DISCUSSION OF U.S.A.
Return to opening DNA Page Return to DNA Testing Results Page
Understanding
Matches
The English DNA Markers Discussion
(Additional discussions of some of the
following topics are found in issue 55-58 of the Journal. The English
participants’ DNA results are discussed in a separate article accessed by a
link on the DNA Results Charts.)
[NOTE: For brevity
in the article below I have often abbreviated the term “Main Mangum Line” as
“MML” The MML is the supposed direct descendent lineage of John Mangum the
immigrant.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
We have some real surprises with our DNA results, and some satisfying confirmations. We now have 22 participants who have generally the same DNA markers and we believe they all are descendents of John Mangum the immigrant. The DNA matches are too close between all these individuals for them to have descended from separate distantly related Mangum immigrants. Of course, we do have five other Mangum lines (James/Jesse, Greenbery William of SC, Ellison G., & Solomon of Mississippi). They are totally unrelated to the Main line Mangums, but we find no evidence that they resulted from separate Mangum immigrants. Although mostly unproven, we believe all these lines resulted from broken lineages, that is, children who, although not genetically Mangum, were given the Mangum/Mangrum surname.
Of the MML participants, some things should be noted to aid your understanding of what the DNA results mean. John Mangum the immigrant represents the beginning of our DNA research because we don’t know of any earlier Mangum ancestor. John’s DNA markers were received by him from his male ancestral line from perhaps thousands of generations in the past, with all the intervening mutations along the way. Because of these mutations, John’s DNA marker values probably were considerably altered from those of his male line ancestor of a thousand generations ago.
John passed his set of markers down to all his sons, and they in turn passed them down to their sons, and so on to the present day generation. When we determined the values of these DNA markers in a group of John’s present day descendents (meaning the Mangum Surname Group) we found that most of them had identical DNA marker values. It is these marker values that must have come to us unchanged from John Mangum.
DNA markers do mutate, of course, but they do so very rarely. These mutations, which occur at an “average” rate of about one mutation in any one marker in 500 generations, is what allows us to determine relationships, that is, the time back to the most recent common ancestor between two individuals. Because the rate of mutation is so low, and because of the frequent marker similarities between unrelated individuals, we test large numbers of markers, up to 76. The number of mutational differences between two individuals determines how far back in the past they had a common ancestor. For example, one or two DNA marker differences in 25 markers between two individuals might mean their common ancestor “probably” lived a few hundred years in the past, on the average. Three or four, or more, differences might mean the common ancestor lived thousands of years in the past.
Since the time of John Mangum, about 300 years ago, the chance of a single mutation in a group of 25 markers in one of John’s descendents is very low, about 1 in 20. But with 37, 67, or more markers tested, that means that some mutations should have occurred in some participants lineage, and in actuality they did. The low rate of mutation is the reason most of the descendents of John Mangum have identical DNA, at least in the markers we test. We like to find these mutations because they allow us to determine descent from sub-lineages within the overall John Mangum line of descent.[1]
What does the mutations tell us? Click HERE for a short tutorial.
By using the techniques described in the tutorial above, we discovered three significant branch points or sub-lineages within the John Mangum lineage. They are the Samuel Mangum branch point, the Absolom Mangum branch point and the Parham branch point. See the discussion under ”IV. Branches in the Main Mangum Line (MML)” below.
II. THE “DNA HERITAGE” MARKERS
Some time ago we had to opportunity to add 11 more markers to the 37 we had already obtained from Family Tree DNA. We had hoped this would allow us to better separate the various Mangum lineages under John Mangum. We only had 4 participants who upgraded to 48 markers and all those had exactly the same marker values in the extra markers. Two of those are descendents of Howell Mangum, including your editor (who is also a part of the Parham lineage). One is from the Plummer Mangrum lineage although his surname is now Mangham and one is a Robertson who previously matched the 37 Standard Mangum Markers exactly. Because all four participants in the “extra 11 markers” experiment had the same marker values, it did not provide us with any new information, except for additional confirmation that these four individuals have a recent common ancestor.
The new 67 marker DNA test from Family Tree DNA completely overshadowed our attempts to increase our markers by using this second laboratory. Still, the DNA Heritage lab adds 9 additional markers to the 67 from Family Tree DNA, making a total of 76 markers in all for the four participants that used this other laboratory.
