PACE-L Archives

Archiver > PACE > 2007-02 > 1170350637


From: Rebecca Christensen <>
Subject: [PACE] Pace DNA results (changed subject line)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:23:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <000501c7460f$b50361e0$6401a8c0@coxinternet.com>


A couple of corrections. DNA results cannot prove any *specific* relationships such as grandson or nephew. That still requires the traditional paperwork documentation. DNA results can place a person in the correct *group* of individuals who shared a common ancestor. So, DNA results can place an individual in an ancestral group that includes descendants of John Pace of Surry Co., NC and his wife Sarah (maiden unknown - no known evidence that her maiden name was Burge/Burgh) but it is still the paperwork documentation that provides the evidence of the specific relationship such as grandson or nephew. The DNA results can be excellent supporting evidence in determining a relationship.
DNA Groups 3a and 3b *DO* share a common ancestor, which is still *believed* to be Richard Pace of Jamestown. There are two distinct DNA changes that occur in Group 3b (which includes the John Pace/Sarah of Surry Co., NC line), but with only 2 DNA distinct changes for the two groups overall out of the total of 48 markers that have been tested for the two groups at FTDNA and SMGF, these two groups definitely share a common ancestor. One of the remarkable DNA results is that there are NO significant DNA changes for either group 3a or 3b in the faster-mutating markers available in the FTDNA upgrade to 37 markers - again suggesting that the two groups share a common ancestor in the recent past. These results have been discussed in the Pace Society Bulletins the past few years and at the past two Pace Society reunions at least. The complete DNA result charts handout from last year's reunion showing the 48 markers tested is available on the Pace Society members
website and in one of the PSA Bulletins last year (Summer or Fall) although I don't think they have been added to the DNA page on the pacesociety.org website yet. FTDNA does now have a 67 marker test, but I don't believe we have had enough (any?) participants to draw any conclusions based on the additional markers in the 67 marker test.
We do have a guess of when the DNA changes occurred in Group 3b, but we don't have enough **documented** participants from either Group 3a or Group 3b to be able to state exactly when the DNA change occurred. Most of the participants in Group 3b are "brick wall" participants and Group 3a isn't much better as most are also "brick wall" participants or descendants of William Pace and Ruth Lambert for which controversy was created by Bruce Howard's book. (Over half of the Group 3a participants are William Pace/Ruth Lambert descendants.)

With a few well-documented participants in the DNA project, we might be able to conclusively state exactly *who* is the more recent patriarch of the Group 3b participants - that is, at which Pace's birth the DNA changes occurred separating his descendants from those of his siblings. That would be a major breakthrough for the Pace DNA study and the Paces who are believed to be descendants of Richard Pace of Jamestown, and most especially for those of Group 3b.

Rebecca Christensen

"Nancy W. Wood" <> wrote:
Gordon W. Pace wrote:

"..my DNA test results prove that this William Pace, Sr. was a grandson of
the Richard Pace who m. Sarah Woodliefe and was therefor a nephew of John
Pace and Sarah Burgh."

Please straighten me out on this. I was under the impression that DNA test
results showed that the John PACE who married Sarah BURGH was not of Richard
and Isabella's line. Who were the parents of this John PACE?

Thanks in advance,

Nancy Webb Wood

This thread: