LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > LOWER-DELMARVA-ROOTS > 2002-07 > 1026713023


From: "John C. Carter" <>
Subject: [LDR] RE: DNA / Molecular Genealogy: my quest to connect!
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 02:03:43 -0400


Hello, all.

I've owed this update for quite some time, having received the results of
my latest DNA testing back in February. However, due to being busy with
other responsibilities, going on two out-of-state trips, and some good
old-time procrastination, I am just now getting this update sent out.
(Also, as I'll explain in a moment, the discouraging results of the
testing did not exactly provide much enthusiasm for following up).

As a re-cap to bring everyone up-to-speed (if interested), I've attached
my previous message below, which outlines the process leading up to the
latest results.

The latest DNA tests involved bringing in another test subject, Mike
Hardcastle, for comparison against Tom Hardcastle and myself, since the
previous test indicated that Tom and I were not connected within the
specified number of generations that the oral family history, etc had
indicated. By testing Mike's DNA against the DNA of Tom and myself, this
could help establish whether or not there might be an error in Tom's
lineage versus my own.

The outcome of the latest test--on Mike's DNA--was expected to provide one
of three results:

1. If Mike matched Tom*, but not me, then this would--for all intents and
purposes--"prove" that I was most likely not a biological Hardcastle.
2. If Mike matched me*, but not Tom, then it would indicate that Tom
likely had an "illegitimacy" or flawed lineage in his paternal line, and
that he was therefore likely not a biological Hardcastle.
3. If Mike matched neither me NOR Tom*, then we would be back at square
one, indicating an "illegitimacy" or flawed lineage would have occurred in
any TWO or all THREE of our lines. (And we would then be beset with the
option of getting yet ANOTHER Hardcastle test subject for further
comparison).

* [within the specified number of generations]

Well, can you guess which one of the above was the result?? You got it:
#3.
The results stated that the probability of a shared common ancestor
between myself and either Tom or Mike was "very very low," and that the
probability of a shared common ancestor between Tom and Mike was "very low"
with a separation of somewhere between 42 and 154 generations, with an
average likely separation of approximately 93 generations. (As compared to
the expected 17 generations).

So, at this point, there is no conclusive evidence one way or another.

Anyway, I just thought I'd send this one, for anyone who may have been
curious about the outcome.
Thanks,
John


-----Original Message-----
From:John C. Carter [SMTP:]
Sent:Thursday, December 13, 2001 6:44 AM
To:'Mitsawokett List'
Cc:'Hicks, David'; 'Carter, Jim & Susan'; 'Schroeder, Evelyn'; 'Harkins,
Kathleen'; 'Gundersen, Janet & Matt'; 'Carter, Perry & Meronig';
''; '';
''
Subject:DNA / Molecular Genealogy: my quest to connect!

Hello.

For those of you who may remember our discussion a few months ago (on the
Mitsawokett list--I'm cc'ing a couple of other lists and individuals as
well) about DNA testing being used in genealogy, I thought I might give you
an update on my efforts.

Some of you are familiar with my quest, but for the others I'll provide a
little background:

My great-grandfather Hopewell U. Carter Sr. was an illegitimate child, son
of Elizabeth Carty, who changed her name to Carter around the time that she
relocated from Caroline County, MD (where Hopewell was born) to Kent
County, DE. The family stories always stated that his biological father
was "a wealthy Dr. Hardcastle" in Caroline County, and there were continued
connections with the family for several years afterward. One story
mentioned how my Great Aunt Agnes named one of her daughters Doris after a
Doris Hardcastle in the family. Another story told of a family member who
had joined the service, only to be disheartened and desiring to leave, and
the family implored upon the Hardcastle family's connections to
successfully achieve the serviceman's discharge. (I have never been able
to determine who this serviceman was). There were also tales of a
connection to the Boggs family in the Cheswold area (the family from which
J. Caleb Boggs hailed from, former U.S. Senator and Governor of Delaware),
and research showed that J. Caleb Boggs' paternal grandmother had been a
Hardcastle prior to her marriage, and that she was indeed descended from
the same Hardcastle family of Caroline County, MD.

Anyway, I learned of these stories in the mid-late 1970's when I first
began my genealogy, and by 1990, when I finally got around to ordering
Hopewell Sr's death certificate, the story seemed to be slightly
substantiated by its listing his father as "Alexander Carter." By this
time, I had long since discovered a Dr. Alexander Hardcastle in close
proximity to the Carty / Carter residence in Caroline County, MD, and had
already suspected him as being Hopewell's biological father. My suspicion
as to why the father was listed as "Alexander Carter" on the death
certificate instead of "Alexander Hardcastle" was either: 1) the family
informant(s) gave the last name of Carter to avoid the stigma of his having
been illegitimate, or 2) upon being questioned for the father's name the
informant(s) simply replied "Alexander" and the note-taker assumed the
surname would be Carter.

