Wolcott DNA Project

WOLCOTT/WALCOTT DNA PROJECT

Updated May 2008

This information is intended for genealogical research purposes only and may not be used without permission, except that single copies may be printed for private use. Questions and additions or corrections to this page may be sent to John Wolcott (johnwolcott at mail.com)

The Wolcott/Walcott/Walcutt/Wilcott/Woollacott DNA project was begun in November 2004. The purpose is to establish DNA base data for these families, to attempt to identify common ancestors, to ascertain how their DNA mutated, and to help Wolcotts, Walcotts, Wilcotts, Woollacotts, etc. find or verify their descent. We also hope to prove or disprove some relationships that have previously been conjectural. Participants are asked to use a commercial 37 marker Y chromosome test at the participant's expence. Information about testing is found below.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:

Project Administrator, Charles Wolcott, has participated in a Family Tree DNA project to seperate the R1b DNA classification into two groups, Anglo-Saxon and Celtic origins. This has determined that the Wolcotts are of Anglo-Saxon origin.

We now have our 4th participant who is descended from Henry's son, George. It is interesting to see that all carry a similar marker that differentiates George's descendants from descendants of both of his brothers. It is also interesting to see that each of the four George descendants have one marker that differentiates them from each other.

We have been working on an interesting hypothesis for some of our "Missing Link" families, who our DNA evidence indicates are desendants of John Wolcott of Watertown. His great-grandson, John Woolcott, born in 1695 at Brookfield MA, was captured by Indians at age 13 and lived with them for ten years before returning to his family. We think that he was probably not killed by Indians ten years later as reported, but returned to the wilderness where he had a second family. We have identified a DNA group that fits into the Brookfield Wolcott family. It includes the Pennsylvania Wolcotts and Abner Wolcott, the Loyalist. We have also identified an island in the Connecticut River, then within Indian territory, called Wolcott's Island which we believe to be the home of John Wolcott and probable birthplace of John of Pennsylvania and Abner. An article about this appears in the April Wolcott Family Society newsletter. Because the evidence is largely from our DNA project, we are copying it at the bottom of this page.

CURRENT RESULTS:

Most of our participants, Wolcotts, Wilcotts, Willcutts, Walcuts, and Woollacotts, fall into a classification of Group R1b,Western European (Celtic or Anglo-Saxon). Most are close enough together to have a single common ancestor. That common ancestor appears to have been Ralph Wolcott of Devonshire, born c.1330. Our one sample from a descendant of the Walcots of Shropshire is also in Group R1b, but is sufficiently different to indicate a different ancestral source. Nine Walcotts are in a different classification, Group I1a ( Nordic), and appear to descend from a third Walcott ancestor, probably from Eastern England.

We are using the most common DNA markers of most Wolcott participants as our Wolcott "norm". For privacy, exact numbers of the norm are shown here as "X", broken into groups of 10 Xs for legibility. Participant's variations from the Wolcott norm are shown as + or - numbers, with the total variations except, the third from last, being shown following.

1. Ten current participants are descendants of Henry Wolcott (1579-1655), who immigrated from Somerset to Connecticut in 1630. These participants show a close DNA relationship. Most share the -2 variation in the 3rd from last marker that differentiates them from descendants of the other immigrants, John of Watertown MA and John of Maryland which we have taken as our norm. Henry's descendants make up about 70% of all American Wolcotts.
G. F. W., descendant of Henry/Henry/Samuel/Samuel/Samuel Wolcott:
XXXXXXXX-1X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX-2XX 3 var.
M. F. W., descendant of Henry/Henry/Samuel/Samuel/Samuel Wolcott:
XXXXXXXX-1X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX-2XX 3 var.
R. G. W., descendant of Henry/Henry/Samuel/Samuel/Samuel Wolcott:
XXXXXXXX-1X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX-2XX 3 var.
D. L. W., descendant of Henry/George/John/Noah Wolcott
XXXXXXXXXX XX+1XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX-2-1 XXXX-1XX 5 var.
E. S. W., descendant of Henry/George/John/Noah Wolcott
XXXXXXXXXX XX+1XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX-1 XXX-1XX 4 var. <
T. B. W. , descendant of Henry/George/John/Noah Wolcott
XXXXXXXXXX XX+1XXXXXXX XXX-1XXXXX-1 XXXX-1XX 4 var.
R. J. W., descendant of Henry/George/George/George Wolcott
XXXXXXXXXX XX+1XXXXXXX XXXXX+1XXXX XXXX-2XX 4 var.
M. L. W., descendant of Henry/Simon/Henry/Henry/Henry Wolcott:
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX-1 XXX+1-2XX 4 var.
G. M. W., descendant of Henry/Simon/Henry/Thomas/Thomas Wolcott:
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX-2-1X 3 var.
Jo. B. W., descendant of Henry/Simon/Henry/Thomas/Thomas Wolcott:
XXXXXXXX-1X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX+1 XXXX-2XX 4 var.
Ja. B. W. descendant of Henry/Simon/Roger/Alexander Wolcott:
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX+1 XXXXX+1XXXX X+1X+1-1XX 5 var.
E. A. W. descendant of Henry/Simon/Roger/Alexander Wolcott:
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX+1-1XX 2 var.

2. Two descendants of Samuel Wolcott (1630-1687), who immigrated from Devonshire to New Jersey in 1660, have very similar DNA results to the descendants of Henry Wolcott, with the same variation in the 3rd to last marker. Henry and Samuel were probably closely related prior to leaving England, but the exact relationship is unknown.
E. F. W., descendant of Samuel/Peter/Benjamin/Benjamin/Peter Wolcott:
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX-1 XXXX-2XX 3var.
J. M. W., descendant of Samuel/Peter/Benjamin/Benjamin/Benjamin Wolcott:
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX-1X-2XX 3var.

3. Descendants of John Wolcott of Newbury (c.1635-1690), son of John Wolcott of Watertown, (1599-1638), third cousin of Henry Wolcott, the immigrant, show the Wolcott norm with a third from last marker that is 2 steps above the CT/NJ Wolcotts markers.Abner Wolcott's similarity to the Pennsylvania Wolcotts was a great surprise as he first appears in Connecticut. It appears that Abner, Paul, Silas, John, David, and Barnabas Wilcott/Wolcott were brothers, and sons of John Wolcott of Pennsylvania (c.1725-c.1780) and we have added them to this group.
D. J. W., descendant of John/John/John/John/John Wolcott:
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX 0 var.
J. W. W., descendant of John/John/John/John/John/Solomon Wolcott:
XXXXXXXXX+1 X+1XXXXXXXX XXXX-1XXXXX XXXXXXX 2 var.
C. R. W., descendant of John, John, John, Nathaniel, John Wolcott:
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX-1XXXX 1 var.
C. W. W., descendant of John, John, John, Nathaniel, John Wolcott:
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX+1XX XX-1XXXXXXX XX+1XXXX 3 var.
J. E.W., descendant of John, John, John, Nathaniel, John Wolcott:
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX 0 var.
J. R. D. W., descendant of John, John, John, John, John, Abner Wolcott (1747-1833):
XXXXXXXXX+1 X+1XXXXXXXX +1XXX-1XXXXX XXXXXXX 4 var.
C. R. W descendant of John, John, John, John, John, Abner Wolcott (1747-1833):
XXXXXX+1XX+1 X+1XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX 2 var.
P. W. W., descendant of John, John, John, John, John, Silas Wolcott (1755-1834):
XXXXXXXXX+1 X+1XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX+1XX 3 var.
S. W. W., descendant of John, John, John, John, John, Silas Wolcott:
XXXXXXXXX+1 X+1XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX X+1XXXXX 3 var.
R. M. W., probable descendant of John, John, John, John, John, John Wolcott (c.1759-)
XXXXXXXXX+1 X+1XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX _____XX 2 var.
D. R. W., descendant of John, John, John, John, John, Barnabus Wolcott (c.1767-):
XXXXXXXXX+1 X+1XXXXXXXX X+1XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX 3 var.

4. Two other families are probably also descendants of the Brookfield Woolcotts, having the third from last marker that is two steps higher that the Connecticut and New Jersey Wolcotts. The tests shows that the Delaware Wolcotts were not related to the Maryland Wolcotts as previously suspected.
G. D. W., descendant of Thomas Willcutts of NC (1758-1825):
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX 0 var.
J. F. W., descendant of Thomas Willcutts of NC (1758-1825):
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX 0 var.
W. R. W., descendant of Reuben Wilcott of DE 1761-1854
XXXXXXXXXX XX+1XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX 1 var.

5. Three other participants, descendants of Samuel Wolcott of Charleston MA (c,1700-1773), appear to be related to the above groups:
G. B. W., descendant of Samuel, Jesse, CalvinWolcott :
XXXXXXXX+1X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX-2 X+2XX+1XX 6 var.
Je. B. W., descendant of Samuel, Samuel, Jesse Wolcott
XXXXXXXX+1X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX+1XXX _____XX 2 var.
J. C. Wolcott, descendant of Samuel, Samuel, Jesse Wolcott
XXXXXXXX+1X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX-2XX 3 var.

6. Three participants are quite different from those above and almost identical to each other. They appear to share a common ancestor, John Woolcott (c.1630-c.1669) who immigrated to Maryland in 1649. Philip Willcutt was formerly thought to have been a descendant of William Walcott of Salem MA, based on circumstantial evidence. It now appears that Philip might have been a grandson of John Woolcott of MD. This was a great surprise.
L. E. W, descendant of John Woolcott of MD (c.1630-1669):
X+1XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX+2XX XXX-1-2X+2XX-1 X+1-1XXXX 10 var.
W. D. W., descendant of Philip Willcutt of MA (1690-1771):
X+1XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX+2XX XXX-1-2X+2XX-1 X+1-1X+1XX 10 var.
J. M. W., descendant of Philip Willcutt of MA (1690-1771):
X+1XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX+2XX XX-1-1-2X+2XX-1 X+1-1XXXX 10 var.

7. DNA results from two descendant of the Woollacotts of Devonshire shows considerable variation from the Wolcott norm but has some similarity to the descendants of John of MD above. The Woollacotts and the Devonshire Wolcotts are thought to have seperated c.1450. Further samples of Woollacott DNA are needed to help determine the relationship of these two Woollacotts and how or if they are related to the Wolcotts of Devon.
A. W., descendant of JohnWoollacott of High Bickington (1695-1737)
X+1+1XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX +5X-1X-2X+1XX-2 +1+3-2+2XXX 21 var.
C. J. W., descendant of Henry Woollacott of London (1905-1945)
X+1X+1+1XXXXXX XX+1X-1XX+1XX +1X-1X-2-1+1XX-2 X+3X+1XXX 17 var.

8. DNA from a descendant of the Shropshire Walcots shows considerable variation from the Wolcott norm.. This indicates a seperate historical ancestor from the above Wolcotts. It had been thought that the Wolcotts may have descended from the Walcots, but the DNA evidence is to the contrary.
J. H. W., descendant of the Shropshire Walcots:
X+2XX+2X-1XXX XXXXXXX+1XX +2-1-1-1-3 14 var. within first 25 markers

9. Nine participants fall within a separate genetic group, Group I1A, which in England usually indicates early Danish or Norman origins. The family probably originated in eastern England where these invaders settled. The first six are descendants of William Walcott who immigrated to Salem MA in 1636. We here use a norm based on the most common results for descendants of William of Salem.
W. S. W., descendant of William, Jonathan, John:
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX+1XXX-----XX 1 var.
M. C. W., descendant of William, Jonathan, John:
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX-1 XXXXX 1 var.
T.B.W., descendant of William, Jonathan, Jonathan
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX no var.
J. E. W., descendant of William, Jonathan, Jonathan:
XXXXXXXXXX   XXXX+1XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX 1 var.
M. S. W., descendant of William, Jonathan, Jonathan:
XXXXXXXXXX   XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX+1X+1XX 1 var.
M. E. W., descendant of William, Jonathan, William:
XXXXXXXXXX   XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX+1XXX 1 var.
N.G.W., possible descendant of William, ?
XXXXX+1XXXX XXXXXXX+1XX

The other two each show 9 variations from William's descendants, but only 4 variations between each other, indicating a probable common ancestor between the two, and a possible common ancestor with William of Salem:
R. I. W., descendant of Eyare Walcott of Barbados (1615-1671):
X+1XX+1+1XXXX   XXXXX-1XXXX X+1XX+1XX-1XXX   +1XXXX+1X.
D. T. W., descendant of Thomas Walcot of Hampshire c1680-1722:
+1 +1XX+1XXXXX XXXXX-1XXXX X+1XX+1XX-1XXX    X-1XXX+1X

ANOMOLIES, with broken DNA lines due to adoption, illegitimacy, etc. Three test participants did not carry Wolcott or Walcott DNA. Test evidence indicates that one of these had a paternal ancestor who was a members of the Blinn family which twice married female descendants of George Wolcott, son of Henry the immigrant. We believe that the broken line was George Wolcott, 1747-1809, probably son of a Wolcott mother and Blinn father, adopted by her Wolcott parents.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROJECT:

Additional participants are needed to verify some DNA lines. We invite any male Wolcott, Walcott, Walcutt, Woollacott, Willcutt, Wilcott, etc. to participate. Charles Wolcott, 3832 Hanover Ave., Dallas TX 75225, is in charge of the project. His email address is cwwolcott@gmail.com. If you are interested in participating in this test, please let Charles know. You should also give him your Wolcott/Walcott/Wilcott line of descent as far back as you know it. We will be happy to assist you in connecting your genealogical line with known Wolcott/Walcott/etc. family data. For this assistance please contact John Wolcott, johnwolcott@mail.com. If you participate, Charles will receive the results of your test to be used for comparison with others. Your information will be used only for the purpose of this genealogical project, and only initials for first names will be used in published results.

We are using the Family Tree DNA testing program, and are testing for the Y chromosone only. The Y chromosone is the male chromosone, and traces male descent only. For this reason, only males in a direct Wolcott/Walcott line can participate. There is a charge by the laboratory to process your DNA sample, but no other cost for participating in this all-volunteer effort run entirely by participants in the project.

You can register yourself and order a DNA kit by going to www.familytreedna.com/, then clicking on "Surname Projects", then on "W", and then on "Wolcott". At the bottom of that page is an order form that will allow you to join the Wolcott Surname Project and order a test kit from FTDNA. You may take the 25 marker YDNA test currently priced at $148, but prefer the 37 marker YDNA test at $189. The procedure is easy. You will receive a kit in the mail containg two swabs and two containers for returning them. Swab the inside of your cheek vigorously, wait 8 hours and do it again with the other swab, and return them to the test lab. You will be advised of the results. Lab processing usually takes over one month.

THE ILLUSIVE WILCOTTS
Printed in the April 2008 Wolcott Family Society newsletter.

Our Wolcott DNA project has established some genetic patterns, one of which seems to connect several of our "missing link" families to the Wolcotts of Brookfield, Massachusetts. Most of these families spelled their surnames "Wilcott" in the early records. Most of their descendants use the "Wolcott" spelling and definitely carry Wolcott DNA. These "missing links" start in 1772 with John Wilcott appearing in Pennsylvania and Abner Wilcott appearing in Connecticut. DNA tests of their descendants show John and Abner's descendants with identical DNA. The ages are such that it is probable that Abner was John's son. Abner was born in 1747, so John would have been born about 1725. Another missing link family, that of Barnabas Wilcott of Pennsylvania, shares the same markers, and he was probably another son of John. In addition to the unique markers these families share, they also carry a marker that is specific to the Brookfield Woolcotts. Woolcotts at Brookfield are few in number and quite well documented. There are very few Brookfield Woolcott males who could have been John's ancestor.

John Woolcott, born at Brookfield in 1695, has aroused our interest as a very possible ancestor to these missing links. His is a very interesting story. The History of East Brookfield, Massachusetts 1686-1970, by Louis E. Roy, says: "Early on the morning of October 13, 1708, John Woolcot, a lad of about 12 or 14 years old, was riding in search of the cows, when the Indians fired at him, killed his horse under him and took him prisoner. The people of Jennings Garrison hearing the firing and concluding the people at another garrison were beset, six men set out for their assistance, and were waylaid by the Indians…. John Woolcot, the lad above mentioned, was carried to Canada, where he remained for six or seven years, during which time, by conversing wholly with the Indians, he not only entirely lost his native language, but became so naturalized to the savages, as to be unwilling for a while to return to his native country. Some years afterwards, viz. in March 1728, in a time of peace, he and another man having been hunting, and coming down the Connecticut River with a freight of skins and fur, they were hailed by some Indians; but not being willing to go to them, they steered for another shore. The Indians landed at a little distance from them, several shots were exchanged, at length Woolcot was killed.” Reverend Nathan Fiske, pastor of the Third Church at Brookfield, wrote the above in 1775.

When John returned from Canada in 1718, he was given 40 acres of land. The following year he was granted another 100, a year later another 70, and a year after this another 70 acres. Finally, six years later, in October 1727, he acquired a wife, the sister of his younger brother' wife. It was only a few months later that John went up the Connecticut River on the hunting expedition from which he never returned. In June 1728 his wife delivered a son whom she named John (Jr.).

I had rejected this John as a possible father of the missing link, John Wilcott of Pennsylvania, because he already had a son named John posthumously born at Brookfield. However, as our Assistant Registrar, Charles Wolcott, pointed out to me, John’s reported death was so soon after his son's conception that he may not have even known of the pregnancy. Charles suggested that John IV may not have died on the Connecticut River in 1728, as had been reported, but instead went back to the Indians with whom he had lived for many years. The subsequent tale of his death in a fight with the Indians may have been only a story to explain his disappearance.

The more I thought about this scenario, the more likely it seemed. Silas, son of John Wilcott of Pennsylvania, served in the Revolutionary War. His widow applied for a military pension in 1840, saying that Silas had been born in New Hampshire. I had thought this an error, considering that New Hampshire is a long way from central Pennsylvania. However, the upper Connecticut River where John of Brookfield went on his last hunting trip in 1728 led right up to New Hampshire. Doing some searching on the internet, I discovered an account of settlers at Charlestown, New Hampshire, being captured by Indians in 1754. They were taken up the Connecticut River to Canada. On the first day of their abduction, they moved ten miles up the river "to the upper end of Wilcott's Island", where they crossed the river on rafts. I could find no further account of this island, but Charles discovered that it later became known as Walcott Island, as it is known today. This island is now quite small, but it may have suffered considerable erosion in the past centuries. It seems a likely spot to have harbored John Woolcott, a possibly native wife, and their children. John is said to have been fluent in the Algonquin language, which was spoken by the native people of this area. If this scenario is correct, John apparently spent this part of his life as a hunter and trapper on the Connecticut River, avoiding contact with his Brookfield family.

The upper Connecticut River was the home of the St. Francis tribe of the Western Abenaki Indians. This tribe numbered about 1,800 members at the time, having been decimated by diseases brought by the European settlers. Their headquarters was the village of St. Francis on the St. Francis River, which joins the St. Lawrence River between Montreal and Quebec. At this time it was a village of about 40 homes, with a Catholic church and a resident Jesuit priest. From the village of St. Francis, the St. Francis River went south to a portage trail that connected with the Connecticut River, forming an important Indian trail between Connecticut and Quebec. The St. Francis tribe spoke the Algonquin language, but many also spoke a little English and French. They regarded the upper Connecticut Valley as their tribal hunting grounds, and seem to have had a penchant for raiding the new English settlements for loot and for captives, whom they took as slaves, adopted into their families, or sold to the French to be ransomed back to the English. "Wilcott may reflect a French pronunciation of Wolcott.

A typical story is that of Jonathan Dore, a twelve year old boy captured by the St. Francis Indians in 1746. In 1759 "he suddenly made his appearance in Rochester, after an absence of thirteen years and a half. His story was substantially as follows: He was treated kindly and adopted into the St. Francis tribe, to which his captors belonged. He married an Indian girl at an early age, and had several children. He acquired the habits and disposition of an Indian, and almost forgot that he was descended from another race. He bore a part in all the cruelties at the taking of Fort William Henry. A white man whom he was pursuing turned upon him just in season to arrest the descending tomahawk, and then Dore saw a face which had been familiar to him in the days of childhood. The recollection of his father's fireside and the happy scenes of his boyhood instantly rushed upon his mind; his arm fell by his side; he walked back to the fort overpowered by the long-forgotten associations so unexpectedly and so vividly revived within him, and took no further part in that horrible tragedy. From that time he thought often of his boyhood home, but his wife and children bound him to the Indians with ties too strong to be severed." Jonathan's wife and children, with most of the Indian residents of the village of St. Francis, were slaughtered by New Hampshire’s Rogers Rangers in 1759 and he returned to his people.

The origins of Charlestown, New Hampshire, ten miles down the Connecticut River from Wilcott's Island, began in 1738 when Township Number 4, then the northernmost English settlement on the Connecticut River, was chartered. White settlers arrived in 1740 and came to number 8 or 10 families. Relations between these settlers and the natives were quite good until 1744 when the conflict between the English and the French, known as King George's War, began. At that time the Indians moved north and the area became a war zone. By 1760 the French had been defeated, the natives had been driven into the wilderness, and a wave of British settlement advanced north and west, pushing the Indians before them. John IV would have been 49 in 1744 when war began, and his presumed son, John Wilcott of Pennsylvania, about 15. There is no record of them at Township Number 4, so they probably went with the Indians to Canada, or west into the New York wilderness.

Here, John of Pennsylvania, would have come of age and married. His known sons, Paul, born 1752, Silas born in New Hampshire in 1755, John, born 1759, and David, born 1762, have descendants who share the Brookfield DNA marker, and two additional markers found only in this family. The two additional markers are not found in descendants of John 's other son, John Woolcott, born at Brookfield. All three of these markers are found in descendants of John's son, as well as in descendants of Abner Wilcott, born 1747, and Barnabas Wilcott, born in Pennsylvania in 1767, both of whose parents were previously unknown. This DNA and the birth dates indicate that these six men were probably all siblings. All these children's names are Biblical names. Silas and Barnabas were disciples of the apostle, Paul, and Abner was the general who introduced David to King Saul's court. Several of the names are not found previously in any American Wolcott families, indicating a complete separation of the family from their Wolcott relatives.

This suggests that John of Pennsylvania left his New Hampshire home and moved west into New York, and down into Pennsylvania, arriving between 1755 and 1767. A legal hearing in 1810 contained testimony that "Wilcott was the only settler in Penn's Valley in 1772. He lived where Earlytown now is." Penn's Valley is a beautiful valley on the West Branch of the Susquehanna River. This area was ceded to the British by the Indians in the Treaty of 1768. In 1773, John Wilcott was one of five men appointed to lay out a road from there to Sunbury, a settlement at the confluence of the north and west branches of the Susquehanna River. In 1776 John Wilcott was one of 54 men from the area who signed a request for arms to defend themselves against the British and the Indians. In 1778 he was listed at Bald Eagle, with two horses and four cows. He had apparently left his Indian contacts behind and become a part of the European settlement.

All of John's probable sons seem to have been roving frontiersman types. Abner married in Connecticut, went with his wife's family to New Haven Township, then in New Hampshire, in what had been the St. Francis Abenaki tribal lands. There they became Loyalists and settled in Quebec on an island in the St. Lawrence River. The second son, Paul, served in the Continental Army, married in Pennsylvania, and moved to Ontario, Canada with his wife's family. The third son, Silas, was known as "a great hunter", served in the Continental Army, married in Pennsylvania, moved up the Susquehanna to the wilderness of New York where he was one of only two white settlers. He later moved back down the Susquehanna to the New York/Pennsylvania border. Fourth son, John, served in the Continental Army, married, and lived on an island in the Susquehanna River which had been an Indian trading spot. He moved into the wilderness of Kentucky about 1800, were he remarried and raised a family. Fifth son, David, moved over the mountains into Ohio shortly after 1800. Barnabas moved to North Carolina before 1790, and then to Kentucky about 1800. All spelled their name Wilcott on their earliest records, although most later switched to Wolcott.

A recent DNA test also connects a family that may have been the first family of John of Pennsylvania's son, John, whose first wife, Sarah, was thought to have died before he moved to Kentucky. A Sarah Woolcott moved from Pennsylvania to Ohio some time before 1816, with her seven children, born from 1790 to 1800. John may have left her and the children and moved west to start another family.

It is unlikely that these relationships can ever be proved or refuted with documentary evidence. Without the DNA evidence it would not even have been thought likely. The DNA evidence is so strong, the lack of alternative evidence so lacking, and the supporting circumstances so reasonable, that I consider the relationship between John Woolcott of Brookfield and John Wilcott of Pennsylvania to be sufficiently proven to my satisfaction. If I hear no objections, I will be issuing Society memberships based on this. Current members who are descended from this family can contact me if they would like a new certificate based on this conclusion.

END OF PAGE