On Dec 17, 2008, at 8:30 PM, John Blankenbaker at john.blankenbaker@comcast.net wrote: > I hope Craig will tell us more about the Kilby DNA project. John: I'll try to keep this as brief as possible. There are four known colonial Kilby families, but with no know connection to each other. One was in Boston, one in Maryland, and two in Virginia. The paper trails could not connect any of them. That these various Kilby tribes came from England was also a matter to be solved. Then of course are those Kilbys still in England, and those by that name who came to America much later (1800s). A Y-DNA is only as good as those who participate. In the case of the New England Kilbys, we have not yet been able to find a participant. In the case of the Maryland Kilbys and one of the Virginia Kilby lines, the male lines are extinct. This still left a lot of people who did participate in both England and the US. It was decided very early on by the coordinator of this project to have the 67 marker test. Anything less would be meaningless. From our initial group, including me, it was learned there were two very different "tribes" of Kilbys. This is where we learned the term "haplogroup." Group #1 was of Scandinavian origin. It was exciting because the man who started the project was a perfect match to a man in England. I, however, fell under haplogroup Group #2, of "Western European" origin--a pretty broad geographic area, to say the least, including the British Isles. Within my group came more subgroups. Those that didn't match me or my other Kilby cousins, but still in the same broad category. Now as to some surprising events. (And the tests are still out). By far, the most participants in this study descended from our good old John Kilby of Culpeper County (d. 1772). Three of his sons (William, Michael, Adam) moved to North Carolina in 1776 or thereabouts. Two of his sons (John, James) stayed in Culpeper. I descend from James. I was really expecting some mismatches on the William and Michael lines (Adam had no children)...but such was not the case. Our DNA matches near perfectly no matter from whom or where. The Alan Poe, esteemed genealogist and historian of the Wilkes County, North Carolina area once wrote to me, "The Kilbys were of at least AVERAGE morality." Well, I guess they were somewhat above average, as it turns out. Now, there was one big disappointment, and we have yet to receive results to prove or disprove one of the Culpeper lines. The disappointment is what is called a "non paternity event." That is an understatement. It had long been our view, based on the paper trail, that one Susannah Hawkins (daughter of Mathew Hawkins and Hannah Maxwell) had a child out of wedlock named Samuel Kilby Hawkins. This line went to Kentucky. The view was that she later married Henry Kilby (John2, John1). That much is true. But Henry Kilby, as it turns out, is NOT the father of her bastard son Samuel Hawkins. Unless, of course, the "non paternity event" happened further down the line. So, John and all, that is it in a nutshell. Craig Kilby