About us
The book, Christopher Gist of Maryland and Some of His Descendants, 1679-1957, by Jean Muir Dorsey and Maxwell Jay Dorsey, is regarded by many as an authoritative genealogical source for the Gist families and others descended from the immigrants, Christopher Gist (d. 1690) and Edith Cromwell. Christopher and Edith had but one son that we know of, Richard Gist (1683-1741), who married Zipporah Murray. Thus all men who claim Y-chromosome descent from Christopher do so by way of Christopher's son Richard.
There are currently 11 separate groups in this project. Of those, only subsets of Groups 1 and 2, 1a and 2a, include men who have gap-free paper trails purporting to trace their ancestry back through Richard Gist to his father Christopher Gist. There are three such men in Group 1a, and three such men in Group 2a. All six of them have paper trails that are readily traceable in the Dorsey book. You will no doubt notice that only two men appear on our public web site in Group 1a. That is because one of its members, who passed away in 2010, did not test with Family Tree DNA. Instead he had 32-marker Y-DNA STR results from the old, now-defunct company Relative Genetics, which was acquired by AncestryDNA around 2008.
All three of the men in Group 1a who trace their lines back to Richard Gist, and thence to his father Christopher, do so by way of Richard's son Nathaniel (c. 1707 - after 1787). All three of the men in Group 2a who trace their lines back to Richard Gist, and thence to his father Christopher, do so by way of Richard's son William (c. 1711 - after 1794).
Sounds great, but there is a problem. The men of Group 1a match each other, but they do not match the men in Group 2a, and vice versa. Clearly, however, if the six men with the solid paper trails back to Christopher Gist actually descend from him in his Y-chromosome, father-to-son line, they should all match. In other words, we should not have a Group 1a and a separate Group 2a. The Y-DNA descendants of Christopher Gist should all match and form a single group.
Without going into too great detail and listing kit numbers and names on a public web site, what can be gleaned from the matches within the groups, and from their shared Gist ancestors, is that the cause of this problem, whatever it was, arose at Generation 2: Richard Gist (1683-1741) and Zipporah Murray.
Since all of the paper trail claims 1) are traceable in the Dorsey book, 2) appear to be valid, and 3) are supported by Y-chromosome matches to other men who share Gist ancestors in common, Nathaniel on the one hand, and William on the other, it is apparent from the Y-DNA evidence that Nathaniel and William were not biological brothers. The only other explanation is that one or the other group of three claimants (six men total) has grievous errors in its pedigree or that perhaps both do. That does not seem likely, given the Y-DNA matches within the groups and the fact that they are all readily traceable in the Dorsey book.
So which man was an actual biological son of Richard Gist: Nathaniel or William? Honestly, we do not know. The Y-DNA evidence as it stands cannot answer that question. Perhaps neither of them was.
What occurred in this case is what is known in genetic genealogy as an NPE (Non-Paternal Event): sexual indiscretion, informal adoption (very common in early North America), or a simple surname change. As I mentioned above, whatever it was, it took place at Generation 2: Richard Gist (1683-1741) and Zipporah Murray.
There is a tantalizing documentary clue that all was not as it should have been with the marriage of Richard and Zipporah. The following is from Baltimore County, Maryland, Deeds (I.S. No. H., p. 69, Hall of Records, Annapolis, Maryland), and is quoted on page 8 of the Dorsey book:
What happened? We do not know. Perhaps we never will know, but as things stand, neither group of three men can claim clear title to Y-chromosome descent from Christopher Gist the immigrant. Those in Group 1a are brickwalled at Nathaniel (c. 1707), who may or may not have been a biological son of Richard Gist. Those in Group 2a are brickwalled at William (c. 1711), who likewise may or may not have been a biological son of Richard Gist.
I hope that does not offend anyone, but those are the facts. The Y-DNA evidence as it stands cannot resolve this dilemma; in fact, it is what exposed its existence. (It did not create it. It merely revealed it.) Without Y-DNA testing, no one would have been the wiser. All would have assumed the men in Group 1a and the men in Group 2a were distant cousins all descended in common from Christopher Gist the 17th century English immigrant.
What can be done about this? Well, Richard Gist had two other sons (at least on paper): Christopher the very famous frontier scout and explorer (c. 1705), and Thomas (c. 1712). We need Y-DNA test results from a Y-chromosome descendant or from Y-chromosome descendants of one or both of them, preferably from descendants of both.
Good luck with that! But we can dream (and pray).
Hope all that is clear.
Richard Stevens
24 October 2020
Update: 24 January 2023
Big Y-700 SNP test results for kit 25861 in Group 1 show that his current terminal SNP makes him R1b-BY132893, under R1b-L21 and R1b-Z253. That means that it can be inferred that all of Group 1 has a very similar SNP profile, perhaps differing in some cases only in the final, branch-defining terminal SNP.
A la carte SNP testing of some members of Group 2 has revealed that its members are R1b-DF83, under R1b-DF27. This makes it clear that Groups 1 and 2 cannot be related on the Y-chromosome line in genealogical time, which, of course, we already knew from STR test results.
There are currently 11 separate groups in this project. Of those, only subsets of Groups 1 and 2, 1a and 2a, include men who have gap-free paper trails purporting to trace their ancestry back through Richard Gist to his father Christopher Gist. There are three such men in Group 1a, and three such men in Group 2a. All six of them have paper trails that are readily traceable in the Dorsey book. You will no doubt notice that only two men appear on our public web site in Group 1a. That is because one of its members, who passed away in 2010, did not test with Family Tree DNA. Instead he had 32-marker Y-DNA STR results from the old, now-defunct company Relative Genetics, which was acquired by AncestryDNA around 2008.
All three of the men in Group 1a who trace their lines back to Richard Gist, and thence to his father Christopher, do so by way of Richard's son Nathaniel (c. 1707 - after 1787). All three of the men in Group 2a who trace their lines back to Richard Gist, and thence to his father Christopher, do so by way of Richard's son William (c. 1711 - after 1794).
Sounds great, but there is a problem. The men of Group 1a match each other, but they do not match the men in Group 2a, and vice versa. Clearly, however, if the six men with the solid paper trails back to Christopher Gist actually descend from him in his Y-chromosome, father-to-son line, they should all match. In other words, we should not have a Group 1a and a separate Group 2a. The Y-DNA descendants of Christopher Gist should all match and form a single group.
Without going into too great detail and listing kit numbers and names on a public web site, what can be gleaned from the matches within the groups, and from their shared Gist ancestors, is that the cause of this problem, whatever it was, arose at Generation 2: Richard Gist (1683-1741) and Zipporah Murray.
Since all of the paper trail claims 1) are traceable in the Dorsey book, 2) appear to be valid, and 3) are supported by Y-chromosome matches to other men who share Gist ancestors in common, Nathaniel on the one hand, and William on the other, it is apparent from the Y-DNA evidence that Nathaniel and William were not biological brothers. The only other explanation is that one or the other group of three claimants (six men total) has grievous errors in its pedigree or that perhaps both do. That does not seem likely, given the Y-DNA matches within the groups and the fact that they are all readily traceable in the Dorsey book.
So which man was an actual biological son of Richard Gist: Nathaniel or William? Honestly, we do not know. The Y-DNA evidence as it stands cannot answer that question. Perhaps neither of them was.
What occurred in this case is what is known in genetic genealogy as an NPE (Non-Paternal Event): sexual indiscretion, informal adoption (very common in early North America), or a simple surname change. As I mentioned above, whatever it was, it took place at Generation 2: Richard Gist (1683-1741) and Zipporah Murray.
There is a tantalizing documentary clue that all was not as it should have been with the marriage of Richard and Zipporah. The following is from Baltimore County, Maryland, Deeds (I.S. No. H., p. 69, Hall of Records, Annapolis, Maryland), and is quoted on page 8 of the Dorsey book:
This is to certify and give Notice to All Persons whatsoever that I Richard Gist of Baltimore County
doe forwarne all manner of persons whatsoever to have any dealings with my wife Zipporah Gist
to take or receive any Thing Watsoever upon pretence Whatsoever That is belonging to me or in
any wise Whatsoever kind if that person Shall presume to doe that It be their own Peril given under
my hand this Aug 1724.
What happened? We do not know. Perhaps we never will know, but as things stand, neither group of three men can claim clear title to Y-chromosome descent from Christopher Gist the immigrant. Those in Group 1a are brickwalled at Nathaniel (c. 1707), who may or may not have been a biological son of Richard Gist. Those in Group 2a are brickwalled at William (c. 1711), who likewise may or may not have been a biological son of Richard Gist.
I hope that does not offend anyone, but those are the facts. The Y-DNA evidence as it stands cannot resolve this dilemma; in fact, it is what exposed its existence. (It did not create it. It merely revealed it.) Without Y-DNA testing, no one would have been the wiser. All would have assumed the men in Group 1a and the men in Group 2a were distant cousins all descended in common from Christopher Gist the 17th century English immigrant.
What can be done about this? Well, Richard Gist had two other sons (at least on paper): Christopher the very famous frontier scout and explorer (c. 1705), and Thomas (c. 1712). We need Y-DNA test results from a Y-chromosome descendant or from Y-chromosome descendants of one or both of them, preferably from descendants of both.
Good luck with that! But we can dream (and pray).
Hope all that is clear.
Richard Stevens
24 October 2020
Update: 24 January 2023
Big Y-700 SNP test results for kit 25861 in Group 1 show that his current terminal SNP makes him R1b-BY132893, under R1b-L21 and R1b-Z253. That means that it can be inferred that all of Group 1 has a very similar SNP profile, perhaps differing in some cases only in the final, branch-defining terminal SNP.
A la carte SNP testing of some members of Group 2 has revealed that its members are R1b-DF83, under R1b-DF27. This makes it clear that Groups 1 and 2 cannot be related on the Y-chromosome line in genealogical time, which, of course, we already knew from STR test results.