Oldesr as reference to paternal rank?

Sharon,
Ranking comes into play when for example a SV/PROG is accompanied by his mother as well as his mother in law in SA. There is now two "most senior" females that qualify for PROG. The current rule says the mother of the SV/Prog is then chosen as PROG.

And it says also that only mothers/grandmothers qualify for PROG of that SV/Prog line and not aunts/great aunts

Daan, the PROG designator is biological.

The current rule says that the oldest biological female/male is the PROG.

Why is it so impossible to think through an ancestry scenario for women that doesn't reference the men? We don't do it the other way around. A man's mother-in-law is as irrelevant as a woman's father-in-law to their status as biological PROG.

Just as the most senior/eldest male member of a bloodline is the PROG 1,
so is the most senior/ eldest female member of a bloodline the PROG 1.

If numbers of sisters came out together, we rank them the same as if numbers of brothers did: PROG1, 2, 3 according to age.

If an SV/PROG's mother is the eldest female to come to this country, then she is the PROG (her marital or mother in law status is exactly as irrelevant as it would be if she was an SM)

Sharon
I do not disagree with you. I followed a different avenue to solve a problem. That approach needs refining since there are still other unintended side effects.

Analysing these effects and reading through the project discussions again, I believe there is a lot of common ground in both approaches. In fact, I will adopt any approach that satifies my original requirement.

Although I do not agree with all the irrelevancies mentioned above, I do not think it it would or should be a stumbling block to soon get to a mutual solution on this. I just have to analyse some uncertainties and will then formulate a draft which we can kick around in the applicable project discussion.

Sorry - rereading my post from yesterday I see my usual typo: =If an SV/PROG's mother is the eldest female to come to this country, then she is the PROG (her marital or mother in law status is exactly as irrelevant as it would be if she was an SV [not, as I wrote, an SM]=

Daan - I'm following exactly the theory that was decided & put on the http://www.geni.com/projects/South-African-Progenitors-Matriarchs-S...; and used in your EGSSA article:
=The oldest biological mother progenitor of her family line (PROG), and the stammoeder cultural matriarch of her husband's surname line (SM) can often be two different women.=
The example on the project uses this definition too.
Your article uses the terms & logic June and I created on the project:
1) Stammoeder (SM)
Die vrou of metgesel van die Stamvader en vroulike hoof van die familie
Hierdie definisie het nie verander nie

2) Voormoeder (PROG)
Die oudste moeder (biologies) van ‘n familie wat in Suid Afrika aangekom het.Ingesluit in hierdie kategorie is ‘n vrou wat binne die land gebore is uit onbekende ouers

You cannot use this definition and then start trying to use PROG as a cultural marker as well. This isn't a difference of opinion; it's a failure of logic.

Accordingly, if you wanted to rank them with respect to their husband's surname, then it would be the cultural SM designator that would match his
eg you could label the wife of 'John Brown SV/PROG 2', as SM 2 if you really wanted to.

Sharon
Ranking was part of the article that was subsequently linked to the project.
Ranking was to included to have a base to decide which female ancestor will be allocated PROG, should there be more than one. Therefore I do not follow your comment
"if you wanted to rank them with respect to their husband's surname".

Probably we should just hold horses on this until I have a discussion draft ready.

The biological PROG category must use the same logic for males and females

Just as the most senior/eldest male member of a bloodline to arrive in SA is the PROG 1,
so is the most senior/ eldest female member of a bloodline the PROG 1.

Just as in the case of more than 1 male sibling arriving & procreating, we rank them PROG1, PROG2 according to age
So in the case of more than 1 female sibling arriving and procreating, we rank them PROG1, PROG2 according to age

Yes, SV's are chronologically numbered and I suppose has to do with historicaly earliest arrivals.
I have cases where a son first arrive in Soutwest Africa and would in this case be numbered SWASV1/PROG1 until it was afterwards found that his father also arrived 2 years later and had children from a second wife, making the father now SWASV2/PROG1 and requiring his son to change to just SWASV1.

Goodness gracious! :-)

My take:
A female PROG (fPROG?) is the most senior immigrant who carries a mtDNA strand.

A Matriach (SM) is the most senior female to die, or have children in SA, who carries a family lines surname. (She may have married a Patriarch (SV) or she may be his Mother or even his Grandmother.)

A SM/PROG must qualify on both fronts.

Yes, Don that's really useful to point out - although describing the exceptional case, it is logically congruent:

-The oldest Mother (biological - DNA carrier) is the PROG 1
-The oldest Wife (cultural - surname carrier) is the SV's SM (even if it's his mother/grandmother)

I think June and I might have to change our example because we have a widowed mother who comes out with the SV there - who would now be the SM/PROG, rather than his wife being the SM.

Daan would have to confirm if that fits with the DVN understanding of SM, as I was originally told that the SM was always the SVs wife. But this makes more sense.

My problem with labels like fPROG is that it's redundant. The person's gender is obvious.
As the oldest father or mother is the PROG1, then fPROG runs the risk of being interpretted out of context as meaning 'father PROG' & similarly mPROG could mean 'mother PROG'

*interpreted

First we need to confirm the DVN definition of SM - Do you know it?

The Diagram is fine; but if Don's definition fits, then the SM who matches Boet deKlerk will be his mother, not his wife. So the label will need to be moved.

ie the oldest WIFE carrying the deKlerk name will be Boet's mother.

I have called Daan here for his input.

If the SV label isn't delineated, then I suggest we use Don's logical extension that includes widowed mothers arriving in SA as the oldest WIFE carrying the cultural surname:

I haven't got a lot of time, but these are my quick responses, using Don's definition (Some may well be incorrect)

1. Arrives as a Single woman alone - no label
2. Arrives as a Single woman with both her parents - no label
3. Arrives as a Single woman with widowed father (and [younger] sisters) - PROG 1, if she procreates
4. Arrives as a Single woman with her widowed mother - no label
5. Arrives as a Single woman alone and marries a SV/PROG - SM (depending on if his mother arrived as a widow with him)
6. Arrives as a Single woman alone and marries a [2nd generation] man born in SA - PROG if she procreates with him
7. Arrives as a Single woman with her widowed mother and marries an SV/PROG - SM (depending on if his mother arrived as a widow with him)
8. Arrives as a Single woman with her mother and marries a [2nd generation] man born in SA - no label
9. Arrives as a Married woman with her [SV/PROG] husband and no other senior relatives - SM/PROG
10. Arrives as a Married woman with her [SV/PROG] husband accompanied by her mother - SM (depending on if his mother arrived as a widow with him)
11. Arrives as a Married woman with her [SV/PROG] husband without her mother but with her [widowed] Mother-in-law in the party - PROG
12. Arrives as a widow with her married [SV/PROG] son and his family - SM/PROG
13. Arrives as a widow with her children and both her parents - SM of her son's surname line
14. Arrives as a widow with her children and her mother - SM of her son's surname line
15. Arrives as a widow with her children and her father - SM (of her son's surname line) /PROG
16. Arrives as a widow with her un-married son - SM (of her son's surname line, if he has one)/PROG
17. Arrives as a widow with her married daughter - PROG
18. Arrives as a widow with her un-married daughter - PROG
19. Born in SA of known parents and marries a SV/PROG - SM (depending on if his mother arrived as a widow with him)
20. Born in SA of unknown parents and marries a SV/PROG - (depending on if his mother arrived as a widow with him), SM/PROG
21. Born in SA of known parents and marries a [2nd generation] man born in SA - no label
22. Born in SA of unknown parents and marries a [2nd generation] man born in SA - PROG

1. Arrives as a Single woman alone - no label, (until she procreates - then PROG)

A PROG would also need to have female offspring to pass on her Mitochondrial DNA....

I have 15 others.
I would rather spend my time now to assist June to get the draft for discussion ready in days, including definitions, inconsistencies, apparent inconsistencies etc. So just bear with us a day or two.

I have uploaded some new profile images in an attempt to capture this trend of thought... comments always welcome.

Daan Botes I think this is something for us all to decide together on Geni. I am not happy with the idea that it becomes an EGSSA article behind the scenes and then Geni users are supposed to adopt something they didn't agree on. This attitude is not in accordance with the Geni spirit of collaboration. Can we please get a response on this from you, so we can all proceed together.

Private User, I was the one who used the mtDNA analogy as a handy shortcut for finding the immediate biological DNA mother (unconnected to her husband's Y chromosome), and was immediately sorry I had, because, of course it stuck :-)

As I see it, the biological DNA mother PROG is that to all her children, male & female & grandchildren etc.

Don, I can't find them - but we had all decided on June's images together, so it seems a pity to lose them.

June, unless you share your ideas here the rest of us can't work with you to establish a definition for Geni. I had assumed answering those 23 questions was worth my time because you would participate this morning.
The previous EGSSA article was exactly what we'd decided on Geni, and included my definitions without any attribution as though it was not created together on Geni. You and Daan working behind the scenes without collaborating here is not the way to work on Geni.

unfollowing this discussion!

The intention is to submit this draft to this forum to get general acceptance since it is meant to be a guideline for SA users prior to use it as an article. If some concepts change due to further development amongst Geni users, the readers in Genesis will be updated

As this initiative began as a collaborative initiative on GENi, it should remain as such...

eGGSA articles should not be a stumbling block placed to slow down or influence our process...any articles written about our initiative should be perhaps put on hold until we have completed this process..

Those who wish to get involved and solve definitions, inconsistencies, etc should in the spirit of collaboration be encouraged to do so, Please don't go Dennis........

Sharon we are not losing Junes images, which came about as a objection to a 'I Ching' symbol and was discussed in a forum of only 7 users.

Nowhere in that discussion was it decided that June's images will become the only or even the preferred profile image for a category as massive as SV and SM/PROG.

My contribution made in the spirit of collaboration is here...
http://www.geni.com/projects/South-African-Progenitors-Matriarchs-S...

Not all female PROGs have produced an uninterrupted mitochondrial DNA line that we can trace back to today..

I feel those that have, deserve a special designation... mtPROG maybe?