(Previous page: Nathan in Connecticut)
In 2008–11 yDNA testing was done by familytreedna.com for two descendants of Hiram HOLMES and for a descendant of Peter HOLMES. The results were good news and bad news for the ideas presented in these pages.
For privacy reasons I will refer in this page to six living individuals as:
- H1 and H2 – Hiram descendants
- P1 – Peter descendant
- J1, J2, J3 – Descendants of Jabez HOLMES of Plymouth
For H1, H2, and P1, out of the first 37 markers tested, 33 matched each other and those of three other Holmeses, J1, J2, and J3, in the familytreedna.com database. The latter three claim also descent from John HOLMES of Plymouth, though via a different son, also named John HOLMES; their most recent common ancestor was named Jabez HOLMES, and lived in Plymouth. The tests for H1, H2, and J1 were later extended to 67 markers (plus an additional 3 markers for H1), and all three matched exactly on all the 30 additional markers. This level of matching indicates a common ancestor for all six individuals within the past few hundred years, and combined with the other information we have makes it nearly certain all six are in fact descendants of John HOLMES. That’s the good news.
The bad news is on the other four markers: DYS 19, 460, 576, and 442. For H1 and H2 (who in fact are both descendants of Hiram’s grandson Jerome), the values for these markers are (16, 12, 21, 12) and (16, 11, 21, 13). For P1 they are (15, 12, 20, 13). (See table below.) Four mutations in the five generations since Nathan, and two in the three generations since Jerome, is surprising though not impossible. Moreover J1, J2, and J3 have for these markers (17, 11, 21, 13), (16, 11, 20, 13), and (16, 11, 20, 13). Each of these differs only by one mutation from H2. None of this rules out the reconstructed lineage presented here, but it does present a serious challenge.
| DYS 19 | DYS 460 | DYS 576 | DYS 442 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | 16 | 12 | 21 | 12 |
| H2 | 16 | 11 | 21 | 13 |
| P1 | 15 | 12 | 20 | 13 |
| J1 | 17 | 11 | 21 | 13 |
| J2 | 16 | 11 | 20 | 13 |
| J3 | 16 | 11 | 20 | 13 |
In particular, at DYS 576, three individuals have 20 and three have 21. If these indicate closeness of relationship then it means H1 and H2 are closer to J1 than they are to P1.
Is this possible? To me it’s the nightmare scenario: it would mean Hiram was closer to Jabez than to Peter, implying he was not in fact a son of Nathan. I find that very hard to believe: between the “Nathan Holmes” book, the apparent relationship to Fred Holmes, and the close proximity to Lydia CHAPEL and Lovina HOLMES, I think there are just too many pointers to a connection to Nathan and Samuel HOLMES for it to be coincidence. But there must be coincidences somewhere, either in the evidence I’ve discussed or in the DNA.
On the other hand, the values at DYS 460 suggest H2 is closer to J1, J2, and J3 than to H1 and P1. That again is inconsistent with what I believe to be the correct lineage.
Before getting the DNA testing results for H1 (the most recent), both of these apparent groupings looked very troublesome. But with the H1 results added we get a different picture. For one thing, the groupings now are inconsistent with one another. At least one of them must be wrong.
In fact, the apparent DYS 460 grouping is wrong. We know H1 and H2 are closely related. The differences between H1 and H2 must have arisen since Jerome. In particular, Jerome either had 11 at DYS 460, and a mutation to 12 produced a coincidental match between H1 and P1, or he had a 12, and a mutation to 11 produced a coincidental match between H2 and J1, J2, and J3. Either way, it is an established fact that the apparent grouping on DYS 460 into H1/P1 and H2/J1/J2/J3 is illusory. I said there had to be coincidences: this proves there was one, in the DNA.
There still has to be another coincidental convergence of mutations, on DYS 576, for the descent of H1, H2, and P1 from Nathan to be correct. I can’t prove there was one, but it seems to me less unlikely than a mistake in the lines back to Nathan.
By the way, if we assume the ancestry from Nathan to Nathaniel HOLMES to be correct, then these yDNA tests address an old uncertainty. In Eugene A. Stratton’s article “Descendants of Mr John Holmes, Messenger of the Plymouth Court” he writes:
“The evidence that Nathaniel2 Holmes was the son of John1 is not so conclusive, but must be inferred mainly from his being in Plymouth at the right time… he named children John and Sarah, the names of his supposed father, brother, and mother, and his brother John2 Holmes named one of his sons Nathaniel. That John2 and Nathaniel2 married sisters, Patience and Mercy Faunce, may be another indication that they were brothers… it must be understood that the relationship is not satisfactorily proven.”
To the best of my knowledge, the aforementioned six men include the first (presumed) male line descendants of Nathaniel2 to undergo yDNA testing, and the first male line descendants of John2 to do yDNA tests. Since the results indicate a common ancestor within the past few hundred years, it seems there now is genetic evidence that Nathaniel and John were close relatives — almost certainly brothers. So our DNA tests have helped settle an open question about the family of John Holmes of Plymouth.
More testing of (presumed) Nathan descendants — especially descendants of Jabez of Hamilton and of Henry, might clarify things, of course. (Since yDNA is inherited only on the male line, we cannot get information from yDNA testing of descendants of Eunice and Hannah, and I do not believe the younger Nathan has living descendants.) More testing of descendants of Samuel through other sons would help, too.
(Next page: Summary: Nathan’s life and family)
