A personal account of uncovering African heritage through DNA testing and oral family history, and exploring the historical and social implications of mixed ancestry.
Posted: 2025-Jun-30
The information below is what I sent to my siblings shortly after I learned of my African ancestry. The document explains what I had learned to that point in time, February 2002. Subsequent family recollections, research, and additional DNA testing, have substantiated many of the conclusions, though we still do not know the identity of my full African grandmother. We do know that John Long was a philanderer and had many relations outside the marriage. One thing that has changed from the document is how I view myself. I had initially rejected the one-drop rule, but have now accepted it. Despite the obvious illogical underpinnings of the rule, it has been the historical, legal, and social rule in America, and most importantly for me, the rule followed by the church at a time when such things mattered.
February 2002
Sorry for the delay in sending this. What started as a few paragraphs evolved into something much longer. I'm going to try and explain what I've learned about our African ancestry and what those implications might be for our family. You may or may not agree with my assumptions and speculations, but at least this is a starting point for family discussions.
Last July [2001], I submitted a blood sample to Dr. Rick Kittles, a Ph.D. genetic researcher at Howard University here in Washington, DC. He has collected DNA samples from numerous tribes in West Africa, where most American slaves originated. He's developing a genetic database that will allow him to take a DNA sample from someone here in America—more typically an African American rather than a white guy from southern Utah—and compare certain DNA markers to determine if there are matches from his database of African DNA. He can test both the maternal and paternal lines. This database is still in the preliminary stages, and he agreed to include my sample in his preliminary testing because his curiosity was piqued to see if his database could establish the African ancestry of someone with no known African ancestor. He said he was stunned that a match was actually found [in February 2002].
In my case, the mitochondrial DNA test revealed a match with DNA samples taken from the Kanuri tribe of northern Nigeria. This DNA marker is a maternal marker, and it's passed from mother to daughter. This means that somewhere back on my direct matrilineal lineage, I have an African (Kanuri) grandmother and a European grandfather. The matrilineal line on which this African grandmother is to be found is as follows:
As revealed by the mitochondrial DNA test, one of the women in this line is either African or the daughter of a woman of African descent who has heretofore been unknown to us. The test reveals only that a woman of African ancestry is in our maternal lineage, but it cannot reveal how far back that occurred. In essence, we have a mystery story in which we know the ultimate outcome (we are of African descent), but we do not know how or when that occurred.
For reasons explained below and based on the information presently available, I believe the most likely scenario is that Christiana Long is the daughter of John Long and an African woman (or at least of African descent). Assuming Christiana is 1/2 African, we are 1/64th African. If she is less than 1/2, then we have no way of knowing our fractional African heritage unless we can specifically identify our full African grandmother.
Well, here is the most likely explanation/hypothesis of the mystery story, at least as best as I understand and can guess. This conclusion is predicated on the history of Luke and Christiana Syphus prepared by Vera Perkins, a great-granddaughter of Luke and Christiana through Lovina, and on the genealogical information available on the Ancestral File website. I quote below only a few paragraphs from a 5 or 6 page history. Obviously, this information is woven together with my speculations about the implications of such information in light of the DNA evidence showing we in fact have an African grandmother on that line.
Christiana Long, daughter of John Long and Martha Hignall, was born January 10, 1832, at Standlake, Oxfordshire, England. Little is known of the life of Luke Syphus before he married Christiana except that he too had heard and studied the gospel and had accepted it joyfully. Both he and Christiana were baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints prior to their marriage.
Christiana and Luke are first cousins. His mother and her father are brother and sister. That is the same relation as if I married [my uncle's daughter]. Presumably, Luke would be well acquainted with Christiana from their youth and would certainly know of her African ancestry, if any.
Christiana’s mother died when she was eight years old. Later her father remarried and, although the stepmother was kind and good to the children, Christiana wanted to be independent. She wanted to earn her own living. So, while she was yet very young, she went to London to find employment.
There is no Ancestral File record of a second marriage for Christiana's father, John Long. The only wife shown for John Long is Martha Hignall, who died late in 1839, when Christiana was almost 8 years old. The Ancestral File shows John Long and Martha Hignall had 3 children born before Christiana and twin girls born after. Neither the Ancestral File nor the family history record the name of any wife other than Martha Hignall.
