Hollow DNA Project, Results update Jun. 2017

The Zennor Group 2 Mystery.

Three months ago (March 2017 I reported the great leap forward in our DNA study. The latest tests then showed that the two large Hollow families that originated in Zennor in the late 1600s were related.

In the study we have two descendants of the marriage between William Hollow and Uslea Cock who were married in the Zennor church in 1685. We also have four descendants of the marriage between John Holla and Chesen Thomas who were married at the Zennor church in 1695. We also had another descendant who could be traced back to a later William Hollow b c1781 in St Ives.

The DNA results from all seven people are almost identical, indicating all seven share a common ancestor beyond William Hollow and John Holla. William and John may have been brothers or cousins or even more distant relatives.

The other two tests were from firstly Adrian whose test came back with quite a different result even though his family tree suggests he is from the Hollow/Cock marriage in Zennor. But Adrian occupies Group 2 because he had a different Haplogroup to the other testors of Zennor origin.

The other testee, Jim, had results that were different again. His test results were explained in the Third test result report.

Within Adrian's family tree there must be what is called a non-paternal event. One of the Hollow men in his tree must not have had a Hollow father. Non-paternal events can be disguised in the records, there may be an adoption, a name change, an illegitimate birth or some other explanation.

We have another Hollow who is taking the DNA test, John Hollow. John is a second cousin, once removed to Adrian. In other words he is of the same line as Adrian.

I have attached an image of the Adrian's male line and John's male line. John's results should help us identify more precisely where a non-paternal event may have occurred.

If John's test shows the same DNA profile as Adrian's then the non-paternal event is within the group highlighted green. If John's DNA profile is the same as the seven other Hollow tests then the non-paternal event is within the section of Adrian's tree that is not highlighted. If John's test is something different, it is back to the drawing board. We will have to wait to see what turns up.

In the last few days John's results came through. They are almost the same as Adrian's, just one variation in the 37 positions tested.

It would seem that the non-paternal event must be within the green section of the chart. The fact we haven't found it suggests that it has been hidden in the written records. It may be found with more careful analysis of the records.

One of the three Hollows, shown in green in the chart on this page, must have a non Hollow father. We need to look more closely at each of the generations shown in green.

William Hollow born 1764 and baptised in Zennor on September 18 1764 is recorded as the son of Edward Hollow and Hannah Waters. Edward and Hannah were married at Zennor on April 30 1764.

So immediately a red flag; only 41/2 months between marriage and baptism.

Before we jump to conclusions let's look at the other two possibilities. Next is James, he was born in 1802, his parents were married in 1798. They had five more children after James. So it would seem James is likely to be legitimate. William was born in 1838 and his parents were married in 1828. He is the middle child of seven. Again it would seem that William is likely to be legitimate. For either of these two to be born as a result of a non-paternal event we would have to discover a marital indiscretion, an adoption or some other scenario.

The simplest explanation is that Hannah Waters was with child to another person when she married Edward Hollow.

This is not proof but alternate explanations require there to have been exceptional circumstances to be at play. For now let's go with the most straight forward explanation.

Copyright 2019 Colin Hollow

Last Modified 12 December 2019

DNA PAGE  1st Results  2nd Results  3th Results  5th Results 


<