Haplogroup types that are in red have been estimated by Family Tree DNA.

Interpretation of Results:

Group 1: John Briggs of Taunton Massachusetts Line: [Richard Briggs listed as the ancestor, is the father of John Briggs of Taunton]. Test #B30401 represents one of the oldest traceable genealogies first submitted from a descendant of John Briggs whose father Richard, was born circa 1565 in Thornbury, England. This early line descends through John's son Richard. Consistent with this line, is test #B85439, a participant who also descends through Richard, with only a 1 marker difference at DSY385b. Similarly, test #B60647, which goes back to John Briggs of Taunton but through his son William, matches test #B91274 from another William descendant. Their tests differ by only 1 marker if both are compared only to each other! These tests from the John Briggs of Taunton descendants reveal the accuracy of DNA Testing. All descendants match on all markers but for one step mutations on DYS 392, DYS447, DYS456, DYSCDYa, and DSY385b. A review of their well-documented geneaolgies shows how many generations can intervene yet DNA reveals their common ancestry.

The two lines which descend through John of Taunton's son William, tests #B60647 and #B91274, share the same ancestors until 1790. After that date, #B60647 descended from Richard's great x 5 grandson Matthew, while #B91274 descended from Henry, Matthew's brother. There have been no common ancestors since that time, yet their DNA tests differ by only 1 marker at DYS392. Additionally, these results show that there can be up to a 6 marker difference between individuals that share a common ancestor. For example, #B91274 and #B55671 both go back to John of Taunton, but they are separated by a 6 marker difference. Where the difference in markers is great, it appears that descendants going back to a common ancestor share fewer ancesters and are more distantly or indirectly related. Where there is a closer marker match of fewer than 6 differences, more ancestors appear to be directly shared in common.This finding is significant because a 6 marker difference usually means that the testees are unrelated, and without documentation to establish relatedness, this usually is true..

The descendants of Solomon Briggs match the tests from the John Briggs of Taunton descendants, and belong to this line. Test #B18220, a descendant of Solomon's son William, and William's son Lyman, matches test #B60647, a confirmed John of Taunton descendant, with differences on markers DYS447 and DYS464c. Test #B18220 also matches test #B60647, another confirmed John Briggs of Taunton descendant, with differences at DYS464c, DYS456, and DYSCDYa. Test #B23281 is another Solomon descendant from William through his son Ira, and test #B55671 is also from Solomon through his son Samuel. Test #B66216, is a descendant of Solomon's son Noah, who was a twin to his son Samuel in the prior test. Finally, test #B18222, descends from Solomon's son Raymond, who is a brother to William, Samuel, and Noah. All of the descendants of Solomon Briggs match the stated lines from John Briggs of Taunton, in that they match on all 37 markers, with a one step difference on Markers DYS447 & DYS456, and a one step difference on fast mutating markers DYS464d & DYSCDYa. This correlation shows that these participants are clearly within the same family tree. Additionally, the descendant of Solomon's son Raymond does not show the mutation on DYS447, but it is carried by Raymond's brother's descendants: William (#B18220, #B23281),Noah (#B66216), and Samuel (#B55671). Since Raymond with a '25' on this marker matches the John Briggs of Taunton descendants from John's son Richard (#B30401, #B85439), it would make it more likely that Solomon is a descendant of Richard rather than his brother William with '24' on thi marker (#B91274, #60647). Test #B47122 which is a descendant of Jesse, shows that Jesse belongs within the John Briggs of Taunton line because he matches test #B55671 the descendant of Solomon's son Noah, with one difference at DYS447. This close match suggets that Jesse could be a descendant of Solomon. Additionally, both descendants of Jesse and Noah carry a mutation at DYSCDYa that isn't found in the other Solomon descendants. It is interesting that the descendant from Noah's twin Samuel is also lacking this mutation, showing us that twins can carry dissimilar genetic material.

Group 2: Clement Briggs of Plymouth, Massachusetts Line: Test #B35300 represents the oldest genealogy submitted from a known descendant of Clement Briggs who was born circa 1600 in England. The line from Elkanah Briggs of Mississippi in Test #N21141 is a conclusive match to the Clement Briggs line, with only two differences at DSY449 and DSY570, which are both fast mutating markers. Research is ongoing to obtain documentation on the father of Elkanah Briggs, which will show how he descends from Clement Briggs. Test #B65548 for Samuel Briggs of New York, is also a conclusive match to the Clement line, with only one marker difference, also at DSY570. The results for Samuel Briggs closely match those for Test #B78129 Jesse Briggs of Otsego Co., New York, with only one difference on DYS464d, which indicates that Samuel and Jesse are closely related. These lines can proceed with searching for documentation linking their earliest known ancestors to Clement Briggs whom they conclusively match.

The line from Zadok Briggs of Franklin County, Massachusetts, Test # B20984, tentatively matches the Clement line with one mutation at DSY385b on the first 12 markers; matches on 24 markers with mutations at DSY448, DSY449, and DSY464a, and matches at all 37 markers with additional mutations at DSY460, DSY576, and DSYCDYa. Given that the bulk of the mutations are on fast mutating markers, I have included the Zadok Briggs line as a match. However, additional descendants from these lines are needed to reinforce or overcomer this match with Clement Briggs. Test #B50142 which is another Briggs line from Richard Briggs of Chester County, Pennsylvannia, also matches the Clement line with mutations at DSY393 and DSY385b on the first twelve markers; mutations at DSY464a and DSY464b an 24 markers; and mutations at DSY460, DSY576, DSYCDYa, CDYb on all 37 markers. While an 8 step difference would appear excessive to be related, note that all mutations but for two have occurred on the fast mutating markers. Additionally, Test #B50142 is closer to the Zadok Briggs line with mutations at DSY390, DSY458, DSY449, DSYCDYa, and DSYCDYb. No known ancestors have been found in common within the paper documentation for these lines. Documentation would need to be found, or additional members of these lines would have to be tested, revealing common ancestors responsible for the mutation patterns, in order for any of these relationships to hold. This to date, is a very tentative grouping.

Group 3: This Group is another extremely tentative grouping that lacks a 'long line' to anchor the results. There is some speculation by researchers, but this has not been documented, that Test #B20989 may represent a descendant of John Briggs of Portsmouth, Rhode Island. The other tests in this group show some association to this test. However, until a documented descendant with a long genealogy back to John Briggs of Portsmouth joins our group, the precise lineage of these participants and their association to one another is ultimately unknown. Of interest is Test #B88568, which represents a line with the surname 'Brigg' remaining in England. This test matches surname 'Briggs' tests #B17274, and Test #32300 with a 4 marker difference, from descendant Thomas Brigg of Keighley, Yorkshire, England born 1781.

Our remaining participants await matches. Please have your Briggs male relatives participate in this study to insure accurate and comprehensive results!