The Californian Connection For some years there was a suspicion that Kish Keynes (b. 1816) in Berwick St. Leonard in Wiltshire, a brother of Keros (b. 1818), had emigrated by some means to Newfoundland when it was a colony of England. The suspicion was generated by the unusualness of the name, the timing of his disappearance in England and appearance in Newfoundland, the use of family given names in the next and succeeding generations and the possibility of using a fishing fleet to go to Newfoundland. Seasonal fishing was common in that era for fleets to cross the ocean to Newfoundland for the season and to return to England in the “fall”. To confirm the suspicion, Walter John Keynes, a descendant of Keros and Albert Leslie Caines, a descendant Of Kish, submitted their DNAs for analysis and found a perfect match, confirming Kish in England was the same man in Newfoundland. A surprise result of the DNA analysis for confirming the Kish matching was the close match of Christopher C Keene of California, USA, to Albert Leslie Caines of Ontario, Canada, and Walter John Keynes (me) of South Australia. Christopher C Keene’s 37-marker Y-DNA test matched that of Albert Leslie Caines and me in 36 of the 37 markers and the exception was distant by 1 genetic number. The implication of the variation is that some mutation occurred in a common ancestor when passing his Y-chromosome to his son. The son would then pass his Y-chromosome to his sons with the variation. There is no way of knowing which descendants had the variation and which did not. As mutations occur at random there is also no way of determining how many generations ago the mutation occurred. Geneticists studying mutation have built up a large base of data on known mutations and found that some markers are subject to more frequent mutations than others. They have also developed a complex probability theory predicting the number of generations ago that mutations had occurred. But this is usually expressed as, for example, a 60% probability that the mutation occurred within the last 8 generations, an 80% probability that it occurred within the last 12 generations and a 99% probability that it occurred within the last 16 generations. Examining the results of the analysis for the relationship between Chris and Albert and me, FamilyTreeDNA advise us that the particular marker which has the variation is a relatively fast-moving marker and so the probabilities for a more recent common ancestor are higher. Hence based on a fast-moving marker and knowing that a common ancestor has not existed in the last 8 generations, probability calculations are given as 82% for a common ancestor within the last 12 generations, 96% within the last 16 and 99% within the last 20. So in practice what does this mean and is it reasonable to expect to find the common ancestor? The number of years per generation, of course, varies greatly, but for our purpose we may suppose 25 years per generation, so 12 generations would encompass a period of 300 years for which we have a probability of 82%. 300 years from today takes us back to 1710. To increase the probability to 96% would take us back 16 generations or 400 years to 1610. It seems to me that a probability of 82% and 96% is encouraging for an ancestor to be found in the 1600s to 1700s era. The driving force behind Chris Keene’s family is his sister Tina Keene Peddie from California in USA. She and her family have researched their ancestry and have an extended circle of kinship in USA. The simplified descendancy of Tina and Chris is:
George Keene,
b. 1771 in North Carolina So George Keene is the earliest known ancestor of the line and Tina and family are actively pursuing searches in USA to try to find evidence of the line back into Europe, perhaps into England or Ireland. That research continues! |