I think we can all agree that having a family tree connected to our DNA results is important. But just as important—if not more so—is the accuracy of that tree.
I recently wrote about my Browning line and the efforts of a profile manager who is working to prevent incorrect connections to the Jeremiah Browning family. That kind of stewardship matters. Unfortunately, it is often tempting to attach a tree to a well-known or “famous” family from the same time and place, even when the evidence does not support the connection.
I’ve encountered this issue repeatedly in my Crawford research. In early Virginia, there are three well-documented and frequently referenced Crawford families: David Crawford, Col. William Crawford, and Alexander Crawford. Based on documented family structures and the birth date of my fourth great-grandfather, James Crawford, I have already eliminated Col. William Crawford and Alexander Crawford as possible ancestors.
At first glance, records suggest that my Crawford line may trace back to an area associated with many descendants of David Crawford. However, Y-DNA evidence tells a different story. Descendants of David Crawford fall within the I haplogroup, while my brothers—and my Crawford line—are in the R1b haplogroup. In other words, despite geographic proximity and naming patterns, the DNA does not support that connection.
Because I am actively working to identify a common ancestor among my R1b-01A Ardmillan Y-DNA matches, the accuracy of everyone’s trees directly affects this research. Incorrect pedigrees don’t just mislead individual researchers—they ripple outward, muddying the data for entire genetic groups.
For that reason, I fully support one of the stated goals of the Clan Crawford Association:
We must do a better job in documenting the pedigrees of each of our known Crawford lineages and how they may relate to each other.
DNA can be a powerful tool, but only when it is paired with careful documentation and evidence-based trees. Accuracy isn’t optional—it’s foundational.