Casbolt/Caseboldt/Casebolt Participants   

This page was begun 30 November 2003, and last revised on 28 February 2005 -- rak.

I am pleased to report that as of 29 February 2005, four test results are in and a fifth kit is being ordered from the labs.

Table One - Lab Results

In this table the green numbers in the left-hand column give the addresses or loci where measurements were taken within the Y-chromosome; if the number in this column is in red it means the labs have determined that this marker changes faster that the other markers.  The black numbers in the next columns give the values for the numbers of redundant pairs found for each sample at each of the given loci.  For a longer discussion of these measurements and their meaning, click on background. 

* 389-2 is usually reported as a larger number because it includes the number in 389-1.  I have taken the 389-1 number out of the reported 389-2 number so as to indicate whether there is any step difference in 389-2 itself ... rak.

Participant #1 is of the Pike County, Kentucky Casebolts descended from: 

John Casebolt b about 1746 probably in Baltimore Co, MD, via his son

John Jonathan b 1799-1800 Carter County, TN, via his son

David M. b 1836-1837 probably in Pike Co, KY, via his son 

Andrew Jackson b 11 June 1862 Pike Co, KY, via his son

Arnold b 11 August 1909 Pike Co, KY, via his son

Andrew Jackson b 4 November 1930 Pike Co, KY, via his son

Participant b 19 September 1950 Wyoming Co, WV.

Participant #2 is of the Saline County, Missouri Casebolts descended from: 

Henry Casebolt b about 1760 probably in Baltimore Co, MD, via his son

William b before July 1787 Bath Co, VA [now Pocahontas Co, WV], via his son

George b 4 October 1826 Saline Co, MO, via his son 

Edward Walter b 16 January 1858 Saline Co, MO, via his son

Walter Dawson b 29 December 1892 Carroll Co, MO, via his son

Participant b 6 November 1936 Tulsa, OK.

Participants #1 and #2 are presumed to be 5th cousins, once removed based on the hypothesis that John Casebolt (1746) and Henry (1760) were the eldest and youngest sons of Thomas and Sarah Casbolt/Casebolt of Baltimore and, later, Carroll, County, MD.

Null Hypothesis #a:  all Casebolts trace their descent to a Cambridgeshire, England family.  The results so far do not contradict  this hypothesis.  

Null Hypothesis #b: that virtually all US Casebolts descend from Thomas of Maryland.  This hypothesis is all but contradicted by our early returns.  The first two participants, #1 and #2, known to be of male Casebolt descent, have DNA signatures that are 3 steps apart.  That is more change than would ordinarily happen in six generations.  For both of them to have been descended from Thomas, his signature would have had to have been something like 13-24-14-11-11-14-12-12-12-14-13-16 (shown as #0 in red in the table). Then one mutation sometime in John's line might have changed the 14 to 13 in the next-to-next to last position, and two mutations sometime in Henry's line could have changed the 11 to a 10 in the 4th position and the 16 to a 17 in the last position ... that is almost definitely one change too many for them both to be descended from Thomas.  But this is not yet conclusive, we need more tests done.

This theory can be confirmed or proven wrong as more male US Casebolts volunteer to participate in this study.

Information recently acquired from prospective cousins in England has enabled the formulation of the following hypothesis.  Thomas of Maryland may have been Thomas Casboult b 1690 Helions Bumpstead, Essex, England, son of 

John Casboult/Casbolt b 1665 Linton, Cambridgeshire, England, son of

Thomas b 1601 Linton, son of

Alexander b 1569 Linton, son of

William b 1540 Linton, son of

Richard Casbolte who died 1559 in Linton.

Participant #3  descends from Bermuda Casbolts and whose lineage is known back to the Thomas b 1601 just mentioned, via another of his sons, Jonathan b 1669.  However, the descent of #3 comes through an unmarried Bemudian Casebolt daughter.  At this point the only thing we know from the DNA is there is virtually no chance that this daughter's pregnancy was the result of incest since his signature is 4 full steps away from the likely signature of Thomas Casbolt of Maryland who came from England to the US in the early 1700's.  Had #3 actually descended through an all male Casbolt line, his signature should have been the same or no more than one-step away from that of Thomas of Maryland.

Participant #4  descends from William Casebolt/Terry who was raised in the Silas Casebolt household in Kentucky.  Silas was a son of the John Casebolt from whom Participant #1 descends.  However, many in the family believed him to be the child of Silas' sister Elizabeth by some unknown man.  These test results support that belief and have suggested that William's father may well have been a Morgan.

Our DNA work will be furthered as English Casbolts of known lineage begin to participate in this study.  

The work done so far on the DNA of our first two participants provides insight into the deep pre-history of the Casbolt/Casebolt family.  For that click on Deep History.  Since the Casebolts belong to the very crowded R1b1 Haplogroup we need to test for more than 12 markers in order to identify most near relatives, therefore we ordered 25 more markers tested for Participant #4.

    To return to the Casebolt project main page, click it.