Winslow Genealogy

[sjwinslow]

Over the next few weeks I’ll try to recreate some of the conclusions that were developed before the recent loss of data due to our previous web host going out of business. To start off with I would like to include an article that was recently published in the December Mayflower Quarterly. This article briefly summarizes one small aspect of what the Winslow Y-DNA Project has the potential to do for many branches of the Winslow family. The article follows:

DECEMBER 2005 417
Will DNA Prove Mayflower Ancestry?

Descendants of Timothy Winslow (b. abt 1654) are breaking down walls that have stymied researchers for decades. They are using Y-DNA analysis, a new tool available to genealogists, to confirm or disprove their relationship to John Winslow who married Mary Chilton (of the Mayflower). This John is not the son of Edward Winslow of the Mayflower Family and professional researchers of these Southern Winslows have worked for years to identify Timothy Winslow's father. This research has provided significant amounts of circumstantial evidence but no conclusive proof. The new field of Y-DNA analysis looks promising as a way to provide that proof.

The historical evidence has led many researchers to believe that Joseph Winslow, son of John and Mary, was the father of Timothy. There are numerous recorded accounts where similarities in names, locations and dates coincide to allow a convincing case to be built for Joseph to be Timothy's father.

John Winslow's will even bequeaths money to two unnamed children of Joseph before the date of Joseph's recorded marriage to Sarah Lawrence and the birth of their children. Timothy is believed to be one of the unnamed children in John's will.

The Winslow Family Y-DNA Project is recruiting males with the Winslow surname to participate in the endeavor to either prove or disprove Joseph as Timothy's father. The Y-DNA test tracks markers on the Y-chromosome that is passed from father to son almost completely unchanged. This genetic trait allows analysts to use the DNA results of male descendants to confirm genealogy records.

To date, the Winslow Family Y-DNA Project has been able to confirm Timothy's connection to sons Thomas and John with 99% confidence. Additionally, several descendants of Kenelm (John Winslow?s brother) are participating in the project and have allowed the DNA for Kenelm to be derived with 90% confidence. The combination of Timothy and Kenelm DNA test results
shows that they are related. However, additional participants who are direct male descendants of John Winslow are needed to help prove that Timothy is John and Mary's grandson.

This project has a very good chance of conclusively determining if the Southern Winslows are indeed related to John Winslow and Mary Chilton. If this occurs, it will resolve a mystery that has baffled this branch of the family for decades.

Read more about Mary Chilton >> CLICK HERE

[sjwinslow]

Preliminary Results 4/25/2005 - First Phase - Winslow Family Y-DNA Project

With only five participants with Y-DNA results, an interesting turn of events has occurred.

The original objective and plan was to try to either prove or disprove the connection between Timothy Winslow (b. abt 1654) and his supposed father Joseph (b. 1628). Since there was thought to be very good genealogy documentation supporting both the known descendants of Timothy and the descendants of Timothy’s supposed great-uncle Kenelm Winslow (b. 29 Apr 1599). This would provide a common ancestor of Edward Winslow, Sr. (b. 17 Oct 1560) about 13 generations back from the project’s participants. Click link to see graphic relationship between Timothy and Kenelm.: Click Here

The first round of testing consisted of 6 participants in a Y-DNA 24-marker test from Relative Genetics. The 6 participants consisted of 3 documented descendents of Kenelem, 2 documented descendents of Timothy and 1 participant that had possibilities of a connection to Edward Winslow, Sr. through North Ireland but totally unproven.

The expectation was that the direct descendants of Kenelm Winslow would receive results showing matching in the range of 25/26 to a 26/26 to each other due to their connection earlier in the Kenelm branch of the family. Similarly, the 2 descendants of Timothy were expected to show a 26/26 match because their documentation showed only 8 generations of separation. However, the results show that there is a significant difference in the test results. Obviously the DNA does not confirm that these two indivuals are related.

If the connection existed between the descendents of Timothy and the descendents of Kenelm there should be about 13 generations of separations between the participants and their common ancestor Edward Winslow, Sr. If the relationship existed the results of the Y-DNA test should result in a highest probability of a match between the 2 groups in the range of 24/26 and 25/26.

With 5 of the 6 DNA test results completed, none of the participants show a DNA relationship. See Results: Click Here

The closest match between any 2 participants was 22/26, which is considered, not to be related. The Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) calculator places the probably of a 22/26 match at 48 generations, well beyond the expected 13 generations expected between the Timothy and Kenelm lines.

[sjwinslow]

(Originally published Aug 3 2005)[center:1bc30de7d4]Kenelm Winslow b.1599 DNA Fingerprint[/center:1bc30de7d4]
Bottom Line
The information below is fairly detailed and contains some speculation. However, the analysis below makes a very good case that we now have a 90% confidence in knowing the 26 marker sequence (or “DNA fingerprint”) for Kenelm Winslow b.1599 and know the majority of Edward Sr.’s 26 marker DNA sequence. With the recent addition of participant 42956’s genealogy, the results below are a little cloudy for the Job descendents. However, I believe the analysis and the projection of Kenelm’s DNA are still valid and provides us a good basis to compare future results. Research will be required into the genealogy records of participants 4079, 56455 and 42956 to determine if they have a common relative earlier than Job (see details below).

Background
This analysis will be primarily focused on the Y-DNA results and genealogy records for the five Kenelm descendents (4163, 40479, 56455, 42956 & 40485) included in the Winslow Family Y-DNA Project who currently have results. I’ve included the results of the closest Timothy descendent (39468) just for discussion purposes even though the quantity of results to date is inadequate for any provable comparison.

The map below is my attempt to graphically illustrate the genetic and genealogical connections within the Kenelm branch of the Winslow family. The purpose of the map is to correlate the Y-DNA results with the genealogy records by highlighting only the genetic markers that are different in a branch of a family (or a haplogroup). The map is laid out with each of our Kenelm descendant’s lineage represented in one of the columns on the map. Each of the squares represents a person in a lineage with the name of the person to the left of the square. Inside each of the squares are values for the various Y-DNA markers that are labeled at the top of each column. The circled letters will be used as reference points to make discussion easier. It may be easier to print out the map so you can reference it during the analysis discussion.

Y-DNA analysis is an interesting balance in the quantity of DNA mutations (or naturally occurring changes) that occur when DNA is passed from father to son. If the number of mutations is too few, we would not be able to tell any differences in the various branches of the family. If they are too many, it would be difficult to tell if family members were related at all. This will be our first attempt at deducing what the Kenelm “DNA fingerprint” may be by evaluating the DNA mutations and our genealogy records. As additional testing is completed, this map is likely to change as it is somewhat speculative in some of the areas where few test results are available.

However, I believe it is better to take the pieces of the puzzle we have now and try to sketch out possibility what of the whole may look like. Knowing the puzzle and the pieces still missing will allow us to target future testing in the areas where questions remain.

Analysis
First let’s discuss the first 4 of our Kenelm descendants: 4163, 40479, 56455 & 42956. We will only need to focus on mutations in just two markers: Y-GATA-C4 & Y-GATA-H4. You will see these marker labels at the top of the first four columns. The fifth Kenelm descendent (40485) is believed not to have any mutation in either of the Y-GATA-C4 or Y-GATA-H4 marker but rather has mutations in the DSY385b and DSY447 markers.

Look at reference points F, G & H: These three individuals match on all 26 markers. Because of this we also know that all recent ancestors match the same markers up to reference point E. We know this because if there had been any mutations in any of the ancestors’ DNA, we could not have a 26/26 match among their descendants.

It mades sense that 40479 and 56455 connect at reference point E as their genealogy indicated. Even though it was a probability stretch that both the Y-GATA-C4 and Y-GATA-H4 markers would mutate between reference point C and E, it was still very possible. Since 42956 had the same values for both of these markers I was expecting a connection between 42956 and 40479/56455 somewhere more recent than Job.

However, when I received this participant’s (42956) genealogy results, the only common relative was Job (reference point C). If these genealogy records are correct it would mean that Job would have to have marker values of 23 and 12 for Y-GATA-C4 and Y-GATA-H4, respectfully, or identical dual mutations in two separate family branches would have to occur (very very unlikely). If Job has 23 and 12 for these markers then all other branches (reference points D and J) will require multiple mutations to now align (again very unlikely).

At this point I believe the more likely probability is that there is an error in the genealogy records. There are a number of areas in the genealogy records of these 3 participants where information is scant and an error is possible. If instead these two branches merged more recently than Job, then that would again make the DNA and genealogy alignment more believable. Admittedly, this discrepancy is one of the detractors from a positive confirmation of a Kenelm DNA fingerprint. Additional genealogy research in this area is required.

Now look at reference points D and J. Both participants 41643 and 40485 have the value of 11 for marker Y-GATA-H4. For the marker Y-GATA-C4, participant 41643 has the value of 22 and 40485 has 21. Most likely this means that Kenelm at reference point B has a value of 21 for this marker and Job at reference point C has 22. I don’t believe Job would have 21 for this marker since participants 40479, 56455 and 42956 at reference points F, G and H all have a value of 23 for this marker. If this were true the genetic distance would increase to 3 between these participants and Job at reference point C rather than just 2. There is a possibility that Kenelm at reference point B could have a value of 22 for marker Y-GATA-C4 but that also increases the genetic distance to the individual at reference point J. Personally, I believe the highest probability is the value of 21 for Kenelm and 22 for Job for the Y-GATA-C4 marker.

Since we believe the values for markers Y-GATA-C4 & Y-GATA-H4 are 22 and 11, respectfully, for both Job at reference point C and participant 41643 at reference point D, then this is also true for all the individuals between reference points C and D. However, we can not know with the information we currently have where the mutations occurred between reference points C and E or C and H. Additional testing of descendants of the individuals in the area of C to E and C to H would provide this valuable information.

As noted earlier, participant 40485 (reference J) has the same Y-GATA-C4 and Y-GATA-H4 marker values as believed for Kenelm (reference B). However, two other markers (DSY385b & DSY447) are different for this individual. Just for graphic clarity, I have added the believed Kenelm marker values for these 2 markers at reference point I. (note: To be accurate the markers at reference point I should be indicated with question marks.) We will need to test descendants of the individuals between reference points B and J to find where the mutations occurred in markers DSY385b and DSY447 for this family branch.

Even though the prior analysis contains elements of conjecture, a case can be made to support it and it is certainly statistically probable given the Y-DNA results to date and the existing genealogy records. Given the Y-DNA results to date, the only conflicts that occurs with the genealogy records provided by the Kenelm descendants is at the common relative of participants 40479, 56455 and 42956. A new participant whose genealogy indicates he will have a common relative with participant 42956 at reference point N has just sent in a test sample. This could help clarify this discrepancy. Since we only have one discrepancy I feel confident with the Kenelm Derived DNA Fingerprint presented in Attachment B with a confidence of 90%.

However, we will now take a look at the Timothy descendent 39468 (reference L) and admittedly increase the speculation significantly. Keep in mind that we only have one Timothy descendent that has Y-DNA results that came close to matching those of the Kenelm branch of the family. The project’s other participant whose genealogy records indicated he was a Timothy descendent had very few Y-DNA markers in common with the Kenelm branch and is not being considered in this analysis.

This analysis will assume that participant 39468 is indeed a descendent of Edward Sr. (reference A) and will try to make a case to prove that assumption. Participant 39468 has the same marker values for Y-GATA-C4 & Y-GATA-H4 as Kenelm, and it would be expected that Edward Sr. would also have these same values for those markers. However, there are 5 markers (only 4 are showed on the map, Attachment A) that are different.

Admittedly, each of these five markers only has one value difference from the believed Kenelm (reference B) DNA fingerprint but this still places the Timothy descendent at a genetic distance of 5 from Kenelm on a 26 marker test. Possibly, Kenelm’s DNA could contain a marker mutation from that of Edward Sr. and allow Edward Sr. to be one genetic distance closer to Timothy. That would then account for one of the five changes. But that would still require 4 marker mutations between reference points A and L. Just for graphic clarity, I have added the believed Kenelm marker values for these 4 markers at reference point K. (note: To be accurate the markers at reference point K should be indicated with question marks.) Statistically, it would be improbable to have 4 mutations in 12 conception opportunities.

Remember that this analysis is only for one supposed Timothy descendent and he could be subject to a paternal event that would prevent him from being a blood relation to Timothy. Only additional testing of the Timothy line will prove if this participant’s DNA pattern is representative of the Timothy branch. If it turns out that participant 39468 is descendent of the Timothy branch then I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Timothy is a relation to the Winslow family, only connected to it prior to the time of Edward Sr.

