
This project is open to all families potentially affiliated with
any surnames potentially related to those mentioned.
It is run by participants, for participants, and affiliated with ISOGG, and not any single commercial lab.
This
project was originally started in 2004 in order to further genealogical study
of the
At the very
start it became apparent that because surnames can change, this project should
cover several other name types, and not just spelling variations such as Lankster and Lankester. The most obvious cases were names based upon
Satterfield, SUTTERFIELD, SUTTENFIELD, SETTERFIELD, SATTERFITT, SATTERWHITE and Satterthwaite etc. have also been added to the list because
we have discovered as one of our first conclusions that many or most families
with these surnames, though forming a large and widespread group themselves,
are in the same male-line as one of the biggest groups of
We have
also developed membership and correspondence with particular families with
other surnames such as Church, CARPENTER, and CLAUSEN who appear to
descend from Satterfields, Satterthwaites or Lancasters via adoption or similar
in more recent generations. These cases are discussed below where appropriate.
It must be
mentioned that many genealogists of surnames like
BACKGROUND READING on how “genetic genealogy”
works: click HERE.
Putting
aside the common interest in the possibility of aristocratic ancestors,
typically genealogists are in genealogy because of…
(a) An interest in knowing who they
are and who they are linked to,
(b) An interest in getting a feel
for what historical times were really like, and
(c) The challenge of solving
mysteries.
Y DNA study
fits with all of these motives by identifying the defining DNA characteristics
of your paternal ancestry, as passed down from fathers to sons over generations,
just like the surnames that usually go along for the ride. So what Y DNA gives
us as genealogists is effectively another type of “source document” that we can
put with all their other clues in order to confirm some theories, and reject
others – at least when it concerns a male line where we know of living
male-line descendants.
For many genealogists DNA testing
also satisfies one more interest, not covered by traditional genealogy, and
that is the scientific interest in the history of human migration throughout
history and even pre-history. For example, participants who use the services of Family Tree DNA, who
might be interested in ancient human migrations, are also able to have their mitochondrial
(mt) DNA or their SNP markers tested at group rates, and they can also become
involved in National
Geographic's "Genographic Project". Perhaps most worthwhile, and
also free if you are testing via Family Tree DNA, would be joining up with a
“Haplogroup project”.
The test is very easy. A simple firm wipe inside your
mouth is sufficient. A few short areas of DNA on the Y chromosome are then
checked. The Y chromosome is the part of a man’s DNA which gets passed more or
less exactly from every father to every son – which in principal is what
surnames also do. This means that in order to take part in this project you
need to find a willing
It is important not to wrongly
over-rate or under-rate the value of DNA testing for genealogical research. Unrealistic expectations that
solutions to long-standing genealogical mysteries will simply come flowing back
from laboratories on the first day lead surprisingly often to very interesting
leads being forgotten or not noticed, and in many cases it even leads to people
feeling that DNA testing is a waste of time – which can effectively put a stop
on a whole project. Put simply, while surprises do happen, and while it is
undoubtedly true that most projects have only small databases so far, one of
the most important things to remember is that DNA studies normally require
quite a bit of old style research in order to come up with good hypothesis and
good confirming evidence.
There is no conflict between “old
style” genealogy and “genetic genealogy”: they need each other! Once you realise that, you never know what
you’ll find!
Below summarizes some results from an on-going joint genealogical effort to try to reconstruct family trees, and. It is essentially a work in progress, and may contain errors. If you think you see something you want to copy, please contact the author (andrew.lancaster@skynet.be) to give us a chance to update you on the latest possibilities.
As of July 2007, as the project got bigger, the
format of this section changed so that all the DNA male lines are grouped
according to their Y chromosome’s “haplogroup”.
Haplogroups are very ancient “families”, typically thousands or tens of
thousands of years old. Families who are not in the same Y haplogroup are never
related in any meaningful sense through their paternal ancestry (of course they
can and will be related in other ways through non-male lines). We have the following
sections:
It always important to keep in mind that the DNA results themselves only compare unbroken father-to-son
lines of relationship. This is not the same as “families” more generally, but
only one aspect of what defines one. The DNA does NOT give us genealogical
miracles which allow us to avoid also researching “paper trails”. It is one
more tool for the tool kit!
Results 1: E-M78 Lancasters,
and all Satterfields and Satterthwaites and similar.
The above table combines results from several of our participants, tested at
Family Tree DNA or DNA Ancestry, with more results taken from the public Sorenson database which appear to be closely
related. Here are some pre-saved searches from that database which are of
interest to this project:
The
surname Lancaster or similar
The
surname Satterfield or similar
The
modal of E3b Family 1 in this project
The first
thing to point out is that there is one main DNA family to discuss and then
several others…
Concerning
the two male lines which are in E-M78…
E-M78 is a
largely African haplogroup, which spreads into
Because
E-V13 is relatively common, many attempts have been made to estimate it’s age
and origins in
Side
note. While
researching this name another cluster of seemingly British E3b1 alpha matches –
distant cousins of ours! – was discovered. After some investigation it was
found that their matches to each other were so close as to indicate a recent
common ancestor (with each other, but not our participants!). It seems that
despite having different surnames they may be one family now uncovered with
DNA. See http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/churter.htm
References
concerning E-M78:-
E-V13 on the E-M35
Project's "Haplowiki"
The ISOGG E haplogroup
webpage
Dienekes'
July 2008 blog on V13 origins
Steven
C. Bird's Fall 2007 JOGG article
Table 1. Kit 79875. No matches yet. A
James Lancaster married Hannah Salmon at Kendal, 14
April 1783. He appears to be the son of Abraham Lancaster of
Patterdale baptised there 29 September 1754. Abraham in turn appears to be the
son of Richard Lancaster baptised 2 August 1716 in Patterdale. He had possibly
married Margaret Wren 29 August 1706. (There were other Richard Lancaster
marriages in Patterdale in 1683 and 1690.)
While this genealogy looks right, it does
involve some speculation. Furthermore, while we have no reason to question that
we may have defined the DNA signature of the
Because of the geographical closeness of the
Patterdale, once part of a greater parish called Barton, was
home to
These families
include, whether by coincidence or not, all the Lancaster families in the
project so far which are known to come from the Whalley area of Eastern
Lancashire or the West Riding of Yorkshire. This was the first group in our
study and perhaps it is no surprise that it is ahead in coming to interesting
conclusions, as families already involved tend to contact others whom they
suspect connections with. For a map of the old West Riding parishes in
This is
also the group which overlaps with the surnames Satterfield and Satterthwaite. We have therefore included
remarks on all test results relating to these surnames in this section.
It is worth
stating at the outset that…
1. Kits 22762 and 144588. Richard Lancaster, was
having children in Colne,
The known descendents of Richard Lancaster are
all currently Australian nationals - though quite widespread. This family lived
many generations in the Macleay valley in Northern NSW, Australia, and all of
them now descend from two brothers, John (teacher and farmer) and James
(postmaster and farmer). There is a separate webpage
about them.
It was long felt that this family was related
to the Lancasters of Gisburn, who will be discussed below. DNA has now been
able to show that there is certainly some sort of link, and working on finding the
link has led to the discovery that a Richard Lancaster came from Gisburn to
Colne and helped establish Methodism there. His baptism in Gisburn (or nearby)
has however not been found. Perhaps his parents spent time living away from
their ancestral home which has made it hard to trace him. Also, some baptisms
and marriages of that family were clearly done in neighboring parishes such as
Bracewell and Barnoldswick (and it is in that branch that we find the name
Richard sometimes being used). There was also a Richard in nearby Waddington.
Back to
Richard Lancaster, is 7 generation steps for 22762, and 5 steps for
144588 within which sequence no connection to the other families in this
group seems possible. Back to the common ancestor for both kits, Dr Llewellyn
Bentley Lancaster of Kempsey, would be 3 generational for 22762 and 1 step for
144588.
This was the first family in the project, but
its first match, and indeed this project’s first match came indirectly, using
the Sorenson (SMGF) database (click
here to see results). This database gives one of the closest matches as an
American Lancaster. Though this particular database can not help us know who
the modern members of this family are, it does name the earliest known
ancestor…
2. SMGF. Robert and Alice Lancaster were having
children in Thornton-in-Lonsdale (apparently residents of Ireby) on the
Lancashire/Yorkshire border in the first decade of the 19th century.
In another nearby town, Clapham in
The family of Thomas Lancaster, born Bradford,
Thomas seems to correspond with a son of an
Edward Lancaster in the 1861 census (machine man at a worsted mill), with this
Edward being born about 1827. Therefore probably he was Edward Wildman
Lancaster, born to a Thomas and Ann in Addingham,
This family is discussed more on a genealogical
web page about
From the
SMGF participant back to Thomas Lancaster, is 3 generation steps, and
back to Robert Lancaster is 6 generation steps, within which sequence no
connection to the other families in this group seems possible.
3. Kit 55214. The
Gisburn (or Gisburne)
By the 17th century, when records
become clearer, this family (or at least some branches of it) had some land and
wealth, including property in
From our
participant we can trace a male line back 9 generational steps to Thomas
Lancaster of Paythorne whose will is dated 1642, and was proved 1645/6.
Perhaps the most likely connection to Richard
Lancaster of Colne (discussed above) is possibly William Lancaster of the Paythorne family.
William was baptised 15 April 1703, married Anne Ryley on 23 April 1724, and
his will is dated 14 October 1730. This was a branch of the Windy Pike family
that lived in
4. Kits 86728 and 113346. The
William is
the common ancestor for these two male lines - 6 generations back for 86728
and 8 back for 113346.
From a DNA point of view, the most obvious
thing to mention is that this family, and the Gisburn and Colne
families must have been both geographically and genetically extremely
close to each other in the 18th century, and quite close to the Ireby family
also. It seems very likely that they all share a common ancestor within the
times of modern parish registers, and this gives us an exciting chance of
success in finding their connections. It is interesting that this family appear
to have been strongly involved in Burnley Methodism. Both the Gisburn and Colne
branches also seem to have had strong associations at various points in time.
From a "paper trail"
point-of-view this family also deserves special mention in that it's Burke’s
Peerage say that John Lancaster of Height, the father of the above
mentioned William (d. 1762) was baptised 1712 in Askham near Sockbridge in
Westmorland, far to the north, and is part of the Lancaster family which
can be traced back from their to the times immediately following the Norman
conquest. See our webpages on the
Sockbridge Lancasters, and their ancestors the de
Lancaster Barons of Kendal. The details of this theory can be questioned,
but the basic theme of a possible connection to Westmorland is obvious to
anyone who has studied the
1. Kit 38641. Around 1710, Edward Satterthwaite was
having children in Grasmere,
Many of his descendents stayed in the area, and
our participant is a Canadian whose Satterthwaite ancestors moved only in the
twentieth century. He was the first participant to join the project with the
name Satterthwaite. As can be seen with 37 markers tested, he is a close match
for the Lancasters and Satterfields. We can also see the strong matching by
searching for matches on SMGF.
The results strongly suggested, when they
arrived as our first Satterthwaite results, that not only are the Satterfields
from Satterthwaite (which was already the normal theory), but also that these
two surnames must be two branches of the one family. It is especially
interesting that this particular Satterthwaite family was in the Satterthwaite
region until recently.
2. William Satterthwaite (abt. 1658-11 Oct 1747), a Quaker who immigrated from Hawkshead in 1678 to
Kit 79272. This
family descends from William’s son, Samuel Satterthwaite (25 Apr
1695 - 16 Aug 1773) who married Jane Osborn. This line came to settle in
Kit N48897. This family had traced back to William Satterthwait
who was born in
Both
participants are 9 generational steps away from their common ancestor
William, who emigrated from
3. Kit N69131.
Michael Satterwhite was born circa 1733 in
The family is discussed on a webpage at http://www.arkansas-roots.com/
There
are 5 generational steps back from our testing participant to Michael.
I1 family with
Satterthwaite surname…
Satterthwaites of Clitheroe Kit 121158.
William Satterthwaite was born in
R1b Satterwhite…
Satterwhite kit 129841 probably descended, in
This is an R1a haplotype, and not in the same male
line shared by some Satterfield and Satterthwaite families.
---
While these
surnames are all found as variants in England, in America the most common form
is Satterfield, and it appears we are dealing with spelling variations which
continued to develop in the USA, rather than representing separate immigrant
groups. Apparently, in modern times all these surnames are far more common
there than anywhere else. For most of this group, the above table, and the
links to the Sorenson database, give the information given by volunteers to the
Sorenson foundation. However we can seemingly improve upon it in some cases.
1. The Satterfields of
Pendleton
In the 18th century a Satterfield family lived in Pendleton
South
I would put the odds of James D., Thomas Wilson, and Jeremiah being sons
of James W. Satterfield at easily above ninety-five percent. Jeremiah, Thomas Wilson, and a son named
William appear to be the three elder out of five known sons with James D. and
an unidentified son (to me the facts point to him being named Bedwell) younger.
In summary doubts remain.
There was certainly a concentration of Satterfields in the area, but their
relationships are difficult to prove. According to the first data we could
collect for claimed descendents of the three probably brothers named above,
James, Thomas and Jeremiah, they looked to have completely different male
lines. However single results are not enough to be certain, and sure enough we
now have a descendent of James D Satterfield who matches the very
well-established DNA signature of Thomas Wilson Satterfield. For the line of
Jeremiah we only have one test so far, which does not match. Keep reading…
1a. Kit 125912. A descendant
of James D. Satterfield, of
James D Satterfield married Sarah Corbin and
our participant is descended from his son Jesse Franklin Satterfield, in turn
via his son James Ervin Satterfield, who was the great grandfather of our
participant.
There are
therefore 5 generational steps back from our participant to James D
Satterfield from our participant, and 6 generational steps back to his
possible common ancestor with the descendants of Thomas Wilson Satterfield,
James W Satterfield.
It has to be noted that we have DNA results for
another claimed descendant of James D Satterfield below, which do not match.
1b. The descendants of Thomas
Wilson Satterfield, of
NOTE. On the internet, Thomas Wilson
Satterfield is sometimes said to be the son of William and Rachel of South
Carolina, who are sometimes said to have moved to Pendleton from
Kits 114007 and 113691 and the Ancestry Kit.
The Satterfields of
·
There are 3 generational steps back to Thedford
for 113691. Therefore this lineage has 4 generation steps to Thomas Wilson
Satterfield, the possible most recent common ancestor with the line of
Edward H. Satterfield. In turn this would mean 5 generation steps back
to the father of Thomas Wilson Satterfield, who may have been James W
Satterfield.
·
There are 2 generational steps back to Thedford
for 114007. Therefore this lineage has 3 generation steps to Thomas Wilson
Satterfield, the possible most recent common ancestor with the line of
Edward H. Satterfield. In turn this would mean 4 generation steps back
to the father of Thomas Wilson Satterfield, who may have been James W
Satterfield.
SMGF and Ancestry results. The Satterfields of
Edward
Hamilton. SATTERFIELD (AFN: 1GT8-SS) died in 1881 in
Edward
Hamilton Satterfield Born 12 Jul 1797
·
Our
participant via DNA.Ancestry reported 2 generational steps back to Ammon Y
Satterfield, therefore 5 generational steps back to Edward H
Satterfield, and possibly 7 generation steps back to Thomas Wilson
Satterfield, or 8 generational steps back to his father, possibly James
W Satterfield.
·
Our SMGF
participant reported 3 generational steps back to Ammon Y Satterfield,
therefore 6 generational steps back to Edward H Satterfield, and
possibly 8 generation steps back to Thomas Wilson Satterfield, or 9
generational steps back to his father, possibly James W Satterfield.
2. Kit N51927. The Sutterfields of
This family
had been traced back to James Sutterfield, born 9/5/1840 in
Since this family joined the project, Satterfield genealogist Errol Lewis has suggested that this James Sutterfield was the grandson of Edward M. Sutterfield, (d. Feb 12, 1851), who married Elizabeth Walton, (d. abt. 1838). Edward and Elizabeth had six known children: William (the father of James), Lucinda, Hiram, Thomas, James, and Malinda. Errol remarks that this “was a large Sutterfield family, and even today there are many Sutterfields in and around Reynolds Co., MO. who are descendants of Edward and Elizabeth Sutterfield.”
The origin of the surname has been a subject of some disagreement, and it may be that it has multiple origins. The DNA evidence now obviously proves that for at least this family, Sutterfield was a variant spelling of Satterfield – something which had long been suspected.
There are various theories about
the origins of Edward M. Sutterfield and Satterfields and Sutterfields in the
18th century more generally in
There are 5 generation steps back from
our participant to Edward M Sutterfield.
3. Kit 151902. Our
participant can be traced back Peter Moore Sutterfield/Satterfield of Searcy
Co. Arkansas. This family normally uses the spelling “Sutterfield”.
Peter Moore Sutterfield/Satterfield
first appears at his marriage to Mary Rogers on Jul 26, 1801, Laurens Co., S.C.
Their first four children were born in
There are 5 generation steps back from our participant to Peter Moore Sutterfield.
4.
Kit 125915. Our participant can be traced back to William Satterfield of Queen Ann County, Maryland
The family informs me that the part of the county he was
from became
There are 5 generation steps back from
our participant to William Satterfield.
5. Kit 125916. Our
participant can be traced back to Robert Satterfield had moved from
This family used both the Satterfield and
Sutterfield spellings. From a legal document of 1853 written by James Samuel
Satterfield of Union Co. (sometimes referred to as James D Satterfield in
genealogies) we know that his parents were Robert and Catherine, and that
Robert had been a revolutionary soldier of North Caroline, and that he had
moved from Newberry Co. to Union Co. They had married in 1774, and lived in
Newberry for only about 1 year. It seems likely they came from Pendleton
district where a Robert appears on the 1790 and 1800 census. In 1810 they were
in Edgefield district, and in 1820 and 1825 they appear to have been in
As with other Satterfields associated with
Pendleton in this period there are theories that Robert is the son of one James
W Satterfield, and in other words a brother to James D Satterfield, Thomas Wilson Satterfield, and Jeremiah Satterfield,
discussed above.
There are 6 generation steps back from
our participant to Robert Satterfield.
6. SMGF. The Saterfiels of
These 2 Sorensen participants have given the
furthest back male-line ancestor as James H. SATERFIEL, born 25 Mar 1858. His Wife
was Mary Rebecca JONES. Their son James Wesley SATERFIEL was born 13 Jan 1885
There are 5
generation steps back to this James A. Saterfield from the Saterfield
person who was tested, and 6 steps back for the Saterfiel person.
Concerning
the most recent common male-line ancestor, the SMGF format of information does
not show generations more recent than James Wesley Satterfiel, who is 2
generations back for one participant, and 3 for the other. This is therefore
the maximum distance back to the most recent common male line ancestor. The
minimum is that the two people tested might be father and son!
Two webpages exist which trace this family also
back to
One
states:
The Saterfiel family can be documented to the
1790 census of Rutherford Co., N. C. In that census, James Satterfield,
born about 1748, is shown as head of a household along with a William
Satterfield, born about 1769. William is probably James' oldest
son. William is shown as having a wife and only one child, an infant son,
which may indicate he had been recently married.
Also see the web page
of Gary Duane Satterfield of Lubbock, Texas.
The DNA results we have, which are limited in
this case, show that the line of Fred W. Satterfield and one of the lines descending from James
Wesley Satterfield share a distinct result on one marker (DYS458).
Perhaps this is just a coincidence. It is difficult to determine anything from
one marker, and the pattern is ambiguous.
7. SMGF. The Satterfields of
The SMGF pedigree goes back to James Henry
SATTERFIELD who was born b. 16 Feb 1855 Lunenburg,
There are 5
generation steps back to this James William Satterfield from the person
who was tested.
8. SMGF. The Satterfields of
The SMGF pedigree goes back to Fred W.
SATTERFIELD was born 8 Mar 1865 Chapel Hill,
There are 3
generation steps back to this Fred from the person who was tested.
Online family trees such as the Bowers-Jamison
tree, say he was the son of Henery C Satterfield born 7 Dec
1830 in Tennessee, USA and died 18 Jun 1912 in Fowler, Colorado, USA; married to Mary J Fine who was born 17 Mar 1838 at
Pelts Mill, Missouri. This family can be found in the 1870 census in
The DNA results we have, which are limited in
this case, show that the line of Fred W. Satterfield and one of the lines descending from James
Wesley Satterfield share a distinct result on one marker (DYS458).
Perhaps this is just a coincidence. It is difficult to determine anything from
one marker, and the pattern is ambiguous.
---
More
generally Roy
Satterfield also writes about our project’s findings so far about the above
main male line which we have uncovered:
I
suspect that the vast majority of us are descended from a single man, likely
born in
Terry Brush also
mentions records showing the presence of this family in Queen Anne’s
County, also in
There is more discussion of the mysterious link between Satterthwaites
and Lancasters, as well as the origins of the Satterfields and Satterthwaites,
on two separate webpages:
http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/Satterthwaite.html
http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/Lancaster
and Satterthwaite.html
Other male lines with
Satterfield/Setterfield surnames…
Setterfield
of
This is an R1b haplotype, and not in the
same male line shared by some Satterfield and Satterthwaite families.
This family should be the same as the one on
this webpage: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/the.nook/charts/s/sette411.htm.
The descendants of Alfred Cornelius Setterfield, baptised 20 August 1837 in
While
the Setterfields had always been assumed to be related to the Satterfields and
Satterthwaites, and they may well still be, this surprise is not an enormous
surprise because the two familis had obviously been apart for a very long time.
So the surname may have been passed on via a daughter, or in the world of the
trades around
Satterfield Kits 130288,
120489, 153087
There is one generational step between
130288 and 120489. The great grandfather, three generational steps back, of both 130288
and 153087, and their most recent common ancestor, was Jesse Columbus
Satterfield, born about 1846 in Ozark Co. Missouri, and previously thought to
be James Columbus. It appears possible that his father was also named Jesse,
who may have come from Warren Co. Kentucky. The DNA signature is very unusual,
and therefore matches with some Wilson and
Proposed descendants of Jeremiah Satterfield of Pendleton, who married
Elizabeth Brashears about 1797.
It was
strongly believed that the following kits would be members of the same family
as lived in the
See above
in the E3b section for more about the Pendleton Satterfields. Thomas Wilson
Satterfield, in E3b Satterfield family 1, should by this theory have been Jeremiah’s
brother. These lines may well have been closely related to each other and to
the other Pendleton lines, but the male line of most Pendleton descendents is
quite distinct in our time.
There can
be many very straightforward reasons for this, including informal adoption,
which happened frequently in colonial times. Might Jeremiah have adopted his
children?
Satterfield Kit 100925.
Our participant has 4 generational steps back to Peter
Satterfield, said to be a son of Jeremiah.
This is an R1b haplotype. No very close
matches have been found outside the project either yet.
Satterfield Kit 152047 is yet a third line traced
by genealogists back to Jeremiah
Satterfield of Pendleton!
Our participant has 3 generational steps back to Basil
Satterfield, said to be a son of Jeremiah.
This is an R1b haplotype. The closest
matches are to families with the surname
SMGF Satterfield with R1b haplotype.
This appears to be another quite different male
line, although also R1b. In this case the online pedigree at www.smgf.org tells us that the
tested man was a grandson of William H. SATTERFIELD who married Roxie
HARDCASTLE. This seems to be a couple who appear in the 1920 census in Herrin,
Williamson, Illinois which states that “W. H. Satterfield” was 41 and that both
his parents were born in Georgia, while his wife and eldest children were born
in Tennessee. He and his family can be traced back to the 1910 census in
We would expect that
a DNA line from John's son John would not show a match but not one from
William. From a government document that
was filed by William, we know both that he was a son of John and that John was
a son of James D. and Sarah. Now to
complicate things a bit more. William
Harrison Satterfield wasn't the William H. Satterfield that was a son of
John. We know for certain from the
document that I mentioned that John's son was named William Henry.
Although these serious doubts have been raised, it is
claimed in online family trees including the one on SMGF that William was b. 21
Nov 1877 Georgia to William Harrison SATTERFIELD, b. May 1843 Dahlonega, and
Evaline (Mary) ROBINSON. This William in turn appears to be the son of John
SATTERFIELD b. 1797
The
SMGF participant has 2 generations back to William and Roxie, and 5
generation steps back, if correct, to
James D. Satterfield and Sarah Corbin.
Satterfield Kit 125914 with R1b haplotype.
Our
participant can trace his male line back 4 generational steps to his great great grandfather, John Satterfield, born
1813 in
Two different lines with pedigree connection to
Hezekiah "Ki" Satterfield, born 1811 in
Satterfield
kit 125917.
Our participant can trace his male line back 3 generational
steps to his Great-Grandfather, Hezekiah "Ki"
Satterfield, born 1811 in
Satterfield Kit 151849.
Our participant also has 3 generational steps back to Hezekiah
Satterfield, and 2 generations back to Gus Satterfield who should be their
common ancestor. This is an R1b haplotype, but different from 125917.
The closest matches are to families with the surnames Roberts, Allen and
Runyon/Runyan/Runion.
---
This particular Church family has confirmed that they do not
share the same paternal line with their Church relatives who do in turn match
other Church families, so the surname has been passed along without the DNA,
either by adoption after second marriage, etc. Therefore their extremely close
match leads to the obvious hypothesis that they descend along the male line
from a man who had one of the surname of this project. For this reason they
have joined our team in this project. This adoption of the name Church onto the
son of a man who had another surname may have happened in
The most likely
surname out of the group to be that of our participant’s male-line ancestors
appears to be Satterthwait.
This particular family is represented by a Carpenter
participant who was adopted. His biological father is believed to have had the
surname Potts, but somewhere back in his paternal line it seems clear that he
is a member of our project’s “DNA family #1”. Mr Potts was a soldier from
The most likely
surname out of the group to be that of our participant’s male-line ancestors
currently appears to be Satterfield, but this may change as more results come
in.
Results 2.
Our project
is unusual amongst British-origin surname projects, in having such a strong E-M35
representation. R-M173 is much more common and is indeed the most common
haplotype by far in northern and western Europe. In most surname projects for
British surnames it dominates. An excellent reference page, which gives many
good references, can be found here: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR07.html.
Also see http://www.familytreedna.com/public/r1b/.
The
European R-M173 population is dominated by two very common sub-clades: R1b1b2
(R-M269) is the most common haplogroup in Western Europe, becoming less common
in the East, and R1a1a in common from Eastern Europe to the edges of China, and
southwards into India and the Middle East.
Table 2.
GROUP 1.
Note: From
a DNA point of view the first 12 markers show extremely common values – the most
common of all amongst European male lines. It is very important to compare more
markers in such cases.
The closest
matches to this
1A. Gowan
Gowan, or Gawen, etc, named John in one
document after his death, came to
Between 1635 and Gowen’s later appearances in
records, an Owen Lancaster, otherwise unaccounted for, appears in records
concerning Richmond Co. Virginia. More certainly, once Gowen appears in the
York Co. records in the 1640s, at his death he left orphan children, one of
whom was a son, often referred to now as Robert Lancaster, Sr. The family
is also recorded as having a presence in New Kent Co. where the Venables family
come from. Robert also had two daughters. He lived quite close to Henrico Co.,
in York Co. Might Robert have been the father or grandfather of John Lancaster
of Henrico Co?
For both of the following test results, the
line is the same for several generations: Gowan > Robert Sr, > Robert Jr
> Richard > Robert
Lancaster Kit 117324, descends from Robert’s son Richard Lancaster
This
participant is 9 generational steps from Gowan Lancaster, and 5 generations
from Robert Lancaster (the son of Richard), his most recent common ancestor
with “Ancestry 3”.
This
participant is 11 generational steps from Gowan Lancaster, and 7 generations
from Robert Lancaster (the son of Richard), his most recent common ancestor
with 117324.
1B. John Lancaster was born about 1700 and
married Frances Allen. He Lived in Henrico Co.
Most descendents of John Lancaster are thought
to now live in
What we have found
however, first in the DNA, and then by looking for a paper trail with the help
of Nancy Mathews, is a possible link to another Virginia Lancaster family, that
of Gowen Lancaster. We have explained some paper trail ideas on a seperate webpage,
but in summary the theory makes John the same man as John Lancaster of nearby
Hanover Co. It would make him the son of Robert Lancaster Junior, who in turn was
the grandson of Gowan Lancaster. Robert Lancaster Jr would then be the common
ancestor of all the families in this
This participant has 6
generational steps back to William Allen Lancaster Sr. his common ancestor with
N6407, and 7 back to John Lancaster who married Frances Allen.
According
to the theory on the seperate webpage he might also be 8 generations back to Robert
Lancaster Jr (the son of Robert Sr), who would then be his common
ancestor with 117324 and “Ancestry 3” (group 1A), which would be
and 10 back to Gowan Lancaster.
This
participant has 3 steps back to Orville, 7 back to William Allen Lancaster
Sr. his common ancestor with 29696, and 8 back to John Lancaster.
According
to the theory on the seperate webpage he might also be 9 generations back to Robert Lancaster
Jr (the son of Robert Sr), who would then be his common ancestor with
117324 and “Ancestry 3” (group 1A), and 11 back to Gowan
Lancaster.
SNP testing has shown that this is in the R1b branch defined by M167, also known as SRY2627. This put this family in haplogroup R1b1b2a2d (formerly R1b1c6), which is relatively unusual. (And something the Venables family which matches has also tested positive for.)
This participant has 4 generational steps back to William
Price Lancaster (common ancestor with N6407) 5 generational steps back
to Samuel Lancaster, 6 back to
William Allen Lancaster Sr (common ancestor with 29696), and 7 back to
John Lancaster who married Frances Allen.
As in the case of Kit 29696, according to the theory on the seperate webpage he might also be 8 generations back to Robert
Lancaster Jr (the son of Robert Sr), who would then be his common
ancestor with 117324 and “Ancestry 3” (group 1A), which would be
10 back to Gowan Lancaster.
1c.
It is suspected that he is related to
There are
4 generational steps back from our participant to John Henry Lancaster.
Our participant’s
current thinking is that John Henry Lancaster was the son of John Lancaster of 1822 in Pendleton Co.,
This theory would also mean 10 generations back to Robert the son of Robert, who would
be his most recent common link to 29696 and N6407 (Group 1B). There would also be 12
generations back to Gowan himself.
---
Table 2. GROUP 3
3a.
Quakers and
These haplotypes do not have many close
matches, and we can be confident about the match, despite one having only 12 markers
tested. What’s more, both families appear to come from the area of
There are
3 generational steps back from our participant to his great grandfather Thomas
Henry Lancaster.
Tony and Carol Murphy believe John Lancaster
might be the one who married Sarah Knight on the 17 June 1810 in
.The descendants of Thomas Lancaster who was born in 1702 in
Warwickshire
These results should be compared to our kit
N5390, discussed under table 3 below, and the also to our special webpage on
the subject, by Elaine Jeter.
Concerning his links back to
There are 6 generational steps back from
our participant to Thomas and Phoebe, starting with Eugene R Lancaster,
back to William Penn L>John>Jesse>Benjamin>Thomas of Bucks
Co., PA Line (1702-1750).
So there are 5 steps back to the common
ancestor with 135052, Benjamin.
There are 9 generational steps back from
our participant to Thomas and Phoebe, the last ones being Samuel
Newton>Benjamin Willia >Aaron>Benjamin>Benjamin>Thomas of
Bucks Co., PA Line (1702-1750).
So there are 8 steps back to the common
ancestor with 122216, Benjamin.
3b. The descendants of Henry Lancaster, who lived in
Kendal in the early 1800s.
Our participating family is from
Most of the family appear to have
arrived in
David Hall writes of the earliest we could trace so far…
Henry was married twice it seems. He first
married Esther Simpson at Kendal in 1824 and they had at least 4 children, John
born 1825/6 (who later married
Henry
married secondly to Ann Collinson in 1836 at Kendal. Henry and Ann had Peter
bapt 1837 at Kendal Methodist, followed by Thomas in 1839/40 and Henry in
1845/6 and possibly others.
Unfortunately I cannot find Henry's baptism
and he died before the 1851 census so we do not know where he was born.
In summary
from our participant tracing back there 5 generation steps back to Henry
Lancaster of Kendal.
3c. The Isle of Wight Co./ Surry Co. Lancasters
Most or all of these seem to
descend from an identifiable founder, who therefore deserves a heading of his
own…
Robert Lancaster, whose name (signed
with his mark) appears on a 1652 petition as Robert Lancashire, is generally
said to have arrived in Isle of Wight Co., Virginia, shortly before 1652. His descendants
are a major American Lancaster family, covering several families in this
project.
Bayard
L. Teigan, The Lancasters: 300 Years in America (1984) and probably
every researcher since, have agreed that Robert Lancaster (d. 1720) of IOW
County, VA, was the first of his line in
The
children of Robert and Lettis were:
1.
2. Robert, Jr. (1669-1738), who married Judith Pitt
and fathered six children, including three sons, William, Samuel, and Joseph.
3. Samuel (b. 1673-1760), who married Elizabeth
Harris and was the father of five children, including two sons named Robert and
John.
The
precise geographical origin and ancestry of Robert Lancaster, Sr., are
undetermined, but Bayard L. Teigan and the genealogists who worked on The
Lancasters: 300 Years in America offered some possibilities. The Teigan
book is the product of research performed and commissioned by Ida Lancaster
Teigan, granddaughter of William Henby Lancaster (d. 1902), who reportedly told
his granddaughter "that seven Lancaster brothers had come over from
England and settled in Virginia." Bayard Teigan, son of Ida L. Teigan,
describes this recollection as "probably a myth," but an idea that
adds interest to the research.
Teigan,
p. 1, says Robert Lancaster, Sr, may have been born as early as 1635, probably
in
The
Teigan genealogists offered a suggestion for further research on this subject.
In his Foreword, Teigan quotes a line from genealogist William H. Bason's last
letter to Mrs. Teigan, in which he stated, "indications are that Robert
Lancaster, d. 1720 was the son of Robert Lancaster, who died at sea in 1685. .
. the proof. . . would be to continue the search in
The
Teigan reference might be to the
Some
internet genealogies list Robert as coming from a
DNA
testing is help efforts to identify Robert’s English family. See the matches
with this group. For the Surry County Virginia Lancasters, several Y-chromosome
tests have been completed, and are described below…
3Ci The descendants of Robert
Senior’s son, Robert Lancaster
(junior)…
There are 4
generational steps back to Lewis Larkin
The DNA project shows that this
family is related to the Surry Co., VA Lancasters, perhaps even before their
arrival in
The names Lemuel and Larkin appear several times in the
family tree of
Also see kit 104900 below in Group 5, which is a related line, founded by a female member of this family.
Our participant descends from a different son of Robert Lancaster Junior, William rather than Samuel. His descent, counting backward, is from Archie Bedon>Grant Bowen>Alonzo>Samuel Henry>William>Laurence>William>Robert Jr.>Robert Sr. (d. 1720).
There are 9 generational steps back to
Robert, the American founder of this line.
There are 8 generational steps back to Robert Lancaster, Jr., the most recent common ancestor with Kits 105722, 113701, and 165413.
Our
participant descends from Pinkney Loys>Ezekiel Allen>Thomas
Jefferson>William Dorsey>Levi>Samuel>Samuel>Robert Jr.>Robert
Lancaster, Sr. (ca. 1631-1720) of Surry
There are 9 generational steps back to Robert (ca. 1631-1720), progenitor
of this line in
There are 7 steps back to Samuel Lancaster (1702-1743), the most recent
common ancestor with Kit 105722 and Kit 113701.
Our participant’s line of
descent is, counting generations back: Cullen Bartlett>John Sanders>Miles
Andrew.>James Madison>George Washington>William
Sanders>William>Samuel Sr.>Robert Jr.>Robert Lancaster, Sr. (ca.
1631-1720) of Surry
So there are 10 generational steps back to
Robert, the American founder of this line.
There
are 6 steps back to the common ancestor with 105722 and 165413, William Sanders
Lancaster. (A difference of one mutation step shows using 67 FT DNA markers.)
This is a 67-marker test that is
a close match to the profile of Kit 113701. Their most recent common ancestor
is known to be William Sanders Lancaster (1760-1813). Our participant for kit
105722 descends from Fred Leo>Moses Thomas>Jason> Wright
Lancaster>William Sanders Lancaster (1760-1813)>William>Samuel
Sr.>Robert Jr.>Robert Lancaster, Sr. of IOW/
There are 9 generational steps back to
Robert, the American founder of this line.
There
are 5 steps back to the common ancestor with 113701, William Sanders Lancaster.
(A difference of one mutation step shows using 67 FT DNA markers.)
3Cii The descendants of Robert
Senior’s son, Samuel Lancaster, via
his son, also named Robert…
Ancestry Kit 1 (will be 130313). This family
descends from Benjamin Lancaster, Sr.
Our participant’s line of
descent is, counting generations back: George McKinley>Calvin
Andrew>David Andrew>William Buck>Benjamin M.>Benjamin Jr.>Benjamin
Sr.>Robert>Samuel>Robert Lancaster Sr., of Surry
So there are 10 generational steps back to
Robert, the American founder of this line.
There
are 8 generational steps back to the common ancestor with Ancestry kit 2,
Robert the son of Samuel. (From 43 SMGF markers, none are different.)
Ancestry Kit 2. This family
descends from Hartwell Lancaster, Sr.
Our participant’s line of
descent is, counting generations back: Hiram Allen>Henry Allen>James Jasper>Isaac Allen>Hartwell
Jr.>Hartwell Sr.>Robert>Samuel>Robert Sr. of Surry Co., VA
(1631-1720)
So there are 9 generational steps back to
Robert, the American founder of this line.
There
are 7 generational steps back to the common ancestor with 130313 (Ancestry kit
1), Robert the son of Samuel. (From 43 SMGF markers, none are different.)
A
relatively unusual single step mutation is clearly distinctive in the lines of
Robert son of Samuel, DYS385 is 12-15 instead of the more common 11-15.
Kit 166866. This family
descends from Robert Lancaster, Sr., brother of Benjamin, Sr., and Hartwell,
Sr.
Our
participant descends from Cyril Robert>Jesse Thomas>William
Robert>William>Jonathan Robert>Robert/Robin R. Jr.>Robert
Sr.>Robert (b. 1702)>Samuel Sr.>Robert Lancaster, Sr. of Surry County,
VA.
There are 10 generational steps back to Robert Lancaster, Sr. (ca.
1631-1720), the first of this line in
There are 8 generational steps back to Robert (b. 1702) the son of
Samuel Sr., most recent common ancestor with Kit 130313 (Ancestry Kit 1) and
Ancestry Kit 2.
We
now have a good idea of the DNA profile for many descendants of Robert
Lancaster, Sr. (d. 1720) of
Nancy
Mathews has compiled a partial list of
Table 2. GROUP 4
The
Members of
this
There are 6 generational steps from our participant back to James Benjamin Lancaster (1765-1805), the earliest documented ancestor of this line, and five steps back to Jesse, their most recent common ancestor.
There
are 6 generational steps back to James Benjamin Lancaster (1765-1805), their
earliest documented ancestor, and 5 generational steps back to their most
recent common ancestor, Jesse Lancaster.
---
Table
2.R1b
Our participant is English but a branch of this
family is thought to have emigrated to the
I am presuming so far that this family is the
one which can be seen in easy-to-find records starting with the marriage of
Robert Lancaster and Charlotte Pantling, 26 November 1812 in Leighton Buzzard?
Robert and his descendants lived in Eggington, just outside Leighton Buzzard,
with the Pantlings as neighbours, at least in 1841. Robert is shown in the 1861
and 1871 censuses as being born in Eaton Bray. Various online family trees
trace the line further back in Chalgrave, with Robert being the son of a John
Lancaster and a Martha Lake, and then in turn to William Lancaster and Mary
Cook.
Sir James Lancaster’s family seems to have long
been in Hampshire since the early 1500s, and were perhaps related to the Lancasters
of Milverton in Somerset. He is a very interesting figure. A
portrait can be found on the internet, and he has an article on Wikipedia.
He was one of the great early English buccaneer/trader/explorers in the time of
Queen Elizabeth and originally served under Sir Francis Drake. He established
some of the English East India Company’s earliest trading posts and was a
director. His own male line died out, but there the family named remained in
the
73408 only has 12 markers tested. This is a
fairly typical R1b1c DNA signature, and therefore typical of most Western
European families, but it is not close enough to anyone that we can confidently
connect this family to any other in this project or any other. Perhaps more
markers would give a different impression, but most likely this is a separate
The
two families from
out
of Laurence Lancaster, lineage... However his DNA will show out of the Maternal
side... he goes back to Eliza Jane Lancaster (who never married) and had
children... then one of her daughters (Maryann Caroline Lancaster, a twin)
never married and had children (which one is Wm. A. Lancaster (b. abt. (1878)
he married Minnie (?) and had two children in 1900 census, one Gertrude age 2
yrs., and Linder Lancaster 4/12 mos.
Eliza’s
line back to the
It is believed that his line goes
back to Robert Lancaster of Ramsgill who had substantial holdings, and that
further back that might have migrated from the North and worked their way
down the
It will be an aim of the project
to confirm that we have defined the main Sockbridge male line by testing people
who can be distantly connected by pedigree. This family traces back to Arthur born about 1550 (alive 1566 - 1609) who was the son
of Edward Lancaster of Sockbridge (known from will of Edward proved 1571).
Edward is the son of the William Lancaster of Sockbridge who married Elizabeth
Lowther about 1494. See our Sockbridge page: http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/Lancasters%20of%20Sockbridge.html
This
family lived for several generations in the area of
It had been expected that the Cravens
Co. Lancasters might match the Surry Co. Lancasters, although no concrete link
has yet been found. The DNA result (not matching) means we have made progress,
in a way! We will be pursuing other
Our participant maintains a
family tree on www.ancestry.com Also see
http://www.82120.com/p2.html#I094.
This family remained for several generations in the general area of
Lankshear
Kit 134418 .
This family has been traced back to Robert Lanchishear who married Frances
Dawson in Clanfield Oxfordshire in 1713.
Our participant maintains genealogical webpages at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~lankshear/.
This family appears to be related
to the Surry Co. Lancasters, despite being in a completely different male line.
Results 3.
After R1b, I haplotypes are generally the second most common in British surname projects. While we so far only have one such family in the project, it should however be said that there are many types of I haplotype, only very distantly related to each other, which should not be lumped together too hastily. Our group is particularly diverse! I have included colour coding designed to make this more visible. Each of these male lines is very distinct.
This
William appears to be the son of Joseph and
Sarah Lancaster, who appear as neighbours in the 1870 census. It is said by
some genealogists that Sarah was Sarah Bee née Sanderlan. This Joseph, who the
1870 census says was born in
Speculation about this family has generally
involved looking for individuals in the
Kit 102605. Ezekiel Benjamin Lancaster was in
Pickens County, Alabama, and appears to have been born, though it is not known
where, about 1805.
Ezekiel and his wife eventually
moved to Neshoba Co.,
Family Tree DNA predicts that this haplotype is
an I1a haplotype, and indeed it has DYS455=8 and other markers which identify
it pretty strongly. However, Ken Nordvedt has not categorized this I haplotype.
(See http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/.)
So it is apparently a relatively unusual branch of the ancient I1a “family”.
Nicholas Lancaster’s family has been traced back from Hampshire to Burton in
Kendal, in the southern part of Westmorland.
See his website: www.lancasterfamilytree.com.
The furthest back we know so far is William Lancaster
who was a farmer, and a resident of
Obviously this connection to Kendal makes this
yet one more contender for the DNA signature of the Lancasters of Westmorland
(a very old family who may perhaps have had more than one male line). See the
two very different E haplotypes above to see our other two candidates, although
perhaps we should consider all
More anciently, this haplotype is another
branch of the I group, but very distant from our other ones. Specifically, this
haplotype appears to be I1b, rather than I1a. The last common male line
ancestor may be as far back as 20,000 years ago! (See http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net/WarpedFounderTree.jpg).
Thomas Lancaster owned 164 acres in winnebago county,
William originally purchased 160
acres in
Our
participating family appears to descend from an illegitimate son Frank
Austin Lancaster, who Thomas Jr & wife Sarah Hyde took in as their
own. Frank Austin
Lancaster married the niece of Thomas
Lancaster Jr., Jane Eastwood.
Her mother was Martha Lancaster (married to George Eastwood) who was a sister
of Thomas Lancaster Jr.
We have another I haplotype result, from Ancestry.com. This is a
member of the project via their system, but we have not yet had any contact
about this family. We know nothing about them until we do!
In the 19th century, this family
lived in and around
Results 4. An Unknown
Haplogroup?!
DYS393=14
DYS394=14
DYS458=18
DYS459=8-9
DYS455=11
DYS454=11
DYS449=30
DYS464=10.3-11.2-15-13
DYS456=15
DYS461=11
DYS441=15
DYS463=14
This truly
remarkable DNA signature comes from the public database at www.smgf.org. I have found nothing like it so
far. Does it perhaps indicate non-European ancestry (perhaps very far back in
history)?
In any
case, genealogist Jim Lancaster believes that this is one
I
believe that this Robert is descended from Joseph LANCASTER of Pilkington in
Prestwich Parish, whose predecessors were from the Cliviger area close to
In other
words, this family seems to be related to our E1b1b family discussed in Table
1, but via a daughter, which is why they have a different male line genetic
signature.
Results 5. A
|
|
|
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
H |
Y |
Y |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
|
|
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
8 |
8 |
2 |
8 |
3 |
8 |
9 |
8 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
C |
C |
3 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
6 |
|
|
|
3 |
0 |
|
1 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
8 |
9 |
9 |
2 |
9 |
8 |
5 |
4 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
A |
A |
8 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a |
b |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
a |
b |
c |
d |
|
I |
I |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I |
I |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a |
b |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O2a |
13 |
25 |
15 |
11 |
12 |
16 |
11 |
12 |
12 |
13 |
11 |
30 |
20 |
11 |
12 |
25 |
20 |
31 |
12 |
14 |
14 |
15 |
11 |
19 |
21 |
10 |
10 |
11 |
15 |
23 |
This result
was tested via http://dna.ancestry.com.
The project does not yet have any genealogical information but Ancestry predict
the haplogroup to be O2a, which is associated with
Results 6. A
Table 1
|
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
H |
Y |
Y |
4 |
6 |
5 |
5 |
C |
C |
4 |
4 |
|
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
8 |
8 |
2 |
8 |
3 |
8 |
9 |
8 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
C |
C |
5 |
0 |
7 |
7 |
D |
D |
4 |
3 |
|
3 |
0 |
|
1 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
8 |
9 |
9 |
2 |
9 |
8 |
9 |
9 |
5 |
4 |
7 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
|
A |
A |
6 |
7 |
6 |
0 |
Y |
Y |
2 |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
a |
b |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
a |
b |
|
|
|
|
|
|
a |
b |
c |
d |
|
|
I |
I |
|
|
|
|
a |
b |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I |
I |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a |
b |