Genealogy ..... how far back ? ? ?

Question

Is there a documented record for the farthest back in time, anyone has been able to trace back their ancestry ?

To - "Nothingusefullearnedin" - Surely, someone can go back further than the 1800s, because the Windsor family in England can...(Queen Elizabeth's family) .....

Answer 1

My sister & I received a e-mail from a distant cousin who said she's forwarding us information re: our ancestors that can trace all the way back to the 1600's in France. I can't wait to see that.
So far personally, the mid 1800's. Soo exciting!!

Answer 2

Many of the Copeland families, of which I am a descendant
have researched, and "Documented Proof" of their ancestory
backward to the Tribe of "Dan" when it talks about the Twelve
Tribes, in the Bible, but for myself, I have gotten as far back as when the Copeland (spelled Coupelande) families were in
Denmark, in 630 a.d.
In the 1300's-1500's they were in Scotland, Ireland, and
the Netherlands, then onto England, before coming to America, in 1630's...the first one as a Missionary to the
early settlers.
The Copeland People were Silverware Makers, Missionaries and then into Politics and Law Enforcement.
Twins are quite dominant in those families, and I've found
one family where there were 3 sets of twins among a set
of siblings.
The Copeland name is spelled several different ways,
Coplen / Copelin / Copland / Coplin / Coplan.

Answer 3

"Official" government records of births, deaths, marriages, etc., began in the mid-1800's. Any records before that were townhall type, as in Connecticut or Massachusetts; church; or family records. I have been able to trace (questionable, but a "paper trail" nevertheless) one thin line of ancestors back to several thousand years B.C. Of course, this particular line of ancestors were ancestors of Charlemagne, so the records are somewhat "solid".
Other than some such records, one must rely upon DNA tests, as from www.familytreedna.com.

Answer 4

My mom has traced her family to 1660 when her family came from the Netherlands by way of England on a ship named "De Bonte Coe" meaning 'The Spotted Cow' lol.

Answer 5

There is a documented line from Charlemgne back to Adam, but the Bible it its only source in places. Exactly how reliable it is depends on your religion.

Most of us treat anything further back than 1500 or so as interesting but unproven. When you go back further you are dealing with either commoners, who didn't get recorded, or nobles, who hired clerks to trace their lineage back to kings and queens. If the clerk failed, he didn't get paid. Most of the clerks traced their clients back to royalty, oddly enough.

If you want just DNA, not names and dates, you can go back to 20,000 - 40,000 years ago, when we humans walked out of Africa looking for new lands to conquer.

I have a couple of lines that go to Charlemagne. They amuse me.

Answer 6

this question can get back into some serious religious debate. like can we all be traced back to adam and eve?? anybody christian will answer yes to the question... but others will say no way. and of course, there is evolution and a belief of both. so that twists answers also.
i know that the farthest genealogy records in america date back to before the revolutionary war.

Answer 7

See -- https://backgroundreports.im/ancestry

Answer 8

My ancestors were all in the present day United States by 1800 as they all arrived in the 1600s and 1700s from Europe. I have yet to find a document linking how any of my ancestors came from Europe; however, Bible records document one of my family lines very well to their time of arrival and location of arrival from Europe in the 1700s.

To give you a rough idea, an individual born around 1750 might have 10,000 direct ancestors living in 2007.

The comments about Charlemagne is that the 8th century born Charlemagne is probably in one way or another related to most Europeans; however, unless a person is a direct descendant of Charlemagne and that person became a royal person would be the only way to trace ancestry to Charlemagne.

Realistically, without a lot of family records and as long as the family line was not famous, you will have some difficulty tracing accurately ancestry much past 1800.

I can trace my ancestry in the Americas back to the 1600s in a few cases or the early 1700s in even more cases; however, I am relying on other people's work.

I have only one line based on wills left behind that survived the many court house fires, I can only trace one of my lines where I am confident to the late 1600s.

I truly feel that genealogical research in almost all cases much earlier than circa 1730s is pure speculation.

Yes, it is fun to look at lines going back to Chargemagne as my 4G grandfather's first cousin's wife came from a very famous British Colonial Virginia family which can trace its roots back to England and beyond through royalty and titles.

As probably the majority of central Europe has a bit of Charlemagne's blood in them, the paper trail to prove this is almost impossible unless someone descends from royalty.

Me, as far as documentable and provable ancestry, I can only go back to the late 1600s in one family line as so little documentation from the 1700s still exists particularly before 1730 or so.

Court houses in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s were destroyed with great regularity by Acts of God which has eliminated most documentation of provable ancestry.

Certain families, say for example someone from a Mayflower family, probably can have great circumstantial evidence of relationship.

One thing is adoption as so often parents died leaving behind children as for many illnesses, children in the age ranges of 5 to 15 say for example, are able to survive an epidemic which younger children, older teens, and adults cannot. So, a lot of adoption occurred before modern medicine in the mid 1900s.

What may look like a direct ancestry connection to a person in even the 1800s may actually only be a connection through adoption which to me is as thick as blood; however, technically, it is not biological descent.

Personally, I feel that it is very difficult to prove direct biological relationships even in many of the rarest cases much more than before 1750 unless that person descends from a person of note or of fame or well documented by American Revolutionary War records particularly pension records.

I guess that is where I split from most of the other individuals who have given great insights in their posts on this question as you specifically ask about "documented record".

I think that I have read that in the British Isles that documentation which at one time was fairly good as I understand it did not even start to re-establish itself until 1650 A.D. to 1700 A.D. while some documents are known to exist back to 1200 A.D. or so, but nothing connects them for the common family with no known extraordinary documentable ancestors.

At least this is my opinion.

Many genealogists without DNA evidence which is almost impossible as the Y DNA only tracks one male line of ancestry without changing generation after generation cannot know for sure of exact ancestry because of things like adoptions or where the biological father is not the husband, the only true way to track beyond a shadow of a doubt is ancestry for a male through only that male's surname with Y DNA testing if there is enough Y DNA testing available for that ancestral line.

Genealogy is still fun; although, most of the work beyond the 1800s is circumstantial.

Answer 9

my oldest date is 1772

www.lost.eu/5f886