Hopefully this map will give us a basis to target questionable areas of the various family branches and allow us to either prove or disprove the assumptions made in this analysis. (Click on the icons for a larger picture)

[center:1bc30de7d4]ATTACHMENT-A
DNA/Genealogy Map


ATTACHMENT-B
Kenelm Winslow b.1599 Derived DNA Fingerprint


ATTACHMENT-C
Winslow Y-DNA Participants Results
[/center:1bc30de7d4]

If you have questions or comments on the material presented, please contact me at sjwinslow@gmail.com

Stephen Winslow

[sjwinslow]

(Originally published Oct 14 2005)

We have just received results for participant 58705 who is a descendant of Timothy’s son John. The good news is that he exactly matches the other two Timothy descendants at the 26 marker level. This allows us to be confident of the 26 marker DNA fingerprint for Timothy. We now have the DNA fingerprint for both Timothy and Kenelm (Kenelm’s DNA fingerprint still has a confidence level of 90%).

However, our new participant was kind enough to have the 43 marker test performed and some interesting things resulted when compared to the Kenelm descendants. At the 26 marker level our Timothy descendants match to our Kenelm descendants on 21 to 22 markers (for the believed Kenelm DNA fingerprint). When we move to the 43 marker test most of the Kenelm descendants are very close on all of these additional markers. But the new Timothy descendant misses on three additional markers. Also the Timothy descendant has an undefined value for marker DYS464d. This is considered a rare marker and many times returns an undefined value. I have sent an email to Relative Genetics to determine if this marker would also be considered a mismatch. Usually markers with undefined values are not considered in the comparison. But in this case it seems to be a DYS464d mismatch since all of the other Kenelm descendants have the value of 15 for this marker.

Regardless, even if we take the more conservative approach and say that we will exclude the DYS464d marker we still have a comparison of Timothy descendants to Kenelm as a 34/42 match. Anything beyond 6 mismatches on a 43 marker test is considered not related in several hundred years.

As we continue to gather information on Timothy’s potential relationship to the New England Winslows, it looks more like the common relative is much farther back in history than Edward Sr. The best estimate we have right now is the soonest they could have a common relative was probably about 20 generations before Timothy (or about 500 years or 1150AD). The graph below shows the lower limit of 21 generations and an upper limit of 79 generations. (Click icon for larger picture)

[center:1b99cf7733][/center:1b99cf7733]
To have completely conclusive evidence we will need a descendant of Kenelm’s brother John. But it seems almost certain that Timothy is not related to Kenelm through a common relative only 3 generations back. We still have the possibilities of 1) Kenelm and John may not be brothers and 2) Timothy is not the grandson of John.

[sjwinslow]

(Originally Posted 7 Jul 2005)
I recently found this very interesting graphic that shows the quantity of Winslows that immigrated to the USA during the 40 years 1851 to 1891. If my counting is correct, based on the points on the graph, there were a total of 331 Winslow immigrants during that time frame.

Even with only half of this number being male Winslows, this still provides a significant number of Winslow ancestors that would seem to not derive directly from Edward Sr.’s 5 sons.

[center:8f7c28ea56][/center:8f7c28ea56]
I only bring this conjecture up as a discussion point but the majority of our results to date, indicate the earliest ancestral connections of most of our participants are more than 12 generations back (12 generations back would be Edward Sr).

As we move forward we may see several of our participants that show the Most Recent Common Relative (MRCA) beyond the 12 generation mark. With a 26 marker Y-DNA test a MRCA at 10 generations (Job would be at 10 generations) would have the highest probability of being a 25 out of 26 marker match. Currently we have no one that matches that closely. (But let me stress that a 24/26 match can occur at 10 generations, we're just talking probabilities here.)

Since the determination of MRCA is a statistical calculation the results where we now have a 24/26 marker match between participant # 41643 and 40479 doesn’t rule out a match at Job (10 generations back) it is however a lower probability than if we had a 25/26 match.

The numbers on the graph would suggest that there are a large quantity of Winslows in the US whose ancestors immigrated sometime much later than the first pilgrims. These Winslow descendents may still have a common ancestor, it just might be farther back in our ancestry than Edward Sr.

[sjwinslow]

(Originally posted 30 Sep 2005)
[center:f4214fe974]Thomas Line DNA Confirmed[/center:f4214fe974]

Thomas Winslow b. 1 Aug 1682, son of Timothy Winslow, now has two descendants with identical 26 marker DNA results. This allows us to derive the DNA for Thomas and both his sons John and Timothy branches. On the Genealogy/DNA chart this allows us to fill in the DNA from reference point Q to both L and P.

These results are both good and maybe some not so good news. The good news is that we now have confirmation of the DNA fingerprint all the way back to Thomas. The maybe not so good news is that there are 4 markers that are each 1 allele value difference (a total genetic distance of 4) from the believed DNA Fingerprint of Edward Sr. This makes it much less likely that Thomas is the Great-great-grandson of Edward Sr. Statically, there would be less than a 2% chance that a genetic distance of 4 to 5 would occur in 4 generations.

However, with only two Timothy descendants currently with results, additional information could shed light on how this could be possible. Additionally, we have less confidence in Edward Sr.’s DNA than we do Kenelm’s (this is because we have multiple Kenelm descendants to prove his DNA and only Kenelm’s DNA to lead us to Edward Sr.’s) . These suppositions are based on the assumption that Edward and Kenelm’s DNA are the same. It is possible that a mutation or two could have occurred between the brothers Kenelm and John. If this was the case then the probability would be significantly higher for a connection between Edward Sr. and Timothy.

Even though we know significantly more about the Timothy branch now, we still need additional DNA results from the descendants of Thomas’s brother John. We also need descendants of one of Joseph’s (Timothy’s supposed father) brothers. The combination of these results would give us a very good foundation to base a conclusion.

We are much closer today knowing if Timothy is the son of Joseph than we ever have in the past. With just a few more participants... we will know.

[sjwinslow]

(Originally posted 13 Oct 2005)
While we are waiting on results for the descendant of Thomas’ brother John, here is some of my “Thinking out loud”…

Its coming down to... we need a John descendant.

I've thought about some "what if" possibilities. 1) What if John Winslow's (b.1597) DNA matches Timothy's (b. abt 1654) and not so much Kenelm (b. 1599)? That would raise the question if Kenelm and John were brothers. 2) What if John matches Kenelm and not so much Timothy? That would indicate Joseph is an unlikely father and we need to look for another Winslow line for Timothy. 3) What if John's DNA is in the middle of matching Kenelm and Timothy. That would most likely mean that they are all related but it will be difficult to convince the nay-sayers because of the quantity of mutations in such a few generations.

The third result would most likely put us in nearly the same place we are now (non-solid proof). To match both Kenelm and Timothy, John would need, of the 5 markers that mis-match now, 2-3 markers that match Kenelm and 2 that matched Timothy. With a genetic distance of 2 from John to both Kenelm and Timothy, a 2 marker difference in just 2 generations is still only a 2.6% probability of relatedness at best. I believe, to be confident in the connection at that point would require descendants of 2 of John sons with very similar DNA to ensure John’s DNA is correct. Best would be if one of the descendants was through Joseph’s son Joseph to confirm both John and Timothy. It might also require a descendant from another Kenelm brother (this might not even be possible) to show that one or more of the mutations occurred between Edward on Kenelm.

I believe if we didn’t have an abundance of subjective evidence from numerous researchers linking Timothy to Joseph we would’ve already stated that it is almost certain that Timothy and Kenelm don’t have a common relative for a hundred years prior. However, given where we are, the burden of proof will be on this project to show without reasonable doubt the true validity of the relationship between Joseph and Timothy. This is the only way this project will be taken seriously on the subject of Timothy’s paternity.

[sjwinslow]

(Originally poster 14 Oct 2005)
[center:ecb33a20e1]Timothy DNA Fingerprint Identified![/center:ecb33a20e1]

We have just received results for participant 58705 who is a descendant of Timothy’s son John. The good news is that he exactly matches the other two Timothy descendants at the 26 marker level. This allows us to be confident of the 26 marker DNA fingerprint for Timothy. We now have the DNA fingerprint for both Timothy and Kenelm (Kenelm’s DNA fingerprint still has a confidence level of 90%).

