About Roberta Estes

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

The Mystery of the Blue Fugates and Smiths: A Study in Blue Genes and Pedigree Collapse

The story of the Blue Fugates, an Appalachian family, is quite interesting, from a genetic perspective, a genealogical perspective, and a genetic genealogy perspective.

Who Are the Blue Fugates?

Martin Fugate, supposedly an orphan from France, and his bride, Elizabeth Smith, who had married by 1840, have long been attributed as the progenitors of the Blue Fugate Family of Troublesome Creek, in and around Perry County, Kentucky.

Their descendants were known as “The Blue Fugates” and also “The Blue People of Kentucky” because some of their children and descendants carried a recessive autosomal genetic trait, Methemoglobinemia.

Methemoglobinemia causes the skin to appear blue due to an oxygen deficiency in the red blood cells. Some people only exhibit this characteristic, or even just blue tinges in their fingernails and lips, when they are cold or agitated, such as when infants cry. Yet others are very, very blue.

Inheritance

In order for someone to exhibit the autosomal recessive trait of blueness due to Methemoglobinemia, they must inherit a copy of the gene from BOTH PARENTS. That’s why this trait is so rare.

  • If the parents have only one copy each, they are carriers and will not have the condition themselves.
  • If one parent carries either one or two copies, and the other parent does NOT carry a copy, their offspring CANNOT carry two copies of the mutation and will not be blue.
  • If both parents carry a copy, and both parents pass their copy on to their offspring, the offspring will probably exhibit some level of blueness – from just a tinge when they are cold, ill or or upset, to very, very blue.

I’m not a physician, so I’m not delving into the medical specifics of Methemoglobinemia, but suffice it to say that levels of 10-20% of methemoglobin in the blood produce blue skin, higher levels can produce more severe medical conditions, and levels beneath that may not be visually detectible.

What’s important for the genealogy aspect of this story is that both parents must carry a copy AND pass their copy on for the condition to express in their offspring.

We’ve learned a lot since the 1800s when this was first observed in various members of the Fugate family in Perry County, KY, and since the 1960s when this phenomenon was first studied in the Fugate family and their descendants. To be clear, there are also references to the blue Combs and blue Ritchies in and around Perry County – but the common factor is that they have ancestors that descend from the Fugate family AND the Smith family ancestors, both.

During my research, I’ve proven some of what was initially accepted as fact was incorrect – and I’d like to correct the record. Bonus points too, because it’s just such a great genealogy story!

My Interest

I’ve been inordinately interested in the Fugate family for a long time – but not because of their famous blueness.

The Fugate family has been found for more than 225 years alongside my Cook, Claxton, Campbell, and Dobkins families. First, in Russell County, VA, where Josiah Fugate was granted land along Sword’s Creek in 1801 that adjoined Harry Smith, Richard Smith, and others, including my brick-wall ancestor, Joel Cook. Keep in mind that we have never discovered the birth surname of Joel’s wife or Joel’s parents.

Joel’s daughter, Sarah, married James Claxton about 1799 or 1800 in Russell County, and in February of 1802, James Claxton and Zachariah Fugate, among others, were ordered to view and lay out a new road. They were clearly neighbors, living on the same road, and knew each other well. We don’t know who James’ parents were either.

The Fugates first lived adjacent to the Cook, Riley, Stephens, and Claxton families on Mockason Creek in Russell County, then later migrated with the same group of families to Claiborne County where they lived along the Powell River near the Lee County, VA line, and are very closely associated with the Dobkins and Campbell lines.

Sometime between 1802 and 1805, several Russell County families moved 110 miles down the mountain range and settled together on the Powell River in Claiborne County, TN.  About the same time, others from the same cluster moved to what would eventually become Perry County, KY.

In 1805, the Fugates were ordered as road hands on the north side of Wallen’s Ridge in Claiborne County, the part that would become Hancock County in the 1840s, along with James Claxton and several Smiths.

In 1808, James Claxton witnessed a deed to Henley Fugate and John Riley.

The unsubstantiated family rumor, repeated as fact but with no source, has always been that William Fugate married the sister of my John Campbell. If that were true, tracking the Fugates would help me track my Campbells – yet another brick wall. Hence, my early interest in the Fugate family. Until now, I’ve never solved any part of that puzzle.

In 1827, in Claiborne County, Henry Cook, road overseer, is assigned John Riley, Henly Fugate, William Fugate, Fairwick Claxton (son of James who had died in 1815), and others. These families continued to be allied, living close to each other.

In 1842, William Fugate (1799-1855), born to William Fugate and Sarah Jane Stephens in Russell County, is involved in the estate of John Campbell, born about 1772, who had died in 1838. John Campbell was the husband of Jane “Jenny” Dobkins, daughter of Jacob Dobkins (1751-1835).

William Fugate of Claiborne County signed a deposition in 1851 saying he came to Claiborne County, TN, in 1826. Claiborne County is rugged terrain, located on the south side of the Cumberland Gap, where Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky intersect.

In 1853, both William Fugate and Jehiel Fugate are neck-deep in lawsuits surrounding the estate of Jacob Dobkins, who died in 1835, lived on Powell River, and whose daughters married John Campbell and his brother George Campbell

I recently discovered that this William Fugate was born about 1799 in Russell County, VA, and according to his son’s death certificate, William’s wife was Nancy Riley, which makes a lot of sense, given the proximity of these families. I must admit, I’m glad to solve this, but I’m also disappointed that he wasn’t married to John Campbell’s sister.

So, why does any of this matter in the Blue Fugate story?

In part, because I knew decades ago that Martin Fugate, of the Kentucky Blue Fugates, was not an orphan from France who had somehow made his way to the eastern shores of Maryland, then to Perry County, KY by 1820 when he supposedly received a land grant. That land grant date doesn’t square with Martin’s birth year of 1820 either, nor his marriage about 1840, both of which are substantiated by the census.

You can see from the information gleaned from Russell County that the Fugate family was there well before 1800. In fact, a Martin Fugate is shown on the 1789 tax list and other Fugates were there earlier, as early as 1771, according to extracted Russell County records in the book “The Fugate Family of Russell County, Virginia” by David Faris. The Fugate descendants continued to press on westward from there. Fugate, unlike Smith, Cook, and even Campbell, is not a common surname.

“Orphan” stories are often early ways that people said “I don’t know”, without saying, “I don’t know where he came from”, so they speculated and said “maybe he was an orphan.” Then that speculation was eventually passed on as fact.

That might have been happening in Perry County in the 1960s, but in Claiborne County in the 1980s, family members were telling me, “Martin waren’t no orphan,” and would roll their eyes and sigh with great exasperation. You could tell this was far from the first time they had had to combat that story. To be clear, the Fugate family lived down along Little Sycamore Creek with my Estes, Campbell and other ancestral families. In the 1980s, I was finding the oldest people possible and talking to them.

Some records in Russell County, where the Fugates of Perry County, KY, and the Fugates of Claiborne County, TN, originated, did and do exist, so could have been researched in the 1960s, but you would have had to know where to look. No one back then knew that the Perry County Fugates originated in Russell County, so they wouldn’t have known to look there. Research wasn’t easy. If they had known to look in Russell County, they would have had to travel there in person to review records. Early records exist in Perry County, too, but in the 1960s, not even the census was available, and people simply didn’t remember back to the early to mid-1800s.

Truthfully, no one would ever have doubted those early stories that had been handed down. They were revered, in all families, and treated as gospel. Those stories were the only connection they had to their ancestors – and the generations inbetween who passed them on. Nope, no one was going to question what Grandpa or Uncle Joe said.

So, in the 1960s, when the Blue Fugates in Perry and adjacent Breathitt County, KY were first studied by Dr. Cawein and his nurse, Ruth Pendergrass, they gathered oral family history and constructed a family pedigree from that information. They documented who was blue from first-hand eye-witness accounts – which would only have stretched back into the late 1800s, best case.

It probably never occurred to anyone to validate or verify earlier information that was provided. Plus, it would have been considered rude. After all, they weren’t genealogists, and they were trying to solve a medical mystery. The information they collected did not conflict with what was known about the disease and how it was transmitted, so they had no reason to doubt its historical accuracy.

The Mystery of the Blue Fugates?

The Blue Fugates were a family renowned for their blue skin – at least some of them had blue skin. That’s part of what makes this story so interesting.

Originally, it was believed that only one progenitor couple was involved, Martin Fugate and his wife, Elizabeth Smith, but now we know there were two. Maybe I should say “at least two.”

Martin Fugate and his bride, Elizabeth Smith, whose first known child was born in 1841, according to the 1850 census, are progenitors of the Blue Fugate Family of Troublesome Creek, but they aren’t the only progenitors.

Martin was not shown in the Perry County, KY 1840 census, but two Zachariah Fugates are present, 8 Fugate families are found in neighboring Breathitt County, more than a dozen in Russell County and surrounding counties in Virginia, and four, including two William Fugates, in Claiborne County, TN. The younger of the two lived next door to John Dobkins, son of deceased Jacob Dobkins.

Martin Fugate (c1820-1899) of Perry County and his second cousin, Zachariah Fugate (1816-1864), who each married a Smith sister, are both progenitors of the Blue Fugates through their common ancestor, their great-grandfather, Martin Fugate, who was born in 1725 and died in 1803 in Russell County, VA.

Obviously, if Martin (c1820-1899) had a Fugate second cousin who also lived in Perry County, Martin wasn’t an orphan. That knowledge is due to more recently available information, like census and other data – and that’s part of what I want to correct.

In 1948, Luke Combs, from Perry County, KY, took his sick wife to the hospital, but Luke’s blueness caused the medical staff to focus on him instead, thinking he was experiencing a medical emergency. He wasn’t. His skin was just blue. In 1974, Dr Charles H. Behlen II said, ‘Luke was just as blue as Lake Louise on a cool summer day.’ The Blue Fugates were “discovered” by the rest of the world, thanks to Luke, but they were nothing new to local people, many of whom did not welcome the notoriety.

In the 1960s, hematologist Madison Cawein III, with the assistance of Ruth Pendergrass, studied 189 members of the extended Fugate family, treated their symptoms, and published his findings. He included a pedigree chart, but not everyone was keen on cooperating with Dr. Cawein’s research project.

The Fugate family history collected for the study was based on two things:

  • Personal knowledge of who respondents knew was blue
  • Remembered oral history beyond the reach of personal knowledge.

That remembered oral history reported that Martin Fugate and Elizabeth Smith’s youngest son, Zachariah Fugate (born in 1871), married his mother’s (older) sister, Mary Smith, (born about 1820), and had a family. I’ve added the dates and information in parentheses, or they would have immediately known that marriage was impossible. Or, more directly, even if they married when Zachariah was 14, Mary would have been 70 years old, and they were certainly not going to produce offspring. This is the second piece of information I want to correct. That marriage never happened, although people were accurate that:

  • Martin Fugate and his wife, Elizabeth Smith, did have a son named Zachariah Fugate
  • One Zachariah Fugate did marry Mary Smith, sister of Elizabeth Smith

It’s just that they were two different Zachariah Fugates, born 75 years apart. Same name confusion strikes again.

I constructed this census table of Martin Fugate with Elizabeth Smith, and Zachariah Fugate with Mary Smith. They lived next door to each other in Perry County – and it seemed that every family reused the same “honoring” names for their children – and had been doing such for generations.

In the 1960s, when the information was being compiled for Dr. Cawein, the census and other documents that genealogists rely on today were not readily available.

Furthermore, genetically, for the mystery Dr. Cawein was attempting to solve, it didn’t really matter, because it was still a Smith female marrying a Fugate male. I know that it made no difference today, but he wouldn’t have known that then. To track down the source of the blueness, he needed to identify who was blue and as much about their ancestors as possible.

The Zachariah Fugate (1816-1864) who married Elizabeth Smith’s sister, Mary Smith, was Martin Fugate’s second cousin by the same name, Zachariah. Both Martin (c1820-1899) and his second cousin, Zachariah (c1816-1864), married to Smith sisters, had blue children, which helps cement the fact that the responsible genes were passed down through BOTH the Fugate and Smith lines, and weren’t just random mutations or caused by environmental or other factors.

Proof

In case you’re wondering exactly how I confirmed that Martin and Zachariah did indeed marry Elizabeth and Mary Smith – their children’s birth and death records confirmed it. These records correlate with the census.

Unlike most states, Kentucky has some pre-1900 birth and death records.

Wilson Fugate’s birth in February, 1855 was recorded, naming both of his parents, Martin Fugate and Elizabeth Smith.

Martin Fugate and Elizabeth Smith’s son, Henley or Hendley, died in 1920, and his death certificate gave the names of both parents. Betty is a nickname for Elizabeth.

On the same page with Wilson Fugate’s birth, we find a birth for Zachariah Fugate and Mary Smith, too.

Hannah Fugate was born in December 1855.

Zachariah Fugate and Mary Smith’s son, Zachariah died in 1921, and his death certificate gives his parents as Zach Fugate and Polly Smith, a nickname for Mary.

There are more death records for children of both sets of parents.

Both couples, Martin Fugate and Elizabeth Smith, and Zachariah Fugate and Mary Smith, are progenitors of the Blue Fugate family.

Of Martin’s 10 known children, 4 were noticeably “blue” and lived long, healthy lives. At least two of Zachariah’s children were blue as well.

Some people reported that Martin, himself, had deep blue skin. If so, then both of his parents would have carried that genetic mutation and passed it to him.

Unfortunately, color photography didn’t exist when Martin (c1820-1899), lived, so we don’t know for sure. For Martin’s children to exhibit blue skin, they would have had to inherit a copy of the gene from both parents, so we know that Martin’s wife, Elizabeth, also inherited the mutation from one of her parents. Ditto for Zachariah Fugate and Mary Smith. The chances of two families who both carry such a rare mutation meeting AND having two of their family members marry are infinitesimally small.

Dr. Cawein’s Paper

In 1964, Dr. Cawein published his findings, but only with a pedigree chart with no names. What was included was an explanation about how remote and deep the hills and hollows were, and that out-migration was almost impossible, explaining the propensity to marry cousins.

Legend:

  • Measured – Found to have elevated methemoglobin
  • Measured – Found to have decreased methemoglobin
  • Not measured – Reported to be “blue”
  • Measured – Found to be normal

Cawein further stated that data was collected by interviewing family members who personally knew the individual in question and could say if they were actually blue.

Cawein erroneously reported that “Martin Fugate was an orphan born about 1800, landed in Maryland, obtained a land grant in Perry County, KY in 1820, and married a local gal. From 1820 to about 1930, the population consisted of small, isolated groups living in creek valleys and intermarriage was quite common.” Bless his heart.

Later, geneticist Ricky Lewis wrote about the Blue Fugates, sharing, among other things, the provenance of that “blue” family photo that circulates on the internet, revealing that it is a composite that was assembled and colorized back in 1982. She also erroneously stated that, “after extensive inbreeding in the isolated community—their son married his aunt, for example—a large pedigree of “blue people” of both sexes arose.” Bless her heart too.

Dr. Lewis is incorrect that their son married his aunt – but she’s right that intermarriage between the families is responsible for the blue descendants. In colonial America, and elsewhere, cousin marriages were fairly common – everyplace. You married who you saw and knew. You saw your family and neighbors, who were generally your extended family. No left-handed apology needed.

Pedigree collapse, sharing the same ancestors in multiple places in your tree, is quite common in genealogy, as is endogamy among isolated populations.

Today, things have changed somewhat. People move into and out of an area. The younger generation moves away a lot more and has for the past 100+ years. Most people know their first cousins, but you could easily meet a second or third cousin and never know you were related.

While early stories reported that Martin Fugate (c1820-1899) was an orphan from France, mysteriously appearing in Kentucky around 1820, later genealogical evidence as well as genetic research proves that Martin Fugate was actually born about 1820, in Russell County, VA and his ancestors, over several generations, had followed the typical migration path across Virginia into Kentucky.

We’ve also proven that Martin’s son, Zachariah (born 1871) was not the Zachariah who married Elizabeth Smith’s sister, Mary, who was 50 years old when Zachariah was born.

What else do we know about these families?

The Back Story

Compared to the Smith story, the Fugate story was “easy.”

Don’t laugh, but I spent several days compiling information and charting this in a way I could see and understand in one view.

I hesitate to share this, but I’m going to because it’s how I think. I also put together a very basic Fugate tree at Ancestry, here. Many children and siblings are missing. I was just trying to get this straight in my mind.

Click to enlarge any image

This spreadsheet is color-coded:

  • The text of each lineage has a specific color. For example, Fugates are blue.
  • Some people (or couples) are found in multiple descendants’ lines and are duplicated in the tree. Duplicated people also have a cell background color. For example, Mahala Richey (Ritchey, Ritchie) is highlighted yellow. James and Alexander Richey have green text and apricot background because they are duplicated.
  • The generation of parents who had blue children is marked with black boxes and the label “Blue Kids.”
  • Only the blue kids for this discussion are listed below those couples.
  • The bluest person was Luna Fugate (1886-1964).
  • While Luna’s husband, John Stacey, also descended from the Smith/Combs line, only one of their children expressed the blue trait. That child’s lips turned blue when they cried. John and Luna were actually related in three ways. Yes, my head hurts.
  • The last known “blue” person was Luna Fugate’s great-grandchild, whose name I’ve obfuscated.

Ok, let’s start with the blue Fugates on our spreadsheet. You’ll probably want to follow along on the chart.

Martin Fugate (1725-1803) and wife Sarah, had several children, but only two, the ones whose grandchildren married Smith sisters are known to have had blue children.

On our chart, you can see that Martin (1725-1803) is blue, and so is Son 1, William Fugate and Sarah Stephens, along with Son 2, Benjamin Fugate and Hannah Devers. Both William and Benjamin are mentioned in Martin’s estate in 1803 in Russell County, VA.

Two generations later, Martin Fugate (c1820-1899) and Elizabeth Smith had four blue children, and Zachariah Fugate (c1816-1864) and Mary Smith had at least two blue children. Furthermore, Zachariah Fugate’s sister, Hannah (1811-1877), married James Monroe Richie.

The Richey’s are green, and you can see them on both the left and right of the chart. Hannah’s husband descended from the same Richey line that Elizabeth Smith did. It was no surprise when their child, Mahala Ritchie (1854-1922), married Levi Fugate, to whom she was related three ways, they became the parents of a blue child. Their daughter, Luna Fugate, was known as “the Bluest of the Blue Fugates.”

Mahala Ritchie (1854-1922) could have inherited her blue gene (or genes) from either her mother Hannah Fugate, or her father, James Monroe Ritchie, or both. We don’t know if Hannah was blue or not.

We do know that Mahala married Levi Fugate, her third cousin through the Fugate line, and her third and fourth cousin also through the Richie and Grigsby lines, respectively. This is the perfect example of pedigree collapse.

You can see the purple Grigsby lines in the center and to the right of the pedigree chart too, with Benjamin Grigsby, highlighted in blue, being common to both lineages.

Zachariah Fugate (1816-1864) and Mary Smith had at least two blue sons, but I am not tracking them further. Suffice it to say that Blue John married Letha Smith, his first cousin, the granddaughter of Richard Smith and Nancy Elitia Combs. Lorenzo, “Blue Anze”, married a Fugate cousin, so it’s no surprise that Zachariah and Mary were also progenitor couples of the Blue Fugates.

Martin’s son, Levi Fugate, married Mahala Ritchie, mentioned above, and had Luna Fugate who would have been personally known to Dr. Cawein. Luna, pictured above, at left, was known as the bluest of the Blue Fugates.

Luna married John Stacey who some thought wasn’t related to Luna, so it was confusing why they had one child that was slightly blue. However, John turns out to be Luna’s second cousin, third cousin once removed and first cousin once removed through three different lines. His great-grandparents were Richard Smith and Nancy Combes. Since one of their children had a slight blue tinge, John, while not visibly blue himself, clearly carried the blue gene.

Where Did the Blue Gene Come From?

The parents of Elizabeth Smith and Mary Smith were Richard Smith and Nancy (Eletia) Combs. His Smith ancestors include both the Richeys and Caldwells.

James Richey (1724-1888) married Margaret Caldwell (1729-1802) and his father, Alexander Richey (1690-1749) married Jeanne Caldwell (1689-1785). While the Caldwell females weren’t closely related, Jeanne was the daughter of Joseph Alexander Caldwell (1657-1730) and Jane McGhie, and Margaret Caldwell (1729-1802) was the great-granddaughter of that couple. The Caldwells are shown in magenta, with both Richey/Caldwell couples shown as duplicates. The Richey are highlighted in apricot, and the Caldwell’s with a light grey background. It was difficult to show how these lines connect, so that’s at the very top of the pedigree chart.

When just viewing the Smith-Combs line, it’s easier to view in the Ancestry pedigree.

The Smith, Richey, Combs, Grigsby, and Caldwell lines are all repeated in different locations in the trees, such as with Hannah Fugate’s husband. These repeated ancestors make it almost impossible for us to determine where in the Smith ancestral tree that blue gene originated.

We don’t know which of these ancestral lines actually contributed the blue gene.

Can We Figure Out Where the Blue Gene Came From?

How could we potentially unravel this mystery?

We know for sure that the blue gene in the Fugate side actually descends from Martin Fugate who was born in 1725, or his wife, Sarah, whose surname is unknown, because their two great-grandchildren, Martin (c1820-1899) and Zachariah (1816-1864) who both married Smith sisters had blue children. For those two intervening generations between Martin Fugate (1725-1803) and those two great-grandsons, that blue gene was quietly being passed along, just waiting for a blue Fugate gene carrier to meet another blue gene carrier. They found them in the Smith sisters.

None of Martin (1725-1803) and Sarah’s other children were known to have had any blue children or descendants. So either they didn’t carry the blue gene, or they didn’t marry someone else who did – that we know of.

We can’t tell on the Smith side if the blue gene descends from the Smith, Richey, Grigsby or Caldwell ancestors, or maybe even an unknown ancestor.

How can we narrow this down?

If a Fugate in another geographic location married someone from one of these lineages, say Grigsby, for example, and they had blue offspring, and neither of them shared any of the other lineages, then we could narrow the blue gene in the Smith line to the Grigsby ancestor.

Unfortunately, in Perry and surrounding counties in Kentucky, that would be almost impossible due to intermarriage and pedigree collapse. Even if you “think you know” that there’s no connection through a third line, given the deep history and close proximity of the families, the possibility of unknown ancestry or an unexpected parent is always a possibility.

Discover

While the blue gene is not connected to either Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA, we do have the Fugate’s Y-DNA haplogroup and the Smith sisters’ mitochondrial DNA.

Y-DNA

The Big Y-700 haplogroup for the Martin Fugate (c1820-1899) line is R-FTA50432, which you can see, here..

You can see the Blue Fugate Family by clicking on Notable Connections.

If you’re a male Fugate descendant who descends from anyone other than Martin Fugate (c1820-c1899), and you take a Big Y test, you may well discover a new haplogroup upstream of Martin (c1820-1899) that represents your common Fugate ancestor.

If you descend from Martin, you may find youself in either of the two haplogroups shown for Martin’s descendants, or you could split the line to form a new haplogroup.

We don’t have the mitochondrial DNA of Martin Fugate (c1820-1899), which would be the mitochondrial DNA of his mother, Nancy Noble. We also don’t have the the mtDNA of Mary (Polly) Wells, the mother of Zachariah Fugate (c1816-1864). If you descend from either of these women in a direct matrilineal line, through all women, please take a mitochondrial DNA test and reach out. FamilyTreeDNA will add it as a Notable Connection.

We do, however, have the mitochondrial DNA of Elizabeth and Mary Smith

Mitochondrial DNA of Elizabeth and Mary Smith

The mitochondrial DNA of both Elizabeth and Mary Smith follows their mother’s line – Nancy Combs through Nancy (Eletia?) Grigsby. Nancy’s mother is unknown, other than the possible first name of Margaret.

Nancy Grigsby’s descendant is haplogroup K1a61a1, which you can see here.

The Blue Fugates show under Notable Connections.

The Smith sisters’ haplogroup, K1a61a1, tells us immediately that their ancestor is European, eliminating other possibilities.

The time tree on Discover is quite interesting

Haplogroup K1a61a1 was formed about the year 1400. Descendants of this haplogroup are found in the UK, Scotland, England, several unknown locations, and one person who selected Native American, which is clearly in error. Haplogroup K is not Native American.

By focusing on the haplotype clusters, identified by the F numbers in the elongated ovals, our tester may be able to identify the mother of Nancy Grigsby, or upstream lineages that they can work back downstream to find someone who married Thomas Grigsby.

This story is far from over. In fact, a new chapter may just be beginning.

If you’re a Fugate, or a Fugate descendant, there’s still lots to learn, even if autosomal DNA is “challenging,” to say the least, thanks to pedigree collapse. Testing known females lineages can help us sort which lines are which, and reveal their hidden stories.

Other resources if you want to read more about the Fugates: The Blue People of Troublesome Creek, Fugates of Kentucky: Skin Bluer than Lake Louise, Those Old Kentucky Blues: An Interrupted Case Study, and Finding the Famous Paintings of the Blue People of Kentucky.

_____________________________________________________________

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 e-mail 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 Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Mother’s Day and Legacies

I wasn’t going to write about Mother’s Day this year, because some Mother’s Days are harder for me than others. And no, I don’t exactly know why.

Grief, even decades later, is still some flavor of grief. Grief ebbs and flows. However, it’s also possible to smile into the face of grief – and that’s where legacies, plural, enter the picture.

Legacies

Everyone has a legacy. Not just one legacy, but a separate legacy in the mind of everyone who knows, or knew, them. We tend to think about legacies in the context of someone who has passed, but in reality, legacies are living, dynamic definitions, and they aren’t just in the past.

The most common time to think about legacies is when we need to write an obituary or prepare for the funeral of someone we love. And it’s also the most difficult time.

I can give you two examples of exactly what I DON’T want for my legacy.

  1. I attended a funeral where the best the family could come up with was that the deceased had graduated from high school and had two children. That was literally it. I knew this person well, and let’s just say he struggled. He also had an unspoken legacy that needed to remain unspoken in that setting. Still, I could have contributed something that sounded like I at least tried.
  2. An obituary written by the husband of a friend proclaimed that her legacy was that she had once colored the mashed potatoes green for St. Patrick’s Day. That saddened me immensely, because while that may have been true, and funny, I could have provided several examples her kindness and charity work. How she had founded and then became president of a local nonprofit – and how long-suffering and brave she had been in the face of adversity.

Was that REALLY all there was to say about either of those people? Couldn’t someone have come up with something that was both true and more profound? Was there absolutely nothing else about my friend, other than green potatoes, that could be said “in polite company”?

What would these people have said about their own legacy? How would they want to be remembered?

If you had asked them, without pondering or overthinking, to quickly list the three most important things about themselves, their life and their own legacy – what would they have said?

I absolutely guarantee you that it would NOT have been about green potatoes – although if you added another question about something funny, humorous, or that would make people smile – green potatoes might have been included.

A green potatoes equivalent is just not “the thing” I want to be remembered for.

Mom’s Legacy

Mother’s Day caused me to think about my mother’s legacy.

I participated in writing Mom’s obituary (which was finally correct with the THIRD printing) and provided the minister with fodder for Mom’s funeral service, but both of those things are focused on a specific audience. That’s a nice way of saying the information wasn’t “all-inclusive.”

Not to mention, the cumulative memory of others may not be either complete or entirely accurate. Everyone remembers a person within the context of how they knew them. Your family and colleagues will remember your legacy differently.

Obituaries are very limited and generally fit a specific pattern, with little opportunity for customization. Fit your life, as others remember it, into a paragraph. Here’s your template.

Today, many people have no obituary or a funeral as we used to know them.

What is said in obituaries or at funeral services may not be the way the person would have expressed their own legacy, if they had that opportunity.

Get out a piece of paper.

Whether your mother, or the person or people who function in that capacity in your life are living or not, write down the first three things that come to mind when you think of them. No editing. You can add or edit later – right now, just get your first thoughts onto paper.

If you can’t narrow it to just three, that’s fine. Just start the list without thinking – write what pops into your mind.

Mom’s Legacy

Here’s my non-obituary, non-funeral version of Mom’s legacy based on the exercise above.

  • Mom survived the Great Depression as a child in the 1930s by cleaning chickens in Silver Lake, Indiana for a nickel each. She hated cleaning chickens for the rest of her life. Her father lost his hardware store. Her mother’s income from working for the Welfare Department, plus the money earned by raising chickens, growing berries, and a small truck patch is what saved the family.

  • Mom survived rheumatic fever as a child, which left her with a lifelong heart murmur. She learned resiliency the hard way, and experienced crushing heartbreak a few years later when her fiancé was killed in WWII.

  • Mom became a successful tap and ballet dancer, in spite of growing up in a strict, extremely conservative region of northern Indiana. Her father’s family was Brethren. Mom overcame discrimination and pushback at every turn, studying with the world-renowned Philadelphia Ballet Company and then dancing professionally in Chicago with the Dorothy Hild Company during and after WWII.

  • My entry into the world ended that career, enabling Mother to finally become a bookkeeper, something she had always wanted to do.

  • Mom was an accidental pioneer in women’s equality and rights, even though she never meant to be. Abandoned by undeserving men for other women or a liquor bottle, she persevered as a single mother and raised two children in a day and age when women were not afforded equal pay for equal work, many jobs or careers simply weren’t available to women, and a woman couldn’t even get a credit card or buy a car or home in her own name. Mom did it anyway, being the first single woman in Kokomo, Indiana to purchase a home with a mortgage in her own name.

  • Mom moved to the farm a dozen years later when she married my wonderful step-father. She began her third career when the company she had worked for as a bookkeeper for years shut its doors.

  • Mom became an Avon Lady for the next quarter century, more as her own personal mission to check on her neighbors than to earn money. She spent far more than she ever made – although she denied that till her dying day – but I saw the books after her death. She would take food to people, listen to their problems, check on anyone who was sick, take people to town to do errands or for appointments, deliver “sermons on tape” to shut-ins, and so forth. Every single day for more than a quarter century, she quietly solved every problem that she could, until she had to retire at 82 due to her own health issues. The photo, above, was taken by one of her favorite customers on her last “Avon” day.

I can’t even begin to count how many humans and animals Mom rescued or saved in one way or another as “just an Avon Lady.” Unfortunately, from time to time, people took advantage of her big heart and generosity.

Mom would never, in a hundred years, have said any of these things about herself. She was far too humble, and even in later years, having been a dancer carried a certain stigma in rural Indiana – land of the Baptist Church, in which she was a Deacon.

I don’t know what Mom’s personal legacy list about herself would have been. Of course, she loved her family. She even saved Dad’s life – not once – but twice.

I know she was proud of her Avon awards, and she received several. It wasn’t until years later that I realized how much of what she purchased was given away to people who couldn’t afford it. Mom would tell them it was “extra” or “overstock” or “on sale” for a pittance. She also preserved their dignity by approaching her missionary work that way – and no one ever knew until after she was gone.

The example she set by her silent actions, not her words, was absolutely incredible.

Mom received the Spriit of Avon Award in 1989 and several other years. But I only have these few photos.

The “Spirit of Avon” award, specifically the Spirit of Albee award, is given to Avon representatives who embody the entrepreneurial spirit of Mrs. P.F.E. Albee, the first Avon Lady. This award recognizes individuals who strive to build better lives for themselves and others.

Mom tended to downplay her own achievements.

She loved the Albee awards, what they meant and why they were awarded.

This is the 1992 Albee. Several more of hers sit on my shelf.

I’m still so proud of Mom for so many reasons. Yet, I’m sitting here crying because I couldn’t, or didn’t, go with her to the banquet(s) to receive those awards. Yes, I lived in a different state and was busy with my family and career, but now I greatly regret that choice. Of course, she understood. She didn’t even ask because she wouldn’t have wanted to impose. On the other hand, I know full well she would have been utterly thrilled if I had asked to go with her.

I didn’t, and I get to live with that now.

Smile Memories

There are several “Mom memories” that make me smile.

  • Everyone received Avon products for Christmas, birthday, and any other “gift event.” Even the Easter Bunny was hooked up with the Avon Lady. We enjoyed those thoughtful gifts, and Mom knew everyone’s favorites – bath oil, bubble bath, makeup and lip balm. I remember Mom walking around my car with a rag and a bottle of Skin-So-Soft, scrubbing the bugs off my windshield and tar off my fenders.

Swear to God – I still have a bottle of Skin-So-Soft and half a bottle of bubble bath from Mom. I tried to help boost her sales, especially in the last year or so when she knew she was going to have to retire and she wanted to leave on a high note.

Mom was widely loved in the community, and we had to reserve an entire restaurant for her retirement party.

She was so surprised and honored that so many people came and many brought gifts for her.

  • Avon lip balm was always in the toe of every Christmas stocking (that she crocheted for every family member) and taped to each package. When Mom died, after the funeral, as we were saying our final goodbyes, my sister-in-law and I decided we were going to be sure Mom had a lip balm with her in the hereafter – so I dug one out of my purse and we tucked it in her hand, in the casket. On the way to the cemetery, the hearse had to brake unexpectedly, and I vividly remember thinking, “I hope the lip gloss didn’t fall out of Mom’s hand.”
  • Mom also loved her “pretty shoes,” as she called them, but the funeral director couldn’t get her favorite pair of high heels on her feet. We knew she absolutely wouldn’t want to leave them behind – so they were tucked in the bottom of her casket too.

  • When I was a teenager, I got caught up in an altercation after a football game at a rival school. Not knowing what else to do, I headed for the police station where I knew I’d be safe and could call Mom to pick me up. When I told Mom I was at the police station, she was rattled and hung up before I had a chance to explain, jumped in the car, and hurried right down to the station. She ran into the lobby where I was waiting with a friend, saw that we were alright, and suddenly realized that she had put her hair up in those pink foam rollers – and there was a handsome officer on duty who was trying not to laugh. Mom turned beet red. She was mad at us, not for calling her – that was the absolute right thing to do – but because she came to the police station with her hair in rollers, and without a scarf. Go figure:)
  • We always feasted on corn on the cob in the summer. Mom had a partial set of false teeth. We had company over for Sunday dinner, and Mom took a bite of corn on the cob, only to realize her top teeth were embedded in the cob. The teeth had broken off from the rest of the dentures. The look on Mom’s face was priceless. She didn’t exactly know what to do – and the rest of us couldn’t help but laugh. We tried to stifle our laughter though, which made the entire episode funnier and funnier until everyone, including Mom, was laughing so hard we were crying. “Mom, you have teeth in your corn. Most of us just get corn in our teeth!”
  • Some years later, a grandchild had made their way to the state track finals and was “up at the university” for the events. Mom was proud as punch, and wild horses couldn’t have kept her away. She was leaning over the railing waving and cheering the grandchild on as they circled the inside track – only for those pesky false teeth to fall out of her mouth – straight down onto the track. She had a horrified look on her face as she tried to tell me, “my teef” and pointed at the track below. Thankfully, that race was over, and no one had stepped on them. I had to make my way down, out of the bleachers, and find someone to explain why I needed to go onto the track – all quickly – before the next event. The grandchild saw me, was very confused, looked quite irritated, was assuredly embarrassed, and came over to see what I was doing. Fortunately, the grandchild, as a contestant, had permission to be on the track. They found and recovered Mom’s “teef,” ran them over to us, waving them over their head in a victory lap of sorts. We laughed about this forever – just not at the time.

  • At a family celebration some years later at an event center, my daughter, Mom and I were hamming it up outside and took this photo. I think we were comparing ourselves to Mom’s dancing photos from decades earlier and trying not to fall over. We were having so much fun together.

  • At my wedding, I have no idea what Mom and I were laughing at, but we were. What a joyful day, just a couple years before she passed.

That was after she walked me down the aisle. Well, truth be told, I walked her up the aisle to her seat in order to steady her – but that’s not the story we told.

What I remember best are the times with smiles and laughter.

It’s those smiles and laughter that soothe the grief of her passing. The grief of Mother’s Day without her. We buried Mom 19 years ago this week, and I cleaned out her apartment on Mother’s Day.

Yep, I need those smiles and to remember Mom’s wonderful legacy.

Your Legacy

Now, it’s your turn.

What is your legacy?

What three things, off the top of your head, have you done that made the biggest difference, or maybe were the most important to you?

What do you want your legacy to be? Accomplishments? Achievements? Family? Service work? Hobbies? Career? Personality traits?

How do you want your life to be remembered?

Does that align with the legacy that those you care about would pen for you?

Is there something you need to do?

Is some aspiration unfulfilled? Can you do something about that?

Are there amends that you’d like to make? If so, do them now, because amends don’t make themselves.

Don’t wait. Do something a little crazy with someone you love.

You truly never know when you’re going to take that last photo, or smile that last smile, together.

Like mother, like daughter – my beautiful daughter has my mother’s beautiful smile.

Take that trip, wear the funky ill-fitting hats, laugh at yourselves out loud, make those memories, and watch that sunset while you can.

Say “I love you,” and create your legacy.

Discover’s Ancient Connections – How Are You Related?

When FamilyTreeDNA released the new Mitotree, they also introduced their new mtDNA Discover tool, which is a series of 13 reports about each haplogroup, including one titled Ancient Connections.

Ancient Connections shows you ancient relatives from your direct matrilineal line through a mitochondrial DNA test or through a Y-DNA (preferably Big Y-700) test.

Ancient Connections help you connect the present to the past based on archaeological excavations around the world and DNA sequencing of remains. Ancient Connections links you through your DNA to ancient people, cultures, and civilizations that would be impossible to discover any other way. You don’t have to wonder if it’s accurate, or which line it came from, because you know based on the test you took. Discover’s Ancient Connections track the journey of your ancestors and relatives.

Ancient Connections can be very exciting – and it’s easy to get swept away on a wave of jubilation.

Are those people your ancestors, or relatives, or what? How do you know? How can you figure it out?

So let me just answer that question generally before we step through the examples, so you can unveil your own connections.

  • You are RELATED to both Ancient and Notable Connections. Notable Connections are famous or infamous people who have lived more recently, and their relatives have been tested to identify their haplogroups.
  • It’s VERY unlikely that Ancient Connections are your direct ancestors – but someone in the line that you share IS your ancestor.
  • Many factors enter into the equation of how you are related, such as the haplogroup(s), the timeframe, and the location.
  • The sheer number of people who were living at any specific time makes it very unlikely that any one person with that haplogroup actually was your direct ancestor. They are much more likely to be your distant cousin.

Factors such as whether you share the same haplogroup, similar locations, and the timeframe make a huge difference. Everyone’s situation is different with each Ancient Connection.

Ok, are you ready for some fun???

Let’s find out how to leverage these tools.

Ancient Connections

Ancient connections are fun and can also be quite useful for genealogy.

In this article, I’m going to use a mitochondrial DNA example because full sequence testers at FamilyTreeDNA just received their new Mitotree haplogroup. mtDNA Discover was released with Mitotree, so it’s new too. However, the evaluation process is exactly the same for Y-DNA.

Everyone’s results are unique, so your mileage absolutely WILL vary. What we are going to learn here is a step-by-step analytical process to make sure you’re hearing the message from your ancestors – and interpreting it correctly.

To learn about your new mitochondrial DNA haplogroup and haplotype, read the articles:

Radegonde Lambert

Let’s start with an Acadian woman by the name of Radegonde Lambert. She’s my ancestor, and I wrote about her years ago in the article, Radegonde Lambert (1621/1629-1686/1693), European, Not Native.

At the time, that article caused a bit of a kerfluffle, along with the article, Haplogroup X2b4 is European, Not Native American, because Radegonde’s X2b4 haplogroup had been interpreted by some to mean that her matrilineal ancestors were Native American.

That often happens when a genealogical line abruptly ends and hits a brick wall. What probably began with “I wonder if…”, eventually morphed into “she was Native,” when, in fact, she was not. In Radegonde’s case, it didn’t help any that her haplogroup was X2b4, and some branches of base haplogroup X2 are in fact Native, specifically X2a, However, all branches of X2 are NOT Native, and X2b, which includes X2b4, is not.

The Acadians were French people who established a colony in what is now Nova Scotia in the 1600s. They did sometimes intermarry with the Native people, so either Native or European heritage is always a possibility, and that is exactly why DNA testing is critically important. Let’s just say we’ve had more than one surprise.

I always reevaluate my own work when new data becomes available, so let’s look to see what’s happening with Radegonde Lambert now, with her new haplogroup and mtDNA Discover.

Sign on and Identify Your Haplogroup

You can follow along here, or sign on to your account at FamilyTreeDNA.

The first step is to take note of your new Mitotree haplogroup.

Your haplogroup badge is located near the bottom right of your page after signing in.

The tester who represents Radegonde Lambert has a Legacy Haplogroup of X2b4 and has been assigned a new Mitotree haplogroup of X2b4g.

Click Through to Discover

To view your personal Discover information, click on the Discover link on your dashboard.

You can simply enter a haplogroup in the free version of mtDNA Discover, but customers receive the same categories, but significantly more information if they sign in and click through.

You can follow along on the free version of Discover for haplogroups X2b4 here, and X2b4g here.

Clicking on either the Time Tree, or the Classic Tree shows that a LOT has changed with the Mitotree update.

Each tree has its purpose. Let’s look at the Classic Tree first.

The Classic Tree

I like the Classic Tree because it’s compact, detailed and concise, all in one. Radegonde Lambert’s new haplogroup, X2b4g is a subgroup of X2b4, so let’s start there.

Click on any image to enlarge

Under haplogroup X2b4, several countries are listed, including France. There are also 7 haplotype clusters, which tell you that those testers within the cluster all match each other exactly.

It’s worth noting that the little trowels (which I thought were shovels all along) indicate ancient samples obtained from archaeological digs. In the Discover tools, you’ll find them under Ancient Connections for that haplogroup. We will review those in a minute.

In Mitotree, haplogroup X2b4 has now branched several granular and more specific sub-haplogroups.

Radegonde Lambert’s new haplogroup falls below another new haplogroup, X2b4d’g, which means that haplogroup X2b4d’g is now the parent haplogroup of both haplogroups X2b4d and X2b4g. Both fall below X2b4d’g.

Haplogroup names that include an apostrophe mean it’s an umbrella group from which the two haplogroups descend – in this case, both X2b4d and X2b4g. Apostrophe haplogroups like X2b4d’g are sometimes referred to as Inner Haplogroups.

You can read more about how to understand your haplogroup name, here.

In this case, haplogroup X2b4d’g is defined by mutation G16145A, which is found in both haplogroups X2b4d and X2b4g. Both of those haplogroup have their own defining mutations in addition to G16145A, which caused two branches to form beneath X2b4d’g.

You can see that Radegonde Lambert’s haplogroup X2b4g is defined by mutation C16301T, but right now, that really doesn’t matter for what we’re trying to accomplish.

In descending order, for Radegonde, we have haplogroups:

  • X2b4
  • X2b4d’g
  • X2b4g

Your Match Page

Looking at the tester’s match page, Radegonde’s haplotype cluster number and information about the cluster are found below the haplogroup. You can view your cluster number on:

  • Your match page
  • The Match Time Tree beside your name and those of your matches in the same haplotype cluster
  • The Scientific Details – Variants page

I wrote about haplotype clusters, here.

Click on any image to enlarge

On your match page, which is where most people look first, you are in the same haplogroup and haplotype cluster with anyone whose circle is also checked and is blue. If the little circles are not checked and blue, you don’t share either that haplogroup, haplotype cluster, or haplogroup and haplotype cluster. If you share a haplotype cluster, you will always share the same haplogroup.

Haplotype clusters are important because cluster members match on exactly the same (but less stable) mutations IN ADDITION to haplogroup-defining (more stable) mutations.

However, you may also share an identifiable ancestor with people in different haplotype clusters. Mutations, and back mutations happen – and a lot more often at some mutation locations, which is why they are considered less stable. Normally, though, your own haplotype cluster will hold your closest genealogical matches.

In Discover, you can see that Radegonde’s haplotype cluster, F585777, displays three tester-supplied countries, plus two more. Click on the little plus to expand the countries.

What you’re viewing are the Earliest Known Ancestor (EKA) countries that testers have entered for their direct matrilineal ancestor.

Let’s hope they understood the instructions, and their genealogy information was accurate.

Notice that Canada and France are both probably quite accurate for Radegonde, based on the known history of the Acadians. There were only French and Native women living in Nova Scotia in the 1600s, so Radegonde had to be one or the other.

The US may be accurate for a different tester whose earliest known ancestor (EKA) may have been found in, say, Louisiana. Perhaps that person has hit a brick wall in the US, and that’s all they know.

The US Native American flag is probably attributable to the old “Native” rumor about Radegonde, and the tester didn’t find the Canadian First Nations flag in the “Country of Origin” dropdown list. Perhaps that person has since realized that Radegonde was not Native and never thought to change their EKA designation.

The little globe with “Unknown Origins” is displayed when the tester doesn’t select anything in the “Country of Origin.”

Unfortunately, this person, who knew when Radegonde Lambert lived, did not complete any additional information, and checked the “I don’t know this information” box. Either Canada, or France would have been accurate under the circumstances. If they had tracked Radegonde back to Canada and read about her history, they knew she lived in Canada, was Acadian, and therefore French if she was not Native. Providing location information helps other testers, whose information, in turn, helps you.

Please check your EKA, and if you have learned something new, PLEASE UPDATE YOUR INFORMATION by clicking on the down arrow by your user name in the upper right hand corner, then Account Settings, then Genealogy, then Earliest Known Ancestors.

Don’t hesitate to email your matches and ask them to do the same. You may discover that you have information to share as well. Collaboration is key.

Radegonde’s Discover Haplogroup

First, let’s take a look at Radegonde’s haplogroup, X2b4g, in Discover.

The Discover Haplogroup Story landing page for haplogroup X2b4g provides a good overview. Please READ this page for your own haplogroup, including the little information boxes.

The history of Radegonde’s haplogroup, X2b4g, is her history as well. It’s not just a distant concept, but the history of a woman who is the ancestor of everyone in that haplogroup, but long before surnames. Haplogroups are the only way to lift and peer behind the veil of time to see who our ancestors were, where they lived, and the cultures they were a part of.

We can see that Radegonde’s haplogroup, X2b4g, was born in a woman who lived about 300 CE, Common (or Current) Era, meaning roughly the year 300, which is 1700 years ago, or 1300 years before Radegonde lived.

  • This means that the tester shares a common ancestor with everyone, including any X2b4g remains, between now and the year 300 when haplogroup X2b4g was born.
  • This means that everyone who shares haplogroup X2b4g has the same common female ancestor, in whom the mutation that defines haplogroup X2b4g originated. That woman, the common ancestor of everyone in haplogroup X2b4g, lived about the year 300, or 1700 years ago.
  • Your common ancestor with any one individual in this haplogroup can have lived ANYTIME between very recently (like your Mom) and the date of your haplogroup formation.
  • Many people misinterpret the haplogroup formation date to mean that’s the date of the MRCA, or most recent common ancestor, of any two people. It’s not, the haplogroup formation date is the date when everyone, all people, in the haplogroup shared ONE ancestor.
  • The MRCA, or most recent common ancestor, is your closest ancestor in this line with any one person, and the TMRCA is the “time to most recent common ancestor.” It could be your mother, or if your matrilineal first cousin tested, your MRCA is your grandmother, and the TMRCA is when your grandmother was born – not hundreds or thousands of years ago.
  • Don’t discount mitochondrial DNA testing by thinking that your common ancestor with your matches (MRCA) won’t be found before the haplogroup birth date – the year 300 in Radegonde’s case. The TMRCA for all of Radegonde’s descendants is about 1621 when she was born.
  • The haplogroup birth date, 1700 years ago, is the common ancestor for EVERYONE in the haplogroup, taken together.
  • Mitochondrial DNA is useful for BOTH recent genealogy and also reveals more distant ancestors.
  • Looking back in time helps us understand where Radegonde’s ancestors lived, which cultures they were part of, and where.

There are two ways to achieve that: Radegonde’s upstream or parent haplogroups, and Ancient Connections.

Parent Haplogroups

X2b4g split from X2b4d’g, the parent haplogroup of BOTH X2b4d and X2b4g, around 3700 years ago, or about 1700 BCE (Before Common (or Current) Era).

Looking at either the Classic Tree, the Time Tree (above) or the Match Time Tree, you can see that haplogroup X2b4g has many testers, and none provide any locations other than France, Canada, the US, unknown, and one Native in the midst of a large haplotype cluster comprised of French and Canadian locations. Due to the size of the cluster, it’s only partially displayed in the screen capture above.

You can also see that sister haplogroup X2b4d split from X2b4d’g around the year 1000, and the ancestors of those two testers are reported in Norway.

Many, but not all of the X2b4g testers are descendants of Radegonde. Even if everyone is wrong and Radegonde is not French, that doesn’t explain the other matches, nor how X2b4g’s sister haplogroup is found in Norway.

Clearly, Radegonde isn’t Native, but there’s still more evidence to consider.

Let’s dig a little deeper using Radegonde’s Ancient Connections.

Ancient Connections

While ancestor and location information are user-provided, Ancient Connections are curated from scientifically published papers. There’s no question about where those remains were found.

When signed in to your account, if you’ve taken the mtFull Sequence test, clicking on the Ancient Connections tab in Discover shows a maximum of around 30 Ancient Connections. If you’re viewing the free version of Discover, or you’ve only tested at the HVR1 or HVR1+HVR2 levels, you’ll see two of your closer and one of your most distant Ancient Connections. It’s easy to upgrade to the mtFull.

In Discover, the first group of Ancient Connections are genetically closest to you in time, and the last connections will be your most distant. Some connections may be quite rare and are noted as such.

Please keep in mind that oldest, in this case, Denisova 8 and Sima de los Huesos, will never roll off your list. However, as new studies are released and the results are added to the tree, you may well receive new, closer matches. New results are being added with each Discover update.

It’s very exciting to see your Ancient Connections, but I need to say three things, loudly.

  1. Do NOT jump to conclusions.
  2. These remains are probably NOT YOUR ANCESTORS, but definitely ARE your distant cousins.
  3. Ancient Connections ARE wonderful hints, especially when taken together with each other and additional information.

It’s VERY easy to misinterpret Ancient Connections because you’re excited. I’ve done exactly that. To keep the assumption monster from rearing its ugly head, I have to take a breath and ask myself a specific set of questions. I step through the logical analysis process that I’m sharing with you.

The first thing I always want to know is where the genetically closest set of remains was found, when, and what we know about them, so let’s start there. Keep in mind that the closest remains genetically may not be the most recent set of remains to have lived. For example, my own haplogroup will be the closest genetically, but that person may have lived 2000 years ago. An Ancient Connection in a more distant haplogroup may have lived only 1000 years ago. The closest person genetically is NOT the same as the person who lived the most recently.

Our tester, Radegonde’s descendant, has no Ancient Connections in haplogroup X2b4g or X2b4d’g, but does have two in haplogroup X2b4, so let’s start there.

Discover provides a substantial amount of information about each set of ancient remains. Click on the results you want to view, and the information appears below.

Radegonde’s first Ancient Connection is Carrowkeel 534. The graphic shows the tester, the Ancient Connection being viewed, and their shared ancestor’s haplogroup. In this case, the shared ancestor haplogroup of Carrowkeel 534 and the tester is X2b4, who lived about 5000 years ago.

It’s very easy to look at Carrowkeel 534, become smitten, and assume that this person was your ancestor.

By Shane Finan – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=35098411

It’s especially easy if you WANT that person to be your ancestor. Carrowkeel 534 was buried in a passage tomb in County Sligo, Ireland. I’ve been there.

However, don’t let your emotions get involved – at least not yet.

This is the first example of the steps that determine that these remains are NOT YOUR ANCESTOR.

  • Carrowkeel 534 was a male, and we all know that males do not pass on their mitochondrial DNA. Well, that’s an inconvenient fact.😊
  • There are two sets of X2b4 remains in Ancient Connections. Carrowkeel 534 remains are about 4600-5000 years old, and your common ancestor with them lived about 5000 years ago. However, Radegonde was French and migration from Ireland to France is not typical.
  • The other set of X2b4 remains, Ladoga 16, lived more recently, between the years of 900 and 1200 (or 800-1100 years ago), but they are found in Russia.
  • Radegonde’s parent haplogroup, X2b4d’g was born about 3700 years ago, which excludes the Russian remains from being Radegonde’s direct ancestor.
  • Radegonde’s common ancestor with both these sets of remains lived about 5000 years ago, but these remains were not found even close to each other.

In fact, these remains, if walking, are about 3299 km (2049 miles) apart, including two major water crossings.

  • Given that Radegonde is probably French, finding her ancestor around 5000 years ago in an Irish passage tomb in County Sligo, or in a location east of St. Petersburg, is extremely unlikely.

What IS likely, though, is that X2b4d’g descendants of your common ancestor with both sets of remains, 5000 years ago, went in multiple directions, meaning:

  • Radegonde’s ancestor found their way to France and along the way incurred the mutations that define X2b4d’g and X2b4g by the year 1600 when she lived, or about four hundred years ago.
  • Another X2b4 descendant found their way to what is today Ireland between 4600 and 5000 years ago
  • A third X2b4 descendant found their way to Russia between 800-1100 years ago, and 5000 years ago

If any question remains about the genesis of Radegonde’s ancestors being Native, Ancient Connections disproves it – BUT – there’s still an opportunity for misunderstanding, which we’ll see in a few minutes.

Ancient Connections Analysis Chart

I’ve created an analysis chart, so that I can explain the findings in a logical way.

Legend:

  • Hap = Haplogroup
  • M=male
  • F=female
  • U=unknown

Please note that ancient samples are often degraded and can be missing important mutations. In other words, the tree placement may be less specific for ancient samples. Every ancient sample is reviewed by FamilyTreeDNA’s genetic anthropologist before it’s placed on the tree.

Ancient samples use carbon dating to determine ages. Sometimes, the carbon date and the calculated haplogroup age are slightly “off.” The haplogroup age is a scientific calculation based on a genetic clock and is not based on either genealogy or ancient burials. The haplogroup age may change as the tree matures and more branches are discovered.

I’m dividing this chart into sections because I want to analyze the findings between groups.

The first entry is the earliest known ancestor of the current lineage – Radegonde Lambert, who was born about 1621, or roughly 400 years ago. I’ve translated all of the years into “years ago” to avoid any confusion.

If you wish to do the same, with CE (Current or Common Era) dates, subtract the date from 2000. 300 CE= (2000-300) or1700 years ago. With BCE dates, add 2000 to the BCE number. 1000 BCE= (1000+2000) or 3000 years ago.

Connection Identity Age Years Ago Location & Cultural Group Hap Hap Age Years Ago Shared Hap Shared Hap Age Years Ago
Radegonde Lambert (F) 400 France or Canada -Acadian X2b4g 1700 X2b4 5000
Carrowkeel 534 (M) 4600-5100 Sligo, Ireland – Neolithic Europe X2b4 5000 X2b4 5000
Ladoga 16 (M) 800-1100 Ladoga, Russia Fed – Viking Russia X2b4 5000 X2b4 5000
  • Age Years Ago – When the Ancient Connection lived
  • Hap Age Years Ago – When the haplogroup of the Ancient Connection (X2b4) originated, meaning was born
  • Shared Hap Age Years Ago – When the Shared Ancestor of everyone in the Shared Haplogroup originated (was born)

In this first section, the haplogroup of the Ancient Connections and the Shared Haplogroup is the same, but that won’t be the case in the following sections. Radegonde Lambert’s haplogroup is different than her shared haplogroup with the Ancient Connections.

Let’s assume we are starting from scratch with Radegonde.

The first question we wanted to answer is whether or not Radegonde is European, presumably French like the rest of the Acadians, or if she was Native. That’s easy and quick.

Native people crossed Beringia, arriving from Asia someplace between 12,000 and 25,000 years ago in multiple waves of migration that spread throughout both North and South America.

Therefore, given that the first two samples, Carrowkeel 534 and Ladoga 16, share haplogroup X2b4, an upstream haplogroup with Radegonde Lambert, and haplogroup X2b4 was formed around 5000 years ago, the answer is that Radegonde’s X2b4 ancestor, whoever that was, clearly lived in Europe, NOT the Americas.

According to Discover, Haplogroup X2b4:

  • Was formed about 5000 years ago
  • Has 16 descendant haplogroups
  • Has 29 unnamed lineages (haplotype clusters or individuals with no match)
  • Includes testers whose ancestors are from 23 countries

The Country Frequency map shows the distribution of X2b4, including all descendant haplogroups. Please note that the percentages given are for X2b4 as a percentage of ALL haplogroups found in each colored country. Don’t be misled by the relative physical size of the US and Canada as compared to Europe.

The table view shows the total number of self-identified locations of the ancestors of people in haplogroup X2b4 and all downstream haplogroups.

The Classic Tree that we looked at earlier provides a quick view of X2b4, each descendant haplogroup and haplotype cluster, and every country provided by the 331 X2b4 testers.

For the X2b4 Ancient Connections, we’ve already determined:

  • That Radegonde’s ancestors were not Native
  • Carrowkeel 534 is a male and cannot be Radegonde’s ancestor. It’s extremely likely that Carrowkeel 534’s mother is not Radegonda’s ancestor either, based on several factors, including location.
  • Based on dates of when Ladoga 16 lived, and because he’s a male, he cannot be the ancestor of Radegonde Lambert.

Radegonda’s haplogroup was formed long before Ladoga 16 lived. Each Ancient Connection has this comparative Time Tree if you scroll down below the text.

  • Both Carrowkeel and Ladoga share an ancestor with our tester, and Radegonde, about 5000 years ago.

Think about how many descendants the X2b4 ancestor probably had over the next hundreds to thousands of years.

  • We know one thing for sure, absolutely, positively – X2b4 testers and descendant haplogroups live in 32 countries. People migrate – and with them, their haplogroups.

What can we learn about the genealogy and history of Radegonde Lambert and her ancestors?

We find the same haplogroup in multiple populations or cultures, at different times and in multiple places. Country boundaries are political and fluid. What we are looking for are patterns, or sometimes, negative proof, which is often possible at the continental level.

X2b4, excluding downstream haplogroups, is found in the following locations:

  • Bulgaria
  • Canada (2)
  • Czech Republic
  • England (2)
  • Finland (2)
  • France (3)
  • Germany (4)
  • Portugal
  • Scotland (2)
  • Slovakia (2)
  • Sweden (2)
  • UK (2)
  • Unknown (11)
  • US (2)

Note that there are three people in France with haplogroup X2b4 but no more refined haplogroup.

Looking at X2b4’s downstream haplogroups with representation in France, we find:

  • X2b4a (none)
  • X2b4b (none)
  • X2b4b1 (1)
  • X2b4d’g (none)
  • X2b4d (none)
  • X2b4g (24) – many from Radegonde’s line
  • X2b4e and subgroups (none)
  • X2b4f (none)
  • X2b4j and subgroups (none)
  • X2b4k (none)
  • X2b4l (1)
  • X2b4m (none)
  • X2b4n and subgroups (none)
  • X2b4o (none)
  • X2b4p (none)
  • X2b4r (none)
  • X2b4+16311 (none)

I was hoping that there would be an Ancient Connection for X2b4, X2b4d’g, or X2b4g someplace in or even near France – because that makes logical sense if Radegonde is from France.

All I can say is “not yet,” but new ancient sites are being excavated and papers are being released all the time.

Ok, so moving back in time, let’s see what else we can determine from the next set of Ancient Connections. Haplogroup X2b1”64 was formed about 5050 years ago.

Connection Identity Age Years Ago Location & Cultural Group Hap Hap Age Years Ago Shared Hap Shared Hap Age Years Ago
Radegonde Lambert (F) 400 France or Canada X2b4g 1700
Carrowkeel 534 (M) 5100-4600 Sligo, Ireland – Neolithic Europe X2b4 5000 X2b4 5000
Ladoga 16 (M) 800-1100 Ladoga, Russia Fed – Viking Russia X2b4 5000 X2b4 5000
Parknabinnia 186 (M) 5516-5359 Clare, Ireland – Neolithic Europe X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050 years ago
Rössberga 2 (M) 5339-5025 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Rössberga 29 (M) 5366-5100 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker and Early Plague X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Rössberga 38 (M) 5340-5022 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Monte Sirai 797263 (U) 2600-2400 Monte Sirai, Italy (Sardinia) – Phoenicians X2b35a1 3350 X2b1”64 5050
Bogovej 361 (F) 1000-1100 Lengeland, Denmark – Viking Denmark X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 5050
Ladoga 410 (M) 800-1000 Leningrad Oblast, Russia – Viking Russia X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 5050

Our first group ended with haplogroup X2b4, and our second group consists of haplogroup X2b1”64, the parent haplogroup of X2b4. X2b1”64 is a significantly larger haplogroup with many downstream branches found throughout Europe, parts of western Asia, the Levant, India, and New Zealand (which probably reflects a colonial era settler). The Country Frequency Map and Table are found here.

X2b1”64 is just slightly older than X2b4, but it’s much more widespread, even though they were born about the same time. Keep in mind that haplogroup origination dates shift as the tree is developed.

  • These seven individuals who share X2b1”64 as their haplogroup could be related to each other individually, meaning their MRCA, anytime between when they lived and when their haplogroup was formed.
  • The entire group of individuals all share the same haplogroup, so they all descend from the one woman who formed X2b1”64 about 5050 years ago. She is the shared ancestor of everyone in the haplogroup.

One X2b4 and one X2b1”64 individual are found in the same archaeological site in Russia. Their common ancestor would have lived between the time they both lived, about 800 years ago, to about 5000 years ago. It’s also possible that one of the samples could be incomplete.

A second X2b1”64 Ancient Connection is found in the Court Tomb in County Clare, Ireland, not far from the Carrowkeel 534 X2b4 site.

However, Monte Sirai is fascinating, in part because it’s not found near any other site. Monte Sirai is found all the way across France, on an island in the Tyrrhenian Sea.

It may be located “across France” today, but we don’t know that the Phoenician Monte Sirai site is connected with the Irish sites. We can’t assume that the Irish individuals arrived as descendants of the Monte Sirai people, even though it would conveniently fit our narrative – crossing France. Of course, today’s path includes ferries, which didn’t exist then, so if that trip across France did happen, it could well have taken a completely different path. We simply don’t know and there are very few samples available.

Three Ancient Connections are found in the Rössberga site in Sweden and another in  Denmark.

Adding all of the Ancient sites so far onto the map, it looks like we have two clusters, one in the northern latitudes, including Denmark, Sweden, and Russia, and one in Ireland with passage burials, plus one single Connection in Monte Sirai.

If I were to approximate a central location between all three, that might be someplace in Germany or maybe further east. But remember, this is 5000 years ago and our number of samples, as compared to the population living at the time is EXTREMELY LIMITED.

Let’s move on to the next group of Ancient Connections, who have different haplogroups but are all a subset of haplogroup X2.

Identity Age Years Ago Location & Cultural Group Hap Hap Age Years Ago Shared Hap Shared Hap Age Years Ago
Radegonde Lambert (F) 400 France or Canada X2b4g 1700
Carrowkeel 534 (M) 5100-4600 Sligo, Ireland – Neolithic Europe X2b4 5000 X2b4 5000
Ladoga 16 (M) 800-1100 Ladoga, Russia Fed – Viking Russia X2b4 5000 X2b4 5000
Parknabinnia 186 (M) 5516-5359 Clare, Ireland – Neolithic Europe X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Ross Rössberga 2 (M) 5339-5025 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Rössberga 29 (M) 5366-5100 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker and Early Plague X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Rössberga 38 (M) 5340-5022 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Monte Sirai 797263 (U) 2600-2400 Monte Sirai, Italy (Sardinia) – Phoenicians X2b35a1 3350 X2b1”64 5050
Bogovej 361 (F) 1000-1100 Lengeland, Denmark – Viking Denmark X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 5050
Ladoga 410 (M) 800-1000 Leningrad Oblast, Russia – Viking Russia X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 5050
Barcin 31 (M) 8236-8417 Derekoy, Turkey – Neolithic Anatolia Ceramic X2m2’5’7^ 9200 X2b”aq 13,000
Abasar 55 (M) 500-800 Abasár Bolt-tető, Abasar, Hungary – Medieval Hungary X2m1e 5350 X2b”aq 13,000
Gerdrup 214 3779-3889 Gerdrup, Sealand, Denmark – Middle Bronze Age X2c1 3400 X2+225 13,000
Sweden Skara 275 800-1100 Varnhem, Skara, Sweden – Viking Sweden X2c1 3400 X2+225 13,000
Kopparsvik 225 950-1100 Gotland, Sweden – Viking Sweden X2z 5650 X2+225 13,000
Sandomierz 494 900-1100 Sandomierz, Poland – Viking Poland X2c2b 1650 X2+225 13,000
Kennewick man 8390-9250 Kennewick, Washington – Native American X2a2’3’4^ 10,450 X2 13,000
Roopkund 39 80-306 Roopkund Lake, Uttarakhand, India – Historical India X2d 13,000 X2 13,000

The next several Ancient Connections have haplogroups that are a subgroup of haplogroup X2. These people lived sometime between 500 years ago in Hungary, and 8390-9250 years ago when Kennewick Man lived in the present-day state of Washington in the US. Kennewick Man merits his own discussion, so let’s set him aside briefly while we discuss the others.

The important information to be gleaned here isn’t when these people lived, but when Radegonde shared a common ancestor with each of them. The shared haplogroup with all of these individuals was born about 13,000 years ago.

Looking at the map again, and omitting both X2 samples, we can see that the descendants of that shared ancestor 13,000 years ago are found more widely dispersed.

Including these additional burials on our map, it looks like we have a rather large Swedish and Viking cluster, where several of the older burials occurred prior to the Viking culture. We have a Southeastern Europe cluster, our two Irish tomb burials, and our remaining single Monte Sirai Phoenician burial on the island of Sardinia.

Stepping back one more haplogroup to X2, which was born about the same time, we add a burial in India, and Kennewick Man.

The Migration Map

The Migration map in Discover provides two different features.

  • The first is the literal migration map for the various ancestral haplogroups as they migrated out of Africa, if in fact yours did, culminating in your base haplogroup. In this case, the base haplogroup is X2, which is shown with the little red circle placed by FamilyTreeDNA. I’ve added the red squares, text and arrows for emphasis.
  • The second feature is the mapped Ancient Connections, shown with little brown trowels. Clicking on each one opens a popup box.

After haplogroup X2 was formed, it split into haplogroups X2a and X2b.

The X2a group, Kennewick Man’s ancestors, made their way eastward, across eastern Russia to Beringia where they crossed into the Americas.

They either crossed Beringia, follow the Pacific coastline, or both, eventually making their way inland, probably along the Hood River, to where Kennewick Man was found some 2,800 years later on the banks of the Kennewick River.

The X2b group made their way westward, across western Europe to a location, probably France, where Radegonde Lamberts’ ancestors lived, and where Radegonde set sail for Nova Scotia.

After being separated for nearly 13,000 years, the descendants of the single woman who founded haplogroup X2 and lived someplace in central Asia around 13,000 years ago would find themselves on opposite coasts of the same continent.

So, no, Radegonde Lambert was not Native American, but her 600th matrilineal cousin or so, Kennewick Man, absolutely was.

Radegonde Lambert and Kennewick Man

Here’s where confirmation bias can rear its ugly head. If you’re just scanning the Ancient Connections and see Kennewick Man, it would be easy to jump to conclusions, leap for joy, slap a stamp of “confirmed Native American” on Radegonde Lambert, and never look further. And if one were to do that, they would be wrong.

Let’s work through our evaluation process using Discover.

Radegonde Lambert and Kinnewick Man, an early Native American man whose remains were found Kennewick, Washington in 1996, are both members of the broader haplogroup X2. Kennewick Man lived between 8290 and 9350 years ago, and their shared ancestor lived about 13,000 years ago – in Asia, where mitochondrial haplogroup X2 originated. This is the perfect example of one descendant line of a haplogroup, X2 in this case, going in one direction and a second one traveling in the opposite direction.

Two small groups of people were probably pursuing better hunting grounds, but I can’t help but think of a tundra version of the Hatfields and McCoys and cousin spats.

“I’m going this way. There are better fish on that side of the lake, and I won’t have to put up with you.”

“Fine, I’m going that way. There are more bears and better hunting up there anyway.”

Their wives, who are sisters, “Wait, when will I ever see my sister again?”

One went east and one went west.

X2a became Native American and X2b became European.

Looking back at our information about Kennewick Man, his haplogroup was born significantly before he lived.

He was born about 8390-9250 years ago, so let’s say 8820 years ago, and his haplogroup was born 10,500 years ago, so about 1680 years before he lived. That means there were many generations of women who carried that haplogroup before Kennewick Man.

Let’s Compare

Discover has a compare feature.

I want to Compare Radegonde Lambert’s haplogroup with Kennewick Man’s haplogroup X2a2’3’4^.

The Compare tool uses the haplogroup you are viewing, and you enter a second haplogroup to compare with the first.

The ancestral path to the shared ancestor, meaning their shared haplogroup, is given for each haplogroup entered. That’s X2 in this case. Then, from the shared haplogroup back in time to Mitochondrial Eve.

I prefer to view this information in table format, so I created a chart and rounded the haplogroup ages above X2.

Hap Age – Years Ago Radegonde’s Line Shared Ancestors and Haplogroups Kennewick’s Line Hap Age – Years Ago
143,000 mt-Eve
130,000 L1”7
119,000 L2”7
99,000 L2’3’4’6
92,000 L3’4’6
73,500 L3’4
61,000 L3
53,000 N
53,000 N+8701
25,000 X
22,500 X1’2’3’7’8
13,000 X2 – Asia
13,000 X2+225 X2a 10,500
12,900 X2b”aq X2a2’3’4^ 10,400 Kennewick Man born c 8800 years ago
11,000 X2b
5,500 X2b1”64
5,000 X2b4
1,900 X2b4d’g
Radegonde Lambert born c 1661 – 400 years ago 1,700 X2b4g

More Ancient Connections

Radegonde Lambert’s matrilineal descendants have an additional dozen Ancient Connections that are found in upstream haplogroup N-8701. Their shared ancestors with Radegonde reach back to 53,000 years ago in a world far different than the one we inhabit today. I’m not going to list or discuss them, except for one.

Identity Age Years Ago Location & Cultural Group Hap Hap Age Years Ago Shared Hap Shared Hap Age Years Ago
Radegonde Lambert (F) 400 France or Canada X2b4g 1700
Carrowkeel 534 (M) 5100-4600 Sligo, Ireland – Neolithic Europe X2b4 5000 X2b4 5000
Ladoga 16 (M) 800-1100 Ladoga, Russia Fed – Viking Russia X2b4 5000 X2b4 5000
Parknabinnia 186 (M) 5516-5359 Clare, Ireland – Neolithic Europe X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Rössberga 2 (M) 5339-5025 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Rössberga 29 (M) 5366-5100 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker and Early Plague X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Rössberga 38 (M) 5340-5022 Vastergotland, Sweden – Funnel Beaker X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 Before 5050
Monte Sirai 797263 (U) 2600-2400 Monte Sirai, Italy (Sardinia) – Phoenicians X2b35a1 3350 X2b1”64 5050
Bogovej 361 (F) 1000-1100 Lengeland, Denmark – Viking Denmark X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 5050
Ladoga 410 (M) 800-1000 Leningrad Oblast, Russia – Viking Russia X2b1”64 5516-5259 X2b1”64 5050
Barcin 31 (M) 8236-8417 Derekoy, Turkey – Neolithic Anatolia Ceramic X2m2’5’7^ 9200 X2b”aq 13,000
Abasar 55 (M) 500-800 Abasár Bolt-tető, Abasar, Hungary – Medieval Hungary X2m1e 5350 X2b”aq 13,000
Gerdrup 214 3779-3889 Gerdrup, Sealand, Denmark – Middle Bronze Age X2c1 3400 X2+225 13,000
Kopparsvik 225 950-1100 Gotland, Sweden – Viking Sweden X2z 5650 X2+225 13,000
Sandomierz 494 900-1100 Sandomierz, Poland – Viking Poland X2c2b 1650 X2+225 13,000
Sweden Skara 275 800-1100 Varnhem, Skara, Sweden – Viking Sweden X2c1 3400 X2+225 13,000
Kennewick man 8390-9250 Kennewick, Washington – Native American X2a2’3’4^ 10,450 X2 13,000
Roopkund 39 80-306 Roopkund Lake, Uttarakhand, India – Historical India X2d 13,000 X2 13,000
Ranis 10 43,500-47,000 Ranis, Germany – LRJ Hunger Gatherer N3’10 53,000 N+8701 53,000
Zlatý kůň woman 47,000 Czech Republic – N+8701 53,000 N+8701 53,000

Zlatý kůň Woman

Zlatý kůň Woman lived some 43,000 years ago and her remains were discovered in the Czech Republic in 1950.

Believed to be the first anatomically modern human to be genetically sequenced, she carried about 3% Neanderthal DNA. Europeans, Asians and indigenous Americans carry Neanderthal DNA as well.

Unlike many early remains, Zlatý kůň Woman’s facial bones have been scanned and her face approximately reconstructed.

There’s something magical about viewing a likeness of a human that lived more than 40,000 years ago, and to whom I’m at least peripherally related.

Like all other Ancient Connections, it’s unlikely that I descend from Zlatý kůň Woman herself, but she is assuredly my very distant cousin.

What else do we know about Zlatý kůň Woman? Quoting from her Ancient Connection:

She lived during one of the coldest periods of the last ice age, surviving in harsh tundra conditions as part of a small hunter-gatherer group. She died as a young adult, though the cause of death remains unknown.

Her brain cavity was larger than that of modern humans in the comparative database, another trait showing Neanderthal affinity. While the exact colors of her features cannot be determined from available evidence, researchers created both a scientific grayscale model and a speculative version showing her with dark curly hair and brown eyes.

Zlatý kůň Woman may or may not have direct descendants today, but her haplogroup ancestors certainly do, and Radegonde Lambert is one of them, which means Radegonde’s matrilineal ancestors and descendants are too.

Ancient Connections for Genealogy

While Ancient Connections are fun, they are more than just amusing.

You are related through your direct matrilineal (mitochondrial) line to every one of your mtDNA Discover Ancient Connections. Everyone, males and females, can take a mitochondrial DNA test.

I find people to test for the mitochondrial DNA of each of my ancestral lines – like Radegonde Lambert, for example. I wrote about various methodologies to find your lineages, or people to test for them, in the article, Lineages Versus Ancestors – How to Find and Leverage Yours.

Radegonde’s mitochondrial DNA is the only key I have into her past, both recent and distant. It’s the only prayer I have of breaking through that brick wall, now or in the future.

Interpreted correctly, and with some luck, the closer Ancient Connections can provide genealogical insight into the origins of our ancestors. Not just one ancestor, but their entire lineage. While we will never know their names, we can learn about their cultural origins – whether they were Vikings, Phoenicians or perhaps early Irish buried in Passage Graves.

On a different line, an Ancient Connection burial with an exact haplogroup match was discovered beside the Roman road outside the European town where my ancestral line was believed to have been born.

Ancient Connections are one small glimpse into the pre-history of our genetic line. There are many pieces that are missing and will, in time, be filled in by ancient remains, Notable Connections, and present-day testers.

Check your matches and your Ancient Connections often. You never know when that magic piece of information you desperately need will appear.

What is waiting for you?

_____________________________________________________________

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 e-mail 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 Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Catherine Savoie (c1661-c1722/5), Whispered Threads Weave a Tapestry of Life – 52 Ancestors #445

Catherine Savoie or Savoye was born about 1661 in Acadia to Francois Savoie (also Savoy and Savoye) and Catherine LeJeune, the fifth of their nine children.

The Savoie family lived at BelleIsle, behind today’s BelleIsle Hall Acadian Cultural Center where Catherine’s older brother, Germain Savoie, later lived.

If you’re a Savoie descendant, Charlie Thibodeau at the Cultural Center can walk you through those swamps, show you the Savoie dykes and where the homestead stood. I’m climbing one of the Savoie homestead dykes, above, on the way to their settlement.

Charlie can and will tell you about the days, 350 years ago, of old Acadia. This is literally a hike back through time.

What would Catherine think of her descendants visiting her childhood home? She would have so many stories to tell us.

The first Acadian census was taken in 1671 when Catherine was living in a home that stood here, literally right here, listed with her parents as 9 years old, which puts her birth in 1662.

The family has four cows and is living on six arpents of cultivated land.

In the next census, taken in 1678, Catherine’s parents are not listed, so it appears that they have both died, or the entire family was missed in the census. However, they are not listed in any future census either. Two of Catherine’s older siblings have married, but it’s unclear where Catherine’s other siblings are living. Two of her siblings, like her parents, simply disappear after the 1671 census. Perhaps the same malady swept them all away. That’s a lot of grief to bear for a young woman between the ages of 9 and 16.

Catherine is shown in the 1678 census having married Francois Levron about 1676. The couple has been blessed with their first child, a boy, age 1. The parents’ ages are not given in this census. Francois and Catherine are living with the Widow Pesselet, who has one cow and five sheep, but no land under cultivation.

The age of their child suggests that Catherine married Francois Levron when she was between 14 and 16 years old. That sounds very young to us today, but Acadian girls tended to marry early. Plus, if Catherine’s parents died, an expedited marriage would have been a good solution.

Andre Carl Vachon has suggested that Francois Levron, born about 1651, was a soldier who was transferred from Fort Pentagouet in Maine to Port Royal during the winter of 1672.

By 1686, the next census, Catherine and Francois have four children. Catherine is listed as age 20, with her oldest child as age 9. That is clearly incorrect, as Catherine would have been born in 1666 and had her first child at age 11. Catherine would have been about 25.

In 1693, Catherine is listed as age 34, which puts her birth year at 1659.

In 1698, Catharine was 38, which suggests her birth in 1660.

In 1700, she is 41, which correlates with her birth in 1659.

Based on the various census dates, minus 1686 which is clearly in error, Catherine was probably born between 1660 and 1662. If she was born in 1661 and married in 1676, she would have been about 15 or maybe 16 – which is about right for an Acadian bride. She would have been very excited to marry and start her own family.

The Sieur de Diereville, a surgeon from France who spent a year in Port Royal beginning in 1699, wrote:

A Father and a Mother do not keep
A nubile daughter long at home, although
She causes them no care, and to their will
Submits in registering her vows. If when
Some tender Suitor comes, to urge his love
His Sweetheart favours him, wedlock
Unites them both and they are free
To populate the World; which is,
Moreover, that which they do best,
And, as their tenderness is never shared,
Between the first transports of ardent Youth
And old age, many a Child’s begot.

He also commented that class differences didn’t seem to matter when marrying, as opposed to back in France.

Motherhood

Motherhood began early for Catherine, around16 or so, which was younger than the average of about 20 for Acadian girls. Still, 15 or 16 was not uncommon.

Catherine had 10 known children, and probably at least 14, based on those empty spaces which whisper about the children who were born and died between censuses. She also had more than 66 grandchildren, but we really don’t know how many more – and she didn’t know them all. Some died at birth. Some were born after Catherine’s death. Some of her children moved away.

Child Birth Death Spouse  Children
Jacques Levron C 1677 Before 1746 Marie Doucet married Jan. 8, 1710 13
? 1679 Before 1686 census
? 1680 Before 1686 census
Magdelaine Levron C 1682 Before May 8, 1752 Clement Vincent married c 1698 12
Anne Levron C 1684 Jan. 5, 1733 Pierre Benoit married c 1713 2
Marie Levron C 1686 Aug. 1, 1727 Jean Garceau married in 1703 10
Census 1686
? C 1688
Elisabeth (Isabelle) Levron C 1690 After Aug. 14, 1763 Michel (Etienne) Picot married Nov. 3, 1705, then Yves Maucaer Feb. 9, 1712 5
Joseph Levron C 1691 After 1750 in Quebec Rose Denise Veronneau married Sept. 13, 1722 Boucherville, Quebec, then Catherine Brunet in 1750 in Fort Frontenac 3
Jean-Baptiste Levron C 1692 Before March 2, 1756 Francoise Labauve married Jan 13, 1716 9
Census 1693
Jeanne Levron dit Nantais C 1694 Jan 19, 1751 Augustin Comeau married Feb. 12, 1714 11
Pierre Levron C 1696 Jan. 20, 1725 Never married
Census 1698
? C 1698 1698-1700
Madeleine Levron C 1700 After 1723 Jean Labauve married Aug. 11, 1722 1
Census 1700

This chart shows Catherine’s known children, plus those we can infer based on those loudly silent gaps in the census.

The four “gap” children would have been buried either in the cemetery at Port Royal, now known as the Garrison Cemetery, or in the little cemetery behind the St. Laurent Church or Chapel, referred to as the Mass House, just east of BelleIsle, very near where Catherine’s parents lived. Depending where Catherine and Francois lived and what was going on when those children died, some may have been, and probably were, buried in both cemeteries.

St. Laurents, and its cemetery, is lost to us today.

We know the church existed, as it is listed as the “Mass House” on two early maps. This 1757 map shows two “things” at the Mass House. One would have been the church, of course, and the other is probably the adjacent cemetery.

This 1733/1753 map version is less specific.

We know that the parish church at Port Royal was destroyed in 1690 and probably in 1708 as well, given that the rest of the town was burned. After Port Royal fell to the English in 1710, the Garrison Cemetery, as it was renamed, began to be used for English burials. It wasn’t entirely abandoned by Acadians, but based on some parish records before 1710, we know the Mass House at BelleIsle was in use by 1707. I’d wager that it had been in use since at least 1690, if not much earlier.

Unfortunately, parish records are incomplete, and none exist before 1702. Those after 1702 are spotty, and few record the location of burials, even though we know at least three early cemeteries existed. FindaGrave lists 17 known burials at St. Laurent, including Catherine’s close family members. I know of one more not listed in the cemetery – Catherine’s own son who died in 1725. This tells us that this cemetery was in use for at least two decades and probably significantly longer.

Even though the cemetery no longer exists today, it’s unlikely that the English settlers who arrived beginning around 1759, four years after the Acadians were deported in 1755, would have summarily destroyed a known cemetery. The church would have either deteriorated, been used for something else, or eventually been removed, but the graves likely simply remained undisturbed until, with the passage of time, the cemetery became overgrown, then forgotten, and now lost.

Based on the two earlier maps, and today’s Google Maps, I’ve noted the two approximate locations of the cemetery.

This is the approximate location of the 1757 map Mass House.

This is the approximate location of the Mass House on the map drawn based on the 1707 census, another map in 1733, and refined by 1753 information.

It’s someplace in this area. Maybe Charlie can find it one day!

We may not know exactly where, but it’s certain that the upriver residents worshipped here and buried their family members in the consecrated land adjacent the church. It was a lot closer than Port Royal, which often didn’t have a functioning church, and after 1710, it was a lot safer upriver than in Port Royal, given the shifting sands of the English and Acadian political status.

Catherine’s four children who were born and died between censuses may have been buried here, especially the child born after 1690 when we know the church in Port Royal was destroyed. This child born about 1698, died between the 1698 and the 1700 censuses, where Catherine’s daughter Madeleine was recorded.

The only thing remaining of these children is simply an empty gap on the census page, the ache in Catherine’s heart, and perhaps an unmarked grave here – their original small wooden cross long gone.

I surely wish we could locate the church and cemetery site today.

Unusual Circumstances

Do you ever get a funny gut feeling that something just isn’t right, or that there’s another piece to a story that you don’t, and probably never will, know?

That’s how I feel about Catherine’s family. Of course, many, if not most Acadian records no longer exist, so we’re working with only a sliver of information.

Here’s the very short list of available records that we are able to reference, combined with historical episodes that affected the Acadians in Port Royal dramatically:

  • Sporadic Acadian census records
  • Some birth, marriage, and death records after 1702
  • English attacks and surrounding historical events

What was happening in Catherine’s life following her 1676 marriage, which would probably have taken place in the Catholic church in Port Royal?

In the 1678 census, Catherine is a newlywed, with a one-year-old baby. The family is living with the Widow Pesselet. I’d like to know the rest of that story!

Between Catherine’s marriage and the 1686 census a decade later, she gave birth to six children, two of whom had died, and four who were living.

In the 1686 census, Francois Levron and Catherine Savoie are listed between the Melanson and Brun families, which strongly suggests that they are living across the river from Port Royal, where they are later found.

In 1690, the English attacked and burned all of the homes in Port Royal and probably the homes across the river as well, which would have included the Levron home.

They literally lived directly across the river from Fort Anne in Port Royal. In this photo, taken within the fort, the Levron home would have been to the right of the church.

The upriver homesteads were spared, but it’s very unlikely that these homes within clear sight would have been.

Between the 1686 and the 1693 censuses, four children were born to Catherine, but only the last three were living in 1693.

In the 1693 census, they are found in the same location as 1686, beside Laurens Grange and Pierre Doucet, who lived across from Port Royal and Fort Anne. So they apparently rebuilt after being burned out, as did the other Acadians at and near Port Royal.

In 1693, the English attacked and burned a dozen or so homes, plus three barns full of grain.

Between the 1693 and 1698 censuses, two more children joined the family, and their eldest daughter had married.

But in 1698, there was an unexpected census change. Francois and Catherine appear to be living in a different area.

In 1698, Francois Levron and Catherine Savoie are listed as neighbors of Emanuel Hebert on one side, and Rene Forest on the other. Their daughter, Madelaine, and her new husband, Clement Vincent are living next door.

Shown on this Mapannapolis map, this places Francois and Catherine fairly far upriver, about 12 miles East of Port Royal at Bloody Creek, which at one time was called Forest Creek. Rene Forest lives on one side, and the Hebert family on the other.

Another child or two were born in 1698 or 1699, both of whom perished.

In the 1700 census, the family has roughly the same neighbors as they did in 1686 and 1693, across the river from Fort Anne at Port Royal. So either they moved back downriver, or the 1698 census was out of order.

Their last child was born about that time as well. Catherine is now about 40 years old, so this makes sense, although it’s possible that she had another child or even two.

In 1701, the entire family is missing from the census, but their married daughter, Madelaine, and Clement Vincent are living upriver.

Something is going on, but what?

Know what else is strange in 1701? Daughter, Marie Levron, age 15, was working as a servant in the home of Emanuel Hebert. Why is that? Servants are exceedingly rare in Acadia, and are generally confined to the governors and upper-class, wealthy residents of Port Royal. Not Acadian farmers farming reclaimed marshlands upriver. Furthermore, Marie’s not there to help with young children, as she is three years younger than their youngest child.

Francois and Catherine are listed again in the 1703 census. I can’t tell for sure where the family is living, but they are two doors from their daughter and Clement Vincent – and it looks like they may still be upriver. The census may not have been recorded in house-to-house order, and the census taker also may have canoed back and forth across the river. Francois and Catherine have two boys and four girls, which means that daughter Marie is living at home again. Marie would marry Jean Garceau later that year, a soldier, on November 20, 1703. Several Acadian young women married the French garrison soldiers.

Looking at witnesses at various church events, it’s clear that Catherine and her family are interwoven in the tapestry of the upriver families as well as those living directly across from Port Royal.

The English struck again in 1704, burning homes, destroying crops, killing cattle and tearing down dykes.

Daughter Elizabeth Levron, also recorded in some records as Isabelle, married Michel (Etienne) Picot, also a soldier, on Nov. 3, 1705.

The English returned in 1707, burning nearly everything in the town – probably including the Levron homestead and that of their two married daughters, who were likely living on the same land.

We know for a fact that in both 1707 and 1710, the Levron family was living right across the river from Hogg Island at Port Royal, because we have two different maps that confirm the location.

On both the 1708 and 1710 maps, Francois Levron is noted by his dit name, Nantois, and he’s listed as “Le bonhomme Nantois” on the 1707 census.

The 1707 census also confirms that location. Clement Vincent is living next door, with Rene Doucet and the Grange/Granger family as neighbors.

Catherine’s eldest son, Jacques Levron, married Marie Doucet on January 8, 1710.

1710 was the year that Acadia was permanently lost to England following a wicked battle in which Catherine may well have had to shelter in the subterranian black hole in Fort Anne with her children and grandchildren.

It was safe there, but it would have been brutal if they had to stay for the entire 19 days.

In addition to the capitulation of the fort, one of the terms of surrender was that residents within three nautical miles, “within cannon shot,” were to be protected and allowed to stay, and those beyond the three-mile perimeter would be allowed to stay on sufferance.

The Priest attempted to gather and unite the Acadians beyond the three-mile marker, at Pre Ronde, or Round Hill, across from BelleIsle where Catherine’s family lived. This act of rebellion got him kidnapped by the English and shipped off to Boston. He was gone from mid-January through mid-December of 1711. There was a lot of death in Acadia that year.

After the surrender, the Acadians were told by the English that they would have to leave for other French colonies, meaning places like Beaubassin, for example. While the Acadians didn’t want to leave at first, by 1720, they had all planned to leave, but the English, realizing that they could not support themselves, now prohibited it. This back and forth tug-of-war lasted for years.

It was a very rough decade, with a great deal of uncertainty, acrimony and turmoil. What should they do, and who was going to do what – and when? Many of the young people left as soon as they married, while they could, and before they accumulated any belongings to lose.

In June of 1711, the Battle of Bloody Creek, took place on the Annapolis River above the mouth of Bloody Creek – formerly Forest Creek. If, indeed, Catherine and her family had relocated upriver in this area, they would have had front and center seats for the battle with the British. Someplace between 50 and 150 Acadians and their Native allies ambushed around 70 English troops in the river. They ultimately hoped to retake the fort, but without artillery, were unsuccessful. It’s possible that some Acadian men either died in the ambush, or were wounded and died later.

Daughter Marie’s husband, Jean Garceau, a French soldier, died sometime in 1711, leaving her with young children, including a year-old baby. Marie remarried to Alexander Richard the day after Christmas – just a week or so after the priest returned from Boston.

Daughter Elizabeth’s husband, Michel Picot, also a soldier, died sometime in 1711, leaving her with two infants, the youngest born in November, 1711. Elizabeth remarried to Yves Maucaer on Feb. 9, 1712, three weeks before baby Michel was officially baptized. Marriage was a matter of survival. Everyone already knew everyone in the close-knit community – so it wasn’t like you had to meet and get acquainted.

Catherine would have been doing her best to comfort and help her two newly-widowed daughters.

Catherine’s sister, Francoise Savoie, who was married to Jean Corporon died around Christmas in 1711, and was buried on the 27th.

Good Heavens, how much more can this family take?

Catherine’s sister, Marie Savoie, had married Gabriel Chiasson, and they had moved to Beaubassin where she died sometime after her youngest child was born in 1711, and the 1714 census. There seemed to be regular travel between the Acadian colonies, so I’m sure Catherine eventually heard the sad news and grieved her sister’s passing.

Daughter Anne Levron married Pierre Benoit about 1713.

Daughter Jeanne Levron married Augustin Comeau on Feb. 12, 1714.

Then, the unthinkable happened. Catherine’s husband, Francois Levron, died at midsummer, on June 23, 1714. I wonder if his death was sudden or if he had been ill. He was about 53, so not elderly by any means.

In the 1714 census, obviously taken after his death, Catherine is found living in the middle of six Girouard family members who live in the Girouard Village, just down the road from both Emmanuel Hebert and Rene Forest. This is the upriver location where they are found in the 1698 census, where Marie is living in 1701, and where her son was living in 1725. Why is this family found here or near here repeatedly.

However, Catherine’s son-in-law, Clement Vincent is still living “near the fort” on the census, near Rene Doucet and the Grange families again. Probably on Francois Levron’s land. Why is Catherine Savoie not living with them, or with her other married children?

Why is Catherine living in the midst of the Girouard family, near but not in the midst of the Hebert and Forest families, with her three unmarried children consisting of two sons and a daughter? In 1714, those three children would have been 22, 18, and 14. Catherine is about 53 years old and has no livestock and no land. How is she living? What is she eating? Who is feeding her children? Her two sons are old enough to work on the neighbors’ farms. Is that why they are living there? Why are they not living on and farming their own land?

So many questions!

In January of 1716, Catherine’s son, Jean-Baptiste Levron married Francoise La Bauve. Whose family lives almost directly across the river. Francois Levron is listed as deceased, of course, but Catherine is not.

On the thirteenth day of January, in the year 1716, we, the undersigned, declare to whom it may concern that we, Jean Baptiste Levron and Françoise Labaume
of this parish, and François Labauve, father of the said Labauve, and her mother, Marie Rimbaud, raise no objection to the proposed future marriage of our aforementioned children, Jean Baptiste Levron, son of the late François Levron and Catherine Savoye, residents of this parish, and Françoise La Bauve, daughter of Noël La Bauve and Marie Rimbaut, currently also residing in this parish.

On August 11, 1722, in the marriage entry of Magdelaine Levron and Jean de La Bauve, Francois Levron and Catherine Savoye are both described in exactly the same way. Francois is noted as deceased, and Catherine is simply listed as the mother. This leads me to believe that Catherine is probably still living, given that Francois is described as deceased. Little is known about the newlywed couple other than one child was born on December 11, 1723 in Grand Pre, which means they probably settled there immediately after they married. Catherine would not have known this grandchild, although she may have received word that the baby was born.

At some point, Joseph Levron left home and married Rose Denise Veronneau on Sept. 13, 1722 in Boucherville, Quebec. Catherine may never have known of this marriage, or whatever happened to her son. I’m guessing that Joseph was gone by the 1714 census, because he’s not accounted for. Was he one of the crew members of Pierre Baptiste, the friendly local privateer who recruited Acadian boys?

I was hoping to be able to narrow the dates of Catherine’s death based on her serving as Godmother to some of her grandchildren, but she is not listed for any grandchild. She might be listed for other children in the community, but Godparents and witnesses to events are not indexed in the Nova Scotia archive records. Perhaps having siblings or younger people as Godparents was the tradition, since they were more likely to be able to step in and raise a child should something happen to the parents.

Catherine’s Death

What we know about Catherine’s death is held in her son’s death record.

His death record continues on the next page.

Catherine’s youngest son, Pierre Levron never married and died in the home of Pierre Gaudet (Godet) on January 21, 1725, where he was listed as a domestic. Witnesses were his uncle Germain Savoye and Pierre Godet. His father is listed as Francois Levron, deceased, and Catherine Savoye, who is not listed as deceased by the archives translation.

However, based on an independent translation, both of Pierre’s parents are listed as deceased, and there’s more.

On the twenty-first of the month of January, 1725, was buried in the cemetery of Haut-de-Rivière, in my absence, the body of Pierre Levron, about thirty years old, son of Sieur François Levron, resident of Port Royal in Acadia, and of Catherine Savoye, his father and mother (both) deceased, (he died) the previous day after having confessed, in the house of Pierre Godet also…

(page 2)

…resident of Port Royal, in whose service he had been a servant. In witness of which I have signed, René Charles de Breslay, missionary priest, curate of the parish of St. Jean Baptiste and grand vicar of Monseigneur the Bishop of Québec, after having held a service for the repose of his soul and performed the burial ceremonies of his body at Port Royal on the 26th of the said month, in the presence of the said Pierre Godet and Germain Savoye, also residents of Port Royal and his uncle, who declared they did not know how to sign when requested to do so according to ordinance. R. C. De Breslay, missionary.

Note that the cemetery of Haut-de-Rivière would translate to “upper river cemetery,” meaning he was buried at St. Laurent. I feel good about that, becuase I know he had family nearby, maybe even his parents – or at least Catherine.

There were two Pierre Godets (Gaudet), two years apart, both named the same and born to the same parents. They also married Blanchard sisters, whose parents lived at BelleIsle. Pierre Godet the older, known as Pierre the elder, lived in Beaubassin in 1714 and signed a document there in August of 1722, so the Pierre in the 1725 record would have been Pierre the younger.

His father, Denis Godet, had established the Village des Gaudet in what is now the town of Bridgetown, even further upriver, amassing significant land across the river from Rene Forest and the Heberts.

In 1693, Denis Godet still owned his 20 arpents of land, but by 1698, Denis is still living, but the land was listed in Pierre’s name.

This 1733 map, drawn just a few years after Pierre Levron died, shows Gaudet Village where he would have lived. The houses were scattered aong the ridge of what is today Bridgetown.

Given his holdings, at age 71, Pierre Godet could probably have used a domestic servant, and as a respected community member, he would also have stood in for the priest, hearing Pierre Levron’s death-bed confession.

It’s possible that Pierre Godet was Pierre Levron’s godfather, although we will never know because the early parish records were destroyed by the English. However, that could be one reason why Pierre Levron was living with Pierre Godet. Pierre probably went to live in the Godet home when his mother died.

Please note that the designation of “Sieur” for Francois Levron, which translates to “Sir,” doesn’t necessarily mean royalty or nobility, but is an indication of respect equivalent to the English “Sir,” indicating someone that is well-respected within the community, and perhaps of social standing with a particularly respected trade such as a merchant or professional of some type.

As a final confirmation that Catherine was deceased, her daughter Elizabeth Levron remarried to Etienne Comeau in 1730, and both of Elizabeth’s parents are referenced as deceased.

Lack of Records

Why is Catherine’s death and burial record missing from the parish records? Wouldn’t I love to know that answer!!

For some reason, many deaths and burials were not recorded, or were recorded and are lost today. Was there a second register someplace – may be a book traditionally used for the St. Laurent Chapel?.

In a chart from page 73 in a pdf file from La Society historique acadienne, published in French, we find a tally of the total burials recorded in the existing parish registers.

It’s apparent that many deaths are omitted. For example, the years between 1706 and 1712, inclusive, have 16, 11, 14, 24, 16, 3, and 10, respectively. The priest had been kidnapped and taken to Boston in 1711, which shows 3 burials. The priest’s absence explains that drop. He did attempt to catch up when he returned.

Relative to Catherine, 1722 has 5 burials, 1723 has 1, 1724 has 5, and 1725 has 9. The numbers spike in 1727, with 23.

Based on this information, combined with the other records telling us that Catherine was alive in mid-August 1722, but deceased in January 1725 when her son died, I’d say Catherine probably died in 1723. It looks like the “least normal” year in terms of burials.

What we can say with certainty is that Catherine’s death occurred sometime between August 11, 1722 and January 20, 1725 when she was about 60 years old, or maybe a few years older. For all we know, Catherine may have also gone to live with the Godet family as a domestic after Francois’s death in 1714, and before her own death.

Catherine’s Children’s Lives

I was hoping to further narrow Catherine’s death by her grandchildren’s baptisms. Sometimes grandparents serve as a Godmother. Catherine was never found as Godmother for any of her grandchildren. Several were born prior to her death, between 1722 and 1725, so she would have been present at the baptisms in Port Royal.

How many grandchildren did Catherine know? Surely, as she aged and her own children established their adult lives, she would have taken solace and found joy in her grandchildren. She probably enjoyed watching them as their parents worked on the farms and in the fields.

Perhaps Catherine prepared food and baked bread in the Acadian ovens that were located outside every home as her grandchildren played nearby while their parents shored up dykes, planted and harvested grains, and worked with the livestock.

Where were Catherine’s children, and what was going on in their lives?

  • Catherine’s oldest son, Jacques Levron, was born about 1677 and married Marie Doucet in January of 1710.

In total, they had about 12 children, 8 of whom are known, meaning 2 died young, within Catherine’s lifetime.

In 1714, Jacques traveled on the vessel La Marie Joseph to Île Royale, today’s Cape Breton Island, to look at land. The land is very different there – not sandy or tidal marsh, but rocky. Farming techniques from Port Royal and the Annapolis River Valley wouldn’t work on Cape Breton Island. Jacques chose not to settle there and returned to Annapolis Royal, where he died before 1746. His daughter, born in March of 1716 died three months later, which would have brought Catherine immense grief. It appears that they lost a child in 1728 and 1735, but Catherine was gone by then, embracing them on the other side of the veil.

In total, they had 14 children, of which 7 died young, within Catherine’s lifetime.

Madeleine lost at least her first three children, Catherine’s first three grandchildren. Both women would have been devastated. Given that they lived next door, Catherine would assuredly have been present and probably assisting at their births. There are no parish records before 1702. Madeleine’s first child who lived was born in 1704.

Catherine and Madeleine must both have heaved a huge sigh of relief, assuming the earlier babies died near birth. Of course, without modern medicine and treatments, death was never far away, always skulking for a soul to capture.

Madeleine lost other babies in about 1711 and 1717. Given that there is no baptism or burial record, they may have been stillborn. Another died in 1719, just days old, and in 1722, 13 months old. Children baptized in both 1709 and 1719 listed Abraham Bourg as having provisionally baptized the babies in lieu of the priest, so that confirms that they lived across from Port Royal. It may also suggest that the babies were weak or sick, and they couldn’t wait for the priest.

Madeleine died in 1752 in Pisiquid, today’s Truro, where they apparently settled between 1726 and 1727, probably after Catherine died.

  • Daughter Anne Levron was born about 1684 and married Pierre Benoit, a soldier, about 1713. He became an officer, merchant and innkeeper in Louisbourg, where they lived. It may have been Anne and Pierre that her brother, Jacque Levron, visited in 1714.

We only have records of two children, although Anne almost assuredly had more.

Given that Anne’s first known child, Anne, was born in 1718, she must have lost either two or three earlier children. Anne, the child, died at age 15 in 1733 in Louisbourg, just two weeks after her mother. The second living child, Marie Anne, was born in May of 1725, which infers that either several children are unknown, or died between 1718 and 1725.

Anne and Pierre would have left Port Royal not long after their marriage, given that the fort at Louisbourg was founded in 1713, which probably broke Catherine’s heart. Catherine would not have been able to share in her daughter’s joys or grief. She would have been unable to comfort Anne, even if word did eventually trickle back to Port Royal about the residents of Louisbourg.

Catherine’s daughter, Anne, died on January 5, 1733, in the midst of a smallpox outbreak that took the lives of 200 people in Louisbourg, including Anne and her namesake daughter.

They would have been laid to rest in the cemetery which is unmarked today, but located in this field by the bay.

  • Daughter Marie Levron was born about 1686 and married Jean Garceau in 1703, a soldier at the garrison who may well have fought with her father.

Marie’s life was shaped by tragedy. In total, she had about 15 children, of which 6 died young, and 7 died within Catherine’s lifetime.

Based on a gap in the records, Marie lost a child in about 1705 or 1706, and another in 1709. Her husband, Jean, died in 1711, and Marie remarried to Alexandre Richard at Christmas that year. Unfortunately, Marie lost more children in 1714, 1716, 1722, and 1725. Additionally, we have nothing after their births for Claude born in 1715 and Isabelle, born in 1723, who may have passed about the same time their grandmother, Catherine.

Less than half, only 7 of Marie’s children grew to adulthood.

Catherine never stood as Godmother, but would have attended their baptisms, praying for a good future for them, then stood beside the graves to bury all but one or two of those grandchildren.

  • Daughter Elizabeth (Isabelle) Levron was born about 1690, the same year that all of the homes in Port Royal were burned by the English. We don’t know if her birth was before, during, or after the terrifying incursion. She married Michel Picot in 1705, then Yves Yvon Maucaire in 1712, followed by Etienne Comeau in 1730.

Elizabeth survived the Acadian’s worst nightmare – the expulsion in 1755 where they were forced to walk down the snow-cover wharf, leaving everythign behind, and board  overcrowded ships for God-knows-where.

The same wharf within view of her childhood home across the river.

Many did not survive, but Elizabeth wound up in Massachusetts where she was last found in the census on August 14, 1763. She would have been 73 years old and died sometime thereafter. 

In total, Elizabeth had only 5 known children, but she clearly would have given birth to more. Based on what we do know, she probably brought about 14 babies into the world.

Her first child’s birth wasn’t recorded until two years after her wedding, so I’d wager that her first child died in 1704, a year after she married. It wasn’t uncommon to lose the first baby, especially with a difficult birth.

Elizabeth probably lost her third baby in 1706, and another in 1709. We know that Port Royal experienced a “pestilence” in 1709, following a severe winter and the burned homes the year before, but it was reportedly confined mostly to the fort and surrounding area.

Elizabeth’s husband, Michel, died between February and November of 1711, when Elizabeth’s son, Michael was born on November 13th, 1711. At his baptism in February of 1712, his mother had remarried three weeks earlier, and of course, his father was listed as deceased. I suspect his father was already deceased when Michel was born.

Some kind of Hell was going on in Acadia in 1711.

This makes me wonder if both Elizabeth’s and Marie’s husbands met the same fate – possibly as a result of the 1710 battle when the French lost Acadia to the English. An even more likely possibility is that they perished in June, 1711, in or as a result of the Battle of Bloody Creek.

Catherine would have comforted Elizabeth after the deaths of her babies and first husband, Michel.

Elizabeth had three known children by Yves, but she probably lost one, if not two children before her next child was baptized in 1715. Elizabeth apparently lost another child in 1717, and three more before her next child’s birth in 1726.

Sadly, there is nothing more known about the child born in 1715 or 1726, so it’s likely that they died as well, meaning that Elizabeth only had three children who lived. Of those, one was deported with Elizabeth to Massachusetts, one died before the deportation, and the death of her son was after 1735 but when is uncertain.

Yves died on June 16, 1727, and she remarried again in November of 1730 to Etienne Comeau, but no children were born to that marriage.

Of Elizabeth’s children who perished, Catherine would have been right there, standing with her sobbing daughter, burying 10 children and Elisabeth’s first husband.

The 17-teens were so filled with tragedy and grief for this family.

  • Son Joseph “dit Letayer” Levron was born about 1691 and married Rose Denise Veronneau in September 1722 in Quebec, so Catherine, would not have known his wife or children. We know Catherine was still alive in August of 1722, but gone by January 1725, and she may or may not have been aware of Joseph’s marriage.

In total, Joseph had three known children, two of whom may have been born before Catherine died, but there were assuredly more.

  • Son Jean-Baptiste Levron was born about 1692, married Francoise LaBauve in 1716, and died before March 2, 1756. He would have been one of the three children living with Catherine in the 1714 census after Francois died.

In total, Jean-Baptiste had about 14 children, of which 6 died young, and one or two probably died within Catherine’s lifetime.

Jean-Baptiste and his wife lost a child in both 1721 and 1723. There is nothing more known about the child baptized in 1721, so she may have died before Catherine.

Jean-Baptiste and his family relocated to the settlement at Grand Pre between 1730 and 1737.

At least two children would have been born between those years, and another in 1741 – but we don’t know if the records are complete.

  • Daughter Jeanne Levron dit Nantais was born about 1694 and married Augustin Comeau in February 1714. She died on January 19, 1751.

In total, Jeanne had about 15 children, of whom 5 died young.

Jeanne’s first child, Marie Josephe, was born three days after Christmas the same year that her parents married, but sadly, died when she was just 6, in July 1721.

Catherine would have known this child well and stood by her small grave, weeping, that hot July day. It’s gut-wrenching to lose any child, but the longer you know them, the more there is to grieve. Not just their future, but your shared memories and bonding moments as well.

Four more children were born to Jeanne before Catherine died, so she would have celebrated their baptisms and enjoyed watching them blossom in the Acadian sun.

Jeanne probably lost two more children between 1733 and 1734, and at least two more between 1735 and 1741. Three of her 11 children born in the 1720s and 1730s have no information beyond their birth, which could be because they were scooped up in the 1755 expulsion and survived elsewhere. Let’s hope.

  • Son Pierre Levron was born about 1696 and died on January 20, 1725, in the middle of the winter, which is how we bracketed Catherine’s death. He would have been one of the three children living with Catherine in the 1714 census.
  • Catherine’s youngest child, Madeleine or Magdelaine Levron was born in 1700 and married Jeane La Bauve on August 11th, 1722, which is the last date we know for certain that Catherine was living. Madeleine was the daughter living with Catherine in the 1714 census, and the La Bauve family lived across the river, just above BelleIsle. Madeleine and Jeane La Bauve left shortly after their marriage for Grand Pre where their first child, a son, was born on December 11, 1723.

If Catherine was still living, she wouldn’t have known about Madeleine’s first baby until word filtered down to Port Royal.

We know this child was baptized in this church and survived to marry, but we don’t know anything more about Madeleine, her husband, or any additional children.

Did they die in Grand Pre, and rest in unmarked graves in the cemetery there?

Or were they deported from these shores, now marked with this iconic cross?

Part of me wonders if Catherine packed up and went with them to Grand Pre, and that’s why we don’t have a death record for her. Having considered that possibility, I doubt it because it seems unlikely that she would have left her unmarried son, Pierre, along with the rest of her family, behind.

I wonder if Pierre was disabled in some way, which is why, after Catherine’s death, he was living with neighbors as a domestic when he died.

Actual Timeline

There are two lenses with which to view these events. One way is through their individual stories, and another is via an actual timeline.

Stories are a lot more personal, and the timeline is starkly black-and-white. We need both perspectives.

The stories relate to individual people, but the timeline shows Catherine’s life, in order – or sometimes, disorder. It’s much easier to see, by year, what was actually happening.

We can’t do this well for our Acadian ancestors who lived before the census and parish records existed, but Catherine’s life spanned those years. Her early life was before parish records, but her children’s lives and grandchildren’s births are often found in the church books.

I know I’m just a glutton for punishment, but I had to create a spreadsheet timeline for Catherine.

This helps me “visit” with her during her life as she lived it. It also helps illuminate possible cause and effect. Without parish records, we don’t have a lot of information before 1702, although we can infer a lot by the various censuses and associated history.

Even so, we have a total of about 290 known “events” – most of which Catherine would have made a trip to church, or to the cemetery, or both.

Of course, that was in addition to “normal” church services, whatever that would have meant in an Acadia that was often either unstable or engaged in warfare. Not to mention that few people lived IN Port Royal. Catherine grew up on the North side of the river at or near BelleIsle, moved downriver across from the fort when she married, lived there through being burned out at least four times, if not five, then spent (at least) her sunset years back upriver, but on the south side.

The Girouard marsh and dykes overlook the Savoie lands and those of other BelleIsle families. Depending on which way you look, you could probably also see the St. Laurent Mass House. It’s no wonder Catherine’s family was buried here.

There’s still a lot that we don’t know, but viewing this timeline helps us piece together and understand more about what was happening in Catherine’s life day-to-day, month-to-month and year-to-year.

Our timeline begins with Catherine’s birth and ends around the time of her death.

I’ve color coded groups of people and events:

  • Catherine’s parents, aunts, uncles and siblings are in bold black
  • Catherine’s children are in bold blue
  • Catherine’s grandchildren are purple
  • Births are green
  • Mrriages are magenta
  • Deaths are teal

Although the births of nieces and nephews involve Catherine’s siblings, I have not color coded those.

Some events are told directly. For example, females birth surnames are given in the census, with ages in many cases. Later, we can match the names of children with marriages and the births of their own children. Families can be reliably reconstructed in this manner. Other events are revealed indirectly, like the gaps in the census that reveals that a child, or maybe two, were born and died. This could have been one event, with a stillbirth or even multiple miscarriages, or it could have been separate events, with a birth, joyful baptism, and later, a death – all happening with no evidence other than that telltale gap.

Date Who Relationship Event Comment
1661 Catherine Savoie Self Birth
1663 Francois Savoie brother Birth
1665 Barnabe Savoie brother Birth
1667 Andree Savoie sister Birth
1670 Marie Savoie sister Birth
1670 Francoise Savoie sister Marriage Jean Corporon
1671-1686 Francois Savoie brother Death Died between the census dates
1671-1686 Francois Savoie father Death Died between the census dates
1671-1686 Catherine LeJeune mother Death Died between the census dates
1671-1686 Barnabe Savoie brother Death Died between the census dates
1671 Census – age 9 with her parents at BelleIsle
1671 Marie Corporon niece Birth
1672 Madeleine Corporon niece Birth
1673 Jeanne Corporon niece Birth
1675 Jeanne Savoie sister Marriage Etienne Pellerin
1675 Jacques Corporon nephew Birth
1676 Madeleine/Magelaine Pellerin niece Birth Charles Calve dit la Forge
1676 Catherine Savoie self Marriage Francois Levron
1676 Marie Savoie sister Marriage Jacques Triel dit Laperriere, a soldier who probably served with Francois Levron
1677 Jacques Levron son Birth
1677 Jean Corporon nephew Birth
1677 Pierre Triel nephew Birth
1678 Marie Pellerin niece Birth
1678 Germain Savoie brother Marriage Marie Breau
1678 Marie Corporon niece Birth
1678 Census – living near Port Royal with the Widow Pesselet
1679 Catherine Savoie’s unknown child child Birth & Death Gap in children
1679 unknown Savoie brother Germain’s child Birth Gap in children
1679 Marie Madelaine Triel die LaPerriere niece Birth
1680 Catherine Savoie’s unknown child child Birth & Death Gap in children
1680 unknown Pellerin sister’s child Birth
1680 unknown Corporon sister’s child Birth & Death Gap in children
1680 unknown Savoie brother Germain’s child Birth Gap in children
1681 unknown Triel sister’s child Birth & Death
1681 Isabelle (Elizabeth) Corporon niece Birth
1682 Madeleine Levron daughter Birth Died before May 1752 in Pisiquid when her son married.
1699 unknown Vincent daughter’s child Birth & Death
1682 Pierre Pellerin nephew Birth
1682 Germain Savoie nephew Birth
1682 Nicolas Triel nephew Birth
1683 Cecile Corporon niece Birth
1684 Anne Levron daughter Birth Died in 1733 in Louisbourg.
1684 Alexis Triel nephew Birth
1684 Francois Xavier Savoie nephew Birth
1684 Anne Pellerin niece Birth
1685 Jean-Baptiste Pellerin nephew Birth
1685 Marguerite Corporon niece Birth
1686 Marie Levron daughter Birth Died in 1727 Annapolis Royal
1686 Map with homesteads but no names
1686 Census – living across the river from Port Royal
1686 unknown Triel sister’s child Birth & Death
1686-1693 Francois Goutrot aunt’s husband Death Died between the census dates
1686-1693 Marie Corporon niece Death Died between the census dates
1687 Marie Corporon niece Marriage Charles Boudrot – moved to Pisiguit
1687 Martin Corporon nephew Birth
1688 Catherine Savoie’s unknown child child Birth & Death Gap in children
1688 unknown Triel sister’s child Birth & Death
1688 unknown Savoie brother Germain’s child Birth Gap in children
1688 Marie Savoie sister Marriage Gabriel Chiasson, was in Minas in 1693, Beaubassin in 1697
1688 Francois Corporon nephew Birth
1688 Jeanne Pellerin niece Birth
1689 Michel Chiasson nephew Birth In Les Mines by 1693 but Catherine may have been at his baptism
1689 New fort begun, left unfinished
5-9-1690 English attacked and burned homes
June 1690 English reinforcements arrived
1690 English pirates burned homes
1690 Acadia falls under English control
1690 Madeleine Corporon niece Marriage Bernard Doucet
1690 Marie Triel niece Birth
1690 Pierre Savoie nephew Birth
1690 Charles Pellerin nephew Birth
1690 Elizabeth Levron daughter Birth 1763 census in Massachusetts
1691 Pierre Chiasson nephew Birth In Les Mines by 1693 but Catherine may have been at his baptism
1691 Jeanne Corporon niece Marriage Antoine Hebert
1691 Charles Corporon nephew Birth
1691 Bernard Pellerin nephew Birth
1691 Joseph Levron son Birth Died 1750 Canada
1692 Jean Baptiste Chiasson nephew Birth In Les Mines by 1693 but Catherine may have been at his baptism
1692 Jean-Baptiste Levron son Birth Grand Pre in 1737, died between 1741 and 1756
1692 unknown Triel sister’s child Birth & Death
1692 Jean Corporon nephew Birth
1692 Jean Savoie nephew Birth
1696 Census – lives across the river from the fort
1693 English attack Port Royal burning homes and barns
1693 Madeleine/Magelaine Pellerin niece Marriage Charles Calve dit la Forge
1693 unknownn Pellerin sister’s child Birth & Death
1693 Marie Savoie sister Relocated Beaubassin by 1693
1694 Alexandre Pellerin nephew Birth
1694 unknown Triel sister’s child Birth & Death
1694 Marie-Madeleine Corporon niece Birth
1694 Jeanne Levron daughter Birth Died 1751 Annapolis Royal
1694 Marie Madeleine Savoie niece Birth
1695 Marie Pellerin niece Marriage Jacques Doucet
1696 Pierre Levron son Birth
1696 unknown Pellerin sister’s child Birth & Death
1696 Paul Savoie nephew Birth
1696 unknown Triel sister’s child Birth & Death
1696 Ambrose Corporon nephew Birth
1696 Marie Savoie niece Birth
1697 Acadia returned to French
1693-1698 Edmee LeJeune aunt Death Mother’s sister
1693-1698 Charles Corporon nephew Death Died between the census dates
1698 Census – listed with upriver families
1698 Catherine Savoie’s unknown child Child Birth & Death Gap in children
1698 unknown Triel sister’s child Birth & Death
1698 unknown Pellerin sister’s child Birth & Death
1698 Claude Savoie nephew Birth
1699 Marguerite Pellerin niece Birth
1699 Fort Anne returned to French
1698-1700 Marie Savoie sister Spouse Death Died between the census dates
1698-1700 Ambrose Corporon nephew Death Died between the census dates
1698-1700 Francois Corporon nephew Death Died between the census dates
1698-1700 Nicolas Triel nephew Death Died between the census dates
1700 Census – lives across the river from the fort
1700 Madeleine Levron daughter Birth Chipoudie 1752, 1755, Camp L’Esperance winter 1756/57.
1700 unknown Savoie brother Germain’s child Birth Gap in children
1700-1701 Marie Savoie niece Death Died between the census dates
1701 Census – family missing except two children living upriver
1701 unknown Savoie brother Germain’s child Birth Gap in children
1701 Anne Pellerin niece Marriage Abraham Brun
11-27-1702 Marie Madelaine Triel die LaPerriere niece Marriage Louis La Chaume dit Loumeray, a soldier, moved to Louisbourg between 1710-1713
1702 Work on Fort Anne resumes
1702 Cecile Corporon niece Marriage Jean Boudrot – moved to Pisiquid
1700-1703 Jacques Corporon nephew Death Died between the census dates
1701-1703 Pierre Pellerin nephew Death Died between the census dates
1703 Census – location uncertain
1703 unknown Vincent grandchild Birth & Death
5-25-1703 Charles Savoie nephew Birth
11-20-1703 Marie Levron daughter Marriage Daniel Garceau
3-17-1704 Pierre Vincent grandson Birth
June 1704 English attacked and burned homes, Port Royal under siege 17 days
10-22-1704 Pierre Jean Garceau grandson Birth
1706 unknown Vincent grandchild Birth & Death
1704-1707 Pierre Vincent grandson Death Before 1707 census
Spring 1705 English attack Acadian settlements
1705 unknown Savoie brother Germain’s child Birth Gap in children
9-29-1705 Madeleine/Magelaine Pellerin niece Spouse Death Charles Calve dit La Forge who lives as Beausoleil at the river heights
11-3-1705 Elisabeth Levron daughter Marriage Michel Picot
1706 Privateers defending Port Royal
1705 Jean Corporon nephew Marriage Marie Pinet – moved to Grand Pre
1706 unknown Garceau grandchild Birth & Death
10-5-1706 Marie Josephe Savoie niece Birth
1707 Census – lives across the river from the fort
1707 Labat map – lives across the river from the fort
1-2-1707 Marie Josephe Vincent granddaughter Birth died on Ile St. John 1756
1-17-1707 Madeleine/Magelaine Pellerin niece Marriage Pierre Gaudet – couple is unknown after this date but may be present in 1714
1-18-1707 Marie Savoie niece Marriage Rene Blanchard
4-8-1707 Daniel Garceau grandson Birth died 1772 Yamachiche, Quebec
6-6-1707 Attack on Port Royal – 11 days – homes burned
6-17-1707 English attack ends
8-19-1707 Isabelle (Elizabeth) Corporon niece Birth Illegitimate child born with Rene Fontaine as father
8-21-1707 Attack on Port Royal – 11 days
9-2-1707 English attack ends
11-23-1707 Francois Savoie nephew Marriage Marie Richard
11-28-1707 Marie Jeanne Picot grandson Birth Died 1751 Port Royal
1-1-1708 Madeleine Vincent granddaughter Birth died in Quebec in 1768
2-3-1708 Alexis Triel nephew Death Buried in cemetery of St. Jean Parish, Port Royal
1708 Fort Anne defenses shored up
1708 unknown Savoie brother Germain’s child Birth Gap in children
1708 Martin Corporon nephew Marriage Cecile Joseph – moved to Les Mines, Pisiguit
10-1-1708 Marie Triel niece Marriage Pierre Le Blanc die Jassemin, sergeant of a company, native of Ozan in the Auvergne
1709 unknown Garceau grandchild Birth & Death
1709 unknown Picot grandchild Birth & Death
1-16-1709 Germain Savoie nephew Marriage Genevieve Babineau
2-4-1709 Jeanne Pellerin niece Marriage Pierre Surette
5-3-1709 Marguerite Corporon niece Birth Illegitimate child Francois Lecul born, son of Jean Lecul
5-7-1709 Marguerite Savoie niece Birth
1710 unknown Vincent grandchild Birth & Death
1710 Labat map – lives across the river from the fort
1-8-1710 Jacques Levron son Marriage Marie Doucet
2-11-1710 Jean Baptiste Pellerin nephew Marriage Marie Martin
3-20-1710 Joseph Garceau grandson Birth died 1789 Quebec
9-4-1710 British warships begin arriving in the harbour
9-24-1710 British attack on Port Royal begins – homes burned
10-5-1710 British have blockaded harbour at Goat Island
10-12-1710 Port Royal falls to England
10-16-1710 Keys of fort handed to English, French soldiers leave
October 1710 Acadians told they have two years to move to French territory
11-14-1710 Madeleine Corporon niece Marriage Francois Leclerc, a soldier
11-24-1710 Pierre Savoie nephew Death Buried at St. Laurent Chapel
4-15-1711 Marie Joseph Levron granddaughter Birth reportedly died at sea in 1758
1-17-1711 Marguerite Savoie niece Death Buried at St. Laurent Chapel
4-26-1711 Marie Madeleine Savoie niece Marriage Rene Babineau, deported and wound up in Quebec
June 1711 Battle of Bloody Creek – French attempt to retake fort
7-17-1711 Anne Vincent granddaughter Birth Married in 1727 in Grand Pre and died in 1768 in Louisiana
1711 Marie Triel niece Death Died during father Durand’s captivity in Boston
1711 Elizabeth Levron daughter Spouse Death Michel Picot
1711 Marie Levron daughter Spouse Death Jean Garceau
11-13-1711 Michel Picot grandson Birth Died after 1735
12-26-1711 Marie Levron daughter Marriage Alexandre Richard
12-27-1711 Francoise Savoie sister Death
1711-1724 Marie Savoie sister Relocated In Louisbourg by 1724
1-8-1712 Elizabeth Levron daughter Marriage Yves Yvon Maucaire
2-2-1712 Michel Picot grandson Baptized Three weeks after Catherine’s daughter remarried
1712 Isabelle (Elizabeth) Corporon sister Marriage William Johnson – Scotsman in service with English Garrison when Port Royal fell
3-16-1712 Marguerite Corporon niece Birth Jean Pierre Clemenceau, illegitimate son born with Jean Clemenceau while he was married to Anne Roy who also had a baby a month later
5-20-1712 Joseph Levron grandson Birth died c 1755 before deportation
10-1-1712 Pierre Toussaint Richard grandson Birth Died 1751 Port LaJoye, Isle St. Jean
3-13-1713 France ceded all of Acadia to England
1713 unknown Maucaire grandchild Birth & Death
1713 Anne Levron daughter Marriage Pierre Benoit, soldier
6-9-1713 Jean Vincent grandson Birth died 1758 at sea
7-9-1713 Anne Pellerin nephew Spouse Death Abraham Pellerin
11-27-1713 Bernard Pellerin nephew Marriage Marguerite Gaudet
1711-1714 Marie Savoie sister Death in Beaubassin
1714 Census – living among upriver families Widow
1714 Acadians ready to leave for Minas, but now the English prohibit the move
2-12-1714 Jeanne Levron daughter Marriage Augustin Comeau
1714 unknown Richard grandchild Birth & Death
1714 Unknown Benoit grandchild Birth & Death
4-14-1714 Brigitte Levron granddaughter Birth died 6 months after wedding in 1737 in Grand Pre
12-28-1714 Marie Joseph Comeau granddaughter Birth born in a transport ship and baptized by a woman on the ship during the crossing
2-22-1715 Marguerite Corporon niece Birth Birgitte born, father listed as Jacques Amireault, says “legitimate marriage” but the child died on June 7th, 3 months later with no surname and no father listed.
1715 Marie-Madeleine Corporon niece Marriage Jean Seigneur, a wealthy innkeeper in Louisbourg
1715 Joseph Vincent nephew Birth Died in 1778 in Morlaix, Bretagne, France.
1715 Fort Gates shut to trading with Acadians
6-27-1715 Claude Richard grandson Birth & Death Nothing after his birth
8-22-1715 Charles Maucaire grandson Birth & Death Nothing after his birth
1716 Unknown Benoit grandchild Birth & Death
1-7-1716 Marguerite Pellerin niece Marriage Bernard Gaudet
1-13-1716 Jean Baptiste Levron son Marriage Francoise LaBauve
1-13-1716 Alexandre Pellerin nephew Marriage Jeanne Gaudet
3-22-1716 Anne Levron granddaughter Birth
6-10-1716 Anne Levron granddaughter Death
8-10-1716 Madeleine Comeau granddaughter Birth NY during the expulsion
1717 Acadians have decided to stay on peaceful terms
4-1-1717 Paul Vincent grandson Birth
4-8-1717 Jacques Levron grandson Birth Married in 1754, decd by 1758 when son died in Quebec.
4-30-1717 Marie Josephe Levron granddaughter Birth Died 1765 Cayenne, French Guiana with her husband and all 5 of her children
1717 unknown Maucaire grandchild Birth & Death
1717 unknown Richard grandchild Birth & Death
10-8-1717 Paul Vincent grandson Death
6-17-1718 Marie Richard granddaughter Birth Died in 1796 in Canada
7-22-1718 Marguerite Comeau granddaughter Birth Massachusetts during deportation, died in 1767 in Quebec
11-14-1718 Jean Savoie nephew Marriage Marie Dugas
1718 Anne Benoit granddaughter Birth Died 15 days after her mother in 1733 in smallpox epidemic in Louisbourg.
1718 Martin Corporon nephew Marriage First wife died between 1714 and 1718 when he married Marie Josephe Viger.
2-25-1719 Jean Baptiste Joseph Levron grandson Birth In Beaubassin by 1743, Chipoudie 1755, Camp L’Esperance, died 1767 Quebec.
3-18-1719 Marguerite Vincent granddaughter Birth
3-19-1719 Marguerite Maucaire granddaughter Birth Massachusetts in 1763 with 6 unknown children
4-6-1719 Marguerite Vincent granddaughter Death
1720 New Governor mandates loyalty oath or Acadians must leave in 3 months taking nothing
1720 Acadians refuse and make preparations to leave
1720 Governor prohibits Acadians from leaving, says they are ungovernable
1-20-1720 Anne Levron granddaughter Birth Probably died young, nothing more
3-21-1720 Jeanne Comeau granddaughter Birth Married in Pubnico in 1753
5-1-1720 Marguerite Richard granddaughter Birth Died in 1757 in Quebec
1720 Unknown Benoit grandchild Birth & Death
1720 Pierre Triel nephew Marriage Catherine Bourg
7-28-1721 Marie Joseph Comeau granddaughter Death
8-25-1721 Claude Vincent grandson Birth
8-13-1721 Elisabeth Levron granddaughter Birth & Death Nothing more
1721 unknown Maucaire grandchild Birth & Death
1722 Simon Levron grandson Birth Les Mines in 1746, died in Quebec in 1757
1722 Unknown Benoit grandchild Birth & Death
1722 unknown Richard grandchild Birth & Death
1722 Francois Savoie nephew Relocated Grand Pre
1-12-1722 Anne Pellerin niece Marriage Laurents Doucet
1-17-1722 Marie Joseph Comeau granddaughter Birth Died 1756 probably New York
Mar-May 1722 Siege of Annapolis Royal by Mi’kmaq and Maliseet
8-11-1722 Madeleine/Magdelaine Levron daughter Marriage Jean La Bauve and in Grand Pre by Dec 1723, probably as Camp L’Esperance, nothing more known
9-8-1722 Claude Vincent grandson Death
9-13-1722 Joseph Levron son Marriage Rose Denise Veronneau
11-17-1722 Jeanne Savoie sister Spouse Death Etienne Pellerin
11-23-1722 Paul Savoie nephew Marriage Judith Michel
4-6-1723 Marie Jeanne Picot granddaughter Marriage Louis Thibault
5-14-1723 Isabelle Richard granddaughter Birth 1760 census in Newbury, Mass, but nothing more
10-22-1723 Pierre Vincent grandson Birth In Port La Joye in 1752, died 1787 in Quebec
12-11-1723 Jean Baptiste La Bauve grandson Birth in Grand Pre
1723 unknown Levron grandson Birth & Death
1723 unknown Maucaire grandchild Birth & Death
1724 Unknown Benoit grandchild Birth & Death
2-1-1724 Marguerite Pellerin niece Death
2-21-1724 Jean Baptiste Comeau grandson Birth Died 1797 Quebec
3-26-1724 Louis Levron grandson Birth Died in Louisiana
July 1724 Raid on Annapolis Royal by Mikmaq and Maliseet – burned houses and took prisoners
7-24-1724 Yves Thibault great-grandson Birth CT during deportation, died 1801 Church Point, Clare, Digby
1-30-1725 Charles Pellerin nephew Marriage Madeleine Robichaud
2-20-1725 Marguerite Corporon niece Marriage to Henry Samuel
1725 unknown Richard grandchild Birth & Death
1725 unknown Maucaire grandchild Birth & Death
1725 unknown Vincent grandchild Birth & Death
1722-1725 Catherine Savoie self Death Between August 11, 1722 and January 20, 1725
1-20-1725 Pierre Levron son Death His mother Catherine is listed as deceased.

This exercise revealed, among other things, that Catherine’s older sister, Marie’s husband, Jacques Triel, died fairly young. Marie, never remarried, lived to age 84, and outlived all but one of her children. Only one child grew to adulthood.

Catherine’s niece, Marguerite Corporon, is extremely interesting. Every family has a wild child – in some way or other. In fact, we may have been that person in our family. But we need to be careful about rushing to judgement about Marguerite who had at least two and possibly three illegitimate children, meaning children born outside of a marriage between the parents. Illegitimate births were extremely rare in Acadia – let alone three times with the same female.

According to Gisa Hynes, writing Some Aspects of the Demography of Port Royal, 1650-1755  for the University of New Brunswick Journal, after analyzing the parish registers, 0.6 percent, or about one in 200 births, was illegitimate between 1702 and 1755, and almost no babies were born in the 9 months after the parents married. The influence of the Catholic church is reflected in the extremely low pre-marital conception rate.

Even more unusual in Marguerite’s case, the father of one of those children was a man who was married to a different woman whose also had a baby a month later.

I can only imagine the drama.

I feel incredibly badly for both women, truthfully. The wife clearly had no choice in the situation, and divorce simply didn’t exist. She went on to have more children with her husband.

We don’t know any of the circumstances surrounding Marguerite and how she became pregnant either the first, or succeeding, times. The event(s) may not have been consentual. And once a woman’s reputation is “ruined,” it’s extremely difficult for a female to dig herself out of that hole – one she may not have willingly put herself in.

Regardless, the situation was unfortunate – and was assuredly grapevile and gossip fodder for years, if not generations. Marguerite did marry an Englishman when she was about 40, a decade after her third child was born. I hope she lived her best life in whatever way possible. It’s not like she had the option of moving away or visiting an “Auntie” someplace else, and starting over.

Marguerite’s challenges were interwoven with the larger issues taking place in Acadia at the same time.

Acadia Changed

Life changed dramatically in Acadia in 1710, meaning the English seizure of Port Royal, protection of Acadians only within three miles, the Battle of Bloody Creek in 1711, combined with the edict that Acadians had to leave. I’d wager that two of Catherine’s sons-in-law, both former soldiers, were involved in the resistance that followed.

Now, considering this additional information, finding the family upriver, beyond that 3-mile line, in 1714 and later makes a LOT of sense.

Catherine may have lived long enough to welcome her first great-grandchild in July of 1724, Yves Thibault. The next generation, all of whom were deported if they didn’t join Catherine in the graveyard first, had begun.

We don’t know where Catherine rests for eternity, but it could well be here in an undocumented cemetery on her family’s land.

_____________________________________________________________

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 e-mail 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 Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Sir Francois Levron dit Nantois (c1651-1714), and Acadia’s Pirate – 52 Ancestors #444

“Sir,” you ask?

Francois was a “Sir”?

Yes, indeed, yes, he was. You never know what secrets are tucked away in old, musty records.

Francois Levron was born around 1651 in France. His dit name, Nantois, seems to suggest he may have originated in or near Nantes.

Francois is absent in the first Acadian census of Port Royal taken in 1671.

André-Carl Vachon, Acadian historian, believes Francois Levron was a soldier who originally settled in Pentagouet, at the fort, shown on the map, above.

The remains of Fort Pentagouet have been located near present-day Castine, Maine, which is only about 110 nautical miles from Port Royal.

The Fort, or where it used to stand, has been excavated and marked with a cross, today.

Vachon reports that in 1672, a famine struck Fort Pentagouet, causing several men to be relocated to Port Royal for the winter.

As a soldier, after arriving in Port Royal, Francois would have lived in the barracks within Fort Anne.

If Francois was, indeed, at Pentagouet, that means he served alongside the man who would one day become his neighbor along the Riviere Dauphin at Port Royal – Pierre Doucet. Half a century later, their grandchildren would marry.

Based on the birth dates of their children, Francois Levron married Catherine Savoye/Savoie around 1676.

Port Royal was a sleepy little town, referred to by the priest, Louis Petit as “a mere depot for pelts.” Only 68 families lived in Port Royal and scattered up and down the river valley. It may have been a depot for pelts, but surprisingly, Petit requested a Nun be dispatched to open and run a boarding school for girls. It’s unclear whether that ever happened.

In the 1678 Port Royal census, Francois and his wife are living with the Widow Pesselet, along with one child, a boy, age 1. They have no livestock and no land, so it’s entirely possible he was still a soldier and the young family was living with the widow as a mutually beneficial arrangement. Based on the neighbors, I can’t tell exactly where they are living, but it seems to be quite close to Port Royal which would make perfect sense if he was or had been a soldier. The census may not have been taken or recorded in house-to-house order.

The widow Pesselet is Barbe Bajolet (1608-c1678), who was married to Isaac Pesselet before being widowed by Saviniue de Courpon. She was one of the few people to make the trek back to La Rochelle, remarry in 1654, then return to Acadia. The 1671 census shows that she had eight children living in France, with two married daughters in Acadia; Marianne Lefebvre, 21, who married Etienne Comeau, and Marie Peselet, 26, married to Jean Pitre. They lived 3 and 4 houses from their mother, respectively. Barbe had 1 cow and 5 sheep, but no land under cultivation.

Was there some relationship with Barbe Bajolet other than a young couple living with an elderly widow? Why was Barbe living with Francois Levron instead of living with her children?

By 1686, when the next census occurred, we find Francois Levron, age 33, living with his wife Catherine Savoye, age 20, which is clearly in error, with children Jacques, 9, Magdelaine, 5, Anne, 2, Marie 1, 8 cattle, and 7 sheep. They have no land under cultivation, once again, and notably, no gun.

They are living between Vincent Brun and Charles Melanson, which tells me which side of the river and corresponds to later mapped locations, showing their land directly across the river from Port Royal.

Fortunately, we have a map of Port Royal drawn in 1686. Based on later maps and the census, Francois Levron and family lived across from Hogg Island, the easternmost area of Port Royal, shown above.

We can easily see the location of the fort, which included barracks, and the Catholic church, then located outside the fort, where Francois would have worshipped, both as a soldier, and later, with his family. Nearby, a cross marks the cemetery where he may well be buried.

Today, the Acadian graves are unmarked, but landmarks such as the officer quarters, fort ramparts, church remains, later English burials and LIDAR data identify the location of the Acadian cemetery.

A New Governor

In 1687, a new Governor, Louis-Alexandre des Friches de Meneval was appointed in the ever-turning revolving door of Acadian governors. His orders were to encourage colonization and agriculture and prevent the English from trading and fishing in Acadia. Meneval brought 30 additional soldiers with him, raising the strength of the garrison to 90, but found the fort in significant disrepair.

His engineer, Pasquine, had suggested a complete rebuild of the fort, but Meneval hesitated and then denied the request to save money – a decision that changed history. Sometimes not to decide is to decide.

Ultimately, the cost was much, much greater.

By 1688, Acadia was having challenges. The younger people began moving to Beaubassin and points north in 1682, causing a labor shortage. Additionally, the Acadians were experiencing a shortage of manure, necessary for fertilizing fields. Who knew a manure shortage was even a thing?

Meneval’s report written in the fall of 1688 stated that:

The cost of living was high; there was a shortage of flour and of workers; some of the soldiers were old and disabled and had ceased to be of any use; the contingent of the preceding year had received bad muskets and that of 1688 had only 19 muskets between 30 soldiers, so that half of them were without arms; the surgeon was a drunkard, and the court had neglected to supply funds with which to pay him; a hospital and medical supplies were needed; his own gratuity had not been renewed, and he sought permission to go to France to report to the minister and settle some personal affairs.

I surely wish we knew who those old and disabled soldiers were. Were they married to local women?

Was the drunkard surgeon Jacques Bourgeois who founded Beaubassin in 1682, but continued to live at Port Royal? Did an area this small, and from France’s perspective, insignificant and “back-woodsy,” have more than one surgeon? It’s doubtful.

Meneval’s report went on to say that he, like his predecessor, Denonville:

Recommended that soldiers be allowed to marry and to become settlers; he also recommended that fishing, the country’s best resource, be developed by advancing loans to the settlers and protecting the coasts with armed barks; the settlement at Les Mines (Grand Pré, N.S.) was developing, and he had issued a few ordinances.

Does this mean that no soldiers had married local women, or simply that it was discouraged? We know that by the time Francois Levron’s daughter, Marie, married Jean Garceau in 1703, her husband was a soldier at the fort because the priest recorded that tidbit in the parish register, and the Governor signed as a witness.

Meneval closed his report by saying that the English “very much wanted Acadia.”

As his report was being written, English pirates were attacking and pillaging other French forts and seizing French ships as prizes, many of which had been destined for Port Royal carrying badly needed supplies.

In 1689, William of Orange, the new King of England declared war on France, which reverberated through the colonial holdings of both countries.

Acadia was the weakest, most exposed, and most poorly defended of the French colonies.

The situation in Acadia continued to deteriorate, with political infighting. In 1689, Meneval requested to be recalled to France, and said he would go even without permission, “preferring 100 times to remain three years in the Bastille rather than one single week here.”

That’s ugly, and I’m sure that attitude did not go unnoticed by either the soldiers or the Acadians.

In October of 1689, French ships did eventually arrive. On board was another new engineer, Vincent Saccardy, carrying court orders that instructed him to build a fort at Port-Royal forthwith, and sent a further sum of 5,000 livres. Saccardy had the old fort razed completely and drew up a plan for a vast enceinte, or wall enclosing the fort, with four bastions that would strengthen security by enclosing the governor’s house, the church, a mill, and the guard-houses. Importantly, it would also be able to hold barracks and receive the settlers in case of attack.

Saccardy set to work immediately, and in 16 days, with the help of the soldiers, settlers, and 40 sailors, succeeded in building half of the enceinte before it was time for the ship to leave again. Saccardy received an order to re-embark from from the Governor General of New France, Buade de Frontenac, leaving the fort unfinished. Robinau de Villebon, Meneval’s lieutenant, was also ordered to go to France, thus leaving the unhappy governor without an officer and a half-finished fort. I can only imagine his complete exasperation.

Meneval did not leave, but all things considered, he probably lived to wish he had.

Tensions were rising in the region and would soon boil over.

Battle of Port Royal

1690 was a horrible year.

Acadia needed an exceptional, courageous leader. They only had a reluctant one who wished nothing more than to go home to France, regardless of the repercussions.

Acadia had become increasingly enmeshed in the escalations between England and France, and specifically New England. In early 1690, two Indian raids in New England, one in New York and one in New Hampshire, spurred colonial governors to combine forces and launch a retaliatory attack on the French Acadians, whom they blamed for riling up the Indians and encouraging the attacks.

Prior to this time, Acadia and the New England colonies had a trading partnership. This alliance caused at least one of the logical picks for the retaliatory expedition’s commander to be rejected in favor of Sir William Phipps, a man with no military experience but who had found a treasure ship in the West Indies.

Lest we dismiss his prowess, Phipps sailed on April 28th from Boston with five ships, 446 men, and 58 mounted guns.

On the way, he rendezvoused with additional ships, and by the time Phipps approached Acadia, he had seven ships, 78 cannon, and 736 men, 446 of whom were militiamen. That was a force to be reckoned with.

On May 9th, Phipps sailed into the harbour, making contact with Pierre Melanson dit Laverdure, a bilingual French Huguenot who lived closest to the mouth of the river, near Goat Island.

It’s unclear whether or not Melanson knew Phipps was gathering intelligence information, but regardless, after discerning the state of the town of Port Royal with Melanson, Phipps proceeded to sail further up the river, to Port Royal. It was about 20 miles from the sea to Port Royal, with Melanson residing roughly half-way inbetween.

Alerted by sentries, Meneval had a gun fired to warn settlers of the approaching English ships, but only three men came to the fort. I wonder why. Did they not hear the gun? Did they think it wasn’t serious? Were they that angry with Meneval? Were they “too busy” planting?

Acadia was entirely unprepared for the coming onslaught.

The garrison itself only had about 70 soldiers. A few Acadian men in the area were available to help, eventually bringing the total available fighting men to somewhere between 85 and 90, according to different sources. Forty-two Acadian men were absent from the area.

Worse yet, thanks to years of neglect, deterioration, and being half-rebuilt, Fort Anne was in a terrible state of disrepair. Governor Meneval objected when the engineer was sent elsewhere, but to no avail. His protests went unheeded, the engineer did not return, and the fort remained incomplete.

The worst part was that the protective wall surrounding the fort was unfinished, none of the fort’s 18 cannons were mounted, and the entire fort only possessed 19 muskets. Of the Acadian households, which were scattered for another 20+ miles up the river, just over half, 53, had a gun of any kind. Of those, 14 households, mostly those with older sons, had more than one gun. To say the Acadians and French soldiers, together, were unprepared and unable to defend Port Royal was an understatement. Sitting ducks was more like it.

Whatever information Melanson had shared with Phipps, it may not have been everything.

Phipps did not go ashore at Port Royal, at least not initially. The following day, May 10th, Phipps sent an emissary to demand the fort’s surrender. Governor Meneval had little choice, given that they couldn’t defend themselves, not even in the slightest, not to mention they were outnumbered about 10 to 1. Having said that, Meneval was strongly criticized for putting up no resistance at all and simply capitulating.

Meneval dispatched the local priest, Father Louis Petit, to the English ships to negotiate the terms of surrender with Phipps.

  • Phipps agreed not to harm the Acadian settlers or their personal property, and to continue to allow unrestricted Catholic worship.
  • Meneval agreed that the fort, cannon, and merchandise belonging to the king and the company would be handed over to the English.
  • The officers and French soldiers would retain their liberty and be transported to Quebec.

However, Phipps refused to sign a document stating such, even when Meneval arrived onboard the ship on May 12th to seal the deal.

Several eyewitnesses confirmed the verbal agreement.

Never fail to obtain a signed document, although it’s unclear if that would actually have made any difference. However, it is probably the reason that the 1690 oath signature document survives today. The Priest took it with him because he didn’t trust Phipps – with good reason – as we’ll soon see.

Furthermore, the fact that Phipps refused to sign gives credence to the Acadian version of what happened after their surrender.

Surrender

What occurred next is without dispute. Why it happened remains debated.

When Phipps came ashore and saw how weak the fort and garrison were, he regretted the surrender terms he had agreed to – or he had planned this all along.

He immediately imprisoned the soldiers in the church and confined the governor to his home, under guard. Then, Phipps unleashed his men. All of which was counter to the agreement.

Despite the surrender agreement, the English soldiers completely destroyed both the fort and the town, running amok for the next 10 days and looting everything, including the property of the Acadians. Nothing was spared – not their clothes, not their gardens, not their livestock – nothing. The English then burned what was left, including homes, the stockade, and barns. At least 28 residences were torched. Some reports said 35, which assuredly included every home in Port Royal and probably every other home within visual sight of the fort, including the Levron homestead across the river.

Additionally, the English plundered and desecrated the church. Then, for spite, they killed the livestock.

Per the agreement, only the fort and the king’s property was to be surrendered to English control, not the residents’ personal property.

Instead, Acadia was essentially destroyed during planting season.

In a strange twist of fate, the English did not burn the mills, and didn’t bother to travel further upriver to the farms there. That’s probably what saved the Acadians and prevented them from starving.

The English claimed that while Meneval was meeting with Phipps, French soldiers and Acadians were seen carrying items away from the fort – booty which should have been included in the spoils for the English captors after the French surrender.

If Phipps couldn’t see the condition of the fort prior to signing, how, then, did English sailors see men INSIDE the fort carrying things away while Meneval was meeting with Phipps?

When Phipps learned of this “breach of trust,” he reportedly flew into a rage and declared the agreement void – turning the English soldiers loose to do whatever they wished.

The French said that Meneval hadn’t left detailed orders when he departed to meet with Phipps, so the French soldiers began drinking, then broke into a store belonging to one of Meneval’s political opponents. If those goods were privately owned, which it seems they would have been, they would not have been included in the surrender agreement, so while the soldiers were clearly up to mischief, it did not breach the agreement since the goods were private property.

Had it breached the agreement, it could have been easily remedied. Meneval didn’t seem inclined to quibble about anything and would probably have given Phipps anything he asked for. Phipps simply used this as an excuse to destroy Acadia.

Regardless, Meneval must have been furious with the men, but it no longer mattered.

Meneval and his second-in-command reported that when Phipps came ashore, he was extremely unhappy with the condition of the fort and the size of the garrison that he had obtained, suggesting that he had been taken advantage of.

However, given that Phipps spoke with Melanson before arriving at Port Royal, it’s unlikely that Phipps was unaware – not to mention that he could clearly see that the fort had no walls and no cannons were in view. The fort is within full sight from the river.

Phipps’ lament did, however, make a good excuse for what followed.

Biographers later suggested that Phipps needed the plunder to pay for the expedition, and he simply sought, and found, a “reason” to dispose of the verbal agreement. Given that he refused to sign the terms of surrender document, this may have become part of his plan as soon as he found out from Melanson that the fort was in horrible repair.

However, that still does not explain away the choice to destroy everything in sight. Burning the homes, destroying the Acadian farms, and killing their livestock was nothing short of cruel sport.

The English weren’t done yet. After forcing the Acadians to sign a loyalty oath, Phipps put an Acadian council in place to conduct business after the English left.

Then, Phipps kidnapped Governor Meneval, Father Abbe Trouve (of Beaubassin) and Father Louis Petit, holding them hostage along with between 50 and 58 of the French soldiers from the Fort Anne garrison. Sources differ on the number of soldiers that were transported with Phipps and the others back to Boston on the English ships. The soldiers at the garrison who were not transported had managed to escape to Les Mines.

Later in 1690, at least some of the men were exchanged for English hostages in Quebec.

One Acadian man, Pierre Maisonnat dit Baptiste, known often as just “Baptiste,” who would go on to become a notorious privateer, escaped his captors in Boston and made his way back to Acadia.

The destruction of Port Royal and the annihilation of Acadian homes and property, acts of intentional and explicit betrayal, not the actual act of warfare, destroyed any goodwill or trust between the two peoples. Up until that point in time, they had enjoyed at least a halting trade relationship – overtly, covertly, or both.

The 1690 Loyalty Oath

The English required that all of the Acadian men sign a loyalty oath which I transcribed here.

Wee do swear and sincerely promise that wee will be faithfull and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King William King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland.

So helpe us God.

This document was important, because unlike the verbal surrender agreement, no one could dispute that the Acadian men had signed. This signed oath was a critical protective piece, because the English could not claim that the Acadians had never sworn loyalty. Given the breach of trust between the English and French, the priest secreted this document beneath his garb when they were kidnapped and taken to Boston – protecting his parish flock.

We know the Acadian men were required to sign. What we don’t know is what happened to the French soldiers inhabiting the fort who were married to Acadian women, assuming that there were some.

Were they allowed to stay in Acadia? If they stayed, they assuredly would have been required to sign the oath.

What we do know is that Francois Levron did NOT sign the required oath in 1690, but we don’t know why.

Was he still a soldier in 1690?

Regardless of whether he was still a soldier or had previously retired, all available men were called to defend the fort, and Port Royal, so he assuredly would have been involved.

Was he one of the three men who showed up to help the soldiers?

Did he not sign the oath because he was one of the soldiers who escaped?

History tells us that 42 Acadian men were absent from the area.

Was he one of those men?

Where were they?

The 1686 census holds clues:

  • The 1686 census tells us that there were 104 households at Port Royal. Of those, almost half, 51, had no gun. Not for hunting, and not for defense.
  • Eight 1686 households were widows, none of whom signed in 1690. Apparently, the English weren’t worried about women swearing loyalty, only the heads of household – which I presume means the people most likely to rebel. They clearly didn’t know the women in my family😊
  • Nine 1686 households were males 70 or older who did not sign the 1690 oath, and who were not recorded in the 1693 census, so I presume they probably died before 1690. The English clearly weren’t concerned with these men either.
  • Of the 1686 households, another 16 are accounted for in 1690 by being known to have relocated to the northern Bay of Fundy colonies, such as Beaubasin, Pisiquid or Les Mines.

That reduces the number of 1686 heads of households that were eligible to sign the 1690 oath to 71.

  • Of those, a total of 36 signed in 1690, leaving a balance of 35 heads of household in the 1686 census who are unaccounted for, and not known to have died, who did not sign.
  • Of those, two were elderly and living with their children, but were alive in 1690 because they are recorded in the 1693 census.
  • In two more families, the men died and the widows had remarried by 1693, so it’s likely that their first husbands had died by the time the 1690 petition was signed.

After eliminating the people who were in the 1686 census, and who signed in 1690, there are still 13 men who did not sign, who were still living in 1693. So, why didn’t they sign?

Recall that 42 men were reported to have been away. Some probably returned during the 12 days that Phipps was anchored in the harbour, and they would have been forced to sign.

  • Are these 13 men ones who might have been away, perhaps in the northern settlements, scoping out their options and debating whether to move there or stay at Port Royal? Genealogy research shows that many families had moved north between 1686 and 1690, which is why they didn’t sign the loyalty oath.
  • Were those 13 men soldiers who escaped, then made their way back to their families after the British left in 1690? One would think the English would have made them sign when they were discovered back in Port Royal, although that didn’t happen with privateer Pierre Baptiste, who we know unquestionably escaped and is found in the 1693 Port Royal census.

Conversely, a few people had certainly been old enough to be recorded in the 1686 census, and had families, but were apparently missed in the Port Royal enumeration. They signed the 1690 oath and were recorded in the 1693 census.

All of that said, what this tells us is that there was a lot of upheaval and churn occurring in Acadia, and the 1690 attack certainly made things worse.

Imagine being away and returning to find your home gone, everything burned, and your family traumatized, if not worse.

Francois Levron did not sign, but the oath was required. No one was allowed to refuse, so he was clearly one of the men who was absent for some reason.

We can only speculate as to why, but given that they had no land in 1686, they would have been prime candidates to move North to where land was more plentiful and easier to acquire. If he had still been a soldier, he would not have been allowed to leave – at least not until French surrendered to the English in 1690. I can’t imagine that the English would have been receptive to any able-bodied French soldiers remaining – viewing them as potential sparks of dissent.

For whatever reason, Francois Levron and his family stayed at Port Royal.

By 1693, they have 15 arpents of land under cultivation, which perhaps explains why they did not move to Beaubassin or points north. It would be interesting to know how they obtained this land, and if it was before or after 1690.

Had they relocated, their children would have married different spouses, and history would have been completely different for their 15,000+ descendants.

They dug in and stayed, perhaps making the more difficult decision. Life was anything but easy.

After the Oath

Not long after Phipps left, two English pirate ships arrived and burned the rest of what had been spared. More livestock was killed, and more theft and plundering took place, including the desecration of the church.

Indeed, 1690 was just a horrible year.

I can only imagine how discouraged Francois must have been. He had four children under 13 and a new baby. How would he provide for them if his home burned, his land was ruined, and his livestock killed? How could he protect them?

What followed was an anxious, uneasy “peace” in Acadia, with frayed nerves and absolutely everyone constantly on edge. A smoldering quiet hung uneasily in the air, like the smoking embers of their homes.

Life was difficult at best. Homes had to be rebuilt, fields repaired as best they could, somehow crops had to be planted, assuming they could be given the salinity of the seawater if their dykes had been broken. Food was in short supply, and the people were emotionally and spiritually wounded.

English vessels from New England arrived to trade and check on the inhabitants, and of course, to take French prizes if they could find French ships lurking nearby.

When the English were gone, French privateers operated out of Port Royal, boosting the beleaguered economy by outfitting their ships from local merchants and tradesmen. The privateers also attracted local young men as crew with the promise of prizes and plunder and a way to exact revenge upon the despised English who had caused, and continued to cause, such pain.

In fact, the Acadians had their own privateer who didn’t even bother to hide.

Meet Pierre Baptiste!

Pierre Baptiste – Acadia’s Legendary Pirate

Pierre Maisonnat dit Baptiste, or simply Baptiste as he was commonly called, was a famous or maybe infamous pirate whose crew was primarily Acadian.

Baptiste had defended Acadia, standing with the brave Acadian men at Fort Anne in 1690. He was taken prisoner, along with other unnamed Acadians, and transported to Boston, but escaped.

Bravo Baptiste! I hope you took other Acadian men with you!

Now hot under the collar, he renewed his efforts against the English, and committed to protect Acadia. It’s unclear, but this may have been when Baptiste actually turned to privateering, commissioned by the French who governed the rest of New France.

Baptiste was quite successful, taking eight ships in 1691 on his first mission, one within sight of Boston Harbour.

Brave, intelligent and incredibly confident, there was nothing Baptiste wouldn’t try. On the flip side, he was also wiley, scheming and willing to do whatever was necessary to accomplish a goal. I’m not sure if those were good qualities or bad, considering. He was both renowned as a celebrated hero and a brazen, rascally scoundrel, depending on who was doing the telling. One thing was certain, he was a colorful character and one you assuredly wanted on your side.

France praised Baptiste and celebrated his successes. England detested him.

The English retaliated. Again. In 1693, they attacked Port Royal, burning a dozen houses and three barns that were full of grain.

Pierre, our privateer friend, is actually recorded on the 1693 Port Royal census, married to Magdelaine Bourg, with 30 arpents of land and, wait for it…15 guns. In that census, three men had four guns, and five had three. No one else even came close to Pierre’s arsenal.

I can hear the census taker now:

“How many guns to you have?”

Baptiste: “Guns…hmm…let me see. Do you mean here in the house?”

“No, altogether.”

Baptiste: “Altogether meaning here in Port Royal or everyplace?”

You can see where this is going, right?

Whatever the “real” answer, the recorded answer was 15, which dwarfed everyone else’s count.

Francois Levron would have known Baptiste well. In 1690 at the fort, a brother-at-arms, and at church, of course. Every time an English scare materialized, the men would have rushed to the fort together. Sometimes, it wasn’t just a scare. All too often, the alarm was the real deal. The Redcoats were coming!

The town of Port Royal was actually quite small, with most of the population scattered between Port Royal and and the upriver communities – sprinkled over the next 15 or 20 river miles. Everyone pretty much knew everything about everyone.

If you’re a privateer, you’re going to anchor your ship right in front of the fort, which is also adjacent to the Port Royal “business district,” such as it was. It would be where the blacksmith shop was located, the armorer, the tavern, merchants, and so forth.

The local merchants would have loved Baptiste, because he came with money or goods to trade. They all needed to rebuild.

It was also where all the local people congregated to attend to business, attend church services, or bury the dead – so a pirate sure to make contact with the local boys who were your next starry-eyed recruits.

Large ocean-going ships couldn’t travel further upriver due to the shape of the land, river, rocks, and tidal flow.

Know who lived right across the river from the fort? Francois Levron.

In 1693, Francois Levron, age 42, is living with Catherine Savoye, age 34, and their children, Jacques 14, Madeleine 11, Anne, 9, Marie, 7, Elisabeth, 3, Joseph, 2, and Jean Baptiste, 1. They have 10 cattle, 12 sheep, 6 pigs, and are living on 15 arpents of land. The family has one gun.

Interesting, isn’t it, that his child born between 1691 and 1692 was named Jean Baptiste. That could be entirely unrelated to Baptiste, or maybe not.

Francois Levron is still living in the same area, very near Pierre Doucet and Laurens Grange(r), across from the fort, just to the right of the white church. .

In 1686, Francois Levron had no land and no gun, but in 1693, the family had both.

In 1686, only 53 of the 104 households had guns.

In 1693, almost all families owned at least one gun, but some, especially with older sons, had more. Every family, with only three exceptions, is armed – and that probably just means that Pierre Baptiste hadn’t gotten those three men a gun yet.

Never again would Acadia be vulnerable and unarmed. Never again would they be left unable to defend themselves – at least not if Baptiste had anything to do with it. He probably had spare guns from the English prizes he took.

After what happened in 1690, these guns would have been as much for defense as hunting. You can fish without a gun, but you can’t fight off the British without one.

Baptiste armed the Acadians right under the noses of the British – who were in essence absentee landlords. Not only that, Baptiste lived at Port Royal, married a local woman (apparently among other wives elsewhere, but that’s a whole other story), and was recorded in the census – in plain sight. It looks like he lived right in Port Royal, probably in the house closest to his ship.

Talk about thumbing your nose at the English. I love this guy, regardless of his personal issues.

Not everyone in Acadia was happy with that arrangement, though. Some felt that Baptiste’s presence focused the wrath of the English upon Acadia.

Who’s to say if they were better or worse off for his presence?

Get the Popcorn!

Baptiste was entertaining, to say the least, and assuredly kept every tongue anywhere near Port Royal wagging.

In 1693, the census shows Baptiste, age 30, with his wife, Madeleine Bourg, age 16. He was actually about 34.

Madeleine Bourg, after having Baptiste’s child about 1695, wound up going back home to live with her parents when it was discovered that he already had at least one wife in France, Isabeau (Judith) Subiran – who he eventually brought to Acadia to live with him.

I kid you not!

Madeleine’s marriage to Baptiste was annulled for bigamy.

Lord have mercy on this rascally man.

Baptiste’s luck changed a bit in 1695, with his vessel running ashore. He escaped with his crew, as always. Escaping was his forte, and he seemed to be the luckiest man ever.

By 1697 he had been outfitted with a new ship and been sent raiding along the New England coast. He spent the rest of his life vacillating between being imprisoned in Boston, and escaping to return to someplace in Acadia – often Port Royal. His nickname should have been Houdini, or maybe Houdini should have been named Baptiste..

Baptiste was living in Port Royal in 1703, or at least his French wife was. She died on October 19th, 1703, and is noted as the wife of “Sieur Captain Baptiste” by Father Felix Pain, and was “buried in the presence of relatives” which would have been either her daughter(s) or Baptiste himself. Pirate or not, bigamist or not, he is addressed as “Sir” by the priest who was clearly aware of the situation. Everyone was “aware” of the situation, and I can’t imagine that there was any love lost between Baptiste and Madeleine Bourg’s family. After all, that marriage anullment made the child illegitimate and brought shame onto Madeleine – whether it should have or not. Fortunately, she remarried about 1697 and seemed to have a “normal” marriage the second time around.

Baptiste, it appears, was none the worse for that indiscretion.

In 1706, Baptiste became the port Captain of Beaubassin.

In January 1707, in Port Royal, Baptiste married yet another wife, Marguerite Bourgeois, after her second husband died. She was the daughter of the founder of Beaubassin. This marriage, frankly, shocks me given that Baptiste was a known bigamist. However, Marguerite’s father was the surgeon, Jacques Bourgeois, who was probably the man referred to as a drunkard in 1690 – so he probably had a few skeletons in his closet too. Baptiste and Bourgeois probably tipped a few together.

Maybe Baptiste was also an expert at “explaining” his behavior, too. Plus, he seemed to be something of a legandary “favorite son.” In all fairness, he defended Acadia when Acadia couldn’t really defend itself, and may have saved Acadia multiple times. Obviously his playboy ways were overlooked – although I doubt strongly if his first Acadian wife’s family forgave him.

Once again, in 1707, Baptiste came to the aid of Port Royal, serving with distinction when the British launched another brutal attack. Francois Levron was probably very glad to see his old friend once again.

Baptiste presumably died in Beaubassin, sometime after the 1714 census where he is listed as Sr. (Sieur) Maisonnat, along with Marguerite Bourgeois.

Regardless of his spicy personal life, especially in Catholic Acadia, he was always treated with respect in any written document. I’m guessing that everyone knew that without him, there might not have been an Acadia – and if so, their lives would have been much more difficult.

Everyone needs a folk hero, and perhaps better even yet, if they provide popcorn-grade entertainment. An Acadian soap-opera. I mean, who WASN’T interested in the latest chapter of “Baptiste – Acadia’s Beloved Bad-Boy Pirate”?

“Have you heard about Baptiste?”

“No, tell me, what did he do NOW?”

I’m still left wondering if Francois Levron was one of those unnamed Acadian men who escaped in 1690, and if he was in the company of Baptiste. Does our family owe the life of our ancestor to our unconquerable Acadian privateer?

Orchards

In the 1698 census, Francois Leveron, now age 50, is living with Catherine Savoye, age 38, along with children Jacque, 23, Anne, 14, Marie, 12, Elizabeth 10, Jeanne, 4, Jean-Baptiste, 7, and Pierre, 2. They have 10 cattle, 13 sheep, and two hogs on 15 arpents of land, along with 20 fruit trees.

Ah yes, Acadian orchards are, yet today, known for their wonderful fruit – especially apples. Many of the old apple trees remain on land that was once Acadian farms. On the census, almost every family had fruit trees.

These trees remain in the marsh where Catherine Savoye’s parents lived. Perhaps Francois and Catherine planted seeds from Catherine’s parents’ trees.

Next door to Francois in 1698, we find Clement Vincent, 22, married to Magdelaine Leveron, age 16, with 5 cattle and 8 sheep.

Francois’s oldest daughter has wed, although no church records from this time remain. The church had been burned, so she likely married in the rectory or perhaps in the little Chapel at BelleIsle.

MapAnnapolis shows both the Levron and Vincent properties.

On the Google Maps image, below, the left red arrow near the bottom, beside the creek, is the Clement Vincent land, whose wife was the daughter of Francois Levron.

On the map above, using the creek as an anchor point, and Hogg Island across the River, the Levron land was between the rightmost red arrow below Granville Road at the Public Works building, and the red arrow on the map below, where MapAnnapolis places their marker.

You can’t see these yards from the road, but I wonder what that circle in the back yard is.

However, the 1698 census itself is somewhat confusing, because both Francois Levron and Clement Vincent are reported smack dab in the middle of the group of families on the south side of the river, a dozen miles upriver, including the Girouard family near Tupperville whose land today still sports a large apple orchard.

Rene Forest is the household just before Francois, and Emanual Hebert is the household on the other side of Vincent. Are Francois Levron and his son-in-law actually living upriver, or is their census report stuck in the middle of those families, out of order? It seems unlikely that they are living upriver, especially since the 1700 census shows him among the same families across the river from Fort Anne at Port Royal

But then, 1714 shows the family upriver again.

Port Royal Becomes French Again

In 1697, Acadia was returned to French control by the Treaty of Ryswick which ended the King William’s War.

However, the transfer wasn’t effectuated until 1699 when Joseph Villebon, the new Acadian Governor, wrote:

It is more than 60 years since Port Royal was founded and the work of clearing the land and the marshes began. The latter have, up to the present time, been very productive, yielding each year a quantity of grain, such as corn, wheat, rye, peas and oats, not only for the maintenance of families living there but for sale and transportation to other parts of the country.

Flax and hemp, also, grow extremely well, and some of the settlers of that region use only the linen, made by themselves, for domestic purposes. The wool of the sheep they raise is very good and the clothing worn by the majority of the men and women is made of it.

Port Royal is a little Normandy for apples… [Several] varieties of apple tree are found at Port Royal, and russet pears. There are other varieties of pears, and cherries… There is an abundance of vegetables for food… cabbage, beets, onions, carrots, chives, shallots, turnips, parsnip, and all sorts of salads; they grow perfectly and are not expensive. Fine green peas… Beef…The sheep are very large… suckling pig… Hens, cocks, capons, pullets, tame geese… Eggs, butter… These are the things which can be obtained from them for food. They are hunters… hare and partridge are very numerous …there are also wild fowl.

In the 1700 census, Francois is listed as Leuron. This wasn’t the most accurate census ever taken. His age has decreased, which is a neat trick if you know how to do it. Catherine is 41, son Jacques’ age has also decreased and he is now 21, Madelaine is recorded as living at home again and is 18, and her husband is missing, Marie is 14, Elizabeth is the same age as two years earlier, 10, Joseph who was missing in 1695 is 9, Jean-Baptiste is 8 and the baby Marie Jeanne, is not shown at all. They still have 15 arpents of land, 12 cattle, 18 sheep and one gun.

There is a 1701 Acadian census, but the entire family is missing, with the exception of Marie who is now age 15 and working as a servant upriver in the home of Emanual Hebert. This is quite confusing.

By 1702, the fort had fallen into disrepair again – which seems like a constant refrain. Perhaps a more accurate telling of the saga is that France continually neglected Acadia, sometimes going 4 or 5 years without resupplying the soldiers, or bringing new recruits.

Is it any wonder things fell into disrepair and morale plummeted?

Once again, a new, expanded fort was planned, but progress was halting.

With only about 100 men, the new fort was estimated to be completed in 1703 or 1704. Not wanting to take that risk, Port Royal residents contributed as much as they possibly could. A new church and hospital was added inside the fort.

The governor in charge at the time, Jacques-Francois de Brouillan, was incompetent at best, and criminal at worst.

In the 1703 census, Francois Leuron is listed with his wife, unnamed, with 2 boys and 4 girls. Two are arms-bearers. Clement Vincent lives two houses away with his wife and one female child.

1704

Sure enough, the Acadian’s worst fears came to pass once again.

Angry again about Indian attacks in New England, the English sought revenge by attacking Acadia again in 1704. They burned homes, destroyed crops, killed cattle, tore down dykes and laid both the Fort and the town of Port Royal under siege.

For 17 days, the soldiers and possibly the townspeople holed up in the fort. The English attacked during that time, but there was no devastation like there had been in 1690. This seemed to be more spur-of-the-moment and focused on retaliation than a planned assault focused on capitulation. After 17 days, the English, apparently satisfied with their revenge, simply left.

The next year, in 1705, the English returned with 550 men in two gunboats, 14 transports, 36 whaleboats, and a shallop. They killed people and captured prisoners along the way as they sailed around Acadia – leaving destruction in their wake everyplace they went.

De Brouillan was replaced in 1705 with an acting governor, thankfully, and not long thereafter, 600 feet of the unfinished fort’s ramparts washed away into the river, caused by torrential spring rains.

I can only imagine the horror as the Acadians witnesses the devastation and wondered why God was betraying them.

Many of the 185 soldiers at the fort were young and inexperienced, and frankly, didn’t want to be there.

Governor Daniel Subercase arrived in 1706. A competent leader, Subercase realized the massive task that he faced. The fort remained unfinished, no supply ship from France had arrived for some time, and morale was at an all-time low.

Port Royal had come to depend heavily on privateers for protection. They kept the English ships at bay and transported supplies. They also brought captured English sailors to Port Royal to be used for exchange barter in the future. Because that inevitable “future” always came with the English.

The first thing Subercase did was to take 35 English prisoners to Boston to exchange for Acadian men being held. I’d surely love to know who those Acadian men were.

Subercase knew the fort needed to be completed quickly, and even sold his own belongings, including his clothes, to raise the funds to do so.

The problem was, he just couldn’t do it fast enough. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither was Fort Anne.

1707

The 1707 Acadian census lists Francois Levron using his more familiar name. “Le bonhomme Nantois,” which means “the good man Nantois,” with his wife, 2 boys 14 or older, 2 younger boys, 2 girls 12 or older and 1 younger girl. They are living on half an arpent of land with 2 cattle, 2 hogs and one gun.

What happened to his land?

That’s a lot less than the 15 arpents of land under cultivation in 1700, before the depradations of 1707 – so the census may have been taken after the English “visited” again. He may have still had the land, but it wasn’t under cultivation because – well, the English had destroyed everything again. Dykes kept seawater out and you can’t farm salty soil. Using the Acadian dyking system, it takes about 3 years for the salt to wash out of the soil and for it to become productive again.

Clement Vincent lives next door with his wife and 2 children, also with half an arpent of land under cultivation.

It’s not uncommon for military men to have a “dit” name, such as Nantois, which might reflect a location, something about them, or even a humorous nickname – long after they were no longer soldiers.

Nantois suggests someone from Nantes, a beautiful medieval town with a complex history that includes Romans, Protestants, and Catholics.

Was this castle in Nantes part of Francois’s life before Acadia?

Did he sail from Saint-Nazaire, a seaport on the Loire River, in Nantes, which is located about 30 miles upriver from the Atlantic Coast, one of the largest ports in the 17th century?

How I wish I could ask him.

In the 1707 census, Francois Levron’s neighbor is his son-in-law, Clement Vincent. Beside him is Pierre Doucet, and on the other side Julien Lore/Lord who is recorded using only his dit name, LaMontagne. This places Francois Leveron unquestionably on the north side of the river, which is documented in a 1708 map.

This close-up image of the river was drawn by Labat in 1708, reflecting the depredations of 1707. You can see the word, “nantois” written along the road. You can see 5 structures. Two or three are probably homes, given that at least one son-in-law is living right beside him. His other son-in-law, Jean Garceau is probably living there too. The other structures are probably barns. We can also see that most of the area is treed. No fields are evident, but the small area around the buildings looks like it’s marsh when compared with other known marshy areas.

Francois’s 1707 reduction in land on the census may very well reflect what occurred in 1707, depending on when the census was taken.

Yes, the English attacked – again.

The 1707 Attack

Assuming that Francois arrived in colonial France as a soldier, we don’t know how long that lasted. He could potentially have served until 1690 when the French surrendered Fort Anne to the English, and then became an Acadian resident with his wife and children. In 1690, he would have been about 40.

In 1693, Francois was assuredly NOT a French soldier, so he would have been earning a living from his 15 arpents of land.

In 1697, when France recovered Acadia, it’s unlikely that Francois would have begun serving again, although once a military man, always a military man.

Those skills never leave you and would have served to protect his family in 1704 and again, in 1707.

Acadia, for the beautiful bucolic river valley that it is, was not necessarily a peaceful place.

I suspect that some periods calmed down and lulled the residents into complacency, right up until something happened. Then, the old ever-present anxiety returned with a vengeance. Always living on the edge, and half expecting an attack any minute became a way of life all over again.

The fort was dilapidated. The old powder magazine was leaky and wet. You can’t fire cannons without dry powder. The fort was in terrible condition, and morale was at an all-time low. The Acadians at Port Royal were, once again, sitting ducks, but Subercase heroically attempted to rectify the situation as best he could – going so far as to sell his clothes to do so.

The next attack came in March of 1707, the governor only had 160 soldiers to defend not only the fort, but the town as well. Many of his soldiers were inexperienced and had no desire to fight. Essentially, they had been recruited from the “quays of Paris” and likely had no choice in the matter. Some had run away and defected to the other side.

Now, all Acadian men who could carry a gun were soldiers defending their homes, families, and homeland. No question remained about what happened when the fort could not be defended. Everyone remembered 1690 and their homes having burned multiple times by now.

They knew it would happen again – and it did.

Governor Subercase managed to hold the fort, somehow, against more than 1000 men from New England, but the sheer imbalance foreshadowed the future.

Having no other choice, the governor recruited pirates who were more than happy to assist the Acadians by taking English ships as “prizes.” While France ignored Subercases’s pleas for help, the Acadians lived off the booty of the corsairs for the next three years.

This did help, but it also enraged New England, whose ships were being lost and who could no longer easily access the fishing grounds on the Grand Banks.

They would steam and their anger would fester for three years. The attack in 1710 was unlike any other.

1710

Captured English sailors had been warning the Acadians for three years. 1708, 1709, and then 1710 that an attack was coming.

When the promised attack didn’t happen, perhaps the Acadians became a little complacent. What they did accomplish was to finish the fort. Almost.

On a crisp October day, Armageddon arrived in the form of 3400 English soldiers on 43 ships, with more firepower than existed in all of Acadia. Their sheer number of soldiers was three times the number of entire people, including women and children, in all of Acadia – not just Port Royal.

Can you imagine the shocked looks on Acadian faces as they realized the magnitude of the invasion and what was about to unfold – as the ships just kept coming and coming – one after another until they could no longer see the end of the ships in the river.

The Acadians stood no chance – yet – unlike 1690, they were not about to give up without at least some sort of resistance.

These people were incredibly brave!

Imagine how they felt seeing their former French comrades with the English – soldiers who had once served with them in the garrison – but had deserted and betrayed them.

The river began to look like a parking lot. There were so many ships that it took several days for them to all sail into position in the river.

Their only prayer now was for the long-absent French fleet to show up and barricade the English fleet into the river where they could be dealt with accordingly.

While that was a nice fantasy, maybe a dream, and assuredly a prayer, it didn’t happen.

No, the Acadians were entirely alone.

The sentry near Goat Island had sounded the alarm, so there was at least a little time to gather the women and children in the fort. The soldiers and Acadians rushed around inside the fort to finish as much as possible. They had received no supplies, pay or rations from France in four years – so they had been “making do” a lot – with whatever they had.

Francois’s wife and children, and his daughters and their children, who lived right across the river, were probably sheltered inside the fort. The upriver homesteads likely had a different safe plan.

The most secure location in the fort, by far, was the “Black Hole,” formerly the old powder magazine.

It was also the most terrifying – a subterranean chamber. Only one way in and the same way out.

I hyperventilate even looking at this, yet I forced myself to stand there last summer – to experience what my ancestors had.

What would happen if no one ever came and opened the door? There was only one answer.

By 1710, Francois was no spring children. He was 60ish, but I’m sure as long as he had a breath in his body, he was going to fight.

Francois’s oldest son, Jacques was 31, had just married Marie Doucet that January, and she was three months pregnant. Francois’s second son, Joseph, 19, and Jean-Baptiste, 18 would certainly have been standing beside their father, facing down the English. Pierre would have been 15, so I’m not sure where he would have been. My guess would be standing right beside his father and brothers.

Daughter Madeleine’s husband, Clement Vincent would have been fighting, and she and their four children would probably have been sheltering with her mother, Catherine Savoye, wherever she was. Catherine could have gone upriver to BelleIsle where she grew up, and hid in the hills behind the river. The English would never find them there.

Daughter Anne wasn’t married, but Marie had married Jean Garceau and probably lived in the third house on the Levron homeplace. Their third child was just a few months old. Jean Garceau would have been fighting with his father-in-law, and Marie was probably in the Black Hole with her mother. (I’m not even Catholic and I’m crossing myself.)

Daughter Elizabeth had married Michel Picot and had one child. Daughter Jeanne was 16 and Madeleine was 10.

If the fort fell and everyone inside died, literally the entire Levron family – three generations – would be wiped out in one fell swoop. Eight men fighting, and 16 women and children in the black hole. Nothing will motivate a man to fight more than that. Francois must have felt an incredible weight and desperation on his shoulders that day – far greater than any earlier battle – because his family was larger and he was responsible for every soul, including his unborn grandchild.

Maybe what he felt was unflinching determination.

And so, they stood firm, the Acadian men, French soldiers, a few Mi’kmaq, their brethren who had come to stand and die with them, and about 20 men from Quebec who had the bad luck to be there when the English arrived. Incredibly outnumbered, they held off the invading English as long as humanly possible.

I’m sure they prayed to all that is holy.

The English landed and advanced on both sides of the river, eventually surrounding the fort so closely that the people inside the fort could hear their mocking voices.

TheEnglish 1710 siege map shows their landing locations, along with the Acadian homesteads, and, of course, the fort.

The English had done their homework well and knew a great deal about the fortifications.

Hell’s Fire rained down on the Acadians for days. Gunfire and grenades were lobbed over the fort walls.

The French were being squeezed from all sides.

I wonder if Francois Levron could glimpse his home across the water. Was it standing? Was it burning? Had he let his livestock loose in the hills, hoping they would survive?

The Acadian men turned to guerrilla-style resistance – a fighting style they had learned from the Mi’kmaq, and one the English were unfamiliar with.

Still, they were vastly outnumbered, and the English had been able to mount their cannon on the dykes behind and across Alain’s Creek from the fort.

Armageddon! Hell’s utter fury!

And then…

Silence.

Uncanny, eerie silence.

The French were quite confused, but soon saw two English officers approaching the fort waving flags of truce. Truce, not surrender.

The English had to know that the Acadians really didn’t want to commit suicide, and after the beating they had been taking, were probably ready to surrender. The Acadians clearly saw the handwriting on the wall.

The English demanded a surrender. Subercase negotiated. Everyone’s future rested on him and his skill. What a heavy weight to hear.

Given his circumstances, Subercase did a fine job.

The Acadians would not be massacred, and neither would their families. The English prisoners were released from the fort, and the English boats headed upriver to fetch the Acadian women and children who had sheltered there. The absolute worst thing that the English could have done was to harm the Acadian families. However, the Acadians could do nothing except trust them.

The Acadians were allowed to keep six cannons and two mortars, although I have no idea why. Maybe as salve to their dignity. The English received the rest of what was inside the fort as spoils of war.

The men could not hold the fort, although they did their best in the face of insurmountable odds, and managed to last for 19 days. They also managed, thanks to Subercase, not to be slaughtered. They would live to raise their families, and perhaps, to fight another day.

The French soldiers were provided passage back to France on the English ships, and once again, England controlled Acadia and renamed Port Royal, Annapolis Royal.

On October 16th, the key to the fort was ceremonially passed from Subercase to Nicholson, the English commander, and the Acadians were allowed to march out of the fort with full honors, carrying the French flag, “arms and baggage, drums beating and colors flying,” even in defeat.

I can see Francois Levron marching through this archway, probably staring straight ahead, defeated, but head unbowed.

Labat drew another map in 1710.

This map shows the Nantois land once again, with four divisions of some type, but unlike the other homesteads that depict fields. There’s a 5th square to the right of the other four, too. That could have been the son who had just married.

To the left, around the bend in the river, Labat also drew the English camp of 1707. With the English camped right there, you know for sure that Francois Levron’s homesteads were burned.

On both the 1707 and the 1710 maps, you can see other settlers’ fields that were under cultivation. How did Francois Levron survive with no fields? Did he have another skill or trade? And what are those little Xs along the shore? Perhaps markers to keep ships from running ashore or encountering rocks?

Today, you can’t see much of anything from the road, unfortunately.

Based on the shape of the road, the shore and the river, it looks like the Levron home was located down this driveway, behind the houses.

I sure would like to know what those rough areas are in the back of the houses. I wonder if the homeowners have found anything resembling homestead remains. Generally rocks formed the foundation and make mowing or plowing impossible.

This 1753 map drawn and enhanced from a 1733 house map of Acadia shows the “Nantois” Levron property.

1714

There was only one more Acadian census, taken in 1714. But Francois had aleady died earlier in the year.

ChatGPT translated his death record thus:

On the twenty-third of June in the year 1714, I,
the undersigned, serving as parish priest at Port Royal in Acadia,
have solemnly buried François Levron, a resident of Port Royal,
about sixty years of age, who died of illness
after receiving the sacraments. In witness of which
I have signed the present register on the same day and year as above.
Fr. Justinen Durand, Recollect missionary

It looks like Francois died and was buried the same day. Perhaps he died early, and it was hot.

The Nova Scotia Archives translates his age as about 70 years old. I see soixante, not soixante-dix, and although I struggle with this old handwriting, I do think they are wrong this time. I’m very grateful for these indexed records, but I’ve learned always to retranslate.

How old was Francois when he died? What evidence do we have.

Using the various censuses that provide ages, we have the following:

  1678 1686 1693 1698 1700 1707
Francois 33 (1653) 42 (1651) 50 (1648) 49 (1651) Listed
Catherine 20 34 38 41 Yes
Jacques 1 9 14 23 21 Yes
Madeleine 5 11 M Clement Vincent 18
Anne 2 9 14 16 Yes
Marie 1 7 12 14 M 1703 Jean Garceau
Elisabeth 3 10 10 M 1705 Michel Picot
Joseph 2 9 Yes
Jean-Baptiste 1 7 8
Jeanne 4
Marie Jeanne 2 Yes
Pierre
Madeleine

Based on the various census documents, his birth year averages 1650. It looks like Francois was born about 1651, which means he was about 63 when he died. In any case, he was closer to 60 than 70.

Francois Levron may rest someplace in the garrison cemetery, in the fort where he probably lived at one time as a soldier, and where he so bravely fought against the English at least half a dozen times. Where he stood with Baptiste. Just a few feet from where Acadian history had been made over and over.

Francois still stands guard, someplace.

It’s possible that Francois was buried in the St. Laurent’s Chapel cemetery at BelleIsle, where many of the upriver Acadians are buried – most church records don’t specifiy which cemetery – only that they were buried and when.

We know that several residents were buried at St. Laurents after 1710 when the English controlled Annapolis Royal and the church there, such as it was.

The 1714 census reflects Francois’s death, showing only the “widow Nantois”, with 2 sons, and 1 daughter. However, they are living smack dab in the middle of seven Girouard families, clearly upriver. Other families, including his son-in-law Clement Vincent are listed “near the fort.”

This is the third time that we find the Levron family among the upriver families, so there’s some connection there, but we may never know what it is.

One Final Respect Paid

It’s a huge pain, but often viewing and translating every record of someone’s children and, minimally, the births of their grandchildren yields unexpected nuggets worth their weight in gold. Baptismal records, witnesses, and more.

Generally, those ancillary people aren’t indexed, but, honestly, they should be because, among other reasons, they document relationships and serve as a different kind of census. Specifically, who is still alive. Sometimes relationships are provided as well.

Francois’s unmarried son died in 1725 and was buried in the cemetery at St. Laurents. His death record is somewhat unusual in both it’s length and phrasing – not to mention that he is working as a domestic.

The Nova Scotia Archives extracted what they considered to be the important parts of the record, but it’s the first part of Pierre’s burial record that reveals more about Francois, even 11 years after his death in 1714.

On the twenty-first of the month of January, 1725, was buried in the cemetery of Haut-de-Rivière, in my absence, the body of Pierre Levron, about thirty years old, son of Sieur François Levron, resident of Port Royal in Acadia, and of Catherine Savoye, his father and mother (both) deceased, (he died) the previous day after having confessed, in the house of Pierre Giraud as well.

This record was recorded by Father de Breslay who had only just arrived in  Annapolis Royal that year. The Priest did not know Francois Levron personally, so his reference to him using the honorific of Sir, especially when he did not use that for everyone else, has to reflect how Sieur Francois Levron was remembered in the Acadian community more than a decade after his death.

A good man, “bonnehomme Nantois,” and a brethren at arms with Acadia’s privateer, Baptiste, both known as Sieur.

Origins

Who were Francois’s parents? Is he related to Levron family members in France? Is there any possibility of tracking Francois to parish records in France?

Francois’s nickname, “Nantois” provides us with a potential clue about his origins, but his Y-DNA might give us answers – if a male Levron who descends from Francois were to take the Y-DNA test.

Y-DNA tracks a male’s direct paternal line both recently, to men with a common or similar surname, and also back in time beyond the advent of surnames.

If Francois originated in Nantes, whose residents are known as Nantais, he might match another male from that region. He might have an ancient connection to the Namnetes, a tribe of Gaul who inhabited what is now Nantes during the Iron Age, or perhaps to the Romans who followed.

If you are a Levron male who descends directly through your paternal line from Francois, I have a DNA testing scholarship for you. Let’s learn together. Please reach out.

_____________________________________________________________

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 e-mail 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 Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

New Mitotree Haplogroups and How to Utilize Them for Genealogy

Have you received a new Mitotree haplogroup? Or maybe you didn’t? Are you wondering why you might not have received a new haplogroup? How do the new haplogroups work anyway? And how do you work with them?

Great questions!

Approximately 75% of full sequence testers received a new haplogroup with the Mitotree Beta release, which means that about 25% did not. Keep in mind that new sequences are being added to the database, so the tree will be sprouting new haplogroups with each subsequent release.

Check For Your New Haplogroup

Click on any image to enlarge

Sign in to your account at FamilyTreeDNA and look at the Badges in the bottom right corner of your page.

Your Beta haplogroup is your new Mitotree haplogroup, and your Legacy haplogroup is your old one – prior to Mitotree. They may be the same. My haplogroup, shown above, did not change.

This is a good place to note that the tree is not “done,” yet, nor will it ever be. New samples are added daily as more people test and as academic samples from published papers are added to the database as well. Additionally, FamilyTreeDNA is tweaking the algorithm, so the tree branching structure may change from time to time.

When your haplogroup changes, you’ll receive a notification email.

Some people’s haplogroup will remain the same. There can be several reasons why you might not have received a new haplogroup.

Before we discuss that, I’d like to stress that your haplogroup remaining the same isn’t exactly a bad thing because there is SO MUCH new content for everyone. It’s like receiving a whole new book about your mother’s direct matrilineal line.

mtDNA Discover Offers 13 New Reports for Everyone

MtDNA Discover was released with the new Mitotree, and it includes a dozen new reports for EVERY haplogroup.

Discover is available publicly, and also through your FamilyTreeDNA dashboard which provides a customized experience for mtFull testers with additional information that is not available in the free version.

Think of these Discover reports as chapters in your personal book – all about you and your matrilineal ancestors.

The Discover reports are provided in addition to the tools in the mtDNA Results and Tools section of your dashboard on FamilyTreeDNA.

There’s something for everyone, even if you don’t have a new haplogroup. There’s certainly new information that will help with your genealogy and with understanding the history and ancestral journey of your mother’s direct line maternal ancestors.

Three Reasons Why You Might Not Receive a New Haplogroup

Ok, so why might you not have received a new haplogroup?

The first reason that you might not have received a new haplogroup assignment is the simplest. The new tree is only updated periodically.

After your results are returned, and before the next Mitotree version is available, your Mitotree haplogroup Badge will show as “Analyzing.”

If one of your matches is waiting for a new haplogroup, their Mitotree Haplogroup will show as “Pending Analysis.”

There is no published tree-update schedule, but you’ll receive your new haplogroup soon.

However, you can probably determine your new haplogroup quite easily. If you have any exact matches on your mtDNA Match page, their haplogroup will be your haplogroup as well, so check your full sequence mtDNA Matches on your dashboard for a hint.

For, example, here’s one of my exact matches with their haplogroup.

The second reason you might not have a new haplogroup assignment is that you may not have taken the full sequence mitochondrial DNA test – mtFull.

Only testers with full sequence test results can receive an updated haplogroup, because the full mitochondria needs to be tested. The older HVR1/HVR2 Plus tests only tested a fraction of the full sequence – around 1000 locations of the 16,569 locations tested in the full sequence test.

If you have only taken the HVR1 or HVR1/HVR2 level test, you will only have one badge, and it will say “Predicted.”

The haplogroup for the Plus test is predicted at a high level based on those 1000 locations, while the full sequence test tests the entire mitochondria and uses all locations to confirm your most granular and detailed haplogroup possible.

On your dashboard, if both the Plus and Full icons are pink, you have taken the mtFull test. If the “Full” is grey, you have not. You can click on that grey button to upgrade.

You can also navigating to on Add Ons and Upgrades in the top bar to upgrade to the full sequence test.

The third reason why someone might not have received a new haplogroup assignment is if they didn’t match with anyone else who has the same mutations, or variants, for a particular haplogroup.

In other words, if my mitochondrial DNA has had a mutation or two since my assigned haplogroup was formed and no one else has tested that has those exact same mutations, there’s no one else to form a new haplogroup with, but there might be in the future as additional people test and the tree continues to grow.

Think of those additional mutations, called Private Variants, as foundation blocks, or haplogroup seeds since they are still private to you, and not yet used for a haplogroup.

It’s easy to see if you have any Private Variants by clicking on Discover on your mitochondrial dashboard.

Scientific Details – Private Variants, Building Blocks, Haplogroup Seeds

If you have taken the full sequence test, click through to mtDNA Discover from your dashboard. If you aren’t signed in and click through from your dashboard, you won’t be able to see your variants or other information customized for you.

Navigate to Scientific Details, then click on the Variants tab.

Click on image to enlarge

Be sure that “Show private variants” is toggled to “on,” which is blue with a checkmark.

At the very top, you’ll see two things:

  1. Your haplogroup, which is indicated by the solid pink square.
  2. An F number followed by your private variants, if any, and if so, which ones.

I have no private variants or haplogroup seeds available to form a new haplogroup, so I have no ability to receive a more refined haplogroup.

Haplotype Clusters

However, I’m NOT out of luck, because I have something else – a Haplotype Cluster, indicated by having an F#. My Haplotype Cluster is F1752176 and is indicated by the pink outlined box.

I wrote about haplotype clusters in the article, Mitochondrial DNA: What is a Haplotype Cluster and How Do I Find and Use Mine?.

In a nutshell, haplogroups are only formed around reliable, relatively stable mutations, meaning those that are reliable and don’t tend to randomly mutate back and forth.

You may match exactly with a group of other people who share the same haplogroup, PLUS the same unstable mutations that don’t qualify to become haplogroup-defining.

Those groups of two or more people who match exactly on all mutations are members of the same  Haplotype Cluster – and Haplotype Clusters can be INCREDIBLY genealogically useful. In fact, let me go out on a limb here and say that I think they are even more genealogical useful than haplogroups, although both have their strengths. Let’s look at a good example.

Using Haplogroups and Haplotype Clusters Together

My family member, Jim, had a surprise waiting for him in his mitochondrial DNA. When he received his new haplogroup, I took a look to see what new information might be forthcoming.

His legacy haplogroup was V, and his new Mitotree haplogroup is V216a2 which is significantly more refined.

Before Mitotree and Haplotype Clusters, there wasn’t much to differentiate him from his other matches.

Let’s take a look at JUST his genetic information before adding genealogy.

If I click on the Time Tree for haplogroup V216a2, I see two testers with no cluster, meaning no one matches them exactly, and Jim’s cluster number F9712482.

Keep in mind that Jim might not match everyone in his haplogroup – only people at or beneath the matching threshold.

Jim’s new haplogroup, V216a2 was formed about 1056 CE, or about 975 years ago. Note that as the tree changes and becomes more refined, haplogroup formation dates change too. A haplogroup’s birth date is an approximate year when the mutations occurred that define that haplogroup, based on surrounding mutations and mutation rates.

Many people look at a haplogroup, especially one with a birth date of, say, 1056 CE, which is long before the formation of surnames, shrug their shoulders, and give up.

Don’t. Do. That.

So, let me say this as loudly as possible.

A haplogroup’s most recent common ancestor is NOT the EKA (earliest known ancestor) with any individual match. It’s the approximate date when ALL of the people with this haplogroup share a common ancestor.

When looking at haplogroups, don’t let locations thrown you. Keep in mind that country boundaries are fluid. What was at one time Hungary could be Germany or Romania or something else just a few years earlier or later. So don’t discount that information either. Think regions and take into consideration that people move around – and some people enter incorrect genealogy/location information.

Your common ancestor with the people, individually, who share your haplogroup,  is sometime between the haplogroup formation date and today. Everything else is a clue. 

Think about it this way. You share a haplogroup with your mother, and while you are both descended from the woman who lived when your haplogroup was formed – your most recent ancestor with that haplogroup is your mother – not the woman 975 years ago. Your most recent common ancestor (MRCA) with your mother and her sister is your grandmother – a lot closer in time than 1056 CE. 1056 CE the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) date for everyone in the haplogroup, not between you and any one person in particular. The MRCA date for you plus another person is sometime between now and 1056 CE.

So, let’s take a look at Jim’s results.

Finding Jim’s Gold Nugget

Jim has 27 coding region matches, of which six share both his new haplogroup, V216a2, AND Haplotype Cluster F9712482. His other matches are split between three related haplogroups, and multiple haplotype clusters.

Most of his family, meaning three of his grandparents, were from eastern Europe, meaning Germany, Hungary or the Austro-Hungarian empire as it was recorded in American records. Many genealogical records no longer exist in that region, or if they do, you have to know exactly where to look.

We were brick-walled with Jim’s matrilineal great-grandmother, Sophia Smith, who was born about 1877 and seemed to appear out of thin air.

Thanks to the new haplogroups, combined with Haplogroup Clusters, I knew to focus on his matches in this order:

  • Same haplogroup plus same Haplotype Cluster
  • Same haplogroup plus different Haplotype Cluster, because clusters are built around identical but less reliable mutations
  • Related haplogroup – this is unlikely to yield direct genealogical results, but can be very useful in terms of origins

Of Jim’s exact matches with the same Haplotype Cluster, three showed an earliest known ancestor (EKA) and three did not. Three provided a tree, and three did not. Of the trees, one was private and the other two provided no useful insight.

Of the people who provided EKA information, one EKA matches their tree information, one conflicts with their tree. After viewing their tree, it appears that they did not understand that the mitochondrial EKA is the most distant ancestor in your mother’s direct maternal line. They listed someone in their grandmother’s paternal line.

I find this easiest to deal with if I organize the research in a chart for each match.

Match # Earliest Known Ancestor EKA Location Tree Comment
#1 No No No
#2 No No No
#3 No No Yes – Private
#4 Yes – only one name “Egan” with brith and death dates Ireland Yes – Egan is surname of their grandmother EKA person listed tracks up wrong line in tree
#5 Yes Hungary No Elizabeth Schmidt Hornung b1888 d 1930
#6 Yes No Yes – matches EKA Ancestor born NC in 1811, no common names or location

Match #5 provided an EKA, but no tree, showed a country of origin as Hungary, and the identity of her EKA as “Elizabeth Schmidt Hornung b.1888 and d.1930.”

Hmmm…three things of interest here:

  • The location of Hungary, even though the oral history in Jim’s family said his great-grandmother was a Smith from the US, maybe New York. Jim’s family, including Sophia’s husband, was Eastern European. Remember, I couldn’t find any early records for Sophia Smith.
  • Smith is the anglicized version of Schmidt.
  • Hornung may be a married name.

I’m a genealogist, and Jim’s match had provided enough information that I was able to identify her ancestor, Elizabeth Schmidt, and find additional information.

Sure enough, Elizabeth Schmidt immigrated as an adult by herself, married Karl Hornung in Richland County, Ohio, the same location where Jim’s family was living. That information led me to another record, identifying a brother whose marriage license application provided their parents. Elizabeth’s parents were Ignatius Schmidt and Catherine Schlowe, and her sister was Sophia Schmidt, Jim’s great-grandmother. Deeper digging suggests that Ignatius and Catherine were from Timisoara in what is now Romania. I have been unable to confirm with birth, death or marriage records, but that part of Romania was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during that timeframe.

Immigration of siblings, alone, at different times after the 1910 census, without their parents, made this particularly difficult, as did cultural and language barriers – but mitochondrial DNA, and Jim’s Haplotype Cluster in particular, provided the key I needed.

Jim’s common ancestor with his Schmidt match is the birth date of Catherine Schlowe, which was probably about 1850 – NOT 1056 CE, which is the haplogroup formation date.

Don’t get discouraged by misinterpreting haplogroup origin information or missing genealogy information. All you need is that one good match. That gold nugget. Don’t forget that you can email your matches and ask for more information.

The Match Time Tree makes all of this easier.

Match Time Tree

The Match Time Tree shows match, haplogroup, location and Haplotype Cluster information all in one place.

It’s easy to use the Match Time Tree to view how all of your matches are grouped, along with their EKA, displayed together in one place.

Here are all of Jim’s matches. They were all originally haplogroup V, but now his matches have been divided into V216, V216a, V216a1, and V216a2 (Jim’s haplogroup).

I’ve obfuscated the names of his matches, but the EKA, when provided, is there. Each person is grouped into their haplotype cluster of exact matches, and the user-provided country of origin for their ancestor is shown by their profile photo.

Jim’s match with the descendant of Elizabeth Schmidt is indicated in the red boxes, and Jim has updated his own EKA and her country of origin.

Who is waiting for you in your match list?

Will extending and building out trees help?

Have you emailed your matches to see what additional information they can provide?

Female ancestors are sometimes the MOST difficult to find, often due to name changes  – so be sure to mine every possible avenue and don’t become discouraged if you don’t immediately see something “familiar.”

Every generation in a female lineage will probably carry a different surname and the match you need may not have researched as far back as your ancestor, or vice versa.

Don’t forget that autosomal matching can play an important role in confirming relationships.

But wait – there’s STILL more about Jim’s ancestors…

There’s Even More to Discover

There’s more to discover about Jim’s ancestors.

Jim’s Discover Ancient Connections tells me that 5200 years ago, Jim shared a common mitochondrial DNA ancestor with two Hungarian and a Slovakian Yamnaya cultural burial whose remains date to about 2800 BCE, or about 4800 years ago.

To be clear, the common haplogroup between Jim and all three burials dates to 5200 years ago, when their common haplogroup was formed, but the remains themselves are from about 4800 years ago – so only about 400 years difference between the haplogroup birth date and when those people lived, died and were buried.

How close are the remains to the location of Jim’s ancestor in Timisoara?

Using Google Maps, I placed the three Yamnaya burial locations (blue pins), plus Timisoara.

The two most distant points, Timisoara to Lesne, Slovakia, walking, is 393 km or 245 miles. The closest burial to Timisoara, located in Sárrétudvari, Hungary, is 157 km  or 119 miles.

So Jim’s ancestors remained in the same general area for someplace between 4,800 and 5,200 years. And, his great-grandmother was born not far from those burials. That alone is an INCREDIBLE find!

So, what happened to the people of the Yamnaya culture? I think we might have gained some insight into that question.

So, there’s even more to discover using Discover.

You don’t know what you don’t know about your matrilineal ancestors, so test your mitochondrial DNA at FamilyTreeDNA and break through those brick walls. I’ve already solved multiple long-standing mysteries and added generations to my own tree.

Plus, I really, REALLY want to know where every single ancestor “came from,” what culture they were a part of, and when. History is part of genealogy – and a part of our ancestral journey that we can’t reach any other way.

Fortunately, your matches, Scientific Details, Time Tree, Match Time Tree, and Ancient Connections help you visualize all of these various situations and aspects of your ancestor’s history, and evaluate your results.

Both haplogroups and Haplotype Clusters provide very fine degrees of granularity that were not previously available. MtDNA Discover adds a dozen new reports, and Ancient Connections allow you to time travel.

Let me know what you discover!

_____________________________________________________________

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 e-mail 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 Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Mitochondrial DNA: What is a Haplotype Cluster and How Do I Find and Use Mine?

A new feature called Haplotype Clusters was released with the new Mitotree and mtDNA Discover.

MtDNA Discover includes a dozen new reports for EVERY haplogroup. You can use the public version of Discover with any haplogroup.

However, there are additional included features for mtFull testers, and other information provided will be much more detailed and robust because the mtFull test is much more specific than any partial haplogroup.

If you have only taken the older partial-coverage HVR1 or HVR1/HVR2 tests at FamilyTreeDNA, you can sign in and upgrade, or if you have received a partial haplogroup from another source, you can take the mtFull test at FamilyTreeDNA.

OK, I’ve Taken the mtFull Test, So How Do I Access My Discover Reports?

Sign in to your FamilyTreeDNA account, then from your mtDNA dashboard, click through to Discover to access your Discover reports.

Discover reports are in addition to the tools in the mtDNA Results and Tools section of your dashboard on FamilyTreeDNA.

Definitions

Let’s start with some basic definitions.

  • Haplotype – Your individual DNA results at specific adjacent locations that are generally inherited together.

Other people may have the same haplotype as you. If they have mutations that you don’t have, or vice versa, then you have different haplotypes. People with the same haplotypes match exactly on whatever type of DNA is being discussed, such as Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA, with no mutations or differences. Multiple people who match exactly are considered a Haplotype Cluster.

  • Haplogroup – A group of specific mutations that identify people who share a common genetic clan. Haplogroups, based on a series of mutations, can be traced forward and backward in time.

A haplogroup is a grouping of haplotypes with the same foundation mutations. You will share those mutations with other people in your haplogroup, but you may have other, different mutations that form your haplotype.

  • Other people will have the same haplogroup as you, because a group implies two or more.
  • You may or may not share a haplotype with other people. If you share the exact same haplotype with at least one other person, the two (or more) of you form a Haplotype Cluster

What is a Haplotype Cluster?

Haplotype Clusters are new and have been added to provide additional granularity to the new Mitotree, making results more genealogically useful.

In addition to your mitochondrial DNA haplogroup, you may also have a Haplotype Cluster if you took a full sequence mitochondrial DNA test, called the mtFull.

A mitochondrial DNA haplogroup, such as J1c2f for example, means that everyone within that haplogroup has the same foundation grouping of mutations. You may have additional mutations, or even some missing mutations, based on the older Phylotree Build 17, which was last updated in 2016.

Click to enlarge any image

To see your Extra and Missing Mutations in the Classic, or Phylotree build, on the FamilyTreeDNA mtDNA dashboard, click on “See More,” then on Mutations.

In the recently released Mitotree, which reconstructs the tree of humanity with more than 35,000 new branches, or haplogroups, many of those “extra” or “missing” mutations have been used in the definition of new haplogroups.

At FamilyTreeDNA, on your matches page, you’ll see your matches, like always. Matching has not changed.

You’ll notice that some are exact matches, and some may be “1 step” or more distant. That means they have one qualifying genetic mutation difference from you.

Some mutations have always been excluded from matching because they are unreliable. In my case, location 315.1C is one of those. You can read more about matching here. Matching has NOT been rerun with the release of the new Mitotree, but may be in the future.

The new Haplotype Clusters designate other people who you literally match exactly, with no differences – and no excluded marker locations.

So, let’s compare how I match people and what it means:

  • Haplogroup match – I match these people at the haplogroup level, which can reach back hundreds or even thousands of years ago. In addition, I may match them on both other relevant, reliable mutations, and/or unreliable mutations. On the current matching page, the mtDNA Haplogroup is the PhyloTree Build 17 haplogroup. Before Mitotree, matches to any other haplogroup were not displayed. Now, new haplogroups of my J1c2f matches, if they received a new haplogroup, are shown in the Mitotree Haplogroup column. My common ancestor with a match can have occurred anytime between when the haplogroup was formed and today.

Some people receive partial haplogroup level matches from other testing companies that also don’t include matching. A haplogroup match alone isn’t particularly useful except when it can eliminate a connection.

That’s why we need matching on the Matches page.

  • FamilyTreeDNA Matches Page Match – On the Matches page, I match these people at the haplogroup level as calculated based on Phylotree Build 17, as shown in the mtDNA Haplogroup Column at the Genetic Distance displayed. This means that I match them on the haplogroup markers PLUS possibly other markers.

My first match with Per, above, is listed as an exact match. Before Haplotype Clusters were introduced, I had no way of knowing if I matched him on all of my mutation locations, or just the ones that are NOT excluded from matching. But now I do.

My Haplotype Cluster number is F1752176. I know this because the little circle is checked and blue – meaning this person and I share both a haplogroup in the new Mitotree, and a Haplotype Cluster.

Ronald, above, is a match with a “1 step” Genetic Difference. I know for sure that I match him on the haplogroup markers. I also know that we don’t match on one non-excluded marker – but I have no idea which one. We may also match, or not, on some of the excluded markers. But we are not members of the same Haplotype Cluster. The blue circle is not checked.

You cannot be a member of more than one Haplotype Cluster, because everyone in a Haplotype Cluster must match exactly.

  • Haplotype Cluster – A Haplotype Cluster, if you have one, is a random F number assigned to people whose mitochondrial DNA matches exactly – and by exactly, I mean without excluding unstable or unreliable mutations.

You can see my Haplotype Cluster number, above, in the Mitotree Haplogroup column, in addition to my new Mitotree haplogroup – which is still J1c2f and did not change from the earlier version. In Mitotree, some people will receive new haplogroups, and some will not – based on your and other people’s mutations.

My match with Ronald is one step difference. Our haplogroup is the same, so that circle is checked, but Ronald belongs to a different Haplotype Cluster, so that circle is not checked, and he has a different F number. I can’t see his mutations that are different from mine, but I know he matches everyone else in his Haplotype Cluster exactly.

Let’s look at another example.

Click on any image to enlarge

Looking at my match list, I can see that beneath my matches’ haplogroup, which is the same as mine, F1752176 is checked and the checked circle is blue, which means that I share that Haplotype Cluster with those people. Everyone in that cluster has all of the same mutations in addition to the haplogroup-defining mutations, which is why both the haplogroup and haplotype circles are checked. I match both.

If I look at my Matches page, or the mtDNA Discover Time Tree, or Matches Time Tree, I can see that I have many exact haplotype matches, which means:

  • We all share haplogroup-defining mutations and
  • We match exactly on all other mutations as well

Before Haplotype Clusters were introduced, I had no way of knowing which of these people I matched exactly if no mutations were excluded.

To summarize, a Haplotype Cluster is a group of people who all match each other exactly within a haplogroup. People in Haplotype Clusters always match exactly, which INCLUDES mutations that are EXCLUDED from haplogroup formation and matching.

If you don’t match someone exactly, you’re not in the same Haplotype Cluster. You can either be in a different cluster, or no cluster at all if no one matches you exactly.

Everyone has a Haplotyupe Cluster number, but you will only be a member of a Haplotype Cluster if you have an exact match to at least one other person.

Don’t Ignore Other Clusters

The F number itself isn’t important. What is important is that Haplotype Clusters serve to focus your genealogy on that cluster first. However, understand that because the Haplotype Cluster does include unreliable or fast-mutating markers, it’s possible for you to share a more recent ancestor with people in a different cluster. It depends on the marker and the mutation, so don’t discount that possibility.

Who Can See Haplotype Cluster Mutations?

The only people who know the exact mutations of the people in a specific Haplotype Cluster are the members of that cluster – because they all match exactly.

If you scroll down your match list, you’ll notice that people, like Anastasia, who have a genetic distance of 1 step or greater have a different F Haplotype Cluster number, which is expected.

You may also notice that someone who is an “exact match” with you on the match list is assigned to a different Haplotype Cluster, such as Rose and Per. Rose is not in my Haplotype Cluster, but Per is, even though they are both “exact matches.”

Remember, “matching exactly” on the match list excludes unreliable mutation locations. Haplotype Clusters always match exactly and include all mutations. So, this tells me that I match Per on all mutation locations, regardless of their stability, and I match Rose on all stable locations, and we mismatch on at least one location that was excluded from matching.

However, the only people who know the exactly mutations of any other person are me and Per, because we both share a Haplotype Cluster. People in other clusters, or without a cluster, don’t know and can’t identify the mutations in clusters not their own.

  • The only thing I can tell about my match with Rose is that we don’t share one of the unreliable markers, because we are an “exact match” on the match list which excludes unstable markers. I have no idea whether I carry that unstable marker, or she does, or which marker it is.
  • The only thing I can tell about my match with Anastasia is that we don’t share at least one stable marker, because we are a “1-step” genetic distance, and we could also not share some of the unstable markers. I have no way of identifying those markers.
  • I know that I match Per exactly on all markers, including unstable or unreliable markers.

Included Versus Excluded Markers

Sometimes people who are listed as exact matches on your Matches page are assigned to different Haplotype Clusters. This is because mutations such as 309 and several others are included in Haplotype Clusters, but excluded from matching and haplogroup formation. The reason they are excluded is because they are sometimes unreliable – but they may be useful to your research. They aren’t always unreliable, but it varies on a case-by-case basis, including when the mutation occurred.

Location Haplogroup Formation Matching on Matches Page Haplotype Cluster
309 Excluded Excluded Included

Here’s an example using location 309. While some locations are excluded from matching, their inclusion in the formation of Haplotype Clusters may be very genealogically relevant to you – or perhaps not. That’s where genealogy research becomes important.

Haplotype Clusters give you the ability to focus your research on a specific group of people that you know do, in fact, match you exactly. Just keep in mind that some people in a different Haplotype Cluster, that don’t have a mutation at 309, for example, could have a closer common ancestor. That’s the nature of 309, 315 and other unstable SNPs, especially heteroplasmies, which tend to “come and go,” which I wrote about here. In other words, don’t ignore other Haplotype Clusters that appear on your match list – just begin with your own and evaluate using genealogy..

The Haplotype Cluster number itself isn’t important. What is important is that they serve to focus your genealogy efforts.

Where Else Can I Find My Haplotype Cluster

You can identify your Haplotype Cluster number by looking at your match list, as we have discussed, or by navigating to the Variants tab on the Scientific Details page.

On the variants tab, your haplogroup is marked with the solid red square, along with other information which I have truncated here.

Immediately above your haplogroup, you’ll see your Haplotype Cluster number, if you have one, along with any remaining private variants, aka mutations, that are haplogroup seeds and qualify to potentially become part of a haplogroup in the future.

In my case, this tells me that either all of my mutations are now included in a haplogroup definition, or they are excluded due to their instability or unreliability. Everyone else in this Haplotype Cluster is in exactly the same situation.

The only person who can see your Haplotype Cluster in Discover is you, if you are signed in to FamilyTreeDNA and you toggle “Show Private Variants” to “on.”

Haplotype Clusters as a Subset of Haplogroups

Haplogroups can and do have mutations “beneath” them, meaning haplogroup members may have different mutations or variants, in addition to the mutations used to form the haplogroup. Think of them as twigs or leaves on the tree.

Using the Classic Mitotree view in mtDNA Discover, you’ll notice that haplogroup J1c2f contains six Haplotype Clusters.

Please note that one of these clusters could be people who match the haplogroup definition exactly, and have no additional mutations of any type. They would form their own cluster.

Additionally, above the clusters, there are individual branches listed that don’t (yet) form clusters. You don’t know from looking at the individuals listed by country, such as Sweden, Germany, Norway, and so forth, if these people have only the exact mutations in haplogroup J1c2f, or if they have additional mutations that are unique and no one else has those exact mutations. What you do know is that so far, no one else matches them exactly, but as other people test, they may develop into a HaploType Cluster.

You may not match all of the people in your haplogroup on your matches page, because they may be over the match threshold and have too many mutations difference from you.

Some testers with unique, stable mutations may form new haplogroups as additional people test.

Using the Time Tree, you can see that there are currently 33 people who are in haplogroup J1c2f but do not match anyone else exactly.

The Discover Time Tree

Now that we’ve looked at examples individually, I took a screenshot of my entire haplogroup on the mtDNA Discover Time Tree to get the big picture.

The Time Tree offers a nice visual summary of all of J1c2f, including my full sequence matches, all in one place, along with Haplotype Clusters.

My haplogroup is shown in the black circle, and downstream haplogroups are shown in red circles.

You can see my Haplotype Cluster, which I can identify by the F#. You can see other Haplotype Clusters within my haplogroup, along with some individuals who don’t have any exact matches, who are shown alone on their line.

The Match Time Tree

When you click on Discover Haplogroup Reports from your dashboard, then on the Match Time Tree, you’ll see your matches’ names on your personal Time Tree, along with their self-reported earliest known matrilineal ancestors, in addition to their ancestor’s country of origin.

Here’s an example of a portion of my Match Time Tree with my matches’ names redacted.

With these new Discover and Mitotree tools, you know where to focus your research most closely. Which matches’ trees to view or build out to identify common ancestors, and who to prioritize for communications.

If you have a new haplogroup – that’s wonderful, but you don’t need one to make headway. The clue you need may well be found in your Haplotype Cluster.

There’s so much new information available for you. What can you discover?

_____________________________________________________________

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 e-mail 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 Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Marie Levron (c1686-1727), Tragedy from Cradle to Grave – 52 Ancestors #443

Marie Levron was born about 1686 in or near Port Royal, Nova Scotia, to Francois “dit Nantois” Levron and Catherine Savoie. Levron is sometimes spelled Leveron, Leuron and other ways as well.

In 1686, we first find Marie Levron listed as age 1 in the census, along with her parents and three older siblings: Jacques age 9, Magdelaine, age 5, and Anne, age 2.

This probably means that Marie was actually born in 1686, given that her sibling is age 2, and children were generally born 18 months to two years apart. Later censuses also suggest that her birth was in 1686 as well.

In 1690, New England militia brutally attacked Port Royal, overtook the fort, plundered and burned the town, desecrated the church, and killed their livestock. Marie would have been too young to fully realize what was going on, but might have been terrorized by the attack itself. Assuredly, she would have been affected by the magnitude of the destruction. Given the level of trauma involved, this attack might have formed Marie’s earliest memories. Their home was probably burned, given their proximity to the fort.

Not only would her family have been immediately and directly affected, but this event was a turning point in English and Acadian relations. Any trust and goodwill between the two had been permanently destroyed.

In the 1693 census, Marie Levron was age 7 and was living at home with the same family members plus three new siblings: Elizabeth, age 3, Joseph, age 2, and Jean Baptiste, age 1. The gap between Marie and Elizabeth suggests she had an additional sibling born about 1688 who died between birth and the 1693 census.

This sibling may have died at birth when Marie was too young to realize what was taking place. Or, the child may have died just before the census when Marie was 7 and she had known them for years. It’s certainly possible that the child perished in the 1690 depredations when the English burned so many homes.

In 1698, Marie Leveron was age 12, living with her family, who had grown with the addition of two siblings – Jeanne, age 4, and Pierre, age 2. Her sister, Magdeleine, age 16, had recently married Clement Vincent and was living next door.

In 1700, Marie Leuron (Levron) was 14 and living with her family, but two of her siblings are missing. Jeanne and Pierre are not listed. Normally, this would mean that they had died, but that’s not true in this case.

Jeanne would have been 6 in 1700. She married in 1714, so she clearly had not died.

Pierre would have been 4. He is not found again until his death in 1725, when he died in the home of Pierre Godet as a domestic.

Where were these two children in 1700, and why was Pierre later working as a domestic?

Additionally, Marie’s sister, Magdeleine, also recorded as Madelaine, who was married in the 1698 census, is recorded as once again living with her parents. Her husband is not found. This leads me to question the accuracy of the census, because her husband, Clement Vincent, didn’t die, and they went on to have a dozen children. The eldest was born about 1701. Perhaps Magdeleine was visiting her parents when the census-taker recorded the family members.

In 1701, Marie Levrin, age 15, was listed as a servant in the home of Emanuel Hebert and his wife Andree Brun. Marie was younger than four of their five children at home, and one year older than their son, Alexandre, so she wasn’t living there to help with young children.

In 1698, Emanual Hebert was listed as the neighbor of Francois Levron, Clement Vincent and Rene Forest.

Servants were very unusual in Acadia, with only five listed individually. The total shows 17 servants in Port Royal, but we are left in the dark about the identity of the rest of those servants.

Marie’s parents and family are missing from the census.

It’s possible that they had departed for either Les Mines or Beaubassin and been missed in the census, or they were literally in transit. The family would have known the Emanual Hebert family well, so perhaps, for some unknown reason, Marie stayed behind, living with the Hebert’s as a servant.

If they went someplace, they were back by 1703.

In 1703, Marie was probably counted with her family in the census in Port Royal, although her parents had six daughters and four sons at the time, and the census only reflects four girls and two boys.

On November 20, 1703, Marie married Jean Garceau, a soldier at Fort Anne, and he was not listed in the census, so the census was likely taken before the wedding.

On the 20th of November in the year one thousand seven hundred and three, I, a parish priest performing the curial functions in this parish, after the publication of the three banns on three consecutive Sundays, without any impediment having been found, united in matrimony, by words in the presence of our Holy Mother Church, Jean Garsseault, called Tranchemontagne, soldier of this garrison in the company of Duvernay, son of Pierre Garsseaux and Jaquette Soulard of the parish of St. René in the diocese of Poitiers, and Marie Levron, daughter of François Levron and Catherine Savoye, of this parish. And they declared that they could not sign, but made their mark, along with those witnesses whose names I have signed below on the same day and year as above.

Marie was married by the Priest, Felix Pain, with the commander of Fort Anne serving as a witness.

The nuptials would have been performed either in the chapel at the Fort if it had been rebuilt by that time, in the rectory, or the commander’s residence in either the fort or on Hogg Island. The fort layout a few years later, in 1710, above, is from the Fort Anne Museum, at Fort Anne in Annapolis Royal.

As newlyweds, Jean and Marie would have wanted to establish a homestead, a place to live and raise their children for the rest of their lives. A little farm they could cultivate. They might well have built a small home on her father’s land.

Marie’s first baby, Pierre Garceau, was born on October 22, 1704, 11 months after they were married. His parents are listed as Jean Garssau dit Tranche Montagne and Marie Levron. Pierre Consolin, bombardier, and Anne Levron (mistranscribed as Curone), Marie’s older sister, were Godparents.

Since the 1690 attack, Fort Anne had fallen into disrepair to the point of being unable to defend itself, or anything else, for that matter. In 1702, a new, highly qualified engineer, Pierre-Paul de Labat had arrived, and by 1704, the dilapidated fort was under construction.

Concurrently, the English were chronically breathing down the neck of Acadia, so they desperately needed the protection of the new fort.

Financial and political issues with France delayed the rehabilitation of the fort which meant that Port Royal and the homesteads along the Riviere Dauphin, including where Marie and her small family lived, were exposed.

Both the soldiers and townspeople were struggling to complete the fort – but the soil and stone for the new earthworks and many ramparts all had to be hand-carried.

France, however, had essentially disappeared from the equation. No supplies arrived, and neither did money nor reinforcements.

(c) National Maritime Museum; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation

Needing protection, Port Royal had little choice but to partner with privateers, a nicer name for pirates – well, at least the pirates that were on your side. Not only did they protect Port Royal, they sought and took English ships as prizes, and deposited captured English sailors at Port Royal where they could be used in future negotiations.

1707 – A Baby and a War

It’s puzzling that Marie Levron and Jean Garceau are not found in the 1707 census, but then again, neither are Marie’s parents. Jean was still a soldier, so they would have had to live near the fort.

Marie welcomed her second child, Daniel Garceau, on April 8, 1707. Interestingly, Monsieur de Subercase, Governor of the Province, and Dame Marie Mius, wife of Monsieur Duvivier, a French officer under Subercase, were Godparents. Jean Garceau was a soldier under Subercases’s command.

The two and a half year gap between Pierre and Daniel suggests that a child died in 1706, but there is no church record of such. Of course, the records may not be complete, or the child may have been born prematurely and never baptized.

A month after Daniel’s birth, the English launched an attack on Port Royal. Marie must have been utterly terrified.

To the best of our knowledge, Marie and Jean were living directly across the river from Port Royal.

All men were on a hair-trigger notice. Based on the reports provided by the English hostages, Port Royal was anticipating an attack. It was only a matter of when. Sure enough, in May of 1707, it arrived.

Messengers were sent to notify and gather the male residents living nearby in order to oppose the advance of the enemy on both sides of the river.

The British had landed near Goat Island, and more than 320 men were advancing through the woods on both banks. Port Royal was under attack.

The battle was brutal. Thankfully, Governor Subercase, who was quite competent, was in charge and led both the soldiers and Acadian men in battle.

The Acadian forces met the English face to face and engaged in hand-to-hand combat.

The English could not take the fort as they had anticipated, so they resorted to guerrilla warfare in the woods and along the river. They burned buildings and homes, laying waste to all of Port Royal.

Placard photos taken in the Museum at Fort Anne.

The English retreated, then returned again in August, but were once again repelled 11 days later.

However, the worst was yet to come – and everyone was on pins and needles.

The English Return

Subercase knew that time was limited, so he scrounged for as many additional hands as could be found to assist with the fort completion.

The privateers captured 35 more English ships and brought 470 additional English captives to Port Royal. The fort was not prepared for this many captives, and Spotted Fever, now called typhus, ravaged the hostages and the community. Typhus is caused by poor sanitation in extremely crowded conditions and is spread by fleas and body lice. More than 50 died.

Word came that a “great force” was being gathered at Boston. In preparation, Subercase added 150 Indians and 75 militia from Grand Pre. They expected an attack in 1708, and when that didn’t happen, in 1709.

The only thing that saved Port Royal in 1709 was that the English fleet had been redirected for service in the Spanish War. However, Port Royal didn’t know that.

Marie must have been a nervous wreck. She had two very small children. I think she lost a child in the spring of 1709, but we’ll never know.

1710 – Another Baby and the English Arrive

Around June 1709, Marie became pregnant for their third child.

Joseph Garceau, was born on March 20, 1710 and baptized three days later. Joseph Levron, his uncle, and Marie de Breuil stood as Godparents.

Fortunately, the fort had been mostly completed, and while Port Royal certainly could have used reinforcements from France, at least they weren’t entirely helpless now. The fort was ready – or at least as ready as it could be.

There were new barracks and a new powder magazine.

Additionally, trees and brush had been cleared from the waterfront so that the English couldn’t use it for cover.

When Marie’s baby was just six months old, and a month before her oldest child’s 6th birthday, the first few ships of the English fleet sailed up the river and into view. Not a few English ships like had happened in 1707, but the entire English fleet consisting of more than 35 ships and 3400 soldiers would arrive within a few days – almost three times the entire population of all of Acadia. Port Royal only had about 450 residents and of that, only 100 or so were men.

The English came prepared this time, with a full siege battle plan.

Complete with a labeled map.

To make matters worse for the Acadians, the abandonment of Port Royal and the rest of Acadia by France had created morale issues among the soldiers, which, in turn, led to a high desertion rate. Many of the deserters had joined the English forces and provided them with valuable intelligence.

No pay and reduced rations will do that to you. A few soldiers, like Jean, had married local women, but most had not and wanted nothing more than to escape – one way or another.

Marie’s husband, Jean, had to leave his wife and their children, wherever they lived, or wherever he secreted them to keep them safe. He donned his uniform as a soldier, facing incredible and unwinnable odds as the English attacked.

He had to know he was facing death. Marie knew that too, no matter what he said. I can only imagine their tearful goodbye as he departed their home to defend Port Royal from within Fort Anne in the face of legions of English soldiers. He must have felt like a sitting duck!

What is it like to stare death in the face?

What is it like to leave your wife and small children to their fate at the hands of enemy soldiers?

We don’t know exactly what happened. If Jean wasn’t in the fort as the English warships sailed up the river, he would have hurriedly taken his assigned defensive station within the fort before the gates were closed.

Maybe he hurried his wife and children into the fort with him.

Fortunately, the fort’s master engineer,  Pierre-Paul DeLabat drew a 1710 map.

He labeled the Nantois, or Levron, homestead, on the river across from Hogg Island.

This location of the Levron home might explain why Marie fell in love with a soldier who was stationed right across the river.

On the 1707/1708 map drawn by Delabat, the Nantois home is shown directly across the river from Hogg Island, just slightly upriver from the fort.

If Jean was in the fort, he didn’t have the opportunity to tell his wife goodbye. I don’t know exactly where Marie’s family was, although Labat was quite specific. The Levron family may have already moved elsewhere, anticipating the onslaught. That home had assuredly been burned out in 1707 and had to rebuild.

I hope Marie was able to make her way home to her parents who lived on the north side of the River, and perhaps to her mother’s parents several miles further east.

On September 24th, at about 2:15 in the afternoon, the first ships were sighted by sentries near Goat Island.

As more and more ships arrived from the west, a warning would have rapidly traveled along the river valley to alert the residents.

At least 35 ships anchored in front of the fort, blocking the harbour. A sea of sails swayed back and forth, striking terror in the Acadian residents and the few French soldiers, alike.

How could 300 men, which included a few visitors, possibly fend off 3400 English soldiers?

More and more ships sailed into the harbour – none of them French.

Acadia would not surrender without a fight.

By October 5th, all of the English fleet had arrived, but the Acadians had no way to know there weren’t more.

If Marie was at her parent’s home, the river in front of their homestead would have been full of English ships. Marie and others probably continued to anxiously watch the horizon to the west for yet more English warships to appear.

I’m sure they appeared endless.

Acadian women and children had been gathered in the fort and secreted in the dank, dark, subterranean “black hole” for safety.

We don’t know if Marie was among them.

Once the only door to the Black Hole is shut, there is no light and no circulation. I’d truly have to fear imminently for my life to willingly be locked in here.

Marie may have sheltered in the black hole.

Or perhaps she had made her way upstream and was hiding there with family members, or in the mountains that line the river valley on the north side of the River, behind the Levron homestead.

On October 6th, the English came ashore, landing troops both north and south of the Fort, and Port Royal.

The Acadians tried to fire upon the English ships, but their cannons couldn’t reach that distance across the river. The Acadians were both outnumbered and outgunned.

Aside from her own safety, Marie would have been worried sick about her husband. Was he safe? Was he injured? Was he dead? Where was he?

Could she see anything?

Fort Anne and Port Royal, including the area across the river, were completely surrounded. The Acadians resorted to guerrilla-style warfare, dressing not in military uniforms, but in skins and clothing like the Mi’kmaq, shooting at the English red-coats from the woods and what few structures remained.

The English burned everything they could. Homes, farms, fields, barn. Burned it all! Again!

After four days of resistance, Governor Subercase knew they were all about to be slaughtered. If you live, you can fight another day. From within the fort, which may have been where Marie was sheltering, Subercase sent a French officer with a white parley flag to the English camp.

Negotiations ensued for two days as the English continued to advance upon the fort. When they reached a distance of 300 feet, people within the fort could hear the voices of the English soldiers. Now within very close range, the English opened fire upon the fort and lobbed grenades inside the walls.

A hellish firestorm of a battle ensued. History speaks to the thunderous discharge of cannons and artillery raining down on the brave men holding the fort against insurmountable odds.

The women and families secreted in the pitch black Black Hole would have huddled together and prayed without cease. They would have felt every single explosion – not knowing if it was the literal end.

The English prisoners, also held in the fort, were probably equally as terrified, given that they might well be killed by either side – either intentionally or accidentally. They were probably praying too.

Then, silence.

Deafening silence.

The English fire ceased. The Acadians stood in the eerie silence, confused and wondering what was happening.

Had their prayers been answered?

Had, by some miracle, the French fleet arrived in the harbour?

Had they, by the Grace of God, been saved?

Time stood still as the Acadians waited. Anticipation had never seemed so long.

What were the people in the black hole thinking?

Were they anticipating the best, or the worst?

Maybe both?

Were they whispering, or silent?

What was happening?

And why?

By the end of the day on October 12th, negotiations were complete.

The Acadians would not be massacred. Their families would not be harmed.

The English prisoners would be released, and British boats were sent upriver to retrieve Acadian women and children who were hidden there – and to spread the word.

The entire episode lasted for 19 excruciatingly long days. On October 16th, the key to the fort was handed from the French officers to the English, and the French soldiers and Acadian men marched out of the fort through the gate with their dignity and little else.

Surrender terms included provisions to protect the Acadians. “Inhabitants within the gun range of the fort,” which was three miles, could remain in undisturbed possession of their land for up to two years if they wished, provided they were willing to swear an oath to the British Crown. Then they were required to leave.

Those at a greater distance than three miles were tolerated or allowed to remain on sufferance.

French soldiers were returned to France on British warships.

The local priest only recorded one death during the battle, a child who died on October 14th during the siege. I have a hard time believing only one person died. Two soldier-age men died not long thereafter, so they could have been injured during the battle.

Jean Garceau was a soldier. He had married an Acadian woman. Where was he?

Where Was Marie’s Husband?

When the fort fell, the priest, Father Durand, tried to reunite the Acadian settlers upriver, beyond the three-mile demarcation line. He attempted to protect the residents from the terms of capitulation that required that despised oath of allegiance to the English crown, an agreement that clearly would only have been made under duress.

The English were quite unhappy with Father Durand and considered him seditious. They took him prisoner in January of 1711 and sent him, as a captive, to Boston, with a few other unnamed Acadians.

Father Durand was ultimately released and returned to Acadia later in the year.

The last date before his capture that Father Durand performed any of his clerical duties was January 17, 1711. Father Durand once again appears in the parish registers on December 20th where he begins catching up on baptisms and other official duties that had been neglected in his absence, given that he was the only priest in Port Royal.

After recording more pressing items, Father Durand made a blanket entry for several people who had died while he was in Boston – including Jean Garceau, although he is erroneously recorded as Joseph. There was no Joseph Garceau, except for Jean and Marie’s young son, who we know did not die, and there was also no date on the group entry. What it does say is that these people died during Father Durand’s absence while he was in Boston.

Now, Marie, at age 24, was a widow with three small children. How was she going to survive?

Marie Remarries

The day after Christmas, December 26th, Father Durand married Marie Levron, widow of Jean Garceau, with Alexander Richard.

On the twenty-sixth day of December in the year 1711, I, the undersigned, acting in the role of parish priest, after three banns were published during parish masses, did join in marriage by mutual consent Alexandre Richard, son of the late Michel Richard and Jeanne Babin, and Marie Levron, daughter of François Levron and Catherine Savoye, widow of Jean Garceau, all of this parish. They declared that they did not know how to sign. In witness of which, I have signed on the above-mentioned day and year.

While that may not be her name and signature, it is Marie’s X, so she made that actual mark. The second mark is Alexandre’s.

The witnesses are Rene de Forest, and Rene Babinaut (sp?) along with Father Justinian Durand, officiating priest.

Rene may be an important clue, because he is a neighbor of Emanuel Hebert with whom Marie had lived as a servant. She would have known the family well. It’s also worth noting that Alexander Richard’s family lived in the area too.

Unfortunately, the Nova Scotia Archives doesn’t translate or index witnesses.

While we don’t know exactly when Jean died, Marie’s marriage just six days after the priest returned strongly suggests that Jean had been deceased for some time.

If Jean Garceau died shortly after Father Durand was captured in January of 1711, Marie would have been a widow for nearly a year.

When Marie remarried, she had three Garceau children. Pierre had just turned 7, Daniel, who was four-and-a- half, and Joseph, the baby, who was 21 months old. The baby would not have remembered Jean Garceau, and Daniel probably didn’t either.

Life With Alexander Richard

Marie’s second husband, Alexander Richard dit Boutin is somewhat confusing. His father had a son by the same name with both of his wives. While that sounds odd, especially if the first son lived, this is not the first time I’ve seen this phenomenon in Acadian families.

The Alexander Richard that Marie Levron married is the younger man, born around 1686 to Michel Richard and Jeanne Babin.

Alexander’s mother, a widow, had married Laurent Doucet, who lived at BelleIsle near the Savoie family.

The older Alexander Richard had died in 1709, so even without the detail in the parish record, we know unquestionably that Marie married the younger man.

Marie’s fourth child, and first child with Alexandre, Pierre Toussaint Richard, arrived on October 1, 1712, and was baptized the following day with Pierre Laure and Jeanne Doucet as Godparents.

Marie’s parents were getting older, and her father, Francois Levron, noted as ”about seventy years old,” was buried on June 23, 1714, according to the parish registers.

Marie, her mother, siblings and their families would have gathered that summer day to lay him to rest in the cemetery inside Fort Anne, probably where her husband, Jean Garceau rested as well. At peace, but with the protective barracks in the background.

The Acadian graves remain, but all are now unmarked. Whatever markers remained in 1755 were subsequently destroyed by the English.

Marie’s mother was noted in the 1714 census as “Widow Nantois, 2 sons and 1 daughter, living in the midst of the Girouard clan – so it’s entirely possible that they had moved upriver after they were burned out in 1707 and 1710. She actually had three unmarried sons, so one of them was missing from the census.

In the 1714 census, Alexander Richard is living with his wife and four sons beside Mathiew Doucet, very near the Julien Lore dit LaMontagne – not far east of Granville Ferry on the north side of the river – near the Leveron land. Of course, three of Alexander Richard’s four sons were his step-sons, but he raised the Garceau boys as his own. In fact, Marie’s youngest Garceau son, Joseph, often used the surname Richard, and sometimes Pierre used Alexandre’s dit name, Boutin.

Another two-and-a-half-year gap between children causes me to wonder if Marie lost a child in 1714.

Claude Richard was born on June 27, 1715, with Pierre Blanchard and Anne Robichaux, daughter of Alexandre Robichaux, as Godparents.

Three years between children nearly assures that a child was born and perished.

Marie Josephe Richard was born on June 17, 1718, and baptized the following day with Yves Maucaire and Marie LeBlanc as Godparents.

Marguerite Richard was born on May 1, 1720, and baptized two days later, with Alexandre Brossard and Marguerite Bourg, wife of Pierre Brossard, as Godparents.

Another three years between children. If Marie was actually losing every other child, she must have been filled with dread and anxiety with every pregnancy, especially every other pregnancy.

Isabelle Richard was born on May 14, 1723, and baptized two days later with René Doucet and Isabelle Levron as Godparents.

Isabelle Levron is Marie’s sister, who is also recorded in some records as Elizabeth.

On January 20, 1725, Marie’s 30-year-old brother, Pierre Levron died. Their father is noted as deceased, but their mother appears to still be living.

With nearly four years between Isabelle and Joseph, I’d wager at least one child was buried during this time. Sadly, without modern medical care, families anticipated losing half of their children. What a sad state of “normal.”

Marie’s youngest child, Joseph Richard was born on February 19, 1727, and baptized the following day with ”Pierre Garceau, son of the late Jean Garceau, and Marie Lor, daughter of the late Julien Lore,” standing as Godparents. Pierre was Joseph Richard’s half-brother.

If you’re scratching your head, thinking to yourself that Marie had a child named Joseph in 1710 with Jean Garceau, and now another Joseph in 1727 with Alexandre Richard – you’d be right. And yes, they were both alive in 1727.

Apparently Alexander having a same-name half-sibling didn’t deter him from doing the same with his own offspring.

Not Peaceful

Just for the record, in case we’re inclined to think that life was peaceful in Acadia after 1710 – it wasn’t.

Conflict with the English continued. First, the Acadians were required to leave in two years. Then, when they planned to depart, the English forbid it because they had come to realize that they had no prayer of feeding their own soldiers without the Acadians raising food for them.

Yet, the English continued to require a loyalty oath, and the Acadians just as adamantly continued to refuse for a variety of reasons. In 1720, some slight of hand resolved the oath issue for for the next 35 years. The Oath the Acadians signed was two pages – but only the first page was sent back to England. So, in essence, both parties got the conditions they required.

It wasn’t until 1720 that Acadians didn’t constantly live under threat of one kind or another. Until 1755, of course.

Marie’s Premature Death

Sadly, there is no happy ending to Marie’s story. No rocking great-grandchildren by the hearth or summers playing in the warm sunshine.

On August 1, 1727, Marie died just four and a half months after she gave birth to Joseph. The parish register tells us that Marie, the wife of Alexandre Richard, died on August 1st and was buried the following day. Her husband and Louis Tibault, her nephew, were witnesses.

Unfortunately, Marie’s parents were not listed, which would have given us a clue about whether her mother was still living. We know her father died in 1714.

The family was most probably associated with the St. Laurent Church at BelleIsle, because Marie’s sister, Madelaine/Magdelaine Levron was married there in 1722, and it was much closer than Port Royal.

Marie was either buried beside the church there, or in the cemetery at Port Royal.

On that hot summer day, Marie’s nine children would have said goodbye to their mother in the little chapel and buried her in the churchyard outside, now lost to time in the woods on the right side of the river.

When Marie died, none of her children had yet married, and many were young.

  • Pierre was 23
  • Daniel was 20
  • Joseph was 17
  • Pierre Toussaint was almost 15
  • Claude was almost 12, assuming he was alive
  • Marie Josephe had just turned 9
  • Marguerite was 7
  • Isabelle was 4
  • Joseph was only four and a half months old

What was baby Joseph to do without a mother? Someone had to feed him. Perhaps one of Marie’s sisters stepped in. Elizabeth/Isabelle had a baby in September of 1726, and Madeleine had a baby in October of 1726, which meant that both women would have been nursing babies when Joseph was in need. And, after all, they were her sisters and Joseph’s aunts.

Marie had probably already buried 4 or 5 children, mostly babies, along with her father and her first husband. Hopefully, she was buried near her children, all of whom passed too soon.

I can’t help but wonder if Marie’s death was an after-effect of or connected to Joseph’s birth.

Marie was only 40.

Who Raised Marie’s Children?

Who raised Marie’s children? Did her mother or perhaps a sister step in? If Marie knew how ill she was, or suspected that she was dying, that would have been the question foremost on her mind.

The purpose of Godparents is to raise the child in the event that the parents perish and cannot raise the child. In this case, only one parent died. Normally, what happens in cases like this is that the living parent quickly remarries to another individual who has lost their spouse. Clearly, in a small community, everyone already knew everyone else.

There’s absolutely no evidence that Alexandre ever remarried, and his occurred after the 1755 deportation – so he was single for a very long time.

Perhaps the marriages and other records of Marie’s children provide some clues.

  • Pierre Garceau, also sometimes known as Pierre Boutin, married Agnes Doucet in 1728 and lived in Port Royal. Alexander Richard did not sign for him. They had eight children. Pierre disappears from records after he witnesses his daughter’s marriage in Annapolis Royal in 1750. His wife, Agnes Doucet, died in Connecticut in 1789, so if Pierre lived long enough to be deported, that’s likely where he ended up. He would have been 51 years old in 1755.
  • Daniel Garceau married Anne Doucet about 1730 and lived near Annapolis Royal. No parish marriage record. They had 11 children. After the 1755 deportation, Daniel ended up in New York before making his way to Quebec.
  • Joseph Garceau married Marie Philippe Lambert about 1732 and lived in Beaubassin. No parish marriage record found. They had seven children. During the Grand Derangement, aka, forced expulsion of the Acadians, Joseph was reportedly separated from his family and deported to Georgia, while his wife, Marie Lambert, and children sought refuge at Isle St. Jean before making their way to Quebec where the family was reunited.
  • Pierre Touissant Richard married Marie Josephe Boudreau about 1732 and lived in Pisiguit. No marriage parish record found. They had six children. Pierre died at Port-la-Joye and was buried in 1751 on Isle St. John, today’s Prince Edward Island. His wife and children were deported to France in 1758 aboard the Duke William, landing in St. Malo, where one son died two days later, his wife died three days later and another son, 4 weeks later. Two additional children recovered, one living the rest of their life in France, and one eventually making it to Louisiana. One son’s wife and child made it to France, but his fate is unknown. The fate of the sixth child is unknown.
  • Claude Richard’s fate is unknown, but he could have died young – perhaps before Marie’s untimely passing.
  • Marie Josephe Richard married Paul Doiron in Annapolis Royal in 1738, with her father, Alexandre Richard, signing the parish register for her, so we know they were both still in or near Annapolis Royal in 1738. They had 11 children. Marie Josephe gave birth to a child in Pisiquit by 1747 and was on Ile St. Jean by 1752. By 1760, she was living in Saint-Etienne-de-Beaumont, just across the river from Quebec City in Canada, where she died in 1796. Five of her children succumbed to the smallpox epidemic that ravaged Quebec, and Quebec City in particular, in the winter of 1757-1758. Those children died on November 8, 1757, December 20th, January 7th , 8th and 14th, 1758, and were buried in the same cemetery as her sister, Marguerite’s children.
  • Marguerite Richard married in 1745 in Port Royal to Jean Breau “of the Canard River,” which empties into the Minas Basin across from Grand Pre. Alexandre Richard did sign as a witness. We don’t know exactly where Marguerite’s six children were born, but given that there are no Annapolis Royal baptism records for them, we have to assume it was near where her husband was farming. They were in Notre-Dame-de-Quebec by mid-1757, which means they were not deported from Annapolis Royal. Given their early settlement in Quebec, they would have been deported from further north in Nova Scotia, sought refuge in one of the encampments, and had possibly escaped their English guards at Mirimichi. Tragically, all but one of Marguerite’s family members succumbed to the smallpox epidemic of 1757-1758. Her husband, Jean Breau (Brault), died on July 4, 1757, the same day as Francoise, her six-month-old baby. Marguerite assuredly was horribly grief-stricken. She soon became ill herself, with a houseful of sick children. Marguerite died on December 7th, her 12-year-old son Jean died the following day, three-year-old Marie Josephe died on December 13th, four-year-old Francois died on December 18th, and 10-year-old Alexis died on January 12, 1758. They were buried in the cemetery at Notre-Dame-de-Quebec in Quebec City. Only one of Marguerite’s children, Elizabeth, survived to adulthood and died in 1792 at about age 41 in Quebec, after burying two husbands. What a horrific tragedy.
  • Isabelle Richard married Francois Raimon in 1753 in Port Royal. Alexandre Richard did not sign for her. We know nothing more about Isabelle other than she reportedly was listed on the 1760 Essex County, Massachusetts Acadian census, and was noted as having been deported to Connecticut in 1755. No children are listed. The next person on the census list is her father, Alexandre Richard dit Boutin.
  • Joseph Richard died in 1747 in Annapolis Royal. Alexandre was not a witness.

This tells us that Alexandre Richard did not move someplace else and remarry – and he stayed very involved with his children. He was obviously expelled with Isabelle and her husband and may have been living in the same household.

Marie’s husband, Alexandre Richard, three children and 18 grandchildren living in Annapolis Royal, formerly Port Royal until the English took it, were ensnared in the horrific expulsion of the Acadians. Additionally, four other children were forcibly expelled from elsewhere in Nova Scotia, and many died.

In 1755, by the time Marie’s husband and children who remained in Annapolis Royal were forced to march down the snow-covered Queen’s Wharf, board overcrowded death ships, leaving everything behind, Marie had been in her grave for 28 years.

If Marie’s final resting place was in the Garrison Graveyard, Alexandre and her children would have paused one last time to say goodbye, even if it was from the distance of the wharf.

We can only imagine the hell that followed.

On the 1760 list of Acadians in Essex County, Massachusetts, Alexandre Richard is listed, as is his daughter Isabelle Richard, who was married to Francois Raymond. Alexandre is listed as 70, infirm, and sent to Bradford.

So, it would appear that Alexandre Richard did not remarry, and one way or another, managed to find a way to raise his six children, and three step-children. Perhaps the older children raised the younger children, and everyone worked the farm together.

Alexandre was a good father to all 9 of Marie’s children, and apparently, loved Marie beyond the grave, given that he never remarried, remaining single for the next 33+ years.

Tragedy

Tragically, Marie’s life was cut short, as was that of many family members. Maybe it was a blessing that she did not have to endure 1755 and what followed, with her family separated in as many directions as there were living children.

Marie never got to attend her children’s weddings or cherish the smiles and giggles of grandchildren. She never received the honor of serving as a Godmother to her grandchildren, or seeing them baptized.

Marie buried her first husband, Jean Garceau, who may have died as a result of the 1710 fall of Acadia to the British.

Marie was fortunate enough to marry Alexandre Richard, who raised her three Garceau children in addition to their own. Marie’s youngest Garceau child was a baby and was close enough to Alexandre to take his surname as an adult. So did her eldest from time to time.

Some of Marie’s children remained in Port Royal after marriage, but several others struck out for points North where more land on the Bay of Fundy was available for salt-marsh reclamation and farming.

Child Acadia Location Deportation Location Children
Pierre Garceau 1704-after 1750 Port Royal Possibly Connecticut 8
Daniel Garceau 1707-1772 Port Royal New York 10
Joseph Garceau aka Richard 1710-1789 Beaubassin Georgia, then Quebec 7
Pierre Toussant Richard 1712-1751 Pisiquit, Prince Edward Island by 1751 He died in 1751 on Ile St. John. Wife and children deported to France 6
Claude Richard 1715 – ? Nothing known, probably died young.
Marie Joseph Richard 1718 – 1796 Pisiquit Quebec 11 – 5 succumbed to Smallpox in 1757-1758
Marguerite Richard 1720-1757 Canard River Quebec 6 – 5 plus both parents succumbed to Smallpox in 1757-1758
Isabelle Richard 1723 – after 1760 Port Royal Massachusetts None known
Joseph Richard 1727 – 1747 Port Royal Not deported Never married

Marie had at least 48 grandchildren, and probably several more. Records are spotty, and in the colonies, nonexistent.

Of those known grandchildren, 18 lived in Port Royal, so, had Marie lived, she would have known them and been able to see them regularly, probably on a daily basis. She would have been a seamless part of thier lives. I can see her playing hide-and-seek in the sunlight and shadows with them – except she never got to. Perhaps she visited them in other ways.

Marie’s mother, Catherine Savoie, born about 1659, may have outlived her daughter. Unfortunately, there is no existing death record for Catherine, so we don’t know when she died. Based on her son Pierre’s death record in 1725, where his father is noted as deceased, but Catherine is not, she may well have lived several years beyond Marie. She would have been about 68 when Marie died.

While Marie’s grandchildren didn’t have the opportunity to interact with her, they may have known and been close to Catherine – at least for a few years.

As difficult and tragic as Marie’s life was, she raised children who were survivors. Had it not been for those who persevered, with a dash of luck, of course, and probably several rounds of prayers, especially in the Black Hole – I would not be here today.

Our ancestors may have been scattered to the wind, but the Acadians were seeds and took root the world over. Today, WikiTree reports that Marie has (at least) 1984 descendants, and I’m sure there are more whose identities remain unknown.

_____________________________________________________________

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 e-mail 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 Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

DNA for Native American Genealogy Webinar & Companion Book

For those who couldn’t attend RootsTech 2025, you’re in luck, because my session, DNA for Native American Genealogy, was recorded as a webinar.

RootsTech tried something new this year, and some webinars were recorded live on the actual show floor. Seating for approximately 50 people was available, but unfortunately, these sessions weren’t included in the session schedule, so no one was aware that they could attend them live.

I’m very grateful to RootsTech for making the recording widely available – and for free.

The webinar includes 10 different techniques and tools available for testers to find and confirm (or sometimes refute) Native American ancestors.

I discuss ethnicity and why it may or may not be helpful, and how to morph your ethnicity results into a tool to identify which ancestors were Native. You may have Native ancestry, even if your ethnicity results don’t reveal that. Learn how to guage that possibility and what to do next.

Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA, yours and other peoples, can confirm or refute Native heritage in each individual ancestral line.

After we discuss each of these techniques and how to use them, we talk about creating a DNA testing plan, and various ways to find autosomal, Y-DNA, and mitochondrial DNA test candidates – or identify people who have already tested.

You can watch this webinar for free on YouTube, here.

Companion Book

I’ve also written a companion book, DNA for Native American Genealogy, which is available here for buyers inside the US, and purchasers outside the US can order at Amazon, here.

Enjoy both the webinar and the book!

_____________________________________________________________

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 e-mail 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 Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

The Chauvet Cave: Trip Back in Time With Prehistoric European Humans – Are We Related?

One of the reasons I love both mitochondrial and Y-DNA testing is because it doesn’t mix with the DNA of the other parent like autosomal DNA does. This means that in additional to being useful genealogically, it provides a direct laser-line back in time – even thousands of years – to your earlier ancestors.

You’ll never know their names, of course, but you can track where they lived and where they migrated – through their mutations – breadcrumbs that function as signposts pointing the way to your ancestors. Using Discover, you can discover (pardon the pun):

  • Their migration path
  • When haplogroup defining mutations occurred
  • Other countries where ancestors of people with that haplogroup lived in a genealogical timeframe
  • Where that haplogroup is found further back in time through Ancient Connections

Your haplogroup and DNA matching is a gift from and a ticket to our ancestors that every genealogist should unwrap.

My mitochondrial DNA haplogroup is J1c2f, but the earliest tests that I took two decades ago when this industry was young positioned my haplogroup first as J, then as J1, then as J1c.

It wasn’t until a dozen years later than my full haplogroup, J1c2f was identified when the mitochondrial haplotree was initially published, then developed as more testers tested, both academically and personally at FamilyTreeDNA. Today, of course, we have the new Mitotree with even more refinement.

The earliest tests only covered the HVR1 or HVR1 plus HVR2 regions of mitochondrial DNA, while the current mtFull test covers all 16,569 locations.

Nevertheless, knowing that I was a member of haplogroup J told me something about my early ancestry, as well as provided matching to other testers. That “something” was information I could obtain no other way

In 2003, we knew that early humans had been in Europe by 50,000 years ago, Hunter-gatherers who spent their lives seeking shelter and food. We knew little else about their lives or cultures.

In 1994, stunning rock art had been discovered in Chauvet Cave in France. Thanks to a landslide blocking the entrance some 21,000 years ago, this cave and its art had been protected from humans, wildlife and the elements.

After its accidental discovery, the French government guarded and protected this astounding record of humanity with fervor, not repeating earlier mistakes in other locations, such as the Lascaux Cave, by allowing tourism which essentially destroyed those caves and their art.

By JYB Devot – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=64503410

Chauvet cave is sealed behind a steel door with very limited access

Research at Chauvet remains closely controlled. Scientists have revealed that the stunning cave art created by early humans was older than initially thought, having been created beginning about 35,000 years ago and extending over thousands of years.

This charcoal drawing of an Irish elk was tested at location GifA 96063 (green dot) and was dated to 36,000 years ago (14C AMS). Furthermore, it’s drawn over what may be the earliest potential known depiction of an erupting volcano.

Just imagine what our predecessors must have thought when volcanos erupted.

Were the Chauvet artists Neanderthal or modern humans, or a mixture of both? We don’t know, but we do know that the earliest DNA recovered from Germany and Czechia, who surprisingly, were distantly related groups, dated from 42,000 and 49,000 years ago. They carried mitochondrial haplogroups N and R and those people were admixed and had Neanderthal ancestors. Then again, so do contemporary Europeans and their descendants.

Later papers expanded on haplogroup migration to and through Europe. We are still learning today – in many cases due to paleoanthropology or archaeogenetics by genetic anthropologists. Excavation and testing of ancient remains continues to reveal fragments and details of our human migration story.

However, back in 2003, when my first results arrived, all we knew was that haplogroup J was a European haplogroup, probably having initially formed in the Levant or Fertile Crescent – and making its way to Europe over thousands of years.

By Communication Grotte Chauvet 2 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=137822676

We also knew that Chauvet Cave was the earliest evidence of humankind in a specific European location – so it made sense to wonder if my ancestors were among the cave-painters.

I voraciously read everything I could find about Chauvet Cave, looking at each image and wondering if my ancestor, someplace between 1200 and 1700 generations ago, stood holding red ochre, painted those amazing spiritual images and signed their work with a handprint signature by spitting red pigment over their hand, leaving an outline on the rock wall. Was this a shamanistic ritual, connecting the shaman with the rocks with the animals they painted?

Did the practitioners perhaps hold handfuls of red ochre paint, then splat them against the wall, creating large red polka-dots that remain some 30,000 years later? Was this something fun, adding a little levity to cave painting, or maybe it depicted a wound?

Scientists tell us today that two individuals created those dots. A male that stood about 5’9” and either a female or younger male who pressed their ochre-reddened hands into the cave walls. Did they laugh as they were making art, or was this a spiritual ritual and deadly serious? Did they have a concept of “art” as we do today, or was this their form of religion? Were they praying for a good hunt, or perhaps begging for protection – or maybe both. Maybe looking to appease the Gods if the volcano was threatening to erupt.

Was a trip to the Chauvet Cave a vision quest? Perhaps a rite of passage? Were the animals either signatures of a sort, or visions?

What did they call this cave? Did it have a name? Did they have names?

I could close my eyes and see them. Were these artists specially trained in these techniques – the best of the best in their cultural group? Was it talent or training, or both? Rites of passage? There seems to be a pattern of quality among the paintings that suggest that cave painting wasn’t just left to anyone.

Was this skill or trade passed down through the generations? Was it a right of the leaders or powerful – or maybe followed specific lines? Perhaps direct maternal or direct paternal, or some other inheritance pattern?

Did the painters ritually prepare the wood, making it into charcoal used to draw the lions?

Lions? In Europe?

And rhinoceroses? In present-day France?

How things have changed!

Perhaps they used early handmade tools to engrave and scratch images into the walls for us to marvel at today. They used horsehair brushes with pigments found in their environment to paint and shape the images.

Were the horses domesticated in any way, or were they wild horses?

Did they hunt the animals portrayed – animals long extinct before modern history? Horses, aurochs, deer and mammoths? Was this their way of blessing the hunt, as such?

Many paintings depicted predatory animals such as lions, panthers, leopards, bears, buffaloes, hyenas and even rhinoceroses and are not found in any other European caves.

This hyena and leopard, which is much smaller, both have red ochre spots.

Was this art meant to absorb the power of these powerful awe-inspiring animals, or perhaps they were drawm for protection?

Or, was the act of drawing itself a rite of passage?

Why are no smaller animals portrayed? Was this a cave of special power, or powers?

The cave was inhabited during two historical periods, the first some 30,000-40,000 years ago, and the second roughly 25,000-27,000 years ago. The artwork is from the first habitation.

What happened to those people? Did they move on and cease to inhabit this region?

The remnants of hearths are found in the cave’s soft clay floor, along with a child’s footprints. So are pawprints of cave bears who hibernated there, along with their skulls and the skull of a horned ibex.

Pawprints from about 26,000 years ago are either those of a dog or wolf. Was there a difference then? Had wolves yet been domesticated into dogs as we know them?

Were the paintings meant to protect the painters and their clan? Were they shamanic portals to a spiritual world?

Did they pray to these animals as deities? Why are no humans depicted?

Who were these people?

By JYB Devot – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=64503433

Why did they select the Chauvet Cave, high on this limestone wall, in a cliff over hung by the massive rock column known as the Pillar of Abraham, as opposed to another location? Is there a special significance? Is the location above the natural bridge relevant? Was it a meeting place or a journey destination? Did the landscape look, from a particular angle, like a prehistoric animal or deity? Some suggest the bridge bears some resemblance to a mammoth from the cave entrance.

There’s only one problem with that theory. The river elevation at that time was much higher than it is today, and the bridge wasn’t carved by the river when the caves were being painted. Many caves in the area are archaeologically significant – but nothing like the Chauvet Cave.

Why this cave?

And why did they choose the deepest recesses of the cave, nearly impossible to reach, in which to paint the best of their stunningly realistic artworks? Was the difficult journey to the cave part of the ritual itself? Did they work in a trance, perhaps? Trances and shamanic practitioners, functioning in the realm of the supernatural, are as old as humanity itself.

Did the artists join their ancestors there? Carbon dioxide levels in the cave reach levels considered unsafe in the winter months.

Were my ancestors among the hundreds of generations of those artists? Were they buried there? Did they become one with the art, the spirits, and ascend to the spirit world from Chauvet Cave?

Or, were some perhaps born in the safety of the deep recesses of the cave where the most spectacular art is found in the Gallery of Lions? Future shamans, perhaps, under the watchful eyes of the spirit animals and those shamans who had come and gone on before?

Could their power or presence be summoned?

So, so many questions.

Yes, I allowed myself to be drawn into the mesmerizing, elusive and unknowable history of Chauvet Cave.

There’s a very real possibility that my ancestors had been there.

Stood there.

Maybe participated in rituals there.

Placed red ochre on the walls.

This slide from a very early DNA presentation pretty much says it all.

I never forgot Chauvet Cave.

I also never thought I would accidentally visit.

Perhaps they summoned me.

But first, let’s go back to 1994 in the Ardèche Valley, high above the Ardèche Gorge and the natural bridge carved into the limestone by the Ardèche River millennia ago.

1994

It was a cold afternoon on a day that would live forever, shaping and changing our understanding of human prehistory. On December 18, 1994, three friends, amateur cavers, officially discovered the cave. Another person, Michel Rosa, nicknamed Baba, had discovered a hole the previous summer, which he deemed an airhole or vent into a cave, but was blocked by a stalactite that he could not get past. He was not among the group of three who would make their way into the cave that winter.

By Thilo Parg – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=97312442

The entrance, marked above, was steep and difficult. The cave was long, and the depths, where the most remarkable art awaited, would not be reached for another several months.

Credit for discovery of the cave, and how much credit is deserved by whom is hotly disputed yet today.

Regardless, Eliette Brunel was the first to wedge her way into the hole, dropping into a world that time had frozen. After her eyes had adjusted and she looked past the crystalline deposits that had formed since the last humans visited more than 20,000 years earlier, she spotted fuzzy red lines on the wall, and exclaimed, “They have been here!”

The cave consists of six chambers, filled with prehistoric animals, plus two vulva-type figures, and perhaps one minotaur, depending on your interpretation.

These early artists achieved a realism not before known, nor discovered since, by incorporating the natural fissured and curves of the cave wall into the paintings, giving them motion, movement and life. That speaks of talent, not just copying and repeating a pattern.

Another of the three explorers, Jean-Marie Chauvet, for whom the cave was named the Chauvet-Pont d’Arc, remarked at the “remarkable realism” and “aesthetic mastery” of the early artists and their drawings.

The sophistication of these paintings exceeded that of any early works, and most later ones as well. In one word, they are unique, and we may never fully understand their genesis, purpose or impact.

Less than a decade later, when my haplogroup J DNA results arrived, the thrill of the Chauvet Cave discovery was still fresh – as was my palpable excitement about understanding the path of haplogroup J, then nicknamed Jasmine, as she trekked across Europe.

Was Jasmine in the Chauvet Cave? I don’t know.

Were my other ancestors in the Chauvet Cave? Probably, if the people of Chauvet survived? When Europe was first populated, animals and hazards far outnumbered small bands of people. A tiny village or family group of, say, maybe 20 people could easily be wiped out. Their genetic line forever extinguished.

Let’s hope that we continue to find ancient remains in Europe, and perhaps in the limestone caves along the Ardèche River. If people returned to this same location for around 20,000 years, one might surmise that the legend or custom of cave painting was passed from generation to generation, or maybe group to group. However, the truly masterful paintings seemed to only occur when the first group of people lived there.

Of course, they couldn’t return to this cave after the rockslide sealed the entrance. I can only imagine how the people, who may have been returning for time immemorial, 700-900 generations, felt to return and see their sacred cave permanently sealed.

Did they feel it was divine intervention? How did they interpret that? It seems like they would have done more than just shrug.

Did they have any concept of the number of future generations that might succeed them, as they had succeeded their ancestors for those 800 or so generations?

Probably not, but yet there I was, at Chauvet, in the summer of 2023, quite my accident.

The Surprise Visit

I journeyed to France in the summer of 2023 to travel to various ancestral locations via riverboat along the Rhone River, and to bask in the land of countless ancestors.

The tour operators offered day trips that guests could select from, and I chose one that included a walk in the beautiful village of Viviers, a visit to a lavender distillery, and the Ardèche Gorge. Truthfully, it was the lavender distillery, Maison de la Lavande, and the medieval village that hooked me. The Gorge was an added benefit.

Little did I realize…

We set out to visit the Massif Central and the Ardèche region. Ironically, I almost didn’t go, because I was concerned about the twisty curvy roads, and I didn’t want to feel ill. I sat near the front of the tour bus, just behind the driver, which afforded a wonderful view. Albeit, sometimes, a frightening view as the magnitude of the driving challenge was evident.

What I didn’t anticipate was a day trip that would include the Chauvet Cave.

The bus route through the Massif Central followed the Ardèche Gorge and winding Ardèche River, hundreds of feet below.

The river carves its way through the limestone cliffs, sculpting the land beneath and beside it’s wandering path.

It’s truly a long way down. Kayakers enjoy the slow-moving waters.

Kayak rentals abound along the lower reaches of the river.

The road runs high in the mountains, parallel to the river gorge, with overlooks at a few locations along the way. Few places have enough space for an extra lane, so overlooks are quite limited.

It was difficult for me to fend off motion sickness, but I managed, and it turned out to be well worth the effort.

It was an exceptionally hot day, so excuse my appearance.

If I look happy here, I didn’t yet know that the Chauvet Cave would present itself, literally, in front of me.

I hadn’t thought about the Chauvet Cave in some time and hadn’t put two and two together.

A few hours into our journey, we needed to stop for a bathroom break, to give the poor bus and driver a break, and to eat lunch.

When you are driving along the road beneath Chauvet Cave, at the base of the cliffs, you can’t see much of anything except foliage.

You can see the little walk in the field that begins a very steep hike and climb onto the cliffs. I took pictures here with absolutely no idea what I was photographing, although this one is from Google Maps later. What were the chances of taking a photo of that exact place and discovering it only later after the cave’s location had been pointed out to me?

The cave is unmarked, so you’d never know it was there if you didn’t know. We drove right past this incredible site, and no one was aware. It hadn’t clicked yet for me, either.

This unremarkable, humble little fence is the only clue. If you’re worried about me revealing the location, don’t be. The site is impenetrable.

You can see the loop, the location of the cave, the “person” on the road beside the stone building where we ate, and the camera icon is the natural bridge.

Our lunch stop, the stone building above, is essentially the only place in the area that has amenities with parking that could accommodate the bus. There were no other choices, but it was lovely and we didn’t care. I’ve marked the cave to the right, but we still had no idea.

When I say amenities, I mean remote French country, with a very cute, rather rustic but very clean building surrounded by flowers.

We piled out, stood in line for the restroom facilities which had been built onto a historic stone building without restroom facilities. There are very few new buildings in France. You can tell this is the only facility for many miles because this sign expressed exactly how we all felt.

We had a good laugh.

We were invited to find a seat at the few tables at what I think was actually a campground. There were maybe three tables inside and several more outside on the patio.

I’m an outside person, hot weather or not, so I found my way to the most distant table, beneath a tree, across from the vineyard, beside a flower box. Yes indeed, this is my idea of a wonderful, peaceful respite.

I could stay here forever.

This choice would turn out to be an incredible “happy accident.”

One of the two servers brought us a pitcher of ice water and glasses. And wine. Every meal has wine, but I’m not a wine connoisseur so my husband always gets mine too. I’m happy and he’s very happy:)

When traveling as a group, you often don’t get a lunch choice, or if you do, it’s either item 1 or item 2. I don’t recall what I selected. The menu was in French and I got the gist of it, but it really didn’t matter – I’m flexible and like to try new things. Often Jim and I order something different so we can both try two new things. We call it “adventure eating.”

Keep in mind that France is a much more laid back place than the US. Lunch may take an hour. Maybe two. Maybe all afternoon. It’s more about the event and the camaraderie and enjoying the food that getting full.

As we relaxed, waited for our lunch, enjoyed the wine, and chatted among ourselves, for some reason, it struck me that I thought I recalled that the Chauvet Cave was someplace in this region.

I had no cell reception, so I found our lovely French tour guide who was sitting inside with our bus driver, and asked.

I struggle with French, and she struggled with English, so I thought sure she had misunderstood my question when her answer was “Oui, Juste ici,” meaning “Yes, right here.”

No, I didn’t mean generally – I mean where, exactly? Will be pass anyplace close?

Yes, she replied, “it’s right here.”

Wait? What?

Me: Chauvet Cave?

Her: Oui, Grotte Chauvet?

Me: Where?

Her, pointing: “Juste là-bas.“ – Right over there.

Me: Vraiment? (Really?)

Her: “Oui, vraiment.”

My incredulity must have been written all over my face.

She came outside and sat down beside me. I showed her my phone with a picture of a map from earlier. She put the phone on the table and started pointing.

I was very confused.

She stood up and motioned for me to come with her.

We walked across the gravel road to the vineyard and she began to point.

“Right there,” she said, “on the cliff.”

“Where on the cliff?”

“Under the bushes?”

“Which bushes?”

I took this picture, and she pointed to the bushes beneath the rocky portion of the mountain, to the right of the large bushy glob, for lack of another word.

I was utterly and completely dumbstruck.

Speechless.

I stood mute in disbelief.

I finally found my words again and asked how she knew the exact location of the cave? She told me she lived in the little nearby village, and her friend actually discovered the cave. Everyone, she said, who lives there knows exactly where it is.

How is this even remotely possible?

July 8, 2023 – Facebook posting

OMG, I’ve died and gone to Heaven. I’m literally at the Chauvet Cave, the oldest evidence of human art in Europe. And it’s beyond stunning.

I’m pinching myself.

I had no idea we’d be here. This is not a bucket list item for most people, but it assuredly is for me. I’ve worked with and studied human migration for 25 years now, and this cave is sacred.

Very few people inhabited what would be Europe 35K years ago. Those that did painted this cave, recording animals we had no idea lived here. They were probably the ancestors, one way or the other, of most Europeans and their descendants today.

As luck would have it, a friend of our guide that lives in her tiny village discovered the cave, so she knew exactly where it is – and showed me.

Better yet, I’m having lunch looking directly at the cave. I feel like I’m living a dream. First this stunning location and then to discover I sat myself in front of the cave.

I truly could not believe the incredible odds that I would accidentally manage, by happenstance, to wind up having lunch is a remote region of mountainous France, literally looking at Chauvet Cave immediately in front of me.

And, by luck of the draw, have a women from this area who knew exactly where the cave is as my tour guide – for a tour that originated maybe three hours away on the Rhone River.

Tell me my ancestors weren’t calling to me.

I sat spellbound, eating the artistic, beautiful food, in the best seat in all of the Ardèche Department in France.

I cannot take my eyes off of the limestone cliff wall – connecting with those people who walked there, perhaps my most distant ancestors in Europe, across 40,000 years. I wonder how those humans originally found the cave. Were they seeking shelter?

We had some free time, and I left the group and walked alone in the vineyard that stands as a silent sentry today. Did the people who painted the cave also cultivate any agriculture, or was that still too early in human history.

I was spellbound to this place and that time. Utterly transfixed.

I saw a path, and I had to explore. Isn’t that the story of my life. Is that what they did, too?

I walked towards the cave, which seems to beckon me. Perhaps the cave that sheltered humanity, allowing us to survive.

I feel like I’ve been drawn home to the cradle of European humanity – the wellspring of our shared human story. Hooked like an unwitting fish in the water and reeled right in by some powerful ancestral force.

I don’t know how to describe this surreal moment other than perhaps some combination of an out-of-body experience and transcendent state of flow. Time paused, or perhaps collapsed in on itself. The boundaries between then and now, and them and me, dissolved. It felt both ancient and present – beyond time as we understand it – an umbilical cord somehow inexplicably tethering us.

Words are entirely inadequate.

In this picture, you can see the steep access path, beneath the rocky ledge, and other caves as well.

You’ll notice other limestone caves all along the cliffs throughout the region, but none of those caves even hold a candle to Chauvet – and none were treated in the same way. Why was Chauvet special?

Caves aren’t easy to access. Either they are high on the cliff walls, requiring either rappelling down or climbing up through narrow paths, then fissured rocks.

Here’s a nearby limestone cave. And no, I did not go splunking. Being with a tour group does not afford that amount of flexibility – especially since the cave wasn’t even on the agenda at all. Plus, by this time, I was alone, and you NEVER embark on a risky adventure alone. I’ve been there, done that, and broke my ankle in the process. Plus, there was more to see.

I turned around and hiked down to the river to see what awaited there.

This area is extremely popular with kayakers who walk their kayaks down this path and launch just before the beautiful natural arch bridge which you can see, at left, above.

By Jan Hager – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51738871

After reaching the water, I decided to hike on the path above and along the river, which afforded me a stunning view of the river, bridge and the mountains on both sides.

I suddenly realized that the river level 35,000 years ago was MUCH higher than it is today. It didn’t run beneath the arch, which hadn’t yet been hollowed out, but over the top, which meant the valley floor was also elevated.

OH!

The river is to my immediate right, and path in front of me continues straight to the mountains, or turns left to Chauvet. Isn’t that the perfect metaphor for life.

Standing at the intersection of the walk to the river, and the path alongside the river, you can see the bridge in the center, just to the right of the fence, the mountains on both sides, and Chauvet to the far left.

On this photo, I’ve marked both the top of the arch of the bridge, and the Chauvet cave, with red arrows. Based on the elevation, you can see that before the river carved the bridge, the landscape of the valley would not have been worn away, and human access to the cave would have been much different. In other words, the valley floor would have been much closer to the cave.

This makes so much sense.

As much as I wanted to stay, it was time for me to go.

I found it ironic that on the way back to join the group at the bus, I found this sign which, translated by ChatGPT, says:

The Invisible History of the Pont d’Arc

The arch of the Pont d’Arc is a unique natural monument in the world.
It has probably fascinated humanity for millennia.

Like a totem, it evokes a gateway between two worlds: the visible and the invisible, the familiar and the wild, mystery and knowledge.

Hidden within this setting is the decorated Chauvet-Pont d’Arc Cave,
classified as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

It has revealed to our amazed eyes drawings over 36,000 years old.

But did you know that this site holds other hidden stories?

By exploring the Combe d’Arc, discover the invisible stories sheltered by this majestic landscape:

    • how water sculpted, drop by drop, this mineral arch
    • how, over the ages, humans found their place in this extraordinary location

Introspective Journey

While the rest of our tour group had lunch, sandwiched between two other stops, plus some time to walk along the river and view the natural bridge, I had taken an amazing journey back in time and visited ancient humanity. The people who painted those incredible images in the Chauvet Cave are probably the ancestors of every European, assuming even one of them survived to reproduce, or the ancestors of no one today, if their lines perished.

One way or another, humanity did survive, and standing on this sacred site allows us, today, to glimpse a time far in the past – just as our mitochondrial and Y-DNA do as well.

Our own ancestors speak to us from long ago, and the mutations we carry from them light the way back in time, through the Ardeche and the mountainous regions of France, expanding into the rest of Europe.

A priceless window in time.

Indeed, as Eliette exclaimed, “They have been here,” and perhaps they still are, in us.

Resources

If you’re interested, I found three YouTube videos that expand upon the Chauvet Cave.

My one regret is that I didn’t know about the Cavern du Pont-d’Arc, a vast to-scale reproduction of the Chauvet Cave. I would have found a way to visit, even if I had to hire a private driver for a day.

___________________________________________________________

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 e-mail 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 Books

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research