THORNTON-L Archives

Archiver > THORNTON > 2005-11 > 1131251344


From: "O. W. Odom" <>
Subject: Reverend Dozier Thornton line matches William/Henry lines by DNA testing
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 22:29:04 -0600
References: <6.0.1.1.2.20050710200951.01adf928@mail.utexas.edu>
In-Reply-To: <6.0.1.1.2.20050710200951.01adf928@mail.utexas.edu>


As most of you have probably seen by now on the Thornton DNA website
(<http://www.starthorn.com/ThorntonDNA/>;), Bill Dozier Thornton (a
well-documented patrilineal descendant of Rev. Dozier Thornton, b 1755)
shows a very close DNA match with descendants of immigrants William and
Henry Thornton. This was the result I expected since the best paper
evidence indicates to me that Dozier Thornton was himself a descendant of
the immigrant Henry (wife Deborah Scoper) through Luke (wife Anne); then
Mark, Sr. (wife Mary Bruce); then Mark, Jr. (wife Elizabeth Dozier). Land
records and will and administration records in Richmond and Lunenburg
Counties, VA give solid evidence of the descent of Mark, Jr. from Luke; and
other researchers have found that Luke was born to Henry and Deborah in St.
Margaret's parish, London before they emigrated to VA around 1660. Some
show Susannah Dozier (rather than or after Elizabeth) as the wife of Mark
Thornton, Jr., but I have seen no primary evidence for this. On the
contrary, land records in Richmond or Lunenburg Co. show that Mark, Jr. and
Elizabeth were still married in 1764, long after the birth of Dozier. I
would be interested in any feedback concerning these points.

Concerning the DNA results, among the participants who have had the
37-marker test there is one difference (at DYS 570) between those who
document descent from William of Gloucester or Henry (wife Ann Williams),
and those who do not. A case can be made that most if not all of the latter
group descend from Luke (wife Anne), who was most likely the brother of
Henry (wife Ann Williams), both of them being sons of the immigrant Henry
(wife Deborah Scoper). The simplest explanation for the difference at
DYS570, then, is that the mutation from 23 to 24 at this site originated
with Luke himself. If this is correct, most of Luke's descendants should
show 24 and most other William/Henry descendants should show 23 at DYS570.
It will be very interesting to see if this holds up as more participants
are tested at the 37-marker level. Of course, due to the random nature of
mutations, any participant could conceivably show a value different from
his line, but this would be relatively improbable. I hope more Yellow Group
participants will upgrade to 37 markers and more of those who think they
may be William/Henry descendants will decide to test at this level.

Best regards to all,
O. W. Odom


This thread: