)
n***@gmail.com
2006-01-15 15:29:50 UTC
Permalink
(Also published at http://www.livejournal.com/users/nhw/563512.html )

Doug Rohde's paper on the most recent common ancestor of all humanity
(http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf) is, I think, well
known to most here. In my voiew it is by far the most interesting of
the numerous pieces of research cited by Mark Humphrys
(http://humphrysfamilytree.com/ca.html) on this topic. Rohde's computer
simulations gave results of between 3,000 and 5,000 years ago for the
lifetime of the most recent common ancestor of all humanity.

Reading through his paper, it seems clear to me that his conclusions
are too modest; that in fact it is entirely likely that the most recent
ancestor of all humanity lived around 2,000 years ago. I have several
reasons for thinking this:

1) Rohde admits that he is using unrealistically low rates of
inter-country migration, simply so as not to get results that are too
startling. If the real rate of migration between countries and
continents is higher than the one he used, the time to the most recent
common ancestor decreases.

2) His models assumes that women have an equal probability of bearing
children every year between the ages of 16 and 40, thus giving an
average age difference between mothers and their children of 28. I
reckon this flattens out the natural bump (!) at the lower end of that
age range, and my suspicion (without any proof) for most of human
history is that most children were born to women aged between 14 and
30. That too will decrease the time to our most recent common ancestor,
as the time between generations will be shorter.

(A digression: female-female lines are much harder to trace, which is
odd given that there is never any doubt about who a child's mother is.
For instance, little is known of Mary Garritt, the wife of Thomas Webb,
a surveyor in Stow-on-the-Wold in the mid-18th century. Her daughter
Frances (1775-1862) married Thomas Salisbury, landlord of Marshfield
House in Yorkshire. Their daughter Anne (1806-1881) married another
gentry type, Edwyn Burnaby of Baggrave Hall in Leicestershire. Their
daughter Caroline (1832-1918) married a widowed clergyman who was the
grandson of a duke. Their daughter Nina (1862-1938) managed to bag an
earl as her husband. Her daughter Elizabeth (1900-2002) did rather
better than a mere earl. Her daughter, another Elizabeth, was born in
1926 and is still alive; those of you in the UK and Canada will find
her depicted on certain useful everyday objects, ie money. But her
direct female line ancestry can be traced back only six generations
before it is lost in the Gloucestershire middle classes.)

3) Rohde leaves out the effect of occasional exceptional individuals
(what in homage to Asimov we might call the "Mule effect"), in this
case those with vast numbers of children all of whom produce
descendants, such as Genghis Khan. Zerjal et al demonstrated that
Genghis Khan's Y-chromosomes are present in large proportions of the
male population of his former empire.

That of course only measures the direct male-line descent of the
individuals concerned. It must be pretty certain that if you take all
lineages into account, Genghis Khan is an ancestor, quite likely the
most recent common ancestor himself, of everyone between the Aral Sea
and the Pacific north of the old boundary line. If he had not fathered
the immense number of children he appears to have done, that would
surely have added another couple of centuries to the time since the
most recent common ancestor of the people of the region.

I've argued at http://explorers.whyte.com/muhammad.htm that most of us
are descended from the Prophet Muhammad. Someone living in the first
few centuries AD, probably in East Asia, probably a man with children
by several different women (quite possibly in different places), is the
most recent person who is the ancestor of us all.

Of course, while this is a nice concept, it's not quite as strong as it
seems. Rohde points out one reason for this, which is that at the
distance of 50 generations the likelihood that we have inherited any
genetic material at all from this one particular ancestor is pretty
minimal unless you happen to be fairly close in geographical proximity
to them.

There is another reason as well, which is that family ties are not just
about genetics but are also about how you feel. By emphasising the
arrival of children in a family as the product of procreation between
married couples of opposite sexes, the Most Recent Common Ancestry
model leaves out all the messiness of real life - adoptions, most
obviously, but various other possibilities are all around us. It's an
attractive mathematical concept, but we have to bear in mind that it
isn't the whole story.
l***@yahoo.com
2006-01-16 03:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Very simply, "all humanity" was far too spread out and well beyond the
Eastern Hemisphere 2000 years ago. My father's Hopi ancestors, for
example, were nowhere near any European or Asian people 2000 years ago
but were exactly where he was born in north-central Arizona and the
immediately adjacent areas in present-day Utah, New Mexico, Colorado
and southern Nevada.
Be careful when you throw around such enormous concepts as "all
humanity". Bronwen
Scaly Lizard
2006-01-16 05:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Very simply, "all humanity" was far too spread out and well beyond the
Eastern Hemisphere 2000 years ago. My father's Hopi ancestors, for
example, were nowhere near any European or Asian people 2000 years ago
but were exactly where he was born in north-central Arizona and the
immediately adjacent areas in present-day Utah, New Mexico, Colorado
and southern Nevada.
Be careful when you throw around such enormous concepts as "all
humanity". Bronwen
There is a hole in the theory, but not the one you think.

It's very unlikely that the Hopi, nor any other Native
American culture, retains even a single member today
whose male and female ancestors were /all/ descended
from the first tribe who unknowingly chased a herd of
wooly mammoths from an "Asian" tundra to an "American"
tundra and headed south into an unpeopled paradise.

The first Europeans there reported seeing red-haired
natives with fairer skin in what is now Florida. This raises
the possibility that genetic mixing between Europe and
the Western Hemisphere began much earlier, possibly
with survivors of Viking explorers 900 years ago.

Even if we set the first genetic mixing at 1510, we must
remember that the offspring were more resistant to the
Euro diseases which wiped out (by some estimates)
19 out of every 20 Native Americans living near Euro
colonies from 1500 to 1900. Such depopulation forced
native villages to find spouses further afield, which thus
increased the rate of intermixing among Native Americans,
which therefore increased the rate at which half-Euros
and their children were assimilated into the genepool.

The real hole in the theory is that there are still people
living in the Amazon who have never had contact with
Euros. This is also possible for places in the islands
between Asia and Australia. At the very least, there
are known tribes in the Indonesian jungles who have
only been known for a few decades and who are
known to not have mixed genetically since their
discovery. The only female outsiders they've ever
seen are anthropologists who would not sleep with
them for reasons of professional standards (or for
reasons of personal hygiene!)

The genetic isolation of some Amazonian isolates
likely goes back to a branching in the tree 400 years
ago and thus includes no Europeans. The most remote
tribes we know of say "oh yeah, there's people to the
West, but we only run across one of them in the forest
every 20 years or so."

Stone-age tribes in Borneo might branch from the rest
of us even earlier, up to 2,000 years owing to the
difficulty of the terrain and cannibalistic relationships
with neighboring villages. This also precludes Eurasian
genetic elements.

So, the great likelihood is that humans are alive in South
America today, people whose common ancestor with
the rest of us lived at least 15,000 years ago. Some
corners of Australasia have populations which are only
descended from pioneers in humanity's great expansion
50,000 years ago.

There might only be 10,000 people alive today who are
not descendants of <insert historical figure here>, but
they /are/ out there, so setting a date of one or two
thousands years ago is eurocentristic folly.

SL
l***@yahoo.com
2006-01-16 06:30:33 UTC
Permalink
Regarding your thoughts about the peopling of the Americas, you mention
all of the wackiest myths around without citing a shred of evidence or
even a reference. You are wrong about virtually everything you said.
Mixing between groups occurred everywhere in the world, including the
most isolated areas and certainly including the land of my father's
ancestors. How this relates to the population there 2000 years ago
escapes me. What is the original documentation for "red-haired" Native
Americans in Florida? I've heard all of the myths about such people in
Indiana and Illinois and Minneapolis, etc. Florida is a new one. As for
mixing with the Vikings, not likely for the simple reason that the
Viking settlement in eastern Canada did not last long and was probably
ended precisely because of the failure of its inhabitants to get along
with the "Skraelings". Even if there was intermarriage or, more likely,
rape of Native women there, the genetic influence would be very slight
and possibly no longer represented among the living. Evidence does
exist for cross-Pacific contact (with the Ainu & the Northwest Coast
and with the voyages of Hoei-Shin around 400 CE. Again, however, the
Ainu influence does not appear to have been biological (based on
genetic comparisons between the two groups today) and Hoei-Shin sailed
well after the 2000 year mark.

When you cite the mixing of Europeans and Native Americans since the
16th century, you make several errors: first, the offspring of these
unions were not more resistant to European diseases; second, there had
been mixing among Native Americans for thousands of years. They did not
require a European presence to be aware of distant groups and choose
partners from among them (nor were such unions necessarily the result
of peaceful relations - it was traditional among many groups to take
war captives for this purpose). I have many friends from the various
Pueblos of New Mexico who speak of their "Plains" ancestors as having
arrived there in that way; virtually every Eastern Pueblo person with
whom I have discussed these things has spoken of their war-captive or
purchased ancestors. It should be recalled that the Pueblos were the
people who were responsible for spreading the use of horses to the
Plains Indians. Your statement about the Amazon is also untrue. It is
an entertaining Euro-American myth that there are pockets of people so
isolated that they have never seen an outsider. No such people exist
and, if you exclude the Europeans from discussion, no such people have
existed in that way for a very long time, if ever. Every group knew of
people unlike themselves and had occasional dealings with them over
very large areas. The trade networks in the Americas spanned thousands
upon thousands of square miles and involved the traveling of people as
well as the passing along of trade goods. Where on earth did you get
this baloney about unknown tribes and the anthropologist women who
would not sleep with them!? And as for hygiene, how do you think all of
these "primitive" people compared to 16th century Europeans? As for all
of this pseudo-anthropology, where is your documentation, your
references for all of these wild statements? You make the usual mistake
of underestimating the history and culture of such people. Finally,
you need to bone up on the current theories about the peopling of the
Americas: sites such as Pedra Furada in Brazil and Monte Verde in Chile
show that there were people living there 40,000 years ago; the
Brazilian site is tentatively dated at 48,000 years. Even the old
Bering Strait Theory has undergone a great deal of rethinking recently:
were Asian hunters walking across the land "bridge" (it was a very
large area, more like a subcontinent) the ancestors of Native Americans
everywhere, or did some people come by boat from other places? Ancient
skulls from South America suggest a Melanesian possibility while
ancient skulls from northwestern North America suggest relations with
the Ainu that went beyond cultural influence (of course, the most
famous of these was someone who ended up with an arrow in his butt
although it did not kill him). It is all being re-thought. And, of
course, most the Native accounts never included the Bering Strait
anyway although some were quite specific about geographic origins and
subsequent migrations. Best, Bronwen
Scaly Lizard
2006-01-16 09:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Regarding your thoughts about the peopling of the Americas, you mention
all of the wackiest myths around without citing a shred of evidence or
even a reference. You are wrong about virtually everything you said.
Err, i thought i had the best info available. Let's find out.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Mixing between groups occurred everywhere in the world, including the
most isolated areas and certainly including the land of my father's
ancestors.
Yes, but the mixing has historically been limited by the
economic cost of travel. Extremely insular places like
the deep Amazon and Australasian islands have only
recently been opened to scrutiny, and their genetic
makeup indicates a far older ancestry than 1,000 years.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
How this relates to the population there 2000 years ago
escapes me. What is the original documentation for "red-haired" Native
Americans in Florida? I've heard all of the myths about such people in
Indiana and Illinois and Minneapolis, etc. Florida is a new one.
I haven't read about such reports in the South Great
Lakes Area, please eleborate. We might be onto
something there after all. Can you at least provide
a weblink supporting your claims abot Indiana, Illinois
and Minnesota?
Post by l***@yahoo.com
As for mixing with the Vikings, not likely for the simple reason that the
Viking settlement in eastern Canada did not last long and was probably
ended precisely because of the failure of its inhabitants to get along
with the "Skraelings". Even if there was intermarriage or, more likely,
rape of Native women there, the genetic influence would be very slight
and possibly no longer represented among the living. Evidence does
exist for cross-Pacific contact (with the Ainu & the Northwest Coast
and with the voyages of Hoei-Shin around 400 CE. Again, however, the
Ainu influence does not appear to have been biological (based on
genetic comparisons between the two groups today) and Hoei-Shin sailed
well after the 2000 year mark.
No significant genetic interchange is implied, nor should
be inferred from, extant reports of Viking involvement at
L'Anseaux Meadows, which is presumably the "Vinland"
reported by Leif Eriksson. But we should remember that
Viking culture was tied to the boat as a unit of social
organization, and no boat was found at L'Anseaux.

If you think all the Vikings perished like lambs to
"skraeling" spears, you're underestimating the
resourcefulness of a culture that spread from China
to Baghdad. They kept their boat in good repair as
a matter of survival and depending on the season,
they either fled north or south.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
When you cite the mixing of Europeans and Native Americans since the
16th century, you make several errors: first, the offspring of these
unions were not more resistant to European diseases; second, there had
been mixing among Native Americans for thousands of years. They did not
require a European presence to be aware of distant groups and choose
partners from among them (nor were such unions necessarily the result
of peaceful relations - it was traditional among many groups to take
war captives for this purpose).
Yeah, i had hoped to allude to mankind's history of
societal rape without direct reference to it, but you
are correct: rape has been a genetically signifiicant
mechanism for gamete dispersal for many centuries
before it became a political liability.

But, including the factor of rape only bolsters my points,
rather than invalidate them. Genetic transfer increases
more quickly when armies with an advantage in
transportation conquer slower nations. The modern era
has shown us the Rape Of Nanking and Nazi "warbabies"
popping up in France and Benelux in early 1942.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I have many friends from the various
Pueblos of New Mexico who speak of their "Plains" ancestors as having
arrived there in that way; virtually every Eastern Pueblo person with
whom I have discussed these things has spoken of their war-captive or
purchased ancestors. It should be recalled that the Pueblos were the
people who were responsible for spreading the use of horses to the
Plains Indians.
Yes, the traditions are the same, but the genetic stew
has changed over the years. Intrusion of half-Euros and
quarter-Euros into the Native American cultures was swift
from 1800 to 1900. The number of North Americans who
can claim certain "pure" descent from the original invaders
of an uninhabited North America is now zero.

Or perhaps you have proof otherwise?
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Your statement about the Amazon is also untrue. It is
an entertaining Euro-American myth that there are pockets of people so
isolated that they have never seen an outsider. No such people exist
and, if you exclude the Europeans from discussion, no such people have
existed in that way for a very long time, if ever. Every group knew of
people unlike themselves and had occasional dealings with them over
very large areas. The trade networks in the Americas spanned thousands
upon thousands of square miles and involved the traveling of people as
well as the passing along of trade goods.
Whoa there boy, i'm talking about occasional contact
with 'outsiders' among the most remote tribes we know
about in the Amazon. There are certainly villages we
haven't been to, ones whch retain the genetic line of
the first asiatic land-bridgers.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Where on earth did you get
this baloney about unknown tribes and the anthropologist women who
would not sleep with them!? And as for hygiene, how do you think all of
these "primitive" people compared to 16th century Europeans?
But i was speaking of 20th-Century female anthropologists,
which you seemed to overlook.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
As for all of this pseudo-anthropology, where is your documentation, your
references for all of these wild statements? You make the usual mistake
of underestimating the history and culture of such people. Finally,
you need to bone up on the current theories about the peopling of the
Americas: sites such as Pedra Furada in Brazil and Monte Verde in Chile
show that there were people living there 40,000 years ago; the
Brazilian site is tentatively dated at 48,000 years.
I'm aware of these reports, but chose a conservative
date of American inhabitation so as not to upset the
Kansas school boards... and other folks who want to
argue a goofy point.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Even the old
were Asian hunters walking across the land "bridge" (it was a very
large area, more like a subcontinent) the ancestors of Native Americans
everywhere, or did some people come by boat from other places? Ancient
skulls from South America suggest a Melanesian possibility while
ancient skulls from northwestern North America suggest relations with
the Ainu that went beyond cultural influence (of course, the most
famous of these was someone who ended up with an arrow in his butt
although it did not kill him). It is all being re-thought. And, of
course, most the Native accounts never included the Bering Strait
anyway although some were quite specific about geographic origins and
subsequent migrations. Best, Bronwen
The theory of immigration across the Bering is the
only theory which holds water. The timing is the
sole bone of contention. I support the date 25,000
years ago. Many more sites are coming to light in the
Americas which push the inhabitation of America back
from one interglacial period to the previous one. We
just can't say for sure yet.

SL
l***@yahoo.com
2006-01-17 08:56:53 UTC
Permalink
When you speak of "race mixing" among Native Americans and Europeans,
you need to remember that there is no single genetic "type" of Native
American and there probably never was, just as there has never been a
single language group or physical type. For discussions on alternative
entry points to North America, review the academic journals and even
popular science magazines that have been published since about 1998.
Native populations along the coast between Alaska and northern
California may have either arrived by water and/or traveled along the
coast rather than an ice-free corridor further east. The Native people
along the coast of Tierra del Fuego in southern Chile are regarded
similarly as having most likely arrived by boat. Regarding the 20th
century female anthropologists that I apparently, according to you, did
not consider, I happen to be one and retired three years ago from a
long teaching career at the university level. I have been privy to all
sorts of private discussions as well as published materials . The
allusion to 16th century hygiene was intended as a reminder that the
Native people of the Americas have always paid close attention to
hygiene and health. There are solid reasons why more than 60% of
modern medicines were developed from Native American usage. In regard
to red-haired "Natives" in the Midwest, these relate to myths about the
journeys of Vikings to Minnesota, a Welsh Prince to the Midwest in
general, and the Irish "Culdees" fleeing as far as the Midwest to
escape the Vikings. THese are quite well known as folklore and I
continually hear various versions from people who think there are 12
foot human burials in the Americas being hidden by a conspiracy of
archaeologists. Finally, when you speak of "proof" - I am citing very
recent studies and excavations. If you are aware of the South American
archaeological sites to which I referred, you know where to find
discussions about them and what they imply. - Bronwen
Scaly Lizard
2006-01-17 11:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
When you speak of "race mixing" among Native Americans and Europeans,
you need to remember that there is no single genetic "type" of Native
American and there probably never was, just as there has never been a
single language group or physical type.
No, but European people of 1500 - 1900 predominantly
came from the "caucasoid" group, while Native Americans
predominantly came from the "mongoloid" group. People,
just like all other animals, experience speciation, or diversity
in appearance. In animals, we call these "subspecies".
In humans, we call these "races".
Post by l***@yahoo.com
For discussions on alternative
entry points to North America, review the academic journals and even
popular science magazines that have been published since about 1998.
I am aware of the likelihood of contact between South
America and Oceania. There is the question of how corn
ended up in the Phillipines long before the arrival of
Europeans in both Mesoamerica and Indochina with boats
capable of making the transit.

There are archaeological sites in the Andean coastal
plains which show stronger correlation to Polynesian
physical characteristics than to Incan ones. If one takes
a broad survey of 'indigenous' Native Americans, there
is a clear trend of decreasing mongoloid physical traits
as one moves to the south and east of Alaska. Whether
this is due solely to speciation from mutation, or due to
intermixing with another racial group, we cannot say for
certain yet.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Native populations along the coast between Alaska and northern
California may have either arrived by water and/or traveled along the
coast rather than an ice-free corridor further east. The Native people
along the coast of Tierra del Fuego in southern Chile are regarded
similarly as having most likely arrived by boat.
Uhh, Tierra Del Fuego is an island, so there's the proof
of that right there, eh? Either by boat, or they were carried
there by giant birds, right?

And yes, there were almost certainly other contacts before
Columbus. Easter Islanders, as previously mentioned, Vikings
in the northeast, Haosin and St. Brendan in the middle of the
first millennium, and another Chinese visitor whose name
escapes me from early in the second millennium. There were
multiple southward migrations by various Aleuts and Inuits
from a wide arc between Alaska to Baffin, and there are
many other historical "irregularities" which are very intriguing.

Such as pre-Basque Iberians in Roman times showing up
with pelts from American animals and a guy with caucasoid
features showing up in British Columbia with a spearpoint in
his hip. The first visitors to New Zealand reported the Maori
natives (who were incapable of smelting, let alone casting
metal) using a bronze bell as a cooking pot. Pioneers in
Tasmania reported a partially submerged shipwreck which
predated Capt. Cook by centuries. Spanish explorers in
California reported a shipwreck in the San Francisco Bay
long before Russian explorers headed south.

Some of the historical oddities will prove to be mistakes,
and some will be outed as hoaxes. But some, such as the
indisputable excavation of Scandinavian burials in China
point to a far greater mobility of ancient human populations
than we were taught in school.

We're not ready to write the definitive history of mankind's
spread to the Western Hemisphere yet, not without much
more digging at many more sites. In fact, the only neighbors
of the Americas that seem to /not/ have made the crossing
in antiquity were the Africans.

But none of this invalidates my point about the deep Amazon,
specifically that the terrain, climate and low nutritional density
per square km severely dampens interchange between tribes
by keeping populations low and scattered. Some tribes may
have only contacted the "next village over" once a century
or less in post-Columbian times, which points to a high probability
that humanity's "100% Ancestor" must have lived before the
end of the last Ice Age.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Regarding the 20th
century female anthropologists that I apparently, according to you, did
not consider, I happen to be one and retired three years ago from a
long teaching career at the university level. I have been privy to all
sorts of private discussions as well as published materials .
OK, so let's re-ask my question... how likely is it that any
anthropologist in 20th Century Australasia mixed genetically
with their native subjects? It's vanishingly small, right?

Did any of your "private discussions" reveal lusty liasons
with natives in the steamy Sumatran night? I didn't think
so, but had to ask.

For reasons of professional conduct (of which you are
apparently well aware) and for simple cultural reasons
such as differing standards of hygiene and ideologically
instilled ideas of 'beauty', i'm certain that the chances of
any scientist studying a 'primitive' tribe in Indonesia who
was *male OR female* actually having sex with their
study's subjects is.... zero percent chance.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
The allusion to 16th century hygiene was intended as a reminder that the
Native people of the Americas have always paid close attention to
hygiene and health. There are solid reasons why more than 60% of
modern medicines were developed from Native American usage.
At that point in my previous post, i was speaking of
natives in the islands between Maylaysia and Australia,
but yes, we can extend the discussion to America. I was
not implying that any 'native' people were dirty, only that
20th Century Western scientists are very unlikely to
find their subjects sexually appealing, for a range of
reasons including bathing frequency, toilet customs,
and cultural standards of beauty. And also there's
that pesky professional conduct thing too.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
In regard
to red-haired "Natives" in the Midwest, these relate to myths about the
journeys of Vikings to Minnesota, a Welsh Prince to the Midwest in
general, and the Irish "Culdees" fleeing as far as the Midwest to
escape the Vikings. THese are quite well known as folklore and I
continually hear various versions from people who think there are 12
foot human burials in the Americas being hidden by a conspiracy of
archaeologists.
Riiiiiight, well it takes all kinds, eh? We both know that
the Kensington Runestone was a hoax, and not a shred
of evidence exists for pre-Columbian penetration of
Europeans into the Plains. When you say that your Pueblo
ancestors introduced the horse to the Great Plains, you
are certainly talking about escaped and redomesticated
Spanish horses, as we both know that the horse is not
native to the Western Hemisphere.

As for the Welsh Prince and Culdees, we both know that
the probability of truth is very small, yet we are constantly
being suprised at the mobility of ancient people, so the
possibility does exist, although it is very very small.

Also, there is the fact that red hair and paler skin are
two mutations that go hand-in-hand, being dependent
on the expression of the same gene. We believe now
that this mutation has occurred in Africa and Europe
independently, and possibly occurred spontaneously
in America as well. Not all redheads come from North
Europe after all, but it would be as disservice to science
to dismiss all 'folklore' as flapdoodle.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Finally, when you speak of "proof" - I am citing very
recent studies and excavations. If you are aware of the South American
archaeological sites to which I referred, you know where to find
discussions about them and what they imply. - Bronwen
No, i don't know; please illuminate me. One weblink at
least? I think the only place we disagree is my estimate
of genetic diffusion in the Amazon basin: i think that there
are still people there today who hail solely from previously
Siberian emmigrants, thus pushing the date for our "100%
Ancestor" back to 15,000 years ago, and that similar
isolation in Indonesia pushes that 100% person back
further, to 40,000 ot even 60,000 years.

SL
Doug McDonald
2006-01-17 18:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
When you speak of "race mixing" among Native Americans and Europeans,
you need to remember that there is no single genetic "type" of Native
American and there probably never was, just as there has never been a
single language group or physical type.
Not an exact single type, but Y-chromosome haplogroup Q3 really
truly DOES mean "American". True, some Siberians are Q3,
but they are clearly back-migraters. Y-Haplogroup Q* is
present in both America and northern Eurasia, but there are
quite clear haplotypes within it that distinguish American
Q* from Eurasian Q*. And the vast majority of native
American men were, in 1491, Q* or Q3. True, some were and are
C, and that muddies things since C is common in Siberia and
Oceania, but again the haplotypes distinguish fairly well.

The mitochondria are a different matter since A, B, C, and D
are quite sommon in both America and east Asia, and X is present
at low rates in America and Europe.

It is quite clear now that the autosomes, in aggregate, quite
clearly distinguish Asian from American.

Doug McDonald
Doug McDonald
2006-01-16 16:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scaly Lizard
The real hole in the theory is that there are still people
living in the Amazon who have never had contact with
Euros. This is also possible for places in the islands
between Asia and Australia. At the very least, there
are known tribes in the Indonesian jungles who have
only been known for a few decades and who are
known to not have mixed genetically since their
discovery.
The genetic isolation of some Amazonian isolates
likely goes back to a branching in the tree 400 years
ago and thus includes no Europeans.
Rhode does not propose European mixing. He proposes
Asian mixing and diffusion. That is, he proposes that somebody in
Central Asia moved a little east and interrmarries there. A brother
goes west and does teh same thing. A few generations later,
a descendant of each goes a bit farther. Eventually they reach
the Bering Strait and Suez and cross. Once there, the slow diffusion
continues.

Thus the isolated Amazon tribe got it's "recent" Asian input not from
Asia, but from a tribe only 100 miles away. Ditto the Bantu in Africa.

Rhode's idea and methodology and computer programs are valid.
The only question is the input numbers for the probability of
mixing for the tuly isolated places in, as you say, the Amazon,
south-central Africa, and Oceania. Rhode specifically does
exempt parts of Oceania.

Doug McDonald
MLS
2006-01-16 16:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Doug McDonald
2006-01-16 17:04:51 UTC
Permalink
In my (modest) opinion the real bug in this theory is .... The whole
theory itself!
There are no logical, scientific or othes reasons to think that we are
ALL descendants from Prophets, Kings, Emperors etc..
Your argument applies only to recent times, essentially post Charlemagne
(and his contemporaries in China.)

Rhode's thesis goes MUCH farther back. And it does indeed take
into account the probabilities of low inter-class mixing.

What you fail to see in this case is that royal dynasties come and go.
They are even approximately isolated from the peasants only
for times short on the scale of his proposed MRCA. Before that
they WERE peasants (cf. the Conqueror's mother, who was not quite
a peasant, but still ...) and after their dynasty loses power,
their descendants go downard.


You should read Rhode's paper before making such claims,
which are of a much longer term than "all Europeans are
descendants of Charlemagne". The idea is the same, but
the much longer time makes a big difference. NOBODY
would claim that 18,000 years ago there was not some
person in central Asia that was the ancestor of all
humankind everywhere except Africa. Nobody would claim that
there was not some person in Africa 50,000 years ago that
was the ancestor of absolutely everyone.

The quibble is the period from Clovis to about 2000 years ago.

Doug McDonald
Michael LaForest
2006-01-16 18:03:05 UTC
Permalink
When I consider that the number of ancestors increases exponentially with
each generation, and if I allow 25 years to a generation, and I consider
that just 1500 years ago the number of my ancestors is represented by the
number 2 to the 60th power, and that number represents more than the number
of people that have ever lived, it seems reasonable that we all are
descended directly from a goodly number of them - many more than once.
Mike
Post by Doug McDonald
In my (modest) opinion the real bug in this theory is .... The whole
theory itself!
There are no logical, scientific or othes reasons to think that we are
ALL descendants from Prophets, Kings, Emperors etc..
Your argument applies only to recent times, essentially post Charlemagne
(and his contemporaries in China.)
Rhode's thesis goes MUCH farther back. And it does indeed take
into account the probabilities of low inter-class mixing.
What you fail to see in this case is that royal dynasties come and go.
They are even approximately isolated from the peasants only
for times short on the scale of his proposed MRCA. Before that
they WERE peasants (cf. the Conqueror's mother, who was not quite
a peasant, but still ...) and after their dynasty loses power,
their descendants go downard.
You should read Rhode's paper before making such claims,
which are of a much longer term than "all Europeans are
descendants of Charlemagne". The idea is the same, but
the much longer time makes a big difference. NOBODY
would claim that 18,000 years ago there was not some
person in central Asia that was the ancestor of all
humankind everywhere except Africa. Nobody would claim that
there was not some person in Africa 50,000 years ago that
was the ancestor of absolutely everyone.
The quibble is the period from Clovis to about 2000 years ago.
Doug McDonald
MLS
2006-01-16 18:34:56 UTC
Permalink
I'm sorry Mike but - in my opinion, this is a totally wrong assert.
The number of our ancestor CANNOT increases exponentially each
generations or - to be more precise - IT increase exponentially, of
course- Mathematically speaking, but we CAN't descend from ALL different
peoples every generations! It is quite impossible BECAUSE - as you wrote
- "1500 years ago the number of my ancestors ... represents more than
the number of people that have ever lived". But this assert don't means
that "we are all related" but that every individual have a list of
ancestors that became from a SMALL group of families, family the resides
in the LIMITED area: from the ancestral village and few neighbouring
villages, for examples or, in the case of aristocratic family, this
group can be even smaller because can be originated from the FEW noble
family IN THE SMALL AREA when our ancestor used to live.
Marco


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael LaForest [mailto:***@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 5:51 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


When I consider that the number of ancestors increases exponentially
with each generation, and if I allow 25 years to a generation, and I
consider that just 1500 years ago the number of my ancestors is
represented by the number 2 to the 60th power, and that number
represents more than the number of people that have ever lived, it seems
reasonable that we all are descended directly from a goodly number of
them - many more than once. Mike
Post by Doug McDonald
In my (modest) opinion the real bug in this theory is .... The whole
theory itself! There are no logical, scientific or othes reasons to
think that we are ALL descendants from Prophets, Kings, Emperors
etc..
Your argument applies only to recent times, essentially post
Charlemagne (and his contemporaries in China.)
Rhode's thesis goes MUCH farther back. And it does indeed take into
account the probabilities of low inter-class mixing.
What you fail to see in this case is that royal dynasties come and go.
They are even approximately isolated from the peasants only for times
short on the scale of his proposed MRCA. Before that they WERE
peasants (cf. the Conqueror's mother, who was not quite a peasant, but
still ...) and after their dynasty loses power, their descendants go
downard.
You should read Rhode's paper before making such claims, which are of
a much longer term than "all Europeans are descendants of
Charlemagne". The idea is the same, but the much longer time makes a
big difference. NOBODY would claim that 18,000 years ago there was not
some person in central Asia that was the ancestor of all
humankind everywhere except Africa. Nobody would claim that
there was not some person in Africa 50,000 years ago that
was the ancestor of absolutely everyone.
The quibble is the period from Clovis to about 2000 years ago.
Doug McDonald
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Acquista ora Email.it Phone Card e comincia a risparmiare sulle tue telefonate! Clicca e scopri l'offerta
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2684&d=16-1
jlucsoler
2006-01-16 18:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Marco

if you could see all the lines of my provencal genealogist groups.. you
could see that my 500 teammates are all descendants of êasant till 1600....
but we all link to charlemagne thanks to little nobility then greater
etc....

most lines are proven by (non familial but contemporaneous) documents


jl
In my (modest) opinion the real bug in this theory is .... The whole
theory itself!
There are no logical, scientific or othes reasons to think that we are
ALL descendants from Prophets, Kings, Emperors etc..
Historically speaking, is fully proved that individuals coming from some
upper classes EVER married between his same class, like aristocrats
married others aristocrats etc.
So, I can't see any reasons to imagine (or to dream...) that the today
miner working in a Great Britain carbon mine is the descendant of
William the Conqueror or the Prophet Muhammad...! Ok, It COULD be
possible, (just in theory) if we like to imagine some potential descent
from a natural son but... It's most unlikely! It VERY most probable that
he descend from a miner in the XII century England etc. Why cannot
consider that not only aristocrats or famous people can have a long and
ancient genealogy? Millions of peoples, today, can descend from a stable
boy that took cares of Alexander the Great horses!
And, if we want to remain on the same speculative plan, It is MOST
probable that SOME present King or Queen today, descend from... him!
(the stable boy of Alexander the Great)! As you know, Latins used to
say: "mater semper certa est, pater numquam".
Differents opinions are welcom
Marco Lupis
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
Post by Scaly Lizard
The real hole in the theory is that there are still people
living in the Amazon who have never had contact with
Euros. This is also possible for places in the islands
between Asia and Australia. At the very least, there
are known tribes in the Indonesian jungles who have
only been known for a few decades and who are
known to not have mixed genetically since their
discovery.
The genetic isolation of some Amazonian isolates
likely goes back to a branching in the tree 400 years
ago and thus includes no Europeans.
Rhode does not propose European mixing. He proposes
Asian mixing and diffusion. That is, he proposes that somebody in
Central Asia moved a little east and interrmarries there. A brother goes
west and does teh same thing. A few generations later, a descendant of
each goes a bit farther. Eventually they reach the Bering Strait and
Suez and cross. Once there, the slow diffusion continues.
Thus the isolated Amazon tribe got it's "recent" Asian input not from
Asia, but from a tribe only 100 miles away. Ditto the Bantu in Africa.
Rhode's idea and methodology and computer programs are valid. The only
question is the input numbers for the probability of mixing for the tuly
isolated places in, as you say, the Amazon, south-central Africa, and
Oceania. Rhode specifically does exempt parts of Oceania.
Doug McDonald
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Scarica la Rana Pazza sul tuo cellulare - come vista in televisione!
* La prima suoneria è GRATIS!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3539&d=16-1
MLS
2006-01-16 18:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Bonjour Jean Luc!

What you wrote it is quite possible. But you told about "little
nobility" that can trace is genealogy to Charlemagne.
In other words, the "enlargement" of the social group from (even little
but) noble families to peasants families it is more recent. And it can
be explained by the social evolution of Society in the recent centuries
etc. etc (you know what I mean) whit increasing inter-classes marriages
etc.
But if we look at the ancient times(and more and more when we look
further in the Time) inter-classes marriages (of course the "official
ones"...) they where just ... Impossible ! or VERY MOST UNLIKELY cause
of the "social barriers".

Marco

-----Original Message-----
From: jlucsoler [mailto:***@modulonet.fr]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 7:22 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


Marco

if you could see all the lines of my provencal genealogist groups.. you
could see that my 500 teammates are all descendants of êasant till
1600....
but we all link to charlemagne thanks to little nobility then greater
etc....

most lines are proven by (non familial but contemporaneous) documents


jl
""MLS"" <***@email.it> a écrit dans le message de news:
!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA3f5bNGbf2kaYgr2971HcX8KAA
In my (modest) opinion the real bug in this theory is .... The whole
theory itself! There are no logical, scientific or othes reasons to
think that we are ALL descendants from Prophets, Kings, Emperors etc..
Historically speaking, is fully proved that individuals coming from some
upper classes EVER married between his same class, like aristocrats
married others aristocrats etc.
So, I can't see any reasons to imagine (or to dream...) that the today
miner working in a Great Britain carbon mine is the descendant of
William the Conqueror or the Prophet Muhammad...! Ok, It COULD be
possible, (just in theory) if we like to imagine some potential descent
from a natural son but... It's most unlikely! It VERY most probable that
he descend from a miner in the XII century England etc. Why cannot
consider that not only aristocrats or famous people can have a long and
ancient genealogy? Millions of peoples, today, can descend from a stable
boy that took cares of Alexander the Great horses!
And, if we want to remain on the same speculative plan, It is MOST
probable that SOME present King or Queen today, descend from... him!
(the stable boy of Alexander the Great)! As you know, Latins used to
say: "mater semper certa est, pater numquam".
Differents opinions are welcom
Marco Lupis
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
The real hole in the theory is that there are still people living in
the Amazon who have never had contact with Euros. This is also
possible for places in the islands between Asia and Australia. At
the very least, there are known tribes in the Indonesian jungles who
have only been known for a few decades and who are
known to not have mixed genetically since their
discovery.
The genetic isolation of some Amazonian isolates
likely goes back to a branching in the tree 400 years
ago and thus includes no Europeans.
Rhode does not propose European mixing. He proposes
Asian mixing and diffusion. That is, he proposes that somebody in
Central Asia moved a little east and interrmarries there. A brother
goes west and does teh same thing. A few generations later, a
descendant of each goes a bit farther. Eventually they reach the
Bering Strait and Suez and cross. Once there, the slow diffusion
continues.
Thus the isolated Amazon tribe got it's "recent" Asian input not from
Asia, but from a tribe only 100 miles away. Ditto the Bantu in Africa.
Rhode's idea and methodology and computer programs are valid. The only
question is the input numbers for the probability of mixing for the
tuly isolated places in, as you say, the Amazon, south-central Africa,
and Oceania. Rhode specifically does exempt parts of Oceania.
Doug McDonald
--
http://www.email.it/f
Scarica la Rana Pazza sul tuo cellulare - come vista in televisione!
* La prima suoneria è GRATIS!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3539&d=16-1
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Trova il prodotto XYZ su jamba.it
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid760&d-1
Gordon Banks
2006-01-16 19:25:15 UTC
Permalink
I'll bet that at least 90% of the miners of English ancestry are
descended from William the Conqueror. My line from him goes through
poor New York farmers who probably were illiterate (the spelling of
their name was different at different times for the same individual,
which I think is a sign of that). People don't all stay in the
aristocracy over generations. There are younger sons, daughters, and
plenty of bastards to spread the DNA far and wide. Also a lot of people
get booted from the aristocracy for being on the losing side or
committing some crime.
In my (modest) opinion the real bug in this theory is .... The whole
theory itself!
There are no logical, scientific or othes reasons to think that we are
ALL descendants from Prophets, Kings, Emperors etc..
Historically speaking, is fully proved that individuals coming from some
upper classes EVER married between his same class, like aristocrats
married others aristocrats etc.
So, I can't see any reasons to imagine (or to dream...) that the today
miner working in a Great Britain carbon mine is the descendant of
William the Conqueror or the Prophet Muhammad...! Ok, It COULD be
possible, (just in theory) if we like to imagine some potential descent
from a natural son but... It's most unlikely! It VERY most probable that
he descend from a miner in the XII century England etc. Why cannot
consider that not only aristocrats or famous people can have a long and
ancient genealogy? Millions of peoples, today, can descend from a stable
boy that took cares of Alexander the Great horses!
And, if we want to remain on the same speculative plan, It is MOST
probable that SOME present King or Queen today, descend from... him!
(the stable boy of Alexander the Great)! As you know, Latins used to
say: "mater semper certa est, pater numquam".
Differents opinions are welcom
Marco Lupis
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
Post by Scaly Lizard
The real hole in the theory is that there are still people
living in the Amazon who have never had contact with
Euros. This is also possible for places in the islands
between Asia and Australia. At the very least, there
are known tribes in the Indonesian jungles who have
only been known for a few decades and who are
known to not have mixed genetically since their
discovery.
The genetic isolation of some Amazonian isolates
likely goes back to a branching in the tree 400 years
ago and thus includes no Europeans.
Rhode does not propose European mixing. He proposes
Asian mixing and diffusion. That is, he proposes that somebody in
Central Asia moved a little east and interrmarries there. A brother goes
west and does teh same thing. A few generations later, a descendant of
each goes a bit farther. Eventually they reach the Bering Strait and
Suez and cross. Once there, the slow diffusion continues.
Thus the isolated Amazon tribe got it's "recent" Asian input not from
Asia, but from a tribe only 100 miles away. Ditto the Bantu in Africa.
Rhode's idea and methodology and computer programs are valid. The only
question is the input numbers for the probability of mixing for the tuly
isolated places in, as you say, the Amazon, south-central Africa, and
Oceania. Rhode specifically does exempt parts of Oceania.
Doug McDonald
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Scarica la Rana Pazza sul tuo cellulare - come vista in televisione!
* La prima suoneria GRATIS!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3539&d=16-1
MLS
2006-01-17 01:35:00 UTC
Permalink
The misspelling of the names cannot be usually considered like a sign of
illiteracy. To be honest, cannot be sure about USA, but in Italy it is
very frequent and it was caused by the illiteracy of the officials in
charge to compile the birth and death registry who frequently are
...semi-illiterates!
By the way, your post ringed on my head two bells:

1 You wrote about those ancestor that are "poor" farmers.. Are you sure
they really are be so poor?
2 You line from The conqueror is based on documents? In other words, are
you really sure that those "poor" farmers descend from the Conqueror?
In my knowledge, there area lot of line of descents from British
aristocrat to American people that today are proved as fake...

Marco


-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Banks [mailto:***@gordonbanks.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 8:25 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors


I'll bet that at least 90% of the miners of English ancestry are
descended from William the Conqueror. My line from him goes through
poor New York farmers who probably were illiterate (the spelling of
their name was different at different times for the same individual,
which I think is a sign of that). People don't all stay in the
aristocracy over generations. There are younger sons, daughters, and
plenty of bastards to spread the DNA far and wide. Also a lot of people
get booted from the aristocracy for being on the losing side or
committing some crime.
In my (modest) opinion the real bug in this theory is .... The whole
theory itself! There are no logical, scientific or othes reasons to
think that we are ALL descendants from Prophets, Kings, Emperors etc..
Historically speaking, is fully proved that individuals coming from some
upper classes EVER married between his same class, like aristocrats
married others aristocrats etc.
So, I can't see any reasons to imagine (or to dream...) that the today
miner working in a Great Britain carbon mine is the descendant of
William the Conqueror or the Prophet Muhammad...! Ok, It COULD be
possible, (just in theory) if we like to imagine some potential descent
from a natural son but... It's most unlikely! It VERY most probable that
he descend from a miner in the XII century England etc. Why cannot
consider that not only aristocrats or famous people can have a long and
ancient genealogy? Millions of peoples, today, can descend from a stable
boy that took cares of Alexander the Great horses!
And, if we want to remain on the same speculative plan, It is MOST
probable that SOME present King or Queen today, descend from... him!
(the stable boy of Alexander the Great)! As you know, Latins used to
say: "mater semper certa est, pater numquam".
Differents opinions are welcom
Marco Lupis
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
The real hole in the theory is that there are still people living in
the Amazon who have never had contact with Euros. This is also
possible for places in the islands between Asia and Australia. At
the very least, there are known tribes in the Indonesian jungles who
have only been known for a few decades and who are
known to not have mixed genetically since their
discovery.
The genetic isolation of some Amazonian isolates
likely goes back to a branching in the tree 400 years
ago and thus includes no Europeans.
Rhode does not propose European mixing. He proposes
Asian mixing and diffusion. That is, he proposes that somebody in
Central Asia moved a little east and interrmarries there. A brother goes
west and does teh same thing. A few generations later, a descendant of
each goes a bit farther. Eventually they reach the Bering Strait and
Suez and cross. Once there, the slow diffusion continues.
Thus the isolated Amazon tribe got it's "recent" Asian input not from
Asia, but from a tribe only 100 miles away. Ditto the Bantu in Africa.
Rhode's idea and methodology and computer programs are valid. The only
question is the input numbers for the probability of mixing for the tuly
isolated places in, as you say, the Amazon, south-central Africa, and
Oceania. Rhode specifically does exempt parts of Oceania.
Doug McDonald
--
http://www.email.it/f
Scarica la Rana Pazza sul tuo cellulare - come vista in televisione!
* La prima suoneria GRATIS!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3539&d=16-1
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Trova il prodotto XYZ su jamba.it
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3760&d=16-1
Gordon Banks
2006-01-17 21:21:52 UTC
Permalink
The name in question is Griffith or Griffin. He appeared on the US
census of 1790 as Griffin and in marriage records as Griffin, but on
other documents as Griffith. I think in American cases, it is more
likely the person signed with an X and the clerk entered the name.
Obviously it is just a guess in any specific case. Literacy was not
that common in colonial America as there weren't many schools. As far
as being poor, my ancestor leased his land. Most people who had money
owned their land. No one can be sure of their remote ancestry except
for what can be verified with DNA testing. But there are good documents
connecting me to Elnathan Griffith/Griffin and also good ones connecting
him to Susanna Hutchinson, daughter of Anne Marbury Hutchinson, who is
well connected to the Conqueror. Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and
(sigh!) the Bushes are also descended from her, but on other lines. I
suppose it could yet be proved fake, but it is currently accepted by
most genealogists.

There seems to be a subtext to all this (forgive me if I'm wrong) that
there are some "noble" or "royal" genes that may account for "quality"
in the descendant. I think this is rubbish. Exceptional individuals
may have secured the rule for members of their families for some time
after their passing, but the fact that later individuals were "noble"
had less to do with their genes than the accomplishments (good or evil)
of their ancestor, which weren't just genetically determined. Most of
the greatest individuals of our century spring mainly from ordinary
stock, while those contemporary "royals" who have royal blood on most of
their lines are insignificant in their talents and accomplishments in
comparison and only occupy their present station by virtue of their
fortunate birth circumstances.

Unfortunately, some (even Americans who should know better) would use
their genealogy to lord it over others. I'm no less proud of being
descended from illiterate thirteenth century farmers than Plantagenets.
Unfortunately, the farmers left no records but the Plantagenets did, so
I have to work with those I can know about.
Post by MLS
The misspelling of the names cannot be usually considered like a sign of
illiteracy. To be honest, cannot be sure about USA, but in Italy it is
very frequent and it was caused by the illiteracy of the officials in
charge to compile the birth and death registry who frequently are
...semi-illiterates!
1 You wrote about those ancestor that are "poor" farmers.. Are you sure
they really are be so poor?
2 You line from The conqueror is based on documents? In other words, are
you really sure that those "poor" farmers descend from the Conqueror?
In my knowledge, there area lot of line of descents from British
aristocrat to American people that today are proved as fake...
Marco
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 8:25 PM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
I'll bet that at least 90% of the miners of English ancestry are
descended from William the Conqueror. My line from him goes through
poor New York farmers who probably were illiterate (the spelling of
their name was different at different times for the same individual,
which I think is a sign of that). People don't all stay in the
aristocracy over generations. There are younger sons, daughters, and
plenty of bastards to spread the DNA far and wide. Also a lot of people
get booted from the aristocracy for being on the losing side or
committing some crime.
In my (modest) opinion the real bug in this theory is .... The whole
theory itself! There are no logical, scientific or othes reasons to
think that we are ALL descendants from Prophets, Kings, Emperors etc..
Historically speaking, is fully proved that individuals coming from
some
upper classes EVER married between his same class, like aristocrats
married others aristocrats etc.
So, I can't see any reasons to imagine (or to dream...) that the today
miner working in a Great Britain carbon mine is the descendant of
William the Conqueror or the Prophet Muhammad...! Ok, It COULD be
possible, (just in theory) if we like to imagine some potential
descent
from a natural son but... It's most unlikely! It VERY most probable
that
he descend from a miner in the XII century England etc. Why cannot
consider that not only aristocrats or famous people can have a long
and
ancient genealogy? Millions of peoples, today, can descend from a
stable
boy that took cares of Alexander the Great horses!
And, if we want to remain on the same speculative plan, It is MOST
probable that SOME present King or Queen today, descend from... him!
(the stable boy of Alexander the Great)! As you know, Latins used to
say: "mater semper certa est, pater numquam".
Differents opinions are welcom
Marco Lupis
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
The real hole in the theory is that there are still people living in
the Amazon who have never had contact with Euros. This is also
possible for places in the islands between Asia and Australia. At
the very least, there are known tribes in the Indonesian jungles who
have only been known for a few decades and who are
known to not have mixed genetically since their
discovery.
The genetic isolation of some Amazonian isolates
likely goes back to a branching in the tree 400 years
ago and thus includes no Europeans.
Rhode does not propose European mixing. He proposes
Asian mixing and diffusion. That is, he proposes that somebody in
Central Asia moved a little east and interrmarries there. A brother
goes
west and does teh same thing. A few generations later, a descendant of
each goes a bit farther. Eventually they reach the Bering Strait and
Suez and cross. Once there, the slow diffusion continues.
Thus the isolated Amazon tribe got it's "recent" Asian input not from
Asia, but from a tribe only 100 miles away. Ditto the Bantu in Africa.
Rhode's idea and methodology and computer programs are valid. The only
question is the input numbers for the probability of mixing for the
tuly
isolated places in, as you say, the Amazon, south-central Africa, and
Oceania. Rhode specifically does exempt parts of Oceania.
Doug McDonald
--
http://www.email.it/f
Scarica la Rana Pazza sul tuo cellulare - come vista in televisione!
* La prima suoneria GRATIS!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3539&d=16-1
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Trova il prodotto XYZ su jamba.it
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3760&d=16-1
l***@yahoo.com
2006-01-17 21:52:04 UTC
Permalink
On the other hand, there are many that are proven to be correct - at
least as far as documentation is concerned. I have every confidence
that if you were to ask, most American members of this list would be
happy to privately send you their particular lines with their evidence.
However, you would have to take cover to avoid being drowned in email
attachments! We all say we don't take pride in documenting our royal
ancestors but, hey!, we have to admit to a little excitement as the
information surfaces. I think most of us, however, are equally excited
to uncover information on our more numerous common ancestors; royal and
noble lines are simply more likely to exist on documents. For me,
finding a royal or noble line is exciting because it leads to numerous
other lines that add more poundage to my genealogy file. Three reasons
why these pedigrees seem to exist more in America and other European
post-colonial areas outside of Europe: first, immigrants tended to
raise their children as if there had been no ancestral past elsewhere,
often refusing to teach them their ancestral language or give them
information about their original home - this has caused subsequent
generations to actively search for that which their well-meaning recent
ancestors denied them. That is why, for example, you may find more
emphasis on events like Highland Games in America than in Scotland. The
most alienated Americans sometimes turn to racism and fabricated
"racial" pride in order to fill the hole where healthy ancestral
connection should exist. Second, in the case of the USA, it became
nearly treasonous to support the idea of hereditary privilege. In later
generations, this created a fascination with royalty. It seems that
when ancient traditional means of separating classes of people into
privileged and non-privileged do not exist, new criteria will emerge
that produce the same effect. Perhaps there is a basic urge in humans
to feel superior to others - this may be what became the particular
American brand of racism that has plagued us for so long, as damaging
to the racist as to the target of racism. Third, it was common for
younger sons of royalty and nobility to travel to colonial holdings to
make their fortune. As recently as the 19th century, there were members
of European aristocracy who enjoyed expeditions to North America (as in
Prince Maximilian who traveled up the Missouri River for adventure).
Some of these people stayed while others returned to Europe. A number
of immigrants were also from debtors prison and found travel to a
colonial area a more pleasant alternative. Some percentage of these
people were noble and, possibly, royal. The fortunes of some noble
families fell and some found their way to America and elsewhere to try
to rebuilt their assets. I have a great-great-great-grandfather from
Scotland who was a descendant of King James IV and Margaret Tudor who
established a home in Canada in 1840 after slavery was abolished in the
British Empire; he was angry that he was forced to give up the slaves
who worked his plantation in the British West Indies (Carriacou). His
daughter married a man who had migrated from Ireland to Canada in 1830
and the two of them went to the goldfields of California in 1849. The
Irish man was descended from Edward I - and so it goes. This is all
documented and much of it appears down to the level of my mother on
Genealogics. My case is far from unique. So while many lines have been
disproved and some have been found to have been intentionally
fabricated at some point in the past, many others are solid and
genuine. Best, Bronwen
Scaly Lizard
2006-01-17 01:37:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:12:35 -0600, Doug McDonald
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Scaly Lizard
The real hole in the theory is that there are still people
living in the Amazon who have never had contact with
Euros. This is also possible for places in the islands
between Asia and Australia. At the very least, there
are known tribes in the Indonesian jungles who have
only been known for a few decades and who are
known to not have mixed genetically since their
discovery.
The genetic isolation of some Amazonian isolates
likely goes back to a branching in the tree 400 years
ago and thus includes no Europeans.
Rhode does not propose European mixing. He proposes
Asian mixing and diffusion. That is, he proposes that somebody in
Central Asia moved a little east and interrmarries there. A brother
goes west and does teh same thing. A few generations later,
a descendant of each goes a bit farther. Eventually they reach
the Bering Strait and Suez and cross. Once there, the slow diffusion
continues.
Yes, i don't dispute the method of gamete travel that
is proposed. The timeline is shorter in some places,
and longer in others. A person of village A may have
gone to village B in year X and their offspring made it
to village C in year X+20. In another place, genes from
village A may have gone to B in year X, but required
3 generations of broadening in village B before making
it to village C in the year X+70.

In some cases, as in Greenland, no intermarriage took
place between the Norse settlers and Inuit aboriginals
sharing the island. Also, extreme hostility towards
outsiders (think cannibals and headhunters in Amazonia
and Australasia) drastically reduced the spread of genes.

I maintain that there exist today as many as 50,000
people in remote locations who have never bred
with anyone of Euro or Asian stock, and thus do
not share a common ancestor with the remaining
6.6 billion of us. BUT, 99.999% of us do have a
common ancestor (either male or female, the point
is moot), and that ancestor lived a fairly short time ago.
Post by Doug McDonald
Thus the isolated Amazon tribe got it's "recent" Asian input not from
Asia, but from a tribe only 100 miles away. Ditto the Bantu in Africa.
If you go to the deepest reaches of the Amazon,
the "primitive" people will tell you that there are
more people living farther back in the jungle, and
that they only come across one of them every
decade or longer. It is most reasonable to think
that no genetic mixing has occurred in such cases
for hundreds, perhaps even thousands of years...
which would preclude these isolates from having
even one ancestor who came from anywhere but
down the Sierras and Andes from Alaska.

This case is almost certainly true, and thus pushes
back the lifetime of humanity's "100% Ancestor"
to 15,000 or 20,000 years ago. Our "99% Ancestor"
is almost certainly much more recent, in the range
of 1,000 BC to 1,500 AD.
Post by Doug McDonald
Rhode's idea and methodology and computer programs are valid.
The only question is the input numbers for the probability of
mixing for the tuly isolated places in, as you say, the Amazon,
south-central Africa, and Oceania. Rhode specifically does
exempt parts of Oceania.
Doug McDonald
Yes, the assumptions are valid, the methods are valid,
and the results are correct, BUT only for 99.999% of
humanity. There are definitely populations in New
Guinea and Borneo which are wholly (and solely)
descended from the first colonizers of 80,000 years
ago. Females snatched from a neighboring village
might have been "bred", but no offspring would come
because the unfortunate girl would be ritually roasted
and eaten at the next full moon. Any intervillage
mixing there (and in places in South America as well)
certainly happened, but at such a slow pace that
the interbreeding occurred *only* with other peoples
who were also of pure aboriginal descent.

Depending on the date of the 99% Ancestor, portions
of southern Africa may also be excluded from the
99.999%. If it is indeed the prolific Chingis Khan from
as late as the 1200's, not enough time exists for
his genes to reasonably diffuse to the whole of Africa.
On the other hand, if the 99% Ancestor lived 3,000
years ago, then we see ample time for their genes to
make it to all corners of Asia, Africa and Europe, even
at the slow pace of 150 miles per century.

Perhaps the hairiest part of this conjecture is the fact
that not all movements of genes happened "outwards".
In fact, just as many people in village B sought mates
out in village C as sought mates backwards in village A.

With the rise of towns and cities, the movement of
human genes was (and continues to be) a tsunami
/away/ from the hinterlands, thus dampening the
genetic spreading.

There are so many other considerations, from pathogen
spreading to warfare and even to dietary customs, that
we will likely never know whether our 99% Ancestor
lived 700 years ago, or 7,000 years ago. And we must
accept the possibility that such a person could logically
have hailed from ANYWHERE in the Eastern Hemisphere.

Central Asia is a decent guess, and logically increases
the rate of pentration into China, but it is equally possible
that a Zulu woman in 4,500 BC had descendants who
reached Egypt by 2,000 BC, Armenia by 1,500 BC, and
Mongolia by 500 BC. The same scenario can easily be
transferred to a woman born in Lapland in 4,500 BC, or
to a Hmong man from 3,900 BC or a Berber or a Scot or
an Ainu or a Hebrew or a Sinhalese or a Magyar or ........

Rhode only proves that it is Very Likely that 99.999%
of us share a common ancestor as recently as 1,500 BC.
On the other hand, it is Extremely Likely that to find the
common ancestor of 100% of humans alive today, we
are talking about the period from 100,000 to 50,000
years ago.

In no case can Rhode confirm a Central Asian origin,
as plausible conjectures can place our 99% Ancestor
ANYWHERE in Eurasia or Africa. The only thing we
can conclude is that the 99% Ancestor was /not/
a Native American or Australasian aboriginal.

SL
n***@gmail.com
2006-01-16 12:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Very simply, "all humanity" was far too spread out and well beyond the
Eastern Hemisphere 2000 years ago. My father's Hopi ancestors, for
example, were nowhere near any European or Asian people 2000 years ago
but were exactly where he was born in north-central Arizona and the
immediately adjacent areas in present-day Utah, New Mexico, Colorado
and southern Nevada.
And they had absolutely *no* intermarriage with neighbouring tribes?
What Rohde demonstrates is that it really takes quite a low rate of
intermarriage for lineages to spread pretty fast.
Post by l***@yahoo.com
Be careful when you throw around such enormous concepts as "all
humanity". Bronwen
Be careful when you tell people to "be careful". It sounds patronising.

Nicholas
Denis Beauregard
2006-01-16 03:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@gmail.com
(Also published at http://www.livejournal.com/users/nhw/563512.html )
Doug Rohde's paper on the most recent common ancestor of all humanity
(http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf) is, I think, well
known to most here. In my voiew it is by far the most interesting of
the numerous pieces of research cited by Mark Humphrys
(http://humphrysfamilytree.com/ca.html) on this topic. Rohde's computer
simulations gave results of between 3,000 and 5,000 years ago for the
lifetime of the most recent common ancestor of all humanity.
Must be junk ! If you check artefacts from 3000 years ago, you will
see that "racial" features were already defined at that time, i.e.
color of skin or shape of eyes. Since these features survived because
of separated cultures (i.e. in a world where there is no racism, I
think those differences are vanishing after many interracial
weddings). So, if those features already existed 3000 years ago, how
can you explain the common ancestors are so late.

Moreover, Americas were isolated from Asia at least 15,000 years ago.

We don't need that kind of pseudo-science... The model is obviously
wrong.


Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1716 - www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Mes associations de généalogie: www.SGCF.com/ (soc. gén. can.-fr.)
oo oo www.genealogie.org/club/sglj/index2.html (soc. de gén. de La Jemmerais)
Rob
2006-01-16 03:53:59 UTC
Permalink
Bonjour Denis,

What artefacts of 3000 years ago conclusively prove that colour of skin, eye
shapes were already defined? I can think of none off the top of my head.
Remember 3000 years ago we are talking the end of the Bronze age beginning
of the Iron Age (in the UK). Likewise what do you mean by separated
cultures? There is sufficient evidence thanks to archaeology to show that
there was inter marriages taking place from as early as the Neolithic period
some 5000-6000 years ago. For example 3 bodies were excavated 3 years ago
in England and a sample of tooth was analysed and it was discovered that the
woman was in fact of Asian descent yet one child was English ( I use the
term loosely because England as we know it today didn't exist) Likewise in
London a female was excavated and found to be of Syrian descent yet she had
it is presumed married a rich Roman Trader which is why and how she ended up
in England. Before anyone screams out how they could say she was rich, this
as been postulated because of the fine textiles and grave goods that had
survived with her body in the lead coffin.

Finally you say we don't need that kind of Pseudo science here, the model is
obviously wrong yet you make no argument to back this decision up. Whilst I
don't agree with the arguments put forward, because they haven't taken into
account the possibilities of inter humanoid births, for example homo sapien
sapien and Neanderthals. Yes there is evidence to suggest this.

A reason for not accepting the theory that as been presented is Cheddar man
discovered in 1903. DNA was extracted from the skeleton and this was
compared with a class of boys in or around Cheddar. The teacher also had
DNA taken. Upon examination there was ( apparently) enough markers to
suggest that the teacher was a descendent of this early man who if memory
serves me right dated to the Mesolithic period or some 9000 years ago. That
said I am sceptical of these results as they were carried out for a TV show.
See http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9707/31/cheddar.man/

So before we knock the theories lets present the evidence which will shut
people like this up

Rob
Post by Denis Beauregard
Post by n***@gmail.com
(Also published at http://www.livejournal.com/users/nhw/563512.html )
Doug Rohde's paper on the most recent common ancestor of all humanity
(http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf) is, I think, well
known to most here. In my voiew it is by far the most interesting of
the numerous pieces of research cited by Mark Humphrys
(http://humphrysfamilytree.com/ca.html) on this topic. Rohde's computer
simulations gave results of between 3,000 and 5,000 years ago for the
lifetime of the most recent common ancestor of all humanity.
Must be junk ! If you check artefacts from 3000 years ago, you will
see that "racial" features were already defined at that time, i.e.
color of skin or shape of eyes. Since these features survived because
of separated cultures (i.e. in a world where there is no racism, I
think those differences are vanishing after many interracial
weddings). So, if those features already existed 3000 years ago, how
can you explain the common ancestors are so late.
Moreover, Americas were isolated from Asia at least 15,000 years ago.
We don't need that kind of pseudo-science... The model is obviously
wrong.
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1716 -
www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Mes associations de généalogie: www.SGCF.com/ (soc. gén. can.-fr.)
oo oo www.genealogie.org/club/sglj/index2.html (soc. de gén. de La Jemmerais)
Todd A. Farmerie
2006-01-16 06:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
A reason for not accepting the theory that as been presented is Cheddar man
discovered in 1903. DNA was extracted from the skeleton and this was
compared with a class of boys in or around Cheddar. The teacher also had
DNA taken. Upon examination there was ( apparently) enough markers to
suggest that the teacher was a descendent of this early man who if memory
serves me right dated to the Mesolithic period or some 9000 years ago.
They do not show that he was a descendant, they show that he belonged to
the same maternal lineage.

Anyhow this misses the point. As has already been pointed out,
virtually all North American 'natives' probably also descend from
post-Columbus Euros, even if only through a single
great-great-great-great-great-great-(etc)-grandfather. The fact that
they are members of tribes that predate Columbus does not negate this.
In other words, there is nothing to stop the schoolteacher in question
from being descended from BOTH the Cheddar man AND Ghengis Khan.

That being said, I also find the model flawed, but because it ignores
inbreeding and isolated populations. Inbreeding was extensive, not so
much on the level of first-cousin marriage, although that did happen,
but in terms of most rural villages, where after a couple of hundred
years with minimal migration they were all descended from the same
people and no marriage within the community expanded the genetic
heritage in the slightest. It also means that once a fresh lineage is
introduced, it too becomes saturating within a couple hundred years.
The key, then, is isolation, and there are populations so isolated that
it is unlikely they have acquired European ancestry, and certainly all
of Europe has not acquired descent from them. In short, such
statistical approaches require dramatic over-simplification to produce
results, but these same simplifications that make the analysis possible
likewise doom the results to represent nothing more than a statistical
exercise.

taf
n***@gmail.com
2006-01-16 14:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by Rob
A reason for not accepting the theory that as been presented is Cheddar man
discovered in 1903. DNA was extracted from the skeleton and this was
compared with a class of boys in or around Cheddar. The teacher also had
DNA taken. Upon examination there was ( apparently) enough markers to
suggest that the teacher was a descendent of this early man who if memory
serves me right dated to the Mesolithic period or some 9000 years ago.
They do not show that he was a descendant, they show that he belonged to
the same maternal lineage.
Anyhow this misses the point. As has already been pointed out,
virtually all North American 'natives' probably also descend from
post-Columbus Euros, even if only through a single
great-great-great-great-great-great-(etc)-grandfather. The fact that
they are members of tribes that predate Columbus does not negate this.
In other words, there is nothing to stop the schoolteacher in question
from being descended from BOTH the Cheddar man AND Ghengis Khan.
Absolutely.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
That being said, I also find the model flawed, but because it ignores
inbreeding and isolated populations. Inbreeding was extensive, not so
much on the level of first-cousin marriage, although that did happen,
but in terms of most rural villages, where after a couple of hundred
years with minimal migration they were all descended from the same
people and no marriage within the community expanded the genetic
heritage in the slightest. It also means that once a fresh lineage is
introduced, it too becomes saturating within a couple hundred years.
The key, then, is isolation, and there are populations so isolated that
it is unlikely they have acquired European ancestry, and certainly all
of Europe has not acquired descent from them. In short, such
statistical approaches require dramatic over-simplification to produce
results, but these same simplifications that make the analysis possible
likewise doom the results to represent nothing more than a statistical
exercise.
Are there really such isolated populations? With nobody ever coming in
from the next island, the next patch of forest, the next valley? Where?

The most literally insular communities of all, in the Pacific Islands,
were settled from elsewhere only in the last thousand years, never mind
the considerable intermixture with Europeans in the last 200. And I'm
not sure if you meant to also include pre-industrial Europe, where
there seems to me to have been quite a lot of movement due to trade,
slavery, war, etc.

Nicholas
Todd A. Farmerie
2006-01-16 15:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@gmail.com
Are there really such isolated populations? With nobody ever coming in
from the next island, the next patch of forest, the next valley? Where?
No, but when you take into account the amount of time necessary for the
newly introduced line to reach saturation in the new population and the
time it took for it to have reached saturation in the neighboring
population the infusion is coming from, it becomes questionable that the
500 years since Columbus is sufficient to achieve complete European gene
flow into the most isolated South American tribes (many, yes, but all?).

In Europe, taking this into account simply bumps back the time to most
recent common ancestor. In the New World, you have a hard date beyond
which you cannot bump it without having to go _way_ back.

taf
Denis Beauregard
2006-01-16 16:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Le Mon, 16 Jan 2006 08:02:56 -0700, "Todd A. Farmerie"
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
No, but when you take into account the amount of time necessary for the
newly introduced line to reach saturation in the new population and the
time it took for it to have reached saturation in the neighboring
population the infusion is coming from, it becomes questionable that the
500 years since Columbus is sufficient to achieve complete European gene
flow into the most isolated South American tribes (many, yes, but all?).
In Europe, taking this into account simply bumps back the time to most
recent common ancestor. In the New World, you have a hard date beyond
which you cannot bump it without having to go _way_ back.
What about using actual genealogy data ?

There is a list of early Quebec immigrants with the most descendants
at http://www.genealogie.umontreal.ca/en/lespionniers.htm

Let's take the champion: Zacharie Cloutier (and his wife, Sainte
Dupont). http://www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/000/032.php
for details about their married children and early descendants.

Married descendants until 1800: 10,850. Estimated population of
Quebec in 1800 is 68,000. Let's presume half of the descendants are
born in the few years before 1800 and still alive, so about 200
years after the marriage, about 5000 married descendants are alive and
they are about 8% of the Quebec population. At the same rate, after
400 years (roughly now), they would have 2,500,000 married descendants
(and this figure is a bit more than the living married population).

So, you can't compute the descendants in 1600-1800 like you compute
them in 1800-2000. Rules are not the same. More children are
surviving but families are smalled. The land inhabited by the
descendants is not the same (from 1850 to 1920, there was a massive
emigration, while before 1800, the emigration is quite small).

And anyway, is it possible that all Quebec inhabitants with French
stock are descendants of Zacharie ? I know at least one who was not.
I rebuilt his family tree and he was right. So even if there was
no isolated population, there are individuals who escaped the one
leading ancestor.


Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1716 - www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Mes associations de généalogie: www.SGCF.com/ (soc. gén. can.-fr.)
oo oo www.genealogie.org/club/sglj/index2.html (soc. de gén. de La Jemmerais)
Rob
2006-01-16 14:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
They do not show that he was a descendant, they show that he belonged to
the same maternal lineage.
Actually no it shows they had the same paternal lineage because they didn't
carry out MtA sequencing as far as I know. After all the Y chromosome is
the only one that doesn't become altered birth after birth.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Anyhow this misses the point. As has already been pointed out, virtually
all North American 'natives' probably also descend from post-Columbus
Euros, even if only through a single
great-great-great-great-great-great-(etc)-grandfather. The fact that they
are members of tribes that predate Columbus does not negate this. In other
words, there is nothing to stop the schoolteacher in question from being
descended from BOTH the Cheddar man AND Ghengis Khan.
Thats very argumentative with little or no evidenc eto back it up. It is
based on a weak set of guidlines.
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
That being said, I also find the model flawed, but because it ignores
inbreeding and isolated populations. Inbreeding was extensive, not so
much on the level of first-cousin marriage, although that did happen, but
in terms of most rural villages, where after a couple of hundred years
with minimal migration they were all descended from the same people and no
marriage within the community expanded the genetic heritage in the
slightest. It also means that once a fresh lineage is introduced, it too
becomes saturating within a couple hundred years. The key, then, is
isolation, and there are populations so isolated that it is unlikely they
have acquired European ancestry, and certainly all of Europe has not
acquired descent from them. In short, such statistical approaches require
dramatic over-simplification to produce results, but these same
simplifications that make the analysis possible likewise doom the results
to represent nothing more than a statistical exercise.
taf
Couldn't agree more. Yet again the simplification of how the data is read

Rob
steven perkins
2006-01-16 15:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Cheddar man reference(mtDNA):

Cheddar Man was U5a
and had low resolution mutations at 16169A, 16192T, 16235G, 16270 T, and 16304C.
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2005-03/1112070204

Regards,

Steven C. Perkins
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
They do not show that he was a descendant, they show that he belonged to
the same maternal lineage.
Actually no it shows they had the same paternal lineage because they didn't
carry out MtA sequencing as far as I know. After all the Y chromosome is
the only one that doesn't become altered birth after birth.
--
Steven C. Perkins ***@gmail.com
http://stevencperkins.com/
http://intelligent-internet.info/
http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
http://stevencperkins.com/genealogy.html
Todd A. Farmerie
2006-01-16 15:58:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
They do not show that he was a descendant, they show that he belonged to
the same maternal lineage.
Actually no it shows they had the same paternal lineage because they didn't
carry out MtA sequencing as far as I know. After all the Y chromosome is
the only one that doesn't become altered birth after birth.
But it _was_ mtDNA. At the time, in the late 90s, mtDNA (a thousand or
more copies per cell) was almost always used when working with ancient
samples because the techniques were not well enough refined to
effectively sample nuclear DNA such as the Y chromosome (one copy per
cell) with any sort of reliability (and without being overwhelmed by
contamination, particularly with samples handed around for a century).
Post by Rob
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Anyhow this misses the point. As has already been pointed out, virtually
all North American 'natives' probably also descend from post-Columbus
Euros, even if only through a single
great-great-great-great-great-great-(etc)-grandfather. The fact that they
are members of tribes that predate Columbus does not negate this. In other
words, there is nothing to stop the schoolteacher in question from being
descended from BOTH the Cheddar man AND Ghengis Khan.
Thats very argumentative with little or no evidenc eto back it up. It is
based on a weak set of guidlines.
Huh? I was pointing out that a Devon school teacher having the genetic
markers of a 9000 year old man need not invalidate him sharing a more
recent common ancestor with all of humanity, as you seemed to be
suggesting. It is rather self-evident, given the number of possible
ancestors the man would have had 100 generations ago - his connection to
Cheddar man being known to represent just one of these 2^100 (roughly
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) ancestral lines.
Cultural/population stability and low-level gene flow are two different
issues, particularly given the increasing evidence for extensive
networks of stone-age interaction (for example the skeleton found at
Stonehenge being of, what was it, Swiss extraction, and one of the
recently reported Irish bog-men having continental hair gel).

taf
Rob
2006-01-16 22:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Taf the body found at Stonehenge was suggested to be of Swiss descent
because he was buried with a Swiss made bow and had the arms of an archer
that was uncommon at that time in Britain. All the analysis could tell was
that he was of European birth

Rob
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by Rob
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
They do not show that he was a descendant, they show that he belonged to
the same maternal lineage.
Actually no it shows they had the same paternal lineage because they
didn't carry out MtA sequencing as far as I know. After all the Y
chromosome is the only one that doesn't become altered birth after birth.
But it _was_ mtDNA. At the time, in the late 90s, mtDNA (a thousand or
more copies per cell) was almost always used when working with ancient
samples because the techniques were not well enough refined to effectively
sample nuclear DNA such as the Y chromosome (one copy per cell) with any
sort of reliability (and without being overwhelmed by contamination,
particularly with samples handed around for a century).
Post by Rob
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Anyhow this misses the point. As has already been pointed out,
virtually all North American 'natives' probably also descend from
post-Columbus Euros, even if only through a single
great-great-great-great-great-great-(etc)-grandfather. The fact that
they are members of tribes that predate Columbus does not negate this.
In other words, there is nothing to stop the schoolteacher in question
from being descended from BOTH the Cheddar man AND Ghengis Khan.
Thats very argumentative with little or no evidenc eto back it up. It is
based on a weak set of guidlines.
Huh? I was pointing out that a Devon school teacher having the genetic
markers of a 9000 year old man need not invalidate him sharing a more
recent common ancestor with all of humanity, as you seemed to be
suggesting. It is rather self-evident, given the number of possible
ancestors the man would have had 100 generations ago - his connection to
Cheddar man being known to represent just one of these 2^100 (roughly
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) ancestral lines.
Cultural/population stability and low-level gene flow are two different
issues, particularly given the increasing evidence for extensive networks
of stone-age interaction (for example the skeleton found at Stonehenge
being of, what was it, Swiss extraction, and one of the recently reported
Irish bog-men having continental hair gel).
taf
Jo Taylor
2006-01-17 18:41:30 UTC
Permalink
Huh? I was pointing out that a Devon school teacher <snip>
Cheddar is not, nor ever has been, in Devon.
This is a fact...

Jo Taylor
l***@yahoo.com
2006-01-16 06:39:43 UTC
Permalink
First of all, the physical features you mention are not "racial" but
simply the result of gene pools. There is more variation within a given
"race" that there is between that group and another "race" (i.e., more
variation among Europeans, for example, than between Europeans and
Africans). "Race" is an idea, not a biological fact. The Human Genome
Project has shown us that we are remarkably alike physically; we are
just one genus or species, but a single subspecies as well. Finally,
Asia and North America were never actually separate. The Eskimo people
in Alaska (properly Inuit) called the tensions between the USA & the
USSR the "Ice Curtain" because it prevented them from traveling back
and forth between Alaska & Siberia in their umiaks (large versions of
kayaks). There are people on both sides who are of a single culture,
single language, and actually members of the same families. When the
USSR fell and the Ice Curtain came down, there were enormous parties
with a lot of publicity in Siberia, Canada, Alaska and Greenland. The
rise of sea level would only have affected the means of travel, not the
travel itself. Otherwise, I agree with the substance of your message. -
Bronwen
Rob
2006-01-16 09:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Isn't it the case though that Native Americans have Mongolian blood? What
about the possible Viking connections as well? The model fails on numerous
accounts not only its simplification.

I don't understand though how you can say physical appearances are not
racial. Osteo-archaeologists and osteopaths can tell what race a skeleton
is from through the length and appearances of certain bones. DNA allows
thanks to the gene pool to show race. If we were all of one genepool and a
single sub species as well how would you argue the fact that sickle cell is
only found in certain afro Caribbean's? I am sorry but your arguments don't
hold up well neither.

As for Alaska and Siberia they were at one time all European the Americans
buying Alaska from the Russians for one Dollar.

Rising sea levels did affect travel if only for a short period of time until
new technology came along. This is seen quite extensively in the
archaeological record. The stand still in advancement until a new form of
travel was acquired.

Finally do you have a link to the Genome project please

Rob
Post by l***@yahoo.com
First of all, the physical features you mention are not "racial" but
simply the result of gene pools. There is more variation within a given
"race" that there is between that group and another "race" (i.e., more
variation among Europeans, for example, than between Europeans and
Africans). "Race" is an idea, not a biological fact. The Human Genome
Project has shown us that we are remarkably alike physically; we are
just one genus or species, but a single subspecies as well. Finally,
Asia and North America were never actually separate. The Eskimo people
in Alaska (properly Inuit) called the tensions between the USA & the
USSR the "Ice Curtain" because it prevented them from traveling back
and forth between Alaska & Siberia in their umiaks (large versions of
kayaks). There are people on both sides who are of a single culture,
single language, and actually members of the same families. When the
USSR fell and the Ice Curtain came down, there were enormous parties
with a lot of publicity in Siberia, Canada, Alaska and Greenland. The
rise of sea level would only have affected the means of travel, not the
travel itself. Otherwise, I agree with the substance of your message. -
Bronwen
l***@yahoo.com
2006-01-17 22:34:43 UTC
Permalink
I am not sure what you mean by "Mongolian blood" unless you are
referring to the recent tracing of some Native American genotypes to a
particular valley in Mongolia. It is also true that the blood types of
Mongolians and that of Native Americans are completely different. What
Viking connections? There are many Scandinavian-Native American
communities today in the Western Subarctic but they do not derive from
the time of the Vikings.

"Race" is a social construct not a biological fact. When a skull, for
example, is identified as "Caucasian" or "African" forensically, the
reference is to which modern gene pool the skull most closely resembles
rather than to "race" - especially since skulls from racially mixed
people may favor one genetic line over the other. A recent controversy
has existed over the "racial" identity of "Kennewick Man", found in the
state of Washington. Because the skull was different from those of
modern Native Americans, the press ran off with the incorrect
assumption that it was "Caucasian" (therefore, "white" people were in
American earlier than "Indians"). In fact, the skull did not resemble
that of Modern Europeans, either. It most closely resembled the Ainu,
aboriginal populations of Japan and Sakhalin Island. The Ainu and the
"Indians" of the Northwest Coast were known to be in contact prior to
the arrival of Europeans in the area.

As for sickle cell trait, you are incorrect to restrict the population
to the Caribbean area. The cell is found among all African groups,
inside and outside of Africa, and, as well, is found in some American
Indians, Europeans and South Pacific Islanders. It appears to have
conferred some degree of protection against malaria originally. Of
course, it might also appear in people with mixed ancestry and could
lead to illness if both parents have ancestors from an affected grouo
and carry the trait. I never suggested that all humans are of a single
gene pool; a gene pool is more local and accounts for the existence of
specific traits (think of Huntington's chorea for example). I only said
that humans are a single species and subspecies - if you believe that
is untrue, tell me what human subspecies you know about?

How do you figure that Siberia and Alaska were ever European? Europeans
have had a notoriously difficult time establishing any sort of foothold
in either place. See my earlier post about the connection between
Siberian and Alaskan Inuit people and the *ancient* boat technology
that they used. There is a reason why the umiak, kayak and shark-bowed
Aleut watercraft are still around and are the still the best technology
for their areas. The USSR used to complain about how it was able to
assimilate non-Russian ethnic groups throughout their claimed territory
except in the Siberian region. It seems that when they put up their red
tents on the tundra in the middle of an aboriginal community, they
would get up one morning and find themselves alone. They never
successfully assimilated these people. If you go to the Native villages
in Arctic and Subarctic US and Canada, you will find that while many
foreign objects and ideas have been accepted by the Native people, they
are generally less assimilated than Native people elsewhere in North
America. At the time the US "bought" Alaska from Russia, neither
government would have been capable of governing it without the help of
aboriginal people. In World War II, Inuit women worked in factories to
make parkas for the US military because it was the most effective
outerwear in the climate. Just google the genome project - it's not a
secret. Most of it is dedicated, however, to the medical benefits of
mapping the human genome and only incidentally to the geographic
mapping of traits. - Bronwen
Rob
2006-01-18 02:18:00 UTC
Permalink
Bronwen,

Do not Inuit's come from Iceland? Is Iceland not a part of Europe?

As for Vikings in America's there is a growing belief due to artefactual
recovery that the Vikings more by error than attempts landed in the US there
are also a few claims that the Romans did but we scotch on that idea.

Yes I knew about the Skull that was believed to be from Early Japanese
tribes.

As for sickle cell I stand corrected.

Yes I was referring to the recent discoveries of Mongolian geno types found
in some native Americans.

Rob
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I am not sure what you mean by "Mongolian blood" unless you are
referring to the recent tracing of some Native American genotypes to a
particular valley in Mongolia. It is also true that the blood types of
Mongolians and that of Native Americans are completely different. What
Viking connections? There are many Scandinavian-Native American
communities today in the Western Subarctic but they do not derive from
the time of the Vikings.
"Race" is a social construct not a biological fact. When a skull, for
example, is identified as "Caucasian" or "African" forensically, the
reference is to which modern gene pool the skull most closely resembles
rather than to "race" - especially since skulls from racially mixed
people may favor one genetic line over the other. A recent controversy
has existed over the "racial" identity of "Kennewick Man", found in the
state of Washington. Because the skull was different from those of
modern Native Americans, the press ran off with the incorrect
assumption that it was "Caucasian" (therefore, "white" people were in
American earlier than "Indians"). In fact, the skull did not resemble
that of Modern Europeans, either. It most closely resembled the Ainu,
aboriginal populations of Japan and Sakhalin Island. The Ainu and the
"Indians" of the Northwest Coast were known to be in contact prior to
the arrival of Europeans in the area.
As for sickle cell trait, you are incorrect to restrict the population
to the Caribbean area. The cell is found among all African groups,
inside and outside of Africa, and, as well, is found in some American
Indians, Europeans and South Pacific Islanders. It appears to have
conferred some degree of protection against malaria originally. Of
course, it might also appear in people with mixed ancestry and could
lead to illness if both parents have ancestors from an affected grouo
and carry the trait. I never suggested that all humans are of a single
gene pool; a gene pool is more local and accounts for the existence of
specific traits (think of Huntington's chorea for example). I only said
that humans are a single species and subspecies - if you believe that
is untrue, tell me what human subspecies you know about?
How do you figure that Siberia and Alaska were ever European? Europeans
have had a notoriously difficult time establishing any sort of foothold
in either place. See my earlier post about the connection between
Siberian and Alaskan Inuit people and the *ancient* boat technology
that they used. There is a reason why the umiak, kayak and shark-bowed
Aleut watercraft are still around and are the still the best technology
for their areas. The USSR used to complain about how it was able to
assimilate non-Russian ethnic groups throughout their claimed territory
except in the Siberian region. It seems that when they put up their red
tents on the tundra in the middle of an aboriginal community, they
would get up one morning and find themselves alone. They never
successfully assimilated these people. If you go to the Native villages
in Arctic and Subarctic US and Canada, you will find that while many
foreign objects and ideas have been accepted by the Native people, they
are generally less assimilated than Native people elsewhere in North
America. At the time the US "bought" Alaska from Russia, neither
government would have been capable of governing it without the help of
aboriginal people. In World War II, Inuit women worked in factories to
make parkas for the US military because it was the most effective
outerwear in the climate. Just google the genome project - it's not a
secret. Most of it is dedicated, however, to the medical benefits of
mapping the human genome and only incidentally to the geographic
mapping of traits. - Bronwen
s***@binet.is
2006-01-18 07:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob
Bronwen,
Do not Inuit's come from Iceland? Is Iceland not a part of Europe?
There are no inuits in Iceland but Iceland is part of Europe.
Inuits live in Greenland, a North American country.
Post by Rob
As for Vikings in America's there is a growing belief due to artefactual
recovery that the Vikings more by error than attempts landed in the US there
are also a few claims that the Romans did but we scotch on that idea.
Yes I knew about the Skull that was believed to be from Early Japanese
tribes.
As for sickle cell I stand corrected.
Yes I was referring to the recent discoveries of Mongolian geno types found
in some native Americans.
Rob
Post by l***@yahoo.com
I am not sure what you mean by "Mongolian blood" unless you are
referring to the recent tracing of some Native American genotypes to a
particular valley in Mongolia. It is also true that the blood types of
Mongolians and that of Native Americans are completely different. What
Viking connections? There are many Scandinavian-Native American
communities today in the Western Subarctic but they do not derive from
the time of the Vikings.
"Race" is a social construct not a biological fact. When a skull, for
example, is identified as "Caucasian" or "African" forensically, the
reference is to which modern gene pool the skull most closely resembles
rather than to "race" - especially since skulls from racially mixed
people may favor one genetic line over the other. A recent controversy
has existed over the "racial" identity of "Kennewick Man", found in the
state of Washington. Because the skull was different from those of
modern Native Americans, the press ran off with the incorrect
assumption that it was "Caucasian" (therefore, "white" people were in
American earlier than "Indians"). In fact, the skull did not resemble
that of Modern Europeans, either. It most closely resembled the Ainu,
aboriginal populations of Japan and Sakhalin Island. The Ainu and the
"Indians" of the Northwest Coast were known to be in contact prior to
the arrival of Europeans in the area.
As for sickle cell trait, you are incorrect to restrict the population
to the Caribbean area. The cell is found among all African groups,
inside and outside of Africa, and, as well, is found in some American
Indians, Europeans and South Pacific Islanders. It appears to have
conferred some degree of protection against malaria originally. Of
course, it might also appear in people with mixed ancestry and could
lead to illness if both parents have ancestors from an affected grouo
and carry the trait. I never suggested that all humans are of a single
gene pool; a gene pool is more local and accounts for the existence of
specific traits (think of Huntington's chorea for example). I only said
that humans are a single species and subspecies - if you believe that
is untrue, tell me what human subspecies you know about?
How do you figure that Siberia and Alaska were ever European? Europeans
have had a notoriously difficult time establishing any sort of foothold
in either place. See my earlier post about the connection between
Siberian and Alaskan Inuit people and the *ancient* boat technology
that they used. There is a reason why the umiak, kayak and shark-bowed
Aleut watercraft are still around and are the still the best technology
for their areas. The USSR used to complain about how it was able to
assimilate non-Russian ethnic groups throughout their claimed territory
except in the Siberian region. It seems that when they put up their red
tents on the tundra in the middle of an aboriginal community, they
would get up one morning and find themselves alone. They never
successfully assimilated these people. If you go to the Native villages
in Arctic and Subarctic US and Canada, you will find that while many
foreign objects and ideas have been accepted by the Native people, they
are generally less assimilated than Native people elsewhere in North
America. At the time the US "bought" Alaska from Russia, neither
government would have been capable of governing it without the help of
aboriginal people. In World War II, Inuit women worked in factories to
make parkas for the US military because it was the most effective
outerwear in the climate. Just google the genome project - it's not a
secret. Most of it is dedicated, however, to the medical benefits of
mapping the human genome and only incidentally to the geographic
mapping of traits. - Bronwen
Scaly Lizard
2006-01-16 07:53:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:37:44 -0500, Denis Beauregard
Post by Denis Beauregard
Post by n***@gmail.com
(Also published at http://www.livejournal.com/users/nhw/563512.html )
Doug Rohde's paper on the most recent common ancestor of all humanity
(http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf) is, I think, well
known to most here. In my voiew it is by far the most interesting of
the numerous pieces of research cited by Mark Humphrys
(http://humphrysfamilytree.com/ca.html) on this topic. Rohde's computer
simulations gave results of between 3,000 and 5,000 years ago for the
lifetime of the most recent common ancestor of all humanity.
Must be junk ! If you check artefacts from 3000 years ago, you will
see that "racial" features were already defined at that time, i.e.
color of skin or shape of eyes. Since these features survived because
of separated cultures (i.e. in a world where there is no racism, I
think those differences are vanishing after many interracial
weddings). So, if those features already existed 3000 years ago, how
can you explain the common ancestors are so late.
Three genetic expansions explain it: from Africa 80,000
years ago, from SW Asia 50,000 years ago and from
Central Asia 1,500 years ago. Read on to find out why...
Post by Denis Beauregard
Moreover, Americas were isolated from Asia at least 15,000 years ago.
We don't need that kind of pseudo-science... The model is obviously
wrong.
Denis
No, it's not wrong, and it's not "junk". Up until about 7,000
years ago, the progression of human gametes across the Earth
proceeded only as fast as their legs could carry them.

Disease and genocide in the Americas led to a 95% reduction
in native american population during the European conquests.
The remaining Native Americans faced racial pressure to breed
with half- or 3/4-NA's who were more more resistant to Euro
diseases and fit their ideologically-instilled concept of beauty.

Domesticating the ox increased human population, and since
time immemorial humans prefer to breed outside of their own
family (before, it was 'tradition' but now science explains why).

Domesticating the horse provided better means to get spouses
outside of one's family group and then we developed weapons
and the rest is history... literally.

Sure, there are likely to be people in remote areas whose
branch of the human tree juts out at 60,000 years ago, but
as for the rest of us (6,602,803,418 on 2006-01-16), we are
descended from a single person who lived as little as a few
thousand years ago, and quite possibly only several hundred
years ago.

The theory is sensational-sounding, but the math is solid.
We can't say that "everyone" is a descendant of <insert
historical figure>, but the spread of human gametes increases
in direct proportion to developments in transportation.

It's an extreme case, but Icelandic genealogy points out how
a large modern population there can all trace back to a handful
of people, plus the hundreds of millions of people who are
descended from all the men and women who *left* Iceland
over the last thousand years.

Taking into account modern 'isolates' in the Amazon, Arctic
and the Australasian islands, the probability is that *all* humans
are descended from someone who lived about 70,000 years
ago.

But *most* humans living today have a common ancestor
who lived as recently as a few thousand years ago. Two
facts indicate that this is true:

* Humans prefer to breed outside of their own family, and
have a proclivity to breed with those from outside their village
whenever transportation is available to enable this urge.

* The domestication of the horse not only enabled
widespread gamete travel, but ensured it. Our trains
and planes and cars only speeded up the mixture in
the last 150 years.


The trick is Africa. With 890 million folks, how fast has
genetic interplay spread southwards there? We know
that Nubian chicks were wild for Egyptian guys in ancient
times, but were the Egyptians of 3,000 years ago descended
from someone common to a woman on the frontier of China
4,000 years ago?

That question determines whether our "99% ancestor" was
born in Africa, the Near East, or Central Asia. The same
uncertainty times our "99% ancestor" anywhere from 7,000
years ago to 1,000 years ago.

The central assumption is that villages homogenically arise
at geographic intervals, dictated by areal food production.
Most villages throughout the last 4,000 years have known
about the "next village over" in all directions.

Since a genetic exchange between neighboring villages
is bound to happen once a year per hundred people,
and even more often with better transportation, there
is no other conclusion: we can *all* trace ourselves back
to someone born 70,000 years ago, and 99% of us
descend from someone born less than 7,000 years ago.

SL
n***@gmail.com
2006-01-16 13:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Denis Beauregard
Post by n***@gmail.com
(Also published at http://www.livejournal.com/users/nhw/563512.html )
Doug Rohde's paper on the most recent common ancestor of all humanity
(http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf) is, I think, well
known to most here. In my voiew it is by far the most interesting of
the numerous pieces of research cited by Mark Humphrys
(http://humphrysfamilytree.com/ca.html) on this topic. Rohde's computer
simulations gave results of between 3,000 and 5,000 years ago for the
lifetime of the most recent common ancestor of all humanity.
Must be junk ! If you check artefacts from 3000 years ago, you will
see that "racial" features were already defined at that time, i.e.
color of skin or shape of eyes. Since these features survived because
of separated cultures (i.e. in a world where there is no racism, I
think those differences are vanishing after many interracial
weddings). So, if those features already existed 3000 years ago, how
can you explain the common ancestors are so late.
Because their genetic inheritance is diluted. Read the paper, you may
be surprised.
Post by Denis Beauregard
Moreover, Americas were isolated from Asia at least 15,000 years ago.
What, completely isolated? The Russians claim to have been settling
Alaska since 1648. You're telling me not a single tribesman made it
across the stratits in the previous 14600 years?

Nicholas
l***@yahoo.com
2006-01-17 22:42:55 UTC
Permalink
In fact, Inuit people have traveled back and forth across the Bering
Strait from time immemorial. When the Cold War cut off that connection,
the Inuits called it the "Ice Curtain" (I suppose the USSR and the USA
thought the Inuit were hiding bombs in their umiaks). There were great
celebrations that spanned the Asian, American-Canadian & Greenland
Arctic regions after the Ice Curtain came down. Families that had been
split apart, some "Asian" and some "Alaskan", reunited for the first
time in decades. "Inuit" trumped "US" or "Russia" as far as identity
went. - Bronwen
Don Aitken
2006-01-18 01:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@yahoo.com
In fact, Inuit people have traveled back and forth across the Bering
Strait from time immemorial. When the Cold War cut off that connection,
the Inuits called it the "Ice Curtain" (I suppose the USSR and the USA
thought the Inuit were hiding bombs in their umiaks). There were great
celebrations that spanned the Asian, American-Canadian & Greenland
Arctic regions after the Ice Curtain came down. Families that had been
split apart, some "Asian" and some "Alaskan", reunited for the first
time in decades. "Inuit" trumped "US" or "Russia" as far as identity
went. - Bronwen
In fact, the majority of Alaskan Eskimos are *not* Inuit; some
positively object to being so described, and some don't care, but it
is still not accurate. Canadian Eskimos *are* all Inuit, and that is
the preferred description in Canada, but *only* in Canada.

See http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/inuitoreskimo.html for a good short note
on this.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Doug McDonald
2006-01-16 16:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Denis Beauregard
Post by n***@gmail.com
(Also published at http://www.livejournal.com/users/nhw/563512.html )
Doug Rohde's paper on the most recent common ancestor of all humanity
(http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf) is, I think, well
known to most here. ... Rohde's computer
simulations gave results of between 3,000 and 5,000 years ago for the
lifetime of the most recent common ancestor of all humanity.
Must be junk ! If you check artefacts from 3000 years ago, you will
see that "racial" features were already defined at that time, i.e.
color of skin or shape of eyes.
This is immaterial. The amount of mixing proposed by Rhode is
so tiny that no obvious feature would be visible. In fact, it is
so small that in many people today there would not even be any
DNA derived from the common ancestor, even though they descnd from him.
Post by Denis Beauregard
Since these features survived because
of separated cultures (i.e. in a world where there is no racism, I
think those differences are vanishing after many interracial
weddings). So, if those features already existed 3000 years ago, how
can you explain the common ancestors are so late.
Rhode proposes only a teensy bit of mixing.
Post by Denis Beauregard
Moreover, Americas were isolated from Asia at least 15,000 years ago.
No, not at all. There has always been some communication across
the Bering Strait. In fact, there is a substantial DNA
component in Siberia that CLEARLY comes from America. The
communication surely went in both directions.
Post by Denis Beauregard
We don't need that kind of pseudo-science... The model is obviously
wrong.
It's not wrong. It just may be miscalibrated.

Doug McDonald
Post by Denis Beauregard
Denis
W***@aol.com
2006-01-16 20:46:23 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 1/16/06 8:54:35 AM Pacific Standard Time,
***@email.it writes:

<< Historically speaking, is fully proved that individuals coming from some
upper classes EVER married between his same class, like aristocrats
married others aristocrats etc. >>

This claim is false. There are plenty of examples of "nobility" fathering
(or *mothering* for that matter) children upon the non-noble.

Catherine of Valois the dowager Queen of England was not the first person to
think her low-born servant attractive enough to get children by and society be
damned.
Will Johnson
MLS
2006-01-16 21:04:35 UTC
Permalink
jlucsoler
2006-01-16 21:20:22 UTC
Permalink
my little exemple all these marriages are proven by marriage or notarial
acts in archives of bouches du rhone. i am not "proud" of it... i just think
it is a wonderful way to build up further one's genealogy

my grand parents were poor peasant and workers....
social mobility were greater than you think.... my "team mates" in my
genealogy group have thousands of such examples...

so yes i think for europeans people ... first common ancestor is very near
... even for asia and africa....

a.. 7 636 - Jean "Piemoure" BERTRAND +1668 (peasant)
a.. 7 637 - Anne DE REMERVILLE 1603-1670 (to charlemagne)

a.. 7 962 - Jean POINTAVIN 1565 peasant
a.. 7 963 - Isabeau DE TAMARLET (to charlemagne)

a.. 14 088 - Charles "Gay" LATIL "cow-boy"
a.. 14 089 - Honnorade DE REGINA to charlemagne

a.. Pierre "Curet" GIRARD +1700 peasant
a.. Marguerite D'ISNARD 1638-1702 to charlemagne

a.. 15 348 - Antoine SEGUIN 1569-1624 peasant
a.. 15 349 - Suzanne DE PONTEVES + to charlemagne

a.. 15 394 - Antoine RICHAUD peasant
a.. 15 395 - Peyronne DE DAMIAN to charlemagne

a.. Marc MERINDOL 1510- owner
a.. Laudune de SABRAN 1520- to charlemagne

a.. 30 390 - Pierre GARNIER
a.. 30 391 - Marguerite DE SABRAN to charlemagne

a.. 30 696 - Nicolas SEGUIN +1591 owner
a.. 30 697 - Lucrece DE LAURIS +1595 to charlemagne

a.. 32 426 - Jean MICHEL peasant
a.. 32 427 - Sibille DE CADENET to charlemagne

a.. Louis MERINDOL owner
a.. Laure DE BOULIER + to charlemagne

a.. 107 854 - Antoine DE CLAVARIA owner
a.. 107 855 - Catherine D'ALBE to charlemagne

a.. Brancay MAURIN peasant
a.. Jaumette FLOTTE to charlemagne
W***@aol.com
2006-01-16 20:56:07 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 1/16/06 8:13:04 AM Pacific Standard Time,
***@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

<< In fact, it is
so small that in many people today there would not even be any
DNA derived from the common ancestor, >>

I think this is an overstatement. However I'd say there are probably
examples of people where the portion of DNA contributed by that original parent is
"vanishingly small". And when you have a snippet of say, only 10 base pairs,
can you really be sure it came from the original parent?
That is why, DNA studies, must be combined with other types of research,
and not used alone to prove hypothesis. In my opinion.

Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2006-01-16 21:07:30 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@email.it writes:

<< As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages exist.
But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example like this... >>

It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction, peter-out
pretty quickly.
We *just* had an example posted where Queen Elizabeth herself has this
problem in a very short time period. She had commoner ancestors as well as royal
ones. How do you explain this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one was a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.

Will Johnson
MLS
2006-01-16 21:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner ancestors
in there tree .... instead of the opposite!

-----Original Message-----
From: ***@aol.com [mailto:***@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@email.it writes:

<< As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages exist.
But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example like this...
It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction, peter-out
pretty quickly.
We *just* had an example posted where Queen Elizabeth herself has this
problem in a very short time period. She had commoner ancestors as well
as royal
ones. How do you explain this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one was
a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.

Will Johnson



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1
Leo van de Pas
2006-01-16 21:37:48 UTC
Permalink
I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would love to know.
Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <***@email.it>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Post by MLS
Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner ancestors
in there tree .... instead of the opposite!
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<< As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages exist.
But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example like this...
It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction, peter-out
pretty quickly.
We *just* had an example posted where Queen Elizabeth herself has this
problem in a very short time period. She had commoner ancestors as well
as royal
ones. How do you explain this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one was
a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.
Will Johnson
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1
MLS
2006-01-16 21:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Hi Leo!
I agreed whit you. It could be difficult to mention one royal or noble
who does not have any commoners as ancestor.... But I think the
discussion here is the opposite: exists trillions of living commoners
WHIT royal or noble ancestor...? Very different assert don't think?

One more thing to think it over: when a male royal or noble, marry a
commoner, his sons and daughters keep the royal or noble surname and,
indeed, will be considered in most cases (in recent times, at least) as
noble. The opposite if is a female noble that marry a commoner. So, this
immediately cut 50 por cent of (possibly) inter class marriages...


-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas [mailto:***@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:38 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would love to
know. Leo

----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <***@email.it>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Post by MLS
Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner
ancestors in there tree .... instead of the opposite!
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<< As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages
exist. But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example
like this...
It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction,
peter-out pretty quickly. We *just* had an example posted where Queen
Elizabeth herself has this problem in a very short time period. She
had commoner ancestors as well as royal
ones. How do you explain this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one was
a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.
Will Johnson
--
http://www.email.it/f
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
America, Africa, Australia, Asia...con Email Phone Card chiami ovunque spendendo meno di una telefonata interurbana
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2688&d=16-1
Leo van de Pas
2006-01-16 22:53:15 UTC
Permalink
----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <***@email.it>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Post by MLS
Hi Leo!
I agreed whit you. It could be difficult to mention one royal or noble
who does not have any commoners as ancestor.... But I think the
discussion here is the opposite: exists trillions of living commoners
WHIT royal or noble ancestor...? Very different assert don't think?
One more thing to think it over: when a male royal or noble, marry a
commoner, his sons and daughters keep the royal or noble surname and,
indeed, will be considered in most cases (in recent times, at least) as
noble. The opposite if is a female noble that marry a commoner. So, this
immediately cut 50 por cent of (possibly) inter class marriages...
============ I think you are moving into hot water :-) there are no
identical rules that apply to _all_ cases. What is happening in the 20th
and 21st century is too recent to consider (I think). Can you mention one
royal family before 1900 where they could marry a commoner and the children
still be regarded as royal?. I can think of only one, Greece, where only
marriages to Greeks were prohibited and in the first generation they still
married within the royal/noble caste. .

Especially in the Holy Roman Empire they were very strict about marrying
within one's own class. Offspring from unequal marriages received a title
and rank lower than that of the father.

But when talking about DNA and descend from Royalty, forget marriage as
there are too many illegitimate offspring passing on DNA and Royal descents
to their offspring, often the knowledge about royal ancestors are not even
recorded, or passed on to their offspring.

David Starr Jordan and Sarah Louise Kimball published in 1929 a book with a
dreary title "Your Family Tree". It has a fascinating introduction, too long
to repeat, but I will quote a small part:

"Factors in the tangled lineage of the English people give a clew (sic) to
the origin and persistence of racial traits in general. They are the
stigmata of "blood relationship." Moreover, all, noble and peasant alike,
are really of one blood, the caste distinctions of the present being due to
Nurture rather than to Nature. To quote from a recent statement by Dr. E. M.
Best of McGill University, Montreal: "Every one of us is descended from
William the Conqueror, and Anglo-Saxons are, all of us, at least thirtieth
cousins to each other."

Also is said : ....the total population of England in 1100 did not exceed
two millions, and that probably not one-tenth of these, beset as they were
by war and pestilence, left permanent lines of descendants. Saying that
(roughly) 200,000 people in England around 1100 are jointly the ancestors
of every one with Anglo-Saxon blood today. This covers an awful lot of
people, Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, USA, South Africa, Australia and New
Zealand, just to begin with.

According to Burke's Extinct Peerages, 1866 edition, page 501, in 1637 in
Newport, Shropshire lived a cobbler and his name is not even given. The
question is, who did he marry, how many children and further descendants did
he have? Did he have siblings with descendants?

What is the significance of this mender of old shoes? His mother was a Jane
Stafford and within about 21 generations she has at least 433 lines of
descent from William the Conqueror and I would not like to guess how many to
Charlemagne. This Jane Stafford also is a descendant of Llwylyn the Great
Prince of Wales, the Arpad Kings of Hungary, and descends at least in 29
lines from Isaac II Angelos, Emperor of Byzantium and is also a 15th cousin
once removed of the Moghul Emperor Shah Jahan, the reputed builder of the
Taj Mahal.

This makes many Indian descendants having common ancestors with many
Europeans whether Anglo-saxons or not. Then it would be a simple matter to
see to which Gateway Ancestors this Jane Stafford is related to and we have
MANY Americans today who are her cousins as well as, no doubt, many in India
and Pakistan.

I think we still have to come to grasp to how "close" we all are related to
each other, that sadly the paperwork does not exist to prove it, doesn't
matter, we are closely related.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Post by MLS
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would love to
know. Leo
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Post by MLS
Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner
ancestors in there tree .... instead of the opposite!
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<< As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages
exist. But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example
like this...
It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction,
peter-out pretty quickly. We *just* had an example posted where Queen
Elizabeth herself has this problem in a very short time period. She
had commoner ancestors as well as royal
ones. How do you explain this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one
was
Post by MLS
a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.
Will Johnson
--
http://www.email.it/f
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
America, Africa, Australia, Asia...con Email Phone Card chiami ovunque
spendendo meno di una telefonata interurbana
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2688&d=16-1
MLS
2006-01-16 23:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Dear Leo, thanks for your fascinating citations.. But I kepp my opinio.
How many people live in the world today? 4 bilions, more or less..
And How many CAN trace there (credible!) line from ancient royal or
noble dinasty.... 1milion, 5 milions, 10 milions?

