HAM Surname DNA Project

Research through Genetics

Home Contacts GEDCOMS Links Queries Wills & Estates HAM DNA  Project

HAM DNA Project log

HAM DNA TMRCA Phylogenetic Charts

The following are HAM Surname DNA Project Phylogenetic charts, generated using the data from the DNA results for the HAM DNA Project.  Unless otherwise indicated, all charts are based upon TMRCA calculations, which is based upon Genetic Distance and Mutation Rate to give Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA).

Calculations have been performed by use of Dean McGee's Y-Comparison Utility, and output to graphic format with the PHYLIP program.  Views have been produced with the MEGA software. Instructions for the procedure are given in the HAM Country Tools area.


             Traditional time based phylogenetic tree:

HAM DNA Phylogenetic tree

NOTE:

    Haplotype Groups were re-classified by Family Tree DNA in May, 2008. 
This affected the following existing groups:

    R1b1c became    R1b1b2
    I1a       became     I1
    I1b       became     I
    I1c       became     I2b
    E3b1a  became   E1b1b1

Participants in Group #1 (Haplotype Group I1 ) share a common ancestor of not more than 775-800 years ago, (at 95% probability) and perhaps prior to immigration to America. This implies separate immigrant ancestors.  These (six) lines should have separate ancestors in Virginia prior to 1800.  Participant 42370 and 55330 have ancestors from Franklin County,  North Carolina.  Participants 70450, 58559, 68140 and 40777 share a TMRCA from Grayson County, VA from about 250 years ago.  The TMRCA estimate gives not more than 325-400 years ago.  The known Most Recent Common Ancestor was William HAM, estimated to have been born in 1755. Participant 46246 has an ancestor in Augusta County, VA, and claims to descend from George HAM from England. Note that the results of the analysis are jumping around a bit here with the new data.  Participant N54540 descends from Robert HAM of County Somerset, England and is a good match to the Ashe County and Franklin County Groups.

We have one participant in I1 Group #5 (27814), a descendant of Valentine HAMME of Germany.  That line migrated from Germany to Pennsylvania in the 1700's, through Mecklenburg County, Virginia to Granville County, North Carolina. (Participant 27814 has a contact currently living in North Carolina.) Valentine HAMME would relate to Group 1, but perhaps as far back as some 2300 years ago. Therefore Valentine has been placed in a different group.  The LAMARC program tells me that Group 1 will eventually share six more markers with Valentine HAMME which might provide some perspective. (Currently Group 1 does not share 8 of the marker values with this one sample kit for Valentine HAMME. )

Due to the unique name of Valentine, it probably would not be too unreasonable to speculate that the Revolutionary Surgeon Valentine HAMM relates to 27814 in some way.  For those of you who have the book, I believe that I lost track of the Rev War Doctor, shortly after 1804 when he appears to have left Washington "for the new country somewhere." (See volume 1, Origins, page 258)

I was curious to see if we would be able to use LAMARC to predict the mutating markers for Group01. I thought new participant 58559 might be the one to show a mutation new to Group01.  40777 and 58559 have a known TMRCA of about 250 years ago (or 250/10 = 10 generations ago, as defined by FTDNA). According to my estimate for expected mutations in Group01, to estimate mutations representing the last 250 years, there should be 2.7 mutations for Group01 within the first 12 markers (Group01 has 4), 5.6 mutating markers within the first 25 markers (Group01 has 6), and 8.3 mutating markers with the first 37 markers (Group01 has 8 mutating markers for the 37 marker results).  That is, prior to the results for 58559, we only had 6 of our expected 8 total mutating markers for the first 37 markers in Group01.  Naturally, I expected more mutations between 40777 and 58559 so that the TMRCA can be represented some 250 years ago. 

Valentine is representing an older branch from the Group01 bunch, which makes him a good indicator of what markers to expect to mutate for Group01. 

If I were not using LAMARC to predict future mutating markers, I would be using the Leo Little's mutation rate chart under that NULL439 "Gene Diversity" web page that he used to have posted on his web site.

 I believe these are the statistics that Leo gathered from his Y-Search studies.  These markers are the most volatile for the I1 haplotype group.  (Dean McGee's Utility lists mutation rates, but he does not break them down by haplotype group. )

Finally, the Group 1 Ancestral Y-Search numbers indicate some relation to the lines in Yorkshire, England among other areas.  Yorkshire was the area invaded by Danes of Viking descent about 1,000 years ago.  A significant event in England, also known as the Norman Conquest, lead by William the Conqueror.  These Vikings had occupied the area of Normandy in France in about 850 AD, in return for defending France from invasion.

Likewise, predicting mutating markers could be done for Group02 and Richard (at 43250).  You can pretty much guess which markers are likely to mutate within Group 2 simply by a comparison to Richard (43250).   43250 is an older branch of the same line.

Group 2 Participant 41641 and Group 1 Participant 40777 both claim ancestors in western Virginia, but appear to be entirely different  lines, having different haplotype groups.  So, geographically, the two should have different starting points although they were in the same proximity circa 1800. 

Participants Group 3 Participant 43250 and Group 2 Participants (46118, 82055, 57298, 56753, 41641, 48988, 79053, and N13303) share a TMRCA of not more than 2475 years ago, obviously implying separate immigrant ancestors.  Participant 43250 has ancestor Richard HAM from South Carolina, whereas participant 41641 has ancestor Joseph HAM from Monroe County, VA.  Participant N13303 and Participant 41641 share a common ancestor not more than 1300 years ago which may be large due to the 12 marker test.  Participants 41641 and 46118 share a common ancestor within the last 325 years (at 95 % probability), with only one mis-match within 37 markers.  Likewise, participants 46118 and 56753 share a common ancestor within the last 250 years (at 95 % probability), with only one mis-match within 67 markers.

Yet another Group 2 pair, 41641 and 56753 share a common ancestor within the last 400 years, due to having a mis-match of two markers. Participant 46118 descends from Levi HAM who was born in South Carolina.  The most recent ancestor (TMRCA) so for participants 46118 and 48988 with a TMRCA of 400 years (at 95 % probability).   Participant 48988 descends from Obed Jones HAM of South Carolina, and participant 56753 descends from Elmer Herman HAM of Indiana.  The branch lengths view of this group is interesting, with Elmer (56753) and Levi (46118) currently having branch lengths of 133.5 years ago, Joseph (41641) with a current branch length of 169.3 years ago, and Obediah (48988) with a branch length of 214.95 years ago.

I usually expect branch lengths to be a good estimate to within plus or minus one generation, but also see the spectral reconstruction for this group.   New information slightly modified the previous branch lengths estimates, and the LAMARC program should return more accuracy with more data.

From observations of other lines that I have charted, the general rule that I usually observe is for the TMRCA occur on the midpoint of the 95 % probability figure, especially when 37 markers are returned. The observed error is usually plus or minus 1 generation on these charts.  For participants 46118 and 48988, we now have branch lengths (or median) TMRCA value of 214.95 years  and separately known ancient ancestors in South Carolina in about 1800. I would think it very likely that 48988, 46118, 41641, and 56753 would share a common immigrant ancestor.  The DNA evidence tells me that this group has a very interesting area to focus upon.  

Group 2 (R1b1b2) now includes descendants of Stephen HAM of Amherst County, Virginia.  This has been verified by at least two descendants (of Bartlett HAM), 57298 and 82055.  It will be interesting to see who the Most Recent Common Ancestor between the South Carolina HAM lines and the Amherst County HAM line will turn out to be.  The Group 2 Ancestral Y-Search numbers hint that Group 2 will be related in some way to those from the County of Worcestershire, in England.  You might notice that Worcestershire is just up the channel from Bristol, England.

Regarding Group 4, I am surprised NOT to have more DNA participants from this line. This would be the Wayne County, NC HAM Line.   Participants 44176 and 47412 descend  from William HAM, Sr. b. ca 1726 VA or North Carolina d. 1799 Darlington District, SC. Participant 47412 has not yet been able to forward the details of his line yet, but his line has been researched, and I have him listed as having descended from Richard HAM of (b. EST 1660 England -  d. AFT 1726 of Surry County, VA). This line is thought to have descended from Richard HAM of Surry County, VA  who had migrated to North Carolina via the Blackwater River. 

Therefore making Group 4 one of the oldest HAM lines from Virginia.  Participants 44176 and 47412 are known to share a common ancestor about 250 years ago, so we can predict that 37 marker kit results should show a contrast of some 3 markers, to reflect that TMRCA.  (Current 25 marker results for the two show a TMRCA of no more than 350 years ago.) If both participants tested for 37 markers, we would expect them to be off by some 3 markers, based upon the TMRCA median, or given by the "branch lengths" view.  This group (Group #4) needs a participant from Cornwall in order to determine if they might be related to either of the  Richard HAM's  from Cornwall who left wills in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury in 1656 and 1668.

If I have this correct, these participants in Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 should represent at least 6 separate immigrant lines to America, but probably not more than 9 so far.  Adding in Groups 6 and 7 should represent more like 8 different immigrant ancestors to America, but perhaps no more than 11 immigrant ancestors thus far.

What I find interesting about one of the newest participants, Joshua HAM (85679) in Group #7 is that he is believed to descend from te Stephen HAM of Culpeper County, Virginia. Until this DNA test, the line of Stephen HAM of Culpeper County, VA and the line of the Stephen HAM of Amherst County, VA were thought to have connected via Samuel HAM of Spottsylvania County, VA. When kit 85679 is verified, this will require several genealogy works to be re-written.  As you should be able to readily see, the Culpeper HAM lines are Haplotype Group "I2b" and the Amherst County HAM lines are "R1b1b2" which indicates that they could not be possibly be related in recent history.  For example, Dean McGee's Utility estimates the TMRCA between 85679 and 82055 to be some 16,825 years ago.   Very interesting results from the DNA tests in this case.


                                      Time based network tree:

HAM DNA Network tree

This view illustrates five haplotype groups indicated from DNA values. 

(For those of you who have read Donna Ham's work, you might like to know that I have been very tempted to call this "another view of the HAM branches," but I will try to refrain for fear of offending somebody. Then again, I could call it "under the HAM tree" with apologies to Russell Ham.)

These clusters should represent:

  - The Haplotype Group  "R1b1b2"
  - The Haplotype Group  "I1"
  - The Haplotype Group "I"
  - The Haplotype Group "I2b"   ("I1," "I," and "I2b"  would be sub-groups of the "I" Haplotype group.)
  - The Haplotype Group "E1b1b1"

The R1b haplotype group should represent ancestors from the western coast of Europe and the British Isles.

The "I" haplotype is believed to have descended from Vikings or the region of Norway and Iceland.  I is mostly found within the Balkans (or what is today Bulgaria).  I1 and I origins are usually restricted to northwestern Europe near Denmark. The Haplotype Group "I2b," yet another variation of Viking origins.

The HAM Surname Project still has no African American participants.  (There would be the slaves that were known to have taken on the HAM surname after gaining their freedom.) Also, still no participants from the HAM lines of Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, etc.  We still may have a very long wait for many of these HAM lines. 

For more on these Haplotype groups, see:

   Doug McDonald's chart
   EthnoAncestry's explanation
   WorldFamilies.net
   YSNPTree  from DNA Heritage

Haplotype groups are believed to be preserved for some 10,000 years.   This  difference  in haplotype groups in early Virginia was not expected.

  • Back to HAM Country