Monday, August 31, 2015

Longhunter Roots and DNA




Update July 2016- we have had many more Wallen matches with the descendants of Doswell Rogers along this segment ( and on one other) since I wrote this blog. Also, we have confirmed DNA with one of Susie's sons with James Wallen (first cousin of Joseph.)

My mother is a linear descendant of Joseph Rogers and his wife Susannah via their son named Henry. Ydna has not only proven that Joseph Rogers was a son of Dauswell (Doswell) Rogers and his wife, but that Dauswell Rogers was a descendant of Adduston Rogers. While YDNA alone cannot prove definitively that Dauswell Rogers is the son of Adduston Rogers and his wife Catherine Dauswell, I am comfortable at this point in saying that these are his most likely parents, primarily because his name is the surname of Adduston's wife.

If in fact though Adduston Rogers and Catherine Dauswell are the parents of Dauswell Rogers, then the DNA matches on my mother's 11 the chromosome in the table below have to at least partly come from Dauswell's wife (unknown name but possibly Ann who signs release of dower in 1795.) I can say this because one of the matches in this section (over half of the 11th chromosome) matches in part to a descendant of Dauswell Rogers who does not descend from Joseph Rogers but his brother William. The table below lists some of the identified and larger segmental matches my mother has on the 11th chromosome.



Match
CH
Start
Stop
cM total
SNP
Ancestor
JM me
11
0
134
158
28796
My mom
MP
11
23
111
74.2
16167
adopted
JKP
11
23
70
36.8
7697
WM
11
22
75
42.1
4306
CLR
11
27
51
20.1
4103
Blevins[iii]
DC
11
34
110
63.3

Wallens[iv]
RFW
11
35
70
23.0
2491
Wallen[v]
KRM
11
37
106
52.5
5954
Wallen[vi]
AB
11
78
108
27.9
6759
Rogers[vii]
JB
11
78
117
37.5
4223
Rogers[viii]
NP
11
80
111
27.3
6683
Rogers[ix]
LJR
11
80
120
41.4
8934
Rogers[x]
PP
11
80
113
29.1
7052
Rogers[xi]
LR
11
97
120
5
1462
Wallen[xii]
PM
11
80
115
30.8
6691
Wallen[xiii]





[i] No information
[ii] No information
[iii]  David M. Blevins born 1776
[iv] Margaret Wallens born 1836        
[v] No information on lineage, surname is Wallen
[vi] Elisha Wallen and Mary Blevins

[vii] William Rogers and Hurd, son of Dauswell Rogers and wife (Ann?)

[viii] Louisa Rogers, dtr of Joseph Rogers and Susannah, granddaughter of Dauswell Rogers and wife

[ix] Henry Rogers, son of Joseph Rogers and Susannah, grandson of Dauswell Rogers and wife

[x] Henry Rogers, son of Joseph Rogers and Susannah, grandson of Dauswell Rogers and wife

[xi] Henry Rogers, son of Joseph Rogers and Susannah, grandson of Dauswell Rogers and wife
[xii] Elisha Wallen and Mary Blevins

[xiii] Elisha Wallen and Mary Blevins

It is important to note that 3 of the above matches, sharing 5-52 cM in common have trees all descending from Elisha Wallen and his wife Mary Blevins, and that none of these three matches have another surname in common. The fourth Wallen match I have been unable to trace further back than Margaret Wallen born 1836. Three of the matches are large enough matches to be included here, but I have insufficient information to determine how they are connected. None of the Rogers matches listed match the matches at the beginning of this segment, but all match the crossover KRM who is a known Wallen and Blevins descendant who in turn matches the descendant of David M. Blevins born 1776 who resided in the same county in 1810 that the Wallen and Rogers lived in. Genealogy on the Blevins family does give him a father, but given the information I can find, and my lack of knowledge of the Blevins line in general, I am not comfortable stating how David M. Blevins relates to Mary Blevins the wife of Elisha Wallen.

What is clear then is that the majority of this 74 cM segment (63.3 cM) has a definitive connection to the Wallen/Blevins family line, and over half of it is definitively shared between descendants of Joseph Rogers and his wife Susannah, with almost all of that (27.9 of 37 cM) matching a descendant of one of Joseph Rogers brothers, William Rogers.

So what does this mean? The only logical conclusion would appear to be that the descendants of Dauswell Rogers (5 in total including my Mom) are directly related to the descendants of Elisha Wallen and Mary Blevins. If we rule Dauswell out as the source because there is no direct tie between his presumed parents and the Blevins or Wallen family, that leaves only his wife as the source of this connection. That would mean that the mother of Joseph and William Rogers had to be a Blevins if she was not a daughter of Elisha Wallen and his wife Mary Blevins since we have the one lone Blevins alone match in the mix.

Granted we don't know enough about David M. Blevins to say his mother was not a Wallens either, but in some way shape or form, Dauswell Rogers, who is of an age to be the son of Elisha Wallen and his wife Mary Blevins, is married to a daughter, niece or other close female relative of one if not both of these individuals.

What I can't explain is why this particular segment has stuck around intact for so many generations. Dauswell Rogers is my mother's 5th great grandfather, yes that is right, and so this dna segment has to come from a 6th generation or later MCA pair. Granted my mother's large segment could be a fluke, but the others almost as large are about equally as distant from the Wallen family. So in fact when I looked at the total cM as a guideline for when and where to look, I ended up looking too close and not far enough back. Even with the unknown's in my mother's family, Joseph's wife Susannah, his son's wife Mahala, and George Washington Adams, the intact match of half the chromosome makes it highly probable that this DNA doesn't come from one of them.

In order for the match to not come from the Roger's line we would have to have to many if's to complete. First, the descendant of William and one of my other lines would have to match. Then, they both would have to go back to the Blevins/Wallens within 2 or 3 generations. Then we have the segment length, other than the MCA pair of Elisha Wallen and Mary Blevins, it seems highly unlikely that a spouse of a Rogers could impart the exact same and missing DNA to the connection that is provided by the Rogers. For that reason it seems logical to me that the match is coming from the wife of Dauswell and not a more recent ancestor.

Genealogical facts put the Blevins, Elisha Wallen and Dauswell Rogers in the same place from the tithable list of 1765 in Pittsylvania up to Dauswell's death. This connection makes a lot of sense when you pair it with what looks to be a family connection by DNA.

5 comments:

  1. First of all we need to identify men named Dauswell/Doswell by their birth dates in order to stop confusion by the total number of men who carry one or the other of these spelling.

    DOSWELL Rogers is the first person in the colony of VA to be assigned the name of Doswell Rogers. Because he was born in 1736 he needs to be referred to as

    Doswell Rogers b. 1736

    The corrupted spelling of his name took place later and therefore, we begin to find Dauswell. The spellings should NOT be totally used unless their birth date with their correct spelling is given.

    Many people get these men confused because the wrong spelling of their name is used without using their birth date. And, yes, I do not always know to whom the problem is addressed when just the incorrect spelling of their given name is used.

    Not only does this simple name + date of birth system have merit with Dauswell/Doswell given name, but the same applies to the William, Thomas, James, Elisha, etc. given names.

    For years I was confused because of the mix up in the name of Elisha Rogers and Elisha Rogers. People called them the SAME person when they were actually 2 separate men.

    One Elisha was the son of Doswell b. 1736 and the other Elisha was the son of William b. 1763. Even the vast difference in their births didn't matter and the MYTH continued for many years. It was so bad that even well-known researchers in TN were confused and wrote the two men as one in published books.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The above were all part of the same hunting party so their families were intermingled. I am a direct Elisha Wallen descendant-you can find me under William Wallin at FTDNA and am a 2nd-3rd cousin of you Jennifer Meiers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Paula. Because of the quirk in mom's dna at 11, she is showing closer matches to the Wallen's than possible. Elisha and his wife would be her 6th great grandparents, we do match closer to the children of Susie and James Wallen because they are half siblings of Mom's 4th great grandfather.

      Delete
    2. at this point, I don't know how many matches we have there but if they aren't Rogers they are all Wallens and it is over 30 and too large to be false.. so whether Eleanor likes it or not, I am saying Doswell Rogers born in 1736!!!! has a wife who was a daughter of Elisha Wallen and Mary Blevins.

      Delete
  3. The above were all part of the same hunting party so their families were intermingled. I am a direct Elisha Wallen descendant-you can find me under William Wallin at FTDNA and am a 2nd-3rd cousin of you Jennifer Meiers.

    ReplyDelete