John Campbell’s early life is shrouded in the mists of time.  We can’t positively identify him until he’s an adult, living in Claiborne County, Tennessee, beginning in 1802.  By that time, he would have been roughly 30 years old, married, and probably had 2 or 3 children by his wife, Jane “Jenny” Dobkins, daughter of Jacob Dobkins and Dorcas Johnson.

The closest thing to proof we have that Jane was a Dobkins is Claiborne County lawyer and historian, P.G. Fulkerson (born in 1840) who interviewed old-timers and documented the early families.  He stated that Jacob’s daughter, Jane, married John Campbell and his other daughter Elizabeth married George Campbell. Jacob Dobkins died in 1833, and the Claiborne County courthouse burned in 1838, so if Jacob had a will or estate settlement that named his children, it’s lost to flames.

We believe that John Campbell was born in Virginia based on census information from his children in 1880.

John’s children were:

• Jacob Campbell born about 1810, died 1879/1880, Collin Co., TX, married Temperance Rice
• Elizabeth born about 1802, dead before 1842, married Lazarus Dodson
• Elmira born about 1804 married John Pearson
• Jane born about 1807, married a Freeman, then a Cloud
• Martha born 1807/1808, died after 1850, married Elisha Jones, moved to Coles County, Illinois before 1839
• Rutha born about 1813, died after 1870, married Preston Holt
• George Washington Campbell born about 1813, died in 1860 in Texas, married Nancy Eastridge, then Mary unknown
• William Newton Campbell born 1817, died 1908 Tillman Co. OK, married Sydnia Holt

I spent years, decades actually, chasing the wrong parents for John Campbell.  I’ve chased so many parents for this man that I’ve just about ruled everyone out and the ones I haven’t ruled out HAVE to be his parents by process of elimination.  If only it were that easy.  Campbells are like rabbits – they have huge families, are found everyplace and they all have the same first names.  John – how could you be any more generic?  And the man we presume is his brother is named George.  Not much better.  Why not Hezekiah and Azariah???

Several years ago a cousin sent me part of her Campbell research, 4 pages of a 23 page document.  In the portion she sent, she states that back in the 1950s, some Campbell relatives were interviewed who were quite elderly, and they reported that John’s father had been James, as told by their grandparents.  That information morphed into the James Campbell from the northern part of Hawkins County who was also descended from the Crockett line.  This did make some sense, as John’s grandson’s middle name was Crockett, although his first name was David.  The problem is that when you track that James in Hawkins County, TN and his widow and children, there is no John and absolutely no hint of a connection with the John Campbell in Claiborne County, Tennessee, nor the George he is so closely associated with.  Not only that, but James Campbell lived in Carter’s Valley, no place near Jacob Dobkins whose daughters John and George Campbell both married.

In Hawkins County, there are two very distinctive groups of Campbell men.  The group that lived about 20 miles north of Rogersville in Carter’s Valley, who believed they were actually settling in Virginia originally, and Charles Campbell who lived just south of Rogersville across the Holston River on Dodson Creek.  The North group is who James Campbell descended from the Crockett family is associated with.  Charles Campbell, living on Dodson Creek, had 2 sons, John and George, and Jacob Dobkins, whose daughters John and George married, lived just up the road at Bulls Gap, about 9 miles or so.  Charles Campbell lived at the ford of the Holston River, so I’d wager that everyone who crossed the river stopped by to visit, probably including Jacob Dobkins and his daughters.

Charles Campbell was living on Dodson’s Creek in 1788 and possibly as early as 1783.  In 1793, he deeded land jointly to John and George Campbell, from Hawkins Co., for 45#, 150 acres on the south side of the Holston River on the west fork of Dodson Creek.  Charles signed the deed and John Payne was the witness.  The description was metes and bounds except for a stake at the mountain.

On Feb. 26, 1802, book 3-54, George and John Campbell of Hawkins Co. sell to Daniel Seyster the 149 acres on the fork of Dodson Creek where “John Campbell now lives” for 225#.  Both men signed and the witnesses are William Paine, Michael Roark and Charles Campbell. It was proved in the May session of the court in 1802 by Michael Roark, which implies that the Campbell men were gone by that time.

John Campbell is no longer found in Hawkins County.  On May 1, 1802, John first appears in Claiborne County when he purchases land from Alexander Outlaw.  This deed is in the loose papers in the front of deed book A.

Alexander Outlaw of Jefferson Co. TN to John Campbell of Claiborne, copied from Book A page 32 – May 1, 1802 – for $400 in hand and paid by John Campbell, tract of land on the North fork of Sycamore Creek adjoining a survey of 640 acres of James Cooper and Nathaniel Henderson beginning on a grassy hill on the North side of said Creek…300 acres.  Alexander signs.  Witness Jacob Dobbins and James A. Perreman.  Registered July 7 1802.

In the same court session, John Campbell is assigned with other men to “view and lay out a road from Fort Butler to Mulberry Gap and report to next court.”

In 1809, John purchases slaves on the same day, from the same person who sells slaves to Jacob Dobkins.  Note that this same male slave, or another by the same name, is sold within the family in 1839 after John Campbell’s death.

March 29, 1809 – Jesse Cheek of Grainger County to John Campbell, negro boy Charles for $300, signed and witnessed by Solomon and Reuben Dobkins. (note this same day Jesse Cheek and his daughter sold slaves to Jacob Dobkins as well).

1809 – Elizabeth Cheek of Grainger does sell and deliver a negro girl named Jamima aged six years unto John Campbell of Claiborne and by virtue and effect of these presents to bind myself and my heirs to warrant and defend said negro from all persons and claims…Elizabeth signs…March 24, 1809 witness Jesse Cheek Senior and Jr.

Followed directly by…

I, Jesse Cheek, hath bargained and sold unto Jacob Dobkins 4 negroes names Aneker or Anekey, Mitilty, Jiary, Amelyer for the consideration of $130 in hand paid.  March 29, 1809 Jesse signs, registered July 30, 1809.  John Campbell and Solomon Dobkins witness.

In 1811, John Campbell purchases more land.

Jan. 21, 1811 Abner Chapman of Warren Co., Georgia to John Campbell of Claiborne $100 the land where said John Campbell now lives at the head of the north fork of Sycamore Creek (metes and bounds)…original corner of Chapman grant for 400 acres….stake in Campbell’s line…Campbell’s corner…crossing line in Chapman grant…containing 300 acres more or less.  Signed.  Wit Walter Evans and Abel Lanham.  Registered May 18, 1811

For the next many years, John Campbell along with George Campbell and often Jacob Dobkins are assigned as jurors and to work on and lay out roads.  This is normal activity for the timeframe.  Courts, which were held quarterly, were quite the social event of the season – and everyone attended.  If they weren’t a juror, they certainly wanted to watch the proceedings.  It’s said that one time there was so much imbibing that court had to be adjourned because the justices fell off the bench.

It appears in 1812 that John managed to upset someone, although there were two John Campbells, the other being the son of Arthur Campbell of Middlesboro, KY, who lived just beyond the Cumberland Gap.  This Martin Beaty did sue numerous people in the Arthur Campbell family, so maybe our John didn’t get himself sued.

March 25, 1812 – pages 18 and 19 – Martin Beaty vs John Campbell, defendant appears in court by Jacob Peck and Charles F. Keith his attys for slander, appealed for unit of error – moved to next court.  (Note – Beatty lives where Kentucky Rd. crosses Gap Creek, very near Middlesboro, KY where Arthur Campbell lived.)

In 1817, John Campbell was security for Solomon Dobkins, who was a constable.

In 1823, John Campbell buys and sells some land.

1823, June 4 – William Willoughby of Sullivan Co and John Campbell of Claiborne $600 paid in hand tract of land beginning on Brumfield Ridley’s corner chestnut then down the Valley south…stake in the side of Powell’s mountain…200 acres…being the tract where John Condry and others now live.  William Signs.  Witness Hugh Graham and R. Rose.

1823 – John Campbell to Jacob Campbell for $300 land on both sides of main road from the spring fork of Sycamore Creek to Little Mulberry Creek being one half of a two hundred acre tract of land granted by the St of NC to Matthew Willoughby of number 79 dated Feb. 13, 1791 and said half begins at a chestnut tree at the beginning of said grant running with the grant line…crossing said road…stake in the side of Powell’s mountain in the grant line…containing 100 acres to Jacob Campbell.  John Campbell signs.  Witness Walter Evans (he is the clerk).  Registered Jan 15 1824.  Proved in open court May 1823.

John Campbell dies in 1838.  There remains some confusion about exactly where John died.  He had some connection to Coles County, Illinois, possibly only because his daughter lived there and the documents in question may only be referring to her residence in Coles County.  Some indication is that John died there, but in the subsequent deeds, it suggests that he died in Claiborne County.  Regardless, we know that he was dead on or before Sept 22, 1838 when William Hicks built John’s coffin and submitted a receipt for payment for $5.

In 1840, a William Hicks was living 2 doors away from a William and George Campbell, so I’m betting that John Campbell was buried in Claiborne County. William Hicks also purchased items at the estate sale of John Campbell in 1838.  If John was buried in Claiborne County, in September, I’m thinking that no one would want to transport a body from Illinois to Claiborne County for burial, by wagon, at about 20 miles a day.  Google maps says that it’s about 445 miles so that would equate to about 3 weeks.  By that time, I’m thinking they would be burying him along the road someplace or giving him a water burial in the Ohio River.

If John died in Claiborne County, which seems very likely, he could be buried in the old Jacob Dobkins Cemetery which seems to be the family cemetery, shown below, and has many early unmarked graves, including that of Jacob Dobkins and his wife.  There was not a cemetery on John Campbell’s land, unless there was an early cemetery where Liberty Church and cemetery stand today, which is certainly possible.

On the 1839 tax list, John is listed thus in the Rob Camp District in the far northeast part of the county:

• John Campbell, decd – 443 acres worth $1300, 25 school acres worth $10, 2 slaves worth $900

Will Book A – page 71 – inventory of the estate of John Campbell, decd and of sales (3 pages) William Fugate and Jacob Campbell admin.

In the cousin’s research that she sent, she indicated that Henley Fugate was the uncle of John Campbell, and was married to Elizabeth Campbell, sister of John, although that would make Henley John’s brother-in-law, not his uncle.  Henley and Elizabeth’s son, William, according to the cousin, was administrator of John’s estate, along with Jacob Campbell, John’s son, and that somehow William Fugate and Jacob Campbell cheated the heirs out of their money.  There are 4 different court entries accounting for the funds, which don’t look in any way unusual, but there is always a back story to be found, it seems, especially having to do with estate settlements.  The Fugates do seem very connected to the Campbell family, so there may well be a family relationship there. The cousin also indicated that the families had lived adjacent in Virginia but since I can’t seem to find a location in Virginia, I have been unable to confirm that tidbit of data.

John Campbell’s sale was huge, as these things go, and as compared to other estates of the time.

• Cash on hand after paying note – $649
• Note from Johoel and William Fugate  – $15
• Notes from others – $385.22

Apparently John was in the business of lending money as he was owed notes from several people.

John’s estate sale was Feb. 25, 1839.  We don’t know what the weather was like that day.  In Claiborne County, it could have been anything from snowing, slick and miserable to sunny and warm.  The administrators of John’s estate likely wanted to get things sold and felt early spring was a good time because farmers were likely to purchase things they needed for the upcoming planting season.

Sadly, the widow, Jane Campbell, had to purchase her own things at the estate sale, because all property was deemed to be that of the husband.  Therefore, Jane Campbell, widow, purchased the following items for a total of $87.63 and a half cents:

• 1 saw
• 1 little wheel
• 1 set spools
• 1 cupboard furniture
• 1 reel bed and bedding
• 1 chaff bed and feather bed
• 1 lot of gums (guns?)
• Sheet of cotton
• 1 trunk
• 1 clock and case
• 1 lot of hay
• 1 bucket
• 1 set fire irons and shovel
• 1 tin trunk
• 1 set chairs
• 1 lot barrels
• Tub and lard
• 1 ewe and lamb
• 1 mare
• 1 lot of casting
• 1 cow

She obviously purchased her spinning wheel.  I have to wonder at the lack of a listing for the family Bible.

Others at the same purchased:

• 1 tub
• 1 chipping ax
• 1 lot tubs
• 690 lbs bacon
• 1 broad ax
• 1 big wheel
• 1 trunk
• Raxor and box
• Table
• Ax
• 2 pr gears
• 1 yoke oxen
• 2 baskets
• Hoe
• Curry comb and chair
• Piece of steel
• Ax
• Harrow
• 1 bull
• 1 grindstone shovel, plows and bridle
• Remnant of corn
• 1 box shoemakers tools
• Side leather
• 2 lots tools
• Fire irons
• 1 coult
• 1 cow
• Cow
• Horse
• 1 lot sheep
• 4 yearlings
• 1 scythe blade
• Cross cut saw
• Candle stand
• 1 saddle
• 2 pitch forks
• Double tree
• Wheet sive
• Wagon
• Skillet and lid
• Lot plunder
• Lot corn basket and pickett book
• Yoke of oxen
• Lot of tools
• Coult
• 1 horse
• 1 lock chain
• Cow and calf
• 1200# ?
• 1 plain
• 1 mare
• 1 bridle
• 2 hoes
• Coulter and iron
• Remnant of oats
• Cutting knife and hammer
• 202 lb bacon
• 1 lot castings
• Saddle
• Lot of hogs
• Set of chains
• Big plow
• 13 bushels and 3 peck wheat
• Plow
• 50 bushels corn
• Big plow
• Mill peck
• Plow
• Sack of cotton
• Large plow and matchk
• Hoe and stretchers
• 1 bridle
• Grindstone
• 1 shovel, plows
• 1 chair
• Lot tools
• 1 beef hide
• 1 bee gum
• Hoe and rake
• Bridle and lot of corn
• Big sugar
• Bureau
• 1 pair chains
• 1 little when
• 1 side leather and castings
• 1 press
• 1 bee gums
• Blacksmith tools
• Piece of iron
• 2 leather aprons
• Lot of castings and coffee mill
• 1 pair steelyards
• 1 cack bank
• 1 scythe and cradle and houe
• 1 cupboard
• 100 dozen binds of oats
• 1 mattock
• 1 bedstead
• 3 scythes
• 1 cutting knife and scythe
• Plow

The total of the estate sale was $958.58

Was John a shoemaker or a blacksmith?  Was his slave trained to one of these professions?

What else does this tell us about John’s life?  He was obviously a farmer, but everyone was.  He had several horses; 2 mares, 2 colts, 3 horses and 4 yearlings.  He had a “lot of hogs,” which of course means a group that was sold together, and he also had almost 1000 pounds of bacon.  Fall was slaughtering time, so there were quite a few hogs that had been killed and processed, probably in a smoke house.  There was one ewe and lamb and obviously Jane felt fondly towards them.  There was also a “lot of sheep.”  There were 3 cows and a bull and there were 2 yoke of oxen.  Oxen were matched and trained to work together, so they were often sold together as well.

They also had bee gums, which were gum trees that bees lived in.  So in essence, he was an early beekeeper.  This means, of course, that they also had honey, which might be connected to the item called “big sugar.”

They had 3 beds, 3 trunks, 2 cupboards, a bureau and a clock, which was a luxury. John was not a poor farmer.  In fact, few people in Claiborne County had slaves, so John having 2 was rather unusual.  Those who did have slaves had 1 or 2 and a very few people had 10 or more.  In the 1830 census, John had 2 slaves and his father-in-law, Jacob Dobkins, had 4.  Finding this heritage of slavery within the family saddens my heart, although I realize that it was socially acceptable, even desirable, at the time.  Well, desirable by everyone except the slave.  Slaves on small farms were often well treated and had good lives, and I hope that is how these people were treated.

John’s children and their spouses also attended his estate sale except for his daughter, Martha, who lived in Illinois.  It’ must have been a sad day to see your parents things being divided like so much excess and being sold away from your mother.  Jane did, of course, retain her dower right to one third of his estate, but that didn’t stop the estate sale.

In July of 1839, the court record shows each of the children of John Campbell and what they received during their lifetimes.

July 22, 1839 – Estate of John Campbell, amounts received during this lifetime:

• Jacob Campbell $210
• George Campbell (blank)
• Lazarus Dodson 192.95
• Preston and Ruth Holt 170.00
• Jane Freeman 43.50
• Jefferson and Elmire? (Eliza?) Pearson 124.50
• William Campbell 214.00
• Martha Jones 65.75 of Illinois

Page 206 – settlement estate of John Campbell by William Fugate and Jacob Campbell before Wiley Huffaker, clerk of court – paid William Hicks for coffin- Sept 22, 1838 – $5.00  Paid Jane Campbell for her dower June 25, 1839

By 1839, John’s heirs are selling his land to their sibling, along with a slave described as a boy in this document, so not the same person purchased in 1809.

July 29, 1839 – Elisha Jones and Martha Jones his wife, formerly Martha Campbell and daughter of John Campbell, now decd of Coale Co., Illinois, to William and George Campbell of Claiborne Co., for $187.50 assign all right and interest of 1/8^th share in consequence of Martha being a daughter and heir of the said John Cambell in tract of land containing 345 acres adjacent the lands of William McVay and Marcurioius Cook it being the tract of land where on the John Campbell formerly lived and whereon the said John Campbell died seized and possessed of subject to the dower of the widow and all right and title after the death of the widow.  Elisha signs and Martha with an X.  Witness William Niel and Jacob Campbell.

This is the entry that caused the confusion about where John died.  We know that Martha Campbell lived in Illinois, and given the other information we do have, I believe this is mean to convey that Martha Jones is of “Coale Co., Illinois” and not John Campbell.  The words “formerly lived” is always used after death.  John was clearly still very invested in Claiborne County, judging from his significant estate.

On March 30, 1840, John Campbell’s negroes were sold.

In April 1841, the court notes reflect that John’s estate was now worth $2897.64 and two thirds cents.

In July 1841, Wiley Huffaker was the guardian to the children of Elizabeth Campbell Dodson, deceased, and Lazarus Dodson.

Feb 1843 – Settlement of the estate of John Campbell by William Fugate and Jacob Campbell admin.  Amount given to each heir of John Campbell as received by them in the lifetime of said deceased.

• Jacob Campbell $210.00
• George Campbell 103.65
• Lasarous (Lazarus) Dotson 192.75
• Preston Holt 170.16 and a half cents
• Jane Freeman 43.50
• Elmire Pearson 124.50
• William Campbell 214.00
• Martha Jones 65.75

This is a great list, as it shows that John Campbell loaned or gave his children part of their inheritance early.

Jacob Campbell, George Campbell, Jane Freeman, Jefferson Pearson, Preston Holt and Jane Campbell sell to William Campbell for $33.03 and 1/3 cents negro boy Charles which John Campbell died seized and possessed and Jefferson Pearson and Preston Holt having interest in said negro by their marriage with daughters of said John Campbell.  Signed except Jane who makes mark of a plus sign.  Witness Gray Garrett and Hugh Dobkins and registered Jan. 13, 1840.

In October 1843, a final settlement was made with the children of Elizabeth Campbell Dodson which lists her children, by name.

On Jan. 24, 1852, William Campbell sells to Daniel Jones of the same for $1300 the land where Daniel Jones now lives including the residence of John Campbell decd lying on Little Sycamore Creek including part of 2 grants, one to Alexander Outlaw and the other to Abner Chapman, beginning….southwest corner of Outlaw grant…closing line of Chapman grant…conditional corner between William Campbell and Daniel Jones…Outlaw grant.  Signed.  Registered March 10, 1852.  Witness Tennessee Cook and William Fugate.

This last deed clearly identifies which John Campbell we are talking about.  I brought these deeds forward in time, hoping to find a landmark of some sort that I could locate today. I was very lucky.  Skipping several transactions, I found this:

1903 – Jane Ann Jones et all to G.R. Sulfridge – deed of trust – all the old Daniel Jones home farm and tract deeded to Ann Jane Jones except that previously deeded to H. Friar and others, beginning at Sycamore Creek at Nancy Coles, Nancy Cooks line, across ridge to John Cunningham’s line, Buis corner, top of ridge, George Runions, Friar’s line, public road in Little Sycamore Valley, except the grave yard plot of 3/4 acre deeded to Liberty Church, 140 acres.

The Liberty Church!  I knew exactly where that was located.  Here’s a photo of some of the old settlers and the Old Liberty Church taken about 1902.  The church itself was founded in 1856 and the building in this photo was built in 1883, so this church did not exist when John Campbell was alive, but the fact that the cemetery was deeded to the church helped us locate John’s land.

The Liberty church sits down on Little Sycamore road, but the cemetery sits up on a ridge beside the church and directly behind John Campbell’s house.

From this vantage point, you look down over the valley.  It’s quite beautiful!  John Campbell might be buried here.

This photo, below, is John’s house from in the cemetery.

It’s very likely that when John died, William Hicks made his casket, someone preached his funeral, and John was carried up the hill, probably in his wagon by his own team of oxen, and he was buried right here, forever standing silent sentry, looking over his land from what is called Little Ridge.

Here’s the house from the road.  My cousin, Daryl and I went to visit.  Once we discovered the landmark of Liberty Church, we couldn’t NOT visit.

The cemetery stands above the house on top of the ridge.

This was a prime piece of real estate, because it had a natural spring which still flows today.  The head of the spring is under the rocks and you can see that it has hollowed out a bed downstream.

You can see the stream here, located in front of the house, where it’s not far to carry fresh water to the house.

The current owners were very gracious allowing us to photograph the property and answering many questions.

You can easily see the original house in the center.  The owners told us the center part is made of logs.

We asked about this odd part of the foundation and discovered that there is a hidden “room” under the house.  The owners told us that they had been told that it was for travelers from long ago so that they could stay someplace without disturbing the household if they arrived at night.  I wondered about the Civil War because this area was rife with marauding soldiers from both side and many families have stories about hiding from the soldiers.

The door into the original cabin and the original steps.  Most of the steps in this region are stones like this.  I have the stone from one of my ancestor’s cabins that is now my back step.  I’m not sure how I’d have gotten this one in my Jeep, but had it been offered, Daryl and I would have found a way, rest assured!

George and John Campbell, Brothers or Not?

One enduring mystery is the relationship of George Campbell and John Campbell.  If you believe Fulkerson, and there isn’t any reason not to, they married Dobkins sisters, but what he did not say was that they were brothers, although based on the joint deed from Charles Campbell, the timing and the enduring relationship between the Campbell men, it’s certainly a logical conclusion.  But is it accurate?

One fine day, when Daryl and I were researching on one of our many library trips, we stumbled on one right juicy lawsuit in which the divorce of one of John Campbell’s daughters is discussed.  It seems that one fall during “hog killing,” while married, she was “discovered” in a compromising position in the barn with her Campbell cousin, George’s son, who was named and identified as her cousin.  Woohooo…..our lucky day.  Until we realized that John’s daughter and George’s son would have been cousins through their mother’s as well.  If John and George were brothers then their children would have been double first cousins.  Thankfully, she apparently didn’t get pregnant from the encounter, just divorced.  I bet that was the talk of the neighborhood for a very long time.

These families didn’t live far apart.  It was closer over the mountains, and they had wagon trails and roads across the ridges that don’t exist today.

On the map below, the red arrow at left shows the approximate location of the land of George Campbell on Russell Creek.  The top arrow shows Jacob Dobkins land and the bottom arrow shows the circle drive today around the cemetery above John Campbell’s home.  These properties were about 3 miles from each other, John’s being “across the ridge” from the others.

I turned to DNA hoping that perhaps I could discover something more about the relationship between John and George Campbell.  Maybe, if I was lucky they would have a family mutation that linked them.  Maybe, today, they would match exactly to a family line out of Virginia.  When the descendants of both George and John were first Y DNA tested, several years ago, we certainly weren’t that lucky.

John’s descendant who tested is Jim Campbell and George’s descendant is Paul Campbell.

I would expect both Jim and Paul to match closely.  They do match, but not closely.

Both men are 5 generations from their oldest known ancestor, meaning John and George, so they would be 6 generations from a common ancestor if George and John are brothers.

At 67 markers they have 4 mutations difference.  This would be expected, at the 50^th percentile, at about 8 generations, using the TIP tool at Family Tree DNA.  Of course, I’ve discussed this tool, its drawbacks and the fallacy of averages, but sometimes it’s the only tool you have and it’s certainly better than nothing.

At 37 markers Jim and Paul have 2 mutations, at 25 markers, they aren’t shown as a match, so that means 2 mutations (deduced because that is what they have at 37).  They are not showing as a match at 12 markers either, so more than 1 mutation difference in the first panel.

Moving to the Campbell DNA project, I can see the DNA results for the group that the administrator, Kevin Campbell has grouped both Jim and Paul into.  Fortunately, it is the same group, R1b-group 30.

Comparing their results with others in the group, we see that Jim (yellow 80569) has several mutations, and Paul (blue 81430) seems to match the modal value perfectly, so in essence has had no mutations since the common ancestor of this group.

Paul is the closest match to kit 23564 whose oldest ancestor is:

David J. Campbell, a son of Mark Washington Campbell and Mary Ann Campbell, was born on 26 August 1846 in Franklin County, PA.  It is speculated that he was born in Dry Run.  Also, according to speculation, his father, Mark W. Campbell, was born 15 December 1815 in the same county.  David married Marie Edna Gribble in 1870 and had six children. The family migrated to Clinton County, IA, McLean County, IL, Kearney County, NE, and Payette County, ID.

Jim’s closest match has 3 mutations, which isn’t terribly close, kit 28877 whose oldest ancestor is:

Solomon Campbell born Sept 1805, married Margaret Laurie, John N’s son James N Campbell Born Feb 2 1835.  Other children of John N are Martha, William, Margaret, Thomas L., James N., Solomon J., Jane.  It states on the 1841 Scottish census (Crofthead, Neilston, Renfrewshire) that John N and family were born in Ireland except for Jane who was born in Neilston.  Family also listed in Scotland 1851 census. Came to America in June of 1853, settled in Mason NH, John N. died 1878 Townsend Mass.

There is clearly no commonality in terms of either ancestors or location comparing the two closest matches.  Furthermore, Jim’s closest match is in Massachusetts when we know that John Campbell did arrive from Virginia, born in the 1770s, and was very likely part of the Scots/Irish migration from Pennsylvania through Virginia – simply given the historical patterns and logistics.

Let’s move to the individual markers and see what we can tell.

I looked at the markers, and I think that DYS389(2) is having spontaneous mutations.  I say this because IF and assuming that truly, kit 81430 has not mutated, then all of the mutations in the 80569 kit happened after Charles Campbell who was born about 1750 or maybe slightly earlier.  It’s obvious from looking at oldest ancestors of the matches who have a value of 31 at DYS389(2) that  they could not all be descended from someone who lived since Charles Campbell.

Both Paul and Jim have taken the Family Finder autosomal test.  Let’s see what that says about their relationship.  I searched Jim’s account for matches having a surname of Campbell.  Sure enough, there were 5 results, but none of them were Paul.  These men should be 5^th cousins if Charles Campbell is the father of both John and George.  That is a long way back and we would expect, on average for 5^th cousins to carry only about 3cM of common DNA and less than 1%.  The FTDNA threshold is 7cM.

Jim’s sister has also taken the Family Finder test.  On the chance that she inherited differently, I checked to see if she perhaps matches Paul.  She does not.

We know that at Family Tree DNA matching threshold is set to approximately 7cM and that matches have to meet other criteria as well to be considered a match, like minimum SNPs and a minimum total cM as well.  Therefore, people with small amounts of matching DNA are not shown as matches at Family Tree DNA, but may share DNA that is important to find.  At GedMatch, you can set the matching thresholds yourself.

Let’s take a look at GedMatch to see if the John Campbell descendants match the George Campbell descendants.  Below, Jim and Paul’s autosomal DNA is compared for matches.

Sure enough, Jim and Paul match each other on four segments, one just above 3cM, just as predicted, and three more just over 1cM each.  Without a proven family connection, we would ignore segments of this size, but in a known family situation, these are important matching segments.

Let’s see if Jim’s sister matches Paul.

Yes, Jim’s sister and Jim both match Paul and in the same location on chromosome 7.

Do I match Paul?

I do match Paul significantly.  On two chromosomes, the segments are 12 and 13 cm.  On chromosome 12, I match Paul on the same location at Jim’s sister.  On chromosome 13, I match on the same location as Jim matches Paul.

The GedMatch estimate is interesting in that it is 4.2 generations.  We know positively that we are a minimum of 7 generations distant, assuming that Charles is the father of both George and John.  Paul and I do not share any other ancestors.

Do I match Joy, the other George descendant?

Yes, I do, below.  Again, a minimum of 7 generations between us.

Does Jim match Joy? No.

Does Joy match Jim’s sister? No.

Does Paul match Joy?  Both are descended from George.  Yes, on 10 different chromosomes.  These should be more closely matched than any John/George descendant matches, but they are further than 2.7 generations.

Do I match Jim, who is also descended from John Campbell?  Yes.

Do I match Jim’s sister? Yes, on far more segments that I match Jim.

The segments on chromosome 5 are identical between me, Jim and his sister.  Clearly, that came from John Campbell.  Our common ancestor, John Campbell is 5 generations from Jim and his sister, and 6 from me.

I created the following table of the results.  We have two descendants from George who match each other most closely.  Conversely, the descendants of John match each other more closely than the descendants of John match the descendants of George.  However, given the generational distance, the descendant of John and George do fall into the expected tolerance in the case of Paul matching Jim, John and me.

What else can we do now to further identify the parents of John and George Campbell, presuming that they are indeed brothers as the results above suggest?

At this point, there are three avenues open for study.

1. Upgrade both Jim and Paul to 111 markers and hope for line marker mutations.
2. Upgrade both Jim and Paul to the Big Y hoping for identical mutations, and if not, ones that will connect to another Campbell line. This option is very expensive at this time, and according to the Campbell surname administrator there are either few or no project members who have ordered the Big Y.
3. Utilize Family Finder to search both Jim and Paul’s matches for consistent matches and hope for a clear genealogy clue as to where to begin the search for the common family of John and George.
4. Add a dash of luck!

One thing is certain, whether John and George share a father or not, and whether that father is Charles Campbell who died before 1825 in Hawkins County, TN, or not, they do at some point not terribly distant past, share a common Campbell ancestor.  I surely wish there were any other proven children of Charles Campbell to test against.

As a matter of curiosity, I did check to see if any of the five of us Campbell descendants have matches to people with Fugate as an ancestral surname – and we all do.  However, many of these people also have Campbell ancestry and/or are from the Claiborne County region where we all have roots, so it would require more research to draw any inferences or conclusions on the Fugate question.

The Campbell lineage has been exceedingly frustrating. Why, oh why, didn’t they register that deed in 1825 in Hawkins County listing the heirs of Charles Campbell???

Do you ever save old letters?  Thank goodness someone saved this one!

This letter is 116 years old and shares with us valuable information that we would otherwise have never known.  Some of the information in this letter has been substantiated with historical research.  For example, we know for sure that George McNeil (also spelled McNiel) was a Baptist preacher.  There are many records that confirm that.  But without this letter, we would not have been able to connect the William McNiel/McNeal who was a Revolutionary War soldier in Spotsylvania County, Virginia with my ancestor, William McNiel, son of Reverend George McNiel.

Unfortunately, it appears that William McNiel died just before the legislation passed in 1832 to provide pensions for Revolutionary War soldiers.  Had he and his wife not died before 1832, his pension application would have told us a great deal more.  To date, we have been unable to find the location of his original land in Hancock County (then Claiborne County), Tennessee.  He is assuredly buried there in a little family cemetery, and I’d love to place a Revolutionary War marker for him.  We live today in freedom because of the sacrifices of these early pioneers, our forefathers and foremothers.

The letter was written on May 28, 1898 in Maple Springs, Wilkes, North Carolina. It is recorded in the book, “George Michael Eller and Descendants of His in America,” by James W. Hook, 1957, New Haven, CN, pg. 400-404. [This book is on-line in Ancestry.com's Card Catalogue and in many libraries.] The following letter was written in 1898 by George W. McNiel Sr., son of Thomas McNiel and grandson of Rev. George McNiel. It helps to name and identify descendants of Rev. McNiel.

Maple Springs, Wilkes Co., N. C.

May 28, 1898.

‘Mr. W. H. Eller,’

Dear Cousin and Friend:

With respect to you I will answer your kind letter of June 25, 1896, hoping that you will excuse my neglect of not answering sooner. I will gladly give you all the information concerning the McNeils in Wilkes that I am able.

My grandfather, George McNeil, came from Scotland and his two brothers, John and Thomas, also came from Scotland. They left their native land, looking back with love as long as they could see a green leaf, on account of their religious freedom. George McNeil, my grandfather, came into the State of Virginia and married a Miss Coats, and as the country settled up, being a Baptist minister by profession, was called for to constitute Baptist churches and to attend as pastor of Baptist churches.

He came into Grayson County, Va., after which he came into Wilkes County, N. C., and constituted and attended churches here. He attended more or less churches down the Yadkin River. He was pastor of a church near the head of the Yadkin River. He lived in Wilkes County in about two and one-half miles of New Hope church on the north fork of Lewis’ Fork Creek.

He was afterwards registrar of deeds of Wilkes County (this was about the date of 1802). His son, William McNeil, volunteered in the war of Revolution, and his son, Joseph McNeil, said he would volunteer and go with William, but he was not old enough.

(Rev.) George McNeil and wife lived near the farm of Esq. Henry Lenderman, late deceased; from this union six sons and two daughters were raised, viz.

John, who married a Cleveland and who lived near Greenville, S. C., where Col. Benj. Cleveland, the hero of King’s Mountain, lived; my uncle.

William McNeil, moved to the State of Tennessee, Clayborn Co.

My uncle, James McNeil, settled in Ashe County, but moved to Redie’s River in Wilkes and married a Miss Shepherd – they raised six sons and three daughters.

Uncle Joseph McNeil lived on the homestead of his father and married a Miss Wilson and they raised three sons and three daughters. The Rev. James McNeil, his second son, was well known by his friends as a Baptist minister, living near Moravian Falls, N. C., at the time of his death, and was a faithful and respected preacher of great ability. The eldest son of Jos. McNeil, being named Larkin, married a Ferguson and raised three sons named respectively, Franklin, John and Milton; Franklin being a soldier of 1861. The Rev. Milton McNeil, and family are well known in the county of Wilkes.

My uncle, Benj. McNeil living on South Lewis Fork, three miles from old Lewis Fork Baptist Church, married a Miss Lips and raised seven sons and one daughter, all moving west but Enoch McNeil, who died near Moravian Falls in the year of 1865 or 1866.

My father, Thos. McNeil, married a Miss Parsons, being a daughter of Rev. James Parsons, of Surry County, living on New River, near the Old Fields in Ashe County, and was a soldier in the war of 1812. He labored as a Baptist minister in Ashe and Wilkes Counties.

You stated that you wanted me to give information about any ministers living at that time. I will give the names of Rev. Thomas Proffit and Rev. Smith Ferguson, who won many friends.

My father, Thos. McNeil, and my mother raised three sons and three daughters. The oldest being named James and being near fifty years of age, who died near Salisbury in the service of the Southern States on Feb. 16, 1855. The second son, Jesse McNeil, died from typhoid fever at his father’s home on North Lewis Fork on the date of June 8, 1830, being near twenty years of age. I, the youngest. My father, Thos. McNeil, lived to the great age of eighty-three years. He died September 8, 1865, He had two sisters not yet mentioned in this article.

Their names were: Elizabeth and Polly respectively. Elizabeth married Robt. Bingham, of the State of Virginia, being a Revolutionary soldier and living once near Hall’s Store, Stony Hill. They raised three sons named respectively William, Joel and George; Esq. George Bingham, of Watauga County, raised five sons, one of whom, Maj. Harvey Bingham, well known by many friends, went to the Senate of North Carolina in 1876. Mr. Thos. Bingham, having many friends, represented Watauga County three times in Legislature of North Carolina. Esq. John Bingham and Dr. Philmore Bingham are known by many friends.

My aunt, Polly McNeil, married Mr. Henry Miller, a son of Uncle William Miller, who was a soldier of the Revolutionary war, and lived on the farm where Mr. F. D. Hall now lives on the south fork of Lewis Fork Creek. They raised two daughters, one married a Parks, the other a Lankford. Mr. Harry Miller lived on a farm in Caldwell County on the Yadkin River, moving from there to the State of Illinois; Uncle Henry Miller’s grandaughter wrote to me giving her name as Mrs. Clarisa Rebecca Parks.

My uncle, James McNeil, raised his family on Redie’s River, having six sons and three daughters, the oldest named Larkin; others were John, George, William, Oliver and Eli. Fanny, married Capt. Simeon Eller, Rebecca, married the Rev. John Vannoy, a Baptist minister well known in Wilkes and Ashe; the younger sister being Nancy and married Edward J. Dancy, who lived in the town of Wilkesboro about the date of 1840. I further state that I was acquainted with Esq. John McNeil, Jr. He lived in Overton County, Tenn. He visited North Carolina about the date of 1840. His grandfather was uncle James McNeil, Sr. His widowed mother was a Miss Vannoy. He has or had four brothers, viz; John, Jesse, Neil and James.

The Rev. John Vannoy, a Baptist minister who married Miss Rebecca McNeil, lived in Ashe County on Beaver Creek. He was pastor of the old Baptist church at Beaver Creek many years. They had many friends as far as they were known, and raised quite a large family of children, four sons and four daughters, viz.: Jesse, William, James and Wiley, Mary, Louisa, Tilda. Mr. James Eller, of Wilkes County, married Louisa and Henry Hardin married Miss Tilda. The latter named moved to Colorado. Mr. Jesse Vannoy was in the late war of the ’60’s and died there.

So I will not write any more. I have given the most important history according to my knowledge of the McNeils in Wilkes. With my best wishes I will now close.

Your friend and cousin,

G. W. McNeil, Sr.

This old letter provided the family with a great deal of information otherwise not available, and certainly not available some 116 years later.

What I wouldn’t give to have a letter like this for all of my lines.

The Reverend’s Children

In summary, the Reverend George McNiel (spelled variously other ways including McNeil and both ways with double ls) was born about 1720 and died on June 7, 1805 in Parsonsville, Wilkes County, NC, at home.  He is very likely buried on his own land.

The spelling of McNiel always generates discussion.  George’s version is spelled McNiel, although not all of his descendants spelled it that way.  How and why is the stuff of family lore – the two brothers had a disagreement story – but I always check all spellings including McNeal and McKneal, neither of which he used personally but under both of which I’ve found records pertaining to this family.

George McNiel’s wife, Miss Coates, called variably Mary and Sarah, raised 9 children.  I’ve seen notes that she died in 1816, after George, but given that George’s 1790 census entry did not include a female of the correct age to be his wife, I suspect she died before 1790.  I’ve seen no actual evidence of an 1816 death.

The children of Rev. George McNiel and Miss Coates were:

• Mary Hillary McNiel born 1757 – no further information and it is unknown if Hillary is accurate or not. If so, it 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 1769 married Robert Bingham
• Mary “Polly” McNiel born 1771 married Henry Miller

Additional information about George McNiel’s life has become available through other sources.

Revolutionary War Service at the Battle of King’s Mountain

As it turns out, the Reverend George McNiel had some part in the Revolutionary War himself.

In the North Carolina General Assembly, it is recorded that a bill to pay Elder George McNiel a pension for his Revolutionary War service was introduced.  It bounced around between committees, but no one questioned his service. However, the pension was denied on the basis that he had not officially enlisted in a militia unit and he had already been compensated for his horse.

It’s very likely that this is a result of the Battle of King’s Mountain.  Many descendant families carry the oral history that Elder George was at that battle on October 7, 1780, even though he was nearly 60 years of age.  The McNiel family was closely tied to the Cleveland family, and Benjamin Cleveland commanded the Wilkes militia in that battle.  George McNiel’s son, John was married to Benjamin Cleveland’s niece.

George McNiel is listed in the book, “The Patriots at Kings Mountain” by Bobby Gilmer Moss, as having been one of the soldiers at King’s Mountain, although no additional information is provided.

The Family Stories

What do we really know about the Reverend George McNiel?

We know that George was supposed to be from Glasgow, Scotland, born about 1720, but we have not one shred of evidence to prove that.  He and his brothers were supposedly educated at the University of Edinburgh for the Presbyterian ministry but again, no evidence.  I did check the University of Edinburgh web page and it said that, “Our records of students date back to the very first class which graduated in 1587. However they do not cover every student who ever attended the University. Because formal matriculation and graduation did not become mandatory until the nineteenth century, many do not appear in the records.”  I checked the records, which do not seem to be complete, and there was no McNiel or McNeal during this timeframe, but only the medical school was listed, so we still haven’t proven anything about George.

He reportedly immigrated about 1750 and landed in Maryland.  Reasonable, but again, no proof.  Other stories tell us he landed on the Cape Fear River.  Also possible.

He was Baptist minister.  Of that, we are positive, but we don’t know when he became Baptist.  However, there is a family story that covers that too.

The story says that for three months George and his brothers, unnamed, sailed the Atlantic and on the way to America, George and his brothers discussed religion, disagreed, and George seeing the light became a Baptist.  To show his disapproval, one brother changed the spelling of his name to McNeill.

The family story continues and part of it conflicts with the Baptist conversion on the boat above:

They came to N. C. and settled in Moore Co. between 1745-1750.  After arrival, George married Mary Coats.  They had 6 sons and 3 daughters.  He came as a Presbyterian preacher, but believing that he could reach the people better through the Baptist Church, switched and joined the church about the time of the Regulators Movement in 1771.  He joined the Regulators and after the Battle of Alamance fled for safety into Va. where he lived for a long time in Grayson Co.

I don’t believe that Moore County records have ever been checked, and they should be.  His signature does not appear on the Regulator Petition.  We do know that he was in Spotsylvania County, VA records in 1757, which seems to conflict with the dates above.  Although, the above information was provided by a grandson, so one would think he would be at least relatively familiar with his grandfather’s life.

Reverend George McNiel established churches, served as moderator of associations and served as the Wilkes Co. Register of Deeds 1787 to June 1805.

That we know is true.

He was a Chaplain in the Regiment of Col. Benjamin Cleveland during its famous campaign at Kings Mountain in the Revolutionary War.

This too appears to be true, according to the NC State Records, although I’d love to see the actual memorial document being referenced.  (N.C. State Records, Vol. p10, 14, 18, 58, 241, 287-288 296).

Several descendants have written articles, or in one case, a small book, about the Reverend George McNiel and his descendants, this one being from a 1934 reunion.

During the past several years I have accumulated a lot of information on the McNiel family, including the reports by various branches of the family filed at the McNiel reunion held at Millers Creek in Wilkes Co., September 2 1934.

The McNiels and their relatives in Wilkes, Caldwell, Watauga, Ashe, Surry and Tennessee, South Carolina, Iowa and Texas are descended from Rev. George McNiel who was born in Scotland.  He is said to have married Mary Coates in Virginia.  We are able to know that he was living at Deep Ford Hill of Reddies River as early as March 1778 for in that month he filed an entry no 35 for 120 acres of land, including his improvements (buildings), adjoining the lands of Roland Judd and Robert Shepherd, see entry 35, deed book B-1, page 188.  This affords good proof why George’s sons, James and William, married Mary and Elizabeth Shepherd, daughters of Robert.  There are sixteen references to him in the “Land of Wilkes” besides the one on page 444 referring to his land entry and his improvement at Deep Ford Hill of Reddies River.

For convenience I shall spell the name McNiel although it often appears McNeal, McKneal or McNeill (or NcNeil).

In addition to his extensive activities as an early Baptist preacher, establishing churches, serving as Elder (pastor) and his attendance at the associations over which he often served as moderator, he served Wilkes Co., as Register of Deeds from 1787 to June 1805, having died June 7, 1805.

The exact time is not known but he moved from Deep Ford Hill to the north prong of Lewis Creek at what became the Parsonsville Post Office where he died and was buried.  Rev. W.H. Eller of Greensboro caused a monument to be erected at his grave on June 7, 1905, the 100th anniversary of his death, a pamphlet of which was published and a historical sketch is copied in Hook’s Book on George Michael Eller, pages 397-400.  This book is in the Wilkes Public Library and in the libraries of the Wilkes High Schools.

On the map below, which shows the 1786 Wilkes County militia districts, you can see that both Reddies River and Lewis Fork are between the numbers 6 and 10, just below the Blue Ridge Mountain divide.  Today, that divide defined the path of  the Blue Ridge Parkway.

Where Is George?

We first find George McNiel in the records of Spotsylvania County, VA, an unlikely location if he arrived via the Cape Fear River in NC.  There are also other McNiel men there at that time, possibly the brothers of the “3 brothers” story.  To add to the long debated topic of whether the George McNiel (McNeil) of Spotsylvania County is the brother of Thomas McNiel of that same county, I offer the following information from the book Apprentices of Virginia, 1723-1800.

James Cartwright, a white male, son of Thomas Cartwright decd, was to be apprenticed to Thomas McNial on October 1, 1754 to learn the occupation of a tailor.  This is from the county court order books, 1749-1755, pages 62 and 497.

Robert Mitchell, a white male, was apprenticed to Thomas McNeil on Sept 7, 1761 to learn the occupation of tailor.  Spotsylvania Co. will book B, 1749, 1859, page 540.

James Pey, a white male, to be apprenticed to George McNeil on March 1, 1757 to learn the occupation of tailor.  From Spotsylvania will book B 1749-1759, page 307.

I do find that both George and Thomas were tailors (or had tailors on their plantations) is an indicator that these men might have both been tailors themselves, or that they were related in some way.

In 1786, George McNiel witnessed a deed for John Shepherd in Spotsylvania Co., Va.  Keep in mind that George’s son, William, married Elizabeth Shepherd, daughter of Robert Shephard in 1781/1782.  These records put George in Spotsylvania County for 20 years and perhaps more.  The Shepherd family was from Spotsylvania County, as well.

The book “The McNeil Family” written by Mrs. Dorothy McNeil Moore (looks like about a 1950s booklet) of which the original is in the Wilkes Co. NC library, states that Rev. McNiel came to NC about 1750, later moving to Grayson Co., VA and then back to NC.  We know that he was living at Deep Ford Hill of the Reddies River as early as 1778, for in that month he filed entry no 35 for 120 acres of land, including his improvements adjoining the lands of Roland Judd and Robert Shepherd.

However, the 1786 deed in Spotsylvania County and the 1778 land application seem to conflict with each other, unless he was going back and forth, which is possible.

George McNiel, the Preacher

From the book, History of Western North Carolina, chapter entitled Pioneer Preachers:

First Church in the Mountains – According to Col. W. L. Bryan of Boone, the first church established west of the Blue Ridge and east of the Smokies was at what is still called “Three Forks of New River in what is now Watauga county, a beautiful spot.” It was organized November 6, 1790. The following is from its records:

“A book containing (as may be seen) in the covenant and conduct of the Baptist church of Jesus Christ in Wilkes county,… New River, Three Forks settlement.”

“This is the mother of all the Baptist churches throughout this great mountain region. From this mother church using the language of these old pioneers, they established arms of the mother church; one at what is now known as the Globe in Caldwell county, another to the westward, known as Ebinezer, one to the northeast named South Fork . . . and at various other points. Yet, it should be remembered that the attendance upon the worship of the mother church extended for many, many miles, reaching into Tennessee.” After these “arms” had been established “there was organized Three Forks Baptist association, which bears the name to this day, and is the oldest and most venerated religious organization known throughout the mountains. Among the first pastors of the mother church were Rev. Mr. Barlow of Yadkin, George McNeill of Wilkes, John G. Bryan who died in Georgia at the age of 98, Nathaniel Vannoy of Wilkes…”

Reverend McNiel was very active in the formation of the Yadkin Valley church association.

Minutes of the Mountain Asson. Began & held the 4th Saturday in August 1800 at Fox Creek in Grayson County, Virginia.

Names of Churches No. Delegate Names Readyes River 1 Thos. Johnson, Jas. Querry, Natt. Judd Three Forks of New River 2 Jos. Chambers, Jas. McCaleb & Shadrack Brown Beaver Creek 3 Wm. Landsdown Hd. Of the Yadkin 4 Solomon Smith, Jonathan Boon Lewises Fork 5 George McNeil, Natt. Vannoy…

He was then given the assignment of visiting another church and helping them with making decisions.

Yadkin Baptist Association. — This association constituted the Three forks association in 1790. From it many other churches had been organized east of the Blue Ridge.

{1} – William’s History of the North Carolina Baptists. In 1779 King’s Creek Church, in Caldwell, and Beaver Creek, in Wilkes, were organized. A few years later Brier Creek, in Wilkes, was constituted. It had many “arms,”{2} and from it grew Lewis Fork, in Wilkes, and Old Fields Church, in Ashe County. Three Forks was constituted by the Yadkin Baptist Association. It became an association itself in 1840. {3} – According to Rev. Henry Sheet’s History, “arms” were church communities which had not been regularly organized into constituted churches.

In 1790 Three Forks Church, the first in Watauga, was constituted. Part of the original members of this church came from the Jersey Settlement Church. Cove Creek was the second church in Watauga, being organized in 1799. At first these churches had only log houses in which to worship. The floors were rude, and large cracks were in the walls, so that they were often uncomfortable in winter. But the praises of God rang out from the lips and hearts of these old Baptist fathers. These churches first joined the Strawberry Association in Virginia, but in 1790 withdrew to organize the Yadkin Association. The first ministers of this body were George McNeil, John Cleveland, William Petty, William Hammond, Cleveland Coffee, Andrew Baker and John Stone . . . Later on, the Mountain, Catawba and Brier Creek Associations were formed, and so the Yadkin Baptists continued steadily to grow.

Note that the McNiel line and the Vannoy line were closely connected and intermarried often.  The Vannoy family came from the Jersey Settlement in Rowan County.

The Reverend George McNiel’s name was found in association with several churches.  He appeared to have “traveled on” in the name of the association, judging from their minutes, and helped to establish many churches, including the Brier Creek Baptist Church in 1783, Beaver Creek, Head of Yadkin, Three Forks (3 miles east of Boone, as pastor,) and Roaring River.  Lewis Fork Baptist Church, very near where he lived, was established in 1792 and he was the first pastor. Many McNiel’s are buried there today in the cemetery shown below.

This current photo is from Find-A-Grave where you can view the burials.

The 100^th Anniversary – 1905

Other tidbits of information came to us in other ways.  One hundred years after his death, his descendants honored him with a speech and a monument among other things.

Captain SIMEON ELLER married Frances McNeill, daughter of James McNeill, the third son of Rev. George McNeill. This Rev. George McNeill was a man of great power and influence. He came to North Carolina and settled in Moore County about the time of the French and Indian War. About 1771 he joined the Baptist Church, and, his denominational brethren having suffered much at the hands of the royalists, with them he went into the famous Regulator Movement, which met its overthrow as an organization at the Battle of Alamance. Fleeing for safety from Governor Tryon’s revenge, he lived for a short time in Western Virginia, finally, however, returning to North Carolina, where he settled in the Yadkin Valley above Wilkesboro, near New Hope Church. He was ordained as a Baptist minister in 1776 and became the great pioneer Baptist preacher of northwestern North Carolina, organizing the Yadkin Association in 1786, which is the parent of associations now claiming a membership of 35,000. On June 7, 1805, after a long and useful life and a most remarkable and successful career in the ministry, he passed away. Upon the centennial of this event in 1905 his large number of descendants and the Baptists hosts of northwestern North Carolina erected a monument to his memory, Rev. W.H. ELLER, of Greensboro, a great-grandson, delivering the address.

A memorial booklet of 17 pages, with paper cover, was printed in 1905 by the committee authorized in the above resolution, to record the address of Mr. Eller and other papers concerning the life and times of Rev. McNiel. this booklet was distributed to the various Baptist Associations in North Carolina, to certain libraries and Historical Associations, to descendants of Rev. McNiel and to friends of the family.

Mr. Eller spoke as follows;

In accordance with the resolution of the Brushy Mountain Association providing therefor the committee of Arrangements has made it my privilege to address you at this place where the repose of the mortal remains of our ancestor. He entered into his rest one hundred years ago today, an old man and full of years, and his sons buried him in this mountain field across the stream from which he had his home when the country was new and where he had for some years passed his days, when not upon his itinerant gospel missions. This piece of ground was his also and dedicated to become and remain the resting place of the dead until by the will of God the trumpet shall sound and the dead in Christ shall arise.”

The oldest piece of manuscript in which we find any written account of the subject of this Memorial is without date. It is signed by his son Joseph McNeil, and was found among papers left by Rev. James Vannoy (who was born June 27, 1792, and died February 19, 1857), It was probably written for Benedict’s History of the Baptists. Joseph McNeil, as memory has marked him, was born in the year 1767 and lived to 185-. We remember him as a man of advanced age and decrepitude in 1852. His statement with reference to his father reads as follows:

The Rev. Mr. George McNeil was bornd on or about the year 1720 and was ordained some time before the year 1776, but the exact time I cannot tel, and he was frequently a corresponding messenger to different associations, frequently appointed a help to churches whose difficulties arose in them, and was called to ordain preachers, and constitute churches, and was Moderator of the Yadkin Association for a number of years, and he and the Rev. Mr. John Cleveland went in the Revolutionary War with the army as they went from Kings Mountain and preached to them until they got up into Burke County. Him and the Rev’d Mr. A. Baker yoused to preach a great deal together. He departed this life June the 7th, 1805. This is correct an account as I am able to give.

(signed)                              Joseph McNiel

George’s Voice

Do we have anything that the Reverend George McNiel said, himself, something in his own words.  Indeed, I think we do, in the form of information taken from the book, George Michael Eller and Descendants of His in America compiled by James W. Hook.

Being assembled together in the fear of the Lord we thought it expedient to write unto you certifying that we have received a very agreeable account from the different quarters of our District Association especially when the brethren came to testify by their gifts that you walked in the truth, they being faithful. both to brethren and strangers. Seeing that the Lord hath afforded you the gracious visitations of his divine favors by sending forth his servants, crying at the door, thereby figuring out the glorious dispensation under which you live.

Brethren remember the wonderful displays of divine power amongst you and rejoice when you hear the voice of the turtle sounding in our land. Gird on the whole armor of God. March in order at the sound of the trumpet, be continually on the watch guard and see that you fall not by the way, believing always that He that is your Advance Guard has promised that he will lead captive your enemies and put them under an eternal arrest. Therefore beloved march forward in the powerful influence of his Holy Spirit, strive to love and serve Him in this world and finally to enjoy Him in the world to come, and as we have been favored with much harmony in our deliberations we trust that the Lord hath enabled us to act for the welfare of Zion. Whilst we bid you farewell in the Lord, be ye faithful. Be ye of one mind and the God of love and grace be with you all-Amen

‘signed by order of the Association’                     George McNiel, Moderator

I sort of feel like I just heard a mini-sermon from George.  Amen!

What About George’s Brothers?

Thomas McNeil was living in Caswell Co., taken from Orange in 1777, when he made his will dated April 20, 1781 in which he named his children.  He named three sons, Thomas, John and Benjamin.  No relationship has been established between that Thomas and the McNeil’s of other counties.

Thomas McNeil’s will:

In the name of God Amen I Thomas McNeil of Caswell Co NC being weak of body but sound of mind and memory do  April 20th 1781make this my last will and testament in the manner following.  I give unto my living wife Ann the use of all my personal estate during her life or widowhood.  I give unto my son Thomas a tract of land lying on Sanderses Creek containing 200 acres which land I bought of my son John and my desire is that my said son John do make a right of said land to my son Thomas.  I give unto my son Benjamin 150 acres joining the lines of Andrew Caddell and my son John Land to him and his heirs forever.  I give to my daughter Mary 100 acres of land lying on Henley’s Creek joining Wilson Vermillions line to her and her heirs forever.  At the death of my loving wife that my sons Thomas and Benjamin have each of them a horse and saddle and a bed which horses to be of the value of 10 pounds in specie also the plantation working tools I desire may be equally devided between them.  I further give unto my daughter Mary one feather bed and furniture and two  cows and calves after the death of my loving wife.  All of my negroes and their increase after the death or marriage of my loving wife be by three honest men equally divided amongst my 8 children, or the survivors of them, to wit John, Thomas, Benjamin, Elizabeth Roberts, Nancy Vermilion, Mary, Patsey Hubbert and Lois to them and their heirs forever.  Lastly I nominate and appoint my wife Ann , my son John and my son-in-law Wilson Vermillion and George Lea (son of William) executors of this my last will and testament revoking all other wills by me made in witness whereof I have hereunto sett my hand and seal…signed.  Witnessed George Lea, Lucy Lea, John Clixby.  Proved Dec court 1781.

It has long been rumored that Thomas is the brother of George.  DNA testing would certainly shed light on that question.  He had sons John, Thomas and Benjamin, so it’s certainly possible that Thomas McNeil has male descendants that carry his surname, meaning they also carry his Y chromosome, today.

I’d also love to DNA test any of the Spotsylvania County McNiel lines.  I’d also love to find baptism or other records in the old country, but I really have no idea how to go about that search, beyond what I’ve already done.  Seems like a needle in a very large haystack.

A Visit to Wilkes County

When I visited Wilkes Co. in 2003 and 2004, I spent time with historian George McNeil whose wife, Joyce, also my cousin in the Vannoy side, had recently passed away.  This was a very sad time for George, but he was kind and gracious and took me to see the grave of the Reverend George McNiel as well as where George McNiel had lived, shown below.  I believe this photo is of Deep Ford Hill where George originally live.  Unfortunately, I only labeled it as “George McNiel’s land” after my Wilkes County visit several years ago.

Originally, George was the minister at the Deep Ford Meeting house, and there used to be a cemetery there.  George McNiel, currently living, tells me that the owners sometime in the 1900s bulldozed all of the markers into the ditch/creek and farm the land now.

Another cousin, Jack Peterson, told me in 2003 that Reverend George McNiel’s home that he owned when he died, and where he is buried, on the north fork of Lewis Fork Creek is still visible “from Parsonsville Road when the leaves aren’t out.” He says it’s known as the old Walsh House, which still stands in front of the remains of George’s home. Lewis Fork is about 15-20 miles from Wilkesboro, the county seat, where George was the registrar of deeds from 1787-1805.  Maybe he stayed in town for part of the time.

The Reverend George McNiel’s grave is located in a location where someone who didn’t know the area would stand no chance of finding it.  It’s behind a mobile home, up lane, across a field, and not visible from the road.

The stone was placed in 1905 to celebrate the 100^th anniversary of the passing of this legendary man.  His descendants certainly didn’t forget him.  Unfortunately, his wife’s grave, which most likely lies beside his, is entirely unmarked and she is only remembered in passing as “Miss Coates.”  I find that very unfortunate and very sad, especially since it would have been George’s wife that kept the home fires burning and everything running well while George was traveling the country visiting and founding churches.

The names of the committee members are inscribed on the third side of the monument.

It’s actually a quiet and beautiful location.

This is known as the Elder George McNiel site and is available on Find-A-Grave here.

Cousin George McNiel told me that the old chimney standing across the road (at that time) was what was left of George’s daughter’s home.

George also gave me a copy of the book, Genealogy of the McNiel Clan by Johnson J. Hayes 1846-1929, Wilkesboro, NC.  From which much information has been taken, including annotations made by George and his wife over the years.

DNA and the McNiels

Between the years of 1755 and 1770 one or more McNiel families emigrated to NC and settled on the Cape Fear River.  Others came and settled in the Shenandoah Valley of Va.  Are these families related?

Cousin George McNeil, in 2005, provided a DNA sample to represent the Wilkes County McNiel family in the McNeil family DNA project.  The results indicated that this McNiel clan is from Ireland, not Scotland, originally.  This cross immigration is not unusual.

We need a DNA candidate from the Thomas McNeil of Caswell Co., NC.

McNiel Clan History

The history of the McNiel clan is set forth in the book, The Clann Macneil by the Macneil of Barra, chief of the clan, published in 1923 by the Caledonian publishing company.  It tells a fanciful story of how one Niall of Scythia was invited into Egypt by Pharoh Cingeris and of the great work he accomplished in regulating the flow of the Nile River, which was named for him.  He married Princess Ecota, the Phariah’s daughter who rescued Moses from the bullrushes and by her had a son, Gaedhal, or Gael, after whom the race was named.

According to the book,

The McNiel family itself descends from one of the Noblest clans of Scotland, which traces its ancestry without interruption through a long dynasty of Irish kinds to Niall of the Nine Hostages who ascended the Throne of Ireland in the year 379 AD.  Before that, according to Irish chroniclers, the line runs back to Niall of Scythia dn beyond him to Fenius the Antiquarian, son of Boath, son of Magog, son of Japhet, son of Noah.

The first Macneil of Barra settled on the island of that name off the west coast of Scotland about 1050 AD.  From him is descended the Highland Scottish Clan Macneil.  The Clann Macneil Association was formed to perpetuate interest in the family and all members of which claim descent from Scottish progenitors of common ancestry.

Cousin George McNiel of Wilkes County was convinced that our McNiel family was from the McNeil of Barra line, and so was everyone else.  That’s what our family had been told.  In fact, in George’s home, a beautiful water-color of Kisimul Castle on the Isle of Barra is framed and hangs, matted in McNeil tartan colors.

The DNA Story

That, however surprisingly, is not what the DNA tells us.  It tells a different story.

Cousin George tested his Y DNA at Family Tree DNA.  Needless to say, when we saw the “Niall of the Nine Hostages” badge, we were thrilled.

However, that turned to shock when we realized that while we were confirmed to be descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages, we don’t match the Barra McNeil families, and they don’t descend from Niall of the Nine Hostages.  Furthermore, there are two Barra McNiel lines and we don’t match either of them.

We do match several McNiels and a few O’Niels from Ireland, of whom a few have tested positive for M222, previously known as R1b1a2a1a1b4b, a subclade of haplogroup R1b1a2 (M269).

However, much to our surprise, according to the subgrouping on the MacNeil project at family tree DNA, the two Barra groups test at SNPs L176 and L165, both of which are Norse.

Cousin George does have several STR 67 marker matches, two of which are from Ireland but who don’t know where in Ireland.

The M222 Northwest Irish group in the McNiel project is quite sizeable, although at 67 markers, cousin George only matches 4 other McNiel (by any spelling) men.

Several participants haven’t tested at 67 markers, so cousin George has a lot more matches at lower levels.

So, what does this tell us?

Well, the McNeils of Barra aren’t descendants of Niall of the Nine Hostages, and our line is.  Maybe cousin George should take his picture of Kisimul castle down and install a picture of Tara, legendary seat of Niall of the Nine Hostages instead.

Who Is Niall of the Nine Hostages?

For many years, doubt existed that Niall of the Nine Hostages, known as Niall Noigiallach, existed as an actual person outside of mythology.  However, DNA findings first published in 2005 out of Trinity College in Dublin confirm genetically that indeed, a very powerful and prolific male did live about 1700 years ago, and from that male one out of every five males, 21.5%, living in Northern Ireland today have inherited his Y chromosome.   Researchers and historians indicate that there could be as many as 3 million descendants of Niall alive today.  If you live in Ireland, it’s almost inconceivable that you’re not descended from Niall, if not directly through the patrilineal line, then via marriage someplace in the approximately 64 generations between Niall and those of us alive today.

The following is reported by Geoffrey Keating in 1636:

After the Scots from Ireland, together with their king Niall Naoighíallach, had plundered many territories in opposition to the Roman sovereignty, they severely pillaged Britain—the northern portion of it at first; and when they had banished the old tribes from it, they themselves dwelt in it.

Histories vary, but the older and less well known version states that Niall’s hostages were taken from each of the nine subjugated tribal dynasties of the Ulster kingdom of Airghialla, among the first of Niall’s conquests.  Later scribes record that he took one hostage each from Ireland’s 5 provinces, Munster, Ulster, Leinster, Connacht and Mide, as well as from the Scots, Saxons, British and French.  Today, the Aghade Stone is endowed with folklore that associates it with one of Niall’s hostages.

An ancient bard composed the following lyrics about Niall and his hostages:

Son of the noble Eochaidh of honour
Was Niall, modest in each high distinction;
He held the sovereignty of successions
In Erin and in Alba.
He got a hostage from each province
In Erin through high valour;
He brought under his sway, without blemish,
Four hostages from Alba.
Hence he was called
In the mansions of the great,
Through the gold of the prosperous kings,
Niall of the nine hostages, the heroic.

Four accounts survive of Niall’s death, all of them in texts dating after the 11th century. In each Niall is pursued by Eochaid, son of the archrival Leinster king Énna Cennselach. Eochaid’s enmity begins when he is refused food by Laidcenn, Niall’s poet, for which he burns Laidcenn’s house and kills his son. In revenge, Laidcenn satirizes Leinster, depriving it of all foliage for a year, and Niall invades it. Eventually Eochaid is turned over to Niall by the Leinstermen, but kills Laidcenn with a stone, causing Niall to banish him for the rest of the ruler’s life.

Later, while Niall is abroad, Eochaid kills him either (1) in Scotland, while Niall is being entertained by Pictish bards; (2) in the Alps (which may be a confusion with Alba [Scotland]); (3) in the English Channel; or (4) by the River Loire in France.

In all versions his body is returned to be buried at Ochann/ Ocha [folk-etymologized into och cáini, sighing and weeping], now known as Faughan Hill, Southwest of Kells and 3 miles South of the assembly at Tailtiu.

Niall’s place in Irish history was assured by the Uí Néill dynasty, founded by eight of his (perhaps) fifteen sons. Four sons established the northern branch, displacing the Ulaid of Ulster, with small, powerful kingdoms in Tír Chonaill [Donegal] and Tír Eógain [Tyrone], and four other sons along with Diarmait mac Cerbaill established the southern branch in the midlands, adjacent to Tara, over the modern counties of Meath, Westmeath, and Longford. They kept the kingship at Tara between them, deeply influencing the writing of history as well as the development of Christian institutions.

Interestingly enough, the ancient bard’s verbiage further tells us that Niall was blonde, very blonde; “as yellow as the primrose was the hair upon the head of Cairenn’s son.”  Furthermore, the next line tells us that his mother had black curly hair, inferring that it’s likely that Niall inherited his blonde hair from his father’s side.

Tara today is an archaeological site which includes the Hill of Tara, aerial view below, passage mounds, one named Mound of the Hostages in honor of Niall, and the reputed Lai Fail, coronation stone, named the “Stone of Destiny”, immediately below, although some dispute that this is the original stone.

Most of Tara is unexcavated today, although it is known to have been in use as early as 3500BC and is known as the seat of the “High King of Ireland.”  Most of its known 300 features are below ground.  Recently a huge temple, over 170 feet in diameter, has been discovered.

Amazing isn’t it where your DNA and genealogy will take you….Wilkes County, NC to Tara in Ireland nearly 2000 years ago.  Go figure.  Wouldn’t Reverend George have been surprised!

“A Young Daughter of the Picts” attributed to Jacques le Moyne de Morgues, circa 1585.

Sarah McSpaden or McSpadden was born about 1745, probably near Lexington, Augusta Co., VA to Thomas McSpaden and his wife.  We know the McSpadden family was settled in Augusta County as early as 1748.  We are uncertain about the identity of Thomas’s wife.  It is reported as Mary and then as Dorothy Edmiston, but there is no evidence that I’ve been able to find for either, so we will simply let her remain unnamed for now.

Sarah married Gideon Faires, alternately spelled Farris, Ferris, etc., before 1767 as their son Robert was born that year.

Not much is known about Sarah, and what is known about her is via her husband’s records.

For example, we know that Washington County Survey Book 1, page 38 states that Gideon Faris has proven to the commissioners that he made actual settlement in the year 1768.  The date is 1781 and Gideon is claiming his 250 acres on the south fork of the Holston (just north of Damascus on route 91).

Gideon served as a private in Col. Christian’s campaign against the Cherokees in August 1776 and he served on juries in Washington Co.

In 1776, while Gideon was gone, Sarah would have kept the house in order, defended their homestead if need be, took care of her young children, probably totaling about 5 by then ranging from a babe in arms to age 10, and maintained the crops. She would have been all of 31 years old and possibly pregnant.

Life was tough on the frontier.  Sarah has been raised watching her mother do the same thing.  Her father was listed in the Augusta County, VA militia in 1742, fought in the French and Indian War between 1754 and 1763 and lastly, was noted as an officer at the Battle of Point Pleasant on October 10, 1774.

Gideon is listed in the 1810 Washington County, Va census, over the age of 45, with a female the same age, presumably Sarah.  There are also two other females living with them, one under the age of 10 and one age 16-26.

Both Gideon and Sarah died before March 1821 when Gideon’s will was probated.  They are not listed in the Washington County, Virginia census in 1820, although several of their descendants are.

Gideon is known to be buried in the Rock Spring Cemetery, in Lodi, Virginia, so it’s presumed that Sarah is as well.

The Rock Spring Presbyterian Church was established on this site in 1784, adjacent to the cemetery.  It’s very likely the church that they attended.

Sarah’s DNA

While we know little about Sarah’s life itself, we know more about her through her mitochondrial DNA that she passed to some of her descendants.

We have been exceedingly lucky.   Mitochondrial DNA, a special kind of DNA that is only passed from mothers to their children, and only passed on by females to succeeding generations can only be tested if the ancestor had daughters who had daughters down to the current generation.  And of course, you have to be able to find them, and they have to be willing to DNA test.

Sarah Faires Speak (1786-1865), wife of Nicholas Speak (1782-1852) who died in Lee Co., VA, had several children, among them four daughters. Rebecca married William Henderson Rosenbalm and then died young.  William then married Rebecca’s sister, Frances, known as Fanny.  Sarah married James Bartley and Jane (1818-1878) married George Ball and moved to Kentucky.

The children of Jane Speak and George Ball are shown in the photo below.

On the back of photo, people are identified as follows.  Front – Nick Ball, Fannie Ball Taylor, Back – Timothy Ball, Rebecca Ball, Harriet??? One descendant thinks the third person is Mary Jane Ball Lickliter, the other sister.

Jane Speak Ball’s daughter, Frances, also known as Fannie (1840-1919) married Elisha Taylor.  She is the lady in the bottom right corner of the photo above.  I wonder if any of these people favor Sarah Faires or Nicholas Speak.  Seeing their grandchildren will be the closest we ever get to seeing them.

Fannie Ball Taylor’s daughter named Rebecca (1869-1909) married James William Dunn and had daughter Helen Edith Shafer (1915-1988) who had daughter Nell, who agreed to take a DNA test to show us what the mitochondrial DNA of Sarah Faires Speak looked like.

Why do we care?

Mitochondrial DNA is never admixed with the DNA from the father’s line.  Therefore, it is passed virtually unchanged from generation to generation of females in a direct line.  That means that we can look back, both genetically and historically, in a direct laser line at the ancestors who preceded us, and who gave us the mitochondrial DNA we carry today.  On the chart below, you can follow the mitochondrial line directly up the matrilineal line by following the red dots.  Note that the brother in the current generation receives the mitochondrial DNA of his mother, but he doesn’t pass it on to his children.

In the case of Sarah Faires, she carries the mitochondrial DNA of her mother, Sarah McSpadden, born in 1745 in Augusta Co., VA, who married Gideon Faires, and who died sometime after the 1810 census before March 1821, when her husband’s will was probated.  Sarah McSpaden carries the mitochondrial DNA of her mother, variously listed in different places as Dorothy and Mary.  The surname Edmiston has been attached to Dorothy in several trees because Thomas McSpaden was named, but did not serve, as executor to the will of Robert Edmiston in 1750.  He had a daughter named Dorothy, but there is no evidence that Thomas McSpadden’s wife’s name was either Dorothy or that he married Dorothy Edmiston.    From here, we fade to gray and then to black.  We’ve lost Sarah’s mother’s genealogy line, her surname and her parents, but we haven’t lost her DNA nor her genetic history because Nell provided it to us when she tested.

Nell’s family carries oral history of a Native American ancestor, but which genealogical line is Native is uncertain.  The mitochondrial DNA will tell us if it’s this line, because we can look back in time and track genetic ancestry in ways similar to tracking genealogy.

Nell’s, and Sarah’s haplogroup, or deep clan is shown by the DNA test to be haplogroup H.  What does that mean?  First, we know that haplogroup H is European, not Native American, so out of the gate, we have answered that first question.  Any of Nell’s other ancestors could have been Native, but Sarah McSpaden’s mother’s direct maternal line was not.

Based on the mutations that Nell and Sarah’s DNA have accumulated over time, since the original mitochondrial Eve, we know that Sarah is a member of haplogroup H subgroup H49a1.

This means that her base tree branch on the human genomic tree is H, then she is a member of subgroup or branch 49, stick letter “a” and leaf 1.  So, Sarah had 3 major branching mutations since haplogroup H was born.

When was haplogroup H born, and where?  The chart below shows what we know, and how we descend from Mitochondrial Eve.

Today, about half of the population of Europe carries haplogroup H, but when you descend down the branches to H49 and then H49a and finally H49a1, our subclade of H is quite rare.  So while our H ancestor, known as Helena, was very successful in her reproduction efforts 30,000 to 40,000 years ago, her daughters in our line are quite unusual.  That could mean that there were only a few to begin with, that entire groups died out, or that these mutations are so new that they haven’t had much time to reproduce and distribute.  If you look at the timeframe in which H49a1 developed, as compared to the rest of the mutations, it’s quite recent.

This is evident when you look at the actual matches that Nell has to other participants.  In the HVR1 region of her DNA, where we have no unusual mutations, Nell has over 10,500 matches.  This would in essence equate to the haplogroup H matches and stretched back thousands of years.  In the HVR2 and coding region areas, where we have 9 unusual mutations, Nell has no direct matches at all.  Translated, this means that we don’t match anyone in a genealogically relevant timeframe, unless they have not tested above the HVR1 level, and there isn’t enough information to differentiate at that level.  That is why there are three levels of testing.  Nell had tested her entire mitochondrial region, so there is no higher test to be taken.  If Nell does have exact full sequence (coding region) matches in the future, then we can rest assured we are actually related to that person, on that line, in a genealogically relevant timeframe.  Of course, then it falls to us to figure out the genealogy connection, but at least we know the genetic connection exists.

Let’s take a look at where the oldest descendants of group H49 are found today, they are found in two distinct groups.  One is in Scandinavia, but they have a different mutation set than we do.  The mutation set that matches ours is found in Poland, Lithuania and Belarus.

Our next closest twig, H49a is found in the Netherlands and in Berlin, Germany.  And finally, our leaf, H49a1, is found in Austria.  As we obtain more haplogroup or Nell acquires HBR2 or coding region personal matches, we will be able to learn more.

This tells us that in the big picture, our ancestors were running around the Germanic region of northern Europe for several thousand years.

Unfortunately, there are maybe a total of 10 samples of H49, H49a and H49a1, in total, for me to compare against.  Slim pickings, at best, and difficult to draw conclusions from such scant information.

So were the ancestors of our Sarah Faires Germanic, or did she maybe immigrate from the British Isles?  Those are two different questions, and the timing of the answer makes a big difference.

Sarah, in Augusta County, Virginia, is found among the Scotch-Irish population.  Look at the surname, McSpaden.  The population among which she is found is highly suggestive that her parents were Scotch-Irish as well.

But where did the Scotch-Irish come from?  Ireland, and before Ireland, Scotland.  And what were the Scottish people before they came to Scotland?  Celtic.  And where did the Celts come from?  You’ve got it, the Germanic region of Europe.  So, the answer is yes, to all of those questions.

The map below shows the core Celtic homeland, about the 6^th century BC, followed by the green expansion areas.

Where was haplogroup H before that, before they made their way to Europe?  The map below, compliments of Family Tree DNA, shows the path that haplogroup H took out of Africa.

The journey of haplogroup H is our journey.  It’s the journey of our ancestors, every one of them, beginning with Mitochondrial Eve.  It’s Sarah McSpaden’s journey, Sarah Faires journey and the journey of every descendant who carries the mitochondrial DNA of Sarah and her ancestors.  And for those who don’t carry Sarah’s mitochondrial DNA, it’s still a journey of your ancestors, because Sarah’s ancestors were yours as well.

A big thank you to Nell for testing and unlocking the secrets of Sarah Faires and her mother, Sarah McSpaden’s matrilineal ancestry and sharing with all of us.

You can discover more about Nell’s ancestors at her website:  http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/l/a/m/Nell-E-Lamantia/index.html

The Younger story starts with Marcus Younger.  It shouldn’t but it does, because we don’t know who his parents were.  We may never know, because Marcus Younger’s Y chromosomal, paternal, DNA doesn’t match the rest of the Younger line to whom he is obviously related.  Why obviously?  You’ll see.  This story reminds me a bit of a soap opera and an onion – unpeeling one layer at a time – slowly and painfully over the past 20 years or so.

In 2007, I began the Younger DNA project.  I fully expected Marcus’s descendants to match on the Y chromosome to the descendants of Thomas Younger, a man who lived very close to Marcus in Halifax County and who many believed was Marcus’s father.  Even if he wasn’t Marcus’s father, the he was likely his uncle.  One thing is for sure – we fully expected them to descend from a common paternal male line – but we were wrong.

Not only did the men not match, there is no possibility on their Y (paternal) line that they are distantly related.  In other words, this isn’t a questionable match, it’s a flat out no-match.  They are in different haplogroups, with Thomas’s line being in haplogroup R and Marcus’s line in haplogroup I.  These men’s paternal ancestors weren’t related in 10s of thousands of years.  Well, that was a “stop me in my tracks” revelation.  So now what?

So let’s start with Marcus and tell as much of our Younger story as we know.  We have made some remarkable breakthroughs recently, compliments of autosomal DNA technology.

Marcus Younger

Marcus Younger was born probably in Essex County, VA and probably around 1730, based on his son’s 1760 birth.  He died in January 1815 in Halifax County, Virginia.  He married Susannah, possibly Hart.  Anthony Hart sold land to Marcus Younger before he moved to Halifax County.  Marcus was also taxed under Anthony.  We don’t know who Marcus’s parents are, but given recent autosomal DNA evidence, we suspect that he was the illegitimate son of a daughter of Alexander Younger and Rebecca Mills.  Alexander Younger mentions no son, Marcus, in his will.  Alexander’s son, Thomas Younger, moved to Halifax County earlier than Marcus who arrived about 1785.  They lived close to each other, Thomas on Terrible Creek and Marcus on Yellow Bank Creek on the Banister River.  Thomas died in 1791 and his will was witnessed by both Marcus and Marcus’s son, John Younger.  This implies strongly that Marcus was not Thomas’s heir, as heirs typically did not witness wills.  It also suggests that they were very close.

In 1780, Marcus Younger aided in the American Revolution in King and Queen County as documented by the Public Service Claims. He provided 1 gallon, 2 quarts and a half brandy worth 39 pounds, 1 shilling and 3 pence.  He probably didn’t have any choice about this, because then the army needed (or wanted) supplies, it needed supplies.  They gave you a receipt with the idea that someday you could turn it in for reimbursement.  In actuality, people did that, which is why we have the records today.  He’s lucky that’s all they took.  They were known for impressing horses, but then again, maybe Marcus didn’t have a horse to impress.

Marcus was in Essex County in 1782 and 1785, taxed under Anthony Hart, but is in Halifax County by December 1786 when he signs the marriage bond for his daughter, Mary, to marry George Estes, suggesting she is under the age of 21.

Interestingly enough, George Estes’s father, Moses Estes lived beside William Younger, born about 1740, wife Patience, whose parentage is also unknown.  William Younger is in Halifax County as early as 1760 when he was assigned to a road crew on Reedy Creek. He apparently lived on Reedy Creek in South Boston for the rest of his life.  Reedy Creek abutted the land purchased by Moses Estes Jr. and today Younger Street is the street that runs perpendicular to Estes Street, both of which now lead to the city dump, and is no place remotely close to Terrible Creek or the Banister River.

In 1795, Moses Estes, George Estes, his son who married Mary Younger in 1786, and William Younger, neighbors, all signed a petition.

I have always wondered if there is a previous pre-Halifax County connection between the William Younger and Moses Estes families.  I have often suspected that Moses Estes Sr. had daughters who would have been the perfect age to have been Patience, the wife of William Younger.  Conversely, we don’t know who the wife of Moses Estes Sr. was, only that her name was Elizabeth.

Regardless, these two families owned land that is very close to each other on the border of Essex and King and Queen Counties in northern Virginia prior to coming to Halifax County.  This is detailed in the unpublished document, “Estes of King and Queen County.”  An excerpt is provided below.

King and Queen and Essex County, Virginia

Using various hints, tips and what few records do still exist, we were able to locate fairly reliably the land of Abraham Estes, the original immigrant in the Estes line.  As luck would have it, we also discovered the Younger holdings in that area as well.

My cousin Wilma, long time Younger genealogist, posted the following information on the Younger rootsweb list in 2002.

Recently I have come into possession of a map which was the project of a Woman’s Club started in 1937 and published in 1972. It attempts to located the early tracts of King and Queen County. Unfortunately some very significant pieces of the map were omitted. I’m referring to the various hundreds and parishes which would better pinpoint a known location.

That said, I studied the map first, for familiar names. I found the name Boulware not far from Caroline County. Many of you will remember that a Boulware was a business associate of John Younger (from Whitehaven, England) in Caroline County which adjoins King and Queen directly to the north. A Boulware also married the daughter of John Price and Ann Younger, daughter of Alexander. [Note: Alexander is the proven father of Thomas Younger who moved to Halifax County.]

The next name is a little more disconnected but it caught my attention.  The name of the property was Fleetwell. Thomas Younger’s daughter by his first wife married a Fretwell and her father (apparently) was prominent in transferring property to Thomas. This Fleetwell certainly may have no relevance but, as I said, it did catch my eye.

Then there was Armistead Hill. Now we all can agree that Armistead is not a very common given name but it has been repeated throughout the Virginia family. I cannot say for sure but I suspect this piece of property was not far from Alexander’s in Essex and King and Queen (to be explained below).

I also noted the name Aylett and remembered having seen it before. I checked Alexander Younger’s notes and found that in 1716 a Robert Farish of St. Stephen’s Parish, King and Queen County bought 100 acres lying in both Essex and King and Queen Counties upon the head of the Dragon. The land adjoined Maj. Aylett’s Quarter and also adjoined the land of Alexander Younger.

I had thought Alexander Younger’s son Thomas had left Essex County (perhaps in anger that his mother had remarried so soon) and had gone to King and Queen. He was known to be in King and Queen County in 1751/2.  [Note – based on a merchant’s account book.] Thomas Younger sold his property to his mother and step-father and it was noted that the property he sold was adjoined by John Farish and Capt. William Aylett.

The man I believe to be the father in law of Thomas Younger, (William Fretwell) obtained the property in question from the mother and stepfather and resold it to Thomas Younger.

No record of any other purchase by Thomas Younger has as yet come to light so one can assume (I hope) that half of the land left to Susannah by her father Thomas was the same described property. The other half was willed to Samuel also without a description. The subsequent lawsuit among the heirs did not deal in property but delineated money instead.

This little exercise put things a bit into perspective for me. It is amazing somehow that maps can be so enlightening – even incomplete ones.

I now suspect that the Younger’s lived fairly close to the border between Essex and King and Queen Counties and being located at or near the head of the Dragon, they were also not terribly far from Middlesex County which accounts for some of the Younger records there.

I took Wilma’s information and ran with it and in doing so, using contemporary maps, I located the approximate location of both the Estes and the Younger land.

Abraham Estes’s land in 1783 abuts the Hoskins and Grymes land.  Today this marker resides on 360 East of St. Stephen’s Church.

Going with the info from the various locations to my trusty atlas, I find that in King and Queen County, on 360 where it crosses 14 and then East on 360 from that location, we have an intersection with 631 and 621 before getting to Miller’s Tavern.  Miller’s Tavern is too far East,  It looks like this land is between Bruington which is at the intersection of 14 and 621 as one point on the triangle, 621 itself as another point on the triangle, and probably St. Stephen’s church as another point.  You also see Dogwood Fork which surely is connected to Dogwood swamp.  Abraham Estes’s land seemed to be on the NE quadrant of this land, so probably nearer to 621.  In a much larger sense, it’s between the Rappahannock and the Mattaponi, but nearer to the Mattaponi.

Essex County Land Grants

June 22 1722 – Grant of Robert Farish described as 775 acres in the Counties of King and Queen and Essex. Beg. of Silvester Estice standing in Thomas Cranes line; thence &c. on the south side a branch of Mattapony River. And then 775 acres in the Counties of King and Queen and Essex adjoining the land of Silvester Estice, Thos. Crane &c. on the south side of a branch of Mattapony River and crossing several branches of Rappa: River.

Here are 3 transactions that position Alexander Younger’s land in this same area:

Essex County Deed Book 22 (1738-1742), Pg 215
3 Dec 1740

Thomas Younger of St Stephen’s Parish, King and Queen County, VA to Timothy Driscoll [sic] of Southfarnham Parish, Essex County VA for 5000 lbs of tobacco and cash, all interest now or hereafter in 100 acres in Essex in the Parish of Southfarnum adjoining John Farish, Capt. William Aylett and John Croxton it being all that tract purchased by his father, Alexander Younger, dec’d of Richard Jones and Leonard Hill

Witnesses – Thomas Barker, John Croxton, Henry Brown
Acknowledged 17 Mar 1740 at a court held for Essex County at Tappahannock

3 Dec 1740

Know All Men by these presents that I Thomas Younger of King and Queen County stand indebted to Timothy Driscoll in the sum of ten thousand pounds of good tobacco and cash. The condition of the above obligation is such that Thomas Younger at all times upon request of Timothy Driscoll  his heirs sufficiently grant all that parcel of land now in the tenure of Timothy Driscoll clearly aquitted and discharged from all manner of former bargains and incumberances whatsoever done by Thomas Younger then this obligation to be void otherwise to remain in force.

Signed: Thomas Younger
Witnesses: John Croxton, Henry Brown

Then received the full sum of thirty pounds current money, it being the full consideration.

Essex County VA Deed Book 24, Pg 354 and Virginia Colonial Abstracts, p.353
10 Aug 1749

William Fretwell of Southfarnham Parish, Essex County VA to Thomas Younger of Drisdale Parish in County of King and Queen County for 30 pounds, all interest now or hereafter in 100 acres in Essex, purchased of Thomas Younger by Timothy Driscoll and by him conveyed to William Fretwell

Signed: William Fretwell
Witnesses – Thomas Barker, Richard Hodges
Acknowledged 19 Sep 1749.

Another set of records that involved Thomas Younger also positions this family on the Mattaponi.

Thomas Younger was still living in King and Queen County in 1751-1752. (King and Queen Merchants Ledger 1751-1752. Accession #25110, Virginia State Library, Pg. 49).  He made purchased in both 1751 and 1752.

Thomas Younger Mar 1751
Thomas Younger July  1752

An Index – Magazine of Virginia genealogy, Vol 29, Number 3, Aug 1991

The King and Queen County merchant’s account book has been abstracted and is identified in the Virginia State Archives by Accession number 28893.

Ledger A covers 25 Feb 1748-21 May 1750 and the unpaid accounts on the latter were transferred to Ledger B as opening balances. Ledger B covers 23 May 1750 to 16 Mar 1751. Balances on 16 Mar 1751 were transferred to Ledger C which covers 19 Mar 1751-4 Aug 1752. These ledgers came from the store of Nininan Boog, factor for Buchannan and Hamilton, Liverpool Merchants. Boog’s King and Queen store was apparently located at Todd’s on the Mataponi about a mile above Aylett where state route 628 now ends.

Name                              A                                    B                               C

Thomas Younger           68                                 104                              49

Alexander Younger in America

We know very little about the origins of Alexander Younger before his arrival in Virginia.  There is a parish register entry in Lanark, Glasgow, Scotland showing an Alexander Younger christened on May 2, 1681.  We don’t know if that record is for our Alexander, but it could be, especially given the 1699 court record which indicates his age as 18 years of age.

There are at least four possibilities for his importation records which begs the question of what happened to these other Alexander Youngers.

1. Old Rappahanock County, VA Order Book 2 1698-1699, Pg 148

10 June 1699 – Deposition – Alexander Younge (r), a servant of Edward Rowzee, said to be eighteen years old.

2.  General Index to Court Orders, Essex County VA 1684-1714

11 Oct 1704 – An Alexander Younger imported by Thomas Dickinson 0-3-124

10 May 1705 – An Alexander Younger imported by Ralph Rowze 0-3-164

Considering that Alexander was a servant in a Rowze household it seems plausible that he immigrated in 1705.

These first two records cause me to wonder if Alexander went back and forth a couple of times.  That was not unheard of, especially if he was the personal servant to a wealthy man.

We do know that Alexander Younger wrote his will in 1725, designating his wife and son, Thomas to be his executors.  His son would have had to have been born very shortly after his arrival.  If Alexander was a indentured servant, it’s unlikely that he would have been allowed to marry for the requisite 5 or 7 years to complete his indenture.  This record says he is a servant, but it does not say that he is indentured, but it certainly does imply that he is.

3.  From angelsmurfholly2@aol.com on Genforum under the Younger forum:

Alexander received 100 acres of land for transporting himself and his servants, James Morrison, to Somerset Co., Maryland.  He later signed it over to Henry Bishop, a planter from Maryland.  From G. Spades “The Early Settlers of Maryland”.  Alexander came to York Co., VA in 1680.  As per Virginia Colonial abstract #9.  Essex Co. will and deeds of 1714-1717 Alexander Younger was sold 100 acres of land for 3250 pounds of tobacco in the Parish of Southfarnham, Essex Co. Record Book 15 page 359.

I question whether the records above are for the same person.  We know that “our” Alexander was in Essex County, but I would like to see some documentation that ties the Maryland Alexander Younger with ours in Essex County, VA.

Alexander witnessed wills in both 1706 and 1707, suggesting that he was not an indentured servant at that time.

Virginia Colonial Abstracts, p. 155 (Essex County)

Will of Richard Matthews of Essex County
Written 12 Jan 1705/6, Pro 11 Feb 1705/6

To eldest son Richard a Bible. To youngest son Giles and daughter Elizabeth. the balance of  the estate for their maintenance. To  Ann a cow.

Exec. John Boulware, John Mottlin
Witnesses: John X Williams, Robert Parker, Alexander Younger

Essex County VA Records, Abstracted by John Frederick Dorman,

p. 36,37 – 18 Jan 1707 – Will of Daniel Browne of Essex County VA witnessed by Alexander Younger

p. 224 – Jean Browne wife of the deceased Daniel Browne, Sr. of Southfarnum Parish gave her interest in her 1/3rd to son Henry.

Witnessed by Alexander Younger

4.  General Index to Court Orders, Essex County VA 1684-1714

10 Aug 1708 – Alexander Younger grants 50 acres of land for his own importation 0-4-47 – 10 Sep 1708

This record actually suggests that Alexander Younger was not indentured, as the person who paid for his transportation would have been the person to claim his 50 acres.  However, if the land were part of his agreement, and he arrived in 1799, and was indentured for 7 years, he would have been freed in 1706, in time to witness the 1706 will.

Alexander Younger’s Land

Records show that in 1715, Alexander Younger purchased 220 acres of land in South Farnham Parish, Essex County, VA (Virginia Colonial Abstracts #9, pp. 319-320, Essex County VA Wills and Deeds Bk 14, p 359)

By 1716, Alexander had land and we know where it was, near the head of the Dragon Branches.

Records of Essex Co, VA, No 15, p. 1
18 and 19 Mar 1716

Deed and Release

Casper Coston, smith, and Mary his wife, of St Anne’s Parish, Essex Co, sell to Robert Farish of St Stephen’s Parish, King and Queen Co, for 48 pounds, 250a, part of 100a granted to Richard Jones and George Turner, 8 Feb 1672, lying in Essex and King and Queen Counties, upon the heads of the Dragon, Ashnamscot and Piscatua branches adj a marsh at the head of one of the Dragon branches, by Maj. Aylett  the Quarter formerly known as Goodrich’s land, the land of Sheffells old field, Alexander’s house and the head of a branch of Fisher’s mill. Also Capt Brerton’s land “descending to me Mary Coston as being heir at law to my only sister Sarah Shipley, late dec’d, which was left by will of George Boyce to my sd sister, (adj land of Major Aylets Quarter formerly known by the name of Goodrich land, and also adjoining the land of Alexander Younger. Also Capt Brereton’ land)

Witnesses: John Bates, John Boughan, Thomas X Shipley

(Extracted from Virginia Colonial Abstracts, Vol II, Beverly Fleet, Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, MD, 1988, p.83) SW: Sheffield

This is apparently Mary Cosston, sister of Keziah. The second entry of this record on p. 179 of this same source states Jasper Coston, not Casper, Goodrick, not Goodrich. Third record on p. 296 (filed under King and Queen Co) states “the head of Kissells old field, Alexander Youngers house, branch of Fishers mill, etc.” George Boyce record not yet located.

By 1725, Alexander had died, fairly young, and with young children.  His son John died in 1733 and Alexander’s estate funds were used to bury John as well.  In 1732, his 3 youngest daughters were still under age and Thomas was appointed their guardians.

Alexander was impaneled as a juror several times.  But then, in 1724, it was his turn to face the jury.

Essex County VA Order Book 1723-1725, p. 107 – 19 Mar 1723

The suit brought by John Bagge against Alexander Younger is dismissed.

p. 138 – 20 May 1724

Alexander Younger of the Parish of South Farnham for not frequenting his Parish Church according to Law.  Presented by the Grand Jury and therefore ordered the Sheriff to summon all said persons to appear at the next court for this County to show cause if any they have why they should not be fined according to Law.

p 161, 17 June 1724

The presentment of the Grand Jury agt. Alexander Younger is dismissed.

The 1724 presentment against Alexander for not attending church was dismissed.  Obviously, he wasn’t attending.  The question is why.  Given that he made his will in 1725, it causes me to wonder if he wasn’t ill by 1724 and not attending church for that reason.

p. 167, 17 Jun 1724

In the action on the case brought by Nathaniel Sanders against John Griggs it is ordered that James Edmondson, Alexander Younger and John Haile or any two of them audit and settle the accounts between the plaintiff and the defendant. and make their report to the next court.

Given this court order, Alexander must not have been ill at this time.

p. 172 – 18 Jun 1724

The action of debt brought by John Bagge vs Alexander Younger is continued. The Plaintiff’s Attorney being absent.

On July 18, 1727, Alexander’s will was probated.  He would have been less than 50 years old.

Essex County Wills, Bonds and Inventories, Part 2, pg 222 1722-1730

Will Book 4, pp 222-223
Written 11 Aug 1725, Probated 18 Jul 1727
Virginia State Library

IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN…The eleventh day of Aug 1725, I, Alexander Younger of the County of Essex, being sick and weak of body yet in perfect sense and memory thanks be to God for the same I do make and constitute ordain and declare this to be my last will and testament and no other first being point out and sorry from the bottom of my heart for all my sins past most humble begging God forgiveness and remission of the same through the alone merits of my dear redeemer and only savior, Jesus Christ. I commit my soul into the hand of Almighty God, my savior and only redeemer through the merit of whose death and passion I hope to have full and perfect remission and forgiveness of all my sins. My body to be decently interred by my executors hereafter named in hopes of a happy resurrection at the last day and my soul and body to enter into perfect joy and felicity forevermore. And for the settling and disposing my temporal and such goods and chattels as it hath pleased God to bestow upon me I do order give and dispose as follows, that is to say, first all those debts and duties as I owe in right or custom to any person whatsoever shall be well and truly contented and paid within convenient time after my decease by my executors hereafter named. First I will and bequeath to the three poorest objects of pity in the parish thirty shillings in such things as may answer their wants to be paid within one year after my decease by my executors.

Secondly I will and bequeath to my son Thomas Younger that piece of land that I bought of Mr. Hill and Richard Jones, a young heifer called Fairmade and her female increase and if she happens to be barren and not a breeder then to have a young cow out of my own proper stock of chattels and if she should die then to have another young cow in her room out of my own proper stock and six pounds currency and that gun which I bought of Captain Welch.

Thirdly I will and bequeath to my son John Younger that piece of land which I bought of Mary Newton, two young cows out of my proper stock, six pound currency and his choice of my other two guns.

If either of my two sons Thomas or John die without issue then their land, money and gun to fall to the eldest female then alive only my will is that the child in whose hands any of the boy’s land falls to, the other part of

their estate shall be equally divide among the rest then alive. They themselves that have the land having one equal part thereof. It is my will that the two eldest then alive of the female kind if the male be all dead should inherit the land. Also my will is that after appraisement made that my estate be equally divided among my other six children to wit: James Younger, Elizabeth Younger, Ann Younger, Mary Younger, Jannett Younger, and Susannah Younger, and further it is my will that if any one of them died without issue lawfully begotten of their body that their part be equally divided among the rest then alive and it is my will concerning every one of my children’s parts of the estate if they die without issue lawfully begotten of their body to be still equally divided among the rest then alive and further it is my will that if my well beloved wife, Rebecca Younger, should happen to join in wedlock state after my decease it is my will that the boys should be for themselves at the age of seventeen years old and if she continues my widow then to remain till the year of twenty one and if it should please God to whom all things are subject to remove all my issue by death then it is my will that my land and personal estate be secured for my next heir in Scotland of my brother Andrew’s only wife to have the liberty of the same all her days in a moderate way to live upon without control of any person whatsoever.

The executors whom I order and appoint is my well beloved wife Rebecca Younger and my son Thomas Younger to see the same truly appointed and fully performed. In witness whereof I have affixed my seal and set my hand the day and year first above written.

Signed: Alexander Younger
Witnesses: John Haile, Bryant Edmondson, Francis Haile (his mark)

At a court for Essex County on Tuesday the 18th of July 1727, the within last will and testament of Alexander Younger, dec’d, was proved by the oath of Rebecca Younger, his executrix and being further proved by the oath of John Haile and Bryant Edmondson, two of the witnesses thereto was admitted to record.

Signed W. Beverly, C.C.

18 Jul 1727

Bond of Rebecca Younger as Executrix of Alexander Younger. Unto William Dangerfield, Benjamin Robinson, John Taliaferro and Nicholas Smith, Gent., Justices. For L 300 sterling

Securities: Thomas Covington and Richard Jones

It is ordered that James Edmondson, Henry Boughan, John Haile and William Gatewood or any three of them appraise the estate of Alexander Younger, dec’d and return their proceedings therein to the next court.

Appraisers were typically the largest debtor, someone from the wife’s family and a totally disinterested party.

Essex County VA Will Book 5, p. 152,153 – 1727

Account for the administration of the estate of Alexander Younger

This account provides the information that by later in 1727, Alexander’s son John has died, his daughter Elizabeth has married John Dillard and the widow Rebecca has remarried Timothy Driscoll, although it is odd that she signs her name as Rebecca Younger on this document.  Actually, she signed with a mark so maybe the clerk wrote her name as Rebecca Younger instead of her new married name.  The only reason Timothy Driscoll would sign this is if he had an interest and his only interest would be as her husband.

Essex County VA Court Wills #5
1727

Total Valuation L 157.12.10 including one Negro man valued at 25 pounds.

The estate of Mr. Alexander Younger, dec’d

• To funeral expenses for Mr. Younger
• To Dr. John Haile
• To John Leach a legacy left by Mr. Younger
• To Thomas Barber for sundry writing for the estate
• To John Taylor (no reason given)
• To Pitman Grandoff (no reason given)
• To the appraisers of the estate (not named)
• To the probate of Mr. Younger’s will
• To Mr. ? Carter
• To registering the death of the sd Younger
• To registering the death of a negro
• To registering the death of John Younger
• To rolling Mr. Younger’s tobacco
• To tobacco charged in the inventory due in his lifetime not received by the executors
• To tobacco charged for clerks, secretarys and parsons
• To John Dillard for his wife’s part of the estate being 1/8 of 127 pounds, 13 shillings, 4 1/2 pence.

Signed Timothy Driscoll (his mark)

Rebecca Younger (R)

At a court convened and held for Essex County on 22 Aug 1833

Timothy Driscoll and Rebecca, his wife, Executors of the last will and testament of Alexander Younger, dec’d produced their vouchers and made oath that this was a just and true account of the sd deceased estate and all the articles therein being allowed by this court, on the motion of Timothy the same is admitted to record.

Essex County VA Will Book 5: 119,120
15 Jan 1732

Thomas Younger made guardian of Mary and Ann, infant orphans of Alexander Younger, dec’d. Samuel Gatewood and John Ferguson were bondsmen with Thomas. The document continues to reveal that he is also guardian to James Younger.

Essex County VA Will Book 5: 115,116
19Dec 1732

Thomas Younger made guardian of James, Jannett and Susannah stating that they are orphans

I have to wonder why he was not appointed prior to this time.  His father has been dead since 1727.  Marcus was born sometime prior to 1740, likely to one of these sisters.  I thought at one time that perhaps his mother died at this time, but according to later deeds, she did not.  Something clearly happened during this time to precipitate this legal action.  But what?

Essex County Deed Book 22 (1738-1742), Pg 215
3 Dec 1740

Thomas Younger of St Stephen’s Parish, King and Queen County, VA to Timothy Driscoll [sic] of Southfarnham Parish, Essex County VA for 5000 lbs of tobacco and cash, all interest now or hereafter in 100 acres in Essex in the Parish of Southfarnum adjoining John Farish, Capt. William Aylett and John Croxton it being all that tract purchased by his father, Alexander Younger, dec’d of Richard Jones and Leonard Hill

Witnesses – Thomas Barker, John Croxton, Henry Brown
Acknowledged 17 Mar 1740 at a court held for Essex County at Tappahannock

3 Dec 1740

Know All Men by these presents that I Thomas Younger of King and Queen County stand indebted to Timothy Driscoll in the sum of ten thousand pounds of good tobacco and cash. The condition of the above obligation is such that Thomas Younger at all times upon request of Timothy Driscoll his heirs sufficiently grant all that parcel of land now in the tenure of Timothy Driscoll clearly aquitted and discharged from all manner of former bargains and incumberances whatsoever done by Thomas Younger then this obligation to be void otherwise to remain in force.

Signed: Thomas Younger
Witnesses: John Croxton, Henry Brown

Then received the full sum of thirty pounds current money, it being the full consideration.

Essex County VA Deed Book 24, Pg 354 and Virginia Colonial Abstracts, p.353  10 Aug 1749

William Fretwell of Southfarnham Parish, Essex County VA to Thomas Younger of Drisdale Parish in County of King and Queen County for 30 pounds, all interest now or hereafter in 100 acres in Essex, purchased of Thomas Younger by Timothy Driscoll and by him conveyed to William Fretwell

Signed: William Fretwell
Witnesses – Thomas Barker, Richard Hodges
Acknowledged 19 Sep 1749.

There are no records in subsequent Deed Books of Essex County, VA of Thomas Younger selling this land. There are no tax records of Essex County until 1782. It is also known by probate records that William Fretwell was the son-in-law of Thomas Younger.

Unfortunately, the records of King and Queen County have been burned, so while there were very likely more records that pertain to Thomas, they were destroyed.  The next time we see Thomas after the 1751/1752 merchant’s account record is in 1765 in Halifax County.

Essex County, Virginia, Summary

The deeds and land transactions tell us that the Estes and Younger families probably knew each other long before they came to Halifax Co.  Notice below that the head of Dragon Run is almost exactly on the county border between King and Queen and Essex county which is highlighted in yellow.  The purple arrow is pointing to this general area, but slightly on the Essex side.  The Younger’s lived on the Essex side and the Estes lived just across the road, right about where the “620” is printed on the way south from Miller’s tavern.

It is exceedingly frustrating for me not to be able to connect our Marcus Younger back to his father.  There were other early Younger men who also came to Halifax County, like William Younger.  Were they also from Essex county?  Was our Marcus related to them?  He was clearly associated very closely with all of the Youngers of that time in Halifax County, as they witnessed deeds and such for each other and the Estes family.  Marcus and Thomas Younger were neighbors, as were William Younger and Moses Estes Jr.

Given the DNA results, Marcus did not share a paternal line with Thomas Younger or James Younger, both sons of Alexander Younger and Rebecca Mills.  The Y DNA of Thomas and James descendants matches each other, but Marcus’s Y chromosome does not, and one of the people (Seay) he matches closely also doesn’t match the DNA of his surname family.  The Marcus Younger line also matches one single Rolland male.

Halifax County, Virginia Younger Families

The Halifax County research had two goals.  One, to piece the various Younger families together, learning and much as possible about them and second, to find the land and cemetery where Marcus Younger lived.

The following information is extracted from the deed, will, court order, and chancery suits and is combined with census and tax list information in order to assemble families.  This is not intended to be exhaustive, but to provide an overview in summary form of the results of the research in Halifax.  I have removed almost all of the detail for the Thomas and William Younger families, leaving only what might be relevant for Marcus.

In a nutshell, we have connected all of the early families into three distinct groups that apparently do not connect together in Halifax, meaning they are not father-son groupings.  They may well be otherwise related, but we just don’t know yet.

Ironically, it was neither William, Marcus nor Thomas who first appeared in Halifax County, but  James Younger in 1758 who is mentioned as providing blacksmith services in the estate management for the children in the estate of Capt. James Hill.  Halifax Will Book 0-46.  This James never reappears.  Two years later, William Younger followed.  In 1765 Thomas Younger arrived. Marcus doesn’t appear in any records until 1785.

Marcus Younger, born before 1740, died 1815, wife Susannah

Halifax County records for Marcus Younger begin in 1785.

1785 – Markus Younger is listed on the tax list with 1 white, 1 slave, no horses and 2 cows.

1785 – Marcus Younger is listed on Berryman Green’s list with 1 white tithe, 2 slaves and 1 horse.  A different records show him with 1 white, 1 slave, no horses and 2 cows.

1785 – John Younger, son of Marcus, is listed with 1 white, no slaves, no horses and 2 cows.

1786 – On December 19, Mary Younger marries George Estes, her father Marcus Younger and George Estes sign, William Martin is a witness and Daniel Parker is surety.

George signs his marriage bond, above.  Below, Marcus signs for Mary to marry George.

1787 – Markus Younger on the tax list shows 1 white, 2 slaves, 3 horses and 2 cows.

1787 – John Younger on the tax list shows 1 white, 1 slave, 3 horses and 6 cows.

1788 – Halifax County VA Deed Book 14, Pg. 276

7 Mar 1788 Mark Younger from Meador Anderson and wife Sarah
100 acres on Branch of the Bannister River

1788 – Halifax County VA Deed Book 14, Pg. 281
7 Mar 1788
John Younger from Meador Anderson and wife Sarah
100 acres on Branch of the Bannister River for 60 pounds.
(John is the son of Marcus)

1788 – Tax list Markus Younger 1 white, 0 slaves and 3 horses.

1788 – Tax list John Younger 1 white, 1 black, 3 horses.

1789 – Marcus witnessed the will of Thomas Younger and also was on the tax list with 100 acres and tithed with one white male, no slaves and 2 horses.

1790 – Marcus Younger has 100 acres every year until 1814 when his land drops to 93.5 acres and then in 1815 to 43.5 acres and is then noted as a life estate instead of held in fee simple.  This would be his daughter’s share, I would think.  Marcus has no slaves until 1794 when he has 3, then none in1795, 1 in 1796  and each year until he acquires a second slave in 1800 and has 2 until his death.  He has no horses in 1790, but acquires 2 in 1796 and then has 4 in 1802, dropping back to 2 in 1809 and 1 in 1810.

1790 – Marcus’s son John Younger has 100 acres and maintains that land until 1812 when he adds another 3.5 acres from his father.  He has one slave until 1794 when he acquires a second and has two throughout the record period until 1817.

1795 – John Younger, road hand along with George Estes.

Note:  This road hand assignment confirms that George and Mary Younger Estes indeed were living in the north part of the county, probably on the Marcus Younger land.  Given this, the Marcus Younger farm is probably where John R. Estes, their son and also my ancestor, born in 1787/1788 was born.  There are also several spaces for children “missing” who would have been born in the 1790s, nor were any children named after George’s parents, Moses and Luremia.  I suspect those children are buried in the cemetery on Marcus’s land.

1799 – Marcus Younger is listed as a road hand.

1799 – John Younger is listed as a road hand on Terrible Creek along with George Estes.

Note:  Further confirmation that George and Mary Estes Younger were living among the Youngers as late as 1799.

1805 – Marcus wrote his will, but he did not pass away until 10 years later, in 1815.  Generally in this timeframe in Virginia, people did not write a will until they thought they were going to pass away, so he must have had a scare 10 years before he died.

1810 – Halifax County Tax list.  Marcus is taxed with 2 whites, meaning two adult white men, George Estes is not listed on the tax list, which means he was taxed under someone else, and Moses Estes, George’s father, is only taxed with one white male.  George and Mary Estes Younger are very likely living with Marcus Younger.

1811 –  Halifax County VA Deed Book 23, Pg.197
20 May 1811
Mark Younger to John Younger
6 1/2 acres on Bannister River adjoining Younger’s land.
Witnesses: Benjamin and William Landrum, James Powers

Marcus’ will, written 23 Jun 1805, Probated 25 Jan 1815:

To daughter Susannah 50 acres of land where my house stands during her natural life. Also one Negro girl (Fanny), one mare, one bed, and furniture, one cow and calf.  To grandson Younger Wyatt one mare.   The rest of my estate to be equally divided among my four children namely, John Younger, Elizabeth Clark, Mary Estes and Susannah Younger together with my forenamed grandson Younger Wyatt.

Marcus and Susannah Younger’s children:

• John born April 11, 1760 in Essex County, married Lucy Hart, had 9 children, inherited his father’s land and lived in Halifax County. His son Joel owned the Younger land after John’s death in 1817 as well as the old Younger store. John’s land is where the cemetery is today.
• Elizabeth married William Clark, had 5 children, but was dead by March 1816.
• Mary Younger married George Estes in 1786 and died after her sister Susannah in 1831, but before 1842.
• Sally Younger married a Wyatt and had Younger Wyatt. She was probably deceased by 1805.
• Susannah apparently never married and died about 1831. She had a will and in her will she left her clothes to her sister Mary Estes and Mary Wyatt, and then she freed her negroes Fanny and Henry “to be released and given $15”. Fifteen dollars at that time was a significant amount of money.       Susannah had inherited Fanny when Fanny was a child when Marcus died in 1815. By 1831, Fanny had presumably married Henry, or perhaps Henry was her son. Neither a Fanny nor Henry Younger are found in the Halifax County region in either 1840 or 1850.

Page 568 July 1815

Land of Marcus Younger (heirs listed) decd to John Younger with agreement of all parties to make survey to Susannah Younger who becomes entitled to the part allocated her under the will of Marcus, tract on the draught of Bannister River beginning at a post on John Younger’s line.

1816 – Marcus Younger’s estate was inventoried.  Slaves Joshua, Harry (boy), Phoebe, Ceily (girl), Jacob (boy), Ben (boy), Sampson (boy), Dicey (girl), mare and sorrel colt, Fanny given by will to Susannah Younger, cow, 3 feather beds and furniture also to Susannah, one yoke oxen, cow, cow and yearling, yearling, one stack tops, two clade stacks, two vat stack, cart, 2 ploying, panel of plank, 2 head sheep, 3 fatted hogs, 1 cutting box, parcel of nubings.

I love estate inventories because they tell us so much about what the person did, and didn’t, have.  This man was not wealthy by any stretch, but with three feather beds and 8 slaves, although several were children, he also wasn’t a pauper.  The slave records hurt my heart and make me sad.  I hope they were considered part of the family.

In 1816, Marcus’s estate transferred 62 acres on Banister Creek.  Deed Book 25-568.

1816 – Susannah Younger’s land laid off.  Susanna Younger, Younger and Polly Wyatt, Thomas and Peggy Clark, William Clark, John and Sarah Henderson, Edmund and Elizabeth Henderson, John and Polly Landrum and George and Mary Estes to John Younger – prompt distribution of Marcus Younger, decd – survey to Susanna Younger part allocated to her under will of Marcus, land sold for 12 months credit $420.60 on the draughts of Banister 62 acres bounded by John Younger line, Bruce’s line, Sights corner, Susanna Younger laying off allotment of land he bequeathed her.  Halifax Deed Book 25-568

1817 – Halifax County VA Deed Book 26. Pg. 572
16 Jul 1817
John Younger, Sr. and wife Lucy to Thomas P. Anderson
107 acres on the head of Yellow Bank Branch for $700
Witnesses: Anthony Younger, George Estes, John Younger and James Bruce

1817 – Will: Halifax County Will Book 11, Pg 50 – John Younger (son of Marcus)
Written 17 Jul 1817, Probated 29 Oct 1817

Names wife Lucy – tract she lives on, furniture, stock,  all my Negroes
Children:

• John Younger – $500 to be raised by executors 12 months after my decease
• Elizabeth, wife of Thomas P. Anderson – $500
• Joel Younger – 170 acres adjoining Thomas Anderson
• Anthony Younger – 100 acres  on Big Creek on which he resides lying on the waters of Rye Creek (Bye Ck)
• Thomas Younger- land lent to his mother after her death or marriage
• Robert Younger – land previously given as his share (100 acres north side of Bye Creek apparently)
• Sally, wife of Joel Anderson – $500  beds, furniture & bridles
• Polly – $250 for each of her children
• Nancy – $500 beds, furniture, horses $ bridles
• Polly & children – $125 ea; Bazoil and Betsy P. Ray – 1/2 land she lives on, the children, the other half

Execs: sons Robert and Anthony Younger
Witnesses: James Bruce, Daniel Mills, George Estis and Mary Estis, her mark (daughter of Marcus)
Security: Joel Tucker, Edward Carlton

Note:  The fact that George and Mary Estes, sister to John, witnessed his deed indicates that they were close to John and trusted family members.  Also note that Mary Younger Estes cannot write.

John (son of Marcus) died in 1817.  His wife was Lucy Hart and he was obviously already married when he came to Halifax.  His children were:

• Robert S who married Mary Polly Moore and died in 1870
• Joel who married Lucy Cain and then Fentel Hart
• John who married Elizabeth and lived in Pittsylvania Co.
• Thomas married Elizabeth Willingham
• Nancy married Vincent Carlton
• Sally married Joel Anderson
• Elizabeth married an Anderson and then Thomas Andrews
• Anthony who married Nancy Carrell and sells land in 1824 to James Bruce, by 1830 they live in Franklin Co., VA
• Polly who was widowed by a Ray and then marries Samuel Younger (son of Thomas). She has children by Ray, Bazrael (wife Jane) and Elizabeth Ray.

Joel (son of John, son of Marcus) died in 1877 and had the following children:

• Samuel W. (presumed Younger)
• Vincent B. (presumed Younger)
• Harriett F. Carlton
• Matilda E. Tune
• Louise E. Younger
• Martha B. Younger
• Joseph G. Younger
• Thomas L. Younger

This was the last Younger family to own the original Younger land.  It was sold in 1906.

Robert, (son of John, son of Marcus) married Mary Polly Moore (William D. Moore brother, James D. Moore nephew), and died in 1870.  They had the following children:

• Philip A. Younger
• William Polard Younger
• Peter Palmer Younger
• John Marcus Younger (Methodist Minister) buried in Pittsylvania Co.
• William Younger
• James Younger
• Betsy Light Younger
• Martha F. Younger marries Thomas Bradley

It’s quite interesting that the theme of the Methodist religion runs through these families.  This may indeed be the tie that binds many together, especially in situations where they don’t appear as close neighbors, but the children are still intermarrying.  Their connection could well be through their church.  At this time, the only approved State church was the Anglican church, and everyone was required to attend and to pay tithes to support the church. Methodists and Baptists were considered “dissenting religions.”  Around the Revolutionary War, Halifax County authorized three dissenting ministers to perform marriages.  William Moore was one of those ministers, and his daughter, Nancy Ann Moore would marry John R. Estes, the son of George and Mary Estes, in 1811.  The Rice and Henderson families were also known to be dissenters, and the Younger family married into the Clark family who married into the Henderson family, who was already married into the Moore family.

In 1842, a chancery suit involving Marcus’s estate was settled.  The suit claimed that when the heirs of Marcus sold 52 acres to Thomas Clark, the heirs had received the purchase money, but that the whole of them had never conveyed to him clear title, although he was in possession of the land.  All of the children of Marcus Younger were listed, and if Marcus’s children were dead, their children as heirs were listed.   This suit was invaluable in reconstructing the family of Marcus Younger and in particular, his grandchildren.  However, the mystery of his parents, remains.

Marcus Younger Chancery Suit

Suit 1842-057, Halifax Co. Va. – extracted in June 2005 by Roberta Estes

The worshipful county court of Halifax in chancery sitting:  Humbly complaining sheweth unto your worships your orator Thomas Clark that a certain Marcus Younger died many years ago leaving a small tract of land containing about 53 (58?) acres to his wife Suckey Younger (see note) for life and at her death to be divided amongst his children.  That after the death of the said Suckey Younger, the rest of the children of the said Marcus Younger (the wife of your orator being one) sold the said land to  your orator,  put him in possession of the same and have received from them the whole of the purchase money, but have not as yet conveyed to him the legal title.  The names of the said renders(?) are John Henderson and Sally his wife, John Landrum and Sally his wife, Edward Henderson and Betsy his wife, Robert Younger and Mary his wife, Samuel Younger and Mary his wife, Thomas P. Anderson, Joel Younger and Fental his wife, Vincent Carlton and Nancy his wife, Joel Anderson and Sally his wife, Thomas Younger and Betsy his wife, William Estes and Rebecca his wife, James Smith and Polly his wife, Susanna Estes, Marcus Estes, William Clark and Mary his wife, Anthony Younger and Nancy his wife, John Younger and Betsy his wife, Younger Wyatt and Polly his wife, John Estes and Nancy his wife, Thomas Estes and Sally his wife.  In tender consideration of the promises and in as much as your orator is remedyless therein at last?.  To this end therefore that the above named renders? be made parties to this suit and required to answer the allegations herein contained under oath.  That in consequence of the said partys being numerous and widely dispersed in the United States that the said court decree that the legal title to the said land be conveyed to your orator and that the parties to the said contract as vendors? be required to do so and unless they shall do so within a reasonable time that the court appoint a commissioner for that purpose and grant all other recipients relief.  May it please the court to grant the Commonwealths writ of subpoena.

Note:  This mention of his wife Suckey Younger drove me to distraction for years.  During one of the visits to Halifax County, I saw a form for a lawsuit and realized that often, forms or standard language were used at that time as well.  The standard verbiage here would be wife and not daughter.  The next sentence in fact says, “the rest of the children” and the subsequent suit and deeds all reference Susannah not as the wife of Marcus, but his daughter.  Unfortunately, in this case, the fact that his wife and the daughter who died without marrying and without heirs shared the same first name.

Next document:

The joint answer of John Henderson and Sally his wife, John Landrum and Polly his wife, Edward Henderson and Betsy his wife, Robert Younger and Mary his wife, Samuel Younger and Mary his wife, Thomas P. Anderson and Betsy his wife, Joel Younger and Fental his wife, Vincent Carlton and Nancy his wife, Joel Anderson and Sally his wife, Thomas Younger and Betsy his wife, William Estes and Rebecca his wife, James Smith and Polly his wife, Susanna Estes, Marcus Estes, William Clark and Mary his wife, Anthony Younger and Nancy his wife, John Younger and Betsy his wife, Younger Wyatt and Polly his wife, John Estes and Nancy his wife.  Thomas Estes and Sally his wife to a bill of complaint exhibited against them in the county court of Halifax by Thomas Clark – These respondents saving? Do say that the allegations of the complainants bill are true and having answered pray to be hence dismissed.

Next document

This cause came on this day to be heard on the bill of chancery and answered and was argued by counsel and consideration and decise? that Jonathan B. Stovall who is hereby appointed a commissioner for that purpose do by proper deeds convey the lands in the proceeding mentioned to Thomas Clark in fee simply with special warranty.

Two attached pages in file as follows:

Page 1

Marcus Younger left 83 acres for life to Sukey Younger for life and at her death to be divided among his children.  Note – after this statement, in a different handwriting, begins the list of his heirs.

• Elizabeth Clark, Sally Wyatt, John Younger, Mary Estes, children of Marcus
• Thomas, Sally Henderson wife of John Henderson, Polly Landrum wife of John Landrum, Betsy wife of Edward Henderson, William Clark, Children of Elizabeth Clark (inferring that she is deceased).
• Younger Wyatt child of Sally Wyatt
• Robert, Polly wife of Samuel Younger, Anthony, Joel, Betsy wife of J. P. Anderson, Nancy wife of Vincent P. Carlton, John, Thomas, Sally wife of Joel Anderson – children of John Younger.
• John Estes, William, Susannah, Sally wife of T. Estes, Polly wife of James Smith and a grandchild name Mark Estes – children of Mary Estes.
• Elizabeth Clark’s children are entitled each to 1/5 of 1/4^th
• Younger Wyatt entitled to ¼th
• John Younger’s children are each entitled to 1/9 of 1/4^th
• Mary Estes children are entitled each to 1/6 of 1/4^th
• Mary Estes grandchild is entitled to 1/6^th of 1/4^th

Next page:

• Thomas Clark and Peggy his wife – Halifax
• John Henderson and Sally his wife – Halifax
• John Landrum and Polly his wife – Halifax
• Edward Henderson Jr. and Betsy his wife – Halifax
• William Clark and Mary his wife – Patrick County
• Robert Younger and Mary his wife – Halifax
• Samuel Younger and Mary his wife – Halifax
• Anthony Younger and Nancy his wife – Franklin
• Thomas P. Anderson and Betsy his wife – Halifax
• Joel Younger and Fental his wife – Halifax
• John Younger and Betsy his wife – Pittsylvania
• Vincent Carlton and Nancy his wife – Halifax
• Joel Anderson and Sally his wife – Halifax
• Thomas Younger and Betsy his wife – Halifax
• Younger Wyatt and Polly his wife – Rutherford County Tennessee
• John Estes and Nancy his wife – Rutherford Co Tennessee (actually ditto marks and John was actually in Claiborne by this time it is believed)
• William Estes and Rebecca his wife – Halifax
• Susannah Estes – Halifax
• Thomas Estes and Sally his wife – Montgomery County Tennessee
• James Smith and Polly his wife – Halifax
• Marcus Estes (son of Mark) – Halifax

(Note – Marcus Estes the son of George and Mary Estes died in 1815 shortly after his marriage.  Susanna Y. Estes, the daughter of George and Mary Estes, who never married, also had a son Marcus Estes, not to be confused with this Marcus, the son of George and Mary Estes.)

Thomas Younger, born before 1806, died in 1791, wives unknown

Thomas Younger had to have been born before 1706 if he was administering his father’s estate in 1727.  His father, Alexander wrote his will in 1725.  If Thomas was 21 at that time, he would have been born in or before 1704.

Thomas Younger was in Halifax County by 1765 when both Thomas and William appeared on different tax lists.

1781 – Halifax County – Revolutionary War Public Claims from Thomas Younger.  22 diets #1-7-6, 15 do, 15 forages#1-10, 54# mutton 11s-3, .5 bu corn 1s-3, 4 gal brandy #2, .5 bu oats, 17 diets #1-2, 100# fodder 3s, 56# fodder, 1 bu corn, 2 bu oats 7s-1.75, 200# fodder 6s, 6 forrages, 1 qt brandy, 3 diets 9s-9, 5 pts brandy 6s-3 cont

Thomas owned land on Terrible Creek adjacent his son William who died in 1801.  This relationship is proven in one of the many chancery suits that follow regarding Thomas’s will and his daughter Susannah who had land for her life.  Upon her death, the heirs filed suits to determine how her assets were to be divided.  Thomas Younger’s children were:

• Susannah who never married and inherited land
• Samuel who married Polly Younger Ray
• James who could not be found for an estate distribution when Susannah dies but then suddenly shows up, causing yet another chancery suit
• John
• Joseph
• Thomas (of the half blood)
• Mary Fretwell Scudders (of the half blood)
• Jesse who dies in 1805
• William who owns land on Terrible Creek and died in 1801 (see below)
• Elizabeth who had the child (John G. Younger) by Rev. Gordon and marries John LeGrand
• Nancy (Nanny) Smallman
• Katey Brown
• Dolly Light
• Lucy who married George Winn
• Rebecca married John Franklin
• Rachel

It doesn’t help in the confusion factor that both Marcus and Thomas have daughters Susannah who never marry.

The Younger Store

The old store below is all that is visibly left of the family on the main road, 501, the L.P. Bailey Memorial Highway.  This building is about equidistant between the two families, Thomas and Marcus.  Brownie, Thomas Younger’s descendant, who took the photo about 2002, believes it was run by Joel’s family, who would have been Marcus’s grandson.  You can see that at one time this was probably an early gas station, with the cars pulling under the roof area.  This building still stood in 2008.

The Marcus Younger Graveyard

The old Younger family graveyard is located on the original Younger land upon the North side of Banister River located off of current road 610, Murphy Grove Road, on land that included part of Yellow Bank Creek, according to early deeds.  This land passed from Marcus Younger to his son John and then to John’s son Joel.  I understood that this land was sold in about 1892 to Walter Tune, so I originally thought it could still be in the Tune family, especially given there is an “old Tune house” in that vicinity.

I found records indicating that the graveyard was apparently in the woods near the Tune house, but without a local who knew the area, locating it was going to be very difficult.

In the spring of 2008, with the help of lots of people, I eventually located and visited the original Younger cemetery.  I wrote the following story about it at the time.  The first part is written in 2007 when I first attempted to locate the cemetery, and the second part in 2008 when I finally found it with the help of one very generous farmer, the current land owner, and my cousin, Audrey.

Meeting Marcus Younger – 1740-1816

Yes, indeed, I met Marcus, just last week…..but not as you might think.

Two or three years ago when I was visiting the Halifax County, Virginia courthouse, extracting records in the damp dusty basement, a gentleman came in and began talking to Lawrence Martin, the gentleman who works in the historical records there.  This visitor’s interest was veterans of the various wars who lived in Halifax County, but in particular, those who died in service.

Later in that week, I met with my cousin to do some genealogical spelunking for the Estes and Younger surnames, and she mentioned a gentleman named Doug  who might know about the Younger line, as he too is a descendant.  Yep, it was Doug who was in the courthouse and I had already exchanged e-mails with him.

Doug and I compared notes.  I had discovered an old document in the library in Danville in a prior visit that mentioned an old Younger cemetery on the original Marcus Younger land.  The individual who wrote the document had visited it many years ago, years as measured in decades, probably between the 1930s and 1960s, as best I could tell.  Clearly her address was no longer valid and her phone number only had 5 digits.  All I had were her cryptic directions, based on landmarks of that time and road names that had since changed.  Oh yes, and a new major road was put in too, but I didn’t know that it hadn’t always been there.  The old woods had been logged, and the well that was supposed to be there apparently wasn’t…..but I’m getting ahead of my own story.

Doug and I communicated for a few months, but then Doug grew very ill.  His recovery took a long time and he faced many challenges.  In one of his e-mails, he mentioned that I should call a lady named Audrey, that she might know more about the cemetery and such, that she also descended from the Youngers.

Now I hate to make phone calls, especially cold calls, but I’d do just about anything to find my ancestors, so I put off the call as long as possible, but eventually, call Audrey I did.  Audrey was very nice when I finally made that call in August of 2007.  I was going to NC on business and planned to be in Halifax County for one day on the way back.  For a researcher who had spent weeks in Halifax, one day was little opportunity to get anything done, but one day was better than nothing, and I was looking forward to meeting my new cousin, Audrey, who was going to take a DNA kit to one of her male Younger cousins on the Marcus Younger line.

Audrey said she thought she could get us to the cemetery based on the directions in the old letter.  She knew it existed, but she had never been there herself.  In fact, she had a list of some of the people buried in the cemetery, provided by an elderly relative years ago, which she gave me and are listed below.  My identification notes as to how they connect are in parenthesis.

1. Louise Younger Tune Younger (daughter of Joel Younger who married first a Tune (who was killed in the Civil War) and then her first cousin, Patrick (also shown as Phillip) Andrew Jackson Younger, son of Robert H. Younger, Joel’s brother)
2. Patrick A. J. Younger (Louise’s husband & 1st cousin)
3. Kate Younger (Louise’s unmarried sister, daughter of Joel Younger)
4. Tom Younger (Louise’s unmarried brother, son of Joel Younger and Civil War Veteran)
5. Nathan Younger (Louise’s unmarried brother, son of Joel and Civil War Veteran)
6. Walter Tune’s father (Louise’s first husband, his first name unknown, killed in the Civil War)

These turned out to be the children of Joel Younger, grandson of Marcus, so this did in fact confirm we had the right family cemetery.

Audrey and I set out to find the cemetery.  We visited the old “Tune House”, now called “Breezy Hill”.

This house clearly is not old enough nor the correct style to be the original Marcus Younger home built around 1788 when he first purchased land here. However, this does fit exactly with the directions we found at the library, and with what Audrey knew from her lifetime of living in this area.

According to the old directions in the library in Danville from the folks who found the cemetery years ago, this is exactly what we should find:

“Route 610 to a dirt road on the left and follow to end of public maintenance where you see a large white farmhouse.  Near the house towards the back on the right is a farm road leading down to the creek through a gate.  Drive across the creek and you will find an old rock lined well now covered by a concrete slab.  Near the well is an area slightly sunken covered by English Ivy.  Follow the road on the right about ½ mile beyond the creek.  There is a large graveyard in the woods, completely overgrown with trees and a groundcover of periwinkle.”

Route 610 to a dirt road on the left and follow to end of public maintenance where you see a large white farmhouse.  Near the house towards the back on the right is a farm road leading down to the creek through a gate.  Drive across the creek and you will find an old rock lined well now covered by a concrete slab.  Near the well is an area slightly sunken covered by English Ivy.  Follow the road on the right about ½ mile beyond the creek.  There is a large graveyard in the woods, completely overgrown with trees and a groundcover of periwinkle.

How on earth would we find this in 2007?

We obtained permission from the current owners to drive on back on their property to find the old cemetery, so off we went.  They were aware that it was there, but did not know its exact location.

After a false start going down the wrong farm lane, we indeed found Yellow Bank Creek, although the name has been lost to the current generation.  Looking at the yellow clay, the reason for the name is obvious.  However, the gate was gone and we didn’t expect such a large “dip” in the “road”, shown below.

Audrey was getting a bit nervous.  My cell phone didn’t work and she clearly did not want to be the laughing stock of the county for getting stuck in the woods with her northern cousin.  I got out and walked across the creek, determining that there was gravel in the bottom and we’d be fine so long as we didn’t tarry and maintained a good speed when crossing.  I got back in and told Audrey to hold on, and off we went across the creek in the Jeep.  She was truly a good sport, although she periodically looked terrified.

Looking across the creek below, we initially went to the right on a little road only visible by a small clearing in the trees and then determined that this must not be the way, then followed the visible tracks, although it turns out the first overgrown road was the old road we wanted.  This turned to the left and then the ground became somewhat soft and we drove on a raised burm until the washouts made us turn back.  It was pretty rough back there, even for a Jeep, with quite deep well-hidden (with underbrush and overgrowth,) unforeseen gulleys that could easily swallow a car.

We looked, but the area was so over grown that we could not see any well or anything that looked like a well had ever been there.  But then again, we weren’t quite sure what we were looking for either.

Little did we know that the well as actually about just past the clump of trees across the creek on the right, to the right of the road about where the dirt mound is showing.  I would discover that this year (2008), but we were painfully close last fall.

Audrey and I decided that we really needed to abandon our plans since we could not get to the cemetery the way we were going and it was getting into the late afternoon and it was getting more difficult to see those gulleys.

On the way out, I took photos of the creek upstream in the little pond and downstream as well, as I knew full well this was the place.  However, I desperately wanted to find the cemetery where Marcus and his family, my family, rested.

Audrey mentioned that she knew a farmer who could take us to the land, but he had recently sold it to another gentleman.  She called the farmer in question, but he wasn’t home, and besides that, he would need to chat with the current property owner before taking us back to the cemetery from the “front side”.

My visit was coming to a close, so Audrey and I parted and agreed to try this trip again in the spring of 2008 when the brush was less dense and when we could find the right people to show us where the cemetery was located.  It had become obvious that without knowing where you were going, you weren’t going to find it.

Above, Yellow Bank looking downstream.  Below, Yellow Bank looking upstream.

I left and came home, and Audrey began to pursue the people we would need to help us locate the cemetery.  She told me that the new land owner, a man named  Dennis, was building a house there and had actually rented from Larry Younger, a Thomas Younger descendant and local veterinarian, while he was getting settled.  What a small world.

What a string of coincidences, or maybe Marcus was helping.

To put things in perspective, this is the location where we were traveling.

The topo map below was provided by Denny and the yellow highlighter shows the location of the cemetery.  There is a second smaller cemetery near the main road due north of the cemetery on the old road shown that enters from the main road.  This road is now defunct, but a small cemetery remains beside this road.  The third cemetery, which we now know holds the remains of the Street family, is marked on this map near what is now Younger road.  Denny’s land is penciled.

Note Terrible Creek just across the main road on the map above.  That’s where Thomas Younger owned land and the Younger store is on the main road between the two locations

Trying to coordinate between the schedules of several people in the spring of 2008 presented some challenges, plus the challenge of not exactly knowing where the cemetery was located.  Discussions with Denny, the current land owner, several days in advance disclosed that there wasn’t just one, not two, but three different cemeteries on his property, and that he had purchased his property in segments from different people.  To confuse matters even more, there is a 4^th cemetery near his land, between his land and the Banister River, which houses the grave of Hawkins Landrum, a very early dissenting preacher in that area who died about 1804.  The local folks tell of the time that his “people” came from Texas to see the grave and there are probably only 1 or 2 people still living who know where that cemetery is located.  We have determined that it is not on Younger land.

Denny was kind enough to contact the title companies involved and they did produce some helpful documentation, which I was able to use as a baseline to work from in my courthouse research.  My first day was spent at the courthouse in an attempt to track Denny’s various land purchases backwards in time to meet Marcus Younger’s descendants coming forward in time.

What an interesting exercise that was!

Fortunately, we had isolated the land to that just north of the Horseshoe Bend in the Banister River, which was a readily recognizable landmark.  You can see the bend on the map below, at the bottom.  The approach we took in 2007 shows up in white, and you can see where it crosses Yellow Bank Creek, about an inch to the left of where the white line ends.

On the map below, you can see Younger Road and Bessie Marion Trail as well.

The Yellow Bank Creek crossing is shown by the red arrow.  Here is a closer view.  The cemetery is between the house and barn and the Creek crossing.  Below, you can clearly see Dennis’s new construction.

Here we are, in 2008, back at the infamous creek crossing.  But this time, I’m on the right side of the creek with someone who knows where they are going.

You can see the yellow clay and can tell why it was named Yellow Bank Creek.

Cemeteries, especially abandoned pioneer cemeteries and homesteads are often marked by daffodils and periwinkle in the spring.  This one was no different.  These flowers are often wonderful guides.  Marcus Younger or maybe his wife may have planted these.

In the earlier directions, a well was mentioned.  Dennis knew exactly where it was.  This is probably the original house well that Marcus Younger used and he perhaps dug the well himself.  The original stones are there but it was shored up in later days and then of course, the well was eventually abandoned.

The area behind the well shows evidence that it had once been a homestead.  Daffodils were getting ready to bloom in a wide area.  This is probably where the original log cabin was located and where Marcus lived.

Was this the original step to the house?

Dennis, the property owner, knew exactly where the cemetery was.  It is, like the original records said, located in the woods.  I could not help but think how difficult these graves would have been to dig.

Many graves are still marked by fieldstones, hidden under the leaves and periwinkle.

None of the graves are actually marked with contemporary stones, all have simple field stones.

This cemetery is not small.  Among this family must surely be Marcus and his wife, Susanna and their unmarried daughter, also Susanna.  Another daughter, Sally, died young, after having only one child, and she is probably here too.  Marcus’s son John, who inherited this land, died only a year after his father at about age 57 and assuredly is buried here.  John’s wife, Lucy Hart, died 17 years later, in 1834, and probably rests here too.  Any of their children who died would also be buried here, surrounded by their parents and grandparents.

Marcus and his wife only had 5 documented children.  They were married their entire adult life to each other, as best we know, having had son John in 1760, probably their first child.  They could have been expected to have 10-12 children during a normal reproductive marriage, which implies that 5-7 children died.  Some may be buried here, some back in King and Queen or Essex Counties.  How hard it must have been for Susanna to leave the graves of her babies.

If Susanna married Marcus Younger at approximately age 20 and had her first child, John, in 1760, we could expect that she would be bearing children for approximately the next 25 years, or until 1785.  We know she was dead by 1805 when Marcus made his will, as was her unnamed daughter who married the Wyatt.

Our ancestor who was Marcus and Susanna’s child was Mary Younger who married George Estes in 1786, roughly two years before Marcus Younger purchased this land on Banister River.  In fact, this was before George’s father, Moses Estes Jr. had bought the land abutting William Younger in what is now South Boston.  The first records of George Estes are in the north part of the county, possibly living and working on the Younger land.  Thomas Younger lived here long before Marcus first bought land. George Estes and Mary Younger may also have children buried here.  Mary died sometimes after 1831 and before 1842 and we’ve always presumed she was buried in the Estes cemetery, now under the landfill, in South Boston.  If she is not buried there, then she is surely buried here.

Joel Younger, son of Marcus’s son John Younger and his wife Lucy Hart, inherited the Marcus Younger land and died in 1877.  Joel’s first wife, Lucy Caine, died in 1818, probably in childbirth, only 4 years after their marriage and a year after Joel’s father, John died, the year after Marcus died.  The Younger family visited this sacred burying ground often.

Joel’s second wife, Fentel Hart, died in 1862, during the Civil War.  Where else would Joel and his wives be buried?  Other family members could well be buried here as well.  Many children died young and we don’t even know their names.  After the census began to be recorded for every family member in 1850, complete with ages, we know these children existed because there is a gap in the living children of the exact spacing for one who died.  It’s certain that many are buried here with their parents, grandparents and siblings.

When property passed out of the hands of the original owners, the new family often started a new family cemetery elsewhere on the property.  This land did not pass from the Younger family hands until in the 1900s and according to the list provided by Audrey, several of the Tunes are buried here as well.  The Tunes were Younger descendants through Joel’s daughters Louisa and Matilda who both married Tunes.  Louisa’s husband, William R. Tune was taken prisoner during the Civil War, and died, but their only child, a son, Walter T. Tune, born in 1864, would own and live on this land.  Louisa’s second husband was her first cousin, Phillip A.J. Younger, son of Robert, brother to her father, Joel.  This means that Louisa’s name was Louisa Younger Tune Younger.  Louisa and Phillip lost at least 4 children who are recorded in Audrey’s note as having been buried here as well.  Walter T. Tune died in 1945 and is buried in the McKendree United Methodist Church Cemetery, located just down the road, the first generation not to be buried in this Younger family cemetery.

There are abandoned buildings on the property.  I think this building below is too new to be the original home.  Dennis said this is an old barn.

Dennis said the photo below may have been the original house.  I question that because it’s not a log cabin, but maybe planks were made by the 1780s when Marcus moved to Halifax County.  Although the original house/cabin would have been very close to the well and this one is not.  Some building was located by that well and the daffodils near Yellow Bank Creek.  It’s certainly possible that at one time both Marcus Younger and his son John both lived on this land, along with possibly other families as well, such as George and Mary Younger Estes.  Multigenerational family farms were not uncommon.  Later generations, such as Joel, may have built a “new” house too.

The second cemetery on the property is shown below.

Did someone lovingly plant this daffodil on their family member’s grave?

The property owner, Dennis, showed me a second cemetery on the property as well.  He believes this may be a slave cemetery.  It is much smaller and many fewer graves, above and below.  The graves are marked with the same kind of field stones as the larger cemetery.

The 2008 visit was just wonderful, to find and stand on the land that Marcus owned and to visit his grave, someplace in that cemetery, nearly 200 years after his death.

Reflections Upon Marcus’s Parents

While there are many records we don’t have for Halifax County’s early residents, such as birth and death records, there are also many that do exist.  Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for King and Queen County, Virginia, whose early records are entirely lost.

By combining all of those juicy tidbits, we discover that there is actually a lot of information, in bits and pieces, about Marcus Younger as well as the other Younger families found in Halifax County, even though we still don’t know how they are related.   We are provided with a glimpse into Marcus’s life and the lives of his children.  We know where he lived and died, and where his daughter, Mary lived after she married George Estes.

Who was the father of Marcus Younger?  Speculation abounds, but no genealogical hints have been forthcoming at all.  Y DNA tests test males of the same surname and can determine if they share a common ancestor.  They don’t tell you which common ancestor though, just if you match others of the same last name. Originally, this was the extent of DNA testing available.  Today, in 2014, autosomal DNA testing that matches both male and female cousins is also available.  People from both the Thomas and James Younger lines, both sons of Alexander match the descendants of Marcus Younger utilizing autosomal testing, so he appears to be descended from the Younger family, just not through the paternal line.  Given all of the evidence available, it’s likely that he descends through an illegitimate birth by one of Alexander Younger’s daughters.

Currently, the Marcus Younger Y-line matches a Seay and a Rolland.  Autosomally, we know that Marcus is descended from the Younger family, and he carries the surname, so by process of elimination, it must be through a female, because it is clearly not on the paternal male line.

The Promise of DNA

There are two types of DNA testing that is relevant to the Younger family in terms of sorting out who Marcus’s family and parents were.

The first is Y DNA testing, in which the father contributes the Y chromosome to only his sons.  That DNA is not mixed with any DNA from the mother, so it is passed unchanged from male generation to male generation, all carrying the same surname, Younger.  Therefore, when we Y DNA test two Younger men, if their Y DNA matches, we know they share a common paternal (surname) ancestor, and if it doesn’t, then no common paternal ancestor.

There is no question that the male Younger descendants of Marcus Younger don’t match the male descendants of either Alexander Younger or his son, Thomas Younger.  However, the descendants of Alexander Younger do match each other, through two different sons, Thomas and James.  Therefore, we know what the “true” Younger line looks like, and which of these is the “undocumented adoption.”

The second type of DNA testing is autosomal testing.  This test differs from that of the Y, because it tests all of your DNA that is contributed by both Mom and Dad’s lines, equally.  Therefore, in each new generation, the autosomal DNA that you received from your ancestors is divided in half as the next generation is created by combining the DNA of mother and father together.  Half of the DNA of each parent is used, in effect roughly halving the DNA of each ancestor passed on to the child.

Several generations downstream from any given ancestor, descendants carry small amounts of DNA from that ancestor.  You carry half of your parents DNA, roughly 25% of the DNA of each grandparent, 12.5% of the DNA of each great-grandparents, until eventually, in the 7^th generation, or your 4^th great-grandparents, you carry about 1% of their autosomal DNA, and so do all of their other great-great-great-great-grandchildren.  Marcus is in fact my 4^th great-grandfather, so I carry about 1.5% of his autosomal DNA.

Comparing our autosomal DNA is how we identify cousins.  By matching, we know we share a common ancestor, and by comparing genealogy, we figure out which common ancestor we share.  When we have three or more descendants that share a common piece of DNA, we can then identify that DNA segment as belonging to that specific ancestor, and anyone else who matches us on that same segment is confirmed to have come from that ancestral line in some fashion.  For example, if someone matches me and two Younger cousins on the same DNA segment, we know they are either descended from the Younger line or the line of one of the Younger wives upstream, genealogically, from our common ancestral match.

Let’s say that three Younger descendants match autosomally: me who descends from Marcus, someone who descends from Thomas, son of Alexander and someone who descends from James, son of Alexander.  This tells us that all 3 of us either match through the Alexander Younger line, or his ancestors, or though Alexander’s wife or Alexander’s ancestor’s wives lines.  Of course, Alexander’s ancestors become Alexander’s line, but his wife’s line becomes his children’s biological line.

This is important to understand because Alexander’s wife was Rebecca Mills.  It’s certainly possible that we will match Mills cousins who have no Youngers in their line, because our common ancestor with those Mills cousins through Alexander Younger’s children was not Alexander, but his wife.

To shed light on the Younger family connections, we’ve utilized both Y line and autosomal DNA.

The DNA Evidence 

Descendants of Thomas Younger and of Marcus Younger both took the Y DNA test some years ago, and we were absolutely stunned to discover that their Y DNA did not match.  We have two descendants of John, the only son of Marcus, and they do match each other, but no other Youngers.  It is possibly that Marcus did match the Alexander Younger line of DNA, but his son John, did not.  However, given that John’s descendants match Alexander’s descendants autosomally, that virtually eliminates that possibility.  If that were the case, that John was not Marcus’s biological son, he would not match the Younger line at all on autosomal tests, because his mother was not genetically a Younger.

The several descendants of Thomas Younger match each other and also the descendants of Alexander’s other son, James.  So Marcus seems to be related to the family, carries the surname, but does not share a direct paternal ancestor on his father’s side.

Our candidates for his parents are quite limited.

Barring a totally unknown Younger person, we have the following candidates.

John Younger, son of Alexander – but that would also mean that John was not the biological son of Alexander but did share a mother since Marcus’s descendants autosomally match this line today.  Since Alexander’s estate paid to register the death of John, that implies that John was not yet married at the time of his death and responsible for himself.  This effectively eliminates John as a possibility.  If Marcus was John’s illegitimate son, he would not carry the Younger surname.

The other alternative is that Marcus is the illegitimate child of one of Alexander’s daughters.  His daughters were named Ann, Mary, Janet, Susannah and Elizabeth.  Unfortunately, three of those names are repeated in Marcus’s daughters, but it could effectively eliminate Janet and Ann, unless Marcus had a child with that name that died young and he did not reuse the name as so many people did at that time.  As it turns out, Ann and Janet married about 1732, which would probably eliminate them since Marcus appears to have been born about 1740 – but it doesn’t completely eliminate them as possible mothers as Marcus could have been born earlier.  We have no information on the other 3 daughters, Mary, Susannah and Elizabeth other than they were minors at their father’s death in 1727 and Thomas was appointed their legal guardian in 1732, indicating they were still minors at that time, so born after 1711.

This scenario, that Marcus was the child of one of Alexander’s daughters would fit what we do know about this family both genetically and genealogically.

The DNA Jackpot

This brings us to December 2013.  Until then, none of the descendants of Marcus Younger autosomally matched the descendants of Thomas Younger, at least not on large enough segments to be counted as a match at the testing companies.

I manage the kit of one of the descendants of John Younger, Marcus’s son.  We’ll call him Larry.

I received a query from someone about matching Larry autosomally.  I sent the note that I always do, with some basic genealogy info.  What I received back was a pedigree chart screen shot from the match, David, that included Thomas Younger as his ancestor.  He descended from Thomas via a daughter.

Once again, I was stunned, because here was the link we had sought for so many years…a genetic bond between Thomas and Marcus.

Of course, the first thing I did was to ask about other lines as well through which Larry and David might be related.  There were none.

Then I turned to DNA.  Larry matches me and Larry matches David, but I don’t match David.  This could well be because we don’t have any segment matches above the match threshold of approximately 7.7cM at Family Tree DNA, but since we both match Larry, I could look at Larry’s matches and then drop the comparison level to below the matching threshold to see all of our common matches between the three of us.

Below are our default 5 cM matches on chromosome 1-10.  We show a match on chromosomes 1, 4 and 10, but no common segments between the three of us.  There were no matches on chromosomes 11-22, so they are not shown.

I am orange.  David is blue.  Larry is who we are being compared against and is represented by the black background chromosome.

Dropping the cM matching threshold level to 1 shows us that golden nugget we have searched for so diligently on the following graph.  In this case, with the matching threshold lowered, we now have matches on chromosomes 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 15.

Look at chromosome 1.  All 3 of us match on a small segment of DNA.  That DNA is Younger DNA.  And that little orange and blue segment proves that indeed, Marcus and Thomas were related, because all 3 of us match on the exact same segment of the chromosome.  In other words, that segment comes from a common ancestor of all 3 of us, and there is only one common line, the Youngers.

This also means that there will be others who fall into this “too small to be a match but hugely relevant small segment” scenario.  In order to take a look, I triangulated all of the matches for my cousin Larry and David, and there were a total of 15 individuals.

But here’s the amazing part.

There are 16 people in total, including Larry and David who match.

I compared them in the chromosome browser, and downloaded all of them.  I then sorted them by chromosome and start/end segment.  Here is that oh so beautiful “proof” match on chromosome 1.

There are a total of 191 individual segments across all chromosomes where these people match Larry.

Of those 191 segments,  there are also 94 segments on which one or more of us also match each other.  Those are shaded green above for chromosome 1.

Of those 94 segments, only 8 were large enough to be above the matching threshold.  That means that there were a total of 86 segments that were below the matching threshold but that were useful genealogically.  On chromosome 1 above, only Larry and I would have been over that threshold, and we were already matching.

Looking at those 8 large segment matches, some were between known relatives on both sides, like me and Larry on chromosome 1, but until there was someone who connected the dots and matched someone on both sides, like David, on a segment large enough to be counted as a match, the connection wasn’t there and the other matches weren’t meaningful to the question and answer of whether Marcus and Thomas were related.

David matches Larry on a large enough segment to be counted as a match on chromosomes 4 and 10, neither of which is a match to me in that location.

The golden “proof” egg, in this case, for the three of us, was hidden in a very small segment on chromosome 1 that would have gone entirely unnoticed and unreported because it was not over the vendor match threshold.

Are We Done?

Of course, we’re not “done.”  Genealogists are never “done” because as soon as you find one more ancestor, there are two more needing to be discovered, their parents.  I’d still like to know where the Younger family originated overseas before we find them in Glasgow, Scotland, although that could be before the advent of surnames.  I’d like to know who Marcus’s paternal line is and I’d like to identify the surname of his wife.  For that matter, I’d also like to know who his mother was and the circumstances surrounding his birth.  You know there has to be a story there and probably some scuttlebutt too.

Given that we do now know that Marcus is descended from the Alexander Younger line, even though we don’t know exactly how, let’s take a look at what we do know about this Younger line.

Glasgow, Scotland, the Younger Ancestral Home

There’s a lot we don’t know about the Younger line, but there is a whole raft of information that has been discovered, that tells us about the lives of our Younger ancestors and their descendants.  Halifax County is rich with Younger family history beginning around the time of the Revolutionary War.  Prior to that, the Younger family was found in Essex and King and Queen Counties, in Virginia.

We know that Alexander Younger was married to Rebecca Mills around 1700 in Essex County and that their son was Thomas Younger.  We know that Marcus and Thomas are related, in some way.  I’ve speculated that Marcus’s mother was a sister of Thomas Younger, and if this is correct, then Alexander Younger would be the grand-father of Marcus Younger.  DNA tells us that they are related.  We just don’t know how.

The identity of Marcus’s wife as a Hart is also suggested by DNA testing, but needs additional matches to be confirmed, although I’m fairly confident at this point.

What we do know is this.  Alexander Younger was born probably around 1675 in Scotland.  We know that because his will, after immigrating to America and having children with Rebecca Mills, stated that if his entire family died, his estate was to be left to his brother Andrew, in Scotland.

From this point, we move to the Scottish records, but we can’t prove beyond a doubt that the Alexander in the 1681 Glasgow baptismal records is ours.

Alexander Younger’s father, born January 15, 1652 in the High Church in Glasgow, Scotland, is believed to be one Thomas Younger who married Anna Smith.  We have no way of knowing whether or not the Alexander who immigrated to America and married Rebecca Mills is the same Alexander who was born to Thomas Younger and Anna Smith, although three of Alexander’s children carried the same first names as the children of Thomas Younger and Anna Smith: Janet, Mary and Thomas.  Mary and Thomas aren’t unusual, but Janet is rather rare.   Thomas Younger and Anna Smith also had a son named Andrew, which aligns with Alexander Younger’s 1725 will which leaves his estate, if none of his children survive, to his brother Andrew in Scotland.

According to the book, Scottish Church Records, Thomas Younger and Anna Smith’s children were christened in the High Church in Glasgow, as follows:

• Janet Younger – Feb. 25, 1673
• Jean Younger – Oct. 18, 1674
• Agnes Younger – March 11, 1678
• Alexander Younger – May 2, 1681
• Andrew Younger – Nov. 13, 1683
• Mary Younger – Feb. 16, 1690

Thomas Younger’s father, reportedly Alexander Younger was born about 1608 is a weaver and a burgess.  He married Margaret Steinson (Steinsoun) and was listed in the guild records as follows:

The Burgesses and Guild Brethren of Glasgow, 1573-1750
This is the roll of the parish of Portpatrick above “tuelve yeirs of age”
1639
County: Lanarckshire
Country: Scotland
Younger, Alexander, weaver, B., as third son to dec’d William Younger, burgess (G.B., as mar. Margaret, dau to dec’d Neill Steinson. B. and G.B., 24 Sep 1646) 31 Oct. 1639

Here’s a carving of 16^th century burgesses from Glasgow.  Burgesses were free men, often in a guild.  Therefore all guild members were by default burgesses in the earliest meanings of the word.  Eventually, it could mean an elected official of the municipality.

Although the guild note referring to Alexander Younger is dated 1646, there is a marriage record for Alexander Younger and Margaret Steinsoune Feb. 9, 1632 and their first child was christened in January, 1633.

This record gives us his father’s name, as well as his home location of Lanarkshire, where Glasgow is located.  From this, we know that his father was William Younger and he is deceased in 1639, meaning that he would have been born before 1590 and probably earlier.

In summary, this gives us the following generations:

• William Younger, burgess, born before 1590 and died by 1639
• Alexander Younger, born circa 1608, married Margaret Steinson
• Thomas Younger born before 1653, married Anna Smith
• Alexander Younger born May 2, 1681, immigrated to America, married Rebecca Mills, will probated July 1727, Essex Co., VA

What do we know about Glasgow?  Who was living there, how was it settled and what was occurring during this timeframe that might have affected the lives of the residents?

The present site of Glasgow has been used since prehistoric times for settlement due to it being the furthest downstream fording point of the River Clyde, at the point of its confluence with the Molendinar Burn. After the Romans left Caledonia the settlement was part of the extensive Kingdom of Strathclyde, with its capital at Dumbarton 15 mi (24 km) downstream, which merged in the 9th century with other regions to create the united Kingdom of Scotland.  The origins of Glasgow as an established city derive ultimately from its medieval position as Scotland’s second largest bishopric. Glasgow increased in importance during the 10th and 11th centuries as the site of this bishopric, reorganized by King David I of Scotland and John, Bishop of Glasgow.

There had been an earlier religious site established by Saint Mungo in the 6th century.

Glasgow grew over the following centuries, the first bridge over the River Clyde at Glasgow was recorded from around 1285, giving its name to the Briggait area of the city, forming the main North-South route over the river via Glasgow Cross. The founding of the University of Glasgow in 1451 and elevation of the bishopric to become the Archdiocese of Glasgow in 1492 served to increase the town’s religious and educational status, and landed wealth. Its early trade was in agriculture, brewing and fishing, with cured salmon and herring being exported to Europe and the Mediterranean.

Following the Reformation and with the encouragement of the Convention of Royal Burghs the 14 Incorporated Trade Crafts federated as the Trades House in 1605 to match the power and influence in the Town Council of the earlier Merchants Guilds who established their Merchants House in the same year. Glasgow was subsequently raised to the status of Royal Burgh in 1611.

This was about the time that William Younger would have been a young man.  For William’s third son, Alexander, to marry in 1646, at the probable age of between 25 and 30, he would have been born between 1616 and 1621.  We know for sure he was over the age of 12 in 1639, so definitely born before 1627.   His father, William, therefore, to have Alexander as his third son would have therefore been born before 1580 and probably before 1570.

Glasgow is today’s largest city in Scotland, but in the early 1600s, Glasgow was a relatively young and undeveloped city, as we can see by various maps.

In Glasgow, there are two churches referred to as High Church, Inner High Church at St. Mungo’s cathedral and Outer High Church or St. Paul’s.  The Glasgow Cathedral is called the “High Kirk” of Glasgow and is located between High and Cathedral Streets, also referred to as St. Mungo’s.  It was originally the Roman Catholic mother church before the Scottish Protestant Reformation in 1560.

William’s parents and grandparents would have lived through the Reformation , and William, depending on exactly when he was born, could have been baptized either Catholic or Protestant.  By the time Alexander came along, he would definitely have been baptized or christened as Protestant.

The Younger timeline in Glasgow, Scotland, as best we can reconstruct it, is shown below.

• 1560 – Protestant Reformation
• 1560 -1580 – William Younger, shown as a burgess, deceased in 1639, his third son Alexander is over the age of 12 at that time.
• 1600 -1612 – Alexander Younger (Sr.), son of William, born. In 1639, he is over the age of 12 and in 1646, he marries Margaret Steinson.
• 1632 – Alexander Younger married Margaret Steinsoune and in 1633, their first child is christened.
• 1639 – Burgesses and Guild Brethren roll list Alexander Younger (Sr.) as over the age of 12 and his father, William, as deceased, with Alexander being his third son.
• 1646 – Note in guild roll indicating Alexander Younger (Sr.) married Margaret Steinson.
• 1652 – Thomas Younger, born in 1652.
• 1656 – Alexander Younger is shown in the guild records as a weaver.
• 1665 – Alexander Younger is shown in the guild records as a weaver.
• 1672 – Thomas Younger married Anna Smith based on the christening of their first child in 1673 in the High Church in Glasgow.
• 1681 – Alexander Younger (Jr.) born to Thomas Younger and Anna Smith and christened in the High Church in Glasgow, Scotland.
• 1687 – Alexander Younger (Sr.) dies in Glasgow.
• 1695 – Thomas Younger died in Glasgow. His wife, Anna died in 1690.
• 1699 – Alexander Younger (Jr.) is found in Virginia records and said to be 18 years old, which would place his birth in 1681.
• 1704 – Alexander’s son, Thomas Younger, born about this time based on the fact that when Alexander wrote his will in 1725, he indicated that Thomas was to be his executor which indicates that Thomas was 21 years of age.
• 1725 – Alexander Younger (Jr.) writes his will in Essex Co., VA, referring to his brother Andrew in Scotland.
• 1727 – Alexander Younger’s will is probated in Essex Co., VA.

This engraving, below, shows the High Church in Glasgow in 1693.  This would have been about 100 years after William Younger lived, given that he was born sometime before 1580, and not far removed from the time that William’s son, Alexander and his grandson, Thomas, died in Glasgow, in about 1687 and 1695, respectively.  This is also likely the church where their funeral rites were carried out, and it is likely where they are buried as well, although their gravestones, if they ever had one, surely don’t remain today.

The next generation, Alexander, the immigrant was born, probably in Glasgow, probably in 1681, so this is what Glasgow would have looked like about the time he left for America.

The following photo is of the College of Glasgow in the late 1660, with Blackfriars Church on land granted to them in 1246, shown on the right.  Alexander, born in the early 1600s and his son, Thomas born in 1652 would have looked upon this very scene.

Below, engraving of Glasgow Cathedral and neighborhood in 1811.

Here is the Glasgow Precinct in 1574.  Later maps all show graveyards by the churches and in fact that may be what the “Yairds” are.

This undated engraving shows a communal washing green near the Cathedral, shown in the background.  Our ancestors surely visited this area and did just that.

The front of the Cathedral today from Cathedral Square.

The history of the cathedral is linked with that of the city, and is allegedly located where the patron saint of Glasgow, Saint Mungo, built his church. The tomb of the saint is in the lower crypt.

This crypt and the remains of St. Mungo were a much venerated pilgrimage site, so our Younger ancestors would have been very aware of this heritage held within their church.

Below, the Crypt of Glasgow Cathedral where Glasgow University was founded.

Built before the Reformation from the late 12th century onwards and serving as the seat of the Bishop and later the Archbishop of Glasgow, the Cathedral is a superb example of Scottish Gothic architecture. It is also one of the few Scottish medieval churches (and the only medieval cathedral on the Scottish mainland) to have survived the Reformation not unroofed.

Today, the church stands majestic and intact, shown below with the Royal Infirmary, the Cathedral and the Necropolis.

Someplace on these lands, the bones of our ancestors surely rest, as our family brought new life into the world, were baptized and married in this church and laid their dead to rest here as well.  It’s from here that our family sprang and Alexander Younger would leave on a ship, from the port of Glasgow, below, about 1700, sailing past the port, Grennock, shown below, to settle in Virginia.  I visited Grennock in the fall of 2013, and it assuredly looks much different today.

Ponderings In Closing

Sometimes just putting things in order helps to straighten them out and makes otherwise obscured patterns emerge.

One pattern, of note, is the repeated name of Janet in the daughters of the Younger family beginning with Alexander Younger and Margaret Steinson and continuing for the next three generations through Alexander Younger and Rebecca Mills children.  Unfortunately, neither Thomas nor Marcus continued that tradition, or if they did, those children did not survive, but the name Janet does help us connect Alexander Younger in early Virginia with the Younger families in Glasgow, Scotland.  The names of Thomas and Alexander also repeat, as does the name Susannah as a sister to Thomas Younger and a child of both Thomas and Marcus Younger.

From the evidence we have, it appears that the Glasgow Younger family is indeed ours.

Another pattern that emerges is of family groupings moving from the Essex/King and Queen County area of Virginia to Halifax County about the time of the Revolutionary War.  This includes both the Estes and Younger families as well as the Harts, Fergusons and Landrums.

A third pattern seems to be one of belonging to a dissenting religion, in this case, Methodists.  This tale is told by the fact that two of the 3 dissenting ministers in Halifax County were marrying family members of the various Younger families.  This is true of the Marcus, Thomas and William Younger family lines, even though we still don’t know exactly how they are connected.  Hawkins Landrum, one of those dissenting ministers, is buried next to the Marcus Younger land.  The Landrum family also came from Essex County.

A fourth pattern is the connection between the South Boston Younger and Estes families whose lands abut, with the Banister River and Terrible Creek Younger families, some 12 miles distant.  This connection likely reaches back to their common location on the Essex/King and Queen County borders.  Mary Younger and George Estes were married before George’s father, Moses (Jr.), purchased land abutting William Younger, and before we find records of Marcus Younger, Mary’s father, In Halifax County.  In addition, it now appears that George Estes and Mary Younger, daughter of Marcus may have lived on Marcus’s land from the time of their marriage in 1786 until when either Marcus Younger or Moses Estes died, in 1813 and 1815, respectively.  In 1810, they appear to be living with Marcus.

After Marcus Younger’s death in 1815, his land went to son John and in life estate, to daughter Susannah.  George Estes was the eldest son of his father, Moses (Jr.), who died in 1813 and George stood to inherit significantly from that estate.  We do know that later in his life, from at least 1820 on, George and Mary Estes Younger unquestionably did live on the Estes land in South Boston.  On the map below, the path from Estes Street in South Boston is shown to Younger Road, running through and north of Halifax, where the courthouse stands.

Additional records that could well illuminate the Hart connection to this family may be available in Essex County.  I checked the chancery suit index at the library of Virginia for Essex County, and no Younger, Hart or Estes suits are old enough to be relevant to these families. It does, however, beg the question of who these Youngers in Essex County in the 1800s belong to, since Alexander had only 3 sons and we know the location of all 3.  Thomas moved to Halifax County, John died shortly after his father, and James went to Chatham Co., NC.

As with many things in life, and all things genealogy, answered questions beget new ones.   We answered quite a few questions recently, including the long-burning question of whether Thomas and Marcus Younger were related.  They were in some way.  We also have DNA evidence that indicates that Marcus’s wife, Susannah, was a Hart, or related to the Hart line.

With this information, of course, we have simply substituted new burning questions for old ones.  We still don’t know who Marcus Younger’s father was, nor his mother, and we may never know.  We do know that the men who his Y DNA matches also don’t match their family, or anyone else for that matter.  I can’t help but think of a traveling salesman, or in that timeframe, the peddler or maybe an itinerant minister.  Were it not so frustrating, it would be quite humorous really.  I’m sure our ancestors, who, of course, know the answers, are all having a good chuckle!

We know very little about Elisabetha Mehlheimer.  Were it not for her daughter’s children’s christening records, we wouldn’t know anything at all.

What do we know?  Elisabetha was born probably about 1800, judging from the fact that she had her daughter, Barbara (possibly Maria Barbara), on December 12, 1823. Elisabetha could have been born as early as 1780 or as late as 1810.

We know that Elisabetha lived in Goppsmannbuhl in 1823, because that is where Barbara was born.

We know Elisabetha was dead by 1851.

In the christening record of her daughters second child, born in 1851, Elisabetha is listed as “the former day laborer in Goppsmannsbuhl,” which indicates she is deceased.

We know she was a day laborer.  What was a day laborer?

From FamilySearch, we learn the following:

The social hierarchy of a village was determined by the size of farmland and personal property. People with little or no property found themselves at the bottom on the social ranking. These were the sons and daughters of farmers who were not entitled to inherit the farm. The number of people in such predicament grew steadily after the Thirty Years War (1618-1648). They had to work as day laborers or seasonal workers and had to be very creative to make ends meet.

Priests during that timeframe wrote of the deplorable conditions in which day laborers lived.  Often, they slept on hay in the corner or loft of a peasant’s home.  They have few or no belongings, and lived at only a subsistence level.  If they did live in a separate “house,” it was often a poorly made shack on the periphery of the village.  Their children left home as quickly as possible to work for themselves or to marry.

There was an entire underclass of day laborers, a significant social notch below peasants who tended to live on and work the same homestead generation after generation.  Sometimes day laborers were younger children who stood to inherit nothing. Day laborers often moved from place to place, so can be especially difficult to track genealogically.

Wonderful, just wonderful – Germanic cultural gypsies.

Perhaps Barbara Mehlheimer’s status as a servant was a step up from her mother’s status as a day-laborer.  No wonder opportunities in America looked so wonderful.

We know Elisabetha was never married.

In that 1851 christening record, Elisabetha’s surname is listed as Mehlheimerin which indicates she never married and she gave her daughter her maiden name.  In German naming practices, the “in” is appended to show a maiden name.  Since her daughter’s surname was also Mehlheimer, we know that Elisabetha was not married, at least not when she gave birth to Barbara.

Elisabetha’s daughter, Barbara, was an unmarried servant, so it’s not an unlikely stretch that Elisabetha was in the same social structural class.

The only other clue we have to any possible family connection is that the witnesses to the christenings of Barbara’s two children born in Germany were  Barbara Krauss of Windeschenlaiback (today probably Windischeschenbach) and Margaretha Kunnath of Berneck.

Barbara Mehlheimer also was not married at the time she gave birth, so it’s likely that these women were related to her and not to the child’s father.  They may have been her sisters, aunts or first cousins.  Barbara ultimately immigrated to the US, with both children and did marry the father, George Drechsel (Americanized to Drexler.)

The State Archives in Amberg, Germany, found in a record for the administration of the upper Palatinate that Barbara Mehlheimer of Goppmansbuhl am Berg received permission to emigrate with her two illegitimate children, as well as Georg Drechsler from Speichersdorf, on April 18, 1852.

If Barbara’s mother, Elisabetha, had died, Barbara would have had no reason to remain in Germany when opportunity in the US beckoned.

George Drechsel and Barbara Melhheimer were married shortly after their arrival in the US, on the same say George Drechsel applied for US citizenship.  They must have been very happy.

According to the Reverend who found these christening records for me in the church in Wirbenz, Germany, Barbara and George probably had to immigrate to be allowed to marry.  He commented on how brave this young couple must have been.  In Germany, a young man had to prove he could support his family before he was allowed to marry.  Immigrating to America at that time was the social equivalent of eloping.  George would have had to work long and hard enough to save enough for both his and her passage, and those of their two children.  This was likely their only opportunity, and they seized it, marrying at their first opportunity.  Marriage is a right we take for granted today, but one they risked their lives and fortunes to obtain.

This could also explain why Elisabetha never married.  Her child’s father couldn’t prove he could support a family.

There were no further records pertaining to Elisabetha in the church in Wirbenz where Barbara’s children’s records were found.  The church in Wirbenz is the church closest to Goppsmannbuhl.

I was unable to find any record of either Barbara Krauss or Margaretha Kunnath, but I was able to find both locations mentioned.  They seem to be about equidistant in either opposite directions from Goppmansbuhl.

You can also see Speichersdorf, located just beneath the Goppmansbuhl label.

Here is the little village of Goppmansbuhl, today, via satellite and thanks to Google Maps.

In the image below, Goppmansbuhl is at the top, and the little village of Wirbenz, about a mile away, is at the lower right.  To put things in perspective, the village of Wirbenz is only about 1000 feet from side to side.

Here is the church in Wirbenz where Barbara’s children were baptized.

Photo by grafuse. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1769873

Did Elisabetha’s view of the church look something like this?

Photo by G. Zapf http://www.panoramio.com/photo/99865838

These are slim pickings for an ancestor – very slim pickings.  Perhaps as more records are digitized and transcribed, more information will emerge.  We’re dead ended right now, as the church records in Wirbenz don’t provide us with any direction further back in time.

Mitochondrial DNA

The only other thing we know about Elizabetha Mehlheimer is her mitochondrial DNA.  Fittingly, it’s just as elusive.

I carry Elisabetha’s mitochondrial DNA, through my mother, and through all females between Elisabetha and me.  My children also carry her mitochondrial DNA, but my son’s children carry his wife’s mtDNA and my daughter’s children would continue the line of Elisabetha.

We know that our full haplogroup is J1c2f.  We know that haplogroup J, Jasmine, was born in the Middle East some 30,000 to 50,000 years ago.  Jasmine’s descendants traveled from the Middle East about the age of the spread of agriculture – and over time, that 4 distinct subgroups, J1, J1c, J1c2 and finally, J1c2f emerged.  Dr. Doroh Behar in his paper “A ‘Copernican’ Reassessment of the Human Mitochondrial DNA Tree from its Root,” places the age of J1c2f at about 1900 years plus or minus 3000 years.  In reality, that means that anything between relatively recently and about 5000 years ago.

This map shows the grouping in the haplogroup J project of J1c (and subgroup) participants.  You can see that there are a few in the Middle East, but very few, so most of J1c and her descendants look to be in Europe today.

My own full sequence matches tell a bit of a different story.

My two exact matches aren’t in Germany, they are in Norway.  My matches that are one mutation different are found in Sweden, the Czech Republic and Russia.  My two mutation match is found in Sweden.

This is confusing.  What happened?  What is going on?

In total, I have 9 full sequence matches, although not all of them provided the geographical location of their most distant matrilineal ancestor. One individual does not have e-mail, so I can’t exactly ask them.

Of these matches, 3 are exact, 4 have one mutation difference and 2 have two mutations difference.  I’m very curious to know which mutations we don’t share.  I have to wonder if there is a mappable pattern to the mutations that would infer sublines.  I wrote to my mito-cousins and asked if they would share their mutation information.  Two responded, the rest did not.  Frustrating.  This means that I can’t work from the mutation mapping angle.

Time to find a different approach.

Let’s Go Fishing!

There has to be some type of historic connection between Germany and Norway, or the Scandinavian region.  Normally, when dealing with Y DNA, we think of warfare.  We look at the history of wars and invasions, because soldiers did leave their DNA sprinkled around the countryside where they visited – if they didn’t outright settle there.  But mtDNA is different.  Women aren’t soldiers and one can’t just leave mtDNA scattered in quite the same way that Y DNA gets left behind.  Mitochondrial DNA is passed from the women to all of her children, and is only passed on by the female children.  So, generally, where you find the children, you also find the mother – they don’t deposit their DNA and then go back home.

So, let’s poke around and utilize Google and Wiki, our friends.  In other words, let’s go fishing and see what we catch.

Bayern aka Bavaria

Bayern, also known as Bavaria, comprises the entire southeast portion of Germany.  It borders The Czech Republic, Austria and Switzerland along with 4 other German states.  Bavaria is divided into 7 regions.  Bavaria is one of the oldest continuously existing states in Europe; it was established as a stem duchy in the year 907.

The Bavarians as a people emerged in a region north of the Alps, originally inhabited by the Celts, which had been part of the Roman provinces of Raetia and Noricum.

The Bavarians spoke Old High German but, unlike other Germanic groups, probably did not migrate from elsewhere. Rather, they seem to have coalesced out of other groups left behind by Roman withdrawal late in the 5th century. These peoples may have included the Celtic Boii, some remaining Romans, Marcomanni, Allemanni, Quadi, Thuringians, Goths, Scirians, Rugians, Heruli. The name “Bavarian” (“Baiuvarii”) means “Men of Baia” which may indicate Bohemia, the homeland of the Celtic Boii and later of the Marcomanni. They first appear in written sources circa 520. Saint Boniface completed the people’s conversion to Christianity in the early-8th century. Bavaria was, for the most part, unaffected by the Protestant Reformation that happened centuries later.

Wirbenz, Goppmansbuhl and surrounding areas are located in Upper Franconia whose capital is Bayreuth.  Upper Franconia was annexed to Bavaria in 1815 and borders the Czech Republic and the German states of Saxony and Thuringia.  With more than 200 independent breweries which brew approximately 1000 different types of beer, Upper Franconia has the world’s highest brewery-density per capita. A special Franconian beer route (Fränkische Brauereistraße) leads along popular breweries.

Bavarians tend to place a great value on food and drink. In addition to their renowned dishes, Bavarians also consume many items of food and drink which are unusual elsewhere in Germany; for example Weißwurst (“white sausage”) or in some instances a variety of entrails.  Oh yum…

At folk festivals and in many beer gardens, beer is traditionally served by the litre in a Maß, a glass beer mug that holds exactly one litre.

Bavarians are particularly proud of the traditional Reinheitsgebot, or purity law, initially established by the Duke of Bavaria for the City of Munich in 1487 and the duchy in 1516. According to this law, only three ingredients were allowed in beer: water, barley, and hops.  Bavarians are also known as some of the world’s most beer-loving people with an average annual consumption of 170 litres per person, although figures have been declining in recent years.

Ok, so now we know that Bavarians aren’t migrants, but the original people of the region and they not only love beer, they are very good brewmeisters.

Bayern is part of Upper Franconia, so…

Who were the Franconians?

Franconia is named after the Franks, a Germanic tribe who conquered most of Western Europe by the middle of the 8th century. Though one might assume that Franconia was the homeland of the Franks (indeed in German, Franken is used for both modern day Franconians and the historic Franks), this is not the case. Until the 6th century AD, the region of today’s Franconia was probably dominated by Alamanni and Thuringians. After the Frankish triumphs over both tribes around 507 and 529–534, most parts were occupied by the Franks.

Ok, so Franconians could be Alamanni, Thuringians or Franks.

The Frankish Empire (at its greatest extent around the year 800) included most of modern Franconia, which was situated at its easternmost borders. The vast majority of ethnic Franks, divided between Salians and Ripuarians, were confined respectively to the Low Countries, the northeastern tip of modern France and the Rhine river banks all the way down to near the Main and Hesse areas. However, there was a Frankish elite which was dispersed all across the empire, and it is from this elite that Franconia derives its name.

Hmmm, I wonder where else they might have been dispersed to…

Around the 9th century Frankish identity gradually changed from an ethnic identity to a national identity. The original ethnic Franks ceased to be called by others and themselves Franks, whereas certain groups of people who were not Franks but were mostly ruled by Frankish nobility now began to use it as a term to describe their respective land and people. At the beginning of the 10th century a Duchy of Franconia (German Herzogtum Franken) was established within East Francia, which comprised modern Hesse, Palatinate, parts of Baden-Württemberg and most of today’s Franconia. These areas had been dominated and settled by the Burgundians and the Alemanni before being removed and resettled much further south around Switzerland. The vacuum left may have been resettled then by some Frankish nobles with some more or less numerous retainers from their original core area.

A vacuum?  I wonder who actually did settle there.  This is an opportunity and possibility for how Elisabetha’s mtDNA got to Germany.

While Old Bavaria is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, Franconia is a mixed area. Lower Franconia and the western half of Upper Franconia (Bamberg, Lichtenfels, Kronach) is predominantly Catholic, while most of Middle and the eastern half of Upper Franconia (Bayreuth, Hof, Kulmbach) are predominantly Protestant (Evangelical Church in Germany).

Elisabetha’s records were found in a Protestant church.

Now we know more about this region of Germany, and there does seem to be some opportunity for resettlement here around the year 1000, and we also see that some Franks were settled elsewhere, in particular, the elite.  But still, that doesn’t connect us to Scandinavia.

Let’s look at this from the perspective of historical Scandinavia, in particular, the locations where my mtDNA matches are found.

Loten, Norway

There has been traffic from east to west through Løten, throughout all recorded periods of history and archeological evidence supports earlier trade along this route.

When King Christian IV of Denmark prohibited the importation of German beer in the early 17th Century, distillation began in Norway. In 1624, distilled alcohol was prohibited at weddings, and by 1638 King Christian forbade the clergy the right to distill in their own homes. The corn-growing districts of Løten, Vang (the former municipality in Hedmark), and Romedal all became famous for their distilleries.

Within Løten lies the “border” between cultivated farmland and the winderness.  It begins with the wheat fields of the lower eastern Norway, continues around and south of lake Mjøsa, and borders the taiga, the boreal coniferous forests that stretches from eastern Norway until Siberia. The moorland Hedmarksvidda lies in the north.

So, Loten was a trade route, and Norway imported beer until in the 1600s.  This timeframe would have been during the 30 Years War in Germany.  Now that beer connection is quite interesting, because it tells us that trade between the two locations was indeed healthy and prosperous, at least until 1624.  And we already know that Bayern was the heart of beer production in Germany.

Let’s look at Christian IV, King of Denmark.

Christian IV – King of Denmark

Christian IV was King of Denmark-Norway from 1588 until his death in 1648.

He was quite interested in the Thirty Years’ War in Germany where his objectives were twofold: first, to obtain control of the great German rivers— the Elbe and the Weser— as a means of securing his dominion of the northern seas; and secondly, to acquire the secularized German Archdiocese of Bremen and Prince-Bishopric of Verden as appanages for his younger sons. He skillfully took advantage of the alarm of the German Protestants after the Battle of White Mountain in 1620, to secure coadjutorship of the See of Bremen for his son Frederick (September 1621). A similar arrangement was reached in November at Verden. Hamburg was also induced to acknowledge the Danish overlordship of Holstein by the compact of Steinburg in July 1621.

Interesting, but this all took place in the northern part of Germany, so probably not relevant to Bavaria which is located in the southwest quadrant of Germany.

Sweden

Sweden, however, was another matter.  In 1631, Sweden invaded Bavaria.  Over the following months, they decimated Germany, destroying up to 2000 castles, 18,000 villages and 1,500 towns.  That’s equivalent to one third of all German settlements.  While this was a horrific development, it doesn’t explain how Scandinavian mtDNA might have arrived in Germany.  There is no record that the soldiers brought any women with them.  It did however, prove extremely disruptive to the region and may have opened the door for new settlers in some locations. 

Let’s take a look at the next location where a full sequence match is located.

Inderoy, Norway

The municipality is primarily an agricultural community, but also has some industry.

The municipality is named Inderøy which comes from the Old Norse form of the name: Eynni iðri, meaning is “the inner island”, probably referring to the peninsula which sticks out into the fjord.

During the Middle Ages Inderøy was called Eynni iðri, meaning the inner island, which is still the meaning of the word Inderøy. Saurshaug (now Sakshaug) was an important political centre until the 20th century. In the Middle Ages it was the centre of the county

During the late Middle Ages and until the breakup of the union between Sweden and Norway Inderøy was the seat of the Governor, Judge, and Tax Collector of Nordre Trondhjems amt, thus it was the county capital of what now is known as Nord-Trøndelag. The Trondhjems, shown below in red, is an area that abuts Sweden and divides Norway in half, north to south.  It was important prior to and in the Viking age, but was almost entirely depopulated during the 1300s.  The Sami people and others repopulated this region over the next two centuries.  All of my Scandinavian matches, except one, are in proximity to this region.

Just as this article was ready to go to press, I received another full sequence match and it is also found in this region, in Nesna, just above the red area, in the fjords, on an island.  This is just beneath the Arctic Circle.

We know that haplogroup J1c2f is not Sami, so this is not the source of our ancestors.

Let’s take a look at the areas in Sweden where my matches are found.

Strand, Strom, Sweden (Stronsund)

Strand is a very small village in Sweden whose claim to fame is that it has the largest population of black bears.

Laxsjo, where my second Swedish match’s ancestors are located is too small to even be called a village.  Both are located in Jämtland, which was originally an autonomous peasant republic, its own nation with its own law, currency and parliament. However, Jämtland lacked a public administration and is thus best regarded as an anarchy, in its true meaning.

Jämtland was conquered by Norway in 1178 and stayed Norwegian for over 450 years until it was ceded to Sweden in 1645. The province has since been Swedish for roughly 350 years, though the population did not gain Swedish citizenship until 1699.

Historically, socially and politically Jämtland has been a special territory between Norway and Sweden. This in itself is symbolized in the province’s coat of arms where Jämtland, the silver moose, is threatened from the east and from the west. During the unrest period in Jämtland’s history (1563–1677) it shifted alignment between the two states no less than 13 times.  These historical and cultural bonds to Trøndelag and Härjedalen have expressed themselves in the name Øst-Trøndelag, in addition to the fact that the Jamts historically never considered themselves to be Swedish Norrlanders.

Jämtland’s name derives from its inhabitants, the Jamts. The name can be traced back to Europe’s northernmost runestone, the Frösö Runestone from the 11th century. The root of Jamt (Old West Norse: jamti), and thus Jämtland, derives from the Proto-Germanic word stem emat- meaning persistent, efficient, enduring and hardworking.

Aha, so the work Jamtland has a Germanic origin.

A Jamtish Neolithic culture emerged during late Roman Iron Age (about the year 400) in Storsjöbygden, although the hunter-gatherers had come in contact with this lifestyle long before they settled down themselves. Since the hunts were rich and successful in Jämtland, it took a long time before a change occurred.

During the Viking age, the settlement in the province grew. This confirms the sagas written by Snorri Sturluson, where he narrates about the Vikings who fled from Harald Fairhair and Norway in about the year 900 and took residence in Jämtland, just like many Norwegians at the same time fled and colonized Iceland.

This makes me wonder if some of them fled into Germany as well.

Religiously the Jamts had abandoned the indigenous Germanic tribal religion in favour of the Norse faith.  Aha, so apparently the Jamts themselves were descendants of Germanic tribes.

As the population continued to grow, the Jamts established an Thing (assembly), just like other Germanic tribes. Jamtamót, the assembly of Jamtland, came into existence shortly after the world’s oldest parliament, the Icelandic Althing, which was instituted in 930 CE.

Norse religion is a subset of Germanic paganism, which was practiced in the lands inhabited by the Germanic tribes across most of Northern and Central Europe.

Knowledge of Norse religion is mostly drawn from the results of archaeological field work, etymology and early written materials.

The literary sources that reference Norse paganism were written after the religion had declined and Christianity had taken hold, so it wasn’t painted in a positive way. The vast majority of this came from 13th century Iceland, where Christianity had taken longest to gain hold because of its remote location.

Many other ideographic and iconographic motifs which may portray the religious beliefs of the Pre-Viking and Viking Norse are depicted on runestones, which were usually erected as markers or memorial stones. These memorial stones usually were not placed in proximity to a body, and many times there is an epitaph written in runes to memorialize a deceased relative. This practice continued well into the process of Christianization.  Most, but not all of the runestones are found in Sweden.  Many runestones tell of the demise of an individual in England, probably on raids.

Like most pre-modern peoples, Norse society was divided into several classes and the early Norse practiced slavery in earnest.

Slavery – I wonder if a female slave could have been brought from Germany at some point.

One of the first things Tacitus mentions in his work Germania is that the Germanic people treasure their animals above all else. Tacitus also concludes that the Germanic people found cultivation repulsive. Instead, he states, the Germanic people devote themselves to food and sleep and besides that they prefer to remain idle. All of this, to certain extents, applied to Jämtland. When the people of Jämtland settled down they relied mostly on pastoralism. Their animals were the source of wealth and they were therefore loved by their owners.

It looks like the original people of this region were Germanic.  However, my closest matches aren’t in Germany, where Elisabetha was found, but in Scandinavia.

Did the Vikings later raid and perhaps settle in the Bayern region of Germany?

The Vikings

The Vikings seem to be everyplace in Europe – and they were – so long as there were rivers.  This part of Germany seems to have escaped most of the Viking’s wrath – so it’s unlikely that the mtDNA in Germany is a result of a Viking excursion.

Conversely, it’s certainly possible that a Viking took a shine to one of his prisoners and took a nice German girl as a slave or wife – and back to Scandinavia with him.

It appears the Vikings are an un likely migration source relative to Bavaria/Bayern/Franconia.

So, if the Scandinavians were Germanic people, who were the Germanic peoples?

Germanic Peoples

The Germanic peoples (also called Teutonic, Suebian or Gothic in older literature) are an Indo-European ethno-linguistic group of Northern European origin, identified by their use of the Germanic languages which diversified out of Proto-Germanic starting during the Pre-Roman Iron Age.

The term “Germanic” originated in classical times, when groups of tribes were referred to using this term by Roman authors. For them, the term was not necessarily based upon language, but rather referred to tribal groups and alliances who were considered less civilized, and more physically hardened, than the Celtic Gauls living in the region of modern France. Tribes referred to as Germanic in that period lived generally to the north and east of the Gauls.

In modern times the term occasionally has been used to refer to ethnic groups who speak a Germanic language and claim ancestral and cultural connections to ancient Germanic people.  Within this context, modern Germanic peoples include the Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Icelanders, Germans, Austrians, English, Dutch, Afrikaners, Flemish, Frisians and others.

This confirms that Scandinavians are considered Germanic.

Prior to the Middle Ages, Germanic peoples followed what is now referred to as Germanic paganism: “a system of interlocking and closely interrelated religious worldviews and practices rather than as one indivisible religion” and as such consisted of “individual worshippers, family traditions and regional cults within a broadly consistent framework.  It was polytheistic in nature, with some underlying similarities to other Indo-Germanic traditions.

Many of the deities found in Germanic paganism appeared under similar names across the Germanic peoples, most notably the god known to the Germans as Wodan or Wotan, to the Anglo-Saxons as Woden, and to the Norse as Óðinn, as well as the god Thor – known to the Germans as Donar, to the Anglo-Saxons as Þunor and to the Norse as Þórr.

While the Germanic peoples were slowly converted to Christianity by varying means, many elements of the pre-Christian culture and indigenous beliefs remained firmly in place after the conversion process, particularly in the more rural and distant regions.

In Scandinavia, Germanic paganism continued to dominate until the 11th century in the form of Norse paganism, when it was gradually replaced by Christianity.

Gamla Uppsala, the center of Norse worship in Sweden, with three “royal” mounds representing the three Gods, Thor, Odin and Feyr, is shown below.

Below, the same mounds are shown about 1700.

Towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC, Proto-Indo-European speaking Battle-Axe peoples migrated to Norway bringing domesticated horses, agriculture, cattle and wheel technology to the region.

During the Viking age, Harald Fairhair unified the Norse petty kingdoms after being victorious at the The Battle of Hafrsfjord in the 880s. Two centuries of Viking expansion tapered off following the decline of Norse paganism with the adoption of Christianity in the 11th century. During The Black Death, approximately 60% of the population died and in 1397 Norway entered a union with Denmark.

This may be our answer, but was there back immigration into Germany?  Exact matches should indicate a common ancestor in a time frame closer than 5000 years ago, according to the haplogroup age estimates of Dr. Behar.

Norway and The Netherlands

During the 17th and 18th centuries, many Norwegians emigrated to the Netherlands, particularly Amsterdam.  The Netherlands was the second most popular destination for Norwegian emigrants after Denmark.

Loosely estimated, some 10% of the population may have emigrated, in a period when the entire Norwegian population consisted of some 800,000 people.

The Norwegians left with the Dutch trade ships that when in Norway traded for timber, hides, herring and stockfish (dried codfish). Young women took employment as maids in Amsterdam.

Barbara Melhleimer was a servant in the mid-1800s where her children were baptized.

Young men took employment as sailors. Large parts of the Dutch merchant fleet and navy came to consist of Norwegians and Danes. They took Dutch names, so no trace of Norwegian names can be found in the Dutch population of today.

The emigration to the Netherlands was so devastating to the homelands that the Danish-Norwegian king issued penalties of death for emigration, but repeatedly had to issue amnesties for those willing to return, announced by posters in the streets of Amsterdam. Increasingly, Dutchmen who search their genealogical roots turn to Norway. Many Norwegians who emigrated to the Netherlands, and often were employed in the Dutch merchant fleet, emigrated further to the many Dutch colonies such as New Amsterdam (New York).

Genetics

According to the paper, “Different Genetic Components in the Norwegian population revealed by the analysis of mtDNA and Y Chromosome Polymorphisms” by Passarino (2002), both mtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms showed a noticeable genetic affinity between the Norwegian population and other ethnic groups in Northern and Central Europe, particularly with the Germans. This is due to a history of at least a thousand years of large-scale migration both in and out of Norway.  Norwegian and Swedish Y and mtDNA is closer to Germans than any other European region.  The authors expressed the following opinion relative to haplogroup J.

Haplogroup J, possibly brought to Europe by Neolithic farmers coming from the Near East is found at a frequency of 10% in our sample. It has also been reported elsewhere at 7% in Norway. Given its frequency in Northern and Central Europe, it is likely it has been brought by the Germanic migrations to Norway. As previously noted, the distribution of this haplogroup throughout Northern Europe indicates that during the spread of agriculture women moved throughout Europe, crossing group and cultural barriers more so than men. In addition, any asymmetric cultural factors that reduce the effective population size of men relative to women would influence the geographic patterns of mtDNA lineages relative to Y haplotypes.

Positive selection is also a possible influence. The presence of mtDNA haplogroup J in our sample, and elsewhere in Northern Europe shows that its frequency in Norway is even higher than in those areas from where it probably arrived. It would be intriguing, although very speculative, to hypothesise that the climate of Northern Europe may have played a selective pressure where the uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation and the consequent higher production of heat in J individuals may have led to an advantage, as previously suggested for the European groups during the glaciations.

Glory be, hot flashes might have been good for something after all!

In Summary

I compared the raw results in the Passarino paper with my own results.  Of the mutations included in that paper, which did not include any coding region mutations, I carry only two, 16069 and 16126.  These were reported in every haplogroup J result, where the other 9 mutations were only found in a maximum of two participants each.

It looks very likely, barring new evidence, such as church records that say that Elisabetha Mehlheimer, or her mother, were from Scandinavia and immigrated in the 1600s or 1700s, that we’re going to have to assume the common ancestor of Elisabetha Mehlheimer and my matches lived in Germanic Europe.  Given the match below, she may have even lived in Russia, between the Black and Caspian Seas, and her descendants may have migrated to the region now known as Germany, with a subgroup moving further north into Scandinavia.

If this is the case, that means that there have been no mutations in this ancestral line since that migration occurred, at least in the case of the two exact matches in Norway, as long as 5000 years ago.

While this does indeed sound unlikely, I have seen this phenomenon in client’s DNA before.

A second possibility is that someone from Norway returned during the migration of the 1600s and 1700s, adopted a Germany surname, and we are none the wiser today.  Given that my only exact matches are in Scandinavia, this seems the most likely scenario.

We may never know for sure.  In fact, we’re not likely to know.  However, on the KISS scale, where the simplest, easiest, least complex answer is likely to be the right one, the population migration to Norway scenario comes out on top with the remigration in the 1600-1700s second.  Both of those events had many opportunities for people to move, and we know for certain that many did.  Other scenarios, such as the beer trade, are certainly still a possibility, but on a much smaller scale.  Of course, that doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.  We can only deal here with history as we know it, possibilities and probabilities.

Elisabetha Mehlheimer’s ancestry and her Scandinavian mitochondrial matches may forever remain shrouded in mystery.  However, I at least understand the possibilities.  It’s no wonder that those fjords in Norway brought me such joy.

Part of me seems to be there.

Hmmm…I think I’ll go and have one of those nice German beers and ponder the situation.

Frère Jacques, Frère Jacques,
Dormez-vous? Dormez-vous?
Sonnez les matines, sonnez les matines
Ding ding dong, ding ding dong.

I always loved that lullaby from childhood.  Brother John, Brother John, are you sleeping, are you sleeping?  Morning Bells are ringing, morning bells are ringing….

I had no idea I had my own French Jacques and that the morning bells were those of Notre Dame in Paris.

Little did I know on the day I found my first Acadian ancestor what a floodgate was opening.  Now, that’s both a good thing and a bad thing.  Wonderful because so much research has been done on Acadian families, and terribly frustrating because in so many cases, in spite of all of that research, we still can’t get them back to France.

The families are also, in some cases, hopelessly intertwined….and I don’t even want to talk about what the autosomal DNA of these families looks like.  Let’s just say that it’s not a family tree, but more line a family vine.

Jacques “dit Beaumont” de Bonnevie is an exception in that we know where he was born in France.

Before I tell you about Jacques, what little we know about him, let me thank a few people who’ve helped me immensely.

First, Paul LeBlanc, who tells me we are related in 37 different ways, is the host of the Acadian list at Rootsweb.  To subscribe to this list,  please send an email to ACADIAN-request@rootsweb.com with the word ‘subscribe’ without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message.

I think it was also Paul who told me that if you’re related to one Acadian, you’re related to all Acadians.  I thought it was cute at the time.  Little did I realize he was serious!  I didn’t know, then, just how true that was!

Secondly, the research on Jacque and much of what has been done on my other Acadian ancestors was contributed by Karen Theriot Reader, a librarian and genealogist extraordinaire, focused on Acadian immigrants to Louisiana.  Fortunately for me, those families all originated in Acadia, in far northeastern Canada, shown on the map below.

I am also very grateful to the administrators of DNA projects that include or focus on Acadian families.

There is the Mothers of Acadia project as well as the Amerindian Ancestor Out of Acadia project.

There are also various related projects, such as the Louisiana Creole and the French Heritage projects.

Sorting out the families and separating myth from fact has become much easier with the advent of genetic genealogy.  In fact, it’s how I proved my first Acadian connection through the Lore family – but that’s a story for another time.

Dit Names

Oh yes, and there’s one more thing I’d better explain and that’s about “dit” names.  Dit names, often found in French Canadian, specifically Acadian, families are nicknames, for lack of a better term, either attached to a surname or to a particular person.

Dit translates literally as “to say” so a “dit” name means “that is to say.”  Sometimes dit names are location based, military based or something else that doesn’t make much sense today.  For example, if the dit name is LaMontagne, or “the mountain,” does it mean the man was built like a mountain, he was of great social stature, was it that he lived near the mountain, or was it, perhaps, a joke?

As if Acadian genealogy wasn’t complex enough, ancestors can be listed under either name, or both, variously, or at the same time.

When I knew I was going to Paris in the fall of 2013, I searched through my files to see if any of my ancestors had a historical connection to Paris, and sure enough, Jacques was born there.

Jacques “dit Beaumont” de Bonnevie

Jacques was born about 1660, although some references state as late as 1678, in Paris. However, Karen Theriot Reader’s source provides proof that the 1660 date is much more accurate than later dates.

Karen provided me with the following information about Jacques and how we know he was in fact, born in Paris.

The citation from Stephen A. White is from his highly respected genealogical dictionary of Acadians. He does go into detail on the historical document which says Jacques was a “native of Paris.” It is in French in the original citation, but I have the English translation he published somewhat later. Footnote/Endnote Citation: Stephen A. White, English Supplement to the Dictionnaire généalogique des familles acadiennes (Moncton: Centre d’Études Acadiennes, 2000). Published as [vol. 3] of the Dictionnaire Généalogique des Familles Acadiennes.

He is listed as Jacques Bonnavie dit Beaumont.

Another note from Karen provides us with additional information.

Jacques BONNEVIE dit BEAUMONT, Biographical Note: 20 Dec 1732: List of the disabled retired from the French forces at Ile Royale proposed to my Lord the Compte de Maurepas to receive half-pay.

Jacques Bonnevie called Beaumont, aged seventy-two years, native of Paris, former corporal in the troops of Acadia, where he served for seventeen years. He is not in condition to serve, nor to earn his living, because of a wound to his thigh he received in the King’s service.

Document found in Stephen A. White’s Dictionnaire (French ed.):  (ANF, Col, D2C, vol 47, fol 475)   That would be in the Archives of New France (ANF). Also, Isle Royale is now Cape Breton Island in Canada.

Jacques died on April 23, 1733 at the Hospital de Louisbourg, Ile-Royal, Acadia.

Karen also provided from Bona Arsenault, HISTOIRE ET GENEALOGIE DES ACADIENS; 1625-1810; Ottawa, Editions Lemeac, 1978, 6 vols.; p. 438 (Port Royal); own copy:

Entry says name also BEAUMONT. Jacques was born around 1678, married around 1699 to Francoise MIUS, “doubtless” the daughter of Philippe MIUS Jr. of Pobomcoup & a “sauvagesse” Marie, whom he had married.

Karen’s tree shows the six children listed, born from 1701 through 1715.  There were no births listed from 1707-1714, suggesting that at least 4 children perished.

“Sauvagesse” means Native American.  Because she has a Christian name, Marie, we can rest assured that she had been baptized into the Catholic faith.

One of the daughters of Jacques dit Beaumont de Bonnevie was Marie Charlote Bonnevie, born May 12, 1706 in Port Royal, Acadia.  On August 18, 1721, Marie would marry Jacques “dit LaMontagne” Lore/Lord.  They are my 7G-grandparents.

DNA

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any record that anyone by the name of Bonnevie or deBonnevie has been DNA tested, but at Family Tree DNA there are 15 individuals with the surname Beaumont who have tested.  There is no Beaumont surname project, unfortunately, so I checked the French Heritage project.  Unfortunately, there is only one and they are from England.  At Ancestry.com, there is only one Beaumont who has tested and there is no information attached to their account.  I have sent them a message, but I’m not at all convinced that my message-sending capability at Ancestry isn’t broken, considering that I haven’t received a reply from anyone in over a year.

I have a scholarship for Y DNA testing for any male who descends from this line and carries the surname, whatever it is today, Bonnevie, de Bonnevie, Beaumont, or whatever.

Renaissance Paris

I know what Paris was like in 1970 when I lived there, and what it is like today, but what was Paris like when Jacque de Bonnevie lived there as a child in the 1660s and 1670s?

Like everyplace else in Europe at that time, religion played a very big part of the lives of the populace.  Paris wasn’t immune to the religious turmoil plaguing the rest of Europe after the beginning of Protestantism in 1530. This problem didn’t begin in the 1600s though, but much earlier, in the 1500s,althoug the ramifications reached forward centuries.

An ominous gulf was growing within Paris between the followers of the established Catholic church and Protestant Calvinism and Renaissance humanism. The Sorbonne and University of Paris, the major fortresses of Catholic orthodoxy, forcefully attacked the Protestant and humanist doctrines, and the scholar Etienne Dolet was burned at the stake, along with his books, on Place Maubert in 1532, on the orders of the theology faculty of the Sorbonne; but despite that, the new doctrines continued to grow in popularity, particularly among the French upper classes.

Beginning in 1562, repression and massacres of Protestants in Paris alternated with periods of tolerance and calm, during what became known as the French Wars of Religion. Paris was a stronghold of the Catholic party. On the night of 23–24 August 1572, while many prominent Protestants were in Paris on the occasion of the marriage of Henri of Navarre—the future Henry IV—to Margaret of Valois, sister of Charles IX, the royal council decided to assassinate the leaders of the protestants. The targeted killings quickly turned into a general slaughter of Protestants by Catholic mobs, known as St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, and continued through August and September, spreading from Paris to the rest of the country. About three thousand Protestants were killed in Paris, and five to ten thousand elsewhere in France.

This painting by Francois Debois shows the massacre with Admiral Cologny’s body handing out of a window in the rear to the right.  The left rear shows Catherine de’Medici emerging from the Chateau de Louvre to inspect a heap of bodies.  Another drawing, below, by Frans Hogenberg, shows the massacre as well.

People left Paris in droves, about one third of the population, fearing for their safety.  Many houses were destroyed during the Religious Wars and the grand projects of the Louvre, the Hôtel de Ville, and the Tuileries Palace were left unfinished.

This was a very dark time in French history.

By the middle of the 1600s, the city had recovered and new churches were being built, inspired by those of Rome.  By 1650, the population had doubled and reached about 400,000.  Bridges were being built to replace ferries and new construction was everyplace.  The Church of Les Invalides was built between 1671 and 1678 and the College of 4 Nations from 1662-1672.  New theaters were created to entertain people and the first café opened in 1686.  Paris was growing and prospering.  Jacque, born about 1660, would have been witness to this prosperity.

For the poor however, life was very different.  They were crowded into tall, narrow, five or six story high buildings lining the winding streets on the Île de la Cité and other medieval quarters of the city. Crime in the dark streets was a serious problem. Metal lanterns were hung in the streets and the number of archers who acted as night watchmen was increased to four hundred.

Of course, we don’t know Jacque’s social or financial status – but I doubt a wealthy man would serve in the military as an enlisted man, and be shipped to Nova Scotia.

Paris in 1660

We know that Jacques was born in Paris in 1660.  We know that he was in Acadia by 1699 when he married.  He likely did not arrive in Acadia until he was at least age 20, so he was in Paris from at least 1660 to 1680 and possibly another 18 or 19 years.

We know that he was in the military for 17 years, and he know that he had a “dit” name that translates as “beautiful mountain.”  (Thank you for the translation to Marie Rundquist.)  You’ll have to pardon my wondering about how that name was bestowed up on him, and whether it was before or after he arrived in Acadia.

What was happening in Paris when Jacques lived there?

In 1660, all of Paris gathered to see the entry of King Louis the XIV.  Were Jacque’s parents among the crowd?  Was his mother pregnant for Jacques, or perhaps she had a newborn infant and couldn’t attend the festivities.

Here’s the Louvre, as Jacque might have seen it as a young boy, in the 1660s.  In fact, he could have been one of those children playing in the street.

If, in fact, Jacques was born anyplace near the city center, he could have been baptized in Notre Dame.

Here is a painting of “Choeur de Notre Dame de Paris” from 1669.

This first map is of Paris in 1550. You can see this map in detail at this link.  The detail is incredible, neighborhoods and even individual houses.  Were Jacques’, and my, ancestors living here then?  Is their house on the map?

The first bridge, The Pont Notre-Dame, shown on the map above, was built in 1512 and held a street and 68 houses.

Here’s a perspective view of Paris from 1607.  Notice that there were many churches.

The island at the city center is quite visible and so are the walls, although it’s evident that there is already some constructions and people living outside the walls.  If Jacques was born in 1660, this would have been the Paris of his grandparents.

This 1660 map shows not only the city, but the dress of Parisians at that time as well.  This would have been what his parents wore or saw people around them wearing.

In 1670, King Louis ordered the destruction of the city walls, feeling they were no longer necessary.  This 1705 map shows the location of the old walls and the new construction outside the walls.  Did Jacque watch the old walls being torn down?  Might he have helped? He would have been a strapping man of about 20, in his physical prime.

Jacques would have watched the construction of Les Invalides, above, from 1662-1672.

We don’t know when Jacques left Paris, but we do know he was in “His Majesty’s Service” for 17 years, and it’s very likely that he arrived in the New World as a soldier.  Life would have been dramatically different for Jacques, moving from Paris to, comparatively, a wilderness.

We also know he was wounded in the thigh, but we don’t know how or when that injury occurred although it would have not been before his arrival in Acadia.  It could well have been in 1710 in the Siege of Port Royal when the British took Port Royal, renaming it Annapolis Royal.

His 17 years in service could have ended shortly after his arrival in Nova Scotia.  If he enlisted when he was age 20 in 1680, his 17 years of service would have ended in 1697, for example.  However, the wording in his pension application says specifically that he served as a “former corporal in the troops of Acadia, where he served for seventeen years.”  If he served in Acadia for 17 years, then his retirement was probably about 1715 or so.  It certainly was not after 1716 if he married in Port Royal about 1799.  His retirement could have been earlier than 1716.

It’s likely that Jacques was involved with the building of the fort at Port Royal.  With the outbreak of the War of the Spanish Succession in 1702, colonists on both sides again prepared for conflict. Acadia’s governor, Jacques-François de Monbeton de Brouillan, had, in anticipation of war, already begun construction of a stone and earth fort in 1701, shown below, which was largely completed by 1704.

Fort Royal was defended by about 300 troops, many of whom were poorly trained recruits from France.  We don’t know when Jacques was injured, but to entirely disable him, it must have been severe.  In 1710, the French lost both Fort Royal and Port Royal.  The painting below shows the evacuation of the fort.  Whether Jacques was still in the military at this time, or not, he surely was involved in many ways during this decade of instability.

Did he and his wife worry constantly about an impending attack?  Did they finally decide that it was never coming, and relax, only to be surprised?  How did they cope with living under constant threat?  Life apparently went on, because several of their children were born during this decade.

Jacques would have been 50 years old in 1710 when Fort Royal was taken by the British.  He requested a half-pay pension on December 20, 1732, at age 72, and subsequently died on April 23, 1733.

Maybe it’s a good thing he died when he did and didn’t live another 22 years to see his children and their families uprooted and forcibly deported from Acadia in the 1755 event known as “Le Grand Derangement.”

Jacques saw a lot in his lifetime.  The rebuilding and expansion of the City of Paris, the removal of the medieval city walls, a transatlantic crossing, the fort at Port Royal and the loss of Port Royal to the British in 1710 when he had young children to protect.  He was likely involved in battles, or at least one battle, and was severely wounded.  He would have watched his children become adults and marry as the fort area expanded.  Still, his children were close by.  In 1732, probably as he was becoming feeble and unable to care for himself, he asked for a half-pay pension for his 17 years of service, passing away only four months later..

I wonder if he agreed to go to Acadia (Canada) with the expectation that he would never return home to France, or if the company of French/Indian Francoise Mius changed his mind and was the reason he remained.  We have no records from Paris, but his age at the time he married Francoise, nearly 40 years old, suggests that he might have had a family in France at one time as well.  Perhaps they perished and he went to Acadia to begin anew.

We are very fortunate to know as much as we do about Jacques “dit Beaumont” de Bonnevie.  Like all genealogists, I’d love to know more.  I’d also love to test the DNA of a Bonnevie male descendant, if there are any.  If you are a male Bonnevie and descend from this line, I have a DNA scholarship waiting just for you!

When I first started researching Lazarus Dodson, Sr., he seemed impossibly vague.  He moved from place to place throughout his life, across states and on the frontier of early America in areas not yet states, and never left a forwarding, or return, address.  We don’t know who his wife was, and his life was only reassembled from pieces and tidbits.  We still have more questions than answers, but some of the hints we’ve picked up along the way are incredibly tantalizing.

Was his wife Native?  Why was he encamped with the Indians?  Was his son really an Indian Trader?  Was another son murdered?  Follow along as we piece the clues of Lazarus life together into something resembling a partially completed puzzle.

Lazarus Dodson, son of Raleigh Dodson and his wife, Mary, surname unknown, was probably born about 1760, perhaps slightly earlier, probably in North Farnham Parish in Richmond County, Virginia.  However, there is some evidence that his father, Raleigh was living in Prince William County between 1759-1761, based on a court case, Raleigh Dodson vs John Webb in trespass found in the Prince William order book 1759-61, p 241, so Raleigh could have been born in Prince William County, Virginia.

Notes from the Broad Run Baptist Church in Farquier County, Va., after October 1763 but before May 1764 state that Lazarus Dodson was dismissed to Halifax, but this can’t be our Lazarus, given his age, so it must be the Reverend Lazarus Dodson.  Yes, of course, there had to be multiple men with the name Lazarus Dodson.  That’s just how these southern families work!

Raleigh, Lazarus’s father, is not mentioned beyond his birth which is recorded in North Farnham Parish register on February 16, 1730.

The Farnham Parish church as it stands today is believed to have been built about 1737.  It has been restored, although it was used as a stable during the Civil War.  It is located in Farnham, Virginia, in Richmond County at the intersection of North Farnham Church Road (County Route 692) and Cedar Grove Road (County Route 602) on North Farnham Church Road.  Given that the parish register included dates preceding 1737, this was obviously not the first church at this location, or the church met in private homes before the building was constructed.

We do find a Raleigh Dodson in Halifax County, VA, by 1766 when a Raughley Dodson and Lazarus Dodson witnessed a deed of Joseph Terry to Thomas Dodson, Halifax Deed book 6-363.  If this is our Lazarus, the son of Raleigh, he would have to have been born significantly before 1750 to be of age to sign a legal document.  Therefore, this is not our Lazarus and it’s probably not our Raleigh either.  There are two Raleigh/Lazarus pairs in Halifax County about this time, so it’s difficult to tell them apart.

On Feb. 19, 1768, John Roberson and wife Margaret of Orange Co. NC sold to Rolley Dodson of said county for 16# Virginia money 50 acres on the east side of the Country Line Creek.  Witnesses Hugh Kelly, Henry Hicks and Henry Willis.  Caswell Co., NC, was created from Orange in 1777 and Raleigh’s land fell into Caswell.  The Caswell tax list for that year shows him assessed for property in the Richmond District.  He and his wife Mary sold 50 acres of land on the south side of Country Line Creek (shown on the 1833 map below, just below the Dan River) on July 5, 1778 to Clement Gann (being purchased of John Robinson) and evidently moved to Hawkins County, TN about this time.  By this time, Lazarus would have been about 18 and would surely have welcomed the adventure of moving to the frontier of what would, in 1796, become Tennessee.  Lazarus would have been too young to have been married in 1778.

We know Raleigh and Lazarus are still in the Virginia/NC area in May of 1777 when they signed the following oath of Allegiance in Pittsylvania County, which borders Halifax Co., Va. and Caswell Co., NC:

“I do swear or affirm that I renounce and refuse all allegiance to George the Third, King of Great Britain, his heirs and successors and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the commonwealth of Virginia as a free and independent state and that I will not at any time do or cause to be done any matter or thing that will be prejudicial or injurious to the freedom and independence thereof as declared by congress and also that I will discover and make known to some one justice of the peace for the said state all treasons or traitorous conspiracies which I now or hereafter shall know to be formed against this or any of the United States of America.”

After Raleigh had left Caswell County, NC, the name of Rawley Dodson shows up there once again in the records in matters pertaining to the estate of John Moore, Jr (1786-1791).  A list of accounts included the name of Rawley Dodson in Caswell Co., Will Book C in June court 1792.

The marriage records of both Halifax County, Virginia and Caswell County, North Carolina, respectively, are intact and neither holds a record for Lazarus Dodson’s marriage to Jane whose surname is unknown.  Lazarus likely married her after his move to the frontier of then North Carolina, now Tennessee.

Arrival in East Tennessee

The next place we find Lazarus is in what would become Eastern Tennessee in the current County of Hawkins.  This 1783 entry gives us a glimpse at what Lazarus was doing in the winter of 1781/1782, based on this land grant:

Page 105, grant 1262 –  Dec 4 1783 – James Lea enters 317 acres on the North side Holston below the mouth of Richland Creek at a “certain place where Francis Maberry, Major John Reid, and Lazarus Dodson camped with the Indians as they was going down to the Nation last winter and opposite the camp on the other side of the river.”

This record, along with his later involvement with Indian lands in Alabama, his son Jesse being found living on the Indian lands in 1797, near or on the lands later to be settled by Lazarus himself, and Jesse later becoming an Indian trader, has always caused me to wonder if Lazarus Dodson married a Native woman.

Interestingly enough, the Lea family is also found on Country Creek in Caswell Co. NC.  The Dodson family is involved with the Lea family for generations.

The Revolutionary War

Both Lazarus and his father, Raleigh Dodson served in the Revolutionary War.

Their Revolutionary War service is documented in “North Carolina Revolutionary Army Accounts, Index to Soldiers residing in Washington and Sullivan County, 1781-1783

Both Raleigh and Lazarus Dodson are listed.

After finding this tantalizing nugget, I contacted the NC Archives and eventually, visited, in order to obtain the original records.

According to pay records found in the NC Archives, in Raleigh, NC, Lazarus Dodson served in the Revolutionary War in August of 1783.  That is likely the date of his discharge, so he may have served earlier in the year.

In 1783, an Act authorizing the opening of a land office for the redemption of specie and other certificates was passed, and all soldiers holding specie or certificates were enabled to redeem them by taking land in exchange, at a rate fixed by the state of North Carolina.

When I first saw this list of Specie certificates, I also noticed George Eastis, two names above Lazarus Dodson.  George lived in East Tennessee for a time, but ultimately went back to Halifax County, Virginia.  However, his son, John R. Estes settled in Claiborne County, TN and his son, John Y. Estes married Rutha Dodson, daughter of Lazarus Dodson (Jr.) and his wife, Elizabeth Campbell.  Nothing like a little synchronicity in genealogy.

Believe it or not, there were two holes punched in this document, reflecting how it has been stored.

Raleigh and Lazarus Dodson both served in the Revolution and are both found in the Morgan district which includes the land that would become East Tennessee.

A second Rolley Dotson is found in the Hillsboro district (auditors Mebane and Nichols), which is the area of NC below Halifax/Pittsylvania in VA.  We know that our Raleigh was in East Tennessee prior to this time.

The auditors and their corresponding districts found in the archives helped define which Raleigh was which.

On April 16, 1784, Lazarus Dotson transferred land to David Rose – 5000 acres on a big creek that runs into Elk River on the south side of said river where a Buffaloe Road crosses the said creek running down said creek for compliment.  Warrant issued Feb 19 1787, #1691.  This may have been the land he claimed in payment for his Revolutionary War service.

Hawkins County, TN

In 1786, Lazarus signed the petition seeking the formation of Hawkins Co. along with his father, Raleigh, and brother, Toliver.

On Feb. 19, 1787, a warrant was issued to Lazarus Dodson for 5000 acres of land on the south side of Elk River which he had entered on April 16, 1784.  This warrant he had previously transferred to David Ross (Elk River runs primarily through the counties of Warren, Franklin and the SE corner of Giles in Tennessee).

By 1787, if not before, the family had selected the location across the Holston River from Rogersville that would eternally carry the Dodson name in the form of Dodson Creek (above) and later, the Dodson Creek Cemetery and Church (below).

The following photo shows the landscape from across the Holston river.  The TVA plant today is located on the east bank of Dodson Creek where it empties into the Holston River.  Raleigh and Lazarus owned the land on both sides of the creek into the rolling hills.

In 1787, the entry book for John and Landon Carter, entry takers for Washington Co., NC, now Tennessee, shows a warrant, 1783, dated May 21, 1779, directing the surveyor of Sullivan Co. to lay off for William Payne 150 acres on the Holston River adjoining a tract of land known as the “burnt cabin”.  This land was surveyed on April 28 1787 for Rawleigh Dodson by Rawl Dodson, deputy surveyor.

The State of NC issued grants to Raleigh Dodson for two tracts of 150 acres, both apparently entered before Hawkins Co. was created from Sullivan in 1786, #1481 for 150 acres on the left fork of Dodson’s creek and #31489 for 150 acres on the south side of Holston River.  Dodson’s Creek, no doubt was named by or for Raleigh Dodson, is a branch of Holston River on the South side of the river and nearly opposite the town of Rogersville.  On this site was Dodson’s Ford where the Great War Path and Trading Path crossed the Holston river at the mouth of Dodson’s Creek.  The spot is marked by a Tennessee Historical marker.

The land around Dodson’s Ford is some of the most beautiful in E. Tennessee.  The photo below shows the area where Dodson’s Ford was located, across this field and behind the trees.  The Great Warrior Path also crossed here and a campsite was located near the river.

In October, 1780, the forces under Col. Arthur Campbell gathered here before going downriver to the attack on the Overhill Cherokee towns of Chota, Talequah, Tallassee, and others.

In 1788 Rolly Dotson enters 300 acres on the South side of Holston River and on both sides of Dotson’s Creek, beginning on Dodson’s line on a branch at a white oak marked D, runs along said Dodson’s line and up the branch, paying 7 pounds, 10 pence.[1] The warrant was issued and a duplicate warrant was issued as well on Sept 28, 1792.  In 1788, this warrant was assigned on August 12th from Raleigh to Lazarus Dodson.[2]

In 1789, Lazarus Dotson applied for his own 300 acres in Sullivan County on the South side of the “Holstein River”, grant #1491.

The photo below is peeking at the river near where Dodson’s Ford was located on the land that Raleigh and Lazarus owned.

In 1793 a survey for 300 acres was made for Lazarus Dodson assignee of Raleigh Dodson, Raleigh Dodson, Raleigh Dodson Sr. and Alexander Deberty chain carriers.[3]

The Amis Store in Hawkins County kept a ledger book.  Raleigh had a great number of transactions, but we just find this short entry for Lazarus in 1794.

Mr. Lazarus Dodson

1794, March 14 – to balance brought forward from LBF 91 (LB credit leaf missing)

1794, July 30 – by grindstones to balle (same amount as above)

Claiborne Co., TN

Charles Campbell and his sons John and George also lived on Dodson’s Creek.  John and George Campbell would marry Jenny and Elizabeth Dobkins, daughters of Jacob Dobkins, also a Revolutionary War Veteran.  This entire family group, minus Raleigh Dodson and Charles Campbell who remained on their land in Hawkins County, would move to Claiborne County about 1800.

Lazarus maintained his residence on Dodson’s and Honeycutt’s Creeks, Hawkins Co., until he moved about 1797 to the Whitehorn Fork of Bent Creek, then in Hawkins Co., but now in Hamblen Co.  Jacob Dobkins lived there, and it is only about 9 or 10 miles on the main road that crossed the Holston River at Dodson’s Ford to Bull’s Gap where Whitehorn is located.[4]   Lazarus Dodson’s son, Lazarus, who was born about 1795 would eventually marry Elizabeth Campbell, daughter of John Campbell, about 1819 after the entire group had moved to and settled in Claiborne County.

By 1800 Lazarus (Sr.) was in Claiborne Co. where he settled on Gap Creek near Cumberland Gap.  His land lay on the west side of the Kentucky Road that ran from Tazewell to Cumberland Gap and near the “Back Valley Road” (Highway 63) which goes from near Cumberland Gap to Jacksboro in Campbell Co., Tn.[5]  Today this land is located on Tipprell Road between the town of Cumberland Gap and the town of Arthur.

A January 28, 1802 document shows that Lazarus has obtained land or had some interest in the land where he lived.  Richard Mitchell and Rodham Kinner of Hawkins County are bound to Lazarus Dodson for $2700 payment to be made to said Lazarus in 12 months.  Condition is that tract in Powel’s Valley adjoining land of Elisha Wallice [Wallen] below Cumberland Gap being 640 acres.  If money not paid, obligation to remain in effect.  Witnesses A Nelson, John Gore.

Lazarus was a member of Gap Creek Baptist Church in Claiborne Co. and is referenced in the minutes on June 5th, Saturday, 1805.  Another church in the association had asked for their help with determining what to do about “a breach of fellowship with James Kenney and it given into the hands of members from other churches, to wit Absolom Hurst, Lazarus Dodson and Matthew Sims and they report on Sunday morning a matter too hard for them to define on for they had pulled every end of the string and it led them into the mire and so leave us just where they found us.”

This 1809 and 1810 Hawkins County entries confirm that indeed, the Claiborne County Lazarus Dodson is one and the same as the Lazarus Dodson in both Hawkins County and on the White Horse Fork of Bent Creek.

1809, Dec 26 – Mathias Miers of Jefferson Co. Tn to Edward Walker for $350 tract in Hawkins on Bent Creek, part 2 surveys bought of Lazarus Dodson and the same place where on said Walker now lives and adj line of other survey of Dodson’s and Manazius? (probably James Menasco, his brother-in-law).  Wit William Berry, Samuel King, Registered March 16, 1814

1810, Jan 17 – Lazarus Dodson of Claiborne to William Right of Hawkins for $400, 100 acres on the s side Holston River on Honeycutt’s creek, Mooney’s line.  Wit George Mooney, Edmond (Edward) Mooney, Proved Feb 1810 by both Mooney’s

Honeycutt’s Creek is beside Dodson Creek.  This does cause me to wonder why Lazarus owned an interest in land in Hawkins County.  This begs the question of whether Lazarus Sr.’s wife is a Honeycutt.

By 1810, Lazarus had sold all of his land in Hawkins County and subsequently purchased land in Claiborne County from Abner Lea.  The deed thus describes Lazarus’ place of residence, “560 acres in Claiborne where said Dotson now lives, on the Indian Country line, Joseph William’s corner, Gap Creek, a stake near Cumberland Mountain, the top of Poor Valley Ridge adjoining where John Jones formerly lived, Aaron Davis’ line.”  The “Indian Country line” ran from the Cumberland River in Kentucky to the Clinch River in Claiborne Co., Tn. on the west side of the Kentucky Road. It was created by treaty and it encompasses the territory referred to in the list of inhabitants for which the sheriff of Grainger Co was exempted from collecting taxes in 1797.  Jesse Dodson, possibly Lazarus’s son, was noted as living in the Indian area in 1797.  That fact that he was living on the Indian side may be very significant.

You can see, on map titled “A Map of Tennessee, Formerly Part of NC” from Mathew Carey’s American Atlas in 1795 that the Indian Boundary is shown colored pink just to the left of the Kentucky Road where it passes through the Cumberland Gap.

The court minutes of Claiborne reveal that Lazarus was appointed at the September term 1803 to serve as a juror for the December session.  He failed to appear.

At the March session 1804, Lazarus was appointed overseer of the Kentucky Road (now 25E) from Powell River in place of John Wallen with the following hands to work: “all of Capt. McKinney’s Company from the Kentucky road down to a line dividing between William Jones and Timothy Jennings and so across the valley leaving the house of Archibald McKinney in the said list of hands.”  At the same session, Lazarus was one of those appointed to the jury to view and mark a road the nearest and best way from the intersection of Jurden’s path with the Kentucky road on a direction to Cumberland Gap as far as the state line.

At the September term 1805 Moses Davis replaced Lazarus Dodson as overseer.  Lazarus continued serving as juror off and on through 1816.  At about this time, Lazarus Jr. becomes of age and it is not possible to distinguish between him and his father.  At no time in the records is either referred to as Sr. or Jr., so Lazarus Jr. may already have made his way to the Indian lands in Alabama as soon as he was old enough.

There is a gap in the surviving Claiborne records between Nov. 1808 and May 1812, and another between Aug. 1817 and Nov. 1819.  No reference is made in the surviving minutes to an estate settlement for Lazarus Dodson Sr.  The early Claiborne estate records are also missing.  Therefore we are unable to determine if Lazarus died in Claiborne Co.  It is a possibility that he went early into the Cherokee lands of Northern Alabama where some of his children went, and died there or in one of the Tennessee border counties or in McMinn County where his estate was divided among his heirs.

It’s unclear, but likely that these 1819 transactions involved Lazarus Sr., not Lazarus Jr., given when Lazarus Jr’s children were born in Alabama. The first item in 1819 is the sale of Lazarus land to William Hogan, the second the sale of the same land from Hogan to Lazarus Dodson and Abner Lee just a couple months later.

April 1819 – Indenture in 1819 between Joseph Williams of Surry Co., NC and Thomas Williams by his attorney in fact and William Hogan of Claiborne for $600, tract of land in Claiborne in Powells Valley commonly known by the name of Butcher Springs tract below Cumberland Gap.  Beginning on the Indian boundary line on three post oaks thence north 20 degrees, east 320 poles to 5 post oaks then south 68 degrees east 320 poles to a stake thence south 22 degrees west 320 poles to a stake thence north 68 degrees west 320 poles crossing Gap creek to the beginning containing by estimation 640 acres the same land granted by the state of NC to said Joseph Williams by pat no 485 referenced thereto being had will more fully appear with all and singular rights….Joseph Williams by his atty Thomas L. Williams wit Charles F. Keith, Anderson Barton, April term 1819 ack by Thomas L. Williams in open court, Registered October 16 (or 18) 1819.

On May 4, 1819, Lazarus sells his land to William Hogan – William Hogan of Lee Co., Va. bound into Lazarous Dotson and Abner Lea both of Claiborne in the penal sum of $5000, the condition being that “I this day purchased of Lazarous Dotson and Abner Lea a certain tract of land containing 640 acres.”  Wit Martin Beaty, William Jones, David Dodson.[7]  This may well have been in preparation for going to Alabama.  Some of the children of Lazarus Jr. were born in Alabama.  Lazarus Dobkins Dodson’s Civil War records indicate his birth location is in Alabama about this timeframe.

