GROUP 01

JONAS HILL, b/c1763 Granville Co., NC, d/31 August 1840 Franklin Co., TN. Wife #1/Susan MARCHBANKS. Ch: (1) Perry b/1775-85 SC - d/1840 TN, (2) unknown son b/1775-85 SC). Wife #2/Mary BARNES. Ch: (1) Margaret A. 1813-1901; (2) William 1816-1894; (3) Henry J. 1818-1870+; (4) Claybourn 1821-????; (5) Bailey 1823/29-1875; (6) Martha Ann 1826-1897; (7) Scarlett A. 1827-1862; (8) Mary S. 1829-c1848; (9) Jesse C. 1832-1910; (10) Elizabeth 1837-1900. Remarks: The most important primary source of information for Jonas HILL is found in his 23 Jan 1833 declaration (before the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Tennessee) to obtain pension benefits under the Act of 1832, at the age of 70. At an early age, his parents moved him to Surry Co., NC where he joined the military service (Rev. War) in 1781. After the War he moved to Pendleton Dist., SC where he lived near his brother Henry until around 1806/07 and then moved to Overton Co., TN. In 1808 he married Mary Barnes and moved to Franklin Co., TN, where he lived the remainder of his life.

GROUP 05

Earliest proven lineages connect to William Hill (b. 1740 ?, lived in Surry Co. NC, d.c. 1840) and a Sion Hill (b.c. 1740 ? - d.c. 1780, Wake Co. NC). The exact connection between these two men is unknown, The ancestry of each progenitor remains unproven, but there is considerable information on each to be discussed among the Participants. A large number of participants in this group connect via traditional research and DNA to Green B. Hill (c.1775 VA-1856/58 AL).

GROUP 06

A group 6 member has started a website/blog dedicated to Group 6 that you may find useful at: www.hillfamily.org

GROUPS 12a, 12b, 12c

There are DNA branches for Group 12a, 12b, 12c, for descendants from an unknown but mutual recent common ancestor (MRCA). There are at least 2 and possibly 3 lines to this MRCA suggested by paper documentation. Group 12a lineages are proven to William Hill (1700 VA - 1787 NC) who married Susannah Smither. Group 12b leads to to John Hill (bef 1710 - c1780) of Amelia County who was the brother of the William Hill in Group 12a. Finally, the Group 12c lineages are proven to William Hill (c1742 – c1787) of Amherst. There is documentation suggesting that the William Hill of Group 12c is a grandson of John Hill of Amelia County. However, this linkage has not yet been proven. For more than 80 years genealogists have wondered if James Hill of Amherst Co. VA. who m/Anne Overton might be related to William Hill of Amherst. DNA does not support this  (see Group 28, Kit: #146171). An additional DNA sample from another line to James Hill is needed for verification.

GROUP 16

This Group contains the DNA of six participants who are each descended from five different sons born of Henry Hill and Ann Truman of Maryland prior to 1750! There is a lot of research available on this family.

GROUP 20

This Group consists of descendants of three of the sons of Thomas Hill and Catherine Shropshire (Elijah, James and Winkfield). There is a lot of existing history and research available on this family. Please encourage anyone wishing to confirm a connection to this line to get tested and we will make sure that anyone who matches with this group is connected with the leading researchers

GROUP 21

This Group includes a participant who for years has been studying the well known Robert Hill/Mary Webb line. This participant's family is from the Chatham Co. NC area and he is believed to be a descendant of Hill/Webb. DNA testing however has not yet proven this because none of the participants in any of our Groups who claim to be descended from Hill/Webb match. We feel certain that with more participants in the study, these questions will be answered.

GROUP 23

Though this group has not yet divided into two separate groups, it was suggested by one of the participants. Discussion among the group is encouraged and comments are welcome.

GROUP 26

On our 3rd Party website, there was a rather elaborate timeline of information and test result history posted by the contact for Kit# 24699, but it is a little too complex to post here. We welcome a more concise write up on that if possible.

GROUPS 28a, 28b

This lineage originated in the northern portion of the Fertile Crescent where it later spread throughout central Asia, the Mediterranean, and south into India. As with other populations with Mediterranean ancestry this lineage is found within Jewish populations. Among the members of Group 28a and 28b, here is an unusually wide range of relationship among THREE of these participants. At the 37 Marker level, KIT 23395 and KIT 201564 are -2 related to each other (RELATED). At the 37 Marker level, KIT 23395 and KIT 201564 are -4 to 219085 (ONLY PROBABLY RELATED). KIT 219085 is related much closer to all others in Group 28. Group 28a and 28b were formed, and 23395 and 201564 have been moved to Group 28b, and noted as some relation to Group 28a. 

GROUP 32

Because this group has so many mismatches in the 37 Marker panel (4), it is highly recommended that each participant consider refining to 67 Markers.

GROUP 49

Per FTDNA analysis at the 37 Marker level: Participants 177107 and 179949 are only possibly related. With a 32/37 match you share the same surname (or a variant) with another male and you mismatch by five 'points' --a 32/37 match. It is most likely that you did not 12/12 or 24/25 or 25/25 in previous Y-DNA tests. If several or many generations have passed it is possible that these two group members are related through other family members. That would require that each line had experienced separate mutations and one person would have experienced at least 2 mutations. The only way to confirm or deny is to test additional family lines and find where the mutation took place. Only by testing additional family members can you find the person in between each of you...this 'in betweener' becomes essential for you to find, and without him only the possibility of a match exists, further evidence should be pursued. Special notation: 67 Marker extended testing for Participant 177107 will either prove or disprove the relation between Participants 177107 and 179949. The 32/37 match is unusual within the project, and for now the kits have been grouped as "possibly related" per the FTDNA analysis above.

GROUP 53

Note based on the FTDNA's response to one of our participant's recent inquiry: The R-L1 haplogroup is a branch of the R-M269 broad haplogroup.  In order for someone to be positive for R-L1 they would also need to first be positive for R-M269.  Chances are that your closest matches would also be R-L1 if they were to test for the R-M269 haplogroup.  If they have not tested for any haplogroups, the system would just predict the broader haplogroup which would be R-M269. In order to be positive if a member is R-L1, rather than R-M269 one would have to take an SNP test for the SNP L1.

GROUP 65

On December 13, 2015, as administrator I asked the FTDNA the following: "KIT 279586 and KIT 43363 are matched strong (by matching standards for 37 Markers), yet their Haplotype is not the same. Please advise if I should group them together or not". The FTDNA responded:  "The only reason why they have different Terminal SNPs (the numbers and letters after the R) is because (43363) has taken more SNP testing. They are still apart of the same haplogroup. You can still group them together. Thank you for contacting us and have a great day"! --Chabrelle W, Information Specialist, Family