PAYNE-L Archives

Archiver > PAYNE > 2004-08 > 1092340177


From: "Bob Meadows" <>
Subject: Native American DNA haplogroup in Lineage 2
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:49:37 -0700


Patrick Payne's message of 9 August 2004 (appended below) indicates that
the DNA analyses of several participants show them to have a Y
chromosome which is categorized as in haplogroup "C3" which apparently
means they are descended from a native American male whose ancestors
"colonized" North America thousands of years ago, not a European male
who came as a colonist to North America in the 17th century.



If the lab analyses are correct (despite the puzzling placement of
another member of "lineage 2" in haplogroup R1a, which is neither a
western European nor a native American haplogroup), then the people
tested so far in that group seem not to be biological descendants of
John and Millicent Payne/Paine of Westmoreland Co., Virginia.



In trying to figure out the puzzle, look very closely at any claim or
belief that the parents of Nancy Payne's husband (John Payne Jr.) are
known. I haven't seen any evidence to support that claim or belief.



Patrick's message stated the belief held by some genealogy hobbyists
that John Payne Jr. belonged in "lineage 1" as a descendant of Ralph
Payne, but I've never seen anyone cite any evidence to show that he was.



In Patrick's message, the years of birth and death for John Payne Jr.
(husband of Nancy Payne) are incorrect. Patrick confused him with John
Payne Sr. (the man by whose name, it is said, were written the words
"Red Bank" in the family Bible of one of his descendants).



John Payne Jr. was born in an unknown year (1754 was the year of birth
of John Payne Sr.) and died before 12 Feb. 1803 in Franklin Co.,
Georgia, not in 1831.



John C. Payne of Monroe Co., Tennessee, appears to have been the brother
of Greenberry Payne, who also lived for a time in Monroe Co., TN. They
both appear to have been the sons of John Payne Jr. and Nancy Payne,
since they along with their apparent brothers Thomas Payne and Benedict
Payne signed several documents in the 1820s recorded in Franklin Co.,
GA, associated with the land inherited by the heirs of John Payne Jr.
(Verbatim transcriptions of those deeds are in the USGenWeb archives for
Franklin Co., GA.)



Also keep in mind that apparently no one who traces his ancestry from
the brothers named in the 1786 will of Thomas Payne Jr. has participated
in the Payne DNA Project.



There were unnamed "step brothers and sisters" mentioned in that will
who (based on later land deed records) appear to have been John Payne
Sr., William Payne, and Nancy Payne (wife of John Payne Jr.).



Sometime ago, much debate (and a little acrimony) centered on the
meaning of the phrase "step brothers and sisters" in that will. At the
very least, it must have meant that Thomas Payne Jr. did not consider
those unnamed stepsiblings to be his full biological siblings, and he
probably meant to say that they were not his blood relatives.



Perhaps the DNA result (assuming for the sake of discussion it is
correct despite the internal contradiction resulting from placing
apparently identical results in two different haplogroups) is simply
confirming that the people descended from either John Payne Sr. or
William Payne-the "step brothers" of Thomas Payne Jr.-were not
biologically related to Thomas Payne Jr.



That may even mean they weren't biologically related to Thomas Payne
Sr., if Thomas Payne Sr. was the biological father (not stepfather) of
Thomas Payne Jr.



Bob





From: "Patrick Payne" <>

Subject: Re: David's postings concerning the Paynes of Virginia &
Maryland

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 19:13:06 -0400

Hello Everyone,



Following David's queue, I agree with him that this is a matter for the

mailing list. But I suppose it would be helpful to fill you in on what

exactly is going on.



On our DNA results chart at

http://papayne.rootsweb.com/dna-project/index.xls (if you have Excel) or

http://papayne.rootsweb.com/dna-project/ (if you do not have Excel)

you'll notice the following participants under Lineage 2 (which is

comprised of descendants of John PAYNE (d. 1668/9) of Westmoreland
County,

Virginia, by wife Millicent ___):



4664

945B

22409

20981



These participants had all submitted genealogies indicating descent from

Lineage 1 (not lineage 2 as the DNA results showed). Lineage 1 is
comprised

of two groups:



1. Descendants of Thomas PAYNE (d., 1673) of St. Mary's County,
Maryland,

by Jane SMALLPEICE (d. 1675)

2. Descendants of Ralph PAYNE of Lancaster and Middlesex County,
Virginia,

brother of Thomas PAYNE (d. 1664), as given in "The Paynes of Virginia,"
p.

