Hello,
In support of the changes made on this profile by: Cynthia Curtis, A183502, US7875087
The “About” information on this profile did not reflect “John Freeman 1665-1725 of Surry County.” This assertion is supported by Freeman-DNA studies done by “Stephen M. Lawson” and the “FTDNA Freeman Project.
[A] – The Haplogroup for “John Freeman 1665-1725 of Surry County” is R-M269
If you reference the recently propagated Y-DNA on this profile, you will see that the Haplogroup is “R-M269.” This is per my Y-DNA111 FTDNA Kit-B388856, which you will see referenced in the Freeman Project (Reference “John of Brunswick VA” section, which is the son of this John Freeman) along with other supporting kits referencing descendants of this John Freeman. Note: This is explicitly being stated to contradict the notion that John Freeman is associated with the Native Indian Haplogroup Q-M3.
[B] – The Lawson DNA study confirmed that “Bridges Freeman 1734-1820” and “Thomas Freeman 1717-1763” were grandsons of our John Freeman (dates taken from study: https://media.geni.com/p13/cf/02/2e/3c/5344485a9db5e725/freeman_dna... These two branches are referenced in the DNA linked to this profile:
- George Freeman, R-M269 (1965-) From Bridges Freeman 1734-1820
- Romas Byrl Freeman (1938-) From Thomas Freeman 1717-1763
I believe the Q-M3 based John Freeman (as Cynthia pointed out) is “John Freeman, of Chowan NC 1693-1776” John Freeman, of Chowan NC.
The confusion likely came about as our John Freeman’s son is “John Freeman of Brunswick 1693-1776.” And as one can see, the dates are the same, hence the confusion (which includes close family names also being the same).
Reference this document for miscellaneous facts and information about our John Freeman:
https://media.geni.com/p13/d6/dd/23/3d/5344485a9e1a1366/miscellaneo...
Follow Us
Like Us
Problem with this page?
Geni Pro
Geni Pro
Geni member
Geni member
Geni member