-----Original Message-----
From: Leo van de Pas [mailto:***@netspeed.com.au]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:53 PM
To: ***@netvigator.com; GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors



----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <***@email.it>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Post by MLS
Hi Leo!
I agreed whit you. It could be difficult to mention one royal or noble
who does not have any commoners as ancestor.... But I think the
discussion here is the opposite: exists trillions of living commoners
WHIT royal or noble ancestor...? Very different assert don't think?
One more thing to think it over: when a male royal or noble, marry a
commoner, his sons and daughters keep the royal or noble surname and,
indeed, will be considered in most cases (in recent times, at least)
as noble. The opposite if is a female noble that marry a commoner. So,
this immediately cut 50 por cent of (possibly) inter class
marriages...
============ I think you are moving into hot water :-) there are no
identical rules that apply to _all_ cases. What is happening in the
20th
and 21st century is too recent to consider (I think). Can you mention
one
royal family before 1900 where they could marry a commoner and the
children
still be regarded as royal?. I can think of only one, Greece, where only

marriages to Greeks were prohibited and in the first generation they
still
married within the royal/noble caste. .

Especially in the Holy Roman Empire they were very strict about
marrying
within one's own class. Offspring from unequal marriages received a
title
and rank lower than that of the father.

But when talking about DNA and descend from Royalty, forget marriage as
there are too many illegitimate offspring passing on DNA and Royal
descents
to their offspring, often the knowledge about royal ancestors are not
even
recorded, or passed on to their offspring.

David Starr Jordan and Sarah Louise Kimball published in 1929 a book
with a
dreary title "Your Family Tree". It has a fascinating introduction, too
long
to repeat, but I will quote a small part:

"Factors in the tangled lineage of the English people give a clew (sic)
to
the origin and persistence of racial traits in general. They are the
stigmata of "blood relationship." Moreover, all, noble and peasant
alike,
are really of one blood, the caste distinctions of the present being due
to
Nurture rather than to Nature. To quote from a recent statement by Dr.
E. M.
Best of McGill University, Montreal: "Every one of us is descended from
William the Conqueror, and Anglo-Saxons are, all of us, at least
thirtieth
cousins to each other."

Also is said : ....the total population of England in 1100 did not
exceed
two millions, and that probably not one-tenth of these, beset as they
were
by war and pestilence, left permanent lines of descendants. Saying that
(roughly) 200,000 people in England around 1100 are jointly the
ancestors
of every one with Anglo-Saxon blood today. This covers an awful lot of
people, Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, USA, South Africa, Australia and
New
Zealand, just to begin with.

According to Burke's Extinct Peerages, 1866 edition, page 501, in 1637
in
Newport, Shropshire lived a cobbler and his name is not even given. The
question is, who did he marry, how many children and further descendants
did
he have? Did he have siblings with descendants?

What is the significance of this mender of old shoes? His mother was a
Jane
Stafford and within about 21 generations she has at least 433 lines of
descent from William the Conqueror and I would not like to guess how
many to
Charlemagne. This Jane Stafford also is a descendant of Llwylyn the
Great
Prince of Wales, the Arpad Kings of Hungary, and descends at least in 29

lines from Isaac II Angelos, Emperor of Byzantium and is also a 15th
cousin
once removed of the Moghul Emperor Shah Jahan, the reputed builder of
the
Taj Mahal.

This makes many Indian descendants having common ancestors with many
Europeans whether Anglo-saxons or not. Then it would be a simple matter
to
see to which Gateway Ancestors this Jane Stafford is related to and we
have
MANY Americans today who are her cousins as well as, no doubt, many in
India
and Pakistan.

I think we still have to come to grasp to how "close" we all are related
to
each other, that sadly the paperwork does not exist to prove it, doesn't

matter, we are closely related.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Post by MLS
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would
love to know. Leo
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Post by MLS
Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner
ancestors in there tree .... instead of the opposite!
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<< As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages
exist. But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example
like this...
It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction,
peter-out pretty quickly. We *just* had an example posted where Queen
Elizabeth herself has this problem in a very short time period. She
had commoner ancestors as well as royal ones. How do you explain
this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one
was
Post by MLS
a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.
Will Johnson
--
http://www.email.it/f
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1
--
http://www.email.it/f
America, Africa, Australia, Asia...con Email Phone Card chiami ovunque
spendendo meno di una telefonata interurbana
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2688&d=16-1
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Telefonare all'estero risparmiando fino all'80%? Con Email.it Phone Card puoi, clicca e scopri tutti i vantaggi
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2683&d=17-1
Leo van de Pas
2006-01-16 23:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Well, that is the crunch----as I have said that records fail us. But now a
new record has emerged in DNA and this may help but only a little.

I have heard of a place proclaiming we descend from nine Eves. And by
submitting your DNA they tell you from which one you descend. How much does
this add to the knowledge of _your_ ancestors? I do not know. Do they know
when or where those nine Eves lived? Were they contemporary with each other?
and what about _their_ ancestors? A lots of new questions, but interesting
ones.
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <***@email.it>
To: "'Leo van de Pas'" <***@netspeed.com.au>;
<GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:36 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Post by MLS
Dear Leo, thanks for your fascinating citations.. But I kepp my opinio.
How many people live in the world today? 4 bilions, more or less..
And How many CAN trace there (credible!) line from ancient royal or
noble dinasty.... 1milion, 5 milions, 10 milions?
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Post by MLS
Hi Leo!
I agreed whit you. It could be difficult to mention one royal or noble
who does not have any commoners as ancestor.... But I think the
discussion here is the opposite: exists trillions of living commoners
WHIT royal or noble ancestor...? Very different assert don't think?
One more thing to think it over: when a male royal or noble, marry a
commoner, his sons and daughters keep the royal or noble surname and,
indeed, will be considered in most cases (in recent times, at least)
as noble. The opposite if is a female noble that marry a commoner. So,
this immediately cut 50 por cent of (possibly) inter class
marriages...
============ I think you are moving into hot water :-) there are no
identical rules that apply to _all_ cases. What is happening in the
20th
and 21st century is too recent to consider (I think). Can you mention
one
royal family before 1900 where they could marry a commoner and the
children
still be regarded as royal?. I can think of only one, Greece, where only
marriages to Greeks were prohibited and in the first generation they
still
married within the royal/noble caste. .
Especially in the Holy Roman Empire they were very strict about
marrying
within one's own class. Offspring from unequal marriages received a
title
and rank lower than that of the father.
But when talking about DNA and descend from Royalty, forget marriage as
there are too many illegitimate offspring passing on DNA and Royal
descents
to their offspring, often the knowledge about royal ancestors are not
even
recorded, or passed on to their offspring.
David Starr Jordan and Sarah Louise Kimball published in 1929 a book
with a
dreary title "Your Family Tree". It has a fascinating introduction, too
long
"Factors in the tangled lineage of the English people give a clew (sic)
to
the origin and persistence of racial traits in general. They are the
stigmata of "blood relationship." Moreover, all, noble and peasant
alike,
are really of one blood, the caste distinctions of the present being due
to
Nurture rather than to Nature. To quote from a recent statement by Dr.
E. M.
Best of McGill University, Montreal: "Every one of us is descended from
William the Conqueror, and Anglo-Saxons are, all of us, at least
thirtieth
cousins to each other."
Also is said : ....the total population of England in 1100 did not
exceed
two millions, and that probably not one-tenth of these, beset as they
were
by war and pestilence, left permanent lines of descendants. Saying that
(roughly) 200,000 people in England around 1100 are jointly the
ancestors
of every one with Anglo-Saxon blood today. This covers an awful lot of
people, Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, USA, South Africa, Australia and
New
Zealand, just to begin with.
According to Burke's Extinct Peerages, 1866 edition, page 501, in 1637
in
Newport, Shropshire lived a cobbler and his name is not even given. The
question is, who did he marry, how many children and further descendants
did
he have? Did he have siblings with descendants?
What is the significance of this mender of old shoes? His mother was a
Jane
Stafford and within about 21 generations she has at least 433 lines of
descent from William the Conqueror and I would not like to guess how
many to
Charlemagne. This Jane Stafford also is a descendant of Llwylyn the
Great
Prince of Wales, the Arpad Kings of Hungary, and descends at least in 29
lines from Isaac II Angelos, Emperor of Byzantium and is also a 15th
cousin
once removed of the Moghul Emperor Shah Jahan, the reputed builder of
the
Taj Mahal.
This makes many Indian descendants having common ancestors with many
Europeans whether Anglo-saxons or not. Then it would be a simple matter
to
see to which Gateway Ancestors this Jane Stafford is related to and we
have
MANY Americans today who are her cousins as well as, no doubt, many in
India
and Pakistan.
I think we still have to come to grasp to how "close" we all are related
to
each other, that sadly the paperwork does not exist to prove it, doesn't
matter, we are closely related.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Post by MLS
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would
love to know. Leo
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Post by MLS
Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner
ancestors in there tree .... instead of the opposite!
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<< As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages
exist. But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example
like this...
It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction,
peter-out pretty quickly. We *just* had an example posted where Queen
Elizabeth herself has this problem in a very short time period. She
had commoner ancestors as well as royal ones. How do you explain
this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one
was
Post by MLS
a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.
Will Johnson
--
http://www.email.it/f
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1
--
http://www.email.it/f
America, Africa, Australia, Asia...con Email Phone Card chiami ovunque
spendendo meno di una telefonata interurbana
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2688&d=16-1
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sono aperte le iscrizioni per il corso Nazionale di Web Marketing
* Imparerai come promuoverti sui motori di ricerca - clicca qui
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3215&d=17-1
Merilyn Pedrick
2006-01-17 02:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Dear Leo
There were "Seven Daughter of Eve" which is the title of the book written
several years ago by Prof. Bryan Sykes, a geneticist from Oxford University.
These so called daughters lived from between 15,000 and 45,000 years ago in
various parts of Europe and the Middle East.
I had my DNA tested by Oxford Ancestors (birthday present from my son) and
found that I descended from the daughter he named Helena, who lived about 20
000 years ago, probably in the Pyranees at the end of the last ice age.
According to the book, her descendants migrated North as the ice receded.
It hasn't given me any difinitive information of course, but it has
stimulate my interest in following my maternal line as far as possible.
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia

-------Original Message-------

From: Leo van de Pas
Date: 01/17/06 10:22:15
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors

Well, that is the crunch----as I have said that records fail us. But now a
new record has emerged in DNA and this may help but only a little.

I have heard of a place proclaiming we descend from nine Eves. And by
submitting your DNA they tell you from which one you descend. How much does
this add to the knowledge of _your_ ancestors? I do not know. Do they know
when or where those nine Eves lived? Were they contemporary with each other?
and what about _their_ ancestors? A lots of new questions, but interesting
ones.
Leo


----- Original Message -----
From: "MLS" <***@email.it>
To: "'Leo van de Pas'" <***@netspeed.com.au>;
<GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:36 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Post by MLS
Dear Leo, thanks for your fascinating citations.. But I kepp my opinio.
How many people live in the world today? 4 bilions, more or less..
And How many CAN trace there (credible!) line from ancient royal or
noble dinasty.... 1milion, 5 milions, 10 milions?
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Post by MLS
Hi Leo!
I agreed whit you. It could be difficult to mention one royal or noble
who does not have any commoners as ancestor.... But I think the
discussion here is the opposite: exists trillions of living commoners
WHIT royal or noble ancestor...? Very different assert don't think?
One more thing to think it over: when a male royal or noble, marry a
commoner, his sons and daughters keep the royal or noble surname and,
indeed, will be considered in most cases (in recent times, at least)
as noble. The opposite if is a female noble that marry a commoner. So,
this immediately cut 50 por cent of (possibly) inter class
marriages...
============ I think you are moving into hot water :-) there are no
identical rules that apply to _all_ cases. What is happening in the
20th
and 21st century is too recent to consider (I think). Can you mention
one
royal family before 1900 where they could marry a commoner and the
children
still be regarded as royal?. I can think of only one, Greece, where only
marriages to Greeks were prohibited and in the first generation they
still
married within the royal/noble caste. .
Especially in the Holy Roman Empire they were very strict about
marrying
within one's own class. Offspring from unequal marriages received a
title
and rank lower than that of the father.
But when talking about DNA and descend from Royalty, forget marriage as
there are too many illegitimate offspring passing on DNA and Royal
descents
to their offspring, often the knowledge about royal ancestors are not
even
recorded, or passed on to their offspring.
David Starr Jordan and Sarah Louise Kimball published in 1929 a book
with a
dreary title "Your Family Tree". It has a fascinating introduction, too
long
"Factors in the tangled lineage of the English people give a clew (sic)
to
the origin and persistence of racial traits in general. They are the
stigmata of "blood relationship." Moreover, all, noble and peasant
alike,
are really of one blood, the caste distinctions of the present being due
to
Nurture rather than to Nature. To quote from a recent statement by Dr.
E. M.
Best of McGill University, Montreal: "Every one of us is descended from
William the Conqueror, and Anglo-Saxons are, all of us, at least
thirtieth
cousins to each other."
Also is said : ....the total population of England in 1100 did not
exceed
two millions, and that probably not one-tenth of these, beset as they
were
by war and pestilence, left permanent lines of descendants. Saying that
(roughly) 200,000 people in England around 1100 are jointly the
ancestors
of every one with Anglo-Saxon blood today. This covers an awful lot of
people, Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, USA, South Africa, Australia and
New
Zealand, just to begin with.
According to Burke's Extinct Peerages, 1866 edition, page 501, in 1637
in
Newport, Shropshire lived a cobbler and his name is not even given. The
question is, who did he marry, how many children and further descendants
did
he have? Did he have siblings with descendants?
What is the significance of this mender of old shoes? His mother was a
Jane
Stafford and within about 21 generations she has at least 433 lines of
descent from William the Conqueror and I would not like to guess how
many to
Charlemagne. This Jane Stafford also is a descendant of Llwylyn the
Great
Prince of Wales, the Arpad Kings of Hungary, and descends at least in 29
lines from Isaac II Angelos, Emperor of Byzantium and is also a 15th
cousin
once removed of the Moghul Emperor Shah Jahan, the reputed builder of
the
Taj Mahal.
This makes many Indian descendants having common ancestors with many
Europeans whether Anglo-saxons or not. Then it would be a simple matter
to
see to which Gateway Ancestors this Jane Stafford is related to and we
have
MANY Americans today who are her cousins as well as, no doubt, many in
India
and Pakistan.
I think we still have to come to grasp to how "close" we all are related
to
each other, that sadly the paperwork does not exist to prove it, doesn't
matter, we are closely related.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
Post by MLS
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would
love to know. Leo
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Post by MLS
Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner
ancestors in there tree .... instead of the opposite!
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<< As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages
exist. But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example
like this...
It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction,
peter-out pretty quickly. We *just* had an example posted where Queen
Elizabeth herself has this problem in a very short time period. She
had commoner ancestors as well as royal ones. How do you explain
this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one
was
Post by MLS
a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.
Will Johnson
--
http://www.email.it/f
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1
--
http://www.email.it/f
America, Africa, Australia, Asia...con Email Phone Card chiami ovunque
spendendo meno di una telefonata interurbana
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=2688&d=16-1
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sono aperte le iscrizioni per il corso Nazionale di Web Marketing
* Imparerai come promuoverti sui motori di ricerca - clicca qui
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3215&d=17-1
Doug McDonald
2006-01-17 16:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leo van de Pas
Well, that is the crunch----as I have said that records fail us. But now
a new record has emerged in DNA and this may help but only a little.
I have heard of a place proclaiming we descend from nine Eves. And by
submitting your DNA they tell you from which one you descend. How much
does this add to the knowledge of _your_ ancestors? I do not know. Do
they know when or where those nine Eves lived? Were they contemporary
with each other? and what about _their_ ancestors? A lots of new
questions, but interesting ones.
It's complicated. What they are talking about is mtDNA (mitochondrial
DNA) haplogroups. There are some 25 "major" haplogroups and dozens
of "subhaplogroups". Every person alive is in a major haplogroup,
and descends in the all-female line from one single person, in whom
a certain mutation, which defines the haplogroup, arose. Interestingly,
not all of the descendants of this person are members of the new
haplogroup, and of her daughters, there will be mixtures of
the old and new haplogroups in their descendants.

The numbers 7 and 9 you hear about are the number of haplogroups
that are "European". These are, basically, called H, HV, I, J, K, T, U,
and V with teensy numbers of W and X. Sub-Saharan Africans are mostly
L, people from India M and R, from China A, B, C, D, F, M, and N, and
from America, A, B, C, D, and a little X. People from Oceania are
B, D, E, M, P, and Q. There are maps, made by me, at
www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald which show this.

The idea is that you get tested and find out you haplogroup. There
are several companies that test for this, of which the major one
is FamilyTreeDNA of Houston, whose lab is at the University of Arizona.
You can also get tested by the National Geographic Society, which
subcontracts to the same outfit in Houston and Arizona. This costs
effectively $100. In Europe a good place is DNAFingerprint in Germany.
Do NOT under any circumstances do business with a company called
Oxford Ancestors in England: they are grossly overpriced.

Once you get you result, you then of course want to know the
"meaning". I, for example, am a J. Actually, I can tell that I am
one of the subdivisions of J, called J1c. (that's J one c.) The
subdivisions are simply the descendants of one particular
descendant of the "original mother" who herself has enough
living descendants to stand out in population tests.

Now all these women who originated the haplogroups (the "clan mothers")
did NOT all live at the same time. The mother of L1, the oldest
group, lived perhaps 50,000 or more years ago. The others are scattered
in time since then.

We don't know EXACTLY where any of them lived. We can make pretty
good guesses from where most of their descendants live. The idea is
that most likely the clan mother lived where or near to where
the fraction of people in that haplogroup is largest. This is not
exact, since when only a few people were in the haplogroup,
say less than 100, they might have moved the whole family somewhere
else, or else half the family moved and the half that stayed all died
out. Dying out was very common when there were only perhaps 50,000
people in the whole world. It's also of course necessary to worry
about mass migrations. A, B, C, and D are common both in
America and East Asia. A itself is most common in Eskimos,
hence in America. But we know from other knowledge that it
did not arise here but rather than somwhere in Siberia
or north China. (That can be told by how many other mutations
later women who are A had ... if a population has a larger,
more diverse set of "downstream" mutations than another
population, it is older, that's how we know from DNA alone
that A arose in Asia, not in Canada).

Since I said I'm a J, where did my "clan mother" live? If you
look at the map, you would guess "somewhere between Iran and Ireland".
It turns out that other markers tell us that it was somwhere
in the mideast. As to dates, these are controversial. It was
somewhere in the range 10,000 to 30,000 years ago.


******************************************************************

What about men? Well, exactly the same thing applies, except that
it is more exact. A particular man produces a particular sperm
cell with a particular mutation. The resulting son is a new
haplogroup or subhaplogroup, or at least a "family group". His brothers
remain the haplogroup of the father, his sons are also the new
group he became. I have maps on my web site for this too. For example,
as is well known, I am "R1a1" male haplogroup, which, in Scotland,
where my ancestor came from, basically means "descended from a Viking".
The mutation which defins R1a is called SRY10831, and that which
defines R1a1 is M17. In my case, from other types of mutations we know
that I'm from a Norwegian rather than Danish Viking, and that in fact I
descend from a particular man, or his relatively close cousins, named
Somerled, who died in 1164. Where HIS ancestors came from
is controversial. R1a itself almost certainly arose somewhere between
the shores of the Caspian Sea and the villages in Pakistan where
Osama bin LAden is hold up (some of those villages are 100% R1a.)
What is interesting is the path that my very distant ancestors took
from southwest Asia to Norway. I and my McDonald cousins bear
another unusual mutation which results in YCAIIa,b = 19,21. This
is common in Scandinavia and rare elsewhere in R1a1. We are trying to
tell where it arose by testing random people in northern
Scandinavia and Russia and western Siberia.

Doug McDonald
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2006-01-17 17:02:50 UTC
Permalink
In message of 17 Jan, Doug McDonald <***@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

<snip of a very cogent account about female line DNA>
Post by Doug McDonald
******************************************************************
What about men? Well, exactly the same thing applies, except that
it is more exact. A particular man produces a particular sperm
cell with a particular mutation. The resulting son is a new
haplogroup or subhaplogroup, or at least a "family group". His brothers
remain the haplogroup of the father, his sons are also the new
group he became. I have maps on my web site for this too. For example,
as is well known, I am "R1a1" male haplogroup, which, in Scotland,
where my ancestor came from, basically means "descended from a Viking".
The mutation which defins R1a is called SRY10831, and that which
defines R1a1 is M17. In my case, from other types of mutations we know
that I'm from a Norwegian rather than Danish Viking, and that in fact I
descend from a particular man, or his relatively close cousins, named
Somerled, who died in 1164.
I'm not quite clear what you are asserting here. Presumably some of
Somerled's male line ancestor's (whoever they might be) also are of
this R1a1 haplogroup? If so, then you might be descended from one of
them and their descendants and not from Somerled?

It might be that your male line descent of this haplogroup is from
another male who happened to have coupled with one of your ancestresses
(no disrespect of course but the evidence of occasional extra-marital
couplings in most families is becoming stronger than many genealogists
would like to believe).
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          ***@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Doug McDonald
2006-01-17 18:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
I'm not quite clear what you are asserting here. Presumably some of
Somerled's male line ancestor's (whoever they might be) also are of
this R1a1 haplogroup? If so, then you might be descended from one of
them and their descendants and not from Somerled?
It might be that your male line descent of this haplogroup is from
another male who happened to have coupled with one of your ancestresses
(no disrespect of course but the evidence of occasional extra-marital
couplings in most families is becoming stronger than many genealogists
would like to believe).
Well, from Somerled back we basically KNOW that this was likely true,
since the paper trail makes all male ancestor of Somerled Celts.

But from Somerled's descendant Good John 1st Lord of the Isles,
there are many men (8) with excellent paper trails to today,
from three of his sons. This is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that we know Good John's haplotype, and that if indeed some
postman got into teh bedroom of a MacDonald clan chief, he was
of a closely related line. The same cannot yet be said
so strongly of Somerled himself, though because the cooperation
between Scottish DNA researchers is getting really excellent, we may
some day be able to go back that far with paper trails.

All that said, DNA ALONE cannot "prove" somebody is a Good John
descendant with 100% or even 98% probability, just yet. HOWEVER,
I feel it OK to say that the Clan Donald project is in the
process of more than doubling the number of markers each R1a participant
has. This is getting into the mathematical realm where, with just a
few more people with paper trails, say another 4 or 8, we will be able
to say with very high probability that a certain living man
descends from a certain exact ancestor, just from DNA. It is possible
to do this, it just takes lots of data. And when we do say such things,
we will be able to give some sort of reasonable mathematical probabilities.

Come back in three or so years.

Doug McDonald
Todd A. Farmerie
2006-01-17 19:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
I'm not quite clear what you are asserting here. Presumably some of
Somerled's male line ancestor's (whoever they might be) also are of
this R1a1 haplogroup? If so, then you might be descended from one of
them and their descendants and not from Somerled?
It might be that your male line descent of this haplogroup is from
another male who happened to have coupled with one of your ancestresses
(no disrespect of course but the evidence of occasional extra-marital
couplings in most families is becoming stronger than many genealogists
would like to believe).
Well, from Somerled back we basically KNOW that this was likely true,
since the paper trail makes all male ancestor of Somerled Celts.
Getting back to genealogy, the "paper trail" regarding Somerled's
ancestry is of highly questionable reliability, and I don't know that
such confidence is warranted.

taf
Nathaniel Taylor
2006-01-17 20:34:36 UTC
Permalink
The list / newsgroup gateway is definitely broken this week, so there
are some interesting discussions taking place on the mail list that
don't make it to sgm, and vice versa.
But, my dear friend, it is absolutely not true what you wrote about
people that loose there STATUS of nobility.
Can ONLY LOOSE TITLES. CANNOT LOOSE THE STATUS OF NOBLE OR ARISTOCRAT!
If someone can DEMONSTRATE (but can REALLY prove, by OFFICIAL
DOCUMENTS, not by books or other way...) is DIRECT descendancy from a
titled or , even better, from a Royals HE IS NOBLE. He is PART of the
ARISTOCRACY!
Maybe he lost the TITLE of nobility - because is not first born, or
because is not male or for some other reasons - but he will NEVER LOOSE
HIS STATUS OF NOBLE.
Maybe not everyone know that (usually, but not in every case) female
cannot transmit titles. Pay attention to this assert, please: female
cannot transmit TITLES, but TRANSMIT THE STATUS OF NOBILITY!
And I'm sure that 99 per cent of the members of this forum that can
trace there genealogies to some noble, are descendants from some noble
female or (better) from some royal female.
Maybe you are not aware that, if someone can DEMONSTRATE (once again
ONLY whit legal documents) his direct line of descent - for example -
from some ancient member of the British Royal family, in theory, can go
to London and ask the British Heraldry Office to get an OFFICIAL
RECOGNITION of his status of noble and even as member of the royal
family!.
Discussion is welcome
Marco
(the 13th duke of San Donato, the marquis don Marco II Lupis Macedonio
Palermo, prince of Santa Margherita)
Don Marco and Will Johnson & others have been discussing the concept of
'nobility' and the likelihood that modern common people descend from
medieval aristocrats and monarchs. The conversation has failed to take
into consideration the difference between the modern Continental
European definition of 'nobility' as designating a hereditary class of
individuals, with a particular legal identity and privileges (with
respect to taxation, justice, etc.)--a class regulated, more or less
successfully, by the state (e.g. through the monarch conferring 'patents
of nobility' or recognizing qualifying descent from some 'ancient'
nobles). Where this has been a tradition, it is generally a tradition
dating only from the end of the middle ages forward to the present. It
has nothing to do with the pragmatic medieval origins of a 'noble' class
(the Latin word 'nobilis' was originally an adjective designating
someone prominent, virtuous or famous).

Furthermore, this modern reification of nobility as a legal class has
only been true in SOME parts of Europe--e.g. France--but never in
England. There, there is no legal class of 'nobility'. 'Gentry' have
been more or less recognized in quasi-legal ways at different times
(perhaps Elizabethan sumptuary laws come closest), but the gentry were
never constitutionally reified in the same way as the French 'noblesse'.
In England, the right to use of a coat of arms and to defend it legally
is essentially a property right, rather than a legal status vested in
the individual. The College of Arms (which I think is meant by the
'British Heraldry Office') does not and never has provide 'official
recognition' of 'status of nobility'. It merely grants, and to a lesser
degree monitors the use of, coats of arms as a form of personal
property. In England the *only* group of subjects with a particular
collective legal identity that sets them apart from regular people (in
regards to taxation, justice, etc.--the traditional things that made
'nobles' different in, say, France), is the current holders of a peerage
title--not their wives, children, heirs, widowed mothers, etc. There is
NO SUCH THING as a 'noble class' in England, such as has existed in
France, Italy and elsewhere.

But the original discussion was about the ubiquity of contemporary
plebeian descendants of medieval aristocrats. This phenomenon of social
diffusion of blood (up and down the social ladder) is a statistical
certainty, common to all European states--whether they have had a modern
legal class of 'noblesse' or not. It is understandable that people who
base their views on a simplistic understanding of a single state's
modern concept of a legally-defined, closed nobility, do not recognize
the enormous social mobility that one can see when looking at
populations over a span of hundreds of years.

Again, on the concept of diffusion of 'royal' ancestry (or any specific
contribution to the gene pool), I would recommend a passage in the
introduction to Gary Roberts' _Royal Descents of 500 Immigrants_, as
well as the papers by Rohde and Chang and the on-line discussion by Mark
Humphrys that started this whole thread. On the post-medieval French
institution of 'noblesse' as a closed hereditary class with a privileged
legal identity, I recommend both Alain Texier's _Qu-est-ce que la
noblesse?_ (Paris, 1988), and Philippe du Puy de Clinchamps, _La
noblesse_ (series: Que sais-je?, Paris, 1959), even though both books
repeat certain inaccurate and anachronistic factoids about the medieval
origins of nobility as a class in France. The latter author also wrote
Que sais-je? volumes on 'Le royalisme' (1971) and 'Le snobisme' (!)
(1969).

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/immigrantsa.htm
Don Stone
2006-01-18 02:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nathaniel Taylor
The list / newsgroup gateway is definitely broken this week, so there
are some interesting discussions taking place on the mail list that
don't make it to sgm, and vice versa.
The gateway has now been repaired, and there have recently been bursts of
backlogged messages going in both directions across the gateway.

If in a day or so, anyone knows of a message that didn't get gated, please
let me know. Thanks.

-- Don Stone
Doug McDonald
2006-01-17 21:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Todd A. Farmerie
Post by Doug McDonald
Post by Tim Powys-Lybbe
It might be that your male line descent of this haplogroup is from
another male who happened to have coupled with one of your ancestresses
(no disrespect of course but the evidence of occasional extra-marital
couplings in most families is becoming stronger than many genealogists
would like to believe).
Well, from Somerled back we basically KNOW that this was likely true,
since the paper trail makes all male ancestor of Somerled Celts.
Getting back to genealogy, the "paper trail" regarding Somerled's
ancestry is of highly questionable reliability, and I don't know that
such confidence is warranted.
What the DNA says with great confidence is that the "questionable"
paper trail is wrong. R1a is not Celtic. Somerled's (ancestral)
questionable paper trail says he was Celtic. The DNA thus says his paper
trail is very likely false. There is a ringer somewhere in that trail!

Doug McDonald
Douglas Richardson
2006-01-17 21:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Doug McDonald wrote:

< What the DNA says with great confidence is that the "questionable"
< paper trail is wrong. R1a is not Celtic. Somerled's (ancestral)
< questionable paper trail says he was Celtic. The DNA thus says his
paper
< trail is very likely false. There is a ringer somewhere in that
trail!
<
< Doug McDonald

Question is: Who is the ringer? Whoever he is, he must be a "dead
ringer" by now (pardon the pun).

Douglas Richardson
Denis Beauregard
2006-01-16 23:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by MLS
Dear Leo, thanks for your fascinating citations.. But I kepp my opinio.
How many people live in the world today? 4 bilions, more or less..
And How many CAN trace there (credible!) line from ancient royal or
noble dinasty.... 1milion, 5 milions, 10 milions?
Only in Quebec, population 7 millions, the estimate is about
500,000 to 1 million with the current known lines. And this
will probably grow to 3 millions with current works. You can
probably link any one of French stock (6 millions) to someone
claiming nobility. And after the conquest of 1763, many
people with close links to high nobility went back to France
(the militaries follow the army).

You can probably extend that to USA to reach maybe 100 millions
of people likely with a royal line.

By the way, earth population is about 7 billions, not 4.


Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1716 - www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Mes associations de généalogie: www.SGCF.com/ (soc. gén. can.-fr.)
oo oo www.genealogie.org/club/sglj/index2.html (soc. de gén. de La Jemmerais)
MLS
2006-01-17 00:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Thanks
So, 100 millions on 7 billions are ... Less than 2 per cent....

-----Original Message-----
From: Denis Beauregard [mailto:***@nospam.com.invalid]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 12:55 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
Post by MLS
Dear Leo, thanks for your fascinating citations.. But I kepp my opinio.
How many people live in the world today? 4 bilions, more or less.. And
How many CAN trace there (credible!) line from ancient royal or noble
dinasty.... 1milion, 5 milions, 10 milions?
Only in Quebec, population 7 millions, the estimate is about
500,000 to 1 million with the current known lines. And this will
probably grow to 3 millions with current works. You can probably link
any one of French stock (6 millions) to someone claiming nobility. And
after the conquest of 1763, many
people with close links to high nobility went back to France (the
militaries follow the army).

You can probably extend that to USA to reach maybe 100 millions of
people likely with a royal line.

By the way, earth population is about 7 billions, not 4.


Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique - www.francogene.com/genealogie-quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1716 -
www.francogene.com/quebec-genealogy/
/ | Mes associations de généalogie: www.SGCF.com/ (soc. gén.
can.-fr.)
oo oo www.genealogie.org/club/sglj/index2.html (soc. de gén. de La
Jemmerais)



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Acquista ora Email.it Phone Card e comincia a risparmiare sulle tue telefonate! Clicca e scopri l'offerta
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid&84&d-1
Kelly Gray
2006-01-17 01:25:40 UTC
Permalink
is this where that phrase "six degrees of separation" comes in.....and where
did that phrase originate?

kelly

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
l***@yahoo.com
2006-01-17 09:11:08 UTC
Permalink
There are a great many examples in medieval history throughout Europe
when a son of the sovereign married a non-royal woman and the children
assumed the family name of the mother.
- Bronwen
John P. Ravilious
2006-01-16 22:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Dear Leo,

Prince Charles..........<g>

And perhaps a few others; but likely, from say 17th century and
earlier, I agree there would likely be none (except those who ob.s.p.,
or whose lines of descent ended in a few generations).

Cheers,

John
Post by Leo van de Pas
I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would love to know.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Post by MLS
Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner ancestors
in there tree .... instead of the opposite!
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/16/06 1:04:50 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<< As I already wrote, some possibility of inter-class marriages exist.
But, I'm sorry, I can't see in the History so many example like this...
It's not a *possibility*, is a quite frequent event.
So frequent in fact, that most lines, taken in one direction, peter-out
pretty quickly.
We *just* had an example posted where Queen Elizabeth herself has this
problem in a very short time period. She had commoner ancestors as well
as royal
ones. How do you explain this?
Choose any royal person you like and look at their ancestors 6
generations before. I'd say in the majority of cases, at least one was
a commoner. Or
at best, has a suspicious and probably spurious link backward.
Will Johnson
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=16-1
W***@aol.com
2006-01-16 21:13:04 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 1/16/06 1:28:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
***@robburns.wanadoo.co.uk writes:

<< As for Alaska and Siberia they were at one time all European the Americans
buying Alaska from the Russians for one Dollar. >>

Alaska was at one time all European?
So no Eskimos lived there at all?
l***@yahoo.com
2006-01-17 09:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Several different "kinds" of Inuit people, along with the Aleut and
dozens of non-Inuit "Indians"...
W***@aol.com
2006-01-16 21:44:33 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 1/16/06 1:23:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@email.it writes:

<< Ok, but you made a "loop" on my previous assert: It is most possible
that today Queens or King or simple nobles have some commoner ancestors
in there tree .... instead of the opposite! >>

OK now let's turn that upside-down.
There are plenty of examples of the descendents of persons, temporarily or
permanently "out-of-favor" who are today... commoners. That is, in fact, why
everyone on this list, for the most part, has at least one royal ancestor.
Right?

And of course if you have one, you probably have dozens.
When you start subdividing property among heirs, or when you have a lot of
heirs, there is a high chance that the runt of the litter got ... nothing. And
when you start with nothing, it's much easier to go down than up.

Not every child, inherited a title either as you seem to suggest. In fact,
in many cases, none of them did :)

Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2006-01-16 22:06:54 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 1/16/06 1:57:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@email.it writes:

<< One more thing to think it over: when a male royal or noble, marry a
commoner, his sons and daughters keep the royal or noble surname and,
indeed, will be considered in most cases (in recent times, at least) as
noble. >>

But you see, *that* is a very big caveat.
If you can explain why most people on this list have royal ancestors, and yet
have no title, that would be helpful.
Will Johnson
MLS
2006-01-16 23:30:58 UTC
Permalink
You wrote: "If you can explain why most people on this list have royal
ancestors, and yet
have no title, that would be helpful."

It is because people on this list represent MOST of the FEW people whit
No title but whit Royal Ancestors...! And I think this is proved for
there interest on genealogy.

-----Original Message-----
From: ***@aol.com [mailto:***@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:07 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


In a message dated 1/16/06 1:57:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@email.it writes:

<< One more thing to think it over: when a male royal or noble, marry a
commoner, his sons and daughters keep the royal or noble surname and,
indeed, will be considered in most cases (in recent times, at least) as
noble. >>

But you see, *that* is a very big caveat.
If you can explain why most people on this list have royal ancestors,
and yet
have no title, that would be helpful.
Will Johnson



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Ascolta le migliori suonerie per il tuo cellulare
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=3113&d=17-1
T***@aol.com
2006-01-16 23:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Dear Leo,

How could I indeed......!
Post by Leo van de Pas
I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would love to
know.
I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as DESCENDANT? I would love to
know.
This proves the power of positive thinking. I am
thinking I positively made an error.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll try to minimize the
number of opportunities from here out......

Cheers,

John
Leo van de Pas
2006-01-16 23:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Knowing you, I doubt you made a mistake----you were just testing :-) I
know.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: <***@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
Post by John P. Ravilious
Dear Leo,
How could I indeed......!
Post by Leo van de Pas
I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as ancestor? I would love to
know.
I would like to ask a different kind of question, can you mention one
royal
or noble who does not have any commoners as DESCENDANT? I would love to
know.
This proves the power of positive thinking. I am
thinking I positively made an error.
Thanks for pointing that out. I'll try to minimize the
number of opportunities from here out......
Cheers,
John
W***@aol.com
2006-01-17 01:45:34 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 1/16/06 4:04:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@email.it writes:

<< So, 100 millions on 7 billions are ... Less than 2 per cent.... >>

I disagree with how you characterize what Denis said. Denis was referring to
people who we *know* have at least semi-credible descent. However what you
are failing to take into consideration (for some unknown reason) is that a very
small percentage of the population cares about genealogy enough to do the
work.

Those of us who have done the work *to* trace ourselves back are the few who
care. That does not mean the rest of the population doesn't have an ascent to
royalty. It means they haven't looked for it, or haven't found it yet.

Perhaps you feel like you want to be a member of some sort of elite clan of
royal descendents :) However I'm fairly confident that anyone who puts in the
twenty years or so that I have tracing my own line, will, like me, find a
royal ascent somewhere.

Will Johnson
MLS
2006-01-17 16:24:45 UTC
Permalink
YOU WROTE:
"Perhaps you feel like you want to be a member of some sort of elite
clan of
royal descendents :)"

Of course, this "clan" exist, and it's named "nobility" or, if you
prefere: "aristocracy"

If not, what's the definition of those words?

Marco


-----Original Message-----
From: ***@aol.com [mailto:***@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:45 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors


In a message dated 1/16/06 4:04:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@email.it writes:

<< So, 100 millions on 7 billions are ... Less than 2 per cent.... >>

I disagree with how you characterize what Denis said. Denis was
referring to
people who we *know* have at least semi-credible descent. However what
you
are failing to take into consideration (for some unknown reason) is that
a very
small percentage of the population cares about genealogy enough to do
the
work.

Those of us who have done the work *to* trace ourselves back are the few
who
care. That does not mean the rest of the population doesn't have an
ascent to
royalty. It means they haven't looked for it, or haven't found it yet.

Perhaps you feel like you want to be a member of some sort of elite clan
of
royal descendents :) However I'm fairly confident that anyone who puts
in the
twenty years or so that I have tracing my own line, will, like me, find
a
royal ascent somewhere.

Will Johnson



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Polizza auto Zuritel. Scopri il risparmio in 7 click. Cosa aspetti? Clicca qui
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4097&d=17-1
W***@aol.com
2006-01-17 16:26:31 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 1/17/2006 8:24:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
***@email.it writes:

Of course, this "clan" exist, and it's named "nobility" or, if you
prefere: "aristocracy"


Ridiculous. So I am aristocracy because I have an ascent to Edward I ?
You're spinning wildly off into outer space now.
Will Johnson
MLS
2006-01-17 21:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2006-01-17 21:32:48 UTC
Permalink
I have no idea if you can be considered "aristocracy". Maybe a single
line of ascent (if proved by documents... It's evident) could not be
considered "enough". But aristocracy is a group where members can trace
there genealogy back to titled or royal individual. I don't think this
definition can be disputed.
Well I'm going to dispute it. It is rubbish. You must include that
the current aristos are still part of the governing class of the
country. In other words:

Aristocrats are members of the governing body of a country who have
inherited their position.

In England there are virtually none of these, bearing in mind that the
Sovereign no longer governs and all government ministers are either
elected or appointed by those who are elected.

On the other hand Monaco definitely has oe or two aristocrats left.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          ***@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Merilyn Pedrick
2006-01-17 22:45:01 UTC
Permalink
In that case just about everyone with European ancestors should be
considered aristocrats. According to Leo's home-page everyone with European
ancestors is everyone else's at least 30th cousin.
My own ancestors don't become aristocrats until the 1300s.
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia

-------Original Message-------

From: MLS
Date: 01/18/06 04:04:06
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors

Dear Will,
I have no idea if you can be considered "aristocracy". Maybe a single
line of ascent (if proved by documents... It's evident) could not be
considered "enough". But aristocracy is a group where members can trace
there genealogy back to titled or royal individual. I don't think this
definition can be disputed.

Marco


-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:26 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors



In a message dated 1/17/2006 8:24:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
***@email.it writes:

Of course, this "clan" exist, and it's named "nobility" or, if you
prefere: "aristocracy"


Ridiculous. So I am aristocracy because I have an ascent to Edward I ?
You're spinning wildly off into outer space now. Will Johnson



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Sei in cerca dell’amore? Non perdere tempo, iscriviti gratis a Meetic!
Potrai chattare con migliaia di single in linea.
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4052&d=17-1
MLS
2006-01-17 22:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Leo
2006-01-17 23:23:55 UTC
Permalink
I believe being an "aristocrat" could be regarded as a frame of mind. It
would require breeding, education as well as an approach to life. A title
could help but would not be necessary. There is a fun story about Thomas
William Coke who throughout his life was given the opportunity to obtain a
title but his approach was "I had rather remain the first of the ducks than
the last of the geese". As "Mr. Coke of Norfolk" he was regarded as "the
first Commoner of England". Apparently his main reason was that most of his
life he did not have a son by his first wife to inherit the title. However,
on 12 August 1837 aged 83, he accepted the title of Earl of Leicester, which
may have been to satisfy his much younger second wife----he was 49 years
older than his second wife and still had several children by her.

By his first wife he had three daughters, the eldest being Jane Elizabeth
who became the mother of the "infamous famous" Lady Ellenborough, as well as
being an ancestor of the equally "famously infamous" Pamela Digby.

Hope this is of some interest
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Merilyn Pedrick" <***@ozemail.com.au>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:44 AM
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Post by Merilyn Pedrick
In that case just about everyone with European ancestors should be
considered aristocrats. According to Leo's home-page everyone with European
ancestors is everyone else's at least 30th cousin.
My own ancestors don't become aristocrats until the 1300s.
Merilyn Pedrick
Aldgate, South Australia
-------Original Message-------
From: MLS
Date: 01/18/06 04:04:06
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
Dear Will,
I have no idea if you can be considered "aristocracy". Maybe a single
line of ascent (if proved by documents... It's evident) could not be
considered "enough". But aristocracy is a group where members can trace
there genealogy back to titled or royal individual. I don't think this
definition can be disputed.
Marco
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
In a message dated 1/17/2006 8:24:55 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Of course, this "clan" exist, and it's named "nobility" or, if you
prefere: "aristocracy"
Ridiculous. So I am aristocracy because I have an ascent to Edward I ?
You're spinning wildly off into outer space now. Will Johnson
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sei in cerca dell'amore? Non perdere tempo, iscriviti gratis a Meetic!
Potrai chattare con migliaia di single in linea.
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4052&d=17-1
W***@aol.com
2006-01-17 21:10:59 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 1/17/2006 9:33:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
***@email.it writes:

I have no idea if you can be considered "aristocracy". Maybe a single
line of ascent (if proved by documents... It's evident) could not be
considered "enough". But aristocracy is a group where members can trace
there genealogy back to titled or royal individual. I don't think this
definition can be disputed.


That doesn't make sense.
If aristocracy is a group where members can trace their genealogy back to a
royal individual.
and
I can trace my genealogy back to a royal individual.
then
I am aristocracy

by your definition.
Can you clarify how I am not?
Then we'd have a basis for further argumentation.

If your clarification is that "perhaps one line is not enough", then maybe
you could tell us how many lines *is* enough?


Will Johnson
norenxaq
2006-01-17 21:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Dear Will,
I have no idea if you can be considered "aristocracy". Maybe a single
line of ascent (if proved by documents... It's evident) could not be
considered "enough". But aristocracy is a group where members can trace
there genealogy back to titled or royal individual. I don't think this
definition can be disputed.
Marco
this is too broad of a definition. an aristocrat should also maintain his title, or perhaps be within one or two
generations of an ancestor that had a title. after which, he loses his status
MLS
2006-01-17 21:12:13 UTC
Permalink
This I also a reply to the last message posted by my friend Will
Johnson.

I'm sorry but, Whit all my respect, , I'm afraid that some members of
this list, even if reputed scholars and/or genealogists, have some
confuse idea about the (close, but different) concept of "noblesse" or
"nobility" or "aristocracy", as you prefer
Must be distinguish, first of all, from the "STATUS' of noble or
aristocrat and the conditions to be considered member of the nobility or
aristocracy.
The Status of noble is closely related to the positive possession of
some title (earl, baron, duke etc.) usually given to an individual from
a sovereign, monarch or ruler. It is not necessary that this sovereign
is a King or Queen. It also can be Duke or Grand-duke (i.e. the presents
sovereign Grand dukes of Luxemburg) , Prince (the present sovereign
Princes of Monaco), or even baron etc. The most important is that this
Sovereign must be ... A Sovereign! It MUST rule or have ruled a State.
(of course, everyone can give titles ... If someone other is so stupid
to believe that those title can have any sort of validity or can just be
treated seriously...).
But ONLY ruling sovereign can give REAL titles. This is why FORMER
MONARCH cannot give titles IF THEY NEVER RULED ANY STATE.
This is a concept quite difficult to explain (also because of my bad
English...)I tried whit an example:
The last king of Italy, Umberto II di Savoia, was forced to go into
exile after the second world War. Must pay attention that he NEVER
ABDICATED to the throne. For this reason he maintained his status of
'FONS HONORUM". During his exile in Portugal, king Umberto II of Italy
gave many titles, and those titles are formally perfect and valid.
On the contrary, his heir, the prince Vitorio Emanule IV di Savoia,
living in Geneva, even if be considered the present pretending of the
Italian throne, for the reason that he's NEVER reigned, CANNOT give any
title.

OK, I hope everything is clear until this point. This is to try to
understand the concept of TITLED nobility.

But, my dear friend, it is absolutely not true what you wrote about
people that loose there STATUS of nobility.
Can ONLY LOOSE TITLES. CANNOT LOOSE THE STATUS OF NOBLE OR ARISTOCRAT!
If someone can DEMONSTRATE (but can REALLY prove, by OFFICIAL
DOCUMENTS, not by books or other way...) is DIRECT descendancy from a
titled or , even better, from a Royals HE IS NOBLE. He is PART of the
ARISTOCRACY!
Maybe he lost the TITLE of nobility - because is not first born, or
because is not male or for some other reasons - but he will NEVER LOOSE
HIS STATUS OF NOBLE.
Maybe not everyone know that (usually, but not in every case) female
cannot transmit titles. Pay attention to this assert, please: female
cannot transmit TITLES, but TRANSMIT THE STATUS OF NOBILITY!
And I'm sure that 99 per cent of the members of this forum that can
trace there genealogies to some noble, are descendants from some noble
female or (better) from some royal female.
Maybe you are not aware that, if someone can DEMONSTRATE (once again
ONLY whit legal documents) his direct line of descent - for example -
from some ancient member of the British Royal family, in theory, can go
to London and ask the British Heraldry Office to get an OFFICIAL
RECOGNITION of his status of noble and even as member of the royal
family!.

Discussion is welcome

Marco

(the 13th duke of San Donato, the marquis don Marco II Lupis Macedonio
Palermo, prince of Santa Margherita)



-----Original Message-----
From: norenxaq [mailto:***@san.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:57 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Most recent common ancestors
Dear Will,
I have no idea if you can be considered "aristocracy". Maybe a single
line of ascent (if proved by documents... It's evident) could not be
considered "enough". But aristocracy is a group where members can
trace there genealogy back to titled or royal individual. I don't
think this definition can be disputed.
Marco
this is too broad of a definition. an aristocrat should also maintain
his title, or perhaps be within one or two generations of an ancestor
that had a title. after which, he loses his status



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Proteggi al tua casa:con FULL CASA di RAS bastano anche solo 50 Cent. al
* giorno. Fai subito il tuo preventivo online!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4026&d=17-1
W***@aol.com
2006-01-17 21:24:54 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 1/17/06 11:25:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,
***@email.it writes:

<< from some ancient member of the British Royal family, in theory, can go
to London and ask the British Heraldry Office to get an OFFICIAL
RECOGNITION of his status of noble and even as member of the royal
family!. >>

And is this theory the same as actuality ?
I have never heard of the possiblity that a person can get some sort of
official "aristocrat" recognition in this manner from the Heraldry office.
Will Johnson
Tim Powys-Lybbe
2006-01-17 21:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 1/17/06 11:25:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,
from some ancient member of the British Royal family, in theory, can
go to London and ask the British Heraldry Office to get an OFFICIAL
RECOGNITION of his status of noble and even as member of the royal
family!.
And is this theory the same as actuality ?
I have never heard of the possiblity that a person can get some sort
of official "aristocrat" recognition in this manner from the
Heraldry office.
There is a truth here. Around 1800 the English government decided that
English natives could no longer use titles given them by foreign
countries.

Subsequently a few then quite a few found that they could get special
leave from the Sovereign to use specific foreign titles. This was
formally done through a Royal Licence, which is a document signed and
sealed by the Sovereign and, in such cases, prepared by officers of the
College of Arms.

Nevertheless this is no recognition of aristocracy as that is not a
formal state in England. Nobility, of course, is a formal state and
belongs precisely to the peers of the realm and noone else, not even
their wives or children.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          ***@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
MLS
2006-01-17 21:24:59 UTC
Permalink
Dear Nat,
I agreed 99.99 % whit your fine analysis about the nobility in Europe.
I'm aware that, in England, The College of Arms basically recognise the
use of coat of Arms. Maybe I mis-cited this example. But I'll be pleased
to know if, in your opinion, you agreed whit me that (documented!)
descent from noble, or better royal, people give the right to the
STATUS of member of the ARISTOCRACY.

And also, about the concept of diffusion of 'royal' ancestry. I still
can't understand why "almost everyone in Europe" must be descendent from
the Prophet Muhammad and not from some miner or simple workers...? (of
course, NOT CONSIDERING the possible natural sons etc.).
Why not admit the more logical concept that direct descendants of Royals
people can only be the many documented royals family plus some noble
family that can trace his descent from them PLUS Some (but not so much)
OTHERS commoners descendants originated by some inter-class marriages
between royal females and commoners males?

To be honest, I tend to disbelieve all those lines of descents that
connect SO MANY Americans whit the MOST ANCIENT and ILLUSTRIOUS European
royalty... Just to state an example...
In my view look like some kind of "fabricated" things to hide the lack
of a very ancient roots that characterize the "new world"...
Maybe the fact that, between all those American descendents of king and
queen can we also fins President Bush can be a good reason......(?!)

Like to know your opinion and every other group-members opinions, about
those concept
Marco

PS I read Alain Texier's book .... Not so bad!

-----Original Message-----
From: Nathaniel Taylor [mailto:***@post.harvard.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9:35 PM
To: ***@netvigator.com
Cc: GEN-MEDIEVAL-***@rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: Most recent common ancestors
But, my dear friend, it is absolutely not true what you wrote about
people that loose there STATUS of nobility. Can ONLY LOOSE TITLES.
CANNOT LOOSE THE STATUS OF NOBLE OR ARISTOCRAT! If someone can
DEMONSTRATE (but can REALLY prove, by OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS, not by books
or other way...) is DIRECT descendancy from a titled or , even
better, from a Royals HE IS NOBLE. He is PART of the ARISTOCRACY!
Maybe he lost the TITLE of nobility - because is not first born, or
because is not male or for some other reasons - but he will NEVER LOOSE
HIS STATUS OF NOBLE.
Maybe not everyone know that (usually, but not in every case) female
cannot transmit titles. Pay attention to this assert, please: female
cannot transmit TITLES, but TRANSMIT THE STATUS OF NOBILITY!
And I'm sure that 99 per cent of the members of this forum that can
trace there genealogies to some noble, are descendants from some noble
female or (better) from some royal female.
Maybe you are not aware that, if someone can DEMONSTRATE (once again
ONLY whit legal documents) his direct line of descent - for example -
from some ancient member of the British Royal family, in theory, can
go
to London and ask the British Heraldry Office to get an OFFICIAL
RECOGNITION of his status of noble and even as member of the royal
family!.
Discussion is welcome
Marco
(the 13th duke of San Donato, the marquis don Marco II Lupis Macedonio
Palermo, prince of Santa Margherita)
Don Marco and Will Johnson & others have been discussing the concept
of 'nobility' and the likelihood that modern common people descend
from medieval aristocrats and monarchs. The conversation has failed
to take into consideration the difference between the modern
Continental European definition of 'nobility' as designating a
hereditary class of individuals, with a particular legal identity and
privileges (with respect to taxation, justice, etc.)--a class
regulated, more or less successfully, by the state (e.g. through the
monarch conferring 'patents of nobility' or recognizing qualifying
descent from some 'ancient' nobles). Where this has been a
tradition, it is generally a tradition dating only from the end of
the middle ages forward to the present. It has nothing to do with
the pragmatic medieval origins of a 'noble' class (the Latin word
'nobilis' was originally an adjective designating someone prominent,
virtuous or famous).

Furthermore, this modern reification of nobility as a legal class has
only been true in SOME parts of Europe--e.g. France--but never in
England. There, there is no legal class of 'nobility'. 'Gentry' have
been more or less recognized in quasi-legal ways at different times
(perhaps Elizabethan sumptuary laws come closest), but the gentry
were never constitutionally reified in the same way as the French
'noblesse'. In England, the right to use of a coat of arms and to
defend it legally is essentially a property right, rather than a
legal status vested in the individual. The College of Arms (which I
think is meant by the 'British Heraldry Office') does not and never
has provide 'official recognition' of 'status of nobility'. It
merely grants, and to a lesser degree monitors the use of, coats of
arms as a form of personal property. In England the *only* group of
subjects with a particular collective legal identity that sets them
apart from regular people (in regards to taxation, justice, etc.--the
traditional things that made 'nobles' different in, say, France), is
the current holders of a peerage title--not their wives, children,
heirs, widowed mothers, etc. There is NO SUCH THING as a 'noble
class' in England, such as has existed in France, Italy and elsewhere.

But the original discussion was about the ubiquity of contemporary
plebeian descendants of medieval aristocrats. This phenomenon of
social diffusion of blood (up and down the social ladder) is a
statistical certainty, common to all European states--whether they
have had a modern legal class of 'noblesse' or not. It is
understandable that people who base their views on a simplistic
understanding of a single state's modern concept of a
legally-defined, closed nobility, do not recognize the enormous
social mobility that one can see when looking at populations over a
span of hundreds of years.

Again, on the concept of diffusion of 'royal' ancestry (or any
specific contribution to the gene pool), I would recommend a passage
in the introduction to Gary Roberts' _Royal Descents of 500
Immigrants_, as well as the papers by Rohde and Chang and the on-line
discussion by Mark Humphrys that started this whole thread. On the
post-medieval French institution of 'noblesse' as a closed hereditary
class with a privileged legal identity, I recommend both Alain
Texier's _Qu-est-ce que la noblesse_ (Paris, 1988), and Philippe du
Puy de Clinchamps, _La Noblesse_ (series: Que sais-je, Paris, 1959),
even though both books repeat certain inaccurate and anachronistic
factoids about the medieval origins of nobility as a class in France.
The latter author also wrote Que sais-je volumes on 'le royalisme'
(1971) and 'le snobisme' (!) (1969).

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Hai trovato casa? Qui puoi trovare chi soddisfa le tue esigenze per il mutuo!
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=4195&d=17-1
W***@aol.com
2006-01-17 21:52:45 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 1/17/06 1:28:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@email.it writes:

<< In my view look like some kind of "fabricated" things to hide the lack
of a very ancient roots that characterize the "new world"...
Maybe the fact that, between all those American descendents of king and
queen can we also fins President Bush can be a good reason >>

But my dear Sir, we have actual letters writen from people in America back to
Europe to "my dear sister" and "my favorite cousin" or "dear father", etc.

Or do you think these primary documents are modern fabrications?

In addition to which, names and relations of Americans appear within British
(English) records of the colonial time period.

Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2006-01-17 22:07:07 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 1/17/06 1:58:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

<< True, some Siberians are Q3,
but they are clearly back-migraters. >>

Whenever someone uses the word "clearly" without any source, it always makes
me suspicious.
Will Johnson
Doug McDonald
2006-01-17 23:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 1/17/06 1:58:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<< True, some Siberians are Q3,
but they are clearly back-migraters. >>
Whenever someone uses the word "clearly" without any source, it always makes
me suspicious.
Will Johnson
There are plenty of sources. Look at the references
to my maps at www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald. The diversity
of Q3 haplotypes is higher in some places in America than
in Siberia. In some cases there are historical
records of back migration.

Doug McDonald
W***@aol.com
2006-01-17 22:17:38 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 1/17/06 2:08:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

<< This is getting into the mathematical realm where, with just a
few more people with paper trails, say another 4 or 8, we will be able
to say with very high probability that a certain living man
descends from a certain exact ancestor, just from DNA >>

You can *never say this.
Any particular man shares (most of the time) his Y-chromosone with his
brothers, paternal uncles, etc. So the most you could say, is that a person
descends from a particular person OR his paternal-kin-group.

This has been stated over and over. I think by now everyone is tired of it :)
Will Johnson
Doug McDonald
2006-01-17 23:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 1/17/06 2:08:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<< This is getting into the mathematical realm where, with just a
few more people with paper trails, say another 4 or 8, we will be able
to say with very high probability that a certain living man
descends from a certain exact ancestor, just from DNA >>
You can *never say this.
Yes you can, with even one SNP and a bunch of good paper trails.
Post by W***@aol.com
Any particular man shares (most of the time) his Y-chromosone with his
brothers, paternal uncles, etc. So the most you could say, is that a person
descends from a particular person OR his paternal-kin-group.
He shares the VAST MAJORITY of it, yes.
Post by W***@aol.com
This has been stated over and over. I think by now everyone is tired of it :)
But it IS possible to pinpoint exact people by DNA. You just have
to pinpoint a mutation with multiple brothers. With SNPs the probability
of making a brother-cousin mistake is essentially NIL. With sufficient
numbers of STRs it can become essentially vanishingly small, especially
if you have lots of markers and excellent paper trails for most people,
and some sort of paper trail for all. You may not be able to pinpoint
to the person you WANT to pinoint to, even with a full-sequence Y
chromosome, but the probability is over 70% that with that you WILL
be able to pinpoint to within two generations just with an SNP, and
with both SNP and all known STRs that rises to over 90% probability in
three or four generations, given enough paper trails.

This has been explained over and over and over again by me,
and is correct. People may get tired of it, but it is necessary to
correct misstatements.

We in the Clan Donald have started the long process, which may take
years, of finding such markers. The rate of progress will depend
mostly on the rate of fall of prices.

Doug McDonald
Douglas Richardson
2006-01-17 23:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug McDonald
This has been explained over and over and over again by me,
and is correct. People may get tired of it, but it is necessary to
correct misstatements.
We in the Clan Donald have started the long process, which may take
years, of finding such markers. The rate of progress will depend
mostly on the rate of fall of prices.
Doug McDonald
Dear Doug ~

Thank you for sharing this information. Much appreciated. You have
shed a spotlight on a subject which is difficult for many to
comprehend.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: www.royalancestry.net
W***@aol.com
2006-01-17 23:42:14 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 1/17/06 3:25:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

<< > Any particular man shares (most of the time) his Y-chromosone with his
Post by W***@aol.com
brothers, paternal uncles, etc. So the most you could say, is that a
person
Post by W***@aol.com
descends from a particular person OR his paternal-kin-group.
He shares the VAST MAJORITY of it, yes. >>

Only a mutation can change the Y-chromosone.
You haven't provided any information to suggest that every generation mutates.
Can you please provide the sources that document that EVERY generation
mutates the Y-chromosone?
Thanks
Will Johnson
W***@aol.com
2006-01-17 23:43:06 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 1/17/06 3:25:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu writes:

<< But it IS possible to pinpoint exact people by DNA. You just have
to pinpoint a mutation with multiple brothers. >>

And what if no such mutation occurred?
J***@aol.com
2006-01-17 23:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Dear Scaly Lizard,
In defense of Prince Madog of the Welsh the so
called Native American tribe known as Mandan were visited and studied in about
the 1830s by painter George Catlin. He made notes on the various tribes which
were published. The Mandan lanuage had a good deal in common with spoken
welsh and in one of the volumes (which I own but can`t lay my hands on at the
moment) has an appendix giving a side by side comparison of Mandan and the Welsh
language and how the words are pronounced with interesting results)
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Todd A. Farmerie
2006-01-18 01:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by J***@aol.com
Dear Scaly Lizard,
In defense of Prince Madog of the Welsh the so
called Native American tribe known as Mandan were visited and studied in about
the 1830s by painter George Catlin. He made notes on the various tribes which
were published. The Mandan lanuage had a good deal in common with spoken
welsh and in one of the volumes (which I own but can`t lay my hands on at the
moment) has an appendix giving a side by side comparison of Mandan and the Welsh
language and how the words are pronounced with interesting results)
Unfortunately, this research was flawed. In fact, much of the early
anthropological research, done by actual anthropologists (as opposed to
painters) is flawed in that it set out with the goal of finding
connections and similarities, and rarely were the researchers
disappointed. There are coincidental similarities among most languages
- you can always point out a word here or there that sounds similar and
means something vaguely similar. These led linguists astray even in
relatively recent times (like the 1970s) and frequently catch up
non-linguists trying to do this kind of research.

There are now better criteria that can help distinguish coincidental
from relational similarities, but there are no speakers of pre-contact
Mandan to evaluate.

taf
W***@aol.com
2006-01-18 02:31:43 UTC
Permalink
In a message dated 1/17/06 6:26:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
***@robburns.wanadoo.co.uk writes:

<< Do not Inuit's come from Iceland? Is Iceland not a part of Europe? >>

Do Eskimos look particularly Icelandic to you?
If anything I'd say they bare a strong resemblence to Mongolians. Or possibly
Koreans or Chinese or something of that sort.

So if they reached Iceland (which point I'm not sure of), its likely to be a
West to East migration instead of the reverse as you're hypothecizing.

Will Johnson
s***@binet.is
2006-01-18 07:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by W***@aol.com
In a message dated 1/17/06 6:26:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
<< Do not Inuit's come from Iceland? Is Iceland not a part of Europe? >>
Do Eskimos look particularly Icelandic to you?
If anything I'd say they bare a strong resemblence to Mongolians. Or possibly
Koreans or Chinese or something of that sort.
So if they reached Iceland (which point I'm not sure of), its likely to be a
West to East migration instead of the reverse as you're hypothecizing.
They never reached Iceland.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...