Blog Some Genealogy

I would like to address the issue of the Thomas Jefferson DNA Study and give my first hand account regarding the misleading headline in the science journal Nature dated November 5, 1998. It has had a very negative impact on the legacy of Thomas Jefferson and has raised many concerns …” Herbert Barger, Jefferson Family Historian, concerning “The Jefferson-Hemings DNA Study.”

People have become so accustomed with the use of DNA to solve crimes and identify the missing and dead, that they have been misled to believe that DNA can find their surname ancestor. When DNA is used in criminal investigations, the DNA is from a current or recently living individual and the DNA matches do not lie.

Again, when DNA is used in Genetic Genealogy, it too comes from living people. The DNA used for Genetic Genealogy testing does not come from a deceased ancestor of 1776. Yet every day, so-called genealogists are jumping to conclusions on their and others’ lineages on the basis of Genetic Genealogy testing. However, many of the lineages claimed by DNA participants are seriously flawed. I have read a number of them and I know that from experience. I have even witnessed cases where the lineages were altered by the DNA Administrator after conflicting DNA testing results were received.

I have recently read on a message board of one person whose husband has impeccable documented lineage to the Phillips family of Virginia, yet his DNA claims he is a descendant of the Fitzhugh family. So what is the conclusion the genealogist jumps to? That Mr. Fitzhugh was having some hanky-pank with Mrs. Phillips whilst Captain Phillips was sailing Fitzhugh’s tobacco to England. Because the DNA of a man living today, does not match the DNA of another group of living men, genealogists consistently make these lame-brained conclusions, impugning the character of their own ancestors whose DNA is not available. There are many dozens of reasons why DNA does not match family lineages that have absolutely nothing to do with hanky-pank, such as adoptions, apprenticeships, step-children, etcetera. It could also have something to do with an occurrence in the lineage in 1875, and not back to 1700.

Apparently, even the DNA conclusions on the familial connections of Thomas Jefferson and his slave Sally Hemings was just as flawed, according to Herbert Barger who worked on the study. If I understand correctly, DNA from a descendant of Sally Hemings who claimed to have descended from a brother of Thomas Jefferson was used to match his DNA to a descendant of another child of Sally Hemings, and VOILA! That alone proved Thomas Jefferson to be the father of Sally Hemings’ child and possibly children. How scientific can this be, as Thomas Jefferson left no documented male descendants? He had NO sons, yet apparently male lineage DNA was used to prove him as the father of his slave’s children. Here is a most interesting and scholarly discussion of the misuse of DNA in the rush to prove Thomas Jefferson the father of the children of his slave, Sally Hemings. www.jeffersondna.com.

Mr. Arthur Staples has made some good analysis of VIA and STAPLES DNA that VIA family members may find interesting, therefore I am republishing comments that he posted to the VIA Message Board. See his first comment of the VIA-STAPLES Connection here: VIA - STAPLES Family DNA. See the VIA DNA website for the details: www.familytreedna.com/public/ViaSurnameProject/.

VIA PROJECT MATCHES (21 Aug 09):
1) VIA HAPLOGROUPS (Hg): Hg age is taken from the book “Deep Ancestry” (2006) by Dr. Spencer Wells, head of the NGS - Genographic Project. ISBN: 9780792262152 There are four Hg’s listed for the FTDNA - Via Project.

• a) Hg I12, b. about 20,000 yrs ago;
• b) Hg J2, offshoot of Hg J, b. about 15,000 yrs ago;
• c) Hg R1a1, b. about 10-15,000 yrs ago,
• d) Hg R1b1b2, descending from R1b, b. about 30,000 years ago.

All of these Hg’s are thousands of years old and considered Pre- History.

Genetic scientists state that it is impossible for any ancestor to belong to more than one major Hg (i.e.; I, J, R1a, R1b), thus if a participant’s pedigree shows any surname ancestor belonging to more than one haplogroup there is a problem.
Examples:

• a) John Via, 1710/1723-1785, is listed three times in Hg R1b1b2 (42087, 156939 & 157289 and twice in Hg J2 (50048 & 45239).
• b) Gideon Via Sr., William Via Sr., is listed by 46438 in Hg R1b12 and 58163 in Hg J2.

2) VIA & STAPLES MATCHES WITHIN VIA HAPLOGROUP R1b1b2: Three members match John Via Sr. 1759-1834, #109129, 12-markers; 43438, 37-Markers; #56051, 67-markers.

There are three more Hg R1b1b2 participants that are descended from John Via 1710/1723-1785, however a genetic distance of 4 in 25- markers from the above participants plus the one participant 37 markers giving a genetic distance of 15 means that these two Hg R1b1b2 groups, of three participants each, have not been genetically related for over 500 years.

This leaves participants 109129, 46438 & 56051 as a unique group not genetically related to any of the other current (20 Aug 09) participants within the Via DNA Project.

3) COMMENT:
Y-DNA is passed from father to son and is personal and unique to each one of us, however it is only one important tool that is used in determining ones Ancestral Family History.

To answer the question “Who are my surname ancestors?” - The next step starts with ourselves and is to prove our pedigree at each generation by locating documentation that proves the birth and parents of each generation. Primary information which can be considered as legal documentation held at court house archives usually needs only one such document to prove what is written. However secondary information such as census reports, family bible, etc., will need at least two documents to prove what is written, such as a combination of census report and family bible.

Regards, Art Staples, Jr.

Elaine Via Bouscher received the following e-mail from Arthur Staples which was published at the VIA-L Message Board . It references VIA DNA Kit#56051 that had results of 67 Markers with a Genetic Distance of 2 with a person on the STAPLES Surname Project.

STAPLES & VIA - VIRGINIA PLANTERS - GENETIC CONNECTION 12 August 2009; Information Added 15 Aug 09: Arthur B. Staples, Jr., GA, Staples Surname & DNA Project (SSDP) http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~staplessurname

Y-DNA MATCHES: Tested participants Haplogroup and Haplotype or genetic signature are defined by the DNA testing company. Y-DNA matches can be easily analyzed by creating a Haplogroup Founder Modal, based on the Haplogroup of the tested participants, which will identify Genetic Family Tree and Family Branch Mutations that are changes from the Haplogroup Founder Modal in tested participants Haplotypes. This process is extremely valuable when analyzing small group’s of participants.

To discover if there is a Genetic Family Tree match it is important that the Genetic Family Tree Mutations match. However, based on past SSDP studies, it is possible that one out of several may have a one-step mutation but no two-step mutations.

Y-DNA results showing a match within a Genetic Family Tree are Biological and therefore cannot tell us who the common ancestor is that the tested participants match. Only pedigrees with family relationships proven at each generation by primary & secondary genealogical recorded information can tell us who, when and where the match took place.

Matches with other surnames may indicate a Genetic Family Tree relationship prior to the surname era of recording births and marriages for common people in England (1538) and thus if one participant has a pedigree back far enough in time it will help identify the ancestral home.

**CHARTS OMITTED as the formatting did not come through in the email.

GENETIC CONCLUSION: The study shows a very close genetic relationship between FTDNA #’s 44268 & 56051 with only two one-step mutations in 67 Markers. In addition the other two VIA participants lend support, one at Y12 and the other at Y37.

Genetic Family Tree mutations strengthen the proof of a relationship between participants 44268 & 56051 with four mutations at about 10%; one at about 5%; and three at about 3% of the 3,000 plus R-M269 Haplotype population study by Clinton Platt, 06 May 2009.

We do not know when this relationship took place. It could have been in England before the 1538 surname era, or in Virginia. Only genealogical records can give us this information.

GENEALOGICAL RECORDS: Participant 44268 descends from William STAPLES (c1675-c1755) of Hanover County, Virginia. William had 4 son’s John, David, Samuel and Issac. This family’s history is given by Gretchen Elizabeth (Staples) Kroll in her book William Staples (circa 1675 -circa 1755 of Hanover County, Virginia, Volume 1 & 2 (2005).

On the VIA DNA Project website in their R1b1 Haplogroup it is noted that participant 56051 is a descendant of John VIA Sr., 1759-1834. The other two VIA participants descend from Sparrel Jackson VIA 1828-1883. The lineage is shown as John Via, Sr. John Jefferson Via George Washington Via Sparrel Jackson Via. Three other VIA’s listed in their R1b1 Haplogroup descend from a John VIA, 1710/1723-1785, however their Y-DNA results show two of them to be from another VIA genetic family and have no genetic relationship to the STAPLES participant.

Via Deed Abstract, Albemarle Co. VA, 15 Feb 1755 John VIA land survey Virginia Surveyor’s Plat Book 1, Part 1, Virginia Archives Microfilm #393, 1744-1755, p 333, 125 acre Survey by John Staples Surv. In Gretchen Kroll’s book, 1:16, John Staples, d 22 Oct 1766 in Buckingham Co., VA, son of William (c1675-c1755) is listed as an assistant surveyor in 1754 in Albemarle Co, VA., working under Peter Jefferson, head surveyor. On page 1:15, although John never married he had two children by his mistress, Elizabeth Whitaker. James Whitaker, b 1763; used his mothers surname; Jane Staples, born before 1766; died by 1834. In Buckingham Co., VA, 1787 Tax list has both William Staples and John Via listed.

In Patrick Co., VA, 15 May 1816, Bond of Richard Via to marry Franky Via, dau of William Via as witnessed and recorded by Samuel Staples.

This preliminary genealogical information is given to show that STAPLES & VIA families in Virginia lived in the same area during the 1700 & 1800’s. The participants involved will want to do more thorough research. Did the families know each other in England?

page 4/5 The following is from Gretchen Elizabeth (Staples) Kroll, 15 August 2009: The Via family is familiar to me in Buckingham County and other counties. They lived in the area of “Plain Dealing,” also, where Thomas Staples built the first (log) part of that home. And, coincidentally, I have worked with a Via widow from that area!

The connection of Via to Staples is very interesting. The Via family members were present, also, in Hanover County, where William and his four sons lived before the sons moved on. Next time I am in Richmond, I will enjoy taking a look at the survey [1] John Staples did for Via. I probably saw it long ago but had no other reason to connect Staples to Via, and John Staples, of course, did so many surveys since he was assistant surveyor in Albemarle from 1754 through 1758 — and then [a full] surveyor in Albemarle from 1759 until 1761 — and then was surveyor for Buckingham County from 1761 until his death. (When he was a surveyor in Albemarle, that county also included the areas that became Amherst and Buckingham in 1761.)

The Samuel Staples you mentioned, of Patrick County, who witnessed and recorded the Via marriage bond, was the Clerk of the Court. He was a son of Samuel and Molly (Chambers) Staples — this latter Samuel being a brother of John2 (The Surveyor).

The William Staples who was on the tax list you mentioned (1787) in Buckingham was a son of David (who was one of the four brothers, sons of Wm. of Hanover). This William (s/o David) had a first wife whose name is unknown to us (my book 1:56). He had one or two children before marrying Martha Tompkins in 1786 in Albemarle. But could that possibly have been a way for a Via connection? But, then, I am sure there are MANY ways it could have happened, because we don’t know everything about the mothers’ and grandmothers’ lines.

[1] John Staples Survey for John Via: Information copied 16 Aug 09 from Early Via Family - http://www.geocities.com/pre1800vias/ - Early Via Name Index John Via [This is the John Via that according to earlier researchers was born about 1710 and who married Mary Powhatan, although no such record has been found] 15 Feb 1755 Survey of 125 acres of land on Appomattox River, Buckingham or Albemarle Co. VA.

Don’t fall for the “scientific” label. It is not as accurate as you might think.
Lineage societies, such as The Jamestowne Society, are rejecting applicants citing DNA discrepancies with other lines. When an ancestor has more than one DNA line of descent, who is to judge which is the correct line? A lineage society? Remember, the DNA of the ancestor from 1608, is not being tested; the DNA being tested is from a person living today who claims descent from that ancestor.

Blind faith in Genetic Genealogy is no better than blind faith in the genealogy gedcoms that Internet genealogists download from Ancestry.com. Beware. I know from experience that administrators of individual family DNA projects, often manipulate the lineages they follow, rather than accept DNA results that differ from their expectations.

Genetic Genealogy became popular when science discovered that a man’s paternal lineage can be traced using the DNA on his Y chromosome (I-DNA). For those of European descent this is almost as though a man’s DNA came attached to his surname, which was passed on for generations from father to son. Theoretically, DNA profiling provides a genetic path that can track the surname through the generations. Because this applies only to males, women have been asking their male family members to be tested for them.

However, if DNA testing were truly a “scientific” Godsend for genealogists, would not the various laboratories performing this expensive testing come forth with the same DNA results? One cannot make data comparison between the various labs of the Genetic Genealogy industry, which casts serious doubts upon their reporting of “so-called” genetic matches. Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recently published a paper recommending standards for genealogy testing labs to help improve their accuracy and reliability.

Genetic genealogy works by studying the sequences of repeating nucleotide (the base components of DNA) patterns on the Y chromosome known as short tandem repeats (STRs). Each STR is considered a separate marker for potential genetic matching because the number of times it is repeated will be the same for related males. For example, a person may have one STR sequence that repeats 12 times, another 11 times, a third 17 times and so on. If another male has a Y chromosome with a high percentage of the same STRs, it is considered likely that they share a common ancestor. Accurately counting the number of repeats is a tricky task and the source of much of the error in genetic genealogy tests, causing genealogists to make incorrect matches or miss family connections altogether.

In their paper, the NIST researchers explain the basis for the differing interpretations and recommend a solution using the agency’s certified reference material for human Y-chromosome DNA profiling (Standard Reference Material 2395), a collection of Y-STR markers that can serve as a means for genetic labs to calibrate their testing equipment. The researchers “strongly encourage [SRM 2395’s] use to enable compatible and calibrated measurements to be made between different Y-STR testing laboratories.” (NIST Guides Genetic Testing)

Until there is some sort of industry-wide standard for both buyers and sellers of these genetic genealogy services, they should be considered as just another tool in genealogical research and not the Holy Grail. For a lineage society or genealogist to proclaim that a descendancy of fourteen generations spanning 400 years is false because the DNA of some living persons does not match the DNA of other living persons is not logical nor scientific. Now that DNA testing for discovering the breed of one’s pet is becoming popular, at double the price of human testing, perhaps more science will be demanded. After all, there are stories of owners of expensive pedigreed animals learning through DNA testing, that their pet is not as pure-bred as they had paid for, if you believe the “scientific” DNA testing lab.

Journal of Genetic Genealogy

Geneticists can track the paths of ancient migrations by studying the markers in Y chromosomes of men from different parts of the world.

Scientists trace the path of human migrations by using bones, artifacts and DNA. Ancient objects, however, are hard to find.
DNA from contemporary humans can be compared to determine how long an indigenous population has lived in a region.
The latest studies survey swathes of entire genomes and produce maps of human movements across much of the world. They also describe how people’s genes have adapted to changes in diet, climate and disease. (Scientific American, July 2008)

The image, Route Map, was originally uploaded by Doremon360. It is posted here from Barneykin’s account.

Visit Neddy’s Archives for more of Edna’s writings.

Richard M. Payton of Denver, Colorado has information about a PAYTON/PEYTON Surname Y-chromosome DNA Project at Family Tree DNA. Currently there are six participants, with two having received their test results.

The PAYTON/PEYTON Y-DNA Project is open to any male surnamed PEYTON or PAYTON descending from a PEYTON or PAYTON male. Women may find results by having a closely related male kinsman submit DNA for testing. Other spelling variants can be added; there is already one PAXTON participating. The variants Paton and Patton have their own project, however: see PATON Surname Project and PATTON DNA Project.

Aside from allowing Payton and Peyton families to compare their Y-DNA patterns and confirm documented relationships, there are other specific goals of the current participants, including:

• Confirming that a relationship exists between individuals descended from the Philip Payton who was indentured in England for four years and transported to Virginia from Bristol on 30 August 1665. (Editor’s Note: I have explained in my book, “Peytons Along the Aquia,” my doubts that this Philip PEYTON of Bisley Parish, Gloucester, England is the same Philip PEYTON who was found in Virginia Colony.)
• Investigate whether descendents of this Philip Payton share a Payton/Peyton ancestor with descendents of Henry Peyton of Lincoln’s Inn (1590-1656) by comparing the y-DNA of descendants from each line.
• Compare the y-DNA of the two lines above with that of descendants of Sir Edward Peyton (1578-1657), the 2nd Baronet of Isleham, to determine if the three lines of Virginia Peyton and Payton 17th century immigrants are connected.

Descendants of any other PAYTON or PEYTON immigrant to America, Canada or Australia, as well as lines that never left Great Britain are welcome. The 37 marker test is the current recommendation for many ongoing large surname projects.

This is more from The Graves Family. Contact Kenneth V. Graves, ken-dot-graves-at-gravesfa-dot-org, for more details. They are trying to track down descendants of Asa Walker Graves (father of Francis Edward Graves) to participate in their DNA study. “We would like to get a descendant of Francis Edward Graves, one from his brother Thomas Sidnor Graves, and a second sample from his brother Asa Wesley Graves (to confirm the one sample we already have from that line). If anyone can help find male descendants of these lines with the Graves surname to take part, that would be very helpful. This is one of the lines descended from Capt. Thomas Graves of VA (genealogy 169).”

MORE ON FRANCIS GRAVES OF GLOUCESTER CO. & ESSEX CO., VA, AND HIS DESCENDANTS, from The Graves Family Association.

“Francis Graves was previously believed to be the youngest son of Capt. Thomas Graves. It is now apparent that Francis was a son of someone else, and genealogy 220 has been created for this family. It was mentioned that you can see which lines have been tested so far by looking at the chart for genealogy 220 at http://www.gravesfa.org/chart220.pdf. In order to more fully define the DNA haplotype of Francis Graves and to help find his ancestry, we need to test descendants of other lines from Francis.

You can also see the possible relationship between genealogy 220 and other families that share a common ancestor on the chart at http://www.gravesfa.org/DNAchart228-connections.pdf. It is believed that most of the Graves families in the southern U.S. that share a common ancestry with Francis Graves were descended from him. Among the exceptions to that are some of the descendants of John Greaves of St. Mary’s Co., MD (genealogy 247) that moved to KY, and the family of John Graves and Margery Harvey of Randolph Co., NC (genealogy 77) that is probably descended from John Graves of Concord, MA (genealogy 166), based on family legend.

As you can see on the chart mentioned above, the families believed to descend from Francis include Thomas Sims Graves (gen. 94), Thomas Graves of Lunenburg Co. & Mecklenburg Co., VA (gen. 152), Thomas Graves of Culpeper Co., VA (gen. 177), James Graves and Mary Copeland of VA & GA (gen. 150), Peter Graves of Surry Co., NC (gen. 11), James Graves of Randolph Co. & Surry Co., NC (gen. 262), Leonard Graves of Culpeper Co., VA (gen.836), and William Graves of Gloucester Co., VA (gen. 889). It can be seen that some of these families have roots in Gloucester Co., VA, many lived in Culpeper Co., VA, and many later lived in Randolph Co., NC. Many of the Randolph Co. families later moved to Blount Co., AL, and to Indiana. Although additional DNA analysis will help connect some of these families, additional traditional research is the key to establishing and proving the exact connections. Your help is needed.

One branch of the family that is still confused and incorrect is that in genealogy 169 (Capt. Thomas Graves of VA), from William Graves who married Sarah Fisher. His line in that genealogy is Thomas1, John2, Thomas3, John4, John5, Thomas6, William7 m. Sarah Fisher. It can be seen on the charts for genealogy 169 that the DNA test for a descendant of Uriah Noah Graves (a son of William) matches that for the descendants of Francis Graves and also matches that for descendants of Thomas Sims Graves (genealogy 94), who was previously thought to be a son of this William Graves. It appears that Uriah Noah Graves is probably a brother of Thomas Sims Graves, and both are sons of a William Graves. The birth date of William Graves has been given as about 1755 by some researchers and about 1776 by others, and he has been listed with different wives and different children. The most likely answer to this confusion is that there are two different men named William Graves. We need to separate the two families and perform DNA testing on any lines that are still questionable. Again, your help will be needed.

ABOUT THIS BULLETIN: The above bulletin is copyright, written and edited by Kenneth V. Graves, ken-dot-graves-at-gravesfa-dot-org, formerly editor of the Graves Family Newsletter (no longer published).

To subscribe to the Graves Bulletin send an e-mail message to ken-dot-graves-at-gravesfa-dot-org, including your full name. Your postal mailing address and information on your Graves/Greaves ancestry would also be appreciated, although not essential.

By testing the DNA of males, direct mail line descendants of an ancestor can be determined. The Y chromosome is passed from father to son with almost no changes from generation to generation. So a man’s Y-DNA is almost exactly the same as that of his paternal grandfather, continuing back in the same line for generations. This is the male line that inherits the surname. Therefore, if two men have the exact same Y-DNA or almost exactly the same Y-DNA, they are descended from a common ancestor. There are mutations that occur, so that usually the more differences there are between DNA samples, the farther back in time the common ancestor is.

It is extremely likely that the DNA test results that were the same in both living descendants were ones that the common ancestor had also. If we test more than two descendants and they all share the same test results, that increases the confidence even more that the ancestor’s DNA had those values. So we don’t need to dig up and test our ancestors. We can discover their Y-DNA by testing the Y-DNA of their descendants.

Tiny chemical Markers on the Y chromosome create a distinctive pattern, known as a Haplotype, that distinguishes one male lineage from another. Shared markers can indicate relatedness between two men, though not the exact degree of the relationship. Y chromosome testing is most often used by individuals with the same last name to learn if they share a common ancestor. More detailed information about markers may found in DNA 101. Family Tree DNA is offering such testing.

A y-DNA study to connect males of the Miner surname and its variants was initiated in March 2005. Results. (Thomas Miner Family History)