Resolving J1 Haplogroup with family name Hatfield

[Chap]

Some other researcher. This is the line:
Daniel H. HATFIELD
b. abt 1800 New Jersey, USA

Samuel M. HATFIELD
b. 8 May 1832 Schuyler County, Illinois, USA

Samuel Henry HATFIELD
b. 8 Apr 1866 Winslow, Pike, Indiana, USA

John Samuel HATFIELD
b. 21 Feb 1892 Owensville, Gibson, Indiana, USA

Is that your line too?

Regards,
Jim

Jim,
Yes, that's also my line, at least to Samuel M. My GGGrandfather was Samuel Henry's brother Abraham Lincoln Hatfield.
The only way we know Daniel Hatfield came from New Jersey is his birthplace listing in subsequent Indiana censuses, and I make his birth closer to 1795.
But yeah, that's us. The feuding Hatfields were one of the other five main branches of the name. We were settled in Indiana long before the feud with the McCoys took place in West Virginia.
Regards,
Tim

[Jim Honeychuck]

Jim,
Yes, that's also my line, at least to Samuel M. My GGGrandfather was Samuel Henry's brother Abraham Lincoln Hatfield.
The only way we know Daniel Hatfield came from New Jersey is his birthplace listing in subsequent Indiana censuses, and I make his birth closer to 1795.
But yeah, that's us. The feuding Hatfields were one of the other five main branches of the name. We were settled in Indiana long before the feud with the McCoys took place in West Virginia.
Regards,
Tim

Regarding early American records, I leave you to it.

In the meantime, I call your attention to your similarity with 67400 George W Gream 1797 VA J1e on the Grimes DNA Project,

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/grimes/default.aspx?section=yresults

That seem to be the same case as Ysearch 6K4XA Gream, which has not been updated to the 37 markers on the Grimes DNA Project.

You match that case on 25 of 37 markers. By a calculation you can do for yourself at http://dna-project.clan-donald-usa.org/tmrca.htm , you most likely share a common ancestor about 59 generations ago. At an arbitrary 25 years per generation, that would be 1,475 years ago, around the 6th Century AD and before surnames.

I'm thinking maybe it is not a coincidence that the surnames Hatfield and Greame are most frequent in the same areas of England. http://www.nationaltrustnames.org.uk/ Plenty of Roman settlements in those areas too.

If you want to try to connect those dots with the weak 2,075 year old match to the case in Croatia, you can track the Roman auxiliary units at http://www.roman-britain.org/

Regards,
Jim

[vinnie]

Thank you Vinnie. You're obviously well versed on this topic and I appreciate you sharing your knowledge with me.

One thing I'm (more) confused about though, is that you say DYS388=15 & 16 represent more modern Jews, but Jim stated that it "is probably the result of one of two waves of Neolithic expansion, namely the one by way of the Mediterranean and Atlantic coast", so there is obviously still some room for interpretation of these data.

If Jim's position is accurate, that would validate your theory of my ancestor being in England before the adoption of place surnames, possibly even as a Roman slave, as you theorize. That is something I would never have even considered, but it is worthy of some thought.

If there are more general assumptions that can be drawn from my DYS numbers, please don't hesitate to share them with me.

Thanks again.

Chap,

Yes, DYS388=15/16 could have come through the Neolithic expansion, but it also could have come through any number of later historical events like those I've suggested. Remember that not every single case of J1 in Britain has to be traced to the same event; most probably there were a number of events responsible for the individual J1 lineages there now. As for those marker values being traced to either modern Arabs or Jews, what I mean is that if you survey the available public databases and published papers, among those who identify themselves as Jews, 15 & 16 are the more common values, while for those who identify themselves as Arabs, 17 & higher are the more common values.

[~Elizabeth~]

1800s New Jersey? I also had ancestors that lived in NJ in the 1800s, according to the paper trail of my paternal grandmother (but she may have been adopted). There were a lot of English settlers there.

[Chap]

Regarding early American records, I leave you to it.

In the meantime, I call your attention to your similarity with 67400 George W Gream 1797 VA J1e on the Grimes DNA Project,

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/grimes/default.aspx?section=yresults

That seem to be the same case as Ysearch 6K4XA Gream, which has not been updated to the 37 markers on the Grimes DNA Project.

You match that case on 25 of 37 markers. By a calculation you can do for yourself at http://dna-project.clan-donald-usa.org/tmrca.htm , you most likely share a common ancestor about 59 generations ago. At an arbitrary 25 years per generation, that would be 1,475 years ago, around the 6th Century AD and before surnames.

I'm thinking maybe it is not a coincidence that the surnames Hatfield and Greame are most frequent in the same areas of England. http://www.nationaltrustnames.org.uk/ Plenty of Roman settlements in those areas too.

If you want to try to connect those dots with the weak 2,075 year old match to the case in Croatia, you can track the Roman auxiliary units at http://www.roman-britain.org/

Regards,
Jim

Jim/Vinnie/Elizabeth, et.al.,

Can any of you point me to a chart or graph that lists the various geographic or ethnic traits associated with individual DYS numbers? Like what you previously suggested about the DYS388 numbers with 15 & 16 being more predominantly one ethnicity and 17 & 18 being another? If I can create a map based on each DYS or allele, it may help to confirm or disprove some of the theories I've been working on.

