Updated 6 November 2009

Perryman Surname Y Chromosome DNA Study

According to the U.S. Census bureau, "Perryman" was the 2,541st most common surname in the United States in 1990 and matched 0.005% of the population sample. However, there is no one Perryman family, thus no right or wrong answer when comparing ancestries.

Perrymans in America have come from Wales, England, Ireland, Australia, and even Germany, and, over time, the surname has also been spelled or recorded as Periman, Perreman, Perremon, Parriman, Perriman, Parimon, Perrymon, Peryman, Pereman, Perrymann, and Pearman.

Many official documents typically used for genealogical fact-finding -- census records, birth records, death records, tax records, muster rolls, and land and court records -- were lost or destroyed in the late 1700s-early 1800s. Thus, DNA testing can be a valuable resource for proving or disproving family relationships and help guide further and possibly more fruitful research.

Analysis of Census records shows that most Perryman families in 1840 resided in Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, and Tennessee. In 1880, most were in Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Tennessee, and Texas. And, in 1920, most were in Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas.

More about the Perryman name

According to the Dictionary of American Family Names, the meaning of the Perryman surname is as follows:

English (mainly Devon): elaborated form of Perry.

Perry means:

1. Welsh: Anglicized form of Welsh ap Herry ‘son of Herry’, a variant of Harry.

2. English: topographic name for someone who lived near a pear tree, Middle English per(r)ie (Old English pyrige, a derivative of pere ‘pear’). This surname and a number of variants have been established in Ireland since the 17th century.

More about the Perryman name in America

Authors of and contributors to the Periman Pathways newsletter, published from 1988-2000, theorized that there were three early primary Perryman lines in what became the United States:

1. Robert Perreman (c1645-1704) of York Co., Va., who left Bristol, England, in 1663, “destination Virginia.”

2. Roger Perryman (c1708-1749) of Baltimore Co., Md., whose origins are unknown.

3. Perrymans of Oklahoma, from the Creek Indians in Alabama and Oklahoma, starting with Benjamin Perryman (c1771-).

Some early researchers thought Roger was a son or grandson of Robert because of geographical proximity and the names of two of Robert’s four known children were not known. However, their names have since been established through his will; none are missing.

Two possibly unrelated lines from which many Perrymans with pre-1800 American ancestry descend have also been identified over time:

4. William Perryman of S.C., granted land in the Goose Creek area there in 1679. His origins are unknown, but he is believed to have come from England via Barbados. Perhaps this is the same William Perryman who left Bristol on Sept. 26, 1664, for Nevis and was an indentured servant for nine years. It has also been theorized that the Indian Perrymans descended from William’s line.

5. Richard Perryman, a “collar maker”, who emigrated to Maryland in 1774.

The first record of a Perryman family in what is now the U.S. is that of a Thomas Perriman who was at Weymouth, Mass., in 1652, having come from England as an indentured servant of Dorothy Hunt.

A Thomas Perriman was in Westmoreland Co., Va., on Mar. 3, 1657, when 2,000 acres of land were granted to 40 persons including him on the south side of the Patomeck (Potomac) River on Quantecot (Quantico) Creek. On May 16, 1670, a Thomas Perryman was in York Co., Va., witnessing a land transaction in the Parish of York; he died prior to June 1708.

Augustine and Anne Perriman, husband and wife, were granted land in South Carolina in 1678 but never claimed it. This may refer to Ann Perriman who was transported from England to Maryland in 1664 as an indentured servant to Samuel Wethers, who died in 1665.

The first educated lawyer in Exeter, N.H., was Nicholas Perryman, a native of Devon, England, born in 1692. He came to America as a young man after the death of his parents. Although he had several children, only a daughter survived to adulthood.

Beginning with his in Cecil Co., Md., in 1728, the family of Roger Perryman is found in several Maryland counties, including Baltimore and Harford, and the city of Perryman, Md. -- originally Perrymansville -- gets it name from his descendants.

Per tradition, most Perryman families in the south descend from the Virginia, Maryland and South Carolina branches. Although possible relationships had never been proven, Y-DNA tests of descendants of Robert and Roger Perryman do not match, meaning that these two lines are not related.

Robert Perryman, an ancestor of many of the Perrymans with roots in the southern states, left Bristol, England, for Virginia on Aug. 22, 1663, and settled in York Co. By the late 1800s, known descendants lived in Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky, Texas, and Oklahoma.

