Becky: Good point, but bad example. Maybe I summarized it to much. I didn't know people actually read that part of the page. Doc, an "authority" on the Pamunkeys long ago has speculated that Davis Davenport (b. abt 1660) was not born a Davenport. He has not found anything on the parents of Davis. However, there was an Ann Davenport in the area that Davis could have obtained the name from. In other words Davis could have taken the Davenport name from his mother instead of his father (maybe surname Davis?). Doc can correct me on my interpretation. If something like this happened, then Davis would pass on the Y-DNA from his father - a "non-Davenport". From that point on all the male Davenports descended from Davis (Pamunkeys) would carry Davis' father's Y-DNA. It would be different from any other Davenport line. At the moment there are not many other surnames that match this pattern of DNA. We are looking into some possibilities. The 300-400 year range was used because Davis was born about 1660 and that what we were interested in. Bill Davenport [email protected] Davenport Surname DNA Project Administrator ---------- In a message dated 6/19/2003 6:04:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Bill, perhaps one line of text on the DNA website is causing some confusion and should be eliminated. It isn't regarding Humphrey, but the Pamunkey Davenports. It says: "This may support the theory that The Pamunkey Davenports originated from a non-Davenport 300-400 years ago." I'd say this is too speculative. It would only support that theory if all other lines were similar, which we now know they aren't. Surnames didn't even exist until about 600 years ago. It isn't surprising to find several lines of unrelated people adopted the same surname. It doesn't mean any one of them is non-Davenport or more Davenport than anyone else. Maybe some have gotten the idea that the DNA project is to see who is a "real" Davenport, which of course, it isn't and can't do.