Update #1: Looking for the Link Between "Delmarva" James of 1661 and "Onslow" James of 1732, plus Bishops and Stokelys

If you have not yet read my original article in which I set out prove once and for all whether there is a direct lineal connection between the James Henderson Senior and Junior of early Onslow County NC and the older group of Hendersons on the Delmarva peninsula, take a moment to read that to get up to speed.

For years our two families of Hendersons have operated on the premise that each group had emigrated separately, the first arriving in the very early 1660's on the Delmarva Peninsula (Northampton and Accomack County VA), and the second Henderson family arriving roughly seventy years later, probably through the port of Wilmington, and then taking up land in what became Onslow County NC. To be fair, a couple of researchers from the Delmarva group gave the idea of a direct connection more weight than our group did, but no paper connection had ever been made between the two groups,* so we just had to shrug and wonder. Thanks to the magic of DNA testing, we've learned that not only is there a connection, but potentially a much closer one than we thought. This means we need to have another look at the paper trail.

A slight adjustment to what had been a longstanding chronology for the Onslow group (which I won't go into here, but which I believe is a correct change since it brings my work into alignment with that of Morris Meyers's) has shown several possibilities where the elusive connection might exist.

You'll see at the bottom of the first article the original version of the chart I made to help us quickly identify the places in the Delmarva tree where a direct connection with our James of Onslow might have occurred. In this article I am posting an updated version of the chart in which I believe I have eliminated two of the former candidates that were being investigated as potential ancestors.

I am not a linear researcher. I tend to be a bit like a hummingbird, flitting intensely from question to question, and person to person in the database, but at the end of the day (or week, or month), I typically arrive at a conclusion I can support with reasoning and evidence. I can't say that I'm pursuing this leg of the research in as systematic a way as I'd have liked (too many tangents lead me astray in the web of interconnected families), but I can say that my haphazard method has produced results.

As I said, I have eliminated two of the male candidates from the original chart, both of them sons of John and Elizabeth Barnabe Henderson. The John Henderson-Elizabeth Barnabe line is prolific and by far the best documented of the Delmarva group. John Henderson's younger brothers William (m. Sarah Bishop) and James Junior (m. Esther) are much less so, so I started with John's only two sons who might be long-shot possibilities: William b ca 1681 and Joseph (b unknown).  John and Elizabeth's other sons, Charles (b ca 1687), John Junior (b ca 1689), James (b aft 1695) and Benjamin (b ca 1697) were "pedigreed" enough for me to identify and eliminate them as strong candidates to be the ancestor of our Onslow James Henderson(s). Their children didn't fit the names or dates we were targeting, and were typically too young to be our man.

If there is indeed the direct connection between our two families that we suspect, our  James Henderson Senior of Onslow was most likely a grandson of the original Delmarva James of 1661 Northampton/Accomack County VA.  Even so, I had a quick run through the children of John and Elizabeth Barnabe Henderson just to make sure there were no obvious gaps, and to satisfy myself that I had thoroughly explored every possibility before ruling them out.

Again, I realized that I had no information on that couple's eldest son, William, nor their youngest, Joseph. Subsequent research showed that both men had pre-deceased their father and William apparently died without heirs, naming only siblings in his will. This explains why there is so little about him online. No descendants to dig up bones. Joseph's will only mentioned a wife (Elizabeth) and an underage daughter, Hannah. That seems to effectively eliminate both of these men, who were already weak candidates due to their age (in other words, they obviously aren't our man, and their children would have been too young to be our James Senior, even had any previously undocumented sons of either man turned up in research).

Both of those men are now grayed out on the updated chart (at the bottom of this article, click to enlarge) with notes indicating no direct male heirs.

In another encouraging development, I believe I have identified an unaccounted-for James Henderson on the 1723 "census" information for Somerset County MD (where the Delmarva group settled after leaving Northampton and Accomack). Since we can account for the James living in 1723 who belonged to John and Elizabeth Barnabe Henderson (as well as John and Elizabeth's grandson James who would not have been old enough in 1723 to head up a household), AND we can account for the James Henderson Junior b 1669 who married Esther, then this third unidentified James (born sometime prior to 1703) would necessarily have had to have belonged to William and Sarah Bishop Henderson, OR to James and Ester Henderson. This is precisely what we were hoping to find. A previously unidentified James of the right age in Delmarva. But it's too soon to get excited. We can't prove he's our James Henderson Senior of Onslow, and we don't know which of the two couples he belonged to. But I'm working on that. I have my suspicions. Things are looking promising, but it's a tough row to hoe trying to find solid documentation that far back.

The third change to the chart is a very tentative (and perhaps premature) one. We know that James and Mary Henderson were the parents of John, baptized 1661 in Northampton Co VA, and also of William and sister Jane (sometimes spelled Jeane), both born before 1668. But in 1668 James has a new wife, Alice, whom he "transports" into Somerset County MD along with his three children. Obviously some time before 1668 Mary had died, leaving John with three very young children. I can just imagine how he liked that situation. He needed a wife, and fast. And as they say, proximity, proximity, proximity.

Up until this point, based on the "transportation" record of 1668, we had idly believed that James brought his children and new wife Alice from England? Scotland? But there was a problem with that. John, the eldest, was clearly baptized in Northampton County VA in 1661. James was active and well-documented in the records of the Delmarva Peninsula all through the early-to-mid 1660's so he had little opportunity to take a practically constantly pregnant Mary on a dangerous ocean voyage to England/Ireland/Scotland (and why do so?), then remarry and travel back to Virginia/Maryland in time to be there in April 1666 when he received a 400a grant for eight headrights in Accomack County VA. When I laid this out on my timeline, I realized he had only moved the family from the colony of Virginia across the (disputed) border into the colony of Maryland. That constituted "transporting" the family That meant wife Alice was likely from Virginia. Proximity, proximity, proximity. 

Now, let's talk about those eight headrights in April of 1666. Like I said, I'm a research hummingbird and I dart from idea to idea, and one of the ideas I've been spending some time on is the connection between the Henderson family and the Bishop family. (Remember, James's son William married Sarah Bishop in 1685 [documented], daughter of Delmarva settler Lt. Henry Bishop, who, incidentally was a neighbor to Gilbert Henderson who was also in Hungars Parish in 1661 baptizing a daughter the same year James and Mary Henderson were baptizing their son John, but I digress. Hummingbird.). The Bishops married into the Stokely family (of early Accomack and Northampton Counties, VA, also spelled Stockley and Stoakley). The Bishops also show up in 18th-century New Hanover and Onslow County NC, and could be clue that leads us to the connection between our Onslow group and the Delmarva group. But...hummingbird.

So back to those headright settlers, now that we've established a family connection between the Hendersons and Bishops and Stoakleys, and we're talking about (or were supposed to be) James's second wife, the mysterious Alice, take a look at this record from Cavaliers and Pioneers: "JAMES HENDERSON, 400 acs. Accomack Co., on S. side of Pocomoke Riv., 5 Apr. 1666, Bounded on E. by land surveyed for Thomas Davis. Trans. of 8 pers: Jno. Long, James Collins, Edwd. Top, Eliz. White, Jno. Price, Jno. Aubry, Alice Stewkly, Florence Evans."

Alice! Stewkly! Stokely? Proximity, proximity, proximity.

Click chart to enlarge

*Barnaby Henderson, son of Charles & Parthenia Merrill Henderson of the Delmarva line shows up in Onslow County NC several decades after James Senior and Junior are already settled on property on the New River. This later immigration of Onslow County Hendersons is well-documented and is not the connection we are looking for, however, almost all of the Hendersons who remain in Onslow County today trace back to this line.

Delmarva Hendersons in Revolutionary Worcester Co MD Militias

I'm going through some paperwork on loan from fellow researcher Robin Henderson and I ran across an extract of Worcester Co MD Hendersons on Revolutionary militias made by David Jones (also researching the Delmarva Hendersons). 

This seems like a good thing to keep up with, although I'm not prepared to park the data anywhere specific since I don't yet have all of these men parceled into my database. Since this is likely to be of use to other researchers, I thought I'd chart it up here in my blog. I'm dividing it out by companies rather than listing the men alphabetically.

Names taken from The Maryland Militia in the Revolutionary War, by S. Eugene Clements and F. Edward Right.

Captain John Parramore's Company, Wicomico Battalion 1777
Brittingham Henderson 1777, 1780
Ephriam Henderson 1780
Samuel Henderson 1780
William Henderson 1780

Captain Samuel Smyly's Company, Wicomico Battalion, 1780
Curtis Henderson 1780

Captain William Purnell's Company, Wicomico Battalion, 1780
Curtis Henderson 1777, 1780

Captain Matthew Purnell's Company, Sinepuxen Battalion, 1780
John Henderson 1780
William Henderson 1780

Captain William Purnell's Company, Sinepuxen Battalion, 1780
Jesse Henderson 1780

Captain Layfields Company, Wicomico Battalion, 1780
Isaac Henderson 1780
Jacob Henderson 1780
James Henderson 1780
Jenkins Henderson 1780
John Trehorn Henderson, Sgt. 1780
Joseph Henderson, Sgt. 1780
Levi Henderson 1780
Smart Henderson 1780
Thomas Henderson 1780
William Holland Henderson 1780
William Merrill Henderson 1780

Note: There is some confusion in online trees as to whether Brittingham Henderson was the son of Jesse & Rhoda Henderson, or the son of John and Rhoda "Brittingham" Henderson. I have found no satisfactory documentary evidence of either scenario at this point. (Neither have I found proof that either Rhoda was a Brittingham.) A Sally Brittingham married a James Henderson on 21 Oct 1830 in "Maryland" but that's the only documented connection between Brittinghams and Hendersons I have found. A Rhoda "Bowds" (name uncertain) made a December 1804 will and left bequests to sons Brittingham Henderson and William Henderson (one shilling each), but there is no indication of who Rhoda might have been prior to becoming a Henderson, or whether she was the wife of Jesse or John (or either). 

Was There Ever a "James Isaac Henderson?"

This blog article is an update of a little write-up I did back in 2006 when I realized that James Henderson who made his 1770 will in Onslow County NC (*1) was being referred to increasingly online (and without any caveats or explanation) as "James Isaac Henderson" -- as if it had been copied straight from an early 18th century parish register.

Furthermore, I realized that I might be responsible for the perpetuation of the error.

Prior to about 1985 the connection between Argalus Henderson (*2) of Chatham County and his father, James "Isaac" Henderson of Onslow County, was not widely known among researchers. Most people's research dead-ended with Argalus during much of the last century, so the connection with James Henderson of Onslow was something that only began to show up among researchers in the last 20-30 years. I realized it was likely copies of my own (sloppy) notes that were being shared during the early days of internet genealogy, so before his name became forever chiseled in stone, I thought I'd better try to undo some of the damage I'd done.

Having said that, I have updated this blog article with some additional thoughts and ideas about the use of the name "Isaac" in the Onslow family line as well as the possible earlier use among the Eastern Shore Hendersons.

Here is a slightly modified version of my original 2006 article:

Was there ever a "James Isaac Henderson"?

During over two decades of research, no single document with the name "James Isaac Henderson" has ever been found. So why is the name so widespread among internet researchers?

I May Be to Blame

I confess it's probably my fault. Over twenty years ago, long before the advent of the internet and its ability to rapidly perpetuate incorrect information, I took up research of my Henderson family where my aunt, Thelma Henderson Schoolfield, had left off. Since time was a luxury I had back in the day, I made rapid headway in courthouses and libraries across North Carolina and quickly discovered that we could push our line back one generation prior to Argalus of Chatham County NC, who until that time was our earliest known Henderson ancestor.

Colonial North Carolina records conclusively show that the father of Argalus Henderson was one James Henderson of Henderson's Landing on the New River in present-day Onslow County. I was delighted to find numerous early Onslow County records all referencing James Henderson. James Henderson was a busy man. James Henderson showed up in the records regularly. There was no question about where James Henderson was, or what he was doing, or what he was called. Notice that I keep emphasizing James Henderson, and there is no "Isaac" in between "James" and "Henderson."

James Henderson (the man I believe to be James Henderson Sr., whom I now call Mariner James Henderson) appears almost immediately in Onslow after the formation of the precinct, years before it officially became a county. Possibly he was already living in on the New River, although we have not yet been able to conclusively identify him in the records of earlier New Hanover Precinct or surrounding precincts of Bertie, Chowan, Beaufort or Carteret. (*3)

At first James appears alone, and then there is a period of years where a “James Henderson Sr.” and a “James Henderson Jr.” are mentioned in records. Then, after another period of years has passed, the records once again only reference a “James Henderson,” leading us to believe that either father or son had died. For some reason I no longer recall, I originally thought that Junior had died, but now I am more inclined to believe it was Mariner James Henderson Senior who passed away, once again leaving a single James Henderson - very likely the man we call “James ‘Isaac’ Henderson” - active in Onslow County until his death, between 1776-1780.

The latter James Henderson named the following children in his will: son Argalus, and daughters Lucy Henderson Loyd, Bethany Nixon, Elizabeth ("Betty") Jenkins, Nancy ("Nanny") Henderson. (*4) Throughout his will and in all other colonial records except for the the single reference below our James is referred to only as "James Henderson."

The Origin of Isaac

So where did "Isaac" come from?

Onslow County NC Deed Book 18 Page 44:

Apr. 16, 1792 "William Loyd and his wife, Lucy, and Archelaus Henderson of Onslow and Chatham Counties, NC, for the sum of [sixty pounds] sold to James Foy, Jr., land on Kizabel's Creek in Onslow Co. near James Henderson's Landing, 220 acres whereon Isaac Henderson lived and died, and willed to his daughter, Lucy Henderson, now Lucy Loyd, the land granted to Nathaniel Avritt and deeded by will to James Henderson, deceased. Test: James Foy Sr., William Jenkins."

This record is clearly referring to the same James Henderson of the 1770 will (who named Lucy and Argalus as his children). And yet, equally clearly, the same man, the father of Lucy and Argalus, is being called Isaac Henderson in this document eighteen years later.

Without looking at the original document, I have no way to tell if this is a transcription error, but it seems unlikely that "James" could be mistaken for "Isaac." Since Argalus would name his firstborn son Isaac, I feel certain that the record says "Isaac" and not "James." (*5)

For lack of any better ideas, I decided that the best thing to do was use “Isaac” as a possible middle name for James. These days I always try to put it in quote marks "Isaac" or parentheses (Isaac) to remind us that it may not be correct.

Curiously, there is a tiny bit of a hint that the progenitor of the Eastern Shore Henderson may also have used the name "Isaac" and in fact may have also been a James “Isaac” Henderson himself, but I base that on a single speculative clue having to do with the fact that his daughter, Jane Henderson Williams, followed the tradition of naming her eldest son after her husband’s father (John Williams) and then, instead of naming her second son “James” for her father as one might expect, she named him “Isaac.” A tenuous thread, but an intriguing one.

So there you are. For better or worse, the name "James 'Isaac' Henderson" was carelessly recorded in my notes, which soon began to circulate among online researchers. Mea culpa. Mea culpa. If anyone can provide an original source document with the full name "James Isaac Henderson", I would be happy to change my position on this and stop qualifying the name with quotes or parentheses, but until then, "Isaac" remains unconfirmed and open to debate.

Now, an additional word about the frequent use of the name Isaac among descendants of Hendersons of the Eastern Shore. In my database I currently show the following Isaac Hendersons. There may be others that I don't have in my notes.

Somerset County MD James Henderson's Descendants Named "Isaac:"

• Isaac Williams b aft 1696, s/o Jane Henderson Williams of Somerset Co MD
• Isaac Henderson b 1741 s/o Jesse & Rhoda Henderson of Somerset Co MD
• Isaac Henderson b 1790, s/o Barnaby Henderson Junior of Onslow Co NC
• Isaac Henderson b aft 1801, s/o Lemuel Henderson of Accomack Co VA (connection unidentified)
• Isaac Henderson b 1806 s/o Levin & Nancy Layfield Henderson
• Isaac Henderson b 1836, s/o James Henderson of Worcester Co MD
• Isaac Newton Henderson Sr. b 1847, s/o Henry Henderson of Duck Creek NC (connection unproven) and Isaac Newton's son, Isaac Newton Henderson Jr. b 1885, Onslow Co NC

Chatham/Onslow James "Isaac" Henderson's Descendants Named "Isaac:"

• Isaac Henderson b 1753, s/o Argaleus of Onslow & Chatham Counties, NC
• Isaac Henderson b 1822, s/o Argaleus Henderson the younger of Greenville Co SC
• Isaac R. Henderson b 1827, s/o Hezekiah Henderson of Chatham Co NC
• Isaac Henderson b 1831, s/o Obediah Henderson of Chatham Co NC
• Isaac E. Henderson b&d 1882, s/o Elwood Lindley Henderson of Chatham Co NC
• Isaac Ingram Henderson b 1886, s/o Orla Hezekiah Henderson of Chatham Co NC (Orla and Elwood were brothers, sons of Isaac R. Henderson listed above)

Jane Henderson Williams, daughter of James Henderson Senior of Somerset Co MD, named her eldest child "John" after her husband's father (and her husband). Traditionally the next son would have been named "James" for her own father, but instead, she called him "Isaac."

*1 Although James "Isaac" wrote his will in October 1770, he apparently did not die as anticipated. He can still be found in Onslow records up until August of 1776. The first record that clearly indicates his demise is from 8th April, 1780.

*2 Spelled varyingly as Argulus, Argaleus, Archelaus, Hercules, etc.

*3 There are records of a James Henderson active in upper coastal NC as early as the seventeen-teens and seventeen-twenties, but I have not yet been able to conclusively prove he is Mariner James Henderson of Onslow.

*4 Also in the area during James “Isaac” Henderson's lifetime was a Joseph Henderson, and a William Henderson, but no connection has yet been established, although I am keeping an eye on William in particular as a possible relation.

*5 It was traditional up until the 19th century to name the eldest son after the father's father.

Y-DNA Testing: Where to Do It, Why to Do It, and How Many Markers to Test - Part 3

In Part 1 of this series we talked about where to test, and in Part 2, why to test.  Now let's talk about how to select the optimal number of markers to test.

Part 3 - How many markers should you test?

The simple answer is that you should test as many as you can possibly afford to.

I had a quick look at Family Tree DNA's product page and it looks like they are no longer promoting Y-12 or Y-25. I believe those can still be had for specific testing purposes by joining one of the surname projects, but the current public entry-level test now appears to be a Y-37 at a cost of $169.00. I believe that discounts may be available if you first search for the desired surname project and request a test through the project, but I am not sure. Try that method first, or search online for coupon codes specific to FTDNA or special limited-time offers.

Here's why more markers is better.

I touched earlier on the fact that unique mutations can appear through time within specific branches of a related family cluster. The higher the number of matching markers between you and another tester, the closer in time your common ancestor will likely be found. Higher level tests will help you narrow down a time frame for your mutual connection. In the case of my Henderson example in the previous article in this series, we are upgrading the Delmarva line (currently only tested at 12-marker levels) to compare to our own line which has already tested at higher levels. In this way we may be able to determine whether our common ancestor is likely to have lived before the older group first appears in Virginia in 1661 (in which case the shared connection would likely be in Scotland), or after 1661 (in which case the younger branch likely descends from the older).

Another reason to test at higher levels was mentioned in Part 1 of this series, but not explained. The 12-marker tests will often turn up a number of distracting non-surname matches. You may have shared an ancestor with these matches in pre-historic times, but probably not within historic memory, and in most cases you should not waste time and energy attempting to find the connection. Take my Brooks surname project for instance. At 12 markers, I currently have 151 matches! Imagine if I wasted precious time and resources trying to track all of those folks down just to discover we go back to Og who lived in a cave in Austria! (As if you could ever identify such a distant connection anyway.)

When I upgraded the Brooks test to 25 markers, I was still left with 106 matches, including a large number of testers with non-matching surnames. Too many leads to reasonably pursue. At 37 markers the red herrings and more distant matches begin to fall away, but I am still left with 27 leads. This is definitely a more manageable group, and probably an acceptable starting point for such a common surname, but what if I took things a step further and tested at 67 markers? 19 matches, but at this point, anyone within the same surname is definitely worth investigating further. Even some of the non-surname matches might turn out to be NPE's (non-paternal events) that could actually be genetic Brooks relatives. I typically don't focus my efforts on those, but it doesn't hurt to establish contact. One non-surname match actually suspected he was a Brooks on the male line, and his surname was already familiar to several of us through a maternal lineage. He had an interesting story to tell, but I digress...

By jumping in at 37-markers or higher instead of incrementally upgrading (which can ultimately be more expensive), I can much more quickly and effectively narrow down the matches that are most promising and relevant to my own research, and avoid wasting time on folks who might just muddy the waters to no discernible advantage.

This brings me to the subject of upgrading. If the cost of a 37-marker test is a barrier to entry for you, it is my opinion that it is far better for posterity to get a sample to the lab, even with at the inexpensive 12-marker level (especially for older relatives and most especially for lines that are in danger of daughtering out) than to do no test at all. Tests can always be upgraded in the future as funds become available, but if your potential tester dies, or if a line daughters out as you vacillate over cost, then you have lost a valuable -- possibly an irreplaceable -- opportunity.

In some cases, where there may already be a number of high-level, well-documented testers within a surname, and you simply want to verify your paper trail leading to that family, you can make do with a 12 or 25-marker test. That will be enough to tell you whether you're on the right trail, or barking up the wrong family tree. If it turns out you are a match at those lower levels, then you can always upgrade in order to see how far the match holds up or where mutations begin to appear, and therefore potentially identify exactly which branch you fit into.

So as a general rule of thumb, 111 is better than 67. 67 is better than 37. 37 is better than 25. 25 is better than 12. And for the love of heaven, 12 is better than nothing at all.

Important update 1/1/16: Although I already recommend the use of Family Tree DNA as the test facility of choice, a recent article on DNAExplained.com has raised serious ethical concerns in my mind about the privacy practices of Ancestry and 23andMe. Please read this before choosing to test through either of those two facilities.

Y-DNA Testing: Where to Do It, Why to Do It, How Many Markers to Test - Part 2

Part 2 - Why Do a Y-DNA Test?

In my previous article we talked about which testing facility to use when deciding to undertake Y-DNA testing for genealogical purposes. Now we'll look at why it's useful, which is closely tied to the number of markers you choose to test.

As I mentioned in the first article, Y-DNA testing is a rapidly evolving science and our understanding of the results it provides is changing on a daily basis. What holds true today may hold less so (or more so) tomorrow. But let's take a stab at this in the here and now. Why should you do a Y-DNA test? What, exactly, can it do for you?

First, I believe it's easier to start with what the test can't do for you.

The testing facility I prefer, Family Tree DNA, examines specific portions of the chromosome solely for the purpose of comparison with other testers in order to identify patterns that reveal familial relationships on the direct-male line. Unlike what 23andMe purports to do, a Y-DNA test through Family Tree DNA (or Ancestry.com, for that matter) will not tell you anything about your health, or that "you are a superb dancer." As I stated in Part 1 of this series, a FTDNA Y-DNA test cannot tell you if you carry a gene for cancer - it simply does not know.

DNA testing will not do your research for you. It will not provide you with a pedigree chart back to Adam, complete with family photos and amusing anecdotes. If you want that, join Ancestry.com and browse their trees, which are only as reliable as the researchers who post them (often not very). You might get lucky and your DNA test might connect you with another researcher who can provide additional generations and supporting photos and documentation, but Family Tree DNA's results will not do your work for you. Ancestry.com's DNA test may have an edge in that respect with any ability to integrate its test results with it's paid-access family trees, but again, the trees are only as reliable as the researchers create them.

A Y-DNA test from Family Tree DNA will simply provide you with a panel of seemingly random numbers and the names and contact information of your genetic matches. The numbers represent the individual values that count the number of repetitions between selected genetic markers. That information has no inherent value until you compare it to the results of other testers. The more numbers (marker repetitions) you match with other testers (especially within the same surname), the closer your relationship with that tester is likely to be. It is up to you to work with matching testers and figure out who your common ancestor is. While Family Tree DNA and Ancestry.com both provide general overviews about your deep ancestral origins, and haplogrouping (the depth and accuracy of which, again, depend on the number of markers tested), the real value of Y-DNA testing for genealogy lies in the two basic things a test can tell you.

First, a Y-DNA test can tell you who you are not. 

A genealogist will immediately recognize the potential usefulness of this, but let me give an example.

For two decades I wondered if my Corder relatives in early Frederick County VA were related to the only other 18th-century Corder family in Virginia -- a family who lived just over the crest of the Blue Ridge in neighboring Fauquier County. These two families were literally within walking distance, so although there was no paper trail indicating a relationship between them, given their proximity and the rarity of the surname, the likelihood of a relationship seemed very high. We fully expected to match genetically, but much to the surprise of both groups, a quick 12-marker Y-DNA test produced non-matching results! To rule out any non-paternal events skewing the results (that's just what it sounds like), we secured two newly identified and distantly-related testers from each family and upgraded all tests to 25 markers. The new tests confirmed the original results. The two families definitely did not share a common ancestor on the direct male line.

Does that mean that the two families were not part of the same historical family unit? That's a possibility that can't be ruled out. Perhaps a Corder ancestor somewhere along the line took his mother's surname, but was nonetheless part of the wider Corder story. On the other hand, it's always possible that a cuckoo slipped into the nest. We just don't know. There are limits to what the DNA can tell. This is why I spoke in the first article about the complexity surrounding interpreting test results -- there are exceptions to what seem like straightforward rules. It is up to you, the genealogist, to investigate and reason out your conclusions based on a combination of what the scientific data suggests, and solid paper trail documentation. Sometimes you end up with more questions than answers. Sometimes when you hear hoof beats you have to think "zebras," not "horses" (or vice versa). But the bottom line is that in this example case, DNA showed us that we are searching for different direct-male ancestors for these two families, despite the same surname and the close proximity of the two groups.

In a more straightforward example but along the same lines, consider how we might have used a DNA test to break through a longstanding brick wall for the Burgess family of central North Carolina. After years of traditional research, no male Burgess ancestor could be identified, only a female who we had always assumed to have married a Burgess and produced three male Burgess children. A simple DNA test would have shown a mismatch with others of the Burgess surname, and just as likely would have pointed researchers to matches within other families. I say other families (plural) because in this case, even the DNA among the descendants of the three brothers would not have matched (yep, that's right - different fathers). In this case, before the advent of DNA testing, we had to do a lot more digging before we discovered a "bastardy bond" (yes, there really was such a thing) that named the father of our particular Burgess ancestor as one "Elias Swift." A DNA test had the potential to have saved us a lot of effort and shown us the correct path a lot sooner. In this case, it could have told us who we were not (Burgesses) and possibly who we were (Swifts?). If I could identify a reliable male tester from this line, I could next compare him to the genetic signature of Swift descendants to see if our lady of the alternative 19th-century lifestyle was telling the courts the truth.

In one last example, another lineage I'm working on has a long tradition that they are descended from a prolific family of the same surname in central Virginia. The central Virginia family has a number of existing tests currently on file with FTDNA that match at high marker levels, thus creating a well-established genetic signature for that group, with which we can compare our own line's results. Our line has three tests in FTDNA's lab as I write. The results of these tests will tell us once and for all whether we need to stay on this same central Virginia family's trail, or look elsewhere. A match with the family in question would delight us all and possibly help us better understand the origins of an ancestor who met a tragic fate far from home. By the same token, a non-match, while initially disappointing (or aggravating in the sense that our family history will have to be "re-written"), has the potential to shed just as much light on our elusive ancestor if not more, in another way. A match with a different established lineage could be equally helpful. We might get lucky...

If you get lucky, a Y-DNA test can tell you who you are.

Notice that I said "if you get lucky." There are no guarantees. When I submitted my original three test samples for three different surnames back in 2006, I had no instant matches. Not a single person with whom I could compare my results. A big fat zero. But as the popularity of genetic genealogy has grown, zero matches is a lot less likely (though not unheard of), and as the years have gone by, the matching tests have trickled in, each one providing new revelations as well as new mysteries.

Just as the examples above showed how DNA can help you stop wasting time chasing wild geese, let me give you an example of how a test can actually show you who you are, and hook you up with the right researchers.

First, my Brooks family line was always problematic. Brooks is a relatively common name and there were Brooks families scattered all over the eastern seaboard, many lines tracing back through centuries. It was overwhelming and demoralizing to spend hours and hours trying to sort out all of the red herrings and unwind error-laden genealogies and questionable family trees compiled by other equally frustrated researchers (some of whom had finally given up and fudged the documentation just to get 'er done). Year after year went by and individually we were getting nowhere, often laying the troublesome Brookses aside to focus on other families.

The Y-DNA test quickly established a closely-knit group of matching (and therefore proven-to-be-related) Brooks researchers who have since set about advancing our understanding of our family's origins and migration patterns. A very knowledgeable and involved project administrator for the group has encouraged us to upgrade our tests in order to track unique mutations which can be used to identify specific branches within our family cluster. This allows new high marker-level testers to compare their specific mutations and gives them a better idea of which branch their ancestor might have come from. Without the original tests and the subsequent upgrades, we'd still be flailing around, stabbing in the dark at hundreds of unrelated Brooks connections across America. Our information-sharing between members of the correct family group, and our ongoing combined efforts have allowed us to push our research back several generations. A recent 111-marker test has even identified this family's origins in Norway 4,500 years ago, an interesting little bit of trivia surrounding our ancient heritage that explains how our ancestors may have come to be in England. (A' viking we will go, a' viking we will go...)

In another example of a test telling you who you are, my Henderson family of coastal and central North Carolina had wondered for decades whether they were connected to an older group of Hendersons who had settled on the Delmarva Peninsula in the mid-1600's. There was no paper trail connecting the two families. Subsequent DNA testing of the two lines at 67-markers has indicated not only a connection, but potentially a close one. All that remains is to identify it. In the mean time, we know that at the very least, the two family branches should be looking for a common ancestor in Scotland or very early colonial America, and can combine our research efforts towards that purpose.

Hopefully these scenarios will fire your imagination and you can begin considering in what ways the benefits of a DNA test have the potential to far outweigh the costs in your own research conundrums.

In the final article in this series I'll talk about how many markers you should test, and why more is almost always better.

Important update 1/1/16: Although I already recommend the use of Family Tree DNA as the test facility of choice, a recent article on DNAExplained.com has raised serious ethical concerns in my mind about the privacy practices of Ancestry and 23andMe. Please read this before choosing to test through either of those two facilities.

Y-DNA Testing: Where to Do It, Why to Do It, and How Many Markers to Test - Part 1

Part 1 - Where to Do It

Important update 1/1/16: Although I already recommend the use of Family Tree DNA as the test facility of choice, a recent article on DNAExplained.com has raised serious ethical concerns in my mind about the privacy practices of Ancestry and 23andMe. Please read this before choosing to test through either of those two facilities.

The popularity of DNA testing for genealogical purposes has grown quite a bit over the last decade, with Ancestry.com jumping on the bandwagon and the advent of 23andMe, so I want to talk a little about choosing a testing facility, understanding what the test can and cannot do, and selecting a marker level when you're considering a Y-DNA test.

I only want to address Y-DNA tests in this article since mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) tests are much less useful for tracing specific lineages. Remember that the Y chromosome is passed directly from father to son, so the Y-DNA test will only give you information about the direct male line of the tester. If you, Mr. Jones, want to find out about the ancestors of your maternal Grandpa Smith, your DNA is of no use in that respect. It may tell you about your Jones line, but it knows nothing at all about the Smiths. You must find a direct-line male Smith cousin and persuade him to test. But I digress...

The potential for using DNA testing to unravel tangled knots of sloppy genealogy and break through decades-old (if not centuries-old) brick walls first dawned on me in 2005 when I became aware of National Geographic's Genographic Project. I wondered how one might go about finding a laboratory that would agree to test my older male relatives, and if I could find such a lab, what I would then do with the results to make any sense of them.

I started poking around online and to my surprise and delight, I saw that Family Tree DNA was already up and running for just that purpose. I quickly ordered three Y-DNA tests: one for my father, a second for my maternal grandfather, and a third for my maternal grandmother's brother. In all three cases, over the last decade, the DNA tests have paid off in spades, connecting me to relevant researchers with proven genetic relationships to the three tested surnames. There have been some surprises, but those are stories for another day. Suffice to say that funds spent on genetic testing have the potential to offer a greater return than those spent on gas and hotels in the fruitless pursuit of records that turn out to be irrelevant at the end of the day.

First to the game, Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) gained an edge with their established surname projects and robust marker-level testing, and they have become the "official testing facility" of National Geographic's Genographic Project mentioned earlier. Their surname projects are often managed by professional genealogists or those who have assumed the position of genealogist for various organizations such as Scottish clans or similar surname or heritage groups. They also offer a number of online learning tools to help testers understand their results, and the value of having access to a surname project administrator with experience in genealogy and DNA results interpretation should not be underestimated.

With FTDNA, there is a focus on the science and the independent collaboration of the testers to understand the implications of their results rather than the building of complex family online trees or providing a workspace for collecting paper documentation. You test, you fill in some basic information about your lineage, you're informed of your matches, you have access to the surname project's results for comparisons to others of the same name, you can communicate with the surname project administrator and your genetic matches, and then it is up to you to work with matching testers and carry your paper research to the next level.

Since I only do tests through Family Tree DNA, I am not in a position to comment on the efficacy of Ancestry.com's process or that of 23andMe, however, there is a DNA blogger who has done a comprehensive comparison of Ancestry vs FTDNA tests, and it appears that there may be enough reciprocity between the results that if you have already Y-DNA tested through Ancestry.com, it is possible to share your results with FTDNA (there is a small charge involved with sharing results, so be aware of that when choosing to test with Ancestry).

The two facilities provide similar marker results (similar - not the same), lists of matches with the ability to contact the matching testers, and tools to help you glean understanding from your results. Ancestry.com is generally agreed to be more user-friendly, but in my opinion, a DNA test should be a serious tool in an arsenal that includes copious paper documentation as well as collaboration with other researches through multiple online genealogical forums, so I prefer to go with the more scientifically robust testing facility that offers the higher test levels and the most cutting-edge tools for analysis. But that's just me. As I said, a level of reciprocity between these two facilities makes Ancestry's results usable for basic comparison with FTDNA's official surname projects, so while I encourage serious genealogists towards FTDNA, I recommend you read the comparison on DNAeXplained and come to your own conclusions.

As for 23andMe, I don't consider it the strongest player in the game of genetic genealogy. There are concerns about the company's "cut-rate genetic testing" that have put it in the hot-seat with the FDA, as well as potential privacy concerns that could trip up unwitting testers. They give top-level, generalized, narrative results (which may include sensitive information about potential health issues), so while that may be of interest to some testers, it is not as useful for cross-referencing marker results with FTDNA or Ancestry.com for family research purposes.

Since I brought up privacy issues, there are a number of misconceptions surrounding privacy and DNA testing, and you should go into the process in an informed manner. I consider FTDNA's privacy practices to be completely reasonable and they address some common concerns on their website. Unlike 23andMe, FTDNA's testing is not designed to give you health information or provide amusing trivia such as "you'd make an excellent surfer" -- the markers are analyzed and interpreted strictly to compare and discern genetic patterns and similarities between testers for the purpose of identifying common ancestors and ancestral origins. DO NOT take a Family Tree DNA (or Ancestry) test to learn if you carry a gene that makes you susceptible to diabetes or cancer - it will not tell you. It does not know.

DNA testing for genealogists is a complex and evolving science. For every absolute there seems to be an exception. Sometimes DNA testing can raise more questions than it answers. Sometimes those questions can be awkward. In some cases the results can rock the foundations of who you think you are. You have to be prepared to accept what you learn. Much of what you can learn depends on the level of testing, and higher marker levels are almost always better (for instance, higher levels can weed out random non-surname matches that can appear at lower levels and turn into time-wasting red herrings). The more we learn, the less certain we seem to become about things we thought we knew. So why do it? And how many markers should you test? I'll cover that in second and third parts this series, so stay tuned.

Continue to next article in series.

For more information on the subject of DNA testing for genealogy, visit FamilyTreeDNA.com's Learning Center. If you have comments that might be helpful to those considering testing, please add them below.

Was Alice Henderson, wife of James (b aft 1695 Somerset Co MD), a Kollock or a Pollock? Or neither?

In a recent article discussing the likelihood of a connection between James "Isaac" Henderson of 1732 Onslow County NC and the older group of Hendersons on the Delmarva Peninsula, I stated:

"John and Elizabeth [Henderson] had a son named James (b aft 1695 d bef Aug 1776) who married Alice Kollock (could this be "Pollock," a prominent name in early Bertie & Onslow Counties?) but from what I can tell of him and his descendants (including another son named James who m Sarah Merrill), this family stayed in the area of Somerset and Worcester Counties in MD and is pretty well accounted for."

To satisfy myself that "Kollock" was not a mis-spelling of "Pollock," I had a quick look this afternoon just to see if there was an actual "Kollock" family living in the vicinity of Somerset County MD in the late 1600's, and sure enough, Jacob Kollock had settled the area around Lewes and Rehoboth Bay as early as 1689. There is an 1865 book of the family's genealogy free to read online which does as decent a job of enumerating the family's generations as one might expect from an older work of genealogy.

Down the Kollock rabbit hole I went.

But the further I burrowed, the more I began to wonder at a Kollock connection with our group of Delmarva Hendersons. The information I was given in my database shows James Henderson, son of John & Elizabeth Barnaby Henderson, marrying an Alice Kollock in Somerset County MD about 1715. Estimated dates of birth for James and Alice are "about 1695." A birth around that time would have most likely made Alice a granddaughter of Jacob Kollock through his sons Simon, Cornelius or Jacob Jr. (Jacob Sr.'s seven children seem pretty clearly outlined and there is no Alice among them.)

Although I didn't see children of Cornelius or Jacob Jr. in the book, Simon did have a granddaughter named Alice who married a John Henderson (not James). Further investigation yielded a marriage date of 24 Jan 1763 in Lewes, DE -- too late to be the Alice Kollock who married James Henderson.

Additional digging online turned up the information that Alice was the daughter of Shepard Kollock (who was in turn son of Simon, and grandson of Jacob). Simon died intestate so there were subsequent court records in Sussex County DE which helpfully outlined the relationship of some of the Kollock family members. Of most interest to me, however, was this account from Land Records of Sussex Co DE, Deed Book L No 11 and M No 12:

George Kollock, ship joyner,
from Boaz Manlove, High Sheriff of Sussex Co. 
4 May 1769. 

Simon Kollock, Esqr., late of Sussex Co., died intestate, and 2/3 of his tract fell to Shepard Kollock, eldest son, admr. of his late father who left and bequeathed by his last will the afsd. land amongst his several heirs, which heirs exhibited a petition to the Court of Common Pleas for a division of the land and the above land was allotted to Alice Henderson wife of John Henderson, shopkeeper, being one of the heirs of Shepard Kollock, land in the suburbs of the town of Lewes, on the southeast side fo the main county road that leadeth from the town of Lewes to Rehoboth and on the northeast side and adjoining David Hall's land which he bought of Simon Kollock, one of the afsd. heirs and joining the afsd. George Kollock's land on the southwest side of his land, being part of the afds. dividend or tract surveyed and divided of 42 1/4 acres, which John Henderson as above mentioned by a certain obligation became indebted to John White and Samuel Coldwell of Philadelphia, merchants and sometime afterwards said White and Coldwell recovered a judgement against afds. Henderson for the sum of the afds. obligation and whereas his land was seized and sold by public sale to George Kollick for 40 shillings. Wit John Russel, Wm Prettyman. Within deed ackn. 4 May 1796

George Kollock, Sussex co., joyner, from Alice Henderson, Sussex Co., spinster. 4 May 1769 For 87. Parcel of land being part of a larger tract granted by patent to Alexander Molleston, late of afds co., dec'd, and by sundry deeds of conveyances became the property of Simon Kollock, Esqr. late of the county adsd., died intestate and Shepard Kollock admr. of afds. Simon Kollock and the land became the property of Shepard Kollock and the land fell to the heirs of afds. Shepard Kollock and a parcel was allottted to Alice Henderson, one of the daughters of afds. Shepard Kollock. Lnd being in the suburbs of the town of Lewes joining land of David Hall and George Kollock. 41 1/4 acres. Wit: Benjamin Miflin, John Haverlo. Within deed of sale ackn. 5 May 1769.

So it appears that John Henderson, shop keeper, had nearly let his wife's inheritance slip out of the family but it was rescued by Alice's brother, George.

I don't know what to make of the 1769 appellation "Alice Henderson, Sussex Co., spinster" -- did she leave him for what he'd done?

I have found several trees online that show Alice Kollock (w/o "James" Henderson) as the daughter of Simon and Comfort Shepard Kollock, however, the information above clearly calls Alice Henderson "one of the daughters of the aforsaid Shepard Kollock" -- not a daughter of Simon.

At any rate, it seems clear to me that the Alice Kollock who married a John Henderson in Sussex County DE is not the Alice Kollock we are looking for as a wife of James Henderson of Somerset Co MD. I have no idea who the younger Alice's husband John Henderson was, or whether he was even connected with the "Delmarva James" Henderson family. I am adding him to the database as husband of Alice Kollock, and I am adding Alice as daughter of Shephard, but I have no parents for this John. If anyone can shed any light on him, please do so in the comments section below.

I am developing a nasty little suspicion that there might not have been an Alice "Kollock" who married James Henderson circa 1715 in Somerset County MD. Still, have to explore every avenue. Maybe she was the daughter of Cornelius, or Jacob Jr.?

A quick search for further information on Jacob Kollock Jr. and Cornelius Kollock revealed that Jacob Jr. was likely too young to be father of an Alice born around 1695, he himself only having been born in 1692. Although he did marry an "Alice Shepherd," I don't think he's a candidate for our purposes.

Here is his obituary from the Pennsylvania Gazette, March 26, 1772:

JACOB KOLLOCK - On the 7th of last Month departed this life at Lewes-Town in the County of Sussex, in the 80th year of his Age, after a long and tedious illness which he endured with great fortitude and Christian Resignation, Jacob Kollock, Esq., who for upwards of forty years was annually chosen one of the Representatives in Assembly for said County; and for the same Length of Time he was President of the Court of Common Pleas, a Trustee of the Loan Office, Register of Wills, Clerk of the Orphans Court, and Treasurer of the County, all which Offices he executed with great Reputation. And in the various Stations of private Life his Conduct was irreproachable ; he was an affectionate Husband and Father, a faithful Friend, and a kind Master. His steady Perseverance in a virtuous Course of Life rendered him deservedly beloved by all his acquaintance. He was Colonel of the Sussex Regt. 1756. —The Pennsylvania Gazette, March 26, 1772

So scratch Jacob Jr.

Now, what about Cornelius? A search of the LDS records shows the children of Cornelius as: Simon b 1723, William b 1725, Sarah b 1727, Mary b 1729, Royal b 1721, and Samuel b 1733. No Alice, and all too born to late to align with the Alice we're looking for.

My guess at this point is that process of elimination has shown that Alice, wife of James Henderson b ca 1695 in Somerset County MD was unlikely to have been Alice Kollock since no Alice was found among the Kollock family during the correct time period. I believe that researchers may have mistaken the Alice Kollock who married John Henderson in Sussex Co DE in 1763 for Alice, wife of James Henderson of Somerset County MD -- although how that could have happened, considering the clarity of the records, is a mystery to me.

If anyone is aware of documents that can disprove my theory of a case of mistaken identity, please contact me and point me in the direction of the missing records! I would be delighted to be able to re-connect the Kollocks to the Delmarva Henderson tree, but at this point, I feel I must remove them.

Richard Barnabe, Merchant of London, Makes a Wonderfully Helpful Will

I remember former Clan Henderson genealogist Dr. Horace Loftin once telling me that he had discovered a record that caused him to speculate that his Henderson ancestor, James Barnabe (later spelled Barnaby), had been a merchant sailing to and from the East Indies. Since I wasn't working on that line of Hendersons at the time, I neglected to ask for details, which has necessitated me finding them for myself.

Although I am doubtful of a connection between my James "Isaac" Henderson of Onslow County and the family of John and Elizabeth Barnaby Henderson of Somerset & Worcester Counties MD, I was still intrigued by the idea of a 17th-century merchant family settling the wilds of the Delmarva Peninsula so I went poking around to see what I could learn.

First, a little background on the Barnaby connection to the Hendersons of the Delmarva Peninsula...

On 1 Jul 1680, in Somerset County MD, Elizabeth Barnaby (b Feb 1661), daughter of James Barnaby (the younger) and his wife Mary, married John Henderson (b May 1661), son of James Henderson and his wife, also Mary. Their numerous children and grandchildren would for the most part stay in the Worcester County MD area with the exception of grandson Barnaby Henderson, who would move to Onslow County NC circa 1765.

Elizabeth Barnaby's father, James the younger, made his will on 26 Jan 1665/66 leaving bequests to wife Mary (executrix), and his minor children James (noted as under 16), Rebecca, and Elizabeth (both noted as under 15).

After James's early death, his widow, Mary Barnaby, would marry local planter Edward Jones. Mary's health (or luck) was apparently not much better than James's and a few months after giving birth to her first child with Mr. Jones (in 1669), Mary died too, leaving her three young children and an infant in the care of her second husband. I found an interesting abstract (See footnote 1) conveying the information that "James Barnebe" was "shott with a gun in the hands of Mercy Fountaine on the plantation where Edward Jones liveth the 3rd day of March 1681 and was buried there the 4th day of the same month." James would have been about seventeen, and Fountaine was only about fifteen years old at the time. I have not been able to find any additional details on the incident, so I assume it was accidental since there are no apparent trial records.

James Barnabe, father of the unfortunate orphans (and even less fortunate son), was in turn the son of James Barnabe the elder and his wife, Sarah.  According to a deposition, James was in Northampton County, VA as early as 1637/38. In 1640 he and Sarah were headright settlers for John Holloway of Accomack County VA, and in 1651 they were the same in Northampton County VA for Roger Jones (not sure how that happened, but that's what my records say). I wonder if Roger was any relation to Edward...hmmm.

I have a notation that James Barnabe the elder was "of London" with an estimated birth date of 1610, so I decided to have a look and see if that held water. 1637 was a long time ago and there is a lot of room for error to develop in the records. I didn't really expect to find anything to connect this James Barnabe to any English merchants or shipping enterprises, but blow me down...

From the book Virginia Gleanings in England, by Lotrop Withington, page 135:

"Will of Richard Barnabe, London, Marchant, bound on a voyage by God's grace to the East Indyes with good shipp or vessell named the Mary of London of the burden of One Thousand Tunnes or thereabouts. Will 19 January 1630, proved 11 July 1636."

The will is lengthy and detailed (lucky for us all). This was obviously not an old man, and he had plenty of time to think things through and write it all down. His wife was already dead and buried (in the church of St. Katherine Colman of London, in case you are wondering), and he makes known his wish "to be buried neere late wief." He leaves "all to daughters Elizabeth Barnabe and Mary Barnabe, executrixes" but he appoints his brothers-in-law John Boulteel, Clarke and George Rookes, Marchant" as overseers to care for his goods until his daughters reach the age of 21.

In addition to naming other in-laws and outlining the relationships of several, he mentions: "To Loving brother John Barnabe (See footnote 2) resident in Virginia and Planter there 100 pounds, and my brother James Barnabe resident in Virginia 100 pounds, to be paid to them if living, or if dead to their sons and daughters. If none be living, then to the children of said brother in law George Rookes, Merchant."

George Rookes was married to the Barnabe's sister, Elizabeth, with whom he had seven children. Richard Barnabe also names sister Martha Barnabe "sometime weif of John Sargenson, vintner, dec'd and her sonn William," and another sister, Katherine Clarke and her son Robert and daughter Katherine.

Ever helpful to the future genealogist, he mentions Ann Barnabe, daughter of his brother John, married to _______ Edwards, Merchant, as well as a small bequest to servant, Elizabeth Rivers.

The rest of his estate he left to Masters and Wardens of Company of Drapers of London ("whereof I am a brother") to be used to enable "some godly and vertuous Preacher" to "preach five sermons yearly in church of St. Katherine Colman neere billeter lane, London." He's very specific about the sermons that be preached and obviously his heart lies with his dead wife and five (or six?) dead children in the churchyard.

He goes on to outline additional bequests in varying sizes to those who have served his family, as well as more distant relatives.

In April of 1635, he added an appendix to the "will made in England by me Richard Barnaby, Merchant, In good shipp Hart now bound for England," and in it he leaves bequests to friends including a "paire of Buffe gloves," and "one Capp wrought with silk and gold" and "one capp of lynnen with needle worke purles." To his nephew George Rookes he adds a bequest of an "imbroidered girdle with silver buckles." He leaves additional interesting bits and bobs to friends, servants and even the ship's surgeon and his mate. Apparently Mr. Barnabe's household was flush with treasures.

But that's all he wrote, folks. Sadly, his will was proved just over a year later on 11 July 1636. In a slightly depressing footnote to this piece, the church of St. Katherine Colman in London was demolished in 1925. No "godly and vertuous Preacher" shall evermore preach a sermon over the mortal remains of Ann and Richard Barnaby or their numerous departed children.

So it does indeed look like the Barnabes were a family of prosperous merchants of London. Richard and James's brother, John Barnabe, came to Virginia in 1621 and was "a servant in Governor George Yardley's house in Jamestown for two years" before going on to become a planter and a merchant with brother-in-law George Rookes. Although I have not been able to find any specific references to James Barnabe of Delmarva engaging in shipping or the merchant trade, it is clear that he was the third Barnaby brother in this scenario, and that he therefore very likely did come from London.

1.  Somerset Co. MD, Liber J.K.L., Court Record, 3 Mar. 1681

2. Per a footnote at the bottom of the will, "The census of Virginia, 1624-25  gives the 'muster' of  John Barnabe at Elizabeth City. It includes himself, aged 21, who came in the London Merchant in 1620 (Notten's Emigrants, p. 247.)" Additional details about John Barnaby (Barnabe) can be found in Virginia Immigrants and Adventurers, 1607-1635: A Biographical Dictionary, by Martha W. McCartney.

Looking for the Link Between "Delmarva" James Henderson (1661) and James "Isaac" Henderson of Onslow Co NC (1732)

Since we've had a few fresh DNA matches lately, I've resumed my efforts to discover the link between the Hendersons of the Delmarva Peninsula and their distant cousins of Onslow and Chatham Counties in North Carolina. 

As researchers of the family will likely already know, James Henderson, the progenitor of the Hendersons of the Delmarva Peninsula, arrived in Accomack County VA as early as 1661, when his son, John, was baptized in Hungar's Parish (technically in Northampton Co VA). Although one great-grandson, Barnaby, moved south to Onslow County NC in the following century, many descendants of "Delmarva James" can still be found on Maryland's eastern shore today.

The other main branch of this genetically connected family begins with James "Isaac" Henderson, who in 1732 makes his first documented appearance in the earliest records of the Onslow Precinct on the central coast of North Carolina. Although DNA testing has shown that there is a connection between Onslow James "Isaac" Henderson and the Henderson family of the Delmarva Peninsula, we cannot find anything to indicate that Onslow James was descended from Delmarva James.

For these past many years since we first discovered the DNA matches, we have been working under the assumption that their common ancestor lived prior to 1661, probably in Scotland.

For decades both lines had wondered about a possible connection with the other, but lacking any sort of paper trail linking the the two families, we had all but dismissed the possibility. Barnaby's family didn't arrive in Onslow County until 1765 - more than three decades after James "Isaac" Henderson is found living on the New River. We have uncovered no hint of interaction between the two families, so they may not have even known of their kinship themselves.

Since new documents and records come online on an almost daily basis, I have decided to try again to discover a connection between Delmarva James and Onslow James "Isaac." Given the current lack of any sort of paper trail, it is a task fraught with difficulty, made harder since we don't even have firm birth dates for the progenitor of either of the two family branches.

We know that Delmarva James died between 1691-1692, and that Onslow James "Isaac" made his will in October of 1770, so likely died shortly thereafter. Researchers have estimated that Delmarva James was probably born 1630-1640, while I estimate that James "Isaac" of Onslow was born between 1690-1710. Given those date ranges, it is probable that if there was an ancestor/descendant relationship between the two, Onslow James would most likely have been a grandson of Delmarva James.

I believe we can safely rule out a father-son relationship based on the simple fact that Delmarva James did have a son named James (with second wife Alice). That James (b 10 Jun 1669 d aft 1696) married "Ester" and had one known child, Francis (b 30 Oct 1691 d 1762). That branch of the family appears to still be in Somerset County MD well into the 1700's, making it highly unlikely that James Jr. is the same James "Isaac" Henderson who died in Onslow County 101 years later.

So let's assume then that Onslow James "Isaac" was a grandson (or possibly even a great-grandson, making him roughly a contemporary with distant cousin and future Onslow neighbor, Barnaby). Where might he fit?

A quick look through my obviously incomplete data on Delmarva James's grandsons and even great-grandsons leaves plenty of room for possibilities.

The first possibility is that Onslow James "Isaac" might have been a previously unidentified son of James Jr. of Somerset Co MD (b 1669 MD - d aft 1696 MD), and brother to Francis (1691 MD -1762 MD). Francis is the only child I currently have listed for James Jr. and his birth and death dates correspond nicely to the range we might reasonably expect to see for our James "Isaac." It seems very likely to me that Francis was probably not an only child, and that James "Isaac" might have been a grandson of Delmarva James through this namesake James's line.

A second possibility is that Onslow James "Isaac" might have belonged to William Henderson (b bef 1668 d aft 1696), second son of Delmarva James Henderson and his first wife, Mary (Mary d bef 1668). We know nothing of William at all, apart from the name of his wife, Sarah. That possibility is wide open to exploration at this point.

A third (and less likely) possibility is that our Onslow James could have been a great-grandson of Delmarva James through a son of John and Elizabeth Barnaby Henderson. John and Elizabeth had a son named James (b aft 1695 d bef Aug 1776) who married Alice Kollock (could this be "Pollock," a prominent name in early Bertie & Onslow Counties?*) but from what I can tell of him and his descendants (including another son named James who m Sarah Merrill), this family stayed in the area of Somerset and Worcester Counties in MD and is pretty well accounted for. Neither do the names of their children correspond to the names of the children of Onslow County James "Isaac."

That leaves us with the possibility that Onlsow James "Isaac" might have belonged to one of the other sons of John and Elizabeth Barnaby Henderson:

• Charles (b ca 1687 MD - d 1762 Worcester Co MD) m Parthenia Merrill and had Levina ca 1719; Jessee ca 1712; William ca 1715; Barnaby ca 1720 (moved to Onslow Co NC 1765); and Levin ca 1727. No known son named James.
• William (b ca 1681 MD - d bef 1721 MD) about whom I currently know nothing, which makes him a reasonable candidate.
• John Jr. (b ca 1689 MD d bef 1742/43 Worcester Co MD) who m Sarah Houston and had John ca 1717; Sarah ca 1719; Elizabeth ca 1723; Rebecca ca 1725; and Samuel ca 1721. No known son named James, but as a side note, there was a large family of Houstons in early Onslow County.
• Benjamin (b ca 1697 MD - d bef May 1722) m Mary (?) and had Benjamin ca 1722; Leah ca 1725; Betty ca 1727; Mary ca 1729; Rhoda ca 1731; and Lemuel ca 1735. No James, but I do not have any additional info on this line.
• Joseph (b ? MD - d ? ?) - absolutely no info at all on Joseph, so another good candidate.

Although John & Elizabeth Barnaby Henderson's line seems like the most direct and obvious connection to Onslow County, they are also the most well-documented, and they have been examined previously for this purpose and without success. The information I have on the Delmarva line was provided to me over the years by Dr. Horace Loftin, former genealogist for the Clan Henderson Society and a descendant of Barnaby Henderson of Onslow County. While the information he had may be incomplete on some lines, I have confidence that what he did provide is reliable.

So as you can see, there is a lot of investigating to do if I hope to systematically and conclusively rule out each candidates in order to eliminate once and for all a direct connection to that family. At this point, after having another look at our candidates, I confess there are more potential options than I realized and for the first time I am feeling optimistic. But it will take a considerable amount of time to run down all of the leads.

Click to enlarge chart.

One last very intriguing hint of a connection between the two familes...

Delmarva James had four children. The first three, John, William & Jeane, he had by his wife Mary. The last, his namesake, James, he had by his second wife, Alice.

I took a quick look at Jane to see what was known about her. She married John Williams Jr. of Somerset County MD and had two known sons. Traditionally the first son was often named after the father's father, while the second was then named for the mother's father. (This wasn't always the case, but was a very common practice.) True to form, the elder son of John and Jeane Henderson Williams was called John, after his father and grandfather. So naturally one might expect the second son to be called "James," after the mother's father. Instead, he was called...

Isaac!

*Note: I have since discarded "Kollock" as the surname of the wife of James Henderson. There is currently no evidence that I can find to support the idea that the wife of James Henderson of Somerset County MD was a Kollock.