JOSHUA PARKER-YORK
by George B. York
Thanks to a not-long-ago email from Jamie Parker, we are invited to a next step in answering the question of Joshua York’s paternity. Jamie finds us possibly related to Elder John Parker, born 1758 MD. Related, that is, by our DNA test results; Joshua was born only two years earlier. Connecting the dots to Joshua needs more knowledge of existing Parker lines with the same DNA haplo group as Joshua. Then we may recognize Joshua’s father.
On a map of the general locale in which Joshua grew up, we see ‘Forks of the Cacapon’ in today’s Hampshire West Virginia. The Forks with Enochs Fort are about half way along a 50 mile line between Winchester VA and, to the NW, Cumberland MD. From 1750 to sometime in the later1760’s, Jeremiah York, Joshua’s adoptive Father, lived near the middle of that line, at The Forks. Focused there within the time frame 1755 to 1757, our first question is general, What was happening there and then?
Due in part to the defeat and retreat of Braddock’s British Army from what is present day Pittsburgh in the summer of 1755, the French and Indian war threatened extreme violence in the wide area surrounding The Forks. Thus, from his point of view at Winchester VA, to the south east, Washington saw nothing but ‘desolation’. We do not yet know exactly how, but the Yorks and Joshua, born January 22, 1756, survived, presumably at the Forks. From that we can infer an important fact. Joshua was probably conceived there nine months earlier, between May 5 and 7, 1755. As we shall see, it is perhaps a key indication for reconstructing how his Parker parent came to be there then.
First, we need to recall our basic reason for seeking a Parker rather than Jeremiah York as biological father of Joshua.
Thanks to DNA testing, we have a new tool to guide our search. Knowing DNA matches among living individuals, we can come closer to confirming relationships in our ancestral past — even when there is little or no paper trail. How are the matches found?
The goal of DNA testing is to discover a living individual’s ‘haplo group’. Here is part of a report of the sequential numbers identifying genetic markers in the DNA carried by some closely related living male York’s:
13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 13 14 13 30 18 09 10 11 11 24 15 19 29 15 16 17 18 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 18 36 38 12 12
Only the sequence of the numbers is significant, not line arrangement.
There are at least two York DNA groups. Our numbers identify male DNA group R1b1a. Numbers in the reported sequence represent parts of the DNA in the cells of all direct male descendants of Joshua York. A genetic sequence is handed on by father to son – usually without change. This means we know without a doubt the sequence carried by Joshua himself.
We are additionally fortunate in knowing that the sequence of living male descendants of Joshua’s brothers is not that of Joshua. The father of Joshua’s brothers, Jeremiah York, carried a different haplo, as did Joshua’s brothers. They are not related biologically to Joshua.
To whom might Joshua’s known DNA sequence relate him? The most likely answer today is: To a Parker having the same sequence at the time of Joshua’s conception. Jamie’s ancestor is a clue but not the answer. Elder John is not immediately related to Joshua; he was born two years after Joshua in a distant locale. A likely connection might be through Elder’s uncle or great uncle and first or second male cousins. One of those could have found his way to The Forks in 1755. To fill the gap in our knowledge we look for more Parker information which could link someone or other Parker in Hampshire and/or at The Forks in 1755.
We are not looking for Joshua’s father on a list of one or two Parkers. At first sight we have a heap of test results of living Parkers, not all of whom might be a clue to the answer we seek. At the Parker DNA project online, we find hundreds of Parker sequences. Fortunately the Parkers behind the project have divided results into groups. Parker Group #5 has matching sequences for 23 living male Parkers. Here’s one example:
13 23 14 11 11 14 12 12 13 14 13 30 18 09 10 11 11 24 15 19 29 15 16 17 18 10 10 19 23 16 15 18 18 36 38 12 12
Note that all numbers are an exact match with those for living Yorks (compare above) as well as Joshua. The perfect match sequence above is for a living Parker tracing his paternity back to a George Parker, born about 1700 in Virginia. This fact alone cannot name a connection to Joshua but it does give us one person whose immediate descendants may have taken Parker DNA to The Forks in May 1755. The group #5 sequences are linked to names of earliest known ancestors of each living Parker. Rootsweb and Ancestry online are places to reconnoiter for Parker ancestors who could be a clue we need to get closer to an answer to our question.
Some living Parker sequences are too different from ours to show a relation at the time of Joshua’s conception. Knowing those can also help us in our search. For example, one member of Parker Group #18 is apparently descended from a Nathaniel Parker, born in 1730. By 1749 he was with his father, John, who that year received Fairfax grants. One grant was near the South Branch of the Potomac in the vicinity of present day Romney, Hampshire WV. Another on Patterson Creek to the west in today’s Mineral County WV. Here is his sequence.
15 23 16 10 16 16 11 13 11 13 12 29 15 08 10 11 11 26 15 20 26 11 13 14 15 10 10 19 19 17 14 19 20 33 35 13 10
Very different from the Parker we want. Geographical location of Parkers, not far from The Forks, is not enough to indicate any relation to Joshua in 1755. More Parker DNA tests of living Parkers will better our chances of finding Joshua’s father there — if that is where he was.
Connecting dots, if there are any, between Parkers and Joshua Parker-York means keeping in mind that York and Parker males carrying matching DNA are related. Thus, we need to watch living Parker results and work together with living Parkers in search for a common link. One way is through examining online records (Rootsweb, for example) and primary and secondary written sources, some also online or at our local Libraries.
Jamie Parker has brought us one suggestion for where we might begin sharing the search. He suggests searching for a documented line connecting his Elder John in MD on the eastern seaboard to Joshua. Exact matches with living relatives like Jamie Parker point to research opportunities with them.
Second, we York descendants need documentary support for a particular relation between Joshua and some, as yet unidentified Parker line, perhaps one from old VA, MD, NY or NJ. We are being led to look for a documented connection of Joshua with either a Parker neighbor within 40 miles of The Forks or with some Parker stranger from outside the region. This means two more questions.
One is, why look for a Parker neighbor not far from The Forks? Because we know that, as the information gathered below shows, there were many Parker lines in the vicinity of The Forks. The information below comes mostly from record sources in addition to that of Parker DNA Groups. Two helpful sources I have found reliable are the ‘ParkerHannah.com‘ website and a South Branch Valley Records site. These sites, regarding the neighborhood of The Forks in 1755, give us at least seven Parkers. They show where these men presumably were. That in turn allows calculation of their nearness to The Forks. Distances to be covered would have been either through forested terrain or along roads often no more than Indian paths. Dunbar’s regiment of Braddock’s Army passed The Forks in early May 1775. In spite of risks in going there, any one of these Hampshire Parkers might have been at The Forks to assist the Army.
? Thomas
1750. North River Fairfax grant, locates him within 10 miles of The Forks (Fort Enoch) through forested terrain.
1755 June 11, Fairfax grant sold, where Thomas goes is unknown. No DNA results found.
? Job
1762. Fairfax Grant along Mill Creek places him near South Branch of the Potomac, in the vicinity of Fort Pearsall (Romney), twenty miles from The Forks, son Benjamin adjacent. Presence on South Branch before 1762 undocumented. NoDNA.
? Benjamin
1730’s birth. Son of Job.
1755. Living adjacent to his father.
x George
According to the Hannah Parker website, “Unrelated to Job and Thomas”.
1748. Fairfax grant places him on Lot 1, along Patterson Creek (Fort G. Parker, aka Fort Cocke), a bit less than forty miles from The Forks, perhaps two days by horse.
1755. On Patterson Creek.
x Benjamin
1722/23. Son of George.
1755. Presumably on Patterson Creek property (present day Mineral County). He Along with his mother inherits it at his father’s death about 1757.
x John
According to the Hanna website,‘Easy to assume related to George’. We can presume because of the proximity of their land grants. In those days a relative is more than a neighbor.
1749. Fairfax grants give John control of Patterson Creek, Lot 12; South Branch Lot 44 and a few others.
1755. On one or other of his lots.
x Nathaniel
1755 Son of John. With his father or in charge of one of his lots. As indicated above, his known DNA sequence is not closely related to Joshua’s.
Names marked with an ‘x’ are probably ruled out of the running for Joshua’s paternity. Nathaniel’s sequence is known and excludes him as father of Joshua. That means his father, with the same DNA, is also ruled out. The time and location of John’s grant, so close to George’s, makes it easy to assume he and George are related, probably brothers. That would mean George and his son Benjamin are both ruled out as father of Joshua. And so, shared family male DNA sequences likely rule out four of seven Parkers somewhat near The Forks.
For the men marked with a ‘?’ we have no DNA, neither for Thomas nor for Job and his son. The timing of Thomas’ property sale may or may not saying anything about his relation to Joshua. The timing of Job’s grant, 1762, could mean he and his son in 1755 had not yet settled in Hampshire. If these men have living descendants in Hampshire, their histories and DNA might tell us whether or not relation to Joshua is possible.
Another question is, Why look for a Parker stranger from far beyond The Forks? Obviously, as already implied, Jamie Parker’s suggestion tells us to look in that direction. For example, Jamie’s Nathaniel Parker (see above), born 1736 NJ, not WV. A birth date and location for one of this Parker’s suspected offspring places him in 1756 in Albemarle VA (Rootsweb). When Joshua was conceived in the spring of 1555, could this Nathaniel have been in or near The Forks?
Without further evidence we can only speculate that Nathaniel (or some other Parker) could have been there with Dunbar’s regiment of General Braddock’s British Army, along with wagons, artillery and camp followers. One or other Parker could have been there with or without a wife and could have been occupied as a soldier or a carpenter. Coming from New Jersey, pausing at Winchester before heading on for the 55 miles to Cumberland Maryland, Dunbar’s British regiment rested at The Forks for two nights, before and after May 6, 1775. For verification of this date for Dunbar’s regiment click here. What then of Joshua’s mother?
According to Thomas Crocker, we know women along with the Army served as washerwomen and probably not all of them were married, perhaps earning their keep in some other way. Crocker adds, ‘Braddock had physicians “search and see who was clean.”’ Anyone of those women could have conceived Joshua and returned to The Forks in August with the remnant of Braddock’s army under Washington.
Why would she have remained at the forks? The simplest answer would be, if a widow of a colonial soldier, she was taken in by a sympathetic Jeremiah and Mary. But we cannot forget she could have been an unmarried colonial daughter of the area, who, perhaps shunned by her own, was generously taken in by the Yorks. We know Mary York was not Joshua’s biological mother; on May 6, 1775, she was either about to bear or was already nursing Joshua’s older brother.
As far as we know, nothing on record even hints at confirmation of any of the possibilities; Joshua York’s Parker DNA along with a certain date for his conception are our most sure facts. We need to find whatever we can to learn more. For example, was there a British or seaboard colonial Parker with Dunbar’s regiment? Ill-treatment of colonists and families by the British is a matter of historical record.
And so, DNA and recorded facts from the past, give us a start for realistic sketch of circumstances and happenings in May 1775. Colonial families at The Forks were going through a period of some unusual social confusion. To make the sketch come more alive, we need to find and winnow more DNA results, Parker family histories, and facts from the past.
If you are a confirmed DNA descendant of Joshua York-Parker with FTDNA or a descendant’s sibling, spouse or child, you can review the list of Exact Parker matches on the York Group pages — as well as at the Parker Project pages.
I am in contact with Parkers other than Jamie. Thanks to the stimulus given me by him, I have had my request approved for my DNA test results to be included in the PARKER project at Family Tree DNA. You may do the same. That way we may hear from other Parkers about our search.
George B York
Denver
Descendants of Joshua 