Oliver Dodson, brother to Lazarus Dodson (son of Raleigh), settled in Anderson County, Tn.  He was alive in 1803 and 1806, but deceased by Oct 16,1819 when his brother Lazarus conveys land to his 5 children.

Oct. 16, 1819 – Lazarous Dodson of Claiborne Co. to William Dodson, Moses Stout, Willie Mullins, Henry Guttry, and Prudence Dodson, all of Anderson Co., for $1, 100 acres in Anderson Co on Cane creek by entry made by Lazarous Dodson, certificate #31 on Jan. 22, 1812, including the improvements where Oliver Dodson formerly lived.  Wit Elijah Jones, Jesse Dodson, John Cooper, John Lewalen. Proved Jan. session 1820.

In 1822, William Dotson of Dicature (sic) County, Alabama conveyed his one-fifth share of this land to Michael Spesard, indicating that some of this family was living in Alabama at this time.[6]

However, in 1826, Lazarus Jr., because Lazarus Sr. is now dead, buys back the same land, but for less money it appears.  Abner Lea, William Hogan, Lazarus Dodson and John Pace may all be related.

1826, Sept 20 – William Hogan to Lazrous Dodson and John Pace, all of Claiborne for $3500, 640 acres in Claiborne adjoining Peter Huffaker’s field, a compromise line between Hogan, Aaron David and William Jones, excepting 4 acres heretofore conveyed to said Huffaker and 2 acres donated by Hogan to the Baptist Church, including the meeting house and also a donation to the trustees of the Washington School, including the schoolhouse.  Wit William McCubbin, Thomas Taylor, Proved April term 1829, Claiborne “the within deed between William Hogan of McMinn Co., Tn to John Pace and Lazerous Dodson for 640 acres by William McCubbin and Thomas Taylor.” Book I-285.

Given these records, we know that Lazarus was living in Claiborne County in 1819 but that in 1812 he had patented land in Anderson County.

Lazarus died sometime between 1819 and 1826.

In 1826 in McMinn County, we fine the following entry: “Abner Lea and Others Obligation to William Dodson: State of Tennessee McMinn County. Know all men by these presents that the Abner Lea and Oliver Dodson and Eligha (sic) Dodson and William Dodson and Jessee Dodson and Lazrus Dodson and held and firmly bound in the penal sum of two thousand dollars which payment will and freely to be maid now(?) and each of us do bind our selves our heirs executor and administrators to the abounded signed sealed and delivered this day and date above written. This is our obligation is as such that has the above abound to appoint Abner Lea and Oliver Dodson to be the gardeans [guardians] of the estate of Lazarous Dodson dc’d also we authorize the said Abner Lea and Oliver Dodson to make to William Dodson a deed of Conveyeance to the part of land granted to the said William Dodson North East Quarter of Section 11 Township 5 Range first east of the meridian. Also that we confirm the sale made on the 13 day of May 1826 we also agree to give unto the heirs of David Dodson a certain piece or parcel of land designated to David Dodson by Lazarus Dodson dec’d be it further understood that this is to be there part and all that they are entitiled to by us, where unto we have set our hand and quill this 11 day of September 1826. Abner Lea, Oliver Dodson, Eligha Dodson, Lazarous Dodson, Jesse Dodson

Witnesses: Landford and Rhodes William Dodson

The land above is roughly the Cochran Cemetery area near Englewood in McMinn Co.  David Dodson who died on August 15, 1826 is buried in this Cemetery.  It appears that David and Lazarus Dodson may have died in very close proximity to each other relative to their death dates.  Poor Jane apparently lost a husband and a son within a very short time.

Abner Lea is certainly an interesting player in this scenario.  He is reported (although unverified) to have been married to a Mary Dodson.  Based on the heirs listed above, it strongly suggests that Mary was the daughter of Lazarus Sr.  His birth date is reported to be about 1770, so too young to be a brother-in-law to Lazarus and about the right age to have married his eldest daughter.  In 1810, Lazarus purchases land from Abner in Claiborne County.  If this is the Abner born in 1770, he was about 40 at this time.

In 1830, Jane Dodson, probably Lazarus widow, born 1760-1770 is living in McMinn County adjacent her son William Dodson and Fannie Dodson, David Dodson’s widow.

It was unclear what had become of the land Lazarus owned on Tipprell Road, but this deed signed in 1861 solves that mystery by referencing a sale in 1833 by Lazarus Dodson [Jr.].

1861, May 6 – Lazrous (sic) Dodson formerly of Claiborne Co, Tn. but now of Pulasky Co., Ky., to David C. Cotterell for $100 “to me the said Lazarous Dodson paid in the year 1833 having then sold to David Cotterell a tract of land on Gap Creek known as the Robert Chumbley land who had entered said land and sold and assigned said entry over to me and when the grant issued it came out in said Chumley’s name and afterwards was assigned by my request to said Cotterell”…beginning at a white oak two poles below Walker’s line, crossing Gap Creek, etc…his mark Lazarus Dodson. Witnesses: Lewis Chumbley, Andrew Chumbley.[8]

This rather odd suit brought in Hawkins County Tn. shows that by 1835 Lazarus Jr. was no longer in Tennessee.

May 7, 1835 – John A. McKinney vs David C. Cotterall, John Pace and Lazarus Dodson – the def John Pace and Lazarus Dodson are not residents of this state…ordered that they make appearance at Rogersville on the first Monday of Nov. next term or complainants bill will be taken pro confesso  and a copy of order to be published in the Abington newspaper and on motion of said complainant leave is given him to take depositions of the def, Dodson subject however to all just exceptions.

Nov. 3, 1835 – they failed to appear.

Sept. 18, 1837 – ordered by court that the clerk and master ascertain the amount of interest due on $87.50 being half the amount of the obligation executed by the def John Pace and Lazarus Dodson to the complainant.

Sept. 1837 – cause came for final hearing by responses made that Cottrell by an agreement made with the complainant pending this suit has assumed to pay the sum of $100 which at that time was half of the obligation and he was bound to do with as the agreement with Pace and further that Dodson is liable to pay the complainant the remaining half of said obligation with interest in the amount of $118.56 with interest from this date until paid.

Above, Lazarus Dodson’s land in Claiborne County, TN, looking towards Poor Valley Ridge.

Heading North on Tipprell road.  Lazarus’s land is on either side of the road here with Butcher Springs to the right, out of sight.

Gap Creek runs just over the railroad track and alongside it.  This would be the perfect place for a homestead.  It’s actually flat and farmable here between the ridge and the valley center.

The Cottrell Cemetery was established by David Cottrell, the man who bought the land from Lazarus in 1826.  The earliest marked burial is Moses Cottrell who died in 1857, but there appear to be many older unmarked graves and graves marked with fieldstones.  If Lazarus Sr. died in Claiborne County, he would be buried here, under the oldest trees.  This photo is taken from inside the cemetery, looking back over Lazarus’s land towards Tipprell Road.

Lincoln Memorial University owns most of the adjacent land today.  The photo below overlooks Lazarus’s land towards the Southeast and you can see the “old Kentucky Road” in the photo in the upper left hand corner, which is 25E today.  At one time, Lazarus headed the crew that maintained the old Kentucky Road.

A Civil War map shows us exactly where the homestead of David Cottrell was located, which of course had previously been the homestead of Lazarus Dodson.  The lane above his house is the road that at one time went to the Cemetery and on to the Kentucky Road.  Today, that lane no longer goes through to the cemetery, which is accessed through LMU.  Tipprell Road was then called Gap Creek Road and the Kentucky Road was labeled Tazewell Road on this map.  Patterson’s Smith shop looks to be the intersection of 25E and Back Valley Road today.

The soldiers camped at Butcher Springs which is labeled “Camp Cottrell” on the map.

Children of Lazarus Dodson Sr.

Based on this following 1842 McMinn County court record entry referencing an earlier 1826 entry, we know the names of some of Lazarus’s children, at least those who were living and those who had died and left heirs.

Oct. 5, 1846 – Abner Lea and Oliver Dodson to the heirs of David Dodson decd in compliance with agreement made Sept 1826 – this is from the wills and estate book.

Sept. 11, 1826 – Abner Lea, Oliver, Elijah, William, Jesse and Lazarus Dodson to William Dotson, obligation they appointed Abner Lea and Oliver Dodson the 2 guardians of the estate of Lazarus Dodson decd to make deed to William Dodson, also agree to give land to heirs of David Dodson decd that was assigned to him by Lazarus Dodson decd; Oct. 3, 1842 – the ? of the witnesses Garrett E. Lankford and David Rhodes? is identified as they reside outside the state of Tn.

The children of Lazarus Dodson and Elizabeth, his wife, surname unknown, are:

1. Lazarus Dodson Jr., born about 1795 in Hawkins Co., Tn. and died in Pulaksi Co., Ky. on October 5, 1861 where he was residing at the time of the 1860 census. He married first Elizabeth Campbell who died probably during the late 1830s, daughter of John and Jane Dobkins Campbell and married second to Rebecca Freeman in 1839.[9]

There is every indication that Lazarus Jr. went to Jackson Co., Alabama soon after his marriage to Elizabeth Campbell, but still held land in Claiborne Co.  In May 1819 Lazarus Dotson and Abner Lea both of Claiborne Co. sold to William Hogan of Lee Co., Va. by $5000 bond a tract of 640 acres.  This appears to be Lazarus Sr. preparing to leave the area, along with most of his children.  This deed was witnessed by Martin Beatty, William Jones and David Dodson.  The witness David Dodson may be the one who moved to McMinn Co. and is likely son David of Lazarus Dodson Sr.

Lazarus Jr. is out of Claiborne Co., during the years 1819 until September 1826.

In Sept. 1829, William Hogan living in McMinn Co., Tn. sold to Lazarus Dodson and John Pace of Claiborne Co., for $3500 a tract of 640 acres adjoining Peter Huffakers field, a compromise line between Hogan, Aaron Davis and William Jones, excepting four acres heretofore conveyed to the said Huffaker and two acres donated by Hogan to the Baptist Church, including the meeting house and also a donation to the Trustees of the Washington School, including the schoolhouse.  This has to be Lazarus Jr. since Lazarus Sr. is dead and appears, based on earlier and later deeds, to be the original land that Lazarus Sr. owned.

In 1827 Lazarus appears in the court minutes for the June session as the security for Andrew Chumbly in the case the State vs Andrew Chumbly.  Thereafter Lazarus appears in the court minutes, serving as juror in Sept 1827, sued for debt by Moses Ball in March 1828 (Ball awarded damages in Sept. 1828), ordered to a road jury in Dec 1829, serving as juror in March 1830, as constable in March 1831, after which his name disappears from court records until March 16, 1835 when John Hunt, sheriff and collector of public taxes lists Lazarus Dodson on his list of “persons being removed out of my county or insolvent so their poll tax cannot be collected for the year 1833 or 1834″.

It was unclear what had become of the land Lazarus owned on Tipprell Road, but this deed signed in 1861 referencing a sale in 1833 by Lazarus Dodson (Jr.) solved the mystery.

1861, May 6 – Lazrous Dodson formerly of Claiborne Co, Tn. but now of Pulasky Co., Ky. to David C. Cotterell for $100 “to me the said Lazarous Dodson paid in the year 1833 having then sold to David Cotterell a tract of land on Gap Creek known as the Robert Chumbley  land who had entered said land and sold and assigned said entry over to me and when the grant issued it came out in said Chumley’s name and afterwards was assigned by my request to said Cotterell”…beginning at a white oak two poles below Walker’s line, crossing Gap Creek, etc…his mark Lazarus Dodson Wit Lewis Chumbley, Andrew Chumbley.[10]

In 1835, we find the Hawkins County record that states he is not a resident of the State of Tennessee.

May 7, 1835 – John A. McKinney vs David C. Cotterall, John Pace and Lazarus Dodson – the def John Pace and Lazarus Dodson are not residents of this state…ord that they make appearance at Rogersville on the first Monday of Nov next term or complaintants bill will be taken pro confesso  and a copy of order to be published in the Abington newspaper and on motion of said complainant leave is given him to take depositions of the def, Dodson subject however to all just exceptions.

Nov. 3, 1835 – they failed to appear.

Sept. 18, 1837 – ord by court that the clerk and master ascertain the amount if interest due on $87.50 being half the amount of the obligation executed by the def John Pace and Lazarus Dodson to the complainant.

Sept. 1837 – cause came for final hearing by responses made that Cottrell by an agreement made with the compl pending this suit has assumed to pay the sum of $100 which at that time was half of the obligation and he was bound to do with as the foot of the agreement with Pace and further that Dodson is liable to pay the complainant the remaining half of said obligation with interest in the amount of $118.56 with interest from this date until paid.

However the name of Lazarus Dodson is on a list of free male inhabitants, 21 and upwards, of Claiborne in 1833.  The foregoing records suggest that Lazarus was living in Claiborne Co., in 1830, though he is not found there on census records for that year.  It is possible he lived in the household of another family, perhaps his in-laws.  These records also suggest that he left the county again for a few years, returning to marry his second wife, Rebecca Freeman, in 1839.

In 1841 Wiley Huffaker was appointed by the court of Claiborne Co. as guardian of the minor heirs of Lazarus Dodson and of Elizabeth Dodson, decd.  This was relative to the settlement of the estate of Elizabeth’s father, John Campbell, who died in 1838.  The children received land, slaves and cash from their grandfather’s estate which was first rented and then sold for their benefit.  The guardianship records continue until Dec. 1845 when the final settlement was made with Lasrus Dotson, the youngest heir, who would be Lazarus the third.

Lazarus and Rebecca Freeman Dodson have not been located on the 1850 census.  They are not on the census of Pulaski Co., KY that year.  The children of Lazarus and Elizabeth Campbell Dodson appear to have been raised after Elizabeth’s death by their Campbell grandparents.  Lazarus, their father, left the area but these children were raised in Claiborne County, married there and established homes.  The children’s names were taken from the records relative to the estate of John Campbell, their grandfather, as a guardian was appointed for them relative to their inheritance.  The children of Lazarus Dodson Jr. and Elizabeth Campbell were Ruthy, born 1820 in Alabama, married John Y. Estes in 1841 in Claiborne County, died in 1903 and buried in the Venable Cemetery in Little Sycamore.  John Campbell Dodson, born 1820-1821 in Alabama, married Barthenia Dobkins in 1839 in Claiborne County, died after 1860.  Nancy Ann Dodson born about 1821, married James S. Bray in 1840 in Claiborne Conty, died between 1852 and 1860.  Lazarus Dobkins Dodson born between 1822-1828 in Alabama, married Elizabeth H. Carpenter in 1845 in Claiborne County, died in 1885 in New Madrid County, Missouri.  Mary Dodson born in 1831 in Tennessee, died after 1860.

2. Oliver Dodson – born August 31, 1794 in Hawkins Co., Tn. and died Dec. 8, 1875 in McMinn Co., Tn. married Elizabeth, surname unknown, born March 16, 1795 in Va. and died Aug. 7, 1883 in McMinn Co., Tn.  Both are buried in the Mt. Cumberland Cemetery, McMinn Co.

The first record of this Oliver is in the Claiborne court minutes in August 1815 when he proved he killed a wolf in Claiborne Co.  On Jan. 16, 1820 he was relieved as road overseer of the Kentucky road from where Powell’s Valley Road intersects the same at Wallen’s field to the state line at Cumberland Gap.

At the August term 1820 he exhibited the scalp of a wolf he had killed in Claiborne in 1819.

In June 1824 he sued William Hogan for a debt and was awarded damages and costs.

Sometime before or after these events, he spent some time in Jackson Co., Al. where one of his sons Marcellus M. Dodson claimed to be born in 1819.  By 1830 Oliver was settled in McMinn Co, Tn. where he lived the remainder of his life.

A chancery suit filed in McMinn in 1893 involving the estate of Oliver Dodson gives us a list of his children and some of his grandchildren.  The suit, chancery case #1282, Lazarus Dodson vs Mary Jane Reynolds stated that all were nonresidents of McMInn Co. except for Lazarus who files for himself and as administrator of Oliver Dodson and Mary Jane Reynolds.  Some grandchildren lived in Knox Co., Tn. and the others lived in California, Texas, Missouri, Oregon, Montana, Georgia and other states.

3. Jesse Dodson a son of Lazarus Sr. was born by 1781 or earlier and he was of age in March 1802 when he served as a juror in Claiborne Co., Tn. at the March term and also the June term of 1802, when he was designated as Jesse Dodson Jr.  This was no doubt for the purpose of distinguishing him from Rev. Jesse Dodson, a much older man who was also a resident of Claiborne Co. at this time.  Jesse, the son of Rev. Jesse, was born in 1791, thus being too young to serve as a juror in 1802.  At the June 1805 term of court Jesse Dodson again served as a juror and was designated “Little Jesse Dodson”.

Prior to this, Jesse Dodson Jr. was “assessed for 1 white poll and was included among those living within the Indian Boundary for the year of 1797 which the county court of Grainger released the sheriff from the collection of taxes.”  Apparently these people it had been determined were living beyond the treaty line on Indian land and were not within the jurisdiction of Grainger Co.[11]

Given this information, if this Jesse is the son of Lazarus, then he preceeded his father to Claiborne County by a couple of years and may well have settled on the land where Lazarus eventually lived, which was indeed, just inside the Indian Boundary and was Cherokee land.

Jesse Dodson and Mary Stubblefield Dodson joined the Big Spring Baptist church “by experience”  in March 1802.  They received letters of dismissal from the church in Nov. 1805, but Jesse returned his letter in May 1806.  Apparently in early 1807 Jesse got into a dispute with the church over a theological question which continued on through Sept. 1807 when the question was dismissed.  In Aug. 1808, Jesse was “excluded” from the church for “withholding from the Church”.  He is not again found in the records of Claiborne County.

On June 20, 1811, Jesse Dodson was licensed to trade with Indian tribes in Madison Co., Alabama.  Descendants of this man have the oral tradition that he was an Indian Trader.  He was said to be the oldest son of a large family of boys.  Once when the Indian trader returned from one trip and was preparing to leave on another, the father implored his older son to take along his younger brother.  The trader refused, saying the boy was so inexperienced that he would be killed by Indians.  The father was adamant and insisted, so the trader relented and took the boy along.  He has killed by Indians before the trader’s eyes.  From then on there were hard feelings between the Indian Trader and his father.  This is a tradition which may have grown with the telling over the generations, but there could be some grains of truth in the tale.  If would certainly be interesting to know for sure if Jesse the Indian Trader is the son of Lazarus Sr.

The land that became Jackson Co., Alabama was originally part of the Mississippi Territory and was occupied by the Cherokee until they gave it up by treaty on Feb. 27, 1819.  It is certainly possible that Jesse Dodson, Indian Trader of the Mississippi territory, was a son of Lazarus Dodson, Sr., who, himself was camping with the Indians in the winter of 1781/1782.  Indeed, he did appear to have a family of mostly boys and the name Raleigh is conspicuously absent from a list of descendants, perhaps indicating a death.

1819 is also the years that Lazarus sold his Claiborne County land and when several of his children apparently went to Alabama.

A Jesse Dodson was on the 1830 census of Jackson Co., Al. though the family statistics are puzzling.  The household consisted  of 2 males 5-10, 1 male 10-15, 1 male 20-30, 1 female under 5, 1 female 10-15, 1 female 30-40 and 1 female 50-60.  This would not be Jesse Dodson the Indian Trader unless he were away from home on the date of the census enumeration or unless the census taker made an error in recording the statistics.  We have no record of the children of this Jesse Dodson except for one son, who wound up in Texas. That son may also be the Jesse in Jackson County in 1830.

4. David Dodson is not in the records of Claiborne Co except for the one time when he witnessed the deed, William Hogan to Lazarus Dotson and Abner Lea, in May 1819.  Apparently David was of age at this time when his father purchased the land for possibly the second time.

If it is the same David Dodson who later appeared in McMinn Co., Tn., then he was probably born between 1790 and 1800.  David Dodson (Dotson) died in McMinn Co. about 1826.  His widow was Fanny Dotson b 1790-1800.  The 1830 census of McMinn Co. with a household consisting of herself, 1 male 5-10, 1 male 10-15, 1 female under , 2 females 5-10.  Living next door was William Dotson whose household was 1 male under 5, 1 male 20-30, 1 female under 5, 1 female 5-10 and 1 female 20-30.  He was the administrator of the estate of David Dotson and seems a little old to be a son of David and Fanny, so was likely his brother instead.  It should also be pointed out that here a Jane Dotson, aged 50-70, born 1760-1770, living alone, also resided next to Fanny Dotson.  She was probably David’s mother, the widow of Lazarus Dodson Sr.

The estate of David Dodson was not settled until April 1846, presumably after all the children had come of age or married.  Apparently all this family left Tennessee before the 1850 census was taken.

5. As mentioned, William lived adjacent David and Mary Dodson in McMinn County in 1830.  Also, a William L. Dotson was appointed one of the arbitrators between the administrators of the estates of Thomas and William Burch, decd, in June of 1834.  Thomas Burch died circa 1830 and had been the administrator of the estate of his father, William Burch, who died about 1828.  One of the daughters of William Burch was Mrs. Aaron David, apparently a former neighbor of Lazarus Dodson in Claiborne Co.  Mentioned in Thomas Burch’s estate is a note against the estate of William Burch, decd and an unidentified piece of land in Claiborne Co.  Aaron Davis was a member of Gap Creek Church, Claiborne Co. Tn. in 1818.

There were several William Dodsons in McMinn Co and it is not entirely possible to separate them without further records, but one of them was the son of Lazarus Sr.  William L. Dodson, believed to be the son of Lazarus, was born December 11, 1804 and died August 29, 1873.  He is buried in the Cochran Cemetery in McMinn County, shown below, along with Lazarus’s son David.  It’s likely that Mary, Lazarus Sr.’s widow, is buried here as well, given that she was living adjacent to David and William in 1830, and William owned the land on which the cemetery stood.  It’s possible that Lazarus is buried here as well.

6. Elijah Dodson was a son of Lazarus Sr. as well. He is connected in the records of Claiborne with Martin and Jehu who are not listed as Lazarus’s sons.  Elijah was born in 1790 in Hawkins Co. according to information in the Oregon Donation land claims.  He died in Yamhill Co., Oregon in 1859.  His first wife was Mary, surname unknown, whom he married March 12, 1807 in “Clayborn Co, Tn.”.  His second wife was Elizabeth, surname unknown, who died in the Autumn of 1854.  They were married Sept. 1848 in Pilk Co., Oregon.

In the June 1805 term of court, Claiborne Co., Tn. Elijah along with Jehu was appointed as a road hand to work on a road of which Martin Dodson was overseer.  It was a segment of the Kentucky road from the top of Wallen’s Ridge to Blair’s Creek.  In Aug. 1814, Elijah proved a wolf scalp he had killed in 1814 and at the Aug term 1815 he served as a juror.  There are no records of Elijah in Claiborne beyond this date.

It is possible that Elijah eventually went to Henry Co., Ohio and Clay Co., Missouri before moving to Oregon where he made a claim to land in Yamhill Co. on which he lived from Feb. 1848 until his death.  It is believed that two of his sons were with him in Oregon.  The record stated that his first wife left 6 children.

DNA and the Dodson Family

According to the Dodson DNA Project at Family Tree DNA, several people are members who descend from Charles Dodson of Rappahannock Co., VA.  Charles, born in 1649, was the great-great-grandfather of Lazarus Dodson.  Several years ago when I checked, this group was simply labeled as R1b1a2, now R-M269.  Since then, it appears that several people have confirmed SNP tests, among them, R-P25 and R-L2.  How can that be?  Easy.  These are all sub-branches of haplogroup R and the men have tested at different levels.  R-P25 used to be R1b1 before the renaming event and R-L2 used to be R1b1a2a1a1b3c1, which illustrated perfectly one of the reasons why they are only using haplogroup SNP names today.

This confirms that the Dodson male line was European.

However, it can’t address whether or not the wife of Lazarus Sr. was Native or not.  To discover that, we need to test someone descended from Lazarus and his wife, Jane, through all females.  The current generation can be a male, because women pass their mitochondrial DNA to all of their children, but only females pass it on.

If you descend from Lazarus and his wife Jane through all females to the current generation I have a DNA testing scholarship for you!!!

I sent an e-mail to the Dodson DNA Project administrator asking if someone from Lazarus’s line has DNA tested, but I haven’t heard back.  I descend through Lazarus Sr. through Lazarus Jr. and his wife, Elizabeth Campbell, through daughter Ruthy.  Therefore, on the Dodson paternal side, “my paternal line” would have to be represented by one of the descendants of the sons of Lazarus Jr. or Lazarus Sr.  I’m hoping someone from these lines has already tested.  Otherwise, I have a scholarship for a male Dodson from Lazarus Dodson Jr. or Sr., or his father, Raleigh Dodson.

Honoring Lazarus Dodson, Patriot Ancestor

Lazarus Dodson (Sr.) was a patriot.  He served in the Revolutionary War.  He was paid on August 1783 for his service, along with his father, Raleigh Dodson.  Extensive research over the years has helped us to piece the lives of Raleigh and Lazarus together.  Lazarus died between 1819 and 1826, and his heirs sold his land on Tipprell Road, in Claiborne County, Tn. in 1833.  Most of his children were living in McMinn County at that time, and shortly thereafter, along with his widow.  When they moved there is uncertain.  Lazarus is either buried on his land in Claiborne County or in McMinn County.  Given that he owned land in Claiborne, it’s most likely that he died on his land and is buried there, perhaps the first grave in the Cottrell Cemetery.  There are many older, unmarked graves in this cemetery.  Lazarus’s heirs sold this land to David C. Cottrell in 1826 and the land, until recently, has remained in the Cottrell family.

On June 11th, 2011, at 2 PM, the Dodson family descendants, the Cottrell family, and members of the local Joseph Martin Chapter of the SAR (Sons of the American Revolution), DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution) and staff from LMU gathered to honor Lazarus Dodson and set a long overdue headstone for him.

Debbie Frantz, one of Lazarus descendants through the Estes family, and her husband George (below) were instrumental in arranging this ceremony.  George is an active SAR member as is Debbie in the DAR.  Debbie joined the DAR based on Lazarus’s service, so this was a particularly significant event for her.  Also representing the Dodson family was Roberta Estes, also descended from Lazarus through the Estes family, and Daryl Peters, descended from Lazarus’s father, Raleigh.

It was a beautiful but very hot day, near 100.  Daryl felt faint, and recalled the words of her grandmother, “women don’t sweat in the heat, they swoon”.  She and a few other people were swooning alright.

The Cottrell cemetery is now on Lincoln Memorial University property and LMU has agreed to take over maintenance of the cemetery.  This time in 2010, Daryl and I were there finding out the name of the man to contact about the cemetery.  This year, that gentleman, Keith Cottrell, who cared for the cemetery for years, has passed away, but many of the Cottrell relatives were present to help us celebrate.

It’s such a beautiful location.  You can see for 20 miles to the east if it’s not foggy.  The LMU campus is right there as well.  Lazarus’s heirs sold this land to David C. Cottrell in 1826 after Lazarus Dodson died.  It was an honor and a privilege to be able to provide a marker for his grave, overlooking his land.

Debbie Frantz read about his life, his history, and what we have been able to piece together about him.  There were other speakers as well, and two ladies sang.  All in all, a lovely service, even if Lazarus’ death date is 10 years too early on his stone.

Below, Debbie and I have placed the “Descendants” wreath.  His three descendants present were me, Debbie and her grandson.  I wonder if Lazarus knows that nearly 200 years after his death, that his descendants are returning to set a stone and honor him.

Wreaths were lain of honor of Lazarus Dodson by the TNSSAR, General Joseph Martin Chapter, Kentucky Path DAR Chapter, Martin Station SAR chapter VASSAR and the  Dodson Family Descendants.  Flags were flying high.

Frank Smith, Dean of Students at LMU  was the main speaker of the event and did a spectacular job.  His topic was about the significance of “the dash“.  That dash – the dash between the birth and death dates – the importance of the lives we live.  It’s the dash that we celebrate, not the beginning or the end.  And it’s the dash of Lazarus life that we have reconstructed to the best of our ability.  May all of our ancestors inspire the days of our dash.

The legacy of Lazarus Dodson will live on through his descendants and through the accomplishments of the students that will be given a chance to fulfill their dreams as educators of tomorrow through the Cottrell Endowment fund, which will give LMU a great legacy to be proud of.  Anyone who wishes to contribute may do so by writing a check to LMU and noting that it is a contribution for the Cottrell Endowment Fund.  They have committed to raise $25,000 as an endowed fund so a scholarship can be offered every year.  This was in exchange for LMU agreeing to maintain the cemetery in perpetuity.

After the service ended, we got to meet the Cottrell family with whom we’ve been communicating for months to document the cemetery.  The photo below is of Lazarus’ descendants and the Cottrell family together.

Below, the Cottrell family gathers at David Cottrell’s stone.  It seems so long ago, but David Cottrell probably knew Lazarus Dodson (Sr., the Patriot), certainly knew his son, Lazarus (Jr.), and lived in the home that Lazarus (Sr.) built, farmed his land and eventually, was buried alongside Lazarus.

Jim Rowland, one of the Cottrell family members mentioned that he knew where the old David Cottrell house had been located.   He’s about 60 or so and said it was torn down when he was a teenager, but it had been abandoned years before.  So off we went caravan style to see the location of the old house. Of course, we went via the roads, but in the old days, they would just have walked over the hill.  Too hot and too many snakes today.

Here we are, all gathered in the road in front of the land that once held the cabin of Lazarus Dodson, Sr.  We’re by the bend in the road, by the word Cottrell, on the map inset below from the Civil War map of the 1860s.

After arriving, Jim pointed out the location of the old house and barns.  At the bend in Tipprell Road, the house used to stand where the dead tree is today (photo below), and the barn was in the clearing to the right.  This was rather unusual land, because it’s almost flat here.

The barn had been located to the right of the clump of trees, in the little clearing just as it starts up the little hill.  This location is also shown on the Civil War map and it is the only homestead on Tipprell road at that time.  As the crow flies, the cemetery is just behind the house and over the hill.  There was originally a road that connected the two sites, and the road still exists, but has been abandoned and is blocked at both ends today.

Lazarus was also a member of the Gap Creek Church and helped to found it as well.  It was on his 640 acres that he received for his Revolutionary War service, located on Gap Creek.  The Church backs up to Gap Creek has been rebuilt several times, but surely some of the original lurks beneath the surface.

Before we left, we had seen where Lazarus was buried, where he lived, where he worshipped and the creek on his land that quenched the thirst of his family and his animals. We have seen the Indian lands and Butcher Springs where the local story says that long hunters were ambushed by Indians.  Lazarus’ land is steeped in history.

We were glad to get back to the hotel and air conditioning.  We drove back via Tipprell Road, a little one lane road (sometimes stretched to two lanes, but you have to stop to pass).  This would have been the road Lazarus took to the village of Cumberland Gap, “above” his place on the mountain.  Even today, after being paved, it is extremely quiet and peaceful.  We stopped and shut the car off and just listened to the sound of Gap Creek tumbling down the mountain, the birds….and nothing else except for the occasional rustle of the leaves.  How beautiful and peaceful this land is today.

As fate would have it, a Tennessee artist, Tamara Hogshead painted Gap Creek and donated the painting to a nonprofit group for their fundraising auction.  I bid on, and won, that painting which I love dearly and graces my home today.  What are the chances of finding this painting and then discovering that it is of Gap Creek, the creek that ran through Lazarus property?

However, it wasn’t always serene.  We know that this is the place where battles of the Civil War were fought as well as bloody battles between Indians and migrating European settlers.  Today, it is peaceful and stunningly, almost hauntingly, serenely,  beautiful.  This is the Appalachia our ancestors loved, where Lazarus lived, the roads he trod, and the land where we return to honor him and to visit the landscapes of our ancestors.

If no one ever thanked you Lazarus, for your service to your country, or told you they were proud of you, proud to be your descendant, let me do it now.  All of your descendants thank you, those who were able to be present in 2011, and those not.  Those who searched for and documented the meaningful events of your life, those moments between the dash, and those who will, in the future read about them.  We are all here because of you, and we live in a free country.  That freedom is thanks to you, your father, and the other Patriots.  You will never be forgotten, nor will your service to your country.  We have set a memorial stone for you to insure that others can visit you, on your land, in the future.  Hopefully future generations will come, sit a spell in this magical location, ponder the dash, yours and theirs, learn a little about your life, and find a piece of their heritage on the tract known as Butcher Springs, just below Cumberland Gap.

Thank you, from your descendants!

Footnotes:

[1] Page 124 – 798 (681)

[2] [Lazarus Dodson 300 ac and Joseph Beard 400 ac (warrant number mentioned twice) – on warrant list; for grant to L Dodson see file 523 in Sullivan Co; warrant issued Jan 19 1782 by John Adair, warrant assigned Aug 12 1788 by Rawleigh Dodson to Lazarus Dodson (William Smith witness); 300 ac in grant (survey not in shuck, see Sullivan Co file 531); Carter’s entry 1014 in same shuck; grant 539 issued Nov 26 1789.

[3] Page 64 – 427 (311) March 16 (or 15) [RJE - looks to be several surveys under this same number] Grant 534 issued Feb 13 1791

[4] Hawkins deeds 1-94, 2-3184-65, 4-66, 6-196, 6-264. 1800, March 29 – Lazarus Dodson of Claiborne Co and Johnathan Ling of Hawkins $900 for tract in Hawkins on White Horse Fork (also White Run Fork in next deed which is exactly the same except dated March 29 1804.  Actually this is White Thorne Fork) of Bent Creek being same place where said Dodson formerly lived, adj fence of Walker, being 575 acres of land as set out.  Wit William Paine, JP, M_Myres.  Reg Nov 21 1804

[5] See Claiborne deed B-316, D-4, E-366 one of which might refered to Lazarus Jr.  Deeds were also recorded in H-291 and L-23 but these books are missing from the courthouse.

[6] Decatur County was a short lived county crated from territory of Madison and Jackson Counties.

[7] Ack Aug term 1819 by William Hogan  Reg Oct 14, 1819 book E-366.

[8] Ack May 6, 1861 by Lazarus Dodson by appearance before James Allcorn, Clerk of Court in Pulaksi Co., Ky.  Registered Oct. 13, 1870 Claiborne Co.

[9] Claiborne marriages 2-10.

[10] Ack May 6, 1861 by Lazarus Dodson by appearance before James Allcorn, Clerk of Court in Pulaksi Co., Ky.  Registered Oct. 13, 1870 Claiborne Co.

[11] Claiborne was not formed until 1801.

Nycholas, or Nicholas, was the first Estes we can document, even though the name then was spelled as Ewstas.  At that time, the U and W in the English language were synonymous and spelling was not yet standardized.  Most people were illiterate, so spelling didn’t matter one bit.  Clerks spelled names as they heard them.

Nicholas was born about 1495, possibly in Deal, Kent, England.  We just don’t know.  We haven’t found his christening in any of the local churches because baptismal records weren’t kept until nearly 65 years later.  Baptism, marriage and death records were not kept in England until Queen Elizabeth ordered that records be maintained by the churches beginning in 1559.  Fortunately, St. Leonard’s Church in Deal has individual records from that date and historical records from earlier.  But that doesn’t help us with Nicholas’ birth date.

All was not peaceful in Deal and surrounding area in 1495, about the time Nicholas would have been born.  According to Gregory Holyoake in his book, Deal, All in the Downs, a war was taking place in 1495.

Perkins Warbeck, the personator of Richard, younger son of Edward IV, one of the two princes presumed murdered in the Tower of London, arrived with his army in the Small Downs on July 3, 1495.  The Pretender, promoted as “The White Rose of England” intended rousing the support of the Kentishmen in his claim to the throne as Richard IV.  Warbeck had sailed from Vlissingen on July 2, confident that the men of Kent – Yorkish in their inclination – would support him against the Lancastrian King, Henry VII.  Instead, the Kentishmen hotly defended their country from these presumptuous invaders.

Trained bands from Sandwich ambushed Warbeck’s army in the Sandhills and captured most of the leaders who were then tried in London.  Afterwards they were executed and hung in chains “for seamarks or lighthouses” along the coast.  Henry VII commended his loyal subjects and commanded beacons to be built in celebration across Kent.

Perhaps Nicholas’ parents, especially a very pregnant wife, sought refuge in another location and Nicholas was baptized in a church elsewhere.  Every village had a church.

If it weren’t for his will, in 1533, we wouldn’t even know Nicholas’ name, or the first name of his wife, Anny.

Nicholas’ will was dated January 1, 1533/34.  This year is written in the old style/new style date.

From 1087 to 1155 the English year began on 1 January, and from 1155 to 1751 on 25 March.  In 1752 it was moved back to 1 January.  Even before 1752, 1 January was sometimes treated as the start of the new year – for example by Pepys – while the “year starting 25th March was called the Civil or Legal Year.”  To reduce misunderstandings on the date, it was not uncommon in parish registers for a new year heading after 24 March, for example 1661, to have another heading at the end of the following December indicating “1661/62″. This was to explain to the reader that the year was 1661 Old Style and 1662 New Style.

But back to Nicholas.  He left his estate to his wife, Anny, one child, Sylvester and to an unknown person, Felyx Beane.

The Beane name is interesting.  I found it in the records of at least 4 early Estes families in Kent, some of whom can be tied together and some who cannot.  I suspect that the Bean family is related to the Estes family and possibly before Nicholas’ generation.

We may not know where Nicholas was born, or when, but we know when and where he died, because his will called for him to be buried in the churchyard of “Saynt Leonard in the parisshe of Deale.”

We don’t know if Sylvester was actually Nicholas’ only child, or the only child he mentioned in the will.  We know that Sylvester was born in 1522, so Nicholas’s marriage date is estimated in 1520 and his birth then estimated as 1495. Of course, Sylvester might not have been the first child born. And if Sylvester was their only living child, their lives must have been full of heartache, burying baby after baby, at least half a dozen.

All of the Estes descendants today who can track their genealogy back to Kent, descend from Nicholas in some way, excepting adoptions and such.  This has been confirmed by DNA testing.

In 1495, surnames were established, but hadn’t been established for a long time.  They began to be used by the wealthy after the Norman invasion in 1066, were in common use by the 1200s, and by the middle of the 1400s, pretty much everyone, rich and poor, had a surname.  It’s likely that Nicholas wasn’t the first Estes man to carry that surname, but we don’t know.  Thankfully, he did leave a will.

Roy Eastes has this will transcribed and translated.  It is written in a medieval script called secretarial script.  To me, it simply looks like scribbles.  In fact, it could be my own handwriting!

Will of Nicholas Ewstas

In dei no’ie Amen, the xviith day of June the yere of our Lorde mlcccccxxxiiith, I Nycholas Ewstas beyng of hole mynd and remembraunce ordeyne and make this my last Wyll and Testament in manner and form folowyng

Fyrst I bequethe my soule to Almyghty God, our Lady Siynte Mary and all the holy company of Hevyn and my body to be buryed in the church yerde of Saynte Leonarde in the parisshe of Deale.

Also I bequethe to the hygh aulter for my tythes undelygently forgotten viiid.

Item I wyll that my wyffe cause to be dun at the day of my buryall v mases with placebs and dirige and as many at my monthes mynde.

Item I bequethe to Sylvester my sone one ewe and a yong horsse.

Item I bequethe to Felyx Beans one ewe.

The resydue of all my goodes, moveables and unmoveables I wyll and bequethe to Anny Ewstas my wyff whom I make sole Executrix of this my last Wyll and Testament the yere and day above rehersyd.

Wytnessys beyng present and requyred Robert Whyte, John Myselson

Translation:

In the name of God, Amen, the 17 day of June the year of our Lord 1533 I, NYCHOLAS EWSTAS, being of whole mind and remembrance ordain and make this my last Will and Testament in manner and form following,

First, I bequeath my soul to Almighty God, our Lady Saint Mary and all the holy company of heaven and my body to be buried in the church yard of Saint Leonard in the parish of Deal.

Also I bequeath to the high alter for my tithes undiligently forgotten 8 pence.

Item, I will that my wife cause to be done at the day of my burial five masses with placebos and dirige and as many at my month’s mind.

Item I bequeath to Sylvester, my son, one ewe and a young horse.

Item I bequeath to Felix Beans one ewe.

The residue of all my goods, moveables and unmoveables I will and bequeath to Anny Ewstas my wife whom I make sole Executrix of this my last Will and Testament the year and day above rehersed.

Witnesses being present and required

Robert Whyte, John Myselson

We need to remember that Nicholas and family were Catholic, because the Protestant reformation and associated political difficulties had not yet taken place in England.  They were yet to occur in the Reign of Henry VIII in the 1530s.

The Catholic faith of that time placed a lot of importance on leaving money to the church, the more the better, for special prayers that were meant to pray one’s soul out of purgatory and into Heaven, more quickly.

Later generations of Estes men were mariners, including Nicholas’ son, Sylvester, but it doesn’t appear that Nicholas was a mariner.  He left nothing nautical, just sheep and a horse.

I do have to laugh though at his commentary about his tythes (taxes) being “undiligently forgotten.”  He must not have expected he would die, or he wouldn’t have been so forgetful.  His conscience must have been plaguing him.  The health and afterlife location of one’s soul depended in that time and place upon enough prayers being said on your behalf…and no one in the church was going to pray for a man who forgot to pay his tythes.  This also tells us that he must have had some money – he wasn’t destitute because he had money to pay his back tithes and to leave additional funds to the church.

It’s ironic that one of the only records we have of his son is from the Court of Canterbury.  Want to guess the subject?  A case was brought against him for not paying his tithes for 2 or 3 years.  Apparently “forgetting” tithes runs in the family.

It’s interesting that another very early record is of a Richard Eustace buried in the church in Dover in 1506, leaving a wife, Alice, and unborn child.  His will was witnessed by a Thomas Eustace.  Richard appeared to be a wealthy man, probably a merchant.  Not only was he buried inside the church, but he left quite a bit of money for special prayers.  We have no idea what happened to his wife, or child, if it survived, but we know that he wasn’t in our direct line because Nicholas was born about 1495, too late to be his father and too early to be his son.  Richard could have been a brother, nephew, uncle or cousin to our Nicholas – or maybe entirely unrelated.  However, Dover is just 6 miles or so from Deal.

However, it does tell us that there were other Estes in the region before Nicholas, or at least contemporaneous with him.

Estes Trails editor and family researcher Larry Duke explained some of the more unusual provisions in Nicholas’ will as follows:

His reference to his monthemynde (monthmade) is the same as our birthday. The saying of a mass for the deceased, in their memory, on their birthday, is still a common practice in the Catholic Church. The only other observation that could be made about Nicholas’ will, is that it was uncommon to name ones wife as executor. Normally, this duty was left to ones oldest brother or oldest son. His naming Anny could mean that he had no living brothers or none nearby. [His son] Sylvester was too young, being only about 11 years old.

We know that Nicholas was buried in the cemetery at St. Leonard’s Church in Deal, although his grave has probably been recycled.  We can say with certainly that there is no stone today, if there ever was one.  Gravestones in England were not welcomes in churchyards until about 1650.  The stone for Moses Estes in 1708 is the oldest Estes stone, although we could speculate that Nicholas is probably buried fairly close to the church itself, based on Moses burial location in 1708, some 175 years later.

Come on, let’s take a walk around the churchyard.  Nicholas has to be here someplace!

It’s difficult to photograph the church because you can’t really get far enough away without obstructions.  Jim and I walked back from the church at Shoulden and this is St. Leonard’s Church from the round-about in front.

We enter the churchyard, which is the cemetery, through the wall.

Tombstones are scattered throughout the property.

It’s interesting that for the most part, strangers weren’t buried here.  There are records of a “Stranger’s Burial Ground” where the bodies of drowned sailors thrown up on the foreshore were buried.  It had been used since 1668, at the far end of St. Patrick’s road, but has since been used for building modern homes.  I have to wonder if they are haunted and if the residents know their homes are literally on the graves.

Half of the walkway through and around the cemetery is paved, and the other half has stones, at least part way.  The path is to the right of the church, on the south side, and the paved walkway is to the left, if facing the front door, or on the North side.  Note that the walkway crosses several graves.

Every nook and cranny has burials.

Church records show that the church purchased the walled area called Church Path at the end of the 1700s, once called Stone Lane, which served as the parish cemetery until Deal Cemetery was opened.  Church Path is today a road that leads directly from Lower Deal to the St. Leonard’s Church north doorway, right where Moses Estes’ stone lies.

You know that the vacant spots aren’t vacant – just unmarked.  Our Nicholas lies in one of them, or his grave has been reused.  Still, his remains are here someplace.  The cemetery has been used for hundreds of years.  The earliest marked burial is dated 1675.  In 1690, the skull and crossbones appears for the first time.

There are even burials inside the church, in the aisle ways – which was an honor reserved for only the most wealthy and important church members.

In fact, this entire church aisle is graves – right down the middle.  This is typical in English churches of this age.

We know our family isn’t inside, so let’s go back outside and walk around the church.  We’re going out the side door that was added when the North wing was expanded in 1819.  This was after Moses Estes was buried in 1708, and the walk to the “new door” lays right across his grave.  I guess if you can’t afford to be buried inside, then being buried in the walkway on the way to the door is probably second best.  Everyone walks by your grave and visits you every Sunday!

The tombstone of Moses Estes, complete with skull and crossbones, above, rests in the side yard of the church.  You can see the north door close to his grave.

Some burials are fenced and in crypts.  You can see behind this one that an old door has been bricked in.

Rounding the side of the church to the back, above.

At the back of the church, we can see the nave with the 3 windows.  This is the original part of the church, covered with flint.

Here, as in most old churches in England, many stones have been “rearranged” along the outer wall for ease of maintenance, especially when they are no longer legible.

It’s a stunningly beautiful church.  The wing to the right is where Moses is buried.  You can see the “seam” of the addition.  I wonder if Nicholas is actually buried under the church afterall, by virtue of the extension.

It’s certain that the ashes of Nicholas rest someplace in these photos.

The House of Este

There has been a great deal of speculation that the Estes family descended from the House of Este in Italy.  Part of this is due to the fact that the Estes family in England firmly believed this, in part, because the monarchy believed it.  King James I of England and Scotland was convinced that a gentleman in his service by the name of East was in fact a descendent of the d’Este family and suggested he change his name to Este.  One didn’t argue with the King, and I have to wonder if the King thought that for a reason.  In other words, he may have been right.

Painting of Este Castle in Ferrara, Italy.

David Powell reports that even earlier, one Thomas Estes (1540-1608), an Englishman who published Italian music, used the names of East, Est, Este and Easte and hinted at a connection with the famous Italian d-Este family.  Of course, it might have been beneficial to his career.

The Estes family has spent decades trying to figure out if there is any truth to this story or if it is just a wishful myth.  Frankly, it seems unlikely given that the Estes men were primarily mariners in Kent, after Nicholas, and there is no firm trail from Italy to Kent, from the d’Este line to the Estes line.  But still, we can’t prove a negative, at least in this case, not without DNA testing.

Unfortunately, we have been unable to find any Estes male from the d’Este family.  They apparently daughtered out, except for one possible line, that no longer carries the Estes or d’Este surname.

Roy Eastes, in his book, “Estes Families of America,” did a fine job of distilling the rumors and various stories into something cohesive.

One of the most popular theories is that Nicholas descended from of the House of Estes of northern Italy. The House of Este was very famous during the Renaissance and the evidence of their history can be seen yet today in the splendor of their famous Palaces and Gardens.

The Castello Estense in Ferrara, Italy

The surname Este came from a small town by that name in the Providence of Ventia in northern Italy. In ancient times, before the birth of Christ, it was known as Ateste.

History shows that the town was a Roman stronghold and military base. However, in 589 AD after a severe flooding of the Adigo River, the town was abandoned and re-inhabited at a later time. In this town, Albert Azzo II was born in the year 996. This great Roman adopted the name of the town and started the House of Este. This line has been passed down through the years to modern days.

The House of Este held the city Este until 1240 when they moved their capital to Ferrara.

Probably the most contributing factor that has led to the belief in the Este/Estes connection was a book published in 1894. This book, “Estes Genealogies” – was written by Charles Estes, of Warren, Rhode Island.

The following is an extract from that book:

“Upon looking back at the early days of our ancestry, we find unlike other tribal histories in their incipiency, so little in the Este that is condemnatory and so much that is worthy of praise. We have no reason to be otherwise than proud. “

“We here present the letter of Richard Taylor, M.D., to Rev. Charles F. Deems, which will give some idea of the history of the Este family in what shall follow:”

 “From The New York Watchman”

 “Rev Deems: In reading your paper some times since, I noticed some verses written by Mr. Alston Bacon Estes. The name recalled some recollections of researches undertaken by my father many years ago, when becoming interested in the family, he sought to trace its history, which is both curious and interesting. Thinking you might be pleased to know it, I give it to you in as few of words as possible.                                                                Richard Taylor, M.D.”

“About the year 1097, Albert Azzo II, Marquis of Liquria was born (actually 996- 1097) and his history is commensurate with the lapse of the 11th century. He was the acknowledged founder of the houses of both Este and Brunswick the former were conspicuous in Italy as late as the middle of the 18th century when their direct line failed with the death of Hercules III, he being the twenty-second generation from Azzo II; the latter (House of Brunswick) after centuries of time, emerge from their quiet stations as Dukes of Brunswick and Hanover, and occupy the most prominent positions in Europe as British Kings.”

“One branch however, of the Italian family exists in America. The Marquis Aldobrandino, about the middle of the 14th century, in order to procure means for prosecuting a war against the Auconites, hypothecated (pledged) his younger brother to the usurers (money lenders) of Florence. The untimely death of the Marquis put an end to the war but left his brother unredeemed. These were the sons of Azzo VI. The younger brother did not return to his ancestral home on the accession of the seventh Azzo (another older brother) but proceeded to France, thence to England, where he became acquainted with the family of Lord Bacon, then moved from England to Wales, always maintaining a position of influence and respectability, inheriting the distinguishing traits of character and talents possessed by their ancestors. From Wales they immigrated to Virginia. “

“The name Este is derived from a colony planted in the seventh century of Rome, about fifteen miles to the south of the City of Pudau, and called Ateste, or Este a name known in history 136 years B.C. This is the surname the Marquises of Liquria assumed in the beginning of the fourteenth century, namely Marquises of Este, and their descendants, have ever since assumed the surname, Este. The name written Estes is plural, and was used to represent the whole family; thus Byron, in his Parisina speaks of the Estes:

“And if she sets in Este’s bower,
“Tis not for the sake of its full bloom flower:”

 - or is meant to convey, belonging to the family. The name is more frequently written Estes than as it should be, Este.”

    ***************

“You will see by the above that the Estes name represents a family, one of the oldest and also one of the most illustrious, living in the world; though short, this will give you an inkling of the American Estes’ and show you that the antique brood of Este is still in existence.”

<<<<<   End of Extract   >>>>>

Ducal Palace in Modena built in 1634 by Francesco d’Este.

David Powell provides another glimpse at that favorite family rumor in his paper, “Origins of the Estes/Eastes Family Name.”

“…The Marquis Aldobrandino, about the beginning of the 14th century, in order to procure means for prosecuting a war against the Anconites, hypothecated his youngest brother to the usurers of Florence. The untimely death of the Marquis put an end to the war and left his brother unredeemed. These were the sons of Azo VI (of d’Este). The younger brother did not return to his ancestral home on the accession of the seventh Azo, but proceeded to France, thence to England where he became acquainted and connected with the family of Lord Bacon. The family then moved from England to Wales, always maintaining a position of influence and respectability … From Wales they emigrated to Virginia.”

We know for sure that part of this is incorrect – the sailing for Virginia from Wales portion.  We have that information and will be discussing Abraham Estes and his embarkation for America in a future article.

However, there’s more:

“…Francesco of Este, who was the son of Marquis Leonello [1407-1450], left Ferrara [1471] to go and live in Burgundy, by the will of Duke Ercole [Francesco's uncle, who succeeded Leonello] .. and, in order that he should go at once, he gave him horses and clothes and 500 ducats more; and this was done because His Excellency had some suspicions of him .. ‘Francesco .. went to Burgundy and afterward to England’. These were the words written on the back of the picture of Francesco found in a collection of paintings near Ferrara.”

Many of the details are similar to the earlier story. But why would Francesco flee Italy? In 1471 Francesco’s brother, Ericolo, led a revolt in an attempt to overthrow Duke Ercole. The attempt was unsuccessful and in typical royal tradition, Ericolo lost his head and Francesco exiled, if only because he was Ericolo’s brother. Did Francesco really travel to England? The only evidence for this is the writing in the back of the painting, the existence of which is unconfirmed. Essentially the same story is told by Charles Estes in his book:

“.. Francesco Esteuse (born c.1440), the illegitimate son of Leonnello d’Este. Francesco was living in Burgundy. In the time of Duke Borso he came to Ferrara, and at Borso’s death was declared rebellious by Ercole because of efforts made by his brother, Ericolo, to seize power. Francesco returned to Burgundy and was heard of no more from that time (1471). As the time coincided with that when Edward conquered [sic] England with the aid of Burgundy, it was possible that Francesco followed Edward and after Edward’s victory made England his home.”

 David goes on to say:

If Francesco did travel to England, it would have been around 1480, leaving sufficient time for him to have fathered Nicholas and possibly also Richard and Thomas Eustace of Dover. Indeed, Francesco’s father was Niccola, or, in English, Nicholas.

In the end, David concludes that the myth is probably just that.  However, that opinion is not shared by all Estes researchers.

Kitty Estes Savage, in her article, “Saints and Sinners’ in the December 1998 edition of Estes Trails tells us a little more about the alleged painting:

Duke Ercole’s next goal was to get rid of Francesco, Niccolo’s half-brother, so he bribed him because he was suspicious of him and “because he was much loved by the people because of his courtesy and liberality and also because he was a handsome well-disposed young man”. He gave him a monthly stipend, and “in order that he go at once, he gave him horses and clothes, and five hundred ducats more”.

Francesco left Ferrara on 15 September 1471. No more is known about him except that his portrait hangs in the Metropolitan Museum in New York City with this inscription on the back: “Francesco, natural son of Leonello went to Burgundy and afterwards England.”

I checked with the Metropolitan Museum of Art about the portrait of Francesco d’Este, which they do own, shown above, and here is the information provided about the portrait.

The sitter for this striking portrait is Francesco d’Este, illegitimate son of Leonello d’Este, ruler of Ferrara. In 1444, Francesco was sent to the Netherlands, where he received his education and military training at the court of Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy. He was educated with Philip’s son, Charles de Charlerois (later Charles the Bold), and became a permanent chamberlain to the duke, acting frequently as an envoy to Italy. This portrait was painted in the Netherlands about 1460, when Francesco was around thirty years old. The hammer and ring he holds may be prizes won for a jousting victory, or symbols of his office and power. On the verso of the panel are painted the splendid coat of arms and crest of the Este family, quartered with the honor bestowed on the house of Este in 1432 by Charles VII of France. Above and below the armorials is the inscription, which reads, in part: “entirely yours, marquis of Este, Francesco.” This apparent dedication suggests that the portrait was not kept by the sitter but was presented by him to a close acquaintance or member of the court as a gift of friendship. The portrait was painted by Rogier van der Weyden, who undertook a number of portrait commissions for members of the Burgundian court, while the verso was probably painted by a workshop assistant.

There is no mention of the inscription reported, but there is an inscription which is included in their documentation.

There is another hint, also provided by the museum, that suggests that Francesco may have died in Burgundy.

The Este family coat of arms and crest on the reverse of the panel emphasize the heraldic quality of the portrait. The inscription, “v[ot]re tout…francisque” (entirely yours, Francesco), forms a dedication to the portrait’s recipient, perhaps a friend or member of Philip the Good’s court. The “m” and “e,” stand for “marchio estensis,” the title extended to Francesco. The enigmatic scratched inscription in the upper left, “non plus / courcelles,” may refer to the village in Burgundy where Francesco died.

Wikipedia tells us even more:

The crest emblazen on the reverse of the panel shows a coat of arms consisting of two quarters of the family crest along representations of the honours bestowed to the family by Charles VII of France by letters patent in January 1431. The coat of arms is held up by two lynxes-a pun on the word Leonello, his father’s first name. Another lynx sits blindfolded on the coat of arms. On either side of the animal are the letters M E – assumed to be abbreviations for Marchio Estenis (Marquis of Este), although they could stand for “Marchio Estenses” a title know to have been used by Leonello. On both sides, these letters are bound by tasseled chord. Lettering resembling inscription in the later gothic style above these reads VOIR TOUT (to see all) and is reminiscent of Leonello’s motto Quade Vides ne Vide (Shut your eyes to what you see), the latter described by art historian Robert Fry as indicative of the “idea of astuteness, the most necessary virtue for a ruler of Leonello’s type.

The crest contains Francesco’s name in French, the Burgundian court language, and at the top left hand corner the words non plus courcelles (no longer courcelles). This phrase is established as a later addition but has not been satisfactorily interpreted. It may be a reference to the then French village of Courcelles, in today’s Belgium. The village is located near the site of the Battle of Grandson, a major defeat for Charles the Bold, where the sitter may been killed in 1476 (he is last mentioned in records in 1475). Giving the similarity of the crest to that of his father’s, awell as the significance of various letterings, many art historians see it as indicative of the illegitimate sitter’s aspiration to be recognised as Leonello’s son, with all the entitlements and historical recognition such acceptance would entail.

It looks as if we have pretty well debunked the myth of the inscription on the reverse of this portrait at the Metropolitan Museum indicating Francesco went to England, and we know that Francesco was in the Netherlands in 1475, possibly deceased, 20 years before Nicholas Ewstas was born in Deal.  On the other hand, it is possible that he disappeared from the records in the Netherlands because he went to England, although I find this highly unlikely that he, a member of a royal house, would simply disappear and live a very different kind of life on the coast of Kent, his grandson becoming a mariner.  We have also not addressed the story that a painting in Italy holds an inscription that indicated that Francesco went to England.

Where are the Descendants?

One of our original goals of the Estes DNA project was to see if we could find an Este descendant from Italy to determine whether or not we truly do descend from the d’Este family.  So far, we have found only 1 family of presumed direct line descendants, and that family is relatively unapproachable.

The gentleman is Ernst August, Prince of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg, etc., husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco, direct paternal descendant of Albert Azzo I d’Este, born about 970.  He has 2 sons.

I wouldn’t even begin to know how to approach this man, although, according to Wiki he seems inclined to urinate in public, so maybe there’s an avenue – a urinal.  (Just kidding – well – about the urinal part – not the urinating part.)

I mean, how exactly does one approach this?  A little curtsey perhaps, then “Excuse me sir, I mean Prince, er, your Highness, but would you mind swabbing the inside of your cheek for this DNA test as I’d like to see if my Estes line is related to you???  Or, you could just pee in the bottle if you’d prefer.”  Pretty please.

Followed by:

“No officer, I swear, I meant the man no harm.  I’m not harassing him.  No, I’m not taking any medications….”

I spoke with a physician in England who has tested in our project by the last name of East, hoping he might feel like he could approach the Prince, but we speculated that there is no “up side” for royalty to test. Plus, I’m thinking that the Prince’s phone number isn’t just listed in the phone book, and if it were, I’m doubting his calls are unscreened.

I suspect that royalty might be concerned about DNA testing showing a break in the line between them and whatever royal houses they descend from, or are supposed to descend from, or about us peasants wanting to gold-dig.  Of course, this does not imply that there is a break, just that royalty might feel they have lots to lose and nothing to gain, except for several American cousins whose acquaintance they just might not be  interested in making.  After all, they know they’re descended from the d’Este line, it’s the rest of us who are having the problem.  You can view the Prince’s genealogy at this link as well as in the footnotes.[i]

If in fact the Prince would match our Estes line, the common ancestor, Alberta Azzo I d’Este would be some 29 or 30 generation in the past.

You’ll notice that some of these lines extend into the 1900s, and probably several more would with appropriate research.  The author of the Genealogics site, Leo van de Pas, is primarily interested in the famous people in this line, while we’re interested in folks who would probably welcome the opportunity to prove descendancy from these royal houses.   Many of these lines have not been fully explored.  Just because no males are listed doesn’t mean there aren’t any.  Furthermore, we’d be most interested in any illegitimate lines, as they would probably be far more interested in proving descendancy from royal lineage via DNA testing.

So, if you just happen to run into Prince Ernst, or any other d’Este descendant, you know, at the market or the yacht club or some royal function that you happen to be attending in Monaco, would you do me the favor of broaching the subject of DNA testing for genealogy?  And in case that goes bad, your American Express card is good for bail money:)

[i] Prince Ernst’s Este genealogy:.

His lineage is as follows beginning with his father:

vPrince Ernst August Georg Wilhelm Christian Ludwig Franz Josef Nikolaus von Hannover, Duke von Braunschweig und Lüneburg, b. 18 Mar 1914, Braunschweig

vErnst August Christian Georg, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, Prince of Hannover, b. 17 Nov 1887, Penzing nr Wien, Austria

vErnst August Wilhelm Adolf Georg Friedrich, Crown Prince of Hannover, Duke of Cumberland, b. 21 Sep 1845, Hannover

vGeorg Friedrich Alexander Karl Ernest August, King of Hannover 1851-1866, Duke of Cumberland, b. 27 May 1819, Berlin

vErnst August, King of Hannover 1837-1851, Duke of Cumberland, b. 5 Jun 1771, Buckingham House

vGeorge III, King of Great Britain and Ireland 1760-1820, b. 4 Jun 1738, Norfolk House

vFrederick Lewis, Prince of Wales, b. 20 Jan 1707, Hannover

vGeorge II, King of Great Britain and Ireland 1727-1760, b. 30 Oct 1683, Hannover

vGeorge Ludwig, King of Great Britain and Ireland 1714-1727, b. 28 May 1660/7 June 1660 Hannover (above)

vErnst August, Kurfürst von Hannover 1692-1698, b. 20 Nov 1629, Herzberg

vGeorg, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg zu Kalenberg 1636-1641, b. 17 Feb 1582, Celle

vWilhelm, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg 1559-1592, b. 4 Jul 1535, (Celle?)

vErnst ‘the Confessor’, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg 1521-1546, b. 26 Jun 1497, Velzen

vHeinrich, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg 1471-1486-1520, b. 1468

vOtto II ‘The Magnanimous’, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg 1464-1471, b. 1439

vFriedrich ‘the Pious’, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg 1445-1457, 1471-1478, b. est 1390

vBernhard I, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg 1388-1434

vMagnus II Torquatus, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, b. Abt 1328

vMagnus I ‘the Pious’, Duke of Brunswick, b. Abt 1304

vAlbrecht II ‘the Fat’, Duke of Brunswick-Göttingen 1286-1318, b. 1268

vAlbrecht I ‘the Great’, Duke of Brunswick, b. 1236

vOtto I ‘das Kind’, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg 1235-1252, b. 1204

vWilhelm ‘Longsword’, Duke of Brunswick and Lüneburg, b. 11 Apr 1184, Winchester

vHeinrich ‘the Lion’, Duke of Saxony 1142-1195 and Bavaria 1154-1195, b. 1129

vHeinrich ‘the Proud’, Duke of Bavaria 1126-1139 & Saxony 1136-1139, b. Abt 1100

vHeinrich ‘the Black’, Duke of Bavaria 1120-1126, b. Abt 1074

vWelf IV, Duke of Bavaria 1070-1101, b. Abt 1036

vAlberto Azzo II, Marchese d’Este, b. 997

vAlberto Azzo I d’Este, Marchese in Liguria, b. Abt 970

To follow just the male descendancy of  Alberto Azzo born in 970, click here.

Sylvester Estes was born probably in or near Deal, Kent, England about 1522, well before baptismal records were kept, beginning in 1559.  He would have married before that time as well, so we don’t know his wife’s maiden name, only that her name was Jone.  Their marriage date of 1545 is estimated based on the birth year of their first known child in 1547 and his birth date estimate is based on that as well, so he could have been born earlier.  Jone Eustes, Sylvester’s wife, was buried on May 15, 1561 at St. Leonard’s Church in Deal, Kent.  Her grave is not marked.  Tombstones were not being used at that time in history.

Sylvester, described as “emeritus fisherman,” died and was buried on June 7, 1579 in the churchyard at Ringwould, his last name spelled Eastye.  His grave is unmarked as well.

What little we do know about Sylvester, aside from his death and burial, comes from a court record.

On December 10, 1549, Sylvester, along with John Lamond, appeared before the Consistory Court of Canterbury (approximately 20 miles from Deal), charged by the Rector of Deal for not paying their tithes from their herring catch.  Lamond asserted that “in the time of his rememberance … he paid no tithe.” Sylvester responded that in the past two years he and his colleagues had taken two or three “last” (a dozen 6-9 pound barrels) and that “the school of herring hath always comined there away but they had not netteth there to take them well before that time.” It has been suggested that the failure to pay the tithe was a political gesture, rather than just oversight, church tithes becoming increasingly unpopular at that time.

Stewart Estes provides the following information about tithes, especially upon fish:

From the above history of Sylvester Eastes, it appears that he may have been an early tax protester. A tithe (from Old English teogoþa “tenth”) is a one-tenth part of something, paid as a usually voluntary contribution or as a tax or levy, usually to support a church. Historically tithes could be paid in kind, such as agricultural products. Farmers had to offer a tenth of their harvest, while craftsmen had to offer a tenth of their production.

In the Middle Ages the tithe from the Old Testament was expanded, through a differentiation between a Great Tithe and a Little Tithe. The Great Tithe was analogous to the tithe in the Bible where one had to tithe on grain and large farm animals. The Little Tithe added fruits of the field: kitchen herbs, fruit, vegetables and small farm animals.

After the Reformation the tithe was increasingly taken over from the church by the state. In England, church tithes remained until the 19th century. The right to receive tithes was granted to the English churches by King Ethelwulf in 855. The Saladin tithe was a royal tax, but assessed using ecclesiastical boundaries, in 1188. Tithes were given legal force by the Statute of Westminster of 1285. The Dissolution of the Monasteries led to the transfer of many tithe rights from the Church to secular landowners, and then in the 1530s to the Crown.

Tithes of fish (and mills) were the last survivors of what were referred to as personal tithes. Traditionally, fish taken from the sea or common rivers were not titheable under the principal that they were ferae naturae or wild animals. The only exception was if a local custom existed.

A 1549 statute made a tithe of fish payable only in parishes where it had customarily been paid within the past 40 years, such as those on the sea coast. This would likely include Kent. The system ended with the Tithe Commutation Act 1836, which replaced tithes with a rent charge decided by a Tithe Commission.

Based on church records, we know that Sylvester and Jone had 3 children.  It’s likely that they had several more who may have died or not been reflected in the records.  If they were married about 1545 and Jone died in 1561, according to the burial record, they would have had 16 years as a married couple to produce offspring, so they could have been expected to have had approximately 8 children.  The births of those children would only have been recorded in church records after 1559.  This suggests that there are several children born, and probably buried, as children.  However, given that daughter Jone was married in Ripple in 1563, it wouldn’t hurt to check the Ripple church records to see if Sylvester and Jone’s children were baptized there.  Marriages traditionally took place in the bride’s church, although just two years earlier, Jone’s mother, Jone, was buried at St. Leonard’s in Deal.

Jone’s untimely death in her 30s would have left Sylvester, a fisherman, with 3 young children and no wife.  His children, at the time of Jone’s death would have been 14, 12 and 6.  It’s likely that his mother, Anny, if she was still living, would have raised his children while he provided for the entire family by fishing.

The three known children of Sylvester Eastes and Jone are as follows:

1. Jone Eastye, born 1547, probably at Deal, Kent, married on 9 July 1563, at Ripple, Kent, located between Ringwould and Deal, to Henrye Baker, born in 1546, they had a daughter, Jone, who married her first cousin Henry Estes, the son of Jone’s brother.

2. Henry Eastye, a fisherman and master-owner of a pinasse (two masted vessel), the Mynion, born in 1549, at Deal, Kent. He married Mary Rand on July 3, 1574, in Deal. “Henry Eastice of the parish of Deale in the County of Kent fisherman,” made his will on April 30, 1590 at Deal. Mary was buried June 19, 1601 at St Leonard’s, Kent.

3. Robert Eastye, mariner, born about 1555 at Deal, Kent, died about 1616 at age 61 in Ringwould, Kent. He married Anne Woodward on December 2, 1591 at Sholden, Kent. Anne was born about 1574 (or in 1570), died between the making of her will on April 21, 1630 and when she was buried on May 18, 1630 at Ringwould. Robert and Anne spent the first few years of their married life at Sholden, moving to Ringwould about 1595.

Due to the change in the English religion from Catholic to Protestant, these children would have been baptized as Protestants, while Sylvester and Jone would have been baptized at Catholics.

In the Ringwould church records, Sylvester’s burial is the very first Estes record, recorded thus:

Jan. 7, 1579 – Silvester Eastye buried

This begs the question of why, with his wife buried at St.Leonard’s 18 years earlier, was Silvester buried at Ringwould?

The second Estes record at Ringwould doesn’t follow for another 17 years, and it’s the christening of Silvester, the son of Robert, who is the son of Silvester buried in January of 1579.  Between 1579 and 1596, Robert has married Anne Woodward at Shoulden in 1591, with their first child, Matthew being baptized there in 1592.

Sept. 26, 1596 – Silvester Estey, son of Robert, christened

Robert Estes and Anne Woodward continued to be members of St. Nicholas of Ringwould until Robert’s death about 1616.

Between 1561 when Jone was buried in Ringwould, to 1591 when Robert was married at Sholden, we have church records of this family involved with four different churches, albeit in close geographic proximity of a mile and a half range.  As you can see, below, the entire circle between all 4 locations, using today’s roads which are not the most direct routes, is only a total of 7 miles.

Changes

Sylvester saw a lot of changes in his lifetime.  His father died when he was 11 or 12, leaving his mother a widow.  Sylvester may well have been apprenticed to the mariners to learn a trade in order to be able to support himself, and possibly his widowed mother and younger siblings as well.

Changes were afoot in England itself as well.  England was in the process of politically becoming a Protestant nation with the King at the head of the church, instead of a Catholic nation with the Pope at the head of the church.  In the 1530s, Henry VIII wanted to remarry because his wife did not produce a male heir, and his Catholicism prevented that, especially when the Pope refused to annul his marriage.  As a result Henry renounced Catholicism and became Protestant, ordered the destruction of all things Catholic, such as monasteries and abbeys.  The churches “became” Protestant overnight, along with their parishioners.  In some places, of course, there was strong resistance and the resisters were called ‘recussants.’  That did not seem to be a problem in Kent.

In addition to the national issues, there were local and regional problems to contend with as well.

In October 1536, when Sylvester would have been about 14, four Flemish ships entered the Downs, landed and plundered the local boats of their “herrings, hogbushes, arrows and beer.”  A few days later, those same ships robbed a Deal fishing boat of its entire catch and then sent a pinnace ashore on St. Leonard’s Day (November 6  and feast day at Deal’s St. Leonard’s church) to cut the cable of Captain Rychardson’s boat and tow it away.  Rychardson’s inventory of his losses reflects a typical fishing boat of the time – two long bows, sheaves of arrows, barrels of beer, bread, candles, boots and bonnets.  Sylvester’s ship probably was provisioned with the same things.

Piracy, especially in the Downs was very troublesome during this time.  In 1536 Henry VII made it an offense punishable by death in some cases.

Queen Elizabeth, after coming to reign in 1558 did not take kindly to pirates either.  In one month alone, sometime after 1573, William Holstock, commander of the Queen’s Navy, captured pirates of several nationalities from 35 rogue ships and sent about 1000 captives ashore at Deal.  But then, he too turned rogue and captured 15 merchant ships.

In the 1539, Henry VIII ordered the construction of three castles to defend the Downs which were heavily exposed, faced Europe and were the most likely places for a Catholic army to make landfall in England.  Deal Castle was one of the castles, and still stands majestically today.  It was built, along with Sandown and Walmer Castle, in about 18 months in 1539 and 1540 utilizing 1400 men along with local laborers.

This was a very important, high profile project.  In fact, King Henry himself visited the Downs to “inspect his defences” on Easter Sunday in 1539.  He fully expected an invasion from Catholic Europe.

Sylvester would have been 17 or 18 at the time, a very impressionable age, and if he weren’t fishing already, he was surely involved in the castle construction.  If he was fishing, the influx of workers certainly created an unending market for their fish and probably just about anything else you could create to sell to the workers.  It would certainly have been an economic boon for the region around Deal.  It would have been an exciting time to be a young man as well – an era full of adventure.

After the castles’ construction, garrisons were assigned.  King Henry’s policy was to make any defense the responsibility of the local district and that garrisons were drawn from the area and officers were drawn from the local gentry.  Soldiers were expected to provide their own weapons – a dagger, sword, halberd and at their own expense.

The expected attack from Catholic Europe did not materialize in 1540, probably causing everyone along the Kent coastline to heave a collective sigh of relief.  Piracy and smuggling continued in the Downs, but the next threat from another nation would be Spain in 1588, nine years after Sylvester’s death.

Queen Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry VIII, ascended the throne in 1558 and inspected the castles in Kent in 1573.  After leaving Dover, the Queen journeyed through Walmer and Deal before being carried on a litter along the Ancient Highway to Sandwich.  You can rest assured that every person who was able lined the roads to catch a glimpse of the Queen.

Perhaps Sylvester Estes, then 51 years old, was among them with his son Robert, just 18.  Did they see the Queen?

Mobility

I expected that we would find the Estes family in one church and that the family members would remain within that church for generations.  This also implies that they lived in the same location.  That’s not what we’ve found.  In the 5 known generations beginning with Nicholas and ending with Abraham Estes who immigrated to the US in 1673, we know that the Estes family participated in services in at least 8 churches, not including Sandwich where one can rest assured that Abraham attended church when he was an apprentice there.  That’s a lot of mobility for an early family whose main avenue for transportation would have been on foot.

It’s also somewhat unusual in that early vassalage arrangements would have precluded mobility between farms, let along between towns, and in essence kept the vassals tied to the lands of the monarchy or their lords in perpetuity.  Given that history, finding this much movement, even within a region, just a few years later is quite surprising.  Feudalism, meaning feudal land tenure, began to decline with the War of the Roses in the mid-1400s (1455-1485), effectively ended when the country became Protestant in 1536, but wasn’t abolished in England until 1660.  Under the feudal system, tenants, or vassals, would not have been allowed to move around from place to place.

So, why did they move?  Well, knowing the Estes family, perhaps because they couldn’t, then they could, and did, because they could.

This pattern of movement tells us that the Estes family was likely not tied to land, per se, at least not by the 1500s – so maybe tenant farmers working the lands of others, or craftsmen – or eventually, as we know, mariners.  Mariners are tied to the sea, not the land, so they would have lived relatively close to the shore.  Most of these churches and communities certainly fit that criteria.

The movement of people is more the norm, over time, than not, unless there is a constraining factor.  We do sometimes find families in villages nestled in the mountains of some remote location that haven’t left since the beginning of written records, which is often reflected in the very unusual markers in their Y DNA, suggesting a population bottleneck of sorts.  In other words, mutations happened but no one left to spread them around, so they are only found in a particular region.  For genealogists, these are blessings in disguise, because they can help us pinpoint locations where our ancestor lived, if enough people test.  They will, of course, carry different surnames today, but their DNA will match, especially on unusual markers that have mutated in that region.

We find that often people migrated in groups – probably family units – increasing their chances of survival if there are others available who have a vested interest in helping out if trouble loomed.  Someone else who wouldn’t hesitate to paint themselves blue and hurl projectiles at Caesar’s ships, if the need arose.

So, if we look at the more ancient aspect of the Estes DNA, what does it tell us?  Where did the Estes family come from, before the advent of surnames?  And does it tell us anything about the d’Este family myth?

Who Settled Near Deal?

Let’s start by looking at who settled in the Deal area.  We know that Ceasar said that in the year 55 this area was inhabited by “Belgic and Celtic” tribes, a mixture of Germanic and Celtic stock who had arrived on “these shores a generation before but had continued to trade with their counterparts on the continent.”  He says specifically that:

“The coast (was populated) by Belgic immigrants who came to plunder and make war – nearly all of them retaining the names of tribes from which they originated – and later settled to till the soil. They think it is wrong to eat hares or chickens or geese but they breed them as pets. As the cold is less severe, the climate is more temperate than in Gaul.”

Caesar tells us that his fleet encountered Celts hurling missiles from the soaring cliffs at Dover.  The fleet then sailed 8 miles, hugging the coast until they came to ‘low lying land’ (Saxon, ‘dylle’).

Warring Britons, their naked bodies daubed with woad and their wild hair stiffened with lime relentlessly rode their sleek chariots into battle and drove the Romans from the shore.

An Ancient Briton from Barnard’s New Complete & Authentic History of England, 1783, below.

I can’t tell you how I wish someone had made a painting of that!  Naked men painted blue with spikey hair in a chariot.  Is that legal?

Caesar tells us more, and it’s complimentary in spite of the naked blue spikey factor.

“The most civilised people are those in Kent which is entirely a coastal area; they have much the same customs as the Gauls. Most of those living further inland do not sow corn but live on milk and flesh and wear clothes of animal skins. All the Britons, though, dye their skins with woad which produces a blue colour and thereby look all the more terrifying in battle.

By far the most civilized inhabitants are those living in Kent.  The population is large, the ground thickly studded with homesteads…and the cattle numerous.

They do not cut their hair but shave all the rest of the body except the head and upper lip. Wives are shared between groups of ten or twelve men, usually made up of brothers or fathers and sons. The children are reckoned as belonging to the man each girl marries first.”

Now, that would play havoc with the DNA is more ways than one.  So, you could wind up being the father to your own brother, or nephew….so you really could be your own grandpa.  Don’t ponder this too long – it will only make you crazy.

We know that the word Deal itself is derived from the Saxon word “dylle” meaning low lying land or “del” referring to a dale or valley.

A Druid shrine was found on the eastern slope of Mill Hill, just a few blocks from St. Leonard’s Church in Deal, rich in Celtic art from the second century BC.

In fact, the “Deal Warrior” was found here with his armour, wearing what looks to be a crown with a LaTene style of incised pattern.

The Celtic LaTene culture followed the Hallstatt in Iron Age Europe about 450BCE.

Above, an overview of the Hallstatt and La Tène cultural regions. The core Hallstatt territory (800 BCE) is shown in solid yellow, the area of influence by 500 BCE (HaD) in light yellow. The core territory of the La Tène culture (450 BCE) is shown in solid green, the eventual area of La Tène influence by 50 BCE in light green. The territories of some major Celtic tribes are labelled. Map drawn after Atlas of the Celtic World, by John Haywood (2001: 30–37).

This map shows the Celtic expansion in Europe, including the British Isles, and Italy.

Ok, so are the Estes men Celtic?

The DNA

The good news is that the Estes STR markers are quite unique.  The bad news is that the Estes STR markers are quite unique.  The STR markers, or short tandem repeats, are the marker results that you receive when you order the 12, 25, 37, 67 or 111 marker tests from Family Tree DNA.

The Estes men don’t match men with other surnames at 111, 67 or 37 markers.  In fact, their marker values at that level are very unique.  The good news is that this means that it’s very easy to tell when someone matches the group, or doesn’t.  The bad news is that there are no breadcrumbs left by matching other people.

Breadcrumbs?  What do I mean by breadcrumbs?

A DNA breadcrumb, in this instance, could be one of two things.  First, it could be an extended haplogroup SNP test that would tell me by virtue of who I match closely on STR markers that my ancestor’s haplogroup is likely to be the same as the other person who took the extended testing.  In other words, a poor man’s pseudo SNP test.  No such luck, in my case.

The second DNA breadcrumb would be the matches maps – where are the oldest ancestors of my closest matches found?  This can be important in locating on origin in continental Europe.  In my case, the closest not-Estes matches with locations are 12 and 25 markers.  It’s not that I can’t use these, it’s that they are far back in time, quite far sometimes, so far that the common ancestor may not be on the same twig of the Y tree, especially with haplogroup R, old R1b1a2.

And yes, of course, the Estes men are smack dab in the middle of haplogroup R – in fact, L21.

On the first map, below, the locations of the oldest known European ancestors of the Estes matches are shown.  There aren’t many in continental Europe.  Most are in the British Isles.  Keep in mind that none of these hold up (or perhaps didn’t test) above 25 markers, so the common ancestors with these individuals would be far back in time, hundreds to thousands of years – which is exactly what we are looking for – sometime around Caesar’s arrival in the year 55 when the woad covered Celts were pummeling his ships from the white cliffs of Dover.

The red balloons below show the oldest ancestors of 12 marker matches.

Hey, what are those two in Italy?

Turns out one is in Rome and other shows it’s in France, but it’s still in the right general location to perhaps be an indication that some of the Estes DNA is living in the region.  That doesn’t do anything to put to bed the oral history of the d’Este family.  In fact, it fans those flames a bit.  If those matches held above 12 markers, it would fan those flames a lot…..but they don’t.

However, the general distribution pattern indeed looks like the traditional “Celtic” L21 migration into the British Isles, shown below.

It is believed that subgroup L21 was born about 4000 years ago in the Celtic region of Europe, perhaps in Southwest Germany.

A few days ago, Britain’s DNA released information about L21 which equates to their SNP S145.

The map below, for S145 shows their Pretani distribution.  The best definition I could find for Pretani was that the earliest known reference to the people of the British Isles, made by the Greeks between 330 and 300 BC describes them as the Isles of the Pretani, the ‘Pretani’ thus becoming the most ancient inhabitants of Britain and Ireland to whom a definite name can be given. In Ireland these ancient British Pretani (or Britanni) were later to become known as the Cruthin, while in Scotland they became known as the Picts.

While their map does not include any downstream variants, it still meshes with the Eupedia L21 map.  It looks like the Celts stepped ashore in England and started moving north and west and didn’t stop until they had to.  Of course, they were followed by Angles and Saxons and Romans and Normans so they did have some pressure to keep moving.  Apparently not all moved on, because there are still between 13% and 15% in the east and southeast of England, as determined by DNA testing of people whose 4 grandparents lived in that location – implying that they are not recent immigrants to the region.

So, what next?

Ok, so the Estes men are descended from Celts.  Now we at least know that much.

But I’d still like to know if my ancestors were d’Este Kings in Italy wearing crowns, Druid priests in England wearing crowns, or blue woad painted Celts with spiked hair driving chariots while defending the white cliffs of Dover.  Can’t you just see them here?

I mean, it does make quite a bit of difference in the telling of the family story.

I want to know more.  I’d like to test for more SNPs to see if I can refine what we know, but which SNPs to test?

The Estes men have joined the R-L21 project and the British Isles by County project, and I’ve asked the administrator for haplogroup L21 for suggestions about how to test further.  Part of the decision about how to test will be financially based.  If he can tell me, based on his experience that what I really need to do is test one or two SNPs based on what he sees in terms of matching within other L21 subgroups, I’ll happily do that.  If he tells me that I need to do the Geno 2.0 or Big Y, I’ll probably do that as well, but I’ll be eating hotdogs and mac and cheese for a few weeks.  But hey, it’s grilling season and genealogy is way more important that eating!

In the L21 project, the Estes men, along with a few thousands of our closest friends are in the group titled “1. L21+ (L11>P312>L21; If you can, test for DF13 status).”  This means, in plain English – you need more testing, so that’s the answer I’m expecting.

What this means is that the testing results are too vanilla to narrow the location origin.  Below are the locations of the oldest ancestors of the “you need more testing” group.

And for comparison, here’s a subclade of L21 – a group of people who share a terminal SNP further down the tree – and the locations of their most distant ancestors.  If what I’m looking for is a source on continental Europe – this is much more useful than the map above which shows the distribution of L21 over the past 4000 years or so.

I did receive a recommendation from the haplogroup L21 project administrator.  Just what I was afraid of – the L21 project administrator wants 2 Big Yfull Y sequence tests from the Estes line – from hopefully our two most divergent men who are definitely from the same family.  This will show which of the SNPs or Novel Variants (personal or family SNPs) they share are actually haplotree branch SNPs and which are family only, meaning much more recent in time.  Makes sense.  I expected this advice, I was just hoping for a less expensive option, but as the administrator says, we are, indeed, the explorers in this new field.  Well, good thing we are Celts now isn’t it!

Now, all I have to find the appropriate Estes male candidates and the funds.  If you have an Estes in your family tree, you can contribute directly to the Estes DNA project towards the tests, which will be about $1200 in total.  Any amount is appreciated and it all helps.

To put this in perspective, raising these funds has to be easier than getting naked, shaving my body, painting myself blue and liming my hair while driving a chariot and throwing projectiles off of the white cliffs of Dover!!!

This article is about only one chapter in the lives of my great-grandparents, Joseph “Dode” Bolton (1853-1920) and his wife, Margaret Claxton (Clarkson) Bolton (1851-1920.)  That chapter is the life, and death, of their son, Samuel Estwell H. Bolton (1894-1918).  Samuel gave his life for his country in World War I.

This week, we commemorate the 100^th anniversary of the beginning of that war, not something one would celebrate, but something to give us pause to reflect upon those who died for the cause of freedom.

In London this week, the Tower of London is decorated with hundreds of thousands of poppies, 888,246, to be exact, to remember, and honor each British soldier who perished.  The red “Remembrance Poppy” has been used since 1920 to commemorate those killed in war.  Poppies bloomed across the battlefields in France after the horrific battles of WWI, symbolizing the bloodshed there.

Additionally, 116,516 Americans died in WWI, among them, Samuel Bolton from Hancock County, Tennessee, my grandmother’s younger brother.

Joseph Bolton and Margaret Clarkson (Claxton) Bolton had 10 or 11 children, but only one died in the service of their country, and that one was Samuel.  A second son served in WWII, after their deaths.

Joseph and Margaret has been married more than 20 years when Samuel arrived on June 12, 1894.  He had a younger sibling as well, although the 1910 census shows Sammie as the youngest at that time.  He wasn’t in 1900, as the 8^th Civil District, Hancock Co., TN, shows.

The 1900 census shows Sammie, listed as Estwell, his middle name, age 5, with younger brother Henry.  Samuel’s middle initial, H., probably stood for Henry as well.  I wonder if his parents changed his middle name from Estwell to Henry after Henry died.

The 1910 census shows Sammie as the youngest child at home.  It looks like Henry has died, and the daughter, Cerenia that family oral history shows as the youngest child, was never shown on a census.  Regardless, it looks like Sammie is their youngest child in 1910, the baby of the family.

The 1910 census also shows us that they lived on Back Valley Road, very near the intersection with the main Mulberry Road in Hancock County, Tennessee not terribly far from the Claiborne County border.

When Sammie enlisted in the service in September of 1917, two days after his father’s 64^th birthday, it’s difficult to surmise how his parents felt.

I’m sure that while they were swelled with pride, they were also more than a little apprehensive.  In addition, they were older people and losing help on the farm meant more work for them that they might not have been physically able to do.   Margaret, I’m sure, cried as she saw her baby leave, on his way to defend his country.  Having lost her youngest child or children already, did she know that he would never come home?  Was she worried?  Did she have a mother’s second sense?

Samuel’s military record is so cold and lifeless.  Just the facts.

1.306.789 W
Bolton, Samuel H.;
Service: Over Seas
Residence: Sneedville, Tennessee
Inducted: Sneedville, Tennessee on 9/20/1917
Born: Tazewell, Tennessee
Age: 23 years, 4 months
Organization: Hq Company 328th Infantry, 9/21/1917-10/14/1917; Company A 117th Infantry to 10/18/1918.
Grade: Private 9/20/1917; Private 1st Class Mch. January 1918.
Overseas service: 5/11/1918-10/8/1918
Killed in Action 10/8/1918.
Person notified of death: Joseph B. Bolton, Father, RFD #1, Hoop, Tennessee

Person notified of death – Joseph B. Bolton, Father – what a terrible visit to receive.

It was in Europe, in France, the furthest, I’m sure, that any Bolton had ever been from home, that Samuel would perish.

Cousin Dillis found a wonderful summary of Samuel’s unit written by Billie McNamara.  It tells us what Samuel was doing, and when.  I wonder if his parents ever had this level of information, or if they simply knew that he died.  They both died just 16 months after Samuel’s death, and only 16 days apart.

Samuel served in the 117^th Infantry, known at the Third Tennessee Infantry, headquartered out of Knoxville.  Called into service, they recruited heavily and left with the new recruits for Camp Sevier, SC in September of 1917.

The first part of the work at Camp Sevier was clearing a camp from a pine forest.  All military drill was impossible until the large pine trees and undergrowth had been removed and the holes leveled.  This hard physical work proved excellent for the men, as they hardened into fine condition and most of them gained in weight.  After fair grounds had been prepared, a strenuous daily schedule of infantry drill was carried out, discipline stiffened, and during the winter and spring of 1918, instruction was given by English officers and noncommissioned officers in trench warfare.  During the winter, which was a very severe one, one officer and twenty-nine enlisted men died from disease, principally pneumonia.

Orders were received May 2, 1918, to entrain for duty overseas, and on the night of May 10, 1918, the regiment went on board transports at New York.

I expect that Sammie, like many of the men, wrote a letter home to his parents during this time between receiving orders and shipping out.  He probably also sent a picture of himself proudly wearing his uniform.  Most servicemen did.  I would love to know what he was thinking.  Was he welcoming the adventure for which he had been training, or did he dread and fear the possible conflict that was waiting?  Was he confident, like so many, that we would “kick their butts?”  Did he put on a brave face for his parents, or perhaps try to persuade them that they didn’t need to worry about him and he would see them soon.

Some ten days later, after an attack by submarines off the Irish Coast, in which the convoy escaped without loss, landing was made at Liverpool, England, where special trains carried the regiment straight through London to Folkestone.  Transports ferried it across the English Channel by night to Calais, France.  American equipment was turned in there and British was issued in its stead.  The Thirtieth Division was one of seven American divisions which were concentrated in the British area for training and for use in case the Germans made their threatened drive for the Channel ports.  The enemy was said to have 20 divisions at this time just back of Ypres, ready to make this attack, but their withdrawal was made necessary later by the allied resistance on other parts of the front.

This is the sight that would have greeted Samuel in Ypres.  This is all that remained of Ypres, the cathedral in the center of the picture, and below, after Germans had shelled it for four years.  He had probably never seen the devastation of war.  Now, he was seeing it first hand.  It looked like the apocalypse.  If the reality of the situation hadn’t set in before, it surely did now.  I would suspect it was a very somber, quiet unit that surveyed this scene spread before them.

The 117th proceeded from Calais to Norbecourt, where, under British officers and non-commissioned officers, the officers and men of the regiment were trained strenuously for five weeks.  Detachments went up from time to time to the Canal Sector, between Ypres and Mont Kemmel, for front line work.  This was most important, for it gave the regiment some experience in actual warfare before it was ordered later to take over a part of the line.

About July 1, 1918, the Thirtieth Division was ordered to move into Belgium.  The 59th Brigade, which crossed the border on July 4, was the first unit of American forces to enter the war-torn little country, which bore the first assault of the German attack in the world war.

The 117th was assigned to Tunneling Camp, where it was given its final training in trench warfare and in attacking strong points.  After a few days of this work, the regiment was ordered into the battle line.  One battalion held the front line trenches, another was kept in support, while the third was held in reserve on the East Popperinghe Line.  The battalions alternated in these positions for twenty-four days, each receiving the same amount of real front line work.  On August 17, when it became evident that the Americans were fully able to handle the situation, the sector was turned over to the Thirtieth Division by the Thirty-third British Division, which had been stationed in the line there.  The extent of the sector was from the southern outskirts of Ypres to Voormezeele and was known as the Canal Sector.

With the exception of a limited offensive, conducted in cooperation with the British, in which Mont Kemmel was outflanked, Voormezeele captured, and an advance of about 1500 yards made, the Thirtieth Division was purely on the defensive in all the fighting in Belgium.  Yet this type of warfare was, perhaps, the most harassing through which it went during the whole war.  The Germans knew the location of every trench, and their artillery played upon them day and night.  Night bombers also made this a very uncomfortable sector, for they dropped tons of explosives both upon the front and at the rear.  There was little concealment on either side, because this part of Belgium was very flat.  Artificial camouflage provided what little deception was practiced upon the enemy.

The casualties of the 117th in the two months in which it was stationed in the Canal Sector were not heavy.  Only a few men were killed, and the number of wounded was less than 100.  King George of England and Field Marshal Haig, commander of the English armies, honored the regiment with a visit and made an inspection of its companies, shown below.

So, it would appear that Samuel met, or at least saw, King George.

On the night of September 4, the 117th, together with the other units of the division, was withdrawn from the English Second Army and placed in British G. H. Q. reserve.  The next two weeks were given to intensive training with tanks, with a view to coming offensive operations with them.

September 1^st, trucks and busses were provided and the regiment moved through Albert, Bray, and Peronne to near Tincourt, just back of the celebrated Hindenburg Line.  The Thirtieth and Twenty-seventh Divisions, which were the only American division left with the British, were assigned now to the British Fourth Army, General Rawlinson commanding, for the great attack which was soon to be launched at this most vital and highly fortified part of the whole line.  They were fresh, they had shown their mettle in the defensive operations in Belgium, and so they were chosen for the spearhead of the attack.

 They had earned the honor.

The 59th Brigade went into the line first, relieving the Australians on the night of September 26.  The 118th Infantry took over the front line, with the 117th Infantry in close support.  The casualties of the latter were rather heavy from gas shells in making the relief, one company losing 62 men to the hospital.

The celebrated Hindenburg Line, which the German commander-in-chief, General von Hindenburg, built as a great defensive system to hold against capture of France and Belgium east of it, extended from the English Channel to the Swiss border.  It was not a local defensive system at all.  Yet at various parts of the line there were key positions, dominating a large area, the fortifications of which had been made much stronger.  The area between St. Quentin and Cambrai held the key to the German defenses on the northern end of the line.  It was fortified accordingly with all the ingenuity and deviltry of the Hun mind.

View of Bellicourt, above:  In lower left hand corner is entrance to the formidable Hindenburg Tunnel.

Soldiers on the road beside the Hindenburg Tunnel, protected by barbed wire, on October 4, 1918.

In front of Bellicourt, near the center of the American sector of attack, the Hindenburg Line, which curved west of the St. Quentin Canal, consisted of three main trench systems, each protected by row after row of barbed wire entanglements.  These trench systems were on high ground and gave the Germans the advantage of being able to sweep the whole area in front of them with machine guns.  Along the canal were concrete machine gun emplacements.  Back of this formidable system of defenses was the canal tunnel, built by Napoleon in 1802-10 and running underground for a distance of three miles.  From this tunnel there were thirty-eight exits, each carefully camouflaged.

The tunnel was lighted by electricity, a narrow gauge railroad brought in supplies from the outside, while canal boats provided quarters for a large number of men.  Thus there was complete shelter for a large garrison of the enemy against heavy shelling, and in case of a real attack, an almost impregnable defense.

The attack upon this part of the line was set for the morning of September 29, 1918.  The 27th American Division was on the left, the 46th British on the right of the 30th American Division.  The American sector passed across the tunnel, but the British on the right and left were prepared to swim the canal in case no bridges were found to afford them passage.  The assault of the infantry upon these fortifications was to be preceded by a bombardment of 72 hours — with gas shells for 24 hours and with shell and shrapnel from light and heavy artillery for 48 hours.

In the Thirtieth Division sector, the 119th and 120th Infantry were assigned to make the opening attack, with the 117th Infantry following in close support, and prepared to exploit their advance after the canal had been crossed.  The 118th Infantry was held in reserve.  The 119th Infantry had the left half of the sector, while the 120th, strengthened by Company H, of the 117th, covered the right half.  In addition to his regimental strength, Colonel Spence, of the 117th, had under his command for the attack 92 guns of Australian artillery, 24 British tanks, and two extra machine gun companies.  The plan of battle was that the regiment, following the 120th, should cross the canal between Bellicourt on the left and the entrance to the canal on the right, then turn at right angles, and proceed southeasterly down the main Hindenburg Line trench, mopping up this territory of the enemy for about a mile.  Connection was to be made with the British on the right, if they succeeded in crossing the canal.

The facts of the case are that this paper plan of battle worked out somewhat differently under battle conditions.  Most of the assaulting companies became badly confused in the deep fog and smoke, strayed off somewhat from their objectives, and their attack swung to the left of the sector.  The 117th, which followed, went off in the opposite direction fortunately and cleaned out a territory which otherwise would have been left undisturbed.  While it caused endless confusion and the temporary intermingling of platoons, companies, and even regiments, this pall of mist and smoke on the morning of the attack undoubtedly contributed to the success of the battle.  The Germans did not know how to shoot accurately, for no targets were visible.  During the morning hours it was impossible for a man to see his hand more than a few inches in front of him.  Men in the combat groups joined hands to avoid being lost from each other.  Officers were compelled, in orienting their maps, to lay them on the ground, as it was impossible to read them while standing in the dense cloud of smoke and mist.  The atmosphere did not clear up completely until after the canal had been crossed.

The barrage for the attack went down at 5:50 a.m.  The First Battalion, under Major Dyer, jumped off promptly on time, with C and D Companies in the line, A and B Companies in support.  The Second Battalion followed at about 500 yards, while the Third Battalion, with a company of engineers, was held in reserve on the crest of a hill.  The tanks, for the most part, became separated from the infantry, but their work was invaluable in plowing through the barbed wire, which had been cut up very little by the barrage.  Like nearly everyone else, the tanks lost sense of direction in the smoke and fog cloud, while the majority of them were disabled before noon of the 29th.

Past the Hindenburg Line, members of Co.”K,” 117th Infantry, digging themselves in for the night after an advance which started in the morning at Molain, France.

The taking of the Hindenburg Tunnel was a turning point in the war.  The Australians who had units present as well document the events, with maps, here. Fallen American soldiers on the 29^th, shown below.  I wonder if placing crosses on the bodies was a symbolic tradition or was simply a signal that “this one needs to be buried.”

Most of the morning was consumed by the 117th in clearing out the area south and west of the tunnel entrance.  Some units, mistaking one of the trench systems for the canal, turned southward before actually reaching the genuine canal.  They cleaned out thoroughly the Germans, who were in this pocket, but toward 10 o’clock turned northward and began to pass over the tunnel, the left flank skimming Bellicourt and the right crossing near the tunnel entrance.

The casualties of the 117th on September 29 were 26 officers and 366 men.  Seven field pieces, 99 machine guns, 7 anti-tank rifles, many small arms and 592 German prisoners were the trophies of the day.  Though the casualties were rather heavy, in view of the machine gun and artillery resistance which the Germans offered from powerfully held positions, they should be regarded as rather light.  With a clear day, without fog or smoke, they would have been double or treble this number.

American and Australian soldiers at the entrance to the breached Hindenburg Tunnel, October 4, 1918.

The 117th was relieved from the line about noon of October 1, and before night the regiment was on its way back to the Herbicourt area on the Somme River for rest and reorganization.  This period, however, was very brief, for on October 5 orders were issued to relieve an Australian brigade.

The offensive of the division, with the 59th Brigade making the attack, was scheduled for the morning of October 8.

This is the day Samuel Bolton would die.

The 59th Brigade offensive was launched the morning of October 8, the 117th on the left, the 118th on the right.  The British were on the flanks.  The jumping off line was northeast of Wiancourt, while the objective was slightly beyond Premont.  The First Battalion of the 117th launched the attack for the regiment, the Second Battalion was in close support, while the Third Battalion, which had been cut up badly the day before, was in reserve.  The attack got off on time in spite of the difficulties that were encountered the previous night in getting into position under fire and in the dark.

The attack started before six o’clock in the morning, after a heavy barrage had been laid down by the accompanying artillery.  In spite of heavy shelling by German machine guns and artillery on both flanks, especially from the towns of Ponchaux and Geneve, the companies made fairly good gains during the day, fighting almost every foot of the way.

In the face of furious German resistance with all kinds of machine gun nests and an abundance of light artillery, the battalions advanced very rapidly, skillfully knocking out machine guns and maneuvering to the best advantage over the broken ground.  The Second Battalion suffered heavy losses during the morning and two companies of the brigade reserve were ordered to its support.  Before noon Major Hathaway, who commanded it, announced the capture of Premont and his arrival at the prescribed objective.  Positions were consolidated during the afternoon and preparations made for a possible counter-attack.

Today, the scene n the road between Wiancourt and Premont, near Ponchaux, looks idyllic, but on October 8^th, 1914, it was pure and utter hell.

This operation was a very costly one, perhaps the most bloody of the whole division in proportion to the number of men engaged, for out of the battalion, 12 officers and about 400 men were either killed or wounded.  The casualties of the 117th on October 8 were the heaviest of any day of fighting in which it was engaged on the front.

For Samuel Bolton, the war ended on October 8^th, but for the rest of the 117^th, it continued the next day beginning at daybreak.

During these three days of fighting, October 7, 8, and 9, the regiment lost 34 officers and 1051 men as casualties.  A count of the spoils taken included 113 machine guns, 28 field pieces, 907 small arms and about 800 prisoners.  The great majority of the latter, 703, were captured on October 8, showing that on the final day the men, enraged by the losses of their comrades the day previous, killed most of the Germans they took.  This became not an uncommon practice in the latter days of fighting, especially against the German machine gunners, who would kill or wound from their place of concealment a half platoon or more of men before their gun was located and put out of action.  This custom of taking no prisoners was confined to no single regiment, but became common practice throughout the division.

Samuel’s trip home began on October 8^th.  I don’t know how long it took in those days to notify family of a death, but it certainly wasn’t by telephone.

Cousin Dillis indicated that at that time, officers would have visited the family to deliver the news in person.  This regiment was out of Knoxville, so the men who would have made that sad trip would have had to have gotten as far as Springdale in Claiborne County, where Little Sycamore Road turns to the east to enter the labyrinth of backroads into the mountains.

They probably had to stop at the store or the gas station at Springdale and ask directions.  That means, of course, that everyone at the store knew where they were going, and could easily surmise why, if the men didn’t tell them outright.  Many of the Bolton cousins lived down Little Sycamore, on the side roads, up the mountains and in the valleys, between Springdale and Hoop Creek where Joseph and Margaret lived, assuming they had moved from Back Valley Road since the 1910 census.  In fact, the men would pass by the Plank Cemetery, on Little Sycamore Road, where Samuel’s remains would rest, under these trees, and just a few months later, those of his parents as well.  Samuel’s grandfather, Joseph Bolton, Sr., who died in 1887 was already waiting there.

As they neared the intersection of Back Valley Road and Mulberry Gap Road, they would have had to ask again, at least once – as houses didn’t have numbers at that time and these men weren’t familiar with local roads that were often more like 2 tracks..

If Joseph and Margaret had moved to Hoop Creek between the 1910 census and 1918, then they would have had to ask directions at Hoop Creek Road.  Back Valley, Hoop Creek and Rebel Holler roads all interconnect is a mountaintop and mountainside interwoven maze that is impossible for anyone but locals to navigate, even today.

When the car pulled up in front of the house, if Joseph and Margaret were home, they would have likely known immediately that someone had arrived.  The chickens in the yard scattered and the dogs began to bark.  They would have looked outside to see who, in a car, had arrived, and when they saw the uniforms, they would have known.  Margaret would have begun to cry.  Their son Estel, age 30, a machinist, lived at home in the 1920 census, so he likely lived at home in 1918 as well.  Perhaps he was in the barn that day, and came to the house when he saw the car as well.  The neighbors, of course, already knew because they had given directions to the gentlemen in uniform to find Joseph Bolton’s house.  They were already preparing to come to the house to comfort the family as soon as the car left.  The grapevine already had the news.

Sometime later, Samuel’s body would have arrived home, in a coffin, with a flag draped over it.  The brothers and sisters who lived distant, like my grandmother who was living in Chicago by then, would have been summoned home, and the Bolton family would have gathered to say their goodbyes in the Plank Cemetery. My father, William Sterling Estes and his brother, Joseph “Dode” Estes were also serving in the war, so it’s unlikely that either of them were able to attend Samuel’s funeral.  Ironically, Ollie Bolton Estes, my grandmother, had named one of her children Samuel, and that Samuel had died as well.

Just one month and 3 days after Samuel’s death, the armistice was signed, signaling the end of WWI.  Was that bittersweet for his parents?  While Samuel Bolton didn’t survive to return home, the heavy fighting and breach and taking of the Hindenburg Tunnel were certainly part and parcel in turning the tide of the war, defeating Germany, so his death was certainly not in vain.  If anything, Joseph and Margaret Bolton could take pride that their son had played a critical role in changing the world, and the tide of world affairs, for the better.  But that’s awfully hard to convey to grieving parents.

Samuel’s unit spent the winter in Europe, just in case they were needed, returning home to celebrate their return with parades in Knoxville, Nashville, Chattanooga and throughout Eastern Tennessee in April of 1919.  Sadly, Samuel wasn’t among them.  I wonder if Joseph and Margaret attended any of the celebratory events or if it was just too painful for them.

The 177^th lost a total of 2184 officers and men in September and October of 1918.  The regiment’s total advance into hostile territory was 11-2/3 miles and the towns captured by it were Premont, Busigny and Molaine.

In a sense, Joseph and Margaret were one of the lucky ones – their son’s body was returned, or I presume that it was because he does have a grave marker.  I guess one should never assume.  If a local newspaper could be found, articles would likely answer that question.  A surprising number of dead were never sent home – many were simply buried where they fell or nearby.  The number of WWI dead was unprecedented, especially in what came to be known as the “100 Days Offensive” that preceded the end of the war.  Remains continue to be found today.

This page discusses the WWI war dead, battlefields and burials.

Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak, yes, that’s her real name, is a professional genealogist who specialized in repatriating remains of soldiers.  She is probably best known for finding the Irish roots of Barack Obama, but her love and calling into this profession was through using DNA to identify the families of soldiers’ remains from the various wars, so that the bodies of the soldiers can be returned to their families and given a burial at home.

http://www.honoringourancestors.com/library_military.html

I asked Megan if she works on many WWI cases.  After all, it has been 96 years since that war, the “War to End All Wars,” ended.

Megan said, “Most of my cases (over 1,000) have been WWII & Korean War.  In the early days, I had a fair number of Southeast Asia ones, and very rarely, I’ve had WWI cases. I’ve been to one funeral for a WWI case – a fellow originally from Ireland. So it happens, but not terribly often.”

As the child of an Army family, it’s somehow fitting that repatriation was her calling into genetic genealogy.

“It was the Army’s repatriation efforts that first got me into DNA – 15 years ago now! I knew I wanted to write “Trace Your Roots with DNA” in 2001, but disciplined myself to wait because I knew folks weren’t ready for it yet. Spent 2 years getting articles and talks on DNA rejected even though I was already established. Ah, memories! But as an Army brat myself, I’ve always loved the application that first drew me to DNA. Still love it when any of my fellows get identified after all these years.”

Trace Your Roots with DNA was the first of Megan’s books, and the first genetic genealogy DNA basics book published in 2004.  You can read more about Megan’s work here.

I find it fitting though, that the DNA of the families, of the mothers, or the sisters, in particular is used to identify and return these soldiers.  There is never much question about maternal parentage, so the mother’s mitochondrial DNA is utilized.  Furthermore, mitochondrial DNA is much more easily extracted from decomposed remains – and the most likely DNA to survive intact.  So, fittingly, it’s the mother who ultimately brings her son home.

Rest in peace Samuel, and thank you.

Acknowledgements to Pam Bolton for providing the Descendants of Henry Bolton Facebook page and Dillis Bolton for information provided in this article.

Nancy Mann was the second wife of Henry Bolton.  Henry was born about 1759 in England and married Catherine Chapman in August of 1786 in Philadelphia.  On August 17, 1798, after bearing Henry six children, Catherine died where they had moved in Botetourt County, Virginia by 1795.  We don’t know exactly where Henry lived, and therefore, we don’t know where they are buried.

When Catherine died, Henry had 5 children under the age of 10.  He needed a wife, and the following year, on April 5, 1799, eight months after Catherine’s death, Henry, aged 39 or 40, married the much younger Nancy Mann.  Nancy, probably not even age 20, immediately inherited 5 children, and on January 11, 1800, she had her first child.  She and Henry would have 14 children in addition to the children from his first marriage, plus they raised Henry’s brother, Conrad’s orphan daughter, Sarah, after his death about 1810.

Nancy Mann died on October 16, 1841, according to the Bolton Family Bible which was in the possession of Hazel Venable Barnard in the 1980s when I first began researching the Bolton family in Claiborne Co., TN where Henry and Nancy’s son, Joseph Preston Bolton, had moved about 1845.  Three of Joseph’s siblings, John and David Bolton and their sister, Elizabeth “Elyann” Ann Bolton who married Isaac Patterson also settled in Claiborne County.  It’s obvious from the later entries in this Bible that this is the line of the family that kept the Bible.

Further digging revealed notes taken in Claiborne County now more than 30 years ago when talking with the “old widows,” as they called themselves, when the Bible was first revealed.

In addition to their own children, Elyann and Issac also raised the daughters of her brother David Bolton, Nancy and Martha Bolton.  Elyann brought Henry Bolton’s Bible with her which contained the birthdates of some of Henry’s children.  Elyann is buried in the Cave Springs Cemetery outside of Tazewell, Tennessee.

Hazel Venable was the great-granddaughter of Joseph Preston Bolton and his first wife, Mary Tankersley, so it’s likely that Joseph, at some point, wound up in possession of the family Bible.  This Bible itself is dated 1811, so it’s clearly not the original Henry Bolton Bible.  It could have been purchased as wedding gift for one of Henry’s children who copied the pertinent information from Henry’s original Bible.  Hazel Venable Barnard wrote that it was the Bible of Henry Bolton, Sr. at the bottom of the Bible page with the handwritten information.  The Bible record is available today through the DAR.

Several years ago, I visited Botetourt County, Virginia and extracted the original records for both Bolton and Mann.

The only clue we have as to Nancy’s family is that a James Mann signed as her surety.  Normally, if her father were living, he would sign.  If not, an uncle or older brother, typically.

Herein lies the problem.

We can’t identify James Mann.

German or Irish

Now, the good news is that the Mann Family of Botetourt County has had significant research performed by descendants and they have done a good job not only documenting the family, but researching and publishing their findings as well.

I was grateful to see this, as I had attempted a reconstruction as well from the records I retrieved.

In a nutshell, John Mann immigrated from Ireland in 1735 and declared that he immigrated to redeem land and then immediately assigned the land to a land speculator.  These are the men who would found the Scotch-Irish settlement in Augusta and Orange Counties of Virginia.  Botetourt would be taken from Orange County in 1770 and the Mann records followed with the county, so they obviously lived in the Botetourt portion.

“The Chronicles of the Scotch-Irish Settlement in Virginia” tell us that John Mann, the immigrant, lived on the south side of Peaked Mountain, near the Stone Meeting House in Beverly Manor in Augusta County.  The 1749 road petition of the inhabitants of North River and Picot (Peaked) Mountain requests a road beginning at John Man’s smithshop on the south side of the Peaked Mountain, then goes on to mention the Stone Meeting House and the Courthouse Road.  Today, the Peaked Mountain Church is located in McGaheyville, VA, about 100 miles up the Shenandoah Valley from Fincastle.

Numerous members of the German Mann family are buried in the church cemetery there.

John Mann, the Irishman, had 4 known sons:

• Moses who died before 1756, unmarried and with no children
• Thomas who died in 1772 unmarried and with no children
• John who died in 1778 with no will, but who had children. Moses and John are proven children, but many other candidates are present in Botetourt County.
• William who died in 1778 with a will listing children: Moses born circa 1761 (married Jane Kinkead 1779), Alice, Jennie, Thomas born 1771, married, died in 1794, William Jr. born 1773, died 1794, Sarah, John born 1775 and Archibald born after his father’s death in 1778.

John’s sons moved a bit further south.  Fortunately, the tax lists for Botetourt County still exist for the 1770s and they include a basic description of where the taxpayer lived.

Both of John’s sons, John (Jr.) and William, lived in the same tax districts, as follows:

• 1771 – Upper James
• 1773 – James River to Buffalo Creek
• 1774 – Cowpasture and Jackson River
• 1776 – from Craig’s Creek up James River

Based on these landmarks, they lived someplace between Clifton Forge and Eagle Rock.  Buffalo Creek and Craig’s Creek meet at Clifton Forge.  The Cowpasture and Jackson River meet to form the James 3 or 4 miles below Clifton Forge, just below where the number 727 is located between the rivers today.

Given that our Nancy was born about 1780, if not a couple of years later, we can eliminate all 4 of the elder John’s sons and all of Williams son’s with the possible exception of Moses who married in 1779.  However, Moses didn’t die until 1816, so he could have signed his daughter’s marriage bond himself.

This, logically, shifts our focus to John Jr.’s children, who were not documented in his will.  Only two children were positively documented as his utilizing other records.

And of course, there’s a twist – there is also a German Mann family, Jacob, in the vicinity.  This family isn’t terribly close geographically, but they aren’t so far away that they can be eliminated either.  It does appear that both John Mann and the German Mann family started out in the Peaked Mountain vicinity.  Jacob Mann does have a son, James but he is too young to be Nancy’s father.  However, Nancy could have been the daughter of any of Jacob’s oldest 3 sons, Jacob, Adam or Moses.  I feel this is unlikely, especially since this family wound up after county splits being in Monroe and Greenbrier Counties of West Virginia.

However, there is an unaccounted for Nathaniel Mann on the Botetourt County tax lists of 1771-1775 who seems to be found in the Clifton Forge vicinity, but not on the same tax lists as William and John Mann.

In 1749, Jacob Mann, probably the German, signed a petition in Botetourt County.  Based on a 1770 record where Jacob Mann is an assignee of Jacob Miller, the connection between those two families is strongly suggested.

According to the Mann Family of Botetourt County:

According to the Houchins family history, around 1770 the Manns, Maddys and Millers moved from Rockingham county, Virginia into present day West Virginia, near Greenville in Monroe county. John Mann came to Pennsylvania from Germany and his son Jacob married Barbary Miller, daughter of Jacob Miller, emigrant. Jacob and Barbary Miller Mann had Jacob Mann, Junior who married Mary Kessinger on August 24, 1779; Adam, who married first Mary Maddy on December 9, 1783 and second Polly Flinn on May 3, 1790; Elizabeth, who married William Maddy on February 25, 1783 and a daughter who married a Mr. Low. Jacob Mann owned a gunpowder mill. Saltpetre was supplied from Maddy’s Cave during the Revolution. This cave had formerly belonged to the Manns of Springfield. This is an intriguing mystery since there is a story that William Mann and his father and/or uncles and brothers lived in a saltpetre cave when they first emigrated from Ireland to Virginia. I do not know what, if any, substance this story has. It may have been influenced by the presence of the German Manns at Greenville or it may be an authentic tradition. Springfields abound, both in the United States and in Ireland. There were Scots-Irish Mann emigrants to Springfield township in Bucks county, Pennsylvania and Scots-Irish Manns living in Springfield township, Chester county, Pennsylvania. Moses Mann, son of William, one of the sons of the emigrant John Man, bought 26 acres of land on both sides of Jackson’s River, including a saltpetre cave, on December 10, 1792, in Botetourt county. Some of the children of William Mann stayed in Bath and Alleghany counties, and some went to Greenbrier county in the vicinity of present day Monroe county. A Moses Mann bought 22 acres in Monroe county on March 4, 1831, adjoining the land of Adam Mann and Adam Miller. This may or may not be a descendant of William Mann.

The Mann family which ended up in Bucks county is described as the family of James Mann and his wife Mary Carroll. The Manns and Carrolls were from Scotland and in childhood James and Mary emigrated with their families to county Antrim around the year 1690. He married her about 1709. The names of their children were James, born in 1710; John, born in 1712; William in 1714 and a daughter named Mary. John, the second son, became the progenitor of the family in Bucks county when he embarked from Donegal in 1732 in the company of the McNairs and others bound for America. They landed at Philadelphia and proceeded to Bristol in the autumn of the same year, locating at different points in Bucks county. Although our John Man was imported immediately into Virginia, perhaps he was related in some fashion to these Bucks County Manns.

DNA testing of a male Mann from both lines would tell us unquestionably.

If you’re groaning by now, I was too….but the pretzel twist gets worse, actually, much worse.

If Nancy Mann descends from Jacob Mann who married Barbara Miller, then autosomal DNA won’t help me, because it’s possible, in fact, it’s downright likely, that I’m related to Barbara Miller.  I can’t confirm that right now, but the suspicion alone is enough to disallow any autosomal conclusions UNLESS we would have a 100% triangulated positive match with the Irish Mann family – and then we don’t really care about the German Mann family.

But you know if it was that easy, I would already have told you.  With the 7 descendants of Henry Bolton who have autosomally DNA tested at Family Tree DNA, we have no triangulated matches with the Mann family.  That doesn’t disprove anything – but it also doesn’t prove anything either.  All it does is frustrate me.  Even more frustrating is that there are matches at Ancestry in this same line, BUT since Ancestry doesn’t provide a chromosome browser, I can do nothing with them unless the participants are willing to download their files to GedMatch – and so far, with one exception, they haven’t responded at all – so that’s clearly not an option.

John Mann Jr.’s Possible Children

Since we know who the children of William Mann are, per his will, and the other two sons of immigrant John Mann had no children and died as young men, we can look at the names of many of the “stragglers” and they are candidates for the sons of John Mann (Jr.) who died in 1778 intestate.

In 1755, there is a Barnett Mann who deeds land to Jacob Mann and the land abuts George Mann, so those folks are affiliated with the German Manns.

There’s a Hugh Mann who has a mill in 1756.  We don’t know who he is, but he disappears from the records and there are no stray males between then and when John’s son’s die, so we can remove him from consideration.

Nathaniel Mann appears from 1771-1775, but then is gone.  He’s probably not a candidate for Nancy’s father in about 1780.  Nancy did not name any children Nathaniel, unless one died.  There is a 3 year gap between sons George and William.  Henry Bolton and Nancy Mann’s sons, in birth order, were Henry, George, William, John, Joseph, Absalom, Daniel, James and David.  Not terribly useful.

Beginning about 1780, a whole group of young Mann males come of age about the same time, like stair steps.

Esau Mann appears from 1781-1785

Asa Mann marries in 1780 and is found in the 1782 tax list.

Acre Mann is found in the records in 1784.

In 1785, on the tax list, there is a J. Mann beside Moses Mann.  I’d love to think this is James, and it might be, but it could also be John.  Why, oh why, could they not just write out those few letters?  I mean really, 3 or 4 letters would have made SUCH a difference.  Even just Jo or Ja or Jas.  For the want of just a couple letters.

Esau, Acre and Asa are candidates to be sons of John Jr., as well as Nathaniel…and of course, J, whoever he is.

If Nancy was actually born in 1778, it’s remotely possible that John Jr. was her father, but it’s unlikely because Nancy had her last child in 1826.  If she were born in 1780, that would make her 46 at that time, which is quite late, but not impossible, for a last child.  However, if she were born in 1778, that would make her 48 in 1826, which is even more unlikely.

In 1789 in Botetourt County Will Book A, on page 270, we find the will of William Renfro who lists, among his heirs, James Mann.  James Mann also signed and he may have been the executor as well, although it was hard for me to decipher the handwriting.  This does put a James Mann in the right place at the right time.

Not that it will help us any, but there are also Mann females: Margaret who married William McClure in 1790, Jane who married Michael Woodly in 1779, Mary who married Adam McCaslen in 1802, another Nancy who married Charles Wright in 1794 and Sarah who married Alexander McClinock in 1788.  These people weren’t children of William, per his will, so they had to be John’s, Nathaniel’s or the beginning of the next generation beginning about 1800.

So, having perused all of the records available, we’re, in essence, stuck.

Stuck – What Next?

Ok, let’s think about what else we can do.

People tend to marry other people like themselves.  In fact, the Germans who immigrated in the 1700s were still speaking German at home and in the churches in the early 1900s after spending 200 years migrating across three states.  My great-grandmother was one of them – although they stopped speaking German when World War I was declared.  In the later 1700s and even the early 1800s, they didn’t speak any English so they had to have someone handle their affairs for them – often the local miller.

Germans attended German churches.  The Irish attended Catholic churches and the Scotch-Irish, who were the majority of the immigrants from Ireland in the 1700s, attended Presbyterian churches.  The English attended the Anglican churches.  Methodists and Baptists were dissenting churches.  Indeed, the Presbyterian Church in Fincastle, in Botetourt County, was established in 1754.  You didn’t have a lot of opportunity to meet someone outside of your cultural circle and you certainly were not encouraged to “court” anyone from those other cultural circles.

So, if we had a way to figure out anything about Nancy Mann’s genetic lineage, we might be able to determine whether it is German or Irish.

Turns out – we do.

We have a male descendant from Nancy Mann through all females to the current generation.  And are we EVER grateful to that tester.  Yes, it’s a him, because in the current generation, men can test as well as women.  Remember, women contribute their mitochondrial DNA to all of their children, but only the females pass it on.

Thanks to cousin Jay, we have Nancy’s full sequence mitochondrial DNA, which she inherited from her mother, and she from her mother, back into the old country, wherever the “old country” happens to be.

Let’s take a look.

Her haplogroup is K1c2, clearly very European.

The page of DNA results that is the most relevant to answer our question of where Nancy’s matrilineal line originated is Jay’s Matches Map.  This map shows us the location of the most distant ancestor of Jay’s matches.  In this case, I’m only showing the European portion of the map, because that’s the part that will answer our question.

Are you ready?

Drum roll……please!

What do you think?

Nancy’s closest matches, in red and orange, are clearly in Ireland, then England, yellow and green, then in continental Europe.  Therefore, her ancestors were most recently in Ireland, including her three exact matches, two of which are found in Dublin.

Therefore, if I were a betting person, I’m betting on Irish, or Scotch-Irish far and above Germany for Nancy’s matrilineal ancestry.  Given that, I’m also betting that Nancy is the granddaughter of John Mann Jr.  through one his unnamed sons, and the great-granddaughter of John Mann the immigrant.  And given that, I’m betting that the J. Mann next to Moses on the 1785 tax list was indeed, James.

I’d bet!

If you descend from Henry Bolton or John Mann, please consider DNA testing. If you are a male Mann who descends from John Mann Sr., the immigrant, we really need your participation and there is a DNA scholarship for the first male Mann to test from this line.

Acknowledgements:

I’d like to thank cousin Jay for DNA testing, cousin Hazel Venable Barnard, now deceased, for being such a wonderful steward of that Bible record, cousin Dillis for lots of research over the past 25 or 30 years, so much and for so long that I no longer remember what was mine and what was his.

Last week, when Valerie Bertinelli was featured on WDYTYA, I whined on Facebook about how jealous I am that not only is there ALWAYS a parking place in front of the library or archives in the series, but the celebrity’s records are always just waiting for them, while, mine, if there at all, are buried so deeply they require an archaeologist to excavate them. 

My husband said to me, “You just have to find a gateway ancestor, like Valerie, and then your pedigree will be done too.”  I told my husband that all my gateway ancestor would lead to is likely a prison cell.  My ancestors, at least some of them, were none too well behaved and let’s say that sometimes the only records they left were related to prosecution of some type.  Thank heavens they at least did that!!!  My family is always colorful, and interesting, and infamous…but seldom famous. 

As you all know, I write one of these “52 Ancestors” articles every week, generally late at night, and I often mutter rather unspeakable things at Amy Johnson Crow in the process.  Let’s just say that doing this series forces you to go back through your records, all of your records, for each ancestor, and to be sure they are in order.  Now, on the surface this is a good and admiral thing to be doing, but in the middle of the night, it just doesn’t seem so.

This week, I was working on my Bolton and Clarkson lines out of Claiborne County, TN and I noticed a rather large article on the Brooks family that my now deceased cousin, Bill Nevils, had written.  Bill was a retired Episcopal Priest, which is a story all by itself, especially being from Claiborne County in the Bible Belt south.  After his retirement, he moved home to “take care” of his mother, Thelma.  Now I met Thelma and Bill some years ago and let me tell you, I’m not at all sure it was Bill taking care of Thelma.  When we arrived, this little 90 year old lady had just finished mowing the yard with a push mower (and not because Bill wouldn’t, because she insisted) and came in to make lunch for us, and not one single hair out of place.  Fittingly, Bill had written the article about the Brooks family in tribute to his mother, Thelma.  Little did we know that Thelma would outlive her only child.  Not only that, after Bill’s death, she wrote me a lovely letter after I sent her a sympathy card.  She was celebrating Bill’s life, not grieving his death, although of course she was saddened by his passing. 

So you can understand why, when I saw this article, I paused to read it.  I mean, I’m already down to about 4 hours sleep so what are a few more lost minutes.  I was reading Bill’s lovely tribute to his mother and just kept reading when the article, of course, shifted to genealogy.  It was a “People’s History Book,” after all.  I should have stopped reading, but I was tired and just kept skimming.  I read that Thelma was descended from King Edward I.  I thought to myself, “Oh, Thelma is related to Valerie Bertinelli.”  And I kept reading, when I started recognizing familiar names.  And then more familiar names, and then I realized that the family that Thelma descended from that descended from King Edward I was my family too.  I read it a second time, because I was sure I had misread it.  Then a third time.  Then I went to bed, because I was sure I was hallucinating due to lack of sleep.

I read this again the next day, in broad daylight, after at least 4 hours sleep, and it said the same thing. 

Bill was a fastidious researcher.  He listed sources.  I checked them.  Bill, it seems, was right.  I was shocked and couldn’t quite believe my eyes.

And the great irony was that this line, this article that felled the wall, was right on my own shelf AND HAD BEEN for years.  Just like those celebrities at the archives, just waiting for me with no parking space needed.  I have to retract my whine. 

I have suddenly, for some unknown reason, developed a fascination with King Edward I, British history and royal genealogy.  Edward’s father, Henry III is at the bottom of this first tree and the top of the second tree.

How I wish I had known this before I went to England last year.  I skipped Westminster Abbey entirely and that is where Edward is buried, and was crowned.  I did visit Westminster Abbey in 1970 when I was in London, and I has absolutely NO IDEA that I had any history of any kind in England, let alone an ancestor buried in Westminster Abbey.

What’s worse yet, is that Edward’s  coronation “chair” is in Westminster, and I could have seen it. 

King Edward’s Chair (also known as St. Edward’s Chair), the throne on which English and British sovereigns have been seated at the moment of coronation, is housed within the Abbey and has been used at every coronation since 1308. From 1301 to 1996 (except for a short time in 1950 when it was temporarily stolen by Scottish nationalists), the chair also housed the Stone of Scone upon which the kings of Scotland are, or were, traditionally crowned. Although the Stone is now kept in Scotland, in Edinburgh Castle, at future coronations it is intended that the Stone will be returned to St. Edward’s Chair for use during the coronation ceremony.

The Stone of Scone would have been located beneath the seat of the chair.  A replica is shown below.

The photo below is of the coronation chair, before the stone was re-kidnapped and then broken in half.

The stone and the coronation chair is show in this drawing from Westminster Abbey in 1855.  The Stone of Scone has a rich and mysterious history all of its own. 

King Edward was born during the night of June 17/18, 1239 at Westminster Palace and died on July 7, 1307, the son of Henry III of England and Eleanor of Provence. 

He married Eleanor of Castille in 1254, between October 13^th and November 1st, in the church of the monastery of Las Huelgas at Burgos, the capital city of Old Castille in northern Spain, shown below.  This was an arranged marriage.  Edward was only 14 years old and Eleanor 12 or 13, although their first child would be stillborn the following year. 

He and Eleanor perhaps walked in these protected cloisters, before or after their marriage, discussing their dreams for the future.

Eleanor died on November 28, 1290 at in the house of Richard de Weston, the foundations of which can still be seen near Harby parish church.  Her body was taken to Westminster Abbey for burial where she and Edward were crowned August 19, 1274.

Eleanor had survived 16 pregnancies, but likely died of malaria or complications thereof.

Grieving his Eleanor terribly, he had twelve “Eleanor Crosses” constructed at each location that her body stopped on its way from Harby, Nottinghamshire, to London for burial, including Charring Cross in London.  Three remain today, although none entirely.  There were originally massive crosses on the top of each monument.  The one at Northampton is shown below.

After her body had been embalmed, which in the 13th century involved evisceration (removal of some of the internal organs, including the bowel,) Eleanor’s viscera were buried in Lincoln cathedral, and Edward placed a duplicate of the Westminster tomb there. The Lincoln tomb’s original stone chest survives; its effigy was destroyed in the 17th century and replaced with a 19th-century copy.  I must admit, having an ancestor with parts buried in two locations is a first for me.

Eleanor’s tomb in Lincoln Cathedral.

Edward and Eleanor had the following children:

1. Daughter, stillborn in May 1255 in Bordeaux, France. Buried in Dominican Priory Church, Bordeaux, France.
2. Katherine (before 17 June 1264 – 5 September 1264) and buried in Westminster Abbey.
3. Joanna (January 1265 – before 7 September 1265), buried in Westminster Abbey.
4. John (13 July 1266 – 3 August 1271), died at Wallingford, in the custody of his granduncle, Richard, Earl of Cornwall. Buried in Westminster Abbey.
5. Henry (before 6 May 1268 – 16 October 1274), buried in Westminster Abbey.
6. Eleanor (18 June 1269 – 29 August 1298). She was long betrothed to Alfonso III of Aragon, who died in 1291 before the marriage could take place, and in 1293 she married Count Henry III of Bar, by whom she had one son and one daughter.
7. Daughter (28 May 1271, Palestine – 5 September 1271), probably buried in Dominican Priory Church, Bordeaux, France. Some sources call her Juliana, but there is no contemporary evidence for her name.
8. Joan (April 1272 – 7 April 1307). She married (1) in 1290 Gilbert de Clare, 6th Earl of Hertford, who died in 1295, and (2) in 1297 Ralph de Monthermer, 1st Baron Monthermer. She had four children by each marriage.
9. Alphonso (24 November 1273 – 19 August 1284), Earl of Chester.
10. Margaret (15 March 1275 – after 1333). In 1290 she married John II of Brabant, who died in 1318. They had one son.
11. Berengaria (1 May 1276 – before 27 June 1278), buried in Westminster Abbey.
12. Daughter (December 1277/January 1278 – January 1278), buried in Westminster Abbey. There is no contemporary evidence for her name.
13. Mary (11 March 1279 – 29 May 1332), a Benedictine nun in Amesbury.
14. Son, born in 1280 or 1281 who died very shortly after birth. There is no contemporary evidence for his name.
15. Elizabeth (7 August 1282 – 5 May 1316). She married (1) in 1297 John I, Count of Holland, (2) in 1302 Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford & 3rd Earl of Essex. The first marriage was childless, but by Bohun, Elizabeth had ten children.
16. Edward II of England, also known as Edward of Caernarvon (25 April 1284 – 21 September 1327). In 1308 he married Isabella of France. They had two sons and two daughters.

My ancestor was their 15^th child, Elizabeth.

Edward and Eleanor as Parents

It has been suggested that Eleanor and Edward were more devoted to each other than to their children. As king and queen, however, it was impossible for them to spend much time in one place, and when they were very young, the children could not travel constantly with their parents. The children had a household staffed with attendants carefully chosen for competence and loyalty, with whom the parents corresponded regularly. The children lived in this comfortable establishment until they were about seven years old; then they began to accompany their parents, if at first only on important occasions. By their teens they were with the king and queen much of the time. In 1290, Eleanor sent one of her scribes to join her children’s household, presumably to help with their education.

In 1306 Edward sharply scolded Margerie de Haustede, Eleanor’s former lady in waiting who was then in charge of his children by his second wife, because Margerie had not kept him well informed of their health. Edward also issued regular instructions for the care and guidance of these children.

Two incidents cited to imply Eleanor’s lack of interest in her children are easily explained in the contexts of royal childrearing in general, and of particular events surrounding Edward and Eleanor’s family. When their six-year-old son Henry lay dying at Guildford in 1274, neither parent made the short journey from London to see him; but Henry was tended by Edward’s mother Eleanor of Provence. The boy had lived with his grandmother while his parents were absent on crusade, and since he was barely two years old when they left England in 1270, he could not have had many worthwhile memories of them at the time they returned to England in August 1274, only weeks before his last illness and death. In other words, the dowager queen was a more familiar and comforting presence to her grandson than his parents would have been at that time, and it was in all respects better that she tended him then.

Similarly, Edward and Eleanor allowed her mother, Joan of Dammartin, to raise their daughter Joan in Ponthieu (1274–78). This implies no parental lack of interest in the girl; the practice of fostering noble children in other households of sufficient dignity was not unknown and Eleanor’s mother was, of course, dowager queen of Castile. Her household was thus safe and dignified, but it does appear that Edward and Eleanor had cause to regret their generosity in letting Joan of Dammartin foster young Joan. When the girl reached England in 1278, aged six, it turned out that she was badly spoiled. She was spirited and at times defiant in childhood, and in adulthood remained a handful for Edward, defying his plans for a prestigious second marriage for her by secretly marrying one of her late first husband’s squires. When the marriage was revealed in 1297 because Joan was pregnant, Edward was enraged that his dignity had been insulted by her marriage to a commoner of no importance. Joan, at twenty-five, reportedly defended her conduct to her father by saying that nobody saw anything wrong if a great earl married a poor woman, so there could be nothing wrong with a countess marrying a promising young man. Whether or not her retort ultimately changed his mind, Edward restored to Joan all the lands he had confiscated when he learned of her marriage, and accepted her new husband as a son-in-law in good standing. Joan marked her restoration to favour by having masses celebrated for the soul of her mother Eleanor.

Looks like spoiled children are nothing new to our life and times.  I would simply view her as “spirited” or perhaps she simply took after her father who, it seems, had a bit of a temper himself.

King Edward I

Drawing of Edward I taken from the various carvings.  He seemed to be a very handsome man, but his drooping eyelid was not portrayed in the drawing.

Edward I was known as Edward Longshanks and the “Hammer of the Scots.” The first son of Henry III, Edward was involved early in the political intrigues of his father’s reign, which included an outright rebellion by the English barons.  In 1259, Edward briefly sided against his father with a baronial reform movement, supporting the Provisions of Oxford.

After reconciliation with his father, however, he remained loyal throughout the subsequent armed conflict, known as the Second Barons’ War. After the Battle of Lewes, Edward was hostage to the rebellious barons, but escaped after a few months and joined the fight against Simon de Montfort. Montfort was defeated at the Battle of Evesham in 1265, and within two years the rebellion was extinguished. With England pacified, Edward left on a crusade to the Holy Land.

The crusade accomplished little, and Edward was on his way home in 1272 when he was informed that his father had died. Making a slow return, he reached England in 1274 and was crowned at Westminster on 19 August.

He spent much of his reign reforming royal administration and common law. Through an extensive legal inquiry, Edward investigated the tenure of various feudal liberties, while the law was reformed through a series of statutes regulating criminal and property law. Increasingly, however, Edward’s attention was drawn towards military affairs. After suppressing a minor rebellion in Wales in 1276–77, Edward responded to a second rebellion in 1282–83 with a full-scale war of conquest. After a successful campaign, Edward subjected Wales to English rule, built a series of castles and towns in the countryside and settled them with Englishmen.

Next, his efforts were directed towards Scotland. Initially invited to arbitrate a succession dispute, Edward claimed feudal suzerainty over the kingdom. In the war that followed, the Scots persevered, even though the English seemed victorious at several points. At the same time there were problems at home. In the mid-1290s, extensive military campaigns required high levels of taxation, and Edward met with both lay and ecclesiastical opposition. These crises were initially averted, but issues remained unsettled. When the King died in 1307, he left to his son, Edward II, an ongoing war with Scotland and many financial and political problems.

Edward I was a tall man for his era, hence the nickname “Longshanks”. He was temperamental, and this, along with his height, made him an intimidating man, and he often instilled fear in his contemporaries. Nevertheless, he held the respect of his subjects for the way he embodied the medieval ideal of kingship, as a soldier, an administrator and a man of faith. Modern historians are divided on their assessment of the King: while some have praised him for his contribution to the law and administration, others have criticized him for his uncompromising attitude towards his nobility.

Currently, Edward I is credited with many accomplishments during his reign, including restoring royal authority after the reign of Henry III, establishing Parliament as a permanent institution and thereby also a functional system for raising taxes, and reforming the law through statutes. At the same time, he is also often criticized for other actions, such as his brutal conduct towards the Scots, and issuing the Edict of Expulsion in 1290 by which the Jews were expelled from England. The Edict remained in effect for the rest of the Middle Ages, and it would be over 350 years until it was formally overturned under Oliver Cromwell in 1656.

Edward as a Young Man

Edward was born at the Palace of Westminster (shown below) during the night of June 17/18, 1239, to King Henry III and Eleanor of Provence.  Ironically, I visited this location in 1970 as a student and bought a charm of the clock tower, known as Big Ben, which I still have.

Edward was an Anglo-Saxon name, and was not common among the aristocracy of England after the Norman Conquest, but Henry was devoted to the veneration of Edward the Confessor, and decided to name his firstborn son after the saint.

Edward was in the care of Hugh Giffard – father of the future Chancellor Godfrey Giffard – until Bartholomew Pecche took over at Giffard’s death in 1246.

There were concerns about Edward’s health as a child, and he fell ill in 1246, 1247, and 1251.

His illnesses apparently didn’t impair his health, as he became an imposing man; at 6 feet 2 inches (1.88 m) he towered over most of his contemporaries, and hence perhaps his epithet “Longshanks”, meaning “long legs” or “long shins”. The historian Michael Prestwich states that his “long arms gave him an advantage as a swordsman, long thighs one as a horseman. In youth, his curly hair was blond; in maturity it darkened, and in old age it turned white. His speech, despite a lisp, was said to be persuasive.”

Edward’s features were marked by piercing blue eyes and a drooping left eyelid, a trait that he inherited from his father and is depicted in the 14^th century manuscript, below, where he is shown with Eleanor.

In 1254, English fears of a Castilian invasion of the English province of Gascony induced Edward’s father to arrange a politically expedient marriage between his fourteen-year-old son and Eleanor, the half-sister of King Alfonso X of Castile.

Eleanor and Edward were married on or about November 1, 1254 in the Abbey of Santa María la Real de Las Huelgas in Castile. As part of the marriage agreement, the young prince received grants of land worth 15,000 marks a year. Though the endowments King Henry made were sizeable, they offered Edward little independence. He had already received Gascony as early as 1249, but Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester, had been appointed as royal lieutenant the year before and, consequently, drew its income, so in practice Edward derived neither authority nor revenue from this province. The grant he received in 1254 included most of Ireland, and much land in Wales and England, including the earldom of Chester, but the King retained much control over the land in question, particularly in Ireland, so Edward’s power was limited there as well, and the King derived most of the income from those lands.

From 1254 to 1257, Edward was under the influence of his mother’s relatives, known as the Savoyards, the most notable of whom was Peter of Savoy, the queen’s uncle. After 1257, Edward increasingly fell in with the Poitevin or Lusignan faction – the half-brothers of his father Henry III – led by such men as William de Valence. There were tales of unruly and violent conduct by Edward and his Lusignan kinsmen, which raised questions about the royal heir’s personal qualities. The next years would be formative on Edward’s character.

Back in England, early in 1262, Edward fell out with some of his former Lusignan allies over financial matters. The next year, King Henry sent him on a campaign in Wales against Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, with only limited results. Around the same time, Simon de Montfort, who had been out of the country since 1261, returned to England and reignited the baronial reform movement.  It was at this pivotal moment, as the King seemed ready to resign to the barons’ demands, that Edward began to take control of the situation. Whereas he had so far been unpredictable and equivocating, from this point on he remained firmly devoted to protecting his father’s royal rights.  He reunited with some of the men he had alienated the year before – and retook massive Windsor Castle, built by William the Conqueror, Edward’s 4th great-grandfather, shown below, from the rebels.

Through the arbitration of King Louis IX of France, an agreement was made between the two parties. This so-called Mise of Amiens was largely favorable to the royalist side, and laid the seeds for further conflict.

Wars and Crusades

Between 1262 and 1267, the Second Baron’s War took place in England.  In the end, after being held hostage for nearly a year, the Royalists were victorious and Edward began to plan for his Crusade to the Holy Land.

Edward took the crusader’s cross in an elaborate ceremony on 24 June 1268, with his brother Edmund and cousin and childhood friend, Henry of Almain.

With the country pacified, the greatest impediment to the project was providing sufficient finances. King Louis IX of France, who was the leader of the crusade, provided a loan of about £17,500. This, however, was not enough; the rest had to be raised through a tax on the laity, which had not been levied since 1237. In May 1270, Parliament granted a tax of a twentieth, in exchange for which the King agreed to reconfirm Magna Carta, and to impose restrictions on Jewish money lending.  On  August 20, Edward sailed from Dover for France. Historians have not determined the size of the force with any certainty, but Edward probably brought with him around 225 knights and all together less than 1000 men.

Originally, the Crusaders intended to relieve the beleaguered Christian stronghold of Acre, but Louis had been diverted to Tunis. The French King and his brother Charles of Anjou, who had made himself king of Sicily, decided to attack the emirate to establish a stronghold in North Africa. The plans failed when the French forces were struck by an epidemic which, on  August 25th, took the life of King Louis himself. By the time Edward arrived at Tunis, Charles had already signed a treaty with the emir, and there was little else to do but return to Sicily. The crusade was postponed until next spring, but a devastating storm off the coast of Sicily dissuaded Charles of Anjou and Louis’s successor Philip III from any further campaigning. Edward decided to continue alone, and on May 9, 1271, he finally landed at Acre.

Operations during the Crusade of Edward I.

By then, the situation in the Holy Land was a precarious one. Jerusalem had fallen in 1244, and Acre was now the center of the Christian state. The Muslim states were on the offensive under the Mamluk leadership of Baibars, and were now threatening Acre itself. Though Edward’s men were an important addition to the garrison, they stood little chance against Baibars’ superior forces, and an initial raid at nearby St Georges-de-Lebeyne in June was largely futile.  The area is shown below.

An embassy to the Ilkhan Abaqa (1234–1282) of the Mongols helped bring about an attack on Aleppo in the north, which helped to distract Baibar’s forces. In November, Edward led a raid on Qaqun, which could have served as a bridgehead to Jerusalem, but both the Mongol invasion and the attack on Qaqun failed. Things now seemed increasingly desperate, and in May 1272 Hugh III of Cyprus, who was the nominal king of Jerusalem, signed a ten-year truce with Baibars.  Edward was initially defiant, but an attack by a Muslim assassin in June forced him to abandon any further campaigning. Although he managed to kill the assassin, he was struck in the arm by a dagger feared to be poisoned, and became severely weakened over the following months.

It was not until September 24th that Edward left Acre. Arriving in Sicily, he was met with the news that his father had died on November 16th. Edward was deeply saddened by this news, but rather than hurrying home at once, he made a leisurely journey northwards. This was partly due to his health still being poor, but also due to a lack of urgency. The political situation in England was stable after the mid-century upheavals, and Edward was proclaimed king at his father’s death, rather than at his own coronation, as had until then been customary.

In Edward’s absence, the country was governed by a royal council, led by Robert Burnell. The new king embarked on an overland journey through Italy and France, where among other things he visited the pope in Rome and suppressed a rebellion in Gascony. On August 2, 1274 he returned to England, and was crowned with Eleanor on August 19^th in Westminster Abbey in London.

The Round Table

Edward had a reputation for a fierce temper, and he could be intimidating; one story tells of how the Dean of St Paul’s, wishing to confront Edward over the high level of taxation in 1295, fell down and died once he was in the King’s presence.

When Edward of Caernarfon demanded an earldom for his favorite Gaveston, the King erupted in anger and supposedly tore out handfuls of his son’s hair. Some of his contemporaries considered Edward frightening, particularly in his early days. The Song of Lewes in 1264, a very enlightening, if difficult to read poem translated from Latin about Edward, described him as a leopard, an animal regarded as particularly powerful and unpredictable.

Whereunto shall the noble Edward be compared? Perhaps he will be rightly called a leopard. If we divide the name it becomes lion and pard; lion, because we saw that he was not slow to attack the strongest places, fearing the onslaught of none, with the boldest valour making a raid amidst the castles, and wherever he goes succeeding as it were at his wish, as though like Alexander he would speedily subdue the whole world, if Fortune’s moving wheel would stand still for ever; wherein let the highest forthwith know that he will fall, and that he who reigns as lord will reign but a little time. And this has, it is clear, befallen the noble Edward, who, it is agreed, has fallen from his unstable position. A lion by pride and fierceness, he is by inconstancy and changeableness a pard, changing his word and promise, cloaking himself by pleasant speech. When he is in a strait he promises whatever you wish, but as soon as he has escaped he renounces his promise. Let Gloucester be witness, where, when free from his difficulty, he at once revoked what he had sworn. The treachery or falsehood whereby he is advanced he calls prudence; the way whereby he arrives whither he will, crooked though it be, is regarded as straight; wrong gives him pleasure and is called right ; whatever he likes he says is lawful, and he thinks that he is released from law, as though he were greater than the King. For every king is ruled by the laws which he makes; King Saul is rejected because he broke the laws; and David is related to have been punished as soon as he acted contrary to the law; hence, therefore, let him who makes laws, learn that he cannot rule who observes not the law; nor ought they, whose concern it is, to make this man king.

Despite these frightening character traits, however, Edward’s contemporaries considered him an able, even an ideal, king. Though not loved by his subjects, he was feared and respected. He met contemporary expectations of kingship in his role as an able, determined soldier and in his embodiment of shared chivalric ideals. In religious observance he also fulfilled the expectations of his age: he attended chapel regularly and gave alms generously.  He was also a model, loyal, husband in a time when model husband did not exist and loyalty was not expected in a royal marriage.

Edward took a keen interest in the stories of King Arthur, which were highly popular in Europe during his reign. In 1278 he visited Glastonbury Abbey, in ruins today, shown above, to open what was then believed to be the tomb of Arthur and Guinevere, recovering “Arthur’s crown” from Llywelyn after the conquest of North Wales, while his new castles drew upon the Arthurian myths in their design and location.

Glastonbury Abbey Photochrom photo taken about 1900, above.

He held “Round Table” events in 1284 and 1302, involving tournaments and feasting, and chroniclers compared him and the events at his court to Arthur. In some cases Edward appears to have used his interest in the Arthurian myths to serve his own political interests, including legitimizing his rule in Wales and discrediting the Welsh belief that Arthur might return as their political savior.

This round table was made by Edward and is now hung in Winchester Castle.

Cleanup

Soon after assuming the throne, Edward set about restoring order and re-establishing royal authority after the disastrous reign of his father. To accomplish this, he immediately ordered an extensive change of administrative personnel. The most important of these was the appointment of Robert Burnell as chancellor, a man who would remain in the post until 1292 as one of the King’s closest associates.

Edward then replaced most local officials, such as the escheators and sheriffs. This last measure was done in preparation for an extensive inquest covering all of England, that would hear complaints about abuse of power by royal officers. The inquest produced the set of so-called Hundred Rolls, from the administrative subdivision of the hundred.

The second purpose of the inquest was to establish what land and rights the crown had lost during the reign of Henry III.

The Hundred Rolls formed the basis for the later legal inquiries called the Quo warranto proceedings. The purpose of these inquiries was to establish by what warrant various liberties were held. If the defendant could not produce a royal license to prove the grant of the liberty, then it was the crown’s opinion – based on the writings of the influential thirteenth-century legal scholar Bracton – that the liberty should revert to the king.

By enacting the Statute of Gloucester in 1278 the King challenged baronial rights through a revival of the system of general eyres (royal justices to go on tour throughout the land) and through a significant increase in the number of pleas of quo warranto to be heard by such eyres.

Long cross penny with portrait of Edward.

This caused great consternation among the aristocracy, who insisted that long use in itself constituted license. A compromise was eventually reached in 1290, whereby a liberty was considered legitimate as long as it could be shown to have been exercised since the coronation of King Richard I, in 1189. Royal gains from the Quo warranto proceedings were insignificant; few liberties were returned to the King. Edward had nevertheless won a significant victory, in clearly establishing the principle that all liberties essentially emanated from the crown.

Groat of Edward (4 pences).

The 1290 statute of Quo warranto was only one part of a wider legislative effort, which was one of the most important contributions of Edward I’s reign. This era of legislative action had started already at the time of the baronial reform movement; the Statute of Marlborough (1267) contained elements both of the Provisions of Oxford and the Dictum of Kenilworth. The compilation of the Hundred Rolls was followed shortly after by the issue of Westminster I (1275), which asserted the royal prerogative and outlined restrictions on liberties. In the Mortmain (1279), the issue was grants of land to the church. The first clause of Westminster II (1285), known as De donis conditionalibus, dealt with family settlement of land, and entails. Merchants (1285) established firm rules for the recovery of debts, while Winchester (1285) dealt with peacekeeping on a local level. Quia emptores (1290) – issued along with Quo warranto – set out to remedy land ownership disputes resulting from alienation of land by subinfeudation or subletting their land. The age of the great statutes largely ended with the death of Robert Burnell in 1292.

Wars and Castles

Wars in medieval England seem to be a way of life.

From 1276 to1294, conflicts erupted in Wales.  They ebbed and flowed, and were politically motivated as most wars are.  In 1277, 15,000 English forcefully invaded Wales on a punitive mission.  Of those 15,000, 9000 were Welsh.  The Welsh surrendered.  However, in 1282, war broke out again and episodic rebellions would occur until 1294.  In 1284, the Statute of Rhuddlan incorporated the principality of Wales unto England.  Edward then focused on the English settlement of Wales and building castles.

An extensive project of castle-building was initiated under the direction of Master James of Saint George, a prestigious architect whom Edward had met in Savoy on his return from the crusade. These included the castles of Beaumaris, Caernarfon, Conwy and Harlech, intended to act both as fortresses and royal palaces for the King.

