Details

Written by: Eric Burgess

Project Newsletter #9
31 Mar 2005
 

Dear Burgess Cousins,

We've had a few more Y-chromosome DNA results posted this past week.

A new test from a descendant of Jacob Burgess, the third son of Thomas Burgess of Sandwich, Mass., matches those of the other three examples we have for this family, which would seem to firm up once and for all the standard markers for this group.  Dean Burgess and I are working on an article on the Thomas line and the Burgess DNA project for the New England Genealogical Association Quarterly, so we're looking for additional participants from this family.

We do have one test result from this line whose ancestry still can't be connected to Thomas Burgess, although it's likely; the earliest known ancestor is Seth Burgess, a very common name in the line of John Burgess, Thomas's second son.  We also have a family out of Jacob Burgess, the third son, which should have matched the results of the others and didn't, and we don't know why; we also don't have any idea of where along the chain the break occurred, thereby creating a new Burgess family.  The only way we can determine this is through additional testing over time of further descendants out of this branch.

We also received a second test result from the family of Emanuel Burgess of Union Co., South Carolina, and this matched the first, as expected.  We're hoping that this family will connect at some point with the other large South or North Carolina Burgess lines.

Finally, we've received several results that don't match (at least so far) the numbers of anyone else in the project.  These include a Virginia family, and two lines coming out of southern New England, the first New England families that are distinct genetically from the Thomas Burgess line.

About a third of the results that we receive fail initially to match those of any other known Burgess line; I say "initially," because a number of these have connected at some later date.  Right now we have 50 participants in the project, and 44 actual results in hand, with some of these tests currently being enhanced to reflect additional markers and information.  14 of these results presently display a unique set of numbers; these include four (perhaps five) lines known to descend from female ancestors, where the male progenitor is unknown, but who was unlikely to have been named Burgess.  29 results have at least one match (the largest matched group is nine; in addition, there are three sets of four each, and four sets of two each).  There's also one family that's a possible match with the Thomas line, but is just too close to call. 

Many of the tests that are initially ordered for the project are simple, 12-marker tests.  These are often enhanced to 25 or 37 numbers at some later date, as needed or desired.  The enhancements bring the elapsed time since a common male ancestor lived down to an average of either seven or five generations, respectively (about 125 years at the lowest level).  Currently, we have twenty-two 25-marker tests in the project, with four on order, and six 37-marker tests, with two on order.  We've had a number of our close 12-marker matches (11 numbers out of 12 the same) fail to match when 25-marker enhancements were finally received.  This isn't at all unusual, particularly with the R1b haplogroup (the underlying Celtic population of Britain, France, and Spain), which is the commonest of all the groups, both generally and in the Burgess project.  We also have several other haplogroups represented, including I, I1b, E3b, and G.

Depending on the time and availability of my long-suffering webmistress and dear friend, Carolyn Shilts, we usually update the website very quickly once new results have been received, often within the week, with the date of the update being noted at the bottom of each page.  I've also been adding compilations of the early personal property tax lists of Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky to the website (www.millefleurs.tv), plus transcriptions of the earliest Burgess census records (now complete for 1790 and 1800).  Some of these are quite interesting, and I urge any of you with families from early Virginia to examine the posted tax records.  For example, Edward Burgess of Prince Georges Co., Maryland and Pittsylvania Co., Virginia, is usually cited in most sources as having died in 1814, the date when his will was actually probated (it was composed in 1799); but the tax records clearly show that he really died between 1801 and 1802, when he is listed as Edward Burgess Ex(ecutor) & Son.

The Burgess Notes Newsletter website of Dave and Margaret Burgess also contains a great many valuable Burgess records, plus an active Burgess newsgroup; and the Burgess Search site of Dan Burgess includes increasingly detailed genealogies of the families covered in the Burgess DNA Project, as well as copies of these occasional reports, plus many, many other things of interest.  Please take the time to visit both sites.

All good wishes:

Prof. Michael Burgess 

Details

Written by: Eric Burgess

Project Newsletter #8
06 March 2005

Dear Cousins,

We had a half dozen new DNA results arrive this past week.

A second test in the line of Col. William Burgess of Anne Arundel Co., Maryland, matched the first; however, an enhancement of the original test also arrived, demonstrating that the Col. William line is not related to the Thomas Burgess line of Sandwich, Massachusetts, or to any other Burgess family currently listed in the project.

The Burgess families of Rutherford Co., North Carolina, and Greenville and Spartanburg Cos., South Carolina, have now affiliated; they have a common Burgess ancestor who antedates the earliest known ancestor in either line.  Since these counties are actually located on either side of their respective state boundary, the connection is not surprising, and probably goes back no more than another generation or two.

The family of William Burgess of Smyth Co., Virginia, although unique, seems to share some number characteristics with the family of James Burgess of Bedford Co., Virginia and Fayette Co., West Virginia; further testing is being conducted.

Finally, the family of Emanuel Burgess of Union Co., South Carolina, may be related to a Burgess family whose ancestry is presently unknown.  Further testing is being conducted to validate the match.

Please see our personal website, www.millefleurs.tv, under the "Burgess Genealogy" link for the latest numbers and conclusions.

All good wishes:

Prof. Michael Burgess

Details

Written by: Eric Burgess

Project Newsletter #7
06 February 2005

Dear Burgess Cousins,

We've received a few more Y chromosome DNA test results recently.  Both of these new tests matched 12 for 12 with the numbers of one of the descendants of the line of Thomas Burgess of Sandwich, Mass.  Although we're not absolutely certain of the chain of descent of these two gentlemen, their numbers would seem to suggest that they may perhaps represent the "true" markers for the Thomas line.  We have another test in the works where the ancestry of the individual being tested is well established, and these results, when they appear in April, may finally tell the tale.

We also received a test from the third branch of the line of Keziah Burgess, which demonstrates that each of these branches had a different male progenitor.

We now have 44 participants in the surname project, including several individuals representing (for the very first time) some ancient South Carolina Burgess families.  We hope that these folks will connect with some of the others already in the project.

Over the holidays, I reworked the display of the test results sections of my personal web page (www.millefleurs.tv), both to make them easier to navigate and to load, and to better present the material in a more usable format.  The result is to break up what was becoming a rather cumbersome single page display into four different pages, including a new one that arranges the results by Burgess family groups.  I hope that these will be more informative than they were in the past.  I also am adding early census records for Burgess families, and the results of my searching of the personal property tax lists in Virginia, which I eventually hope will record all of the Burgesses resident in early Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky, beginning in 1782.

I get questions about what the DNA numbers mean.  The lab workers are literally counting the repetitions at certain locations of junk DNA segments on the Y chromosome.  Amazingly, these repetitions are themselves unique to different families, and are passed down in the direct male line as a genetic characteristic.  The specific locations where these segments reside have "addresses" called "loci" (singular, "locus"), which are labelled, for example, DYS 393, DYS 464d, etc.

Certain combinations of numbers at certain addresses are much scarcer than the other numbers possible for those locations.  For example, the descendants of Edward Burgess of Prince Georges Co., Maryland, and William Burgess of Prince Georges and Montgomery Cos., Maryland, each share a consecutive number set at DYS 391, DYS 385a, and DYS 385b of #10, 11, and 16, respectively.  As it happens, this is a very rare combination, occurring in the FT DNA database in only seven-tenths of one-percent (.7%) of all individuals tested.  Hence, this number becomes a useful "flag" for the direct male descendants of these two related families, since no other Burgesses currently in the project have these markers, or are likely to.

Similarly, among the descendants of the William Burgess line of Richmond (later King George), VA, and William of Bedford Co., VA, the combination of the numbers 11 and 13 at 385a and 385b, together with the number 14 or 15 at 392, only occurs in 3.04% of the tested population.  The descendants of John Burgess of Derbyshire, England, have the numbers 10, 11, and 15 at 391, 385a, and 385b, a combination which occurs in only 2.72% of the samples in the FT DNA database.  The three matched tests from the Thomas Burgess line of Sandwich, MA, show a 14, 13, and 30 at 389/1, 392, and 389/2, a combination which occurs in only 14% of the tests recorded in the FT DNA database.

The latter set of numbers is shared by a descendant of George H. Burgess of Lancashire, England, who otherwise matches only 20 out of 25 numbers, an inconclusive result at best.  The fact that both groups share these less common markers, however, may be an indication of a distant relationship between these two family groups.  It's not proof, just an indication.

I've also had questions about YSearch, which is a database sponsored by Family Tree DNA.  The idea of YSearch is to provide outside individuals with the ability to search Y chromosome test results either by number or by surname, with the hope, of course, that they might find a match.  Participation is entirely voluntary.  To join YSearch, you have to log in to your personal page on the Family Tree DNA website (www.familytreedna.com).  In the righthand column of the main page of the FTDNA site are two blank slots to insert your kit number and password.  If you don't know these, please drop me an e-mail, and I'll be happy to give them to you.

When you reach your personal page, you'll see a link to YSearch in the top center of the page.  Click on that, and you'll be taken to the YSearch homepage (www.ysearch.org).  There you'll need to "create a new user."  If you've already loaded previous results onto YSearch, and you wish to update your information, you will need to know your YSearch user name (which is publicly displayed) and your password (which is not).  I do not have a list of passwords for this database; in creating my own entry, I used the password from the FT DNA database, so I would never forget what it was.

Also on your own homepage at FT DNA is an option called "Setup" that allows you to do a number of things.  You can make your test numbers visible to all of the other participants in FT DNA database, if you choose--or restrict access and comparison only to other members of the surname project (this is the default option).  You can also add information about your earliest known Burgess ancestor, if you wish.

If any of you have problems figuring out how to do these things, or interpreting what you see on the FT DNA pages, please don't hesitate to drop me a note, and I'll be happy to act on your behalf, if you authorize me to do so, or to explain what I can, or to ask the appropriate questions if I don't know the answer.

We have a great many tests currently in the works, with results due back in the latter part of February and March.  There continue to be some delays with receiving the results of the 25-marker tests.  One of our 25-marker tests came back in January with 26 markers!  This is normal, but only occurs in rare cases, and in effect creates new fields at 464e, 464f, etc.  So we have one test in the group with 26 markers instead of 25.

All good wishes:

Michael Burgess

Details

Written by: Eric Burgess

Project Newsletter #6
15 January 2005

Dear Cousins,

We have some new results in hand, and some major new finds.

Number markers received for the line of Col. William Burgess of Anne Arundel Co., Maryland, do NOT match those of Edward Burgess of Prince Georges Co., Maryland, and Pittsylvania Co., Virginia, and also do NOT match those of William Burgess of Prince Georges and Montgomery Cos., Maryland, although the latter two individuals do match each other and have a common Burgess ancestor.  Many genealogists had assumed that these were all one family.  That's not the case, and it's clear that we must look elsewhere for a possible father or ancestor of the latter two men (who could be brothers).

However, Col. William may be related to Thomas Burgess of Sandwich, Mass., and to George H. Burgess of Lancashire, England; further testing is being conducted to determine whether these tentative matches are real.  Also, additional research is being done to move George's ancestry back a few more generations.

The numbers from the family of John Meredith Burgess of Kanawha Co., (West) Virginia, match those of William Burgess of Bedford Co., Virginia, and William Burgess of Richmond (later King George) Co., Virginia; they have a common Burgess ancestor, name unknown.

I think it likely that John Meredith Burgess is the same individual as the Jack Meredith Burgess mentioned in unattributed lists of the children of John Burgess of Fluvanna Co., Virginia, eldest son of William of Bedford--but there's as yet no proof of this.  There was an oral tradition that John Meredith was born in Beaver Dam, Virginia, and there is a Beaver Dam Creek and Beaver Dam Baptist Church in Fluvanna Co.

In December I began surveying some of the early personal property tax lists for Bedford and other several counties in Virginia and West Virginia.  These lists amount to a complete annual census of all adult free males in Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky, beginning in 1782 (except for 1808 and the Civil War years).

Dan Burgess's ancestor, James Burgess, is listed in Bedford Co. between 1810-18, usually in tandem (through 1816) with one William Burgess, a presumed relative.  Curiously, Armstead Burgess is apprenticed in Bedford Co. in 1817 at the age of nine; if William had died during the preceding year, and if William had been providing support for this family, his death might have been the occasion for the family of Keziah Burgess to seek additional financial support through the work of her eldest son.  These are the only Burgesses mentioned in the county records during this time.

I have now completed my initial sweep of the tax records of several of these counties, and I await your further instructions about which counties you think ought to be examined next.  Also, if any of you computer whizzes want to take my detailed information and begin building a data grid to post on the web for the personal property tax lists of the Burgesses families of early Virginia, I'd be happy to transcribe the now handwritten information, and to add in anything else I might have in my notes, or any similar data that might be supplied by other Burgess researchers.  I think this would be a very helpful device in tracking the paths of some of these early families through Colonial Virginia, (West) Virginia, and Kentucky.  I can get these lists on interlibrary loan through my University, five reels at a time.

We now have 39 participants, with 31 test results in hand.  Some of the latter are in the process of being enhanced from 12 to 25 or even 37 markers.  As always, please check my personal website, www.millefleurs.tv, for the latest information and the actual test numbers for the project, as well as for background information on the Burgess families currently represented.

All good wishes:

Michael Burgess