However, our new participant was kind enough to have the 43 marker test performed and some interesting things resulted when compared to the Kenelm descendants. At the 26 marker level our Timothy descendants match to our Kenelm descendants on 21 to 22 markers (for the believed Kenelm DNA fingerprint). When we move to the 43 marker test most of the Kenelm descendants are very close on all of these additional markers. But the new Timothy descendant misses on three additional markers. Also the Timothy descendant has an undefined value for marker DYS464d. This is considered a rare marker and many times returns an undefined value. I have sent an email to Relative Genetics to determine if this marker would also be considered a mismatch. Usually markers with undefined values are not considered in the comparison. But in this case it seems to be a DYS464d mismatch since all of the other Kenelm descendants have the value of 15 for this marker.

Regardless, even if we take the more conservative approach and say that we will exclude the DYS464d marker we still have a comparison of Timothy descendants to Kenelm as a 34/42 match. Anything beyond 6 mismatches on a 43 marker test is considered not related in several hundred years.

As we continue to gather information on Timothy’s potential relationship to the New England Winslows, it looks more like the common relative is much farther back in history than Edward Sr. The best estimate we have right now is the soonest they could have a common relative was probably about 20 generations before Timothy (or about 500 years or 1150AD). The graph below shows the lower limit of 21 generations and an upper limit of 79 generations.

[center:ecb33a20e1][/center:ecb33a20e1]

To have completely conclusive evidence we will need a descendant of Kenelm’s brother John. But it seems almost certain that Timothy is not related to Kenelm through a common relative only 3 generations back. We still have the possibilities of 1) Kenelm and John may not be brothers and 2) Timothy is not the grandson of John.

[sjwinslow]

(Originally posted 6 Dec 2005)
With our latest results from participant 59843 the Timothy descendants remain with a very consistent DNA fingerprint but have the first mutation from the modal. All of the four test results for Timothy descendants align closely with the Timothy DNA fingerprint. It is an interesting comparison between the Timothy descendants and the Kenelm descendants. The Kenelm descendants show a rather high rate of mutations in their line of the family. In fact the Kenelm line is showing mutation rates above the average of .002 mutations per generation. On the other hand the Timothy descendants have shown almost no mutations between their members. We have results relating to 985 marker-conception events with one mutation identified. This is obviously well below the average of one in 500.

Unfortunately, the new results brings us no closer to determining if the Timothy line is descended from Edward Sr. We are still actively looking for a descendent of Edward Sr.’s son John. This seems to be the key to this mystery.

[sjwinslow]

Originally posted by Mac Winslow on 12 Dec 2005)
Is there any way to compare the timothy descendants with the chilton side?

[sjwinslow]

(Originally posted on 12 Dec 2005)
Mac,

Not really. The only connection to the Chiltons is through Mary Chilton, John Winslow’s wife. The Y-DNA test only tracks the paternal DNA. We are only able to do results on male Winslows and the analysis is only good for ancestors back through the male Winslows.

Stephen Winslow

[sjwinslow]

(Originally posted by Landis Lee Bender II on 15 Jan 2006)

I read that you're looking for a descendent of Edward Sr's son John.
I assume you mean Edward Winslow born 1560 In Droitwich, Worcestershire, England and died 1620.
His son John born April 16 1597 in Droitwich, Kempsey, Worcestershire, England and died 21 may 1674 Boston, Suffolk, Massachusetts.

According to what I've found on my records, my line should be as followed.

John Winslow Married Mary Chilton
Susanna Winslow 1629-1685 & Robert Latham 1623-1688
Hannah Latham 1650-1725 & Joseph Washborn 1653-1733
Hepzibah Washburn 1679-1750 & Benjamin Leach 1677-1764
Hannah Leach 1725- & Solomon Leach 1712-af 1750
Jerusha Leach 1745- & Isaac Leach 1737-
Cotton Mather Leach 1780-1852 & Fannie Hayes 1785-1846
Leora Amanda Leach 1824-1896 & Oliver Levis Vincent (Levi Vance) 1812-1864
Francis Levi Vance (Frank Vance) 1854-1926 & Mabel McCrady 1881-1951
Dorothy Vance 1917-living & Marcus LaDue 1918-1990
Marjorie LaDue 1953-living & Landis Bender 1951-living
I am Landis Lee Bender II

Please somebody verify this if necessary but this would make me a descendent of John Winslow if correct. Would my DNA be of any use or does it have to be a line from male to male only therefore Y-DNA?

[sjwinslow]

(Originally posted on 16 Jan 2006)

Landis,

Thank you for your interest in our project. Y-DNA allows us a very good mechanism to evaluate relationships and determine the timeframe of common ancestors but one of its primary limitations is the requirement that we have a direct paternal line. In our case, where we are looking for a descendant of John Winslow, a qualifying participate must be a male Winslow with direct paternal lineage back to John b. 16 Apr 1597.

Thanks again,
Stephen Winslow

[sjwinslow]

[center:d2df0aea40]TIMOTHY NOT GRANDSON OF JOHN WINSLOW AND MARY CHILTON[/center:d2df0aea40]

For more than fifty years researchers have been trying to locate the records that would show that Timothy Winslow (b.1654) was the son of Joseph Winslow (b. abt 1636) and grandson to the famed John Winslow (b.1597, passenger on the Fortune) and Mary Chilton (b.1605, passenger on the Mayflower). Numerous articles, reports and books have speculated and put forth subjective proposals containing circumstantial evidence in the form of commonalities of family names, general proximity of family members and some related records. However, there has never been hard proof that Joseph was Timothy’s father. (You can read a complete supposition on the Timothy connection here http://www.internetree.com/Winslow.htm )

The Winslow Family Y-DNA Project was started in April of 2005 with one of its objectives to (dis)prove the connection between Timothy and his supposed father Joseph. We currently have 11 of our participants whose results contribute to the analysis of the Timothy connection. Of them 6 are descendants of Kenelm b.1599, Timothy’s granduncle; 1 is a descendant of Timothy’s grandfather John Winslow and 4 are direct descendants of Timothy. The test results for these participants and the genealogy/genetic charts are located here http://winslowtree.com/DNA/results.htm

Early on the Y-DNA test results indicated that the descendants of Kenelm (b.1599) the supposed granduncle of Timothy was similar to those of the Timothy descendants but not close enough to have a common ancestor only 12 generations ago. This was preliminary results and lacked any information from a direct descendant of John Winslow (b.1597), Timothy’s supposed grandfather. Only recently have we located a John descendant and obtained his Y-DNA test results.

The new addition of the John descendant now gives us a three-way check. With results from Kenelm (John’s brother), John and Timothy the results can be analyzed with very high confidence.

If the original supposition of Timothy being Joseph’s son and John’s grandson were true then the Y-DNA results should all be the same (within 1 or 2 marker differences) for the descendants of all three legs. For the results to be conclusive, at least the Kenelm descendants should show a close match to the John descendant to prove that the genealogy records are accurate for those two lineages of our participants. Obviously, if we were to end up with no matches between the three branches then the finding would be inconclusive.

The results of the Kenelm descendants did show a very close match to the John descendant. This allows us to conclude that the genealogy records for the descendants of these two branches of the family are indeed correct and the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) calculations confirm that the Kenelm descendants and the John descendants have a common ancestor in the time frame of Edward Sr. (Kenelm and John’s recorded father).

However, the Timothy descendant’s Y-DNA test results were different enough from both the Kenelm descendants and the John descendants that the MRCA calculations indicate a common ancestor of more than 40 generations ago, not just 11-12 generations. These results show that the Timothy branch is indeed related to the ancestors of John and Kenelm but that common ancestor lived more than 1000 year ago. Timothy is NOT the son of Joseph nor is he a descendant of any of Edward Sr.’s children. Timothy is more than likely a descendant of a much earlier ancestor of Edward Sr. and Timothy’s lineage is separate from Edward Sr.’s branch of the family for several generations in the past.

This information should give Timothy descendants a new focus to locate his true father rather than continuing efforts to prove a connection to Joseph. I know information like this will be difficult for many to accept, especially those who have invested countless hours in the search of proof of the Timothy-Joseph connection as well as the researchers desiring to prove a connection to the Mayflower passenger Mary Chilton. But consolation should be given that our ancestors, regardless of their origin, were made of some of the hard-working fabric that made us and our country strong.

Stephen Winslow

[sjwinslow]

We have most recently add two new participants. The first was trying to, most importantly document the DNA for their branch of Winslows before they lost their last living male Winslow and secondly to determine if there was any link to the other Winslow branches for which we currently have DNA results. The first objective was accomplished and even though there is not match to any of our current project participants we have a DNA record that can be used on in the future.

Our second participant who has just received results has little or no genealogy records. But this time we were able to match him with the descendants of Timothy Winslow. This will allow this participant to focus their genealogy research and have a much better chance of determining his lineage.