Go Back   Family Tree DNA Forums > General Interest > DNA and Genealogy for Beginners

DNA and Genealogy for Beginners Everything you wanted to know about DNA and Genealogy but didn't know where to ask. This board is open to customers and visitors.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 27th March 2010, 05:59 AM
JeffHale2 JeffHale2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5
Can Y DNA be extracted from bones

Can Y dna be extracted from a tooth or other bone
parts from a 17th century burial?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 27th March 2010, 07:31 AM
Jim Barrett Jim Barrett is offline
R-BY39877
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Timpson, TX
Posts: 2,263
It can be BUT there are MANY factors involved. In many cases the Y-DNA will be too fragmented to be of any value. Contact FTDNA and discuss your case with them.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 27th March 2010, 08:37 PM
gtc gtc is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,832
As I understand it, Y DNA is much harder to recover from ancient burials than mtDNA.

Also, stringent precautions need to place to prevent contamination from those handling the ancient material.

BTW: How are you associated with a 17th century burial?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 31st March 2010, 01:27 PM
Arch Arch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 38
That would be interesting since I found some bones in my backyard and I do believe the development where I live was on or nearby where Father Serra and Gaspar Portola's camped during their famous expedition across California.

At first I thought they might be chicken bones from some construction worker, but I kept them since they don't appear to be chicken bones after comparing it to some KFC bones and Popeye's. Definitely finger licking fun for being an amateur anthropologist when having to do comparisons.

I'm wondering if it might be an ancient Chumash bone but it doesn't look hominid to me. It's definitely not bovine, hog or pig. The bones just look weird and not typical bones that I can attribute to anything. I'm thinking they might be prehistoric.

Arch
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 1st April 2010, 07:57 AM
Jim Barrett Jim Barrett is offline
R-BY39877
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Timpson, TX
Posts: 2,263
If you touched them with your bare hands you contaminated them so no testing would be of any value.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 1st April 2010, 08:07 AM
T E Peterman T E Peterman is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,577
If you're really curious about the bones, you might take them to an anatomist at a museum & get his opinion. I recall how, as a child, I found some bones near a railroad track & took them home. They were nearly a complete skeleton. After awhile, I buried them & marked them "Raccoon", because that was what I assumed that they were. Later that year, my parents took my brothers & I to a museum that had a good section on fauna & flora. I was walking along & saw a skeleton with a skull identical to the one I had found. Wow! I looked at the museum's ID nameplate & saw the word "Opossum".

I couldn't tell the difference between a placental & a marsupial.

Timothy Peterman
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 2nd April 2010, 01:51 AM
Max von Pif Max von Pif is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 32
Talking

17th century grave...? goin grave robbin are we? Don't gimmee no ideas!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 3rd April 2010, 01:19 PM
rainbow rainbow is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,093
It would be great if Relative Finder and Family Finder and other dna tests could be done from bones. But I can't dig up my ancestors. I think I would if it was legal and acceptable and if I could. It would be great for ancestry admixture analysis also.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11th March 2018, 09:03 PM
DRNewcomb DRNewcomb is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: MS Gulf Coast
Posts: 82
Question

I know this is an old thread but it looked interesting. I happen to have a lock of hair from my 3rd great-grandmother. I do know that hair contains no DNA unless there happens to be a follicle attached, so I'm not asking about that. But it got me to thinking. What if your family just saved stuff and you had one of your great-grandfathers baby teeth. Would it be possible to recover DNA and what would it cost? After all, they recovered DNA from a 14K year-old Amerindian child.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11th March 2018, 09:47 PM
dna dna is offline
FTDNA Customer
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRNewcomb View Post
I know this is an old thread but it looked interesting. I happen to have a lock of hair from my 3rd great-grandmother. I do know that hair contains no DNA unless there happens to be a follicle attached, so I'm not asking about that. But it got me to thinking. What if your family just saved stuff and you had one of your great-grandfathers baby teeth. Would it be possible to recover DNA and what would it cost? After all, they recovered DNA from a 14K year-old Amerindian child.
In my opinion, in such cases contamination precludes a meaningful DNA analysis.

Mr. W.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:39 PM.


Family Tree DNA - World Headquarters

1445 North Loop West, Suite 820
Houston, Texas 77008, USA

Phone: (713) 868-1438 | Fax: (832) 201-7147
Copyright 2001-2010 Genealogy by Genetics, Ltd.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.