Gene Study

It is highly unlikely that all holders of the surname Blackstone/Blakeston or variant are traceable to one shared progenitor. Early indications are that the name has multiple origins. It is my premise that sometime in the 13th/14th C the surname became associated with 4 or 5 men and it is these men from whom all holders of the name are descended. By and large, I can trace all modern day UK holders of the name to 5 locations: Durham, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Devon & London. Any interconnections between these are yet to be determined. The Gene study as yet is in its infancy. From it, eventually, it will be possible to group all individuals into genetic families. It will highlight inaccuracies in some peoples proposed trees. In other cases it will add scientific proof to existing paper trails. I’m hoping that it will guide research and shed light on a number of myths.

In addition to the, possible, 5 families above, in the 19^th C there was a family, or families, from Russia/Poland. These immigrants appear to be Jewish and to have adopted the name. I am aware of, a final group, a number of families who owe their descent to female holders of the name e.g., the Blakestons of the West Riding of Yorkshire.

A further group, those with Afro-Caribbean origin have recently been drawn to my attention.

The following link leads to a comparison of the study participants results in a simple tabular form. Comparison for a) genetic distance and b) interpretation of that in terms of a 50% or 95% probability of being connected within X number of generations.

To-date, July 2008, twenty one individuals have taken part. we can also add 3 sets of Braxton results to these figures:

Group 1: David (67 Markers) (descended from Hugo de Blaykeston of Blakiston, Norton, Stockton on Tees, England. His kin includes John Blakiston known as the Regicide) Tom (67) of Rochester, MI, USA, his paper-trail leads back to George Blackiston (the Regicide's brother) & Barbara (nee Lawson). Richard Guy (37) grandson of Walter Guy Blacksten bn 1906 Oklahoma.

Roger (37) (was believed to be descended from the Seaton family. Roger & David were thought to both connected. Their most recent common ancestor being Thomas Blakiston 1440-83). See discussion below. .

Max (37) & Peter Thomas (37) both have papertrails to Edward Blackston(e) & Mary Tinkler m. 1764 Barnard Castle, DUR. Believed parents John Blakiston & Isabel Cass (details yet to be found & proved). They were thought, most likely, to be descended from the Seaton family. Therefore I would have anticipated that the results would have shown a closer connection with Roger Blakiston than David. Now we know, through DNA, that David & Roger are not in fact connected. Max and Peter Thomas are not connected to either. Furthermore, their DNA shows they do not match each other either. See discussion below.

Group 2: Michael (76), Christopher (67) (Michael & Christopher can now be placed in group 1), Robert Peter (37), (all with connections in Beverley, Yorkshire, England).

Group 3: Dan (37) & Bob (25), (descended from Daniel Blacksten bn 1796, Farmington, Maine, USA). Dan & Bob have been shown to have a connected to Roy & Chuck). Roy (25) (descended from Capt William Blacksten Town Clerk of Pownal, Maine. Grandson of William Blackstone & Abigail nee Varney). Chuck (25) & John (25) (They are both believed to be descended from Samuel Blackstone jun. Nephew of Capt Wm Blackstone). Arnold (12) & Paul C (12) (descended from Ebenezer Blackstone son of William Blackstone & Lucrieta Blount. the latter being a grandson of William & Abigail). William Braxton (32) descended from Oliver Braxton bn. 1798 S Carolina. Robert Braxton (44) & his kin Lowell Braxton (43), Michael Dean Blackston (37) descended from William Blackston bn. 1855 Ar. USA

Joseph Blackston (37) said to be descended from Argyle Blackstone. Robert (Uncle of Glenda Baker) (37) and son of Benjamin Joseph Blackstone bn 1874 Missouri. Lewis Napoleon Blackstone (37).

Jim (37) (descended from Zephaniah Blackstone Sr. bn Richmond, Georgia, USA. His papertrail leads back to group 4 and Argyle Blackstone.).

Group 6: This is Herbert's family. He is the kin of Donna Watson nee Blackson. Their roots are Afro-Caribbean. Traceable to Lorenzo Blackson bn about 1840 Christiana, USA. Donna informs me that, "know that my ancestors Thomas
& Hannah Blackson were owned respectively by a Steward and Lewis both of Delaware. Their last name was Blackson and it is also listed as Blackston".

It is by comparing marker to marker, and with the aid of a paper trail, that one can determine if a kinship exists and the degree of that kinship.

DAVID's results are of particular value. He is a direct descendent of Sir Matthew Blakiston Lord Mayor of London. Hence the Durham family. His tree can be found in Burke's Peerage. And is traceable to a merchant in Covent Garden, London; George Blakiston (1675 - 1717) and Elizabeth (nee Kay). In the 1800's a number of researchers were commissioned to explore any connection between Sir Matthew and the Blakiston's of Durham. His ancestor George (1675-1717) lived at Croft in Nth Yorkshire. It was H.E.D. Blakiston, his descendent, an Oxford Don & Historian, who traced a line from George to John Blakiston of Blakiston. It is worth reading his book to see how he went about drawing his conclusions. However, like any paper-trail it takes DNA to give the research scientific validity.

Note that John Blakiston of Blakiston was in turn the 9th in descent from Hugo de Blaykeston, the founder of the Norton Blakistons. Note, also, he is not the first holder of the name but he is the earliest to have a consecutive family tree documented.

This family has been called 'The Paterfamilias', by Surtees. It's a family with a remarkable history and many noteworthy members.

The following results demonstrate the benefits of upgrading the numbers of markers tested and how a the picture can change as a consequence.

In exploring any possible connection to David: initial results based on 12 markers were promising for both Chris & Peter (descent in Beverley, ERY, ENG). They had a 11/12 match. They were less promising for Michael at 9/12.

In comparing 12 markers, the probability that David Blakiston, Christopher J. Blackstone & Peter Blackiston shared a common ancestor within the last...
100 years is 6.98%	200 years is 19.71%	300 years is 33.80%	400 years is 47.07%	500 years is 58.61%	600 years is 68.18%

At 25 markers the picture changes. Peter's connection goes from a 11/12 to only a 20/25 match. Chris remains a 24/25 match & Mike a 22/25 match.

In comparing 25 markers, the probability that David Blakiston and Peter Blackiston shared a common ancestor within the last...
100 years is 0.04%	200 years is 0.84%	300 years is 4.40%	400 years is 12.14%	500 years is 23.71%	600 years is 37.39%

At 37 markers there was little doubt in my mind that David, Mike & Chris could be been confirmed to descend from the same man. On 37 markers David & Mike matched 33/37. Peter had gone from an 11/12 match to only a 22/37 match. Clearly no connection. Chris had tested on 37 markers and matched David 35/37 and Mike 33/37 but in the light of his similar surname, paper-trail and the locality of his ancestors, that was enough to confirm that Mike & Chris are linked.

NB: It is worth noting that it is possible to narrow down the time frame within which a connection is found. There are two ways 1) Upgrading the markers, this increases the sensitivity of the test. 2) Inputting one's knowledge of the paper trail into the equation.

As David, Mike, Tom & Chris have now all upgraded to 67 markers. I've used David & Mike's figures here. However, Chris's results (on 67 markers) show a closer link to David. Note, the actual link cannot be closer than Mike's as Chris & Mike share the same known ancestor. But it does mean that one can be more optimistic in terms of closeness of connection to David than the figures below would suggest.

The following I hope will guide you through the figures and factors that lead me to conclude that David & Mike are connected:

They are at a genetic distance of 6. This is quite distant but in this instance David & Mike share a similar surname, their earliest common ancestors only lived 55 miles apart as the crow flies & a search of the international DNA databases show no near match to either (the nearest being a 30/37 match). All add further weight to confirm that they are connected.

In comparing 67 markers, the probability that Michael L. Blakeston and David Blakiston shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is a 3.83%	8 generations is a 32.08%	12 generations is a 67.62%	16 generations is a 88.47%	20 generations is a 96.65%	24 generations is a 99.16%

NB: When one looks at all 4 of their results one can actually see that it is possible to calculate the markers for their earliest joint ancestors. Tom and David's earliest shared Blakiston ancestor i.e. John de Blakiston bn circa 1535 and Mike & Chris's i.e. Thomas Blayston d1543 Sth Dalton). It turns out that John de Blakiston & Thomas Blayston were an exact match, to each other, on these 67 markers. Using the figures given by FTDNA this is a 50% probability that they John & Thomas were connected within 2 generations, a 90% probability within 4 & a 95% probability within 6. Some skeptics say that FTDNA underestimate the time but never the less this still would put this a 95% probability within 8 generations showing that the two families are connected post Hugo de Blaykeston.

We have some clues as to the very early origins of the Blakiston family via Michael's DNA. He has had his DNA tested for SNP's: fragments of DNA useful for determining ancient origins "Anthrogenealogy". His Haplogroup based on these is determined as R1b1c10*. A group with it's highest frequency in Scotland and Scandinavia. This combined with the STR profile suggests a Northern England/lowland Scotland cluster of R1b. R1b1c10* has been renamed R1b1b2h and research suggests that they belong to the Celtic Tribe the Cimbri who lived in northern Jutland.

Roger's paper trail leads to the Seaton family of Blakiston. He & David are believed to both descend from Thomas Blakiston of Blakiston d. 1483. This research has been well accepted. However, the DNA shows no connection between the 2 of them. There are a number of possibilities for this 1) the belief that the Seaton family descend from the Norton family may be untrue. We may have two Durham based families who independently took the surname but have different roots. ie from different individuals. 2) There is a non-paternity event in Roger's paper trail. That is did one of his ancestors take the surname by adoption or inherit the name from the female line. In for example: an illegitimacy. If so how far back? 3) Was David's ancestor George truly the grandson of John Blakiston & Elizabeth nee Bowes? Or is he descended from a Yorkshire family that is unconnected to Durham?

How can we answer these riddles?
Regarding how far back Roger's Blakiston ancestral line goes. This can be determined if other participants come forward with the same surname but a distant connection.

* Deep Ancestry: Roger may be interested to note, with respects to his deeper ancestry, that his pattern of markers belong to a Haplogroup called "Frisian".

MAX's paper trail leads to Edward Blackston(e) & Mary Tinkler of Barnard Castle & Winston, Durham. Family legend has it that his father was John Blakiston a Merchant Adventurer who fell at the siege of Bergen op Zoom in Belgium in 1747. He wife is said to be one Isabella Cass; with whom he eloped from a boarding school near Bedale. Evidence is yet to be found to verify this.

My researches seemed to suggest a closer possibility of being connected with the Seaton family rather than the Norton family. I was hoping Max's results would cast light on the dilemma presented by Roger's results. However, they show no connection with either Roger, David or any of the other study participants. Yet again I would suggest the possibility of a non-paternity event.

I've searched international databases of DNA results for possible connections to MAX. There is nothing on Y search or Y Base. The SMGF project has a couple of interesting links. In particular four 24/25 matches with members of the Forsyth family and one 23/25. (SMGF use a different system of calculation in effect these are a 27/28 & a 26/28 match).

It's more interesting when you look at the results closely. The Forsyth results split into two family groups.

Group One descend from a Walter Forsyth bn circa 1688 at Nenthorn, Berwick, Scotland. They differ from group two (and MAX) on one marker DYS 394. In one case they differ from group two (and MAX) on DYS 385.

Group Two descend from John Forsyth bn 1530 at Dyke, Scotland. This group match Max on the above markers. However, they mismatch group one (and MAX) on DYS 458.

To me this indicates that group one, two and Max descend from a common ancestor. As Max's results lie somewhere between the two groups, and the two groups share the same surname, this would suggest that the connection is post the adoption of surnames. Thus Max would appear to have a strong possibility of a Forsyth ancestor.

Edward & Mary's son, also an Edward, had a number of sons. All of whom have male Blakiston descendents. Thus the possibility exists for determining whether Max's DNA is the same as this Edward. Therefore, whether this non-paternity event took place pre or post this Edward. This is dependent on volunteers coming forwards.

In Nov '07, one descendent, Peter Thomas Blakiston did test. Unfortunately his results didn't answer these questions. His results showed no link to Max. He and Max both have a paper trail back to another Edward Blakiston (son of the above) who married Sarah Collins. However, their DNA does not match. This can only mean that for one or both of them there has been a non-paternity event.

How far back this non-paternity event took place is hard to say. It could be that Edward who married Mary Tinkler was indeed genetically connected to one of the other participants and that a non-paternity event has occurred separately in both their lines. It may be that this
Edward himself was illegitimate and that one of them is still descended from him. What I can say is that they both can't both be descended from his son.

PETER, CHRIS & MICHAEL all are descended from families traceable in and around Beverley in the East Riding of Yorkshire, England. Paper research has indicated shared descent.

The earliest known 'proposed', ancestor for these three has been Thomas Blayston who d.1543 at South Dalton. But as can be seen from the link to Beverley the earliest holder of the name in the immediate vicinity to Beverley was Johannes Blaykeston and his wife listed in the 1381 Poll Tax but that there had been earlier surname holders in Yorkshire, contemporary to Hugo de Blaykeston, David's forebear.

Despite the best efforts of researchers. There had been no evidence to-date of a link between David's Durham family and the Yorkshire families. It has always been assumed that they had separate origins. This DNA study provide the first evidence of that link via the connection between Michael, David, Christopher, Tom & Richard. When placing holders of the surname, past and present, into regional groups and possible sources of origin, by far the two largest groups have been attributed to Durham and Yorkshire. It would now seem that they both originate with one original surname holder.

PETER, CHRIS & MICHAEL all have a paper trail which could take them back to a Thomas Blayston who d.1543 at Sth Dalton, ERY, ENG.. PETER & CHRIS both are thought to descend via Jacibus Blakeston bn abt 1637, Cordwainer/shoemaker of Beverley, to Thomas's son Thomas. Michael is thought to descend from Thomas's other son Christopher.

CHRIS is the Gt Gt Grandson of Joseph Blackstone surgeon of St Pancras, MDX. His roots are in Beverley. His family are well known as engineers from Stamford in Lincolnshire. Mention the Blackstone Engine to any steam engine enthusiast and their eyes glaze over. This is Chris's family. Baroness Tessa Vosper Blackstone is Chris's half-sister.

Joseph was a descendant of a Christopher Blackstone bn 1731, Beverley, & his wife Grace (nee Brook).

MICHAEL (my father's cousin) is the Gt Gt Gt Gt Grandson of Thomas Blackston bn abt 1774, who married an Ann Benson in 1791 at Rowley, ERY, England. There are two candidates for Thomas. They are cousins, both from families at Lockington/Kilnwick. Gt Gt Grandsons of Marmaduke Blakeston of Lockington. (These are villages adjacent to Beverley).

PETER's * family, I'm inclined to call the 'Blackiston Family'. In that they seemed to have fixed on this spelling variant in the late 1800's and all modern Blackistons seem to stem from this line. Amongst whose members have been surgeons, soldiers, sailors, butchers and wine merchants.

The earliest confirmed member of this family being Christopher Blakestone Surgeon of Rochester and Elizabeth Lydia (nee Bradley). This family are largely to be found in Sussex, Australia and New Zealand.

However, the above Christopher was apprenticed to a George Stovin in Hull. And his apprenticeship records indicate he was born in 1737 son of Christopher Blakestone of Beverley, ERY, ENG. He is thought to share descent with Christopher Blackstone, via common ancestors: Christopher Blakeston & Elizabeth Paraks m.1691 Beverley. DNA shows this is not the case. At some point in Peter's ancestry there is a weakness in the paper-trail. A non-paternity event e.g. the name has been taken via adoption. Possibly through an illegitimacy.

Possible Family Origins* recent results from FTDNA seem to link Peter's early origins with families whose origins are Scots/Irish. One such 'The Elliotts', a Border/Reivers family , have several members who are a 23/25 & 24/25 match with Peter. His 37 marker upgrade continues this Scots/Irish suggested. It hints that his early family originate in the border region. There is also the possibility of a Norse connection. His closest connection to-date is a 28/31 match with an Elliott. This is not clear enough to indicate that this link is within the time frame of surnames. If an Elliott (or some other surname) was to test who was a 35/37 match then I would suggest looking for Elliott families (or the other name) in the vicinity of his ancestors.

An issue is, we can't tell if Peter's DNA is the same as his earliest recorded ancestor ie the Christopher named above. The weakness in his paper trail could have taken place at any point. The only way to explore this would be through the process of Triangulation. It would be really useful for him, and the study, if other descendents of Christopher (bn 1737) came forwards for testing.

In the future, as the DNA databases increase, I hope we may be able to solve this conundrum for him. Of note, there is an interesting family legend. This maintains that the Blackistons descend from a female line. It is suggested that they descend from Mary Blakiston heiress of Coxhoe. Granddaughter of John Blakiston & Elizabeth (nee Bowes). She married before 1621 to William Kennett. I can find no documentary evidence for this. It would be interesting to see if in the future a Kennett descendent tests and matches Peter. That certainly would provide the evidence.

Peter's daughter informs me: it is no surprise that he is not connected to the earlier Blackistons. Although his father was born whilst his grandmother was married to a Blackiston; she left him for a Daniel Sweetzer. She then had a further 4 children. She speculates that Peter's father may also be Daniel's son. She hopes to persuade a Sweetzer cousin to take a DNA test to provide confirmation.

BOB and DAN both believe that they are descended from Daniel Blacksten born 1796 Farmington, Maine, USA. Their paper-trail indicates that he was their Gt.Gt. Grandfather. Their descent being from two of his sons. This kinship is borne out in that they are a 24:25 match. A genetic distance of one. According to FTDNA the probability that they share a common ancestor within the last

Bob & Dan have to determine Daniel bn 1796's parentage. There are two candidates. 1) William & Elizabeth, the most likely parents and 2) William & Lucrietta (nee Blunt). Both I believe had sons called Daniel at around the same time. This 2nd William is the grandson of William Blackstone and Abigail (nee Varney). Could it be that both William's are cousins? Clearly Bob and Dan connect to Capt William Blackstone. Bob's sister Judy speculates: "that (his) parents are John/Rebecca. John is the brother of William/Lucretia. John was drafted out of the town of Newcastle/Nobleboro (where the family lived before moving to New Sharon) to serve in the Revolutionary War. He ended up serving in the regular army (not militia) in New Jersey and married a woman from there. They returned to his family in Farmington/New Sharon about 1794. ...... I have John living with William/Lucretia on a tax roll and I have him owning land in Farmington, Maine".

Roy has a fairly solid paper trail showing descent from Capt William Blacksten Town Clerk of Pownal, Maine. And further back to his gt. grandparents William Blackstone & Abigail nee Varney. Roy's 25 marker results have proved enlightening and can enable Bob & Dan to break through a brick wall they have had in their research. In that there is now a confirmed link between the three of them. This is further backed up by Chuck & John's results. They & Roy are an exact match, they also match Bob exactly 25/25. All four match Dan 24/25. Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor

Benjamin Blackstone, Jr. had the following sons: Nathaniel Blackstone; Solomon Blackstone; William Blackstone; and Samuel Blackstone. All of these men were sea captains who eventually made the decision to leave the sea as they were losing so many of their descendants to the ocean. Roy Blackstone is a descendant of Captain William Blackstone who, after leaving the ocean, became the town clerk at Pownal, Maine.

Samuel Blackstone, Sr. had only one son, Samuel Blackstone, Jr. who survived to have male descendants. Those sons were: Alfred; Nathan; Charles; Joshua and Edward. Charles "Chuck" Blackstone, DNA Participant, is a descendant of Charles Blackstone. John Blackstone, is a descendant of Joshua Blackstone.

The results confirm that Bob, Dan, Roy, Chuck & John are all connected. Roy & Chuck being descended from different brothers, and being an exact match, can feel sure that their Y results are the same as Benjamin Jr. Results which also match Bob. This shows that Daniel Blacksten b. 1796 shared these markers in common with Benjamin Jr. In Dan's line a single mutation has occurred not present in Daniel b.1796.

Arnold & Paul C are also descended from William & Abigail but via a different route. Tracing their line to Ebenenezer son of William's grandson, William who was married to Lucretia Blount. Though they only tested on 12 markers* these are an exact match to others in this group. * I'm not usually happy to state with any degree of certainty that 12 markers are enough to be classed as a match. The latest thinking on this is that one needs 37 markers (67 for individuals who don't have the same surname). However, considering the papertrails, location etc this may be sufficient for these individuals. To be 100% sure they may wish to upgrade markers. A free way would be to take part in the Sorenson project: www.smgf.com .

* A goal now for this family would be to find a male (surname holder) descended from an earlier line. To encourage this individual to test and try to push the apex of the triangle further back (see triangulation). In particular it would be great to find a UK family who match.

ROY, CHUCK, JOHN & Arnold have a tentative tree back to the Rev William Blaxton. However, it is clear from the above DNA tests that their families early origins are not with either the Durham family or the Yorkshire group. If they are indeed descended from him than either his proposed link to the Durham family is erroneous or there exists a non-paternity event at some point in their lineage.

Bob told me a family story regarding three brothers who were shipbuilders. This could apply to any of the UK family groups. If we rule out Yorkshire & Durham as being their points of origin, then this leaves two other possible locations.

Firstly, a large family with a number of mariners based at Southwark, Surrey near London: with known links to the USA. I have written to descendents of this family but they have not returned my messages.

Secondly, the Blackstone's of Devon. This family is also known to have maritime links. The last known Blackstone's in the family moved to Liverpool in the 1900's. No other confirmed Blackstone descendents are known. Though the Blackstone's of Kent may have their origin in this region. Their earliest member in the 1851 Census lists his origins as the West of England.

In the UK the name Blackstone often gets interchanged with that of Braxton or Brackstone. I have known for some time that there have been 4 individuals who have tested on Y Search, all who match and all descended from Oliver Braxton bn 1798 in S Carolina. These 4 all matched the Maine family of Blackstone's on 11 out of 12 markers. There is now an individual listed with the Sorenson Project who is descended from this family. On Sorenson he only has 32 markers back but we can add to that one from Y Search making his total back 33. A problem I have is being able to compare marker to marker. But as Bob also took part in the Sorenson project we can compare these two individuals 33:33 and they are in fact a 31:33 match. Therefore at a GD of 2. This very much suggests to me a connection. My my estimation there is a 50% probability of Bob and this family being connected within 13 generations. This lead could be very important to both families in their move to find earlier generations.

NB: we now have further evidence of a potential Braxton link to Lowell & Robert Braxton. And also a possible connection to Michael Dean Blackston. These figures are somewhat confused by the fact that I'm trying to compare markers across different companies and also am limited by the fact that the participants haven't tested on enough markers. I one strongly recommend that they give serious consideration to upgrading the numbers of markers they have tested on.

Finally, it may be worth them looking to Lincolnshire for their early forbears. Of note, the spelling Blacksten is common in this family. Today there are Blacktens, Blacktins & Blacktons to be found around Derby, Belper, Ecclesall Bierlow in the UK. These locations are not far from either Lincolnshire, the town of Blaxton near Doncaster or Blackstone Hall Nottinghamshire.

Joseph can trace his roots back to James Blackston bn 1796 in South Carolina. He is believed to be a descendent of Argyle Blackstone of York County, Virginia (c1630-1688). DNA shows a distant connection to Robert whose family trace to Benjamin Joseph Blackstone bn 1874 Missouri. At first glance they would appear to be at a GD of 6 out of 37 markers. Closer inspection shows that Robert has a rare mutation known as a ReLOH. this appears in itself to be 3 steps out but in fact it only classes as one. Thus they are a 33:37 match (GD = 4). It would be worth them considering upgrading markers to 67 to rule out any ambiguity. It does look though that they share a common ancestor. A 50% probability within 12 generations, 95% within 24.

Their DNA shows no connection with any of the other participants. It does not link them with the Durham or Yorkshire group. If they have an an unbroken line to Argyle 1630 then neither does his. I do wonder if this unusual christian name hints to an origin in Argyleshire. If so the name Blackstone occurs infrequently in Scotland. Could this be a corruption of a similar surname? Could Argyle (bn 1630) have been an illegitimate child of Elizabeth Blackston who settled in New England in 1638? Future DNA results will hopefully give clearer indications.

Of interest Joseph is at a GD of 3 out of 37 markers to two individuals by the surname of Pitt. Both who herald from Virginia. A GD of 3 could certainly show a connection within the right time frame.

Joseph & Robert can now add Lewis Napoleon Blackstone to their group. The three of them are clearly connected.

JIM's Gt. Gt. Gt. Gt. Grandfather was thought to be Zephaniah Blackstone Sr. bn abt. 1803 Richmond County, GA, USA a descendent of Argyle Blackstone of York County, Virginia (c1630-1688). DNA does not corroborate this. Lewis Napoleon & Jim have a shared paper trail but they do not have a DNA connection. Thus it would appear that in Jim's line their has been a non-paternity event. By testing other male Blackstone descendents we believe we have narrowed this in time and pin pointed at what point this took place in his lineage.

A search of the DNA databases at www.ybase.org/ & www.ysearch.org/ reveals an interesting connection with two individuals by the name of Nesbitt. One a 33/37 match descended from a Robert Nesbitt bn 1813 in either Ireland or New Jersey. The other a 32/37 match, descended from a Phillip Nesbitt 1444-1523 Edrom, Scotland. www.nesbittnisbet.org.uk These two are clearly connected in that they share a common name and match genetically (ie 34/37 match with each other). It may also be the case that they share descent with Jim. A third 'Nesbitt', individual is listed with FTDNA. This individual is an even closer match to Jim: a 34:37 match, genetic distance of three. It should be said that this is still quite a distant match. However, FTDNA indicate the TMRCA of a genetic distance of three as:

* FTDNA figures arguably are too generous and need multiplying by 1¹/₂ to 2 times.

* Since I first proposed a possible Nesbitt connection with Jim's family a further connection has been found with an individual by the name 'NASBITT'. In this instance an exact match at 37/37 markers. I feel vindicated at this in proposing that Jim is indeed descended from this family . A 37/37 match FTDNA state is a 100% probability of a connection within 24 generations. I think it would be worth Jim increasing the numbers of markers and trying to persuade the Nesbitt/Nasbitt families to do the same. In doing so they could remove any ambiguity and narrow down time frames.

This is Donna Watson's family and is Afro-Caribbean in origin. Here is what Donna informs me about her family: I know that my ancestors Thomas & Hannah Blackson were owned respectively by a Steward and Lewis both of Delaware. Their last name was Blackson and it is also listed as Blackston. In addition, one of my ancestors, Lorenzo Dow Blackson wrote and published a book in 1867 titled "The Rise and Progress of the Kingdoms of Light and Darkness." If you're interested you can locate the book on line at the Wright American Fiction Literary Collection at Indiana U. In his "Sketch of the author" he mentions his father's mother who was named Susan. Her father was an African prince named Palice Abrutus Darram.

Understanding the concepts involved in the DNA study have been quite a learning experience for me. Many of them are quite complex and can be daunting. I'm aware that this can put people off and that not everyone wants such details. There are a number of rudimentary concepts that are necessary to one's understanding of the study and I believe will enhance not only one's understanding but pleasure in the study. The following links are my attempt to put these concepts in an easy to understand format. In each are links to more complex explanations for the more brave hearted.

Marker Matches	4 Generations	8 Generations	12 Generations	16 Generations	20 Generations	24 Generations
Marker Matches	(100 Years)	(200 Years)	(300 Years)	(400 Years)	(500 Years)	(600 Years)

34 of 37	10.3 - 13.5%	42.9 - 50.5%	72.2 - 79.1%	88.6 - 92.7%	95.8 - 97.8%	98.5 - 99.4%
33 of 37	3.3 - 4.1%	24.0 - 28.0%	53.6 - 59.2%	76.6 - 81.2%	89.7 - 92.6%	95.9 - 97.4%
32 of 37	0.9 - 1.2%	11.4 - 14.0%	35.2 - 40.5%	60.8 - 66.7%	79.7 - 84.2%	90.6 - 93.4%