LOCKE-L Archives

Archiver > LOCKE > 2008-12 > 1229980605


From: Geo Locke <>
Subject: Re: [LOCKE] Locke DNA project update
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:16:45 -0500 (GMT-05:00)


Yeah, misspellings abound in the old handwritten documents, don't they? Interestingly enough, one of my Baltimore Lock's, Nathaniel, went through bankruptcy court and in the publication in the Newspaper it listed his name as Nathaniel LOCK, AKA LEEK. I haven't seen that name come up anywhere else in my family's line, but I know there were Leek's in Baltimore at that time. I also seen LACK (think pronouncing Lock with a heavy London east-ender accent)

I have my FTDNA page set to show all matches (just in case, you know?) and I check my results page every few weeks (It seems that the automatic notifications don't always get sent out.) of the 12/12 matches, I have 0 Lockes but the two non-lock surnames that shows up the most are:

Barlow - 10 matches out of 141 total 12/12 matches (Barlow group has 64 members)
Murphy - 8 matches out of 141 total 12/12 matches (Murphy group has 245 members)

The rest is a crap shoot, so to speak. And what does this mean you might ask? Absolutly nothing other than to point out that the participants of these two groups and my line share a common ancestor... thousands of years ago...maybe. However, in taking a closer look at the number of hits versus the total number of members of these two groups one might speculate that I am closer tied (in time) to the Barlows than I am to the Murpheys. What this does point out is the necessity of having more members join. Out of 68 Locke participants, I am a 11/12 match with only 5 Lockes, and a 23/25 match with one Locke. (For reference, my kit is a 37 marker kit.) but as with any statistical dataset, the more samples that is input, the more precise the results you get back. What do we need to do to get out the word, hire the Goodyear blimp?

<Sorry Don, I didn't mean to borrow your soap box...>

-geo

-----Original Message-----
>From:
>Sent: Dec 22, 2008 3:18 PM
>To:
>Subject: Re: [LOCKE] Locke DNA project update
>
>
>
>Hi Geo
>
> Anything is possible. We already know of one such surname change from Locke to Loche. This participants ancestor was originally a Lock(e) and why this one specific branch changed it to Loche, we may never know the reason. I helped trace that Loche paper trail, he is a Locke according to his paper records.
>
>
>
> I do believe Lock to be the original spelling for most of the old lineages, but one just never knows about connections to the other spelling variations.
>
>With many of our ancestors who couldn't read or write, anything is possible about the spelling. And with family tempers, disgruntled family members may have split off and changed the name out of anger too. One just never really knows until a paper trail is found, and or DNA suggests a kinship.
>
>
>
> I do take a peak at the other related surname DNA projects and am sort of watching for such DNA matches, just in case.
>
>I have one of my Lock records in hand and this court record starts off as Lock, but mid way one of the men is named Lauck, yet the record was signed Lock. So spelling errors in the paper records is one thing, actually having a branch who used such spelling variations is another matter.
>
>
>
> But that has already happened, where a Loche has DNA tested, and does have a paper trail back to Lock(e)'s. We have a couple in the project who are the prodigy of adoptions, and another that is the prodigy of a surname change to Locke. Which may help explain to a very small degree, why so many do not have DNA matches yet, because some may have an unknown event in their tree that hasn't been explained yet.
>
>
>
> Out of 61 members, one would like to believe many more family groups would have occured, but so far we remain at 10 main family groups.
>
> But that is only 61 Lock(e)'s out of tens of thousands in the USA, Canada, England, Australia. So we will more then likely see even more family groups built in time.
>
>
>
>We have a Mr. Loecker in the project, but he or his ancestor was adopted, and why he joined the Locke DNA project is unknown to me, other then to get the discount for project members. His adoptive parents are Loecker's, so he has vitually zero chance of DNA matching one of us.
>
> After his kit is completed, I will likely remove him from the project as he really isn't a Lock(e). All the participant knew is his ancestor was on the adoption train from New York. Normally I would have removed him right away, but it is nearly Christmas and felt i'd at least wait until his test is complete before removing him from the project.
>
>
>
> Participants are encouraged to check their DNA matches on their personal DNA web page about once a month. Just to see what new matches they may have in the database. I will once in a while log on to a random participants test results web page and check for matches, but it is best if the participants get used to checking for their own matches. Watching for such spelling variations in DNA matches is encouraged too.
>
>
>
> But I do honestly believe the vast majority of us are Lock(e) descendants as most of us have our paper trails traced back to the 1700's or earlier using the Lock name. We must keep open minds though, anything is possible! :)
>
>
>
>Don
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Geo Locke" <>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 12:06:33 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
>Subject: Re: [LOCKE] Locke DNA project update
>
>Don, There is something I've been meaning to ask you.  In teh course of my research, I have seen a lot of variations on the LOCKE name,  such as LOCKEY, LOCKS, LOCKETT, LOCKARD, LOCKERD, and so forth.  Do ou have any feel from the DNA data if any of these names share any relationship with us plain old LOCK/LOCKE folk?  Are there FTDNA groups for any of these names?
>
>Just curious... George
>
>-geo
>
>George Locke
>Raleigh NC USA

>-------------------------------
>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
>
>-------------------------------
>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: