The ALLEN DNA Patrilineage 2 Project

The ALLEN DNA Patrilineage 2 Project

This ALLEN patrilineage project is dedicated to furthering the genealogical research of the members, each of whom has sponsored a Family Tree ySTR DNA test of 37 markers (or better) that matches to the haplotype pattern for this ALLEN patrilineage. Our goal is to promote both individual and collaborative genealogical research aimed at reconstructing the overall tree of descent from the patriarch common to all of the members, using their ySTR DNA test results to guide us in our research, and our conclusions.

The ALLEN Patrilineage Association (APA) PATRILINEAGE Index provides links to this and other ALLEN patrilineage projects, and the APA Ancestral Places Index, indexes the counties (or in some places, the townships) where individual ancestral vital events (birth, marriage, or death) are known to have taken place.

-

The Likely Origins of this Patrilineage in Somersetshire, England

The most fertile of the immigrant American patriarchs of this patrilineage, George1 ALLEN of Sandwich, Plymouth, emigrated in 1635 to the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Although a few possibly matching records have been found for antecedent George ALLENs back in England, this is hardly surprising given the commonness of the surname, but where the wider context of these particular records has been explored, the circumstantial evidence does not support the identification. See McDONALD, p.2, for more on some of these English ALLEN red herrings.

What we do know about George is that he and part of his family sailed for New England from Weymouth, Dorset, in March, 1635, on the ship Marygould bearing a company of followers of the Rev. Joseph Hull of Broadway, Somersetshire, who according to colonial governor Gov. John Winthrop brought 21 families with him. Annotations on the ship’s passenger list and other evidence places several of these families in Broadway, and others in Batcombe, Somerset. As can be seen by this map, Broadway is about 7 miles SE of Taunton, near Ilminster, while Batcombe is about 25 miles to the NE. One of the other known Broadway passengers, Thomas Holbrooke, is also known to have married and had his first two children in Glastonbury, Somerset, about 9 miles due west of Batcombe, while Joseph Hull is known to have been born in Crewkerne about 7 miles SE of Broadway.

This whole area had been a hotbed of radical Protestantism and consequent emigration for many years, starting in early 1630 with the passengers on the first ship of settlement to the Bay Colony, the Mary & John, who were largely followers of the Rev. John Warham who had preached in Crewkerne and other parishes of this area, and who led the Mary & John company to the New World. This first expedition, and many others that followed were also sponsored by the important minister, the Rev. John White, of the large town of Dorchester, Dorset, which can be seen near the bottom right of the map. The port of Weymouth is off map to the south of Dorchester in the same direction.

It is thus probable that George and the other patriarchs of ALLEN Patrilineage 2 came from this area of central Somerset, though no one so far one has found the smoking gun evidence. Unfortunately, for the obvious first place to look, Broadway, the extant parish begin only in 1678. Some further details on these likely English origins will be found on page 15 of my report “Two New England Patriarchs”.

Three American ALLEN Patriarchs

Newly brought forward genealogical information, and a reconsideration of the DNA evidence, make it clear now that there have been at least three American patriarchs of ALLEN Patrilineage 2, representing three immigrant lines—not just the one—George1 Allen of Sandwich, Plymouth Colony (say 1585 - 1648).

The second ALLEN Patrilineage 2 patriarch is George’s close relative, the immigrant Samuel1 Allen of Braintree, Massachusetts Bay Colony (say 1604 - 1669), and you will find much more on him below, and in the newly researched papers I’ve published: “Two New England Patriarchs...”, and the accompanying evidential timeline. I am indebted to genealogist Susie Hartman for supplying the key genealogical evidence that shows that Patrilineage 2 patriarch Samuel2 ALLEN of Bridgewater, Plymouth, was in fact the son of Samuel1 of Braintree, not of George1 of Sandwich, as other circumstantial evidence strongly suggested.

The third ALLEN Patrilineage 2 patriarch is Joseph1 Allen of Charles County, MD (say 1718 -), whose patrilineal descendants I’ve dubbed “the Maryland cluster”. We now have four patrilineage project members who belong to this branch of the family, and I will be posting their genealogies and DNA results soon. My conclusion that Joseph was not a descendant of either of the New England patriarchs who were here 100 years earlier is based largely on the wide divergence between his inferred haplotype, and the inferred haplotypes of the immigrants George1 and Samuel1.

Although I’ve suffixed all three of these patriarchs with a “1” (the generational designation usually reserved for the first generation to immigrate), the origins of Joseph of CharlesCoMD remain obscure, and I suspect that he was not himself the first generation immigrant of his line, as there were several antecedent ALLENs in sparsely settled CharlesCo dating back to the late 1600s. More research needs to be done in this area.

George ALLEN of Sandwich, Massachusetts (say 1585—1648)

Two of the ySTR DNA tested members of this project can trace their lines all the way back to the immigrant, George1 Allen of Sandwich, Plymouth Colony, in Massachusetts. These are John_W-02, who descends through George’s son Ralph2, and Bill_L-10, who descends from George2 (George2). Although the evidence supporting some links of the ancestral chains of these two is not as strong as it might be, and although a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link, the fact that these lines follow a very different geographical course, and have been researched both ably and independently (and confirmed by DNA testing), gives us a very high confidence level that they are correct. This is particularly so in the case of John_W’s ancestry back through Ralph2; there is a bit more chance that the line that runs back to George2, whose descendants remained for some time in New England amidst so many other ALLEN cousins, may have taken a slightly different path back to George1 than appears. In fact, now that we know that the haplotypes inherited by George1 and Samuel1 were identical, we cannot rule out the possibility that Bill_L’s line runs back to Samuel1, and not to George1—except, of course, on genealogical grounds, which are always problematic.

Still, on the genealogical side, we are fortunate that exhaustive research has been done on George himself, and on his conjugal family. The definitive reconstruction of George’s family is found in ANDERSON, below, although a careful reading of the “George Allen” sketch in that book should make it clear that the considered judgement of the authors, the very best of New England genealogists, working with an exhaustive compilation of facts from the primary records, is still not necessarily the last word on this family. The authors themselves note that “At one time or another just about every young Allen male in southeastern New England has been placed as a son of George Allen.”

And as I note below, under “What the DNA can tell us now”, if we were to extend the haplotypes of all of those who can trace back genealogically to one of these immigrant New England patriarchs, we might just turn up a mutation that could differentiate between them.

The best published treatment of the descendancy of George1 is a paper by Jack MacDonald. This paper, though sparsely sourced, is particularly strong in its tracing of the Quaker line of Ralph2. MacDonald has also paid some attention to the English origins, and has usefully undermined a few of the half-baked ideas advanced by others.

The most comprehensive and best evidenced treatment that I know of for the generation of George1 and Samuel1 are the two papers that I’ve just published (Apr2014): “Two NewEngland Patriarchs, Not One: Samuel Allen of Braintree ”, and the corresponding “Evidential Timeline for Patriarchs George1 & Samuel1 ALLEN”. These papers do not cover all the details of these men’s careers, but they do focus analytically on all the salient genealogical and contextual historical evidence concerning these men and their relationship, and they show, I believe, conclusively, the George and Samuel must have been the closest of relatives short of being father and son.

Samuel1 ALLEN of Braintree, Massachusetts (say 1604—1669)

This Samuel is not really a new discovery. In fact, most of the published secondary sources, including James Savage in his Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England... have made this Samuel the father of Samuel2 of Bridgewater, Plymouth Colony, to whom two of our Patrilineage 2 project members, Melava-07, and NancyB-13, trace their ancestries. But none of the sources I have seen provide any evidence for this attribution, and all the circumstantial evidence has seemed to favor George of Sandwich as the father of Samuel2 of Bridgewater.

In 1656 (within months of the founding of Bridgewater), Samuel2 of Boston, the son of George1 of Sandwich, joined with brother Henry in selling land in Sandwich that they had inherited from their father—and that is the last we hear of Samuel2 (George1). What could be more natural than that George’s son should have taken the proceeds of his inheritance and become a proprietor of the newly forming town of Bridgewater, in Plymouth Colony? Then, there is the claim, often advanced (but also unevidenced as far as I have seen) that Samuel of Bridgewater was aged 71 in 1703, thus born about 1632. This matches almost perfectly to the estimated birth date of George's son, say 1633, in Robert Charles Anderson’s “George Allen” sketch in The Great Migration: Immigrants to New England, 1634-1635.

However, another descendant of Samuel of Bridgewater who has researched him extensively in the primary records, has provided me with evidence that seems incontrovertible that Samuel of Bridgewater was the son of Samuel1 of Braintree. The latter made a will in Braintree 2Aug1669 (proved 16Sep1669) leaving 20 to his son Samuel to be paid within four years of his death, and making wife Margaret and son Joseph executors. Then, on 16Sep1672 a deed to 12a of Braintree land was acknowledged by the grantors “Margaret ALLEN, the late wife of Sammuell ALLEN now deceased, and Joseph ALLEN my son, both of the town of Brantry of the government of Massachusets, in consideration of 20 given and appointed to be paid by the abovesaid Sammuell ALLEN, deceased, to his son, Sammuell ALLEN of Bridgewater in the government of New Plimouth”.

What was Samuel1 ALLEN of Braintree to George1 of Sandwich?

Samuel1 of Braintree can be ruled out as the son of George1 because the circumstantial context doesn’t fit. For one thing, George’s son Samuel is grouped with his brother Henry, and the other George’s “five least children” in the latter’s will. For another, unlike George’s older sons by his first wife (John, Ralph, and George) Samuel is not found in possession of any of this father’s lands in Weymouth, or is any way associated with Weymouth in the records, even though the circumstantial evidence for Samuel of Braintree shows that he was married say 1631, so would probably have been George’s oldest son.

On the other hand, given that the DNA of at least one descendant of Samuel and at least one descendant of George matches perfectly on the 67 marker Family Tree DNA test, the two must have been very closely related indeed. My guess is that Samuel was George’s nephew, but they may have been first, or possibly second, cousins. Until and unless their English origins can be found, it is doubtful that anything more can be said about their relationship.

Joseph ALLEN of Charles County, Maryland (say 1718 -)

I haven’t yet finalized or posted the descendancies or the other information for this branch of the ALLEN Patrilineage 2 family, which includes long time project member Kathy-12, and three new members, representing four new haplotypes (Larry Allen (member# 17), Linda Krell (#18), and Steve Jacobs (#19 and #20)), but I will be doing that soon. In the meantime, I have merely created this section as a placemarker.

Descendants of George1: Quaker ALLENs and the Southern Branch of the Family

One of the most interesting features of the descendancy of George ALLEN of Sandwich is the fact that he projected offshoots into the American South. In fact seven of the twenty-one project members claim such southern roots, presumably through the line of George1’s son Ralph2, though only one of these, John_W-02, can at present trace his lineage back to George.

It would be an understatement to say that this New England—Southern connection was unusual. To find great-grandchildren of New England Puritans in the Anglican plantation society of Virginia would be distinctly anomalous. The anomaly is accounted for, though, when we learn that many of George’s children were caught up in the first wave of New England Quakerism, for the Quakers were persecuted and hounded in the Puritan settlements, and encouraged to flock to the frontier in search of peace. And the areas of Virginia, and also North Carolina, where these Quakers settled were indeed America’s western frontiers, where they joined such other unwanted peoples as the feisty Scotch-Irish, and the pietistic, hard-working Germans.

Certain Quaker enclaves did emerge in southeastern Massachusetts, and of course in Rhode Island, the first polity in the world in which religious toleration was written into the constitution, and it is in these New England enclaves that George's Quaker progeny first took refuge. The largest number settled in DartmouthMA on the southern coast next to Rhode Island, and their descendants continued to constitute one of the largest families in the town on into the 1800s. Others trickled into Rhode Island, and as orthodox Puritanism began to lose its grip, on to Connecticut, Vermont, and New York.

But meanwhile several families of George ALLEN descendants made the big leap to Monmouth County, New Jersey where a small Quaker settlement and monthly meeting sprang up in the township of Shrewsbury. From there, it was only natural that subsequent generations should continue the migration south toward the newly opening western frontier of Virginia, west of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Towards the end of the 18th century, the north central counties of North Carolina (Orange, Rowan, and the counties they gave birth to, Guilford and Rockingham) became a Quaker stronghold in their turn, but a generation before that, beginning in the 1730s, George ALLEN descendants were participating in the first settlements of the Valley of Virginia, in Augusta and Frederick Counties. The story of these first Quaker settlements beyond the Blue Ridge is told in WORRALL.

Of the four project members who can trace their lines back to George, two are descended from sons of George who went Quaker. Member Bill_L-10 descends from George’s Quaker son George, through progeny who settled first in Dartmouth, then migrated later to Rhode Island and New York. The line of the fourth member, John_W-02 (representing testee David Allen) descends from George’s Quaker son Ralph, through his son Joseph, who ended up in MonmouthCoNJ. Two of Joseph’s sons, Benjamin and Reuben, migrated in turn first to CecilCoMD, and from there to AugustaCo in the upper Valley of Virginia, appearing there first in 1739. John_W’s line runs through Reuben.

-

Further Research Possibilities for the Southern Branch

One of the more salient problem regarding the patrilineage right now is how to connect the unconnected southerners to their DNA-indicated line of descent from George1 of Sandwich through the mostly Quaker lines of his son, Ralph2. The descendancy of project member John_W-02 gets this line into the Valley of Virginia. What is left is to figure out how to bridge the one- to two-generation gap from the time the earliest known ancestors of project members begin to be identifiable as such in the records of FranklinCoVA and nearby areas in the late 1700s, back to the early-to-mid 1700s when Quakers first began to filter down deep into VA and NC.

The starting point would be to follow up on the brothers Benjamin and Reuben in Augusta, Frederick, and other related Valley of Virginia counties, and to look for the appearance of other ALLENs in that area who might be descendants of George of Sandwich’s Quaker sons. Targeted DNA testing might be in order to address this problem.

The descendancy of Reuben has been fairly thoroughly researched and accounted for, though some of his grandchildren may have migrated farther south. MacDONALD seems to have foreclosed on the possibility that Reuben’s brother, Benjamin, had children, but I am not so sure about that. He does note that further research needs to be done on the ALLENs of this area, but I imagine that the reason he himself didn’t pursue things further, is that there simply aren’t likely to be any, or many, records for this area which do not already appear in CHALKLEY—and I have made my own abstracts of all that do. There are also a few ALLEN records in the order book index for OrangeCo, Augusta’s parent, and there may well be deeds records there too.

Both Benjamin and Reuben took out early patents in the Valley, evidently intending to settle (MacDONALD notes these too, albeit with a couple of minor errors), but there may be others in SW Virginia by other related ALLENs. Wonderfully, the VA Patents have all been abstracted, indexed, and put online by the Library of Virginia, the search link for which is to be found here. By entering Reuben Allen and following the links you can access and download Reuben Allen’s patent.

There is a tantalizing reference in MacDONALD to an Augusta order book record dated 18Mar1746/7 which associates a Daniel Allen with the probate of Benjamin, and he notes at the same time that additional research is required on this Daniel, whom he thinks was probably married in CecilCoMD, as was (brother) Reuben. As usual, MacDONALD provides no citation for this record, but since the order books are chronological, I’ve scanned all the Chalkley abstracts for that court date (Chalkley 1:26) and there is no such record to be found—nor are there any corresponding Daniel Allen references in the indexes to any of the three Chalkley volumes. Is this one of the items which Chalkley missed, and did MacDONALD himself plow through every page of the early order books trolling for ALLENs, or perhaps it was the probate records which were meant, or maybe the date was wrong. Only the original books themselves are likely to yield up that secret, and for such a potentially important record, only the original document will do.

If Benjamin and Reuben’s brother, Daniel, did come out to the Valley, and especially if he was a Quaker, he may well have continued south in his search for vacant land in a less violent area than Augusta, which was populated largely by pugnacious Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, and occasionally raided by Indians (one of my own Quaker ancestors did just that, leaving my Scotch-Irish ancestors to wrestle with the raw frontier). Daniel would only have had to journey another 80 miles due south down the Valley, crossing back over the Blue Ridge mountains to reach FranklinCoVA (perhaps passing over the old wagon road which passes within 100 yards yards of where I live), and it would have been only another 50 miles due south from there to present day RockinghamCoNC, where Bill_B’s Allen ancestors may have come from. Moreover, I have noted the presence of at least one Daniel Allen in RockinghamCoNC, though much later in the 18th century.

The goal here would be to try to match up the early Allen settlers of Augusta and Frederick Counties in the Valley, with the Allens who turn up early in FranklinCo (and its predecessors, Bedford and Lunenburg) just to the south, over the mountains—meanwhile taking care not to conflate the Allens of this patrilineage with the many unrelated Allens of Patrilineage (I) who were also pioneers in these Southside VA counties.

I would recommend, therefore, to any of this southern crew who are determined to try to solve these knotty genealogical problems, to begin to dig into the primary records of all these counties (Franklin, Bedford, Lunenburg) and compile everything found there on Allens. At the same, the data at the other end of the missing link (Augusta, Frederick, and Shenandoah Cos) needs to be systematically compiled to identify possible descendants of Benjamin, Reuben, and perhaps Daniel or others who went south instead of north as most of the Quaker Allens did.

Because the records are so scant in colonial Virginia (and North Carolina), and vital records are almost entirely lacking, there is a need to thoroughly mine all such records as exist for whatever they may yield, and to try to reconstruct, not just the focal Allen ancestral family, but all of the Allen families, in order to be able to assign all the little shards found in the record books (here a signature on a deed, there a record of jury service, or as a party to a lawsuit) to the proper identities. It is possible, by diligently pursuing this comprehensive method, to build a strong circumstantial case even where direct evidence is lacking.

-

Deepening and Extending Your Genealogical Research

On the genealogical side, the descendancy of George of Sandwich and the other patriarchs of Patrilineage 2 is so extensive, particularly in New England, that we may hope to attract many other testees in time, and any one of these may match mutations with existing members, and/or be able to contribute some missing piece of the genealogical puzzle. Thus, even though some project member’s lines appear to be “brick-walled” at present, there is always hope. And having examined to some degree the evidence that the existing members have predicated their genealogies on, it seems to me that there is still plenty of room in most cases to dig deeper into the primary records of the places indicated by the work that has been done.

It’s all too easy with these New England and Quaker lines and their plenteous vital records to assume that since the published data that comes easily to hand appears to have been plausibly shuffled into coherent families, that all the necessary research has been done. However, I have found that by digging into the primary probate, land, tax, and miscellaneous court records of a place, one almost always finds additional bits of circumstantial evidence, and quite often something of genealogical significance will turn up. One is also likely to encounter anomalies—new potential pieces of the puzzle which cannot be accounted for by the prima facie theories with which most people are too easily satisfied, and while these complications and apparent contradictions may be initially frustrating, some of these anomalies may turn out to be leads opening up new avenues of research for apparently blocked lines.

It should be within the compass of any of you to access the original records without an undue amount of travel or expense. Pretty much all of the county courthouse records in the US have been filmed by the LDS (the Mormons), who are deep into digitizing these records and putting them online at FamilySearch (Browse) for free. And in the worst case, just about everyone can find one of the LDS Family History Centers within an hour’s driving distance (usually much closer), and can borrow therefrom the relevant films from the LDS archives in Salt Lake City for a small fee. Either way, the online FHL Catalog is the best guide to the extant records of most American jurisdictions, and it is the first place I turn to when I am familiarizing myself with the research possibilities of a new area. If a particular set of films has been digitized, there will be a notice to that effect in red on the same catalog page as the film numbers, and if not, one can set up an account and place an order for films to be sent to your local LDS branch through this portal.

It’s true that primary records research in the colonial and early American records can be quite challenging. These old manuscript records are typically hard to read, and their correct interpretation requires familiarity with the law and customs of the time. But as long as such records exist unexamined, no one can reasonably claim to be brick-walled. And even though no genealogical nuggets are lurking in these primary records, one nearly always acquires through their patient examination, a few clues to who these people were and what their lives were like. Family history leads on to local history, which in turn plugs into the broader historical contexts with which we may be more familiar, but which without the personal dimension that family history brings, lack a certain reality.

-

What the DNA can tells us now

Beyond the fact that all of the DNA-tested members of this project belong to the same patrilineage, we can reasonably expect the variations within the group to tell us something about its family branches. The more generations down to the present from the common patriarchal ancestor, the more mutations we can expect to have accumulated to differentiate the separate lines. In the best of cases, one or more mutations will have occurred in the generations just down from the patriarch of all, ideally in one or more of his sons, that would allow us to say of any tested descendant of the patrilineage that he is, or is not, a descendant through that particular son.

Unfortunately, nature rarely complies with our wishes on this, but plenty of mutations do turn up in all patrilineages that are deep enough, and ALLEN Patrilineage 2 is an old one by American standards. However, the principal genealogical line, down from George of Sandwich, who had many sons, is remarkably pure and unmutated, which frustrates our ambition to find early mutational markers that might help to guide the work of the majority of project members who remain unconnected to the main root of the patriarchal tree.

To be quite specific, of the four members whose lines have been traced back to two different sons of George1, and one son of Samuel1, one of the latter, Melava-07, has a perfect yDNA match to Bill_L-10, who descends from George2 (George1). And if, as I suppose, the closest that George1 could be related to Samuel1 is as unclue and nephew (i.e. through a patriarch who was the father of George1 and the grandfather of Samuel1) then we may reasonably infer that no mutations have occurred in either of these lines since the birth of George1’s father in England, say 1560—no mutations that might at least tell us, for one of the majority of unconnected members, whether they descend from George1, or from Samuel1.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that we do have such a mutation for the line of Ralph2 (George1), although it may have occurred a generation or two down from Ralph. This is the mutation that I’ve dubbed “the southern mutation”, because Ralph’s son Joseph3, went south to New Jersey, and many of his descendants ended up in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. This is extremely valuable to know, because it tells us that the many members who share this mutation, all probably descend from George1 through his son Ralph. I say probably, because DYS449 is so prone to mutation that it’s possible that it has done so independently in more than one of the lines of those descendants who carry it, instead of them all inheriting it from a common ancestor—possible, but unlikely in any individual case—on the order of 1 in 10. More on “the southern mutation”, below.

It’s also good news that all the descendants of the Maryland line (Kathy-12 and her cousins) are clearly marked by a very distinctive pattern of mutations. We can say with a high degree of confidence that any one who turns up with a haplotype anything like theirs, does not descend from either of the New England patriarchs, George1 or Samuel1, and probably does instead trace back to this early Maryland Chesapeake line. Most likely the MRCA (most recent common ancestor) of the Marylanders and the New Englanders was born in the mid 1500s, though he could go back a century or two farther than that. Either way, given the relative statis of the English population, the MRCA too most likely traces back to Somersetshire, which is right in line with David Hackett Fischer’s conclusions in Albion’s Seed, that immigrants to the colonial Chesapeake tidewater area who weren't transportees from the large ports of London and Bristol, came predominantly from England’s “west country”.

The “Southern Mutation”

John_W’s line is of special importance, not only because it allows us to trace the migration of George Allen descendants into the south, but also because its yDNA haplotype is differentiated from that of the other known George Allen descendants by a characteristic mutation, DYS449+ (the marker DYS449 changed from the patrilineage norm of 31 to 32). And this mutation is shared by most of the other ALLENs of this patrilineage with southern roots! These include project members (Judy_M-05, Bob-09, Nancy_R-11, and Tim-06) whose lines appear to run back to FranklinCoVA—a “Southside” county which butts up against the Blue Ridge Mountains from the cis-montane side.

The other project member with southern roots, Bill_B-08, does not have the DYS449+ mutation shared by the other five, but his line traces back to Tennessee, and from there probably to RockinghamCoNC, one of the counties of Quaker settlement. Is it a coincidence that the area of FranklinCo where the “southern mutation” Allens seem to have settled is a mere twenty miles north of the border between Virginia and RockinghamCoNC? Although, Bill_B’s haplotype lacks this mutation, it is otherwise very close to that of the George Allen prototype, so that there’s every reason to suspect that he too descends from George, allbeit through a different son or grandson than the other southern-origined Allens with their distinctive mutation.

If Bill_B does descend from George through a different branch of his Quaker progeny, that would mean that the unconnected members with the “southern mutation” are even more closely related to John_W’s known line of descent from George than otherwise, and most likely they too are descended either from Reuben (say 1694 - abt 1741), or from one his brothers—if any others went further south. I shall have more to say about this possibility below.

Other Possibly Significant Mutations: CDYa=37

The other mutation which may be indicative is shared by Nancy_B-13, and Marlon-22, both descendants of Samuel1 of Bridgewater through his great-grandson, Joseph4 of WindhamCT. It’s also likely that Angeline-04, whose line traces back (for sure) only as far as a Phineas Allen, born about 1826, probably in BrownCoOH, also descends from the line of Joseph, or at least from that of Samuel1 of Braintree. There is some circumstantial evidence that the father of Angeline’s ancestor, Phineas, was also named Phineas, and that he was born in VT, but unfortunately, no birth record for Phineas Sr. turns up in the VT Vital Records Index. However, Nancy_B’s line also runs through VT, and she and Angeline do share the mutated marker value CDYa=37, the normal value for the patrilineage being 26.

Unfortunately, one can never be too sure that any given variation of this mutation is meaningful. The CDYs are the most mutable of all the tested markers, and there is a significant chance that ny given instance of it occurred by independent mutation, rather than by inheritance from a common ancestor.

In fact, as it turns out, one of the project outliers, Kathy-12, who descends from a Maryland patriarch of this patrilineage, is shortly to be joined in the project by several others of her line, for which I have found evidence that it runs back deep into colonial Maryland, probably into the 1600s. This in turn makes it highly probable that the progenitor of the Maryland ALLENs constitutes a third immigrant patriarch of ALLEN Patrilineage 2, and if so, he brought over the CDYa=37 value in his line as well.

There is thus a strong possibility that the CDYa=37 value is the normal one, and CDYa=36 the mutation, and instead of CDYa happening to mark the descendants of Samuel1 of Braintree, and also of the Maryland branch of the family but via a separate, independent, mutation to the CDYa=37 value, that CDYa=37 was the original value in the haplotype of the common patriarch of all, and that the descendancy of George1 of Sandwich is the one marked by the mutated value CDYa=36. There is, at present, no way way to differentiate between these possibilities definitively.

As it happens, it doesn’t matter too much which is the mutated value of CDYa, since either way, it differentiates the descendancy of George1 from those of the other two ALLEN Patrilineage 2 patriarchs.

Prospects for Additional DNA Testing

Beyond basic patrilineage classification, the reason we DNA test, or extend the ySTR DNA haplotypes beyond the basic 37 marker set (to 67, or 111) is to try to turn up mutations. All mutations have some potential value, but only those that are shared between two or more haplotypes (descendants) allow us to say that they are probably more closely related to each other than to all the others (the qualification “probably” comes from the fact that there is always a very small chance, ranging from about 1-10%, that a shared mutation occurred independently in two different lines, instead of being inherited from a common ancestor).

As noted above, the fact that at least one descendant of the patriarch George1 of Sandwich, and at least one descendant of the patriarch Samuel1 of Braintree, have identical haplotypes across 67 markers, we are obliged to infer that all the mutations that have accumulated in the haplotypes of all of their descendants, have occurred since the lifetime of their common patriarchal ancestor. Thus, there can be no convenient shared mutations for differentiating descendants of these two patriarchs per se—at least across the first 67 markers.

There are, however, plenty of opportunities to learn more about the shape of the descendant tree through further DNA testing.

In the first place, shared mutations can turn up farther down the tree from these patriarchs: thus, the southern mutation, that so conveniently stamps at least part of the (mostly Quaker) descendancy of Ralph2 (George1). We don’t actually know at this point whether all of Ralph’s descendants have this mutation, or all of his son Joseph3’s descendants, or whether the mutation occurred another generation or two closer to the present. However, the mutation is so widespread, and found only in those descendants, starting with Joseph3 who migrated south, first to New Jersey, then to Maryland and Virginia, that it most likely occurred either in the genetic transmission from George1 to Ralph2, or from Ralph2 to Joseph3. Further testing of alternate descendant lines of these candidates would help us pinpoint when the mutation occurred, and that would tell us who the MRCA must be for all the descendants who carry this mutation.

In the second place, if we were to extended the haplotypes of enough of the members to 111 markers, we would be likely to turn up additional shared mutations that would allow us to demarcate family branches—possibly even one that would differentiate the two New England patriarchal lines.

The fact is: any shared mutation that probably occurred only once across a set of haplotypes, and thus can be inferred to have been inherited from a common ancestor, provides us with some information about the structure of the overall family tree, so the more markers we test, the more likely we are to find (a) mutations; and therefore (b) shared mutation. Extending from 37 to 67 adds 30 markers but most of them are duds that rarely mutate. But extending from 67 to 111, not only adds 50% more markers (45 instead of 30), but as a bonus, the markers in the 68-111 band are more likely to mutate than those in the 38-67 band. Unfortunately, the way Family Tree DNA has set up their test offerings, one must first extend to 67 before extending to 111, and extending to 111 all the way from the basic 37 markers that characterize the majority of haplotypes is expensive: $220 is the normal price.

Furthermore, the value of extending in the first place is proportional to the number of people who extend. As it is, only one current member, Dick-01, has tested to 111 markers, and since he has no one to compare to, the values of his additional markers tell us absolutely nothing useful about the patrilineage. Also, Dick’s is one of the majority of member lines that are relatively shallow—that are a generation or two away from being able to connect to one of the patriarchal trees. Ideally, if we could extend only a small subset of the existing members, we would choose those who have been able to trace their lines clear back to the original patriarchs. Thus, we would very much like to extend the haplotypes of members: John_W-02, who descends from Ralph2 (George1 of Sandwich); Bill_L, who descends from George2 (George1); and either Melava-07 or Nancy_B-13 who both descend through Barnabas5 (Joseph4, Samuel3, Samuel2, Samuel1 of Braintree)—or both of these Samuel1 descendants: extending both would allow us to presume that any mutations they have in common were inherited from a common ancestor somewhere up the tree from Barnabus5.

To make the most of the limited funds available for testing, extending haplotypes is best undertaken as a collective project that begins by strategically selecting certain haplotypes to be extended. Ideally, one would go for 111 markers and select those whose genealogies are the deepest and the most divergent from each other, and other things being equal preferring those who have already extended to 67 markers, since extending 67->111 costs just $129, while 37->111 costs $220.

Then, if these initial tests are productive of shared mutations, the haplotypes of just those who might most benefit genealogically from knowing which branch of the tree they should be barking up might also be extended. Also, FTDNA offers individual tests for the majority of their markers for just $20 each. Thus, there would be a good chance that if a shared upstream mutation were to turn up that all or most of those who hadn’t extended would be able to get most of the benefits of doing so for a fraction of the cost (they could still miss out, though, on the possibility of matching to other downstream markers that they might share with their closer cousins).

The best way to minimize the cost (and make it possible for more people to extend) is to wait and take advantage of the traditional December sale that FTDNA has run for at least the last five years. There is no guarantee, of course, that they are going to continue this indefinitely, but they would be well advised to because many people cannot otherwise afford additional testing. During the sale, the for extending from 37->111 drops from $220 to 188, and extending from 67->111 goes from $129 to 109.

Extending patrilineage project haplotypes (and for that matter, ySTR DNA testing in general, is best conceived as a collective project because the value of testing or extending is proportional to the number of those of the same patrilineage who do likewise. And the knowledge that may result of the structure of the overall patrilineage tree is of some benefit to all, though no doubt of more benefit to some than to others. It’s also the case that some members can afford to spend more money on testing than others, yet extending their own haplotypes may not be as productive of useful information than extending the haplotypes of certain others who may not be able to afford the extensions. There is need, therefore, for some sort of pooled resource approach to an extension project, as well as for a strategy of extension.

Family Tree has made a mechanism available for this purpose in the form of the ALLEN Surname project General Fund. The way it works is, anyone may contribute to this fund, which is held in escrow by FTDNA for the purpose of funding DNA tests of ALLEN Surname project members. We would really prefer to have something like this just for the ALLEN Patrilineage 2 project, but since I and my colleague Diane Click are the new administrators of the ALLEN Surname project, we could manage the Surname project General Fund such that any contributions made by Patrilineage 2 project members, would be allocated exclusively toward the testing that would most benefit the Patrilineage 2 project membership as a whole. This mechanism is a little awkward to use, but it would be one way to deal with the need for a pooled resource approach. As it happens, the charter member of ALLEN Patrilineage 2, Dick Allen (who commissioned me to set up the project, and who was himself the former administrator of the overall ALLEN Surname project) has made a small contribution to the Surname Project General fund, which I’m sure he would be glad to see allocated towards the kind of extension project I’m outlining here.

Even without undertaking an extension project, we can expect to learn more about the structure of the ALLEN Patrilineage 2 tree in both its DNA and its genealogical guises through the gradual acquistion of new tested members. And having just classified (or reclassified) all of the hundreds of ALLEN Surname project haplotypes from scratch, I am happy to report that many new potential members of the ALLEN Patrilineage 2 project have accrued to the Surname Project in the last couple of years. So far, the only ones I have been in contact with are those who constitute the Maryland branch of the patrilineage, whose genealogy and DNA results I will soon be posting, but there are others to contact as well and I will be doing that over the course of this year. Needless to say, adding new members is also likely to benefit all of the existing members to one degree or another, and it also adds to the value of any extension project.

Finally, there is one other DNA testing strategy to keep in mind: targeted testing. The idea is to focus on ALLENs whose careers seem to intertwine with those of one’s own earliest known ancestors, who might be related somehow, then attempt to trace their lines down to living male descendants who bear the ALLEN surname, and sponsor DNA tests for them. When these speculative test subjects are well chosen, finding that they are indeed relatives can open up a a new research front, or contrariwise, if they turn out not to belong to the patrilineage after all, that negative information can also be useful to by allowijng one to excluded the doings of these other ALLENs as unrelated, and thus avoid pursuing a false trail. In addition, whatever work one has done on these other ALLEN lines, and the results of the DNA test one has sponsored, may turn out to be valuable to ALLENs of other patrilineages either now or down the road. My colleague administrator of the ALLEN Surname project, Diane Click, has done a great deal of such pre-emptive, or targeted, testing, and in fact it was largely her desire to make her extraneous results known and useful to ALLENs of other patrilineages, that prompted her to get involved with the ALLEN Surname project.

RECOMMENDED PUBLISHED SOURCES for ALLEN Patrilineage 2

-

ANDERSON
“George Allen” sketch, pp. 27-35 in
Robert Charles Anderson, George F. Sanborn Jr., Melinda Lutz Sanborn
The Great Migration: Immigrants to New England: Immigrants to New England, 1634-1635, Volume I, A-B, (Boston: NEHGS, 1999)

Although the Sanborns were important collaborators for this volume and the next of Anderson's Great Migration series, I have elected to style this source as just ANDERSON. Given the problematic nature of the reconstruction of the conjugal family of the immigrant, George of Sandwich, it is likely that all three authorial heads were brought to bear. Be that as it may, this George Allen sketch is one of the longest in any of the published GM volumes to date.

The authors first note {p30} that “At one time or another just about every young Allen male in southeastern New England has been placed as a son of George Allen.” They then proceed to consider the strongest claimants, and end up with a list which is considerably different from that found in GARDNER, though with respect to inclusiveness it matches MacDONALD except for the latter’s inclusion of son Francis. However, because MacDONALD evidently failed to take into account the many pieces of circumstantial evidence available to the authors at the NEHGS library in Boston, his estimates of the birth dates of George’s children are significantly different from those found in ANDERSON, leading to a considerably shuffled birth order.

At the end of the sketch, two secondary sources on this family are recommended. These are GARDNER and J.K.ALLEN, below.

This Great Migration George Allen sketch must be considered the definitive source. Like all the other sketches in the GM series, it is not only based on every shred of primary records evidence which has come to light in 150 years of research on these early New Englanders, it also takes into account the best secondary sources. Furthermore, all three authors are F.A.S.G.s—members of the most elite society of American genealogists. limited to no more than 50 living members, all elected by their peers. Robert Charles Anderson himself is undoubtedly the greatest New England genealogist of our day, or probably of any day.

