Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
JIM:
What is most interesting about the Jewish DNA topic is that the particular
Rehoboth-Carpenter DNA is most common among Ashkenazi-Levite Jews. The
Ashkenazi Jews were those that migrated into Europe and have a mixed DNA
configuration i.e. they do not have an Israelite DNA. In other words it
would seem the paternal line was not Jewish. Yet the Levite Jews were a
priestly Jewish class, which suggests that the priestly role was inherited
from the female side. The DNA for the Ashkenazi-Levites suggests to many
that these Jews came from the kingdom of Khazaria which was a largely
Jewish nation on the Black Sea from about 700 to 1000 AD. After it was
overthrown many Jews fled the area to Europe. This whole scenerio has been
an unhappy one for many in the Jewish community who have wanted a genetic
Jewish indentity. This is not to say that Ashkenazi Jews didn't have many
Jewish ancestors. Surely they did did and so may we have.
The geographic origins for the Rehoboth and Providence Carpenters might
have been the Low Countries i.e. they were Flemish merchants who arrived
in England about mid 1200s. This was a crucial historical moment for Jews
in England. They were in fact in the process of being thrown out. Did the
Le Charpenter merchants hide their Jewishness? Were they converts to
Christianity? Were they originally Khazar Christians who fled there
homeland with the rest?
It is interesting that the Le Charpenter merchants in the 1200s were
important banker-financiers and lent money to the crown. This was
traditionally a role filled by either Jews or Italians.
Bruce carpenter
At 03:50 AM 7/30/2007 +0900, you wrote:
>âNow we know that our Carpenter ancestors were in England from the early
>1600s back to circa 1300 AD.
Hello Bruce:
Your assertion that we know Carpenter lineage back to circa 1200
seems, shall we say, an over-reach. I know (from prior postings) that at
least one of our expert participants tells us there is no proven
Rehoboth-line linkage prior to William b1605. Without tracing all the way
to the 13th century, it might be helpful if you can give your specific
documentation for maybe just 2 generations prior to William of 1605. That
way, other participants here would be able to evaluate and comment on those
specific references, and we could all benefit.
Robin
29 Jul 2007
Hello,
The Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project is an all volunteer DNA project. We have
tried to take a complex subject, explain it with the results we have
obtained in a reasonable and readable format.
The International Society of Genetic Genealogy or ISOGG and FamilyTree DNA
has given our Y-DNA Project some of the highest marks possible. Our project
has been mentioned in numerous genetic genealogy talks as an example of a
good surname project. It has been reviewed by organizations and chapters of
the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) and its sibling, the Sons of
the American Revolution (SAR) as a good example of what a surname project
can do.
We have two outstanding co-administrators for our project.
I think we have been very lucky to obtain the services of John F. Chandler,
Physicist, whose good wife was born a Carpenter, as our DNA guru. He has
taken a basic web page that I set up and made it into the outstanding one we
have today. He has written articles for the "Journal of Genetic Genealogy."
I will not say much about his work in "experimental tests of general
relativity, planetary ephemerides; interplanetary radar ranging; astrometric
optical interferometry", since it gives me a headache just thinking about
it.
We also have the services of Terry Lee Carpenter, Major USAF, who is our
Southern Carpenter expert. Terry has an excellent genealogical and
disciplined mind that took disorder and organized the southern Carpenter
lines. This he has done so that others may benefit by his different articles
and booklets on Carpenters. I can not say much about his USAF work other
than the old joke, "If I told you, I would have to kill you."
These two are the backbone of the Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project and are
co-administrators. They keep it real and are very patient in explaining
things to us.
Let me stress again, "No one is paid for working on this project; all are
volunteers."
Our project is dependent on long range goals of people to willingly submit
their Y-DNA in hoping to match a known group to confirm or to focus their
genealogical research into a particular area of the Carpenter family.
Some wait for years before there is a match. Our first Group Administrator,
now Titular, Jim Carpenter is one of them. Since September of 2002 he has
never had a Carpenter Y-DNA match than those of his own immediate relatives
that he has tested. He was the first member of the Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA
Project.
OUR "project will grow as members encourage other Carpenters to submit their
Y-DNA. There are many Carpenter lines yet to be documented and linked."
Because of recent comments, some explanations regarding the Carpenter
Cousins Y-DNA Project may be in order.
First:
The main focus since 2003 has been the 25 DYS marker FamilyTree DNA or FTDNA
test. We get this test at a group discount. Table 1 is our original
results table. It has the first 25 markers from FTDNA. This test is what we
recommend to all members participating in our project.
Over the years we have picked up members who did not test with FTDNA.
Several have come from Sorenson Molecular Genealogy or SMGF and also from
YSEARCH. SMGF uses some of the same and some different DYS markers which
lead to the creation of Table 2. Table 2 also supports the additional 26-37
markers later provided by FTDNA. Hint, 26 to 37 on the left is mainly FTDNA
and SMGF is mainly on the right on Table 2.
Table 3 has some overlap or duplicate DYS markers when compared to Table 2.
Why? Because FTDNA brought out the newer 38-67 marker Y-DNA test. Again, it
overlaps with some of the SMGF markers and Table 3 shows the FTDNA marker
format.
Under the "Results" section is:
"To allow viewing these results, without side-to-side scrolling, they are
divided into separate tables. Table 1 gives the loci included in FTDNA's
25-locus test (the recommended test for this project). Since most
participants have followed the recommendation and tested at least to this
level, Table 1 is almost completely filled in. Table 2 gives the loci
included in two kinds of extensions to the recommended test: first, loci
26-37 available from FTDNA and, second, eleven more offered by SMGF or
Relative Genetics. Table 3 gives yet another extension: loci 38-67 from
FTDNA, which include two of the Sorenson loci shown in Table 2. For ease of
comparison, the results for these two loci are displayed in both tables."
Each ID number on the different results tables are linked, when provided, to
For those interested in the most current results directly from FTDNA, we
have the following comment below Table 3:
"Note: if your results have been reported to you by FTDNA, but do not appear
in the above tables, they presumably were obtained since this web page was
last updated. To see the very latest results, you may visit our alternate
web page, which is maintained by FTDNA and always has the latest results.
Unfortunately, this FTDNA page is rather slow to load and omits the results
that were obtained from other sources (currently, about 15 haplotypes)."
The hyperlink to the alternate web page is:
http://www.ftdna.com/public/carpenter%20cousins%20%20dna
Second:
About 29% of the 160 odd members of our project are in Groups 2 & 3 who
match 24/25. Groups 2 & 3 represent the Providence & the Rehoboth branches
of the New England Carpenter family who immigrated to America in the 1630s.
"Groups 2 and 3 are so similar that they were at first thrown in together as
one group. Even now, the separation between them is subtle, and so both
groups are discussed together here. For the time being, the distinction is
based on locus DYS464d, which is 16 for Group 2 and 17 for Group 3."
Interestingly enough, about 29% of members (Groups 98 & 99) do not match
anyone in the Carpenter Y-DNA project. A few days ago Group 18 became a new
group because of a new member matched some one who had taken their Y-DNA
test years ago. Our 18 organized groups (two or more matches or similarities
in Y-DNA) represent about 62% of our project.
Many members who thought they would be in one group wind up in another
group. Why? It is because of the diversity in names, changes in names,
occupations, formal and informal adoptions and many other unknown factors in
the "Great melting pot" of the surname Carpenter and its related surnames
like Zimmerman. To put in bluntly, not all genealogies are as accurate as
we think from a genetic viewpoint.
It would be a great disservice to all Carpenter Cousins to balkanize or
fragment this surname project. It is still new and many more members are
needed. Only by seeing the whole can we see the forest from the trees.
Ask yourself this question, "Have you submitted your Y-DNA?" Or ask
yourself this question, "Do I have a living male Carpenter relative that I
can get a Y-DNA sample from?"
If you have suggestions for the Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project web page or
comments, please let me know.
Sincerely,
John R. Carpenter,
Carpenter Cousins Group Administrator
Please join our Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project at:
http://www.familytreedna.com/surname_join.asp?code=S82066
Hi John,
Yes I know that being Jewish comes from the Mom but I find all this
information very interesting.
The things that people had to do to hide who they were.
And it's still that way in parts of the world today.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Mac Carpenter" <jcarpenter38(a)sbcglobal.net>
To: <carpenter(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [CARPENTER] Jewish 2
> Remember that part of the diaspora went to central and eastern Europe as
> well as the middle east. It even got as far as China. But being Jewish
> comes from the mother, not the father so no matter whether the father was
> Jewish or not, whether he was the mother's husband or an invading soldier
> or
> just a Czarist rapist. So it really is interesting but it's not
> information yet, just raw data. We have a tradition in my line that we
> have some Sephardic ancestry but if it's so I can't find it. It's like
> the
> connection to Belle Starr....it'd be cool but who knows...........now
> Benedict Arnold WAS a distant cousin, one of the more interesting heroes
> in
> the family line, a hero to each side at different times.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: carpenter-bounces(a)rootsweb.com
> [mailto:carpenter-bounces@rootsweb.com]
> On Behalf Of Jim Carpenter
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 2:15 PM
> To: carpenter(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: [CARPENTER] Jewish 2
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> I'm one of these Carpenter groups and I asked the question over a year ago
> about the Jewish matches through DNA and I never really got a answer.
> The most I could get out of anyone was that it was do to migration
> patterns.
> Migration patterns from where? As we know our Rehoboth Carpenter's came to
> this country (USA) around 1638 from England. Where were we before that?
> France? Time will tell as we get further into our research. The further
> back
>
> we get the harder it is for me to figure out.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce E. Carpenter" <carp(a)tezukayama-u.ac.jp>
> To: <Carpenter-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 12:05 PM
> Subject: [CARPENTER] Jewish 2
>
>
>> There is an article on the net from the 'European Journal of Human
>> Genetics' by Passarino et al., that the genetic R1a1 pattern of DYS19=16
>> and YCA IIa,b=19,23 belongs to Eastern Europe and not to Western Europe.
>> The question then arises would a family with such a genetic background be
>> doing in the south of England in 1500s and 1600s and quite possibly much
>> earlier than that? It should be remembered that "Jewish" referred to
>> converts to the faith and not Israelite Jews at least on the male side.
>>
>> The Rehoboth-Carpenter DNA is certainly of great interest, which brings
>> me
>> to my second point. Is it not time, given the recent move of many surname
>> Carpenters to another internet site, to create a Rehoboth-Providence
>> Carpenter DNA site and finally free ourselves from the dilusional need to
>> include all Carpenters in one place? The Carpenter DNA site is cluttered
>> and difficult to deal with.
>>
>> Bruce Carpenter
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>> CARPENTER-request(a)rootsweb.com 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
> CARPENTER-request(a)rootsweb.com 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
> CARPENTER-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
Hi Bruce,
All very interesting points. I have wondered too if they hide that they were
Jewish,
Let's hope as time goes on we find more information.
I think we have a good start right now.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce E. Carpenter" <carp(a)tezukayama-u.ac.jp>
To: <Carpenter-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 9:24 AM
Subject: [CARPENTER] Jewish 3
> JIM:
> What is most interesting about the Jewish DNA topic is that the particular
> Rehoboth-Carpenter DNA is most common among Ashkenazi-Levite Jews. The
> Ashkenazi Jews were those that migrated into Europe and have a mixed DNA
> configuration i.e. they do not have an Israelite DNA. In other words it
> would seem the paternal line was not Jewish. Yet the Levite Jews were a
> priestly Jewish class, which suggests that the priestly role was inherited
> from the female side. The DNA for the Ashkenazi-Levites suggests to many
> that these Jews came from the kingdom of Khazaria which was a largely
> Jewish nation on the Black Sea from about 700 to 1000 AD. After it was
> overthrown many Jews fled the area to Europe. This whole scenerio has been
> an unhappy one for many in the Jewish community who have wanted a genetic
> Jewish indentity. This is not to say that Ashkenazi Jews didn't have many
> Jewish ancestors. Surely they did did and so may we have.
>
> The geographic origins for the Rehoboth and Providence Carpenters might
> have been the Low Countries i.e. they were Flemish merchants who arrived
> in England about mid 1200s. This was a crucial historical moment for Jews
> in England. They were in fact in the process of being thrown out. Did the
> Le Charpenter merchants hide their Jewishness? Were they converts to
> Christianity? Were they originally Khazar Christians who fled there
> homeland with the rest?
>
> It is interesting that the Le Charpenter merchants in the 1200s were
> important banker-financiers and lent money to the crown. This was
> traditionally a role filled by either Jews or Italians.
>
> Bruce carpenter
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> CARPENTER-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
There is an article on the net from the 'European Journal of Human
Genetics' by Passarino et al., that the genetic R1a1 pattern of DYS19=16
and YCA IIa,b=19,23 belongs to Eastern Europe and not to Western Europe.
The question then arises would a family with such a genetic background be
doing in the south of England in 1500s and 1600s and quite possibly much
earlier than that? It should be remembered that "Jewish" referred to
converts to the faith and not Israelite Jews at least on the male side.
The Rehoboth-Carpenter DNA is certainly of great interest, which brings me
to my second point. Is it not time, given the recent move of many surname
Carpenters to another internet site, to create a Rehoboth-Providence
Carpenter DNA site and finally free ourselves from the dilusional need to
include all Carpenters in one place? The Carpenter DNA site is cluttered
and difficult to deal with.
Bruce Carpenter
Hello,
I read the name SAYER (Saer, Sayre) in Welsh means CARPENTER.
Anyone ever heard of a SAYER changing the surname to Carpenter?
Thanks,
Donna (Carpenter) Cuzze
I took a quick look at "Ashkenazi-Levite DNA Project" and saw the results.
Still I don't know quite what to think of this. Is it the case that
Ashkenazi-Levite DNA shares the same configuration with other broad
groups?
Or whatever. Perhaps John Chandler might help us here.
In the back of my mind I am thinking how some Carpenters were merchants in
England from outside the country and probably from the Low Countries.
Bruce Carpenter
Dennis wrote:
> the FamilyTreeDNA/Carpenter Cousins DNA research project. A part of that
> research identifies our common ancestral origins. Of the Carpenter's that
> have participated a significant number had been found to have come from
> ancient Askenazi Levite Jew blood lines.
I think what Dennis is referring to is the list of low-resolution
DNA matches in a database known as "Recent Ethnic Origins". This
list can be quite misleading because of the nature of the database,
which was based on academic studies at the University of Arizona.
These studies, in fact, focused on Jewish DNA of many sorts, and so
the database has a very unrepresentative number of Jewish matches.
This is not necessarily an indication of Jewish origin for Dennis
or other members of Group 3 in the Carpenter Cousins project. In
fact, it seems more likely that many Ashkenazim have Y-DNA lines
that come from the Gentile popolation of central and eastern Europe,
where their ancestors lived for many centuries. Many of these same
types of DNA are found in northern and western Europe as well.
John Chandler
Dennis, That is a very interesting observation. I think that it should
prompt someone to keep track of Carpenter linage ages. No personnel
information, just a listing of direct Carpenter line people and their dates of birth.
If a trend should appear then a study of life style could be initiated and the
details might be very enlightling. Good effort. John Proctor (my G
grandfather was a Carpenter) Best wishes.
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
I was listening to a story on CNN last evening. They were reporting on a new
research project to see what role genetics play in very long life. They are
studied a numbed of Centigenarians, looking at both their life style as well
as possible genetic factors. Their observations of life style were all over
the map. Many didn't follow a particularly healthy life style, 30% were over
weight, a number drank and smoked and yet they had all survived much longer
than the average. One factor mentioned was an abnormally high level of HDL
cholesterol. As we age the level drops and people in their 70's and 80's can
expect an HDL level of around 50 where these folks over 100 were at levels
of 70 or greater. Another possible factor, and the thing that caught my
attention, was that in the genetic studies they have determined that a large
percentage are descended from Askenazi Jew ancestral roots. The reason that
this grabbed my attention is that I am one of those people who participated
in the FamilyTreeDNA/Carpenter Cousins DNA research project. A part of that
research identifies our common ancestral origins. Of the Carpenter's that
have participated a significant number had been found to have come from
ancient Askenazi Levite Jew blood lines. It began me wondering if perhaps,
because so many of us Carpenters share a common ancestral and genetic
heritage, it this might help explain the apparent longevity of a number of
us Carpenters occasionally discussed in this group. Just a little food for
thought.
Dennis L. Carpenter
dcarpenter(a)clearwire.net
I just transcribed a will found in the GA Colonial Will Archives.
William SAVERY wrote this will as a resident of Savannah, GA and he bequeathed
a pair of shoes to EDWARD JOHNSON CARPENTER in 1733.
Other surnames: CHEESWRIGHT, WEST, TIPET
SOURCE: GA COLONIAL WILLS ARCHIVE
In the name of God Amen. I Wm Savoury of Sevanna xxx Province of Georgia in America,
being at this time under an ill fate of health tho of sound and perfect sense and memory do make
my last will testament in manner form following (viz) imporvisions. I give and bequeath my
soul to God that gave it and also my body to xx usual place of interment there to be due my burial
of xxx all my debts are discharged and first of all funeral expense thereafter done remainder of my
personal items, namely money , goods, or chattells I give unto PAUL CHEESWRIGHT and
leave him as my executor of this my last will and testament. As to my land, namely my town lot, garden lot of 5 acres and 45 acres more if any part of it be found in my power to dispose in, I give and bequeath unto JOHN WEST of Darby? Ward in this colony. I give unto Robert HOWS a brown coat and waist coat and looking glass, xxx my bed Great Cout to THOMAS TIPET, a pair of shoes rattut? to EDWARD JOHNSON CARPENTER.
Given under my hand this 20th day of December in y:e:6th year of ye reign of our Sovereign Lord Geore by ye grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland King defender of e faith anogxxx domini over the lands Seven Hundred Thirty Three. 1733
Signed: William Savery
Witness: Nehemiah WICKS
Witness: Thomas CROSS (his mark)
Tom WATERLUND
[note dc: In the original top part of the will the name reads "Wm SAVOURY."
On the bottom signature it reads, "William SAVERY." The archive lists this will under "Wm LAVERY."]
______________________________
transcribed by Donna Cuzze
______________________________
The three Eleazer Carpenters you mention in the Rehoboth Carpenter descent
are in my line.
1) Eleazer Willard (1828-1903) is my gg-grandfather. He was born in Lyme,
NH. After his father Willard died in 1832 in NH, he, his mother Betsy and
sister moved across NY (where his sister Miranda married) to WI where he
married Emily M. Plummer. After the Civil War, in which he served from WI)
he and his young family migrated to Buffalo Co., NE where he died. His son
John Willard (1856-1919) is my great grandfather.
2) Eleazer (b. 1790) was the uncle of the above Eleazer Willard (brother of
Eleazer Willard's father Willard). He was born in Lyme, NH and all his
children were born there between 1813 and 1837. He did not have a brother
named John nor a son John that I am aware of. I don't know where he died.
3) Eleazer "Lee" (1886-1963) was the grandson of Eleazer Willard and a great
uncle. He was the son of the John Willard mentioned in 1). He was born and
lived all his life in Nebraska.
As far as I'm aware, only Eleazer Willard of the three Eleazers every saw
the south when he was stationed in Chattanooga, TN during the Civil War.
This branch of the Rehoboth Carpenters were all New Englanders and those who
did remove from New England migrated westward across the northern tier of
states.
I find it hard to imagine that your John and Eleazer Carpenter of NC and GA
are related to this line, but I suppose anything is possible.
I hope this helps.
Good hunting,
Gerald,
I have been looking at the REHOBOTH CARPENTER
line recently and I see where there were at least
three early ELEAZER CARPENTERS. I have been
researching my CARPENTER line since 1971, and
have been stuck trying to find the father of my
JOHN CARPENTER of Upson Co., GA for many years!
One of my JOHN CARPENTERS sons was also a ELEAZER
CARPENTER. I see where the REHOBOTH CARPENTERS
had at least three early ELEAZERS CARPENTERS.
This is the first time I have ever run into
another ELEAZER CARPENTER. (I have seen it with
other surnames.)
My JOHN CARPENTER probably was in Lincoln Co., NC
when the 1800 census was done. He was then on
the 1802 tax records of Hancock Co., GA.
He probably was in Lincoln Co., NC when the 1800
census was done. Later he was in Putnan Co., GA.
He moved on to Upson Co., GA before 1840.
Best Regards,
Wylene Alston
--- gerald <shaggy41(a)pmtnet.net> wrote:
> Hi Wylene,There are many persons who have
> matched DNA with this line,There
> are a few on the Carpenter and related
> families,I have not done the DNA
> because I am not a Carpenter,but my line has
> been proven to connect from
> cousins and such who have connected through the
> DNA, can you tell me your
> line,and I would be glad to let you know if it
> has been connected or not,I
> may or may not be able to tell you,depends on
> what information you have.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/
Don't know how long this has been online, I just ran across it today. Great
source for anyone with Am Indian ancestry. Here is 1906 American Indian
Applications for surname CARPENTER.
Index of Guion Miller Roll
Number Surname Given Middle State
Comments Page
25832 Carpenter Samuel W. I.T.
Gdn. 46
24528 Carpenter Robert F. I.T.
46
25832 Carpenter Claude I.T.
46
38095 Carpenter Ides Ky.
46
38096 Carpenter George W. Ky.
46
38102 Carpenter Jerry Ky.
46
38103 Carpenter Stephen P. Ky.
46
33247 Carpenter Samantha C. N.C.
46
24884 Carpenter Addie F.
Okla. 46
24527 Carpenter John I.T.
46
24526 Carpenter William S. I.T.
46
24525 Carpenter James L.
I.T. 46
21464 Carpenter Etta G.
Ark. 46
39056 Carpenter Vickie Ga.
46
39058 Carpenter R. Bell Ga.
46
39403 Carpenter L. Emmett Ga.
46
40768 Carpenter Jesse Ga.
46
242 Carpenter Angeline I.T.
46
4397 Carpenter Amanda C. I.T.
46
6521 Carpenter Olive I.T.
46
20484 Carpenter Nancy C. Tenn.
46
The index includes the names of all persons applying for compensation
arising from the judgment of the United States Court of Claims on May 28,
1906, for the Eastern Cherokee tribe. While numerous individuals applied,
not all the claims were allowed. The information included on the index is
the application number, the name of the applicant, and the State or
Territory in which the individual resided at the time the application was
filed. To order copies of these applications, you must General Note submit a
completed NATF Form 83 which includes the individual's name and application
number. A separate form must be completed for each file you wish copied. To
obtain an NATF Forms 83 write the National Archives, NWCTB, Old Military and
Civil Records (Form 83), Washington, D.C. 20408
SOURCE: http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/guion.php
Note: IT means Indian Territory
Hi Wylene,There are many persons who have matched DNA with this line,There
are a few on the Carpenter and related families,I have not done the DNA
because I am not a Carpenter,but my line has been proven to connect from
cousins and such who have connected through the DNA, can you tell me your
line,and I would be glad to let you know if it has been connected or not,I
may or may not be able to tell you,depends on what information you have.
Jerry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Texas Woman" <womanntx(a)yahoo.com>
To: <carpenter(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: [CARPENTER] Break in the Rehoboth Carpenter Lineage &
Citingmaterial professiona
> Greetings,
>
> Does anyone have DNA on this line of Carpenters.
