X marks the Spot

Remember, all siblings will share some of their mother’s X chromosome. Only females will receive X chromosomes from their father, which is the entire chromosome they received from their mother. Males do not receive any X chromosomal DNA from their father, because the father gives them the Y chromosome. So, my brother shares the same maternal X chromosome donators that I do. However he has none of my father’s X donators. 

So each female has two initial donors, their mother and their paternal grandmother. If you use that basis when looking at your tree, you can easily identify which women were the donators in your ancestral line by identifying each donators mother and paternal grandmother.

Studies show that recombination in the X chromosome happens in an unusual manner. In that of your mother’s two X chromosomes, it is possible to for her to pass on one chromosome almost entirely intact. A 50/50 recombination of X chromosomes is not the norm. For this reason matches reflect deeper ancestry than the same match would on another chromosome in many cases.

Mom’s paternal (and PAL and my) Choctaw X donators

1.       Margaret Trahern- daughter of Robert Trahern and Cornelia Gardner. Born near Brazil Creek, IT. 1880

2.       Cornelia Gardner- born 1860 Unknown lineage, possible Daughter of Sam Gardner[1][i] and his wife Mary from Towson. He has a son Loring Gardner. Also possible she’s part Chickasaw.

3.       Sarah Hall- Daughter of William Hall and Susan Riddle. Sarah was born about 1821. From Okla Tannap

4.       Susan Riddle born 1793, daughter of Caty and William Riddle. From Okla Tannap

5.       Choctaw mother of William Hall, born 1760-1773. Okla Tannap

6.       Mother of William Riddle. White, born before 1750, from Virginia * line that is not Choctaw from here back

7.       Mother of Caty, (also of Mushulatubbee and mother of Sophia Pitchlynn/Joseph Kincade) b before 1750. Okla Tannap.

8.       Mother of Homomastubbee, father of Caty born before 1715

 The Unknown Donor’s of Cornelia Gardner. Her mother, her paternal grandmother, her paternal Grandmother’s mother, her paternal grandmother’s paternal grandmother, ect., her maternal grandmother, her maternal grandmother’s mother, her maternal grandmother’s paternal grandmother, etc.

For Mom and I only, the paternal Adams/Roger’s X donators known

1.       Louisa Rogers, born 1842 Hamilton County, TN

2.       Mahala Mariah Rodgers? Born 1814 TN or GA?

3.       Susannah rumored Shue born abt 1784 VA

Unknown lineages beyond Mahala and Susannah. Susannah is matching X with Anderson/Jones descendants (two sets) and with Autosomal.

Mom’s Maternal X donators

1.       Dolores Hinds

2.       Elizabeth Ruth Timmins

3.       Emma Paxton

4.       Mary Douglas

5.       Mary Brown (here ends known line)

6.       Sarah Brampton

7.       Sarah Phillips

8.       Ruth Spicer

9.       Hannah Castle (here ends known line)

10.   Mary Shakespeare

11.   Sarah Marrill

12.   Sarah Shakespeare

My paternal X donators

1.       Virginia Evelyne Hardy

2.       Lula Belle Pyburn

3.       Talula Johnson

4.       Amanda Plina McCurdy

5.       Mary Jane Chitty

6.       Talula’s Mother

7.       Elizabeth Parker

8.       Mary Jane Brown

9.       Mother of James Chitty

10.   Amanda Palestine Beck

11.   Sarah Woodcock

12.   Barbara Sunday

13.   Mother of Sarah Woodcock

14.   Mother of Jesse Beck

15.   Barsheba Collins

16.   Mother of John Sunday

 

---

[1] [1Sam Gardner was born about 1829. Likely he is a son of John Gardner and Alatima. This John was the son of James Gardner and Margaret his wife. James Gardner was a son of John Gardner a white man who married into the Choctaw nation.

---

Challenges when researching Choctaw relatives - Using DNA as an approach.

Note: Before you leave me comments, I want to make clear a few things.
 1. No DNA does not determine tribe. What I am talking about is shared DNA with a documented lineage to the Choctaw tribe and also the admixture reports that identify Native American DNA. I know it's a long way from perfect yet.
2. I know a lot of experts out there have serious  problems with what I am talking about in regards to using X chromosome matches. Before you rush to judgement, at least read what I say. I believe there is good logic in what I am about to write.
3. This post is not about tracing a rumored Native American Ancestor. I have some of those. This is about a known and well documented member of the Choctaw Nation. I have friends who also have relatives among the Choctaw, Chickasaw, or Creek tribes who may be in similar circumstances that this may help them use similar strategies.

I tested my mother's father's first cousin's DNA recently. She is the granddaughter of Margaret Trahern and Jason Adams. I wanted to test her because she has more DNA from them. So not only would it help me identify that DNA (about 7.28 percent worth), but I was also hoping that maybe it would help break down some brick walls, help me identify more Choctaw matches, and finally, clarify some matches that seem to appear on my mom's DNA.

I was able to finally look at the batched results on Gedmatch (remember, please if you use this, donate). My mom and PAL share almost 86 cM of X dna. I didn't think much of that when I tested her, I asked her because I had corresponded with her and knew her better. There is one other cousin of my grandfather's that I would like to test, because he has the mitochondrial group that should be Native, the only living person from my direct line who would. What I realized when I looked at PAL's X matches was I wouldn't see any matches from the Roger's line there. Because as a daughter of a son of Margaret, her paternal X chromosome would only contain the X chromosome DNA passed from Margaret Trahern. Then I realized what a bonanza this could be. Then I realized if I can get my other cousin tested, he only has X chromosome DNA from his mother, which would be similar to that of my Mom's. It could potentially help me, (I  haven't identified any of her mother's X chromosomal donation, but I have identified almost 2/3 now to one side Rogers or Trahern).

As fortunate as I am to be able to take my Choctaw relatives to the generation before the American Revolution, we all, descendants of any Natives eventually will run into a brick wall. When documentation ceases to exist, and beyond which there is no recorded history. In DNA perspectives, this can be a potentially hazardous pitfall if you can only get back a few generations. Fortunately I can get back to my mother's 5th great grandmother on most of my lines. I have a big hole at her 2nd great grandmother and PAL's great grandmother Cornelia Gardner.

Mom only has 5 identified Choctaw matches at this point. One is a Mississippi Choctaw, matching only 7 cM so not likely to be identified, two are descendants of full bloods so recently that tracing their lineage to my own level would be about impossible, and they are both also at the 7 cM level, and the fourth is the Uncle of my genealogical buddy, who I have a paper trail for and a match appropriate for that, but I can't "confirm" that's the connection. Not yet. PAL has a handful of known relative matches showing up in our Choctaw line, and a few not known. But she and mom share an X chromosome match (so do I) with someone who also has a Choctaw X donator that I used to see on the same mailing lists.

While I realize that X Chromosomal matches don't pass on in the same way, and that it can go back much further than an Autosomal match might, what I do know is some things about my mom's x donator's that I think can be an advantage in using those to help break down the brick wall I have in my Choctaw lineage, that of Cornelia Gardner. I already have an idea on where she may come from, a family I think she could belong to. Additionally, unlike European groups, Choctaws had some customs that make it a little easier.

I know that all of my known Choctaw relatives were from, which district, and I think almost in relation to the Kunsha, which clan. So knowing that Margaret Trahern's X donator's aside from Cornelia were Sarah Hall, the full blood mother (Unknown) of William Hall, Susan Riddle, Caty the sister of Mushulatubbee, and from there the wife of Homomastubbee and his unknown mother who were all from Okla Tannap means something. I can't say that the location the Hall's (William, Sarah and Margaret) were in 1831 was where they were born. There seems to be some movement Northeast of the Okla Tannap after land cesssions, and I do think that the possibility they come from the 1805 cession of land (Washington County, Alabama) is likely.

So with all this unknown, how can that help. Well, if the matches have relatives who come from the 1st or 2nd  District, which I believe this person does, then that would tend to lead to a connection to Cornelia Gardner. Why? Because although there is some evidence in basket patterns that women did marry and leave their matriarchal groups, it was not the norm.

Which means that someone from Oklafalaya, probably has matriarchal descendants from Oklafalaya. And what is X DNA but another representation of matriarchal lineage. Except for the husband of Sarah Hall, Jeremiah Gardner, all of the Gardner's were in Okla Hannalli in 1830, and live in the 2st and 2nd districts in the new nation. Whereas almost all of my Okla Tannap relatives, well they lived in the 3rd district.

There is always the distinct possibility that the DNA is too far back to trace. But it is a clue, and it's a clue I can use much easier and more clearly than I can with my European lineages. Because I know and can identify that this lineage is only Native in origin, I know exactly who and where I have to look in her tree. Native American X donators.

I know I need Autosomal matches elsewhere. And luckily for me, I decided, out of curiosity, and a way to test the admixtures to "mark" my mom's DNA in my mapping program that was Native American.  About 1/2 of the segments (not the cM's) Mom matches PAL aside from the X are along these Native Segments. Using the chromosome painting tool on the admixture tools on Gedmatch I can go even further. None of the entire 22nd Chromosome (my mother, her nephew and PAL all match on along with me), 1/2 of the 11th, the 12th, and the segments on the 2nd, not one, belong to Native matches, and several have already been identified in the Roger family.

What this means is I don't have to waste time looking into hard to find connections, (most seem nigh on impossible!) if the match is matching PAL and mom. I just need to look to see if I have it mapped as Native or not for mom, and verify it in the painting tool with PAL. If it's native, I know where to look, if it's not, I know where to look.This would probably be ineffective if you have a small percentage of Native DNA. Not that my mom's 9 and PAL's 16 percent is large, but I think if you have a fraction of a percent, or 1-2 percent, it may not work.

As for the accuracy of the mapping, (discussed here and here in my blog), well, it's been 100 percent thus far. Every identified Choctaw match, with a documented genealogy, has matched on a segment the 23andme Ancestry Composition identified as native. I haven't mapped my own chromosomes, or that of my cousin. Oddly enough he shares over 5 percent DNA with PAL, compared to my 2.25 percent, yet he has the least amount of identified Native DNA of all four of us.

Well, the results are just in. Will keep you posted on my success. Look for a blog about the other side we share with PAL soon.

Tall Tales or Addressing Rumors Part 1- Why I don't think the Sunday's are Indian

Below is a post I made to our family group on Facebook. Someone suggested I add it to our tree, but then, since I don't know that 41 other tree's are going to add it, I thought I would also address this rumor here. It's not the only rumor I plan on addressing, just the first.

So been thinking about this. I have always doubted the Sunday Indian thing. Mama Hardy had an Indian princess story but it was Mary Jane Chitty, and not from her Mccurdy grandfather. Now she's not the best source of info, but I know that my Aunt's talked to folks and traveled to cemeteries. And no where in her notes did Aunt Patt have that story, though she had stories. But it isn't just that.

I think to illustrate my point I am going to talk about another relative. Thomas Woodward's remininces are a group of letter's with some of the best info on the Poarch Creek folks. When I read them, I realized his grandpa Howard was my ancestor Nehemiah Howard. In his story he talks about the fact that his grandma or great grandma had been part indian and his grandpa had not liked his father because of it. Thomas was born near where Barsheba Collins married John Sunday and he was about 5-10 years younger. I think that folks just don't think about how hard and unlikely it would be to have a full blooded woman living in polite white society.

Up to the American revolution well Georgia was the wilds. It was what Alabama and Mississippi were until the 1830's but where these folks lived had a large settlement by 1800-1810. And the one thing the Creeks were known for, was killing. They raided the Choctaw, the Chickasaw, the whites. Especially the upper Creeks. They were the infamous red sticks of the Creek war in 1812. That is why from 1792-1796 the US tried to get the Choctaw and Chickasaw and Cherokee to fight the Creeks. They were attacking and killing people. Sophia Durant's wild ride pregnant to warn folks in Pensacola.. well that's right about the time that our Barsheba was born. Folks in Georgia, didn't really like the Creeks. They were afraid of them. So bringing a Creek into their society would have been hard. And not just because of the whites
.
First you have the fact that the Creek's are matriarchal. So a woman's status is linked to her clan. It wasn't something any Creek or Choctaw or Chickasaw would give up lightly. At all. And up to 1800 as many white man had children and abandoned them as stayed within all of the five civilized tribes. Because well, most of them besides (sorry) being just men and dogs, well, they saw the Indians as less than human beings. The relationships with the women was a way to succeed in their trade and trapping, and nothing more. Sure some folks did marry and remained with their wives, and sure some didn't see them as less than human, but generally, being an Indian was just as bad as being a black or slave. That culture, it isn't easily just forgotten. There is a difference between those early settlers in 1750 or earlier who married Indians and those after the American Revolution. There wasn't that many whites then. It was easier to marry an Indian and have a family in South Carolina and North Carolina then than it was by 1800.

So if Barsheba Collins had Indian in her, it was probably like Thomas Woodward, a few generations back. Enough that she could pass. So if Barbara Sunday was Indian, she wasn't that much, and most likely you won't ever find proof of it. Georgia wasn't Tensaw and the Tombigbee. Those settlements were in the territory of the Indians not outside of it. Tensaw was made up of a lot of Tories. These were folks not wanted in the United States, so maybe it made them more lenient, but we know that they had a large community of mixed blood families. I don't think I have ever read of another community like it. So comparing the Poarch Band and the rest of the Indians and expecting things to be the same, well, it just wasn't. There were individuals who successfully lived as neighbors to the Choctaws and Chickasaws, not so much the Cherokee until later because well, they were busy raiding and killing whites up to 1800 too, but the number's are so much smaller than folks think about. A handful of families in different areas. But we know that Barsheba married John in the earliest settled area of Georgia. That he resided in a county that had a larger community, so it just seems unlikely that Barsheba was a full blood, or even a half blood. It just does.

I don't know if anyone else has considered how remarkable what John Sunday was when he gave Jinny manumission with her children. Most slave owners who had children didn't do that. Heck a lot of them had those kids by rape, so what he did was unusual, and it always struck me as an important fact. 

Say What? Figuring cousins

So, I know there are some handy charts out there to help you determine relationships with cousins. And I know a lot of folks don't understand what the difference between second cousin and first cousin once removed is. Well, I have an easy way to figure your cousin's, without a chart, and well, I will try and explain what the terms mean.

First, we all know who are first cousins are. We share the same grandparents, and one of their parents is our Aunt or Uncle. That part is easy. So what is removed? Well your cousins child isn't your second cousin, they are your first cousin once removed. The once removed means they are one generation removed from the mutual degree of cousins.

Okay, I know, maybe you still don't get it. So how do you figure out what degree of cousin you are? Count your g's.
Grandfather and Grandmother 1 g is first cousin
GGrandfather and GGrandmother 2 g's is a second cousin
GGGrandfather and GGGrandmother 3 g's is a third cousin
and so on.

So when comparing, the lowest number is always the degree of cousin. To get the generations removed, subtract the lower from the higher and that is the number removed.

So if Tammy's great grandfather is my great great great grandfather. Let's count the g's.
Tammy has 2, I have 4. 4-2 is 2 so Tammy is my second cousin twice removed.

Got it? Easy peazy when you don't have a chart at hand.

What do I think of AncestryDNA?

So still waiting on my last kit to result but with my three other kits, and my cousin's who have shared their results, been playing around with the AncestryDNA site. In comparison to 23andme what have I found?

Well for starters, yes, you can see all your matches, but, I don't think I have any higher response rate there than I do at 23andme. The ancestry suggestions and circles seem to be great, so does the shared matches function, but, without being able to compare segments and map chromosomes, I kind of think it is an impressive interface that is user friendly but doesn't tell you a lot of information.

Several people I have successfully contacted have been open to gedmatch, but other's just don't understand DNA comparison usefulness, or aren't tech savvy enough to be able to manage it. And then there are the high percentage of matches with no trees or private trees, which you can work around by using shared matches if you have known matches to look for.

No where do I see anything about how they define their matches either by degree of cousin (cM's) or by "extremely high" or "good" or "moderate". I kind of feel that they could at least put that info in the help section for those who want to know. One advantage, not only are they now the cheapest (large) company on the market but you can upload the raw data to FTDNA if that is what you are interested in doing.

Of course I think one of the disadvantages about AncestryDNA is that not only can't you compare, but the tree's are misleading. Anyone whose been researching for any length of time and cares about accuracy will tell you that a lot of tree's on Ancestry are just full of errors. Some folks just take those little green leaves as proof and fail to do do diligence in their research. Which means that even if you "think" you know how you match based on a tree, the tree may be wrong. Or you may have a situation like dad does with CRB. He has a paper trail to her father, but is matching CRB, her sister, and her mother on the same segment. Meaning, we have an unknown, undocumented relationship.

Given the price hike at 23andme, well, I still think that ancestry is useful, but to be honest, if Gedmatch were to go away (please no, donate folks, it's a private non profit site), it is basically useless until you can compare segments. Given the almost monopoly the corporation has on ancestry web sites, I don't know that that is ever going to be their priority either.

A chance to help science

About two weeks ago a new project was launched by scientists at Columbia University. It is called DNAland  and can be reached here. What is it? It's a program where users of private autosomal DNA testing can upload their raw data files. The purpose isn't the same as Gedmatch, it's not a place to further your research using DNA, though as a perk to entice users they do give you an ancestry composition and up to 50 matches of relatives who have uploaded.

They also create what they call "Imputed" files. In other words, taking the raw data and knowing dna they can "fill" in the blanks of genetic code. Now, I don't know what to do with the files at this point. I suppose if you were really interested in medical genetic traits it may be a way to get more data.

They are run by volunteers. So far they have just over 7500 users. They promise never to give identifying info. And it's to help scientists who are researching DNA do research. What I do know is that DNA research has a long way to go. The way I look at it, every set of DNA they have to compare gives them that much more info. So why not give it a try?


Of course of the 9 kits I have paid for testing, I only uploaded my own and my parents. Each kit needs a separate email address. The questions at this point have been straight forward. What are your parents names and when were they born. In the future as the site develops there may be more, but as for now, I am glad that I could contribute.

You just never know what you will find - Gardner Hardy

Okay for decades family researcher's have tried to find our elusive ancestor. We started with G. Hardy in Santa Rosa county in 1850. I thought it was George and put it on my tree as that way. It's been that way on way too many tree's ever since. Our first breakthrough was finding the death record of one of his daughter's that named him as Gardner Hardy.

After that we were able to expand the information by just a bit. We found four land patents in Coffee county, Alabama in 1841 and one in 1858 in Covington County, Alabama. And we found him in the 1840 census. The only other thing I found was a superior court case summation that named him in the case in 1843. That's it. Nothing, Nada, Zilch.

So I worked on his children. It took me a while and working with a few of my cousins (thanks Christy and Helen) to fill in the blanks. Then I worked on his grandchildren and great grandchildren. I looked everywhere I could for something on Gardner or his wife Harriet. Still nothing for the last 10 years or so.

And so I tested Gardner Hardy's descendants. I wanted to identify my father's DNA that was Hardy and hoped it would lead me somewhere. We have three great granddaughter's of Gardner Hardy who have tested and I have access to the results of two of them. The only thing I have gotten is that we all, my Dad included, are matching descendants of Tillman Bobo and his wife Beulah Yarborough. Given it's on the x for some, I think this is a clue on Harriet.

And for some reason when I googled Gardner the other day, I got a new hit. From a transcription done by Jeannette Austin in her Interstate Georgia book. Gardner Hardy was the son of Robert Hardy and had a guardian named Robert Kelly in 1821 in Bulloch County, Georgia. I had long ago looked at the descendants of Thomas Edward Hardee because he names a son Gardner Sheppard Hardee. The only one who uses the name Sheppard other than my family in the South until 1883 when a descendant of Andrew Hardee (NC to Horry County, SC) is given the name Sheppard and lives in Florida. I checked the Hardee matches for the four Hardy's on ancestry. All had several matches to descendants from Pitts county, NC. (Most notably, descendants of Andrew Hardee, Jemima Hardee Smith and descendants of Thomas Hardee and Susan Croom). And some strong matches showed up for Thomas Edward Hardee descendants too.

So I was looking into Gardner Sheppard Hardee again and found that a Sheppard Williams in Bulloch was the guardian of Thomas Hardy in 1814. (Georgia Genealogical Magazine which also had the Gardner bit I found). Okay. Sheppard Williams. Hmm.

So I googled Sheppard Williams and found a transcription of the estate records for Isaac Hardy in 1809 in Craven County, NC that had testimony take place at the home of Cornelius Sheppard Williams in Bulloch County, GA. Bingo. I found the originals on Ancestry.com too. So Penelope the widow of Thomas Williams was the mother in law of Isaac Hardy. It also states his sons were Thomas and Robert Hardy. Oh, and the testimony was done in Bulloch County, GA at her son Sheppard's home.

Okay, so Sheppard names a son Morgan Gardner Sheppard Williams. Okay.. now that's just a bit too much, so I started looking at what I could find (transcriptions mostly) in Pitts County, North Carolina, which also led me to New Berne District records and Dobbs County, North Carolina. I found that a Col Abraham Sheppard Sr. served with Major Thomas Williams (named that way in estate records too) in the American Revolution. His wife was Catherine Gardner and he had a son named Morgan Gardner Sheppard. I found a deed book transcription too where Abraham Sheppard gave something to Thomas Williams and his wife. Okay so that explains the name Gardner Hardy and Sheppard in my family.

On the Hardee side, I think that Isaac Hardee is a son of Robert Hardee Sr who also had sons Josiah (Joseph) and Robert Hardee Jr and appears on the 1762 and 1763 tax lists of Pitts county, NC. I suspect that Robert Sr is a brother to John Hardee the father of Jemima and that Andrew Hardee is a son or nephew of Robert. No proof and the tree's on ancestry are a mess. I don't know who the father of Thomas Hardee is, the researcher's who have been working at it for years can't tell you either, but he is most likely a first cousin to my Isaac Hardee. Isaac Hardee is probably the ensign who served in Col John Hardee's regiment in the American Revolution. The Lt who served named Isaac Hardee is a brother of Abraham Hardee. All are likely first cousin's, which makes it all so confusing because the names Thomas, Isaac, and Joseph keep coming up.

 Yet now we know. We still have Harriet to figure out, but now we have an answer on Gardner Hardy. It's about time.