| DNA Home Page | Group A | Group B | Other Haplo I Groups | Haplo R1b Groups | Group X1 | Group X2 | Comparisons | Ancestors |
HAMILTON SURNAME DNA RESULTS
Introduction
Most of the analyses reported here were performed by Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) but some participants also had their DNA analyzed by DNA Heritage (DNAH) or by Ancestry and some of the data was extracted from the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation (SMGF) database. In the following tables the order of the first 67 markers (up to DYS565) is that given by FTDNA. Where values are shown for addditional markers they were analyzed by Ancestry, DNA Heritage or SMGF. The conventions used to define each of the first 67 DYS loci are those currently used by FTDNA. Most other companies now define GATA H4 as TAGA H4; if defined as TAGA H4 then each of the values given in the table for this locus should be increased by one unit. The conventions used for defining the additional marker values are those of DNA Heritage (see SMGF table for camparison to results from other laboratories). According to FTDNA, those DYS sites given in red in the table headings are ones that tend to mutate more rapidly.
Results Presentation
The primary data for the sets of results (now over 250) currently available are given in 6 tables: (1) Group A, (2) Group B, (3) Other Haplo I Groups, (4) Haplo R1b1 Groups, (5) Group X1, and (6) Group X2. Each of these tables has a column headed Haplo which gives the predicted haplogroup for each participant. The meaning of this term will be considered later. Another column in each of these tables, titled Ysearch ID, gives this ID code for most of the participants in order to facilitate examining their marker results in the Ysearch database. Modal values for each of the markers for Group A and Group B are given in the first row of these tables. These modal values, as well as modal values for the markers for each of the other groups, are used to calculate the data given in the Comparisons tables (see discussion later). The modal value for each marker was determined by choosing the value that would lead to the actual marker values for all members of the group with the least number of mutations required.
There are obvious similarities among the results given within each of Groups A through R as indicated by the color coding in the first four primary results tables. Within each group identical values are colored and any differences due to mutations are highlighted by not being colored. It will be noted that the marker values in each of these groups are quite different from one group to the next so individuals in one of these groups are not closely related through all male lines to individuals in any of the others (discussed in more detail later in conjunction with the Comparisons tables). However, the similarity of the values obtained within each group strongly implies that the DNA donors in each group have a fairly recent (probably within 10 to 30 generations) common Hamilton ancestor. Thus, there were presumably 18 different initiating ancestors for these 18 groups, one for each group.
In contrast to the foregoing, none of the results in Group X1 or Group X2 is a close match to any other in these two tables or to the results given for those in Groups A through R. The eighteen different initiating ancestors for Groups A-R plus the more than 60 required for those in Groups X1 and X2 indicate that there are many different Hamilton lines. As more results are obtained it is expected that matches will be found with more of those in Groups X1 and X2, but it is likely that additional Hamilton lines will also be found. The fact that there appear to be so many Hamilton lines makes DNA analysis particularly useful in sorting out the derivation of lines that do not have an extended paper trail.
In addition to the 6 tables with primary data and the Comparisions tables, one other table titled Ancestors is present in this report; it gives the earliest known Hamilton ancestors for each of the participants. The Ancestors table can be accessed either by clicking on this term here or at the top of the page, or by clicking the code for a particular individual in the primary results tables. In that case you will be taken directly to the part of the Ancestors table that has the earliest known ancestor for that individual. With the exceptions that are pointed out in the Ancestors table, many of the participants who fall in Groups A through R were previously unaware of any relationship to each other. Consequently, those interested in these Hamilton lines now have further avenues to explore by traditional genealogical methods.
Since the term 'haplogroup' is used frequently in the subsequent discussion, it seems appropriate to briefly describe here what it means and how it arose. In the DNA analyses summarized in the primary results tables, what is actually being measured at each DYS site are so-called STRs or Short Tandem Repeats. The marker values are a measure of how frequently particular sequences of DNA bases are repeated at each DYS site on the Y-chromosome. In an attempt to place humans on a phylogenetic tree, anthropologists in recent years have mainly used so-called SNPs or Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (in other words, substitution of one of the bases on the DNA backbone by a different base). In the SNP analysis investigators assign various letters, or letters and numbers, to different branches on the human phylogenetic tree. These are referred to as haplogroups. A major difference between mutations at STR sites and those at SNP sites is that the STR sites mutate in a time period of one to a few hundred years (that is one of the reasons why they are so useful in genealogical investigations) while the rate of mutation at SNP sites is measured in the 10s of thousands of years. Thus, individuals in different haplogroups could not have a common ancestor along all male lines in the last 10,000 or more years.
