Updated August 2012
[NOTE: For brevity in the article below I have often abbreviated the term “Main Mangum Line” as “MML” The MML is the supposed direct descendant 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 38 participants who have generally the same DNA markers and we believe they all are descendants of John Mangum the immigrant. We have a 39th who is genetically a Mangum but is not part of our Mangum DNA group. The DNA matches between these 39 individuals are so closely matched that they all must have descended from a single immigrant ancestor or possibly a closely related immigrant family. Of course, we do have eight other Mangum/Mangrum lines (Dewitt Mangum, James/Jesse Mangum of N.C., Greenberry Mangrum of TN, William Mangum’s daughter Edna of SC, Ellison G. Mangum of N.C., Solomon Mangum of Mississippi, Benjamin Mangum of N.C. and Harvey Mangum, an African-American from N.C.). 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 by MML Mangums sometime after 1692 John Mangum’s time. These broken lineages are discussed elsewhere.
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. We don’t know where John came from, although England or Ireland has long been assumed. John’s DNA markers were passed down to him starting with the first male human to walk the earth, from father to son, down the millennia. The markers John inherited were very different from the markers of his ancient ancestor. The markers were slowly altered over the generations and were much different from those of his male line ancestor of even a hundred generations before him. In any case, his DNA marker values, changed as they may be from his ancient ancestors, are our beginning point. Mutations from his marker values, in the 300 years we are separated from him, are what allow us to see individual family lines that descend from him.
John passed his set of Y-Chromosome DNA 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 descendants (meaning those in the Mangum DNA Surname Group) we found that they all had identical DNA marker values in MOST but not all markers. When we find that all the MLMs have a particular value in one marker, it is obvious that the marker value came from John Mangum since he is the only common link with all the MML. Marker mutations are expected in some MML lines given that John Mangum lived 300 years ago. Still, in most cases, these mutations can be ignored when the majority exhibits one particular value. The majority designates the marker values unchanged from John Mangum. These are the Standard Mangum Markers, that is, John Mangum’s original markers that he passed down to his descendants. In simpler terms, if we tested 20 of John Mangum’s descendants, and 18 of them had a value of 22 at marker X, and the other two participants had marker values of 21, then 22 would be the Mangum Standard Marker value and the 21 would be a mutation from that Standard Value.
Although DNA markers do mutate, they do so fairly 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 unrelated individuals often have marker value similarities, we test large numbers of markers, up to 111 as of 2012. The number of mutational differences between two individuals determines how far back in the past they most likely 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 average chance of a single mutation in a group of 25 markers in one of John’s descendants is 0.6. This is close to what we actually see in our Mangum group. That is, with 39 participants with 25 markers each, we find 19 mutations. With 37, 67, or even 111 markers tested, we see more mutations, but the Mangums seem to have very few mutations in those markers between 37 & 67. We don’t have a good explanation for the low mutation rate in these markers.
The fairly low rate of mutation in DNA markers is the reason the descendants of John Mangum have nearly identical DNA even after 300 years, at least in the markers we test, but on the other hand we like to find these mutations. They allow us to determine descent from sub-lineages within the overall John Mangum line of descent.
What do 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 ”III. Discovered Branches in the Main Mangum Line (MML)” below.
II. THE NEW 111 MARKERS FROM FAMILY TREE DNA
We only have four participants who have upgraded to 111 markers from 67 markers. All are MML (Main Mangum Line) Mangums. Thirteen other MMLs and four broken lineage Mangums have tested for 67 markers. We have been generally disappointed in the markers above 37 through 67 because of the small number of mutations among those tested. Of the thirteen MMLs tested for the 37-67 markers, we only found 3 mutations, all at different markers. The small number of mutations did not allow us to discern any additional branches in the Mangum family as we had hoped, other than those discovered with the lower markers. It is almost as if the Mangum genome is unusually stable in these markers. We did discover two markers where mutations occur in the 68-111 marker group, although with only four participants, we cannot yet tell which ones are the standard Mangum markers and which ones are the mutations. Hopefully, as we accumulate more participants with advanced markers, we will finally begin to see more mutations, and maybe find marker-mutations for other branches of the Mangum family, as we did in the first 37 markers for ancestors Absolom Mangum and Samuel Mangum
We have one other Mangum participant, (#73152), who has tested for 67 markers, but he is not a genetic Mangum. He is a descendent of Solomon Mangum of Mississippi, and his line appears to be genetically related to a Roberts line. It is interesting, but probably without significance, that we have a Roberts line who has tested for 67 markers, and that line is almost certainly a genetic Mangum. So far we believe that this is just an interesting coincidence.
III. DISCOVERED BRANCHES IN THE MAIN MANGUM LINE (MML)
When we tested several descendants of Samuel Mangum of the VA to NC migration of 1748, we found that all or almost all of Samuel’s descendants have a marker value of ‘38’ at CDYa, which is one of the markers between 25 & 37. Most of the MMLs had a value of ‘37’ at that marker and is assumed to be the value possessed by John Mangum & passed down to his descendants. That ’38’ value at CDYa appears to be a mutation that Samuel Mangum experienced, and which he passed down to all his descendants. Likewise, Absolom Mangum of the later VA to NC migration around 1780’s passed down a mutation at CDYb. The John Mangum marker value at CDYb was ‘39’ but the mutational value was ‘38’.
Actually, determining these two MML branches is a little more complicated than indicated above. First, CDYa & CDYb are both extremely rapid mutating markers, and they can mutate to other numbers, or mutate one way, then mutate back to the original value. Second, CDYa & CDYb are identical markers which reside at slightly different positions on the Y-Chromosome.
Lab DNA tests do not differentiate between the two. In simple words, the labs gets two values, without knowing which site on the chromosome gives which value. By convention, CDYa always gets the lower value. Adding to the confusion for us Mangums is that both mutations of interest are the same, that is, a value of ’38’ (37 to 38 or 39 to 38). In most cases, it was not hard to determine which is which, if only one marker mutated at a time. A 38-39 mutation pair means that the lower marker 37 mutated to 38, leaving the 39 John Mangum marker intact. This 38-39 pair signifies the Samuel Mangum marker. A 37-38 mutation pair means that the upper marker 39 mutated to 38, leaving the 37 John Mangum marker intact. This 37-38 pair signifies the Absolom Mangum marker. One problem is that we have instances where we have a 38-38 pair. Fortunately, traditional genealogy allowed us to determine which was the significant mutation.
We have also found a third branch point within the Samuel Mangum sub-lineage. Two mutations in your editor’s Parham line (via Pleasant Mangum) seem to define that “sub” branch within the Samuel Mangum branch. See the discussion under the “PARHAM’ paragraph below
There are several other mutations in John Mangum’s descendants, in addition to those discussed above. Each represents an actual branch point in that all their descendants would inherit the mutation. However, since the entire branch point is represented by only one participant, they have limited relevance to our research at this point. Also, unless we have a more tests from the participant's immediate family, we usually cannot determine if the individual himself originated the mutation, or it originated further up the lineage. If we eventually get more participants from these ‘isolated’ branch points, they will become as significant as the other three discussed above.
IV. THE MAIN MANGUM LINE (MML)
The Main Mangum Line (MML) is the lineage of participants who descend from John Mangum the immigrant ancestor. We can identify these John Mangum descendants because they all have Standard Mangum Markers. Some have marker values that are identical to the Standard Markers, but none have more than 4 or 5 mutations from those values, even up to 111 tested markers. This is fortunate because we can confidently assign all our participants to one of two categories; “Descendants of John Mangum” (MML) or “Totally Unrelated.” (Broken Lineages). Had there been a lot more mutations in the John Mangum lineage, we would have had much more difficulty in deciding if the participant was actually a descendant of John Mangum, or a descendant of maybe another Mangum immigrant ancestor, or a descendant of some other genetic line.
We have found several other ‘Mangums’ (and related spellings) in the U.S. that are not part of the MML, but have found no indication that they descend from another Mangum immigrant ancestor. In fact, almost all seem to have DNA from other surnames. We presently believe that these ‘Mangums’ resulted from male children who were raised as Mangums, but their biological father was not a Mangum. We call them the ‘Broken Lineages’. On the other hand, we have found a few individuals who do not have the Mangum surname, but their DNA reveals that they are indeed Mangum. In that case, one of their ancestors was given a non-Mangum surname, but their biological father was a Mangum.
A. SAMUEL MANGUM
We now have several participants who are, or probably are, descendants of Samuel Mangum of the VA to NC migration in 1748 through his sons Joseph & Howell Mangum. All except three exhibit the Samuel Mangum mutation “38” at CDYa. Two are from the Arthur Mangum line and this is discussed below. One other is a descendent of Joseph's son Pleasant Mangrum (#11236) and he has the Standard Mangum Markers “37/39” combination at CDYa/CDYb. See the two charts below. That anomaly is also discussed below.
The first chart below emphasizes the marker mutations in each family group. The second one emphasizes the actual lineage relationships.
Chart Info: The chart above summarizes the DNA results of the descendants of Samuel Mangum, through seven significant DNA Markers. The standard markers of the Main Mangum Line (MML), that is, those from John Mangum the immigrant, are at the top in the amber colored row. The markers in red are mutations from the MML. The distinctive 'Samuel Mangum marker mutations' are in the CDYa column with red marker values and yellow background. The mutations in other markers also have red text but they have light purple background. Note the ‘Parham’ mutations in in markers 459b & 447. The “---“ notation indicates that the DNA test for that marker has not been performed.
Chart Info: The chart shows the lineages of those DNA participants who we believe descend from Samuel Mangum of the VA to NC migration. Beneath the lineages are the results of seven markers (MKR) in which at least one participant has a mutations from the Standard Markers (STD) The STD markers are those that came from John Mangum the immigrant. The distinctive 'Samuel Mangum marker mutation is at 'CDYa' with a value of 38 instead of the STD marker value of 39.
1. ARTHUR MANGUM
Originally we had two participants who claimed descent from the Arthur Mangum Sr. line (of the N.C. to VA migration), through Arthur Jr. of NC, Arthur [III?] of Jackson County, GA, and his son Wiley James Mangum of GA. Your editor’s lineages showed that this Arthur Mangum of Georgia ( who married Lavena Brooks) was the son of Howell Mangum Sr. Your editor was quite surprised when the DNA results showed that neither participant had the Samuel Mangum mutation, which they should have had if Arthur of GA was son of Howell. This seemed to confirm the participant’s claim of descent from Arthur Jr. of NC, in spite of other compelling evidence that this Arthur was son of Howell Sr.
The two participant’s claim of descent from Arthur Mangum Jr. of NC soon began to unravel. New information from Orange Co., N.C. court records showed that the Arthur Mangum of Georgia was simply too old to be Arthur III, the son of Arthur Mangum Jr. of NC. On the other hand, we still had the DNA results showing a negative for the Samuel Mangum mutation, and which therefore seemed to indicate that Arthur Mangum of Georgia was not the son of Howell Mangum Sr. of Franklin County, GA. It was a real puzzle. Just where did this Arthur Mangum of Jackson County, GA come from?
Then we found a descendent of Middleton B. Mangum. Middleton was another son of Arthur Mangum of Jackson County, Georgia, and therefore brother to the above participant’s Wiley James Mangum. Lo & behold, the descendant of Middleton B. Mangum did have the Samuel Mangum mutation. After a period of puzzlement, we believe we have finally figured out what happened.
We believe that the Samuel Mangum mutation (marker value 38 for CDYa instead of the MML value of 37) was indeed passed down from Arthur Mangum of Georgia to his son Wiley James Mangum. This marker then underwent a second mutation back to the original ‘Mangum Standard Marker’ value of 37. This is not too farfetched because marker CDYa is one of the fastest mutating markers known. Since the first two participants descended from Wiley James Mangum, they both inherited the ‘re-mutated’ marker (37). Middleton B. Mangum’s original mutated marker (CDYa=38) remained unchanged in his descendants. Therefore, based on these re-interpreted DNA results, and compelling traditional genealogical evidence, Arthur Mangum of Jackson County, Georgia was most probably a son of Howell Mangum Sr. of North Carolina and Franklin County, GA. This is a rather complicated series of events, but it is the only known scenario that explains the facts.
At last contact, the family is still confident that their lineage goes back to an Arthur Mangum of Jackson Co., GA, son of Arthur Mangum Jr. of Orange County, NC. They concede that he may not have been this particular Arthur Mangum, but this is their long held family tradition.
