In spite of petitions and letters and pleas, from their customers, from the genealogy community and from the leaders in genetic genealogy, Ancestry did exactly what they said they would do – they deleted the Y and mtDNA data bases and in effect, destroyed the contents – tens of thousands of irreplaceable records, gone, forever.

In other words, they burned the courthouse of the County DNA.

Worse yet, several years ago, in 2007, Ancestry had acquired the DNA results of the customers of Relative Genetics and incorporated them into their Y and mtDNA database.   So the results of testing at two companies from the earliest days of genetic genealogy are gone – poof – up in smoke – not available for comparison or searching – the lynchpin of genetic genealogy.

It’s simply beyond me how a company that makes their living from rare historic records, like the census, for example, could be the one lighting the torch on something so valuable as a searchable database containing irreplaceable genetic data.  Many of the early testers are deceased now but through their DNA tests that identified their lineage, their legacy could live on and benefit all genealogists.  Some of those people were the end of their line.

I still can’t believe Ancestry did this.  It’s unfathomable.  Unthinkable.  Unbelievable.

But they did.

I won’t even begin on the topics of responsibility, stewardship and ethics.  It’s pointless.

Ancestry announced their intention to do so in early June, giving people in essence three months to retrieve their data or search the data base.  A few days later, Ancestry suffered a denial of service attack which broke the search function of the data base.  They never repaired that function, so, in essence, other than retrieving your own results, the data base had been non-functional since mid-June.  They extended the deadline to the end of September, but that mattered little since the data base wasn’t operational.

Today, October 1, I checked to see if the data base was in fact, gone, and it is.  We had held out hope to the very end that Ancestry could be persuaded to reconsider, or sell, or combine their results with the Sorenson data base they also maintain (as a function of their Sorenson purchase contract) – something – anything to salvage the resource – but no dice.

Ancestry did do one thing however.  If you tested your Y or mtDNA or hand entered results previously, you can still download or print your own data.  Any matching or other capabilities are gone and in their place, an ad, of course, for their autosomal DNA test….

For quite some time now, the genetic genealogy community has been beating the living tar out of Ancestry.com for not listening, among other things. Well, I’m here to say, they are listening.  Now, what I can’t say is how much they are hearing.  The jury is out and we will see. However, we are hopeful.

Ancestry invited a few of the leaders in the genetic genealogy field to come and meet with them this week. They dedicated the resources of eighteen of their scientists and executives to this meeting and they spent the day with us, sharing information about the science underlying their upcoming product changes and having frank discussions with the group.

This was a very cordial, informative and I think, team-building, experience, but there was far from uniform agreement. There was a great deal of discussion which I think helps everyone understand the position and reasoning of the other parties involved. Like anything else, it’s not as simple as one might hope.

Another important aspect of these meeting is that they serve to put faces with names and humanize the other people involved.

I also found it encouraging that most of the people at Ancestry are genealogists and utilize their own tools.

Tim Sullivan, CEO of Ancestry stopped by and talked with us for a few minutes. He asked us what we wanted, why and if we had any questions for him.  He told us about his own genealogy experiences.  And, we discovered, he does read our blogs.  Tim is very actively engaged as is Ken Chahine, Senior Vice President and General Manager DNA, who is in many of the photographs because he was sitting at the end of the screen and was with us for the entire day.

I will be covering different aspects of the content of these meetings as time moves forward and as Ancestry’s new software version is implemented, but for now, I wanted to update you on the two burning questions in the genetic genealogy community.

These, as you might guess, were also the most contentious aspects of the entire meeting.

Will We Receive a Chromosome Brower?

I want to share with you readers that there is absolutely no question that Ancestry heard the message that we need a chromosome browser, loud, clear and uniformly from us. Ancestry is equally as adamant, it appears, as we are, that we don’t need one.

So, the short answer is no.

The longer answer is probably not.

Judy Russell, in comments to her article, “when less is more,” which I strongly encourage you to read, says about the chromosome browser:

“In my personal opinion, speaking only for myself and based solely on my own perceptions of the attitudes of some folks at AncestryDNA and not on any specific representations by anyone else, my judgment is that we may get a chromosome browser at AncestryDNA when hell freezes over.”

This was also followed by a comment about pigs flying…..plus, she took all the good phrases…not much left for me to say.

I think this pretty well sums it up.

I do want to discuss why Ancestry does not feel a chromosome browser is warranted. This topic was discussed directly and indirectly several times throughout the day.  These concerns listed below are not necessarily in priority order based on discussions, because I couldn’t really discern a priority.

1.  Given that Ancestry will hit the million kit DNA mark sometime in the first quarter of 2015, they feel that very few, a small percentage, of those people would ever utilize, or understand the results of a chromosome browser. Given that, they don’t feel it is a good investment of their engineering time to invest in something that few people, or a small percentage of the whole, will utilize.

2.  Since Ancestry did not begin utilizing chromosome browsing in the beginning, they are concerned about privacy issues having to do with now introducing the feature to people who did not expect to have that to begin with.

3.  Ancestry is concerned about unexpectedly and unintentionally revealing health information. For example, let’s say that today, a particular SNP is included in their information and is not known to be medically relevant. Next year, someone discovers that a particular SNP on chromosome 7 is connected to the genetic propensity for erectile dysfunction. Remember, a genetic propensity does NOT mean you have or will get the particular disease. In this case, of course, that would not apply to women.

Ancestry’s concern is that since they would have already been displaying that match on chromosome 7 between several people for months/years, the cow is proverbially out of the barn and closing the door at that point it a bit late, if possible at all.

Of course, as we pointed out to Ancestry, that’s the entire point of having testers sign a release, and both Family Tree DNA and 23andMe both deal with the same issue.

4.  Ancestry feels that a chromosome browser would provide information to people that they should not be drawing conclusions from, and they are.

For example, as they showed us, there are areas in each person’s chromosome and their matches chromosomes that are what they call “pile up” areas. These are areas that we would call IBS, identical by state as opposed to IBD, identical by descent.  Some of these pileup areas are so old that they could potentially be considered AIMs, or Ancestrally Informative Markers that harken back to continents like Africa, Asia or Europe.

This slide shows Cathy Ball, VP Genomics and Bioinformatics, showing me my own pileup areas. The two screens are a TV screen to the right where the colors resolved much better, and the larger screen where the display was larger.

What this shows you is that on the chart at left, I have one area that has a very large number of pileups, probably about 800 matches (out of my 12,500 total matches), two areas that have 400 each, two that have about 200. On the chart at right, the top of the chart is 25 match segments, so you can see that most of my matches fall below that.  Ancestry feels that the higher matched segments are less relevant because they match to so many people, that they aren’t really indicative of shared ancestry in a genealogical timeframe.

And no, they did not tell me which chromosome these pileup segments are found on, and I’m DYING to know so that I can relate that to my ancestral chromosome mapping….but no cigar. It’s so frustrating that they know, they have the info, our info, but they won’t share it with us.  I’m not referring here to the slide and my pileup, but the lack of segment information in general.  I don’t know how that’s any worse that allowing customers to infer that a shakey leaf tree match is equivalent to a DNA match…..

Everyone has these pileup areas, which also means that they show up on your chromosome browser as matches. Ancestry is concerned that you will see three people, whether from a common genealogy line or not, who match on one segment and you will presume that they are genealogically related, when perhaps they aren’t, because their match is IBS from a pileup area.

Clearly, those of us who work in this field daily deal with IBS issues routinely, but Ancestry is concerned about the general consumer who doesn’t.

I suggested that the chromosome browser could be even more useful if they had a way to show but “grey out” those pileup areas, so we would be aware that their confidence is low, and to highlight the areas where the rarest alleles match, because those matches are most likely to indicate true genealogical matches. That suggestion met with polite silence.

Roberta’s Opinion

I do agree that many people won’t utilize the chromosome browser, but many people won’t utilize many of their services.  That doesn’t prevent Ancestry from providing those services for those who want to utilize them.  I’m fine with Ancestry making the Chromosome Browser part of a subscription kit so only subscribers have access, just like many of their data bases.

Unfortunately, without a chromosome browser, we are left with nothing concrete to base any matches on, nor the ability to utilize that information in conjunction with chromosome segment information from other companies to map our segments to various ancestors.  The problem of incorrect ancestor attribution remains and will remain present in their matches.

They are changing their matching algorithm and in some ways, it will be improved, but in one way, I am gravely concerned that it will be worse. Ancestry will begin weighting various factors in calculating the match strength, and one of those factors will be the number of trees that list a particular ancestor.  If you’ve just had a coronary…so did we.  I thought one of the genetic genealogists was going to have the big one right there – they turned so red in the face.

A second confidence weighting factor will be the amount of source information for a particular tree which Ancestry feels helps judge the quality of the tree. In a sense, I agree, but attaching source information, perhaps incorrectly, to the wrong family, or having the wrong ancestor you’ve just attached source information to, is still the same large problem.  Clearly, quality is not a matter of quantity, but just as clearly Ancestry cannot look at each tree individually and render an opinion, so they have to develop some automated methodology if they are going down this path.

Ancestry is trying to find ways to improve their matching and predictions of common ancestry. As time moves forward, I’ll be covering these developments.  As someone in the meeting said, first steps first.

But back to the chromosome browser, my gut reaction to this is, and this is my opinion alone, that they don’t want to invest the development effort into something that will make the user experience more complex and may increase their customer support staff load to support and explain matching on a chromosome browser. I don’t think they believe the genealogy community has the ability to utilize and understand this type of tool.  Ancestry is a genealogy marketing company.  They want the user’s experience to be pleasant, easy and fulfilling…not difficult and certainly not upsetting.

Our message did not waiver, we need a chromosome browser and “trust me” simply won’t work.

The Y DNA and mtDNA Data Base

When Ancestry sent the invitation to this meeting, I had to wonder if they really thought through the fact that this meeting would occur less than a week after they decommissioned their Y and mtDNA data base.

Did they really want a group of people that were mad as wet hens arriving to meet with them? I fully expected to receive an “un-invitation” after my article and before the meeting, but I didn’t.

Without going into nitty-gritty detail, Ancestry indicates that the data base that held those results was literally on its last leg and they did not want to invest any money into something they was not bringing in any revenue and for a product they were no longer selling. I do believe that data base was indeed in its death throes because after the denial of service attack in June, it was no longer searchable.

In the ensuing discussion, the genetic genealogy community provided a number of alternative scenarios both within and outside of Ancestry as a way to salvage the information in that database. Ancestry has agreed to take the matter under consideration internally and discuss the various options.  They made no promises, but I personally find it very encouraging that they are willing to discuss the matter and reconsider.

I told them I’d like nothing more than to write a retraction article that says that Ancestry did not, after all, burn the DNA courthouse.

In the same vein, I asked if they had any plans to decommission the Sorenson data base at www.smgf.org and they indicated that they do not have any plans at this point to do that.  Obviously, nothing is forever, and they could reconsider in the future but at least it appears that resource is safe for now and adding the Y and mtDNA records from Ancestry into that data base was one option discussed.

In Conclusion

I do feel this was a productive meeting. The scientific aspects of having a large data base to draw from are quite interesting and I’ll be sharing some those in upcoming articles.  Some of the best conversations took place beside the proverbial “water cooler.”  I am hopeful that we made progress, or at least thawed the ice a little on the issues so critical for the genetic genealogy community, but time will tell.  In a way, I felt like this was a United Nations type of meeting where everyone leaves with a better understanding.

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.

This slide, by Robert Baber, pretty well sums up our group obsession and what we focus on every year at the Family Tree DNA administrator’s conference in Houston, Texas.

Getting to Houston, this year, was a whole lot easier than getting out of Houston. They had storms yesterday and many of us spent the entire day becoming intimately familiar with the airport.  Jennifer Zinck, of Ancestor Central, is still there today and doesn’t have a flight until late.

And this is how my day ended, after I finally got out of Houston and into my home airport. This isn’t at the airport, by the way.  Everything was fine there, but I made the apparent error of stopping at a Starbucks on the way home.  This is the parking lot outside an hour or so later.  What can I say?  At least I had my coffee, and AAA rocks, as did the tow truck driver and my daughter for getting out of bed to come and rescue me!!!  Hmmm, I think maybe things have gone full circle.  I remember when I used to go and rescue her:)

So far, today hasn’t improved any, so let’s talk about something much more pleasant…the conference itself.

Resources

One of the reasons I mentioned Jennifer Zinck, aside from the fact that she’s still stuck in the airport, is because she did a great job actually covering the conference as it happened. Since I had some time yesterday to visit with her since our gates weren’t terribly far apart, I asked her how she got that done.  I took notes too, and photos, but she turned out a prodigious amount of work in a very short time.  While I took a lightweight MacBook Air, she took her regular PC that she is used to typing on, and she literally transcribed as the sessions were occurring.  She just added her photos later, and since she was working on a platform that she was familiar with, she could crop and make the other adjustments you never see but we perform behind the scenes before publishing a photo.

On the other hand, I struggled with a keyboard that works differently and is a different size than I’m used to as well as not being familiar with the photo tools to reduce the size of pictures, so I just took rough notes and wrote the balance later.  Having familiar tools make such a difference.  I think I’ll carry my laptop from now on, even though it is much heavier.  Kudos to Jennifer!

I was initially going to summarize each session, but since Jen did such a good job, I’m posting her links. No need to recreate a wheel that doesn’t need to be recreated.

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/decennial-conference-on-genetic-genealogy/

ISOGG, the International Society of Genetic Genealogy is not affiliated with Family Tree DNA or any testing company, but Family Tree DNA is generous enough to allow an ISOGG meeting on Sunday before the first conference session.

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/decennial-conference-on-genetic-genealogy-isogg-meeting/

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/decennial-conference-on-genetic-genealogy-sunday/

You can find my conference postings here:

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/11/tenth-annual-family-tree-dna-conference-opening-reception/

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/12/tenth-annual-family-tree-dna-conference-day-2/

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/13/tenth-annual-family-tree-dna-conference-day-3/

Several people were also posting on a twitter feed as well.

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23FTDNA2014&src=tyah

Those of you where are members of the ISOGG Yahoo group for project administrators can view photos posted by Katherine Borges in that group and there are also some postings on the Facebook ISOGG group as well.

Now that you have the links for the summaries, what I’d like to do is to discuss some of the aspects I found the most interesting.

The Mix

When I attended my first conference 10 years ago, I somehow thought that for the most part, the same group of people would be at the conferences every year. Some were, and in fact, a handful of the 160+ people attending this conference have attended all 10 conferences.  I know of two others for certain, but there were maybe another 3 or so who stood up when Bennett asked for everyone who had been present at all 10 conferences to stand.

Doug Mumma, the very first project administrator was with us this weekend, and still going strong. Now, if Doug and I could just figure out how we’re related…

Some of the original conference group has passed on to the other side where I’m firmly convinced that one of your rewards is that you get to see all of those dead ends of your tree. If we’re lucky, we get to meet them as well and ask all of those questions we have on this side.  We remember our friends fondly, and their departure sadly, but they enriched us while they were here and their memories make us smile.  I’m thinking specifically of Kenny Hedgepath and Leon Little as I write this, but there have been others as well.

The definition of a community is that people come and go, births, deaths and moves.

This year, about half of the attendees had never attended a conference before. I was very pleased to see this turn of events – because in order to survive, we do need new people who are as crazy as we are…er….I mean as dedicated as we are.

ISOGG traditionally hosts a potluck reception on Saturday evening. Lots of putting names with faces going on here.

Collaboration

I asked people about their favorite part of the conference or their favorite session. I was surprised at the number of people who said lunches and dinners.  Trust me, the food wasn’t that wonderful, so I asked them to elaborate.  In essence, the most valuable aspect of the conference was working with and talking to other administrators.

It’s not like we don’t talk online, but there is somehow a difference between online communications and having a group discussion, or a one-on-one discussion. Laptops were out and in use everyplace, along with iPads and other tools.  It was so much fun to walk by tables and hear snippets of conversations like “the mutation at location 309.1….” and “null marker at 425” and “I ordered a kit for my great uncle…..”

I agree, as well. I had pre-arranged two dinners before arriving in order to talk with people with whom I share specific interests.  At lunches, I either tried to sit with someone I specifically needed to talk to, or I tried to meet someone new.

I also asked people about their specific goals for the next year. Some people had a particular goal in mind, such as a specific brick wall that needs focus.  Some, given that we are administrators, had wider-ranging project based goals, like Big Y testing certain family groups, and a surprising number had the goal of better utilizing the autosomal results.

Perhaps that’s why there were two autosomal sessions, an introduction by Jim Bartlett and then Tim Janzen’s more advanced session.

Autosomal DNA Results

Note the cool double helix light fixture behind the speakers.

Tim specifically mentioned two misconceptions which I run across constantly.

Misconception 1 – A common surname means that’s how you match.  Just because you find a common surname doesn’t mean that’s your DNA match.  This belief is particularly prevalent in the group of people who test at Ancestry.com.

Misconception 2 – Your common ancestor has to be within the past 6 generations.  Not true, many matches can be 6-10^th cousins because there are so many descendants of those early ancestors, even as many as 15 generations back.

Tim also mentioned that endogamous relationships are a tough problem with no easy answer. Polynesians, Ashkenazi Jews, Low German Mennonites, Acadians, Amish, and island populations.  Do I ever agree with him!  I have Brethren, Mennonite and Acadian in the same parent’s line.

Tim has been working with the Mennonite DNA project now for many years.

Tim included a great resource slide.

Tim has graciously made his entire presentation available for download.

There are probably a dozen or so of us that are actively mapping our ancestors, and a huge backlog of people who would like to. As Tim pointed out with one of his slides, this is not an easy task nor is it for the people who simply want to receive “an answer.”

I will also add that we “mappers” are working with and actively encouraging Family Tree DNA to develop tools so that the mapping is less spreadsheet manual work and more automated, because it certainly can be.

Upload GEDCOM Files

If you haven’t already, upload your GEDCOM to Family Tree DNA.  This is becoming an essential part of autosomal matching.  Furthermore, Family Tree DNA will utilize this file to construct your surname list and that will help immensely determining common surnames and your common ancestor with your Family Finder matches.  If you have sponsored tests for cousins, then upload a GEDCOM file for them or at least construct a basic tree on their Family Tree DNA page.

Ethics

Family Tree DNA always tries to provide a speaker about ethics, and the only speakers I’ve ever felt understood anything about what we want to do are Judy Russell and Blaine Bettinger.  I was glad to see Blaine presenting this year.

The essence of Blaine’s speech is that ethics isn’t about law. Law is cut and dried.  Ethics isn’t, and there are no ethics police.

Sometimes our decisions are colored necessarily by right and wrong.  Sometimes those decisions are more about the difference between a better and a worse way.

As a community, we want to reduce negative press coverage and increase positive coverage. We want to be proactive, not reactive.

Blaine stresses that while informed consent is crucial, that DNA doesn’t reveal secrets that aren’t also revealed by other genealogical forms of research. DNA often reveals more recent secrets, such as adoptions and NPEs, so it’s possibly more sensitive.

Two things need to govern our behavior. First, we need to do only things that we would be comfortable seeing above the fold in the New York Times.  Second, understand that we can’t make promises about topics like anonymity or about the absence of medical information, because we don’t know what we don’t know.

The SNP Tsunami

One of my concerns has been and remains the huge number of new SNPs that have been discovered over the past year or so with the Big Y by Family Tree DNA and  corresponding tests from other vendors.

When I say concern, I’m thrilled about this new technology and the advances it is allowing us to make as a community to discover and define the evolution of haplogroups. My concern is that the amount of data is overwhelming.  However, we are working through that, thanks to the hours and hours of volunteer work by haplogroup administrators and others.

Alice Fairhurst, who volunteers to maintain the ISOGG haplotree, mentioned that she has added over 10,000 SNPs to the Y tree this year alone, bringing the total to over 14,000. Those SNPs are fully vetted and placed.  There are many more in process and yet more still being discovered.  On the first page of the Y SNP tree, the list of SNP sources and other critical information, such as the criteria for a SNP to be listed, is provided.

So, if you’re waiting for that next haplotree poster, give it up because there isn’t a printing press that big, unless you want wallpaper.

These slides are from Alice’s presentation. The ISOGG tree provides an invaluable resource for not only the genetic genealogy community, but also researchers world-wide.

As one example of how the SNP tsunami has affected the Y tree, Alice provided the following summary of R-U106, one of the two major branches of haplogroup R.

From the ISOGG 2006 Y tree, this was the entire haplogroup R Y tree. You can see U106 near the bottom with 3 sub-branches.  While this probably makes you chuckle today, remember that 2006 was only 8 years ago and that this tree didn’t change much for several years.

2007 was the same.

2008 shows 5 subclades and one of the subclades had 2 subclades.

2009 showed a total of 12 sub-branches and 2010 added one more.

2011 however, showed a large change. U106 in 2011 had 44 subgroups total and became too large to show on one screen shot.  2012 shows 99 subclades, if I counted accurately.  The 2014 U106 tree is shown below.

There’s another slide too, but I didn’t manage to get the picture.  You get the idea though…

As you can imagine, for Family Tree DNA, trying to keep up with all of the haplogroups, not just one subgroup like U106 is a gargantuan task that is constantly changing, like hourly. Their Y tree is currently the National Geographic tree, and while they would like to update it, I’m sure, the definition of “current tree” is in a constant state of flux.  Literally, Mike Walsh, one of the admins in the R-L21 group uploads a new tree spreadsheet several times every day.

In order to deal attempt to deal with this, and to encourage people who don’t want to do a Big Y discovery type test, but do want to ferret out their location on their assigned portion of the tree, Family Tree DNA is reintroducing the Backbone tests.

They are starting with M222, also known as the Niall of the 9 Hostages haplogroup which is their beta for the new product and new process. You can see the provisional tree and results in the two slides they provided, below.  I apologize for the quality, but it was the best I could do.

Haplogroup administrators are going to be heavily involved in this process. Family Tree DNA is putting SNP panels together that will help further define the tree and where various SNPs that have been recently discovered, and continue to be discovered, will fall on the tree.

As Big Y tests arrive, haplogroup project administrators typically assemble a spreadsheet of the SNPS and provisionally where they fall on the tree, based on the Big Y results.

What Bennett asked is for the admins to work with Family Tree DNA to assemble a testing panel based on those results. The goal is for the cost to be between $1.50 and $2 (US) for each SNP in the panel, which will reduce the one-off SNP testing and provide a much more complete and productive result at a far reduced price as compared to the current $29 or $39 per individual SNP.

If you are a haplogroup administrator, get in touch with Family Tree DNA to discuss your desired backbone panels. New panels, when it’s your turn, will take about 2 weeks to develop.

Keep in mind that the following SNPs, according to Bennett, are not optimal for panels:

• Palindromic regions
• Often mutating regions designated as .1, .2, etc.
• SNPs in STRs

Nir Leibovich, the Chief Business Officer, also addressed the future and the Big Y to some extent in his presentation.

Utilizing the Big Y for Genealogy

In my case, during the last sale, I ordered several Big Y tests for my Estes family line because I have several genealogically documented lines from the original Estes family in Kent, England through our common ancestor, Robert Estes born in 1555 and his wife Anne Woodward. The participants also agreed to extend their markers to 111 markers as well.  When the results are back, we’ll be able to compare them on a full STR marker set, and also their SNPs.  Hopefully, they will match on their known SNPs and there will be some new novel variants that will be able to suffice as line marker mutations.

We need more BIG Y tests of these types of genealogically confirmed trees that have different sons’ lines from a distant common ancestor to test descendant lines. This will help immensely to determine the actual, not imputed, SNP mutation rate and allow us to extrapolate the ages of haplogroups more accurately.  Of course, it also goes without saying that it helps to flesh out the trees.

I personally expect the next couple of years will be major years of discovery. Yes, the SNP tsumani has hit land, but it’s far from over.

Research and Development

David Mittleman, Chief Scientific Officer, mentioned that Family Tree DNA now has their own R&D division where they are focused on how to best analyze data. They have been collaborating with other scientists.  A haplogroup G1 paper will be published shortly which states that SNP mutation rates equate to Sanger data.

FTDNA wants to get Big Y data into the public domain. They have set up consent for this to be done by uploading into NCBI.  Initially they sent a survey to a few people that  sampled the interest level.  Those who were interested received a release document.  If you are interested in allowing FTDNA to utilize your DNA for research, be it mitochondrial, Y or autosomal, please send them an e-mail stating such.

Don’t Forget About Y Genealogy Research

It’s very easy for us to get excited about the research and discovery aspect of DNA – and the new SNPs and extending haplotrees back in time as far as possible, but sometimes I get concerned that we are forgetting about the reason we began doing genetic genealogy in the first place.

Robert Baber’s presentation discussed the process of how to reconstruct a tree utilizing both genealogy and DNA results. It’s important to remember that the reason most of our participants test is to find their ancestors, not, primarily, to participate in the scientific process.

Robert has succeeded in reconstructing 110 or 111 markers of the oldest known Baber ancestor, shown above. I wrote about how to do this in my article titled, Triangulation for Y DNA.

Not only does this allow us to compare everyone with the ancestor’s DNA, it also provides us with a tool to fit individuals who don’t know specific genealogical line into the tree relatively accurately. When I say relatively, the accuracy is based on line marker mutations that have, or haven’t, happened within that particular family.

Jim illustrated how to do this as well, and his methodology is available at the link on his slide, below.

I had to laugh. I’ve often wondered what our ancestors would think of us today.  Robert said that that 11 generations after Edward Baber died, he flew over church where Edward was buried and wondered what Edward would have thought about what we know and do today – cars, airplanes, DNA, radio, TV etc..  If someone looked in a crystal ball and told Edward what the future held 11 generations later, he would have thought that they were stark raving mad.

Eleven generations from my birth is roughly the year 2280. I’m betting we won’t be trying to figure out who our ancestors were through this type of DNA analysis then.  This is only a tiny stepping stone to an unknown world, as different to us as our world is to Edward Baber and all of our ancestors who lived in a time where we know their names but their lives and culture are entirely foreign to ours.

Publications

When the Journal of Genetic Genealogy was active, I, along with other citizen scientists published regularly.  The benefit of the journal was that it was peer reviewed and that assured some level of accuracy and because of that, credibility, and it was viewed by the scientific community as such.  My co-authored works published in JOGG as well as others have been cited by experts in the academic community.  It other words, it was a very valuable journal.  Sadly, it has fallen by the wayside and nothing has been published since 2011.  A new editor was recruited, but given their academic load, they have not stepped up to the plate.  For the record, I am still hopeful for a resurrection, but in the mean time, another opportunity has become available for genetic genealogists.

Brad Larkin has founded the Surname DNA Journal, which, like JOGG, is free to both authors and subscribers. In case you weren’t aware, most academic journal’s aren’t.  While this isn’t a large burden for a university, fees ranging from just over $1000 to $5000 are beyond the budget of genetic genealogists.  Just think of how many DNA tests one could purchase with that money.

Brad has issued a call for papers. These papers will be peer reviewed, similarly to how they were reviewed for JOGG.

Take a look at the articles published in this past year, since the founding of Surname DNA Journal.

• The History, Adoption, and Regulation of Jewish Surnames in the Russian Empire, A Reviewby Dr. Jeffrey Mark Paull and Dr Jeffrey Briskman
• Preliminary Phylogenetic Analysis of Briese Family Relationships by David Briese
• Differences in Autosomal DNA Characteristics between Jewish and Non-Jewish Populations by Dr. Jeffrey Mark Paull, Gaye Sherman Tannenbaum, and Dr Jeffrey Briskman
• Using STRs for Intra-Family Y-DNA Comparisons: Segmenting Markers by Joe Flood, PhD
• Y-DNA of the British Monarchy by Brad Larkin
• The Irish Septs by David Austin Larkin
• Using Y Chromosome DNA Testing to Pinpoint a Genetic Homeland in Ireland by Dr. Tyrone Bowes, PhD
• Ancestral Parish Sampling in Ulster and Wexford for the Larkin DNA Project by Brad Larkin

The citizen science community needs an avenue to publish and share. Peer reviewed journals provide us with another level of credibility for our work. Sharing is clearly the lynchpin of genetic genealogy, as it is with traditional genealogy. Give some thought about what you might be able to contribute.

Brad Larkin solicited nominations prior to the conference and awarded a Genetic Genealogist of the Year award. This year’s award was dually presented to Ian Kennedy in Australia, who, unfortunately, was not present, and to CeCe Moore, who just happened to follow Brad’s presentation with her own.

Don’t Forget about Mitochondrial DNA Either

I believe that mitochondrial DNA the most underutilized DNA tool that we have, often because how to use mitochondrial DNA, and what it can tell you, is poorly understood. I wrote about this in an article titled, Mitochondrial, The Maligned DNA.

Given that I work with mitochondrial DNA daily when I’m preparing client’s Personalized DNA Reports (orderable from your personal page at Family Tree DNA or directly from my website), I know just how useful mitochondrial can be and see those examples regularly. Unfortunately, because these are client reports, I can’t write about them publicly.

CeCe Moore, however, isn’t constrained by this problem, because one of the ways she contributes to genetic genealogy is by working with the television community, in particular Genealogy Roadshow and the PBS series, Finding Your Roots. Now, I must admit, I was very surprised to see CeCe scheduled to speak about mitochondrial DNA, because the area of expertise where she is best known is autosomal DNA, especially in conjunction with adoptee research.

During the research for the production of these shows, CeCe has utilized mitochondrial DNA with multiple celebrities to provide information such as the ethnic identification of the ancestor who provided the mitochondrial DNA as Native American.

Autosomal DNA testing has a broad but shallow reach, across all of your lines, but just back a few generations.  Both Y and mitochondrial DNA have a very deep reach, but only on one specific line, which makes them excellent for identifying a common ancestor on that line, as well as the ethnicity of that individual.

I have seen other cases, where researchers connected the dots between people where no paper trail existed, but a relationship between women was suspected.

CeCe mentioned that currently there are only 44,000 full sequence results in the Family Tree DNA data base and and 185K total HVR1, HVR2 and full sequence tests. Y has half a million.  We need to increase the data base, which, of course increases matches and makes everyone happier.  If you haven’t tested your mitochondrial DNA to the full sequence level, this would be a great time!

There are several lessons on how to utilize mitochondrial DNA at this ISOGG link.

I’m very hopeful that CeCe’s presentation will be made available as I think her examples are quite powerful and will serve to inspire people.  Actually, since CeCe is in the “movie business,” perhaps a short video clip could be made available on the FTDNA website for anyone who hasn’t tested their mitochondrial DNA so they can see an example of why they should!

myOrigins

I would be fibbing to you if I told you I am happy with myOrigins. I don’t feel that it is as sensitive as other methods for picking up minority admixture, in particular, Native American, especially in small amounts.  Unfortunately, those small amounts are exactly what many people are looking for.

If someone has a great-great-great-great grandparent that is Native, they carry about 1%, more or less, of the Native ancestor’s DNA today. A 4X great grandparent puts their birth year in the range of 1800-1825 – or just before the Trail of Tears.  People whose colonial American families intermarried with Native families did so, generally, before the Trail of Tears.  By that time, many tribes were already culturally extinct and those east of the Mississippi that weren’t extinct were fighting for their lives, both literally and figuratively.

We really need the ability to develop the most sensitive testing to report even the smallest amounts of Native DNA and map those segments to our chromosomes so that we can determine who, and what line in our family, was Native.

I know that Family Tree DNA is looking to improve their products, and I provided this feedback to them. Many people test autosomally only for their ethnicity results and I surely would love to have those people’s results available as matches in the FTDNA data base.

Razib Khan has been working with Family Tree DNA on their myOrigins product and spoke about how the myOrigins data is obtained.

Given that all humans are related, one way or another, far enough back in time, myOrigins has to be able to differentiate between groups that may not be terribly different. Furthermore, even groups that appear different today may not have been historically.  His own family, from India, has no oral history of coming from the East, but the genetic data clearly indicates that they did, along with a larger group, about 1000 years ago.  This may well be a result of the adage that history is written by the victors, or maybe whatever happened was simply too long ago or unremarkable to be recorded.

Razib mentioned that depending on the cluster and the reference samples, that these clusters and groups that we see on our myOrigins maps can range from 1000-10,000 years in age.

The good news is that genetics is blind to any preconceived notions. The bad news is that the software has to fit your results to the best population, even though it may not be directly a fit.  Hopefully, as we have more and better reference populations, the results will improve as well.

Razib showed a PCA (principal components analysis) graph, above. These graphs chart reference populations in different quadrants.  Where the different populations overlap is where they share common historic ancestors.  As you can see, on this graph with these reference populations, there is a lot of overlap in some cases, and none in others.

Your personal results would then be plotted on top of the reference populations. The graph below shows me, as the white “target” on a PCA graph created by Doug McDonald.

The Changing Landscape

A topic discussed privately among the group, and primarily among the bloggers, is the changing landscape of genetic genealogy over the past year or so.  In many ways I think the bloggers are the canaries in the mine.

One thing that clearly happened is that the proverbial tipping point occurred, and we’re past it. DNA someplace along the line became mainstream.  Today, DNA is a household word.  At gatherings, at least someone has tested, and most people have heard about DNA testing for genealogy or at least consumer based DNA testing.

The good news in all of this is that more and more people are testing. The bad news is that they are typically less informed and are often impulse purchasers.  This gives us the opportunity for many more matches and to work with new people.  It also means there is a steep learning curve and those new testers often know little about their genealogy.  Those of us in the “public eye,” so to speak, have seen an exponential spike in questions and communications in the past several months.  Unfortunately, many of the new people don’t even attempt to help themselves before asking questions.

Sometimes opportunity comes with work clothes – for them and us both.

I was talking with Spencer about this at the reception and he told me I was stealing his presentation.  He didn’t seem too upset by this:)

I had to laugh, because this falls clearly into the “be careful what you wish for, you may get it” category. The Genographic project through National Geographic is clearly, very clearly, a critical component of the tipping point, and this was reflected in Spencer’s presentation.  Although I covered quite a bit of Spencer’s presentation in my day 2 summary, I want to close with Spencer here.  I also want to say that if you ever have the opportunity to hear Spencer speak, please do yourself the favor and be sure to take that opportunity.  Not only is he brilliant, he’s interesting, likeable and very approachable.  Of course, it probably doesn’t hurt that I’ve know him now for 9 years!  I’ve never thought to have my picture taken with Spencer before, but this time, one of my friends did me the favor.

I have to admit, I love talking to Spencer, and listening to him. He is the adventurer through whom we all live vicariously.  In the photo below, Spencer along with his crew, drove from London to Mongolia.  Not sure why he is standing on the top of the Land Rover, but I’m sure he will tell us in his upcoming book about that journey,

I’m warning you all now, if I win the lottery, I’m going on the world tour that he hosts with National Geographic, and of course, you’ll all be coming with me via the blog!

Spencer talked about the consumer genomics market and where we are today.

Spencer mentioned that genetic genealogy was a cottage industry originally. It was, and it was even smaller than that, if possible.  It actually was started by Bennett and his cell phone.  I managed to snap a picture of Bennett this weekend on the stage looking at his cell, and I thought to myself, “this is how it all started 14 years ago.”  Just look where we are today.  Thank you Michael Hammer for telling Bennett that you received “lots of phone calls from crazy genealogists like you.”

So, where exactly are we today?  In 2013, the industry crossed the millionth kit line.  The second millionth kit was sold in early summer 2014 and the third million will be sold in 2015.  No wonder we feel like a tidal wave has hit.  It has.

Why now?

DNA has become part of national consciousness.  Businesses advertise that “it’s in our DNA.”  People are now comfortable sharing via social media like facebook and twitter.  What DNA can do and show you, the secrets it can unlock is spreading by word of mouth.  Spencer termed this the “viral spread threshold” and we’ve crossed that invisible line in the sand.  He terms 2013 as the year of infection and based on my blog postings, subscriptions, hits, reach and the number of e-mails I receive, I would completely agree.  Hold on tight for the ride!

Spencer talked about predictions for near term future and said a 5 year plan is impossible and that an 18 month plan is more realistic. He predicts that we will continue to see exponential growth over the next several years.  He feels that genetic genealogy testing will be primary driver of growth because medical or health testing is subject to the clinical utility trap being experienced currently by 23andMe.  The Big 4 testing companies control 99% of consumer market in US (Ancestry, 23andMe, Family Tree DNA and National Geographic.)

Spencer sees a huge international market potential that is not currently being tapped. I do agree with him, but many in European countries are hesitant, and in some places, like France, DNA testing that might expose paternity is illegal.  When Europeans see DNA testing as a genealogical tool, he feels they will become more interested.  Most Europeans know where their ancestral village is, or they think they do, so it doesn’t have the draw for them that it does for some of us.

Ancestry testing (aka genetic genealogy as opposed to health testing) is now a mature industry with 100% growth rate.

Spencer also mentioned that while the Genographic data base is not open access, that affiliate researchers can send Nat Geo a proposal and thereby gain research access to the data base if their proposal is approved. This extends to citizen scientists as well.

Michael Hammer

You’ll notice that Michael Hammer’s presentation, “Ancient and Modern DNA Update, How Many Ancestral Populations for Europe,” is missing from this wrapup. It was absolutely outstanding, and fascinating, which is why I’m writing a separate article about his presentation in conjunction with some additional information.  So, stay tuned.

Testing, More Testing

It’s becoming quite obvious that the people who are doing the best with genetic genealogy are the ones who are testing the most family members, both close and distant. That provides them with a solid foundation for comparison and better ways to “drop matches” into the right ancestor box.  For example, if someone matches you and your mother’s sister, Aunt Margaret, especially if your mother is not available to test, that’s a very important hint that your match is likely from your mother’s line.

So, in essence, while initially we would advise people to test the oldest person in a generational line, now we’ve moved to the “test everyone” mentality.  Instead of a survey, now we need a census.  The exception might be that the “child” does not necessarily need to be tested because both parents have tested.  However, having said that, I would perhaps not make that child’s test a priority, but I would eventually test that child anyway.  Why?  Because that’s how we learn.  Let me give you an example.

I was sitting at lunch with David Pike. were discussing autosomal DNA generational transmission and inheritance.  He pulled out his iPad, passed it to me, and showed me a chromosome (not the X) that has been passed entirely intact from one generation to the next.  Had the child not been tested, we would never have known that.  Now, of course, if you’ll remember the 50% rule, by statistical prediction, the child should get half of the mother’s chromosome and half of the father’s, but that’s not how it worked.  So, because we don’t know what we don’t know, I’m now testing everyone I can find and convince in my family.  Unfortunately, my family is small.

Full genome testing is in the future, but we’re not ready yet. Several presenters mentioned full genome testing in some context.  Here’s the bottom line.  It’s not truly full genome testing today, only 95-96%.  The technology isn’t there yet, and we’re still learning.  In a couple of years, we will have the entire genome available for testing, and over time, the prices will fall.  Keep in mind that most of our genome is identical to that of all humans, and the autosomal tests today have been developed in order to measure what is different and therefore useful genealogially.  I don’t expect big breakthroughs due to full genome testing for genetic genealogy, although I could be wrong.  You can, however, count me in, because I’m a DNA junkie.  When the full genome test is below $1000, when we have comparison tools and when the coverage won’t necessitate doing a second or upgrade test a few years later, I’ll be there.

Thank you

I want to offer a heartfelt thank you to Max Blankfeld and Bennett Grenspan, founders of Family Tree DNA, shown with me in the photo below, for hosting and subsidizing the administrator’s conference – now for a decade. I look forward to seeing them, and all of the other attendees, next year.

I anticipate that this next decade will see many new discoveries resulting in tools that make our genealogy walls fall.  I can’t help but wonder what the article I’ll be writing on the 20^th anniversary looking back at nearly a quarter century of genetic genealogy will say!

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

Beginning with the full sequencing of the Neanderthal genome, first published in May 2010 by the Max Planck Institute with Svante Paabo at the helm, and followed shortly thereafter with a Denisovan specimen, we began to unravel our ancient history.

Neanderthal man, reconstructed at the National Museum of Nature and Science in Tokyo

The photo below shows a step in the process of extracting DNA from ancient bones at Max Planck.

Our Y and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups take us back thousands of years in time, but at some point, where and how people were settling and intermixing becomes fuzzy. Ancient DNA can put the people of that time and place in context.  We have discovered that current populations do not necessarily represent the ancient populations of a particular locale.

Recent information discovered from ancient burials tells us that the people of Europe descend from a 3 pronged model. Until recently, it was believed that Europeans descended from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers, a two-pronged model.

Previously, it was believed that Europe was peopled by the ancient hunter-gatherers, the Paleolithic, who originally settled in Europe beginning about 45,000 years ago. At this time, the Neanderthal were already settled in Europe but weren’t considered to be anatomically modern humans, and it was believed, incorrectly, that the two groups did not interbreed.  These hunter-gatherers were the people who settled in Europe before the last major ice age, the Younger Dryas, taking refuge in the southern portions of Europe and Eurasia, and repeopling the continent after the ice receded, about 12,000 years ago.  By that time, the Neanderthals were gone, or as we now know, at least partially assimilated.

This graphic shows Europe during the last ice age.

The second settlement wave, the agriculturalist farmers from the Near East either overran or integrated with the hunter-gatherers in the Neolithic period, depending on which theory you subscribe to, about 8000-10,000 years ago.

2012 – Ancient Northern European (ANE) Hints

Beginning in 2012, we began to see hints of a third lineage that contributed to the peopling of Europe as well, from the north. Buried in the 2012 paper, Estimating admixture proportions and dates with ADMIXTOOLS by Patterson et al, was a very interesting tidbit.  This new technique showed a third population, referred to by many as a “ghost population”, because no one knew who they were, that contributed to the European population.

The new population was termed Ancient North Eurasian, or ANE.

Dienekes covered this paper in his blog, but without additional information, in the community in general, there wasn’t much more than a yawn.

2013 – Mal’ta Child Stirs Excitement

The first real hint of meat on the bones of ANE came in the form of ancient DNA analysis of a 24,000 year old Siberian boy that has come to be named Mal’ta (Malta) Child. In the original paper, by Raghaven et al, Upper Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native Americans, he was referred to as MA-1.  I wrote about this in my article titled Native American Gene Flow – Europe?, Asia and the Americas.   Dienekes wrote about this paper as well.

This revelation caused quite a stir, because it was reported that the Ancestor of Native Americans in Asia was 30% Western Eurasian.  Unfortunately, in some cases, this was immediately interpreted to mean that Native Americans had come directly from Europe which is not what this paper said, nor inferred.  It was also inferred that the haplogroups of this child, R* (Y) and U (mtDNA) were Native American, which is also incorrect.  To date, there is no evidence for migration to the New World from Europe in ancient times, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t still looking for that evidence in early burials.

What this paper did show was that Europeans and Native Americans shared a common ancestor, and that the Siberian population had contributed to the European population as well as the Native American population.  In other words, descendants settled in both directions, east and west.

The most fascinating aspect of this paper was the match distribution map, below, showing which populations Malta child matched most closely.

As you can see, MA-1, Malta Child, matches the Native American population most closely, followed by the northern European and Greenland populations. The further south in Europe and Asia, the more distant the matches and the darker the blue.

2013 – Michael Hammer and Haplogroup R

Last fall at the Family Tree DNA conference, Dr. Michael Hammer, from the Hammer Lab at the University of Arizona discussed new findings relative to ancient burials, specifically in relation to haplogroup R, or more specifically, the absence of haplogroup R in those early burials.

Based on the various theories and questions, ancient burials were enlightening.

In 2013, there were a total of 32 burials from the Neolithic period, after farmers arrived from the Near East, and haplogroup R did not appear. Instead, haplogroups G, I and E were found.

What this tells us is that haplogroup R, as well as other haplogroup, weren’t present in Europe at this time. Having said this, these burials were in only 4 locations and, although unlikely, R could be found in other locations.

Last year, Dr. Hammer concluded that haplogroup R was not found in the Paleolithic and likely arrived with the Neolithic farmers. That shook the community, as it had been widely believed that haplogroup R was one of the founding European haplogroups.

While this provided tantalizing information, we still needed additional evidence. No paper has yet been published that addresses these findings.  The mass full sequencing of the Y chromosome over this past year with the introduction of the Big Y will provide extremely valuable information about the Y chromosome and eventually, the migration path into and across Europe.

2014 – Europe’s Three Ancient Tribes

In September 2014, another paper was published by Lazaridis et al that more fully defined this new ANE branch of the European human family tree.  An article in BBC News titled Europeans drawn from three ancient ‘tribes’ describes it well for the non-scientist.  Of particular interest in this article is the artistic rendering of the ancient individual, based on their genetic markers.  You’ll note that they had dark skin, dark hair and blue eyes, a rather unexpected finding.

In discussing the paper, David Reich from Harvard, one of the co-authors, said, “Prior to this paper, the models we had for European ancestry were two-way mixtures. We show that there are three groups. This also explains the recently discovered genetic connection between Europeans and Native Americans.  The same Ancient North Eurasian group contributed to both of them.”

The paper, Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans, appeared as a letter in Nature and is behind a paywall, but the supplemental information is free.

The article summary states the following:

We sequenced the genomes of a ~7,000-year-old farmer from Germany and eight ~8,000-year-old hunter-gatherers from Luxembourg and Sweden. We analysed these and other ancient genomes1, 2, 3, 4 with 2,345 contemporary humans to show that most present-day Europeans derive from at least three highly differentiated populations: west European hunter-gatherers, who contributed ancestry to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners; ancient north Eurasians related to Upper Palaeolithic Siberians3, who contributed to both Europeans and Near Easterners; and early European farmers, who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harboured west European hunter-gatherer related ancestry. We model these populations’ deep relationships and show that early European farmers had ~44% ancestry from a ‘basal Eurasian’ population that split before the diversification of other non-African lineages.

This paper utilized ancient DNA from several sites and composed the following genetic contribution diagram that models the relationship of European to non-European populations.

Present day samples are colored purple, ancient in red and reconstructed ancestral populations in green. Solid lines represent descent without admixture and dashed lines represent admixture.  WHG=western European hunter-gatherer, EEF=early European farmer and ANE=ancient north Eurasian

2014 – Michael Hammer on Europe’s Ancestral Population

For anyone interested in ancient DNA, 2014 has been a banner years. At the Family Tree DNA conference in Houston, Texas, Dr. Michael Hammer brought the audience up to date on Europe’s ancestral population, including the newly sequenced ancient burials and the information they are providing.

Dr. Hammer said that ancient DNA is the key to understanding the historical processes that led up to the modern. He stressed that we need to be careful inferring that the current DNA pattern is reflective of the past because so many layers of culture have occurred between then and now.

Until recently, it was assumed that the genes of the Neolithic farmers replaced those of the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers. Ancient DNA is suggesting that this is not true, at least not on a wholesale level.

The theory, of course, is that we should be able to see them today if they still exist. The migration and settlement pattern in the slide below was from the theory set forth in the 1990s.

In 2013, Dr. Hammer discussed the theory that haplogroup R1b spread into Europe with the farmers from the Near East in the Neolithic. This year, he expanded upon that topic that based on the new findings from ancient burials.

Last year, Dr. Hammer discussed 32 burials from 4 sites. Today, we have information from 15 ancient DNA sites and many of those remains have been full genome sequenced.

Information from papers and recent research suggests that Europeans also have genes from a third source lineage, nicknamed the “ghost population of North Eurasia.”

Scientists are finding a signal of northeast Asian related admixture in northern Europeans, first suggested in 2012.  This was confirmed with the sequencing of Malta child and then in a second sequencing of Afontova Gora2 in south central Siberia.

We have complete genomes from nine ancient Europeans – Mesolithic hunter gatherers and Neothilic farmers. Hammer refers to the Mesolithic here, which is a time period between the Paleolithic (hunter gatherers with stone tools) and the Neolithic (farmers).

In the PCA charts, shown above, you can see that Europeans and people from the Near East cluster separately, except for a bridge formed by a few Mediterranean and Jewish populations. On the slide below, the hunter-gatherers (WHG) and early farmers (EEF) have been overlayed onto the contemporary populations along with the MA-1 (Malta Child) and AG2 (Afontova Gora2) representing the ANE.

When sequenced, separate groups formed including western hunter gathers and early european farmers include Otzi, the iceman.  A third group is the north south clinal variation with ANE contributing to northern European ancestry.  The groups are represented by the circles, above.

Dr. Hammer said that the team who wrote the “Ancient Human Genomes” paper just recently published used an F3 test, results shown above, which shows whether populations are an admixture of a reference population based on their entire genome. He mentioned that this technique goes well beyond PCA.

Mapped onto populations today, most European populations are a combination of the three early groups. However, the ANE is not found in the ancient Paleolithic or Neolithic burials.  It doesn’t arrive until later.

This tells us that there was a migration event 45,000 years ago from the Levant, followed about 7000 years ago by farmers from the Near East, and that ANE entered the population some time after that. All Europeans today carry some amount of ANE, but ancient burials do not.

These burials also show that southern Europe has more Neolithic farmer genes and northern Europe has more Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherer genes.

Pigmentation for light skin came with farmers – blue eyes existed in hunter gatherers even though their skin was dark.

Dr. Hammer created these pie charts of the Y and mitochondrial haplogroups found in the ancient burials as compared to contemporary European haplogroups.

The pie chart on the left shows the haplogroups of the Mesolithic burials, all haplogroup I2 and subclades. Note that in the current German population today, no I2a1b and no I1 was found.  The chart on the right shows current Germans where haplogroup I is a minority.

Therefore, we can conclude that haplogroup I is a good candidate to be identified as a Paleolithic/Mesolithic haplogroup.

This information shows that the past is very different from today.

In 2014 we have many more burials that have been sequenced than last year, as shown on the map above.

Green represents Neolithic farmers, red are Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, brown at bottom right represents more recent samples from the Metallic age.

There are a total of 48 Neolithic burials where haplogroup G dominates. In the Mesolithic, there are a total of six haplogroup I.

This suggests that haplogroup I is a good candidate to be the father of the Paleolithic/Mesolithic and haplogroup G, the founding father of the Neolithic.

In addition to haplogroup G in the Neolithic, one sample of both E1b1b1 (M35) and C were also found in Spain.  E1b1b1 isn’t surprising given it’s north African genesis, but C was quite interesting.

The Metal ages, which according to wiki begin about 3300BC in Europe, is where haplogroup R, along with I1, first appear.

Please note that the diffusion of melallurgy map above is not part of Dr. Hammer’s presentation. I have added it for clarification.

Nothing is constant in Europe. The Y DNA was very upheaved, as indicated on the graphic above.  Mitochondrial DNA shifted from pre-Neolithic to Neolithic which isn’t terribly different from the present day.

Dr. Hammer did not say this, but looking at the Y versus the mtDNA haplogroups, I wonder if this suggests that indeed there was more of a replacement of the males in the population, but that the females were more widely assimilated. This would certainly make sense, especially if the invaders were warriors and didn’t have females with them.  They would have taken partners from the invaded population.

Haplogroup G represents the spread of farming into Europe.

The most surprising revelation is that haplogroup R1b appears to have emerged after the Neolithic agriculture transition. Given that just three years ago we thought that haplogroup R1b was one of the original European settlers thousands of years ago, based on the prevalence of haplogroup R in Europe today, at about 50%, this is a surprising turn of events.  Last year’s revelation that R was maybe only 7000-8000 years old in Europe was a bit of a whammy, but the age of R in Europe in essence just got halved again and the source of R1b changed from the Near East to the Asian steppes.

Obviously, something conferred an advantage to these R1b men. Given that they arrived in the early Metalic age, was it weapons and chariots that enabled the R1b men who arrived to quickly become more than half of the population?

The Bronze Age saw the first use of metal to create weapons. Warrior identity became a standard part of daily life.  Celts ranged over Europe and were the most dominant iron age warriors.  Indo-European languages and chariots arrived from Asia about this time.

The map above shows the Hallstadt and LaTene Celtic cultures in Europe, about 600BC. This was not a slide presented by Dr. Hammer.

Haplogroup R1b was not found in an ancient European context prior to a Bell Beaker period burial in Germany 4.8-4.0 kya (thousand years ago, i.e. 4,800-4,000 years ago).  R1b arrives about 4.6 kya and is also found in a Corded Ware culture burial in Germany.  A late introduction of these lineages which now predominate in Europe corresponds to the autosomal signal of the entry of Asian and Eastern European steppe invaders into western Europe.

Local expansion occurred in Europe of R1b subgroups U106, L21 and U152.

A current haplogroup R distribution map that reflects the findings of this past year is shown above.

Haplogroup I is interesting for another reason. It looks like haplogroup I2a1b (M423) may have been replaced by I1 which expanded after the Mesolithic.

On the slide above, the Loschbour sample from Luxembourg was mapped onto a current haplogroup I SNP map where his closest match is a current day Russian.

One of the benefits of ancient DNA genome processing is that we will be able to map current trees into maps of old SNPs and be able to tell who we match most closely.

Autosomal DNA can also be mapped to see how much of our DNA is from which ancient population.

Dr. Hammer mapped the percentages of European Mesolithic/Paleolithic hunter-gatherers in blue, Neolithic Farmers from the Near East in magenta and Asian Steppe Invaders representing ANE in yellow, over current populations. Note the ancient DNA samples at the top of the list.  None of the burials except for Malta Child carry any yellow, indicating that the ANE entered the European population with the steppe invaders; the same group that brought us haplogroup R and possibly I1.

Dr. Hammer says that ANE was introduced to and assimilated into the European population by one or more incursions. We don’t know today if ANE in Europeans is a result of a single blast event or multiple events.  He would like to do some model simulations and see if it is related to timing and arrival of swords and chariots.

We know too that there are more recent incursions, because we’re still missing major haplogroups like J.

The further east you go, meaning the closer to the steppes and Volga region, the less well this fits the known models. In other words, we still don’t have the whole story.

At the end of the presentation, Michael was asked if the whole genomes sequenced are also obtaining Y STR data, which would allow us to compare our results on an individual versus a haplogroup level. He said he didn’t know, but he would check.

Family Tree DNA was asked if they could show a personal ancient DNA map in myOrigins, perhaps as an alternate view. Bennett took a vote and that seemed pretty popular, which he interpreted as a yes, we’d like to see that.

In Summary

The advent of and subsequent drop in the price of whole genome sequencing combined with the ability to extract ancient DNA and piece it back together have provided us with wonderful opportunities.  I think this is jut the proverbial tip of the iceberg, and I can’t wait to learn more.

If you are interested in other articles I’ve written about ancient DNA, check out these links:

• 400,000 Year Old DNA from Spain Sequenced
• Finding Your Inner Neanderthal with Evolutionary Geneticist Svante Paabo
• Neanderthal Genome Further Identified in Contemporary Eurasians
• Sequencing of Neanderthal Toe Bone Reveals Unknown Hominin Line
• Decoding and Rethinking Neanderthals
• DNA Analysis of 8000 Year Old Bones Allow Peek Into the Neolithic
• Native American Gene Flow – Europe?, Asia and the Americas
• Native Americans, Neanderthal and Denisova Admixture
• 5,500 Year Old Grandmother Found Using DNA
• Ancient DNA Analysis from Canada
• The Malhi Molecular Anthropology and Ancient DNA Labs
• Analyzing the Native American Clovis Anzick Ancient Results
• Utilizing Ancient DNA at GedMatch
• More Ancient DNA Samples for Comparison
• Ancient DNA Matches – What Do They Mean?
• Ancient DNA Matching – A Cautionary Tale

William Harrell or Herrell or maybe Harrold or Herrald or some other spelling derivative was born about 1790, judging from census records, someplace in North Carolina.

The early tax and census records of Wilkes Co, NC reveal that the Herrell (Harral, Herold, Herrold, Harrold, Herrald, etc.), McNiel, Vannoy, Sheppard, and McDowell families lived just houses apart. Those families also migrated about the same time to the area that was originally Claiborne County, TN, that would eventually become northern Hancock County, near the Lee County, Virginia line and lived in close proximity as neighbors there too, along the Powell River.  Today, a Harrell cemetery remains.

But let’s start our story in Wilkes County, North Carolina, where William Herrell began his life, or at least where we first find him.

Wilkes County, NC

In the 1790 census, there is no Harrell or similar name in Wilkes County, but in the 1800 census, we find both John Harral Sr. and John Harral Jr.

John Sr:

• 1 male 45 and over so born before 1755
• 1 female over 45 so born before 1755
• 1 male under 10 so born 1791-1800
• 1 male 10-15 so born 1785-1790 (This is probably William who was born about 1790)
• 1 male 25-44 so born 1756-1774 (this mark is very light and may have been a mistake or erasure) possibly James who has land in Wilkes in 1805
• 2 females 16-25 so born 1775-1784

John Jr:

• 1 male 16-25 so born 1775-1784
• 1 female 16-25 so born 1775-1784
• 1 female under 10 so born 1790-1800, likely close to 1800 since there are no other siblings

Therefore we would expect to find John Sr. someplace in 1790 with at least 4 if not 5 or 6 children. Obviously, William cannot be the son of John Jr., so he would be the son of John Sr.

We know that William was born in 1790 in NC. Therefore we would expect to find John someplace in NC in 1790.  Checking all of the Johns of similar names, we find only 1, in Bertie Co., that has the number of children (or more, not less) that we would expect John to have in 1790 based on the 1800 census in Wilkes County.

What we expect in 1790 based on the 1800 census:

• 1 or possibly 2 males over 16
• 2 or possibly 3 males under 16
• at least 3 females

We find John in Bertie with in 1790:

• 1 male over 16
• 2 males under 16 (so one child was yet to be born either in 1790 or shortly thereafter, making Mary probably about 40 in 1790 or born in 1750 or so)
• 5 females

Y DNA testing on a proven descendant of John of Bertie County could confirm or squish this possible connection.

Harrold Mountain

John Harrell (also spelled Harrold there, Herrell, etc.) died in Wilkes Co. NC in about 1825. His wife, Mary died about 1826. The 1800 census shows 5 children. His 4 identified children were born beginning in 1783, so he had to be born before 1760 or even earlier.

I visited Wilkes County in 2004 and my cousin, George McNiel, a local historian and avid genealogy researcher, was gracious enough to take me on a tour of all of my family lands. There is a mountain named Harrold Mountain today.

There is also a very old “primitive Baptist” church on Harrold Mountain and guess what the names are on probably 80% of the graves – yep – you guessed it – Harrold and Harrald.

My cousin George, quite a history buff, said this was the last one of the old local churches to flatten the top of the graves for mowing.  Apparently this particular denomination believed in rounding the tops of the graves – and keeping them mounded up. I don’t know why. They also had an outside eating area because they don’t believe in having food inside the church. These are still common practices of this particular denomination apparently, but many of the churches have modernized.

The photo below is standing at the church looking across the road and at the beautiful view.

William Harrell married Mary McDowell, daughter of Michael McDowell. They were married by the Baptist Preacher, Jacob McGrady. Mary’s father was a Revolutionary War veteran. About 1810, William Harrell, his wife Mary McDowell Harrell, her father, Michael McDowell and her brother John McDowell would all move to the Powell River area of Claiborne County Tennessee, now in Hancock, near Lee Co. Va.

Just a few years later, William Harrell fought in the War of 1812 and it is through his pension papers that we gleaned a lot of priceless information about him and his family.

The 1800 census of Wilkes Co shows Michael McDowell, Jacob McGrady (the minister who married William Herrell and Mary McDowell), and both John Herrell Jr. and Sr. (spelled Harrall) on adjoining pages. Based on this evidence, pending further investigation, it is presumed that Michael McDowell is Mary and John’s father and John Herrell Sr. is likely the father of William Herrell.

The following photos were taken on Harrold Mountain on a beautiful spring day. It probably looks about the same today as it did when John Harrold lived there.  My husband was taking the photos and he liked the frolicking goats.

Claiborne County, Tennessee

About 1810, according to John McDowell’s deposition, Mary McDowell Harrell’s brother, this group of families moved to Claiborne County, Tennessee. In 1845, this part of Claiborne County became Hancock County. John signed an affidavit when Mary applied for a pension based on William’s service records that recounted their marriage in 1809 and subsequent move to Tennessee.

The Herrell family lived along the Powell Mountain on the Lee County, Virginia, Claiborne County, Tennessee border. The house, abandoned when I visited in the 1980s, may be the original Harrell homestead.  Mary Parkey, a now deceased local historian, said it was “Herrell” but she wasn’t positive about the specific line.  She too descended from the families in this area.

In 1812, William Harrell bought land in Claiborne County.

1812 – John Claypole to William Harrell – 1812 Claiborne County Deed book D p182 for $200

Claiborne County Court – May term 1813 – Oct. 10, 1812 John Claypool and Eliza his wife of Claiborne and William Harrold of Lee Co Va. for the sum of $200 a tract of land lying in Claiborne on the North side of Powell River including a stripe of land on the opposite side of said river included in a tract of land conveyed to William Bails by James Allen bounded as follows: Beginning on the back line in a deep hollow at two hickories and at a dogwood, thence to a white oak marked AB (with the right side of the A the same as the back of the B) thence to the south line of said tract containing 100 acres more or less it being part of a tract of 440 acres conveyed to said William Bails by James Allen as above said conveyance bearing the date Jan. 20, 1809.  Witnesses William Briance, Michael McDowel (his mark), William Hardy.  Registered Dec. 3, 1813.

According to Mary Parkey, these ruins are also on Herrell land.

War of 1812

William Herrell served in the War of 1812 and later filed for a pension. He also filed for bounty land in 1850 and received 80 acres (blwt22194) and in 1855 applied for and received another 80 acres (blwt7267).

He reportedly served 14 days in the War with the Creek Indians. However, I subsequently found that he served beginning January 17, 1814, and was discharged  May 13, 1814, being in Solomon Dobkins company.

Much of what we know about William and his family comes from his pension application papers, and those of Mary following his death in 1859.

The various spellings of his name on the following papers from William’s service records held in the National Archives are not typos.

William Harold is written on the top of the page, serving in Bunch’s Regiment 1814, East Tn. Militia, War of 1812.  He is a private, card number 38519847 and underneath it also says 9893 (under the 9847 part).  At the bottom of that page it says Allison’s Regiment E. Tn. Militia.

The next page says William Harrold or Herrald (the or Herrald is actually written above the name Harrold), ensign Benj. Austin’s, then private Col. S. Bunch’s regiment if the Tn. Militia. It says there is one page in the file of misc information.

Inside it says Wiliam Harrold, private, Capt. Solomon Dobkins Company, Col., Samuel Bunch’s regiment, war of 1812. Company payroll for Jan. 17 to May 14,1814 roll dated Mar. 21, 1814. Commencement of services Jan. 17, 1814.

Expiration of services Mar. 21, 1814. Term of service 4 months 5 days.  Pay per months $8 no cents.  Amount of pay $33.29.  Number days added for travelling allowance of pay – 8.

Next page says William Harold, Company muster roll for Jan. 17 to May 13, 1814. Roll dated Washington, Tn. May 13, 1814.  When joined – Jan 17, 1814. When discharged – May 13, 1814.  Mileage to residence – 120.  Present or absent – present. And then a note below that says “see Allison’s regiment E. Tn. militia.”

In 1815, William signed this power of attorney, apparently to collect his pay from his service in the War of 1812. It looks like he signed his surname Harrol, Harrold or Harrald.

The transcription is as follows:

State of Tennessee – Claiborne County: Know all men that I William Herrald a private in Ensign Benjamin Austin’s Company of East Tennessee drafted militia for divers and good causes and considerations me there unto moving have made ordained nominated and appointed and by these presents to make or ordain nominate and appoint Hugh Graham of said county my true and lawful attorney for me and in my name and for my use and benefit to ask demanded and release? of paymaster of the United States all such sums of money or other ?? that is owing to me from the United States for a four months tour of duty under the command of the said Ensign Benjamin Austin and in my name to grant and give receipts to the paymaster of the United States for the same as tho I were personally present at the drawing therefor any other lawful act that I could do touching the same were I personally present.

In witness where I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 8^th day of September 1815.  In the presence of George Yoakum.

Signed Wm Harrold

This is the only known copy of William’s signature.

The last page has been taped and states that William Aklen? acting justice certifies that William Herrald (clearly Herrald here) personally appeared and sealed this document which is a power of attorney. Further down it looks like it was folded and on an outside place, says, “Power of Attorney” William Herrald but the e is under the tape and is could be an a, but it looks like an e.

On the bottom of this page, after another fold, and upside down, in another handwriting, it says simply, Wm Heral, ensign Austin’s company.

So in this one document we have his name spelled Harold, Harrold, Herrald, and Heral. It’s no wonder I can’t figure it out today!!!

In William Herrell’s deposition taken on March 5, 1855, William states that he is 65 years old and enlisted as a private in Captain Solomon Dobins (probably Dobkins) company of Tennessee Militia in the regiment commanded by Samuel Bunch in the “War with the Creek Indians,” and served 14 days. Given that William knows how old he is, and given that the deposition is in March, he has either had his birthday already for 1855 which means he was born in 1790, or he has yet to have his birthday which means he’ll turn 66 and was born in 1789.  He signed with a signature in 1815, but in 1855, he signed with an X.

On July 5, 1871, William’s widow, Mary states she is 86 years old and that she lived on Powell’s River in Hancock County. She further states that William was discharged at Fort Strother in May of 1814 and that William “helped to build Fort Williams in the fork of the Coosey and Talley-Poosey Rivers”.  Mary signed with a mark.

She says that she was married under the name of McDowell in 1809 at Wilkesboro NC by Jacob McGrady and that William died on October 8, 1859 on Powell’s River.

John McDowell filed an affidavit in 1872 stating that he is 90 years old (so born in 1782) and was acquainted with both William and Mary before their marriage. He states that he was at their wedding.  Further testimony in 1872 by the postmaster of Mulberry Gap, John Woodward, attests to the honesty of Alexander Herrell and James E. Speer as witnesses to Mary Herrell’s loyalty.  Alexander is believed to be Mary’s son due to this affidavit and land transactions, but the relationship of James Speer, if any, is unknown.

Fort Williams and the War of 1812

Fort Williams, the fort that William Herrell helped to build, was located at the mouth of Cedar Creek and the Coosa River, shown below, in what is now Talladega County, Alabama.

Below, Cedar Creek, from the bridge over Cedar Creek, looking towards the confluence with the Coosa. This was the location of Fort Williams.

In March 1814, General Andrew Jackson mobilized the Tennessee Militia, made up of Volunteers from the East and West Tennessee Militias and the Thirty-Ninth U.S. Infantry for a full-scale campaign against the Creek Indians, known as Red Sticks. General Jackson’s army totaled about 3,000 men.

A large segment of Jackson’s army left Fort Strother on March 14, 1814 and marched 52 miles through the forest in 3 days to a point on the Coosa River in Mississippi territory, where a garrison was established and given the name Fort Williams (in honor of Colonel John Williams).

Preparations were made to march about fifty miles in a southeasterly direction to the Creek stronghold called Tohopeka (known to the whites as Horseshoe Bend).

The Battle of Horseshoe Bend was fought March 27, 1814 between the American army under General Andrew Jackson, numbering about 3,000, with about 200 Cherokee Indian allies, against an unknown number of Creek Indians. The location was on the Tallapoosa River in Alabama. The place was also called Tohopeka.

The Red Stick’s had built a barricade on the river, which eventually trapped them once Jackson’s soldiers surrounded them. Over 800 Creeks died as a result of the Battle.

Jackson’s force defeated the Creeks. The Creeks lost about 550 within the bend, which had been fortified, and more in the river. Jackson lost 50 killed and 150 wounded.  General Jackson’s dead and wounded were taken back to Ft. Williams.  The cemetery at Fort Williams became the final resting place of more than a hundred Tennessee militia and others. These others include Cherokee allies who fought with Jackson at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, but who were buried apart from Tennessee militia.

The original site of Fort Williams is now under Lay Lake in Coosa County, Alabama.

Obviously, Solomon Dobkins company was part of the men who built the fort and fought in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. The question is, where was William Herrell during that battle?

From the Tennessee state archives, we find the following about Solomon Dobkins’ Company:

The officers and company were mustered into service January 10, 1814. The men are entitled to allowance of pay for 2 days and to the mileage shown above. (nothing shown above in transcription) Remarks: Attached to this company 4-27-1814, from Capt. Dobkins Company.

Bunch’s Regiment (1814) E. Tenn Militia. Peter Markham Sergeant, Capt John Hou’s (sic) Company, Col. Samuel Bunch’s Regiment, E. Tn Militia War of 1812.  Appears on company pay roll for Jan. 8 to July 21, 1814, roll dated July 29, 1814, commencement of service or of this settlement 4-27-1814. Expiration of service or of this settlement 7-29-1814. Term of service charged 3 months, 2 days. Pay per month $11.00, amount to pay $33.70. No days added for travelling. Allowance of Pay: 8  Remarks, joined 27 April 1814 from Capt Dobkins Company.

The 2^nd Regiment of East Tennessee Militia was mustered from January 1814 to May 1814.

Andrew Jackson’s official report of the Battle of Horseshoe Bend (27 March 1814) mentions that “a few companies” of Colonel Bunch were part of the right line of the American forces at this engagement. More than likely, some of those companies included Captains Francis Berry, Nicholas Gibbs (who was killed at the battle), Jones Griffin, and John McNair. In addition, muster rolls show some casualties from this battle in the companies led by Captains Moses Davis, Joseph Duncan, and John Houk.

Other men from this regiment remained at Fort Williams prior to Horseshoe Bend to guard the post — provision returns indicate that there were 283 men from Bunch’s regiment at the fort at the time of the battle.

Since William Herrell was in Samuel Bunch’s regiment, he may well have been guarding the fort instead of fighting at Horseshoe Bend. I wonder if he was grateful to be relatively safe, or upset to miss the action.  He would have been all of 24 or 25 years of age.

Samuel Bunch’s regiment was in General George Doherty’s Brigade and many of the men stayed after the enlistment expiration of May 1814 to guard the posts at Fort Strother and Fort Williams until June/July. The line of march went through Camp Ross, a supply fort near present-day Chattanooga which was known as Ross’ Landing until 1838, Fort Armstrong located on Cherokee land, and Fort Jackson, a former Creek trading center in Alabama on the Coosa River.  Camp Ross location, shown below, today.

Fort Strother, where William was discharged, is located at the red balloon, below, at the intersection of Ohatchee Creek and the Coosa River.

Here’s the Ohatchee and the Coosa today.

The Tennessee State Archives provides this map of the Creek Campaign of the War of 1812, as it was called.

It’s 282 miles from the Rob Camp Church near where William Herrell lived to Fort Strother, by road, today. If the men marched, on foot, 10 miles a day it would have taken them a month to get home.  They were allowed 8 days travel, which would mean they would have been expected to cover about 35 miles a day.  That would have presumed they had horses.  I also noticed that the mileage estimate was only 120, which may have been from Knoxville to some other location, but it surely wasn’t the entire distance.  One hundred twenty miles divided by 8 days equals 15 miles per day, which is much more reasonable, especially if on foot.

Today, it’s about 60 miles, an hour’s drive, between Fort Williams at the Coosa and Cedar Creek, and Fort Strother at Ohatchee Creek and the Coosa. Then it would have meant expending considerable effort in very overgrown countryside.  A forced march of 52 miles took 3 days.

After William returned home from the War, life resumed and went back to normal. But what did normal look like in the early 1800s in Claiborne County, TN?

Day to Day Life in Claiborne County

The Claiborne County court notes tell us more about what was happening in the day to day life of William Herrell after his service in the War of 1812.

William Herrell was a juror several times between 1813 and 1819. To be a juror in this timeframe, one had to be a white landowner.  In this same timeframe, William also witnessed a deed of Levi Fortner to John McDowell, his brother-in-law.  William McDowell, probably another brother-in-law, was also a witness.

1819 – John and Lewis Campbell, 2 boys 10 and 7, children of Susannah Campbell bound to William Herrin? till age 21.

Aug. 16, 1820 – Road hands Thomas McCraty’s company south of Wallen Ridge includes William Harrell, John McDowell, Joseph Baker, William Baker, William Medlock, William McDowell and Robert G.? Parks. Residents had to maintains roads of a certain width.  This means fellings trees, clearing brush and moving animal waste off of the road.  In wet areas, plank roads were laid to keep the wagon wheels from sinking in the mud.

1835 – William Harrell to Ruben Dean Claiborne County Deed book M p 63 for $20

April 23 1835 – William Herrell of Claiborne and Ruben Deans of Claiborne for $20 a tract of land in Claiborne bounded as follows: Beginning on a stake in said Herrell’s line on the N bank of Powell River, then running up with the meanderings of the said river 35 poles connering? on the bank of said river on a sassafras and cucumber, then running northward up the hill to a post oak, then from the nest oak a straight  line crossing the hollow to a stake on said Herrell’s line thence running ? along said line to two hickorys connecting? said Herrells and Dean’s corner, thence running down the hill with said Herrell area? to Dean’s line to the beginning, containing 10 acres more or less.  Signed in the presence of Theoderick Moon, John Shak (Spak?), Andrew Deans.

William Herrell is shown on the 1836 tax list and on 1839 list with 180 acres worth $700, 150 school acres valued at $300, 1 slave valued at $500 and 1 poll. This record is important because it’s the first record of William owning a slave.  The slave was worth more than half of his land.

November 1836, the estate of James Walker has a note on William Harrell due Dec. 10, 1835 for $2.54.

William Herrell purchased something at the estate sale of Henly Fugate in 1838.

1838, Dec. – William Harrell, purchaser at the sale of Philip Bundren, bought a hammer and chain.

There was also a second Herrell family in Claiborne County. Fortunately, they were from the far southern part of the county.  Based on the neighbors, I have been able to isolate the northern William in the records.  At one time, a second William arrived from Wythe County, VA and joined the other “southern” Herrell group.  According to DNA tests, these two lines are not related.

Children

The known children of William and Mary McDowell Harrell are:

• Margaret, their oldest child, born about 1810, married Anson Cook Martin before 1830. Anson died about 1845 and about 1850, Margaret married Joseph Preston Bolton.

The daughters below were all unmarried and living at home in 1850 census.

• Mildred born in 1816 married Hiram Edins
• Nancy born 1820, never married
• Mary born 1822 married William Edens
• Malinda born 1829

There is some amount of confusion about the son or sons of William and Mary McDowell Herrell.

• Abel (name smudged) born in 1824 (age 26) married Nancy, age 20, surname possibly Fury or Ferre, pronounced Fury or Furry, about 1847. In the 1850 census, they had one daughter, Margaret M., aged 2. The problem is that Abel’s name is probably actually Alexander. Abel may have been a nickname or it may have been written incorrectly/illegibly that first time.  There is no additional evidence of Abel.

In 1860, Alexander’s siblings deeded land to him.

In the 1860 census, Alex Herald, age 40 is married to Nancy, age 26. Children are Margaret, age 10, William age 8, Alexander age 5, Mary age 3 and Daniel age 1.

In the 1870 census, Alexander Herald is shown age 50 with William, age 16, Alexander 14, Mary 10, Daniel 9, Jehil? 7 and Henley 1. No wife is shown.

In the 1880 census, Elliczander (sic – I love this spelling) Harrell (indexed as Harsell), age 60, is shown with wife Nancy J. age 50 along with children William R. age 24, Daniel J. 18, Joseph H. 16, Henley 10 and Clinton 7.

Henley Herrell’s death certificate in 1924 lists his mother as Jocie Ferry, born in Hancock County, TN.

Based on the lack of Abel’s signature on the 1860 deed, and no mention of his heirs, it appears that Abel was actually Alexander.

Alexander’s descendants still own and farm some of the original Harrell land. They provided this photo of Alexander’s house, still on their land, and said that William and Mary’s house was an older house nearby.

Dec. 10, 1892 – We Henley Herrell and Clinton Herrell have this day bargained and sold and do hereby transfer and convey unto James M. Martin his heirs and assigns forever all of our undivided interest in the to a certain parcel of land in the 14^th civil district of Hancock Co adjoining the lands of J.E. Speer and others and bounded as follows…Beginning in the hollow on the North side of Wallen’s Ridge, thence with the hollow southwardly to a hickory on top of said ridge, thence westwardly with the top of said ridge to the top of the Middle Spur, thence northwardly with said spur to a Sycamore sprout in the hollow on the lower end of said spur corner between JM Martin and JE Speer, thence southwardly up the hollow to the beginning.  Signed.  No witnesses.

Henley and Clinton were the heirs of Alexander Herrell who died in 1891.

In 1892, the Martins are still neighbors of the Herrell family.

William Herrell’s Second Wife

When I say William had a second wife, I don’t mean he was married and his first wife died and he remarried. I mean that, indeed, he had two wives at the same time.  And no, he was not Mormon.  I can’t say what his motivation was, exactly.  I’d like to ascribe some positive motivation to William’s situation, but I think I’ll just have to let the circumstances speak for themselves.

All things considered, the wives probably had little choice in the matter.  You’ve already met Mary McDowell, but you haven’t met Harriett, William McDowell’s slave. Yes, Harriett was the second wife.  And no, they were not legally married.  Slaves could not marry and whites and blacks could not intermarry during that timeframe, so their marriage was not legal in the traditional sense.  Legal or not, they had a child, Cannon Herrell.

Many years ago, an elderly descendant from the “other Herrell line” in southern Claiborne County on the Clinch River, before we knew the two Herrell lines weren’t related, confided this information, and it appears to be about our William. Remember, back then, the two Herrell families didn’t know they weren’t related.

One of the Harrells bought a young female slave and built a house for her on the far edge of his property. His routine was to live with her until they had a fight, then he would go live with his wife until they had a fight …then start all over again. He had a house full of kids each place. In 1976 there were still both black and white Harrells in the area. William Guy Harrell, Jr., an attorney in Tazewell, had one of the other Harrells come in to his office for some legal work. When the matter was completed, the client asked, “What do I owe you?” Bill gave him a figure, but added, “I always give family members a 25% discount.” His client seemed embarrassed and said, “We don’t talk about that.” Hill told him, “I don’t mind being kin to you. Everything I’ve ever heard about you people is that you are law abiding, self-supporting people. I hope you don’t mind being kin to me.”

Whether or not this Harrell and my ancestor Drewry Harrell were related depends on who you ask. I really hope he is a distant relative because he was such an honorable man. In his will he left his property equally divided between his two families.

I have a hunch that this slave/wife was called Aunt Sukey. In that section of the country, older, respected blacks were called Aunt and Uncle. One time when Grandma and my great-grandmother were talking, they mentioned “Aunt Sukey” and did that thing adults do that all but screams to any child present, “You are not supposed to hear this!”

We’ve all seen it, and probably done it. The speaker throws a quick glance at the child and lowers her voice just a tad while leaning a bit closer to the listener. The voice is not lowered so much that the child can’t hear, and the leaning forward 3 inches is no deterrent either. The child remembers and 40 or 50 years later they understand.

I KNOW they were talking about the family… that is all they EVER talked about. All day long, every day.

By the way, the “nice little old lady” who told me this story also told me that if I ever repeated it, that she would have one of those voodoo priestesses (her words) in New Orleans stick pins in a voodoo doll of me. However, I think her death voids the threat, along with the other documentation found.  Never mess with little old ladies.  You never know what will happen to you.  Just saying.

Slanting Misery

John McDowell is mentioned in the early settlers of Lee County along with a Michael McDowell who is a Revolutionary War veteran, born in 1745 and serving from Bedford Co Va.

The 1800 census of Wilkes Co shows Michael McDowell, Jacob McGrady (the minister who married William Herrell and Mary McDowell), and both John Herrell Jr. and Sr. (spelled Harral) on adjoining pages. Based on this evidence, pending further investigation, it is presumed that Michael McDowell is Mary and John’s father and John Herrell Sr. is likely the father of William Herrell.

John McDowell states in his affidavit that he left Wilkes about 1810 and that Mary Mcdowell and William Herrell were married about a year before that. We have every reason to believe that William Herrell and Mary relocated about that same time to the Lee County or Mulberry Gap area along with the rest of the Wilkes County group.  They probably came in a wagon train together.

I first visited the Claiborne County and Hancock County areas of Tennessee in the early 1990s, the last of that series of trips being in the spring of 93. Subsequent family member health issues caused my next trip to be delayed until June of 2005.

During the June 2005 trip, I visited the land owned by Michael McDowell, William Harrell and James Clarkson. These families, along with the Boltons who lived nearby, would be forever intertwined.  Just down Mulberry Gap and over the mountain we find the McNeils and Vannoy ancestors.  They loved this place.

The following is a panoramic view of the land standing on “Slanting Misery” turning in a circle. Most of this land is across the Powell River, as it makes a peninsula here of the land we are standing on.  The only way to get to Slanting Misery is to ford the River.  Here’s the view upon arriving, and in the middle of the river.

The panorama begins here, looking at the Herrell lands then panning to the Clarkson lands at the end.

The last photo, below, is the hill that we climbed up to get the panoramic photos.  This is proof positive of why the land was called Slanting Misery – and I can personally vouch for its name!  It was over 100 degrees that day, and wading the river on the way back felt very, very good.  Fording the Powell River is the only way to this land unless you go all of the way around through Virginia.

Fording Powell River.  Sometimes the water is low enough that a 4 wheel drive vehicle can drive across.  Of course, if you judge incorrectly…getting a tow out of the river is a real challenge.  Don’t even ask how I know…

In 1825, William Herrel had 50 acres surveyed on the Powell River. This may very well be the 50 acres referred to later as the widow Harrell land.

John McDowel, William’s brother-in-law, and John McCloud were the sworn chainers.

Another survey for neighbor Joseph Parkey shows this entire segment of Powell River complete with landowners names.

On May 9, 1829, William Herrell served as a chain carrier for the survey of William McDowell, likely his wife’s brother, whose land abutted William Herrell’s on the Powell River.

William’s Death

William lived to be an old man by the standards of the day. His wife gave his death date in her pension application as October 8^th or 9th, 1859 which means he was about 70 when he died, elderly for that time and place.  She said he died on the Powell River, near Mulberry Gap.  He died just a few years before Hancock County would be split and ravaged by the Civil War.  Given that he not only owned a slave, but the child of that slave was purportedly his son, I can’t help but wonder how the war affected his family.

I also have to wonder how it felt to own your son, like property.  Perhaps William never freed Cannon because Cannon was not of age.  Perhaps that was, in part, William’s way of protecting Cannon from a fate even worse.  Or perhaps people in that time and place didn’t think about those things like we do today – maybe William never thought about it at all, but I bet Cannon did.

There are no Herrell or Edins/Edens of any spelling shown in the 1890 veterans census for Hancock County, so apparently none of William’s sons or sons-in-laws served directly on either side in the Civil War, although everything and everyone in Hancock County was gravely affected.  Their neighbors served – some fighting for the Union and some for the Confederacy.

I wonder how Cannon felt, during that way, being both a slave and the son of the white slave-owner.  Surely, he must have known, or at least he surely knew of the rumor.  I have to wonder…why didn’t he leave when he was freed?  Maybe it was the mutual commitment between Cannon and Mary that kept him there.  He would have been the youngest child she raised, so perhaps always her baby.  Family oral history stated that they were very close – that she raised him with her own children, as her own, and he took care of her until she died.

Family oral history also says that William left land to Cannon as well as his children by Mary, but legally, I don’t think that was possible in 1859 unless he freed Cannon in his will. However, if he freed Cannon prior to his death, then Cannon would not have been listed as property in 1860.  However, it’s certainly possible that Mary took care of Cannon when she died.  Cannon apparently did well for himself, better than many others, as he had double the financial assets in 1870 of Mary and her daughter combined, just a handful of years after the Civil War officially freed him.  Cannon chose to stay with Mary and lived the rest of his life directly beside the rest of the Harrell family in Hancock County, his half-siblings, on William Herrell’s land.  A descendant of Alexander Herrell who still owns some of the original Herrell land today says that Cannon’s descendants’ lands are smack dab in the middle of the William Herrell land – adjacent his own.  Clearly, they were all family.

We don’t know where William Herrell is buried, but I was told that he rests in an unmarked grave with the rest of the Herrell family in the Herrell Cemetery on River Road.

Was Cannon William’s son?

By now, you’re probably dying to know about that 2 wives scandal.

The church was a central focal point of the lives of most of the early settlers in this part of Tennessee, but never, not once, did I ever find any early church records for William Herrall or Mary McDowell Harrell or even the McDowells. They lived in relatively close proximity to the Thompson Settlement Church and then the Rob Camp Church spun off from the mother church, officially in 1845, yet they never attended.

The first name to appear in church notes is daughter Margaret Herrell Martin two months after her husband joined the church, in October 1833.

I have always wondered why, and I may have stumbled across part of the answer. I can’t speak about the time between 1810 when they moved to the area and 1836, but in 1836, William McDowell had a slave.  In the 1830 census, he did not.

Slave ownership in this part of Tennessee is rather unusual, because the ground is so rocky and poor that large farms were impossible and family plots were more the norm. Nonetheless, William had a female slave that we now know was named Harriett.  Indeed, Harriett was William’s black wife.  There is no record that she attended church either, and black people, including slave and free, were members.

When I wrote about Mary McDowell, I discussed this and the circumstances surrounding the situation as best we know them today. Harriett died in the 1840s, and her son, Cannon was the property of the Harrell family.  William died in 1859, and then Cannon became the property of his heirs.

Cannon was obviously freed during the Civil War, but he didn’t leave. In fact, Mary had raised Cannon as her own child after Harriett died, right along with her children.  Whatever Mary thought of William and Harriett’s intimacy, she clearly knew that Cannon had nothing to do with it.  Furthermore, Harriett clearly had no choice in the matter, and Mary had little choice to do anything other than cope the best way she could.  Feeding your children generally trumps a righteously deserved but financially unwise divorce.

One thing is for sure, the church would certainly have censured William, not for having a slave, because a couple of other church members had slaves….but for his illicit behavior impregnating a woman other than his wife as well as adultery. The church notes are full of those kinds of censures.  And if you had no intention of changing, then why bother with church at all.

In the 1840 census, William’s female slave was between the ages of 10-24 and was accompanied by a young male slave under the age of 10.

The 1850 census shows William Herrell with one mulatto male slave, age 12.

In 1860, William had died but Mary was shown along with 5 others as the owners of a 23 year old male mulatto slave.

In 1870, the first census to include former slaves, Cannon Herrell, age 35, a mulatto, is living with Mary Herrell and her spinster daughter. The family oral history that Mary raised Cannon as her own and that Cannon took care of Mary in her old age seems to be borne out by the 1870 census.

There is something else very unusual about this census. Cannon had personal property of value, $800 worth of personal property.  That was a lot of money then, especially after the Civil War, and more assets than Mary and Nancy put together.  $800 would purchase about 250 acres of land.  Was some of that money an estate from his father?  We’ll never know, because the Hancock County courthouse records burned.

According to different sources, such as Cannon’s death record and the census, he was born sometime between 1830, before Harriett was owned by William Herrell, and 1838, clearly after William came into possession of Harriett.

Cannon died in 1916 at age 86 showing his mother’s name as Harriett Harrell and his father as “not given.” Maybe Cannon really didn’t know.  Or maybe, just like the man said to the attorney, people then just simply “didn’t talk about it.”  Sixty year later, that little old lady still wasn’t ‘talking about it” except in hushed tones and voodoo doll threats to keep “it” quiet.  I never was sure what the “it” was, exactly, that we weren’t talking about.  It could have been illegitimacy.  It could have been the master/slave relationship.  It could have been the black/white racial issue.  Maybe all of the above?  Well, no matter, we’ve broken the taboo and we are talking about it today!

Still, the question remains, however, whether Cannon was or was not the biological son of William Harrell.

A few years ago, I was contacted by a descendant of Cannon who was interesting in sorting through the facts and trying to determine if Cannon was William’s son. We began working together on the documents and such, and formed a close relationship during the process that endures today.  We documented out results, and the three of us returned home to the Cumberland Gap area to present our findings at a Cumberland Gap Reunion.

Here are various photos of our family members.  We were looking for family resemblance.

We did find a male Herrell descendant of Cannon, but he was reluctant to test, so my two cousins, Denise and Carlos, decided to take the autosomal test. They both descend from Cannon’s son, William Emmett Herrell, so they certainly should match.  My line connects is back to William through daughter Margaret Herrell who married Joseph Bolton.

There is about a 30% chance that I would match either Denise or Carlos. Of course, this also means that there is a 70% chance that we wouldn’t match.  A match proves the connection.  No match wouldn’t prove anything except frustrating.

So, the big day finally arrived and our results were back.

Drum roll please…….

….

No match.

That’s right. Denise and Carlos match each other, but I don’t match either of them.  Talk about frustrating. And crushing….

There were several reasons why this might have occurred.

• Mismatch may be due to genetic distance
• William might have not have been Cannon’s father and people at the time knew that
• William might have thought he was Cannon’s father, but he wasn’t
• William may have been Cannon’s father with “undocumented adoption” downstream, between William and William Emmett.

I will tell you, this was disturbing news to us. We had formed a relationship with each other and this is not what we wanted to hear.

We were disappointed that we didn’t match, but we decided right then and there that the lives of our people were cast together, they lived together, they died together and they are buried together – and we are cousins regardless. We are proud of the fortitude of our ancestors and proud of our cousins and we decided to forge on with our project of discovery.  I am so glad that we did.

We really needed a Y-line test on Cannon’s Herrell’s direct male descendant.

I’m always telling people to look back at existing records with “new eyes.” I was so frustrated that I, thankfully, heeded my own advice. I wish I could tell you that I did this for the right reason, but I didn’t. I did it to see if I could track down a different Y DNA candidate who might be more willing to test.

Regardless of why I looked again, I was certainly glad that I did, because what I found in the 1880 census explained everything.  Do you see it?

Emit and Clinton Harrel are shown as the step-sons of Cannon Harrel.  Talk about an aha moment!!!  No wonder Denise and Carlos didn’t match me.  They carried the Herrell last name, but they were Cannon’s step-children, not his biological children.

Moving to the 1900 census, we find two additional sons born after 1880.

Thanks to cousin Kay, we found a new DNA candidate that descended through one of Cannon’s sons born after 1880, and he agreed to take Y DNA test.

Again, we mailed off a kit, and again, we waited, not very patiently.

Finally, the results were back.

Drum roll again…..

….

VOILA

A MATCH!!!

We were ecstatic, to put it mildly!

Kay’s brother matches exactly to two descendants of John Harrell, father of William Harrell of Wilkes County on the Y line of DNA. So, in one fell swoop, we confirmed Cannon’s father as William Harrell and William’s parent as John Harrell in Wilkes County.  John was the only Harrell male (by whatever spelling) in Wilkes County of the possible age to have had a son born in 1790.  William was the only Herrell male in Hancock County in the 1830s, so he had to be Cannon’s father.

In the article about Mary McDowell Harrell/Herrell, I inserted a poll where readers voted about whether you thought Cannon was the son of William, or not. Ninety percent of the voters believed that Cannon was the son of William, and you were right.  Eight percent were undecided and two percent thought that Cannon was not the son of William.

Just for fun, here’s a family gallery by generation as far back and Kay and I can go. Kay and I are one generation offset.  Margaret Herrell, William’s oldest child, was between 26 and 28 years older than her half-sibling, Cannon Herrell, William’s youngest, so there is another generation in my line.

Roberta

Kay and Roberta’s father, William Sterling Estes.

 Kay’s father, Warren Herrell and Roberta’s grandmother, Ollie Bolton.

Kay’s grandfather, George Cannon Herrell and my great-grandfather, Joseph “Dode” Bolton, first cousins.

George Cannon Herrell’s father was Cannon Herrell and Joseph “Dode” Bolton’s mother was Margaret Herrell. Cannon and Margaret were half siblings through their father, William Herrell.  Sadly, we don’t have photos of either of them, but we both carry some of their DNA.

Most of all, I’m thrilled beyond measure that we have been able to positively piece our family back together.  Without DNA, that simply would never have been possible.

Henry Bolton is a bit of a conundrum. On one hand, we know a lot about him, especially after he settled in Botetourt County, Virginia.  We know something about him when he immigrated, and we know nothing, or almost nothing, about his life before that except for misty shreds of oral history.

My line of the Bolton family descends through Henry’s second wife, Nancy Mann, through son Joseph Preston Bolton, through his son Joseph “Dode” Bolton, through his daughter Ollie Bolton who married my grandfather, William George Estes. The Joseph Preston Bolton family, along with three of Joseph’s siblings, moved from Giles County, VA to Hancock County, TN in the mid-1840s and Henry’s descendants are found in both Hancock and Claiborne County, Tennessee.  Of course, there are also many scattered to the winds today.

The Bolton family in Claiborne and Hancock County formed a family association in about 1900 and through at least the 1990s, had regular, annual meetings. In that area, these often took place over Memorial Day weekend, known as “Decoration Day” and were spent, in part, tending to family cemeteries.  Often, you have several events to attend on that same weekend and many people intentionally ‘came home’ at that time.  Finding a hotel anyplace in that vicinity was impossible during that timeframe.

The fact that there was a family association of some sort was extremely beneficial, because it allowed the family to preserve pictures and stories of the earlier generations.

Given that Joseph Preston Bolton only died in 1887, and his son, Dode, in 1920, you’d think that both of those men would have known about the early life of Henry Bolton, and passed those stories to their children. There is a story, as told in the Bolton Family History published in 1985 by the Bolton Family Association, but it is frustratingly sketchy.

Henry Bolton Sr. was born in 1755 and died November 24, 1846. There are several stories, somewhat different, as to how the two brothers, Henry and (Condery) Conrad came to America.

Reports from the family members, Mrs. Holt, late of Arizona and Mrs. Bunker of Iowa, say that Henry Sr. and his brother Conrad came from London, England around 1770-1774. Someone was showing the boys the scenes at the harbor when suddenly the vessel started to move out to sea.  The boys felt that they were tricked into being on the boat.

When they landed in America, the boys were taken to a farm near Hagerstown, Maryland and were bound out to a Mr. Moore for a number of years to pay for their passage to America. Their duties consisted of caring for Mr. Moore’s horses.

One day while Henry was thus employed, a stranger came to look at Mr. Moore’s horses with the idea of obtaining horses for the Continental Army, which was encamped near Hagerstown. The gentleman told Henry that if he would join the Army, he would no longer be bound to Mr. Moore.  The next day Henry went to the place where the soldiers were camped and joined the Army.  He saw the gentleman with whom he had talked the day before and to his surprise, learned he was General George Washington.  He served under him until the end of the war.  This is documented in the Pennsylvania State Archives, Philadelphia County Militia 6^th Services, Vol 1, page 799.

Henry took part in the battle of Brandywine and during this battle he was wounded in the hip and as a result of this wound, he walked with a limp. After the battle, he was laid across a cannon and taken from the battlefield.  The battle of Brandywine was fought near Chad’s Ford, Pennsylvania, September 11, 1777.

Henry never received a pension because his papers were lost in a fire during the War of 1812, some say the Hagerstown fire, some say when the British buried the White House.  “He was with the Fourth Battalion of Philadelphia Co., Pa, Eight Company, under Captain Isaiah Davis.  8^th Class under William Coats  – Henry Boulton.”

According to the books written about the Bolton families of England, Boldon, Bolton, Boulton, and Bolten were all common variations of the name which was Anglo-Saxon in the first place.

We still hear a great deal of Anglo-Saxon English in the Appalachian Mountains of Tennessee, Georgia and Kentucky. “Have you eaten?” is the way we ask the question in mainstream American English.  “Have you et?” is the way it would be said in most of England, even in sophisticated households.  This is our true Anglo Saxon we sometimes sound like those of the British rather than those of the mainstream English.

Since the formative years of English language, irregular verbs have given its users more trouble than any other part of our speech. Mountain speech has preserved some of these different forms.  We don’t’ hear them as much as we did a few years ago.  We still hear expressions as : halp or holped for helped; clumb for climbed; seen or seed for saw; fotch for fetched; was borned for born; wropped for wrapped and on and on.  The use of more than one negative to make a strong statement has always been common in the Germanic language and English is much more Germanic than it is anything else.  Chauser, six centuries ago used double negatives, we have found some of the older Boltons closer to Chaucer in some respects than to the “Latin Learning” halls of learning.  So whether it was English or German, brothers often spelled the name differently in the old days when spelling was not formalized anyway.

In Passengers to America, 1977, by Michael Tepper, page 366, we find the statement that Henry Bolton, age 15 and his brother Condery, age 16, immigrated from the Port of London, England to Maryland between March 13 and 20, 1775 on the vessel Culbert. Both were listed as laborers and being indented servants for 7 years.

After the close of the Revolutionary War, Henry Bolton Sr. married Catherine Chapman, August 17, 1786. They had six children: Elizabeth, Catherine, Mary “Polly”, Jacob, Peter and Sarah.  Catherine Chapman Bolton died, August 17, 1798.

The files in the state library in Harrisburgh, PA reveals the following: There is an indexed in the published Pennsylvanian Archives a marriage of Henry Bolton of Swedes Church (Gloria Dei), Philadelphia, the church may have the complete record.

Here in Pennsylvania, their first child, Elizabeth Bolton was born on November 6, 1787. She married Absolem C. Dempsey on October 26, 1809.  This is listed on page 677 in the original Henry Bolton Bible.

In the 1790 census of Washington County, MD, both Henry and his brother Conrad are listed as heads of families. Henry is listed with one free male over 16 and one free while male under 6 and two free white females and one other free person. Page 117

At the time of the 1810 census of Botetourt County, VA, Henry Bolton is listed as head of a family with 3 males under 10, 1 male age 10-16, 1 male age 16-20, 1 male 45 and up, 3 females age 0-10, 1 female age 10-16, one age 26-45. Page 52.

Henry’s first wife Catherine Chapman Bolton died on August 17, 1789 and he married Nancy Mann on April 5, 1799. This is recorded on page 403 of the Annals of Southwest Virginia by Lewis P. Summers.  Marriage bond was signed by James Mann.

We don’t know the exact date, but sometime after the first census in 1790, Henry Sr. moved to Botetourt County, VA. He and Nancy Mann Bolton lived several years at Pearisburg, Giles Co., VA.  Giles County was formed in 1806 from Montgomery, Monroe, Tazewell, Gray, Mercer and Wythe Counties.

Henry’s Bible still had a small valentine “tucked” between the pages in 1972. Nelle Patterson Serry, daughter of Elyan Bolton Patterson, owner of the Bible told the story that it was from his sweetheart.  It had something written on it in the German language.

In personal appearance, Henry Bolton Sr., was a large, tall man, but a very gentle man.

In addition to his children, he “raised” Sarah Bolton, the daughter of his brother Conrad. The parents of Sarah both died rather young.

In the 1790 federal census, Washington County, MD on page 118, Conrad Bolton was listed as head of a household with 1 free white female. Then in the 1810 census of Botetourt County, page 52, Conrad is listed, one male 45 and up, one free female 0-10, one free female 26-45.  The census of 1830 doesn’t show Conrad.

In the census of 1810 and 1820 reveal that Henry and Conrad are listed as heads of family living in Botetourt Co., Va. In 1830, 1840 and 1850 lists Henry as living in Giles County.

In the back of this book, pages 148 and 149, we find pictures of the Henry Bolton Bible. These pages were subsequently used for DAR membership.

The entries are transcribed as well on pages 150 and 151 and given in the table later in this article.

As it turns out, this cannot be the original Henry Bolton Bible, although the family in Claiborne County refers to it as such. Also as unfortunately, the DAR has it included in Henry’s file as “the Henry Bolton Bible,” even though it can’t be the original.  How do we know?

First and foremost, the Bible’s publication date of 1811 is many years after some of the entries, so it’s obvious that this was a later Bible and the entries from an earlier Bible were probably copied into this one.

I ordered Henry’s DAR application, years ago, and it is quite a mess. It appears that someone reused an application for a different ancestor.  There is nothing on the application that we don’t have from another source.

The Bolton book discusses two Bibles and refers to this one as “the original Henry Bolton Bible”, then says the following:

The one called ‘The Polly Bolton Bible’ was taken to the San Juan Islands by James Francis Bolton and George Bolton, sons of Peter and Polly. James F. copied the genealogical pages out of the old Bible before taking it to the San Juan Islands for his sister Adaline Capman Bolton (Ensign.)  Later his niece Marguerite Francis Wright, daughter of Mary Bolton Wright, copied Adalin’s records.  She then copied it again for Jane Virginia Berringhausen Sarnoff.  Marguerite has this copy notarized.  Jane Virginila Sarnoff has the notarized copy at this time.

I obtained a copy of a book, years ago, written about the Peter Bolton family who undertook the long wagon trip to Cedar County, Iowa in 1855. This was so long ago the copy is on slippery copy paper.  Peter Bolton married Mary Fall or Falls in January 13 or 16, 1822 in Fincastle, Botetourt Co., VA.  The license was dated December 26, 1821.  They moved to Giles County about 1830 and then on October 1, 1855 they sold their land on Big Stony Creek near Pearisburg in Giles County, and moved to Cedar County, Iowa, joining William Henry Bolton, Peter’s younger brother who had settled there in 1836.

In this book, they too discuss two Bolton Bibles. One of the two Bolton Bibles they discuss is called the “Polly Bolton Bible,” Polly being the wife of Peter Bolton, the second son of Henry Bolton.  However, their second Bible is actually a copy of this Bible that was made and then taken to the San Juan islands.  The author states that the Polly Bolton Bible was the one taken to the San Juan Islands, and the Peter Bolton Bible is the copy that remained in Iowa, and that was the copy subsequently notarized.  The author has that notarized copy.  There is yet a third Bible in Iowa that was copied from one or the other as well.  She has compared the two Iowa Bibles and the Polly Bolton Bible includes information about Henry Bolton’s other children, while the other does not.  The Peter Bolton Bible includes more information about Peter’s children and descendants.

Copies of the Bible pages are included, but I am not reproducing them here. The Bible was printed in Philadelphia by Jesper Harding who printed Bibles from 1829-1859, so we know from this date and from the history of the Bible that this one is newer than the Claiborne County one.  The handwriting is the same in all of the older entries as well.

So this brings us to a total of four Bolton Bibles, the 1811 Bible being the oldest.

The author then states that she received a letter in 1974 from Elyan Bolton about the “original” Henry Bolton Bible, which is the Bible referred to in the Claiborne County Bolton Family book. She speculates that perhaps the Bible they have is the Bible of Catherine Chapman, Henry’s first wife.  Unfortunately, that isn’t a possibility for either Bible with publication dates of 1811 and 1829-1859.  Catherine died in 1798, before these Bibles were printed.

What follows is the text of the notarized copy of the Iowa Bolton Bible.

This is a copy of Frances Wright’s copy taken from the Bible of Mary Bolton (Polly) who was born May 6, 1796 and died in 1875. The copy was made by Jams Francis Bolton, son of Mary and Peter Bolton for his sister Adeline Bolton Ensign, before he took the Bible to Lopas Island.

Mary was the wife of Peter Bolton. They were married in Pearsburg (sic) in Giles County, Virginia and came to Tipton Co., Iowa in 1854.

Frances Wright, daughter of Mary Frances Bolton Wright made this copy from that of my great Aunt Adeline Ensign.

Henry and William Bolton started from England to America with their parents in 1751 – or there about. They suffered shipwreck and Henry and William alone survived.  They both enlisted in the US Army.  William was never again heard of by Henry.  The name has originally been Bolder but was changed accidentally and thru shyness to correct officers during army enlistment.

Henry settled in Virginia and founded the family. He was married twice.

Henry Bolton born Nov. 24, 1741 – England

Died in 1846 – ages 105 years

Married Catherine Chapman who died in 1798

Married Nancy ? in 1799, died 1842

Obviously, some of this is incorrect or incomplete, based on records that we do have, but that doesn’t mean it’s entirely incorrect.

I am listing Henry’s children and other individuals from the Bibles in the table below. One column is from from the Claiborne County Bolton Bible, a second from the Iowa Bible and a third with any additional information.

It’s clear that neither of these Bibles is actually Henry Bolton’s original Bible, because neither has a full list of his children by either wife. Furthermore, it’s equally as unlikely that these Bibles belonged originally to his wives.  It’s unlikely that either wife was literate, and the list of children is incomplete for both wives.  Furthermore, both Bibles were printed after the wives respective marriages to Henry, and in the case of Catherine Chapman, both were printed after her death.

The records from the Claiborne County Bible were extracted by Hazel Venable Barnard and she stated that she couldn’t read much of the writing, so we know that there were entries not transcribed. Hazel’s transcription, along with a copy of the Bible pages, as shown here, were hand written and then notarized by Mary Trent on November 23, 1981 with the note that this can be used by any of the generations listed in this book, meaning the Bolton Family book, to join the D.A.R.

At the end of the book about the Peter Bolton family, the author included a pedigree chart of the Bolton family of Bolton and Blackburn in Lancashire as a possible progenitor family of Henry Bolton. That chart, found in a book titled, “Bolton Family” by Robert Bolton, John A. Gray, printer, 1862, does not continue through Henry Bolton’s generation, but she found several Henry’s and Williams in the chart.  Of course, William and Henry are both painfully common names in England, both having been names of Kings.  A Y DNA test with any Bolton male from that Bolton and Blackburn family would tell us immediately.

Another book, titled “Bolton and Culver (Colver) Family Tree” published in 1964 by Dorothy Bolton Bunker adds a few details. She says that Henry served as a deacon for 50 years in the Baptist Church.  In his youth he had been connected with the Methodist Church as he had a card showing his attendance at a Wesley School in England.

I contacted the school in England several years ago and they had no records of a Henry Bolton. Of course, that doesn’t disprove anything, it simply means we can’t confirm this information.  For all we know, the card Henry carried might have been equivalent to a Sunday School attendance card today.

And of course, no family story would be complete without the Crazy Aunts. They told me years ago, and I’ve also seen this story elsewhere too, that the Boltons were “proud Germans.”  I don’t know where they got that, unless it is a remnant story brought about by those German Bibles, but there is ample evidence today that the Bolton family was English, at least at the time that Henry and Conrad migrated, intentionally or unintentionally.

Henry from the Beginning

Now that you’ve heard the various stories about Henry, what do we actually know about him?

Absolutely nothing until he immigrates.

The first record we have of Henry Bolton is his immigration along with his brother Conrad, also called Condery. They left the port of London in March of 1775.  Henry was age 15 and Conrad was 16, both were laborers.  This puts Henry’s birth in 1760.  They sailed on the ship, the Culvert, and landed in Maryland.

Both boys are listed as “of London.” I notice there are many who would be indentured servants for 4-7 years as it states, but there are only 4 young boys of the ages 15 and 16, and 3 of those are from London, so they could have been kidnapped on the docks of London as some of the family stories state.  The story below includes the kidnapping, but with a bit of a different twist.

From the book “Biographical History of Pottawattamie County, Iowa.”

George Bolton was born in the Territory of Wisconsin (now Iowa), December 9, 1840. His father, William Bolton, was one of the seven men who first settled in Cedar County, in 1836. His grandfather, Henry Bolton, when a lad in his teens, was kidnapped and brought to America from his native country, Germany. He made his escape and a short time afterward enlisted in the cause of the colonies and fought in the Revolutionary war under General Washington.

From the book, London, The Biography by Peter Ackroyd:

London has always been a city of immigrants. it was once known as the “city of nations” and in the mid-18th century Addison remarked that “when I consider this great city, in its several quarters or divisions, I look upon it as an aggregate of various nations, distinguished from each other by their respective customs, manners and interests.

Fresh generations with their songs and customs arrived at least as early as the time of the Roman settlements, when London was opened up as a European marketplace. The working inhabitants of the city might have come from Gaul, from Greece, from Germany, from Italy, from North Africa, a polyglot community all speaking a variety of rough or demotic Latin.  By the 7th century, when London rose again as an important port and market, the native and immigrant populations were thoroughly intermingled.  There was also a more general change.  It was no longer possible to distinguish Britons from Saxons and after the northern invasions of the 9th century, the Danes entered the city’s racial mixture.  By the 10th century the city was populated by Cymric Brythons and Balgae, by the remnants of the Gaulish legions, by East Saxons and Mercians, by Danes, Norwegians and Swedes, by “Londoners”.  A text known as IV Aethelred mentions that those who “passed through” London in the period before the Norman settlement were “men from Flanders, Pontheiu, Normandy and the Ile de France” as well as “men of the emperor: Germans.”

London about 1300 shows St. Katherine’s Hospital, where the docks were located, to the right of the tower at the furthest eastward development.

Ackroyd continues:

The immigrant roles of 1440-41 provide an absorbing study in ethnicity and cultural contrast. Some 90% were classified as Doche, this was the generic term including Flemish, Dane and German, but more than half in fact came from Holland.  In the city wards the Italians comprised “a commercial and financial aristocracy” although there were differences within the group.  There were Frenchman, a number of Jews, and the “Greek, Italian and Spanish physicians”, but the underclass of that period seems to have been Icelanders who were commonly employed as servants.

When it comes to European melting pots, London is an extreme case, but Ackroyd’s brief survey of its immigrant history provides some idea of how difficult it will be to figure out the precise origins of many European paternal ancestors, not just Londoners. People have moved around for a long time.  Our genes allow us to look through a keyhole into the distant past and in time may allow us to chronicle the journey from today back in time to the long-forgotten.

Cousin Dillis represents our male Bolton line and has graciously agreed to have his DNA tested, several times now. The good news and the bad news is that the Bolton men have a very unique DNA signature above 25 markers.  At 67 markers, Dillis only matches Boltons plus an Elliott and a Sheldon, both families hailing from England.

At 12 markers, Dillis has many matches on the Matches Map, which signify matches to an earlier common ancestor since many of these matches don’t hold at higher markers. This is particularly useful in showing the migration and settlement path of Henry’s ancestors.  Note that while England is the most prevalent, the Germanic region is the most prevalent on the continent, suggesting a connection with that region in the distant past.

When I visited London in 2013, we visited the dock area at St. Katherine’s, which was, at the time Henry and Conrad would have been hanging about the docks, the poorest section of the city. St. Katherine’s is located beside the Tower of London on the Thames River, shown below, in a 1746 map.  This would have been just a few years before Henry and Conrad were here, willingly or unwillingly.

Here’s a picture today of the Thames River and the Tower Bridge, very close to this location.

Kidnapping of young boys was not uncommon. A ship’s captain did not want to sail partly empty, so if he was short a few bodies, he would kidnap some strapping lads and hold them captive just long enough to depart.  After they were underway to America, their fate was sealed and upon arrival, they were sold into indentured servitude, auctioned upon arrival, with the auction fees paying the captain for their passage.

If it’s true that the boys were kidnapped, then it’s likely that Henry and Conrad were abducted from this dock area as it was the main dock for London and we know from the manifest this is where the ship sailed from.

I can just see two teen-age boys messing around, getting themselves into trouble and making a nuisance of themselves – just before they were nabbed. And I can hear their mother warning them against doing just that….can’t you?  In fact, maybe they were enticed onto the boat with the promise of a treat, food or payment for some odd job.  Maybe this is the same place that they lived and unwillingly departed for America. The tenements, the poor area, were adjacent the docks and everyone left the stench of the overcrowded quarters in the day.

One of the family stories related is that Henry and Conrad’s mother had died, and the step-mother “arranged” for them to depart. The other tidbit of that story is that they lived “on London Bridge.”  Today there are no houses on London Bridge itself, but at that time, or just prior, there were – so this could be true.

This 1632 painting, “View of London Bridge,” by Claude de Jongh, shows the detail of London Bridge including the houses and shops built on the bridge itself. This is not information that someone in the US would know, especially several generations later and after the original London Bridge was demolished in 1831.

By the 1600s there were some 200 buildings on the bridge. Some stood up to seven stories high, some overhung the river by seven feet, and some overhung the road, to form a dark tunnel through which all traffic must pass, including (from 1577) the palatial Nonsuch House, a model shown below.

The roadway was just 12 feet (4 m) wide, divided into two lanes, so that in each direction, carts, wagons, coaches and pedestrians shared a passageway six feet wide. When the bridge was congested, crossing it could take up to an hour. Those who could afford the fare might prefer to cross by ferry but the bridge structure had several undesirable effects on river-traffic. The narrow arches and wide pier bases restricted the river’s tidal ebb and flow, so that in hard winters, the water upstream of the bridge became more susceptible to freezing and impassable by boat. The flow was further obstructed in the 1700s by waterwheels installed under the two north arches to drive water pumps, and under the two south arches to power grain mills; the difference in water levels on the two side of the bridge could be as much as six feet, producing ferocious rapids between the piers. Only the brave or foolhardy attempted to “shoot the bridge”—steer a boat between the starlings when in flood—and some were drowned in the attempt. The bridge was “for wise men to pass over, and for fools to pass under.”

The southern gatehouse became the scene of one of London’s most notorious sights: a display of the severed heads of traitors, impaled on pikes and dipped in tar and boiled to preserve them against the elements. The head of William Wallace was the first to appear on the gate, in 1305, starting a tradition that was to continue for another 355 years. Other famous heads on pikes included those of Jack Cade in 1450, Thomas More in 1535, Bishop John Fisher in the same year, and Thomas Cromwell in 1540. In 1598 a German visitor to London Paul Hentzner counted over 30 heads on the bridge. Heads were still reported on the bridge at late as 1772.  So, this is something that young Henry and Conrad would have witnessed, perhaps with great awe and fascination.  Or perhaps, with fear.

In this 1616 drawing, you can see Old London Bridge with the spiked heads of executed criminals in the foreground above the Southwark Gatehouse in the lower right hand corner.

Another drawing from a 1682 map, below.

By 1722 congestion was becoming so serious that the Lord Mayor decreed that “all carts, coaches and other carriages coming out of Southwark into this City do keep all along the west side of the said bridge: and all carts and coaches going out of the City do keep along the east side of the said bridge.”

In 1758–62, all houses and shops on the bridge were demolished through Act of Parliament. The two center arches were replaced by a single wider span to improve navigation on the river. If the Bolton family did have a house or shop on London Bridge, they would have lost it about this time, which is about when Henry and Conrad were born.

Whether or not Henry and Conrad left London willingly, or unwillingly, this area and adjacent St. Katherine’s dock would have been where they departed.

In this London map of 1806, you can still see the Tower and the docks, to the right of the tower, are marked in a teal blue box.

If you’d like to fly through a 3D animation of London before the 1666 fire, click here.  It’s well worth the time.

After arriving in American, both Henry and Conrad were indentured servants for 7 years. This would mean, under normal circumstances, that Henry and Conrad both would have been serving their time as indentured servants to pay for their passage until that same time in 1783.  Most crossings took about 60 days, so May or June of 1783.

Indentured servants were not allowed to marry until they finished their indenture.

We know they were indentured to someone, and several different accounts tell us that it was a Mr. Moore, one family history adding, near Hagerstown, Maryland.

One fact that argues against Henry Bolton being a poor child who was kidnapped is that he knew how to write, and judging from the letter he wrote asking for the clerk to issue his daughter a marriage license, he was far more literate than just having the ability to sign his name. It’s unlikely that a poor child would have learned how to sign their name, let alone write a letter.  Having said that, it’s possible that he learned during his indentured servitude, but rather unlikely.

Yet another story adds a bit more dimension. This one is from the Iowa Bolton family.

He enlisted through the direct influence of George Washington, who came to the barn where he was caring for the horses of a man by the name of Moore who he was bound out to. Washington wore a long coat and asked Henry if he would like to draw his own pay. (He) said, “I understand you are a bound boy and I see you take good care of the horses.” His answer was, ” I would like to, but Mr. Moore is very good to me.” Washington said, “You come to my tent in the morning at nine o’clock and we’ll will arrange it.” Henry said, “Who are you?” He said, “George Washington. The boys will tell you where my headquarters are.” So in the morning Henry went and was taken to headquarters where the guard asked Washington if he had an appointment with a young man at nine o’clock. He said yes. Washington advised him to enlist and go back and take care of his horses till further orders. He was assigned to the artillery. He was at the surrender of Lord Cornwallis at York. After the war he returned and worked for Mr. Moore. The story says that he was married while working for Mr. Moore then moved to … (end of transcription).  Reference: A typed page stating: “BOLTON HISTORY. This was copied from information Grandma Lewis had copied from the Bolton history book that Uncle Will (?) Bolton had.” Unknown where this book is available today (March 16, 1997).

We do have documentation that Henry was in the Revolutionary War, although I’ve never found anything on Fold3 or any other location, aside from the record from the Pennsylvania Archives, below, where he is listed as having served.

Ref. Penn. Archives, sixth Series, Vol. 1, page 799:

Military Record: Fourth battalion of Philadelphia Co., PA, Eights company, under Isaiah Davis, eighth, class under Lt. William  Coats – “Henry Bolton”

Oral history tells us that Henry was at the Battle of Brandywine. Oral history of his Revolutionary War service descended through several different lines that separated when his children left Virginia and had no subsequent opportunity to infect each other with Henry Bolton stories.

The Battle of Brandywine, also known as the Battle of Brandywine Creek, was fought between the American army of General George Washington and the British army of General Sir William Howe on September 11, 1777. The British defeated the Americans and forced them to withdraw toward the American capital of Philadelphia. The engagement occurred near Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania during Howe’s campaign to take Philadelphia, which he ultimately did and held until June of 1778.

Here is a picture of the field where the Battle took place, looking toward the American position. If Henry truly was shot at the Battle of Brandywine, this was where it occurred and where he was rolled off of the field on a cannon, if that part is true.

Here’s the battlefield from another angle.

With a little imagination, I can see the men from both sides.  It looks so serene today, but it wasn’t on September 11, 1777.

The painting below, Nation Makers by Howard Pyle depicts a scene from the battle and hangs in the Brandywine River Museum.

In 1779, Henry is listed on the tax rolls of Providence Twp., Philadelphia Co., PA, taxed in the amount of 5.0, which would have been pounds and no shillings. Henry was clearly not in the military if he was farming at this time.  He also would not have been indentured.  This was only 4 years after his arrival and he would only have been 19 or 20 years old, unless there was a second Henry Bolton in that area.

If indeed, Henry was also at the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, as claimed, that would have happened on October 19, 1781.

It would be unusual for him to be in the military in 1777, farming in 1779, in the military in 1781, on a tax list in 1783 and then finishing his indenture in 1787 when he was married.

This timeline doesn’t quite make sense from several angles.

This painting below depicts the surrender at Yorktown.

Henry would have been 21 at this time.  Was he truly there?  Did he care for the horses?

One account says that Henry finished his time with Mr. Moore after he finished in the war. Another account says that George Washington told Henry that he was no longer bound.

We find Henry in 1783 in Limerick, Township, Philadelphia Co., PA on a tax list with no land, no horses, 1 cattle and no negroes. Were he indentured, he would not have been listed individually.

It’s recorded in the Bolton book that Henry married Catherine Chapman on August 17, 1787 in Olde Swedes Church, Philadelphia, PA. However, in the Old Swedes church records, compiled from the original records, I did not find a confirmation of this marriage. Note that there is no index and I read for several years in each direction.

One story claims that Henry’s marriage took place during his indenture, and that he went back and finished his time with Mr. Moore. If Mr. Moore was living near Hagerstown, Maryland, it would be very unlikely for Henry to be marrying in Philadelphia.  Not to mention, no father would want his daughter marrying an indentured servant, a man of no means to support said daughter.  I expect, by the time that Henry was married that he had finished his indenture and had a trade or some ability to support a family.

In the 1790 census, we find both Henry and Conrad in Washington Co., Maryland, along with an unknown John Bolton:

• Conrad Bolton – - 1 (this is free white females)
• John Bolton 1 1 1 – - (free white males over 16, under 16 and females)
• Henry 1 1 2 1 – (free white males over 16, under 16, females and other free persons)

So, by 1790, Henry appears to be married and he is living in the county where Hagerstown is the county seat.

Based on the reported birth locations of Henry’s children, he would have moved from Maryland to Botetourt County, VA between 1791 and 1793.

He is not on the Botetourt County 1793 tax lists, but in 1794, we find Henry in Hugh Allen’s District: Henry Boltan, 2 tithables, 2 horses. We then find him for the next many years on various tax lists.  Conrad does not appear until the 1820 census.

Tithables mean the number of people being taxed. Exact specifications vary depending on the time and place, but white males over either 16 or 21 and people of color of either gender, of any age beyond childhood, generally age 12 or 16, and over, were taxed.  One would assume it would be a man and his sons and any slaves.  In families of color, the wives were taxed too.

• 1795: Henry Bolton, 1 tithable, 2 horses.
• 1796, Robert Harris District: Henry Bolton, 1 tithable, 3 horses.
• 1798: Henry Bolton, 1 tithable.

Catherine Chapman Bolton died in Botetourt County on August 17, 1798. 1798 was a particularly difficult year for Henry, because his infant daughter, Sarah, also died within just a couple of months of Catherine’s death.  Two accounts tell us she died in April, and one on September 10th.  Regardless of when, it’s apparent that Henry had a lot of loss, along with 5 children to care for between the ages of 2 and 11.  I wish we knew where Catherine and Sarah were buried.

In 1799, Henry Bolton is on the Botetourt County, VA personal tax list, but Conrad is either not in Botetourt County or is one of Henry Bolton’s tithables.

• 1799: John Holloway District: Henry Bolton, 5 tithables.

On April 5^th 1799, Henry Bolton married Nancy Mann, 8 months after Catherine’s death.  In January 1800, Nancy had the first of 14 children she would have with Henry.

Henry Bolton signs his marriage bond to Nancy Mann, below, along with James Mann’s mark. It’s uncertain how James Mann and Nancy Mann are related, but traditionally, a father would sign for his daughter, if he were living.  If not, perhaps a brother or uncle.

Beginning in 1803, and then for many years, we find Henry on the Botetourt County tax lists.

• 1803: George Rowland District: Henry Bolton 1 tithable, 3 horses
• 1804: George Rowland District: Henry Bolten, 1 tithable,. 4 horses.
• 1805: George Rowlands: Henry Bolton 1 tithable and 5 horses.
• 1807; George Rowland District: Henry Bolton 1 tithable 3 horses.
• 1810: Joseph Hannah’s District: Henry Bolton 2 tithables 3 horses.
• 1811: Joseph Hannah’s District: Henry Bolton 2 tithables 3 horses
• 1814: Joseph Hannah’s District: Jacob Bolton, 1 tithable – Jacob is Henry’s oldest son born in 1793.  He would have been 21 this year.  He is also likely Henry’s second tithable in 1810 and 1811.

Henry’s son, Henry, was born in 1800, so this second Henry on the 1814 list cannot be Henry’s son. Henry may have been recorded twice.  Sometimes, on other tax lists, men are recorded twice if they own land in two places.  However, we have no evidence that Henry owned any land at all.

• 1814: James McClanahan’s District: Henry Bolton 2 tithables, 5 horses, also Henry Bolton 3 tithables, 6 horses, 7 cattle
• 1816: James McClanahan’s District: Henry Bolton 2 tithables 5 horses
• 1817: James McClananah’s District: Henry Bolton, 2 tithables, 5 horses and Jacob Bolton, 1 tithable, 1 horse

In 1817 and1818, in Joseph Hannah’s District, a Robert Bolton (1818) and Robert Bolton, Jr. (1817) are introduced, with one tithable. Interestingly enough, DNA testing shows that these two Bolton lines, meaning Henry Bolton and Robert Bolton, do not share a common ancestor.

• 1819: James McClanahan’s District:  Henry Bolton, 2 tithables, 7 horses, Peter Bolton, 1 tithable, Jacob Bolton, 1 tithable, 2 horses.  Peter Bolton was Henry’s second son, born in 1796.
• In 1820, in James Trevor’s district, we find Henry Boulton with 2 tithables and 7 horses, Josiah Boulton with 1 tithable and 1 horse, Robert Boulton with 1 tithable and 1 horse and Edward Boulton with 1 tithable. Clearly Josiah and Edward were not sons of Henry, unless Josiah is actually Jacob.

In the 1820 census, Henry Bolton is in Botetourt County with 13 people, his son Jacob with 5 people and Conrad with 3 people. Where had Conrad been all of this time?

• 1821a: James Trevor’s District:  Henry Boulton, 5 horses, Henry Boulton Jr., 1 horse and Jacob Boulton, 1 horse.
• In 1822, on James Trevor’s list, Henry appears with 5 horses and his son, Henry Jr., appears with 1 horse.
• In 1822, on Matthew Wilson’s list, Jacob Bolton is shown with 1 horse.

In 1828, Henry’s daughter married George P. French, and Henry pens and signs the following letter to the county clerk.

The above note reads:

David French

Sir,

You will please issue a license for George P. French to marry my daughter Patsy Bolton. Given under my hand and seal this 26^th day of November 1828.

Signed Henry Bolton
William Bolton
George Bolton

We are quite fortunate to have a picture of Martha Patsy Bolton French.

I look at her and wonder if she looks like Henry or Nancy, or both.

The other picture we have is of Henry’s oldest daughter by Catherine Chapman, Elizabeth, who married the Reverend Absalom Dempsey.

Elizabeth’s portrait, painted about 1840 is located at the Mill Creek Baptist Church in Fincastle, Botetourt County, Virginia.  The church did not send the painting of Elizabeth’s husband, Absalom Dempsey, but it does hang in the church.

Family stories report that Henry Bolton was a member of Mill Creek Church for 50 years, one story says a deacon, and if that is the case, it would have included the time when his son-in-law, Absalom Dempsey was minister there, and earlier. It’s evident that Henry thought a lot of Absalom, because Henry and Nancy named one of their sons after Absalom.  It may well be that Nancy Mann Bolton and daughter Sarah are both buried here beside the Mill Creek Church.  Abraham Dempsey and his wife rest here.  His stone is below.  Her grave is unmarked.  She died in 1874, two years after Absalom and is very likely buried beside Absalom.

I would love to know what Henry Bolton looked like. We have two photographs of Henry’s sons, Peter Bolton (son of Catherine Chapman) and wife Mary Falls, and Daniel Bolton (son of Nancy Mann) and Elizabeth Fulwider that I have been prohibited from sharing by the individual who sent me the photos.  Additionally, we have photos of Elizabeth Bolton Dempsey, daughter of Catherine Chapman, and Martha Patsy Bolton French, daughter of Nancy Mann, both shown above.

I can tell you that Daniel, in one of the photographs I can’t share, looks incredibly like Abraham Lincoln. Had I not known it wasn’t, it would be a very easy mistake to make.  I can also tell you that I don’t see a lot of resemblance between the siblings.  Of course, one is a painting, one is a very poor tintype and two are fairly early photographs.  The photo of Martha Patsy French is by far the best.

The photo below, at left, is Joseph “Dode” Bolton, Henry’s grandson with wife Nancy Mann through son Joseph Preston Bolton.

There is one more old photo, William Henry Bolton, grandson of Henry Bolton, the immigrant, and wife Nancy Mann, through son Henry Bolton and Elizabeth Obenchain.

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.

In the 1840 census, Henry Bolton Sr. is living in Giles County with 1 male under 10, 2 males 15-20, 1 male 20-30 and 1 male 80-90. Nancy seems to be missing although she reportedly did not die until 1841.  In 1846, Henry died as well. They reportedly lived near Pearisburg, in Giles County.

A cousin reports that a comment by a neighbor was recorded regarding Henry’s death: “One lady told me as though it happened yesterday. ‘It was a pity. He was getting better from the fever and feeling hungry he got up from his bed and went to the kitchen and ate beef stew that was on the stove and that finished him.’” I feel sorry for whoever made that stew.  Nancy Mann had died earlier, but Henry was obviously living with someone.

At one point in my research, I became quite excited because I thought sure we had found the Henry Bolton Cemetery. Turns out, we had, but not the original Henry, one of his descendants, his grandson Henry through son Jacob Bolton and Virginia Inksell.  Grandson Henry (1823-1890) married Mary Catherine Shue (1821-1915) and they build Rose Hill.

The book, Related Families of Botetourt County Virginia states that many of the early Bolton families are buried at Rose Hill on land that passed from the Boltons to the Firebaugh family and although this is not Henry’s original land, it probably was in the same general vicinity. According to local historian, Alice Firebaugh, the old Rose Hill farm is located on Route 630, Blackburg Road. This is where the “Bolton Cemetery” is located that caused me such great initial excitement.

A piece of that history lies on the ridge of Rose Hill Farm. The Firebaughs call it Cemetery Hill because that is where the Bolton Cemetery is located.

The cemetery is in a state of disrepair.

Given the information we have, we know that the original Henry Bolton family was enumerated in two tax districts, McClanahan’s and Hannah’s.

The book also tells us that the McClannahan’s live on Catawba Creek. That the area is near Eagle Rock, and that the Hannah’s are on Craig’s Creek and that the Hannah family is buried in the Godwin Cemetery.  The Godwin Cemetery, according to FindAGrave, is dead center in the middle of the town of Fincastle and the Firebaugh family Cemetery is found on Virginia 735 .

These land marks give us some barometers to use to find the general area of Henry Bolton’s land in Botetourt County before he moved to Giles County before 1830.

803 Shawnee Trail is an address in the Shawnee Woods subdivision where the Bolton cemetery was cleaned up so that it didn’t get bulldozed when the subdivision was being built.

Catawba Creek runs out of Fincastle, shown on the map above, and extending the map distance, we can see Eagle Rock to the north, on the map below.

Zooming in on that area, we find that Craig Creek dumps into the James River as does Catawba Creek.

There is a Bolton Cemetery at Rose Hill, but it’s later members of the Bolton family that are buried in that location.

Mill Creek Church was 5 miles due east of the center of Fincastle.

Henry Bolton’s land was probably in this vicinity, between roads 360 and 735.

Here’s a view of the area from near Fincastle. Looks beautiful, but quite imposing.

The Bolton family moved a nontrivial distance from the Fincastle area to the Pembroke area of Giles County. After locating the Bolton land in Giles County, I marked the location as well as the Mill Creek Baptist Church outside of Fincastle.  Today, it’s an hour and a half on mountain roads.  In those days, it would have been probably a 2 or 3 day journey, if not more.  The average wagon speed was 20 miles a day, and that wasn’t through mountains.  Clearly, they didn’t go back and forth to church at Mill Creek from Giles County, so Henry’s membership at Mill Creek would have terminated about 1830 when he is first found on the census in Giles County.

Henry died at Big Stony Creek, Pembroke, Giles County, Virginia. It’s unclearly whether this was on son Peter’s land on Big Stoney Creek, on Henry’s own land although no deed was found, or on another relatives land.  One thing is for sure, a man in his 80s or 90s had to have some help in that place and time.  Henry could not have been farming at the time he died.  If born in 1760, he would have been 86 when he passed.

A cousin sent me an aerial partial view of the Bolton lands in Giles County where Henry and Nancy reportedly lived shortly before they died in the 1840′s.  She said that in 1975, there were still old rock foundations visible, and a dug out cellar.  A distance from the old foundations by traversing an old overgrown road was the Bolton cemetery, with all but two graves unmarked.  Most of the graves were sunken between 1-2 ft, indicating the use of disintegrating wooden caskets.  There was a remnant of a high, wide stone fence just beyond the graveyard.

I didn’t receive any further information from the cousin, but I did search the Giles County maps along Big Stoney Creek where the Bolton family lived, according to the Giles County deeds when Peter sold his land in 1855.

Indeed, I found the land matching this screen shot above on road 627, also called Darnell Mountain Road which intersects with Big Stoney Creek Road.

Here’s the entrance to State Road 627 from 635, Big Stoney Creek Road.

As you can see, it’s heavily forested.

Backing away a bit, you can see where road 627 turns off of Big Stoney Creek Road.

As you can see, this area is near Pearisburg, Pembroke and the Virginia/West Virginia border.

Behind the Bolton property was nothing but mountains. Cascade Falls is shown on the map.

Henry Bolton Estate Inventory

We may not know exactly where Nancy Mann and Henry Bolton died and are buried, although I strongly suspect it’s on the land where he lived in Giles County, but we do know something about what he owned at the end of his life.

Recently, with the help of a professional genealogist, Henry’s estate was located in Giles County. However, the film was too poor to read, so a second professional genealogist was retained to physically go to the Virginia State Archives and access the originals.  We were lucky, very lucky.  I could read most of the items and transcribed them, as follows:

Giles County, February 22, 1847 – Inventory and appraisement of the personal estate of Henry Bolton. Will Book B, pages 446 and 447

Note - Do means ditto

Signed by Hugh Johnston, Edward Eaton and David Eaton

Next, we have the bill of sale for the property of Henry Bolton, as follows:

Signed, Edward Johnson, admin of Henry Bolton decd, filed Feb 22, 1827, bill of sale

Note – Elean Bolton is Henry’s daughter who married Russell Patterson in 1854 and moved to Hancock County, TN. She and her husband wound up raising the children of David Bolton who also moved to Hancock County where he and his wife both died.

You can tell a lot about how a man lived by what was left when he died.  Henry farmed, had an assortment of livestock, and shaved.  He had a clock, which was a luxury, as was a desk.  Henry had 3 candlesticks and molds to make 2 candles at a time.  He owned shoemakers tools which he likely used himself, as there is no record of Henry ever having slaves.  He had a set of spools, a spinning wheel and a loom, which appeared to be loaded, meaning a project had been left half finished, probably by Nancy, before she died.

Henry drank coffee, because he had a coffee mill.  Like all pioneer homesteads, cooking was done in the fireplace and a potrack held the pots as they cooked, plus utensils sometimes.  A typical colonial fireplace in Jamestown is shown below.  This probably looked a lot like Henry Bolton’s home where the fireplace was also the only source of heat.  There is no stove as mentioned in the statement about Henry’s death – that he ate stew from the stove.  Perhaps he did not die at home.

Henry had two horses, a saddle and saddlebags to carry whatever needed to be carried back and forth. Of note, he did not have any oxen which would have been used to plow, nor a farm wagon.  He may have previously sold those.

Henry had quite a bit of furniture in addition to the desk.  He had a cupboard and a total of 9 chairs, one of which was an “arm chair,” probably “his” chair.  There were two tables including one noted as a fall leaf table.  He had three bedsteads and a bureau. His house was probably quite full.

Further confirming Henry’s ability to read was a group of books.  I’d love to know the titles, as that would tell us even more about Henry Bolton.  I can just see Henry sitting by the fireplace, in his arm chair, reading a book on the table by the light of the fire and a candle as Nancy wove on the loom or spun on the wheel.

And now, we also have an answer about the Henry Bolton Bible, or Bibles. Did you catch that?

David Bolton bought the “family Bible” for 50 cents and two German Bibles for 5 cents. The “family Bible” was most likely Henry Bolton’s Bible dated 1811.  Why was Henry’s Bible dated so late?  Perhaps this was not the first Bible.  Cabin fires were very common in frontier America and if the cabin burned, so did everything inside the cabin.

So, where did David Bolton live? You guessed it…Hancock County, TN.  He died in 1859 and his wife preceded him in death.  Elyan, his sister, who married Isaac Patterson raised his children and the children of their brother, John, as well, who died in 1864.  This entire group, including Joseph Preston Bolton lived very near each other in Hancock County – which explains how the “original Henry Bolton” Bible came to be in the possession of Elyan Bolton Patterson’s descendants.  Perhaps the Germany rumors were fueled by those 2 German Bibles.  So, there were indeed 3 Bibles owned by Henry Bolton, but the 2 German Bibles seem to have disappeared over time.  Where did they come from in the first place, whose were they and why did Henry Bolton have them?  We believe that Catherine Chapman was English and that Nancy Mann was Irish, but were they? I just hate it when new information causes me to second guess and question what I thought I knew!

In total now, we have 6 Bibles associated with this family.

• The “original” Henry Bolton Bible that was sold at Henry’s estate sale, noted as the family Bible, to son David. This Bible, dated 1811, came to Hancock County and was subsequently owned by Hazel Venable Barnard whose mother was Susan Bolton, daughter of Milton Bolton, son of Joseph Preston Bolton and Mary Tankersley. Joseph was the son of Henry Bolton and Nancy Mann.
• Two German Bibles, current whereabouts unknown, also sold to David Bolton at Henry’s estate sale.
• The Polly Bolton Bible printed sometime between 1829-1859. Polly (Mary) Falls was the wife of Peter Bolton, son of Henry Bolton and Catherine Chapman. Peter is probably who Henry lived with in Giles County. Peter sold his land on Big Stoney Creek in 1855 and moved to Iowa.
• Two additional Bibles, information copied from the Polly Bolton Bible, one of which went to Lopas Island in Washington State, and one stayed in Iowa.

It was 34 years after Henry Bolton’s death in 1846, in the 1880 census, that we obtain the final confirming piece of the puzzle indicating that Henry was born in England and that his wife, Nancy Mann, was born in Virginia.

The 1880 census was the first US census to list the location of the birth of parents. Joseph Preston Bolton in Claiborne County, TN listed his parents’ birth location as England for his father and Virginia for his mother

Hints of Henry in England

Periodically I revisit searches that I have undertaken previously to see if anything new turns up. After all, records are being added to the major data bases everyday.

Searching for Conrad and Condery provided one record, but the dates are a bit off and the name doesn’t match exactly.  But look where the christening took place…at St. Katherine’s by the Tower in London…right where the boat docks are located.

Searching for Henry, also at FamilySearch, unfortunately, doesn’t give us anything compelling, nor a birth to the same parents or location as Conrath, above. However, Conrath’s father’s name was indeed, Henry and both Henry and Conrad named daughters Sarah.  It’s enough to make you wonder, but not enough to do anything else.

Henry’s DNA

Utilizing the autosomal DNA of the descendants of Henry Bolton and Nancy Mann, we see the confirmed Henry Bolton/Nancy Mann segments below.

I have not been able to “prove” all of the possible segments through triangulation, but if all of the segments are indeed Bolton segments, then Henry’s chromosome map would look like the map below. Clearly, we need a lot more descendants to test to create more color on Henry’s chromosome map, but still, it’s pretty amazing that we can recreate this much of Henry’s chromosome map from these few descendants.

I don’t know how many descendants Henry has, but figuring that he had 20 children total and of those, 2 died fairly young. Of the remaining 18 children, most had 7 or 8 children.  I don’t have complete information for some.

Using a 30 year generation, Henry could have a huge number of descendants.

If this is anyplace close to accurate, Henry Bolton could have well over half a million descendants today. If you add Sarah, Conrad’s daughter into the mix, you could well have another 4000 descendants in the US of the unknown parents of Henry and Conrad Bolton.

If you are a descendant of Henry or Conrad Bolton, please consider taking the Family Finder test at Family Tree DNA and joining the Bolton DNA project.  We’d love to have you!

Acknowledgements

I’d like to thank cousin Hazel Venable Barnard, now deceased, for being such a wonderful steward of that Bolton Bible record, cousin Dillis for Y DNA testing and for lots of research over the past 30 years, so much that I no longer remember what was mine and what was his, cousin Pam for the Google screenshot of the Giles County property and Henry Bolton cause of death information, and Anita Firebaugh for the Firebaugh, Bolton cemetery and Rose Hill information. In addition, a descendant of the Robert Bolton who is not related contributed the Bolton land tax information, extracted by Yvonne Mashburn-Schmidt, a professional genealogist specializing in southern records at www.GeorgiaGenealogist.com. I’d also like to send a special thank you to Yvonne for finding both the Henry Bolton estate inventory and the genealogist in Virginia to retrieve the originals.  Plus, she helped me decipher some of the difficult handwriting, especially pertaining to those all-important family Bibles.

Genealogy is not a hobby that one can undertake alone, or at least, it’s much more productive and enriching when people share their findings. Without the collective contributions and collaboration of all of these people, our knowledge of Henry would be scant indeed.  I hope this is a fitting tribute to our immigrant ancestor, Revolutionary War Veteran, Henry Bolton, on Veteran’s Day.

This week, published in Science, we find another ancient DNA full genome sequence from Siberia in an article titled “Genomic structure in Europeans dating back at least 36,200 years” by Seguin-Orlando et al.. This sample, partially shown above, is quite old and closely related to the Mal’ta child, also found in Siberia from about 24,000 years ago. Interestingly enough, K14 carries more Neanderthal DNA than current Europeans. This skeleton was actually excavated in 1954, but was only recently genetically analyzed.

From the paper, this map above shows the locations of recently analyzed ancient DNA samples.  Note that even though K14 and Mal’ta child are similar, they are not located in close geographic proximity.

Also from the paper, this chart of population clusters is quite interesting, because we can see which of these ancient samples share some heritage with today’s indigenous American populations, shown in grey. UPGH=Upper Paleolithic Hunter-Gatherer, MHG=Mesolithic Hunter Gatherer, which is later in time that Paleolithic, and NEOL=Neolithic indicating the farming population that arrived in Europe approximately 7,000-10,000 years ago from the Middle East

You can see that the Neolithic samples show no trace of ancestry with today’s Native people, but both pre-Neolithic Hunter-Gatherer cultures show some amount of shared ancestry with Native people. However, to date, MA1, the Malta child is the most closely related and carries the most DNA in common with today’s Native people.

Felix Chandrakumar is currently preparing the K14 genome for addition to the ancient DNA kits at GedMatch.  It will be interesting to see if this sample also matches currently living individuals.

Also from the K14 paper, you can see on the map below where K14 matches current worldwide and European populations, where the warmer colors, i.e. red, indicated a closer match.

Of interest to genealogists and population geneticists, K14’s mitochondrial haplogroup is U2 and his Y haplogroup is C-M130, the same as LaBrana, a late Mesolithic hunter-gatherer found in northern Spain. Haplogroup C is, of course, one of the base haplogroups for the Native people of the Americas.

The K14 paper further fleshes out the new peopling of Europe diagram discussed in my Peopling of Europe article.

This map, from the Lazardis “Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans” paper published in September 2014, shows the newly defined map including Ancient North Eurasian in this diagram.

K14 adds to this diagram in the following manner, although the paths are flipped right to left.

Blue represent current populations, red are ancient remains and green are ancestral populations.

Dienekes wrote about this find as well, here.

Paper Abstract:

The origin of contemporary Europeans remains contentious. We obtain a genome sequence from Kostenki 14 in European Russia dating to 38,700 to 36,200 years ago, one of the oldest fossils of Anatomically Modern Humans from Europe. We find that K14 shares a close ancestry with the 24,000-year-old Mal’ta boy from central Siberia, European Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, some contemporary western Siberians, and many Europeans, but not eastern Asians. Additionally, the Kostenki 14 genome shows evidence of shared ancestry with a population basal to all Eurasians that also relates to later European Neolithic farmers. We find that Kostenki 14 contains more Neandertal DNA that is contained in longer tracts than present Europeans. Our findings reveal the timing of divergence of western Eurasians and East Asians to be more than 36,200 years ago and that European genomic structure today dates back to the Upper Paleolithic and derives from a meta-population that at times stretched from Europe to central Asia.

You can read the full paper at the two links below.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/11/05/science.aaa0114

http://www2.zoo.cam.ac.uk/manica/ms/2014_Seguin_Orlando_et_al_Science.pdf

It’s been a great year for ancient DNA analysis and learning about our ancestral human populations.

However, I have one observation I just have to make about this particular find.

What amazing teeth. Obviously, this culture did not consume sugar!

It’s amazing what a trip to the old home land can do for you – mind, body, spirit and genealogy.

In 2006, Daryl, one of my cousins, and I, went on our annual journey south.  We set out to find the cemetery of the Clarkson/Claxton family in Hancock County, Tennessee, and with help from our distant cousins who are locals, we found it.  We would never have found it without their help!

In this area, everyone is buried in a “family plot” on the old family farm. Current property owners are generally pretty good about granting access, but they do want to know when you’re coming.  Otherwise, you might get to see the business end of a shotgun.  And no, I’m not kidding.  Just ask Daryl!!!

This cemetery was literally out in the middle of a field. You can see it in the photo below, half way to the barn.  This farmer was very generous to have fenced it and maintained it as well.  No wild brambles like in so many.

Here’s a picture from the side road, easy walk, no woods. Yippee!!!

It’s rough land there for farming, although beautiful landscape. Daryl says it reminds her of Scotland.  Lots of surface boulders that can’t be plowed.  I can’t imagine how they eeked a living out of this terrain.  Although you have to admit, it’s stunningly beautiful with it’s tiny yellow flowers among lush green grasses, cedar trees and grey boulders.

We walked across the field and entered the cemetery. Here, I’m between the gravestones of my great-great-grandparents, Samuel Clarkson and his wife, Elizabeth Speaks Clarkson.

Fortunately, we thought to close the gate…

…because shortly we had company.

The first few cows were pretty curious. Mostly they just gazed at us like, “look at those humans, inside the fence, golly gee.”  About this time, it occurred to Daryl and I that we were the ones in the fence, not the cows. It wasn’t keeping them out, but keeping us in.

But then, things took a turn for the worse….and this guy showed up. He was not curious, he was undecided at first whether he wanted to add us to his harem….after all, we were in his field….or whether he wanted to get rid of us.  Now this bull could easily have torn through that fence had he wanted to.  We knew that, but fortunately, he didn’t.

Daryl and I suddenly became very grateful for that fence, for the gate, and that we were inside it and he was outside. So we went about our business, delaying the question of how we would ever get out of the cemetery to our car which was parked on the other side of the barn, across the open field, and where the bull could be hiding where we couldn’t see.  Unfortunately, the farmer and his wife had gone to town, so no help was forthcoming from that direction.  And there were no trees in the cemetery, and it was HOT!!!  We had to escape, but how?

So Daryl and I set about photographing headstones which was why we were there in the first place. We kept a watchful eye on Mr. Bull, and he did the same with us, following us around the cemetery perimeter outside the fence, every now and then, making snorting noises, which I think translated into “Hey, baby!”.

This was the land owned by James Lee Claxton and his wife, Sarah Cook, then their son Fairwick Claxton and his wife Agnes Muncy, then Samuel Claxton/Clarkson and his wife Elizabeth Speaks. My ancestors lived and died here.  Samuel’s daughter, Margaret Claxton/Clarkson who married Joseph Bolton who had my grandmother, Ollie Bolton, was born here.  Fairwick’s mother, Sarah Cook Claxton/Clarkson is probably buried here as well in one of the graves marked only by fieldstones.  Her husband, James Lee Clarkson/Claxton died in 1815 in Fort Decatur, Alabama and is buried there.

Fairwick’s tombstone is broken, and his wife Agnes Muncy’s isn’t inscribed, but probably a fieldstone near Fairwick’s. His gravestone is spelled Fairwix, but all that is left of his first name today is “ix.”  I’ve also seen it spelled Farwix and Farwick.

Fairwix’s son, Samuel is buried quite near to him.

I always wondered if the family knew Samuel’s name was misspelled. If so, I can hear the discussion now, “Just put the stone in the cemetery….it doesn’t matter.  I’m not paying for another one.”

The 1870 census indicates that both Elizabeth and Samuel could read and write, but Samuel’s mother, Agnes, could not. Samuel’s children attended school, and the older ones could read and write as well.

After awhile, the bull lost interest in us, mostly because his harem cows wandered off to graze someplace else and I think he thought his odds were better with them. However, when it came time to leave, we still snuck out of that fence, carefully shutting the gate, and set a new world’s record making the dash to the car.  After all, we couldn’t see behind the barn and who might be lurking there.  In the photo below, we are in the cemetery and the family barn is just outside.  You can see several unmarked graves, or more specifically, ones marked only with fieldstones, which was certainly the norm.  I was actually quite surprised that Fairwick had a stone.

The Clarkson barn is a beautiful old barn and the only building left from the time when Fairwick and Samuel would have lived.  The current owner told us that the original house sat between the cemetery and the barn, in the barnyard

Mrs. Cavin, the current owner, said the original road ran right beside the cemetery, but they moved the road when they paved it and it is further away today. She also said that the original house sat behind the cemetery in the clearing and that there were three different families who lived in the general area.

There was a spring back in the holler, looking up Owen Ridge Road from the barn/cemetery and the families dug a 20 foot well or so and it always flowed into the basin. The women went down there to wash clothes.

I love this old barn. I wonder if Samuel sat on these rocks in the barnyard to take a break from time to time.

We took this photo, below, getting into the Jeep, following our record-setting dash.  The mirror is in the lower right hand corner. You can see the cemetery in the distance behind the dead tree and the rusted car.  We were fortunate that the bull didn’t chase us.  Others have, but those are stories for another time.  Where I grew up, one farmer had a bull and others shared.  In Tennessee, everyone has their own bull.  No bull:)

When we were saying goodbye to this land, I don’t think we realized that we wouldn’t visit again.

These old trees on the Clarkson/Claxton land were probably young when our ancestors lived there. What stories they could tell.

Now I don’t know if our ancestors can see us from the “other side,” but I’m telling you, if they can, Samuel, along with the rest of the family had one great laugh at us, trapped in the family cemetery on a hot spring day, by a bull.

Samuel Claxton/Clarkson, my great-great-grandfather, was born on this land on June 26, 1827. He served in the Civil War on the Union side, which is the only reason we have a photo of him along with his wife Elizabeth.  He died in 1876 of the after-effects of his service, just two years after his father, Fairwick, and in the middle of a messy lawsuit involving Fairwick’s estate.  Elizabeth delivered her last child in 1876 too, the same year her husband died, and that child had also been buried in this cemetery before she applied for her widow’s pension in 1878.  Elizabeth had a lot of loss and grief in just a few years.

Samuel’s physical description by the War Dept. was that he was 5’6” tall, dark complexion and hair and blue eyes. The physical description for both his brother and his nephew were nearly identical except their heights were 5’8”.  Samuel’s pension file number is 239822 and his widow filed under Clarkston on Oct. 18, 1878.  As it turns out, he served under the spelling of the name Claxton although in records we find the name as Clarkson, Claxton and Clarkston, all 3 varieties.  No wonder researchers today are confused.

When Samuel died, he was only 49 years old. What we know of him is mostly through court, census and military records.  There is only one record in his “own” voice.

Samuel Clarkson married Elizabeth Speaks, daughter of Charles and Ann McKee Speaks and granddaughter of Nicholas and Sarah Faires Speaks and Alexander and Elizabeth McKee.

According to Elizabeth’s pension application, in an affidavit signed on December 8, 1879, Sarah Shiflet aged 51 of Alanthus Hill and Calvin Wolfe aged 56 of Alanthus Hill appeared and declared the following:

Sarah Shiflet declares:

“I was present when Samuel Clarkson and Elizabeth L. Speak, now Elizabeth L. Clarkson, claimant, was married on the 22^nd day of August, 1850 by Rev. Nicholas Speak at the house of Tancy Welch in Hancock County, TN.”

Samuel would have been 23 and she would have been 18.

Calvin Wolfe declared exactly the same thing. Calvin was married to Rebecca Claxton, Samuel Claxton’s aunt.  Tandy Welch (also spelled Welsh) was married to Mary Claxton, also Samuel’s aunt.  Sarah Claxton married Robert Shiflet and was also Samuel’s aunt.

Nicholas Speaks, Elizabeth’s grandfather, was the founder of the Speak Methodist Church in Lee County, Virginia, just over the border. Tandy Welch was one of the elders of that church as well as a brother-in-law to Samuel Clarkson.

So we know where they were married, and that their wedding was well attended by aunts and uncles.

Samuel and Elizabeth Speak(s) Clarkson/Claxton had the following children:

• Margaret N. 1851-1920 married Joseph “Dode” Bolton
• Cyrena “Rena” M. 1852-1887 
• Surrilda Jane 1858-1920 married William Luke Monday. Her death certificate says that she “had fits and fell into fire and burned to death.”

• Clementine 1853-after 1877
• Sarah Ann 1857-1860/1870
• Cynthia “Catherine” 1860-1939 married William Muncy, died of epilepsy
• John 1861- ?
• Matilda 1867-1944 never married

• Henry Clint born in 1869, may have married Amanda Jane Estep
• Mary W. 1872 – after 1930, married Martin Parks

• Jerushia 1874-1925 married Thomas Monroe Robinson, below

•  Elizabeth 1876-1877/1878

The 1900 census indicated that Samuel and Elizabeth had 12 children and 9 were still living. The deceased children would have been Elizabeth, Cyrena and Sarah Ann.  I believe they may have had one more child, Ellen.  In the Clarkson cemetery, without a date, is one last stone that says “Ellen sleeps here.”  Elizabeth Clarkson was the last Clarkson wife to have children, and it’s only her and her children’s generation that have carved headstones instead of fieldstones.  There are several gaps between children that could indicated children who died before a census recorded them for posterity.

A very interesting fact that has become evident by finding a few of the death certificates of Samuel and Elizabeth’s children is that two of their children had epilepsy to the point that the condition directly or indirectly caused their death. This strongly suggests a genetic influence.  Epilepsy does have a genetic component although other factors like head trauma make epilepsy more likely.

According to Stanford Medical School, doctors have discovered a technique called the gene chip, which can quickly screen thousands of genes in an individual. Each bright spot in the chip represents a strong presence of a particular gene in the person being tested. This quick test will help diagnose and treat epilepsy in the near future.

Fortunately, by my generation, if a predisposition to epilepsy was found in Samuel and Elizabeth’s children, it has not manifested itself in either my generation or that of my father, his siblings or my grandmother. Ah, the beauty of genetics.  In this case, I was most certainly on the lucky side of the dice.  Soon, it seems there will be help for those who weren’t as lucky.  I was just sick to think of my great-aunt falling into the fire during a seizure.

The photo below, taken about 1900-1905, is the Tandy Welch home where Samuel Clarkson and Elizabeth Speaks were married. Note Cecil Wolfe sitting on top of the chimney!

In the 1850 census, the newlyweds, Samuel and Elizabeth Clarkson/Claxton are living beside his parents in Hancock County, where they would both live for the rest of their lives. They also lived beside Samuel’s brother, William, who would sue Samuel relative to their father’s land in the 1870s.  Samuel also lived beside his grandmother, Sarah Claxton.  All of their surnames were spelled Claxton in 1850.

On February 16, 1854, a note was recorded as due December 25, 1854 from Samuel Clarkston to William Kincaid for $4.75.

About the same time, Samuel buys items at the estate of Isaac Larimore; a satchell for 50 cents, a crock for a dime, a crock for a quarter and a set “t cups and saucers” for a quarter. Those were probably for Elizabeth.  He then bought a shoat (young pig) for 1.55.

In 1860, life was pretty much the same as it was in 1850. They lived in the same place, but had 5 children.  He is listed as a farmer and his wife’s occupation is listed as “scowering.”  With a houseful of kids and doing laundry in the river on a washboard, I’d bet she did a lot of scowering.

The Civil War

During the Civil War, Samuel Clarkson was a private in Company F of the 8th Tennessee Cavalry of the Union Army. He enlisted May 31, 1863 at London, KY for the term of 3 years and was discharged May 24, 1865 in Knoxville.  What happened in-between those dates would cost him his life in 1876.

This region was torn between those serving with the Union and those in the Confederacy. I have to wonder why he close to volunteer to fight with the Union.  Apparently this sentiment was prevalent in the entire family, as his brother Henry enlisted for the Union in July 1862 and would perish of disease in Louisville, KY in 1864.  His brother, John, enlisted On March 15, 1862 and died on March 20, 1863.  Samuel’s nephew, Fernando, enlisted about 10 days after his uncle, Henry in the same location at Cumberland Gap.  Samuel wasn’t drafted, he went willingly and enlisted for a 3 year term of service.  That means that his wife, now age 31 with 7 children would be left at home to farm, tend the children, fend of marauding soldiers from both sides and anything else that needed to be done.  That would be a difficult decision for a man to make.  But I bet she was a crack shot!

Samuel’s Civil War unit saw action in the following locations.

• Duty at Cynthiana, Ky., and along railroad till August, 1863.
• Pursuit of Morgan July 1-20.
• Buffington Island, Ohio, July 19.
• Operations against Scott July 25-August 6.
• Near Winchester, Ky., July 29.
• Irvine July 30.
• Lancaster, Stanford and Paint Lick Bridge July 31.
• Smith Shoals, Cumberland River, August 1.
• Assigned to 8th Tennessee Cavalry August, 1863
• Skirmish, Hawkins County, August 1, 1863.
• Burnside’s Campaign in East Tennessee August 16-October 17, 1863. Occupation of Knoxville September 2.
• Greenville September 11.
• Kingsport September 18.
• Bristol September 19.
• Carter’s Depot September 20-21.
• Zollicoffer September 20-21.
• Watauga River Bridge September 21-22.
• Jonesboro September 21.
• Hall’s Ford, on Watauga River, September 22.
• Blountsville, Johnson’s Depot and Carter’s Depot September 22.
• Blue Springs October 10.
• Henderson’s Mill and Rheatown October 11.
• Zollicoffer October 12.
• Blountsville October 14.
• Bristol October 15.
• Knoxville Campaign November 4-December 23.
• Siege of Knoxville November 17-December 5.
• Duty at Knoxville, Greenville, Nashville and Columbia and patrol duty on line of Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad from Columbia to Nashville till August, 1864.
• At Bull’s Gap till October, 1864.
• Rheatown September 28.
• Watauga River September 29.
• Carter’s Station September 30-October 1.
• Operations in East Tennessee October 10-28.
• Greenville October 12.
• Bull’s Gap October 16.
• Clinch Mountain October 18.
• Clinch Valley, near Sneedsville, October 21.
• Mossy Creek and Panther Gap October 27.
• Morristown October 28.
• Russellville October 28.
• Operations against Breckenridge in East Tennessee November 4-17.
• Russellville November 11.
• Bull’s Gap November 11-13.
• Russellville November 14.
• Strawberry Plains November 16-17.
• Flat Creek November 17.
• Stoneman’s Saltsville (Va.) Raid December 10-29.
• Big Creek, near Rogersville, December 12.
• Kingsport December 13.
• Near Glade Springs December 15.
• Near Marion and capture of Wythevill December 16.
• Mt. Airey December 17.
• Near Marion December 17-18.
• Capture and destruction of Salt Works at Saltsville December 20-21.
• Stoneman’s Expedition from East Tennessee into Southwest Virginia and Western North Carolina March 21-April 25, 1865.
• Wytheville April 6.
• Shallow Ford and near Mocksville April 11.
• Salisbury April 12.
• Catawba River April 17.
• Swannanoa Gap April 22.
• Near Hendersonville April 28.
• Duty in District of East Tennessee till September, 1865. Mustered out September 11, 1865.

Samuel’s regiment lost during service: 1 Officer and 37 Enlisted men killed and mortally wounded and 1 Officer and 241 Enlisted men by disease. Total 280.  Disease took six and a half times more men that actual warfare – and that’s not counting the men like Samuel who would succumb later.

Stoneman’s Expedition would be Samuel’s last battle. He came back from that battle quite ill, with bronchitis, and according to his military records, was hospitalized in Knoxville from then until he was mustered out in May and went home to Hancock County.  I wonder how he got home.  After arriving at home, according to later testimony, he was confined to home for 10 weeks to recover.  He did recover somewhat, but never entirely, and was never able to “labor” normally.

Elizabeth’s Pension Application

In 1878, Elizabeth applied for a pension for herself and her four minor children based on Samuel’s service during the Civil War. This proved to be more difficult than anticipated.

Apparently there was some issue in terms of proving who Samuel Clarkson/Claxton actually was, and if he did or did not serve in the Army. Elizabeth had to jump through lots of hoops.  Fortunately, she was able to do so.

On the 14^th of Sept. 1878, Elisabeth L. Clarkson of Alanthus Hill age 46 swears that in order to obtain the pension provided by an act of congress approved July 14, 1862, that she is the widow of Samuel Clarkson who was a private in company F commanded by Fielding L. McVey in the 8^th regiment of the Tennessee Cavalry volunteers in the war of 1861 and that her maiden name was Elizabeth  L. Speak and that she was married to the said Samuel Clarkson on the 22^nd day of August in 1850 at Tandy Welch’s in the county of Hancock an the state of Tennessee by Nicolas Speak, Minister of the Gospel and that there is a record evidence of marriage.

She declares further than Samuel Clarkson her husband died at home in Hancock County Tennessee on the 5^th of December in 1876 of bronchitis which disease he contracted while in the service of the US and of which he died.

There are several correspondences between the War Dept. and Elizabeth. She was forced to find people who were present at the births of her children and at her marriage since the Hancock County marriage records were burned during the Civil War.  She did, and they testified or gave depositions.  She was awarded a pension until her death in 1907 in the amount of $8 a month, plus $2 a month for each child under 16.

Elizabeth had to prove that Samuel Claxton in the War Department records was the same person as her Samuel Clarkson. A letter from the War Dept. dated Nov. 4 1878 referencing pension 239,822 states that Samuel Clarkson is not on the roster but that Samuel Claxton mustered out May 20, 1865.

On July 5, 1880, the Clerk of Hancock Co., stated that he find no marriage record for Samuel Clarkson and Elizabeth Speak, but that “much of the marriage records of about the date 1850 were lost during the late war.”

Elizabeth also had to prove that Samuel’s illness that caused his death was service related.

In 1879, Rachel Lemons, age 52, who along with Margaret Clarkson Bolton has been present at the birth of Matilda, testified to the following:

“Samuel Clarkson came home from the army sick. Henly F. Robinson MD, now dead, was his physician. I was present and heard the doctor say that Clarkson was afflicted with bronchitis and that he, the doctor, could patch him (Clarkson) up for awhile but that no man could cure him, he was very weakly until he died with said disease.”

General affidavit in the case of Elisabeth Clarkson widow of Samuel Clarkson March 1, 1879. Samuel Payne age 38 a resident of Hancock County and William Sulfrage, aged 57, of Claiborne Co., TN declare:

Samuel Payne declares that he was a soldier in the 8^th regiment Tennessee Cavalry Company E and that he knows that Samuel Clarkson belonged to the same regiment (F).

William Sulfrage declares that he was a soldier in the 8^th regiment TN Cavalry Company F and the he knows that Samuel Clarkson belonged to the same regiment and company.  The discharge of Samuel Clarkson sets forth the same fact.

Samuel Payne signs, William Sulfrage with his mark.

A “Proof of Disability” form was completed by a Justice of the Peace in Hancock Co.   On June 19, 1879, M.B. Overton, Sneedville, age 56 of Hancock Co., swears “that he was acquainted with Samuel Clarkson and that he was the same Samuel Clarkson who was a private in Company F, 8^th regiment of the TN Cavalry and who was discharged at Knoxville on the 20^th of May 1865.”  He further states that he “was acquainted with the said Clarkson from his youth and he appeared to be as stout as men of his size and that he joined the US army and that in the year 1864 he was at Knoxville, TN and found the said Clarkson in the hospital under medical treatment and ever after that time he was very feeble and died in 1876.”  Affiant further states that “he was with the said Clarkson at different times and places and noticed that he was very feeble and that he was not by any means stout as he was prior to his enlistment in the army and that his breath was very offensive.”

In an affidavit on June 27, 1879 Samuel M. Payne 39 years of age a resident of Hancock County declares that he “and Samuel Clarkson belonged to the 8^th TN Cavalry and that Clarkson was a good soldier until after Stoneman’s Raid in December 1864 when the said Stoneman returned to Knoxville the said Clarkson was sick and was treated in the hospital at that place for he was in the Raid.”

Payne further states that he was in the hospital with Clarkson and that he, Clarkson, told him that he had bronchitis and that he had been personally acquainted with Clarkson since the war and Clarkson told him different times that he had bronchitis which was contracted while in the Army and that it would terminate in his death sooner or later and his information is that Clarkson died with that disease.

Samuel’s doctor testified in an affidavit in Madison Co., KY in the matter of Elizabeth L. Clarkston. On November 18, 1879, Doctor C.J. Bales age 30 a resident of Kingston, Madison Co., KY states that:

Swears “that he is a practicing physician and knew claimant for about 6 years and he did not know claimant prior to enlistment, but have known him since the spring of 1873. He was his family physician and lived 7 or 8 miles from him.  I do not know if he was a sound man or not prior to the enlistment.”  He further stats that he “did not treat claimant while in service but treated him since his discharge.  My first treatment was on Dec. 2, 1876.  His physical condition was bad, he had pneumonia from which disease he died. He had bronchitis the first time I ever saw him and told me he became diseased while in the Army.  He labored some after his discharge but was not able to perform hard labor.”

Bales also stated:

“Samuel Clarkson died Dec. 4 1876.  Immediate cause of death pneumonia.  I knew him from March 1873 to the date of his death.  He was afflicted with chronic bronchitis while I knew him.  He told me that he became afflicted while in the Army. Pneumonia an inflammation of the ?? lungs.  Chronic bronchitis is an inflammation of the bronchial tubes.  Therefore when pneumonia sets up in connection with chronic bronchitis the danger is increased as in the case of Samuel Clarkston.”

Affidavit On June 24, 1880 of Calvin Wolfe age 57 of Alanthus Hill in Hancock Co., TN. and Margaret Bolton of the same place, do state as follows:

“Samuel Clarkson came home sick with bronchitis after he was discharged from the service of the US, was confined to his house 10 weeks and was treated by Dr. H.F. Robinson, now dead. He, Clarkson, partially recovered and got able to walk and ride around through the country and labor a little.  He never got well.  Complained all the time.  Sometimes he could do about half days labor at other times he was not able to do anything.  He was troubled more or less all the time with a cough.  Also general debility up to the time that he was treated by Dr. Bales.  We have personal knowledge of these facts.  We lived a close neighbor to him.”

Affidavit of Clementine Clarkson, age 24, of Alanthus Hill in Hancock County on June 23, 1879.

Clementine states that at the time of her father, Samuel Clarkson’s illness, she was away from home and her mother sent for her to come home. She did so and when reached home and finding her father very feeble she asked him “what’s the matter?”  His answer was “I have got that old disease that I had when I came out of the Army, bronchitis and I want you to come home and your mother wait on me.”

She further declared that she never heard of her father having bronchitis until he came home from the US Army and that he died on the ___ day of December.

A letter from the War Department dated April 28, 1879 states that for Samuel Claxton there is no original enlistment or muster-in roll, but the muster rolls for company F of the 8^th Regiment of the TN Cavalry show the following evidence of service.

“Enlisted as a private May 31, 1863 at London, KY to serve 3 years. On roll from enlistment to October 31, 1863, he is reported present and so born on sub rolls to March and April 1865 when reported absent sick since March 12, 1865 Knoxville, TN.  He was mustered out on ? Roll May 20, 1865 at the Asylum US A Genl. Hospital in Knoxville, TN.  Name not borne Samuel Clarkson on any roll on file.”

A letter from the Surgeon General’s office dated Aug. 8, 1879. Samuel Clarkston private Co F 8 TN Cav entered Asylum G.H. Knoxville TN March 12, 1865 with chronic bronchitis and was discharged from service May 20, 1865.  No regt records on file.

A July 5, 1880 affidavit before JP of David N. Louthen 43 (or 48) years, resident of Hancock Co., TN, Mulberry Gap, in the case of Samuel Clarkson.

“I was with the said Clarkson many times after he was discharged from the service. He stated to me that he was still troubled with bronchitis or lung disease that he contracted in the service.  Some 2 weeks before said Clarkson died he stated to me that he was becoming worse with the said disease.”

Rachel Lemons declared relative to Elizabeth Clarkson’s pension application:

“Samuel Clarkson came home from the army sick. Henly F. Robinson MD, now dead, was his physician. I was present and heard the doctor say that Clarkson was afflicted with bronchitis and that he, the doctor, could patch him (Clarkson) up for awhile but that no man could cure him, he was very weakly until he died with said disease.”

Indeed, he did become worse and succumbed on December 5, 1876, just three weeks before Christmas. Given his health and his obvious misery for the decade before his death, one wonders if this was perceived as a tragedy or as a blessing – a release from interminable torture.

Elizabeth, Samuel’s widow, declares that Samuel Clarkson, her husband, died at home in Hancock County Tennessee on the 5^th of December in 1876 of bronchitis which disease he contracted while in the service of the US and of which he died.

She declares she has remained a widow since the death of Samuel Clarkson. She has the following children under the age of 16 living at home whose names and date of birth are given below:

• Matilda Clarkson born March 5, 1867
• Henry Clarkson born June 19, 1869
• Mary W. Clarkson born May 5, 1872
• Jerusha Clarkson Feb. 1, 1874

Elizabeth signs as Clarkston.

Elizabeth finally received a pension retroactively of $8 per month commencing on Dec. 5, 1876 and an additional $2 per month for Matilda, Henry, Mary W. and Jerusha until they reached the age of 16.

The Church

The Clarkson family members attended the Rob Camp Baptist Church which was located not far from where they lived.

Church notes reflect that in August 1858, Mary Martin, Malinda Martin and Saliner Tankersley of color, Elizabeth Clarkson, Nancy Clarkson, William Clarkson, Samuel Clarkson and Edward H. Clarkson were received by experience. This typically means they were then baptized and became members of the church after having a revealing religious experience.  From the number of people joining that month, I suspect that there had been a revival.  Given that a church revival was THE only social outlet for the area, aside from regular church services, pretty much everyone attended, coming from miles around and camping for as long as a week in their wagons.  Revivals were legendary.  And revival fever – it was infectious – terrible ketchin’.

If you’ve ever heard one of those southern fire and brimstone preachers, you’ll understand what I mean. They’ll literally scare the Hell out of you, or scare the you out of Hell, one way or the other!  By the time they’re done with you, you can feel and see the flames lapping at your toes!!!  And you certainly don’t want to be the only one left behind when all of your siblings and neighbors are escaping Hell’s firey reach – so it’s into the river and into the church.  In Samuel’s case, it would have been the Powell River, beside his house and near the church as well.

This baptism, below, was typical of this region and occurred in the same part of Hancock County, in the same way, near the Tennessee/Virginia state line in 1963.

Almost exactly a decade later, we find a note about Samuel in the Rob Camp Baptist Church minutes dated Saturday, Sept. 2, 1868: “Excluded Samuel Clarkson for getting drunk and not being willing to make any acknowledgements whatever.” This means that he wasn’t willing to publicly apologize and admit that he “did wrong” and promise to mend his ways. Clearly, he didn’t think he had “done wrong,” or he wasn’t about to mend his ways.  One way or the other, Samuel was done with church altogether.

In May of 1869, a group of people including Elizabeth, Samuel’s wife and several other family members were excused from Rob Camp Church to establish a new church, but Samuel’s name was not among them nor was his name among the new Mt. Zion Church membership. His severance with organized religion was apparently permanent.  I wonder if there was a preacher at Samuel’s funeral.

In the 1870 census, Elizabeth Speaks and Samuel Claxton have 8 children and are living beside his parents, Fairwick and Agnes Muncy Claxton.

Samuel’s father, Fairwick Claxton died on February 11, 1874. On Jan. 19, 1875, a lawsuit was filed in Hancock Co. Chancery Court that eventually would be settled after Samuel’s death in the Tennessee State Supreme Court. That’s where Daryl and I found those records which had been transferred from Hancock County before the courthouse burned.  Thanks Heavens for small favors!

The Lawsuit

Samuel’s brother, William Clarkson filed suit against Samuel Clarkson, etal.

Enrolling docket – chancery court – Page 167 – January 19, 1875 – To the Honorable H.C. Smith chancellor for the first chancery district of Tennessee sitting at Sneedville…your orator William Clarkson, a resident of Union Co., Tn., that on the 11th day of Feb. 1874, his father Fairwix Clarkson died intestate in the said county of Hancock.  A few days before the death of said Fairwix and while on his death bed, and in his last  sickness, he was by means of undue influence induced to sign deeds which purported to convey his real estate to his son Samuel Clarkson and one of his granddaughters, Nancy Furry, and a daughter Rebecca Wolfe, each getting a separate tract by a separate conveyance.  The deed to the said Samuel Clarkson conveyed a tract lying in the 4th civil district of said county of Hancock adjoining the land of Melburn Overton, James Overton and others, the tract conveyed to said Nancy Furry lies in the same civil district and adjoins lands of Montgomery and Clarkson and others and the tract conveyed to Rebecca Wolfe lies in the same civil district and adjoins the lands of Rhoda Shiflett, Henry Yeary and others.  Said lands are valuable and are worth $2000 or more.  The consideration named in each of said deeds in the sum of $150 but nothing was paid.  These lands constituted almost the entire estate of said Fairwix.  He left a widow surviving him and several other children and grandchildren who were in no way provided for by said intestate.  Your orator shows dates and expressly charges that the two said deeds were pretended to have been made and executed, the said Fairwix Clarkson was so enfeebled in mind that he was incapable of doing any binding act, and that therefore the said pretended conveyances were not his acts and deeds and that he really died the true owner of said lands and the same of rightly belong to his heirs-at-law.

The suit goes on to name the many heirs of Fairwick.

June 2, 1875 – The answer of Samuel Clarkson, Nancy Fury, Rebecca Wolf and Agnes Clarkson to the bill of complaint of William Clarkson files in the chancery court in Sneedville…these respondents reserving all the benefits of exceptions to the complaints said bill answering say – They admit the death of Fairwick Clarkson as stated and that he died intestate – that 5 days before his death he executed the deeds mentioned in the bill and while in his last sickness and in his proper mind. That some 12 months or two years before his death, (page 185) he expressed the same feeling and agreed to the same contracts as mentioned in the deeds as being his free and voluntary act and such as he intended to carry out.  He was in his proper mind all the while during his last sickness and equally so 12 months on two years before the execution of the deeds mentioned in the bill and the deeds only carried out his expressed contract two years before his death and without any undue influence or inducement of any kind whatever.

These respondents admit the conveyance were made to them and made in good faith and for a valuable consideration – Respondent Samuel Clarkson’s 100 acres more or less lies in the River Bluffs and is of little value. Respondent Nancy Furry has about 100 and 20 acres on the top of the river bluffs in the limestone and cedar and Rebecca Wolfe has about 56 acres on the same lonts? of land.  These respondants state they have paid fully for the land and will probably have to pay more than their contracts on the debts a matters the deceased much desired should be paid and hence said deeds were executed in good faith and for the purposes stated.  Respondents have lived with the deceased and his wife, now his widow, for at least 7 years working hard for his support and his hers? who has relinquished her dower interest to these respondants.  The lands are properly bounded and located by the bill, but the estimated value is too much.  Respondents admit the number of heirs stated, respondents now repeat and state that their Father the deceased was properly at himself when the deeds were executed and only executed a contract contemplated 12 months before that time – the there was no undue influences used or persuasion to induce the execution of the deeds, that they were freely and voluntarily executed by the deceased.  Respondent also shows the estate was indebted and no personal estate to payment and these respondents has paid up the debts.

This document tells us that Fairwix was unable to attend to the farm for the last 7 years, which means since 1868, and Samuel, in addition to his own health issues, assisted his ailing father, helping to support his parents, sister and niece.

Depositions ensued. In one taken Feb 11, 1876, we find the following testimony by John T. Montgomery:

2nd by complainant – do you know who waited upon Fairwix Clarkson and attended to his affairs for some years before he died and for who?

Answer – I have a knowledge of Samuel Clarkson and family cropping him would and doing his milling .

Oral Examination of complainants state of Samuel Clarkston lived on the land so mentioned and cultivated the same during the time.

Answer – he was living on the place and cultivated part of it.

On June 14, 1876, Samuel Clarkson was deposed. This is the only record we have of his actual words.

The said witness Samuel Clarkson aged about 49 years being duly sworn deposed as follows.

Please state if you are the son of the said Fairwick Clarkson and one of the defendants in this case.

Answer – I am said to be the son of Fairwick Clarkson and am one of the defts in the case.

2nd question – State if you were well acquainted with your father before his death and for what length of time?

Answer – I was well acquainted all of my life with him.

3rd question – State where you lived at the time of your father’s death?

Answer – In the 14th Civil District of Hancock County Tennessee on the lands I got of my father.

4th question – State how far you lived from your father? (page 3)

Answer – I live some two hundred and fifty or three hundred yards from father.

5th question by defts – State who provided for your father before his death and how long?

Answer – I provided for my father about seven years before his death. I made the grain and took care of it for him, and paid the rents of my own crop.  And I also got his firewood for him, that is the principal part of it – and prepared it for the fire place and put it on the fire for him.

6th question by respt. – State if your father was properly in his mind up to the time of his death?

Answer – To my knowledge he never was out of his proper mind.

7th question – State how long before your father’s death he contracted to you the part of the land you live on, and anything you may know about the balance owned by the other defendants?

Answer – My father contracted the land to me that I now live on in the year 1867. And he died in the year 1874.  He said that he was going to strike off the lands on the side of the road he lived to Nancy Furry and Rebeca Wolfe except fifty acres to Furnando Clarkson.

8th question – State if at any time (he) your father ever showed you any of the lines and what he said about them?

Answer – (He) my father showed me a corner tree to the part I got of him. He said that was the corner to which he was going to make me deed.  He said he was going to go and show deft Wolfe his line he said that his wife had paid him for it and was going to make them a deed to it.  He said he was going to cut-off to Rebecca Wolfe about fifty acres, and deed the other to Nancy Furry.  He said she had paid for it value received and he was going to make her a deed to it.  The deeds were after words made to Defts.  This talk all passed before he was taken down sick.  The deeds were made after wards.

9th question – State if you paid for your part of the land and how? Answer – I did pay for it… In pure hard labor.  I am still paying for it by taking care of my mother as was my contract.  I paid about thirty five dollars and Calvin Wolfe and wife and Nancy Furry paid about forty-five dollars on fathers debts since his death.

10th question by same – State if the above payments were part of the consideration of the decd mentioned.

Answer – No they were not (page 5)

On July 15, 1876, Agnes Clarkson, the mother of both Samuel and William Clarkson was deposed. Among other things, she said the following:

By same – Did you hear the decd Fairwix Clarkson say anything about the disposition he had made of the lands in dispute in this case as what he intended to make of said land and at what time did you hear him talk about the matter?

Answer – I have years ago heard him talk about what disposition he intended to make of it.

By same – Please state what he said before to the disposition of said lands.

Answer – He and myself were alone and he said he wanted his business wound up that he intended to make three deeds one to Samuel Clarkson, one to Rebecca Wolf and one to Nancy Ferry(was then). I asked him what he intended to do with his other children and he said he would do by them as they had done by him they had left him in a bad condition and he had nothing for them.  I persuaded him to leave same land for them and he said I need not talk to him for he would not.

This document was found in the case file and includes Samuel Clarkson’s signature, unless a clerk wrote and signed everything.

It was acknowledged that the deposition be taken at the house of Agness Clarkson on June 9^th.  Agness was the mother of both William and Samuel, and this entire situation must have grieved her heart deeply as she watched it destroy what was left of her family.

On December 5, 1876, Samuel died, officially of pneumonia, but probably of tuberculosis contracted during his Civil War service.

Court record on March 13, 1877 – In this case the death of the defendant Samuel Clarkson is suggested and admitted to be true and the defendant left a widow Elizabeth Clarkson and several children viz., Margaret Bolton wife of Joseph Bolton, Rena Clarkson, Clementine Clarkson, Jane Monday wife of Luke Monday, Catharine Clarkson, Matilda Clarkson, Jerusha Clarkson, Mary Clarkson, Elizabeth Clarkson, John Clarkson, Henry Clarkson and the two first named children being adults. Thomas McDermott solicitor of said minors, Elizabeth, Rena and Joseph Bolton and wife Margaret Bolton enter their appearance and waives service of process.  It is therefore ordered and decreed that this cause be and the sheriff is ordered to summon Luke Monday and the other children of said deceased to appear at the next term of this court to show cause if any why this suit should not be revived against them.

March 14, 1878 – the court finds that there was no undue influence, and William Clarkson requests a trial transcript for the supreme court, where he intends to file, which is where Daryl and I found this case.

Shortly thereafter, Elizabeth applies for a widow’s pension based on Samuel’s service in the Civil War. She could have applied earlier, but maybe she just needed to end one crisis before beginning a separate legal action.

That’s about all we know about Samuel Clarkson/Claxton’s life, at least from the records that existed at the time he lived. Fortunately, there are a few records, all born out of conflict of some type.  That conflict certainly was a detriment to his life.  The Civil War cost him his life, and the lawsuit over his father’s land had to make his last year of life miserable.  He passed over, worried I’m sure, about the outcome of that suit and his wife’s ability to support herself and raise the underage children still at home.  Not to mention, Samuel was supporting his mother as well, apparently an arrangement promised to his father, Fairwick, before his death.  What would happen to her?

There is a great irony here, and that is that cousin Daryl and I descend, one of us from Samuel, and one of us from William. Do you think they were both turning over in their graves?  Daryl is one of my closest cousins and friends, while I’m sure that the rift over Fairwick’s estate stood between the brothers as insurmountable as a mountain.

There is something else that William and Samuel shared with all of their Clarkson/Claxton male kin who carried the surname, and the Y chromosome of Fairwick and of James Claxton before him, and that is their DNA.

The Claxton/Clarkson DNA

The Y chromosome is passed from father to son, unchanged, and unmixed with any DNA from the mother, which gives us the ability to track this DNA back in time.

Several Claxton/Clarkson men have tested in the Clarkson/Claxton DNA project.  As it turns out, there are several separate groups of Clarkson/Claxton men in the DNA project.  There are, however, 19 Clarkson/Claxton/Williams men who are unquestionably matches to each other that include this group of Clarkson/Claxton men.

We don’t know exactly how all of these men are related, but we know positively that they are, because their DNA matches and their surnames are very similar.  Based on the surname, it’s seems that the original name was Claxton, not Clarkson, which makes research somewhat easier and explains the constant confusion in Hancock County surrounding the surname.

The first group labeled Bedford and Claiborne Co., TN group reflects the ancestry of Samuel Claxton. Fortunately, our Claiborne/Hancock County line is represented by three different kits, number 48133, 139774 and 117479.  Yes, for two of those kits, the surname is Williams, the result of a common law marriage wherein the children took their mother’s surname, but research has proven, along with the DNA, that biologically this line is Claxton.  Kit 48133 descends through Fernando Clarkson, son of James, son of Fairwick.  The Williams line descends through Hugh Claxton, son of Henry Avery Claxton, son of Fairwick.

The Claxton DNA markers are unique enough that at both 37 and 67 markers, these men only have matches to other Claxton and Williams men. That’s certainly a blessing since their haplogroup is R-U198, a subgroup of about a quarter of European men who test.  I am thankful for our rare STR marker values which make us unique.  Not everyone is that fortunate.  If one of our participants were to test further, I’m sure that we would be members of a smaller haplogroup subgroup as well.  Maybe someday someone will take the Big Y, after we find that common ancestor, which seems to be a more pressing focus than haplogroup definition.

On the chart below, notice the “mode” line. We could just as easily call this the “earliest ancestor reconstructed” line for our Claiborne/Hancock Claxton group.  This is because the mode is the most frequently found number for each STR marker within the group.  In other words, whoever our common ancestor is, this is what his DNA looks like, using all of the results to determine the original value.

Each of the colored boxes within the group shows the difference from the mode, in coloration.  You can double click to enlarge the chart.

You can see that Fairwick has three kits who descend from him. Kit number 48133 has had a mutation at location DYS439 and kit 139774 has experienced a mutation at location CDYb.  For both of these men’s lines, those will be line marker mutations.  We know they happened between Fairwick and their generation.  In the case of kit 139774, we know that CDYb mutation happened between Hugh and the current generation, because kit 117479 who also descends from Hugh does not carry that mutation.  In fact, kit 117479 has had no mutations since Fairwick, and judging from the fact that he matches the mode exactly, as well as the Bedford County Group, shown by kit 23358, directly above his, exactly.  He has had no mutations since the original common ancestor, probably a few generations earlier, probably someplace in North Carolina.  This tells us that Fairwick also matched that original ancestor exactly.  We don’t know about Samuel directly, since no one in his direct line has tested, but he is most likely to match Fairwick exactly.

It’s ironic, in this family drama, that what we do know about Samuel’s DNA is courtesy of his two brothers, both of whom were probably estranged from him, based on what happened to his father’s estate

In Summary

In many ways, Samuel’s life, and death, make me sad. This isn’t the way life is supposed to work.  There was no “happily ever after.”  Elizabeth and Samuel had a normal beginning, married in her uncles house, and began their family.  I’m sure they were like every young couple, starry-eyed, very much in love, and excited to set up housekeeping.  He bought her teacups and saucers, a luxury in the back woods, hills and hollers of Appalachia.  However, the Civil War interrupted their life and as fate would have it, defined their future, abbreviated as it would be.

We’ll never know what inspired Samuel to volunteer to fight. The Claxton’s didn’t own slaves and neither did most people living in Hancock County.  It was a rocky area not generally able to support more people than lived there – let alone anyone extra.  Most of the residents are clannish and while they are very interested in the neighbors business, who they are likely related to several times over, they want to remain out of the business of anyone they don’t know.  For some reason, Samuel must have felt strongly about the Civil War, because he, two brothers, one brother-in-law and a nephew, Fernando,volunteered as well.  Three of those four men would perish in the war and Samuel afterwards.

The illness that Samuel contracted during the war clearly made the man miserable. The testimony of the people who knew him and the physicians who treated him make that evident.  He complained all of the time and his breath was very offensive.  He coughed constantly, was weak and couldn’t work.  He spent from late 1864 until his death in 1876 as an ill man with increasingly degenerating health, but still caring for his aging parents.

His wife, Elizabeth, called one of her daughters home to help. The only thing that saved this family was likely that they lived in a nuclear family unit, meaning several generations lived on the land, including Samuel’s father, Fairwick, his mother and several of his siblings lived in close proximity.  Looking back and at the testimony about his father, Fairwick, during his last 7 years when he was disabled, I have to wonder if some of the reason that Samuel’s siblings all-too-willingly left was to escape a disabled and needy father, grandmother and brother.  Life during this time was very difficult for the Clarkson family, and they could have used any help they could have gotten.  Fairwick was obviously very hurt by the fact that so few of his children helped him when he was in need and chose to treat them as they had treated him.

To make Samuel’s life even more miserable, two of his brother’s, John and Henry died in the Civil War, as did his brother-in-law, John Wolfe. This family was wracked with tragedy and sorrow during the Civil War and never escaped that long shadow.

Samuel apparently drank. We don’t know the circumstances, or how often, but he was obviously unrepentant, according to church records in 1868.  I guess if anyone deserved to get drunk, it was probably Samuel Clarkson.  He earned the right.  I hope that drinking didn’t become yet another chronic problem for him.  He might have used alcohol to deaden pain, either physical or emotional, or both.

By the time Samuel’s father, Fairwick, died in 1874, 3 of Fairwick’s sons were dead, two of them in the Civil War, his son-in-law of the same cause, and one daughter. In addition, Samuel was gravely ill and Fairwick had to know he was not long for this earth.  That left only 2 daughters and William as the healthy son, but William moved away from the homeplace, to Union County.  Fairwick’s wife, Agness’s, depositions about how only Samuel, one daughter and one granddaughter helped them are hard to read without heartache, especially knowing how ill Samuel was while he was trying to help his father.

Agness would bury her son Samuel, before her own death sometime after 1880.

On top of all of that, Samuel’s wife, Elizabeth, would bury her last child born in the year Samuel died, along with at least 3 more before 1900.  Oral family history is unproven but indicates that both of her sons died about 1900 as well. Some of Samuel and Elizabeth’s children and grandchildren are shown in this photo taken about 1896.

Samuel’s last days weren’t heralded by being surrounded by a loving family, but by a lawsuit filed by his only living brother alleging that Samuel unduly influenced their father prior to his death. He would have died in the house that sat in this clearing between the rocks and the barn.

The pictures reveal the true value of that land – it was, in essence, unfarmable, full of rocks – but Samuel had to deal with the allegations and the turmoil of the lawsuit in addition to his rapidly failing health. Elizabeth must have been a wreck.  In addition to everything else, she had two epileptic children.  After Samuel’s death, she also had her mother-in-law to care for.  How did she manage?

Samuel gave a deposition at his mother’s house just weeks before his own death and died before that lawsuit was complete. No undue influence was found, but then William refiled the suit in the Supreme Court, so the drama continued.  We never did discover exactly how that Supreme Court cases ended, but since William never owned any land in Hancock County, I would presume that that suit too was found in favor of Samuel’s heirs.

I hope that Samuel truly was proud to wear his military uniform. He seemed to be, and he and Elizabeth make a beautiful couple.  I’m so grateful for that photo – it’s the only one of Samuel, although he doesn’t look particularly happy – although no one smiled in pictures taken during that timeframe.  Both Samuel and Elizabeth sacrificed greatly.  He gave the ultimate sacrifice – that of his life, after fighting a valiant battle for 11 years after the war, while helping his father.  It was a battle Samuel would not win.  Elizabeth carried far more than her share of the load, beginning with the war and never ending until she was buried alongside Samuel in the Clarkson Cemetery in 1907, still his widow, 31 years after his death.

Fairwix – what kind of a name is that?

Seriously?

I’ve never been able to figure out where it came from, literally or figuratively.  I can’t find it’s derivative, Fairwick either, or Farwix, or Farwick or even Farwich or Fairwich.  I’m sure if I could figure out the derivative of the name itself, there would be a huge hint there as to where the family came from – at least one of his ancestral families – whichever one Fairwix inherited the name from.

They didn’t just make a name like that up.

Did they?

I mean, with a name this unusual, he had to have been named after someone.  But who?  I’ve spent years now looking for anything Fairwick or Fairwix or any derivative…and so far…nothing.  The only Fairwicks I’ve found are his descendants.

In his honor, I’ll be changing how I spell both his first and last name every sentence or two – because – well, that’s what this family did!

Fairwick was probably born in then Claiborne, now Hancock County, TN around the turn of the century – that would be the 1799/1800 century. If the 1800 census was existent, we would know a lot more about this family, but it isn’t and we don’t.  His parents were James Lee Claxton/Clarkson and Sarah Cook. Who were reportedly married on October 10, 1799.  If so, then Fairwix was likely born in 1800.  He was their oldest child.

Fairwix died on February 11, 1874, possibly in the very same house he was born in – assuredly on the very same land he grew up on. How many people can make that claim?  Given that he died in February, and we know from later depositions that he was age 74 – it’s most likely that he had his 74^th birthday in 1873, so born in 1799, or he was born between January 1 and February 11th of 1800.

In 1815, Fairwix’s life would be forever changed. His father, James Lee Claxton, died on February 20, 1815, in the service of his country, at Fort Decatur, Alabama in the War of 1812.  One has to wonder if James had a father/son talk with Fairwix before he left.  Maybe he asked him to help his mother with the chores, the farm work and the younger children while he was gone.  They probably never imagined that gone would be forever – just thought it would be for a few months.  The War of 1812 militia groups in East Tennessee were generally mustered for about 90 days.

The family didn’t even get to have a funeral. I wonder how, and when they were notified of his death.  James was buried beside the fort where he died.  Fairwix would have been 15 when his father died.  Certainly old enough to work the farm, but awfully young for the full brunt of responsibility that would fall upon his shoulders.  Fairwix was the only male child until his youngest sibling, Henry, was born sometime between 1813-1815.  In essence, Fairwick became the man of the house.

Fairwick married Agnes Muncy in about 1819 because their first child, James, named in memory of his father, was born about 1820. Agnes was born in 1803 in Lee County, VA and died sometime after 1880.

Fairwick and Agnes Muncy Claxton/Clarkson had 8 children:

• James R. 1820-1845/50, unknown spouse, their 4 children living with Fairwick and Agnes in the 1850 census
• Henry Avery 1821-1864, married Nancy “Bessie” Manning, died in the Civil War
• William “Billy” 1815-1920 (that is not a typo), married Mary Walker, widow of Henry Claxton (son of James Lee Claxton and Sarah Cook) married second to and Eliza J. Manning
• Samuel 1827-1876 married Elizabeth “Bettie” Speaks

• Sarah “Sally” 1829-1900 married Robert Shiflet
• Nancy 1831/33-before 1875 married John Wolfe
• Rebecca 1834-1923 married Calvin Wolfe
• John 1840-1863 never married, died in the Civil War

If the 1810 or 1820 census were existent – we’d know more about this family….but we don’t.

Fortunately, until about 1845 or so, this part of Hancock County was in Claiborne County, and Claiborne’s records didn’t burn. Hancock lost part of their records during the Civil War, and then the courthouse burned…twice.  Miraculously, some records survived at least the second fire.

Fairwick didn’t wait long after his marriage to begin to build his land holdings. On Monday, November 12, 1821, in the Claiborne County Court notes, in the Minutes of the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions, 1821-1824, Fairwick Claxton obtains a deed from Enos Hobbs for 30 acres and the deed was ordered to be recorded.  That deed is never found in the deed books.

I love court records, because they speak to the normalcy of community life, whatever that was, wherever they lived.  In early Appalachia, court days were big social events.  The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions was held just like it says – quarterly – four times each year, beginning in January.  Everyone went to town, to participate, to watch and to commune with the neighbors.  Well, not everyone – most women and children stayed home.  But the men attended and often imbibed.  In one session, the court had to be adjourned because the judge and jurors were so drunk they fell out of their chairs.  Yes indeed, court days were very interesting.  Reality TV before TV.

The following records were transcribed from the Claiborne County court and minute books.  Spellings have been, for the most part, retained.

On Monday, November 11, 1822, Farrwix Claxton is appointed a juror to the next court session (page 167).

1825 – Farwise Claxton (sic), deed from Harmon Houston, 1825, Deed Book I-187 for $120 – original states March session 1826 – Oct 8^th 1825 between Farwix Claxton and Harmon Hutson of Claiborne County, said Fairwix for $120, 30 acres granted by the state of TN on the North side of Wallens Ridge, on the waters of Powels river beginning on a spur of said ridge near John Grimes old sugar camp.  Farwix Claxton signed in the presence of William Rogers, register by his deputy Walter Evans.

In his lifetime, Fairwix seemed to have accumulated quite a bit of land, although without the Hancock County deeds, we can’t fully understand his land transactions.

This photo is taken from the neighboring McDowell lands, called Slanting Misery, looking across the Powell River and onto the Clarkson/Claxton lands.

As you can see, this territory was anything but tame.  The Peter Parkey land survey, below, shows the locations of the family lands involved, with Claxton’s bend labeled to the left of the Parkey land survey – the square in black on the river.

Dec. 19, 1826

Page 45 – Fairwick Claxton juror

Page 47 – Fairwick Claxton constable in the bounds of Capt. Mcnight’s company – he gave bond and security

Dec. 20, 1826 – page 63 – Fairwick Claxton ordered to next court as constable

March 19, 1827 – page  72 – Henry Cook overseer of the road from Waggon Ford on the Powell River to 4 mile creek and have hands Thomas Lawson, Gabriel Ayres, Drury Lawson, Reuben Lawson, John Riley (2 hands), Henly Fugate, (2 hands), William Fugate, Hugh Montgomery, James Dooley, Enoch Townsen, Henry Grimes, John Overton, Shadrack Moore, Thomas Hobbs, Fairwick Claxton and John Plank

Road orders are actually very interesting. During this time in history, all taxpayers were required to provide “road hands” for the maintenance of public roads.  These road orders tell us who lived in the neighborhood and used that road.  They were the people assigned to work on the road – to keep it free of potholes and brush and fallen timber.  Henry Cook may well have been related to Fairwick through his mother, Sarah Cook.  Road records are a wonderful way to establish neighborhoods, in addition to or when census records are lacking.

March 20, 1827

Page 87 – Fairwick Claxton constable appointed by the court to attend at the grand jury at the present term

June 1827

Page 109 – Fairwick Claxton to attend court as constable this term to attend grand jurors

Sept 1827 – Page 152 – Farwick Claxton constable appointed to attend at the present session

September 15, 1828

Page 203 – Fairwick Claxton overseer of road from Powell’s River to 4 Mile Creek near McDowell’s in stead of Henry Cook, hands Hugh Montgomery, James Montgomery, Peter Riley, John Plank, Henry Cook, Joheal Fugate, Thomas Lawson, Arnor Lawson, Gabriel Ayres, Riley and Figate hands (road of 2^nd class)

Page 283 – Fairwick Claxton overseer of road from Powells River to 4 Mile Creek near McDowells instead of Henry Cook.

December 15, 1828

Page 320 – In Capt. McNight’s company Farwick Claxton duly elected constable

Page 1829 – March – Martin Reace of Claiborne County to Joseph Campbell of Hawkins County for $300, 40 acres north of Clinch River beginning at a line that Johnson conveyed to James Givens, line between Reece and John Rhea. Signed Martin Rease.  Witnesses were John McNiel and Farwix Claxton (Claiborne Deed book I page 101-103)

March 18, 1829 – Fairwick Claxton to attend court as constable

June 16, 1829, Page 402 – Fairwick Claxton constable

June 17, 1829

Page 415 – Fairwick Claxton constable again for 2 years

December 21, 1829 – Page 31 – Fairwick Claxton overseer of road from Powell River to 4 Mile Creek near McDowell’s instead of Henry Cook

Page 38 – Farwick Claxton allowed $4.68 for stone hamer to ?? out of the ?? ??

May 15, 1830 – Page 57 – Fairwick Claxton, ? Vandeveter, Joseph Mahan, Jonathan Teepey, Abner Hatfield, John Skidmore, Stephen Wilborn lay off road from Abner Hatfields and leaving Mulberry road crossing Wallen’s Ridge at Bales Gap then best way to VA line near Nedham Iron Works

Page 60 – Fairwick Claxton a constable to attend court of present term

December 20, 1830

Page 176 – Farwick Claxton constable in bounds of Capt. Ward’s company for ensuing 2 years

The 1830 census shows Fairwick with the following:

• Fairwick 20-30
• Male 10-15 (James R.)
• 2 males 5-10 (Henry and William)
• 1 male under 5 (Samuel)
• wife age 30-40 (Agnes)
• female 50-60 (possibly Agnes’ mother)
• female under 5 (Sarah)

The only names that appear in the 1830 census are those of the head of household. I have added the names of the family members who are known to fit those dates, in parenthesis.

September 20, 1831 – Page 304 – Farwick Claxton testified 2 days as witness for state in trial of St vs Samuel H. Gully (paid $1)

Page 307 – Fairwick Claxton witness for state – 2 days – $1

June 18, 1832

Page 363 – Fairwick Claxton constable to attend present session

Cousin Dolores send me a wonderful gift some years ago, back before the days of the internet. Imagine how pleased I was to open a letter, one from the real mailbox by the road, and find Fairwix’s signature.

Furthermore, it looks like Fairwix was the sheriff. It also appears that he signed his name as Fairwix Clarkson.

In 1832, 25 acres was surveyed for Farwix Claxton on the Powell River adjoining his mother’s land. His brother, Henry, was a chain carrier for the surveyor.

In 1833, 50 acres was surveyed for Fairwix Clarkson. This land abutted both Henry Clarkson, his brother and the land of Sarah, his mother, as well.  Again, Henry was the chain carrier.

You know that Fairwick was right there when his land was being surveyed. There are very few days in the life of an ancestor, especially in the 1830s, more than 180 years ago, where we know exactly where they were.  The 1832 survey was in May.  This is the Clarkson land and barn in May 2006.

The 1833 survey was taken on January 10^th.  It was likely cold then.  The average temperature in Hancock County is 25-44 in January.

This is snow on the pinnacle overlooking Cumberland Gap. It does snow in this part of Tennessee, and when it does, it’s quite ugly – although people didn’t have to worry about cars and mountains back then.  Hopefully, they just stayed home.  Generally, the snow doesn’t last long and melts rather quickly because the ground generally doesn’t freeze.

In the 1833 tax list Fairwick is listed as free white and 21 or older.

Jan-June 1833 – Page 4 – Fairwick Claxton allowed $3 to serve on traverse jury

A traverse jury is a trial jury – a jury impaneled to try an action or prosecution, as distinguished from a grand jury which reviews evidence submitted by the prosecutor and determines whether a person should be charged with a crime (indictment.)

Dec. 16, 1833 – Page 159, 161 – Fairwick ordered to sell land at public sale (probably as constable.)  I note that Sarah is also mentioned on page 159 so it is very likely James Claxton’s land. Here is the entry:

Hugh Graham vs Fairwick Claxton – Fidelie S. Hurt JP returned with warrant judgement and execution for sum of 38.30 with the following returned endorsements on said execution to wit: There being no goods or chattels of def in my county I have levied this execution of F. Claxton “undivided interest in 100 acres of land on Powels River whereon Sarah Claxton now lives – June 16, 1834”.  Order of sale issued.

Page 174 – Fairwick Claxton reports on laying out road

December 27, 1833

Page 80 – mentions Claxton’s company

In 1834, Fairview Claxton (now we know this has to be Fairwix) bought land from Sarah Claxton, deed book O, page 233, for $70. This would have been his parents land, probably the land adjacent his own. He apparently bought it just 3 months before the court order for the land to be sold.

1834 – Fairview Claxton from Sarah Claxton, 1834, O-233 for $70.00 – original reads March 27^th, 1834, between Farwick Clarkson, Andrew Hurst and wife Mahala, John Plank and wife Elizabeth, Levi Parks and wife Susannah, John Collinsworth and wife Rebecca, Jacob Parks and wife Patsy, heirs at law of James Clarkson deceast of the one part and Sarah Clarkson widow of the aforesaid James Clarkson decd of the other part, all of Claiborne Co. Tn.  In consideration of:

• Farwick Clarkson, $70 (signs – but all of the rest make marks. Fairwix wife is not included for some reason.)
• Andrew Hurst and wife Mahala – $70
• John Plank and wife Elizabeth – $70 or 20 (Debra’s note – marked through)
• Levi Parks and wife Susannah – $70
• John Collensworth and wife Rebecca – $20
• Jacob Parks and wife Patsy “Polly” – $20

From Sarah Clarkson, widow aforesaid, 100 acres, in Claiborne county on the N side of Powell river where Sarah lives and land that was conveyed to James Clarkson from John Hall of Sumner Co.. Tn. – beginning at Hobbs line, bank of Powell river.  Witnessed by John Riley and Johiel Fugate.  Registered Jan. 12, 1841

Note that the order to sell the property was issued three months after this deed was made. However, this deed wasn’t recorded until in 1841, so it apparently still was relevant at that time.  Was this sale the children’s attempt to keep their mother from losing her land?  There’s certainly a story here…if we just had access to a time machine.

March 18, 1835 – Page 319 – Fairwick Claxton reports as juror

Page 345 – Fairwick Claxton no longer overseer of road

Page 353 – juror – Fairwick Claxton

In 1836, on the Claiborne County tax list, the surname has been misspelled Clanton, and was surely supposed to be Claxton. Fairwiss, Sarah and the heirs of Henry are shown on pages 139 and 140.  Then Farwick Claxton is shown as well on page 133.  Henry is paying taxes on two separate parcels of land.

In 1839, Fairwix, Sarah and the heirs of Henry Claxton are all three on the Claiborne County tax list.

1840 – Page 181 – Settlement made with Johile? Fugate admin to the estate of Henly Fugate, decd, sales of property to Farwix Claxton $34.25 and second, Farwix Claxton’s act proven July 16 1839 (Yearry)

Fairwick and his mother both apparently patented additional land, based on what was found in the Tennessee Land Grants from the book of the same name, found in the Middlesboro, KY library.

In the 1840 census, Fairwick’s children align the same except for the following changes that are inconsistent with 1830.

• Fairwick is 40-50
• female not his wife is 70-80
• additional male under 5 (John)
• additional 2 females 5-10 (Nancy and Rebecca)

The female, age 70-80, based on the 1850 census, is very likely Fairwix’s mother-in-law.

In the 1850 census, we find 4 additional people with Fairwick plus Nancy (Workman) Moncy (Muncy) age 81 born in Va. This is definitely Fairwick’s mother-in-law.  However, it took me forever to figure out what G. Chile was.  Care to guess?  Think southern.  Say it out loud.

Gran chile or grandchild. These were Fairwix’s grandchildren through son James and an unknown wife.  James wife died after 1842 and probably before 1845 and James died between 1845-1850.

• Nancy G. Chile 13
• John Chile 10
• William G. Chile 10
• Fernando G. Chile 8

The census says that Fairwix was born in Virginia. If so, it was probably in Russell County, just before James Lee Clarkson moved to the Powell River area on the Lee County/Claiborne County border.

In addition to living with his grandchildren, Fairwix is also living beside sons William and Samuel Claxton. That relationship would turn ugly and William would move away, for unknown reasons, causing a rift between father and son and eventually between the two brothers as well.  We don’t know if the rift was the reason for moving, or the result.

On February 17, 1851, Fairwick Clarkson was received by experience into the Rob Camp Church. His wife, Agnes has been received by letter in 1850, so the family was attending Rob Camp at this time.  Within a few months of Agnes joining the church, children Sary, Rebecca and Henry A. Clarkston were received by experience.  Fairwix followed a few months later.

Rob Camp church was located about 2 miles from where Fairwick lived, indicated by the red balloon, below.

On August 2^nd, a Saturday in 1854, Farwick Claxton and John Bolton were delegates to the Mulberry Association which would meet at Chadwell Station in Lee County.  They were to bear a letter and a contribution of $1.50.

Settlement of the Estate of William Graham, deceased.  Notes returned in the inventory: Fairwix Claxton note $19.50

Notes returned insolvent: Fairwix Claxton $19.50

The Graham administrator’s report is dated December 2, 1854

Survey Book 29 – page 693, Claiborne Co. TN number 28765 March 16, 1826 – Farwix Claxton assignee of JP Shackleford, assignee of Farwix Claxton, assignee of Sarah Claxton – 100 acres granted to Farwix Claxton and his heirs lying in the county aforesaid adj Sarah Claxton on the north side of Powell’s river, crossing a public road, Sarah’s old corner. Surveyed October 14, 1826, filed June 4, 1853, chainers Henry Cook and John Plank

This probably wasn’t filed for 27 years because Sarah and then Fairwix didn’t have the money.

On Saturday, February 2, 1856, in the Rob Camp church notes, Fairwick Claxton was reported for drunkenness.

On March 2^nd, the case of Brother F. Claxton was deferred until May “in order to give the brother time to become reconciled in his feeling.”  In May, the case was deferred to June, but in June, Brother Fairwick Clarkston was “restored by giving satisfaction to the church.”

In August 1858, Fairwix’s sons Samuel and William were both received by experience into the church as well as daughter Nancy, within three days of each other. This sounds very much like a revival was held.  There was a note in the church records a few days later that “converts were baptized by church elders.”

The 1860 census is extremely difficult to read. Fairwick still claims a birth in Virginia as does his wife Agnes.  Grandchildren John, Nancy and William are still living with them, but all of their children have flown the coop.  However, as amazing as it seems, Agnes’s mother, Nancy Muncy, age 99, shown as “feeble,” is living with them.  She too is born in Virginia.

Next door, we find Sary Clarkson, age 85. Sarah is Fairwick’s mother.  With her is living Robert Shifley (Shiflet) and wife Sary along with Elizabeth, age 1.  This is Sarah “Sally,” daughter of Fairwix and Agnes, and they are clearly living with their grandmother, next door, to help out.  She probably helps them too with the baby.  The picture below is of Sarah Clarkson Shiflett.

We only have pictures of two of Fairwick’s children, Sarah, above, and Samuel’s Civil War photo, below.

I must admit, I look at the two of these photos because their common features would be those of their parents, Fairwick and Agnes…and seeing these two photos is as close as we’ll ever come to seeing Fairwick and Agnes.

On May 4, 1863, William Claxton, the grandson that Fairwick and Agnes had raised since their son James death, nearly 20 years before, was killed in the Civil War. He mustered in on March 13, 1862 and his record states the following:

Left in hospital sick at Camp Division Ohio December 28, 1862. Reported dead May 4, 1863.  Died in hospital at Camp Denison May 4, 1863 – 22 years old.  Record of death and interment:  William Clarkson, grave 199 -  then it says number 287, not sure what this number is.  We know this is our William, because in 1876, his sister Nancy states that she is going to get money for her dead brother from the government.

Their grandson John also disappears from all records about this time. He died, without heirs, sometime between the 1860 census and when the chancery suit was filed in 1875.  I did not find John in the 1870 census.  Family oral history states that he was a war casualty as well.

Mount Zion Baptist Church

On the second Saturday of April 1869 Rob Camp Baptist Church released the following from their fellowship:

• H. Clarkson (Fairwix nephew through Henry, decd)
• Mary Clarkson (Mary Martin, wife of E.H. Clarkson, through Margaret Herrell and Anson Martin, Margaret Herrell remarried to Joseph Bolton)
• William Mannon
• Elizabeth Mannon
• Mary Muncy (probably Agnes Muncy Clarkson’s relative)
• Clarissa Hill
• Sarah Shefley (Fairwix daughter, married to Robert Shiflet)
• Farwix Clarkson
• Agnes Clarkson
• Nancy Furry (Fairwix granddaughter through son James, decd)
• Elizabeth Clarkson (Elizabeth Speaks, wife of Samuel Clarkson, son of Fairwix)
• Margaret Clarkson (daughter of Samuel Clarkson and Elizabeth Speaks Clarkson, Margaret would marry Joseph Bolton Jr. in 1873)
• William Bolton (son of Joseph Bolton)
• James Bolton (son of Joseph Bolton)
• John Grimes
• Catherine Grimes
• Joseph Bolton (husband to Margaret Herrell Martin, father to William and James)

Fairwix was related in one way or another to almost everyone in the new church.

These members were released for the purpose of constituting Mount Zion Baptist Church. On the third Saturday of May 1869 these brothers and sisters met, along with representatives from Cave Springs, Big Spring Union and Chadwell Station to officially constitute a church.  The church would be located on a parcel of land belonging to William Mannon.  A short time later William deeded over to the church without reservations 3.4 acres of land where today (three buildings later) the church still stands.  The property is now in the NW corner of district 5.

Initially I thought that they would have formed a church closer to where they lived, but that wasn’t the case, so there must have been another reason.  The new church was about twice as far as the old one, 4 miles distant.

There is no date on the record, but at some point, Fairwick is noted in the church records as deceased, as is Agnes.

Fairwick’s Final Years

In the 1870 census, Fairwick is age 70, a retired farmer and Agnes is 66 and keeping house. Women never get to retire.

In the 1870 census, a Nancy Furrah, age 30, and a child Janah or Sarah age 5 of the same last name, are found living with Fairwick. This is Fairwix’s widowed granddaughter.  She may have lost her husband in the Civil War as well.

Son Samuel is living next door. Son William has apparently moved as he is not found in 1870 in Hancock County.

On February 11, 1874, Fairwick Clarkson/Claxton dies and is buried in the cemetery on his farm.

Estate of Melbourn Overton, after Fairwick’s death, shows 1 “note of hand” on Farewick Claxton for $2.

The Chancery Suit

Our big find…meaning breakthrough… in the Clarkson family research was a suit filed by William, Fairwick’s son, against two of Fairwick’s other children, Samuel Clarkson and Rebecca Wolfe and a grandchild, Nancy Furry. Chancery suits are a genealogists dream, although they were probably very clearly a seemingly never-ending nightmare for the people involved.  These suits include a great deal of family history information and depositions that, cumulatively, allow us a peek into their lives.  In this case, we get to view Fairwick’s final days with an amazing lens of clarity.  I can just envision these scenes, especially having visited the actual locations.  The vivid descriptions allow us to sit by his bedside as a silent, invisible visitor some 140 years later.

In a way, it’s much like reading the script for a soap opera, but it’s our own personal family soap opera!

I am including all of the depositions and filings in this case except for minor things like receipts and notifications of service of paperwork. To read these documents in their entirety gives one a sense of the situation and allows us to be present in some small way.  However, I have bolded the important sections of the testimony.

On January 19, 1875 in Hancock Co., a Chancery Suit was filed as follows:

Complaint

William Clarkson vs Samuel Clarkson, etal

Enrolling docket – chancery court – Page 167 – January 19, 1875 – To the Honorable H.C. Smith chancellor for the first chancery district of Tennessee sitting at Sneedville…your orator William Clarkson, a resident of Union Co., Tn., that on the 11^th day of Feb. 1874, his father Fairwix Clarkson died intestate in the said county of Hancock.  A few days before the death of said Fairwix and while on his death bed, and in his last sickness, he was by means of undue influence induced to sign deeds which purported to convey his real estate to his son Samuel Clarkson and one of his granddaughters, Nancy Furry, and a daughter Rebecca Wolfe, each getting a separate tract by a separate conveyance.  The deed to the said Samuel Clarkson conveyed a tract lying in the 14^th civil district of said county of Hancock adjoining the land of Melburn Overton, James Overton and others, the tract conveyed to said Nancy Furry lies in the same civil district and adjoins lands of Montgomery and Clarkson and others and the tract conveyed to Rebecca Wolfe lies in the same civil district and adjoins the lands of Rhoda Shiflett, Henry Yeary and others.  Said lands are valuable and are worth $2000 or more. The consideration named in each of said deeds in the sum of $150 but nothing was paid.  These lands constituted almost the entire estate of said Fairwix.  He left a widow surviving him and several other children and grandchildren who were in no way provided for by said intestate. 

(page 168)Your orator shows dates and expressly charges that the two said deeds were pretended to have been made and executed, the said Fairwix Clarkson was so enfeebled in mind that he was incapable of doing any binding act, and that therefore the said pretended conveyances were not his acts and deeds and that he really died the true owner of said lands and the same of rightly belong to his heirs-at-law.

He left a widow Agnes Clarkson and two other surviving children aside from your orator and said Samuel, viz, Sarah Shiflet, wife of Robert Shiflet and Rebecca Wolf wife of Calvin Wolfe. He had a son James Clarkson who died some years ago leaving two children viz the said Nancy Fury a widow and Fernando Clarkson.

He also had a son Henry Clarkson who died in his lifetime leaving 4 children, viz. Elizabeth Harris, wife of Burrell Harris, Hugh Clarkson, Jerusha C. Clarkson and Sarah C. Clarkson.

He also had a daughter Nancy Wolfe who died in his lifetime leaving two children, viz., Sterling Wolfe and William Wolfe. The above noted children and grandchildren were the only heirs at law of the said Fairwix Clarkson.

The said Sterling Wolfe, William Wolfe, Jerusha C. Clarkson and Sarah C. Clarkson are minors without a general guardian.  The said parties all reside in Hancock Co. except your orators and the said Sterling Wolfe who lives in Claiborne Co and William Wolfe who lived in Union County in said state.  The premises considered your orator prays that all of the above named parties that process issue, that the defendants be required to answer fully, but an answer an oath is expressly named, that the said Samuel Clarkson, Nancy Furry and Rebecca Wolfe be required to file with their answers said pretended deeds, which rest as a cloud upon the title to said land, that a guardian ad litum be appointed to defend for said minors, that….the rights of said widow be declared in said land and dower assigned her in case she is entitled, therefore that commissioners be appointed to portion said lands among the parties entitles thereto or in case it is necessary, that the same be sold for partition and if in anything he is mistaken in his proper ?? for relief he prays for all such …(page 169) and further and general relief that equity and good conscience will entitle him to.   Vincent Mayers and F. M. Fulkerson def for complaintant.

William Clarkson swears at to the truth of his statements and signs with his mark.

Answer to Complaint

(page 184) June 2, 1875 – The answer of Samuel Clarkson, Nancy Fury, Rebecca Wolf and Agnes Clarkson to the bill of complaint of William Clarkson filed in the chancery court in Sneedville…these respondents reserving all the benefits of exceptions to the complaints said bill answering say – They admit the death of Fairwick Clarkson as stated and that he died intestate – that 5 days before his death he executed the deeds mentioned in the bill and while in his last sickness and in his proper mind. That some 12 months or two years before his death, (page 185) he expressed the same feeling and agreed to the same contracts as mentioned in the deeds as being his free and voluntary act and such as he intended to carry out.  He was in his proper mind all the while during his last sickness and equally so 12 months or two years before the execution of the deeds mentioned in the bill and the deeds only carried out his expressed contract two years before his death and without any undue influence or inducement of any kind whatever.  These respondents admit the conveyance were made to them and made in good faith and for a valuable consideration – Respondent Samuel Clarkson’s 100 acres more or less lies in the River Bluffs and is of little value.  Respondent Nancy Furry has about 100 and 20 acres on the top of the river bluffs in the limestone and cedar and Rebecca Wolfe has about 56 acres on the same lonts? of land.  These respondents state they have paid fully for the land and will probably have to pay more than their contracts on the debts on matters the deceased much desired should be paid and hence said deeds were executed in good faith and for the purposes stated.  Respondents have lived with the deceased and his wife, now his widow, for at least 7 years working hard for his support and his hers?, who has relinquished her dower interest to these respondents.  The lands are properly bounded and located by the bill, but the estimated value is too much. Respondents admit the number of heirs stated, respondents now repeat and state that their Father the deceased was properly at himself when the deeds were executed and only executed a contact contemplated 12 months before that time – the there was no undue influences used or persuasion to induce the execution of the deeds, that they were freely and voluntarily executed by the deceased.  Respondent also shows the estate was indebted and no personal estate to payment and these respondents has paid up the debts.  Respondents here file therein deeds as required in the bill.  Jarvis and David – solicitors for respondents – filed June 2, 1875.

Answer of Sterling Wolfe, William Wolfe, Jerusha Clarkson, and Sarah Clarkson by their Guardian

(page 248) March 15, 1876 – The answer of Sterling Wolfe, William Wolfe, Jerusha Clarkson and Sarah Clarkson by their guardian ad litum, Isaac W. Campbell to the bill of William Clarkson filed against them and others in the chancery court at Sneedville – Respondents answering say they admit the death of Fairwix Clarkson, that he left the children and grandchildren named his heirs at law, that he ? the pretended deeds mentioned and they admit that they (page 249) were signed at a time when the said Fairwix was incapable of doing any binding act. They admit that the said pretended deeds were the result of undue influence brought to bear upon said Fairwix in the enfeebled condition of his body and mind and that the same were not his acts and deeds.  Respondents ask that the court will protect their interests in this case and having answered they pray to go home.

Robert and Sarah Shiflet Depositions

January 26, 1876 Wm Claxton vs Samuel Claxton, Rebecca Wolf, Nancy Furry, Agnes Claxton – In the Chancery Court of Hancock County and State of Tennessee. Depositions of Robert Shiflet and Sarah Shiflet, M. B. Overton, Henry Yeary, J. T. Montogomery, Ferdinand Clarkston, Williams Owens, James Owens, Calvin Brown, Rhonda Shiftet, Granvile Shiflet, Narcisses Bottom, and witnesses for Plantiff in the above case taken upon notice on the 26^th day of January 1876 at the dwelling house of Emuel Stafford Exq. In the presence of the plantiff (Defer).

The said witness Robert Shiflett age forty eight years being duly sworn deposed as follows.

1^st question by complainant – State if you were well acquainted with Farwick Clarkston and if you served him during his last sickness. 

Answer – I was well acquainted with him for 25 years. Yes sire I was there pretty near every day and some of the nights ??? to his death claimed him.  

State whether or not the said Fairewick Clarkston was in his proper mind for the last week before his death…(page 2) and coming to his sickness was he in a condition to do business properly.  

Answer – He was Not – He was Not.

By same – State all about the condition of his mind during his last sickness and up to his death.

Answer – He was out of his mind for about 10 days before his death at times and as he grew weaker he was more so.  

By same – State if you were with said Fairwick Clarkston on Saturday before he died and Wednesday following and if so when was the condition of his mind.

Answer – I was there part of the day. I don’t consider that he was in his proper mind on that day.  

By the same – State if you are well acquainted with the lands owned by said Farewick Clarkston before his death and the land mentioned in the Bill and if so.. What would be a fair valuation of the rents by the year.

Answer – I was well acquainted with it. It suppose it to be worth one hundred dollars a year.

By same – Would that amount have been sufficient to have supported the said Clarkston and his wife. (page 3)

Answer – I suppose that it ought to support them.

By same – State who cultivated that land for the last seven or eight years before the death of the said Clarkston.

Answer – Samuel Clarkston apart of the time or about seven years also Calvin Wolf a part of the time and the old man Clarkston tended it apart of the time.  

Cross Examination by Defendant – Question are you any way related to Farwick Clarkston.

Answer – I am his son in law.

Question – Are you intrusted [interested] in this suit.

Answer – My wife is.

Question – Who cultivated the land for said Clarkston.

Answer – He had Calvin Wolf’s boys two years.

Further more this deposat say it not…. Robert X Shiflet (his mark)

Sarah Shiflet next examined aged 48 years being duly sworn deposed as follows. States she has heard the fore going deposition of Robert Shiflett and adopts the same as her sworn deposition and further thus deponent sath not.    Sarah X Shiflett (her mark)

William Owens Deposition

(page 4) William Owens aged 40 years being duly sworn deposed as follows.

1^st question – State if you seen Fairwick Clarkston during his last sickness and if so state if you seen him out of his right mind during that time. 

Answer – I saw him in his last sickness and saw him out of his write mind one time.

By same – State if you was present a few days before his death and seen the said Clarkston see give the deeds to the spaitrer? mentioned in the Bill.

Answer – I did.  

By same – State if the deeds were read and there contents fully explained to the said Farewick Clarkston at the time he assigned them.

Answer – They were not read in my presents, but said Clarkston acknowledged to the contents though the contents were not explained to him.

Question by complainant – At the time of the execution of the deeds mentioned in complete bill did you consider Fairwick Clarkson the maker of the deeds of sain and disposing mind.

Answer – According to my judgement I consided him capable of transacting business as any sick man and that he’s my uncle and was well acquainted with him.

Further more this deponent deposeth further. Signed William Ownes

M.B. Overton Deposition

M.B. Overton age 52 years and after being sworn deposed as follows.

1^st question by complainant – State if you was present and seen Farewick Clarkston during his last sickness. 

Answer – I was there during his sickness frequently.

By same – State if you seen him Clarkston sign the deeds mentioned in complainants bill and if so was the deeds read to him and the contents explained to him.  

Answer – I saw him sign the deeds. The deeds were not read to him at that time and the content was not explained. 

By same – State if you are or was one of his administrators and if so what amount of debt came against the state.

Answer – I was one of his administrators and there was some where seventy five or a hundred dollars.

By same – State whether or not there was any consideration paid for the lands conveyed at the time the deeds was executed.

Answer – The wasn’t any that I know of.

Cross examination – Question by respondent

State how long you had been acquainted with Fairwick Clarkson the maker of the deed mentioned in complete bill.

Answer – I have been acquainted 40 years.

2^nd question – Was he a schooled man capable of adding and considerable …..

Answer – He was a man of considerable business, capable of riting and understanding a deed.  

3^rd  – State all you know about this circumstance as of the execution of the deeds mentioned in the …..

Answer – I was there when Mr. Yeary came in with the deeds. He went to the bed and spoke to him and he said not until after breadfast. Not long after that he was raised in the bed and said to Mr. Yeary to bring them deeds or….. and he said to me Burg I want you to come here and witness this deed and Mr. Yeary unfolded one of the deeds and laid it down on the books.

Mr B. Overton

Deposition of Granville Shiflett

Granville Shiflett age 24 years being sworn deposed as follows.

1^st question by complainant.  State if you was with and seen Farewick Clarkston during his last sickness.

Answer – I was there a portion of the time.

2^nd by same – State whether his mind was good all the time or was he out of his mind any of the time. 

Answer – I don’t think that he was write at all times.

3^rd by same – Are you well acquainted with the land mentioned in the pleading and if so what is the value of the lands.

Answer – I am ??? well acquainted with the said land – a thousand dollars is as much as I would give for it.

4^th by same – What would be a fair valuation for the rents of the lands by the year.

Answer – One hundred and twenty five dollars a year.

Further more this deponent sayeth not.   Signed Granville Shifilet

James Owens Deposition

James Owens aged 30 years old being duly sworn deposed as follows.

1^st question by complainant – State if you are acquainted with the lands mentioned in the pleadings and if so what is the value of said lands.

Answer – yes, I am acquainted with the land and I recond it would be worth twelve hundred dollars.

2^nd by same – What would be a fare valuation of the rent of said lands by the year.

Answer – I recond something like one hundred dollars.

Further more this witness sayeth not.   James X Ownes (his mark)

Calvin Brown Deposition

Calvin Brown age 39 years being duly sworn deposed as follows.

1^st question by complainant – State if you are acquainted with the lands mentioned in the pleadings and if so what is a fair valuation of said land.

Answer – I am tolerable well acquainted with it and I would not give more than one thousand dollars.

2^nd by same – What would be a fare valuation for the rents of said lands.

Answer – I would not give more than fifty dollars for it. Further this deposed sayeth not.

Calvin X Brown (his mark)

E. H. Clarkson Deposition

E. H. Clarkston age 40 years being duly sworn deposed as follows.

1^st question by complainant – State if you was well acquainted with Fairwick Clarkston and if you seen him often in his last sickness. 

Answer – I was well acquainted with him and stayed there two knights.

2^nd by same – if you seen him in his last sickness out of his proper mind. 

Answer – I did not consider him in the later part of his sickness in his write mind. He called the doctor that night 6 or 7 different names. 

3^rd by same – What is the value of the lands mentioned in the findings.

Answer – I think it would be worth fifteen hundred dollars.

4^th by same – What would be a fair valuation for the rents of said lands by the year.

Answer – Well the way the land is I would put it at one hundred dollars.

Cross examiner – Question by respondents – Was you present at the time the deed mentioned in the pleadings was executed.

Answer – I was Not.

2^nd – at the time you say you think Fairwix Clarkson was not in his proper mind was that before or after the execution of the deeds. 

Answer – Before and after the deeds were signed.

3^rd – What kin are you to Wm Clarkson the complainant in this case. 

Answer – Cousin and step son.

Further more this witness sayeth not.   Signed E. H. Clarkson

Deposition of John Montgomery

Depositions of Henry, John L. Montgomery, Isaac Parky, Fernando Clarkson, Narcisus Bolton, taken on the grant of the complainants by ?? on the 11^th day of February 1876 before Emuel Shafford Esq. at his residence in Hancock County to be ?? in said court.

The said John F. Montgomery aged 44 year being duly sworn deposes at follows:

1^st question of complainant – State whether so not you was with Fairwick Clarkston repeatedly during his last sickness. 

Answer – I was.

By same state – What was the condition of his mind for the last weeks before his death was he in a condition to do business?

Answer – I could state that he was out of mind at any when I saw him at every time that I saw him.

By same state – If you are acquainted with the lands owned by the said for Fairwick Clarkston and the lands mentioned in pledings and if what is said lands worth?

Answer – I was what was it worth it was worth and Thousand Dollars.

By same State – What would be a fare valuation of the rents of said lands by the year.

Answer – It was worth sixty dollars.

Cross examination

Question 1^st.  Did Fairwix Clarkson tell you at any time what disposition he was going to make of his lands and of at what time was that.

Answer he told me that he intended to give Nancy Ferry beginning at ferry it Montgomery loine with the bigrade to the cross fence to graveyard. Then with that crop fence this being the lands on which she now resides.  Not being long before his last sickness.

Examination by complainant – State if the title executed by Clorvernt? Clarkston to Nancy Snavely alias Furry cover the same lands as shown and pointed out to you by said Fairwick Clarkston that he said he intended to convey to said Nancy Furry or does this here cover more land than said and pointed out by said Fairwick Clk.

Answer – It covers more land than should he pointed out to me according to the Calls of the Deeds it must go leave where he shade me.

2^nd by complainant – do you know who waited upon Fairwix Clarkson and attended to his affairs for some years before he died and for who?

Answer – I have a knowledge of Samuel Clarkson and family cropping him would and doing his milling.

Oral Examination of complainant – state if Samuel Clarkston lived on the land so mentioned and cultivated the same during the time.

Answer – he was living on the place and cultivated part of it.

Farther this oath – John T. Montgomery

Isaac Parkey Deposition

The said Isace Parkey after being duley sworn age 37 years deposes as follows:

1^st question by complainant.  State if you was with Fairwick Clarkston during his last sickness and if so was he out of his proper mind any of the time. 

Answer – I was there Saturday before his Death. I went in and spoke to him and don’t think he made me any answer.  I don’t think that he was not calculated to do himself he was suffering a grate deal.

By same state if you are acquainted with the land mentioned in the pledings and if so what is it worth?

Answer – now the land it is worth the hold land is worth eighteen hundred dollars.

By same state – What would be a fair valuation for the rits [rents] of the lands to mentioned including the orchard by the year. 

Answer – I think it is worth from seventy five to one hundred dollars farther more….

Witness oath Isacc Parkney

Fernando Clarkston Depositio

Fernando Clarkston next examined aged 30 years being duly sworn deposed as follows:

1^st question by complainant.  State if you was with Farewick Clarkston repeatedly during his last sickness and state if he was out of his proper mind any of the time. 

Answer – I was with him during his last sickness from the talk he used I don’t think he was on Saturday, before he died on, Wednesday ??? in his write mind this was about a week died on Wednesday weake.

By same state if you are acquainted with the lands in the pleadings and if so what is said land worth.

Answer – I am acquainted with it I was raised on it. It worth from eighteen to two thousand dollars.

By same state what would the rents of said lands be worth by the year.

Answer – its worth one hundred and twenty five dollars a year.

No. 204 Filed March 13, 1876

Deposition of Henry Yeary

Taken March 1876 at the hotel of Joseph Brooks of Sneedville. Henry Yeary about 65 years of age deposes as follows:

I was at Fairwix Claxton’s while he was sick and he called me to his bed and told me he wanted me to write a deed from him to Nancy Furry. I asked him how and he said he wanted to begin at or near the lower end of his land near the upper side of the road, then with the road to the second cross…the well…include the peach trees at Wolfe’s, then with the hollow as to divide the well(?).  So at to leave Fernando Clarkson 50 acres.

He said he wants to preserve the full use and benefit of the same for life. He said he would give me a deed to write by and that I could go home to do the writing.  He then called some member of the family to give him his box containing his papers and he got the deed and give it to me.  I asked him what was the consideration.  He told me $150.  He told me when I got the writing done he wanted me to write some more.  I got the deed done and took it back to him next morning when he said he wanted me to write one to Rebecca Wolfe and Samuel Clarkson.  I know he wanted them written and he said he wanted Rebecca to have the land above the road and Samuel to have the land below the road and the consideration was to be $150 and that he wanted to reserve the use of the lands during his life.

I omitted a sliver of land from Samuel Clarkson’s without being instructed to do so for Fernando to have access. I took the deeds back to Fairwix the second day and he told me to keep all 3 of them.  I told him I had all 3 deeds with me and that B. Overton was there if he wished to sign them.  He said “very well” and he called to his son Samuel and Calvin Wolfe to prop him up in the bed, which they did.  He called for his spectacles and a pen and ink and a docket book to write on and I opened the deeds one at a time and handed them to him and he signed them.  When he had finished signing, I asked him if he wished M. B. Overton and myself to witness them and he said that he did.

I asked him is he ? the deeds for the purpose herein contained and he said he did. We then witnessed them.  There was nothing said between us about the strip I had left out.  I understood from Fairwix that Fernando was to have a passway but I never heard him speak of it that I remember.  I lived about a half mile from Fairwix and lived about that distance from him some 35 or 40 years and knew him during that time.  He could read and write and was a very good judge of business.  He was a Justice of the Peace at the time of his death.  I considered by the way he acted and done at the time he signed the deeds that he was in his right mind so far as anything was called to his attention.  Oweing to the weakness of his body, he may not have given attention to everything as a man would in good health.  I considered his mind good at the time.  ???  I was well acquainted with the land and knew its location according to the way he told me to write the deeds. 

The day I wrote the first deed I did not leave it he told me to keep it until I wrote the others. He did not read the deed.  The day I brought all the deeds, M. B. Overton was there when I went there.  Fairwix did not read the deeds.  I don’t think he took the time.  He might have read some of the first part of them.  We did not read the deeds to him.  I left out a little piece of the deed to Nancy Furry to make a passway for Fernando Clarkson.  There was a piece left out of Fernando Clarkson’s for the same purpose.  He spoke to me about writing the first deed on the 5^th of July, 1874.  I wrote the other 2 deeds on the 6^th and he signed on the 7^th.  I suppose he was somewhat weaker on the day he assigned the deeds than on the day he first spoke to me to write them.  I don’t know that there was a material difference.  He was rather going down all the time.  I reckon he was sick some 2 weeks.  I don’t exactly recollect.  It might have been a little longer.  I think the doctor said his disease was stricture of the bladder. 

Nancy Furry lived with him and had lived there several years. Samuel Clarkson had lived on the place some years before that time and lived there when the deeds were executed.  Rebecca Wolfe lived on the place when the deeds were executed and had lived there some 2 years before.  The plaintiff William Clarkson had moved out of the county some years before the execution of the deeds.  I did not see or know of any of the consideration mentioned in the deeds having been paid.  Myself and M.B. Overton…the land is worth ? hundred dollars, the 3 pieces together.

The ??? of said three deeds have paid some of the debts of the estate of Fairwix Clarkson to between $60 and $80. I do not know of the complainant paying anything on the debts of the estate.

Filed March 13, 1876

Deposition of Jonathan Boles

June 14 1876 – William Clarkson vs Samuel Clarkson et. al – In the Chancery Court at Sneedville, Hancock County, Tennessee

Deposition of Samuel Clarkson & Jonathan Boles witnesses for the defendant in the above cause taken upon notice on the 9^th day of June 1876 at the Clerk & Master’s office in Sneedville Hancock County Tennessee in presence of plaintiff and defendant Samuel Clarkson and their attorney.

The said witness Jonathan Boles aged 52 years old being duly sworn deposed as follows.

1^st question by respondent.  State if you were acquainted with Farwick Clarkson in his life time and how long and the distance you lived from him? 

Answer – I was acquainted with Farwick Clarkson in his lifetime, for thirty years, lived four miles and one half from him.

2^nd question by respondent – State how long before his death you saw him last? 

Answer – Two or Three days before he died, on Sunday, before hid died. I think he died on Tuesday or Wednesday after I was there on Sunday.  (page 2)

3^rd question by respondent – State if Farwick Clarkson was in his proper mind when you last saw him? 

Answer – I thought he was.              

Jonathan Boles

Deposition of Samuel Clarkson

The said witness Samuel Clarkson aged about 49 years being duly sworn deposed as follows.

Please state if you are the son of the said Fairwick Clarkson and one of the defendant in this case.

Answer – I am said to be the son of Fairwick Clarkson and am one of the defts in the case.

2^nd question – State if you were well acquainted with your father before his death and for what length of time?  

Answer – I was well acquainted all of my life with him.

3^rd question – State where you lived at the time of your father’s death? 

Answer – In the 14^th Civil District of Hancock County Tennessee on the lands I got of my father.  

4^th question – State how far you lived from your father?  (page 3) 

Answer – I live some two hundred and fifty or three hundred yards from father.

5^th question by defts – State who provided for your father before his death and how long? 

Answer – I provided for my father about seven years before his death. I made the grain and took care of it for him, and paid the rents of my own crop.  And I also got his firewood for him, that is the principal part of it – and prepared it for the fire place and put it on the fire for him.  

6^th question by respondent – State if your father was properly in his mind up to the time of his death?

Answer – To my knowledge he never was out of his proper mind.

7^th question – State how long before your father’s death he contracted to you the part of the land you live on, and any thing you may know about the balance owned by the other defendants? 

Answer – My father contracted the land to me that I now live on in the year 1867. And he died in the year 1874.  He said that he was going to strike off the lands on the side of the road he lived to Nancy Furry and Rebeca Wolfe except fifty acres to Furnando Clarkson. 

8^th question – State if at any time (he) your father ever showed you any of the lines and what he said about them? 

Answer – (He) my father showed me a corner tree to the part I got of him. He said that was the corner to which he was going to make me deed.  He said he was going to go and show deft Wolfe his line he said that his wife had paid him for it and was going to make them a deed to it.  He said he was going to cut-off to Rebecca Wolfe about fifty acres, and deed the other to Nancy Furry.  He said she had paid for it value received and he was going to make her a deed to it.  The deeds were after words made to Defts.  This talk all passed before he was taken down sick.  The deeds were made after wards. 

9^th question – State if you paid for your part of the land and how? 

Answer – I did pay for it… In pure hard labor. I am still paying for it by taking care of my mother as was my contract.  I paid about thirty five dollars and Calvin Wolfe and wife and Nancy Furry paid about forty-five dollars.  On fathers debts since his death. 

10^th question by same – State if the above payments were part of the consideration of the deed mentioned. 

Answer – No they were not (page 5)

Deposition of Agnes Clarkson

July 15, 1876 – Wm Clarkson vs Samuel Clarkson et al – In the Chancery Court of Sneedville, Hancock Co., Tenn – Deposition of Agnes Clarkson, Nancy Ferry others with Nancy Snavely.

Taken by agreement on the 15^th day of July at the house of Agnes Clarkson in the ?? and their attorney before H. F. Coleman a Justice of the Peace for Hancock County to be read as evidence on the trial of said case and behalf of the defendants.

The said witness Agnes Clarkson aged 74 years being duly sworn deposes as follows:

Question 1^st by defendant.  What relationship are you to the parties of this said and are you the widow of Fairwic Clarkson dec’d.

Ans – I am the mother of William & Samuel Clarkson and the widow of Farwix Clarkson.

Question 2 by defendant – Were you with your late husband Fairwix Clarkson during his last sickness and up to the time of his death?

Ans – I was.

By same – What was the condition of his mind during his last sickness was he cognizant of his business and of sane and disposing mind?

Ans – He seemed like he was I never saw him out of his mind but one time a little and that was from the effect of medicine and that was but a few minutes his sister came in during the time and he knew her.

By same – Was the time you speak of being a little out of mind before or after the execution of (page 2) the deed by Fairwix Clarkson decd to defendandts for the lands in controversy in this case?

Ans – It was before.

By same – Did you hear the decd Fairwix Clarkson say any thing about the disposition he had made of the lands in dispute in this case as what he intended to make of said land and at what time did you hear him talk about the matter? 

Ans – I have years ago heard him talk about what disposition he intended to make of it.

By same – Please state what he said before to the disposition of said lands.

Ans – He and my self were alone and he said he wanted his business wound up that he intended to make three deeds one to Samuel Clarkson, one to Rebecca Wolf and one to Nancy Ferry (was then). I asked him what he intended to do with his other children and he said he would do by them as they had done by him they had left him in a bad condition and he had nothing for them.  I persuaded him to leave same land for them and he said I need not talk to him for he would not.

By same – Did Fairwix Clarkson die say any thing to you about the matter after the deed was made to the lands in controversy and if so state what he said?

Ans – He did, he said he had his business as he wanted it that he had left Rebecca a little home on the other side of well hollow next Rhonda Shifletts and Samuel the old home place below the road and Nancy the west side of the well hollow this was on Sunday morning after the deeds were made.

(page 3) Cross Examination by complainant – Question – State if you can the day of the week and the day of the month that Fairwix Clarkson died.

Ans – He died on Wednesday morning the 11^th day of February I think.

By the same – State whether or not Fairwick Clarkson sold them the lands mentioned in the pleadings or give it to them.

Ans – He sold the land to them.

By the same – At what time did he sell the lands to them and what did pay him for the land.

Ans – I cannot tell at what time he sold the land. They paid him in various ways there was a right smart of money paid, but I do not know who paid the money now nor do I recollect any thing else they paid him in particular.  They made him a crop every year and paid him the rent own there own crop besides.

By the same – State if any one besides your self heard the conversation that Farewick Clarkson had to you about what disposition he had made of his lands after the execution of the deeds.

Ans – Clementine Clarkson came in when he was talking to me and I think she heard the conversation.       

Agnes X Clarkson – Her mark

Nancy Snavely Deposition

Nancy Snavely aged 39 years after being duly sworn deposed as follows.

Question 1^st by defendant – State if you are one of the defendants in this suit and (page 4) where you resided at the time of the death of Fairwix Clarkson decd. 

Ans – I am a defendant in this suit I resided with Fairwix Clarkson when he died as one of the family.

By same – What was the condition of his mind during his last sickness and at the time he executed the deed to the lands mentioned in this case.

Ans – I did not see any thing wrong with his mind at the time he signed the deeds.

By same – State which payments you made upon said lands deeded to you by Fairwix Clarkson decds. In what you paid the same and at what time as you can.

Ans – I paid a good portion in money. I paid him sixty five dollars at one time at other times paid him small amounts. And other things that he accepted of as payments.

Cross examination by complainant – 1^st question by complainant.  State at what time you purchased the lands from your grand father and what amount you was to give for the same and where you paid the same. 

Ans - I do not remember the time but I think it was about eight years before his death. I was to give one hundred and fifty dollars for the land and have paid for it.  I paid back flour & lard besides what money I paid.

By same – state whether or not when you went to your grandfathers to live you had child and if so how old was the child.

Ans – I did and it was seventeen months old (page 5)

By same – state what amount of means you possessed or had coming to you available at the time you went to live with your grandfather.

Ans – I had nothing but my house plunder? But had money coming from the Government that was due my deceased brother and received one hundred and two dollars and some cents.

By same – State if your child is still living and what has been your occupation since you have lived with your grandfather.

Ans – My child is still living. I have followed working in the house and out of doors.

By same – State if you hold a note executed to you by Farewix Clarkson and if so for what amount.

Ans – I did have one for sixty dollars

By same – State whether or not that note was executed to you by Farewix Clarkson for money loan him and was the money the same that you speak of drawing from the government and what has he came of that note.

Ans – He gave me the note for the money above spoken of and said I could hold it until he made me a right to the land. I have the note yet.

Reexamination of defts – Do you hold the note you say you have against Fairwix Clarkson decd now as a claim against the estate or do you consider the (page 6) note paid by the execution of the deed to you.  State also if you have ? claimed any thing from said estate  – only the land described to you by said decd. 

Ans – I consider the note paid by the execution of the deed and do not hold it as a claim against the estate.

Re Cross Examination by complainant – State whether or not you have presented the note since the death of Farewix Clarkson to the Overton or Henry Yearry the administrators of Farewix Clarkson for acceptance and payment.

Ans – I presented the note to M.B. Overtan one of the Administrators of Farewix Clarkson decd but I don not know wheather he excepted it or not but I do not hold it as a claim against the Estate.

By same – State if you did not call on Overton to pay off the note and did not Overton agree to pay the note. Please produce the note now. 

Ans – I did not call on him to pay off the note and he did not pay it off.  

Nancy X Snavely (her mark)

The foregoing depositions were taken before me as stated in the caption and reduced to wrting by me and I certify that I am not of him nor course to either of the parties nor no wise interested in the cause. And that I delivered them to Henry Tyler C & M without being out of my possession or altered since they were taken. Given under my hand this July 15^th 1876.  H. F. Coleman, Justice of the Peace for Hancock County.

Deposition of Robert Sandifer

August 9, 1876 – William Clarkson vs Samuel Clarkson estate in the Chancery Court Hancock County, Tennessee. Deposition of Robert Sandifers witness for defendant in the above case taken by agreement of the plaintiff an defendant on the 9^th day of August 1876 at the dwelling house of James Brown Esq.  in the presence of the plaintiff and defendant.   The said witness Robert Sandifer aged 45 forty five years being duly sworn deposed as follows.

1^st question by defendant – Are you acquainted with Fairwick Clarson if so how long. 

Answer – I was acquainted with him about three years before his death.

2^nd question – Was you there before his death in the time of his sickness. 

Answer – I was from Saturday evening until Tuesday morning next before his death.

3^rd question – Was he in his rite mind in during ………    he seem to be as much as a man could be in the fist he was in and suffering as he was.   

4^th question – please state what conversation he had to you when you went there. 

Answer – he said he was in his rite mind. He seem to answer me correctly in all the talk I had with him. 

5^th question – What conversation did he have with you about a certain piece of land he pouinter? His lands and showed to you previous before his sickness. 

Answer – I was at his house, he saw his granddaughter Nancy Furry had been staying there and waiting on him the intended for her to have a home at his death. Them that do the most for him he intended to do the most for them.

Cross examination by plantiff – State whether during the time of his sickness while you was there if the old man Clarkson was speechless.

Answer – He was speechless on Saturday & threw the day on Sunday he could talk.  

Signed Robert S. Sandiefer.

The fore giving deposition were taken before me as stated in the caption and reduced to writing by me and I certify that I am not interested in the cause nor of kin or council to either of the parties and that I sealed them up and delivered it to James Snavley with out being altered after it was taken given under my hand this 9^th day of August 1876.  signed James C. Brown, J. P.

Deposition of James Smith

Fairwix was at my house and while there told me that he had divided his land among three of his children. He said he given his son Sam all that lay on the south…rest between Bethey Wolfe his daughter and Nancy Furry his granddaughter.

Did Fairwick say anything about the ? or payment for said lands.

I asked him if the other heirs would not complain and he said that he had made deeds or would make them for $150 in hand paid. He said that he would do nothing for them that did nothing for him.  This was about a year before his death

Filed Aug. 22, 1876

Samuel Clarkson’s Death

(Page 27) March 13, 1877 – In this case the death of the defendant Samuel Clarkson is suggested and admitted to be true and the deft left a widow Elizabeth Clarkson and several children viz., Margaret Bolton wife of Joseph Bolton, Rena Clarkson, Clementine Clarkson, Jane Monday wife of Luke Monday, Catharine Clarkson, Matilda Clarkson, Jerusha Clarkson, Mary Clarkson, Elizabeth Clarkson, John Clarkson, Henry Clarkson and the two first named children being adults. Thomas McDermott solicitor of said minors, Elizabeth, Rena and Joseph Bolton and wife Margaret Bolton enter their appearance and waives service of process.  It is therefore ordered and decreed that this cause be and the sheriff is ordered to summon Luke Monday and the other children of said deceased to appear at the next term of this court to show cause if any why this suit should not be revived against them.

(page 53) August 21, 1877 – In this cause it appearing that at the last term of the court the death of the def Samuel Clarkson was suggested and admitted of record and scire facias awarded to reddie the cause against his surviving children namely Clemenoria (all Clarksons), Catharine, Matilda, Jerusha, Mary, Elizabeth, John and Henry and Sarar scire facias was subsequently issued and duly served upon them notifying them to appear at the present term and to present any cause why this suit should not be filed upon them. Be it further mentioned that said children are minors without guardian, a motion is ordered that William B. Davis, a solicitor at the bar be hereby appointed guardian at litem to make defense on behalf of the children.  (Note – the married children are not listed here.)

(page 63) August 22, 1877 – William Clarkson vs Samuel Clarkson et al – On the cause scire facias having been awarded at the last term to bring Luke Monday and wife Jane Monday, Clementine Clarkson, Catherine Clarkson, Matilda Clarkson Jerusha Clarkson, Mary Clarkson, Elizabeth Clarkson, John Clarkson and Henry Clarkson before the court of the present term to show cause why this suit should not be revived against them….the cause is revived against them. The complainants may retake the deposition of M.B.? Overton and Fernando Clarkson provided the same should be done at Sneedville during the next January term of the court and that the complainant may take by service notice alone on James Snavely. And the marriage of def. Nancy Furry with James Snavely being suggested and admitted to be true by consent this cause is revived against James Snavely and wife Nancy Snavely, formerly Nancy Furry.

Fernando Clarkson Deposition

State of Tennessee, Hancock County

(Page 1) This the 2 day of March 1878 I have on this day proceed to take the deposition of Fernanado Clarkson and M. B. Overton witnesses for the plantiff. Fernando Clarkson aged 32 years and M. B. Overton aged 54 years taken by agreement of the parties at Breeding & Parkey’s Store in presents of the plantiff and defendents to be read as evidence in a suit now pending in the Chancery Court in Sneedville Hancock County and State of Tennessee where in Wm Clarkson is plantiff and Rebecca Wolf and Nancy Snavely and others is defendents.  The said Fernando Clarkson and M. B. Overton after being duly sworn on the Holy Evangilist to speak the oath and the hole truth and nothing but the truth considering the matters in dispute between the said parties.  Deposes as follows.

Fernando Clarkson deposes as follows.

Questions by the plantiff. State the number of cross fences there is along the road and if the line (Page 2) claimed by Nancy Snavely does not go to the fourth cross fence.

Ans – They was four cross fences when the line was done.

Ques – State whether the line claimed Nancy Snavely goes to the fourth cross fence.

Ans – It did at the time the line was run.

Ques – State all you know about the note that Nancy Snavely held on Fairwix Clarkson.

Ans – I heard her say it was and my understanding it was money that she deserved from the government that her brother.  What was in the army and I heard her different times tell Fairwix Clarkson that he aut to give her his note for the money.

Question by the defendants. Please state if a fence has been moved since Nancy Snavly obtained a deed for said land.

Ans – I do not know.

Question – Did you ever hear Farwick Clarkson say that he intended his home place for Nancy Snavely.

Ans – I heard him say that if Nancy stayed at home and did as she had done that he intended to give her a little home.

(Page 3) Question – Did you hear Fairwix Clarkson say that he intended Rebecca Wolf to have the land she now lives on?

Ans – He said that he intended to give Calvin Wolf a home if he staid where he there was, if he done right –

Furthermore this witness deposeth at…….. Fernando Clarkston

M. B Overton Deposition

M.B. Overton Deposed as follows:

Question – Did Nancy Snaveley present to you after the death of Farwix Clarkson a note for him to pay off as the adm. of Farwis.  

Ans – I was at Nancy Snaveley’s one day and she asked me what she must do with the note she held on her grandfather (Farwix Clarkson).   I asked her what she wanted to do with it she said they had them sued for the land and if they taken the land a way from her she thought she ought to have the money.  She said she did not intend to collect the money if she held the land.  I said to her to present the note to me as administrator and I would mark on it presented and if she lost the land she could collect her money.

(Page 4) Question – What was the amount and date of the note.

Ans – The amount I think was sixty dollars

Question – What became of the note.

Ans – I gave it back to Nancy Snaveley.

Question – Did Nancy Snaveley present an acct and call for the note an account.

Ans – She came to my house and proved the account and stated if she lost the land she intended to have pay for what she done, as to the amount I can’t recollect but I think it was between two and three hundred dollars

Furthermore this witness deposedth not. M. B. Overton

I certify that the foregoing depositions are all written under my controle. That I am in no wise related to either of the parties.  That the same were taken before me on the day at the place in the presence of the parties set forth in the case and it has not been out of my possession or in any wise altered added to or changed since it was signed by the said M. G. Overton & Fernando Clarksons till it was delivered to Fernando Clarkson.  The said day of March 1878.

William Hest, J. P.

Partial deposition of Dr. Bales

How long have you been practicing as such?

I’ve been practicing about 6 years…attended Fairwix Clarkson in his last sickness till a few days before he died. I believe I saw him on Saturday preceding his death on Wednesday.  He was of sound mind and disposing memory.  To the best of my knowledge, I don’t think he was entirely rational by same state if he was very low and weak and he as low but he had rite smart strength.

Final Decree

(page 76)March 14, 1878 – Final Decree – Be it remembered that this cause to be finally heard…upon the pleadings….proof ?? the deeds made by Fairwix Clarkson to the defendants Samuel Clarkson, Nancy Furry and Rebecca Wolfe which were filed with and as parts of defendants answers and are hereby ordered to be made a part of the record in this cause. From all which it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the execution of said deeds was not procured by the said ?? y the exercise of any undue influence or improper means but that the said Fairwix Clarkson was of sound mind when he made the same and that the bill attacking said deeds on the grounds appeared and misstate imbecility on the part of the maker the ?? as the date of their execution is not sustained by the proof.  And it is therefore ordered and adjudged and decreed by the court that complainant is entitled to no relief, that his bill and the same is hereby dismissed and that defendents recover of complainant costs.  The cost of the cause for which execution was awarded – and it appearing that Jarvis and Davis and McDermott and Kyle solicitors for the def have entered their certain services in this cause in ?? defending their titles to the lands in controversy and their application the court is pleased to declare a ?? in their favor respectively to secure the payment of such fees as may be due them for their said services, and it further appearing that some of the defendants are minors and incapable of contracting with said solicitors in reference to the claim for said services it is ordered that the matter be referred, the matter to ascertain and report what would be reasonable compensation to said solicitors for their said services, and the cause is retained in court for the purpose of enforcing the lien? Heretofore declared in their favor.  And from its decree discussing his bills the plaintiff prays and appears to the next term of the superior court late held at Knoxville on the second Monday of September 1878 which is granted on condition that he execute a proper appeal bond or otherwise (page 77) comply with the law within one month close of the present term. Upon the hearing the def. objected to the deposition of Robert Shiflet and wife on the ground that they are incompetent witnesses for or against each other and the same were excluded by the court and will not be included in the transcript for the supreme court.  As parties to the cause, def also objected to court evidence of all the witnesses (except the subscribing witnesses to the deeds and the physician in attendance) who gave their opinions as to whether the maker of said deeds was of sound or unsound mind, unsupported by any facts observed by themselves, and on the hearing of the cause the deposition of Agnes Clarkson was excluded on the application of the complainant, and will be excluded from the transcript to be made out for the superior court. In this case the complainant submits a bill of exceptions which is signed and sealed by the court and ordered to be made a part of the record of the cause.

March 1881 - Order Clarkson vs Clarkson et al – an application of the defendants unto leave is given them to withdraw their title papers filed in this cause by leaving a receipt for paid title deeds with the clerk ……..

And off they went to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

The Cemetery

The cemetery played a part in the case of Fairwix’s land division. This cemetery is part and parcel of the Claxton/Clarkson family land, the heart of it, along with the hand dug well that nourished the family for generations.  Fairwix’s mother, Sarah Cook Clarkson and his mother-in-law, Nancy Anne Workman Muncy both rest here, as do Fairwick and Agnes and their son Samuel and his wife Elizabeth along with some of their children.  Rest assured that babies and children of earlier generations are here too, some never known to those who live today.  This cemetery remained under the watchful eyes of all the family.  Everyone walked by this hallowed land every day as they did their chores.  Their ancestors, several generations of ancestors and kinfolks, were never far removed.  Burials started here, probably with any children lost by James Lee Clarkson and his wife Sarah Cook Clarkson after they arrived in the area not long after 1800 and before James’ death in 1815.

We know that Fairwick’s son James is probably here too, because Fernando deposes that he was raised on this land.

Here is a picture of Fairwix’s tombstone with its broken corner, looking at the barn and the location of the house which stood between the cemetery and the barn. In the Google satellite image, below, the arrow points to the fenced cemetery.

The cemetery is on the historic Clarkson land, of course, at the junction of River Road and Owen Ridge Road. It is at the farm right on the corner and it is fenced and behind the barn.  You can see it from the road.  There is a newer Owen cemetery within view just up from it on River road.  You can access the Clarkson cemetery through the barnyard.  In 2005, J. Howard Cavin ( rhymes with gave in) and his wife owned the property.  Just up Owen Ridge Road is the Jubilee Camp run by the Ronnie Owen Evangelical Ministeries and if you follow the signs you’ll find the farm at the corner of River Road and Owen Ridge Road.  Mrs. Cavin said the original road ran right beside the cemetery, but they moved the road when they paved it and it is further away today.  She also said that the original house sat behind the cemetery in the clearing, shown below, and that there were three different families who lived in the general area.

There was a spring back in the holler, looking up Owen Ridge Road from the barn/cemetery and the families dug a 20 foot well or so and it always flowed into the basin. The women went down there to wash clothes.

Those three original families were likely Samuel, his sister and his niece – and their descendants – those three deeds executed by Fairwick just days before his death. The 1900 census tells us that Elizabeth, Samuel’s widow was still living in her own home in that area at that time.

This was James Lee Clarkson’s original land and in the deeds and chancery suit it states that what is now known as River Road is the main road from Tazewell to Jonesville.  Fairwick bought this land along the road from his mother and more than 40 years later deeded the “old home place,” “below the road” to Samuel.

Ironically in 1891, Fernando Clarkson deeded land to Joseph Bolton, who had married Margaret Clarkson, daughter of Samuel Clarkson. It’s very possible that the land that Joseph Bolton bought was originally the land that Samuel Clarkson had deeded Fernando.  Stranger things have happened, especially in my family.

Clarkson/Claxton by Whatever Name – Origins

We’ve learned so much about Fairwick or Fairwix Clarkson or Claxton or Clarkston in death, due to the chancery suit, but we haven’t learned a thing about where his family was from. That wasn’t relevant to the land in Hancock County in the 1870s.  However maybe we can still discover something about the genesis of the Clarkson family from those who have passed before and those who are living today.

I decided to look at the matches for the Clarkson family men in the Clarkson/Claxton DNA project. This is the matches map from one of the Claxton men in the match group that includes the Hancock County family.

At 37 and 67 markers, there were no matches other than to other Clarkson men, but at 25 markers, there are some matches to other surnames as well. The map above shows the location of the oldest European ancestors for those matches who know (and have provided) that information.  You’ll notice that in the UK, all of the markers are in England.  There are none in Scotland, Wales or Ireland, so this family looks to be of English origin.

Twelve marker matches, below, take us back even further in time to a common ancestor, but we’re still looking at the same type of settlement pattern.

This strongly suggests that we should be omitting Scotch-Irish groups and looking at early colonial English settlements for our Claxton immigrant ancestor.

In Summary

The first thing we know about Fairwick, aside from his birth, is that his father died when he was just 15, and from that time forward, Fairwick was the patriarch of the family. As difficult as that had to be, Fairwick seems to have risen to the occasion.

By the time he was 20, he had married Agnes Muncy and in another couple of years, he began to amass a significant amount of land on the Powell River, on River Road, the main road from Tazewell to Jonesville, according to the deeds.  Fairwick and Agness would be married for about 55 years – that’s amazing for that time and place.  I wonder if they remembered the date on their 50th anniversary, in 1869?.  Did Agnes mention it to him?  Did he pick her flowers from the field?  Did the kids come over and make a pie or cake and celebrate, or did milestone anniversaries in that time and place go unnoticed?

We learned in the depositions that Fairwick was an astute business man. In the 1820s, when he was in his early 20s, he was a constable, served on juries, managed road crews and collected taxes.  Those tax receipts are how and why we have a copy of his signature.  Someplace in those mountains, he learned to read and write when most men didn’t.

Fairwick homesteaded land and obtained land grants. He planted and valued his orchards.  He eventually bought his parents land and lived in the main house.  Later, he deeded that same land and house to son Samuel who died not long after his father.

Fairwick joined the Rob Camp church in the 1850s, probably as a result of a revival and at the behest of his wife. His children joined about the same time, and they were all likely baptized in the Powell River.  He and his family went on to be founders of the Mt. Zion church, a few miles up the road from where the family lived.

Fairwick died at age 74, in 1874, but he was ill and somewhat incapacitated for 7 years prior to his death, which dates to 1867, just a couple years after his son Samuel came home from the Civil War, nearly dead with pneumonia.

Fairwick and Agnes saw more than their share of grief and heartache. After Fairwick’s father, James Lee Claxton/Clarkson died in 1815, his mother lived for another 48 years, until 1863.  In that time, Fairwick’s sister Elizabeth and his only brother, Henry died in the late 1830s and early 1840s.

In about 1845, or between 1845 and 1850, Fairwick’s son James died, along with James’ wife. They left 4 children which Fairwick and Agness would raise, along with their own.  Two of those grandchildren died, but the other two would remain on the home land and take care of their grandparents until their death, both winding up with some of Fairwick’s property because they “did right” by their Grandpa.

In 1856, it seems that Fairwick tipped the bottle a little too far, or in front of the wrong people, and was reported to the church for drunkenness.

The Civil war devastated this family. Fairwick’s son John died in March of 1863 in the Civil War, just a few months before his mother’s death.

Fairwick’s mother, Sarah, died in December 1863, not long after the beginning of the Civil War, and not long after several of her grandsons mustered into the service. If she was a religions woman, she had a very long prayer list every day.

Fairwick’s son Henry died in February, 1864, just two months after Fairwick buried his mother.

Fairwick’s daughter, Nancy was married to John Wolfe who died in the war in March, 1864, just a month after Fairwick’s son Henry.

Fairwick’s grandson William, whom he raised, enlisted and died in the service in May 1864, just 2 months after Henry and a month after John Wolfe.

John, Fairwick’s other grandson that he raised died about this time as well. Fairwick’s granddaughter, Nancy was widowed between 1865 and 1867, possibly as a result of the Civil War. She, along with her infant daughter, lived with Fairwick and Agnes from then until Fairwick died.

Fairwick buried one adult daughter before he died, as well. Nancy died about or not long after 1860, so may have been part of those couple of years of grief in the early/mid 1860s.

That’s 7 or 8 deaths within a relatively short time period and several within just months or days of each other. Fairwick and Agnes must have dreaded seeing anyone they weren’t expecting walk or ride up their path to the house.  Of all of the Clarkson men and family members who enlisted, only two, Samuel and Fernando came home alive – and Samuel, barely.  He would die as a result of the Civil War, but it took 11 miserable years.  Most of the time, the family never received the soldier’s body as they were buried where or near where they died.

Samuel fought in the war and came home in 1865, nearly dead and severely disabled. He cared for his father for the last 7 years of his life in spite of his own disability.

Fairwick’s son, William, known as Billy, had moved away from the family by 1870 and apparently some sort of rift occurred either before or after the move.

According to the depositions of family members, Fairwick was sick and miserable towards the end of his life. He didn’t receive the blessing of the big old widow-maker heart attack in the field as he worked.  Nope, he died of uremic poisoning, as he had “stricture of the bladder,” which in essence means that he couldn’t urinate.  The results, as you might imagine are horrible and eventually the individual dies of kidney failure if not a septic infection or other resulting disease process.  Strictures, which are in essence a blockage, can be caused by a physical injury, a disease process like kidney stones that are passed but causing injury that results in scar tissue buildup in the urethra, or an actual disease like prostate cancer that presses on the urethra reducing or eliminating the body’s ability to urinate.  Generally, urination becomes difficult, requiring straining and then, eventually, impossible.  Today, this could be easily treated, but then, it was fatal.

Fairwick’s decision about what to do with his land and how to divide it reflected his pain that only two of his children and his two grandchildren that he raised helped him in his hour, or in his case, months and years of need. Fairwick surely didn’t miss the fact that his son, Samuel, who was himself disabled, was the son who stayed to help.

Fairwick’s daughter, Sarah Clarkson Shiflet was deposed. She married Robert Shiflet and for some reason, they were judged to be unreliable witnesses.  Rebecca married Calvin Wolfe and stayed on the homeplace or nearby to help Fairwick.

Fairwick was obviously very hurt by William and Sarah’s departure, and for right or wrong, he voted with his land – the only tool he had available. Fairwick would surely have been saddened had he been witness to the lawsuit after his death.  It would likely have confirmed his opinions of his various children. We know that the Hancock County court upheld the three deeds in question and determined that no undue influence was exerted.  We know the case was appealed to the state Supreme court, but we never discovered the outcome of the case.  Given that we found no record of William ever owning any of the land in that area, it’s most likely that the case was upheld at the Supreme court level.  That would have left William with some hellatious lawyer bills to pay since it was found in Hancock county that he had to pay all expenses for the defendants.

And with that, sometime in the 1880s, after 1881, at least 7 years after Fairwick’s death, the suit was finally settled one way or the other, and the horrible domino series of events that began with the onset of the Civil War in 1863 finally came to rest – two decades later.

I had been so looking forward to the results of the DNA processing of King Richard the III.  Richard was killed in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 and was reportedly buried in the “choir of the church” at the Greyfriars friary in Leicester. The friary was dissolved in 1538, following the orders of King Henry VIII who ordered all monasteries destroyed.  The building was later destroyed, and over the years, the exact location of the cemetery was lost.  In 2012, the friary location was found again, quite by accident and remains believed to be King Richard III were discovered buried under the car park, or what is known as a parking lot in the US.

Richard had a very distinctive trait – scoliosis to the point where his right shoulder was higher than his left.  He was also described, at age 32, as a fine-boned hunchback with a withered arm and a limp.  This, in addition to his slim build and his battle injuries led investigators to believe, and later confirm through mitochondrial DNA matching, that it was indeed Richard.  At least they are 99% sure that it is Richard using archaeological, osteological and radiocarbon dating, in addition to DNA and good old genealogy.

Mitochondrial DNA testing was initially used to identify Richard the III by comparing his mitochondrial to that of current individuals matrilineally descended from his sister, Anne of York.  That DNA was rare, and matched exactly in one case, and with only one difference in a second descendant, so either the skeleton is Richard or another individual who is matrilineally related.  Fortunately, Richard’s mtDNA was quite unusual, with no other individuals matching in more than 26,000 other European sequences.  The scientists estimated that the chances of a random match were about 1 in 10,000.  The scientific team has utilized other evidence as well and feel certain that they have identified King Richard III himself.

King Richard III did not have any surviving descendants, so why was I so excited?

As it turns out, his Y DNA is representative of the Plantagenet family line which includes King Richard III’s great-great-great-great-grandfather, King Edward I, who is also my 19^th great-grandfather, which would make King Richard III my 5^th cousin, 16 times removed, I think.  Maybe.

According to a paper released this week by Turi King, et al, “Identification of the remains of King Richard III”, it seems that there is a bit of a fly in the ointment.  It’s no wonder this paper was in peer review forever.  The authors knew that when it was released, it would be the shot heard round the world.  For one thing, a tiny trivial matter, one of the possible outcomes could call into question the legitimacy of the current English monarchy.  Only a detail for an American, but I’m thinking this is probably important to many people in England, especially those who think they should be the ruling monarch, and in particular, to the ruling monarch herself.

I wonder if Dr. Turi King rang up the Queen in advance with the news.  I mean, what would you say to her???  How, exactly, would one begin that conversation?  “Um, Your Highness, um, I think there has been a fox in the henhouse…”

In order to confirm the Y DNA line of King Richard III, his Y DNA was compared to that of another descendant of King Edward III, the great-grandson of my ancestor, Edward I.  Edward III had two sons, Edmund, Duke of York from whom King Richard III descended and John of Gaunt, from whom the other Y DNA testers descend.  Five male descendants of Henry Somerset were tested for comparison.  Of those five, four matched each other, and one did not, indicating an NPE (nonparental event) or undocumented adoption in that line.  The pedigree chart provided in the paper, below, shows the line of descent for both the Y and mitochondrial DNA participants.

Now, what we have is an uncertain situation.  We know that Richard’s mitochondrial DNA matches that of his sister’s descendants, Michael Ibsen and Wendy Duldig, shown at right, above.

We know that the Y DNA of Richard does not match with the Y DNA of the Somerset line.  We know that in the Somerset line, there were two illegitimate births, according to the paper, in the 13 generations between John of Gaunt and Henry Somerset, which were later legitimized.   The first illegitimate birth is John Beaufort, the oldest illegitimate child of John of Gaunt and his mistress, Katherine Swynford, who later became John’s third wife.  Katherine was previously married to a knight in the service of John of Gaunt, who is believed to have died, and was governess to John of Gaunt’s daughters.

The second illegitimate birth is Charles Somerset (1460-1526) who was the illegitimate son of Henry Beaufort and Joan Hill, about whom little is known.

The Somerset line proves to be downstream of haplogroup R1b-U152 (x L2, Z36, Z56, M160, M126 and Z192) with STR markers confirming their relationship to each other.  King Richard III’s haplogroup is G-P287.

In this case, we don’t even need to scrutinize the STR markers, because the haplogroups don’t match, as you can see, above, in a haplotree provided in the paper.

The paper goes on to say that given a conservative false paternity rate of between 1 and 2% per generation, that there is a 16% probability of a false paternity in the number of generations separating King Richard III and the Somerset men.

What does this really mean?

According to the paper:

“One can speculate that a false-paternity event (or events) at some point(s) in this genealogy could be of key historical significance, particularly if it occurred in the five generations between John of Gaunt (1340–1399) and Richard III). A false-paternity between Edward III (1312–1377) and John would mean that John’s son, Henry IV (1367–1413), and Henry’s direct descendants (Henry V and Henry VI) would have had no legitimate claim to the crown. This would also hold true, indirectly, for the entire Tudor dynasty (Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I) since their claim to the crown also rested, in part, on their descent from John of Gaunt. The claim of the Tudor dynasty would also be brought into question if the false paternity occurred between John of Gaunt and his son, John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset. If the false paternity occurred in either of the three generations between Edward III and Richard, Duke of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III, then neither of their claims to the crown would have been legitimate.”

While the known illegitimate births in the Somerset line lead us to look at those generations with scrutiny, the break in the Y chromosome inheritance could have happened in any generation, on either side of the tree.

According to the BBC article announcing the DNA results:

“Henry’s ancestor John of Gaunt was plagued by rumors of illegitimacy throughout his life, apparently prompted by the absence of Edward III at his birth. He was reportedly enraged by gossip suggesting he was the son of a Flemish butcher.

“Hypothetically speaking, if John of Gaunt wasn’t Edward III’s son, it would have meant that (his son) Henry IV had no legitimate claim to the throne, nor Henry V, nor Henry VI,” said Prof Schurer.”

So where does this leave us? I wonder if anyone has the name of that Flemish butcher????

Will the real Plantagenet, please stand up…or maybe be dug up.

What we need is a tie-breaker.  Although the paper did not state this explicitly, I’m sure that the scientists also knew that they needed a tie-breaker – a male that descends through all males from someone upstream of Edward III.  It appears that the Plantagenet line may well be a dead end, other than the Somerset line.  I’m sure, with all of the resources brought to bear by the authors of this paper, that if there was another Plantagenet Y DNA male to be found, they would have done so.

So, the bottom line is that we don’t know what the real Plantagenet Y DNA line looks like, short of exhuming one of the Plantagenet Kings.  They are mostly buried in Westminster Abbey in crypts. The Plantagenet line could be a subgroup of haplogroup R1b-U152. It could be haplogroup G.  And, it could be yet something else.  How?  There could have been a NPE in both lines.  I have seen it happen before.

Purely looking at the number of generations, meaning the number of opportunities for the genetic break to occur, there were 3 opportunities between King Richard the III and his great-great-grandfather, King Edward III, and there were 14 opportunities between Henry Somerset and King Edward III, so it’s more likely to have occurred in the Somerset line.

But that is small comfort, because all it took was one event, and there clearly was one.  We don’t know which one, where.  In this case, probabilities don’t matter – only actualities matter.

Back to my ancestor, King Henry III, father of King Edward I….

Dear Grandpa King Henry III,

I was just writing to catch you up on the news.  This is your 20 times great-granddaughter….you do remember me…right?

I am sorry to report that there seems to have been a fox in the henhouse.  Yes, that would be the Plantagenet henhouse.  No, I don’t know when, or where.  We just have fox DNA.  Yes, we probably also have hen DNA, which would be your DNA, but you see, we can’t tell the difference between fox DNA and hen DNA.

By the way, would you mind trying that Houdini message thing and sending me a message about which DNA is fox and which is hen?

Thanks a million….

Your 20 times great-granddaughter

Even though we will probably never know what the Plantagenet DNA line looks like, we do know a lot about King Henry III, the father of King Edward I.  We also have some idea what King Henry himself looked like.  The effigy on his coffin in Westminster Abbey is shown below.

King Henry III was born on October 1, 1207 in Winchester Castle, shown below, the son of King John and Isabella of Angouleme, and died on November 16, 1272.  He was known as Henry of Winchester and was King of England, Lord of Ireland and Duke of Aquitaine from 1216 until his death.

He ascended the throne at age 9, on October 28^th, 1216, at Gloucester Cathedral, and ruled under a guardian, council of 13 executors and the tutelage of his mother until he became of age.  He assumed formal control of the government in January 1227, although he didn’t turn 21 until the following year.  He ruled for a total of 56 years.  A 13^th century depiction of his coronation is shown below.

Henry took the cross, declaring himself a crusader, which entitled him to special protections from Rome.  While Henry never did actually go on Crusade, he might well have joined the Seventh Crusade in 1248 had he not been engaged in such a negative rivalry with the King of France.  After Louis’s defeat at the Battle of Al Mansurah in 1250, Henry announced that he would be undertaking his own crusade to the Levant, but that Crusade never happened.  Henry was aging by that time, at 43. It would he Henry’s son, Edward, who would represent the family in the Crusades, leaving in 1270 for the Eighth Crusade.

Henry was also crowned a second time, after the first Baron’s War, on May 17, 1220, at Westminster Abbey, in an effort to affirm the authority of the King, and with the Pope’s blessing.  The medieval manuscript by Matthew Paris depicts the second coronation.

While the first coronation was hurried after his father’s death and with, in essence, a borrowed crown from Queen Isabella, since the royal crown had been either lost or sold during the war, the second coronation used a new set of royal regalia.

Engravings of Henry’s great seal.

Henry married Eleanor of Provence, daughter of Raymond-Berengar, the Count of Provene and Beatrice of Savoy, whose sisters all married Kings as well.  Eleanor had never seen Henry before their marriage at Canterbury cathedral on January 14, 1236.  At the time of their marriage, she was age 12 and he was 28.  It was feared she was barren at first, but they went on to have 5 children, including Henry’s successor to the crown, Edward I.  Her first child was born when she was age 15.

This medieval manuscript chronology from the early 1300s shows Henry III at the top, with his children left to right, the future King Edward I, Margaret, Beatrice, Edmund and Katherine.

In 1239 when Eleanor gave birth to their first child, Edward, named after Henry’s patron saint and ancestor, Edward the Confessor, Henry was overjoyed and held huge celebrations, giving lavishly to the Church and to the poor to encourage God to protect his young son.  Their first daughter, Margaret, named after Eleanor’s sister, followed in 1240, her birth also accompanied by celebrations and donations to the poor.

Eleanor accompanied Henry to Poitrou on a military campaign, and their third child, Beatrice, named after Eleanor’s mother, and born in Poitou, France in1242.

This manuscript by Matthew Paris depicts Henry and Eleanor returning to England from Poitou in 1243.

Their fourth child, Edmund, arrived in 1245 and was named after the 9th-century saint.  Concerned about Eleanor’s health, Henry donated large amounts of money to the Church throughout the pregnancy. A third daughter, Katherine, was born in 1253 but soon fell ill, possibly the result of a degenerative disorder such as Rett syndrome, and was unable to speak. She died in 1257 and Henry was distraught.

Henry’s children spent most of their childhood at Windsor Castle and he appears to have been extremely close to his family, rarely spending extended periods apart from them.  King Henry III and Eleanor had the following children:

1. Edward, eventually King Edward I, was born on June 17, 1239 and died on July 7, 1307. He married Eleanor of Castile in 1254 and Margaret of France in 1299.
2. Margaret was born on September 29, 1240 and died on February 26, 1275, at age 35. She was the Queen of Scots and married King Alexander III, the King of Scotland at age 11. She had three children; Margaret born in 1261 who married King Eric II of Norway, Alexander born in 1264 who died at age 20 and David born in 1272 who died at age 9.
3. Beatrice was born on June 25, 1242 and died on March 24, 1275 at the age of 33. She married John II, Duke of Brittany, a love match, and had 6 children. Two of her descendant females would marry kings.
4. Edmund, known as Edmund Crouchback, was born on January 16, 1245 and died on June 5, 1296, at the age of 51. Crouchback reportedly refers to “crossed-back” and refers to his participation in the Ninth Crusade, although with King Richard III’s scoliosis, I have to wonder. He married Lady Aveline de Forz in 1269 at age 11. She died 4 years later, at age 15, possibly related to childbirth. He then married Blanche de Artois in 1276, in Paris, widow of Henri I, King of Navarre, with whom he had three sons, two of whom revolted against King Edward II.
5. The story of Katherine is sad indeed. She was born either deaf or a deaf-mute at Westminster Palace on November 25, 1253 and died on Mary 3. 1257, before her 4^th birthday. It was obvious at her birth, that in spite of her beauty, something was wrong. As she aged a bit, it also became evident that she was mentally challenged. Matthew Paris, chronicler of King Henry III, described her as “the most beautiful girl, but dumb and useless.” She was therefore not a political asset and was never betrothed. Her parents, however, loved her devotedly.

A few days after her christening, on the day of Saint Edward the Confessor’s death, January 5,1254, the King held a massive banquet, to which he invited all the nobility. The provisions for this banquet included “fourteen wild boars, twenty-four swans, one hundred and thirty-five rabbits, two hundred and fifty partridges, fifty hares, two hundred and fifty wild ducks, sixteen hundred and fifty fowls, thirty-six female geese and sixty-one thousand eggs”.

After Katherine’s death, both Henry and Eleanor were heartbroken.

Although the marriage of Henry III and Eleanor was clearly political in nature, Henry was kind and generous and they apparently came to love each other.  Henry, unusual as compared to other English Kings, had no illegitimate children.

Henry was reported to have a drooping eyelid and an occasional fierce temper, but was generally known to be “amiable, easy-going and sympathetic,” as reported by historian David Carpenter.

The sketch above is from Cassell’s History of England published in 1902 but it does not reflect a drooping eyelid.  The painting, below, from an unknown artist in 1620 is titled simply “Edward,” but it does depict the drooping eyelid.  King Edward I was the son of Henry III.  Now, if Richard III had only been reported with a droopy eyelid, we’d have another clue.  Interestingly enough, the National Portrait Gallery has a discussion about the “crooked eye group” of kings, the latest of which is Edward II.

Henry III was known for his piety, celebrating mass at least once a day, holding lavish religious ceremonies and giving generously to charities.  He fed 500 paupers each day, fasted before the feast days of Edward the Confessor and may have washed the feet of lepers.  He was often moved to tears during religious ceremonies.  The King was particularly devoted to the figure of Edward the Confessor, whom he adopted as his patron saint.  Edward the Confessor was an early English King who lived a very pious life and who was also Henry III’s 6 times great-grandfather.

Henry reformed the system of silver coins in England in 1247, replacing the older Short Cross silver pennies with a new Long Cross design, shown below. Between 1243 and 1258, the King assembled two great hoards, or stockpiles, of gold. In 1257, Henry needed to spend the second of these hoards urgently and, rather than selling the gold quickly and depressing its value, Henry decided to introduce gold pennies into England, following the popular trend in Italy. The gold pennies resembled the gold coins issued by Edward the Confessor, but the overvalued currency attracted complaints from the City of London and was ultimately abandoned.

In 1247, Henry was sent the “Relic of the Holy Blood” by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, said to contain some of the blood of Christ.  He carried the Relic through the streets of London from its storage location at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in a procession to Westminster Abbey, shown below, by Matthew Paris.  He then promoted the relic as a focus for pilgrimages, but it never became popular.

Henry III’s reign in England was marked by multiple insurrections and allegations of ineffective government at best and improprieties at worst.

Henry started out at a disadvantage due to his age and of course, inexperience as a child.  The first problem happened before Henry was of age.

Taking advantage of the child-king, Louis VIII of France allied himself with Hugh de Lusignan and invaded first Poitou and then Gascony, lands held by the English monarchy. Henry III’s army in Poitou was under-resourced and lacked support from the French barons, many of whom had felt abandoned during the years of Henry’s minority and as a result, the province quickly fell. It became clear that Gascony would also fall unless reinforcements were sent from England.

In early 1225 a great council approved a tax of £40,000 to dispatch an army, which quickly retook Gascony. In exchange for agreeing to support Henry III, the English barons demanded that the King reissue the Magna Carta, originally issued by King John in 1215. Henry complied, declared that the charter was issued of his own “spontaneous and free will” and confirmed the new with the royal seal.  This gave the new Great Charter and the Charter of the Forest of 1225, shown below from the UK National Archives, much more authority than any previous versions. The barons anticipated that the King would act in accordance with these definitive charters, subject to the law and moderated by the advice of the nobility.

Henry invaded France in 1230, in an attempt to reclaim family lands lost since the reign of King John, but his attempts were both unsuccessful and very expensive.  As you can see, most of the Plantagenet family holdings in France had been lost, except for Gascony.

The drawing below depicts Henry travelling to Brittany in 1230, by Matthew Paris.

The English people paid for military actions as well as Henry’s expensive lifestyle, carrying out major remodeling of royal properties, through increased taxes, which caused Henry, over time, to become very unpopular.

In 1258, a group of Barons seized power in a coup, reforming English government through a process called the Provisions of Oxford, which is regarded at England’s first constitution.  This document was the first to be published in English since the Norman Conquest 200 years previously. As a result, Henry ruled in conjunction with a council of 24 members, 12 selected by the crown and 12 by the barons.  Those 24 then selected 2 men to oversee decisions.  This certainly wasn’t what Henry wanted, but he had little choice at the time.

However, in 1261, Henry overthrew the Provisions of Oxford and the superceeding Provisions of Westminster, with assistance from the Pope in the form of a papal bull which started the second Baron’s War.  In 1264, Henry was defeated and taken prisoner at the battle of Lewes, but his oldest son, the eventual King Edward I, escaped from captivity and freed his father the following year.

This time, Henry won and was restored to power, initially reacted harshly, confiscating all of the land and titles of the revolting Barons.  In an effort to bring eventual peace, the Dictum of Kenilworth was issued to reconcile the rebels of the Baron’s War with the King.

Their rebel leader, Simon de Montfort, Henry’s brother-in-law who had married his sister, Eleanor, was now dead at the Battle of Evesham in 1265, shown above. The Dictum pardoned the revolting Barons and restored their previously confiscated lands to them, contingent on payment of penalties equal to their level of involvement in the rebellion, typically 5 times the value of the annual yield of the land.

The spirit of peace and reconciliation established by the Dictum of Kenilworth lasted for the remainder of Henry III’s reign and into the 1290s, although reconstruction was slow.  Henry died in 1272, succeeded by his son, Edward, who became King Edward I, who was on crusade in the Holy Lands at the time of his father’s death.

Although unpopular due to his spending habits, Henry invested significantly in many properties still enjoyed by people today, improving their defenses and adding facilities, including rebuilding Westminster Abbey and his favorite palatial complex by the same name in London.

The Tower of London was extended to form a concentric fortress with extensive living quarters, although Henry primarily used the castle as a secure retreat in the event of war or civil strife.

Tower of London as it appears today from the Thames.

Henry also kept a menagerie at the Tower, a tradition begun by his father, and his exotic specimens included an elephant, a leopard and a camel.

Henry was given an elephant, above, as a gift by King Louis IX of France.

King Henry III visiting Louis IX of France.

Among other projects, Henry built the Great Hall of Winchester Castle, shown above.

Perhaps Henry’s legacy contribution is the creation of what would become the English Parliament.  The term “parliament” first appeared in the 1230s and 1240s to describe large gatherings of the royal court, and parliamentary gatherings were held periodically throughout Henry’s reign. They were used to agree to the raising of taxes which, in the 13th century, were single, one-off levies, typically on movable property, intended to supplement the King’s normal revenues for particular projects. During Henry’s reign, the counties began to send regular delegations to these parliaments, and came to represent a broader cross-section of the community than simply the major barons.

In Henry’s last years, he was increasingly ill. He continued to invest in Westminster Abbey, which became a replacement for the Angevin mausoleum at Fontevraud Abbey in Anjou, France,  In 1269 Henry oversaw a grand ceremony to rebury Edward the Confessor in a lavish new shrine, personally helping to carry the body to its new resting place in the rebuilt Westminster Abbey.  Edward the Confessor has built the original Westminster Abbey in 1065 which was demolished by Henry III to construct the new Westminster Abbey in its place.

In 1270, Henry’s son, Edward left on the Eighth Crusade and at one time, Henry voiced his intention to join Edward.  That never happened, and Henry III died at Westminster Palace on the evening of November 16, 1272.  Eleanor was probably at his side.

At his request, Henry was buried in Westminster Abbey in front of the church’s high altar, in the former resting place of Edward the Confessor. A few years later, work began on a grander tomb for King Henry III and in 1290, Edward moved his father’s body to its current location in Westminster Abbey.

See, it wouldn’t be difficult at all to access the remains of King Henry III…no digging involved!!!  For that matter, we could just skip to the beginning and start with the remains of Edward the Confessor.

A baby boy who was never named was born in July 1944, in Detroit, Michigan.  The family believes that he was kidnapped and another dead baby substituted for Baby Boy Hacht.  While at first this sounds improbable, if not incredulous, it isn’t.

That child, if still living, would be 70 today.  So, if you or a male family member was born in the summer of 1944, in or near Detroit, please consider this possibility as you read this article.  It’s also possible that if the child was part of a black market baby ring, the birth location could have been falsified, so any birth in late July 1944 should be considered.

What Happened?

John James Hacht & Jean Marie Mlasko were married on November 18, 1942 in  Michigan.

In 1943, Jean became pregnant, and in the heat of the summer in 1944, on July 29^th, their first child, a boy was born at Grace Hospital, a Catholic hospital, in Detroit.

This date is very important, as is the fact that the hospital was Catholic as this story unfolds.

I met Patti Hacht, the sister of Baby Boy Hacht, in 2009.  We worked on this mystery for some time, but have hit a dead end.  Patti’s living brother tested at Family Tree DNA for the Y DNA and Patti has tested at Family Tree DNA, 23andMe and at Ancestry for autosomal DNA.

I’ve asked Patti to tell this story in her own words.

On 29 July 1944 a first child was born to my parents – a son who never received a name other than Baby Boy Hacht (BBH.) BBH was born at Grace Hospital in Detroit, Michigan. My mom fed him for several days and then one day “medical personnel” came in and told her that her baby had died.

BBH had not been ill, and my dad’s sister worked at Grace Hospital. These three family members never believed BBH died. They always believed he was “switched” with another baby, one that really had died.  My mother did not see the baby after death, but my father did, and he never believed the dead child was his child.

When I first heard of BBH, I was in my mid-late 40’s. I was driving in the car with my mother one day as we were driving by White Chapel Cemetery, about a year before she died, and she casually said, “That’s where our first baby is buried,” then added, “but we never believed our baby died.”  I almost drove off the freeway!

First baby?

Died????

Didn’t die??

Wha…..???

It took me 3 years to find BBH at White Chapel.  As it turns out, he was not buried there.  He was cremated there, but his cremains were sent back to the funeral director.

Having been a family researcher for over 30 years, I went to the Detroit Vital Records Department to get a Death Certificate for BBH. As I walked away from the counter, reading this new document, I saw that BBH was listed as “stillborn.”

Stillborn???

That was impossible.

You can’t feed a stillborn baby for “several days.”

So I went back to the counter, hoping to find out what was going on with this “wrong” Death Certificate. The clerk suggested we look for a Birth Record.

Ten minutes later, we had that record, and it too stated that BBH was “stillborn.”  I later discovered that a stillborn baby never received a birth certificate at that time, only a death certificate.  In 2003, Michigan began issuing Certificates of Stillbirth in addition to death certificates.

On closer inspection, it was clear that the Certificate of Death had been heavily altered. Someone had taken what appeared to be a thin Scripto pen (which had not even been invented yet in 1944) and “wrote over” what had originally been written on the document. The written over date was “29”, the year was “44” and the time was “9:57 a.m.”

Additionally, except for the signatures, all of the other information for BBH was typed, except for the birth date and death information…almost like the death certificate was being pre-prepared.

I noticed another odd detail – BBH had been cremated. This was unheard of in this timeframe and was expressly prohibited by the Catholic church.  Grace was a Catholic hospital.  My parents were actively Catholic.  All of their children attended Catholic school.  White Chapel Cemetery, where the cremation occurred told me that they would have only cremated “maybe one person” a year in 1944, and never a newborn baby.

However, his certificate clearly states that BBH was cremated.

For several years I tried to find the funeral home, J. P. Miller on Van Dyke in Detroit. Apparently my parents never picked up BBH’s cremains, apparently because they believed he had been buried, and I wondered if I might find viable DNA in them.

After about four years, I talked with someone at the funeral home. It had been sold a couple times, and the man I spoke with was retiring the very day I had called. He said that any cremains that might have remained in the building would have been destroyed as the building had been abandoned for several years and the roof had collapsed, so the inside of the building was exposed to the elements for many years.

I wondered why my Catholic family would have cremated their child and why they never picked up the cremains or had them buried.  It makes sense only in the context that my parents never believed the dead child was their son and they sent the child’s remains who were substituted for their own child’s to be handled in the least expensive way possible.  They likely had no idea that the child’s cremains weren’t buried and were returned to the funeral home.  They never visited the grave because they never believed their child died.  Unfortunately, by the time all of the details unfolded, my parents had passed away and couldn’t be asked.

This was also a very difficult time for the family for other reasons as well.  My father’s mother was terminal with cancer and would die a couple of months later.  This young couple had their hands full.

For several years the family pondered over those “write overs” in BBH’s Certificate of Death. In April of 2006 we hired Speckin Forensic Laboratory in Okemos, Michigan to conduct a forensic exam on BBH’s original Death Certificate – we wanted to know what had been “written over.” Getting to the exam had been a lengthy process. I was appointed BBH’s Personal Representative in Probate Court, and we had to obtain a court order for the State of Michigan to allow the forensic exam.

The forensic exam showed three chemical erasures – someone used some sort of chemical to first try to “erase” what had originally been written. Then they just wrote right over those chemical erasures. The original writings were: Day, 31 July. (This had been overwritten to read “29” July); Time, 10:00 a.m. (This had been overwritten to read “9:57 a.m.) So the date was changed from 31 July to 29 July and the time was changed from 10 a.m. to 9:57 a.m.  The exam also clearly showed that the “overwritten” information was written with a different ink that the original writing.

It was the opinion of the examiner (who was a retired Michigan State Police Officer) that the Certificate of Death was probably altered to “match” BBH’s Certificate of Birth. There probably was a baby that died and for whatever reason, and this baby probably died on 31 July. Then BBH was “substituted” for this deceased baby, and records were created that would make BBH’s Certificate of Birth and Certificate of Death “match.”  If his birth and death date and time didn’t match, by three minutes, then he wasn’t “stillborn.”

The Detroit Legal News at that time published all the births in Wayne County. The males and females each had their own column, and the name and address of the mother was listed, along with the date of her child’s birth. I have compiled a list of about 200 male births in all of Wayne County from 27 July through 31 July. I believe one of these mothers took BBH home from the hospital and raised him as her own. She may have never known BBH was not her biological child.

I have been trying for years to narrow this list of 200+ names to ONLY babies born at Grace Hospital. All attempts to accomplish this have proved unsuccessful.  Hospital records reportedly “burned” several years ago.

St. Patrick’s Catholic Church on Parson’s Street in Detroit would have been the Church that handled emergency baptisms for babies born at Grace Hospital – babies that became ill and needed to be baptized immediately. The baby baptized would have been one of those babies on my list of 200+ names from the Detroit Legal News. St. Patrick’s records do not have a baptism for BBH or any of the other names on my list. I do not know if you had to be Catholic to deliver a baby at Grace Hospital. Perhaps the baby that really died was not born to Catholic parents, so there would not be a record of a Catholic baptism?  A stillborn baby is not baptized either.

We don’t know WHY Baby Boy Hacht was substituted for a deceased baby. Were the dead baby’s parents from an elite Detroit area family? A member of the Mob? Was it someone that hospital personnel was afraid to inform that their baby had died?  Were hospital personnel negligent with someone else’s baby and decided to switch the dead baby for BBH, thinking these were young parents and they could just have another baby the next year? Did BBH become part of a black market baby ring?  Why was the death certificate backdated to say that BBH was stillborn instead of having died 2 days later?

Or was there perhaps a widow whose husband had just been killed in WWII who  delivered a stillborn baby and doctors determined to “fix” the situation for a new widow? This last idea was nixed – as in 1944, the thinking was more “stiff upper lip” and people did not necessarily treat the bereaved gently.  The thinking of the day was to “get on with your life”, and giving a recent widow someone else’s baby didn’t mesh with that way of thinking.

Possibilities

If something wasn’t being covered up, then why were the dates and time changed, and why was a child who had lived for 2 days listed as stillborn?

Let’s take a look at scenarios of different possibilities.

• One Time Baby Swap – The baby of another patient died or was stillborn on the 31^st and BBH was swapped for that child. If this is the case, then the swap was unplanned and the mother was likely from the area. BBH’s paperwork was altered to reflect that he was the stillborn child, on the 29^th, not on the 31^st as originally recorded on his death certificate.
• BBH Died of Natural Causes – If BBH simply died, the hospital would have completed a death certificate and not gone to the trouble to falsify his death certificate, claiming a still birth to match his birth certificate time and date.
• BBH Died of an Accident by Hospital Staff – Let’s say someone on the hospital staff accidentally dropped the baby and the baby died. This might get sticky and making the death a stillbirth, which was much more common, would avoid any questions.
• BBH Died of an Accident by His Parents – Let’s say one of his parents accidentally dropped the baby at the hospital and he died. In this case, the hospital would certainly not have been complicit in a coverup and would not have falsified the death certificate, nor claimed that the child was stillborn. There would have been a death certificate that reflected the actual death date and cause, and not a stillbirth.
• BBH Was Part of a Larger Baby Market Ring – In this case, the couple who raised BBH as their own would not have necessarily been from the Detroit area. Young and naïve parents would have been the best targets as they would be less likely to ask questions and/or make waves. This would also have required the involvement of at least one doctor (to sign death certificates) and more likely several medical personnel including nurses. However, this would have been much more effective if the child was simply spirited away at birth and the parents told the child was dead, not after the parents having handled the child for “several days.” Given that BBH’s paternal aunt worked at that hospital, if there was something of this nature, you would think that over the years she would have at least heard rumblings, especially given that the family, including her, believed that BBH had been swapped for a dead child.

Either the One Time Baby Swap or the Accidental Death by Hospital Staff make the most sense.  If the BBH was swapped, as his parents and family believed, then he may be alive today.

It’s very possible that the parents who raised BBH had no idea what happened, and therefore, neither does BBH himself.

Babies Born in Detroit

I asked Patti to provide the various documents involved, as well as the names of the other families who were listed as having given birth in the Detroit area in the surrounding days.

It’s most likely that the baby that died passed away on July 31^st and that BBH’s death certificate was amended on July 31st, as the original writing stated, to reflect that he was stillborn on July 29^th instead.  Although, I certainly have to wonder if the doctor who signed as the attending physician didn’t think that the parents would have noticed at the discrepancy – especially since the child had been attended by his parents for part of the 29^th, the 30^th and the 31^st until he “died.”  At that time, however, one simply did not question someone like a doctor.

Perhaps the amendment was actually done after the doctor signed the original death certificate, but that is unlikely, because a cause of death would have been completed by the doctor and there is no other cause of death listed other than stillborn, which was unquestionably not true.

In any event, this first list is the list of surnames of families whose children were born in Wayne County on July 31^st.  The 31^st is the most likely day for the baby who was stillborn to have been born since that is the original death certificate date on BBH’s death certificate.  There is no way to determine which of these babies were born at Grace Hospital.

Also, please keep in mind that this list is very likely incomplete – births of illegitimate children and children who died weren’t listed.  Others, such as famous or notorious people, may not have been listed either.  The hospital was very clearly in control of which births were submitted for publication, and which were not – and if there was something “funny” about the birth of BBH or the other child – or the parents were famous or infamous, that birth may not have been listed.  It’s also possible that the parents who wound up with BBH were not from Detroit.

• Akin
• Bailey
• Bennett
• Boytim
• Brow
• Bruce
• Cappo
• Craver
• Davis
• Dellamore
• Dinneweth
• Downes
• DuBois
• Elmasian
• Faron
• Fletcher
• Flood
• Gampel
• Grandmaison
• Harter
• Hicks
• Hill
• Jones
• Karas
• Kekaha
• Koblicz
• Kraemer
• Liss.
• Mitchell
• Nadolny
• Pospeshil
• Quiroz
• Ready
• Rotenberg
• Rutzel
• Shoemaker
• Shoemaker
• Smith
• Stallings
• Swartz
• Thompson
• William
• Zimostrad

This second list includes the surnames of all of the babies born in Wayne County between July 27 and July 31, 1944 with the municipality as listed in the birth announcements in the newspaper.

For additional information, contact Patti Hacht at duncaha@gmail.com.  Patti does have additional information about each family from the birth announcements.

What Might Baby Boy Hacht Have Looked Like?

This first photo is of two of BBH’s siblings, as children.

This second photo is of the 4 Hacht siblings as adults.

Contact

If you think you might be Baby Boy Hacht, or might know of someone who would be a candidate – please contact Patti Hacht at duncaha@gmail.com.  Patti does have additional information about these families, such as the mother’s first name and the addresses.

If you would like to DNA test first to see if you match Patti’s brother’s Y DNA or Patti’s family by autosomal DNA, please test at Family Tree DNA.

The Y chromosome is passed from father to son intact and is what makes males male.  BBH carries his father’s Y chromosome and BBH’s sons would carry his.

Autosomal DNA is contributed to a child from both parents.  The child receives half of the DNA of both of his parents.  You can read more about how DNA is used for genetic genealogy here.

The Y DNA of Baby Boy Hacht or a his male child or male grandchild through a son will match that of Patti’s brother.  The autosomal DNA of Baby Boy Hacht or his children or grandchildren of any gender will match with Patti and her family.

If you would like to DNA test, we recommend the 37 marker Y DNA test at Family Tree DNA for males and the Family Finder autosomal test for either gender

Here’s the link if you’re interested.

In a paper just released, “Insights into the origin of rare haplogroup C3* Y chromosomes in South America from high-density autosomal SNP genotyping,” by Mezzavilla et al, research shows that haplogroup C3* (M217, P44, Z1453), previously believed to be exclusively East Asian, is indeed, Native American.

Subgroup C-P39 (formerly C3b) was previously proven to be Native and is found primarily in the eastern US and Canada although it was also reported among the Na-Dene in the 2004 paper by Zegura et all titled “High-resolution SNPs and microsatellite haplotypes point to a single recent entry of Native American Y chromosomes into the Americas.”

The discovery of C3* as Native is great news, as it more fully defines the indigenous American Y chromosome landscape.  It also is encouraging in that several mitochondrial haplogroups, including variants of M, have also been found in Central and South America, also not previously found in North America and also only previously found in Asia, Polynesia and even as far away as Madagascar.  They too had to come from someplace and desperately need additional research of this type.  There is a great deal that we don’t know today that remains to be discovered.  As in the past, what is thought to be fact doesn’t always hold water under the weight of new discoveries – so it’s never wise to drive a stake too far in the ground in the emerging world of genetics.  It’s likely to get moved!

You can view the Y DNA projects for C-M217 here, C-P39 here, and the main C project here.  Please note that on the latest version of the ISOGG tree, M217, P44 and Z1453 are now listed as C2, not C3.  Also note that I added the SNP names in this article.  The Mezzavilla paper references the earlier C3 type naming convention which I have used in discussing their article to avoid confusion.

In the Messavilla study, fourteen individuals from the Kichwa and Waorani populations of South America were discovered to carry haplogroup C3*.  Most of the individuals within these populations carry variants of expected haplogroup Q, with the balance of 26% of the Kichwa samples and 7.5% of the Waorani samples carrying C3*.  MRCA estimates between the groups are estimated to be between 5.0-6.2 KYA, or years before present.

Other than one C3* individual in Alaska, C3* is unknown in the rest of the Native world including all of North American and the balance of Central and South America, but is common and widespread in East Asia.

In the paper, the authors state that:

We set out to test whether or not the haplogroup C3* Y chromosomes found at a mean frequency of 17% in two Ecuadorian populations could have been introduced by migration from East Asia, where this haplogroup is common. We considered recent admixture in the last few generations and, based on an archaeological link between the middle Jōmon culture in Japan and the Valdivia culture in Ecuador, a specific example of ancient admixture between Japan and Ecuador 6 Kya.

In a paper, written by Estrada et all, titled “Possible Transpacific Contact on the Cost of Ecuador”, Estrada states that the earliest pottery-producing culture on the coast of Ecuador, the Valdivia culture, shows many striking similarities in decoration and vessel shape to pottery of eastern Asia. In Japan, resemblances are closest to the Middle Jomon period. Both early Valdivia and Middle Jomon are dated between 2000 and 3000 B.C. A transpacific contact from Asia to Ecuador during this time is postulated.

This of course, opens the door for Asian haplogroups not found elsewhere to be found in Ecuador.

The introduction of the Mezzabilla paper states:

The consensus view of the peopling of the Americas, incorporating archaeological, linguistic and genetic evidence, proposes colonization by a small founder population from Northeast Asia via Beringia 15–20 Kya (thousand years ago), followed by one or two additional migrations also via Alaska, contributing only to the gene pools of North Americans, and little subsequent migration into the Americas south of the Arctic Circle before the voyages from Europe initiated by Columbus in 1492.

In the most detailed genetic analysis thus far, for example, Reich and colleagues identified three sources of Native American ancestry: a ‘First American’ stream contributing to all Native populations, a second stream contributing only to Eskimo-Aleut-speaking Arctic populations, and a third stream contributing only to a Na-Dene-speaking North American population.

Nevertheless, there is strong evidence for additional long-distance contacts between the Americas and other continents between these initial migrations and 1492. Norse explorers reached North America around 1000 CE and established a short-lived colony, documented in the Vinland Sagas and supported by archaeological excavations. The sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) was domesticated in South America (probably Peru), but combined genetic and historical analyses demonstrate that it was transported from South America to Polynesia before 1000–1100 CE. Some inhabitants of Easter Island (Rapa Nui) carry HLA alleles characteristic of South America, most readily explained by gene flow after the colonization of the island around 1200 CE but before European contact in 1722. In Brazil, two nineteenth-century Botocudo skulls carrying the mtDNA Polynesian motif have been reported, and a Pre-Columbian date for entry of this motif into the Americas discussed, although a more recent date was considered more likely. Thus South America was in two-way contact with other continental regions in prehistoric times, but there is currently no unequivocal evidence for outside gene flow into South America between the initial colonization by the ‘First American’ stream and European contact.

The researchers originally felt that the drift concept, which means that the line was simply lost to time in other American locations outside of Ecuador, was not likely because the populations of North and Central America have in general experienced less drift and retained more diversity than those in South America.

The paper abstract states:

The colonization of Americas is thought to have occurred 15–20 thousand years ago (Kya), with little or no subsequent migration into South America until the European expansions beginning 0.5 Kya. Recently, however, haplogroup C3* Y chromosomes were discovered in two nearby Native American populations from Ecuador. Since this haplogroup is otherwise nearly absent from the Americas but is common in East Asia, and an archaeological link between Ecuador and Japan is known from 6 Kya, an additional migration 6 Kya was suggested.

Here, we have generated high-density autosomal SNP genotypes from the Ecuadorian populations and compared them with genotypes from East Asia and elsewhere to evaluate three hypotheses: a recent migration from Japan, a single pulse of migration from Japan 6 Kya, and no migration after the First Americans.

First, using forward-time simulations and an appropriate demographic model, we investigated our power to detect both ancient and recent gene flow at different levels. Second, we analyzed 207,321 single nucleotide polymorphisms from 16 Ecuadorian individuals, comparing them with populations from the HGDP panel using descriptive and formal tests for admixture. Our simulations revealed good power to detect recent admixture, and that ≥5% admixture 6 Kya ago could be detected.

However, in the experimental data we saw no evidence of gene flow from Japan to Ecuador. In summary, we can exclude recent migration and probably admixture 6 Kya as the source of the C3* Y chromosomes in Ecuador, and thus suggest that they represent a rare founding lineage lost by drift elsewhere.

This graphic from the paper, shows the three hypothesis that were being tested, with recent admixture being ruled out entirely, and admixture 6000 years ago most likely being ruled out as well by utilizing autosomal DNA.

The conclusions from the paper states that:

Three different hypotheses to explain the presence of C3* Y chromosomes in Ecuador but not elsewhere in the Americas were tested: recent admixture, ancient admixture ∼6 Kya, or entry as a founder haplogroup 15–20 Kya with subsequent loss by drift elsewhere. We can convincingly exclude the recent admixture model, and find no support for the ancient admixture scenario, although cannot completely exclude it. Overall, our analyses support the hypothesis that C3* Y chromosomes were present in the “First American” ancestral population, and have been lost by drift from most modern populations except the Ecuadorians.

It will be interesting as additional people are tested and more ancient DNA is discovered and processed to see what other haplogroups will be found in Native people and remains that were previously thought to be exclusively Asian, or perhaps even African or European.

This discovery also begs a different sort of question that will eventually need to be answered.  Clearly, we classify the descendants of people who arrived with the original Beringian and subsequent wave migrants as Native American, Indigenous American or First Nations.  However, how would we classify these individuals if they had arrived 6000 years ago, or 2000 years ago – still before Columbus or significant European or African admixture – but not with the first wave of Asian founders?  If found today in South Americans, could they be taken as evidence of Native American heritage?  Clearly, in this context, yes – as opposed to African or European.  Would they still be considered only Asian or both Asian and Native American in certain contexts – as is now the case for haplogroup C3* (M217)?  This scenario could easily and probably will happen with other haplogroups as well.

It’s that time again, to look over the year that has just passed and take stock of what has happened in the genetic genealogy world.  I wrote a review in both 2012 and 2013 as well.  Looking back, these momentous happenings seem quite “old hat” now.  For example, both www.GedMatch.com and www.DNAGedcom.com, once new, have become indispensable tools that we take for granted.  Please keep in mind that both of these tools (as well as others in the Tools section, below) depend on contributions, although GedMatch now has a tier 1 subscription offering for $10 per month as well.

So what was the big news in 2014?

Beyond the Tipping Point

Genetic genealogy has gone over the tipping point.  Genetic genealogy is now, unquestionably, mainstream and lots of people are taking part.  From the best I can figure, there are now approaching or have surpassed three million tests or test records, although certainly some of those are duplicates.

• 500,000+ at 23andMe
• 700,000+ at Ancestry
• 700,000+ at Genographic

The organizations above represent “one-test” companies.  Family Tree DNA provides various kinds of genetic genealogy tests to the community and they have over 380,000 individuals with more than 700,000 test records.

In addition to the above mentioned mainstream firms, there are other companies that provide niche testing, often in addition to Family Tree DNA Y results.

In addition, there is what I would refer to as a secondary market for testing as well which certainly attracts people who are not necessarily genetic genealogists but who happen across their corporate information and decide the test looks interesting.  There is no way of knowing how many of those tests exist.

Additionally, there is still the Sorenson data base with Y and mtDNA tests which reportedly exceeded their 100,000 goal.

Spencer Wells spoke about the “viral spread threshold” in his talk in Houston at the International Genetic Genealogy Conference in October and terms 2013 as the year of infection.  I would certainly agree.

Autosomal Now the New Normal

Another change in the landscape is that now, autosomal DNA has become the “normal” test.  The big attraction to autosomal testing is that anyone can play and you get lots of matches.  Earlier in the year, one of my cousins was very disappointed in her brother’s Y DNA test because he only had a few matches, and couldn’t understand why anyone would test the Y instead of autosomal where you get lots and lots of matches.  Of course, she didn’t understand the difference in the tests or the goals of the tests – but I think as more and more people enter the playground – percentagewise – fewer and fewer do understand the differences.

Case in point is that someone contacted me about DNA and genealogy.  I asked them which tests they had taken and where and their answer was “the regular one.”  With a little more probing, I discovered that they took Ancestry’s autosomal test and had no clue there were any other types of tests available, what they could tell him about his ancestors or genetic history or that there were other vendors and pools to swim in as well.

A few years ago, we not only had to explain about DNA tests, but why the Y and mtDNA is important.  Today, we’ve come full circle in a sense – because now we don’t have to explain about DNA testing for genealogy in general but we still have to explain about those “unknown” tests, the Y and mtDNA.  One person recently asked me, “oh, are those new?”

Ancient DNA

This year has seen many ancient DNA specimens analyzed and sequenced at the full genomic level.

The year began with a paper titled, “When Populations Collide” which revealed that contemporary Europeans carry between 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA most often associated with hair and skin color, or keratin.  Africans, on the other hand, carry none or very little Neanderthal DNA.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/01/30/neanderthal-genome-further-defined-in-contemporary-eurasians/

A month later, a monumental paper was published that detailed the results of sequencing a 12,500 Clovis child, subsequently named Anzick or referred to as the Anzick Clovis child, in Montana.  That child is closely related to Native American people of today.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/02/13/clovis-people-are-native-americans-and-from-asia-not-europe/

In June, another paper emerged where the authors had analyzed 8000 year old bones from the Fertile Crescent that shed light on the Neolithic area before the expansion from the Fertile Crescent into Europe.  These would be the farmers that assimilated with or replaced the hunter-gatherers already living in Europe.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/06/09/dna-analysis-of-8000-year-old-bones-allows-peek-into-the-neolithic/

Svante Paabo is the scientist who first sequenced the Neanderthal genome.  Here is a great interview and speech.  This man is so interesting.  If you have not read his book, “Neanderthal Man, In Search of Lost Genomes,” I strongly recommend it.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/07/22/finding-your-inner-neanderthal-with-evolutionary-geneticist-svante-paabo/

In the fall, yet another paper was released that contained extremely interesting information about the peopling and migration of humans across Europe and Asia.  This was just before Michael Hammer’s presentation at the Family Tree DNA conference, so I covered the paper along with Michael’s information about European ancestral populations in one article.  The take away messages from this are two-fold.  First, there was a previously undefined “ghost population” called Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) that is found in the northern portion of Asia that contributed to both Asian populations, including those that would become the Native Americans and European populations as well.  Secondarily, the people we thought were in Europe early may not have been, based on the ancient DNA remains we have to date.  Of course, that may change when more ancient DNA is fully sequenced which seems to be happening at an ever-increasing rate.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/21/peopling-of-europe-2014-identifying-the-ghost-population/

Ancient DNA Available for Citizen Scientists

If I were to give a Citizen Scientist of the Year award, this year’s award would go unquestionably to Felix Chandrakumar for his work with the ancient genome files and making them accessible to the genetic genealogy world.  Felix obtained the full genome files from the scientists involved in full genome analysis of ancient remains, reduced the files to the SNPs utilized by the autosomal testing companies in the genetic genealogy community, and has made them available at GedMatch.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/22/utilizing-ancient-dna-at-gedmatch/

If this topic is of interest to you, I encourage you to visit his blog and read his many posts over the past several months.

https://plus.google.com/+FelixChandrakumar/posts

The availability of these ancient results set off a sea of comparisons.  Many people with Native heritage matched Anzick’s file at some level, and many who are heavily Native American, particularly from Central and South America where there is less admixture match Anzick at what would statistically be considered within a genealogical timeframe.  Clearly, this isn’t possible, but it does speak to how endogamous populations affect DNA, even across thousands of years.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/23/analyzing-the-native-american-clovis-anzick-ancient-results/

Because Anzick is matching so heavily with the Mexican, Central and South American populations, it gives us the opportunity to extract mitochondrial DNA haplogroups from the matches that either are or may be Native, if they have not been recorded before.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/23/analyzing-the-native-american-clovis-anzick-ancient-results/

Needless to say, the matches of these ancient kits with contemporary people has left many people questioning how to interpret the results.  The answer is that we don’t really know yet, but there is a lot of study as well as speculation occurring.  In the citizen science community, this is how forward progress is made…eventually.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/25/ancient-dna-matches-what-do-they-mean/

http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/30/ancient-dna-matching-a-cautionary-tale/

More ancient DNA samples for comparison:

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/04/more-ancient-dna-samples-for-comparison/

A Siberian sample that also matches the Malta Child whose remains were analyzed in late 2013.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/12/kostenki14-a-new-ancient-siberian-dna-sample/

Felix has prepared a list of kits that he has processed, along with their GedMatch numbers and other relevant information, like gender, haplogroup(s), age and location of sample.

http://www.y-str.org/p/ancient-dna.html

Furthermore, in a collaborative effort with Family Tree DNA, Felix formed an Ancient DNA project and uploaded the ancient autosomal files.  This is the first time that consumers can match with Ancient kits within the vendor’s data bases.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Ancient_DNA

Recently, GedMatch added a composite Archaic DNA Match comparison tool where your kit number is compared against all of the ancient DNA kits available.  The output is a heat map showing which samples you match most closely.

