Following the complexities of Y-DNA can, at times, be a daunting task. There are scientists and hobbyists that thankfully allow the rest of us to observe in awe of what they understand. Dr. Ken Nortdvedt is a professor emeritus in the Physics Department at Montana State University. He is also an active genetic genealogist, and has also done his own research into genetic Haplogroup, particularly the Y DNA group I to which he belongs, and advises on haplotypes for a population genetics group at FamilyTreeDNA. Nordtvedt has proposed a new most recent common ancestor calculation method.
Our family belongs to Haplogroup I where it is a member of a rare subclade known as L369 or "Isles-Scot". Dr. Nordtvedt constantly updates a particular graph on his site that provides the downstream markers for the M223 subclade. The M223 subclade is upstream from our L369, meaning our Y-DNA was once part of a larger subclade (M223) before its present day signature (L369) was derived. After M223, and before our L369 subclade, our Y-DNA modified into the M284 subclade. The M223 subclade occurs in Britain and northwest continental Europe, while the M284 subclade occurs almost exclusively in Britain, so it apparantly originated there and has been present for thousands of years. Our L369 subclade is downstream of M223 and M284. L369 (aka Isles-Scot) is not only believed to have originated on the British Isles, it is primarily found in Scotland. These subclades are derived by a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). These unique SNPs are given a nomeclature (M223, M284, L369, etc.) and allow Y-DNA scientists the ability to seperate out the individual branches of the larger Haplogroup.
By looking at Dr. Nordtvedt's chart, you will begin with M223 on the left and follow the line up to M284 and then up once again to the area marked as "L126 L137 L369" and also "Isles-Scot". This is our family subclade branch. We are positive for L126/L137 in our Y-DNA and by also showing positive results for L369, we seperate ourselves from the "Limbo" subclade who are only positive for the first two and not L369, and are labeled as "Isles-Scot".
You can see by the timeline on the bottom of the chart, the period of time that Dr. Nordtvedt believes these various subclades or branches were formed from their orignator. Based on the results of 2 Oct 2012, this puts our ancestors on the British Isles, and primarily in Scotland, as early as 5,500 years ago and on the British Isles as late as 8,500 years ago or longer.
Who were the originators or progenitors of the M223, M284, L126/L137, and L369 subclades? At this time, there hasn't been enough evidence to point to any particular male. A generation is calculated at about 30 years. Historical information of the British Isles becomes a little distorted the further back you go. Some would even say that fiction has entered into these historical documents as it was passed down. I've written about these records and that our surname is included with the great kings of the British Isles. Hopefully, one day we'll be able to determine who the progenitor of L369 was. By continuing to look for unique SNPs and testing for them, we are getting a little closer.
You can also find the entire Haplogroup I tree on Dr. Nordtvedt's site where you'll see a dotted line box of the M223+ on his chart and then navigate to the left to continue going further back in time. You can also access the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) where this haplogroup tree is displayed.
William and Annester Gowin of Lunenburg County and Bedford County, Virginia
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Newly Found Possibility - William Gowen, the orphan
We may never know the story behind our William Gowin and why he was living in that portion of Lunenburg County, Virginia that later became Bedford County. He must have fallen in love with this area because he lived there for nearly 50 years before moving further south to Kentucky.
The land in this area was fertile for farming and tobacco was a major crop of the period. The landscape around him must have been very beautiful with rolling hills, small streams and rivers, and an endless supply of land as far as the eye could see. Many traveled to this lower portion of Virginia from Pennslyvania and Maryland. Some were seeking opportunity, others freedom of religion, and some were just wanting to escape the English rule that continued to follow them from their homeland and may have been the reason they arrived in the colonies in the first place.
A few months back, after talking to a family researcher and professional genealogist, it was concluded that our William may have been an orphan, which in those days was the name applied to a child when their father died and regardless of whether the mother was still alive. Up until recently, I had not found any GOWEN/GOWIN/GOWAN or variants that were orphan or otherwise and who not aligned to the GOWEN clan who is known to be from Haplogroup E1b1a (African) and that descend from Mihil. There are many GOWEN's from the mulatto or African side that were living in Virginia and especially in Stafford County, VA in the early 1700s. However, some have been misaligned just because their surname is a variant. This was the case with my GOWIN/GOWAN family until Y-DNA proved otherwise and allowed us to sort through some of the written recordings.
Stafford County (later Prince William and Fairfax) for some was the first stopping point in Virginia from the surrounding states before many migrated to other counties. In the early 1700's it was the county that George Washington's father resided in and where he attended church.
While going through records recently, I came upon a WILLIAM GOWEN listed within a parish record of Prince William County, VA as a ten year old "orphan" in 1737 where the vestry of the parish were assigning John Straughan as caretaker of young William until he reached the age of twenty-one.
What is significant about this find is that this William Gowen does not appear to be aligned to the GOWEN mulatto clan of Virginia. In fact, I reached out to a very prominent researcher of that family who sent me a response to my enquiry that he was not aware of this William at all. Is there a possibility that this ten year old Willam Gowen is our William? I have posted that we know that our William was no younger than 18 when first recorded as a tithable of William Callaway in June 1752 in Lunenburg County, VA. This is known because he sold a wolf head in 1754 and was required to be a free man (not indentured) above 21 years of age to receive payment for doing so.
The William Gowen recorded in Prince William County as ten years old in 1737 would be slightly younger than what we had originally thought for our William, but it is not unreasonable to think that it could still be a possibility. We know that our William died sometime before or around 1806. If our William were born in 1727, as the orphan William Gowen, then he would have been close to 79 years of age at the time of his birth. Again, not unrealistic, but that would be very good under the circumstances of that period of time.