Issue 64 of the Mangum-Mangham-Mangrum Journal has more detailed information about this line.
2. HOWELL MANGUM
We initially thought that the “38” mutation at CDYa was originated by Howell Mangum, son of Samuel Mangum of the VA to NC migration in 1748. Then we began to see descendants of Joseph Mangum (who we believe is Howell’s brother) with this same mutation. It then became obvious that this mutation is a marker for descent from Howell & Joseph's father, Samuel Mangum. We had earlier settled on Howell as the father of your editor’s Pleasant Mangum, through a process of elimination, using traditional genealogy. The fact that all of Pleasant’s descendants (so far tested) have the “38” mutation strengthens that theory. Unfortunately, additional developments have made that concept somewhat uncertain. We presently do not know whether Pleasant descends from Howell or his brother Joseph. There is of course another less likely scenario in which another son of Samuel, presently unidentified, was Pleasant’s father. This uncertainty was first created when we found Howell Mangum Sr.’s estate papers in Franklin County, GA and there was no mention of a son named Pleasant Mangum. Of course, Pleasant Mangum remained in North Carolina when Howell Mangum and family migrated to Georgia around 1800. It is possible that this was the reason Pleasant Mangum was ignored in processing Howell Mangum Sr.’s estate, but it doesn’t seem likely. Joseph Mangum of Warren County, NC is the only other known son of Samuel Mangum and he could have been the father of Pleasant. The main connection between Pleasant and Joseph is that a Joseph Mangum was one of the witnesses when Pleasant Mangum purchased his land in 1811.
The DNA results from the descendants of Samuel Mangum, another son of Howell Mangum, show no anomalies as you can see from the above charts.
Your editor's Parham lineage has been shown to be definitely part of the Mangum family, even with three mutations in the first 37 DNA marker, that is, three differences between your editor's DNA markers and the Standard Mangum Markers from John Mangum. This is evident in the charts above. Additional tests with other family members showed that great grandfather Henry Mangum, who took his mother’s maiden name “Parham”, passed on one of these mutations in marker 459b to his descendants. Later, in the line that led to your editor, another mutation occurred in marker 447. There are no others alive to test to see if the mutation in marker 447 was from your editor, the father or grandfather. The Family Tree DNA lab calculated that the chance of a common ancestor between your editor and the (MML) at 300 years is 76.34%, still a high percentage, but much lower than had been hoped. Now, having discovered where the mutations occurred, and having shown that the great great grandfather's DNA markers were almost identical to the Standard Mangum Markers, the chance of your editor's lineage's descent from John Mangum the immigrant is almost 100%. This is a much more satisfying result. Incidentally, your editor’s kit number is 6874.
The above reasoning re your editor's descent is further indicated by the results of the 111 markers which show that the markers above 38 are essentially identical to the Standard Mangum Markers.
In the first 38 markers, there is the two ‘Parham’ mutations, and of course the CDYa mutation that signifies descent from Samuel Mangum.
4. JOSEPH MANGUM
Three participants descend from Samuel of the VA-NC migration via Joseph Mangum through his son James Mangrum.  Strangely enough, one of those does not have the Samuel Mangum mutation, although traditional genealogy has his descent as shown in the above charts. It is possible that Alfred (Alf), or one of his descendants, had another mutation in this fast changing marker (CDYa), changing it back from the mutated “38” value to the standard MML “37” value. Another possible explanation is that there is an error in the Alfred Mangrum lineage, although presently there is no indication of this.
There is another anomaly with one of the descendants of Samuel’s son 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. This mutation at CDYb is usually considered a marker for descent from Absolom Mangum. We believe the CDYb mutation occurred later in the lineage in this fast mutating marker. Note that one of your editor’s relatives, a Pleasant Mangum descendent, had this identical “double 38” marker at CDYa & CDYb. In this latter case, there is no doubt about his participant's descent. These two “double” mutations are almost certainly a result of the fast mutating tendency of this pair of markers. There is no indication that these two individuals with the ‘double 38’ mutation are more closely related than traditional genealogy has shown.
5. ISOM GREEN MANGRUM SR.
We have a DNA results from three descendants of Isom Green Mangrum. All three have the “38” distinctive marker at CDYa meaning they probably are descended from Samuel Mangum. One has a “13” mutation at marker #439, a value that four others in the MML has, including one from the Joseph Mangum-James Mangrum line. Another descendant of Isom Green Mangrum Sr. has a mutation in marker 570, which is matched by the same mutation in one of Solomon Mangham’s descendants. These mutations from the MML are probably not significant in regard to these lineage relationships, merely examples of the tendency of markers to mutate in random ways.
Isom Green Mangrum was born 1806 and he could not have been born to anyone in the known descendants of Joseph Mangum, except Joseph Mangum himself, or his son James Mangrum. Isom certainly could not have been born to William Henry Mangrum, b. 1855 who also has the ‘13’ mutation, and William is the earliest of Joseph’s 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 Henry Mangrum and Isom Green Mangrum), 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 which accidentally caused a match with the Samuel Mangum line. 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 (c1806). 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 Isom’s 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 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.
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).
William Arter (1812 TN) married Elizabeth Mangrum 1838 TN. Moved to AR 1844. We don’t know if there is any connection with other Mangrums that moved to AR?
B. ABSOLOM MANGUM
As discussed above and in the “CDYa/CDYb Problem” link, all three of Absolom Mangum’s descendents have a “38” mutation at CDYb. One of those has a further mutation at CDYa(37 changed to 36), but this is just another random mutation that probably happened later in this particular line from Absolom Mangum.
One of the descendants of Absolom Mangum (Kit #18989) has a multiple marker mutation at marker #385b (change of 3) plus another single mutation at marker #CDYb for a total of 4 mutations. None of the other Main Mangum Line (MML) 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.  All the other markers for this individual match the Standard Mangum Markers.
C. HENRY MANGUM
We have two participants from the Henry Mangum family of Virginia and Tennessee. Kit #173868 is a descendant of Henry Mangum Sr’s son, Samuel Mangrum who married Rebecca Cotton. They are parents of Zachariah Mangrum, and grandparents of Perry A. Mangrum, a lineage that has previously been obscure and subject to much speculation. Kit #173948 is a descendant of Henry through his son Henry Mangrum Jr. who married Sarah Glover. Except for a few odd mutations, the test results for these two individuals are essentially identical to the Standard Mangum Markers. Neither has the Absolom (CDYb=38) or Samuel Mangum (CDYa=38) DNA markers, but interestingly enough Kit #173868 has a (CDYb=40), where the standard value is “39”. CDYa & CDYb are very fast mutating markers, and it is most likely that the “40” mutation occurred at or after the time of Henry’s son Samuel Mangrum. Some earlier theories had Henry Mangum of early Virginia as a lineage separate from John Mangum, our assumed immigrant ancestor. These DNA tests leave no doubt that Henry and John Mangum were very closely related, most likely father & son, or somewhat less likely grandfather and grandson.
D. 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 from two of his descendants shows that he was either a descendent of John, or a descendent of a very close relative of John. 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 the English surnames, we have attempted to recruit Irish DNA participants. We presently have two Irish participants (Mangan), and neither are closely related to the MML or to each other. The Mangum-Mangham-Mangrum Journal, issue 64, page 48 has more details about the problems in doing research with Irish surnames.
E. JOHN MANGUM THE PATRIOT There is little question that this John Mangum (b. 1763), a Revolutionary
War Patriot, was a descendant 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 Surry County, Virginia 1744.
This 1744 John married Olive Savidge and was likely the son of John the
immigrant. 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 Dr. John Palmer's Mangum book for more information relating to John Mangum the Patriot's origin. The other member of the line, participant #8869, is a descendent of William
Mangum b. 1811, son of the Patriot. He has upgraded his DNA markers to
67. In the first 37 markers he has the above mentioned 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. SOLOMON MANGHAM OF NC & GA The four descendants of Solomon Mangham have a few mismatches from the “Standard”
Mangum markers at the 37 marker level. The mismatches are all at different
markers and only one participant has more than a single mismatch. We believe
the mutations occurred after the time of John Mangum and do not affect the
relationship of this line to the MML, 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.
