Updated 5 Feb 2009
Group A is a distinct family group not related to other Meek families in the project. Members of this group are in the R1b1c9b haplogroup confirmed by SNP test on Kit #6576. These members can be tied together by having the same uncommon values in four markers in addition to genetic distance. DYS 393=14 occurs in only 3% of the entire R1b1 population. DYS 646c=14 occurs only 1% of the time. DYS YCAII b=22 occurs only 8% of the time. DYS 576=16 occurs only 6% of the time. It also appears that the pattern for DYS 464=14, 14, 17, 18 is significant.
Ancestors
Jeremiah Meek died in 1783 in Westmoreland Co., PA.
Son: Joshua Meeks
- Kit #31588
Basil Meek born about 1740 in Maryland.
Son: John Meek born 1779.
- Kit #74145
John Meek born about 1754 in Maryland.
Son: Bazil Meek born about 1774.
- Kit #6576 and Kit #49733
Son: John Meek born 1772.
- Kit #31283
Jacob Meek was born about 1755 in Maryland.
Son: Isaac Meek born 1784. - Kit #68563
Son: William Meek born 1787. - Kit #134309
All of these ancestors resided together in the same time and place. There is secondary documentation that indicates that Basil, John and Jacob were brothers. Thier relationship to Jeremiah is not known. DNA is not available for a fifth person named Joshua who lived next to John and Jacob.
Most members have 76 markers or more. This is double what is typically seen in surname projects. Look at the three descendants of John Meek. My results (Kit #6576) has three mismatches from the modal values of Group A. Jay is my second cousin. His results (Kit #49733) has one mismatch from the modal and it is on a different marker than mine. Since both of us have different mismatches it is very likely that these mutations occurred since the birth of our great grandfather. (Three mutations in 100 years, in my case, are not typical but it does happen.) These mutations would not represent defining markers for John Meek or his son Bazil. In fact they are not even defining markers for my great grandfather. They are mutations without significant value for defining major sub-groups.
The third descendant of John Meek also has one mismatch. Since this member descends from a different son of John Meek we do not know when his mismatch occurred or what if anything it represents. However, it is not a defining marker for John Meek because it does not occur in other descendants of John Meek.
So, the descendants of John Meek have one, two or three mutations from the group modal. With three members who are descendant from two different sons of the ancestor John Meek we would not read anything into the fact I or anyone else has more mutations than the rest of the group. The DNA results are within a range that supports the paper trail to John Meek.
Earnest ia a descendant Basil Meek. His results (Kit #74145) are an exact match with the group Modal. Even if we limited our evaluation to the standard 37 markers it is apparent that different lines from the common ancestor show different rates of mutation.
Jeff and Steve are descendants of Jacob Meek b: 1755 through two different sons. With 0 and 2 mutations from the group modal with 37 markers their results are similar to the descendants of John Meek.
Dispite the fact that some descendants have mutations and others do not, the DNA results are within a range that supports the evidence that Basil, John and Jacob were brothers.
Dan (Kit #31588) is a descendant of Jeremiah Meek. He has one mutation from the group modal. We don’t know how Jeremiah was related to Basil, John and Jacob. We know that he lived in the same time and place as the other ancestors. We believe that he was older than the others. He was possibly an uncle.
With Dan’s having the same number of mutations similar to the descendants of the other ancestors the combined DNA results do not shed any light on the time frame between his ancestor and that of the others. However, they do indicate a close relationship to the others. The calculations provided by Family Tree DNA indicate that Dan and Earnest having a 76% probability that their ancestor was born 7-11 generation ago. This is the exact time frame to support our assessment.
With only one member for most ancestors in the group it is not possible to determine if the mutations in any one line might show a unique pattern if enough descendants were tested. It appears that the DNA results for Group A are fairly simple and confirm that all four ancestors were closely related.
In summary, the DNA study has established that the members of Group A are related. The DNA results support the paper trail for the ancestors Basil, John and Jacob. It also suggest that Jeremiah was closely related to the others. Just as important is the finding that the Group A ancestors were not related to the Group B ancestors which had been believed by genealogists for over 100 years.