In this Blog, I’ll do something that I don’t usually do. I’ll be looking at the DNA aspects of Frazer researcher Joanna. Here is the title of Joanna’s paper:
I feel I’m in a bit over my head on the land deeds as well as the surnames other than Frazer, but I’ll look at some of the paper’s DNA aspects.
Joanna’s Family Tree
Here is Joanna’s tree on her paternal side:
We see Joanna has Frazer and Fitzgerald in her tree. I don’t see McDermottroe or O’Farrell in her tree, so those must be collateral lines. As such, I won’t need to consider them while looking at the DNA aspects. That should simplify matters.
Joanna’s DNA Match of Concern
Joanna’s sister Janet matches a Marcas which Joanna finds significant. Here is a depiction from Joanna’s paper of Janet and how she matches Marcas and other Frazer relatives by DNA on Chromosome 14:
Janet and Shared Clustering
Before I look into Chromosome 14, I will look at Janet’s Shared Clustering at AncestryDNA. Shared Clustering is a program developed by Jonathan Brecher that is similar to AutoClustering. First I download Janet’s matches and shared matches at AncestryDNA. This is what Janet shows for DNA matches at Ancestry DNA:
In theory, the shared clusters should break down into four categories. Those would represent matches for Janet’s four grandparents. I don’t have Janet’s grandparents memorized, so I’ll have to look them up:
Here is Janet’s match with Marcas at AncestryDNA:
Marcas shows as a distant cousin at 16 cM. Here is Marcas’ McPartland side:
Marcas and Janet have one shared DNA match who is Gail. Gail is Janet’s second cousin:
Starting Janet’s Shared Clustering
Picking a level to start Janet’s shared clustering is a bit of trial and error. I’ll try 40 cM:
This results in four clusters. However, this does not necessarily mean that these four clusters have a one to one relationship with Janet’s four grandparents. Clusters 1, 2 and 3 seem to indicate that they are related to each other. However, part of the reason for this is that Shared Clustering includes Janet’s two siblings.
Next, I like to open up the Common Ancestor column:
I blurred some common ancestors out, because they are still living. It looks like Cluster 1 could be Edmonds, Cluster 2 Dickins and Cluster 3 Frazer/Palmer. Cluster 4 is not identified. As Janet’s Seymour side is missing some ancestry, that is a possible area for Cluster 4.
Summing up the first run, I have this:
Putting Cluster 4 on the Seymour side is a guess. Fortunately, Dickens had more than one wife, so we can trace the common ancestor to him specifically in at least one case.
Janet’s Shared Clustering at 30 cM
This brings Janet up to five clusters.
I was able to trace four of the five clusters. Cluster 5 is now the Frazer Cluster.
Two identified common ancestors go back to Archibald Frazer in 1795:
The fact that both these matches are in the same cluster seem to support the genealogy.
Janet’s Shared Clustering at 25 cM
Now the Frazer Cluster is #11. There are 12 Clusters. Cluster 12 seems like it could be related to the Frazer Cluster:
Janet’s 23 Clusters at 20 cM
Now the Main Frazer Cluster seems to be Cluster 10. Janet’s close relatives are in Cluster 11:
The Correlated Cluster column is important. Cluster 10 has some connections with Clusters 2, 4, 17 and 19. However, there is only one connection with Cluster 2.
Here are Clusters 17 through 19:
These are interesting because Cluster 19 is the McPartland Cluster.
Here Cluster 10 is at the top left and Cluster 19 is at the bottom right.
Janet’s Clusters Down to 6 cM
At this level, Janet won’t have any more clusters than at 20 cM, but she will have more matches, such as Marcas. However, when I look for Marcas on the 6 cM, he doesn’t show up. So what does that mean? At the top of the Blog, I mentioned that Marcas and Janet only had one shared match who was Gail. Gail is in Cluster 10. The McPartlands broke away from Cluster 10 to form their own McPartland Cluster 19. However, Marcas doesn’t show obvious affinity to either of those clusters.
Marcas’ McPartland Genealogy
Marcas has his ancestor Thomas or Hugh or Michael McPartland being born in the early 1800’s and coming from Arigna, County Roscommon:
The McPartland Cluster 19 Group have their earliest ancestor as Patrick McPartland:
Here is a map of Derreenargan:
This is not far from Arigna. However, I believe that this McPartland family actually lived in Dereenagan:
These were ancestral lands of the Frazers and would explain why Owen McPartland born 1813 would have married Ann Frazer.
I see one problem with the McPartland connection. The first, is that there is no obvious connection between the two McPartland families. However, even if there was it wouldn’t matter, because the Cluster 19 connection to Janet and other Frazers is through Ann Frazer and not the McPartlands.
What all this means is that Marcas’ connection to Janet and Gail is likely not on the Frazer side like Cluster 19 connection is. It is likely due to a McPartland marriage into a non-Frazer family.
Back to Shared Clustering
I notice that Judith who was not in a cluster previously is at the level of 20 cM:
Judith is found here in the Frazer tree:
Cluster 7 appears to represent the whole Michael Frazer Born 1764 Branch of Frazers. It might be interesting to try to build out the trees of the other Cluster 7 matches to see if they lead back to the Michael Frazer Branch.
Janet and Marcas at Gedmatch
Here is how Janet and Marcas match at Gedmatch:
When I run who is matching Janet and Marcas at Gedmatch, I recognize Betty, Kim, and Rodney:
As there are no other shared matches from known Frazer descendants, it makes me wonder if the match between Janet and Marcas could be happening on Janet’s Palmer side.
Janet and Marcas at MyHeritage
The first person that Janet and Marcas triangulate with at MyHeritage is Gerry:
Gerry also shows up at Gedmatch and Ancestry. My suggestion would be to try to triangulate between Gerry’s, Marcus’ and Janet’s family trees to see if there is a connection between the three – either in name or location. That may give a clue as to where the common ancestors came from.
Summary and Conclusions
- I ran shared clustering for Janet hoping to figure out in which cluster Marcas fit in.
- It turned out that Marcas didn’t fit into any of Janet’s clusters. However, the fact that he doesn’t fit in could be significant.
- I looked at Janet’s and Marcas’ McPartland genealogy. Janet has no known McPartland ancestry and her connection to them on another McPartland Line is only by marriage. That means that Janet’s match by DNA to Marcas should not be on the McPartland side. In addition, it is probably not on the Frazer side as other known Frazer descendants would probably be matching also.
- I then looked at Janet and Marcas’ shared DNA matches at Gedmatch. Those known shared matches were only within Janet’s known second cousins. Because other Frazers were not involved with this match, it seemed possible that the match could be somewhere down the ancestry of Janet’s Palmer side.
- I then looked at Janet and Marcas’ DNA match at MyHeritage. Janet and Marcas triangulate with Gerry there. Gerry also has his DNA at Ancestry and Gedmatch. It may be possible to triangulate between Marcas’, Janet’s and Gerry’s tree to find a common ancestral location and/or ancestors.