Helpful Background on the Significance of Matches and Close
Matches:
Discussion of the Leffew DNA
Project's results:
19 October 2010:
Our initial mtDNA
and yDNA results are in and they are surprising. It was expected that the mtDNA
results for the direct female line descendant of Elizabeth, the wife of Stephen
Lefew/Lephew, would show
she belonged to a Native American haplogroup.
Instead, she belongs to the H haplogroup, the most common European
female haplogroup. Similarly, it was
expect the yDNA results for the direct male line
descendant of Stephen would show a European haplogroup. Instead, his haplogroup is E1b1a, which is
the most common haplogroup for African Americans.
We need to be careful about jumping to
conclusions based upon these preliminary results. First, we need to confirm them by testing
other descendants to make sure there has not been a misattribution of paternity
in the tested line. For example, L-1 is
a 37/37 match with another surname, which suggests a misattribution of
paternity in one of the tested lines.
Although the other surname participant suspects the misattribution
occurred in his line, only additional testing will definitively determine if
this is so. Second, mtDNA
testing does not provide information on the paternal line of Elizabeth, which
could be Native American. Nor does yDNA testing provide information on the maternal line of
Stephen, which could also be Native American.
Your administrator has looked into some of the new autosomal DNA tests
to determine whether the racial admixture of Stephen’s and Elizabeth’s
ancestors other than those in the direct male and female lines can be
determined, but it does not look very promising at this time.
If the existing results can be confirmed
by the testing of other descendants, then the one conclusion we can draw is
that at the very least the children of Stephen and Elizabeth Lefew/Lephew were bi-racial,
i.e., part African-American and part European.
Whether they were also tri-racial by virtue of being part Native American
remains to be seen. Your administrator
continues to think there must be some element of truth to all the oral family
histories to the effect we are part Cherokee.
12 June 2011:
The results for L-2 are in and they are a
37/37 match with the results for L-1.
Although both L-1 and L-2 are descendants of Albert Pinkney Leffew, the youngest son of Pleasant Henry Leffew of Roane County, Tennessee, and a match was
therefore expected, this is nonetheless a big step forward in identifying the
modal haplotype for the lineage of Stephen Lefew/Lephew of Rockingham County, North Carolina. The match eliminates the possibility that L-1,
who was a 37/37 match with a person of another surname, may have had a misattribution
of paternity in his line. However, we
still need to test descendants of collateral lines to definitively establish the
modal haplotype.
Since it seems further testing will likely
confirm that Stephen Leffew belonged to the E1b1a
haplogroup, your Administrator recommends you look at the research of Paul Heinegg on Free African Americans, particularly the
introduction, which can be found at http://www.freeafricanamericans.com/. Mr. Heinegg
believes that most free persons of color in the 1790 and 1800 censuses were the
descendants of early male slaves and white women servants. You might also want to consult the Melungeon
DNA Project at http://www.jgoins.com/core_melungeon.htm and in particular the
DNA article by Roberta Estes, the project’s DNA advisor. It appears their results have also surprised
them in that there are no Native American results and many more
African-American results than expected. (N.
B. Our Leffew family has never been considered Melungeon
by Melungeon researchers, even though there is a strong Melungeon connection to
Rockingham County, North Carolina. Although we may share the same racial makeup,
it seems the Leffews were better at assimilation than
their more clannish Melungeon counterparts.)
As to the various family oral traditions
that we are part Cherokee, we aren’t going to find evidence of that through yDNA testing. That’s
not to say the oral traditions were made up as a cover story so as to perhaps
make it easier for an African American to be assimilated into a white
culture. It could be the case, for
example, that Stephen’s grandfather was an African American slave and his
grandmother was a servant of European ancestry, which would make Stephen’s
father half African American and half European.
Then, since Stephen’s father was multi-racial, he may have associated more
with Native Americans, which may have led to a marriage with a Native
American. If so, that would mean that
Stephen would have been a quarter African-American, a quarter European, and half
Native American. Of course, the
foregoing is purely hypothetical, but it is important to understand that while
the yDNA results establish Stephen’s direct paternal
line was African American, these results do not rule out the possibility of
being part Native American. Still, there
may never be any evidence to that effect, only our hoary oral traditions that
deserve respect because of how long they have been around. In the case of your Administrator, this oral
tradition was passed down by his grandfather, who was born in 1867 in Grainger
County, Tennessee, and who grew up in the Choctaw Nation in Indian Territory, where
maintaining you were part Cherokee may not have been a plus.
23 June 2011:
L-3 is a descendant of Elijah Leffew aka Elijah Jones, one of many Grainger County,
Tennessee Leffew puzzles. In 1832, as Elijah Leffew,
he was licensed and bonded to marry Biddy Teague, but there was no marriage
return and Biddy instead married someone else several months later. In 1837, as Elijah Jones, he married Susannah
Harvey. He bought land initially as
Elijah Leffew, but later as Elijah Jones. In the 1840 census he was enumerated as
Elijah Leffew, but in the 1850 and subsequent
censuses he was enumerated as Elijah Jones.
That we’re talking about one and the same person is established by an
1836 court record where, as Elijah Leffew aka Jones,
he was listed as a defense witness in an assault and battery case brought
against Samuel Leffew aka Jones. (Samuel, another puzzle, may have been
Elijah’s brother. Samuel’s descendants
ended up in Boyle County, Kentucky.)
Like father like son, Alfred Jones used different surnames, marrying as
Alfred Harvey and then reverting to Alfred Leffew
when he left Grainger County. So, while
the Leffew name has been firmly established among
descendants of this lineage for generations, it has never been clear whether these
descendants carry the Leffew yDNA. The results for L-3 indicate they do not,
assuming the results for L-1 and L-2 represent the Stephen Leffew
yDNA,. It would be interesting to test a Boyle
County, Kentucky Leffew descendant to see if they
match.
The second wife of Joseph Leffew of Grainger County was Polly Jones. Elijah may have been Joseph’s stepson. If Polly was a widow, then one would expect a
match with a Jones lineage. If Polly’s
maiden name was Jones, then it would seem Elijah (and maybe Samuel) was born
out of wedlock and his father is unknown.
L-3 has no matches at 37 markers with any surname, so at this time we
simply don’t know his yDNA lineage.
13 October 2011:
L-4 is a genetic distance of -2 from L1
and L2, with the differences being in those markers known to mutate more
“rapidly” than the others. More
participants are needed before we can determine the modal haplotype of Stephen Lefew/Lephew. It is the genetic distance from the modal
that is most significant.
L-4 is a descendant of Reece Leffew, later known as Reece Lawson, of Grainger County,
Tennessee. His results are important for
two reasons. First, they remove any
doubt, due to his name change, as to whether his father was a Leffew. Second, they
confirm the results of L-1 and L-2, thereby ruling out the possibility of a
misattribution of paternity in that line.
Why Reece eventually adopted his mother’s
surname as his own is unknown.
27 February 2012:
L-5 is per his family pedigree a first
cousin of L-1. Yet, his yDNA results do not match the Leffew
modal haplotype. That indicates there
has been a misattribution of Leffew paternity, either
at his or his father’s level. He does match, however, a person with a different
surname. That match is being explored.
28 May 2012:
The earliest proven Leffew
ancestor for L-6 is Thomas W. Leffew, b 15 Apr 1882
in Rhea County, Tennessee, although there is persuasive circumstantial evidence
that Thomas was the son of Albert Pinkney Leffew. Thomas’ death certificate names “Pinkerton” Leffew as his father, and obituaries for Albert Pinkney Leffew’s proven children indicate they had a brother named
Tom. Certainly, the yDNA
matches with other proven descendants of Albert Pinkney Leffew,
particularly the 66/67 match, supports this relationship. The researcher of this line is Bobbie Vargas
[cherokee646 AT yahoo.com].
3 Jan 2013:
L-7’s earliest proven LeFew ancestor,
Oliver Lefew, was born in Franklin County, Virginia
about 1806, where four sons of Stephen Lefew/Lephew of Rockingham County, North Carolina, eventually
settled, namely Elias, Enoch, Elijah and Josiah. It seems very likely
that one of these four was the father of Oliver. More research is needed
to determine which one.
L-8’s Leffew family can be traced back to
the 1850 census for Franklin County, Virginia.
Thomas, the known father of William Riley Leffew,
appears as a child, age 9 months, in family 1397, which listed Elizabeth Leffew, age 30, as head of household, and
also Anderson Leffew, age 18, as a member of the
household. Elizabeth and Anderson were actually husband and wife, having married 28 Jan 1850, just
a few weeks before Thomas was born. Next
door at family 1398 is the family of Thomas Leffew,
age 45. Thomas was the surety for the
marriage bond for Anderson and was presumably his father by an earlier marriage. Some family trees state that Elias Leffew, son of Stephen Lefew/Lephew of Rockingham Co., NC, was the father of Thomas,
born about 1805. That’s certainly
possible, but he was not the only son of Stephen to settle in Franklin County,
and your Administrator hasn’t seen any definitive evidence that Elias was his
father.
With this paper trail, one would expect L-8 to match the modal Leffew haplotype, but he doesn’t, which indicates there has
been a misattribution of paternity in his line.
Being that the relationships back in Franklin County, Virginia, are
somewhat confusing, it would be helpful to test a descendant through another
son of Thomas, born 1850, and also a descendant
through another son of Thomas, born 1805, to help determine at what generation
the misattribution of paternity took place.
8 Feb 2018:
L-9 was unaware of his Leffew ancestry
until he took the yDNA test. Subsequent research established he descends
from Pleasant Henry Leffew, Jr. Note L-9 has had additional testing done,
which establishes the Leffew EM-2 subglade
to be E-CTS618.