Hi Guys Is this fun or what??? From these new results we can draw some facts and make some speculations. One: Kirk's line of the Matlick's of Pennsylvania, Missouri and West Virginia are directly related to the Matlock's of Virginia, Tennessee, and Missouri and the Medlock's of South Carolina and Missouri. (Welcome to the family cousin Kirk). In fact the first four of the family groups listed below are, for those lines represented, related. Period full stop. As more and more (I hope now for the twisting of more arms further back) tests are submitted for those lines the more substantial the evidence becomes. Two: We can, until further testing is returned, only speculate on were the relationship falls. And we can proceed by inverse reasoning. William Matlock of 1702 and Virginia works for the Matlock and Medlock connection but Kirks family does not "know of " him or his family. His father John Matlock (OK sometimes Medlock) of 1683 has some family members who have dropped of the earth and could be the link but Kirk's family calls for a James Matlock and no James is yet unaccounted for. We must then, as Kirk's family records look to the Matlack's of Pennsylvania and New Jersey and William Matlack of abt. 1648 because Kirk's next generation calls for a Joseph Matlack. Are there any Matlack families that are not researched and or published? Yes see below. Would James or Joseph have had reason to leave New Jersey? Sure if he had married out side the faith or perhaps was a Tory. After all William Matlack's family seems to pretty much held to the faith and his grand children were involved in the Revolution. Three: We can now state two further family facts that, while they await further testing, I have confidence. 1. Kirk's DNA is further evidence that William of New Jersey and John of Virginia are brothers. This is further supported by Curt's careful and thoughtful work on the Cropwell Bishop records and supports in the main the Reed letter. 2. We need to look at the families of George Matlock of 1606 and Jane Hall for the link and lost family groups or perhaps even one or two Generations back. Three: We can further state and reasonable so that JC, Leonard, Robert, and MJ are related but at perhaps that generation further back than George and Jane. Four:: Haplogroup R1b and Haplogroup R1a. This kind of work is helpful for generations of 10,000 years ago and explains the family's love of horses. Curt your letter arrived this week and I have read it with interest, but have not had the time to put down all of my thoughts. I will try to get it out next week. Ok guys take a shot...What do you think?? Joe Matlock Matlick" <matlick@cheerful.com> 6/30/2004 10:15:17 AM >>> Folks,Wanted to let you know that I received an email stating my DNA results were in and online. I've gone to the Family Tree DNA website and looked at my results and have signed up for YSearch and 'uploaded' my results. This should come into play for the Medlock/Matlock testing, as my results exactly matched 12/12 for Ray Kennard Medlock, Joe W. Matlock, Albert Ronell Medlock, Robert Lee Medlock and Samuel Willis Medlock - and also exactly matched 25/25 for Joe W. Matlock, Albert Ronell Medlock and Samuel Willis Medlock. It certainly is an interesting world we live in!!! If there's something else I need to do to make the results available or someone else I should contact, please let me know.Cheers!KirkHi Joe Does the Matlack/Matlick DNA results cement the relationship between the New Jersey/Pennsylvania Matlacks and the Matlocks. It would still be helpful to get someone with the Matlack surname to give a DNA sample. If William Matlack in New Jersey and John Matlock in Virginia were not brothers, it looks like they shared a close common ancestry. Curt Miller -- From: <BA044@aol.com> To: <Joe.Matlock@state.tn.us> Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 10:43:46 AM Subject: Re: [MATLOCK-L] Re: Family Tree DNA Y-DNA25 Test Match Hi If your asking about the new 100% Match Its Samuel of Edgefield SC who I think is the son of Hescott son of who I thought was son of William of 02... With the 100% match do you think Im right? KitName* H a p l o3 9 33 9 01 93 9 13 8 5 a3 8 5 b4 2 63 8 84 3 93 8 9 | 13 9 23 8 9 | 24 5 84 5 9 a4 5 9 b4 5 54 5 44 4 74 3 74 4 84 4 94 6 4 a4 6 4 b4 6 4 c4 6 4 d4 6 0G A T A H 4Y C A I I aY C A I I b4 5 66 0 75 7 65 7 0C D Y aC D Y b4 4 24 3 812569Samuel W MedlockR1b132515111115111211131330179101111251519291515161711111923161517183537111214350Albert R MedlockR1b1325151111151112111313301791011112515192915151617 14482Joe W. MatlockR1b1325151111151112111313301791011112515192915151617 20569Kirk B MatlickR1a1325151111151112111313301791011112515192915151617 16510J C MedlockR1a1325151111151112111313301791011112515192915151516 14380Leonard MedlockR1a1325151011151112111313301791011112515192915151617 13801Robert Lee MedlockR1a1325151111151112111313301691011112515192915151617 14104M. J. MedlockR1b1324151111151112 111313301791011112515192915151617 ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup Descendants of Jacob Matlack Generation No. 1 1. JACOB6 MATLACK (JOHN5, WILLIAM4, GEORGE3 MATLOCK, JOHN2, JOHN1) was born 1715. He married RUTH WOODOTH. Children of JACOB MATLACK and RUTH WOODOTH are: i. JACOB7 MATLACK. ii. MARY MATLACK, m. JOHN NEWMAN. iii. RUTH MATLACK, m. THOMAS PARKER. iv. PATIENCE MATLACK, m. WATSON. v. HANNAH MATLACK, m. JAMES ROWAND. Descendants of Jacob Matlack Generation No. 1 1. JACOB6 MATLACK (JOHN5, WILLIAM4, GEORGE3 MATLOCK, JOHN2, JOHN1) was born 1715. He married RUTH WOODOTH. Children of JACOB MATLACK and RUTH WOODOTH are: i. JACOB7 MATLACK. ii. MARY MATLACK, m. JOHN NEWMAN. iii. RUTH MATLACK, m. THOMAS PARKER. iv. PATIENCE MATLACK, m. WATSON. v. HANNAH MATLACK, m. JAMES ROWAND. Haplogroup R1b is the most common haplogroup in European populations. It is believed to have expanded throughout Europe as humans re-colonized after the last glacial maximum 10-12 thousand years ago. This lineage is also the haplogroup containing the Atlantic modal haplotypeHaplogroup R1a lineage is believed to have originated in the Eurasian Steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas. This lineage is believed to have originated in a population of the Kurgan culture, known for the domestication of the horse (approximately 3000 B.C.E.). These people were also believed to be the first speakers of the Indo-European language group. This lineage is currently found in central and western Asia, India, and in Slavic populations of Eastern Europe

Joe, Don't know if this will help you on the George Matlack and Jane Hall. I have that George and Jane Hall married 7 Nov 1836 St Giles Church, Cropwell Bishop, Nottingham, England. Notice that after their marriage these children were born. My records doesn't state parents or the parish... Notice that I have stated probably at St. Giles in my files. BIRTH: Abt 1638, John Matlock Christening: 9 Sep 1638, Cropwell Bishop, Nottingham, England (probably St. Giles where his parents married) BIRTH: George Matlock, 18 Oct 1642; Cropwell Bishop, Nottingham, England (probably St. Giles where his parents married) BIRTH: Dorothy Matlock, born Abt May; Christening: May 1644; Cropwell Bishop, Nottingham, England (probably St. Giles where his parents married) BIRTH: William Matlock born Abt June 1650; Christening: June 1650; Cropwell Bishop, Nottingham, England (probably St. Giles where his parents married) BIRTH: Thomas Matlock born 25 Dec 1652; Cropwell Bishop, Nottingham, England (probably St. Giles where his parents married) If anyone has where the records came from I would love to know the Church. The lady that sent these to me sent me a copy of a church. I think it might have been St. Giles... Will have to search thru my papers to find out for sure. From my understanding this Thomas born 1652 had a son William in New Kent County, VA born 1689. Joe... John son of William Matlack had 2 wives...possibly more. Do you know who the Jacob's mother was.. .Hannah Horner??? or Mary Lee???? Great news! Wanda