Group 6

We first Grouped people together into a probably-related group based on genetic distance. But once you've done

that, the genetic distance really isn't much of a help anymore and you can dispense with trying to compare

individuals using genetic distance. Genetic distance is good at determining whether or not people share a common

ancestor, but it is not at all useful for determining how relatively closely people are related.  An example

should make this clear.  Let's say I have two sons and each of my sons has two sons and then each of their sons

has two sons.  Now, suppose one of my 8 great-grandsons has a mutation. If you didn't know anything about their past

(not even who their father was), if you went by genetic distance alone you might conclude that he was more distantly

related. You might even conclude (using the percentages FTDNA gives you for genetic distance) that his own brother

was less closely related to him than he was to his second cousins!  Of course, that would be ridiculous - but it shows

why genetic distance can't really be used to determine the relative closeness of the relationship between two

individuals within a related group.

Next what you want to do at is figure out the ancestral haplotype.  Once you have that, it can sometimes give you clues. 

You can probably also dispense with any analysis below 37 markers, since all of your main group of Matlocks have

tested at least 37. If you can analyze a group on 37 markers, there's no need whatsoever to analyze them on 12 markers. 

That would be like trying to guess the picture on a 10-piece puzzle using just 1 piece, when actually you have 5 of

the pieces to help you. Upgrading to 67 markers can confirm your findings and close in the gap as to how many generations

ago that they shared a common ancestor.

The point of finding the ancestral haplotype is to then look for values that differ from that haplotype, in particular

alternate values that are shared by two or more individuals. Now, our main group has a pretty clear ancestral haplotype. 

It is probably the same as the modal haplotype, with one possible exception - DYS442.  There is a clear split based on

DYS442 between those who are 11 and those who are 12. Now, one of these values must have been the value held by the

common ancestor, but it's impossible to tell which one it was based on the DNA evidence alone. 11 is modal, but modal

does not necessarily mean ancestral because it may be that some descendant of the common ancestor had a mutation and then

left many more descendants than his cousins. But other than 442, the ancestral haplotype is pretty clear and any

differences can be chalked up to lone mutations. Unfortunately, that means there aren't really any clues here to help you

try to determine relatedness other than on 442. 

442 is a relatively stable marker. Assuming that 11 is the ancestral value, that means it is possible that all the 442=12

men share a common ancestor more recent than the common ancestor of the whole group.  I'm not sure if that fits with what

you know genealogically or not, but that's what I'd look for if I was trying to get some clues from the DNA.  The only o

ther marker for possible interpretation is CDY, where a few men share the off modal value 36.  However, CDY is a fast-

mutating marker and is very prone to parallel mutations. It may be that some of the 36 men share a more recent common

ancestor, but I have seen so many instances of parallel mutations on this marker, that I always eye it warily and try not

to get invested in its significance.

So the genetic story of this group is very simple. Basically, they all likely descend from some common Matlock/Medlock

ancestor. And that man's haplotype was likely your modal haplotype.  Beyond that, the 442=12 men may share a common ancestor

more recent than the common ancestor of the whole group.  That's what the DNA evidence suggests, without any input from

traditional genealogy. But, of course, traditional genealogy is extremely important and needs to be taken into account. Also,

unless you're able to completely discount the possibility through other means, it's worth keeping in the back of your mind the

possibility that 12 was the ancestral value on 442 and that the 11s just had more descendants. It can be safe to say that those

with 442=11 descend from John Matlock/Medlock of New Kent Co VA and those with 442=12 descends from William of NJ.

Those highlighted in the light blue indicate they need to upgrade at least to the 37 markers. Therefore they can be placed according

to whether they carry 442=11 or 442=12

You can contact those listed by clicking on their names listed below.

Probability for Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA)(30 Years in a Generation)

2 James F Matlock ..John Medlock Sr. Webpage

3 John C Medlock.....Isham Medlocks Webpage

The need to upgrade James F Matlock and John C Medlock to 67 markers could give us valuable clues to

whether or not the assumption that Isham and John Jr are brothers, sons of John Medlock and Judith Witt.

there is a 95% probability that if matching 67/67 markers they shared a common ancestor within 6 generations.

They would be exactly that, 6 generations.

GROUP B

This Group is carrying the modal number. This group is believed to be descending from John Medlock Sr of New Kent

Co VA.(442=11) John's website can be found here.

George Matlack was born 1602 and married Jane Hall Nov 7 1636 in St Giles Church England. It is thought that he was the father

of John Matlack/Menlook/Medlock born 1638 England and first shows up in New Kent Co VA in 1689. He is on a few early records and

is recorded in the Parish Records of New Kent Co VA. It is not exactly known when or where John died. John's first wife was Anne

who was recorded as having died March 23 1699/1700. There are some records that indicate that Anne's maiden was Moore. Perhaps

this is where the well known Moore Matlock received his name. John did marry a 2nd time and where her name was suppose to be was

blank. They married April 27 1701. It is also important to note that in the Parish Records, there is a mention of a Thomas Matlocke

who baptized his son William on Oct 10 1689. It so happens that it is noted that George and Jane Matlack had a son Thomas Matlack

born June 16 1656 England.  Thomas Matlocke could very well be that son. Some of Group B or C could be descending from Thomas. It is

unknown if this Thomas would be carrying a 442=11 or a 442=12. John Medlock is known to have 2 sons. John Medlock/Matlock Jr and William

who was born in 1701.    

1) M J Medlock is 36/37 Markers with the Modal # Indicating that He and Samuel, Albert, Michael G, Kristopher, F Ted and Michael K

Matlock share a common ancestor in 10 generations. According to the information below for M J's ancestors, the 10th generation would

be George Matlack of England. Information on George Medlock can be found here.  

2) Samuel, Michael and Albert match 67/67 Indicating that they shared a common ancestor in 6 generations. This would be true in the

sense with Nathaniel Medlock. Nathaniel's web page can be seen here.  As to John Medlock born 1730, It is not exactly known who his

father is. John first appears in Goochland Co VA parish records when he married his wife Judith Witt in 1756. He leaves Virginia and

appears to be traveling with his in-laws. He goes to NC and ends up in Greenville Co SC. 

3) Robert Medlock, Larry Medlock and J C Medlock descendants are from Edgefield Co SC. It is believed at this time that they

are descendants from Hescott Medlock.  Samuel Medlock, son of Hescott's webpage can be seen here.