However, precisely because the authors of this work are so well regarded, I am quite sure that they would be the last to claim that what they have published is anything but the best current take on the accumulated evidence regarding this extensive and genealogically important family. Nothing is every proved in history, and all historical propositions remain open and subject to revision in the light of new evidence, or new ways of looking at the existing evidence.

For example, one new way which has emerged just in the last 10 years since the George Allen sketch was published, is yDNA testing, and I believe that we of this patrilineage project may already begin to argue on the basis both of solid genealogical evidence, and of the yDNA testing already undertaken, that George’s son Samuel, was Samuel Allen of BridgewaterMA, and the ancestor of at least two of our project members, Nancy_B-13, and Melava-07.

-

GARDNER
Charles Carroll Gardner
“George Allen of Sandwich”, in A Genealogical Dictionary of New Jersey, 16:1-4, 49-52
(reprinted in Genealogies of New Jersey Families (Baltimore: Clearfield, 2005), 2:150-169)

Robert Charles Anderson calls this the best (previous) treatment in print. Although GARDNER cites some evidence not explicitly referenced in the Great Migration sketch regarding the immigrant George and his family, his reconstruction of George’s conjugal family must give way to the more comprehensive and astute analysis in the definitive ANDERSON sketch. What makes GARDNER indispensible nonetheless, is the work he has done on many of George’s descendants, all of which is backed by copious evidential extracts and full source citations.

-

J.K.ALLEN
John Kermott Allen,
       “George Allen of Weymouth, Massachusetts...
  &  “Ralph Allen of Sandwich, Massachusetts

According to ANDERSON, These two typescript papers were published informally in 1924 by the author, and distributed to “major genealogical libraries”, including, no doubt, the NEHGS library in Boston. I have not been able to obtain copies of these papers myself.

-

MacDONALD
Jack MacDonald,
"The Allen Family: Descendants of George Allen of England, and Sandwich, Massachusetts"

MacDonald is a professional genealogist who has researched this Allen family for many years, working extensively with primary sources. He has focused in particular on the descendants of his own Quaker line down from Joseph3 (Ralph2, George1), many of whose descendants went south, first to New Jersey, then (some of them) to western and southwestern Virginia. Insofar as I have been able to verify it, his work appears to be of high quality. Unfortunately, the virtual absence of specific source citations (he provides nothing but a bibliographic list of hundreds of generic sources at the end of his lengthy article), or even of analytical discussion of the evidence, renders it of limited value to the serious genealogist. These defects may be overcome, perhaps, by communicating with Mr. MacDonald and asking him specific questions about his sources or his reasoning. I have done this in one instance myself. Or his work may be used by the experienced researcher already familiar with the sources for particular places, as a general outline and guide to what may be found therein.

Of the secondary sources listed above, MacDONALD makes no reference to the definitive Great Migration sketch (published in 1999), nor to the John Kermott Allen papers recommended there.

RECOMMENDED SOURCES: GENERAL

-

BERRY
Ellen Thomas Berry & David Allen Berry
Our Quaker Ancestors: Finding them in Quaker Records
(Genealogical Publishing Co, 1987)

This little book is a must-own guide to locating and understanding the Quaker records.

-

CHALKLEY
Lyman Chalkley
Chronicles of the Scotch-Irish Settlement in VA, Extracted from the Original Court Records of AugustaCo, 1754-1800, 3 vols.
(1912; rpt. BaltimoreMD: GPC, 1999). Chalkley is now in the public domain and may be accessed here.

Judge Chalkley indexed virtually all of the records found at the AugustaCoVA courthouse as of the late 19th century, though he deliberately omitted records which concerned only people of obvious German surnames. There are also some gaps in his abstracts, and inevitably, some mistakes. The abstracts themselves, though intelligent, and focused on genealogically relevant information, are often quite inadequate as representations of the records themselves, and they can even be misleading for those not well versed in both the colonial common law and institutions, and in the local geography. Nonetheless, since AugustaCo was the western Virginia frontier from the 1730s until the Revolutionary War, during which period the initial trickle of Scotch-Irish into this wilderness swelled to a flood, CHALKLEY is an indispensible resource for anyone researching 18th century Virgina beyond the mountains. It is important to understand, though, that CHALKLEY should be treated as an imperfect index to the actual primary records, and not as a source in itself.

-

FISCHER
David Hackett Fischer
Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America
(Oxford University Press, 1989)

Although there is nothing about ALLENs here, this is perhaps the single most important work in print on the four most important subcultures of early America: the New England Puritans; the settlers of the Virginia and Chesapeake tidewater region; the Quakers; and the Scotch-Irish settlers of the western frontiers. Since ALLENs of this patrilineage mingled with all four of these cultures, this book provides some context for their varying family histories and some perspective on their evident adaptability

-

QUAKER_ENC
William Wade Hinshaw
Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy. Vol. I - VI
(1936-1950; published on CD by GPC, 2003)

Transcriptions of the vast majority of extant Quaker Monthly Meeting records. An indispensable source for Quaker genealogy. It includes the records for the important Virginia monthly meetings, but not those for Shrewsbury MM in New Jersey.

-

QUAKER_SHREWSBURY
Shrewsbury Monthly Meeting Records
on microfilm at Swarthmore College Library, and available through the LDS.

Transcriptions of the Shrewsbury MM, in Shrewsbury Township, MonmouthCoMJ—an important location for early ALLENs of this patrilineage.

-

WORRALL
Jay Worrall, Jr
The Friendly Virginians: America’s First Quakers
(AthensGA: Iberian Publishing Co, 1994)

This is an anecdotal and narrative-style history of the American Quakers, with a useful chapter on the history of the first Quaker settlements west of the Blue Ridge, in the Valley of Virginia. This raw western frontier was first settled in the 1730s by the Quakers, by various German Mennonite groups, and by the Presbyterian Scotch-Irish, all seeking religious, cultural, and economic freedom. WORRALL tells the story of the organization of the first Quaker Monthly Meetings in the (now) counties of Frederick, Shenandoah, and Rockingham. ALLENs of this patrilineage first appeared in the RockinghamCo area in 1739, the southernmost of these counties, when it was still part of AugustaCo, but they are later found north of there in ShenandoahCo, and they belonged, variously, to the Crooked Run Monthly Meeting, north of Front Royal, and the Hopewell MM north of Winchester. Their land probably lay in the main part of the Valley and it would have been a long haul to either Monthly Meeting.

The ALLEN Patrilineage 2 Haplogroup, R-L21* (or R1b1a2a1a1b4)
and the deep ancestral history of the patrilineage

This Allen (R-L21*) Patrilineage (to use its full name) is of quintessential British stock.

There is evidence that humans and protohumans had lived in Britain as long as 700,000 years ago, but all were driven out by the glaciers which overran Europe during the last Ice Age (20,000-8000 BC). As the glaciers melted, the human population, which had been pushed back to refugia in the Iberian Peninsula and other parts of the Mediterranean, followed them north and eventually regained access to Britain, which was at the time a peninsula of Europe, linked to it by a land bridge called Doggerland. As the ocean waters continued to rise, first Ireland (about 7500 BC), then England (about 6500 BC), were cut off from their adjoining land masses.

The R1b haplogroup, of which R-L21+ is an offshoot, goes back about 22,000 years to the Middle East, and as it happens, it became the prevalent haplogroup of the repopulated Europe. However, the mutation which marks the L21 branch occurred about 3000 years ago, long after Britain had become separated from the Continent. Consequently, although the type is also found in northern France and Germany, most R-L21+ males today are of British descent.

The Celtic culture and language was brought to Britain between 1200-800 BC, and by the time Julius Caesar led the Roman armies to Britain (about the time of Christ), Britain was Celtic. Ireland, of course, had long been separated by water from Great Britain, and Scotland by its remote geography, so it shouldn't be surprising that in time the basic Celtic culture trifurcated into three subcultures: Brythonic (covering the area of modern England, except for Wales and Cornwall), Gaelic (Ireland, the SW of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall), and Pictic (the remainder of Scotland). By about the 10th Century AD, the Gaelic subculture had largely prevailed over the Pictish subculture of Scotland, except for the lower border areas which were influenced by the Brythonic.

Since all of these cultural developments took place long after the L21 mutation had arisen in Britain, the type is to be found in all these subcultural areas. However, later offshoot branches of L21, marked by the characteristic M222 mutation, have been identified specifically with the major burgeoning of the Irish population associated with the semi-mythical tribal chief Ui Néill, about 500 AD, and descendants of these lines also made an impact on the population of the SW parts of Scotland which have always had two-way intercourse with Ireland.

The Allen Patrilineage is negative for this M222 mutation, as well as for all other mutations subsequent to L21, so it most likely descends from the English (Brythonic) strain of Celts.

It used to be thought that in the centuries 300-400 AD, when the Anglo-Saxons “invaded” England, filling the vacuum left by the Romans, that they displaced much of the native British population, or at least the population of procreating males, but recent DNA research has given this the lie. It turns out that there is very little genetic difference between the population of southern England, where the Anglo-Saxons eventually set up the Kingdom of Wessex, and the other areas of Britain. Britain is now, as it has been for many thousands of years, predominantly R1b, and especially R-L21. Based on recent DNA studies, about 65% of male Britons are of the broad European haplogroup R1b, and fully 25-50% of the current male British population is R-L21. The so-called Norman invasion, while it wreaked profound changes to the language and cultural forms of England, had even less genetic impact—on the order of 1-2%.

For those interested in reading more into these subjects, I recommend this Wiki article on Prehistoric Britain, and this Eupedia page illustrating and summarizing the diffusion of human haplotypes.

The Technical Stuff

Although a male's deep ancestry can be predicted to some degree from the test he takes to determine his surname patrilineage, it requires another kind of yChromosome testing called deep clade testing to determine the haplogroup into which his yChromosome falls. We are indebted to project members Dick Allen and Bob Allen for undertaking this additional testing. Dick, whom many of you will recognize as the administrator of the FTDNA ALLEN Surname project, has recently extended his test to cover most of the mutations downstream of L21.

While the focus in this project is on the genealogy of the descendants of the particular male ancestor who first adopted the surname ALLEN say 600-800 years ago, and thus became the founder of this ALLEN genealogical patrilineage, the founder himself, as well as all males alive today, are descendants of a much broader patrilineage which comprises all the descendants of an original yAdam who lived (it is estimated) between 50-100,000 years ago. And just we test ySTR mutations to sort living male descendants into particular genealogical patrilineages, so we may test ySNP mutations to map the whole history of the human patrilineage, and indeed all of humanity as it emerged from Africa and spread out across the continents.

ySNPs mutate so rarely that they are useless for differentiating male lineages over the genealogical time frame of a few hundreds of years, but they work very well in sorting out patrilineages over many thousands of years. As the yChromosome of the original yAdam has been passed down the exfoliating tree of his male descendants, a few of these rare ySNP mutations have occurred, each constituting a branching of the human tree. And where the bearers of these mutations can be tracked by archaeology, and their remains successfully DNA tested, it becomes possible to correlate accumulated patterns of ySNP mutations with particular populations and their migrations over time.

Technically, each new ySNP mutation creates a new human population branching, which may be referred to, more or less interchangeably as a “subclade”, or just as a new “haplogroup”. What is important is not the terminology, but the conception of a single patrilineal tree (call it a “ySNP haplotree”) which has been divided, and subdivided, and subdivided again by successive mutations to the original yAdam’s yChromosome, each mutation marking a new branch. Already, there are many hundreds of these known ySNPs, and many new ones are being discovered every year.

The highest level (earliest) branches of the human haplotree are identified by the capitalized letters of the alphabet (A, B, C, etc.), each representing a single early mutation of the original out-of-Africa yChromosome; then, as subsequent mutations have occurred wuthin each of these major haplogroups, corresponding small letters and numbers have been appended to the initial letter—analogous to the Henry System of genealogical numbering. Like the Henry System, unfortunately, as the qualifying ySNP mutation designators have accumulated, the identifying labels have become increasingly long and cumbersome, so that an entirely new nomenclature was introduced a few years ago, which is still only slowly catching on. In fact the field of ySNP testing has been burgeoning so rapidly that the nomenclature system itself has already changed several times, most recently just a couple of months ago, rendering all earlier publications obsolete in their terminology. Thankfully, the new system should render such wholesale systemic revisions unnecessary.

The old (Henry System style) designator for Allen Patrilineage 2 is “R1b1a2a1a1b4”, which replaces at least two different versions of the old designators. In this project the new nomenclature will be used exclusively: R-L21*—where the “*” means that all the current SNP mutations subordinate to (more recent than) L21 have been tested for and found to be negative. As Dick Allen, the ALLEN FTDNA Project Administrator, has just (21Apr2011) informed us, these subordinate mutations which do not apply to ALLEN Patrilineage 2 include: M37, M222, P66, L96, L144, L159.2, L193, L226, and P314.2.

New SNP mutations subordinate to L21 are being discovered at the rate of more than one a year, and when the next one appears on the ISOGG yDNA Haplogroup Tree, the R-L21* designation should be changed to R-L21+ to indicate that more SNP testing needs to be done. Newly discovered ySNPs are added to this tree as soon as the experts advising ISOGG are relatively sure that they represent mutations well upstream of the present, and thus encompass many surname patrilineages, and are not just recent, so-called “private SNPs”. There is no need to reorder a deep clade test to keep the Allen Patrilineage 2 Haplogroup classification up to date. FTDNA offers new individual SNP tests at just $29 each. It usually takes FTDNA some time to recognize new SNPs, and add tests for them, so some patience may be required.

Over the next several years, I expect that enough downstream ySNPs will be discovered that the history of this Allen patrilineage will be brought down to within 1000-1500 years of the present, and perhaps even to a particular geographical area, and that not many years after that it will become possible to identify men surnamed Allen as members of this patrilineage just by ySNP testing. Even then, though, we will want to continue to test ySTR markers, because they mutate so much more rapidly than ySNPs, that they will still be the best means of sorting members of the patrilineage into sub-branches. In fact by that time, I expect that ySTR testing will also have improved its discriminatory capabilities, so that it will much more useful for genealogical purposes.

-

Navigating from here

The menu buttons at top right take you to other pages on this site, while the nav panel above targets other points on this page, or brings up other resources (papers I’ve written, and the like). If you find yourself lost, the browser BACK button will take you back to where you were (some people also have a convenient BACK button on their mouse, right under their thumb). Or hitting the HOME key of your keyboard will take you back to the top of this page where you are now.

Some Key Terms: haplotype, haplogroup, patrilineage, RPH.

ALLEN Patrilineage 2 Directory of Researchers

Active researchers of this ALLEN patrilineage are shown below. Those with highlighted names may be e-mailed by clicking on their names, and their posted descendancies may be viewed by clicking on their highlighted Patrilineage Project#s. Satellite members of the project are listed immediately after the principal researcher for the sublineage they are interested in, and their names are preceded by a dash. Where the person tested is not also the principal researcher, the former’s name appears under the latter’s, in parentheses.

Proj#  “Handle”         Researcher       
      (Test Subject)        
Test
Panel
FTDNA
Kit# 
A-04 Angeline      Angeline Fowler
(Christian Lee Allen)
F37 171584
A-08 Bill_B William Bethel Allen F37 N82609
A-10 Bill_L William Lewis Allen
F67 65979
A-09 Bob Robert Grantham Allen F67 N5058
A-16 Dave David Robert Werner F67 N24290
A-01 Dick Richard John Allen F67 N3983
A-23 Jerry Jerry Lorell Allen F67 251992
A-02 John_W John Walden
(David Ehm Allen)
F37 143103
A-02a —David Ehm Allen
A-24 Judy_J Judy Johanson
(William Duane Allen)
F37 B10712
A-05 Judy_M Judy McMahan
(Wilbur Eugene Allen)
F67 29488
A-05a —Eunice Eversdyk
A-05b —Sheryl Kurtz
A-12 Kathy Kathleen Allen Phipps
(Jeffrey Donald Allen)
F67 N4426
A-17 Larry Larry Kenneth Allen II F37 306784
A-22 Marlon Marlon Lee Allen
(Harry Maurice Allen)
F37 342011
A-07 Melava Melava King
(Dean Evan Allen)
F67 106031
A-13 Nancy_B Nancy Elaine Allen Barton
(John Samuel Allen)
F37 92301
A-11 Nancy_R Nancy Welty Ross
(Frederick Lee Allen)
F37 170366
A-15 Sarah Sarah Quinn Hambrick
(William Preston Allen)
F67 199318
A-14 Sharland      Sharland Reeves
(William Frank Allen)
F67 183437
A-03 Steve Steven Kenneth Allen F67 121199
A-03a —Cherie N.
A-06 Tim Timothy J. Allen F67 89305

To Join this ALLEN Patrilineage 2 Project

This project is open only to males who have already DNA-tested at Family Tree DNA on 37 markers or more and been found to match closely to the project reference type (the RPH), and/or to the genealogists who have sponsored the tests of such males. Those who have taken less discriminating tests (the FTDNA 25-marker test, or tests at other companies) are strongly encouraged to upgrade their tests to FTDNA-37 or FTDNA-67. These are the only tests on the market which have sufficient mutational sensitivity to make it possible to help sort members of the patrilineage into different family branches.

If you have tested to a lesser standard and believe that your genealogy meshes with the one for this project, please contact me, and I'll be happy to evaluate your existing test results in light of your genealogy. Most of those who have tested at other companies can upgrade to FTDNA-37 by printing out this form and ordering the 37-marker test through the FTDNA ALLEN Surname project.

Or, if you have tested at FTDNA to either 12 or 25 markers, you may upgrade through your personal FTDNA webpage for $99, or $49 respectively.

If you are simply an ALLEN genealogist who hasn’t DNA-tested yet, and if you are a male surnamed ALLEN or have found a related one to test, you should seriously consider ordering the 37-marker test through the ALLEN FTDNA Surname project. The discounted price for ordering it through the project is $149—$30 less than the best Ancestry.com test even though it offers 62% more mutational sensitivity. Even if your test results don’t match the template for this Allen Patrilineage 2 project, you might qualify for the other, Allen (I) Project which has been organized along similar lines, and if you are of a different ALLEN patrilineage from either of these, there are still another 300+ FTDNA-tested ALLENs in the ALLEN Surname project to whom you might match.

The reason the FTDNA 37-marker test is required is that it includes in the 28-37 marker segment the majority of the markers which are most likely to have mutated during genealogical time. We are able to post for comparison any of the tested markers offered by any of the testing companies, and if or when any of them chooses to offer a test with the mutational sensitivity of FTDNA-37 or better, we will consider recommending their test as well. We are not beholden to any particular testing company in this project. It is simply a matter of merit. However, FTDNA has been the premier company in this field since it pioneered testing for purposes of genetic genealogy in the year 2000, and its database of already tested males is far larger than those of all the other testing companies put together.

ALLEN Project NEWS

16Nov2010

The ALLEN Patrilineage 2 Project web pages are up!

30Jan2011

Sharland Reeves (#A14) has joined the project; her haplotype is a perfect match to those of the project RPH, Bill_L (#A10), and Melava (#A07), but her ancestry runs back to PA, and perhaps NJ.

28Nov2013

Larry K. Allen (#A17) has joined the project. Like so many others, his haplotype is nearly identical to the project RPH through the 37 markers that he has tested on, and his ancestral line, though unconnected, fits the broad profile of emanation west through VT to western NY state.

8Apr2014

A more thorough canvass of the available evidence has identified a second New England patriarch of this patrilineage: Samuel1 ALLEN of Braintree, Massachusetts. It turns out that he, and not George1 Allen of Sandwich, is the father of the Samuel Allen of BridgewaterMA (in Plymouth) who is the ancestor of project members Melava-07, and NancyB-13. The posted pedigrees and other references on these pages have been changed accordingly.

See the extensively revised text on this page for an overview of what this does to the history of the patrilineage, as well as the new text on its likely origins in Somersetshire that my own new research has delved into. My paper “Two New England Patriarchs...”, and the accompanying evidential timeline collects and discusses in detail all the salient evidence for both of these men, and for their interrelationship; the timeline provides complete scholarly citations to the sources.

26Jun2014

New project member Marlon Allen, makes our third descendant of patriarch Samuel1 of BraintreeMA, through his great-grandson, Joseph4 of WindhamCT. His advent has provoked me to extensively revise my paper “Two New England Patriarchs...”, and the fact that his haplotype includes the CDYa=37 value that his known cousin Nancy_B also has, but his other known cousin Melava-07 does not, and further, the fact that (as will appear in the next revision of these pages) the CDYa=37 value is also shared by several new project members not yet incorporated into the project, cousins of Kathy-12 and descendants of a third Patrilineage 2 patriarch from Maryland, raises many questions regarding the interpretation of this marker. I’ve addressed these in a rewrite of the section on the CDYa mutation.

15Sep2014

Jerry Allen (#23) is our latest new member, and like member Sharland Reeves (#14), his ancestry is shallow and runs back only as far as Texas. And like the majority of project members, who remain unconnected to one of the known early patriarchs of this patrilineage, the best hope for these two to get pointed in the right direction may lie with a group project to extend the majority of member haplotypes out to 111 markers in the hopes of discovering additional mutations that will be distinctive of particular family sub-branches.

15Sep2014

We have another new member, Judy Johanson (#24), who like several other of our unconnected members, has ancestry that runs back through New York—in fact uniquely (so far) it remains in NY virtually until the present. I’ve dubbed her “Judy_J” to differentiate her from existing project member Judy McMahan (now “Judy_M”).

Like several other project members (which include descendants of both New England patriarchs, George of SandwichMA, and Samuel of BraintreeMA) Judy_J’s haplotype is completely lacking in distinctive mutations through the first 37, except that markers DYS459a&b and DYS437 are missing altogether. This is a different and much rarer kind of mutation called a “deletion”, and I suspect that this haplotype experienced just one such rare deletion event that affected both these markers. While this deletion is completely distinctive of her family sub-branch, it likely occurred quite recently, so probably marks only her closest male ALLEN relatives, who may be mostly already known to her. In the hope of turning up other, deeper mutations shared with other project members, current or to be, Judy_J is extending her haplotype to 67 markers, and plans to extend it to 111.

Extending to 111 may provide the best chance for our many unconnected members to obtain some guidance as to which of the innumerable branches of this deep and prolific ALLEN patrilineage they belong to. In fact, there is hope that by extending key members with known descents from George and from Samuel, we may find a mutation that will differentiate the descendancies of these two principal (and closely related) patriarchs of this ALLEN clan.


ALLEN Patrilineage 2 ySTR DNA Haplotypes Compared

The following matrices, one for 37-marker comparisons, and one for 67-marker comparisons provide some idea of the closeness of relationship between each pair of test subjects of this patrilineage. The cell at the intersection of each column/row pair shows the GD (Genetic Distance) between the pair—basically, the total number of mutations that has occurred in both of their lines of descent since their MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) walked the earth.

It is also possible to create corresponding matrices that show TMRCA (Time back to the MRCA, expressed either in generations or in years), but I have decided to forgo such charts because they are just too misleading as indicators of when a particular MRCA lived. Mutations are so sporadic and infrequent (even when a large number of markers is tested) that such estimates, expressed in years, can easily be off by 100-200 years either way. If one has the urge to play around with TMRCA estimates between one’s own haplotype and those of one’s closest matches, the best way to do that is to run the built-in FTDNA Tip calculator from one’s personal page—and be sure to input the number of generations for which one knows, genealogically, that you and your match cannot have had a common ancestor.

While the GD, at least, is exact, there is no obvious way to tell how the mutations divide between the two subjects, because the haplotype of their common ancestor, from whom they have mutated, is unknown. However, I have developed a procedure using the GD chart for inferring the haplotype of the common ancestor, which I call the Root Prototype Haplotype (RPH), and I use this as a basis for marking mutations in the yDNA Haplotypes chart, elsewhere on this page.

FTDNA provides advisories for classifying GDs between haplotype pairs for their degree of closeness, or to put it otherwise, for the probability that the two have a common male ancestor within genealogical time, and thus belong to the same (genealogical) patrilineage. Unfortunately, neither FTDNA’s37-marker GD advisory, nor its 67-marker GD advisory can be relied on for an adequate elucidation of this subject. Although the latter does note the relevance of genealogical evidence, which is an improvement over the confused and misleading text of the 37-marker advisory, it too fails to note the crucial importance of two haplotypes sharing a common surname, and the too stringent Relatedness categories of the 37-marker advisory have been relaxed but only at the expense of inconsistent scaling by the respective average mutation rate of the panels.

Another important principle not made clear by the FTDNA text (although there are signs of trying) is that the relationship of an outlier to the the group is to be judged by the number and closeness of his nearest approach to it, i.e. by his lowest GD numbers, not his highest or average GD.

Finally, although the infrequent and sporadic nature of the mutation process means that any particular pairwise GD might be off by 1 or 2 either way, the overall structure of the matrix for a largish patrilineage does provide a rough guide to the depth of the lineage as a whole, and and to its subdivision into clusters—especially where the haplotypes have been extended to 67 or 111 markers.

37- and 67-Marker Haplotype Genetic Distance Comparison Matrices
(the lowest numbers represent the closest relationships)

Genetic Distances, ALLEN Patrilineage 2, from 37-marker yDNA Comparisons Genetic Distances, ALLEN Patrilineage 2, from 67-marker yDNA Comparisons

The number in each cell is the number of divergent mutations between each pair of haplotypes.

The lowest numbers represent the closest relationships.

The color-coded categories don’t take account either of the common surname that the pair may share,
or of the possible convergence of their genealogical evidence at a particular time and place.

Whether an outlier haplotype belongs to the same patrilineage should be judged by its lowest GD number.

-


ALLEN Patrilineage 2 Mutation History Tree

The following tree chart shows the accumulated mutations for each tested descendant of the MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) of this Allen oatrilineage. The MRCA appears at the top of the tree on the left, and the tested members of the project at the bottom, identified by their Allen Patrilineage Project#, and the “handle” of the principal researcher for each tested member’s line. The other numbers in the chart represent mutations which have accumulated for each line of decent. The two members listed at the bottom of the first column (10-Bill_L, and 07-Melava) have a straight, no-mutation descent from the MRCA. My choice of Bill_L as the project RPH, rather than Melava, is for no better reason than that he is surnamed Allen.

The mutations are represented by the numeric IDs of the ySTR markers tested by FTDNA with the “DYS” prefixes truncated to save space. The marker number is followed by a “+” or a “-” to indicate whether the mutation resulted in the gain or loss of a repeat; where there is a two step difference between a member’s marker and that of the RPH, this will be shown as two separate mutations. The GD (Genetic Distance) between any two members of the patrilineage is equivalent to the number of mutations encountered when tracing a path from their “handle” at the bottom of the tree to the handle of the other member. Each mutation (or unit of GD) represents, typically, an extra 190 years back to their common ancestor. However, these estimates are so loose that even a perfect match on 67 markers, like Bill_L and Melava have, only estimates the probability of a common ancestor 4 generations back at 44%, 6 generations back at 82%, and 8 generations back 1t 94%.

Allen Patrilineage 2 Mutation History Tree

It will be seen that there are two principal watershed mutations for the patrilineage at present.

First, there is DYS449+, which I’ve dubbed “The Southern Mutation” (despite the fact that one southern-rooted member of the patrilineage, 08-Bill_B, lacks it) probably occurred in the genetic transmission from patriarch George1 of Sandwich to his son Ralph2, or from Ralph to his son Joseph3, who migrated to New Jersey, and whose descendants, most of them, moved on to Maryland, and the Valley of Virginia. Joseph3 (Ralph2, George1) and most of his descendants were Quakers, and followed the principal Quaker migration south, and then back north to Ohio, and Indiana. However, a number of descendants of this southern branch of the family fell out of the Quaker discipline and trickled a bit farther south to FranklinCo, before later treking back up through Kentucky to the states of the “Old Northwest”.

The other watershed mutation, CDYa+, though very important, is considerably more problematic. It’s important because it appear to mark the line of descent from Joseph4 of WindhamCT (Samuel3, Samuel2 of BridgewaterMA, Samuel1 of Braintree), as it’s shared by two of the three known descendants of this line: 13-Nancy_B and 22Marlon, as well as by 04-Angeline, whose unconnected line probably hooks up with this descendancy at some point. This mutation is problematic, though, because the CDYs are the very most mutable markers, and with large patrilineages like this one, there’s an excellent chance that two descendants who share it came by it through two independent mutations in their respective lines, rather than by inheritance. In fact, the descendants of the unknown early Maryland immigrant patriarch of this patrilineage, are also CDYa+ and there is a distinct possibility that that is the normal value, while the descendants of the patriarch George1 of Sandwich have the mutated value. Either way, though, this mutation differentiates one of the three known ALLEN Patrilineage2 patriarchal lines from the other two (with the reservation about independent mutation that I’ve notes), and that is much. With luck, by extending certain project members haplotypes to 111 markers we will pick up a better, less mutable mutation to help us in this task of differentiation.


ALLEN Patrilineage 2 ySTR DNA Haplotypes

The chart below shows the haplotypes for each tested project member of this patrilineage. I’ve decapitated most of the marker names (truncating “DYS393” to just “393”) to improve readability. Three of these truncated markers have a DYF, not a DYS prefix: DYS395S1a&b, and DYF406s1. I’ve also truncated Y-GATA-H4 to YG-H4, Y-GATA-A10 to YG-A10, and Y-GGAAT-1B07 to YG-A10.

The colored markers mutate slower or faster than the norm. Thus, [DYS]439 is fast, [DYS]458 is faster, and CDYa&b are blazing, while [DYS]393 is slow. Contrary to what one might think, though, it makes very little difference to the TMRCA calculation whether the markers that mutate are slow or fast. One expects most of the mutations to occur amidst the fast markers, and if slow markers mutate instead that actually increases the TMRCA a bit. However, it makes considerable difference whether a mutation is fast or slow when it is shared by two or more haplotypes: a fast mutation may well have occurred independently in both, casting a shadow of doubt on inferences of inheritance from a common ancestor. For this purpose, mutation of a slow marker is highly desirable.

Haplotype Identifiers FTDNA 37-Marker Panel FTDNA Markers 38-67 FTDNA Markers 68-111 Haplotype Identifiers

Proj
#
 Principal
 Genealogist
Earliest Known Patrilineal Ancestor
(ALLEN surname omitted)

Name
(Birth - Death)
c=circa
3
9
3
3
9
0
1
9
/
3
9
4
3
9
1
3
8
5
a
3
8
5
b
4
2
6
3
8
8
4
3
9
3
8
9
I
3
9
2
3
8
9
I
I
4
5
8
4
5
9
a
4
5
9
b
4
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
7
4
3
7
4
4
8
4
4
9
4
6
4
a
4
6
4
b
4
6
4
c
4
6
4
d
4
6
0
Y
G
-
H
4
Y
C
A
I
I
a
Y
C
A
I
I
b
4
5
6
6
0
7
5
7
6
5
7
0
C
D
Y
a
C
D
Y
b
4
4
2
4
3
8
5
3
1
5
7
8
3
9
5
S
1
a
3
9
5
S
1
b
5
9
0
5
3
7
6
4
1
4
7
2
4
0
6
S
1
5
1
1
4
2
5
4
1
3
a
4
1
3
b
5
5
7
5
9
4
4
3
6
4
9
0
5
3
4
4
5
0
4
4
4
4
8
1
5
2
0
4
4
6
6
1
7
5
6
8
4
8
7
5
7
2
6
4
0
4
9
2
5
6
5
7
1
0
4
8
5
6
3
2
4
9
5
5
4
0
7
1
4
7
1
6
7
1
7
5
0
5
5
5
6
5
4
9
5
8
9
5
2
2
4
9
4
5
3
3
6
3
6
5
7
5
6
3
8
4
6
2
4
5
2
4
4
5
Y
G
-
A
1
0
4
6
3
4
4
1
Y
G
-
1
B
0
7
5
2
5
7
1
2
5
9
3
6
5
0
5
3
2
7
1
5
5
0
4
5
1
3
5
6
1
5
5
2
7
2
6
6
3
5
5
8
7
6
4
3
4
9
7
5
1
0
4
3
4
4
6
1
4
3
5

Proj
#
 Principal
 Genealogist
A-01  Dick Allen Sylvanus (1823 CAN - 1865 MI) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 23 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 37 15 9 16 12 25 27 19 12 11 12 12 11 9 13 12 10 11 11 30 12 13 24 13 9 11 20 15 15 15 25 17 12 15 24 12 23 18 10 14 17 9 12 11 A-01  Dick Allen
A-03  Steve Allen Spencer (say 1769 CT - c1820 [NY?]) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 15 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 A-03  Steve Allen
A-17  Larry Allen Harvey (c1810 NY - 1891 NY) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 A-17  Larry Allen
A-24  Judy Johanson Elias (abt 1796 - aft 1860 SteubenCoNY) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 00 00 11 11 25 00 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 A-24  Judy Johanson
A-04  Angeline Fowler Phineas (say 1800 VT - say 1846 [OH]) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 30 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 37 38 11 12 A-04  Angeline Fowler
A-13  Nancy Barton Samuel (say 1604 - 1669 BraintreeMA) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 1717 37 38 11 12 A-13  Nancy Barton
A-07  Marlon Allen Samuel (say 1604 - 1669 BraintreeMA) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 1717 37 38 11 12 A-22  Marlon Allen
A-07  Melava King Samuel (say 1604 - 1669 BraintreeMA) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 A-07  Melava King
A-10  Bill_L Allen George (say 1585 - 1648 SandwichMA) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 A-10  Bill_L Allen
A-14  Sharland Reeves Washington (c1814 [PA?] - aft 1870) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 A-14  Sharland Reeves
A-23  Jerry Allen Jerry (c1858 TX - abt 1909) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 A-23  Jerry Allen
A-08  Bill_B Allen John Davidson (1805 TN - 1865 AR) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 17 17 36 38 11 12 A- 8  Bill_B Allen
A-05  Judy McMahan Daniel (c1781 - say 1851), of VA 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 32 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 A-05  Judy McMahan
A-15  Sarah Hambrick William (say 1749 VA - aft 1Jul1835) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 32 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 24 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 A-15  Sarah Hambrick
A-16  Dave Werner unknown ALLEN 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 32 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 11 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 A-16  Dave Werner
A-09  Bob Allen Nathan (1799 VA - 1878 GreeneCoIL) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 32 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 A- 9  Bob Allen
A-06  Tim Allen Isaac(c1833 VA|KY - c1894 MorganCoIL) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 32 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 A-06  Tim Allen
A-02  John Walden George (say 1585 - 1648 SandwichMA) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 13 14 13 30 18 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 32 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 A-02  John Walden
A-11  Nancy Ross Nathan (1799 VA - 1878 GreeneCoIL) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 19 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 32 15 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 17 36 38 11 12 A-11  Nancy Ross
A-12  Kathy Phipps Zephaniah (1800 MD|VA - 1899 KS?) 13 24 14 11 11 14 13 12 12 14 13 30 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 31 13 15 17 17 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 18 37 38 11 12 11 9 15 16 8 10 10 8 10 10 12 23 23 16 10 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 13 13 11 13 11 11 12 12 A-12  Kathy Phipps

You may click on highlighted Project#s (like A-01) to see the posted pedigree for a particular test subject. Click on highlighted Researcher names, like Dick Allen to go to the project directory that shows the full names of the members, and provides clickable e-mail links for the names highlighted.

The test subject whose “Earliest Known Ancestor” is colored red is the one whose haplotype differs the least from all the others and is therefore designated the Root Prototype Haplotype (RPH)—the haplotype that is likely to be the closest to that of the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) of the group. Marker values that deviate from those of the RPH are deemed to be mutations, and are highlighted in lime green—or tomato, for multistep mutations—two or more separate mutations to the same marker.

Where multicopy markers DYS464 and YCA (each taken as a whole) diverge in value from those of the RPH, the whole adjacent set of values will be colored yellow green, and will be counted as a single mutation. In the same way, reclOH mutations, which may affect several blocks of separated markers, will be colored orange and treated all as a single mutation for purposes of calculating Genetic Distance. There is a small probability in both cases that more than one mutation to the set has occurred, and where this is strongly enough suspected, part of the block(s) may be colored tomato. like other multistep mutations.

*** THIS CONTENT WAS STOLEN FROM JOHNBROBB.COM IN VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW ***


Last updated 15Sep2014
© John Barrett Robb
Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict Valid CSS 3

*** THIS PAGE WAS STOLEN FROM JOHNBROBB.COM IN VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW ***