Branches‎ > ‎

Byars - Parrish Branch

by Philip Shaddock



There have been people with the Byars and Parrish surnames who have done advanced NGS DNA testing and proven to be Shattocke descendants. They have an SNP mutation called Y16884 that identifies them as sharing a common ancestor with all Shattockes. They also have a mutation called A8033 that other branches of the Shattockes do not share.  Nor do other people with the Byars and Parrish surnames. They are genetically unique, a branch of the Shattocke family. You can see this branch of Shattockes on the far left of the family tree above. The evidence so far is that the branch split from the Shattockes approximately in 1640. 

The Byars and Parrishs are a result of an NPE (non parental event). They are either descended from a Byars or Parrish mother and a Shattocke father, or they are descended from a Shattocke baby adopted by a Byars or Parrish family. 

But a chicken and egg question still remains. Was it a Byars or Parrish who first branched off the Shattockes?  

If you look on the far left of the Shattocke family tree at the top of the page you will see how I have laid out the Byars - Parrish branching. Around 1730 a new SNP mutation occurred, Y19410. The Y19410 SNP splits the Parrishs into a main branch and a sub-branch. In the absence of an SNP mutation to sort the Byars and Parrishs into sub-branches, we do have the difference in the surnames. It is very likely the Byars have a common ancestor and the Parrishs have a common ancestor. So I have given the Byars their own branch in the Byars - Parrish family tree.

The fact we have not found shared private SNPs among Byars or Parrishs suggests the people we have NGS tested so far are distantly related.  We do  have another way of determining how closely the Parrishs are related to each other and to the Byars. We have the STR results for the four Parrishs and two Byars. To see how the new Byars STR results compare to each other and to other Parrishs, check out the spreadsheet I have created for managing the results for DNA results. (It is available in its usual spot on Google Drive. If you want to get a copy of the spreadsheet, subscribe to the mailing list. Or write me.)

The spreadsheet shows a different type of mutation than SNP mutations, called STR mutations. In the column are the STRs used for genealogical purposes, also known as "STR genetic markers."

When you look at the all the Parrishs and Byars grouped together what strikes you is that they appear to be much more closely related to each other than they are to the Shattockes in the other branches. That is to be expected since they genetically diverged from Shattockes sometime before 1640. That's eleven generations ago or more. STR mutations are quite active compared to SNP mutations, so that is lots of time for Byars and Parrishs to genetically diverge from other Shattockes, as far as the STR mutations go.

The key STR that groups the Parrishs and Byars together is the CDY double marker, shown in the spreadsheet  in blue and grey columns, as having the values 37 and 39 for most of the Parrishs and Byars. (Not all Byars and Parrish descendants have these values. The STR markers tend to bounce around a bit over time.) This STR sets the Parrish - Byars apart from other Shattockes. 

I have color coded certain marker results in green to indicate the "signature markers" that indicate descent from a common ancestor. Each of the Shattock branches have their signature markers and the Byars and Parrishs have their own signature markers. 

The most important signature marker for Parrishs and Byars is the DYS444=13 marker. The Parrish and Byars are the only branch of Shattockes who show 13 repeats for this marker. All other branches show a value of 12 repeats. However there is an exception among the Byars. Tim Byars and Walter Byars have a value of 12 for this marker, along with Chris Simmons who has an uncertain genealogy, other than the fact he is positive for A8033. The DYS444 marker is stable enough to use it like an SNP mutation and divide the Byars into two separate branches, as shown in the tree at the top of this page. Since "12" appears to be the legacy value for DYS444, we might assume that Walter's ancestor came before Frank's, but the marker could have just as easily dropped a repeat from 13 to 12. 

Here is the interesting point. If it is the case that Walter's DYS444 marker never gained a value, then it was a Byars that was the son of the Shattocke who was DYS444=12. It would be the case that Byars came before Parrishs. However the argument against this is the fact Tim Byars and Chris Simmons are DYS444=12. This could mean they probably descend from a common ancestor with Walter but we cannot be sure if this marker lost a marker or never changed in the first place but held its value from a Shattocke common ancestor.

There is an argument for the theory the marker never changed and that it is was a Byars descendant of a Byars that gained a repeat. The DYS444 marker is very, very stable for an STR marker. At no time in the last 600 odd years among hundreds of Shattockes in the other branches has the marker changed from its value of 12, although it is possible, but not likely, it changed to 13 and then back to 12. That is not likely because it is a very slow moving STR and would have had to have changed twice in the last 350 odd years. And if you look even further back in history the marker seems to most commonly had 12 repeats, although again it may be the case that it becomes unstable at 13 and quickly reverts to 12. However its apparent stability makes it more probable that a Byars child was born to a Shattocke male rather than a Parrish child. But again, this is a problem with STR markers. 

The fact that Frank Byars is DYS444=13, while Walter Ryland Byars is DYS444=12 means that the split between the Byars and Parrishs must have occurred after Walter Ryland's ancestor and before or Frank Dwight's ancestor. Then somewhere after Frank Dwight's ancestor the Parrish NPE event occurred. But this line of reasoning is contradicted to some extent with what we find in the records. According to Marth Byars "The earliest born known Byars Z36 patriarch was born abt 1735. He was Tim Byar’s ancestor. The next was born 1749." And according to Don Parrish the earliest known born Parrish patriarch was in 1680 (Humphrey Parrish). The chicken and the egg question, which came first, is up in the air. The chicken flies.

The Genealogical Evidence

This question may ultimately be settled by genealogical evidence. 

Is there a link back to England? Can we find Byars or Parrishs in the south western English county of Somerset where Shattockes originated? Byars or Byas is a name I could not find anywhere in Somerset up to 1700. And I found very few Parrishs. I did find one one close to Stogumber. Byars and Parrishs are from the north of England. Parrish and Byars are not ancient Somerset families. This makes it more likely that it was a male with the name of Shattocke that stepped off the boat from England. 

What do we make of the fact that the Byars and Parrishs appear to have a double NPE in their branch of the Shattocke family? I blame it on the chaos in the early Virginia settlement. There was  a huge attrition rate because of the climate and novel diseases, meaning parents often died leaving orphans. It was socially chaotic. The early settlers were either high born English gentlemen or the bottom end of the social scale. Virginia was also used as a penal colony for English people convicted of crimes, no matter how petty in our modern view.

Early Virginia History

The Virginia colony was largely populated by indentured servants who were the property of rich plantation owners who treated them as chattel. Some historians describe English indentured servants as slaves. In fact there is a record of a Shattocke in Virginia in 1637...the date YFull estimates for A8033. The first landed immigrant Shaddock we encounter in the Virginian records is "Jon." Shaddock, who arrived as an indentured servant in 1637. And his "ownership" was a matter of a legal transaction. In Cavaliers and PioneersAbstracts of Virginia Patents and Grants 1623-1666, from Patent Book I, Part I, Nell Marion Nugent provides an account of the first recorded Shaddock's transportation to America (p.65). 

ELIZABETH PACKER, Widdowe, 950 acs. Henrico Co., 17 Aug. 1637, p. 454. E. upon 4 Mi. Cr., W. upon land of Seth Ward, S. upon the river & N. into the woods. Due in right of her late husband Serjant William Sharpe &  Thomas Packer, whoe at their own costs & charges trans. 19 pers: Rich. Vase, John Thomas, Lewis Jones, Leonard Houghton, William Cooke, Peter Hudsey, Edward Jones, Jon. Ward, William Wooley, 2 Negroe servts. to Serjt Wm. Sharp, Thomas Blancks, Jacob Dewitt, John Haman, Andrew Pratt, Christ. Stevenson, Christ. Beare, Jon. ShaddockFrancis Stone, servants to Tho. Packer. 

From The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography:
Elizabeth Parker, widow, 500 acres in the County of Henrico between Curies and Varinas, bounded on the south by the main river, and on the east by Four Mile Creek; due in right of her late husband, Serjeant William Sharpe, who, as appears by certificate of Henrico Court, dated April 25, 1636, transported nine servants and two negroes (names below) and due her 50 more for one of the negroes. By West, July 12, 1636.

Jon. Shaddock is treated as property. He was probably under contract to work for Elizabeth Parker for a specified number of years in exchange for his original passage to Virginia and a grant of land. Up to 75% of early Virginia immigrants arrived as indentured servants. 

Elizabeth Parker was the daughter of Richard and Mitha Parker. She would eventually marry William Adkins (aka Adekyn or Adkinson). He was born March 28, 1689, and married Elizabeth Parker, on January 17, 1716, in the Saint James Episcopal Church in Henrico County, Virginia. The couple would eventually give up the plantation and move westward to what is now known as Franklin County where William would operate a mill and own and run a farm. It is likely Jon. Shaddock was given his freedom and possibly land well before 1650.

According to Filby, P. William, ed. Passenger and Immigration Lists Index, 1500s-1900s. Farmington Hills, MI, USA: Gale Research, 2012 (p. 294) a John Shaddock arrived in Virginia in 1637. So it is possible that Jon. Shaddock in the 1636 court record and John Shaddock in William's immigrant list are the same person given how slippery dates are in early records. In fact, I have found several cases in the records when "Jon." was used as an abbreviation for "John." John is a very, very common English name and it is found in many Shaddock ancestors, as well as Virginian Shaddock descendants. 

There is a Johnathan Shattick in North Molton, Devon, who shows up in the 1641-2 Protestation Returns, and his name appears also to be written as John or Johanthan. Is this a clue to the origin of the Parrish and Byars Virginia ancestor? North Molton was nearby the port of Barnstable. 

According to David Fischer in Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America (Oxford University Press, 1989), the Chesapeake colony was in a considerable state of disarray at this time (p. 210). Its population was under 8,000 and it was more of a wild frontier outpost than a stable British colony. When Sir William Berkeley arrived as governor in 1642, he transformed the colony into a British royalist class-based state during his 35 year tenure. The population increased five-fold from 8,000 to 40,000. It was comprised of the second sons of British landed gentry and their servants.

There is a Peter "Shadock" who arrives in Virginia as an indentured servant. He is on a ship's list arriving in Virginia 1654, sponsored by John Sharpe of Lancaster County in the north, off of Chesapeake Bay. Peter is a very rare name in the English records at this time. There is no subsequent record of a Virginian Peter Shaddock or name variants as well. 

The name "Sharpe" is interesting because that was the surname of Elizabeth Parker's husband Sergeant William Sharpe. Was he a relative of Jon. Shaddock?

What is also notable is the parish that Elizabeth Parker's third husband, William Baugh Jr. lived in: Bristol. Bristol is a large town on the coast of Somerset, England. 

The next time we encounter the Shaddock name in the records, it is in James City County, which is 52 km (32 miles) east of Henrico County. Henry Shaddock appears to have gotten into trouble more than once and skipped town to another county: "having removed from James City Co. to escape judgts agst him there, William Stenton who obtained original judgts given priority of claim in Charles City Co. Jun 3 1664 (Virginia Colonial Extracts Vol. IIIp. 298). A Henry Shaddock is mentioned in a law suit on Oct. 28, 1672 in his capacity as a tenant farmer. (Proceedings of the court leet and court baron of St. Clement's Manor in St. Mary's County, 1659-1672) He disappears from the records after that.

The name Henry pops up again four decades later near Richmond, Virginia in 1714. Henry "Shadduck," a possible descendant, is on a land patent in this area. But the name does not appear in the records after that.

There is a Henry Shaddock who was granted land in an early North Carolina census listed as living in Bladen County in 1741. He is listed on a land grant in the county (Bladen 1-1287) on 3 Dec 1746. There are people who claim descent from this man in their Ancestry trees. There were Shattucks pilgrim settlements in Massachusetts who settled in a Quaker community in North Carolina. (See a discussion of them here.) So it is possible that some of the Shaddocks found in Virginia and the surrounding counties in the late 17th century and the 18th century are descended from these transplants. There was also an influx of Quakers from England and it is possible some of them were Shattockes.  It is equally possible that Henry Shaddock is descended from the Henry Shaddock who got into trouble in Henrico County.

We cannot exclude the possibility some Shaddocks that first settled in Maryland moved south. In 1677 John Shadock (sic) arrived in Maryland (The Early Settlers of Maryland: an Index to Names of Immigrants, Compiled from Records of Land Patents, 1633-1680, in the Hall of Records, Annapolis, Maryland. p. 412) Almost one hundred years later a John Shaddock of Maryland fought on the side of the British in the Revolutionary War. I profile him on the New Brunswick Shaddock page because he moved there after the war, starting a farm. (See New Brunswick Shaddicks.)

Charles Shaddock, a convict born about 1716, was transported to Maryland in 1742 (COLDHAM, PETER WILSON. The Kings Passengers to Maryland and Virginia. Westminister, MD, p. 296). "Charles Shaddock" is a name that appears in Virginian records in the 19th century. 

Ellin Shaddock arrived in 1678 (The Early Settlers of Maryland: an Index to Names of Immigrants, Compiled from Records of Land Patents, 1633-1680, in the Hall of Records, Annapolis, Maryland. p. 412). 

A name that we will encounter several times in Virginia records is "Sarah." Sarah Shadock (sic), born Jun 1 1681, Norfolk Co., Va died Jun 1 1745 Norfolk Co., Va. She married John Hare (1680-1740) on Jan 19, 1698. Norfolk county is found in the south east corner of the map above. 

There is a John and Ann Shaddock born to "Aibee" on Feb. 19 1712 (Virginia Colonial Abstracts, Vol. I, p. 85) in the county of Northumberland, Virginia.  Perhaps "Aibee" should be read as "Abby." Northumberland is one of the earliest areas in Virginia to be settled. 

Elizabeth Lawson, in her will dated Aug. 23, 1740, gives to Sarah Shaddock "one negro woman named Jenny." This is not the Sarah who married John Hare in 1698, since her name would have been Elizabeth Hare. She may have married a Shaddock. 

There is a Willoughby Shaddock who shows up on the Dobbs County, North Carolina, voters list in 1779. 

Fischer in Albion Seeds (p. 213) notes that "most Yankee genealogies commenced within six years of 1635," which happens to square perfectly with a Jon. Shaddock immigration to Virginia in 1637. Why so few Shaddocks with a Virginia ancestry if the founder arrived in 1637? During the 17th and 18th century there was a huge attrition in the population, primarily through disease. Between 1607 and 1624 about 6,000 colonists came to Virginia. In 1624 only 1,200 survived. Among the survivors, there is another factor that explains why Virginian Shaddock descendants are difficult to find. Only 15% of males have male descendants carrying their name. The majority of men do not have descendants carrying their Y chromosome due to infant mortality, failure to beget children for one reason or another, having female children and no males, or a single male and several females or other forms of attrition. The Revolutionary war and the Civil War were another cause.

Don Parrish, a Parrish family genealogist, has done extensive studies of the paper trails of A8033 Parrish lineages and finds that they all seem to lead to Goochland county in Virginia. Goochland was formed out of Henrico County, becoming the western-most county in central Virginia. Henrico County is where Jon. Shaddock is found in the legal documents previously quoted.

It is possible and not improbable that Jon. Shaddock was A8033 or the son or grandson of the man born with the A8033 mutation. Further studies will hopefully reveal if this hypothesis holds water.

For further information about the A8033 Parrishs and Byars, visit Don Parrish's excellent genealogical site or join the discussion about them on facebook.






Comments