> There is a chance it maybe mine also.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Wylene Alston
>
> --- GeneZub(a)aol.com wrote:
>>
>> John R. Carpenter wrote:
>> >
>> << The lineage from the father of William
>> Carpenter, the immigrant, also
>> named William Carpenter, through Robert
>> Carpenter (of Marden) to William (of
>> Marden) then Robert Carpenter has not been
>> "proved" in the higher standards of
>> "professional" proof. >>
>>
>> Forget "higher" standards. While it does
>> appear that Robert --> William -->
>> Robert are directly related, there is
>> absolutely NO evidence linking
>> William1 (b. ca. 1576) to them.
>>
>> << While we have will information and other
>> evidence that these people
>> existed and were related in different ways, we
>> do not have the A, B, C, D, E, F, &
>> Gs of positive connection to "confirm" the
>> lineage.>>
>>
>> Again, we have NOTHING to confirm a linkage.
>>
>> << What is solid is that the immigrant William
>> Carpenter (born about 1605),
>> had a father named William. >>
>>
>> . . . who emigrated with his son. Period.
>>
>> << 2) So in traditional or "professional"
>> genealogical journal reporting,
>> Gene Zubrinsky is correct. Since William, the
>> father of William, the
>> immigrant,who resided in Rehoboth, is confirmed
>> & he should be listed as "William1"
>> and his son, ie the immigrant, "William2."
>>
>> The William Carpenter born about 1576 should
>> be identified as William1 not
>> simply because he is confirmed as the father of
>> William of Rehoboth but
>> because he was himself an immigrant. If he had
>> remained in England but were still
>> confirmed as the father of William of
>> Rehoboth, he would be WilliamA (the A
>> should be in superscript).
>>
>> << THE problem is genealogical programs and
>> computers. NOT ONE PROGRAM on
>> the market today allows the formal reporting
>> style that can be labeled
>> "genealogical professional standard" or
>> "professional standard" or"scientific
>> standard." Many of the programs were written
>> by non-genealogists for those whose
>> HOBBY was and is genealogy. For 99% of us,this
>> is adequate. >>
>>
>>
>> Despite the many inadequacies and limitations
>> of genealogical programs, they
>> all will identify the earliest-generation
>> immigrant with a 1, so long as
>> that person isn't linked to one or more
>> parents. Since neither parent of the
>> William born ca. 1576 is known, the problem
>> behind his identification in a
>> recent posting as William25, his son (William
>> of Rehoboth) as William26, etc.,
>> lies not with the program but with the user's
>> acceptance of an unconfirmed
>> 3-generation ancestry of the latter and a
>> refuted 21-generation ancestry beyond
>> that. If William25 is unlinked (as he should
>> be) from Robert of Marden (or
>> whoever the user has as William's father), he
>> will become William1 (in reports
>> that begin with him). The submitter,
>> moreover, was free to revise the
>> generation numbers before posting the message.
>>
>>
>> << When we share information with each other,
>> we often only share a small
>> fragment of what we have. While it is good to
>> know about and understand the
>> formal or "professional" writing in genealogy,
>> 99% of us will never use it. >>
>>
>> It is precisely when we share information,
>> informally or formally, that
>> precision and clarity are essential. This is
>> best achieved with a shared
>> vocabulary and style. Why not adopt the
>> terminology and format that already exist,
>> are accepted, and have proved themselves
>> useful? Most conventions of
>> genealogical writing exist for good reason:
>> they are effective tools of
>> communication. Those that are simply
>> arbitrary (for which other, equally effective
>> modes
>> of presentation could be used) nevertheless
>> have the advantage of being well
>> established. Language and custom are composed
>> almost entirely of elements
>> that could just as easily be replaced by others
>> to accomplish the same
>> purpose--provided there is general agreement as
>> to their meanings. It is these
>> shared meanings that permit us to interact
>> intelligibly. The same principle
>> applies more narrowly at the level of
>> genealogical discourse. If we fail to
>> employ the conventions of written presentation
>> that exist, insisting on (or
>> settling for) our own idiosyncratic terms and
>> formats, we cannot expect the
>> listener/reader to comprehend it. But, as
>> above, the basic problem with
>> assigning William1 a generation number of 25
>> has nothing to do with departing from
>> convention. It has to do with his being
>> inappropriately linked to parents not
>> demonstrated to have been his, etc.
>>
>> << The CM was a typical and yet remarkable book
>> for its day. It was typical
>> for its lack of sources and supporting
>> documents. It was remarkable for its
>> huge size and the period of time it covered.
>> It was the life time work of
>> Amos B. Carpenter who documented and dispelled
>> the myth of the Carpenter
>> fortune(s) to be had in England that inspired
>> thousands to participate in that
>> work. >>
>>
>> Whatever the Carpenter Memorial (CM) was or
>> wasn't for its time, one fact
>> stands above all others: it is laced with
>> errors. It is one thing to cite the
>> CM as a source; this is quite appropriate--if
>> only as a warning. It is
>> another entirely to do as the CE CD does, which
>> is to repeatedly introduce
>> sketches by giving subjects' CM-assigned ID
>> numbers and the CM page(s) on which they
>> are treated. This gives the impression that
>> the CM is the touchstone of
>> reliable information on the Rehoboth Carpenters
>> and their descendants; it is not.
>>
>> << As Friday said on Dragnet, "Just the facts."
>> I will give everything
>> including conflicting information. My notes
>> will contain not only the facts I have
>> found, but questions, comments and other odd
>> ball stuff. >>
>>
>> Facts are, by definition, true. Conflicting
>> data can't all be factual; in
>> some cases, none of it is. If there is a
>> legitimate controversy, it is not
>> simply appropriate but obligatory to present
>> both sides and the supporting
>> evidence for each. But there is no excuse for
>> retaining information that has
>> been demonstrated to be false--or for not
>> doing the research (or having it done)
>> that would likely resolve the matter. At
>> times, an incorrect item is so
>> widely accepted that it is proper to mention
>> it for the purpose of dismissing
>> it. But when no distinction is made between
>> correct data and retained,
>> erroneous data--or between a generally
>> reliable source and an unreliable one--it
>> gives the impression that it all items have
>> equal standing. Publishing
>> (electronically or otherwise) indiscriminately
>> accumulated data with little or no
>> attempt to weed out the mistakes results in a
>> mish-mash, leaving the reader
>> confused and misinformed.
>>
>> << Do we only accept that which we have only
>> seen and confirmed for
>> ourselves to the highest standard possible? Or
>> do we provide only the names and
>> dates with nothing else? (including no cites,
>> no sources & no documenting!)
>> Maybe we can have the best of both? >>
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of
> spyware protection.
> http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> CARPENTER-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
The three Carpenter lines that have had the most tests done, I think, are
the William of Rehoboth, William of Providence, and a Virginia line. All
three are closely related but there is no proven data on how they are
related. I hope the data will be proven one day and then we can argue about
other areas...that's one thing about genealogy, no matter how much you
prove, there is always a lot more than is totally unknown or unproven.
-----Original Message-----
From: carpenter-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:carpenter-bounces@rootsweb.com]
On Behalf Of Texas Woman
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:45 AM
To: carpenter(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [CARPENTER] Break in the Rehoboth Carpenter Lineage &
Citingmaterial professiona
Greetings,
Does anyone have DNA on this line of Carpenters.
There is a chance it maybe mine also.
Best Regards
Wylene Alston
--- GeneZub(a)aol.com wrote:
>
> John R. Carpenter wrote:
> >
> << The lineage from the father of William
> Carpenter, the immigrant, also
> named William Carpenter, through Robert
> Carpenter (of Marden) to William (of
> Marden) then Robert Carpenter has not been
> "proved" in the higher standards of
> "professional" proof. >>
>
John R. Carpenter wrote:
<< The lineage from the father of William Carpenter, the immigrant, also
named William Carpenter, through Robert Carpenter (of Marden) to William (of
Marden) then Robert Carpenter has not been "proved" in the higher standards of
"professional" proof. >>
Forget "higher" standards. While it does appear that Robert --> William -->
Robert are directly related, there is absolutely NO evidence linking
William1 (b. ca. 1576) to them.
<< While we have will information and other evidence that these people
existed and were related in different ways, we do not have the A, B, C, D, E, F, &
Gs of positive connection to "confirm" the lineage.>>
Again, we have NOTHING to confirm a linkage.
<< What is solid is that the immigrant William Carpenter (born about 1605),
had a father named William. >>
. . . who emigrated with his son. Period.
<< 2) So in traditional or "professional" genealogical journal reporting,
Gene Zubrinsky is correct. Since William, the father of William, the
immigrant,who resided in Rehoboth, is confirmed & he should be listed as "William1"
and his son, ie the immigrant, "William2."
The William Carpenter born about 1576 should be identified as William1 not
simply because he is confirmed as the father of William of Rehoboth but
because he was himself an immigrant. If he had remained in England but were still
confirmed as the father of William of Rehoboth, he would be WilliamA (the A
should be in superscript).
<< THE problem is genealogical programs and computers. NOT ONE PROGRAM on
the market today allows the formal reporting style that can be labeled
"genealogical professional standard" or "professional standard" or"scientific
standard." Many of the programs were written by non-genealogists for those whose
HOBBY was and is genealogy. For 99% of us,this is adequate. >>
Despite the many inadequacies and limitations of genealogical programs, they
all will identify the earliest-generation immigrant with a 1, so long as
that person isn't linked to one or more parents. Since neither parent of the
William born ca. 1576 is known, the problem behind his identification in a
recent posting as William25, his son (William of Rehoboth) as William26, etc.,
lies not with the program but with the user's acceptance of an unconfirmed
3-generation ancestry of the latter and a refuted 21-generation ancestry beyond
that. If William25 is unlinked (as he should be) from Robert of Marden (or
whoever the user has as William's father), he will become William1 (in reports
that begin with him). The submitter, moreover, was free to revise the
generation numbers before posting the message.
<< When we share information with each other, we often only share a small
fragment of what we have. While it is good to know about and understand the
formal or "professional" writing in genealogy, 99% of us will never use it. >>
It is precisely when we share information, informally or formally, that
precision and clarity are essential. This is best achieved with a shared
vocabulary and style. Why not adopt the terminology and format that already exist,
are accepted, and have proved themselves useful? Most conventions of
genealogical writing exist for good reason: they are effective tools of
communication. Those that are simply arbitrary (for which other, equally effective modes
of presentation could be used) nevertheless have the advantage of being well
established. Language and custom are composed almost entirely of elements
that could just as easily be replaced by others to accomplish the same
purpose--provided there is general agreement as to their meanings. It is these
shared meanings that permit us to interact intelligibly. The same principle
applies more narrowly at the level of genealogical discourse. If we fail to
employ the conventions of written presentation that exist, insisting on (or
settling for) our own idiosyncratic terms and formats, we cannot expect the
listener/reader to comprehend it. But, as above, the basic problem with
assigning William1 a generation number of 25 has nothing to do with departing from
convention. It has to do with his being inappropriately linked to parents not
demonstrated to have been his, etc.
<< The CM was a typical and yet remarkable book for its day. It was typical
for its lack of sources and supporting documents. It was remarkable for its
huge size and the period of time it covered. It was the life time work of
Amos B. Carpenter who documented and dispelled the myth of the Carpenter
fortune(s) to be had in England that inspired thousands to participate in that
work. >>
Whatever the Carpenter Memorial (CM) was or wasn't for its time, one fact
stands above all others: it is laced with errors. It is one thing to cite the
CM as a source; this is quite appropriate--if only as a warning. It is
another entirely to do as the CE CD does, which is to repeatedly introduce
sketches by giving subjects' CM-assigned ID numbers and the CM page(s) on which they
are treated. This gives the impression that the CM is the touchstone of
reliable information on the Rehoboth Carpenters and their descendants; it is not.
<< As Friday said on Dragnet, "Just the facts." I will give everything
including conflicting information. My notes will contain not only the facts I have
found, but questions, comments and other odd ball stuff. >>
Facts are, by definition, true. Conflicting data can't all be factual; in
some cases, none of it is. If there is a legitimate controversy, it is not
simply appropriate but obligatory to present both sides and the supporting
evidence for each. But there is no excuse for retaining information that has
been demonstrated to be false--or for not doing the research (or having it done)
that would likely resolve the matter. At times, an incorrect item is so
widely accepted that it is proper to mention it for the purpose of dismissing
it. But when no distinction is made between correct data and retained,
erroneous data--or between a generally reliable source and an unreliable one--it
gives the impression that it all items have equal standing. Publishing
(electronically or otherwise) indiscriminately accumulated data with little or no
attempt to weed out the mistakes results in a mish-mash, leaving the reader
confused and misinformed.
<< Do we only accept that which we have only seen and confirmed for
ourselves to the highest standard possible? Or do we provide only the names and
dates with nothing else? (including no cites, no sources & no documenting!)
Maybe we can have the best of both? >>
This is a false choice and a false solution. Whatever the source--primary
or secondary, reliable or unreliable--it should be stated and evaluated.
<< Most of us will never ever have all the information we will need to have
our data become a Professional Genealogical Journal entry. Many of us do not
have the inclination, desire or the resources to do so. >>
This and surrounding passages constitute a thinly veiled rationalization for
the deficiencies of the CE CD 2001, most of which have to do precisely with
attitudinal factors John mentions above. My having agreed to contribute
edited, revised accounts of the early generations of Rehoboth and Providence
Carpenters grew out of my recognition that the great imperfections of the CE CD's
first edition will, overall, be present--in some cases magnified--in the
second edition. While I hope to mitigate that to some extent, all the data
from the 2001 edition will, for the most part, still be there, augmented by the
data accumulated since--with little or no attempt to edit, reconcile, etc.,
any of it. This reflects the "packrat" mentality that John unabashedly
acknowledges--and the lack of "inclination" and "desire" that he seems to feel
excuses anything that falls short (no matter how far) of so-called
"professional" standards. (There is no payment for articles published in scholarly
journals. Most of us who contribute to them are simply hobbyists--with standards.)
The purpose of any such undertaking should not be to present (in John's
phrase) "the good, the bad, and the ugly," but to GET IT RIGHT. Quantity is
never a substitute for quality; in this case, it is actually the enemy of
quality.
In the end, what good is the information we've compiled--and how well-spent
is the time invested--if it is of questionable accuracy?
Gene Z.
-----Original message-----
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:18:32 -0700
From: "John R Carpenter \(JRC\)" <jrcrin001(a)cox.net>
Subject: Re: [CARPENTER] Break in the Rehoboth Carpenter Lineage &
Citing material professionaly & informally 2
To: <carpenter(a)rootsweb.com>
Message-ID: <002101c7c7e6$7b5bd590$0300a8c0@JOHN>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Well, that last one really came out weirdly formatted. Lets try this ...
Hello Carpenter Researchers,
I am writing this in American English with occasional references to
situational slang. It is not the Oxford or the formal Queen's English.
:-}
If you are not aware of the difference, think of how the formal English law
book is expressed verses common letter writing. The following relates.
Three items of comment on recent posts.
1) Gene Zubrinsky is correct that the English ancestry of the Rehoboth
Carpenters as presented by the Carpenter Family Association in the 1970s and by me
in the CE CD 2001 is not correct.
A review of English wills found a significant error in transcription thus
breaking, the tenuous at best, lineage.
"12/2004: A recently revised transcription of the WILL OF REV. RICHARD
CARPENTER-2781 of Homme, Herefordshire (bur. Ramsbury, Wiltshire, 1503) indicates
that LEGATEE ROBERT was not his son but his SERVANT. The CARPENTER LINEAGE
FROM THIS POINT BACKWARD--as presented in the CE CD 2001 and herein--is thus
INVALID."
SEE:
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/c/a/r/John-R-Carpenter/index.html
A copy of that will is at:
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/c/a/r/John-R-Carpenter/PHOTO/0...
oto.html
The lineage from the father of William Carpenter, the immigrant, also named
William Carpenter, through Robert Carpenter (of Marden) to William (of
Marden) then Robert Carpenter has not been "proved" in the higher standards of
"professional" proof.
While we have will information and other evidence that these people existed
and were related in different ways, we do not have the A, B, C, D, E, F, & Gs
of positive connection to "confirm" the lineage.
What is solid is that the immigrant William Carpenter (born about 1605), had
a father named William.
For the Rehoboth Branch of the Carpenter Family, my "common" reference is:
"William Carpenter-584 b. abt. 1605 ,,,England who d. 7 Feb 1658/1659 in
Rehoboth, Bristol, MA."
(Note: the number 584 is the ID number from the CE CD 2001.)
The formal way of expressing the same thing is:
"William2 Carpenter (William1) was born about 1605 in England and was of
Shalbourne, Wiltshire, by 1626. He died in Rehoboth, Bristol Co., Mass., on 7
February 1658[/9?]"
2) So in traditional or "professional" genealogical journal reporting, Gene
Zubrinsky is correct. Since William, the father of William, the
immigrant,who resided in Rehoboth, is confirmed & he should be listed as "William1" and
his son, ie the immigrant, "William2."
THE problem is genealogical programs and computers. NOT ONE PROGRAM on the
market today allows the formal reporting style that can be labeled
"genealogical professional standard" or "professional standard" or"scientific
standard." Many of the programs were written by non-genealogists for those whose
HOBBY was and is genealogy. For 99% of us,this is adequate.
Richard Pence wrote in 1998:
http://www.pipeline.com/~richardpence/classdoc.htm
"... As in the scientific world, the level of documentation depends largely
on your purpose in preparing the material. Most of us are not writing Ph.D.
dissertations or conducting research on planting and growing dusenberries.
But if your objective is to present to a major genealogical journal an
article which solves a long-standing genealogical puzzle, your work will beheld to
the highest standard of genealogical research and reporting. Each bit of
information will have to be documented. Not only that, but you can expect, just
like a university scientist, peer review and the publication's editor will
even stoop so low as to check out your citations! It is here that you must
truly provide accurate and definitive sources so that any competent researcher
can retrace your research and reach an identical conclusion - or challenge your
conclusions.
While we want to produce the best work possible, most of us don't aspire to
that level of accomplishment. Our sights, often of necessity, are somewhat
lower."
...
"The compromise then is to rely on the work of others (with credit, of
course) or to make a judgment that a particular compilation of marriage records is
accurate enough to be relied on without chasing down each original record.
Or a census record may have to substitute for a will in deciding who were the
parents of a particular spouse. Cheryl, in reviewing this article, noted the
irony that a rocket scientist seems not to have any qualms about referencing
- and relying on - the work of others, but that genealogists are not supposed
to do that without independent verification. This fact is probably a
commentary on both disciplines.
The compromises I have had to make don't mean that once I cite "a letter
from a descendant" in listing the children of a particular couple that I stop
researching that couple. What it does mean is it will have to suffice as a
"source" if I am not able, either through lack of a clue or lack of time, to
track down better information."
Richard Pence's entire article is very interesting and has stood the test of
time. It should read it in its entirety.
I use PAF and others may use FTW or other genealogical programs. Many of
these programs have evolved over time to what we have today. Their report
standards are different but are becoming more and more similar. Are they the
"professional" or "scientific" formal reports? No. They meet the needs of
millions of hobbyists to share information about their families. Consider them
"in-formal" reports.
When we share information with each other, we often only share a small
fragment of what we have. While it is good to know about and understand the
formal or "professional" writing in genealogy, 99% of us will never use it.
3) When compiling the CE CD 2001, my own assigned task was to put together
what was out there on the Carpenter Family. This included the good, the bad
and the ugly. This Carpenter surname & related families CD was one of the
first of its kind.
SEE:
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/c/a/r/John-R-Carpenter/FILE/00...
e.html
Many of the entries came from the 900+ page Carpenter Memorial published in
1898 by Amos B. Carpenter. This is why there is only an identification CM
number or something similar that is cited for an individual. Many times nothing
is cited thus requiring the viewer to look upstream (ancestor line) to find
out where the information came from.
The CM was a typical and yet remarkable book for its day. It was typical
for its lack of sources and supporting documents. It was remarkable for its
huge size and the period of time it covered. It was the life time work of Amos
B. Carpenter who documented and dispelled the myth of the Carpenter
fortune(s) to be had in England that inspired thousands to participate in that work.
Like every other work of its kind, there are errors. None are done with
malice, unlike some other Carpenters works which wished to deny the possible
fortune(s) to be had from the rightful heirs. If your Carpenter Ancestry
contains "Loyalists" from the American Revolution or Southern "Rebs" be careful of
some of those "dammyankee" books published before 1900.
SEE:
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/c/a/r/John-R-Carpenter/FILE/00...
t.txt
I have been accused of being a pack rat in my note fields and I plead
'guilty.'
See:
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/c/a/r/John-R-Carpenter/FILE/00...
t.txt
As Friday said on Dragnet, "Just the facts." I will give everything
including conflicting information. My notes will contain not only the facts I have
found, but questions, comments and other odd ball stuff.
I see the CECD 2001 and the continuing effort as a work in progress. Thanks
to Gene Zubrinksky, there will be a more professional reporting on the two
William Carpenter immigrants (Rehoboth & Providence) and their immediate
family in the near future. The contrast between the formal and the informal will
be stark and a learning experience for all.
In summary, we have to make a decision in our hobby or our addiction of
genealogy.
Do we only accept that which we have only seen and confirmed for ourselves
to the highest standard possible?
Or do we provide only the names and dates with nothing else? (including no
cites, no sources & no documenting!)
Maybe we can have the best of both?
Why? In some areas for privacy, just the basic facts of relationship will do
for the living. Otherwise, document everything! Do the best that we can do!
I have learned the hard way that documentation, documentation and
documentation is the way to go in ANY research.
As Richard Pence wrote, "The compromises I have had to make don't mean that
once I cite "a letter from a descendant" in listing the children of a
particular couple that I stop researching that couple. What it does mean is it will
have to suffice as a "source" if I am not able, either through lack of a clue
or lack of time, to track down better information." What we have is a
starting point to build upon towards a professional standard.
Most of us will never ever have all the information we will need to have our
data become a Professional Genealogical Journal entry. Many of us do not
have the inclination, desire or the resources to do so. Like un-professional
astronomers we can view the vastness of the heavens and occasionally add a
tidbit or two for the greater good. We add things that we find, we share our
DNA, and many others things that we are capable of. We share a common cause:
The Carpenter Family.
Always remember, when we share information outside of the professional
journals, we need to be aware of the limitations of our genealogical programs, the
rating of sources and documents and the goal of working toward the
professional standards from our informal, in progress efforts.
Let me stress one more time ... What we share outside the professional
journals is "un-professional" and should be considered an "informal" work in
progress. It is valued by us and we never know if that tidbit of information we
share will make the difference in our or some one else's research.
"For the Carpenter Family."
John R. Carpenter
La Mesa, CA
Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project
http://members.cox.net/johnrcarpenter/index.htm
Donations to the Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project can be made at:
http://www.familytreedna.com/contribution.html
Carpenter CD Project Update
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/c/a/r/John-R-Carpenter/index.html
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Hello,
FYI,
For those who tested their Carpenter Y-DNA at:
RELATIVE GENETICS, DNAHERITAGE, OXFORD ANCESTORS, GENEBASE
July 5, 2007
GAP PROMOTION: By popular demand we are bringing back our promotion to transfer results to Family Tree DNA! Individuals who have tested with other companies can now add their results to Family Tree DNA Projects at heavily discounted prices by filling out this form.
< http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/promo_gap.pdf >
You then can join the Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project for free!
John R. Carpenter
La Mesa, CA
Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project
http://members.cox.net/johnrcarpenter/index.htm
Information
This is the Carpenter Cousins Rootsweb. Since many Zimmermans became Carpenters, Both are discussed here along with related DNA information.