Martha must either be the first wife to whom all the children were born and the second wife had no children and her name is lost to us, or else she is the second wife, but all the children up to Christiana are from an unknown first wife. The problem is that Christiana’s mother is said to have died when she was eight, just at the time Martha Hignall died. If Martha is the first wife and mother for all the children, who is the second wife, and why hasn't the temple work been done for the second wife? Given the rather complete history, and the opportunity of asking Christiana herself about the stepmother, it seems a rather significant omission from the genealogical records. Also, the account singles out “Christiana’s mother” as dying, not the mother of all the children. It does say she was good to “the children,” so this may merely be the innocent result of focusing on Christiana, but this description seems somewhat odd nonetheless.
My speculation is that Martha Hignall is the only wife of John Long but that Martha Hignall is not Christiana’s mother. One plausible scenario, at least on its face, is that Christiana was born to John Long and an African (Kanuri) woman, and that John Long brought Christiana into the home to be raised with the rest of the family. It might be that the Kanuri woman died or was forced by unknown circumstances to leave the area without Christiana (I believe slavery in England was legally ended in 1834). If Christiana was in fact brought into the home to be raised, it suggests that the relationship between John Long and the Kanuri woman was more significant than a mere fleeting encounter.
Christiana would have been approximately 12 years old when she left home for London to be “independent.” That seems awfully young, even in that era, to leave home in Oxfordshire (approximately 50 miles northwest of London), and no mention is made of the other children’s fates. It would make sense, however, if Christiana was in fact an illegitimate child of African descent. Notwithstanding the statement that the stepmother treated her well, it is easy to imagine that under such circumstances Christiana would not feel welcome in the home and would prefer to make her own way in London (there was a large African community in London at the time, at least 20,000 people).
Though Christiana was not born of the gentry, she always conducted herself in a most well-bred, lady-like manner. This quality enabled her to find employment in a "gentlemen's family," caring for children. However, she did not like the lady for whom she worked because she expected Christiana to do so many other things besides taking care of the children. She decided to leave, and because she had always been such a lady-like girl, they were forced to give her a good letter of recommendation.
There is an unusual focus on her “proper” breeding and bearing and how it allowed her to find employment as a nanny in a gentleman’s home. This has similarities to the American slave experience, where those slaves having fine or delicate features and proper bearing (code words meaning “white”) were made “house servants” while those slaves having coarser features and demeanor (code words for African) were made “field hands.” The use of these code words suggests that the writer of the history may have known or suspected Christiana’s African ancestry and was trying to make her more presentable or acceptable. In essence, it is saying that although she did have African blood, she was really a prim and proper Englishwoman more than she was an African.
Christiana becomes a nanny, but leaves when asked to do more than care for the children. My speculation is that she is being treated more as a servant/slave than a nanny, which would perhaps be natural if she is in fact 1/2 African.
Her next job was with a family by the name of King. Here she stayed seemingly very happy, for five years, or until they left to sail for America. The Kings wanted Christiana to go to America with them, but for some unknown reason, she stayed behind.
The second family wants her to go with them to America, but as this was the late 1840s or perhaps 1850, a woman of African descent would not find America a hospitable location to live. Slavery was prohibited in England in 1834 (I think), so Christiana would have been leaving a safe haven for the unknown conditions in the United States, where slavery still flourished.
[After leaving the employ of the King family, Christiana joined the Church and, in 1851 at the age of 19, she married Luke, her first cousin who had also joined the church. They soon set sail for Australia, where a gold rush was in full swing. They lost their first child, a son, off the coast of South Africa. Their daughter Lovina is born in Australia, where they stayed a few years before leaving for America.] When the time came to sail, Lovina was not quite two years old, but already she was a beautiful child, taking after her mother in looks. Christiana was a small, dainty woman, with fine features, beautiful black wavy hair, laughing brown eyes that were shadowed with provocatively long lashes, and a lovely mouth that curved easily into smiles. Her ankles were trim and neat, ending in the high arched instep of the true aristocrat. These attributes of beauty she passed on to her children to some degree, but her first born daughter, Lovina, was a true prototype.
Again, the history takes great pains to describe the physical appearance of Christiana in a manner that accentuates her daintiness and delicateness. She has black, wavy hair, “provocatively” long eyelashes and a “lovely” mouth that curved easily into a smile. This again has echoes of American slavery and the emphasis on the white characteristics of the house servant, mixed with a measure of appreciation for the exotic beauty and sensuality of the “house servant.” The descriptions of the various house servants in Uncle Tom’s Cabin are good examples of this type of “code.” (I highly recommend the book to those who have not read it. Don't be put off by its reputation; it's a great book deserving of attention.)
Also, in explaining that Lovina, through whom we descend, had more of her mother’s looks than the others, the implication is that Lovina had more of the African features than the rest.
[After they arrived in San Bernardino, Luke had the assistance of an Indian boy to run the farm.] Ever a kindly man, and one to help the needy, Luke took the hungry Indian boy in, gave him food, and paid him to help with the land. Over Christiana’s protests, the Indian was allowed to sit at the table with the family for his meals. This was contrary to prevalent custom, but Luke felt that if he worked in the field he should be allowed to eat as his family did. This Christian kindness later paid big dividends to the Syphuses and their friends. [The Indian boy was part of the tribe poised to attack their wagon train as they later traveled to Utah. Because of their relations, the chief allowed the wagon train to continue after giving the Indians most of their supplies.]
It may be reading too much into Christiana’s protests, but African Americans whose features and skin color permit them to “pass as white” in society have generally found it necessary to avoid associations with anyone of color in their efforts to “pass white” without arousing suspicion.
The inferences, assumptions, and conclusions on which I have concluded Christiana is the daughter of our African grandmother are admittedly speculative. Until the DNA evidence revealed an African grandmother on that maternal line, we had no reason to question the assumption that the Syphus line was entirely English; however, now that this assumption has been shown to be untrue, we are left only to such speculations in the absence of additional information surfacing to positively identify our African grandmother.
As one who has, for over 20 years, had to address questions about my possible African ancestry, with such questions coming from both whites and blacks and usually (though not always) phrased in “code” to dull the bluntness of the query, it is no answer to the mystery to say that the Syphus descendants do not “look” African and therefore cannot be African. It is common enough in African American families to have relatives who could, or do, pass white that our family is not unique in encountering this situation.
In light of my experience, it seems a reasonable conclusion that even where the European features predominate over the African features, it is possible for them to resurface in a later generation; however, given the number of generations that we are removed from our African grandmother, I suspect that the likelihood is rather remote that future generations will face the same questions I have faced as a result of my appearance. I doubt that any of the family besides me will be faced with serious questions about their racial heritage. I reach this conclusion both because of where I live and because I am seemingly the most “African” looking in the family.
In the minds of many, both white and black, one drop of African blood makes one an African American. If African Americans were to reject the “one-drop rule,” it would leave essentially all African Americans without a self-definition because all African Americans are of mixed racial heritage. We have always taken pride in and defined ourselves by our family history and heritage, but what would an African American be if they are neither white nor black, but a mixture of races impossible to define in a meaningful way? At what fraction of white ancestors would a person be considered white? Would you then have to reject the African ancestors (which is essentially what happens to those who pass white)? For historical reasons, those having identifiable African ancestry were deemed to be black, and both whites and blacks have abided by that rule.
Times have changed or are changing, and the number of mixed-race marriages are becoming increasingly common. Children from such marriages are increasingly unwilling to deny either side of their heritage. As for me, I have not completely worked out in my mind the implications of this discovery (despite having had many more months and years than most of you to contemplate this possibility); however, I find it difficult to think of our heritage as a choice of being either white or black but not both. I am most comfortable in simply acknowledging all the racial and ethnic origins of our family.
In practical terms, nothing has changed in our day-to-day lives. We (especially all of you) will still be perceived as being white regardless of our new-found knowledge of our African grandmother. In effect, we will continue to “pass white” as we have always done before, though now we will at least have to confront for ourselves whether we are actually white (in whole or in part) or just passing white. If being completely defined black by “one drop” of African blood in our heritage seems unfair, imagine the unfairness African Americans encounter in being defined almost exclusively by skin color rather than by any other qualities, knowledge, or experiences.
In short, I believe the discovery of our African grandmother is of monumental importance for purposes of our family history and temple work, but will be of little significance to those outside the family with whom we associate. The degree to which it will matter will depend largely on how each of us chooses to respond to this new information about our African grandmother. I am not suggesting that we all join the NAACP, but at a minimum, I have concluded that when in the future I am asked where my ancestors came from, I will promptly and unabashedly answer, “England, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, and Africa.”
Postscript (July 2025): When I wrote this in February 2002, I had no inkling of just how profoundly my life would be impacted by the DNA proof of my African ancestry. I discovered that the "one-drop rule" remains in full force, and, as I expressed above, one either denies their African ancestry (which was and remains unthinkable for me) or one embraces their identity as African American. Notwithstanding staggering personal and significant professional costs, I have never regretted for a moment that I chose to embrace my identity as African American.
Related Posts
Christiana's Life Narrative
I was born in the last year of the Baby Boom into an essentially all-white, all-Mormon community in Southern Utah. Six decades later, I am no longer Mormon, no longer white, and finally ready to share my story. The map is not yet complete, and new pathways beckon. Shall we see where they lead?
If these words resonate in your own journey, I'd love to know which passages lingered with you. Let's continue the dialogue.