5.



DNA has shown that the two groups above were closely related and thus
they

form lineage 1 on the result chart.



The problem therefore is obvious. On the one hand, researchers have

concluded that they belong to Lineage 1 only to discover by DNA that
they

actually belong to Lineage 2.



Now, we've known for a very long time that these two lineages got very

confused as they migrated south out of Virginia and Maryland. They often

fell right on top of each other in the records and made it extremely

difficult to separate them. In fact, it seems that we've never
completely

straightened them out. There is also contact between the two lineages

through two apparent sources:



The first is through the POINDEXTER family. William PAYNE of Lineage 2

married Elizabeth POINDEXTER, who was a granddaughter of George
POINDEXTER

of St. Saviours, Jersey, in the Channel Islands. This was also the home
of

Lineage 1 members before they came to the colonies. Col. Brooke Payne

suggested in his book that the brothers Ralph and Thomas Payne belonged
to

this Jersey family.



The second is through the apparent marriage of John PAYNE (a descendant
of

Ralph PAYNE of Lineage 1) with Nancy PAYNE of Lineage 2.



Then we have the two lineages often settling in the same areas of North

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia.



The places in the genealogies of the four above that are causing the

problem are as follows:



Two are descendants of:

John Carrol PAYNE 1795-1865), believed to be a son of John PAYNE

(1754-1831) [a member of Lineage 1] and Nancy PAYNE, daughter of Thomas

PAYNE (sometimes referred to as "Trader") of Virginia and Franklin
County,

Georgia [of Lineage 2].



The other two are descendants of:

John PAYNE (b. ca. 1774) and Philadelphia AYERS. John has been thought
by

many researchers to have been a son of Isaac PAYNE (1760-1827) of
Lineage

1.



I should point out (because I feel it may be significant) is that in
each

case, the surname AYERS is involved, because the (2nd?) wife of Thomas

"Trader" PAYNE was an AYERS- as was Philadelphia, the wife of John
PAYNE.



It is not enough for us to simply say that the genealogies must be
wrong.

Although that is part of the problem that we must figure out, many of us

feel that there is reason to believe that these two lineages must have
had

some relationship which led us to make the genealogical mistakes in the

first place. There is good reason to suspect that a relationship between

the two lineages existed that goes well beyond the genealogical ones-
and

that reason is in the DNA of Lineage 2 itself.



In all but one instance (which I'll briefly explain in a moment), the
DNA

of lineage 2 revealed that they have Native American ancestry. This is
not

something that I am suggesting- It is something that the DNA test
results

revealed. Let me be clear on that point. Obviously, if that is the case,

the Native American ancestry could not have come from John PAYNE (d.

1668/9) - or his ancestors.



Now, the issue with the one participant of Lineage 2 who did not have
the

same result as everyone else in his lineage. The lab suggested that this

was caused by one of the mutations observed in his DNA at a particular

marker location that was different from the rest in his lineage. This

caused the calculation to place him in another "haplogroup". However,
the

fact that so many others in the lineage, who were tested by two
different

labs and in multiple tests over the last two years, do show Native
American

ancestry, indicates that the one participant who didn't (rather than

everyone else) is the one in question. The lab is conducting a further
test

for us to confirm this, but it has been made clear that the chances are

very small that it will change the overall results for the lineage as
they

are now.



So these are the problems that we face:



Who was John Carrol Payne? What role did he have, if any, in the Lineage
1

family that descended from Ralph Payne of Lancaster and Middlesex
County?

Could he (or his immediate ancestors) have been associated with Lineage
1

because of (or due to) his or their Native American ancestry?



The same questions apply to John Payne that married Philadelphia Ayers.



Can the associations that have led to our confusion between lineages 1
and

2 be explained by the Native American DNA of Lineage 2?





So far, our discussions have been limited to the members of Lineage 2.

David is right in stating that it is time to involve the list as there
is a

large number of researchers out there with an interest in one or the
other

of these lineages (or both). I believe it will take all of us to figure

this one out!



Regards,



Patrick









This thread: