Hannah Mercer (c1740-c1773), Died at 33, 52 Ancestors #89

Hannah Mercer was the daughter of Edward Mercer who made his will on September 25, 1762, although it wasn’t probated until December 1, 1763.  In his will, Edward left several items to daughter Hannah.

“I give and bequeath to my daughter Hannah Mercer five pounds and five shillings worth of Puter the same being now in her possession. And also one bed and furniture thereto belonging likewise I give to my said Daughter Hannah Six head of young cattle the same being now in her possession which said cattle shall be kept on the plantation until they be three years old.  I also give her a side sadle and the Keeping of her mare on the plantation whilst she continues unmarried.”

The wording is a bit odd, with the phrase “being now in her possession” seeming to hint that she does not live with her parents, and therefore might be married.  But Edward refers to her as Hannah Mercer, not by a married name.  Edward, however, removes all doubt about her marital status in the last sentence where he says “whilst she continues unmarried.”

Edward also left Hannah his plantation if his sons Edward and Aaron were to die without issue.  One of the reasons this is so unusual is that Edward Mercer (the father) had another son, Richard, and another daughter, Elizabeth.  Typically all the males would come before a daughter in an inheritance situation like this, but in this case, no.  As it turns out, it didn’t matter because Edward and Aaron did not die without issue or before their father.  Still, this must have made Hannah feel very good. It perhaps speaks of a close relationship between Hannah and her father.

It was previously thought that Hannah married William Crumley in about 1761, because their oldest son, James was born in the 1763/1764 timeframe.  If James was born in that timeframe, then it looks like Hannah married sometime after Edward wrote his will in September 1762 and before the 1763/1764 birth, so Hannah’s mare didn’t stay on her father’s plantation very long.  Hannah clearly wasn’t married in September of 1762, nor, apparently, was a wedding imminently planned.

Hannah’s Childhood Years

The wording of Edward’s will, plus when Hannah began having children would suggest Hannah’s birth about 1740-1742.  We don’t know positively where, but we do have an important clue, although it needs to be confirmed.

Hannah’s youngest brother, Aaron Mercer, fought in the Revolutionary War.  His papers where he applied for a land grant reportedly stated that he was born in Ireland, although I have been unable to verify that actual information.  http://www.fold3.com does not have Aaron’s paperwork and service records, although he very clearly served because he is mentioned as an officer in several other veterans pension applications.

In Aaron’s paperwork, he doesn’t dirctly give his birth year, but working backwards, genealogists have surmised that he was born about 1746. If this is the case, then Hannah would have been born in Ireland as well.  It’s difficult to resolve Ireland and Quaker but we do know that several Quaker families left England and went to Ireland before coming to America.  James Crumley may have been part of this group, and Edward Mercer may have as well.  If Edward Mercer were Scotch-Irish, he would have been Presbyterian and if he were Irish, he would have been Catholic.  However, Edward Mercer is living dead center in the middle of the Quaker community.

Hannah’s mother, Ann was living at the time Edward made his will.

We know that the Mercer family was living in Frederick County in 1759 when Edward Mercer was on the Frederick County, VA rent rolls.

Edward received a land grant in 1751 and another in 1760.  The 1760 grant was located at the head of Babb’s Great Meadow adjoining Babb’s Mountain.  Babb’s Mountain (red balloon) wasn’t far at all, just a little over a mile, from Apple Pie Ridge Road where James Crumley, William Crumley’s father, lived, just north of White Hall.

Babbs Mountain

Unfortunately, we don’t have any marriage information for Hannah Mercer and William Crumley.

What information we do have is that William’s wife was positively named Hannah, based on her signature on deeds, and their son was named Aaron Mercer Crumley.  The middle name Mercer continued to be passed down this line to future generations as well.

Their Home

After Hannah and William were married, they lived on the land that William Crumley bought from his father, James, in 1757.  This land was part of the large land grant obtained by James Crumley and the southern 200 acres of that grant purchased by William spanned the Virginia/West Virginia border, right under that “10 min” sign below.

James Crumley land spanning border

On the map above, William’s land extended south of the border on 51/2, but they lived on the Berkeley County, West Virginia side of the border.  We know this because William’s will was probated in Berkeley County, not in Frederick County. William’s father, James, lived at what is now 3641 Apple Pie Ridge in Frederick County.

While looking for something quite different, I stumbled across the probable location of William and Hannah’s home.

I was able to find William Crumley’s land on an 1890 map by following the ownership of the Francis Silver land, as stated below:

Francis Silver acquired the William Crumley land in two tracts. The first tract of 62 acres before 1820. He built the beautiful brick house in 1821. The 1820 land book lists no house. The 1822 lists $1,000.00 added for improvements added last year. He purchased the larger tract from Abraham Waidman in 1829 (DB lost). In 1836 Francis Silver sold the brick house with 275¾ acres to his son Zephaniah Silver who had married Martha Jane Henshaw April 17, 1834. They kept the plantation until after the Civil War and sold in 1868 for $12,000.00 to John Hershey. John Hershey sold the house with 197 acres for $5,000.00 to Andrew B. Houck and Samuel Garver. May 1, 1876 (DB 73, p. 275). Samuel Garver and A. B. Houck sold in 1880 to J. R. Brown and Robert M. Brown (DB 77, p. 119, page 259). Joseph R. Brown sold his half interest to Robert M. Brown in 1885, who sold the same year to Charles G. Boyles and James K. Boyles for $8,100.00. Charles G. Boyles sold his half interest to James K. Boyles in 1919. James K. Boyles died in 1932 leaving all his estate to be divide equally between his children (WB 27, p. 386). Daughter Maggie R. Busey died in 1951. The heirs of James K. Boyles sold to James A. Lockard in 1959 who gave a Deed of Trust to Darrell K. Koonce.

On the following 1890s map, you can see the location of J. Boyles home at what looks like the headwaters of Mill Creek, just north of the border of Berkeley County and Frederick County, on the road that today leads to Gerrardsville.  You can also see North Mountain, an important landmark, to the left.

Berkeley county 1890

On these satellite views, you can see the same road today.  The house on the map above is about half way between the dog leg in the road north of the house and the state line ot the south, between the creek and the road.

On the map view of the area, you can see the same dog leg in the road and today, there is  Mt. Pleasant Cemetery, shown in green, across from this area.  The location of this cemetery surely makes me wonder if this was William Crumley’s family cemetery and if he and Hannah are buried here.

William Crumley land map

Moving to the satellite map, you can see the farms in that location today.

William Crumley land satellite

Moving a little closer.

William Crumley land satellite 2

Moving even closer you can see that there is a working farm in this location.

William Crumley land satellite 3

Unfortunately, there is no street view of this area.  The address of this property today is 3647 Dominion Road.

William Crumley farm today

This looks like the original structure.

William Crumley farm home

Children

Hannah Mercer and William Crumley (the first) had five children:

  • James Crumley born about 1763/1764, married Mary Stonebridge by whom he had children, and then second to Elizabeth Downey. James died in Frederick County, VA after 1830.
  • Ann Crumley born about 1766 married Thomas Reese, had 9 children, and died on August 29, 1819. Ann had three daughters, Hannah, nancy, Rachel and Sarah.
  • William Crumley (the second) born about 1767, married an unknown wife and moved by 1796 to the frontier of what would become Greene County, Tennessee that year. He married for a second time in 1817 to Elizabeth Johnson in Greene County and moved about 1820 to Lee County, Virginia on the border with Claiborne and Hawkins County, Tennessee, where he died about 1839.
  • Catherine Crumley was born about 1769/1770 and married James Mooney and then John Eyre. She had daughters Catherine, Mary (Polly), and Eliza by James Mooney and daughters Hannah and Nancy by John Eyre. Catherine died on December 20, 1857 in Fayette County, Ohio.
  • Aaron Mercer Crumley was born Oct. 22, 1771 in Frederick County, VA. He married Jane Atherton on February 3, 1796. They had 10 children. It appears that Aaron first lived in Greene County, Tennessee and probably migrated with his brother, William (the second), as 8 of his children were born there and the youngest two in Ohio. Aaron died on August 18, 1835.

Hannah’s Death and William Crumley’s Remarriage

We don’t know for sure when Hannah died, but we do know that it was before William’s marriage to Sarah Dunn.  In 1774, after Sarah’s marriage to William, the Hopewell Friends disowned Sarah for marrying out of faith.  They first summoned her on August 1, 1774 to explain herself, which probably wasn’t long after her marriage.

Sarah Crumley Hopewell

They petitioned her again in September and October, but Sarah never explained herself.  The explanation was obvious.

Sarah Crumley Hopewell2

This tells us two things.  One, Hannah died sometime between Aaron’s birth in late 1771 and William’s marriage to Sarah in mid-1774, and it also tells us that William wasn’t Quaker at that time, in 1774, and so Hannah likely wasn’t Quaker either.  At one time, both William and his father, James, had been Quaker, and are mentioned as such in the Quaker minutes in 1759.

Ironically, Hannah’s father was Quaker too, and he was mentioned in those same records in March 1759, but in very much of a different light.

Edward Mercer Hopewell

Apparently Edward decided not to appear, so they discussed the issues without him being present.

Edward Mercer Hopewell2

Was Edward Mercer being thrown out of the Quaker Church a family scandal?  Was his drinking a scandal?  What did his wife, Ann, do when this happened?  Did she and the children continue to attend the Hopewell Friend’s Meeting, or were they too embarrassed?  Or was she angry and decided to attend elsewhere?  I would love to have been a fly on that wall!

Hopewell Meeting House

Were William and Hannah married as Quakers at the Hopewell Meeting House (above) sometime around 1763?  Were they converted as a couple outside the faith.  Was Hannah not a Quaker after 1759 and William defected when he married Hannah, in effect thrown out of the church at that time?  If so, why are there no records?  Maybe he just decided to stop attending.  So many questions.

If Hannah was a Quaker when she died between 1771 and 1774, then she is likely buried in the Hopewell Meeting Cemetery, shown below.  Otherwise, she would have been buried in a family cemetery, possible the one across the road from where she and William lived.  If she did die in childbirth, then the child was buried with her as well.

Hopewell Cemetery

Given that William Crumley would have had 5 children under the age of 10 when Hannah died, I’m guessing he was not single long. He would have remarried as soon as possible, and his second wife, Sarah, inherited 5 children immediately, and then added another 10 to their family.  She gets my nomination for sainthood!

How agonizing for Hannah to know she was dying and leaving her children, and there was clearly nothing she could do about it except pray that her husband would marry another woman who would love her children – or at least not be mean to them.  I can only imagine how a mother would feel leaving such young children motherless.

Hannah’s oldest 2 or 3 children may have remembered her.  My ancestor, William, born about 1767 or 1768 may have remembered her vaguely, depending on when she died. He would have been between the ages of 3 and 7.  In other words, the only mother most of Hannah’s children ever knew was Sarah.  Hannah must have loved Sarah from the other side for loving and caring for her children.  There was never any hint of conflict in the court records between the children of Hannah and Sarah, or between Hannah’s children and Sarah.

Given this situation, my best guess would be that Hannah died in 1773 having another baby.  The timing would be right given Aaron’s birth in late 1771 and William’s remarriage in 1774.

Regardless of what took Hannah’s life, it was horribly sad, because she was a woman in her prime.  If she was born about 1740, she would have been about 33 when she died.  Much too young and certainly not taken by anything “normal.”  Sadly, deaths in childbirth were much too common at that time.

DNA

The closest thing we had to proof that Hannah, William Crumley’s wife, was Hannah Mercer was the fact that their son, Aaron Mercer Crumley was named after Hannah’s brother, Aaron Mercer.

However, with the advent of DNA testing, I match multiple descendants of Edward Mercer through son Moses at Ancestry, and have other Mercer matches at Family Tree DNA.

Ancestry Mercer Match

We now have confirmation through matching and triangulation that William Crumley’s wife Hannah was indeed Hannah Mercer.

We know nothing more about Hannah, unfortunately, but since she did have daughters, if we could find a descendant who descends from Hannah through all females to the current generation (which can be male), we could obtain a sample of Hannah’s mitochondrial DNA, which would tell us about her deep ancestry.  That would be wonderful gift and is information not available any other way.

Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mothers to all of their children, but is only passed on by the daughters and is not mixed with the DNA of the father.  Because if this, we get the opportunity to “see” the DNA of the direct matrilineal line without dilution.  Through that, we can tell where in the world Hannah’s direct matrilineal ancestors came from.

If someone does descend from Hannah through all females to the current generation, please let me know as I have a DNA scholarship waiting for the first person.  If someone does test, I’ll post the results here – otherwise, we’re still waiting.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Elizabeth “Probably Not Webb” Estes (1715/1720-1772/1782 ), Wife of Moses, 52 Ancestors #86

Moses Estes Sr. did us a huge favor.  Both of his wives were named Elizabeth, so when he was an old man, he didn’t have any “jealous wife” memory type issues when he mistakenly used his first wife’s name in a fit of pique (or a fit of whatever) when talking to his second wife.  That’s a good thing, because indeed, he was an older gentleman when he married the second Elizabeth, Elizabeth Talbot, a widow, and he had a lot of years experience having said “Elizabeth.”  The favor he did was to tell us when, exactly, he married the second Elizabeth.  In 1782, they had a prenuptial agreement which was filed with the court.  How’s that for ahead of your time!

However, it’s the first Elizabeth I’m interested in, the mother of Moses’s children and specifically, my ancestor, Moses Estes Jr.

Was Elizabeth a Webb?

We’re actually fortunate that we know the first Elizabeth’s first name.  It’s her last name that is in question.  However, if you take a quick look at the Ancestry trees for Moses Estes, born in 1711 and who died in 1787, you’ll find that the majority of those trees list Webb as her last name, or mistakenly list Elizabeth Jones Talbot, Moses’s second wife.

Those same trees will list another tree as a source…and so it goes.  Around and around.  For the record – we don’t know the first Elizabeth’s last name.  It’s a myth – but a myth that might have a source.  You see, there was a reference to a record…someplace.

I have to confess here, I’ve never seen the original record, BUT, someplace, I have seen a researcher’s notes referring to a land record that included Moses Estes and a male Webb.  That researcher had made the “connection” that because Moses Estes bought or leased land from the Webb male, that the Webb male was Moses’s wife’s father.

A leap of faith you say?  Yes, a leap of something, that’s for sure.  But, it could be true and it’s a place to begin further research…if I could only find that doggone reference.

But the problem is that I’ve lost the reference and I don’t remember where I saw it…other than it was in someone’s handwritten notes years ago.  I remember thinking to myself “that’s it??!!!”  That’s how someone connected some extremely tenuous dots that Elizabeth’s surname was Webb?  I remember being incredulous and thinking that there was surely more.  Then, in the 1980s, a historical novel was released that included the Estes family, and Elizabeth’s name in that novel was Webb too.  The deck was stacked at that point, and in the annals of mythology, and online trees, Elizabeth’s surname became Webb and took on a life of its own.

I’ve pulled every record I have in this house, and didn’t find that reference.  Now I’m doubting myself.  Did I even see it?  Did I dream it?  Does it exist at all – even the researcher’s note?  And if that researcher’s note exists, does the real record exist?  As many Virginia records as I’ve extracted, I’ve never come across an Estes/Webb transaction and neither has my cousin, the retired lawyer who extracted half of Virginia for Estes names.  OK, that’s an exaggeration, probably not half, just the early counties, but still, she doesn’t have it in her records either.  Of course, not everyone extracts EVERY record by that surname.  Some people are sane humans and only extract their own line’s records.  So, if that happened, maybe Moses’s record was overlooked by other researchers.

So, if you happen to come across any Virginia land record of a Webb and an Estes – or any other record, for that matter, of a Webb and an Estes between about 1730 and 1770 or so, please, PLEASE send it to me complete with the reference and source.  I promise, I will never, ever, lose it again.

Because, you know, Elizabeth’s surname actually might be Webb, but I can’t research it any further until I find that doggone slippery reference that I know I saw at one time or another.

So, if we don’t know Elizabeth’s last name, what do we know about her?

Life in Virginia

We first find Moses Estes as an adult in Hanover County in 1734.  He would have been age 23 at that time, and he was purchasing land jointly with his brother Robert and his other brother John served as a witness.

In 1736, Moses patented land adjoining his brother’s land.

In general, men did not purchase land before they married, so it’s quite likely that Moses was married about 1734 to a local gal from Hanover County, the area that would become Louisa and then Amelia as new counties were formed.

Elizabeth’s son, William was born sometime between 1735 and 1740, so Elizabeth was probably born in 1715-1720 or maybe even slightly earlier.

In 1742 Louisa County was formed and the Estes lands fall into this county.  That’s a very fortunate turn of events, because Louisa County records exist where most of Hanover’s have been destroyed.  Unfortunately, the Hanover records that might include a marriage document, or estate documents for Elizabeth’s parents, are gone.

We know, due to later deeds, that Moses lived in an area between Contrary and Northeast Creeks in Louisa, later Amelia County, between the red arrows.  It was here that Elizabeth had her children and raised her three young boys.

Louisa Northeast Contrary Creeks

1742 is also about the time that Elizabeth’s son John was born.  Son Moses Jr. was born about that time as well. Elizabeth and Moses were probably just like all other pioneer couples and had a child every 18-24 months for as long as the female was fertile, which would have been until about 1755-1760 for Elizabeth.  However, we only know of three sons.

The transaction that tells us Elizabeth’s first name is a land sale in Amelia County in 1751 in which Elizabeth, wife of Moses, relinquished her dower right in the land.  Dower right in Virginia meant that if a man died, his wife was entitled to one third of his estate by right of dower.  The husband could not relinquish his wife’s dower rights, so she had to sign to relinquish those.  Typically, the wife was “examined separately” from her husband, so the husband could not influence her answer.  Of course, she had to go home with her husband, so I’m not sure how effective asking the wife privately if she relinquished her dower actually was.  Can’t you just imagine that ride home, had the wife said, “no” that it wasn’t by her own will that she was signing away her dower rights?  How many ways can you spell ugly??

A great many deeds don’t have this additional signature, and I know of one case where the man sold his land and died a couple years later.  The wife then sued the purchaser for her one third of his land and won.  Not only that, but she got the third with the house in which she was living at the time.  One gets the idea that maybe she didn’t know her husband sold the land they were living on, especially since it was a mortgage that defaulted, which is how the sale came about – through the default to the mortgage holder.  In that place and time, the mortgagee signed a deed that the mortgage holder redeemed if they defaulted.  That kind of situation, is, of course, exactly the reason that the wife had to sign, and woe be unto the buyer that doesn’t see to that detail.

In 1758, Elizabeth and Moses are living in Amelia County and the French and Indian War is in full swing.  The House of Burgesses passed an act for the defense of the frontier and we find Moses, John and William Estes of Amelia County on the roster.  These young men are probably still living at home, as they were late teenagers or in their early 20s and not yet married.

This list suggests that perhaps Moses Jr. was the youngest of the three sons and not quite old enough to serve with his father and older brothers.  He probably felt very left out and I’m sure he did not want to be left at home with his mother as his father and brothers got to ride off to war and do all of those “exciting” grown-up manly things – at lease from Moses Jr.’s perspective.

I’m sure Elizabeth was glad to have a son remain at home.  He may have been too young to ride with the men, but he was certainly old enough to provide some protection, farm labor and partnership to his mother.

Moses Sr. is mentioned in the court minutes and deed books from time to time, but another decade would pass before we hear from Elizabeth again.  In 1768, Moses Jr. sells the land he had purchased from his father-in-law, John Combs’, estate and that sale is witnessed by his father and mother, Moses Estes Sr. and Elizabeth.

By 1768, Elizabeth had attended the weddings of all three of her sons, had gained three daughter-in-laws and had at least half a dozen grandchildren to enjoy.

An Uncomfortable Juncture

In 1769, Moses Sr. filed suit in Amelia County against his brother, Elisha, surrounding his father, Abraham’s, estate distribution – never mind that Moses’s father died more than 48 years earlier.  This may be the worst case of procrastination I’ve ever seen.  Or maybe, a long-festering boil erupted between the brothers.

I suspect that when one person in a household does something that dramatic, it is reflected via the domino effect to the rest of the family members too.  This was probably a highly emotional time, with depositions, threats and high drama.  It’s hurtful to think or know that your sibling betrayed and cheated you.  Whether it was true or not, it surely appears that Moses believed it to be true.  Elisha, in essence, in court documents, called Moses a liar, another upsetting turn of events.  Moses surely paced and swore and cried, if he let Elizabeth see his tears.  It’s hard to be the one betrayed.  And either he was the one betrayed, or he was the betrayer.  Either way – a family ripped apart.  You know Elizabeth’s household was in a state of upheaval as these unpleasant events unfolded like layers of an onion.

Elizabeth’s three sons were married and had families of their own by this time.  They may have been living with Moses and Elizabeth, or on their property, or nearby.  If Elizabeth and Moses had other children, they would still have been at home.  Elizabeth probably tried to function normally, attending church and other normal social functions of the day.  But, assuredly, Elisha’s wife and children were there too.  Not only would this suit have divided the family, it likely divided the community as well.

Maybe this court suit and the level of discomfort it caused had something to do with why Elizabeth and Moses moved to Halifax County, taking all three of their grown sons and their families along.  Maybe they were trying to put the lingering past behind them with a new beginning.

On to Halifax County, VA

By 1771, the family was moving to Halifax County and Moses Sr. bought land just west of South Boston on the Pole Bridge Branch of Miry Creek.

Moses Estes land aerial

In 1771, Moses sells his land in Amelia County and once again, Elizabeth relinquished her dower rights and signs with an X, which tells us that she could not write – and probably could not read since the two tend to go together.

However, they may not have moved right away, because in January of 1772, Moses (of Amelia County) sells to William Estes (of Amelia County) 100 acres of his land in Halifax County.  Elizabeth signs this document as well.

We know that Moses was living in Halifax County by this time or very shortly thereafter, because in March of 1772, the court authorized paying him as a road hand for building a bridge across Burches Creek, near his land.

Later in October of 1772, Moses sells the balance his land in Halifax County to his 3 sons and Elizabeth does not sign, so her death may have occurred between January and October of 1772. Given that we know that Moses owned the land on Pole Branch, and he is buried there himself, it’s very likely that Elizabeth is buried in the Estes Cemetery on that land as well.

Estes cem box elders

Or, did Elizabeth not sign because the deed was to her sons and she (and they) saw no need for her to go to the courthouse to sign?

Given that Elizabeth’s death seems to have occurred after Moses sells his Amelia land, it’s most likely that Elizabeth did make it to Halifax County, but possibly, just barely.  Did she ever get to live in this house that Moses built?

Estes Osborne home

We don’t know for sure that Elizabeth died in 1772, but we do know for sure she had died by 1782.  Elizabeth was not an old woman.  If she was born in 1715, she would have been 57-67 and if she was born in 1720, age 52-62.  She may still have had older children at home.  If there were no other living children, then she had likely buried 6 or 7 of her children, or maybe more – and then left their graves behind when she moved to Halifax County.  I can’t even begin to imagine that heartache.

Elizabeth may have lived long enough to see the Revolutionary War which began in 1775.  In 1778, the focus of the fighting shifted to the south, including Virginia.  She certainly lived through the ramping up process that led to that war which was focused on resistance to taxes imposed by England on the colonies which the colonists felt were unjust.  All men paid taxes and I’m sure it was the hot topic of conversation for months and maybe years before the war actually began.  Halifax County was involved in the fighting by 1780 and 1781, and it’s quite likely that Elizabeth’s son Moses’s land was used as an encampment by soldiers.  Elizabeth’s grandson, George fought in that war.  Did he come to tell his grandmother goodbye before he left, if she was still living at that time, or did he visit her grave one last time?

If Elizabeth didn’t die before 1780, she would have buried her adult son, William, in the family cemetery on Grubby Road in Halifax County.  About that same time in 1780, son John left with his family for the Holston River in what is now Tennessee.  At that time, Tennessee was not yet a state and that area was unsettled and wild frontier, with settlers still skirmishing with the Indians.  Once a family left, it was forever.  No one came back.

I hope that Elizabeth did not have to bury her son.  1780 would have been a year of terrible loss for her.  When a grown child left for parts unknown, not only did they leave, but they took with them the grandchildren and the only form of communication was an occasional letter – if that – assuming people could read and write.

Men, in that timeframe, did not remain single for long – so it’s possible that Elizabeth did live to see 1780 – and it may have broken her heart.  She was assuredly resting in the cemetery, beside son William, by 1782.

In 1782, Moses remarried (with that prenuptial agreement) and 5 years later, Moses was dead, probably buried beside his first wife Elizabeth and his son, William, in the cemetery on his property.  In fact, it appears that Moses second wife predeceased him, so it’s entirely possible that Moses lies between the two Elizabeths. If a man ever had to behave, he does!

I found Moses’ land in the early 2000s when I visited Halifax County several times, working on the various genealogy records in the courthouse.  Based on the land records and following them forward in time, I was able to locate Moses’s original land, with the help of a couple of wonderful cousins, an incredibly patient and generous landowner and some unimaginable good luck.  I think Moses and Elizabeth were helping me!

Moses Estes cemetery

I wonder how long Elizabeth lived on this land.  Did they live in the house Moses built, or did she die while they would have been living in a cabin.  Was the cabin they lived in first the cabin that sat back on the hill where John, Moses and Elizabeth’s son, eventually lived before he headed out for the frontier in 1780?

Estes clearing

There are so many questions and so few answers.

Elizabeth’s Children

Elizabeth had the following known children.  I’ve always suspected that she also had some daughters, but to date, none are known.

Elizabeth’s sons are as follows:

1. The oldest son born to Moses and Elizabeth was probably John, born between their marriage and 1742, or so. We don’t know the year for sure, but what we do know is that John’s eldest son, Abraham, born in 1764, gave the following testimony when applying for a Revolutionary War pension.

“I, Abraham was born in Amelia County, Virginia.  My father moved from there to Halifax, Va. where he lived until the fall of 1779, where he moved to the Holston River until 1780.”  After that they removed to Warren Co., KY.

John Estes married Elizabeth Chism, daughter of John Chism and Elizabeth Gillington.  She was remembered in her grandfather, Nicholas Gillington’s will in Halifax County in 1772.  John Estes died in 1824 in Warren Co., KY.

2. Another son, Moses Jr., was born about 1742 or maybe slightly earlier, married Luremia Combs about 1762, whose father, John Combs also lived in Amelia County. Moses Jr. bought land in Lunenburg County from his brother-in-law after John Combs death, but moved with his father, Moses Sr. to Halifax County about 1770 where they both spent the rest of their lives.  He died in 1813 with a will.

Moses had a son, Moses (the third), who was born between 1775 and 1780 in Halifax County and died in 1875 in Smith County, TN, per the probating of his will in 1875.  And no, those dates are not typos.  He married Selah Palmer.  To the best of my knowledge, this is the only grandchild of Elizabeth whose photo we have.  Most of her grandchildren died before the camera was in wide use, after the Civil War.  Moses (the third) lived to be over 100, as did his brother George Estes as well as George’s son, John R. Estes.  Longevity runs in this family.  I look at this man and wonder if he looks anything like Elizabeth and Moses Sr.

Moses Estes 1779-1875 m Selah Palmer

John R. Estes, my ancestor, below, would have been this man’s nephew.  John R. and his father, George, both also lived to be around 100, as have several of their descendants.

John R. Estes restored

3. The third son of Moses Sr. and Elizabeth, William Estes, was also born in the same 1735-1740 timeframe. William married Mary Harris.  He died in 1780 and his estate was probated in Halifax County, VA.  Family legend says that he was a drover of horses and drove them to the East coast being gone for long periods of time.  He apparently had what was probably an appendicitis attack and became very ill.  His wife was sent for, but she was days away and did arrive, but William had already died.  Mary brought his body home and buried him in the family cemetery.

DNA

Unfortunately, DNA won’t help us with Elizabeth in this circumstance, at least not directly or immediately.

It’s ironic that the one trait that has a huge potential to affect my life, that of longevity, is most likely genetic, yet, we can’t identify that gene (or genes), nor do I know if I carry it.  We do know that several people downstream of Moses and Elizabeth lived to the age of 100, and a few slightly older.  Two of my aunts and my grandfather are in that group – so I potentially could carry the Estes longevity gene.  We also don’t know where it came from – meaning from Moses’s or Elizabeth’s family.  All I do know is that Moses’s father’s line does not seem to be responsible for the longevity gene – but we know nothing about Moses’s mother nor Elizabeth’s family.

Elizabeth’s mitochondrial DNA is dead to us unless she had daughters that we don’t know about – and they turn up “proven” in some fashion.  I do find it hard to believe that only three sons survived from a marriage that would have produced children for more than 20 years – so at least 10 children and quite possibly more.

Of course, another avenue to find Elizabeth’s mitochondrial DNA would be through her sisters, or her mother’s sisters, if they have any descendants through all females – but of course – I’d have to know who her parents were to identify her siblings, or her mother’s siblings.

I have looked at my autosomal DNA results for Webb, but without knowing the name of the man I’m looking for, I can’t pinpoint anything obvious.  Perhaps I should create a “Webb” tree out of my matches trees and see what turns up the most “close” to me since I carry less of the ancestor’s DNA than the generations that are further upstream than I am.

Although since I’m not even sure I have Webb ancestry, those people with Webb in their tree could be solely circumstantial.  Webb is not an uncommon surname and it is a Virginia family in close proximity with all of the other early colonial Virginia families – so possibly and probably intermarried.

Right now, my only hope against hope is for an Ancestry NAD – New Ancestor Discovery.  As upset as I was that Ancestry gave me an ancestor that wasn’t mine who hung around for months before disappearing, and has now reappeared, I’d be very interested in a Webb NAD – because that might be possible and I could then at least attempt to convince my relevant NAD matches to download their result to GedMatch where I can view the matching DNA segments to see if they triangulate.

Having said that, it would be my luck that I’d get a NAD that really looked to be “real” but wasn’t.  However, it I had a NAD, I could at least then attempt to work with the results.

However, regardless of how much I wish for a Webb NAD, it’s probably too far back time.  Initially Ancestry was planning to reach back 10 generations in time.  Elizabeth’s parents would be 9.  However, when the NADs and Circles were released, Ancestry was only reaching back 6 or 7 generations.  In some cases, for DNA Circles, I believe this has been expanded by maybe one generation or two, but not to 9 or 10 – at least not yet.  But I’m still hoping that Ancestry reaches back more generations as they become more confident and refine their new features.  I’m also hoping for a Webb NAD and praying for Ancestry to add a chromosome browser so I don’t have to try to convince my matches (it’s so unbecoming to beg) at Ancestry to transfer to Family Tree DNA and/or download to GedMatch.

While I’m wishing, I’d like for Family Tree DNA to add tree matching as well.  They already have the chromosome browser feature and trees, so tree matching would be a very logical follow-on step.  And from there, maybe ancestor predictions???

We are truly DNA and genealogy junkies aren’t we!  Anything to find those elusive ancestors.  I just want to know if Elizabeth is a Webb, and if not, who is she???

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Sallie, Sarah or Mary maybe Coates (c1740 – 1782/1787), Mystery Wives of the Reverend George McNiel, 52 Ancestors #85

Sometimes when we get back to these end-of-line females, their genealogy facts become very tenuous, and we find that we are missing more information than we have.

Sarah Coates, at least we think that the names of Sarah and Coates or Coats go together as one person, was married to the Reverend George McNiel.

She may or may not have been his first wife, and for all we know, Sarah and Coates may not have been the same woman.- although we don’t have any reason to think otherwise, well, except for that pesky little death and taxes issue.  Yes, death and taxes still “get you,” even in genealogy!

Let’s take a look at what we do have.

Joyce Dancy McNeil, now deceased, was a cousin to me on two different lines, McNeil by marriage through her husband, historian George McNeil and through the Wilkes County, NC Vannoy lines in her own genealogy.  Joyce was an extremely thorough genealogist and I was so glad to find her early in my searching.  Sadly, by the time I was able to visit Wilkes County in 2004, Joyce had passed on.

Joyce and George had researched the McNeil family extensively.  I was confused because some researchers listed the Reverend George McNiel’s wife as Mary and some as Sarah.  Joyce told me that there was a deed in Spotsylvania County, VA that George McNiel witnessed, as did a Mary McNiel.  Researchers presumed that Mary was George’s wife.  Indeed, she may have been, but there is no proof of that.  It would be interesting by process of elimination to see who else Mary could have been at that time.  Unfortunately, that deed is not included in the book “Spotsylvania County, 1721-1800, Being Transcriptions from the Original Files,” so I have been unable to verify this information.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has completely extracted the Spotsylvania County records for McNiel, and this should be done.

Unfortunately, we don’t know where they lived in Spotsylvania County.

The next information comes from a letter written by George’s grandson in 1898.  In the letter, he says that George McNiel married a “Miss Coats” in Virginia.  Another source, a pamphlet written in 1905 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Reverend George McNiel’s death (and setting of his headstone), says that marriage occurred in Grayson County, which wasn’t formed until 1793, long after George would have been marrying Miss Coats if she is the mother of some or all of his children who were born between about 1757 and 1782.  In the 1750s, when George would have been marrying, that area, now Grayson County, would have been Augusta County.

It’s also reported that George fled into Grayson County, VA for safety in 1771 after scuffling with the Regulators and after the battle of Alamance.  It was additionally stated that he lived in Moore County, settling there in 1745-1750.  Again, Moore County, North Carolina wasn’t formed until in 1784 from Cumberland which was formed in 1754 from Bladen.  The problem is that we have records for him in Spotsylvania County during this time.  In fact, as late as 1775 he was still purchasing land in Spotsylvania County.  He sold his land in Spotsylvania County in 1778, but unfortunately, his wife did not release her dower rights and sign as well.  For us, that’s a significant lost opportunity.

We do know through church records that George was in Grayson County, but that was in 1800 when he was clearly traveling and ministering as a circuit riding minister.

Joyce also said there was evidence that George’s first child was born before his arrival in America.  If this is true, then that child’s mother clearly did not survive until the end of George’s life.  However, if her name was Mary, and she preceded “Miss Coates” who George is reported to have married in Virginia, then this may be true.  The problem is, of course, that we don’t know when George married Miss Coates so we have no idea which of his children might have been by a first wife, Miss Coates, or yet another wife.

The first child we have any record of is Mary, born in 1757, but how that birth date was attributed to Mary, I have no idea since there seems to be very little information about her.  In the book, Genealogy of the McNiel Clan written by the Johnson Hayes, published in 1934, Mary is shown as being born in 1771 and as having married in 1803 to Henry Miller, but no birth date or other information for Mary is given.

What I do know is that our first record of George McNiel is in Spotsylvania County, in 1757, so we know he was here in the colonies by that time.  Whether he was married upon arrival, or if his first child was born before arrival or in transit, we don’t know.  Daughter Mary was reported to have died in 1850, but I can’t find her in the census.

There is reason to think George may have had three wives, or, I hate to even suggest this out loud, because I do NOT want to start a rumor, but George could have had 4 wives.  Let’s look at the evidence and hints.

In 1782, in Wilkes County, there was a bill of sale between John Stubblefield and Jacob Nichols that was witnessed by George and Sally McNiel.

Miss Coates first name may have been Sarah, known as Sally.

On the Wilkes County 1787 tax list, there were categories for a number of things, including the number of white females.  That number was 0 for George, as it was three years later, in the 1790 federal census.  George’s first wife, whatever her name, had died after the birth of her last child in 1782 but before 1787 and George was single for at least three years, from 1787-1790.  He obviously remarried sometime between 1790 and June 1805 when he died, because he had a wife, Sarah, living at the time of his death.

In 1808, William McNiel was administering the estate of both George McNiel and his wife, Sarah McNiel.

So, what do we have here?

  • A possible wife before coming to the US, who could be the Mary who witnessed a Spotsylvania County deed that reportedly exists but that I can’t find.
  • A marriage, possibly in Grayson County, to one Miss Coats.
  • A possible wife, Sally, in 1782.
  • No wife in 1787 or 1790.
  • A wife, Sarah, at George’s death in 1805, who died by 1808.

Clearly, in my case, the woman I’m most interested in is the one who was the mother of my ancestor, William McNiel, born about 1760.  Given that this is before George is apparently preaching and traveling, I’m guessing that William’s mother would likely be Mary in Spotsylvania County, assuming Mary was William’s wife – and I’m not at all sure that is a valid assumption.  It’s no wonder that so many descendants have simply given this woman the name of Mary Sarah” or “Sarah Mary” Coates and let it go at that – never mind that it’s very likely wrong on at least two if not three counts.

One thing is clear, William’s mother is not wife Sarah who died just after Reverend George died in 1805, and whose estate was being probated in 1808 – because this wife Sarah was not married to George in 1787 or 1790.  In fact, George could easily have married a Sarah Coats in Grayson County after 1790 when we know he was in fact there preaching.  But why, if this is the case, would that be the only wife his descendants mentioned and not the mother of his many children?

I surely wish this story didn’t have so many “could haves” and questions – but sadly, that is all that I do have or even might have.

Why didn’t any of George’s descendants think to add this tidbit of information – George’s wife, his helpmate?  Even if George had only two wives, or three, or even four – it’s still remarkable enough to talk about.  I find it rather unbelievable that George’s descendants could not even remember the first name of “Miss Coats.”  Lastly, this woman (or women) deserves a medal, not have their names forgotten, because the wife is the one who maintained everything at home while George was out and about preaching, saving souls and founding new churches.  And that wife, if she was a second or third wife, was likely raising his children from previous marriages in addition to her own.

How many children did she bear in his absence, and was she even able to obtain the assistance of a midwife?  Who would have ridden for the midwife, if George was gone?  While the traveling preacher tends to be venerated, in this case, at least, it’s the name-forgotten wife who stayed at home and held everything together without the assistance of her husband.  She should be celebrated.  She is the unsung heroine of the story.  The fact that her name has been forgotten just makes the irony even greater and the story sadder.

We know that George and his then-current wife had children from around 1757 until the last child was born in February 1782 – although there is a very large gap between Mary born in 1771 and Thomas born in 1782 which could potentially alert us to the death of a wife and a remarriage.  It could also be that several children died, or George was gone much of the time.  It was about 1776 when Baptists began to be allowed to preach freely, which corresponds with the time in which the family legend claims he was ordained a Baptist minister.

We know that George and his wife lived on Lewis Fork Creek, right across the road from where the Elder George McNiel Cemetery is located today.

Elder George McNiel gravesite

This satellite image shows the location in more detail, but the cemetery is not visible from the road and a local person would have to be a guide.

Elder George McNiel gravesite satellite

When historian George McNiel and I visited this cemetery in 2004, George told me that the Reverend George McNiel and his wife lived directly across the road from the cemetery, in a cabin behind the house that belonged to his granddaughter – which was  in ruins with only the chimney standing in 2004, below.

George McNiel land

As we walked George’s land, this misty apparition appeared in a clearing.  Was George or his wife or maybe his granddaughter with us that day?

George McNiel granddaughter land

George’s wife did pass away before 1787, leaving him with this child who was still either an infant or a toddler plus 4 additional underage children, not to mention the older ones still living at home.  This must have been a terribly sad day in the McNiel cabin on Lewis Fork Creek.  George must have wondered what he was going to do.  It’s actually amazing that he did not marry for more than 3 years.  I would wager that his older married children took the younger ones to raise.  He certainly couldn’t do that while visiting, circuit riding and establishing churches throughout the region.  Not to mention, by 1802, George was also the register of deeds for Wilkes County.

Even though her grave is unmarked, George’s wife, mother of his children, probably Sallie, is surely laid to rest in the McNiel cemetery located on George’s land, near where George himself was laid to rest as well, some 20 years later.

George McNiel cemetery2

Today, the cemetery is overgrown and it’s not evident from any distance that it is a cemetery.  At least the cattle aren’t, or weren’t, allowed to graze in the cemetery.

George McNiel cemetery

As you get a little closer, you can make out the ghostly shapes of the abandoned monuments.

George McNiel tombstone

In addition to the Elder George McNiel, whose stone, set in 1905, a hundred years after his death, is shown above, several generations have been buried here as well, including son Thomas born in 1782 and several of Thomas’s children.

However, there is one thing we know, concretely, about George’s wife – she was a Baptist – at least eventually.  We have no records of George preaching in Spotsylvania County, but records abound after 1779 – which is while George’s wife was still alive.  In fact, based on the 1782 deed, her name was likely Sallie.

After all of this thrashing around in the mud is done, we actually know very little.  We’re still not sure of George’s wife’s name.  We’ve introduced even more questions in an already tenuous situation.  No one is going to thank me for this article:)

Aside from extracting the Spotsylvania County records, which is now on my to-do list, how else could we unravel this riddle?

DNA

Finding people who descend through all female lines to DNA test is sometimes difficult due to all of the generational name changes.  However, it has been successfully done in other lines, so it’s not impossible

Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mothers to all of their children, but only passed on by the females.  So, anyone who descends from the wife of George McNiel through all females will carry her mitochondrial DNA.  In the current generation, the descendant can be either a male or female.

If we were able to test mitochondrial descendants of the daughters of George McNiel, we could verify that they were all born to the same mother.

Unfortunately, my first problem is that I have no information about the eldest daughter, born in 1757, no information about the children of Elizabeth McNiel and what information I do have about Polly is that she had 4 sons who would not have passed on her mitochondrial DNA.  Not looking good so far, but maybe there is more information to be had, currently unknown – and maybe it will be the descendant families that provide the info.  Fingers crossed.

  • Mary Hillary McNiel born 1757 – no further information and it is unknown if this information is accurate or if this person even existed. If so, Hillary could be a family surname.
  • John McNiel born 1759 married Fanny Cleveland.
  • William McNiel born 1760/1761 died circa 1832 in Claiborne Co., TN, married Elizabeth Shepherd (my line).
  • James McNiel born circa 1763 died August 1834, married Mary “Polly” Shepherd.
  • Benjamin McNiel born 1765 married Elizabeth Lips.
  • Joseph McNiel born 1767 died circa 1855 married Hannah Wilson and Elizabeth Powell.
  • Elizabeth McNiel born about 1767 (per an 1857 deposition where she says she is 90 years old when applying for her husband’s Revolutionary War pension and bounty land in Watauga Co., NC,) married in 1785 to Robert Bingham in Wilkes County, NC. Children unknown.
  • Mary “Polly” McNiel born 1771 married Henry Miller in1803 in Wilkes County. Four known sons.
  • Thomas McNiel born February 1782, died 1865, married Miss Parsons.

George McNiel was a minister.  I can’t believe that his Bible hasn’t turned up in the descendants someplace, complete with a list of wives and children.  You KNOW he had at least one Bible, and probably multiples.  Maybe he wore them out!

Grandchildren

No pictures of George McNiel’s children exist, but there are two photos of his grandchildren.

The Reverend James McNiel, below, born in 1816, was the son of Joseph McNiel and Hannah Wilson.  Joseph was the son of Rev. George McNiel and whichever wife, probably Sallie, he was married to in 1767 when Joseph was born.

James McNiel

A second grandson is also memorialized by a photograph.

George W. McNiel, Sr. was born in 1825 and died in 1914.  He is buried in the Elder George McNiel Cemetery and was the son of Thomas McNiel, born in 1782 and a Parsons woman.  His father, Thomas was born in February 1782, the son of Reverend George McNiel and probably the Sallie who had died by 1787.

George W. McNiel

A third grandson, Elijah McNeill, son of James McNeill is shown below, courtesy of his descendant, William McNeill.

Was George, above, holding a Bible, maybe his grandfather’s Bible? What other book would be important enough to include in a “formal” dress up picture?

Elijah McNeill grandson of rev George

Did any of these grandsons look anything like either the Reverend George McNiel or his wife, whatever her name?

My ancestor, William McNiel, was born about 1760, so he is most likely to share a mother with James McNiel born in 1763 or Joseph McNiel born in 1767 than with Thomas born in 1782 – although all three of these men could clearly have shared the same mother.

We don’t have the answers to all, or even many of these questions today, but maybe, just maybe, someday we will.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Mary Harrold (c 1750-1826), “Fly Me Back to Sweet Old Ireland,” 52 Ancestors #84

Mary is one of those ancestors whose life, what we know if it, is told mostly through the lives of those around her – specifically, her husband and children.  We don’t know who Mary’s parents were and were it not for one court note in particular, even her name would only be found in legend.  In this case, the legend of her name and the name Mary in the court notes match.

Mary was the wife of John Harrold.  She was born sometime around 1750, probably someplace in Virginia, and she died in 1826 in Wilkes County, North Carolina.

Based on a combination of the birth year of her son, John, based on census records and his tombstone, we know that Mary had at least one child by 1782, which puts her birth year at 1762 or earlier.

A potential record that mentions one Mary and John O’Harrell in Botetourt County suggests she may have had two children older than John.

The Botetourt County court record on March 11, 1779 tells us the following:

“The court doth allow Mary O’harrell, wife of John O’harrell, a soldier in the Continental Army, 30 pounds for the support of herself and two small children.”

Based on records of soldiers who served, there was no John O’Harrell and there was only one John Harrold or any similar surname who served from Botetourt County.  That would be Mary’s husband John  – so it’s likely that the John and Mary mentioned in 1779 are our John and Mary.

We know from John’s service record that he was discharged in June of 1779 after serving for 3 years, so his service began in June of 1776.

If Mary has two small children, we can presume they have been married at least 5 years, so that would mean they were married before 1774.  If the two children were born before he left in 1776, then they were likely married by 1771 or so, pushing Mary’s birth year back to about 1750 or slightly thereafter.  John is believed to have been born about 1750 based on these same records, so her birth about the same time makes sense.

If this is the case, then Mary has become nearly destitute by March of 1779 and had to rely on the county for money.  This may well imply that either her family was not from Botetourt County or they were gone, or destitute as well.

If this is our Mary, we don’t know who these two children are.  There is no document that gives us a list of her children, and the ones we do know are based on a variety of circumstances, not the least of which is that John Harrold is the only Harrold male in Wilkes County after he appears there around 1800 – so emerging children of that surname would be his.

We find John Herrald on the 1790 census for Iredell County, NC, but his wife’s age is only given as a hash mark in the “free white females” category.  By 1790, they had 3 males under 16, 1 male over 16 (John) and 4 females.  Six children means they have been married about 12 years, more or less, so by 1778 or earlier.  Given that John was gone for 3 years, followed by another 18 month stint in the army, they were probably married 4 years or so earlier than the 2 years multiplication by child suggests, so by 1774 or so.

Given that John’s discharge in 1779 says he is going home to Botetourt County, we can probably presume that is where they lived before the war, and likely where both families were from.

The challenge is that John’s Y DNA doesn’t match the other Harrold (by any spelling) families in Botetourt County.

So, given that we have all of our proverbial ducks in a row, we know the following:

1750ish – Mary born

1774 – Mary married by this date, possibly as early as 1771, possibly in Botetourt County, VA

June 1776 – Mary’s husband leaves for the War from Botetourt County

March 1779 – Mary obtains assistance from the county for herself and 2 children.

June 1779 – John is discharged after 3 years service and returns home.

1780 – John enlists for a second term in the Revolutionary War in August, leaving Mary at home with 2 small children and probably pregnant for another child.

1782 – John is discharged in February, returning home to Botetourt County just in time for spring planting.  Mary must be extremely relieved.

1782 or 1783 – son John Jr. is born in Virginia.

About 1784 – Mary has daughter Sallie.

1785 – John and by inference Mary are on the Iredell County, NC tax list.

About 1785 – Mary has daughter Elizabeth.

About 1785 – Mary has son Alexander.

1790 – Mary and John are living in Iredell County, NC according to the census and have 6 children.

About 1790 – Mary has son William.

About 1790 – Mary has daughter Charlotte.

1794 – Mary and John have probably moved to Wilkes County, because John is mentioned in the court notes regarding a transaction with one Robert Powers involving 75 pounds of indigo.  This was not registered in court until 1804, so they might not yet have lived in Wilkes in 1794.

1796 – John files in Wilkes court against one Thomas Adams against whom he obtained an execution order in Iredell County.  They do live in Wilkes County by now.

1797-1799 – Mary’s son, John, married about this time.

1800 – Mary and John are enumerated in Wilkes County in the census under the surname Harral.

We know that in 1790, John and Mary have 6 children, 3 boys and 3 girls, the boys being under 16.

In 1800, their children are reported as:

  • 1 male under 10 (William born about 1790)
  • 1 male 10-15 (Alexander born about 1785)
  • 2 female 16-25 (Charlotte, Elizabeth and/or Sallie)

We show three females in 1790 and I have three daughters listed, but only two are shown here and none are known to have married until after 1800.  So, there is a discrepancy.

In 1790, their son, John Jr., is living next door and is listed as age 16-25, putting John’s birth between 1775 and 1784, which is consistent with the information we already have.  He has a wife and one female child, suggesting they have been married between 1 and 3 years.

Both John and Mary are over the age of 45, which means they were both born before 1755.  Given that Mry’s youngest child, William, was born about 1790, Mary could have been born slightly before 1750.  Women often bore their last children at the age of 42 or 43.

1801 – John patents land on Harrold Mountain

Harrold mountain

1803 – Daughter Elizabeth married Reuben Carter whose land abuts that of John Harrold, at least until Reuben loses his land.

1805 – Mary’s daughter Sallie marries Jessie Turner before 1805 and they leave for Breathit County, KY.

1806 – Mary’s daughter, Charlotte, married Koonrod Dick.  They were in Simpson Co., KY before 1825.

1809 – Mary’s son, William and Mary McDowell, daughter of their neighbor, are married by Jacob McGrady, the Baptist preacher.

1810 – Son William departs for Claiborne County, TN.  This is likely the last time Mary sees her son, although she lives another 16 years.  She probably never meets any of her grandchildren by William.

It must have pained Mary greatly to see her children marrying and leaving Wilkes County, one by one.

1810 – The 1810 census shows John Harrold, with one male living with him, age 16-26, plus his wife.  Both John and Mary are shown as over age 45.

1812 – Mary’s son, Alexander marries about this time and shortly thereafter, leaves for Breathit County, KY.  This is likely the last time Mary sees Alexander.  She likely never sees any of Alexander’s children either.

The 1820 census reflects John and Mary’s age the same way.  Now John and Mary are living entirely alone, all of the children gone and married.  They are living beside John Herrald Jr. who has 9 people in his family and one slave.  These grandchildren, Mary probably sees daily!

John Sr. dies in 1825 and Mary follows in 1826.  We know Mary’s name, positively, because of an allowance made to her in January 1826 from John’s estate, which was probated in October of 1825.  However, by October 1826, just a  year after John’s death, Mary’s estate sale was held – so she died sometime between January and October of 1826.

I hired a historian to retrieve John and Mary’s estate inventory and sale information, both, from the North Carolina archives in Raleigh, with absolutely no luck.  I know they existed at one time because they are referenced in the court notes complete with book and page number – however – Wilkes County says they no longer have any of those records and they are at the archives in Raleigh, and Raleigh says they never received those books from Wilkes.  And then there are those persistent rumors that the staff decades ago in Wilkes County decided to have a bonfire with the old records that no one would need anymore.  This just kills me, because Mary and John’s estate inventory would give us the most personal glimpse of their actual lives that we could get from the vantage point of where we sit today, 190 years removed – unless there is an unknown family journal or Bible hanging around someplace.  And I’m not holding my breath for that.

One of my close friends and I were discussing a week or so ago how much our descendants would be able to tell about us personally if they were building the scaffolding of our lives from only public records.  She and I concluded that while they would find the “big pieces” so to speak, like birth, marriage, death, children’s births, and moving – they would never know anything about us personally.  Meaning what we are like.  No one would know that I love color, for example, whether it be in summer flowers or quilts.  That I hate to cook, love dark chocolate, and do quite a bit of charity work.  They would have no idea of my profession, my career, my education level, my degrees or my political or religious leanings.  All of those things that make me uniquely me would be absent.  However, if they had an inventory listing from my estate sale, there would at least be clues.  I so wish we had Mary’s estate listing.

Mary is credited with saying that when she died, she wanted to be put up on the bluff on top of Harrold Mountain so that she could fly back to sweet old Ireland.

Harrold Mountain bluff

Since she doesn’t have a marker, perhaps they did.  Harrold Mountain bluff is shown above.

John Harrold burial

Mary is likely buried beside John Harrold, her husband, on Harrold Mountain.  Furthermore, we know about where that is, and she is either buried under the chicken house with John (above), or she is buried with son John in the Harrold/Brown Cemetery.

Brown Harold cemetery after

Perhaps old John is buried with John Jr. in the same cemetery, shown on the map below on Harrold Mountain.

Brown Harrold cem

Given that both sons William and Alexander leave Wilkes County, it makes sense that John Jr. would obtain William’s land upon his death.  It looks very much like he did, in part because John is buried on the land Old John owned.  So, it’s entirely possible that John Jr. lies in the same cemetery with both of his parents.  In that time and place, that’s quite unusual – often generations didn’t stay in the same place long enough for multiple generations to live, grow old and pass on.

I’ve tried to reconcile the census documents with John and Mary’s children, reconstructed from the records we do have:

Name/Birth 1779 1790 census 1800 census Other
2 children in court record 3 boys under 16, 3 girls 1 m<101 m 10-152 f 16-25
Child born before 1779 per court record Possibly James in 1805 record
Child born before 1779 per court record
John/1782-83 Age 8 Living next door Birth year of 1783 on tombstone
Alexander/c 1785 Age 5 Age 15 1850 census says he was born in NC in 1785
William/c1790 Newborn 1790 Age 10 In 1855 deposition, William says he is 65 years old, in 1850 census, says he is born in NC
Elizabeth/c1785 Age 5 Age 15 Married in 1803
Charlotte/c1790 Newborn or born after census Doesn’t work based estimated birth year of 1790 and 1800 census Married in 1806.
Sarah/c1784 6 16 Married before 1805

Note that a James appears once in an 1805 Wilkes County record, but never appears again. If this James is John’s son, then he would have had to be one of the two oldest children AND living on his own or not in John’s household by 1790.  Unlikely, but not impossible

These birth years are all estimates, with the exception of John whose birth year is on his tombstone and in the 1850 census, and William who gives his age in a deposition and in the census as well.  Other birth years are estimated by marriage date which is estimated by the age of the oldest child when not available in official records.  Long way around, I know.

The bottom line is that Mary and John are one child short in 1800, but for all we know, one of the daughters was living elsewhere.

Mitochondrial DNA

To the best of my knowledge, no one who descends directly from Mary through all females has yet DNA tested.  These people would carry Mary’s mitochondrial DNA.

Mary reportedly had three daughters.  However, there is some discrepancy in the 1800 census when only two daughters are shown.  Of course, one could have been slightly older, one could have been visiting or living with a relative – we don’t know.

However, if people who descend from either 2 or 3 daughters test, and their mitochondrial DNA which would be descended directly from Mary match each other, then we now they share a common ancestor.  There is always the possibility as well that Mary was not John’s only wife.  There could have been 2 different Mary’s as well – the one in 1779, assuming that is the right family, and the one who died in 1826.  There is no oral history of anything like this, but it’s always a possibility.

Secondly, we could tell a lot about Mary – meaning her haplogroup and where her closest matches are found in the world.  In other words, we could probably confirm that Mary was indeed Irish!

If you descend from Mary Harrell through all females to the current generation, where either males or females will work, please let me know.  There is a DNA testing scholarship waiting for you!

Mary’s female children are as follows:

1. Sarah or Sallie Herrell, born about 1784 and married Jesse Turner about 1805  in Wilkes County. They moved to Breathit County, KY and had daughters:

    • Susannah born about 1806 – nothing more known
    • Elizabeth “Mama Bets” born February 1813 and married her first cousin, Thomas T. Herrell. They had daughters Sarah born in 1841, Elizabeth born in 1845, Nancy born about 1846, America born in 1850 and Jemima born in 1852.

2.  Charlotte Herrell born about 1790, married in 1806 in Wilkes County, NC to Koonrod Peter Dick. They moved to Simpson County, KY and had daughter Mary Dick. They probably had other children as well, but I have found no records.

3.  Elizabeth Herrell born about 1785 married Reuben Carter in 1803 in Wilkes County. They moved on to Maury County TN and then, reportedly, to Crawford County, MO. Nothing is known about their children.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

African DNA in the British Isles

While the Slave Owner registers from 1834 in England and the recent project to index and study their contents has raised consciousness about slavery and how intertwined slavery was through Caribbean sugar production to all of the British Isles – DNA is telling a story too.  While the slave owner registers speak to the ownership of slaves in the Caribbean by Britains, those weren’t the only slaves.

I have done several DNA Reports in past decade for people who received unexpected results.  By unexpected results, I’m referring to clearly African haplogroups in Europe, primarily the British Isles, found in people who are just as clearly “white” today – and whose ancestors have been considered as such for generations.  Furthermore,  their autosomal DNA generally shows no trace or occasionally shows minute amounts of their African heritage, yet it is clearly there as proven by Y and mitochondrial DNA.

When these people are found in the US and their ancestors have been here for generations, especially in a slave-owning area, my first thought is always that perhaps the genealogy is in error – or that there was an undocumented adoption that would never show in genealogical records.  But when the people are not in the US and their ancestors have never lived outside of Europe and are well-documented, the results are impossible to explain away or rationalize in that fashion.

blacks in london

I’m also not referring to haplogroup E-M215, old E1b1b or E-M35, old E1b1b1, which is known to be North African, or Berber, found in the Mediterranean basin.  This haplogroup is found sparsely in England, likely due to the Roman legions who arrived and stayed or at least left some of their Y DNA behind.  Steven Bird wrote the paper about this titled “Haplogroup E3b1a2 as a Possible Indicator of Settlement of Roman Britain by Soldiers of Balkan Origin.”

I’m talking about haplogroups that are unquestionably sub-Saharan African in origin, such as Y DNA E-M2, old E1b1a now E-V38, and often, mitochondrial haplogroups such as L1, L2 and L3  – meaning that they originated with women, not men.

This begs the question of how those haplogroups came to be embedded in the British population long enough ago that there is no record that the people who carried them were not white.  In other words, the person who brought that haplogroup to the British Isles arrived long ago, many generations.

I have always found this a bit confounding, because while England was indeed heavily intertwined in the slave trade, England never had the space or need to employ slaves in the way that they were engaged on large plantations in the Caribbean or in the Southern US.  Furthermore, England had its own surplus of people they were trying to send elsewhere, which was one of the benefits of colonization.  You could send your undesirables to populate your colonies.  For example, those pesky recusant Catholics who refused to convert settled in Maryland.  Many people convicted of small crimes, such as my Joseph Rash for stealing 2 bags of malt, were transported to the colonies, in his case, Virginia.

We know that there were some Africans in Elizabethan England, although those records are almost incidental, few and far between.  Africans have been in England since the 12th century, but it wasn’t until slaving began in earnest that their numbers increased.  At this point, blacks in England were mostly novelties and were often owned by captains of slave ships and occasionally sold on the quay of coastal cities like Bristol.

Although not widespread, slavery was practiced in England until 1772, when the Somerset case effectively determined that chattel slavery was not supported by English law.  This legally freed all slaves in England, if not in actual practice.  Slaves in England at that time were mostly domestic servants and flocked to be baptized in the hope it would ensure their freedom.  The good news is that those baptisms created records.

Buried in the details of the Somerset case and arguments are an important tidbits.

James Somerset, a slave, was purchased in Massachusetts and brought to England by his master, Charles Stewart.  James escaped, was captured and was going to be shipped to the Caribbean by Stewart and sold as a plantation slave.  However, while in England, James had been converted to Christianity and his three god-parents upon his baptism filed suit claiming that while he may have been a slave when brought to England, that English law did not support slavery and he was therefore not a slave in England and could not be shipped against his will to the Caribbean to be sold.  This was not a humanitarian case, per se, but a case about law and legal details.

Somerset’s advocates argued that while colonial laws might permit slavery, neither the common law of England nor any law made by Parliament recognized the existence of slavery and slavery was therefore unlawful. The advocates also argued that English contract law did not allow for any person to enslave himself, nor could any contract be binding without the person’s consent. When the two lawyers for Charles Stewart, the owner, put forth their case, they argued that property was paramount and that it would be dangerous to free all the black people in England, who numbered at the time approximately 15,000.

That’s the information I was looking for.  There were 15,000 African or African descended slaves in England in 1772.  Given that most were domestic servants, the females would have been subject to whatever their owner wanted to impose upon them, including sexual advances.  Let’s face it, there were a lot more English men available in England than African men, so it’s very likely that the children of enslaved women would have been fathered by white men whether by consensual or nonconsensual means.

Their half white children would also have been enslaved, at least until 1772, and if they also bore children from an English male, their offspring would have been 25% African and 75% English.  Within another generation, they would have looked “white” and their African heritage would have been forgotten – at least until their descendants eight or ten generations later took a mitochondrial or Y DNA test and turned up with confusing African results.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Some Native Americans Had Oceanic Ancestors

This week has seen a flurry of new scientific and news articles.  What has been causing such a stir?  It appears that Australian or more accurately, Australo-Melanese DNA has been found in South America’s Native American population. In addition, it has also been found in Aleutian Islanders off the coast of Alaska.  In case you aren’t aware, that’s about 8,500 miles as the crow flies.  That’s one tired crow.  As the person paddles or walks along the shoreline, it’s even further, probably about 12,000 miles.

Aleutians to Brazil

Whatever the story, it was quite a journey and it certainly wasn’t all over flat land.

This isn’t the first inkling we’ve had.  Just a couple weeks ago, it was revealed that the Botocudo remains from Brazil were Polynesian and not admixed with either Native, European or African.  This admixture was first discovered via mitochondrial DNA, but full genome sequencing confirmed their ancestry and added the twist that they were not admixed – an extremely unexpected finding.  This is admittedly a bit confusing, because it implies that there were new Polynesian arrivals in the 1600s or 1700s.

Unlikely as it seems, it obviously happened, so we set that aside as relatively contemporary.

The findings in the papers just released are anything but contemporary.

The First Article

The first article in Science, “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans” by Raghaven et al published this week provides the following summary (bolding is mine):

How and when the Americas were populated remains contentious. Using ancient and modern genome-wide data, we find that the ancestors of all present-day Native Americans, including Athabascans and Amerindians, entered the Americas as a single migration wave from Siberia no earlier than 23 thousand years ago (KYA), and after no more than 8,000-year isolation period in Beringia. Following their arrival to the Americas, ancestral Native Americans diversified into two basal genetic branches around 13 KYA, one that is now dispersed across North and South America and the other is restricted to North America. Subsequent gene flow resulted in some Native Americans sharing ancestry with present-day East Asians (including Siberians) and, more distantly, Australo-Melanesians. Putative ‘Paleoamerican’ relict populations, including the historical Mexican Pericúes and South American Fuego-Patagonians, are not directly related to modern Australo-Melanesians as suggested by the Paleoamerican Model.

This article in EurekAlert and a second one here discuss the Science paper.

Raghaven 2015

Migration map from the Raghaven paper.

The paper included the gene flow and population migration map, above, along with dates.

The scientists sequenced the DNA of 31 living individuals from the Americas, Siberia and Oceana as follows:

Siberian:

  • Altai – 2
  • Buryat – 2
  • Ket – 2
  • Kiryak – 2
  • Sakha – 2
  • Siberian Yupik – 2

North American Native:

  • Tsimshian (number not stated, but by subtraction, it’s 1)

Southern North American, Central and South American Native:

  • Pima – 1
  • Huichol -1
  • Aymara – 1
  • Yakpa – 1

Oceana:

  • Papuan – 14

The researchers also state that they utilized 17 specimens from relict groups such as the Pericues from Mexico and Fuego-Patagonians from the southernmost tip of South America.  They also sequenced two pre-Columbian mummies from the Sierra Tarahumara in northern Mexico.  In total, 23 ancient samples from the Americas were utilized.

They then compared these results with a reference panel of 3053 individuals from 169 populations which included the ancient Saqqaq Greenland individual at 400 years of age as well as the Anzick child from Montana from about 12,500 years ago and the Mal’ta child from Siberia at 24,000 years of age.

Not surprisingly, all of the contemporary samples with the exception of the Tsimshian genome showed recent western Eurasian admixture.

As expected, the results confirm that the Yupik and Koryak are the closest Eurasian population to the Americas.  They indicate that there is a “clean split” between the Native American population and the Koryak about 20,000 years ago.

They found that “Athabascans and Anzick-1, but not the Greenlandis Inuit and Saqqaq belong to the same initial migration wave that gave rise to present-day Amerindians from southern North America and Central and South America, and that this migration likely followed a coastal route, given our current understanding of the glacial geological and paleoenvironmental parameters of the Late Pleistocene.”

Evidence of gene flow between the two groups was also found, meaning between the Athabascans and the Inuit.  Additionally, they found evidence of post-split gene flow between Siberians and Native Americans which seems to have stopped about 12,000 years ago, which meshes with the time that the Beringia land bridge was flooded by rising seas, cutting off land access between the two land masses.

They state that the results support all Native migration from Siberia, contradicting claims of an early migration from Europe.

The researchers then studied the Karitiana people of South America and determined that the two groups, Athabascans and Karitiana diverged about 13,000 years ago, probably not in current day Alaska, but in lower North America.  This makes sense, because the Clovis Anzick child, found in Montana, most closely matches people in South America.

By the Clovis period of about 12,500 years ago, the Native American population had already split into two branches, the northern and southern, with the northern including Athabascan and other groups such as the Chippewa, Cree and Ojibwa.  The Southern group included people from southern North America and Central and South America.

Interestingly, while admixture with the Inuit was found with the Athabascan, Inuit admixture was not found among the Cree, Ojibwa and Chippewa.  The researchers suggest that this may be why the southern branch, such as the Karitiana are genetically closer to the northern Amerindians located further east than to northwest coast Amerindians and Athabascans.

Finally, we get to the Australian part.  The researchers when trying to sort through the “who is closer to whom” puzzle found unexpected results.  They found that some Native American populations including Aleutian Islanders, Surui (Brazil) and Athabascans are closer to Australo-Melanesians compared to other Native Americans, such as Ojibwa, Cree and Algonquian and South American Purepecha (Mexico), Arhuaco (Colombia) and Wayuu (Colombia, Venezuela).  In fact, the Surui are one of the closest populations to East Asians and Australo-Melanese, the latter including Papuans, non-Papuan Melanesians, Solomon Islanders and hunter-gatherers such as Aeta. The researchers acknowledge these are weak trends, but they are nonetheless consistently present.

Dr. David Reich, from Harvard, a co-author of another paper, also published this past week, says that 2% of the DNA of Amazonians is from Oceana.  If that is consistent, it speaks to a founder population in isolation, such that the 2% just keeps getting passed around in the isolated population, never being diluted by outside DNA.  I would suggest that is not a weak signal.

The researchers suggest that the variance in the strength of this Oceanic signal suggests that the introduction of the Australo-Melanese occurred after the initial peopling of the Americas.  The ancient samples cluster with the Native American groups and do not show the Oceanic markers and show no evidence of gene flow from Oceana.

The researchers also included cranial morphology analysis, which I am omitting since cranial morphology seems to have led researchers astray in the past, specifically in the case of Kennewick man.

One of the reasons cranial morphology is such a hotly debated topic is because of the very high degree of cranial variance found in early skeletal remains.  One of the theories evolving from the cranial differences involving the populating of the Americans has been that the Australo-Melanese were part of a separate and earlier migration that gave rise to the earliest Americans who were then later replaced by the Asian ancestors of current day Native Americans.  If this were the case, then the now-extinct Fuego-Patagonains samples from the location furthest south on the South American land mass should have included DNA from Oceana, but it didn’t.

The Second Article

A second article published this week, titled “’Ghost population’ hints at long lost migration to the Americas” by Ellen Callaway discusses similar findings, presented in a draft letter to Nature titled “Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas” by Skoglund et al.  This second group discovers the same artifact Australo-Melanesian DNA in Native American populations but suggests that it may be from the original migration and settlement event or that there may have been two distinct founding populations that settled at the same time or that there were two founding events.

EurekAlert discusses the article as well.

It’s good to have confirmation and agreement between the two labs who happened across these results independently that the Australo-Melanesian DNA is present in some Native populations today.

Their interpretations and theories about how this Oceanic DNA arrived in some of the Native populations vary a bit, but if you read the details, it’s really not quite as different as it first appears from the headlines.  Neither group claims to know for sure, and both discuss possibilities.

Questions remain.  For example, if the founding group was small, why, then, don’t all of the Native people and populations have at least some Oceanic markers?  The Anzick Child from 12,500 years ago does not.  He is most closely related to the tribes in South America, where the Oceanic markers appear with the highest frequencies.

In the Harvard study, the scientists fully genome sequenced 63 individuals without discernable evidence of European or African ancestors in 21 Native American populations, restricting their study to individuals from Central and South America that have the strongest evidence of being entirely derived from a homogenous First American ancestral population.

Their results show that the two Amazonian groups, Surui and Karitians are closest to the “Australasian populations, the Onge from the Andaman Island in the Bay of Bengal (a so-called ‘Negrito’ group), New Guineans, Papuans and indigenous Australians.”  Within those groups, the Australasian populations are the only outliers – meaning no Africans, Europeans or East Asian DNA found in the Native American people.

When repeating these tests, utilizing blood instead of saliva, a third group was shown to also carry these Oceanic markers – the Xavante, a population from the Brazilian plateau that speaks a language of the Ge group that is different from the Tupi language group spoke by the Karitians and Surui.

Skoglund 2015-2

The closest populations that these Native people matched in Oceana, shown above on the map from the draft Skoglund letter, were, in order, New Guineans, Papuans and Andamanese.  The researchers further state that populations from west of the Andes or north of the Panama isthmus show no significant evidence of an affinity to the Onge from the Andaman Islands with the exception of the Cabecar (Costa Rica).

That’s a very surprising finding, given that one would expect more admixture on the west, which is the side of the continent where the migration occurred.

The researchers then compared the results with other individuals, such as Mal’ta child who is known to have contributed DNA to the Native people today, and found no correlation with Oceanic DNA.  Therefore, they surmised that the Oceanic admixture cannot be explained by a previously known admixture event.

They propose that a mystery population they have labeled as “Population Y” (after Ypykuera which means ancestor in the Tupi language family) contributed the Australasian lineage to the First Americans and that is was already mixed into the lineage by the time it arrived in Brazil.

According to their work, Population Y may itself have been admixed, and the 2% of Oceanic DNA found in the Brazilian Natives may be an artifact of between 2 and 85% of the DNA of the Surui, Karitiana and Xavante that may have come from Population Y.  They mention that this result is striking in that the majority of the craniums that are more Oceanic in Nature than Asiatic, as would be expected from people who migrated from Siberia, are found in Brazil.

They conclude that the variance in the presence or absence of DNA in Native people and remains, and the differing percentages argue for more than one migration event and that “the genetic ancestry of Native Americans from Central and South America cannot be due to a single pulse of migration south of the Late Pleistocene ice sheets from a homogenous source population, and instead must reflect at least two streams of migration or alternatively a long drawn out period of gene flow from a structured Beringian or Northeast Asian source.”

Perhaps even more interesting is the following statement:

“The arrival of population Y ancestry in the Americas must in any scenario have been ancient: while Population Y shows a distant genetic affinity to Andamanese, Australian and New Guinean populations, it is not particularly closely related to any of them, suggesting that the source of population Y in Eurasia no longer exists.”

They further state they find no admixture indication that would suggest that Population Y arrived in the last few thousand years.

So, it appears that perhaps the Neanderthals and Denisovans were not the only people who were our ancestors, but no longer exist as a separate people, only as an admixed part of us today.  We are their legacy.

The Take Away

When I did the Anzick extractions, we had hints that something of this sort might have been occurring.  For example, I found surprising instances of haplogroup M, which is neither European, African nor Native American, so far as we know today.  This may have been a foreshadowing of this Oceanic admixture.  It may also be a mitochondrial artifact.  Time will tell.  Perhaps haplogroup M will turn out to be Native by virtue of being Oceanic and admixed thousands of years ago.  There is still a great deal to learn.  Regardless of how these haplogroups and Oceanic DNA arrived in Brazil in South America and in the Aleutian Islands off of Alaska, one thing is for sure, it did.

We know that the Oceanic DNA found in the Brazilian people studied for these articles is not contemporary and is ancient.  This means that it is not related to the Oceanic DNA found in the Botocudo people, who, by the way, also sport mitochondrial haplogroups that are within the range of Native people, meaning haplogroup B, but have not been found in other Native people.  Specifically, haplogroups B4a1a1 and B4a1a1a.  Additionally, there are other B4a1a, B4a1b and B4a1b1 results found in the Anzick extract which could also be Oceanic.  You can see all of the potential and confirmed Native American mitochondrial DNA results in my article “Native American Mitochondrial Haplogroups” that I update regularly.

We don’t know how or when the Botocudo arrived, but the when has been narrowed to the 1600s or 1700s.  We don’t know how or when the Oceanic DNA in the Brazilian people arrived either, but the when was ancient.  This means that Oceanic DNA has arrived in South America at least twice and is found among the Native peoples both times.

We know that some Native groups have some Oceanic admixture, and others seem to have none, in particular the Northern split group that became the Cree, Ojibwa, Algonquian, and Chippewa.

We know that the Brazilian Native groups are most closely related to Oceanic groups, but that the first paper also found Oceanic admixture in the Aleutian Islands.  The second paper focused on the Central and South American tribes.

We know that the eastern American tribes, specifically the Algonquian tribes are closely related to the South Americans, but they don’t share the Oceanic DNA and neither do the mid-continent tribes like the Cree, Ojibwa and Chippewa.  The only Paleolithic skeleton that has been sequenced, Anzick, from 12,500 years ago in Montana also does not carry the Oceanic signature.

In my opinion, the disparity between who does and does not carry the Oceanic signature suggests that the source of the Oceanic DNA in the Native population could not have been a member of the first party to exit out of Beringia and settle in what is now the Americas.  Given that this had to be a small party, all of the individuals would have been thoroughly admixed with each other’s ancestral DNA within just a couple of generations.  It would have been impossible for one ancestor’s DNA to only be found in some people.  To me, this argues for one of two scenarios.

First, a second immigration wave that joined the first wave but did not admix with some groups that might have already split off from the original group such as the Anzick/Montana group.

Second, multiple Oceanic immigration events.  We still have to consider the possibility that there were multiple events that introduced Oceanic DNA into the Native population.  In other words, perhaps the Aleutian Islands Oceanic DNA is not from the same migration event as the Brazilian DNA which we know is not from the same event as the Botocudo.  I would very much like to see the Oceanic DNA appear in a migration path of people, not just in one place and then the other.  We need to connect the dots.

What this new information does is to rule out the possibility that there truly was only one wave of migration – one group of people who settled the Americas at one time.  More likely, at least until the land bridge submerged, is that there were multiple small groups that exited Beringia over the 8,000 or so years it was inhabitable.  Maybe one of those groups included people from Oceana.  Someplace, sometime, as unlikely as it seems, it happened.

The amazing thing is that it’s more than 10,000 miles from Australia to the Aleutian Islands, directly across the Pacific.  Early adventurers would have likely followed a coastal route to be sustainable, which would have been significantly longer.  The fact that they survived and sent their DNA on a long adventure from Australia to Alaska to South America – and it’s still present today is absolutely amazing.

Australia to Aleutians

We know we still have a lot to learn and this is the tip of a very exciting iceberg.  As more contemporary and ancient Native people have their full genomes sequenced, we’ll learn more answers.  The answer is in the DNA.  We just have to sequence enough of it and learn how to understand the message being delivered.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

What is a Population Bottleneck?

water being emptied from a blue glass bottleGenetic genealogists often hear the term population bottleneck referenced in various academic papers – but just what is that?  And why do we care?

A population bottleneck occurs when there is a dramatic reduction in the population of a particular group of people.  Think about the eruption of a volcano – Mt. Toba for example.

Human history is full of population reducing examples, some we know about, like the plague, but most we don’t.  And obviously, if the bottleneck was so severe that no one survived – then there are no descendants of those people today – and that’s an extinction event, not a bottleneck.  The only way we would ever know those people existed is if we found their remains and sequenced them today – like the Neanderthal and Denisovan skeletons.

As a point of clarity – the Neanderthal and Denisovan did survive – not as pure Neanderthals or Denisovans – but admixed into the homo sapiens population – and they are indeed, us.  If you have either European or Asian ancestry, then you have Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry too.

How could that be – all of Europe and Asia descended from these Archaic people?  Probably the after-effects of a population bottleneck where a small group of people went on to become a large group of people.

Let’s look at an example.

The best example I can think of is the migration of the Asian people into the Americas.  These first people would populate all of North and South America and would become the indigenous people of these continents – by whatever name is applied today.  First People, Native Americans, American Indians – they are all of the same stock and the result of at least one population bottleneck.

That first bottleneck occurred when some people crossed over the land bridge, Beringia, between Asia and what is now Alaska.

beringia map

Erika Tamm et al – Tamm E, Kivisild T, Reidla M, Metspalu M, Smith DG, et al. (2007) Beringian Standstill and Spread of Native American Founders. PLoS ONE 2(9): e829. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000829. Also available from PubMed Central.

The bottleneck event that occurred there was that there weren’t very many people. It was probably a small group.  Possibly very small.  What do we know about them?

There were obviously males and females.

Assuming for purposes of discussion that all of the people who founded the Native American population came at once, or in what is referred to as one wave, we know that there were at least two men and 5 women.

How do we know that?  Because today we have Y haplogroups Q and C in the Native population and mitochondrial haplogroups A, B, C, D and X in that population as well.  Since the Y chromosome is passed from father to son unadmixed with any DNA from the mother, the haplogroups we see today are directly descended from those original founders.  Mitochondrial DNA is passed from the mother to all of her children, but only the females pass it on, so we get a direct pipeline view back to the founding mothers.

There may have been more individuals and haplogroups that arrived.  Some may have died out in Beringia or afterwards in subsequent bottleneck events.

Let’s say the group stayed together for a while.  Then, it got too big to support itself comfortably on the resources available.  In other words, the population began depleting the available resources.  So, the group separated by a few miles so that they could draw off of a different landscape where food was more abundant.

One group went 20 miles east and one group went 20 miles south.  It wasn’t meant to be permanent, but eventually, the split became permanent as that scenario repeated itself over time.

Eventually, one of the groups moved further south and small groups broke off from time to time and moved east across what would be the US and Canada.  Part of the group continued south along the Pacific and would populate Mexico, Central and South America.

Let’s say that one of those small bands of people that headed east wound up living in Montana, 12,500 years ago.  A child died, and they buried that child.

The group they separated from continued south and their descendants are found throughout Mexico, Central and South American today.

That child’s name is Anzick.  His skeleton was found in 1968 and his full genome was sequenced before he was reburied in 2013.  When his DNA was sequenced, we discovered, much to our amazement, that Anzick indeed matched people, primarily people from south of the US, at a level that could be interpreted to be contemporary.  How could that possibly be?

Think about a bottleneck in this fashion.

There are 4 people, 2 couples.  Each person’s DNA is represented by a color.  The two males are blue and green and the 2 females are pink and yellow, like on the left side of the pedigree chart shown below.

perez autosomal

In the first generation, they pass their DNA to their children and the children are blue/yellow and green/pink.  In the second generation, the children intermarry with the other couple’s children – because there are no choices.  All of the grandchildren of the original couple have DNA that is blue, yellow, green and pink.  The children and grandchildren don’t all carry the same segments of blue, yellow, green and pink – but all of them carry some part of the original 4 founders.  There is no orange or turquoise or red DNA to be found, so forever, until new people enter the landscape, they will pass the same segments of blue, green, yellow and pink DNA to their descendants.  In an isolated environment, they might not meet new humans for thousands of years – lets’ say 10,000 years.

So, if the Anzick child had blue, yellow, green and pink DNA and the contemporary Native people living in South America have blue, yellow, green and pink Native DNA from those same four founding ancestors, it stands to reason that they are going to match – because it’s the exact same DNA that has been passed around and around for thousands of years.

This matching is the effect of a population bottleneck.

We can think of other bottleneck events too.  For example, the Acadians were a bottleneck event.  A few shiploads of French Catholic people on an Island in the early 1600s – they didn’t have a lot of choice in terms of spouses. The genealogy saying is that if you’re related to one Acadian, you’re related to all Acadians, and it’s pretty much true.  Same with the Pilgrims and the individuals who came over on the Mayflower.

Some bottlenecks are religiously induced – Amish, Mennonite and Jewish, for example.  These people marry only within their religion.  Today, that’s called endogamy – but it’s a form of a bottleneck event.

We see the results of bottleneck events today in three ways in our DNA.  In both Y and mitochondrial DNA, we often see specific haplogroups or subgroups associated with specific populations – like Q and C in Native American Y DNA and subsets of A, B, C, D, X and possibly M in Native American mitochondrial DNA.

We also see the effects of bottleneck events in autosomal DNA.  We talk about segments that are IBD, identical by descent, and IBS, identical by state.  Identical by descent typically means we can attribute the DNA segment to a specific ancestor via triangulation.  Often, everything we can’t identify gets tossed into the IBS box, but it really shouldn’t.

When you hear people talk about IBS, or autosomal DNA segments that are identical by state, there are really two possibilities.  One is that the DNA is identical by chance.

The other option is that the DNA is identical by population.  This means that the DNA does indeed match because it came from a common ancestor – but that ancestor is beyond the genealogical timeframe.  That doesn’t mean the information isn’t useful.  Indeed, I think it’s very useful.  I want to know if a segment of my DNA is Native, even if I share that segment with lots of other Native people.  In fact, that’s exactly HOW we determine a specific autosomal segment is affiliated with Native or any other population group of people.  Certain segments are found in a higher percentage across the entire population group.  So, to throw these out in personal genetic genealogy by phasing which removes population based matches is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  I have several matches on my spreadsheet where I have the notation “Mennonite” or “Acadian” for example, because while I can’t sort out which specific ancestor the DNA came from, it assuredly came from the Acadian population based on the matches – and that’s very useful information.

Population bottlenecks may seem like a scientific term referencing something that happened long ago, but the effects of bottlenecks can be found in every one of us, beginning with Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA and probably including ancestors who survived, or willingly embraced beliefs which in essence created historical bottlenecks.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Zeroes aka Deletions – Null DNA Markers

Someone recently asked me about why one of their Y DNA STR marker values was zero, what that means, and how it got to be that way.

Probably the marker most prone to develop this trait is marker 425, the 48th marker that is in the 67 marker panel.  If you haven’t tested beyond 37 markers, then you won’t see a result for marker 425, because it’s in the 67 marker panel which tests markers 38-67.

A null marker result looks like this for Y DNA:

null result

You can see that location DYS425, highlighted in blue, has a zero and a red asterisk.

This means that there is no DNA present at that location, and a deletion has occurred.

Mitochondrial DNA

Deletions also occur in mitochondrial DNA.

If you view your results as CRS values, deletions show as little dash marks.

Mito deletion CRS

In the RSRS results view, below, they are shown with a little d indicating a deletion has replaced the normal value shown before the location number.

Mito deletion RSRS

In the case above in the coding region, an entire contiguous segment has been deleted.  In mitochondrial DNA, these are sometimes haplogroup defining.

While deletions also occur routinely in mitochondrial DNA, we’re going to use Y DNA for our discussion and examples.

What Does This Mean?

A zero in Y DNA as a marker result means that no DNA was detected at this location.  In essence, barring a lab processing error, it means that the DNA that used to be in this location got deleted in the process of replication at some point in time.

Once DNA on the Y chromosome or mitochondrial DNA is gone, it’s gone forever.  This is called a deletion.

Why Did This Happen?

We don’t know exactly why deletions happen, but they do.  If the deletion is in an area that isn’t troublesome to the organism, life goes on normally and the deletion is passed on to the next generation.  If the deletion would interfere with a critical function, typically the organism is never born.

So, if you have a deletion, it’s really nothing to worry about, because, chances are your ancestors, for generations, had this same deletion and you are obviously here. 

When Did This Happen?

Sometimes we can deduce an answer to this question, at least somewhat.

If your DNA value at location 425 is 0 (zero), there are three possibilities.

1.  This mutation happened long ago in your family line – maybe even before the adoption of surnames.  This is usually relatively easy to tell, especially if other men from your direct line have tested.  If they have, you’ll need to determine if their value at location 425 is zero.  If you and they are in a common project, often the easiest way to determine their value is to look within the project page. If you see others with the same surname that match most of your other marker results, and have a value of 0 at 425, then you know that this mutation happened long ago in your family line and has been being passed from father to son ever since – and will be as long as any male who carries that paternal line lives.

You can also check your haplogroup project to see if the people you are grouped, which will have different surnames, with also have a deletion at that location.

In some cases, almost everyone in a particular group has a zero at that location.  In the case of marker 425, the value of 0 is almost universally found in haplogroup E-L117, downstream of E-M35, as you can see in the Jewish haplogroup E project.

Sometimes, if the null marker at that location is not prevalent in the haplogroup itself, or in the larger family group, then the null value may be considered a line marker mutation in your specific family line.

2.  The null value may have happened more recently.  In fact, it’s possible that it happened between you and your father.  It happened between some father and son, someplace in your line.  If you find that you have a null marker value, and no one else if your family surname project has a null value at that marker, I would suggest proceeding in two ways.  First, I would test a second person, slightly upstream.  For example, test another paternal descendant of your grandfather or great-grandfather.  If they too have the null value, then you know that deletion occurred in some generation before your common ancestor.

null family example

If your father is Sterling and his father is Ben, then you’ll want to test one of Ben’s other sons, Hezekiah or Joseph, or one of their sons.

Let’s say that you test Hezekiah Jr. and he too carries a null value at location 425.  This confirms that your common ancestor, Ben Doe, indeed also had a null value because he passed it to both of his sons.  So, the mutation to a null value happened someplace upstream of Ben.

In this next example, let’s say, based on the surname project results, we know that neither John Doe nor James Doe carry the null value mutation, because at least some of their descendants through various sons don’t carry that mutation.  Therefore, it had to happen someplace downstream of Joe and James and between them and you.  The question is where.

Null ancestors inferred

In the original test, you discovered your null value.  In the second test, we discovered Hezekiah Jr.’s null value and by doing so, also discovered the value of that DNA in Sterling, Hezekiah Sr. and Ben, shown in the second test column above.

From previous testing in the family surname project, we know that the progenitor, John Doe and his son James don’t carry that mutation, so that only leaves two generations with an unknown status as to that marker value.  If you can find someone descended through another son born to William or Thomas, you can determine which man had the mutation.

But what if Hezekiah Jr. does not have the null value?

Then, either the mutation happened between you and your father or between your father and his father, which can be confirmed by testing either your father or one of your male siblings, or there was a lab processing error.

3.  In rare cases, the DNA simply does not read in a particular area.  It’s rare, but it does happen.  If you find no other family individuals with a null value, I’d ask the Family Tree DNA lab to take a second look to verify accuracy and to see if they can get a good reading if that is the issue.  They already routinely do multiple reads on null values, so this is rarely an issue.

Does This Really Matter?

It might matter, because in this line, the null value will serve as a line marker mutation for the family lines BELOW the man who had the mutation.  So, in this case, either William or Thomas Doe.  So if you find someone who matches this line, and DOES have a null value, it tells you which line he falls under and where to look.  If he does NOT have the null value, it tells you not to bother looking in the null value line.

Do Other Markers and Haplogroups Have Null Markers Too?

They do indeed.  I’ve written the Personalized DNA Reports for a decade now and I’ve seen null marker values in just about every haplogroup and on many markers, although some instances are very rare and seem to be a one-time occurrence.

In other situations, especially in haplogroup E-M35 (old E1b1b1) and branches, null values are quite common, especially on marker 425.  Marker 425 seems to be more prone to zero or null values in every haplogroup than other markers…and no, we don’t know why.

This has been the explanation of null values for normal air breathing humans.  If you would like the eyes-glazed-over techie version, this presentation was given at the 2009 Family Tree DNA Conference.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Elizabeth Shepherd (1766-1830s), Frontierswoman, 52 Ancestors #79

Elizabeth Shepherd was born July 23, 1766 in St. George Parish, Spotsylvania County, Virginia to Robert Shepherd and Sarah Rash.

We are extremely fortunate to have the Robert Shepherd Bible pages, still in existence in 1991.  A sixth great-grandson of Robert and Sarah Rash Shepherd was kind enough to copy and transcribe them, and they have been sitting in my “to do” file, which became a “to do” pile, long enough.

The cousin who so graciously sent the pages also said that he couldn’t capture the entire page in the copy because the pages were bound in the Bible.  He provided the transcription following each page – taken from the original Bible.

I am struck by the beauty of these Bible pages – the lovely calligraphy style handwriting.  I’ve also noted that the handwriting is all the same, including the death information for Robert – except for the 1858 death note about Sally.  Given that Sally is the only child with a death date, and there is also a rather illegible note about her name that looks like it notes someone’s mother – I’m surmising that this Bible was a copy of Robert’s original Bible that was passed down in the Sally Shepherd family line and her death date was of course added sometime after her passing.

The identical handwriting is a dead giveway (pardon the pun) and nobody so far as I know can record their own death after the fact – so this isn’t Robert’s handwriting.  If we had the front page of the Bible, we could look at the date the Bible was printed and I’m sure it would be after some of these events occurred.  That doesn’t diminish the value of the Bible, just lets us know more about the provenance of the information it holds and alerts us that transcription mistakes could have occurred – since the information we’re seeing has been copied, at least once.  But, I must say, copied beautifully and in the old style where the s looks like fs. Known as the long s, this practice fell out of practice in printing in the first part of the 1800s but lasted in handwriting into the second part before dying entirely.

Based on the script, whoever figured and recorded Robert Shepherd’s death date in 1817 is likely the transcriber of the rest of this document.  Given that the calculations are in the margin, this Bible was likely in use at that time, so perhaps the earlier information had already been copied into this Bible.

Just take a look at this beautiful script.

Shepherd Bible1

Marriages:

Robert Shepherd and Sarah Rash were married in Spotsylvania County Virginia by James Mcrea Church Parson on October 1, 1765.

Robert and Sarah aforesaid removed from Spotsylvania County Virginia to Reddies River Wilkes County, North Carolina on the 7th of December Annoque Domini 1777.

For all the world, it looks like something was written on the right hand side of the paper too, and has faded to the point where it is no longer legible.

Shepherd Bible2

Births:

Robert Shepherd son of George and Elizabeth Shepherd was born in Spotsylvania County and State of Virginia June 17, 1739.

Sarah Shepherd formerly Sarah Rash and daughter of Joseph and Mary Rash was born in Spotsylvania County Virginia State 23rd of April Annoque Domini 1748, and is now the espoused wife of Robert Shepherd aforesaid.

Their Genealogy born in Spotsylvania County Virginia

1. Elisabeth Shepherd born July 23rd Anno: Dom: 1766
2. James Shepherd born on March 8th A:D: 1768
3. Ann Shepherd born on the 8th of March A:D: 1770
4. Mary Shepherd born on January 17th A:D: 1773
5. Agnes Shepherd born on the 8th of February A:D: 1775

Their following children were all born on Reddies River Wilkes County No. Carolina

6. Rhoda Shepherd born on the 23rd of March A:D: 1777
7. John Shepherd born on the 26th of August A:D: 1779
8. Sally Shepherd born on the 27th of February A:D: 1782 Died November 1858
9. Fanny Shepherd born February 13th 1785

Shepherd Bible3

10. Rebekah Shepherd born on the 26th day of September in the year of our Lord 1787

Deaths:

Robert Shepherd father of the aforementioned family deceased June fifth one thousand eight hundred and seventeen 1817 – at his own house on Reddies River, Wilkes County, North Carolina State where to he removed and settled with his family from Spottsylvania County Virginia December 7, 1777.

After 17 days illness with his old disorder the Stone and Gravel and after residing about 40 years in the aforesaid spot.

Aged according to this record exactly seventy seven years eleven months and seven days, subtracting elven days for his Old Stile birth.

Sarah’s death date is not recorded here, but I think we have evidence of when it occurred in the notes.  Sarah was born in 1748, and on this last page,  in the upper right hand corner, someone was subtracting 1748 from 1829.

Moving to Wilkes County

According to their Bible, “Robert and Sarah aforesaid removed from Spotsylvania County to Reddies River, Wilkes County, NC on the 7th of December annoque domini 1777.”

I don’t know if they left on December 7th for Wilkes County, or arrived on December 7th, 1777.  Looking at the notes about the births of their children, it appears that Rhoda was born in Wilkes County in March of 1777 – so there is a conflict in the record.  However, given that this Bible is a copy of the original, perhaps a transcription error occurred.  Perhaps December is when they found a place to settle permanently in Wilkes County.  Regardless, they were moving about that time.

Hopefully December is when they arrived, as the 340 mile trip, on today’s roads, would have taken more than a month in a wagon in 1777, and certainly in December and January, snow and cold weather could be encountered.  It’s actually quite remarkable that the date of their journey is recorded in the Bible.  It was obviously seen as quite a turning point and major event in their lives.

Spotsylvania to Wilkes

Elizabeth would have just turned 11 that summer, old enough to help care for the younger children on the journey.  She was the oldest child.  Her parents, like normal pioneer parents, had a baby about every other year, so by 1777, Elizabeth had 5 younger siblings to help care for.

While Spotsylvania County had at one time been the frontier, in 1777, the county was more than 50 years old.  Wilkes County, however, was indeed the new frontier, with lots of available land, opportunity and adventure galore.  Land was almost free for the taking plus a little sweat equity.  Ok, if you’ve seen those mountains…a lot of sweat equity.  But back in Spotsylvania County, they hadn’t seen the mountains of Wilkes County – but they surely had heard about the land grants.  In fact, staking out land is just about the first thing new settlers did.

Robert Shepherd entered land in 1778 near the ford of “Readys River” on John Shepherd’s line.  On the same day John entered land on Deep Ford of Reddis River.

The Shepherds lived in what is known as the Reddies River and Purlear section, west of North Wilkesboro about 12 to 14 miles.  John Shepherd’s entry number 64 claimed 405 acres at the Deep Ford of the Reddies River.  Robert’s entry was next for 200 acres.  The Reverend George McNiel, William McNiel’s father, was also a neighbor.

The http://www.danielprophecy.com/map.html website shows the location of the various Shepherd land.  Notice Vannoy road and old Highway 16.  You’ve seen these same roads in the Elijah Vannoy story.  Elijah married Lois McNiel, daughter of Elizabeth Shepherd and William McNiel.

Shepherd land locationSometime prior to 1784, Elizabeth Shepherd married William McNiel, the son of Reverend George McNiel, probably in Wilkes County.  You might have noticed that this was in the middle of the Revolutionary War, and in many counties, not much was getting registered about that time, including marriages.  Their first child, at least the first child that survived, arrived on October 26, 1784, which would suggest that they were married probably sometime in 1783 or maybe early 1784 – although unsourced family history shows the marriage as occurring in 1781.

Elizabeth’s husband, William McNiel, was also from Spotsylvania County, Virginia, enlisting in the Revolutionary War from there in 1777.  Did she know him before they moved to Wilkes County?  It’s quite likely she did. It’s probable that the Reverend George McNiel recruited a number of Spotsylvania County families to undertake the move to Wilkes County.

Life in Wilkes County

The first church established on the Reddies River was located on the crest of Deep Ford Hill.  The name was derived from the fact that the original road leading from New River in what is now Ashe County to the Yadkin Valley crossed the Reddies River at the foot of this hill, and that the ford at this crossing was unusually deep – thus the name Deep Ford Hill.

This Baptist church was established as early as 1783 according to the records of the Flat Rock Church.  The Reverend George McNiel was the preacher and the Shepherds made up most of the congregation along with their immediate neighbors, the Rowlands, Judds and others.

The Abstract of the Reddies River Church Membership 1798-1889 by Paul Gregory shows that charter members that were members in 1798 include Robert Shepherd and wife Sarah along with Robert’s brother John and his wife Sarah and their black woman, Grace.  It does not include William McNiel or his wife, which is probably a good indication they were living in Ashe County by this time, or that the original membership, even though listed in 1798, was actually from an earlier date.  The actual title says “Charter Members” but the date on the page is 1798, which could mean that these are the charter members still attending in 1798.  I have seen in other churches where they listed charter members, almost as a retrospective, at a later date

It is also mentioned that some of the Reddies River people buried their dead at the church, probably not much later than 1825.  There is no exact census of this cemetery and it may very well simply have been the Shepherd family cemetery.

I visited George McNeil in Wilkes County in 2007 and he was gracious enough to show me all of the early family cemeteries and homeplaces.  George and his wife, Joyce, then deceased, are both my cousins on different family lines, and I had known them through genealogy research for more than 20 years.  It was wonderful to meet George, but sad to have missed Joyce with whom I exchanged pen and ink letters for years.  George and Joyce spent much of their married life visiting the various Wilkes County cemeteries and cataloging the graves.  What a wonderful legacy to leave.

George took me to the location of the Deep Ford Church and cemetery, across the road from the church.  Nothing remains today of either, sadly.

According to George, the location of the Deep Ford Church was at the intersection of Shingle Gap Road and NC 16 and the cemetery was directly across the street where a trailer today sits on the former cemetery.  Locals recalled seeing the original stones when George McNiel was doing the cemetery census.

Years ago, probably 40 now, the landowner used the gravestones to construct a chicken house.  Yes, a chicken house.  Then, he later bulldozed the chicken house including all of the gravestones into the creek.  Would it be evil of me to hope they have all haunted him?  I just so desperately wanted to go wading in that creek to see if I could find those stones.

Deep Ford cemetery

This is the land where the mobile home sits where the cemetery once stood, and across the road the church was located about where the gas station sits today.

What we do know is that Elizabeth’s father, Robert Shepherd died on June 5, 1817 and was buried in this cemetery.  In addition, Robert’s brother John died on June 11, 1810 and is buried here as well as is Elizabeth’s mother who died sometime after 1816, possibly in 1829.  Sadly, Elizabeth would have already been in Claiborne County Tennessee when her parents died, although she would have stood here to bury her uncle, John, knowing full well that her parents would one day rest here too.  If Elizabeth did marry William McNiel in 1781, then she may have buried a child here as well, as their first known child was born in 1784.

William McNiel first shows up on the 1786 Wilkes County tax list and is living 3 houses away from his father, George McNiel.  William and Elizabeth own no land until 1792. In 1792-1793 they own 60 acres, but then go missing from 1794-1796.  In 1797, they have 530 acres and are now living by Nathaniel Vannoy.

When I originally found William McNiel living beside Nathaniel Vannoy, I thought sure I had hit pay dirt, because Elizabeth’s daughter, Lois, married Elijah Vannoy about 1807 and we didn’t, at that time, know who Elijah’s father was.  As it turns out, Nathaniel Vannoy was not Elijah’s father, but his uncle.

The book “Early Settlers of Reddies River” by Paul Gregory tells us that Elizabeth’s family lived on Deep Ford Hill, but that William McNiel moved either before 1800 or about 1803, depending on which of his statements you use, to what is now Ashe County and then to Claiborne County, TN about 1810.

It’s obvious that William McNiel and Elizabeth moved around a bit.  Was she pleased with that arrangement, or did she just want to settle in one place and be done with it?  I’m guessing she had her hands full with a new child arriving every other year and the last thing she wanted to do was move back and forth over the highest mountain range within hundreds of miles.

They last record we have of William and Elizabeth in Wilkes or Ashe County is in 1810 when they deed land to Elijah Vannoy and his wife, their daughter, Lois.

Judging from these two deeds from Wilkes County Deed Book GH, Elizabeth and William moved back from Ashe County in early 1810 and then sold that land to their son-in-law, Elijah Vannoy the last day of the year.

Page 178 – February 3, 1810 from James Steward and William McNiel of Ashe County NC for $200, 150 acres on the waters of the North fork of Lewis Fork, it being the place where William Yates now lives.  Signed by James Steward and witnessed by Alexander Brown and Thomas Brown.

Page 175 – December 31, 1810 between William McNeel and Elijah Vannoy for $250, 150 acres on Boller Creek, a fork of Lewis Fork, place where William McNeel now lives.  Witness John Forrester and John Forrester Jr.  Signed by William McNeel

Apparently at that time, Lois and Elijah were not planning their migration to Claiborne County, or they probably wouldn’t have purchased the land from her parents.

Perhaps there were discussions wherever people gathered, at the church, at the mill and at the courthouse, about Claiborne County, Tennessee, because what I would term a massive exodus of Wilkes County residents occurred about this time, with many settling together in the northern part of Claiborne County, near the Lee County, VA border.  Some spilled over into the part of Hawkins bordering Claiborne and the Lee County border.  This area could have been called “Little Wilkes.”  Eventually, all of this land would become Hancock County in Tennessee

Claiborne County, Tennessee

By about 1811 or so, William McNiel and Elizabeth Shepherd McNiel would leave Wilkes and Ashe County forever, moving to Claiborne County, Tennessee.  Elizabeth, now age 44 or 45 would have her last child about the time they set out on their journey.  Elizabeth’s oldest child, Lois, would already have been married to Elijah Vannoy for 3 or 4 years by this time and they would accompany Elizabeth and William.

There is a very interesting story about how this caravan of settlers got to Tennessee.  Elijah Vannoy’s daughter said they traveled by flatboat and the journey took two years.  This story is told in detail in the Elijah and Joel Vannoy stories, as Joel, Elizabeth’s grandson, was reportedly born during this journey.

We know William made it to Claiborne County and lived to at least 1816 because he witnessed a deed.  This William McNiel has to be the husband of Elizabeth because their son, William was only born about 1810 and there were no other McNiel families, by any spelling, living in that region.

In 1816 Levi Carner sells to George McNiel a tract of land lying on the North side of Powell Mountain near Mulberry Gap containing 69 acres for $525.  Signed in the presence of William McNiel, James Anderson and Burrell G. Sullivant.

I’m fairly certain that Elizabeth’s husband, William, was gone by May of 1823 when William Inglebarger sells land to Neal McNeal and the transaction is signed by his mother, Elizabeth, his uncle, John McNeil and Joel Fairchild.  None of the witnesses can write and all signed with an X, including Elizabeth – so she cannot write.

Unfortunately, there is no 1820 census for Claiborne County, and by the 1830 census, shown below, William McNiel was gone.  Elizabeth McNiel is listed on the census however, living adjacent her son Neal or Niel or Neil, depending on how the name was spelled that day.  The last name was also spelled in a wide variety of ways, and Neal and McNeal, first and last name spellings, don’t always match either.

Elizabeth also lives just a few houses away from her daughter and son-in-law, Elijah and Lois McNiel Vannoy, spelled Vernoy here.

1830 Claiborne McNiel census

In 1830, Elizabeth is a widow.  There are no records of any deeds showing that William McNiel purchased land.  It’s worth noting that Elizabeth also lived adjacent Eli Davis, because Elijah Vannoy’s son, Joel, would marry Phebe Crumley and in 1840, Phebe’s father, William Crumley (the third) is living beside Eli Davis.  This family that makes up my ancestors is being woven together in place and time one strand at a time.

Also note that Elizabeth lives 2 houses from Josiah Ramsey.  We’ll need that in a minute too.

I wonder if William McNiel passed away about 1816, because Lois’s son, William is born about 1816 and she may have named the child after her father if he was ill.  The last sighting we have of William is when he witnessed an 1817 deed.  Given that William never owned land, he would very likely have qualified as an impoverished Revolutionary War veteran and might have applied for benefits in 1818, were he alive.

In 1840, Elizabeth is no longer listed on the census, nor is a woman of her age listed living with any of her children.  Elizabeth passed away sometime between 1830 and 1840.  I’m inclined to think she passed away between 1830 and 1832, because I have never been able to find any records that she applied for a Revolutionary War widow’s pension.  That act was passed on June 7, 1832 and while these people may have been distant and lived back in the mountains, applications were being drafted and sent from this area within a month of that legislation.  The grapevine was a powerful communications medium, especially when it involved either juicy gossip or money.

Never Underestimate Your Cousins

When I published the story about Joel Vannoy, my lovely cousin, Dolores wrote to me and asked how I knew the land on Mulberry Creek, across from the “bridge house” was the exact land Elijah owned?  To anyone familiar with this area, the house with the bridge in front, crossing the creek between the house and the road, is a landmark.  There is only one house fitting that description.

Mulberry Gap road and creek

I explained to her that cousin Dan had found the land based on the stream in Elijah’s land grant survey, and then the homeowner had Elijah’s original land grant from the state of Tennessee.  Dolores said she wondered, because the Ramsey family eventually came into possession of that land.  Nothing more was said, because while Dolores and I are cousins, it’s not through the Vannoy or McNiel lines or her Ramsey line.  Those lines did intermarry later, but are not our common ancestors.

Then, a couple weeks later, I happened across a piece of information that seemed important.

Niel McNiel’s land abutted that of Josiah Ramsey.  Josiah Ramsey is noted at being the progenitor of the Ramsey line in Claiborne/Hancock County, and, there is an old Ramsey Cemetery.  Now, the Vannoy Cemetery is “missing,” soooo, I had to ask Dolores if she knew exactly where the Josiah Ramsey Cemetery is located.  Sure enough, not only did she know where it was located, she sent me more than I asked for, including some important puzzle pieces for me that she didn’t even know she had.

Since William McNiel never owned land and Elizabeth is living beside son Niel in 1830, it occurred to me that I should see if I could locate the land that Niel patented in several land grants.  Sure enough, I did, and it’s just a couple miles north of Elijah Vannoy and Lois McNiel Vannoy’s land on Mulberry Creek.

Cousin Dolores sent two documents of primary importance.

Ramsey lands

On this map, note the Thomas Chapel Church, lower left, the Liberty School and Bales Gap.  They are and were important to finding locations on present day maps.  Josiah Ramsey’s land is noted as well.

On the 1830 census, Elizabeth McNiel and Niel McNiel live between Josiah Ramsey and Eli Davis.

Josiah Ramsey land division

On this map, Ramsey researchers have overlaid the Josiah Ramsey lands.  Two areas are of particular importance

First, Neil McNeil’s land, abutting Eli Davis, is shown on the upper right.

In the lower left, Daniel Rice’s land is shown where it would abut Elijah Vannoy’s lands, which confirms yet a third way that we indeed have located Elijah’s land correctly. Given that in the 1840 census, William Crumley (the third,) whose daughter Phebe would marry Joel Vannoy, son of Elijah Vannoy, is living dead center between Eli Davis and Littleton Brooks, we now know exactly where he was living and we can see how close he lived to Joel Vannoy’s land that abutted Elijah’s land.  Whohooooo…my lucky day!

Now, where is this land today?

McNiel Vannoy land

I mapped the location where Elizabeth Shepherd McNiel would have been living next to Niel McNiel on present day Turner Hollow Road at the far right end of the blue line.  At the far left end of the blue line, where the red balloon is located is near where Elizabeth’s daughter Lois McNiel lived on Mulberry Gap Road with her husband Elijah Vannoy.  Keep in mind that they would likely have taken the “back way since Rebel Hollow and Turner Hollow intersect and it looks like Joel and Elijah Vannoy probably owned the land between Mulberry Gap Road and the back side of Rebel Hollow Road.  The actual address of the Vannoy property is across the road from both 7321 and 6979 Mulberry Gap Road, today.

To go from Neal and Elizabeth’s to Joel and Lois’s you had to pass the Ramsey land and mill located about where the “8 minute” box is located on the blue line.

Niel McNiel land

On this map, you can see Bales Gap, then to the left you can see where Bales Ford either still does or once crossed the Powell River.  If you look at the Niel McNiel land, you can see that if you draw a line straight right from Bales Ford, it intersects the Niel McNiel upper land at the beginning, about the blue dot on Turner Hollow Road.

Ironically, I see on the upper border of this photo Bartley Hollow which is the land that was owned by cousin Dolores’s family – downstream of the Speak line she and I share.  It seems it’s always a small world in these mountain communities.

Josiah Ramsey land - Niel McNiel

On this enlarged area of the property map, you can see the driveway or private road on Neil McNeil’s land.

Niel McNiel driveway

On this map, you can see where the current day driveway or road occurs on the Niel McNiel map and its branch into the Eli Davis land.

Niel McNiel land brackets

On this map, I’ve noted with arrows the approximate location of the boundaries of both of Niel McNiel’s parcels.

Given that we know that Elizabeth Shepherd McNiel lived by her son Niel, and now we know where Niel lived – we also know where Elizabeth lived – and probably where she died as well.

In fact, this might be Elizabeth’s house.  Family lore says that this is the house that Lois McNiel eloped out of to marry Elijah Vannoy.  However, this story came out of Hancock County, not Wilkes County and this house could be Lois’s parents’ house, but in Hancock County, not Wilkes.

McNiel cabin

Given that William died sometime after 1816 but before the 1830 census, he had to be buried someplace.  Son George McNiel also lived in this vicinity.  By the 1830s when Elizabeth died, surely there was an established cemetery for the McNiel clan in this immediate area – maybe in conjunction with Elijah Vannoy.  Maybe both families had a cemetery on their land.  In either case, both are now lost, so while we know that Elizabeth was likely buried someplace on this land, or perhaps on Elijah’s land where her daughter lived, we don’t know where that might be.

One thing these Ramsey maps did point out is just how many small, undocumented family cemeteries exist, or existed – and there are surely more that we don’t know about – especially early cemeteries abandoned when the original family moved away.

After Elizabeth’s death both the Vannoys and the McNiel’s would sell their land on Mulberry Creek and move down the road a few miles into Claiborne County on Little Sycamore Creek where they were all living in the 1870s.

A hundred years later, when I first visited the Claiborne County families, all knowledge of the location of the original land in Hancock County had disappeared into the mists of time.

Elizabeth’s DNA

In the Lois McNiel article, I listed her daughters that gave their mitochondrial DNA to their children in the hope that maybe someone descends from these daughters to the current generation through all females.  The current generation can be a male, since women give their mitochondrial DNA to all of their children, but only the females pass it on.

Here, we list Elizabeth’s daughters, with the hope that we can find a descendant whose DNA we can test to add a chapter to Elizabeth’s story.  Where did her maternal line originate?

Elizabeth’s daughters who had female children who may have descendants today through all females are as follows:

  • Lois McNiel born about 1786 and married Elijah Vannoy about 1807 in Wilkes County. Lois died in the 1830s in Claiborne, now Hancock, County, TN. She had daughter Permelia born in 1810 who married John Baker and had daughters Sirena and Nancy Jane. Lois’s daughter Nancy also born about 1810 married George Loughmiller and had daughters Mermelia, Mary, Elizabeth, Sarah, Marty and Lyda. Lois’s daughter Sarah born in 1821 married Joseph Adams and moved to Arkansas.  They had daughters Nancy Jane who married Franklin Skaggs, Rebecca who married William Leroy Throckmorton Bee Boren and Margaret Ann who married John Ward and moved to Oregon.
  • Sarah or Sallie McNiel was born about 1784 and married Joel Fairchild in Wilkes County. They moved to Claiborne County where Sallie died on January 2, 1861 and is buried in the Fairchild Cemetery in Hancock County. She had daughter Elizabeth Fairchild born between 1820-1825 who married Samuel McCullough and had daughters Sarah (b 1852), Elizabeth (b 1864), Susan (b 1867) and Cordia (b 1870).
  • Mary was born about 1792 in Wilkes County. She married Robert Campbell in 1817 in Claiborne County and died in 1881 in Bradley County, TN. I show only one child for her, Anderson, but I have a very difficult time believing she didn’t have additional children.
  • Nancy McNiel born in 1794 in Wilkes County married Alexander Campbell in 1815 in Claiborne County and is shown with only 3 male children. She died in 1839 in Hancock County. She likely outlived her mother, but not by long.
  • Elizabeth McNiel born between 1800 and 1810 married Andrew McClary. The 1840 census shows them with 2 daughters, but I can’t find the family in 1850.

If you descend from any of these women through all females, please contact me.  There is a DNA scholarship waiting for you.

In Summary

Elizabeth was an amazing lady, even though we only know her through the records of the men around her, except for the 1830 census.

She saw and lived through two wars fought on our own soil, the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.  Her husband fought in the Revolution, although they weren’t married at that time.  Two of her uncles fought as well, one at King’s Mountain.  Her father was a patriot and provided supplies.

Elizabeth was a young teen at the beginning of the Revolutionary War and a young woman when it ended.  Life must have been interesting, listening to the talk of the war as news trickled in about battles fought and lost or won…and lives lost.  Those who farmed yesterday, fought today and would never come home.  All they could do was pray.

It was during this time that the family moved from Spotsylvania County, Virginia to Wilkes County, NC.  Was the war somehow part of the reason?  Was the journey more dangerous because of the war?  Surely it was, because the Indians had allied themselves with the British.

Elizabeth was involved with the formation of the first Baptist Church in Wilkes County.  Her parents were Baptist, the neighbors were Baptist…Elizabeth was going to be a Baptist and that’s all there was to that!  An entire group of Baptists moved from Spotsylvania County to Wilkes County, along with their preacher, Reverend George McNiel, Elizabeth’s future father-in-law – and Elizabeth was among them.

A few years later, Elizabeth’s sons were old enough to have served in the War of 1812, but I don’t have any documentation that says they did.  This was during the time they were migrating from Wilkes County to Claiborne County – and if it did take 2 years as family lore suggests, that might be why her sons never served.

Elizabeth lived in two centuries and survived in the Appalachian mountains of Tennessee with children and without a husband.  She probably buried babies and children, possibly alongside the trail.  She raised ten children to adulthood.

Elizabeth left Spotsylvania County, Virginia and would ultimately live in three states and on two untamed frontiers.  At least twice, she pulled up stakes, packed up a wagon with all of her belongings along with a bounty of children, in the middle of a war, and set out for the unknown.

Indeed, Elizabeth was an amazing woman.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Botocudo Ancient Remains from Brazil

Update: Please note that I am leaving this article because the scientific information is accurate, BUT, it was subsequently discovered that the remains were mislabeled in the museum and were not Native.

One thing you can always count on in the infant science of population genetics…  whatever you think you know, for sure, for a fact…well….you don’t.  So don’t say too much, too strongly or you’ll wind up having to decide if you’d like catsup with your crow!  Well, not literally, of course.  It’s an exciting adventure that we’re on together and it just keeps getting better and better.  And the times…they are a changin’.

We have some very interesting news to report.  Fortunately, or unfortunately – the news weaves a new, but extremely interesting, mystery.

Ancient Mitochondrial DNA

Back in 2013, a paper, Identification of Polynesian mtdNA haplogroups in remains of Botocudo Amerindians from Brazil, was published that identified both Native American and Polynesian haplogroups in a group of 14 skeletal remains of Botocudo Indians from Brazil whose remains arrived at a Museum in August of 1890 and who, the scientists felt, died in the second half of the 19th century.

Twelve of their mitochondrial haplogroups were the traditional Native haplogroup of C1.

However, two of the skulls carried Polynesian haplogroups, downstream of haplogroup B, specifically B4a1a1a and B4a1a1, that compare to contemporary individuals from Polynesian, Solomon Island and Fijian populations.  These haplotypes had not been found in Native people or previous remains.

Those haplogroups include what is known as the Polynesian motif and are found in Indonesian populations and also in Madagascar, according to the paper, but the time to the most common recent ancestor for that motif was calculated at 9,300 years plus or minus 2000 years.  This suggests that the motif arose after the Asian people who would become the Native Americans had already entered North and South America through Beringia, assuming there were no later migration waves.

The paper discusses several possible scenarios as to how a Polynesian haplotype found its way to central Brazil among a now extinct Native people. Of course, the two options are either pre-Columbian (pre-1500) contact or post-Columbian contact which would infer from the 1500s to current and suggests that the founders who carried the Polynesian motif were perhaps either slaves or sailors.

In the first half of the 1800s, the Botocudo Indians had been pacified and worked side by side with African slaves on plantations.

Beyond that, without full genome sequencing there was no more that could be determined from the remains at that time.  We know they carried a Polynesian motif, were found among Native American remains and at some point in history, intermingled with the Native people because of where they were found.  Initial contact could have been 9,000 years ago or 200.  There was no way to tell.  They did have some exact HVR1 and HVR2 matches, so they could have been “current,” but I’ve also seen HVR1 and HVR2 matches that reach back to a common ancestor thousands of years ago…so an HVR1/HVR2 match is nothing you can take to the bank, certainly not in this case.

Full Genome Sequencing and Y DNA

This week, one on my subscribers, Kalani, mentioned that Felix Immanuel had uploaded another two kits to GedMatch of ancient remains.  Those two kits are indeed two of the Botocudo remains – the two with the Polynesian mitochondrial motif which have now been fully sequenced.  A corresponding paper has been published as well, “Two ancient genomes reveal Polynesian ancestry among the indigenous Botocudos of Brazil” by Malaspinas et al with supplemental information here.

There are two revelations which are absolutely fascinating in this paper and citizen scientist’s subsequent work.

First, their Y haplogroups are C-P3092 and C-Z31878, both equivalent to C-B477 which identifies former haplogroup C1b2.  The Y haplogroups aren’t identified in the paper, but Felix identified them in the raw data files that are available (for those of you who are gluttons for punishment) at the google drive links in Felix’s article Two Ancient DNA from indigenous Botocudos of Brazil.

I’ve never seen haplogroup C1b2 as Native American, but I wanted to be sure I hadn’t missed a bus, so I contacted Ray Banks who is one of the administrators for the main haplogroup C project at Family Tree DNA and also is the coordinator for the haplogroup C portion of the ISOGG tree.

ISOGG y tree

You can see the position of C1b2, C-B477 in yellow on the ISOGG (2015) tree relative to the position of C-P39 in blue, the Native American SNP shown several branches below, both as branches of haplogroup C.

Ray maintains a much more descriptive tree of haplogroup C1 at this link and of C2 at this link.

Ray Banks C1 tree

The branch above is the Polynesian (B477) branch and below, the Native American (P39) branch of haplogroup C.

Ray Banks C2 treeIn addition to confirming the haplogroup that Felix identified, when Ray downloaded the BAM files and analyzed the contents, he found that both samples were also positive for M38 and M208, which moves them downstream two branches from C1b2 (B477).

Furthermore, one of the samples had a mutation at Z32295 which Ray has included as a new branch of the C tree, shown below.

Ray Banks Z32295

Ray indicated that the second sample had a “no read” at Z32295, so we don’t know if he carried this mutation.  Ray mentions that both men are negative for many of the B459 equivalents, which would move them down one more branch.  He also mentioned that about half of the Y DNA sites are missing, meaning they had no calls in the sequence read.  This is common in ancient DNA results.  It would be very interesting to have a Big Y or equivalent test on contemporary individuals with this haplogroup from the Pacific Island region.

Ray notes that all Pacific Islanders may be downstream of Z33295.

Not Admixed

The second interesting aspect of the genomic sequencing is that the remains did not show any evidence of admixture with European, Native American nor African individuals.  More than 97% of their genome fits exactly with the Polynesian motifs.  In other words, they appear to be first generation Polynesians.  They carry Polynesian mitochondrial, Y and autosomal (nuclear) DNA, exclusively.

Botocudo not admixed

In total, 25 Botocudo remains have been analyzed and of those, two have Polynesian ancestry and those two, BOT15 and BOT17, have exclusively Polynesian ancestry as indicated in the graphic above from the paper.

When did they live?  Accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon dating with marine correction gives us dates of 1479-1708 AD and 1730-1804 for specimen BOT15 and 1496-1842 for BOT17.

The paper goes on to discuss four possible scenarios for how this situation occurred and the pros and cons of each.

The Polynesian Peru Slave Trade

This occurred between 1862-1864 and can be ruled out because the dates for the skulls predate this trade period, significantly.

The Madagascar-Brazil Slave Trade

The researchers state that Madagascar is known to have been peopled by Southeast Asians and not by Polynesians.  Another factor excluding this option is that it’s known that the Malagasy ancestors admixed with African populations prior to the slave trade.  No such ancestry was detected in the samples, so these individuals were not brought as a result of the Madagascar-Brazil slave trade – contrary to what has been erroneously inferred and concluded.

Voyaging on European Ships as Crew, Passengers or StowAways

Trade on Euroamerican ships in the Pacific only began after 1760 AD and by 1760, Bot15 and Bot17 were already deceased with a probability of .92 and .81, respectively, making this scenario unlikely, but not entirely impossible.

Polynesian Voyaging

Polynesian ancestors originated from East Asia and migrated eastwards, interacting with New Guineans before colonizing the Pacific.  These people did colonize the Pacific, as unlikely as it seems, traveling thousands of miles, reaching New Zealand, Hawaii and Easter Island between 1200 and 1300 AD.  Clearly they did not reach Brazil in this timeframe, at least not as related to these skeletal remains, but that does not preclude a later voyage.

Of the four options, the first two appear to be firmly eliminated which leaves only the second two options.

One of the puzzling aspects of this analysis it the “pure” Polynesian genome, eliminating admixture which precludes earlier arrival.

The second puzzling aspect is how the individuals, and there were at least two, came to find themselves in Minas Gerais, Brazil, and why we have not found this type of DNA on the more likely western coastal areas of South America.

Minas Gerais Brazil

Regardless of how they arrived, they did, and now we know at least a little more of their story.

GedMatch

At GedMatch, it’s interesting to view the results of the one-to-one matching.

Both kits have several matches.  At 5cM and 500 SNPs, kit F999963 has 86 matches.  Of those, the mitochondrial haplogroup distribution is overwhelmingly haplogroup B, specifically B4a1a1 with a couple of interesting haplogroup Ms.

F999963 mito

Y haplogroups are primarily C2, C3 and O.   C3 and O are found exclusively in Asia – meaning they are not Native.

F999963 Y

Kit F999963 matches a couple of people at over 30cM with a generation match estimate just under 5 generations.  Clearly, this isn’t possible given that this person had died by about 1760, according to the paper, which is 255 years or about 8.5-10 generations ago, but it says something about the staying power of DNA segments and probably about endogamy and a very limited gene pool as well.  All matches over 15cM are shown below.

F999963 largest

Kit F999964 matches 97 people, many who are different people that kit F999963 matched.  So these ancient Polynesian people,  F999963 and F999964 don’t appear to be immediate relatives.

F999964 mito

Again, a lot of haplogroup B mitochondrial DNA, but less haplogroup C Y DNA and no haplogroup O individuals.

F999964 Y

Kit F999964 doesn’t match anyone quite as closely as kit F999963 did in terms of total cM, but the largest segment is 12cM, so the generational estimate is still at 4.6,  All matches over 15cM are shown below.

F999964 largest

Who are these individuals that these ancient kits are matching?  Many of these individuals know each other because they are of Hawaiian or Polynesian heritage and have already been working together.  Several of the Hawaiian folks are upwards of 80%, one at 94% and one believed to be 100% Hawaiian.  Some of these matches are to Maori, a Polynesian people from New Zealand, with one believed to be 100% Maori in addition to several admixed Maori.  So obviously, these ancient remains are matching contemporary people with Polynesian ancestry.

The Unasked Question

Sooner or later, we as a community are going to have to face the question of exactly what is Native or aboriginal.  In this case, because we do have the definitive autosomal full genome testing that eliminates admixture, these two individuals are clearly NOT Native.  Without full genomic testing, we would have never known.

But what if they had arrived 200 years earlier, around 1500 AD, one way or another, possibly on an early European ship, and had intermixed with the Native people for 10 generations?  What if they carried a Polynesian mitochondrial (or Y) DNA motif, but they were nearly entirely Native, or so much Native that the Polynesian could no longer be found autosomally?  Are they Native?  Is their mitochondrial or Y DNA now also considered to be Native?  Or is it still Polynesian?  Is it Polynesian if it’s found in the Cook Islands or on Hawaii and Native if found in South America?  How would we differentiate?

What if they arrived, not in 1500 AD, but about the year 500 AD, or 1000 BCE or 2000 BCE or 3000 BCE – after the Native people from Asia arrived but unquestionably before European contact?  Does that make a difference in how we classify their DNA?

We don’t have to answer this yet today, but something tells me that we will, sooner or later…and we might want to start pondering the question.

Acknowledgements: 

I want to thank all of the people involved whose individual work makes this type of comparative analysis possible.  After all, the power of genetic genealogy, contemporary or ancient, is in collaboration.  Without sharing, we have nothing. We learn nothing.  We make no progress.

In addition to the various scientists and papers already noted, special thanks to Felix Immanual for preparing and uploading the ancient files.  This is no small task and the files often take a month of prep each.  Thanks to Kalani for bringing this to my attention.  Thanks to Ray Banks for his untiring work with haplogroup C and for maintaining his haplogroup webpage with specifics about where the various subgroups are found.  Thanks to ISOGG’s volunteers for the haplotree.  Thanks to GedMatch for providing this wonderful platform and tools.  Thanks to everyone who uploads their DNA, and that of their relatives and works on specific types of projects – like Hawaiian and Maori.  Thanks to my haplogroup C-P39 co-administrators, Dr. David Pike and Marie Rundquist, for their contributions to this discussion and for working together on the Native American Haplogroup C-P39 Project.  It’s important to have other people who are passionate about the same subjects to bounce things off of and to work with.  This is the perfect example of the power of collaboration!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

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

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research