not knowing the origin of a family name LUSTER, I realized that long ago (and often these days still) that people _tended_ to marry ‘their own’ (whatever they considered that to be) and as much as it rubs against me to think that way, there’s no hurt in trying. So using known data of two lines – as they exist in me and a few other people, I treated each person AS IF they were only LUSTER or ROGERS. I geocoded birth/death/baptism PLACES and and went back 13 generations, which is *just enough* to end up back in Europe completely, being 1500s.

not knowing the origin of a family name LUSTER, I realized that long ago (and often these days still) that people _tended_ to marry ‘their own’ (whatever they considered that to be) and as much as it rubs against me to think that way, there’s no hurt in trying. So using known data of two lines – as they exist in me and a few other people, I treated each person AS IF they were only LUSTER or ROGERS. I geocoded birth/death/baptism PLACES and and went back 13 generations, which is *just enough* to end up back in Europe completely, being 1500s.

From there I could put some questions a few AIs to speculate. Long story short: Pottery. _Probably_ related to Lusterware as my Luster a John Luster in Elizabeth, NJ – arrived very late to the USA – born in 1780 compared to other Lusters in Virginia, Alabama, etc – still related but never could find a genealogy connection yet. So against my grain, I went a statistical likelihood route just to see what would happen and for speculative purposes, it’s ok.

Claude3:
Here are some more speculative and detailed potential distinctions between the Luster and Rogers family lines based on the location data:

Luster Line:

Strong concentration in the industrial cities/towns of Scotland like Glasgow, Paisley, Lanark etc. suggests possible working class/laborer roots tied to industries like shipbuilding, textile mills etc.

Multiple branches in the Netherlands and Belgium could indicate ties to Protestant dissenter groups like Huguenots or Dutch Reformed that fled religious persecution.

Presence in portside areas of northeastern US like New Jersey, New York, Connecticut hints at immigration patterns of Scottish/Dutch ancestors arriving through major ports.
No obvious aristocratic/landed gentry residences in location names suggests more urban/merchant tradesman origins.
Rogers Line:

More dispersed across rural villages and towns in multiple counties of England points to agricultural/landed gentry roots before migration.

Locations like Brocket Hall, manors, parish churches etc. may signify higher social status, aristocratic or yeoman farmer ancestral ties.

Pockets in continental Europe like Netherlands, Germany, France, Switzerland could be mercantile/merchant connections or Protestant dissenter roots.

Wider distribution across New England states and places like Virginia, South Carolina might reflect diverse migration waves – from Puritans to plantation gentry.

Concentration in some coastal areas of northeastern US comparable to Luster could be later migratory overlap from Britain.
So in essence, the patterns possibly suggest more urban industrial and dissenting Protestant origins for Luster compared to rural, landed gentry and established church backgrounds for Rogers before their respective American migrations and dispersal occurred over multiple waves.

Claude2-Instant (I think)

Here are some distinguishing characteristics of the Luster family locations versus the Rogers family locations:

Luster locations:

Higher concentration in Scotland (Glasgow, Paisley, South Lanarkshire, Renfrew)
Locations in Ireland and continental Europe (Netherlands, Belgium)
English locations clustered in Midlands pottery regions (Staffordshire, Worcestershire, Derbyshire)
Rogers locations:

More widespread across England, northeast US colonies and New England
Concentration in East Anglia, Essex, Hertfordshire regions of England
Fewer locations in Scotland, Ireland, mainland Europe
American locations span New England, Mid-Atlantic and Southern colonies
Additionally:

Luster locations include pottery industry centers like Cranfield and Stoke-on-Trent
Rogers locations include ports and trading centers like London, Amsterdam, Boston
Placenames unique to Lusters: Abbey Cl, Paisley; Putney, London not for Rogers
Placenames unique to Rogers: Mackerye End; North Walsham; Uffington
So in summary, the Lusters appear more centered in pottery areas and linked to Scotland/Ireland/Europe, while Rogers had broader geographical roots across England and the early American colonies as merchants/traders likely rather than potters. The location origins differ between the two surname groups.

[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− 1 = five

Leave a Reply