Additional research will be required to either support or deny the possibility that the William Gowen of Prince William County, VA recorded as an orphan in 1737 is the same as our William Gowin later recorded in 1752 in Lunenburg County, VA. A will from his father or a notice that his mother remarried as the "wife of the late ....Gowen" would greatly assist our search. Because many of the records of this period were destroyed, we may continue to wonder the possibility. Until then, here is the text of the actual images within the Parish of Truro in Prince William County, VA:
"This indenture made the twenty-fifth day of August in the Eleventh year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the second by the Grace of God of Great Brittain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc. Annoque Domini MDCCXXXVii Between Jeremiah Bronaugh and Thomas Lewis, Church Wardens of Truro Parish in the county of Prince William of the one part, and John Straughan of the same Parish and County of the other part Witnesseth That the said Jeremian Bronaugh and Thomas Lewis in obedience to an order of the Court of the County of Prince William aforesd. dated the 23rd day of October MDCCXXVii do bind & put William Gowen, an Orphan child aged ten years, a Servant and Apprentice unto the said John Straughan, to serve him the said John Straughan in all such Lawfull business as he shall have occasion to employ him about, from the date of the date of these presents until he shall arrive at the age of twenty one years. He the said John Straughan finding and providing for the said William Gowen during the term aforesaid such convenient Meat Drink Apparell Washing and Lodging as is Suitable and necessary for a person of his condiditon. And using his best endeavor to learn him the Art and Mistery of a Tanner, and also to read English, and to pay and allow him at the expiration of the said Term such freedom Due as by the Laws of this Colony is allowed to Servants imported here without wages. In Witness whereof the parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and Seales the day month and Year first above written.
Signed Sealed & Delivered John [X] Straughan
In Presence of
Robert Jones
Edward Barry, Clerk of the Vestry."
The land in this area was fertile for farming and tobacco was a major crop of the period. The landscape around him must have been very beautiful with rolling hills, small streams and rivers, and an endless supply of land as far as the eye could see. Many traveled to this lower portion of Virginia from Pennslyvania and Maryland. Some were seeking opportunity, others freedom of religion, and some were just wanting to escape the English rule that continued to follow them from their homeland and may have been the reason they arrived in the colonies in the first place.
A few months back, after talking to a family researcher and professional genealogist, it was concluded that our William may have been an orphan, which in those days was the name applied to a child when their father died and regardless of whether the mother was still alive. Up until recently, I had not found any GOWEN/GOWIN/GOWAN or variants that were orphan or otherwise and who not aligned to the GOWEN clan who is known to be from Haplogroup E1b1a (African) and that descend from Mihil. There are many GOWEN's from the mulatto or African side that were living in Virginia and especially in Stafford County, VA in the early 1700s. However, some have been misaligned just because their surname is a variant. This was the case with my GOWIN/GOWAN family until Y-DNA proved otherwise and allowed us to sort through some of the written recordings.
Stafford County (later Prince William and Fairfax) for some was the first stopping point in Virginia from the surrounding states before many migrated to other counties. In the early 1700's it was the county that George Washington's father resided in and where he attended church.
While going through records recently, I came upon a WILLIAM GOWEN listed within a parish record of Prince William County, VA as a ten year old "orphan" in 1737 where the vestry of the parish were assigning John Straughan as caretaker of young William until he reached the age of twenty-one.
What is significant about this find is that this William Gowen does not appear to be aligned to the GOWEN mulatto clan of Virginia. In fact, I reached out to a very prominent researcher of that family who sent me a response to my enquiry that he was not aware of this William at all. Is there a possibility that this ten year old Willam Gowen is our William? I have posted that we know that our William was no younger than 18 when first recorded as a tithable of William Callaway in June 1752 in Lunenburg County, VA. This is known because he sold a wolf head in 1754 and was required to be a free man (not indentured) above 21 years of age to receive payment for doing so.
The William Gowen recorded in Prince William County as ten years old in 1737 would be slightly younger than what we had originally thought for our William, but it is not unreasonable to think that it could still be a possibility. We know that our William died sometime before or around 1806. If our William were born in 1727, as the orphan William Gowen, then he would have been close to 79 years of age at the time of his birth. Again, not unrealistic, but that would be very good under the circumstances of that period of time.
Additional research will be required to either support or deny the possibility that the William Gowen of Prince William County, VA recorded as an orphan in 1737 is the same as our William Gowin later recorded in 1752 in Lunenburg County, VA. A will from his father or a notice that his mother remarried as the "wife of the late ....Gowen" would greatly assist our search. Because many of the records of this period were destroyed, we may continue to wonder the possibility. Until then, here is the text of the actual images within the Parish of Truro in Prince William County, VA:
"This indenture made the twenty-fifth day of August in the Eleventh year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George the second by the Grace of God of Great Brittain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc. Annoque Domini MDCCXXXVii Between Jeremiah Bronaugh and Thomas Lewis, Church Wardens of Truro Parish in the county of Prince William of the one part, and John Straughan of the same Parish and County of the other part Witnesseth That the said Jeremian Bronaugh and Thomas Lewis in obedience to an order of the Court of the County of Prince William aforesd. dated the 23rd day of October MDCCXXVii do bind & put William Gowen, an Orphan child aged ten years, a Servant and Apprentice unto the said John Straughan, to serve him the said John Straughan in all such Lawfull business as he shall have occasion to employ him about, from the date of the date of these presents until he shall arrive at the age of twenty one years. He the said John Straughan finding and providing for the said William Gowen during the term aforesaid such convenient Meat Drink Apparell Washing and Lodging as is Suitable and necessary for a person of his condiditon. And using his best endeavor to learn him the Art and Mistery of a Tanner, and also to read English, and to pay and allow him at the expiration of the said Term such freedom Due as by the Laws of this Colony is allowed to Servants imported here without wages. In Witness whereof the parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and Seales the day month and Year first above written.
Signed Sealed & Delivered John [X] Straughan
In Presence of
Robert Jones
Edward Barry, Clerk of the Vestry."
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Our Y-DNA and Scotland
In molecular evolution, a haplogroup (from the Greek: απλούς, haploûs, "onefold, single, simple") is a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor having the same single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation in both haplotypes. An example is the SNP nomenclature known as I-Y4751 where one group is positive and the other negative, but they are both related to the same man who created the further upstream haplotype! Hopefully it’s not too confusing!
Our haplogroup signature is I-Y4751. Those within our family who currently only show I-M223 on the McGowan Project site are derived for the I-Y4751 because a few of us spent the money to have further SNP testing to aid analysis that is ongoing and were provided that further signature. After you pay a few extra dollars and test for SNP I-Y4751 and return positive results for that SNP, you are shown on Family Tree DNA as I-Y4751 and it is shown in green font, indicating you are confirmed for that SNP and not derived.
To confuse matters worse, the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) has recently changed the name of our haplogroup from I2b1a1 to I2a2a1a1a1a1. Either way, I2b1a1 and I2a2a1a1a1a1 is another way of saying that person is positive for SNP I-Y4751! That’s why today, researchers are more likely to forget about describing haplogroups in favor of describing SNPs in more detail. To see the full tree for the larger haplogroup “I” and how our SNP (L369) defines us within, you can go to this site: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpI.html
For us, we are known as “I-Y4751+” or “Isles-Irish” to the research community. SNP I-Y4751 is a SNP further downstream of SNP L369. If you are negative for the SNP L369, you will likely fall into the “Isles-Eng” category or one of the others. Those who are L369+ have predominately Gaelic surnames or surnames that originated in Scotland and Ireland, as well as confirmed history in Ireland and Scotland. This promotes the theory that all of L369+ are indigenous to Scotland. They already know that the progenitor of this group (unknown at this time) was on the island approximately 4,200 years ago while his brother’s Y-DNA L369(-) SNP was different and he formed people who were predominately in the lower portion of the island we know now as England. By coupling the SNP history and the surname history, it becomes the genesis for how they separate our group into indigenous Scots. Our positive SNP I-Y4751 is believed to have originated around 1600-1900 years ago. The progenitor of I-Y4751 is unknown at this time, yet the I-M223 Project at Family Tree DNA currently (May 2020) uses the title "Isles-Irish" to describe this group.
This is why our Y-DNA SNP is considered somewhat rare. There are not a lot of us who are SNP I-Y4751+. We remain a small group even in Scotland and Ireland. The primary group in Scotland and Ireland are the Viking invaders for nearly all of the British Isles. Obviously the Vikings populated at a faster rate than our own group on the islands. The SNP I-Y4751 is believed to have been on the island prior to the viking and roman invaders and not long after the ice melted from the Ice Age.
I thought I would provide you further details on the Bryan Sykes analysis he performed and how our GOWAN Y-DNA fits within. First, it may be helpful to understand the difficulty in sorting through the names of ancient inhabitants of Scotland and Ireland. Primarily, the Picts, Gaels and the Scots/Scotti come to mind.
When the Romans occupied Britain a couple of thousand years ago, they used the label "Picti" to refer to all the people north of their new walls (Hadrian's Wall, followed by the Antonine Wall), in the same way that any occupation army refers to all of their enemies as "-------" (whatever label). The name stuck and now people refer to the Picts as the ancient inhabitants of what is now Scotland. They also called this area Caledonia. So anyone and everyone who is a descendant of the people who were living in Scotland when those "Picts" acquired their label, and before their culture and language of the Picts was assimilated into the modern nation of Scotland, is likewise a descendant of Picts, by simple definition. All that the name implies is the ancient inhabitants of Scotland. That would undoubtedly include many, many haplogroups and haplogroup subclades. Remember, our ancestors were on these islands for thousands of years before any other invaders (Roman, Viking, etc.).
We can reasonably suggest that haplogroup clusters that comprise a fairly large portion of the present population are more likely than not descendants of that Pict nation, *especially when those haplogroup clusters are not found in substantial numbers anywhere else*. The question of Irish versus Pictish is confounded by the many migrations back and forth between Ireland and Argyll, and I'm sure that question is nowhere near resolution, but it is largely a moot question. The Gaels and the Picts were people who shared much of their cultural and ethnic heritage. I'm sure that in ancient times they recognized that shared culture, but I doubt that it ever dissuaded them from crossing swords when it seemed appropriate for whatever reason.
The Caledonians, a Pictish tribe that was defeated by Agricola at the battle of Mons Graupius, were described as Germanic in appearance. Other tribes were described as dark and Iberian. This anecdotal evidence of an ethnic difference among the aborigines of Britain does suggest a mixture of haplogroups in their ancestry. I have been able to contact others who share our positive L369 SNP and many are like our family where there is a mixture of descendants of fair complexion along with those who tan easily and with blue eyes. Although we have had influence from our other ancestors through time until today, it does seem to suggest the possibility of admixture of Iberian influence that carried into our genes before the arrival in the British Isles, or more than 8,500 years ago since it is not isolated to one particular family.
In his book, “Saxons, Vikings, and Celts…”, Bryan DNA describes the results of the 10,000 people he tested. A few years ago, I was able to find his analysis. For those who wanted to know how our own GOWAN Y-DNA markers compared to that of Sykes research, here are the findings:
The “CODE” is the donor identifier he assigned to the donor from that region. Out of all of the areas tested on the islands, and there were many, you can see how our Y-DNA compares. It's not surprising that we matched people from Argyll, Borders, Hebrides, Strathclyde, and Tayside & Fife. Strathclyde was inhabited by the Celtic Britons. The areas of what is now Argyll was a Celtic race from Northern Ireland, who were eventually to give their name to all Scotland, and who created the Kingdom of Dalriada. In the North (Tayside & Fife) were the Celtic Picts, who were supreme from Caithness in the north to the Forth in the South. When reading Bryan Sykes book, he nicknames the mtDNA and YDNA groups by assigning them Clan Names. The "I" haplogroup within Sykes book is recorded as "Wodan". In germanic mythology, ODIN is also known as WODAN and is the god of war.
From the book "A Concise History Scotland" by Fitzroy Maclean and published by Thames & Hudson LTD in 1983, it states that "In the course of three centuries that followed the departure of the Romans, the Picts, the Scots, the Britons and finally even the Angles were all, nominally at any rate, converted to Christianity." Some of these races also began to live together in harmony, or at least when compared to earlier centuries.
Bryan is the scientist who studied and drilled into the Cheddar Man’s tooth for DNA extraction.
Our haplogroup signature is I-Y4751. Those within our family who currently only show I-M223 on the McGowan Project site are derived for the I-Y4751 because a few of us spent the money to have further SNP testing to aid analysis that is ongoing and were provided that further signature. After you pay a few extra dollars and test for SNP I-Y4751 and return positive results for that SNP, you are shown on Family Tree DNA as I-Y4751 and it is shown in green font, indicating you are confirmed for that SNP and not derived.
To confuse matters worse, the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) has recently changed the name of our haplogroup from I2b1a1 to I2a2a1a1a1a1. Either way, I2b1a1 and I2a2a1a1a1a1 is another way of saying that person is positive for SNP I-Y4751! That’s why today, researchers are more likely to forget about describing haplogroups in favor of describing SNPs in more detail. To see the full tree for the larger haplogroup “I” and how our SNP (L369) defines us within, you can go to this site: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpI.html
For us, we are known as “I-Y4751+” or “Isles-Irish” to the research community. SNP I-Y4751 is a SNP further downstream of SNP L369. If you are negative for the SNP L369, you will likely fall into the “Isles-Eng” category or one of the others. Those who are L369+ have predominately Gaelic surnames or surnames that originated in Scotland and Ireland, as well as confirmed history in Ireland and Scotland. This promotes the theory that all of L369+ are indigenous to Scotland. They already know that the progenitor of this group (unknown at this time) was on the island approximately 4,200 years ago while his brother’s Y-DNA L369(-) SNP was different and he formed people who were predominately in the lower portion of the island we know now as England. By coupling the SNP history and the surname history, it becomes the genesis for how they separate our group into indigenous Scots. Our positive SNP I-Y4751 is believed to have originated around 1600-1900 years ago. The progenitor of I-Y4751 is unknown at this time, yet the I-M223 Project at Family Tree DNA currently (May 2020) uses the title "Isles-Irish" to describe this group.
This is why our Y-DNA SNP is considered somewhat rare. There are not a lot of us who are SNP I-Y4751+. We remain a small group even in Scotland and Ireland. The primary group in Scotland and Ireland are the Viking invaders for nearly all of the British Isles. Obviously the Vikings populated at a faster rate than our own group on the islands. The SNP I-Y4751 is believed to have been on the island prior to the viking and roman invaders and not long after the ice melted from the Ice Age.
I thought I would provide you further details on the Bryan Sykes analysis he performed and how our GOWAN Y-DNA fits within. First, it may be helpful to understand the difficulty in sorting through the names of ancient inhabitants of Scotland and Ireland. Primarily, the Picts, Gaels and the Scots/Scotti come to mind.
When the Romans occupied Britain a couple of thousand years ago, they used the label "Picti" to refer to all the people north of their new walls (Hadrian's Wall, followed by the Antonine Wall), in the same way that any occupation army refers to all of their enemies as "-------" (whatever label). The name stuck and now people refer to the Picts as the ancient inhabitants of what is now Scotland. They also called this area Caledonia. So anyone and everyone who is a descendant of the people who were living in Scotland when those "Picts" acquired their label, and before their culture and language of the Picts was assimilated into the modern nation of Scotland, is likewise a descendant of Picts, by simple definition. All that the name implies is the ancient inhabitants of Scotland. That would undoubtedly include many, many haplogroups and haplogroup subclades. Remember, our ancestors were on these islands for thousands of years before any other invaders (Roman, Viking, etc.).
We can reasonably suggest that haplogroup clusters that comprise a fairly large portion of the present population are more likely than not descendants of that Pict nation, *especially when those haplogroup clusters are not found in substantial numbers anywhere else*. The question of Irish versus Pictish is confounded by the many migrations back and forth between Ireland and Argyll, and I'm sure that question is nowhere near resolution, but it is largely a moot question. The Gaels and the Picts were people who shared much of their cultural and ethnic heritage. I'm sure that in ancient times they recognized that shared culture, but I doubt that it ever dissuaded them from crossing swords when it seemed appropriate for whatever reason.
The Caledonians, a Pictish tribe that was defeated by Agricola at the battle of Mons Graupius, were described as Germanic in appearance. Other tribes were described as dark and Iberian. This anecdotal evidence of an ethnic difference among the aborigines of Britain does suggest a mixture of haplogroups in their ancestry. I have been able to contact others who share our positive L369 SNP and many are like our family where there is a mixture of descendants of fair complexion along with those who tan easily and with blue eyes. Although we have had influence from our other ancestors through time until today, it does seem to suggest the possibility of admixture of Iberian influence that carried into our genes before the arrival in the British Isles, or more than 8,500 years ago since it is not isolated to one particular family.
In his book, “Saxons, Vikings, and Celts…”, Bryan DNA describes the results of the 10,000 people he tested. A few years ago, I was able to find his analysis. For those who wanted to know how our own GOWAN Y-DNA markers compared to that of Sykes research, here are the findings:
The “CODE” is the donor identifier he assigned to the donor from that region. Out of all of the areas tested on the islands, and there were many, you can see how our Y-DNA compares. It's not surprising that we matched people from Argyll, Borders, Hebrides, Strathclyde, and Tayside & Fife. Strathclyde was inhabited by the Celtic Britons. The areas of what is now Argyll was a Celtic race from Northern Ireland, who were eventually to give their name to all Scotland, and who created the Kingdom of Dalriada. In the North (Tayside & Fife) were the Celtic Picts, who were supreme from Caithness in the north to the Forth in the South. When reading Bryan Sykes book, he nicknames the mtDNA and YDNA groups by assigning them Clan Names. The "I" haplogroup within Sykes book is recorded as "Wodan". In germanic mythology, ODIN is also known as WODAN and is the god of war.
From the book "A Concise History Scotland" by Fitzroy Maclean and published by Thames & Hudson LTD in 1983, it states that "In the course of three centuries that followed the departure of the Romans, the Picts, the Scots, the Britons and finally even the Angles were all, nominally at any rate, converted to Christianity." Some of these races also began to live together in harmony, or at least when compared to earlier centuries.
Bryan is the scientist who studied and drilled into the Cheddar Man’s tooth for DNA extraction.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
McGowan, Gowan, and Smith's in Ireland & Scotland
If you are a McGowan, Gowan, Smith or a variant of one of these surnames and you live in Scotland, Northern Ireland, or Ireland, then please consider joining the McGowan DNA Project at Family Tree DNA (http://www.familytreedna.com/group-join.aspx?Group=McGowan).
The McGowan Project seeks to find common heritage through sharing of information and DNA testing. All variant spellings are welcome. Although this project does not limit Y-DNA participation only to those males with the McGowan or variant surname, it is a study to determine potential relatedness of those with direct paternal ancestory of the McGowan surname or one of the variants.
The McGowan Project seeks to find common heritage through sharing of information and DNA testing. All variant spellings are welcome. Although this project does not limit Y-DNA participation only to those males with the McGowan or variant surname, it is a study to determine potential relatedness of those with direct paternal ancestory of the McGowan surname or one of the variants.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Gowan, Gowen, Gowin, Going, Goin...What is it?!
Beginning with William & Annester, our ancestors were like many of that period and were illiterate. The written language prior to 1830 was primarily phonetically based. The U.S. did not establish a formal and approved form of writing the English language until the 1820/30 period where it was taught in school. This meant that our ancestors relied on the scribes interpretation of their spoken language. This reliance resulted in a multitude of spellings of our surname.
Our Y-DNA points to our Celtic roots and is believed to be indigenous to the British Isles and primarily Scotland. It is found in small segments in Ireland and Wales. The early Celtic clan consisted of a people of the period before and after the last glacier maximum moving across and settling in Iberia which is the area now known as Spain, Portugal, and other areas. Members migrated to various areas and our particular line appears to have continued on to a land mass that later became cut off from the main body of land and is now known as the United Kingdom.
Recently, those male descendants of William & Annester who tested Y-DNA, matched a "McGowan" whose relatives are from Scotland, having been there for a long time. The period of time to most recent common ancestor between those from our family who tested and this McGowan seems to strongly suggest that our own surname was most likely "McGowan" at one time and must have dropped the "Mc" over time.
The illiteracy of our ancestors has made it difficult for us to navigate through those who are not related to us but carry a variant of the surname. It has also created challenges within our family line research because of the need to follow the many variants. Today, the ancestors of William & Annester have maintained a few of these variants. This means that you may run into someone with one of the variants and not think you are related!
Because our Y-DNA is somewhat rare, it may be challenging to find a variant of our surname that currently lives in the U.K. or in Ireland or Wales. The desire to find your roots and participate in Y-DNA or DNA research is not as strong as it is in the U.S. Although it does occur, they are less likely to provide Y-DNA. If you already have a rare Y-DNA and need a larger sample size to participate in order to find the few who may match, it doesn't bode well for us at the moment. The "McGowan" person who matched us distantly is our first opportunity and the ability to match others may take years.
So, when you are trying to decide which surname spelling to apply to our ancestors, just know that they probably carried one of 6-8 different variants at one time or another and often even within the same legal document! Regardless of your surname variant today or your choice for assignment to your ancestor in the past, we are all related and should be proud of our heritage.
Our Y-DNA points to our Celtic roots and is believed to be indigenous to the British Isles and primarily Scotland. It is found in small segments in Ireland and Wales. The early Celtic clan consisted of a people of the period before and after the last glacier maximum moving across and settling in Iberia which is the area now known as Spain, Portugal, and other areas. Members migrated to various areas and our particular line appears to have continued on to a land mass that later became cut off from the main body of land and is now known as the United Kingdom.
Recently, those male descendants of William & Annester who tested Y-DNA, matched a "McGowan" whose relatives are from Scotland, having been there for a long time. The period of time to most recent common ancestor between those from our family who tested and this McGowan seems to strongly suggest that our own surname was most likely "McGowan" at one time and must have dropped the "Mc" over time.
The illiteracy of our ancestors has made it difficult for us to navigate through those who are not related to us but carry a variant of the surname. It has also created challenges within our family line research because of the need to follow the many variants. Today, the ancestors of William & Annester have maintained a few of these variants. This means that you may run into someone with one of the variants and not think you are related!
Because our Y-DNA is somewhat rare, it may be challenging to find a variant of our surname that currently lives in the U.K. or in Ireland or Wales. The desire to find your roots and participate in Y-DNA or DNA research is not as strong as it is in the U.S. Although it does occur, they are less likely to provide Y-DNA. If you already have a rare Y-DNA and need a larger sample size to participate in order to find the few who may match, it doesn't bode well for us at the moment. The "McGowan" person who matched us distantly is our first opportunity and the ability to match others may take years.
So, when you are trying to decide which surname spelling to apply to our ancestors, just know that they probably carried one of 6-8 different variants at one time or another and often even within the same legal document! Regardless of your surname variant today or your choice for assignment to your ancestor in the past, we are all related and should be proud of our heritage.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
William Gowan/Gowin was not indentured but may have arrived in Bedford County to find work
In order for William Gowin to have been an indentured servant, he would have had to be free by 29 Aug 1754 when he was 21 years old. Two reasons: (1) The bounty of a child or an indentured servant or a slave accrued to their parent, master, or guardian. (2) Only a free male over 21 could make an assignment.
That argues strongly against an indenture. He was taxable to no one in 1748, 1748, and 1750. So the earliest he could have been indentured to Callaway would be 1751. He would not be free a mere three years later.
The only way he could be indentured is if he was indentured to someone else and that someone then sold the contract to Callaway. That is so rare that it's practically non-existent. It's like suggesting that he was a lawyer from Boston who was married to Callaway's niece. It's just about as likely.
However, reaching 21 has nothing to do with indentures. But reaching 21 meant the end of apprenticeships and guardianships. Which were way, way more common.
Furthermore, indentured servants in 1750 were very rare to begin with. Virginia had discovered slavery, and slaves were doing what the indentured servants of an earlier generation used to do. Why would Callaway pay for an indenture when he could get a lifetime slave so easily? (Colonies that did not have slaves still had indentured servants, of course, but they had nearly disappeared from Virginia by that time.)
Furthermore, there is no evidence that Callaway kept any of the others that he paid tithes for as long as 7 years.
I would think it is most likely that Callaway's taxables were poor children under 21, orphans under 21, apprentices under 21, or overseers or other employees who were over 21.
Let’s examine one person who William Callaway also paid tithes for in 1749: Sherwood Gaddy. In 1752 "Sherrod Gaddy" is listed as "overseer" on Thomas Mosely's list. "list" and "quarter" are codewords. That means that Mosely is non-resident, Gaddy is his resident overseer of the slaves taxed. One explanation is that once Gaddy turned 21 he hired himself out to Mosely as an overseer. That would place Gaddy’s birth about 1728 or 1729. This also fits with him being with Callaway 3 years prior to our William and thus 3 years older and likely around 18 years old when Gaddy was with Callaway.
Callaway is taxed for other white males each year. Gaddy in 1748, Brown in 1749 and 1750, then Gowen, Graves, and Simmmons in 1750. Possibly they are working in his store or warehouse. Or they may be field hands. Or they may each be at a different tract engaged in cutting down trees. We may never know. These men do not have families in the area. There are no other people with their surnames in the area. That suggests they are orphans or poor children or young men from somewhere else who are apprenticed to Callaway until they reach 21.
Samuel Brown is not found in 1752 but is on the Bedford militia list in Sep 1758. William Gowen, Sherwood Gaddy, and William Simmons are on the same militia list.
We can probably infer that William Gowin is not indentured, but was around 19 years old when William Callaway paid his tithes in 1752, and may have also been with him in 1751 for all we know (missing tithable list). This may help us with clues though.
Some, if not all, of these men appear to have been young when taxed to Callaway. Sherwood Gaddy seems to have been born in the late 1720s -- he died in 1803. William Gowin lived past 1800 and may have died around 1804. It was a rare man who lived past 70 in those days. Also, all of William Gowin's known children were born late 1750s or later. That suggests he did not marry until the mid-1750s or later.
Because there is no record of him in prior tithable lists, and because apprenticeships did not usually begin at age 18, it is not likely that he was an apprentice. He was at least 19 years old when he was with Callaway. There are also no other Gowin/Gowan/Gowen's in the area that could be potential relatives. That means that he was either from a different geography than Lunenburg/Bedford County or that he was orphaned (a term used when no father is alive, regardless of whether mother is) prior to the date of the earliest availabe tithable list. William Gowan/Gowin could also have been over 21 years old and working for Callaway.
Conclusion: The men taxed to Callaway do not appear to have relatives in the area. Several indicators suggest that they were relatively young -- perhaps teenagers or early 20s. They may be teenagers apprenticed to Callaway, although unlikely. They may be poor children apprenticed to Callaway. They may be young men indentured to Callaway, although this is probably unlikely. They may be "overseers" for Callaway although he didn't list them as such or working his tracts of land.
That argues strongly against an indenture. He was taxable to no one in 1748, 1748, and 1750. So the earliest he could have been indentured to Callaway would be 1751. He would not be free a mere three years later.
The only way he could be indentured is if he was indentured to someone else and that someone then sold the contract to Callaway. That is so rare that it's practically non-existent. It's like suggesting that he was a lawyer from Boston who was married to Callaway's niece. It's just about as likely.
However, reaching 21 has nothing to do with indentures. But reaching 21 meant the end of apprenticeships and guardianships. Which were way, way more common.
Furthermore, indentured servants in 1750 were very rare to begin with. Virginia had discovered slavery, and slaves were doing what the indentured servants of an earlier generation used to do. Why would Callaway pay for an indenture when he could get a lifetime slave so easily? (Colonies that did not have slaves still had indentured servants, of course, but they had nearly disappeared from Virginia by that time.)
Furthermore, there is no evidence that Callaway kept any of the others that he paid tithes for as long as 7 years.
I would think it is most likely that Callaway's taxables were poor children under 21, orphans under 21, apprentices under 21, or overseers or other employees who were over 21.
Let’s examine one person who William Callaway also paid tithes for in 1749: Sherwood Gaddy. In 1752 "Sherrod Gaddy" is listed as "overseer" on Thomas Mosely's list. "list" and "quarter" are codewords. That means that Mosely is non-resident, Gaddy is his resident overseer of the slaves taxed. One explanation is that once Gaddy turned 21 he hired himself out to Mosely as an overseer. That would place Gaddy’s birth about 1728 or 1729. This also fits with him being with Callaway 3 years prior to our William and thus 3 years older and likely around 18 years old when Gaddy was with Callaway.
Callaway is taxed for other white males each year. Gaddy in 1748, Brown in 1749 and 1750, then Gowen, Graves, and Simmmons in 1750. Possibly they are working in his store or warehouse. Or they may be field hands. Or they may each be at a different tract engaged in cutting down trees. We may never know. These men do not have families in the area. There are no other people with their surnames in the area. That suggests they are orphans or poor children or young men from somewhere else who are apprenticed to Callaway until they reach 21.
Samuel Brown is not found in 1752 but is on the Bedford militia list in Sep 1758. William Gowen, Sherwood Gaddy, and William Simmons are on the same militia list.
We can probably infer that William Gowin is not indentured, but was around 19 years old when William Callaway paid his tithes in 1752, and may have also been with him in 1751 for all we know (missing tithable list). This may help us with clues though.
Some, if not all, of these men appear to have been young when taxed to Callaway. Sherwood Gaddy seems to have been born in the late 1720s -- he died in 1803. William Gowin lived past 1800 and may have died around 1804. It was a rare man who lived past 70 in those days. Also, all of William Gowin's known children were born late 1750s or later. That suggests he did not marry until the mid-1750s or later.
Because there is no record of him in prior tithable lists, and because apprenticeships did not usually begin at age 18, it is not likely that he was an apprentice. He was at least 19 years old when he was with Callaway. There are also no other Gowin/Gowan/Gowen's in the area that could be potential relatives. That means that he was either from a different geography than Lunenburg/Bedford County or that he was orphaned (a term used when no father is alive, regardless of whether mother is) prior to the date of the earliest availabe tithable list. William Gowan/Gowin could also have been over 21 years old and working for Callaway.
Conclusion: The men taxed to Callaway do not appear to have relatives in the area. Several indicators suggest that they were relatively young -- perhaps teenagers or early 20s. They may be teenagers apprenticed to Callaway, although unlikely. They may be poor children apprenticed to Callaway. They may be young men indentured to Callaway, although this is probably unlikely. They may be "overseers" for Callaway although he didn't list them as such or working his tracts of land.
Pollard Goin/Gowin and Mary "Polly" Conner Marriage documents
These documents should further prove that Pollard Goin/Gowin is the son of Joseph Gowin and Judith Pollard. It should also further prove that Mary "Polly" Conner IS NOT the daughter of Caleb Conner, but the daughter of John Conner. Caleb Conner is believed to be the brother of Polly and son of John. There is a John Conner living in Madison County, KY captured on the 1820 Census. Although there is a John Conner living in Boone County, KY in 1810, it is not known whether they are the same. There were many John Conner's from Virginia and it is believed that a few of them migrated to Kentucky.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
William & Annester of Bedford County are not the couple of Goochland County - Evidence
EVIDENCE IN FAVOR:
The wife whose name is recorded as Anna Stacia, Honesty, and Anutoice in Goochland might be the same person as the wife whose name is recorded in Bedford as Annester and Annister.
EVIDENCE AGAINST:
These names might be similar, but they are not the same.
EVIDENCE AGAINST:
Citations suggest to different persons:
A William Gowen is recorded in Goochland:
1741- sued for trespass
1742 –sued
1746–tithables
1748–tithables
1749–tithables
1752–sued and brought suit
1755–buys land
1756–tithables & childborn
1757–sells land & tithables
1758–tithables
1761–tithables
1762–tithables
1763–sued for debt
1764–tithables
1765–tithables
1767–tithables
1768–tithables
1769–tithables
1770–tithables
A William Gowen is recorded in Bedford:
1752–tithables
1754–due wolf bounty
1758–member of militia
1759–witness to deed
1761–sued
1762–surveyed land(granted1780)
1767–buys land
1769–sells land
1770–witness to will
1771–road order
1775–sells tobacco and corn
William Gowen of Goochland had a son named William Money Gowen born 1748 or earlier - he was taxed beginning in 1764, perhaps as early as 1762.
William Gowen of Bedford had a son named William who was born about 1755 and is not as old as the one in Goochland and was never recorded with a middle name.
The births of two children to William of Goochland, Anna Stasia (Sep 1756) and James (Nov 1758) are recorded in the parish register. He also had a son named John according to the vestry book and another son named Samuel who was born about 1753 (first taxable to William Gowen in 1769 in Goochland).
There is no evidence of any of these four children in Bedford County.
William Gowen of Bedford had sons Daniel (between 1755 and 1758 according to pension application) and Joseph (1758 according to pension application) born the same period ‐-‐but they are not recorded in the parish register. There is room in the timeline for one son born in 1757 and another born either 1755 or 1759, but why would they all be omitted from the Goochland register when the children of the Goochland couple were listed for births and christenings of 1756 and 1758?
Joseph Goine's pension application states his age as 63 in November 1821, putting his birth in 1758. That is impossible if he had the same parents as the James Gouven born in Nov 1758.
William Gowen of Goochland had to be no younger than 21 when he was sued for trespass as an adult in 1740, meaning he was born prior to 1719 and it is likely that a man of this period lived pass 1803 as did the Bedford William Gowen.
Annester Going was alive in 1819 when she testified on behalf of her son Joseph. If she were the mother of William Money Going and same person who was an adult in 1752, that would make her around 90 years old in 1819 -- highly unlikely. Her first record in Bedford is in 1759, which would put her age in 1819 at around 81 -- more likely.
CONCLUSION: The couple in Goochland County Virginia IS NOT the same couple as the one recorded in Bedford County Virginia.
The wife whose name is recorded as Anna Stacia, Honesty, and Anutoice in Goochland might be the same person as the wife whose name is recorded in Bedford as Annester and Annister.
EVIDENCE AGAINST:
These names might be similar, but they are not the same.
EVIDENCE AGAINST:
Citations suggest to different persons:
A William Gowen is recorded in Goochland:
1741- sued for trespass
1742 –sued
1746–tithables
1748–tithables
1749–tithables
1752–sued and brought suit
1755–buys land
1756–tithables & childborn
1757–sells land & tithables
1758–tithables
1761–tithables
1762–tithables
1763–sued for debt
1764–tithables
1765–tithables
1767–tithables
1768–tithables
1769–tithables
1770–tithables
A William Gowen is recorded in Bedford:
1752–tithables
1754–due wolf bounty
1758–member of militia
1759–witness to deed
1761–sued
1762–surveyed land(granted1780)
1767–buys land
1769–sells land
1770–witness to will
1771–road order
1775–sells tobacco and corn
William Gowen of Goochland had a son named William Money Gowen born 1748 or earlier - he was taxed beginning in 1764, perhaps as early as 1762.
William Gowen of Bedford had a son named William who was born about 1755 and is not as old as the one in Goochland and was never recorded with a middle name.
The births of two children to William of Goochland, Anna Stasia (Sep 1756) and James (Nov 1758) are recorded in the parish register. He also had a son named John according to the vestry book and another son named Samuel who was born about 1753 (first taxable to William Gowen in 1769 in Goochland).
There is no evidence of any of these four children in Bedford County.
William Gowen of Bedford had sons Daniel (between 1755 and 1758 according to pension application) and Joseph (1758 according to pension application) born the same period ‐-‐but they are not recorded in the parish register. There is room in the timeline for one son born in 1757 and another born either 1755 or 1759, but why would they all be omitted from the Goochland register when the children of the Goochland couple were listed for births and christenings of 1756 and 1758?
Joseph Goine's pension application states his age as 63 in November 1821, putting his birth in 1758. That is impossible if he had the same parents as the James Gouven born in Nov 1758.
William Gowen of Goochland had to be no younger than 21 when he was sued for trespass as an adult in 1740, meaning he was born prior to 1719 and it is likely that a man of this period lived pass 1803 as did the Bedford William Gowen.
Annester Going was alive in 1819 when she testified on behalf of her son Joseph. If she were the mother of William Money Going and same person who was an adult in 1752, that would make her around 90 years old in 1819 -- highly unlikely. Her first record in Bedford is in 1759, which would put her age in 1819 at around 81 -- more likely.
CONCLUSION: The couple in Goochland County Virginia IS NOT the same couple as the one recorded in Bedford County Virginia.
William & Annester are not from Goochland County!
The timelines and the factual information between the couples in Goochland and Bedford Counties have been thoroughly evaluated and it is our opinion, and the professionals that we’ve worked with, that these two couples ARE NOT the same couple.
For the purpose of this document, I will use the term “Goochland Couple” to reflect that of William Gowan & Annastasia/Honesty/Aunotice (Sullivan) and the “Bedford Couple” to reflect William Gowin/Going and Annester (Unknown).
The work collected within the Gowen Research Foundation and the statements made by Dr. DeMarce have caused many to consider the Goochland couple the same couple as the Bedford couple. This belief is based solely on an opinion due to similar forenames of both of the wives of the William. Ana Stacia/Honesty/Aunotice are more similar to one another than they are to Anister/Anester/Annester phonetically and I have conferred with many historical and professional researchers of this period who concur.
We have solid evidence that our ancestor, William Gowin/Gowen/Going, resided in Bedford County in 1752, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1762 while at the same time the Goochland couple and/or a “William Going/etc.” was recorded. It is very unlikely that the Bedford couple or the William of Bedford was in Goochland County during this period. A separate post will demonstrate that these two couples were not the same.
Based on the evidence provided, we have asked that the Gowen Research Foundation modify the manuscript records to reflect that there was a William Gowan and Annastasia/Honesty/Aunotice Sullivan in Goochland County but little else is known other than the information confined to Goochland County during from 1740 forward which includes the information as recorded by Paul Heinegg, and the Goochland County tax lists, land deeds, court documents, etc. This change will also mean that the children born to the Goochland couple (Anna Stasia and James) along with all other references in Goochland are only included with the Goochland couple. One of the manuscripts requiring modification is located at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gowenrf/Gowenms136.htm.
Further, we have asked that the Bedford County couple, who are the ancestors of those copied, are separated from the Goochland County couple and parsed into a separate manuscript that begins on 10 Jun 1752 in Lunenburg/Bedford County in the district of John Phelps and continues within Bedford County until they are in Madison County KY in 1799. If a new manuscript/record is required for the Bedford County couple, the descendants of this family will be happy to rewrite it to provide the factual information using the timeline and events recorded in Bedford County from the period 1752 to 1799 and include the counties their descendants traveled to.
