Hello Everyone, I have a lot of new information to put out regarding our DNA testing and I know that many of you have been waiting patiently for this. I first informed our test participants that the report was on-line to allow them some time to review it before making it generally available. With that done, I am sure that you will want to see what Relative Genetics has to say. Before getting into that, however, I want to make you aware of a really great web site that provides a wealth of good information on Molecular Biology and the process of Genetics Testing. This site was created by a High School Biology teacher by the name of Nancy Custer and it is located at: http://www.contexo.info/DNA_links.htm. If you really want to understand how Genetics testing can be useful to genealogy and how it can be applied, I highly recommend browsing the links provided at this site. Get yourself a cup of coffee (or your favorite beverage) and prepare to spend some time. There are some really nifty animations that make understanding it all relatively easy. If you want to cut right to the chase without spending the time visiting all of the links, you really should not miss the following: http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/basic/basics.html - Basic Genetics, produced by the University of Utah. Just click on the link "Tour the Basics" to begin. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/program.html- The PBS show, NOVA, offers this web site with (16!) videos of their show "Cracking the Code of Life." Chapter 2 of this series, "Getting the Letters Out," runs almost 6 minutes in length. I downloaded the Quick Time version of this for viewing and it took no time at all with my Satellite connection to the Internet. Your mileage will vary depending on your connection, but I suspect that even with a modem, it will not be a painful wait for the files to load. I have included Nancy's web site as a link from my main page at http://home.earthlink.net/~ppayne1203 as well, but recommend that you book mark one (or both!) of these sites for future reference. Now that everyone has good resources available for understanding the role of genetics in genealogy, we can move on to our results. You can view our final report and analysis by either clicking on the link to "Final Report and Analysis" provided on the main page at http://home.earthlink.net/~ppayne1203 or you can get there by going directly to the page at http://papayne.rootsweb.com/dna-project/analysis-1.html. Once there, you will be presented with a short list of definitions of the terms used in our testing. This is followed by individual links to the report pages, beginning with an "Explanation" page which explains Haplotyping, Principles and Methods used in the test. IMPORTANT NOTE: While the "Explanation" page is HTML, all other pages of the report are in .PDF format and will require you to have Adobe's Acrobat Reader to view the pages. Most computers nowadays come with the Reader already installed. If for some reason you find that you DO NOT have Acrobat Reader, it is available for FREE download at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html. Page 1 of the report is simple a list of our participant. The "Sample ID" in the first column of the page is the identification number assigned by the lab to each participant and this ID is used throughout the report when referring to a given participant. Although the report also sometimes refers to the participants ancestor by name, I recommend that you have this list handy for the times when they do not. Otherwise, it will be difficult for you to recognize who the report is referring to. The third column on page 1 is the Identifier that was assigned to each participant by me when we initiated the project to protect their privacy. This identifier, therefore, corresponds directly with the ID assigned by the lab. I have made it easier for everyone to convert these identifiers on the result chart page located at http://papayne.rootsweb.com/dna-project/. The first column on this chart has ALL of the information for each participant, including the project identifier, information on the ancestor, and the labs Sample ID (given at the end in bold type). While I am referring to the result chart, another IMPORTANT NOTE is that this chart has changed since I first made it available. The lab had some corrections to it that have now been incorporated. So if you printed it out or something in the past, you will want to make these corrections as well. You will also note that I have added the different Lineages found in our testing to the chart. Payne Lineage 1, Ancestral Types 1, 2 and 3 are all grouped together to show their relationship to one another. Although it would appear that Ancestral Types 1, 2 and 3 comprise of only 8 participants, the number is actually 10, and this is explained in the report. These 10 individuals all descend from a common ancestor. The other Lineage identified in our test is indicated on the chart by Lineage 2. This Lineage is comprised of 5 participants, who show a high degree of relatedness and also descend from a common ancestor, however, they are separate and distinct from those of Lineage 1- indicating that the two Lineages do not share a common ancestry. While I do not intend to describe every page of the report here, it need to make some comments about Page 2. This page includes an "Objectives" paragraph that the lab produced using the genealogies supplied by the participants as well as research notes that I provided to the lab to indicate where I thought we might find relationships between some of our participants. Because of this construction and the labs very limited knowledge of Payne genealogy, there are items contained in this section that I am sure will raise the eyebrows of some readers. So it is important for me to elaborate on why the lab chose the wording they did in some cases. You will also note an error or