Let me parse this down to basics to see if I understand it: 1. An English Pace, with roots in the London area back as far as 1859, seems to be related to the descendents of Richard Pace of NC (1638-1677). 2. It is likely that Antony Pace and the Richard Paces of NC share a common male ancestor sometime within the past 500 years (and maybe quite a bit shorter time span). This seems to increase the probability that the Richard of NC Paces are descended from Richard Pace of Jamestown. Is this the correct interpretation? Joe Anderson ----Original Message Follows---- From: Rebecca Christensen <rchristen@sbcglobal.net> To: PACE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PACE-L] New results, Antony Pace, London - EXCITING!!!! Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:38:40 -0800 (PST) Roy and all others interested, What exciting news!!!! especially for those of us in group 3a, and probably those in group 3b as well as the third panel for kit #8179 matches the third panel for both groups 3a and 3b participants that have upgraded. For emphasis, we have perfect matches in the third panel for group 3a, group 3b, and London kit #8179. FTDNA's webpages indicate the 34/37 match between Group 3a and London kit #8179 is "related" when you share the same surname and the shared ancestry is probably within the time period of surnames in Europe. For FTDNA's official blurb, see http://www.familytreedna.com/GDRules_37.html The third panel of markers tested by FTDNA contains the most volatile markers, including the 3 fastest mutating markers currently tested by FTDNA - CDYa, CDYb, and DYS 576. Often it is the third panel of markers that cause possible "relatedness" to fall apart, but in the Pace DNA study, these markers for the tested participants from the William Pace/Ruth Lambert line of Group 3a, kit #7811 of Group 3b, and kit #8179 of London have the same results! The difference in the London kit #8179 at Pace marker #2 (DYS 390) occurs on one of the faster moving markers as well. (FTDNA says they are going to update their outdated reporting of fast and slow markers in the first panel but haven't yet.) The DNA results for kit #8179 does put Antony in DNA Group 3a - although the lineages are different. So Roy's placement of him there is where he should be. Calculations for the number of generations to the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) are not necessarily very accurate. I wouldn't worry too much about the probablilities of how many generations back the common ancestor might be. They are just probabilities and can be way off from the actual number of generations. It is probably safe to assume the shared ancestor was before the ancestor of the Paces of Group 3a came to America - whether that was Richard Pace of Jamestown or not. It is a very interesting coincidence that Richard Pace of Jamestown and Wapping was from directly across the Thames River from Antony's ancestor George Pace of Rotherhithe and that Richard Pace was a carpenter and George Pace a bargebuilder - although MANY years separate the two of them. Also, with kit #8179 Antony's results at Pace markers #6 (DYS 385b) and #21 (DYS 449) matching group 3a, the group 3a results appear to be ancestral results at those markers with group 3b having the changes from the ancestral DNA values at those locations. More testing of NC Pace lines with the paperwork going back to the early Paces (not just those with brick walls!) is necessary to determine when the probable changes in the DNA for group 3b occurred and with which Pace the DNA changes happened, assuming that groups 3b and 3a are indeed closely related. This would apparently be very helpful for all those in Group 3b especially. Some initial thoughts. Rebecca Roy Johnson <royj@webster.edu> wrote: New 37 marker results are in for kit 8179, Antony Pace, London. The last 12 markers match 12/12 with the other three 37 marker submissions that we have in group 3-two in group 3a and one in 3b, but the last 12 markers match for all three. The closest matches are kits 6366 and 7833, who happen to trace to William Pace/Ruth Lambert, but this specific line is not necessarily significant, as we do not have 37 marker tests for other lines in group 3a. This greatly increases the chances of a common ancestor, and further cements the probability of group 3 having a London area origin, as Antony's grandfather was a barge builder on the Thames in London. Examining the John of Middlesex 37 markers, we find beaucoup differences, further separating these two lines and I believe tending to support my hypothesis that the Pace surname does not have a single origin in England. Take a look at the chart at http://www.pacesociety.org/DNA/results.htm. I have moved Antony's record to the 3a group to show the comparison better, even though he is not a descendent of the North Carolina Paces and therefore technically is not in this group. As usual, the differing alleles are marked in green. I have not found a calculation for 34/37 on FTDNA as to the probable distance to MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) but from the graphs, I think it approaches 50% or better somewhere about 12 generations. Maybe others who have been studying DNA results can comment. Roy Johnson DNA coordinator ==== PACE Mailing List ==== Help this list grow - tell other Pace researchers about it. Also, the Pace Society of America home page is located at: http://www.pacesociety.org - check it out! ==== PACE Mailing List ==== To subscribe or unsubscribe send email to PACE-L-request@rootsweb.com with the one word message: subscribe OR unsubscribe For digest mode, use PACE-D-request@rootsweb.com

Joe, Yes, that about sums it up. The DNA results suggest a common ancestor between the NC Paces of Group 3a especially and Antony Pace who descends from George Pace of London ca 1859. (Has anyone else noted George's name? - Another interesting coincidence, but at this point that is all it is - a coincidence.) The problem remains that DNA results can't tell us who the common ancestor was. That still requires traditional research methods - research in original records with good documentation. But at least we now know that some descendant(s) of whomever that common ancestor was later lived in the same area that Richard Pace of Wapping did. Rebecca Janders 45 <janders45@hotmail.com> wrote: Let me parse this down to basics to see if I understand it: 1. An English Pace, with roots in the London area back as far as 1859, seems to be related to the descendents of Richard Pace of NC (1638-1677). 2. It is likely that Antony Pace and the Richard Paces of NC share a common male ancestor sometime within the past 500 years (and maybe quite a bit shorter time span). This seems to increase the probability that the Richard of NC Paces are descended from Richard Pace of Jamestown. Is this the correct interpretation? Joe Anderson

I would say yes, but still no certainty as there could be other Paces of the London area who came to the US. Ruth Scott Keys felt she had found two and possibly three Richard Paces in VA who could have come down to NC. If so they could have all been from the London area. I regret that we do not have access to her documentary evidence on this. Another way it increases it is that the Surname Profiler at http://cet12.geog.ucl.ac.uk/uclnames/ shows that there were relatively fewer Paces in the London area in the 1881 census than in western England (the probable John of M area). The fewer the Paces in this area, the greater the chance that the common ancestor of the NC Paces is Richard. I don't know whether anyone has noticed or not, but there is no documentary evidence that Richard of Jamestown and Richard of Wapping are the same, although the circumstantial evidence is so strong it could hardly be otherwise. I suspect that the early settlers of Jamestown were mainly from the London area, and outlying areas came later, as John of Middlesex apparently did, after Virginia was better settled. Anyone know? Roy Johnson -----Original Message----- From: Janders 45 [mailto:janders45@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:52 AM To: PACE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PACE-L] New results, Antony Pace, London - EXCITING!!!! Let me parse this down to basics to see if I understand it: 1. An English Pace, with roots in the London area back as far as 1859, seems to be related to the descendents of Richard Pace of NC (1638-1677). 2. It is likely that Antony Pace and the Richard Paces of NC share a common male ancestor sometime within the past 500 years (and maybe quite a bit shorter time span). This seems to increase the probability that the Richard of NC Paces are descended from Richard Pace of Jamestown. Is this the correct interpretation? Joe Anderson ----Original Message Follows---- From: Rebecca Christensen <rchristen@sbcglobal.net> To: PACE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PACE-L] New results, Antony Pace, London - EXCITING!!!! Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:38:40 -0800 (PST) Roy and all others interested, What exciting news!!!! especially for those of us in group 3a, and probably those in group 3b as well as the third panel for kit #8179 matches the third panel for both groups 3a and 3b participants that have upgraded. For emphasis, we have perfect matches in the third panel for group 3a, group 3b, and London kit #8179. FTDNA's webpages indicate the 34/37 match between Group 3a and London kit #8179 is "related" when you share the same surname and the shared ancestry is probably within the time period of surnames in Europe. For FTDNA's official blurb, see http://www.familytreedna.com/GDRules_37.html The third panel of markers tested by FTDNA contains the most volatile markers, including the 3 fastest mutating markers currently tested by FTDNA - CDYa, CDYb, and DYS 576. Often it is the third panel of markers that cause possible "relatedness" to fall apart, but in the Pace DNA study, these markers for the tested participants from the William Pace/Ruth Lambert line of Group 3a, kit #7811 of Group 3b, and kit #8179 of London have the same results! The difference in the London kit #8179 at Pace marker #2 (DYS 390) occurs on one of the faster moving markers as well. (FTDNA says they are going to update their outdated reporting of fast and slow markers in the first panel but haven't yet.) The DNA results for kit #8179 does put Antony in DNA Group 3a - although the lineages are different. So Roy's placement of him there is where he should be. Calculations for the number of generations to the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) are not necessarily very accurate. I wouldn't worry too much about the probablilities of how many generations back the common ancestor might be. They are just probabilities and can be way off from the actual number of generations. It is probably safe to assume the shared ancestor was before the ancestor of the Paces of Group 3a came to America - whether that was Richard Pace of Jamestown or not. It is a very interesting coincidence that Richard Pace of Jamestown and Wapping was from directly across the Thames River from Antony's ancestor George Pace of Rotherhithe and that Richard Pace was a carpenter and George Pace a bargebuilder - although MANY years separate the two of them. Also, with kit #8179 Antony's results at Pace markers #6 (DYS 385b) and #21 (DYS 449) matching group 3a, the group 3a results appear to be ancestral results at those markers with group 3b having the changes from the ancestral DNA values at those locations. More testing of NC Pace lines with the paperwork going back to the early Paces (not just those with brick walls!) is necessary to determine when the probable changes in the DNA for group 3b occurred and with which Pace the DNA changes happened, assuming that groups 3b and 3a are indeed closely related. This would apparently be very helpful for all those in Group 3b especially. Some initial thoughts. Rebecca Roy Johnson <royj@webster.edu> wrote: New 37 marker results are in for kit 8179, Antony Pace, London. The last 12 markers match 12/12 with the other three 37 marker submissions that we have in group 3-two in group 3a and one in 3b, but the last 12 markers match for all three. The closest matches are kits 6366 and 7833, who happen to trace to William Pace/Ruth Lambert, but this specific line is not necessarily significant, as we do not have 37 marker tests for other lines in group 3a. This greatly increases the chances of a common ancestor, and further cements the probability of group 3 having a London area origin, as Antony's grandfather was a barge builder on the Thames in London. Examining the John of Middlesex 37 markers, we find beaucoup differences, further separating these two lines and I believe tending to support my hypothesis that the Pace surname does not have a single origin in England. Take a look at the chart at http://www.pacesociety.org/DNA/results.htm. I have moved Antony's record to the 3a group to show the comparison better, even though he is not a descendent of the North Carolina Paces and therefore technically is not in this group. As usual, the differing alleles are marked in green. I have not found a calculation for 34/37 on FTDNA as to the probable distance to MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) but from the graphs, I think it approaches 50% or better somewhere about 12 generations. Maybe others who have been studying DNA results can comment. Roy Johnson DNA coordinator ==== PACE Mailing List ==== Help this list grow - tell other Pace researchers about it. Also, the Pace Society of America home page is located at: http://www.pacesociety.org - check it out! ==== PACE Mailing List ==== To subscribe or unsubscribe send email to PACE-L-request@rootsweb.com with the one word message: subscribe OR unsubscribe For digest mode, use PACE-D-request@rootsweb.com ==== PACE Mailing List ==== If you haven't done so within the last six months, please post a message describing your Earliest Pace Ancestor and how you descend from them. Please include dates, places, spouses, etc, if possible. Send the message to PACE-L@rootsweb.com