Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:43:12 -0230 (NDT)
From: David Pike 
To: pike-dna-l@rootsweb.com
Subject: a new result and some followups



Hi everybody.

I have three things to mention in this message:

1. a new result for "Group 6"
2. a followup about the ancestry of John Baxter Pike
3. a followup about Hugh Pike of Newbury, Massachusetts




I'll start this email bulletin with a new DNA result, for Todd (kit 
211554) who received the results of his 37-marker test in mid-September. 
And for what is the 14th time in our project we have encountered a perfect 
37-marker match, this time between Todd and some of the members of our 
"Group 6".  This genetic cluster traces its origins back to James and 
Naomi Pike who lived at Charlestown and Reading, Massachusetts in the 
1600s.

As it happens, Todd is a third cousin of Stuart (48191).  They initially 
found each other through a paper trail at ancestry.com, but some questions 
and uncertainty left some doubt about their connection.  Fortunately DNA 
testing has now confirmed their relationship and validated the paper 
trail.




In July I distributed an email message in which I went into detail about 
the ancestry of Stephen (kit 196644), including a biography published in 
February 1810 regarding Stephen's ancestor John Baxter Pike.  This 
biography suggested that John Baxter Pike might descend from a son of 
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola.

At the time we had no basis for comparison on which to judge this theory. 
However, our project was shortly thereafter joined by Jean Francois 
Mirandolle (kit 212280) whose paternal ancestry traces back to the same 
Pico family from Mirandola as Giovanni.  Jean Francois tested 37 markers. 
And with his test results we can now see that there isn't any similarity 
between his DNA results and those of Stephen or the rest of our project's 
"Group 1" (to which Stephen belongs).  Indeed, Jean Francois' DNA places 
him into Haplogroup I1, whereas our "Group 1" fits into Haplogroup R1a.

Regarding other members of our project who belong to Haplogroup I1, it is 
Bryan (kit 28606) who most closely matches Jean Francois.  However, at 37 
markers they have 12 differences between them, which is more than enough 
to rule out having common paternal ancestry within the past several 
hundred years.

So at this point it seems that the writer of the biography of John Baxter 
Pike was either misinformed or else was exercising dramatic licence when 
he penned his words.  It is curious though that John Baxter Pike himself 
did not offer any corrections or clarifications in the response that he 
wrote in March 1810 to the biography that had been prematurely published 
as an obituary for him a month earlier: 
http://books.google.ca/books?id=7LQRAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA562&ots=lq4a25Jv6P&dq=%22monthly%20magazine%20or%20british%20register%22%201810&pg=PA109#v=onepage&q&f=false




Jogging people's memories a bit more, back in June we had news about DNA 
results of a descendant of Hugh Pike who lived in Massachusetts in the 
1600s, and which led us to create "Group 18" within our project.  In the 
message that I distributed I wrote that Hugh had taken an oath of 
allegiance in 1676, at which time he was described as being a foreigner.

It appears that the description of Hugh as a "foreigner" has been 
propagated for over a hundred years, at least since a 1904 publication of 
the Pike Family Association when an M. L. Pike made note of an oath of 
allegiance and fidelity and in the same sentence described Hugh as a 
"foreigner".  However, there seems to be no foundation for this 
description.

Although I have not seen the original documentation that shows that Hugh 
took an oath, on pages 178-181 of the book "History of Newbury, Mass., 
1635-1902" by John James Currier, it is stated that the authorities in 
Massachusetts had been instructed "that the oath of Allegiance as it is by 
law established wthin the Kingdome of England, be ministered and taken by 
all his subjects within this colony who are of years to take an oath". 
This book can be viewed online by clicking on the "PDF" link at 
http://www.archive.org/details/historyofnewbury1902curr

Page 179 of this book provides a citation to where the original document 
could be found as of 1902, namely at the office of the clerk of courts at 
Salem, Quarterly Court Files, book xxx, leaf 56.  What might be a true 
copy appears to also be in the Registry of Deeds (Ipswich series), book 
iv, leaf 254.

Another early reference to this oath is on page 349 of the October 1853 
issue of the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, which you 
can view here: 
http://books.google.ca/books?id=YQcQAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA349&ots=pEkSCM_TL7&dq=%22hugh%20pike%22%201678%20oath&pg=PA349#v=onepage&q=%22hugh%20pike%22%201678%20oath&f=false

In summary, there is no hint in these early records that Hugh was anything 
other than a typical English settler, and so his subsequent description as 
a "foreigner" would appear to be an embellishment that ought not to have 
been applied.  At this point I want to express my gratitude to Betty Tripp 
(who is one of several people on our mailing list) for asking me to look 
more closely into Hugh's description as a "foreigner" so that the record 
could be set straight.

Thanks,

- David.