When did "by way of" start meaning "originally from"

I agree with the poster that the plain meaning of "I'm from X by way of Y" is "I'm originally from X, but then moved to Y [and now live in Z]." Thus, for example, if you were born in Cleveland, moved to Boston as a college student, and then moved to Atlanta to take a job, you might reasonably say to someone in Atlanta who asks you where you're from, "I'm from Cleveland by way of Boston, but I live in Atlanta now."

Evidently, Szabina Bakos told the New York Times reporters that she lived in Queens but was originally from Hungary, and the reporters analyzed that information as follows: "She is currently on a subway train somewhere beneath lower Manhattan, but she is from [that is, "lives in"] Queens, which she arrived at by way of [that is, "from"] Hungary."

I don't think that "by way of" does a satisfactory job of indicating "after originating in." but you can see how the reporters boxed themselves in by committing to using "from" to mean "lives in." (In the next sentence, they report that another passenger is "from Miami.") The decision to use "from" to mean "lives in" is not inherently objectionable, but it forces the reporters here to scrabble for a way to identify an earlier place of origin for the person from Queens without getting stuck with three instances of "from" in rapid succession, as in "Szabina Bakos, 26, from Queens but originally from Hungary" followed five words later by "Lilian Galiounghi, 31, from Miami."

A more natural way to identify Ms. Bakos might be as "a Hungarian immigrant who now lives in Queens," but perhaps New York Times style disallows calling people immigrants, or the reporters didn't consider that wording breezy enough, or some other complication intervened. Anyway, at least for now, it seems to me that using "by way of" to mean "originally from" is likely to confuse more readers than it edifies.

I encounter the confusing usage most often in the introduction of fighters at boxing and MMA events. There are a few announcers for whom I will give credit for avoiding the ambiguous (or wrong) "by way of" and saying "originally from". Nevertheless, few do. The way you usually hear the questionable usage would be something like, "fighting out of the Dallas Boxing Club by way of Nigeria."

I want to offer a conjecture that might help resolve the issue if there is someone who can follow up on it. I think that Jimmy Lennon Sr. may have been the earliest announcer (or one of the earliest) to employ the strange usage. That was long enough ago, that it could have entered the vernacular as a result of TV coverage of boxing events. If that is so, then Jimmy Lennon Jr. (who himself employs the strange usage) might be able to shed some light on it. Perhaps someone could contact him and get him to comment on the issue.

Going back to the OP’s question. I could be wrong, but here’s how I see the path the people in your example took to arrive at what you consider a reversal of logic. Whether taking that path was right or wrong...who can say? It's a idiom.

“I got to the mountains by way of the tunnel.” Basic use of the phrase according to a number of dictionaries.

In that regard they could say “I got to this neighborhood by way of that city/state.” So NOW, “I’m from the mountains (the neighborhood they now call home) by way of the tunnel (their previous city or state).”

“From the seashore I got to the mountains by way of the toll road and the tunnel.”

In this regard, they are living in the mountains or they are from the mountains (now), but they got there by way of the tunnel, the toll road, and the seashore. Question is, in what order do you list these locations? Did you use the toll road before or after going through the tunnel? This could cause confusion if you’re trying to lay out your whole life and all the places you’ve ever lived. But if you pick your original starting point and your ending point, eliminating all the ones in between, you could say:

“I’m from the mountains (where you live now) by way of the seashore (your original starting point).”

At first glance this may seem ‘backward’, but the people in your example aren’t listing a travel itinerary or a biography. They’re answering the question: Where are you from (or consider yourself to be from) [now]?” The ‘now’ is implied. “I’m from the mountains and I got t/here by going through x.”

Someone who has moved from one place to another a lot, may not consider themselves to be ‘from’ their birthplace. In which case, when the question “Where are you from?” is asked, they don’t think “Where are you from [originally]?” Instead, they think “Where are you from [most recently]?”

In the example from Mad Men, the Illinois-born character came to Atlanta directly from Pennsylvania and considers himself to be from Pennsylvania (but he got there by way of Illinois).