Monthly Archives: March 2023

X Chromosome Master Class

Posted on by
12

The X chromosome can be especially useful to genetic genealogists because it has a unique inheritance path. Thanks to that characteristic, some of the work of identifying your common ancestor is done just by simply HAVING an X match.

Unfortunately, X-DNA and X matching is both underutilized and somewhat misunderstood – in part because not all vendors utilize the X chromosome for matching.

The X chromosome has the capability of reaching further back in time and breaking down brick walls that might fall no other way.

Hopefully, you will read this article, follow along with your own DNA results and make important discoveries.

Let’s get started!

Who Uses the X Chromosome?

The X chromosome is autosomal in nature, meaning it recombines under some circumstances, but you only inherit your X chromosome from certain ancestors.

It’s important to understand why, and how to utilize the X chromosome for matching. In this article, I’ve presented this information in a variety of ways, including case studies, because people learn differently.

Of the four major testing vendors, only two provide X-DNA match results.

  • FamilyTreeDNA – provides X chromosome results and advanced matching capabilities including filtered X matching
  • 23andMe – provides X chromosome results, but not filtered X matching without downloading your results in spreadsheet format
  • Ancestry and MyHeritage do not provide X-DNA results but do include the X in your raw DNA file so you can upload to vendors who do provide X matching
  • GEDmatch – not a DNA testing vendor but a third-party matching database that provides X matching in addition to other tools

It’s worth noting at this point that X-DNA and mitochondrial DNA is not the same thing. I wrote about that, here. The source of this confusion is that the X chromosome and mitochondrial DNA are both associated in some way with descent from females – but they are very different and so is their inheritance path.

So, what is X-DNA and how does it work?

What is X-DNA?

Everyone inherits two copies of each of chromosomes 1-22, one copy of each chromosome from each of your parents.

That’s why DNA matching works and each match can be identified as “maternal” or “paternal,” depending on how your match is related to you. Each valid match (excluding identical by chance matches) will be related either maternally, or paternally, or sometimes, both.

Your 23rd chromosome is your sex determination chromosome and is inherited differently. Chromosome 23 is comprised of X and Y DNA.

Everyone inherits one copy of chromosome 23 from each parent.

  • Males inherit a Y chromosome from their father, which is what makes males male. They do not inherit an X chromosome from their father.
  • Males always inherit an X chromosome from their mother.
  • Females inherit an X chromosome from both parents, which is what makes them female. Females have two X chromosomes, and no Y chromosome.
Chromosome 23 Father Contributes Mother Contributes
Male Child Y chromosome X chromosome
Female Child X chromosome X chromosome

X-DNA and mitochondrial DNA are often confused, but they are not the same thing. In fact, they are completely different.

Mitochondrial DNA, in BOTH males and females is always inherited from only the mother and only descends from the direct matrilineal line, so only the mother’s mother’s mother’s direct line. X DNA can be inherited from a number of ancestors based on a specific inheritance path.

Everyone has both X-DNA AND mitochondrial DNA.

Because males don’t inherit an X chromosome from their father, X chromosome matching has a unique and specific pattern of descent which allows testers who match to immediately eliminate some potential common ancestors.

  • Males only inherit an X chromosome from their mother, which means they can only have legitimate X matches on their mother’s side of their tree.
  • Females, on the other hand, inherit an X chromosome from both their mother and father. Their father only has one X chromosome to contribute, so his daughter receives her paternal grandmother’s X chromosome intact.
  • Both males and females inherit their mother’s X chromosome just like any of the other 22 autosomes. I wrote about chromosomes, here.

However, the unique X chromosome inheritance path provides us with a fourth very useful type of DNA for genealogy, in addition to Y-DNA, mitochondrial and autosomal DNA.

For the vendors who provide X-matching, it’s included with your autosomal test and does not need to be purchased separately.

The Unique X Chromosome

The X chromosome, even though it is autosomal in nature, meaning it does recombine and divide in certain circumstances, is really its own distinct tool that is not equivalent to autosomal matching in the way we’re accustomed. We just need to learn about the message it’s delivering and how to interpret X matches.

FamilyTreeDNA is one of two vendors who utilizes X chromosome matching, along with 23andMe, which is another good reason to encourage your matches at other vendors to upload their DNA file to FamilyTreeDNA for free matching.

The four major vendors do include X-DNA results in their raw DNA download file, even if they don’t provide X-matching themselves. This means you can upload the results to either FamilyTreeDNA or GEDmatch where you can obtain X matches. I provided step-by-step download/upload instructions for each vendor here.

Let’s look how X matching is both different, and beneficial.

My X Chromosome Family Tree

We are going to build a simple case study. A case study truly is worth 1000 descriptions.

This fan chart of my family tree colorizes the X chromosome inheritance path. In this chart, males are colored blue and females pink, but the salient point is that I can inherit some portion of (or all of) a copy of my X chromosome from the colorized ancestors, and only those ancestors.

Because males don’t inherit an X chromosome from their father, they CANNOT inherit any portion of an X chromosome from their father’s ancestors.

Looking at my father’s half of the chart, at left, you see that I inherited an X chromosome from both of my parents, but my father only inherited an X chromosome from his mother, Ollie Bolton. His father’s portion of the tree is uncolored, so no X chromosome could have descended from his paternal ancestors to him. Therefore he could not pass any X chromosome segments to me from his paternal side – because he doesn’t have X DNA from his father.

Hence, I didn’t inherit an X chromosome from any of the people whose positions in the chart are uncolored, meaning I can only inherit an X chromosome from the pink or blue people.

Essentially any generational male to male, meaning father/son relationship is an X-DNA blocker.

I know positively that I inherited my paternal grandmother, Ollie Bolton’s entire X chromosome, because hers is the only X chromosome my father, in the fan chart above, had to give me. His entire paternal side of the fan chart is uncolored.

Men only ever inherit their X chromosome from their mother. The only exception to this is if a male has the rare genetic condition of Klinefelter Syndrome, also known as XXY. If you are an adult male, it’s likely that you’ll already know if you have Klinefelters, so that’s probably the last possibility you should consider if you appear to have paternal X matches, not the first.

Sometimes, men appear to have X matches on their father’s side, but (barring Klinefelter’s) this is impossible. Those matches must either be identical by chance, or somehow related in an unknown way on their mother’s side.

Everyone inherits an X chromosome from their mother that is some combination of the X from her father and mother. It’s possible to inherit all of your maternal grandmother or maternal grandfather’s X chromosome, meaning they did not recombine during meiosis.

Using DNA Painter as an X Tool

I use DNAPainter to track my matches and correlate segments with ancestors.

I paint my DNA segments for all my chromosomes at DNAPainter which provides me with a central tracking mechanism that is visual in nature and allows me to combine matches from multiple vendors who provide segment information. I provide step-by-step instructions for using DNAPainter, here.

This is my maternal X chromosome with my matches painted. I’ve omitted my matches’ names for privacy.

On the left side of the shaded grey column, those matches are from my maternal grandmother’s ancestors. On the right side, those matches are from my maternal grandfather’s ancestors.

The person in the grey column descends from unknown ancestors. In other words, I can tell that they descend from my maternal line, but I can’t (yet) determine through which of my two maternal grandparents.

There’s also an area to the right of the grey column where there are no matches painted, so I don’t know yet whether I inherited this portion of my X chromosome from my maternal grandmother or maternal grandfather.

The small darker pink columnar band is simply marking the centromere of the chromosome and does not concern us for this discussion.

Click on any image to enlarge

In this summary view of my paternal X chromosome, above, it appears that I may well have inherited my entire X chromosome from my paternal great-grandmother. We know, based on our inheritance rules that I clearly received my paternal grandmother’s X chromosome, because that’s all my father had to give me.

However, by painting my matches based on their ancestors, and selecting the summary view, you can see that most of my paternal X chromosome can be accounted for, with the exception of rather small regions with the red arrows.

It’s not terribly unusual for either a male or female to inherit their entire maternal X chromosome from one grandparent, or in this case, great-grandparent.

Of course, a male doesn’t inherit an X chromosome from their father, but a female can inherit her paternal X chromosome from either or both paternal grandparents.

Does Size Matter?

Generally speaking, an X match needs to be larger than a match on the other chromosomes to be considered genealogically equivalent in the same timeframe as other autosomal matches. This is due to:

  • The unique inheritance pattern, meaning fewer recombination events occurred.
  • The fact that X-DNA is NOT inherited from several lines.
  • The X chromosome has lower SNP density, meaning it contains fewer SNPs, so there are fewer possible locations to match when compared to the other chromosomes.

I know this equivalency requirement sounds negative, but it’s actually not. It means 7 cM (centimorgans) of DNA on the X chromosome will reach back further in time, so you may carry the DNA of an ancestor on the X chromosome that you no longer carry on other chromosomes. It may also mean that older segments remain larger. It’s actually a golden opportunity.

It sounds much more positive to say that a 16 cM X match for a female, or a 13 cM X match for a male is about the same as a 7 cM match for any other autosomal match in the same generation.

Of course, if the 7 cM match gets divided in the following generation, it has slipped below the matching threshold. If a 16 or 13 cM X match gets divided, it’s still a match. Plus, in some generations, if passed from father to daughter, it’s not divided or recombined. So a 7 cM X match may well be descended from ancestors further back in time.

X Chromosome Differences are Important!

Working with our great-great grandparent’s generation, we have 16 direct ancestors as illustrated in the earlier fan chart.

Given that females inherit from 8 X-chromosome ancestors in total, they are going to inherit an average of 45.25 cM of X-DNA from each of those ancestors. Females have two X chromosomes for a total length of 362 cM of X-DNA from both parents.

A male only has one X chromosome, 181 cM in length, so he will receive an average of 36.2 cM from each of 5 ancestors, and it’s all from his mother’s side.

In this chart, I’ve shown the total number of cMs for all of the autosomes, meaning chromosomes 1-22 and, separately, the X for males and females.

  • The average total cM for chromosomes 1-22 individually is 304 cM. (Yes, each chromosome is a different length, but that doesn’t matter for averages.)
  • That 304 cM can be inherited from any of 16 ancestors (in your great-grandparent’s generation)
  • The total number of cM on the X chromosomes for both parents for females totals 362
  • The total cM of X-DNA for males is 181 cM
  • The calculated average cM inherited for the X chromosome in the same generation is significantly different, shown in the bottom row.

The actual average for males and females for any ancestor on any random non-X chromosome (in the gg-grandparent generation) is still 19 cM. Due to the inheritance pattern of the X chromosome, the female X-chromosome average inheritance is 45.25 cM and the male average is 36.2 cM, significantly higher than the average of 19 cM that genetic genealogists have come to expect at this relationship distance on the other chromosomes, combined.

How Do I Interpret an X Match?

It’s important to remember when looking at X matching that you’re only looking at the amount of DNA from one chromosome. When you’re looking at any other matching amount, you’re looking at a total match across all chromosomes, as reported by that vendor. Vendors report total matching DNA differently.

  • The total amount of matching autosomal DNA does not include the X chromosome cMs at FamilyTreeDNA. X-DNA matching cMs are reported separately.
  • The total amount of matching autosomal DNA does include the X chromosome cMs in the total cM match at 23andMe
  • X-DNA is not used for matching or included in the match amount at either MyHeritage or Ancestry, but is included in the raw DNA data download files for all four vendors.
  • The total match amount shows the total for 22 (or 23) chromosomes, NOT just the X chromosome(s). That’s not apples to apples.

Therefore, an X match of 45 cM for a female or 36 for a male is NOT (necessarily) equivalent to a 19 cM non-X match. That 19 cM is the total for 22 chromosomes, while the X match amount is just for one chromosome.

You might consider a 20 cM match on the regular autosomes significant, but a 20 cM X-only match *could* be only roughly equivalent to a 10ish cM match on chromosomes 1-22 in the same generation. That’s the dog-leg inheritance pattern at work.

This is why FamilyTreeDNA does not report an X-only match if there is no other autosomal match. A 19 cM X match is not equivalent to a 19cM match on chromosomes 1-22. Not to mention, calculating relationships based on cM ranges becomes more difficult when the X is included.

However, the flip side is that because of the inheritance pattern of the X chromosome, that 19 cM match, if valid and not IBC, may well reach significantly further back in time than a regular autosomal matches. This can be particularly important for people seeking either Native or enslaved African ancestors for whom traditional records are elusive if they exist at all.

Critical Take-Away Messages

Here are the critical take-away messages:

  1. Because there are fewer ancestral lineages contributing to the tester’s X chromosome, the amount of X chromosomal DNA that a tester inherits from the ancestors who contribute to their X chromosome is increased substantially.
  2. The DNA of the contributing ancestors is more likely to be inherited, because there are fewer other possible contributing ancestors, meaning fewer recombination events or DNA divisions/recombinations.
  3. X-DNA is also more likely to be inherited because when passed from mother to son, it’s passed intact and not admixed with the DNA of the father.
  4. X matches cannot be compared equally to either percentages or cM amounts on any of the other chromosomes, or autosomal DNA in total, because X matching only reports the amount on one single chromosome, while your total cM match amount reports the amount of DNA that matches from all chromosomes (which includes the X at 23andMe).
  5. If you have X matches at 23andMe and/or FamilyTreeDNA, you can expect your total matching to be higher at 23andMe because they include the X matching cM in the total amount of shared DNA. FamilyTreeDNA provides the amount of X matching DNA separately, but not included in the total. MyHeritage and Ancestry do not include X matching DNA.

For clarity, at FamilyTreeDNA, you can see my shared DNA match with my mother. Of course, I match her on the total length of all my chromosomes, which is 3563 cM, the total Shared DNA for chromosomes 1-22. This includes all chromosomes except for the X chromosome which is reported separately at 181 cM. The longest contiguous block of shared DNA is 284 cM, the entire length of chromosome 1, the longest chromosome.

Because I’m a female, I match both parents on the full length of all 23 chromosomes, including 181 cM on both X chromosomes, respectively. Males will only match their mother on their X chromosome, meaning their total autosomal DNA match to their father, because the X is excluded, is 181 cM less than to their mother.

This difference in the amount of shared DNA with each parent, plus the differences in how DNA totals are reported by various vendors is also challenging for tools like DNAPainter’s Shared cM Tool which is based on the crowd sourced Shared cM Project that averages shared DNA numbers for known relationships at various vendors and translates those numbers into possible relationships for unknown matches.

Not all vendors report their total amount of shared DNA the same way. This is true for both X-DNA and half identical (HIR) versus fully identical (FIR) segments at 23andMe. This isn’t to say either approach is right or wrong, just to alert you to the differences.

Said Another Way

Let’s look at this another way.

If the average on any individual chromosome is 19 cMs for a relationship that’s 5 generations back in time. The average X-DNA for the same distance relationship is substantially more, which means that:

  • The X-DNA probably reaches further back in time than an equivalent relationship on any other autosome.
  • The X-DNA will have (probably) divided fewer times, and more DNA will descend from individual ancestors.
  • The inheritance path, meaning potential ancestors who contributed the X chromosomal DNA, is reduced significantly.

It’s challenging to draw equivalences when comparing X-DNA matching to the other chromosomes due to several variables that make interpretation difficult.

Based on the X-match size in comparison to the expected 19 cM single chromosome match at this genealogical distance, what is the comparable X-DNA segment size to the minimum 7 cM size generally accepted as valid on other chromosomes? What would be equal to a 7 cM segment on any other single random autosomal match, even though we know the inheritance probabilities are different and this isn’t apples to apples? Let’s pretend that it is.

This calculation presumes at the great-great-grandparent level that the 19 cM is in one single segment on a single chromosome. Now let’s divide 19 cM by 7 cM, which is 2.7, then divide the X amounts by the same number for the 7 cM equivalent of 16.75 cM for a female and 13.4 cM for a male.

When people say that you need a “larger X match to be equivalent to a regular autosomal match,” this is the phenomenon being referenced. Clearly a 7 cM X match is less relevant, meaning not equivalent, in the same generation as a 7 cM regular autosomal match.

Still, X matching compared to match amounts shown on the other chromosomes is never exact;u apples to apples because:

  • You’re comparing one X chromosome to the combined DNA amounts of many chromosomes.
  • The limited recombination path.
  • DNA from the other autosomes is less likely to be inherited from a specific ancestor.
  • The X chromosome has a lower SNP density than the other chromosomes, meaning fewer SNPs per cM.
  • The X-DNA may well reach further back in time because it has been divided less frequently.

Bottom Line

The X chromosome is different and holds clues that the other autosomes can’t provide.

Don’t dismiss X matches even if you can’t identify a common ancestor. Given the inheritance path, and the reduced number of divisions, your X-DNA may descend from an ancestor further back in time. I certainly would NOT dismiss X matches with smaller cMs than the 13 and 16 shown above, even though they are considered “equivalent” in the same generation.

X chromosome matching can’t really be equated to matching on the other chromosomes. They are two distinct tools, so they can’t be interpreted identically.

Different vendors treat the X chromosome differently, making comparison challenging.

  • 23andMe includes not only the X chromosome in their cM total, but doubles the Fully Identical Regions (FIR) when people, such as full siblings, share the same DNA from both parents. I wrote about that here.
  • Ancestry does not include the X in their cM match calculations.
  • Neither does MyHeritage.
  • FamilyTreeDNA shows an X match only when it’s accompanied by a match on another chromosome.

The Shared cM Project provides an average of all of the data input by crowdsourcing from all vendors, by relationship, which means that the cM values for some relationships are elevated when compared to the same relationship or even same match were it to be reported from a different vendor.

The Best Part!

The X chromosome inheritance pattern means that you’re much more likely to carry some amount of a contributing ancestor’s X-DNA than on any other chromosome.

  • X-DNA may well be “older” because it’s not nearly as likely to be divided, given that there are fewer opportunities for recombination.
  • When you’re tracking your X-DNA back in your tree, whenever you hit a male, you get an automatic “bump” back a generation to his mother. It’s like the free bingo X-DNA square!
  • You can immediately eliminate many ancestors as your most recent common ancestor (MRCA) with an X-DNA match.
  • Because X-DNA reaches further back in time, sometimes you match people who descend from common ancestors further back in time as well.

If you match someone on multiple segments, if one of those matching segments is X-DNA, that segment is more likely to descend from a different ancestor than the segments on chromosomes 1-22. I’ve found many instances where an X match descends from a different ancestor than matching DNA segments on the autosomes. Always evaluate X matches carefully.

Sometimes X-DNA is exactly what you need to solve a mystery.

Ok, now let’s step through how to use X-DNA in a real-life example.

Using X DNA to Solve a Mystery

Let’s say that I have a 30 cM X match with a male.

  • I know immediately that our most recent common ancestor (MRCA) is on HIS mother’s side.
  • I know, based on my fan chart, which ancestral lines are eliminated in my tree. I’ve immediately narrowed the ancestors from 16 to 5 on his side and 16 to 8 on my side.
  • Two matching males is even easier, because you know immediately that the common ancestor must be on both of their mother’s sides, with only 5 candidate lines each at the great-great-grandparent generation.

Female to female matches are slightly more complex, but there are still several immediately eliminated lines each. That means you’ve already eliminated roughly half of the possible relationships by matching another female on their X chromosome.

In this match with a female second cousin, I was able to identify who she was via our common ancestor based on the X chromosome path. In this chart, I’m showing the relevant halves of her chart at left (paternal), and mine (maternal), side by side.

I added blockers on her chart and mine too.

As it turns out, we both inherited most of our X chromosome from our great-grandparents, marked above with the black stars.

Several lines are blocked, and my grandfather’s X chromosome is not a possibility because the common ancestor is my maternal grandmother’s parents. My grandfather is not one of her ancestors.

Having identified this match as my closest relative (other than my mother) to descend on my mother’s maternal side, I was able to map that portion of my X chromosome to my great-grandparents Nora Kirsch and Curtis Benjamin Lore.

My X Chromosome at DNA Painter

Here’s my maternal X chromosome at DNAPainter and how I utilized chromosome painting to push the identification of the ancestors whose X chromosome I inherited back an additional two generations.

Using that initial X chromosome match with my second cousin, shown by the arrow at bottom of the graphic, I mapped a large segment of my maternal X chromosome to my maternal great-grandparents.

By viewing the trees of subsequent X maternal matches, I was then able to push those common segments, shown painted directly above that match with the same color, back another two generations, to Joseph Hill, born in 1790, and Nabby Hall. I was able to do that based on the fact that other matches descend from Joseph and Nabby through different children, meaning we all triangulate on that common segment. I wrote about triangulation at DNAPainter, here.

I received no known X-DNA from my great-grandmother, Nora Kirsch, although a small portion of my X chromosome is still unassigned in yellow as “Uncertain.”

I received a small portion of my maternal X chromosome, in magenta, at left, from my maternal great-great-grandparents, John David Miller and Margaret Lentz.

The X chromosome is a powerful tool and can reach far back in time.

In some cases, the X, and other chromosomes can be inherited intact from one grandparent. I could have inherited my mother’s entire copy of her mother’s, or her father’s X chromosome based on random recombination, or not. As it turns out, I didn’t, and I know that because I’ve mapped my chromosomes to identify my ancestors based on common ancestors with my matches.

X-DNA Advanced Matches at FamilyTreeDNA

At FamilyTreeDNA, the Advanced Matches tab includes the ability to search for X matches, either within the entire database, or within specific projects. I find the project selection to be particularly useful.

For example, within the Claxton project, my father’s maternal grandmother’s line, I recognize my match, Joy, which provides me an important clue as to the possible common ancestor(s) of our shared segments.

Joy’s tree shows that her 4-times great-grandparents are my 3-times great-grandparents, meaning we are 4th cousins once removed and share 17 cM of DNA on our X chromosome across two segments.

Don’t be deceived by the physical appearance of “size” on your chromosomes. The first segment that spans the centromere, or “waist” of the chromosome, above, is 10.29 cM, and the smaller segment at right is 7.02 cM. SNPs are not necessarily evenly distributed along chromosomes.

Remember, an X or other autosomal match doesn’t necessarily mean the entire match is contained in one segment so long as it’s large enough to be divided in two parts and survive the match threshold.

It’s worth noting that Joy and I actually share at least two different, unrelated ancestral lines, so I need to look at Joy’s blocked lines to see if one of those common ancestral lines is not a possibility for our X match. It’s important to evaluate all possible ancestors, plus the inheritance path to eliminate any lineage that involves a father to son inheritance on the X chromosome.

Last but not least, you may match on your X chromosome through a different ancestor than on other chromosomes. Every matching segment has its own individual history. It’s not safe to assume.

Now, take a look at your X chromosome matches at FamilyTreeDNA, 23andMe, and GedMatch. What will you discover?

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here or follow me on Twitter, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

The Secrets Hidden in Mother’s Lifetime Social Security Earnings Report – 52 Ancestors #392

Posted on by
35

Back in September 2022, I ordered a Social Security lifetime earnings record for my mother by filing form SSA-7050, available here. In addition to wages, it also lists employers which would tell me where she was working.

This form is available for living individuals – meaning you can order your own – or for deceased people under specific circumstances if you are:

  • The legal representative of the earner’s estate
  • A survivor
  • An individual with a material interest (as defined on the form)

I ordered the information for both of my parents, but so far, only my mother’s has been delivered.

I provided a credit card number, and it was charged in December. The printed information arrived in March.

My credit card hasn’t been charged for my father’s report. I’m still hopeful, but I’m thinking I need to send a follow-up letter.

Social Security

Social Security was designed to provide a safety net for retirees and has been expanded at various times to include surviving spouses, children under some circumstances, and people with disabilities.

The Social Security Act was passed in 1935, cards issued in 1936 and Social Security benefits began being issued in 1937. The first lump sum payout was 17 cents.

Widows and widowers, meaning surviving spouses are sometimes eligible for benefits, as were self-employed people beginning in 1951.

Social Security benefits, who can receive them, under which circumstances, and when has changed over the years. Medicare was added in 1965. You can read about the history here, which may help you determine whether or not there might be a benefit to ordering this information for a deceased relative.

Cash and Cashless Economy

Recall that the Great Depression occurred between 1929 and 1939 in the US. Poverty was unrelenting, and nearly every family was negatively affected.

My family was only one of many. In fact, they were probably in the majority. My maternal grandfather, John Ferverda, lost his hardware store and was unemployed. The family raised chickens and either sold, traded or bartered poultry and eggs for other goods. My mother said she passionately hated cleaning chickens because she cleaned so many as a child.

Few people actually had money, so a lot of exchanges occurred.

In a rural economy, farm workers worked for cash or goods, much like today’s “gig-workers”. Mom taught dance lessons as a teen and young adult, but she wasn’t employed by a company. Cash changed hands or maybe some labor or vegetables.

Mom graduated from High School in 1940, but I didn’t know when Mom actually had a “job” that would have been recorded as such.

I know now.

Requested Records

I requested mother’s wage records from 1937, the beginning of wages being reported to Social Security, though her death in 2006. Nearly 70 years.

I clearly knew about much of her employment, but not the early years.

In particular, I can’t find Mom in the 1950 census. She was living in Florida in 1949 and early 1950. I’ve struggled to discover much of anything about that time in her life, except, well, that she married a circus performer. Then he divorced her. She returned home, to Indiana, probably during the time that the census was being taken.

But I have questions. So many questions.

  • Did she work in Florida?
  • What about before that?
  • Was she employed by a company when she danced in Chicago, or was she self-employed?
  • Did she work more than one job?
  • Where did she work?
  • For how long?
  • How much money did she make?

Needless to say, I was VERY excited when this envelope FINALLY arrived.

And wow, are there ever some very interesting surprises.

Where was Mom?

Mother, like many females in the early 1940s, married not long after she graduated from high school. It was expected.

Her husband, Dan, joined the Army during WWII and marched off to war.

In 1943, my brother was born. When Dan returned home on leave, it wasn’t to Mom, but to a girlfriend. In fact, Mom didn’t even know he was home on leave. My grandfather quite accidentally ran into Dan and his lady-friend. So had others. It was a small town and everyone, but everyone knew within hours.

For Mom, that devastating, humiliating episode was both an end and a beginning – even if it was a beginning she didn’t want.

Mother realized that she was not going to be a housewife, at least not to Dan, and she was going to be that much-dreaded horrible D word – divorced. Along with that in small town Indiana came incredible stigma. So Mom did the only thing she could do – sought work as a professional tap and ballet dancer – her only marketable skill. After all, now she had a son to support and $4 per week child support that Dan was ordered to pay wasn’t going to do it.

Mom’s official employment began in 1944 and thus began her first official career, although she had been dancing and teaching both tap and ballet for at least a dozen years. Both before and after she graduated, Mom taught at a dance school in Fort Wayne and also privately. I suspect she taught in exchange for her own lessons.

Unfortunately, the dancing photos of Mom during her teen years don’t include any recitals, only practice photos taken by my grandmother in the yard.

In the small town of Silver Lake, there was no job opportunities in 1944, especially not for a dancer, so Mom had to leave my brother with her parents and go to Chicago where she could find employment in the theater business. She returned home as often as she could, and a significant portion of her pay was sent to my grandparents for John.

This was a cascade of heartbreaking events for mother, on many levels, catapulting her into an unwelcome future – one she never sought nor wanted.

1944 – Chicago

The first entry in Mom’s social security earnings record appeared in 1944 with the employer listed as the Theater Service Corporation, 175 N. State, Chicago, Illinois. Earnings were listed by quarter. Her social security record also reveals that her card was initially issued in Illinois, so she had no Social Security wages reported before this time.

  • 1st QTR – 262.50
  • 2nd QTR – 238.75

I knew that Mom had performed in Chicago with the Dorothy Hild Dancers at the Edgewater Beach Hotel.

However, based on this address – the 1944 income was not at the Edgewater Beach, but at the Chicago Theater which is located at 175 N. State.

That’s an entirely different venue.

I had no idea. What can I discover about the Chicago Theatre?

By Daniel Schwen – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7429653

The Chicago Theater still stands downtown in the Loop today.

By Cushman, Charles Weever, 1896-1972 IMLS Digital Collections & Content – North State St. Chicago View source image or order reproductions. Part of Charles W. Cushman Collection Indiana University, Bloomington. University Archives. Brought to you by IMLS Digital Collections and Content., CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52779744

In 1944, the 7-story Chicago Theater’s sign was painted grey. Mom would have stood right here, in front. I believe I see a bus and trolley too, in addition to the trucks in front of Walgreen Drugs. Chicago was a world apart from Silver Lake, Indiana. I know she had studied and performed in Philadelphia with a prima ballerina at one time, but this must have been different yet. She was going to live and perform here, in a hopping metropolis, not visit to study and then return home to Indiana.

Chicago was now home, and she was performing in this magnificent theater – the best of the best.

When I realized exactly what I was seeing, my jaw dropped. The Chicago Theater was built and billed as “The Wonder Theater of the World,” a reputation it lived up to. Step inside the theater and be transported to Paris.

By Jrissman, Murals by Louis Grell (1887-1960). – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9070612

The stunning interior with its gorgeous murals is the same today as it was when mother performed under those chandelier lights to a capacity crowd of 5000 people. A 50-piece orchestra accompanied the live stage shows. Orson Welles exclaimed of the performance, including the Wurlitzer organ; “Oh, yes, it was mighty.” Sometimes mounted police were required for crowd control.

This must have seemed utterly surreal to mother. Did she have to pinch herself? From embarrassed and humiliated as the undesirable wife in Indiana – to this?

The plush environment, private boxes and very early air conditioning attracted wealthy patrons for live performances and early movies.

The five-story lobby and mezzanine, reached by the magnificent grand staircase is patterned after the Royal Palace at Versailles and the Paris Opera House. The crystal chandeliers and light fixtures were fitted with Steuben shades.

You can see the absolutely stunning interior, here and here. Old world opulence is the word that comes to mind.

Mom had been dancing and performing for more than a decade and had a voice coach in Chicago.

It was here, in this stunning 5-story theatre than that mother’s crystal-clear, angelic voice resonated, filling the chamber, with her dancing shoes tap-tapping across the stage to the sheer delight of patrons.

It was here that mother came into her own – her potential just beginning to be realized.

The stars must have glimmered in her eyes, brighter than the heavens. The hometown girl whose husband abandoned her for the girl next door had made it big in one of the most beautiful and renowned theaters, if not THE most beautiful theater in the world. As painful as Silver Lake was, here she was a beautiful star, shining brilliantly under the stage lights. Only she knew the heartache she left behind. Left behind on the surface anyway.

By Raymon Sutedjo-The – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=21418649

Mom walked through these doors for daily practices and nightly performances.

In the excitement of my discovery, I almost forgot about Mom’s pay. Yes, she was paid. If she worked a 40-hour week, and we all know that show business is never just a 40-hour week, she would have worked about 13 weeks in each quarter, or about 520 hours. In the first quarter, she made about 50 cents an hour.

Mom was paid better than average given that minimum wage in 1944 was thirty cents an hour, or equivalent to $5.12 in 2023. Ok, so maybe she wasn’t so well paid. Certainly, no place near a living wage today.

And much of that was sent back to Indiana.

1945

The third and fourth quarter of 1944, and the first and second quarters of 1945, plus part of the third quarter – Mom worked at the Edgewater Beach Hotel.

This was when she was performing with the Dorothy Hild Dancers. Mom is middle row, far right.

Of course, I can’t ask Mom why she changed jobs, but I bet I have a clue. Not only was Mom paid better, but she got to live at the Edgewater Beach hotel as part of her compensation package.

The photos in this article show the crowds at the Edgewater Beach Hotel in 1944, a very posh destination location. Mom opened for Bing Crosby and other famous big bands such as Benny Goodman and Tommy Dorsey who played in the ballroom regularly. I think she has a photo someplace with Wayne King, although I had no idea who he was.

This video was shot in the fall of 1944 at the Edgewater Beach hotel. I can just see Mom there. In fact, she may have been there at this time.

I recognize those stair balusters.

It was here that mother fell in love again in 1944 with Frank Sadowski, the brother of one of the Dorothy Hild dancers.

Indeed. I can watch that video, then close my eyes and see Mother and Frank, her sweetheart, before he was killed in April of 1945.

It’s like I can see life through Mom’s eyes for a few minutes.

Frolicking on the beach, then beautifully dressed and out on the town. Life was good again, and her heartache healed. Frank was an amazing man, studying to be a doctor, which is how he served in the Army.

Everything was going to be alright. They would marry after he got out the service. John, my brother, would come and live with them in Chicago. Life was wonderful and the future was bright, filled with hope and optimism.

That is, until that bubble suddenly burst with a bullet.

Mom made twice as much money at the Edgewater Beach. The first two quarters, she made a total of $396 each quarter. In the first two quarters of 1945, she made $468 each. It’s no wonder she changed employers. Now, she was up to 90 cents an hour plus her room.

Mom worked at the Edgewater Beach Hotel for the first two weeks of the third quarter, which would have been July of 1945. It was probably beastly hot and after Frank’s death, mother was not OK. I’m sure the very last thing she felt like doing was plastering what was assuredly, at that point, a fake smile on her face and performing nightly.

During this time, she also lost an incredible about of weight, and in most photos, appeared incredibly sad.

I’m actually surprised Mom didn’t go back home, but perhaps she realized there was absolutely nothing to go back to.

1945-1950

I have no employment record for mother from June of 1945 until the second quarter of 1950.

A record recently popped up on MyHeritage showing that in May of 1950, she applied for a replacement Social Security card.

I can, in mind’s eye, imagine her frantically digging through her belongings to find that missing card. Where was it? Or, had she perhaps left Florida in a hurry in the spring of 1950, packing only a bag?

A LOT changed in her life between 1945 and 1950.

I know Mom was performing in various theaters and clubs, traveling across the country on tour.

She amassed a suitcase full of scrapbooks that included newspaper clippings of her performances during this time.

She met my father on a train from Philadelphia, where she was appearing, to Chicago.

Mom broke her foot dancing in Cairo, Illinois as reported on October 18, 1947 in the Kosciusko County, Indiana newspaper, stating that her parents were going to retrieve her.

This was effectively the end of Mom’s theater career. A broken foot is a literal show-stopper for a dancer. Mom needed to reconsider and regroup.

Remember that most performers were self-employed, meaning that no one issued them a paycheck. Until 1951, self-employed people couldn’t pay into social security, so there would not have been a record.

Mom’s professional dancing career only lasted four and a half years, if you count from she went to Chicago. She began dancing as a child to strengthen her heart after Rheumatic Fever, and began teaching when she was 15 or 16.

She was just two months shy of 25 when she broke her foot.

1949

Mom knew this chapter of her life was finished. On June 1st, 1949, she withdrew from the American Guild of Variety Artists.

In April 1949, Mom married in Florida and eleven months later, in March of 1950, she found herself divorced.

Not by her choosing, but she had discovered that things weren’t what they seemed or how they had been represented.

I was hoping Mom’s social security and employer history might lend a clue to the year she spent in Florida, but it did not.

This time, when she packed her bags and left Florida, she did go home, or at least near to home and found a job relatively quickly.

1950-1952

In 1950, Mom worked for the last three weeks of the second quarter, so the final three weeks of June, at the Lerner Department Store in Fort Wayne, Indiana for 80 cents an hour. Minimum wage was 75 cents.

Mom did well for herself. She earned $580 in the last quarter of 1951, or $1.12 per hour which provided enough income for Mom to rent a room in this cute yellow house at 534 Meyer and send money home to care for John who was 7 or 8 years old by this time.

I’m uncertain where the Lerner Store was located, but it was probably downtown. This video shows a drive through downtown Fort Wayne in the 1950s and is much like what mother would have seen.

Mom apparently worked part time during the first two quarters of 1952. According to the Fort Wayne City Directory, she was a saleswoman in 1951, but had been promoted to assistant manager in 1952. In the third quarter, she made $602, but was back to $580 in the fourth quarter. She worked at Lerner Shops in January of 1953, then was gone.

1952

In 1952 when Mom was working part-time for Lerner Shops, it appears that she was also working part time for the Wayne Knitting Mills, located at 641 Knitters Avenue in Fort Wayne. She worked there parts of both the first and second quarters of 1952.

The Wayne Knitting Mills, a massive complex, was America’s largest producer of silk hosiery during the time when mother would have been employed there.

Women sat in row upon row, sewing, morning until night, as shown in the photo, here. The facility included a dorm at one time which might have served as an enticement.

That work must have been both backbreaking, sitting hunched over for hours, and mind-numbing, especially for someone used to being physically active. She didn’t last long there, but probably longer than I would have.

1953

In February of 1953, Mom made a big move, beginning her second career. Her lifelong dream had always been to be a bookkeeper, not a dancer and not working in a department store or knitting mill. By this time, she was 13 years out of high school.

Mom never trained as a bookkeeper because her parents didn’t believe in spending money on education for a female – a common sentiment for the time. They had paid for mother’s brother to go to college, including a master’s degree.

My brother once told me that as a child, he and my grandparents had gone to visit my mother when she worked at that “home place” in Lafayette, Indiana, in the office.

Mother had never mentioned this during her lifetime, so I asked “What home place?” John explained that Mom worked in the office for a huge company that made houses. I couldn’t imagine what he was talking about, but here we are!

Indeed, Mom worked for National Homes Acceptance Corporation. Their last address was out of Dallas, TX, but she worked for their initial plant in Lafayette.

National Homes Acceptance Corporation was incorporated in 1952.

Imagine my amazement to discover that at one point in my early adult life, I had lived in this very home, identical to the one above – except the one I lived in was reversed left to right from the model and was painted red at that time.

Entire neighborhoods and subdivisions were constructed quickly. More than 70 years later, many of these homes are still in good condition.

National Homes were inexpensive, solid, and very popular with GIs returning from the service and starting a family. The homes were built in pieces in the factory, then loaded on railroad cars and trucks and assembled on site – reducing the construction time from weeks or months to days.

One of the keys, of course, was a reliable, repeatable pattern that was reproduced thousands of times.

Entire communities of these homes sprang up overnight across the country.

Mom worked in the home office. National Homes were manufactured in several locations in Lafayette, so finding the location of the offices was challenging. The mailing address was Earl Avenue at Wallace Street.

This building stands at that intersection today, and it looks like it might be old enough to have been the National Homes office building.

There’s also a lot of vacant space at this intersection. The train tracks run behind the parking lot, so at one point, there was obviously shipping that occurred from this location.

Today’s Wabash National Corporation produces semi-trailers and began as National Home Corporation. It’s located on Sagamore Parkway, shown above.

If you zoom out a bit, you can see that this entire area, on both sides of the railroad track were and are heavily industrialized. Warehouses at 1000 Sagamore Parkway, now Wabash National, cover most of that block and the next. The Earl and Wallace address (red pin) where Mom worked is just a block down and over – about half a mile.

Mom worked at National Homes from mid-January in 1953 until about the end of January in 1954, making $1.05 per hour.

Soon, however, she moved and got a substantial raise with a new employer.

1954-1955

In 1954, Mother moved back to Chicago where her employer is listed as Sidney Friedman & Meyer S. Smith etal Ptr Sidney Friedman Gen Ptr Cap Wine and Liq Regency Zimco at 2518 W. Coyle Avenue, Chicago where she made $1.58 per hour. Minimum wage was still 75 cents per hour. Mom was making the equivalent of $14.50 in today’s dollars.

I wish I knew why she left Lafayette. I’m sure the cost of living in Chicago was significantly higher.

It was during this time that Mom rented a room from a woman in Chicago that she called Mommie McKenzie, pictured above. McKenzie was a widow that rented rooms in her home to single women who needed some combination of safety and companionship.

Additionally, living with an older widow woman probably removed some of the stigma of being single, or worse yet, divorced, in a big city.

Mother’s employer’s address resolves to a residence although that only means it’s the last address of record for this company. It doesn’t mean that’s the address when she worked there, or that’s physically where she worked.

2518 W. Coyle is this rather large home built in 1931. Today, it houses the Michael Teolis Singers. Who knows, maybe the earlier owners were involved in the entertainment industry too. Based on the company name, in 1954 it seemed to have something to do with wine and liquor sales.

At first, I thought this property might have been located in close proximity to my father who lived at 1827 West Cermak in the 1950 census, or his mother who lived at 317 South Laflin, but it was quite distant, about 18 miles.

It was much closer to the Edgewater Beach Hotel, about 3 miles, and was clearly in a clean, lovely little neighborhood that was familiar.

Sidney Friedman, a lawyer, lived at this location along with his family from 1993-1997 according to the US Phone Directories. He was clearly living here or was somehow associated with this property in the 1950s. I don’t know, but I’d wager a guess that Mom was keeping the books for his company that just happened to have his home listed as it’s headquarters, at least when the Social Security Administration last had an address.

In the first quarter of 1955, Mom was making $1.66 per hour. She worked through most of June in 1955 when she left that job because she was pregnant.

In 1955, there were no provisions for either health insurance or maternity leave. I’m actually surprised she was permitted to work through the end of June when she would definitely have been showing.

Mom told me that she worked part-time for a department store in downtown Chicago, dressing mannequins, but there’s no record in her social security earnings. It could have been cash, or perhaps Sidney Friedman’s company was somehow tied to that.

I tend to think Friedman’s company was linked to the entertainment industry though, based on the “Wine and Liq” portion of the company name, and Mom was probably doing the bookkeeping for him. I wish I could ask her.

During this time, mother was also helping care for my paternal grandmother, Ollie Bolton, who died that April.

1955-1956

The next 2 years, July of 1955 through the spring of 1957 were consumed by a baby, diapers and moving, at least twice.

In November 1956, my father was involved in a near-fatal accident in Kokomo, Indiana that landed him in intensive care for several weeks.

The police came to get Mom and took us to the hospital. Apparently, the staff at the hospital also notified his wife. Trouble was, it was a different wife who lived in Chicago.

A few hours later at the hospital, as my mother sat bedside with her comatose husband, another woman walked in, also carrying a baby, and said she was looking for her husband. My father was in an oxygen tent that was cloudy, the light was off, plus the curtain was pulled. They didn’t think he would live.

The woman walked out, then back in again, quite confused. Her husband didn’t seem to be in either bed. Mom asked her husband’s name, and she replied, “Bill Estes.”

“That’s my husband,” Mom uttered in shocked disbelief.

Two life-altering sucker-punches in one day. Two wives. Two babies. One critically injured husband.

The two women sat side by side – probably more like collapsed – beside his bed, with their babies and shared information. Lots of information. Rivers of tears and red-hot anger directed towards that unconscious man that they were both grieving. Did they ever share – likely more than either woman really wanted to know.

It’s probably a good thing he was unconscious. I can’t help but wonder what he thought when he woke up. Did he think he was having a nightmare? Maybe he wished he had died. Maybe they did too.

The other baby was my brother, Dave, 4 months older than me. While Ellen was incensed at my father for cheating with my mother, years later, DNA would show that my father was not David’s biological father, so my father wasn’t the only unfaithful party. Not that that’s any justification.

Mother was utterly devastated. What was she to do?

Dad recovered, but Mom did not allow him to come “home” to her. He went back to Ellen’s house in Chicago.

Mother apparently managed to get through the winter somehow – and without going back home to Silver Lake in utter humiliation. I’d wager she was miserable.

My mother is one of the bravest women I’ve ever known.

1957

About the middle of May in 1957, Mom began working for Mid States Electric Supply, an electrical parts supplier, as a bookkeeper. She was surprised that anyone would hire a single woman with a child. Not only was there a lot of stigma attached, even without “the rest of the story,” but also there was concern about “who would watch the baby?”

In addition to rent, food, utilities, clothing and a car, now Mom also had to pay a babysitter. She was still sending money to her parents for John, too. I’ve often thought that mother’s life would have been so much simpler if she had placed me for adoption. My heart still aches for her.

The building in Kokomo where Mother first worked for Mid States still stands at the corner of Monroe and Union. Her office was located inside the window to the far left in the photo. I remember her grey desk with its metal chair and sometimes getting to lick the envelope seals and stamps when she sent invoices.

At $1.13 an hour, her starting wages were less than she had made in Chicago, but more than 1953 in Lafayette, Indiana. However, she worked a minimum of 44 hours a week, because the store was open on Saturday morning. She didn’t mind though, because we needed that extra money to make ends meet. I remember Mom saying it paid for the groceries, and we never had anything “extra.”

Minimum wage was $1.00 an hour.

A few years later, Mid States moved to 309 E. Deffenbaugh Street, a more industrial area located a block or so from the Delco plant that purchased a large number of parts. The business had also expanded into consumer lighting, sporting a showroom and lighting consultant.

Mom worked most of April in 1957 and continued to work for Mid States for 14 years, until it was sold to Universal Electric in 1971. The office remained in the same location. The Kokomo office, warehouse and showroom simply joined a larger business.

In the 1970s, I began going to work with Mom on Saturday mornings to do filing, type invoices and earn some spending money. I was paid out of the till, plus a nice cold Coke from the chest type Coke machine. Was that ever good! I enjoyed working for Mom and felt like I was contributing something useful.

1971-1972

Mom had no wages reported for the first two quarters of 1971, but I’m absolutely positive she was working. I suspect a glitch in the reporting following the sale to Universal Electric. I know Mom did some side-work during this time, transcribing records and writing letters for a local attorney. She had taken shorthand and was concerned about losing her job. She was obviously paid cash, because that doesn’t show in her wage record.

Mom was making the same amount that she was paid at Mid States, except she sometimes didn’t reliably receive as much overtime. By 1972, she was making $2.50 an hour. Minimum wage was $1.60 an hour. Mom not only ran the office and had for almost 20 years, she essentially ran the business.

1972-1975

Mom worked for Universal Electric until the fall of 1972.

Not only did Mom change jobs, she got married that same month. Her good nature was being taken advantage of at Universal. Her employer knew she was single and relatively desperate for a job. That changed when she married. Dad, my step-father, encouraged her to quit and find work, if she wanted, with someone who appreciated her. She did just that.

Mom worked for Kokomo Land Company, a builder and land developer, through part of 1975, beginning either right before or right after the wedding. She actually didn’t make as much money in total, but I don’t think she had to work on Saturday which was a relief. She had worked six days a week for 16 years. By the end of 1974, her quarterly wage was $1575, almost exactly what she made at Universal Electric.

At that time, the Kokomo Land Office occupied the majority of the center portion of Forest Park Shopping Plaza. I remember meeting Mom at the Dairy Queen, at the left end, for lunch.

In 1975, she worked for the first quarter for another company, Raymond G. Murkowski out of Athens, Wisconsin. That’s interesting, because she went back to Kokomo Land briefly for part of the second and fourth quarters, probably working part-time. I vaguely remember something about oil speculation in Texas at Kokomo Land Company, but I’m not at all sure that’s connected.

Ironically, although I was an adult in 1975 and close to my mother, I have no idea who Raymond Murkowski is. She never went to Wisconsin, so I have to wonder if he was somehow involved with Kokomo Land Company.

In the last two full quarters that Mom worked in 1974 and 1975, assuming she only worked 40 hours each week, she made $2.93 and $2.58 per hour, respectively. The minimum wage was $2.00 in 1974, or equivalent to about $12.20 today and $2.10 in 1975, or about $12.01 today.

Mom’s retirement was rather unexpected, although not unwelcome, brought about by a health issue. She was becoming increasingly disenchanted with Kokomo Land and the owner, and the business was encountering financial issues. She was relieved to bow out.

Mom’s bookkeeping career spanned 22 years, 1953 to 1975.

1978-2004

Surgery fixed Mom’s health issue, but retirement didn’t agree with her, so in 1978, Mom began her third and final career as an Avon Representative. That gave her life a sense of purpose again, but not because of the sales.

Her Avon business was more of a mission than a job. She visited those in need, shut-ins, listened, helped, took food and more, all under the guise of delivering an Avon order or stopping by to see if someone wanted to look at the Avon book and place an order. She gave far more away than she ever made, and that’s not counting gas, wear and tear on the car, or her time.

Her Avon income was reported as self-employment through 2005 – a total of 26 years.

For the entire year of 1974, at Kokomo Land, she made $5,835. In 1978 and 1979, her first two Avon years, she made about $650 each year.

Her best sales year was 1987 when she made $6229. But that wasn’t her highest accomplishment.

In 1988, at the Avon President’s Club dinner Mom was nominated for and received the Spirit of Avon Award. This award is not earned with sales or through recruiting, but living by example. If I recall correctly, only one award was given per district, per year.

For three years during that time, 1983-1985, Avon paid Mom small amounts directly. $45, $180 and $15 respectively. I’m guessing she helped with training or something similar, but I really have no idea. She was always stepping up, going above and beyond. That’s just who she was.

In 1992, Dad and Aunt Verma (left) accompanied Mom to a dinner honoring Avon President’s Club Members. President’s Club membership was based on sales, not profit. Her 1991 sales were $4071.

Presidents Club members received Albie figurines. Not my cup of tea, but Mom cherished the Albies because of their significance. She was incredibly proud of those accomplishments, even though she was far too demure to ever say anything.

Trust me, Mom made sales and reported income, but she assuredly lost money every year. Working was no longer about pay, but service, charity and companionship.

Being an Avon Lady was her legacy.

Mom was absolutely determined to complete her 25th year with Avon, and she did. The photo above was taken by a customer on her last day. She was 82 years old.

Mom’s driving skills were deteriorating, and although we knew she would miss the people and her customers, it was time for Mom to retire for the third time.

When she retired, her friends, family and many customers surprised her with a party in the summer of 2005.

Mom was utterly thrilled – just joyful. She worried about who would take care of her customers – not take their orders – take care of them.

Then, she was gone the next spring.

I still have and use her Avon sample bag that she carried for so many years. She goes with me every time I transport a care quilt to be quilted, and often when I deliver the finished quilt to the recipient.

Just a small way to continue her legacy of service. Mom accompanies me.

Hendrickson Distributing

Mom had one additional employer that I had forgotten about that made me smile.

In 1979 and 1980, I was working for Hendrickson Distributing as the IT director. Hendrickson Distributing was a farm distributor, building grain bins and silos. We were converting from one computer system to another, plus implementing an inventory management system, and I needed part-time assistance with data entry.

I asked Mom if she could help out, and she agreed. I knew she would be dependable and produce accurate work. Mom was a stickler for precision, thanks to all those years of bookkeeping, and fully understood the need for accuracy.

Until I saw her wage report, I had nearly forgotten about those months that Mom actually worked for me.

The Hendrickson’s office, now a car lot, was a glorified pole barn. The computer room which doubled as our office was located between the picture window and the first garage door, near that red car. The office was small, maybe 12X12, and there were either three or four of us typing away. The good news – because of the computer equipment, the office was air conditioned. The rest of the offices and warehouse facilities were not.

We walked across the street to the lunch counter at the drug store to eat or drove the couple blocks to the only little Mom and Pop restaurant in the small town of Russiaville, Indiana, neither of which exist anymore.

I hadn’t realized until we worked together at Hendrickson’s that Mom and I almost never had any time together, just the two of us.

This photo, taken in 1988 at an Embroiderers’ Guild awards banquet in Louisville, KY is a rare exception.

Our lives revolved around family. Between husbands, siblings, children, farms, pets, jobs, Avon, church and in my case, college, we were both always extremely busy.

I remember those days at Hendrickson fondly now, with a soft smile and perhaps a tear or two.

I’m so grateful for those few months of working side by side, closely together. I didn’t know it at the time, but my life would change dramatically in the fall of 1980, just a few months later. This time, it would be me that changed jobs and moved away.

