Christian Waddington (unknown) - Relationship to Ka Okee cut?

There wouldn't have been much time for Ka-Okee to have a sister. We have a pretty good idea of when Pocahontas was born - John Smith met her in 1608 and that same year he wrote that she was ten years old. In 1616, he wrote that she was 12 or 13 in 1608. That leaves a narrow window for her birthdate of 1596-1598. She married John Rolfe in 1614, when she would have been 16 to 18 years old. According to the Strachey report in 1616, she had been married to Kocoum for two years. Pocahontas spent most of 1613 as a captive of the English, and there's no report of her giving birth during this time period. So any children that she had with Kocoum were presumably born in 1611-1612, when she would have been 13 to 15 years old.

The oral traditions about Ka-Okee/Little Kocoum are so vague that it's not even clear what the sex of the child is. There is NOT an old oral tradition that Ka-Okee grew up to marry Thomas Pettus or anyone else - that's 21st century speculation about the origins of Christian (allegedly Pettus) Martin. Bill Deyo's article can be read on Archive.org at https://web.archive.org/web/20150930033004/https://home.nps.gov/jam... He basically looked at some families who claimed descent from Ka-Okee and traced them back (correctly or incorrectly) to Christian Martin, and declared that Christian was Ka-Okee's daughter.

In general, there are many trees with false connections to early colonists, because everybody wants to be descended from these people. I have no idea whether the quality of Deyo's work was good or bad, but it certainly doesn't look like he was impartial. It would be very useful to have a couple of independent genealogists check his work and express an opinion on its accuracy. But as far as I know, that hasn't happened.

Time line summary is that by age 17, Matoaka could have had KaOkee. Autosomic Indpendent Studies are easy to replicate if you have Tier One and access to claimant kit numbers. Gedcom project Bryan has 600 participants in atDna surrounding hap group ydna RU106 Bryants ferreted out the various Bryant / Bryan trees, years ago. This is important because the Elkins and Bryant lines jive with the Pettus claimants in their triangulations in segmentology as to their signature SNP work having mirror treed their connections backwards, with Fugate et al claimant descendants. The link above list of claimant families' of Sullivan and Martin have the genetic mutation BRCA25 gene mutation which was from the 1400 A.D. era mutation amongst a specific Sephardim community of whom a group which branched to New Spain Briones/Bryants and to northern New Mexican Inquisition era settler families. The segmentology findings validate the oral histories of the Mattaponi Castillo / Castillaw and Daniel researchers' claims of which we are indebted to the former Patawomeck Historian, now retired Bill Deyo, for compiling the oral history for us all.

https://www.geni.com/projects/Linda-Carr-Buchholz-SNP-Cousins/55358 is a summary project of the signature SNPS worked out over a decade of collaboration. Scroll down. Find - - The Sullivan signature SNP was ferreted out for multiple ways of descent / endogamy back to Wahunseneca and all the various ways of tying in. Great pain was taken to put into the Media section, the signature Snp information for those participating with Geni and outside of Geni as this one example of many shows: William Owens so that descendant claimants can replicate the triangulations with their own group chromosome browsers.

There's no such thing as a signature SNP in autosomal DNA that lets you pinpoint your descent from a specific individual who lived 400 years ago. It might be doable with Y-DNA, but Pocahontas and Ka-Okee didn't have any of that. Autosomal DNA can be used to identify descent from a regional/ethnic group, and I have no problem believing that it could be possible to identify modern individuals as having Patawomeck descent, or at least coming from the right area. Ancestry could tell that I had Virginia Settlers ancestry and also Pennsylvania Settlers ancestry, so this sort of regional ethnic identification obviously works. But in general it is not possible to identify a person as a descendant of a specific individual from that time period.

I also have no problem believing that Pocahontas could have had a child in her early teens. But the oral history is so vague that the tribal elders didn't even know how they were supposed to be descended from her. There were enough holes in the story to give the child a sex change. It's simply not possible for me to have a lot of confidence in this story.

