Just released and placed online last night, the full title: "Brewer Families of Moore, Chatham, and Randolph Counties, North Carolina: In Search of the Descendants of George Brewer of Brunswick County, Virginia," is the latest work from David V. Brewer, a co-administrator of the Brewer DNA Project who oversees the Project's Group known as "Lanier-Brewer." David has very generously made his 357 page paper available with the link below. But first, I suggest you read through David's preview and synopsis as originally posted on the Brewer DNA Project's Activity Feed page:
"In 2018, I wrote a paper about the Brewers from Moore and Southwest Chatham Counties, North Carolina, mainly because I knew that my ancestors haled from there. I finished too quickly, missing many details, clues, and family connections. I also made the mistake of thinking I needed to publish something on paper, which I've learned makes it even harder to correct mistakes. Since then, picking up more leads and confronting mistakes where I'd been too quick in the curves, helped me appreciate the value of patience in this hobby. So, the link below will take you to a broader, hopefully more carefully researched, yet still hopelessly incomplete effort to sort out and trace the Brewers of the tri-county region (Moore, Chatham, Randolph). Unlike the first version, this version of the paper discusses in detail the Haw River Brewers, including Henry, Oliver, and Nathaniel Brewer, as well as the descendants of Nicholas Brewer and several Brewer families from northern Chatham County, including the families of John, Samuel and Abel Brewer, who were closely associated with the other Brewers in the area. The paper also discusses in detail descendants of the tri-county Brewers who moved to Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina in the early decades of the 1800's.
"I'm now even more convinced that most of the sons of George Brewer (1680?-1744?) of Brunswick County, Virginia moved to the tri-county region in the 1750's and 1760's. Among those sons, Howell (I), Lanier (I), and probably John and their offspring settled in southwest Chatham, northern Moore, and southeast Randolph Counties. Henry, Oliver, and probably Nathaniel settled in the Haw River area of central and northern Chatham County, as did sons of Nicholas Brewer (I). In fact, the only two branches of George's supposed male descendants that didn't move to the tri-county region in that era were William and George Brewer Jr. and their children. Interestingly, DNA evidence has shown that several Brewer Project members who credibly trace their ancestry to those two men, unlike the descendants of Lanier (I), Howell (I), John, Henry, and either Oliver or Nathaniel, aren't positive for haplogroup I-Y82422. The significance of that variance remains unclear.
"As before, this paper is not a list of family trees or pedigrees. All you need to do is poke at the pedigrees in hundreds of Brewer family trees purporting to date back to the 1700's that are posted on Ancestry.com to see that the vast majority of them simply are not adequately supported by credible data. In my view, the certainty that we all understandably seek isn't possible at this stage of our collective knowledge. There simply are too many record gaps in virtually all the lines under study. Instead, my goal has been to compile and integrate existing research about the obscure period between 1750 and 1850 with some newer information, including the early results of YDNA genetic testing of male line descendants of the Brewer families from this region. At most, this is just a next step in the process of filling gaps in our knowledge.
"But that doesn't mean we should demand too much certainty before drawing tentative conclusions. For example, the paper addresses two questions that researchers of the extended Brewer families of the tri-county region must confront. How do we know whether Howell Brewer I was the father of Howell Brewer II, and how do we know whether Lanier Brewer I was the father of Lanier Brewer II. The simple answer to both questions is we don’t know. But that’s a bit of a dodge as more layers of genetic evidence have been unpeeled, most of them in the last decade. The fact is that we have three distinct subgroups of closely related Brewer descendants who can trace their ancestry to the tri-county region and, from there, most probably to George Brewer of Brunswick. The first, haplogroup I-Y15300, subclade I-Y182422, Brewer DNA Project subgroup A, probably consists of descendants of John Brewer, the son of George Brewer. In addition, there are two more defined branches of subclade I-Y182422 that probably are more than 250 years old years old. Descendants of Willis Brewer (born in the 1760’s), Royal Brewer (born about 1770-1775), Henry Brewer (born about 1780), Solomon Brewer (born about 1785), Wiley Brewer (born about 1790), Jenkins Brewer (born 1812-1815), and Andrew Brewer (born about 1818) all have tested positive for subclade I-Y29640. The common ancestor of these men almost certainly was born in the early to mid-1700’s, and no later than the 1740’s. As discussed in the paper, we have an even further refinement of this line showing that another sub-branch, SNP FTD55716, probably arose in the mid-1700’s. Lanier Brewer II, likely born in the 1740’s or 1750’s, probably wasn’t positive for that mutation, but I suspect that a sibling of his was. That man, in turn, probably was the grandfather or great grandfather of Willis, Jenkins, and Andrew Brewer.
"A somewhat similar pattern exists for descendants of haplogroup I-Y15300, I-Y182422, subclade I-Y23708. Descendants of Isaac Brewer (born 1763), Harmon Brewer (born mid-1760’s), and Cornelius Brewer (born early 1780’s), as examples, all are positive for subclade I-Y23708. The first-hand account of Isaac Brewer stated that his father was Howell Brewer (II), who almost certainly was born before 1745. Isaac Brewer stated that he had an Uncle John Brewer, and more than 100 years ago, Street Brewer passed on the family history that Harmon Brewer’s father was John Brewer. If that information is correct, and there’s no reason apart from sheer fussiness to ignore it -- especially in light of YDNA evidence that descendants of Harmon and Howell II are both positive for subclade I-Y23708 – then the grandfather of Isaac and Harmon Brewer also probably would have been positive for subclade I-Y23708. That man would have been born no later than the early 1720’s and, based on what we know about the earliest Brewer migrants to the tri-county area, there are three reasonable possibilities: Howell I, Lanier I, and John Brewer.
"Again, the paper argues that descendants of George Brewer's son John probably fall into Haplogroup I-Y15300, I-Y182422, Brewer Project Subgroup A. If that's right, this leaves Howell I and Lanier I. Because subclade I-Y23708 probably arose in their generation, and membership in that subclade and subclade I-Y29640 is mutually exclusive, those two subclades most likely are separate YDNA branches representing those two sons of George Brewer. True, we can’t yet say to a reasonable probability whether subclade I-Y29640 arose in the first or second generation after George Brewer. But that doesn’t undermine the essential point that these two subclades probably are distinct earmarks for descendants of Howell I and Lanier I.
"As discussed in the paper, there are generations of old stories in the families of Solomon (born about 1785), Wiley (born about 1790), and George Brewer (born about 1775) that the father of those men was named Lanier Brewer. Those stories, shared among geographically separated family clusters whose descendants all are positive for subclade I-Y29640, ultimately tip the scales for me. If we conducted a civil trial where the proponent’s burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence, most jurors would give the answer common sense suggests is correct: Descendants of Howell Brewer I are positive for subclade I-Y23708, and descendants of Lanier Brewer I are positive for subclade I-Y29640, with one of his sons (not Lanier II) probably having been the source of the further downstream mutation of SNP FTD55716. The same evidence wouldn’t satisfy the criminal law standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But my instinct tells me that, in time, more evidence will. And, if not, there will be many opportunities to reconsider.
"With that peek under the hood, here's the link to the current version of the paper:
