Swinfield DNA & Genealogy - Results

Two tests have been processed through FTDNA. These are for myself, Geoffrey Mark Swinfield, and my 3rd cousin, Graham Albert Swinfield. We both descend from Sarah Swinfield (1806-1862). She married Thomas Swinfield in 1829 at Trowell, Notts. We are part of "Family 5 & 5A" (see the Goals page on this site for an outline of the main Swinfield trees). She had two sons who have living descendants:

Kit: 156002
1. William (1841 Earl Shilton, Leics - 1905 Camberley, Surrey)
2. Arthur (1883 Earl Shilton - 1956 Camberley)
3. Reginald Ernest (1925 Camberley - living)
4. Geoffrey Mark (1951 Frimley, Surrey - living)

Kit E5902
1. Joseph (1843 Earl Shilton - 1905 Barton under Needwood, Staffs)
2. William (1870 Alrewas, Staffs - 1945 Staffs)
3. Geoffrey (1934 Burton, Staffs - 1988 Derbys)
4. Graham Albert (1957 Burton, Staffs - living)

Testee 393  390 19 391  385a  385b 426 388 439  389a 392  389b 458  459a  459b 455 454 447 437 448 449  464a  464b  464c  464d 460 GATA-H4  YCAIIa  YCAIIb 456 607 576 570  CDYa CDYb 442 438
Geoff Swinfield 14 22 16 10 14 14 11 15 11 12 11 29 16 9 9 11 11 23 16 21 32 13 13 13 14 11 11 20 20 15 13 14 17 35 38 11 10
Graham Swinfield  14 22 16 10 14 14 11 15 11 12 11 29 16 9 9 11 11 23 16 21 33 13 13 13 14 11 11 20 20 15 13 14 17 36 38 11 10

The test results place us in Haplogroup G2a3b1a2a, which represents far less than 1% of the British population. Furthermore, we both have a very rare value at DYS388=15 (as opposed to the normal value of 13). There is only a difference between us at two marker sites. We share a very recent common (and unusual!) male ancestor.

At first sight, both appear to have a legitimate genetic relationship. However, William Swinfield is genealogically legitimate, based on his birth certificate. Joseph was the illegitimate son of Sarah with no father's name recorded. Whoever was the father of Joseph, that man was also the genetic father of William. Presumably, it was not her husband, Thomas Swinfield. The best candidate would certainly be Thomas Brown, her habitual lodger, an unmarried man who lived with her and the Swinfield children and grandchildren from 1841 to his death in 1892.

It was not known what became of Thomas Swinfield, Sarah's husband, who was baptised at Earl Shilton in 1808. No burial or death is recorded for him. Until very recently, he could not be found in any census from 1841 to 1911 and seemed to have abandoned his wife and family. Thanks to the efforts of another family member, Sandra Bates, it now seems that he had run off to live in Calverton, Nottinghamshire, with Maria Cooper by whom he had a daughter named Elizabeth Swinfield Cooper in 1839. In 1841, he was enumerated, for some reason, as George Swinfield aged 30. In 1851, he recorded that he was born in “Earl Shelton” about 1808 and was listed as Thomas Swnfield (sic). This must be him!

An even more exciting discovery is that by 1860 Thomas G. and Maria Swinfield had emigrated to Portsmouth, Rockingham County in New Hampshire, USA. On that census, they are recorded living with Elizabeth Warburton, aged 22, surely their newly-married daughter and her husband. By 1870 Thomas was with Amy Swinfield and in 1880 his wife was named as Charlotte A. Swinfield, a native of Nova Scotia. In City Directories of 1888 to 1892, he and his “fourth wife” are living apart! What a character!

Thomas Swinfield's brother, William, who was baptised there in 1813, died in 1885. He had a son, George (1843-1885) who is the ancestor of a number of lines of male descent through his sons, George Ernest (1876-1948), John Anthony (1878-1964) and Joseph Herbert (1880-1948). The youngest of these was the great-grandfather to my 4th cousin:

1. George (1843 Earl Shilton - Hinckley, Leics)
2. Joseph Herbert (1880 Humberston, Leics - 1948 Leicester)
3. Joseph Edward (1905 Leicester - 1990 Leicester)
4. Derrick George Joseph (1928 Leicester - living)

A DNA test, conducted by another company, for Derrick George Swinfield, a representative of "Family 5F", reveals that he has a completely different Y-chromosome. He is Haplogroup R1b1a2, one of the commonest groups, found in the majority of men from Western Europe. Of 43 markers tested, we only match at 9! Our common ancestor lived many thousands of years ago, not in the early 19th century!

If Derrick has the typical "Swinfield" Y-chromosome, it has certainly not passed down our line through my great-grandfather, William. Comparing Derrick George Joseph (of Family 5) with Paul Frederick Swinfield (born 1957 Crayford - Kit: 195852) and Andrew John Swinfield of Sydney, Australia (born 1957 NSW - Kit: 240372), who are both members of "Family 3", these two separate lineages being unrelated at present, based on genealogical sources (again see the Goals page of this site for their respective pedigrees), they are virtually identical. Paul and Derrick differ at only 1 marker out of the 32 for which they have both been scored. 

Andrew has a different haplotype from Derrick at 3 of the same 32 markers. Andrew, in New South Wales, who is the 4th cousin, once removed, to Paul of Lincoln, has only a different STR value at 3 of 37 places along their respective Y-chromosomes.  

Tests have now also been performed on two other Swinfield men. One is Maxwell Henry Swinfield (born 1929 NSW - Kit: 265546), another Australian. He is part of "Family 12". The other is John Arnold Swinfield (born 1966 Loughborough - Kit: 310832), a member of "Family 2". Neither lineage can currently be connected to the other main families of 3 and 5 or to each other.


Family 393 390 19 391 385a 385b 426 388 439 389a 392 389b 458 459a 459b 455 454 447 437 448 449 464a 464b 464c 464d 460 GATA-H4 YCAIIa YCAIIb 456 607 576 570 CDYa CDYb 442 438
Derrick Swinfield 5F 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 11 24 14 19 30 15 16 17 17 11 11 19 23 15




12 12
John Swinfield 2 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 11 24 14 19 30 15 16 17 17 11 11 19 23 15 14 18 17 35 36 12 12
Maxwell Swinfield 12 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 11 24 14 19 30 15 16 17 17 11 11 19 23 15 14 19 17 35 36 12 12
Paul Swinfield 3 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 11 24 14 19 30 15 16 17 17 11 11 19 23 15 14 19 17 35 36 12 12
Andrew Swinfield 3A 13 24 14 10 11 14 12 12 11 13 13 29 17 9 9 11 11 24 14 19 30 15 16 16 17 11 11 19 23 15 14 19 17 35 37 12 12

Most importantly, Maxwell and Derrick appear to be identical to each other, matching at all 32 markers at which both have been tested! This must surely lead us to the conclusion that families 12 and 5 have a common origin. John of family 2 has a "genetic distance" of only 1, differing from Maxwell at DYS 576. Paul has a genetic distance of 1, also having a different value at marker DYS 391. Andrew, Paul's cousin, has a GD of 4 from Maxwell, having a different STR value at three other markers. However, they do share a common mutation at DYS 391 where, unlike the other three men, they have a value of 10.   

John, Derrick, Maxwell and Paul all seem to have a "typical" Swinfield Y-chromosome. It is now very likely that the four families which they represent (2, 3, 5 & 12) have the same origin. They must surely share a common ancestor, within the last seven centuries, since the surname of Swinfield came into existence!  

At the Australian Swinfield Gathering, held at Ryde in Sydney, on 3rd May 2014, three more men were tested. Each represented a branch of Family 3. All have as their great-great-grandfather, William Swinfield (1804-1876) who emigrated in 1848. Leslie Ernest (born 1932, NSW - Kit: 310833), Raymond Francis (born 1934, NSW - Kit: 310834) and Ian George (born 1946, NSW - Kit: 310753) are third cousins and also have that same relationship to John William Swinfield, the father of Andrew John, who had already been tested from Family 3A. All are cousins of the English representative of that family, Paul Frederick. Interestingly, a value of 10 at DYS 391 appears to be a characteristic of Family 3. Once again there was a very close match between these three new samples and those results shown in the table above. Only five markers, highlighted above, show variation between these eight men. They match at all the other 32 markers for which they have all been tested.

The differences in their haplotypes can be highlighted as:


Family 391 459b 464c 576 CDYb Genetic







distance
Derrick Swinfield 5F 11 10 17

0
Maxwell Swinfield 12 & 7 & 30 11 10 17 19 36 0
John Arnold Swinfield 2 & 9 11 10 17 18 36 1
Paul Swinfield 3 & 13 10 10 17 19 36 1
Andrew John Swinfield 3A 10 9 16 19 37 4
Leslie Ernest Swinfield 3A 10 10 16 19 36 2
Raymond Francis Swinfield 3B 10 10 16 19 36 2
Ian George Swinfield 3C 10 10 16 18 36 3

The "normal" Swinfield Haplotype can now be suggested as: 

DYS Value
DYS Value
393 13
448 19
390 24
449 30
19 14
464a 15
391 10 or 11
464b 16
385a 11
464c 16 or 17
385b 14
464d 17
426 12
460 11
388 12
GATA-H4 11
439 11
YCAlla 19
389a 13
YCAllab 23
392 13
456 15
389b 29
607 14
458 17
576 18 or 19
459a 9
570 17
459b 9 or 10
CDYa 35
455 11
CDYb 36 or 37
454 11
442 12
447 24
438 12
437 14



What haplotype do other untested branches of the Swinfield family have? We have yet to test a member of the other large branch, Family 1. Is there a single origin to our rare surname?