I consider any type of research technique concerning a specific family to be genealogy. Posted below is the most recent Maxwell connections from the DNA study. I have a few paper proofs in my possession that do not prove an exact relationship, only a close family relationship. An example would be a will where it says "James Maxwell ,... my kinsman..."...I do not know if this is a cousin, nephew, uncle, 2nd cousin etc....I understand that the word kinsman can sometimes mean son in law , father in law etc.... A DNA match is similiar , it proves a family connection but not an exact relationship...and it has the power of science backing it up! The most powerful use of DNA is the "mismatch" as it absolutely, irrefutably proves no relationship. When the paper trail runs dry, we ALL make our best guesses as to who the most likely father of an individual was....this study was designed to assist researchers at an absolute dead end....to disprove a relationship (a mismatch....allows one to stop searching a particular line)...or reiterates the need to continue (ie find the paper proof). Starting a new group is self-defeating as many may not see a possible lineage connection and miss important information. In other words its not about DNA , its about finding new MAxwell family connections. We need to respect each others postings and try to facilitate further advances and links between our lines. Now for the good news: DNA has found exact 12/12 matches between the following lines: 1.William Maxwell b bef 1740 (m. Eliz McCutcheon and Jane Pilson)2.William Maxwell b 1767 m. Nancy Robbins (this is the famous early Ohio Printer) 3.Thomas Maxwell (1738-1785) m. Ann Blackmar 4.Robert Maxwell (d 1792) m. Elizabeth _______ As posted yesterday Thomas (#3) and Robert(#4) were thought to be brothers as they both died in Nottingham township, Chester County, Pa...so no surprise...and it supports this theory. But William (#1 and #2) were complete surprises....the dates and similiar names point to a possible father/son or uncle/nephew relationship....William #1 may also have been in Chester Co., PA. prior to Ky. Another result involves the Adams/York Co., Pa MAxwell line found in Maxwell genealogy by Houston book. It involves a "mismatch" and they are therefore not related to those lines mentioned above: Summary (from Maxwell hx, and paper proofs): A.John and Izabel (Mcgrew) Maxwell had at least three sons: 1. James who married Mary Campbell 2. Robert who married Emelia Scoggin (Emme) 3. John who married Isabella Dodd Therefore, Robert Maxwell /Emme were uncle and aunt to Robert/Deborah Weirman of Ohio, and John Maxwell/ Isabella Dodd were uncle and aunt to John Maxwell /Ruth Cypherd. ( see Maxwell Hx book for details). I would have bet money they were related to my line and in fact I have spent years researching this clan as I felt this was the line to which my Thomas belonged. So I am going to refocus on William (#1 and #2 above) and begin a new search on lines that I have done essentially no research....the study has indeed provided huge benefit to me in my own personal search! Sorry for the long posting but I thought most people would like for me to share new information as it becomes available. Dedicated to Maxwell family genealogy, Don MAXWELL DNA website: http://hometown.aol.com/dnamaxwell/myhomepage/index.html THOMAS MAXWELL (1738-1785 Pa) website: http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=donmaxwell&id=I18288 >From: LTCMAX117@aol.com Reply-To: MAXWELL-L@rootsweb.com To: >MAXWELL-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [MAXWELL-L] DNA Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 >23:06:37 EDT > >To reply to Clyde Burns concerning the situation he posed: > >If the two descendants had the DNA analysis, they would either match or not >match, that is certain. > >If their Y-chromosome markers match 12 for 12, they are related, but the >MRCA (most-recent-common -ancestor) may not be the grandfather or even the >great grandfathers, it could go farther back. > >BUT MORE IMPORTANT, and a point that is being over-looked, if they do not >match, then we know that those grandfathers are not brothers. We got a >negative result, and in normal genealogical research, negative results >(probably 75 to 85% of the time) narrow the field and allow us to >concentrate elsewhere. We have all experienced this, over and over again! > >I agree there are "probabilities" involved with DNA, but in this example of >a negative result, it looks to me like a bullseye! Don, please comment if I >have strayed from the mark. (co-administrator, Max). > _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com