I'm descended from the Elkins line myself. The DNA matches look good back to at least 1800, and the paper trail looks good for the Elkins side into the 1600s and beyond. But it's a mess on the female side. Geni says that Elizabeth Bryant was the mother of Ralph Elkins (1700-1778) when it's not clear which one of Richard Elkins' wives was his mother. There are alternative theories about the ancestry of Elizabeth Bryant's mother, but it seems like all roads lead to Ka-Okee and Pocahontas one way or another. I don't buy it. There are timeline issues and documentation issues and it looks way too much like wishful thinking.

Except all the atDna companies do it, so why not hundreds of descendants who did do it and it's replicatable and made public, phased and segmented chronologically working backwards in concert for a decades worth of effort. It is built around the y dna line of the RU 106 Bryant line of the mutation genetic BRCA25 gene and it is not wishful thinking at all.

Erica Howton it looks to me like Ann McPherson was the daughter of Christian Alleged-Pettus Martin Waddington, not her sister. Ann was the daughter of first husband John Martin, and Francis Waddington would have been her stepfather. At least that's how Geni has listed them, and the general timeline supports this idea. Christian Waddington So the mother's sister that Ann is talking about is the sister of Christian, not the sister of Ka-Okee.

I'm not finding information about Frances Golber and her unnamed mother (who is the alleged sister of Christian Alleged-Pettus). Sources who insist on reasonable documentation give Thomas Pettus credit for having two sons and no daughters. Are there rumors about Ka-Okee and Thomas Pettus having more than one daughter? I'm not finding such a claim, although I haven't looked very hard.

If it could not be done, which it was, with the help of Deyo and hundreds of others' sharing their kits, then what is the point of Gedcom selling their tree version of their latest 3 cm and if it could not be done, why do all of the dna companies use the algorhythms that are the same that any of us humans can do with our own labor? That would be false advertizement if it could not be that ISOGG standard atDna was not able to go back 10 generations with endogamy and with correct processes? If it is wishful thinking, all the companies that do it are opening themselves up for false advertisement.

RE >>>>>There are alternative theories about the ancestry of Elizabeth Bryant's mother, but it seems like all roads lead to Ka-Okee and Pocahontas one way or another. I don't buy it. There are timeline issues and documentation issues and it looks way too much like wishful thinking.

Someone needs to be explaining why the Admixture Paintings App shows up as mtDna West Asian Red and Native Orange for the 10th generation claimants signature SNPS of the exact multiple denoted cluster locations that make the claimant cousins kin at those certain SNPs, IF they are NOT exactly who the Mattapony and the Patawomeck elders said that they were, which is validated in the science.

The DNA companies don't promise you ten generations, and most of the time they don't deliver it either. It's well known that autosomal DNA from a specific ancestor tends to wash out after 5 to 7 generations, and after that you might not carry any identifiable DNA at all from a specific ancestor. If you're lucky you might be able to identify a few segments that are older than that, for example I have a small segment that traces back to a specific 6th great grandmother. But it's not the general rule. There's no guarantee that you will even get a DNA match with a third cousin, which is not a very distant relationship.

Endogamy makes it much harder to identify relationships, because the amount of shared DNA is much higher than it would be in a non-endogamous population. There are lots of complaints on Facebook from people with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry who have a ridiculously high number of matches that are estimated to be fourth cousins or closer. The actual relationship tends to be about twice as distant as what was estimated,or worse.

I'm rather surprised that the modern Patawomeck would have endogamy at this point, since it seems unlikely that they've only been intermarrying with each other for the last 400 years. The lines of descent that are being claimed indicate that there were a number of people intermarrying with the local non-endogamous English population. But if it's an endogamous situation, then DNA loses a lot of its usefulness for identifying the most recent common ancestor. There are too many other people who have that same DNA segment without having the same common ancestor. It's easy to say "you belong to this population", but not easy to figure out what your exact line of descent is.

Easy. Take any of the kit bearing descendant claimants of Christian. Of the 24 who are managers, a handful contacted the team who put their kits into the group chromosome browser and compared it to hundreds of the Bryant who clustered with the Martin/Fugate. Anyone can do this 10 gens back most especially with the Powhatan lines of the same said families who have same the same said things that they have been saying for 10 gens. One participant comes to mind from that reporting, L. McKenzie who I think started this discussion. When you don't have 32 first cousins half on your mom and half on your dads who can test, you do the next best thing and work backwards within the 23andMe back to gen 6 which is done for your and then you find distant cousins claiming their claims and your keep working back to gen 10 the same way that the companies do it for you back to gen 6. It is not hard. When the pile ups show up in stair step sequence just like the oral history and claimants claim, it is how it is, science. For the quick answer, like ZAC'S, a manager's numerous kits showed triangulations to the rest, those are just 2 of the Waddington's who say what they heard and it jives on the outcome of the atdna. When that happens, it is way beyond any kind of reasonable doubt. In other words, to ignore the facts is not only bad form, it is hurtful to people who happen to know that their history is from respected elders. Just because natives were not paper documenters does not negate the validity of their intangible histories.

"Someone needs to be explaining why the Admixture Paintings App shows up as mtDna West Asian Red and Native Orange for the 10th generation claimants signature SNPS of the exact multiple denoted cluster locations that make the claimant cousins kin at those certain SNPs, IF they are NOT exactly who the Mattapony and the Patawomeck elders said that they were, which is validated in the science."

This is ethnicity, not descent from a specific individual. DNA testing is quite good at identifying ethnicity at the continental level - meaning telling the difference between Europe, Africa, Asia, etc. There are some issues with telling the difference between Siberian DNA and Native American (there are complaints about it from Siberians). But there's not a problem with with telling the difference between European and Native American DNA. If the markers you're talking about have been identified correctly, they indicate that the subjects have Native DNA, not that they are descended from Pocahontas.

Ethnic identification gets trickier when you try to subdivide within a continent, for example trying to tell whether DNA is English or French. At present it is not possible to identify DNA as coming from a specific Native American tribe. Nobody has the database information to do that.

Triangulation is used to trace your descent from a specific ancestor. Taking it back 10 generations or more usually can't be done because over the generations the DNA segments get broken up to the point that you can't tell the difference between IBD (identical by descent = you have a common ancestor within recent generations) and IBS (identical by state = a coincidence that occurs regularly among people in the same ethnic group). "Sticky" DNA segments that hang on for more generations than average can sometimes be used to triangulate back further. 7 cM is the generally accepted segment length at which you can start having some confidence that a match might be valid. If you're trying to triangulate with matches smaller than that, you're looking at IBS rather than IBD most of the time. IBS might help identify ethnicity but it doesn't identify a specific ancestor.

Erica Howton in all fairness, the records for women suck pretty hard in this time period. Recordkeeping in Virginia was mostly about commercial transactions, not mundane subjects like birth, death and marriage. Thomas Pettus was an important enough person that any daughters would probably show up in the records. But I wouldn't bet my life savings on it.

Tom Petty rocks. Or at least he used to.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the DNA mapping really does show common descent from Christian Martin (as opposed to being the result of endogamy and/or some sort of pileup region, both of which were mentioned earlier in the discussion). I don't understand how this is supposed to prove that her parents were Thomas Pettus and Ka-Okee. As far as the DNA and the paper trail are concerned, she could be the daughter of any local couple who had the right ethnic mix. It's unlikely that Ka-Okee was the only Patawomeck woman who married an Englishman. I'm not aware of anything that would point us toward a specific set of parents. It doesn't look like the oral tradition says anything about who the child of Pocahontas married.

If the Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patawomeck is correct, the Patawomeck tribe disappeared as a cultural entity for about 250 years. The Pocahontas tradition apparently consists of individual family stories rather than something that has been passed down as tribal lore. Pocahontas was a local hero and everybody wants to be descended from somebody famous, so it would be natural for families in the area to start claiming descent from her whether there was any basis for the story or not. Especially the ones with genuine Patawomeck ancestry.

>>>>Let's assume for the sake of argument that the DNA mapping really does show common descent from Christian Martin (as opposed to being the result of endogamy and/or some sort of pileup region, both of which were mentioned earlier in the discussion). I don't understand how this is supposed to prove that her parents were Thomas Pettus and Ka-Okee. As far as the DNA and the paper trail are concerned, she could be the daughter of any local couple who had the right ethnic mix

Ir ian't an assumption or an argument. It is not just ethnic admix proven on signature SNPS, it's also proven mutation to many in BRCA25 research banks of vetted papered Bryants, Elkins, and Pettus descendants who have Keziah in common. So, that makes Keziah not fake as you implied and no matter what you call her mom, she had a mom. That mom, let's say is called Ka Okee is 9 gens back to the older kit participants and given that the mapping for each of the paper lined folks already was accounted for as to their signature SNPs in a variety of lines to the Powhatan core family, it is not at all a matter of ego of who wants to be descended from anyone. The words "tribal lore"....really?

When you take vetted papered Rolfe to Matoaka descendants and you can see a half match on the clusters that only go the Rolfe only cousins and you take the Matoaka common clusters and you see the pile up to the various family participants of whom the link that you quoted as to Deyo saying who claimed Kokoum and then you see hundreds of people claiming Wahunseneca at 10 gens back and you see the Cleopatra SNP folks line up to Nicati / Hughes / FitzHugh, then you see that the "tribal lore" is legit.

>> Triangulation is used to trace your descent from a specific ancestor. Taking it back 10 generations or more usually can't be done because over the generations the DNA segments get broken up to the point that you can't tell the difference between IBD (identical by descent = you have a common ancestor within recent generations) and IBS (identical by state = a coincidence that occurs regularly among people in the same ethnic group).

Over the generations, the segments do not break. You need large numbers of participants because the atDna only tests a snippet of each person's genome. . It can be done with a complete genomic representation. That requires group chromosome browsing, with enough kits first phased and then triangulated and then tracked for clusters while ferreting out for endogamy. That is how we did what we did. It is possible and happens a lot that a specific atDna to the 10th generation is absolutely determined, They may not have a name on paper, but you can tell that they are the MRCA to the distantly related and in what way by working on those with paper trees and filling in the few of the brickwalls of the non papered ancesters. When putting that together with secondary sources like land deeds that are matrallinearly gift deeded within siblings over generations, it is easy to then say with assurance that Silent Bryant's deed from Mary Meese flowed down to Elinor Bryant Owen's daughter and those participating claimants' clusters were the same as the Elkins and the Waddington and Martin / Fugate cousins but also to the very papered Rolfe / Matoaka half matched cM on the same SNPs for those particular cousins who only had those lines.

>>> I'm rather surprised that the modern Patawomeck would have endogamy at this point, since it seems unlikely that they've only been intermarrying with each other for the last 400 years. The lines of descent that are being claimed indicate that there were a number of people intermarrying with the local non-endogamous English population

If you want to have some fun, run your parents' kits and then there is an app that shows exactly what chromesome and segments have common ancestry. If you track the endogamy and where it happens and with whom on the trees of the claimants and then you see their cM go up in the multiple lines to the cousins who also claim the same ancestor, it is like watching a recipe to bake a cake unfold going backwards. It is amazing to see it unfold in the charting. The reason you need so many participants is because each person only gets half of what is being handed out from each parent, each generation; plus, the test companies only test a snippet of each testing participants. That is why a complete genomic representation with vetted ydna lined Bryants with BRCA25genetic mutations in their familes were used and also the Sullivan lines are very paper trail solid. It doesn't get more solid paper trail than the Rolfe's. The SNP that tied them all together was the one on Wahunseneca and there is not a chance that his clusters are anything but a 30 wife pile up that is unlike any ever except maybe Ghengis Khans, which that one was ydna granted but 10 gens back to Wahunseneca and 30 wives, at least, does indeed show up as a definite marker with a signature that in undeniable. .

I'm not going to attempt to address this jumble of statements. You said earlier that your gene clusters were based on Bryant Y-DNA, which proves absolutely nothing about Ka-Okee because she wasn't a Bryant and also didn't have any Y-DNA to pass on to her descendants. At best, these clusters are showing common descent from a male Bryant (Richard Bryant, I assume) and/or his wife. Richard Bryant was a real person who left property to his children in his will - see https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bryant-358 But it is not documented or universally accepted that he had a wife named Keziah, or that any wife that he may have had was a descendant of Ka-Okee.

Bryant's better-accepted wife is Ann Meese (also a shadowy figure). Descent from Ka-Okee has also been claimed for her but without documentation, alas. It's certainly possible that Bryant married a woman with Patawomeck ancestry, but if that's the case then it's pure speculation to make claims about exactly who she got it from.

You talk about pileups as if they are a good thing.They aren't. A pileup region is an area where matches become meaningless for relationship tracing because so many people have the same DNA regardless of their relationship to each other.

"Over the generations, the segments do not break." So now there is no such thing as recombination. The more I hear about this project, the less confidence I have in it.

The X or the 23rd absolutely can recombine and the standards for using are like the pile up specific standards at https://isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA_match_thresholds so no worries about what we have done with pile ups. We phased and then put the 10,000 Tier One choice of matchers on the segments we found and the clusters grew and grew, just like the vetted paper claimants' signature SNPs working backwards on their paper trees to Wahunseneca revealed. If a computer can do it, so can a few thousand determined descendants. After all, someone had to design the algorhithms that the computers follow to do exactly what we, in affect revetted. This was all previously run by professionals who work for the the companies who charge to do what it is that people pay good money for so that a bogus tree can come down, like Moytoy's and a legit tree can be validated, like Keziah's.

Henry Meese had no children in America. The origins of Richard Bryant’s wife Ann are unknown. She was apparently the widow of someone named Redman when she married Bryant. She probably started her American life as an indentured servant. Henry Meese’s daughter Anne never set foot outside of England. Henry’s will identifies his children, all in England.

I've been looking at the Keziah Arroyah story to get a better grasp of the situation, and they're right, the timeline doesn't work at all. It's possible that there's more than one version of the story, but the one I've seen in multiple places is that Ka Okee married Thomas Pettus around 1635 and gave birth to two daughters, Christian and Unknown. Ka-Okee evidently died sometime during 1638-1643, since it's documented that Thomas Pettus had married someone else by 1643.

It's documented that Christian (born 1636) married John Martin and then Francis Waddington. It's reported that Unknown (apparently born after 1636) married Chief Wahanganoche and gave birth to Keziah Arroyah. Given the limitations of nature, it doesn't look like Keziah could have been born any earlier than 1650.

Keziah reportedly married a Richard Bryant (1615-1680) whose existence has not actually been documented, and gave birth to the documented Richard Bryant (1651-1704) when according to the timeline she was not more than one year old, or possibly hadn't even been born yet. Ann Alleged-Meese was the wife of this second Richard Bryant. I was confused earlier, and thought that Keziah and Ann were thought to be wives of the same Richard Bryant.

I've seen a line of descent for Ann Alleged-Meese in which Ka-Okee herself marries Chief Wahanganoche, gives him a daughter Mary Ann around 1635 (which is the same time she supposedly married Thomas Pettus). Then Mary Wahanganoche marries Henry Meese, gives birth to Ann Meese around 1656, and Ann marries the documented Richard Bryant. This at least fits the timeline reasonably well, But as Kathryn Forbes pointed out, Ann's parents are unknown. Henry Meese can't be her father unless she was an unacknowledged illegitimate child. It does look like he had an off and on presence in Virginia around the time she was born, so its not impossible.

But I don't use "It's not impossible" as the standard for accepting the validity of a line of descent. It's not impossible that Ka-Okee was a real person who married Thomas Pettus and that Christian is their daughter. But there is no convincing evidence that it's true. It IS impossible that Keziah is the mother of the documented Richard Bryant. It's not impossible that the DNA project has identified a genuine family connection between the Christian Martin and Richard Bryant families, but all the talk about endogamy and pile-up regions makes it sound more like they've identified common ethnicity rather than a true common ancestor.

If there is a true common ancestor, it is NOT reasonable to declare that the she must have been the daughter of Pocahontas. It's not impossible that it was Ka-Okee, but really it could have been any woman in the region who married any random Englishman and had at least two children with him. The Pocahontas story is an interesting hypothesis that can't be ruled out, but it doesn't prove anything.