Techniques for determining genetic markers in DNA specimens easily obtained from oral scrapings have become available at a fairly reasonable price, and from these studies there has emerged sufficient knowledge and understanding of the significance of the markers to permit their use in determining with a high degree of probability the likelihood of two individuals sharing a common ancestor within a given number of generations.
Study of these markers, in concert with traditional genealogic information, provides a stringent test of the probability of accuracy of assumptions of kinship suggested by conventional genealogic research.
One of the foremost companies providing genetic analyses of DNA marker is Family Tree DNA. Their web site (www.familytreedna.com) provides excellent material on the scientific bases and uses of Genetic Genealogy. In addition, FTDNA makes available to contributors facilities to allow comparison of the findings of participating individuals, enhancing the value of these analyses to the participants.
As of early April 2006, the results of yDNA analyses of 23 individuals with the surname Horn(e) have been posted on the FTDNA Horn Family public page (www.familytreedna.com/public/Horn ). I have attempted to analyze the material presented on this public page, along with other data available to participants in the study provided by FTDNA, and, in light of other information I have obtained from my own studies of the Genealogy and from occasional correspondence with a few of the participants.
To those not familiar with the traditional genealogic studies of the Horn families of early Virginia and North Carolina, presented elsewhere and at this web site, the following brief summary may be helpful.
At least two well-defined patriarchal figures headed families located in a small area of the territory which would become upper eastern North Carolina, just below the Virginia-Carolina line, in the earliest years of the 1700’s, and perhaps somewhat earlier.
The somewhat better documented of these two patriarch’s has commonly been referred to as “William Horn of Nansemond”, based on his ownership of property which lay in what was originally thought to have been Nansemond County, VA, but which may have lain south of Virginia, in northernmost NC, after a later survey redefined the state line. William Horn of Nansemond left a will, naming 6 sons and a daughter, and the offspring of most of these children are numerous and well documented by traditional genealogic data, some for up to 8 or more generations. The descendants of this man are discussed at length on my web site at the following location: (http://www.familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/h/o/r/Robert-G-Horn/ ).
The second, somewhat less well documented patriarch, Richard Horne, lived at the same time, a few miles to the west of William of Nansemond, in what would become Northampton County, NC. Richard died without a will, but traditional genealogic information indicates that he had at least two sons, Richard and Thomas, and perhaps several others. A discussion of the descendants of Richard Horne of Northampton is available on this website.
The relatively elaboration documentation of the likely descendants of these two Horn(e) patriarchs has provided a resource for those interested in the Horn surname to look for indication of their ancestry.
Of the initial 23 individuals submitting specimens to FTDNA for y-chromosome marker analysis, it is perhaps not surprising that several participants appear to trace their ancestry to either William Horn of Nansemond, born about 1690, or to has contemporary Richard Horne of Northampton.
After 1) examining the yDNA findings of these participants and grouping the participants into set of individuals with identical or similar yDNA markers, and 2) then comparing the participants suggested ancestry, based on traditional genealogic information, it may be possible to determine whether the yDNA markers data supports or conflicts with the assumed ancestral assumptions, based on ordinary genealogical information.
This table (hornDNA23C.xls) presents preliminary analysis of currently available data from these yDNA studies.
In the table, of the seven participants in the group on an orange background, #5 through #11, two participants (#9 and #10) have substantial genealogic evidence suggesting they are lineal male descendants of a Richard C. Horn, born in 1716 in North Carolina. This man is generally thought to be the son of Richard Horne of Northampton, as discussed above. These combined genetic marker studies and the traditional genealogic data suggest that these seven individuals may share a common ancestor, either Richard C. Horn, his father, Richard Horne of Northampton, or one of his male ancestors.
Three participants, #21. #22, and #23, the “green group”, with a very high level of correlation of yDNA markers (two of them having 36/37 matches after 8 generations), each have a well-documented lineal male descendancy from Henry Horn, 1716 –1798, “the Quaker”, a very well documented individual in colonial North Carolina, who was been widely regarded as the son of William Horn of Nansemond County, as noted above. Perhaps surprisingly, none of the other 18 participants to-date in Ftdna study appears related to Henry Horn, the Quaker.
Two other participants, the “purple” group in the Table, share similar or identical markers. At least one of these two participants have reason to believe they are descended from William Horn of Nansemond, based on information submitted to FTDNA and also on additional information I have from personal acquaintance with one of the participants.
Two other groups, with colored backgrounds in the Table, appear to be from other Horn lines without a recent common ancestor. The other six participants (#'s 1 and 16 - 20, do not appear to have a recent common ancestor with any of the others.
Thus, as far as I can determine with the presently available information, at least six participants in the yDNA study do not appear likely to be descendants of either of the two Horn patriarchs of early NC, Richard Horne of Northampton and William Horn of Nansemond, while some of the remaining 17 participants are likely to be descended from one of the two early North Carolina patriarchs.
Considerably more data will need to be acquired and analyzed before the relationships can be clarified.
Substantial speculation at this point, given the relative paucity of information obtained from the early yDNA studies, is likely to be of limited reward, but certain assumptions and genealogic speculative guesses can be tested against the current genetic information obtained by the new technology.
I, and others, have considered it likely that Richard Horne of Northampton and William Horn of Nansemond were closely related, perhaps brothers or cousins, given their comparatively uncommon and similar surnames and their proximity of residence in sparsely populated colonial Virginia/North Carolina, The yDNA studies already reported provide strong indication that my speculation of their kinship was in error. In contrast, the results indicate it is unlikely that these two men shared a recent common ancestor.
Another line of analysis provides confirmation of indications provided by traditional genealogic data that Thel Horn, #21, and I, Robert G. Horn, #22, are both descended, in separate lines, from Henry Horn, the Quaker. ( #23 shares a more recent common ancestor with me, #22).
To my substantial surprise, however, these results seem to cast doubt on the previously strongly held belief that this Henry Horn was the son of William Horn of Nansemond. This conclusion seems to follow from the overall results of the yDNA study to-date, unless it proves to be the case that none of the other 20 participants are descended from William Horn of Nansemond. Presumably additional data accumulated are more Horn individuals enter the study will clarify the uncertainty of this point.
If male descendants of Henry Horn the Quaker prove not to share yDNA markers of the descendants of William Horn of Nansemond, it will follow that Henry the Quaker was not the biologic son of William of Nansemond.
It may be of value at this juncture to consider hypotheses to account for the possible break in the chain of paternity between William of Nansemond and the man widely thought to be his son, Henry the Quaker.
a) It is clearly possible that the traditional genealogic linkage established between these two men, largely based on wills, deeds, and other legal documents, has been misinterpreted. For example, two men with the same name and living in the same area are a frequent source of misinterpretation of records and misperception of identity and relationships.
b) Children raised as an offspring in a specific family may of course, be the child of one, but not both, of the husband and wife. Young children brought to a marriage by a second wife were often raised, treated, and regarded without regard to their “half-siblingship”. Conception of a child by the wife, impregnated by other than the husband was and undoubted will remain as a possibility, rarely acknowledged, if even recognized, by the participants. Similarly, in an area marked by early deaths of many young parents, particularly mothers, young children were often accepted into a second family, typically by close relatives, and the paternity of such children may rarely or never be recognized or documented.
Thus, it would not be surprising if the paternity of any individual of this period proves to be other than commonly recorded.
Henry the Quaker could have been, without prejudice, for a number of possible reasons, not the biologic son of William Horn of Nansemond.
Further revelations and insights from these genealogic and genetic studies are eagerly anticipated.
Robert G. Horn, MD
Cornersville, Tennessee
7 April, 2006