Caernarfon Castle where Edward’s son, Edward II, was born.

Beaumaris Castle

Harlech Castle

Conwy Castle

Many of these new towns, built for the English to settle in Wales, were extensively walled, such as Conwy.  The Conwy Castle walls extended to be the actual city walls.

This artists rendition reconstructs Conwy Castle and the village in the 13^th century.  You can see the remainder of the city walls extending from the castle below to the left, in 2013.

Conwy Castle, with its massive walls was extremely well fortified.

Edward’s program of castle building in Wales heralded the introduction of the widespread use of arrowslits in castle walls across Europe, drawing on Eastern influences.

You can see an example, behind my left shoulder, in the ramparts of Conwy Castle.

When I visited Conwy Castle in the fall of 2013, I had no idea that I was connected in to this castle in quite this way.  I’m incredibly glad, now, that I visited when given the opportunity.

Also a product of the Crusades was the introduction of the concentric castle, and four of the eight castles Edward founded in Wales followed this design.

The castles made a clear, imperial statement about Edward’s intentions to rule North Wales permanently, and drew on imagery associated with the Byzantine Roman Empire and King Arthur in an attempt to build legitimacy for his new regime.

In 1284, King Edward had his son Edward (later King Edward II) born at Caernarfon Castle, probably to make a deliberate statement about the new political order in Wales. David Powel, a 16th-century clergyman, suggested that the baby was offered to the Welsh as a prince “that was borne in Wales and could speake never a word of English”, but there is no evidence to support this account. In 1301 at Lincoln, the young Edward became the first English prince to be invested with the title of Prince of Wales, when King Edward granted him the Earldom of Chester and lands across North Wales. The King seems to have hoped that this would help in the pacification of the region, and that it would give his son more financial independence.

However, even today when talking with the Welsh, there is clearly still tension between the two countries, or parts of the UK.  One Welchman told us that all he knew about English/Welsh history is that there were “bloody English castles all over the place, but we still speak Welsh here.”

The Great Cause of Scotland

Edward seems to have trouble keeping all of the neighbors under control.  Scotland paid homage to England in 1278, but by the 1280s, the question of succession in Scotland came to a head.  As a result of a long series of royal deaths, Edward’s then one year old son, Edward, was betrothed to the three year old Margaret, Maid of Norway, heir to the throne of Scotland after her parent’s deaths.  This brought Scotland clearly under the rule of England.  Her parents died, then she died in 1290.  Fourteen men claimed the heirless throne, but it came down to John Balloil and Robert de Brus.

Edward was asked to mediate this dispute, which he did in favor of John.  However, Edward continued to assert his authority over Scotland, especially militarily.  The Scots took issue with this, especially as Edward pushed the issue, which led to Edward invading Scotland and taking the town of Berwick in a particularly bloody attack. 

At the Battle of Dunbar, in 1296, Scottish resistance was defeated.  Stirling castle surrendered – “the garrison having run away and left none but the porter, who did surrender the keys.”

However, while in Scotland, to add insult to injury, Edward confiscated the Stone of Scone, known as the Stone of Destiny, the Scottish coronation stone and brought it back to Westminster, placing it in King Edward’s chair.  The message to Scotland was clear – they were subjects of England.

Money Issues

Constant warfare drained the coffers and caused Edward to have to raise funds by levying taxes.  In 1275, he permanently taxed wool.

The Jews were another source of income as many English were indebted to and despised them. Christianity forbade money-lending, so the Jews were the financiers of English people.  In 1275, Edward outlawed usury and encouraged Jews to take up other occupations.  In 1279, he arrested all heads of Jewish households and executed about 300.  They still did not convert, and in 1290, following the lead of other European leaders such as France and Brittany, he expelled them in the Edict of Expulsion.  This generated revenue through royal appropriation of Jewish loans and property.

In 1295, Edward summoned 2 knights from each county and 2 men from each burgh to attend Parliament, setting the stage to collect lay subsidies on the entire population.  Lay subsidies were collected on a fraction of the moveable property of all laymen and were occasionally collected for special purposes during a King’s reign.  Henry III collected 4 during his reign and Edward collected 9 in total; three before 1294 and 4 between 1294-1297.  In addition, he seized wool and hides and the burden of prises (appropriation of food.)

Warfare is expensive.

Edward became very unpopular and his policies created a great deal of resentment.  However, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the clerical subsidies ordered in 1294 which demanded half of all clerical (church) revenues.

In 1295, a papal bull from the Pope prohibited the Catholic churches from paying taxes to lay authorities without explicit consent from the Pope.  A compromise was reached which allowed clergymen to pay the tax “in cases or pressing urgency.”

In 1297, the Earl of Norfolk objected to the King’s right to demand military service.  He argued that the King’s ability to demand service was limited to those serving with him, but that he could not sail to Flanders, for example, and send his subjects to Gascony.  In July, Roger Bigod and Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Constable of England drew up a series of complaints known as The Remonstrances which included required military service and extortive levels of taxation.  Humphrey de Bohun was the father of Humphrey de Bohun, the 4^th Earl of Hereford, born about 1276 who married King Edward’s daughter, Elizabeth in 1302, and from whom I descend.  Edward responded by levying another lay subsidy which was particularly provocative.

The King left for Flanders with a greatly reduced force and the country seemed on the brink of civil war. 

Ironically, it was the Scots that saved England.  The defeat by the Scots at the Battle of Stirling Bridge (below) provided a threat to the homeland and united the English, the King and the magnates in a common cause.

Edward signed a confirmation of the Magna Carta called Confirmatio cartarum (in Norman French) and the nobility agreed to serve with the King on the campaign in Scotland.  Edward’s father, Henry III, signed the original 1225 Magna Carta document, below.

Back to Scotland

The situation in Scotland had seemed resolved when Edward left the country in 1296, but resistance soon emerged under the leadership of the strategically gifted and charismatic William Wallace.  On September 11, 1297, a large English force under the leadership of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, and Hugh de Cressingham was routed by a much smaller Scottish army led by Wallace and Andrew Moray at Stirling Bridge. The defeat sent shockwaves into England, and preparations for a retaliatory campaign started immediately. Soon after Edward returned from Flanders, he headed north.

Stirling Bridge with the Abbey Craig today.

On July 22, 1298, in the only major battle he had fought since Evesham in 1265, Edward defeated Wallace’s forces at the Battle of Falkirk by utilizing longbows, creating gaps in the Scot’s defenses allowing the cavalry to charge.

Edward, however, was not able to take advantage of the momentum, and the next year the Scots managed to recapture Stirling Castle. Even though Edward campaigned in Scotland both in 1300, when he successfully besieged Caerlaverock Castle and in 1301, the Scots refused to engage in open battle again, preferring instead to raid the English countryside in smaller groups.

Caelaverick Castle in ruins, about 1900.  The castle, shown from the air today, is triangularly shaped and was built in the 1200s.

The defeated Scots, secretly urged on by the French, appealed to the pope to assert a claim of overlordship to Scotland in place of the English. His papal bull addressed to King Edward in these terms was firmly rejected on Edward’s behalf by the Barons’ Letter of 1301. The English managed to subdue the country by other means, however. In 1303, a peace agreement was reached between England and France, effectively breaking up the Franco-Scottish alliance.

Robert the Bruce, the grandson of the claimant to the crown in 1291, had sided with the English in the winter of 1301–02. By 1304, most of the other nobles of the country had also pledged their allegiance to Edward, and this year the English also managed to re-take Stirling Castle.

Stirling Castle drawn in 1693.

A great propaganda victory was achieved in 1305 when Wallace was betrayed by Sir John de Menteith and turned over to the English, who had him taken to London where he was publicly executed. With Scotland largely under English control, Edward installed Englishmen and collaborating Scots to govern the country.

The situation changed again on February 10, 1306, when Robert the Bruce murdered his rival John Comyn and a few weeks later, on 25 March, had himself crowned King of Scotland by Isobel, sister of the Earl of Buchan. Bruce now embarked on a campaign to restore Scottish independence, and this campaign took the English by surprise.

King Edward was suffering ill health by this time, and instead of leading an expedition himself, he gave different military commands to Aymer de Valence and Henry Percy, while the main royal army was led by the Prince of Wales. The English initially met with success; on June 19, Aymer de Valence routed Bruce at the Battle of Methven. Bruce was forced into hiding, while the English forces recaptured their lost territory and castles. Edward responded with severe brutality against Bruce’s allies; it was clear that he now regarded the struggle not as a war between two nations, but as the suppression of a rebellion of disloyal subjects. This brutality, though, rather than helping to subdue the Scots, had the opposite effect, and rallied growing support for Bruce.

Unfulfilled Crusades and the War on the Continent

The portrait above has been reported to be Edward I and also his son, Edward II.

Edward never again went on crusade after his return to England in 1274, but he maintained an intention to do so, and took the cross again in 1287. Like pilgrims, each crusader swore a vow (a votus) to be fulfilled on successfully reaching Jerusalem, and they were granted a cloth cross (crux) to be sewn into their clothes. This “taking of the cross”, the crux, eventually became associated with the entire journey. They saw themselves as undertaking an iter, a journey, or a peregrinatio, an armed pilgrimage. The inspiration for this “messianism of the poor” was the expected mass apotheosis at Jerusalem.

This image from the Jena Codex in the 1400s shows the Crusader’s Cross.

This intention of leaving on a second Crusade guided much of Edward’s foreign policy, until at least 1291.

To stage a European-wide crusade, it was essential to prevent conflict between the greater princes on the continent. A major obstacle to this was represented by the conflict between the French House of Anjou ruling southern Italy, and the kingdom of Aragon in Spain. In 1282, the citizens of Palermo rose up against Charles of Anjou and turned for help to Peter of Aragon, in what has become known as the Sicilian Vespers. In the war that followed, Charles of Anjou’s son, Charles of Salerno, was taken prisoner by the Aragonese. The French began planning an attack on Aragon, raising the prospect of a large-scale European war. To Edward, it was imperative that such a war be avoided, and in Paris in 1286 he brokered a truce between France and Aragon that helped secure Charles’ release. As far as the crusades were concerned, however, Edward’s efforts proved ineffective. A devastating blow to his plans came in 1291, when the Mamluks captured Acre, the last Christian stronghold in the Holy Land.

Medieval painting called “Les Templars” depicting the Siege of Acre.

After the fall of Acre, Edward’s international role changed from that of a diplomat to an antagonist. He had long been deeply involved in the affairs of his own Duchy of Gascony. In 1278 he assigned an investigating commission to his trusted associates Otto de Grandson and the chancellor Robert Burnell, which caused the replacement of the seneschal Luke de Tany. In 1286, Edward visited the region himself and stayed for almost three years. The perennial problem, however, was the status of Gascony within the kingdom of France, and Edward’s role as the French king’s vassal. On his diplomatic mission in 1286, Edward had paid homage to the new king, Philip IV, but in 1294 Philip declared Gascony forfeit when Edward refused to appear before him in Paris to discuss the recent conflict between English, Gascon, and French sailors (that had resulted in several French ships being captured, along with the sacking of the French port of La Rochelle).

Edward I (right) giving homage to Philip IV (left). As Duke of Aquitaine, Edward was a vassal of the French king.

Second Marriage

Eleanor of Castile died on November 28, 1290. Uncommon for such marriages of the period, and even though it was an arranged marriage, the couple loved each other.

Carvings of Edward and Eleanor at the Lincoln Cathedral.

Like his father, Edward was very devoted to his wife and was faithful to her throughout their married lives — a rarity among monarchs of the time. He was deeply affected by her death. He displayed his grief by erecting twelve so-called Eleanor crosses, one at each place where her funeral cortège stopped for the night. As part of the peace accord between England and France in 1294, it was agreed that Edward should marry Philip IV’s half-sister Margaret, but the marriage was delayed by the outbreak of war.

Edward made alliances with the German king, the Counts of Flanders and Guelders, and the Burgundians, who would attack France from the north. The alliances proved volatile, however, and Edward was facing trouble at home at the time, both in Wales and Scotland. It was not until August 1297 that he was finally able to sail for Flanders, at which time his allies there had already suffered defeat. The support from Germany never materialized, and Edward was forced to seek peace. His marriage to Margaret in 1299 ended the war, but the whole affair had proven both costly and fruitless for the English.

Edward married Margaret of France in 1299  and was married to her until his death in 1307.

Edward and Margaret had three more children.

1. Thomas born 1 June 1300, died 4 Aug 1338, buried in the abbey of Bury St Edmunds. Married (1) Alice Hales, with children; (2) Mary Brewes, no children.
2. Edmund born 1 Aug 1301, died 19 Mar 1330, married Margaret Wake, had children.
3. Eleanor born 6 May 1306, died 1310.

It was sweet of Margaret to name her daughter Eleanor, especially as Henry’s health was declining.  Sadly, Eleanor died three years after her father.

Edward’s Death

In February 1307, Robert the Bruce reappeared and started gathering men, and in May he defeated Aymer de Valence at the Battle of Loudoun Hill. King Edward, who had rallied somewhat, now moved north himself.

The ailing but indomitable King , then aged 68, mortally ill but refusing to admit defeat, embarked on horseback on the journey June 26th which was to prove his last. The protracted journey underlines the poor state of his health, he finally had to be carried in a litter. He reached Kirkandrews-on-Eden on 2nd July but struggled on until three days later he arrived at Burgh by Sands (which is pronounced bruff, not burgh,) just south of the Scottish border, where he finally breathed his last, dying of dysentery.  When his servants came the next morning to lift him up so that he could eat, he died in their arms.

This monument rising from Burgh Marsh marks the location of King Edward I’s death.

Various stories emerged about Edward’s deathbed wishes; according to one tradition, he requested that his heart be carried to the Holy Land, along with an army to fight the infidels. A more dubious story tells of how he wished for his bones to be carried along on future expeditions against the Scots. Yet another says that Edward wanted his flesh to be boiled from his bones so that they could be carried with the army on every campaign into Scotland and that his heart be buried in the Holy Land.  Another account of his deathbed scene is more credible; according to one chronicle, Edward gathered around him the Earls of Lincoln and Warwick, Aymer de Valence, and Robert Clifford, and charged them with looking after his son Edward. In particular they should make sure that Piers Gaveston was not allowed to return to the country. This wish, however, the son ignored, and had his favorite recalled from exile almost immediately.

King Edward’s body lay in state in St Michael’s Parish Church at Burgh by Sands before being taken to London in stages for burial at Westminster Abbey, the mausoleum of English kings. Below, the sculptured head of Edward I from Winchelsea Church.

He laid in state at Waltham Abbey, before being buried in Westminster Abbey on October 27^th in a dalmatic (long tunic) of red silk damask with a mantle or rich crimson satin fastened with a fibula (brooch) gilt in gold.  His grave bears this epitaph ‘Edwardus Primus Scottorum Malleus hic est 1308. Pactum Serva’ (Here lies Edward, the Hammer of the Scots. Keep this vow).

His body was visited there by his eldest son, Edward, Prince of Wales, who had been in Scotland at the time of his father’s death, he was proclaimed Edward II the following day at Carlisle. The new king, Edward II, remained in the north until August, but then abandoned the campaign and headed south. He was crowned king on 25 February 1308.

The map below of Westminster Abbey, from Mark Humphrey’s page shows the location of Edward’s tomb circled in blue and Eleanor’s in red.

There are few records of the funeral, which cost £473. Edward’s tomb was an unusually plain sarcophagus of Purbeck marble, without the customary royal effigy, possibly the result of the shortage of royal funds after the King’s death. The sarcophagus may normally have been covered over with rich cloth, and originally might have been surrounded by carved busts and a devotional religious image, all since lost. The Society of Antiquaries opened the tomb in 1774, finding that the body had been well preserved over the preceding 467 years, and took the opportunity to determine the King’s original height.

According to Westminster Abbey, when Edward’s tomb was opened, they found the body wrapped in waxed linen cloth and wearing royal robes of red and gold with a crimson mantle.  He had a gilt crown on his head and carried a scepter surmounted by a dove and oak leaves in enamels.

Traces of the Latin inscription Edwardus Primus Scottorum Malleus hic est, 1308. Pactum Serva (“Here is Edward I, Hammer of the Scots, 1308. Keep the Vow”), can still be seen painted on the side of the tomb, referring to his vow to avenge the rebellion of Robert Bruce. This resulted in Edward being given the epithet the “Hammer of the Scots” by historians, but is not contemporary in origin, having been added by the Abbot John Feckenham in the 16th century.

A drawing of Edward’s tomb from when it was opened in 1774.

Ironically, Edward has no decorative tomb, per se, and is buried under a plain marble slab, shown below.  I wonder why ornamentations weren’t later added.

His tomb is shown in the drawing below from “The History and Antiquities of the Abbey Church of St. Peter, Westminster” by Edward Brayley, Vol 2, 1823.

The burial location of Eleanor is shown below at right.  The tomb of Henry III, the father of Edward I is shown at left.  Edward buried Eleanor beside his father.  The Norman-French inscription can be translated as “Here lies Eleanor, sometime Queen of England, wife of King Edward son of King Henry, and daughter of the King of Spain and Countess of Ponthieu, on whose soul God in His pity have mercy. Amen”.

Westminster Abbey probably hasn’t changed a great deal.  This drawing below shows the choir in 1848.

Edward’s 26 year old widow, Margaret of France retired to Marlborough Castle after his death and never remarried, she is recorded as saying “when Edward died, all men died for me”. She lived on for ten years after her husband’s death, dying at the age of 36 and was buried at Greyfriars Church, Greenwich.

The King and I

King Edward I is my 23^rd great-grandfather, or said another way, I’m the 25^th generation downstream from him.  This means that I’m also related to Valerie Bertinelli.  Grandpa King Edward is her 16^th great grandfather, so that means that she and are I are 16^th cousins 7 times removed, or genetically equal to 19^th cousins once removed.  Actually, I think she descended through the same daughter, so we’re actually at least one (and possibly more) generations closer.

Sixth cousins share under 1% of their DNA, So 19^th cousins share a miniscule amount, if any.  It’s absolutely possible that Valerie and I share absolutely no DNA at all from King Edward.  In fact, it’s possible that neither Valerie nor I, individually, inherited ANY DNA from King Edward.  But let’s face it, despite the odds of not receiving any DNA from a specific ancestor that long ago, we did inherit DNA from ancestors that long ago, and even longer ago, so it had to come from someone, or we wouldn’t be here today with a full DNA compliment.  In other words, several someone’s beat the odds and their DNA survived.  Seems to me like Edward just might have had some of that survivor DNA to share.

I hope that Valerie will become curious and test her autosomal DNA, and will then have someone work with her to download her DNA to GedMatch where we can drop the thresholds to 1cM to see if we so share even a shred of Edward’s DNA. I’d be glad to volunteer!

I actually did the math, and at 15^th cousins, we are down to only one matching base pair from a common ancestor.  But, given that, we also know that autosomal DNA is not inherited exactly at 50% in each generation and that it is inherited in clumps, sticky segments, so, indeed, maybe, just maybe…..

One thing we can do, however, is to check and see if the Plantagenet line is represented in DNA testing for the Y line.  That would be quite interesting.

In August 2013, Bradley Larkin published a paper about the Y DNA of the British Monarchy in honor of the birth of the Prince of Cambridge.

Bradley said: “A review was made of existing genetic genealogy findings that infer characteristics of the Y-DNA of members of the British Monarchy. Nine sustained Y-DNA lineages since the year 927 CE were noted as dynastic groups. Haplogroup and haplotype characteristics of three of the dynasties were presented with two more dynasties noted as testable but unpublished. Cultural and geographical origins of these dynasties were considered as context for their DNA haplogroups. Specimen candidates for further testing were identified noting that some will require Ancient DNA (aDNA) recovery and analysis.”

Bradley identified the dynasties of the British monarchy beginning in the year 927 and ending in 2013, as shown below.

• Mountbatten/Romanov
• Hannover
• Windsor
• Stuart
• Tudor
• Plantagenet
• Blois
• Wessex
• Norman
• Knytlinga (Viking)

Bradley then researched each dynasty and lineage. If lines have been tested, he provides the results. Several lines have no male descendants, so for those, we would need ancient DNA. The connections and interconnections are fascinating.

To view the detail and summary data about each dynasty, read Bradley’s paper here, especially the summary table near the end.

Now, you do know, that of course my Plantagenet line is one that is not yet represented in the DNA data bases.  However, King Richard III, being King Richard of the Car Park fame, descends from the same paternal male line.  King Richard is, in fact, the great-great-grandson of Edward I, through all males, so Richard should indeed carry the same Y DNA that King Edward I carried.  In February, 2014 the University of Leister announced that they were going to sequence the entire genome of Richard III.  I think that is absolutely wonderful news.

Richard would be my 7^th cousin, 16 times removed, or genetically equivalent to my 15^th cousin.  He’s more closely related to Valerie, 7^th cousins 9 times removed, or equivalent to 11^th cousins once removed.

I checked with Debbie Kennett who, being a genetic genealogist and blogger in Britain, is familiar with and interested in all things British, and she indicated that a paper is due imminently reporting the results of Richard III’s DNA testing, including Y DNA. I can hardly wait.  I did not inherit the patience gene from anyone!

It looks like Bradley will be able to update his table, I’ll be able to discover the Y DNA of my 23^rd grandfather and so will Valerie Bertinelli.

And I don’t even have to chase down any relatives and try to figure out how to persuade them to test, nor do I have to pay for any testing.  I think this is wonderful.  And I didn’t even have to dig anyone up either!!!  All done for me!  How does this get better?

So, my husband asked me if I’m in the royal line of succession.  I had to admit, I had no idea.  It never occurred to me, and now that I think about it, I surely hope not!  I can’t even curtsey.

I’m not quite sure how things shifted from family lines, or why, since Edward I, so I googled.  I found out a lot about the British line of succession, and while Valerie and I both might be in that line along with thousands of our cousins, I discovered one thing for sure.  I hate to disappoint Valerie, but both of our families have a Catholic marriage between us and the good King Edward I, so even if we were in the line of succession, we’re disqualified now.  Sorry Valerie.  I know you’re crushed:)

So, I think that to celebrate our newly found royal ancestor, Valerie and I need to have a sitting to be fitted for our new royal tiaras.  Every girl wants to be a princess and my granddaughters would think this is THE coolest thing since sliced bread.  I mean, Grandma is a REAL princess.  Ok, 24 times removed, but who’s counting.  Details.  And they are real princesses too, 26 times removed.

So, I kind of like this tiara.  What do you think?

I don’t think they’ll let me borrow this one with those luscious green emeralds from the Louvre.

The granddaughters like this pink one.  Now there’s a surprise.

I’m thinking, this is probably about as close as I’m going to get.

A couple of years ago, during one the Lost Colony Research Group archaeology digs on Hatteras Island, I fixed the computer in the library, which was refusing to print.  For that, I got to wear the honorary tiara.  It’s a local tradition.  It felt so comfortable, I forgot all about it and then wondered why people were looking at me strangely:)

What fun!

If you descend from the Sarah Ludlow and Reverend Nathaniel Brewster lines in the US, you too descend from King Edward I.  Sarah’s father was the Honorable Roger Ludlow, Deputy Governor of Massachusetts in 1634 and 10^th great grandson of Edward I.  He’s the “gateway ancestor” who married Mary Cogan.  The Rev. Nathaniel Brewster, a member of the first graduating class at Harvard in 1642, married their daughter, Sarah Ludlow.  And the rest, is indeed, history.

Maybe you’ll need a tiara too!!!

Abraham Estes, the man who emigrated from Kent, England to Virginia in 1673 is probably the most cussed and discussed Estes man in history.  It wasn’t until just a few years ago that Y DNA testing confirmed that this was our Abraham, and that the Kent Estes line was the same line as the Virginia line.

To make matters worse, Abraham was born during the English Civil War.  Baptisms happened, but they sometimes didn’t get written down, and records were patchy during this time.  We believe Abraham was probably born in Nonington, Kent.  His next older sibling was baptized there in 1644.  By 1649, Abraham’s father, Sylvester, was dead.  His mother, Ellen (Ellin) Martin Estes was living in Waldershare, probably in the household with her oldest son.  On April 5^th, 1649, she wrote her will, saying she was a widow, and dividing her worldly goods between her children.  From then, for many years, the screen goes blank for Abraham Estes.

Who raised him?  He was all of two when his mother died.  It must have broken her heart to know that she was leaving an infant son who would be an orphan.  And she did know, because her will was written on April the 5th and her will was proven in London on December 6^th of that year.  She could have died several months prior.  Did she hold her son close in those last weeks or was she too ill, maybe wanting to spare him her disease, whatever it was?  Abraham would have had no memory of his mother at all, nor his father.

There may be a clue in the fact that Abraham named one of his sons Moses Estes.  Abraham’s sister, Ellen, married her second cousin once removed, Moses Estes in St. Leonard’s Church in 1667.  This tells us that the two Estes families remained close, and it also tells us that Ellen’s home church was St. Leonard’s, in Deal.  It could mean that the Estes family in Deal, Moses’s parents, Richard Eastes and Sarah Norman Estes could have raised their 1^st cousin’s children, at least the younger ones.  Ellen, John and Abraham would all 3 have fit right in agewise with the children of Richard and Sarah.

We do know just this one thing about Abraham from the time his mother died until we find him as an adult – he was very probably in St. Leonard’s Church in Deal on December 23, 1667, just two days before Christmas, when his sister married in this chancel.  It would have been a joyous Christmas for Ellen and Moses, and it’s certainly possible that young Abraham lived with them after their marriage.

At 10 years of age, Abraham was probably being admonished to “sit still” and wasn’t terribly impressed with much of anything that was happening at the altar.  Ten year old boys haven’t changed much in 350 years!

Another clue as to how Abraham was raised is that he was a weaver in Sandwich.  Sandwich is just a few miles up the coast from Deal.  Worth is given to be a mile from Sandwich and 3 miles from Deal on the local roads.

To learn to be a weaver, Abraham would have had to have been apprenticed.  As an apprentice, he would have lived with the master weaver and worked for his keep.

Abraham was the first recorded weaver in a family with a very long history of the maritime trade, although it appears that Abraham’s father, Sylvester, was not a fisherman or mariner, but a yeoman farmer.

Roy Eastes, in his research, found that weavers in Sandwich during this time began apprenticeships about the age of 15.  As with other skilled crafts, weavers protected and controlled their membership by maintaining tight control over who could and did join the guild.

To make matters even more interesting, it seems that Deal was a bit of a rough, cantankerous neighborhood.

Captain Taverner, head of the garrison at Deal Castle, involved himself in local events and charities.  In 1653 he recommended a widow with 7 children for poor relief whose husband, a Deal pilot who had supported Parliament in the Civil war, had “lost much in the Kentish Rebellion.”

We also know, based on Taverners notes, that he was furious when Deal townfolk set up maypoles to celebrate the pagan festival of Maying.  Openly, they decked the poles with the Royalist flag and toasted the return of the exiled Prince Charles.  He reportedly “resisted sending troops to fire warning shots into the drunken crowd.”

Taverner also tells us that the dissenting Baptists met in the open air in the fields next to Deal Castle.  Taverner snuck over to see what they were doing, but became convinced and joined the Baptist movement himself.  Ironically, a law passed in 1665 forbade the Baptists from living in some areas.  Deal, not yet a corporate borough, being outside those areas became very attractive for the dissenting Baptists and many settled in Lower Deal.

In the 1650s and 1660, the castles along the coast were invaluable in protecting shipping in the Downs.

War broke out with Holland, right across the channel, in the summer of 1652.  The admiralty pressed for increased armaments to protect the ships which “ride under the castles.”  The intensive recruitment among the seamen along the coast “by the beat of drum” was surprisingly successful.  Preparations for an invasion included the hire of a house for service as a hospital.

On January 3, 1653, the Dutch fleet was sighted in the Channel.

In 1658, England was once again thrown into upheaval by the death of Oliver Cromwell who had been ruling the country since the execution of Charles I in 1649.  In 1659, Charles II, the son of Charles I, was invited to return to England as King.  He exacted revenge on the murderers of his father, including exhuming the corpse of Cromwell, beheading him and displaying his head on the pikes of London Bridge.

In 1664, Charles II assigned Colonel Hutchinson to Sandown Castle and he found Sandown in a deplorable state.  It’s likely that Deal Castle was in the same state, or worse, or Hutchinson would have moved to Deal. He found the castle “a lamentable old ruin’d place…the rooms all out of repair, not weather-free, no kind of accommodation either for lodging or diet or any conveniency of life.”  He noted that the guns were almost dismounted upon rotten carriages.

A dispatch from Dover was sent to help guard the place, “pittifull weake fellows, halfe sterv’d and eaten up with vermine, whom the Governor of Dover cheated of halfe their pay and the other halfe they spent in drinke.”

His wife complained of the walls constantly covered in mildew, even in summer, and even “though the walls were foure yards thick, yet it rain’d in through cracks in them, and then one might seepe off a peck of salt peter off them every day, which stood in a perpetuall sweate upon them.”

Finally, his wife and children moved to “the cut-throate towne of Deal,” finding it preferable to the castle.

Deal Castle certainly would have been a landmark to young Abraham, as it has been for generations to Estes families.

The Plague

In 1663, when Abraham was 17, the plague struck, probably carried by the rats that came along with the ships that frequented the Downs and the Kent coastline.

Ravages of the plague were recorded in the St. Leonard’s parish registers:

• 1663 – 45 burials
• 1664 – 78 burials
• 1665 – 210 burials
• 1666 – 233 burials
• 1667 – 29 burials

The first outbreak occurred among the seamen of the fleet of Deal so that from 1665 to 1666 the records of burials of sailors are frequent.  From the latter end of 1666, the names of townsfolk are in the majority until the plague subsided the following year.

In 1665, in one week in September, in London, over 7000 people died of the Plague.  In 1666, London was already suffering from the plague when the “Great Fire” struck, consuming over 13,000 homes and 87 churches.

Another War

By 1672, Abraham might just have had enough of warfare, the plague and finally, the death of his wife.  He may have felt the promise of a the New World and a new life, especially given that Charles II had just started another war which lasted from 1672-1674 and focused on England’s attempts to blockade Dutch ports.

Although previously favourable to the Crown, the Cavalier Parliament was alienated by the king’s wars and religious policies during the 1670s. In 1672, Charles II issued the Royal Declaration of Indulgence, in which he purported to suspend all penal laws against Catholics and other religious dissenters. In the same year, he openly supported Catholic France and started the Third Anglo-Dutch War.  The Battle of Solebay took place near Suffolk of the coast of England not far from Kent on June 7, 1672.

The Wedding

Abraham married Ann Burton, widow of John Burton, on December 29, 1672 in the village of Worth, in Kent.  Ann Burton’s former husband, John Burton, died in March of 1672 and is buried at St. Peter’s church in Sandwich, along with several of their children.

The Bishop’s transcript of Abraham Estes and Ann Burton’s marriage is shown below.

The bond reads thus:

“Abraham Eastes of Sandwich, linen weaver, bachelor, 25 and Ann Burton of the same Parish, widow of John Burton, at Worth. Richard Scrimshaw of Canterbury, linen weaver, bondsman 27th December 1672.”

It’s this record that provides Abraham’s birth year as 1647.

The church at Worth where Ann Burton and Abraham Estes were married is shown above and below.

Ann and Abraham weren’t married very long.

The next record we find for Abraham is that he sailed for Virginia in October of 1673.  October is a very unusual time to sail.  Perhaps he was grief stricken over his young wife’s demise and simply decided to leave as soon as possible for a new life, bad winter weather and a war taking place or not.

There is no record of Ann sailing with him, and no record of Ann joining him later, so we must presume that Ann died, perhaps in childbirth.  From the time they were married until Abraham was sailing for America was between 9 and 10 months.

Why America?

It seems odd that Abraham, clearly with a skill and in the weaver’s guild, so as secure as a middle class person in England could be, would step away from everything familiar and head for a foreign land.  Why would one even consider doing that?

In a word, land.  Or at least, the opportunity for land.  After Abraham’s wife’s death, he may have realized that he was dealing with a “now or never” situation, because if he remarried in England, he would be dealing not with one person’s immigration expenses, but with at least two and possibly more if children were involved.

American needed people to settle and to farm.  Landless people in England were lured through the promise of 50 acres of land for everyone who settled.  Some people who couldn’t pay their way traded that 50 acres to a sponsor and/or worked in indentured servitude for approximately 7 years to pay for their passage.  Some who paid their own way traded their 50 acres called headrights for other things.  Headrights were utilized like money and some were traded several times, the land not actually being redeemed for many years.  Therefore, there might not be an association between someone who held a headright for an immigrant and the immigrant the headright was issued to.  The law calling for the issue of headrights was passed in 1618 and in 1634, the Privy Council ordered that land patents for headrights be issued.

Voyage to America

For as much information as we don’t have about Abraham’s early years, we have quite a bit from an unusual source about his voyage to America.

Roy Eastes in his book The Eastes-Estes Families of America – Our English Roots, shares information with us about the voyage.

While researching Abraham, Roy was contacted by a member of the Bobbitt family and the story of Abraham’s voyage unfolded.  I’ll let Roy tell you himself, in his own words.

Abraham Estes departed England in late October 1673.  He embarked on the Flyboat Martha, Captained by Abraham Wheelock.  The ship carried only 3 passengers William Bobbet, Abraham Estes and John Skinner. The voyage began in London and made stops in Felixstowe and the western coast of Wales. There were probably other stops in between to take on additional cargo. They completed the long voyage when they docked at Ciity Point on the James River in the Colony of Virginia in January 1674. The voyage had taken about two months.

Evidence shows that while the Flyboat Martha was docked in Felixstowe, two passengers William Bobbit and John Skinner were taken on board along with their personal cargos destined for the Colony of Virginia. It is unknown where Abraham Estes boarded but he was in Sandwich shortly before this time and the port city of Felixstowe is located in southeast Suffolk County, north of Kent. The Martha may have stopped at any of the several other ports along the channel, so he could have boarded at one of them.

The term Flyboat identifies the Martha as being a large ship of Dutch origin, having a high stern, broad beam, shallow draft and one or two masts, generally square-rigged and around 600 tons.  It has been confirmed that the Martha was Dutch built but English registered in London. This type of craft was slim with tall sails, it was very fast and commonly used along coastal waters, but they also carried  passengers and cargo to the Colonies.

After leaving London and Felixstrowe in late October 1773, The Martha probably stopped in other ports and finally in Wales to take on more cargo. In late 1673 while tied up to a dock in one of these ports, the artist Jacob Knyff painted “A Dock Scene in a British Port.” King Charles II had previously commissioned this famous artist to paint port scenes exactly as he saw them.

Dock Scene at a British Port – by artist Jacob Knyff – 1673

The description of this painting says:

England and Dutch ships taking on stores or cargo at a port. The activities relating to the loading has been closely observed. It has been set in the harbor, with the tower of a gate and a quay visible on the right, and the coast in the distance on the left. An England flagship is on the right, firing a salute and flying the ensign from the stern carved with the royal coat of arms. Beside the quay is an English flyboat that, from her shape, was probably Dutch-built.

A royal yacht is arriving on the left and this has prompted the firing of the salute. On the extreme left is the stern of a Dutch ship. On the quay two bales of stores or goods with clear markings have been positioned in the foreground. Men are involved in loading up small craft. a horse dragging a barrel on skids to the water’s edge and there are several groups of gentlemen and women observing the activities. A guard stands outside a sentry box in the gate-way.

Bobbit Family researchers have evidence that this was painted in Felixstowe showing the “Martha.” an English flyboat, loaded with guns, and a only few male passengers. So, as we look at the painting, we wonder if Jacob Knyff was watching Abraham Estes and his fellow passengers as they stretched their legs along the dock.  Are we looking at Abraham in this painting?

The winter of 1673/74 was a dangerous time to travel the seas. England was a war with the Dutch until November 10, 1674. During this time, the Dutch were blockading the ports of the New World to prevent supplies from coming in and commandeering the rich shipments of tobacco leaving for markets in England. Also, most passenger travel was normally limited to spring until fall of the year to avoid the terrible rough seas.  Even today, these winter seas are recognized as hazardous, so this may account for the ship only carrying the 3 passengers on this voyage.

At this time ships were not required to post passenger lists and many were in operation that were not documented. A passenger list for the 1673 voyage may exist somewhere within other documents but so far, it has remained elusive. However, there is a record that shows the Martha arriving in New Jersey at the end of summer of 1677 bringing 114 passengers. This must have been a crowded and very uncomfortable voyage!

The long and hazardous voyage for Abraham Estes ended when the Flyboat Martha docked in Ciity Point, in the Colony of Virginia in January 1674.

Ciity Point over looked the James and Appomattox Rivers and was a town in Prince George County, Virginia that is now extinct. The town became part of the independent City of Hopewell in 1923 and  the old Ciity Point is now considered a part of it.  However in the Civil War photo below, Ciity Point was still independent.

1865 – ” City Point , Virginia (vicinity). Medical supply boat Planter at General Hospital wharf on the Appomattox “

The proof of Abraham Estes making this voyage on the Flyboat Martha is found in the Bobbit Family History records displayed on their web site:http://www.keithbobbitt.com/England/sourcesexplanations.htm

Within these records there is the story of the migration of William Bobbit, along with relevant sources including the Bobbitt family Bible which includes the name of Abraham Estes.

The following statements were extracted from this history:

• In late 1673 and 1674 Immigration: Ship “Martha” sail to Virginia from London, England with a stop in Wales.
• Captain Abraham Wheelock filed a will Aug 1673, “Being now outwards bound on a voyage to the seas and with all considering the dangers hazards… . . .”
• There are documents found in the Public Records Office in London stating that Abraham Wheelock was the shipmaster of the Martha and the Good Hope. Will probated 11/372, Public Records Office,  London, Documents E190/59/01 and E190/72/1, Public Records Office, London.
• The only passengers on the flyboat “Martha” in 1673 were :
  1. William Bobbet
  2. Abraham Estes – Statement on this web site says, – “Abraham Estes, Indentured to Thoroughgood Keeling who arranged for passage from England” although the Bobbit Family researchers say this statement is not in the original file
  3. John Skinner

This close up of the Bible page was provided by the Bobbit family.

This of a page from the Bobbit family Bible, although faded with time and subsequently retraced, clearly shows the name, places and dates as stated in the family history.  This Bible is an 1860 version which had earlier entries copied from another Bible into the pages.

In a letter dated August 2007, Marsha Berry confirms the Bible Page:

This page is a zerox copy of a page from the bible of my ancestor Isham Drury Bobbitt, Jr.  This page is a stiff paper glued into the bible. My cousin contacted me recently and reminded me that a few years ago they had it tested though professional dating and the paper dates back at least to the grandson of  William Bobbett the immigrant, the William Bobbitt born 1704 Prince George County, Virginia and died 1768 Granville, North Carolina.  That makes the Bible record proof stronger than ever as my William Bobbett on the ship MARTHA was alive until after 18 June 1712. 

Did Abraham sail on the Martha?  We’ll likely never know.  I think it’s a good possibility.  One has to question why Abraham’s name and that Bible record would exist at all in the Bobbitt family Bible otherwise. 

Yet Another War

Abraham either must have been entirely exasperated with warfare, as it seems he had lived with it in some capacity his entire life.  Either that or he was entirely used to it and a constant state of warfare seemed “normal” to him.  Wouldn’t that be a sad commentary.

When Abraham arrived in 1673, presuming the Bobbitt Bible is accurate, he would not have escaped the war with the Dutch.  They sailed through the English channel blockade when they left, and they sailed through the Chesapeake that was being blockaded and attacked by the Dutch when they arrived in America.  The Dutch were attacking sites all along the Atlantic seaboard from the West Indies to New York, including Virginia.

It’s no wonder that Captain Wheelock wrote and filed his will before leaving England and that the Martha, who could obviously hold many more passengers, had only 3.  It also begs the question of why Abraham would have been so desperate as to sail in the winter, through the English end of the war into the American end of the same event – although clearly he could have been unaware of the American end of things.  It’s unlikely that Wheelock was unaware however, as the Dutch issues had been taking place for several months – and Wheelock did write and file his will.

Obviously, Abraham arrived safely and settled in, someplace, doing something.  I wonder if the ship encountered any issues or had close calls during the voyage.  Were there times that his heart was racing in his chest and the ship bobbed like a huge cork on heavy seas?  Was he seasick on top of everything else?

I bet Abraham had wonderful stories for his grandchildren.  There were probably several times during his lifetime that he wondered if he would have children, let alone grandchildren, if he had time or was so inclined to think about such things at all.

Bacon’s Rebellion 

Just about the time Abraham would have thought everything was settled in America, yet another war unfolded.

In 1676, Virginia had its own mini-Civil war.  While this sounds “cute,” it was anything but.  For Abraham, who was likely a relatively fresh immigrant, having to pick sides and potentially to fight must have not been a terribly good feeling.  Did he wonder what he had gotten himself into?  Did he question his decision to leave England?  Was this the first time he had to engage in battle?  Did he engage in battle?

The fact that many of the other men who signed a 1683 petition, along with Abraham, were supporters of Nathaniel Bacon suggests strongly that Abraham would have taken the same position of his neighbors and those of his social circle.  In 1676, Nathaniel Bacon and many settlers rebelled against the governor, attacking Native Americans, and eventually burning Jamestown.

You either declared “for” the renegades, or they ransacked your home and maybe worse.

In part, Bacon’s Rebellion was fueled by Bacon’s compulsive, unwielding position that all Indians needed to be attacked and killed.  In addition, the landed class did not like the fact that the governor had signed into law sweeping reforms passed by the House of Burgesses allowing unlanded free men the right to vote.

After passage of these laws, Bacon arrived with 500 followers in Jamestown to demand a commission to lead militia against the Native Americans. The governor, however, refused to yield to the pressure. When Bacon had his men take aim at Berkeley, he responded by “baring his breast” to Bacon and told Bacon to shoot him himself. Seeing that the Governor would not be moved, Bacon then had his men take aim at the assembled burgesses, who quickly granted Bacon his commission. Bacon had earlier been promised a commission before he retired to his estate if he could only be on “good” behavior for two weeks. While Bacon was at Jamestown with his small army, eight colonists were killed on the frontier in Henrico County (where he marched from) due to a lack of manpower on the frontier.

On July 30, 1676, Bacon and his army issued the “Declaration of the People of Virginia“. The declaration criticized Berkeley’s administration in detail. It accused him of levying unfair taxes, appointing friends to high positions, and failing to protect frontier settlers from Indian attack.

Bacon and his men attacked the innocent (and friendly) Pamunkey Indians. The tribe had remained allies of the English throughout other Native American raids. They were supplying warriors to aid the English when Bacon took power.

When Governor Sir William Berkeley refused to march against the Native Americans, farmers gathered around at the report of a new raiding party. Nathaniel Bacon arrived with a quantity of brandy; after it was distributed, he was elected leader. Against Berkeley’s orders, the group struck south until they came to the Occaneechi tribe. After getting the Occaneechi to attack the Susquehannock, Bacon and his men followed by slaughtering most of the men, women, and children at the village.

After months of conflict, Bacon’s forces, numbering 300-500 men, moved to Jamestown. They burned the colonial capital to the ground on September 19, 1676, pictured in the 18^th century drawing, below. Outnumbered, Berkeley retreated across the river.

Eventually, the governor prevailed, but that was not the sure and certain outcome for much of the rebellion and probably would not have been had Bacon not died.

Before an English naval squadron could arrive to aid Berkeley and his forces, Bacon died from dysentery on October 26, 1676. John Ingram took over leadership of the rebellion, but many followers drifted away. The Rebellion did not last long after that.

Berkeley launched a series of successful amphibious attacks across the Chesapeake Bay and defeated the rebels. His forces defeated the small pockets of insurgents spread across the Tidewater. Thomas Grantham, a Captain of a ship cruising the York River, used cunning and force to disarm the rebels. He tricked his way into the garrison of the rebellion, and promised to pardon everyone involved once they got back onto the ship. However, once they were safely ensconced in the hold, he trained the ship’s guns on them, and disarmed the rebellion. Through various other tactics, the other rebel garrisons were likewise overcome

The 71-year-old governor Berkeley returned to the burned capital and a looted home at the end of January 1677. His wife described Green Spring in a letter to her cousin:

“It looked like one of those the boys pull down at Shrovetide, and was almost as much to repair as if it had been new to build, and no sign that ever there had been a fence around it…”

Bacon’s wealthy landowning followers returned their loyalty to the Virginia Government after Bacon’s death. Governor Berkeley returned to power. He seized the property of several rebels for the colony and executed 23 men by hanging, including the former governor of the Albemarle Sound colony, William Drummond.

After an investigative committee returned its report to King Charles II, Berkeley was relieved of the governorship, and recalled to England. “The fear of civil war among whites frightened Virginia’s ruling elite, who took steps to consolidate power and improve their image: for example, restoration of property qualifications for voting, reducing taxes and adoption of a more aggressive Indian policy.” Charles II was reported to have commented, “That old fool has put to death more people in that naked country than I did here for the murder of my father.”

Indentured servants both black and white joined the frontier rebellion. Seeing them united in a cause alarmed the ruling class. Historians believe the rebellion hastened the hardening of racial lines associated with slavery, as a way for planters and the colony to control some of the poor.

We don’t know what Abraham Estes did or his sentiments during Bacon’s Rebellion, but there wasn’t such a thing in that time and place as someone who was uncommitted or ambivalent.  You were on one side or the other, and if you didn’t decide for yourself, someone would be deciding on your behalf. 

The Petition

The next record we find for Abraham is a petition in St. Stephen’s Parish in King and Queen County that he signed in 1683, along with many of the men who supported Bacon’s Rebellion.  Abraham obviously had strong opinions and wasn’t afraid to express them.

The fact that he signed the petition would have indicated that he was a free man, and very likely, a property owner.  He was also literate, able to sign his name – probably a result of his weaving apprenticeship.

This petition was signed by 66 inhabitants of St. Stephen’s Parish in King and Queen County, Virginia in 1683. Directed to Deputy Governor Sir Henry Chicheley, the petitioners complained of the government’s imposition on them of unfit church leaders:

That yo’r Petition’rs have beene for severall years past burthened w’th an Illegal Vestry Elected and made up for the major part without the knowledge or consent of the parish as the Law Injoynes: and of such Illiterate and Ignorant men as are and have been, Ever Ruled and Awed by one or two particular persons, who are soe Insulting, and of such Ill disposed and turbulent spirits and dispositions, That noe Minister Cann or will. Stay w’th us or teach amongst us: by w’ch meenes, the Service of God is wholly neglected, our Church gon to Ruine, and Church Desipline and Government: almost all Clearely laid aside: And forasmuch as our said parish is not destitute of such Able, discreet, and honest men as may fittly supply the places of severall week and Ignorant persons of the present vestry according to the good Lawes of this Country: Yo’r Pet’rs in all humility supplicateth y’or honn’rs that wee may have Liberty to Elect and make Cleare by the Gen’ll voat of the Inhabitants of our said Parish of Persons (for a new vestry) as in our Judgm’t may seeme meet and convenient which will Indubiately much to the Glory of God, And the peace and welfare of the whole Parish. And yo’r Pet’rs as in all Humility and Duty bound for yo’r Honn’rs shall Ever pray etc.

Abraham’s signature on this petition is our only remaining relic of “him,” except for the DNA of descendants.  It is also the oldest known Estes signature.

This is the only known occurrence of Abraham’s signature.  Tangibly, it’s all that we have left of him, personally, today.

Apple Tree Church, also known as St. Clement’s Church, served as St. Stephen’s Parish’s upper church in the eighteenth century.

Today, the church is remembered by this roadside marker.

The marker on the same road and to the right (east) of St. Stephen’s Church is near Miller Tavern and Bruington Road, a location known to be close to where Abraham Estes lived.

Was Abraham an Indentured Servant?

The question has been raised repeatedly whether Abraham was an indentured servant who would have had to sell several years of his service to pay for his passage.  Those discussions are centered around this following entry from Cavaliers and Pioneers, Abstracts of Virginia Land Patients and Grants, Vol. 2: 1666-1695, Indexed by Claudia B. Grundman, Richmond, VA, page 234:

LUCY KEELING, daughter of Thorowgood Keeling, deceased, 300 acres, Lower Norfolk Co.; Lynhaven Parish, 20 April 1682, page 146. Beginning on a point on the Dildoe branch to branch dividing this & Jno. Johnson; &c. Bequeathed by said Keeling to said Lucy, to be possessed with the same after the death of my wife Lucy (now Lucy Haise) etc.- Trans. of 6 persons Abraham Easter, Jno Rose, Richard Cock, Margaret Wollingham, Elizab. Sixworth, Robt Calderwood.

This record lists Abraham’s surname as Easter. Researchers have always assumed that it was misspelled and meant to be Estes. It may not have been.

Research has shown there was an Abraham Easter who lived in Hyde County, North Carolina — south of Lower Norfolk County, Virginia. This is where the Keeling who recorded 300 acres was located, the same Keeling that claimed Abraham Easter as an indentured servant. A Will for Abraham Easter has been located in Grimes Abstracts of Wills, 1690-1760 p. 107 that states: Easter, Abraham – Hyde County, NC – November 18, 1751. December Court, 1751; and names a son James, a daughter Mary and wife Elizabeth.

Thus, this entry in Cavaliers and Pioneers cannot be accepted as conclusive evidence that Abraham Estes was an indentured servant, as it may not refer to our Abraham.  Even if it does refer to our Abraham, headrights can and were bought and sold and used as currency.  Owing headrights also does not automatically mean that Abraham was indentured.  He could have traded his headrights for something, like all or part of his passage or something much more immediately useful, like a cow, ox or horse.

If Abraham were indentured in 1673, for the typical 7 years, he would have been finished with his indenture in 1680.  It’s unlikely that he could have amassed enough money to purchase property between 1680 and 1683 when he signed the petition. However, in 1676, Governor Berkeley granted the right to vote to all free men, not just property-holders, so it’s unclear whether petitioners would have had to own property to sign that 1683 petition.

In 1704 Abraham paid quit rent on 200 acres in King and Queen County.

Abraham’s Children

Abraham died November 21, 1720, in King and Queen County, Virginia, leaving his estate to his wife, Barbara.  We only know that Abraham had a will because Barbara’s will, now missing from the archives, mentions his will, and the subsequent lawsuit.

Barbara made her will November 25,1720, just 4 days after Abraham died, leaving part of the estate to several of her children and the remainder to Elisha Estes and Thomas Poor and wife Susanna, for the raising of Moses and Barbara.

The timing of Barbara’s will, and her obvious passing shortly thereafter, makes me wonder if Abraham and Barbara had the same malady that took both of their lives., but spared all of their children.

In America, no record of Abraham’s marriage in Virginia is found, but there is a possible hint as to when it occurred.  Niel Gunson in his English Ancestry of the American Estes, 1992 supposedly obtained the marriage date of December 29, 1682 from the Universal Parish Directory of Deal, 1793.

I found this more than a little suspect.  Why would an American marriage record be recorded in Deal?  And if it were, why wouldn’t it include the wife’s name?  David Powell ordered this book from the Kent Historical Society and has verified that indeed, Abraham’s marriage record is NOT in this book and there is no reference to him.  It appears that someone has confused a source record someplace.  Looking at the date of December 29, 1682 again, I realized that Abraham’s marriage to Anne Burton occurred on December 29, 1672.  I’m thinking that perhaps a typo happened and a source got confused.  To date, there is no record found anyplace for Abraham’s marriage to Barbara, in 1682  or othewise. I you find one, with a source, please, PLEASE, send it to me.

Children of Abraham are believed to be:

• Sylvester born about 1684, in Spotsylvania Co., VA in 1728 with wife Rachel, believed moved to Bertie and then Northampton Co., NC, died after 1754.
• Samuel born 1686 married Rebecca, believed moved to Spotsylvania and Greene Co., Va, died after 1728 when he is found with Rebekah in King and Queen County. He is not proven to be Abraham’s child.
• Thomas born 1688 died 1744/45, Spotsylvania and Caroline Co, married to Ann Rogers.
• Mary Estes born 1690 married Thomas Watkins.
• Susanna born about 1688, married Thomas Poore and raised Moses and Barbara Estes after Abraham and Barbara died.
• Elisha born 1693, died 1782 Henry County, married Mary Ann Mumford.
• Robert Estes born 1695 died 1775 in Lunenburg County. In 1743 John and Richard were living beside Robert in Hanover County. Moses was there too. Robert married Mary Smith?.
• Abraham born before 1697 died 1759, Caroline County, married Ann possibly Watkins, second marriage to Elizabeth Jeter. Not mentioned in Abraham or Barbara’s will.
• Richard born 1699 died 1742/43 Hanover County, married Mary Yancey.
• John born 1701 died circa 1766 Louisa County, married Elizabeth “Nutty” Pickett.
• Moses born 1710 died 1788 Halifax County, married Elizabeth possibly Webb, married second in 1782 Elizabeth Talburt/Talbot (nee Jones), a widow.
• Barbara born 1712 died 1729, epileptic.

The date ranges of the children of Abraham the immigrant shows a range of 28 years in their ages, meaning that if they shared the same mother for all children, she was bearing children for 29 years, from approximately age 18-47.  This is not impossible, but is somewhat unlikely, especially given that Abraham had to be somewhat older than this woman if he married her when she was age 17 in 1683 or 84.  He would have been age 36 or so marrying a girl at age 17.

A significant amount of speculation exists as to whether the oldest children were from a different wife, perhaps Ann Burton.  However, if Ann, who Abraham married in England, was the mother of the first children, why were there no children between the years of 1672 and 1684 when Sylvester was born?  One would expect at least 6 children to be born in this timeframe.  Some could have died, but all of them?

This too seems unlikely, leading us to the question of whether Abraham had at least 3 wives during his lifetime.  Ann Burton first who died in England.  He then immigrated and either married two separate women, or, he married a girl of about 17.

Another significant gap occurs between John born about 1701 and Moses born 1710 which could signify the death of one wife and a remarriage, although there is nothing in Barbara’s will that alludes to any of the children mentioned not being hers.

The Lawsuit

No colonial Virginia family story would be complete without the lawsuit and a spat between siblings over their parent’s estate.  Well, this family is no different and they have a juicy one that looks like a life-long rift.  Those colonial families loved to sue in chancery court – and as genealogists, we’re extremely glad they did.  Many times, the best genealogy information we have, plus a few juicy tidbits, come from these suits.

Amelia Co. VA chancery causes 1785-007

Eastis vs Eastis

Your orator Moses Eastis that in the year of our lord 1721 on the 21^st day of Nov your orator’s late father Abraham Eastes departed this life after making and constituting in writing his last will and testament and thereby after specifically leaving? part of his estate did give or further lend his who personal estate to his wife Barbara during her natural life and to be disposed of amongst his children then living as she might think proper.  He further stated? that the said Barbara Eastes agreeable to the trust and in the presence aforesaid reposed in her by your orator’s father on the 25^th day of Nov. 1720 she made in writing her last will and testament in writing and surety? after giving an inconsiderable part of her aforesaid husband’s estate to several of her children therein mentioned directly that the remainder should remain in the hands of her executor Elisha Eastes, Thomas Poor and Susana his wife for the sole benefit of your orator and Barbara Eastes your orator’s sister whom she concluded were incapable of getting their living. But with a precise that they should become an ? in their leave? or either of them should die then the same to be equally divided amongst Sylvester, Thomas, Elisha, Robert, Richard, John, Moses Eastes, Martha Watkins, Susana Poor and Sarah Eastes or the survivors of them as by the said last will and testament will more fully appear reference being that there to and to which your orator for greater certainty refer and on the day of <blank> departed this life without altering or revoking the will.  Your orator further shows that in consequence of the said appointment the said Elisha Eastes did understate the trust and execution of the said last will and testament first qualifying himself as an executor thereto agreeable to law.  Your orator further sheweth that sometime after in the <blank> day of <blank> your orator’s sister Barbara Eastes died wherefore your orator concluded himself entitled to his proportionate part of his said father’s estate according to the will of the said Barbara and made several friendly applications to the said Elisha the said executor for the same who has hereto refused such reasonable requests pretending that he had expended the whole or the greatest part in the support and maintenance of your orator and his deceased sister.  Notwithstanding there is still as your orator charges the truth to be a considerable part still remaining in his hands.  Your orator is remedyless and prays that Elisha be compelled to make full answer to these several matters and especially whether your orator’s late father did not make in writing such last will and testament as before mentioned and whether your orator’s late mother and widow of the said father did not in consequence of the trust reported make and ? of the estate  before ? and to the uses and purposes aforesaid.  Whether the said Elisha did not qualify as an executor thereto and came upon himself the management and execution thereof. Whether he has fully executed the directions of the said will.  Whether there is not still a considerable part of the said ? property left in his hand sand how much your orator prays that the said Elisha may be compelled to account for he had managed the same and if on a fair settlement of account there is any part still remaining that he may have his equal portion thereof according to the will of the aid Barbara Eastis and that he may have such further and other receipts as may be agreeable to the equity court.

Next document

Answer of Elisha Estis to the many untruths of the petition and bill contained for answer thereto or as much of as he feels is material for him to make answer to.  He was nominated as one of the executors of Barbary Estis as in the said bill and that after dividing some legacies in her will did direct the remainder to be retained in the hands of the executor for the support of Barbary and Moses Estis the said Moses being very sickly and the said Barbary accustom to have fits and otherwise helpless so that she required to be nursed and dressed as a child.  The amount of the appraisement of the estate left by the said Barbary Estis was to the sum of 98 pounds 10 shillings and 9 pence, half? being? exclusive of the slaves and one horse and mare show appraisement amounted to 50 pounds fifteen shillings which after the death of the said Barbary were allotted to the children of the said Barbary and her husband Abram by the will of the said Barbary to which together with the said appraisement this defendant for greater clarity begs leave to refer and prays may be made part of this his answer, this def further saith that he expended a considerable deal of money for doctor’s means in endeavoring to cure the said Barbary and Moses and that for the space of 8 years boarded and maintained the said Barbery and Moses of which the def had made an account to which also he beggs leave to refer and prays may be made part of his answer and whereby it appears that the def. account is considerable more ? the said estate than the said appraisement amounts to, the def denies all combination ? and prays to be dismissed with his costs expended.

Elisha Estis (signature)

June 29, 1770

Next document

The deposition of Thomas Poor of full age being sworn…says that about 49 years since Moses and Barbary Estis, orphans of Abraham Estis came to live with Thomas Poor, this deponents father, who was an executor to the decd Barbary Estis and to whom the care of these orphans was committed and this deponent remembers that when these orphans came to his father’s house that Moses Estis was about 10 years old and Barbary Estis was about 8 years old both which children were very sickly the boy being very Buston and commonly seemed inclined to the Kickiosey and for whose benefit three doctors were commonly employed the girl being deponent says lived til she was about 16 years old he also says that she was an idiot having convulsion fits frequently and that this deponent remembers his father was at the expense of 6 shillings a month as satisfaction to Elizabeth Yeates who attended this girl three years.  He also remembers that Moses Estis went to school 2 years while he lived with Thomas Poor this deponent’s father and he further says that since the death of Barbery Estis, Moses Estis and several others with him came to his father’s house and were speaking of settling the orphan’s estate upon which Thomas Poor this deponent’s father said he was ready for settlement brought some papers and as this deponent thinks satisfies those people amongst whom was Moses Estis who also seemed satisfied that nothing was due the orphans upon a just settlement.

April 16 1770                      Thomas Poor (signature)

Moses came to live with Thomas Poor about 1721, so he was born about 1711 and Barbara his sister about 1713.  This makes his mother’s age about 43 in 1713, so born about 1670 and married to Abraham probably about 1690/93.  There are 11 children listed in her will, so that is about 22 years, plus Abraham who was not listed, if he is in fact her child.  Doing the math, if her last child was born when she was 43, give 2 years per child, then the first child was conceived 22-23 years previous, or about 1689-91.  To add two more children, given the 2 years between children, would mean that she was having children in 1685 which means she had children for a contiguous 28 years.  Most women married at 20 or 21, so that would imply that she had children until she was 48 or 49, which is highly improbably, or married extremely young, which is also very improbable, or there were twins, which aren’t mentioned.

Children who might also have received land could also have been omitted in the division of the remainder.  In fact Abraham the immigrant might well have provided land to his two children from a previous marriage intentionally to avoid any issues with the children form the “current” marriage.  Perhaps neither Abraham Jr. nor Samuel, if he was Abraham’s son, were children of Barbara.

Next chancery document:

Elisabeth Harris aged about 60 being first sworn…says that about 48 or 49 years ago Moses and Barbary orphans of Abraham Estis came to live with Thomas Poor, this deponant’s father who was an executor to the decd Barbary Estis and that the said Moses Estis was Buston and Kiskififid and that he had 2 years schooling as well as this deponent remembers.  The said Barbary Estis was an idiot and quite incapable of taking the least care of her self and subject to fits and that there was medicines had for ? of the said orphans and the deponent remembers that Elisabeth Yates was employed by Thomas Poor to take care of the said Barbary and that the said Barbary damaged two beds considerably in tome of her indisposition.       Elisabeth “|” Harris (her mark)

I would surely like to know what “buston and kiskififid” refers to.

Next document

Summons to Elisha Estis, surviving executor of Barbary and Abraham Estis decd to appear in court to answer the case on April 7^th, 1769.

Next document

October 1769 – justices ordered to take depositions

It’s absolutely amazing to me that 50 years after Abraham and Barbara died, the family is still fighting about that will.  This also strongly suggests that Moses was alienated from at least one of his siblings, Elisha, probably for the duration of his entire adult life.  I’m thinking there were not too many family picnics in the park on Sunday afternoons.

Family rifts are nothing new.

Barbara’s Will

Barbara made her will only 4 or 5 days after Abraham’s death in either 1720 or 1721.  (Abraham’s death date is believe to be 1720, but one document says 1721.)

This was not a time in history that one typically made a will months or years in advance when you were feeling fine.  You made a will when you thought you might need it – when the inevitable was…well…inevitable.  The distance of only 5 days certainly makes one wonder if Abraham had something contagious and Barbara caught it caring for him.

Barbara’s will is now missing, but Helen Easter extracted information from her will, from the original, some years ago, obviously before it went missing.  Helen and her sister spent summers in the 1950s and 1960s traveling the Virginia counties extracting Estes and Easter records from original county records.  According to Helen’s notes, the names of children in the will left by Barbara proved in Amelia Co. include Elisha, Sussana Poore, Moses, Barbara, Sylvistas, Thomas, Robert, Richard, John, Mary Watkins, and Sarah.  Not mentioned were Abraham Jr. and Samuel, believed to also be children (Amelia File Box 1784-5, Virginia State Library).  Helen adds that she thought that Barbara mentioned them as “my children,” but she can’t remember for sure.

Who Was the Oldest Son?

If we were to presume the standard naming convention, Sylvester would be the eldest son of Abraham.  However, if the original Sylvester died, another child might have been named Sylvester later.  Typically, the eldest son inherited the land.

Judy Russell, The Legal Genealogist, mentions this, as follows:

Here’s the deal. We all know that when one of our landowner ancestors died in England and didn’t leave a will, all of his lands went to his oldest son under the rule of primogeniture. That was the law following the Norman conquest, and the oldest son couldn’t even be disinherited by will until the Statute of Wills in 1540.

The rule of primogeniture crossed the Atlantic with English common law, and that’s why you’ll see some early wills in colonial America that don’t mention land and don’t mention an oldest son: unless the will specifically said otherwise, land went to the oldest son, period.

Primogeniture was relatively short-lived in America — the first state to abolish it was Georgia, in its constitution of 1777 — but it remained the law in England until repealed in 1925.

But it was never the law everywhere, even in England. Enter, stage left, gavelkind and, stage right, borough-english.

Gavelkind was the particular custom throughout the County of Kent by which lands descended to all of the sons in equal measure. It also existed in small areas of Nottinghamshire, Norfolk, Leicestershire, Monmouthshire, Archenfeld, and Kentish Town near Highgate.

There were even some areas where the particular custom was for land to descend equally to all sons and daughters.

So pervasive was the custom in Kent that it wasn’t necessary to prove that lands there were subject to partition among all the sons; it was only necessary to prove the contrary — that particular lands were not subject to being divided equally.

Based on Judy’s information, we might not expect to see the eldest son mentioned in the will.  And indeed, Abraham and Samuel are missing, but neither of them appear to be the eldest son.

Another tidbit comes to light that also suggests that Abraham and Samuel were not the eldest.

In Cavaliers and Pioneers, by Nell Nugent, page 237, there is mention of a Robert Parish.  In a record dates, 22.6.1722 (old style date), he possessed land in King and Queen County that was bordered on one side by that of Silvester Estice. This date was after Abraham and Barbara’s death and was most likely the original land of Abraham Estes, suggesting that Silvester might be the oldest son.

Unfortunately, Abraham’s will is missing, as King and Queen is a burned county, and we simply don’t know if Abraham had already taken care of Sylvester, Samuel and Abraham or if Sylvester simply automatically inherited the land.  Given the traditional naming patterns of the man’s father’s name being used to name the first son, Sylvester would have likely been the eldest.

Where did Abraham live?

A few years ago, I wrote a paper titled “Estes of  King and Queen County, Va. Bordering Essex County, Va.”  I am extracting from that information here.

Sometimes the pieces just fall into place.  I never set out to actively search for the original land of Abraham Estes, the immigrant, because I thought we would not be able to locate it.  After all, King and Queen County is a burned county.

Well, never assume.  I was wrong.  A series of seemingly unrelated events occurred, and I’m writing this article because I’m afraid if I don’t, I’ll manage to forget some vital piece, or worse yet, know that I knew it and never be able to find it again.

Recently, cousin Robin Rankin Willis sent me another of her wonderful original extracted tables, this time for Hanover County, VA.  I was actually chasing the land of Robert, John, Moses and Richard Estes in Louisa County which was originally taken from Hanover County.  Hanover and King and Queen Counties were both originally taken from New Kent, so these lands aren’t terribly far apart.

Since King and Queen is a burned county, and that is where our Abraham died in 1720, most of our Estes truly vital records are gone.  However, sometimes all it takes is the right tidbit at the right time.

Robin found the following entry on September 12, 1748:

John Hoskins & Samuel Hoskins patent 1,430A in St. Stephen Parish, K & Q Co., north side Essex Road adj Col. Grymes, Abraham Estes & Chapman.

This sent me on what could well have been a proverbial wild goose chase.  I’m a genealogist, so I’m used to wild goose chases that wind up with me having spent hours with nothing to show for it but a pile of unrelated notes that I don’t know where to file since they weren’t relevant after all.

Robin had also recently sent me another document about Abraham.

The King and Queen County Religious Petition of 1683 is the earliest existent document from King and Queen County.  This early petition was somewhat scandalous.  The important item of note about this document is that our Abraham owned land by 1683.  This was not long after he immigrated, and although he could potentially have arrived as an indentured servant, Robin and I agree, given a number of circumstances, that this is doubtful.

We know that Abraham, nor any other Estes for that matter, obtained a land patent at this early day.  While the King and Queen County records burned, the land grant books did not burn and the patents are available from the Library of Virginia.  In fact, many genealogists are teaming up to map the original deeds through a deedmapping project to reconstruct the early colonial maps.

Abraham purchased land and it was before 1683.  Given that he was married in England in 1672, and that he probably immigrated after the death of his first wife about 1673, this only allows Abraham 10 years, or less, to serve an indenture which was in essence white slavery, and then somehow amass enough money to purchase land.  Most indentures were for 7 years.  If his wife died in passage, he still would have had to pay for her passage, so the indenture would have been longer.  Any man who had enough money to purchase land would have instead purchased his own passage.  Indentured servants were not paid.  Generally, they only had to be provided with a set of clothes when their indenture was complete.  Often they died.

Therefore, given these facts plus a pinch of speculation, it is doubtful that Abraham was an indentured servant.

From this information, I immediately began to study the Hoskins information.  We know that this land was on the north side of Essex Road, but today’s maps and atlases show the Virginia roads with numbers, not names.  This is so frustrating, because we know that Essex road had to be a main artery road between King and Queen, and Essex counties, but which one.

I posted a note to the King and Queen rootsweb site, with no results except a reference to a Hoskins family book, “Hoskins of Virginia and related families”.  This book is available on Heritage quest.

On page 21, it states that a John Hoskins is found in King and Queen County and that he lived on a plantation called “Mount Pleasant” which was patented on 1661-62 by Col. Thomas Brereton, Clerk of Northumberland County.  His father is believed to be Thomas Hoskins.  By 1683, Thomas Hoskins was living in St. Stephens Parish, New Kent County.  This parish in 1691 would be annexed to King and Queen County.  He signed a petition with 65 men for a popularly elected church vestry in the parish.  Of these signers, several were men who had fought for Nathaniel Bacon in 1676.  This petition is one of the finest expressions of seventeenth century democratic idealism in our American heritage, and it took place a full century before the Revolutionary War.  Only during the commonwealth period (1649-1660) and during Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676 were the vestries popularly elected by the residents of the parish.  They would not be again until after the Revolutionary War.  Signing near Thomas Hoskins was William Brereton.  The Hoskins, Breretons and Claibornes who were allied were all wealthy families and were associated with the House of Burgesses, having individuals who served from time to time, and shared the same viewpoint, opposition to centralized authority.

By 1738, the Breretons were gone from King and Queen County and the Hoskins were in possession under the terms of the will of Samuel Hoskins of 1430 acres of Brereton Property.  The Brereton patents of 1661-62 were for 2 tracts of 1500 acres each or 3000 acres.  Please note that this name is also spelled Hodgkins.

The Hoskins were directly preceded at Mount Pleasant by the Breretons.  This we know from the 1683 petition and from a deed between Jasper Cofton of St. Ann’s Parish in Essex County and Robert Farish of St. Stephens Parish of King and Queen.  The year is 1716 and refers to the neighborhood known as Millers Tavern.  Cofton sells to Farish 250 acres being a part of a patent of 1000 acres formerly granted to Richard Jones and George Turnor in 1672 situated and being in Essex and King and Queen upon the head of the Dragon adjoining to the tracts of Col. Goodrich and Capt Brereton’s lands.

In 1734 William Covington sold land to Richard Jones of South Farnham Parish, Essex Co.  This land had been heired by his wife Mrs. Ann Covington from her father Robert Coleman.  The land was described as “a certain tract of division of land …part in the aforesaid county of Essex and part thereof in the county of King and Queen…beginning at the corner of said Richard Jones Jr. standing in the line formerly Goodriches….to another white oak of the said Richard Jones standing in Brereton’s line thereto along the said Brereton’s line south by east”

The earliest patents relating to this plantation were on May 25, 1661 and Nov. 28, 1662 for 1500 acres each or a total of 3000 acres patented by Col. Thomas Brereton, Clerk of Northumberland.  These patents were described a being in New Kent and were on the north side of the Mattaponi River on the west and east side of Hoor Cocke Swamp, the 1661 patent beginning at a former dividend of Mr. Chapman running N by W and C and granted to George Chapman Sept. 1, 1658 by him assigned unto said Brereton.  The 1662 patent adjoined land formerly belonging to Anthony Haines.

By 1738 John and Samuel Hoskins had inherited from Samuel Hoskins 1430 acres of this Brereton land and they confirmed it by patent which reads “800 acres part thereof was given and part devised to the said John Hoskins and Samuel Hoskins by the last will and testament of Samuel Hoskins, decd, and the residue (630 acres) thereof being surplus land found within the bounds of the said 800 acres.”

The patent was granted and confirmed and the purpose was to determine the amount of acreage inherited under the will of Samuel Hoskins and then have it recorded by patent.

The 1738 patent describes it as beginning on the north side of Essex road running south by Col. Grymes line thence east by north to Abraham Estis then up the branch to Chapman’s corner, thence north by west to the beginning.  This included the area from St. Paul’s church to Dogwood swamp on the Bruington road, a stretch about 4 miles long and one mile wide.

In 1805 the Mutual Assurance Society policy taken out by Col. John Hoskins wherein he calls his home “Mount Pleasant”, the land owner on his eastern boundary is George M. Chapman.  This plantation was in the same family until sold by the executors of George Hoskins in 1852.  The north end of Mount Pleasant became known as Holly Springs and was still in the family in 1860.

From a personal interview with an elderly lady who had visited Mount Pleasant when she was a child, “The Mount Pleasant house was situated about 2 miles from the border of Essex on the most direct road from Tappahannock on the Rappahannock River to Walkerton on the Mattaponi.  The house stood on a high hill overlooking the mill pond, dam and mill.  That house no longer stands, but the present house is in the same location on the brow of the first hill one ascends when proceeding along the road from St. Paul’s church to Bruington.

Abraham Estes land in 1738 abuts the Hoskins and Grymes land.  Today this marker resides on 360 East of St. Stephen’s Church.

http://photos.historical-markers.org/va-kingandqueen/198_9801

Going with the info from the various locations to my trusty atlas, I find that in King and Queen County, on 360 where it crosses 14 and then East on 360 from that location, we have an intersection with 631 and 621 before getting to Miller’s Tavern.  Miller’s Tavern is too far East,  It looks like this land is between Bruington which is at the intersection of 14 and 621 as one point on the triangle, 621 itself as another point on the triangle, and probably St. Stephen’s church as another point.  I can find no history whatsoever of a St. Paul’s church in this area.  You also see Dogwood Fork which surely is connected to Dogwood swamp.  Abraham’s land seemed to be on the NE quadrant of this land, so probably nearer to 621.  In a much larger sense, it’s between the Rappahannock and the Mattaponi, but nearer to the Mattaponi.

Land Grants with associated names:

June 22, 1722 – Grant of Robert Farish described as 775 acres in the Counties of King and Queen and Essex. Beg. of Silvester Estice standing in Thomas Cranes line; thence &c. on the south side a branch of Mattapony River. And then 775 acres in the Counties of King and Queen and Essex adjoining the land of Silvester Estice, Thos. Crane &c. on the south side of a branch of Mattapony River and crossing several branches of Rappa: River.

This is less than two years after Abraham died, so is very likely his original land.

Abraham’s DNA

One of the things we hoped to prove when we began this project was whether or not Samuel Estes, found in Spotsylvania County, and Abraham Estes were sons of the Abraham who died in 1720/21.   By testing the Y DNA of males who descend from these two men, we can tell if they are from this Estes line, although we cannot prove, beyond a doubt that they were Abraham’s sons.  Given that we know that Abraham was the only known Estes to be living in this location in Virginia at this time, we could then surmise that they were his sons if they matches Abraham’s Y DNA finger print.

Genealogists hate that word, surmise.

To be clear, there are some mystery Estes men who also showed up in Virginia, but we have absolutely no further records of them, and it’s possible they didn’t survive.  David Powell covers this in his article, “American Estes Before Abraham.”

We’ve been fortunate in the Estes DNA Project that many Estes descendants are looking for their roots.  Even better, many of the people who tested had their lines proven back to Abraham.

I assembled a chart some time back of the 23 individuals who have proven connections to sons of Abraham, and you’ll never guess who is missing.  Yep, elusive Samuel.  So, either he didn’t have a male line that survived, or the people who descend from him can’t connect to him, or they simply haven’t tested yet.

The good news is that we do have descendants of Thomas, Richard, Robert, Moses, John, Sylvester, Elisha and yes, Abraham.  And yes, they do all match the Estes DNA fingerprint and many lines have defining line marker mutations.

What is the Estes DNA fingerprint and what is a line marker mutation?

The Estes DNA fingerprint is the combined values that make the Estes DNA sequence, or haplotype, recognizable as such.  It separates us from everyone else, or hopefully, most people.  And line marker mutations are mutations at specific markers that have occurred in sons lines since Abraham and identify those lines individually as well.

Why is this important?  When an Estes tests that doesn’t know which of Abraham’s sons lines they are from if they have one of the line marker mutations, I can often tell them, or at least point them in the right direction.  Worst case, I can narrow the options.

How did I determine the Abraham Estes DNA fingerprint and his sons’ line marker mutations, which constitute their fingerprints?  Let’s take a look.

Reconstructing Abraham

The first thing I did, using triangulation which I explained in the Robert Estes (1555-1616), Householder in Ringwould, 52 Ancestors #30 article as well as in this “Triangulation for Y DNA” article, was to determine what Abraham’s DNA markers looked like by evaluating the results at each marker for his many descendants.  I call this profile, “Abraham Reconstructed” and I compare every other Abraham descendant to this profile in a spreadsheet.

I have only shown this to 25 markers, above.  Otherwise, the print is too small to see and looks like the lowest line on an eye chart that I’ve never personally seen in my life.

Looking at just Abraham’s first 12 markers, on my spreadsheet, you will notice that there is a red value and a bold, red underscored value.

The red bold indicates a rare marker value found in less than 25% of the testers for R1b and red, bold, underscored means this value is very rare and found in 6% or less of all R1b testers.  Why is this here?  Because these rare and very rare marker values, in combination with each other, is what determine the individual Estes rare marker signature that differentiates us from every other R1b male in Europe.

Where did I find these rare marker numbers?  I maintain a spreadsheet for all  haplogroups that I utilize for my own projects and every client who purchases a Personalized Y DNA Report.  No, this is not available publicly anyplace, but I will gladly provide this information for anyone, for their individual results, who purchases a Quick Consult.

Line Marker Mutations

The next step in this process is to compare the results of each participant to that of Abraham.  In this case, kit 12088 is a descendant of Abraham’s son, Thomas, in fact the only descendant.  In his case, he has a mutation, when compared to Abraham Reconstructed at marker numbers 390 and 391.

Because there is only one confirmed descendant of Thomas who has tested, we don’t know how far back these mutations go.  In other words, the mutation(s) could have happened between Abraham and Thomas, or between the tester and his father, or at any generation in-between.  Having more people who descend from Thomas will help determine if this is a line marker mutation for all of Thomas’s descendants or just a particular line of Thomas’s descendants.

Let’s look at another son of Abraham, Abraham Jr.

In this case we have only one marker with any difference from Abraham Reconstructed, and that’s 449 and only in one tester.  This tells us that clearly, the mutation did not happen between Abraham and Abraham Jr.  In fact, in this case, two brothers tested, and the mutation at 449 was present in one brother, and not the other, so we know exactly where this mutation occurred.  This mutation will be a line marker mutation for the brother in whose line it occurred and will be a beacon for future generations.

Now let’s look at Abraham’s son, Moses’s line.

In this case, we have more testers and from two of Moses’s son’s lines.  Moses only had 3 sons, and we have descendants of two of the three, John and Moses Jr., with only William missing.

We can see that in John’s line, there are three mutations difference from Abraham, two of which occur in both participants.  This means that for those two common mutations, the mutation occurred someplace between their common ancestor and Abraham.

Unfortunately, because one of the two men has not provided their Estes ancestors, I can’t tell who their common ancestor was.  I bet you’re wondering…If he didn’t provide his genealogy, how did he get into the “Moses via son John” group?  Because his mutations match those of kit 55666, so I can discern his genetic line even without his genealogy.  Let’s look at how this works.

The owner of kit 55666 is 7 generations from Moses’ son, John Estes.  If the common ancestor between the two kits was kit 55666’s great-grandfather, Samuel Estes, then we would know that two of these mutations, 391 and 458 occurred someplace in the 4 generations between Samuel and John Estes, because the mutations occur in both of Samuel’s son’s lines.  Conversely, the mutation at location 389-2 would have occurred someplace between Samuel and the current generation, because it does not occur in the descendant of Samuel’s other son.

This Moses becomes even more interesting though, because we have descendants of Abraham through son Moses, and in particular, one specific line –  through Moses Jr., son George, then son John R. Estes.  This line carries a different line marker mutation for location 458.  While John’s line is showing a value of 19, one more than Abraham, Moses’s line is showing a value of 17, one less than Abraham.  Because all 4 of these participants descend from John R. Estes through different sons, we can say with certainty that this mutation happened someplace between Abraham Estes and John R. Estes.  A second mutation in this line, at location 449, occurred someplace downstream of John R. Estes in the three generations between John R. and the participant.  The value of 31 at location 449 will in the future be a line marker mutation within John R’s line for that specific line, while the value of 17 is a line marker mutation for John R.’s entire line.  The value of 17 at 458 might also be a line marker mutation for George, John R.’s father, or Moses Jr, his grandfather.  Because no one else has tested for any of these lines, we don’t know.  But we do know that it’s not a line marker mutation for Moses Sr.’s line because Moses Sr. has had 2 sons test and their values of 458 don’t match either Abraham or each other.  Therefore, we don’t know what the value of marker 458 was in Moses Sr. himself.  It would be extremely interesting to have a descendant of Moses Sr.’s other son, William test.  He would be a tie breaker in terms of this marker value in Moses Sr., assuming he matches either Moses Jr., John or Abraham’s marker value.

Another of Abraham’s sons, Robert, has a defining line marker mutation on marker 391, with the exception of one descendant.

Back mutations do happen, but rarely.  In this case, it may well be what has happened though, because kit 14220 and 28361 share a common ancestor two generations below Robert, descending from Robert’s son George.  The other two participants descend from different sons of Robert, so in total, three of Robert’s sons are confirmed at Family Tree DNA, plus two additional at Sorenson through data base retrievals.  The last kit, 201558 has not provided their genealogy, but I’ve placed them here because they match value 11 at 391.  Therefore, the only conclusion we can draw from this scenario is that the value of 12 at marker 391 in kit 14220, assuming the genealogy is accurate, is a back mutation.

Summary

Abraham Estes made an amazing journey in his lifetime.  His life was certainly not without adventure.  He was born during a war and his father may have given his life in the Kentish Uprising.  In any event, he was orphaned when he was two years old, when his mother died.  Had it not been for his mother’s will, we would never be able to tie Abraham to his family, because we have never been able to find his baptism records.

Abraham’s first wife died and we presume there were no children.  If Abraham immigrated in 1673, he and his wife were married less than a year and it would be a safe bet that she died in childbirth, along with the child.  He sailed for America in the middle of a second war, encountering Dutch warships on both ends of the journey.

In 1676, in Virginia, he would have been involved in some way in Bacon’s Rebellion, likely siding with Nathaniel Bacon against the government.  If so, he was probably involved in the burning of Jamestown.  This may well have been America’s first civil war.

In 1683, in Virginia, Abraham signed a petition, a free man and we know that by 1704 he owned land in King and Queen County that he purchased (or inherited), not that he received as a land grant.

Abraham Estes died in 1720 married to Barbara Estes, but there is not one single shred of evidence to suggest that his wife’s maiden name was Barbara Brock.  That surname was introduced into the family line by a novel in the 1980s wherein the author utilized Estes historical characters and built upon those characters.  It also didn’t help that Abraham Jr.’s daughter, Barbara Estes married Henry Brock.  Unfortunately, Barbara’s surname, listed as Brock has been copied and recopied so many times that it has entered into the realm of urban legend.  Regardless of how many times the story is retold, or copied and pasted, it won’t be accepted by serious researchers until some evidence, someplace, is found. To date, there is none.  I am hopeful that as more Virginia Counties chancery suits are brought online by the Virginia State Archives that in some county, someplace, a document will surface that will identify Barbara Estes’s maiden name.

In my opinion, the most likely place to find Barbara’s surname is among the petitioners on that 1683 petition.  We know her family lived in Virginia and she would have had to live local to Abraham to have met him.  Her father, brothers and perhaps uncles are most likely among the petition signers.  Brock is not one of the surnames.  Those surnames are:

• Abbott
• Arnold
• Blake
• Brae
• Bredings
• Burch
• Cammell
• Camwell
• Carter
• Cave
• Claiton
• Cockerham
• Coleman
• Conaway
• Cooke
• Davud
• Derham
• Didlock
• Dobbs
• Ey?
• Finney
• Gardner
• Gray
• Grilles
• Haile
• Hanes
• Harman
• Harper
• Holcomb
• Hopkins
• Lovey or Iovey
• Lumpkin
• Lylly
• Madison
• Major
• Middelton
• Newis
• Nichols
• Owen
• Parker
• Phillips
• Piggs
• Plunket
• Pollard
• Ramsey
• Richards
• Richardson
• Scandon(s)
• Shurly
• Smith
• Spencer
• Symore
• Taylor
• Vies
• Weston
• White
• Williams
• Wood
• Wyatt
• Yorke

Beverly Fleet, a noted researcher, extracted these names when transcribing the 1683 petition in the Virginia Colonial Records in the 1930s and 1940s and provided her commentary , as follows:

Of the 66 signatures on this petition, exactly half, 33, made marks.  Not so bad considering the disturbed times in England and conditions in Virginia.  The comment in regard to English education is made in that, contrary to the prevailing cavalier tradition, I believe that many of these men were of Cromwellian affiliation and came to Virginia to escape the hatred at home.  If they were so Cavalier, then why did they come to this Godforsaken and wild country just after the Restoration?  Not that there were not a plenty of gentlemen too, but the rank and file are always in the majority so far as numbers are concerned.  This petition is a protest of the people against two or three of the upper class.  Would to God that these men could have known just what happened exactly 100 years after they sent in their protest.

In Abraham’s case, I doubt that he was Cromwellian, especially if his father died in the Kentish uprising siding against Cromwell and with the deposed King Charles.  On the other hand, it’s a possibility I had never previously considered.  If he was, for some reason, pro-Cromwell, it might well have alienated him from other family members who did support the deposed Charles and welcomed the reinstatement of his son, Charles II, known as “The Restoration,” in 1660.  Kent was heavily pro-Charles and anti-Cromwell.  It would seem to me that in 1660, Abraham, at age 12 or 13 would be too young to be politically thoughtful.  However, Beverly Fleet may have been accurate in that many of the older men in Virginia may well have left in the late 1550s when Cromwell’s reign was coming to an end.

Regardless of why Abraham left England, all of the thousands of American descendants need to be exceedingly grateful that he did, and survived, or we wouldn’t be here and who we are today.  I asked David Powell who maintains the most comprehensive list of descendants that I’m aware of in his Estes/Eastes Pages, how many descendants Abraham has, and he indicated it was about 27,000.  That’s just an amazing number, and we know we don’t have all of them.

I asked David how many descendants that Nicholas Estes, the first proven Estes ancestor from Deal, born about 1495, with only one documented son in his will, has today.  His answer?  About 35,000.  Of those, 27,000 are attributed to Abraham, another 6000 to the Northern US Estes line and a couple thousand in England.  Just think how many there might really be if we knew how many children Nicholas actually had.  Ironically, it’s the English line that really hasn’t been thoroughly documented – the descendants of those who stayed – and David is working on that now – so we may see this number rise significantly in the future.

If you are working on your Estes genealogy, please consider DNA testing.  This article explains about the different kinds of DNA tests for genealogy.

If you are an Estes male, carrying the surname, you’ll need to order the Y DNA test through Family Tree DNA and join the Estes DNA project, of course.  Everyone who descends from an Estes can participate by taking the Family Finder autosomal test at Family Tree DNA. All Estes descendants, regardless of which test they take, are welcome in the Estes DNA Project.

If you are looking for genealogy information on your Estes lines, please visit David Powell’s wonderful Estes pages.  Happy hunting!

Also, a $15 yearly subscription to Estes trails, and purchasing the back issues for the past many years is a wise investment.  Contact Larry Duke at estestrails@aol.com.

I want to thank David Powell, Larry Duke, Roy Eastes and Stew Estes for their invaluable input, assistance and resources for his article.  In addition, a bit thank you to all of the Estes family DNA testers.  We couldn’t be doing this without you.

It was 20 years ago this weekend that he slipped away…this man I loved so much.  Well, slipped away isn’t exactly the right word for it.  He removed his own life support because the family was not united in their decision of what should be done.  So, he somehow rallied the strength and did it himself.  He was one of the bravest men I ever knew…in a very quiet, unassuming, homey type of way.  His final act of bravery only surprised me in that he was able to somehow find the physical strength to do it.

When I think of him, which is often, I think of him in his blue denim overalls.  He was a farmer, a Hoosier with a bit of a lisp and a definite Hoosier drawl, and a breathy, raspy laugh that was interjected between his words many times, like he got his own joke part way through and he just had to laugh before he could continue.  His sentences were full of laughter pauses and punctuations.  But when he was serious, he was dead serious and a man of very, very few words.  God help anyone who hurt someone, human or animal, that he loved.

Dean, as he was called, was born on December 26^th, 1922 in Howard County, Indiana to Harley Clinton Long (1878-1949) and Lottie Bell Lee (1881-1962), the youngest of 12 or 13 children.  I never knew his parents.  I did, however, know several of his siblings.

Two of his siblings, Arnold and Wilma, never married.  They lived on the old family farmstead their entire lives.  Another sister, Verma, married but never had children.  She was the eternal sourpuss, and it was the family joke that her husband died to get away from her.  Wilma, on the other hand was the loving sweet aunt and Arnold, well, I’d describe him as a lecherous old man.  My Dad told him once that if he put his hands on me, or my mother, again, he’s kill him – and I do believe he meant it.  More importantly, Arnold believed it.

Dean was married initially to Martha Mae Alexander and they had two children, my step-brother, Gary, and a daughter, Linda who died as an infant.  Linda was born with what appeared from pictures to be Down’s syndrome.  When my daughter was born, Dean gave me Linda’s baby blanket.  I was extremely moved but I could never use it. It’s still safely tucked away.

Dean was grief-stricken when his daughter died at 18 months of age, the day after his birthday and two days after Christmas in 1959, but his heart-ache was only beginning.  His wife had a disease that was, at that time, impossible to diagnose. It was progressive, debilitating and fatal.  I don’t remember the name of the disease, but he carried a newspaper article in his billfold about it, and there were only a handful of known cases at the time.  It took her a decade to die, all while fighting an unknown foe to live and raise her son.

The aunts were Dean’s salvation during this time, because they stepped in and helped take care of Gary while Dean tended to his wife through her many hospitalizations.  This was before the days of handicapped accessibility, but he modified the house with all kinds of aids for her.  Many of which remained long after he and my mother were married simply because they were useful.

After Martha’s death, in 1968, Gary, by then a teenager, began manifesting symptoms of mental illness and was institutionalized episodically for many years.  We always wondered if Gary’s illness was in some way caused in utero by the beginnings of his mother’s horrible illness.

Through all of this, Dean continued to farm, because that was what he did – and if you’re a farmer, you have to farm whether you feel like it or not. He also developed chronic ulcers, had 7 or 8 surgeries to stop the bleeding over the years.  The family was “called in” more than once because he wasn’t expected to survive.  His abdomen looked like a railroad track.

But he did survive, because he had to – he had a family to take care of who needed him desperately.

By the time I met Dean, about 1969, he had joined Parents Without Partners and he was the “fix it” guy for all of the ladies in the group.  He would visit those who needed something fixed, in exchange for dinner or coffee and a doughnut maybe.  Everyone loved Dean.

For a man with so much grief and loss in his life, he was always warm, smiling, friendly and funny.  Nobody didn’t like Dean.  Well, except my Mom.

You see, Dean “took a shine” to her.  Yep, our stuff got fixed first, and he came “calling” complete with flowers wearing his only suit.  My Mom wasn’t interested in a farmer, because she grew up on a chicken farm, hated every minute, and swore she would never go back.  I recall vividly the day that Dean dropped in unexpectedly, carrying flowers and a box of Dunkin Doughnuts, in his ill-fitting too-big light blue suit.  He walked up the driveway hill, smiling and hopeful with a spring in his step carrying the box and flowers carefully, like the crown jewels.  He rang the doorbell.  Mom didn’t want company.  She had worked all day and was tired, plus, she wasn’t interested in a farmer.  I was happy to see Dean and headed to answer the door

Mother stopped me and told me not to answer the door.  He knocked and knocked, long after any hope of an answer disappeared.  Then he turned and walked slowly down the driveway hill, to his car, his shoulders slumped, head down and the flowers hanging forlornly from his hand.  He looked back at the house one more time and there was no smile.  He got in his car and drove away.  I cried and cried, not for myself, but for the oh-so-evident sadness, disappointment and terrible loneliness of that man in the ill-fitting blue suit.  Mother felt terrible and I told her she should.

Apparently something changed, because the door never went unanswered again and Dean became a regular part of our lives.

Then one day he asked me if he could marry my mother.  He and mother went to visit Gary and asked his blessing too.  We began planning a country wedding in a small white church.  Life was glorious for everyone.

The biggest challenge was introducing our cat to his dog.

I loved life on the farm and I became Dad’s shadow.  One of my biggest joys was to help Dad with the chores – driving the tractor, birthing hogs, whatever.  A few things I didn’t like and Dad was just grateful for any help he had.  Gary wasn’t there much and when he was, didn’t much care for farm work.  My mother fit right in, and was grateful Dad didn’t raise chickens.

I had been without a father since my own father’s death in 1963, so I was extremely grateful to have a father.  Dean became Dad someplace along the line and if you didn’t know I wasn’t his biological daughter, you would never have known.  I always joked with him.  Anything “bad” I told him was his fault and I inherited from him.

One day, he walked in from the barn, walked over to me sitting at the kitchen table, thunked me on the head with his thumb, which was his special gesture of affection, looked at me and said, “Hey, when I married your mother, I got my daughter back.”  His eyes welled up with tears, and then he just walked out of the room like he had told me nothing more important than that the soybeans were sprouting.  He was just that way, a man of very few words but deep commitment and undying love.

Now let’s just say I wasn’t the most well-behaved teenager in the world and I gave my mother multiple episodes of heartburn – and that’s probably putting it very mildly and quite understated.  She, however, got very even with me by wishing that awful mother curse upon me – “May your children be 10 times worse than you are.”  She removed said curse and apologized profusely many years later, but it was too late and the damage was already done.

But Dad, well, he was always the encouraging one.  He told me I could do anything I wanted to do, and that I could be anything I wanted to be…and growing up poor, on a farm, had nothing to do with it.  He looked at me one day, walking past the metal swing outside as we were snapping beans and said, “Bobbi, if anyone changes the world, it will be you,” and just continued walking.

I was dumbstruck, and remember looking at his back walking away after he dropped that bombshell on me.  I wondered what he meant.  But those rare words from Dad sunk in and hit home, and I’ve never forgotten them.

I remember vividly, oh so vividly, when Jim and I were at the National Geographic Society for a DNA Conference in 2005.  As we walked down the huge marble Explorer’s Hall – I looked at Jim and said, “Wouldn’t Dad he surprised?”  Jim said, “Not at all.”  I kind of laughed, because it’s a very long way from the hog farm in Indiana to the Explorer’s Hall in Washington DC.  Dad would have been proud.  However, little that I did ever surprised Dad.  He was the eternal optimist in spite of the horrible challenges he had weathered.

For some reason, possibly because he had lost his only daughter and I had lost my much-beloved father, we formed a special bond.  In fact, a bond so special it transcended his lifetime.  A year or so after his passing, I was sleeping, alone in my house.  Suddenly, in the middle of the night, someone woke me up.  I woke up with a start, sat straight upright, confused and terrified, because I was, supposedly, alone in the house.  I had just a few seconds to think about it, because a fireball suddenly exploded into the bedroom door from the hallway.  The house was on fire, and had I not been awake, I would have perished, trapped in that bedroom.  Yes, it was Dad who woke me up.

So, when I took this picture in my garden this weekend, I wondered where those rays came from.  I certainly didn’t see them when I was taking the photo. Then, I realized that it was indeed 20 years to the day since Dad’s passing.  Leave it up to Dad to say hello like this.  He was such a beautiful soul.

Mom has joined him now, as has Gary.

Losing Dad happened far too soon, and in large part due to his own choices regarding smoking.  That saddened me and to some extent, angered me, because neither Mom nor I, nor my kids, were ready for him to go.  Mom grieved his death horribly.  It’s also testimony however to how powerful nicotine addiction is – you’ll do it in the face of sure and certain death.  The fact that Dad wanted to, and couldn’t, overcome it saddens me even more.

While losing Dad was terrible, I have so many wonderful memories of him.  And he was such a kind, gentle and funny man.  His quiet demeanor belied his love of humor and a good prank, and I think he was always pondering one in the back of his mind

One of the favorite family stories was when, as a teenager, he stuffed the school heat ducts full of chicken feathers.  When the heat came on in the fall, not only did some of them manage to catch on fire and stink to high heavens, but the rest of them blew out all of the ducts into the classrooms. Of course, he “knew nothing about that,” (chuckle, chuckle) and neither did his brothers, but for some reason, that was a family favorite story for the duration of the lives of the brothers and sisters.  The sisters mostly rolled their eyes.

Another time, Dad dressed up as a pregnant woman for some event – probably a fundraiser for something – likely on a dare.  I had to help him with his dress and bra and teach him how to walk pregnant, in high heels.

I don’t think he ever got the hang of that.  Mom strapped a pillow on him before he went to the event.  Good thing he didn’t get stopped in this truck.  The local cops would have been talking about that forever.

His baldness was also a topic of conversation and of eternal, unending jokes.  He was not sensitive about it, so it was never off limits.  One time, we bought him a hairbrush for bald men, with no bristles.  I have absolutely no idea when this photo was taken, but he was clearly wearing a wig.

He loved to Rendezvous and he was a mountain man.

Those Rendezvous men were all the epitome of pranksters.  One time, when I went to visit, he was fictitiously being “tried” for molesting a ground hog.

To add to things, I got him a “doll” on a couch one year to take along with him.  The doll was wearing something red and black and she reclined on her fainting couch.  She was, perhaps slightly suggestive, a little risqué perhaps, nothing more. That doll on her 3 foot couch was kidnapped immediately and was held for ransom, passed around from camp to camp and tent to tent and appeared here and there, for years.  One time her stockings appeared tied to Dad’s top tent pole like a flag.

Dad’s Rendezvous nickname was “Hoot” and I don’t think it had to do entirely with an owl either, although clearly a double entendre.  He was, indeed, a hoot.

Even this younger picture, as a teenager, with Verma, reflects his sense of humor.  They were in Indianapolis and whatever was going on , she was not amused.  She was never amused.  He was always amused.

He always had stories to tell too, some true and some, well, in the flavor and honor of Rendezvousing.  I have no idea about the red eye in the skull, but I’m sure there was some wonderful story about that, perhaps tailored to the listener.  I do know that he had a very unique turtle shell with vulture feet and a vulture head with feathers for a tail and a variety of stories about how that happened, depending on the audience at hand.

In later years, Dad spent a lot of time with school kids showing them old timey ways to do things.  He would set up his “camp” at the schools in the yard someplace and the classes would come out one by one.

Dad was always making an outfit or something for his encampment out of castoffs.

He turned just about anything and everything into something useful for his encampment.  I made a lot of his Rendezvous clothes for him.  He made things like buttons out of wood and bone.  Mom and I used to go and visit him when he went “camping.”  He loved that.  Sometimes I would go in period costume too and generally caused some kind of ruckus, which was, of course, the entire point.

One time I announced to everyone that he had gotten my mother pregnant.  At the time, most of them didn’t know I wasn’t his biological child, so it was a tongue in cheek accusation, meant, of course, to give them something to “talk about” over the weekend.  He might have been tried for that too, for all I know.  Couldn’t be worse than molesting a groundhog.  I think he was sentenced to hang for that one, but was rescued by some Indian.  There was always some twist or subplot spontaneously evolving and all in great fun and joviality.  How he always looked forward to the next encampment, which was, of course, the next chapter in a continually unfolding drama with no script.

After Dad passed away, I went to the encampment the next summer in Burlington, his “home” Rendezvous location where they had a memorial, in Rendezvous tradition, to say goodbye to him.  His camp was set up “empty” and on Saturday night, the men all gathered around his campfire.  They all told stories about him and the good times they all shared, like that time he nearly got hung for molesting that groundhog.  I said to them that he could not have been a better father had he been mine biologically.  They got really quiet, then one of them said, “We didn’t know that he wasn’t your father.  We knew that one of you kids was a step-child, but based on how close you were to your Dad, we thought you were the biological child.”  To him, I was his child, pure and simple.

I miss Dad. He could have had another 10 or maybe even 20 years with us.

After his passing, I brought some of his phlox home from the farm and planted it here, along with some of his ferns that grew so thickly along the north side of the farmhouse.

The purple phlox grows tall here and thrives.  I moved it from my other house when I built this one, along with several ferns.

Today, I went outside to find the phlox blooming with, and shedding onto, the white Rose of Sharon.  I think of Dad every time I see the phlox blooming and that makes me feel good, just like seeing the ferns unfold their beautiful spikes in rebirth does every spring.  But today, this beautiful combination of the white flower and the purple bloom spoke to me of the purity of love and eternity, and how those that are gone are really still here – forever.  The phlox may have shed its bloom, but it is obviously still quite beautiful.

I will miss Dad forever, and I will grieve his passing forever, because I will love him forever.  But I will also honor his life by smiling and living with humor, honor and dignity.  I strive to cultivate the qualities in myself I so admired in him and found so inspirational and discovered were my bedrock, and hope to pass them on to my children, by example.  What better legacy could I leave him?

You may wonder why I included this story in my DNA blog.  Well, pure and simple, I inherited a wonderful legacy from Dad, my step-father, and my life was greatly enriched by his presence.  Sometimes, inheritance has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with DNA.  He was as much my Dad, and in some ways more so, than my biological father.  A hundred or two hundred years ago, everyone would have thought I was his daughter and today, we would somehow discover that now dissolved fact and it would be considered a NPE or an undocumented adoption.  It wasn’t a surprise to us, it was just life as we lived it day by day.  It was only a surprise to those who didn’t know, which, 100 years later, would have been everyone.  Think about the fact that in his lifetime, even many of his close friends didn’t realize.

Joseph Preston Bolton was born on July 28, 1816 in Botetourt County, Virginia to Henry Bolton and Nancy Mann.  His middle name, Preston, is very likely a family name and may be a clue to his parents ancestry.  We don’t know who his grandparents were on either side.

When I ordered his marriage bond, I was hopeful that we would acquire his signature, but I believe this is all the same handwriting and probably that of the clerk’s, so not Joseph’s signature.

Joseph married first to Mary Tankersley on March 26, 1838 in Giles County, Virginia, daughter of Pleasant Tankersley and Elizabeth Haley.  This suggests that the Bolton family had moved to Giles County by that time.

PG Fulkerson, local Claiborne County historian, says, in error, that Joseph was married first to Mary Lankins and second to Nancy Preston or Presley, and that she Joseph’s son, Joseph Dode’s mother.  He also says that Joseph (Sr.) came from Giles County in 1831, which we know is incorrect because he was married in Giles Co., VA in 1838.

In the 1830 census, Henry Bolton Sr. is living in Giles County with 11 children in his household, while his son, Henry Bolton Jr. is living in Botetourt County.  Joseph Bolton would have been one of Henry’s two sons aged 10-15.

In the 1840 census, Henry Bolton Sr. is living in Giles County, but Joseph Bolton is not shown.  Henry Boulton, Sr. is shown with 1 male under 10, 2 15-20, 1 20-30 and 1 80-90.  The females in the household don’t suggest that Mary is living there, as there is one 15-20 and one 60-70.  Joseph and his wife had an infant daughter by this time.  Apparently Joseph is living elsewhere, probably in a household with another family.

Based on the children’s birth dates between Virginia and Tennessee for both Joseph and his brother John, the Bolton families moved to Tennessee between 1844 and 1846 and lived in the 4 Mile Creek area of what was then possibly Claiborne County, but became Hancock County before the 1850 census.

This makes sense because Joseph’s mother, Nancy Mann Bolton, died in 1841 and his father, Henry, in 1846, so perhaps the family moved right after Henry Bolton’s death.

In the 1850 Hancock County, TN census, Joseph is shown living in subdivision 33 beside Pleasant Tankersley and wife, Polly.

Everyone was born in Virginia, except Joseph’s two youngest children, Wilborn, age 4 and Morris, age 2 who were born in Tennessee.

Four houses away, we find Joseph’s brother, John Bolton and wife Sarah and their children.  Just two more houses away we find Margaritt (sic) Herrell Martin, the woman who would become Joseph Bolton’s second wife very shortly, and her son, John Martin living next door.  Clearly, Joseph and Margret knew each other as neighbors before Mary “Polly” Tankersley Bolton died.

Next door to Margaret Herrell Martin, we find her parents, William Herrell and Mary McDowell Herrell.  Two houses away from them lived Mary McDowell Herrell’s brother, John McDowell.

This census was actually taken on December 10^th, but it was to be taken as of June of 1850.  This may be important, because Joseph Bolton and Margret Herrell Martin married sometime, likely in 1850, after Mary/Polly died.  Joseph and Margaret’s first child was (probably) born in September 1851, based on family records and the census.  In the 1860 census she is shown as age 9 which would put her birth year as either 1851 if she had her birthday, or 1850 if she had not.  We know the census is notoriously wrong in terms of people’s ages.

Margaret Herrell Martin Bolton and Joseph Bolton had 2 children, of which Joseph “Dode” Bolton was the youngest.

The 1860 census is very faint and difficult to read.

Children

Joseph Preston Bolton and Mary “Polly” Tankersley had the following children as gleaned from the census, family records and the book, “Bolton Family History” published by the Bolton Family Association in Claiborne Co., TN in 1985:

1.  Sarah Elizabeth “Betty” Bolton, born June 25, 1839, Giles Co., VA, died January 2,1922 in Claiborne County, TN, buried in the Harrogate Cemetery, married James Monroe “Roe” Martin, her step-brother, son of Margaret Herrell Martin, Joseph Preston Bolton’s second wife.

2.  William M. or A. Bolton, born on Christmas day, 1840 in Giles County, VA, died June 5, 1927 in Pineville, KY, buried in Harrogate Cemetery, married Susan “Tude” Parks. The Bolton family books states that he was a wagonmaster in the Civil War.  He and his wife are shown in the photo below.

3.  Milton Halen Bolton born May 1844 (not shown on 1850 or 1860 census but is listed in family book), died 1907, buried in the Cook Cemetery, Claiborne Co., TN, married Narcissus “Nursey” Parks.

4.  James P. Bolton born October 1845 (census says 1843), died 1913, buried in the Cook Cemetery, Claiborne Co, TN, married Martha Jane Parks.

5.  Daniel Marson “Marsh” “Morris” “Uncle Mars” Bolton born June 2, 1846, listed as Wilburn in the census, died August 7, 1924, Claiborne County, TN, buried in the Liberty Cemetery, married Sylvia (Silvina) Jones.

6.  Morris Bolton, age 2 in the 1850 census, born 1848, not shown in 1860, so died young or the children have been “renamed” or the census taken wrote the wrong information for the wrong child, given that Milton isn’t shown.

Joseph Bolton and his second wife, Margaret Herrell Martin, daughter of William Herrell and Mary McDowell, first wife to Anson Cook Martin who died about 1845, had the following children:

7.  Matilda Ann Matilda Bolton born September 5, 1851, Hancock Co., TN died July 2, 1909, Claiborne Co. TN, buried in the Cunningham Cemetery, Claiborne Co., TN., married Morgan Cunningham.

8.  Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton, born September 18, 1853, Hancock Co., TN, died February 23, 1920, Hancock Co., TN, buried in the Plank Cemetery, Claiborne Co., TN, married Margaret Clarkson/Claxton.

The Civil War

One researcher credits Joseph Bolton with serving in Co B, 9th Tennessee Cavalry, Union Army.  Checking with www.fold3.com, I found both service and pension records.  One claim is filed in 1879 for a Joseph Bolton in the B8 TN Cav who was age 20 in 1865 upon enlistment is obviously not our Joseph.  Another record for a Joseph Bolton in the Company I, 9th TN Cav was for a man captured and killed in 1865, so obviously not our Joseph, either.

Joseph died in 1887, so he would not have been listed in the 1890 veteran’s census, but his widow, Margret, would have been, assuming she was still alive at that time.  Unfortunately, we don’t know exactly when she died, we only have a date range, sometime before her children deeded her property to each other in 1992.  If she had died before the veteran’s census in 1890, then he would not have been listed if he did serve.

There is no evidence that Joseph Bolton served in the Civil War, on either side.

The Church

It was very difficult in some instances to tell the Joseph Preston Bolton records from those of his son, Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton, especially in later church records.  Suffice it to say that at one time, Joseph Preston Bolton was a Deacon in the Baptist church, but he was censured and then banned from the church, not once, but twice.

In June 1854, the Rob Camp Baptist Church appointed brethren Joseph Bolton and Ervin McDowell to cite brother Jackson Boles for drunkenness to the July meeting to answer the charges.  Now I’m betting that’s just exactly what Joseph wanted to do.  Apparently, he was pretty good at this job, because he got to do it again.

In February 1856, the church appointed brother Joseph Bolton to cite John Owens for drinking spirits when he saw fit and for throwing stones at his fellow men on the Sabbath.  Throwing stones?  Was that alright if it wasn’t on Sunday?

In March 1856, Joseph Bolton brought a charge against Robert Tankersley, a man of color, for saying that Joseph Bolton “was a mean man and a lyer and other things.”  The next meeting notes are from from Robert Tankersley charging Joseph Bolton for “saying that he had stolen flower and bacon.”  This was referred to the April meeting.  I wonder if Robert Tankersley is a former slave of the Bolton or the Tankersley family.  Joseph Bolton’s first wife was Mary Tankersley and her parents moved to Hancock County as well.

In April, 1856, the church, by request of brother Joseph Bolton excludes him from their Christian fellowship.

In September 1859, (very difficult to read)…church being convinced that the ??? in receiving a charge against brother Joseph Bolton wrought by a member already himself under the censure of the church ??? therefore unanimously rescinded the ???

October, 1866, received Joseph Bolton by recantation and baptized into the fellowship of the church.  This could be the younger Joseph Bolton, but it’s doubtful as he would only have been age 13 and it seems to be the older Joseph Bolton that might have something to recant, as far as the church was concerned.

May 1868, elected brother Joseph Bolton to the office of Deacon.  This entry would confirm that the 1866 entry is Joseph Bolton Sr.  Deacon status is confirmed in the notes of July 1868.

Joseph Bolton was also a founding member of Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Hancock County.  According to the Rob Camp Church minutes, on the second Saturday of April, 1869, Rob Camp Church released the following people from their fellowship to form the Mount Zion Baptist Church.  On the third Saturday of May, the following list of brothers and sisters met to officially constitute the church which would be located on a parcel of land belonging to William Mannon.  Most of these people were related to Margaret Clarkson, Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton’s wife in some fashion.

• E.H. Clarkson (Edward Hilton, 1^st cousin once removed to Margret)
• Mary Clarkson
• William Mannon
• Elizabeth Mannon
• Mary Muncy
• Clarissa Hill
• Sarah Shefley (cousin)
• Farwix Clarkson (grandfather to Margret)
• Agnes Clarkson (grandmother to Margret)
• Nancy Furry (cousin)
• Elizabeth Clarkson (mother to Margret)
• Margret Clarkson (future wife of Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton)
• William Bolton (son of Joseph Preston Bolton)
• James Bolton (son of Joseph Preston Bolton)
• John Grimes
• Catherine Grimes
• Joseph Bolton (this would be Joseph Preston Bolton Sr., the deacon)

In the first church meeting of the new church, Joseph Bolton was made a Deacon.  One of the first things the new church did was to create a list of members and they all signed a very lengthy statement about the mission of the church.  Among those names is Joseph Bolton, noted as a Deacon, Margret Bolton and Margret Clarkson.  However, a note beside Joseph’s name, obviously added later, says “excluded” and a note beside Margaret’s name says “dis” for dismissed.  Obviously, things did not go swimmingly well at the new church.

Joseph’s name was never again found associated with a church, although he could have attended one the churches such as Liberty which would have been located quite close to his home on Little Sycamore after he moved to Claiborne County.

The 1870 census shows the family in District 14 of Hancock County near the Atlanthis Hill post office, Joseph age 56, Margaret age 60, Matilda age 19, Joseph age 17 and Rebecca Jones, age 14.  I’m not sure who Rebecca is or how she fits in.

The 1880 census shows that Joseph and Margaret had moved from Hancock County into Claiborne County where they lived in the 6^th district.  There are no children living with them, and they are neighbors to both Milton N. Bolton and D.M. Bolton

In the Hancock Co. 1880 tax list from the East TN Roots Vol VI, number 4, Margret Bolton is listed with 55 acres, $350 value, 105 to county, 35 to state, 35 to school, 87.5 for special 262.5 total taxes, no poll.  This is very odd because her husband, Joseph Bolton Sr. did not die until 1887.  This may be her inherited land and since she and Joseph, according to the census, are living in Claiborne County, that could explain why he is not listed.

Joseph Bolton Jr. lives beside her with no land, 1 poll, but then under him it says 100 to school and 30 special and 130 total, paid to Edds.  So perhaps he is farming his mother’s land.

Land

On February 21, 1881, in Claiborne County, Daniel Jones and his wife, Ann Jane Jones deed to Joseph Bolton and D.M. Bolton and his wife Silvia land on the waters of Sycamore Creek on Powell Mountain and Little Ridge adjoining the land of H.H. Friar.

This deed puts the migration date from the 4 Mile Creek area in Hancock County to Little Sycamore about 1881 for the Bolton family.

In 1881, in Claiborne County, adjoining Hancock County, we find a deed dated November 25^th between Joseph Bolton and his wife Margrett (sic) J. Bolton and D.M. Bolton and Silvania Bolton, his wife, to H. H. Friar for $1200, land on the waters of Little Sycamore and Powell’s Mountain and the Little Ridge, adjoining said Friar and others.  Daniel Bolton is the son of Joseph Bolton Sr. by his first wife Mary Tankersley.

In 1883 and 1884, James Bolton, son of the elder Joseph Bolton purchases land on Little Sycamore Creek in Claiborne County.  In the 1884 deed, the land abuts Sycamore Creek and Christley? Plank’s line and J.J. Park’s line.

This confirms the story in the “Bolton Family History” that the Bolton family owned “quite a bit” of land and that in 1985, it continued to be farmed by the family.  However, it appears that Joseph P. Bolton didn’t actually own the land after 1881, but it was in the family.

The Bolton book tells us that Joseph Sr. “picked up his tools one day and started to work.  While on his way, he fell dead, near the cemetery where he lies buried – the Plank Cemetery, about 5 miles east of Tazewell in Little Sycamore Valley.”

Joseph died in 1887 and is buried in the Plank Cemetery.  Margaret died sometime after 1885, based on a chancery suite, and before 1892, but her death date and burial location are unknown.  I always find it unusual when one parent has a headstone and the other parent’s grave is unmarked.  Always makes me wonder if there is a story lurking there, waiting to be uncovered and told.

Joseph’s original stone is shown above, with an additional stone set by the family association below.

The mystery surrounding Joseph’s middle name, Preston, haunts me. It’s very similar to the Presnell or Presley that some folks obviously thought was his mother’s maiden name.  I strongly suspect it was a family name, so the question becomes whether we can find a Preston family associated with a Bolton or a Mann, preferably a marriage record.  Joseph’s mother was Nancy Mann, most likely Scots-Irish.

I spent quite a bit of time on both Ancestry.com and http://www.familysearch.org and searching the trees at www.rootsweb.com as well.

I did find one very intriguing record of a Bolton/Preston marriage at exactly the right time.  Henry Bolton, born about 1760, was supposed to be from London, according to the ship’s manifest, but where his parents were married and where the ship he sailed on some 15-20 years later could be two entirely different locations.  London was, after all, the “go to” place for both commerce and opportunity.

I searched for additional information about where the Preston surname might be found.  Would Preston be more likely as Henry Bolton’s mother or Nancy Mann’s mother?  According to these maps, Preston is more frequently found in England.

Ancestry provides the following information:

Preston

English: habitational name from any of the extremely numerous places (most notably one in Lancashire) so called from Old English preost ‘priest’ + tun ‘enclosure’, ‘settlement’; the meaning may have been either ‘village with a priest’ or ‘village held by the Church’.  Scottish: habitational name from Presto(u)n, now Craigmillar, in Midlothian. This name has also been established in Ireland since the 13th century.

The DNA Story

We have a total of 6 descendants of Joseph Preston Bolton who have taken the autosomal DNA test at Family Tree DNA.  Of those, three of us descend through Ollie and share other DNA as well, so I have eliminated the other two from the equation.  They are both further down the tree, so share less DNA and it would be too difficult to differentiate between the DNA that we share from our Estes line.  Therefore, for this exercise, we have 4 descendants, as shown, below.

There are other descendants of Henry Bolton through his second wife, Nancy Mann, but I am not utilizing them in this analysis.

I want to see how much of Joseph Preston’s DNA we share, and to, in essence, reconstruct some of Joseph Preston, on paper of course, from our combined DNA.

This, however, presented a problem.

Dillis is my third cousin once removed, and we found it distressing to not “be related” in our matches at Family Tree DNA.  Thankfully, we are, but we had to use the “back door methodology to prove that fact.

In the chart below, you can see that we cousins didn’t all match each other, at least not on the surface.

This means that I couldn’t simply compare everyone though the chromosome browser, I had to compare several people and then combine the results, deleting the duplicates in the resulting spreadsheet.

The method I used was to push the matches through to the chromosome browser from the match page and then download everyone’s matches to everyone else, meaning I only downloaded the matching information – not everyone’s matches to their entire match list.

The Dillis to Barb match information would be the same as the Barb to Dillis, so I deleted that portion so that all we have is one comparison for each pair.

For example, here’s a comparison of one cousin to two others at the 1cM level.  Look at that beautiful Bolton DNA!

By clicking on the “download to Excel”, right beside the Chromosome Browser Tutorial, you only download the compared results and can then add them to a composite spreadsheet easily.

Here is the resulting composite spreadsheet for all of the cousin matches, after I’ve color coded the results.

Actually, it’s the color coding that is important.  You have to do this yourself after you copy and paste the relevant results into your spreadsheet.

Let’s take each color one at a time.

First, let’s look at red.

The red are the segments that Dillis and I DO match on.  Yes, that’s what I said….we DO match.  Family Tree DNA has their thresholds set to maximize the largest matches they feel are genuine in a generalized population,  meaning not identical by state, but those rules don’t always apply when you have a known or suspected relationship.  What a nonmatch means at Family Tree DNA is that we don’t meet all of the following criteria:

• 20cM total
• At least one individual match over roughly 7.7cM
• 500 SNPs for at least one segment

Obviously Dillis and I don’t meet that criteria, but we do have relevant matching DNA – lots of it – in at least 5 different areas.  The proof is in the downloaded spreadsheet.  Were it not for the fact that I happen to know our Bolton cousins who have tested, and we each match some of them in common, we would be unable, through Family Tree DNA to determine that we match.  That also means we wouldn’t be able to utilize the smaller Bolton segments to identify other matches – like, maybe Prestons.

It sure would be wonderful to be able to selectively reduce the matching criteria, especially within projects or in specific situations, like to Dillis, or to everyone who shows a certain ancestral surname or ancestor.  We miss a lot by not having this ability, but we can’t quantify how much we miss because we can’t see what we’re missing.

Second, let’s look at the green groups.  These are groups where all of the participants have overlapping DNA that matches.  Matching of three or more individuals from a known ancestor is called triangulation, and that is how DNA is assigned to that particular ancestor.  So, the overlapping portions of the green DNA are Joseph Preston Bolton’s DNA that we all share.  How about that?

The yellow flags the matches between Janet and Dillis who are more closely related.  They also share both Parks and Smith DNA, so those segments, if they don’t match another Boltons, cannot necessarily be attributed to Bolton lineage.  Before I would utilize this spreadsheet for further matching, I would probably remove those segments, or leave them colored to remind myself

I wanted to see a visual of Joseph Bolton’s DNA on his chromosomes, and who carries it today.

Utilizing Kitty Cooper’s wonderful ancestor chromosome mapping tool, a little differently than she had in mind, I mapped Joseph’s DNA and the contributors are listed to the right of his chromosome.  You can build a virtual ancestor from their descendants.  I have only utilized the proven, or triangulated DNA segments proven to three or more descendants.

Wow, how cool is that.

Notice the X chromosome as well.  Due to the unique inheritance pattern of the X chromosome, we know that Joseph received his X from his mother, Nancy Mann, so that is Nancy’s X segment we’re looking at.  Janet and I both carry that segment, that piece of Nancy, in us today.

Let’s look at one more thing.  Let’s see if we can glean any information at all about the surname Preston.

I went back into the Family Finder matching and I utilized the surname match capability.

I checked each match to be sure that Preston was a surname and not a county or a middle name, and then I recorded, on paper, the list of names of people who had Preston ancestry who matched each cousin.  Obviously, I was hoping to find someone listed on the match list of multiple, hopefully distant, cousins.

Cousin Dillis matches three people, shown below mapped onto Dillis’s chromosomes in 3 colors.  Notice that on chromosomes 11 and 12 some of them match Dillis in the same location.  This does not inherently mean they match each other too, but they might.  Unfortunately, since we are below the 7cM matching threshold at Family Tree DNA, we can’t utilize the Matrix tool to take a look.

Between all of the cousins’ matches, there were a total of 47 individuals who listed Preston as one of their surnames.

I decided to download the segment data of Dillis’s three Preston matches, and the one person, Terry, who was listed on two different cousin’s matches.  One of the cousins Terry matches is not a descendant of Joseph Preston Bolton, but descends through another child of Henry Bolton and Nancy Mann.

So, I’ve included those Preston match people in the resulting spreadsheet and let’s take a look at what we have.  Terry is the person who matches two different Bolton descendants.

The spreadsheet has gotten quite large, too large to reproduce here, so I’m only showing an example.

What we want to find is one of the people with Preston genealogy dead center in the middle of a proven Bolton segment.  This can match mean one of a few things.

• The matching person, Terry, in this case, has unknown Bolton heritage.
• We share some mutual DNA that contributed to the Bolton line.
• That mutually shared DNA may be Preston DNA.
• We are the world’s most unlucky people and Terry matches us on all 27 common segments circumstantially. You can pretty much rule this one out.

Several of these segments have matches between Dillis, at least one of his Preston descendant matches, Terry and other cousins.  One of Dillis’s matches also matches on several of the same segments where Terry matches the cousins as well.

This very strongly suggests distant common ancestry.  What can we do to find out?

Genealogy, we’re back to genealogy.  Now, I need to look at the Family Trees on Family Tree DNA for each of the people who have loaded GEDCOMs to see if I can find any commonality between their Preston ancestors.  I need to send e-mails to those who haven’t uploaded GEDCOM files, and let’s hope that we are lucky enough to find a connecting thread between the Prestons that might lead us to a Preston/Bolton connection, or at least a geography – and who knows – maybe it’s the Bolton/Preston marriage from 1756 in York, England.  Or maybe not – that’s why it’s called a search!

Long shot?  Yep?  Genealogy is an adventure with never any sure answers and every answer leads to more questions.  But, as my brother, John, says, no shot is a sure miss.

I’m thinking Henry Bolton’s mother just might well be a Preston and I’m setting out to find more evidence.

What would be really useful now would be to find a descendant of Henry Bolton’s brother, Conrad.  Unfortunately, Conrad had only one known child, Sarah, born about 1806 who married Jesse W. Keyes on March 29, 1826 in Giles Co., VA.  If Sarah’s descendants also match one of those Preston DNA individuals, preferably on the same segment, then that eliminates Nancy Mann from the equation, confirming the Preston DNA came from Henry’s line.  Yea, I know I’m dreaming, but this is how we utilize DNA to prove hypothesis.

Wish me luck!

Step one….any descendants of Conrad Bolton out there???

Looking down the Powell River from Cumberland Gap, we peer into the heart of the lands where the Boltons lived, near the border of Claiborne and Hancock Counties in Tennessee, just slightly south of Lee County, Virginia, along the meanders of the Powell River.

Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton was born on September 18, 1853 in Hancock County, Tennessee to Joseph Preston Bolton and his wife, Margaret Herrell (Harrell) Martin Bolton.  We don’t know what his middle initial, B., stands for, nor do we know how he obtained the nickname, Dode.  His grandson, Joseph Estes, through daughter Ollie Bolton Estes, obviously named for him, also had the same nickname.

Unfortunately, the records of Joseph Preston Bolton and Margaret Herrell Martin Bolton and their son, Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton and his wife, Margaret (Margret) Clarkson/Claxton Bolton are difficult to sort through because the names of the both couples are the same and of course, they live in very close proximity and in a burned records county.  This confirms that the genealogy Gods have a sense of humor.

Hancock County records were only partially burned, in 1885 and 1930, so we only know of Joseph Dode’s approximate marriage date/year of 1873 based on the birth of his first child and the census record in 1910 which indicates that he had been married for 37 years to wife Margaret N. Claxton (Clarkson).

Their children were:

1. Ollie Florence Bolton, my grandmother, born May 5, 1874 in Hoop Creek, Hancock County, died April 9, 1955 in Chicago, Illinois. She married William George Estes in 1893, later divorcing about 1915.
2. Charles Tipton Bolton born June 30, 1876, died before 1953, enrolled for the WWI Draft in Sonora, Washington Co., AK, listed his father as J.B. Bolton in Hoop, TN.
3. Elizabeth Bolton born 1879, married E.C. Baker Dec. 20, 1901 in Claiborne Co., died before 1953.
4. Dudley Hickham Bolton born March 21, 1881, registered for the draft in Hoop, Hancock Co. TN for WWI, married to Tilda, died before 1953.
5. Dalsey Edgar Bolton born July 26, 1883, died Nov. 9, 1946, El Paso, Texas from a broken back in an auto accident in New Mexico, wife Jennie in 1940 census.
6. Ida Ann Bolton born May 30, 1886 married Gilbert Scott Saylor, lived in London, KY, taught school, no children, died June 7, 1953 of breast cancer, buried in the Plank Cemetery.
7. Mary Lee Bolton born June 21,1888 married Tip Richmond Sumpter, died Sept. 25, 1935 in Illinois, buried Brush Creek Cemetery, Divernon, IL.
8. Estle Vernon Bolton born December 4, 1890, died December 1971, Truth or Consequences, Sierra Co., NM.
9. Cerenia Elizabeth “Lizzie” Bolton, died young, before the 1900 census.
10. Samuel Estwell H. Bolton born June 12, 1894, died October 8, 1918, France, a casualty of WWI, buried in the Plank Cemetery, Claiborne Co., TN.
11. Henry Bolton born May 1897, probably died before 1910 as not in census.

We do have photos of a few of these people, but none of Joseph Bolton or his wife, Margaret Clarkson/Claxton Bolton.

Ida and Elizabeth Bolton, daughters of Joseph “Dode” Bolton and Margaret Clarkson.

Dalsey Edgar Bolton, son of Joseph “Dode” Bolton and Margaret Clarkson, above.

Ollie Bolton, taken about 1950, daughter of Joseph “Dode” Bolton and Margaret Clarkson.

Estle Vernon Bolton

As ironic as it is, given that William George Estes, son-in-law of Joseph Bolton, was a photographer, there don’t seem to be any photographs of Joseph Bolton and Margaret Clarkson/Claxton.  I keep hoping that there really ARE some, someplace and eventually, someone will find and share one.  I can’t tell you how crazy this makes me.  Joseph didn’t die until 1920 – there SHOULD BE pictures!!!

In 1900, the Bolton family had their first reunion in Claiborne County, and to the best of my knowledge, they still have them annually, or at least they were still holding them a few years ago.  In 1985, the family produced a book titled “Bolton Family History” and in the book, included a photo of the first reunion.

Given this photo above, I would think that the entire Bolton family should be in the top photo, but that family in the photo is clearly not large enough to encompass even just the Claiborne County folks.  At least six of Joseph Preston Bolton’s children were still living in 1900, and in that area.  At that time, Joseph “Dode” Bolton and Margaret would have been under 50.  James, the son of Joseph Preston Bolton and his first wife would have been about 55 here, pictured in the bottom photo.  Are Joseph “Dode” Bolton and Margaret in that top photo?  Was William Estes taking pictures?  He and Ollie were living in Claiborne County in 1900, according to the census.

Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton’s death certificate tells us that he lived in Sedalia, in Hancock County at the time of his death.  My Genealogy Hound has 1888 maps of the Tennessee Counties that include at least some place names.  You can see New Sedalia just above the headwaters of Sycamore Creek which runs along Little Sycamore Road from Springdale in Claiborne County.  The name was changed to Sedalia in the 1890s.  The Plank Cemetery, where both Joseph and Margaret Bolton are buried is found on Little Sycamore road just inside Claiborne County.  While the county line bisects this road, the people living on this road function as one community called “Little Sycamore.”

What do we know about Joseph Bolton’s life?  We know where Joseph was born, based on the 1850 census where his father, Joseph Bolton, and his first wife, Mary “Polly” Tankersley were living.  Joseph Sr. was still living in Hancock County in the 1860 census which shows the family living on 4 Mile Creek in Hancock County and Joseph Jr. was age 7.

You can see, on this map above, that Four Mile Creek intersects with the Powell River near the Atlanthis Hill area.  Rebel Hollow Road is where Rebels were hung during the Civil War, except in Hancock County, it’s called “Rebel Holler.”

The Civil War

Minnie, one of the Crazy Aunts, said Joseph fought in the Civil War for the North. She might have been talking about his father, Joseph Sr., although I checked military and other records, and there is no record of Joseph Preston Bolton or his son, Joseph, serving in the Civil War.  Joseph “Dode” Bolton would have been about 8 when the Civil War began in 1861 when 7 stated seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy.  Tennessee was officially a southern state, but the northern-most counties which did not have the type of land that supported large plantation type of farms provided many recruits for the Union forces.  Recruits would cross over the border to neighboring Kentucky, a Union state, under the cover of night to enlist, often in groups.

To a large extent, the Civil War was fought in cities and farms of Tennessee, as only Virginia saw more battles. Tennessee was the last of the Southern states to declare secession from the Union, but saw more than its share of the devastation resulting from years of warring armies criss-crossing the state. Its rivers were key arteries to the Deep South, and, from the early days of the war, Union efforts focused on securing control of those transportation routes, as well as major roads and mountain passes such as the Cumberland Gap, just a few miles away from where the Bolton’s lived.

Family history tells us quite a bit about the Civil War in Hancock County though.  Family members said that soldiers from both sides came though, mostly looking for food, and sometimes looking for recruits, willing or otherwise, which may have something to do with the hangings in Rebel Holler, according to local lore.

The Vannoy family who lived in close proximity to the Boltons found a cave and took what livestock they could and hid in the cave in the mountains.  The Estes family, who lived down Little Sycamore Road had all of their livestock stolen.  One of their daughters snuck into the Confederate camp at night and took their milk cow back.  She was the family hero.

The Civil War was very hard on the families in this area.  Not only were their allegiances terribly torn, even within families, their lands were used as a battleground.  The 1890 veterans census for Hancock County, TN is quite unique because it recorded the Civil War veterans for both the Union and the Confederacy, later marking through the Confederate veterans.  This gives us a unique view as to how many soldiers on each side were either still living, or their widows were living, in 1890.

While this doesn’t tell us directly about how the Bolton family felt about the Civil War, there is some interesting information here that suggests their allegiance.

Evaline Martin, daughter of Margaret Herrell Martin Bolton through her first husband, Anson Cook Martin, married Calvin Busic about the same time her mother married Joseph Preston Bolton.  Therefore, she was a half-sister to Joseph “Dode” Bolton.  Calvin Busic is listed on the veteran’s census along with his death in 1862.  He died of malarial fever while in the service and he fought on the side of the Union.

Samuel Clarkson, the father of Margaret Clarkson/Claxton, the future wife of Joseph Dode Bolton also fought for the Union in the war.  He died in 1876 as a result of bronchitis and pneumonia contracted during the war, about 3 years after his daughter married Joseph Dode Bolton.

Samuel Clarkson’s sister’s husband, Calvin Wolfe also served in the Union forces.

In fact, if you look at the men who lived in the Atlanthis Hill area, most of them were Union sympathizers, but not all.

Elijah Wolf, Margaret Herrell Martin Bolton’s niece’s husband fought for the Confederacy and was prisoner of war at Louisville, KY.

I imagine these families didn’t have family reunions for years following the Civil War.  The four page 1890 veteran’s census for Hancock County shows a total of 25 who fought for the Confederacy and 24 who fought for the Union.  The Atlanthis Hill area seems to be heavily Union with the more southeastern end of the county, Mulberry Gap to Sneedville, more Confederate.

In the 1970s, when I was visiting one of the old farms near Cumberland Gap, their garden was edged by civil war cannonballs found on their property while plowing.  Aunt Margaret, born in 1906, said the old-timers would put their old Civil War uniforms on when she was young, went to town, and “fought that war over and over,” especially on “Decoration Day.”

There wasn’t anyone alive during that time in Hancock County or Claiborne County, Tennessee that wasn’t directly affected by the Civil War.  It truly was the worst of times between the actual fighting, marauding troops, hunger and concerns about an uncertain future.

Church

The Bolton and Clarkson families both attended Rob Camp Church which was formed in October of 1845.  The church minutes make for very interesting reading.

We know that Margaret Herrell Martin, Joseph “Dode” Bolton’s mother, was a member, because her first husband, Anson Cook Martin was received by experience shortly after the church was formed, and shortly before his death about 1845.

In January 1853, we find a note that Margaret Bolton was received by experience, or in today’s Baptist vernacular, was “saved” and was likely baptized.

Her son, Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton would be born that September.

Beginning in 1854, Joseph Preston Bolton was mentioned in the church minutes four times, the last time being when he was excluded from the church as his own request following accusations by another member.  In 1866, Joseph was once again received back into the flock and in 1868, he is a deacon. It’s likely that Margaret continued to attend this church, even while Joseph Sr. was excluded and that Joseph Dode Bolton grew up in this church.

Joseph Preston Bolton, Dode’s father, was also a founding member of Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Hancock County, shown below. Joseph “Dode” Bolton would have been 15 at that time.

According to the Rob Camp Church minutes, on the second Saturday of April, 1869, Rob Camp Church released the following people from their fellowship to form the Mount Zion Baptist Church.  On the third Saturday of May, the following list of brothers and sisters met to officially constitute the church which would be located on a parcel of land belonging to William Mannon.  Most of these people were related to Margaret Clarkson, Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton’s future wife in some fashion.

• E.H. Clarkson (Edward Hilton, 1^st cousin once removed to Margret)
• Mary Clarkson
• William Mannon
• Elizabeth Mannon
• Mary Muncy
• Clarissa Hill
• Sarah Shefley (cousin)
• Farwix Clarkson (grandfather to Margret)
• Agnes Clarkson (grandmother to Margret)
• Nancy Furry (cousin)
• Elizabeth Clarkson (mother to Margret)
• Margret Clarkson (future wife of Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton – she was about 3 years older than he and would have been considered an adult at 18)
• William Bolton (son of Joseph Preston Bolton)
• James Bolton (son of Joseph Preston Bolton)
• John Grimes
• Catherine Grimes
• Joseph Bolton (this would be Joseph Preston Bolton Sr., the deacon)

In the first church meeting of the new church, Joseph Bolton was made a Deacon.  One of the first things the new church did was to create a list of members and they all signed a very lengthy statement about the mission of the church.  Among those names is Joseph Bolton, noted as a Deacon, Margret Bolton and Margret Clarkson.  However, a note beside Joseph’s name, obviously added later, says “excluded” and a note beside Margaret’s name says “dis” for dismissed.  Obviously, things did not go swimmingly well at the new church.

The next page in the notes is a page titled “Dismissed by Letter.”  This meant that the church gave you a letter to take to your next church that basically stated that you had been baptized and were a member in good standing.  Joseph B. Bolton is on that list.  That would be the younger Joseph.  There is no date.

In the 1870 census, the Bolton family is living in the same location in the 14^th district of Hancock County and Joseph Dode Bolton is found living with his parents.

Joseph Dode Bolton married Margaret Clarkson about 1873, and about the same time, his father, Joseph, was once again in trouble with the church.  The trouble boiled over into 1874 and eventually, Joseph Sr. was once again excluded from the church.

Given all of the family relationships, I’m presuming that Joseph Dode Bolton and his bride, Margaret were probably married in this church and continued to attend Mt. Zion until 1876 when Little Mulberry, below, was formed.

Little Mulberry Baptist Church is located in the 5th Civil District of Hancock Co. in the lower Mulberry Community.  Little Mulberry Church was organized in May 1876 with 19 charter members:

• G.W. Coleman
• Mary and Norah Clarkson (first cousin to Margaret Clarkson)
• Thomas and Jane Greer
• William Pendleton
• Lucy Skidmore
• Jane Baker
• Mr. and Mrs. H. Edens
• James Fugate
• C.K. Coleman
• J.B. and Margaret Bolton (This is the younger Joseph Bolton.)
• Thomas and Mollie Reed
• Etta and Susan Sumpter

In 1879, there is a note in the Mt. Zion Baptist Church minutes that Joseph D. (sic) Bolton be charged with getting drunk and that E. H. Clarkson be sent to talk to him.  At the July meeting, Brother Joseph Bolton was present and made his acknowledgement to the church and was “restored back in fool fellowship.”  I don’t think that’s really what they meant, “fool fellowship,” but it surely is exactly what they said.

On the Hancock Co. 1880 tax list from the East Tennessee Roots Vol VI, number 4, Margret Bolton is listed with 55 acres, $350 value, 105 to county, 35 to state, 35 to school, 87.5 for special, 262.5 total taxes, no poll.  The 1880 census shows Joseph Sr. and Margaret living in Claiborne County.  Joseph Bolton Jr. lives beside Margret’s land in Hancock County, with no land, 1 poll (himself), but then under him it says 100 to school and 30 special and 130 total, paid to Edds.  Joseph Dode probably farms his mother’s land.

The 1880 census shows Joseph Bolton (Jr.), age 27 with his wife Margaret and their first 3 children, Ollie F., age 6, Charles J. or T., age 4 and Elizabeth, age 1.  Joseph shows his mother and father as born in Virginia.  They still live in the same district at Joseph’s parents did in 1860 and 1870.

In 1885, the Rob Camp church minutes have a list of “Names.”  On that list is Margret Bolton.  It’s unclear whether his is a current list as of that date, but I suspect that it is because Joseph (Sr.) is not to be found and he is still living.

In February 1887, the Mt. Zion Church notes mention that Brother Clinton Clouse and Brother Joseph B. Bolton talked and made the acknowledgement to the church “for living cold and out of duty and hoped to live a better life from this time forward.” Ironically, it was Clinton Clouse that was brought up on charges at the same time as Joseph in 1879, except Clinton was brought up for swearing as well.  Makes me wonder if they were best buds, or if the timing was simply circumstantial.  The 1880 census perhaps sheds some light on that question.

In June of 1888, Mt. Zion Church received Margret Bolton by letter.  This may have been Margret, the widow of Joseph Bolton, the elder, who died in December of 1887. According to the “Bolton Family History” book, in 1887, Joseph was living in Little Sycamore, in Claiborne County.  Perhaps after his death Margaret moved back to where she was more comfortable, in essence, going “home.”

Near the end of the Mt. Zion notes, after October 1896, there are several pages of members.  Upon them, Joseph B. Bolton is listed and by his name, “excluded.”  About half of the men were excluded.  I don’t know if he was in good company, but he certainly had a lot of it!

Of course, there is no 1890 census.  Prior to the 1900 census, the Joseph Bolton family lived in the 14^th district but in 1900 and 1910 they live in the 8^th district, so they have apparently moved.  None of the neighbors are the same, and Clinton Clouse or Cloth is nowhere to be found, which was probably a great relief to Joseph’s wife, Margret.  In 1900, their name was misspelled Bolting.

In 1910 they lived in Hancock County on Back Valley Road as is detailed in the article about their son, Samuel, who died in WWI.

Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton’s death certificate says his father, Joseph Bolton, was born in Washington Co., VA and his mother was Nancy Christie, which is dead wrong as far as we know.  Margret, his wife, notified the authorities of his death, and then herself died on March 11th, just two weeks later.  It appears that Joseph was buried on February 25th, so the family oral history that they put him out in the woodshed or barn and waited for her to die and had one funeral is not accurate.

Joseph’s death certificate says he was sick from Feb. 18th through the 24th, so died of pneumonia following the flu after being sick for only 6 days.  However, Margret’s death certificate says that she was sick from Feb. 18th through March 10th, so she got sick at the same time, but it took her another 2 weeks to die.  I wonder if she went to Joseph’s funeral – or maybe they buried the body but had a joint funeral at the church, especially if she was sick, they would probably have been waiting for her to get better.  Or maybe Joseph didn’t want a funeral at any church, given that the final note we have says that he was excluded and there is no evidence that he ever attended another church.

What a terrible blow to the family, to lose both parents within two weeks.  If they were sick, it’s very likely that many others in the community were as well.  A quick spin through the Hancock County death certificates confirms that there were several other deaths from pneumonia following the flu in the surrounding weeks.

Joseph Bolton’s death certificate is interesting.  It gives us lots of information, not all of it accurate.  Remember, death information is given by relatives, some of them quite bereaved, or perhaps distant, or maybe elderly and forgetful.  In Margret’s case, she was both bereaved and ill.  I view death certificate information as a great hint – to be proven.

In the case of Joseph, his birth location of Washington County, VA, is suspect, very suspect.  In 1850, his parents were both living in Claiborne County, TN, as they were in 1860, so unless they moved away, and back again, he was born in Hancock County, TN, not Washington Co., VA.  The portion of Hancock County where the Bolton family lived was split from Claiborne in 1845, so the family didn’t move, the county line did.

The most interesting piece of information, or in this case, misinformation, was his mother’s name.  Nancy Christie.  Joseph Bolton’s mother was Margaret Herrell.  She had previously been married to Anson Cook Martin who died about 1845 in Hancock County, leaving his widow with 9 children.  Margaret remarried to Joseph Bolton after 1850, as Joseph’s former wife, Mary Tankersley, was still living in the 1850 census which was dated in December, although it is supposed to be taken “as of” June.  I have seen cases of people on the census who have actually died, but are enumerated because they were still alive in the month the census was taken “as of.”

Margaret Martin, with her children, was enumerated in1850 as a head of household.  Margaret had two more children after marrying Joseph Bolton: Mary Ann Matilda born in 1851 and Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton born in 1853.

In the 1860 census, taken in August, daughter Mary Bolton is shown as age 9, so born in 1851, meaning she had already had her birthday for that year.  Since in the 1850 census, Joseph’s first wife was still living in December, and Mary was born in 1851, probably before August, this strongly suggests that Mary Tankersley Bolton was already dead when the census was taken in December of 1851 and Joseph married Margaret about that time.  Both people had a houseful of kids and had probably known each other for years.  Joseph’s youngest child was about 2 and Margaret’s about 6.  I’m betting their courtship lasted about a week or may simply have consisted of a visit and a chat.  I surely wish we had their marriage license.

In the 1860 census, two of her Martin children, Malinda, age 18 and Alexander, the baby at 15 are still living with Margaret Herrell Martin Bolton and Joseph Bolton.

Back to the pesky issue of the death certificate.  How can one mistake a mother’s name, or a grandmothers, especially if you knew the person well?  And not just the last name, but the first name too?  Margaret Clarkson Bolton clearly knew her mother-in-law, Margaret Herrell Martin Bolton, the grandmother to her children.  Margaret Herrell Martin Bolton didn’t die until sometime after 1880 and before 1892, so Margaret’s children, if they provided the death certificate information, would have clearly known their grandmother.  Joseph Bolton Jr. was around age 40 when his mother died.  His wife, Margaret Claxton had been a daughter-in-law to his mother for some 20 years and was a neighbor to his grandmother, Mary McDowell Harrell before that.  So these families were well known to each other their entire lives, not just after marriage.  Margaret Clarkson/Claxton was raised on the land beside her mother-in-law, Margaret Herrell Martin Bolton.  This much confusion and misinformation just makes me uneasy, especially without a marriage license, even though we clearly do find Margaret Herrell Martin’s children with Joseph Bolton’s family in 1860.

Fortunately, not all of the Hancock County records burned. Just generally the ones I want, and of course, all of the marriage licenses!

On July 1, 1878, Pleasant Smith and Serelda Smith, his wife, John Martin and Hanah Martin, his wife, sign their interest in land after the death of Marget (sic) Bolton for $100 to J.M. Martin.  That land was located in the 14^th district containing 50 acres bounded by John McDaniels, Elexander Herrell and others.  That deed as also witnessed by D.M. Bolton.  The deed was registered and sworn to by D.M. Bolton on January 10, 1892. This is very likely the 50 acres that Joseph Bolton, Jr., was farming in 1880.

What this tells us is that Margaret (Herrell Martin) Bolton was still living in 1878, and that she had died before January 10, 1892.

In 1885, in Chancery Court, in Hancock County, James Spears brings suit against J. M. Martin, William Martin, Joseph Bolton and Margaret Bolton.  As interesting as the suit itself is the list of who was involved.  Cannon Herrell, Alexander Herrell and John McDowell were each paid for 2 days, likely as chainers to the surveyor.  This suit has to do with land.  James Spears is somehow connected to the Herrell family, as he testifies as to their character in other suits.  By the time this suit gets to court, the people have agreed and they survey the land.  They surveyor’s notes give us somewhat of a location for the “lands in controversy.”  Beginning at James M. Martin’s house…Spear’s line…Martin’s line…Spear’s water…bank of Powell’s River.  It should also be noted that there are Spears buried in the old McDowell Cemetery on Powell River.

Alexander Herrell is Margaret Herrells’ brother, Cannon is her half-brother and John McDowell is either her uncle or nephew.

In fact, this hand drawn representation of the Claiborne County survey book shows the McDowell, Clarkson/Claxton and Herrell land, so we can rest assured that the Boltons and Martins are living in close proximity as well.

Here’s a current topo map with the McDowell, Herrell and Clarkson land plotted.  You can see Four Mile Creek at the top to the left of McDowell and then Mulberry Creek just below the word Clarkson.

This picture was taken on a visit to Hancock County where I was standing on the McDowell land, aptly named “Slanting Misery,” looking at the Claxton/Clarkson land.

Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton started his life near 4 Mile Creek in Hancock County, perhaps within sight of this location.  He spent most of his life in that area.  He perhaps had a drinking problem and was excluded from the church.  He seemed to have a rabble-rousing friend in Clinton Clouse for at least a decade.

Getting oneself excluded from church seemed to be a Bolton family tradition, as his father has been excluded before him, as well, twice, although not for drinking.

Joseph’s brothers and father had moved down to Little Sycamore in the early 1880s, but Joseph “Dode” didn’t.  He apparently remained in Hancock County and farmed his mother’s land, at least until her death and the land was conveyed in 1892.

Joseph was later reportedly living at Hoop Creek, both by the family and in official documents.

Hoop Creek is about half way between 4 Mile Creek and the Little Sycamore Community where his father lived and died.  The Plank Cemetery is at the location of West Teller Road and Little Sycamore, below  Hoop Creek was well known for being a mixed racial area.

The Plank Cemetery is where Joseph Presley Bolton Sr. was buried in 1887.  Twenty three years later, his son, Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton was buried there and two weeks later, to the day, his wife, Margaret Clarkson Bolton.  Fifteen months earlier, their son Samuel who was killed in WWI was buried and daughter Ida was buried there in 1953.  The cemetery can be difficult to find because it sets back a long drive into the center of a field, which is dead center in this satellite view.

You can see the Plank Cemetery, fenced, in the center of the field above.

There are many unmarked graves here.  Margaret Herrell Martin Bolton may be one of them.  Or, she may be buried with her first husband, Anson Cook Martin, up near Four Mile Creek, or maybe in the Herrell family cemetery, also in that vicinity.

I’d really like to remove any little tiny niggling nagging doubt that I might have about who Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton’s mother really was and put it to bed once and for all, forever.  Fortunately, there is a way for me to do that.

A number of Harrell descendants have DNA tested.  If Margaret Herrell is Joseph Bolton’s mother, then I, or other Joseph Bolton descendants, should match at least one of our Harrell cousins using autosomal DNA testing.

And, as you can see, on the chromosome graph below, comparing me with a Harrell cousin, we do!

The orange DNA segments above range in size from 1cM to 17 cM on chromosome 17.  That is a nice beautiful chunk of Margaret Harrell’s DNA!  Proof, at last, that Margaret Herrell is Joseph “Dode” Bolton’ mother.

As you can see, this person descends from Margaret Herrell though a child from her first marriage.  Indeed, this match is good news and proves that yes, Margaret Herrell is indeed Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton’s mother, because the Harrell cousin I match carries no Bolton DNA, and we don’t share any other ancestors – so the matching DNA has to be Harrell.

A second cousin who also descends through Joseph Bolton Sr. and Mary Tankersley also matches.  Now this gave me pause to reflect, because, she SHOULDN’T match my Herrell cousin on any common segments, because she doesn’t descend through Joseph Bolton Jr. and Margaret Herrell.  But take a look, we three have several segments in common with each other if you drop the threshold to 1cM, specifically, chromosomes 6, 7 and 12.

And yes, both matches also match each other.  This is called a huge fly in the ointment. So, right about now, I’m all set to have a little meltdown because there is obviously a problem SOMEPLACE and probably in my genealogy or maybe his mother really isn’t his mother….or…or…or

So, I took both a deep breath and a closer look at the second match’s tree, and lo and behold, guess what?  She has a questionable Herrell penciled in, spelled Harrell, so it didn’t’ show on my previous surname match.  The tentative Harrell is a possible child of….yep….Margaret Herrell.  Well, guess what…it’s not tentative anymore, it’s now confirmed!  I’ll have to let her know!  Whew, what a relief!!!

But then, it got even better.  Looking at my cousin’s Herrell matches, she had some matches that didn’t match me directly, because for me, they are below the initial matching threshold, but we all match my cousin.  Pushing all of our data through to the chromosome browser, there were now a total of 5 Herrell cousins.  Dropping our cM to 1 shows this chromosome browser match.

The reason these folks don’t show for me, except for the pink person, is because the segments are small enough that they are under the match threshold, but because we do match someone else in common, we can see them as matches by comparing everyone to the other person we match and dropping the match  threshold.

I desperately wish we could adjust the matching threshold at FTDNA, at least in specific cases.  I realize that Family Tree DNA is worried about having too many matches, but in some cases, we’re missing the confirming data by not being able to see those smaller matches.  By utilizing the standard matching, I have only one match on chromosome 17 to the pink lady, shown in the first screen shot, above, in addition to the person being matched against.  The proof of why we need to be able to adjust the threshold to capture additional matches, is all of those colored spaces below.

I’m green on this comparison.  Very interesting that I match with multiple cousins on chromosomes 10, 11, and 12.  It’s also very interesting that I match on a fairly large chunk of the X chromosome with my Harrell cousin that wasn’t sure she’s a Harrell!

On chromosome 11, there is one segment that 4 of 5 cousins carry that descends from Margaret Herrell.  We know this segment comes from Margaret and not Joseph because some of these cousins are Herrell cousins who don’t also descend from Joseph Bolton.

All of the technology and genealogy data aside, just sitting for a moment and realizing that this is Margaret Harrell’s and Joseph Bolton’s DNA showing up in orange, blue, green and pink.  By comparing to people who only descend through one of those people, and not both, in the future, we can even divide those matches, just like we did on chromosome 11, so we know which pieces are Margaret’s and which are Joseph’s.

To me, and to descendants hunting for confirmation of their ancestry, these are absolutely the most beautiful, multi-colored stars shining through the inky black night sky, illuminating our ancestral path, and winking at us along the way!  They are pieces of our ancestors found in us today, lighting the path forward, or backward…or both.

Is Margaret’s surname Claxton, Claxson, Clarkson or Clarkston?  I know one thing for sure, it’s pronounced like Claxton in Claiborne and Hancock County, Tennessee.  There’s no debate about how to say it, only how to spell it.

It’s typically spelled Clarkson, today, but historically I believe the name was Claxton, for two reasons.  First, James Lee Claxton/Clarkson’s widow, Margaret’s great-grandmother, applied for a pension due to James Lee Clarkson’s death in the War of 1812.  After denial, she reapplied and said he was sometimes known as James Lee Claxton which was, in fact, how his records were recorded.

Y DNA testing of his male descendants finds that the Claxton/Clarkson line matches several other Claxton men, so the original surname appears to be Claxton – but it can be, and was, spelled various ways and today is typically Clarkson in Hancock County, Tennessee where the family has lived for generations.  We’ll refer to Margaret with her Clarkson surname.

Margaret N. Clarkson was born to Samuel Clarkson and Elizabeth “Bettie” Ann Speaks on July 28, 1851 on the old home place in Hancock County, Tennessee.  We don’t know what her middle initial, N., stood for.

The Clarkson land bordered the north side of Powell River on River Road.

These next photos are standing on the McDowell family land looking towards the Clarkson land.  This is a panoramic series from left to right.

The Clarkson land is shown in this hand drawn map of the Parkey survey.

I found this land some years ago during a visit and plotted it on a current map.

It was here, on the land her ancestors had owned for three generations that Margaret was born.  The farmyard is shown below.  The original house is gone but was probably in this clearing.

The 1860 census shows Margaret, age 8, living with her family in the Alanthus Hill section of Hancock County.  The surname is spelled Claxton.

Margaret’s life changed dramatically when she was about 11 years old, when the Civil War broke out and Tennessee became involved.  On the night of March 30, 1863, her father, Samuel Clarkson, under cover of darkness, left home and crossed the mountains into Kentucky to enlist in the Union Army.  Did she know he was leaving?  Did the family gather to say a tearful goodbye?  Margaret would have been just 4 months shy of 12 years old.

In addition, Margaret’s first cousin, Fernando Clarkson served in the Union forces as did her uncle, Henry Clarkson who died in the service of his country February 2, 1864.  William Clarkson, another first cousin died  at Camp Dennison, Ohio on May 4^th, 1863 and a John Clarkson, relationship if any, unknown, who enlisted the same day as William died on March 22^nd, 1863 at Nashville.  The Clarkson family paid a heavy price, all fighting for the Union.  It had to be a sad and frightening time, especially for a little girl.

Margaret’s father, Samuel served for 2 years and 2 months, but became very sick with pneumonia and bronchitis.  He nearly died, and was dismissed in May 1865 when it appeared he would not recover.  Samuel returned home, but his service records show that he was ill for the duration of his life and died of bronchitis or pneumonia resulting from his Civil War service in 1876.  He was never physically able to support his family following the war and the family struggled, along with Samuel’s elderly parents and children, to maintain the family farm.

In September 1868, Samuel Clarkson was excluded from Rob Camp church for getting drunk and not being willing to make acknowledgement.  In other words, he refused to fess up and apologize publicly.  However, his family is still clearly very closely associated with the church, because his wife, mother and father, along with his daughter, Margaret, are all on a list of people who were dismissed from Rob Camp church in 1869 for the purpose of forming Mt. Zion Church.

The 1870 census misspells the surname as Caxton, even though living next door is Fairwik Claxton, Margaret’s grandfather.

In or about 1873, Margaret married Joseph B. “Dode” Bolton, the son of a family who attended the same church that her family did, according to Mount Zion Baptist Church records.  The Bolton family was also near neighbors on Powell River.

Their first child, Ollie, my grandmother, was born on May 5^th, 1874 and in June of 1876, their first son, Charles Tipton Bolton was born.

On December 5, 1876, with two small children on a cold, bleak day, Margaret buried her father, Samuel (not Saluel, no matter what the headstone says) Clarkson, here in the Clarkson family cemetery, beside her grandparents and in all likelihood, her great-grandparents as well, although their graves are unmarked.  We know that Nancy Workman Muncy, Margaret’s great-grandmother, in the 1860 census, at age 99, was living with her daughter and husband, Agnes Muncy Clarkson and Fairwick Clarkson, so she is assuredly buried here as well as Fairwick’s mother, Sarah Cook Clarkson who died in 1863.

Margaret would have stood in this cemetery two years earlier too, probably beside this exact same barn, in February 1874, heavily pregnant with my grandmother Ollie when her grandfather, Fairwix Clarkson died and was buried here.  The cemetery is called the Cavin Cemetery today, but it’s really the original Clarkson cemetery.

In May of 1876, Margaret (often spelled Margret in the church records) and Joseph Bolton were among the 18 people listed as founders of the Little Mulberry Church in Hancock County.

In 1877, in the Rob Camp Church minutes, Margaret’s two sisters, Clementine and Catharine are baptized with a group of other people, probably during or following a revival.  However, in July 1880, Clementine is cited and then excluded by the church for the horrible infraction of…..dancing.  Now, I bet that was the talk of the neighborhood!!!

But Clementine is not alone.  In 1879, and again in 1887, Joseph Bolton is in trouble at Mt. Zion for drinking and swearing, so they apparently did not remain members at Little Mulberry long.

In 1880, Margaret and Joseph appear to be farming Joseph’s mother’s Herrell land in Hancock County, near the Clarkson land on near the Powell River.  They have three children.

Hancock County was actually a rather small community of sparsely populated mountain valleys.  Word traveled much faster than one would think.  In 1885, the Hancock County courthouse burned.  That must have been the talk of the county for months.  Goodspeed’s History in 1886 says that all records were burned and there were no plans “of yet” to replace the courthouse.  In 1930, the new courthouse burned as well.  Amazingly, some records do remain, mostly chancery suits after the first fire.

The 1890 census is missing of course, but we know that in 1892, Joseph Bolton’s mother had died and the heirs conveyed her land, so it’s very unlikely that Joseph continued to farm that land.

In the 1900 census, Margaret and Joseph appear to have moved as they are found in the 8^th District and in 1910, they reportedly live on Back Valley Road as detailed in the article about Samuel Bolton, their son killed in WWI.

In 1907, Margaret’s mother, Elizabeth “Bettie” Speaks Clarkson, died on the old Clarkson home place at 75 years of age.  She outlived her husband by 31 years and never remarried.

This is the only family picture known of Bettie Speaks. It’s thought to have been taken about 1896 and it’s possible that Margaret Clarkson Bolton is in this photo.  If so, she would be the eldest child, possibly the person to the furthest left in the middle row or the furthest right in the rear.  Bettie Speaks is in the center of the middle row in the black dress.  If anyone can further identify these people, I’d surely appreciate it!

Margaret Clarkson and Joseph Dode Bolton had 11 children from 1874-1897, of which, at least 2 died young.  They could be buried in the Clarkson cemetery.

1. Ollie Florence Bolton, my grandmother, born May 5, 1874 in Hoop Creek, Hancock County, died April 9, 1955 in Chicago, Illinois. She married William George Estes in 1893, later divorcing about 1915.
2. Charles Tipton Bolton born June 30, 1876, died before 1953, enrolled for the WWI Draft in Sonora, Washington Co., AK, listed his father as J.B. Bolton in Hoop, TN.
3. Elizabeth Bolton born 1879, married E.C. Baker Dec. 20, 1901 in Claiborne Co., died before 1953.  Note:  A family member who personally knew and was friends with “Lizzie” Bolton who was married to E.C. Baker tells me that she was unquestionably the daughter of Daniel Marson Bolton.  So the Joseph’s daughter, Elizabeth, married someone else.
4. Dudley Hickham Bolton born March 21, 1881, registered for the draft in Hoop, Hancock Co. TN for WWI, married to Tilda, died before 1953.
5. Dalsey Edgar Bolton born July 26, 1883, died Nov. 9, 1946, El Paso, Texas from a broken back in an auto accident in New Mexico, wife Jennie in 1940 census.
6. Ida Ann Bolton born May 30, 1886 married Gilbert Scott Saylor, lived in London, KY, taught school, no children, died June 7, 1953 of breast cancer, buried in the Plank Cemetery.
7. Mary Lee Bolton born June 21,1888 married Tip Richmond Sumpter, died Sept. 25, 1935 in Illinois, buried Brush Creek Cemetery, Divernon, IL.
8. Estle Vernon Bolton born December 4, 1890, died December 1971, Truth or Consequences, Sierra Co., NM.
9. Cerenia Elizabeth “Lizzie” Bolton, died young, before the 1900 census.
10. Samuel Estwell H. Bolton born June 12, 1894, died October 8, 1918, France, a casualty of WWI, buried in the Plank Cemetery, Claiborne Co., TN.
11. Henry Bolton born May 1897, probably died before 1910 as not in census.

Of these children, only two females lived to have children, other than Ollie.  Ollie has no living descendants who carry her mitochondrial DNA.  I have a DNA testing scholarship for anyone, male or female, who descends from either daughter, Elizabeth or Mary Lee through all females to the current generation.  Mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to all of their children, but only females pass it on.  Margaret’s mitochondrial DNA would tell us a great deal about her ancestry.

Land

We only know of one parcel of land that was actually owned by Margaret Clarkson and Joseph Bolton.

On March 31^st, 1902, a deed was filed in Hancock County by and between S.F. Clarkson who was appointed administrator of the estate of Fernando Clarkson deceased, late of Hancock Co., Tn. by the county of Hancock on Dec. 11, 1900 and Joseph Bolton of Hancock Co., stating:  On July 30, 1896 Fernando Clarkson decd did sell to Joseph Bolton a certain tract of land and execute him a title for the said tract of land lying and being in the 8th civil district of Hancock Co and on the Sulphur Fork of Mulberry Creek and bounded as follows: with L. Overtons line to G. Overtons line and thence east with G Overton’s line to a conditional line between Thomas Reed and Bolton and then with a conditional line in H.S. Fugates line to a small oak on the top of Wallen’s ridge with H.E. Fugate and E. Overton’s line.  S.F. Clarkson does now convey to Bolton together with the right of way for a road through the land now held by Thomas Reed. Signed by S.F. Clarkson and witnessed by R.L. Parkey and Ollie Parkey.

As you can see on the map below, Sulphur Hollow connects directly with Hoop Creek Road to the southwest and to Mulberry Creek to the northeast which follows 63 and then dumps directly in the Powell River.

If you look carefully at the map below, you can clearly see the loop of “Slanting Misery” at the top of the map.  The Clarkson land is just to the right of where Mulberry Creek empties into Powell River, so Joseph Bolton and Margaret Clarkson Bolton moved about a mile from the land where she was born.

You can see in this satellite view that this land is quite mountainous.  On the map below, you can see the original Clarkson land where the cemetery is located at the red arrow.

It’s uncertain whether Margaret and Joseph owned land in 1918 when their son died, or in 1920 when both Margaret and Joseph died of the flu.  Typically, if people owned land, they would be buried in a family cemetery on their own land.  I did not find a deed for the sale of their land in Sulphur Hollow, and it’s possible that their residence in Back Valley and Hoop Creek was actually this same land, but we don’t know for sure.

Passing Over

Margaret and Joseph both died in 1920, within days of each other, during the last part of the Spanish flu epidemic that began in 1918.  Family rumor was that he died and the family put the body in the barn or woodshed and waited for her to die before burying both of them.  According to Joseph’s death certificate, he was buried relatively quickly, so the “double funeral” rumor, although quite romantic, isn’t true.

Margaret is buried beside Joseph Bolton in the Plank Cemetery, in Claiborne County, just across the county line from Hancock County, where Joseph’s father is also buried as well as their son, Samuel, who died in 1918.

There are many unmarked graves in the Plank cemetery.

A Good Story

Recently, someone commented that these articles make “it sound so easy.”  What sounds easy?  Everything about genealogy – especially finding ancestor’s graves and land.  That’s because it’s only the success stories that I’m sharing.  What you see is what I found, positively, about these ancestors – over a cumulative 35 years of research.

What you don’t see are the complete bombs, near misses and unproductive research trips, and let me tell you, there were many.  But even those misadventures have redeeming qualities.  I want to share one wonderful, but not terribly genealogically successful, trip to Claiborne and Hancock County in the 1990s when I met Mary Parkey, a woman who is very likely a cousin, who graciously agreed to show me around.  How I wish we could test Mary’s DNA to confirm that cousin theory.

Without Mary, I would never have found these locations.  This terrain is beautiful, but confusing and inhospitable and I am constantly lost there, even with a map.  We didn’t have GPS then, but GPS doesn’t work today because in many places the mountains are too steep for the GPS to see their satellites.  Cell phones don’t work either.

Sadly, Mary perished in the fire when her home burned on March 9, 2000.  Along with Mary, all of the genealogical records and holdings of the Claiborne County Historical Society perished as well.

Mary and I found Clarkson burials and land.  They were related, cousins, just not MY ANCESTORS, which is who I wanted to find.  So close, literally, but so far away.  So, come on along with Mary and me on our great adventure in 1992!

Roberta and Mary’s Great Adventure

In 1992, during my last research visit to Claiborne County prior to Mary Parkey’s death, Mary and I had a great adventure, which I am recording here as a fond memory, although at the time, parts of it were really pretty frightening.  Genealogy is always full of adventures of one sort or another but these were, well, unique.

I had recently purchased a small red car, a Chrysler Sundance prior to my visit.  I had decided to drive the smaller Sundance instead of my larger mini-van with higher clearance due to the Sundance’s increased gas mileage.  Mary and I visited many graveyards, and in at least one, we needed both a tractor and Boyd Manning to gain entrance to the Clarkson cemetery behind his house and through his pasture.

Mary indicated that she knew where there was either an old Herrell house or a graveyard, or both.  Much of the area we were traversing was very remote, to the point where if you got lost, it might be days until someone found you.  We started down a long one-track path, and clunk, my car bottomed out on a hidden rock in a large puddle, and we couldn’t go anyplace. We were stuck, like a turtle on a post.  No amount of pushing or pulling would help, so we decided in our infinite wisdom to just walk on down the hill toward the Powell River to wherever it was she thought we should visit.

This is Mary beside the area where we were stuck. Powell River was at the bottom of the hill.

Upon turning the corner at the bottom of the hill, we were stuck by two things.  First, the beauty of the river, still untamed and wild after centuries.  There is simply no place more beautiful than Appalachia in the springtime.

Peeking at the Powell River through the leaves budding.

The mountains the beautiful pink flowers.

However, turning to look the other way, we were greeted with quite another sight.

Upon investigating this further, I decided to approach and knock on the door, until I saw the skull.  What you can only see the edge of is a huge pile of beer cans in the lower right spilling into the driveway.  This pile was probably the size of a full sized van.  I don’t think this was quite what Mary, a never-married devoutly religious reverend’s daughter, had in mind.  She looked horrified.  Seeing the look on her face, I knew we were in trouble.

After really taking stock of things, this place seemed rather unfriendly and somewhat inhospitable, to put it mildly, and Mary and I decided to leave very quickly, and hike back up the hill.  However, given that our vehicle was in fact blocking the only exit (or entrance) to this location, and we didn’t really want to meet the residents, we had to figure out how to obtain help quickly.  This was before the days of cell phones, and even today, more than 20 years later, cell coverage in the mountains of Tennessee is spotty at best, and this kind of steep terrain is not a good candidate for any reception.  So we started walking on the “main” road which was at least paved.

No one passed us, and several minutes later we came across an orange truck with someone sleeping in it.  We discussed what to do, so we decided to make noise.  No luck.  So we knocked on the window of the truck.  No luck.  So finally we opened the door and woke the poor guy up.  He was scared half out of his wits.

We told him we were stuck and needed to be pulled off of the rock.  He told us that he wasn’t allowed to do that.  We asked if he was allowed to sleep on the job.  That nice gentleman decided to help us after all and here is the photo of the truck and the car after we were pulled out of the large puddle.  But guess who got to crawl under the car in the mud to attach the tow chain.  Well, it certainly wasn’t him.  However, we were grateful for the help regardless.  We figured it beat the heck out of waiting for the residents of the house to return.

My family hadn’t been interested in coming along on this genealogy adventure.  I told them over and over how much I loved the mountains, and they knew well that I’d love to live there, but didn’t because I couldn’t make a living.

One of the areas that we had to traverse to visit the old Clarkson cemetery behind Boyd Mannings took us through a gully that held an old log cabin.  I don’t know who originally owned this cabin, but it could well have been one of our Clarkson family members who owned the land adjoining the Manning (Mannon) land.  One thing is for sure, certainly our family visited there, as everyone visited all the neighbors in those days.  E. H. Clarkson, who is buried in the cemetery on this land was one of the founding members of the Mt. Zion Church which is also very close by.  This was likely his land.

Mary said the current owners had purchased a mobile home and moved “up the holler”, meaning in this case more near to the road.  However, when they left, it was like the cabin in the hollow was suspended in time.  We went inside as there were no locks and the doors weren’t shut, and mason jars lines the shelves, tattered curtains hung on the windows – time just stopped there many years before.  I could well imagine the voices of generations of children when the cabin wasn’t old – children who had long ago died after living long lives and were in fact buried with their parents and grandparents in the graveyard watching over the house like a silent sentinel from the bluffs above.

As we approached this dwelling, I was struck by the realization of how difficult the lives of those who lived here must have been.

Mary and I couldn’t imagine how one could ever get a car into this hollow, let alone back out again.  Maybe they couldn’t which is why there were so many car carcasses abandoned here.

I find old cabins fascinating, and I surely wish this one had been more accessible to a road.  Looking at this building closely, we see the evidence of good years and bad years.  The good years are marked in time by the addition of rooms.  Look at the logs whose ends are protruding half way through the house. This surely looks like the house was built in at least two distinct sections.

Take a look at the elopement door on the second floor in the above photo.  Family history tells us that one of our McNiel ancestors eloped out a door like this with her beau, but not this house or these families.  At least, I don’t think so….

The other end shows evidence of mudding.  This could be a third addition, or the original logs were in such poor condition that they simply tried to mud over the entire end of the structure.  Watch that step though, it’s a doosie.

This family was fortunate.  Their water source, a nice spring, emerged from a small cave and was still running into a little collection pond close by.  This fresh spring would have made this location a prime piece of real estate to original settlers.

If I closed my eyes, I could hear the children running with their buckets to the spring to fetch the water.  I could also see the forlorn folks in the winter when times were cold and when sadness visited with the deaths of children, lovingly washed, then taken up the hill to rest forever.  Trips to the well were not always happy events.

In later years, they would bring water for the many washing machines strewn about the place.  Clearly getting things into the holler was so difficult that there was never a need to remove them. Wash was done outside under a somewhat protected area with 3 or 4 tubs.

There was evidence of outside cooking as well.  A summer kitchen was probably used when possible.

I’m sure when this laundry arrangement was achieved, that some woman that I am probably related to was exceedingly happy and quite the envy of her neighbors with her outside laundry and tubs.  No longer did she have to go to the spring or scrub on a washboard in a tub.  Quite a modern convenience.  Again, closing my eyes, I can hear her husband bringing home a labor saving device, relieving her aching back.  Women then had to do laundry, literally, by hand, for their families which might consist of a dozen or more people plus extended relations.  Yes, he would have been a very popular fellow.

Everywhere we looked were the remnants of the testimony of the hard lives people lived. However, with another glance, was also the beauty in which they lived.  Nothing is free – they sacrificed for this right.  I understood with clarity why my family had always been drawn back to this place of stark beauty, charming, enchanting, captivating.  It had captured my heart.  I would return again and again to these hills to find my ancestors, to find myself, to find my past.

The graveyard was large and may have serviced several families who lived close by.  Many unmarked graves lie under plain field stones, in fact, most weren’t marked by name, but everyone knew who was buried where.  People married their neighbors, so everyone was related in one way or another, just a large extended family.

They feuded like family too, the records of which are in the chancery suits of Hancock County.  After Fairwick Clarkson died, his children fought over his land, some even changing their names.  Some were buried on the old home place with him, others were buried here after moving on, off of the original Clarkson land.  The people buried here are the descendants of Henry Clarkson, Fairwick’s brother, who died in his early 20s.

Regardless, this silent sentinel is not telling the secrets of the decades and now centuries of lives it has watched from these stony bluffs.  The only hints are given by the very worn names on the gravestones, and some of them are now speaking so softly we can no longer hear their voices.

Folks then and some now actively visited the graves of their loved ones and conversed with them.  One of the houses in this cemetery holds the grave of Flossie Akers who died young, probably in child birth or of complications.  Her family built a small gravehouse, enclosed her stone, added her photo which was unheard of in that day and time.  They furnished the house with a table, 2 chairs, curtains, decorations including a vase with flowers on the table, and other homelike accoutrements that make it seems like someone just stepped away and never happened back.

Flossie Akers grave house, above and below.

Locals tell of the family coming here with picnics to visit with Flossie as long as they lived.  Grave houses were not unusual in this community, especially in the Melungeon familys, but this is the only one in this cemetery.

This grave house had a window, curtains, and a door to keep the elements at bay.  Flossie’s stone is inside.

I have never seen a photo on a stone this old before, nor in an impoverished area.

Flossie was a Minter before her marriage.  Her mother was Martha Clementine Claxton or Clarkson who had married Vig Minter.  Martha was the daughter of Edward Hilton (E.H.) Claxton/Clarkson and Mary Marlene Martin, the daughter of Margaret Herrell and Anson Cook Martin.  Margaret Herrell Martin was the second wife of Joseph Preston Bolton.  Edward Hilton Claxton/Clarkson was the son of Henry Claxton and Martha Walker.  Henry was the son of James Lee Claxton/Clarkson.  After Henry died, Martha married Henry’s brother’s son, William.  Are you confused yet?  So am I.  Welcome to my world of Appalachian endogamy where your family tree looks more like a vine!

So, to figure this all out a little more clearly.  Flossie was related to both Joseph “Dode” Bolton and his wife.  Flossie was Joseph’s half-sister’s granddaughter.  Flossie was also the first cousin twice removed from Margaret Clarkson Bolton, Joseph’s wife.  Intertwined relationships like this are very common among the mountain families.  Both Joseph and Margaret would have stood beside her grave, weeping at her young life gone.

Flossie was 22 when she died in 1915, so the tradition of gravehouses and regularly visiting them was still practiced for some time after her death.  People living in 1992 remembered those cemetery visits.  The furniture in the house was old but not unusable in 1992.  Flossie had lots of Clarkson company in that cemetery.

Flora Clarkson is the granddaughter of Martha Walker through her second Clarkson marriage to William “Billy” Clarkson.

This Clarkson cemetery is full of my family, for as far as I could see, my cousins, although not my direct ancestors who, we would discover years later, are buried in a different cemetery a mile or so up the road.  The earliest marked burials here  E. H. (Edward Hilton) Clarkson and his wife, Mary Martin Clarkson, founders, along with the Bolton family, in 1869, of the Mt. Zion Baptist church nearby.

As always, I have very mixed emotions in old graveyards.  While I’m thrilled to find my relatives, I’m also struck with the sadness of those who have buried loved ones over the years, of deaths too young, of wars and ambushes, of slaves and Indians being forced to leave their land and families, of children leaving their parents, and parents leaving their children.  I am left with a feeling of awe, of reverence, of being allowed to visit a sacred space.  I am always somehow a little amazed that my own flesh and blood is here.  I believe my ancestors accompany me on these adventures, pointing the way sometimes, but others, acting as the trickster.  I can tell my ancestors had quite a sense of humor.  As long as we remember them, our ancestors live.

As I look up after my silent prayers for them, whispered thankfulness for being allowed to find them, I am once again greeted with the spring-kissed beauty, contrasted with barrenness.  It was spring and the land was coming back to life after a well-deserved rest.

I know that I will forever be drawn back here, like a moth to the flame.  I have found what is me.

Upon my return home to Michigan, I shared my experiences with my family whose reactions ranged from complete apathy (teenage son), utter horror (former husband) to mild amusement (grade school daughter).  No one but me thought of it as a great adventure, and certainly, no one wanted to repeat it with me. I tried to convince them of the things that call and pull to me from this land, but they were hearing none of it.  They ignored me.

Finally, in utter exasperation, I pulled out the photos of this long abandoned cabin in the hollow with the wash stations and the elderly cars, spread them out like a big fan on the kitchen table.  I then announced with my best Southern belle drawl, starting with a very slow, “Weellllllll…..”, hands firmly on my hips and a smile on my lips that I had a surprise for everyone…….that I had in fact purchased this ancestral home site and we were moving.

The silence was absolutely deafening, the stares astounded.  Given my love for this land, I truly think they believed me, and had it not been for other circumstances involving my husband’s health, I could have milked this for a good long time.  Suddenly instead of worrying about who was going to get to watch TV, they were worried about who had to do the laundry in the outside tubs, if we’d have electricity and more important yet, a phone, and who had to fetch the water.  These were not the joyful children of my musings I might add.  In fact these children weren’t joyful at all.  Oh, this prank was good, so good, while it lasted.  Sadly, it was just that, a prank.  I didn’t buy the house and there was no cabin in the mountains to call my own that my ancestors had called theirs.

However, in the end, what children are infused with in their youth, they carry with them at some microscopic level, like seeds waiting for the perfect spring moment to sprout.  It would be another 20 years before my daughter would return with me as an adult, herself infected with the love of the mountains and hills, and would ask me, “Mom, where is that cabin and do you think it’s still for sale?

Elizabeth Day, her married name, was my 7th great-grandmother.

• Roberta Estes
• William Sterling Estes
• William George Estes and Ollie Bolton
• Lazarus Estes and Elizabeth Vannoy
• Joel Vannoy and Phoebe Crumley
• Elijah Vannoy and Lois McNiel
• William McNiel and Elizabeth Shepherd
• Robert Shepherd and Sarah Rash
• George Shepherd and Elizabeth Mary Angelique Day(e)
• Thomas Day (1651-1706) and Elizabeth (murdered 1699), last name unknown

We don’t know Elizabeth’s surname, nor do we know when she was born, nor where, although probably in Virginia.  We don’t know exactly when she married Thomas Day, but it was sometime after 1687 and before 1698.  She had one child before her death in early 1699.  It’s her death that we know the most about.

Elizabeth was murdered, horrifically murdered, beaten to death, very likely at the hands of her husband, Thomas Day.  And we only discovered this terrible fact, some 314 years after it happened.  Talk about a well-kept family secret.

Thomas Day was born about 1651 in Rappahannock, Virginia and died in 1706 in Essex County, VA.  Daughter, Elizabeth Mary Angelica Day, believed to be the only child of Thomas and Elizabeth, per his will, married George Shepherd about 1725.  They lived in Spotsylvania County, Virginia.  Their son, Robert would marry Sarah Rash and they would settle in Wilkes County, beginning the Shepherd line in western NC.

In 1676, Thomas Day married widow Dorothy Young Hudson in Old Rappahannock County, Virginia. Dorothy was the daughter of Robert and Anne Parry Young. Dorothy (b. ca. 1646, d. bef. 1698) was the widow of Edward Hudson with whom she had three children: Serania/Lurana, Anne, and William.

Early records show that Thomas Day purchased land from William Hudson and wife Rebecca Woodnut Hudson located in Essex County, Virginia in 1687. He also purchased 189 acres in Essex County, Virginia from a John Brookes in 1693.

Before 1698, Thomas married a second time to Elizabeth. Thomas and Elizabeth had one daughter, Elizabeth Mary Angelica Day, born between 1687 and 1699.  I suspect her birth was closer to the 1698 timeframe, because her eventual husband was born around 1700.

Thomas Indicted

Thomas Day was indicted for the murder of his wife, Elizabeth, in 1699. Exactly what transpired concerning this event is not completely clear.

According to recorded testimony, it appears that a neighbor, Mary Hodges, visited the Day home and found Elizabeth Day’s dead body lying on a bed. She had been severely beaten, and Thomas Day also had wounds on his face. Thomas Day said his wife died about two hours before sunrise, but he did not know what had happened to her. He told Hodges that his facial wounds resulted from hitting his head over a “potrack.” A jury indicted Day for the murder of his wife, but he was acquitted. A man named John Smith was later found guilty of Elizabeth’s murder and was executed.

Nothing is recorded concerning Smith’s relation to the Day’s or his motive–only that he was found guilty and executed (presumably hanged).

Testimony concerning this case follows:

Essex Co., VA Deeds and Wills BK 10, Part 1, 1699-1702; page 31A; 10 Feb 1699;

The deposition of Judith Davy aged 27 years or thereabout, being Examd and swoorn saith that upon ye 9th of this instant and going to ye house of Tho. Days of Ffarnham in ye Essex County at ye request of Mary Hodge, her neighbour and seeing ye Days wife lying dead upon ye bed in a most horrod and barborey mannor all gored in blood this depo. asked him how his wife cam to be in that condition who mad answer he know not. Thy Depot. further asked him if he and his wife had been quarrelling who replyed that he and his wife had not had an angry word this many a day also they Depot further asked him if anybody had been lately thoto who answered nither did he see anhbody also they Depot. asked him how he burned his eyes who replyed again ye pott rack and being asked a little while after by this depot. how he hurt himself he answered the Lord Knows, I know not and this Depot. saith furthor that ye Sd. Tho. Day had then and at the same time his face and eyes most greviously bruised and further saith not.

Judith Davy

Sworne before me ye Day and yeare above written; Rich’d. Covington

The deposition of Elizabeth Aeres, aged thirty-eight years or thereabout, being Examined and Sworne saith that upon the ninth of this instant that going to the house of Tho. Daye of Ffarnham parrish in Essex County at the request of Mary Hodge, he neighbour and seeing the sd. Days wife lying dead upon the bed in a most horrod and barboriy mannor all Gored in Blood thy deponent asked him how his wife came to lie in that condition who made answer he knew not this Depo’t further asked him if he and his wife had been quarrelling who replyed that he and his wife had not had an angry word this many day also thy depont. further asked him if anybody had been lately there who answered no neither did he see anybody also this dDepont. asked him how he hurt his Eyes who replyed against the potrack and being asked a little while after by thy depont’ how he hurt himself he answered the Lord knows I know not and thy Depont saith further if the sd. Thomas Daye had then at the same time his face and eyes most greviously brused with severall wound and bruses upon his head and further saith not.

Elizabeth Aeres

Sworn before me the day and yeare above written By me Rich’d Covington in ye Place of A Coroner

The Deposition of Mary Hodges aged seaventy five yeares or thereabouts being Examined and Sworne saith that upon the ninth of this Instant coming from the house of Mr. Tho. Covingtons and going to Tho. Days of Ffarnham Parish in Essex County seeing the sd. Day setting upon a counch by the fire seemed melancholy asked him how he did who answered he did not know his face and eyes being most greviously brused he presently after tould me that his wife was dead. Your Depot asked him how she came to die who presently replyed she died about two houres before day of morning. Your depot further asked him how his face came to be in that condition who tould me he cut it against the potrack that was over the fire upon which I went to the woman, his wife as she lay on the bed and found her dead your depont. seeing her lying in a most horrod and barborous manor all gored in blood upon….Your depont. took Days wife by one of her shoose which was upon her foot and found her legg to be somewhat limber and the sd. Day requesting her to strip her dead body I told him I may not able of myself to perform it and further told him I would goe for more assistance and call of Judith Davy my daughter in law and Elizabeth Aeres which accordingly I did and ye depont. further saith not.

Mary Hodges

Sworn before me the day and yeare above written. Rich’d Covington in Place of Coronor.

An Inquisition

An Inquisition….taken at ye house of Thomas Dayes in Ffarnham Parish in Essex County ye 10 day of February in ye yeare 1699 before me. Rich’d Covington one of his Majesties Justices of ye Peace for ye County of Essex upon view of the body of Elizabeth day ye wife of Thomas Day….then and there lying dead and ye Jurors being good and lawfull men and Sworne to trye and inquire in ye behalfe of our Sovereigne Lord & King how and in what manner ye Eliza Day came by her death and they upon their oath say that ye Elizabeth Day was much beaten and bruised with both her eyes exstreem black with many other bruses on her face and bruise on her right eare and a hole underneath ye smae eare and we of the juror say..ye cause of ye sd. Eliza Days death and wee of ye Jurors further say that Tho. Day at ye same time was much brused and beaten having both his Eyes Extreemly brused and black several cuts in his head and further upon his Examination would not confess anything how Elizabeth his wife came by them blows and wounds now how he came to be soo beaten himself so we Jurors say that in ye parish and county aforsd and on the eight or ninth of this instant to wit: in ye dwelling house of ye sd. Tho. Day that ye Sd. Eliza. Day was barbarously murdered and by all manner of Circumstances we can find or gather that ye aforesaid Thom. Day is Guilty of ye murdering ye said Elizabeth Day. In Reffereance to ye Same I Rich’d Covington as afforsd togeather with the jurory aforsd: have put our hands and seales ye day and date above written.

Richard Covington in ye Place of Coronor

Sam. Farry, Tho. Ewell, Henry Perkins, Richd. Taylor, Tho. Crants, Tho. Johnsone, Tho. Greene, Wm. Price, Sam. Coates, John Brooks, Tho. Cooper, Henry Geare, Jeffrey Dyer, Tho. Williamson February 10, 1699.

Thomas Day of Essex Co., VA was charged with murdering his wife Elizabeth Day. He was acquitted in the Aprill Generall Court 1700.

Subsequently, John Smith was found guilty of murdering Elizabeth Day and was executed. October Generall Court 1700.

Thomas Day’s Death

Thomas Day didn’t live long himself.  He was ill when he made his will.  It’s unclear who his daughter lived with after his wife’s death and after his death as well.  It’s presumed that he had only the one child because no other children are known or mentioned in the will.

Thomas Day died between December 5, 1705 (the date of his will) and February 11, 1706 (when his will was probated), ironicly, possibly 7 years to the day after his wife’s death. At the writing of his will, an ailing Thomas Day had placed himself and his daughter Elizabeth (still a minor) in the care of John Fargason.

Reflecting

I can’t even begin to imagine how or why Thomas Day was acquitted of Elizabeth’s death.  Looking at the depositions, some 300+ years removed, it appears obvious and nearly conclusive that Thomas murdered Elizabeth.  Maybe that’s because today we understand much better the profile of wife abusers.

Perhaps research into the life and social standing of Thomas Day might reveal more information and shed more light on this situation.  Records in the Virginia archives might contain more information as well.

I find it extremely hard to believe that Thomas did not murder his wife.  In fact, how could he NOT have been the murderer, given the circumstances?  The description of her wounds, the severity and the continuous beating that had to have occurred in order to inflict those grave wounds would have been unlikely to have been inflicted by someone simply wanting to get her out of the way, like for a robbery.  Those are wounds of passion, of anger, and it looks like she put up a hellatious fight as well – literally, fighting for her life.  Sadly, a battle she did not win.  Thomas had obviously been in a fight as his own face and eyes were bruised.  This was a crime of passion.  Added to that was the fact that Thomas’s wife had died in the night, and he had not sought assistance from anyone.  He was found sitting on the couch by the fireplace hours after she died.  If he had found her bloody and beaten, he would have gone for help, but he didn’t.  Instead, he watched her die and left her lying on the bed in a pool of her own blood for the neighbor to find in the morning, stating that he didn’t know what happened.

Even if Thomas didn’t directly murder Elizabeth, meaning that a stranger broke in, beat them both, killed Elizabeth but not Thomas, and left the house – Thomas still has some culpability for Elizabeth’s death, since he was clearly conscious and knew when she died, according to what he told 3 separate witnesses.  So he wasn’t asleep or unaware, yet he did nothing before she died to try to help her.  He clearly knew she was badly injured.  Had she survived, she surely would have named him as the person who beat her.  Nor was Thomas distraught by her death.  There was no sobbing at her bedside.

So Thomas Day not only killed his wife, he is also responsible for the death of John Smith in 1700 who was hung for Elizabeth’s murder.  In essence, if Thomas murdered Elizabeth, he murdered John Smith too.  All of this makes me wonder how his first wife died, assuming that his first marriage ended with his wife’s death.

Chances are that Thomas and Elizabeth’s child, Elizabeth Mary Angelica Day, never knew her mother, for whom she was named, or was too small to remember her.  She may well have been in the house when her father murdered her mother, and depending on her age at the time, might well remember the event.  She could also have been an infant.  If she was, then she likely didn’t remember either her mother or her father very well as he died just a few years later, in 1706, as an invalid.  Somehow Thomas’s death not long after Elizabeth’s seems like karmic justice.  If he did in fact murder Elizabeth, we can wish him a long and miserable death, dreading and fearing his own passing, knowing that he would face sure and certain retribution for his actions in the court of ultimate truth.  There is no other justice to be wrought for Elizabeth – none.

As she grew up, Elizabeth, the daughter, would have known that her mother was murdered, and even though her father was acquitted, she surely would have known about the circumstances surrounding her mother’s death.  People talk.

When she married George Shepherd about 1727, she may have been all too happy to leave the Essex County area and settle in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, striking out for a new location where she could leave the past behind.  In essence, she had been raised an orphan under the storm cloud of her mother’s terrible death and her father’s inferred guilt.

How her mother’s death must have haunted her.  To lose your mother is bad enough, but to know she died horrifically, and possibly, or probably, at the hands of your own father, is an unspeakable burden for anyone, let alone a child.  How could she embrace the memory of her father who took her mother from her?  In essence, she lost both parents when her mother died, and her father again at his own death.  Of course, it’s also possible that whoever raised her shielded her from the truth, and perhaps that is why this story never descended through the family.  Maybe Elizabeth never knew the extent of her father’s involvement.  Maybe she never knew the terrible truth about how her mother died.

Elizabeth’s DNA

Elizabeth’s one daughter, Elizabeth had two daughters.  We don’t know much about either of them.

Ann Shepherd was born about 1737 in Spotsylvania County and is reported, by some, to have married a Benjamin Holliday or Holloway.

Elizabeth Shepherd was born about 1745 in Spotsylvania County and married Gabriel Shelton.

I have a DNA scholarship for anyone descended from either of these women to the current generation through all women.  The current generation can be either male or female, because women contribute their mitochondrial DNA to all of their children, but only the females pass it on.

I’d love nothing more than to honor Elizabeth by telling more of her story held in her DNA.

Honoring Elizabeth

I wanted to find a way to honor Elizabeth Day.  Regardless of who killed her, she was certainly, unquestionably, a victim.  Her life was taken from her in a most heinous way.

I must admit that it bothers me that some of Thomas Day is in me, even though it is only .39%.  I would still probably carry at least some of his actual DNA, likely about 3,000 of the 700,000 autosomal SNPs tested at Family Tree DNA.  Maybe that explains a bit of my flash temper.

Death or abuse at the hands of one who is supposed to love and protect you is the ultimate betrayal, second only to a betrayal by a parent I think.  Reading the depositions about her death chilled me to the core, knowing what she probably tolerated day to day before the abuse escalated to the point where he killed her.  It probably wasn’t the first time she had been abused.  I could feel her dread and fear.  Perhaps she couldn’t leave.  Maybe she had no place to go.  We’ll never know.  All we know is the outcome, that she died, horribly.  At some point during that terrible night, she realized that the man she loved, whose child she had borne, was killing her – that indeed, she would die, as consciousness slipped away.  Were her last thoughts wondering what would happen to her defenseless daughter, left through her death to her murderous husband?

This was very difficult for me to read and to deal with.

I posted a query about discovering an ancestor you don’t like to the Cumberland Gap list and we discussed dealing with the emotional aftermath of finding ancestors that you don’t really care for – like Thomas Day, and the horrible knowledge of what he very likely did.  Many of the people who participated in that conversation had examples much more current, such as parents and grandparents.

Someone suggested creating a memorial, a virtual cemetery on Find-A-Grave for Elizabeth so that she is not forgotten and is memorialized.  In addition, someone made the following commentary.

“You are most honest and ethical Roberta!  Each of us, if we shake our family tree long and hard enough, will have a few nuts fall out.  Chuck offered good advice. Honor the victim and realize that while you share some of the same genetics, you are not the abuser. The question of nature/nurture will always loom unanswered. We don’t know what causes one member of a family to do monstrous things and another to be acclaimed in their community for their selfless acts of bravery and/or generosity. Do your best to live in the here and now and enjoy this moment. Every shining act that you commit proves the darkness did not win. We can’t change the past but we CAN affect the future.”

That is great advice.

Another person wrote, “We must memorialize if for no one other than ourselves. It is a necessary ritual for all the Pearl Harbors, the Dachaus, Trade Centers, tears, parental betrayals, abandonments and broken promises, the innocent humans of their day and standing insufficiently for each stance of human fragility.  We can raise one in the dancing flame of a candle set near the window, a wish upon a star, or by placing a marker on an unmarked grave—cyber or otherwise We must never lose the trail for the tears.  Darkness is defined by DAY.”  Indeed, in this case, it was.

We can’t bring Elizabeth back and make it possible for her to live out her life.  We can’t restore to her what was taken from her, or her child.  We can’t change the actions or calm the anger of her attacker that night, or mitigate their ripple effect.  We can be aware and wary of the anger issue in our ancestral line, and we can make sure the darkness does not win.

For Elizabeth:

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=114762168

The Virginia research compiled by a cousin at http://www.danielprophecy.com/daye.html.

Thomas Day.  Even his name brings a chill to my bones…now that I know who he is and what he very probably did to Elizabeth, his wife.  Thomas and Elizabeth Day are my 7 times great grandparents.  Thomas very probably murdered Elizabeth, in 1699, in their home in Essex County, Virginia.

Thomas Day was probably born about 1651, probably in old, now extinct, Rappahannock County, Virginia and died in 1706 in Essex County, VA.  Old Rappahannock County was incorporated into Essex County when it was formed in 1692.  If Thomas was not the original immigrant, then his parents likely were, as Jamestown was only settled in 1607 – so we aren’t far from the original settlers.

I recently found these early immigrants in the book “Lists of Emigrants to America 1600-1700″.  Thomas’s father has been reported to be another Thomas, but I have never found any documentation for that.  If anyone has more information about these lines, in particular, the immigrant Thomas, I’d be very grateful.

The names Day and Daye are impossible to tell apart so I’m listing them all.

• Anthony – age 22 to VA on the Ship Pauli July 1635
• Dorothy – age 17 same as above
• Hanna – servant age 20 to New England on the Ship Elizabeth and Ann May 1635
• James – Commander of ship Thomas and Sara, Sept. 18, 1679
• (3 similar entries for James above)
• John – age 16 to Bermados (Bermuda or Barbados?) Sept 1635 ship Dors
• John – living in VA Feb. 16, 1623 at College Land
• John and his wife – in 1620 on the ship London Merchant – also on the Hogg Doland muster
• John – in the Sumner Islands
• Robert – age 30, April 3, 1635 to New England on the ship Hopewell
• Samuel – listed in index but could not find entry
• Thomas – listed as “Poor” in Barbados
• Thomas Dayes – age 20, 1634 to Barbados
• Mary – age 28, see Robert
• Richard – age 32, to VA May 1635 ship Plaine Joan
• Robert – age 30, April 1634 to Ipswich on the ship Elizabeth

In 1676, Thomas Day married widow Dorothy Young Hudson in Old Rappahannock County, Virginia. Dorothy was the daughter of Robert and Anne Parry Young. Dorothy (born circa 1646, died before 1698) was the widow of Edward Hudson with whom she had three children: Serania/Lurana, Anne, and William. The following is reported to be the marriage contract between Thomas Day and Dorothy Young Hudson:

“Know all men by these presents that I Thomas Day of Rappa Planter doe upon consideration of a marriage with Dorothy Hudson as alsoe for and in consideration of a horse received of the said Dorothy hereby engage myselfe my heirs and assigns to buy a mare filly of a yeare old the same to be bought within two years and what female increase comes of the said mare to be equally divided between Laurana, Anne and William Hudson and Mary Bartlet and I do hereby engage that the first two calfes that fall [ends.]“

Early records show that Thomas Day purchased land from William Hudson and wife Rebecca Woodnut Hudson located in Essex County, Virginia in 1687. He also purchased 189 acres in Essex County, Virginia from a John Brookes in 1693.

This 1703 transaction gives us at least a waterway in Essex County.

We find his land on the map below, in the area in gray, in essence between the two orange balloons in Essex County, on Dragon Swamp, also known as Dragon Run.  This was an area where the Indians used to hide.

The Mitchell map, below, drawn in 1751 shows Dragon Swamp.

We know very little about Thomas Day, but we do know what was going on in the region where he lived.

In 1676, the same year that Thomas Day married Dorothy Hudson, Bacon’s Rebellion broke out in this part of Virginia, in fact, Virginia had its own mini-Civil war.  While this sounds “cute,” it was anything but.  Everyone had to choose sides.

In 1676, Nathaniel Bacon and many settlers rebelled against the governor, attacking Native Americans, and eventually burning Jamestown.

You either declared “for” the renegades, or they ransacked your home and maybe worse.

In part, Bacon’s Rebellion was fueled by Bacon’s compulsive, unwielding position that all Indians needed to be attacked and killed.  In addition, the landed class did not like the fact that the governor had signed into law sweeping reforms passed by the House of Burgesses allowing unlanded freemen the right to vote.  Did that apply to Thomas Day?

After passage of these laws, Bacon arrived with 500 followers in Jamestown to demand a commission to lead militia against the Native Americans. The governor, however, refused to yield to the pressure. When Bacon had his men take aim at Berkeley, he responded by “baring his breast” to Bacon and told Bacon to shoot him himself. Seeing that the Governor would not be moved, Bacon then had his men take aim at the assembled burgesses, who quickly granted Bacon his commission. Bacon had earlier been promised a commission before he retired to his estate if he could only be on “good” behavior for two weeks. While Bacon was at Jamestown with his small army, eight colonists were killed on the frontier in Henrico County (where he marched from) due to a lack of manpower on the frontier.

On July 30, 1676, Bacon and his army issued the “Declaration of the People of Virginia“. The declaration criticized Berkeley’s administration in detail. It accused him of levying unfair taxes, appointing friends to high positions, and failing to protect frontier settlers from Indian attack.

Bacon and his men attacked the innocent (and friendly) Pamunkey Indians. The tribe had remained allies of the English throughout other Native American raids. They were supplying warriors to aid the English when Bacon took power.

When Governor Sir William Berkeley refused to march against the Native Americans, farmers gathered around at the report of a new raiding party. Nathaniel Bacon arrived with a quantity of brandy; after it was distributed, he was elected leader. Against Berkeley’s orders, the group struck south until they came to the Occaneechi tribe. After getting the Occaneechi to attack the Susquehannock, Bacon and his men followed by slaughtering most of the men, women, and children at the village.

After months of conflict, Bacon’s forces, numbering 300-500 men, moved to Jamestown. They burned the colonial capital to the ground on September 19, 1676, pictured in the 18^th century drawing, below. Outnumbered, Berkeley retreated across the river.

Eventually, the governor prevailed, but that was not the sure and certain outcome for much of the rebellion and probably would not have been had Bacon not died.

Before an English naval squadron could arrive to aid Berkeley and his forces, Bacon died from dysentery on October 26, 1676. John Ingram took over leadership of the rebellion, but many followers drifted away. The Rebellion did not last long after that. Berkeley launched a series of successful amphibious attacks across the Chesapeake Bay and defeated the rebels. His forces defeated the small pockets of insurgents spread across the Tidewater. Thomas Grantham, a Captain of a ship cruising the York River, used cunning and force to disarm the rebels. He tricked his way into the garrison of the rebellion, and promised to pardon everyone involved once they got back onto the ship. However, once they were safely ensconced in the hold, he trained the ship’s guns on them, and disarmed the rebellion. Through various other tactics, the other rebel garrisons were likewise overcome

The 71-year-old governor Berkeley returned to the burned capital and a looted home at the end of January 1677. His wife described Green Spring in a letter to her cousin:

“It looked like one of those the boys pull down at Shrovetide, and was almost as much to repair as if it had been new to build, and no sign that ever there had been a fence around it…”

Bacon’s wealthy landowning followers returned their loyalty to the Virginia Government after Bacon’s death. Governor Berkeley returned to power. He seized the property of several rebels for the colony and executed 23 men by hanging, including the former governor of the Albemarle Sound colony, William Drummond.

After an investigative committee returned its report to King Charles II, Berkeley was relieved of the governorship, and recalled to England. “The fear of civil war among whites frightened Virginia’s ruling elite, who took steps to consolidate power and improve their image: for example, restoration of property qualifications for voting, reducing taxes and adoption of a more aggressive Indian policy.” Charles II was reported to have commented, “That old fool has put to death more people in that naked country than I did here for the murder of my father.” No record of the king’s comments have been found; the origin of the story appears to have been colonial myth that arose at least 30 years after the events.

Indentured servants both black and white joined the frontier rebellion. Seeing them united in a cause alarmed the ruling class. Historians believe the rebellion hastened the hardening of racial lines associated with slavery, as a way for planters and the colony to control some of the poor.

We don’t know what Thomas Day did or his sentiments during Bacon’s Rebellion, but there wasn’t such a thing in that time and place as someone who was uncommitted or ambivalent.  You were on one side or the other, and if you didn’t decide for yourself, someone would be deciding on your behalf.

Before 1698, Thomas married second to Elizabeth.  We don’t know Elizabeth’s surname, nor do we know when she was born, nor where, although probably in Virginia.  We don’t know exactly when she married Thomas Day, but it was sometime after 1687 and before 1698.  She had one child before her death in early 1699.  It’s her death that we know the most about.  Elizabeth was murdered, horrifically murdered, beaten to death, very likely at the hands of her husband, Thomas Day.  And we only discovered this terrible fact, some 314 years after it happened.  Talk about a well-kept family secret.  You would think if any oral history would survive, this juicy piece would.  Maybe the family was ashamed and didn’t speak of it.  Or maybe it was just too painful.

Elizabeth Mary Angelica Day, believed to be the only child of Thomas and Elizabeth, per his will, born between 1687-1698 (probably closer to the 1698 date), married George Shepherd about 1725.  They lived in Spotsylvania County, Virginia.  Their son, Robert would marry Sarah Rash and they would settle in Wilkes County, beginning the Shepherd line in western NC.

Indicted for Murder

Thomas Day was indicted for the murder of his wife, Elizabeth, in 1699. Exactly what transpired concerning this event is not completely clear – but the depositions from the neighbors are pretty damning.

According to recorded testimony, it appears that a neighbor, Mary Hodges, visited the Day home and found Elizabeth Day’s dead body lying on a bed. She had been severely beaten, and Thomas Day also had wounds on his face. Thomas Day said his wife died about two hours before sunrise, but he did not know what had happened to her. He told Hodges that his facial wounds resulted from hitting his head over a “potrack.” A jury indicted Day for the murder of his wife, but he was acquitted. A man named John Smith was later found guilty of Elizabeth’s murder and was executed.

Nothing is recorded concerning Smith’s relation to the Day’s or his motive–only that he was found guilty and executed (presumably hanged).

Testimony concerning this case follows:

Essex Co., VA Deeds and Wills BK 10, Part 1, 1699-1702; page 31A; 10 Feb 1699;

The deposition of Judith Davy aged 27 years or thereabout, being Examd and swoorn saith that upon ye 9th of this instant and going to ye house of Tho. Days of Ffarnham in ye Essex County at ye request of Mary Hodge, her neighbour and seeing ye Days wife lying dead upon ye bed in a most horrod and barborey mannor all gored in blood this depo. asked him how his wife cam to be in that condition who mad answer he know not. Thy Depot. further asked him if he and his wife had been quarrelling who replyed that he and his wife had not had an angry word this many a day also they Depot further asked him if anybody had been lately thoto who answered nither did he see anhbody also they Depot. asked him how he burned his eyes who replyed again ye pott rack and being asked a little while after by this depot. how he hurt himself he answered the Lord Knows, I know not and this Depot. saith furthor that ye Sd. Tho. Day had then and at the same time his face and eyes most greviously bruised and further saith not.

Judith Davy

Sworne before me ye Day and yeare above written; Rich’d. Covington

The deposition of Elizabeth Aeres, aged thirty-eight years or thereabout, being Examined and Sworne saith that upon the ninth of this instant that going to the house of Tho. Daye of Ffarnham parrish in Essex County at the request of Mary Hodge, he neighbour and seeing the sd. Days wife lying dead upon the bed in a most horrod and barboriy mannor all Gored in Blood thy deponent asked him how his wife came to lie in that condition who made answer he knew not this Depo’t further asked him if he and his wife had been quarrelling who replyed that he and his wife had not had an angry word this many day also thy depont. further asked him if anybody had been lately there who answered no neither did he see anybody also this dDepont. asked him how he hurt his Eyes who replyed against the potrack and being asked a little while after by thy depont’ how he hurt himself he answered the Lord knows I know not and thy Depont saith further if the sd. Thomas Daye had then at the same time his face and eyes most greviously brused with severall wound and bruses upon his head and further saith not.

Elizabeth Aeres

Sworn before me the day and yeare above written By me Rich’d Covington in ye Place of A Coroner

The Deposition of Mary Hodges aged seaventy five yeares or thereabouts being Examined and Sworne saith that upon the ninth of this Instant coming from the house of Mr. Tho. Covingtons and going to Tho. Days of Ffarnham Parish in Essex County seeing the sd. Day setting upon a counch by the fire seemed melancholy asked him how he did who answered he did not know his face and eyes being most greviously brused he presently after tould me that his wife was dead. Your Depot asked him how she came to die who presently replyed she died about two houres before day of morning. Your depot further asked him how his face came to be in that condition who tould me he cut it against the potrack that was over the fire upon which I went to the woman, his wife as she lay on the bed and found her dead your depont. seeing her lying in a most horrod and barborous manor all gored in blood upon….Your depont. took Days wife by one of her shoose which was upon her foot and found her legg to be somewhat limber and the sd. Day requesting her to strip her dead body I told him I may not able of myself to perform it and further told him I would goe for more assistance and call of Judith Davy my daughter in law and Elizabeth Aeres which accordingly I did and ye depont. further saith not.

Mary Hodges

Sworn before me the day and yeare above written. Rich’d Covington in Place of Coronor.

The Inquisition

An Inquisition….taken at ye house of Thomas Dayes in Ffarnham Parish in Essex County ye 10 day of February in ye yeare 1699 before me. Rich’d Covington one of his Majesties Justices of ye Peace for ye County of Essex upon view of the body of Elizabeth day ye wife of Thomas Day….then and there lying dead and ye Jurors being good and lawfull men and Sworne to trye and inquire in ye behalfe of our Sovereigne Lord & King how and in what manner ye Eliza Day came by her death and they upon their oath say that ye Elizabeth Day was much beaten and bruised with both her eyes exstreem black with many other bruses on her face and bruise on her right eare and a hole underneath ye smae eare and we of the juror say..ye cause of ye sd. Eliza Days death and wee of ye Jurors further say that Tho. Day at ye same time was much brused and beaten having both his Eyes Extreemly brused and black several cuts in his head and further upon his Examination would not confess anything how Elizabeth his wife came by them blows and wounds now how he came to be soo beaten himself so we Jurors say that in ye parish and county aforsd and on the eight or ninth of this instant to wit: in ye dwelling house of ye sd. Tho. Day that ye Sd. Eliza. Day was barbarously murdered and by all manner of Circumstances we can find or gather that ye aforesaid Thom. Day is Guilty of ye murdering ye said Elizabeth Day. In Reffereance to ye Same I Rich’d Covington as afforsd togeather with the jurory aforsd: have put our hands and seales ye day and date above written.

Richard Covington in ye Place of Coronor

Sam. Farry, Tho. Ewell, Henry Perkins, Richd. Taylor, Tho. Crants, Tho. Johnsone, Tho. Greene, Wm. Price, Sam. Coates, John Brooks, Tho. Cooper, Henry Geare, Jeffrey Dyer, Tho. Williamson February 10, 1699.

Thomas Day of Essex Co., VA was charged with murdering his wife Elizabeth Day. Surprisingly, he was acquitted in the Aprill Generall Court 1700.  I wish desperately that we had those detailed court notes.

Subsequently, John Smith was found guilty of murdering Elizabeth Day and was executed. October Generall Court 1700.

I’m not  lawyer, but I’m going to play prosecutor.  Questioning might have gone something like this, based on the information from the depositions and inquisition:

Q – Thomas Day, were you in the house all night the night your wife died.
A – Yes.

Q – Did you know she was dead?
A – Yes.

Q – When did she die?
A – Two hours before sunrise.

Q – How did she die?
A – I don’t know.

Q – Who killed her?
A – I don’t know.

Q – You were in the house and someone murdered your wife  by beating her to death, and you don’t know who was there?
A – No.

Q – How did your wife come to be “lying dead upon ye bed in a most horrod and barborey mannor all gored in blood?”
A – I don’t know.

Q – Why was your face so bruised?  How did that happen?
A – I hit my head over a potrack.

Q – Your face and eyes were terribly bruised and you did that by hitting your head on a potrack?
A – Lord knows.

Q – What did you do after your wife died?
A – Sat by the fireplace.

Q – So someone killed your wife while you were at home, but you don’t know who.  You didn’t come to her assistance and defend her.  You didn’t call anyone or go for help.  You knew she was dead, but simply sat by the fireplace until your neighbor came to your house.  You changed your story about how your face was wounded and bruised from hitting your head on the potrack to “Lord knows.”  Gentleman of the jury (ladies couldn’t serve on juries at that time)…..I submit to you that Thomas Day killed his wife, Elizabeth, by brutally beating her to death and watched as she lay dying in a pool of her own blood.  What other explanation for his condition and behavior can there possibly be?

However, today’s prosecutor would have an easier job, or the defense attorney one….because we would have DNA evidence.  It would be impossible for someone to brutally beat Elizabeth in the fashion described without leaving some of their DNA on her.  She obviously fought back and would have likely had the murderer’s blood on her  body and their skin under her fingernails.

So today, DNA would have convicted Thomas or removed all doubt, one way or the other.  I wish I had a time machine.

Thomas Day’s Death

Thomas Day didn’t live long himself.  He was ill when he made his will.  It’s unclear who his daughter lived with after his wife’s death and after his death as well.  It’s presumed that he had only the one child because no other children are known or mentioned in the will.

Thomas Day died between December 5, 1705 (the date of his will) and February 11, 1706 (when his will was probated), ironicly, possibly 7 years to the day after his wife’s death. At the writing of his will, an ailing Thomas Day had placed himself and his daughter Elizabeth (still a minor) in the care of John Fargason.

The will of Thomas Day from “Fleets Colonial Abstracts” – Essex County, VA Vol 29, page 81, No 12, page 181

“To all to who these presents shall come Greting know yee that I thomas Day of the parish of South Farnham in the County of Essex in Virginia being in a sickly weake and low condition and noe(ways) waies Capable to tke care of, or provide for myself and that little Estate it hath pleased God to bestow upon me (it chiefly lying in Perishable Creatures) have and by these presents doe Bargain Sell Bind and firmly make over unto Jn’o Fargason of the parish and County aforsaid planter all and singular my said Estate”, etc. In consideration Fargason “to maintain and keep me the said Day During my naturall life with sufficient accomodation of victuals Cloathes washing and lodging and give to Eliza a Mary Angillica Day my Daughter when she arrive to the age of Eighteen or when married one Cowe and Calfe.”

5 Dec 1705 signed Tho x Day Wit: John Fargason Wm. aylett Adam Denning Ack and rec 11 Feb 1705/6

On additional piece of information we obtain about Thomas is that he lived in Farnham Parish in Essex County.

When the North Farnham Parish Register opens (1663-1814), there was no such Parish. It was simply Farnham Parish and covered both sides of the Rappahannock River in Old Rappahannock County, Virginia. In 1684 Farnham Parish was subdivided into North Farnham Parish and the Rappahannock River as the natural boundary. Then, in 1692 Old Rappahannock County was abolished and became the parent of two new counties, South Farnham Parish fell into Essex County and North Farnham Parish Fell into Richmond County.

In Essex County, South Farnham was simply called Farnham Parish.  The first church was built in 1737, long after Thomas Day was dead.  Bishop Meade refers to an earlier church there as “Piscataway.”  Given Elizabeth’s demise, I find it hard to believe that Thomas attended church any more often than was required by law, at that time.

There are no Day(e) entries in the parish register.

We don’t know where Thomas Day is buried, but I’d hazard a guess that it’s not in the churchyard.

Reflecting

I can’t even begin to imagine how or why Thomas Day was acquitted of his wife’s murder.  Looking at the depositions, some 300+ years removed, it appears obvious and nearly conclusive that Thomas murdered Elizabeth.  Perhaps research into the life and social standing of Thomas Day might reveal more information and shed light on this situation.  Records in the Virginia archives might contain more information as well, although there are no chancery suits.

I find it extremely hard to believe that Thomas did not murder his wife.  In fact, how could he NOT have been the murderer, given the circumstances?  The description of her wounds, the severity and the continuous beating that had to have occurred in order to inflict those grave wounds would have been unlikely to have been inflicted by someone simply wanting to get her out of the way, like for a robbery.  Those are wounds of passion, of anger, and it looks like she put up a fight as well.  Thomas had obviously been in a fight as his own face and eyes were bruised, with wounds, according to the indictment.  This was a crime of passion.  Added to that was the fact that Thomas’s wife had died in the night, and he had not sought assistance from anyone.  He was found sitting by the fireplace.  If he had found her bloody and beaten, he would have gone for help, but he didn’t.  Instead, he watched her die and left her lying on the bed in a pool of her own blood for the neighbor to find in the morning, stating that he didn’t know what happened.

Even if Thomas didn’t directly murder Elizabeth, meaning that a stranger broke in, beat them both, killed Elizabeth but not Thomas, and left the house – Thomas still has some culpability for Elizabeth’s death, since he was clearly conscious and knew when she died, according to what he told 3 separate witnesses.  So he wasn’t asleep or unaware, yet he did nothing before she died to try to help her.  He clearly knew she was badly injured.  Had she survived, she surely would have named him as the person who beat her.  Nor was Thomas distraught by her death.  He wasn’t found sobbing at her bedside.

So Thomas Day not only killed his wife, he is also responsible for the death of John Smith in 1700 who was hung for Elizabeth’s murder.  In essence, if Thomas murdered Elizabeth, he murdered John Smith too.  I hope that if John Smith’s family finds out that he was hung in Essex County, Virginia, as a murdered, that they google and find this article.

All of this makes me wonder how his first wife died, assuming that his first marriage ended with the wife’s death.

Chances are that Thomas and Elizabeth’s child, Elizabeth Mary Angelica Day never knew her mother, for whom she was named, or was too small to remember her.  She may well have been in the house when her father murdered her mother, and depending on her age at the time, might well remember the event.  She could also have been an infant.  If she was, then she likely didn’t remember either her mother or her father very well as he died just a few years later, in 1706, as an invalid.  Somehow Thomas’s death not long after Elizabeth’s seems like karmic justice.  If he did in fact murder Elizabeth, we can wish him a long and miserable death, dreading and fearing his own passing, knowing that he would face sure and certain retribution for his actions in the court of ultimate truth.  There is no other justice to be wrought for Elizabeth – none.

As she grew up, Elizabeth the daughter would have known that her mother was murdered, and even though her father was acquitted, she surely would have known about the circumstances surrounding her mother’s death.  When she married George Shepherd about 1727, she may have been all too happy to leave the area and settle in Spotsylvania County, striking out for a new location where she could leave the past behind.  In essence, she had been raised an orphan under the storm cloud of her mother’s terrible death and her father’s inferred guilt.

How her mother’s death must have haunted her.  To lose your mother is bad enough, but to know she died horrifically, and possibly, or probably, at the hands of your own father, is an unspeakable burden for anyone, let alone a child.  How could she embrace the memory of her father who took her mother from her?  In essence, she lost both parents when her mother died, and her father again at his own death.  Of course, it’s also possible that whoever raised her shielded her from the truth, and perhaps that is why this story never descended through the family.  Maybe Elizabeth never knew the extent of her father’s involvement.  Let’s hope not, for her sake and let’s hope Thomas wasn’t abusive to Elizabeth as well.

Of course, since there were no known sons of Thomas Day, we can’t retrieve his Y DNA.  We don’t know who his parents were, so we don’t know if he had male siblings, or who they were, so that avenue is closed to us as well.

There is a Day DNA project, but unfortunately, it is not hosted at Family Tree DNA and the site doesn’t provide any ancestral information, so it’s entirely useless in terms of trying to find a specific line or even a geographic location.  The genealogy site it connects to is no longer being maintained, so a double strike-out.

I think this is one ancestor I’m just as happy to leave among the dead.  I pray that I didn’t inherit very much DNA from him, or any traits.  From now on, I’ll blame my temper on him.  He has to be good for something.  As my mother used to say, if all else fails, you can always serve as a bad example.

The research about the murder of Elizabeth Day compiled by a cousin at http://www.danielprophecy.com/daye.html.

His name is Anzick, named for the family land, above, where his remains were found, and he is 12,500 years old, or more precisely, born between 12,707 and 12,556 years before the present.  Unfortunately, my genealogy software is not prepared for a birth year with that many digits.  That’s because, until just recently, we had no way to know that we were related to anyone of that age….but now….everything has changed ….thanks to DNA.

Actually, Anzick himself is not my direct ancestor.  We know that definitively, because Anzick was a child when he died, in present day Montana.

Anzick was loved and cherished, because he was smeared with red ochre before he was buried in a cave, where he would be found more than 12,000 years later, in 1968, just beneath a layer of approximately 100 Clovis stone tools, shown below.  I’m sure his parents then, just as parents today, stood and cried as the laid their son to rest….never suspecting just how important their son would be some 12,500 years later.

From 1968 until 2013, the Anzick family looked after Anzick’s bones, and in 2013, Anzick’s DNA was analyzed.

DNA analysis of Anzick provided us with his mitochondrial haplogroup,  D4h3a, a known Native American grouping, and his Y haplogroup was Q-L54, another known Native American haplogroup.  Haplogroup Q-L54 itself is estimated to be about 16,900 years old, so this finding is certainly within the expected range.  I’m not related to Anzick through Y or mitochondrial DNA.

Utilizing the admixture tools at GedMatch, we can see that Anzick shows most closely with Native American and Arctic with a bit of east Siberian.  This all makes sense.

Full genome sequencing was performed on Anzick, and from that data, it was discovered that Anzick was related to Native Americans, closely related to Mexican, Central and South Americans, and not closely related to Europeans or Africans.  This was an important discovery, because it in essence disproves the Solutrean hypothesis that Clovis predecessors emigrated from Southwest Europe during the last glacial maximum, about 20,000 years ago.

The distribution of these matches was a bit surprising, in that I would have expected the closest matches to be from North America, in particular, near to where Anzick was found, but his closest matches are south of the US border.  Although, in all fairness, few people in Native tribes in the US have DNA tested and many are admixed.

This match distribution tells us a lot about population migration and distribution of the Native people after they left Asia, crossed Beringia on the land bridge, now submerged, into present day Alaska.

This map of Beriginia, from the 2008 paper by Tamm et all, shows the migration of Native people into (and back from) the new world.

Anzick’s ancestors crossed Beringia during this time, and over the next several thousand years, found their way to Montana.  Some of Anzick’s relatives found their way to Mexico, Central and South America.  The two groups may have split when Anzick’s family group headed east instead of south, possibly following the edges of glaciers, while the south-moving group followed the coastline.

Recently, from Anzick’s full genome data, another citizen scientist extracted the DNA locations that the testing companies use for autosomal DNA results, created an Anzick file, and uploaded the file to the public autosomal matching site, GedMatch.  This allowed everyone to see if they matched Anzick.  We expected no, or few, matches, because after all, Anzick was more than 12,000 years old and all of his DNA would have washed out long ago due to the 50% replacement in every generation….right?  Wrong!!!

What a surprise to discover fairly large segments of DNA matching Anzick in living people, and we’ve spent the past couple of weeks analyzing and discussing just how this has happened and why.  In spite of some technical glitches in terms of just how much individual people carry of the same DNA Anzick carried, one thing is for sure, the GedMatch matches confirm, in spades, the findings of the scientists who wrote the recent paper that describes the Anzick burial and excavation, the subsequent DNA processing and results.

For people who carry known Native heritage, matches, especially relatively large matches to Anzick, confirm not only their Native heritage, but his too.

For people who suspect Native heritage, but can’t yet prove it, an Anzick match provides what amounts to a clue – and it may be a very important clue.

In my case, I have proven Native heritage through the Micmac who intermarried with the Acadians in the 1600s in Nova Scotia.  Given that Anzick’s people were clearly on a west to east movement, from Beringia to wherever they eventually wound up, one might wonder if the Micmac were descended from or otherwise related to Anzick’s people.  Clearly, based on the genetic affinity map, the answer is yes, but not as closely related to Anzick as Mexican, Central and South Americans.

After several attempts utilizing various files, thresholds and factors that produced varying levels of matching to Anzick, one thing is clear – there is a match on several chromosomes.  Someplace, sometime in the past, Anzick and I shared a common ancestor – and it was likely on this continent, or Beringia, since the current school of thought is that all Native people entered the New World through this avenue.  The school of thought is not united in an opinion about whether there was a single migration event, or multiple migrations to the new word.  Regardless, the people came from the same base population in far northeast Asia and intermingled after arriving here if they were in the same location with other immigrants.

In other words, there probably wasn’t much DNA to pass around.  In addition, it’s unlikely that the founding population was a large group – probably just a few people – so in very short order their DNA would be all the same, being passed around and around until they met a new population, which wouldn’t happen until the Europeans arrived on the east side of the continent in the 1400s.  The tribes least admixed today are found south of the US border, not in the US.  So it makes sense that today the least admixed people would match Anzick the most closely – because they carry the most common DNA, which is still the same DNA that was being passed around and around back then.

Many of us with Native ancestors do carry bits and pieces of the same DNA as Anzick.  Anzick can’t be our ancestor, but he is certainly our cousin, about 500 generations ago, using a 25 year generation, so roughly our 500^th cousin.  I had to laugh at someone this week, an adoptee who said, “Great, I can’t find my parents but now I have a 12,500 year old cousin.”  Yep, you do!  The ironies of life, and of genealogy, never fail to amaze me.

Utilizing the most conservative matching routine possible, on a phased kit, meaning one that combines the DNA shared by my mother and myself, and only that DNA, we show the following segment matches with Anzick.

Being less conservative produces many more matches, some of which are questionable as to whether they are simply convergence, so I haven’t utilized the less restrictive match thresholds.

Of those matches above, the one on chromosomes 17 matches to a known Micmac segment from my Acadian lines and the match on chromosome 2 also matches an Acadian line, but I share so many common ancestors with this person that I can’t tell which family line the DNA comes from.

There are also Anzick autosomal matches on my father’s side.  My Native ancestry on his side reaches back to colonial America, in either Virginia or North Carolina, or both, and is unproven as to the precise ancestor and/or tribe, so I can’t correlate the Anzick DNA with proven Native DNA on that side.  Neither can I associate it with a particular family, as most of the Anzick matches aren’t to areas on my chromosome that I’ve mapped positively to a specific ancestor.

Running a special utility at GedMatch that compared Anzick’s X chromosome to mine, I find that we share a startlingly large X segment.  Sometimes, the X chromosome is passed for generations intact.

Interestingly enough, the segment 100,479,869-103,154,989 matches a segment from my mother exactly, but the large 6cM segment does not match my mother, so I’ve inherited that piece of my X from my father’s line.

This tells me immediately that this segment comes from one of the pink or blue lines on the fan chart below that my father inherited from his mother, Ollie Bolton, since men don’t inherit an X chromosome from their father.  Utilizing the X pedigree chart reduces the possible lines of inheritance quite a bit, and is very suggestive of some of those unknown wives.

It’s rather amazing, if you think about it, that anyone today matches Anzick, or that we can map any of our ancestral DNA that both we and Anzick carry to a specific ancestor.

Indeed, we do live in exciting times.

Honoring Anzick

On a rainy Saturday in June, 2014, on a sagebrush hillside in Montana, in Native parlance, our “grandfather,” Anzick was reburied, bringing his journey full circle.  Sarah Anzick, a molecular biologist, the daughter of the family that owns the land where the bones were found, and who did part of the genetic discovery work on Anzick, returns the box with his bones for reburial.

More than 50 people, including scientists, members of the Anzick family and representatives of six Native American tribes, gathered for the nearly two-hour reburial ceremony. Tribe members said prayers, sang songs, played drums and rang bells to honor the ancient child. The bones were placed in the grave and sprinkled with red ocher, just like when his parents buried him some 12,500 years before.

Participants at the reburial ceremony filled in the grave with handfuls, then shovelfuls of dirt and covered it with stones. A stick tied with feathers marks Anzick’s final resting place.

Sarah Anzick tells us that, “At that point, it stopped raining. The clouds opened up and the sun came out. It was an amazing day.”

I wish I could have been there.  I would have, had I known.  After all, he is part of me, and I of him.

Welcome to the family, Anzick, and thank you, thank you oh so much, for your priceless, unparalleled gift!!!

If you want to read about the Anzick matching journey of DNA discovery, here are the articles I’ve written in the past two weeks.  It has been quite a roller coaster ride, but I’m honored and privileged to be doing this research.  And it’s all thanks to an ancient child named Anzick.

Utilizing Ancient DNA at Gedmatch

Analyzing the Native American Anzick Clovis Native American Results

New Native American Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups Extrapolated from Anzick Match Results

Ancient DNA Matching, A Cautionary Tale

More Ancient DNA Samples for Comparison