Haplogroup Q-M242
This Philip has been identified by Y-DNA testing as among the "Dutch" Huffs (Hoff, etc.) in Group 02 in the Hough Hoff Huff Project at https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/hough/about

The cemetery in which Philip was buried is located on property that at the time of his death was owned by his son, Henry Huff. This neighborhood cemetery was in the Huff family for generations.

There has been some confusion about Philip's surname, it having been alleged that "in his lifetime, he was generally recorded as Philip HOFF." However, Philip's surname was only rarely recorded in any written form that has survived. In census and tithe records--notorious for variant spellings--spelling of various Huffs including Philip, appeared every which way, likely merely a factor of who was recording the data.

However, Philip's surname was spelled Huff in his will, which he signed with an "x," which suggests that he was illiterate and may have had no idea how others might be spelling his name. It was also spelled Huff in his land deed recorded 1796. In addition, his children used the Huff spelling. The surname appears to have been well-established as "Huff" by or before, say, the 1780s. There may well have been earlier years, other relatives or ancestors where the surname was spelled Hoff or had another spelling. It is not really a question of whether or not there was a name "change"...spelling and consistency in spelling just wasn't the "thing" that they became in, say, the 1900s. The important thing to keep in mind is to watch and check for variant spellings and to realize that the Huff surname may also have been recorded in phonetically similar variant forms such as Hoff, Hoof, and even the more English form of Hough.

The year of Philip's birth is unknown and approximate. The late Huff, Hoff, and Hough authority, Max Huff, estimated a birth year range of 1740-1747. The year 1740 as the start of the range might have been based on a 1750 census estimate for the age of Daniel (the estimate for the census was 1764), Philip's first known child, to which was applied the standard rule of thumb for males of that time being approximately 25 years old when their first child was born. However, Philip's eldest child, Daniel, was born in or close to 1766 (per his testimony, under oath, in an affidavit regarding an application by brother-in-law, Pearson Miller, for military bounty land). And clearly, Philip may not have been the rule-of-thumb 25 years old when Daniel was born. The end year for the estimated range would have been based on a year when Philip was excused from tax-paying, minus 65 years, thus arriving at 1747 as the end of the estimated range of years for Philip's birth. 1747 or thereabouts would be a reasonable estimate but he may have been born earlier than that.

Philip's unrecorded date of death is, again, a range but a much narrower one. His death would fall between 25 Jul 1822 (date of his will) and sometime in Feb 1823 when the will was proved in the Feb court of Montgomery County, Virginia. Note, however, that in 1831 that part of Montgomery County where Philip Huff had lived, and presumably died, became a part of the then newly-formed Floyd County, Virginia.

Philip and his family lived in or near the present-day Copper Hill P.O. area, since about the 1790s or fairly likely by 1780 or even earlier. What is now the Copper Hill area, while Philip live there may also be seen described as near Bent Mountain, at the head of Little River, etc. Also, during the early years of settlement of this area, counties were being divided and created and the Huff property--not moving an inch--was situated in at least four different counties over the years. It can be confusing, but various locational references may be to the same place.

Philip's grave is unmarked, as are many others in this cemetery, and may always have been so. Incurring costs for permanent markers may well have been considered unnecessary. Being on their property, relatives would have known whose grave was where. In addition, even well into the 1800s, there would have needed to be a stonecutter available if a permanent stone marker was desired, and there may not have been. Indeed, it is not uncommon that relatives or descendants finally installed a gravestone decades after the death of the loved one. Getting a gravestone for a long-deceased relative may have become something of a popular "thing to do"...sometimes having to do with the availability of someone to make a grave memorial, as well as a certain amount of affluence needed to pay for a memorial. Such later installations may account for gravestone errors and sometimes being a bit off on dates and years.

NOW...back to this Philip, a few other aspects to highlight:
***born about 1747 (place UNKNOWN but likely in Colonial America). Died on unknown month/date in 1822 or 1823. Thus, years of birth and death indicated here are approximates, but likely fairly close.
***The maiden surname of this Philip's wife at the time of his death, Rachel, is unknown, although commonly listed in trees as Rachel Jackson. It seems that no primary source or even reasonably authoritative source or argument has ever appeared as to the maiden name of the Rachel who was the spouse of Philip Huff at the time of his death. Philip's son, Henry, married a Rachel Jackson. It's always possible that there were two Rachel Jacksons...but seems on the suspicious side.
***If you have primary sources or rationales that say otherwise or clarify things, do please come forth with them! :-)

Please NOTE: There were several Philip Huffs in the same vicinity during the same time period. It can be challenging to discern which Philip is which!
Two cannot-be-right things that have been proliferating in Ancestry.com, etc. trees lately:
***This Philip Huff's father was NOT the Frederick Huff who married Violet. This Philip and that Frederick were roughly contemporaries and that Frederick had his own son Philip some 20 years after this Philip. No known relationship--never even a suggested relationship... until recently... (apparently from not "doing the math" and misinterpreting info on a different Huff family, that of Frederick Huff in "Related Families of Botetourt County..." and/or "Places Near the Mountains in Botetourt..."
***This Philip's middle name was NOT Petter, or Peter either for that matter. There was no middle name. Same as above...once somebody puts some crazy thing in their tree, other people copy it. It's just too easy to "accept"--without checking--those little green leaves in Ancestry.com. LOL

The following two/duplicate trees from FamilySearch.org and a Private--but searchable--tree on Ancestry included the above and lots of other other misinformation. The duplicate trees include about 30,000 names, some 300 of whom have the surname Huff, plus their spouses. If you used any information from these trees... better check whatever you may have used!... there are lots of wild things like combining of two or more people's information as though they were one person, adopting info from several different individuals to fill in the blanks on one individual, wrong parents, misspellings, you name it. Just lots and various forms of "creativity," along with lots of royalty, etc. from B.C. (before Christ) years.

Here are details of where these "creative" trees are, in case anyone wants to check if you may have used info from these trees:

"AAA King Stuart Tree" file (2:2:2:MM6D-F71), submitted 7 July 2018 by garyking9 URL: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:3JR8-BP2

"AAA King Stuart Tree" file (2:2:2:MM6D-F4C), submitted 7 July 2018 by garyking9 URL: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:3JRX-27M

On Ancestry.com, it's a Private Tree under Member Name: gskingster. Unfortunately the tree is still searchable, thus misinformation from it appears in search results and gets repeated on others' trees
http://trees.ancestry.com/pt/AMTCitationRedir.aspx?tid=69046529&pid=11720