HUGUENOTS-WALLOONS-EUROPE-L Archives

Archiver > HUGUENOTS-WALLOONS-EUROPE > 2005-01 > 1106610715


From:
Subject: DNA v Primary Documentation
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:52:05 -0800


Hello All and Allan,

The ever ongoing subject of DNA genealogy is always one to get some interesting posts going. Indeed there is a seperate mailing list for such discussion.

In Allans post we have again linked DNA research to Huguenots and so once again I suspect some deep and meaningful discussion will now bound agin into the HWE list. All good stuff.

A good 25 marker match is one thing, I would suggest that all that will be "proven" is that you have a commonality with another researcher and some of their immediate ancestors.

DNA alone does not "prove" that you (meaning in the general sense) are related to a "known" Huguenot in France.

Hmm why do I add "in France" when you can only have been a Huguenot if you were in France or one of those who migrated directly. Any generation after that are the descendents of a Huguenot. oh well back to the train of thought.

While I can appreciate the value of such science I am one who can only agree that it is also necessary to hold other primary evidence such as "dated" documentation. By having both it is possible to show that you are related to someone as far back as perhaps the 17th or 18th century.

To positively "match" to a Huguenot, one presumes that it would be required to exhume the "known" ancestor and take tissue sample or DNA sample of the suspected ancestor.

To suggest that "Great Great Great Great Great Grandfather Jean" was Huguenot is one thing. If one has primary documentation of GGGG Jean and then the supsequent documentation indicating that the next is his son and then next is his son etc. until one arrives at matching markers may be sufficient to "prove" that Jean was indeed a Huguenot and that you are the DNA match of his descendents.

It is being discovered using this wonderful genealogical tool, DNA matching, that the gene pool of caucasian Europeans is very small in comparison to the population.

A difficulty I have with such use of science is that it does not allow for children born to another sperm donor, nor does it assist with inheritence when the male took the estates of the females family, as was legal in many regions of Europe during the 16th century.

By way of example... let us suggest a present day researcher has stories of his Huguenot ancestors and in researching those "stories" the researcher uncovers much primary documentation which gives sufficient detail to confirm that Hugeunot "Jean" was indeed the researchers ancestor by way of paper documentation.

However, what our researcher also discovers is that his father was adopted as a baby in the late 19th century. All primary evidence suggests that his father was legally entitled to his parents estates and possessions. DNA markers now indicate that our modern day researcher is NOT related to Huguenot Jean.

Does this mean that our researcher is now not a descendent of a Huguenot ?

Primary documentation tells him "yes" he is. DNA tells him "no" he is not. In genealogical research, which is the prefered ancestry ?

A puzzle is it not ?

Kidn Regards,
Peter Leroy

This thread: