Jason: Don't be so quick to assume that we are in error. While there may be one item that identifies a Thomas Graves with wife Eleanor, we have more than thirty items in the Further Pamunkey Chronicles that identify Ann as the wife of Thomas Graves, Sr., and tie both of them specifically to the same land and same children. That Ann was Ann Davenport is made by a strong circumstantial case which you are free to evaluate for yourself. We would note that we are engaged in dialogue with Graves Family Genealogists and Historians on the question of Ann's identification, and know that we have more and better documentation than they do. We believe that there are serious problems in so far as the Pamunkey Davenports are concerned with Mr. Dornan's claims. We take this matter up by specific items within the Further Chronicles, noting errors of omission, commission and interpretation, and present comparative documentations. We doubt not Mr. Dornan's credentials with Colonial York Watershed genealogical research in general, but question, with documentary evidence, his conclusions and identifications relative to the Pamunkey Davenports specifically. As we have asserted to the Graves Family people, we believe that our evidence, albeit circumstantial, relative to Ann having been a daughter of Davis Davenport and married to Thomas Graves, Sr., would stand up in a Court of Law just as well as being juried by Genealogical-Family History scholars. John Scott Davenport Holmdel, NJ

Congrats to the team, the new website looks very nice. I particularly appreciate the gedcom file, as I've not worked most of Davis's children other than Martin, my direct descent. However, I've just received the middle volume of the fourth edition of Adventurers of Purse and Person, which runs from G to P. I looked up the reference to Thomas Graves who is believed to have married Ann Davenport, daughter of Davis. It appears that our assumption may be in error as a deed in Spotsylvania Co. 3-4 Apr 1758 (Book E, pp. 422-425) mentions his wife Eleanor. I haven't had a chance to review the Chronicles yet to see what evidence is provided in support of our traditional placement of Ann, but Dornan mentions a Pettus family history from 1957 that had a tentative ID as Ann (Hart) Pettus, widow of William Pettus. To quote from the full entry: 97. Thomas Graves5 (John4, Thomas3, John2, Thomas1) deposed, 27 July 1747, he was above aged 55 years and, on 19 Mar 1749/50, he was aged 60, and left will 17 Oct 1767-6 Jun 1768. He settled in Spotsylvania County before 3 Feb 1725/6 when he purchased 170 acres. He married (1) Eleanor ___, who joined him in a deed 3-4 April 1758, and (2) Ann ___ , who joined him in a deed, 25 Jan 1760, and died before 15 Aug 1782 when administration on her estate was granted to Rice Graves and an inventory was ordered made. I will mention that the latest version of the Graves Family Association genealogy of Thomas the Immigrant Graves's descendents mentions a first wife, Mary Perkins, who died before 1721 and doesn't mention Eleanor at all. Jason

Hope this will help someone!! http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/Zh.2ADI/2297.1<http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/an/Zh.2ADI/2297.1>

PAMUNKEY DAVENPORTS & OTHERS INTERESTED: Those of you who have been waiting almost five years now for "The Further Chronicles of the Pamunkey Davenports" will rejoice to know that Part 1, "Beginnings and North of the James River, 1608-1820," is scheduled to be cleared from Doc on or about to November 15 next. Editor Judy G. Russell and Nevada Jack will be making the publication announcement relatively soon thereafter. Part 1 will consist of nearly 800 pages of documentation and annotation. We doubt that any Colonial Virginia family history project has undergone the breadth of research and attention to detail given to the Further Chronicles. We emphasize that this has been a Family History project, not Genealogical Line research. You will find our Davenports pictured as people, not just a list of names. Some of the people you will like, others may appear deficient and to have had warts of some sort. We quit far enough back that connections to present generations are yours to make or run from. Part 2, "South of the James River, 1740-1825," now 600+ pages; Part 3, "Northeast North Carolina, 1740-1825," now 62 pages; and Part 4, "Southwest Virginia--Washington County, 1790-1830," now 100+ pages, will follow. All later Parts are in final stages, should be released next year. The new PAMUNKEY DAVENPORT Website contains our Genealogy as well as some tidbits of Family History, reflects all new findings, identifications, and reorderings--includes all members of family--at least one newly found Colonial Davenport in every line from Davis Davenport, including paternal events. The documentation for the Genealogy is contained in the Further Chronicles. The Genealogy is free, readily available at the Website. To fund further Family History research, for there are stones yet unturned, there will a charge for the Further Chronicles, to be published as CDs or by access to a Subscription Website. Judy & Jack will announce the details at the appropriate time upcoming. John Scott Davenport Holmdel, NJ

Janet: Your compliments on the new PAMUNKEY WEBSITE should go to Nevada Jack, Webmaster, and Judy Russell, Editor, for they did the website work. I'm an 80-year-old dummy when it comes to the Web. Jack and Judy, half each of Jack & Jill and Punch & Judy, made our website happen, worked out all the details, and did the programming. I did the compilation and annotation, then stepped back. Tried to stick my horn in on the site design, but got my hands slapped for not understanding how web technology works. So accolades please to Jack & Judy for the website. John Scott Davenport Holmdel, NJ

Jack, You and Dr Davenport have done wonderful job on new site. Thanks for all you hard work Janet Ariciu www.geocities.com/janet_aricu ----- Original Message ----- From: Jack To: DAVENPORT-L@rootsweb.com Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 5:34 PM Subject: [DAVENPORT] The NEW Pamunkey Davenport Web Site Pamunkey cousins and interested parties, The Pamunkey Davenport Family Association has been working very hard for many months to create a "new" web site with information that is both current and correct. We have finally achieved our goal and are happy to announce today that we have "gone public". You can view our new site at http://www.pamunkeydavenport.com/ If you have any comments or questions, please send them to info@pamunkeydavenport.com and not to this list. Not everyone on this mailing list is a "Pamunkey". DNA Bill: Please update the links on your web site to point to our new location. Thanks. Regards to all, Nevada Jack ============================== Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 10/19/2005

Since you mentioned Absalom Davenport.... Just a reminder that the Davenport DNA Project has pledges to pay for a full 25 marker test for a documented descendent of Absalom Davenport (1736-1821). Absalom was the son of Richard and grandson of Davis Davenport. If you know of any - please contact me. Bill Davenport >wbdave@aol.com Administrator Davenport Surname DNA Project -------------------------- In a message dated 10/20/2005 4:27:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, billdavenport@hotmail.com writes: Absalom B. Davenport (1828-1906) of Missouri I think I recall a recent inquiry re Absalom Davenport of Missouri. I do not know whether the man listed below is the same Absalom, but the following information is currently posted on the DavenportDNA website: Paul Davenport -- Kit # 11481 [Ancestry of Paul Davenport given as follows:] John Davenport (1808 NC - aft. 1870 Jersey County, IL) m. (Jan. 8, 1828 TN) Elizabeth Isaacs or Isaacks (1808 - aft 1870) “Family moved to Jersey Co IL then to Miller Co MO.” Absalom B. Davenport (1828 - 1906) m. 1)Mary M. Dabbs, 2) Catherine, 3) Delila Wyrick

Pamunkey cousins and interested parties, The Pamunkey Davenport Family Association has been working very hard for many months to create a "new" web site with information that is both current and correct. We have finally achieved our goal and are happy to announce today that we have "gone public". You can view our new site at http://www.pamunkeydavenport.com/ If you have any comments or questions, please send them to info@pamunkeydavenport.com and not to this list. Not everyone on this mailing list is a "Pamunkey". DNA Bill: Please update the links on your web site to point to our new location. Thanks. Regards to all, Nevada Jack  

Absalom B. Davenport (1828-1906) of Missouri I think I recall a recent inquiry re Absalom Davenport of Missouri. I do not know whether the man listed below is the same Absalom, but the following information is currently posted on the DavenportDNA website: Paul Davenport -- Kit # 11481 [Ancestry of Paul Davenport given as follows:] John Davenport (1808 NC - aft. 1870 Jersey County, IL) m. (Jan. 8, 1828 TN) Elizabeth Isaacs or Isaacks (1808 - aft 1870) “Family moved to Jersey Co IL then to Miller Co MO.” Absalom B. Davenport (1828 - 1906) m. 1)Mary M. Dabbs, 2) Catherine, 3) Delila Wyrick John Thomas Davenport (July 22, 1857 - Jan 20, 1946) m. Edna Jane Lewis (1873 - 1939) Email of Paul Davenport - 11481@DavenportDNA.com Web site - http://www.teri-jo.com/about.html

I received the following message from a Davenport researcher. I hope someone on the list can help them. Sincerely, Mary Lou Midkiff I am looking for information about my grand-father, Absalom Davenport, he was born Feb. 28, 1871 in Washburn, Mo. he died Oct. 14, 1942 in Neosho, Mo. He married Vivion Viola White No. 22, 1891 at Neosho, Mo. I would like to know if he had brothers and sisters and who his parents were?: I was wondering if you found anything like this information while researching the Davenport's. I would appreciate any help you could give me, if you found anything. Thank you James L. Soard Jimnorma67@yahoo.com

Who is a Pamunkey Davenport? I responded some time ago directly to Doc who had posed the question. My response was to the effect that a Pamunkey Davenport is one who shares the ancestry of Davis Davenport or the heritage through adoption, Marriage, etc. I note that life was often short in colonial Virginia, and we may well have a number of males that were “ready made family” when their widowed mothers remarried. The paucity of early Virginia information makes this difficult to separate by paper trail, and would tend to divide the family. Since that earlier submittal, I have come to understand that there are 3 definitions needed, for the Internet project, the Forthcoming Descendancy of Davis Davenport, and for the “Further Davenport Chronicles” book on CD. Each need only to be internally consistent. In a posting earlier than this, Bill Davenport has explained the criteria that he has used on his project website, DavenportDNA.com. The web page is clear. The definitions for the other two should be equally clear. I believe that what Doc had in mind was a definition for the forthcoming 6 Generation Descendancy and for the Chronicles. I submit my former comments as for them below. As for the Descendancy, Perhaps it should provide the descendancy as best understood by the paper trail, the Heritage Descendancy, but with footnotes as to what we have learned from the study of DNA. This would cover both the biological and cultural heritage of these individuals. My previous try as for the Chronicles was: As to who constitutes a Pamunkey Davenport, I do not have a strongly held opinion, but it seems to me that Pamunkey refers to the Pamunkey Neck, and those who lived there. To me, the issue would turn on whether we prefer to define the term so that Pamunkey Davenports are those of the yDNA of Davis Davenport as we currently understand it, or define it locationally as the family and extended family of those who lived c 1700 on the Pamunkey Neck in what is now King William Co., Virginia. The coining of the name led to “The Pamunkey Davenport Chronicles” about the records of people who were named Davenport, and affiliated people. From this line of reasoning I would say that the name might logically refer to “Those people named Davenport who once lived on Pamunkey Neck and their descendants, whether they obtained their name by natural inheritance or adopted it”. This would include descendants of females and persons of various degrees of color. Under this sort of definition yDNA is another matter, and people thought to have acquired their yDNA from Davis Davenport or his male line descendants can be referred to as “Davis Davenport yDNA Descendants”. Obviously some persons, such as Doc and me, fit into both categories. Obviously “Davis Davenport yDNA Descendants are a subset of Pamunkey Davenports. Another possible, but as yet undiscovered case, might be if we find yDNA very similar to that of Davis Davenport, but not descended from him, as would be the case if we find a James River Davenport or a Davis and the yDNA matches what we believe to be Davis Davenport’s. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. In that case Davis Davenport Descendants would become a subcategory of a previous defining progenitor of the family, e.g. a Davis or whatever. To summarize, I cast my one vote for the term Pamunkey Davenport as “all those having something to do with the Davenports Pamunkey Neck, and appropriate for inclusion in the Further Pamunkey Davenport Chronicles” (and retroactively to the original Chronicles). The chosen definition, whatever it is, should be mentioned in the beginning of the Further… As to how it should be presented on the websites, Nevada Jack’s and Bill Davenport’s DNA site. I think it would be nice but not mandatory to use the same definition. I have confidence tin their ability to describe things accurately. Bill’s site I believe is consistent with the definition above as he includes those who believe they have a paper trail back to Pamunkey Neck together with, and in the same color as, the DNA matched ones. In other words, my suggestion would be that there are Pamunkey Davenports, and some, or most of them are Davis Davenport’s direct yDNA descendants or trace their lines to him through female connections. Some others may trace back to Pamunkey Neck through a paper trail, and lacking or pending DNA evidence to another branch, they should be are presumed as adoptees and are best classified as Pamunkey Davenports, also. I would avoid any classifications or terms that would in any way give the slightest implication of any sort of stigma, whatsoever. I am keeping and open mind for other’s suggestions. I hope that this helps. Whit Davenport

The New Mexican Newspaper, Santa Fe, NM, Sunday, Sep 25, 2005 JUNE DAVENPORT Died peacefully on Thursday, September 22, 2005 following a stroke. Her husband, Ray, was at her side. She was born Nermin Salgir in Istanbul, Turkey, to Ahtem Salgir and Despina Serbetcioglu, both of whom preceded her in death. She had no siblings. As a teenage and young adult, June had a successful career as a professional dancer, starring in popular shows in Istanbul and throughout Turkey. In 1958 she married Ray Davenport after they met in Paris, France. Following his discharge from the Navy in 1963, they moved to Los Alamos and had their home there for the next 42 years. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, June danced in a local group called the Katz Pajamas, entertaining people in Los Alamos, Santa Fe, and Chimayo. She also danced in Light Operas and participated in the Little Theater. June and her husband spent many happy years camping, fishing, water and snow skiing, ice skating, playing tennis, and enjoying condos at various beach locations. She was a wonderful homemaker and a devoted wife. She loved animals of all kinds and delighted in watching them in the back yard and at the beach. June is survived by her husband, brother-in-law, John R. Frank Sr., and wife Ellie of Temple, TX; and sister-in-law, Grace Frank of Plano, TX. Other survivors include: six nephews, one niece, grand-nephews and grandnieces, and cousins in Ontario, Athens, and Madrid. In addition to her parents, she was preceded in death by her brothers-in-law: Thurman G. Frank and wife Jeanne and Harry L. Frank; sister-in-law, Mary Martin and husband Bob; and her oldest cousin, Eleni Onen. The funeral service will take place at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, September 27, at the United Church of Los Alamos with Reverend Don Childers presiding. Interment will follow at Guaje Pines Cemetery. Memorials may be made to the Humane Society of the United States. Arrangements are under the direction of Berardinelli Family Funeral Service, 505-984-8600. - - - - Courtesy posting only.

PAMUNKEY DAVENPORTS WITH THE KENNEDY CONNECTION OR INTEREST: Another wrestle with the identification of Davenport Kennedy--Heretofore we have estimated Davenport Kennedy (hereafter DK) to have been a minor (age 14-18) when he indentured himself to Thomas Montague in Sep1752. Recent findings and a closer look at the nature of the recorded indenture in Louisa deeds prompts the deduction that DK was already of legal age when he agreed to be Thomas Montague's apprentice for four years in order to learn carpentry. Consider: 1. Only DK signed the indenture agreement. (If aminor, his signature meant nothing by itself insofar as an enforceable contract was concerned.) 2. If a minor and himself making the contract, no father or guardian existing, the County Court or the Churchwardens of his Parish (St. Martin's in DK's case) stood in loco parentis, and the approbation of one or the other had to be stated as a part of the contract. No such consent is stated in the DK to Montague contract. For example, the 1757 Apprenticeship Indenture (Orange County Deeds 12:508) of minor John Alsop to Henry Gambill (Jr.), carpenter and millwright of Louisa, a Davenport cousin, clearly states that Alsop "with the approval of the County Court of Orange binds himself" etc. The phrase was standard and the action required where an independent minor was the apprenticeship contractor. Where the Churchwardens did the binding, generally for poor orphans or children taken from unfit parents, they so stated. Generally, a Court Order to the Churchwardens preceded the Churchwarden involvement. 3. Montague made no commitments as to Freedom Dues, i.e., what DK would receive from his Master upon completion of his indenture, viz. a set of tools, a suit of clothes, an amount of money, a cow, or whatever as a minimal token of payment for the labor of the apprenticeship period. Such a statement was standard, particularly where a minor was involved. Montague agreed only to train DK in house carpentry in return for DK's four years of labor. 4. The Apprenticeship Indenture was recorded in Louisa in the mid-1760s, more than ten years after the contract was made, and at least six years after it was completed, hence its recording had nothing to do with incipient enforcement of contract provisions. (There was no indication of Montague-DK or vice versa litigation in Louisa Court minutes, but there was an awarding of a contract to Thomas Montague to repair the Louisa Court House concurrent to the recording of DK's indenture. DK was actively engaged in carpentry himself at this time and was a semi-resident of Louisa--his land, in Richard Davenport's name, lay astride the Hanover-Louisa land. DK may have expected the Court House repair work to have been rightfully his, possibly recorded his long completed indenture to Montague as proof of his having achieved craftsmanship under a Master, hence advertised himself for future contract awards by the Court. Montague had no logical reason for recording the Indenture after it had expired. DK's logical reasons for doing so, so long after it had completed, were limited to proving or establishing journeyman carpentry status. All of this being so, or approximate thereto, we conclude that DK was of age 21 or older when he made the indenture, had found it necessary or desirable for whatever reason to become a craftsman, had found Thomas Montague, a Master Carpenter, and traded four years of labor for being taught the Art & Mystery of House Carpentry. DK's 1752 election of Carpentry was concurrent to the widowed Richard Davenport's move from Louisa to Albemarle and marrying the Widow Elizabeth Hamner as his second wife. The now established fact that DK occupied Richard's land astride the Hanover-Louisa Line from the completion of his Apprenticeship c1756 until his death in 1782, suggests a relationship of some sort, the nature of which has constantly eluded us, for when DK died, Richard had no role in or reference to DK's estate, for he evicted DK's widow and eight orphans, and placed his son John on the plantation where DK and family had lived, etc. The enigma of DK's parentage will be solved, we expect, when we determine what the relationship of DK was to Richard, although all of DK's Davenport associations were with the children of Martin, Sr. He possibly became a Carpenter because Richard had ended his prospects of being a Planter, although, if so, that scenario played out strangely, for Richard kept his Louisa land and DK was its resident Planter, of grains, not tobacco, as well as a Master Carpenter until his death. As a sidelight to DK's apprenticeship, it could not have been a comfortable period, for Thomas Montague was under financial stress throughout DK's apprenticeship. Montague mortgaged and remortgaged his land, livestock, household furniture, including a black walnut table, all but his carpenter tools, repetitiously for five years, beginning six months after DK's indenture, and was foreclosed and sold out a year after DK's apprenticeship allegedly had been completed. (We researched Montague as possibility of having been DK's father-in-law. Yet undetermined, so still possibly so, for Mary, DK's widow, does not appear to have been the mother of his eight children.) We take this no further now, but we should move DK's birth year back to 1730-31 at least, which makes for another review of who his father might have been. Other opinions and expertise invited. John Scott Davenport Holmdel, NJ

My new email address is as follows: Maridee@comteck.com Thank you Mary Duncan

Whit's address ->witscom@hotmail.com Bill --------------- In a message dated 9/10/2005 11:10:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Wellann2@nc.rr.com writes: Could someone send me Whitney Davenport's e-mail address ? Ellen Eanes Bethel

Could someone send me Whitney Davenport's e-mail address ? Ellen Eanes Bethel

Lavinia, You can contact the participant at >36674@DavenportDNA.com Any of the participants may be contacted by using their kit # plus @DavenportDNA.com Bill Davenport >wbdave@aol.com< Administrator Davenport Surname DNA Project ----------------------------- In a message dated 9/9/2005 1:39:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, lcb_01@msn.com writes: I am very interested in the following DNA results Kit #36674 belongs to a descendent of Fortunatus Davenport ( b.1738 Forrham Parish, Virginia). The line then goes: Joseph Pope Davenport > Shadrack > Joseph > Nicodemus > etc.. (I would suspect there are not to many other Davenport lines with these unique names!). There is strong evidence indicating Fortunatus was the son of William Davenport (1708-1771) of Lancaster County, Virginia. William was, using Doc's terminology, a Tidewater Davenport. One of Davenports who first appeared in the Lower Northern Neck of Colonial Virginia. So we now have our first Tidewater participant. He does not match any other Davenport lines, including the nearby Pamunkeys. However, he does match two other participants. Kits # 7575 and 30234 both track their ancestors back to William Davenport (1755-1847) of Pitt County, North Carolina. Now we know they have a common ancestor with the Tidewaters. Just have to find out where. ---------------------- I am descended from Fortunatus Davenport born 1738 mentioned above, he is the son of William Davenport married Elizabeth Heale; son of William Davenport married Rachel Wood; son of John Davenport, born in England, died 1683 Lancaster County, VA married Margaret Sincerely Lavinia Bell

I am very interested in the following DNA results Kit #36674 belongs to a descendent of Fortunatus Davenport ( b.1738 Forrham Parish, Virginia). The line then goes: Joseph Pope Davenport > Shadrack > Joseph > Nicodemus > etc.. (I would suspect there are not to many other Davenport lines with these unique names!). There is strong evidence indicating Fortunatus was the son of William Davenport (1708-1771) of Lancaster County, Virginia. William was, using Doc's terminology, a Tidewater Davenport. One of Davenports who first appeared in the Lower Northern Neck of Colonial Virginia. So we now have our first Tidewater participant. He does not match any other Davenport lines, including the nearby Pamunkeys. However, he does match two other participants. Kits # 7575 and 30234 both track their ancestors back to William Davenport (1755-1847) of Pitt County, North Carolina. Now we know they have a common ancestor with the Tidewaters. Just have to find out where. ---------------------- I am descended from Fortunatus Davenport born 1738 mentioned above, he is the son of William Davenport married Elizabeth Heale; son of William Davenport married Rachel Wood; son of John Davenport, born in England, died 1683 Lancaster County, VA married Margaret Sincerely Lavinia Bell

Having watched in awe as John Scott Davenport has systematically reduced the chaos of our family's history to manageable proportions, I am loathe to correct him about anything. But since he has dragooned ... er ... drafted ... er ... convinced me to serve as the editor for The Further Chronicles, it's now officially my job to correct things I stumble across that aren't accurate. And that begins with my email address. It's: jgr@jgrussell.com NOTE: you WILL get a challenge email when you send to that address (that means you have to go to the web address identified in the email and prove that you're a real person and not a spammer). I apologize for the need to use a challenge system but it's the only system I've found that really works to keep that email address from being overrun by spam. As the new kid on the Chronicles project, let me tell you all a little about myself. I'm a former newspaper reporter (among others, the NY Daily News) turned lawyer (federal prosecutor and private defense attorney) and now law editor (hence my role as editor for the project) and part-time law faculty member (Rutgers-Newark). I'm also a double Davenport, descending from (1) Davis -> Martin -> Dorothy m. Thomas Baker -> David Baker (b VA 1749 d NC 1838) and (2) Davis -> Martin -> Thomas -> Mary m. William Wiseman -> Dorothy Wiseman (b SC 1765 d NC 1855) who married her cousin David Baker. From there it's David and Dorothy Wiseman Baker's son Martin Alexander Baker (b NC 1797 d TX 1868) -> Martha Louisa Baker (b NC 1832 d TX c 1918) m. George W. Cottrell -> Martin Gilbert Cottrell (b TX 1855 - d TX 1946) -> Clay Rex Cottrell, my grandfather (b TX 1898 d VA 1970). -- Judy

PAMUNKEY DAVENPORTS & OTHERS INTERESTED: Pamunkey Davenport Lines that have a paper trail, whether their DNA compares or not, are Pamunkeys, if they so choose. Who are we, considering our best evidence origin, to discriminate against those Pamunkeys who have had paternal events in their descent? We Pamunkeys take our pedigree from the American Revolution, and no line among us had the degree of participation in the American Revolution than did the line from which Deja descends, namely that of Glover, son of Martin, Sr., who had five sons in active Revolutionary service roles, namely James, Joseph, Moses, Joel, and William. James was likely at King's Mountain, Joseph, Moses, and Joel all served in the Virginia Continental Line with Moses dying at Valley Forge, and William fought in the Carolinas as a Bedford County militiaman. Glover himself provided beef for State and Continental troops per Pittsylvania certification. It took us almost five years to make the case for John Davenport, youngest son of Glover, and ancestor of Deja, but now strong circumstantial evidence exists connecting John to the Pamunkey Davenports of the Hanover. We do not believe that the lack of a comparable DNA should deny Deja Davenport of Michigan to a welcome in the family. Descendants of some of the First Family of the Pamunkey Davenports have the same DNA situation as Deja. We would note that prior to the appearance of DNA, that only Martin was a proven son of Davis Davenport, that we accepted circumstantial evidence that Ann Graves, Richard, Thomas, Elias, and John were also children of Davis. Then DNA connected the descendants of Thomas and Elias to those of Martin. Richard and John descendants are yet to be found who are willing to give DNA. We have proved family connection by DNA, but in this venue we do not accept DNA as the sole definer of who is and who is not a Pamunkey Davenport. To use Judy's words, our thrust is INCLUSION, not EXCLUSION. Doc