Broket DNA Project

Written records will never make connections between some Broket Groups and Clans, but maybe Y-chromosome analysis will.

Please email if you want to take part.

So far 13 people with the surname—'Subjects'—have taken part in this project. While maintaining strict confidentiality of all living persons, basic details of their lineage are in the Notes below. Subjects' oldest known ancestor:

These numbers correspond to the samples in the next sections.

This table lists the repeats of the markers from the samples taken from inside the cheeks of 14 men with the surname:

The Wikipedia (31 Dec 2006) gave the following descriptions of these haplogroups:

The 14 samples show 7 entirely different Brockett Groups. It's illuminating that so many can emerge from such a small island.

1. Thomas of Lambeth, London, b 1809-14

Thomas of Lambeth was probably born in Bexley, Kent.

2. William of Norfolk, Virginia, probably bap 1654 Wells, Somerset

William of Norfolk entered a 4 year indenture in Bristol on 6 Aug 1668, bound for Virginia.

3. Benjamin of Craven County, North Carolina, c 1725-58

That the father of William who married Martha IVES in new Bern NC in 1771 was Benjamin is seen from a 1773-4 deed from Craven Co, NC (l 12). Piecing together surviving documents from North Carolina, it had been deduced that Benjamin descended from Francis II, probable younger brother of Joshua, ancestor of Subject 2. The earliest surviving record of Benjamin is from Craven Co, NC, in 1743. This was less than a day's journey from Pasquotank Co, NC, home to Joshua and Francis. Benjamin's wife, Sarah, was apparently a daughter of William Stevens of Pasquotank Co, and they named their first child William after him, according to the custom. So despite the lack of actual documentary evidence, given the history and geography of the colonial settlements, it seems obvious that Benjamin was one of the Pasquotank clan. Yet the great difference between the dna of Subjects 3 and 2 make it problematic for Subject 3 to descend from Francis II.

EJ Brockett had placed William who married Martha IVES in new Bern NC in 1771 as s/o Elisha of Wallingford, CT, a descendant of John of Newhaven:

As in much of his book, EJ Brockett's sources were largely undocumented, and while William and Patsey certainly had a son Elisha, William's father was Benjamin, not Elisha, and John b 1685 isn't recorded as having a son Benjamin. The Genealogy of the Ives Family suggests also that Martha descended from IVESes from Virginia and that the CT Thomas IVES died childless (AC Ives 1932).

Moreover, Subject 3 has four differences from Subject 5—a descendant from John of Newhaven:

A match resolution of 39/43 'indicates that it is unlikely that the two men share direct paternal-line ancestry in fewer than 20 generations' (www.relativegenetics.com May 2007). Subject 3 can therefore safely be said not to descend from John of Newhaven, 11 generations back from the Subjects.

Subject 5's sample tested 43 markers, whereas Subject 4's sample tested 40, 452 being one of the missing ones. It is most likely that 452 of Subject 4 would be 14 like Subject 5. But if this isn't assumed, and the wilder assumption is made that 452 of Subject 4 would be 15 like Subject 5, then 3 differences indicate 'that the two men presumably share direct paternal-line ancestry', but statistically this would be further back in time than John of Newhaven himself.

4/5/6. John of Newhaven, Connecticut, b 1610-20

John sailed from London to Newhaven, Connecticut in 1637.

Subject 4 descends from John of Newhaven through Ebenezer and Esther HOADLEY, Subject 5 through Stephen and Hannah GOODSELL and Subject 6's line comes through a younger son of John of Newhaven, Samuel and wife Sarah BRADLEY:

The numerous differences between Subject 6 and the other two, however, must mean that they are not actually related through John of Newhaven.

It had previously been thought that John may have descended from the Dunton clan, but since Subjects 7, 8 and 9 descend from them, John of Newhaven will have a different origin.

The samples presented on this page have been analysed by DNAHeritage except Subject 4. DNAHeritage samples tested 43 markers, whereas Subject 4's sample, analysed by the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation—'SMGF'—tested 40, as of Jan 2007. In those 40 markers Subjects 4 and 5 have only 1 mismatch: GGAAT1B07, with 11 and 10 repeats respectively. With matches of 42 out of 43 markers 'the two men share direct paternal-line ancestry statistically in fewer than 8 generations' (www.relativegenetics.com May 2007).

The haplogroup Q of Subjects 4 and 5 was determined by the Whit Athey Haplogroup Predictor.

7/8/9. William of Hitchin, b c 1490

Subjects 7, 8 and 9 are all descendants of William and Ann HALL of Guilden Morden, and so also of William of Hitchin, b c 1490. Subject 7 is from John and Martha JERMIN's line and Subjects 8 and 9 from William and MARY BUTCHER's line.

Over 200 years there has been only one variation: Marker DYS458 has 17 repeats with Subjects 7 and 8, and 16 with Subject 9.

10. John of Colworth and Bedford, b c 1798

11. William of Kempston, d 1740, and Sarah ...

That there is only one variation between Subjects 10 and 11—Marker DYS458 has 18 repeats with Subject 10 and 14 with Subject 11—shows that the two descend from a common ancestor. This is the same marker which differed in Subjects 7, 8 and 9.

12. James of Carnwath, bur 1699

Subject 12 has 6 differences from Subject 14, with whom he is therefore unrelated:

13/14. John of ?Lesmahagow, b 1706 or 1709, and Janet SMYTH

Subjects 13 and 14 are both descendants of sons of John Wilson of Penicuik 1837-1911, who descended from John of ?Lesmahagow, b 1706 or 1709, and Janet SMYTH. The large number of differences between the two Subjects shows that they do not descend from the same ancestor, probably proving that William, b 1860, was adopted—as noted in the 1871 census.