III. THE NEW 67 MARKERS FROM FAMILY TREE DNA
Recently, Family Tree DNA began offering an upgrade to 67 DNA markers. Several participants decided to upgrade, and we now have seven Mangum Surname Group participants with 67 markers, plus two more from other surname groups. Our charts now have a total of nine participants who have 67 markers.
Three of
these 9 participants with 67 markers form a genetic group, which is not related
to the MML. One is our Mangum (#55952), one is from the Crow surname group and
one is from the
These six MML participants who tested for 67 markers are identical in those extra markers (above 37) except for one mutation in marker #557 for participant #50823. This mutation can tell us very little without more participants from this lineage. This small number of mutations is a big surprise because we expected to have more variation in this many markers, comparable to the variation we saw in the first 37 markers. We had high hopes that the extra thirty markers would allow us to better separate the various Mangum lineages, but so far it hasn’t provided us with any new information.
IV. BRANCHES IN THE MAIN MANGUM LINE (MML)
When we tested several descendents of Samuel Mangum of the VA to NC migration of 1748, we found that all or almost all of Samuel’s descendents have a mutation at marker CDYa, that is, the value of the marker CDYa is different from the marker value of John Mangum. We call this the “Samuel Mangum” branch point or mutation. This is further discussed under “Samuel Mangum” below.
We have found another branch point with the Absolom Mangum line of Granville Co., NC. Absolom’s descendents seem to have a mutation at marker CDYb. Like the Samuel Mangum mutation above which allows us to identify Samuel Mangum’s descendents, we can use this mutation to help identify descendents of Absolom Mangum. There was a complication, however. Both Samuel’s and Absolom’s mutation have the same value (38) and both reside in the CDYa/CDYb pair. The problem is that although the lab can tell what the two values of CDYa/CDYb are, they cannot tell which value goes with which marker. This potentially could prevent us from determining to which lineage to associate with the mutation. Click HERE to discover how we resolved this difficulty. See additional discussion under “Absolom Mangum” below.
We have found a third branch point within the Samuel Mangum sub-lineage. Mutations in the Parham line seem to define that “sub-sub” lineage. See the discussion under the “PARHAM’ paragraph below
There are several other mutations[2] in John Mangum’s descendents, in addition to those discussed above.[3] Each represents a branch point, but since they are represented by only one participant, they have limited relevance to our research at this point. We cannot presently determine just where in the lineage the mutation occurred. They will allow some discrimination as to the descent of future participants in those particular lineages.
V. THE MAIN MANGUM LINE (MML)
Our
DNA research has allowed us to determine those marker values which John Mangum
passed down to all his descendents. Some descendents of John retain all those
markers unchanged, while others exhibit one or more mutations. Even considering
these mutations, we can confidently assign all our participants to one of two
categories; “Descendents of John Mangum” or “Totally Unrelated.” The MML, of
course, is the former category.
A. SAMUEL MANGUM
We now have several participants who are, or probably are, descendents of Samuel Mangum of the VA to NC migration in 1748 through his sons Joseph & Howell Mangum. All except one exhibit the Samuel Mangum mutation “38” at CDYa. One descendent through Joseph's son Pleasant Mangrum (#11236) has the Standard Mangum Markers “37/39” combination at CDYa/CDYb. See the chart below.
Chart Info: The chart summarizes the DNA results of the descendents of Samuel Mangum, through three significant DNA Markers (MKR). The values in red are the standard markers of the Main Mangum Line from John Mangum. The other colors are meant to show DNA marker relationships discussed in the text. The dates in parenthesis are known or proposed birth dates.
We have two lineages from Howell Mangum shown on the chart above, one via son Pleasant Mangum and the other through son Samuel Mangum. Your editor’s Parhams are part of the Pleasant Mangum line.
We have three separate lineages under Joseph Mangum, one of whom does not have the Samuel Mangum mutation. We don’t know why this one descendent through Alfred “Alf” Mangrum does not have the Samuel Mangum mutation. There are at least two possible reasons. One is that Alfred, or one of his descendents, had another mutation in this fast changing marker, changing it back to the standard MML “37” marker. Another possible explanation is that there is an error in the Alfred Mangrum lineage although there is no indication of an error at present.
Note the “18” value at marker 557 in the Pleasant Mangrum descendent (Kit 50823). Marker 557 is in the new marker group (those markers above 37). All the other five participants who upgraded to 67 markers had a 17 at this marker. At present, because of the small number of participants who have upgraded to 67 markers, this mutation is not much help to us.
1. HOWELL MANGUM
We initially thought that the “38” mutation at CDYa was originated by Howell Mangum, son of Samuel. Then
we began to see descendents of Joseph Mangum (Howell’s brother) with this same
mutation. We had earlier settled on Howell as the father of my Pleasant Mangum,
through a process of elimination, using traditional genealogy. The fact that
all of Pleasant’s descendents, so far tested, have the “38” mutation
strengthens that theory.
2. JOSEPH MANGUM
Unfortunately, the situation with the Joseph Mangum line is still not fully resolved. Two of the participants who are descended from Joseph Mangum[4] have the telltale “38” while another has a standard “37. The problem is that CDYa & CDYb are extremely fast mutating markers, so these confusing results may result from the marker's tendency to mutate so quickly. It could be that one of the descendents of Joseph Mangum later had another mutation at this marker, changing it back to “37”, the same value that John Mangum the immigrant had. It explains the facts that one of Joseph Mangum’s descendents has the MML markers rather that the mutated marker. It remains to be seen if it is a true explanation.
There is another anomaly with one of the descendents of Joseph Mangum (through James-Plummer Mangrum, Kit 8621). He indeed has a “38” at CDYa, but he also has a “38” instead of a “39” at CDYb. What makes this so disconcerting is that this participant has both the Samuel Mangum mutation and the Absolom Mangum mutation. HE CANNOT BE BOTH! We believe the CDYb mutation occurred later in the lineage and he is indeed a descendent of Samuel Mangum through his son Joseph Mangum, as traditional genealogy seems to show. Note that one of your editor’s relatives, a Pleasant Mangum descendent, had this identical “double 38” marker at CDYa & CDYb. In this case, there is no doubt that this participant is a descendent of Samuel Mangum via Howell Mangum. These “double” mutations are almost certainly a result of the fast mutating tendency of this pair of markers
3. THE PARHAMS
My own Parham lineage has been shown to be definitely part of the Mangum family, even with three mutations in my DNA, that is, three differences between my DNA markers and the Standard Mangum Markers from John Mangum. Additional tests with other family members showed that my great grandfather Henry Mangum, who took his mother’s maiden name “Parham”, passed on one of these mutations to his descendents. Another mutation occurred in one individual of the last three generations of my immediate family, that is, in me, my father or my grandfather.[5] The Family Tree DNA lab calculated that the chance of a common ancestor between me and the (MML) at 300 years is 76.34%, still a high percentage, but much lower than I had hoped. Now, having discovered where the mutations occurred, and having shown that my great great grandfather's DNA markers were identical (save one) to the Standard Mangum Markers, the chance of my lineage's descent from John Mangum the immigrant is almost 100%.[6] This is a much more satisfying result.[7]
The above reasoning re my descent is further indicated by the results of the 67 (plus extra 9) markers which are identical to the Standard Mangum Markers.
The "Save One" mutation mentioned above for my great great grandfather was a mutation at marker CDYa, which most, if not all, of the descendents of Samuel Mangum seem to have.
B. ABSOLOM MANGUM
As discussed above and in the “CDYa/CDYb Problem” link, Absolom Mangum’s descendents seem to have a “38” mutation at CDYb. Unfortunately, we only have two participants for this line, and one of those has a further mutation at CDYa (37 changed to 36). Hopefully we will eventually have more participants from the Absolom Mangum line to confirm these finding.
One of the descendents of Absolom Mangum (Kit #18989) has a multiple marker mutation at marker #385b (change of 3)[8] plus another single mutation at marker #CDYb for a total of 4 mutations. None of the other 19 Main Mangum Group had as many mismatches with the Standard Mangum Markers. Normally this large number of mutations would have caused some doubt that this individual descended from John Mangum the immigrant. Surprisingly, the calculations by the lab show that there is an 89.29% chance of a common ancestor with the Main Mangum Lineage at 300 years or less in the past. We can safely say that even with the mutations considered it is quite certain that this individual is part of the MML. The high confidence of a common ancestor with the MML in spite of the 4 mutations must be because of the nature of the mutations. The CDYb marker is an unusually fast mutating marker and this fact is probably taken into account in the lab’s calculations. The three marker mutation at marker #385b is probably the result of a single mutation that changed the value of the marker by three, and it is apparent that the lab considered it as a single mutation in their calculations.[9], [10] All the other markers for this individual match the Standard Mangum Markers.
C. JACOB MANGUM
We seem to have partially settled the controversy of whether or not Jacob Mangum of N.C. & S.C. was a descendent of John Mangum. DNA analysis shows he was either a descendent of John, or a descendent of a very close relative of John.[11] We have not solved the question of whether or not he was from Ireland, but if he was from Ireland, then this would be strong evidence that the family of John Mangum the immigrant was from Ireland also. Because of the lack of DNA matches between our MML and several of the English surnames, we began to turn our attention to Irish DNA research. We presently have only one Irish participant (Mangan), and have yet to find a close match.
D. SOLOMON MANGHAM OF NC & GA
The two descendents of Solomon Mangham have between them three mismatches from the “Standard” Mangum markers at the 37 marker level. One has two mutations and the other has a single mutation. The mismatches are all at different markers so this means they have three marker mismatches between each other. We believe these mutations have occurred after the time of John Mangum and do not affect the relationship of this line to the main Mangum line, or to each other. This is entirely consistent with the theory that Solomon Mangham was a son of William Mangum Sr. of the VA to NC migration. We really need additional participants in this lineage to dispel any lingering doubts about this lineage’s descend from John Mangum.
E. JOHN MANGUM THE PATRIOT
There is little question that this John Mangum (b. 1763), a Revolutionary War Patriot, was a descendent of John Mangum the immigrant. One member of this lineage is identical to the Standard Mangum Markers at the 37 marker level; the other has a single mismatch at marker 460. The most likely theory at present is that 1763 John was a son of 1732 John who was son of the John who died in 1744. This latter John was the son of John the immigrant who married Olive Savidge. The research of Mrs. Joann Hoagland, a descendent of 1732 John Mangum, shows that the original theory, that 1732 John was a son of William Mangum Sr. of the N.C. to VA migration, is extremely unlikely. See the footnote relating to John Mangum the Patriot's origin in the book by Dr. John Palmer[12].
The other member of the line, participant #8869, is a descendent of William Mangum b. 1811, son of the Patriot. He has recently upgraded his DNA markers to 67. In the first 37 markers he has a mutation at marker 460. Some random mutations in the markers of any lineage are expected over the centuries, and we believe this mutation has no real significance regarding this participant’s relationship to the MML. The new markers for this participant, 38-67, are all identical to the Standard Mangum Markers.
F. WILEY P. MANGUM
This participant (#14496) is a descendent of Wiley P. Mangum (1795-1882) and his wife Mary McSwain. Wiley was born in N.C. but lived most of his life in Tennessee. He was in Hickman Co. in 1820. He may have died in Hardin County, TN. The records regarding Wiley’s origin have been difficult to decipher. Until just recently, the family researcher believed those records showed that Wiley P. Mangum was descended from Absolom Mangum and he was therefore placed under the Absolom heading. Because of more recent finding, the researcher now believes that he was the son of John Mangum, Revolutionary War Patriot, who was born 1763. In fact, there is a family tradition that says just that. Unfortunately, there is, as yet, no documented proof of this tradition. The family researcher believes that Wiley’ mother was Mary Murdock, daughter of Hamilton Murdock. According to the researcher, there is extensive circumstantial evidence that John & Mary (Murdock) Mangum were parents of Wiley P. Mangum. Another family researcher believes that Wiley P. Mangum was actually Wiley Potter Mangum, son of Pleasant Mangum of Granville Co., N.C. This Wiley Potter Mangum was the a brother of your editor’s ancestor (Archibald Mangum), and family tradition states that Wiley Potter Mangum moved to Tennessee and was never heard from again. However, records in Granville County, N.C. seem to show that Wiley Potter Mangum remained in Granville County until he was in his 70’s. DNA evidence also does not support the theory that this participant’s Wiley P. Mangum (as Wiley Potter Mangum) was a son of Pleasant Mangum. Because Pleasant Mangum is a grandson of Samuel Mangum of the VA to NC migration, all of Pleasant’s descendents so far tested have the distinctive DNA marker mutation at CDYa. Wiley P. Mangum’s descendent (participant # 14496) did not have this distinctive marker. The researcher for this family reports that new information may soon be forthcoming. Whether this will confirm or deny the connection to the Patriot John Mangum remains to be seen.
G. ISOM GREEN MANGRUM SR.
We have a new DNA results from a descendent of Isom Green Mangrum who is an exact match (37 for 37 markers) with the Joseph Mangum descendent (Kit 50823); both of course have the “38” distinctive marker at CDYa. Kit 50823 is the participant who descends through William Henry Mangrum. Moreover, both have a “13” at marker #439, a value no other participants in our DNA surname group has. This appears to be strong evidence that these individuals have a recent common ancestor. [See the descent tree chart above.] Laboratory information shows that the chance of the Isom Green Mangrum participant and the William Henry Mangrum participant having a common ancestor in the last 8 generations is 97.28%. At 4 generations the chance is 83.5%.
However, Isom Green Mangrum was born 1806 and he could not have been born to anyone in this lineage (those parts we know of) except Joseph Mangum himself, or his son James Mangrum. He certainly could not have been born to William Henry Mangrum, b. 1855 and William is the earliest of that lineage who could have originated the "13" value at marker 439. We believe the "13" value must have originated separately in the two lineages (William and Isom Green), and therefore the DNA results do not infer a close relationship between the two.
We really do not know the origin of Isom Green Mangrum. But, we cannot deny that Isom has the Samuel Mangum mutation at CDYa, although a separate mutation could certainly have happened. Research into the origins of Isom Green Mangum should at least consider the possibility that he descended from Samuel Mangum.
In the 1850 Census of Franklin Co., AR, Isom Green Mangrum states he was born in NC (ca1806). His eldest child at home in 1850 (19 yrs) was born MS. In the 1880 census, Isom Jr. (1849) stated that his father was born in KY and his mother in TN. In the 1900 census, he said his father was born in TN and his mother in MS. In 1910, he stated that both his parents were born in MS. Another source suggests that Isom Sr. (1806) was possibly from SC
In the 1830 Census of Monroe County, MS, there is an “Isham J. Mangrum” of the correct age listed. There is also a land patent for an “Isham G. Mangrum” in Monroe County, MS, dated 1841.
Some family’s researchers believe that a supposed mention of a G.L. or G.I. Mangrum in the Ft. Smith, AR, National Cemetery is referring to our Isom Green Mangrum. It is reported that there is a stone for a G.L. or G.I. Mangrum who died 25 June 1865...inscription reads, "Pvt. Com. C, 4 AR Calv." in the Union section, Section 5, row 10, #17, grave # 2567. Additional information for the theory (which has not been verified) is that death records for Levissa supposedly list her father as "G. L." Mangrum. This theory is the basis for the listed death date for Isom Green Mangrum. A GL/GI Mangrum/Mangum could not be found on the Ft. Smith National Cemetery transcription website, which is not conclusive. Family researchers do feel this theory is rather unsubstantiated, at least insofar as it has been presented to him.
The frequency of use of the name combination “Isom/Isham Green” within this branch of the family has caused researchers to wonder about its significance and if, perhaps, it might be a clue to the origin of this particular family branch. Note that as a surname, “Isom” is a variant of the English “Isham.”
It was noticed that Isom Green Mangrum (1849) and an Isom Green Arter (1842) had married Dill sisters. Further search showed that Isom Green Arter’s mother was named Elizabeth Mangrum (unknown connection). Elizabeth married (1)Alexander Oliver and (2) William Arter, son of John Arter. Both marriages probably took place in TN.
Isom Green Mangrum (b.1806 NC) Elizabeth Mangrum (b.1814 NC)
Named a child “Elizabeth” Named a child “Isom Green”
Were Isom Green Mangrum (1806) and Elizabeth siblings or cousins? Is there a tie-in with this particular Elizabeth? Were these family names from even earlier generations? What is the origin of the name “Isham/Isom Green”? A quick Google search shows that it was not uncommon or (apparently) confined to one family, though no indication of origin was found.
While reading Thomas Jefferson: A Strange Case of Mistaken Identity by Alf J. Mapp, Jr., a comment on page 12 was noticed. "Jane Jefferson brought her son a notable heritage through her great grandmother Mary Isham as well as through the Randolphs. This line went back through Sir Henry de Greene, Lord Chief Justice of England in the fourteenth century ..." This is not to suggest that Isom Green Mangrum is related to this family. It was just interesting to note the two names in close proximity.
In a Heritage Quest “book search” for “Isham Green,” Early settlers of Alabama by James Edmonds Saunders, p. 475 mentions a Mary Isham Green. It also mentions a man named James Pleasants (think of Pleasant Mangrum), and the following statement: “The name Isham in the families of Epes, Oliver, Thompson, Wells, Watkins, is presumed to have descended from Henry Isham, of Henrico (VA), one of its earliest settlers.”
Another hit in the Heritage Quest search was in Tennessee Old and New : 1796-1946, p. 213 in a section entitled “The life and character of Isham G. Harris.” It refers to Isham Green Harris (1818 TN), youngest son of Isham and Lucy Harris who were “North Carolinians and of Revolutionary stock.” So here is an “Isham Green” of NC descent.
If Elizabeth is related to Isom (1806), it
appears that at least some of the family of Isom
Mangrum possibly went from NC to TN. Isom (1806) and
family went (from TN?) to MS (bef. 1830) and then to
AR (by 1849).
H. ROBERT S. MANGUM
Again, it is obvious that this line is part of the MML, and the participant's markers are identical to the “Standard” Mangum DNA markers. Robert seems to be related to Josiah Mangum, b. c1782 in Granville Co., N.C. Josiah was probably son of Joseph Mangum Sr. of Granville Co., N.C., who is a supposed son of William Mangum Sr. of the VA to N.C. migration of 1748. Note that there were two Joseph Mangums in the general area in this time period. One Joseph resided in Bute/Warren Counties, N.C. and was apparently the son of Samuel Mangum of the VA to NC migration. The other resided in Granville County and was son of William Mangum Sr.
We don’t yet know how Robert relates to the Granville County, NC Josiah Mangum line. Since he does not have the Samuel Mangum mutation, he does not seem to be related to Joseph Mangum of Warren County, NC.
I. ARTHUR MANGUM III
We thought that we had a participant from the Arthur Mangum Sr. line (of the N.C. to VA migration), through Arthur Jr. & Arthur III. Unfortunately, new information from Orange Co., N.C. court records show that the participant’s descent from Arthur III is unlikely. Another possibility is that the participant descended from Arthur “Arter” Mangum of Georgia, son of Howell Mangum Sr. However, the participant does not have the Samuel Mangum mutation that a descent from Howell Mangum would likely produce. This lineage’s origin still remains unresolved.
The family is fairly confident that their lineage does go back to an Arthur Mangum at some point, and has not given up on the theory that the descent was through Arthur Mangum III.
J. RICHARD B. MANGUM
Previously, participant #25652’s earliest ancestor was listed as
Chester (or Chesley) J. Mangrum c1868 AR. Later a
deceased family researcher’s records show that
Richard & Frances are the apparent ancestors of our DNA participant. The family has looked for about 10 years without finding very much about Richard, nor anything about his origin. Frances and son Chester were found in the home of John Becket in the 1870 Franklin County, AR census. Richard must have died, or at least was absent from the family then. This Mangrum family has no known relationship with the Beckets.
We have 37 marker results from this participant, and they are an exact match with the Standard Mangum Markers. This proves that Richard Mangrum was part of the Main Mangum Line (MML). The family believes Richard is a descendent of the Tennessee Mangrums, but there were several lines of Mangums/Mangrums in Tennessee at the time. One of those descended from Joseph Mangum, probable son of the Samuel Mangum of the 1748 VA to NC migration. But, because of DNA results we can probably eliminate Richard as a descendent of Samuel Mangum via his son Joseph Mangum.
The family of Henry Mangum Jr. of VA came to Maury County, Tennessee in
the early 1800’s with some of the family later settling in Craighead County,
AR. (See the Isham
Mangrum article in the Journa,l
issue59a.) Because Richard’s family was also in Arkansas, it raises
the question of a relationship between the two families. Richard’s descent from
Henry Mangum’s family is possible but we have not identified a Richard in any
of the records of the
K. ROBERTSON
We have DNA data from two Robertsons from the Donnachaidh surname group (Scottish) one of whom is a perfect 76 marker match with the Standard Mangum Markers. He later became a member of the Mangum Surname Group also. The other Robertson is a perfect match in 37 markers. There is a high confidence that the Mangums and this line of Robertsons had a common male ancestor in the last 300 years.[13] The most likely scenario is that in Virginia, or maybe in N.C. soon after the 1748 Mangum migration, a male genetic Mangum child was raised with the Robertson surname. Other less likely scenarios are possible, including the possibility that John Mangum’s ancestors were Robertson. However, the 76/76 perfect match between the standard Mangums markers and Robertsons makes that more distant (pre-John Mangum) lineage break from Robertson to Mangum unlikely, although just barely possible. The Robertson line that matches our Mangums does not seem to be related to the other lines of Robertsons, so this is further evidence that these Robertsons descended from the Mangums rather than vice versa.
It has been difficult to determine just when the Robertsons and Mangums were in close contact, but pre-1800 to early 1800 Virginia seems to be the most likely area and time.
V. THE OTHER GENETIC LINEAGES
These five lineages have the Mangum/Mangrum surname, but they are unrelated to the MML. We suspect that all were the result of broken lineages, that is, children were raised with the Mangum surname, but their biological fathers were not Mangum.
L. GREENBERRY MANGUM/MANGRUM OF TN
The Greenbery Mangum/Mangrum descendents are not part of the Main Mangum Lineage (MML). They are in an entirely different Haplogroup, that is, “I” instead of the MML’s “R1b1”. They cannot be related to the MML in any genealogical timeframe. They appear to be identical to the “Dukes” of Orange Co., N.C., at least the ones we have DNA results for. We have included the markers of a descendent of Henry Dukes in our charts above. The two descendents of Greenbery Mangum/Mangrum match the numbers for Henry Dukes in 36 out of 37 markers. See the article on Greenbery in issue 55 of the Mangum-Mangham-Mangrum Journal. No traditional genealogical tie between the Dukes and Greenbery Mangum has been found.
M. ELLISON G MANGUM
We also have the DNA results of a descendent of Ellison G. Mangum of Orange Co., N.C. Family traditions tell us that Ellison G. Mangum was a son of Chaney Mangum, unmarried daughter of Arthur Mangum Sr., and Taylor Duke. Unfortunately, DNA results do not show a match with any available DNA results from Duke or Dukes descendents. The Ellison G. Mangum is “R1b1c” Haplogroup, not “I” Haplogroup like the Dukes we have test results for. There are two major possibilities for explaining these results. One, Ellison might not have been fathered by Taylor Duke. Two, Taylor Duke might not have the “Dukes” DNA, meaning that he might have been the product of a lineage break himself. My impression is that the Dukes’ lineage at this time in Orange Co., NC is still somewhat unclear.
Although he has no very close matches with any other MML, including the Dukes, he does have a 4 marker mismatch (in 25 Markers) with our English Maugham participant. The lab’s calculator shows a 73% chance of a common ancestor since 1400 AD (600 years ago). We suspect this is an accidental match via random mutations over the centuries and may not indicate an actual relationship. Even if the relationship is real, we do not know the true lineage of Ellison, so the question is moot at this point.
N. JAMES/JESSE MANGUM
We have another line Mangums who descend from James & Jesse Mangum of Orange Co., N.C. They also are unrelated to the MML. The parentages of James & Jesse have always been obscure and it is possibly they represent the generation in which the lineage break occurred.[14] We have found a descendent of Joel Chambless (1756 N.C.) who is a perfect 37 marker match with the descendents of Jesse & James Mangum. We are still evaluating that situation, but we need additional Chambless DNA tests to determine whether the lineage break was in the Chambless line or in the Mangum line. If future tests on individuals with the Chambless surname match our Joel Chambless participant (with whom our Jesse & James Mangum participants match), we would consider these Mangums to be genetically part of the Chambless lineage, solving (in general but not in specifics) the origin of the James/Jesse lineage. If our Joel Chambless descendent participant does not match the other Chambless participants, we would tend to believe that the Joel Chambless lineage is genetically Mangum, but of course Mangum by the Jesse/James line, not the Main Mangum Lineage. The latter situation would have the disadvantage of providing little or no information on the question of the origin of the James/Jesse Mangum line.
O. WILLIAM MANGUM OF S.C.
This family descends from John Mangum, b. 1732 in Virginia. John Mangum (b. 1732) is the father of the Revolutionary patriot John Mangum, born 1763. He is also the father of William Mangum, born 1756 in the Albemarle Parish, Surry Co., VA., who in turn is the father of Edna Mangum. This 1732 John moved with his family from Surry Co., VA to Lunenburg, VA, now called Mecklenburg County, then to Craven Co., SC and finally to Newberry County, SC.
Son William, who was in Newberry Co., SC by 1779, married Anna Goggins and had possibly 11 children[15], including the Rev. Daniel Mangum and Edna Mangum born about 1800. The traditional genealogy of this family[16] shows that Edna married John Redrick Glenn and had several children including Hillary Richmond Glenn. The lineage also shows that her brother William Mangum Jr. had son Hillary Richard Mangum and he was the ancestor of our DNA participant, to which this discussion applies. Recent research by a family historian indicates that Hillary Richard Mangum, son of William Jr. did not exist. Instead, there are indications that Edna Mangum had a son by Christopher Griffin before her marriage to John Glenn.[17] That son was probably Hillary Richmond Mangum and not Hillary Richmond Glenn as shown in the printed lineage.[18] We believe the descendents of the non-existent Hillary Richard Mangum are actually those of Hillary Richmond Mangum, son of Edna Mangum and Christopher Griffin. If so, then our DNA participant descends from Christopher Griffin and Edna Mangum.
We should therefore find that our DNA participant has the genetic signature of a Griffin lineage, not Mangum. The tests did show that the Hillary Richmond Mangum descendent was totally unrelated to the Main Mangum Lineage (MML). Inquiries to the administrator of the Griffin-Griffith-etc Surname Group showed that there were indeed two matches between this participant and two individuals in one of their Griffin lines. One was to the line of a John Griffin who was born 1745 in Virginia and died in 1780 at the battle of Fishing Creek, SC. He matches 24 out of 25 markers with our participant. Another match was from the David Griffin line. He matched 12 for 12 markers with our participant. David Griffin was born 1765 in South Carolina and died 2 Dec 1833 in Limestone Co., AL.
Although this cannot be considered proof, it is very convincing circumstantial evidence that Hillary Richmond Mangum, ancestor of our DNA participant, was the child of Christopher Griffin and Edna Mangum, probably before her marriage to John Glenn.
This
participant also had a 25 marker exact match with another surname; a Crow.
Initially we discounted this match as insignificant. Exact 25 marker matches
between individuals with different surname are rather uncommon, but they do
occur on occasion. We discounted this match because we knew of no real
connections between the Mangum/Griffins and the Crows. When we got the 37
marker tests we found that our participant matched the Crow in all 37 markers.
This was difficult to discount. Further inquiries showed some tenuous
connections between the Griffins and the Crows. Both families were in S. C.
when the Mangum/Griffin lineage break occurred. One member of the Crow family
later married a
We now
have 67 markers of three participants in this group; our descendent of Edna
Mangum, a descendent of William Crow and a descendent of a
P. SOLOMON MANGUM OF MS
This participant (#73153) descended through Wiley P. Mangum & Nancy Matilda Bass. Wiley was the son of Solomon Mangum & Zilla Chapman of Mississippi. This participant has 37 markers which show quite strongly that he is not part of the MML. He does not match anyone in the Mangum surname group. The Family Tree DNA lab shows the chance of a common ancestor with the MML is about 1.86% in the last 20 generation (about 500 years). Additionally, he has very few matches to the entire Family Tree DNA database which has over 81 thousand participants and over 57 thousand unique surnames. At 37 markers he does have an exact match with a Roberts, but so far we have found no relationship between Solomon Mangum & the Roberts.
