Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-06 > 1088266720

From: (John Chandler)
Subject: Re: [DNA] Shankland/lin mystery deepens!
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:18:43 -0400 (EDT)
References: <005d01c45b8e$459df540$9600000a@MMRRC>
In-Reply-To: <005d01c45b8e$459df540$9600000a@MMRRC> (

John wrote:
> Ron Shankland descends from 4 brothers that came to NY around 1750.
> Their name was Shanklin but 2 brothers changed their name to Shankland.
> Shanklin is a typical misspelling of Shankland but rarely occurs for
> more than an incident (misspelled in a Census report for example).
> Shanklin is a separate name with many more families than Shankland

Hypothesis #1 - the four brothers could have been one of the "incidents"
of the type you describe. In other words, maybe their name was always
Shankland, but it was "changed" on moving.

Hypothesis #2 - maybe the modern distinction between the two forms is
strictly of modern origin.

> Low and behold my 13 test comes back with an exact match to Ron's 13 and
> net result we are only 2/25 apart. Enough to claim relatedness with the
> same surname but of course my contention is Shankland Shanklin are not
> the same surnames.

I think you have to take this match seriously. Of course, the link
is presumably before 1750 in Ron's and your case, but there is a
possiblity of other Shanklin/Shankland links turning up as well.

John Chandler

This thread: