I have just uploaded a number of photos and videos of interest to the Hendersons of Somerset County, MD and Onslow County, NC.
Last month during a trip to Onslow County, Tom and I visited Sneads Ferry so that I could finally see the New River property where mariner ancestor James Henderson Sr. settled in the early 18th century. Henderson's original deed from Nathaniel Averitt was lost in the 1752 hurricane that destroyed the county courthouse, but we know that he was a neighbor to Edmond Ennett (who operated Ennett's Ferry, now known as Sneads Ferry). I believe Everett's Creek was the dividing line between the Henderson and Ennett properties. The mouth of creek can be seen in this video, and James Henderson's property is to the right (north) side. The property is now part of Camp Lejeune and access to the area is restricted due to blasting.
I took a number of photos of the New River, and also of Stump Sound, where the property of the allied Nixon family was located.
Just this past week I met with fellow-researcher Robin Henderson at the Nabb Research Center in Somerset County, Maryland. After the library closed we drove down to the ruins of Coventry Parish in Rehobeth, Maryland. Across the street is Old Rehoboth Church, the oldest Presbyterian Church in America. Both churches are located just a few hundred yards from banks of the Pocomoke River. This river, which flows through the Great Cypress Swamp, has the distinction of being the deepest river for its width in the world. The eerily still, black water served to act as a mirror in my photos and video.
Across the river is the Hickory Point Natural Area. As best we can tell from original plats and land grant records, James Henderson Senior (the original immigrant bef 1661 and progenitor of our line) probably owned property somewhere along the river in the Hickory Point Natural Area, and therefore his land is likely within range of the camera as we pan past the area. His son, John Henderson Sr., operated a ferry across the river, which likely landed near the docks where we are filming, as it would have been convenient to the church and village.
Showing posts with label Henderson R-M269 DNA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Henderson R-M269 DNA. Show all posts
Friday, October 16, 2015
Thursday, July 9, 2015
ISO A Direct-line Male Descendant of Gilbert Henderson of Northampton and/or Accomack Counties, Virginia (ca 1652+)
I am currently in search of a direct-line male descendant of Gilbert Henderson of Northampton and Accomack Counties, Virginia, to do a Y-DNA test for our Henderson family. We hope the results of the test will reveal whether or not Gilbert was related to James Henderson Sr. who can be found in records of those counties contemporaneously. We have a number of strongly-matching DNA signatures for descendants of James, but no tests for any of Gilbert's descendants.
Gilbert Henderson (frequently also spelled Gilbert Hinderson) first appears in the records of Northampton County, Virginia, in May of 1652 when Thomas Johnson Jr used him as a headright to patent 450 acres in the Pongoteague Creek area.
This does not necessarily mean that Gilbert was an indentured man of Johnson's, nor does it mean Gilbert ever lived on or near the Pongoteague Creek property, nor does it even mean that 1652 is the year Gilbert arrived in Virginia. Headright certificates could be bought, sold, traded and held for years before an owner used them to stake an actual claim to property. (Due to systemic fraud, a person could even be claimed as a headright of multiple properties for various enterprising land grabbers.) The only thing we can know for sure from this record is that Gilbert Henderson had entered the colony of Virginia sometime prior to May 1652. He may have been an indentured man to Johnson. He may have lived on the property Johnson patented. But then again, he may not have.
In 1657 Nicholas Waddelow assigned a 400 acre patent called "Gabriel's Island" to Robert King, John Watts, Gilbert Henderson and Robert Blake (the latter of whom deeded his quarter back to Waddelow's widow). It is not clear what Gilbert did with his portion of the island (now called Watts Island). The records tell that "after severall other assignments" the island was sold to Walter Taylor.
Gilbert makes his next appearance in the records of Hungars Parish (Northampton County, VA) on 25th March 1660 when he married Mary Major, daughter of William and Mary Major. Here he is called "Gilbert Hinders." In April of 1661 the couple baptized their only known daughter, Bridget (entered in the parish register as "ye daughter of Gilbert and Mary Henderson").
Sometime around 1666 (per a 1688 Northampton record) Gilbert and Mary had had their only other proven child, John. The fact that both Gilbert Henderson and James Henderson Sr named their firstborn sons John allows me to nurse the tenuous hope that the two men might have been brothers. Naming conventions of the era often saw the firstborn son named for the father's father. If one or both of these Henderson men were following the traditional naming scheme, then one or both had a father named John. Ideally, the same John. But only the DNA can tell.
By October of 1664, Gilbert Henderson was moving up in the world. Using headrights Wm. Cartright, Wm. Chamberlain, John Clark, Robert Compton, Thomas Jones, Thomas Walter, George Crooke, Edward Lenthall, Robert Dormer, and Timothy Terrill, Gilbert patented 500 acres for himself and Mary near the Makepungo River in Accomack County (which had until recently been the northern half of Northampton County). This land was neighboring that of Henry Bishop, whose daughter (or possibly granddaughter), Sarah, would marry a son of James Henderson Sr.
In 1665, Gilbert and Mary sold 250 acres of their newly-acquired tract to Edmond Joynes, in whose care the widowed Mary would leave 11yo son John upon her own untimely death. Edmond may have been connected with Mary's family in some way, as he used her maiden name, "Major," as his second son's given name in 1687. Although his wife's name was believed to be Mary, I do not think Edmond married Mary Major Henderson since he married in 1685 (per Miles Files) and the widow Henderson was dead by December 18, 1677. In the 1677 record which directs the custody of John Henderson to Joynes, John is called an orphan, so both Gilbert and Mary Major Henderson were dead. John was the only child mentioned, leading me to believe that Bridget. who would have been about sixteen in 1677, had either died in childhood, or was already married. In 1712, Gilbert Henderson the Younger (son of John Henderson, and grandson of the original Gilbert and Mary) would witness Edmond Joynes's will.
According to Whitelaw's Virginia's Eastern Shore, Gilbert Henderson the Elder died in intestate. We have no way of knowing if he and Mary had children other than Bridget and John, however, not a single record has come to light to indicate that there are descendants from Gilbert Henderson other than through his sole known surviving son, John Henderson of Accomack County, Virginia.
John Henderson, son of Gilbert the Elder and Mary Major Henderson, married twice, By his first wife (name unknown) he had three sons: Gilbert the Younger, Robert, and John Junior. By his second wife, Mary Ann Savage, he had no sons. The ideal candidate for our DNA test will be able to prove a direct-line male Henderson ancestry back to one of John's three sons or five known grandsons, as follows:
Gilbert the Younger of Northampton or Accomack County VA married Mary Green and had sons John (b ca 1710), Gilbert III (b ca 1717), and Jacob (b ca 1720). Gilbert and Mary Green Henderson also had three daughters, but their descendants do not carry the Y-chromosome.
Robert Henderson m Elizabeth _______ and sold his land in Accomack to brother Gilbert the Younger in 1725. Shortly thereafter (1727) a Robert Henderson appears in the Nanticoke Hundred of Somerset County, MD. In 1740 a dependent, Daniel, appears in the household of Robert Henderson. They will remain together in the household until 1748, when Robert disappears, presumably having passed away. Daniel will continue to appear on the Somerset County tax lists until they end in 1759, and he can be found in subsequent records of the county.
John Henderson Jr is not mentioned in the 1722 will of John Henderson Sr, however, the will of Gilbert the Younger clearly mentions his brother John Henderson. A George Henderson is mentioned in John Sr's will, and since neither Gilbert the Younger nor Robert were known to have had a son named George, we can only presume that George belonged to John Jr.
All three of these men and their descendants are believed to have lived on the Eastern Shore for at least 1-2 more generations, and descendants are doubtless still living there today. There are a number of websites that attempt to connect the Hendersons of the western shore (Virginia's Tidewater and Northern Neck) to the elder Gilbert Henderson of Accomack and Northampton Counties in Virginia. None of these sites provide any documentation or offer any proof of such a connection and I believe that earlier researchers may have simply jumped to conclusions since Gilbert is one of the earliest Hendersons to appear in America. A simple review of proven parish dates, land records and court orders for Gilbert and Mary Major Henderson quickly disprove a number of the supposed connections found in online trees.
Bearing this in mind, the DNA tester we seek will be able to provide solid documentation back to one of the three sons of John Henderson Sr of Accomack Co VA, or to one of his known grandsons, John the Younger, Gilbert III, Jacob (not to be confused with the son of Francis Henderson of Somerset Co MD), Daniel, or George.
If you believe your lineage leads back to one of these men, please contact me to discuss potential DNA testing suitability.
UPDDATE 10/30/15: An old article in the Clan Henderson newsletter An Canach mentions Gilbert Henderson and states "Gilbert and his descendants have a provable lineage down to this day..." and implies a relationship to the early Tidewater Virginia Hendersons, however, as far as I or anyone involved in the Henderson DNA project knows, there are no confirmed (or claimed) DNA testers from Gilbert's line to prove or disprove a connection with the Tidewater Hendersons. DNA test results from a tester whom we believe descends from Gilbert's line (but have not yet proved) matches the results of descendants of James Henderson of Somerset County MD.
Gilbert Henderson (frequently also spelled Gilbert Hinderson) first appears in the records of Northampton County, Virginia, in May of 1652 when Thomas Johnson Jr used him as a headright to patent 450 acres in the Pongoteague Creek area.
This does not necessarily mean that Gilbert was an indentured man of Johnson's, nor does it mean Gilbert ever lived on or near the Pongoteague Creek property, nor does it even mean that 1652 is the year Gilbert arrived in Virginia. Headright certificates could be bought, sold, traded and held for years before an owner used them to stake an actual claim to property. (Due to systemic fraud, a person could even be claimed as a headright of multiple properties for various enterprising land grabbers.) The only thing we can know for sure from this record is that Gilbert Henderson had entered the colony of Virginia sometime prior to May 1652. He may have been an indentured man to Johnson. He may have lived on the property Johnson patented. But then again, he may not have.
In 1657 Nicholas Waddelow assigned a 400 acre patent called "Gabriel's Island" to Robert King, John Watts, Gilbert Henderson and Robert Blake (the latter of whom deeded his quarter back to Waddelow's widow). It is not clear what Gilbert did with his portion of the island (now called Watts Island). The records tell that "after severall other assignments" the island was sold to Walter Taylor.
Gilbert makes his next appearance in the records of Hungars Parish (Northampton County, VA) on 25th March 1660 when he married Mary Major, daughter of William and Mary Major. Here he is called "Gilbert Hinders." In April of 1661 the couple baptized their only known daughter, Bridget (entered in the parish register as "ye daughter of Gilbert and Mary Henderson").
Sometime around 1666 (per a 1688 Northampton record) Gilbert and Mary had had their only other proven child, John. The fact that both Gilbert Henderson and James Henderson Sr named their firstborn sons John allows me to nurse the tenuous hope that the two men might have been brothers. Naming conventions of the era often saw the firstborn son named for the father's father. If one or both of these Henderson men were following the traditional naming scheme, then one or both had a father named John. Ideally, the same John. But only the DNA can tell.
By October of 1664, Gilbert Henderson was moving up in the world. Using headrights Wm. Cartright, Wm. Chamberlain, John Clark, Robert Compton, Thomas Jones, Thomas Walter, George Crooke, Edward Lenthall, Robert Dormer, and Timothy Terrill, Gilbert patented 500 acres for himself and Mary near the Makepungo River in Accomack County (which had until recently been the northern half of Northampton County). This land was neighboring that of Henry Bishop, whose daughter (or possibly granddaughter), Sarah, would marry a son of James Henderson Sr.
In 1665, Gilbert and Mary sold 250 acres of their newly-acquired tract to Edmond Joynes, in whose care the widowed Mary would leave 11yo son John upon her own untimely death. Edmond may have been connected with Mary's family in some way, as he used her maiden name, "Major," as his second son's given name in 1687. Although his wife's name was believed to be Mary, I do not think Edmond married Mary Major Henderson since he married in 1685 (per Miles Files) and the widow Henderson was dead by December 18, 1677. In the 1677 record which directs the custody of John Henderson to Joynes, John is called an orphan, so both Gilbert and Mary Major Henderson were dead. John was the only child mentioned, leading me to believe that Bridget. who would have been about sixteen in 1677, had either died in childhood, or was already married. In 1712, Gilbert Henderson the Younger (son of John Henderson, and grandson of the original Gilbert and Mary) would witness Edmond Joynes's will.
According to Whitelaw's Virginia's Eastern Shore, Gilbert Henderson the Elder died in intestate. We have no way of knowing if he and Mary had children other than Bridget and John, however, not a single record has come to light to indicate that there are descendants from Gilbert Henderson other than through his sole known surviving son, John Henderson of Accomack County, Virginia.
John Henderson, son of Gilbert the Elder and Mary Major Henderson, married twice, By his first wife (name unknown) he had three sons: Gilbert the Younger, Robert, and John Junior. By his second wife, Mary Ann Savage, he had no sons. The ideal candidate for our DNA test will be able to prove a direct-line male Henderson ancestry back to one of John's three sons or five known grandsons, as follows:
Gilbert the Younger of Northampton or Accomack County VA married Mary Green and had sons John (b ca 1710), Gilbert III (b ca 1717), and Jacob (b ca 1720). Gilbert and Mary Green Henderson also had three daughters, but their descendants do not carry the Y-chromosome.
Robert Henderson m Elizabeth _______ and sold his land in Accomack to brother Gilbert the Younger in 1725. Shortly thereafter (1727) a Robert Henderson appears in the Nanticoke Hundred of Somerset County, MD. In 1740 a dependent, Daniel, appears in the household of Robert Henderson. They will remain together in the household until 1748, when Robert disappears, presumably having passed away. Daniel will continue to appear on the Somerset County tax lists until they end in 1759, and he can be found in subsequent records of the county.
John Henderson Jr is not mentioned in the 1722 will of John Henderson Sr, however, the will of Gilbert the Younger clearly mentions his brother John Henderson. A George Henderson is mentioned in John Sr's will, and since neither Gilbert the Younger nor Robert were known to have had a son named George, we can only presume that George belonged to John Jr.