Some have inferred that the Bedford couple, or at least William, may be related to the surrounding Gowen families in Lunenburg County. Through the use of Y-DNA, the descendants of the Bedford County couple have proven that William Gowin/Going is part of a subclade that is believed to be indigenous to the British Isles and specifically to Scotland. This likely means that his ancestors were on the British Isles prior to his or their arrival to the colonies. It also demonstrates that he and his descendants did not belong to the mulatto GOWEN family believed to have descended from Mihil (a freed slave) and that also resided in Lunenburg and surrounding areas in the same period. The male descendants of Mihil belong to a different Y-DNA haplogroup. Parents of the Bedford County couple have not been identified. However, we have enough information to believe that William was likely born between 1725-1734 and Annester was likely younger based on the timeframe in which we infer she died.
I appreciate all of the work provided by those involved who have helped us sort through the factual information within historical archives to successfully reach this conclusion. Additional work is ongoing to determine more about the Bedford County couple and their prolific family.
For the purpose of this document, I will use the term “Goochland Couple” to reflect that of William Gowan & Annastasia/Honesty/Aunotice (Sullivan) and the “Bedford Couple” to reflect William Gowin/Going and Annester (Unknown).
The work collected within the Gowen Research Foundation and the statements made by Dr. DeMarce have caused many to consider the Goochland couple the same couple as the Bedford couple. This belief is based solely on an opinion due to similar forenames of both of the wives of the William. Ana Stacia/Honesty/Aunotice are more similar to one another than they are to Anister/Anester/Annester phonetically and I have conferred with many historical and professional researchers of this period who concur.
We have solid evidence that our ancestor, William Gowin/Gowen/Going, resided in Bedford County in 1752, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1762 while at the same time the Goochland couple and/or a “William Going/etc.” was recorded. It is very unlikely that the Bedford couple or the William of Bedford was in Goochland County during this period. A separate post will demonstrate that these two couples were not the same.
Based on the evidence provided, we have asked that the Gowen Research Foundation modify the manuscript records to reflect that there was a William Gowan and Annastasia/Honesty/Aunotice Sullivan in Goochland County but little else is known other than the information confined to Goochland County during from 1740 forward which includes the information as recorded by Paul Heinegg, and the Goochland County tax lists, land deeds, court documents, etc. This change will also mean that the children born to the Goochland couple (Anna Stasia and James) along with all other references in Goochland are only included with the Goochland couple. One of the manuscripts requiring modification is located at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gowenrf/Gowenms136.htm.
Further, we have asked that the Bedford County couple, who are the ancestors of those copied, are separated from the Goochland County couple and parsed into a separate manuscript that begins on 10 Jun 1752 in Lunenburg/Bedford County in the district of John Phelps and continues within Bedford County until they are in Madison County KY in 1799. If a new manuscript/record is required for the Bedford County couple, the descendants of this family will be happy to rewrite it to provide the factual information using the timeline and events recorded in Bedford County from the period 1752 to 1799 and include the counties their descendants traveled to.
Some have inferred that the Bedford couple, or at least William, may be related to the surrounding Gowen families in Lunenburg County. Through the use of Y-DNA, the descendants of the Bedford County couple have proven that William Gowin/Going is part of a subclade that is believed to be indigenous to the British Isles and specifically to Scotland. This likely means that his ancestors were on the British Isles prior to his or their arrival to the colonies. It also demonstrates that he and his descendants did not belong to the mulatto GOWEN family believed to have descended from Mihil (a freed slave) and that also resided in Lunenburg and surrounding areas in the same period. The male descendants of Mihil belong to a different Y-DNA haplogroup. Parents of the Bedford County couple have not been identified. However, we have enough information to believe that William was likely born between 1725-1734 and Annester was likely younger based on the timeframe in which we infer she died.
I appreciate all of the work provided by those involved who have helped us sort through the factual information within historical archives to successfully reach this conclusion. Additional work is ongoing to determine more about the Bedford County couple and their prolific family.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
William Gowin/Gowan/Going is not the son of John Gowen & Mary Keife
Y-DNA has proved very useful in genealogy through the testing of male descendants to confirm the written genealogy.
Confirmed descendants of William Gowin/Gowan/Going who was married to Anester and who was living in 1752 in that portion of Lunenburg County, VA that later became Bedford County, and whose Revolutionary War veteran sons, Joseph, Daniel, and William Jr., and the children of William and Anester are documented and having moved to Madison County, KY in the early 1800s, have returned Y-DNA Haplogroup results of I2a2a1a1 (formerly I2b1a1) with further positive SNPs of M223, M284, L126, L137, and L369, also known as Isles-Scot.
Confirmed descendants of John Gowen and Mary Keife, daughter of Cornelius Keife, who were also living in the large county known as Lunenburg in Virginia, but a different district than the family noted above, and whose sons (one named William and believed to have a middle name of James), later moved into North Carolina, returned Y-DNA results of E1b1a. John Gowen is believed to be the descendent of Mihil, the African slave who obtained his freedom in the 1600s. The Y-DNA results of this Haplogroup are traced to Africa and would seem to support the connection documented.
This further proves that these two lines are not connected through male ancestry nor have the same progenitor and that there were two William's living in the same county with no relation to one another.
Confirmed descendants of William Gowin/Gowan/Going who was married to Anester and who was living in 1752 in that portion of Lunenburg County, VA that later became Bedford County, and whose Revolutionary War veteran sons, Joseph, Daniel, and William Jr., and the children of William and Anester are documented and having moved to Madison County, KY in the early 1800s, have returned Y-DNA Haplogroup results of I2a2a1a1 (formerly I2b1a1) with further positive SNPs of M223, M284, L126, L137, and L369, also known as Isles-Scot.
Confirmed descendants of John Gowen and Mary Keife, daughter of Cornelius Keife, who were also living in the large county known as Lunenburg in Virginia, but a different district than the family noted above, and whose sons (one named William and believed to have a middle name of James), later moved into North Carolina, returned Y-DNA results of E1b1a. John Gowen is believed to be the descendent of Mihil, the African slave who obtained his freedom in the 1600s. The Y-DNA results of this Haplogroup are traced to Africa and would seem to support the connection documented.
This further proves that these two lines are not connected through male ancestry nor have the same progenitor and that there were two William's living in the same county with no relation to one another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)