Indeed, it has been a banner year for ancient DNA and making additional discoveries about DNA and our ancestors.  Thank you Felix.

Haplogroup Definition

That SNP tsunami that we discussed last year…well, it made landfall this year and it has been storming all year long…in a good way.  At least, ultimately, it will be a good thing.  If you asked the haplogroup administrators today about that, they would probably be too tired to answer – as they’ve been quite overwhelmed with results.

The Big Y testing has been fantastically successful.  This is not from a Family Tree DNA perspective, but from a genetic genealogy perspective.  Branches have been being added to and sawed off of the haplotree on a daily basis.  This forced the renaming of the haplogroups from the old traditional R1b1a2 to R-M269 in 2012.  While there was some whimpering then, it would be nothing like the outright wailing now that would be occurring as haplogroup named reached 20 or so digits.

Alice Fairhurst discussed the SNP tsunami at the DNA Conference in Houston in October and I’m sure that the pace hasn’t slowed any between now and then.  According to Alice, in early 2014, there were 4115 individual SNPs on the ISOGG Tree, and as of the conference, there were 14,238 SNPs, with the 2014 addition total at that time standing at 10,213.  That is over 1000 per month or about 35 per day, every day.

Yes, indeed, that is the definition of a tsunami.  Every one of those additions requires one of a number of volunteers, generally haplogroup project administrators to evaluate the various Big Y results, the SNPs and novel variants included, where they need to be inserted in the tree and if branches need to be rearranged.  In some cases, naming request for previously unknown SNPs also need to be submitted.  This is all done behind the scenes and it’s not trivial.

The project I’m closest to is the R1b L-21 project because my Estes males fall into that group.  We’ve tested several, and I’ll be writing an article as soon as the final test is back.

The tree has grown unbelievably in this past year just within the L21 group.  This project includes over 700 individuals who have taken the Big Y test and shared their results which has defined about 440 branches of the L21 tree.  Currently there are almost 800 kits available if you count the ones on order and the 20 or so from another vendor.

Here is the L21 tree in January of 2014

Compare this with today’s tree, below.

Michael Walsh, Richard Stevens, David Stedman need to be commended for their incredible work in the R-L21 project.  Other administrators are doing equivalent work in other haplogroup projects as well.  I big thank you to everyone.  We’d be lost without you!

One of the results of this onslaught of information is that there have been fewer and fewer academic papers about haplogroups in the past few years.  In essence, by the time a paper can make it through the peer review cycle and into publication, the data in the paper is often already outdated relative to the Y chromosome.  Recently a new paper was released about haplogroup C3*.  While the data is quite valid, the authors didn’t utilize the new SNP naming nomenclature.  Before writing about the topic, I had to translate into SNPese.  Fortunately, C3* has been relatively stable.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/12/23/haplogroup-c3-previously-believed-east-asian-haplogroup-is-proven-native-american/

10^th Annual International Conference on Genetic Genealogy

The Family Tree DNA International Conference on Genetic Genealogy for project administrators is always wonderful, but this year was special because it was the 10^th annual.  And yes, it was my 10^th year attending as well.  In all these years, I had never had a photo with both Max and Bennett.  Everyone is always so busy at the conferences.  Getting any 3 people, especially those two, in the same place at the same time takes something just short of a miracle.

Ten years ago, it was the first genetic genealogy conference ever held, and was the only place to obtain genetic genealogy education outside of the rootsweb genealogy DNA list, which is still in existence today.  Family Tree DNA always has a nice blend of sessions.  I always particularly appreciate the scientific sessions because those topics generally aren’t covered elsewhere.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/11/tenth-annual-family-tree-dna-conference-opening-reception/

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/12/tenth-annual-family-tree-dna-conference-day-2/

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/13/tenth-annual-family-tree-dna-conference-day-3/

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/15/tenth-annual-family-tree-dna-conference-wrapup/

Jennifer Zinck wrote great recaps of each session and the ISOGG meeting.

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/decennial-conference-on-genetic-genealogy/

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/decennial-conference-on-genetic-genealogy-isogg-meeting/

http://www.ancestorcentral.com/decennial-conference-on-genetic-genealogy-sunday/

I thank Family Tree DNA for sponsoring all 10 conferences and continuing the tradition.  It’s really an amazing feat when you consider that 15 years ago, this industry didn’t exist at all and wouldn’t exist today if not for Max and Bennett.

Education

Two educational venues offered classes for genetic genealogists and have made their presentations available either for free or very reasonably.  One of the problems with genetic genealogy is that the field is so fast moving that last year’s session, unless it’s the very basics, is probably out of date today.  That’s the good news and the bad news.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/12/genetic-genealogy-ireland-2014-presentations 

http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/26/educational-videos-from-international-genetic-genealogy-conference-now-available/

In addition, three books have been released in 2014.

In January, Emily Aulicino released Genetic Genealogy, The Basics and Beyond.

In October, Richard Hill released “Guide to DNA Testing: How to Identify Ancestors, Confirm Relationships and Measure Ethnicity through DNA Testing.”

Most recently, David Dowell’s new book, NextGen Genealogy: The DNA Connection was released right after Thanksgiving.

Ancestor Reconstruction – Raising the Dead

This seems to be the year that genetic genealogists are beginning to reconstruct their ancestors (on paper, not in the flesh) based on the DNA that the ancestors passed on to various descendants.  Those segments are “gathered up” and reassembled in a virtual ancestor.

I utilized Kitty Cooper’s tool to do just that.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/03/ancestor-reconstruction/

I know it doesn’t look like much yet but this is what I’ve been able to gather of Henry Bolton, my great-great-great-grandfather.

Kitty did it herself too.

http://blog.kittycooper.com/2014/08/mapping-an-ancestral-couple-a-backwards-use-of-my-segment-mapper/

http://blog.kittycooper.com/2014/09/segment-mapper-tool-improvements-another-wold-dna-map/

Ancestry.com wrote a paper about the fact that they have figured out how to do this as well in a research environment.

http://corporate.ancestry.com/press/press-releases/2014/12/ancestrydna-reconstructs-partial-genome-of-person-living-200-years-ago/

http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2014/12/16/ancestrydna-recreates-portions-genome-david-speegle-two-wives/

GedMatch has created a tool called, appropriately, Lazarus that does the same thing, gathers up the DNA of your ancestor from their descendants and reassembles it into a DNA kit.

Blaine Bettinger has been working with and writing about his experiences with Lazarus.

http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2014/10/20/finally-gedmatch-announces-monetization-strategy-way-raise-dead/

http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2014/12/09/recreating-grandmothers-genome-part-1/

http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2014/12/14/recreating-grandmothers-genome-part-2/

Tools

Speaking of tools, we have some new tools that have been introduced this year as well.

Genome Mate is a desktop tool used to organize data collected by researching DNA comparsions and aids in identifying common ancestors.  I have not used this tool, but there are others who are quite satisfied.  It does require Microsoft Silverlight be installed on your desktop.

The Autosomal DNA Segment Analyzer is available through www.dnagedcom.com and is a tool that I have used and found very helpful.  It assists you by visually grouping your matches, by chromosome, and who you match in common with.

Charting Companion from Progeny Software, another tool I use, allows you to colorize and print or create pdf files that includes X chromosome groupings.  This greatly facilitates seeing how the X is passed through your ancestors to you and your parents.

WikiTree is a free resource for genealogists to be able to sort through relationships involving pedigree charts.  In November, they announced Relationship Finder.

Probably the best example I can show of how WikiTree has utilized DNA is using the results of King Richard III.

By clicking on the DNA icon, you see the following:

And then Richard’s Y, mitochondrial and X chromosome paths.

Since Richard had no descendants, to see how descendants work, click on his mother, Cecily of York’s DNA descendants and you’re shown up to 10 generations.

While this isn’t terribly useful for Cecily of York who lived and died in the 1400s, it would be incredibly useful for finding mitochondrial descendants of my ancestor born in 1802 in Virginia.  I’d love to prove she is the daughter of a specific set of parents by comparing her DNA with that of a proven daughter of those parents!  Maybe I’ll see if I can find her parents at WikiTree.

Kitty Cooper’s blog talks about additional tools.  I have used Kitty’s Chromosome mapping tools as discussed in ancestor reconstruction.

Felix Chandrakumar has created a number of fun tools as well.  Take a look.  I have not used most of these tools, but there are several I’ll be playing with shortly.

Exits and Entrances

With very little fanfare, deCODEme discontinued their consumer testing and reminded people to download their date before year end.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/09/30/decodeme-consumer-tests-discontinued/

I find this unfortunate because at one time, deCODEme seemed like a company full of promise for genetic genealogy.  They failed to take the rope and run.

On a sad note, Lucas Martin who founded DNA Tribes unexpectedly passed away in the fall.  DNA Tribes has been a long-time player in the ethnicity field of genetic genealogy.  I have often wondered if Lucas Martin was a pseudonym, as very little information about Lucas was available, even from Lucas himself.  Neither did I find an obituary.  Regardless, it’s sad to see someone with whom the community has worked for years pass away.  The website says that they expect to resume offering services in January 2015. I would be cautious about ordering until the structure of the new company is understood.

http://www.dnatribes.com/

In the last month, a new offering has become available that may be trying to piggyback on the name and feel of DNA Tribes, but I’m very hesitant to provide a link until it can be determined if this is legitimate or bogus.  If it’s legitimate, I’ll be writing about it in the future.

However, the big news exit was Ancestry’s exit from the Y and mtDNA testing arena.  We suspected this would happen when they stopped selling kits, but we NEVER expected that they would destroy the existing data bases, especially since they maintain the Sorenson data base as part of their agreement when they obtained the Sorenson data.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/02/ancestry-destroys-irreplaceable-dna-database/

The community is still hopeful that Ancestry may reverse that decision.

Ancestry – The Chromosome Browser War and DNA Circles

There has been an ongoing battle between Ancestry and the more seasoned or “hard-core” genetic genealogists for some time – actually for a long time.

The current and most long-standing issue is the lack of a chromosome browser, or any similar tools, that will allow genealogists to actually compare and confirm that their DNA match is genuine.  Ancestry maintains that we don’t need it, wouldn’t know how to use it, and that they have privacy concerns.

Other than their sessions and presentations, they had remained very quiet about this and not addressed it to the community as a whole, simply saying that they were building something better, a better mousetrap.

In the fall, Ancestry invited a small group of bloggers and educators to visit with them in an all-day meeting, which came to be called DNA Day.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/10/08/dna-day-with-ancestry/

In retrospect, I think that Ancestry perceived that they were going to have a huge public relations issue on their hands when they introduced their new feature called DNA Circles and in the process, people would lose approximately 80% of their current matches.  I think they were hopeful that if they could educate, or convince us, of the utility of their new phasing techniques and resulting DNA Circles feature that it would ease the pain of people’s loss in matches.

I am grateful that they reached out to the community.  Some very useful dialogue did occur between all participants.  However, to date, nothing more has happened nor have we received any additional updates after the release of Circles.

Time will tell.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/18/in-anticipation-of-ancestrys-better-mousetrap/

http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/19/ancestrys-better-mousetrap-dna-circles/

DNA Circles, while interesting and somewhat useful, is certainly NOT a replacement for a chromosome browser, nor is it a better mousetrap.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/30/chromosome-browser-war/

In fact, the first thing you have to do when you find a DNA Circle that you have not verified utilizing raw data and/or chromosome browser tools from either 23andMe, Family Tree DNA or Gedmatch, is to talk your matches into transferring their DNA to Family Tree DNA or download to Gedmatch, or both.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/11/27/sarah-hickerson-c1752-lost-ancestor-found-52-ancestors-48/

I might add that the great irony of finding the Hickerson DNA Circle that led me to confirm that ancestry utilizing both Family Tree DNA and GedMatch is that today, when I checked at Ancestry, the Hickerson DNA Circle is no longer listed.  So, I guess I’ve been somehow pruned from the circle.  I wonder if that is the same as being voted off of the island.  So, word to the wise…check your circles often…they change and not always in the upwards direction.

The Seamy Side – Lies, Snake Oil Salesmen and Bullys

Unfortunately a seamy side, an underbelly that’s rather ugly has developed in and around the genetic genealogy industry.  I guess this was to be expected with the rapid acceptance and increasing popularity of DNA testing, but it’s still very unfortunate.

Some of this I expected, but I didn’t expect it to be so…well…blatant.

I don’t watch late night TV, but I’m sure there are now DNA diets and DNA dating and just about anything else that could be sold with the allure of DNA attached to the title.

I googled to see if this was true, and it is, although I’m not about to click on any of those links.

Unfortunately, within the ever-growing genetic genealogy community a rather large rift has developed over the past couple of years.  Obviously everyone can’t get along, but this goes beyond that.  When someone disagrees, a group actively “stalks” the person, trying to cost them their employment, saying hate filled and untrue things and even going so far as to create a Facebook page titled “Against<personname>.”  That page has now been removed, but the fact that a group in the community found it acceptable to create something like that, and their friends joined, is remarkable, to say the least.  That was accompanied by death threats.

Bullying behavior like this does not make others feel particularly safe in expressing their opinions either and is not conducive to free and open discussion. As one of the law enforcement officers said, relative to the events, “This is not about genealogy.  I don’t know what it is about, yet, probably money, but it’s not about genealogy.”

Another phenomenon is that DNA is now a hot topic and is obviously “selling.”  Just this week, this report was published, and it is, as best we can tell, entirely untrue.

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/usa-archaeologists-discover-remains-of-first-british-settlers-in-north-america/

There were several tip offs, like the city (Lanford) and county (Laurens County) is not in the state where it is attributed (it’s in SC not NC), and the name of the institution is incorrect (Johns Hopkins, not John Hopkins).  Additionally, if you google the name of the magazine, you’ll see that they specialize in tabloid “faux reporting.”  It also reads a lot like the King Richard genuine press release.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/Fake-News/tp/A-Guide-to-Fake-News-Websites.01.htm

Earlier this year, there was a bogus institutional site created as well.

On one of the DNA forums that I frequent, people often post links to articles they find that are relevant to DNA.  There was an interesting article, which has now been removed, correlating DNA results with latitude and altitude.  I thought to myself, I’ve never heard of that…how interesting.   Here’s part of what the article said:

Researchers at Aberdeen College’s Havering Centre for Genetic Research have discovered an important connection between our DNA and where our ancestors used to live.

Tiny sequence variations in the human genome sometimes called Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) occur with varying frequency in our DNA.  These have been studied for decades to understand the major migrations of large human populations.  Now Aberdeen College’s Dr. Miko Laerton and a team of scientists have developed pioneering research that shows that these differences in our DNA also reveal a detailed map of where our own ancestors lived going back thousands of years.

Dr. Laerton explains:  “Certain DNA sequence variations have always been important signposts in our understanding of human evolution because their ages can be estimated.  We’ve known for years that they occur most frequently in certain regions [of DNA], and that some alleles are more common to certain geographic or ethnic groups, but we have never fully understood the underlying reasons.  What our team found is that the variations in an individual’s DNA correlate with the latitudes and altitudes where their ancestors were living at the time that those genetic variations occurred.  We’re still working towards a complete understanding, but the knowledge that sequence variations are connected to latitude and altitude is a huge breakthrough by itself because those are enough to pinpoint where our ancestors lived at critical moments in history.”

The story goes on, but at the bottom, the traditional link to the publication journal is found.

The full study by Dr. Laerton and her team was published in the September issue of the Journal of Genetic Science.

I thought to myself, that’s odd, I’ve never heard of any of these people or this journal, and then I clicked to find this.

About that time, Debbie Kennett, DNA watchdog of the UK, posted this:

April Fools Day appears to have arrived early! There is no such institution as Aberdeen College founded in 1394. The University of Aberdeen in Scotland was founded in 1495 and is divided into three colleges: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/about/colleges-schools-institutes/colleges-53.php

The picture on the masthead of the “Aberdeen College” website looks very much like a photo of Aberdeen University. This fake news item seems to be the only live page on the Aberdeen College website. If you click on any other links, including the link to the so-called “Journal of Genetic Science”, you get a message that the website is experienced “unusually high traffic”. There appears to be no such journal anyway.

We also realized that Dr. Laerton, reversed, is “not real.”

I still have no idea why someone would invest the time and effort into the fake website emulating the University of Aberdeen, but I’m absolutely positive that their motives were not beneficial to any of us.

What is the take-away of all of this?  Be aware, very aware, skeptical and vigilant.  Stick with the mainstream vendors unless you realize you’re experimenting.

King Richard

The much anticipated and long-awaited DNA results on the remains of King Richard III became available with a very unexpected twist.  While the science team feels that they have positively identified the remains as those of Richard, the Y DNA of Richard and another group of men supposed to have been descended from a common ancestor with Richard carry DNA that does not match.

http://dna-explained.com/2014/12/09/henry-iii-king-of-england-fox-in-the-henhouse-52-ancestors-49/

http://dna-explained.com/2014/12/05/mitochondrial-dna-mutation-rates-and-common-ancestors/

Debbie Kennett wrote a great summary article.

http://cruwys.blogspot.com/2014/12/richard-iii-and-use-of-dna-as-evidence.html

More Alike than Different

One of the life lessons that genetic genealogy has held for me is that we are more closely related that we ever knew, to more people than we ever expected, and we are far more alike than different.  A recent paper recently published by 23andMe scientists documents that people’s ethnicity reflect the historic events that took place in the part of the country where their ancestors lived, such as slavery, the Trail of Tears and immigration from various worldwide locations.

From the 23andMe blog:

The study leverages samples of unprecedented size and precise estimates of ancestry to reveal the rate of ancestry mixing among American populations, and where it has occurred geographically:

• All three groups – African Americans, European Americans and Latinos – have ancestry from Africa, Europe and the Americas.
• Approximately 3.5 percent of European Americans have 1 percent or more African ancestry. Many of these European Americans who describe themselves as “white” may be unaware of their African ancestry since the African ancestor may be 5-10 generations in the past.
• European Americans with African ancestry are found at much higher frequencies in southern states than in other parts of the US.

The ancestry proportions point to the different regional impacts of slavery, immigration, migration and colonization within the United States:

• The highest levels of African ancestry among self-reported African Americans are found in southern states, especially South Carolina and Georgia.
• One in every 20 African Americans carries Native American ancestry.
• More than 14 percent of African Americans from Oklahoma carry at least 2 percent Native American ancestry, likely reflecting the Trail of Tears migration following the Indian Removal Act of 1830.
• Among self-reported Latinos in the US, those from states in the southwest, especially from states bordering Mexico, have the highest levels of Native American ancestry.

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans?utm_campaign=email-news-weekly&utm_source=eloqua

23andMe provides a very nice summary of the graphics in the article at this link:

http://blog.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Bryc_ASHG2014_textboxes.pdf

The academic article can be found here:

http://www.cell.com/ajhg/home

2015

So what does 2015 hold? I don’t know, but I can’t wait to find out. Hopefully, it holds more ancestors, whether discovered through plain old paper research, cousin DNA testing or virtually raised from the dead!

What would my wish list look like?

• More ancient genomes sequenced, including ones from North and South America.
• Ancestor reconstruction on a large scale.
• The haplotree becoming fleshed out and stable.
• Big Y sequencing combined with STR panels for enhanced genealogical research.
• Improved ethnicity reporting.
• Mitochondrial DNA search by ancestor for descendants who have tested.
• More tools, always more tools….
• More time to use the tools!

Here’s wishing you an ancestor filled 2015!

Bloody Harlan, it’s called, and aye, for a reason it is.  Yes, indeed, Harlan County, Kentucky is and was a place where justice is decided and meted out outside of the law as often as within the law.  Families often live by the “old school” there and people believe, right or wrong that the laws don’t apply to them.  Sometimes vigilante justice is much swifter and with much less mercy that the laws of the land, and other times, justice never occurs.  One way or another, Harlan County, Kentucky is certainly an interesting location.

And Harlan County, of course, is where my grandfather, William George Estes, known as Will, wound up living after he and my grandmother, Ollie Bolton divorced in the mid 19-teens in Indiana.

Harlan, a center of bootleg moonshining activity for all of the 1900s and before, is, ironically a dry county, in which one single small city, Cumberland, allows liquor sales.  I guess that means it’s a damp county, not entirely dry.  Now that’s no problem, since many stills (examples shown here) survive up on that desolate mountain.

That would be Black Mountain, the largest, tallest mountain in all of Kentucky.  I drove for 70 miles and still wasn’t at the top.  Black Mountain is the border between Kentucky and Virginia, and the further East you go into Harlan County, the further up you go as well, until you either turn around or descend across the crest into Virginia.  There are two roads in, both culminating in the city of Harlan and two roads out, both crossing the ridge into Virginia.  One of the roads in is called “Kingdom Come” which is the original 119.  That’s where Will Estes lived in his later years, I’m told, “above Cumberland” on 119.  He’s buried in the D.L. Creech cemetery near the red balloon below, probably close to where he lived.  Notice the “new” 119 is relatively straight, but the “old road” looks like a snake’s path back and forth winding across the new road like laces in a shoe.

Words like remote don’t even begin to describe the step back in time one experiences when visiting Harlan County. Harlan is also stunningly beautiful.

Most people in Harlan County are very nice, albeit a bit suspicious about why you are there and asking questions, unless you startle them or cross them.  The rest, well, just beware.

Today, along with moonshine, Harlan produces both marijuana and meth, and that population doesn’t want either of those crops interfered with. Now when you’re graveyard hunting….you’re not on the beaten path, so it tends to be a little more, um, precarious.

To put things in perspective, Harlan County has one fast food restaurant.  There is one gas station between Pineville and Harlan, a distance of 70 miles, and that gas station has a very large padlock on the restroom door and once inside, it smells worse than any outhouse I’ve ever visited.  It was last cleaned about 1960.  The convenience store clerk is openly wearing a gun and the “fried chicken” portion of the store closed long ago but the greasy smell still permeates everything.  Yep, you’ve arrived.  Gas station pumps don’t take credit cards.  The sign on the door says three things.

The first sign says:

1. Prepay after dark.

That sign is marked through and written in is:

2. Only customers that are known to cashier don’t have to prepay.

That is marked through and below that is scratched.

3. Cashier says everyone including Jesus Christ must prepay.

I wish I had taken a picture.

Pretty much all jobs in Harlan County, the legal ones that is, revolve around the mines.  Harlan has a love/hate relationship with the mines and mining companies.  Back in the 1930s the mines and mining companies owned the towns and people.  Workers were paid in “script”, below, money only redeemable at the company stores, where everything was overpriced.

Poverty was rampant. Eventually, riots ensued in the 1930s with many murders on both sides of the fence, the miners and their families and the “company men”.  The nickname “Bloody Harlan” arose during this time.  Another similar strike occurred in the 1970s.  Women were actively involved in the “war” too, and an award winning documentary film was created in 1976 entitled “Harlan County, USA”.  Life has never been easy nor peaceful in Harlan County.  Life has always been tough, really tough.

The country song “You’ll Never Leave Harlan Alive” strikes the chord I felt in Harlan County.  Please listen to Darrell Scott sing this hauntingly beautiful song.  Soulful country music at its best – recording the history of our people.  Patty Loveless originally recorded this song and her video includes photos of the region that speak thousands of words.

“Spend your life thinking about how to get away”…..but few do.

“Sun comes up about 10 in the morning and goes down about 3 in the day”…..that’s because the valleys are so deep and steep.  GPS and satellite radio don’t work there because they can’t see outside the valleys to the satellites.  Cell phones?  Mine was useless.  Don’t bother trying.

My grandfather lived the second half of his life in Harlan County, died there and is buried in a grave with no marker.  So very Harlan.

No, you’ll never leave Harlan alive…

We don’t have any photos of William George Estes as a child, but one of his earliest known photos with Ollie is shown below.  Ironically, one of the things that Will did was to take photographs of people, so he’s not in many, at least not until he acquired a timer for the camera.

Will was probably about 40 years old in this photo.  He was born in Claiborne County on March 30, 1874 to Lazarus Estes and his wife Elizabeth Vannoy Estes.  On September 26, 1892 he married Ollie Bolton in Claiborne County.  Their first child, Samuel, was born in July the next year and would live only 6 weeks before they buried him in the family cemetery.  Not a good start for a young couple.

William George Estes and Ollie Bolton would have several children:

• Samuel Estes born and died in 1893
• Charles Estel Sebastian Estes (1894-1972) married Edith May Parkey

• Infant (1896 – before 1900) born and died in Arkansas
• Robert Estes (1898 – before 1907), died when the house burned
• Infant (born and died about 1900)
• William Sterling Estes (1902/3-1963) married several times, to phrase it nicely

• Joseph “Dode” Estes (1904-1994) married unknown wife and had two sons that both died

• Margaret Estes (1906-2005) married Ed O’Rourke, had one son that died

• Minnie Estes (1908-2008), married several times but had one son with John Raymond Price

• Twins (born and died in roughly 1913)
• Elsia (born and died roughly 1914 or 1915)

After their first child died, William George Estes and Ollie left Claiborne County for a new beginning and moved to Springdale, Arkansas, shown below outside the post office about the time that Will and Ollie lived there.

Fifteen months after Samuel died, their next child Charles Estel was born in Arkansas.

Two years later another baby was born, died and was buried in the Arkansas soil, alone.  In 1898, Robert was born.  Ollie ran a boarding house in Springdale.  By all reports, Will spent his days fishing and his nights drinking.

During my visit to Springdale in 2004, I noticed the bridge and creek across from the old “hotel” in what is now “old town.”  I figured while Ollie was changing beds and cleaning chamber pots and spittoons and taking care of her young children, Will was fishing off the bridge.  It must have been a tough life for Ollie.  For some reason, this area was settled by several Claiborne County families, so they did have at least some distant Clarkson/Claxton family there.

By the 1900 census, they were back in Claiborne County and Will has been out of work for 6 months.  Uncle George (Estes) told me before his death that Will and Ollie moved back to Estes Holler and lived in a little cabin just down from Lazarus’s land, along the creek.  I suspect that they might have had another child that died in 1900.  However, we do know that my father was born in (or about) 1902, followed by Joseph “Dode” in 1904, Margaret in 1906 and Minnie in 1908.  Sometime before 1907, the cabin caught on fire.  Some family said that Ollie was outside in the yard.  Others said she was at a party.  No one said anything about where William George was.  Estel tried to get little Robert out, but he crawled under the bed.  Robert died in the fire.  William George and Ollie buried Robert beside their first child in Estes Holler. Uncle George later planted a willow tree where the cabin burned, and that tree has since fallen and is gone, with nothing left to mark the place where they lived and their child died.  I am probably the last person alive who knows where that cabin was located.  Perhaps it’s a memory better left to dissipate with the winds of time.

The photo above shows my father, standing on the ground, along with Estel, the oldest child, standing.  The blonde child on the chair was probably Joseph Dode since he looks to be younger than my father and Dode was born in 1904. The baby is Margaret, born in 1906.  This photo was probably taken about 1907 and the note on the back says Cumberland Gap.  Ollie Bolton Estes does not look like a happy woman.  She would have recently lost her son, Robert.

Shortly thereafter, Ollie and Will departed again, this time for the farmlands of Indiana.

Outside of Fowler, Indiana, farms needed tenant farmers and it seemed like a land with more opportunity than the limited land that Estes Holler had to offer.  Aunt Margaret, before she passed away, and before she became too demented, told me that there were twins born and died in 1913.  She told me that Will and Ollie’s last child, Elsia, was born in 1914 in Fowler and that she later died in Cook County, Illinois. She said that Elsia was “retarded” as special needs children were called at the time.  At one point Margaret also mentioned another set of twins born in 1918, but if this is correct, they may not have been Will’s and they did not survive.  He was back in Tennessee/Kentucky by 1918.  Margaret was one of the Crazy Aunts, so you never really knew what or how much to believe.

The photo above, the only photo of the entire family, minus the deceased children, of course, was taken in Fowler, Indiana in about 1914.

It was in Fowler that Ollie and Will’s marriage deteriorated to the point of divorce.  According to several sources, Ollie’s cousin, Joice, said as Joicey, was visiting in Indiana.

Now just out of curiosity, I had to figure out just how Ollie and Joice were related.  And this just goes to show how the word “cousin” is interpreted in Appalachia.  Are you ready for this?

George Hatfield had a son Lynch who had a son Walter who married Mary Polly Hurst, whose mother was Mahala Claxton, daughter of James Lee Claxton and Sarah Cook.  George Hatfield also had a son Ralph who had a son Lynch who had a son Lynch who had daughter Joice.  So Ollie’s grandfather’s 1st cousin (or Ollie’s 1st cousin twice removed), Mary Polly Hurst, married Walter Hatfield.  Walter Hatfield’s father’s brother’s great-granddaughter was Joice Hatfield. So, in case you’re having trouble following this, I tried to chart the connection.

If you’re looking at this saying to yourself, “they aren’t related by blood, only by marriage,” you would be right.  Not only that, but related by marriage going back up the tree 4 generations, then down two, from both sides.  This explains, better than anything else, the concept of kinship in the south – or at least in this part of Tennessee.  Probably more important than anything was that these families still lived, for the most part, on the same land or at least in the same holler that their ancestors did, as close neighbors, so the kinship connection remained strong and encompassed everyone closely or distantly related.  So, four generations out, you were literally related to everyone in that part of the county.  By the way, that also made their business your business….just saying.  Oh, and if you didn’t like them, you just claimed they “weren’t kin” even if they lived across the road with the same last name.

Ollie came home one day to find Will “in the act” with her young teenage cousin, born in 1893, 20 years younger than Ollie.  Ollie took a horsewhip to them both and from all accounts, nearly killed Will.  The neighbors had to restrain Ollie and it reportedly took several men to get it done.  She was pregnant with either Elsia or the twins at the time, depending on whose version of the story you are listening to.  One version says the incident made Ollie go into labor early and she had the twins prematurely and they were stillborn.  If that is true, then she subsequently got pregnant with Elsia, if the dates are correct.  I have never been able to substantiate the births or deaths of either the twins or Elsia, but I have no reason to think they did not exist, especially since multiple people told me of their births.

Regardless of the exact timing and order of those unfortunate events, sometime around 1915, Ollie left Fowler for Chicago, without Will, and took Minnie and Margaret with her.  Aunt Margaret’s letters written many years later to my step-mother said that neither Ollie nor Will wanted the boys.  Estel, by then age 19 or 20 was old enough to fend for himself.  However, my father William Sterling known as “Bill” and also as “Sterl,” and Joseph known as “Dode” were only early teens, if that, and didn’t know exactly what to do.

Bill and Dode hopped a freight train for Tennessee and found their way back to Claiborne County looking for family and food.  They showed up half-starved and filthy and telling tales about what happened between their mother and father.  By the time Will showed up back in Estes Holler with young Joice in tow, Lazarus Estes, his father, was having none of that, and Will got himself chased out of Estes Holler for “doing Ollie wrong.”  To my knowledge, no one had ever been run out of Estes Holler, and we’ve got some pretty colorful characters to our credit.  Lazarus told Will if he came back, he’d kill him, or so the story goes.  Lazarus Estes and his wife Elizabeth Vannoy are shown below.

The only place rougher than Estes Holler was Harlan County, and Will could go there and “hide out” (Will’s words) from both his Estes kin, Ollie’s kin and Joice Hatfield’s kin.  It seems that everyone except Joice was mad at Will.  And she would be shortly.

And yes, these are the Hatfield’s of Hatfield and McCoy feud fame and yes, Will fit right in in Harlan County.  In March of 1918, Joice had daughter, Virginia Estes, shown together below

This photo is from Virginia’s obituary in 2000.

The 1920 census shows us that Will is living with wife Joice, daughter Virginia, and with them, we find Joice’s younger cousin, Croice (also Crosha, Croshie) Brewer, along with her young son, Horace.  There is no further record of Horace.  Crocie was listed as “deaf and dumb.”  You know what’s coming next don’t you?

What is the best predictor of future behavior?  Past performance.

Yep, Will, again, finds himself involved with his wife’s younger cousin who is living with them.  You’d think that Joice would have known better, all things considered.

According to Margaret and cousins in Estes holler, Will actually wound up married to both of these women at the same time, one “over the mountain” in KY and one in TN.  Does this sound familiar?  Did his son, William Sterling Estes, follow in his bigamist footsteps?  That old apple and tree saying seems to hold true.  What a mess Will made.  Eventually he reportedly would live with neither wife.  I have no idea how he got himself untangled from two simultaneous marriages, or if he ever did, assuming the story is true in the first place.

Will had three children by Crocie, Josephine, above, born in 1923.  The 1940 census reports that she was born in Arkansas, so Will and Crocie may have lived there for a time. “Red-headed Evelyn” was born in 1931 in Kentucky and a son, William James, who was born in 1935 died as an infant in 1937 under questionable circumstances.  His death certificate states the following:  “Died of acute intestinal indigestion” and it’s noted that it was “from improper food. 2 years 6 months old and buried in the Gilliam Cemetery,” located just above Cumberland on the map below.  Remembering what Margaret said about having no food when they were children, and being fed alcohol, I have to wonder what happened to poor William James Estes.

There was some question for a long time whether Josephine was the child of Joice or Crocie.  However, since Josephine is buried in the cemetery where Evelyn, Will and Crocie are buried, she is most probably Crocie’s daughter.

Joice went back home to Hancock County, Tennessee. In the 1930 census, she is listed as Jaysey Hatfield, living with her parents, Lynch Hatfield and Virginia Foley Hatfield.  Daughter Virginia is also listed under the Hatfield surname, and there is no daughter Josephine.

In 1940, Virginia Estes is found married to Little Brewer in Hancock County, with Dorothy aged 2, and Gennett (Jannette,) 7 months old.  Virginia and Little Brewer moved to Anderson, Indiana and lived there most of their lives, working in the auto plants.  They had one more child, a son, Ambrose, born in 1942 who predeceased Virginia, who passed away in 2000.

Both Evelyn, who married Marco Pusice, a polish miner, and Josephine who married Andy Jackson lived their lives in Harlan County.  Both women, their husbands, Will and one of his wives, a “Mrs. Estes” who we presume is Crocie who died in 1961, are all buried in Harlan County in the D.L. Creech cemetery.  Joice died in 1965 in Anderson, Indiana where Virginia, her daughter, lived.

I’m sure that the Bolton/Hatfield/Brewer family reunions were interesting after that, especially given that Virginia married into the family of Crocie, Will’s third wife and Joice’s cousin who cheated with Will.  Of course, that’s kind of karmic in a sense, because Joice also cheated with Will, on her cousin, Ollie.  What’s that saying…what goes around, comes around.

If Will was a smart man, he steered very clear of any family of these women, especially male family members.  Maybe he just stayed out of Hancock County altogether.  He’s lucky he didn’t just “disappear” although the remoteness of Black Mountain and the roughness of Harlan County was probably very intimidating to anyone not from there – and it probably served to protect Will.

To the best of my knowledge Will never worked inside the mines.  He reportedly made pilings for shoring up the mines.  Some said he wound up with a lot of mine land, but the deed index of Harlan County shows that Will owned no land at all, neither did he have a will.

The 1940 census and the entries surrounding those of William George Estes are quite interesting and gives us a flavor of what life was like in Harlan County.  Among other things, this census tells us that William George Estes never attended school.  Crocie has 4 years of school. Josephine at age 17 was classified as H3, probably 3rd year of high school.  Sadly, Eveline had no school at 8 years of age.  Perhaps Josephine was staying with someone in town.

Most of the families, for pages and pages in each direction were listed with a margin note that said “shack.”  William George was listed with a note that said “lease.”  He is listed as a farmer and everyone else, with no exceptions, is listed in some way associated with the coal mines, or as a timberman.  I’m reminded of the family stories that said Will “made a lot of money” selling timbers to shore up the mines.  A “lot of money” may have been relative, when compared to hundreds of families living in shacks.  Someone who leased land might have been considered wealthy.  And given that we know that he was a moonshiner, we know in this case, what farmer really meant.

There is a column for where each family lived in 1935 and a surprisingly high number of these families lived in the “same house.  Will’s says the same thing, so this is where they were living in 1935 when their son was born.

Three entries before Will we find a margin note saying “Big Looney Creek” on leased land and 5 shacks before that another lease that says “Looney Creek.”

Seven shacks after Will’s leased land, we find Looney Creek listed again, and right beside that, two shacks later, “Top Black Mountain.”  So, Will didn’t live quite at the highest elevation in all of Kentucky, “in the last house at the end of ‘bad ass street'” as it was termed where I grew up, he lived about 10 houses below the summit.

This red balloon shows Looney Creek just below the top of Black Mountain where it crosses at the summit into Virginia.  The road follows the creek path from the top of the mountain through Lynch and Benham to Cumberland.

Below is a satellite image of this area today.  We know that Will lived “above Cumberland” near Looney Creek and below the top of Black Mountain.

On the census, Gap Branch In Lynch, KY, is shown before Will’s location, several pages.  Today, there are no houses or “shacks” on 160 south of the two 160 markers at the top of the photo, below.  Lynch is the community that includes Gap Branch located between those top two 160 markers (below), between Benham and the red balloon (above).

To put this in further perspective, Will is buried above Cumberland on 119 near the first red arrow on the map below.  His son William James is buried “above Cumberland” between Cumberland and Benham, near the second arrow.  William lived someplace on 160 between Gap Branch (In Lynch, KY), the red arrow between the two 160 markers below Benham on this picture, which in Harlan County would be termed “above Benham” because of the elevation.  This arrow is located between the two 160 markers, between Benham and the top of Black Mountain.  The fourth, furthest right, red arrow is the last location of any housing today, at the 160 marker.  The red balloon is the google location for Looney Creek.  Looney Creek actually begins about half way between the red balloon and the top of the Mountain.  That would be where the freshest water would be found, so the safest to drink.  Black Mountain is the highest and most rugged and inaccessible location in Kentucky.  In the earlier 1900s, when coal was first discovered here, it was reported that there was only one mule path across this mountain.

Mom said that when she went to visit with my father in the 1950s, his house was extremely remote and difficult to get to.  She shuddered to think of it.  Mom met Crocie so she apparently lived with him at that time.  Mother didn’t care for how he treated Crocie, although she was never specific.  Mother never went back. Others referred to Crocie as Will’s virtual slave.

By the 1960s, Will was writing letters to my father about having Evelyn “hid out” until things settled down.  I don’t know what Evelyn was doing that time, but another letter mentions “bad checks.”  Both Evelyn and Josephine were exceptionally beautiful women and known in the vernacular of the day as “sirens.” It’s not surprising that they were somewhat wild, given their genetic heritage.  Furthermore, their Dad was a known moonshiner and bootlegger.  White lightning greasing the skids of popularity I’m sure for those girls, as did their beauty.

But moonshining wasn’t the whole story.  The whispered family history, and there was a LOT of whispered family history, revealed stories of Will killing a revenuer in the 1920s or 1930s.  The story goes that the revenuer had the bad judgment to try to take Will alone up on Black Mountain, shown in the photo above.  It never happened, and the revenue agent was never seen again.  Now I chalked this up to old family gossip, known in the south as “no account talk,” especially since so many of the stories about this family have proven to be unfounded or at least unsubstantiated.  However, a few years ago, through another source entirely, I heard the story of a revenue agent, who supposedly went up on Black Mountain after a moonshiner in the 1920s and was never heard from again.  It seems very odd that a revenue agent would work alone in that venue.  It almost smells like some kind of payola deal gone bad.  I have always wondered if those two stories are just coincidence – or maybe one fed the other.  Only Will knows for sure, and he’s not talking.

That’s not the end of the extraordinary stories about this family either.  It seems that something happened to Evelyn, Will’s daughter.  Two different children of Estel’s told me that Evelyn was murdered, her throat cut and she was nearly decapitated in front of her children.  One version says that she was married to a “Jake”  whom she divorced, then married “an old man,” one source says a doctor, who she took care of until she died.  Another family source says that a robber broke into their home and she was nearly beheaded in front of her children, murdered.

I found Evelyn’s death certificate and she died of a hyperglycemic coma at age 46, BUT, an autopsy was indeed performed, which is extremely odd under those circumstances.  Anemia was a contributing factor, but no injuries were listed.  If you were “anemic” because your throat had been slashed, I’d think that would be noted on the death certificate as a contributing factor.  Evelyn had one daughter, Joyce, according to her obituary and the obituary said nothing about being murdered.  I told you my family had incredible stories, and these weren’t even from the Crazy Aunts!

My visit in October 2009 to Harlan County was to locate and visit my grandfather’s grave.  With all of the genealogy work I’ve done on my older ancestors, it seemed unholy somehow that I had never made it to Harlan County to visit my grandfather.  You know, it’s not like Harlan County is on the way TO anyplace.

Will lived to be a very old man and he was only ill for a few days before his death of pneumonia.  He died November 29, 1971 in Harlan, KY, age 98.  He was buried 2 days later.  He is shown below with his sister Cornie Epperson who died in 1958.

I was a teenager in 1971.  I didn’t even know my grandfather was still alive, let alone that he died.  I don’t think mother knew he was alive either.  He did not attend my father’s funeral in 1963.  It was in 1973 that Virgie, my step-mother, who kept in touch with Aunt Margaret, told me that my grandfather had died. Since my father was gone, it never occurred to me that my grandfather might still have been alive.

I would have at least liked to have had the opportunity to have known him, although I’m not sure my mother would have approved, all things considered, and with good reason.  There appeared to be at least 14 grandchildren in total, although he outlived at least two of them and probably more.

My trip to locate and visit his grave was, thankfully, not reflective of the drama that heralded his life.  I had called ahead to the “rescue squad” which is associated with the Johnson Funeral home where Will’s services were held to see if they knew where the D.L. Creech Cemetery was located.  They did, and told me if I’d come up to Lynch, they’d take me and show me.  I learned a long time ago that volunteer fire and rescue are the best sources in these areas.  They know everyone and know how to get everyplace.  And they know how to stay safe.

I told them I was stopping at the courthouse on the way to Lynch, as Harlan is the county seat and you have to pass right through there on the way to Cumberland, then Lynch.  Harlan is a very small town.  One Arby’s and that’s it for fast food.

The courthouse and “justice center,” a building adjacent to and the size of the courthouse, was easy to find.  Outside the courthouse was a large sign that says something akin to “no firearms, knives, weapons, etc.” which is typical for a courthouse, but then there was another sign that said something like “cell phones must be turned off and by decree of Judge Jones on such and such a date, anyone observed using a cell phone in the courthouse will have the cell phone confiscated and the phone will not be returned.”  Hmmm, welcome to no nonsense Harlan County.  I turned off my cell phone.  It didn’t work anyway.  I wondered how doctors were supposed to get calls, and then I remembered that I was in Harlan County and the closest doctor was probably in Pineville, a good 35 miles away.  Question answered, there were none.  No problem.  Well, there used to be two doctors, but they were both arrested and convicted for illegal drug trafficking, per the mortician.

I went inside and through the metal detector which looked sorely out of place and appeared to be a serious intrusion from the 21^st century into this 19^th century courthouse.  After determining that deeds were in the next building, I left.  I had to return though as probate records for individuals without wills were located back in this initial building. Back through the metal detector, except this time, when I walked in the door, I stopped dead in my tracks, for in front of me, a man had pulled out his gun.  I drew a short breath and was trying to unroot my feet from under me while my mind was racing, along with my heart, trying to decide if I should stand still and hope he doesn’t notice me or turn tail and run like the wind.  Fortunately, he put the gun in a locker, locked the lock and took the key and then went through the metal detector.

I was quite stunned, to say the least, especially in light of their exceptionally strict policy regarding cell phone usage (as if cell phones worked there anyway.)  After the man left, I asked one of the deputies attending the metal detector about what I had just witnessed and he said that they allow people to check their guns because everyone knew you were coming out of the courthouse not “packing heat,” because it wasn’t allowed, so the street in front of the courthouse became prime pickins for murders.  So now, you can check your gun in a locker.  Yep, welcome to Bloody Harlan.

I didn’t want to bother the rescue squad unless it was absolutely necessary, so I went on up to where Google maps showed me the D.L. Creech cemetery should be.  However, at the beginning of Creech Cemetery Road, I stopped short and turned around.  There was a large hill crossing a railroad track leading to a cluster of mobile homes and there was an iron gate that could be closed across the tracks.  I couldn’t see the cemetery, so I had no idea how far up this dirt road I’d have to drive.  With the terrain and elevation of the tracks, there was one way into this place and one way out, even with a Jeep, and I was not about to get caught behind that iron gate. Off I went to the rescue squad.

They were expecting me, as I had called twice with questions in preparation for my trip.  The younger men were on a run, but an older gentleman, Derrell, the retired mortician, was there to help me.  His daughter, Stephanie had taken over the funeral home and the ambulance business and he is now officially “retired”, but he was also bored out of his mind so this was a good diversion for him and he enjoyed talking about the area and its colorful population.

I learned that Josephine wore red lipstick, literally, until the day she died, that she was considered a “siren.”  Andy Jackson, her husband, who had lived at Jackson Bottom, had “gone crazy” on them at one time and that he had only died 3 or 4 years before.  I told you, the rescue guys know everything about everyone.

I followed Derrell to the cemetery and felt much better with him along.  It was actually a very nice cemetery, well maintained, but that’s because Derrell had his crew take care of it when they had breaks in their other duties.  We walked the cemetery looking for Will’s grave, twice, with no results.  I asked if there was a cemetery map or a sextant.  Derrell said that a very cranky eccentric old woman had the map and you couldn’t get it or any information from her.   Will didn’t have a headstone.  I commented to Derrell that it’s too bad that we couldn’t locate my grandfather’s grave, because if I wanted to purchase a stone, I wouldn’t be able to do so because we wouldn’t know where to place it.

All of a sudden, Derrell remembered who to ask about the cemetery map, and maybe the women’s son-in-law had it.  He did.

The map seems to be a plot of when the lots were sold, and in the case of the Jacksons, just a suggestion of how people were to be buried.  Josie Estes and Andrew Jackson are buried side by side in lots 2 and 4, not one in front of the other.  It’s unclear if anyone is buried in lot 3.  Back to the cemetery we went to locate Will’s grave. On the cemetery map above, the road into the cemetery runs along the left side and the 40 foot area is a graveled parking area.  Will’s grave should be easy to locate.

We had already located Evelyn’s stone.  She was married to Marco Pusice who predeceased her and they both share a common stone.

Apparently, Crocie was the first of the group to die in 1961 followed by Will in 1971,  Marco Pusice in 1972,  Evelyn Estes Pusice in 1977, Josephine Estes Jackson in 1979 and Andrew Jackson in 2004.  Crocie only has a fieldstone for a headstone.  Josephine, her husband Andy Jackson, Will and apparently Crocie are buried together near the front of the cemetery.  None of them have stones except for Crocie (assuming she is Mrs. Estes) and she just has a rock, as shown below.  Will is buried beside her to the left in front of the grey flat stone marker with the metal inscription on top.

To the left of the large Dixon stone in the photo below, you can see two metal markers, one lying flat and one upright. Those are the graves of Josephine and Andrew Jackson.

Andy still had the funeral home metal marker, but when it’s gone, that will be all there is. Josephine has a concrete block and her funeral home marker is stuck in the top of the concrete block that has sunk into the ground.  Rather sad, actually.

Derrell purchased the funeral home in the 1980s, so he didn’t know my grandfather Will, although his daughter knew Andy and remembered Josephine.

Derrell did, however, tell me some other stories of Harlan County, such as about the undertaker that embezzled all of the funeral prepayments.  He went to jail for that, because he preferred that to being dealt with by the local families.  Probably a good thing and much safer.  They do have a sense of humor in Harlan County and he would probably have been buried in one of those unmarked graves.

In addition to moonshining and womanizing, William George Estes was also a photographer.  I know that’s a really unlikely occupation for someone in the hills and hollers of Appalachia.  I suspect that it was something he rather “fell into” in some fashion.  He had a large black camera with a black cloth and a tripod and he could set the timer to take pictures.  The photographs of the family between 1907 and 1915 or so when he and Ollie divorced were taken in that manner.  He must have gotten the camera about 1907 because there are no family photos before that.

When I first visited Claiborne County, many people told me he used to go to family reunions, which used to last for several days, and took pictures of people.  Of course, he ate and drank with them.  Then, after the pictures were developed, he would go back down and visit with the family for a couple days to deliver the pictures.  I’m sure he also delivered some other products as well, and probably stayed to help drink that product.  Everyone seemed to like Will, well, except for his x-wives families, which was probably half of the county.  So the other half of the county liked him.

The photo above is Worth Epperson (d 1959), Will’s brother-in-law, and William George Estes.

A few years ago, I was with family members in the old Estes cemetery in Estes Holler, which one has to be let into because it’s far up the mountain on private land behind fences.  I was laying on the ground on my belly trying to get my new camera to cooperate and take a photo of a stone where the engraving, or in this case, rough hand chiseling, was worn almost smooth by rain and time.  So I fiddled and fussed and tried to get the light to shadow the grooves in the stone. I heard one of them say to the other, “she’s certainly Will’s granddaughter.”  Apparently he had to fiddle and fuss with his camera too.

William George Estes was clearly an eccentric man who walked to the beat of his own drummer.  But that was a time when taking a couple days to do something didn’t matter, especially if you didn’t have a job to get to.  And that job thing seemed to be something that never plagued Will.  He also, amazingly, didn’t drive, but being a moonshiner, he probably always had something to trade for a ride and lots of people were probably more than happy to take him.  Since he did live to a ripe old age, I’d wager a bet that he didn’t pay up until he got out of the vehicle!

It seems that Will passed moonshining on to at least one of his sons.  Sadly, he passed the proclivity for problem drinking on to all three.  My Aunt wrote in her letters that at times there wasn’t enough to eat when they were children, so they were given moonshine to drink so that their stomach’s wouldn’t hurt and they would go to sleep.  My heart just breaks for my father and his siblings.  That’s where my father’s alcoholism started – as a child, due to hunger, through no choice of his own.

Fleming, Kentucky, above, was a coal mining town in Letcher County.  Will’s son, Estel lived here and worked the mines when his family was young.  Estel also had a side job, delivering moonshining.  His daughter told me that they used to paint milk bottles white on the outside and he would have the kids deliver the “moonshine” camouflaged in white milk bottles.  The family was innovative – you’ve got to give them credit for that!

One of the Estes cousins who lives in Claiborne County, TN, tells another story about Will.  Since he didn’t drive, he would catch the bus in Harlan County, Kentucky and ride it to the closest drop off location in Claiborne County, about an hour distant and then walk on to Estes Holler to visit, after his father, Lazarus, who had banished him, died.

Will had a bullet in his pocket with his tobacco.  He filled his pipe with tobacco and started to smoke it on the bus, but unbeknownst to him, he had also gotten the bullet in the pipe.  Well, the bullet, and with it, the pipe exploded on the bus during the trip.  Scared him and the other passengers and nearly caused the driver to wreck the bus.  From then on,  he was banned from riding the bus.  I guess you might just say that’s our special family version of going out with a bang!

In 1915, Will’s parents deeded land to one of their children, Cornie Estes Epperson and her husband, Worth Epperson, and in the deed, stipulated that she and her husband were to pay the other children a specific sum of money.  This land transaction was in lieu of a will.  In William’s case, that sum was $120.  In 1957, some 42 years later, he signed the edge of that document that he had indeed received the money.  I’ve always wondered if Lazarus and Elizabeth signed this 1915 deed before or after Will returned to Estes Holler after his escapades in Indiana.  I’m guessing that it was before, given the fact that Lazarus was evidently very angry with Will when he returned, without Ollie, with Joice and after his two young sons, about ages 10 and 12, or at most 12 and 14, had arrived as hobos in desperate need.

All things considered, it’s absolutely amazing that his man lived to be 98 and a half years old, and died after a short illness of natural causes – what would once simply have been termed “old age.”

William George Estes, his grandson, Wayne Estes, Wayne’s mother Edith Mae Parkey Estes and Will’s daughter, Josephine Estes, probably in the 1960s, not long before Will’s death.  Will would have been in his 90s.

Who’s Your Daddy?

One thing that always bothered me was that my father, at right below, really didn’t look anything like his father, William George Estes.

There are no photos of Will as a young man, and my father died in his early 60s, so I’ve tried to compare photos at ages that looked to be approximately equal.  The first row, below is of Will and the second row is my father.

I looked and looked, and I simply could not see much resemblance.

DNA testing promised an answer to the long-standing question of whether or not I had been doing someone else’s genealogy for 30 years or so.

However, DNA testing was not to be as easy as it sounded.

We had a baseline of what the ancestral Estes Y line DNA should look like, if there were no misattributed paternal events, or adoptions.  However, my father had no sons, at least not that we could find, until we found David.  Will’s other male children did not go forth and multiply fruitfully, and those that did had children that died young.

Suffice it to say that finding a suitable DNA candidate from William’s line proved to be extremely challenging.  We tried a couple of tactics, and let’s just say that nothing worked the way it was supposed to.  In fact, no one was matching who they were supposed to be matching, nor each other.  In the case of one of William George’s descendants, the results were off just enough to be suspicious – but not enough to be definitive.  The green line below shows the ancestral Estes DNA, as finally proven by Uncle Buster.  The yellow was unknown.  The purple should match the green, and would prove William George’s line, but the purple individual was the one with just enough mutations to be inconclusive.  David, my half-brother, didn’t match anyone.

I studied the photographs of every person in the family who descended from Lazarus.  I think my father looked more like Uncle George than anyone.

And then there was David, my father’s supposed son, who was an entirely different haplogroup and didn’t match either the primary Estes line nor the purple descendant of William George Estes.

This was making me crazy, seriously crazy.  Bang my head against the wall crazy.

I began to doubt everyone.  There was obviously a break, or maybe two, but where?

John Y. Estes is on the left, then his son Lazarus and his son William George to the right.

My father just didn’t look like these men, and William George really didn’t look like Lazarus either.

OMG

I’m hyperventilating by now.

Looking back up the line, we had confirmed that John R. Estes did match the ancestral Estes line, but from there to current, we had no clue except that we had problems.

Finally, I realized that Uncle Buster was still living (at that time) and I went to visit him in Tennessee.  He was so deaf that you couldn’t call him and have a conversation, plus, I hadn’t seen him in years.  How do you explain all of this to a deaf man in his 90s?  Answer – in person.

When we pulled up in his driveway after driving the two mile two-track “road” to his house, he greeted us on his porch with a shotgun.  That’s how everyone whose car isn’t recognized gets greeted.  You just get out and start waving both hands in the air and shouting at Uncle Buster.  My cousin, who was along, didn’t think that was such a good idea!

Uncle Buster was gracious enough to DNA test, that day, and thankfully, he matched the Estes ancestral line as well, so we proved that Lazarus Estes, the father of William George Estes was a genetic Estes, but was William George Estes and was my father?

The fact that my brother, David, and I didn’t match each other autosomally (using old CODIS marker technology) had raised the ugly specter for me that perhaps David WAS my father’s child, and I wasn’t.  Given that I could not dig up Dad for DNA testing, although the thought was tempting, I had to know.

My brother David had become ill with hepatitis C, contracted when he received a blood transfusion when his chopper was shot down in Vietnam.  He needed a liver transplant.  David was very ill, but if he “heard” the discussions that occurred in the hospital, it was obvious that I was not a transplant candidate. I was never clear about why – the team really didn’t seem to want to talk about “incidental findings,” until I cornered one of them.  No, they admitted, we “probably” weren’t siblings.

When the initial 23andMe autosomal tests became available, David and I tested immediately.  We have previously tested at a two private labs utilizing the CODIS markers and the results were inconclusive, stating that we were “probably not half siblings, but probably related.”  Turns out, they were dead wrong.  We not only weren’t half siblings, we weren’t related at all.

At 23andMe, David and I didn’t match.  However, I didn’t know which of us, if either, was my father’s child.  Not matching David was bad enough, but not knowing the rest of the story was worse.

A few months later, I was at the Cumberland Gap reunion, telling my cousin, Deb, who also descends through Lazarus Estes via daughter Cornie Estes Epperson, a sibling to William George Estes, about my DNA woes.

Suddenly, the light bulb clicked on.  DUH!!!

If Deb tested, she would likely match me or David, assuming that the genetic break was NOT between Lazarus and William George Estes and NOT between William George Estes and my father.  In any case, the fact that she MIGHT match one of us was a gamble I was certainly willing to take, and she agreed to test.  It was a long shot, but it was the only shot I had, and I took it.

By this time, after several years of not knowing, I no longer cared which outcome developed, I just needed an answer and closure. And I thought Dave did too.

I ordered Deb’s kit, she spat, and we waited…an interminably long time it seemed.

Finally, the day arrived and the results were in my inbox.  I clicked to open, signed on, and there it was, in living color…

…the answer…

Deb matched…

…right now I was slamming my eyes shut and peeking out the slits…

…I wanted to know…

…but I didn’t want to know what I feared the answer would be…

…

…the truth…

…finally, the truth…

…

Deb matched…

…

…

…

Me…

DEB MATCHED ME…

…

Not Dave.

OH GOD!

Oh God.

…

I was overwhelmed with relief and at the exact same time, overwhelmed with sorrow for my brother.  I tried to tell David a couple of times and he simply did not want to hear the results, so I never pushed it.  By this time, he was gravely ill.  He was my brother and I loved him and still do, regardless.  If anything, he needed my love more than ever, although he would never have admitted to needing anything.

However, as the consummate genealogist, it really did matter to me, and not in the way most people would presume.  I wanted to know if I should stop doing my Estes side genealogy.  I didn’t want to waste any more time, if I had been wasting time, and I didn’t want to stop if the Estes line was mine genetically.  For me, that DNA test bought me out of genealogical purgatory!

About that time, Family Tree DNA also introduced the Family Finder test.  Given that Uncle Buster had already tested his Y chromosome there, his DNA was archived there, so we upgraded his test and David’s to see who matched Uncle Buster, who is actually my first cousin once removed.  Yes, I’m a born skeptic and I guess I just needed two independent proofs.  Again, the results were the same.  Buster matched me and not David.

So, with one test, either Deb’s or Buster’s, we proved the Y lines of the men involved by inference.  We know that my father matched William George’s Y chromosome and William George matched Lazarus’s – or we would not have matched autosomally at the level we were.  We also matched with other descendants of Lazarus and other Estes cousins from on up the tree as well.  Not to mention, we salvaged my grandmother’s reputation which had come under a bit of a cloud.  Sorry grandma!

As soap operas go, this one had as happy an ending as there could have been.  Soap operas NEVER have happy endings you know.  My brother never knew or admitted that he knew we weren’t biological siblings, so he was spared any emotional pain.  I loved him regardless, so it didn’t matter to me in that way.

My great regret is that I wasn’t a transplant match, but I subsequently discovered that the hospital where Dave was being treated stopped doing live donor transplants about that time, and only used cadavers, so even if I had been a match, it’s doubtful that they would have done the surgery.  Dave never received a transplant and passed away after developing liver cancer.

On the genealogy front, I was relieved to confirm that I had not wasted 30 years on someone else’s genealogy.  And, I didn’t have to dig up Dad, or William George, to do it!  Good thing, since we still don’t know precisely where William George is buried – just a general vicinity – which would be good enough for a tombstone, but not for DNA testing.

Nope, he never left Harlan alive.

Charles Speak was born on November 19 in either 1804 or 1805, in Washington County, Virginia, the first child of Nicholas Speak and Sarah Faires.

We know little about the childhood of Charles, except by inference.

On August 12, 1804, Sarah and Nicholas were married in Washington  County, VA by the Rev. Charles Cummings.  Rev. Cummings was of the Presbyterian faith as were many of Sarah’s relatives, indicating that they were probably of Scotch-Irish descent. Reverend Cummings answered the call to minister about a mile northwest of present day Abington, VA and established the Sinking Springs and Ebbing Springs Churches.  Rev. Cummings died in 1812 and was buried at Sinking Springs, so it’s very likely that the Faires and Speak families were members of the Sinking Springs Church at that time and that the church of Charles’ childhood was likely Presbyterian.

Today, the log cabin of Reverend Cummings sits in the Sinking Springs Cemetery, founded in 1774, where the early settler burials are found in unmarked graves.  The photo above, courtesy the Historical Society of Washington County Virginia, shows the current church in the background.

There is a notation in the journal of Methodist Bishop Francis Asbury that he had visited in the home of Gideon Faires, so it is likely that Gideon embraced the faith of this new religion of Methodism sometime between 1802 when Nicholas and Sarah were married and 1816 when Francis Asbury died.  Perhaps Sarah and Nicholas were also caught up in this new faith.  In addition to Asbury, Methodist circuit riders traveled the area evangelizing the settlers.

In 1814, Charles’ father, Nicholas left in August to serve in the War of 1812 and was gone until he was discharged in February of 1815.  Sarah had 5 children by then, ranging in age from 9 or 10 to the baby at 13 months.  Charles was the eldest, turning 9 or 10 that November, and he would have been left to help his mother as best he could.  Nicholas would have left crops in the field which had to be harvested that fall, and I’m betting that young Charles did far more work than most children that harvest season.  While they expected and hoped that Nicholas would come home, they didn’t really know.  Many men didn’t.  This must have been a trying time for the family.

In the 1820 Washington County census, Charles would have been 14 or 15 and he is shown living with his parents.  Not long after the 1820 census, his father, Nicholas Speaks, would decide to move to Lee County, Virginia where he purchased land on  November 29, 1823 on Glade’s Branch, now known as Speak’s Branch, in the southern part of the county not far from the border with Tennessee.

Charles Speak married his sweetheart, Ann McKee on February 27, 1823, the same year that the Speak family bought the land in Lee County.  I wonder how that marriage proposal occurred.  Did Charles know his father was pulling up stakes and moving?  Had Nicholas been contemplating this move for some time, discussing it with his eldest son?  Did Charles tell Ann that he was going, moving to the frontier, and that he wanted her to come along?  Did she try to convince him to stay in Washington County?  Ann’s father was deceased, but was her mother still living?  Was this looked upon with high expectations and great anticipation, or dreaded, knowing the amount of work they faced, homesteading in the wilderness?

Was this move precipitated by religious conviction?  Nicholas Speak founded the church still known as Speak Chapel on Glade Branch and founded the Methodist religion in Lee County, shortly after his arrival.

The photo below of the original Nicholas Speak cabin was taken in the 1960s, more than 140 years after it was built.

Regardless of how it happened, it did, and Charles took his young bride to Lee County where they settled, their first child arriving about a year later in 1824.

Charles and Ann had the following children:

• Sarah Jane Speak born about 1824, died 1888, married Andrew M. Callahan
• Nicholas Speak born December 13, 1825, died after 1864, married Rachel Rhoda Callahan
• Andrew McKee Speak born about 1826, died December 19, 1900 in Grant Co., KY, married Lavina Chance
• Rebecca Speak born about 1827, married James Painter
• Charity Speak born about 1829, died after 1880, married Adam Harvey Johnson
• Elizabeth “Bettie” Speak born July 26, 1832 in Indiana, died Oct. 3, 1907 in Hancock County, TN, married Samuel Claxton

We have a picture of Elizabeth Speak with husband, Samuel Claxton/Clarkson in his Union army uniform before his death in 1876.

Charles’ son, Nicholas Speak, named after his grandfather, fought with the Confederacy in the Civil War.

Nicholas enlisted on Sept. 30, 1861 as a private.  He was promoted to 2nd Lieutenant, served in Virginia, and was commissioned an officer in Company C, Virginia 21st Infantry Battalion.  He then transferred to company E, Virginia 64th on Dec. 1, 1862.  He rejoined on October 20, 1863.  He is “present” on pay muster rolls through August 30, 1864.  However, it is noted in September and October of 1864 that he “is dismounted at present” which means he was without a horse.  In November and December 1864, he is “absent to get a horse but his time has expired.”  His last record is that he is a prisoner of War and was paroled on April 29, 1865 at Cumberland Gap at the end of the war.  The record on Ancestry which is a compiled service record says he did not survive he war, but I find nothing in his actual records on Fold 3 to indicate otherwise.  He was a POW, released at the end of the war.

I found Nicholas’s POW records as well which say he was at the Military prison in Louisville, KY, captured in Lee Co., VA, on May 17, 1864, initially sent to Nashville, received in Louisville on July 14, 1864 and sent to Camp Douglas in Illinois the same day.  Nicholas’s record says that he, “claim to have been loyal.  Was conscript in the rebel army and desire to take oath of allegiance and become a loyal citizen.”  That tactic, true or otherwise, apparently did not work, because he remained a POW until the end of the war.

Samuel Patton Speak, son of Charles’ brother, Samuel Speak, also served and was captured the same day but died Nov. 20, 1864 of smallpox and was buried near Camp Douglas.  Samuel Patton Speak’s brother, William Hardy Speak was also captured the same day as the other two Speak men, sent to the same prison, but survived the war.  There are abbreviated notes that indicate he may have claimed he was conscripted as well.

Charles Speak’s sister, Rebecca, had been married to William Henderson Rosenbalm (Rosenbaum.)  Rebecca died in February of 1859 and with four small children to raise, William remarried that November to her sister, Frances, known as Fannie, also a sister of Charles.  They had 4 more children in quick succession.  William Henderson Rosenbalm enlisted as a confederate soldier on April 18, 1863, was captured in Lee County, VA on May 17, 1864.  On July 17^th, he was in Louisville in the Military prison and was transferred to Camp Douglas, noted as conscripted, where he was received the next day.  His military records show that he died on September 25, 1864, a prisoner of war, also at Camp Douglas.

All 4 men were captured the same day in Lee County.  They must have been together, probably patrolling at night from the pieces I put together of their combined service records.  These men were Charles son, Nicholas, Charles’ nephews Samuel and William and Charles’ (deceased and living) sisters’ husband, William Rosenbalm.  This must have been a terribly devastating day for the Speak family.  And this at the same time that Charles’ sister, Elizabeth’s husband, Samuel Claxton, was serving the Union and several of his family members died in that service.  The families only lived 6 or 7 miles apart although clearly their allegiances were worlds apart.

Camp Douglas, south of Chicago, Illinois, on the prairie, was one of the largest POW camps for Confederate soldiers and became known as the North’s Andersonville.  In the aftermath of the war, Camp Douglas came to be noted for its poor conditions and death rate of between seventeen and twenty-three percent.

Toward the end of 1864, surgeons refused to send recovering prisoners back to the barracks due to the rampant scurvy, attributed to the policy of withholding vegetables from the prisoners. In October 1864, 984 of 7,402 prisoners were reported as sick in the barracks and were believed to have been significantly underreported.

Meanwhile, in November 1864, as repairs were being carried out, water was cut off to the camp and even to the hospital. Prisoners had to risk being shot in order to gather snow, even beyond the dead line, for coffee and other uses.  This was the time during which both William Rosenbalm and Samuel Speak died, on September 25th and November 20th, 1864, respectively.

Some 4,275 Confederate prisoners were known to be reinterred from the shallow camp cemetery to a mass grave at Oak Woods Cemetery after the war.

It’s doubtful that Nicholas was conscripted, given that he was an officer and he signed this receipt as such.  It’s impossible to tell without being there, but it would appear that the Speak family in Lee County, Virginia, were Confederates.

It must have been difficult after the Civil War for Charles Speak’s adult children to resolve the breach of the Civil War.

Elizabeth Speak Claxton’s husband, Samuel Claxton, died as a result of his Union service in 1876 while Elizabeth’s brother, Nicholas Speak, fought for the Confederacy and was a POW under horrific conditions.  Nicholas reportedly died in the 1860s, after the war ended.  Samuel Patton and William H. Speak, two of Charles’ nephews also fought in the same unit with Nicholas, were captured along with him on “nite duty.”  One of the newphews died.  William Rosenbalm, Charles’ brother-in-law was also captured that fateful night and died as a POW as well.  If those men really were conscripted, then perhaps family relationships might not have been so difficult.  Regardless, having spent all of those months in a Union prison would have been life altering and would not make anyone fond of the Union.  Maybe it’s a good thing Charles and his wife didn’t live to see this misery and the very large wedge the Civil War probably drove between their children.

Other than the census, the only other piece of information we have about  Charles Speak is his mention in a deed in 1839 when Nicholas Speak transferred the land for Speaks Methodist Church to the trustees that included his son Charles.

To Tandy Welch, Trustee of Speaks Chapel Methodist Episcopal Church

This Indenture made this ____ day of ____ in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty nine Between Nicholas Speak of Lee County and State of Virginia of one part and Tandy Welch, William Morgan, Adam Yeary, Charles Speak and Nathan Hobbs, trustees in trust for the use and purpose herein after mentioned all of the County of Lee and State aforesaid (Morgan, Welch and Yeary of Claiborne County and State of Tennessee) Witnesseth that the said Nicholas Speak for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar in specie to him in hand paid the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged hath given granted bargained and sold and by these presents doth grant bargain and sell unto the said Tandy Welch, William Morgan, Adam Yeary, Charles Speak and Nathan Hobbs and their successors (trustees) a certain lot or parcel of land containing one acre and 9 poles lying and being in the county and State aforesaid and bounded as follows Beginning at a white oak on the west side of Glade branch S 150 W 13 poles crossing the branch to a white oak near rocks N700 E 13 poles to a double dogwood & white oak N 150 E 13 poles to a white oak thence a strait line to the Beginning to have and to hold the said tract of land with all appurtenances, and privileges thereunto belonging, or in any ways appertaining unto the said Tandy Welch, William Morgan, Adam Yeary, Charles Speak and Nathan Hobbs and their successors in office forever for the use of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States according to the rules and disciplin which from time to time may be agreed upon and adopted by the ministers and preachers of the said Church, at their general Conference in the United States. And in further trust and confidence that they shall at all times permit such ministers and preachers, belonging to said M. E. Church to preach and expound the word of God therein. And the said Nicholas Speak doth by these presents warrant and forever defend the before mentioned piece of land with the appurtenances thereto belong unto the before mentioned trustees and their successors in office forever against the claim of all persons whomsoever. In testimony whereof the said Nicholas Speak has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year aforesaid.

Nicholas Speak {Seal}

At a court of quarter sessions continued and held for Lee County at the courthouse thereof on the 19th day of June 1839 This Indenture of bargain and sale for land between Nicholas Speak of the one part, and Tandy Welch, William Morgan, Adam Yeary, Charles Speak and Nathan Hobbs of the other part, was acknowledged in open court and ordered to be recorded.

Teste F.W.S. Morison CC

The church, shown above, is not the original which was a log structure and burned in the late 1800s.  The current church was constructed about 1900 and still stands.

In the 1840 census, Charles is shown with 1 male age 30-40, wife age 30-40, 6 children; 2 males 10-15, 1 female 10-15, 2 females 5-10, 1 female under age 5.

The 1840 Lee County census is taken in house order and has not been alphabetized.  There are 6 Speak households living adjacent in Lee County so I’m suspecting that the entire Speak family all lived on Nicholas’ land adjacent the church.  James Bartley, married to Charles’ sister, Sarah Jane Speak, also lives next door.

Charles and his wife both died between 1840 and 1850 and are assuredly buried in the Speak family cemetery, across from Speak Methodist Church, even though they have no stone.  Their graves are among those unmarked or marked with field stones.  At the time, the family members knew where they were buried, as they stood beside the graves at the funeral, and that was all that mattered.  They weren’t thinking about great-great-great-grandchildren returning 170+ years later.

Charles and Ann were both between 40 and 50 years of age when they died, certainly not elderly.  They had no children after 1829, or at least none that we know of.  Ann would have been just under 30 in 1829, so perhaps she had health issues, or children were born and died.  Apparently whatever killed Charles and Ann wasn’t terribly contagious, because none of their children died, nor did Charles parents or siblings who obviously lived in close proximity.

Both of Charles parents, Nicholas and Sarah Faires Speak would have stood beside the grave as they buried Charles.  It was unusual in that time for both aged parents to be alive.  They would have stood over Ann McKee Speak’s grave too, as they buried her, probably without any of her family in attendance since Ann and Charles moved away from Washington County, Virginia, when they married.  Nicholas likely preached the sermon for both his son and daughter-in-law.  He was not a young man himself, between 58 and 68.  While Nicholas committed their bodies to the soil and their souls to God, Sarah assuredly gathered their 6 children to her and cried as she buried her son and daughter-in-law, her grandchildren’s father and mother, both within such a short period of time.

Neither Charles nor Ann are found in the 1850 census.  Charles’ daughter Rebecca is living with her grandparents Nicholas and Sarah Speak.  Charles’ daughter Charity is living with her sister, Sarah, who married Andrew Callahan.

Elizabeth Speak, age 18, Charles’ youngest daughter was married to Samuel Claxton earlier in 1850, by her grandfather, Nicholas Speaks, the Methodist minister, by then 68 years of age, at the home of Tandy Welch.  Tandy Welch had married Mary Polly Clarkson (Claxton), daughter of James Lee Clarkson and his wife Sarah Cook.  James and Sarah also had a son, Fairwick Clarkson, who married Agnes Muncy, and their son Samuel Claxton married Elizabeth Speak.  Tandy was one of the Speak Chapel church trustees noted in the 1839 church deed.

On the map below, the Claxton land where Elizabeth Speak and Samuel Claxton lived is represented by the red balloon, and Speak Chapel is at the top.  The walking directions and options are shown. Certainly a horse and wagon would have been quicker, but still, it’s not like the siblings lived next door.  Tandy Welch lived near the Claxton’s as well, so Speak Methodist Church was a long way to go for Sunday services.  He was obviously very committed.

Charles and Ann only had 2 sons, and those two sons only had 3 sons between them.  We weren’t able to obtain a Y DNA sample from Charles’ line, but this is when having a large family comes in quite handy.  When the Speak(e)(es) DNA project was founded in 2004, we were able to obtain a Y DNA sample from another of Nicholas’ sons, James Allen Speak’s descendant.

Many times in DNA testing, when you can’t find a suitable candidate in your own line, you need to go back up the tree and follow sons lines until you find someone with living direct male descendants who are willing to test.

In our case, the SFA, Speak Family Association was the key to finding other Speak descendants who are interested in genealogy and therefore, willing to test.  Since that time, we have another two Nicholas lines represented, through sons Joseph and Jesse, but still no Y DNA candidates for son Charles.  Three of Nicholas’s 7 sons are now represented in the Speak Y DNA project.

Autosomal, another type of DNA testing for genealogy, confirms that the cousins from the various lines are related, but still, I’d like to see Charles Y DNA results, because he’s my direct ancestor.

Maybe someday!

That’s the great thing about DNA testing, you never know who is going to test and match.  There is a new surprise just about every day.

I can’t tell you how happy I was to receive an e-mail this week from Dianne Harman-Hoog with the DNAadoption group announcing classes for how to work with autosomal DNA – not just from any specific vendor, but utilizing the various vendor’s products along with third party tools, like those from www.dnagedcom.com and www.gedmatch.com.

There’s even a class for Y DNA as well.

These classes are open to everyone, not just adoptees.  Adoptees face the worst possible challenge – trying to build a tree with no known relatives.  If you’re not an adoptee, your autosomal DNA situation is already improved.  If they can do it, so can you – and these classes will share the methods developed for adoptees to reconstruct their families.

Here is a list of classes and schedules.

Here is their announcement:

DNAadoption Has Reorganized And Is Proudly Presenting a Full Slate of Classes.

Registration is open now. We are working on developing a full series of classes to guide you through the whole process of using Genetic Genealogy to find your heritage. Classes were designed for adoptees but they are not just for adoptees anymore!

First Results Series

Developed by Stephanie Wyatt, Barbara Rae-Venter, Barbara Taylor and Diane Harman-Hoog

One day online classes – $5 each

This new series will be for people who just got their test results and will help them figure out the basics of what the results mean. It will be a series of 3 classes that can be taken independently.

• Ancestry First Results
• FTDNA First Results
• 23andme First Results

These classes are designed for the person new to DNA testing.  We receive many requests for help starting with “I just got my results and I am so confused”. The student will learn how to navigate the site get basic information on what the results mean and how to find out more. Anyone can benefit from these classes and get started in Genetic Genealogy before taking the more complete course. They are Autosomal DNA courses.

Depending on your interests and level of comfort you can then move into Beginning Autosomal DNA or the Working With Autosomal DNA course. The Y-DNA is also an option.

Working With Autosomal DNA

Written by Mesa Foard and Utilizing a Methodology Developed and Refined by Diane Harman-Hoog, Gaye Tannenbaum and Karin Corbeil

6 week online workshop -$35

Do you want to unlock the secrets in your family tree? Are you an adoptee, a genealogist who has hit a roadblock, or just curious about your roots.

This 6 week, online self-paced course starts with a basic introduction of DNA and then goes on to use FTDNA results to explain triangulation move toward  the identification of common ancestors. This method uses spreadsheets and the great tools from DNAGedcom.com as well as third party tools to organize and analyze your data.

23andme and AncestryDNA results are then introduced and discussed and results from all three companies combined and triangulated.

The course also shows how to take advantage of the thousands of surnames introduce by all three testing companies, gedcoms and trees, along with the Ancestors of Relatives list from Ancestry DNA Helper and in combination with Gworks on DNAGedcom, work through trees to find your heritage.

We show you how to work through your own data in this course.  Over 550 people have taken the workshop.

Y-DNA

Written and taught by Gale French this class has received rave reviews from Students

2 week on line class – $25

The Y-DNA test offers males a clear path from you to a known or likely direct paternal ancestor(s). The course will also show how women can use the test by recruiting a father, brother, cousin or uncle to do the test. Gale teaches how to interpret your Y-DNA data and explores how to use that data to search for ancestors through innovative methods.

Our Classes

• Working with Autosomal DNA Results - This class is $35 and has been updated to include recent changes at the three major Autosomal DNA testing companies. It is a 6 week course and teachers are available for Q&A along the way.
• Y-DNA Basics - This class is $25. We are in the process of updating this class and will open additional class dates soon.
• First Results – Classes will focus on each company and give a basic introduction to results (AncestryDNA, FTDNA & 23andMe). Each class focuses a different company and they are $5 each.
• Autosomal DNA for Beginners – This is an introductory course to Autosomal DNA for $25 with 3 lessons/weeks. Students will not work as much in excel but can be used as a prep course for our Working with Autosomal DNA Results class. This class is still in the development stage but we want you to know it is coming soon!

Our Schedule

Working with Autosomal DNA

• Session 16           3/13
• Session 18           4/10
• Session 19           4/24
• Session 20           5/8
• Session 21           5/22

First Results

• First Results: Intro to 23andMe         3/14
• First Results: Intro to AncestryDNA   3/21
• First Results: Intro to FTDNA            3/28

Our Enrollment Process

We are excited about our new Self Registration Process. All students have the ability to self register on the updated site. Payment for classes is accepted during the enrollment process. As always, we have a hardship policy. We want all students to be able to better understand their results. If you cannot afford our classes but need to learn more, please contact us at

We hope that through this new self-registration process, our few teachers will have more time for additional classes and less administrative work. Please let us know if you have any issues.

The log in process has tested well with more than a dozen users. If you have already taken a class through DNAAdoption and Moodle, you will use the same username/password. If you have not taken a class previously, you will need to create a profile. You will be prompted for payment through paypal or for a Hardship “Key” after choosing your preferred class.

This link will take you to registration.

Update from Diane:

All of our classes are online classes.  A class is made available to you on the start date, for Autosomal Classes that is on a Friday, so those who work can start them on the weekend. There is a Step by Step Lesson and supplementary material, like links to Roberta’s blog or documents that we have written or others have written for us, charts and graphics. Then every Friday for 6 weeks, a new class is made available. Each Course has a forum where you can have discussions with other students and ask questions of instructors. We have a leader (teacher, instructor) for each class and a team of people who are very experienced in doing this, they all answer questions when needed.

The Y-DNA class is similar but for 3 weeks. 

The classes we call first results are a one day one time shot with step by step instructions and the chance to ask questions of an assistant or instructor.

In all of our classes we stress step by step instructions with lots of screen clips.

All of our instructors, document writers and assistants are volunteers. Proceeds for classes go for computer costs, tool development and as gifts to deserving groups working in the area of DNA. We are moving several of our assistants to instructor positions to provide for more classes.

I hope that answers the questions. You can address any to moodle@dnaadoption.com

Lazarus.

I’ve always loved that name.  It’s just so interesting and different – and thankfully, not another John or William.  I have so many of those names that I can’t keep them straight.  But Lazarus is much more unique and he turned out to be a very unique individual as well, as I came to know him through various tidbits of his life.

Lazarus holds a special place in my heart.  Lazarus was my first official “find” in genealogy, you see.  Well, his marriage record anyway.

One evening, many, MANY years ago, I took advantage of a free seminar the Mormon Church was offering on searching for your ancestors.  They said to bring what records you did have, so I gathered up my family group sheets, all half a dozen of them, and off I went.  I was a bit nervous, as I knew nothing about the Mormons, except they “did genealogy,” and I was, you know, raised Baptist.

Was lightning going to strike me as I stepped into the Mormon church???  And if so, was the bolt from the Mormons or the Baptists, or both?  Or worse yet, was someone going to try to convert or recruit me??

I decided to risk it.  I later learned that my concerns were entirely unfounded.

After their little talk, they had several volunteers available to help.  One very nice lady sat down with me and looked at what I had brought along, and then suggested that we look on the “reader” for “something.”  Ok.

She did, and said, “hey, look at this.”  Now, genealogists among us know those as the Fatal Words of Addiction.

And this is what we saw…..

Oh my gosh – it was THEM – reaching out from more than 100 years ago and touching me…my heart just stopped.

Sure enough, she had found an index entry for the marriage record of Lazarus Estes and Elizabeth Vannoy, in Claiborne County, Tennessee.  And yes, I was hooked, hopelessly hooked.  We ordered the film, and then another film, and another film….and the rest, as they say, is history.  I developed tendonitis in my right arm associated with cranking microfilm machines.  All “old” genealogists are now laughing…and remembering.

Lazarus Estes was born in May 1848 in Claiborne County, TN, to John Y. Estes and Rutha Dodson.  They lived in a place known as Estes Holler, right off of Little Sycamore Road, just past Pleasant View Church (below), where they probably attended, then past a couple of cemeteries, and across Little Sycamore Creek which they would have forded at the time, because there was no bridge then.

Lazarus was born where two generations of Estes’s had lived before him and several would live after.  Estes families still live in Estes Holler today, and it’s still called Estes Holler – right across the ridge from Vannoy Holler.

Some years later, I went to visit and meet Uncle George, Lazarus’s grandson, in person.  I wanted to see Estes Holler for myself and visit Lazarus’s grave.  Uncle George and his wife, Edith, who is also my cousin on two different lines, were the most gracious hosts.

George took me in his truck “up the mountain.”  Here we are, in the back of George’s truck, in the livestock pen.  The livestock pen?   If I said, “don’t ask,”  would that do?  Let’s just say trucks are sometimes a bit rough there.

Uncle George, who is really my cousin, but “honored” as an uncle, remembered when Lazarus was buried, standing by his grave as a child during the funeral.  George would take me to visit the same cemetery, to stand by the same grave, some 70 years later.

When I got to Claiborne County, Uncle George had a little surprise for me.

This is a picture of Lazarus Estes and Elizabeth Vannoy Estes, my great-grandparents.

I remember being utterly mesmerized by this picture – staring into the eyes of my ancestor.  It’s hard to see Elizabeth’s eyes, but Lazarus is looking right at me, across the years, almost 100 years after his death – piercingly.

In the family history center, before I went to Claiborne County, I eventually found Lazarus on a census roll.  I ordered the roll and then waited for 2 weeks for it to arrive.  Today, we just sign on to Ancestry.com and look.

John Y. Estes and Rutha Dodson hadn’t been married long, and Lazarus was their first child, named for Rutha’s father, Lazarus Dodson.  Lazarus is shown here as 2 years old, born in 1848, and I’m inclined to think this this is more correct than the 1900 census which shows that he was born in 1845.  By 1900, when Lazarus is more than 50, age can be misremembered or approximated, but pretty much everyone is going to know if their only child is 2 or not.  Furthermore, this census was taken in September, and if his birthday was in May, he would have just turned 2.  His mother was likely pregnant with her next child.  As icing on the cake, cousin Debbie found a Bible that we think belonged to his daughter after a death in the family a few years ago, and Lazarus’s birth year is given as 1848, so 1848 it is!!!

By 1860, Lazarus has 4 siblings and was 12 years old.

After that, life in Claiborne County got complicated – and downright ugly.  The Civil War erupted in January 1861 when 7 southern states seceded from the Union.  Claiborne County found itself in the middle of the conflict.  The first shots were fired in April, and although Tennessee wasn’t one of the first states to secede, they did after April, 1861, aligning themselves with the South, along with their neighbor state, Virginia. However, Kentucky, their other neighbor to the north permitted slavery but did not secede.  This created a dividing line between the states which just happened to be at the Cumberland Gap, not far from Estes Holler.

Cumberland Gap was just a few miles up the Old Kentucky Road and the Gap was a critical and strategic location to control the entrance to the north from the south and vice versa. In 1863, slaves were freed via the Emancipation Proclamation, but the war didn’t end until 1865.  No one in Estes Holler owned slaves.

The war was brutal on both sides, and fighting took place in and around Estes Holler.  People in that region were still digging cannon balls out of their land in the 1980s.

One of the houses in Estes Holler, still standing, was used as a Union hospital.  The locals know which house and where the bodies are buried too.  The area looks a lot more cheerful today!

The soldiers scavenged the countryside for food, constantly, since the thousands of men stationed at Cumberland Gap, whether from the Union or Confederacy, depending on who was holding the Gap at the time, never had enough food.

Lazarus would have been 13 when the war broke out.  He would have been 17 when it ended.  Those four years were living hell for the Estes family, their land constantly embattled and the sounds of cannon and gunfire echoing in the holler a regular occurrence.

Lazarus’s father, John Y. Estes fought for the south, as did neighbors, Sterling and John Nunn.  I was dumbstruck when I discovered this fact, especially since no one in Estes Holler owned slaves.  John Y Estes was eventually captured and served time in a northern prison camp, being paroled at the end of the war.

Did the family know John had been captured?  Did they think he was dead?  How were they notified, if they were notified?  Sometimes, POW camps, on both sides were a fate worse than death, often followed by death.

The family, back in Claiborne County, had all they could do not to starve to death – and Lazarus, as the oldest male child, a teenager, was likely in charge.

The soldiers took the family’s one cow.  The baby of the family needed milk to drink.  Lazarus’s younger sister, Elizabeth, then 12 or 13, had been taking care of the cow as one of her chores, and she decided that she was simply going to go and get the cow.  As soon as it got dark, she slipped through the woods to where she knew the soldiers were camped.  The cow knew her voice and scent, and as soon as she found the cow, she simply slipped the bell off the cow and led the cow home, under cover of darkness.  She was the family hero and the family told that story in Tennessee and where Elizabeth eventually lived in Texas –  for the next 150 years.  Her descendants told me that story when I visited Texas in 2005!  It’s a family legend.  Another version of the story says it was the family horse that she recovered, and a third story says she did both!  In one version when she retook the horse, she snuck through enemy lines.

Her grandchildren tell of how Elizabeth, in the photo below, would regale them for hours with stories of life in a remote place called Tennessee during the Civil War when Rebel soldiers would come into their house and take everything.  She told about how the family hid, afraid they would be harmed.  She shared stories about the hardships on the trail in the covered wagon as they came to Texas and about the wagon rush when they opened up Indian Territory to homesteaders.  Maybe land is why all of Lazarus’s siblings wound up living in Texas.  In the end, only Lazarus remained in Tennessee.

This is Lazarus’s sister Elizabeth Estes who married George Vannoy, the brother of Elizabeth Vannoy that Lazarus married, celebrating her 95^th birthday in Nocona, Texas.  I think she looks a lot like her brother, Lazarus.

Lazarus is lucky that he was not captured and conscripted, on either side, during the Civil War.  Rutha probably depended heavily on Lazarus, as her next oldest boy wasn’t born until 1855.

John Y. Estes was finally discharged and released as a POW on March 20, 1865.  He probably walked home, begging food along the way, like so many other bedraggled soldiers, probably fearful of what he would find at home when he arrived.  Would there even be a home left?  Was his family alive?  All of them?  Part of them? Which part?

Shortly after arriving home, on October 9, 1865, John Y. Estes stated that he was moving and gave six head of sheep, one horse, fourteen head of hogs, one cow and calf, two yearlings, the corn crop, all the fodder, and all the household and kitchen furniture to his son Lazarus.  But John didn’t move.  Lazarus would only have been 17 or 18 at that time.  What precipitated this unusual transaction to an underage, unmarried boy with no household of his own?

Lazarus Estes married Elizabeth Vannoy sixteen months later, on February 6, 1867.

The 1870 census shows us a nuclear family, the way families worked in Tennessee.  Newlyweds just built a cabin by their parents.  In this case, Lazarus and Elizabeth lived beside both his and her parents.

Now, the census can be deceptive, because the Esteses and Vannoys actually lived across the holler from each other, but that tells us that there was only one unoccupied house between them so the holler didn’t have as many people living there that it does today.

Still, they lived very close.

Lazarus lived on this V where Nunn Road and Vannoy Road leaves Estes Road.

You can see where a house used to be and a little cemetery – but that is NOT where Lazarus is buried. It is where some of his adult children are buried….and no, I do not know why.

In this picture, taken from across the road, you can see the location of the cemetery on Lazarus land, just about dead center, with a man inside and a truck to the right behind a big cedar tree.  Lazarus’s house sat to the left of the cemetery probably just inside or just outside of the picture.

There is an untold story involving the cemeteries in Estes Holler that I suspect involves a family feud of some sort.  In part, I think this because even in the 1970s, the two families living on opposite sides of the only road in Estes Holler would claim they “weren’t kin” to each other, when they clearly were.  They did not WANT to be kin to each other….so they weren’t…end of subject.  Although both families were very nice to me.  Feuds in Appalachia outlive the fueders and the descendants don’t even know WHY they are feuding, just that they are.

The “Upper Estes Cemetery” which is likely on the original John R. Estes land, eventually owned by son Jechonias, was not used by Lazarus who descended from Jechonias’s brother, John Y. Estes.  Furthermore, while Lazarus had a cemetery on his own land that included a grave for the unknown school teacher that Lazarus buried, he himself was buried in Pleasant View, then known as the Venable Cemetery, as was his wife and mother and his children that died in his lifetime.  Pleasant View is the cemetery at the end of Estes Holler, past the Cook cemetery, beside Pleasant View Church, although Lazarus was never reported to be terribly religious.  To me, being buried away from Estes land almost sounds like a protest of some sort.  I’m clearly missing some piece of the puzzle and I doubt anyone living has that piece.

We know there was some kind of problem and although the chancery court records tell us tantalizingly little – they do tell us something.

In 1888, George Estes, son of John Y. Estes, filed suit against his uncle Jechonias Estes regarding the boundaries of some land that Jechonias had sold to George in 1887.  Lazarus was the security for George, his brother, so his allegiance is clear.  From the May 1893 chancery docket, we know that Jechonias cross-filed and the court found that no one was entitled to anything from anyone, except the lawyers who put a lien on the property for payment of their fees. Jechonias had died in 1888, is buried in the Upper Estes Cemetery, and George Buchanan Estes along with his younger brother, John Reagan Estes, subsequently left for Texas where their father, John Y. Estes, was already settled.  However, at least three of George Buchanan Estes’s children are buried in the Upper Estes Cemetery.

This is actually the land behind Lazarus’s house, or where his house stood, but the ridge between Estes Holler and Vannoy Holler looked much the same.  I think that John Y. Estes lived in that clearing on the hillside.  The old Upper Estes Cemetery would be to the right about 3 or 4 photo-lengths, also on the hillside.  Of course, in Estes Holler, everything is on a hillside.  You can see the Upper Estes Cemetery, below in the clearing.

Uncle George took me up the mountainside in his truck so that I could see the holler.  It’s a beautiful place, often bathed in the blue/grey mists that give the Smokey Mountains their name.

There is a steep wagon path, or put in modern terms, a 2 track Jeep path, over the ridge between the hollers at the end because it’s a mile or two to the front where you can go around – and then of course a mile or two back on the other side.

The people who live there know every nook and cranny well – but to outsiders, it’s a confusing labyrinth of intertwined mountains, paths and valleys and very, VERY easy to become disoriented and lost.

This is the land where Lazarus was born, lived his entire life, and died.  He probably never went further than Knoxville, about 50 miles away.

This photo is labeled as Lazarus, but I’m not entirely convinced – although the woman does look something like Elizabeth.

In this photo, Lazarus and Elizabeth look to be maybe 35 or 40, so this would have been taken in about the 1880s.  Lazarus, if this is him, has full facial hair, so he doesn’t even look like himself, compared to the other photos.  Furthermore, it looks like a caterpillar is crawling up one side of his nose.  I have my doubts if this is Lazarus, and I actually think it may be a photo of his father, John Y. Estes.

Update: Two subscribers offered expertise, for which I’m very grateful.

Therese overlayed the photo of the middle-aged couple onto the photo of Lazarus and Elizabeth as seniors in Photoshop and says:  “I’m sure they’re the same couple, you can take it to the bank. ;) Even accounting for the different head angles and posture, their features lined up really well. Lazarus still had the same light-colored, slightly downturned eyes, straight brows, and the same mole or scar on the left cheek, which had grown some by his later years (Along with his ear lobes!! Too bad the ears and nose never stop growing.) The “caterpillar” appears to be some discoloration of the photo itself. The wrinkle between his brows also lines up well, although it became more pronounced with age. His shoulders appear to have atrophied some, which is to be expected. The hairlines and marionette lines for both Lazarus and Elizabeth in the two photos are also perfect matches. He even kept the same part in his hair. Elizabeth’s deep set eyes, thin lips, and square chin were little changed through the years.”

Jan says, “The sleeve of her black-striped jacket did not come into fashion until 1890. The pouf at the upper arm area grew to outrageous proportions over the next 7-8 years. With that in mind, I believe the photograph was likely take in 1890-93. It was certainly taken after 1890, making Lazarus at least 51-52.

By 1880 things had changed a bit in Estes Holler, to put it mildly.

I don’t think things were ever “right” after the Civil War.  John Y. probably witnessed the unspeakable and many men in this area fought for the Union, so he may not have been well accepted back in Estes Holler.  That deed he signed just a few months after his release tells us that something was amiss.  Perhaps his wife told him that his son, Lazarus, had taken care of all of the “man things” on the farm for the past several years while John Y. was gone.  We’ll never know.

On June 20, 1879, John Y. Estes signed papers granting James Bolton and William Parks permission to make a road across his land in order to enable Bolton and Parks to have access to their own lands. That same day, Lazarus and Elizabeth sold the men acreage and obviously, John’s land stood between that acreage and the road.  As long as the land was within family, access to the road didn’t matter, but now being sold, it did.

In the 1880 census, a year later, Ruthy is shown in Claiborne Co. with children Nancy, Rutha and John Reagan Estes, as divorced. Back then, no one ever got divorced – it was rare as chicken’s teeth.  Not to mention, this couple was 60 years old.  They had already tolerated each other most of their adult lives.  What precipitated a divorce?

John Y. Estes is shown in Montague Co., Texas, living with the S. C. Clark family as a lodger.

The Texas Estes family tells the story that John Y. Estes walked to Texas, twice – implying of course that he walked back to Tennessee once.

John Y’s last child was born in 1871, so I’m wondering if he didn’t go to Texas and return home, sign that deed, and go back to Texas by the 1880 census.  To the best of my knowledge, he never returned to Claiborne County.

And once again, Lazarus was left to take care of things.  His mother had children from the ages of 9 to 22 at home and the only son was the youngest, John.  Someone had to plow and farm and put food on the table.

The 1880 census showed Lazarus and Elizabeth with 4 living children and his occupation was a huckster.

Now that’s a very interesting occupation.  I asked cousin George about it, and he knew exactly what that meant.

Lazarus became an entrepreneur, of sorts, although not the same kind of “entrepreneur” his son, William George Estes would become.  Lazarus had a wagon and once a month he would hitch up his oxen and go to Knoxville.  It took him two days to get there and then he would sell whatever people from Little Sycamore in Claiborne had to sell or trade.  Then, he would load the wagon up with supplies and come back home.

We don’t know that this was Lazarus’s wagon, but it was in the Estes pictures and although we don’t know who is sitting in the wagon, we do know that the ox’s name is Jim Bow.

In the field just across Little Sycamore creek, at the end of Estes Holler, Lazarus would park his wagon and everyone could come and visit to pick up their order or just to see what he had.  I guess he was a peddler of sorts.

Today, this homemade bridge is the entrance into Estes Holler, crossing Little Sycamore Creek.  There was no bridge then.

You can see, across the bridge and to the left that there is an open field.  Lazarus would pull the wagon into that field and set up shop, so to speak, according to Uncle George.

You know that word traveled like wildfire up and down the holler that Lazarus was back, and everyone wanted to see what he had brought, what was available, how much their goods sold for….and maybe more importantly, the news….what was the news.

I can see his wagon parked here, can’t you?  Is that his old wagon wheel?

However, this family had another little problem that no one probably discussed – at least not out loud.

Imagine my surprise to find this in the court records:

On Oct. 4, 1886, Lazarus Estes was granted $26 by the court for “conveying Joel Vannoy to the hospital for the insane.”  Joel Vannoy was Lazarus’s father-in-law.

That hospital was opened in Knoxville in May of that year.  You know, right about now, I’m tempted to say something like, “Well, that explains a lot.”  However, that’s probably inappropriate, because this really is very sad for everyone in the holler.  Lazarus was the one to take care of things, probably the same way he did for his mother during the Civil War.  Lazarus always seemed to be the one to “take care of things.”

So, in addition to his own mother, Lazarus now was taking care of his mother-in-law as well who had older children and grandchildren living with her.

Lazarus was one busy man.

In this photo, Lazarus looks to be about age 40-50, which would have been about 1890.  I cannot imagine wearing those long dresses in the Tennessee summer heat, but they did.

The 1890 census is missing, of course, so we don’t see Lazarus again until 1900.

In 1900, Lazarus and Elizabeth are living in-between Lazarus’s mother Ruthy and his son, William George Estes who married Ollie Bolton in 1894.

William George has been out of work for 6 months.  I’m guessing Lazarus is once again, “taking care of things.”

Uncle George and the Texas family both tell us that Lazarus’s mother, Ruthy was bedfast for years, 22 years to be exact, with arthritis.  That means she would have been afflicted from about 1881, or about the time John Y. left for Texas.  Uncle George told me that Lazarus and some other family members had to go “up the mountain” and carry Ruthy “down the mountain” on a litter.  Lazarus and Elizabeth took care of her from that time forward.

The 1900 census also tells us that Rutha had 8 children and 6 were living.  Two of Ruthy’s adult daughters had died 2 days apart in 1888.  The family story says that there was smallpox in the holler and no one would bury the bodies, except Lazarus, so he buried all that died, alone.

Lazarus was no stranger to the cemetery.  The census tells us that he and Elizabeth had 10 children and 5 were living.  That wasn’t quite right.  They had 11 children, but one birth was twins who both either died the same day or were stillborn.

Lazarus and Elizabeth visited the cemetery far too often to bury children; in 1872 to bury twins, in 1873 to bury three year old Ruthy, in 1884 to bury 17 year old Phoebe, and in 1875 to bury 9 year old Thaddeus.  Of course, they buried Lazarus’s sisters 2 days apart in 1888 and his uncle as well.  Lazarus’s grandfather John R. Estes died in 1885, nearly 100 years old.  It’s hard to grieve that passing – more like a celebration of an amazingly long life.

So, you see, there was one more thing that Lazarus did, that he took care of for the family.  He hand carved gravestones.

This one was for twins, Elihu and David.

And this one for his namesake.

These stones were for his brother, George Buchanan Estes’s children, buried in the Upper Estes Cemetery, where the land dispute would split the family in the 1880s and 1890s.  Maybe it was because the children were buried here that there was such a connection to this land.  George Buchanan Estes’s father in law, Rev. David King is also buried in this cemetery.  The Upper Estes Cemetery was located on Jechonias’ land, the original Estes land in Estes Holler.  This is probably where John R. Estes and his wife, the original Estes settlers in Claiborne County, are buried as well.

Lazarus and Elizabeth would bury yet one more child, Martha, in 1911, in Pleasant View cemetery before their four remaining children would bury them.

In 1902, William Norris, who had married Lazarus’s daughter Martha a couple of years earlier bought land from Lazarus.  I wonder if William and Martha Norris bought Rutha Estes’s old house.

In 1903, the family would bury Lazarus’s mother, Rutha, in Pleasant View Cemetery (then called Venable Cemetery), beside the church where Lazarus and Elizabeth would be buried next to her just a few years later.

Lazarus hand carved her stone too.  The photo below shows the area where Rutha, Lazarus and Elizabeth all rest together.

The last census where Lazarus was enumerated was in 1910.  He is still farming.  His two youngest sons are living with him and his sister Rutha, age 50 is also living in the household, probably since his mother, Rutha’s, death. The census tells us Lazarus and Elizabeth have been married 45 years.  They’ve surely seen a lot together, especially given that they also knew each other as children.

They live one house from William Norris and Martha Estes, their daughter, who would die the following year, probably in childbirth.

In about 1915, there was a “small family issue” with William George Estes, Lazarus’s son.  William George and Ollie Bolton Estes, his wife, had left Estes Holler sometime after the 1910 census to live in Fowler, Indiana.  It seems that Ollie’s cousin, 20 years her junior, visited in Indiana, and Ollie came home and found William George “in the act” with her cousin.  As you might imagine, all hell broke loose, and they could probably hear the ensuing ruckus all the way to Estes Holler in Tennessee.  Ollie reportedly horsewhipped William George, nearly killing him.

Ollie was reportedly pregnant at that time, and the situation caused her to go into labor and lose the baby, or twins, the stories vary.  Long story short, Ollie and William split.  Their two sons, William Sterling (my father) and Joseph “Dode” somehow got lost or abandoned in the shuffle and not knowing what else to do, wound up hopping a freight train, at about ages 10-13, and making their way back to their grandparents in Estes Holler – arriving hungry, dirty and full of tales about their parents.  Lazarus was furious.

Shortly thereafter, William George reportedly also showed up back in Estes Holler, not with Ollie, the wife he left with, but with her young cousin instead, whom he would eventually marry.  The family story tells us that Lazarus was having none of that behavior, and he threw William George, along with the young cousin, out of Estes Holler, “for doing Ollie wrong” and told him if he came back, he’s shoot him.  To my knowledge, William George Estes holds the distinct honor of being the only person ever thrown out of Estes Holler – and that’s saying something!

Part of this story I know to be true, but I can’t vouch for all of it.  I do know that William George Estes was not entirely disowned, meaning he did have some inheritance, and he went back to visit his sister, Cornie, in the 1940s and 1950s, long after his parents were gone.

Apparently Lazarus knew his time on earth was limited and did not want to leave the fate of his land and possessions to chance, or to an executor, especially given the extenuating circumstances, so he took care of things himself before he passed over.