I read once that all modern Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I later saw a video on Youtube, "Is Everyone a Descendant of Royalty?" by Matt Baker, and he explained things clearly, so I scanned through the first 3 papers he used as sources,couldn't understand Joseph Chan's papers from Yale (involving statistical formulas that are beyond my ken), but was able to mostly comprehend this article: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555&type=
The Discussion basically states that, from 1000 years ago, the percentage of shared ancestors between two modern Europeans at least 2000 km apart would be about 3% (1/32). This is based on analyzing shared segments of autosomal DNA from about 2300modern Europeans.
The hypothetical number of each European's ancestors (assuming no "pedigree collapse", endogamy, etc) 1000 years ago is about 2 to the 33rd power, or 10 billion ancestors. 3% of 10 billion is still 312,500,000 ancestors, which would have exceeded theestimated population of the world in 1000 AD (about 310 million people).
In addition, beyond 8 generations, we cannot determine contributions to our autosomal DNA from more distant ancestors, so 3% of ancestry in common (they exclude statistically the false positives- or recent long distance matches) suggests that common1000 year old ancestors were present multiple times in each person's lineage.
Therefore, it is easy for me to see that all modern Europeans (including those with European ancestry outside of Europe) are descended from all Europeans (Iberian peninsula to Russia) who left descendants. The paper estimates that 80% left descendants.I understand that most people would not be able to trace their lineage to Charlemagne, (748-814). That's what Medieval genealogy can do. We are also descended from all of the serfs and slaves....and pirates, etc.
What are your thoughts?
(I am half European and half East Asian, so I conclude that I'm descended from Charlemagne and Emperor Taizong of the Tang Dynasty). 😉
1. It is interesting and true that our brains do not easily handle the concept of exponential growth. Indeed we kind of saw that during the early COVID discussions. And as a result, we are all surprised the first time we think through this type ofissue and realize how recently we must all share common ancestors.
On 10/11/2021 20:02, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:issue and realize how recently we must all share common ancestors.
1. It is interesting and true that our brains do not easily handle the concept of exponential growth. Indeed we kind of saw that during the early COVID discussions. And as a result, we are all surprised the first time we think through this type of
In the real world growth tends to be sigmoidal rather than exponential.
The early part of a sigmoidal curve looks as if it's exponential but it isn't. The apparent exponential genealogical "growth" is backwards with
the number of ancestors doubling with each generation. The number of genealogical roles doubles. The growth of actual ancestors is reduced
by pedigree collapse. Geographical and social factors will limit it.
This idea that we *cannot* determine contributions to our Autosomal DNA beyond 8 generations, is old thinking.
Many pieces of DNA appear to be "sticky", passed down intact through multiple generations.
It is true that you cannot determine contributions for *all* your ancestors at that extreme, however, you may be able to determine a DNA contribution from *some* ancestor beyond 8 generations.
On 10/11/2021 20:02, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:issue and realize how recently we must all share common ancestors.
1. It is interesting and true that our brains do not easily handle the concept of exponential growth. Indeed we kind of saw that during the early COVID discussions. And as a result, we are all surprised the first time we think through this type of
In the real world growth tends to be sigmoidal rather than exponential.
The early part of a sigmoidal curve looks as if it's exponential but it isn't. The apparent exponential genealogical "growth" is backwards with
the number of ancestors doubling with each generation. The number of genealogical roles doubles. The growth of actual ancestors is reduced
by pedigree collapse. Geographical and social factors will limit it.
No pedigree collapse and no endogamy are unrealistic assumptions.Who are you responding to, Paolo Ricardo Canedo? I never said that there is no pedigree collapse and no endogamy.
On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 6:40:38 PM UTC-6, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:You said "assuming no "pedigree collapse", endogamy, etc". I was just pointing out such assumptions are unrealistic. I am sure you already knew that, though.
No pedigree collapse and no endogamy are unrealistic assumptions.Who are you responding to, Paolo Ricardo Canedo? I never said that there is no pedigree collapse and no endogamy.
To Lancaster:
I also mentioned that genealogy involves finding the trails to ancestors.
I was merely making an observation about the relatedness of humans, after seeing a Youtube video and reading his sources.
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 12:35:38 AM UTC+1, Ian Goddard wrote:issue and realize how recently we must all share common ancestors.
On 10/11/2021 20:02, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
1. It is interesting and true that our brains do not easily handle the concept of exponential growth. Indeed we kind of saw that during the early COVID discussions. And as a result, we are all surprised the first time we think through this type of
are filling several of those boxes.In the real world growth tends to be sigmoidal rather than exponential.
The early part of a sigmoidal curve looks as if it's exponential but it
isn't. The apparent exponential genealogical "growth" is backwards with
the number of ancestors doubling with each generation. The number of
genealogical roles doubles. The growth of actual ancestors is reduced
by pedigree collapse. Geographical and social factors will limit it.
But pedigree collapse does not matter for this specific question. What is important is the enormous number of "boxes" in your family tree at a certain generation, say 20, or 30 or 50. It does not really matter for this question whether the same people
As I am sure we all realize it does not take many generations before the number of boxes is far much greater than the population of Europe, or indeed the world, at the time of whichever generation we are looking at. Each time we go one more generationthe impact is massive. And you this swamps effects like pedigree collapse. At a certain point somewhere, depending which exact assumptions you use, probabilities of people NOT being in your tree (if they had descendants) rapidly drops to improbably tiny
Around about there we get the pointless discussions about how the geographical barriers between continents will slow things down a bit, and then you just add a few more generations and you can ignore those as well. But again, this is worth thinkingabout for genealogists, but not genealogy as such.
On 12/11/2021 22:59, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:issue and realize how recently we must all share common ancestors.
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 12:35:38 AM UTC+1, Ian Goddard wrote:
On 10/11/2021 20:02, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
1. It is interesting and true that our brains do not easily handle the concept of exponential growth. Indeed we kind of saw that during the early COVID discussions. And as a result, we are all surprised the first time we think through this type of
people are filling several of those boxes.In the real world growth tends to be sigmoidal rather than exponential. >> The early part of a sigmoidal curve looks as if it's exponential but it >> isn't. The apparent exponential genealogical "growth" is backwards with >> the number of ancestors doubling with each generation. The number of
genealogical roles doubles. The growth of actual ancestors is reduced
by pedigree collapse. Geographical and social factors will limit it.
But pedigree collapse does not matter for this specific question. What is important is the enormous number of "boxes" in your family tree at a certain generation, say 20, or 30 or 50. It does not really matter for this question whether the same
generation the impact is massive. And you this swamps effects like pedigree collapse. At a certain point somewhere, depending which exact assumptions you use, probabilities of people NOT being in your tree (if they had descendants) rapidly drops toAs I am sure we all realize it does not take many generations before the number of boxes is far much greater than the population of Europe, or indeed the world, at the time of whichever generation we are looking at. Each time we go one more
about for genealogists, but not genealogy as such.Around about there we get the pointless discussions about how the geographical barriers between continents will slow things down a bit, and then you just add a few more generations and you can ignore those as well. But again, this is worth thinking
The specific question in the OP referred to all present day Europeans
being descendants of all Europeans from *1000 AD* who left descendants.
Pedigree collapse is very germane to this issue. If, at some level,
pedigree collapse reduces the number of distinct individual ancestors in
a line by, say a sixth you don't get that back by going further back.
That's the *minimum* loss in that line. In reality further collapse
will eat into that further.
I have a situation where one ancestor and the next three generations in
the male line all married descendants of the same late C17th couple.
The daughter of the last of these was my paternal grandmother's mother
and, assuming that there is no pedigree collapse in lines I haven't
traced fully pack to that level, the loss is indeed one sixth. As many
of the surnames involved go back locally to the C14th the likelihood of further collapse in previous generations is high and there is known
overlap into my paternal grandfather's mother's line as well. This is
not exceptional; I found marriages in collateral lines.
When we're talking about a cut-off in the medieval geographical
boundaries *valleys* matter hereabouts as, of course, do boundaries
between manors. Villages like these have a core of intermarrying
families which grows only slowly by inward migrants. The migrants
themselves come from communities with similar families - in fact I've
even found incoming migrants (C18th) with common ancestors in their
native community. Heavily multiple common descents back to 1000 AD may
not my provable but certainly do not stretch credulity.
Pedigree collapse is very germane to this issue. If, at some level,
pedigree collapse reduces the number of distinct individual ancestors in
a line by, say a sixth you don't get that back by going further back.
When we're talking about a cut-off in the medieval geographical
boundaries *valleys* matter hereabouts as, of course, do boundaries
between manors. Villages like these have a core of intermarrying
families which grows only slowly by inward migrants. The migrants
themselves come from communities with similar families - in fact I've
even found incoming migrants (C18th) with common ancestors in their
native community. Heavily multiple common descents back to 1000 AD may
not my provable but certainly do not stretch credulity.
On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 12:40:22 AM UTC+1, Ian Goddard wrote:of issue and realize how recently we must all share common ancestors.
On 12/11/2021 22:59, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 12:35:38 AM UTC+1, Ian Goddard wrote:
On 10/11/2021 20:02, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
1. It is interesting and true that our brains do not easily handle the concept of exponential growth. Indeed we kind of saw that during the early COVID discussions. And as a result, we are all surprised the first time we think through this type
people are filling several of those boxes.In the real world growth tends to be sigmoidal rather than exponential. >> The early part of a sigmoidal curve looks as if it's exponential but it >> isn't. The apparent exponential genealogical "growth" is backwards with >> the number of ancestors doubling with each generation. The number of
genealogical roles doubles. The growth of actual ancestors is reduced >> by pedigree collapse. Geographical and social factors will limit it.
But pedigree collapse does not matter for this specific question. What is important is the enormous number of "boxes" in your family tree at a certain generation, say 20, or 30 or 50. It does not really matter for this question whether the same
generation the impact is massive. And you this swamps effects like pedigree collapse. At a certain point somewhere, depending which exact assumptions you use, probabilities of people NOT being in your tree (if they had descendants) rapidly drops toAs I am sure we all realize it does not take many generations before the number of boxes is far much greater than the population of Europe, or indeed the world, at the time of whichever generation we are looking at. Each time we go one more
about for genealogists, but not genealogy as such.Around about there we get the pointless discussions about how the geographical barriers between continents will slow things down a bit, and then you just add a few more generations and you can ignore those as well. But again, this is worth thinking
However, exponential growth is really really ... exponential. Also, there are about 30 generations back to 1000, and when things are working exponentially, that is enough to mean an extremely large number of ancestors. For the idea of isolated valleys toThe specific question in the OP referred to all present day Europeans being descendants of all Europeans from *1000 AD* who left descendants.
Pedigree collapse is very germane to this issue. If, at some level, pedigree collapse reduces the number of distinct individual ancestors in
a line by, say a sixth you don't get that back by going further back. That's the *minimum* loss in that line. In reality further collapse
will eat into that further.
I have a situation where one ancestor and the next three generations in the male line all married descendants of the same late C17th couple.
The daughter of the last of these was my paternal grandmother's mother and, assuming that there is no pedigree collapse in lines I haven't
traced fully pack to that level, the loss is indeed one sixth. As many
of the surnames involved go back locally to the C14th the likelihood of further collapse in previous generations is high and there is known overlap into my paternal grandfather's mother's line as well. This is
not exceptional; I found marriages in collateral lines.
When we're talking about a cut-off in the medieval geographicalIan yes indeed. To be clear I am sure all of us who've looked into it accept that pedigree collapse is important and models of this topic which don't include a very large amount of pedigree collapse are not just unrealistic but literally impossible.
boundaries *valleys* matter hereabouts as, of course, do boundaries between manors. Villages like these have a core of intermarrying
families which grows only slowly by inward migrants. The migrants themselves come from communities with similar families - in fact I've
even found incoming migrants (C18th) with common ancestors in their
native community. Heavily multiple common descents back to 1000 AD may
not my provable but certainly do not stretch credulity.
On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 11:46:05 PM UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:expect to share DNA with might not be good matches, or might not even show up at all. Over time, I've got the impression that there are a small number of ancestors around 1800 from whom I got a relatively big chunk of DNA, and then others from that
My rule of thumb based on what I've seen is that our ability to trace common ancestry will cut out somewhere around the range 1750-1850. It all depends how big the chunks of DNA were along each line of descent. So this cuts both ways. Some people you
On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 3:40:22 PM UTC-8, Ian Goddard wrote:the starting date of apparent registers, so we can't say for certain they were related, but they certainly seem to be, and that is just in the male line. If one applies a similar probability of linking to the family to those not having the surname, there
Pedigree collapse is very germane to this issue. If, at some level, pedigree collapse reduces the number of distinct individual ancestors inI don't think most genealogists have a grasp on the degree to which pedigree collapse sometimes took place. I have an immigrant from Alsace whose pedigee, 200 years before immigration, includes the same surname 6 times, and another 5 times. This is at
a line by, say a sixth you don't get that back by going further back.
When we're talking about a cut-off in the medieval geographical
boundaries *valleys* matter hereabouts as, of course, do boundaries between manors. Villages like these have a core of intermarrying
families which grows only slowly by inward migrants. The migrants themselves come from communities with similar families - in fact I've
even found incoming migrants (C18th) with common ancestors in their
native community. Heavily multiple common descents back to 1000 AD may
not my provable but certainly do not stretch credulity.
Political, religious and social divisions would also have had significant impact on immigration into and out of the gene pool that is not so readily hand-waved away as some would like - do we really think that Queen Elizabeth descends from every singleRuthenian dirt farmer, Algeciras imam and Venice Jewish cobler living in 1000 who has descendants? I certainly don't.
taf
On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 3:07:30 PM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:expect to share DNA with might not be good matches, or might not even show up at all. Over time, I've got the impression that there are a small number of ancestors around 1800 from whom I got a relatively big chunk of DNA, and then others from that
On Wednesday, November 10, 2021 at 11:46:05 PM UTC+1, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
My rule of thumb based on what I've seen is that our ability to trace common ancestry will cut out somewhere around the range 1750-1850. It all depends how big the chunks of DNA were along each line of descent. So this cuts both ways. Some people you
I always advise people to test their known relatives.triangulation backward to prove lines you did not yet know you match.
Your third cousin, with whom you share no other near relatives (within say six generations) might be that one clue you need to break a brick-wall four generations back. Whom they match, and whom you match, should line up in a consistent way and allow
It takes a lot of work, but it's possible.
On 16-Nov-21 2:39 AM, taf wrote:single Ruthenian dirt farmer, Algeciras imam and Venice Jewish cobler living in 1000 who has descendants? I certainly don't.
Political, religious and social divisions would also have had significant impact on immigration into and out of the gene pool that is not so readily hand-waved away as some would like - do we really think that Queen Elizabeth descends from every
I don't know about the imam and the cobbler, but the dirt farmer is
quite probably her ancestor.
On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 2:25:22 PM UTC-8, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:single Ruthenian dirt farmer, Algeciras imam and Venice Jewish cobler living in 1000 who has descendants? I certainly don't.
On 16-Nov-21 2:39 AM, taf wrote:
Political, religious and social divisions would also have had significant impact on immigration into and out of the gene pool that is not so readily hand-waved away as some would like - do we really think that Queen Elizabeth descends from every
I don't know about the imam and the cobbler, but the dirt farmer is
quite probably her ancestor.
I wouldn't question that she descends from many Ruthenian dirt-farmers, but I doubt she descends from every Ruthenian dirt farmer just because . . . statistics, as is the argument that commenced this thread.
The queen has some exotic (by royal standards) eastern-European ancestry through the morganatic antecedents of her paternal grandmother Ma(r)y of Teck. She also has a lot of genetic input from peasant and tradesman
stock through her maternal ancestry.
Yes I agree. It takes time, but this can help for example confirm or deny paper trails which are on the edge so to speak. I don't think I've ever seen anything which makes me believe this can get back to common ancestors earlier than about 1750 though?
Yes I agree. It takes time, but this can help for example confirm or deny paper trails which are on the edge so to speak. I don't think I've ever seen anything which makes me believe this can get back to common ancestors earlier than about 1750 though?
of her paternal grandmother Ma(r)y of Teck. She also has a lot of
genetic input from peasant and tradesman stock through her maternal
ancestry. Her aunt-by-marriage Marina of Greece didn't sneer at her low breeding out of thin air.
Peter Stewart
On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 2:36:15 PM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I agree. It takes time, but this can help for example confirm or deny paper trails which are on the edge so to speak. I don't think I've ever seen anything which makes me believe this can get back to common ancestors earlier than about 1750 though?
Yes you can in a line. No you probably cannot in all lines.
The problem is not the DNA.
The problem is that there are so few people who have done complete and good research.
The DNA can tell you that you match John Smith, it does not necessarily tell you why.
For that you need one, two, five hundred, confirmed matches, on specific lines.
You can then speculate, could John Smith's ancestor Bryan Jones, be the brother of my ancestor Mary Jones?
From my own work, there definitely appear to be "chunks" of DNA, up to 60 cms that can descend *at least* five generations intact. I don't think, we've really plowed the depths of how we can use it.
However the vastly important point, is not just to try this with your own DNA, but to be the admin of a dozen, or five dozen, DNA kits of your known relatives.
Without that, it's not going to be as fruitful as you wish.
So because of endogamy, there is a point where DNA can't prove
a relationship because you can't say if the common presumed ancestor
on paper is an ancestor from DNA.
Denis
--
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 8:13:11 AM UTC-8, Denis Beauregard wrote:use those assignments to tweeze apart the endogamous lines.
So because of endogamy, there is a point where DNA can't prove
a relationship because you can't say if the common presumed ancestor
on paper is an ancestor from DNA.
Denis
--
You are correct that endogamy is a problem.
There are methods to get around this however.
Any match pair who share multiple lines, can be found to *in addition* have other matches who do not share those multiple lines, but only a single line. You have to thread those single lines, assigning the segments to the ancestral couples, and then
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 08:49:34 -0800 (PST), Will Johnsonuse those assignments to tweeze apart the endogamous lines.
<wjhons...@gmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 8:13:11 AM UTC-8, Denis Beauregard wrote: >>
So because of endogamy, there is a point where DNA can't prove
a relationship because you can't say if the common presumed ancestor
on paper is an ancestor from DNA.
Denis
--
You are correct that endogamy is a problem.
There are methods to get around this however.
Any match pair who share multiple lines, can be found to *in addition* have other matches who do not share those multiple lines, but only a single line. You have to thread those single lines, assigning the segments to the ancestral couples, and then
For curiosity, did you try yourself to verify your closer
relationship with DNA ?
In my own case, I verified some close relationships (like
cousins or uncles) but failed to confirm relationships
with unknown matches (too many possible paths).
Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/ French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/
Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790
On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 2:25:22 PM UTC-8, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:single Ruthenian dirt farmer, Algeciras imam and Venice Jewish cobler living in 1000 who has descendants? I certainly don't.
On 16-Nov-21 2:39 AM, taf wrote:
Political, religious and social divisions would also have had significant impact on immigration into and out of the gene pool that is not so readily hand-waved away as some would like - do we really think that Queen Elizabeth descends from every
I don't know about the imam and the cobbler, but the dirt farmer isI wouldn't question that she descends from many Ruthenian dirt-farmers, but I doubt she descends from every Ruthenian dirt farmer just because . . . statistics, as is the argument that commenced this thread.
quite probably her ancestor.
taf
We can argue about the date, 1200 AD, 1000 AD, 700 AD, etc. but it is impossible to even conceive of a model based on reality that does not prove the point that at a recent time in the past, everyone in europe is the ancestor of all europeans or none.
On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 2:25:22 PM UTC-8, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:single Ruthenian dirt farmer, Algeciras imam and Venice Jewish cobler living in 1000 who has descendants? I certainly don't.
On 16-Nov-21 2:39 AM, taf wrote:
Political, religious and social divisions would also have had significant impact on immigration into and out of the gene pool that is not so readily hand-waved away as some would like - do we really think that Queen Elizabeth descends from every
I don't know about the imam and the cobbler, but the dirt farmer isI wouldn't question that she descends from many Ruthenian dirt-farmers, but I doubt she descends from every Ruthenian dirt farmer just because . . . statistics, as is the argument that commenced this thread.
quite probably her ancestor.
You think you can be descended from one Ruthenian dirt farmer a 1000 years ago (without
going into the question of whether this is a realistic category) without being descended from
all of them?
This would imply there was a very large population, divided into very strictly divided groups over many centuries.
I am not sure if you think I was one of the people giving an "argument", but if you do then this is a misunderstanding.
All these types of discussions are speculations - at best exploring the impact of different assumptions.
But the further back we go, the smaller the human population gets, and the more amazingly big the number of people in our family tree.
The isolation of an in-bred group has to be absolutely perfect to stop these numbers from eventually collapsing the sets of all our ancestors.
On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 7:48:03 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
I wouldn't question that she descends from many Ruthenian dirt-farmers, but I doubt she descends from every Ruthenian dirt farmer just because . . . statistics, as is the argument that commenced this thread.For all the reasons to believe something, "just because...math" shows it, is not a bad reason.
Just because the math is counterintuitive (Heck, the fact that most classrooms of just 24 people
have 2 people that share a birthday is rather counterintuitive); doesn't mean it isn't true.
We can argue about the date, 1200 AD, 1000 AD, 700 AD, etc. but it is impossible to even conceive
of a model based on reality that does not prove the point that at a recent time in the past, everyone
in europe is the ancestor of all europeans or none.
And you can't handwave that away just because ... it's counterintuitive.
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 1:14:10 PM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:individual at that time, such that being descended from one means being descended from everyone.
You think you can be descended from one Ruthenian dirt farmer a 1000 years ago (without
going into the question of whether this is a realistic category) without being descended from
all of them?
Yes.
This would imply there was a very large population, divided into very strictly divided groups over many centuries.
An entire ethnic group generally is a large population, and when you factor in endogamy, I think it is not only probable, but likely that there are lines of descent that, just by chance, do not intersect with every other line from every other
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 1:14:10 PM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:individual at that time, such that being descended from one means being descended from everyone.
You think you can be descended from one Ruthenian dirt farmer a 1000 years ago (withoutYes.
going into the question of whether this is a realistic category) without being descended from
all of them?
This would imply there was a very large population, divided into very strictly divided groups over many centuries.An entire ethnic group generally is a large population, and when you factor in endogamy, I think it is not only probable, but likely that there are lines of descent that, just by chance, do not intersect with every other line from every other
to family size and endogamy and just general chance, it is possible for example that a person living in 1000 had such a small number of descendants living in 1200 that they are effectively starting exmansion 200 years after the 'average' bloodline, andI am not sure if you think I was one of the people giving an "argument", but if you do then this is a misunderstanding.I explixitly said, "the argument that commenced this thread." You did not commence this thread.
All these types of discussions are speculations - at best exploring the impact of different assumptions.Yes, indeed. That is really my point - that with a different set of assumptions, one can arrive at a different answer, and hence the statistics being applied to arrive at The Truth are only valid for the specific assumptions made.
But the further back we go, the smaller the human population gets, and the more amazingly big the number of people in our family tree.And likewise the more isolated and inbred the populations get, such that if you miss a connection, there is no guarantee you are going to add it by going just a little bit farther back.
The isolation of an in-bred group has to be absolutely perfect to stop these numbers from eventually collapsing the sets of all our ancestors.Yes, that is true, eventually, but we are not talking about eventually, we are talking about a specific date, and with a specific date, there is the possibility that through the quirks of contingency in individual families and populations, with regard
You complain that I am demanding 'absolutely perfect' endogamy or everyone is descended from everyone, but you are assuming 'absolutely perfect' distribution of bloodlines across a population, fast enough that every single one of them doesn't miss outon riding along with one of the atypical events that provides large-scale spread of the bloodlines into novel populations. Yes, given enough time, it will spread throughout, but I think 'enough time' differs a lot depending on the individual populations
taf
The statement about "everyone who left descendants" requires some unpacking. As Todd implied,
it's possible to leave a straggling line of descendants for, say, two or three hundred years, before
the "last of the line" dies (we know this happens from peerages that go extinct -- no heirs remaining).
So those would be people "living in 1000 who left descendants," but who would have no current living
descendants (baring NPEs).
of her paternal grandmother Ma(r)y of Teck. She also has a lot of
genetic input from peasant and tradesman stock through her maternal
ancestry. Her aunt-by-marriage Marina of Greece didn't sneer at her low
breeding out of thin air.
Peter Stewart
Oh well, Marina was just snobbish in addition to being poor and probably jealous that the best jewelry of her grandmother, Grandduchess Vladimir, had gone to Queen Mary and the Queen Mother.
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:08:36 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:couple of hundred years for their bloodline to permeate their immediate area, then another few hundred years for their country or region - and at the other end after first arriving in a village at some distant point in Europe it would take another few
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 2:48:54 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
The statement about "everyone who left descendants" requires some unpacking. As Todd implied,Just to be clear, this isn't exactly what I was saying. The original model, as I understood it, implied having descendants to the present time. I was more thinking of a line that straggled along for two or three hundred years, then taking another
it's possible to leave a straggling line of descendants for, say, two or three hundred years, before
the "last of the line" dies (we know this happens from peerages that go extinct -- no heirs remaining).
So those would be people "living in 1000 who left descendants," but who would have no current living
descendants (baring NPEs).
taf
Oh, I guess I wasn't following that bit.
But do you agree with my other example, that certain families may be far more prolific than others and that if their own antecedents were highly repetitive, this cuts down on the likelihood of
"descent from everyone."
I agree with straggling descendants in a number of successive generations being a big problem for successful spread of the genes "to everyone in the world."
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 2:48:54 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:couple of hundred years for their bloodline to permeate their immediate area, then another few hundred years for their country or region - and at the other end after first arriving in a village at some distant point in Europe it would take another few
The statement about "everyone who left descendants" requires some unpacking. As Todd implied,Just to be clear, this isn't exactly what I was saying. The original model, as I understood it, implied having descendants to the present time. I was more thinking of a line that straggled along for two or three hundred years, then taking another
it's possible to leave a straggling line of descendants for, say, two or three hundred years, before
the "last of the line" dies (we know this happens from peerages that go extinct -- no heirs remaining).
So those would be people "living in 1000 who left descendants," but who would have no current living
descendants (baring NPEs).
taf
On 17-Nov-21 9:10 AM, taf wrote:individual at that time, such that being descended from one means being descended from everyone.
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 1:14:10 PM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
You think you can be descended from one Ruthenian dirt farmer a 1000 years ago (without
going into the question of whether this is a realistic category) without being descended from
all of them?
Yes.
This would imply there was a very large population, divided into very strictly divided groups over many centuries.
An entire ethnic group generally is a large population, and when you factor in endogamy, I think it is not only probable, but likely that there are lines of descent that, just by chance, do not intersect with every other line from every other
Do you think that these haphazardly non-intersecting lineages would have lasted within the same demographic in the same region over half a millennium, so that anyone descended from a Ruthenian dirt farmer living
ca 1500 would perhaps not be descended from all of his counterparts
living in 1000?
On 15/11/2021 22:25, Peter Stewart wrote:
The queen has some exotic (by royal standards) eastern-European
ancestry through the morganatic antecedents of her paternal
grandmother Ma(r)y of Teck. She also has a lot of genetic input from
peasant and tradesman stock through her maternal ancestry.
And royal standards are quite exotic compared to most of the British population.
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 3:06:39 PM UTC-8, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:individual at that time, such that being descended from one means being descended from everyone.
On 17-Nov-21 9:10 AM, taf wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 1:14:10 PM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
You think you can be descended from one Ruthenian dirt farmer a 1000 years ago (without
going into the question of whether this is a realistic category) without being descended from
all of them?
Yes.
This would imply there was a very large population, divided into very strictly divided groups over many centuries.
An entire ethnic group generally is a large population, and when you factor in endogamy, I think it is not only probable, but likely that there are lines of descent that, just by chance, do not intersect with every other line from every other
all of them of the same religion). As such, I can easily envision a bloodline not making it to everyone in an entire region in twice that time. Under similar spread conditions, even if the bloodline got to every village in the region within 250 years,Do you think that these haphazardly non-intersecting lineages would have
lasted within the same demographic in the same region over half a
millennium, so that anyone descended from a Ruthenian dirt farmer living
ca 1500 would perhaps not be descended from all of his counterparts
living in 1000?
I think it is _possible_. In a couple of instances, my person of interest in 1850 had their entire ancestry from the same European village in 1600, but nonetheless did not descend from all of the village's 1600-era couples with descendants (not even
On 17-Nov-21 10:19 AM, Johnny Brananas wrote:couple of hundred years for their bloodline to permeate their immediate area, then another few hundred years for their country or region - and at the other end after first arriving in a village at some distant point in Europe it would take another few
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:08:36 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 2:48:54 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
The statement about "everyone who left descendants" requires some unpacking. As Todd implied,Just to be clear, this isn't exactly what I was saying. The original model, as I understood it, implied having descendants to the present time. I was more thinking of a line that straggled along for two or three hundred years, then taking another
it's possible to leave a straggling line of descendants for, say, two or three hundred years, before
the "last of the line" dies (we know this happens from peerages that go extinct -- no heirs remaining).
So those would be people "living in 1000 who left descendants," but who would have no current living
descendants (baring NPEs).
taf
Oh, I guess I wasn't following that bit.
But do you agree with my other example, that certain families may be far more prolific than others and that if their own antecedents were highly repetitive, this cuts down on the likelihood of
"descent from everyone."
I agree with straggling descendants in a number of successive generations being a big problem for successful spread of the genes "to everyone in the world."
Are you thinking of straggling descents in the male line, of families
that somehow have no fertile daughters born over centuries on end? It
takes only one such daughter to spread the "straggling" genes of her
father into a more prepotent dirt farmer's offfspring.
Peter Stewart
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:couple of hundred years for their bloodline to permeate their immediate area, then another few hundred years for their country or region - and at the other end after first arriving in a village at some distant point in Europe it would take another few
On 17-Nov-21 10:19 AM, Johnny Brananas wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:08:36 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 2:48:54 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
The statement about "everyone who left descendants" requires some unpacking. As Todd implied,Just to be clear, this isn't exactly what I was saying. The original model, as I understood it, implied having descendants to the present time. I was more thinking of a line that straggled along for two or three hundred years, then taking another
it's possible to leave a straggling line of descendants for, say, two or three hundred years, before
the "last of the line" dies (we know this happens from peerages that go extinct -- no heirs remaining).
So those would be people "living in 1000 who left descendants," but who would have no current living
descendants (baring NPEs).
Are you thinking of straggling descents in the male line, of families
taf
Oh, I guess I wasn't following that bit.
But do you agree with my other example, that certain families may be far more prolific than others and that if their own antecedents were highly repetitive, this cuts down on the likelihood of
"descent from everyone."
I agree with straggling descendants in a number of successive generations being a big problem for successful spread of the genes "to everyone in the world."
that somehow have no fertile daughters born over centuries on end? It
takes only one such daughter to spread the "straggling" genes of her
father into a more prepotent dirt farmer's offfspring.
Peter Stewart
Just generally straggling (males _and_ females). Few births ... or many deaths.
It would depend on the timing of the daughter who was prolific. I think Todd's point is that those who "straggle" too long in the period 1000-1300 don't end up being able to spread everywhere by 2021.
On 17-Nov-21 10:35 AM, Johnny Brananas wrote:couple of hundred years for their bloodline to permeate their immediate area, then another few hundred years for their country or region - and at the other end after first arriving in a village at some distant point in Europe it would take another few
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 17-Nov-21 10:19 AM, Johnny Brananas wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:08:36 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 2:48:54 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
The statement about "everyone who left descendants" requires some unpacking. As Todd implied,Just to be clear, this isn't exactly what I was saying. The original model, as I understood it, implied having descendants to the present time. I was more thinking of a line that straggled along for two or three hundred years, then taking another
it's possible to leave a straggling line of descendants for, say, two or three hundred years, before
the "last of the line" dies (we know this happens from peerages that go extinct -- no heirs remaining).
So those would be people "living in 1000 who left descendants," but who would have no current living
descendants (baring NPEs).
Are you thinking of straggling descents in the male line, of families
taf
Oh, I guess I wasn't following that bit.
But do you agree with my other example, that certain families may be far more prolific than others and that if their own antecedents were highly repetitive, this cuts down on the likelihood of
"descent from everyone."
I agree with straggling descendants in a number of successive generations being a big problem for successful spread of the genes "to everyone in the world."
that somehow have no fertile daughters born over centuries on end? It
takes only one such daughter to spread the "straggling" genes of her
father into a more prepotent dirt farmer's offfspring.
Peter Stewart
Just generally straggling (males _and_ females). Few births ... or many deaths.
It would depend on the timing of the daughter who was prolific. I think Todd's point is that those who "straggle" too long in the period 1000-1300 don't end up being able to spread everywhere by 2021.
But the daughter would not need to be prolific - just one son surviving
to adulthood who inherited prepotency from his agnatic ancestry is
enough to open a potentially vast descendancy from her own "straggling" father.
Peter Stewart
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:46:42 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:couple of hundred years for their bloodline to permeate their immediate area, then another few hundred years for their country or region - and at the other end after first arriving in a village at some distant point in Europe it would take another few
On 17-Nov-21 10:35 AM, Johnny Brananas wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 17-Nov-21 10:19 AM, Johnny Brananas wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:08:36 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 2:48:54 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
The statement about "everyone who left descendants" requires some unpacking. As Todd implied,Just to be clear, this isn't exactly what I was saying. The original model, as I understood it, implied having descendants to the present time. I was more thinking of a line that straggled along for two or three hundred years, then taking another
it's possible to leave a straggling line of descendants for, say, two or three hundred years, before
the "last of the line" dies (we know this happens from peerages that go extinct -- no heirs remaining).
So those would be people "living in 1000 who left descendants," but who would have no current living
descendants (baring NPEs).
But the daughter would not need to be prolific - just one son survivingAre you thinking of straggling descents in the male line, of families
taf
Oh, I guess I wasn't following that bit.
But do you agree with my other example, that certain families may be far more prolific than others and that if their own antecedents were highly repetitive, this cuts down on the likelihood of
"descent from everyone."
I agree with straggling descendants in a number of successive generations being a big problem for successful spread of the genes "to everyone in the world."
that somehow have no fertile daughters born over centuries on end? It
takes only one such daughter to spread the "straggling" genes of her
father into a more prepotent dirt farmer's offfspring.
Peter Stewart
Just generally straggling (males _and_ females). Few births ... or many deaths.
It would depend on the timing of the daughter who was prolific. I think Todd's point is that those who "straggle" too long in the period 1000-1300 don't end up being able to spread everywhere by 2021.
to adulthood who inherited prepotency from his agnatic ancestry is
enough to open a potentially vast descendancy from her own "straggling"
father.
Peter Stewart
In that case, she would be a "prolific grandmother." But earlier is better if she wants to be the "grandmother of all living."
On 17-Nov-21 10:55 AM, Johnny Brananas wrote:another couple of hundred years for their bloodline to permeate their immediate area, then another few hundred years for their country or region - and at the other end after first arriving in a village at some distant point in Europe it would take
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:46:42 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 17-Nov-21 10:35 AM, Johnny Brananas wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 17-Nov-21 10:19 AM, Johnny Brananas wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:08:36 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 2:48:54 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
The statement about "everyone who left descendants" requires some unpacking. As Todd implied,Just to be clear, this isn't exactly what I was saying. The original model, as I understood it, implied having descendants to the present time. I was more thinking of a line that straggled along for two or three hundred years, then taking
it's possible to leave a straggling line of descendants for, say, two or three hundred years, before
the "last of the line" dies (we know this happens from peerages that go extinct -- no heirs remaining).
So those would be people "living in 1000 who left descendants," but who would have no current living
descendants (baring NPEs).
But the daughter would not need to be prolific - just one son surviving >> to adulthood who inherited prepotency from his agnatic ancestry isAre you thinking of straggling descents in the male line, of families >>>> that somehow have no fertile daughters born over centuries on end? It >>>> takes only one such daughter to spread the "straggling" genes of her >>>> father into a more prepotent dirt farmer's offfspring.
taf
Oh, I guess I wasn't following that bit.
But do you agree with my other example, that certain families may be far more prolific than others and that if their own antecedents were highly repetitive, this cuts down on the likelihood of
"descent from everyone."
I agree with straggling descendants in a number of successive generations being a big problem for successful spread of the genes "to everyone in the world."
Peter Stewart
Just generally straggling (males _and_ females). Few births ... or many deaths.
It would depend on the timing of the daughter who was prolific. I think Todd's point is that those who "straggle" too long in the period 1000-1300 don't end up being able to spread everywhere by 2021.
enough to open a potentially vast descendancy from her own "straggling" >> father.
Peter Stewart
In that case, she would be a "prolific grandmother." But earlier is better if she wants to be the "grandmother of all living."
Earlier than 1000 in order to be ancestor of all living descendants in
2021? I doubt there is a rigorous statistical model to substantiate this.
Peter Stewart
all of them of the same religion). As such, I can easily envision a bloodline not making it to everyone in an entire region in twice that time. Under similar spread conditions, even if the bloodline got to every village in the region within 250 years,I think it is _possible_. In a couple of instances, my person of interest in 1850 had their entire ancestry from the same European village in 1600, but nonetheless did not descend from all of the village's 1600-era couples with descendants (not even
Managing to trace every single ancestor in 1600 of someone living in
1850 is a fairly rare achievement - have you published this rather phenomenal research outcome?
On 16-Nov-21 9:51 PM, Ian Goddard wrote:
On 15/11/2021 22:25, Peter Stewart wrote:
The queen has some exotic (by royal standards) eastern-European
ancestry through the morganatic antecedents of her paternal
grandmother Ma(r)y of Teck. She also has a lot of genetic input from
peasant and tradesman stock through her maternal ancestry.
And royal standards are quite exotic compared to most of the British
population.
Yes, but in this case I meant exotic to the royal family only by
occupation rather than geographically or by social background - and
really many of the British public today who soak up tabloid and Twitter mockery of the Middleton and Markle families are far more snobbish about class than the Windsors.
Some of the British population still regard drinking coffee as exotic,
though no doubt many fewer than when I last lived among them (35 years
ago).
When the late queen mother married the duke of York in the early-1920s, within five years from the end of the Great War, English newsreels at
first affectedly pronounced her "exotic" surname Bowes-Lyon (spoken as Bose-Lion) as "Boughs-Leon". Despite the Bowes being actually English
and the Lyon being an obvious orthographic variant, they wanted to make
her sound more exotic when marrying into a dynasty that was then
regarded as Continental (not to say Hun, as many did).
<taf said>even all of them of the same religion). As such, I can easily envision a bloodline not making it to everyone in an entire region in twice that time. Under similar spread conditions, even if the bloodline got to every village in the region within 250
I think it is _possible_. In a couple of instances, my person of interest in 1850 had their entire ancestry from the same European village in 1600, but nonetheless did not descend from all of the village's 1600-era couples with descendants (not
generation around 1600 would be 256 people all from the same village. This is a very unusual situation indeed. Even the most remote places in Europe tended to have a group of villages who at least traded daughters and sons back and forth.Managing to trace every single ancestor in 1600 of someone living inThe more phenomenal piece of this to me is that a "village" could support so many folks marrying without absurd endogamy. Even with the most generous assumptions, a person born in 1850 with long generations, looking at just those born in the one
1850 is a fairly rare achievement - have you published this rather phenomenal research outcome?
I have an american ancestor born 1859 who I have well traced 32/32 of his 3x-great-granparents, and 58/64 4x-great-grandparents and I thought this was quite unusual. I can't even fathom 512/512 for any person anywhere in the world other than a King orQueen. In Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland), there are certainly extremely well documented records 1600->1850, but identifying 256/512 ancestors in the 9th generation is extraordinarilly rare.
I'm sure Taf was exaggerating; but in the exaggeration has exposed the bias, I think? Those few he *can't* trace are the very ones probably who came from other villages.
If todd says he has traced someone to this extent, I will take him at his word; Edward VII of England born 1841 has all 512/512 of his ancestors on genealogics.org
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:46:42 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:another couple of hundred years for their bloodline to permeate their immediate area, then another few hundred years for their country or region - and at the other end after first arriving in a village at some distant point in Europe it would take
On 17-Nov-21 10:35 AM, Johnny Brananas wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 17-Nov-21 10:19 AM, Johnny Brananas wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:08:36 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 2:48:54 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
The statement about "everyone who left descendants" requires some unpacking. As Todd implied,Just to be clear, this isn't exactly what I was saying. The original model, as I understood it, implied having descendants to the present time. I was more thinking of a line that straggled along for two or three hundred years, then taking
it's possible to leave a straggling line of descendants for, say, two or three hundred years, before
the "last of the line" dies (we know this happens from peerages that go extinct -- no heirs remaining).
So those would be people "living in 1000 who left descendants," but who would have no current living
descendants (baring NPEs).
Are you thinking of straggling descents in the male line, of families >> that somehow have no fertile daughters born over centuries on end? It >> takes only one such daughter to spread the "straggling" genes of her
taf
Oh, I guess I wasn't following that bit.
But do you agree with my other example, that certain families may be far more prolific than others and that if their own antecedents were highly repetitive, this cuts down on the likelihood of
"descent from everyone."
I agree with straggling descendants in a number of successive generations being a big problem for successful spread of the genes "to everyone in the world."
father into a more prepotent dirt farmer's offfspring.
Peter Stewart
Just generally straggling (males _and_ females). Few births ... or many deaths.
It would depend on the timing of the daughter who was prolific. I think Todd's point is that those who "straggle" too long in the period 1000-1300 don't end up being able to spread everywhere by 2021.
But the daughter would not need to be prolific - just one son surviving
to adulthood who inherited prepotency from his agnatic ancestry is
enough to open a potentially vast descendancy from her own "straggling" father.
Peter StewartIn that case, she would be a "prolific grandmother." But earlier is better if she wants to be the "grandmother of all living."
What year do we think is the last year we can say the descendants of a specific individual living in 1000 died out for good?
For instance, it's probable that in 1001 a considerable number of families descended from someone living the previous year died out totally and finally (small family killed by plague).
In the year 1050, some of those alive 50 years earlier would have lost a last descendant.
In the year 1150, some percentage of the 1000-ers would have a final family member die.
Do we think this happened, say, last year (2020) as well?
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-5, Johnny Brananas wrote:couple of hundred years for their bloodline to permeate their immediate area, then another few hundred years for their country or region - and at the other end after first arriving in a village at some distant point in Europe it would take another few
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:46:42 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 17-Nov-21 10:35 AM, Johnny Brananas wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:24:08 PM UTC-5, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:
On 17-Nov-21 10:19 AM, Johnny Brananas wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 6:08:36 PM UTC-5, taf wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 2:48:54 PM UTC-8, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
The statement about "everyone who left descendants" requires some unpacking. As Todd implied,Just to be clear, this isn't exactly what I was saying. The original model, as I understood it, implied having descendants to the present time. I was more thinking of a line that straggled along for two or three hundred years, then taking another
it's possible to leave a straggling line of descendants for, say, two or three hundred years, before
the "last of the line" dies (we know this happens from peerages that go extinct -- no heirs remaining).
So those would be people "living in 1000 who left descendants," but who would have no current living
descendants (baring NPEs).
In that case, she would be a "prolific grandmother." But earlier is better if she wants to be the "grandmother of all living."But the daughter would not need to be prolific - just one son survivingAre you thinking of straggling descents in the male line, of families >>>>> that somehow have no fertile daughters born over centuries on end? It >>>>> takes only one such daughter to spread the "straggling" genes of her >>>>> father into a more prepotent dirt farmer's offfspring.
taf
Oh, I guess I wasn't following that bit.
But do you agree with my other example, that certain families may be far more prolific than others and that if their own antecedents were highly repetitive, this cuts down on the likelihood of
"descent from everyone."
I agree with straggling descendants in a number of successive generations being a big problem for successful spread of the genes "to everyone in the world."
Peter Stewart
Just generally straggling (males _and_ females). Few births ... or many deaths.
It would depend on the timing of the daughter who was prolific. I think Todd's point is that those who "straggle" too long in the period 1000-1300 don't end up being able to spread everywhere by 2021.
to adulthood who inherited prepotency from his agnatic ancestry is
enough to open a potentially vast descendancy from her own "straggling"
father.
Peter Stewart
What year do we think is the last year we can say the descendants of a specific individual living in 1000 died out for good?
For instance, it's probable that in 1001 a considerable number of families descended from someone living the previous year died out totally and finally (small family killed by plague).
In the year 1050, some of those alive 50 years earlier would have lost a last descendant.
In the year 1150, some percentage of the 1000-ers would have a final family member die.
Do we think this happened, say, last year (2020) as well?
On 17-Nov-21 11:31 AM, joseph cook wrote:
<taf said>
I think it is _possible_. In a couple of instances, my person ofManaging to trace every single ancestor in 1600 of someone living in
interest in 1850 had their entire ancestry from the same European
village in 1600, but nonetheless did not descend from all of the
village's 1600-era couples with descendants (not even all of them of
the same religion). As such, I can easily envision a bloodline not
making it to everyone in an entire region in twice that time. Under
similar spread conditions, even if the bloodline got to every
village in the region within 250 years, the bloodline still would
not have permeated every villager by the 500 year-point.
1850 is a fairly rare achievement - have you published this rather
phenomenal research outcome?
The more phenomenal piece of this to me is that a "village" could
support so many folks marrying without absurd endogamy. Even with the
most generous assumptions, a person born in 1850 with long
generations, looking at just those born in the one generation around
1600 would be 256 people all from the same village. This is a very
unusual situation indeed. Even the most remote places in Europe
tended to have a group of villages who at least traded daughters and
sons back and forth.
I have an american ancestor born 1859 who I have well traced 32/32 of
his 3x-great-granparents, and 58/64 4x-great-grandparents and I
thought this was quite unusual. I can't even fathom 512/512 for any
person anywhere in the world other than a King or Queen. In Europe
(France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland), there are certainly extremely
well documented records 1600->1850, but identifying 256/512 ancestors
in the 9th generation is extraordinarilly rare.
I'm sure Taf was exaggerating; but in the exaggeration has exposed the
bias, I think? Those few he *can't* trace are the very ones probably
who came from other villages.
If todd says he has traced someone to this extent, I will take him at
his word; Edward VII of England born 1841 has all 512/512 of his
ancestors on genealogics.org
I think going back 9 generations from individual 1 may be reasonable for
250 years, but in my own ancestry the first people living in 1771 are
found 7 generations back (among 128 different individuals, mostly born
later) and 8 back most of the known individuals (of potentially 256)
were living at that time.
<taf said>all of them of the same religion). As such, I can easily envision a bloodline not making it to everyone in an entire region in twice that time. Under similar spread conditions, even if the bloodline got to every village in the region within 250 years,
I think it is _possible_. In a couple of instances, my person of interest in 1850 had their entire ancestry from the same European village in 1600, but nonetheless did not descend from all of the village's 1600-era couples with descendants (not even
generation around 1600 would be 256 people all from the same village. This is a very unusual situation indeed. Even the most remote places in Europe tended to have a group of villages who at least traded daughters and sons back and forth.Managing to trace every single ancestor in 1600 of someone living in
1850 is a fairly rare achievement - have you published this rather
phenomenal research outcome?
The more phenomenal piece of this to me is that a "village" could support so many folks marrying without absurd endogamy. Even with the most generous assumptions, a person born in 1850 with long generations, looking at just those born in the one
I have an american ancestor born 1859 who I have well traced 32/32 of his 3x-great-granparents, and 58/64 4x-great-grandparents and I thought this was quite unusual. I can't even fathom 512/512 for any person anywhere in the world other than a King orQueen. In Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland), there are certainly extremely well documented records 1600->1850, but identifying 256/512 ancestors in the 9th generation is extraordinarilly rare.
I'm sure Taf was exaggerating; but in the exaggeration has exposed the bias, I think? Those few he *can't* trace are the very ones probably who came from other villages.
If todd says he has traced someone to this extent, I will take him at his word; Edward VII of England born 1841 has all 512/512 of his ancestors on genealogics.org
What year do we think is the last year we can say the descendants of a specific individual living in 1000 died out for good?
For instance, it's probable that in 1001 a considerable number of families descended from someone living the previous year died out totally and finally (small family killed by plague).
In the year 1050, some of those alive 50 years earlier would have lost a last descendant.
In the year 1150, some percentage of the 1000-ers would have a final family member die.
Do we think this happened, say, last year (2020) as well?Well, we believe that Thomas Lincoln, father of President Abraham was born in 1778 and his last known descendant died in 1985, so this is one extreme notable example.
I have a man born 1819 whose number of descendants in each generation is: 1(him), 1 (only child), 1 (only child), 1 (only child), 2, 2, 5. So, it looked dim there for a bit, but the line may yet survive!
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 7:46:18 PM UTC-5, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
What year do we think is the last year we can say the descendants of a specific individual living in 1000 died out for good?
For instance, it's probable that in 1001 a considerable number of families descended from someone living the previous year died out totally and finally (small family killed by plague).
In the year 1050, some of those alive 50 years earlier would have lost a last descendant.
In the year 1150, some percentage of the 1000-ers would have a final family member die.
Do we think this happened, say, last year (2020) as well?Well, we believe that Thomas Lincoln, father of President Abraham was born in 1778 and his last known descendant died in 1985, so this is one extreme notable example.
I have a man born 1819 whose number of descendants in each generation is: 1(him), 1 (only child), 1 (only child), 1 (only child), 2, 2, 5. So, it looked dim there for a bit, but the line may yet survive!Right, good examples of meager lines that straggle/ struggle on for at least two hundred years.
One wouldn't think that either Thomas Lincoln or the 1819 man were themselves last descendant of one of the 1000-ers. Could technically be true, but not too likely.
One wouldn't think that either Thomas Lincoln or the 1819 man were themselves last descendant of one of the 1000-ers. Could technically be true, but not too likely.How did typical looks in various regions of Europe remain in force if all are descendants of all? I mean for instance typical Spanish/ Italian looks (olive complection, dark eyes) versus stereotypical Scottish looks (red hair, blue eyes).
Wouldn't there be some standard homogenized "European look" for all Europeans if the premise were true?
who lived then who have surviving descendants, you are still left with 4,390 Billion boxes to fill in any lopsided way you choose.One wouldn't think that either Thomas Lincoln or the 1819 man were themselves last descendant of one of the 1000-ers. Could technically be true, but not too likely.How did typical looks in various regions of Europe remain in force if all are descendants of all? I mean for instance typical Spanish/ Italian looks (olive complection, dark eyes) versus stereotypical Scottish looks (red hair, blue eyes).
Wouldn't there be some standard homogenized "European look" for all Europeans if the premise were true?No. Only if those ancestors were repeated in equal proportions; which they nowhere nearly are. If you look at all 4,400 Billion people in your ancestor tree alive 1200 years ago, and fill them one each with every single one of the 10 million Europeans
--Joe C
I have an american ancestor born 1859 who I have well traced 32/32 of his 3x-great-granparents, and 58/64 4x-great-grandparents and I thought this was quite unusual. I can't even fathom 512/512 for any person anywhere in the world other than a King orQueen. In Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland), there are certainly extremely well documented records 1600->1850, but identifying 256/512 ancestors in the 9th generation is extraordinarilly rare.
I'm sure Taf was exaggerating; but in the exaggeration has exposed the bias, I think? Those few he *can't* trace are the very ones probably who came from other villages.
If todd says he has traced someone to this extent, I will take him at his word; Edward VII of England born 1841 has all 512/512 of his ancestors on genealogics.org
--Joe C
Europeans who lived then who have surviving descendants, you are still left with 4,390 Billion boxes to fill in any lopsided way you choose.One wouldn't think that either Thomas Lincoln or the 1819 man were themselves last descendant of one of the 1000-ers. Could technically be true, but not too likely.How did typical looks in various regions of Europe remain in force if all are descendants of all? I mean for instance typical Spanish/ Italian looks (olive complection, dark eyes) versus stereotypical Scottish looks (red hair, blue eyes).
Wouldn't there be some standard homogenized "European look" for all Europeans if the premise were true?
No. Only if those ancestors were repeated in equal proportions; which they nowhere nearly are. If you look at all 4,400 Billion people in your ancestor tree alive 1200 years ago, and fill them one each with every single one of the 10 million
Queen. In Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland), there are certainly extremely well documented records 1600->1850, but identifying 256/512 ancestors in the 9th generation is extraordinarilly rare.I have an american ancestor born 1859 who I have well traced 32/32 of his 3x-great-granparents, and 58/64 4x-great-grandparents and I thought this was quite unusual. I can't even fathom 512/512 for any person anywhere in the world other than a King or
with a fair number of duplicates, no doubt). I'm not aware of anyone, royal or otherwise, who can match that.
I'm sure Taf was exaggerating; but in the exaggeration has exposed the bias, I think? Those few he *can't* trace are the very ones probably who came from other villages.
If todd says he has traced someone to this extent, I will take him at his word; Edward VII of England born 1841 has all 512/512 of his ancestors on genealogics.org
--Joe C
As to the matter of full slates of ancestors, the genealogist Willhelm Karl, Prinz zu Isenburg (the author of the original version of Europâische Stammtafeln) was able to identify all 1024 of the 1024 ancestors in the 10th generation of his ancestry (
New England records are fantastically complete (compared to anywhere else in early America), they still pale to the completeness of records in most of mainland Europe 1620 onward.I would say the rate of completeness is mostly a matter ofWell, to reel this in a little bit; between 1620 and 1640 there were about 20,000 immigrants to New England; and about 10% of those returned to England. After 1640 the rate of immigration to New England dropped to a trickle until the 1800s. And while
availability of older records and how many people have studied
completely this population. Quebec has about 10,000 early
settlers (about half with living descendants) so it is somehow
easy to document most of them and many databases did it. New
England has about 1 million of arrivals so not the same kind of
challenge, more candidates when records are lost and anyway,
marriage records pre 1875 with no parents.
Queen. In Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland), there are certainly extremely well documented records 1600->1850, but identifying 256/512 ancestors in the 9th generation is extraordinarilly rare.I have an american ancestor born 1859 who I have well traced 32/32 of his 3x-great-granparents, and 58/64 4x-great-grandparents and I thought this was quite unusual. I can't even fathom 512/512 for any person anywhere in the world other than a King or
with a fair number of duplicates, no doubt). I'm not aware of anyone, royal or otherwise, who can match that. His 1925 work, Meine Ahnen, takes his ancestry out to 14 generations. I haven't counted the completeness of generations 11 through 14, but looking quickly they're pretty well filled (although probably not complete).
I'm sure Taf was exaggerating; but in the exaggeration has exposed the bias, I think? Those few he *can't* trace are the very ones probably who came from other villages.
If todd says he has traced someone to this extent, I will take him at his word; Edward VII of England born 1841 has all 512/512 of his ancestors on genealogics.org
--Joe C
As to the matter of full slates of ancestors, the genealogist Willhelm Karl, Prinz zu Isenburg (the author of the original version of Europâische Stammtafeln) was able to identify all 1024 of the 1024 ancestors in the 10th generation of his ancestry (
I would say the rate of completeness is mostly a matter of
availability of older records and how many people have studied
completely this population. Quebec has about 10,000 early
settlers (about half with living descendants) so it is somehow
easy to document most of them and many databases did it. New
England has about 1 million of arrivals so not the same kind of
challenge, more candidates when records are lost and anyway,
marriage records pre 1875 with no parents.
On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 12:37:10 PM UTC-5, joe...@gmail.com wrote:Europeans who lived then who have surviving descendants, you are still left with 4,390 Billion boxes to fill in any lopsided way you choose.
One wouldn't think that either Thomas Lincoln or the 1819 man were themselves last descendant of one of the 1000-ers. Could technically be true, but not too likely.How did typical looks in various regions of Europe remain in force if all are descendants of all? I mean for instance typical Spanish/ Italian looks (olive complection, dark eyes) versus stereotypical Scottish looks (red hair, blue eyes).
Wouldn't there be some standard homogenized "European look" for all Europeans if the premise were true?No. Only if those ancestors were repeated in equal proportions; which they nowhere nearly are. If you look at all 4,400 Billion people in your ancestor tree alive 1200 years ago, and fill them one each with every single one of the 10 million
some number a mere step beyond that ... say 1400 or 1500 years.--Joe CIf the numbers of unduplicated slots available in the last 1200 years are so extreme, why is the pool then confined to Europe? Shouldn't it really be that everyone alive on planet Earth 1200 years ago is my ancestor? Or if not exactly 1200 years, then
On 18-Nov-21 6:33 AM, John Higgins wrote:or Queen. In Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland), there are certainly extremely well documented records 1600->1850, but identifying 256/512 ancestors in the 9th generation is extraordinarilly rare.
I have an american ancestor born 1859 who I have well traced 32/32 of his 3x-great-granparents, and 58/64 4x-great-grandparents and I thought this was quite unusual. I can't even fathom 512/512 for any person anywhere in the world other than a King
(with a fair number of duplicates, no doubt). I'm not aware of anyone, royal or otherwise, who can match that.
I'm sure Taf was exaggerating; but in the exaggeration has exposed the bias, I think? Those few he *can't* trace are the very ones probably who came from other villages.
If todd says he has traced someone to this extent, I will take him at his word; Edward VII of England born 1841 has all 512/512 of his ancestors on genealogics.org
--Joe C
As to the matter of full slates of ancestors, the genealogist Willhelm Karl, Prinz zu Isenburg (the author of the original version of Europâische Stammtafeln) was able to identify all 1024 of the 1024 ancestors in the 10th generation of his ancestry
Probably not too rare in the very rarefied world of German princes inThere may well be other cases besides the Isenburgs of such a complete ancestor list, but as I said I'm not aware of any - and I don't think either of us is going to go looking for one!
his generation and upper echelon of aristocracy - as an Isenburg, he was
a result of 'Ebenbürtigkeit' over centuries. Blanks in pedigrees would probably be more frequently encountered at a higher level, where
politics mattered more than pride, or lower, where caste breeding just didn't enter into the choice of marriage partner.
Peter Stewart
On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 1:13:46 PM UTC-8, pss...@optusnet.com.au wrote:or Queen. In Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland), there are certainly extremely well documented records 1600->1850, but identifying 256/512 ancestors in the 9th generation is extraordinarilly rare.
On 18-Nov-21 6:33 AM, John Higgins wrote:
I have an american ancestor born 1859 who I have well traced 32/32 of his 3x-great-granparents, and 58/64 4x-great-grandparents and I thought this was quite unusual. I can't even fathom 512/512 for any person anywhere in the world other than a King
(with a fair number of duplicates, no doubt). I'm not aware of anyone, royal or otherwise, who can match that.
I'm sure Taf was exaggerating; but in the exaggeration has exposed the bias, I think? Those few he *can't* trace are the very ones probably who came from other villages.
If todd says he has traced someone to this extent, I will take him at his word; Edward VII of England born 1841 has all 512/512 of his ancestors on genealogics.org
--Joe C
As to the matter of full slates of ancestors, the genealogist Willhelm Karl, Prinz zu Isenburg (the author of the original version of Europâische Stammtafeln) was able to identify all 1024 of the 1024 ancestors in the 10th generation of his ancestry
Probably not too rare in the very rarefied world of German princes inThere may well be other cases besides the Isenburgs of such a complete ancestor list, but as I said I'm not aware of any - and I don't think either of us is going to go looking for one!
his generation and upper echelon of aristocracy - as an Isenburg, he was
a result of 'Ebenbürtigkeit' over centuries. Blanks in pedigrees would
probably be more frequently encountered at a higher level, where
politics mattered more than pride, or lower, where caste breeding just
didn't enter into the choice of marriage partner.
Peter Stewart
In my experience of tracing ancestries, it's more common that a morganatic marriage (or some similar arrangement involving families of nonequal status) will pop up in an ancestor list, thus contributing a family whose ancestry cannot be fully traced.
I definitely have my doubts the average person in the Balkans, especially the Orthodox areas, is descended from a Western European of that era. Remember the Great Schism split much of the Balkans from Western Europe and Bosnia, while nominally Catholic,was not trusted. In addition, Croatia never appears to have seen many marriages with Western Europe, despite being Catholic. Contact reduced further with the Ottoman expansion.
If you look at all 4,400 Billion people in your ancestor tree alive 1200 years ago, and fill them one each with every single one of the 10 million Europeans who lived then who have surviving descendants, you are still left with 4,390 Billion boxes tofill in any lopsided way you choose.
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 1:14:10 PM UTC-8, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:individual at that time, such that being descended from one means being descended from everyone.
You think you can be descended from one Ruthenian dirt farmer a 1000 years ago (withoutYes.
going into the question of whether this is a realistic category) without being descended from
all of them?
This would imply there was a very large population, divided into very strictly divided groups over many centuries.An entire ethnic group generally is a large population, and when you factor in endogamy, I think it is not only probable, but likely that there are lines of descent that, just by chance, do not intersect with every other line from every other
to family size and endogamy and just general chance, it is possible for example that a person living in 1000 had such a small number of descendants living in 1200 that they are effectively starting exmansion 200 years after the 'average' bloodline, andI am not sure if you think I was one of the people giving an "argument", but if you do then this is a misunderstanding.I explixitly said, "the argument that commenced this thread." You did not commence this thread.
All these types of discussions are speculations - at best exploring the impact of different assumptions.Yes, indeed. That is really my point - that with a different set of assumptions, one can arrive at a different answer, and hence the statistics being applied to arrive at The Truth are only valid for the specific assumptions made.
But the further back we go, the smaller the human population gets, and the more amazingly big the number of people in our family tree.And likewise the more isolated and inbred the populations get, such that if you miss a connection, there is no guarantee you are going to add it by going just a little bit farther back.
The isolation of an in-bred group has to be absolutely perfect to stop these numbers from eventually collapsing the sets of all our ancestors.Yes, that is true, eventually, but we are not talking about eventually, we are talking about a specific date, and with a specific date, there is the possibility that through the quirks of contingency in individual families and populations, with regard
You complain that I am demanding 'absolutely perfect' endogamy or everyone is descended from everyone, but you are assuming 'absolutely perfect' distribution of bloodlines across a population, fast enough that every single one of them doesn't miss outon riding along with one of the atypical events that provides large-scale spread of the bloodlines into novel populations. Yes, given enough time, it will spread throughout, but I think 'enough time' differs a lot depending on the individual populations
taf
The more phenomenal piece of this to me is that a "village" could support so many folks marrying without absurd endogamy.
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 4:31:13 PM UTC-8, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
The more phenomenal piece of this to me is that a "village" could support so many folks marrying without absurd endogamy.I never said there wasn't absurd endogamy. That is sort of the whole point.
Je vais écrire en francais afin d'être clair.
Je suis d'accord avec TaF
Alors Je doute fortement que Chaque Islandais descendent de TOUS les grecs de l'an 1000, ou de chaque Juifs du Comtat Venaissin de l'an 1000.
En effet , les intermariages entre communautés ne sont pas assez récents.
Juste un exemple. Nous avons la chance a Marseille d'avoir relevés TOUS les registres paroissiaux, et TOUS les registres de notaires de puis 1321.
Mon arriere Arriere grand mère, (° 1863) Marseillaise, descends 68 fois de Jean Camoin, paysan (°ca 1360), ou 359 fois de Guillaume RICARD, Meunier ca 1300, de manière prouvée (et il y a beaucoup de lignes que j'ignore)
L'arriere Grand père de la mère de morfils (° ca 1896) descend, 124 fois de Guillaume RICARD
Mon Fils en descend 515 fois
Les mariages "Consanguins" entre cousins éloignés sont nombreux et répétés. ... le nombre d'ancêtre théorique de l'an 1000 doit etre au moins 1000 fois plus grand que le nombre d'ancêtres réels.
A Marseille, il y a peu d'exogamie hors Provence... je suppose que c'est pareil ailleurs... et, il est peu probable, à l'image d'Elisabeth 2 , que chaque Marseillais descende de tous les paysans Ruthènes de l'an 1000...
1000 ans , ce n'est pas assez
JL
A segunda-feira, 22 de novembro de 2021 à(s) 11:48:07 UTC, jluc...@gmail.com escreveu:
Je vais écrire en francais afin d'être clair.
I definitely don't understand why you thinking writing in French is clear. Here is a translation from Google Translator:
"I will write in French to be clear.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 66:12:05 |
| Calls: | 6,654 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,331,879 |