Crenson nicely phrases how we only need one ancestor to be
physically descended from someone.
That genealogy is not the pursuit of broad patterns (like genetics).
Genealogy is the pursuit of statistical artefacts.
"Though people like to think of culture, language and religion as barriers between groups,
history is full of religious conversions, intermarriages, illegitimate births and adoptions
across those lines. ...
"And the thing is, you only need one," said Mark Humphrys,
...
One ancestral link to another cultural group among your millions of forbears,
and you share ancestors with everyone in that group. So everyone who reproduced with somebody
who was born far from their own natal home
- every sailor blown off course, every young man who set off to seek his fortune,
every woman who left home with a trader from a foreign land
- as long as they had children, they helped weave the tight web of brotherhood we all share."
Burke's Peerage was
first published in 1826,
and for 178 years their entry for PEMBROKE excluded the Gibbon line
because it was illegitimate.
When Burke's Peerage was re-launched in 1999,
they said they would include illegitimate lines,
so I contacted them in 2000.
Due to my research, in 2004
I managed to get a mention of Gibbon
inserted into
Burke's Peerage.
They had been excluded from it for
178 years.
Here is a screen shot of part of the new entry for
PEMBROKE
in Burke's Peerage
(this is pay-to-view at burkes-peerage.net):
Media coverage of CAs
I am quoted in a
Nature news feature
(copied here)
on
the paper
[Rohde et al., 2004].
I speculate:
"Looking at the whole sweep of the Americas, Europe, Asia, right across to Japan,
I wouldn't be surprised if we had a common ancestor in the AD years."
Note that it slightly misquotes me that:
"A single prolific parent can have a vast influence".
The original parent doesn't actually have to be prolific.
All they need to have is 2 children to be a MRCA.
The Europeans,
Radio National, ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation),
brief interview,
11 Nov,
broadcast
15th Dec 2002.
The audio link
is not working.
See a hilarious reference to this in
Opinion Journal
(copied here)
from The Wall Street Journal,
25 Nov 2002,
in a discussion of "post-traumatic slavery disorder"
and the universal victimhood (and guilt!)
of our ancestors.
The readers' suggestions here,
with their laid-back approach to
crimes committed against their ancestors,
is
exactly how I think people should think about ancestry -
instead of nursing ancient grievances
like children.
The Todd Mundt Show,
National Public Radio,
4 minute interview,
6 June,
broadcast
28 June 2002.
Formerly here:
at 28 minutes in.
I thought this went well, except one point:
A caller to the show asked how this related to
all of humanity descending from
the sons of Noah,
or some such nonsense.
I did not want to waste the show
discussing
creationism and biblical literalism,
so I just ignored it.
Anyway, for the record, no, it does not relate to the sons of Noah
after the Flood, since
no such people existed
and no such event ever took place.
This
note
in the BLENNERHASSETT entry in
[Burkes Irish, 1976]
first made me realise in 1985
that my Blennerhassett line might connect to the World family tree.
-
Blog
- Archive