By direct SNP analysis the haplogroup of any given Y-DNA sample can be measured; when this has been done the haplogroup designation in the Haplo column of the primary results tables is given in bold green. However, in most cases that is not done because it has been possible to correlate certain patterns of STR marker values with the SNP analysis. Whit Athey has developed a formula for calculating the probable haplogroup from STR data and also at the FTDNA web site most participants receive an estimate of their suspected haplogroup. When predicted these haplogroup designations are given in regular black type in the Haplo column of the primary results tables. As indicated in the tables, the most common haplogroups found for participants in the Hamilton project are I1a and R1b1 but there are a few with haplogroup I1b (Group K and two in Group X1) as well as one to three with haplogroup E3b, G2, G, I1c, and R1a (all in Group X1).
As can be seen from an examination of the data in the tables, Group A has more members (about 35% of all the participants) than any of the other groups. Although some members of this group (see Ancestors) were known to be related, most did not know of any relationship prior to their DNA analysis. Thus, the large number in Group A indicates that this is a widespread group of Hamiltons. Much of the variation in the marker values for Group A occurs in DYS570 and CDYa,b. These marker sites are known to mutate quite rapidly so the variation observed is not unusual. One noteworthy difference in the marker values for two participants known to be closely related involves H-054 and H-014. It was initially quite surprising that they differ at 3 marker sites because they are first cousins twice removed; H-054 is the grandson of a first cousin of H-014. However, these three marker sites are known to be on a palindromic or hairpin section of the Y-DNA and the three changes can be explained by only one mutation, a so-called 'Recombinational Loss of Heterozygosity' or RecLOH event. By its nature this RecLOH event had to have occurred in the line of H-014 in the generations from the most recent common ancestor (the grandfather of H-014) of the two participants. Thus, the RecLOH event can be localized to one of only two possible transmission events. The fact that the DNA profile for H-054 is identical to that for a suspected relative (H-232) is further evidence that the mutation has occurred in the line of H-014.
One characteristic of the Group A DNA profile is that it is quite unique; very few people other than Hamiltons match this profile even at the 12 marker level. The reason for this is that some of the marker values found for Group A are unusual. This is evident from an analysis of the dispersion in values for those in haplogroup I1a (the haplogroup for all those in Group A). Among the first 12 markers for those in haplogroup I1a, a value of 13 at DYS385b occurs only 7% of the time, a value of 27 at DYS389-2 occurs only 2.7% of the time, and a value of 12 at DYS439 occurs only 18% of the time. Therefore, it is perhaps not too surprising that the Group A 12 marker signature is limited almost exclusively to those with the Hamilton surname. The corollary, of course, is that if someone with a different surname matches this 12 marker signature he would need to seriously consider the possibility that he is closely related to the Group A Hamiltons in the all male line. This is the situation for several participants whose surname is actually Robertson rather than Hamilton; their results are given at the bottom of the table. The probability that these Robertsons have a common ancestor with the Hamiltons of Group A is accentuated by the finding that they match so well others of this group even at the 37 and 67 marker levels. Recent further research has indicated that some Robertson families in Scotland were closely associated with some Hamiltons there, so possibly when surnames came into use two closely related families took different surnames. Five other participants listed in the table who do not have a Hamilton surname are A-197 (kit 71481), T-092 (kit 19479), S-159 (kit 52774), M-161 (kit 39275) and F-220 (kit 81909); their surnames are Adams, Thomas, Smith, McLain and Frost. The observation that they match so closely this unique Group A DNA profile again strongly implies that these participants share with the Group A Hamiltons or Robertsons a common ancestor along the all male line in the not too distant past.
