BLANCETT-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > BLANCETT-DNA > 2008-02 > 1203511302


From: "Dr. Phillip Blansett" <>
Subject: Re: [BLANCETT-DNA] New yDNA Results
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:41:42 -0600
References: <47BB1BEE.1040304@gforcecable.com>


Ok, Allen, I've put it off as long as I can. Urge me one more time, then
remind me how to initiate the study and I'll push mine up from 37 to the
next one.

Phil Blansett
(Kin to Franklin Eugene Blansett ()

----- Original Message -----
From: "Allen Blancett" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:11 PM
Subject: [BLANCETT-DNA] New yDNA Results


> Everybody,
>
> Hello again. It's been a long time since we had new DNA information.
> Today we have some interesting new stuff to report. Let's put on our
> thinking caps about what we learn from this new result. It's clear that
> we have a new guy squarely in the pack with the rest of us.
>
> We have a new 37-marker result from a descendant of a Hardin or Harden
> Blansett b. ~1850 in Alabama. You can see his numbers at ySearch ID
> MG5XT.
>
> Thanks largely to Janet Wright's research, my records show that Hardin
> was a son of William Blansett b. ~1834 in Alabama. William married
> Sarah Elizabeth Gentry, b. ~1836 in Georgia. So you can see that if
> census dates were correct, William and Sarah were young parents; Hardin
> was their first child. Janet's compilation of information about Hardin
> paints an interesting picture of what must have been a colorful character.
>
> At this point things become a little involved. William's wife Sarah was
> a daughter of Shadrack Gentry and his first wife Rebecca Ballard. After
> Rebecca died, Shadrack married Martha Blansett, who was about 35-40
> years younger than he. Martha appears to have been a daughter of a
> different Harden (b. ~1800-1810, KY) who was a son of Peter Blancett.
> Those family ties may point us in the right direction in figuring out
> the most likely line of ancestry we're looking at.
>
> Anyway, the new results are interesting in that they are a 36/37 match
> with the modal haplotype for the 15 (now 16) whom I like to think of as
> the Blanchet bunch. The single difference is a value of 30 at DYS
> 389ii, compared with 29 for the modal value. That new value is shared
> by Doug Blansit, a descendant of William Blancett (1793, VA) and
> Elizabeth Hamman, and also by Phillip Blansett, a descendant of Francis
> Marion Blansett (1851, Jackson Co., AL).
>
> Doug has already extended to 67 markers; Phillip has not yet extended to
> 67. There is a slight potential that an extension to 67 markers for
> Phil and for Hardin's descendant (who hasn't yet agreed to be named)
> might show which of the two branches Hardin's descendant ties in with
> more closely.
>
> For example, an extended match with Phil could take Phil's line back one
> generation to William or a brother.
>
> An extended match with Doug could tie back to Archibald or other son of
> William & Elizabeth. Archibald had a son William Anderson Blansit, b
> 1848 in DeKalb Co., AL, so Hardin's father William probably doesn't tie
> back through Archibald.
>
> Honestly, I can't push the extension to 67 markers as hard as I did
> earlier, because the seven guys who have extended to 67 markers didn't
> learn much from that extension. I'd like to see it, but the decision
> isn't mine.
>
> What do the rest of you see in the results?
>
> Allen Blancett
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: