Maness DNA Project

Results

Quick Links:

• Y-DNA (paternal line) test results
• mtDNA (maternal line) test results
• Additional genealogical information and analyses for specific test results
• Summary of results so far

Y-chromosome DNA marker test results (paternal lines)

Mitochondrial DNA marker test results (maternal lines)

Additional genealogical information and analyses for specific test results

017,499 is a second-great-grandson of John Lawson and is descended from John's son (by his second wife), James Madison 'Matt' Lawson.  Both of John's parents were born in Tennessee, according to census records.  John was born in 1830 in Tennessee.  He married first Lucinda Minor, and they appear in the 1850 census of Hawkins County, Tennessee.  John married second Frances 'Frankie' Singleton in 1853 in Hawkins County.  By 1860, John and Frankie were living in neighboring Hancock County.  John died in 1901.  John is supposed to have been a son of Emanuel Lawson and Mary 'Polly' Frazier, but the source for this information is UNKNOWN.  Other UNDOCUMENTED reports include that Polly was a sister to Waitman Frazier, that John was raised by John Kyle, and that Emanuel and Polly had another son named William.  Records place Emanuel's birth as early as circa 1808 and as late as circa 1815 in Tennessee.  By 1850, Emanuel was living and raising a family with Myra Singleton (mother of Frankie who married John Lawson) in Hancock County.  According to the 1880 census, Emanuel's parents were born in Virginia.  ANALYSIS: The perfect, 67-marker match between 017,499 and the Maness Group 1 DNA signature, coupled with the lack of matches with other Lawson lines except for that of Russell Lawson (see the write-up for 021,502), seems to indicate that the father of one of the Lawsons from this line was a Maness.  The marker results for 071,523 (who is descended from a different son of John Lawson and who is also a perfect match at 37 markers), coupled with these results for 017,499, confirm that John Lawson himself must have carried the Maness Group 1 DNA signature, proving that the Maness connection in this Lawson line had to have occurred at a point in the lineage prior to John.  If this Maness-Lawson union occurred in the location in which Emanuel and John Lawson lived, the most likely candidate for a Maness father would be someone from the family of Seth Manis.  (For more information on Seth, see the write-up for 063,405).  Immamuel Lawson (presumably Emanuel--it looks like someone wrote Samuel and then tried to turn it into Immanuel) (aged 15 to 20) appears in the 1830 census of Hawkins County, Tennessee, with a female (aged 20 to 30) and no children.  On the same census page appear William Manas, Jesse Manas, and John Manas—all three being sons of Seth Manis and all three old enough to be the father of either John Lawson or Emanuel Lawson.  In 1840, Emanuel Lawson does not seem to appear in the neighborhood as head of household, but two Frazier women appear as heads of two of the four households separating William Manis and Jesse Manis.  One of them is named Polly.  (John Lawson's mother was supposedly named Polly Frazier.) She is aged 30 to 40 and appears with a girl aged 5 to 10.  The other, Zilpha Frazier, is aged 15 to 20 and appears with a boy under age 5 and a girl under age 5.  Zilpha Frazier and William Manis were indicted in 1840 for "open and notorious lewdness." (Could the two children in Zilpha's 1840 household be children of William?) Though the case was discharged, it is noteworthy that William left Zilpha a farm in his 1842 will.  William died that same year.  Then, in 1844, Zilpha was charged along with Jesse Manis for "openly cohabiting as man and wife." Evidence suggests that Jesse and Zilpha had a son together in 1842 and that both Jesse and Zilpha died circa 1846.  If the census age is correct, Zilpha Frazier was too young to be the mother of John Lawson, but her relationships with two Manis men by whom she had one or more children does provide evidence of Manis-Frazier unions, and judging from their location in the 1840 census, both Polly and Zilpha Frazier might have been living on Manis farms.  If John Lawson's mother really was Polly Frazier, and if she is the same Polly listed next to Zilpha in the census, one possible theory is that John Lawson could be a son of this Polly Frazier and a Manis.  Polly could have married or had a relationship with Emanuel or some other Lawson and passed that surname along to John.  (Polly’s age in 1840 fits with that of the female in Emanuel’s 1830 household.) If this was the case, then evidently John was being raised by someone other than his mother in 1840, or else he was left out of the census.  A Lawson might have taken John in, raised him as a son, and given John his surname.  There were several Lawson families in the neighborhood.  There were also Lawsons in the areas of North Carolina and Virginia where the Manesses lived before coming to Tennessee.  Another possibility might be that a Lawson woman could have had a son by a Manis at some point and passed her own surname to her son.  Perhaps more evidence or further DNA testing might eventually shed some light on which, if any, of these alternatives might be correct.  Contact E-mail for this test: jlawson2953@bellsouth.net

021,502 is a second-great-grandson of Russell Lawson and is descended from Russell’s son (by his first wife), William Clemmons Lawson.  According to census records, Russell’s parents were born in Tennessee.  Records place Russell’s birth as early as circa 1826 and as late as circa 1832 in Tennessee.  He is thought to be the Russell (Manis) listed as a laborer in the 1850 household of Russell’s future brother-in-law, Clinton Manis.  Russell first married (circa 1852?) Webby Manis, daughter of Jesse Manis and Alcy/Alsey/Alice Lawson.  He secondly married Madema ‘Dema’ Manis, daughter of Nelson Manis, in 1872 in Hawkins County.  He thirdly married Mary (--?--) circa 1890.  Russell died in 1909 in Hawkins County.  ANALYSIS: The match to the Maness Group 1 DNA signature (63 out of 67 markers, with all four differences being single-step and with at least three of them occurring at “fast-changing” markers), coupled with the lack of matches to other Lawson lines except for that of John Lawson (see the write-ups for 017,499 and 071,523), seems to indicate that somewhere along this Lawson line the father was a Maness.  Could Russell Lawson and John Lawson have been brothers? In the 1850 census, John appears in the next household after that of Clinton Manis, and Russell is thought to be the 19-year-old Russell living with Clinton.  If the Maness-Lawson union in this line occurred in the area in which Russell lived, the most likely candidate for a Maness father would be someone from the family of Seth Manis.  (For more information on Seth, see the write-up for 063,405).  Both of Russell’s first two wives were descendants of Seth and might have been Russell’s cousins.  Webby was the daughter of Seth’s son, Jesse; Dema was the granddaughter of Seth’s son, John.  Assuming: 1) that the Maness father in this lineage was a descendant of Seth; 2) that the Maness-Lawson union occurred in this lineage at some point prior to Russell; and 3) that the Maness father was known, then it seems unlikely that Russell would have married Webby and Dema if he was from the line of Jesse Manis or John Manis.  The most likely connection, then, would probably be through the family of Seth’s son, William Manis, whose wife was Lydia Lawson.  Could William and Lydia have had a son prior to their marriage who kept his mother’s Lawson surname and became the father of Russell (and possibly John, as well)? Records place Lydia’s birth as early as circa 1782 and as late as circa 1790, so Russell (and John) could potentially fit, age-wise, as her grandson(s).  If the Lawson surname did not come from the maiden name of a mother in this line, another possibility might be that a Lawson man, maybe a stepfather, took in someone from this line and raised him as a son.  It would be interesting to have another direct paternal descendant of Russell Lawson take a DNA test.  The test subject would need to trace back to some other son of Russell besides William Clemmons Lawson.  The results should then pinpoint whether or not the Maness-Lawson union occurred at a point in the lineage prior to Russell.  Assuming a match, DNA results should also indicate which, if any, of the three presumed mutations that show up in this line would have been carried by Russell Lawson himself.  The more mutations Russell carried, the greater the probability that the Maness-Lawson union occurred several more generations back in time­-perhaps in Virginia or North Carolina­-unless a closer Maness DNA match appears in the future that also traces back to the Hawkins County area (in which case the early related Maness families in that area might not all be as closely related as it would seem based on results so far).  Though no concrete evidence has been found to prove it, some Lawson researchers have suspected that Russell might have been a son of Meredith or Peter Lawson and that he might be descended from Thomas Lawson, born 1760-1770, who was living in Hawkins County in 1830.  If documented direct paternal descendants of these other Lawsons could be located for DNA testing, perhaps we could find out if there was an older Maness-Lawson connection.  Contact E-mail for this test: ranhyn@earthlink.net

024,357 is a great-grandchild of Mary Jane Howell and is descended from Mary’s daughter, Laura Viola Manes Burnett(e).  Mary was born in 1843 in Bradley County, Tennessee.  She married William Daniel Manes (son of Jacob Larkin Manes) in 1871 in Bradley County, Tennessee.  The couple made their home in Bradley County, where Mary died in 1909.  The most distant known direct maternal ancestor of this line is Mary’s grandmother, Jane Barnes, who was born in 1774 in North Carolina, married Aaron Crowson, Sr., and died in 1849 in Sevier County, Tennessee.  When comparing both HVR1 and HVR2 marker results, there are no known matches who have been tested so far, but there are quite a few matches who have only tested the HVR1 region who trace back to various western European countries.  For more about haplogroup H, to which these results belong, see Wikipedia and Eupedia.  Contact E-mail for this test: bcdunklee@comcast.net

041,783 is a grandchild of Laura C. Elam and is descended from Laura’s daughter, Minnie Mae Maness Brock.  Laura was born in 1877 in Scott County, Virginia.  She married Alexander (‘Alex’ or ‘Alec’) Maness (son of Gordon A. Maness) in 1895 in Kyles Ford, Hancock County, Tennessee.  The couple raised their family in Leslie County and Rockcastle County, Kentucky.  Laura died in 1910 in Wildie, Rockcastle County.  The most distant known direct maternal ancestor of this line is Laura’s mother, Rebecca A. Smith, who was born circa 1849 in Virginia, married first John W. Elam in 1876 in Sullivan County, Tennessee, married second Aaron B. Dingus in 1885? in Scott County, Virginia, and died shortly thereafter.  As this haplogroup appeared in Europe at such an early date and afterwards spread, it is difficult to pinpoint from which part of Europe this maternal line might have come.  For more about haplogroup U, to which these results belong, see Wikipedia and Eupedia.

046,502 is a third-great-grandson of Isom / Isham Maness and is descended from Isom’s son, Alexander Maness.  Census information for Isom’s children indicates that he was born in Tennessee.  His date of birth has not been established, but evidence places his wife’s date of birth as circa 1780 or circa 1782.  The first documented appearance of Isom in records is in Greene County, Tennessee, where he married in 1811.  His family settled along the border between Lee and Scott Counties in Virginia, not far from the Kyle’s Ford area of what is now Hancock County, Tennessee.  Isom drowned in the Clinch River sometime between 1816 and 1820.  Tradition in the Isom Maness family indicates that three brothers settled in different places and spelled their surname different ways.  Evidence suggests that the Jacob Maness (see the write-up for 056,905) and Seth Manis (see the write-up for 063,405), who both settled in Hawkins County, Tennessee, were likely brothers.  Some of Jacob’s children married in Greene County, where Isom lived and married.  Given the time frame and geographical proximity, PERHAPS Isom’s father, Jacob, and Seth are the three brothers to whom the tradition refers.  Isom Maness (ancestor of this line and that of 065,753) and Vincent Maness (ancestor of 231,058) were brothers.  ANALYSIS: This participant (046,502) and 065,753 are documented third cousins, once removed, being descendants of two different sons of Isom Maness—Alexander Maness and Sterling S. Maness.  The marker results confirm the relatedness between these participants, but the three-marker difference is surprising for two people related so closely.  Given that the marker results for Alexander’s descendant (046,502) are exact matches with those of other Manesses whose connections must be more distant, it would appear that Isom’s first 37 markers were probably the same as those of this participant (046,502) and of the unknown progenitor of Group 1.  One of the mutations in the line of 065,752 is shared by a presumed descendant of Jacob Maness (170,269), but since the mutation is not shared by this other descendant of Isom (046,502), the common alternate value might just be coincidental. The three mutations in the line of Sterling’s descendant (065,753) are all “red marker” mutations, meaning they tend to change more often than others.  Two of the mutations (CDY a and CDY b) are by far the fastest mutating markers that are tested.  Even so, based on statistics alone, one would not normally expect all three of these markers to mutate in only four generations.  The results are surprising enough that the testing company asked the lab to review the results for those three markers.  The re-check confirmed the original results.  Evidently there were indeed three mutations in just four generations.  (A representative of the testing company agrees with this as the most likely interpretation.) It would be interesting to try to pinpoint exactly where along the line these mutations occurred by eventually having other direct paternal descendants of Sterling tested.  Until then, we will be unable to tell which, if any, of the mutations were a part of Sterling’s own DNA signature and which ones arose in one or more descendants.  For another similarly documented statistical anomaly—three mutations in three generations—see the write-up for 063,405.

