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:
NOTE:
Haplotype Groups were re-classified by Family Tree DNA in March, 2011.
This affected the following existing groups:
R1b1b2became R1b1a2 I2bbecame I2b1
Haplotype Groups were re-classified by Family Tree DNA in May, 2008. This affected the following existing groups:
R1b1cbecame R1b1b2 I1abecame I1 I1bbecame I I1cbecame I2b E3b1a becameE1b1b1 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 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. 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 HAMb. 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). If 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.
Time
based
network
tree:
This
view illustrates the haplotype groups indicated from DNA
values.
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. 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 are "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, 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 VA and died in 1973.
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.
