The DNA study by itself cannot prove that anyone is a descendant of Richard Pace of Jamestown. The paperwork has to first prove that a particular line of Paces are descendants of Richard of Jamestown, then the DNA study can be used to determine if other participants share a common ancestor with the participants who can prove their lineage to Richard of Jamestown. As there have been questions created about the long-accepted link between Richard Pace of NC being the descendant of Richard of Jamestown, these questions have to be resolved with the paper trail before anyone can say that DNA has shown they are RELATED to Richard of Jamestown.

In fact, we have very little DNA evidence for most of the Pace lines. The DNA study has been very effective in determining that there are at least two main groups of Paces in the United States - and also other Pace lines which have not had as much research performed and WRITTEN about. We have learned that the John Pace of Middlesex line, the majority (or the most written about) of the NC Pace lines, and the Michael Pace/Pees lines are very distinct lines and have no common ancestor in "modern" times.

But, as for Group 3 of the Pace DNA study, we really have very little representation of family lines in the DNA project. Most of the Group 3a participants are descendants of William Pace and Ruth Lambert - a line that has several theories of the lineage back to the early Richard Pace of NC. Other participants are from two different Hardy Paces, an unconnected George Pace, and two participants whose DNA results can only give us the *ancestral* DNA results for Richard Pace whose wife was Elizabeth Cain - and not any further back.

Group 3b is not any better in representation.
Basically there are three lines represented

1. the John Pace (wife Sarah) of Surry Co., NC,
2. the William Pace (wife Sicely Walker) line,
3. and the Jesse Pace line.

We have been advised by FTDNA
that Group 3a and Group 3b
share a common ancestor and that a rare 2-step change occurred
that separates these two groups.

At this point
we have no way of telling when and with which Pace this change occurred. So few North Carolina Pace lines are represented in the DNA study.

We really need
Pace descendants with documented lines to the early RICHARD PACE of NC that descend from lines other than RICHARD PACE (wife ELIZABETH CAIN) to find participants from their lines to be tested.

Until we have participants
from other documented lines we will not be able to determine when the split between Groups 3a and 3b occurred.

DNA testing still has the potential
to help many NC Pace descendants determine where they fit in the Pace family tree, especially if the split between Groups 3a and 3b can be determined.

This has been discussed
in greater detail at the Pace Society reunion this past summer and a more detailed article will be appearing in an upcoming issue of the Pace Society quarterly Bulletin.

Rebecca Christensen - 09/11/2005

---

on Results and Donors pages of DNA study.
for kit 53888 There is a perfect match with 13827
both showing lineage to RICHMOND PACE and possibly JESSE PACE, with a common mutation in marker 2.

Roy Johnson - 24/04/2006 - DNA coordinator

---

New results
have been posted on the DNA page for 57109
This submission goes back only to the donor's grandfather Cosby Alonzo Pace b. 1878 Cochran, GA, died prob. Brunswick, TN.

The results place this line clearly in group 3a, and should be helpful in seeking further evidence. Perhaps the town names of Cochran, GA, and Brunswick, TN will also help.

Roy Johnson - 06/05/2006 - DNA coordinator

---

Interesting new results posted from donor 55605
showing that this person is in group 3a
but an interesting mutation in marker 23.

Also, I made changes in the explanation of groups 3a and 3b. I became confused between the three Richards mentioned in the Winifred Aycock Lane letter (her father, grandfather, and great grandfather), and no one caught it and yelled at me. Please read the new explanations in the Results page and see if they make sense.

For those who may be unfamiliar with the Lane letter: We have hard evidence that Richard of Jamestown had son George and grandson Richard, but here the paper trail vanishes.

The only record we have of possible descendents was written in 1791 by an old lady, Winifred Aycock Lane, relying on her memory as told to her by her mother. She says her father was Richard and Grandfather was Richard, Jr., and that they came from Virginia in a place where "five counties meet".

No such place has been found, but it is assumed (but not proven) that her great grandfather Richard was the aforementioned grandson of Richard of Jamestown. She gives the names of her grandfather's brothers. Those same names were found in North Carolina and assumed to be the brothers.

DNA evidence supports that these Paces had a common ancestor within the necessary time span, thus supporting (but not proving) that they are brothers and could be descendents of Richard of Jamestown. In addition, the lone UK Pace in this group, whose ancestry is from London, matches closely enough to lead to the conclusion that the common ancestor was from London, as Richard of Jamestown was.

To see three versions of the Lane letter and discussion,
go to The PACE NETWORK:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~pace/documnts/aycock.htm

Roy Johnson
DNA coordinator

---

FTDNA has come up with
an exciting new feature called FTDNATip that allows closer comparison of two individuals with a percentage display of how far in the past their common ancestor might be.

One of the best applications of this
is for us to determine the possibilities for the John of Middlesex group
with GTP(of England) and DHP(of America); both having had 37 marker tests, with 25/25 matches on the first 25 and a couple of mismatches in the 26-37 area, making them perfect specimens.

I ran the comparisons for them and got:

In comparing 37 markers,
the probability that DHP and GTP shared a common ancestor
within the last...

• 100 years is 26.85%
• 200 years is 65.86%
• 300 years is 87.35%
• 400 years is 95.88%
• 500 years is 98.76%
• 600 years is 99.65%.

I have not had time to apply this to any of the sub groups in the Richard descendents. The tool is available only to project administrators at present, but will soon be available to all, so that you can compare your results with anyone else's that you choose.

Roy Johnson - 03/12/2004 - DNA administrator