Yes, indeed, ordering mother’s Social Security wage statements was well worth the effort. Not only did I discover things about mother’s life that I never knew, and never could have known any other way, I also got a complimentary trip down memory lane.

Mom worked for nearly seven decades, but what was her legacy?

Legacy

Mom’s legacy, beyond Avon and her service there, was the inspiration and encouragement she infused into people around her. Mom was in many ways, contagious. She had quietly succeeded at pretty much everything she set her mind to, in spite of what seemed like dauntingly impossible circumstances.

After her death, I found these “10 Commandments” in her effects. They explain a lot. If you’re wondering about why there are only 9 – she apparently typed 9 and 10 together as one. #10 begins with “Survive in order to thrive.”

Maybe she just wanted to see if we were paying attention:)

Stars Over Broadway

It seems my mother was constantly conflicted between feeling she needed to conform to oppressive expectations, and the glorious freedom of reaching for the stars, literally, despite all odds.

She was a tenacious woman of many talents.

In addition to her paying jobs in three professions for nearly 70 years, she was a master crochet artist.

Mom had literally boxes and boxes of ribbons, People’s Choice, and Best of Show Rosettes from fairs and exhibits of different types across the country.

Every family member received cozy afghans, intricate heirloom shawls and beautiful Christmas ornaments, often with ribbons attached.

I designed and made Mom a quilt that I named Stars Over Broadway, using her ribbons symbolically mixed with a few of mine – subtly suggesting that indeed, Mom deserved her own Hollywood Star.

Not only for her dancing prowess, but all of her lifetime achievements. Mom was much too humble to share her accomplishments, except maybe for a ribbon or two at fair time. I hoped that this metaphoric quilt, which she hung prominently, would remind her every day how much she had accomplished, how valued she was to us, and that we recognized and were oh-so-very-proud of her achievements.

She didn’t have to be embarrassed by the recognition, because no one outside the family would ever know the real meaning unless she told them.

Mom was my inspiration, by example, even though I often didn’t realize it at the time.

These ribbon stars are touching at the points, essentially holding hands, representing the women who came before us, those of us who lived when she did and were part of the sacred circle, and those who will follow, joined through time. An infinity loop of sorts – always connected. Reaching out, holding hands, dancing in circles, sharing energy, bonded forever.

Just dance.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here or follow me on Twitter, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Beethoven’s DNA Reveals Surprises – Does Your DNA Match?

Posted on by
19

Beethoven’s DNA has been sequenced from a lock of his hair. That, alone, is amazing news – but that’s just the beginning!

The scientific paper was released this week, and the news media is awash with the unexpected surprises that Beethoven’s DNA has revealed for us. Better yet, his DNA is in the FamilyTreeDNA database and you just might match. Are you related to Beethoven?

His Y-DNA, mitochondrial DNA and autosomal DNA have been recovered and are available for matching.

You can check your autosomal results if you’ve taken a Family Finder test, or you can upload your DNA file from either AncestryDNA, 23andMe or MyHeritage to find out if you match Beethoven. Here are the download/upload instructions for each company.

But first, let’s talk about this amazing sequence of events (pardon the pun) and scientific discoveries!

Beethoven’s Genome is Sequenced

Everyone knows the famous, genius composer, Ludwig van Beethoven. He was born in 1770 in Bonn on the banks of the Rhine River and died in 1827 in Vienna. You can listen to a snippet of his music, here.

We are all about to know him even better.

Yesterday, amid much media fanfare and a press release, the genome and related findings about Beethoven were released by a team of renowned scientists in a collaborative effort. Research partners include the University of Cambridge, the Ira F. Brilliant Center for Beethoven Studies, the American Beethoven Society, KU Leuven, the University Hospital Bonn, the University of Bonn, the Beethoven-Haus Bonn, the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and  FamilyTreeDNA. I want to congratulate all of these amazing scientists for brilliant work.

Beethoven’s Hair Revelations

In the past, we were unable to retrieve viable DNA from hair, but advances have changed that in certain settings. If you’re eyeing grandma’s hair wreath – the answer is “not yet” for consumer testing. Just continue to protect and preserve your family heirlooms as described in this article.

Thankfully, Beethoven participated in the Victorian custom of giving locks of hair as mementos. Eight different locks of hair attributed to Beethoven were analyzed, with five being deemed authentic and one inconclusive. Those locks provided enough DNA to obtain a great deal of different types of information.

Beethoven’s whole genome was sequenced to a 24X coverage level, meaning the researchers were able to obtain 24 good reads of his DNA, providing a high level of confidence in the accuracy of the sequencing results.

What Was Discovered?

Perhaps the most interesting discovery, at least to genealogists, is that someplace in Beethoven’s direct paternal lineage, meaning his Y-DNA, a non-paternal event (NPE) occurred. The paper’s primary authors referred to this as an “extra-pair-paternity event” but I’ve never heard that term before.

Based on testing of other family members, that event occurred sometime between roughly 1572 and Ludwig’s conception in 1770. The reported lack of a baptismal record had already raised red flags with researchers relative to Beethoven’s paternity, but there is nothing to suggest where in the five generations prior to Ludwig von Beethoven that genetic break occurred. Perhaps testing additional people in the future will provide more specificity.

We also discovered that Beethoven was genetically predisposed to liver disease. He was plagued with jaundice and other liver-related issues for much of his later life.

Beethoven, prior to his death, left a handwritten directive asking his physicians to describe and publicize his health issues which included progressive hearing loss to the point of deafness, persistent gastrointestinal problems and severe liver issues that eventually resulted in his death. Cirrhosis of the liver was widely believed to be his cause of death.

In addition, DNA in the hair revealed that Beethoven had contracted Hepatitis B, which also affects the liver.

The combination of genetic predisposition to liver disease, Hepatitis B and heavy alcohol use probably sealed his fate.

Additional health issues that Beethoven experienced are described in the paper, published in Current Biology.

It’s quite interesting that during this analysis the team devised a method to use triangulated segments that they mapped to various geographic locations, as illustrated above in a graphic from the paper. Fascinating work!!!

As a partner in this research, Cambridge University created a beautiful website, including a video which you can watch, here.

Beethoven’s Later Years

This portrait of Beethoven was painted in 1820 just 7 years before his death, at 56 years of age. By this time, he had been completely deaf for several years, had stopped performing and appearing in public. Ironically, he still continued to compose, but was horribly frustrated and discouraged, even contemplating suicide. I can’t even fathom the depths of despair for a person with his musical genius to become deaf, slowly, like slow torture.

His personal life didn’t fare much better. In 1812, he wrote this impassioned love letter to his “Immortal Beloved” whose identity has never been revealed, if it was ever known by anyone other than Beethoven himself. The letter was never sent, which is why we have it today.

FamilyTreeDNA

FamilyTreeDNA, one of the research partners published a blog article, here.

The FamilyTreeDNA research team not only probed Beethoven’s genealogy, they tested people whose DNA should have matched, but as it turns out, did not.

Beethoven’s mitochondrial DNA haplogroup is H1b1+16,362C, plus a private mutation at C16,176T. Perhaps in the future, Beethoven’s additional private mutation will become a new haplogroup if other members of this haplogroup have it as well. If you have tested your mitochondrial DNA, check and see if Beethoven is on your match list. If you haven’t tested, now’s a great time.

According to the academic paper, Beethoven’s Y-DNA haplogroup is I-Z139, but when viewing Figure 5 in the paper, here, I noticed that Beethoven’s detailed haplogroup is given as I-FT396000, which you can see in the Discover project, here.

Viewing the Time Tree and the Suggested Projects, I noticed that there are four men with that haplogroup, some of whom are from Germany.

The ancestor’s surnames of the I-FT396000 men, as provided in public projects include:

  • Pitzschke (from Germany)
  • Hartmann (from Germany)
  • Stayler
  • Schauer (from Germany)

If your Y-DNA matches Beethoven at any level, you might want to upgrade if you haven’t taken the Big Y-700 test. It would be very interesting to see when and where your most recent common ancestor with Beethoven lived. You just never known – if you match Beethoven, your known ancestry might help unravel the mystery of Beethoven’s unknown paternal lineage.

Beethoven’s DNA is in the FamilyTreeDNA database for matching, including Y-DNA mitochondrial and autosomal results, so you just might match. Take a look! A surprise just might be waiting for you.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here or follow me on Twitter, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

Who is Peter Johnson’s Ancestor – Peter Jochimsson (Yocum) or Mathias Jönsson alias Hutt? Or Neither? – 52 Ancestors #391

Posted on by
6

Peter Johnson (c1720-1790) is making me crazy. To refresh your memory, Peter’s early life, including his parents, are shrouded in mystery. I wrote about him here and here. My ancestor is Dorcas Johnson who married Jacob Dobkins. I strongly believe Dorcas to be Peter Johnson’s daughter, for a myriad of reasons, supported by evidence of various types, including paper-trail and genetic, but I’m still seeking that elusive nail in the coffin – pardon the pun. I wrote about Dorcas here and here.

I’m comfortable with assigning Peter Johnson as Dorcas’s father, although I’d love just one conclusive piece of proof. However, Peter’s parents are another matter entirely and one very tough nut.

I’ve been digging like a dog with a bone, and so far, I’ve unearthed conflicting evidence. So now I have two bones and no idea which one is accurate. Wasn’t counting on that – but it sure makes for an interesting article!

I did, however, discover an absolutely WONDERFUL book in Salt Lake City recently. My husband scanned the entire book for me. Let’s start with the 1693 Census of the Swedes on the Delaware.

1693 Census of the Swedes on the Delaware

According to the 1693 Census of the Swedes on the Delaware authored in 1993 and published by Peter Stebbins Craig, J.D., between 1637 and 1655, Sweden equipped thirteen passenger voyages for the South Delaware River, with about 800 prospective settlers. Eleven ships with 600 passengers actually arrived.

The first ship deposited 24 men at Fort Christina, now Wilmington, Delaware. The second and third expeditions brought families. In 1644, Sweden and Denmark were at war, so immigration was suspended until 1647.

In 1651, the Dutch erected a fortified town and fort Casimir at present day New Castle, and the Swedes were disgusted. Several returned to Sweden and others left for neighboring Maryland.

In 1653, 22 Swedes presented a petition to the Swedish Governor Johan Printz, complaining of his aristocratic rule. One Peeter Jochim and one Claes Johansson were among the petitioners. The descendants of Claes, according to Peter Craig, use the Johnson surname in Pennsylvania, and Classon in Delaware and Maryland. Nothing confusing here!

Printz accused the petitioners of mutiny and returned in a huff to Sweden, but a new governor was soon dispatched, along with more settlers. Sailing into the Delaware River, the new Governor, Johan Rising, demanded that the Dutch Fort Casimir surrender – which it did because it had no gunpowder.

The Dutch at Fort Trinity (Fort Casimir, now New Castle) returned north to New Netherlands, but more Swedes moved to Maryland. You can read about Fort Trinity/Fort Casimir archaeology excavations, here.

Craig estimates that about 300 people, including wives and children, remained in New Sweden in 1655 when the Dutch governor Peter Stuyvesant sailed up the Delaware with 7 armed ships and 317 soldiers. The 50 Swedish solders were divided between two fortresses. Both Fort Trinity and Fort Christina (now Wilmington) surrendered on September 15, 1655. You can see a reconstructed Swedish village, here.

At this point, a few Swedes returned to the old country, but most remained, influenced strongly by Peter Stuyvesant’s conciliatory attitude. In a surprise move, he offered to return the colony to Governor Rising, but would retain Fort Casimir (New Castle). Governor Rising declined and left, but Stuyvesant made the same offer to the remaining settlers, offering them the opportunity to govern themselves by a court of their own choosing, continue their religion, have their own militia, continue trading with the Indians and retain their land. In return, they had to pledge loyalty to New Netherlands and Stuyvesant reserved the right to approve their officers. That seemed like a pretty good deal, all things considered, so the Swedes accepted, although they remained stubbornly independent.

Another voyage was already underway though, and in March of 1656, an additional 106 people arrived from the province of Varmland, Sweden, sailing out of Gothenburg.

The new “Swedish Nation” was formed in August 1656, with two courts. One was “Upland,” north of New Castle, and the other functioned on the other side of the Cristina River. The Delaware River was the highway and transportation was primarily by dugout canoe, exactly like the Native people. Hunting was achieved using Native paths. Some farming was undertaken, but mostly, only enough to feed families.

By 1680, life was changing for the Swedish families along the Delaware and many Englishmen were settling in the region. In 1681, William Penn received his charter for Pennsylvania, quickly followed by 23 ships from England carrying his Quaker followers. The three “lower counties” of Pennsylvania were present-day Delaware. By 1682, no longer holding a majority, the Swedish courts were no longer in session.

Penn was very complimentary of the Swedes, said they were welcoming and helpful to the English, got along very well with the Native people, and “strong of body…they have fine children, and almost every house full; rare to find one of them without 3 or 4 boys and as many girls; some six, seven and eight sons.”

By this time, given that 40+ years had elapsed since the first Swedes settled in New Sweden, the third generation was beginning – grandchildren of those original settlers were being born.

One of their English neighbors described the Swedes as ingenious, speaking English, Swedish, Finnish, Dutch and Indian. He described their efficiency, stating that one man could cut down a tree, two would quickly rend the tree into planks using only an ax and wooden wedges. No iron. The women spun linen and wove it into clothe and then made clothes. Swedish families ate rye instead of white bread.

The Swedes introduced log cabins to the colony – structures that would sustain pioneers on the ever-westward-moving frontiers for centuries to come.

The Nothnagle cabin,above, in Gibbstown, NJ, built in 1638 (attached to a 1738 structure) is reputed to be the oldest house in New Jersey.

The cabin is a few miles downstream from present-day Philadelphia, across the river from Tinicum Island, about four miles northeast of Raccoon Creek. This is important because it tell us where Swedes were living at the early date.

After William Penn obtained his charter, he cultivated the friendship of the Swedes to help his English settlers. Among others, Peter Petersson Yocum served as an interpreter, assisting Penn when purchasing land from the Indians.

Unfortunately, the Swedes had already purchased this land, as attested to by depositions from 7 “Antient Swedes” stating that they had purchased and occupied that land since 1638. Eventually, the Swedes provided Penn with the land that would become Philadelphia.

Given that Finland was part of Sweden at this time, no differentiation was made between Swedes and Finns, and both were included. Craig says that if the term Finns was used, it was specifically referring to people who spoke primarily Finnish. People who spoke primarily Swedish were not called Finns. Spelling was not standardized, but neither was it for English. This seems to be a politically challenging time in Scandinavia and results in confusion when looking back and trying to unravel New Sweden’s settlers. Additionally, patronymics, followed by the gradual adoption of surnames make both history and genealogy exceedingly difficult.

In 1693, a “census” of the Swedes was taken, thankfully, and appended to a letter. In 1693, the Swedes were still living below the fall line. In later years, they would settle in tracts granted to them by Penn in Upper Merions Township in Montgomery County, PA and Manatawny, present day Amity Township in Berks County.

Some Swedes settled at Sahakitko, a trading center for the Susquehanna (Minquas) Indians located at the head of the Elk River, now Elkton, Maryland. These traders traveled extensively, hunting, trapping, moving among and trading with various Indian tribes.

Peter Craig spent his retirement visiting these locations, along with archives and universities in Sweden and Finland, ferreting out information about these families. To him, we owe a massive debt of gratitude, because without his work we would be left with only shreds to try to reweave back into a piece of whole cloth. I’ll spare you the details about the mistakes with early 1693 census publications, but suffice it to say that Craig located and reassembled the information. The order of recording is important as well and provided information about where the families lived. The area was called “New Sweden in Pennsylvania on the Delaware River” and in 1693, the number of people in each household was recorded.

By 1693, not everyone was Swedish or Finnish. Dutch, English and German immigrants had intermarried with the Swedish colonists. Conversely, some of the Swedes were found in Maryland and no longer associated with the Swedish churches. Both of the Swedish churches were without pastors and had requested replacements. A 1697 list of parishioners includes people not listed in 1693 and a population estimate of about 1200.

The total 1693 census was 972 individuals, and within the Swedes community, our Peter Johnson’s ancestor is found – someplace.

Peter Craig listed the Swedes along with the number of souls shown in the census, but due to the changing nature of patronymics, it’s very difficult, without additional information to move further than this.

Thankfully, in the remainder of the book, Craig fleshed out each family, as best he could based on documents retrieved from many locations.

By now, you’re probably wondering why I’ve provided all this background.

Peter Johnson (c1720-1790)

I wrote about “my” Peter Johnson, here and here. We know some things, unquestionably, about Peter Johnson (c1720-1790.)

There is absolutely NO question that Peter Johnson’s descendants are related to the descendants of BOTH Jacob Dobkins who married Dorcas (Darkus) Johnson and Evan Dobkins who married Margaret Johnson.

Three distinct types of genetic evidence come into play.

Genetic Evidence

The mitochondrial DNA descendants of both Dorcas Johnson and Margaret Johnson match each other, confirming that they indeed descend from a common maternal ancestor. Mitochondrial DNA can’t prove actual parentage, but it can certainly rule it out. An exact match is strong evidence. Multiple pieces of evidence point to Darcus/Dorcas and Margaret being sisters. I wrote about this family and their challenges, here.

