The Mayflower did accept one or possibly 2 applications using DNA to prove the lineage; however, the use of DNA is on a case-by-case basis at this point. It is, as far as I know, only accepting Y-DNA if it does accept any at all. Therefore, if you are skirting between a male and female line and it is not a male direct, then there is a possibility it will be more difficult for them to accept the results of any DNA testing. However, if one is considering this because of the lack of evidence (primary or even secondary) on one particuilar line and the DNA results do prove to confirm the lineage, then I would suggest a check with your particular state Historian and working with him or her to find out if they will accept a DNA test is in order. Sometimes the state Historian will offer helpful pointers for proving your line through a document chain that you hadn't thought about before. I know mine did as she wanted to "put the nail in the coffin" so to speak to be sure the line was accepted. I, myself had one individual who was very hard to get clear and identifiable proof of her parentage. She only appeared with her parents in the 1850 census as a 2 year old. Her father was 61 and her mother was 20. At first glance, one might assume the 61 year old was perhaps a grandfather because of the wide spread in ages. The 1850 census doesn't state relationships. I learned that he was listed last in the family rather than as head was because he had died in the census year so he wasn't listed on any mortality schedule which was for those folks who had died in 1849. I had learned there was a probate, so got that and it definitely named the 20 year old as being the wife and she had asked for her dower for herself and her daughter, which was paid out just before she died. Have never learned what the cause of death was and found out she had actually died in a different town. Why? Don't know. Then I learned that the daughter went to Illinois with a half brother who was single. Why? Don't know. But the historian had me check for a guardianship paper, which I hadn't even thought about. Lo and behold, there was a document, which was even more confusing though I know it was her due to the fact her guardian was her half sister's husband. Her father had been married previously and had grown children when she was born. Her father was buried with his first wife and I have yet to find a grave for her mother. Anyway, this great-great grandmother had a continum of names that she used when the occasion suited her. But it was the guardianship that was the nail, so to speak, that chinched the case because I was able to provide documentation for the first family of her father that proved her guardian was her half sister's husband and made the line follow up the ladder into the silver books. She was 7th generation and her father was 6th generation from both Richard Warren and Francis Eaton, my two lines. It is generally these two generations that are the hardest for people to prove because of the lack of records being kept, particularly if they weren't living in Massachusetts, which mine were. Many states have very bad records for these generations. It was probably, in the case of the individual who was accepted by the Society, these two generations that were lacking in documentation. Everything behind that down to that individual was documented and of course, the first five generations were in the books. The person in question had a difficult time finding documentation so the Society allowed for the DNA test to be run and accepted its results. As I said, it is on a case by case basis, not an absolute that DNA is being allowed for membership. They acknowledge the existence of DNA, but since it is a somewhat inexact science for proving lineage, that's the reason it is on a case by case. I know that many criminals are convicted on the basis of DNA, but that is because the results of it is to rule in rather than to rule out. Your DNA, depending on your race, can give the results as 1 in some godzillion number and that means you are in that number if you are white. If the gozillion number is lower, then I think the chances of you being ruled out is much better. I'm no expert in DNA, but I've been watching a few cases on Court TV where the person on the witness stand who runs those sorts of tests gives the numbers and it seems that the bigger the godzillion number is, the chances are that it fits the profile of the defendant, meaning, he's the only one whose DNA it could be. Conviction is almost sure to follow unless there is some evidence that proves otherwise and the jury believes that evidence more strongly than the fact that that individual's DNA was on the victim or in the vicinity of the crime. Christie Trapp

The Mayflower Quarterly 72 [June 2006]:125-6 contains an article by Historian General Ann Lainhart which discusses the use of DNA in proving a lineage for membership. The article states that as of 2006, one line had been approved based largely on DNA results. The line is thru John5 Hawes, the son of John Hawes4 (Desire Gorham3, Desire2 Howland, John1) <Howland 1:38-39>. He apparently disappeared from Rhode Island records about the same time as a John Hawes "born in Providence" showed up in North Carolina. A Y-line test was compared between a male descendant of John5 of North Carolina and a male descendant of John & Desire (Gorham3) Hawes of New England. "The results were around 90% that they shared a common ancestor in the last 300 to 400 years". The same issue of MQ contains a some interesting articles on Mayflower DNA (pages 117-132 for those who wish to get copies). Susan E. Roser (We had a storm go thru the Toronto area today and my server has been down for awhile - heaven knows when this message will get sent) www.friendsofthepilgrims.com www.rootsweb.com/~canms/canada.html