All three of these men and their descendants are believed to have lived on the Eastern Shore for at least 1-2 more generations, and descendants are doubtless still living there today. There are a number of websites that attempt to connect the Hendersons of the western shore (Virginia's Tidewater and Northern Neck) to the elder Gilbert Henderson of Accomack and Northampton Counties in Virginia. None of these sites provide any documentation or offer any proof of such a connection and I believe that earlier researchers may have simply jumped to conclusions since Gilbert is one of the earliest Hendersons to appear in America. A simple review of proven parish dates, land records and court orders for Gilbert and Mary Major Henderson quickly disprove a number of the supposed connections found in online trees.
Bearing this in mind, the DNA tester we seek will be able to provide solid documentation back to one of the three sons of John Henderson Sr of Accomack Co VA, or to one of his known grandsons, John the Younger, Gilbert III, Jacob (not to be confused with the son of Francis Henderson of Somerset Co MD), Daniel, or George.
If you believe your lineage leads back to one of these men, please contact me to discuss potential DNA testing suitability.
UPDDATE 10/30/15: An old article in the Clan Henderson newsletter An Canach mentions Gilbert Henderson and states "Gilbert and his descendants have a provable lineage down to this day..." and implies a relationship to the early Tidewater Virginia Hendersons, however, as far as I or anyone involved in the Henderson DNA project knows, there are no confirmed (or claimed) DNA testers from Gilbert's line to prove or disprove a connection with the Tidewater Hendersons. DNA test results from a tester whom we believe descends from Gilbert's line (but have not yet proved) matches the results of descendants of James Henderson of Somerset County MD.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
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.
*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.
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.
Monday, April 20, 2015
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.
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.
Sunday, April 19, 2015
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
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.
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.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
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:
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.
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.
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.
Friday, April 3, 2015
Early NC/VA Hendersons: Edward Mosely's 1733 Map of North Carolina and 17th Century Maps of the Delmarva Peninsula
A couple of tools that I have found to be particularly helpful when trying to pinpoint the location of my Henderson families in the 17th and 18th centuries are Edward Moseley's 1733 Map of northeastern North Carolina (primarily the Chowan Precinct), and a collection of 17th-and-18th-century maps of the Delmarva Peninsula that can be found on the website of the Edward H. Nabb Research Center for Delmarva History and Culture.
Unfortunately, the earliest maps of the Delmarva Peninsula are so archaic and inaccurately drawn and oriented as to be nearly indecipherable, but by 1682, the one drawn by John Seller is at least recognizable. The 18th century maps are better. There is also an enlargeable one in the digital collection of the Library of Congress. I believe it dates from 1778 and is called "The Peninsula Between Delaware & Chesopeak Bays, with the said bays and shores adjacent drawn from the most accurate surveys." This one is particularly useful due to the zoom feature.
I stumbled across the Moseley map while trying to locate the Meherrin Creek referred to in this 1737 Bertie County land record witnessed by a JOHN HENDERSON:
Book 3 p. 363 William Moore to Benjamin Hill
19 January 1737 100 acres on N side Meheron Creek. Wit: J Bonde, John Laman, JOHN HENDERSON. "Know...that I Judith Moore...have for five pounds...by Coll Benjamin Hill relinquished all my Right Title and Interest to within land. 19 January 1737. Wit J Bonde, John Laman, JOHN HENDERSON. November Court 1738.
While I don't know that this John Henderson is connected in any way to the Delmarva Hendersons or to either of the two Onslow County Henderson groups, it is a point of interest that James "Isaac" Henderson's 1770 will was witnessed by John Bond and _____ Moor. The names Bond and Moor/Moore are frequently connected with the handful of other very early northeastern NC Henderson records I have been able to find.
The name Edward Moseley is well-known in the old Chowan and Bertie precincts of North Carolina. Moseley, the Surveyor General of North Carolina before 1710 and between 1723-1733, was born in England in 1683, and was active in the early politics of the colony. Moseley immigrated into Charleston and began his career as an Ordinary Court Clerk under Governor James Moore. He would marry judiciously (Anne Lillington Walker, widow of former governor Henderson Walker) and rise through the political ranks, ending up in Albemarle County where he began his surveying and legal careers. A feud between Moseley and Governor Charles Eden arose when Moseley accused Eden of collusion with the pirate Blackbeard (circumstantial evidence seems strong). As a result of the libel, he was heavily fined and banned from public office for several years.
Nevertheless...the man drew a good map.
Learn more about Edward Moseley's 1733 Map.
Learn more about Edward Moseley's life and political career.
Unfortunately, the earliest maps of the Delmarva Peninsula are so archaic and inaccurately drawn and oriented as to be nearly indecipherable, but by 1682, the one drawn by John Seller is at least recognizable. The 18th century maps are better. There is also an enlargeable one in the digital collection of the Library of Congress. I believe it dates from 1778 and is called "The Peninsula Between Delaware & Chesopeak Bays, with the said bays and shores adjacent drawn from the most accurate surveys." This one is particularly useful due to the zoom feature.
I stumbled across the Moseley map while trying to locate the Meherrin Creek referred to in this 1737 Bertie County land record witnessed by a JOHN HENDERSON:
Book 3 p. 363 William Moore to Benjamin Hill
19 January 1737 100 acres on N side Meheron Creek. Wit: J Bonde, John Laman, JOHN HENDERSON. "Know...that I Judith Moore...have for five pounds...by Coll Benjamin Hill relinquished all my Right Title and Interest to within land. 19 January 1737. Wit J Bonde, John Laman, JOHN HENDERSON. November Court 1738.
While I don't know that this John Henderson is connected in any way to the Delmarva Hendersons or to either of the two Onslow County Henderson groups, it is a point of interest that James "Isaac" Henderson's 1770 will was witnessed by John Bond and _____ Moor. The names Bond and Moor/Moore are frequently connected with the handful of other very early northeastern NC Henderson records I have been able to find.
The name Edward Moseley is well-known in the old Chowan and Bertie precincts of North Carolina. Moseley, the Surveyor General of North Carolina before 1710 and between 1723-1733, was born in England in 1683, and was active in the early politics of the colony. Moseley immigrated into Charleston and began his career as an Ordinary Court Clerk under Governor James Moore. He would marry judiciously (Anne Lillington Walker, widow of former governor Henderson Walker) and rise through the political ranks, ending up in Albemarle County where he began his surveying and legal careers. A feud between Moseley and Governor Charles Eden arose when Moseley accused Eden of collusion with the pirate Blackbeard (circumstantial evidence seems strong). As a result of the libel, he was heavily fined and banned from public office for several years.
Nevertheless...the man drew a good map.
Learn more about Edward Moseley's 1733 Map.
Learn more about Edward Moseley's life and political career.
 |
| Edward Moseley's Map of NC, 1733 |
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Revisiting the Rhodes Bible for Henderson Connections
Many years ago I became aware, although now I recall not how, that the Rhodes Family Bible contained references to several birth records that appeared to pertain to our Onslow County NC James "Isaac" Henderson family. Fortuitously, I also learned that the Bible was housed in the document collection of nearby Greensboro College, so I headed over to take a look.
Out of the case came a voluminous tome of archaic binding and musty, brittle pages. I went through that Bible with a fine-toothed comb, and although I did find many Rhodes notations, I couldn't find a single reference to a Henderson. I must have turned every page of that Bible, to no avail. Puzzled and disappointed, I photographed the Bible and returned it to the archivist.
I recently learned that there was a second copy of the Bible in the Cullen Hatch Collection in Kinston, NC (the Hatch family intermarried with that of Rhodes). It is this version of the Bible that contained the references to children and/or grandchildren of James "Isaac" Henderson.
Now that so much more documentation has become available online, I need to revisit this link, review the transcription of this alternate version of the Bible, and compare it to the one I reviewed over two decades ago. In the mean time, I would like to share this transcription by North Carolina historical and genealogical researcher Sloan Mason. All editorial comments are Mr. Mason's, but the red emphasis is mine.
I will follow up with a separate post of commentary.
Out of the case came a voluminous tome of archaic binding and musty, brittle pages. I went through that Bible with a fine-toothed comb, and although I did find many Rhodes notations, I couldn't find a single reference to a Henderson. I must have turned every page of that Bible, to no avail. Puzzled and disappointed, I photographed the Bible and returned it to the archivist.
I recently learned that there was a second copy of the Bible in the Cullen Hatch Collection in Kinston, NC (the Hatch family intermarried with that of Rhodes). It is this version of the Bible that contained the references to children and/or grandchildren of James "Isaac" Henderson.
Now that so much more documentation has become available online, I need to revisit this link, review the transcription of this alternate version of the Bible, and compare it to the one I reviewed over two decades ago. In the mean time, I would like to share this transcription by North Carolina historical and genealogical researcher Sloan Mason. All editorial comments are Mr. Mason's, but the red emphasis is mine.
I will follow up with a separate post of commentary.
The Rhodes Bible of the Cullen Hatch Collection - Transcribed by Sloan Mason
The New Testament
Of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ
Oxford
Printed by Thomas BASKETT
Printer to the University
MDCCLVII
1757
An Acct. of the Ages of all the Children Belonging to Henry RHODES & Mary His Wife
Sarah RHODES was bornd March 22 1755.
Elizabeth RHODES was bornd Febr. 24th, 1756
Woodhouse RHODES borned Jany. 19th, 1759.
Oliff RHODES was bornd Febr. 16th, 1762.
Mary RHODES was bornd Aug. 20, 1766.
Henry RHODES & Eliz. WARD was married Aug. 5, 1770.
(there are 3 lines of written material circled out, unable to read,
but does have a date of 1771 on the 2nd line)
Henry RHODES son of Henry & Eliz RHODES bornd on Monday abt. 11 O'clock
in morning the 22nd of November 1773 & the 8thd day of the moons age.
Henneritta RHODES daughter to Henry & Eliz RHODES was bornd on Friday
the 4th Day of April 1777 & the days age of the moon.
(under the word April there is an arrow pointing to April, then the
word married? Than another arrow pointing to Eliz's name in line above)
Mary RHODES wife to Henry RHODES, 18 years departed this life on Monday morning about 3 O'clock the 5th day of June in the year of Our Lord 1769 in the 38th year of her age.
(page 2)
(The 2nd page of this bible is impossible to read-it may be slave records-but is impossible to know there are only a few words I can make out.)
(mid way down page)
son bornd
26th? Day of June -- Bot Him & His mother 1th May 1774
--- was bornd
in the Evening 1770
(page 3)
An Acct. of all the children Belonging to Woodhs. RHODES & Elizabeth his wife with the Ages of them.
1) Exilina RHODES was borne the 29 Day of May 1782.
2) John Hatch RHODES was bornd the 16 Day of March 1784 on
the 25 Day of the Moons Age.
3) Mary RHODES was bornd the 14 Day of September 1785
about one O'clock in the after hour?
4) Woodhs RHODES Jun. To Woodhs RHODES & Elizabeth his wife was borned
the 24 Day of Jany 1788 And the 16 Day of the Moons age about 2 O'clock
in the morning.
5) Asa Hatch RHODES was bornd the 6th Day of Jany 1790.
6) Lemuel Hatch RHODES was bornd the 19th of Febuary 1792.
7) Henry RHODES was born 25 Day of Jany 1794 Died Oct. 8th, 1849 in
the 56th year of his age.
8) Durant Hatch RHODES was bornd 9 Day of April 1797
9) Narsisey Hatch RHODES was bornd the 25 Day of December 1798.
10) Anthony Hatch RHODES was bornd the 9 Day of April 1801
11) Edmon Hatch RHODES was bornd 18th Day of Jany 1806
12) Margaret RHODES was bornd 17 Day of Feby. 1808.
(page 4)
(At bottom of page)
Zilpha FRANCK Daughter of Edward FRANCK and Elizabeth his wife, was born November 28 in the year of our Lord 1798 and was married to Henr. RHODES April 5th Day 1821.
(page 5)
(at bottom of page)
My Dear beloved Father Woodhouse RHODES departed this life on Wednesday 9th of May 1827 Just before sun down his age then was sixty eight years three months and twenty days.
----------------------------------------------------------------
(the next insertion was not in [the original] bible record, but it was in another copy
from the Cullen Hatch collection - view photocopy of record here)
Ezekiel HENDERSON and Arglus HENDERSON and Sary [Sucey?] his wife was bornd April
the 15 Day --- ---1751 177--
(page 7)
Bedence JENKIN daughter of William JENKINS and Bety his wife was bornd March the 18th day in the year of our Lord God 1771?
Charity JENKINS daughter of William JENKINS and Bety his wife was born Septem 21st day in the year of our Lord 1777 (or 1772?)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(page 6)
An account of the childrens ages Belonging to Henr. RHODES and Zilpha his wife.
1) Asa Franck RHODES was bornd the 17th of February in the year of our Lord 1822.
2) Durant Woodhs. RHODES was bornd the 1st of October in the year of our Lord 1823. No. 2 Departed Septr. 8th 1830.
3) Mary Elizabeth RHODES was bornd the 21st of September in the year of our Lord 1825.
4) Henry Emanuel RHODES was born the 7th of October in the year of our Lord 1827.
5) John Martin Franck RHODES was bornd the 2nd of July in the year of our Lord 1829.
6) Edward Haines RHODES was bornd 7th of March in the year of our Lord 1831.
7) Anthony Edmond RHODES was bornd December 13th in the year of our Lord 1832.
8) Bryan Shine RHODES was born January 12th A.D. this date 1836.
(page 7)
Hannah Rebecca RHODES was born 19th of June in the year of our Lord 1838.
Elizabeth R. HERRITAGE daughter of F. G. HERRITAGE and Penelope his wife was born Feb. 6th 1830. Was married to H. E. RHODES Nov. 9th 1848 Died Oct. 8th 1849 in the twentieth year of her age.
Henry Elizabeth (Koonce crossed out) RHODES child of the above couple was born Oct. 6th 1849. Died Nov. 7th 1849 aged one month.
Mary E. Hatch consort of Richard J. R. HATCH and daughter of Henry RHODES departed this life on the 27 Oct. 1851 in the 27th year of her age.
Henry E. RHODES & Martha PEARSALL was married April 10th 1851 being my second wife, her age being 18 years old, 3rd Day of March before,
James Henry Pearsall RHODES child of the above couple was born June 5th 1852 at 3 O'clock.
(page 8)
Benjamin Franklin RHODES was born June 15th 1854.
Martha Elizabeth RHODES was born Jan. 8th, 1856.
(page 9)
Elvy Daughter of Sam and Mehaley, his wife was born August 31st in the year of our Lord 1827.
Grace Daughter of the above was born July 24th in the year of our Lord 1829.
Daniel son of the above was born July 14th in the year of our Lord 1831.
Lear daughter of the above was born June 18th in the year of our Lord 1834.
Rilla Daughter of the above was Born June 28th in the year of our Lord 1838.
Alfred son of the above was born November 10th in the year of our Lord 1840.
Lewarer? Son of the above was born April 24th Day A.D. 1843.
Simon son of the above was born August 30th A.D. 1845.
Lucy Daughter of the above was born Nov. 5th 1848.
Jane Daughter of Elvy was born Jan. 1st A.D. 1854.
Becky daughter of Rilly was born March 19th A.D. 1857
Maria daughter of Elvy was born Aug. 11th A.D. 1857 died 1859.
Lewis on of Rilly was born April 1858.
(page 10)
Will, son of Charlot was born in November the day in the year of our Lord 1830 (day of the month forgotten)
Rose was born in September (the day forgotten) in the year of our Lord 1835 - Daughter of the above.
Thomas son of the above was born September 2nd in the year of our Lord 1839.
Hard son of the above was born May 6th A.D. 1842
Elizaan daughter of the above ws born December 3rd A.D. 1844.
Mary daughter of the above was born May 25th A.D. 1847.
(page 11)
Children of Harriet born since I bought her
Ann was born in May 1850
Venus? Was born 30th of May 1853
Lewis son of the above was born Aug. 2nd 1856.
Alfred was born in the spring 1847.
George was born in the summer 1844.
(page 12)
York son of Mitilda and York (her husband written above)
was borne A.D. October 5th 1843
Marthy daughter of the above was born June 27th A.D. 1845.
Carolina was born November 7th A.D. 1846 dead 47.
Calvin child of the above was born in the Spring 1850.
Maryann Child of Harriet was born in the Spring 1850.
END OF BIBLE RECORD
(This was in the Cullen Hatch collection, this bible was one record, several different hand writings)
Sunday, January 25, 2015
A Note on the Frequency of the Henderson R-M269 Subclade in Ireland and Scotland
In my ongoing quest to connect my Henderson line back to Scotland, even DNA testing has been able to offer little in the way of meaningful progress.
While we have had several solid matches with lines previously not known to be connected with
us, none can trace their lineage back to the old country. In fact, few can trace themselves back even so far as the two oldest identified groups (the family of James Henderson of the Delmarva Peninsula and the family of James "Isaac" Henderson of Onslow County NC, arrived mid-1660's and prior to 1720 respectively). Record-keeping in Scotland and Ireland during the 17th and early 18th century was incomplete, at best, and I have nearly despaired of finding a definitive paper trail since these two related-but-we-don't-know-how ancestors arrived in the colonies so long ago.
I have begun to toy with the idea that we might have come to Virginia and North Carolina via Ulster rather than directly from Scotland. A mid-19th century Baltimore City census record that is believed to be connected to one of our Henderson DNA matches hints that their line of the family came from Ireland. However, another record in the same census leads us to believe that the family came from Scotland. This is the newest DNA matching line of immigration we can identify, and I had hoped they would lead us back to the right spot in the UK, but so far, only more confusion.
I really can't put much credence in either claim, even if it turns out that both census records in question are indeed connected to our DNA tester. How many times have I spoken to various branches of various families and been told of their "Irish," "Cherokee" or "Dutch" blood, only to verify through records and research that they were actually English, had not a single drop of Cherokee (or other native) blood, or were actually German (Deutsch)? Too many times to be fooled again.
I was having a look tonight at the latest Henderson DNA results and I see that Jim has re-categorized our family line (previously the G1 group) into a new family group of C4 with a subclade of R-M269. I looked up the Wikipedia article on R-M269 and I see that the highest frequency of that DNA signature is found in Wales (92%), Ireland (82% with some pockets as high as 95%), and Scotland (70%). While this isn't particularly useful in helping me narrow things down, the high concentration of this subclade in Ireland cannot allow me to eliminate the possibility that our family may have originated there, or at least have lived there, possibly as settlers of Ulster.
While we have had several solid matches with lines previously not known to be connected with
us, none can trace their lineage back to the old country. In fact, few can trace themselves back even so far as the two oldest identified groups (the family of James Henderson of the Delmarva Peninsula and the family of James "Isaac" Henderson of Onslow County NC, arrived mid-1660's and prior to 1720 respectively). Record-keeping in Scotland and Ireland during the 17th and early 18th century was incomplete, at best, and I have nearly despaired of finding a definitive paper trail since these two related-but-we-don't-know-how ancestors arrived in the colonies so long ago.
I have begun to toy with the idea that we might have come to Virginia and North Carolina via Ulster rather than directly from Scotland. A mid-19th century Baltimore City census record that is believed to be connected to one of our Henderson DNA matches hints that their line of the family came from Ireland. However, another record in the same census leads us to believe that the family came from Scotland. This is the newest DNA matching line of immigration we can identify, and I had hoped they would lead us back to the right spot in the UK, but so far, only more confusion.
I really can't put much credence in either claim, even if it turns out that both census records in question are indeed connected to our DNA tester. How many times have I spoken to various branches of various families and been told of their "Irish," "Cherokee" or "Dutch" blood, only to verify through records and research that they were actually English, had not a single drop of Cherokee (or other native) blood, or were actually German (Deutsch)? Too many times to be fooled again.
I was having a look tonight at the latest Henderson DNA results and I see that Jim has re-categorized our family line (previously the G1 group) into a new family group of C4 with a subclade of R-M269. I looked up the Wikipedia article on R-M269 and I see that the highest frequency of that DNA signature is found in Wales (92%), Ireland (82% with some pockets as high as 95%), and Scotland (70%). While this isn't particularly useful in helping me narrow things down, the high concentration of this subclade in Ireland cannot allow me to eliminate the possibility that our family may have originated there, or at least have lived there, possibly as settlers of Ulster.
New Information on the Baltimore Hendersons lends credence to theory that they may have come to America by way of Ireland
Originally published December 12, 2009
We've made some significant progress on the Baltimore Hendersons since first learning of their relationship to the G1 Family Group. Credit goes to Carol B. for inviting cousin Joyce E. to share her excellent research with the group. Joyce has been working on the G1-K096 (Baltimore) family for many years and has traced the line back to John W. Henderson, born in Scotland (or possibly Ireland)...OR...Alexandria VA...OR...Baltimore MD. The trick now is to find out which place!
A cursory examination of the book Passenger Arrivals at the Port of Baltimore 1820-1834 (transcribed by Elizabeth P. Bentley, edited by Michael Tepper) shows sixty Henderson immigrants. All but seven of these Henderson immigrants are listed as having come from Ireland, but there is no way to be sure which of the John Hendersons (if any) on this list might be our John W. Henderson. (Three of the seven non-Irish Hendersons are Johns). I will blog more about this resource in my next entry.
According to Joyce's work, John W. Henderson married Kiturah/Keturah Bowen on 31 July 1827 in Baltimore, Maryland. Their large family appears regularly throughout mid-to-late 19th century Baltimore census records, but those records appear to indicate that John W. died prior to 1850.
I am currently working on inputting Joyce's notes into my database and will add a summary of information on this line as soon as I have had a chance to absorb and summarize the implications of what I learn there.
Note: Our family group has since been re-categorized on the Henderson DNA results page and no longer falls under the G1 designation. Our line is now part of Group C4, R-M269. Our family group runs from test number 82161 through 69522 as of 1/25/15.
We've made some significant progress on the Baltimore Hendersons since first learning of their relationship to the G1 Family Group. Credit goes to Carol B. for inviting cousin Joyce E. to share her excellent research with the group. Joyce has been working on the G1-K096 (Baltimore) family for many years and has traced the line back to John W. Henderson, born in Scotland (or possibly Ireland)...OR...Alexandria VA...OR...Baltimore MD. The trick now is to find out which place!
A cursory examination of the book Passenger Arrivals at the Port of Baltimore 1820-1834 (transcribed by Elizabeth P. Bentley, edited by Michael Tepper) shows sixty Henderson immigrants. All but seven of these Henderson immigrants are listed as having come from Ireland, but there is no way to be sure which of the John Hendersons (if any) on this list might be our John W. Henderson. (Three of the seven non-Irish Hendersons are Johns). I will blog more about this resource in my next entry.
According to Joyce's work, John W. Henderson married Kiturah/Keturah Bowen on 31 July 1827 in Baltimore, Maryland. Their large family appears regularly throughout mid-to-late 19th century Baltimore census records, but those records appear to indicate that John W. died prior to 1850.
I am currently working on inputting Joyce's notes into my database and will add a summary of information on this line as soon as I have had a chance to absorb and summarize the implications of what I learn there.
Note: Our family group has since been re-categorized on the Henderson DNA results page and no longer falls under the G1 designation. Our line is now part of Group C4, R-M269. Our family group runs from test number 82161 through 69522 as of 1/25/15.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)