Even stronger evidence would be to find a mitochondrial DNA descendant of Peter Johnson’s wife, reportedly Mary Polly Philips, through another daughter, descending through all females to the current generation which can be male or female. If the descendant of Mary’s other daughter through all females to the current generation, which can be male, matches both Dorcas and Margaret’s descendants’ mitochondrial DNA, we’ve added another very important piece of evidence that Dorcas and Margaret are daughters of Peter Johnson and his wife. I’m offering a fully paid DNA testing scholarship for a qualifying person.

Using autosomal DNA, descendants of Peter Johnson through multiple other children match dozens of people descended from both Dobkins/Johnson couples.

Click to enlarge

Here’s one example using Ancestry’s ThruLines. How could I match descendants of six of Peter’s other children if I wasn’t descended through Peter or his ancestral line? By ancestral line, I mean that this same phenomenon could happen if I was descended from, say, Peter’s sibling.

Let’s look at another example from the perspective of someone descended from one of Peter Johnson’s other children.

Click to enlarge

This confirmed descendant of Peter Johnson through son James matches several descendants through Peter’s other children, plus 4 through Dorcas Johnson and Jacob Dobkins, plus 21 through Margaret Johnson and Evan Dobkins. How could this person who is descended through Peter’s son James match 25 people descended through Dorcas and Margaret who married the Dobkins boys if Dorcas and Margaret weren’t Peter’s daughters or blood relatives?

Jacob Dobkins and Evan Dobkins are confirmed brothers through John Dobkins and wife Elizabeth, and Dorcas Johnson and Margaret Johnson are believed to be sisters. The Bible of Peter Johnson’s son, Solomon, records two of his sisters marrying Dobkins men. It’s important to note that this record comes from descendants of Peter, through another branch of Peter Johnson’s family, and not from descendants of those two Dobkins/Johnson couples.

A third piece of genetic evidence is the Y-DNA of Peter Johnson.

Several men who descend from Peter and other Johnson males have tested and match each other, including three Big Y-700 testers.

I’ve spent an incredible amount of time recently evaluating Y-DNA and autosomal DNA matches, from tests taken by both Johnson and Yokum testers, or similarly spelled surnames. Some men have completely different Y-DNA, but claim to descend from the same lines. Clearly, we have conflicting evidence to resolve.

Another piece of information of which I’m confident is that our Peter Johnson’s ancestors were indeed Swedish, and I agree with Eric and other Johnson researchers who believe Peter descended from one of the founders of the early Swedish Colony along the Delaware River in the 1600s. Now you know exactly why I’ve shared this information from Peter Craig’s book.

Before we review additional DNA information, I’d like to continue with information about both the Johnson and Yocum lines, extracted from Peter’s comprehensive book. I’ve provided map locations which will aid with locations and proximity.

Peter Petersson Yocum

Page 25-26: Peter Yocum was a member of the Wicaco church when on the last day of May in 1693, 26 members of the Swedish congregation gathered at the log church to sign the letter to Sweden requesting new ministers.

The church faced the Delaware River at the present location of Gloria Dei (Old Swedes) Church in Philadelphia and had originally been built in 1677 to serve the Swedes living above the Schuylkill River, with the 1646 church at Tinicum Island continuing to serve members located between the Schuylkill and Marcus Hook.

When Tinicum Island passed out of Swedish ownership in 1683, the church at Tinicum was abandoned. By 1693, the Wicaco congregation embraced 102 Swedish households extending from Neshaminy Creek in Bucks County to Marcus Hook, on the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware, and from Pennsauken Creek in Burlington County to the southern boundary of Gloucester County (Oldmans Creek) on the New Jersey side of the river.

Identification of the 554 Swedish church members living within this area is facilitated by the fact that in 1697 the new Wicaco minister, Andreas Rudman, made a house-by-house enumeration of his congregation, which was later copied and preserved. This chapter focused on the first 37 Wicaco households listed in the 1693 census. The household’s location is shown as evidenced by contemporary land records. Additionally, the value or size of each property is shown in pounds or acres as reported in contemporary tax records.

Page 43, person #35* – Peter Petersson Yocum (Aronameck, 100 pounds): Peter was born in New Sweden about 1652. His father, a soldier named Peter Jochimsson from Schlesvig in Holsstein, had arrived in New Sweden on the Swan in 1643 and became a freeman on November 1, 1652. He was one of the 22 freemen signing the 1653 complaint against Governor Printz. In the summer of 1654, Governor Rising chose him to go to New Amsterdam (now Manhattan in New York City) on a diplomatic and spying mission to deliver a letter. Peter Jochimsson died there. Thereafter, his widow, aged 20 with 2 children at his death, known in 1693 as Ella Steelman, (#54), married Hans Mansson who raised Peter Petersson as his own son. Peter Petersson who adopted the surname Jochim (Yocum) about 1675 married Judith, daughter of Jonas Nilsson (322), and had seven children by May of 1693: Peter born 1677, Mans born 1678, Catharine born 1681, Charles born 1682, Sven born 1685, Julia born 1687, and Jonas born in 1689. Peter Petersson Yocum who had been prominent as an Indian trader and as an Indian interpreter for William Penn died in 1702. His widow thereafter moved with her younger sons to Manatawny (Berks County) where she died in 1727. Their descendants used the surname of Yocum or Yocom.

Craig provides the following footnote: Subsequent children: Anders (Craig’s ancestor) born 1693, John born 1696 and Maria. For additional references to Peter’s father, Peter Jochimson, see Huygen, 63, MGB 23, 78; Rising 93, 107, 111, 112, 163, 165, 183, 195. Peter Jochimsson also had a daughter, Elisabeth born about 1654 who married an English soldier, John Ogle. Yocum, 270, n24; Stille, 147-149.

*Please note that Craig’s numbers, such as #35, reference their position on the 1693 census. Peter is recorded as “Petter Yocomb – 9” meaning 9 people in the family as of that date.

Mathias Hutt Jönsson

Raccoon Creek is about two miles north of Oldmans Creek, shown at the top of the map below.

Mathias Jönsson alias Hutt, living someplace on or near Salem Creek in New Jersey (upper red arrow,) fell under the Crane Hook Congregation across the river on the Pennsylvania side in what is now Wilmington.

Click to enlarge

His son, Oliver, and possibly other sons would eventually live in the Indian trading village of Sahakitko at Head of Elk, now Elkton, Maryland.

Craig tells us that the migration of families from New Castle County across the Delaware River to Penn’s Neck in Salem County began in 1671. By the time of the 1693 census, the Crane Hook Church counted 130 members living on “the other side” of the Delaware.

Penn’s Neck was bounded by the Delaware River on the west and extended from Oldmans Creek on the north to Salem Creek on the south. The eastern boundary was also Salem Creek to its northern bend, then extending overland northeast to Oldman’s Creek. It derived its name from the fact that William Penn, proprietor of Pennsylvania, also acquired proprietorship of this area in 1683 from its first English claimant, John Fenwick. The church census identifies the households in Penn’s Neck beginning at its northernmost settlement.

Page 104, footnote 58 on Olle Thomasson #113 – partially reads: On August 25, 1685, “Wooley Thomason of Pennsylvania” (which then included Delaware,) and Wooley Peterson of Boughttown (#80) were named co-administrators of the estate of “Matthias Unson” of Salem Creek in Penn’s Neck. NJA, 23:474. The deceased whose full name was Matthias Jönsson alias Hutt, directed that his son Michael should live with Wooley Thompson. Salem Co. wills, 2:16-17, NJA 23:474; 1730 accounting by William Peterson, surviving executor, Salem County probate records 503Q, NJA, 23:263-64.

This next portion loops in another Jönsson family and is confusing. I apologize in advance.

The Jönsson or Halton Family – The probable progenitor of the Halton family was Jons Jönsson, a Finn from Letstigen, Varmland, who was listed in October 1655 as about to go to New Sweden on the Mercurius with his wife and 6 children. Later records disclose the presence of Olle, Peter and Mans Jönsson whose patronymic was later replaced by Halton. Along with Nils Larsson France (see #85), Olle Rawson (#135) and their associated, Olle Jönsson (also known as “Carringa Olle”) was licensed by the New Jersey governor in 1668 to buy Indian lands on the east side of the Delaware River. The subsequent purchase agreement, executed Nov. 15, 1676, conveyed the lands to Hans Hoffman and Peter Jönsson. In 1684, Peter Jönsson moved to Penn’s Neck, Salen County, dying in 1692. He called himself Peter Halton in his will, naming his wife as Mary and his children as Frederick, Andrew and Brita.

Page 79 #78 – Lasse Halton (Raccoon Creek, 100 acres): Born about 1668, Lasse Halton was the eldest son of Olle Jönsson (“Carringa Olle”) and in 1693 was probably residing with his brother Hans and Carl Halton. Lasse later married a daughter of Matthias Jönsson of Penn’s Neck. The names of their children, if any, are uncertain. He moved to Piles Grove, Salem County, around 1707, after selling his Raccoon Creek Plantation to his brother Hans.

The 100 acres occupied by Lasse Halton was taxed to his mother, “Madlen Janson” in 1687. Her name was replaced with his on the 1690 and 1694 tax lists.

The final accounting of the estate of Matthias Jönsson, filed in 1730, showed a payment to Lausy Halton for his wife’s filial portion NJA, 21:263-264. He had picked out his grave site at Raccoon church in 1724. RPN, 27.

Carl (Charles) Halton married Maria, daughter of Matthias Jönsson (NJA, 23:263-64) and following her death, Gunnilla Fransson. Charles Halton died at Penn’s Neck in 1738.

Page 148, #173 Anders Anderson Weinam (150 aces): (The first portion regarding his name omitted.)

It is uncertain whether Anders Andersson Weinam was a son of a settler or New Sweden named Anders or whether he was among the 1663-1664 arrivals under Dutch rule. Anders was fined 50 guilders in the 1669 Long Finn Rebellion. By 1677 he had moved to Crane Hook. In 1679, he joined Matthias Jönsson, Lars Corneliusson (see #174-75) and widow Annika Hendricks (see #176) in obtaining the original 600 acre grant at Chestnut Neck between Parting Creek and Bastowe (sauna) Creek. In 1690 Nicholas Philpot purchased 50 acres from Anders Andersson’s original 150 acres. Meanwhile, in partnership with Peter Bilderback, Anderson acquired a nearby tract of 100 acres from William Penn. In 1697 Anders Weinam pledged 18 shillings for the new church at Christina and in 1699 both Anders Vinam and his wife were assigned pews at Holy Trinity. The will of Anders Andersson of Penn’s Neck, dated July 9, 1719, gave his entire estate to his wife Anna. Her will, proved the following year, made her brother Henery Boasman (Hendrick Batsman), sold heir, which identifies her as the daughter of Joran Joransson Batsman (see #151.) She and Anders had no children. Their household of four probably included two of the children of Matthias Jönsson Hutt.

Matthias Jönsson alias Hutt had been granted a patent for 100 acres at Feren Hook in 1669. Fined in 1675 in the dike rebellion, he remained at that location until 1679 when he moved to Chestnut Neck. When he died in 1685, he left nine orphan children. The two youngest of his sons, Eric and Eskil Jönsson or Johnson, also known as Erik and Eskil Hutton or Hotton, remained in Penn’s Neck and probably were members of Anders Andersson’s household in 1693.

Will – 1684-5 Feb. 14 – Unson, Mathias, of Castiana Neck on Fenwick’s River alias Salem Greek, Salem Tenth, planter; will of. Gives real and personal estate to his nine children, of whom only the following names are given; Woola Matheson, who is to live with Lause Powleson, Michael, the third son, to live with Wooley Thompson, the fourth son, Erick, to live with Andrea Anderson. Witnesses – Peeter Billderbeck and William Wilkinson. Proved August 11, 1685

1730 <no date> – Johnson, Mathias, of Pen’s Neck, Salem Co., yeoman. Account of the estate of £75.9, by the surviving executor, William Peterson, who has paid to Lausey Halton £8.5 in full of his wife’s filial portion, to Mary, wife of Chas. Halton £6 as her portion, to Samuel Walcott and wife Katharine £8.5, the filial portion of Erick Johnson, said Katherine’s former husband, to Oliver Johnson £6.3, to Eskell Johnson £6.3, to Michael Johnson £4.17.6, to Henry Johnson £6.3, Margaret Johnson £6.3, all filial portions. [No will on record or on file.]

Footnote 46 – DYR, 137, NYHM, 20:22; 21:104; NCR, 1:160, 163; NJA, 21:544, 568, 574; will of Matthis Unson of Castiana Neck on Salem Creek, dated Feb 14, 1684/5 and proved May 11 1685, Salem County wills, 2:16, and final accounting of estate of Matthias Johnson by William Peterson, surviving executor, filed 1730, Salem County wills, 503-Q. The eldest son, Olle, later known as Oliver, was to stay with Lars Palsson Kampe (#147), Henrick with Lars’ father Pal Larsson and Michael with Olle Thompson (#113). They all died at Sahakitko (Elkton), Cecil County. See, e.g., MCW, 7:219. Eric was to live with Anders Andersson and Eskil was unassigned. Eric and Eskil Hutton or Hotten both pledged money and contributed labor for the building of Holy Trinity Church and were assigned pews in that church in 1699. Eric as Eric Jansson or Johnson married Catharine Gillijohnson and died at Penn’s Neck in 1719. Eskil as Ezekiel Jansson or Johnson worked on the glebe house for Penn’s Neck church in 1721 and died intestate in Penn’s Neck in 1726. According to the accounting, one daughter married Lars Halton (#78), another, Maria, married Lars Halton’s brother Charles Halton. A third was named Margaret Johnson in the account. The fourth, Catherine Johnson and her newborn child were maintained by Olle (William) Peterson of Gloucester County (#80) for 13 months.

Information for Lars Palsson Kampe (#147) (Sahakitko): This man’s father, Pal Larsson had been granted a patent at Feren Hook in 1668, was fined 100 guilders in the 1669 Long Finn Rebellion and 20 guilders in the 1675 dike rebellion. The will of Paul Larson dated March 7, 1685, witnessed by Olle Palsson and Eskil Andersson, left his “house and lands whereon I now live” to his wife Magdalena for life, then to his daughters – unnamed. He left to his sons Lawrence and Matthias “my land which is now in Elk River, which is 200 acres,” with directions that Lawrence keep and maintain Matthias. On October 20, 1685, Paul sold his 200-acre home plantation at Feren Hook to Justa Andersson and apparently moved to Elk River, Cecil County where his will was proved June 3, 1692. His eldest son, Lars Palsson chose the surname Kampe, warrior in Swedish, as illustrated in this census. In 1693 his household included his wife (name unknown,) their first children and perhaps his brother Matthias. Lars had three children who later moved to Gloucester County: John, Paul and Brigitta Kampe, also written as Camp.

These families were neighbors and eventually, related. Their lives were intertwined and the survival of the colony depended on the cooperation of many.

In Peter Stebbins Craig’s book, 1671 Census of the Delaware, he states that Feren Hook, meaning Pink Hook, appears to have been settled in 1663 by Swedes and Finns arriving from Sweden via Christiania (now Oslo,) Norway, and Amsterdam in the time of d’Hinojossa. Transcription here.

The Quandary

Now, of course, the quandary.

My Johnson cousins Y-DNA matches a few other Johnson men and one Yocum male.

The Yokum male shows his ancestor as Peter Jochimsson born in 1620 and died in 1702. That, of course would be the father of Peter Petersson Yocum.

At first glance, this looks like a slam dunk, meaning our Johnson line is Yocum, descended from Peter Jochimsson, but it isn’t.

Eric Johnson, who is descended from “our” Peter Johnson who was born circa 1720 and died in 1790 in Allegheny County, PA, worked with Dr. Peter Craig before his death who provided Eric with information suggesting that our Peter Johnson is descended from Mathias Jönsson alias Hutt, through his son Oliver (Olle) who had son Peter in 1720 in Cecil County, MD, near Head of Elk, now Elkton.

I found a record in 1740 in Cecil County, MD for 3 Johnson men, Oliver, Simon and Peter, members of the foot company militia under the command of Capt. Zebulon Hollingsworth. Is this “our” Peter as a young man, or a different Peter. I don’t know.

Also in Cecil County, one Peter Johnson’s will is probated in 1747, and we know that our Peter had moved to the border of Pennsylvania and Maryland by 1742, near Hagerstown. Later deeds tie Peter in Allegheny County, PA to the Peter in Franklin Co., PA.

The records for Peter Johnson (c1720-1790) begin in April of 1742 when he obtained land in Lancaster County, PA, the portion that became Cumberland County in 1750, then Franklin County in 1784. If he was born in 1720, he would only have been 22 at the time, which isn’t impossible but young based on the customs of the time. This land was actually on or very near the Maryland/Pennsylvania border, just above Frederick County, MD, close to Hagerstown.

Hence, the suggestion that our Peter Johnson descended from Elkton in Cecil County seems reasonable.

One thing is certain. Our Johnson and Yocum men DO share a common ancestor as confirmed by Big Y-700 DNA testing.

The question is, of course, whether the Yocum male has documentation confirming that he descends from Peter Jochimsson, the father of Peter Petersson Yocum (#35) or if that was an assumption by someone based on the Yocum surname? If not, what type of source information exists and is it conclusive and incontrovertible?

What are the Possibilities?

Unfortunately, we now have some contradictory evidence to resolve.

  • It’s possible that the Yocum male who matches our Johnson line very closely does have solid, confirmed genealogy descending from Peter Jochimsson. If that’s the case, can each successive generation be confirmed? How strong is the evidence?
  • If our Yocum male’s line can be confirmed, then our ancestor is also very likely Peter Jochimsson.

However, there’s a plot twist.

  • There’s another group of about 10 Yocum men who match each other, two of who claim to descend from Peter Jochimsson as well. These men do not match “our Yocum” male, nor do they match any Johnsons. Their haplogroup is in an entirely different branch of the tree.

These groups of men cannot BOTH be directly paternally descended from Peter Jochimsson.

  • It’s possible that our Johnson/Yokum line is indeed descended from Mathias Jönsson alias Hutt. If that’s the case, then someplace, Jönsson became Yokum several generations back in time for at least one male whose descendant tested today, while the rest remained or became Johnson/Johnston.
  • Its not possible for our Johnson line to descend from Mathias Jönsson/Hutt and the Yokum man who matches the Johnson Y-DNA to descend from Peter Jochimsson, unless of course these ancestral men were closely related to each other, sharing a common paternal ancestor.

Peter Jochimsson and Mathias Jönsson/Hutt sharing a common paternal ancestor is certainly not impossible, but in New Sweden, they don’t live very close to each other. Initially, they were about 40 miles distant. So, if they were related, it’s either in the first generation or two, before 1702, or reaches back to the old country. However, that isn’t what the Y-DNA suggests.

Craig says that Mathias Jochimsson came from Schlesvig in Holsstein, the northern portion of Germany that abuts Denmark, and the settlers in Feren Hook were from near Oslo. Of course, that’s not absolute given that Craig never found a specific origin for Mathias Jönsson/Hutt.

We also don’t know when Mathias Johnsson/Hutt arrived, or where he came from. We know for sure a group of settlers arrived in 1656. According to Amandus Johnson in The Swedes on the Delaware 1638-1664, a final group of Finnish families from Sweden landed in Holland in 1664, en route for New Sweden, but it’s unclear whether they were allowed to proceed to the colonies. We know for sure that Mathias Jönsson/Hutt was in Feren Hook by 1669.

It’s worth noting that little is known about Peter Jochimsson, the original settler, aside from his one son, Peter Petersson Yocum and a daughter reported by Craig. He was either unmarried upon arrival and didn’t marry until he gained his freedom in 1652, or he had more children that died, or he had more children that we don’t know about. Craig reports his widow to have been 20 at his death, with two children which opens the possibility that she was a second wife.

It’s also worth noting that we have the other Otto Jönsson “Carringa Olle” who reportedly took the surname Halton. That line also contains a Peter.

The Y DNA

Two Johnson men and the Yocum tester have taken the Big Y-700 test which has a very distinct aging ability. They have the same haplogroup which is shown on the public Discover haplotree, here.

The most recent common ancestor of these men is estimated to have been born about 1750, which would be roughly the generation of our Peter Johnson who was born before 1720 and died in 1790. Given that we don’t know for sure who Peter’s father was, it’s very likely that our Peter Johnson (possibly the son of Oliver) had siblings and uncles, so Johnson becoming phonetically spelled Yocum or vice versa wouldn’t be the least bit surprising in that era, or in the generation(s) prior.

The confidence range and associated dates suggest that the common ancestor of these Johnson/Yokum men was born in New Sweden. If that is accurate, that means that both the Yocum and Johnson testers are either descended from one ancestor in New Sweden, meaning either Peter Jochimsson or Mathias Johnson alias Hutt (assuming the ancestor is one of those two men.) It likely removes the possibility that those two men were related in the old country, especially given that Craig identified Jochimsson’s origins in Schleswig-Holsstein and suggests that Mathias Jönsson/Hutt may have originated near Oslo.

It may be worth mentioning at this point that, according to the mitochondrial DNA matches of Dorcas Johnson and Margaret Johnson, the daughter of Peter Johnson and his wife, Mary Polly Phillips (if that was her name,) their closest matches are clustered in Finland.

That, of course, strongly suggests that Peter Johnson (c1720-1790) probably married the daughter of one of the settler families wherever he was living in the early 1740s when he would have been marrying.

Let’s hope we find that someone descended from another daughter of Peter Johnson and Mary Polly Philips, through all females to the current generation, which can be male or female, to take a mitochondrial DNA test. That match would solidify the relationship of Dorcas and Margaret to Peter Johnson and Mary.

Now, to determine Peter’s ancestors…

Research Activities

Recently, I extracted records for Maryland and Virginia Counties when I visited the FamilySearch Library in Salt Lake City. Why Maryland and Virginia? John Dobkins, the father of Jacob and Evan Dobkins is first found in the Monocacy Valley of Maryland before migrating in the early 1730s to what was at that time Frederick County, VA with Jost Hite, one of the early land speculators. Frederick County became Augusta and Dunmore, which eventually became Shenandoah County. John Dobkins lived in Dunmore which is where both Darcus Johnson married Jacob Dobkins and Margaret Johnson married Evan Dobkins in 1775. The Dobkins family is connected with (and probably related to) the Riley Moore family who was found in Prince George’s County, MD, adjacent to Cecil County. Frederick County, MD was once part of Prince George’s County, and Frederick County MD is where Peter Johnson (c1720-1790) is found owning land, on the border with Pennsylvania – Josh Hite’s stomping ground.

Frederick County, VA is chocked full of settlers from Cecil County, Prince George’s County and Frederick County, MD. Furthermore, many New Jersey Quakers moved to Frederick County, VA and established the Hopewell Meeting House. It would make sense that Peter Johnson’s family, perhaps him or maybe his siblings and uncles would make their way down that same path leading to land on the next frontier.

I was tracking Johnsons by the first names we’re familiar with, plus Isaac Johnson who is found associated with John Dobkins in Shenandoah County, VA, as was John Johnson. I found two other records for Isaac Johnson in Frederick County, one in 1751 as a witness to the will of Adam Warner, and one in 1769 as a legatee of Ralph Thompson who also had a son named Isaac. Additionally, there’s an Isaac Johnson in Cumberland County, PA but there’s nothing to suggest that these are the same man. John Johnson was a very common name and I ran out of time.

Somehow, Peter Johnson HAD to be in the Dunmore County neighborhood in 1775 for his two daughters to marry John Dobkins’ sons. There is no record of Peter in Dunmore County in 1775, but the existing records are incomplete. In 1778, Dunmore became Shenandoah.

Was Peter related to either Isaac or John Johnson who were associated with John Dobkins? I wish I had the answer to that. Two of one’s daughters did not marry two sons of a family you weren’t acquainted with, in a location where you weren’t living. Courting required proximity. Of course, the Revolutionary War was interfering with just about everything, so who knows why Peter Johnson might have been in Virginia in 1775. The county records are incomplete during this time, and the entire country was in an uproar.

Peter Johnson sold his land on the Pennsylvania/Maryland border in 1769 and 1770 although his adult son Richard (Derrick) remained in that location, at least for a while. Peter’s Brethren neighbors in Maryland moved to Holman Creek in Dunmore/Shenandoah County, directly adjacent John Dobkins, becoming his neighbors.

One Peter Johnson is found in Bedford County, PA in 1772, but it’s doubtful that this is the same man since he’s listed as a single freeman. Other than that, Peter’s entirely missing from 1773 when he’s found in Rostravener Township, PA, which is all of SW Pennsylvania, until 1783 when he’s found again in the same location. Part of Rostravener became Allegheny County in 1780, where Peter Johnson eventually settled and died a decade later.

In 1776, one Peter Johnson swears an oath of allegiance in Cumberland Co., PA, but our Peter had already left. Peter Johnson is not a terribly unusual name.

One of the earlier Johnson books states that Peter came from Winchester, VA which is found in Frederick Co., VA where there is an early mention of a Peter Johnson. In 1773, according to Eric Johnson, one Richard and Priscilla Johnson mention their son Peter in a deed, although that may well be a younger man. I do not have that record, nor know where they lived.

In other words, the very best clue we have as to where Peter Johnson was found in 1775 is where his two daughters were married to Dobkins men.

In addition to these recent research activities, I have a friend who has been helping me search for tidbits high and low. I’m still processing the information she has sent. Maybe there’s something more hidden there.

Followup

I’ve written to the matches of my Johnson cousins asking if they will share their genealogy, or at least as much as they know.

I’d surely love to see additional Johnson and Yokum men take Y-DNA tests, and those who match our line upgrade to the Big Y-700. Perhaps, between more refined time tree placement in addition to jointly working on genealogy and sharing resources, we can isolate one lineage and eliminate the other. That alone would be a victory!

I’m still chiseling at this brick wall, bit by bit!

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here or follow me on Twitter, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

DNAExplain Blog to be Preserved for Future Generations in the Library of Congress

Posted on by
68

Yes, indeed, this is definitely a red-letter event!!!

Not only is having my blog archived in the Library of Congress an incredible honor, but it solves a long-standing problem. Let’s start at the beginning.

In the Beginning…

I started this blog, www.dna-explained.com, also www.dnaexplain.com, for three primary reasons:

  • To educate the public, specifically genetic genealogists, about effectively using DNA for genealogy.
  • To share my own and other relevant vendor and non-vendor research and advancements in the field.
  • To provide a timeline and cumulative progressive history of this emerging field, recorded as it occurred. Essentially an industry diary.

My first blog article was published in July of 2012. The direct-to-consumer genetics industry was about 12 years old at that time. Today, the industry is roughly 23 years old and my blog is approaching its 11th anniversary. I’ve covered nearly half of the life of the genetic genealogy industry.

I recently crossed the threshold of 1600 published articles which equates to about 2.5 articles each week. Those articles total over 4 million words, or more than 15,000 pages of text, plus 20,000 images. That’s about half the size of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. That level of writing and publishing is almost a full-time job, alone, without anything else. Yet, I need to perform the research and do the work to create the content of each article. Not to mention the rest of my activities that pay the bills.

Anyone who writes, specifically, those who write to publish regularly, such as a blog, know that blogging isn’t exactly easy and requires an incredible amount of investmented time. The majority of blogs are abandoned shortly after creation. I fully understand why. You have to love both the process of writing and the subject – and be willing to contribute. Not to mention monitoring and approving the more than 50,000 comments and such.

As you know, this blog is free. I don’t charge for a subscription. I don’t accept paid content, guest articles or write articles for pay. I do have affiliate links at the bottom, but consider those cumulative purchases equivalent to buying me a cup of coffee. (Thank you to those who purchase through those links.)

There is some recurring financial investment in blogging too, but the biggest commitment, by far, is time. Hours and days that can’t be spent elsewhere, like on genealogy, for example – which leads me to my 52 Ancestors articles.

52 Ancestors

Of those slightly more than 1600 articles, 465 are in my 52 Ancestors series. I’m “blaming,” or crediting, Amy Johnson Crow for this, because in January of 2014, she challenged genealogists to write something about one ancestor a week and share or publish it someplace, somehow. I really liked that idea, and came to discover that focusing on one ancestor at a time, not a couple, and not their parents or children, allowed me to live with them for a bit and view their life through their eyes alone. So many times we know very little about our ancestor’s lives, and even less about the women. Interweaving Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA results and matches, relationships and the history of what was happening around them provides an invaluable tool to connect with their lives.

I wasn’t sure I could maintain that one article per week pace, but I wanted to try. The 52 Ancestors challenge was just for one year, right? I could stop anytime, right? But how would I share? I didn’t really think any of you would be interested in MY ancestors, so I very nearly didn’t publish these stories on my blog. I’m INCREDIBLY glad that I did, because I use both genealogy and genetic tools at multiple vendors to confirm those ancestors, to find and identify their descendants, and to break though next-generation brick walls. Plus, I’ve discovered innumerable wonderful cousins!

Having committed, I jumped into 52 Ancestors with both feet and immediately addressed a very long-standing mystery about my father’s missing son. What I didn’t expect to happen was for you, my readers, to help solve it, but you did!!! Two weeks later, Lee was identified, had a name and a history! Wow we were off and running at breakneck speed. To this day, the 52 Ancestors articles remain some of my favorites, along with the process of bringing those ancestors back to life, even if just through words.

Sometimes I don’t write about ancestors specifically, but memorable events in our lifetimes that we’ve shared, like the 1969 moon landing, Y2K and more recently, the anniversary of the space shuttle Challenger explosion. Don’t you wish someone had written or journaled about contemporary milestones in our ancestor’s lives? What I wouldn’t give for that!

Preservation and Perpetuity

One of the reasons I write about my ancestors and genetic genealogy more broadly is because I very much want to share with other researchers, now and in the future.

In some cases, I’m the contributor, but often others contribute invaluable information to me. I firmly believe that a rising tide lifts all ships.

My goal is twofold:

  • To educate others and share methodologies so they can find and confirm their ancestors.
  • To complete the painting of my ancestor’s lives, or as much as I can in my lifetime.

Both of these are foundations upon which others can build.

A few years ago, I began to be concerned with preservation in perpetuity. How might I preserve those stories and the rest of my blog? I realize that in time, the technical aspects of my blog articles will be dated, but the educational basics remain firm. Better research methodologies will be developed. New information, both paper trail and genetic, will, hopefully, be unearthed about my ancestors, but I want the information I’ve provided to remain accessible over time.

I’ve been a technologist long enough to know that nothing is forever. Web sites disappear every day. The Internet Archive is wonderful, but it too may go poof, not to mention that you need to know the website url to access the archived website.

I reached out to WordPress, my blogging platform a few years ago. I asked if I could pay in advance for a “permanent” website, but they said that after payment stopped for the domain name and my subscription for the “non-free” platform, that my articles would revert to a free WordPress site “forever.” That means the url would change. Of course, none of the original links would work, and its value would be much dimished given that the articles would not appear in search engines. Furthermore, “forever” in technology days could be very short indeed.

Resources like FamilySearch aren’t meant for publications like my blog, and neither is WikiTree, especially “someday” after the blog link is no longer valid. I’ve posted links to articles on my blog on the ancestors’ profiles at WikiTree and in my personal trees at MyHeritage and Ancestry, but once the link is gone, effectively, so is the information.

I could copy the articles to word/pdf documents and attach those files to the trees, but we really don’t know what will and will not have longevity in today’s technical genealogical environment. Plus, I don’t want my articles behind a paywall anyplace, especially since I’ve made them available for free.

However, the Library of Congress has now solved that quandary for me and I’m both elated and honored.

The Invitation  

In the crazy days leading up to RootsTech, a gem of an email landed in my inbox. It was supposedly the Library of Congress (LOC) requesting to archive this blog and make this website available for all perpetuity as part of a collection of historically and culturally significant websites designated for preservation.

That’s quite a compliment.

I wasn’t quite sure I believed it. In fact, I was pretty sure that I didn’t.

Of course, the first thing I thought was that these were really brilliant scammers.

I contacted the LOC and discovered that this email was, indeed, genuine. I was both shocked and humbled.

To Whom It May Concern:

The United States Library of Congress requests permission to include your website in the Local History and Genealogy Web Archive, which is part of a larger collection of historically and culturally significant websites that have been designated for preservation. The following URL has been selected for archiving: https://dna-explained.com/.

The Library hopes that you share its vision of preserving digital content and making it available to current and future generations of researchers. As the internet has become an increasingly important and influential part of our lives, we believe the historical record would be incomplete if websites like yours are not preserved and made a part of it. We also believe that expanding access to the Library’s collections is one of the best ways we can increase opportunities for education and scholarship around the world. Please provide the Library with permission to archive your website and provide public access to archived versions of your website by filling out the form available here: <link redacted.>

With your permission, the Library of Congress or its agent will engage in the collection of content from your website at regular intervals over time. In order to properly archive the above URL, we may archive other portions of the website and public content that your page links to on third party sites such as social media platforms. In addition to the aforementioned collection, archived content from your website may be added to other relevant collections in the future. This content would be available to researchers only at Library facilities or by special arrangement, unless you additionally grant the Library permission for the content to become more broadly available through hosting on the Library’s public website, which would be done no sooner than one year after it was collected. For more information on the web archiving process, please read our frequently asked questions.

We encourage you to learn more about the Library’s Web Archiving program and explore our collections to see examples of how we archive websites. If you have any questions, comments, or recommendations concerning the archiving of your website, please email the Library’s Web Archiving Team at webcapture@loc.gov.

Thank you.

Library of Congress Web Archiving Team

It would be an understatement to say I was incredibly excited. There were no balloons or jubilant noisemakers though, and the cats were unimpressed as I clicked and agreed for my collective body of work to succeed me “forever.” Who knew milestones like this were so quiet, with only me winking to Mom and Dad who I’m positive were watching and silently cheering!

Here’s the confirmation of my acceptance.

So, in another hundred years, just like I can search for, say, Estes photos from a century or more ago at the Library of Congress, people living four or five generations in the future will be able to search for and read about the very early days of genetic genealogy and find those ancestor stories. They will also be able to learn something about the time in which we live today.

I can stop worrying about more than a decade’s worth of work disappearing after I join my ancestors, hopefully to obtain the answers that have eluded me here.

I’m incredibly, incredibly humbled and grateful to the Library of Congress for this amazing opportunity to contribute to our collective heritage. Thanks to each and every one of you for joining me on our journey into the history books.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here or follow me on Twitter, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

cM Explainer™ – New MyHeritage Relationship Prediction Tool

Posted on by
14

At RootsTech, MyHeritage introduced cM Explainer, a new tool for all of their DNA customers that utilizes both the total matching cMs (centimorgans) plus the ages of the people involved, if provided by the customers, to estimate the relationship possibilities between two matches.

According to the MyHeritage blog article, here:

DNA Matches are characterized by the amount of DNA shared between two individuals, measured using a unit of genetic distance called centimorgans (cM). cM Explainer™ is unique in the way it uses both the centimorgan value as well as the ages of the two individuals (if known) to fine-tune its predictions, making MyHeritage the only major genealogy company to offer relationship prediction at this level of granularity and accuracy.

cM Explainer™ is fully integrated into the MyHeritage platform to shed light on any DNA Match found on MyHeritage, and is also available as a free standalone tool to benefit individuals who have tested with other DNA services.

Using cM Explainer

cM Explainer is automatically implemented for all MyHeritage DNA customers, so there’s nothing to do except utilize the tool in conjunction with the additional DNA tools already provided by MyHeritage.

Just click on DNA Matches if you’re a DNA customer, or under DNA Tools if you want to use the cM Explainer standalone tool.

Let’s look at my matches.

As you can see, two of my matches have provided their ages which appear in their match information.

The new cM Explainer probable relationship is listed as well. In Charlene’s case, she’s predicted to be a half first cousin, and Cheryl is predicted to be either a half first cousin, or a parent’s 1st cousin, which is another way of saying first cousin once removed.

Recall that “once removed” means one side of the descendant tree is one generation longer than the other. Cheryl and my Mom are first cousins (1C) and Cheryl and I are first cousins once removed (1C1R) or, said another way, I’m Cheryl’s first cousin’s daughter.

Probable Relationships

Some matches receive two listed “Probable Relationships,” but everyone can view additional estimates.

Click on the purple “Review DNA Match” button to view detail information.

My match’s segment information is provided, in addition to the possible relationships, in order of most probable first. To see additional information, click on the “show more relationships” link.

Charlene has a total of 5 possible relationships listed, each with its own probability calculated. One of my matches has a total of 8 possible relationships displayed.

Next, you’ll see the diagram of possible relationships.

Don’t forget to click on the “Relationships” dropdown in the upper right corner of the diagram.

You can click on Full relationships, Half relationships, or All Relationships.

I clicked on “all” which displays everything together.

Clicking the “Show probabilities for MRCA” box in the upper left-hand corner adds the probability that you and your match descend from a specific generation, or MRCA (most recent common ancestor.)

The highest or best probable relationship for cousin Charlene is calculated as 51.8% half first cousin.

The other possibilities are less likely. The second most likely is “Parent’s first cousin,” at 24.3%.

Charlene is my first cousin once removed (1C1R,) at the bottom. Stated another way, Charlene is my first cousin’s child, calculated at 4.5%, which should be genetically equivalent to a half first cousin at 51.8%. As you can see in the chart above, there’s VERY large probability difference between those two, which may be because of the expected comparative ages of the people in those positions involved.

Let’s take a minute to look at how half and “removed” relationships work genetically.

Half and “Removed” Relationships

In this example, John was married twice, to Mary and Sue. John had son Jim with Mary, and both daughters, Anna and Bonnie, with Sue. Their descendants took DNA tests.

In this chart, you can see that half-relationships of any kind carry half the average expected shared DNA as the full version of the same relationship. The yellow people, descendants of John and Mary, are half relationships to the green people because John was married to both Mary and Sue, having children with both wives.

The green people descend from full siblings, Anna and Bonnie, the children of Sue.

In the first generation, Jim and Anna are half siblings and share about 25% of their DNA. Anna and Bonnie are full siblings and share about 50% of their DNA. By extension, of course, Jim and Bonnie are half siblings too, sharing approximately 25% of their DNA, but not the exact same DNA as Jim and Anna share.

In the next generation, Jordan and Andrew are half first cousins and share about 6.25% of their DNA, while Andrew and Brad are full first cousins and share about 12.5% of their DNA.

Below the second cousin level, some cousins won’t match each other, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t cousins. It only means they didn’t happen to inherit a common segment of DNA from their common ancestors.

At the fourth-generation level, Jeremy and Abraham are half third cousins and share less than 1% or about 26.56 cM of their DNA, while Abraham and Betty are full third cousins and share about 53.13 cM of their DNA.

That half division of DNA occurred several generations earlier because Jim and Anna are half siblings which means that they only share half as much DNA as full siblings Anna and Bonnie. Of course, each subsequent generation will be a half relationship, and share roughly half as much as the full equivalent of that same relationship.

Once Removed

However, when the generations are offset by one, or once removed (1R,) the DNA is halved again. Looking at the chart again, half third cousins (3C,) Jeremy and Abraham share about 0.39% or about 25.56 cM of their DNA. Abraham and Beverly, who are 3C1R (third cousins once removed) are ALSO expected to share about 25.56 cM, the same amount of their DNA. In this comparison, the halving occurs in the last generation by the generational offset, when comparing Abraham with Beverly.

Of course, Jeremy and Beverly share the smallest percentage of all, because they are Half third cousins once removed, so they would be expected to share only about 13.28 cM of their DNA, assuming they share any at all.

I wrote about the various percentages expected of each relationship level and compiled a comprehensive chart in this article.

Of course, MyHeritage has included the factor of age to attempt to refine the relationship more succinctly.

How Accurate is cM Explainer?

I created a chart of my closest matches who are known, proven relatives.

Results where My Heritage has provided exact, accurate predictions are shown in red.

My first thought when I saw this new tool was that all of the people with whom I shared a Theory of Family Relativity (TOFR), especially relationships I had confirmed (or at least not rejected) would be predicted in cM Explainer to be that same relationship. Well, I was wrong.

Of the 8 matches with whom I have an accurate TOFR, the relationships of 4, or 50%, are correct, but the other 4 are not, so clearly, MyHeritage is not relying on TOFRs for cM Explainer, at least not solely, if at all.

Person Total cM # Segments Actual Relationship TOFR MyHeritage cM Explainer
Michael 822.8 31 1C Y 1C
Alberta 744.2 25 Half niece *1 (2nd on list) Y 1C
Dana 521.8 17 Half 1C1R (not on list) N 1st C dau, half 1C
Charlene 477.5 24 1C1R *2 (4th on list) N Half 1C
Cheryl 477.2 23 Parent’s 1C (2nd on list) N Half 1C, parent’s 1C
David 460.4 17 2C (3rd on list) N Half 1C
Buster 409.9 16 1C1R *3 N Parent’s 1C
Donald 381.7 17 1C1R (3rd on list) N 2C
Kurt 378.9 16 Half great-nephew (not on list) N 2C
Teresa 330.4 13 Half great-nephew (not on list) Y 2C
Shirley 223.3 8 2C1R (2nd on list) Y 2C
Sydney 217.8 10 Half great-nephew (not on list) N 2C dau, 1C dau
Buzz 212.7 9 2C Y 2C
Amos 182.7 8 1C2R (8th on list) N 2C son
Denny 166.9 6 3C (2nd on list) N 2C
Thomas 156.4 7 2C Y 2C
Patty 150.6 9 2C Y 2C
Cathy 102.9 5 3C Y 3C
Carol 87 7 2C1R (2nd on list) N 3C

*1 – Half aunt/uncle is equivalent to half niece/nephew – it’s simply a matter of perspective.

*2 – 1C1R (first cousin once removed) is the same relationship as a first cousin’s child, just said differently.

*3 – Your parent’s first cousin in your first cousin once removed (1C1R.)

In the Actual Relationship column, I’ve indicated the actual relationship, then if the actual relationship is shown on the chart of possibilities provided by MyHeritage, and if so, at which position.

For example, I’ve listed Alberta’s “Actual Relationship” as my half-niece. Additionally, there’s a comment at *1 below the chart. MyHeritage predicted Alberta as my first cousin, but the correct half-niece designation is shown second on the list.

In this case, I’m fairly sure I know exactly why the relationship miscalculation occurred. Alberta’s mother, my half-sister, was born to my father’s first wife. My mother was 22 years younger than my father, so my mother is roughly the same age as my half-sister. I am the same age as my half-sister’s oldest children. Therefore, we have an unusual generational difference where ages might be misleading.

In the second position, MyHeritage estimated Alberta as half-aunt, which is the same as half niece, depending on whose perspective you’re speaking from, so cM Explainer was close. In normal circumstances, 1st Cousin is probably the most likely relationship although having children separated by two decades certainly is not unheard of.

MyHeritage correctly predicted 6 of 19 relationships, for 31.6% accuracy.

The correct relationship was on the relationship list most of the time, but was omitted entirely 4 times. The common factor in the entirely missing relationships is that they are all half-relationships. While they were not all from the same family line, they did all involve long generations, meaning children born over a very long period. That’s not uncommon with half-siblings, and half relationships are notoriously difficult to sort from other candidate relationships. These situations might possibly be considered statistical outliers.

Equivalent Relationships

A half first cousin should be genetically equivalent to a first cousin, once removed, based on the amount of expected DNA for those relationships.

However, in at least one case, these two relationships are calculated with different resulting probabilities. Half first cousin is 41.5%, and 1st cousins child (aka 1C1R or 1st cousin once removed) is 43.8%.

Keep in mind, though that MyHeritage is using the age of the two individuals in their calculations, which could alter the results based on the combination of factors calculated into the probabilities. It’s 85% likely that the match is one of those two relationships.

Your Thoughts?

I’m interested in your thoughts on this new tool. How does it work for you? What about endogamy or pedigree collapse? Do you find it useful? How are you utilizing it in your research?

Shortly, I’ll do a comparison article with other tools to see how the publicly available cM Explainer tool stacks up against the rest.

Thanks to MyHeritage for making this tool free for all to use, here.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here or follow me on Twitter, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research

RootsTech 2023 – Truly United

Posted on by
24

Finally, finally, we were on our way, winging our way across the world from near and far – flying and motoring into snowy Salt Lake City for RootsTech. It seemed like we had been preparing forever, and Murphy visited many of us as gremlins trying to keep us away – but we persevered, and Murphy’s ploy just didn’t work.

Grab a cup of your favorite beverage, because you’re going to RootsTech with me!

I started out very early in dense fog which was a precursor to a nightmare at the airport. We didn’t know that yet, and the sun emerged beautifully as we were on our way.

Utah was blanketed with snow a few days before our arrival. We were hoping for no more snow.

The snow cover made for stunningly beautiful photos from the air.

The Kennecott Copper Mine outside Salt Lake City is three miles wide, nearly a mile deep and looked very interesting and beautiful laced with snow. These terraces are actually roughly 500 miles of dirt road. This used to be a mountain that was 8400 feet in elevation.

During the flight, I read about my ancestor, Stephen Hopkins and couldn’t help but think about how shocked he would have been that I flew across the country some 413 years after he was shipwrecked in Bermuda on the way to Jamestown, eventually lived in Jamestown for 4 years, sailed back to England, remarried, then arrived on the Mayflower in Plymouth Colony.

His ships and mine were very, very different.

FamilySearch Library

Some of us arrived early for research or meetings, or both.

FamilySearch took the opportunity presented during the Covid shutdown to remodel and upgrade the facilities significantly. The new library is both beautiful and super-functional.

The workstations now have three monitors.

There’s a lovely new break room with vending machines, tables, and a fridge.

To put things in perspective, the break room is larger than the preserved pioneer cabin that stands beside the library.

I’m struck by the contrast of the small cabin standing beside the FamilySearch library at left, and museum at right, and just a block away from skyscrapers.

Rather than leave and waste valuable research time, we had a picnic lunch in the break room.

I went to Salt Lake City early to visit the FamilySearch Library and attempt to break down a brick wall. I think I might have done that. We will see.

Other researchers did the same thing, and you can view a special GenFriends episode, here, hosted by Cheryl Hudson Passey, where several of us shared our excitement about our research, discoveries and simply gathering together again.

I was very excited to meet my cousin, Audrey Hill, for the first time in person, at the library. We’ve been collaborating for several months on our John Hill (1737-1805) and Catherine Mitchell (1738-1827) line. She’s already following up on a lead I never did (my bad.) Go Audrey!!

I spent two days perusing book after book after book in the Virginia and Maryland counties where my Dobkins and Johnson ancestors were known to have lived, then moved to the historically adjacent counties.

I was incredibly discouraged, but on the evening of the second day, back at my hotel again, I reviewed all of the library resources and noticed that I had missed one book that was shelved elsewhere.

Glory be, I *think* I’ve found him and his family.

My Peter Johnson line’s Y-DNA matches the Jochimsson (Yocum) line, so I have a LOT of work to do. But now at least I know where to dig!

I needed this entire book, not just a few pages.

Fortunately for me, Jim volunteered to scan the entire book at one of the new book-scanning stations.

I’m SOOO excited.

RootsTech and the FamilySearch library ran golf carts back and forth between the facilities throughout the conference.

Decisions, decisions.

Well, if you can’t decide, just go to the chocolate shop to think things over😊

The Night Before

Preconference events began on Wednesday evening with the media dinner which allows us to understand the layout, when to be someplace, and where that place might be. It also allows provides accurate information to pass on to you.

Of course, many of us have known each other for years. As the first event of RootsTech, after three years of being apart, it felt like one huge family reunion with everyone catching up. So many hugs!!!

And selfies.

It was wonderful to see Marie Cappart again. I’ll never forget walking down the street in Amsterdam with two friends and hearing someone shouting my name from some distance away. I turned around and there was Marie, running toward me, arms outstretched. What are the chances??

The influencers and media were treated to a tour of the show floor after setup was supposed to be complete.

Finishing touches were being put on the Expo Hall and booths. I guess I never realized how large these booths are and that they actually have to be “constructed”.

The next morning, the show would open and thousands of excited genealogists would descend on the Salt Palace for the next three days.

RootsTech Opens

Finally, the Salt Palace, with its legendary signs outside, was ready to receive genealogy guests.

Everyone was so happy to see each other again. My friends, Janna Helstein, Schelly Taladay Dardashti and Daniel Horowitz with MyHeritage photobombing the group. This was the best of several photos because we were all joyfully laughing so hard.

The absolute best part of RootsTech 2023 was seeing people again, in person. Zoom and similar platforms have been sanity-saving for the past three years – but they aren’t people.

Humans are, I think, wired for connection to each other.

I’ve worked “home office” for decades now, but not without regular contact with others.

The classes were great and there was a lot that was wonderful at RootsTech – but hands down, the best part was hugging so many people.

In case you aren’t aware, genealogists are huggers.

If someone were to have followed me around taking photos, there would have been hundreds of hugs. And I don’t mean polite greeting distant hugs. I mean the “OMG I haven’t seen you in a lifetime and everyone was concerned we might never see each other again” holding tight, never-letting-go hugs.

Mags Gaulden and I spotted each other in front of the WikiTree booth, and some kind soul took our picture. I tried to do a nice thing for her and made DNA masks, not remembering that she was allergic to my cat assistants. Thank goodness Mags realized it quickly enough to remove the masks before they had the opposite of the intended effect. I really do not want to be listed in her obituary! “Cause of death: Roberta’s masks.”

Tears streamed down people’s faces as they saw each other, especially that first day. And I don’t mean because of cat hair, either.

There were thousands of selfies joyfully taken. Lots of “blooper” ones too, but just the giddiness of being together again was intoxicating and overshadowed the challenges of the past few years. For a minute, or a few, everyone could just forget about everything else and enjoy our three-day adrenaline high.

And of course, sometimes things change, and many people weren’t there, for a variety of reasons. I missed so many people and there was more than one moment of silence.

Attendance

Here’s the RootsTech Expo Hall from the second floor. It felt like “coming home” after a long absence.

I was standing inside when the doors opened on the first day. People were waiting, but not the mob like past years.

In a Zoom call with RootsTech staff a week or ten days before the conference, they said they had 6000 paid admissions at that time, and a week or so later, they said they were anticipating the same number of attendees as 2020 which was about three times that number.

That number was clearly aspirational, but it didn’t happen.

I’ve been attending RootsTech since 2018, and the actual in-person attendance, based on observation, was lower than it has been since I’ve been attending. Of course, while we may be getting used to Covid, it’s not over and still a significant concern to many. I had my doubts.

Now that I’ve said that about attendance, let me expand. There were over a million registered online for the virtual sessions PLUS the livestreamed sessions that were held in person as well. I don’t know how many more than a million attended, but that number will only grow because those sessions remain available for viewing after RootsTech. In other words, Rootstech sessions have become a library which you can find and enjoy, here.

Clearly, more people in total were reached in 2023 than in 2020.

Questions for Attendees

This year, I had three in-person classes, and no virtual classes. All three were well-attended.

I don’t know how many people attended my sessions, but I know I took about 2000 DNAeXplain ribbons that were passed out to attendees at the exit doors of my classes if they wanted them for their RootsTech badges. I brought home maybe 100.

After everything is set up for the session (thank you Jim,) I always chat with the people in my sessions that show up early. There’s no reason not to have a little fun for everyone.

My first session was at 9:30 the first day, right after the conference opened at 9. I was passing out ribbons personally to people who were early and I saw the confused looks. So I demonstrated what to do with the ribbons with my own badge.

Ribbons on badges are a RootsTech staple, and it’s the only conference I’ve ever attended with that tradition. I realized, based on the confused looks, that we had several first-time attendees.

I was so excited to welcome people at the beginning of my first session, back to in-person genealogy, and that feeling was palpable throughout the room and the conference as a whole.

How Many First-Time Attendees?

When my session started, I asked how many people were attending RootsTech for the first time, and I was very surprised to discover that roughly half the room raised their hands.

Half!!!

That’s HUGE. No wonder there were so many confused looks about the ribbons.

My three sessions, in order, were:

  • DNA for Native American Genealogy: 10 Ways to Find Your Native American Ancestors
  • DNA Journey – Follow Your Ancestors Path
  • Big Y for the Win

I mention this because of the next questions I asked.

Who Has Taken a DNA Test for Genealogy?

In the first session, “DNA for Native American Genealogy,” I asked who had taken a DNA test, and more than half raised their hands, but several had not. Frankly, that surprised me given how long DNA testing has been available now. I talked to people afterwards, and the common thread for those who had not seemed to be:

  • They didn’t know which vendor or which DNA test to take for this purpose.
  • They thought the ancestor was too far back in time and they would not have any Native results. In my session, I talked about testing the older generations and your cousins. Also, that you don’t know what you don’t know. I asked how many people would purchase a book if they thought the answer to that question even MIGHT be inside, and every single person raised their hand.

I also pointed people to the Native section on my blog, to my book, DNA for Native American Genealogy, and to my second blog focused entirely on early Native American records, www.nativeheritageproject.com.

In the second class, “DNA Journey – Follow Your Ancestor’s Path,” probably three fourths of the class had taken a DNA test. That session was really fun. I used several case studies to illustrate how different kinds of DNA have broken down brick walls AND showed me exactly, and I mean literally exactly where my ancestors were from. I used Y-DNA, mitochondrial DNA and autosomal to accomplish this. Who among you DOESN’T want to stand where your ancestors stood?

Yep, we all do.

I think it was in the second class that I asked a question about how many people had taken the three different types of tests, and here’s the breakdown:

  • Who has taken a DNA test? – The majority of the room
  • Who has taken an autosomal test – It looked to be the same number of people as above
  • Who has taken (or sponsored) a Y-DNA test – Maybe 10% of the room
  • Who has taken a mitochondrial DNA test – A scattering of people

As genealogists, we need to do more Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA testing, because we don’t know what we don’t know and may well be missing.

In the third class, “Big Y for the Win,” which included both Y-DNA STR testing and the Big Y-700, comparing and contrasting the tests, how to use them, and why the Big Y provides significant advantages, most of the people had taken some type of DNA test.

The second question I asked in the Big Y class was how many people had taken or sponsored a Big Y test, and significantly more than half had, which is what I would have expected.

However, given the session topic, I was surprised to learn that few had used the new, free, Discover Tools, or the recently released Group Time Tree. Both were developed and created by FamilyTreeDNA to maximize the usefulness of Y-DNA haplogroups, and they are amazing.

How Many People Have Tested?

As part of the information that I gathered during the conference, Ancestry has tested 23 million people and MyHeritage 6.5 million. I don’t have a current number for FamilyTreeDNA or 23andMe, but the last numbers I heard some months ago were 2 and 5 million, respectively.

There are clearly more (and new) people who are interested in genealogy and are still DNA testing candidates – especially Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA which have separate inheritance paths, providing additional and unique benefits as compared to autosomal tests.

Keynotes

The keynote sessions were livestreamed, so you can still view them here. Be sure to watch Steve Rockwood’s welcome. He may be the CEO, but he’s an exceptionally caring, inspirational and humble, man.

I attended two of three keynote sessions. Each keynote session actually included three speakers, which was initially confusing.

Steve Rockwood’s message is that “All Means All” – everyone is included. He also thanked and encouraged people to not be further divisive during this difficult time, and instead to choose inclusion.

Steve asked several questions and in answer to his queries, attendees were encouraged to hold up their phones with their flashlight on. As you can see, the entire huge room is filled with light – our light. One at a time. We can all be the light. You can hear Steve’s message for yourself, here.

Another session I enjoyed immensely was Jordin Sparks, the youngest ever American Idol winner. I’ve been in concert venues that were smaller, so it was a real treat to enjoy this inspirational story plus four of her amazing songs.

I really encourage you to watch this video, especially if you love music. Even Jordin’s guitarist was wiping his eyes!

She literally played to a packed house and I don’t think there was a dry eye anyplace.

Jordin has an incredible voice and an inspirational story. Do yourself a favor and listen, here.

MyHeritage Keynote and Announcements

Aaron Godfrey, VP of Marketing with MyHeritage announced new products and initiatives during the keynote on day 2.

The new Photo Dater app, available soon, will estimate when a photo was taken based on clothes, hairstyles and other items in the photo.

Additionally, Aaron announced the cM Explainer, a wonderful new tool which predicts relationship estimates between DNA matches and includes the ages of the testers, among other factors. cM Explainer is incorporated into your DNA matches at MyHeritage in addition to being independently available for free, here.

I’ll be reviewing this new feature in an article, soon.

In another surprise, Aaron announced that MyHeritage has donated another 5000 kits to DNA Quest, for adoptees, here.

MyHeritage also introduced color coding for family trees, here. If you’re a MyHeritage user, this feature is already available for you on your tree, so check it out.

MyHeritage takes the “most new announcements at RootsTech” award with these new features.

Vendor Booth Sessions

Truth be told, I didn’t even get to visit all of the various booths. I meant to, but it just didn’t happen.

At least two vendors offered sessions throughout all three days. There were probably others, but between my three RootsTech sessions, three booth sessions and the book signing, in addition to keynotes, meetings and interviews, I just wasn’t able to attend many booth sessions.

The ones I did attend were wonderful. I focused on DNA, of course. Let’s start with FamilyTreeDNA.

Sherman McRae presented “Unexpected Y-DNA Results” in the FamilyTreeDNA booth where he’s showing how to utilize the Y-DNA Time Tree in the Discover tool, and the Group Time Tree.

You can view Sherman’s main session, Connect the Forefathers, here.

You just never know when a pilgrim is going to show up for your session.

Janine Cloud, an enrolled Cherokee tribal member and manager of Group Projects at FamilyTreeDNA discussed Y-DNA, mitochondrial and autosomal avenues to prove Native ancestors using DNA, using her own Cherokee ancestors as an example.

Dr Paul Maier, Population Geneticist, Goran Runfeldt, Head of Research and Michael Sager, Phylogeneticist answer questions about Y-DNA in the AMA (Ask Me Anything) session.

Paul and Goran also hosted an AMA for mitochondrial DNA as well, an often overlooked but valuable resource.

In addition to the Native American AMA session for FamilyTreeDNA which I gave with Janine, I gave two booth presentations for MyHeritage, “Time Travel with Your Ancestors” and “AutoClusters for the Win,” both of which were recorded meaning you  just might see them in the future.

The Time Travel session utilized the MyHeritage AI tools to see what my ancestors who came from specific regions or cultures might have looked like in that time and place. In the slide above the AI photo of my grandmother is combined with the document and with the Genetic Group that incorporates that part of Germany.

I combined the AI images with MyHeritage records that link those ancestors to a specific location, showing the predicted ethnicity, genetic groups when applicable, and then the actual location – some of which I’ve visited. My ancestor owned that windmill in the Netherlands, above. Combining these tools is so much FUN. My heritage provided the AI photos, records and ethnicity. I’m the one who did the traveling, of course, but in this way, time travel is possible!

I really enjoyed using this story-telling methodology that incorporates all 4 types of genealogy research and clues.

In the AutoClusters for the Win session in the MyHeritage booth, I discussed how I utilized AutoClusters to solve an adoption case in my own family, and how you can use this very powerful tool as well. The methodology I used works equally as well for genealogy mysteries.

In another MyHeritage booth presentation, Janna Helshtein told an amazing and moving story about her grandparents, their escape from the Holocaust, move to Israel, and more – in their own “voices” using MyHeritage’s Deep Story.

We all sat spellbound.

Janna also offers a free guide on how she created and integrated the Deep Story verbiage that her grandparents “spoke.” It was actually quite easy.

There was more to Janna’s story, but I don’t want to spoil it for you.

I believe MyHeritage intends to make their booth sessions available through social media.

Here, Janna and I are celebrating with a quick picnic style lunch after her presentation. She truly knocked it out of the park.

Shifting Attendance

I’m sharing my opinion here, and not anything a RootsTech spokesperson told me.

I was surprised that the in-person attendance was down as much as it was, truthfully. I think in-person was down by either half or maybe even two-thirds. Some decline wouldn’t have surprised me, but this much was sobering.

I was also VERY surprised that roughly half of the attendees were new. And that number could have actually been higher. That’s a good thing, meaning new people are being attracted to genealogy.

These two things, together, suggest the following to me:

  • The passing of time, Covid, and aging-out of some people caused some decline. I know several people who passed away during the past three years, not to mention those whose lives changed dramatically due to their partner’s illness, passing or life circumstances. Several people lost jobs or moved, or both, or are in that process now.
  • Now let’s flip this and say that the virtual and FREE capability for much of RootsTech made the conference accessible and available to many who could not attend in person. For that, I’m very grateful. I have a friend who has been very ill and participated by taking selfies of herself with the livestreamed sessions on her monitor behind her. She posted her photos on social media to be with us. That warmed my heart so much.
  • I think that the reason there were so many new people was because they were able to attend virtually during 2021 and 2022. Essentially this means that while virtual RootsTech was challenging for everyone on the behind-the-scenes production side, to put it mildly, it served to recruit many new genealogists who would not have participated in person had they not previously attended online.

Based on discussions at the media dinner table, and other statements by Steve Rockwood, CEO of FamilySearch, FamilySearch, including RootsTech, is reaching out to young people and to other areas of the world as well.

According to Steve, who, by the way, turns out to be my 11th cousin according to Relatives at RootsTech and the FamilySearch Tree, RootsTech will forever be a blended conference event.

This year, in addition to the local emcee, there were 15 people in other countries hosting in their locations, times and in their native languages.

This year there were 304 virtual classes, 205 in person, and some of those were streamed online as well.

Don’t forget that Relatives at RootsTech is still available through March 31st and you can contact cousins to collaborate. Some may represent Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA testing lines that you need for matching and to complete your tree.

Vendors

That brings me to the topic of vendors.

Three of the four major DNA vendors were present, meaning Ancestry, FamilyTreeDNA and MyHeritage. 23andMe was absent in 2020 and again this year. Their last DNA innovation was their genetic tree in September of 2019.

Many of the smaller vendors were not in attendance. I had made friends with several of the Mom and Pop vendors and almost none of them were there this year, nor were many of the organizations and smaller companies. I spoke with several people and they said, almost universally, that the cost of the virtual booths over the past two years, the work involved, and the fact that those virtual booths did not generate many sales, not even equal to the amount of the booth rent, had soured the experience.

Not only are conference booths very expensive, so is the invested labor and time. For those of you who don’t know, booth rent is only a part of it. You want carpet? That’s more. A chair? That’s more. Two chairs? More. A trash basket? More. Oh, you need wireless to handle sales? LOTS more.

I’d say that the Expo Hall was only half to one third of the size it had been previously. Mind you, it’s still huge, especially compared to many other conferences, but I missed seeing many of my favorite vendors.

For example, neither Genealogical.com nor Deseret Books were there this year, so there was no bookstore, and neither were many of the fun t-shirt vendors or others that sold jewelry or genealogy-related merchandise.

I hope that FamilySearch will put their creative caps on and perhaps reach out to their vendors, both past and current, and figure out a way to make RootsTech vendors attractive to the online crowd. Perhaps a “search” game where you have to visit vendor booths to find items. Maybe there could be some permanent online stores as well.

There were fewer food vendors too, but in case anyone was wondering, I could still smell cinnamon-almonds throughout the facility😊

I did run into some of my long-time vendor friends.

My friend Jessica Taylor with Legacy Tree Genealogists. I regularly refer people seeking genealogists who understand both genealogy and DNA to Legacy Tree Genealogists.

I don’t need to tell you how much I love DNAPainter and it was great to see Jonny Perl and Patricia Coleman in the DNAPainter booth.

I feel kind of bad because I obviously caught Rob Warthen and Carol Carman by surprise in the East Coast Genetic Genealogy Conference booth, but it’s the only photo I have of their booth.

Last fall’s ECGGC conference was very successful and I’m planning to speak in person this year, in Baltimore, October 6-8, 2023. Save the date. Last year was the first year and it was wonderful.

My Book Signing

FamilyTreeDNA was kind enough to host my book signing for DNA for Native American Genealogy in conjunction with the Native American Ask Me Anything session. Many thanks to Joe Brickey for her help with this event as well.

After the AMA session, which was the final event of Saturday, just before closing, we took a group picture with the FamilyTreeDNA team, or at least the staff members in the booth at that time.

I did learn that perhaps the last thing Saturday might not be the best time for a book signing, because lots of people leave on Friday night. On the other hand, on Saturday, admission to the conference is free, at least to the show floor, with lots of children’s activities and programs for LDS families. Saturday is always very busy in terms of traffic, with sometimes more Saturday visitors than paying conference attendees. It will be interesting to see final RootsTech conference numbers.

The Thank You That Made My Day!!!

One lovely lady, Charis, came up to me after my first session and explained that she saw an ad for RootsTech. She decided she needed to purchase a ticket and attend. She had never heard of me, but she is very focused on documenting her Native ancestry. She sat in the front row in my first session and paid rapt attention. (Speakers do notice, in case you wondered.)

Charis came up to me afterwards and told me that this class alone was worth her registration fee.

She made my day, but I thought to myself that she would attend other sessions that she would find equally as valuable. After all, the conference was just beginning. She found me the next day and repeated what she had said. On day 3, she attended the Ask Me Anything session, arriving early. She said the said the same thing, AGAIN, and I asked if we could take a picture together. As presenters, we take our time, spend our money to attend these conferences, and invest the effort because we want to help people.

People like Charis make this all worthwhile.

Sweetness Personified

I’m sorry, I just can’t resist sharing the sweetest picture series ever.

In 2020, I met my cousin, Heidi Campbell and her baby at RootsTech. Three years later, I saw Heidi again, with a beautiful new addition to the family.

I just can’t tell you how wonderful it was to hold this baby. The last baby I held was Heidi’s little one, three years ago. The look on Heidi’s face is priceless too when he’s reaching for my glasses. He had the biggest smile EVER on his face and he’s booping noses with me. We had so much fun.

My heart just melted into a huge puddle. I so much wish they lived close so I could “grandma.” Thank you, Heidi, for sharing your sunshine with me.

Rolling Up the Sidewalks

On Saturday, literally at one minute after 3 when the conference closed, the workers at the Salt Palace started rolling up the sidewalks, or in this case, the carpets.

It’s a wrap!!!

Afterglow

At the Salt Lake City airport, I ran into two people and had the opportunity to talk to them again and hug goodbye once more. You’d think we would all have had enough of genealogy, but not a chance. More hugs, gratitude for togetherness, and anticipation for next year.

Winging my way home again, having walked about 6 miles each day, according to Fitbit, I was tired, desperately tired, and my everything hurt. However, I was also incredibly fulfilled to have connected again with old friends and met so many new people that I now look forward to seeing again. We are very fortunate to be members of such a wonderful, diverse and universal community.

I couldn’t help but think, as we crossed the winding Mississippi River, how fortunate we are that we have “time travel” in this way. I’m also struck with how many different ways we have to time travel, with Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA at FamilyTreeDNA, autosomal testing and ethnicity at various vendors, and actual historical records that are becoming ever-more available remotely.

Using artificial intelligence, we can “see” our ancestor’s heritage in our own faces, or, in this case, the face of my grandfather using the MyHeritage AI Time Machine.

Using our DNA, we can identify the parts of those ancestors that we carry today, reaching back in time several generations with autosomal DNA. In addition to autosomal, both Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA provide close matches and reach back in time, focused on one specific line, providing insights for millennia.

Time travel, truly reimagined.

There are so many ways to discover and connect with our ancestors available to us today. If we don’t carry the DNA of ancestors a few generations upstream, perhaps selected cousins do. We have several tools and databases at our disposal to find testers.

The DNA of our ancestors can and does actually lead us home, to them and, sometimes, exactly where they lived, as I illustrated with several case studies in my presentation, “Follow Your Ancestors Path.” Today, these options are available to everyone.

RootsTech is in the history books for another year, with new friendships made and old ones renewed. Indeed, we were finally reunited with each other, and introduced to cousins we had never met before. We shared tools, methodologies and information to identify our ancestors. We all left fervently hoping to be reunited again next year.

Please enjoy the amazing RootsTech musical finale here.

_____________________________________________________________

Follow DNAexplain on Facebook, here or follow me on Twitter, here.

Share the Love!

You’re always welcome to forward articles or links to friends and share on social media.

If you haven’t already subscribed (it’s free,) you can receive an email whenever I publish by clicking the “follow” button on the main blog page, here.

You Can Help Keep This Blog Free

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Uploads

Genealogy Products and Services

My Book

Genealogy Books

Genealogy Research