And thanks for the tip about the Roman garrisons in Britannia. I've been researching them non-stop, and I think there could be some real meat on my ancestral bones there.

Thanks again.

[vinnie]

Jim/Vinnie/Elizabeth, et.al.,

Can any of you point me to a chart or graph that lists the various geographic or ethnic traits associated with individual DYS numbers? Like what you previously suggested about the DYS388 numbers with 15 & 16 being more predominantly one ethnicity and 17 & 18 being another? If I can create a map based on each DYS or allele, it may help to confirm or disprove some of the theories I've been working on.

And thanks for the tip about the Roman garrisons in Britannia. I've been researching them non-stop, and I think there could be some real meat on my ancestral bones there.

Thanks again.

Chap,

Jim knows much more than I do about DYS388 values below 15, but other than the general observations about 15 and higher that I've related to you, there is no one-to-one correspondence that I know of that exists between the values and specific ethnicities. As he already mentioned, J1 is mostly about SNPs at this point. So while I understand your excitement, I suggest waiting for your SNP results to point you in the right direction.

[Jim Honeychuck]

Jim/Vinnie/Elizabeth, et.al.,

Can any of you point me to a chart or graph that lists the various geographic or ethnic traits associated with individual DYS numbers? Like what you previously suggested about the DYS388 numbers with 15 & 16 being more predominantly one ethnicity and 17 & 18 being another? If I can create a map based on each DYS or allele, it may help to confirm or disprove some of the theories I've been working on.

And thanks for the tip about the Roman garrisons in Britannia. I've been researching them non-stop, and I think there could be some real meat on my ancestral bones there.

Thanks again.

Since your haplotype does not point to any specific ethnic group in www.yhrd.org, I suggest you browse all the DNA projects and databases so see if you can come up with any close matches.

Regards,
Jim

[vinnie]

Chap,

This is a "P.S." to my last post. It seems that recently discovered SNPs L147 and L222.2 will provide greater resolution for J1e; the J Project has started coding the subgroups into those who are positive and negative for these two SNPs. Notably, the Cohanim are positive for L147 but negative for L222.2. In contrast, so far, many of the Arab haplotypes are positive for both. (There is another newly discovered SNP, L65, which looks like it will help distinguish among those positive for L222.2.) Likewise, in the J1e (L147) project, many of the Arab haplotypes are also positive for L222.2, but as of now, there's no subgrouping for those who are negative for this SNP.

[Jim Honeychuck]

Chap,

This is a "P.S." to my last post. It seems that recently discovered SNPs L147 and L222.2 will provide greater resolution for J1e; the J Project has started coding the subgroups into those who are positive and negative for these two SNPs. Notably, the Cohanim are positive for L147 but negative for L222.2. In contrast, so far, many of the Arab haplotypes are positive for both. (There is another newly discovered SNP, L65, which looks like it will help distinguish among those positive for L222.2.) Likewise, in the J1e (L147) project, many of the Arab haplotypes are also positive for L222.2, but as of now, there's no subgrouping for those who are negative for this SNP.

I endorse Vinnie's recommendation. SNP deep clade testing is where the state of the art understanding of J1e is to be found (although I myself am not trying to follow it).

Regards,
Jim
J1*

[Chap]

Thanks guys. I anxiously await the results of the Deep Clade.

[~Elizabeth~]

Chap,

This is a "P.S." to my last post. It seems that recently discovered SNPs L147 and L222.2 will provide greater resolution for J1e; the J Project has started coding the subgroups into those who are positive and negative for these two SNPs. Notably, the Cohanim are positive for L147 but negative for L222.2. In contrast, so far, many of the Arab haplotypes are positive for both. (There is another newly discovered SNP, L65, which looks like it will help distinguish among those positive for L222.2.) Likewise, in the J1e (L147) project, many of the Arab haplotypes are also positive for L222.2, but as of now, there's no subgrouping for those who are negative for this SNP.

Wow! That's amazing.

[vinnie]

Just to clarify, the Cohanim are NOT the only ones negative for L222.2; the J Project has listed 4 Arab haplotypes, in addition to mine and my closest match, which are also negative.

[~Elizabeth~]

Ok. Does the J project list the haplotypes for anyone to view, or is it private. I had read (wikipedia) that the Phoenicians are J2. Is L222.2 found only in some J1e or in J2 also?

[Chap]

Just to clarify, the Cohanim are NOT the only ones negative for L222.2; the J Project has listed 4 Arab haplotypes, in addition to mine and my closest match, which are also negative.

Thanks Vinnie, but this is where I begin to wonder if you're still speaking English. I'm still trying to make sense of all the letters and numbers used in this nomenclature. How does L222.2 fit into the DYS graph I have? Is it a DYS number or an allele? What do the plus and minus represent? Will this all make more sense to me when I receive the results of the Deep Clade test?

My degree is in electronics, not biology. Is there a link to an easy to comprehend explanation of the terminology?

Thanks again for your knowledge and generosity.

[vinnie]

Ok. Does the J project list the haplotypes for anyone to view, or is it private. I had read (wikipedia) that the Phoenicians are J2. Is L222.2 found only in some J1e or in47 J2 also?

Elizabeth,

Here's the link to the results: http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults

L222.2 is found only in J1e; it's downstream of L147, which is downstream of P58 (J1e). In other words, someone can only be positive for L147 if he's also positive for P58, and only those who are positive for L147 can be positive for L222.2.