The DNA project for the surnames

Lancaster, Lanchester, Lancashire, Satterfield, Satterthwaite etc.

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.

Participation

This project will increase in value as it gains more participants. The more participants, the more value this project will have to us and future generations. So please spread the word!
Concerning testing, see here on separate page. You need to be a male with one of our surnames.
There are also other ways of providing assistance to this project for relatives (not male, or not having one of the key surnames) and genealogist friends of these families. Options include sponsorship, coordination and research. Please contact me for more ideas.
Participants and their family genealogists receive invitations to our project’s discussion group which allows closer discussions to compare notes between participating families.

1. History of the Project

This project was originally started in 2004 in order to further genealogical study of the Lancaster surname, as a new tool to help research which Lancaster families are related and which are not – something which can definitely help when you have several alternatives hinted at in old documents. (The founder of the project and author of this page is a Lancaster, and has researched Lancasters and related surnames in other ways, some of which are summarized on other webpages.)

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 Lancashire (or LANKSHEAR or LANQUISHEAR etc) and Lanchester. For further discussion on this family of surnames see the separate webpage on this.

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 Lancasters defined by us so far. The details make it clear that the families are related very far back. There is also a separate webpage concerning this second surname group, and another webpage specifically concerning the DNA match.

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 Lancaster have often wondered about aristocratic connections. It is often mentioned by Lancaster genealogists that the first use of the surname was by Anglo-Norman aristocrats with important connections, and that the surname was sometimes used by branches of the medieval Royal Family. We must be cautious of speculation based upon this, but this project team does work even on medieval genealogy and it is felt that we will eventually be able to state clearly which Lancaster families are in the same male line as the “de Loncastre” aristocrats of long ago, such as the families associated with the Barony of Kendal. Indeed, it is probably true that many Northern English families have at least some minor aristocratic connections simply due to the history of the area. In this role of studying Lancaster aristocrats we welcome, and actively seek, correspondence or participation from genealogists interested in surnames related to those early “de Lancastres”. In the meantime, please look at the “Medieval Lancaster” webpages mentioned above.

2. Genealogy with DNA

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

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 Lancaster, Lanchester, Lancashire, Satterfield, Satterthwaite etc male. If you have a choice of closely related men, then the general rule is to select the oldest one.

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!

3. DNA Results and Discussion

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:

The E-M35 Haplogroup. Also known sometimes as E1b1b, or previously E3b. Our project two quite distinct Lancaster male lines in this branch, both within the E-M78 sub-branch of E-M35. This part of our project includes all the Satterfield and Satterthwaite discussion.
The R-M173 Haplogroup. Also known sometimes as R1, and containing R1a, R1b etc. This is by far the most common haplogroup in Europe, and within our project it includes many different male-lines including the Catholic Maryland Lancasters, the Lancasters of Isle of White and Surry Counties, Virginia, the Lancasters of Henrico Co, VA, and the Quaker Lancasters of Bucks Co, PA.
The various I Haplogroups, which also contains several different male lines also. The I haplogroup is the second most common in Europe, and particularly diverse, which implies that it is older in Europe than the R haplogroup.
An unknown Haplogroup, with a single Lancaster family so far.
An O2a Haplogroup result, with a single Lancaster family so far.
A G2a Haplogroup result, with a single Lancaster family so far.

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.

DNA results for results table 1.

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…

The Patterdale Lancaster family above is E-M78 like the other Lancasters in this table, and comes from a similar part of Britain, but their last common male-line ancestor may have been more than 10,000 years ago. So the two different E-M78 Lancaster lines are not one male line.
The R1b families mentioned above, Satterfield and Setterfield, despite the surname, are also not in the same male-line as the E-M78 Satterfields, nor as each other. This does not mean that they are not in the same family in some other way.
The one I1a Satterthwaite family is in a similar situation. This is not the same male line as the other Satterthwaites, though this family is almost certainly related to the other Satterthwaites.

Concerning the two male lines which are in E-M78…

Our Patterdale E3b is a scientifically interesting case of an E-M78 family which does not have V13 or any other known branch-defining SNP, although these have been checked for. Therefore it can be called “E-M78*”. This is in fact quite unusual, even in places like Africa where there is far more diversity of E haplotypes[1].
Our main E-M78 family above, including Lancasters, Satterthwaites, Satterfields etc is confirmed by SNP testing as having the mutation V13, which defines a well-known branch of E-M78 - the E haplotype (DNA signature) which is by far most common in Europe. This branch of the human family tree of male lines is increasingly referred to as “E-V13*”[2].

E-M78 is a largely African haplogroup, which spreads into Europe, mainly in its V13 form, and mainly via what seems to be a Balkan entry point. The SNP mutation called V13 possibly first appeared in the Near East before this move to Europe, because Fulvio Cruciani’s team found some very different-looking (and therefore more distantly related) V13 individuals there, for example amongst the Druze.

Because E-V13 is relatively common, many attempts have been made to estimate it’s age and origins in Europe based upon its diversity and geographical distribution.

Public databases like www.yhrd.org confirm that the DNA signature (haplotype) of our main E3b group is most prevalent and also most diverse in places like Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia, as well as the Peloponnesian Penisula, which are the most isolated, and therefore presumably most genetically conservative, parts of the Balkans. From there it has anciently spread out over most of Europe.
Estimates of the age when V13 entered Europe vary. It was originally common to suggest a timing similar to the period when farming and pottery were introduced from the Middle East, about 10,000 years ago. More recently, such as in Cruciani’s 2007 paper, researchers have begun to favour more recent European origins even if Middle Eastern V13 itself might be older. To note two interesting speculations:

Dienekes, in his blog on the subject, http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/07/expansion-of-e-v13-explained.html suggests that the timing might match one of the semi-mythical dynasties of ancient Greece, such as that of Hercules!
Steven Bird of the E3b project favours the ancient Balkan nation of Thrace as the dispersal point of V13 to the rest of Europe. See his JOGG article: http://www.jogg.info/32/bird.htm

A similar range of ideas exist concerning how and when E-V13 entered Britain. Though widespread as a minority in Europe, and occasionally found to be common in isolated pockets there, E3b is not really common in Europe north of the Danube. So our British families have ancient ancestry from Europe, but from inland Europe, and not from the more usual (for British) Anglo-Saxon or Atlantic coast areas. This type of DNA signature is much more common as one gets closer to the Balkans, and so chance matches are more possible when looking there. There is currently no consensus, but as with theories about it’s introduction into Europe more generally, the tendency seems to be towards more recent introduction. Some more discussion points…

E-V13 men may have been amongst family groups bringing a technology to Britain, such as pottery techniques, metallurgy (like the “Amesbury Archer”) or farming techniques.
E-V13 they may have come with a forceful invasion, perhaps during Celtic, Roman, or Norman times. Steven Bird favours the idea of Thracian soldiers during the Roman era being the carrier of E-V13 into Britain. Such soldiers are known to have been posted there over a long period of time. In general, the Roman occupation was an occupation by a Southern European, multi-ethnic force, and so it seems a reasonable hypothesis that introduction may have occurred in this period [1].

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:-

Wikipedia Article on E3b

E-V13 on the E-M35 Project's "Haplowiki"

The ISOGG E haplogroup webpage

The E-M35 phylogeny project

Dienekes' July 2008 blog on V13 origins

Cruciani et. al. 2007 article

Steven C. Bird's Fall 2007 JOGG article

Cruciani et. al. 2006 article

Perecic et. al. 2005 article

Cruciani et. al. 2004 article

Semino et. al. 2004 article

Genealogical Results for results table 1.

Table 1. Kit 79875. No matches yet. A Lancaster family from Westmorland.

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 Lancasters of nearby Sockbridge – for example Richard was certainly a name being used by the branch in Patterdale – we can’t say that we have a paper trail, even using speculation. So we can’t be sure how this family connects back. The Lancasters of Patterdale in Westmorland were in one of the most Lancaster-populated places anywhere, and one very strongly associated with the descendants of the Lancaster Barons of Kendal.

Because of the geographical closeness of the Lancaster ancestors in E3b families 1 and 2, and also because they are both E3b families, I have included this family as line one in the table for family 1, above. Nevertheless the differences are very big and there can be no common ancestor imaginable in any genealogically relevant timeframe. Indeed this is an altogether more unusual haplotype, at least amongst people in public databases, who are often northern European. Click here to see matches on the smgf.org database. It was suggested that this is from a different sub-clade of E3b: V12 instead of V13: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2007-04/1175773422. The difference is discussed in the Cruciani article also cited under family 1. V12 is far less common in Europe than V13. However, testing has shown that this family has neither V12 nor V13. It is a “cousin” to both, and there is no pre-existing theory about where it was before Britain in the last 10,000 years. All we can say is that, like all M78 lines, this one probably leads back to the Horn of Africa about 20,000 years ago.

Patterdale, once part of a greater parish called Barton, was home to Lancasters descended from both of the male lines of the de Lancaster Barons of Kendal, the Howgill line, and the Sockbridge line. Follow the links to learn more, but also compare to the theories we are also developing concerning other male lines in this project. It must be noted in this context that the de Lancaster Barons of Kendal are generally thought to have had at least two male blood lines because the surname and title passed once through a daughter (Helewise de Lancaster, daughter of William de Lancaster II, and wife of Gilbert fitz Reinfrid).

Table 1. MAIN GROUP. Lancasters from Eastern Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire.

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 Yorkshire see http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/Misc/Maps/WRYParishes.gif .

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…

The most obvious theory about this group is probably that they are all branches of the Gisburn Lancaster family, who were prosperous in the area from at least Tudor times. It appears that they had many “junior” branches who made their own way in the 17^th and 18^th century, often taking up a trade. In the 18^th century, several of these seem to have been involved in the networking of the early Methodist movement of the area.
Secondly it must be stated that many would further link this DNA family to the Lancasters of Westmorland, as for example is stated in Burke’s Peerage. See below.

1. Kits 22762 and 144588. Richard Lancaster, was having children in Colne, Lancashire in the 1760s. He may have been married in Bolton by Bowland (or Bolland) near Gisburn(e), Yorkshire, and he may have had some sort of association with other towns over the county border in Yorkshire, like Addingham, because this is where his wife came from. He seems to have been an early adherent of Methodism in this area. His son, a saddler also named Richard, moved from Colne to Manchester but also spent time near Hebden Bridge, perhaps working with his brother-in-law Thomas Lonsdale, a currier who also seems to have worked both there and in Colne. Colne, Gisburn, Bolton, Hebden Bridge are all on the Lancashire/Yorkshire border.

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 19^th century. In another nearby town, Clapham in Yorkshire, there was a wedding 18 June 1797 between a Robert Lancaster and an Alice Simpson, which seems to be the furthest back we can trace so far. (The Boyds Marriage Index seems to indicate 1787, not 1797 as in other sources; the latter seems to match the children’s baptisms better).

The family of Thomas Lancaster, born Bradford, Yorkshire in 1849 was identified via SMGF. Bradford is just over the county border from Colne. With the surname, the location, and DNA all matching, this is a certain relative. It seems he moved first to Detroit, Michigan in the USA.

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, Yorkshire. Thomas and Ann Wildman seem to have been married in nearby Bingley (between Addingham and Bradford) in 1824. In the 1851 census it seems that Thomas and Ann live nearby to their son Edward, in Manningham, Bradford. They still have many children left at home, many born in Addingham. From this it seems that Thomas was born in Thornton (about 1802) and Ann in Ingleton (about 1806). This matches well with what can be found in parish registers. A Thomas Lancaster was baptized in Thornton in Lonsdale, one of several children of Robert and Alice of Ireby (and then Westhouse in 1810), on 6 October 1801. And an Ann Wildman was indeed baptized in nearby Ingleton 14 September 1806, daughter of an Edward.

This family is discussed more on a genealogical web page about Lancaster families in the Craven region of Yorkshire, around Gisburn: http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/Other%20Lancasters.htm . It is suggested there that they might be relatives of the Lancasters mentioned on Craig Thornber’s web page also: http://www.thornber.net/famhist/htmlfiles/lancaster.html.

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) Lancasters appear to be one family, and appear to have been present in the parish of Gisburn since before the start of parish registers. In particular. Here we are looking at the Lancaster family which was associated with the hamlet of Paythorne in Gisburne, and in particular with the national heritage sites of Moor House and Windy Pike. The market town for this area was Colne, and one branch was long known to have moved from Gisburne to Colne in the 19^th century, and another to Australia.

By the 17^th century, when records become clearer, this family (or at least some branches of it) had some land and wealth, including property in Bolton-by-Bowland. But their origins are not known, and nor is any link to the two above families yet known. A separate webpage summarising research exists: http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/paythorne.htm. This family was very closely associated with the local Dodgson family, who they married into several times over many generations. These were the ancestors of Charles Dodgson, who is better known as Lewis Carroll, the author of Alice in Wonderland. Both families seem to have been land-owning yeomanry.

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 Bolton by Bowland at precisely the right time. Furthermore it appears that Anne Ryley was still of a child-baring age. She married Richard Hardacre of Long Preston by licence on 11 May 1734, and then had a child Agnes with him baptised 26 September 1736. Might Richard Lancaster have been a late-born son, an older half-brother to Agnes, not mentioned in the will? But this is speculation! Another option might be that Richard is one of the Horton line, who appear in the Barnoldswick registers. There was also a Richard in Waddington.

4. Kits 86728 and 113346. The Lancasters marked as coming from Cliviger, on the Lancashire-Yorkshire border near Burnley, have been traced back to a family living in a farm called "Height" in the 18th century. William Lancaster (d. 1762) and Elizabeth Hitchin, were shown as residents of cliviger when they married in 1737.

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 Lancasters of North-western England.

Table 1. MAIN GROUP. The Satterthwaites and Satterthwaits and Satterwhites

1. Kit 38641. Around 1710, Edward Satterthwaite was having children in Grasmere, Cumberland (now Cumbria) very close to the town Satterthwaite. Satterthwaite is in nearby Hawkshead parish, which used to be just inside the border of the ancient County of Lancaster (also called Lancashire) but which is now also part of Cumbria.

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 New Jersey. There are unproven sources that link him to a William Satterthwaite (b. 1606) in Hawkshead and a George Satterthwaite (b. about 1570) in Hawkshead.

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 Indiana by the mid 19^th century, which is where our participant was also born.

Kit N48897. This family had traced back to William Satterthwait who was born in New Jersey, and died after 1827 in Belmont County Ohio. In generations after him the family moved west and has lived in various generations in Iowa, Montana and Wyoming until we come to our participant who was born in Maryland. Our project members could compare notes and confirm that this William was born 22 September 1753, son of one Richard Satterthwaite, and great grandson of the earlier William Satterthwaite mentioned above, via his other son William Satterthwaite (16 Jul 1691 - 7 Feb 1739/40). It appears that the descendants of the latter William are the main users of the spelling Satterthwait, without the “e”.

Both participants are 9 generational steps away from their common ancestor William, who emigrated from Britain.

3. Kit N69131. Michael Satterwhite was born circa 1733 in Virginia. He began military service was Captain during Revolutionary War. He married Amey Mitchell, daughter of James Mitchell and Amey Ann Davis, in 1759 at Granville County, North Carolina. Michael Satterwhite died on 24 March 1804 at Granville County, North Carolina. He was registrar of Granville County for many years.

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 Lancaster 1791, married Elizabeth Metcalf in June 1817 in Clitheroe, and died in Clitheroe, January 1864. Looking through baptisms for Lancaster, as indexed in the IGI, there seems to be only one match, William Satterthwaite was baptised 8 January 1792 at Saint Mary, Lancaster. He seems to have taken his surname from his single mother, Ellen Satterthwaite? This could be the explanation as to why he does not match the other Satterthwaites along the male line.

R1b Satterwhite…

Satterwhite kit 129841 probably descended, in Virginia, from a Michael Satterwhite of Mob Jack Bay, Gloucester County, Virginia. Two Satterwhite brothers came to Virginia about 1668.

This is an R1a haplotype, and not in the same male line shared by some Satterfield and Satterthwaite families.

---

Table 1. MAIN GROUP. The Satterfields, Saterfields, Sutterfields and Saterfiels (and similar) of the USA.

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 South Carolina

In the 18^th century a Satterfield family lived in Pendleton South Carolina. Around 1800 three of them were married adults who would become ancestors of many modern day Satterfields – James D Satterfield, Thomas Wilson Satterfield, and Jeremiah Satterfield. To quote genealogist Roy Satterfield:

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 Pendleton, South Carolina.

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 Pendleton, South Carolina.

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 Chowan County in North Carolina. However, research by Roy Satterfield and others shows that this can not be correct. Thomas Wilson Satterfield may have been related to William, as someone named Thomas W. Satterfield signed some estate proceedings of the Pendleton William, but Thomas was a bit too old to be this William’s son, and does not fit into the family he is known to have had. Furthermore, William and Rachel did not move to Pendleton District from Chowan County, North Carolina. Because of Census and Land records, Roy and others believe that the Satterfields in Pendleton District came there from the Orange County, North Carolina area."

Kits 114007 and 113691 and the Ancestry Kit. The Satterfields of South Carolina, descended from Thomas Wilson Satterfield’s son Thedford H Satterfield.

· 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 Georgia, descended from Edward Hamilton Satterfield, possible son of Thomas Wilson Satterfield.

Edward Hamilton. SATTERFIELD (AFN: 1GT8-SS) died in 1881 in Chatooga, Georgia, and also had his children in that area (in the 1830s and 1840s). It is said that he was born in South Carolina in the 1760s or 1770s, the son of Thomas Wilson Satterfield. Others believe he is a son of Charles Hamilton Satterfield. Either way the DNA shows that he was closely related to Thedford H Satterfield. The two people tested are closely related and descend via the following line:

Edward Hamilton Satterfield Born 12 Jul 1797 Greenville South Carolina > Charles Hamilton Satterfield born 1 Sep 1828 Jones Dist. Georgia > Benjamin Andrew Jackson Satterfield born 12 Apr 1858 Goldville AL > Ammon Y Satterfield born 18 Apr 1883 Goldville AL

· 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 Washington, MO. Note the spelling with a “u”.

This family had been traced back to James Sutterfield, born 9/5/1840 in Washington County, MO.

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 18^th century more generally in North America. Before 1777, fewer records are available for them but the name was already present in America. Much earlier for example, another Edward, perhaps a relative, was mentioned in a will by Richard Bennett in 1749, Queen Ann's Co., MD, as having travelled from England. But, as mentioned above, these men seem to have been present in the area since at least about 1705, so they must have been returning home.

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 South Carolina, and then they moved to Giles Co., TN. around 1809, and are listed on the 1812 Tax Rolls in that county. Later they moved to Lauderdale Co., abt. 1825, and prior to 1830 moved to Wayne Co., TN. Around 1842, Peter and Mary and seven of their grown children, with their families, moved to Searcy Co., Ar., which is where Peter died June 26, 1846. The spelling appears to have settled into “Sutterfield” only in Arkansas.

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 Caroline County in 1773. But when he joined the Army to fight for the Revolution in 1777, he put down Queen Ann's County. He didn't put down his mother or father's names on his enlistment papers. He put down his birth year as 1760. He fought in Colonel Smallwood's brigade of the Maryland Line under General George Washington. They did not spend the terrible winter of 1777-78 at Valley Forge with the rest of Washington's army. They were quartered in Wilmington, Delaware instead.

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 Newberry, South Carolina, to Union Co., Georgia.

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 Greenville district.

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 Newton, MS. Note the spelling with one “t” and no “d”. The Saterfields of Enterprise, MS. Note the spelling with one “t”.

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 Newton, Mississippi. James H. SATERFIELD was born 25 Mar 1858 Enterprise, Mississippi to James A. SATERFIELD and Laura Ann BLASS.

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 North Carolina and the spelling “Satterfield”.

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 Lunenburg, Virginia.

The SMGF pedigree goes back to James Henry SATTERFIELD who was born b. 16 Feb 1855 Lunenburg, Virginia to James William SATTERFIELD and Ann Elizabeth COLEMAN.

There are 5 generation steps back to this James William Satterfield from the person who was tested.

8. SMGF. The Satterfields of Chapel Hill, MO.

The SMGF pedigree goes back to Fred W. SATTERFIELD was born 8 Mar 1865 Chapel Hill, Missouri, USA and married to Marie S. A. JANKOW. Their son Lester T. SATTERFIELD was born 16 Nov 1898 Rocky Ford, Colorado. The family can be found in Colorado for the 1900 census, where Fred is said to have been born March 1864 in Missouri. His father is said to be from Tennessee and his mother from Missouri.

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 Jackson Township, Johnson Co, but without Fred. (There is a William F. about the right age.) And in the 1900 census Henry and Mary J seem to have moved to Otero Colorado, like Fred. The parents of Henry are named in online trees as “J and Fran” Satterfield. J Satterfield is said to be from Tennessee.

---

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 England between 1640 and 1670. There may have been as few as four Satterfield men (Edward, James, Nathaniel, and William) in the colonies between 1700 and 1710, all in Prince George County, Maryland. The earliest Satterfield record that I have seen is a will which mentions Edward in 1700. It is known that William was raised by a foster family which would seem to point to at least the death of the mother. James may have gone from Maryland to Virginia after 1717 and his descendants may have shown up in the Orange County, North Carolina area between 1750 and 1755. If this is not the case then it is likely that there was either a fifth Satterfield man or another Satterfield family migrated from England to Virginia sometime prior to 1750.

Terry Brush also mentions records showing the presence of this family in Queen Anne’s County, also in Maryland.

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 Kent. This is our only DNA result known so far from the Setterfields of Kent. In modern times they have standardized their name to use “e” as the second letter, but in centuries past they also used spellings like Sutterfield.

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 Margate are traced back further there to a family who lived in Wingate in the mid 1600s.

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 London, even to an apprentice.

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 Anderson families may very well be quite significant.

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 Carolinas, descending from Jeremiah Satterfield. Jeremiah seems to have even in lived in Pendleton, around 1800, before moving to Kentucky, and then Tennessee. Surprisingly we have found 2 different R1b lines, and not in the same male line shared by some Satterfield and Satterthwaite families, and not matching either each other or any other Satterfield lines tested so far.

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 Rogers.

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 Cumberland, Tennessee where his name is confirmed to be “William H.”, and his age was given as 32. This time his mother is said to be from South Carolina. He was a miner in both records. A wedding can be traced back to Overton in Tennessee, 8 Sep 1904, but the only document I could find for this gives no information about William’s origin. Roy Satterfield adds…

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 South Carolina, and Delphine (Adelphia) TRAMMEL. The furthest back this line seems to be traced by anyone securely is James D. SATTERFIELD b. abt 1775 South Carolina, USA, who married Sarah CORBIN. In other words, this line claims a link to the Pendleton Satterfields discussed above, with which it does not match.

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 Grainger County, Tennessee. The family stayed for several generations in the area, but our participant was born in Michigan. This family has a close DNA match with families of the surname Mace.

Two different lines with pedigree connection to Hezekiah "Ki" Satterfield, born 1811 in South Carolina

Satterfield kit 125917.

Our participant can trace his male line back 3 generational steps to his Great-Grandfather, Hezekiah "Ki" Satterfield, born 1811 in South Carolina. His son Augustus "Gus" Satterfield was born in Georgia, and the family now lives in Tennessee. We have not yet found any close matches to this male line.

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.

---

Other Matches to the MAIN GROUP…

The Church Family.

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 Arkansas in the early 20^th century.

The most likely surname out of the group to be that of our participant’s male-line ancestors appears to be Satterthwait.

A family with surnames Potts and Carpenter.

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 LeGore, Maryland who, at the time of his marriage in 1942 was stationed somewhere near the parish of Vernon, Louisiana.

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. Lancasters in the R1b Haplogroup.

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.

Some similar-looking R1b-M269 families in our project could all be unrelated Lancaster families. It is particularly worth pointing out that some of them have only tested 12 markers, whereas R1b is so common that it is always best to be cautious about seeming connections. However there is certainly one, perhaps two, possible pairings we can make…

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 Lancaster family are a Venable family descended from Abram Venable who came from Devonshire to Virginia in the late 1600s (d. 1710 Hanover, New Kent County). The Venable surname originates with a Norman family who settled first in Cheshire, next to Lancashire. The particular DNA matches are from a family who, like the Lancasters they match, immigrated early to America. Two other close matches with the surnames Clausen and Knauer are known to come from adoptions.

1A. Gowan Lancaster arrived in America in 1635 and lived in York Co. and is one of the earliest Lancasters in American who is known to have founded a lasting family.

Gowan, or Gawen, etc, named John in one document after his death, came to America in 1635 at the age of 28 aboard the Transport. Gowen’s name is a relatively unusual variant of Gawain, as per the King Arthur stories. The name Gowen Lancaster has been found over several generations and parishes in Cumberland, both before and after the founding of this line in America. It seems reasonable therefore to suggest that Gowen’s ancestry is in Cumberland. But apart from several theories, his origins in Britain are not yet really known.

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”.

Lancaster Kit “Ancestry 3”, descends from Robert’s son William

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. Virginia.

Most descendents of John Lancaster are thought to now live in Texas and Arkansas. "Lancaster-Smith-TN was named for one of these folks and there are still a few in that area." It is frequently claimed that John Lancaster was a Factor for the firm of Hyndman & Lancaster, 10 Gould St, London, which was heavily involved with Virginia. However I have not found any evidence for his link to the partner of this company, whose name was Richard Lancaster.

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 Lancaster group.

Lancaster Kit 29696. This participant descends from William Allen Lancaster Jr, son of William Allen Lancaster Sr, son of John Lancaster.

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.

Lancaster Kit N6407. This participant descends from Orville O. Lancaster, Born about1859,AK. Died about 1897 in MS. He can be traced back to to Samuel Lancaster, another son of William Allen Lancaster Sr.

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.)

Lancaster Kit 158459. This participant descends from Samuel Lancaster, son of William Allen Lancaster Sr, son of John Lancaster.

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. Lancaster Kit 125599. John Henry Lancaster is listed on the 1880 Jackson, Tennessee census as an orphan.

It is suspected that he is related to Lancasters living in the area before the Civil War, and it has been suggested that he might descend from Gowan Lancaster.

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., Kentucky and Naomi (Oma) ( Orma) Cherry. This would mean he has 8 generations back to Robert Lancaster the son of Richard Lancaster, who would then be his most recent male line common ancestor with 117324 and “Ancestry 3” (group 1A).

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 2. Descendants of John Lancaster, captain of ships, who became resident in Maryland in the early 1700s, along with his brother Joseph, also a ship’s Captain.

This is an important Catholic family from colonial times in Maryland. Many US Lancasters descend from John. It seems quite likely that this family descends from the Lancasters of Rainhill, Lancashire, many of whom were also Catholics in this period – something which was not common in England at the time. Indeed, such families faced official harassment, and lost many of their rights. We have a separate webpage about research into the Rainhill family, and another webpage about their possible links to this Maryland Lancaster family. The project has confirmed the matching DNA signature of two lines descending from John:-

Lancaster Kit 109657.

Lancaster Kit 166164.

---

Table 2. GROUP 3

3a. Quakers and West Midlands Connections.

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 Birmingham in England.

Lancaster Kit 35091. Thomas Henry Lancaster (1854-1927) came to the USA from Worcestershire near Birmingham (Kings Heath and Kings Norton). His father was William Lancaster (1818 - ?) and seems to have been born in the same area (perhaps the son of John and Sarah).

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 St Martin, and this is as far back as we have gotten so far.

.The descendants of Thomas Lancaster who was born in 1702 in Warwickshire England, near Birmingham, and immigrated to Bucks County, Pennsylvania. He was a Quaker.

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 England see the other webpage by Tony and Carol Murphy. There seems to be a chance that the mother of Thomas had the maiden name Stretch, and was from Stafford.

Lancaster Kit 122216

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.

Lancaster Kit 135052.

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.

Lancaster Kit 126208.

Our participating family is from Maine in the USA, but our participant’s grandfather's name was Joseph C Lancaster. Joseph died in Corinna, Penobscot, Maine From this information we could confirm a family legend of a connection to Kendal in England. From censuses we could find that his father's name was also Joseph. This family, containing Joseph senior and junior, had moved to Maine from New York in the late 1800s. Joseph senior and his parents and eldest siblings were all born in England. The names and ages of the children gave us a means to go further back,

Most of the family appear to have arrived in New York on the ship Compromise, 20 Oct 1858. It had departed Liverpool. However, looking after the family was apparently a man named William Lancaster, who was 26 at the time and therefore significantly younger than Elizabeth, the mother.

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 Elizabeth and emigrated), James bapt 1827 at Kendal, Charlotte bapt 1829 at Kendal, and William bapt 1831 at Kendal Methodist. This William being John's brother was probably the William who was on the ship to NY in 1858 as he is the correct age accompanying John's wife Elizabeth and children.

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 America. It is also well documented that Robert, usually referred to as Robert Lancaster, Sr., had a daughter and two sons, all of whom had numerous descendants. The wife of Robert Lancaster, Sr., has recently been identified as Lettis (or Lettice) Powell, who came to Virginia by way of a ship from Bristol in the late 1660s and seems to have had Quaker associations.

The children of Robert and Lettis were:

1. Elizabeth (b. 1667), who was the second or perhaps third wife of Thomas Pitman Jr., and bore at least five of his seventeen children.

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 England, but he arrived in Surry County, Virginia, some time prior to 1652. That year is when he and about seventy other men signed a petition. The question has been raised, however, as to whether the signer of the petition in 1652 might actually have been the father of Robert Lancaster, Sr., considering that Robert Sr. died in 1720 and would have been approaching ninety years of age. (Further discussion of questions related to the petition is here.)

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 England."

The Teigan reference might be to the Bristol surgeon, Robert Lancaster, who died aboard the ship Unicorne in 1685 and for whom a will has been published. If so, the probability of a parental connection to Robert Lancaster of IOW/Surry seems unlikely, as the surgeon’s will mentions a wife, a mother, sisters and a brother, but no children. One wonders as well whether the son of a surgeon would have lacked the ability to write his name, as apparently was the case with Robert Lancaster/Lancashire in 1652. In her GEDCOM file “L’harmon,” published on Rootsweb, Linda L. Harmon mentions in a note that some have attempted to link Gawen Lancaster, who came to Virginia in 1635 at the age of 28. to Robert Lancaster of IOW/Surry. Another note reports that records in London show a Robert Lancaster was born March 7, 1634, a son of a Robert Lancaster in Hartshead Parish, Yorkshire.

Some internet genealogies list Robert as coming from a Lancaster family of Holme upon Spalding Parish, Yorkshire. This assertion has been questioned. For one thing, it appears to be confusing his family with that of New Kent, VA, rather than Surry VA. Nancy Matthews reports having seen evidence suggesting that Robert descends from a Lancashire family who lived in the area of London. As of September 2008, the family from which Robert Lancaster came remains unidentified. For discussion of some research issues, go here.

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)…

Lancaster Kit 87890. The earliest Lancaster settlers of the Orangeburg/Barnwell District of South Carolina, ca. 1785, were: Jesse Lancaster who received his first State Grant in 1785, Robert Lancaster, who received his first State Grant in 1787 and Joseph Lancaster, who received his State Grant ca. 1787. This family probably descends from Jesse Lancaster through his son, Jesse Lancaster, born ca. 1795 through his son, Lewis Larkin Lancaster, born Barnwell District, ca. 1815.

There are 4 generational steps back to Lewis Larkin Lancaster. There are likely to be about 10 generations back to Robert Lancaster the founder of the line in America.

The DNA project shows that this family is related to the Surry Co., VA Lancasters, perhaps even before their arrival in America. Compared to the modal for the DNA family there appears to be one 1-step mutation on DYS447, and there is another mutation difference on the multi-part marker DYS464. In estimating distance back to common ancestor with the other families though, it is difficult to be sure how many steps of mutation DYS464 really implies because this is a multi-part “palindromic” marker.

The names Lemuel and Larkin appear several times in the family tree of Lawrence Lancaster 1712 – 1792, who can be traced back to the foundation of this family in America as follows: 1. William Lancaster 1691 – 1740 > 2. Robert Lancaster 1669 – 1739 > 3. Robert Lancaster 1645 – 1720.

Also see kit 104900 below in Group 5, which is a related line, founded by a female member of this family.

Lancaster Kit 142260. This Lancaster family settled in Mississippi, arriving there in the 1830s directly from Franklin County, North Carolina. They descend from Laurence Lancaster, great-grandson of Robert Lancaster (d. 1720) of Surry County, Virginia.

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.

Lancaster Kit 165413. This Lancaster family emigrated from Northampton County, NC, to Christian (now Trigg) County, KY, near the end of the War of 1812, joining several members of the wife’s family who had gone there before the war. Levi Lancaster, the first of the Trigg County Lancasters, was a school teacher, attorney, and county court official.

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 Co., VA.

There are 9 generational steps back to Robert (ca. 1631-1720), progenitor of this line in America.

There are 7 steps back to Samuel Lancaster (1702-1743), the most recent common ancestor with Kit 105722 and Kit 113701.

Lancaster Kit 113701. This Lancaster family is from the Pulaski County, Georgia, contingent. The family moved from Virginia to North Carolina to Georgia in the 18^th Century. The first of the Pulaski County Lancasters was William Sanders Lancaster (1760-1813). He was born in Northampton County, NC, and then moved with his Quaker family to Dobbs, then Wayne Co. NC, before the American War of Independence. He eventually rejected Quakerism.

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 Co., VA.

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.)

Lancaster Kit 105722. Telfair County, Georgia, is the home of this family, which is actually a branch of the Pulaski County Lancasters. They moved from Pulaski County to Telfair County in the 19^th century. Wright Lancaster was a Baptist Minister who made the move to Telfair.

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/Surry County, VA

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 Co., VA

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 America.

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 Isle of Wight County, VA. DNA tests, used in conjunction with traditional research, will help resolve some of the issues associated with IOW/Surry County, VA, Lancaster research. Several of those issues are discussed here.

Nancy Mathews has compiled a partial list of Lancaster families in the United States for which DNA tests could be of great usefulness in resolving questions of relatedness. Please encourage men from these families to participate in the surname project by having a Y-chromosome test. To see the list of families for which tests are urgently needed, click here.

---

Table 2. GROUP 4

The Craven County, NC, Lancasters

Members of this Lancaster family were living in Craven County, NC, at the end of the 18^th century. They trace their descent from James Benjamin Lancaster (1765-1805), whose ancestors are unidentified. DNA evidence, now including two distantly related cases, has shown them not to be direct male line descendants of the IOW/Surry County, VA, Lancasters as some have proposed. Research is ongoing to determine whether they might descend from Lancasters who lived in Charleston, SC, earlier in the 18^th century.

Lancaster Kit 135053. Our participant descends from John Marion>James Thomas Jr.>James Thomas Sr.>Jacob>Jesse>James Benjamin Lancaster (1765-1805).

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.

Lancaster Kit 134285. Our participant’s line of descent is from Wade Thornton>Roscoe Ollerson>Edward Augustus>William>Jesse>James Benjamin Lancaster (1765-1805).

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 Lancaster Individuals not yet in groups.

Lancaster Kit 73408 has been traced back to 1818 in Leighton Buzzard in Bedfordshire, and is thought to go back to the family of Sir James Lancaster of Basingstoke in Hampshire whose will was dated 18 April 1618.

Our participant is English but a branch of this family is thought to have emigrated to the USA in the mid-1800s, descending from one Levi Lancaster. Lancasters appear in Bedfordshire registers from the earliest Tudor times. The IGI lists about 1700 Lancaster birth, baptism or marriages. Because the Bedfordshire registers are in a reasonable state it is reasonable to expect that many of the links between these families can eventually be reconstructed.

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 Basingstoke area until the 1800s.

Basingstoke is not particularly close to Bedfordshire, but the family story is intriguing. Looking at the censuses, I do not see any sign of the several Levi Lancasters in this family leaving the area in the 19^th century. The personal name Levi was more common in America at that time.

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 Lancaster family from all our others.

Lancaster Kit 104900. This Lancaster family is from the area of Spartanburg in South Carolina. Our participant descends from Linder Lancaster, the son of William Abel Lancaster. They are a branch of the IOW/Surry County, VA, Lancasters.

The two families from South Carolina (Kit 104900 and Kit 87890, below) do not match, although both are R1b, and the Lancasters of the area were thought of as one family. This was finally explained by Lancaster genealogist Nancy Mathews. This family, to quote her, is…

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 Isle of Wight is as follows, according to her: Eliza>Joel Sr.>Larkin Sr.>Samuel Sr.>Laurence Sr.>William>Robert Jr.>Robert Sr.

Lancaster Kit 133069. The Great, Great, Grandfather of our participant, John Lancaster, was buried in front of St Cuthberts in Pateley Bridge, Yorkshire, with a large head stone over looking the city

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 Nidderdale Valley to Pateley Bridge.

Lancaster Kit 129601. This family descends from the well known Lancasters of Sockbridge, and is related to David Hall, a researcher associated with this project. This means they can be traced back to William fitz Gilbert de Lancaster I (alive in the 1100s) by paper trail.

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 Kirkland and Culgaith in Cumberland. Our participant lives in England.

Lancaster Kit 134285. This family descends from James Benjamin Lancaster (Cravens Co., NC)

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 Lancasters from that general region.

Lancashire Kit via http://dna.ancestry.com . This family has been traced back to Frederick Lancashire, born about 1812 on the Strand in London.

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 London.

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/.

Lancaster Kit 140982. This family descends from John V Lancaster, who was born before. 1738, probably in IOW/Surry Co. VA.,-and died before Aug 1813.

This family appears to be related to the Surry Co. Lancasters, despite being in a completely different male line. Lancaster genealogist Nancy Matthews says “this family is intermingling way to much to be a different Lancaster line. They are in 3 different county's documents together, so his family was moving with Laurence Lancaster's family”. She believes that it is most likely that John V. Lancaster was a nephew of Laurence Lancaster (see above kit 87890), his mother either dying of child birthing in 1739 or the flu in 1740 and that John V. Lancaster remained close to his uncle, being his only living relative. The family divided, step mother, Mary Womble Lancaster and half sister Ann, moved into Sussex Co., VA and Laurence and John V. moving into North Carolina.

Results 3. Lancasters in the I Haplogroup.

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.

Kit N5390. William Lancaster, of Fayette Co. PA, b abt 1820-1830, in Pennsylvania.

This Lancaster family can be traced back to William Lancaster, born about 1820, who married Lydia Goe first, and Ellen Simpson second, and had children in Fayette County in South Western Pennsylvania. In the 1880 census they appear as a mulatto family, though earlier censuses say they are white. Lydia Goe was mulatto, so was William? The DNA shows that his male ancestry at least was very northern European. Mixed marriages appear to have been more frequent out closer to the frontiers.

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 Virginia, is in turn said to be the son of another Joseph. There appear to have been several other Lancasters in early Fayette county records, including a John and a Henry.

Speculation about this family has generally involved looking for individuals in the Lancaster families of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia who might have moved inland to Fayette. But the DNA testing appears to show that if he was related to any of these it must be for example via a daughter who had a child out of wedlock. It is also remarkable that this family was clearly illiterate whereas that would be very surprising for either the Maryland Lancasters or Bucks Co Lancasters.

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., Mississippi, in about 1837 and had children.

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 Burton in Kendal, who married in nearby Hutton Roof to Nancy Rawbotham 5 June 1802. It is not known where he was born, but according to the 1841 census it must have been between 1761 and 1771. But where? He does not appear in the 1787 Constable’s Census of Westmorland, at least not in Southern Westmorland. Presumably he came from either Northern Westmorland, where many Lancasters historically lived near Ullswater, or else from Lancashire to the south.

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 Lancaster families as candidates until we can prove at least one paper trail and preferably two!

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, Illinois. He had come to the USA with his twin brother, William in the 1840's. The family is said to have come from the area of Thirkleby in Yorkshire.

William originally purchased 160 acres in Newark township in Rock County, Wisconsin. William passed away intestate in 1847 and his father in England was declared the heir. Thomas Lancaster Sr., of Towthorpe, County of Yorkshire, England, then granted the land to William’s twin, Thomas Lancaster Jr, of Rock County, Wisconsin Territory. In 1882 Thomas sold the 160 acres in Wisconsin and purchased 164 acres just across the Illinois Stateline in Shirland township in Winnebago.

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!

Lancaster Kit 133939. This family has been traced back to Wath, in Yorkshire, but is it Wath Upon Dearne or Wath Juxta Ripon?

In the 19^th century, this family lived in and around Hull in Yorkshire. From there it can be traced back to Wath. The family report that John Lancaster son of Thomas was baptised 6/12/1772 in Wath and moved to the Hull area. Although the family believe this was Wath upon Dearne, the baptism corresponds to one in Wath juxta Ripon – an area near to many other Lancaster families in this project, although none are a match until now (see especially 133069 in the R1b table, while looking at a map). The wife of Thomas appears to have been named Ellen, if we look at the baptisms in the register at the time.

Results 4. An Unknown Haplogroup?!

Robert Lancaster and Cecily Miller of Wigan had Simon Lancaster in 1860. He had his son George in Pittsburg PA in 1888.

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 Lancaster line we can trace to its origin:

I believe that this Robert is descended from Joseph LANCASTER of Pilkington in Prestwich Parish, whose predecessors were from the Cliviger area close to Burnley and south of Colne. Robert was the son of Elizabeth LANCASTER, daughter of Joseph and a spinster. There is no father named in his baptism record in St Mary CE Church, Radcliffe (Radcliffe Parish Church). This, as I understand your notes, would explain the markedly different DNA profile. http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.lancaster/1248.1/mb.ashx.

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 Lancaster in the O2a haplogroup

		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

Lancaster	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 East Asia.

Results 6. A Lancaster in the G2a haplogroup

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

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

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

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