At any rate, it seemed clear that Dr. Alexander Hardcastle must have been
the "culprit." For many years I had worked on researching the Hardcastle
family and had corresponded with other Hardcastle researchers, always
feeling an absence or a loss that I had no proof of this connection,
although the family stories seemed to make it true. This particular line
in my genealogy always seemed to be an extra burden to me, as it was my
paternal line (my father's father's father, etc), and that my own last name
might have been Hardcastle under other circumstances. If only there were a
way to prove the connection. Little did I know that one day science would
come up with a method which might be used to bridge the gap!

That method was DNA testing.

Some of you may be familiar with the story of Thomas Jefferson's purported
offspring borne by the family servant Sally Hemmings, and how the Hemmings
family descendants had long sought acceptance by the Jefferson Society as
being true descendants of Thomas Jefferson, over the objections of
detracting members. Eventually, DNA testing was called upon in an effort
to try to resolve the controversy.

During the mid-1990's another fellow Hardcastle researcher (named Tom
Hardcastle) and I had discussed the story, and wondered whether such a test
might eventually be available (and affordable) to the general public, and
whether we might employ such a test in my efforts to prove that Hopewell
Carter, Sr. was indeed the son of Dr. Alexander Hardcastle.

The type of DNA test conducted on the Jefferson - Hemmings descendants is
called a Y-chromosome test. The Y-chromosome is carried down by males,
only, and such a test can only be used when the desired path is through a
"male line" in a family (such as from great-grandfather to grandfather to
father to son, for example). Examining the DNA in the Y-chromosome in two
male subjects can show whether the two are descended from a common male
ancestor, and can estimate the number of generations that separate the
connection between the two. Since my fellow Hardcastle researcher was both
a male and a Hardcastle (i.e., he had Hardcastle as a surname, indicating
he is the son of a Hardcastle who was the son of a Hardcastle who was the
son of a Hardcastle, etc, etc), and since we knew the exact purported
connection (common male ancestor) between his branch of the Hardcastles and
mine, we would be ideal subjects for a Y-chromosome test. Thus, it just
became a matter of finding a lab to conduct the test.

(Or so we thought). Early inquiries to genetic laboratories, even as
recent as a year and a half ago, proved to be disappointing, as the costs
were upward of $400 per sample to conduct such a test. As eager as I was
to find proof of the connection, this was just too expensive for my budget!
(Also, I had told my "cousin" Tom that if we ever found a lab to perform
the tests that I would pay for them, since it was MY branch which needed
substantiating, not his). Then, in January 2001, I heard (and it was
discussed on this list) about the BYU (Brigham Young University) project
entitled Molecular Genealogy, and how they were collecting DNA samples on
an enormous scale, making stops in particular cities and locations all over
the world, and taking samples from volunteers. One of the stops was near
me in Florida, and others were in the Philadelphia and Maryland areas,
prompting the list discussion in early 2001. The project was detailed in
an article in my local newspaper, in a weekly genealogy column. BYU's
eventual goal was to collect enough samples to be able to study worldwide
migration patterns, and work toward methods of further using DNA to trace
genetic ancestry, beyond the Y-chromosome DNA method (and the Mitochondrial
DNA method*).

* The Mitochondrial DNA method is another form of DNA testing which is
also becoming more commonly used. Mitochondrial DNA is passed down from
mothers to all their children, but is only carried forward by daughters.
This type of testing can be used to test a strictly maternal line (such as
from great-grandmother to grandmother to mother to daughter/son, for
example). My understanding is that this type of testing is somewhat more
difficult (and perhaps more costly).

Anyway, upon learning that the BYU group would soon be in my local area
collecting samples for their project, I contacted members of their staff to
inquire whether they ever worked on individual test cases, and whether they
would consider taking on a personal case such as my own. They replied yes,
and when asked about costs, they replied theirs would be substantially
lower than the $400/sample cost I'd been quoted by the private labs. Even
though they hadn't given me an exact price, I decided to go ahead and take
the leap! I contacted Tom Hardcastle, asked if he was still willing to
participate, and the ball was rolling!

The option was given as to whether we, as test subjects, would donate a
blood sample or a buccal sample (saliva sample via a mouth swab). I
donated a blood sample, and Tom submitted a buccal sample, as this was more
convenient and would not need to involve a doctor appointment to have the
blood drawn. The lab also requested that I get a first-cousin to
participate, as this would provide substantiating genetic markers to go
alongside mine in comparison against Tom's, and would ensure further
validity of the test. My first-cousin David (again, through a male line,
being the son of my father's brother) readily volunteered to join in the
quest, and he soon submitted a buccal sample as well.

I'll leave out all the inconsequential details, but after submitting the
DNA samples the process became rather lengthy (from Feb to Oct 2001). This
was due in no small part to the overwhelming response BYU apparently
received, and their involvement in numerous Special Cases as a result of
their "world tour" and others like myself who'd contacted them for
individual testing. Eventually, arrangements were made by BYU to "farm
out" the Special Cases to a private lab (Relative Genetics), staffed by
some of the members who had worked on the BYU project (and presumably who
had since graduated from BYU). As a consequence of this, many of the
Special Cases were done at little or no cost, and I was one of the lucky
ones to fall into this category. (Going forward, all such Special Cases
are being handled by Relative Genetics, and you would need to contact them
in advance regarding their costs). (Also, they now use only buccal
samples, and no longer take blood samples for their Special Cases).

In early October 2001, I finally received the results. Alas, the outcome
was disappointing to say the least. Whereas the DNA indicated a positive
first-cousin relationship between David and myself, it showed Tom to be not
connected to David and I within the purported 12 generations separating us
from our supposed common male ancestor. The results showed that the common
male ancestor between us was more likely somewhere between 27 and 113
generations removed, with an average likely separation of approximately 67
generations. After working on / researching the genealogy of the
Hardcastle family for over 20 years, one small step of science seemed to
rule out the family stories altogether.

During this quest, I had stayed in touch with the reporter / genealogist
who had authored the article in the local paper last January (announcing
BYU's original sample-collection project). She had asked whether she could
relate my story in an article once the results were complete. I agreed,
and she conducted an interview. The article came out in last Thursday's
issue [Dec 06, 2001], and can be found at the following link:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/120601/Floridian/Genealogy__DNA_testin.shtml

(There is a typo in the first sentence of the article--which is my fault,
since she let me proofread the article before printing, and I missed it!
It should say "...prove his great-grandfather HOPEWELL Carter...," not
"Alexander" Carter. But this will not change the effect of the story for
general readers).

In the meantime, however, I have decided not to give up right just yet.
Although the results of my DNA test indicated that Tom and I do not have a
common male ancestor within the purported 12 generations, the possibility
exists (albeit a slim one) that the "flaw" could be in his line, not mine.
In other words, if there were an "illegitimacy" anywhere in Tom's paternal
(Hardcastle) line, this could also explain why we would show as not being
related within the 12-generation span. The only way to "remove all doubt"
would be to find another male Hardcastle, whose branch tied into ours, and
who would volunteer to submit a DNA sample for comparison against both of
ours. I decided another DNA testing fee would be a small price to pay for
another sample to be tested, especially since my earlier tests fell into a
"gray area" in terms of costs. However, such a venture would not come
without a feeling of guilt, since if another Hardcastle descendant were to
match my DNA but not Tom's, this would indicate that Tom was "not really a
Hardcastle." This would be a heavy price to pay (learning your own surname
was "invalid") by someone who was attempting in good faith to help me find
what MY surname "should" be....

However, Tom, being the good sport that he is, was willing to proceed.
And I have just recently found another test participant. A fellow
genealogist named Mike Hardcastle, who is a policeman living in Germany and
who is descended from a co-lateral Hardcastle branch (having a common male
ancestor with Tom and I, two generations further back), has agreed to
participate in the test, and just last week submitted a DNA sample to
Relative Genetics. The outcome of the test on his DNA should provide one
of three results:
1. If Mike matches Tom*, but not me, then this will--for all intents and
purposes--"prove" that I am most likely not a biological Hardcastle.
2. If Mike matches me*, but not Tom, then it will indicate that Tom has
an "illegitimacy" in his paternal line, and is likely not a biological
Hardcastle.
3. If Mike matches neither me nor Tom*, then we're back at square one,
and the "illegitimacy" could have occurred in any two or all three of our
lines. (And we would then need to get ANOTHER Hardcastle test subject for
further comparison).

* [within the specified number of generations]

Relative Genetics has said that the latest results should be done in 4 to
6 weeks.

ANYWAY, I've gone on MUCH longer than I'd expected when I began this
post!! Hopefully, I haven't bored any of you too much, and those who did
get bored have long since hit the "delete" key! :-)
If anyone has any questions, please let me know.
I can also provide contact information for Relative Genetics, if anyone
wishes to contact them directly. (Or, info on how to contact them is
contained within the newspaper link above).

Thanks for listening.
John




This thread: