Analysis of DNA for Casey lines
Last updated on May 18, 2011
By Robert Brooks Casey (Ambler Casey line)
This web site is the personal analysis of the Casey DNA submissions by
this Casey researcher, Robert Brooks Casey. This web site was created
to assist other Casey researchers in analyzing the current DNA
submissions and to provide input for what is required to allow this
project to produce genealogically significant information. This is
not the official Casey DNA web site. For additional information
concerning the Casey DNA project, refer to the official Casey DNA
web site or contact its coordinator (found at the official web site):
Official Casey DNA web site
Introduction to DNA for Genealogy
Information obtained from the Casey DNA Project
Separating submissions into clusters
Detailed analysis of DNA submissions
If DNA tests were only $10 each
Good candidates for more DNA analysis
How many markers should be analyzed
Analysis by Family Lines
DNA Descendancy Chart (SC) - Updated version
DNA Descendancy Chart (Irish) - Updated version
Origins of the Casey Surname
Non Paternity Events vs. Overlapping Haplotypes
Call for better documentation
Please give me some feedback
Introduction to DNA for Genealogy
The analysis of DNA markers provides a new opportunity for genealogists
to unravel their family history. This new tool is now producing
results that can take some of the guesswork out of adding
another ancestor to our family trees. Historically, our traditional
research is heavily influenced by geography, family naming patterns,
migration patterns, etc. This approach most often leads us to discover
new ancestors but it can also lead us into wrong direction as well.
Your particular oldest proven ancestor may have broken away from his
family connections and traditions. Your oldest proven ancestor may not
have named his children after his older generation of relatives or may
have moved to new areas where no siblings or cousins lived, etc.
Analysis of DNA markers allows us to identify which Casey lines
look encouraging as potential relatives and can reduce unproductive
research on unrelated lines that ended up in the same county by chance.
The Casey surname is a fairly common name, therefore, Casey researchers
should expect to regularly encounter unrelated Casey families in the
same counties during the same time period.
Unfortunately, DNA research provides its best fit by tracing your "all
male" line of ancestors as this is basic biology that limits our
genealogical research. The Y-DNA markers (STR) are by far the best for
genealogical research and should be 85 to 90 % of all tests purchased.
These Y-DNA markers mutate at reasonable rates to be very useful to
genealogists. There are female equivalent STR markers that mutate at
useful genealogical rates as well - unfortunately there are not enough
known markers to be useful for genealogical purposes. There are also two
deep ancestry tests - one for "all male" lines and another test for
"all female" lines. The deep ancestry Y-DNA markers (SNP) can be useful
to genealogists for very specific scenarios. The female tests (MtDNA)
have limited usage as well - but are not recommended. It is unfortunate
that the best fit for genealogists to trace only "all male" lines. For
each surname of your ancestors, you have to get one of your male cousins
born with the surname of interest to submit their DNA sample and you
have to "sponsor" their submission.
There are two major usages of Y-DNA STR tests. The most powerful and
least expensive is to verify if two lines are related or not related. It
only takes the DNA of your line and the DNA of the other line to
validate any connections between two lines. The more common the surname,
the more powerful this kind of testing becomes. The second most
powerful usage of DNA is determining the relationship between lines that
are beleived to be related but traditional research has proven too
difficult to establish with certainty. This is a very long term project
that require many submissions selected in a very methodical manner. DNA
can be used to map DNA mutations to actual male ancestors and a DNA
descendancy chart can be created. The DNA descendancy charts will change
over time since mutations may be recent (the donor or his father may be
the source of the mutation) or the mutation may be genealogically
significant (the mutation of your oldest proven ancestor, his unknown
father, sons or grandsons). Also, as more submissions are received, the
DNA descendancy chart will change. It takes several submissions for each
proven line to determine the DNA of the oldest proven ancestor.
Information obtained from the Casey DNA Project
Currently, there are 33 submissions of DNA to analyze that have the
surname of Casey. There is also one additional submission where a Hanvey
submission appears to be genetically related to the SC Casey cluster.
However, there are five submissions with only 12 markers tested - it is
very speculative to analyze any connections with so few markers. There
are also two submissions with only 25 markers, you may be able to
determine which group (or cluster) of Casey lines are connected - but
the actual connection will be much more speculative with missing data
that most submissions have. We do have 26 submissions have tested for 37
markers (three are Genealogy.com submissions with only 32 markers in
common at 37 markers). These submissions allow a pretty complete
analysis. We also have 18 submissions at 67 markers - the maximum
available at reasonable charges. Analysis implies that there are
probably at least five different clusters to date. Clusters are
groupings of family lines that are related in either the genealogically
signficant timeframe (where most genealogist will be able to connect
lines in the 200 to 300 year timeframe). This means that with only 33
submissions, we have now identified at least five different genetically
different Casey groupings. Of these five clusters, one cluster could
easily evolve into two clusters (Cluster 3). Also, the two well defined
clusters (the SC cluster and the Irish cluster) could also be part of
one common genetically significant cluster (sharing a male ancestor in
the 400 to 600 year timeframe when our ancestors started using
surnames). These two clusters are genealogically different clusters and
will remain as two clusters for purposes of easier analysis. The SC
cluster and Irish cluster could have a common male ancestor with the
surname of Casey, however, it would in the distant past and would
be several generations prior to oldest known ancestors of these lines.
The vast majority of this analysis is limited to submissions with 37 or
more markers. There are four submissions with only 12 markers and this
is really not a sufficient number of markers to analyze. With only 12
markers, only potential assignment to clusters is possible - definitely
not enough markers to determine connections to other lines. There are
two submissions with 25 markers - enough to definitely reveal an
association with a cluster and implication of relationships to other
lines - but this would not be enough markers to determine connections
between closely related lines. Additionally, there are now three
submissions from Genealogy.com who test for slightly different markers.
These submissions are missing five markers that FTDNA tests at 37
markers, they only share two markers for the FTDNA markers 38 to 67.
They also have nine additional markers not included in the FTDNA 67
marker test. These inconsistencies in submissions require more
assumptions that could be later determined to be inaccurate.
The cluster containing the James Casey (VA) line and the cluster
containing descendants of the Sinclair Casey (VA) are not related to any
other Casey lines submitted to date. These two cluster are assigned to
haplogroups that are not normally considered to have Irish origins.
There are two possible ways that they ended up with DNA so different
from most Casey lines. These lines could be NPEs (Non Paternity Events) -
most likely other genetic lines adopted into Casey families in the New
World which remains today a melting pot of DNA and cultures. However,
even individuals that have 99.99 % Irish DNA can have non-Irish Y-DNA.
It only takes one Greek sailor from the to settle in Ireland 1,000 years
ago to start a new genetic Y-DNA line. After 1,000 years of
intermarrige into Irish DNA lines, the Y-DNA only represents one
trillionth of the total DNA of any individual. One one hand, it must be
disappointing that these submissions do not have the typical Irish Y-DNA
haplogroup that most Casey lines have. However, having an Irish name
and non-Irish Y-DNA creates a very unique DNA fingerprint for these
lines. These submissions should not assume that they do not have Irish
ancestry based on only one trillionth of their DNA.
The SC cluster is the most closely related cluster and it is certain
that most of the oldest proven ancestors of this cluster are brothers,
first cousins, second cousins, etc. All submissions in the SC cluster
are probably related in genealogically significant timeframe (one to
four generations from their oldest known ancestor). All submissions in
the Irish Cluster also share a common male ancestor with the Casey
surname, however, these lines are not as closely related except for the
Dennis Casey line and the Elisha Casey line which are closely related.
The labels attached to these clusters are significant but some lines
that would fit the label are not part of these clusters. All lines in
the SC cluster do have ties to either SC or TN. However, the Elisha
Casey line has well established ties to SC yet belongs to the Irish
Cluster. Three of four submissions that belong to the Irish Cluster have
known ties to Ireland but the Elisha Casey has no known ties to
Ireland. Also, the James Casey (County Mayo) line also has known Irish
connections but does not belong to the Irish Cluster.
The Irish cluster is probably distantly related to SC Cluster in a
genetically significant timeframe (when surnames were first used) but
not in a genealogical significant timeframe (within two or three
generations of oldest our proven ancestors). Genetically, these two
clusters probably descend from a common male ancestor that had the
surname Casey. Since this connection would probably be 200 or 300 years
prior our earliest proven ancestors, these two clusters will remain
separated for DNA descendancy charts. Since there is a very good chance
that both of these clusters descend from a common male ancestor with the
surname of Casey, it is reasonable to believe that their common
ancestor have Y-DNA markers somewhere between these two clusters. This
common ancestor between the two clusters is very important in assisting
the analysis to determine the Most Common Recent Ancestor (MRCA) of each
of these two clusters.
The four lines in Cluster 3 are not closely related do not represent a
genealogically significant cluster. These four lines are currently
grouped together as they could be related in a genealogically
significant timeframe. More 37 marker submissions are needed for this
cluster to determine any connections. Once this grouping of DNA
submissions reaches six or seven submissions, I will then attempt to
analyze this grouping of submissions.
Separating submissions into clusters
Analysis of current submissions implies that there are probably at
least five different clusters to date. Separating submission into
clusters is a very important step in the analysis of DNA for any
surname. My analysis is quite unique from other DNA Surname
Study web sites as I have really put a significant effort
into the separation of clusters and have established
some speculative and unique groundrules for separating clusters.
First, my clusters are separated into genealogically significant
clusters - not genetically significant clusters. This means that
my clusters represent groupings of lines that could be connected
in two or three generations beyond our oldest proven ancestors.
Another methodology for determining clusters could be to group
together all submissions that could have descended from a common
ancestor with the same surname (genetically significant clusters).
However, for genealogical research purposes, it is not very
significant to group together lines that can only be connected
eight to ten generations prior to our oldest proven ancestors.
Most researchers want these clusters defined in terms that
will be significant to their genealogical research - therefore,
I have created clusters that are genealogically significant.
The advantage of this approach results in clusters will imply
some possibility of determining relationships between these
currenlty unconnected lines. It also implies that lines
in other clusters are no longer worthy of research
if you are attempting to connect your line to lines in
other clusters. Researchers of the SC cluster should not
really be interested in the research of the Irish cluster since
the connection between these two clusters is five to ten
generations prior to any of our oldest proven ancestors. However,
both clusters are very important to each other because there
is a very good chance that they descend from a common male ancestor
that used the surname of Casey.
The approach of creating clusters that only have genealogical
significance has major drawbacks. For instance, the SC cluster
and Irish cluster appear to have a reasonable chance
of being genetically related (common ancestor with the same
surname). This possible connection between these two clusters
is extremely important to both clusters. If these clusters are
indeed genetically tied together then they would have a common
ancestor that has a DNA marker set that lies somewhere between
the two clusters. This has great influence what DNA marker set
that we chose that best represents our oldest common ancestor
in each cluster. Another significant limitation is that
there is a lot of gray area in the definition of a genealogically
significant cluster. There are no well defined methodologies
presented in genealogical books on DNA or DNA Surname Study
web sites for a systematic definition of what determines
a genealogically significant cluster. To further add to the
confusion, it is very possible that with today's limited
number of DNA markers being analyzed that many clusters
could overlap due to inadequate sample size of DNA markers
available (yes this does mean we need more than 67 markers).
Fortunately, there have been several tools developed
to give genealogists some probabilities of
different lines being related. The best utility for this
purpose is called a MRCA utility (Most Recent Common
Ancestor) and the Family Tree DNA MRCA utility actually
assigns probabilities of being related at any number of
generatons that you select. Their utility is very easy
to use, just identify two submissions to compare and
the utility will return probabilities of having a
common ancestor for any number of generations that
you want to see. The primary purpose of this utility
is to give researchers some idea how closely related
two individuals might be. However, another key usage
of this utility is separating groups of individuals
into clusters of lines that have a good chance of
being related in a genealogically significant timeframe.
Most genealogical books on DNA analysis present the "majority
rules" approach for determining the DNA marker values of their
Most Common Recent Ancestor (MRCA) of each cluster. The
"majority rules" methodology can be very flawed as it
assumes that only submissions within a cluster are genealogically
significant (having common ancestors within two or three
generations of oldest proven ancestors). DNA analysis is all about
probabilities yet lower proabibility scenarios can happen. First,
assume that your immigrant ancestor arrived in America and had
only two sons. Next, assume that one of these sons had a single
mutation that separates him from his father and his brother.
If this son that had the mutation had many more male descendants,
he would be declared to have the DNA markers that most
represent his father (and would be off by one marker).
The "majority rules" will conclude that the son with more
male descendants (or more DNA submissions) represents the
DNA marker set of their common father, however, this is
not always the case due the number of male descendants can
vary widely between lines and the DNA submission is hardly
random in nature (does not result in a statistically random
sample set). The "majority rules" only works if the earlier
ancestors had many sons (therefore increasing the chances
that only one mutation of any particular son would result
in many fewer descendants having this mutation). The
"majority rules" is also highly dependent the sample of
submissions being a good random selection of male descendants
within cluster (this is probably rarely the case as not
all lines are equally researched or equally documented).
Since the "majority rules" methodology has numerous scenarios
that result in flawed conclusions, I looked for another approach
that might give a different way to select the MRCA
of any cluster. If you merge two "genealogically signficant"
clusters into one "genetically significant" cluster, you have
a better chance of understanding the DNA marker values of
common ancestor that lies somewhere between these
two clusters. This "related cluster" methodology could be used
to influence the selection of the MRCA of each cluster.
The SC cluster and the Irish cluster are obviously two different
"genealogically significant" clusters but both clusters might
also be merged together into one "genetically significant" cluster
for determination of the marker values of the common MRCA
of both clusters. The Casey Surname Study is somewhat unique
in this respect as related clusters is not that common.
Another common problem of DNA analysis by many genealogists
is that few DNA Surname Study web sites attempt to
separate "genealogical significant" DNA mutations
from "recent" DNA mutations. It is extremely
important for genealogists to separate the DNA mutations of
generations close to the donor (not genealogically
significant) from the mutations of our oldest proven ancestor,
his unknown father, his sons and his grandsons. DNA
mutations that occur in the three or four generations
closest to the donor only assist in separately
known events (separately your grandfather's line from
his brother's line). If these connections are already well
proven, these "recent" DNA mutations do not help solve
the task of connecting various lines that have no proven
connections. In fact, these "recent" DNA mutations can
hinder the analysis as many genealogist use
these "recent" DNA mutations as "genealogically
significant" DNA mutations. The analysis
of the SC cluster already requires separating the
"genealogically significant" mutations
from "recent" mutations.
For example, the DNA submission of the John/Levi/Francis Casey
line definitely has at least one "recent" DNA mutation.
The mutation 385b (14 to 15) only separates the descendants
of Francis Casey from his brother William Casey. Since this
event is already proven and does not provide any new insight
to the ancestry of John Casey (MO), it would considered a
"recent" DNA mutation. The verdict is not as certain
for Francis' mutation 460 (12 to 11). The most likely scenario
(highest probability) is that this is yet another "recent"
DNA mutation. However, this DNA marker is extremely significant
to the SC cluster. The DNA marker has two very important
characteristics that make this DNA marker the most important
DNA marker for the SC cluster at this point in time.
First, this marker separates the SC cluster into large
subgroups of lines within the SC cluster (about half
the lines have 460 = 12 and half have 460 = 13). Secondly,
the John/Levi/William line
has 460 = 11 which is a third variation of this significant
marker and this variation matches the marker value of the
three submissions in the Irish cluster. There is some possibility
that the John Casey (MO) line could replace the John Casey (SC)
line as the marker set that most resembles the DNA marker set
of the progenitor of the SC cluster. Additional submissions
from the John Casey (MO) line have some chance to radically
change the Casey DNA descendancy chart (it is higher odds that
it will not change these charts but still remain a worthwhile
opportunity to really shake things up).
A second example of a "recent" DNA mutation is that of
the Henson/Jackson Casey line. The mutation 607 (15 to 16)
probably only distiguishes Jackson Casey from his brother
Arvle Casey. However, the DNA mutation 460 for these two
brothers presents a scenario that requires more DNA
submissions to solve. There are reasonable scenarios that
Arvle Casey has the mutation from DNA mutation 460 (12 to 13)
or there is another reasonable scenario that Arvle Casey
has the DNA mutation 460 (13 to 12). For the Henson Casey
line, this particular mutation has a dramatic impact on
how this line fits into all other lines. One scenario
implies Henson Casey is closely related to Pleasant Casey
and the Hanvey line. The other scenario implies that Henson
Casey is closely related to the John Casey (SC) and the Moses
Casey (SC) line. A third example where it is assumed
that a DNA mutation is "genealogically significant" but
could actually be a "recent" mutation. The DNA
mutation of the James Casey (SC) line has been assumed
to be genealogically significant which may not be the
case. Another descendant of James Casey (SC) may not
have the DNA mutation 437 (15 to 16) because the
donor of the DNA, the donor's father or the donor's
grandfather may be the source of this mutation.
This would push this mutation further down on the
DNA descendancy chart and make this line more closely
related to the John Casey (SC) and Henson Casey lines.
Only additional submissions of this line will allow
this mutation to be classified as "genealogically
significant" or just another "recent" mutation.
The submission of the James Casey (VA) line and both submissions of
the Sinclair Casey line have less than a 1 of 10,000 chance as
being related to other Casey lines in the last 600 years
(less than 0.01 % chance). In fact, the estimated haplogroup
for the Sinclair Casey (VA) cluster is E1b1a (having primarily African
deep ancestry or sometimes Northern African or Middle Eastern
deep ancestry). Additionally, the haplotype for the James Casey (VA)
line is J2 (having deep ancestry in Central Asia, the Mediterranean
and India). The haplotype is deep ancestry that started over a
thousand years ago - sometimes thousands of years ago. What
is certain is that the Eb1a and J2 clusters are in no possible
way connected to the other three clusters that have been
establised to date. This means
that these two clusters were not genetically connected to the
other three clusters when our ancestors first started using
surname of Casey. Knowing where your deep ancestry came
from 1,000 to 20,000 years ago has very little to do with
your ancestry during the last 500 years and has very little
impact on your genetic background (less than one-trillionth
of your actual genetic makeup). There are bound to be at least
ten to twenty different Casey lines which started using the Casey
surname but were not genetically related in the last 600 years.
However, there is also a high probability that NPE events
could have started most of these genetically different
Casey lines as well.
For these two clusters with very different haplogroups (deep
ancestry is different), it may be possible to to determine
the source of the adoption (NPE). If there are a signficant
quantity of DNA submissions
with similiar DNA marker sets, the surname associated with
these submissions may shed some light. If there are ten submissions
that are closely related and the vast majority of these submissions
have the same surname but one or two submissions, this implies
possible NPE events. If there are
several surnames found that do not have a common proven ancestor,
this implies a "genetically different" cluster. For the James
Casey (KY) line, there no other submissions with any surname
within mutation distance of over thirty mutations. Therefore,
the currently sample size of DNA submissions is not large
enough to draw any conclusions at this point in time. The
Sinclair Casey line falls into the same category, no additional
submissions (with any surname) within a mutation distance
of over thirty mutations.
There are thirteen submissions that appear to be closely related to
my Casey line (Ambler Casey). This group of submissions
(with origins in South Carolina and Tennessee) presently has the
most to gain from this project due to early formation of a cluster
of ancestors being tied together with very similiar DNA markers.
Even the two most distantly related individuals in this cluster
have a 96.90 % chance of being related in the last 500 years
(99.04 % chance in the last 600 years). This probability was
calculated using the FTDNATip utility from Family Tree DNA when
using 37 markers. Since both of these have 67 markers available,
this MCRA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) Utility shows a 99.48 %
chance of a common ancestor in the last 500 years and 99.90 %
chance of having a common ancestor in the last 600 years.
To date, the John (MO) line and the Jesse E. Casey (& Ambler
Casey) lines are most distantly related lines (having three
mutations apart). This MRCA utility actually shows this probability
for last 24 generations and I have assumed 25 years per
generation (600 years). The DNA submission of Jackson Casey
was not included in the comparisons as the DNA
mutations of this submission must be from male
descendants of Henson Casey vs. Henson Casey himself. His brother,
Arvle Casey has an exact 37 marker match with John Casey (SC) and
therefore, these mutations were not introduced by Henson Casey but
probably originated from male descendants of Jackson Casey (in this
case either Jackson Casey or the submittor of the DNA).
It appears that several lines with recent ties to Ireland have
also formed a "genealogically significant" second cluster. The line
of Elisha Casey belongs to this cluster but has no known Irish
connections. Unfortunately, other Casey lines with recent Irish origins
do not belong to the Irish cluster. The MRCA utility shows that the two
most distantly related lines are the Michael Casey (Ireland) line and
the Daniel Casey (Ireland)line which have a genetic distance (number of
mutations) of seven. These two lines currently have a 88.04 % chance of
having a common ancestor in the last 500 years (95.00 % chance in the
last 600 years). The MRCA utility is a good tool to
verify the formation of a cluster and these three lines are
definitely a second cluster.
This utility can also assist in revealing if two clusters might
share a common ancestor that used the Casey surname. Being able
to determine the probability of two clusters being genetically
related is also very important in establishing progenitor of each
cluster. If these clusters are related, they would share
a common ancestor that have a common DNA marker set that is
somewhere between the two clusters. It appears that the
SC & TN cluster and the Irish cluster could share a common
ancestor in a genetically significant timeframe (in a
timeframe when surnames were first used).
The two most closely related individuals from these
two clusters have 43.14 % chance of being related in the last
500 years (62.51 % in the last 600 years). It is believed that
these percentages are high enough to establish that there is a
reasonable chance that both lines descend from a very early
common ancestor that used the surname of Casey. The two most
distantly related lines are John Casey (MO) and Daniel Casey
(Ireland) which have a genetic distance of 13 (thirteen mutation
differences). Even these two lines have a 16.84 % chance of
a common ancestor in 500 years and 32.49 % chance in the last
600 years. Unfortunately, the MRCA utility does not allow
manual entry of DNA marker sets for comparison. It would be
much more accurate to guess at the marker set of the
common ancestor between these two clusters (using a
mutation point from the 37 marker cladogram chart).
This would represent a better picture how closely related these
clusters could be. For two clusters to share a common ancestor
with the same surname, it would be acceptable for the two most
closely related lines to have 50 % chance in the last 600 years
and the two most distantly related lines to have over 20 % in
the last 600 years.
The two closet lines included in Cluster 3 are also very distantly
related
and have only a 3.55 % chance of a common ancestor in the last 500
years (9.81 % chance in the last 600 years). This indicates a
remote chance that this could be a cluster but more likely
implies that these two lines are probably genetically different
lines as well (or form more than one real cluster). The other lines
in Cluster 3 with fewer than 37 markers appear to be even more distantly
related. I have always known that surnames based on trade or
geographical terms would have great genetic diversity but I have been
a little surprised that the Casey surname also falls into
this category as well. In fact, the Christopher Casey line
has higher odds of being related to the John Casey (SC) line
as these lines have 8.8 % chance of being related in the last
500 years (20.96 % chance in the last 600
years). This a little bit of let down as I has always falsely
believed that most of these Casey lines were related somewhere
in the distant past but genetic information tends
to shatter this assumption. Also, when you really think about it,
there will be probably be a lot of name changes and NPE events over
20 to 25 generations where each male ancestor had several sons each
generation. When the odds of being related are this low in last 600
years then it is very obvious that these lines will never be
genealogical signficant to each other (in a timeframe reasonably close
to our oldest proven ancestors). In fact, the Christopher Casey line
has a 21 % chance being related to the John Casey (SC) line.
Additionally, the John Casey (AR) line only has a 2.5 %
of being related to the its closest Cluster 3 line, the
Christopher Casey line. However, the John Casey (AR) has
a 20 % chance of being related to the Michael Casey (Ireland)
line.
The surname "Casey" is a fairly common surname (364th most common surname
according to the 1964 Social Security survey of surnames in the book,
"American Surnames," by Elsdon C. Smith). There are an estimated
150,000 individuals with the "Casey" surname in the United States
and at least one hundred Casey men that have been declared the oldest
ancestor of numerous Casey lines. With 75,000 Casey men living in the
United States today, the chance for NPE events and name changes
are quite high and each passing generation will create genetically
"new" Casey lines. The highest priority of this project is to
greatly increase the number of submissions that are "not" known
to be related to the current oldest proven ancestors.
The descendants of Cluster 3, 4 and 5 should not be discouraged and
should recruit new members that they believe could be related to
their lines. We also need more random submissions to determine how
many major clusters that will form. Currently, this project is probably
biased towards the SC and TN lines (long time interest in these
lines and previous publications) and somewhat biased towards lines
with recent origins in Ireland (the obvious origin of the Casey
surname).
For the ten submissions included in the SC TN cluster, two
submissions are from the same known ancestor and have identical
DNA markers. Another two submissions are from another proven
ancestor but have two mutational differences (a third submission
is required to truly understand the source of these mutations).
A third submission is believed to Casey NPE event (the Hanvey
line is believed to really be a Casey line). This leaves nine
lines where there are no proven connections between the lines
and six of these lines have unique DNA marker sets that can be
charted in a DNA descendancy chart. The Ambler Casey line
and Jesse E. Casey lines can not be separated - both having
common 67 DNA markers. Additional markers beyond 67 markers will
eventually separate these lines. However, even with only nine unique
lines in this cluster, I am very encouraged of what these samples tell
us and I am optimistic that additional samples will greatly
help Casey research on the Casey lines of South Carolina and
Tennessee. So what have we learned from these early submissions ?
First, the SC & TN Cluster clearly validate what we all
have suspected, that the Tennessee lines have their roots in
South Carolina. We really already knew this from traditional
genealogical research - but we now have this fact validated
by scientific evidence as well. Second, all nine lines (which
are quite diverse) only have one to three marker deviations from
the other SC and TN lines. Therefore, there was a big discovery
that all South Carolina and Tennessee lines apppear to be much more
closely related than anticipated. This means random new entries in
this cluster could provide very interesting results.
Third, DNA evidence does not support the speculative connection of
Henson Casey being a son of Ambler Casey. This is a little bit
disappointing as there was great expectations that DNA would
help support this connection. Fourth, there are now three pairs of very
closely related lines (exact matches at 37 markers). It appears that the
Ambler Casey line and the Jesse E. Casey line are very closely related
lines as they both share a common unique DNA mutation for this
cluster (CDYb from 38 to 37) and both lines are exact 67 marker match.
It appears that the Abner Casey line and the Hanvey line are very
closely related and these researchers should look for connections. John
Casey (SC) and Moses Casey (SC) is another exact 67 marker match.
Fifth, marker 460 mutating from 12 to 13 appears to to be the earliest
mutation in this cluster and creates two distinct branches in the
DNA decendancy charts. John Casey (SC), John Casey (MO), James H. Casey,
Moses Casey and probably Henson Casey form one branch
(460 = 12). The Abner Casey, Jesse E. Casey, Ambler Casey, the Hanvey
line and possibly the Henson Casey line form the second branch (460 =
13). Sixth, there are several markers that are possible flags that
indicate strong connections with certain lines. Ambler Casey and Jesse
E. Casey appear to have a unique tag of 460=13 and CDYb=37. John Casey
(MO) appears to be identified as 460=12 and 391=10 (even though one
submission has 460=11 which is believed to be a recent mutation).
Seventh, it is now known that the John Casey (SC) line and the Moses
Casey (SC) line currently share the spotlight as containing the markers
that most closely represents the progenitor of the SC cluster. The
Henson Casey line may share that spotlight but a third son is required
to determine Henson's DNA marker sets from his male descendants. Eighth,
as more submissions are made, some mutations appear to be recent
mutations and are probably not genealogically significant in the
analysis of Casey DNA (this point is missed in many DNA web sites). John
(MO) has one submission with 385b (14 to 15) which appears to be
mutation of William Casey (John's grandson) or one of his male
descendants. Abner (TN) has a submission via his sone Turner Casey and
the mutation CDYa (37 to 36) appears to be a recent mutation of Turner
Casey or one of his male descendants.
Ninth, the two Henson Casey submissions clearly show the importance of
getting two sons from one known ancestor. The first submission (Jackson
Casey) is now known to have a two marker mutation from his brother's
line (Arvle Casey). It is now believed that these mutations may have
occured in later generations - and do not represent the DNA marker
set of Henson Casey. Originally, the analysis of Jackson Casey line
was substantially off due to the recent discovery that these mutations
probably occurred more recently and are probably not genalogically
significant as first believed. A DNA submission from a third son is
now required to determine Henson Casey's true DNA marker set.
The conclusions for Henson Casey should be considered speculative
until more DNA submissions reveal Henson Casey's true DNA marker set.
Tenth, even with very few submissions, there appears to be the
ability to speculate on how these SC and TN lines are related based
on DNA submissions. It appears that a DNA descendency chart
is possible that shows how these lines could be related and
is very helpful in determining what kind of submissions
are needed next. The DNA descendency chart (shown later in this
web page) is a very unique approach that does not appear most
DNA projects and should be considered speculative in nature. Eleventh,
there still remain several mutations that are assumed to genealogically
significant mutations that may not be as significant as concluded in
this analysis. The James H. Casey mutation of 437 (15 to 16) is being
used to separate this line from others. However, this mutation could be
from James H. Casey or from any of his male descendants. If this
mutation was recent mutation, the placement of James H. Casey would move
up in the descedant chart. Only submissions of different sons of James
H. Casey would reveal how significant this mutation will eventually
become. Twelveth, there are a couple of mutations that could be much
more significant than currently concluded. One submission of John Casey
(MO) has 460=11 which is believed to be a recent mutation. However,
460=11 matches the Irish cluster. Future submissions of the John Casey
(MO) may reveal that John Casey (MO) could move up to the top of the
Decendancy Chart. Two sons of Henson Casey have 460=12 and 460=13,
probably the most important DNA mutation for this cluster. This DNA
mutation also splits the cluster into two distinct groups. Until
additional submissions of Henson Casey are submitted, it is uncertain
which group the Henson Casey line belongs to.
Another discovery is that the haplogroups are identified as Irish (R1b1)
in
27 of the 30 submissions. Haplogroups are viewed with too much
significance by most DNA researchers. These groups are based on common
male ancestors that existed 1,000 to 20,000 years ago - not very
genealogically significant. You could have a haplogroup that is Asian or
Middle Eastern but still have 99.9999 % Irish DNA. A specific test for
ethnic background is the only reliable DNA test to determine your ethnic
background. Additionally, your haplogroup is approximated by the DNA
markers analyzed to date. To determine your haplogroup, yet another DNA
set of SNP markers must be analyzed (and that only assigns you to a
common ancestor of 1,000 to 20,000 years ago). Research of overlapping
haplotypes from the YSearch database imply that some of these Casey
lines may have Scottish or English origins and just borrowed the "Casey"
surname for some unknown reason or were NPE events (adoptions, etc.).
Since most Casey lines are estimated to be R1b1b2 variations, it is most
likely that their SNP markers will also reveal R1b1b2 haplogroups (not
sure of the genealogical value of these tests). Family Tree DNA and
other companies continue to refine and create new branches of
haplogroups. All submissions in the SC cluster and the Irish cluster
have recently been refined to R1b1b2. I highly recommend not to waste
your funds on haplogroups tests (SNP) for genealogical purposes. These
test are primarily for deep ancestry and have minimal impact on
genealogical studies. There are exceptions to this rule - the Group 3
cluster may be able to further divide this group into multiple clusters
based on haplogroups (funds will still be better spent on increasing the
number of 37 marker submissions for this group). In the recent past, it
is believed that all Casey lines in the SC cluster and the Irish
cluster were part of the R1b1b2 haplogroup. Submission 56031 (Irish
cluster) has tested special SNP L226+ (not part of current FTDNA SNP
tests) and is now believed to be assigned to the haplogroup R1b1b2a1a2f4
(known as the Irish Type III haplogroup). For further information
concerning the Irish Type III haplogroup, refer to the web site
dedicated to Irish Type III haplogroup:
Irish Type 3 Website
Many of the Casey lines are genetically related to other surnames
and some genetically Casey lines will have non-Casey surnames. This
complex topic has not been thoroughly researched to date with one
notable exception - the Hanvey line (submission 29956). For the
SC cluster, every entry in the Family Tree DNA database
has the Casey surname and have documented ties to either South
Carolina or Tennessee with one exception (one Hanvey line). It
appears that this Hanvey line may be a genetic Casey line (NPE)
and probably belongs to the SC cluster. The Hanvey line
appears to be closely related to the Abner Casey (SC) line and researchers
of both lines should exchange information on possible connections.
The Abner Casey (SC) line is an exact 67 marker match with the Hanvey line.
The Hanvey sponsor is quite certain that the NPE event occured in
South Carolina as the Hanvey line originates from Abbeville County,
South Carolina and remained in South Carolina much longer than the
Abner Casey line resided in South Carolina. After contacting the
Hanvey researcher who sponsored the DNA submission, I was informed
that he believed the NPE event occurred in either 1865 or 1885.
If true, this would be very significant to the Abner Casey line
as this means that one Casey line that remained behind in South Carolina
is very closely related to the Abner Casey line.
Detailed analysis of DNA submissions
For anyone wanting to organize and group all Casey DNA submissions
that we currently have, the only practical method to organize these
submissions is to first create groupings based on estimated
haplogroups. For the Casey Surname Study, this creates three groupings:
1)
haplogroup R1b1b2 (almost 90 % of submissions), E1b1a (two closely
related
submissions; 3) J2 (one additional submission). Submissions that have
different haplogroups are extremely unlikely to be closely related as
these mutations are one time only events (in the vast majority of
cases). The vast majority of haplogroups are estimated based on STR
markers that this analysis is based upon. To actually determine the real
haplogroup requires an additional DNA test based on SNP markers. To
date, there are three submissions with estimated haplogroup R1b1b2 that
have verified the haplogroup via SNP testing:
Irish cluster 56031 R1b1b2a1a2f4 (tested positive for L226)
SC cluster 45068 R1b1b2a1a2f (being tested for L226)
SC cluster 77349 being tested for FTDNA SNP markers
Cluster 3 56479 R1b1b2a1a2c (tested positive for SRY2627)
Haplogroup testing via SNP markers still support the theory that the
Irish cluster and the SC cluster could be closely related genealogically
since they both share the same haplogroup R1b1b2a1a2f. Submission 45068
is currently being tested for SNP marker L226 to clarify that it
belongs in the same branch as 56031. Even though Cluster 3 has the same
estimated haplogroup as the SC cluster and the Irish cluster, submission
56479 can not be related to these other clusters since 56479 has a
different haplogroup.
Cladogram software graphically displays the connections between the
various DNA submissions. Without this tool, it is extremely difficult to
manually
extract this information via spreadsheets. The cladogram charts
should only be used to identify clusters and determine if
clusters are genetically related. Additionally, the cladogram
charts assume that all DNA mutations are significant to the
oldest proven ancestor. In fact, most of these mutations
originated with more recent mutations of the DNA donor, his father and
other more recent mutations that are not genealogically significant.
Also, the cladogram charts tend to oversimplify relationships in their
charts. However, they are very handy in quickly and visually showing
possible groupings and well-defined clusters. Below is a cladogram chart
of all R1b1b2 haplogroup submissions (estimated vs. tested). It uses
only the submissions that have all 37 markers. Therefore, Genealogy.com
submissions and 25 marker submissions are not included in these charts
(software does not handle inconsistent data). However, these omissions
really do not greatly reduce the usefulness of cladogram charts
separately submissions into groupings:
37 marker Cladogram (PDF)
This chart clearly shows three groupings of DNA. The right side of the
chart shows a very closely related cluster (the SC cluster). At the
bottom left side of the chart shows a less closely related cluster (the
Irish cluster). The top left portion of the chart shows a very loosely
related grouping of submissions (Cluster 3). Cluster 3 may be several
clusters but with only four submissions - this remains only a loose
grouping of submissions. The SC cluster (far right) and the Irish
cluster (bottom left) are not too distantly related visually. However,
Cluster 3 is obviously very distantly related to either the SC cluster
or the Irish cluster. I highly recommend against attempting to use
cladogram charts for any kind of connections or determination of MRCA
haplotypes. This chart has only three purposes: 1) visually separate
submissions into groupings for more detailed analysis; 2) visually
determining how closely related submissions are withing these groupings;
3) visually determining how closely related these groupings are to each
other.
There is a very big danger in using the cladogram for connections
between gropings. Visually, the SC cluster and Irish look pretty
marginal on being related clusters. To actually determine the
relatedness of these two clusters, a MRCA utility is much better method
of measuring any connection vs. visually attempting interpret. Also, if
submissions within adjacent clusters have different haplogroups, there
is very very little chance of these clusters being related in the last
600 years. I was tempted to omit the cladogram charts in this iteration
of analysis since these charts are not properly interpreted by many
researchers (including myself in earlier iterations). However, the
cladogram is worth the time of entering the data yet again - just to
visually show obviously groupings of submissions. I have been looking at
other more advanced tools for visually showing all submissions within a
haplogroup - but none seemed to really add any more information than
included in the chart above.
Cladograms are graphical representations of the marker
mutations between individuals. These charts can quickly
determine the closeness of relationships between various
submissions. The cladogram charts were created using a free
phylogenetic network software program offered by
Fluxus Engineering:
More information about free cladogram software
Unfortunately, this free software is not for the faint
of heart and is fairly difficult to use. Also, the connections
presented can be misleading at times but these charts are
absolutely wonderful determining clusters and grouping of
various DNA submissions. This program determines the simplest
configuration which has the least number of interconnections
or mutations.
If DNA tests were only $10 each
Unfortunately, charges for DNA analysis will come down
very slowly over time (and there will always be more markers
made available to quench our thirst for more information).
So $10 submissions will not happen in the near future but
we could have wealthy person who wants the Casey DNA project
to be the best or somebody could put in their will a modest
donation to our project. What would we do with these funds
and we certainly want to spend these funds wisely. Let us
assume that we had $25,000.00 donated to the Casey DNA
project tomorrow. Would that be too much or not enough ?
Also, we should be assume that we are not allowed to
divert the funds to additional traditional research,
publishing Casey books or scannning 1,000s of pages
of Casey source materials (which might be
a better usage of the funds). The benefactor only put three
conditions: 1) We would have to present a plan of how
the funds would be used and what results would be expected;
2) Only those persons who currently have submitted DNA
submissions could participate in defining how funds
would be spent. 3) Funds can only be spent on actual
DNA testing (not hiring any consultants, other
genealogical projects, advertising, etc.)
So if this Casey DNA project already had identified
1,000 random male Casey volunteers willing to
participate (all with diverse well documented
ancestry back to around 1800) and some private
benefactor donated $25,000.00 to the Casey
DNA project, what should be done with these funds ?
Could we even spend that kind of donation properly
(this represents 100 additional submissions with a
mostly 67 markers and some 67 marker tests) ? Let us also
assume that this donation was spread out over ten months.
This means we would have to describe which ten
submissions (or upgrades) would be sent for analysis each
month and what kind of results we would expect - this
would force us to plan ahead and justify which of willing
ten percent volunteers would be analyzed and which 90 %
of willing participants would not be analyzed. Since over
one year has passed since my first pass, many submissions and upgrades have already been completed. Here would be my list:
Month one - Upgrade James H. Casey to 37 markers (done);
upgrade John Casey (SC) to 67 markers (done); three more 37
submissions from SC lines that are not related
to existing SC lines (but are good candidates to be
related - two done - added John Casey of MO and Moses Casey). The third
may be done with Ancestry.com submission WN8TRA - but we do not know if
this is a new line or an existing line; three more 37 marker submissions
from lines with recent Irish origins but good candidates
to be related to the currently submitted lines with recent
Irish origins (one done via Elisha Casey - it was a surprise that a SC
Casey line ended up in the Irish cluster). Two more were done with
Genealogy.com submissions - 6FW87 and 42BNV; three more lines of the
other Casey
lines (only good candidates that could be possibly
related to the existing submissions - one done). This may be done with
104397 but it is not kwown if this is a new line or existing line. DNA
markers imply that this is a new line - but without traditional
documentation, this submission can not be analyzed properly.
Month two - Upgrade Arvle Casey to 67 markers (done); upgrade
second SC Casey line to 67 markers (done);
three more 37 marker submissions in the SC cluster; three
more 37 marker submissions in the
Irish Cluster; three more submissions in other Casey
lines.
Month three - 37 marker submission from third
son of Henson Casey; two more random 37 marker
submissions from the SC cluster; two more
random 37 marker submissions from Irish cluster;
five more submissions from other Casey lines.
Month four - Upgrade John Casey (NY) to 37 markers
(done); Upgrade James C. Casey to 37 markers (done);
order 37 marker for second son of Ambler Casey;
order 37 marker for second son of Abner Casey (done);
order 37 marker for second son of Jesse E. Casey;
two more 37 marker submissions from Irish Cluster;
five more 37 marker submissions from other Casey lines.
Month five - Upgrade three 37 marker submissions to 67
marker submissions (from either SC cluster or
the recent Irish cluster - done); Upgrade Patrick Casey to
37 markers and Daniel Casey (Clare) to 37 markers (done);
Upgrade Daniel Casey (VA) to 37 markers;
two more 37 marker submissions from SC cluster;
two more 37 marker submissions from Irish cluster;
three more 37 marker submissions from other Casey lines.
We are now half way through our funds and have all
known upgrades done and all known fine tuning submissions
completed. We have a total of eight fine tuning submissions
(from same known ancestors) - six from the SC cluster
and two from other Casey lines. This means that
we have 16 lines covered from the SC cluster; 17 lines covered
from Irish cluster and 19 lines from other lines. This probably
on target for SC cluster, somewhat high for the
Irish cluster and low for other lines. There are around
40 to 50 unique lines in the SC cluster, therefore,
16 lines would probably be insufficient to cover this
cluster but 32 lines would sufficient to uncover many
connections. Half way through the donation funds,
it would now be time to concentrate the best candidate
for a third cluster from the other Casey lines.
Month six - Two upgrades from 37 to 67 markers where
required (done); three more 37 marker submissions to SC cluster;
one more 37 marker submission to Irish cluster;
two more 37 marker submissions for the third identified cluster;
three more for other Casey lines.
Month seven - One fine tuning submission (submission
from line that already has a proven ancestor submitted) -
the second John (MO) / Levi submission - done;
two 37 to 67 marker upgrades where required - done; two more
from the SC cluster; one more from the Irish
cluster; two more for third cluster; three more for
other Casey lines.
Month eight - One fine tuning submission - Abner / Turner
submission - done; two more
from the SC cluster; one more from the Irish
cluster; three from the third cluster and three more
from other Casey lines.
Month nine - Two more 37 to 67 marker upgrades (done);
three more from SC cluster; one more from
Irish cluster; two more from third cluster;
three more from other Casey lines.
Month ten - One fine tuning submission; three
more from SC Cluster; one more from Irish
cluster; two more from third cluster; three more
from other lines.
All funds are now spent and what kind of coverage
would we have ? Let's assume that four submissions
were used to seed the third true cluster from the other
Casey lines. This leaves us with 30 lines covered
from other Casey lines, 29 lines covered from
the SC and TN cluster, 22 lines covered from
the Irish cluster and 18 lines covered from
the third cluster. This results in 99 lines
covered, eleven submissions for fine tuning and
nine equivalent submissions dedicated to upgrades.
This would result with three DNA descendacy charts
that would give researchers a lot of new lines
to start researching based on DNA results. At this
point in time, traditional research should help
tie many of this lines together with information
derived from this DNA study. However, it appears
that even $25,000 would not be enough funds
to completely map the Casey DNA map (my estimate
would be it would be approaching 50 % though).
The above plan for spending the mythical $25,000
donation provides a good insight on where priorities
should be set for this DNA project. I am not really
certain what 30 "not so closely related" other Casey
lines would tell us about the Casey surname. Only
the formation of closely related clusters can assist
our primary goal of connecting the many Casey lines
that exist. However, we must include a diverse
cross-section of all Casey lines to provide a
better picture of all Casey lines. There are probably
dozens of Casey lines that have no common genetic
ancestor that used the surname of Casey. Many
unrelated individuals must have taken the Casey
surname when our Casey ancestors started using
surnames, many NPE events have probably happened
and there are bound to be several name changes
from other surnames to the Casey surname. We also
need to be brave and attempt to map several of our Casey
lines as NPE events (non paternity events
such as adoption, out of wedlock, etc.)
As one Hanvey line appears to one known
NPE event where some Casey male was
probably adopted by the Hanvey's, we should
also investigate which Casey lines are not
really genetically related to the Casey lines
but were other non-Casey males that were
adopted into the Casey families. Each of these
NPE lines create a genetically "new" Casey line.
However, with the assistance of DNA submissions
of other surnames, we should be able to determine
some of the origination of "new" Casey lines
and tie some into other surname descendancy charts.
It has now been over two years since I originally presented
my plan to spend $25,000 for the Casey DNA project. With
recent submissions and additional analysis, it is time for
some fine tuning of this plan. First, the upgrading of SC
cluster submissions to 67 markers has been somewhat
disappointing. We now have all (13) but one upgraded in the
SC cluster and they are all the same marker values. On one
hand this does not help create new branches as hoped but did
have two unexpected good surprises: 1) everyone the SC cluster
are now much closer related than thought; 2) the gap between
the SC cluster and Irish cluster got smaller and these upgrades
support that these two clusters may be related. Since these
markers all have the same values, they must have much slower mutation
rates. I am now clearly seeing a much higher need for multiple
submissions per known ancestor in order to distinguish
genealogically significant mutations
from recent mutations. Also, when DNA mutations occur for
very important markers, additional submissions are more
important than first realized. Without these fine tuning
submissions, there could be many errors in the DNA descendancy
charts. We are making some progress on adding new Casey lines
but these appears to be the most difficult to accomplish. It
has become very clear that were are not making as much progress
on this goal which is the most important goal of the project.
Good candidates for more DNA analysis
So what additional submissions would provide more insight
to our Casey ancestors ? And which upgrades would be
beneficial ? And what fine tuning submissions would be
useful (additional submissions from known ancestors that
already have submissions) ? Without any doubt, the highest
priority is to broaden the scope of the submissions. We
all need to identify and recruit submissions of lines
that we think could be related and less on additional
submissions that we know are related. However, additional
submissions for lines already covered and upgrades to
existing submissions also have value as well but are
not as high of a priority (with a couple of exceptions).
The primary purpose of this project is determine
which unrelated lines look most promissing for
additional research for possible connections.
Identifying and recruiting these possibly related lines
should always remain our highest priority. Unfortunately,
it is our bias towards our own lines greatly
influences our interests. It is human nature to want
our lines to be best represented but the project benefits
more from having broader participation. We all need to
work hard to identify good candidates that might be
related and actively recruit DNA submissions from
those lines.
There is much interest in the "fine tuning" of the
existing submissions (adding more submissions to lines
that already have DNA submissions). The best
usage of DNA is to scientifically prove which lines
are worth additional research and which lines can
be eliminated as wild goose chases. So, what value
does "fine tuning" DNA submissions have ? First, it
is useful to have submissions from at least two sons
of each proven oldest Casey ancestor in order verify
the exact source of any DNA mutation. The second
submission will determine if their marker set is unique
to their oldest proven ancestor or a mutation of one
his sons (or other male descendants). This is where
the DNA descendancy chart is very useful. For some lines,
it may pretty obvious that the chance of variations
is probably low. However, the two marker variation
between two sons of Henson Casey vividly show that
recent mutations can be mistaken for mutations between
oldest proven ancestors.
If the submissions for any first two sons of any oldest
proven Casey ancestor have different DNA marker sets,
then new submission of a third son of this oldest proven
ancestor would be required. The recent addition of the
Arle Casey submission has now shown that the Jackson Casey
line has the unique marker mutation of 607
(15 to 16). This mutation may possibly even be from
a later generation male descendant. A third DNA submission
would determine where these unique mutations start. With
only one submission per ancestor, it can be dangerous to
assume that all brothers of the oldest ancestor will
have the same DNA marker set. In the case of the Arvle
Casey submission, I think we were all surprised to find
that a brother would have two DNA mutations. For the Henson
Casey line it is doubly important for a third submission
since we currently do not know if Jackson Casey has a two
marker mutation or only one marker mutation and Arvle has
a one backwards mutation which is rare but can happen
(probably a red flag DNA genealogical descendancy charts).
Another second form of "fine tuning" is upgrading the number
of markers when two unconnected lines have common marker
sets. We have done very well on upgrading to 67 markers in 2009.
We now have another new form of "fine tuning" as a new challenge.
Genealogy.com entries are missing five markers in the FTDNA 37 marker
tests and only include two markers in common for FTDNA markers
38 to 67. The also add nine new markers that are not included
in the FTDNA 67 marker test. Hopefully, upgrades missing markers
in each companies offerings will become more reasonable over time.
This will remain a major incompatibility in available information
to analyze which is currently rather expensive to correct.
The "fine tuning" of additional children and grandchildren of
oldest known ancestors will also validate the connections of sons of
each oldest known ancestor to the oldest known ancestor. These
connections could already be pretty well established or could
be fairly speculative in nature. Our DNA descendancy charts
should not be too biased on our current traditional research
to date. However, well proven sons will benefit little other
than verifying what is already known. The connection of
Jesse E. Casey to his children
was originally based on a 1894 book. Fortunately,
this secondary source is well supported by census records
and other sources (with one or two exceptions).
Of the three lines, the Jesse E. Casey line probably
has the best genealogical documentation for establishing
the children of their oldest proven ancestor
(this line would not benefit further proving the connection
from oldest ancestor to their sons since primary
documentation already exists). The children of Abner
Casey is primarily based on several abstracts (letters)
of a Family Bible that can not be located. This account
is also supported by several primary documents as well. A
couple of sons of Abner Casey are more speculative.
The children of the Ambler Casey line is the least
documented family as there is no existing single
document that establishes the children of Ambler
Casey. DNA documentation can provide scientific
evidence that firm up the connection of these sons to their
oldest proven ancestors. Sons of oldest proven ancestors
with the weakest traditional genealogical documentation
to their oldest proven ancestors could provide
additional documentation connecting these sons.
Having DNA evidence supporting these family connections
may, in the near future, be considered primary documentation
in this new world of genealogy. Unfortunately, this
did not prove the case for Henson Casey being the
son of Ambler Casey (this was pretty speculative
in nature and has now been shown by DNA evidence
to be very unlikely now). This is probably
the best usage of DNA submissions when the sample
size is relatively small (as it is to date) and when
one cluster of lines emerges early in any DNA
project.
Our goal is to get several clusters of Casey lines
that help establish recent common ancestry between
various Casey submissions. Once the number of
submissions greatly expands in scope, another major
benefit will start to emerge. It will become obvious
that several diverse Casey lines will become more
closely related than traditional research has
shown to date. DNA documentation can help
genealogists better select which "possibly"
related lines to research based soley on DNA
evidence. Researching these newly discovered potential
relationships through traditional genealogical
methods may result in locating supporting
documentation and may be the key to getting past
that brick wall.
The current DNA submissions have really shattered
many of my most promissing lines (which I have
spent countless hours attempting to connect).
Before the availability of DNA information, my
most promissing lines for connection to Ambler
Casey were: 1) Abner Casey, 2) Jesse E. Casey,
3) Henson Casey and 4) John Casey (MO). After
DNA submissions, here are major changes:
1) Jesse E. Casey has obviously replaced Abner
Casey as the best candidate - but both are still
my best candidates. 2) Since we have hit the
brick wall on Abner Casey, the Hanvey line could
open new doors for more connections to Casey
lines that remained longer in South Carolina.
3) Although Henson Casey lived in Roane County,
TN where Ambler Casey lived, the speculative
connection as a son of Ambler Casey is now
not possible. 4) Since John Casey (MO) resided
in McMinn County, Tennessee during the same
time as Ambler Casey, John Casey (MO) "was"
another good candidate - DNA documentation
really discounts this connection now. 5) With
an exact 67 marker match with Jesse E. Casey,
I should now prioritize research on this line
above all others. These are significant changes
in focus for my Casey research.
How many markers should be analyzed
So how many DNA markers should one submit to be
useful and which of the existing submissions should
have additional markers analyzed. For the SC
cluster and the Irish cluster, all new submissions
should be either 37 or 67 markers. For all other lines,
all new submissions should have be 37 markers. The
12 marker test does not have enough information
to be useful for this project. Also, it is
not desirable for two submissions from
the same line - unless they are from different sons
or grandsons of the oldest known proven ancestor. If
two submissions from two sons of oldest known ancestor have two
different marker sets, then another submission
from a third son would be required.
With the many recent upgrades to 67 markers for the SC cluster
and all came back the same, we should switch focus to fine
tuning submissions of the same lines vs. always upgrading
or ordering 67 marker tests. The first submission of each line
should remain 67 markers but multiple submissions of the same
line could probably get by with 37 markers. For the Irish cluster,
upgrades to 67 markers are showing mutations and new
submissions in this cluster should consider 67 markers. The
two Genealogy.com submissions need these markers tested but
these are currently expensive. Submissions in
the Irish cluster now have the most to benefit
from expanding from 37 markers to 67 markers. At this point in time,
it is not probably necessary for other Casey lines
to upgrade to 67 markers. However, the first submission of any
new line could benefit from having all 67 markers. The other
Casey lines (outside the SC cluster and Irish cluster)
need to concentrate in obtaining new submissions or
encouraging others with fewer than 37 markers to
upgrade their submissions to 37 markers. This is
harder to accomplish since it is much easier just
to order your own upgrade.
So how many potential oldest Casey ancestors originate
from South Carolina ? The 1790 census of South Carolina
has 47 males that make good candidates and all but six
are from Spartanburg County or Newberry County. It appears
that Casey lines grouped in the Irish cluster has now
been established as a second cluster of Casey ancestors
and will need 67 marker submissions. This grouping
of submissions are not that distantly related, so
additional submissions that fall into this group could
be informative for researchers of this group in the future.
As time passes by, many submittors may become no longer
interested in paying the premium to have their sample
analyzed for additional markers. Eventually, these
samples will become unviable to analyze. The person supporting
the analysis could also die or become incapacited with
the children potentially showing no interest in this project.
For the vast majority of cases, the exposure to lose
valuable DNA documentation will probably not be of
great concern as most lines have many living male descendants
of any particular son of an oldest proven ancestor. If
there are numerous living male descendants, then there
will remain many others to assist in the future. However,
if you are the only surviving male of your line, it is
very important that you submit as many markers that
are currently available (currently 67 markers from this
company analyzing our samples for this project). My great
grandfather, William Martin Shelton (born 1847), had seven
daughters and only one son. This son produced only one grandson
who died as a teenager in 1928. Therefore, there
are no male descendants of this Shelton line that can be
tested for the Shelton DNA project even though there are
around 400 living descendants (all descending from
daughters born with the Shelton name at some point). If
you know your line's male DNA may die out, it is very
important to test the maximum number of markers.
So who should we encourage to submit additional
samples that would benefit this project ? There are
three broad categories of submissions that should
be sought in the near term. Once other submissions
are analyzed, there will surely be new items of
interest. First, for all the current submissions,
we should encourage male descendants of at least
two sons of our oldest proven ancestors to submit
DNA samples. This helps us determine where the
uniqueness of each marker set begins. It also
provides more evidence connecting these sons
to their oldest proven ancestor. Second, everyone
has their favorite candidates for possible connection
to their lines. Your hunch (supported by traditional
genealogical research) can be either dismissed
by DNA evidence or further strengthened by DNA
evidence. We must have more submissions from possible
related candidates to make any progress on which
lines are worthy of additional research. Third,
we need wider participation of all Casey lines
to determine those big surprises and possible
connections that we all have missed to date.
As the current submissions confirm, the Casey
surname is a relatively common surname with
dramatically different DNA backgrounds. Only
larger sample sizes (more submissions) can
reveal where other clusters will form.
For the SC cluster, we need more submissions
from other SC Casey lines in order to understand
how these lines are connected to the known SC
lines that have been submitted to date. The biggest
surprise for me to date is how closely related the
TN lines are to the SC submissions. The submission
of James H. Casey and Moses Casey has continued
the pattern showing that all SC Casey lines are
closely related. However, Elisha Casey (SC)
has proven to be one exception and is part
of the Irish cluster. We also need more
unconnected TN/AR/MO lines to determine which
lines are closely related and which are wild goose
chases for connection to this cluster. We will discover
that certain lines are very closely related which will
allow researchers of these lines to properly focus
their research more on these promissing lines. We also
will need to identify those lines that are not
closely related. The descendants of those lines might
avoid spending many additional unfruitful hours
attempting to connect these more remotely related lines.
Here are some specific recommendations for additional
submissions for existing lines. First, we need additional
samples for other sons (or grandsons) of the SC lines
covered to date. If I got any of these sons incorrectly
listed, please let me know so I can update/correct
this list (I intentionally left out some possible sons
where the connections are very weak). I would prefer
to put these weak connections into the category of
possibly related lines of interest.
_____Ambler Casey
- confirm CDYb=37 issue
__________Moses Casey (need one more)
__________John Casey (have)
__________Ellison Casey (need one more)
_____Henson Casey - resolve 460=11 or 460=12 issue
__________Jackson Casey (have, sibling is different)
__________Arvle Casey (have, sibling is different)
__________Other sons (need one more since different)
_____Abner Casey
- resolve CDYa=36 issue
__________Turner Casey (have one)
__________Pleasant Casey (have two)
_______________Pleasant Casey, II (have, sibling is same)
_______________Elsberry Casey (have, sibling is same)
__________Abner Casey (need one more)
__________Jesse Casey (need one more)
_____Jesse E. Casey
- confirm CDYb=37 issue
__________Steven Casey (need one more)
__________Elijah Casey (need one more)
__________Anthony Casey (have)
__________Levi Casey (need one more)
__________Ambler Casey (need one more)
__________Jesse Casey (need one more)
__________Wesley Casey (need one more)
_____John Casey (MO)
- resolve 460=11 issue
__________Levi Casey (have two grandsons)
_______________William Casey (have)
_______________Frank Casey (have)
__________John Allen Casey (need one more)
_____John Casey (SC)
- verify no surprise mutations
__________Abner Casey (need one more)
__________Thomas Casey (need one more)
__________Samuel Casey (need one more)
__________John Casey (have)
__________Henry Casey (need one more)
_____James Hill Casey
- resolve 437=16 issue
__________James Casey (need one more)
__________Hugh Casey (need one more)
__________Willis Casey (have)
__________Allen Casey (need one more)
__________John Casey (need one more)
__________Newton Casey (need one more)
__________Andrew Casey (need one more)
_____Moses Casey
- confirm baseline DNA
__________Moses Casey, Jr. (have)
__________Other sons (need one more)
For every Casey researcher, you need to determine which
sons of oldest proven ancestors may have very few living
male descendants and are exposed to having the line
"die out" of producing no living "all male" descendants.
For the descendants of Ambler Casey, Henson Casey and
Jesse E. Casey, I have reviewed all the known male
descendants to estimate the number of potential
submittors and the exposure for these lines to die out:
For the Ambler Casey line
Moses Casey (need)
3 sons, 20 gsons, 37 ggsons, 22 3Gsons, 10 4Gsons,
2 5GSons (33 males descendants born after 1900).
Almost no exposure for this line to die out
and substantial information concerning living
male descendants.
John Casey (my line)
7 sons, 25 gsons, 43 ggsons, 41 3Gsons, 24 4Gsons, 8 5GSons
(76 males descendants born after 1900).
Almost no exposure for this line to die out
and substantial information concerning
living male descendants.
Ellison Casey (need)
5 sons, 2 gsons, 7 ggsons and 2 gggsons
(only two known males descendants that
were born after 1900). Probably minimal
exposure for this line to die out but very
little knowledge of living male descendants.
The connection of Levi Casey is pretty weak
and Levi Casey could be a son of Ambler Casey,
therefore, this submission would greatly benefit
the Ambler Casey line and could greatly benefit
the descendants of Levi Casey to breaking through
that brick wall on this particular line.
For the Henson Casey line
16 sons, 30 gsons, 18 ggsons, 5 3Gsons, 1 4Gsons, 0 5GSons
(37 males descendants born after 1900).
Almost no exposure for this line to die out
and reasonable information concerning living
male descendants.
For the descendants of Jesse E. Casey, I have reviewed
all the known all male descendants to estimate the
number of potential submittors and the exposure for
these lines to die out (this is based on the 2000
version of Vonda Dihm's book). There is considerable
exposure on several sons of Jesse E. Casey to die
out (or may have already died out). However, there
are seven sons to choose from (unlike the Ambler
Casey line where do not even know the names
of several of his sons):
Jesse E. Casey
Stephen Casey (need)
6 sons, 18 gsons, 29 ggsons, 15 3Gsons, 7 4Gsons, 0 5GSons.
Almost no exposure for this line to die out and
reasonable information concerning living
male descendants.
Elijah Casey (need)
6 sons, 3 gsons, 4 ggsons, 8 3Gsons, 2 4Gsons, 1 5GSon.
Little exposure for this line to die out
but not much information concerning
living male descendants.
Anthony Casey (have)
3 sons, 25 gsons, 34 ggsons, 43 gggsons,
23 3Gsons, 4 4Gsons, 0 5GSon.
Almost no exposure for this line to die out
and considerable information concerning living
male descendants.
Levi Casey (need)
6 sons, 8 gsons, 0 ggsons, 0 3Gsons,
0 4Gsons, 0 5GSons.
Moderate exposure for this line to die out
and no information concerning living
male descendants.
Ambler Casey (need)
2 sons, 0 gsons, 0 ggsons, 0 3Gsons,
0 4Gsons, 0 5GSons.
Very high exposure for this line to die out or
this line could have already died out 100 years ago.
No information concerning living male descendants.
Jesse Casey (need)
11 sons, 24 gsons, 22 ggsons, 15 3Gsons,
4 4Gsons, 0 5GSons.
Almost no exposure for this line to die out
and reasonble information concerning living
male descendants.
Ambler Casey (need)
2 sons, 0 gsons, 0 ggsons, 0 3Gsons,
0 4Gsons, 0 5GSons.
Very high exposure for this line to die out or
this line could have already died out 100 years ago.
No information concerning living male descendants.
We all need to openly discuss what we think are the
best candidates to be related to the SC lines
as well as the other Casey lines that have been
submitted to date. Traditionally, many of us avoided
sharing this kind of speculation because many novices
to genealogy tend to convert this speculation
into fact. However, we also are not sharing this
valuable insight that we have developed over many
years of research. People visiting the Casey DNA
web site need input and encouragement on which lines
are important to this project at this point
in time. As my web site might imply, here are
some additional Casey lines that my instinct tells
are good candidates for the SC cluster:
_____James Casey
__________James Casey (need)
__________Sterling Casey (need)
__________Samuel Casey (need)
_____Mrs. Easter Casey
__________William Casey (need)
__________Abner Casey (need)
_____Ambler Casey (born 1832)
__________Only 4 daughters known
__________(this male line probably died out)
Mrs. Easter Casey has Fulton County, AR
connections and my gut feeling says her family is
related. Please let me know your specific lines of
interest (specially on the SC lines where others must
help me identify other lines of interest). The
unconnected Ambler Casey (born 1832) is an obvious
candidate to be one of the missing sons of Ambler
Casey (TN), however, this line appears to have
no living male descendants.
Where are our submissions for widely known SC and
TN lines such as Randolph Casey, Christopher Casey
and General Levi Casey ? I will be glad to add
other candidates for anyone who wants to present
their speculation for possible connections. I
decided to look at previous Casey publications
that cover these SC and TN Casey lines. From
the Walter E. Casey book, the George and
Abner Casey manuscript and some early SC
probate records, here are some other
good candidates:
_____Aaron Casey (two probate records)
__________William Casey (need two)
__________Moses Casey (need two)
__________James Casey (need two)
__________Levi Casey (need two)
_____Randolph Casey (probate records)
__________Levi Casey (need two)
__________Randolph Casey (need two)
__________Isaac Casey (need two)
__________Abraham P. Casey (need two)
__________Samuel Casey (need two)
__________Hiram Casey (need two)
__________Zadock Casey (need two)
_____Levi Casey (1960 DAR article)
__________John Casey (need two)
__________Levi Casey (need two)
__________Jacob D. Casey (need two)
__________Samuel O. Casey (need two)
_____Christopher Casey (1960s manuscript)
__________John Casey (have)
__________Aaron Casey (need)
__________Hardin Casey (need)
_____Aaron Casey (1960s manuscript)
__________Abner Casey (have)
__________Jesse Casey (have)
__________Alexander Casey (need)
__________Anthony Casey (need)
__________Uriah Casey (need)
Analysis by Family Lines
The next chart is attempt to create DNA based descendancy
chart. This is probably the most likely scenario but there could be
several variations. Also, the DNA descendancy is different than
normal genealogical descendancy charts as DNA descendancy can
usually only show interconnections - not actual connections. For
instance, 391 = 10 appears to be a marker value of John Casey (MO)
at first glance. However, it could also be John's son, Levi Casey,
as no brothers of Levi have been tested with 391 = 10. This would
the mutation down on the DNA descendancy chart. The source
of this mutation could also be the father / grandfather of
John Casey (MO) as well. Other unrelated lines could later have
391 = 10 and could be brothers or first cousins of John Casey (MO).
This additional information would push the mutation up the DNA
descendancy chart. This is why we need coverage as many unrelated
lines as possible. We currently only have eight different lines
out of forty lines (only around 20 % coverage). So let's now
look at every mutation in this cluster and analyze the possible
sources of these mutations.
For 391 = 10, we are currently assuming this to be a mutation
of John Casey (MO). However, it could be a mutation
of his son, Levi Casey. We need
to test a different son of John Casey (MO) to clarify which man
was the source of this mutation. If a brother of Levi Casey has
391 = 10, then the mutation will be a mutation of John Casey (MO)
- or his father or grandfather. If the brother of Levi Casey
has 391 = 11, then Levi Casey is probably the source of the
mutation. If a future submission of unrelated line comes back
with 391 = 10, then John Casey (MO) could not be the source
of the mutation - it would his father or grandfather.
For 385b = 15, this is probably the mutation of Levi's son,
William Casey - or any of his male descendants. However,
further testing of other
sons of William Casey would not assist this project that much.
Testing of a second son of William Casey would only allow to
possibly push the DNA mutation down the descendancy chart. It
is not important to determine if Willam Casey was the source
or which male descendant was the source of the mutation - as this
would not solve any unknown genealogical connections.
For 437 = 16, we are currently assigning this mutation to James
Casey (SC). However, any male descendant down to the donor could
be the source of this mutation. Testing another son of James
Casey is necessary to verify that James Casey (SC) is the source
of this mutation. If another son has 437 = 16, then James Casey
(SC) would the source of the mutation - or any of his male
ancestors. If another son of James Casey (SC) came back with
437 = 15, then Willis Casey (or some male descendant) would be
the source of the mutation.
For 460 = 13 and 460 = 12, this divides the entire SC cluster
into two major branches. This is currently the oldest mutation in
this cluster based on only submissions within this cluster. The
oldest common ancestor of this cluster had one son with 460 = 13
and another son with 460 = 12. If this ancestor had other sons,
they all matches one son (no mutation) or they had very few or
no male descendants. For 460 = 11, this presents two very
interesting scenarios: 1) this is just a mutation of John
Casey's (MO) grandson, Franklin Casey and is not that important;
2) If you believe that the Irish cluster shares a common
male ancestor 400 to 600 years ago, 460 = 11 matches all the
submissions of the Irish cluster. This would really shake up
the DNA descendancy chart. If other sons of John Casey (MO) or
other sons of Levi Casey have 460 = 11, this support the
connection to the Irish cluster and could require some major
changes to the DNA descendancy chart. For the two sons tested
for Henson Casey, it is currently not very reliable to assign
Henson Casey to either branch since one son of Henson had
460 = 12 and the other son had 460 = 13. If another son of
Henson Casey comes back with 460 = 12, the supports the
belonging to the 460 = 12 branch. If another son of Henson
Casey comes back with 460 = 13, that supports the Henson
Casey belonging to the 460 = 13 branch.
For CDYa = 36, this is currently believed to the mutation
of Turner Casey (or any of his male descendants down to
the donor). This is a very fast (almost too fast) mutating
marker (almost 20 times faster than the average marker).
However, there is another very interesting possibility.
If you believe that Irish cluster and the SC cluster share
a common male ancestor in 400 to 600 years, CDYa = 36 is
much closer to the values found in the Irish cluster.
Testing another brother or son of Turner Casey could really
shake up the DNA descendancy and the Abner Casey line would
move up closer to the DNA of our oldest common ancestor
of the SC cluster.
For CDYb = 37, this currently believed to be a mutation of
the father (or grandfather) of two lines, Jesse E. Casey
and Ambler Casey. This is a very fast (almost too fast) mutating
marker (almost 20 times faster than the average marker).
However, there is another very interesting possibility.
If you believe that Irish cluster and the SC cluster share
a common male ancestor in 400 to 600 years, CDYb = 37 is
much closer to the values found in the Irish cluster.
Testing another son of Jesse E. Casey or Ambler Casey
could really shake up the DNA descendancy and these
two Casey line would move up closer to the DNA of our
oldest common ancestor of the SC cluster.
DNA Descendancy Chart (Irish)
The format and organization of this DNA analysis is undergoing a major
change. Please have patience as I attempt to enhance and better organize
the information. Each major cluster (currently two major clusters that
are well established) will have its own unique section of analysis.
There are two major files that cover the Irish cluster:
Analysis of DNA - Casey - Irish Cluster
Possible DNA Descendancy Chart - Casey - Irish Cluster
DNA Descendancy Chart (SC)
The format and organization of this DNA analysis is undergoing a major
change. Please have patience as I attempt to enhance and better organize
the information. Each major cluster (currently two major clusters that
are well established) will have its own unique section of analysis.
There are two major files that cover the Irish cluster:
Analysis of DNA - Casey - SC Cluster
Possible DNA Descendancy Chart - Casey - SC Cluster
Origins of the Casey Surname
This review discusses the origins of the Casey surname. It analyzes the
number of Casey men that first use the Casey surname and presents a case
that all Caseys descend from a common male ancestor. It discusses the
sources of the genetic variations found with Casey surnames and how
these clusters of Casey evolved. It also discusses the need and risks
involved with the bias of the submissions with American connections and
the lack of submissions from present day Ireland. The format and
organization of this DNA analysis is undergoing a major change. Please
have patience as I attempt to enhance and better organize the
information.
Summary of Casey DNA Results
Origins of the Casey Surname
Non Paternity Events vs. Overlapping Haplotypes
This section is speculative in nature and I have not seen these
issues addressed in depth at other DNA web sites and is not well
covered in publications on DNA used for genealogy. However,
I found the issue covered by Mark Jobling in the June, 2001 issue
of Trends in Genetics (the internet is wonderful at times).
I am now convinced that non-Casey surnames found in the SC
cluster are very good candidates for NPE events. This is
based on the fact that only one submission of the fourteen that
are closely related do not have the surname Casey. When the
vast majority of submissions that are closely related have the
same surname, it would be much less likely that other surnames
randomly crossed genetic paths (known as overlapping haplotypes).
For the Irish cluster, the opposite is true. The Ysearch database
shows that there are 23 individuals within five mutation points of the
baseline for the Irish cluster. Only two out of 23 submissions
in this listing were Caseys. For this cluster's
haplogroup (the very common R1b1), overlapping haplotypes
are not unusual. There are two Casey, two Forbes, two Butler,
two McGraw and a myriad of other surnames: Harvey, McLain, Ramsey,
Brooks, Peppers, Hart, Bryan, Anderson, Hogan, Cummings, Iron,
Crow, Blair and McGrath. This implies that most of these
haplotypes are probably not related via NPE scenarios but are
most likely overlapping haplotypes of a common haplogroup (R1b1).
This will make sorting out NPEs in this cluster much more
difficult.
There are three reasons for genetically diverse events that
seem to be evolving: 1) Non paternity events (NPEs) are
where real families and biology diverge. These are adoptions and
out of wedlock children. I contend that the Hanvey line
is the only valid candidate at this point in time. Only the
SC cluster will have higher probabilty of NPE events
at this point in time; 2) The rarely covered topic is
nature's ability for different genetic lines to
randomly cross paths (overlapping haplotypes);
The Irish Cluster seems to exhibit this variation.
When overlapping haplotypes exist, it will be much harder
to determine NPE events as haplotypes will not always be
related in this scenario. 3) Another topic that was not well
understood before DNA is that having the same surname does
not imply any genetic relationship as we once thought. Only
very uncommon surnames will have one common ancestor. More
common names can have ten to one hundred unique
unrelated ancestors that only shared interest
in the same surname when surnames were first
used by most Europeans only a short time ago. These
three issues can be confused for each other as well and not
correctly identifying the sources of these issues can lead
to incorrect conclusions.
Non paternity events are bound to happen as young adults can
die permaturely (adoption) or can have temporary biological
relationships that do not result in long lasting formal legal
relationships. There are lot of variations of these issues that can have
many different results. For instance, even adoptions can really
lead us astray as it is pretty common for the extended family
(same surname) to adopt children of cousins and nephews of young
adults who die prematurely or are not able to take on the
responsibility of child raising. These closely related adoptions
could be very difficult to sort out. Non paternity events can
happen is two directions as well. Casey boys can be adopted
by non-Casey families (other surnames now truly have Casey DNA
being passed down via Y chromosones). Also, non-Casey boys
are also adopted in the Casey lines and we can get some pretty
diverse DNA being introduced into the Casey surname pool
(when in reality their DNA biologically belongs to another
surname). This really allows two versions of genealogical
ancestry to emerge (familial and biological - both are
important). If a male infant was adopted and raised by a
Casey family, the Casey environmental influence
on this child could be stronger than the biological influence
due to DNA. Reseaching two different ancestral trees will
become more common with the aid of DNA documentation.
I think that the documentation covering overlapping haplotypes
is not widely understood to date and has been avoided as it
is difficult to understand (and prove with accuracy). With
only 37 and 67 markers available and most markers with only
four or five common variations each, you just do not have
enough markers to avoid distantly related individuals
randomly mutating back across between various
lines (both with the same surname or different surnames).
For the SC Casey cluster, these Casey lines appears
to have unique haplotypes which puts a DNA fingerprint
associated with these lines (until new submissions prove
otherwise). However, some Casey lines clearly have much
closer matches to other surnames which could be NPE events
of other surnames (most likely scenario). Some may have
changed their surname to Casey for various reasons and
some may have not been related when our ancestors first
started using surnames. Who gets to lay claim the Casey
surname - none of course. Unfortunately, clusters with
lots of Casey descendants could bias us to believe that
one group may try to claim the Casey surname over others
(we should avoid this bias at all costs). I really am
warming up to the idea that we now should sort out our various
Casey lines into many different genetic buckets. We already
have done this with our paper research by sorting out various
Casey lines by geography. I have known for some time that
my focus should only be on Casey lines that have ties
to SC and TN and DNA has proven this to be the correct
strategy. Actually, I have given up hope on SC lines
and DNA has significantly revived my interest in these lines.
Until the availability of DNA submissions to analyze, I had
a very inaccurate assumption concerning the exact relationship
of other Casey lines to my Casey line. I also assumed that
Casey was an Irish name and that most Casey lines (except
for NPE lines) would have a common ancestor back in the early
days of Ireland. However, the genetic distance from many
of the Casey lines have not proven this not to be the case.
I am now beginning to believe that there may be 10 to 100 unique
individuals that first used the Casey surname. Surnames were
generally forced upon our ancestors by governments and early
rulers in order to collect taxes and raise armies. With
surnames like Smith or Brooks, the orginal assignment of
surname was driven by trade or geography. For the first
Irish individuals that were told to start using a surname,
these individuals did not get all get unique surnames and
it is likely that geography played significant role or that
the clan that they belonged to played a large role. It is
possible that their vocation could have played a role as well
(clan leaders probably had unique names as may have soldiers,
farmers and other vocations). The Casey surname has a
military meaning (it means dart-armed chief in battle).
Dart refers to knives (shorter than swords). It could mean
that the Casey surname was taken due vocation (military)
by many unrelated men.
The surname Casey originated from the Gaelic name
"O'Cathasaigh" around 1,000 years ago. The original of
the name was "dart-armed chief in battle" which
implies our ancestors were probably soldiers. After the
Anglo-Norman invasion, the name was "anglicized" to
O'Casey and by the 1300's it was further "anglicized"
to its present form of Casey. During the introduction
of surnames, life was very brutal with constant warfare
between neighboring clans. These clans became larger and
larger in order to survive. These conflicts left many
orphan sons who adopted and raised by others on both
sides. Other clan members would regularly adopt the
young sons of fallen comrades and these sons may have
taken on new surnames if they were very young. When large
conflicts resulted in expanded control by one side,
other clans adopted orphan children of the defeated
side. Also, there was many orphans left because of
widespread outbreaks of diseases and food shortages.
Potato blight outbreaks caused severe food shortages
and starvation for many Irish families. In these
turbulent times, diseases and accidents resulted in
the need to adopt orphaned sons and probably introduced
many DNA varieties to the Casey surname.
Call for better documentation
Raw DNA data without traditional genealogical research is not very
useful. It is critical to have both the DNA marker sets and known
information about the ancestry of these DNA submissions. The Pace
DNA web site (one of my ancestors) has an excellent web page
dedicated to providing significant genealogical information
known about all of their DNA submittors. This information is
conveniently made available to anyone of interest and saves
redundant efforts of many people gathering what they know about
these submissions for their own personal analysis.
Pace DNA web site's ancestry listings for submittors
The attached summary of ancestral listings is based on my
knowledge of these lines and what is readily documented on
the Internet. I may have made a couple of incorrect assumptions
or have not included complete ancestries as my knowledge
is quite limited on Casey lines outside the SC cluster.
I welcome additions and corrections to this listing as well
as comments as to format and content. As I have more time,
I will attempt to add more from emails and other web sites.
Ancestries of Casey DNA submissions
Please give me some feedback
I am an amateur DNA researcher, so I greatly expect to be
corrected on some of my conclusions but I will take the risk
to be the first to publish an analysis of our Casey DNA
submissions. For anyone wanting to create groupings of
Casey lines, you should first use haplogroups to define
obvious clusters that can not be related. Within a haplogroup,
the only practical method to quickly create even more
groups is to use cladogram software which graphically displays the
connections between the various DNA submissions. Also, usage
of MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) calculators are also
critical in determining the closeness of genetic relationships.
Without these tools, it is extremely difficult to manually
extract this information. I am very new with DNA analysis
for genealogy and would appreciate comments on
this DNA analysis. This analysis takes a lot of time
and I would appreciate feedback of where you think I going off
track, where you think my analysis is on target, what information
is not found that should be included, etc. There is quite of bit
of redundancy in this analysis and I will try to reduce this
in future updates to this analysis.
Please send your comments by email, letter or phone:
E-mail (new) ___________
______________________ email address changed to image to reduce my spam email
Snail mail______________ Robert B. Casey, 4705 Eby Lane, Austin, TX 78731-4507
Phone (home)__________ (512) 371-0579 (nights and weekends only)