E. JOHN MANGUM THE PATRIOT
There is little question that this John Mangum (b. 1763), a Revolutionary War Patriot, was a descendant 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 Surry County, Virginia 1744. This 1744 John married Olive Savidge and was likely the son of John the immigrant. 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 Dr. John Palmer's Mangum book for more information relating to John Mangum the Patriot's origin.
The other member of the line, participant #8869, is a descendent of William Mangum b. 1811, son of the Patriot. He has upgraded his DNA markers to 67. In the first 37 markers he has the above mentioned 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. SOLOMON MANGHAM OF NC & GA
The four descendants of Solomon Mangham have a few mismatches from the “Standard” Mangum markers at the 37 marker level. The mismatches are all at different markers and only one participant has more than a single mismatch. We believe the mutations occurred after the time of John Mangum and do not affect the relationship of this line to the MML, 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.G. ROBERT S. MANGUM
Again, it is obvious that this line is part of the MML, and the three 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 Joseph 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. He does not have the Samuel Mangum mutation and therefore is probably not related to Joseph Mangum of Warren County, NC.
H. RICHARD B. MANGUM
Previously, participant #25652’s earliest ancestor was listed as Chester (or Chesley) J. Mangrum, b c1868 AR. Later a deceased family researcher’s records showed that Chester’s father was Richard B. Mangrum, but it is unknown how that researcher came about this information. Her records show Richard Barler Mangrum, born about 1829, Mulberry, Crawford County, Arkansas (western part of the state) near Fort Smith. Richard married Frances Jane Howard on 11 July 1865 in White County, TN and she was born abt 1845 and died after 1902. Their son Chester James Mangrum was born 12 Oct. 1868 and died 11 Sept. 1900, all in Mulberry, Crawford County, AR.
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 Journal issue 59a.) 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 Tennessee or Arkansas branches of Henry’s family. The fact that both Richard’s family and some of Henry’s descendants were in Arkansas may be coincidental. Craighead County, home of Henry’s descendants, is on the other side of the state from Crawford County, home of Richard’s family. However, we do not have accurate and complete lineages of all of Henry’s descendants, so the question remains open.
I. 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 descendants so far tested have the distinctive DNA marker mutation at CDYa. Wiley P. Mangum’s descendent (participant # 14496) did not have this distinctive marker. Hopefully, additional research will resolve this difficult lineage.
J. WILLIAM MANGUM OF NC
This William Mangum was born February 1819 in Granville Co., NC. He married there to Sarah Cannon/Kennon on 17 January 1837. They later moved to Caswell County, NC where both died and are buried. William died 4 May 1858. His DNA, via his descendent in our Mangum DNA Group (Kit 102526), is an exact match in 37 markers with the Standard Mangum Markers.
There are quite a few Mangum families in Granville County 1820-1840 according to the census of those years. Many of them have age groups corresponding to the age of William, but at present there is no known way to choose between them.
We find William in Caswell County, NC in 1850, age 31 with his wife Sallie age 34. She was born in Caswell, he in Granville. Their children, Martha J. (12), Eliza A. (10), Margaret (6) & James C. (3) were born in Granville County while their last Emmeline (2/12) was born in Caswell County. We surmise that the move to Caswell was made in 1849 or 1850. We do find a William Mangum in Granville County in the 1840 census which may be this William. He and a female, presumably his wife, were age 20-30, and they had one daughter under 5. The family was in Cedar Oaks (or Cadaso Osark as indexed by Ancestry.com).
K. WILLIAM L. MANGUM OF KNOXVILLE, TN
This participant originally tested for 40 markers at Ancestry.com. Unfortunately Ancestry.com’s DNA test does not include the markers CDYa & CDYb, which are the Samuel & Absolom mutated markers. After testing with FTDNA (Kit #186162) this participant found that he has the Absolom Mangum Marker mutation at CDYb.
William L. Mangum was born about 1833, possibly in South Carolina. He married Ada Byrd (Bird) on 16 Dec. 1891. The last known location of William was in Knoxville, Tennessee 1891-1894. His origin is presently obscure, but based on his DNA markers, the family of Absolom Mangum is a prime candidate. It should also be noted that CDYa & CDYb markers are fast mutating markers, so this assigning of a descent from Absolom Mangum, although very likely, is not 100% conclusive.
Wm L. Mangum’s DNA did have some other mutations from the Standard Mangum Markers, which you should remember are the markers we assume that John Mangum the immigrant handed down to all his descendants. There is a value of 18 at marker 458 where the Standard Marker value is 17. This mutation is shared with only one other participant; Kit Number 11325 who is a descendent of Solomon Mangham of N.C. & Georgia. We presently have no reason to believe that William L. Mangum of Knoxville, TN was closely related to Solomon Mangham of GA, other than this DNA mutation match. Most likely, this match was merely because a random mutation accidentally matched that of another descendant line from John Mangum.
This participant also had a mutation in marker 464c. (value 17 versus the standard 16). No other Main Mangum Line participant has this mutation so the mutation does not really tell us anything new. A few random mutations are expected in some lineages during the 300 years since the time of John Mangum.
L. WILEY ROBERTS
A descendant of Wiley Roberts, born 1800 in North Carolina, joined the Roberts DNA group at Ancestry.com. When their results came back they discovered that they did not match the Roberts lineages but they did match very closely our Mangums. At your editor’s urging, the Roberts participant from Ancestry.com was persuaded to join our Mangum group at FamilyTreeDNA and re-test their DNA. Re-testing was needed because Ancestry.com does not test for CDYa & CDYb, the only two markers we have so far found where mutations signify branches in the John Mangum lineage. Those branches are the Absolom Mangum and Samuel Mangum lines. The FTDNA tests revealed that this participant (Kit #169738) with the Roberts surname does not have either mutation, so he is not descended from Samuel or Absolom Mangum. The family has not yet identified a possible time and family in which the lineage break (from Mangum to Roberts) might have occurred. They do know that Wiley Roberts died c1859 in Salina Co., IL. Family tradition says that 4 brothers from TN came to Salina County c1812-1816. Wiley Roberts had one child named Josiah Mangrum Roberts, which seems to be significant, but it has not yet led to a solution to the origin of the lineage break from Mangum to Roberts.
M. SAMUEL ROBERTSON
We have DNA data from a Robertson (Kit # 16153) who is a perfect 67 marker match with the Standard Mangum Markers (MML). He is also a member of the Donnachaidh surname group (Scottish) and the results from another Robertson from this Scottish group is a perfect 37 marker match with the MML. There is a high confidence that the Mangums and this line of Robertsons had a common male ancestor in the last 300 years. Mr. Robertson has upgraded his markers to the new FamilyTreeDNA 111 marker group, along with three other MML Mangums. All four are a perfect match except in two markers above the original 67. With only these four participants, we cannot yet say what values of these two markers are the Standard Mangum Markers and which are the mutations. Hopefully we will soon get more participants to resolve the marker problem
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 67 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.
Mr. Robertson has been on the forefront of additional DNA testing, followed closely by your editor and Ron Mangum from Howell Mangum Sr.’s line (Kit # 6879), to determine the ancient ancestors of the Mangums. Deep Clade tests have been done, and we are awaiting results from “Walk Through The Y” (WTY) tests by Ron Mangum, and the National Geographic’s Genographic Project by Mr. Robertson. Deep Clade tests looks at Y-chromosome SNPs to determine the individual’s place on the human genetic tree. Since all MML Mangums have the same direct male lineage from John Mangum, this Deep Clade test applies to all MML descendants. The WTY tests 1,000s of SNPs on the Y-chromosome, looking for mutations, which might become published and established mutations showing branches in the human genetic tree. The Genographic Project also tests for 1,000s of SNPs on the Y-chromosome, but also looks at mtDNA (maternal mitochondrial DNA) and autosomal DNA across all the chromosomes. The latter two relate to the participants lineages only, and do not provide any Mangum lineage information.
Our standard DNA markers (STRs) look at repeating molecular groups at particular sites on the Y-chromosome helix. They are not genes but a type of genetic stutter that can become larger or smaller as mutations accumulate. A count of the number of groups at each point (marker) determines the marker value. The number of groups can easily change (mutate), up or down, making them ideal for determining genealogical relationships within the last 600 years.
SNPs, on the other hand, are changes in single letters on the Y-chromosome DNA helix and relate to deep ancestry, because they are so rare. Each SNP is assumed to have occurred only once in all of human history. Each of the established SNPs represents a branch in the human family tree (Haplogroup), at some world location and generation after the Y-chromosome Adam (so called because he represents the single human who is the male ancestor of the entire human race). We presently have delved so far into the ‘Deep Clade” testing that we believe we have traced the origin of the Mangums from the Y-chromosome Adam to a group that was concentrated (although not exclusively) in Ireland less than 1,000 years ago. More details are given in Issue 64 of the Mangum-Mangham-Mangrum Journal.
[E-mail your editor for a link to a free download of Journal 64 - "email@example.com".]
 We don’t want to find several mutations in any one MML lineage. At best, it requires some finessing to explain why it doesn’t change the relationship to John Mangum the immigrant. At worse, it might infer a broken lineage.
 A marker is a place on the Y-chromosome that has a number of duplicating chemical groups called Short Tandem Repeats (STRs). The count of the number of groups in one place (a marker) on the Y-chromosome determine the value of the marker. For example, in the Mangum participants, marker 393 has 13 groups, so its marker value is 13. The chemical groups are usually different for each markers. However, there might be two or more places on the chromosome which have identical chemical groups but they can have different numbers of groups. This is the case with CDYa & CDYb. They have identical chemical groups, but they reside at two slightly different places on the Y-chromosome.
 It may be correct to call these mutations, but a better term may be changes. Mutations usually have negative or positive connotations, usually negative. These mutations are neutral since they occur at places on the “Y” chromosome which have no bodily function. This neutral effect is the reason these sites on the DNA “Y” chromosome are useful in tracking times to the common ancestor. By being neutral, that is, by not proving any advantage or disadvantage to the inheritor of the mutation, it is only the average mutation rate per generation that determines how often the mutation occurs. By considering the marker differences between two individuals, we can estimate the number of generations that have passed since the time of their common ancestors. If the mutation was beneficial then those individuals carrying the mutation would have a survival advantage over those without the mutation and over several generations there would be proportionally more individuals with the mutation, skewing the average mutation rate on which we base our calculations. The effect would be opposite if the mutation was negative.
 We have 12 of a total of 39 that have exact matches in all of the first 37 markers plus 10 of 13 that have exact matches in the markers between 38 & 67. These 'exact matched' markers are the markers we assume were passed down from John Mangum the immigrant to all his descendants. We call them the “Standard Mangum Markers”. The rest of the MML had one or more mutations from those 37/67 markers over the 300+ years since John lived.
 My son and I are the only living male descendants of my grandfather John Parham, so we will probably never know which of us originated the mutation.
 If my great-great grandfather was a John Mangum descendent, then I most certainly was also.
 The story of our research re the two “Parham” markers is documented in the Family Tree DNA Newsletter “Facts & Genes” published 12 Oct. 2003 [Volume 2, Issue 9]. You can see a copy of this newsletter by going to www.familytreedna.com, accessing the “Monthly Newsletter” link, then the 12 Oct. 2003 issue.
 One of these descendants of Joseph Mangum is a Mangham whose ancestor was born a Mangrum, although the lineage is presently somewhat tenuous.
 The 3 mutations on marker #385b correspond with the same mutation on our second English Manningham participant. Unfortunately, additional markers make it quite clear that the Absolom Mangum participant and the English Manningham participant are unrelated in any genealogical significant time frame.
 The chances that, out of four mutations in a 37 marker set, three different mutations would occur in a single marker are vanishingly small. It is much more likely that a single mutation caused the 3 value marker change on the single marker.
 This individual really had only two markers that had mismatches, although one marker mismatch was different by three units, that is, from "14" to "11", for a total of "four" mutations. We compared these results with another DNA participant who also had two mismatches, but both of his were single unit mismatches, making his total mutations "two". The Lab calculates that both individuals have the same relationship with the MML, that is, the same percentage chance & time to the most recent common ancestor with the MM
 He was an exact 37 for 37 marker match with the Standard Mangum Markers.
 Dr. John Palmer, "The Mangums of Virginia, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, TN, AR, TX UT and Adjoining States, footnote 15, page 5.
 Family Tree DNA shows that the likelihood of a common ancestor between the Robertsons and the Mangums within the past 300 years is almost 100%, based on the perfect 37/37 marker match. At 200 years it is still over 97%.