Analysis of Clan 3 DNA Evidence
by Patrick Childress, Barron DNA Project Co-Administrator

This page updated January 25, 2008

Several of the above Participants have taken extended tests; however, results of only the first 25 markers are shown above for purpose of comparison to other participants

Summary Statement of Mutation Analysis

One must go back seven (7) generations from Clan 3 members to find the most recent common ancestor; that is, to find the individual who is in a direct paternal line for all the participants.  That individual is Joseph E. Barron, born 1723 (note: some Clan members identify his middle name as "Elias"; however, since there seems to be some controversy of this name being proven, no full middle name is shown.).  This Joseph Barron is considered the "Patriarch" for all members of Clan 3.  Joseph's Y-DNA signature likely matches the most common values for all participants and this is how the "baseline" Y-DNA is determined.  Given that baseline, we can identify the mutations each participant exhibits.  Against the baseline Y-DNA signature, four of the eight participants exhibit no mutations at all; their Y-DNA is identical on all 25 marker values.  Three clan members exhibit a single 1-step mutation and one clan member, William Paul Barron, Jr., exhibits two single-step mutations.

All in all, there is a remarkable similarity in the Y-DNA signatures of all Clan 3 members, indicating a high probability of a recent common ancestor.

Comment posted 9/18/2007 - As of this date yet another descendent of  Joseph E. Barron born 1723 has taken the DNA test; Jack Leslie Barron whose results are shown in the right column.  While Jack's first 25 marker results support our theory of familial relationships, his extended 37-marker results give rise to some confusion when compared to those of Daniel Barron (third column from the left).  Both Daniel and Jack have four single-step mutations against one another in these extended results, leaving us with a low probability of confirmation.  We hope to have extended results for at least three of the above participants for further study by the end of 2007.

The Search for the father of Caleb Barron (1797 to 1864)

I first experienced the impact of DNA testing several years ago, when I volunteered to take the test with about 40 other Childress males.  I initially had the 12-marker test done and found to my chagrin that there were other non-Childress males whose DNA profile matched mine.  I then received my extended 25-marker test results and the discrimination was much better.  Of the 40 participating Childress males, more than half of us had the same 25-marker pattern, albeit with a small number of mutations along the line.  With that information, we have been able to compare notes and find various family alignments that I otherwise might not have discovered.  Interestingly, we have also been able to ascertain the fact that several variations of the surname Childress (Childers, Childears) are of the same lineage.  At the same time, I've been able to eliminate the lineages of many Childress contemporaries whose DNA profiles do not fit mine.  Finally, we have been able to establish the likely given name of the original Childress male who was the common ancestor for our entire clan and who immigrated to America back in the mid-seventeenth century.

Given the success of my DNA experience with the Childress surname, it seemed reasonable to expect that we could have the same kind of results with the Barron surname.  Although the Barron surname has not been in my direct family for four generations (the last Barron in my family was my second great grandmother on my father's side), it nonetheless was a very important link to my heritage in East Texas .  And, while I have substantial "proven" documentation linking me to Caleb Barron, Sr. (1797 to 1864), his birth family has proven a bit more elusive.  On my family tree on RootsWeb, one can examine the circumstantial evidence that I've accumulated in an effort to prove the father/son connection between my fourth great grandfather, Caleb, and James Barron (1752).

I suppose it would be fair to say that although I sincerely believed the above connection between James and Caleb Barron, hard evidence didn't seem to exist.  James' estate was probated in Georgia upon his death and no mention was made of a son named Caleb.  However, there were other sons not mentioned in this will, but whose existence was proven through other documentation.

Given all the above, I encouraged John Barron and Vicki Kruschwitz to join me in establishing the Barron DNA project with the help and guidance of FamilyTreeDNA, a Houston-based company.  One of my distant cousins, Jan Key Landers, and I share the Caleb Barron heritage and she was able to convince one of her closer Barron relatives, John S. Barron (kit #15363), to take the DNA test.  Another distant cousin and descendent of Caleb Barron, Charles Chester Barron (kit #15394), also agreed to take the test.

What we needed to further our case was a contemporary Barron male whose proven documentation included the above James Barron (1752) and/or his direct ancestors.  The theory to be tested was that since the markers on the DNA tests change so slowly (about every 6,000 year or so), a contemporary Barron male with a lineage that included James Barron, or any of his direct ancestors, should have a DNA profile closely matching the two contemporary Barron descendents of Caleb Barron (1797).

Fortunately, William (Bill) Paul Barron, Jr. (kit #15654), a direct descendent of Joseph E. Barron, Sr. (1723) consented to take the DNA test.  Bill has excellent "proven" documentation that provides a trace of his lineage all the way back to 17th century England.  Since Joseph E. Barron, Sr. is the father of both James Barron (1752) and William Paul Barron, Jr.'s direct ancestor, John Barron (1749), we may postulate that if Bill's DNA profile matched the two Caleb Barron (1797) descendents' profiles, then we can reasonably suggest that, in fact, Caleb is the son of James Barron.

The initial results were encouraging, but not conclusive.  There were several mutations when comparing the DNA test results; however, the proposed lineage remained quite feasible.  We just needed some additional DNA participants whose proven lineage could either support or reject our proposition that Caleb was the son of James.