About Roberta Estes

Scientist, author, genetic genealogist. Documenting Native Heritage through contemporaneous records and DNA.

First Aid for the Holidays: It’s OK to Grieve, Just Breathe

As you begin this article, I want to assure you that it ends on a VERY positive note, with tools to help you or others who find themselves in a dark place. The holidays is a very difficult time for many.

Grief wears many faces, and we grieve many things.

This is about my journey out of the tunnel and life on the other side.

These past three years have been indescribably brutal for many people who have experienced loss, and often, multiple losses.

People, family, parents, siblings, children, pets, jobs, homes, and even more devastating losses sometimes – relationships and even entire families. Poof, just gone, sometimes without explanation or reason. Fractured forever, irreparably.

Funerals, when they were held, were often unable to be attended.

There’s no closure.

And now, once again, we face the holidays in this landscape of absence, in an even more politically charged and divisive environment.

Did you just feel your stress level increase?

I know it can be dark and brutal, but I want to share rays of hope with you, and some tools for getting there.

The only way to it is through it.

Please walk with me in this landscape for a bit.

Suicide Hotlines – Just in Case

I know the holidays can be particularly difficult, so just in case you’re overwhelmed, here’s a list of international suicide prevention hotline numbers. Please, please reach out if you need help.

In case you’re wondering, I’m fine. Today, I just talked to someone who isn’t, though.

Change is Tough

For many, including me, the holidays are not and can never be what they once were. Yet, we torture ourselves trying to paste on a smile and go through the motions of the traditions that were once warm and joyful in another time and place. But they aren’t anymore for a wide variety of reasons.

Do yourself a favor.

Just stop.

You don’t HAVE to do this.

And you shouldn’t try to recreate past times through tradition if it’s painful.

Let me share some personal experiences with you. You may have experienced or are experiencing something similar in your life. If you aren’t, good, but rest assured that someone you know and love probably is.

Grief and vulnerability are the secrets no one talks about.

Vulnerability

We are all more vulnerable during holidays or periods of traditional cultural celebration, partly because we have expectations based on past experience. Or maybe it’s actually hope for the holidays and the relationships with the people in our lives. Maybe this year will FINALLY be better than the last, and the last, and the last, and everyone will be “home for the holidays” once again.

After all, traditionally, holidays have been a homecoming that looks like a Hallmark greeting card, at least in our minds.

Real life just doesn’t work this way. And if it once did, it doesn’t anymore.

As life moves on, so do people, pets, and family members, for a wide variety of reasons, including death, often making those memories increasingly painful. In some cases, it’s the cumulative number of those events, layer upon layer of grief. Sometimes, it’s how quickly they occur, an agonizing cluster that changes things forever. And sometimes, it’s the fracture of finality, leaving people feeling like they were thrown away like so much trash.

Sometimes, in our efforts to uphold our own expectations and those of others by recreating legendary family traditions and events, we inadvertently fall into a cycle of repeated disappointment, which can lead us to dread these very events in the future.

That’s a downward spiral.

Let Me Give You an Example

My mother cherished Christmas, treasuring it as a time when all the people she loved gathered together, united under one roof in celebration and togetherness.

The house was bustling, and conversations flowed in every room.

Food was abundant, and children zigzagged excitedly through adult legs on the way to their special table.

Sometimes, Santa even visited, although he looked a lot like my brother or the neighbor from the farm down the road. I’m sure that was just a coincidence, though.

In my family, Christmas was both a holiday and our only family reunion.

After Dad passed away, Mom moved to an apartment, and those large family Christmas gatherings were no more, although we regrouped in a different setting. Mom used to be so joyful, singing in the kitchen, but she often cried at Christmas after Dad and others were gone, although she tried to hide her tears from the rest of us.

After Mom passed away, Christmas was just PAINFUL. We tried to focus on our wonderful memories of Mom, but the pain of her departure was very real. Everyone experiences some version of these events, and it’s normal to feel grief, but what we often aren’t prepared for is that someone’s absence changes the dynamics of everything.

For a few years, we still tried to connect with each other and have something resembling a “family holiday,” but not everyone was interested, and people drifted away. The “glue” was gone.

After both of my brothers died of cancer within a few months of each other just six years later, any semblance of family tradition fell completely apart.

I then tried to pivot into the matriarch role and provide family Christmas traditions for my own offspring. I longed for those earlier joyful days, too. They lovingly remembered “Christmas at Mawmaw’s house,” which, in turn, was some iteration of her family Christmas traditions that had been passed down in her maternal line for unknown generations.

I wanted to continue those warm traditions and create loving memories for my family, passing the tradition of togetherness and love to future generations.

That was a wonderful aspiration, but it just wasn’t to be.

Life is what happens when you’re making other plans.

Physical Mementos

I was bound and determined to continue family traditions. That’s just what the next generation does. My mother picked up the mantle when my grandmother passed away in 1960, and nearly a half-century later, it was my turn.

Mom gave each of her children and grandchildren a special Christmas ornament every year, most of them handmade. She loved to crochet and started working on ornaments and Christmas gifts months before the holiday season. After all, she had several to make and enjoyed every minute. Love was woven in every stitch.

Sometimes, the ornaments were representative of the year, like an Olympics year, for example, or maybe a ballerina or football ornament for children who participated in those activities. The theory was that each child would have a “starter set” of personal Christmas ornaments with loving memories when they fledged from the nest and started their own home with their own Christmas tree.

Mom even taped a tiny year someplace on the ornament, generally on the hanger, so they would know which ornament went with which year.

I thought that was wonderful, so I began to do the same thing.

In addition to making ornaments for my children, I made this ornament for Mom the year she won a Best of Show ribbon at the Indiana State Fair. Mom and I so enjoyed attending those exhibits together, often with grandchildren in tow. That was a red-letter year for her, and she proudly displayed the ornament on her tree, right in the front. Then, 17 years later, I inherited that ornament. It’s bittersweet, of course, but reminds me of our wonderful times together and Mother’s beautiful handwork.

I made and gifted special ornaments each year, not only to my children, but eventually to my grandchildren.

While my children began their adult life with their own ornament set, the next generation wasn’t interested and didn’t even remember that they received ornaments year to year. I tried everything, special boxes, allowing them to select ornaments from my tree that they liked, but nothing worked.

Then, in time, it wasn’t just the ornament tradition that bit the dust, but all of the traditions. Put simply, no one cared. I finally got the message.

That left me with boxes full of Christmas tree ornaments, and two trees. I tried putting the tree up regardless, because – you know – Mom and memories, and she would have liked that. And maybe, just maybe, things would be different this year.

But I sat alone, sadder every year, because there was no family gathering Christmas tradition anymore, despite my continuing efforts. There were no songs, no Christmas smells in the house, and what at one time had been a wonderful, warm tradition became just the opposite. Those ornaments seemed to mock me and served to remind me of pointed absence, not presence.

I dreaded the holidays more each year.

The family had shrunk dramatically and been cleaved into two. One of my adult children continued to come with their spouse and remained engaged, but the silence of the absence of the balance of the family members was deafening.

It’s not like we could pretend that empty chairs weren’t empty.

Then came Covid and unraveled the rest.

Enough is Enough

In some families, Covid, sometimes combined with ugly politics, broke traditions and relationships that haven’t resumed or recovered.

The forced isolation of Covid and traditions shattered by estrangement have continued for many. That situation now exists by choice, not by Covid.

Life is simply too short to continue enduring the repeated pain of rejection, especially for no discernible reason.

Hope is not a strategy, and repeated disappointment evolves into a cycle of ever-deepening grief.

At some point, enough is enough. There needs to be an end to the spiral of recurring pain.

Wishing, hoping, inviting, and even begging simply can’t make people care or succeed in recreating past traditions. People don’t show up if they don’t want to. Recurrent flimsy excuses that really say “I don’t care,” take the place of people. I think guilt then discourages showing up and “facing people” in the future, too, so it’s a self-perpetuating cycle of “can’t bother, don’t care.”

Even if the wished-for people begrudgingly attend, somewhat under duress, or maybe from a sense of obligation, it’s not the same because it’s obvious that they really don’t want to be there. That’s almost worse than absence.

When things no longer work, it’s time to accept that fact, release them, and move on. It’s much like going through the motions in a bad marriage – not good for anyone and never gets better.

For me, that moment arrived when I almost died. I found myself perilously close to death, and in those moments, as life hung perilously in the balance, something inexplicable changed.

Moving

Working from home during Covid provided the opportunity to move – something we had considered for years. We knew it was time to move, and move on.

The next challenge was packing, which means you have to sort through everything and decide what to do with things. Take, leave, give away, sell, or trash. As you come across all those things you boxed up years ago, you relive all of those shallowly buried memories. Ghouls come leaping from the grave.

After consulting with my daughter, I gave away all the Christmas ornaments and both trees to loving homes. I kept a few ornaments – some that Jim and I had purchased on special occasions, those yearly ornaments from Mom, some made by my children, and the ones from my grandmother as well. My daughter will inherit those someday.

The rest just needed to go.

I no longer feel obligated to “try” to recreate traditions that died.

I no longer feel obligated to put up a Christmas tree that simply makes me cry every time I see ornaments that remind me of people, lives, traditions, and relationships that have passed away, either literally or figuratively.

I don’t do any of that anymore.

Life’s too short, and self-care is critically important.

Triggers

Triggers are like unexpectedly poking an old wound. Maybe cracking your shin or crazy bone against something sharp. OUCH!

It seems that we are more susceptible to triggers during the holidays. That’s when holiday decorations, ads, and songs are more in evidence, reminding us of times past whether we want to be reminded or not.

Sometimes, though, triggers are found when and where we least expect them – like in the cedar chest.

This past week, I was ill and wanted to add an extra quilt to the bed, so I grabbed a quilt that one of my friends lovingly made for my small family wedding 20 years ago.

It seemed like such a good idea at the time, asking attendees to sign squares. Each of those yellow centers holds a signature and, often, a message too.

It was late at night, and I was already “sick and tired,” literally. For some reason, I decided to read those squares. It seemed like such a positive thing to do, because it was such a joyful day, and they had been lovingly penned.

What was I thinking? I thought they would be comforting. I should have known better.

As I began, the one signed by my daughter, who stood up with me as my maid of honor, made me smile. There were lovely messages from long-time friends and my quilt sisters.

I saw Mom’s shaky signature, a couple of years before she left us, and that made me both smile and cry. That response didn’t surprise me, but some of the rest did.

Most of the people have either passed away or migrated away. I don’t necessarily mean that in a universally negative sense because, in some cases, it was due to aging and necessary life changes. Even for the best of reasons, it represented a loss of sorts, like Christmas tree lights that dim and wink out one by one.

Sometimes, the reason was darker. Some people died, and in other cases, relationships ended – some horribly and bitterly, inflicting great pain.

But the square that absolutely gutted me was the tiny traced handprint of a child, no longer here. Ripped my heart right out of my chest, threw it on the floor, and stomped on it. Daggers to my soul.

That was it. I folded that quilt up and put it away. I may never unfold it again.

It vividly resurrects all the memories of those now-gone people and traditions in both their glory and deepest tragedy.

We all reach a low at some point, often for unexpected reasons. The proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back, but that does not need to be the end of the story. It’s just the shutting of that door and the opening of another.

Let’s open a door.

New Traditions

I am determined that I will not allow change, even unwelcome or forced change, to defeat me and define my life.

I did not die on that life-changing day, nor with those traditions, relationships, or those people. Those who love or loved me would not want me to, and the rest don’t matter.

Let me say that again, THE REST DON’T MATTER.

I’m still here, relatively healthy, and living the next chapter of life in beautiful surroundings.

Yes, Thanksgiving is on the calendar, and so is Christmas. You can’t miss those dates or events. There will be Thanksgiving dinner, but just for me, Jim, and maybe a friend or two – and that’s now fine.

Yes, just fine.

My daughter and I have mutually agreed to release old habits and make glorious new ones that better suit our lives now. Or, maybe just the tradition of enjoying the moment whenever it occurs. Let’s face it: travel is brutal in the middle of the winter, so we select easier, less-crowded times.

There will be no traditional Christmas tree, for either me or her. And guess what, that’s not only absolutely fine, it’s cathartic and a relief. This is my Charlie Brown Christmas tree now, and I love it. It comes with no hassle and no tears.

Our small remaining family has decided that gifts will no longer be exchanged during the holiday season. We will simply do things for each other during the year, as the opportunity arises and we see something a family member would enjoy.

For example, my daughter and I took a glorious trip together this summer.

Art, gardens, parks, dogs, eagles, moose, coffee, luscious food in little-known quaint restaurants and family – how does it get better???

Sometimes, surprise boxes arrive. That’s such fun. I’m now the proud human adopter of a rescued manatee, Ariel.

Here’s the beautiful part. We are both very much looking forward to our next adventure together – not dreading the holidays.

We will embark on a wonderful journey soon, together, on a white sand beach in a place neither of us ever imagined. I can hardly wait.

No more dreading the holidays and trying to breathe life into dead traditions. She’s probably relieved, too.

We’re free.

It wasn’t easy or immediate, but…

We. Are. Free.

We are no longer adrift or cast away on a sea of grief.

Just Breathe

Today, I can breathe instead of grieve. No more tightness of dread in my chest, increasing each day as the holidays approach, knowing assuredly that things will go wrong, just not how this year. No more fighting back hot, unwelcome tears from mid-November to New Year’s when the holidays are finally over.

Now that I’ve found peace in embracing change, it no longer feels like chronic loss, but a stream of new opportunities to be enjoyed. The joy is being spread in different, less traditional ways.

The past no longer binds me. It wasn’t working any more.

As for Christmas Day, I’m starting a new tradition for myself. I’m going to walk on the beach and feel the salty breeze in my hair. Either alone or with Jim.

No one else will be there. I will commune with Mom and Dad, my brother Dave, my sister Edna, my cousin Cheryl, and the rest of those I’ve loved and lost.

They will be with me there, gliding with the gulls on the ocean breeze.

With immense gratitude, I’ll remember my ancestors who survived incredibly difficult journeys. Without them, I wouldn’t have this priceless opportunity to live and make a difference in other people’s lives.

I will be thankful for those opportunities and send positive energy into the universe for the earth and her people.

I’ll lift a prayer for peace and unity, which we so desperately need right now.

But I won’t, I will NOT grieve the past. I’ve had that funeral, and it’s at rest now.

I, too, will be at peace.

Your Turn

Put whatever brings you pain to rest and release it so that you can make space to breathe in the new.

You’re not obligated to uphold old traditions. Don’t stay trapped in what no longer works.

This is a labyrinth, not a maze.

There’s a way out, an exit, an off-ramp.

Your ancestors will help you. They walk with you in unseen ways, offering guidance and wisdom.

Move on to something new, more suited to you.

Give yourself permission.

Release yourself from the pain of the past.

Create beautiful, new, imaginative traditions, or none at all.

Either is fine.

When life gives you scraps, make quilts.

Find or make something new and joyful.

Allow yourself flights of fancy and to dream.

The sky is not the limit.

There is no limit.

And breathe.

Just breathe.

Help With Inspirational Positivity

What we view interacts with our brain. As a quilter, I’m very aware of how color and pattern make us feel. The images I used in the section above were created with that in mind. How did they make you feel?

If you’re having trouble feeling positive, and who doesn’t from time to time, motivational or inspirational images will help. AI is your friend, so let’s give it a try.

If you subscribe to ChatGPT 4, enter a request into DALL-E, the image generator. If you don’t subscribe to ChatGPT, my favorite, use a free image generator. You can ask ChatGPT’s free version for free AI image generators to get started, or you can try DALL-E for free through Bing’s Image Creator, here. Personally, I think the $20 a month for ChatGPT 4, which includes Dall-E, is well worth the investment, even if you just use it for one month for a daily dose of positivity during a difficult time.

Ask ChatGPT 4’s DALL-E or your AI generator of choice to create an inspirational image. You may or may not provide more direct or additional instructions. You can even just google.

I asked DALL-E to “create a picture by interpreting the phrase, ‘when life gives you scraps, make beautiful quilts’.”

Next, I included a photo of myself as a young person and asked ChatGPT to “put the person in a positive and inspirational setting with a labyrinth.”

ChatGPT doesn’t use people’s photos, but it generates images with likenesses. This is what I received. I can continue refining this image by asking ChatGPT to change it or by submitting a new request. (Please note that ChatGPT’s image generator is sometimes overburdened, and you have to wait a bit and try later.)

Be sure to include words in the instructions like “uplifting, “positive,” “ethereal”, “beautiful,” or “colorful.”

Next, I asked Dall-E to add a quilt theme to the same labyrinth image, above.

ChatGPT’s DALL-E doesn’t always follow directions exactly, but I must admit, I really love this, and now I want to make it as a quilt.

If you’re in a difficult space and can do nothing else right now, utilize ChatGPT, other AI image generators, Pixabay or even Google to bombard yourself with positive, hopeful images of your new or imagined life.

I’m serious.

Inspiration comes from many places, and beautiful images lift our spirits.

You WILL feel better.

Happy Holidays

Thanksgiving week begins now, so gird your loins if you need to, and maybe consider something novel. If you’re concerned about Thanksgiving dinner going off the rails, CNN’s newsletter today, here, provided a list of “20 Questions to Spark Gratitude.” It’s a thoughtful piece and worth taking a look, even if you don’t need it for Thanksgiving. I exchanged answers with Jim, which was fun, and we both learned something.

I asked ChatGPT for nontraditional Thanksgiving celebration ideas, and it suggested a barbeque or picnic celebration on a beach, a craft day, or a gratitude scavenger hunt.

You can ask the free version of ChatGPT for ideas, too.

I wish you the happiest of holidays over the next few weeks, no matter how you do, or don’t, decide to celebrate.

Please do something that brings YOU joy.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

15th Annual FamilyTreeDNA Conference for Genetic Genealogy – Reunion, Reception and Keynote

Fifteen years is a VERY long time in this industry. The first conference for group project administrators took place in 2004 in Houston. The “annual” part was interrupted twice by hurricanes, and then along came Covid.

It was nothing short of WONDERFUL to be back together again. Five of us have attended all 15 conferences. Nearly half of the attendees were there for the first time. It’s always nice to engage with new people.

While the conference is open to Group Administrators, the sessions aren’t focused, for the most part, on group project administrator activities. However, some sessions are focused on optimum ways to handle and group large numbers of testers, like in surname projects. Project administration affects us all.

Many session topics reflect education, such as how phylogenetics works, or ancient DNA, or how to find your Native American ancestor. And then, of course, the keynotes are always amazing.

This was the first year the conference was blended, combining in-person and virtual.

Janine Cloud, shown here smiling as she enjoyed a presentation, manages the Groups group at FamilyTreeDNA and coordinates FamilyTreeDNA’s conference presence.

Janine shouldered the responsibility for putting this conference together, and while she had lots of help, there would have been no conference without her. I want to say a HUGE thank you to Janine.

During part of the conference, there were three session tracks to choose from, and I clearly couldn’t be in all of them simultaneously to take pictures. I also presented, and there are no photos of my session. I thought about giving my phone to someone and asking for a favor, but I didn’t want to interfere with their experience.

I was initially going to publish one article about the conference and presentations, but it simply grew too long, so I’m separating the conference experience into several, more meaningful articles. I learned something new in every session, so I hope you’ll “come along.”

Part Conference, Part Reunion

I’m taking a point of personal privilege here and posting fun photos first.

I was already excited, but when the plane was landing, and the Houston skyline came into view, I knew it would only be another hour or so before I saw my friends again. Like a little kid, I could hardly wait.

I hadn’t realized a couple of things.

First, how much I’ve missed people during the Covid “pause.” Not only was that difficult because of the disease itself and the necessary social restrictions to halt the spread, but because I lost SO MANY friends and family members. Many deaths resulted from Covid, and some were due to other things.

Both individually and cumulatively, the losses were brutal and devastating. Added on to the isolation.

Some people accumulate more family members as they age. If you had lots of siblings or several children – you’re adding to the family with new grandbabies, nieces and nephews. However, if you had a small family to begin with, and a small family yourself, your family may be rapidly shrinking instead of rapidly expanding.

That’s what has been happening to me.

My siblings are all gone now. My closest cousin who was functionally my sister passed over earlier this year.

Other than my immediate family and quilt-sisters, the people I’m the closest to are my cousins that I met through genealogy, and my genealogy friends. We have developed a bond that has endured and survived all kinds of obstacles for decades – including the grim-reaper and Covid.

None of us were or are ever assured of seeing each other again. We used to take that for granted, when we were younger, but not anymore. Now we are vividly aware, through painful experience, that none of us are invincible, nor do we know when any one of us is going to join the ancestors.

These past few years, many of us held our breath as each other suffered through Covid and family loss – praying, sewing masks when there were none, making front porch soup deliveries, and sometimes delivering care quilts. Then there were the virtual hugs at virtual funerals. I’ll not even mention the other crushingly difficult situations that have arisen during this time.

But here we were, in Houston, finally together once again. Survivors.

I didn’t realize in advance that I was attending a family reunion.

There are just no words to express the joyful reunions. People seeing each other for the first time in four and a half years, names shouted from across the room, and people literally running to embrace.

Tears, hugs, joy.

Jennifer Zinck snapped this photo of me and Janine Cloud meeting once again and graciously permitted me to use it and a few others in this article.

Speaking of Jenn, it was wonderful seeing her and her daughter as well. More joyful reunions. Can you see the chromosomes on Jenn’s dress? What fun!

Bennett Greenspan, the founder and President Emeritus of FamilyTreeDNA, “retired” a couple of years ago, but only to do what genealogists do in retirement. Genealogy, of course, and in his case, genetic genealogy. Would you expect anything less? I was thrilled for this photo op of me, Bennett, and long-time project administrator and friend, Bonny Cook.

Courtney Eberhard was kind enough to take this wonderful group photo at the Friday night reception. Left to right, Katy Rowe, Product Owner at FamilyTreeDNA; Katherine Borges, ISOGG founder; Max Blankfeld, retired co-founder of FamilyTreeDNA; Dana Leeds, creator of the Leeds method; Tim Janzen, MD, long-time genetic genealogist with an interest in Mennonite DNA; Bennett Greenspan; me and Tom Cloud, Cloud Project co-administrator. I’m sure you recognize these faces and names. I’ve discovered over the years that I’m related to at least two of these people, which is part of the fun of genealogy. Right?

Bennett and Max did humanity, particularly genealogists, an incredible service by founding FamilyTreeDNA 23 or 24 years ago. Who knew where we’d be a quarter-century later.

Those of you who know me know that I have an affinity for chocolate, especially dark chocolate. I also often take chocolate with me and pass out Ghirardelli squares. Sometimes I can be a bit of a pest and ask a lot of questions, so I learned long ago that chocolate in advance is the best form of asking forgiveness.

Mags Gaulden, my sister-of-heart, apparently agrees and was trying to save me from too much chocolate. I greatly appreciate her sacrifice on my behalf. 😊

Actually, Mags was my front-row seatmate and we had so much doggone fun. We tried, without much success, to behave. Or maybe we didn’t really try that hard!

This lovely lady, Marilyn Souders, one of the five people who have attended every conference, dressed the part and granted permission to publish her photo with these lovely helix tops. She said she found them on Etsy. Now I want one too.

I was lucky enough to get a photo with the R&D team, who were all present except Dr. Paul Maier.

To include Paul in the group picture, Dr. Miguel Vilar, at right, is holding “flat Paul.”

Trying to take selfies made us all laugh. The person with the longest arm gets to hold the phone, someone else gets to tap the button, and everyone tries to smile at the same time!

My lovely friend, Derrell Oakley Teat, who, in honor of HER birthday hand-made and brought gifts for others.

I’m always excited when young people are interested in both science and genealogy. Juniper Zinck has been attending conferences for years now and met Derrell in 2016. Derrell made Juniper a lovely critter, now named Hermie the Wormie to go with Franklin the Spider who accompanied Juniper and posed with many of us at her first conference.

I was stunned to find this lovely gift pack at my seat – everything handmade by Derrell.

Inside the package were several goodies including a hotpad, drink cozy, dishcloth and skillet handle hotpad. I came home with “conference cred” and have been using the hotpad as a mini placemat for my soup bowls.

Plus, my very own adorable little Woggley Worm, who also enjoyed the sessions.

How cute is this with a “family tree” and a tiny passport. I confess, this made me cry. So many of us have been on such adventures together, all bonded through genetic genealogy.

I wasn’t the only lucky person. I saw Derrell passing gifts out to others, too. What a wonderful, thoughtful way to celebrate your birthday.

However, Derrell wasn’t getting off the hook that easy, because the entire room “sang” to her, or at least attempted to sing to her. I’ll spare you my caterwauling! One gentleman who is a retired opera singer sang Happy Birthday to her property, but sadly,  I missed it.

Derrell is “retiring” as a project administrator, so we suspect it will be the last time she joins us at the conference.

Before I close this section, I need to say a personal thank you to several people who brought me goodies and mementos from where they live. Pins, remembrances, and chocolate from around the world. Did I mention chocolate? Thank you. Thank you. I was quite surprised to be the lucky recipient and oh so grateful. I’m still rationing the chocolate so I can enjoy it and think fondly of my years of friendship with the gifter.

Thank you, Bennett

The R&D team, without Paul, but including Bennett Greenspan, who began it all.

Bennett has certainly earned his place as a team member. I’d say “honorary member,” but Bennett is still quite involved with his extensive research and focus.

I can’t tell you how many times over the years I approached Bennett, often at conferences, and said, “I have an idea,” or “I’ve observed something interesting,” or, “We need to update and redo the mitochondrial tree.”

Bennett has always been an advocate for scientific research to advance our knowledge about the intersection of historical and genetic information and discoveries.

Sometimes Bennett asked intense questions, but if your ideas stood up to scrutiny, his answers were always some version of, “Let’s do it!” Then, you were expected to do just that.

While Bennett did officially retire, his legacy never will. In fact, it’s still being written. The Million Mito Project with the updated MitoTree and accompanying MitoDiscover, actively under development and currently planned for 2024, began with his approval and has his signature all over it.

The discoveries made under Bennett’s stewardship have changed lives in untold and immeasurable ways. Bennett’s vision didn’t just launch a company, it birthed an industry that has expanded and continues to expand exponentially, beyond even Bennett’s wildest dreams. He was just a genealogist, trying to reassemble his family.

The 2004 FamilyTreeDNA conference was the first conference anywhere focused solely on genetic genealogy, specifically for project administrators who act as shepherds for projects of interest to them and their project members.

This week in Houston, that legacy of generosity and helping each other also lived on.

Bless your heart, Bennett, in all the best ways, and thank you from the bottom of mine.

The Conference

Check-in began, goodie bags were passed out (thank you, FamilyTreeDNA), and the traditional reception occurred on Friday evening. FamilyTreeDNA had arranged unofficial tutoring sessions with volunteers on Friday afternoon for those who arrived early.

My first view of the tables below where the conference rooms were located and meals were served. Breakfast and lunch were included.

I could hardly wait to get down there!

Everyone was engaged. There was lots of visiting and catching up.

The conference is small enough that attendees have the opportunity to visit with, encourage, and exchange ideas with everyone over the three-day event.

Over the years, so many ideas and collaborations have been birthed and problems solved at these tables.

Lior Rauchberger, the CEO of myDNA which includes FamilyTreeDNA opened the conference remotely from Australia, welcoming everyone.

Thank you, Lior, for continuing this fine tradition of education and excellence.

Clayton Conder, VP of Marketing, and Katy Rowe, Product Manager, shared emcee duties for the weekend.

Years ago, Max and Bennett established the tradition of recognizing the administrators who had passed away since the last conference.

I had a huge lump in my throat. Not only did I know many of these people, four were co-administrators with me on projects. And then, there was legendary Bob McLaren, loved by all.

Making Connections

Genealogy, including genetic genealogy, is about making connections.

At conferences, I have this love-hate relationship with the FamilySearch app’s feature called “Relatives Around Me.” Mostly love!

You are connected to the FamilySearch “one world tree,” and have the app installed on your phone. At a conference or any place with multiple people who have the app open, you can click on the “Relatives Around Me” tab, which then displays, according to the FamilySearch tree, who you’re related to.

This app is lots of fun and a conversation starter.

Of course, caveats always apply about validating the information, but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve used this tool to find cousins and share information.

Courtney and I discovered that we are confirmed 8th cousins three times removed.

The bad news is that once you encourage people to use “Relatives Around Me,” you’re going to lose your audience for the next 15 minutes as they find each other and compare ancestors!

The Keynote

Stephanie Gilbert – Sojurns in Truth, My First Time Travel

Stephanie Gilbert delivered an AWESOME keynote, in addition to a second session the following day.

Stephanie told her stories for the first time as presentations, to us, and what a stories they were. Things every genealogist dreams of, like finding your ancestors’ homes or recovering their possessions, but even more challenging and emotionally difficult for the descendants of enslaved people.

Stephanie was adopted by a loving African-American family. Her first session told how she traced her adoptive family’s heritage to the Richland Farm in Maryland, where their ancestors were enslaved.

By HoCoHistory – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60128519

Stephanie’s ancestors were not slave hands, at least some of them, but worked in the “big house,” pictured here in 2014.

Like many genealogists, Stephanie began by asking family members about their known history.

Stephanie asked Cousin Bert to tell her what she knew about the family. Cousin Bert knew some things, but Stephanie’s digging led to far more – things nobody knew.

I don’t want to steal any of Stephanie’s thunder, in case you have the opportunity to hear her speak, or listen to the recorded sessions if you signed up as a conference attendee – but she’s one of the best storytellers I’ve had the honor of listening to.

You could have heard a pin drop as she told of her formerly enslaved ancestor, Oliver Cromwell Gilbert, a “house slave” at Walnut Grove, son of Cynthia, the enslaved cook. Unlike many enslaved people who could not read or write, Oliver penned a precious manuscript, now in Stephanie’s possession.

Stephanie connected with the Watkins family who formerly enslaved her family and has been able to repair many of the “fractures of slavery.” The family had additional information that allowed Stephanie to learn more about two earlier generations of her family, AND, eventually, to own many of the items that her ancestors lived with and touched on the plantation.

Stephanie visits, yet today, on her yearly sojourn where she sits peacefully and communes with those ancestors who still speak in whispers.

You can read more of Stephanie’s story here, here and here.

Finding Suzanne

Stephanie’s second presentation was about her own adoption journey and connecting with her biological family.

Stephanie was known at the time of adoption, when she was not a newborn, as “Baby Girl Rice.”

Stephanie would come to learn that, in essence, her mother was forced into placing Stephanie, then Baby Girl Rice, for adoption. When the time came to sign the papers, her mother informed the agency that she had changed her mind and was told that she could not do so.

The baby was taken, adopted, and renamed Stephanie with her new family.

Clearly, that was unethical and perhaps illegal, but it’s also water long under that bridge.

Stephanie’s journey is not only fascinating, it’s incredibly inspirational.

She takes us to the filling station, where a chance meeting between her husband and a man in line led to her father’s family, and a day later, to her father.

Stephanie shared with us the truly “stranger than fiction” lives of her two biological parents, how and when they met in the most unlikely circumstances.

During her presentations, Stephanie made a couple of resonant points.

We are approaching the last opportunity to reconnect with ancestors from the mid-1800s using DNA. By this, she means that the generations we need to test that carry enough autosomal DNA of our ancestors are passing away. This is particularly important for people who lose their lineage before the 1860s when slavery ended. We are now at the 5 or 6 generation inflection point.

Stephanie didn’t mention this, but for those who were not enslaved, reaching back before the 1850 census is challenging. In 1850, all family members were listed by name, but in 1840 and earlier, just the head of household.

Furthermore, older generations may not even realize they possess valuable information and take that library of information along with them into the great beyond when they pass away. I wish desperately I had known what to ask my great-aunt before she died in the 1990s.

Stephanie has focused on repairing the fractures of slavery, both through genetics and relationships with people today. For example, she established a relationship with the family who enslaved her ancestors and, through that relationship, was able to discover even more about her family. She has also reunited with her biological family, another type of fracture that has been repaired, and relationships recovered.

The Sale Started

Keeping with tradition, the holiday sale starts with the conference, and the sale prices are available, here, now. If you’re interested in the Big Y-700 test, now’s a great time.

Join me soon for the second day of the FamilyTreeDNA 2023 conference.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Marie Gaudet (c1633-1710) – The Three Maries – 52 Ancestors #415

Just wait till you hear Marie Gaudet’s entire story!!! It’s a doozy. Truth be told, she has a secret so well kept that Marie may not have known about it herself.

But first, we have to set the stage. You need to meet the three Maries – Marie Gaudet and her two daughters – both named Marie. Nothing confusing about that, right?

Of course, you’ll meet the rest of the family as we navigate their adventures and misadventures in early Acadia, now Nova Scotia.

Of course, in the beginning, Acadia consisted of just a few houses on a distant peninsula of land, jutting into the North Atlantic. Only the very brave, or maybe the crazy, would choose to go there where death was only one misstep or mistake away!

Destination Acadia!

Marie Gaudet (also Godet), the subject of this article and the mother of the other two Maries, was born between 1630 and 1633, someplace in France, to her father, Jean Gaudet, and an unknown mother. I can’t help but wonder if her mother was named Marie, too.

Several ships arrived with settlers around 1648, so she may have been on board one of those along with at least her father and two siblings.

We know of the following arrivals, plus many undocumented ships bringing both supplies and workers from France.

  • 1632 – two ships from Auray in lower Brittany and a third from La Rochelle
  • The 1636 St. Jehan roster lists Jehan Guiot and wife, but no children.The departure location is unstated.
  • 1640s – ships from La Rochelle with workers, many of whom returned to France after their work contract expired.
  • Supply ships arrived in 1648.

There are few records of family arrivals, but clearly, they happened.

Marie was probably married about 1650 because her oldest known child, Marie Hebert, was born in 1651.

In the early 1650s, Port Royal was quite small, especially as the seed of the French-Acadians whose descendants number in the millions today. In 1653, there were about 45-50 households primarily clustered around Port Royal, and the population was estimated to be about 270 residents in 1654.

We don’t know when these families arrived, but we do know that French families would not have been transported during English rule, and they were likely in Acadia by 1650. Control of Acadia was batted back and forth like a ping-pong ball, amid much fighting, between the English and the French.

In 1654, Port Royal was burned by the English, but upriver homesteads may have been spared.

This map was drawn by the English in 1758, but shows the farms scattered along the river to the east of Port Royal, named here as Fort Annapolis.

In 1667, Acadian rule again shifted to the French who, in turn, required censuses be taken for tax purposes! Gotta love that tax man for generating records.

We’re lucky we know as much about Marie Gaudet as we do. As it turns out, we’re indebted to many of her descendants who provided depositions decades after her death.

1767 Depositions

After the forcible expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia by the British beginning in 1755, some 3,500 eventually found themselves back in France. Of those, 78 Acadian families were repatriated to Belle-Ile-en-Mer, an island off the coast of Brittany.

On the order of Parliament of Brittany at Vannes, 58 depositions of the Acadians regarding their original heads of families were taken on the island between February and March of 1767. The parish priest recorded what the Acadian exiles, under oath, had to say about their ancestors and their origins. The purpose was to allow French officials to determine which Acadian refugees were entitled to the King’s protection.

Lucie LeBlanc Consentino graciously transcribed the essence of the depositions in English, here.

According to ten of Marie Gaudet’s descendants who gave depositions in 1767, Marie came from France and was married to Etienne Hebert. The descendants all stated that Marie and Etienne came from France, in fact, they said that Marie came “with her husband,” according to Lucie’s translation, but what they don’t say is whether or not they were married in France, or in Acadia. Acadian church records from that time no longer exist. In other words, they could have come separately, both from France and even potentially on the same ship. There may have been no marriage record in France, even if the records from where they originated are still extant. We simply don’t know when they arrived, or from where, or where they married.

Marie’s first or middle name may have been Anne, because two of her descendants mistakenly called her Anne, not Marie.

Depositions were given by:

  • Grandson Jean Hebert
  • Pierre Trahan, husband of her granddaughter Madeleine Comeau
  • One from their son, Pierre Trahan
  • One from their nephews Sylvestre and Simon Trahan
  • Two from the husbands of Marie’s great-granddaughters
  • One from a great-great-grandson
  • Two from husbands of her great-great-granddaughters

All depositions named Marie specifically except for the two Pierre Trahans.

Marie was the younger sister of Francoise Gaudet, who reportedly “came from France” with her husband, Daniel LeBlanc. Marie was also Denis Gaudet’s younger sister. The tree of Karen Theriot Reader, here, in an immigration note, provides the following information:

Robert C. West, AN ATLAS OF LOUISIANA SURNAMES OF FRENCH AND SPANISH ORIGIN; 1625-1880; Baton Rouge, Louisiana State Univ., 1986; p. 98; own copy. “All members of the clan being descendants of a single couple, Daniel LeBlanc and Francoise Gaudet of La Chaussée, Loudun area, France, who settled near Port Royal in 1659.” (A footnote cites: Sclanders, Ian 1972, “The LeBlancs of Acadia,” in FRENCH-CANADIAN AND ACADIAN GENEALOGICAL REVIEW, 4:11-16; Auger 1972, ibid., pp. 21-36; Godbout 1972, ibid. pp. 17-20; Massignon 1962, 1:42; Arsenault 1978, op cit., vol. 2:648; Pollard, Nora Lee, THE BOOK OF LEBLANC, Baton Rouge, Claitor’s, 1973, p. 1)

This, of course, begs the question of whether the Gaudet family was from La Chaussee. I wonder if anyone has searched the records for anything resembling Gaudet in or near that location.

Life In Acadia

Acadians were subsistence farmers, raising what they needed to live with hopefully a little extra to sell to passing ships, English soldiers at the fort, or maybe on a ship bound for New England – although trading with New England was illegal for the most part.

ChatGPT Dall-E’s interpretation of Acadians working in the field in 1686. ChatGPT is insistent on retaining the steeple on the barn, although we know clearly that the Acadians were Catholic and did not attend church in barns in the fields. Beyond that, this is probably a fair representation of communal farmwork.

The 1671 Census

While Marie’s life in Acadia began at least two decades earlier, the first actual record of Marie Gaudet in Acadia is the 1671 census of Port Royal, where Marie is shown as a 38-year-old widow living in the household next to her daughter Marie Hebert, age 20, and her husband Michel De Forest.

Thankfully, Marie Gaudet’s children are listed:

  • Marie 20 (born about 1651, married to Michel DeForest)
  • Marguerite 19 (born about 1652, married to Jacques LePrince)
  • Emmanuel 18, not yet married (born about 1653)
  • Etienne 17 (born about 1654)
  • Child born in about 1656 likely perished
  • Jean 13 (born about 1658)
  • Child probably born about 1660 likely perished
  • Francoise 10 (born about 1661)
  • Catherine 9 (born about 1662)
  • Child probably born about 1664 likely perished
  • Martine 6 (born about 1665)
  • Michel 5 (born about 1666)
  • Child probably born about 1668 likely perished
  • Antoine 1 (born about 1670)

Marie also has 4 cattle, 5 sheep and 3 arpents of land.

Marie’s residence is located between Michel DeForest, her son-in-law, and Denis Gaudet, her brother, age 46, with his wife Martine Gauthier. Their father, Jean Gaudet, laborer, age 96, is living with Denis. Jean’s age is almost certainly wrong since he was still living seven years later in the next census – although it’s possible he lived to 103. Regardless, that poor old man was still listed as a laborer.

Marie had endured a lot of recent grief. The obvious gaps between children strongly suggest that she had buried four children, including a child between 1668 and 1670. Given that she had one-year-old Antoine, Marie’s husband, Etienne Hebert, had died about 1670, or at least within the past two years, sometime after Marie had become pregnant for Antoine. Marie could have been pregnant when Etienne died.

There she was, 36 or 37 years old, living on the frontier, either pregnant or with an infant, plus seven other children to care for. Perhaps her two sons-in-law saved the day, along with her teenage sons Emmanuel and Etienne. Regardless, no one wants to be needy and beholden to others.

Marie already had three grandchildren through daughter Marie Hebert with Michel DeForest, and probably two grandchildren through daughter Marguerite through her marriage with Jacques LePrince, although they are not listed in the 1671 census.

Under the circumstances, how was Marie to survive?

How did she survive?

Remarriage

Marie was single in a time when wives in Acadia were a scarce commodity. She also had land, so she probably had her choice of suitors.

Maybe she intended to wait for Mr. Right, but I’d think that Mr. Right-Now would have been imminently attractive with a farm to run and seven hungry mouths to feed.

The next census wasn’t taken for another seven years, in 1678, but a lot happened during that time.

In 1677, Marie’s oldest daughter, age 26, also named Marie, who lived next door, died. I’ve always wondered if she died in childbirth. Marie must have been utterly heartbroken and probably wondered why it couldn’t have been her instead, although she wasn’t even yet 50.

In the 1678 census, which might have been taken in early 1679, we find Dominiq Garrau (Dominique Gareau) and Marie Godet. With them is listed Jean Godet, no age given, which would be Marie’s father, in addition to a boy, age 3, who would have been born about 1675. Another girl is listed, age 4, so born about 1674, along with 3 acres (arpents?) and 8 cattle. The rest of Marie’s Hebert children are missing.

It’s difficult to interpret this. Marie’s two young children must be by Dominique Gareau, or at least by a husband after Etienne died in 1670. Her two youngest children by Etienne Hebert, sons Michel and Antoine, would have been 12 and 8, respectively. The children listed in 1678 were aged 3 and 4, which suggests that Marie remarried about 1673, two years following the earlier census.

But where were her Hebert children? And what happened to these two children with Dominique?

It’s worth noting that the Hebert and Gaudet land may have been well located, meaning higher land and not swampy.

A note on the census says, “Sans Soucy 29, which means “without worry 29,” 1 acre of high land, bordering at one end on the river, at the other end on the north wood [and] on one side Anthoine Hebert [and] Denis Godet.” Antoine Hebert is Etienne Hebert’s brother, and Denis Godet is Marie Godet’s brother.

In this case, “high ground” may be a relative term.

Children Settle Elsewhere

By 1680, Marie’s adult children began to move away. Now, granted, Les Mines wasn’t terribly far away, by today’s standards. But in 1680, transportation was by canoe.

Les Mines generally meant settlements in the Minas Basin. There was no road at that time, because we know in the early 1700s, when forced to flee, the Acadians tried to cut a cart road to Les Mines.

Grand Pre was the largest settlement, and where most of Marie’s children who left settled, but there was no bringing the children for visits to Grandma’s house.

Gone to Les Mines meant gone for good. Marie’s children may have made the voyage to visit occasionally, particularly her sons, but not the entire family and if those visits occurred, they were assuredly rare.

Marie’s son, Etienne Hebert, age 26, had made the trip by 1680 when his first child was born in Grand Pre.

The exodus of the next generation had begun with a trickle, but soon it would be an open faucet.

The 1686 Census

In 1686, Dominique Garault is shown as age 60 (born 1626), along with Marie Godet (no age given, but she would have been in her 50s); children of Marie (and Etienne Hebert): Michel 20, Antoine 16 and Elarie Garault 9 (born about 1677), with 3 arpents of land, 4 sheep and 3 hogs.

Only one Garault child is shown in 1686, the female, meaning Marie’s youngest son, has died. Elarie is later shown to be a misspelling or misinterpretation of Marie, born about 1677.

Marie Gaudet is still living beside her son-in-law, Michel DeForest, who remarried after his wife, Marie’s daughter, Marie, died.

The rest of Marie Gaudet’s children by Etienne Hebert have married and most live nearby, beginning families of their own. Catherine, age 24, had followed the path of other young Acadians to Les Mines and already had four children.

By 1686, Marie had about 41 grandchildren, 11 of whom she had buried, along with five or six of her own children and, of course, her first husband, Etienne.

Marie’s father had also died in the years since the 1678 census. I bet these Acadian families were in church often. Sundays for Mass, of course, plus at least a baptism and a funeral each week.

Plunder

On May 19th, 1690, the Battle of Port Royal occurred. Most of the Acadian soldiers were absent, and the fort was in a state of disrepair with no cannons mounted. The old fort had been razed, and a new one was in the process of being built, which made Acadia an easy mark as she could not defend herself. The fort, and with it, Port Royal and the rest of Acadia fell immediately. In an act of revenge, the English plundered not only the fort but also the countryside and residents in breach of the surrender agreement.

We don’t know exactly what happened to Marie in 1690, but we do know that Acadian homes were ransacked by the English and stripped of anything and everything valuable. Farms were burned and animals slaughtered for sport. The church and at least 28 homes went up in flames, but the upriver farms were reported to have been spared the torch.

From 1690 through about 1694, this land and her people were embroiled in a tug-of-war between the English and French. Antoine de Cadillac reported that the Acadians, “creolles” as he termed them, “traveled most of the time by bark canoes. Their wives do the same and are very bold on the water.”

I wonder if by the term “Creolle,” which today means a person of mixed descent or a result of two or more cultures, he was referring more to language than anything else.

Three of Marie’s children, Martine, Michel, and Jean Hebert were in Les Mines by about 1690. If they left before the attack, she was probably very thankful for their safety. If they left after, it was just one more loss for her. They may well have decided to leave and settle elsewhere because of the attack.

I would hazard a guess that the Acadians absolutely despised the English. 

1693 Census

Neither Marie nor her husband are listed in the 1693 census, transcribed by Lucie. Their location is a mystery. Perhaps they decided to journey to Beaubassin or Les Mines and then decided later to return. Or, maybe their residence was simply missed, although that’s hard to fathom since the entire census of Port Royal consists of 500 people in 80 households, 878 cattle, 1,240 sheep, 704 hogs, and 120 guns. The entire community is cultivating 1,315 arpents of land. Beaubassin has about 119 people in 20 households, and Les Mines, 307 people in 57 households. Other families are scattered.

Everyone knows everyone as they all attend the same church.

Marie’s daughter, Marguerite, age 40, was living in Les Mines. Her husband, Jacques LePrince, had recently died. Marguerite was raising a 15-year-old daughter, twin boys age 13, along with younger children ages 5 and 1. Her mother might have been a lot of help, but Marie, who would be about 63 by now, isn’t listed in Les Mines either.

Marie’s youngest daughter, Marie Gareau is living in La Heve (LaHave today), her name spelled as Garost, age 17, with a 45-ear-old man simply listed as LaChapelle. There are only three households listed, plus one male “volunteer.” No children are listed for any household, but Marie likely had two before her marriage to her second husband about 1698. The census records 50 people at La Heve, 54 cattle, and 14 guns. Based on the lack of inhabitants, this would be considered a remote outpost. Le Have was the original capital on the southern coast of Acadia, abandoned in favor of Port Royal in 1635.

1696 – Another Attack

Another English attack occurred in 1696. Buildings were burned, animals slaughtered, and the dykes that held back the sea were ruined. It would be three long years before the Acadians could work those fields after rebuilding the dykes once the seawater saturated the ground.

This area along the Annapolis River near and adjacent Bloody Creek on the south, shown on the GIS system above in purple, was dyked and drained by the Gaudet/Hebert family for farmable land. Without dykes to hold the salty seawater back and maintain drainage, the purple land reverted to salt marsh.

I can see the family standing on their ruined fields, knowing their crops would be limited or nonexistent for the next few years, and crying. What were they to do?

What was left?

Was there other nearby land that could be farmed?

1698 Census

By 1698, Dominique, who would have been about 72, had died. In fact, he was dead by 1695 when the loyalty oath was forced upon the Acadian people.

Marie Godet is living alone in 1698 and is noted as a widow, age 60. Her age is clearly incorrect, as that puts her birth in 1638. Her first child was born about 1651, so she was probably 65-68ish.

Marie lives one house away from her daughter Francoise Hebert and her husband Jean Commeau. Marie’s youngest son, Antoine Hebert, and his family live two houses in the other direction. Marie apparently lives in her own home, but the land is being farmed by some family member or maybe collectively.

Family members have far more allotted land by 1698, maybe as a result of the 1696 attacks that ruined the fields. Francoise and her family are farming 39 arpents with 83 fruit trees, and Antoine is farming 16 arpents with 21 fruit trees. Orchards have matured, and families own many cattle, sheep, and hogs. Life seems good for a change!

I do wonder if any of those orchards remain today.

1700-1708 Censuses

It would be tempting to assume that Marie died before the 1700 census, since she isn’t shown in the 1700, 1701, 1703, 1707 or 1708 censuses. But she didn’t. Church records, beginning in 1702, remain, and we know that Marie didn’t die until 1710. She was likely living with a family member and simply wasn’t listed in the census.

Warfare continued and, unfortunately, had become a way of life in Acadia. Pirates, always opportunists, joined in the fray.

In 1708, Queen Anne’s War ramped up. Marie Gaudet was in her late 70s and had probably given up hope that she would ever see peace.

It’s nothing short of a miracle that Marie managed to live to the ripe age of 80, given what the Acadian people faced. But Marie wasn’t done with adversity quite yet.

June 1704 Raid on Grand Pre

In June of 1704, the English again raided Acadia in retaliation for a raid on Deerfield Massachusetts earlier that year. Seventeen warships with 550 men first proceeded to Port Royal, then on to Grand Pre.

The incensed English arrived in Grand Pre, which was entirely unfortified, during the last week of June and approached the village from the dense woods, hoping for a surprise attack.

Col. Benjamin Church, the commander, gave the Acadians and Micmac one hour to surrender, delivering this note.

We do also declare, that we have already made some beginnings of killing and scalping some Canada men, which we have not been wont to do or allow, and are now come with a great number of English and Indians, all volunteers, with resolutions to subdue you, and make you sensible of your cruelties to us, by treating you after the same manner.

Church’s forces got stuck in the tidal mud, giving the Acadians the opportunity to hurriedly evacuate into the woods.

When the muddy soldiers reached the village, the Acadian and Micmac men attempted defense, but were no match for the angry soldiers who proceeded to destroy everything.

According to one of Church’s dispatches, they destroyed 60 houses, six mills, the church, many barns, and about 70 cattle. Still not satisfied with his destruction, Church then gave orders on the third day to destroy the dykes and crops.

On the fourth day, Church left Grand Pre and advanced to raid Pisiguit, present-day Windsor and Falmoth, where he took 45 prisoners who were to be used as barter to negotiate the release of prisoners taken in the Deerfield Massacre.

Church then returned to Port Royal where he joined up with the rest of his fleet, burned a few more buildings, and took a few more hostages for good measure. Church then raided and burned Chedabucto, now Guysborough, before returning to Boston where he bragged that “only five dwellings remained in all of Acadia.” If he was right, this tells us what Marie endured at the age of 74. It’s not surprising that we never find Marie listed in the census in her home, again.

Hostages!!!

In Boston, initially, the Acadian hostages were allowed to roam the city freely, much to the dismay of the residents. Twice, they complained to the House of Representatives, asking that the Acadians be confined.

From that point in late 1704 until their release, the Acadians were confined in Castle William on an island in Boston Harbor which would be where Marie Gareau gave birth on February 1, 1705.

Marie’s youngest daughter, Marie Gareau, gave birth to her son, Paul, in Boston while she and her husband were imprisoned there. The child was baptized in Port Royal on September 26, 1706, just days after their release. This tells us that Marie was in the second group of hostages to be released.

After two long years of imprisonment in exile, the hostages were released in two groups. The first group of 57 left in December 1705, and the second group of 51 was released on September 18, 1706. We have to presume that Marie’s four, five, or six older children were included in the hostages.

Marie Gaudet, Marie’s mother, must have been out of her mind with worry. The baptism of Marie’s baby in Port Royal tells us that Marie got to see her daughter and grandchildren.

I can only imagine the joy of that tearful reunion.

Marie, age 32, along with her husband and five surviving children, were back in Grand Pre by 1709 when she gave birth there.

Later reports indicated that the residents of Grand Pre, not to mention those held hostage, never forgot, never trusted the English, and never felt safe.

Ironically, for Marie Gareau, that fear was entirely justified, as she would be one of the Acadians captured once again, rounded up in Grand Pre, and deported at the hands of the English in 1755.

Then 78 or 79 years old, she died in horrific conditions in 1755 or 1756 onboard the overcrowded disease-infested ships that the Virginians refused to allow to land or accommodate in any way. Hundreds died of illness and malnutrition on the ship held at Williamsburg before the survivors were shipped to England as hostages until 1763.

All I can say is that I hope Marie’s mother, Marie, was waiting with open arms to receive her on the other side.

Land

We do know where Marie Gaudet and both of her husbands lived in Acadia.

In 1653, when Marie was a bride with two young children, Port Royal was described thus:

“There are numbers of meadows on both shores, and two islands which possess meadows, and which are 3 or 4 leagues from the fort in ascending. There is a great extent of meadows which the sea used to cover, and which the Sieur d’Aulnay had drained. It bears now fine and good wheat, and since the English have been masters of the country, the residents who were lodged near the fort have for the most part abandoned there houses and have gone to settle on the upper part of the river. They have made their clearings below and above this great meadow, which belongs at present to Madame de La Tour. There they have again drained other lands which bear wheat in much greater abundance than those which they cultivated round the fort, good though those were. All the inhabitants there are the ones whome Monsieur le Commandeur de Razilly had brought from France to La Have; since that time they have multiplied much at Port Royal, where they have a great number of cattle and swine.”

By 1670, Acadia had grown to about 400 people.

According to a 1733 map at the Nova Scotia Archives based on the 1707 census route, the Hebert and Gaudet families lived in close proximity near a bend in the Riviere Dauphin, now the Annapolis River, at the mouth of Bloody Creek.

Hebert Village is found on the south side of the river, image courtesy of MapAnnapolis, below.

Indeed, the Hebert and Gaudet families had settled upstream from Port Royal several miles, which may have been the only thing that saved them.

If only, if only we had Marie’s journals. It’s doubtful that Marie could either read or write, but we can wish, of course.

Marie Gaudet Dies

Marie lived for a very long time, especially in the age before modern medicine – not to mention that Acadia seemed to remain in a state of almost chronic warfare that ebbed and flowed for Marie’s entire life.

On July 30, 1710, a simple entry recording her death was scribed into the church records by the priest.

Marie’s age is given as 80 years, which puts her birth about 1630, assuming her age is accurate.

That same priest would have given Marie Last Rites, then delivered her final Requiem Mass. The entire community was assuredly present. She was a matriarch, and by then, everyone was probably related to Marie in one way or another.

The Acadians were preparing for war, which descended upon the land once again like an angry plague of locusts less than two months after Marie’s demise.

Her sons, grandsons, sons-in-law, and many descendants would be fighting for their very lives. Maybe it’s a good thing Marie passed when she did.

Burial

Marie was buried in what is now known as the Garrison Cemetery. This resting place is located beside the fort’s garrison and what was the Catholic church, which was destroyed along with Acadian graves in 1755.

Marie joined her children and grandchildren: her daughter Marie who died in 1677, her second husband Dominique Gareau who had been gone for about 20 years, her sister Francoise who had died nearly a decade earlier, her brother Denis who died the October before, and of course Etienne Hebert who had been gone for nearly 40 years. They must have had a joyful reunion.

Marie rests in an unmarked grave near the ghostly image of Fort Anne, keeping eternal watch over the bay. Her grave was probably marked with a simple wooden cross at the time, as her family said goodbye and prepared for the war they knew was sure to be visited upon them soon. 

Perhaps Marie’s spectre watched her remaining daughter, grandchildren and their families being rounded up and herded onto ships in their forced deportation 45 years later.

Perhaps Marie still watches today.

Marie’s Children

We depend upon the various censuses, later church records, and suggestive gaps between known children to determine how many children Marie brought into this world.

Few women were spared the sorrowful experience of burying children.

Child Spouse Total Children Born by 1710 – Grandchildren Marie knew Died by 1710 – Grandchildren Marie buried Total Survived
Marie Hebert c1651-1677 Port Royal Michel DeForest 7 6 1 6
Marguerite Hebert c1652-died aft 1715 Pisiquit Jacques LePrince 12 6 6 6
Emmanuel Hebert c1653-1744 Grand Pre Andree Brun 6 6 0 6
Etienne Hebert c1654-1713 Saint Charles des Mines, Grand Pré Jeanne Comeau 15 11 4 11
Unknown Hebert child c1656- died bef 1671 0 0 0 0
Jean Hebert c1658-1744 probably Pisiquid Jeanne Doiron 17 11 2 13
Unknown Hebert child c1660-died bef 1671 0 0 0 0
Francoise Hebert c1661-1713 Annapolis Royal Jean Comeau 20 17 3 17
Catherine Hebert c1662-1727 Louisbourg Philippe Pinet 14 12 2 12
Unknown Hebert child c1664-died bef 1671 0 0 0 0
Martine Hebert c1665-died aft 1797 Pisiquit Nicolas Barrieau 14 9 5 9
Michel Hebert c1666-1736 Les Mines, Grand Pre Isabelle Pellerin 16 12 0 16
Unknown Hebert child c1668-died bef 1671 0 0 0 0
Antoine Hebert c1670-1753 Jeanne Corporon & Anne Orillon 17 9 0 15
Male Gareau c1675-d bef 1686 0 0 0 0
Marie Gareau c1677-c1755 Virginia Unknown LaChapelle & Jerome Darois 16 6 3 (including her first 2 children) 10
Total 154 105 26 121

Children in bold remained at Port Royal. The rest moved away.

People who lived longer experienced more joy at the addition of grandchildren and even great-grandchildren – but also more frequent funerals and visits to the cemetery.

When Marie died, she had given birth to 16 children, buried five as infants and one as an adult who predeceased her.

And yes, Marie actually did have two daughters named Marie who both lived – her eldest child from her first marriage and her youngest child from her second marriage. Essentially bookends. No, I don’t know why. Maybe they had different middle names or were named after different people, but we will never know.

At her death, Marie had welcomed 105 grandchildren and buried 26, or 25% of them. A total of 154 grandchildren were eventually born to Marie, but only 121 would survive beyond the cradle.

Upon deeper investigation, we discover that Marie probably didn’t know most of her grandchildren, even though two-thirds were born before she died.

Several of Marie’s children moved as settlers to more distant parts of Acadia, probably for available land. We don’t know exactly when they left, but we have some idea.

  • Etienne Hebert was in Grand Pre by 1680
  • Catherine Hebert was in Les Mines by 1686
  • Martine, Michel, and Jean Hebert were all in Grand Pre by 1690
  • Marguerite Hebert was in Les Mines by 1693 as a widow
  • Marie’s youngest daughter, Marie Gareau, was in La Heve in 1693 at the age of 17, in Pisiguit by June of 1704 where she was kidnapped and in Grand Pre by 1709

It must have killed Marie for her baby to leave, especially so young.

Les Mines could have been a more generalized name for the region surrounding and perhaps including Grand Pre. At least those children lived near each other and could rely on family in difficult times. That would have been some comfort to Marie.

Only four of Marie’s children stayed near Port Royal: her oldest daughter Marie Hebert who had died by 1677, Emmanual, Francoise and Antoine Hebert. Those four blessed Marie with 38 grandchildren before her death. It’s sad that she never knew the rest, but based on those 1767 depositions, at least they knew her name and remembered her.

Marie said a final goodbye to seven of her children in a different way before her death. I suspect that at least three of them, if not more, left together.

While Marie herself was one of the original immigrants prior to 1650, one of her children, the youngest Marie, lived long enough to be deported in 1755, more than a century later. Marie Gareau died in either 1755 or 1756, languishing on one of the deportation ships off the coast of Virginia at about age 78. There would have been no Catholic Mass as a funeral for her. She would either have been buried at sea or lost to history in a pauper’s grave, because that’s what the Acadians had been reduced to.

Not the End

This was not the end for Marie Gaudet, nor was her birth the beginning.

Marie’s mysterious past would wait for another 313 years to be revealed – on a glorious late fall day after the last colorful leaves fall to the ground on the old homeplace beside Bloody Creek in Nova Scotia.

As the first snowflakes fall and cling to the earth along the tidal flats of the Riviere Dauphin, Marie has one more story to tell…and trust me; it’s gonna be one humdinger!

_____________________________________________________________

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Holiday DNA Sales Are Here!!!

I apologize for the brevity of this posting, but I came home from the FamilyTreeDNA Conference this past weekend with “conference crud.”

I’ll catch you up on that great conference later, but sales won’t wait, and the holiday sales have already begun. This is a great time to order. These prices are the lowest ever.

MyHeritage

The MyHeritage autosomal test is only $36, and shipping is free if you order two or more DNA tests. That’s a GREAT deal. Click here to order.

If you’ve already tested elsewhere, you can upload your raw DNA file from that vendor to MyHeritage, here. I’ve provided step-by-step instructions, here. After you’ve uploaded, be sure to purchase the $29 unlock for advanced autosomal features, including the MyHeritage chromosome browser and Theories of Family Relativity, which shows you how you connect with DNA matches who share the same ancestor in MyHeritage’s collection of 52 million trees.

If you’re new to MyHeritage, you can also purchase a data or records subscription here, including a free trial.

I use this combination of DNA, trees, and tools almost daily and love that MyHeritage sends me regular record matches from their billions of genealogy records.

FamilyTreeDNA

Every test is on sale at FamilyTreeDNA.

As you know, FamilyTreeDNA provides Y-DNA, mitochondrial, and autosomal testing through their Family Finder test. They also accept autosomal DNA file uploads from Ancestry and MyHeritage. You’ll find easy download and upload instructions for each vendor, here. The advanced feature unlock is on sale now for just $9!

You can order each test individually or bundle tests for a better price.

Note that the introductory Y-DNA 37-marker test is available for $99, and can later be upgraded to the Big-Y test. However, the Big Y-700 is on sale for $399 which is a great price. Y-DNA testing unlocks your paternal ancestor’s history revealed in FamilyTreeDNA‘s world-class Discover tools.

If you’ve already tested at FamilyTreeDNA and would like to add another test for yourself or upgrade, say to the Big-Y test, just click here, sign on, and click on the Add Ons and Upgrade button in the upper right-hand corner.

I hope I’m not spilling the beans, but all sale prices, including upgrades and autosomal transfer unlocks, are shown below:

Genealogy Goals

The holidays are coming! Take a look at what you need for your genealogy.

I decided a long time ago it’s absolutely fine to “gift myself” with purchases and upgrades for my cousins. Especially the Big Y-700 at FamilyTreeDNA and the mitochondrial DNA test, which is vastly underutilized. This helps my genealogy immensely, as well as theirs. Most people are happy to swab, especially if you’re doing the genealogy work.

My goal is to:

  • Have the autosomal DNA of each of my family members and cousins in both databases that provide chromosome browsers so that I can confirm ancestors at FamilyTreeDNA and MyHeritage.
  • Find male cousins to test for the Y-DNA, the surname lineage of each of my ancestral lines. Males who descend paternally from each male ancestor can usually be tracked by their surname.
  • Mitochondrial DNA for each of my ancestors. For mitochondrial DNA testing, we need testers descended through all females from each female ancestor, although males in the current generation can test. Everyone has their mother’s direct matrilineal line mitochondrial DNA.

To find testing candidates for your lineages, check projects at FamilyTreeDNA, autosomal matches at all vendors, your ancestors at WikiTree, ThruLines at Ancestry, even though ThruLines is still having issues, and Theories of Family Relativity at MyHeritage.

With DNAtests on sale right now, this is a great time to purchase tests at MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase your price but helps me keep the lights on, and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

23andMe: DNA Relatives, Connections, Event History Report and Other Security Tools

A few days ago, I suggested a pause strategy while you ponder whether or not you wanted to delete your DNA file in light of the recent data exposure at 23andMe. I need to revise this with additional information today.

First and foremost, disabling DNA Relatives does NOT remove all matching. You need to remove Connections separately.

Secondarily, there’s a report at 23andMe for you to order to determine whether your account may have been individually compromised. I’ve described how to find it and use the information in the report.

This article includes several sections with important information about how these intertwined features at 23andMe work and instructions to protect yourself.

  • An update on the breach situation with informational links
  • Customer notifications
  • Confusion regarding types of sharing – DNA Relatives vs Connections
  • Explaining the difference between DNA Relatives and Connections
  • Step-by-step instructions for removing Connections – disabling DNA Relatives doesn’t accomplish this or stop matching/linkage to Connections
  • Who sees what, when?
  • DNA Relatives and Connections comparison chart
  • Account Event History – how to determine when your account was signed into, from where, what they (or you) did, and when
  • Deletion instructions and caveats
  • Summary

Update on Breach Information

I’m not going to post anything from the hacker(s) – but please, in an abundance of caution, presume your data is now available publicly or will be when the hacker sells the balance of the accounts they have and act accordingly.

The hacker has posted millions of accounts already, and I know people who have found themselves in the “sample” download provided by the hacker to convince people that the breach and resulting data is for real. If you really want to see this for yourself, the hacker, Golem, is very active at BreachForums, under Leaks, 23andMe – but I DO NOT recommend hanging out there. I reached out to colleagues who work with security and breach monitoring services. I am not poking around myself.

This 23andMe customer information first appeared in August, not October, when a hacker by a different name on Hydra posted images of the accounts of both Sergey Brin and Anne Wojcicki, CEO of 23andMe and her former husband, CEO of Google. The hacker said that the information was obtained through an API provided by 23andMe to pharmaceutical companies. Additionally, the hacker said they had already sold all of that initial data to “an individual in Iran.” You can read about this here.

Furthermore, if what the hacker or hackers say is accurate, this situation is far more serious than a password recycling issue. I don’t want to speculate because I can’t verify, although many people have written to me to say two things:

  • They were seeing leaked customer information weeks earlier
  • They did use a unique password at 23andMe

Here are four additional articles that I suggest reading to understand the scope of the situation and why there’s so much uncertainty:

One of my blog readers asked why anyone would want to do this. Of course, there can be many or even multiple motivations, but based on some of the commentary, it appears that Jewish people were targeted and compiled identifying data sold to Iran who backs Hamas. If you’re a Jewish person, anyplace in the world, you have to be extremely concerned especially since this test identifies your closest relatives and (if provided) the location where you live.

Both 23andMe and Ancestry display your current location if provided and selected. I NEVER recommend doing that under any circumstances. Of course, if the hacker gained access to individual accounts as reported and you entered that information, even if you didn’t choose to share it, they have it anyway.

Customer Notification

Please note that so far, the only notifications received by 23andMe customers say that their information was revealed through DNA relatives, meaning that at least one of their matches’ accounts was compromised. No one, to my knowledge, has received a notification that their own account has been directly compromised. Perhaps 23andMe doesn’t know whose accounts were compromised yet.

Near the end of this article, I’ll show you how to obtain a list of all the activity that has taken place on your 23andMe account so you can see if there are logins from locations not your own or other suspicious activity.

According to the original announcements from 23andMe and others, the data exposure was a result of two things:

  • Direct access to accounts due to reused passwords allowing the hacker to aggregate data and sign in as the user. You can see if your email address has been found in a data breach at the site, haveibeen pwned.com. I know this list is incomplete, though, because I’ve been notified by letter by other companies not listed here.
  • DNA Relatives information shows DNA matches, segments, and your matches’ potential relationships to each other along with their shared data, permitting triangulation.

The more I read about this from credible sources, combined with how 23andMe has handled this situation, the more “uncomfortable” I become.

Before 23andMe even straightened this mess out, this week, they introduced a new “Total Health” subscription for the low price of $99 PER MONTH. Seriously. Billed as one payment of $1,188 per year. To me, this smacks of a company desperate for money.

How do we even begin to place any confidence in this service, given what has already been exposed and the unanswered questions? Especially given that for weeks, 23andMe dismissively replied to customers who informed them of the issue that their systems had not been accessed in an unauthorized manner. Not to mention, this announcement is entirely tone-deaf as we struggle to deal with what has already been exposed one way or another.

In response to this, if you still want to maintain your existing account at 23andMe, I have help for you. If you want to delete it, I’ve provided instructions for that too.

Questions and Challenges

I discovered that DNA Relatives and Connections don’t work in exactly the way I believed they did, and it’s very confusing. Nothing, not one thing that 23andme has provided has addressed exactly what information has been exposed or what customers can do other than change their password and add 2FA.

  • Was the breach only DNA Relatives, or was it Connections, too?
  • Connections is essentially a subset of DNA Relatives plus potentially some unrelated people.
  • Not everyone has DNA Relatives enabled, but if not, Connections still exposes/exposed you if your account was individually breached.
  • 23andMe only mentioned DNA Relatives, so you may think you’re in the clear if you don’t have DNA Relatives enabled. That’s inaccurate if you have any Connections and your account was individually breached.
  • If the hacker did sign on to your account, Connections are equally vulnerable.
  • The hacker could enable DNA Relatives without your knowledge to create a more lucrative fishing environment. I’ve provided instructions for how to determine if this might have happened.

Disabling DNA Relatives is not enough.

23andMe Sharing Options Are Confusing

I first reported the breach here and said in my article, here, that a pause strategy would be to stop sharing in DNA Relatives, which would effectively provide you with time to make a decision.

I knew that DNA Relatives did not unilaterally disable Connections, but I did NOT realize how much information your Connections can see.

Over the years, 23andMe has revised how their sharing works. I remember when DNA Relatives opt-in and opt-out was added in 2014. It was extremely confusing then and still is.

DNA Relatives and Connections are confusing individually and together. I could not find any feature comparison or side-by-side table for each tool, either individually,  compared to each other, or with both enabled.

Because of this confusion, what we need right now is a one-button invisibility cloak that we can click to JUST STOP being visible to everyone until we reverse the invisibility cloak by opting in again – without losing anything or being penalized.

That’s what most people think happens when you stop sharing through DNA Relatives, but it’s not.

There is no invisibility cloak at 23andMe like there is at other vendors.

No Invisibility Cloak

I spent a considerable amount of time over the past few days trying to figure out the differences between DNA Relatives and Connections.

Believe it or not, that information was almost impossible to find, as it was scattered piecemeal across several places.

Let me step you through where to find it, and then compile an easy reference.

If you sign on to your account, you can see on the left-hand side that you have several selections under DNA Relatives.

Under Connections, you have the statuses of Connected, Pending, and Not Connected.

If you mouse over Connections, you see a general description.

I have two separate tests at 23andMe, and I have DNA Relatives enabled on one of the tests and disabled on the other, so I can see the differences when compared to the same people.

I have 1803 DNA Relatives, meaning matches, but the connections option told me that 348 were also Connections.

Why Do I Have 348 Connections?

Remember that 23andMe limits your matches to 1500, and the lowest matches roll off your match list without a subscription, which was only introduced in the last year or so. The subscription only allows 5,000 matches before the matches roll off your match list.

The only way to prevent matches from rolling off your list was/is to “Connect” with them, either through DNA relatives or initiating messaging. So, for years, genealogists sent a connection request to every match they had, beginning with the smallest first, in order to preserve matches that would otherwise be gone. That’s why I have 1803 matches and not just 1500 like I do on the second account where I have not established “Connections.”

Given my number of matches at the other DNA testing companies, I would likely have well over 20,000 matches, so preserving as much as possible was important to genealogists.

Understanding Connections

I switched to a different account that I manage that opted out of DNA matching a decade ago, but has more Connections than I do with many of the same people that I match.

You can view your DNA Connections by clicking on Family & Friends and then on Your Connections.

As you can see on the left, you can either share “Ancestry” with these Connections, which means typical genealogy info, or “Health + Ancestry.” Relevant to the breach, your Ancestry Composition (ethnicity) results as compared to your Connections (and DNA Relatives) are shown.

You can invite anyone to connect with you, including people on your match list or anyone else you know who has tested. In other words, your spouse or a cousin whom you DON’T MATCH.

Here’s an example of a cousin by marriage who I’ve known for years. We connected even though we don’t match and are only related by marriage.

Some Connection invitations that you receive or send are for Ancestry only, and other invitations are for BOTH Ancestry and Health.

Melissa sent me a combined request for both Ancestry and Health.

Remember that the focus of 23andMe has always been medicine, big pharma and health. Unfortunately, 23andMe PRECHECKS to accept the Health sharing option when you’ve been invited to share Health. It’s easy to miss, so UNCHECK Health if you don’t want to share YOUR HEALTH INFORMATION. The only people I’ve ever shared Health with are my immediate family members.

What’s Different?

I wanted to know what information was different about someone you’re NOT connected with and someone you’re connected with.

One of my DNA matches, Gwen, requested a Connection. Here’s the information I can see with Gwen before her Connection request.

I verified that this information is accurate by comparing Connections requests with a family member who is opted into DNA Relatives, one who is not, and also with my research-buddy cousin who is a Connection but not a match.

Any one person can potentially be:

  • A DNA Relative and not a Connection
  • A Connection and not a DNA Relative
  • A Connection but not participating in DNA Relatives even though they are a match

Today, the information a Connection and a DNA Relative can see since 23andMe disabled some DNA Relatives features seems identical.

Gwen’s profile card shows her name, location where she lives, and year of birth, if provided and selected for display. She obviously did not allow her birth year to be displayed, but she did allow the city/state where she lives.

23andMe estimates how I may be related to Gwen and how much DNA we share..

Gwen’s family background, which I’ve blurred. I have removed my information as I ponder whether to delete my account or not.

Ancestry Composition (ethnicity) of both people. Note that even if DNA Relatives is not enabled, either person’s account can view the shared ethnicity of both accounts.

Amounts of Neanderthal Ancestry.

How Sharing Works

23andMe discussed sharing, but differentiating between DNA Relatives and Connections is unclear.

Based on my comparison and their descriptions, I think I’ve figured out the differences. Let’s begin with their description of how sharing works.

Here, they describe part of what Connections shows.

At this point, the features of DNA Relatives that were available IN ADDITION to what could be viewed in Connections have been disabled due to the breach.

The next image is part of the Connections section, followed by DNA Relatives,

I was surprised that Shared DNA was displayed using Connections alone, before 23andMe (possibly temporarily) disabled this functionality in response to the breach. I would have presumed that if you disabled DNA Relatives, your DNA would NOT have been shown to your DNA relatives.

DNA Relatives was necessary for advanced features, including viewing relationships between your matches, meaning you and two other people, and also between your matches and each other. That means you could compare them to each other.

That feature selection is now gone as well. For the record, this graphic was out of date anyway, but now it doesn’t matter.

Connections DOES have access to the tree calculated by 23andMe but (apparently) only for people you are connected with unless you have DNA Relatives enabled. Please note that all accounts managed by one person appear to be connected to each other, although that might not be universal. I manage four kits, and all of them are shown as connections to each other.

Considerations provided by 23andMe

Here’s what they don’t say.

Disabling Your DNA Relatives Option does NOT Change Connections

This is very important considering how much information Connections can view:

  • Disabling DNA Relatives does NOT disable sharing. You can disable DNA Relatives across the board with one setting, but you CANNOT do that with Connections.
  • Each Connection must be deleted individually.

After you disable DNA Relatives, as I described in this article, under the heading, “Opting Out of DNA Relatives” you need to additionally remove each Connection if you genuinely don’t want to be seen by other people as a match. If you DO want to be seen as a match, then don’t disable DNA Relatives.

DNA Relatives will eliminate new matches from automatically occurring but won’t remove anyone you’ve previously added as a Connection.

To view and edit your connections, select “Your Connections” under “Family and Friends.”

For each Connection, click on the gear, then select which type of sharing to remove.

Please note that you may have to refresh the page to reload Connections, as there is no “load more” button, until you see the message, “You aren’t connected with anyone yet.”

Connections Versus DNA Relatives Chart

If you’ve had a hard time keeping this straight, me too. I created a chart that lists each feature and if it’s present in DNA Relatives, Connections, or both.

Feature Connections Only DNA Relatives Comment
Profile Yes Yes
Current Location, Year of Birth, Genetic Sex Yes Yes If provided and selected for display
Additional info about yourself Yes Yes If provided
Prevents Rolling Off Match List at Threshold Yes No Only Connections or people you’ve initiated contact with are retained
Matches Yes, only Connections Yes
Non-Relatives Can send an invitation to people you’re not biologically related to meaning not on your match list No, only DNA matches
Ancestry Yes Yes, plus shared matches and additional information If selected
Health If selected If selected
Genetic Relationship Yes Yes Estimated
Shared DNA Percent Yes Yes
Genetic Constructed Family Tree Connections only Yes all To about 4th generation shared ancestors
Family Background – birth places of grandparents Yes Yes
Other ancestors’ birthplace Yes Yes
External Family Tree Link Yes Yes If provided
Ancestry Composition (ethnicity) Yes Yes
Shared ethnicity Yes Yes
Maternal, Paternal Haplogroups Yes Yes Base to mid-level
Neanderthal Ancestry Yes Yes
Matching segments Shown in 23andMe documentation, currently disabled Yes, currently disabled Disabled due to breach
Chromosome browser Not shown in 23andMe documentation Yes, currently disabled Disabled due to breach
Shared matches No Yes, currently disabled Disabled due to breach
Triangulation No Was changed recently to be more difficult, now disabled Disabled due to breach
Shared Matches compared to each other’s tests No Yes, currently disabled Disabled due to breach
Shared Matches relationships to each other No Yes, currently disabled Disabled due to breach
Download Matches I don’t think so, but I can’t positively confirm Yes, currently disabled Disabled due to breach
Download Segment information No Yes, currently disabled Disabled due to breach
Download Raw data file (Your own) Yes Yes

Now that you know what can be seen and done and by whom, let’s take a look at how your account has been accessed.

Account Event History – Who Signed In To Your Account?

There’s a little-known feature at 23andMe that you can utilize to view the locations of sign-ins to your account and what was done, including changes and file download requests.

Navigate to settings.

Scroll down to “23andMe Data,” then click on View.

Scroll to profile data, click on “Account Event History,” then “Request Download.” 23andMe says it may take several days, but mine was ready the following day. You’ll receive a link to sign in and download a spreadsheet. Click on the blue “Account Event History” to download the report.

At the top, you’ll see column names. Please note that I added the Location column to record the results of the “Client IP Addr” lookup.

The “Client IP Addr” field is a record of where the login was initiated from. It’s your electronic address, or more specifically, the address of your internet provider, and it may not be the exact town where you live, but someplace close. I’ve blurred mine, but not where failed logins originated.

I use this site or this site to identify IP address sources.

As you can see, on May 1, 7, and 10, someone tried to sign in with my email address. It wasn’t me or the region where I live, and I was not traveling.

I was able to track these IP addresses to cities but not to individuals, of course. One tracked to a specific Internet Service Provider in that city, but nothing more.

However, that tells me that someone tried three times to use what was probably a compromised password. Thank goodness I don’t reuse passwords.

I also need to mention that you can find legitimate differences in location. For example, if you are traveling or use tools like Genetic Affairs that sign on on your behalf from their location, the IP address will reflect connection services from those locations.

You will also see interesting IP addresses, like that 127 address. That means the host computer made the change. In essence, that means that another 23andMe user removed sharing with me. That’s clearly legitimate.

I did not see any successful sign-ins from unauthorized locations. If you see a successful sign-in from an unknown location that’s not close to your home sometime in 2022 or 2023, and you weren’t traveling, nor using a location masking tool like TOR, then please notify 23andMe immediately.

The notification email I received from 23andMe was that my information had been exposed through DNA Relatives. Based on their notification in addition to the information in my report, my personal account does not appear to be individually breached.

23andMe clearly has access to this IP address information for all users, so I’m really surprised that they have not notified anyone, at least not that I know of, that their accounts have been DIRECTLY compromised – meaning NOT through DNA Relatives. Even if someone signed on using the correct password, there could/should be some pattern of sign-ons through not-normal locations for a group of customers during this time.

Of course, if the hacker was telling the truth and the breach was NOT through password reuse (stuffing,) and was through an API, neither users nor 23andMe may see unauthorized account accesses. I hope 23andMe and the professionals they have retained are able to sniff out the difference and will update their customers soon.

Regardless, I recommend requesting and reviewing this report and implementing 2FA everyplace that you can.

Deleting Your Profile

Based on your comfort level, you may decide to delete your test at 23andMe. It’s a personal decision that everyone has to make for themselves. There is no universally right or wrong decision, and I’m not recommending either way.

Before I show how to delete your data, be aware that IF YOU MANAGE MULTIPLE PROFILES, YOU NEED TO CONTACT CUSTOMER CARE UNLESS YOU WANT TO DELETE ALL THE PROFILES.

  • If you want to delete only your profile, you can transfer other profiles under your care to someone else.
  • If you manage multiple profiles and click delete, all of the profiles you manage will be deleted.

To find the delete function, click on the down arrow by your initials at top right, then on Settings.

Scroll to the very bottom.

Click on “View,” then scroll to the bottom to the Delete Data section.

23andMe provides links in this section to review, so please do. This includes information about how to transfer profiles and things to consider.

If you want to download your raw DNA file to use as an upload to other vendors, be sure to do it before you delete, because it won’t be available after. You can find instructions, here.

Remember, delete is permanent, and you’ll need to pay to retest if you change your mind.

In Summary

I hope this information has helped organize and explain things in a logical manner.

To recap, to become totally invisible, meaning no other tester can see you:

  • Disable DNA Relatives
  • Delete Connections individually and selectively

If you delete connections and those matches are lower than your 1,500th match, they will roll off your match list unless you have a subscription, and then it’s 5,000.

Additional Tasks

  • Request your Account Event History and review for anomalies.
  • For security purposes, change your password to one you have not used elsewhere, if you have not already, and enable 2FA.

I hope that 23andMe has or will take care of whatever issues they have, post haste, and will be transparent about what actually happened. I also hope they will find a way to re-enable the tools that have been disabled. That functionality is critically important to genealogists, and without those tools and the lack of trees, there’s little reason for genealogists to test at 23andMe.

We can’t change what has already happened. Each one of us has to decide whether we want our test to remain at 23andMe and, if so, what steps we want to take to move forward successfully.

I hope this information helps you decide how to handle the situation and perhaps relieve some anxiety. Now you know how to check your activity report, understand who sees what in DNA Relatives and Connections, associated options, what needs to be done, and how to take appropriate action.

Other Vendors

You probably have observed and will continue to see other vendors implementing additional security measures, such as required 2FA, precautions against account scraping, and not accepting uploads from 23andMe in case the hacker downloaded DNA files.

These revisions may be temporary or permanent, or some of each. I’m grateful for each vendor taking steps to protect our information from unauthorized access. I’ll write more after things settle down and we better understand the new landscape.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

  • com – Lots of wonderful genealogy research books
  • American Ancestors – Wonderful selection of genealogy books

Genealogy Research

The 23andMe Data Exposure – New Info, Considerations and A Pause Strategy

As most of you know, 23andMe has been suffering the effects of what appears to be a significant data compromise, meaning many of their customers’ information has been compromised or exposed.

Here’s the latest news indicating that information from millions more accounts has been offered on the dark web, along with 23andMe’s latest update, here.

I’ve been trying to keep up with the changes, and I must tell you, the hacker’s quotes in that Cybernews article chill me to the bone.

Furthermore, the depth of this issue is still unfolding, with a report of an earlier August breach.

What Has Happened

Essentially, due to users who have reused and recycled passwords, a bad actor was able to sign on to many customer’s accounts, directly, acting “as” the customer, which allowed them to:

  • View (or change) personal information
  • View matches’ information
  • View matches in common
  • View triangulation information
  • View how your matches also match each other
  • View health information if you and your match have agreed to share at that level
  • View ethnicity, shared ethnicity, and ethnicity chromosome painting
  • View the family tree provided by 23andMe that provides an estimated reconstruction of your matches to you and each other to ancestors several generations into the past
  • View your profile information
  • Download your matches
  • Download your raw data file

Anything you can do or see, they could do or see because they were signed on as “you.”

That’s a lot, and I’m sure that 23andMe is struggling with how to keep their customers safe, especially since this data compromise was reportedly not due to a breach or “break-in” of their system or site, but due to social engineering failures. It’s also difficult to sort the truth from the rest.

Right now, things are moving so fast on this front that every time I have an article ready to publish, something else changes. I’m going to share what I do know, and what you can do.

Some Users Have Been Notified

I know of at least two people who have been notified by 23andMe that their data was exposed in the compromise, receiving the same email. The communication was nonspecific, partially extracted as follows.

After further review, we have identified your DNA Relatives profile as one that was impacted in this incident. Specifically, there was unauthorized access to one or more 23andMe accounts that were connected to you through DNA Relatives. As a result, the DNA Relatives profile information you provided in this feature was exposed to the threat actor.

Based on our investigation so far, we believe only your DNA Relatives profile attributes were exposed.

They did not say, nor do I know how 23andMe identified those customers.

This only applies to people whose information was partially exposed as a match to a compromised account. I don’t know if they have identified the compromised accounts and are notifying those people, too.

Given the reported magnitude of this exposure, I wonder why only two people have mentioned being informed. None of my accounts have been informed, nor those of family members.

Using Email as a User ID

Using an email address as half of your user ID essentially gives that piece of the puzzle away.

It makes users particularly vulnerable because bad actors only have to obtain the second half – a password. That’s a lot easier than you’d think.

If nothing else, this 23andMe incident illustrates just how many people engage in unsafe security practices.

Not all vendors utilize email as part of your user id, and those that do often utilize other safety practices, including but not limited to two-factor authentication (2FA.)

Forced Password Reset

Several days ago, 23andMe forced their customers to reset their passwords before signing in. Of course, by that time, millions of cows had already left the proverbial barn. Still, that was certainly the responsible thing for 23andMe to do, preventing additional damage, assuming their customers didn’t reuse yet another password.

I finally managed to reset my password, although that was anything but easy. In order to do a password reset, the standard procedure and the one 23andMe follows, is to send a reset link or key to your email address on file. However, if you changed your email, or it has been “blacklisted” because your carrier was down at some point when 23andMe tried to communicate with you, or the reset email wasn’t received for some other reason, you have to contact support to obtain assistance. Needless to say, 23andMe support is overwhelmed at this point.

23andMe has provided a Privacy and Security page, with suggestions, here.

Two-Factor Authentication

23andMe has NOT required their customers to implement two-factor authentication, known as 2FA.

They DO provide an option to enable 2FA, and I recommend that you do so. Generally, this means that every time you sign in, as part of that process, after entering your password, 23andMe will text a code to your phone or email one to you, or you can utilize a third-party authenticator application. Essentially, this adds a a third step that communicates with you through some methodology that you control, in addition to your username and password. Yes, 2FA can be a pain, but it works. You’ll find information, here.

The Relatives in Common Change Before the Compromise

I was writing about this change when all Hades broke loose with this data compromise.

A week or two prior to the compromise, 23andMe made what may have appeared to them to be “cosmetic” changes, but to genealogists, 23andMe made genealogy and triangulation much more tedious and difficult. Certainly not impossible, just requiring several steps instead of one.

Previously, Relatives in Common under DNA Overlap said “yes” or “no.” Yes meant that me, a match (Tim), and a third person (Tony) triangulated. No meant we all matched each other but no triangulation.

The 23andMe change replaced yes and no with “Compare.” That meant that customers were required to complete the following steps to get to “yes” or “no.”

  • You compared to person A (Tim)
  • You compared to person B (Tony)
  • Person A compared to person B (Tim to Tony)

It went from easy to painful, and now, since the compromise, it’s gone altogether.

Before I move on to what else has changed, I want to comment on the original change. I don’t think it’s connected to the current exposure situation, but I have no insider knowledge.

Given my background in technology, creating a permanent yes/no link means storing the relationships of each DNA segment to your matches, which quickly become a HUGE three-dimensional matrix. Storage requirements would be substantial. If you only compare three people when requested, those storage requirements disappear. Storage = $$$, and 23andMe has been struggling financially for some time.

23andMe stock is down 62% year to date, 72% since this time last year, and 92% over five years.

Based on this data, my assumption was that 23andMe was trying to save money, shaving anything anywhere it could. Genealogists were hoping to convince 23andMe to reverse their decision, but now it’s a moot point because DNA Relatives is gone altogether, at least for now, and 23andMe has much, much larger fish to fry.

23andMe Update

23andMe provided an update on their blog about changes they’ve made related to DNA Relatives, here.

However, DNA Relatives is ONLY HALF THE PROBLEM. 23andMe did not address the rest.

  1. A Direct Compromise – Your data was very clearly compromised IF YOUR ACCOUNT WAS DIRECTLY COMPROMISED. This means the situation where the bad actor was able to sign on to your account as you because your email and password were found in other data breaches. If you’ve ever reused a password, you have no way of knowing if your account was compromised and you must assume it was.
  2. Compromise Through DNA Relatives Matching – Your DNA Relatives information, as described in this 23andMe link may have been compromised, meaning revealed if ANY OF YOUR MATCHES’ ACCOUNTS WERE COMPROMISED. In other words, your information shown to a match was exposed if any of your 1500 (non-subscriber) or 4500 (subscriber only) matches had their account directly compromised – meaning signed into because they reused a password. Less of your data was compromised than in a direct exposure, but some of it very clearly would have been exposed in this scenario.

The link 23andMe provided only addresses what can be viewed through DNA Relatives. They did not mention health information if you and any specific match have authorized that level of sharing. I have not.

That’s not all, either.

If Your Account Was Directly Compromised, Your RAW DNA File Could Have Been Downloaded

If YOUR account has been signed into, the bad actor is functioning as you, and they can download your raw DNA file, which means they could upload it elsewhere. The hacker mentioned that specifically.

You do have to request a download at 23andMe. A notification is sent to your email when the download is ready, BUT, you don’t actually need that email to retrieve your download. If you simply sign out and back in again, and return to the download function, a notification awaits you that your download is now ready. Just click to download.

If your email address used at 23andMe is functioning correctly, you would have received a notification that you had requested a DNA file download. If you received a notification like this in the past few days/weeks/months, and you did NOT request a download, please inform 23andMe immediately. This could be one way that 23andMe might be able to determine whose accounts were directly compromised, and therefore whose accounts were indirectly compromised using DNA Relatives.

In my case, I was not receiving email notifications from 23andMe because my account had been blacklisted due to carrier issues, so I would never have received that email.

If your account was one that was compromised, your file may have already been downloaded. Check your inbox and spam folder to see if you have any notifications from 23andMe that escaped your notice.

It Could Still Be Happening

23andMe can only do so much.

They can force users to select a new password, but they can’t prevent people from reusing a different password, which means that the bad actor could still be trying to sign on to accounts – and getting into some.

Genealogy, including DNA is a team sport. We have to depend on our matches.

23andMe could force everyone to use 2FA, but so far they have not opted to do that, probably because it would be very unpopular.

Additional Changes

The following DNA Relatives features have either been temporarily or permanently disabled or removed:

  • Download matches (which included matching segments) is no longer available
  • Relatives in common (three-way matching) is disabled entirely, so there are no shared matches or shared segments
  • Viewing how your matches match each other is gone
  • The chromosome browser is gone

However, other tools such as the family tree which shows relationships and health sharing are still available.

At 23andMe, What Can You Do?

Truthfully, I’ve been a hair’s breadth from deleting all of my tests at 23andMe for days. I manage two tests of my own and other relatives’ too.

23andMe has never been committed to genealogy and was always the least useful site for me. Having said that, I have had some close and very useful matches there that aren’t elsewhere.

I’m certainly never testing there again, but I really don’t want to give up on 23andMe altogether, at least not yet. I’ve already paid for several tests, and I would lose valuable information today, and the potential of the same in the future.

We can’t undo any damage that has already been done. That ship has sailed. However, we can take steps to protect ourselves, both today and tomorrow. In other words, we have options other than deleting our tests.

I’ve decided to pause, at least for now.

The Pause Strategy

Only you can protect yourself by selecting a unique, strong password. Not just at 23andMe, but every site you use on the internet for any purpose.

Until and unless 23andMe requires 2FA, you need to decide on a strategy to protect yourself from other people’s negligence.

You don’t have to permanently delete your tests. Instead, you can disable DNA Relatives, which means matching.

I’ve opted-out of DNA Relatives while waiting to see what happens as 23andMe works through this quagmire. That means that I’m not participating directly in matching anymore. I’ve also opted all of the tests I manage out as well. I can always opt back in when this problem is resolved, if that ever happens.

Opting-Out of DNA Relatives

Here’s how to opt-out.

Under the Ancestry tab, select DNA Relatives.

Click on Edit profile.

Scroll all the way to the very bottom.

At the bottom, click on “I would like to stop participating in DNA Relatives.

I clicked on “Finish,” then verified that this profile is not shown as a match.

My profile prior to disabling DNA Relatives looked like this:

These same fields after disabling DNA Relatives.

Unfortunately, it does not appear that you can disable Connections broadly.

Apparently, you need to disable Connections one by one. I know that Connections can still see you, but they can’t see everything. You can find instructions here.

What I’d really like is an “invisibility” function that simply stops all sharing by making me invisible until I want to be visible again, without deleting my accounts. I’m more than a little irritated that connections remained, other than within the accounts I actually manage.

I still have not decided if I will eventually retain or delete my accounts, but disabling DNA Relatives helps somewhat and buys me some pause time while I make a final decision about 23andMe.

Your decision may not be as difficult. In addition to my genealogy research, I depend on my accounts at the various vendors for instructional articles for my blog.

Minimum Two Steps

No matter what else you do, implement the following NOW:

  1. Use a unique, difficult-to-guess, strong password at every vendor. Here and here are some ideas and guidelines for strong passwords.
  2. Turn on 2-factor authentication.
  3. If you did not previously use a unique password at 23andMe, presume your data was compromised.
  4. If you have to assume your data was compromised, be hyper-vigilant of anything unusual or strange.
  5. Check to see if your email address associated with 23andme received a DNA file download request that you did not initiate, and if so, notify 23andMe immediately at customercare@23andme.com or 1-800-239-5230.

Other Companies

Other DNA testing companies are taking precautions and reviewing safeguards. Some have or may disable some features as they move through the process. Don’t be angry if a feature you depend on is gone for now.

The situation is changing very rapidly. I don’t know if the changes at the vendors, including 23andMe, will be permanent, and the companies probably don’t yet either.

Right now, overall, patience is the word as this mess sorts itself out – but while being patient, be sure to review your own safeguards and follow safe online practices.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Barney Campbell’s Descendants in the 1872 Chancery Court Suit – 52 Ancestors #414

Cousin Sherri, who is related to the Campbells, found a newspaper notification in the Knoxville Weekly Chronicle dating from July 24, 1872, and it clearly has to do with the Claiborne County, TN Campbell line.

Them’s my people!

So down the rabbit hole I went!!!

Who are these people? How are they connected together?  What is this all about?

Why Do I Care?

Why might an 1872 Chancery Court suit be important? My Campbell ancestors, John Campbell and his daughter, Elizabeth Campbell, were long dead by then, so why would I care what was happening 30+ years later?

Well, it’s complicated.

First, we don’t know much about the father of the two men, John and George Campbell, who settled in Claiborne County around the time the county was formed in 1801. They are believed to be brothers, both sons of Charles Campbell, but we lack definitive proof.

Second, we don’t know who the father of Charles Campbell is, but we have Y-DNA hints, and we’ve been chipping away at this brick wall for decades now. You just never know when and where that desperately needed tidbit is going to drop. Property and arguments over property are generational and often reach significantly back in time.

Third, Jacob Dobkins’ two daughters, Jenny Dobkins and Elizabeth Dobkins married John and George Campbell, respectively. Then, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren intermarried. All was NOT quiet on the homefront. In fact, these families seemed to be wracked with one scandal after another. Thank goodness, because those court records make them much more human, and often, it’s all we know about the family. Not to mention buried and not-so-buried hints.

Fourth, Jacob Dobkins was quite controversial. Jacob was a Revolutionary War soldier who bought a ton of land in Claiborne County, 1400 acres to be precise, apparently to keep his family together instead of his sons and son-in-laws moving off to claim land someplace else. Jacob was buried on the old home place, which wound up in the possession of his grandson, Barney Campbell, who himself is surrounded in mystery.

As it turned out, Jacob’s will was hidden and there was a huge brouhaha and resulting lawsuit over all that, complete with soap-opera-worthy drama and first-person details. I didn’t discover that Supreme Court case until this time last year when another cousin notified me. So old Jacob Dobkins still continues to surprise me, as do his family members. That one was juicy, too, and went all the way to the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1853, which is the only reason we found it.

Fifth, Barney Campbell himself. This man – Lord Have Mercy. He was Elizabeth Dobkins’ first-born child. There was debate for decades about whether he was born to Elizabeth before she married George Campbell, or after. And, based on that and other anomalies, whether or not Barney was fathered by George Campbell or someone else. The fact that George’s other children were mentioned by name in his will, but Barney was not, fueled that flame.

The story from WITHIN Barney’s line as told by a descendant:

My grandmother, Sally, died (in 1951) when I was about 10. I heard the story of Barney from her many times growing up…Barney was a Dobkins, his mother was Elizabeth, and he took the Campbell name when Elizabeth married George Campbell.

To explain that and probably to rescue Elizabeth’s reputation, another story emerged in a different child’s line – that George and Elizabeth had found an abandoned baby boy whose parents had been killed in Indian raids and raised him as their own. This, of course, removed the tongue-clucking about long-deceased Elizabeth’s morals. Tisk. Tisk.

Initially, based on DNA results, it looked like the answer was that Barney’s father was “someone else,” but his mother was Elizabeth Dobkins based on his descendants’ autosomal matches. Then, the results from the descendant of a second son of Barney tested and matched the Campbell line. Of course, we can’t go back in time to figure out what REALLY happened. Given those circumstances, I found it odd that Barney, of all the grandchildren, eventually would wind up owning his grandfather, Jacob Dobkins’ farm – especially after the accusations surrounding Jacob Dobkins’ will – yet he did.

I need about four Bingo cards to keep track of all of this.

To add to that suspense, someone else who lived in Claiborne County told me years ago that one of their relatives in Barney’s line started researching this family decades earlier, found something, tore everything up, and stopped searching. They wouldn’t tell anyone what they found and said no one needed to know. There’s clearly SOMETHING there, a story begging to be told.

What was it?

Where did they find that information?

Were the destroyed papers the originals?

Is this the key to that big secret?

Transcribed

I transcribed the article so I could work with the names of the plaintiffs and defendants. It was quite helpful that the suit told us where the defendants lived. I used my own research plus Joe Payne’s website here, which isn’t always correct, but Joe obtained the information from the old-timers in Claiborne County. In other words, the stories haven’t been sifted through the Ancestry filter hundreds of times and “stretched.”

Joseph Lanham and Levi Brooks vs

Residents in Claiborne County:

    • Benjamin Campbell
    • Eldridge Campbell
    • D. Campbell
    • John Campbell
    • Elizabeth Jennings
    • Mary Walker
    • David Campbell
    • Abraham Campbell
    • Alexander Campbell
    • Emily Brooks
    • Louisa Lewis
    • Abraham Lewis
    • Eliza Shumate
    • Daniel Shumate
    • Isaac Campbell
    • Mary Campbell
    • Benjamin Campbell
    • Margaret Campbell
    • George Campbell
    • Nancy Campbell
    • Reuben Kesterson

Non-residents of Tn:

    • Arthur L. Campbell
    • Newton J. Campbell
    • Andrew Campbell
    • Eldrige Campbell

Residents of Union County, TN:

    • Lucy Walker
    • John Walker

Resident of Hancock County:

    • Robert Campbell

Resident of Grainger County:

    • James Campbell

In this cause it appearing from the allegations in the bill filed, which is sworn to, that Arthur L. Campbell, Newton J. Campbell, Andrew Campbell, and Eldridge Campbell are non-residents of the state as aforesaid, so that the ordinary process of law cannot be served on them. It is therefore ordered that publication be made for 4 successive weeks in the Knoxville Chronicle notifying said non-resident defendants to appear before the Chancellor at a Chancery Court to be holden at the courthouse in Tazewell, TN on the second Monday in October 1872, then and there to make defense to complainants said bill, or the same will be taken as confessed and set for hearing ex parte to them.

July 16, 1872

Note that the second Monday of 1872 was October 13.

Who are these people? How are they related to each other? Who are the plaintiffs, and why do they have an interest in whatever the complaint is. And what is the complaint that they are suing over?

I have to know, so down that rabbit hole I leaped. I sure hope there’s a big fat rabbit down there!

Who Are These People?

Of course, the Campbell family, like all Southern families, named children after ancestors, other family members, and so forth. That means there are a bazillion Johns, Georges and Williams, etc. Many are about the same age in the same county. They need to take numbers.

“Hello, I’m John Campbell #372; pleased to meet you.”

The first thing I did was to try to sift out who these people’s parents were. I was actually HOPING that they would be a mix of the descendants of John Campbell and George Campbell, which meant they had a common interest, might link back to their fathers and confirm that they were brothers, or even give hints a generation further back.

Multiple people are listed with the same name, so I had to figure out which person was being referenced.

Also, who are the plaintiffs, and what is their interest?

I created a table and listed every defendant in the suit, the location as given in the suit, then their parents and birth year, if known, along with any commentary. By the way, Barney Campbell had two wives, but that doesn’t matter in this suit, so I’ve only listed him as the parent.

Name 1872 Location Birth/Spouse Parents Comment
Arthur L. Campbell Outside TN Born circa 1842 Barney Campbell
*Newton J. Campbell Outside TN Born 1845, died 1911 in Claiborne, m Lucy Williams 1885 Barney Campbell In 1870, he was living in Pleasant Grove, Kansas, but had moved back to Claiborne Co. by 1885 when he married.
Andrew Campbell Outside TN Born c 1842 Barney Campbell In 1870, Andrew is living with his brother Newton with the Nelson Lanham family in Kansas.
Eldridge Campbell Outside TN B 1827, died > 1880 Claiborne, m 1845 Emeline Hazelwood Barney Campbell Probably this guy, but check his death location since he is reported to have died in Claiborne.
Lucy Walker Union Co., TN B c 1834 m John Walker 1850 Claiborne Barney Campbell
John Walker Union Co., TN Husband of Lucinda (Lucy) Campbell
Robert Campbell Hancock Co., TN B 1845, d 1914 Pennington Gap, VA, m Sarah Thomas George Campbell (son of Barney) & Nancy Eastridge Probably this guy – Robert S. Campbell
James Campbell Grainger Co., TN Probably James C., son of George d 1864, son of Barney
Benjamin Campbell

 

Claiborne Co., TN B 1820 d 1882 Claiborne m Eliza “Louisa” Eastridge Barney Campbell
Eldridge Campbell (second listing) Claiborne Co., TN Uncertain. The only other Eldridge I show is the son of Jacob Campbell, son of John Campbell.
T. D. Campbell (probably Toliver Dodson known as “Dock”) Claiborne Co., TN B 1835 d 1899 Claiborne m Sarah Lewis Barney Campbell
John Campbell Claiborne Co., TN Many candidates, Barney’s son b 1829 d 1900 Claiborne Barney Campbell Many John candidates
Elizabeth (Louisa) Jennings Claiborne Co., TN B 1823, m James Jennings, died aft 1866 Barney Campbell She is likely a widow
Mary Walker Claiborne Co., TN Uncertain, could be Barney’s daughter who married John Lanning and perhaps remarried?
David Campbell Claiborne Co., TN B 1841, d 1919 Claiborne m Missouri Williams Barney Campbell Middle initial either H or R
Abraham Campbell Claiborne Co., TN B 1850 d 1914 Claiborne m Nancy Williams Barney Campbell
Alexander Campbell Claiborne Co., TN B 1853 d 1923 m 2C Sallie Campbell Barney Campbell
Emily Brooks Claiborne Co., TN B 1831 d c 1887 m Levi Brooks Barney Campbell Levi Brooks is one of the plaintiffs.
Louisa Lewis Claiborne Co., TN B 1843, d 1920 m Abraham Lewis George Campbell d c 1879 & Nancy Eastridge, son of Barney
Abraham Lewis Claiborne Co., TN Husband of Louisa Campbell
Eliza Shumate

 

Claiborne Co., TN B 1847 d 1914, m 1866 Daniel Shumate George Campbell d c 1870, son of Barney
Daniel Shumate Claiborne Co., TN Husband of Eliza Campbell
Isaac Campbell Claiborne Co., TN B 1851 d > 1885 George Campbell d c 1879, son of Barney
Mary Campbell Claiborne Co., TN B c 1853 George Campbell d c 1879, son of Barney
Benjamin Campbell Claiborne Co., TN B c 1855 George Campbell d c 1879, son of Barney
Margaret Campbell Claiborne Co., TN B c 1860 George Campbell d c 1879, son of Barney
George Campbell Claiborne Co., TN B 1864 d 1922 Claiborne George Campbell d c 1879, son of Barney
Nancy Campbell

 

Claiborne Co., TN Unknown
Reuben Kesterson Claiborne Co., TN Unknown

*Newton J. Campbell was very confusing. Not only are there multiple men by that name, but the Newton under discussion moved to Kansas, then back before marrying. Before this, I’m not sure anyone realized he had ever moved away. I don’t think his brother Andrew moved back because there is almost no information about him.

Barney Campbell’s first wife was Mary Brooks with whom he had a dozen children between 1820 and 1835. She died between 1835 and 1840. His second wife was Martha Jane Kesterson (1810-1889), the daughter of David Chadwell Kesterson and Elizabeth Lanham. Note the family connection in that Newton and Arthur Campbell are living with a Lanham family in Kansas in the 1870 census.

Barney and Martha had six children that lived, and probably at least one that died, between 1840 and 1853.

Regarding the Mary Campbell who married a John Lanning, I can’t help but wonder if this is actually a misspelling of Lanham. I can’t place her.

I can’t fit Reuben Kesterson, who was ordered to appear as a defendant cleanly into this family. However, in that valley, everyone was literally related to everyone else within a couple of generations, thanks to intermarriage. In the 1870 census, Reuben’s wife was deceased, so he may well have been listed as a surviving spouse. Or, he could be George Campbell’s minor children’s guardian. Or, something else.

It’s worth noting that every one of these people that I can place is either the child of Barney Campbell, through both of his wives, or the child of Barney’s son George, who died in 1864, with the exception of the second Eldridge. There is only one other Eldridge living at that time who is not Barney’s son or grandson. Was Eldridge accidentally listed twice? Did Barney’s son George have a son Eldridge that is unknown?

Barney was born about 1797 and died sometime between 1853 and 1856. A will for Barney has not been found – which may be the predicating force behind this lawsuit.

In 1860, Levi Brooks, one of the plaintiffs, is living beside Barney’s widow with his wife, Emily Campbell, and their children.

Barney’s Children

As a sanity check, I created a table of Barney’s children and what I know about them, then bolded the abovementioned children.

Name Birth, Death Spouse Comments
Benjamin 1820-1882 Claiborne Married Eliza Louisa Eastridge Alive in 1872
George (deceased 1864, not in lawsuit but his children are) B c 1821, d 1864 in Civil War Married Nancy Eastridge Captured in Civil War
Mary E. B c 1822 d ? Married John Lanning in 1853 Uncertain. There’s also a Mary Ann Campbell.
Louisa “Eliza” (deceased, not in lawsuit) B c 1823 d c 1866 Married James Jennings in 1840 – why is he not on the list? Their daughter, Mary Jennings b 1831 married c 1870 Joseph Lanham, one of the plaintiffs
Andrew B c 1826 died ? Married Louisa “Eliza” Campbell, his 2C
Eldridge B c 1827 d after 1880 Claiborne Married Emeline Hazelwood
John B c 1829 d after 1900 Claiborne Married Mary Ann Chadwell
Mary Ann B c 1829 d 1908 Claiborne Married James Walker in 1840
Emily A. B c 1831 d 1877 Claiborne Married Levi Brooks  in 1848 Levi Brooks is a plaintiff.
Lucinda B c 1834 d > 1886 Claiborne Married John Wesley Walker in 1850
Toliver D B 1835 d 1899 Claiborne Married Sarah Lewis in 1854
Charles B c 1841, probably died in Civil War. He served and is not found after. No record of marriage 20 in 1860 census, not found in 1870 nor listed in the suit
David H. (R.) B 1842 d 1919 Claiborne Married Missouri Williams in 1874
Arthur L B c 1842 d 1904 Married Sarah Ellen Clingensmith in 1875
Newton J. B 1845 d 1911 Claiborne Married Louisa “Lucy” Williams c 1885
Abraham B 1850 d 1914 Claiborne Married Nancy Williams his 2C c 1890
Alexander B 1853 d 1923 Claiborne Married Sarah Campbell his 2C c 1880

This is beginning to make more sense.

It appears that this suit probably has to do with Barney’s estate. His second wife, Martha Jane Kesterson was living in 1872 and is not a party to this suit. She would have, by law, inherited one-third of Barney’s estate. Perhaps that portion wasn’t under debate.

In 1839, Barney was taxed for 200 acres, so he clearly had land to be divided which descended through his descendants to recent times.

The Chancery Suit

Ok, so what does the Chancery Bill filed in the Chancery Court in Tazewell have to say? That’s where the meat of this lawsuit will be revealed.

Chancery bills tell us what is alleged. In other words, let’s say that person A claims they paid person B for some land, but person B died before conveying the land, died without a will, and the heirs either didn’t know about the deal, or don’t want to recognize it. Complicating matters further, the heirs planted a crop on the land which needs to be harvested, and person A claims it’s his crop since he bought the land. Person A would file against all of the heirs in order to obtain satisfaction. A judge would have to figure out what happened, and what is equitable under the circumstances.

In most places, Chancery Court is entirely different than Circuit or Criminal Court. Disputes requiring a judge to determine a fair and equitable settlement are resolved in Chancery Court. Think about a couple’s assets in a divorce. A Criminal Court would try someone for murder or a crime that broke a state or federal government law. Civil or “regular” court would be used to collect an undisputed debt, register a will, record tax payments or “prove” a deed transfer in open court by testimony.

Additionally, a Chancery Court generally served a region, not just a county, where county courts only served that particular county.

The second Monday of 1872 was October 13 and the Claiborne County chancery notes do not appear in the regular Claiborne County court notes, although the Chancery Court bills, pleadings and minutes were recorded in the courthouse at Tazewell in Claiborne County.

I browsed the court minutes at FamilySearch and read the circuit court minutes page by page, hoping for something. Anything.

Claiborne County is one of my “home” counties, so I have just about every published resource. I don’t have those notes, but maybe I missed something. I checked every available source, just in case.

I was getting a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach because I was beginning to suspect that those records may not exist. The courthouse burned twice, once in 1863 during the Civil War, and again in 1931. Thankfully, not all records burned either time, but plenty did, including some crucial records.

The FamilySearch Catalog and FamilySearch Claiborne wiki don’t list Chancery suits or minutes at all.

Then, I found it, here.

I Found Something

No, no, I didn’t find the Chancery filing or anything else whatsoever about the suit. What I found was confirmation that those records don’t exist.

Bummer!

This Tennessee Secretary of State site confirms that the Claiborne Chancery Court records began in 1934. Given that divorces were heard in Chancery Court, this also explains why I could never find the divorce records between Martha Ruthy Dodson and John Y. Estes. At least this exercise was good for making sense of that.

However, all that was waiting down this rabbit hole about John and George Campbell was a laughing rabbit. But maybe not for Barney’s descendants.

Sometimes, even some information is better than no information. Just the newspaper article alone helps assemble Barney’s family.

So, now the rest is up to Barney’s descendants. Does anyone know what happened in 1872? Any juicy stories about land, Barney’s estate, or a rift in the family?

One thing we know for sure – something assuredly happened! So far, it’s still a mystery, and this newspaper filing was just a teaser.

Update 10-24-2023

Not long after this article was published, a cousin sent me the following deed from Claiborne County Deed book 12, page 598 that may pertain to the lawsuit filed in 1872. This deed was filed in 1880, so by inference, this deed, if related, would have been related to the result of that suit.

Based on the language, it would appear that Barney had given advancements to his children, but not his son George who had died before Barney. It’s worth noting that not all of the people in the suit are reflected in this deed.

Extracted as follows:

Lucinda Walker, wife of John W. Walker appeared separately…acknowledged annexed deed…signed on August 25, 1880.

Indenture entered into 10th day of March 1869 between Benjamin Campbell, Andrew Campbell, John Campbell, Eldridge Campbell, Emily A. Brooks, Loucinda Walker, T. D. Campbell, Mary Ann Walker, Louiza Jennings all of the county of Claiborne, state of Tennesee, of the first part and A. L. Campbell, David H. Campbell, Newton Campbell, Abraham Campbell, Alexander Campbell of the county aforesaid of the second part.

In consideration of that Barney Campbell had advanced to the party of the first part considerable property both parties being heirs at law of the said Barney Campbell, and that party of the first part for the consideration of their having had advancements by the said Barney Campbell their father before his death do hereby convey, sell, bargain, enfroff? and confirm into the said party of the second part all the right, title or claim to the reversionary interest in the dower of said Barny Campbell’s widow Jane Campbell her dower is the first part laid off to her out of the lands that Barney Campbell owned and lived on at the time of his death, to have and to hold to the said A. L. Campbell, David H. Campbell, Newton Campbell, Abraham Campbell and Alexander Campbell all the right that the said Benjamin Campbell, Andrew Campbell, John Campbell, Eldridge Campbell, Emily A. Brooks, T. D. Campbell and Mary Ann Walker, Loucinda Jennings has or may have in and to the dower of said Jane Campbell widow of Barney Campbell, decd, the part of the first part does hereby covenant to and with the party of the second part that they have a good right to convey their title in the lands before mentioned and that said Party of the first part will forever warrant and defend the title to the said lands as before stipulated to the party of the second part their heirs and assigns forever in fee simple.

Said party of the first part have hereunto set their hands and seals…

Signatures

Jeremiah Brooks
Levi Brooks
Attest as to T. D. Campbell
Robert Campbell
John Cales
as to Mary A. Walker
D. Cardwell
J. A McGriff
as to Louiza Jennings
D. Cardwell
F. L. McVey
as to Loucinda Walker
D. C. Smith
William B. Hodges
Attest to Emily Ann Brooks
Signature Sept 10
Henly Buise
J. W. Buise

Second column:
Benjamin x-mark Campbell
Andrew x-mark Campbell
John x-mark Campbell
Eldridge x-mark Campbell
T. D. x-mark Campbell
Mary Ann x-mark Walker
Louiza x-mark Jennings
Loucinda x-mark Walker
Emily Ann x-mark Brooks

Filed in my office October 4, 1880
B. H. Campbell Registrar

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Y-DNA Haplogroup O – When and How Did It Get to the Americas?

Y-DNA Haplogroup O has been found in male testers descended from a Native American ancestor, or in Native American tribes in the Americas – but sometimes things are more complex than they seem. The story of when and how haplogroup O arrived in the Americas is fascinating – and not at all what you might think.

Introduction

The concept of Native American heritage and indigenous people can be confusing. For example, European Y-DNA haplogroup R is found among some Native American men. Those men may be tribal members based on their mother’s line, or their haplogroup R European Y-DNA may have been introduced either through adoption practices or traders after the arrival of Europeans.

There is unquestionable genetic evidence that the origin of Haplogroup R in the Americas was through colonization, with no evidence of pre-contact indigenous origins.

Y-DNA testing and matching, specifically the Big Y-700 test, with its ability to date the formation of haplogroups very granularly, has successfully identified the genesis of Y-DNA haplogroups and their movement through time.

We’ve spent years trying to unravel several instances of Native American Y-DNA Haplogroup O and their origins. Native American, in this context, means that men with haplogroup O are confirmed to be Native American at some point in documented records. This could include early records, such as court or probate records, or present-day members of tribes. There is no question that these men are recognized as Native American in post-contact records or are tribal members, or their descendants.

What has not been clear is how and when haplogroup O entered the Native American population of these various lineages, groups, or tribes. In other words, are they indigenous? Were they here from the earliest times, before the arrival of colonists, similar to Y-DNA haplogroups C and Q?

This topic has been of great interest for several years, and we have been waiting for additional information to elucidate the matter, which could manifest in several ways:

  1. Ancient pre-contact DNA samples of haplogroup O in the Americas, but none have been found.
  2. Current haplogroup O testers in Native American peoples across the North and South American continents, forming a connecting trail genetically, geographically, and linearly through time. This has not occurred.
  3. Big-Y DNA matches within the Americas between Haplogroup O Native American lines unrelated in a genealogical timeframe whose haplogroup formation pre-dates European contact. This has not occurred.
  4. Big-Y DNA matches between Haplogroup O men whose haplogroups were formed in the Americas after the Beringian migration and expansion that scientists agree occurred at least 12-16K years ago, and possibly began earlier. Earlier human lineages, if they existed, may not have survived. A later Inuit and Na-Dené speaker circumpolar migration occurred 4-7K years ago. This has not occurred.
  5. Big-Y DNA matches with men whose most recent common ancestor haplogroup formation dates connect them with continental populations in other locations, outside of North and South America. This would preclude their presence in the Americas after the migrations that populated the Americas. This has occurred.

The Beringian migration took place across a now-submerged land bridge connecting the Chutkin Peninsula in Russia across the Bering Strait with the Seward Peninsula in Alaska.

By Erika Tamm et al – Tamm E, Kivisild T, Reidla M, Metspalu M, Smith DG, et al. (2007) Beringian Standstill and Spread of Native American Founders. PLoS ONE 2(9): e829. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000829. Also available from PubMed Central., CC BY 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16975303

Haplogroup O is clearly Native American in some instances, meaning that it occurs in men who are members of or descend from specific Native American tribes or peoples. One man, James Revels, is confirmed in court records as early as 1656. However, ancestors of James Revels fall into category #5, as their upstream parental haplogroup is found in the Pacific islands outside the Americas after the migration period.

Based on available evidence, the introduction of haplogroup O appears to be post-contact. Therefore, haplogroup O is not indigenous to the Americans in the same sense as haplogroups Q and C that are found widespread throughout the Americas in current testers who are tribal members, descendants of tribal members, and pre-contact ancient DNA as mapped in the book, DNA for Native American Genealogy.

Ancient DNA

Haplogroup C is found in both North and South America today, as are these ancient DNA locations.

Haplogroup Q is more prevalent than Haplogroup C, and ancient DNA remains are found throughout North and South America before colonization.

No ancient DNA for Haplogroup O has been discovered in the Americas. We do find contemporary haplogroup O testers in regional clusters, which we will analyze individually.

Let’s take a look at what we have learned recently.

Wesley Revels’ Lineage

Wesley Revels was the initial Y-DNA tester whose results identified Haplogroup O as Native American, proven by a court record. That documentation was critical, and we are very grateful to Wesley for sharing both his information and results.

Wesley’s ancestor, James Revels, was Native American, born about 1656 and bound to European planter, Edward Revell. James was proven in court to be an Accomack “Indian boy” from “Matomkin,” age 11 in 1667. James was bound, not enslaved, until age 24, at which time he was to be freed and receive corn and clothes.

James had died by 1681 when he was named several times in the Accomack County records as both “James, an Indian” and “James Revell, Indian,” in reference to his estate. James lived near Edward Revell, his greatest creditor and, therefore, administrator of his estate, and interacted with other Indian people near Great Matompkin Neck. Marie Rundquist did an excellent job of documenting that here. Additional information about the Revels family and Matomkin region can be found here.

The location where Edward Revell lived, Manokin Hundred, was on the water directly adjacent the Great Matomkin (now Folly Creek) and Little Matomkin Creeks, inside the Metomkin Inlet. The very early date tells us that James Revels’s paternal ancestor was in the colonies by 1656 and probably born about 1636, or perhaps earlier.

Lewis and Revels men are later associated with the Lumbee Tribe, now found in Robeson and neighboring counties in North Carolina. The Lewis line descends from the Revels lineage, as documented by Marie and Wesley. Other men from this line have tested and match on lower-level STR markers, but have not taken the much more granular and informative Big-Y test.

Until recently, the men who matched Wesley Revels closely on the Big-Y test were connected with the Revels line and/or the Lumbee.

Wesley has a 37-marker STR match to a man with a different surname who had not tested beyond that level, in addition to several 12-marker STR matches to men from various locations. Men who provided known ancestral or current locations include one from Bahrain, two from the Philippines, and three from China. Those men have not taken the Big-Y, and their haplogroups are all predicted from STR results to O-M175 which was formed in Asia about 31,000 years ago.

12-marker matches can reach thousands of years back in time. Unless the matches share ancestors and match at higher levels, 12-marker matches are only useful for geographic history, if that. The Big Y-700 test refines haplogroup results and ages from 10s of thousands of years to (generally) within a genealogically relevant timeframe, often within a couple hundred years.

One of Wesley’s STR matches, Mr. Luo, has taken a Big Y-700 test. Mr. Luo descends directly from Indonesia in the current generation and is haplogroup O-CTS716, originating about 244 BCE, or 2244-ish years ago. Mr. Luo does not match Wesley on the Big-Y test, meaning that Wesley and Mr. Luo have 30 or more SNP differences in their Big-Y results, which equates to about 1,500 years. The common ancestor of Wesley Revels and Mr. Luo existed more than 1,500 years ago in Indonesia. It’s evident that Mr. Luo is not Native American, but his location is relevant in a broader analysis.

There is no question that Wesley’s ancestor, James Revels, was Native American based on the court evidence. There is also no question that the Revels’ paternal lineage was not in the Americas with the Native American migration group 12-16K years ago.

The remaining question is how and when James Revels’ haplogroup O ancestor came to be found on the Atlantic seaboard in the early/mid 1600s, only a few years after the founding of Jamestown.

The results of other Haplogroup O men may help answer this question.

Mr. Lynn

Another haplogroup O man, Mr. Lynn, matches Wesley on STR markers, but not on the Big-Y test.

Mr. Lynn identified his Y-DNA line as Native American, although he did not post detailed genealogy. More specifically, we don’t know if Mr. Lynn identified that he was Native on his paternal line because he matches Wesley, or if the Native history information was passed down within his family, or from genealogical research. Mr. Lynn could also have meant generally that he was Native, or that he was Native “on Dad’s side,” not specifically his direct patrilineal Y-line.

Based on Mr. Lynn’s stated Earliest Known Ancestor (EKA) and additional genealogical research performed, his ancestor was John Wesley Lynn (born approximately 1861, died 1945), whose father was Victor Lynn. John’s death certificate, census, and his family photos on Ancestry indicate that he was African American. According to his death certificate, his father, Victor Lynn, was born in Chatham Co., NC, just west of Durham.

Family members are found in Baldwin Township, shown above.

I did not locate the family in either the 1860 or 1870 census. In 1860, the only Lynn/Linn family in Chatham County was 50-year-old Mary Linn and 17-year-old Jane, living with her, presumably a daughter. Both are listed as “mulatto” (historical term) with the occupation of “domestic.” They may or may not be related to John Wesley Lynn.

In 1870, the only Linn/Lynn in Chatham County is John, black, age 12 or 13 (so born in 1857 or 1858), farm labor, living with a white family. This is probably not John Wesley Lynn given that he is found with his mother in 1880 and the ages don’t match.

In 1880. I find Mary Lynn in Chatham County, age 48, single, black, with daughter Eliza Anne, 20, mulatto, sons John Wesley, 14 so born about 1866, and Charles 12, both black. Additionally, she is living with her nieces and nephews, Cephus, black, 12, Lizzie, 7, mulatto, Malcom, 4, mulatto, William H, 3, mulatto (I think, written over,) and John age 4, mulatto. The children aged 12 and above are farm labor.

In 1880, I also find Jack Lynn, age 28, black, married with 3 children, living beside William Lynn, 25, also married, but with no children.

Trying to find the family in 1870 by using first name searches only, I find no black Mary in 1870 or a mulatto Mary with a child named Jack or any person named Cephus by any surname. I don’t find Jack or any Lynn/Linn family in Chatham County.

The 1890 census does not exist.

In the 1900 census, I find Wesley Lynn in Chatham County, born in January of 1863, age 37, single, a boarder working on the farm of John Harris who lives beside Jack Lynn, age 43, born in April of 1857. Both Lynn men are black. I would assume some connection, given their ages, possibly or probably brothers.

In 1940, John Wesley Lynn, age 74, negro (historical term), is living beside Victor Lynn, age 37, most likely his son.

I could not find Victor Lynn, John Wesley Lynn’s father in any census, so he was likely deceased before 1880 but after 1867, given that Mary’s son Charles Lynn was born in 1868, assuming Mary’s children had the same father. The fact that Mary was listed as single, not married nor widowed suggests enslavement, given that enslaved people were prohibited from legally marrying.

About the only other assumption we can make about Victor Sr. is that he was probably born about 1832 or earlier, probably in Chatham County, NC based on John Wesley’s death certificate, and he was likely enslaved.

Subclades of Haplogroup O

Both the Revels and Lynn men are subclades of haplogroup O and both claim Native heritage – Wesley based on the Revels genealogy and court documents, and Mr. Lynn based on the Native category he selected to represent his earliest known paternal ancestor at FamilyTreeDNA.

Both men have joined various projects, including the American Indian Project, which provides Marie and me, along with our other project co-administrators, the ability to work with and view both of their results at the level they have selected.

How Closely Related Are These Haplogroup O Men?

How closely related are these two men?

By Viajes_de_colon.svg: Phirosiberiaderivative work: Phirosiberia (talk) – Viajes_de_colon.svg, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8849049

  • Do the haplogroups of the Revels men and Mr. Lynn converge in a common ancestor in a timeframe BEFORE colonialization, meaning before Columbus “discovered” the Caribbean islands when colonization and the slave trade both began?
  • Do the haplogroups converge on North or South American soil or elsewhere?
  • Is there anything in the haplogroup and Time Tree information that precludes haplogroup O from being Native prior to the era of colonization?
  • Is there anything that confirms that a haplogroup O male or males were among the groups of indigenous people that settled the Americas sometime between 12 and 26 thousand years ago? Or even a later panArctic or circumpolar migration wave?

Haplogroup O is well known in East Asia, Indonesia, and the South Pacific.

Another potential source of haplogroup O is via Madagascar and the slave trade.

The Malagasy Roots Project has several haplogroup O individuals, including the Lynn and Revels men, who may have joined to see if they have matches. We don’t know why the various haplogroup O men in the project joined. Other haplogroup O men in the project may or may not have proven Malagasay heritage.

Information provided by the project administrators is as follows:

The people of Madagascar have a fascinating history embedded in their DNA. 17 known slave ships came from Madagascar to North America during the Transatlantic Slave Trade. As a result, we find Malagasy DNA in the African American descendants of enslaved people, often of Southeast Asian origin. One of the goals of this project is to discover the Malagasy roots of African Americans and connect them with their cousins from Madagascar. Please join us in this fascinating endeavor. mtDNA Haplogroups of interest include: B4a1a1b – the “Malagasy Motif”, M23, M7c3c, F3b1, R9 and others Y-DNA Haplogroups include: O1a2 – M50, O2a1 – M95/M88, O3a2c – P164 and others

Resources:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987306/  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1199379/  http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=19535740  http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/15/77  http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/10/605

The Malagasy group only has one other man who is haplogroup O and took the Big-Y test, producing haplogroup O-FTC77008. Of course, we don’t know if he has confirmed Madagascar ancestry, and his haplogroup is quite distant from both Revels and Lynn in terms of when his haplogroup was formed.

Viewing the Malagasy Project’s Group Time Tree, above, the common ancestor between those three men lived about 28K BCE, or 30,000 years ago.

Haplogroup O Project Group Time Tree

The Haplogroup O Project Time Tree provides a better representation of haplogroup O in general given that it has a much wider range of samples.

On this tree, I’ve labeled the haplogroup formation dates, along with the Revels/Lewis line which descends from O-FT45548. This haplogroup includes one additional group member whose surname is locked, as he hasn’t given publication permission. The haplogroup formation date of 1766 occurs approximately 85 years after James Revel’s birth, so is attributable to some, but not all of his descendants. At least one descendant falls into the older Haplogroup O-BY60500.

The common ancestor of all three, meaning Revels, Lewis, and the man whose name is locked and does not know his genealogy, is haplogroup O-BY60500, born about 1741.

Their ancestral haplogroup before that, O-FT11768, is much older.

Two Filipino results are shown on and descending from the parent branch of O-FT11768, formed about 3183 BCE, or about 5183 years ago. This tells us that the ancestors of all these men were in the same place, most likely the Philippines, at that time.

3183 BCE (5180 years ago) is well after the Native American migration into the Americas.

Discover Time Tree

Obviously, not every tester joins a project, so now I’m switching to the Discover Time Tree which includes all Y-DNA haplogroup branches. Their common haplogroup, O-FT11768, has many branches, not all of which are shown below. I’m summarized unseen branch locations at bottom left.

Expanding the Time Tree further to view all of the descendant haplogroups of O-FT11768, we see that this was a major branch with many South Pacific results, including the branch of O-FT22410, bracketed in red, which has three members.

One is Mr. Lynn whose feather indicates Native American as his EKA country selection, one is a man whose ancestor is from Singapore, and one is an unknown individual who did not enter his ancestor’s country of origin.

Geography

Wesley’s STR match list, which can reflect matches further back in time than the Big-Y test, includes islands near Singapore. This geography aligns with what is known about haplogroup O.

The distance between this Asian region and continental America, 9000+ miles distant by air, is remarkable and clearly only navigable at that time by ship, meaning ships with experienced crew, able to navigate long distances with supplies and water.

We know that in 760 CE, about 1240 years ago, Mr. Lynn’s haplogroup O-F24410 was formed someplace in the South Pacific – probably in Malaysia or a nearby island. This region, including the Philippines, is home to many haplogroup O men. The majority of haplogroup O is found in Asia, the South Pacific, and Diaspora regions.

We know that Hawaii was populated by Polynesian people about 1600 years ago, prior to the age of colonization. Hawaii is almost 7000 miles from Singapore.

Here’s the challenge. How did these haplogroup O men get from the South Pacific to Virginia? Mr. Lynn and the Singapore tester share a common ancestor about 1240 years ago, or 760 CE.

There is no known or theorized Native American settlement wave across Beringia as late as 760 CE. We know that the parent haplogroup was someplace near Singapore in approximately 760 CE.

Two Filipino men and the Revels’ ancestors were in the same location in the Pacific Islands 5180 years ago. How did they arrive on the Eastern Shore in Virginia, found in the Native population, either in or before 1656 when James Revels was born?

What happened in the 3500 years between those dates that might explain how James Revel’s ancestor made that journey?

Academic Papers

In recent years, there has been discussion of possible shoreline migration routes along the Russian coast, Island hopping along Alaska, Canada, and what is now the US, known as the Kelp Highway or Coastal Migration Route – but that has yet to be proven.

Even if that is the case, and it’s certainly a possibility, how did this particular group of men get from the Pacific across the continent to the Atlantic shore in such a short time, leaving no telltale signs along the way? The Coastal Migration Theory hypothesis states that this migration occurred from 12-16 thousand years ago, and then expanded inland over the next 3-5K years. They could not have expanded eastward until the glaciers receded. Regardless, the parent haplogroup and associated ancestors are still found in the Philippines and South Pacific 5000 years ago – after that migration and expansion had already occurred.

The conclusion of the paper is that there is no strong evidence for a Pacific shoreline migration. Regardless, that’s still thousands of years before the time range we’re observing.

We know that the Lynn ancestor was with men from Indonesia in 760 CE, and the Revels ancestor was with men from the Pacific Islands, probably the Philippines, 5180 years ago. They couldn’t have been in two places at the same time, so the ancestors of Revels and Lynn were not in the Americas then.

A 2020 paper shows that remains from Easter Island (Rapa Nui) show Native American DNA, and suggests that initial contact occurred between the two cultures about 1200 CE, or about 800 years ago, but there is not yet any pre-contact or post-contact ancient Y-DNA found in the Americas that shows Polynesian DNA. Furthermore, the hypothesis is that the DNA found on Easter Island came from the Americas, not vice versa. The jury is still out, but this does show that trans-Pacific contact between the two cultures was taking place 800 years ago, at least two hundred years pre-European contact.

Australasian migration to South America is also suggested by one set of remains found in Brazil dating from more than 9000 years ago, but there have been no other remains found indicating this heritage, either in Brazil, or elsewhere in the Americas.

Based on the Time Tree dates of the Haplogroup O testers in our samples, we know they were in the Islands of Southeast Asia after this time period. Additionally, there are no Australia/New Zealand matches.

The Spanish

The Spanish established an early trade route between Manila and Acapulco beginning in 1565. Consequently, east Asian men left their genetic signature in Mexico, as described in this paper.

Historians estimate that 40-129K immigrants arrived from Manilla to colonial Mexico between 1565 and 1815, with most being enslaved upon arrival. Approximately one-third of the population in Manilla was already enslaved. Unfortunately, this paper focused only on autosomal genome-wide results and did not include either Y-DNA, nor mitochondrial. However, the paper quantifies the high degree of trade, and indicates that the Philippines and other Asian population haplotypes are still prevalent in the Mexican population.

In 2016, Dr. Miguel Vilar, the lead scientist with the National Geographic Genographic project lectured in Guam about the surprising Native American DNA found in the Guam population and nearby islands. He kindly provided this link to an article about the event.

Guam was colonized by Spain. In the image from the Boxer Codex, above, the local Chamorro people greet the Manila Galleon in the Ladrones Islands, as the Marianas were called by the Spanish, about 1590.

Native Hawaiians descend from Polynesian ancestors who arrived in the islands about 400 CE, or about 1600 years ago. Captain Cook, began the age of European contact in Hawaii in 1778.

Five Possibilities

There are five possible origins of haplogroup O in the Americas.

  • Traditional migration across Beringia with the known migrations, estimated to have occurred about 12-16K years ago.
  • A Kelp Highway Coastal Migration which may have occurred about 12-16K years ago and dispersed over the next 3-5K years.
  • Circumpolar migration – specifically Inuit and Na-Dene speakers, about 4-6K years ago.
  • Post-contact incorporation from the Pacific Islands resulting from shipping trade on colonial era ships sometime after 1565.
  • Post-contact incorporation from Madagascar resulting from the importation of humans who may or may not have been enslaved upon arrival.

Do we have any additional evidence?

Other Haplogroup O DNA

From my book, DNA for Native American Genealogy:

Testers in haplogroup O-BY60500 and subclade O-FT45548 have proven Native American heritage.

We have multiple confirmed men from a common ancestor who is proven to be an enslaved Accomack “Indian boy,” James Revell, born in 1656, “belonging to the Motomkin” village, according to the Accomack County, Virginia court records. These men tested as members of haplogroup O-F3288 initially, after taking the Big Y-500 test. However, upgrading to the Big Y-700 produced more granular results and branches reflecting mutations that occurred since their progenitor was born in 1656.

Unfortunately, other than known descendants, these men have few close Y-DNA or Big Y-700 matches.

Without additional men testing from different unrelated lines, or ancient haplogroup O being discovered, we cannot confirm that this haplogroup O male’s ancestor was not introduced into the Matomkin Tribe in some way post-contact. Today, one descendant from this line is a member of the Lumbee Tribe.

However, that isn’t the end of the haplogroup O story.

The Genographic Project data shows one Haplogroup O Tlingit tribal member from Taku, Alaska, along with several testers from Mexico that indicate their paternal line is indigenous. Some people from Texas identify their paternal line as Hispanic.

Another individual indicates they were born on the Fountain Indian Reserve, in British Columbia and speaks the St’at’imcets language, an interior branch of Coastal Salish.

Haplogroup O has been identified as Native American in other locations as well.

Much of the information about Haplogroup O testers was courtesy of the Genographic Project, meaning we can’t contact those people to request upgraded tests, and we can’t obtain additional information in addition to what they provided when they tested. As an affiliate researcher, I’m very grateful to the National Geographic Society’s Genographic project for providing collaborative data.

When the book was published, the Discover Time Tree had not yet been released. We have additional information available today, including the dates of haplogroup formation.

FamilyTreeDNA Haplotree and Discover

The FamilyTreeDNA Haplotree (not to be confused with the Discover Time Tree) shows 10 people at the O-M175 level in Mexico, 10 people in the US report Native American heritage, 2 in Jamaica, and one each in Peru, Panama, and Cuba. There’s also one tester from Madagascar.

Altogether, this gives us about 35 haplogroup O males in the Americas, several with Native heritage.

Please note that I’ve omitted Hawaii in this analysis and included only North and South America. The one individual selecting Native Hawaiian (Kanaka Maoli) is in haplogroup O-M133.

Let’s look at our three distinct clusters.

Cluster 1 – Pacific Northwest – Alaska and Canada

We have a cluster of three individuals along the Pacific Coast in Alaska and Canada who have self-identified as Native, provided a tribal affiliation, and, in some cases, the spoken language.

How might haplogroup O have arrived in or near Vancouver, Washington? We know that James Cook “discovered” Hawaii in 1778, naming it the Sandwich Islands. By 1787, a female Hawaiian died en route to the Pacific Northwest, and the following year, a male arrived. Hawaii had become a provisioning stop, and the Spanish took Hawaiians onto ships as replacement workers.

Hawaiian seamen, whalers, and laborers began intermarrying with the Native people along the West Coast as early as 1811. Their presence expanded from Oregon to Alaska. Migration and intermarriage along the Pacific coast began slowly, but turned into a steady stream 30 years later when we have confirmed recruitment and migration of Hawaiian people

In 1839, John Sutter recruited a small group of 10 Hawaiians to travel with him to the then-Mexican colony of Alta, California.

By the mid-1800s, hundreds of Hawaiians lived in Canada and California. In 1847, it was reported that 10% of San Francisco’s residents were Hawaiian. Some of those people integrated with the Native American people, particularly the Miwok and Maidu. The village of Verona, California was tri-lingual: Hawaiian, a Native language, and English, and is today the Sacramento-Verona Tribe.

This article provides a history of the British Company who administered Fort Vancouver, near Vancouver, Washington, that included French-Canadians, Native Americans and Hawaiians. In 1845, 119 Hawaiians were employed at the fort. One of the 119, Opunuia, had signed on as an “engagé,” meaning some type of hired hand or employee, with the Hudson Bay Company for three years, after which he would be free to return home to Honolulu or establish himself in the Oregon Country. He married a woman from the Cascade Tribe.

The descendants of the Hawaiian men and Native women were considered tribal members. In most tribes, children took the tribal status and affiliation of the mother.

The Taku and Sitka, Alaska men on the map are Tlingit, and the man from British Columbia is from the Fountain Indian Reserve.

Hawaiian recruitment is the most likely scenario by which haplogroup O arrived in the tribes of the Pacific Northwest. In that sense, haplogroup O is indeed Native American but not indigenous to that region. The origins of haplogorup O in the Pacific Northwest are likely found in Hawaii, where it is indigenous, and before that, Polynesia – not due to a Beringian crossing.

Cluster 2 – Mexico

We find a particularly interesting small cluster of 4 haplogroup O individuals in interior Mexico.

In the 1500s, Spain established a trade route between Mexico and Manilla in the Philippines.

In 1564, four ships left Mexico to cross the Pacific to claim Guam and the Philippines for King Philip II of Spain. The spice trade, back and forth between Mexico and the Philippines began the following year and continued for the next 250.

Landings occurred along the California coast and the western Mexican coastline. The majority of the galleon crews were Malaysian and Filipino who were paid less than the Spanish sailors. Slaves, including people from the Marianas were part of the lucrative cargo.

One individual in Texas reports haplogroup O and indicates their paternal ancestors were Hispanic/Native from Mexico. A haplogroup O cluster claiming Native heritage is found near Zacatecas, Fresnillo and San Luis Potosi in central Mexico. Additionally, mitochondrial haplogroup F, also Asian, is found there as well. Acapulco is the lime green pin.

An additional haplogroup O tester with Native heritage is found in Lima, Peru.

Haplogroup O men are found in Panama, Jamaica and Cuba, but do not indicate the heritage of their paternal ancestral line. None of these men have taken Big-Y tests, and some may well have arrived on the slave ships from Madagascar, especially in the Caribbean. This source attributes some enslaved people in Jamaica to Hawaiian voyages.

I strongly suspect that the Mexican/Peru grouping in close proximity to the Pacific coastline is the result of the Manilla-Mexico 250-year trade route. The Spanish also plied those waters regularly. Big Y testing of those men would help flesh-out their stories – when and how haplogroup O arrived in the local population.

Cluster 3 – East Coast

At first glance, the East Coast grouping of men with a genetic affinity to the people of the Philippines and Indonesia seems more difficult to explain, but perhaps not.

On the East Coast, we have confirmed reports of whalers near Nantucket as early as 1765 utilizing crewmen from Hawaii, known then as the Sandwich Islands, Tahiti, and the Cape Verde Islands off of Africa. A thorough review of early literature might well reveal additional information about early connections with the Sandwich Islands, and in particular, sailors, crew, or enslaved people.

The Spanish and French were the first to colonize the Philippines by the late 1500s. They had discovered the Solomon Islands, Melanesia, and other Polynesian Islands, and by the early 1600s, the Dutch were involved as well.

The Encyclopedia Britanica further reports that Vasco Balboa first sailed into the Pacific in 1513 and seven years later, Ferdinand Magellan rounded the tip of South America. The Spanish followed, establishing a galley trade between Manila, in the Philippines and Acapulco in western Mexico.

While I found nothing specific stating that the earliest voyages brought men from the Philippines and Oceania back to their European home ports with them, we know that early European captains on exploratory voyages took Native people from the east coast of the Americas on their return journey, so there’s nothing to preclude them from doing the same from the Pacific. The early explorers stayed for months among the Oceanic Native peoples. If they were short on sailors for their return voyage, Polynesian men filled the void.

We know that the Spanish took slaves as part of their trade. We know that the ships in the Pacific took sailors from the islands. If the men themselves didn’t stay in the locations they visited, it’s certainly within the realm of possibility that they fathered children with local, Native women. Furthermore, given that the slave trade was lucrative, it’s also possible that some Pacific Island slaves were taken not as crew but with the intention of being sold into bondage. Other men may have escaped the ships and hidden among the Native Tribes along the eastern seaboard.

Fishing in Newfoundland and exploration in what would become the US was occurring by 1500, so it’s certainly possible that some of the indigenous people from Indonesia and the Philippines were either stranded, sold to enslavers, escaped, or chose to join the Native people along the coastline in North America. Ships had to stop to resupply rations and take on fresh water.

We know that by the mid-1600s, James Revels, whose father carried haplogroup O, had been born on the Atlantic coast of Virginia or Maryland, probably on the Delmarva Peninsula, short for Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, where the Accomac people lived.

There are other instances of haplogroup O found along the east coast.

On the eastern portion of the haplogroup O map from the book, DNA for Native American Genealogy, we find the following locations:

  • Hillburn, NY – man identified as “Native American Black.”
  • Chichester County, PA – Genographic tester identified the location of his earliest known ancestor – included here because O is not typically found in the states.
  • Accomack County, VA – Delmarva peninsula – James Revels lineage
  • Robeson County, NC – Lewis and Revels surname associated with the Lumbee
  • Chatham County, NC – Lynn ancestor’s earliest known location
  • Greene County, NC – enslaved Blount ancestor’s EKA in 1849

The genesis of Mr. Blount’s enslaved ancestor is unclear. Fortunately, he took a Big Y-700 test.

Mr. Blount’s only Big-Y match is to a man from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), but the haplogroup history includes Thailand, which is the likely source of both his and his UAE matches’ ancestors at some point in time. Their common ancestor was in Thailand in 336 CE, almost 1700 years ago.

All surrounding branches of haplogroup O on the Time Tree have Asian testers, except for the one UAE gentleman.

The Blount Haplogroup O-FTC77008 does not connect with the common ancestral haplogroup of Lynn and Revels, so these lineages are only related someplace in Oceana prior to O-F265, or more about  30,000 years ago. Their only commonality other than their Asian origins is that they arrived on the East Coast of the Americas.

We know that the Spanish were exploring the Atlantic coastline in the 1500s and were attempting to establish colonies. In 1566, a Spanish expedition reached the Delmarva Peninsula. This spit of land was contested and changed hands several times, belonging variously to the Spanish, Dutch, and British by 1664.

Furthermore, we also know that the ships were utilizing slave labor. One of the Spanish ships wrecked in the waters off North Carolina near Hatteras or Roanoke Island before the Lost Colony was abandoned on Roanoke Island in 1587. The Croatan Indians reported that in memorable history, several men, some of whom were reported to be slaves, had survived the wreck and “disappeared” into the hinterlands – clearly running for their lives.

These men, if they survived, would have been incorporated into the Native population as there were no other settlements at the time. Variations of this scenario may have played out many times.

James Revels’ ancestor could have arrived on any ship, beginning with exploration and colonization in the early 1500s through the mid-1650s.

By the time the chief bound the Indian boy who was given the English name James to Edward Revell, James’s Oceanic paternal ancestor could have been 4, 5 or 6 generations in the past – or could have been his father.

The Accomack was a small tribe, loosely affiliated with the Powhatan Confederacy along the Eastern Shore. By 1700, their population had declined by approximately 90% due to disease. A subgroup, the Gingaskins, intermarried with African Americans living nearby. After Nat Turner’s slave rebellion of 1831, they were expelled from their homelands.

The swamps near Lumberton in Robeson County, NC, became a safe haven for many mixed-race Native, African, and European people. The swamps protected them, and they existed, more or less undisturbed, for decades. Revels and Lewis descendants are both found there.

Many Native Americans were permanently enslaved alongside African people – and within a generation or so, their descendants knew they were Native and African, but lost track of which ancestors descended from which groups. Life was extremely difficult back then. Generations were short, and enslaved people were moved from place to place and sold indiscriminately, severing their family ties entirely, including heritage stories.

Returning to the Discover Time Tree Maps

Wesley Revels has STR matches with several men from Indonesia, China, and the Philippines. It would be very helpful if those men would upgrade to the Big Y-700 so that we can more fully complete the haplogroup O branches of the Time Tree.

The common Revels/Lewis ancestor, accompanied by two descendant men on different genetic branches from the Philippines, was born about 5180 years ago. There is no evidence to suggest Haplogroup O-FT11768 was born anyplace other than in the Philippines.

How did the descendant haplogroups of O-FT45548 (Revels, Lewis, and an unnamed man) and O-F22410 (Lynn) arrive in Virginia or anyplace along the Atlantic seaboard?

Hawaii wasn’t settled until about 1600 years ago. We know Hawaiians integrated with the Pacific Coast Native tribes in the 1800s, but James Revels was in Virginia in 1656..

We know that the Spanish established a mid-1500s trade route between Manila and Acapulco, leaving their genetic signature in western Mexico.

None of these events fit the narrative for the Revels or the Lynn paternal ancestor.

Furthermore, the Revels and Lynn lines do not connect on North American soil, as both descend from the same parent haplogroup, O-FT11768, 5180 years ago in the Philippines. This location and history suggest a connection with the Spanish galleon trade era. The haplogroup formation clearly predates that trade, which means those men were still in the Philippines, not already living on the American continents. Therefore, the descendants of the haplogroup O-FT11768 arrived in Virginia and North Carolina sometime after that haplogroup formation 5100 years ago.

The Lynn ancestor connects with a man from Singapore in 760 CE, or just 1240 years ago. A descendant of haplogroup O-F22410 arrived in North Carolina sometime later.

It does not appear, at least not on the surface, that there is a connection through Madagascar, although we can’t rule that out without additional testers. If the connection is through Madagascar, then their ancestors were likely transported from Indonesia to Madagascar, then as enslaved people from Madagascar to the Atlantic colonies to be sold. However, James Revels was not enslaved. He was clearly Native and bound to a European plantation owner, who did, in fact, free him as agreed and subsequently loaned him money.

Based on the dates involved, and when we know they were in Oceania, an arrival along the west coast, followed by a quick migration across the country to a peninsula of land in the Atlantic, is probably the least likely scenario. There is also no historical or ancient haplogroup O DNA found anyplace between the west and east coasts, nor in the Inuit or Na-Dene speakers. The Navajo, who speak the Na-Dené language, migrated to the Southwest US around 1400 CE, but haplogroup O has not been found among Na-Dené speakers.

It’s a long way from Singapore and the Philippines to Madagascar, so while the coastal migration scenario is not impossible, it’s also not probable, especially given what we know about the Spanish Pacific trade that existed profitably for 250 years.

However, one haplogroup O subgroup arrived in the UAE by some methodology after 336 CE.

It’s entirely possible, indeed probable, that haplogroup O arrived in the Americas for various reasons, on different paths, in different timeframes.

Haplogroup O was found in people in the Americas after colonization had begun. There has been no ancient Haplogroup O DNA discovered, and there’s evidence indicating that these instances of haplogroup O could not have arrived in any of the known Beringia migrations nor the theorized Coastal or Kelp migration. We know the East Coast Cluster is not a result of the West Coast 19th-century migration because James Revels was in court one hundred and fifty years before the Hawaiians were living among the Native people along the Pacific coastline.

There’s nothing to indicate that the Mexican group that likely arrived beginning in the mid-1500s for the next 250 years as a result of the Indonesian trade route migrated to the east coast, or vice versa. That’s also highly unlikely.

The most likely scenario is that Mr. Lynn’s, Mr. Blount’s, and James Revels’ ancestors were brought on trade ships, either as sailors or enslaved men. They may not have stayed, simply visited. They may each have arrived in a completely different scenario, meaning Mr. Blount’s ancestors could have been enslaved arrivals from Madagascar, Mr. Lynn’s from Indonesia, and Mr. Revel’s as a crew member on a Spanish ship. We simply don’t know.

James Revels’ descendants were Native through his mother’s tribe, as confirmed in the 1667 court records. However, the Revels and Lynn lineages weren’t Native as a result of their paternal haplogroup O ancestors crossing Beringia into the Americas with Native American haplogroups Q and C. Instead, the Lynn and Revels migration story is quite different. Their ancestors arrived by ship. The journey was long, perilous, and far more unique than we could have imagined, taking them halfway around the world by water.

Timeline

There’s a lot of information to digest, so I’ve compiled a timeline incorporating both genetic and historical information for easy reference.

  • 30,000 years ago (28,000 BCE) – haplogroup O-F265, common Asian ancestor  of Mr. Blount, the Revels/Lewis group, Mr. Lynn, and an unknown Big-Y tester in the Malagasy group project
  • 12,000-16,000 years ago – Indigenous Americans arrived across now-submerged Beringia
  • 12,000-16,000 years ago – possible Coastal Migration route may have facilitated a secondary source of indigenous arrival along the Pacific coastline of the Americas
  • 4000-7000 years ago – circumpolar migration arrival of Inuit and Na-Dené speakers found in the Arctic polar region and the Navajo in the Southwest who migrated from Alaska/Canada about 1400 CE
  • 5180 years ago (3180 BCE) – haplogroup O-FT11768, the common ancestor of Mr. Lynn and the Revels/Lewis group with many subgroups in the Philippines, Hawaii, Singapore, Brunei, China, Sumatra, and Thailand
  • 2244 years ago (244 BCE) – haplogroup O-CTS716, the common ancestor of Wesley Revels and Mr. Luo from Indonesia
  • The year 336 CE, 1684 years ago – haplogroup O-FTC77008, the common ancestor of Mr. Blount, UAE tester and a man from Thailand
  • 400 CE, 1600 years ago  –  Hawaii populated by Polynesian people
  • 760 CE, 1240 years ago – haplogroup O-F22410, common ancestor of Mr. Lynn with a Singapore man
  • 1492 CE, 528 years ago – Columbus begins his voyages to the “New World,” arriving in the Caribbean
  • By 1504 CE – European fishing began off of Newfoundland
  • 1565 – Spain claimed Guam and the Philippines
  • 1565 – Spanish trade between Manilla and Acapulco begins and continues for 250 years, until 1815, using crews of men from Guam, the Philippines, and enslaved people from the Marianas.
  • 1565 – St. Augustine (Florida) was founded by the Spanish as a base for trade and conquest along the eastern seaboard
  • 1566 – A Spanish expedition reached the Delmarva peninsula intending to establish a colony, but bad weather thwarted that attempt.
  • 1585-1587 – voyages of discovery by the English and the Lost Colony on Roanoke Island, North Carolina
  • 1603 – English first explored the Delmarva Peninsula, home to the Accomac people, now Accomack County, VA, where James Revels’s court record was found in 1667
  • 1607 – Jamestown, Virginia, founded by the English
  • 1608 – Colonists first arrived on the Delmarva Peninsula and allied with Debedeavon, whom they called the “laughing King” of the Accomac people. At that time, the Accomac had 80 warriors. Debedeavon was a close friend to the colonists and saved them from a massacre in 1622. He died in 1657.
  • 1620 – The Mayflower arrived near present-day Provincetown, Massachusetts
  • 1631-1638 – Dutch West India Company established a colony on the Delmarva Peninsula, but after conflicts, it was destroyed by Native Americans in 1638. The Swede’s colony followed, and the region was under Dutch and Swedish control until it shifted to British control in 1664
  • 1656 – Birth of James Revels, confirmed in a 1667 court record stating that he was an Accomack “Indian boy” from “Matomkin,” judged to be age 11, bound to Edward Revell. This location is on the Delmarva Peninsula.
  • 1741 CE –  Haplogroup O-BY60500 formation date that includes all of the Revels and Lewis testers who descend from James Revels born in 1656
  • 1765 – Whalers near Nantucket using crewmen from Hawaii (Sandwich Islands), Tahiti, and the Cape Verde Islands off of Africa
  • 1766 CE – Formation date for haplogroup O-FT45548, child haplogroup of O-BY60500, for some of the Lewis and Revels men who all descend from James Revels born in 1656
  • 1778 – Captain Cook makes contact with Hawaiian people
  • 1787 – The first male arrived in the Pacific Northwest from Hawaii
  • 1811 – Hawaiian seamen begin intermarrying with Native American females along the Pacific shore, eventually expanding their presence from Oregon to Alaska
  • 1839 – John Suter recruits Hawaiian men to travel with him to California
  • 1845 – Hawaiians employed by Fort Vancouver, with some marrying Native American women

Conclusions

It’s without question that James Revels was Native American very early in the settlement of the Delmarva Peninsula, now Accomack County, Virginia, but his common ancestor with Filipino men 5100 years ago precludes his direct paternal ancestor’s presence in the Americas at that time. In other words, his Revel male ancestor did not arrive in the Beringian indigenous migration 12,000-16,000 years ago. His ancestor likely arrived post-contact, based on a combination of both historical and genetic evidence.

Haplogroup O is not found in the Arctic Inuit nor the Na-Dene speakers, precluding a connection with either group, and has never been found in ancient DNA in the Americas.

Haplogroup O in the Revels lineage is most likely connected with the Spanish galleon trade with the Philippines and the early Spanish attempts to colonize the Americas.

The source of Haplogroup O in the Pacific Northwest group is likely found in the recruitment of Hawaiian men in the early/mid-1800s.

The Mexican Haplogroup O group likely originated with the Manilla/Mexico Spanish galleon trade.

The source of the Blount Haplogroup O remains uncertain, other than to say it originated in Thailand thousands of years ago and is also found in the UAE. The common Blount, UAE, and Thailand ancestor’s haplogroup dates to 336 CE, so they were all likely in or near Thailand at that date, about 1687 years ago.

What’s Next?

Science continuously evolves, revealing new details as we learn more, often clarifying or shifting our knowledge. Before the Discover tool provided haplogroup ages based on tests from men around the world, we didn’t have the necessary haplogroup origin and age data to understand the genesis of haplogroup O in the Americas. Now, we do, but there is invariably more to learn.

New evidence is always welcome and builds our knowledge base. Haplogroup O ancient DNA findings would be especially relevant and could further refine what we know, depending on the location, dates of the remains, who they match, and historical context.

Additional Big Y-700 tests of haplogroup O men, especially those with known genealogy or ancestor location, including Madagascar, would be very beneficial and allow the haplogroup formation dates to be further refined.

If you are a male with haplogroup O, please consider upgrading to the Big Y-700 test, here.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Étienne Hebert (c1625-c1670): Two French Brothers & Their Ancient Ancestors – 52 Ancestors #413

In the book, Les vielles familles d’Yamachiche: vingt-trois généalogies, v. 4 published in 1908 in Ontario, we discover that Étienne Hebert is one of two brothers who came from France and settled in Acadia, now Nova Scotia. Étienne married Marie Gaudet and Antoine Hebert married Genevieve LeFranc.

We know that Étienne and Antoine were brothers because in the 2nd marriage record for Jean-Jacques Hébert (1681-?) to Marguerite Leprince on April 27, 1734, at Saint-Charles-les-Mines, they were granted a dispensation from a 3rd degree consanguine relationship. The only overlap in their two family trees would be the parents of Étienne and Antoine Hebert.

Thank goodness for those church records.

Origins

Stephen A. White provided the following information about Étienne.

HÉBERT, Étienne, came from France with his wife Marie Gaudet, according to nine depositions: one from his grandson Jean Hébert (Doc. inéd., Vol. III, p. 11), one from Pierre Trahan, husband of his granddaughter Madeleine Comeau (ibid., p. 8), one from Pierre and Madeleine’s son Pierre Trahan (ibid., pp. 110-111) and one from their nephews Sylvestre and Simon Trahan (ibid., p. 30), two from husbands of Étienne’s great-granddaughters (ibid., Vol. II, p. 182; Vol. III, p. 90), one from a great-great-grandson (ibid., Vol. III, pp. 93-94), and two from husbands of his great-great-granddaughters (ibid., pp. 45, 92-93). Seven of these depositions name his wife as Marie Gaudet; only those of the two Pierre Trahans, father and son, do not.

Lucy LeBlanc Consentino documents these priceless depositions here.

Parents

There have been several proposed and presumed parents of Étienne and Antoine Hebert. None are proven, and some have been disproven. I’m not going to recount each theory here. I’ll briefly mention the most common ones and strongly suggest that anyone tempted to assign parents for these men consult existing resources and arguments first.

Tim Hebert’s website is no longer online, but you can view it here at Wayback Machine. Tim did an exceptional job documenting the various theories and Hebert descendants.

It has been said that possibly the brothers were from south of Loudon (LaChaussee, Martaize, etc.), however, since Charles Menou d’Aulnay’s family had land in that vicinity. If he recruited settlers from that area, there is a chance they came from there, but there is no proof of where they (or most other) Acadians came from. The linguistic studies by Genevieve Massignon tried to say that they were from the Loudon area, but perhaps she was focusing too much. It is probably true that they came from western France. But the lack of documentation in the Loudon region means that perhaps we’re looking in the wrong place. Michael Poirier has suggested they came from west of Loudon at the coast … near Baie de Bourgneuf.

He bases this on:
– the location of the monastery of the Assumption (on the island Chauvet), which was regularly attended by Richelieu and was the property of his brother, Alphonse.
– Port-Royal and the church of St Jean-Baptiste
– salt-water marshes in the area were drained … much like the dyke system utilized in Acadia
– it was a zone surrounded by Protestants and enclosing Catholics

Genevieve Massignon (1921-1966) argues that a number of familial alliances existed among the first Acadian settlers PRIOR to their arrival from France, pointing to a common French origin. She believes they lived in the Acadian Governor d’Aulnay’s seigneury in France near Loudun (comprised of the villages of Angliers, Aulnay, Martaizé, and La Chausée). The Hébert family was allied with the Gaudets through Étienne’s marriage to Marie. Marie’s sister Francoise was also allied with the Leblanc family through her marriage to Daniel. Evidence of their marriages in France is found in the Belle-Isle-en-Mer declarations in 1767. Moreover, a certain Jean Gaudet was censistaire in 1634 on land at Martaizé (Vienne) in the Seigneurie owned by the mother of Acadian governor Charles d’Aulnay. However, Massignon’s research failed to find any relevant baptismal or marriage records.

Another couple, Jacques Hebert and Marie Juneau have been debunked as parents, based on the date of their marriage and analysis by Stephen White. Jacques was found in Acadia 30 years before Étienne and Antoine, then moved into mainland Canada. It’s unlikely that his two sons would be found in Acadia and not near or with him. Not to mention the depositions that state that Étienne and Antoine were born in France.

Another parent candidate was Louis Habert who is generally considered to have been the first permanent settler in Canada, arriving in 1604. He married Marie Rolet in Paris in 1602 but wasn’t known to live in Acadia. Spelling variations of this family name include Hebert, Harbert, Herbert, Herbot, Harbelot, and others. You can read more about this at FamilySearch here.

One source stated that Stephen White reported that Etienne Hebert arrived on the ship, La Verge in 1648. Karen Theriot Reader, upon further examination, determined that the page given as the source does not in fact provide that information, nor elsewhere by White.

However, the Verve did arrive in 1648, chartered by Emmanuel LeBorgne, Sieur of Coudray, to transport supplies. No passenger list exists, and several ships arrived in Acadia over the years.

In a letter to Tim Hebert, Stephen White stated that their parents are “unknown.” No birth records have been found, and White found none of the proposed parents convincing or even probable.

We simply don’t know when and where Étienne and Antoine were born. It’s fair to say it was in France because families weren’t imported until 1636. The Hebert brothers were born in the 1620s. They would have been teenagers or young men in 1636.

What Was Happening in Acadia?

Warm up your tea or coffee, ‘cause this is a fascinating tale.

Acadia was truly the frontier and constantly caught in the middle in a tug of war between France and England for control of both the land and resources, along with the people.

Settlement in Acadia began in 1604, but we’re joining this history 28 years later.

In 1632, control of Acadia passed from the English back to the French, who immediately launched voyages transporting traders and workers, some of whom became settlers. Their initial goal wasn’t settlement, though, but trading posts.

Port Royal is shown on Champlain’s 1632 map.

Isaac de Razilly was a French noble sea captain and knight who convinced his cousin, Cardinal Richelieu, chief minister to the King of France, that colonizing and establishing fur trade with Acadia was a profitable business venture. As a bonus that probably sounded attractive to Richelieu, they could convert and baptize the Native people, too.

Razilly’s 1632 voyage on the L’Esperance a Dieu included about 300 people, mostly men with possibly 12-15 women. A French newspaper report from that time states that a third ship from Rochelle joined the other two. A mason, baker, nailmaker-blacksmith, joiners, gunsmiths, sawyers, laborers, and soldiers signed up.

In 1640, notarial records in La Rochelle, France, show many contracts of engagement for workers in Acadia, although most of those people aren’t shown in the 1671 census, meaning they either died or returned to France when their engagement was over. In 1640, at least 25 men and 5 women signed up.

Couillard-Despres in “Les Gouvernors” states that 63 men arrived on the Saint Clement in 1642 to assist Charles LaTour.

After Razilly’s death in 1635, his cousin, Charles de Menou d’Aulnay, de Charnisay prepared to take over the administration of Acadia. By this time, there were 44 inhabitants at Le Have, Razily’s base of operation. Sometime between 1635 and 1640, d’Aulnay moved the settlement to Port Royal, but the men who had married Native American women likely did not move with him.

However, Charles La Tour, who had lived in Acadia since he was 17 and was married to a Mi’kmaq woman, had other plans. His father, Claude, obtained a grant for Nova Scotia from the English king, and Charles was appointed Governor, serving from 1631-1642. In essence, the LaTour father-son duo had outsmarted d’Aulnay.

Workers still continued to arrive. The 1636 passenger list of the St. Jehan, including occupations and some location origins, still exists.

d’Aulnay and La Tour began as competitors, with LaTour working out of Cap Sable and the St. John River area with traders, and d’Aulnay, who moved the Acadian settlement from La Have to Port Royal, beginning cultivation. Given where we find Étienne Hebert living, he likely arrived with d’Aulnay.

However, the competition between those men soon became animosity, then open warfare, with both men claiming to be in charge of all of Acadia.

If you think there was no drama in a relatively unpopulated area, just try to keep this next bit straight.

In 1640, after LaTour’s Mi’kmaq wife died, he married a French Huguenot woman, Françoise-Marie Jacquelin, who had powerful connections.

In 1642, d’Aulnay had LaTour, a Huguenot, charged with treason against France. LaTour’s well-connected wife traveled to France to advocate on behalf of her husband, returning with a warship for him to defend himself.

Perhaps this was a bit hasty.

In the Spring of 1643, La Tour led a party of English mercenaries against the French Acadian colony at Port-Royal. His 270 Puritan and Huguenot troops killed three men, burned a mill, slaughtered cattle, and seized 18,000 livres worth of furs.

Apparently, LaTour was a traitor after all, at least from the French perspective.

LaTour then traveled to Boston seeking reinforcements from the English, and while he was gone, d’Aulnay seized all of his possessions and outposts, including Fort LaTour.

Are you keeping track of this? I think the score was 3 to 3 here, with a Hail Mary pass underway. Get the popcorn.

LaTour may have been traveling to Boston, but his wife, Françoise-Marie, had remained at home and was not about to relinquish Fort LaTour without a fight.

In the ensuing battle, Françoise-Marie, at the ripe old age of 23, defended Fort LaTour in the Battle of St. John for three days, using the warship. D’Aulnay lost 33 men but on the fourth day, was able to capture the fort. LaTour’s men were hung at the gallows as Françoise-Marie was forced to watch with a rope around her neck, just in case she got any bright ideas. She was clearly not a woman to be trifled with.

Françoise-Marie was not hung, but Nicolas Denys recorded in his journal that she died three weeks later as a prisoner in captivity. The cause remains unknown, but it’s safe to say that her death was a volley in war. 

After learning that his wife had died, his possessions confiscated, and his men killed, LaTour sought refuge in Quebec City. He did not return to Acadia for several years, but return he would – eventually.

For the time being, d’Aulnay was firmly in control, but that only lasted a few years.

In 1650, d’Aulnay drowned when his canoe overturned, which provided the opening LaTour had been waiting for. LaTour sailed to France, obtained royal favor, his property restored, and returned to Acadia as governor in 1653, accompanied by several new colonists, including Philippe Mius d’Entremont, 1st Baron of Pobomcoup.

It was about this time, around 1650, that Étienne Hebert married Marie Gaudet. Perhaps they hoped that living near her parents, a dozen miles upriver, would be more peaceful and less exposed to attack and conflict.

LaTour had remained a widower since his wife’s death defending Fort LaTour in 1645, but in 1653, he married…wait for it… d’Aulnay’s widow, Jeanne Motin. It was not a marriage in name only, as they had five children. Some said they married to heal the rift between the warring d’Aulnay and LaTour camps, some think it was simply a marriage of convenience for both, and others feel it was LaTour’s final victory over d’Aulnay. However, Jeanne was no shrinking violet because she evicted Nicolas Denys when he attempted to exploit d’Aulnay’s death by setting up trading posts at St. Ann and St. Peters.

LaTour wasn’t off the hook, though, because in an odd sort of way, d’Aulnay still managed to be a thorn in LaTour’s side – even from beyond the grave.

Along with d’Aulnay’s property and wife came his substantial debts to Emmanuel Le Borgne, his main financier from La Rochelle. There were two sides to this story because, as part of the deal, La Bourg and other seigneurs were supposed to recruit and transport new settlers to Acadia and care for them by building communal resources like mills and bake-ovens, but they didn’t.

It appears that the Acadians and their French sponsors were both relatively unhappy. The French did not live up to their end of the bargain by building mills and ovens, and consequently, the Acadians resisted paying taxes. Everyone resented the English, but the English needed the Acadian settlers to work the land. And, of course, the land passed back and forth between the French and English from time to time, punctuated by skirmishes and outright attacks.

Acadia, for an Atlantic peninsula of land with few people, was drama-central.

By 1653, it was estimated that there were 45-50 households at Port Royal and La Have, which provides us an estimate of 300-350 people, including 60 single men. Étienne Hebert was lucky to find a bride, any bride.

In 1654, Port Royal was still small, with approximately 270 residents, as estimated by pioneer Nicholas Denys. Denys was a French prisoner at Port Royal who had been responsible for recruiting volunteers for the 1632 Razilly expedition of 300 men from Rochelle, France. They landed at La Hève near modern Bridgewater, the eventual site of the Gaudet village. This location was near the upper reaches of the tidal portion of the Riviere du Dauphine, and their boat probably could not progress further.

Denys did us the favor of describing Port Royal in 1653:

There are numbers of meadows on both shores, and two islands which possess meadows, and which are 3 or 4 leagues from the fort in ascending. There is a great extent of meadows which the sea used to cover, and which the Sieur d’Aulnay had drained. It bears now fine and good wheat, and since the English have been masters of the country, the residents who were lodged near the fort have for the most part abandoned there houses and have gone to settle on the upper part of the river. They have made their clearings below and above this great meadow, which belongs at present to Madame de La Tour. There they have again drained other lands which bear wheat in much greater abundance than those which they cultivated round the fort, good though those were. All the inhabitants there are the ones whome Monsieur le Commandeur de Razilly had brought from France to La Have; since that time they have multiplied much at Port Royal, where they have a great number of cattle and swine.

The commentary about the French settling on the upper part of the river may be very important for the Hebert family because that’s exactly where they are found.

Denys also recorded that Robert Sedgewick of Boston had been ordered by Robert Cromwell to attack New Holland (New York). As Sedgewick prepared, a peace treaty was signed between the English and the Dutch. Since he was “all dressed up with nowhere to go,” he attacked Acadia in August 1654 and destroyed most of the settlements, including Port Royal, La Have, and the Saint John River village. Sedgewick left the area but appointed an Acadian council with Guillaume Trahan in charge. Some of the French may have returned to France at this point.

Denys doesn’t say if Sedgewick burned the upper river homesteads and farms or if he was satisfied with torching Port Royal. Living 12-14 miles away in the out-country may have been the saving grace of the Hebert and Gaudet families. Or, their homesteads and farms may have been destroyed, too. Certainly, if not burned out, they were devastated by Acadia falling to the English.

Acadia was back under English rule and would remain so until being returned, again, to the French in 1667.

After Sedgewick captured Acadia for the English, LaTour went to London to regain his property, again. Being a Protestant would have worked in his favor, as well as having led the English in raids against Port Royal in 1643.

In 1656, Cromwell granted property to two Englishmen and LaTour, but LaTour sold his share to the Englishmen and moved to Cap Sable, on the southern end of the peninsula, to attempt to live the rest of his life in peace.

We don’t know positively that the Hebert brothers were in Acadia at this time, but it’s almost assured. They had probably been in Acadia for between 10 and 30 years. If White is correct, they had resided in Acadia for eight years. Windows of immigration existed, but generally only when the French were in charge, although France imported settlers to other nearby parts of New France. The French were not imported directly into Acadia when the English ruled.

In 1666, France stopped sending colonists, ostensibly for fear of depopulating the mother-country. However, the English were still arriving in the colonies to escape religious prosecution and for economic reasons. Therefore, the Acadians were exposed to at least some English settlers, probably spoke and understood at least a little English, and established some level of trade with the English colonies along the Eastern seaboard.

By Mikmaq – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1351882

Given the 1671 census and the ages of his children, we know Étienne was married by 1651 and that his wife’s parents also settled in Acadia.

Life in Acadia always seemed to be contentious and apparently, in no small part, dangerous.

Étienne was probably in his mid to late 40s when he died, about 1670. He clearly didn’t die of old age, but probably as a result of hunting, fishing, or farming – some accident. Or, perhaps, there was a skirmish. It seemed like there was always some sort of skirmish, but a simple act of daily living such as fishing carried the risk of drowning.

The Catholic church records don’t exist, if they even had a priest at that time, so we don’t know when Étienne died. We can rest assured that, if possible, he was buried in the parish cemetery, now the Garrison Cemetery in Annapolis Royal, beside the fort and the Catholic church.

The First Acadian Census

Even though Acadia was officially returned to France in 1667, it didn’t actually happen right away. In 1670, the English surrendered the fort at Port Royal, apparently without incident. The new French governor arrived, bringing with him another 60 settlers and 30 soldiers. The new governor ordered a census, thankfully. He likely needed to know how many people would be paying taxes.

The first Acadian census was taken in 1671, documenting between 240 and 350  Acadian residents (depending which count you utilize) in 68 households in Port Royal and one household each in three other locations. Historians know some residents in settlements weren’t counted, and neither were Acadian/Native American families living with the Native people. Estimates of the entire Acadian population reach as high as 500.

Étienne was already deceased, but we can tell quite a bit from his widow’s census record, transcribed here by Lucy LeBlanc Consentino.

Marie Gaudet, widow of Étienne Hebert, 38. She has 10 children, two married children: Marie 20, Marguerite 19; Emmanuel 18, not yet married, Étienne 17, Jean 13, Francoise 10, Catherine 9, Martine 6, Michel 5, Antoine 1, 4 cattle, 5 sheep and 3 arpents of cultivated land.

This tells us that Etienne and Marie were married in about 1650, or maybe somewhat earlier. Their eldest living child was age 20. Étienne was probably about 25 years old when he married, so I’d estimate his birth year as 1625, give or take a few years. It appears that Marie Gaudet and her daughter, Marie Hebert, and her husband, Michel de Forest, and their families were probably living either on the same farm or even in the same house.

Marie’s youngest child was age 1, so we know that Étienne died sometime between 1669 and 1671.

His brother, Antoine Hebert is listed three houses away as a 50-year-old cooper, so he was born about 1621.

Hebert and Gaudet Allied Families

It’s clear that the Hebert family was somehow allied with the Gaudet family as early as 1650 when their children married. It’s possible that they married in France, or Acadia.

What we do know is that these two families lived in close proximity on the Riviere de Dauphine, now the Annapolis River.

This 1733 map at the Nova Scotia Archives is based on the 1707 census route and shows about a mile and a half or two miles distance between the Hebert and Gaudet homesteads – 57 years after Étienne Hebert and Marie Gaudet married.

Etienne Hebert lived along Bloody Creek, where the Hebert Village is found, courtesy of MapAnnapolis, below.

We know where Etienne, Marie, and their family lived and at least something about their life – but what else can we unearth?

The Hebert DNA Story

Eventually, the answer to where the Hebert brothers originated in France will be told through their Y-DNA, passed directly from father to son through the generations without ever being admixed with the mother’s DNA, or divided.

The Hebert family is well-represented in the Acadian AmerIndian Project with three Big-Y testers showing the same haplogroup. Haplogroup R-BY31006 was born about 1650, almost exactly when Étienne and his brother were marrying and having children near Fort Royal.

Click to enlarge any image

Two present-day project members descend from Étienne, and one descends from Étienne’s brother, Antoine. They have the same high-resolution haplogroup, so we know that their father had the same mutation that he gave to both sons. How I wish some Hebert men from France could test, but DNA testing for genealogy is illegal there.

Unfortunately, no other contemporary man of any surname is close to our Hebert cluster. The haplogroup ancestor upstream of R-BY31006 is the parent haplogroup R-BY31008 that occurred about 245 BCE, or 2245 years ago. The descendants of that man are also found in England, Norway, and Scotland, in addition to our Hebert men in France.

That’s quite interesting.

But there’s something even more interesting.

Ancient DNA

Looking at Ancient Connections in Discover, I note that one of the Hebert Ancient Connections was found in France and has been placed into haplogroup R-Z31644. I wonder what the connection is. Let’s take a look at that haplogroup.

The TimeTree shows us that nine ancient DNA samples are found on different haplogroup branches of R-Z31644, of which only one is found in Metz, France, and the rest in the British Isles. It’s unclear exactly what this means. Only the French sample and three others in England and Ireland are found in the current era, meaning after 1 CE. This was clearly prior to the Battle of Hastings in 1066, after which an influx of French settled in England.

Eight ancient DNA results are found in England, but none share a common ancestor earlier than 4300 years ago. Notably, one English burial from about 2000-2300 years ago shares a common ancestor with the Metz, France remains about 4000 years ago. The eight English remains, and our Metz guy descend from a common ancestor about 4300 years ago.

Did Étienne’s ancestors descend from the ancient sample at Metz? Maybe the study provides more clues.

According to the study’s authors:

The Sablon district, which is located in the southern part of the city of Metz, was, during the Gallo-Roman period, a huge necropolis where both inhumations and cremations are found. Towards the end of the 19th century, the exploitation of the sandpits enabled the uncovering of sarcophagi (stone), cists (brick and tile), coffins (wood) and vats (lead).

These characterise the new burial practices developed during late Antiquity. [Spans from about the 3rd to the 6th or 7th centuries.]

The largest funerary space spans almost a kilometre, on either side of the via Scarponensis (portion of the Reims/Metz road).

The Sablon area can be compared to the Collatina necropolis close to Rome by its chaotic organisation, although at a different scale

Looking at a map of Metz helps put this in context.

It’s unclear exactly where along this route the burials were discovered beginning in the late 1800s. They extend for more than a kilometer on both sides of the road in the Sablon neighborhood of Metz.

The Sablon neighborhood extends from near the old city center along the main artery that crosses railroad tracks that appear to sever the original road into the city.

Does the history of Metz tell us who lived there and what was occurring during this time? Indeed, it does.

Metz is located at the confluence of the Moselle and Seille rivers, near the junction of France, Germany, and Luxembourg. The original inhabitants were Celtic. The town was known as the “city of Mediomatrici,” a fortified city of the tribe by the same name.

The Mediomatrici village evolved into a Gallo-Celtic city after Julius Caesar conquered the Gauls in 52 BCE.

Named Divodurum Mediomatricum by the Romans, present-day Metz was integrated into the Roman empire in the first century CE, after which it was colloquially referred to as the Holy Village.

The historic district has kept part of the Gallo-Roman city with Divodurum’s Cardo Maximus, then called Via Scarponensis. Today, this is Trinitaires, Taison, and Serpenoise streets in the old city center, and the Decumanus Maximus, which is En Fournirue and d’Estrées streets. The Roman Forum was located at the Cardo and Decumanus intersection and is the Saint-Jacques Square today, as shown below.

By Alice Volkwardsen at German Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10681319

The ancient burial occurred between 432 and 551 CE, as calculated from a molar and was found in a very large Gallo-Roman necropolis, more than a kilometer long, located on both sides along the old Roman road.

This cityscape shows Divodurum Mediomatricum in the second century CE, capital of the Mediomatrici, ancestor city of present-day Metz. The original Roman amphitheater is shown at far left, and the living quarters are located within the city walls, protecting them from attack. A wonderful summary of archaeological findings can be found here.

Today the the Centre Pompidou-Metzocation is found at the site of the original large Roman amphitheater. This amphitheater held upwards of 25,000 people and was the largest and most consequential amphitheater outside of Rome.

Rome’s influence ended when the city was attacked, pillaged and burned by the Huns on April 7, 451, then passed into the hands of the Franks about 50 years later. By 511, Metz was the capital of the Kingdom of Austrasia.

How Does the Metz Burial Connect to England?

How do the dots between Metz and the British Isles connect, given that the common ancestor of our Metz burial and the British Isles burials has descendants scattered throughout the British Isles and in Metz?

The Celts first migrated to the British Isles about 1000 BCE, or about 3000 years ago, so this ancient French man and the other ancient burials in the British Isles make sense. Their common ancestor lived 4300 years ago in Europe. The closest common ancestor of our Metz man and any English burial occurred 4000 years ago, 1000 years before the earliest Celtic migrations across the English Channel.

This man from Metz lived 1500 or 1600 years ago and shares an ancestor with several ancient British men in addition to our Hebert line and was likely Celtic..

Of course, not every Celtic man left Europe. Many stayed and eventually integrated with whoever the next conquering army was. That ensured survival. Metz was a prize to be won, controlled over the centuries by many masters.

We don’t know if this specific Celtic man buried along the Gallo-Roman Road was a direct ancestor to our Hebert line, but if not, they were assuredly related and shared common ancestors. The descendants of haplogroup R-BY31008 are unquestionably the ancestors of our Hebert line.

Back to Étienne

Étienne’s Y-DNA has identified his ancestors as Celtic some 4000 years, or 200 generations ago.

More recently, his Y-DNA confirmed his connection to Antoine Hebert, and the church records of both of their descendants confirmed them as brothers.

Depositions given by Étienne’s grandchildren, spouses of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, nieces, and nephews confirm that Étienne was born in France, but, unfortunately, does not say where. This information alone debunked some of his parent candidates.

We find no suggestion of his parents in Acadia, although that’s not impossible. Many people died and never made it into existing records. The Hebert brothers likely arrived together as young men. Antoine may have married in France, as his wife’s surname is not found in Acadia. Of course, her father could have died and left no record. Étienne’s wife’s family lives next to the Heberts in Acadia, but we don’t know if Étienne and Marie Gaudet married in France or after arrival in Acadia.

How well did Étienne remember France? Did he look over his slice of countryside along the Riviere du Dauphine, with its dikes holding the tidal river at bay, and think of similar dikes constructed by his ancestors in France?

What about his parents?

Did they die, or did he sail away, knowing he and his brother would never see them or their siblings again?

Did their family shrink into tiny dots on the horizon, waving from the wharf, then disappear forever?

Did the brothers leave because they wanted to, or did they leave perhaps because they had no family left? Often, orphans had few options in their home country, and any opportunity was welcomed.

Did Étienne marry Marie Gaudet in Acadia, or did they marry someplace in France, then two Hebert boys immigrating to the new land with the Gaudet family?

In one way, we know so much – that Étienne matches an ancient Celtic burial in Metz who died about 1500 years ago, with whom he shared a common ancestor about 4000 years ago – yet we can’t identify Étienne’s parents. At least not today, but hope springs eternal. Two years ago, we didn’t know this.

Hopefully, one day, DNA testing for genealogy will be available to men in France. Our answers lie in Hebert men in some small French village, probably along a river that was once a highway of history.

Acknowledgments

I’m incredibly grateful to the Hebert men who have taken the Big Y-700 DNA test at FamilyTreeDNA, and to FamilyTreeDNA, because without those tests and the Discover tool that includes ancient DNA connections, we would never be able to peer beyond the mists of time into their deep ancestry.

As more men test and more academic studies and ancient DNA results are added to the Discover database, we’ll continue to learn more. The Big-Y DNA test is the gift that just keeps on giving.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on, and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

New Discover Tool – Compare Haplogroups & More at FamilyTreeDNA

FamilyTreeDNA has introduced a great new Y-DNA tool – Compare – as part of Discover. I wrote about how to use Discover, here.

The new Compare feature compares two haplogroups, including where they fall on the haplotree in relationship to each other, time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA), TimeTree, and more.

It’s easy.

All you do is enter two haplogroups.

Click to enlarge any image

Here’s how.

Enter Haplogroups

You can enter the haplogroups to compare either through your account at FamilyTreeDNA or directly into Discover.

If you’ve signed in and taken any Y-DNA test, you can click through to Discover from your account, or, you can simply navigate to Discover. The Compare feature is publicly available and free, of course.

You can compare any Y-DNA haplogroup with any other haplogroup from your match list, from a project, or just at random.

Let’s say I was viewing the Estes surname project or the Estes project Group Time Tree, and found my ancestor’s lineage. Maybe I don’t know that haplogroup R-M269 is a very common mid-level predicted haplogroup, and I don’t know that R-ZS3700 is only discovered and confirmed via a Big Y-700 test.

I want to compare their haplogroups.

As an excited genealogist, I have questions.

  • How far apart are haplogroup R-ZS3700 and R-M269?
  • Have either or both of these men taken a Big Y test?
  • What commonalities do the two haplogroups have?
  • Does one descend from another?

In this case, I know these haplogroups are found in a specific ancestral cluster in a surname project, but I could compare any two haplogroups at random.

Compare!

Let’s let Compare do its magic.

If you click through to Discover from your Y-DNA page, “you” are the orange profile. Otherwise, the orange profile is the first haplogroup entered.

Compare shows me LOTs of information.

To begin with, you can see which two haplogroups are being compared. This report tells us that R-ZS3700 is a direct descendant of R-M269. By looking at the dates in the little pedigree chart, you can see that R-ZS3700 originated in the year 1700, roughly, and R-M269 in about 4350 BCE, or approximately 6350 years ago.

This tells me, indirectly, that R-ZS3700 has taken a Big Y test, and the R-M269 man has not. The other clue is the message at bottom left encouraging an upgrade. One or both men have not taken the Big Y.

In the center-left, we have the path from ZS3700, the most refined haplogroup, to R-M269 on top, and beneath, the path from R-M269 to Y-Adam.

You can mouse over any of these haplogroups to view a brief description and their age.

There’s still more, though.

At the bottom right, you can see that both of these haplogroups connect to Collin Charvis, with the younger, more refined haplogroup more closely connected, of course.

Both haplogroups have connections to the Allen Ancient Genome Diversity Project out of the Reich lab. Now I’m getting really excited!

Check each haplogroup in Discover for additional information about these ancient and modern connections.

Scrolling down to the bottom of the page, we see the Discover Compare Timeline with the two compared haplogroups.

What About Completely Different Haplogroups?

When haplogroups are entirely different, Discover Compare searches for date and time information, then searches for commonalities.

In this example, the two haplogroups, J-FT1 and I-BY44445, are entirely different. The path to their common, joining haplogroup is shown in the tree at right.

At left, the ancestral path of each is shown, reaching back to their common haplogroup, then, at the bottom, the common haplogroup, IJ-P124 is tracked back to Y-Adam.

Even with these widely divergent haplogroups, both have an Entrepreneur connection, albeit in different haplogroups. The lucky haplogroup J-FT1 person connects with Bennett Greenspan, founder of FamilyTreeDNA.

Both have ancient connections found in Germany as well.

Let’s look at a few more examples.

The commonality between these haplogroup I and R samples is that both have an actor connection, and both have a connection in ancient DNA from a common study.

Of course, reviewing each haplogroup that you’ve compared shows you their individual information. In this case, you can view more about the Salme 2-Õ ancient individual.

You can also google the common study to discover what is known about the location, excavation, and the heritage of the people who lived there.

As I played with this new Compare tool, I found additional categories for Presidential connections, Author connections, Clan connections, and Location connections, such as the US State of Maryland in one case and the country of Hungary in another.

I’ve been asking for some time for a tool to compare haplogroups, so I’m very pleased! FamilyTreeDNA went the extra mile to include additional information.

Your family members who might not be particularly interested in DOING genealogy might be quite interested in this interesting information – and would be glad to let you test their Y-DNA and research genealogy on behalf of your family. Fingers crossed! That’s a win-win for everyone.

FamilyTreeDNA has included a share function in the upper right-hand corner of each page for exactly this reason. Let’s share and get our family members excited about genetic genealogy. The more cousins that test, the more you’ll know, and the more refined the Y-DNA haplotree becomes.

There is probably a lot more to discover, pardon the pun, in the new Compare feature. It was just released today, so I’m sure I haven’t found everything.

Check Compare out with your matches’ or ancestors’ haplogroups, and let me know what fun things you find.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research