Scotch-Irish-L Archives

Archiver > Scotch-Irish > 2011-12 > 1323703304

Subject: Re: [S-I] DNA Made Simple
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:21:44 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <FF9B725AE7BF4268B8E18CCA732962B1@GRUMPYPC>

Hi John, actually I'm really behind at this point -- starting with thank yous to the people who contacted me regarding my father's death, then my cat's accident, the lookups are not quite done either.

You're lucky yours can read and write. They remind me of my Culmers (alas, a Kent line, not Scotch Irish, though some did go to Ireland, I believe). As a man with the surname once told me -- Culmer men never do manual labor. He went into a long list of things they'll do, but they never dirty their hands. It was funny and probably true excepting that my line had carpenters and cabinet makers. The senior line in Kent were ship builders. Supposedly landed at Thanet and spent a few lifetimes doing illuminated manuscripts for the monks.

It seems the DNA of the borders is really more like vegetable soups (many things) and a bowl of spaghetti. Maybe you'll find a match with some of the main lines of the Humes, eventually.

I think we have commercials on TV and you do not, which is why our shows don't run in the same time slot as yours.

Some of those who do you think you are shows are very interesting. In other cases we learn how a many different ways a lady with marginal acting ability can say "Oh wow!" And also we learn, in America at least, about the deficiencies in the educational system, like the one whereby a country music personality oh wowed about how the New Englanders invented religious freedom.

Linda Merle

----- Original Message -----
From: "john.hume" <>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:38:25 AM
Subject: Re: [S-I] DNA Made Simple

Dear Linda,
Once again I have to congratulate on such a fine reply. How on earth do you
find the time to answer nearly all the messages to this site. The
information you have given me goes along with the discoveries already made
by myself. The biggest problem I have discovered before 1700 is the writing
which was used in the parish records of the north-east. The f's and s's are
the same, the script is so bunched up as if there was a shortage of paper,
which I think might be the truth. My earliest ancestor was a 'butcher',
which I believe is the second eldest Guild to be founded, sometime around
1200AD. There rules at that time make very interesting reading, my
conclusion, having worked in the retail trade for 40 years is that the only
thing that has changed is refrigeration. But to answer your question about
occupations, it seems that every branch of my particular line of HUME has
produced a schoolmaster, mistress, teacher, and any other form of non
physical work. Even today, not one of the current family and extended family
have worked as a manual labourer, factory worker, miner or maker of things.
All rather strange for three centuries of the same family.

It also means that my ancestors could read and write to some degree. Looking
at marriage certificates it gives me some pleasure when I notice that my
family have been able to write their names in the records, although most of
the 'ladies' have signed with the proverbial X.

Started to watch the series of Who Do You Think You Are, USA. Any idea why
they are only 35 minutes long over here, ours are an hour.
Once again, many thanks for your informative reply,
Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year to all.
John Hume
In a windy and cold Nottingham
----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [S-I] DNA Made Simple

> Hi John,
> You don't indicate what occupations your family had in the early 1700s in
> Durham, but if they were not well-off, most likely it'll be difficult to
> trace them without the DNA. My paternal line left Durham about 1881, so
> I'm familiar with the place. Lots of border clan folk moved south or east
> to get jobs in the burgeoning industrial age. Sometimes they were slowly
> migrating from Northumberland. I've been able to trace a few of mine down
> through Northumberland, but `it is difficult. Even now I have met people
> in the area who hate the Scots and haven't forgiven them for raids and
> wars of 400 years or more distant. So having a Scots surname didn't
> increase your popularity. Besides these people being of humble birth, they
> had learned to survive by keeping a low profile. It's possible many were
> not members of parishes.
> It used to be that one was settled into a parish, where one had to go to
> church, at least in England, or pay fines, and where one eventually had
> the right to claim services if destitute. There were complicated rules
> governing this such as a year's residency. Hence many farmers, coal mines,
> and factories, only signed workers on for a length of time shorter than a
> year so that the parish didn't 'gain' them as legal residents. If your
> husband died in a farm or mine accident, then you and the children had to
> hoof it back to wherever it was you were legally from. Or starve or die on
> the way. Whatever. These laws created a whole class of itinerant poor who
> had no rights to services. Thus it's hard to find records of them. One way
> can be baptisms of children. We've been hampered because many northeast
> parishes were not indexed in IGI. More are now, but there is also a
> website that is indexing them.
> Another factor can be the values of the people themselves. Some of them
> simply did not cooperate with authorities. Mine did not register their
> children's births long after it was required that they do so. We have
> never found the civil death or burial of my ancestor's first wife. He
> claims he was a widow when marrying the second. Did he roll her body into
> a gully? They did register the birth of their daughter and he was
> re-married in the same parish by banns. So people thought he was a
> widower. These people can be a challenge for those who believe genealogy
> is a simple exercise of ordering records because sometimes legally
> required documents do not exist or the information is inconsistent.
> With a name like Hume, they originated in Scotland at some point. The
> records for the Scots border counties are terrible. Folks were even more
> suspicious of central authorities, as we move from the 18th century back,
> and you also have a lot of records destruction. Back to England -- a
> number of key medieval English taxes were imposed to pay for costs
> incurred in fighting off the Scots and rebuilding the area -- so our area
> was not included at all.
> If they seemed to be settled on estates, such as farms, you might check
> for estate records. The problem though usually is the names are so common
> how do you tell them apart? I have a John Armstrong, a blacksmith in a
> village in Northumberland about that time. Next generation headed south to
> Durham. He wasn't raised in the parish. No Armstrongs in the parish
> records. Where'd he come from? It sure isn't hard to find Johnny
> Armstrongs in Northumberland. We're before the time when marriage records
> identified his father -- probably another Johnny A. anyway <grin>.
> Hundreds of Armstrongs moved south after King James started hanging them
> from trees at Newcastle.
> The further back I get on these lines -- and as I said ALL my father's
> paternal ancestors are from the area -- the more I accumulate every Scots
> and English border clan surname.
> The mobile ex-parishal labor force of the day included many Irish.
> Sometimes they returned each year to the same areas to harvest crops,
> eventually, perhaps, remaining. You can find glimpses of them in parish
> records, where they sometimes occur as 'dead Irishman, buried on <date>'
> or 'baptized Irishwoman's child, <date>'. One time I found a parish where
> the vicar swept down on the poor house and baptized all the Irish children
> therein. Of course he didn't bother to name them.
> One good source for understanding the lives of the poor in the 17th
> century is Christopher Hill, a contemporary socialist historian. He has
> written a series of fascinating works on the common people. One is
> "Liberty Against the Law" which argues that the law in the 17th century
> was used as an instrument of oppression. He cites enclosures, loss of
> traditional rights, 'draconian' punishments for minor offenses, that
> created a landless class of wage laborers. He estimates that only 20
> percent of the population could have lived comfortably within the law and
> documents dissenters. Some of these lived in ad hoc villages in 'common'
> land -- swamps and forests. Among them were itinerating Baptist preachers,
> Quakers, and Methodists, smugglers, pirates, highwaymen, poachers and of
> course 'gypsies', both the ones clearly not of English origins and various
> what we now call Travelers -- who were British in origin.
> Rich men were sold the right to round up all the homeless in London and
> ship them off as slaves to Virginia and the West Indies in the sixteenth
> and seventeenth centuries.
> P 202 documents the history of opposition to church marriages, which he
> says stems from the Lollards. In our area it might go back a lot further
> to common marriage practices such as handfasting that were pre Christian
> and never entirely fell out of practice.
> The history is interesting, though the trail of the ancestors is probably
> hopeless <grin>! My paternal line itself I can't get back earlier than the
> late 1700s. They were in the parish of Stanhope, which is the highest
> (most mountainous) parish in England. Its parish records are terrible. No
> burial records to speak of either. Tombstones? Ha! I suspect they
> practiced Tibetan air burial up there in the mountains. Early histories
> indicate that the Church of England hardly existed. Some villages were
> Presbyterian though undoubtedly some were Catholic. Presbyterians serviced
> from Scotland? No. Minister came from Lancaster, other side of the
> mountain in England, and another place ful of English recusants
> (Catholics). I speak of Presbyterian villages (es. Iresdale) in the late
> 1700s, early 1800s. As the 1800s progressed the church made an effort to
> control the parish of Stanhope but it was already 'burned over' by the
> Methodists by then. Wesley often preached to the lead miners in !
> the area. The rich are potted in the parish church. Everyone else? If they
> were buried there it was without any record kept despite laws requiring
> that they were. What we do have are records of contracts between companies
> and lead miners. The lead miners worked tiny mines in family groups.
> They'd been working lead as early as the Roman times.
> This is our village:
> Much history:
> "In December 1569, the valley was the setting for a border fray in which a
> large group of mosstroopers (cattle raiders), from Tynedale, made a raid
> to plunder the Wear valley for its livestock while many of the Weardale
> men were away plotting against the Queen in the famous `Rising of the
> North'. Resistance to the raid was expected to be low, but there were
> still a number of Weardale men left to defend their dale. The mosstroopers
> were pursued north into the Rookhope valley, as they made off with the
> cattle and sheep. When the Weardale men eventually caught up a fight
> ensued in which four of the Tynedalers lost their lives."
> The Tynedalers were of course English too but such mattered little on the
> borders. Needless to say, my ancestors migrated down the Wear in the early
> 1800s, finally settling in the Hetton le Hole. We didn't trust the people
> in those other valleys, apparently.
> History on the "Rising of the North" is here:
> As for peasant stock -- it is the best! Not only because it is hardy and
> full of genes that have yet to express themselves, but they're actually
> natives, unlike the 'upper classes' of England and Scotland who are likely
> to be Normans. While the Normans conquered England, they were invited to
> Scotland by the king to create a feudal state from a land full of bands of
> tribal, marauding Gaels and Picts who held their land by right of conquest
> and so had no loyalty to a king perched on a big rock off the Firth of
> Forth. Similar to the English valleys of Durham in the late 16th century
> <grin>.
> I don't know if it is true or not, but one history of my CULMER line in
> Kent has one going north with Henry VII, I think it was, to kick ass in
> Scotland. He was married off to a Scots heiress and adopted as his surname
> the name of her estate: Lindsay. Now the descendants wear kilts and think
> they descend on the male line from picts and gaels. Eh, maybe not. The
> Culmers supposedly were Swedish nobles who came to Kent with the Vikings.
> Linda Merle
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "john.hume" <>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, December 8, 2011 4:40:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [S-I] DNA Made Simple
> Hi Doralyn.
> Many thanks for your reply.
> Unfortunately I don't think I'm related to any HUME nobility. I joined the
> HUME Clan about 5 years ago because of my general interest in anything
> My own family is easy top trace back to Durham in 1721, before then, a
> mystery. My DNA 67 marker ties in with a HUMES in USA, he traces his HUMES
> back to Ireland around 1760, but nothing in either of the family trees.
> Out
> of the 30 HUME members of the Hume Clan, having had their DNA taken, I and
> Larry (USA) do not match with any other HUME. Most of the others, about 20
> of them are related to Sir Alec Douglas Hume and his ancestors, including
> the Marchmont and Polwarth Humes, all of whom were knighted. So I must
> have
> been from peasant stock. Only certain fact is that I originated from the
> Vikings, proven by DNA and a little 'disease' called Dupuytren's Disease,
> something which attacks mainly the ring finger of either hand. The tendons
> tighten up causing the finger(s) to be pulled inwards, unable to
> straighten
> them. Had my right hand operated on last year, my left one is on the way.
> It
> has to be at around 45 degrees before they operate, mind is only 10
> degrees
> at the moment, so I've a few more years yet. (Jokingly) I put it all down
> to
> the fact that we had to row those Vikings ships all the way from
> Estonia/Norway etc to Ireland. No Sat Navs in those days.
> anyway, Thanks for your interest
> regards
> John Hume
> wet, windy, cold Nottingham
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 6:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [S-I] DNA Made Simple
>> Hi John Hume,
>> Interesting that you stated your line goes back to Ireland/Scotland from
>> around 1600. I have very little on the Hume name but from my research on
>> the Conway line I have that George Hume married Mary Unknown and lived in
>> the
>> noted Tully Castle at the time of the Rebellion. I have that his father
>> was Sir John Hume from Scotland and he had a younger brother named
>> Patrick.
>> I thought he may have married Mary Conway; he negotiated for her hand but
>> somehow the plans fell through before her father's death. Would this be
>> your line?
>> Doralyn Short
>> In a message dated 12/6/2011 12:35:00 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>> writes:
>> Hi everyone,
>> Like Marilyn I to have had by DNA done, and have about 10 37 and three 67
>> matches. Of those I have only one 67 marker person who is interested in
>> my
>> line. We think we go back to Ireland/Scotland from around 1600. Finding
>> that
>> information is very difficult at the moment. But why do people bother
>> having
>> their DNA taken at great expense and then not doing anything with the
>> results. I also joined Genes reunites, that is even worst. I've actually
>> connected with countless people, but do they want anything to do with the
>> HUME family, no. I'm getting a GUILTY COMPLEX.
>> Anyone out there with a HUME, please send me a nice Christmas surprise,
>> many
>> thanks
>> John Hume in Nottingham
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Marilyn Otterson" <>
>> To: <>
>> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 11:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [S-I] DNA Made Simple
>>> Hello, folks,
>>> I am writing this note that may seem a little heretical to many fans of
>>> Y-DNA searches, but I just wanted to show another side where people
>>> might
>>> not want to spend the money for deep searches unless the information
>>> they
>>> seek is not to learn if there are others out there with the same DNA,
>>> but
>>> other information that may gives hints to their ancestry. I was
>>> somewhat
>>> interested a few years ago but to start only got tested (well, had my
>>> dad's
>>> brother's son got his DNA tested for me) for 25 markers.
>>> I had decided that if I found somebody with a 25 marker match that
>> perhaps
>>> each of us might want to go further to 37 or even 67 markers if we were
>>> both
>>> interested.
>>> Another participant on this list or another convinced her cousin to get
>>> tested for 25 markers, and lo! he had the same surname as mine and his
>>> ancestors came from the same very tiny townland in Co. Tyrone as
>>> mine....but
>>> he was not interested at all in swapping information. I figure that
>> with
>>> the same markers and the same very small location we are probably
>>> connected
>>> not too many generations in the past, but since that person wasn't
>>> interested in going further, it was all kind of for naught. I have also
>>> had
>>> a couple of other people, but with different surnames, who have the same
>>> 25
>>> markers, but neither of them was interested in swapping information,
>>> either.
>>> I feel that if people can get such a close match it's kind of silly not
>> to
>>> go further and to exchange information if not going for more markers.
>> It
>>> was a real disappointment to learn I may have a "cousin" in Tyrone, but
>>> can't exchange family information since he is not interested in
>>> participating.
>>> I think we all, if we have DNA tested, hope we might find another with
>> the
>>> shared ancestors, but when people are tested with no desire to discuss
>>> possible connections, or to research such, it's just kind of sad and
>>> futile,
>>> at least it is to me.
>>> Marilyn (Armstrong)(And Field, McCoy, Milligan and more)
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Dannye Powell" <>
>>> To: <>
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 8:53 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [S-I] DNA Made Simple
>>>> What is the ancestr.s name?
>>>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone
>>>> Les Tate <> wrote:
>>>>>I'm new to this group, however I wanted to comment that understanding
>>>>>Y-DNA results is not simple by any means.
>>>>>You may learn your general male line haplogroup by getting just the 12
>>>>>marker Y-DNA test (for women you'd have to submit your father or
>>>>>sample), however there are more extensive tests that can better define
>>>>>haplogroup. For instance, I've gone from 12-markers to 37 markers to 67
>>>>>markers to 111-markers, plus a deep clade (SNP) test. My haplogroup has
>>>>>gone from R1b to R1b1a2a1a1b4 and it matches the Scottish Modal with
>>>>>little variation. However it doesn't end there. Since my SNP marker
>>>>>was positive and all the others tested thus far have been negative,
>>>>>led me to the R-L21+ Y-DNA Project, which has several hundred members
>> who
>>>>>are all at least R1b1 and positive for L21, with many having fairly
>>>>>defined haplogroups as well as being positive for other SNPs. However
>> all
>>>>>are searching for even more defining information to indicate where our
>>>>>distant ancestors came from. While I fall into the Scottish Cluster
>>>>>many other clusters are not Scottish. Plus!
>>>> ,!
>>>>> there are subgroups of the Scottish Cluster that are still being
>>>>> defined
>>>>> as more advanced SNP tests become available.
>>>>>Matches to your Y-DNA results may help define your Y-DNA ancestor's
>>>>>and if you're very fortunate, you may find someone with the same or a
>>>>>similar surname who can help extend your genealogy research and
>>>>>better define your common ancestor's origin. Early in my Y-DNA tests
>> and
>>>>>at a roadblock in my paternal genealogy research, I was fortunate to
>>>>>locate someone with the same surname who I matched perfectly at 12,
>>>>>37, then 67 markers, although the most recent extension to 111
>>>>>shows some slight variation on a couple of the more mutatable markers.
>>>>>However by working together over about two years, we found our common
>>>>>ancestor 7 generations back and I now have distant cousins who are
>>>>>descendants of a different son of that ancestor.
>>>>>We were fortunate to find that our genealogical research indicated
>>>>>Scottish or Scots-Irish ancestry, with our common male ancestor being
>>>>>somewhere in Ulster (North Ireland) in 1731, migrating to what was to
>>>>>become the U.S. by 1755, moving into what were largely Scots-Irish
>>>>>in VA, NC, and TN by the time of the American Revolution. We also found
>>>>>was a neighbor and hunting/exploring companion of Daniel Boone in Rowan
>>>>>County NC and was one of the Overmountain Men in the Battle of Kings
>>>>>Mountain in 1780.
>>>>>What I want to indicate is that your DNA testing should not be just
>>>>>stand-alone information, but serve to assist and augment your
>>>>>Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) tests can likewise provide general origins of
>>>>>your maternal line, however it is difficult to determine exact origins.
>>>>>is also difficult to augment with your genealogy research since wives'
>>>>>maiden names were often not recorded, especially as you go further back
>>>>>time. While my mtDNA results shows Native American ancestry, which is
>>>>>backed up by some oral family history, exact names and origins are not
>>>>>available before 1850 for my maternal line. Matches to my mtDNA results
>>>>>are few and only indicate a common Native American female ancestor
>>>>>somewhere in the eastern area of what is now the U.S.
>>>>>I don't want to discourage you or anyone else from getting DNA tests
>>>>>since the results can be very helpful. However it won't answer all the
>>>>>questions you may have because more questions arise with each new
>>>>>Les Tate
>>>>>On Nov 28, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Heather Dau wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Linda, please recommend a book/site that spells out how to read
>>>>>> DNA
>>>>>> results (especially Y-DNA); something understandable, please.
>>>>>> Heather
>>>>>> -------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>>>>> with the word 'unsubscribe'
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>>>>>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>>>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without
>> the
>>>>>quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>>>> -------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without
>> the
>>>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>>> -------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without
>> the
>>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>> quotes in the subject
>> and the body of the message
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: