DNA of Descendants of Dennis Hopkins of Talbot County MD
INTRODUCTION
DNA
analysis as a genealogical technique first became practical for amateur researchers
about four years ago. But so far, it has been used only by a tiny fraction
of the millions who pursue genealogy as a hobby. In fact, it is probably safe
to say that the overwhelming majority of family researchers still regard DNA
testing as a mere curiosity -- to the extent they even know about it.
It
is important to note that DNA analysis is a tool that is part of the family
historian's complement of resources used to uncover the history of the microcosmic
unit of all human history -- the individual, and the individual's family.
It cannot replace the research into the documents and other traces
of an individual. People create history, but the individual
people are often forgotten in the recounting of human history. It is the goal of the serious family historian
to implement the accepted disciplines of historical research to emphasize
the lives of ordinary people such as you and me and our ancestors in the history
of nations and the world. DNA
is now one of those disciplines.
DNA
analysis has already contributed positively and impressively to research on
the large and widely dispersed Hopkins family descending from Dennis Hopkins
of colonial Talbot County, Maryland.
In
2003 Robert Hopkins submitted a sample of his DNA to Family Tree DNA testing
company, a company established in 2000 to provide results derived from samples
of DNA sent in by individuals. Sometime
in the fall of 2003 Bob contacted me, a fellow Hopkins researcher, to ask
if I could find any Hopkins surnamed males from my mother's Hopkins line who
would be willing to submit a DNA sample to see if there might be a match. After a certain amount of searching, I
located a double cousin of my mother. The results of the test came back in
early February of 2004. The results indicated that not only did Bob and my
cousin share a common ancestor, but also the DNA signature was a very unusual
one – assigned to the ³J² haplogroup. We could be pretty certain that any male surnamed Hopkins who
had a close DNA signature to Bob and Harold's signatures did have a recent
common ancestor within the last 300+ years. This fits in with family research done by Lavonne Ketchum,
Don Hopkins, Harold Hopkins, Bob Hopkins and me.
Since
those first two DNA samples were submitted in 2003, three more Hopkins surnamed
males whose paper trails indicate that they possibly descend from a Dennis
Hopkins who emigrated to Talbot County, Maryland in 1663, have submitted their
DNA samples during 2004. The
results have continued to solidify research the historical research of the
researchers I mentioned above.
However,
before we go any further with the Hopkins DNA results that parallel the paper
trails of the researchers, let us look for a moment at why, within the last
four or five years, DNA charting has become such a powerful tool for family
history researchers.
TECHNICAL
DETAILS ABOUT DNA IN GENEALOGY
Most
DNA analyses for genealogy involve tests of the Y chromosome. This
"yDNA" is possessed only by males, and it is passed from father
to son over hundreds of years (and even thousands of years) with little
or no change. As such, yDNA "traces" the surname in a fashion virtually
ideal for genealogy. Thus by
analyzing the DNA of the male individual, his male ancestry may be traced.
Mitochondrial DNA that is possessed by each individual male and female and
its role in tracing ancestral roots will be mentioned a little later below.
The
ability of the species to survive is dependent upon the ability of DNA to
copy itself exactly. It is through
this copying process that children inherit the features that not only make
them human, but also cause them to closely resemble their fathers and mothers. This is the point at which DNA enters
the genealogical picture. It
certainly may be said that the past is prologue in the case of our genetic
inheritance. Each one of us carries
within the nuclei and the mitochondria of our cells the story of our individual
human ancestry.
For
basic "surname tracing" (which describes the methodology used
for research on this website's Hopkins family) numerical yDNA scores
(haplotypes) are compared to determine if two or more living men share a recent
common ancestor in their unbroken male-to-male lines. If the men in question
have yDNA numbers that are identical or very close, then basic techniques
of statistical inference may be used to estimate the probabilities that their
common ancestor lived within a given number of generations.
So
for example, if two identically surnamed men should match perfectly on 23
or more markers from the commonly used 25-marker DNA test, then one could
have a high degree of confidence that their common male ancestor lived within
the last few hundred years.
If
on the other hand the two men in question should match on fewer than 23 markers,
then it is highly likely either (1) that they do not have a common "male
line" ancestor, or (2) that their common ancestor lived so long ago as
to render "genealogy" -- as that term is commonly understood --
virtually useless for identifying him.
HAPLOTYPES
AND HAPLOGROUPS
A
haplotype may be considered a DNA signature for an individual person.
It is made up of the numerical results of markers tested for genealogical
purposes by a lab. The haplotype
is the grouping of markers that distinguishes one family line from another. The four men of this report are considered to come from a common
ancestor because they share identical or similar haplotypes.
The
results for each marker tested on the Y-chromosome for each male surnamed
Hopkins is given below. The results
for each man are called his haplotype.
The reason that one man only has results for 12 markers is that he
did not order a 25 marker test.
|
Name |
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 |
|
Hopkins
1 |
12 |
23 |
14 |
10 |
13 |
19 |
11 |
14 |
12 |
13 |
11 |
31 |
18 |
8 |
9 |
11 |
11 |
25 |
14 |
20 |
25 |
12 |
14 |
15 |
17 |
|
Hopkins
2 |
12 |
23 |
14 |
10 |
13 |
19 |
11 |
15 |
12 |
13 |
11 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hopkins
3 |
12 |
23 |
14 |
10 |
13 |
19 |
11 |
15 |
12 |
13 |
11 |
31 |
18 |
8 |
9 |
11 |
11 |
25 |
14 |
20 |
25 |
12 |
14 |
15 |
17 |
|
Hopkins
4 |
12 |
23 |
14 |
10 |
13 |
19 |
11 |
15 |
13 |
13 |
11 |
31 |
18 |
8 |
9 |
11 |
11 |
25 |
14 |
22 |
25 |
12 |
14 |
15 |
17 |
A
haplogroup is a grouping of people by prehistoric ethnic origins defined
by long-term migration histories. The haplogroup designation of ³J²
for the Hopkins males that are the subject of this report is important because
the ³J² haplogroup is not typical of ancient English or Welsh (Celtic)
origins. The most likely explanation
for the presence of haplogroup J in Britain is that this haplogroup
carries the DNA composition of the Neolithic farmers who introduced agriculture
into Northwestern Europe between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago.
There are also alternative hypotheses that this haplogroup was
brought to Britain by Roman legions.
GENEALOGY
THROUGH GENETICS
Tracing
ancestral roots through the Y-chromosome depends upon the practice of inheritance
and naming in the paternal surname lines of many countries, especially European
countries. In theory all males of the same surname descending from a single
ancestor should have similar, if not exact., genetic coding in the Y-chromosome
of their cells. In actual practice, there may be one male ancestral line determined
by DNA comparisons of males with that surname, there may be several or there
may be many. Take the surname
Brown, for instance. It may be
of Scottish origin (Brown), it may be of Irish origin (Brown), it may be of
Nordic origin (Broune), or German origin (Braun.) There is one Y-chromosome DNA project for all variations of
the surname Brown to determine the various lines of ancestry within this single
surname. There are also more
modest goals, but goals of extreme interest to individual family historians
within the surname project, which will show more recent relationships. If there is a match between two Brown
males within the surname project then a common ancestor for these two men
may be assumed. How far back
in history they share a common ancestor is determined by the degree of the
match.
There
is not as much deviation in origin or surname spellings for Hopkins as there
is for a surname such as Brown, but there is some confusion about the origin
and prevalence of the surname. Hob
was a nickname Robert in England and was a diminutive so Hopkin means Little
Hob It has been variously spelled
as Hopkyn, Hopkyns, Hopkin, Hobkin, and Hopkins. Although Hopkins was, and is, definitely
a surname in England before the 1500¹s and down to the present day, the name
became one of the most common surnames in Wales after that country adopted
the patronymic system of names. (The incidence of Hopkins in English records
may be verified by a search at http://www.familysearch.org)
In the Hopkins surname project at Family Tree DNA there are distinct haplotypes
that indicate a diversity of ancestors and geographic origins for the ancestors
of the very small sample of the Hopkins currently in the study,
MUTATIONS
One
question may arise --What do you mean by degree of the match? I thought Y-chromosome
DNA was copied exactly and passed on to each generation in the same
way. Well, not exactly. It is
the possible mutation that may occur in the conception of a child that may
slightly change the genetic coding from father to son. A mutation is a change in the DNA that arises spontaneously
in the copying of cellular material when cells divided to form new cells. If this should occur in one of the cells
that give rise to a sperm or an egg the change/mutation is passed on to the
new child. Usually mutations
are benign, but occasionally they may affect a critical gene in a negative
way, giving rise to various medical conditions. Also the DNA of the male child will then differ from the father
at that location on the DNA structure and pass that change on to his son.
Mutations occur very rarely, but over long spans of time and geographic
isolation they give rise to various groups with similar DNA coding within
the groups, but very different from males within other groups. You can see
in the table that Hopkins 1 differs from the other three males at marker 388;
likewise Hopkins 4 differs from the other two males by two at marker 448.
These results indicate mutations
at some point in time.
MITOCHONDRIAL
DNA
Back
to the mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondrial
DNA is the DNA in the mitochondria of the cell that is always passed from
a female to her offspring -- both male and female. A woman's brother, her son and she share the mitochondrial
DNA inherited from the mother of the woman. Her son shares the Y-chromosomal genes of his father and the
mitochondrial DNA that was inherited from her mother and she from her mother
and so on. Mitochondrial DNA
cannot be used very effectively in tracing ancestral lines because it is maternal
inheritance and thus not nicely grouped by such a device as a surname. It is primarily used to study deep ancestral
roots. However, those family
historians who are women can, and often do, encourage males who carry the
surname of the family lines with which they are working -- fathers, brothers,
uncles, cousins, near and distant -- to submit a DNA sample for Ydna analysis
and thus prove or negate their paper research.
DNA
OF THE HOPKINS FAMILY OF TALBOT COUNTY, MARYLAND
Two
brothers, Robert and Thomas Hopkins patented about 800 acres of land in Talbot
County, Maryland in 1659. ³A succession of deeds seems to confirm that Robert
had a brother named Thomas and Thomas had a brother named Dennis and that
Dennis had a brother named Richard.[Wright, Colonial Families of the Eastern
Shore of Maryland, p. 215.]
Robert
left no children.
Thomas
left sons Thomas, James, Joseph, Robert, William and John.
Richard
left sons Richard, Peter, Solomon and James.
Dennis
left sons John, Dennis, Richard, William, and Samuel.
It
is with the sons of Dennis with whom this paper is concerned, but any of the
male descendants of Thomas or Richard will all display the same haplotype.
JOSHUA
HOPKINS
In
his will in 1739, Dennis Hopkins left 1 s. each to sons John, Richard, William
and Samuel since they had previously received their share. Joshua was to receive the dwelling plantation
after the death of his mother.
No more is heard of John, William, Richard and Samuel after the will of Dennis in 1739.
Joshua
remained in Maryland. Joshua was taxed on Londonderry from 1748 to 1759. Joshua's
wife Elizabeth
JOHN
HOPKINS
It
appears that John Hopkins and his brother Richard, sons of Dennis, married
two sisters Judith and Mary Resho/Rashoon, probably daughters of Stephen Rashoon. In 1727 John and Richard sold the land
that their wives had most likely inherited from their father.
No
more is known of Richard, William, and Samuel Hopkins at this time. It is to John Hopkins to which we turn
our attention.
John
Hopkins must have left Talbot County by 1739.
There is a record, ten years later for a John Hopkins who received
a grant of land in Hampshire County, Virginia in 1749. The records for this are now in Hampshire County, West Virginia.
This land was at the point where the South Branch empties into the
Potomac near Oldtown, Maryland. John Hopkins left this area of Virginia,
probably as a result of the Indian threat some time between 1749 and 1753.
By
1753 a John Hopkins was a chain carrier for James McGowin on the Middle South
Fork of the Enoe [Eno] River. In
1756 and 1762 Lambeth Hopkins and Dennis Hopkins, respectively, were chain
carriers for surveys for John Hopkins for a total of over 400 acres of land.
In
1762 John Hopkins [of the County of Anson and the Province of North Carolina]
sold to Thomas Cresap by the Power of Attorney he assigned to Job Pearsall
the land he had received as a grant in Hampshire County, Virginia in 1749.
In
1769 John Hopkins received a grant of land in Anson County on the same day
that Lambeth Hopkins received his grant in the same County. John Hopkins received
his final grant of land in Anson County in 1772. Until recently this appeared
to be the final record for John Hopkins, but a deed has been discovered in
Guilford County, North Carolina, dated 1775 in which John Hopkins sells one
of the parcels of land he received as a grant in Anson County.
John
Hopkin's mark is one of the distinguishing features of his legal history. From the Talbot County, Maryland records
to the deed in Guilford County, John Hopkins mark is a "J." Sometimes it appears to be a backward
J Sometimes, it appears that a clerk has copied it as a normal capital ³J.² But the mark does appear to be singular
and corroborates hypotheses about the life of John Hopkins. The problem with the paper trail has been
the gap in the documents between the will of Dennis Hopkins in Talbot County,
Maryland in 1739 that names a John Hopkins as a son, and the appearance of
John Hopkins in Hampshire, Virginia in 1749.
LAMBETH
AND DENNIS HOPKINS
There
is no direct documentary evidence that Lambeth and Dennis Hopkins of Orange
County, North Carolina are the sons of John Hopkins. We have no direct documentary evidence that John Hopkins of
North Carolina is identical with the John Hopkins of Talbot County, Maryland. However, the time-honored criteria of
time, location, opportunity and associations - as well as the recurrence of
the name Dennis-- have allowed us to formulate the hypothesis that John Hopkins
of North Carolina is the John Hopkins of Talbot County, Maryland.
CONCLUSION
Hopkins
family historians of the individual lines of Lambeth and Dennis have developed
the paper trails that prove their descent from these two individuals. At this point we have the DNA results
from one male descendent of Dennis through his son Elijah and one male descendent
through Dennis, the son of Dennis and grandson of John. We have the DNA results of a male descendent
of Lambeth and we have the DNA results of a descendent of Joshua, son of Dennis
of Talbot County. All of these
DNA results have proved a match.
Given the results of the documentary paper trail, and the matching results from two branches of the Talbot County, Maryland Hopkins family, our genealogy research has been validated through this new genealogical tool.
Home | Talbot County | Hampshire County | Orange County |Anson County | Lambeth Hopkins - NC
| Lambeth Hopkins - GA | JOHN HOPKINS OF GEORGIA AND TENNESSEE
| LAMBETH HOPKINS OF TENNESSEE, ALABAMA AND TEXAS