Some liken a 'One-Name study', to one huge jigsaw. I tend to think
of it more in the way of setting out a map. With the individuals as
islands, families as groups of islands and degrees of family
connection depicted as geographical proximity. With this as a
metaphor then traditional family history techniques and subsequent
paper trails can be likened to early map making which produced such
works as 'The Map of Mundi'. As cartography has developed, and with
aids such as satellite photography, our early maps have evolved.
Missing areas have been filled in, coastlines redrawn, maps revised
and rewritten.
Using this analogy DNA studies offer the means by which the accuracy
of the map can be improved and likewise will lead to some revision.
Already the
Blackstone DNA study is promising to do this. A result
has come back to-day that requires some such revision and presents
further questions - a puzzle to unravel!
David has a well documented line back to George
Blakiston & Mary
Bourchier. The line has been rigorously traced back and it is
recognized by 'Burke's Peerage', that George was the
Grandson of
John
Blakiston & Elizabeth nee
Bowes. Therefore a descendent of
Hugo bn circa 1300.
Mike has a line traceable to abt 1500 in
Yorkshire. David & Mike
have been shown via DNA to be distantly connected. This distant
connection is useful as it indicates that their Surname has passed
on from father to son for many generations. Probably to the origin
of the surname.
Now, the puzzle: Roger's results came back today. His paper trail
leads to the
Seaton family of
Blakiston. He & David are believed to
both descend from Thomas
Blakiston of
Blakiston d. 1483. This
research has been well accepted. Here's the problem. The DNA shows
no connection between the 2 of them. There are a number of
possibilities for this 1) the belief that the
Seaton family descend
from
Norton family may be untrue. We may have two
Durham based
families who independently took the surname but have different
roots. 2) There is a non-paternity event in Roger's paper trail.
That is did one of his ancestors take the surname by adoption or
inherit the name from the female line. In for example: an
illegitimacy. If so how far back? 3) Was David's ancestor George
truly the grandson of John
Blakiston & Elizabeth nee
Bowes? Or is
he descended from a
Yorkshire family that is unconnected to
Durham?
How can we answer these riddles?
1) Regarding how far back Roger's
Blakiston ancestral line goes. This
can be determined if other testees come forward with the same
surname but a distant connection. Maxwell's results are back in
about a month. His papertrail points (not confirmed) to a
Seaton connection. It goes back to about 1710. If he connects with Roger
then this would take the surname back to pre this time.
2) There is a large family of Blackstones in the USA believed to be
direct descendents of George
Blackiston & Barbara nee
Lawson. George
was the grandson of John
Blakiston & Elizabeth nee
Bowes. Therefore
they should be kin of David's ancestor. If members of this family
come forwards to test their results could be very enlightening.
A similar riddle exists in the
Yorkshire family. Also revealed by
the DNA study. Hopefully some clarity on this latter riddle will be
evident in the next month.
I hope this is as much interest to others as it is to me. The DNA
tests are certainly beginning to rewrite the family map.
Cheers,
Chris