You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Rev. Nathan DAVIS’ tag.

TombStoneWilliamGreenbriarBilly1758-1845
“William Davis Pvt NJ Militia Rev War Mar 21 1758 Jan 6 1845”
Courtesy findagrave.com.
Known as “Greenbrier Billy.”

Hello Davis descendants, researchers and interested followers,

We’ve got two new matches at the 67-marker level to consider and just got notice that we have another new match at the 37- marker level who we will look at in the next post, when we get all the details.

For now, we have two new matches to think about and they are both in the same neighborhood on the Brisley side of the Davis family tree. The “Brisley side” means that both testers descend from William1 Davis and his first wife, Elizabeth Brisley, via their first son, John2.

William had 4 more sons via second wife, Elizabeth Pavior, who are on the “Pavior side” of the family tree, but we have tested descendants of only 1 of those 4 sons, James2.

The ancestor in common for both new matches is Thomas “William”3 Davis, son of John2, who was born in 1719 in Rhode Island and migrated to Shrewsbury, New Jersey. He migrated again with his adult children and other Seventh Baptist families in 1789, only to die in White Day Creek, Monongalia County, Virginia, in 1791, having not yet reached Salem, (West) Virginia.

Two of Thomas William3’s 3 sons: William “Greenbrier Billy”4 and Rev. Nathan4, head up the separate lines of our two new matches.

About our first match- the green line on the chart

At the last post, we had just received news of a new match, at the 67-marker level. He is kit #219 (kit numbers are shortened to the first three numbers) and is a descendant of William “Greenbrier Billy”4 Davis.

This match’s grandfather was Deuron Clifford8 Davis and Deuron’s father was Sylvanis7 Davis, both coal miners from Coal township, Harrison County, WV.

Sylvanis Davis Civil War 001Sylvanis Davis, 1846 WV- 1929 Clarksburg, WV
Courtesy Sharon Sprouse Bramhall

If we follow Deuron’s line up, we find Sylvanis7 was the son of Absalom6 Davis who was, in 1850, a farmer living in Doddridge County, West Virginia. His wife, Polina S.W.5, was also a Davis, a descendant of William “Bottom Billy”3 Davis. They had 14 children and adopted a fifteenth.

absalomdavisBirthsAbsalom Davis Bible, Births, Courtesy Sharon Sprouse Bramhall

Absalom’s father was Rev. Peter5 Davis, a Seventh Day Baptist minister in New Salem, Harrison Co., WV and Rev. Peter’s father was William “Greenbrier Billy”4.

(See Ancestor Photos page for images of birth, death and marriage pages from Absalom’s and Sylvanis’ Bibles.)

Rev2PeterDavis1783-1873“Rev. Peter Davis, Died Mch. 4 1873, Aged 89 Ys, 5Ms 16Ds”
Courtesy findagrave.com

Susie Nicholson says: “Peter Davis was about six years old when his parents [Greenbrier Billy4 Davis and Elizabeth Johnston] joined in the 1789 migration with the Seventh Day Baptist group from Shrewsbury, New Jersey to Western Virginia… He outlived both wives [Sarah Davis and Sarah Fitz-Randolph] and was cared for by his daughter, Jemima, wife of Rev. Jacob Davis.” -excerpted from Davis, The Settlers of Salem, West Virginia, by Susie Davis Nicholson, 1979, pg 32.

About our second match- the aqua line on the chart

DavisStephenC.Tombstone“Stephen C. Davis,
Born Sept. 30, 1781, Died Aug 16, 1869, Aged 87 Ys 10 Mos. 16 Ds”
Son of Rev. Nathan Sr. Davis
Courtesy findagrave.com

Our second new match, also matching on the 67-marker test, is kit #320. He is a descendant of Rev. Nathan4 Davis, Greenbrier Billy4’s older brother. Our second match’s grandfather was Howard Lee9 Davis, born in Clarksburg, Harrison County, West Virginia.

HowardLeeDavis1910-1971Howard Lee Davis, abt 1918

Track this line back, all in West Virginia (“Virginia,” before 1863), and you find Howard’s father was Mingo H. 8. Mingo’s wife was Jean7, also a Davis, grand-daughter of William “Buckeye Billy”5 Davis, who was the grandson of William “Bottom Billy”3 Davis.

It’s easy to wonder where the name “Mingo” came from since it is such an unusual name, especially in 1871 when Mingo H. was born. With no stories handed down in the Davis family about its origin, a bit of research finds that there is a county in West Virginia named “Mingo” but it was formed in 1895. Mingo H. Davis was already 24 years old in 1895.

MingoFlatsHistoricalMarker

The other mention of the name Mingo is that of an unincorporated area in West Virginia called “Mingo,” or “Mingo Flats,” which was named after the historic Iroquoian Mingo people who migrated west to Ohio around 1750. Mingo Flats had apparently been the site of one of their villages. The migrants were called “Mingos,” a corruption of “mingwe,” originally meaning “chief” or “greatest,” later meaning “colonial,” referring to their Iroquoian outpost in WV.

Descendants of the settlers of Mingo Flats had stories handed down from their ancestors about the ancient Mingo village and, in 1920, wanted to honor its existence by erecting a statue.

MingoIndianStatue,Mingo,WVBeing that Mingo Flats was not very far from Clarksburg, Harrison County, might it be that those same stories, much more vibrant in 1871, were the inspiration for the name “Mingo H.?”

Going further up the line, we find Mingo’s father was Mark7. During the Civil War, Mark Davis was in the Confederate Cavalry while his brothers served in the West Virginia Militia and Union Army.  And after the war, they went back to being neighbors. Mark’s father was David D.6. On the 1850 Doddridge County, Virginia census, David D. Davis’ occupation is listed as “Toll Gate No. 10.”

David D. and Absalom, ancestors of these two lines, were 2nd cousins, born within 5 years of each other and both lived in Doddridge County, VA in 1850. They probably knew each other well.

David’s wife was Anna5 Davis, also a descendant of William “Bottom Billy”3 Davis, leading us to Stephen C.5 .

Stephen C.5 is the ancestor in common for lines #2 and #3. He was the son of Rev. Nathan4, Greenbrier Billy4’s older brother.

That’s a lot of Davis ancestry in one line!

Follow the lines on a chart

On the chart below, the new tests are lines 2 (aqua) and 5 (green), highlighted with red shadow.

Testers on this chart have been placed in sequence of oldest to youngest, left to right. At each generation, the oldest son and his descendants are listed first, on the far left of tree, and the youngest son and his descendants are listed last, on the far right of tree. This places testers descending from the same ancestor in common next to each other.

Who do you think will match?

1. We would expect new tester #320, line 2, to match closely to previous tester #275, line 3 (aqua lines) because they descend from brothers at gen 6 (Brothers are David D.6 and Nathan G.6.)

2. We would also expect new tester #278, line 5, to match closely to previous tester #219, line 6 (green lines) because they descend from brothers at gen5 (Brothers are Rev. Peter5 and George Johnston5).

Lineage chart of 2 new matches  (shadowed red)

[Chart being updated]

(Click 2x to enlarge, back button to return)

 Comparison of results
and some questions to ask

Now that we have the lines, let’s compare the DYS values, possibly answering some questions:

1. How close will the lines match?

2. Are there any markers or combination of markers that distinguish any lines from each other?

3. Do the markers display the relationships that we already know?

That is, if you didn’t know who the new matches descended from, could you predict their probable lines from their DYS results?

DYS Marker Comparison

As we gain more testers, our test comparisons get more complex, so this bit of analysis may take some patience.  (Not the usual webpage sound bites here).

A chart is the best way to compare markers but it’s hard to see patterns in a large chart with 67 markers. So, to simplify the results, the following is a smaller chart of our group’s 12 changing markers only.

  • The marker results that all testers had in common were omitted, duplicate tests were omitted, less than 67-marker tests were omitted and non-Davis tests with many mismatches were omitted.
  • The testers were sorted by line and color-coded by ancestor in common (matching colors of the lineage chart). Marker results were colored by type: anomaly results (only one or two testers show that marker result) were colored yellow, unusual results colored green, variations in marker values colored shades of blue and identical marker values colored pink.
  • The order of DYS columns was changed to line up same-value markers together. Fast-changing DYS names are in red text.

[Chart being updated]
(Click 2x to enlarge, back button to return)

  • Rev. Nathan4’s  four lines, are the first four rows. (The first two rows, colored blue and light blue, are lines 1 and 4, both previous testers.)
  • The 3rd and 4th rows, colored aqua and light aqua, are line 2 (with new tester #320) and line 3.
  • The 5th and 6th rows, colored green and light green, are Wm Greenbrier Billy4’s two lines, line 5 (with new tester #278) and line 6.
  • The other rows, purples, pinks and golds, are other previous testers‘ lines.

Move back and forth between the lineage chart of new lines and this DYS marker chart to get a feel for how the markers reflect the lines that they represent.

Analysis of Results

analysis

So what do we find?

1. How close do the new lines match?

New tester, kit #320 on line 2 (aqua), does match kit #275, on line 3, but with 2  steps off, a bit more genetic distance than expected.

In 6 generations, there were 2 mutations.

New tester, kit #278 on line 5 (green), does match kit #219, on line 6, with 1 step off, as expected.

In  6 generations, there was 1 mutation.

2.  Can the lines be distinguished by their DYS results?

  • Yes. On new line 2, (kit #320, aqua), DYS 481=22 appears to be an anomaly. No other tester shows this result. This temporarily does distinguish line 2, kit #320 (until it shows up later in another line). All other testers show DYS 481=23.
  • And no. On new line 5, (kit #278, green), shows a combination of  three values: DYS 391=11, CDY=34-34 and 576=21.
    But that same combination, 11, 34-34 and 21, shows up in an exact match from another previous tester, kit #151, on the Archie E. Davis line, (first dark purple row on the DYS comparison chart), proving that the 3 DYS combo does not distinguish line #5 (kit #278) from the other lines.

3. Do the markers predict known relationships?

No. If you didn’t know where to place kit #278, you might look for an ancestor of that previous tester, kit #151, on the Archie E. line, because #151 is an exact match to kit #278.

This exact match implies that #151 would be closer to #278 on the paper tree than #219 would be, since #219 is one step off.

But we know that, on the paper tree, kit#219’s line is closer to kit #278’s line and we see kit#151, Archie E.’s line, would be a very wrong direction to research because kit #151’s line descends from David Rogers Jr.4, an entirely different line of the tree than the William Greenbrier Billy4 line from which kit #278 actually descends. (See kits # 278, 219 and 151 on the Proven Lines, Brisley Branch chart below.)

So the exact match would give researchers a bum steer.

All Davis descendants on the Davis family tree are related, so we could phrase this odd observation as:

Fifth cousins, kit#278 (line 5) and kit #219 (line 6), who are close to each other on the paper tree, match one step off;

but sixth cousins, kit #278 (line 5) and kit #151 (Archie E.7 line), who are farther away from each other on the paper tree, match exactly.

Hmm.

4. As to placing kit#320 (line 2, the aqua line, on the lineage chart), if you looked at just the first two changing markers, DYS 391=11, CDY=35-35 (the “almost anomaly”),  you might look (correctly) to kit #275, on line 3 (light aqua line) because kit #275 also has the same first two markers. If so, you’d have kit #320 placed pretty close to where he belonged.

But, because kit #275’s 3rd and 4th changing markers are each one step off from kit#320, you might continue to look elsewhere.

You might have chanced to see that previous tester, kit #152, on the William6, b 1810, NY line, also matches with 391=11, CDY=35-35 ,with an additional third marker match at 576=21 (See Proven Lines, Brisley Branch, chart).

Those first 3 matching markers might have sent you off searching for ancestors on kit #152’s line. That choice would take you off in a very wrong direction because kit#152, descends from Thomas William4, along an entirely different line than kit#320’s actual line from Rev. Nathan4.

So, do the markers display the relationships we already know?

With this particular grouping of results for kit #320, the answer is: not really. The results partially point to a correct line but point more so to an incorrect line.

What’s a genetic genealogist to do?

ladybugCROPPEDObservations and conclusions

1. The 2 new lines show only 4 changing markers while there are 12 possible changing markers amongst all testers to date. With such a small pool of changing markers, we might need many more tests before we can make predictive sense of the marker values.

2. In general, an anomaly should be a good designator of a unique line. But when an anomaly starts showing up in more than 1 (or 2?) tests, it ceases to be an anomaly and becomes just another marker variation.

3. Is it a significant observation that, besides #278, we have two other kits, #141 and #204, both with unknown links to the William Davis tree, who are also exact matches to #151, the Archie E. line?

Kit #141’s oldest ancestor is Benjamin West Davis, born 1786 Chautauqua County, New York and kit #204’s oldest ancestor is William Burnett, born 1771 Sussex County, New Jersey. Kit #151, Archie E.’s line, originates in Rhode Island, then moves to Lincklaen, NY and then to Wisconsin. They don’t seem to have places of origin in common.

Might kit #151, the Archie E. line, possibly be our patriarch, William Davis’, original DNA signature and that’s why we have four exact matches to it?

4. Observations as to matching: a close relative on paper may show more genetic distance than a further relative on paper.

5. An exact or close match, by itself, does not necessarily designate the line from which an unknown tester descends.

For those who don’t know where to place themselves on the Davis family tree, these last two observations can be daunting.

As a result, it makes sense to get as much information as possible from many tests before spending inordinate time researching lines that might be leading in the wrong direction. There are a lot of ancestors, along a lot of lines, in the 10 generations leading back to William1.

Flanders_Family_Tree(Click 2x to enlarge, back button to return)

Directions for future testing?

We may have to begin to look to the 111-marker tests to see if they show any further ability to distinguish results.

We may have to compare results in more than one way: perhaps comparing fast-changing markers and slow-changing markers separately and then combining the comparisons.

Tests on more lines might tell us if discord between the results and the paper family tree is the norm or the exception. Are all the Davis genes highly active or just some lines?

And we may have to just continue mapping the Davis family tree, trying to test one descendant of each major line. We may yet find a pattern emerges if we continue to study marker changes on lines whose relationships we already know.

More cousins

Whether or not we know where we fit on the tree, each test introduces us to yet another Davis cousin, another descendant of our original immigrant ancestor. We may feel like just virtual friends, but DNA doesn’t lie. We are all connected as family, even if it is a very large family.

We currently have 25 members in the WDD Project (26 with latest match) who live all across the U.S. and we have many interested potential Davis cousins planning to test.  One day in the future, we might take on the task of figuring out just how many Davis descendants William Davis has produced altogether in this clan. Of course, we might need a statistician to help.

Thanks to all of you who have queried this website and who have been so gracious to share your family information. And thanks to the contributions of Tim Davis who finds and helps fund testers for the FTdna Davis Surname Project.

If you have any questions, additional perspectives or corrections, please add them in the comment section or email me. And if you have any other Davis family information, please let me know and I will add yours to our growing collection.

Don’t forget to check the Ancestor Photos page for more Davis historical photos related to these two lines.

Until the next post, or next cousin, whichever comes first.

Best wishes,

-Jan Davis Markle, Director
William Davis DNA Project (williamdavisdna.org)
jrmarkle at g mail dot com

Proven lines, Brisley Branch, April 2014
(Click 2x to enlarge, back button to return)

 Proven lines, Pavior branch, April 2014
(Click 2x to enlarge, back button to return)

Advertisements

LynchFurnitureCompany1905CanandaiguaNYLynch Furniture Company, Canandaigua, New York, abt 1905
-Courtesy lynchfurnitureny. com
Canandaigua, NY is hometown to one of our matches below.

Since the last post, the K87577 Davis Surname Project subgroup has had 5 new matches, and 6 non-matches, bringing our total Davis matches to 20 since the first I2a1b DAVIS test result was posted in fall of 2007 (thanks to my brother, “K87577,” who agreed to participate).

NEW MATCHES

We have five new matches to learn about, compare and analyze. The analysis will come in a later post. Thanks to all those who have researched, funded and participated in these tests. The matches are:

1. son of Hayward F.9 DAVIS 1926-2000, Salem, WV (Nathan Gifford6 DAVIS line)

2. son of Sammie Charles9 DAVIS, 1932-1981, WV, ARK, TX (George Johnston5 DAVIS line)

3. son of Gerald R.9 DAVIS, 1920-2004, Troupsburg, NY (Isaiah Satterly4, b 1814, DAVIS line)

4. son of Harry Edward10 BURNETT, 1930-2007, Sussex County, NJ to Brookfield, OH (William Harrington BURNETT line)

5. son of Charles Edward MURRAY, 1924-2001, Canandaigua, NY (Joseph Edward MURRAY line)

See the updated Proven Lines Page for all 20 matches and recent non-matches.

Three of our new matches were Davis men who were expected to be matches.

FIRST MATCH

HaywardFerrillDavisSr.Hayward Ferrill DAVIS, 1926-2000, son of Gifford Nathan8 DAVIS, abt 1945
-courtesy DAVISDANIELS Family Tree

Our first expected match, is the son of Hayward Ferrill9 DAVIS, and grandson of Gifford Nathan 8 DAVIS, 1873-1929, WV (Nathan Gifford6 line). “Gifford” is a name that runs in the WV Davis lines and it refers to the wife of Rev. Nathan4 DAVIS , Anna GIFFORD, who was born in Shrewsbury, NJ. Rev. Nathan and Ann Davis were married in 1761 in New Jersey, raised their children in N.J. and migrated with some of their adult children to Salem, WV by 1795.

The current match’s line descends from Rev. Nathan4 DAVIS to his grandson, Nathan Gifford6 DAVIS, b.1814 WV, and then to his grandson, Gifford Nathan8 DAVIS, b. 1873 WV.  Gifford Nathan8 DAVIS’ grandson is our current tester. That’s 3 grandfathers back, as in, “my grandfather’s grandfather’s grandfather.”

Gifford Nathan DAVIS had an unusual life. He was born in Doddridge County, WV and later lived in Ten Mile, Harrison County, WV.  His first wife died when she was 20 years old. He had 2 children with his second wife in 1904 and 1905. In 1925, at the age of 52, he married a third wife who was 33 years old and had 2 more children in 1926 and 1928. He died in 1929, at age 56, and his third child of that marriage was born shortly after he died.

GiffordDavisDeathCert1929June22Death certificate Gifford Nathan DAVIS, 1873-1929. Note the names of the attending physician and the undertaking company (see lower right corner; click twice to enlarge).                                  -courtesy DAVISDANIELS Family Tree

Rev. Nathan4 DAVIS is the ancestor in common for this match and for two of our previous matches. The current match descends from Rev. Nathan’s son, Stephen C.5 . The other two matches descend from Rev. Nathan’s son, William Gifford5  “Jersey Billy,” and from Rev. Nathan’s son, Annanias5.

SECOND MATCH

18DoddridgeTyler3
Historical Marker, Doddridge County, West Virginia

The second expected match proves the line of the son of Sammie Charles9 DAVIS, born in 1932, Lockesburg, Arkansas, who was the son of Franklin Harvey8 DAVIS. Franklin Harvey was from Union, Doddridge County, WV, and descends from George Johnston5 DAVIS and William “Greenbrier Billy”4 DAVIS.

This line of the DAVIS family migrated over the years from NJ to Doddridge County, WV, to Arkansas, to Texas and to New Mexico. Our tester says that his grandmother Rosie was a Pentecostal Holiness preacher and was 26 years younger than his grandfather, Harvey DAVIS when they had their 2 daughters and their son. Before Rosie, Harvey had 4 sons and 3 daughters with his first wife, Ellen.

Third Match

woodhullMain Street, Woodhull, N Y   -courtesy Steuben Co., NY GenWeb site

The third expected match proves the line of Gerald Robert9 DAVIS, 1920-2004 Woodhull, NY, descendant of Isaiah Satterly6 DAVIS, born 1814.

Isaiah Satterly DAVIS was one of the four sons of Rev. David Rogers Jr.5. DAVIS. We had already tested a descendant of another of those four sons, Jesse L.6 DAVIS, resulting in the matching Russell DeForest9 line.

Isaiah Satterly’s son, Richard, was born in Troupsburg, Steuben County, NY, as were Richard’s six sons and his grandson, Gerald Robert DAVIS. Gerald Robert DAVIS died in Woodhull, NY, 13 miles from Troupsburg.

Troupsburg, NY is on the border of NY and PA, and was named after Colonel Robert Troup, Esq, a land agent for the Pulteney Estate, a large tract of land stretching from Sodus Bay on Lake Ontario, south to the Pennsylvania border.

NON-DAVIS  SURNAME MATCHES

Two of our matches carried surnames other than Davis. These non-Davis matches were complete surprises and makes one wonder just how pervasive the Davis clan is.

First non-DAVIS match

webster_houseMainStCanandaiguaOntarioCOHistMuseumMain St., Canandaigua, New York
-Ontario County Historical Museum

The first non-Davis match carries the surname MURRAY. The line of his father Charles Edward MURRAY, 1924-2004, leads back to Canandaigua, Ontario County, New York (28 miles south of Rochester, NY) and before that, his Scottish family, Patrick MURRAY, a shoemaker, and his wife and son, immigrated from Scotland to Canada in 1880 and then down to Rochester, NY in 1886. Our Murray tester and his sister are studying their complex Murray family tree to see where their clan might overlap the known Davis family tree, in recent times or in distant Scottish days.

Second non-DAVIS match

BurnettPeterH1812-1888BethshebaAxtell
Peter H. BURNETT (son of William Harrington BURNET) and wife, Bethsheba AXTELL  -Photo courtesy of Burnett Baum Family Tree

 The second non-Davis surname is BURNETT. Harry Edward BURNETT, 1930-2007, the father of our BURNETT tester and his two researcher sisters, came from Brookfield, Trumbull County, Ohio and before that his ancestors came from Sussex County, New Jersey.

William BURNET, the oldest male ancestor on their line, was born in 1771 in NJ and was believed to be a HARRINGTON  who was adopted by the family of Grace BURNET, William’s mother.

The William Davis clan had left Rhode Island and lived in Shrewsbury, NJ from 1745 to 1787, so the Davises and the Burnets were in the same vicinity around the time William Harrington Burnet was born. It is not inconceivable that he might have been a DAVIS from those earliest years but such a theory is only proven by testing more men in each generation on his line.

William Burnet migrated with his wife and children and 2 uncles from NJ to Ohio in 1801. They were the quintessential settlers, clearing the land with hand tools and building a log cabin from the cleared trees. William had two wives and 11 children. One of William’s sons, born shortly after their arrival in Ohio, was the first male child born in Hubbard township.

The History of Trumbull & Mahoning Counties, Ohio said that William was 91 when he died in 1863 and there were “now living in 1882, as his descendants–4 sons, 2 daughters, 56 grandchildren and 79 great-grandchildren and sixty-two great-great-grandchildren, a total of three hundred and three persons.” That was 1882. How many descendants might there be now?

It is interesting that the Burnett tester is an exact match to two other previous Davis matches: first a match to the Benjamin West DAVIS line, who came from Caneandea, Allegany, New York, and second a match to the Henry Raymond DAVIS line who migrated from Lincklaen, NY to Breed, Wisconsin and later, Washington State. The significance of these three lines matching exactly is yet to be determined as their records do not overlap in any discernible way.

NotEqualSign

Non-matches

1. Leon Horace DAVIS 1920-1969 (Nathaniel and Benjamin DAVIS line, Warwick, Orange Co., NY, ):R1b1a2.
This result disproves the connection, claimed by some online, between William DAVIS b 1663 and Nathaniel DAVIS or his brother, Benjamin DAVIS, b 1757, of Warwick, Orange County, NY.

Those claiming to be descended from William b 1663 via Benjamin Davis of Orange County, NY will have to consider that William Davis most probably isn’t an ancestor of Benjamin since descendants of William show I2a1b haplogroup and Benjamin’s brother, Nathaniel, shows a different haplogroup, R1b1a2. This infers that William and Nathaniel (and brother Benjamin) descend from different ancestors.  Definitive proof of this theory would require more testing of other generations of Nathaniel and Benjamin Davis’ line.

2. Billy Joseph DAVIS, 1933-2006 (William DAVIS line, NC):R1a1a

More non-matches (special thanks to Tim Davis for research and funding):

3. James Arlo DAVIS 1923-1994 (Seth DAVIS 1796-1864, s/o David DAVIS and Betsey Hammond of Long Island, NY of the Foulke DAVIS line): R1b1a2
This result disproves the claim that Seth DAVIS was a descendant of William DAVIS, b 1663, and instead connects Seth to Foulke DAVIS of Long Island, NY.

4. Elgan Allen DAVIS  (John O. DAVIS line, Wales) : haplogroup G

5. Earl DAVIS, 1912-2007 (Charles E. DAVIS line, Monmouth, NJ ):haplogroup I

6. Alburn Wesley DAVIS (Ebenezer DAVIS b 1741 line): R1b1a2

See the Proven Lines page for the complete lines of matches and non-matches.

The Odds of Testing

ColoredDice

Check back or subscribe to feed (top of page, on left)  for news on the latest tests from our unique cluster of Davis family members. I say unique because on the DAVIS Surname project, the other haplogroups (like R1b1a2) outnumber us (I2a) 15:1. So I2a DAVIS men are a less common haplogroup amongst the sea of R1b1a2 DAVIS men.

This is unfortunate because if you test a random DAVIS man, without some written records indicating a relation, the odds might be 15 to one he is not a match to you.

But this is fortunate because, if you do find a man who carries the DAVIS name and who tests I2a at 12 markers, you can be confidant that they are in the DAVIS clan. So far, that is. With many more tests, that may not prove to remain so, but for now it has.  With other surnames, a match at 12 markers often no longer matches when the 25-67 markers are tested.

If you or members of your family carry the DAVIS name and you wonder if you are a descendant of  William DAVIS b 1663, Wales, write a comment, or email me, with your line from father or grandfather to your oldest known ancestor, preferably with their birth and death dates and places, and I’ll see if I can find out more about your family and how you might be connected.

-Jan Davis Markle
jrmarkle at gmail dot com