The native stuff is especially untrustworthy since they usually changed their names and hid their origins... and the Irish stuff is difficult too since they were probably more worried about not starving than keeping records (at least on my side)..
Nobby wrote:
See, I'm a bit more purist, as a large proportion of amateur genealogists like us aren't as meticulous/scrupulous about validating traces. My brother got an entirely different route to me working back from the 1760s to the early 1500s. Turned out he'd copied bits of a tree that were sloppily researched and had picked the wrong Daniel Brookes in the 18th century.
A tricksy bid'ness!
but, It's true about going off of names alone.
You need to make sure you have those specific dates to pin-point it...
For example in my line that goes back to Sitting Bull.. it would appear that he also had a BROTHER that had the same exact name ( Tȟatȟaŋka Iyotȟaŋka).. so we can't be sure if our line is to him or his brother.. it also appear that his brother may have married the particular wife of his that we descend from.
RDM wrote:
No big historical tree has been done on my other side, English/Scotish mostly from what we have been able to tell. The surname on that side dates back to the Norman invasions of England, so around 1200AD and the Maiden name back to 1000 AD
I used to like to tell people that I was descended from the Quadi and the Marcomanni tribes that fought against Marcus Aurelius.. since the name of the village that my German line is from is in the same area as those tribes and the name of the village was of the same language (Allemannic).... in the same vein I could claim descendency from Teutonic Crusaders since they are the ones that settled that particular village..
but of course no one could ever proove any of that. but it used to make for fun party topic (to me!). At least now I have this Wild Boar guy I can talk about and be honest lol.