HAM Surname DNA Project

Research through Genetics


Contact Locations Become a Contact Alabama Contacts Georgia Contacts Illinois Contacts Indiana Contacts Kansas Contacts Kentucky Contacts Missouri Contacts North Carolina Contacts New Hampshire South Carolina Contacts Tennessee Contacts Virginia Contacts England Contacts
All Locations General Links HAM web pages Kentucky North Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia Belgium Britain (England) France Netherlands Scotland
Submit a new Query All Locations Alabama Arkansas Georgia Iowa Illinois Kentucky Louisiana Minnesota Missouri Mississippi North Carolina New York Ohio Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia Canada (NB) England France
All Estates Kentucky Estates North Carolina Estates Tennessee Estates Virginia Estates England Estates France Estates
Welcome DNA Project DNA Project Goals Intro to DNA Testing Participation ft2dna program ft2phy program Y-DNA Results Results at FTDNA Dean McGee's Output HAM DNA Phylograms HA M Group01 Y-Search HA M Group02 Y-Search HAM Group04 Y-Search HAM Group07 Y-Search Participating Families DNA Links DNA Tools


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 March, 2011. 
This affected the following existing groups:


    R1b1b2  became    R1b1a2
    I2b           became     I2b1

    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


Group 1

Participants in Group #1 (Haplotype Group I1 M253 ) 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 CarolinaParticipants 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. Participant N54540 descends from Robert HAM of County Somerset, England and is a good match to the Ashe County and Franklin County Groups.

Kit # 212352 descends from William HAM
b. ABT  1780   d. ABT  1860 of Patrick County, VA. The name "William" is similar to William HAM, Jr. (1785- AFT 1860) of Ashe County, NC, and the DNA is also very similar, but the two were different individuals. This illustrates to emphasize that it is important to test for a maximum number of markers in order to better resolve the TMRCA.

Kit # 226942 descends from Rufus HAM
b. ABT  1878 of Washington County, VA. There are several of the same name in the same area, so the records for him are just a bit confusing. So, we are hopeful that the DNA will provide some clues to the origin of this family. The DNA suggests that the HAM lines of Washington County should be related (at some point in the past) to the HAM lines of Augusta Co., VA, Grayson Co., VA, Patrick Co., VA, Franklin Co., NC and Ashe Co., NC. These lines are very likely to share origins from southwest England.

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)

Valentine is representing a connection to an older branch from the Group01 bunch, which makes him a good indicator of what markers to expect to mutate for Group01.  I have not run a Y-Search for Group #5, but since Valentine is from Germany, I would expect that this Viking group split from the Group 1 Norman group prior to the Norman invasion of 1066.

The Group 1 Ancestral Y-Search numbers indicate some relation to the lines in Yorkshire, London, and Crewkerne in England.  Yorkshire was the area invaded by Danes of Viking descent about 1,200 years ago. 
The Y-Search was confirmed by participant N54540, who has a more recent immigrant from County Somerset in England. A significant event in England, was known as the Norman Conquest, lead by William the Conqueror (about 1,000 years ago).  These Vikings had occupied the area of Normandy in France in about 850 AD, in return for defending France from invasion.  The difference between the Danish invasion and the Norman invasion is that only the Normans settled in County Somerset. (The Danes had been defeated by Alfred the Great in the area of Somerset, and had not really settled in Somerset.) Prior to Normandy, these Vikings were in Norway, which has a more dense population of haplotype I1.

After the Norman Conquest, the Domesday book tells us that the most significant landowner in the area was Robert, Duke of Mortain.The Deep ancestry and the Y-Search has proven to be useful to understand ancient origins of this DNA Group.


Group 2

Participant 41641 (in Group #2) and Participant 40777 (in Group #1) both claim ancestors circa 1800 with the same proximity (in western Virginia), but the DNA reveals them to be entirely different  lines, having an ancient Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA). Group 2 has a haplogroup type of R1b1a2 and Group 3 has been estimated to be haplotype R1b1.

So, geographically, the two should have different ancestral origins although they were both in the same proximity circa 1800. By tradition,
when documentation was lacking, Genealogists have used proximity as a guide to ancestors. The DNA testing has helped to show different origins of these two lines.

One Group 2 pair, 41641 and 56753 share a common ancestor within the last 400 years
(estimated), 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. 

Group 2 (R1b1a2) apparently includes descendants of Stephen HAM of Amherst County, Virginia.  This has been verified by at least two descendants (of Bartlett HAM), 57298 and 82055.  Or, at least verified by two people that I believe to descend from Bartlett HAM. 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.
(Very similar to the Y-Search for Group #4.) This is the general area for the legends of King Arthur and Merlin, and I believe Group 2 should be indigenous to that area.

The most recent addition to Group 2 is descendants of William HAM of Bibb County, Alabama. (See vol #1 page 143) Loyd claims that this William HAM was born in Sommers County (now WV) in 1814.

Dean McGee's Utility shows that the genetic distance for most in this group is no more than 3 or 4 (out of up to 67 markers). However, the common ancestor is not clear for all of the various lines in this group. Most Goupr 2 lines date from the mid 1700's. Some originate from Virginia, and some originate from South Carolina. Dean McGee's Utility shows a typical TMRCA from about 400 to 500 years ago. So, the DNA is telling us that the Most Recent Common Ancestor is just beyond the paperwork for each of these lines. A number of descendants in this group migrated to Alabama or Georgia in the early to mid 1800's.

The summary that I have from the DNA for Group 2 would be that it is beginning to look like the group was from
Worcestershire, England and possibly migrated through Northern Ireland. Arrival in America appears to have been during the mid 1700's, judging from the birth dates that I have for Stephen HAM (1740 of Amherst Co., VA) and Samuel Harrison HAM (b. 1770 in Greenbrier Co., VA). According to material Thomas Hamm sent me regarding what Major Gillespie Hamm had compiled, Drury HAM had some association with this line. Major Gillespie Hamm had written that the line was of descent from John HAM and Mary Dunwiddie. This John HAM the immigrant ancestor from England and northern Ireland. England and Northern Ireland do match the DNA for this group, according to the Ancestral Y-Search, mentioned above. Drury, of course having moved from Rockingham County, VA (in about 1770) to Orange County, VA, then to Greenbrier County, and then in 1791 to Madison County, Kentucky (see vol 2, Virginia page 98).

The argument against this line having originated in Orange County, VA (vs. immigrating to Virginia during the mid 1700's) is the DNA results from HAM DNA Group #7, who descends from Stephen HAM of Culpepper County, VA. Group #7 is haplotype group I2b1, which means a totally different origin. (Stephen HAM of Culpeper County believed at present to descend from Samuel HAM's son Edward HAM.)

It will help the analysis of this group if more descendants of Samuel HAM (of Spotsylania County) and more descendants of Stephen HAM (of Amherst County, VA) begin to participate in the DNA Project. Samuel HAM of Spotsylvania County, VA of course, being one of the better known lines of Virginia, even though known descendants are not testing to date.


Group 3

I reorganized this group to better fit the phylogenetic charts. The charts are obtained by use of the Phylip program which is an attempt to base the grouping strictly on the Y-DNA data.  Kit # 107820 has been moved from HAM DNA Group #8 to Group #3 (107820 is Jacob HAM, Sr. b. 1721 Rhine Valley, Germany).
Kit 43250 descends from Captain Richard HAM  b. EST 1740-45 deceased BEF 1800 probably S.C.

The phylogenetic chart (of the TMRCA) wants to group kits #43250 and 107820 with a TMRCA of 900 years ago.

This grouping is still tentative, as each kit has only been tested to 25 markers.
Aside from the DNA, the obvious items common to both kits are:

a) the same surname
b) both lines appear to have been in Kentucky by 1820.

The obvious differences are:

a) Jacob HAM, Sr. is known to have been born in Germany
b) Capt. Richard HAM is thought to have been from South Carolina.

However, there should be some mention of two items that could cause this grouping to fall apart under closer scrutiny:

1) The TMRCA is beyond genealogical time frames. They could have taken on the surname from different areas prior to the time that surnames began to be used.

2) Both individuals in this group have only tested to 25 markers. Twenty five markers are notoriously unstable for the time frame in question (800+ years ago).  I
f the estimated TMRCA is to be reliable, an upgrade to more markers for both lines would be necessary. An upgrade to 111 markers for these kits would help to better narrow down the time frame, and perhaps, better group these kits.

To contrast the group, Groups 2 and 3 share a TMRCA of not more than 2475 years ago, obviously implying separate immigrant ancestors.  Group 3 has been estimated to be of the same haplotype as Group #2 (R1b1 M343), but sharing different ancient ancestors at different times.



Group 4

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 more participants tested for 37 markers, we would expect some of them to be off by some 3 markers, based upon the TMRCA median.  To date, this group is not showing any changes in markers yet. Which means, I expect to see the mutations within the last 12 markers of a 37 marker kit.

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. To date, my most recent Y-Search shows them to match England, Ireland or Scotland. Most significant matches are from England, and within England, near the area of
Worchestershire. Very similar to the Y-Search for Group #2.

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.


Group 5

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)

Valentine is representing a connection to an older branch from the Group01 bunch, which makes him a good indicator of what markers to expect to mutate for Group01.  I have not run a Y-Search for Group #5, but since Valentine is from Germany, I would expect that this Viking group split from the Group 1 Norman group prior to the Norman invasion of 1066.



Group 6

Linzey Ham (kit 82227) descends from the Revolutonary War veteran Mordecia HAM (1758-1815) of Stokes County, NC. Mordecai participated in the Battle of Guilford Courthouse as a dragoon (calvary). This group is believed to have originated in Caroline County, Virginia and descend from Thomas HAMM.

The last time I did a Y-Search for this group, there were not enough matching DNA participants worldwide to identify a possible country of origin. However, from what little the DNA shows, Group 6 appears to be the closest match to what we know about the DNA of British Monarchy.


Group 7

What I find interesting about Joshua Ham (85679) in Group #7 is that he is believed to descend from 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 appear to be "R1b1a2" 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.

I should repeat that the DNA suggests that the Orange County, VA and the Culpeper County, VA HAM lines should prove to be different lines. Currently, we have no DNA participants who have a well documented descent from an alternative HAM line from Orange County (that is, from either William HAM or Samuel HAM of Orange County, VA).

My last Y-Search for this line indicates a match to areas of origin in England, Ireland, or Scotland. Most significant is England, and within England are matches to Staffordshire, Bedfordshire, or Middlesex. I wrote a blog article on the "Lost Gold of Staffordshire" because it should pertain to the ancestors of this group. Scientific studies for haplotype Group I2b have dense areas of origin in Germany, so it is not unreasonable to say that the DNA suggests a connection to the Saxons (see the Y-Search results for the area of Pflatz). I believe the Saxons had settled in this area of England some time between 800 AD and 1200 AD.


Group 8


Kit 126092 is WILLIAM HAM was born in 1821 in Georgia. Died ABT 1868 in Louisiana.

The TMRCA between 126092 and kit 205092 is 900 years ago, which is just before surnames began to be formed. Even though they share the last name, it is likely that they do not share a common ancestor within genealogical time frames. So, I have placed 205092 in Group #12.

It might be worth noting that kit 126092 (Group 12) has only been tested to 37 markers, but 205092 has been tested to 111 markers. At 37 markers, I can't say that an upgrade to 111 markers would make a large difference in the TMRCA between the two.

What they do have in common is some matching DNA and the same surname. It is possible that they could at least share the same city of origin, and certainly a common ancestor before surnames were formed.



Group 9

Group 9 descends from Conrad HAM  b.1660 d. 1694 Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany   m.  Rachel Ann SMIT (1642-1694). The immigrant ancestor was Peter HAMM  b. 1685 Alzey, Baumholder, Lower, Germany   d.17?? East Camp, Columbia, NY,USA. The haplotype Group E1b1b1 more naturally found on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, which suggests a possible Roman descent. However, it is known that the Romans did not conquer Germany, so how this line arrived in Germany still puzzles me.

I believe that the New York line is one of the better documented HAM lines of the north. (I have Conrad HAMM immigrating to New York in 1710 - see vol #1 page 245.) So, the DNA has put a big question mark for me on this one.


Group 10

HAM DNA Group 10 is, perhaps, the oldest continous HAM line on the Continental U.S. (Native Americans have not yet tested for the HAM surname.)
William HAM (1600 Aberdeen?/Devon, England    d. 1671/72 Portsmouth, NH) Arrived in Maine on board the ship Speedwell in 1635. As part of the Trelawney expedition, he was originally contracted to fish.

At least one genealogy source places William's birthplace as Aberdeen, yet most others place him from England. It is known that there is a small town named "Ham" near Plymouth, England and the Trelawney expedition originated from Plymouth.

Tracing this line correctly is very tricky, because of the next HAM immigrant to the area, John HAM of Dover, NH. The mixture of the lines can cause some confusion, if not properly documented. So, it would be good if we ever get a DNA participant from the "other" New Hampshire HAM line.  Properly done, it is perhaps the best documented of the HAM lines for the longest period on this continent because the records still exist.

Russell Ham (kit 189460) currently has the closest match to Gerald (112972) with a GD of 3 on 12 markers. Which means they do not relate within a couple of thousand years. So, I have separated these two into Groups 9 and 10.

Russell's match to Gerald may be a clue to Russell's haplotype. Gerald is E1b1b1. Family Tree says Russell's most significant ancestral origins are Bulgaria, Greece, or Slovenia. If he's E1b1, my guess would be Greece.

The Maine line is thought to have originated in England or Scotland, so perhaps Russell was once part of a line of Romans (i.e., E1b1). Since Romans never made it to Scotland, that means he is more likely to be from Devon. There was a town called Ham near Plymouth, so perhaps the DNA has helped (or will help) to resolve that discussion.

Group 11

Still waiting for ancestry information for Group 11 (N93170, a transfer from the National Genographic Project). However, it is interesting that FTDNA classifies him as R1b1a2 (M269), whereas he displays as an entirely different branch from the other R1b1a2 groups in the project (from the charts and the output from Dean McGee's Y-DNA Utility).


Group 12

Kit 205092 descends from Perry C. HAM born 1825 TN. Parents both born in North Carolina, with children
                    born in Illinois.

                     Kit 205092 was moved to Group 8 in April, 2012 in order to better match the phylogenetic charts.
                     He was moved out to Group 12 in October, 2012 due to the TMRCA of 900 years to kit 126092.
                     I just wanted to separate them out due to the TMRCA. Hopefully the two groups will become clear as
                     the project gets more participants. Kit 126092 is WILLIAM HAM was born in 1821 in Georgia, and
                     died ABT 1868 in Louisiana.



Group 13

Kit 254669 descends from Warren HAMM, born 1923 in Smyth County, VA and died in 1973. Haplotype R1b1a2a1a1b4t (M222).




These clusters should represent:

  - The
Haplotype Group  "R1b1a2"
  - The
Haplotype Group  "I1"
  - The Haplotype Group "I"
  - The Haplotype Group "I2b1"   ("I1," "I," and "I2b1"  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. Estimates of origins in the range of the County geographic level can be estimated by the use of Y-Search data.

According to the population study by Rootsi, et. al. (2004), the I1
haplotype group is most dense in Norway, and the I haplotype group is most dense in the area of Croatia. (In 2004, the current I1 classification was I1a, and the current I classification was I1b in 2004.) Population density is an indication of origins. From Table 1 in the Rootsi paper, the I haplotype (then I1b P37 SNP) is most dense in Bosnia, Croatia, Moldova, and Slovenia (the Balkan region).The I1a haplotype ( M253 - now I1 ) is most dense in Norway, South Sweden, Saami, North Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, and France (Low Normandy).

The
HAM DNA Group 1 ("I1" haplotype) is believed to have descended County Somerset in England (see the Group 1 Ancestral search, not to forget the match to Tony Ham). This area is near Norman settlements, indicating origins from the Norman Conquest in 1066. The Normans being from Normandy, France from 800 AD to 1000 AD. Prior to that, they are believed to have originated in Norway, and should be of Viking heritage.

The Haplotype Group "I2b," yet another variation subgroup of haplotype "I," may have Saxon origins in England. Some vendors claim that this haplotype may originate from Germany.
They are in the Rootsi paper as I1c (M223 in 2004). Rootsi has them in Table 1 as most dense in Germany and the Netherlands.

The haplotype E1b1 is thought to have originated in northern Africa, and should be found surrounding the Mediterranean Sea.

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

For more on these Haplotype groups, see:

   Doug McDonald's chart
   BritainsDNA 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