062,557 is a second-great-grandson of James Maness and is descended from his son, John Riley Manes.  James’ date of birth is unknown, but census records for John Riley Manes indicate James’ place of birth as either Tennessee or Missouri.  (Family tradition supports the Tennessee birthplace.) The first documented record of James Maness is in Franklin County, Missouri, where he married Nancy Newell Hopkins (born 23 Nov 1830) on 18 Aug 1846.  He next appears in records as a witness at his father-in-law’s (Thomas Hopkins) second marriage on 17 Aug 1847 in Franklin County, Missouri.  Neither James nor his wife seems to appear in the 1850 census.  However, Nancy marries Charles Godat in Washington County, Missouri, on 5 Mar 1854, and the 1860 census indicates the three Maness children (Amanda, John Riley, and George W.) are living with the Godats.  James’ death, along with that of Nancy Hopkins Maness Godat, is unknown.  There is a family tradition in this line saying that the surname was originally “MacManus” and that the “Mac” was dropped early on.  There has been an abundance of red hair, blue eyes, and twins in this family.  ANALYSIS: 062,557 is a perfect 67-marker match to the Group 1 baseline, but so far his exact relationship to others in the group remains undocumented.  Some descendants of Jacob Manas / Maness, who left a will in Hawkins County, Tennessee, in 1824, moved to the general area of Missouri in which James appears.  We have test results for a descendant who traces back to Jacob, but these results do not match the Group 1 Manesses.  (Refer to the Group 3 results and the write-up for 056,905).  We hope that another descendant of Jacob (preferably through a son other than Elisha) will take a DNA test so that we can verify whether or not Jacob himself carried this different DNA signature.  If so, then 062,557 could not be his direct paternal descendant.  See the Wish List page for the current status of pledges towards testing for another solidly documented direct paternal descendant of Jacob.  Contact E-mail for this test: bettywilson1@att.net

065,750 is a second-great-grandchild of Mary ‘Polly’ Madden and is descended from Polly’s daughter, Lucinda Maness Johnson.  Polly was born in 1821 in Hawkins County, Tennessee.  She married Sterling S. Maness (son of Isom Maness) in 1840 in Scott County, Virginia.  The couple settled along the border between Scott County and Lee County, Virginia, where Polly died in 1908.  The 1880 census reports the birthplace of Polly’s mother as Tennessee, but the 1900 census reports Ireland.  In that 1900 census, Polly appears alone in her own household; so, she likely reported that information herself.  This particular maternal line of DNA might then have come through Ireland.  So far, when comparing both HVR1 and HVR2 marker results, there is one known match who has been tested.  That match traces back to Germany.  For more about haplogroup H, to which these results belong, see Wikipedia and Eupedia.

069,346 is a great-grandson of Daniel Y. Maness and is descended from Daniel’s son, William Lee Maness.  Daniel’s date of birth is unknown, but his wife was born 22 February 1851.  Census information for Daniel’s children indicates that he was born in Virginia or Georgia or Tennessee.  He married Nancy Jane Self (daughter of William Chappell ‘Chap’ Self and Elizabeth Moreland) in 1873 in Hamilton County, Tennessee, and afterwards lived in Georgia, where his children were born.  His date of death is unknown, but by 1880 Nancy and the children were living with her parents in Walker County, Georgia.  ANALYSIS: Given that these results are an exact 12-marker match to those of 122,129, and given that no other Maness lines tested so far are in this group, it seems highly likely that the Daniel Y. Maness who was the ancestor of this participant and the Daniel Yancey Maness/Manis who is the ancestor of 122,129 are indeed one and the same person.  Evidently, Daniel removed for a time to Georgia before returning to Hawkins County, Tennessee.  Daniel Yancey Maness/Manis was born circa 1842 (probably in Hawkins County, Tennessee, but records vary) to Elijah Maness (born circa 1813 or 1816, probably in North Carolina) and wife Mary Anna Christian.  Daniel lived for a time in Lee County, Virginia, where he married Abby Stidham in 1866.  His residence in the 1870 census is unknown to us, but by 1873 he had evidently moved south, as he married Nancy Jane Self in that year near the Georgia border and afterwards lived in Georgia.  See the write-up for 122,129 for further information about this Maness line.  Contact E-mail for this test: grifterspa@yahoo.com

071,523 is a great-grandson of John Lawson and is descended from John’s son (by his second wife), Henry Lander Lawson.  For more information on John and analysis of these results, see the write-up for 017,499.  Contact E-mail for this test: appalachianjudi@att.net

072,930 is a second-great-grandson of Solomon Baldwin and is descended from Solomon’s son, Jarvis Robert ‘Jarvy’ Baldwin.  According to census records, Solomon was born circa 1810 in North Carolina or Virginia.  He married Sarah Elliott in 1834 in Floyd County, Kentucky.  Solomon appears in the 1840 census in Russell County, Virginia, where he is listed next to an Enoch Baldwin (aged 40 to 50).  Solomon and Enoch represented their Primitive Baptist church (Glade Hollow?) in the Lebanon Association annual meetings of 1841 and 1842.  A land grant was surveyed for Solomon in Floyd County, Kentucky, in 1843, and he and Sarah appear there in the 1850 and 1860 censuses.  Solomon died in Floyd County in 1861.  Sarah Elliott was born in 1815 in (probably Russell County) Virginia.  She was the daughter of John M. Elliott, Sr., who appears in the 1830 census in Floyd County, Kentucky.  Following Solomon’s death, Sarah remarried and moved to Lawrence County, Ohio, where she died in 1901.  Some of the children of Solomon and Sarah, including Jarvy, also moved to that area.  ANALYSIS: This participant (072,930) and 076,863 are cousins, being descendants of two different sons of Solomon Baldwin—Jarvy Baldwin and Alexander Baldwin.  The marker results for 076,863 are an exact 37 marker match to the Maness Group 1 DNA signature, and these results for 072,930 show one single-step difference that occurs at a relatively fast-changing marker.  The test results for these two descendants show that Solomon Baldwin himself must have carried the Maness Group 1 DNA signature.  Given that the marker results for the descendant of Solomon’s son Alexander (076,863) are an exact match to the Group 1 DNA signature, it is assumed that Solomon himself was an exact match for the first 37 markers and that the mutation for DYS 570 is a distinguishing mutation that arose at some point in the descent of 072,930 from Jarvy.  The matches to the Group 1 Manesses, coupled with the lack of such matches with other Baldwin lines, seems to indicate that at some point in the direct paternal ancestry prior to Solomon Baldwin, the father was actually a Maness.  Whether the Maness was Solomon’s father, grandfather, etc., is unknown.  There is a reported family tradition that Solomon had a half-brother named Andrew Mitchell who was buried in the same cemetery as Solomon.  Andrew Mitchell, age 21, appears in the 1850 census of Russell County, Virginia, living next to Layton (age 56) and Rebecca (age 61) Mitchell on one side and next to Enoch Mitchell (age 20, born in Russell County) and then Stephen “Balden” (age 21, born in North Carolina, who later had a son named Solomon) on the other side.  Could Rebecca be Solomon Baldwin’s mother?  (One of Solomon’s sons named his first known daughter Rebecca.)  Like Solomon, these Mitchells moved from Russell County, Virginia, to Floyd County, Kentucky.  Different census records report them as being born in Grayson County, Virginia, or in North Carolina.  Layton is listed in the 1820 census of Grayson County (the only other male in the household being under age ten) and in the 1830 census in Russell County (the other males in the household being 2 males under age five).  In addition to Stephen, other “Balden” households in the 1850 census of Russell County, Virginia, include those of Elisha (age 52, born in Grayson County) and (in the next household) Jacob (age 24, born in Lee County).  Stephen and Elisha Baldwin are found in the 1860 census in Buchanan County, Virginia, separated by a single household, and Jacob is also living in that county.  The given names Enoch, Stephen, Elisha, and Jacob also occur in Baldwin families of Wilkes and Ashe Counties in North Carolina.  There were early Manesses and Baldwins in various counties on both sides of the border between Virginia and North Carolina, but without further clues to a more precise place of birth for Solomon, it is difficult to theorize more precisely what his Maness connection might be.  Perhaps further DNA testing might shed additional light on this mystery.  It would be interesting to see whether or not DNA tests for descendants of the other Baldwin families mentioned here would match.  Also, the results for DYS markers 444 and 446 for this participant are so far not shared by other participants.  Could either or both of these have been passed from Solomon himself?  (Further testing for 076,863 could potentially help to answer this question.)  If so, perhaps we could eventually find a matching Maness line that shares these mutations.  If no shared mutations show up with further testing, then without a breakthrough in the genealogical paper trail, the particular Maness ancestry of these Baldwins might remain elusive.  Contact E-mail for this test: jbaldwin@indy.rr.com

084,613 is a second-great-grandson of Jacob Larkin Manes and is descended from Jacob's son, Ephraim Manes.  Jacob was born circa 1807 or circa 1809 in Tennessee.  He married Ruth Ann ‘Rutha’ Breeden, daughter of William Breeden of Sevier County, Tennessee.  Jacob and Rutha lived in Sevier County, where their first known child was born circa 1834.  Minutes of Pleasant Grove Baptist Church (Cocke County) indicate that Jacob and Rutha were active in branch meetings at White Oak Flats (present-day Gatlinburg, Sevier County).  Sometime between 1846 and 1849, Jacob and Rutha moved their family to Bradley County, Tennessee, where Jacob died in 1849 or 1850.  ANALYSIS: The specific place in Tennessee where Jacob Larkin Manes was born has not been established by records, but the first place in which he is known to have lived is Sevier County, and he could be a member of one of the early Manes families who lived there.  Some of the names used for Jacob’s children seem to suggest a possible connection, including Amos, Joseph, Daniel, and William.  An elderly man, born 1740-1750, appears in the 1830 Sevier County household of a Jacob Manes.  A younger couple, aged 30 to 40, also appears in the household, along with several children.  It is unknown which of the two men in the household was named Jacob and listed as head of household, but if the elderly man was a Manes, he is old enough to be the ancestor of all of the other Manes families that appear in the early surviving census records of Sevier County, and Jacob Larkin Manes MIGHT have been named for him.  In 1840 a Jacob S. Manes, born circa 1787 in North Carolina, appears as head of household.  His household also includes another male born 1780-1790.  Next door is Joseph H. Manes, born circa 1818 in Tennessee.  An Amos Manis, born 1800-1810, was married in 1828 in neighboring Jefferson County, Tennessee, and he shows up in Sevier County in 1830 and in neighboring Cocke County in 1840.  (For more information on Cocke County families, see the write-up for 045,823.) The supposed connection between these families is further strengthened by the fact that Jacob S., Joseph H., and the widow of Amos all seem to be living in Murray County, Georgia, in 1850.  A William Manis, born circa 1816 in Tennessee, is also living in Murray County that year.  By 1860, Joseph H. and the widow of Jacob S. were both listed in Bradley County, Tennessee (where Jacob Larkin Manes had died).  The widow of Jacob S. was also listed that year in Whitfield County, Georgia, where William was living.  An older William Manis, born 1770-1780, was living in 1830 in Jefferson County, Tennessee (where Amos was married).  A Daniel Manor, born circa 1803 in North Carolina, also lived in Jefferson County.  Another Joseph, born circa 1796 in North Carolina, appears in Sevier County census records from 1830 to 1860.  This Joseph MIGHT be the father of a Daniel Manis, whose household is listed next to Joseph’s in both the 1850 and 1860 censuses.  This Daniel was born in Tennessee circa 1829.  A Samuel P. Manes, who was born 1780-1790 and died 1831-1840, also lived in Sevier County, and Y-DNA results for a descendant of Samuel are also a match to the Group 1 baseline (see 143,585).  Although it is UNKNOWN exactly how all of these people connect, the name and location similarities suggest that they MIGHT all be part of the same extended family that moved from North Carolina and settled in Sevier County and perhaps other neighboring counties.  The fact that the family of Jacob Larkin Manes moved to Bradley County MIGHT also suggest some connection to the family of George Manes (son of Seth Manis from Hawkins County—see the write-up for 063,405), who was living there in 1850 and who had previously resided in Rhea County.  Name similarities MIGHT also suggest a possible connection with Jacob Manas of Hawkins County (see the write-up for 056,905), who had sons named Ephraim and Daniel, but the name Ephraim for the son of Jacob Larkin Manes could have come from that Ephraim’s uncle, Ephraim Maples, who was also a neighbor.  Jacob of Hawkins County also had a son named Elijah, and an Elijah Manes, aged 40-50, shows up on the 1830 Sevier County census.  A couple of Amos Manesses also show up in the general area of Missouri to which some of the descendants of Jacob of Hawkins County moved.  Perhaps further searches amongst surviving records from these localities and more DNA testing for direct male descendants of the various branches might further clarify relationships between these people.  Depending on when it arose, the apparent mutation at marker GATA H4 in the line of this participant (084,613) might turn out to be a particularly significant help in grouping some of these people into family groups, because the marker at which it occurs is not classified as one of the faster-mutating ones.  Contact E-mail for this test: bcdunklee@comcast.net

190,347, born in the 1960s in Little Rock, Arkansas, is seeking his birth father.  ANALYSIS: These results are a 34 out of 37 marker match to the Group 1 baseline, with two mutations at faster-changing DNA markers and one mutation at a slower-changing marker.  Contact E-mail: gene.paul.barnett@gmail.com

Summary of results so far

So far, all of our participating family lines are from the United States.  We still await genetic matches with European lines that might help us to further pinpoint either the places of origin or the original forms of the surname for the various Maness families represented.  At this point, the results sort into one main family group with early roots in Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, and five other lines, each with one or two representatives.  All six groups descend from the patriarch of haplogroup R1b, the most common haplogroup for western Europe.  (For more information about haplogroup R1b, see Wikipedia and Eupedia.)  By combining the circa 1779 indication that William Maness I was likely of Highland Scotts origin or heritage (see the write-up for 106,488) with part of the 1920 tradition from the line of genetic relative Seth Manis that Seth's grandfather was the first of the family to come to what is now the United States as an eleven-year-old indentured servant (see the write-up for 063,405), it seems possible that William Maness I could be the common immigrant ancestor of all of the Group 1 participants tested so far and that the origins of this family group could lie somewhere in the Highlands of Scotland.  (Since Seth was born in 1762, his grandfather would probably have been of the generation of William I.)  If this theory is correct, then all participants of U. S. heritage whose Y-DNA test results place them into Group 1 probably descend from one of the sons of William Maness I, whoever those sons were.  It is hoped that, even if we cannot match their descendants with their names through a genealogical paper trail, perhaps we can eventually identify them by unique DNA signatures.  Only time will tell.  Several presumed mutations (changes to the DNA) have surfaced in various branches of this largest group, but we do not yet have enough data to pinpoint the exact ancestors in which those mutations originated.  Ideally, we hope to eventually have participants from as many Maness ancestors as possible, preferably from two or three different sons of the most distant ancestors of each line where available, which would allow us to establish a baseline DNA signature for the ancestor.  Then, as science uncovers more test markers, hopefully expanded testing would reveal shared mutations unique to the individual branches of the larger group, pointing to a more recent shared ancestor for each branch.  Is your Maness line represented, yet?

To find out more about the Project and its progress, click on the link buttons along the top of each web page or on the words at the bottom:

Home   -   FAQ   -   Wish List   -   Contact Us

Copyright © 2007-2010 Maness DNA Project (http://manessdnaproject.home.comcast.net).  All Rights Reserved.