Robert’s great-grandson Elisha’s autobiography -- A Sketch of the Life, Labors and Adventures of Elder Elisha Perryman -- was published in 1857, and parts were reprinted in 1881 in History of Georgia Baptists. His opening paragraph:

I was born on the 6th day of February, 1769, in Halifax county, Virginia. My ancestors came from Wales; the time of their emigration to this country, I do not know. My father and mother were both natives of Virginia; the former was born in Prince Edward, the latter in Caroline county.

The late Emmett K. Perryman Jr., who believed he was a descendant of Robert Perryman, self-published a book in 1993 in which he discussed possible origins of the family name in America. Excerpts:

While the name Perryman is generally considered to be of English origin, the people so named were likely of Celtic blood, the original Britons who were conquered by the Romans in the First Century A.D. and then by the Saxons in the centuries following the death of King Arthur. While many of the surviving Britons fled to France (Brittany) and Wales, others remained in Devon and Cornwall, where they were known as the West Welsh.

In Devon and Cornwall, the name Perryman first appears in the early 1200s. Surnames were not adopted until about the thirteenth century, and the name Perryman took many forms -- Periman, Puryman, Periam, Perriam, including a Norman version of De Puryham. Sometimes, father and son spelled their names differently. Some historic documents seem to indicate that the Perrymans were of property and known as "Lords of the Manor" in the southwest counties; most authorities agree that the name evolved from the association with pears, either as working or living in a pear orchard.

History leaves little trace of the name Perryman. There was, in the court of Elizabeth I, a Sir William Periam who was Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer. His coat of arms was identical to a coat of arms granted to Sir John Perring, Knight, and to a Perryman in 1710. The identical arms tie them to what stabilized as the present day spelling of Perryman.

The Perrymans in America seem to traditionally have come from Wales; however, I increasingly feel that they really come from "West Wales", i.e. from Cornwall and Devon.

In a 1992 issue of the Periman Pathways newsletter, he also noted:

Perryman is definitely of English, not Welsh, origin, but many English no doubt went to Wales to escape the religious chaos after Henry VIII established the Church of England. The Perrymans apparently were Baptists.

A number of Perrymans went from England to the Caribbean in the 1600’s. Some had significant holdings in Nevis and in Barbados. Later, in the 1700’s, they or their sons came to this country, mostly to Maryland and South Carolina.

Although there may have been many Perrymans of prominence in England, they certainly were very low key as far as history is concerned. Burke lists a coat of arms issued to a Perryman in London, in 1710, but by that date most of the Perrymans who were coming to America were already here.

Francis Marion Perryman (1836-1930), a descendant of Roger Perryman, published Pioneer Life in Illinois in 1907 and commented that his father was of Scotch descent. Another book later suggested English heritage but also contained material errors about the settling of the line in the U.S., thus either or both may be incorrect.

Further tests may provide more geographical clues.

Summary of what’s known so far

Robert Perryman (c1645-1704):
Pedigrees for the most distant matching participants can be constructed to brothers Robert (c1728-1813), Richard (c1729-1788), and David (c1735-1804), who were sons of Richard Perryman (c1682-1769) and wife Mary (c1680-). The elder Richard’s parents were immigrant Robert Perryman (c1645-1708) and Mary Scott (c1650-). Other matches include a descendant of Anthony Perryman (c1775-), whose parentage has never been proven with paper trails, although researcher John Bennett Boddie concluded (and apparently correctly so) that he was of Robert’s line. And yet another match is a descendant of David Elliott Perryman (c1814-1872), who was born in Georgia but whose pedigree has not been proven.

Roger Perryman (c1708-1749):
Testing has proven that two participants share common male ancestry through brothers Joseph (1764-c1859) and Jacob (c1778-1848), sons of Isaac Perryman (c1738-c1794), a son of Roger. Another participant matches this line, but his ancestry has not been confirmed with a paper trail.

Another participant who was expected to match did not, although pedigree evidence was not as substantial for earlier generations. Supposedly a descendant through Isaac’s son James Amis Perryman (c1770-1814) (a brother of Joseph and Jacob above) and first wife Nancy through son Peter A. Perryman (1788-c1863), no conclusions have been drawn about where the “break” occurred. In 1990, researcher Edward A. Luce concluded that Peter A. Perryman was the son of either James A. or Benoni Perryman. It is known that Benoni was a son of a Richard, a descendant of Robert Perryman; it was thought that James A. was of Roger’s line, likely through Isaac since James was from the Carolinas, where Isaac had settled, according to a descendant’s biography published in 1881. Because this participant also did not match descendants of Robert’s line, we can conclude that Peter was not a descendant of Benoni. A future goal is to confirm the parentage of Peter A. Perryman and James Amis Perryman.

William Perryman (1759-1854):
Two participants who are believed to be descendants of William Perryman (1759-1854) and wife Ann Stokes (c1762-c1829) are matches, but their respective lines have not been confirmed prior to the 1840s in Kentucky, and no connection was previously known. It is theorized that this William’s line descends from another William Perryman (c1715-) and wife Susannah Smasson, who were married in Queen Anne’s Co., Md., on 01 Mar 1734/5, but that has not been proven. Further, no relationship to the William Perryman of South Carolina is suspected, nor, if any early conclusions can be drawn, is there any link to Roger Perryman of Maryland.

Need Help?

On the more traditional front, I've done extensive personal research and would be happy to share what I know (and think I know) about Perryman families in the U.S. Feel free to ask questions via email by clicking here.

Disclaimer

I am not affiliated with Family Tree DNA and do not have any financial interest in this study.

Lee Perryman
Alexandria, Va.

The Perryman Y-DNA Project’s Objective

Although there is a broad interest in the origin of the surname, a more focused short-term objective is to connect descendants of the Perryman families who came to America from Europe more than 300 years ago. Simply put, the goals are to:

Identify Perryman families and prove or disprove genetic connections
Validate and correct/expand existing research
Resolve "brick wall" issues for Perrymans who have been unsure of their ancestry
Help focus areas for additional research
Establish a DNA database for future researchers

How DNA testing works

The Y chromosome is passed relatively unchanged from father to son and only appears in males, meaning that the person tested must be a male with the Perryman (or similar) surname. If you are the wife, sister, daughter, or niece of a Perryman male, you may sponsor that person.

Comparison of the genetic "fingerprint" of Perryman males will show that there is a relationship, there is not a relationship, or there is a distant relationship that can't help us genealogy-wise. For Family Tree DNA's Q&A page, click here.

Unexpected results may be due to previously unknown events. For example:

1. An extramarital event, such as an unmarried daughter having a child carry her family name rather than its father’s (and that is indeed the case for one branch of the Perryman-named family in Tennessee as of the early 1800s).

2. Some children may have been adopted, or a man might raise a deceased sister’s child under his name.

3. A child resulting from an illicit union within a marriage may or may not carry the Y-DNA of his nominal father depending on the relationship of the real father to the nominal father (e.g. a brother, paternal uncle, or cousin would have identical Y-DNA, thus the false paternity would not be detected).

Getting started

Click here to visit the Family Tree DNA Perryman Surname Project page. Provide your name and email address and basic information about your Perryman connection, then click Join to order the test kit. Note that most participants initially choose the $99 12-marker test, which can be upgraded to the more conclusive 25- or 37-marker test at a later time without requiring a new sample. The test kit (click here to see it, but don't order via this link) includes a soft toothbrush-like device which is rubbed inside the mouth, then sealed in a test tube.
Return your sample to the lab for analysis, and they will contact you with the results in about 4-6 weeks.

Analysis is done at the University of Arizona, and a database of results is maintained by Family Tree DNA for automatic comparison with future test subjects.

The 12-marker test can determine a common ancestor within ~1000 years, the 25-marker test can determine a common ancestor within ~400 years, and the 37 marker test can narrow a common ancestor within the past five to 16 generations. These spans cover the periods from the Norman Conquest of England through the immigration to the Americas and the rest of the world.

This is an ongoing project, and qualified Perryman males are encouraged to participate.

Current Participants

Alabama: 1
California: 3
Colorado: 1
Georgia: 1
Indiana: 2
Missouri: 1
New Jersey: 2
Ohio: 1
Oklahoma: 3
Pennsylvania: 1
South Dakota: 1
Texas: 10
Utah: 1
Virginia: 1
United Kingdom: 2

Current Results

We’re all related to one another if we go back far enough in time, so it is important to only consider very close matches when using DNA testing to resolve genealogical questions. As of November 2009, testing has revealed 14 unique 12-marker strings for the 30 males tested:

Result Strings												Count
15	23	16	10	13	15	11	13	11	14	12	31	9
12	24	14	11	12	16	12	14	12	13	13	29	4
13	23	14	11	11	15	12	12	11	13	13	28	4
14	26	14	10	11	14	12	12	12	13	13	29	2
13	25	14	11	11	13	12	12	12	13	14	29	2
13	25	15	11	11	14	12	12	12	13	13	29	1
13	24	14	11	11	15	12	12	12	13	13	29	1
13	24	14	11	11	14	12	12	13	13	13	29	1
13	21	15	10	16	17	11	12	12	14	11	33	1
13	23	13	10	13	19	12	12	12	12	12	29	1
13	23	14	11	11	14	12	12	12	13	13	30	1
15	23	15	10	15	15	11	13	11	13	12	31	1
16	23	16	10	13	15	11	13	11	14	12	31	1
13	23	14	10	13	14	11	14	11	12	11	28	1

Y-DNA samples of nine participants were exact matches in the 12-marker test, meaning there’s a 99.9% likelihood of a common male ancestor, with a 50% likelihood within the last 14.5 generations and 90% within the last 48 generations. A common surname means that a recent common ancestor -- within 14.5 generations -- is fairly likely. Ten participants have extended their tests to show 25 or more markers, and two 25-marker tests (kits 9738 and 15407) are exact matches, confirming a recent common male ancestor.

Results are as follows:

Kit	Name	* H a p l o	3 9 3	3 9 0	1 9	3 9 1	3 8 5 a	3 8 5 b	4 2 6	3 8 8	4 3 9	3 8 9 \| 1	3 9 2	3 8 9 \| 2	4 5 8	4 5 9 a	4 5 9 b	4 5 5	4 5 4	4 4 7	4 3 7	4 4 8	4 4 9	4 6 4 a	4 6 4 b	4 6 4 c	4 6 4 d	4 6 0	G A T A H 4	Y C A I I a	Y C A I I b	4 5 6	6 0 7	5 7 6	5 7 0	C D Y a	C D Y b	4 4 2	4 3 8
11548	Perryman	Q1a3	13	23	13	10	13	19	12	12	12	12	12	29	18	9	9	11	11	25	14	18	31	14	14	14	15	10	10	19	20	16	13	19	17	34	37	11	11
31020	Perryman	R1b1b2	12	24	14	11	12	16	12	14	12	13	13	29
35291	Perryman	R1b1b2	12	24	14	11	12	16	12	14	12	13	13	29
75926	Perryman	R1b1b2	12	24	14	11	12	16	12	14	12	13	13	29	17	9	10	11	11	26	15	19	30	14	15	17	17	11	12	19	23	15	15	18	18	37	39	12	12
158576	Perryman	R1b1b2a1b	12	24	14	11	12	16	12	14	12	13	13	29	17	9	10	11	11	26	15	19	30	14	15	16	17	11	12	19	23	15	15	17	18	37	39	12	12
43997	Perryman	E1b1a	13	21	15	10	16	17	11	12	12	14	11	33
159431	Perryman	-	13	23	14	10	13	14	11	14	11	12	11	28
20223	Perryman	R1b1b2	13	23	14	11	11	14	12	12	12	13	13	30	17	9	10	11	11	26	15	20	30	14	15	17	17
9923	Perryman	R1b1b2	13	23	14	11	11	15	12	12	11	13	13	28
162721	Perryman	R1b1b2	13	23	14	11	11	15	12	12	11	13	13	28	17	9	10	11	11	25	15	19	29	15	15	16	18	11	11	21	23	15	15	19	17	37	38	12	12
81496	Perryman	R1b1b2	13	24	14	11	11	14	12	12	13	13	13	29
58307	Perryman	R1b1b2	13	23	14	11	11	15	12	12	11	13	13	28
93829	Perryman	R1b1b2	13	23	14	11	11	15	12	12	11	13	13	28
31118	Perryman	R1b1b2	13	24	14	11	11	15	12	12	12	13	13	29	17	9	10	11	11	23	15	19	29	15	15	17	18	11	11	19	23	16	14	21	17	35	37	11	12
11915	Perryman	R1b1b2a1b5b	13	25	14	11	11	13	12	12	12	13	14	29	17	9	10	11	11	25	15	18	30	15	16	16	17
9938	Perryman	R1b1b2	13	25	14	11	11	13	12	12	12	13	14	29	18	9	10	11	11	25	14	18	31	15	16	17	17
18196	Perryman	R1b1b2	13	25	15	11	11	14	12	12	12	13	13	29	16	9	10	11	11	24	14	19	31	15	15	15	17	11	11	22	23	16	15	16	18	36	36	12	12
36659	Perryman	R1b1	14	26	14	10	11	14	12	12	12	13	13	29	18	9	9	11	11	24	15	19	30	15	15	17	18	11	11	19	23	16	14	19	16	37	37	12	12
9784	Perryman	R1b1b2	14	26	14	10	11	14	12	12	12	13	13	29	18	9	9	11	11	24	15	19	30	15	15	17	18	11	11	19	23	16	14	19	16	37	37	12	12
18666	Perriman	-	15	23	15	10	15	15	11	13	11	13	12	31
33443	Perryman	I2b1	15	23	16	10	13	15	11	13	11	14	12	31
10024	Perryman	I2b1	15	23	16	10	13	15	11	13	11	14	12	31
15407	Perryman	I2b1	15	23	16	10	13	15	11	13	11	14	12	31	17	8	9	11	11	25	14	20	27	11	14	14	15
9794	Perryman	I2b1	15	23	16	10	13	15	11	13	11	14	12	31
9927	Perryman	I2b1	15	23	16	10	13	15	11	13	11	14	12	31
9738	Perryman	I2b1	15	23	16	10	13	15	11	13	11	14	12	31	17	8	9	11	11	25	14	20	27	11	14	14	15	11	9	19	21	14	14	17	18	35	39	12	10
65539	Perryman	I2b	15	23	16	10	13	15	11	13	11	14	12	31	17	8	9	11	11	25	14	20	27	11	14	14	15	11	9	19	21	14	14	17	18	35	39	12	10
55572	Perryman	I2b	15	23	16	10	13	15	11	13	11	14	12	31
96299	Perryman	I2b	15	23	16	10	13	15	11	13	11	14	12	31
42375	Perryman	I2b	16	23	16	10	13	15	11	13	11	14	12	31

DYS 19 is also known as DYS 394.

According to family records, three participants (9738, 9927 and 10024) are descendants of Robert Perryman (c1645-1704), who landed in Virginia in 1663, and his wife Mary Scott. Although exact 12-marker matches were expected, they are important in helping validate tradition and earlier documentation.

Another participant (9794) is a known descendant of Anthony Perryman, born c1775 in Virginia. According to researcher John Bennett Boddie, Anthony was "undoubtedly a descendant of Robert Perryman" and Mary Scott, although this had never been proven due to the destruction of almost all public records in that area in the 1700s. This 12-of-12 match is significant in that it seems to support Boddie’s assumption; until the DNA test, this male had not been able to “prove” a connection.

Another (15407) was an exact 12-marker match and, although common ancestry was expected based on tradition, a paper link had not been proven. And yet another (96299) is also a match.

Two others (33433 and 55572) were also exact 12-marker matches, seeming to prove connections in Georgia that were initially or mostly supported only by geographical clues and naming conventions. Similarly, participant 65539 is a 37-marker match for 9738 of this group, yet no paper trails confirm his ancestry prior to about 1814.

One participant (42375) matched 11 of 12 markers for these six (9738, 9794, 9927, 10024, 15407, and 33443). The difference: a value of 16 vs. 15 on market 393. According to Family Tree DNA, a possible a mutation from 15 to 16 does not necessarily support a common ancestor relationship.

Other participants do not appear to be related to this Perryman line and represent 13 additional 12-marker combinations.

Two participants (18196 and 31020) were thought to be descendants of Roger Perryman (c1708-1745) of Maryland, thus no match to anyone of Robert Perryman’s line seems to confirm that the Maryland and Virginia lines, as explained below, were not related. However, complicating this conclusion is that these two participants are not, per the Y-DNA test, related to each other, meaning that further research is required on their lines and that testing of other descendants of Roger will be helpful. However, one of these participants (31020) did match two later participants (35291 and 75926) in 12-marker tests, apparently reconfirming the descent from Roger’s line through son Isaac, their common ancestor and another (158756) is also a 12-marker match yet shows slight variants on extended markers meaning that any relationship is distant.

Two U.S. males (36659 and 9784) were exact matches in extended marker testing, obviously expected because they are brothers.

Four participants (9923, 58307, 93829, and 162721) matched on 12 markers, and their individual ancestries can be traced into Kentucky around 1840. However, further research is required to explain the connections.

Two males – one in the U.S. (9938), one in the U.K. (11915) – were exact 12-marker matches, an unexpected surprise, but only 21 of 25 markers matched, meaning that they are not likely related.

One participant (20223) is a descendant of the Creek Indian Perrymans who settled in Oklahoma in the early 1800s, per tradition from the Robert Perryman (c1645-1704) line through grandson David (c1735-1804). However, test results did not match any others, the closest being 8 of 12 markers for two participants for whom no other matches have been established, meaning no relationship and no common ancestor within thousands of years.

Although one male in the U.K. (18666) matched 7 of 12 markers for five other participants and another with U.K. heritage matched 9 of 12 markers for three others, there’s little chance of a relationship, and a shared ancestor within thousands of years is unlikely.

One participant (9938) has matched no others in the Perryman test but is a 12-marker match for more than two dozen other participants with different surnames. However, according to Family Tree DNA, there should be no assumption of any relationship within the last 1,000 years or 40 generations.

It’s important to understand that although some markers for others tests match each other, conclusions of any common relationships cannot be drawn. In fact, even matches of 10 markers would suggest a relationship only within the last 61-144 generations.

We have, therefore, apparently identified at least 14 separate Perryman surname groups and will compare future results with each.

In all cases, further testing of descendants from different and prior generations will help confirm that other documented and/or traditional information are correct.

More Information on DNA and Genealogy

Family Tree DNA Tutorial and Migration Maps
Surnames and the Y Chromosome
DNA from the Beginning
Genealogical Detective
Glossary of Genetic Terms

Haplotypes and Haplogroups

A 12- or 25-marker Y-DNA signature is called a Haplotype, and when added to other closely-linked Haplotypes, constitutes a Haplogroup. Haplogroups represent the branches of the tree of Homo Sapiens, and every male in the world can be located on one branch or another by looking for a rare mutation on the Y chromosome. Anthropologists use this information to determine ancient migratory patterns and deep ancestral dating when trying to establish, for example, when western Europe was first settled, generally in conjunction with other disciplines, such as field archeology.

Comparing results from our participants with a database of other samples suggests matches for the following anthropological Haplogroups, as noted in the table above.

· Q: Found in north and central Asian populations and native Americans. Believed to have originated in central Asia and migrated through northern Eurasia into the Americas. According to Family Tree DNA, Q, and especially Q3, suggests a direct male ancestor who was Native American, and a Haplogroup test can be conducted to confirm the prediction.

· E1b1a: It is currently hypothesized that this haplogroup dispersed south from northern Africa within the last 3,000 years, by the Bantu agricultural expansion. Also the most common lineage among African Americans.

· R1b1: Most common Haplogroup in European populations, believed to have expanded throughout Europe as far back as 10,000-12,000 years ago, after the last glacial maximum. Very difficult to interpret in that it is found at relatively high frequency in the areas where the Anglo-Saxon and Danish "invaders" originally called home. Descendants of R1b account for over 40% of all the chromosomes of Europe, making it difficult to draw any conclusions about origins of families with this DNA signature.

· I: Nordic. Nearly completely restricted to northwestern Europe, most commonly with Viking populations, and one line of this group extends down into central Europe. Ancestors (defined by the P19 and M170 genetic markers) arrived from the Middle East 20,000 to 25,000 years ago and are associated with the Gravettian culture, the second subdivision of the Upper Paleolithic technological phase in western Europe (from 21,000 to 27,000 years ago).

Note: According to the Genographic Project, managed by the National Geographic, Haplogroup I, a lineage defined by the genetic marker M170, evolved some 20,000 years ago from marker M168. The very widely disbursed M168 marker can be traced to a single individual who lived in Africa some 31,000-79,000 years ago and is the ancestor of every non-African person living today; his descendants migrated out of Africa. Haplogroup I is widespread throughout southeastern and central Europe and most common in the Balkans. The M170 marker first appeared in the Middle East, and the spread into Europe is believed to have accompanied the expansion of the prosperous Gravettian culture, an Upper Paleolithic group. Later spread is likely tied to the mid-first millennium B.C. Celtic culture, perhaps explaining the wide dispersal of this unique marker.

One participant (9738) invested in an SNP test and was determined to be P19+, assigned to Haplogroup I. This participant’s Y-DNA markers match eight others (9794, 9927, 10024, 15407, 33433, 55572, 65539, and 96299), meaning that they can claim the same Haplogroup. A separate Haplogroup prediction suggests that the group is I1c, which has been in ancient western Europe since the Ice Age. About 18% of the people in Europe are I, and I1c is a very small part of that group.

Another participant (11548) has a confirmed Haplogroup of Q.

Again, Haplogroups are tied to deep ancestry, as in 10,000 or tens of thousands of years.

Other Haplogroups were predicted by Family Tree DNA based on individual results but have not been confirmed by testing.

Understanding Your Results: Y DNA
The following information is reprinted with permission from Facts & Genes, Copyright 2004, Family Tree DNA.

If you are among the first persons to take a Y DNA test for your surname, often you will not have any matches. This may be disappointing, though it is only a matter of time until you have a match. When you don't have any matches, the best approach is to find some other males with your surname to test. To validate your lineage, it is recommended that you test the most distant cousin in your family tree. His result should match, or be an extremely close match, to your result. This step of testing another male in your family tree will scientifically validate your result.

On the other hand, you may have a lot of matches with other surnames, especially if you are Haplogroup R1b, and you are testing only 12 Markers.

It is very tempting to pursue these matches with other surnames, in the hope of finding a lost relative from the family tree. Matches with other surnames are most likely not relevant in a genealogical time frame.

If we consider for a moment: how many males had your Y chromosome result, or a close result, in the 1300's, when surnames were being adopted. This figure could be in the hundreds, if not in the thousands. Each of these males, or small groups of males in a family unit at the time, probably adopted a different surname. These males were probably also spread out geographically.

If we take this group of males who adopted hundreds of surnames in the 1300's, and then consider that each surname probably took on multiple forms through the centuries until the 1900's, plus factor in the number of possible male descendents today - we have a very large number of surnames that could share a Y DNA result.

Most people in England adopted surnames by 1400, which is a little over 600 years ago. In a time frame of 600 years, depending on the figure used for years per generation, we would expect between 20 to 24 generations to have occurred, at 30 years per generation or at 25 years per generation. The current mutation rate estimated for the Y DNA Markers by the scientists is 1 mutation every 500 generations per Marker. For a 25 Marker test, we would expect 1 or maybe 2 mutations if two people were related in the 1400's, in the time since surnames were adopted.

Most likely a match with another surname is the result of being related before a genealogical time frame, or as a result of convergence. Convergence is where Y DNA results mutate over time, and as a result of changes, these two results now overlap.

Depending on your ancestral country, and the surviving records, your family tree may be traced back to the 1800's, 1700's, or 1600's, and for a few rare family trees, to a time well before then. If a 25/25 match with another surname is a result of a family taking in an orphan in 1425 – you will probably never find the paper record, if a paper record ever existed, and pursuing the match takes valuable time away from traditional family history research.

As more people take a Y DNA test, you will eventually have matches with other surnames. For a 12 Marker test, the total range of generations for relatedness is 76.9, which is almost 2000 years, and well before the adoption of surnames. Those who belong to Haplogroup R1b will have many matches with other surnames, in fact dramatic population expansion within Haplogroup R1b lead our science team to clearly see the need to expand our original test from 12 to 25 markers.

We recommend not pursuing matches with other surnames, unless there is some genealogical evidence to support such a match. For those interested in pursing the match, an upgrade to 37 Markers is recommended. Even at 37 Markers, you may have matches with other surnames, especially for Haplogroup R1b, and as a result of convergence. In rare cases, the match could indicate an unknown variant of the surname.

DNA testing is a tool to be used with your family history research. DNA testing provides additional information which is evaluated in conjunction with your family history research. If you have researched your family tree to the mid 1800's, pursuing a match with another surname that might have occurred from 1400 to 1800 is probably not the best investment of time.

Matches with other surnames can have value for those who are not R1b, and whose ancestors have migrated and they are trying to identify the county of origin in the ancestral homeland. People frequently moved in the past, though often the distances were not very far per generation. Therefore, a cluster of your Y Chromosome and close matches would exist in the ancestral county. For those whom you match with another surname, these matches can often be used to identify the ancestral county. If you are able to find enough matches who know their ancestral county, and one county is reported by a high percentage of matches or close matches with other surnames, you would have a clue as to the ancestral county.

It is very tempting to pursue matches with other surnames, in the hope of finding a lost relative from the family tree. Matches with other surnames are most likely not relevant in a genealogical time frame.