two on the page which I could not correct without destroying the formatting. For example, the lab mentions a family from NEW JERSEY, when in fact, this should read JERSEY, referring to Jersey in the Channel Islands. More significantly, readers may wonder where the heck the reference to John Payn (d. 1402) of Wymondham, Norfolk, comes from and why he is mentioned as the possible progenitor of four of our main branches! John Payn is not mentioned in ANY of our published genealogies, or any where else to my knowledge. I discovered details about John some time ago and have been digging up several interesting facts about his life ever since. The records surrounding John indicate that he was an ancestor of the Paynes of Leicestershire, and as such, ancestor of the Paynes of Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, and of Huntingdonshire. Although it has not been generally accepted at this time that the Paynes of Suffolk and Huntingdonshire were kinsmen, I believe that my research establishes this relationship when we consider such things as the fact that John Payn's nephew, Edmund Winter, of Norfolk, had purchased Hengrave Manor in Suffolk. The later bailiff's of this Manor at Hengrave were William Payne, grandson of Sir Thomas Payne of Leicestershire, followed by his son, Henry Payne, Esq. (d. 1568). This father and son were members of the branch known as the Paynes of Suffolk (more specifically, of the area surrounding Bury St. Edmunds) and their family had purchased land in the county from the Drury family, with whom they became closely attached in a variety of ways. Henry Payne above mentions members of the Drury family in his will, providing provisions for them to reacquire land that he held. Henry Payne also owned what is now known as the Ellesmere Chaucer (see notes on Baron Lavington at my web site connecting him to the later owners of this Manuscript), which came into his possession through the Drurys. Edmund Winter, as nephew of John Payn, had also been associated with the Drurys. Also of great interest to me is the fact that Henry Payne, apart from his close attachment with the Drurys, had served as bailiff of Hengrave under Sir Thomas Kytson, whose will and administration he took upon Kytsons death. Sir Thomas Kytons sister, Margaret, was the wife of John Washington, whose descendants immigrated to Virginia. We know through the genealogical record that the Washingtons were known to their Payne neighbors and their are several accounts of the friendships between the two families. The Drurys also came to America, settling in Maryland, where they too became involved with a Payne family. The DNA testing, which now confirms relationships between branches of the Maryland and Virginia Paynes, may provide us with new clues about these relationships with the Washingtons and Drurys and, perhaps, shed light on both the genetic and genealogical evidence pointing to a common descent from John Payn. This is no longer the great leap of faith or speculation that it once was. We have a wealth of record evidence that can now be supported by genetics. The tie between the Suffolk and Huntingdonshire Paynes, apart from numerous associations found through their social activities and relationships, can be seen in the fact that Robert Payne (father of Sir Robert Payne, 1573-1631), had purchased in 1590, land in Huntingdonshire from Katherine Fermor PULTENEY, widow of Michael Pulteney of Misterton, Leicestershire, and her then husband, Sir Henry Darcy. Michael Pulteney was a near kinsman of Sir Thomas Payne of Market Bosworth and his wife, Margaret Pulteney. Albert W. Paine, in his "Paine Genealogy- Ipswich Branch," which was published in 1881, first made the suggestion that the Paynes of Huntingdonshire descended from an elder son of Sir Thomas Payne of Leicestershire. He largely based his suggestion on the fact that Robert disappeared from the Leicestershire records and does not appear with his kinsmen in Suffolk. He concludes that either Robert must have died (although there is no indication for it in the Leicestershire records) or that he had removed to another county. He mentions that a Robert Payne appears at the correct time in the records of Huntingdonshire, and this Robert was that from whom Sir Robert Payne descended. This information can also be found in Col. Brooke Paynes "The Paynes of Virginia," under the entry for Sir Robert Payne whereby the College of Arms in London provides us with a biographical sketch of Sir Robert, describing him as a great-grandson of Robert Payne. When all of the record evidence is taken together and applied to the genetics, a clear relationship between these families emerges and also explains for us why we see the connections between various branches of the family in nearly every subsequent generation right up to the 19th-century with the family of Baron Lavington. This genealogical picture can be deduced when we consider our family traditions claiming that the immigrant John Payne of Westmoreland County, Virginia, had been a son of Sir Robert Payne of St. Neots, Huntingdonshire, and that his neighbors, Thomas and Ralph Payne, of Lancaster and Middlesex County, had been descendants of the line which had also produced Baron Lavington. This family is believed to have come from Jersey in the Channel Islands and we know through the genetic testing that it also includes the family of Isaiah Payne (d. 1735) of Maryland (a descendant of Thomas Payne and Jane Smallpiece, of St. Mary's County), as well as two other previously unrecognized relations- Charles Payne of Virginia, who married Elizabeth Davis; and William Payne who had married Celia Lewis. Anyone who has conducted research on the name Smallpiece can tell you that it is a very uncommon surname in both England and America. It is curious, therefore, that when the surname is encountered, it is in connection with either Thomas Payne of Maryland, the Paynes of Suffolk, or John Payn of Wymondham, whose wife, Sibyl de Hethersett, had been a kinsman of Humphrey Smallpiece of Norfolk. The DNA testing suggests that these groups (descendants of John Payne, and the descendants of the Jersey family), shared a common ancestor during the time of John Payn of Wymondham, Norfolk. John Payn appears to have had his own connections to Jersey, and may have been a member of that family. If that proves to be true, then we can see how (and why) the record evidence would link him and the Paynes of Leicestershire, Suffolk, Huntingdonshire, Jersey, Virginia and Maryland. The one piece of the genetic puzzle that we are lacking to further support this suggested pedigree is participation in our DNA testing from known descendants of the Bury St. Edmunds branch of the Payne family. If we can include some of these descendants and their DNA signature falls within our newly defined Payne Lineage 1, then we would have a complete genetic pedigree on which to base our genealogical research with the knowledge that they can be shown genetically to descend from a common ancestor (currently pointing to the time of John Payn). I understand that these short paragraphs are not going to sway anyone from the established way of thinking when it comes Payne genealogy. But I take consolation in the knowledge that the DNA results have broken new ground in several areas, even at this early stage in the game. We now know that branches of the Payne family, previously thought to have been unrelated, did, in fact, descend from a common ancestor. There is simply no way to discount the similarities in the DNA between them. In some cases, the DNA signatures were identical (24 out of 24 Alleles tested). In fact, nearly HALF of the 23 participants tested show common ancestry- 10 of 23. We are now confronted with making sense of what the DNA is telling us and when we combine these results with the traditional record evidence, a very plausible and reasonable genealogical pedigree begins to emerge. I do not pretend that my research is without error or that holes do not exist in it. But at the same time, I feel it is on the right track. The majority of the genealogical proofs that we need are to be found only in England, where very little research has been conducted other than direct line research. To my knowledge, only one researcher has approached the problem with this particular idea of inter-relatedness in mind, and this research has been spotty at best. But it is a start, and it has allowed us at least a glimpse of the truth. Okay, enough of all that... Getting back to the report, you will notice that under each page of the report there are links to "Notes." These are my notes where I attempt to further explain the results or to fill in where the report leaves off. Keep in mind that I am not a geneticist. I am simply trying to make sense of the results by comparing it with the genealogy. While I am providing my own notes, I am encouraging others to offer their opinions too. Our participants have been provided the means to contact one another to compare notes and discuss these results. As they share their findings with me, I will incorporate that information into the report, either as a web page or with a post to the mailing lists (probably both). My goal is for this project to NOT become a one-man exercise! One of the primary goals I had in initiating this form of research was to present enough evidence to stir the minds of Payne researchers. I would like for us all to rethink, question, and/or add to what we think we know about Payne genealogy. After all, in many cases, the genealogies we are working off of have not been updated in a very long time. Paine Genealogy- Ipswich Branch was published 112 years ago; The Paynes of Virginia 67 years ago; and An Armorial of Jersey more than 100 years ago. These three sources are the foundations of virtually everything we know about the Suffolk, Virginia and Jersey branches of the family. These genealogies constitute research on only one particular line of descent. In the case of Paine Genealogy, it represents the family of William Paine of Boston and Ipswich, Massachusetts, and overlooks nearly all other male lines of descent in the family. The Paynes of Virginia traces the descendants of John Payne, and although it mentions the possibility of kinships with other branches, fails to offer much beyond that. In short, there has never been a serious attempt to connect branches of the Payne family. It is now apparent that such an effort is desperately needed. I have spent the last several years piecing together every scrap of record evidence indicating relationships between our branches. This has grown to two volumes comprising over 700 pages (each) of unedited research. It is very raw data and the editing process extremely slow. Adding to this is my desire to cite appropriate source information which is something not found in even our best Payne family resources. The DNA record must now also be incorporated into the these volumes which will add further complications resulting in delay. While the end result of this effort will still not satisfy most genealogists desire for the definitive proofs necessary to establish relationships between some of our branches, it is still valuable for the shear weight of the facts it does contain and the clues that the associations provide. If it accomplishes the goals of bringing about change in our thinking and bringing researchers together in a new effort of research, it will have been well worth my effort. To that end, I have identified a publisher, however, with the large amount of editing required, I do not believe that I could have anything ready for many months. So if anyone has experience with editing, proofreading, publishing, etc., and you have the time to be involved in this process, I would certainly welcome your assistance. Perhaps that would speed of the process greatly... Regards, Patrick Payne