Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

35/37 marker match w/different surnames

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 35/37 marker match w/different surnames

    I'm hoping someone could help me analyze my Y-DNA results. I tried to make this short and concise but it's difficult. I'm researching my Smith line. Either my gr-gr-gr- or my gr-gr-gr-gr grandfather married a person with the Hardiman surname. It's not clear which one.

    While checking the DNA matches I have with other people, I found a lot of people in my Hardiman line around the people with whom I have a DNA match. For instance, I have a 35/37 marker DNA match with a person with the Slaughter surname who also has Smiths in her line. Descendants of the same Hardiman family were found on the same page as her ancestors in 1850 and 1860.

    I have a 24/25 marker match with a person with the Barry surname and descendants of the same Hardimans were on the same page as his in 1850 and 1860 who had married a woman named Barry.

    Another 35/37 marker match I have is with someone with the Hope surname. In 1850 District 321, Forsyth Co., GA his ancestor James Hope was directly beside a person named Hutchins whose daughter married another descendant of the same Hardimans.

    Lillian Light was the daughter of William V. Light. She married my gr-grandfather, Joseph Smith. In 1860 I found a Wesley Hardiman living five houses away from William who descends from the same Hardimans. He married a Mary H. Gober.

    I have a 12/12 marker match with a person named Owen(s). His gr-gr-grandmother Piety Singleton married a Massengale, divorced, and then remarried a person named Owen(s), so his real surname is Massengale. (In additon to this 12/12 marker match, I have a 25/25 and a 35/37 marker match with two other Massengales). In 1850 she was in her parents house in District 31, Forsyth Co., GA (like the Hope match I have).

    There's a William S. Williams on the same page as the sons of my Hope match in 1850 District 31, Forsyth Co., GA also. His son was Jefferson P. Williams, and he married the daughter of a Warren Y. Massengale.

    There's a Norris L. Massengale in Precinct 4, Fannin Co., TX in 1870 who married a Sarah J. Smith. He was the nephew of Warren Y. Massingill and she was the daughter of John S. Smith.

    Warren Y. Massingill (pg. 63), Jefferson P. Williams (whose father was on the same page as the sons of the Hope match I have in 1850) (pg. 63), John S. Smith (whose daughter married N.L. Massengale) (pg. 64) and Ezekiel Williams (wife: Martha M. Gober, sister of Wesley Hardiman's wife Mary H. Gober) (pg. 64) were all one right after the other in Beat 5, Fannin Co., Texas in 1860. Wesley Hardiman was one page away from my gr-gr-grandfather, William V. Light in 1860.

    I've found a lot more circumstances like these. How should these DNA near matches be analyzed?

  • #2
    Obviously, you have a genealogy that is less about a line, such as Smith, than about a group of people, in history, who intermarried, lived as neighbors, and even emigrated together (to TX). I suppose some sort of Non-Parental Event is indicated, an adoption of a child, or an adoption by husband of his wife's surname, or something (although not something that would sunder the relationship).

    I hope your contacts with your matches are amicable and they are as interested in the family history as you because the sorting-out will almost certainly call for more joint testing. I suppose you are all the same haplogroup, so collective subclade testing is indicated followed by a search among Old World Y-results for geographic origins

    I also suppose someone will weigh-in about fast and slow markers that will, hopefully, help you narrow you search.

    I would put easy internet dollars on the bet that the 'mystery' is older than the oldest known paternal ancestor you have yet identified or may identify, that your's is a clan story or a story of an extended family, that is, rather different that how we currently define family.
    Last edited by tomcat; 23 August 2007, 12:40 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      35/37 marker match w/different surnames

      Thank you.

      Comment


      • #4
        I must point out that FTDNA's official literature advises that any matches across different surname should be confirmed at the 67-marker level first. I can endorse this from personal experience. My cousin, of Polish ancestry, had a 33/37 match with a member of a well-known Scottish family. I was quite intrigued as to what this might mean, but after an upgrade, the "match" had turned to 55/67. Advanced markers beyond the 67 further degraded the "match."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by lgmayka
          My cousin, of Polish ancestry, had a 33/37 match with a member of a well-known Scottish family. I was quite intrigued as to what this might mean, but after an upgrade, the "match" had turned to 55/67. Advanced markers beyond the 67 further degraded the "match."
          That's interesting. I also had a 33/37 match with a different surname. Since both our surnames and our genealogical paper trails point to the same general geographic region, this was intriguing. The upgrade to 67 matched at all 30 new markers, which made me wonder about the general diversity and volatility of 38 through 67...i.e just how significant was it to match at all of them? Your cousin's result suggests that 37 near-matches can and do fall apart at 67. But even at 63/67, knowing that we did not share a common ancestor for at least 5 generations places the 50% point of the TMRCA curve to between 9 and 10 generations.

          BTW, regretably I can't attend your talk to the PGSA in September. I'm sure it will be great.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rbsvnski
            The upgrade to 67 matched at all 30 new markers, which made me wonder about the general diversity and volatility of 38 through 67...i.e just how significant was it to match at all of them?
            The overall mutation rate among markers 38-67 is very low, though there are some markers in that upgrade with mutatin rates that are high.

            It is precisely this low mutation rate that makes the test useful to seperating the "really related" 37-marker near-matches from the "coincidental" 37-marker near-matches.

            Once you conclude that the lineages are related within a genealogical timeframe, I would suggest a compliment of fast-moving and/or palindromic markers from the a la carte Advanced Orders panels to sort out the relationships further.

            I used DYS461, DSY462, Y-GATA-A10, DYS635, DYS441, DYS444, DYS446, DYS463, DYS413, DYS434, DYS495, DYS643, and DYS714 to take a 36/37 match (same surname) to a 49/51 match.

            Comment

            Working...
            X