Among the groups that have individuals that match, Group B has the second largest number of participants, about 17% of the total. A few of these were known to be related as indicated in the Ancestors table. The results for two (H-003 and H-017) will be discussed briefly here to emphasize why it is important to obtain results for two or more known relatives. H-003 and H-017 are well documented to be third cousins once removed (separated by nine transmission events) so it is not too surprising that their results are similar. The fact that their results differ at only one site out of 37 markers (and 3 sites out of 67 markers) indicates that there has not been a non-paternal event (unknown adoption, conception out of wedlock, etc.) in the lines of either of these participants back to their known most recent common ancestor (MRCA) who was born in 1763. The observation that their 37 marker profiles differ at one site (DYS570) indicates that there has been a mutation at this site in one of their lines since their MRCA. It seems most likely that the mutation has occurred in the line of H-003 since H-017 has the value (20) at this site most common in Group B. Thus, the 37 marker results of H-017 probably represent those for their MRCA. One could determine whether the mutation has occurred in the line of H-003, and at what generation the mutation occurred, by having closer relatives of H-003 analyzed. Since there is always the possibility of a non-paternal event (estimated to occur about 1 to 5% each generation) or mutation occurring in each person’s lines, it is important to eliminate, or at least become aware of that possibility, by comparing a particular individual's results with those of a known relative. Initially it is best to compare one set of results with those of as distant a relative as possible. If the results are identical then one could conclude that the foregoing possibilities have not occurred in either of the lines. If the results are different then one can zero in on when the mutation or non-paternal event occurred by testing closer relatives.
Another example in Group B where the DNA sample donors are known to be relatives involves H-037 and H-053. The paper trail indicates these donors are second cousins once removed (separated by 7 transmission events). As shown in the table, their DNA profiles differ at 2 sites out of 32 and it appears the two mutations (at DYS385a and 459a) have occurred in 3 generations in the line of H-037 (the values at these sites for H-053 are the same as for others in Group B). Although both of these marker sites are included in the faster mutating group, it is still unexpected to have 2 mutations in so few generations.
One interesting aspect of the results for most of those in Group B when compared with the results for those in Group C is that an exact 12 for 12 match in the first 12 markers is found. Therefore, if only the 12 marker test had been run on these samples, one would have concluded that the donors of the samples in Group B were closely related to the donors in Group C. The FTDNA 37 and 67 marker results indicate quite clearly that Groups B and C are distinct. Such results emphasize the necessity for running at least the 25 marker test, and preferably the 37 marker test, rather than the 12 marker test to make definitive distinctions, especially when the actual values for the markers are fairly common ones for the various DYS sites. The values for the first 12 markers in these groups are in fact very common ones as found in the dispersion analysis for I1a individuals referred to previously; the specific value found for each of the first 12 markers for most of those in Groups B and C is the modal value for that marker in I1a individuals. Another indication that the values for the first 12 markers are common is the observation that many people with other surnames match Groups B and C at the 12 marker level (currently about 600 matches in the FTDNA database). Because values for the first 12 markers are the same for Groups B and C, one cannot tell which of these groups H-114 and H-200 should be in. They have been tentatively placed in Group B until results for further markers are obtained.
For each group it is useful to focus on marker values that occur infrequently because their presence in a particular group is what really distinguishes one group from another. As can be seen from an analysis of the dispersion in values for those in haplogroup I1a, infrequently occurring marker values that are present in Group B are (frequency in I1a individuals given in parentheses): 7 at DYS459a (4%), 18 at YCAIIa (1.3%), and 14 at GATA A10 (10%). The combination of an 18 at YCAIIa and 7 at DYS459a is so unique to the Group B Hamiltons that other surnamed I1a individuals with these values must seriously consider whether they might be descended from a Hamilton of this type in their all male line. This is the situation for M-183, F-204 and A-214 whose surnames are Morrison, Frame and Arthurs respectively; in none of these cases do they know of any Hamilton in their all male lines. However, having the foregoing two values along with the excellent match of their other markers to those of the Group B Hamiltons makes it very likely that they have a common ancestor with the Group B Hamiltons in the not too distant past.
Other Groups (C, D, L, and P) with Haplogroup I1a
As indicated in the table there are far fewer participants in each of these groups than in either Group A or B. The discussion in the previous section implies that Groups B and C may be anciently related but they differ enough to warrant being placed in separate groups. The most notable low frequency marker values for Group C individuals are 21 for YCAIIa, and 22 for YCAIIb. The 21 value for YCAIIa occurs only 2% of the time in I1a individuals and 22 for YCAIIb also only 2% of the time. It is likely that the values of 21,21 at YCAIIa,b arose early in the derivation of this Hamilton line by a RecLOH event (see earlier discussion) because these markers are on a palindrome of the Y-DNA and are thus subject to such events. The DNA profile for the Group C Hamiltons is very similar (including values of 21,21 at YCAIIa,b) to the profiles for several in the Frame and Scruggs (see, for example, GPYZU at Ysearch) surname studies. Such results imply that different members of closely related families with the approximate Group C Hamilton DNA profile took either the Hamilton, Frame or Scruggs surname when surnames came into common use in Lowland Scotland.
The observation that the 4 participants in Group D match so well is not surprising since they are known to be related. The group is of special interest because they all descend in well documented lines from a grandson (John C. A. Hamilton) of Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers of the US. Participant H-073 is the father of H-039 and grandfather of H-079; H-072 is a third cousin of H-073. As indicated by the results, a mutation has occurred at DYS19/394 in one of the lines from John but it is not known in which line this has occurred. The fact that the results for the third cousins are so similar strongly indicates that there has been no non-paternal event in either of their lines since John C. A., the grandson of Alexander. Furthermore, the results imply that the DNA profile of Alexander, himself, was probably very similar to those in Group D but with the ambiguity that it cannot currently be concluded whether his value for DYS19/394 should be 14 or 15.
The Group L participants represent a somewhat special case because there is some doubt that they are biologically Hamiltons in the all male line. Two of the lines can be traced to two sons of a woman with the Hamilton surname whose sons were given the Hamilton surname but whose fathers are unknown. The observation that their DNA profiles match is strong evidence that the same person fathered the two sons. However, since he was presumably not a Hamilton, it is not too surprising that their DNA profile does not match that of any of the other I1a Hamilton participants. Although the third participant in Group L was not aware that he was from the same line, the exact match strongly suggests that he is.
The first two participants in Group P are known to be related; they are from the Earl of Haddington line of Hamiltons so presumably this is the profile for descendants of that line. The third participant in this group is just temporarily placed there until a match with the others is either confirmed or not when results for more markers are obtained.
Comparison of Groups with the I1a Haplogroup
In an attempt to obtain some measure of how closely or distantly the various I1a groups might be related an analysis was performed as illustrated in Table 1 of the Comparisons page. In the top right of this table in red is given the genetic distance between the 37 marker modals of each two group pair (three 37 marker I1a results from Group X1 are also included) and in the bottom left in blue are given the results of FTDNATiP calculations for the probability in percent of a common ancestor in 24 generations for each two group pair. The genetic distance is essentially the sum of the one step mutations that the modals for the two groups differ. The FTDNATiP technique developed by FTDNA attempts to calculate the probability of a common ancestor in a given length of time using measured mutation rates for each of the mutating markers. In other words, the less the genetic distance is, or the greater the probability in percent, the more recent in time the two groups may have had a common ancestor. There is some evidence that the mutation rates used in the FTDNATiP calculations are greater by possibly as much as a factor of two than the actual mutation rates so the probabilities in percent given in the table may be too high.
The main conclusion to be garnered from the results given in the table is that it is unlikely that any two of these I1a groups have a common ancestor along all male lines in the past 1000 years. The time for 24 generations is probably about 700 years (25 to 30 years per generation) and in that time only a few combinations have even a calculated 60% chance (and that is probably too high as indicated above) of having a common ancestor. Those that seem to be the most closely related are Groups B and C, Groups L and P, Group L and kit 21062, and Group B and kit 38184. The group that is very different from all the others is Group A; there is virtually no chance of a common ancestor along all male lines with any of the other groups within the past few thousand years. On the other hand, Group B has at least a double digit chance of having a common ancestor with all the other groups (except A) in 24 generations so in a couple thousand years or so it might have had a common ancestor with any or all of these others.
Although those in Group K are in hapogroup I, they are in a different subclade, namely the I1b subclade, rather than the I1a subclade. Ken Nordtvedt has estimated that the I1a and I1b subclades separated from one another about 24,000 years ago so there is no possibility that these Group K participants are related through all male lines to the I1a participants within that period of time. As indicated in the Ancestors table, the first three participants in Group K do, however, share a common ancestor born about 1650 in Glasgow, Scotland.
Groups with the R1b1 Haplogroup
Although a large number of R1b1 Hamiltons with similar DNA profiles have not yet been identified, 11 groups (E to J, M to O, Q and R) have been found with 2 to 6 participants in each. In addition, a large number of R1b1 individuals are currently placed in Group X2 because their profiles do not match each other or that of any of the R1b1 groups. One expects that in the future more matches with the various groups and participants in Group X2 will be identified as more Hamiltons have their DNA analyzed and that, by comparing genealogical data, such participants will be helped considerably in elucidating their various R1b1 Hamilton lines. Since the R1b1 haplogroup in the human phylogenetic tree is so distant from the I1a haplogroup, there is no possibility that they are related to each other through all male lines within the past tens of thousands of years.
The paper trail indicates that participants H-018, H-094 and H-031 in Group E are descended from John Hamilton who emigrated from Britain to Concord, MA about 1650 so again it is not too surprising that their results match well. As a result, any direct male Hamilton descendant who suspects he may be derived from this John of Concord can now easily prove or disprove the possibility by having his DNA analyzed and comparing his results to these profiles. In this regard the close similarity of the DNA profile for P-231 to those of the foregoing strongly implies that he is derived from the same immigrant Hamilton ancestor even though his surname is not Hamilton. It is not clear whether participant H-154 in Group E is derived from the same immigrant line because of the large difference at DYS449, but the exact match at the other markers implies that this participant shares a common ancestor with the others, if not in America then prior to immigration. Participant H-084 in Group E does not trace his lineage to John of Concord but rather to ancestors in the 1600s in Fife and Argyll, Scotland. The observation that the profile for H-084 is reasonably close to those for the others in Group E suggests that they probably all shared a common ancestor in Scotland prior to 1600. The FTDNATiP calculation indicates that there is a 57% chance that H-084 and H-018 share a common ancestor in 12 generations and a 97% chance in 24 generations. The genetic signature of the Group E Hamiltons is a very common one in Highland Scotland, especially among those in Clan Donald and related septs. It is sometimes referred to as the Scots47 modal (the 47 refers to a particular cluster of R1b haplotypes that John McEwan has identified) or the Dalriadic modal since the initiating ancestors of this profile are thought to have been the Dalriadic group who ruled Scotland in the early medieval period.
Most of the participants in each of Groups F, G, I, N, O, Q and R were not previously aware of any relation to one another so finding a match should aid in further research. Since both Group F participants have roots in Pennsylvania, it seems likely that they are derived from an ancestor who immigrated to that state, probably in the 18th century. Although the four participants in Group G have similar marker values, they differ enough that it is likely their most recent common ancestor was several generations ago, probably before their lines immigrated to America. FTDNATiP calculations indicate that there is about a 50% chance that each pair has a common ancestor in 12 generations and a greater than 90% chance that they share a common ancestor in 24 generations. Since the ancestors of the participants in Group I have recently come from Lowland Scotland, it is likely that they share a common ancestor who lived in that area of Scotland. The first two participants in Group M are known to be related and the similarity of their DNA results to those of the third participant suggests that they have a common ancestor in the recent past even though this third participant has a surname (Keyes) other than Hamilton.
Paper trails indicate that the five participants in Group H are derived from David Hamilton who was born in 1620 in Cambuslang, Scotland. He supported the Royalist cause, was taken as a prisoner by Oliver Cromwell's army after the Scottish army was defeated, and was transported to America in 1651. He settled in Maine and died in 1691 in Berwick, ME. Thus, again any Hamilton who suspects he might be derived from this line can now easily prove or disprove it by having his DNA analyzed. The four members of Group J are all members of Swedish Hamilton lines and are known to be related as indicated in the Ancestors table. Two of the participants in Group R are also known to be related to one another as indicated in the Ancestors table.
Comparison of Groups with the R1b1 Haplogroup
As in the case of those with the I1a haplogroup, it is of interest to compare how likely or not the various R1b1 groups share a common ancestor in the not too distant past. A similar analysis for the R1b1 groups (but using only the first 25 markers in each case) was therefore carried out for these eleven R1b1 groups and the results are given in Table 2 of the Comparisons page. It can be seen that for most of the pairs of groups there is even less chance that they had a common ancestor along all male lines in the last few thousand years. The only two groups that have a reasonable possibility of having a common ancestor in the past 1000 years are groups H and I. A similar detailed analysis using data for the large number of participants in Group X2 was not carried out but a qualitative analysis of such data suggests that no-one in Group X2 is likely to have a common ancestor along all male lines with any of the others in the past thousand years.
The results for about 24% of the participants are currently placed in these tables because their results do not match those of any of the other participants who have had their DNA analyzed. The Group X1 table has unmatched results for those with a haplogroup other than R1b1 while the Group X2 table has results for those with a haplogroup of R1b1. Even though the Group X1 table has results for participants with a variety of haplogroups, including E3a, G2, G, I1a, I1b, I1c and R1a, the Group X2 table has results for a considerably larger number of R1b1 participants. This is not too surprising since the R1b1 haplogroup is by far the predominant one among British men (see later). It is expected that as more Hamiltons have their DNA analyzed matches with some of the participants whose results are currently in these tables will be found. This has certainly happened to several in the past.
Which Groups Are Derived from Well Established and Documented British Lines?
It is well documented that one Hamilton line began in Scotland about 1300 with Walter Fitzgilbert de Hamilton as the patriarch of the line. As has been discussed in several publications (the best is probably the 1933 book by George Hamilton titled "A History of the House of Hamilton"), many established Hamilton lines in Britain and elsewhere trace their ancestry to this Walter Fitzgilbert but a careful reading of the evidence for some of the early connections indicates that many are on tenuous grounds. In any event, the DNA evidence presented here indicates that not all Hamiltons are derived from a single male initiator; only two are required to give rise to about 50% of the participants (those in Groups A and B) but there must have been many additional initiators for those in the other groups. Thus, it is of interest to determine from which ancient and established British Hamilton line each of the various DNA groups determined here are derived from. A start has been made in this direction but many more representatives of long established Hamilton lines need to be analyzed before too many definitive conclusions can be drawn. Such research is continuing.
It has long been accepted that the current Duke of Abercorn is the senior male heir of the Hamiltons with his all male line from Walter Fitzgilbert de Hamilton being very well documented. The DNA of a close relative (H-139) of the Duke has been analyzed and his 37 marker profile differs at only one marker from the modal for Group B. Furthermore, his 67 marker profile differs at only two markers from the modal for Group B. This early result suggested that those in Group B are derived from Walter Fitzgilbert but more recent DNA results have cast doubt on this conclusion. Rather they indicate that there was an early "non-paternal event" (conception by a male other than a Walter Fitzgilbert descendant) in the senior male line and that those in Group A rather than those in Group B are the direct all male line descendants of Walter Fitzgilbert. Furthermore, the current DNA results can pinpoint the probable conception where the non-paternal event occurred.
One thing that the current results prove conclusively is that the Sir James Hamilton who married Janet Livingston and died about 1440 had the Group B DNA profile. According to virtually all published genealogies of the Hamilton family, this Sir James Hamilton (subsequently referred to as James1) has been considered to be a gg grandson of Walter Fitzgilbert de Hamilton along the senior male line. One can conclude that James1 has the Group B DNA profile because he is the most recent common ancestor of participants H-139, H-188, H-203, and H-230, all of whom have the Group B profile, and all of whom have well documented lines back to James1. Thus, all male line descendants of James1, including those of his son Sir James Hamilton, the first Lord Hamilton (subsequently referred to as James2), would have the Group B DNA profile. James2 is the Hamilton (born about 1415 and died in 1479) who married Princess Mary Stewart, daughter of King James II of Scotland. This marriage brought the Hamiltons close to the throne of Scotland in the 16th century. Since King James VI of Scotland (King James I of England) is a descendant of this union, all Group B Hamiltons can thus claim kinship to the current British royal family and through them to virtually all the royal houses of Europe.
Very recently the Group A DNA profile has been found for three well documented descendants of ancient Hamilton lines. These are participants H-190, H-201 and H-217. Of these, the result for H-217 is particularly important because this participant is a known descendant of the Hamiltons of Preston, a line that branches off very early from the premier male Hamilton line. The patriarch of this line is Sir John of Hamilton, Lord of Fingalton, born about 1337. Sir John is a grandson of Walter Fitzgilbert de Hamilton, in other words two generations closer to Walter Fitzgilbert than the James1 discussed previously. The only possible explanation for the observation that a descendant of Sir John of Preston has the Group A DNA profile while James1 has the Group B DNA profile is that there was a non-paternal event involved in one of their lines. The fact that participants H-190 and H-201 have the Group A profile strongly favors the conclusion that the non-paternal event occurred in the line to James1 and specifically in his conception. Both H-190 and H-201 are descendants of the Raploch Hamiltons whose lands in Lanarkshire, Scotland, were granted to them in 1441. George Hamilton in his 1933 book "A History of the House of Hamilton" gives evidence that the patriarch of the Raploch Hamiltons is Walter Hamilton and that he was a brother of James1. However, the DNA results indicate that these two could only have been half brothers because James1 had the Group B DNA profile while the descendants of Walter of Raploch have the Group A profile. Since earlier generations (for example, Sir John of Preston) of Walter Fitzgilbert descendants also have the Group A profile, the conclusion one comes to then is that a non-paternal event must have occurred in the conception of James1 and that the Group A Hamiltons are the true all male line descendants of Walter Fitzgilbert.
It is of some interest that the mother of James1 was Jacoba (Janet) Douglas, daughter of Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith and his wife Egidia Stewart. Since the Douglas and Stewart families were so prominent in that era in Scotland, the marriage of Jacoba to Sir John Hamilton of Cadzow undoubtedly brought prestige to the Hamilton family and ultimately led to future generations of the family playing such a prominent role in Scottish society. It may be that Jacoba knew her first born son was not fathered by her husband so rather than naming him after the Hamiltons she named him after her father. James as a first name was not used by any male line descendants of Walter Fitzgilbert de Hamilton up to that time but in subsequent generations James was used for all first born sons up to the first Duke of Hamilton.
Who was the father of James1? That is not known but one can speculate. If he or other relatives left male line descendants then they should show up with the Group B profile but with a different surname. The Group B DNA profile has unusual STR values at some sites, so unusual in fact that the presence of a combination of these values for a known I1a individual virtually ensures that the person must be closely related to the Group B Hamiltons, regardless of surname. These unusual STR values are: 7 at DYS459a, 18 at YCAIIa, and 12 at DYS640. There are individuals with 3 other surnames known to have this Group B profile and who do not have a known connection to a Hamilton; they are A-214 (surname Arthurs), F-204 (surname Frame), and M-183 (surname Morrison). Of these, a Frame would seem to be the most likely father for James1. There are now two Frames (Frame Group B) known to have the Hamilton Group B profile. Also, the possible close connection of the Hamiltons and the Frames is accentuated by the fact that most of those with the Frame surname (Frame Group A) have a DNA profile very similar to the Group C Hamiltons. Furthermore, the Frames like the Hamiltons, Stewarts and Douglases have had a presence in Lanarkshire for several centuries. It should be emphasized that a Frame as the father of James1 has not been proven; it is just a current working hypopthesis.
Another ancient Hamilton line is the Earl of Haddington line which is said to be derived from a younger son of Walter Fitzgilbert de Hamilton. However, this conclusion is questionable because two members (H-162 and H-187) of the Earl of Haddington line have now been analyzed in our DNA project and their DNA profiles do not match either those in Group A or in Group B. Instead their profiles are those given in Group P. Since the DNA profiles of H-162 and H-187 match, one can safely conclude that their most recent common ancestor who lived in the early 1700s had a similar profile. Whether earlier generations of the Earl of Haddington line had this profile remains to be determined.
Group J gives the DNA profile of four members of a family of Hamiltons who live in Sweden. They are known to be derived from Captain John Hamilton of Monea and Tullyreny, Co Fermanagh, Northern Ireland, who lived in the late 1600s. Captain John Hamilton is thought to be descended from the Hamiltons of Dalserf, Scotland, which some historians claim connect to the premier male Hamilton line from Walter Fitzgilbert. However, this clearly cannot be correct, at least along an all male line, since these Swedish Hamiltons have a haplogroup (R1b1) different from that (I1a) of better documented Walter Fitzgilbert descendants.
Another Hamilton line thought to be derived from Walter Fitzgilbert is the line leading to Alexander Hamilton (the first Secretary of the Treasury and one of the founding fathers of the US). As presented previously, the DNA results for his descendants are given in Group D and, as shown in the Comparison table, they do not match those for any other haplogroup I1a line. Complicating this situation is that there is some lingering doubt whether Alexander Hamilton is biologically really a Hamilton, as has been discussed in a recent biography of the statesman written by Ron Chernow. If his father was James Hamilton, with whom his mother was living when he was born, then the evidence is fairly good that he is derived from one of the well established Hamilton lines. However, as Chernow has pointed out, there have been suggestions that his father was a Stevens, in which case the Group D results would not be representative of an early Hamilton line. The DNA from a few Stevens/Stephens lines has been analyzed and none of those results match Group D even remotely. However, the Stevens line that was in the British West Indies (where Alexander Hamilton was born) around 1750 may not have yet been tested. Thus, at this time we cannot come to any definite conclusions whether Alexander Hamilton's father was, or was not, a Hamilton and whether the DNA results of Group D represent those of an early Hamilton line.
The observation that the DNA profiles of several ancient and well established Hamilton lines do not match suggests that the Hamilton families who came to prominence in Scotland in the 14th and 15th centuries were not all initiated by one male, but rather were a small number of closely allied families who took the Hamilton surname and who were possibly related through marriage. It is well documented in subsequent generations that a very large number of intermarriages occurred among the various Hamilton lines. Thus, even though the Y-DNA profiles of the various Hamilton lines do not match most of them can be shown to be related to one another through these marriages.
Deep Ancestry of the Hamiltons
The haplogroup assigned to each of the DNA groups gives some information about the deep ancestry of that group and where ancestors that lived 10,000 years or more ago may have come from. The R1b1 haplogroup is the most common (over 50%) among European men. It is found throughout Europe and is especially prevalent among Celtic and Basque populations. Ancestors of those in the R1b1 haplogroup are believed to have been the first humans (Aurignac culture) to reach Europe about 40,000 years ago. During the last glacial maximum they ‘wintered over’ in Iberia and then re-colonized Europe when the glaciers receded 10-12 thousand years ago. Ancestors of those in haplogroup G are thought to have been Neolithic farmers from the Middle East who arrived later and were the first to practice agriculture in Europe. This haplogroup is more common in Southern and Eastern Europe but is found at low frequencies in other parts of the continent as well. E3a is an African haplogroup but it occurs to a small extent in Europe and Britain, possibly arriving in the latter during Roman times. The R1a lineage is believed to have originated in the Eurasian Steppes north of the Black & Caspian Seas. This lineage is relatively common in Scandinavia and in Slavic populations in Europe; those from Britain who are R1a are usually considered to have Viking ancestry.
Ancestors of those in the I haplogroup are thought to have originated in the Middle East about 25,000 years ago and were associated with the Gravettian culture. The FTDNA web site states that I haplogroup lineages are nearly completely restricted to Northwestern Europe and are particularly common within Viking and Anglo Saxon populations. There are several subgroups of haplogroup I; recent analyses by Ken Nordtvedt (whose mother was a Hamilton of the Group A line), have clarified several aspects of these. It is now quite clear that all those in Groups A to D, as well as those in Groups L and P and several in Group X1, belong to haplogroup I1a. This haplogroup is believed to have split from haplogroup I about 24,000 years ago but after 18,000 years only one male with haplogroup I1a survived to produce offspring. Thus, the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) for all of haplogroup I1a lived about 6,000 years ago. There appear to be at least two major subclades of I1a in Northern Europe, one derived from a group that lived some time ago in the Denmark-Northern Germany area, and the other (Norse) centered more in Norway. The recent analysis suggests that ancestors of the I1a individuals in Groups A to D and P (as well as most of the I1a individuals in Group X) were Anglo Saxons derived from the I1a group originally centered in the Denmark-Northern Germany area. Since the Normans (Danish Vikings) are also thought to be derived from this group, it is possible (but not proven) that these Hamiltons have Norman ancestry as has frequently been suggested for Walter Fitzgilbert. The haplogroup for the participants in Group L is I1a but Ken Nordtvedt's analysis indicates that the marker values for these participants are more consistent with them being derived from a Norse ancestor rather than an Anglo Saxon one. It is quite clear that the haplogroup for the Group K participants, as well as H-027, H-059 and H-177 (Group X1) is not I1a because a distinguishing marker value for I1a individuals is an 8 at DYS 455 while 11 at this site is common for I1b and I1c individuals. The I1c haplogroup occurs less frequently in Europe than I1a but it also appears to have spread from the Northern Germany area. The I1b haplogroup is common in the Balkans but less common in western Europe.
The foregoing discussion cannot be considered definitive concerning the deep ancestry of the participants but they do suggest what this ancestry might be. Since most Hamiltons are thought to be derived from ancestors who originally lived in the area around Hamilton, Scotland (in other words, near the border between Highland and Lowland Scotland), it is not too surprising that several Hamilton lines have characteristics suggesting a Celtic or Highland Scottish ancestry (R1b1 haplogroup) while the others are more typically characteristic of later European arrivals that migrated into Britain and Lowland Scotland after the last ice age
Last updated February 2008
