Embedded Files
St. Mary's County (SMC), Maryland Family Branch
St. Mary's County (SMC), Maryland Family Branch
Introduction:
Introduction:
The St. Mary’s County (SMC), Maryland branch of the family began with the arrival of John Cissell (Cecill) in 1698. He died there in 1698. His birth date is generally taken as about 1638, but his birth place and parents are not known. He was a farmer and, although not literate, did acquire a fair amount of property during his lifetime in Maryland.
The St. Mary’s County (SMC), Maryland branch of the family began with the arrival of John Cissell (Cecill) in 1698. He died there in 1698. His birth date is generally taken as about 1638, but his birth place and parents are not known. He was a farmer and, although not literate, did acquire a fair amount of property during his lifetime in Maryland.
From John’s Will, and the few surviving land records, we know that he had 7-sons (John, William, Thomas, Richard, Robert, Edward, and James). Except for his Will there seem to be no other records related to Richard, Robert, or Edward and it is assumed that they died young and had no children.
From John’s Will, and the few surviving land records, we know that he had 7-sons (John, William, Thomas, Richard, Robert, Edward, and James). Except for his Will there seem to be no other records related to Richard, Robert, or Edward and it is assumed that they died young and had no children.
There were a few Cissell’s in SMC in the 1700’s that paper records are unable to provide family connections for. One of these is John Baptist Cissell (ca. 1741 SMC – ca. 1799 KY). Our DNA results are suggesting that he may have been a descendant of John Cecill, possible thru his eldest son, John.
There were a few Cissell’s in SMC in the 1700’s that paper records are unable to provide family connections for. One of these is John Baptist Cissell (ca. 1741 SMC – ca. 1799 KY). Our DNA results are suggesting that he may have been a descendant of John Cecill, possible thru his eldest son, John.
(Updated 2025)
Current Test Efforts:
Current Test Efforts:
Some DNA results are suggesting that the Wife of the John Cecill who came to St. Mary's County (SMC), Maryland in 1658 may have been Mary Mills, the daughter of one of his neighbors, Peter Mills. See the “Mary Dant Mystery ” section and the "Current Test Results" below.
(Updated 2025)
John Cissell’s Wife and the Mary Dant Mystery:
John Cissell’s Wife and the Mary Dant Mystery:
Over the years several suggestions have been proposed as to who John Cissell’s wife was. One is that she was Mary Shirtcliffe, the daughter of John Shirtcliffe.
Over the years several suggestions have been proposed as to who John Cissell’s wife was. One is that she was Mary Shirtcliffe, the daughter of John Shirtcliffe.
In his Will, John Cissell bequeathed the properties he owned, amounting to about 500 acres in total, to members of his family. His Will did not specifically identify his dwelling plantation, but it is generally taken to have been “Poplar Neck”. The Will gave this property to his wife “Mary”. After her death it was to go to his son Edward Cissell; but if Edward did not reach the age of 21 or have children, the land was to go to his son James.
In his Will, John Cissell bequeathed the properties he owned, amounting to about 500 acres in total, to members of his family. His Will did not specifically identify his dwelling plantation, but it is generally taken to have been “Poplar Neck”. The Will gave this property to his wife “Mary”. After her death it was to go to his son Edward Cissell; but if Edward did not reach the age of 21 or have children, the land was to go to his son James.
In the land records for 1701, about three years after John’s death, the 200 acres of Poplar Neck were allocated as follows: William Cissell (25 Acres); James Cissell (25 Acres); Thomas Cissell (50 Acres); Mary Dant (50 Acres); and Thomas Cissell (50 Acres). Who was the Mary Dant in possession of 50 Acres of the original home plantation?
In the land records for 1701, about three years after John’s death, the 200 acres of Poplar Neck were allocated as follows: William Cissell (25 Acres); James Cissell (25 Acres); Thomas Cissell (50 Acres); Mary Dant (50 Acres); and Thomas Cissell (50 Acres). Who was the Mary Dant in possession of 50 Acres of the original home plantation?
Since Mary Shirtcliffe is known to have married John Dant the assumption that she had been married to John Cissell and then later to John Dant did help to explain the Mary Dant in the 1701 land records.
Since Mary Shirtcliffe is known to have married John Dant the assumption that she had been married to John Cissell and then later to John Dant did help to explain the Mary Dant in the 1701 land records.
Several St. Mary’s County researchers, including Linda Reno, have looked into this. After much work they concluded that Mary Shirtcliffe could not have married John Cissell. The complete analysis will not be repeated here, but the general argument relates to the fact that Mary Shirtcliffe had originally married Peter Mills and then after his death had married John Dant. Peter had been married previously before coming to Maryland. With Peter she had at least 3 Children. Given the dates and times involved and the fact that John Cissell had had at least 7 children of his own, she could not possibly have also married John Cissell.
Several St. Mary’s County researchers, including Linda Reno, have looked into this. After much work they concluded that Mary Shirtcliffe could not have married John Cissell. The complete analysis will not be repeated here, but the general argument relates to the fact that Mary Shirtcliffe had originally married Peter Mills and then after his death had married John Dant. Peter had been married previously before coming to Maryland. With Peter she had at least 3 Children. Given the dates and times involved and the fact that John Cissell had had at least 7 children of his own, she could not possibly have also married John Cissell.
But if John Cissell’s wife was not Mary Shirtcifffe, who was the Mary Dant on the land records and why was Mary Cissell not listed there? A possible solution to this long-standing mystery was proposed in an article, “The Maryland Cissell Family”, for the Winter 2018 issue of the “Chronicles of St. Mary’s”, the journal of the St. Mary’s County Historical Society. The argument was that John’s wife was actually Mary Mills, a daughter of Peter Mills from his first wife.
But if John Cissell’s wife was not Mary Shirtcifffe, who was the Mary Dant on the land records and why was Mary Cissell not listed there? A possible solution to this long-standing mystery was proposed in an article, “The Maryland Cissell Family”, for the Winter 2018 issue of the “Chronicles of St. Mary’s”, the journal of the St. Mary’s County Historical Society. The argument was that John’s wife was actually Mary Mills, a daughter of Peter Mills from his first wife.
In this case there are two possible reasons why Mary Cissell may not have been listed on the land records for Poplar Neck. Mary Mills had apparently been born in Holland. As a non-English citizen, she would not have been able to legally inherit property in Maryland and so would not be listed on the land records. Another possibility is that Mary Cissell could well have died about the same time as John Cissell. In either case, some of her property could have gone to her mother-in-law, then Mary Dant, (an actual English citizen and able to own land). And so the Mary Dant in the land records was still most likely Mary Shirtcliffe, but she had not been the wife of John Cissell.
In this case there are two possible reasons why Mary Cissell may not have been listed on the land records for Poplar Neck. Mary Mills had apparently been born in Holland. As a non-English citizen, she would not have been able to legally inherit property in Maryland and so would not be listed on the land records. Another possibility is that Mary Cissell could well have died about the same time as John Cissell. In either case, some of her property could have gone to her mother-in-law, then Mary Dant, (an actual English citizen and able to own land). And so the Mary Dant in the land records was still most likely Mary Shirtcliffe, but she had not been the wife of John Cissell.
Can DNA testing be used to verify that Mary Mills was actually John Cissell’s wife? The answer is yes, but not very easily. Normally, one could test several members of the Mills and Cissell families using Ancestry.com or Family Tree DNA Family Finder tests. These can easily verify family connections back 4- or maybe 5-generations. Unfortunately the time back to John Cissell and his wife is now about 10-generations or more. Since ½ of the DNA from each line is lost each generation, there will be little or no useful DNA left after 10-generations for these tests to see. So to use this method one would probably have to dig up some of the great-great-grand children of John Cissell and Peter Mills to get useful information.
Can DNA testing be used to verify that Mary Mills was actually John Cissell’s wife? The answer is yes, but not very easily. Normally, one could test several members of the Mills and Cissell families using Ancestry.com or Family Tree DNA Family Finder tests. These can easily verify family connections back 4- or maybe 5-generations. Unfortunately the time back to John Cissell and his wife is now about 10-generations or more. Since ½ of the DNA from each line is lost each generation, there will be little or no useful DNA left after 10-generations for these tests to see. So to use this method one would probably have to dig up some of the great-great-grand children of John Cissell and Peter Mills to get useful information.
Current Test Results
Current Test Results
We have obtained whole genome sequencing (WGS) results for four individuals. The testing was done by Dante Labs.
The effort looking at John Cecill’s possible wife is using the whole genome sequencing (WGS) data of 3 descendants of John Cecill [Dave, Jason, and Clemie] and 1 descendant of Peter Mills (1635, Holland-1687, SMC) [Peter].
Dave and Jason share a common ancestor with John’s grandson , James, Jr. (?-1785, SMC) thru John’s son James, Sr. (?-~1717, SMC). We believe that Clemie is descended from one of John’s other son’s (possibly his eldest son, John). In general these connections are back 9- to 10- generations or more This makes analysis difficult as the amount of DNA being passed down over those time periods is expected to be low.
The first approach was to attempt a Principle Component Analysis (PCA) on a data file with the DNA markers (or mutations) that had been found for Peter, Dave, Jason, Clemie, and another individual, HG00117. HG00117 participated in the 1000 genomes project and so his WGS test results were freely available. HG00117 is a male and had been born in Scotland or England. It is unlikely that he would be related to any of John Cecil’s descendants or to Peter. He was included with the others as a way to check the reasonableness of any results. This is a result from that PCA effort:
Reading along the bottom axis it is clear that Clemie, Peter, Jason and Dave are concentrated to the left side of the plot, while HG00117 is well separated from them at the right side of the plot. This means that HG00117 has no connection, or recent common ancestor, with the other people; just as we had assumed.
However, since Clemie, Peter, Jason and Dave are concentrated at the left side of the plot it seems likely that they are all actually related in some way.
Since this looked promising, We used another method, to look at the data to try to identify DNA segments that these people might share. For this case there are two types of possible DNA segments: identical by descent (IBD) meaning that the shared segments were passed down from a common ancestor (which we want to find) or identical by state (IBS) meaning that while the segments are identical, they just happen to be the same by chance and were not passed down from a common ancestor (we don’t want these segments).
To look for possible IBD segments we used a program called Beagle from the University of Washington, a DNA file handling program, bcftools, and some R script programs prepared for us by ChatGPT.
This is a simplified copy of the data that resulted from that effort:
This shows the IBD segments of DNA that the various individuals seem to share and which we assume were inherited from a common ancestor. The column marked CHR stands for Chromosome. The first record with Chromosome 12, for example, is saying that Clemie and Peter share a segment of DNA on Chromosome 12 that starts at location 34,849,374 and ends at location 37,857,375. This segment is 3,008,001 base pairs long. The LOD column provides an indication as to how reliable that segment is (a higher number is better).
The result of all of this is that it seems there is a good chance that Peter does share DNA with descendants of John Cecill. This implies that there is a good chance that Mary Mills may have been John Cecill’s wife.
Because we are trying to push the DNA results so far back in time, we still want to get verification of these results from a different approach. For this we are currently working to apply the Ascertained Sequentially Markovian Coalescent (ASMC) method developed at Oxford University. Those results will be provided when available.
(Updated 2025)
Contacts:
Contacts:
If anyone is interested in getting tested to help this effort, please contact Dave Cissell dcissell@gmail.com for more details.
If anyone is interested in getting tested to help this effort, please contact Dave Cissell dcissell@gmail.com for more details.
Google Sites
Report abuse