Analysis. Wigton Walker YDNA



Walker Tapestry
YDNA. Walker

……………………..The Tapestry
Families Old Chester OldAugusta Germanna
New River SWVP Cumberland Carolina Cradle
The Smokies Old Kentucky



Wigton Walkers
YDNA. Walker

YDNA Analysis

YDNA analysis has shown that lineages given in White, 1902 merge two separate family lines. One line of YDNA evidence is obtained from descendants of a) John Walker III and Ann Houston, and b) his likely brother, Samuel Walker both of whom are thought to have settled on Walkers Creek, and eventually moved to Orange/Caswell County, NC.

Another line of YDNA evidence has been obtained from descendants of Samuel Walker and Jane Patterson, who settled near Natural Bridge, south of Borden's Grant. Some relations of Samuel may also have settled on Walkers Creek. In any case, the two family lines intermarried at an early date. The distinction between the two families appears to have been lost by about 1840, when the intermarriages began to be described by family members as "cousin marriages". By the time White presented the family history, the two lines were so thoroughly entangled that she could make no distinction between them, or even recognize that there were in fact two separate lines. It is only through YDNA analysis that we now see that there are, in fact, two separate lineages combined in White 1902.

At this time it can not be said whether the so-called Walkers Creek line related to John Walker III and Ann Houston,or the Natural Bridge line related to Samuel Walker and Jane Patterson, descends from John Walker I of Wigton Scotland. John III can be traced back to the Nottingham Lots where the Wigton Walker family is thought to have settled initially, but no other family member has been so traced. This may indicate that the Walkers Creek line is the one descended from John I, since White tells us that his son John II settled in Old Chester County, PA (ie, on the Nottingham Lots). On the otherhand White based much of the early history of the family on a work known as the "Joel Walker record", written about 1840, by a son of Samuel Walker and Jane Patterson. This may indicate that the Natural Bridge line is the true descendant of John I. Alternatively, it may simply mean that by the time Joel Walker wrote his family record, the two lineages had already been merged beyond recognition.

There are other intreptations of the available data that might resolve the conflict between the two lines of Wigton Walkers. Phil Rhoton writes [1]

White did not know what family William of the Wyandotte belonged to based on the query she published in the Jan 1900 issue of the Va. Mag. Hist. Bio. asking for his ancestors. I think it would be safe to say he wasn't included in the Joel Walker record but she does have quite a bit of information on John III's immediate family and my suspicion is the Joel Walker record's account ends with John III's children and their spouses. She also makes it clear that her information concerning William of the Wyandotte came from William Connelly and not from his family so it's unlikely they identified his father as John IV. She probably made the identification that he belonged to John's family based on Connelly's account of William's abduction and early years which in turn was the same account his son gave Lyman Draper in 1860 and was later published in the early 1870's in The Wyandotte Gazette. She was aware Samuel had been KBI and John IV was the only male left who William could belong to. What if he didn't belong to John IV but rather was a child of one of his sisters and she made the wrong assumption because of his surname?

Mrs. Scott says in reference to Anne (Walker) Cowan: "Her and her sister's son, William Walker, were taken. (Her sisters son: her sister married a Walker.)." Granted Mrs. Scott recalled some things incorrectly in her account of Williams abduction but the parenthetical comment about her sister marrying a Walker was Shane clarifying this with her because he found it unusual the son carried the same surname as the mother's maiden name. Mrs. Scott states that she married a Walker but doesn't say when she married this Walker or if she married again. John III settled on Moon Creek in Orange County and multiple members of Group 33 settled fairly nearby on Hogan Creek. Is it possible one of Johns daughters married a member of the nearby Group 33 Walkers, had William, and was widowed and subsequently married someone else or perhaps they both died young and William was raised by his mother's family. This scenario would explain how William came to belong to Group 33 if John III was a brother of those in Group 8 but it needs more work. I haven't even looked at all the Walker's on Hogan Creek.