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 historianπs 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 Thomas family descending from the Thomas family of colonial Talbot County, Maryland.

 

In 2004 I asked my brother John if he would be willing to submit a DNA sample for analysis and possible comparison with other Thomas males.  A sample was submitted to Family Tree DNA through the Thomas surname project for a 25 marker test.  I was surprised and extremely pleased to find that my brother John matched someone who had already submitted his DNA.  This man had been able to trace his ancestry to Daniel Thomas born 1806 in South Carolina.  The Thomas ancestry for my brother and me went through the Thomas family of Pickens County, Alabama and Richmond County, North Carolina to the Tristram Thomas family of Talbot County, Maryland.  I had spent many years researching and documenting this family line.  However, since the courthouse in Pickens County burned not once, but twice, I did not have absolute proof that Benjamin C. Thomas, my great grandfather was the son of Tristram Thomas of Pickens County.  I felt that a match between my brother and someone whose ancestry was proven through documentary evidence to the Thomases of Talbot County would provide the proof I wanted,

 

Since those first two DNA samples were submitted in 2004, two more Thomas surnamed males have posted matches on DNA tests.  One Thomas male, like the one who first matched my brother, traces his Thomas line to a Nathan Thomas who was born in the early 1800πs.  Later, I was able to locate a Thomas surnamed male whose ancestry was documented to Tristram Thomas of Talbot County, MD with no burned counties or any other problems.

 

However, before we go any further with the Thomas 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 Thomas 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 Thomas 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
Thomas 1	15	23	15	10	15	16	13	12	11	14	12	32	16	8	10	11	11	25	14	20	27	11	14	14	15
Thomas 2	15	23	15	10	15	16	13	12	11	14	12	32	16	8	10	11	11	25	14	20	27	11	14	14	15
Thomas 3	15	23	15	10	15	16	13	12	11	14	12	32	16	8	10	11	11	25	14	20	27	11	14	14	15
Thomas 4	15	23	15	10	15	16	13	12	11	14	12	33	16	8	10	11	11	25	14	20	27	11	14	14	15

 

A haplogroup is a grouping of people by prehistoric ethnic origins defined by long-term migration histories.  The haplogroup designation of ≥I1c≤ for the Thomas males that are the subject of this report probably reflects an Anglo-Saxon origin for these Thomases.  This is important to note because many Thomases from this line have given their origin as Welsh.  There is no documentary evidence for this.  The first recorded Thomas surnamed males that can be traced directly to Tristram Thomas of Talbot County, MD were in the parishes of Chevening and Sunbury in Kent, England in the 1500πs and 1600πs.  This makes sense with an Anglo-Saxon origin as the Saxons invaded England across the English channel.  A Welsh origin – Celtic – would have had a different haplotype.

 

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 Thomas 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 ≥kin≤ was a diminutive so Hopkin means ≥Little Hob.≤  It has been variously spelled as Tomas, Thomson, Thomason, and Thomas.  Although Thomas was, and is, definitely a surname in England before the 1500πs and down to the present day, the name became one of the most common surnames in Wales after that country adopted the patrynomic system of names. (The incidence of Thomas in English records may be verified by a search at http://www.familysearch.org) In the Thomas 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 Thomas 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 Thomas 4differs from the other three males at marker 389-2..  This result indicates a mutation 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 womanπs 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 THOMAS FAMILY OF TALBOT COUNTY, MARYLAND

 

Line of John Thomas, my brother

 

Tristram Thomas Sr., son of Christopher Thomas and Juliana Stacey. Tristram d. before 1686, Talbot, County, MD.

 

Tristram Thomas Jr., son of Tristram Thomas Sr. and Elizabeth Higgins. Tristram d. 11 Feb. 1745/46 Queen Anneπs County, MD

 

Stephen Thomas, son of Tristram Thomas Jr. and Sarah Stephens? Stephen d. 1744 Anson County, NC.

 

William ≥Ram Billy≤ Thomas, son of Stephen Thomas and Mary Clothier.  William Thomas d. 1800, Richmond County, NC.

 

George Thomas, son of William ≥Ram Billy≤ Thomas and Hannah Pratt.  George d. 1850, Pickens County, AL.

 

Tristram Thomas, son of George Thomas and Elizabeth Cother.  Tristram d. 1854 Pickens County, Alabama.

 

Benjamin C. Thomas, son of Tristram Thomas and Delilah Nicholas.  Benjamin C. Thomas d. 1868 Pickens County, AL.

 

Richard Smith Thomas, son of Benjamin C. Thomas and Elizabeth Rooker.  Richard Smith Thomas d. 1934.

 

Joseph Matthew Thomas, son of Richard Smith Thomas and Anna Elizabeth Brown.  Joseph Matthew Thomas d. 1961.

 

Line of C. Thomas

 

 

Tristram Thomas Sr., son of Christopher Thomas and Juliana Stacey. Tristram d. before 1686, Talbot, County, MD.

 

Tristram Thomas Jr., son of Tristram Thomas Sr. and Elizabeth Higgins. Tristram d. before 1745/46 Queen Anneπs County, MD

 

Simon Thomas, son of Tristram Thomas Jr. and Sarah Stephens? Simon d. 1781 Richmond County, NC.

 

Daniel Thomas, son of Simon Thomas and Susannah Sands.  Daniel d. 1810, Richmond County, NC.

 

Henry Thomas, , son of Daniel Thomas and Sarah Covington.  Henry d. 1867 Cache County, Utah.

 

Elijah Thomas,  son of Henry and Esther Thomas [daughter of William ≥Ram Billy≤ Thomas].  Elijah d. 1906, St. George UT

 

Elijah Thomas, son of Elijah Thomas and Anne Hayward.  Elijah d. 1944. Salt Lake City, UT.

 

Elijah Thomas, son of Elijah Thomas and Emily Hampton.  Elijah d. 1967, Winslow, AZ.

 

It can be seen from the above outline that in the third generation in America Simon and Stephen are brothers, sons of Tristram Thomas Jr.

 

In addition to the above outlines we have a letter from N. Thomas which documents his success after finding that he had a match with my brother John and with C. Thomas.

 

We have had a success story using the DNA to locate our Thomas ancestors. My DNA matched to two other families with excellent documentation, providing me with the information that my Daniel L. Thomas, b.1806, was from a family that immigrated to America in the mid to late 1600πs. This was specifically the family of Tristram Thomas, who lived in the Wye River area of Maryland.

 

Our group was able to narrow our search to the lineage that moved south into the North and South Carolina areas around the time of the American Revolution. By searching other family trees and narratives, we contacted several researchers asking their help in supplying their documentation. We found two groups that had a Daniel Thomas, which we could not account for. One group produced a replica of a Bible page, showing that there was a Daniel Thomas born in 1806. This was the first Daniel that we knew of who was born in SC in 1806. Another researcher had this Daniel, with the middle initial ≥L≤ in his name, in the same family. He responded that he had seen it in some South Carolina legal records from research in prior years. 

 

We now contacted and obtained several hundred pages of SC legal proceedings and had one of our group, an attorney, go through them. Sure enough, we found a land sale in which Daniel L. Thomas, states that he obtained the land from his father, Robert T. Thomas, who obtained the property from a related family member. We also found another document, in which Daniel was sued by a son of his grandfather (Tristram Thomas), over the settlement of that estate.  Since Robert T. Thomas was dead at that time, Daniel and all of his surviving brothers and sisters were named in the suit. We were able to verify the dates and names on the Bible page to legal documentation naming the children. We also found an individual who had Bible pages from the grandfather of Daniel, providing another source for the names and dates. Other land records show several family members moving to Conecuh County, Alabama in the late 1820πs. They lived near each other and the prior records showed the relationship, including Daniel acting as a witness in a land sale, just before they moved.

 

Therefore, you can complete my family tree as follows:

 

Daniel L. Thomas, born September 8, 1806 in Marlborough County, SC  Died abt. 1865

 

His father was:

 

Robert Turner Thomas, born June 10, 1775, in Marlborough County, SC  Died 1819

 

He married on March 8, 1795, Jane House, born. Sept. 22, 1778  d. ?

 

                        He was the son of:

 

Major Tristram Thomas, born July 28, 1752 in Maryland  Died Sept. 3, 1817 In Marlborough County, SC

 

He married in 1774, Anne Pledger, born 1754 d. abt. 1780

 

At this point, you can tie into the lineage of Stephen Thomas, in the Judy Thomas Voran family tree. Her information is well documented with Stephen and back.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Thomas family historians of the individual lines of Simon and Stephen 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 Simon and two male descendents of Stephen.  These DNA results have proved a match among three man who can trace their lineage to Tristram Thomas Jr. of Talbot County, MD.

 

Given the results of the documentary paper trail, and the matching results from two branches of the Talbot County, Maryland Thomas family, our genealogy research has been validated through this new genealogical tool.