PDA

View Full Version : Oldest relative


Jordan
11 June 2006, 11:21 PM
I was kind of curious as to the extent which everyone's genealogical research has brought them. For me, the farthest I've been able to go back is 1696. I know genealogy isn't a contest about oldest date or amount of ancestors, but still, a little curiosity never hurt.

jimpres
12 June 2006, 01:13 PM
Jordan,

You are lucky. I have only been able to go back to 1830. The name vanishes before that date. But still looking.

Jim

Betty Miessner
12 June 2006, 06:44 PM
I was kind of curious as to the extent which everyone's genealogical research has brought them. For me, the farthest I've been able to go back is 1696. I know genealogy isn't a contest about oldest date or amount of ancestors, but still, a little curiosity never hurt.Although I've entered dates as far back as 1370, that came from work of others and I'm highly doubtful as to its accuracy. Beware of genealogists seeking royal connections! My earliest date so far is 1550.
Betty M.

Nancy G Chesnutt
12 June 2006, 11:59 PM
My oldest that I am pretty confident about is 1760. Then I have another line that goes back to the third ship after the Mayflower. I wonder about that one however!

STEVE
13 June 2006, 06:30 PM
I was kind of curious as to the extent which everyone's genealogical research has brought them. For me, the farthest I've been able to go back is 1696. I know genealogy isn't a contest about oldest date or amount of ancestors, but still, a little curiosity never hurt.Well... I've got a 1610 date (in one (1) line) that I'm pretty confident in... but the best thing I've got is a GEDCOM from one of my family members with our whole family line ---- right back to Adam and Eve!!!

PS. So far, I haven't merged that into my main database, I'm having a little trouble with documentation. ;-)

SVass
13 June 2006, 08:52 PM
I have an ancestor who claims King David! I ignore such claims. Actually, I have had a y dna Haplogroup match with a group from long before the king. sam

kmuch
14 June 2006, 07:11 PM
I was kind of curious as to the extent which everyone's genealogical research has brought them. For me, the farthest I've been able to go back is 1696.People who can link up to royal lines can go back pretty far (in myth and legend if not in documented fact). I haven't proven any of those to my satisfaction, so I can make it back with confidence to about 1500 in one line, 1305 in another, before the Norman Conquest in a few more. But one line dead ends in 1817. The fun is in the hunt.

Anybody with French Canadian ancestors is lucky. The records are terrific, and they often link up with French records. I'm grateful to my publisher ancestors, who have been extensively researched and recorded in England and France. But of course printing doesn't go further back than 1455 (Gutenberg bible)!

Kathleen

Shirley Westaway
14 June 2006, 10:50 PM
I was kind of curious as to the extent which everyone's genealogical research has brought them. For me, the farthest I've been able to go back is 1696. I know genealogy isn't a contest about oldest date or amount of ancestors, but still, a little curiosity never hurt.The WESTAWAYs have documentation back to ca 1400 in Devon.
If anyone reading this would like to join us, please do. We are all related.

Janet Mobley
15 June 2006, 07:26 PM
I was told by a member of the local genealogical society not to take any info. before the year 1000 unless you can prove it.

I got a GEDCOM once that traced back to Adam and Eve! Then I got another one that had Eve with her father as God! No spouce and not Cain and Abel as her sons.

We have to be ready to taste a lot of grains of salt in this hobby.

Janet Mobley
Petaluma, CA

Potion
17 June 2006, 05:37 PM
My oldest known ancestors were born relatively recently, in about 1700, but...

My wife's grandmother was a Lurie. And, apparently, all Luries and Treves' trace back to a common ancestor, the first who took the 'family name' of Lurie (or Luria or Lurye). His ancestory can be traced back to a certain Rabbi Rashi. And he is claimed to be a descendant of the House of David. And, of course, David has ancestral links back to Abraham, and Adam, before him. Reference. Dan Rottenberg: Finding Our Fathers - ISBN 0-8063-1151-7

Personally, I think the associations are a bit whimsical to be taken, other than with liberal lashings of salt, as Janet suggests. But on the other hand, aren't we all descendants of Adam? Answer: No! According to the DNA detectives, we all have a common maternal ancestor (Eve?), but it seems that Eve was a bit of a loose lass, with more than a passing fancy for forbidden fruit, having as many as 7 different male partners. Now I suppose Adam was one, but where did the others come from? And where did they go?

Frank Mitchell
18 June 2006, 01:50 AM
Personally, I think the associations are a bit whimsical to be taken, other than with liberal lashings of salt, as Janet suggests. But on the other hand, aren't we all descendants of Adam? Answer: No! According to the DNA detectives, we all have a common maternal ancestor (Eve?), but it seems that Eve was a bit of a loose lass, with more than a passing fancy for forbidden fruit, having as many as 7 different male partners. Now I suppose Adam was one, but where did the others come from? And where did they go?
The total number of fathers and mothers in the world reduces as we go back in time (it's called coalescence).

So, if we could get back far enough, we must all be descended from a single male ancestor (Y-Adam?). Of course, this doesn't mean that he was the only male living at the time (he must also have had a father) but that the lines from all the other fathers died out. It has been estimated that Y-Adam lived 60,000 to 100,000 years ago in Africa.

The same argument applies to our female ancestors. We all go back to a single female ancestor (mitochondrial Eve) who lived around 120,000 to 200,000 years ago, again in Africa.

So Y-Adam and mitochondrial Eve obviously never even met.

The most distant of my lines goes back to about 1600, so I have a little way to go yet 8^)

Dennis J. Cunniff
18 June 2006, 10:52 PM
The most distant of my lines goes back to about 1600, so I have a little way to go yet 8^)

I think there are only a few well-attested or at least well-accepted lines that go back into the early Medieval period.

The line to Ercc, king of Dalriada, in northern Ireland, son of Eochaid Muinremur, King of Dalriada, d. 474, is one.

Descendants of Charlemagne have a line back to Clovis the Riparian, d. 420, and to Afranius Syagrius, Gallo-Roman Consul, 381.

But that's probably as close as anyone's going to get to "Adam" :)

John M. Leggett
19 June 2006, 07:53 PM
The total number of fathers and mothers in the world reduces as we go back in time (it's called coalescence).

So, if we could get back far enough, we must all be descended from a single male ancestor (Y-Adam?). Of course, this doesn't mean that he was the only male living at the time (he must also have had a father) but that the lines from all the other fathers died out. It has been estimated that Y-Adam lived 60,000 to 100,000 years ago in Africa.

The same argument applies to our female ancestors. We all go back to a single female ancestor (mitochondrial Eve) who lived around 120,000 to 200,000 years ago, again in Africa.

So Y-Adam and mitochondrial Eve obviously never even met.

The most distant of my lines goes back to about 1600, so I have a little way to go yet 8^)

Frank, interesting post! May I assume that what is described is also well documented?

Frank Mitchell
20 June 2006, 05:08 AM
Frank, interesting post! May I assume that what is described is also well documented?
Not in a genealogical sense.

The fact that we must all eventually go back to a single male and a single female ancestor is based on logic.

How long ago they lived are estimates (by experts - not me!) based on known average rates of mutation in the Y-chromosome and in the mtDNA.

Frank

kmorehouse
23 June 2006, 11:40 AM
Of course, this doesn't mean that he was the only male living at the time (he must also have had a father)


Not only did Adam not have an earthly father, he probably didn't have a belly button either seeing as he wasn't born.

Genesis 2:7- "The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

It is fun to see how far back you can go, but I tend to like the stories behind the people.

marnen
23 June 2006, 04:04 PM
Actually, there have been philosophers that concluded that Adam did have a belly button, because God would have chosen to given him one. Can't remember why they came to this conclusion.

Reiner L. Sauer
23 June 2006, 06:31 PM
Actually, there have been philosophers that concluded that Adam did have a belly button, because God would have chosen to given him one. Can't remember why they came to this conclusion.

God tested the firmness of the "dust of the ground" by poking Adam's tummy!

Matthew Morris McCormick
27 June 2006, 05:35 PM
I was kind of curious as to the extent which everyone's genealogical research has brought them. For me, the farthest I've been able to go back is 1696. I know genealogy isn't a contest about oldest date or amount of ancestors, but still, a little curiosity never hurt.Well, I don't say this with any competitive sense; in fact I'm a little skeptical and amused by my grandfather's life-long work with genealogy, in which he wrote a family history, and CLAIMED(and created a tree) to have traced our family back to (amongst other kings and queens), Charlemagne, who died in 814. I mean, it's pretty impressive how he found all the stories, and pieced together the families (The book is "McCormick-Hamilton Lord-Day Ancestral Lines", by Robert Hall McCormick III).

But as my father was always fond of saying, referring to his dad's work: "Matthew, just about EVERYBODY in the world can eventually trace themselves back that far to a King, Queen, Tribal Leader,etc.!). I don't know if that is necessarily true, but I'd like to believe it.

Matthew

Myron Timmons
29 June 2006, 06:30 PM
I always thought it was a nice conversation point.
However, I'm using it from a different perspective.
If I know there are prospective relatives with a given name from a different location than where my present documented family related or shirt tail relations are located it can help.
My reasoning was the many coincidences of first name (weird names) and family stories. So, what to do? I found one good firm connection and downloaded the gedcom and played with it awhile in a test folder and was pleasantly surprised when it identified possible relatives that I was unaware of.
Then what to do? Well, I start doing the research and documentation from both ends and try to find where the common family ancestor is that joined them together. To me its just a giant jigsaw puzzle that I like working.
Ok, so some of it is hard to believe that your related to those old, old ancient people. But it does give one a lot to think about. My oldest supposedly was born abt 0020, Clodius II of the West Franks and is my 66G Grandfather. Don't believe I will ever be able to prove in my lifetime any of this old stuff but it is interesting the connections that are indicated.
Now I did finally get Mom's Elstad family back over to Norway to my satisfaction, with more research to do. But I still haven't been able to get GGG Grandfather Owen Timmons back to Ireland, darn it anyhow.

Say, Matthew were related, my 38G Grandfather is Charles Charlemagne, small world, eh.

Myron

tismeinaz
31 July 2006, 12:25 AM
But as my father was always fond of saying, referring to his dad's work: "Matthew, just about EVERYBODY in the world can eventually trace themselves back that far to a King, Queen, Tribal Leader,etc.!). I don't know if that is necessarily true, but I'd like to believe it.Actually about 100,000 people in North America can legitimately trace their line back to Charlemagne. All you have to do is connect to Catherine Baillon of Quebec and the rest of the work has been done for you by several of the best French Canadian genealogists. There were three trees - they disproved one, proved one and left the last for others to research. You can read about it in the American-Canadian Genealogist - Issue #82, Volume 25, Munber 4 1999.

tismeinaz
31 July 2006, 12:29 AM
I was kind of curious as to the extent which everyone's genealogical research has brought them. For me, the farthest I've been able to go back is 1696. I know genealogy isn't a contest about oldest date or amount of ancestors, but still, a little curiosity never hurt.

I got one line back to 1661, but the ancestor who got me interested in genealogy - his line is one of those alien deals - he magically appears as if dropped off by a spaceship in 1830 and disappears about 1850.

KeriAnnB
06 August 2006, 10:11 PM
On my maiden name I can go back to 1654 in Ireland.
My mother's maiden name I can go back to 1580 (yes, documented).
My mother's mother's maiden name is only as far as 1783.

And I'm also descended from John Alden & Priscilla Mullins of the Mayflower - he being born in 1599.

Jordan
07 August 2006, 04:39 PM
"...the farthest I've been able to go back is 1696"

i caught a lucky break and found out that im related to the candacraig house in scotland, which brings me back to 1579 at least.

Jeff Mills
13 August 2006, 09:40 AM
Thought I'd jump in to the fray...
Seems on my father's side - reasonably well documented records for me thankfully - show his line in the early 1630's in CT (and actually Dorchester, now part of Boston). I descend from something like 16 lines out of the group of folks who settled there on what I believe was the first of the WInthrop fleet of ships, calle dthe Mary and John, the first to come to New England after the Mayflower.

In the midst of all that just a few generations back - my GGGG Grfather is Gideon MILLS whose sister is Ruth MILLS - she married Owen BROWn and gave birth to John BROWN the man one might say started the civil war at Harper's Ferry. This makes John BROWN my 1 cousin 4 time removed.

That's as close to fame as I get unless you want to take it out a ways with other people who are 10-15 generations down from those origian; ancestors from Th Mary and John.

On my Mom's side i descend from the Weiser's in Emmaus Pennsylvania, specifically Christopher Frederick WEISER - he a noted/noteable Indian emmisarys and transator, etc. I've been to that homstead which still exists. That was pretty interesting!

the one thing about tracing my family in the parts that are colonial America in anture is that I find I really hfeel a strage and deep rooted connection to those thing I learned in school history classes - now they seem far less etherial as I know it was members of my distant family that were participating!!!

doughtycg
13 August 2006, 03:19 PM
I was kind of curious as to the extent which everyone's genealogical research has brought them. For me, the farthest I've been able to go back is 1696. I know genealogy isn't a contest about oldest date or amount of ancestors, but still, a little curiosity never hurt.
My mother's maiden name is Pumphrey, and we are very fortunate to have Larry Pumphrey as a researcher. He has a book, The Pumphrey Pedigree, which takes my family back to 1410. The book is also helpful in tracking down connections Many families have a basic book that is helpful. REUNION is great for keeping track and connecting people, especially when cousins marry!
Also, I have Charlemagne as my 34G Grandfather! Personally, I think I favor Charles the Bald!

Bruce Jones
31 August 2006, 03:42 AM
I have been working on only three family lines but one of them I took back to 1760 (arrival in the US) but there is one branch coming in that we have gone back to 1300. Of course there are a lot of dead ends... try to find the name Tom Jones in Wales.

kyuck
31 August 2006, 10:27 PM
My mother's maiden name is Pumphrey, and we are very fortunate to have Larry Pumphrey as a researcher. He has a book, The Pumphrey Pedigree, which takes my family back to 1410.
There are lots of Pumphrey's in Newfoundland, Canada. A good friend of mine is Bob Pumphrey. Perhaps a new location to search for relatives.

Nick
14 September 2006, 05:10 PM
I've got my LAIDMANs back to ca 1540. That is, 'documented' lines. However, the NAME is mentioned in Bowes in 1327, and it's undoubtedly the same line, but I can by no means 'prove' it.

Lots of people like to claim descent from ancient groups with the same name, but that's too easy!

One of the Katoch rulers of Kangra, northern India, could trace his principal male line back for more than 450 generations, probably starting with the sun or the moon.

Some Chinese clans, which have maintained records for more than 100 generations, claim to have been started by the Yellow Emperor who lived ca 2600 BC. And the current Japanese emperor is the 125th of the dynasty.

I found these tidbits in 'The Mountain of Names' by Alex Shoumatoff (Vintage Books, 1990. ISBN 0-679-73190-3) which is a fascinating book dealing with the 'great pyramid of ancestry'. Well worth reading.

MarilynKay
10 October 2006, 10:56 PM
I never in my wildest dreams expected to get back as far as one of my lines now goes

Joyce Bernhard
12 October 2006, 06:43 PM
[QUOTE=MarilynKay]I never in my wildest dreams expected to get back as far as one of my lines now goes

MarilynKay
13 October 2006, 12:50 AM
Hi, kdbjmb!

My Bernhards/Bernhardis/Bernhardts go back a ways, but the name is gone from my direct lines quite early, so I have no way of knowing if there's a connection:

17. Lorenz BERNHARDT
16. Hans BERNHARDT
15. Bartholom

fmlyhntr
28 October 2006, 06:21 PM
Documented into 1500s. Undocumented, earlier, supposedly I am a descendant of Gorm. As if I'll ever be able to prove that. My Danish lines tap into old noble families and there has been extensive work done on them into the 1400 and 1300s. What I don't know is how much of that work is wishful thinking.

I've flagged those "just for fun".

rod
05 December 2006, 11:29 AM
One of my documented 9g grandfathers is Jeremy Clarke (1605-1651).

He has 7 Magna Charta Surety Baron ancestors http://www.magnacharta.org/Immig1/clark%20clarke%20jeremy%20iah.htm

His ancestry was documented in "Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists Who Came to America Before 1700" so I hit the ancestor jackpot with this one. http://www.genealogical.com/products/Ancestral%20Roots/6193.html .

His "documented" ancestors include Cerdic of Wessex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerdic_of_Wessex and Fergus Mor mac Erc of Dal Riata http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergus_M%C3%B3r .

Rod

Sara
19 December 2006, 03:52 PM
My brother sent me this truly awful joke today and I thought of this thread:

"My ancestry goes all the way back to Alexander the Great," a woman told another woman at a high society party. "How far does your family go back?"

"I don't know," the second woman replied sheepishly. "All of our records were lost in The Flood."

Sorry, Happy Holidays!

marnen
19 December 2006, 05:23 PM
LOL!

Similarly:
"This armchair goes back to Louis the Fourteenth."
"If I don't pay up, my TV goes back to Sears the fifteenth."