Relatives at RootsTech – How to Use & Connect with DNA

Relatives at RootsTech is back and I’m so very glad to see it.

Let me show you how to use this wonderful tool, including tips for how to get even more out of the experience.

It’s important to start now to accumulate your cousins, because there’s a display limit of 300 in each category, so you’ll want to begin recording your findings so that as more people sign up and are added to your list, you don’t “lose” the earlier relatives.

Let’s start with my link. Click here.

You’ll be prompted to sign in to your FamilySearch account, or create one. If you don’t have an account, create one now.

Right now, the number of participants is doubling every few days.

Let’s take a look at how Relatives at RootsTech works and how it can benefit you.

Surnames

At first glance, the surname tool doesn’t look terribly exciting, but there’s a hidden gem, especially for newer genealogists.

I entered my surname and one other, knowing there is probably no common locations other than the US. Kvochick is very rare and unique.

The results show two interesting things. First, the genesis of the surname, and second, the total number of people in the FamilySearch tree in both of the common locations for both surnames.

Be sure to try variant spellings too.

After you sign in, you’ll be asked to update your profile which is how you join in on the fun. If you signed up for Relatives at RootsTech last year, that doesn’t count for this year. You need to opt-in for this year’s festivities.

RootsTech Relatives

After you sign in, you’ll see how many of your relatives have joined.

Of the 60,461 total who have joined, according to the FamilySearch tree, I’m related to about 15% of them. That sure gives new perspective to how many people we’re related to. And just think if those brick walls didn’t exist. We’d be related to just about everyone. Far enough back, we’re all related, literally.

Your Relatives at RootsTech are displayed in three ways.

By location, ancestor or family line.

Relatives by Location

Your first view will be by all locations (including people who did not select a location,) but displayed in closest to most distant relationship order. For me, that’s the most interesting part.

These people, my closest relatives, are the people most likely to have critical pieces of information that I don’t have or know about. Like family stories, or photos, for example.

I know one of these people, but not the rest. I’m dying to know who they are and how we are related.

For me, the map itself isn’t terribly useful, but it would be if some members of your family were from distinct locations.

Not everyone opts in to have their location displayed. The “173” in the center is the people who generically selected United States.

Relatives by Family Line

The Family Line display shows you the number of people by parent or grandparent. Unfortunately, you can only view 300 of your matches in each line, which is disappointing.

However, there’s a better way to view your relatives.

Relatives by Ancestor

For me, the best way to view relatives is by ancestor. This also circumvents the 300 limit to some extent, unless you have more than 300 relatives for any one ancestor.

I have two relatives who also descend from Curtis Benjamin Lore. It’s Jen and Jill again, my closest relatives.

I’m quite interested in these people, because Curtis is my great-grandfather and he was a very interesting man. I know Jen and Jill are interested in genealogy too, or they would not have signed up for RootsTech Relatives, this year, in the past few days. This is not a stale list.

I’ll be messaging them as soon as I’m finished with this article!!!

Please note that FamilySearch does not label half-relationships accurately.

Jen and Jill are my HALF second cousins twice removed, which will affect the expected amount of shared DNA. Their ancestors, Edith and Maude were half-sisters through their father, not full sisters. One of the reasons I’m so interested in communicating with Jen and Jill is because I’m not at all sure that those half-sisters knew each other existed.

Maintaining Contact

For each relative found, you can view your relationship, message them, or add them to your contact list. Be aware – your contact list “saves” this person, but it does not tell you how you’re related. That’s where either a Word document, with screen shots of how you’re related, or a spreadsheet where you can detail that information is important.

If you have messaged people in the past, those messages are still in your message box in the upper right-hand corner.

I generally provide my email address when I message relatives.

Displaying the Relationship

If you click on the “Relationship” button, you’ll see how FamilySearch believes you’re related to each match.

My relationship with an Acadian cousin, beginning with our common ancestor, is shown above. Grab a screen shot so you can remember. I drop them into a spreadsheet or Word document.

These matches are based on FamilySearch’s one world type of tree. I don’t have to tell you to be cautious because, like any tree, there are erroneous connections. This connection, at least on my side (left hand,) seems to be accurate. I don’t have Jeanne Chebrat’s second marriage to Jehan Piorier in my file, so I’ll need to check that out. Many times FamilySearch, WikiTree, Ancestry, or MyHeritage has connected documents or sources. In this case, here’s the WikiTree entry for Jeanne.

See, I’ve found something interesting already.

Search for People

On the toolbar, if you click on the right arrow, you’ll notice there’s one more option – Search.

If you think one your cousins might be attending, either virtually or in person, you can search by surname. I entered Estes out of curiosity.

This is quite interesting, because some other poor soul is also named Roberta Estes. You KNOW I’ll be messaging her. I’m pretty sure I know who this is, because we’ve been getting mixed up for years. Unless, of course there are actually three of us interested in genealogy.

However, where this Search option really shines is if you’re looking for males who descend from a particular line as candidates for Y-DNA testing.

Bingo!

I suggest doing this name search for each surname in your tree.

The Share Button is Critically Important

Sharing is the key to encouraging people to participate.

This button on the main page is how I generated the link for you to use to see if we’re related.

There’s a “Share” button in several locations. However, you’ll want to be sure you know exactly what you’re sharing. In some cases, it will be the surname comparison information or other information that you’re viewing. 

However, on the bottom of your Relatives pages, Share will generate a message link to/through several programs or apps so people can sign in to see if they are related to you.

You can also just copy the link and send it to someone in a text message or otherwise.

If you generate a message to share, you’ll see what will be posted, so you’ll know for sure exactly what you’re sharing. I wanted to post the link for my friends on Facebook to see if we are related, and that’s exactly what was generated.

If you follow the link to see if we are related, be sure to tell me, or anyone else whose link you follow.

Next, Connect with DNA

Relatives for RootsTech is a wonderful segway into DNA testing.

Remember, with the 300-relative limit, different searches will produce different results including people that won’t be included due to the 300 limit in other searches. Be creative and search in multiple ways. Add your relatives to your spreadsheet or Word document, then record whether they’ve DNA tested, at which vendor(s) and if you match there.

There are various ways to utilize Relatives at RootsTech for DNA.

  • Y-DNA candidates for the direct paternal line for males – The Search by surname can provide you with Y-DNA testing candidates. They may already have tested their Y-DNA with FamilyTreeDNA or their autosomal DNA with at least one vendor, so just message them and ask. Tell them which databases you’re in. Viewing Relatives by Ancestor can be very useful for this same purpose, especially if you have multiple unrelated lines with the same surname.
  • Mitochondrial DNA – the Relatives by Ancestor tool is very useful for locating mitochondrial DNA testing candidates, especially since you can easily see how they are descended from your common ancestor. Mitochondrial DNA is passed from women through all females to the current generation, which can be male or female. Any of your cousins, of either sex, are candidates so long as they descend from your target ancestor through all females.
  • DNA Pedigree Chart – If you’re building your own DNA Pedigree Chart with the Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA of each ancestral line, consider offering a DNA testing scholarship to people who carry those lines that are missing in your DNA Pedigree Chart.
  • Testing Candidates – Anyone is a good candidate for autosomal testing. No second cousin or closer has ever not matched. Ask your cousins if they have tested and tell them which DNA databases you are in. Furthermore, suggest that they upload their DNA to FamilyTreeDNA and MyHeritage for free to utilize their tools and find matches that aren’t in the other databases. GEDmatch isn’t a testing company, but is another free database where you may find people who tested at Ancestry. Unfortunately, Ancestry does not provide segment information for matching or painting, so hopefully you’ll be able to find your Ancestry matches elsewhere.
  • Databases – Be sure you’re in all of the databases (Ancestry, 23andMe, FamilyTreeDNA, MyHeritage and GEDmatch) so you can be found and you can find your relatives.
  • DNAPainter – If you’re painting your segments at DNAPainter, you can paint your matching segments from 23andMe, FamilyTreeDNA, MyHeritage or GEDmatch. Ancestry is the only vendor that does not provide matching segment information for their customers.
  • DNA Search – If your cousin has used their actual name when registering at FamilySearch, sort by ancestor, then search your DNA matches at the various vendors for that cousin’s name. The beauty of Relatives at RootsTech is that the relationship is already sorted by ancestor, so that piece of the puzzle has already been assembled for you, which is exactly the opposite of most DNA matches. Of course, this does not preclude errors or connections through multiple ancestors.

Limited Time – March 31 is the End

If I had a FamilySearch genie and could get one wish, it would be that they would leave Relatives for RootsTech up and available until the next RootsTech. I need time to work on these relationships.

However, that’s not the case, and Relatives for RootsTech ends on March 31st.

Therefore, it’s important to begin building your spreadsheet, or however you’re going to record your relatives, NOW. Check your list often so none of those precious matches will roll off of your list and become unavailable. Access to the complete relative match list, meaning no 300 limit would be my second wish from the FamilySearch genie.

To preserve the ability to communicate with your relatives, message them now or at least add them to your contact list – WITH A NOTE IN YOUR SPREADSHEET AS TO HOW YOU’RE RELATED. Otherwise, that information will not be available after March 31st.

You’ll want to use the same spreadsheet from year to year, as some of the relatives signing up this year probably did last year too.

Ready, Set, Relatives at RootsTech

Have fun. Be sure to let me know if we’re related and how!!!

____________________________________________________________

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

Michael McDowell (1747-1840): Children & Land Dispute Revealed in Chancery Suit 21 Years After His Death – 52 Ancestors #389

My wonderful cousin, Tom, found something that doesn’t relate to his family, but certainly relates to mine. Thank goodness he remembered that Michael McDowell is my ancestor.

Tom found this because John McDowell was married to Nancy Busick, a family he is researching.

This 1861 chancery suit in Hancock County, TN was related to land title and begins, here.

William Overton claims that he purchased 97 acres of land from William McDowell on March 20, 1846, but that McDowell did not have clear title to the land. Michael McDowell, the father of William McDowell had grants from the state of Tennessee for a portion of the land sold to Overton; specifically, a grant for 15 acres and one for 25 acres.

Three acres had previously been purchased of Michael McDowell and Overton says he paid Michael McDowell for those acres. That portion is not in dispute.

Overton claims that William McDowell never had title to the rest of the land that was previously owned by Michael McDowell, except as one of the heirs of Michael, his father. The suit complaint stated that Michael, who “died a good many years ago leaving a number of legitimate heirs so that William McDowell’s interest therein was only an undivided portion. He never had any conveyance from his father for the land.”

According to Overton’s court filing regarding the balance of the land, “William McDowell had once made an entry but never claimed the same out of the office and never procured the grant. Some time since William McDowell died, William Franklin McDowell is his executor and brought suit against complainant for the balance of the purchase price.” Overton had stopped paying the note to William McDowell because he didn’t have clear title. Thank goodness for title companies today.

Several depositions were included that indicate that this land had been in dispute for some time already and that the local court had failed to provide the hoped-for relief. Unfortunately, Hancock County’s records have burned, twice. It’s nothing short of amazing that the chancery records survived.

Here’s a transcription of the pages that Tom found, downloaded and sent along to me. This is not the entire suit.

Transcription

In chancery at Sneedville. [Sneedville is the county seat of Hancock Count, TN.]

William D. Overton vs William F. McDowell

The deposition of John McDowell, a witness on behalf of respondent taken upon notice before me on the 17th day of August 1861 in presence of complainant and respondent’s agent.

The said John McDowell aged about 78 years being duly sworn deposes as follows.

Question 1 by respondent: Mr. McDowell please state how many children Michael McDowell had and also give the name of each child.

Answer: There was 8. Ned McDowell, Michael McDowell, John McDowell, Dolly Herrald, Lute McDowell, Nancy McDowell, William McDowell and Sally McDowell.

Question 2: State where Ned McDowell died and whether or not he left children and how many.

Answer: I think it has been about two years. He left some children but I don’t know how many. When he was out here last he had six children.

Question 3: State how long Michael McDowell Jr. has been dead, whether his children are dead or still living and whether his children left any descendants.

Answer: I can’t tell, but I think it has been 30 odd years and the last account I had from his children they were all dead, but don’t know that it is so. I don’t know whether his children left any descendants or not.

Question 4: Please state if you are the John McDowell you speak of as being one of the children of Michael McDowell Sr. and state your age.

Answer: I am and my age is about 78 years.

Question 5: State whether Dolly Herrold formerly Dolly McDowell is yet alive, how old she is, and state when her husband died. State when she was married to Mr. Harrell?

Answer: She is yet alive, she is about 75 or 6. I cannot tell when her husband died, but I supposed two years next October. The time of her marriage I can’t tell.

Question 6: State whether Lute McDowell is now dead and how long he has been dead, and state also whether he has left any children, giving the number, names and ages.

Answer: I understood he was dead but don’t know it to be true. He had children but I don’t know how many. They had a Syntha, William and John. The rest of their names I don’t know, nor none of their ages.

Question 7: State how long Nancy Bradford, formerly Nancy McDowell has been dead, when she was married to Bradford. State how many children she left and give the names and ages of each.

Answer: I cannot tell, she has been dead a good many years. Don’t recollect what time she was married. I know one of their children’s names, Michael. Don’t know the number nor their ages.

Question 8: State when Sally McDowell died and state whether she was ever married or had children.

Answer: I can’t say how long. She was never married nor had any children.

Question 9: State if the William McDowell mentioned in the pleading in this case as being the testator of William F. McDowell is the same person you speak of as being the son of Michael McDowell Sr. State when he died.

Answer: He is the son of Michael McDowell Sr. He died 3 or 4 years ago.

The depositions are hand-written by William McNiel.

The Survey

One additional item of interest in the chancery suit packet is the survey made in 1867 to sort this mess out.

Today, the aerial of this land looks like this.

The red pin is the McDowell family cemetery where many family members are buried, including John who testified in the deposition.

I cropped and rotated the survey so north is up.

The lands in dispute are the surveys that include the dotted lines. Michael owned more acreage than this during his lifetime, including most of the land in Slanting Misery. Son John obviously wound up owning the cemetery land.

Additionally, John had applied for his own grant in 1825 that included the tip of Slanting Misery adjacent his earlier grant.

Ironically, I have no idea of the outcome of this lawsuit. It was not contained in the packet, which is not unusual. For me, the important part was the historical information in the depositions.

How Does This Information Stack Up?

This was a bit surprising, because there are children of Michael listed that I didn’t know about, and also children who I was fairly certain existed, with names, that John doesn’t list.

I wrote about Michael here, here and here.

I wrote about his wife, Isabel, whose surname is unknown, here.

Let’s compare information.

John’s Deposition Information I Had (Incomplete)
Ned McDowell died circa 1859 – at least 6 children Edward McDowell 1773-1858 Pulaski Co., KY – 12 children
Michael McDowell Jr. died before 1830, children decd by 1861 Michael McDowell born before 1774 – 3 children
John McDowell – gave deposition John McDowell May 10, 1783 – Nov 17, 1877, 11 children
Dolly McDowell Herrald – born 1785/86 – living in 1861, husband died c 1859 Mary McDowell 1785-aft 1872 married William Harrell – 6 children
Lute McDowell – believe dead, had more than 3 children, remembers Syntha, William, John Luke McDowell 1791/2-1879 Dekalb Co., TN – 5 children
Nancy McDowell – deceased several years, multiple children but only one name recalled – Michael Nancy McDowell c 1795-1850/60 DeKalb Co., TN married Thomas Bradford – 8 children
William McDowell – died 1857-1858, at least one son William Franklin McDowell William McDowell 1795-1857/8 Hancock Co. TN – 1 known child
Sally McDowell – never married, no children
James McDowell – born circa 1779 – died circa 1831 Pulaski Co., KY
Nathan S. McDowell born 1797 – no known children
Elizabeth Caroline McDowell born 1789 married John Boyle in 1822 in Wilkes County, NC

I’m presuming here that Ned and Edward are the same person.

James McDowell is found in Wilkes County, NC, in 1801 and a James is found with Edward in Pulaski County, KY in 1820. The James who witnessed the deed in 1801 would have been born in 1779 or earlier. He may or may not have had any connection to Michael.

In 1820, that James is too old to be a son of Edward, so I have no idea who he is or how he connects. These may be two different men. It makes me wonder if perhaps Michael was raising other McDowell children, like maybe nephews. Clearly, John knew without question who his siblings were.

Michael McDowell granted a deed to “W” McDowell and “S” McDowell in 1833 “for love.” No one knew about Sally whose name was probably Sarah before this deposition, and since Nathan’s middle initial was S., it was widely accepted that the “S” who received the land was Nathan. This deposition has caused me to reevaluate that assumption, and at this point, I believe that the “S” was Sally and the “W” was William. Michael, who would have been 86 years old in 1833, was trying to take care of his children, and in particular, his daughter who had never married and would have been about 44 years old. Sally was apparently deceased by 1850 because she is not recorded in the census.

There is no other connection between Nathan and Michael, so it’s certainly possible that Nathan was a descendant of the “other” McDowell Family out of Virginia. He may have circumstantially wound up in Claiborne County.

There is also a John P. McDowell that is associated with Michael McDowell who was born about 1802. It’s unlikely that he belonged to Michael and Isabel, especially since we know that John McDowell is Michael’s son, but he could have been another nephew or a grandson.

I believe Elizabeth Caroline McDowell who married John Boyle in 1822 was simply misattributed as Michael’s child based on the Wilkes County connection. Michael McDowell was not living in Wilkes County in 1822, so it’s very unlikely that his daughter would be marrying there a dozen years after he left. It’s possible that Elizabeth Caroline is somehow connected to the James McDowell in Wilkes County.

Thanks to this deposition, we know which children were Michael’s and which were not.

Commentary

I’m rather stunned that John gave an approximate age of 78, twice, and not an exact age. Did he not recall? I do realize that ages were much less specific in that time and place. Perhaps people didn’t celebrate birthdays within families. A few months earlier in April 1861, John gave his age as 71 and signed as to his age.

John’s not alone though, because I’ve seen people giving approximate ages for themselves, and, like John, different ages at different times in historical documents. Not much was written down back then. If they didn’t have a family Bible, or it burned, those dates were probably not recorded anyplace and they relied on the “best of their recollection.”

I’m even more surprised that John didn’t know if his siblings were deceased. This also means that my ancestor, Mary McDowell Harrell, whom John called Dolly, also wouldn’t have known for sure if her siblings were deceased. I had presumed that a letter would have been written when someone’s child, or sibling, died, and that everyone back home would have quickly shared the news when the letter arrived. This makes me wonder why that didn’t happen.

In a deposition for Mary McDowell Harrell in 1872, when he says that he is 90 years old, John stated that he was at her wedding in Wilkes County, NC. He gave an approximate marriage date for her of 1809 based on the fact that they left Wilkes County (for Claiborne) in 1810 and they were married about a year before that departure. He didn’t mention that in the 1861 deposition.

We do know that Ned, who was actually Edward, came back to visit according to John. That trip, from Pulaski Co., KY, would have been about 120 miles, so about a 6-day journey each way on horseback. He clearly wouldn’t have returned home often, and it’s unlikely that his family came along, especially given that his wife was not from the Claiborne/Hancock County region. A wagon trip would have taken even longer.

I’m surprised that John only knew the names of four of his nieces and nephews – one of Nancy’s sons who was named after Michael McDowell, and three of Lute’s children, whose name was actually Luke.

I’m guessing that John did know the names of Mary’s children because she and her husband William Harrell were neighbors to Michael McDowell and therefore to her brother John, and William McDowell’s land as well.

Unfortunately, John was not asked about William McDowell’s children. It was probably assumed that topic was taken care of since Overton had sued William’s son.

Based on the census and where John McDowell is buried, in the McDowell family cemetery on Michael’s land, it appears that John lived on at least part of Michael’s original land.

It’s ironic that we only have the name of one of William McDowell’s children, William Franklin McDowell, the man who was suing to collect the balance of the money for the land that his father, William, apparently sold but did not have title to.

Obviously, Mary McDowell’s nickname was Dolly, but never have I seen it recorded as such anyplace. Normally the nickname for Mary is Polly, but unless John was wrong or misunderstood, hers was Dolly. Clearly, in the intervening years since her death in 1859, her descendants living a hundred years later didn’t know her name. The last of her great-grandchildren’s generation was dying by the mid-1900s and many families had moved away. My grandmother died in Chicago in 1955.

I don’t think there was anyone who knew any stories about Mary/Dolly or her life, or even the names of ancestors three or four generations back in time. We found her through genealogical records, not oral or written history. I began doing genealogy in the 1970s and there was no one who knew anything about those people or generations that far back. Not even the nickname the family called her. Ironic that I’ve been calling her Mary as long as I’ve known about her, but her nickname, and the name she was called every day was very clearly Dolly. I can’t help but wonder if she’s breathing a sigh of relief someplace that we finally know her by her everyday familiar name. Or maybe she’s still frustrated because it was actually Polly.

The existence of Michael’s daughter, Sally McDowell was a surprise too. Before the age of detailed census records listing the names of every family member, the only hint as to the existence of a child who never married and never lived on their own would have been a mystery hash-mark entry in the 1790-1840 census for an unknown child, or perhaps a will. Michael had no will and while William McDowell was appointed as his estate administrator, no inventory was ever filed in court. Clearly something was very strange about Michael’s estate and the fact that the court failed to oversee the process. Perhaps this fell between the cracks when Hancock County separated from Claiborne, but that process didn’t begin for another couple years.

Sally is clearly gone by 1850 and I can’t locate her with any of her three local siblings in 1840, so she may well have been deceased by that point in time.

In the 1800 census, Michael McDowell has three daughters which accounts for all three female siblings that John named.

In the 1790 census, Michael has 4 males under 16, so born between 1774 and 1790. In 1800, he has only two boys under 10 who would not have been born in 1790. What happened to the rest of those boys on the 1790 census? We know from later records that at least 3 of 4 didn’t die. We know for sure that Edward, Michael and John were born in the 1780s. Luke and William were both born in the 1790s. That still leaves one missing son born in the 1780s, which we thought was James – but all of the boys born in the 1780s are missing in the 1790 census. No wonder genealogists are so chronically confused.

Additional Records

For those researching the John McDowell family, additional records can be found in the following references:

  • Coleman vs John McDowell – land 1888 & 1890

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C3QN-J875?i=17&cat=1104143

  • John McDowell – debt 1888

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C3QN-J8W3?i=28&cat=1104143

  • John McDowell vs G. B. Short et al 1878 and 1880, answer, order, estate
  • John McDowell vs Josiah Ramsay 1890 debt

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C3QN-J895?i=51&cat=1104143

  • Catherine Short vs John McDowell 1881, 1882, 1888 civil suit and land

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C3QN-J835?i=67&cat=1104143

____________________________________________________________

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

Preparing for Research at the FamilySearch Library

One of my readers asked about what type of research facilities are available in Salt Lake City (SLC). They are attending RootsTech for the first time.

I’m so glad they asked. This article will answer their question but is also a broader article about how I research specific lineages and locations. Please note that I’ll be including lots of links where you can find additional information.

The FamilySearch Library is extremely useful to genealogists, even if you can’t visit in person. This article isn’t just for in-person visitors, although that’s where I’m focused today. It’s really for everyone and will help you understand how to access the various types of research tools available, and where.

When in Salt Lake City, the Family History Library, now called the FamilySearch Library is THE place to go for research. It’s world-class and equivalent to Mecca for genealogists.

The FamilySearch Library is pictured above. Just a block away, with the red arrow, you’ll find the Salt Palace Convention Center where RootsTech is held. The large silver tower behind the red arrow is the brand-new Hyatt Hotel.

First, we’re going to discuss logistics, then how to prepare for utilizing resources at the library.

Family History Library Renamed FamilySearch Library

Just a few weeks ago, the Family History Library (FHL) rebranded itself as the FamilySearch Library, so you’ll hear both terms. Just know that by whatever name, this is the most comprehensive genealogy library in the US, as well as in the world.

The library is funded and sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also known as the Mormons. Genealogy is a part of their religion, so whether you are of the LDS faith or not, the library is beneficial, welcoming and does not attempt to recruit non-LDS visitors to the LDS faith. The staff and volunteers there are super-friendly and helpful. I am not LDS and I love this library.

The library hosts special hours, here, during RootsTech week, staying open 12 hours per day.

You can see lots of pictures, here and a map to the library, here.

If you haven’t visited in the past couple of years, the library has taken the opportunity to remodel and upgrade during the Covid down-time. I really look forward to visting the new facility.

Help

If you need help or direction, there are multiple ways to receive that, both virtually and in-person. Consultations are free and can be arranged, here.

On the library website, be sure to click on each of these helpful buttons to plan and get the most out of your visit.

Media

Within the FamilySearch Library, there are different types of resources you can access, including traditional books and microfilmed records through their complimentary workstations. The library is divided into sections, and you’ll find an information desk when entering.

Here’s a layout and a site map with additional information.

Food

Please note that while the library does have a breakroom where guests can eat, they don’t have food service. Many library patrons bring something in their bag and simply visit the breakroom quickly to eat. Peanut butter cheese crackers are a favorite of mine, along with protein bars. I refill a water bottle.

The closest restaurant is around the corner in the Salt Lake Plaza Hotel, and the next closest is the Blue Lemon.

However, most genealogists don’t want to pack everything up and then unpack after lunch, so they simply bring something to eat in the breakroom.

I strongly recommend a small rolling suitcase for your research, laptop, notebooks, pencils (I use mechanical pencils) and snacks. You’ll be carrying or pulling everything, all day long.

You may well leave with more than you arrived with, meaning copies.

Also, don’t neglect to bring phone charging cords (with electrical plug-in) in your library bag, along with a spare thumb drive or two. Voice of experience here. Your phone will double as your camera and prevent you from having to make copies. You can stand right at your table and photograph what you need.

Close to the RootsTech Conference

The FamilySearch Library is literally a block away from the Salt Palace Convention Center where RootsTech is held, directly across the street from the Marriott hotel. The Marriott has a Starbucks in the lobby.

The library is within easy walking distance and Salt Lake City keeps the sidewalks shoveled and clear of ice and snow, for the most part. Bring warm clothes that you can layer though, because it is the dead of winter.

There’s a coat check at RootsTech, but I don’t use it. I just wear a thin thermal-lined coat and stuff it in my rolling bag.

A word about parking. Don’t. I use Uber or Lyft. There is also public bus transportation from the airport. I’ve never used that. However, parking is very limited and if you’re going to drive or rent a car, you’ll probably want to park it at the Marriott, the conference center, or other paid parking and walk when you are downtown. Parking is quite expensive, especially given that you’re probably not going to use that car for days. Uber/Lyft is MUCH easier and if you need to Uber/Lyft to a restaurant downtown, it’s just a couple of dollars.

Most of us are so tired we just grab something quick at the end of the day and then just die in our beds. There are food vendors at RootsTech.

Research Prep

Ok, now that we have location and logistics out of the way, let’s talk about how to actually prepare to research.

Go to www.familysearch.org where you’ll be prompted to either sign in or create an account.

Click on images to enlarge

If you don’t have an account, create one. They are free and there are things you can’t see and do without an account.

Also, you can scroll down to view different kinds of assistance available, including at local Family History Centers and library affiliates across the world. However, this article is about preparing to research at the main FamilySearch Library in Salt Lake City.

Having said that, I do suggest you take a look to see where your closest facility is located, because items in the FamilySearch catalog are available:

  • Online plus at the FamilySearch Library in Salt Lake City and in local Family History Centers
  • At the FamilySearch Library in Salt Lake City ONLY
  • At the local Family History Centers in addition to the library in Salt Lake City

When in Salt Lake City, you’ll want to focus your efforts on items that are available only at FamilySearch Library in Salt Lake City. You can utilize online resources at your convenience, and you can visit your local Family History Center or affiliate library easier than visiting SLC. In my case, I don’t have a local center or affiliated library anyplace even remotely close, so I’ll be accessing everything in SLC. Some local Family History Centers have very limited hours or aren’t active anymore, so check before you assume you can access something locally.

Family Tree

The FamilySearch Family Tree is a collaborate effort. Some people love it, some don’t. I use it judiciously to see if someone has found a record for an ancestor that I have not and attached it to that ancestor’s profile. You can access this tree from home, so I’m not covering it in this article.

Search

What you’re going to do is Search and make a list of items to reference when in Salt Lake City.

I prepare either a spreadsheet or Word document as I search.

Of course, experiment with each search category, including images.

For all county searches, you don’t type the word “county.” Just “Just Hancock, Tennessee” for Hancock County, Tennessee.

Book Search

In the Book search, you’ll generally want to enter one word, such as “Estes” or experiment with the Advanced Search Options.

Click images to enlarge

I was prompted to sign in before I could view this book. Because I can view it online, I’m not going to waste time viewing this book in SLC, but I might use it to prep, or view it later, so I’m adding it to my spreadsheet but not for SLC.

However, there will be books that you cannot view online.

This book is copyright restricted. You will be able to see some highlights, often including the index, but not the entire book. Click on the title to see additional information.

This book is physically located at the FamilySearch Library, so put it on your list for SLC using the:

  • Title
  • Author’s name
  • Title number
  • Call number

If you see a book that is ONLY available in off-site storage, contact the library before your visit to see if they can retrieve it for you. Be sure to record all call numbers on your spreadsheet. If you can’t find a call number, call the library.

Some locations of availability will be local Family History Centers, so be sure to read carefully. Additional books are available through the Catalog Search.

Catalog Search

My favorite search is the Catalog Search.

You can search in a wide variety of ways and combinations. Sometimes one search will pick something up that another won’t, so I use all of the searches.

In this case, I’m searching for items from Hancock County, TN. Sometimes I limit the search to “Online”, then search for “Any” because it’s easy to quickly tell if there is anything in a category that is not available online. For example, there are three items in the Cemeteries category, but only one item available online, I know to look in that category for two things that aren’t available online.

You can expand any of these categories to view the items listed.

By clicking on the title, you can easily see additional information.

The first book (series) is available in a number of ways.

The book volumes are available at the library in SLC, and also on microfiche at the library.

If these little film roll icons were the only availability, then YES, I would want to view these in SLC

The reel means microfilm only, and must be viewed in Salt Lake.

However, at the very bottom, the little camera tells you that some are available online with unrestricted images so long as you are signed into your FamilySearch account. This is why you need a FamilySearch account.

By unrestricted, I mean that you don’t have to be physically IN Sale Lake City to view the images.

This little magnifying glass icon means that the images are available, have been indexed and are searchable. Glory hallelujah.

So, if this is a group of marriage records, you can browse the records themselves, but if you search for a surname in record search with location, you’ll find people of that surname from these records.

Many records are not indexed or searchable, but some indexes have been filmed so you can cross-reference that way.

If you see the image of a camera with a key, that means that the image is ONLY available to view at either a Family History Center or affiliate, or the FamilySearch Library. Generally, that has to do with the license FamilySearch was able to obtain from the owning entity.

You can read more about the availability of catalog items here.

Additionally, sometimes notes are provided that direct you to other viewing opportunities.

Clearly, I don’t need to view this item in SLC.

You may see this note which means you should definitely put this item on your SLC list.

Here’s another article about research methodologies.

FamilySearch Wiki

Additionally, I use the FamilySearch Wiki often. I just type my desired search into Google. “Hancock County, Tennessee FamilySearch wiki”

The FamilySearch wiki not only tells you what’s available specifically for Hancock County, but other relevant record collections not at FamilySearch, and where you can access them.

Additionally, these pages explain about formation, boundary changes, record loss, cities, towns and villages within the county, and neighboring counties. The information is updated regularly, so check back from time to time.

Prep Summary

I find these pages and tools invaluable. I hope you do too and will find goldmines of information just waiting for you that will provide those missing pieces to your ancestor puzzles.

Preparing wisely is the key to getting the most out of your limited research time in Salt Lake City.

Have fun!!!

____________________________________________________________

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

Joel Cook (c1745 – after 1805); Sold Out and Disappeared into Thin Air – 52 Ancestors #388

Joel Cook was the father of Sarah Cook who was born about 1775. She married James Lee Clarkson in 1799 in Russell County, VA.

That was the easy part, or comparatively easy.

Joel, it turns out, is quite the mystery man.

Mysterious in that we don’t know where he came from, nor where he went. In fact, we only have about 10 years’ worth of information about Joel Cook, and beyond that, he simply dissolves into the mist.

I don’t like to publish ancestor articles until I have what I think is a “full story.” I’m making an exception with Joel Cook because I’m hoping that someone, someplace can help flesh out this story. There’s power in collaboration!

We are probably looking for Joel Cook’s family in Virginia. We know his daughter says she was born in Virginia in 1775, but Joel could have been anyplace before that. There are a lot of Cook men in North Carolina, and the name Clayton Cook, a man closely associated with Joel, is found there. It’s not the same Clayton Cook, but the name is distinctive. After 1805, we’re probably looking for Joel Cook in Kentucky.

However, nothing, but nothing, about Joel is certain. In fact, I think his middle name is “Uncertain.”

Joel’s First Appearance

Joel Cook first appears in the Russell County, Virginia records in 1795. He was clearly an adult in 1775 when his daughter was born, so he would have been living someplace in the 1790 census. But where?

Utilizing Binn’s Genealogy master list for the Virginia reconstructed 1790 census reveals no Joel Cook, nor a Clayton Cook who is often found with Joel. In 1850, Sarah reports that she was born in Virginia, so it makes sense to look in Virginia in 1790, although there’s nothing that precludes Joel from moving to North Carolina or elsewhere after Sarah’s birth and before arriving in Russell County.

There is a Joel Cook in Bertie County, NC in 1790, but no Clayton which is a pretty distinctive name. Joel does have 3 males under 16, so it’s possible that Clayton could fall in this family group. However, Joel in Bertie married Bellison Floyd in 1784 and continued living in North Carolina through 1805, which eliminates him as our Joel.

Early Russell County, Virginia

Russell County was on the wild, unsettled and dangerous side of the frontier line. A petition was submitted to form Russell County in 1785 by about 300 petitioners, but no Cook was yet living in Russell County at that time.

The petition of sundry inhabitants of Clinch River, Moccasin Creek, Powells Valley, and others, citizens of Washington County humbly represent that your petitioners are situated from the line of Montgomery as it crosses near the source of the Clinch River, down the same eight miles; thence to the extreme settlements of Powells Valley forty more.

The greatest portion of your petitioners have to travel from twenty five miles and some eighty or an hundred; moreover are generally interrupted by Clinch Mountain and the north branch of the Holstein River; the former affording very difficult passes; the latter much danger and difficulty in crossing it in spring and after considerable rains; continuous to its southern bank, a chain of hills almost as difficult as Clinch Mountain; so that great difficulty arises to your Petitioners not only in attending Courts, but Courts Martial. And from the extent of schism between our small settlements make it exceedingly difficult to arrange companies without subjecting some to travel 15 and 20 miles to private mustery. There are two difficulties in the militia law that principally affect your Petitioners. There are evils small indeed to the feelings we constantly undergo when obliged to leave our helpless families exposed at so very great distances to obey the laws of our country. And however evident the danger may appear to us will not certainly on our failure of duty plead our excuse. Circumstance alone is sufficient to claim the human respect of the Legislature to remove the grievance. We therefore pray your Honorable House will take our case into consideration and divide the county. We further pray a line may be fixed along Clinch Mountain to the Carolina line; or with the line at present dividing the county into two regiments to the aforesaid Carolina line; then with the said line to Cumberland Mountain including that existing county between Cumberland Mountain and Montgomery line and Clinch Mountain, or the aforesaid regimental line for the new county and southeast of the said Clinch Mountain remain Washington County; and we your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Forts and Stations lined the Wilderness road through western Virginia to the Cumberland Gap.

The first mention of a Cook occurred in relation to the Indian incursions.

From the unpublished manuscript, Indian Atrocities Along the Clinch, Powell and Holston Rivers, page 39.

From Draper Mss 2 DD 193, is a copy of the pension statement of William Barron, State of Tennessee, Washington County:…on this 23 January 18__, William Barron, aged 78 years…That while living in Montgomery Co., VA he was drafted as he believes in the fall of 17__ and entered the service under Sergeant John Brooley and served about one month. That he again enlisted or volunteered in the company commanded by Sergeant Alexander Neeley (Draper appends a handwritten note “perhaps Alexander Neely) under whom he served between two and three months in guarding the Lead Mines of Montgomery County. That he again enlisted under Lt. Frederick Edwards and served three months under Captain (John) Stevens (at Long Island). That after remaining at Long Island, a few days, an express came to Col. Preston (who was also at Long Island) from Rye Cove Fort on Clinch requesting assistance as the Indians had made some incursions in that quarter and killed a few of the inhabitants. That Captain Stevens Company marched to their assistance affiant being one of them. That after remaining a few days at the Rye Cove Fort intelligence was received that Mr. Cooke, who had been sent out as a spy, had been killed by the Indians that affiant with the balance of Stevens company spent a few days in scouring Powells Valley with the view of discovering the Indians, but failing in this, they buried Cooke and returned to the fort. (Data courtesy of Gordon Aronhim, Bristol, VA)

Who was that Cook man? Cook is not exactly an unusual surname, but neither is it Smith.

In the 1780s and 1790s, many deaths occurred as a result of white settlers settling on land claimed by the Indians.

The Musick Family

Joel Cook settled near the Musick Family, along Musick Spring Branch.

David Musick lived on a farm in the Big A Mountain section in 1792, near present-day Honaker, with his wife, Annie McKinney, and their four children.

His home had been once previously burned, which damaged his gun. On August 12, 1792, David’s sons were surprised by Indians when going for firewood, but made it back to the house. Unable to defend the homestead due to the warped gun, the Indians broke in, killed and scalped David, and kidnapped his wife and children. The Shawnee set out with their captives for the Ohio Valley, on foot.

Thirty miles and three nights later, a posse of settlers caught up with the party and rescued Mrs. Musick and the children, including the babe in arms.

The last Indian incursion in this part of Virginia occurred in April 1794 near Yokum Station in neighboring Lee County, but of course, the people didn’t know it was the last incursion at that time.

It was here, on the dangerous frontier, near the Musick home, that Joel Cook, for some reason long lost to time, chose to settle in 1795.

Joel’s Arrival

We learned about Joel Cook from his daughter, Sarah, in her War of 1812 application for pension and bounty land after her husband, James Claxton or Clarkson perished. James, born in 1775, died in 1815 during the War of 1812, but Sarah’s depositions that provided her father’s name and details of her marriage to James were filed in 1851, many years after James’s death.

Joel Cook was in Russell County by about 1795, although he may have arrived earlier. He was closely associated with Clayton Cook who is believed to be his son. Whether Clayton was his son or another family member, it’s clear that those two men were closely associated.

We believe that Clayton eventually went on to live in Kentucky near Salyersville in present-day Magoffin County.

Please note my “weasel words of uncertainty,” such as “believe.” There’s frustratingly little proven about these connections.

Joel’s Family

There is only one proven child of Joel Cook (the elder), daughter Sarah Cook, born about 1775, who married James Clarkson (Claxton) in 1799 in Russell County. From her 1851 widow’s pension application, we know when and where she was married, and who was present.

A second child is probably Clayton Cook who reportedly went to Floyd Co., KY about the same time Joel Sr. disappears from the records. Clayton eventually settled near Salyersville, Kentucky. Clayton and Joel could be brothers, father and son or some other relationship. It’s likely, given that they witnessed documents together that they were somehow related.

Based on the age of Sarah alone, Joel Sr. is believed to have been born before 1755, but he could have been born significantly earlier. Sarah was born about 1775, married in 1799 with her first child born in 1800. Men in Virginia during that time very rarely married before age 25 and more likely 30, so Joel was probably born in 1750 or earlier.

If Clayton is also Joel’s son, which is certainly feasible, he is on his own by 1794 or so, so probably age 25 or 30 by then, born 1764-1769, pushing his father’s birth to before 1745. I think this is a more likely scenario. One piece of conflicting information is that the Clayton Cook found in Kentucky wasn’t born until about 1777, which means that this Clayton, on his own in 1795 would have had to have been born before 1777. This is just one of about a million frustratingly conflicting tidbits.

Are these two different Clayton Cooks, or is the information incorrect?

We do know that Joel Cook Sr. was living in Russell Co. because Sarah was married at his house.

George Cook and John Cook, also found early in Russell Co., could be related, but we have nothing except their names on the tax list to potentially connect them to Joel Sr.

The 1794 Magoffin County, KY Settlement Attempt

It’s possible that Joel Cook attempted to settle in present-day Magoffin County, Kentucky in 1794. Several settlers from South Carolina, including Clayton Cook, were reported to have settled at Prater’s Fort, only to have been repelled by Indians. They returned in 1800, trying once again.

It’s uncertain if this is the same Clayton Cook as the Clayton Cook found in Russell County with Joel Cook. I have also seen no documentation that the Clayton Cook who attempted to settle in Kentucky in 1794 was actually from South Carolina. It’s possible that the other settlers were, but he was not.

Earliest Land and Court Records and Tax Lists

Lack of records is our biggest impediment in our search for Joel Cook, both in Virginia and Kentucky.

Please note that marriage, birth and death records don’t begin in Russell County until 1853, will and probate books do not exist before 1803 and tax lists are sporadic. Court and land records begin in 1786 and 1787, respectively. No census before 1810. I have created a timeline using all available records related to all early Cook records in Russell County.

  • In 1795, 18 acres to Joel Cook from the WPA book, assignee of Daniel Wilson, on Swords Creek.
  • Joel Cook, grantee, assignee of David Nelson, Russell Co., warrant 13687 issued Aug 3, 1782, 18 acres on the S side of Clinch River, surveyed July 1, 1795.
  • In 1796, Joel and Alexander Cook were on the tax list. Alexander Cook never appears again.
  • In 1797-1799, both Joel and Clayton Cook were on the tax list.
  • Page 156 – December 31, 1798 between Moses Damron, Jr. of Fleming Co., KY and John Tollet of Wythe Co…300 ac granted to John Bredon by patent dated December 17, 1792…on Clinch River…Beginning…corner to John Bredons settlement right…by the ford of the River…to the mouth of a gap of a ridge…through the gap…by Weavers Creek…Signed: Moses Damron & Sarah Damron. Witnesses: John Stinson, C. Holliday, Abraham Musick, Martin Honaker & Joel Cook
  • Court Notes 5 – June 25, 1799 – Henry Smith vs. Joel Cook, debt
  • Court Notes p.23 – Sept 24, 1799 – Joel Cook member of Jury Comm. vs. John Osborne
  • Court Notes p.26 – September 25, 1799 – Henry Smith vs. Joel Cook, debt dismissed
  • Court Notes p. 35 – November 26, 1799 – Walter Preston vs Jeremiah Patrick Jr, dept, Joel Cook undertakes for the defendant.
  • Court Notes p.36 – November 26, 1799 – Henry Smith vs. Joel Cook, debt, Jeremiah Patrick, Jr. undertakes for the def.
  • 346 – Joel Cook – March 25, 1799 – 100 ac – part Treasury Warrant 12364 – on the north side of the north fork of Clinch River – at the mouth of Musicks Spring Branch – corner John Wilson.

Note – I surely wish I could locate Musick’s Spring Branch, today.

  • 346 – March 25, 1799 – Joel Cook – 50 ac – part Treasury Warrant 2320 – on the south side of the Stone Mountain.
  • 1799 – Court Notes p. 436 Martin Honaker vs Clayton Cook, petition and summons, dismissed. There is a town named Honaker today.
  • 17 – January 25, 1800 – Henry Bowen – 500 ac – part of Treasury Warrant 2320 dated November 18, 1797 – on both sides of the north fork of Clinch River – on the bank of said fork in a line of Fowlers Orphans Tract – by the side of a path – corner to a 50 ac tract of Joel Cook – corner to Richard Colier
  • Court Notes p.50 – March 25, 1800 – Daniel Collins vs. Joel Cook, petition & summons
  • Court Notes p.51 – March 25, 1800 – Jeremiah Patrick, assignee vs. Clayton Cook, petition & summons
  • Court Notes p.62 – June 24, 1800 – Joel Cook member of Jury, Comm. vs. Benj. Harris
  • Court Notes p.63 – June 24, 1800 – Indenture between Moses Damron & Sarah to John Tallet “oath of Joel Cook
  • Page 148 – October 28, 1800 – between James Connard and Joel Cook…50 ac on the north side of the upper north fork of Clinch River…Beginning…in a Valley on the south side of the Stony Mountain…Signed: James Kinnard. No witnesses.
  • Page 149 – October 28, 1800 between James Kinnard and Solomon Ward for “…150 ac… on both sides of the north fork of Clinch River … Beginning on the north side of a Cedar Clift … to the mouth of a cove … to the top of the River Hill … at the mouth of a branch then crossing the river … at the foot of Kents Ridge then crossing the River …” Signed: James Kinnard & Molley Kinnard. Witnesses: Joel Cook, John Watson & Claton Cook.

Kent’s Ridge is the ridge running on the south side of the Clinch River but parallel to Stone Mountain.

  • Page 151 – October 28, 1800 between Joel Cook and Henry Smith…18 ac, part of a survey dated July 4, 1795..on the south side of Clinch River…Beginning…along the River Bend…Signed: Joel Cook. No witnesses.
  • Court Notes p.91 – October 28, 1800 – Indenture James Kinnard to Joel Cook
  • Court Notes p 91 – Indenture Joel Cook to Henry Smith
  • In 1801, Clayton, Joel and John Cook are all on the tax list.

  • A petition signed on December 17, 1801 includes the names of both Clayton and Joel Cook, adjacent, along with several of the neighboring landowners. The petition references the incursions of savages, then a road that has been opened in Russell and Lee Counties, except for 10 or 12 miles which the petitioners who live near the border with Kentucky request to be opened.
  • 36 – November 24, 1801 – Andrew Hebourn – 4300 ac – part of Treasury Warrant 1856 dated March 18, 1796 – on the north side of the north fork of Clinch River and on the east side of Swords Creek, including the Stone Mountain – corner to Joel Cook – corner to Henry Bowen – corner to another tract of Hebourn – corner to Patrick Kindrick – corner to a tract of land granted to Josiah Fugate – corner to Fugate & Harry Smith – corner to Jesse Evans – corner to Evans and Richard Smith surveys #1 & 5 of 10,000 ac – corner to Richard Smiths survey of 7223 3/4 ac – corner to Jeremiah Patrick – corner to Harris Wilson – corner to Jeremiah Patrick, Jr. – corner to Patrick Kindrick, Jr. – corner to John Wilson – corner to Wilson & Joel Cookopposite the mouth of a branch in a survey made for Elexious Musick – in a valley.

Please note that while I found the transcribed surveys, I would love to locate the actual drawn surveys which would allow me to pinpoint this land much more accurately. Assistance is welcome.

  • Elexious Musick (1788-1874) was the son of David Musick who died in the massacre. He is buried in the Musick Cemetery, just above Fullers. An earlier Elexious Musick (1718-1798), born in Spotsylvania County, VA died in 1798 in Russell County and was a member of the same Musick family.
  • Joel Cook, grantee, Dec. 11, 1801 – warrant 2320, issued Nov. 18, 1797 – Russell Co. – 50 acres on the S side of the ____ Stones Mountain adjoining his own land (note – see also Cooke it says)
  • Joel Cook, grantee, Dec. 12, 1801 – warrant 12364 May 18, 1782, Russell Co., 100 acres on the N side of the N fork of Clinch River beginning at the mouth of Musick’s Spring Branch.
  • Page 573 – April 6, 1802 – between Solomon Ward & Susannah and William McCormack for “… 150 ac on the north fork of Clinch River … Beginning … at the mouth of a cave … crossing said branch joining James Kinnard & John Wilson … to the mouth of the branch … to Abednego Whites line …” Signed: Solomon Ward & Susanna Ward. Witnesses: George Kindrick, Clayton Cook, Joel Cook.
  • Page 342 – October 26, 1802 between James Connard and Joel Cook…on the waters of the north fork of Clinch River…50 ac…adjoining the tract of land of Connard…Beginning in the road and crossing the road…Signed: James Cannard & Mary Cannard. No witnesses.
  • Court Notes p. 227 – October 26, 1802 – Two indentures from James Canard and Mary, 1 to James Nesbet and 1 to Joel Cook, recorded.
  • Court Notes p. 227 – October 26, 1802 – Indenture from Solomon Ward & Susanna to William McCormick, oath of Joel Cook, continued for further proof.
  • Court Notes p. 229 – October 26, 1802 – George Cook exempted from paying levies & poor rates on account of age & infirmities.

This means George was probably over age 45 and could have been over age 55 or 60. If George was 45, he was born in 1757ish. He was probably more likely born before 1750. The other possibility is that he was disabled, referenced as “infirm.” Of course, we don’t know if he’s connected to Joel.

  • 1802 – Joel Cook, Clayton Cook, George Cook, and John Cook on tax list. This is the first mention of John Cook.
  • 1803 – Joel Cook, Clayton Cook, John Cook, James Cook on tax list. I never find James again.
  • 1803 – 3 Nov., Thomas Cook of Russell Co VA sold 150 ac of land to Thomas Stanley of Iredell co NC originally granted to Henry Cook.
  • Page 450 – March 6, 1803 between Harris Wilson and Richard Wilson…on the waters of the north fork of Clinch River…100 ac, part of a survey of 350 ac granted by patent dated September 23, 1789…Beginning…crossing a branch above Nathaniel Barnetts improvement…a conditional line between Richard & John Wilson…Signed: Harris Wilson. Witnesses: Andrew Shorbridge, C. Holliday, Joel Cook
  • Page 452 – March 6, 1803 between Harris Willson and John Willson…, part of a survey of 350 ac granted to Harris Willson by patent dated September 23, 1789 on the waters of the north fork of Clinch River…100 ac…Beginning at the foot of the Stony Mountain…Signed: Harris Willson. Witnesses: C. Holliday, Joel Cook, Andrew Shortridge
  • Court Notes p.260 – July 26, 1803 – Joel Cook, surveyor of road in place of Harry Smith.
  • Court Notes p. 262 – August 23, 1803 – Indenture from Harris Wilson by oath of Joel Cook.
  • 1803 – Patrick Kindrick will September 10, 1803, beneficiaries children William, Jane Lock, Frances Ritchie, Patrick, Rachel Johnson, George; others, Molly Horton, Isabel Horton; executors, none named but George Kendrick appointed by the court; witnesses Harry Smith, Travis Kendall, Joel Cook, probated June 4, 1805, page 87
  • 1804 – Thomas Cook, Clayton Cook, Joel Cook, and John Cook on tax list. Thomas Cook is never mentioned again.
  • Court Notes p.332 – August 28, 1804 – 2 Indentures, Joel Cook & Aley to Abednego White
  • Court Notes p.332 – August 28, 1804 – Indenture from Sol. Ward & Susanna to Wm. McCormick, oath of Clayton Cook
  • Page 571 – August 28, 1804 – between Joel Cook & Elisy and Abednego White…on the south side of the Stone Mountain…50 ac by survey dated March 25, 1799…Beginning corner to said Cook…near a spring…to the top of the Brushy Ridge…Signed: Joel Cook & Ailey Cook. No witnesses.
  • Page 572 – August 28, 1804 between Joel Cook and Abednego White…on the waters of the north fork of Clinch River…50 ac….Beginning on the top of the Brushy Ridge…on the south side of the Stony Mountain…crossing the valley…Signed: Joel Cook & Ailey Cook. No witnesses.
  • Court Notes p. 349 – October 23, 1804 – Court expenses, Clayton Cook for killing one old wolf
  • In 1805 Joel Cook witnessed a will for Patrick Kerchick or Kerchill.
  • Page 626 – July 29, 1805 – between Joel Cook & Alice and James Canard…100 ac on the north side of the north fork of Clinch River…Beginning at the mouth of Musicks Spring branch…corner of John Wilsons tract of land…Signed: Joel Cook & Alice Cook. No witnesses
  • Page 627 – August 6, 1805 between Joel Cook & Alice and Abednego White…on the north side of the north fork of Clinch River…50 ac…Beginning corner of John Youngs tract by the side of the road…near the mouth of a wet-weather spring …Signed: Joel Cook & Alse Cook. No witnesses
  • Court Notes – August 6, 1805 – Two Indentures from Joel Cook and Alice, 1 to James Cannard and 1 to Abednigo White, recorded

Joel Cook has sold the last of his land by August 1805. He had probably moved on at this point.

However, in 1809, we find Joel and John on the tax list once again. This is believed to be the younger Joel, possibly either a son of the older Joel or the son of John Cook.

  • 1809-1811 – Joel and John Cook on tax list
  • 1812 – Joel Cook on tax list and sporadically through 1820
  • 1812 – James Cook placed under good behavior bond
  • 92 – August 19, 1816 – James Taylor – 330 ac – part Treasury Warrant 11962 dated May 10, 1782 – on both sides of the north fork of Clinch River – corner to a big survey of Andrew Hebourn – corner to John Wilson – corner to Hebourn, James Madison & Harris Wilson – on the west side of a gap – corner to Joel Cook – at the mouth of Musicks spring branch – corner to Abednego White – corner to Henry Bowen.

This is clearly the description of Joel Cook’s original land and involved James Taylor who witnessed the marriage of Sarah Cook. This description does not mean that Joel still lived on this land.

Joel’s Land

The Virginia Archives includes a 1937 record for Joel Cook’s land in their Historical Inventory Project. Apparently, his land included an old Indian campground on the Clinch River where spears and other relics emerged and were plowed up for decades. In 1937, it was owned by Sam Hale.

The challenge is that the road directions are given with some road numbers that have been replaced over time.

On this old map that shows the county road numbers, I was able to confirm the location. Virginia Route 82 is now 67.

How Much Land Did Joel Own?

According to the various land records, Joel owned either 250 or 300 acres. One entry may have been recorded twice as it appears to be very similar. We are very fortunate because these descriptions of Joel’s land that include his neighbors allow us to place his land relatively accurately.

Based on the 1937 historical information, there are only two locations where you can turn left and drive along the Clinch River.

The first is Gardner Road, in green, and the second is Kent Ridge Road, in red which is on the south side of the river, as described in the original land grant and survey.

There are only two locations where there is a valley on the south side of Stone Mountain and a road where Joel could own land on both sides of Clinch River. We also know this is on the east side of Sword’s Creek, which narrows the site to the land with the red arrows.

Stone Mountain is directly north of the red arrows, and east of Swords Creek Road.

It would help immensely if we knew the names of the small creeks to locate Musick’s Spring Branch, but we don’t. Those small branches aren’t labeled, at least not that I can find today.

The most likely location for Joel’s land is at the intersection of Clark’s Valley Road just east of Swords Creek Road for maybe 1000 feet. It’s the only location where the Clinch River is close enough to the road to fulfill the various location criteria, although given that Joel owned at least four pieces of land, he could have owned land in both the green and red locations.

Since Joel Cook had more than one land grant, we can use the locations described in his other grants to assist our search.

TopoZone shows Stone Mountain and the Clinch River, right at the intersection of Sword’s Creek Road.

Based on the descriptions of Joel’s land, we find:

  • Swords Creek
  • North side of the north fork of Clinch River at Musick’s Spring Branch
  • South side of Stone Mountain
  • North side of the upper north fork of Clinch River…Beginning…in a Valley on the south side of the Stony Mountain
  • South side of Clinch River…Beginning…along the River Bend
  • North side of the north fork of Clinch River and on the east side of Swords Creek, including the Stone Mountain – corner to Joel Cook
  • South side of Stone Mountain joining his own land
  • N side of the N fork of Clinch River beginning at the mouth of Musick’s Spring Branch
  • Waters of the north fork of Clinch River…50 ac…adjoining the tract of land of Connard…Beginning in the road and crossing the road
  • south side of the Stone Mountain…50 ac by survey dated March 25, 1799…Beginning corner to said Cook…near a spring…to the top of the Brushy Ridge
  • North side of north fork of Clinch, beginning at mouth of Musick’s Spring Branch
  • North fork of Clinch River…50 ac….Beginning on the top of the Brushy Ridge…on the south side of the Stony Mountain…crossing the valley
  • North side of the north fork of Clinch River…50 ac…Beginning corner of John Youngs tract by the side of the road…near the mouth of a wet-weather spring
  • On the west side of a gap – corner to Joel Cook – at the mouth of Musicks spring branch

Above and below, the intersection of Swords Creek and Clarks Valley Road. This appears to be the only location that includes both a road in the valley, and the Clinch River, that’s east of Sword’s Creek and at the base of Stone Mountain. Kent’s Ridge is also mentioned, and Kent’s Ridge Road is shown on the south side of the Clinch River. This section of road is about 1500 feet west to east, or about one third of a mile. Joel owned significantly more than this, but very likely included this land along the road to the river.

The intersection of Swords Creek Road and Clarks Valley Road is shown above. Joel Cook’s land is found here, but I don’t know the exact location. Based on our several hints, I suspect that Joel’s land is just to the right (east) of that intersection. Gardner Road is just to the left of that mining operation.

The Russell County, VA Surveyor’s Books are available at a Family History Center or Library, so I’ve added these surveys to my research list for February.

Today, the railroad runs along the Clinch river between the road and the river.

Using Google Street View, I “drove” down Clark’s Valley Road heading east from the intersection with Swords Creek.

Clarks Valley road looking at Stone Mountain. Joel’s land was strikingly beautiful and is still very remote and unspoiled today.

Visiting Joel

I visited Russell County in 2009 and located the portion I believe to be Joel’s land on the Clinch River, near Sword’s Creek, according to the various deeds.

In this region, you can’t traverse the smaller roads using Google Street View, which is most of what’s there, so I’m very glad I visited in person.

These pictures that follow may or may not be Joel’s exact land, but it’s close.

The Clinch River area in Russell County is still quite rugged. Much of the mountain area is used for mining today.

It’s interesting that there was a swinging bridge crossing the Clinch on Joel’s land. I have to wonder if this was the location.

Moving On – Someplace

 In 1805, Joel Cook sold his land and moved on, someplace. That million-dollar question is where?

Joel Cook, Cla(y)ton Cook and James Claxton (Clarkson) are found throughout the first part of the Russell County, VA court book in a normal way, meaning the swearing of signing of deeds, witnessing for people, road work, etc.  However, the last entries we find for Joel are in 1805 when he sells his land and after that, there is nothing for Joel. At least not for this Joel.

Clayton Cook, if this is the same Clayton, was supposed to have returned to Magoffin County, KY (then Floyd Co.) again in 1800. However, we find Clayton in Russell County in 1801, 1802, 1803, and 1804. The records could be “off,” or it could be two separate Clayton Cooks. If it’s two Claytons, then were did the Russell County Clayton, and a few months later, Joel, go?

It’s worth mentioning that there is a Clayton Cook in Granville County, NC in 1800, age 26-44, but he appears to have stayed in North Carolina during and after this time.

It’s difficult to know whether this Russell County Clayton Cook is the same Clayton who was reportedly in Magoffin County, KY. The Original Clayton Cook who supposedly attempted to settle in 1794 before Indians pushed the party of settlers back was reportedly from South Carolina. There’s no documentation for the SC location that I’m aware of.

I do know that according to the Cook DNA project there is a Cook line from Anson County, NC that descends from a Clayton Cook born around 1720 in VA, and a separate Cook line from Russell County, VA.

The line for John Cook born in 1804 in Russell Co., VA does not match the above line.

These are very clearly not the same family lines.

I searched my Family Finder matches for Cook males fitting the description of any of these people, with no luck.

We first find Joel Cook on the Russell County tax lists in 1796, which would make sense because his land was surveyed in 1795 and he probably moved onto it at that time. Clayton Cook is on the same list in 1797, so likely has a home of his own and one could surmise is at least 21, so born about 1776ish or earlier.

In 1802 we find a Joel, Clayton, George and John Cook on the tax list, although I don’t know if they are in the same district or not. Unfortunately, the tax lists are woefully incomplete for this timeframe. Note the John born in 1804 was probably the son of John Cook, by process of elimination based on what we know about the other Russell County Cook men. George Cook was elderly, Joel was in his 50s or 60s too, Clayton was young but moved on and would not have left an infant son. That only leaves John as a candidate to be the father of the John born in 1804.

In 1799 (with 2 polls meaning he paid tax on 2 men) we find a William Hullum. The Hullum, Hellom, family is somehow connected to Sarah Cook as she is the estate executor in 1820 in Claiborne County, TN for a William Hellom. Living with her in the 1850 census, John Hellom, a 70 old man, just five years younger than Sarah, is labeled as an idiot.

In 1810 in Russell County, VA we find George, Joel and John Cook, plus William Hullum. This is probably the younger Joel, not Joel Sr.

Joel Cook, Sr. began selling his land in 1801, sold the last of it in August 1805 and disappeared from the records. He had to live someplace and earn a living somehow. Clayton Cook was last found in Russell County in October 1804.

I couldn’t keep the various Joel Cook’s straight, so I created a table and numbered the Joels. Documentation is provided below, followed by the table.

Joel Cook the Elder (#1)

Joel the elder, father of Sarah Cook, had to be born prior to 1755, probably in VA Sarah was born in VA in 1775, which tells us that’s where Joel was in 1775 too, someplace.

If Clayton Cook was born about 1767, and if Joel is indeed his father as well, then Joel the elder was likely born before 1742. Joel the elder disappears from Russell Co. VA in 1805, when he would have been about 60 years old, and we do not find him again.

However, there are some Joel Cooks. Are any of these men possibly the Joel Cook who left Russell County in 1805 or his descendants?

Joel’s Birth

Before we go searching for Joel, what do we actually know unquestionably about his age and birth year?

We know that by 1795, he was living in Russell County and transacting business for land. However, he had been living elsewhere, because his daughter, Sarah, was born in 1774 or 1775.

The youngest Joel could have been was to have been born 21 years or so before his daughter, if she was his eldest child.

In that case, Joel would have been born no later than 1754, and much more likely before 1750, assuming Sarah was his eldest.

If Sarah was his youngest child by his first wife, Joel might have been born as early as 1730.

For purposes of this search, we are looking for a man born in 1754 or earlier.

Let’s start with Russell County, VA, itself.

Russell County Census

By 1820, the older Joel is not found in Russell County. I suspect the entire family moved in 1805 or so, Clayton Cook to Kentucky, James Lee Clarkson and his wife Sarah Cook to Claiborne County, TN.In the War of 1812, a young Henry Cook died, a drummer and fifer, typically a boy between 12 and 15, died in the unit along with Sarah’s husband.

In 1817, the Claiborne Co., TN court shows the State vs Henry Cook alias Hulins. He pled guilty. The word “alias” was often used in early court records to denote a man who was born outside of wedlock. His legal name could have been his mother’s surname, but if he was using his father’s surname without his father legally recognizing him in court, the word “alias” would have been used. The Cook and Helloms family were somehow connected.

In the 1820 census in Russell County, we show:

  • Joel aged 26-45 so born 1775-1794. He has 1 young son, 1 young daughter and possibly an older daughter. This is possibly the son of Joel Sr. or perhaps John Cook. There is no will or estate for Joel Sr. or Jr. that I have been able to find.

This younger Joel Cook found in Russell County after the elder Joel sells his land and leaves is Joel Cook #2.

In 1830, the Russell County census shows quite a few Cook families. But where were they in 1820?

Henry and Jacob are side by side

  • Henry – 20002 10001 (he is age 20-30)
  • Jacob – 00201 age 20-30 and one female 50-60
  • Elizabeth – 0011 0010001 (Elizabeth appears to be 40-50)
  • Joel – 0110001 10111 (he is age 40-50 so born 1780-1790 – so clearly not the father of Sarah)
  • John – Male 20-30 and female 15-20

In 1840 we find:

  • Henry
  • Shelton
  • Anderson
  • Jacob
  • Solomon

By 1850 there is:

  • Anderson Cook age 32 farmer born Russell Co wife Priscilla 28
  • Jacob Cook 42 (born 1808) born in Russell Co.
  • Henry Cook (Polly 45) age 42 (born 1808) farmer born in Russell Co. Va.
  • James Cook (Polly 24) age 24 farmer born Russell Co.
  • John Cook (Hannah 38) age 46 (born 1804) farmer born in Russell Co. (have child Sarah age 6.5)

The only men living in Russell County in the 1808 timeframe that were of child-bearing age were John who appears on the tax list in 1801, and Joel #2 who appears on the 1809 tax list.

In 1860 we find:

  • Joseph 26
  • William 31
  • Henry 32
  • Polly Hannah 56

In 1880 Jacob Cook born in 1808 says his parents were born in VA and W. VA.

The Younger Joel Cook (#2) in Russell County, VA

Joel Cook #2, is the Joel Cook found in Russell Co. in the 1820 census (age 26 to 45) and the 1830 census (age 40-50). He appears to have been born between 1780 and 1790 and is probably the man who married Elizabeth Ring. He is not on the 1826 and later tax lists but is on the 1830 census. All other Cooks are gone or were missed in 1820. In 1830 Joel appears to have either a younger wife (20-30) or possibly a second wife or older daughter. He is on the 1831 tax list, but not on the 1840 census. This family is found in Dickensonville district which is about 28 miles southwest of Sword’s Creek where our Joel Cook lived.

In 1848 a Joel Cook is indicted for assault with Jesse Cook. He has probably the same 4 counts recorded in 1849 and 1850 as well. He is not on the census in Russell Co in 1850. Is this one or two different Joel Cooks? What happened to him, who was his father, and where did he go?

Joel Cook (#2) and Elizabeth Ring – The younger Joel Cook in Russell County married Elizabeth Ring sometime before 1823, the date of Elizabeth’s father’s will. By 1820, they had two children.

A researcher shows a son Joel, with no further information, and one researcher shows a daughter Rachel who is born in 1823, married in 1838 in Carter Co., KY to Andrew Stuart, and who subsequently had children and died in Carter County. This may imply that is where Joel Cook and Elizabeth Ring also settled, given that their daughter married there in 1838. If this is the Joel Cook who died in Carter County in 1854, his father’s name was George Cook.

Given the lack of and spotty documentation, perhaps this would be a good place to start. The Joel Cook who married Elizabeth Ring could well be the Joel with a second wife and family living in Carter County in 1850. He could also be the Joel who was living in Russell Co in 1820 and 1830.

Russell County Virginia Law Order Book No. 7 page 47 March 6, 1823 – It is ordered to be certified to the War Department of the United States that it is satisfactory proven to this court that Rachel Ring is the widow and relict of Stephen Ring deceased late a private in the Army of the United States, that she resides in this county and is unmarried.

Russell County Law Order Bk. 7, pg 47 on 6 Mar 1823 Rachel Ring proven widow of Stephen Ring, “Elizabeth … who hath intermarried with Joel Cook” proven as daughter of Stephen Ring.

Russell County Virginia Law Order Book No. 7 page 233 November 2, 1824

“It is satisfactorily proven to this court by the testimony of Andr. Caldwell and Stephen Gose, Junr. two credible witnesses that Elizabeth Cook who hath intermarried with Joel Cook, Thomas Ring, Delilah Keith who intermarried with William Keith, Jesse Ring, Lavina Ring, Mahala Barty who intermarried with Jesse Barty and Nancy Ring are the sons and daughters and all the sons and daughters and heirs at law of Stephen Ring late a private and who died in the Army of the United States in the late war with Great Britain.”

We find a Joel Cook in Carter County on the 1839 tax list, so some Joel Cook is there by then. What we don’t know for sure is if he’s the same Joel Cook that married Elizabeth Ring.

Where is Joel Cook Sr.?

The 1810 Russell County, VA census is lost, but Joel Sr. sold his land in 1805 so probably isn’t there in 1810 anyway.

The 1820 census shows us these possibilities for Joel Cook Sr, assuming he is still living at that time.

  • Sumner Co. Tn – Joel Cook 1 male 16-26, 1 26-45 (born 1775 or earler), 1 over 45, 1 female under 10, 2 10-16, 1 over 45, 3 people engaged in agriculture. This Joel is later eliminated because this man came from Bertie County, NC and was living there when our Joel’s daughter, Sarah, was born in Virginia in 1775. This Joel married Bellison Floyd on March 26, 1784 in Bertie County, then married again in Bertie County on May 9, 1797 to Patience Brassell during the time when Joel the Elder was living in Russell County. The Joel in Sumner County did have a daughter, Sarah, but she wasn’t born until 1808.
  • Isle of Wight Co., VA – this Joel is age 26 to 45 in 1820 and 40-50 in 1830 so too young. Isle of Wight proved to be a red herring and this Joel is not a candidate.
  • Union, Ross Co., Ohio 1 male 10-16, 1 male over 45, 1 female 16-26, 1 female over 45 and 1 person engaged in agriculture.

This person is enumerated beside Isaac Cook, age 45 and up, with 2 males 10-16, 1 16-18, 3 females under 10, one 10-16, 1 26-45. If Joel is Isaac’s father, and we don’t know that he is, then Joel has to be 65 or older, so born 1765 or earlier. The name Isaac has not been seen before in this family.

The History of Ross County, Ohio states that Isaac Cook is a descendant of Henry Cook who came to Plymouth, Massachusetts. No Joel is mentioned, but a son, Joe is. I believe this family can be eliminated as our Joel.

  • Owingsville, Bath Co., KY – Joel Cook, age 45 or older (so born before 1775) with 2 males under 10, 1 female under 10, 1 female 10-16, 1 female 26-45 – This is probably not our elder Joel unless he remarried to a younger wife, which is not unheard of. This is not the younger Joel Cook from Russell County because he’s listed in the Russell County census in 1820.

The 1830 census shows us the following for older Joel’s:

  • Morgan Co. KY – Joel age 60-70 (1760-1770) with a younger woman, 30-40, probably a daughter or daughter in law, with younger children, 2 males under 5, 1 10-15, 2 females 5-10 and 2 15-50. This is probably Joel Cook #3.
  • Gasconade Co. Missouri – Joel B. Cook age 60-70 (born 1760-1770), wife same age, also a couple age 30-40 and younger children. This man is 70-80 in 1840 but dead by 1850. Our Joel never goes by Joel B., and a later man, probably his son, Joel Burton Cook was born in New Jersey. I am eliminating this man from consideration.
  • Cook – Bath Co., KY listed twice, once with David Young and once with Jonathan Burns – not old enough. Is this the younger Joel?

None of these man can be Joel the elder, and this analysis has eliminated all Joels except the Bath and Morgan County, KY men for Joel #2 and Joel #3, Joels appearing in the next generation.

More (and More) Joels

The two volume “Pioneer Families of Eastern and Southeastern Kentucky” focuses on early adventurers and explorers, pioneers in the region that originally included the counties of Floyd (1799), Knox (1799), Greenup (1803) and Clay (1806), as formed by the General Assembly of Kentucky. Many of the early Russell County, VA families are also found in these early Kentucky counties, including the Honaker family. The crossroads town in Russell County closest to Joel’s land is named Honaker. Joel Cook is mentioned several times.

Clayton Cook is found among the 550 families on the tax list in 1810, but no other Cook family is listed.

Joel Cook #3 is the Joel who died in Carter Co., KY in 1854. He was born in 1767 in Virginia, and may be the son of the George Cook who was indeed elderly (or infirm, or both) in about 1800 in Russell County, VA. There are so many questions.

  • Is this the Joel who was the ordained minister in 1817 in Floyd Co., Kentucky?
  • Is that the same Joel in Bath County in 1820 over age 45 (so born before 1775)? Morgan County was established in 1822 from Floyd and Bath. If so, he is not the younger Joel in Russell County, who is there in both 1820 and 1830.
  • Is he the Joel who is in Morgan County in 1830 age 60-70 (born 1770-1780) with a younger wife (or older daughter,) age 30-40 and either her children from a former marriage or a blended family with new children of his own? The older kids listed in the 1820 census would be gone by 1830.
  • Joel Cook, the minister is mentioned in the Pioneer Families book several times. Is this the Joel who died in 1854 in Carter Co. KY?

The 1854 death certificate of Joel Cook is the source for the following: Cook, Joel (born about 1767) aged 87; d. Aug. 3, 1854; born in Virginia; died in Carter Co., Kentucky. Parent: Father: George Cook. In Russell County, George Cook was exempted from paying levies & poor rates on account of age & infirmities.

Prior to his death, some Joel Cook appeared in the 1820 census (Bath Co.), the 1830 census (Morgan Co.) and the 1850 census (Carter Co.).

By 1839 a Joel is on the tax list of Carter County. Carter was formed in 1838 from Greenup and Lawrence Counties.

In 1850, Joel Cook in Carter Co. is age 83 and born in VA which puts his birth in 1767. He dies in 1854 and his death certificate say his father is George. This Joel Cook was married to Euda Patrick, daughter of Jeremiah Patrick who once lived in Russell VA. Jeremiah’s will was probated in January 1824 in Bath KY. Joel Cook is listed in 1820 in Bath Co., KY census, and Morgan Co., KY in 1830. A portion of Bath in 1820 abutted what would become Morgan, and eventually Carter. This is probably the Joel in Bath County in 1820, but that means he’s not the Joel that married Elizabeth Ring and was living in Russell County in 1820.

By 1850, it’s very clear that our Joel #1 would have been deceased. I was hoping to find some proven family members, or records. Something to connect with our Joel, wife Alice and daughter, Sarah, with other people.

In Carter County on the 1850 census there is a Joel Cook McKinney, age 59 (same as the head of household, Daniel McKinney), that appears to be Joel Cook. The McKinney ditto mark may be incorrect. Researcher Maureen states that Daniel McKinney was from Russell County, VA. In 1860 Joel is in Lewis County & gives his state of birth as TN. In 1870 Joel is in the household of John Dickenson, grandson of Archelous Dickenson of Russell County, VA, and in this census he gives his state of birth as TN. John Dickenson married Sarah Francis Cook on January 10, 1865 in Carter County, KY and Maureen believes her to be the younger Joel Cook’s daughter or granddaughter.

1853 – John S. Cook died on March 6, 1853 at age 25 in Carter KY. Parents listed as Joel & Ealdy Cook. Born Morgan Co. KY 1828. John is living with Joel in 1850, so this pretty much confirms that this Joel is the Joel in Morgan Co. in 1830. However, that means he can’t be the Joel who married Elizabeth Ring because that Joel was still living in Russell County in 1830.

The Bath, Morgan and Carter County Joels, meaning #4 and #5, seem to be one and the same.

1856 – Angelina Cook died on 12 Dec. in Carter County, KY age 15 (born 1841), parents names given as Joel & Elizabeth Cook. Note that in 1850 Angelina Cook is living in Carter County but with John Haney, age 63, two Elizabeth Haney’s, age 28 and 17, one baby Sarah Haney age 1 and then Angelina 8 and Martha A. Cook age 5. This points to a different Joel Cook, not the Joel married to Ealdy, perhaps Joel #2.

John Haney married Elizabeth Cook in 1843. Elizabeth was likely the older sibling of Angelina.

Are these females the children of the Joel Cook who died in 1854? If so, his wife was Elizabeth and she was deceased by 1850. That Joel was 83 in 1850, so born in 1767,

The Elizabeth Cook, wife of John Haney, who was 27 years old in the 1850 census, so born about 1823 in Kentucky, is clearly not Elizabeth Ring, but she could have been the daughter of Joel Cook and Elizabeth Ring, meaning Angelina’s sister. The challenge with this is that Elizabeth claims to have been born in KY in 1823 and the Joel Cook married to Elizabeth Ring was still in Russell County in both 1820 and 1830.

It appears that we have multiple generations of Joel Cooks. All of them confusing.

1850 and Later

By 1850, it’s very clear that our Joel #1 would have been deceased. I was hoping to find some proven family members, or records. Something to connect with our Joel, wife Alice and daughter, Sarah with other family members.

In Carter County on the 1850 census there is a Joel Cook McKinney, age 59 (same as the head of household, Daniel McKinney), that may actually be Joel Cook, and the McKinney ditto may be incorrect.

If so, this man may be the Joel (b KY) age 69 in Lewis County in 1860 with wife Eliza and daughter Louisa age 10, although I feel this is unlikely as Louisa is stated as age 10, not age 9 and in 1850 this man was living with another family.

In the 1870 census, we find Joel Cook in Carter Co., with the Dickison family, age 70, so born about 1800 born in TN. It’s very unlikely that any of these 3 men are the Russell Co. Joel Cook of 1820/30.

In 1871 Joel Cook of Carter County applies for a War of 1812 pension stating that he was drafted in Knoxville. The unit in which he was drafted was from primarily Greene, Sullivan, Washington, Carter, and Hawkins Counties, not Virginia.

The researcher who found this data proposed that this is the Joel that is the father of Sarah, but that’s impossible. Sarah was born in 1775 and all of these Joels were born after her.

The Joel Chart

Groupings are color coded, but open to correction based on additional research. Earliest appearance is shown in red. Highlights in the first row for family clusters.

Year Joel #1 elder – Russell Co. Clayton Cook – Floyd Co. (records < 1808 burned) Joel #3 Floyd Co, KY Joel #2 – the Younger in Russell Co. m Elizabeth Ring Joel #4 Carter County, KY Joel #5 Bath & Morgan Co., KY Joel #6 the Younger in Carter Co. KY Joel #7 Lewis Co., KY
Birth Before 1754, probably before 1750, possibly as early as 1730 Abt 1767-1777 Before 1800 1780-1790 1767 VA father George Before 1775, prob 1760-1770 Born TN 1799/1800 Born TN 1791
1795 Russell Co., VA land
1799 Sarah Cook married James Claxton
1805 Sells last of  land Russell Co., VA
1808 Road work order
1809 Tax list
Tax list
1810 26-44 1765-1784 Tax list
1810 tax list – only Cook
1817 ordained minister
1820 census 26-45 1775-1794 16-45 b 1775-1794 Bath >45 bef 1775
1823 Husband of Elizabeth Ring – father’s will
1830 census 50-60 1770-1780 40-50 1780-1790 Morgan 60-70, 1760-1770, also Bath Co. J. Cook but younger *2  

 

1831 In Hamilton Co., IN
1839 Tax list
1840 Hamilton Co., Indiana
1848 Assault *5
1850 LaClede Co., MO age 73
1854 Died, father George
1856 Angeline dies father Joel mother Elizabeth
1860 Age 69 b 1791
1870 B 1800 with Dickison family
1871 1812 pension app drafted Knoxville *4
Comment *1 *3

*1 Joel’s daughter reported by researchers to have daughter Rachel born in 1823 married in 1838 in Carter Co., KY to Andrew Stuart.

*2 Morgan Co. formed from Floyd and Bath in 1822.

*3 Carter County formed in 1838 from Greenup and Lawrence.

*4 Knoxville unit in which he was drafted was from primarily Greene, Sullivan, Washington, Carter, and Hawkins Counties

*5 Probably a different Joel.

The Joel Cook Chart Analysis and Discussion

Fortunately, or unfortunately, this chart helped a bit, but not enough.

  • Joel #1 is the Joel we are seeking, of course – meaning him or his descendants. He’s clearly associated with Clayton Cook who disappears from Russell Co., VA and is believed to be the Clayton who appears in Floyd Co., KY. There are no other good candidates for Clayton.
  • We can set aside Joel #6 and #7 because they are later generations.
  • That leaves us with Clayton Cook and Joel #3 who is also found in Floyd Co., KY.
  • Joel #3, associated with Clayton, is the man who is the minister, recorded such in 1817.
  • Joel #3 is NOT the same man as Joel #2, the younger Joel who is living in Russell County in 1820, because they are both on the 1820 census in different locations. They are in the same age bracket.
  • There is also a Joel #5, born before 1775, found in Bath County, KY in 1820, so he is not Joel #2 (who is in Russell County) but may be the Joel #3 (who is in Floyd in 1817.) In 1830, he’s in Morgan County.
  • Some researchers lump Joel #2, Joel #3 and Joel #5 together as one person, but that’s impossible based on the census and the fact that Joel #3 was ordained and recorded in Floyd County in 1817, but Joel #2 is still living in Russell County in both 1820 and 1830.
  • Joel #2, the younger man in Russell County, and Joel #4 who died in 1854 and gave his father’s name as George could be the man from Russell County, EXCEPT, we linked Joel #4 and #5 as the same man and Joel @ and #4 are both in different location in the 1820 census.
  • The connection between George Cook and Joel #1 in Russell County remains unclear, if there is a relationship.
  • However, it appears that Joel #4 from Carter County was living in Morgan County in the 1820s, which introduced another quandary, because it means that Joel #2 and #4 cannot be the same person.

In summary (yea, I know, too late:)

  1. Clayton Cook and Joel Cook #1 are associated in Russell County, VA.
  2. Clayton Cook is associated with Joel #3 in Kentucky. The presumption (dangerous word) is that this is the same Clayton that was found in Russell County, VA.
  3. I have no idea who Joel #5 is, but he’s not Joel #2 and he’s the same age as Clayton Cook, so he’s clearly not Clayton’s son. He’s probably not the man ordained in 1817.
  4. Joel #4 and Joel #5 appear to be the same Joel who was born in 1767 in Virginia to George Cook.
  5. Joel #2 and #4 cannot be the same person if Joel #4 is the same as Joel #5 who was living in Morgan County in 1830 because Joel #2 was living in Russell County in1830.

If you’re scratching your head and thinking to yourself, “what a mess,” I’d certainly concur. I feel like every time I find a sliver of evidence it calls into question or disproves something else that was previously believed to be “proven.”

I’m hoping that by reading the following information that other researchers may have more information than I do, and might be able to piece something together, or have relevant DNA matches.

Floyd Co., KY Extracted Data

Floyd Co. KY records prior to 1808 burned. Floyd County probate records begin in 1812. If Joel Cook from Russell County, VA went with Clayton to Floyd or Magoffin County, KY, around 1805, and died before 1812, we find no record of him.

Magoffin County was created from this portion of Floyd County in 1860.

Annals of Floyd Co., KY – 1800-1826

  • Page 12 – June 4, 1811 – Indenture by William Winslow etc to Mason Williams and Jacob Henry in consideration of $150 in horse flesh for 300 acres of land on Licking River. Attest: William Prater, Claton Cook, Jacob Cook and Elizabeth Stone
  • 13 – June 4, 1811 – Indenture by William Winslow to Clayton Cook and Samuel Hanna in the amount of $150 in horse flesh for 120 acres land on Burning Fork of Licking River. Attest: William Williams, William Prater, Ezekiel Stone
  • 13 – Dec. 18, 1811 – Indenture between Samuel Hannah and Claton Cook, Hannah selling his interest in 120 acres of land on the Burning Fork of Licking River, Witness: Joseph Hannah, Ebenezer Hannah, William Prater and Mason Williams
  • 50 – October 1808 – Court close levy, payment made to Clayton Cook and a long list of others.
  • 56 – Clayton Cook appt surveyor of the road from where the road stricks the last fork of Middle Creek to John Williams to replace the said Williams who resigned.
  • 58 –Oct. 1809 – Ordered Clayton Cook and his hands help James Cope open his road.
  • 74 – May 28, 1811 – Archibald Prater appt surveyor of the road from where the road from the Floyd Courthouse strickes the last fork of Middle Creek to John Williams to replace Clayton Cook who resigned.
  • 104 – July 3, 1815 – Clayton Cook appt surveyor of the road from the Burning Spring to John Williams. Also on Sept 25, 1815, Jeremiah Patrick was subpoenaed to show cause why he failed to give their list of taxable property.
  • 115 – May 19, 1817 – Joel Cook produced credentials of his ordination in the Methodist Episcopal Church.
  • 180 – June 21, 1819 – William Patrick Sr is appt to administrator of the estate of Jeremiah Patrick, decd. Isaac Williams, Clayton Cook, William Carter and Lewis Power are appt to appraise said estate.
  • 210 – August 1823 – Clayton Cook appt surveyor of the road from the Morgan County line to Kezee’s Mill. Daniel Gullet is assistant.
  • 226 – May 22, 1826 – Danie Clark appt surveyor in place of Clayton Cook who resigned.
  • 229 – Aug. 28, 1826 – On the motion of Christopher Gullett, ordered that Clayton Cook, Daniel Clark, James Cook and William Cook view and mark the best way for a road around said Gullett’s farm.
  • 244 – July 20, 1822 – Indenture from Thomas Patrick to John Cook in the amount of $70 for a tract of land on Burning Fork of Licking Creek.
  • 249 – June 24, 1824 – Indenture from Mason Williams of Morgan Co, Ky to Daniel Clark of Floyd Co for $200 for 60 acre tract on the waters of Licking Creek. Attest: John Williams and Clayton Cook. I also noticed that on April 27, 1824 Jeremiah Patrick sold 50 acres on Licking River to Samuel Regen for $285.

The Patrick and Kenard families are the same as had been neighbors in Russell County.

  • 256 – December 7, 1820 – bond by Samuel Kenard and Daniel Gullett for marriage shortly to be had between Samuel Kenard and Joanna Cook. To the clerk of Floyd Co. This will authorize you to give marriage lisons for my son Samuel Kennard and Joanna Cook as I am willing to the mach. Given under my hand this 5th of December 1812. signed James Kennard.  Marriage date is given as Dec. 10, 1820.
  • 288 – Bond dated April 28 1826 by James Cook and James Lacey for a marriage shortly to be had between James Cook and Ealy Ann Lacy. Marriage date is given as April 28, 1826.

County Court Records 1821-1835 Court Records

  • 36 – June 1822 – On the motion of Elijah Prater ordered that Clayton Cook, William Prator, Christopher Gullett, Isaac Adams view road up the State Road Fork to intersect the road leading to Keezees mill.

  • 111 – Daniel Clark appt surveyor of the road from the 22-mile Branch to the forks of the road near the head of the State Road Fork and that he call on the hands of Clayton Cook and Price Baily to assist him to keep the same road in repair according to law 15 and 9 feet.
  • 118 – On motion of C. Gullet ordered that Cook, ? Clark, James Cook and William Cook being first sworn do view and mark a way for a road around his land and report to court according to law.
  • 245 – 1830 or 1831 – Ord that Elizabeth Cook be subpoenaed to appear before the next county court to show cause if any she can or hath to say why her Stephen, Jesse and Eliza shall not be bound out as the law directs.
  • 246 – Elizabeth Cook continued

County Court Records 1835-1847

 105 – 1838 – Commonwealth against Solomon Cook, deft, vagrancy, the def appeared in open court in discharge of his recognizance entered into herein who was craved in custody of the sheriff and being demanded of him whether he was guilty or not guilty.  He stands charged as stated and says he is in no wise guilty thereof and there upon came a jury (names omitted) who say the defendant is not guilty and the def is discharged.

1856-1860

No Cooks

County Court Records 1865-1873

  • 176 – 1868 – Solomon Cook be exonerated from the payment of county levy in the future on account of age and infirmity.
  • 160 – William Cook, Judge in 1871 and forward, did not extract his entries

County Court Records 1873-1880

  • 214 – 1876 special term – Commonwealth of KY against Solomon Cook on a charge of lunacy and jurors impaneled (names omitted) and an attorney appointed to defend for said lunatic…we the jury find the def to be on unsound mind, that he is a lunatic, has lost his mind within the last 6 months, cause not known, was born in Pike Co., KY and has resided in this county 9 or 10 years, owns no estate, parents dead, 3 children living, wife has no estate, Solomon is a pauper, he is vicious and dangerous and uncontrollable and should be transported to the asylum, but not alone. (Part of the last part is half cut off, page 215.)

Note he was age 30 in the 1870 census.

  • 338 – 1879 – Ordered that Thomas Hopkins, Samuel H. Isaacs and Harvy Johnson be appt as reviewers to review a new road beginning at the house of Miles Hall on Right Beaver thence up the same by way of John Henry Cook’s and across the mountain to intersect with the proposed new county road being made by Pike County.

County Records 1897 – 1901

  • 81 – 1898 – George W. Cook in dist 6 stands charged upon the assessors books with personal property amounting to the sum of $247….said Cook has left the county and left no property.
  • 83 – 1898 – N. Cook in dist 6 stands improperly charged upon assessors book for the year 1898 with 35 acres land valued and $77…said Cook is not the owner of any land.

Floyd Co. Marriages 1800-1850

  • George W. Cook married Ealiann Lacy April 28, 1826
  • William Cook m Sally Prater March 22, 1829
  • Samuel Kennard m Joanna Cook Dec 10, 1820 by William Coffee (see file #499) (she age 30-40 in 1840 census, found among the Patrick’s, probably the daughter of Clayton)
  • James Randall m Elizabeth Cook 18, 1859

Deaths 1852-1859

No Cooks

Rev Soldiers

No Cooks

1810 taxpayers – heads of household

Clayton Cook – no other Cooks

Cemetery book is only indexed by cemetery. I did not search those.

Index to Survey Books A, B, C and D

  • Clayton Cook, book A, p 459, 50 acres on Licking River in 1825
  • Pierce Cook, book B, p 278, 200 acres on Dry Creek, 1881
  • Soloman Cook, book B, page 82, 100 acres, Dry Creek, 1869
  • William Cook, book B, page 145, 70 acres on Dry Creek, 1872

Floyd County, KY Census:

1820

  • Clayton Cook 1 male under 10, 2 10-16, 1 16-18, 2 16-26, 1 26-45 (born 1775-1794), 5 females under 10, 1 10-16, 1 26-45 (page 7)
  • Henry Cook – 1 male under 10, 1 26-45 (born 1775-1794), 1 female 16-26 (page 20)

1830

  • Clayton Cook – 1 male 10-15, 1 50-60, 1 female 5-10, 2 10-15, 2 15-20, 1 50-60 (he was born 1770-1780, she was probably born about 1777 given the age of the youngest child, so he is probably older than her so closer to the 1770 than the 1780) (page 27)
  • William Cook lives next door – 1 male under 5, 1 20-30, 1 female 20-30 (likely the son of Clayton) (William Cook married Sally Prater in 1829.)
  • An Elizabeth Cook lives in Prestonburg, 1 male 5-10, 1 10-15, 1 female under 5, 1 15-20, 1 30-40. We know from the court case three of her children’s names.

1840

  • Sally Cook, 1 male under 5, 1 female under 5, 2 5-10, 1 30-40 (page 35) This is the same group of Cooks because she is among the Praters and Patricks where the Clayton group was previously. She is likely a young widow of one of Clayton’s boys. William Cook married Sally Prater in 1829 and this is likely her.
  • The only Clayton Cook in 1840 of the age to potentially be this Clayton is found in Clay, Hamilton, County, Indiana and is age 60-69, so born in 1780-1790.

Tracking Clayton Cook

Clayton Cook is quite relevant to Joel Cook, so let’s track Clayton forward in time.

  • November 19, 1831, Clayton Cook entered a tract in Deerfield Township, Hamilton County, Indiana: The East Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 17 North, Range 3 East, containing 80 acres.
  • Clayton Cook obtained a land grant for 80 acres in Hamilton County, Indiana in 1834 and for 40 acres in Marion County, Indiana in 1837. This Clayton’s daughter, Sally Cook married Fieldon Clark in Marion County, Indiana on August 8, 1833.
  • Hamilton County, Clay Township, Indiana history states that Clayton Cook arrived about 1832 as well as the following people; John Pierce, Elias Harvey, Abraham Jacob, William Jessup, William Hawkins, Jacob Cook, Stephen Hinshaw, Jonas Hoover, Eli Johnson, David Smith, Micajah Elston, Robert Ellis, James Sanders, John Essex, Joshua Wright, Owen Williams, Nathaniel Webber, Henry Davis, Daniel Smith and Absalom Harold.
  • January 19, 1836 Rec. November 8, 1836Book “E” page 230: Clayton Cook conveys to James Cook: A part of the East half of the North East quarter of section number Nine in Township number seventeen north of range three east Beginning a‑ stake on the line dividing section nine and ten where there is two white oak witness trees thence north on said line dividing section nine and four thence west sixty nine poles thence South Eighty poles then East thirty six poles thence south fourteen poles thence east forty six poles thence North fourteen poles to the place of beginning containing forty acres more or less. SIGNED: Clayton Cook, Anna Cook. ACKN0WLEDGED: Clayton Cook and Anna Cook, she being ex­amined separate and apart from her said husband, before Y. Carey Davis, seat, a Justice of the Peace in and for Hamilton County, Indiana.
  • In 1850, a Clayton Cook, age 73, so born in 1777 in Virginia is found in Laclede, Missouri, with a 42-year-old female, Virginia.

WikiTree provides a relatively complete bio for Clayton, here, along with a Find-a-Grave entry, here. Unfortunately, no Clayton Cook descendants are listed as having taken DNA tests at WikiTree.

Are there multiple Clayton Cooks who are intermingled and actually not related?

Do these men descend from one Clayton Cook, born about 1720 in Hanover County, Virginia, the son of Abraham Cook and Martha Clayton? Here’s a great discussion of what is and is not known of this early lineage, and here as well.

Assembling the Pieces

Considering their proximity to each other in Russell Co. combined with the proximity of Joel Cook and Clayton (or Claton) Cook in Floyd County, it’s likely that this Clayton Cook is the same Clayton found in Russell County, and that this Joel in Floyd County is somehow related to Clayton – probably a son. I wish we had more evidence.

The Joel in 1817 who was ordained as a minister is clearly not the elder Joel, but he could easily have been a son of Clayton. Unfortunately, we have no record of what ultimately happened to this Joel.

However, there is a connection between the minister Joel and Russell County, VA. The Montgomery family was found in Russell County in 1799 and also migrated to Floyd County, KY. We find:

I Joel Cook minister of Gospel in the Methodist church do hereby certify that I this day solemnized the Rites of Matrimony between Joseph Montgomery and Matildah Howard agreeable to the ceremonies od said church given under my hand the 29th of Oct 1817.

Kentucky Historical Marker No. 202 in Magoffin County, KY, near the Salyersville City limits states the following:

Archibald Prater, John Williams, Ebenezer Hanna, Clayton Cook and others attempted to settle here in 1794 but were driven out by Indians. They returned in 1800 and settled Licking Station.

If indeed Clayton arrived on the frontier in 1794, he would have been born prior to 1774.

Salyersville was originally called Licking Station and Prater’s Branch is located maybe half a mile east. Henry Scalf, in Kentucky’s Last Frontier, page 120, states that the settlement attempt was made somewhat earlier in time and states that:

“wandering bands of Indians forced them either to retreat back to Virginia or plunge deeper into Kentucky. They decided on the latter.”

This doesn’t say anything about Russell County, but it might well explain why Joel and Clayton both appear in Russell County, VA in 1795, and then a few years later again back in Floyd County, with some families of the same surnames of their neighbors in Russell County before 1808 when the first records appear.

Floyd County records in the Annals of Floyd Co 1800-1826, record court payments to Clayton Cook and various appointments as surveyor for road work beginning in 1808. Claton Cook and Jacob Cook witnessed a deed for 300 acres of land on Licking River in June 1811. Given that Jacob was likely related to Clayton, he had to have been born wherever Clayton came from, because Jacob would have been at least 16, and likely 21 to witness a deed.

In 1810, Clayton is listed in Floyd Co., KY as between 26 and 44 with 7 children and a female 16-25. In 1820, he’s still between 26 and 45 and now has 12 children and a female 26-45. I’m guessing they are both around 45, but if so, Clayton would have been born about 1775. In 1830, Clayton is in Floyd Co. and is age 50-59, so born 1770-1780.

The question is, who is this Joel in Kentucky and how is he related to Clayton. The Joel in Floyd County clearly is not Joel, the father of Sarah who married James Claxton in 1799 in Russell County, VA. And our Joel is not the Joel found in Russell County in 1820 or so.

What happened to our Joel and is he the father of Clayton who went to Kentucky, and then on to Indiana, then Missouri?

Did our Joel the elder die in eastern Kentucky, living near Clayton before 1808 when the Floyd County records begin? Maybe buried along the trail? Or did he go someplace else entirely and perhaps live with a child?

Where did our Joel come from before arriving in Russell County? The fact that the Y DNA lines for different Cook lineages that seemingly “should” be related, aren’t, given the name of Clayton and geographic proximity of Russell County is both confusing and frustrating. Clayton Cook is a very uncommon name.

The family descending from Abraham Cook through son Clayton in early Virginia is one haplogroup, and the later John Cook (born 1804) descendants in Russell County descent from a completely different Cook line.

It’s certainly possible that we have two (or more) distinct Cook families in Russell County. It’s also possible that these lines began as one, but then had a genetic fork in the Russell County group.

Autosomal DNA

Customers can search their DNA matches at Ancestry, MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA by Ancestral surname, but not by ancestor. Cook is a fairly common surname, but having the ability to search for either Joel Cook or Clayton Cook would narrow those matches to only those that are potentially significant.

Unfortunately, that’s not an option.

While I clearly wouldn’t match all of Joel’s descendants, I should match some of them. Joel is my 5th great-grandfather, or 7 generations back in time, and I match several people through his daughter, Sarah.

Brick Wall Standing Firm

As of today, we are still firmly brick-walled with Joel Cook in in Russell County, Virginia who disappeared from the records in 1805. I feel like this is more like an infinity knot than a brick wall – no matter where you pull on a string, it only gets tighter. Will Joel ever give up his secrets?

Given that Joel seems to be connected to Clayton Cook who we think is the same Clayton Cook that went to Floyd County, KY, and on to both Indiana and Missouri – I’d love to make contact with any descendants. Also, I’d love to connect with any descendants of the various Joels in Kentucky. Maybe, eventually, multiple relevant autosomal DNA matches will reveal something resembling an answer.

If you descend from any of these Cook families and have DNA tested at any of the vendors, please check and see if I’m on your match list, or anyone with the ancestral surname of Clarkson or Claxton that descends from Sarah Cook and James Lee Clarkson/Claxton. I’d be oh so grateful.

If you’re descended from these lines, please do reach out.

_____________________________________________________________

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 Update, Class Navigation Aids & the Pass Winner

I have several updates for you today.

Let’s start with RootsTech pricing.

Early Bird Special

The in-person price for RootsTech is currently $98 which is the early-bird special pricing. Sometime in February, the price will increase. If you’re planning to attend, I encourage you to sign up sooner rather than later at this link.

Locating Speakers, Schedules and Sessions for In-Person and Virtual

The blended combination of virtual and in-person sessions, some of which are being live-streamed, has caused some confusion. Specifically, the in-person sessions are not listed with the virtual sessions and are difficult to find. I’ve had several people ask me why none of my sessions are listed. They are, just not in the class list they were viewing.

I think it’s sorted out now, so I’m going to step you through how to find your favorite speakers and both types of sessions.

On the main RootsTech page, below where you register, you’ll see the two options, above.

In-Person Classes

You can click on “Browse In-person Classes” to view everything happening at the Salt Palace in Salt Lake City.

You can click on Classes or Speakers or any of the other tiles.

There’s no direct way to obtain a filtered list of the in-person sessions being live-streamed, but if you look at a specific class, you can see if it’s being live-streamed. Live-streamed classes will be available for viewing later and are also listed in the “virtual” portion of the conference.

My classes are not being live-streamed, but this class by my friend Amy Johnson Crow is being live-streamed in addition to being available in person, of course. Every class that is live-streamed will include the announcement, above, which is also where you click to view the live-streamed session.

RootsTech has provided a conference planner so you can add both in-person and live-streamed classes to your conference schedule.

Classes By Date

You can view all of the in-person classes in list or grid format, by date, here.

RootsTech Virtual Classes

By clicking on the “Browse NEW Virtual Classes” button on the main page, you can view the virtual classes.

You can also click on the “Classes” link, above, in the header of the “Browse In-Person Classes” page.

Regardless of how you get there, you can filter the virtual classes by year (be sure it’s 2023,) or by speaker. Remember, most of the earlier virtual classes are still available too, which is why you need to filter by 2023 to view this year’s new sessions.

Roberta’s Sessions

My three sessions are in-person-only this year. You can view them here and by clicking on any session, you can see more, including the room number.

Regarding room numbers, if you’re attending in person, the day of your sessions, verify that the room number has not changed.

Exhibitors Booth Mini-Sessions

In addition to the RootsTech-sponsored classes, many of the exhibitors will be providing mini-sessions and classes in their booths.

Those sessions are often published in their physical or virtual booths, so be sure to check the exhibitors in the Expo Hall either in person or the virtual Expo Hall after it goes live.

I’m planning to give mini-sessions in select vendors’ booths. I’ll let you know as soon as my schedule is finalized, closer to the conference dates. There’s a lot still up in the air!

Planning is Essential

For those who have never attended RootsTech in person, the Salt Palace conference center is massive and some of the classrooms are widely separated. Planning your class schedule is essential.

Also note that some of the rooms are relatively small and you may not be able to get into a class of your choice if you don’t arrive early.

How early? I don’t know, but I’d suggest having pre-selected a second choice or perhaps not scheduling every slot.

I do know that there is half an hour between the end of one class and the beginning of the next class, so you will have time to move from room to room.

Be sure to understand the layout of the convention center in advance so you can find your room. The Salt Palace map is here, including classrooms. On this map, halls A-D are opened up to be the RootsTech Expo Hall. The RootsTech exhibitor map in the Expo Hall is here.

Free Pass Winner

I offered a free RootsTech pass for one lucky person, here, and recruited Jim to pull the name of an entrant out of a hat. (Ok, it’s a bowl-buddy, but I digress.)

I’m very pleased to announce that blog subscriber, Barbara, is attending RootsTech for the first time as the winner of the free RootsTech pass.

Congratulations Barbara! Wear really comfy shoes, dress warm, and prepare to have an amazing time!

_____________________________________________________________

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

Moments Frozen in Time in Our Collective Memory: The Challenger Explosion – 52 Ancestors #387

On January 28th, 1986, a bright, sunny Florida morning, the space shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds after launch, killing all 7 crew members aboard. Later, we learned that their deaths probably occurred instantaneously or within seconds after the explosion ripped the capsule apart, but we didn’t know that at the time. Thank goodness they didn’t suffer and may have been blessedly unconscious, unaware of what was happening.

In the US, many people still listened to and watched the shuttle launches. This launch, in particular, was more widely viewed because teacher Crista McAuliffe was among the crew members. The launch feed was piped into many classrooms, including to Crista’s own students who had been celebrating and cheering wildly, then fell into stunned silence.

Newspapers.com shared this image today.

Most people who are old enough to recall remember exactly what they were doing that day.

I was driving on Interstate 96 in Michigan, on the way to the Hewlett Packard office where I worked. I was listening to the launch on the radio, as I did most space launches, given that I was then and remain a space geek. This launch, this time, though, was different.

Something was wrong. Very wrong.

Of course, I couldn’t see the images in the car, but I can still hear the newscaster’s voice and recall vividly where I was on the expressway. I knew I was only about 10 minutes from the office.

I clung to every word along the way. The newscaster didn’t tell us outright that the Challenger had exploded, but simply that there was something wrong, and there had been a “major malfunction,” followed by complete and utter silence. That NEVER happens on air. Never. I turned the radio up, but it was still eerily silent.

After what seemed like the longest minute or two ever, he simply said that the “vehicle had exploded.” We know now that he was listening to mission control and was probaby trying to digest what he was hearing, and weighing exactly what to say, knowing he had to say something.

He spoke dryly in very measured tones of “recovery and contingency procedures,” and then that they had “impact in the water.” You could tell he was well-trained, but the lack of urgency, panic and shock in his voice allowed us to be hopeful that it wasn’t as bad as the situation suggested.

Remember, I was in a vehicle and couldn’t see anything. I was shocked and numb. Tears began to slip down my cheeks, but I couldn’t cry because I had to drive. I needed to get to that television and see what was transpiring. Maybe I was misunderstanding.

I wanted to believe that the capsule had simply fallen into the ocean and the crew would be picked up. Maybe it was just the booster and the capsule itself was alright. Maybe.

This launch had been previously delayed. I already had a bad feeling about it. I wanted to be wrong.

You can view the NASA video here. It’s still very difficult for me to watch.

When I arrived at the office about 10 minutes later, everyone was clustered tightly around the single small television on the premises, in dead silence. Many were crying.

By this time, more commentary had emerged. I have no idea who was speaking, but the explosion and pieces cascading in graceful smokey arched contrails into the ocean was replaying. I was horrified. When I saw all those separate pieces, I realized what we were watching.

I knew that Crista’s parents and children were in the stands watching, along with the families of the other astronauts. Nothing prepares you to watch that, even though everyone knew space travel held inherent risk.

Given that a school teacher was allowed to join the crew, we believed that perhaps space travel had become safter and one day, more civilians would join those ranks.

The difference between this disaster and others is that in an instant, it was burned with a branding iron into the collective consciousness of an entire set of generations.

We witnessed it, then again and again on replay, and it was shockingly horrible. Most of us remember vividly where we were at the time.

Many were confused at first. We didn’t believe or maybe understand what we saw. We were in collective shock. No, no, this couldn’t possibly be real.

Slowly, as the day wore on, our worst fears were realized and we understood that we had witnessed the deaths of 7 incredibly brave people in the clear, blue sky above Cape Kennedy.

This wasn’t supposed to happen.

This was never supposed to happen.

High Flight

The poem High Flight was written by John Gillespie Magee, Jr. in 1941, but was quickly associated with the Challenger accident when then-President Reagan spoke some of these legendary words to a shocked and grieving nation in his public address to the country in lieu of the previously planned State-of-the-Union. His speech still makes me cry – it was and is incredibly inspirational, as is “High Flight.”

“Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth,
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I’ve climbed and joined the tumbling mirth of sun-split clouds –
and done a hundred things You have not dreamed of –
wheeled and soared and swung high in the sunlit silence.
Hovering there I’ve chased the shouting wind along
and flung my eager craft through footless halls of air.

“Up, up the long delirious burning blue
I’ve topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace,
where never lark, or even eagle, flew;
and, while with silent, lifting mind I’ve trod
the high untrespassed sanctity of space,
put out my hand and touched the face of God.”

By Tim1965 – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16542681

High Flight is carved on the back of the Challenger Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery where the co-mingled cremated remains of the crew were laid to rest that May.

By Jtesla16 – Own work, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6930389

For years, I had a copy of High Flight magneted to my filing cabinet, the words brought me comfort, honoring the pioneering spirit of those brave souls, along with others less famous and often forgotten.

Dave’s Departure

Twenty-six years later, on the same day in 2012, about the same time, my brother Dave slipped his bonds of earth too.

Not long before, Dave took this picture through the windshield of his big rig in the mountains someplace out west, probably on his last run. I always think of him, “there,” in that light. I think of them “there” too.

This day and date are forever seared into my memory. Those two events are now forever linked by a common day in terms of grief and disbelief, but also because of bravery, inspiration, admiration and love.

Share Your Memories?

What are your memories of the Challenger explosion? Have you shared them with your family members? Where were you? How did it affect 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

ThruLines Suggests Potential Ancestors – How Accurate Are They?

I wanted to evaluate the accuracy of Ancestry’s ThruLines suggested Potential Ancestors when compared with a tree I know is accurate. I conducted an experiment where I created a small tree on Ancestry for a DNA tester that included only the first two generations, meaning grandparents and great-grandparents.

Click to enlarge any image.

This gave Ancestry enough data to work with and means that for the upstream ancestors, Ancestry’s ThruLines suggested specific people as ancestors.

How well did Ancestry do? Are the Potential Ancestors suggested by Ancestry accurate? How do they make those suggestions anyway? Are they useful?

I do have a second, completely separate, full tree connected to my other DNA test, and I do know who those ancestors are, or, in some cases, I know who they aren’t. I’ve had the privilege of working intensively on my genealogy for decades, so I can easily compare what is known and proven, or what has been disproven, to Ancestry’s suggested Potential Ancestors.

We’ll start with the great-grandparents’ generation, but first, let’s talk about how ThruLines works. I’ve previously written about ThruLines here and here.

How ThruLines Works

ThruLines is a tool for people who have taken an AncestryDNA test and who link themselves to their position on their tree. Linking is a critical step. If you don’t link the DNA test to the proper profile, the tester won’t have ThruLines. I provided step-by-step instructions, here.

I want to emphasize this again, ThruLines is a TOOL, not an answer. It may or may not be accurate and it’s entirely UP TO YOU to take that hint, run with it, and verify or disprove. Ancestry is providing you with a hint.

Essentially, the more ancestors that you provide to Ancestry, generally, the better they can do when suggesting additional Potential Ancestors. They do need something to work with. I wrote about that in the article Optimizing Your Tree at Ancestry for More Hints and DNA ThruLines.

If you don’t provide at least your parents and at least your grandparents in a tree, it’s unlikely that Ancestry will be able to provide Potential Ancestors for you.

I added two generations above the parents in this experiment in order to provide Ancestry with a significant “hook” to latch onto to connect with:

  • Other DNA testers who match the tester AND
  • Other people’s trees, whether the tree-owners have tested their DNA or not

So yes, to be clear, Ancestry DOES:

  • Use the trees of other people whose DNA you match AND have the same ancestors in their tree
  • Along with the trees of people you don’t match (or who haven’t DNA tested,) to propose ancestors for you

ThruLines only reaches back to ancestors within 7 generations, meaning the ancestor is the tester’s 5th great-grandparent or closer.

Most suggested Potential Ancestors in ThruLines have descendants who have tested and are DNA matches to you, but not necessarily all.

On your tree itself, the ThruLines “3 people” icon shows on the ancestors that have Thrulines.

Click to enlarge

Looking at this graphic of my tree, you can see that ThruLines ends at the 7th generation, but Potential Ancestors continue to be suggested beyond 7 generations. Note generation 9, below, which is beyond ThruLines but has Potential Ancestors suggested based entirely on other people’s trees.

ThruLines stops at 7 generations, but Potential Ancestor suggestions do not.

In the above example, in generation 7, Michael McDowell (1720-1755) is a known ancestor and has a ThruLine, but his wife is unknown. Ancestry has suggested a Potential Mother for Michael McDowell (1747-1840) who is also the spouse of Michael McDowell (1720-1755).

Here’s the ThruLines suggestion for Michael McDowell’s wife.

Ironically, there are no DNA matches for either Michael or Eleanor. However, there are DNA matches for their child who clearly descends from Michael. This may be an example of a situation where the other testers are beyond the 7th generation, so they don’t show as matches for our tester in Michael’s generation. The other possibility, of course, is a glitch in ThruLines.

(For those familiar with the Michael McDowell (1720-1755) lineage, Eleanor is his mother, not his wife. His wife is unknown, so this Potential Ancestor is incorrect.)

Potential Ancestors Without DNA Matches

A person may still be suggested as a Potential Ancestor even without any DNA matches.

I have seen situations where a parent has DNA matches to several ThruLine ancestors, but their child has the same suggested ancestor with zero DNA matches listed because the child and the match are one generation too far removed to be listed as a DNA match on ThruLines.

Yet, if you search the child’s match list for the individual listed as a DNA match to their parent through that ancestor, that match is also on the child’s match list.

In the chart that follows, you can see that ancestors in the midrange of generations have many DNA matches, but as you approach the 7th generation, the number of matches drops significantly, and some even have zero. That’s because both people of a match pair have to be within the generational boundary for ThruLines to list them as matches.

In some cases, the ancestor is not suggested for the child in ThruLines because the ancestor is the 6th great-grandparent of the child. If you look directly at the child’s tree, the Potential Ancestor may be suggested there.

Points to Remember

  • The difference between ThruLines and Potential Ancestors is that Potential Ancestors are still suggested beyond the hard 7 generation or 5 GG boundary for ThruLines.
  • ThruLines may suggest Potential Ancestors with or without DNA matches.
  • Potential Ancestors, either within or beyond ThruLines must connect to someone in your tree, or another Potential Ancestor or ancestors who connect to someone in your tree.

Incorrect Ancestors and Discrepancies

An incorrect ancestor can be listed in multiple people’s trees, and Ancestry will suggest that incorrect ancestor for you based on the associated trees. At one point, I did a survey of the number of people who had the incorrect Virginia wife listed for my ancestor, Abraham Estes, and the first 150 trees I viewed had the wrong wife. We have church record proof of her death in England before his children were born by his colonial Virginia wife. Garbage in, garbage out.

That doesn’t mean those trees aren’t useful. In some cases, the information “saved” to that person in those incorrect trees shows you exactly what is out there and can’t be correct. For example, if there is a death record and burial for someone, they can’t also be alive 50 years later in another location. Or someone born in 1780 can’t have been a Revolutionary War veteran. Sometimes you’ll discover same name confusion, or multiple people who have been conflated into one. Other times, you may actually find valid hints for your own ancestor misplaced in someone else’s tree. Always evaluate.

You “should” have the same number of matches to the man and woman of a couple if neither of them had descendants with another partner, but sometimes that doesn’t happen. I would presume that’s due to tree discrepancies among your matches or other trees on Ancestry.

If the same ancestor is listed with multiple name spellings or similar differences, I have no idea how Ancestry determines which version to present to you as a Potential Ancestor. That’s why ThruLines are hints. Ancestry does show you the various trees they utilized and allows you to peruse them for hints for that suggested ancestor.

Just click on the Evaluate button. Unfortunately, neither of these trees have any records for this ancestor.

If you click on the tree, you are then given the opportunity to add Eleanor (meaning the potential ancestor) to your tree from their tree.

I STRONGLY, STRONGLY suggest that you DO NOT do this. By adding information directly from other people’s trees, you’re introducing any errors from their tree into your tree as well.

If you click through to their tree, you’ll often find that they used someone else’s tree as their “source,” so misinformation propagates easily. Seeing “Ancestry Family Trees” as a source, especially in multiple records, provides you with an idea of the research style of that tree owner. This also conveys the message to less-experienced researchers that copy/pasting from other trees is a valid source.

Use this information provided as hints and do your own research and evaluation.

Where Do Potential Ancestors Come From?

Let’s view an example of an incorrect Potential Ancestor suggestion and proof-steps you can utilize to help validate or potentially disprove the suggestion.

We know that George Middleton Clarkston/Clarkson is NOT the father of James Lee Clarkson based on Y-DNA testing where the descendants of the two men not only don’t match, they have a completely different haplogroup. They do not share a common paternal ancestor. Furthermore, proven descendant groups of both men do not have autosomal DNA matches.

However, George Middleton Clarkson is suggested as a Potential Ancestor in ThruLines as the father of James Lee Clarkson.

Mousing over the ThruLines placard shows 98 DNA matches to other people who claim descent from George Middleton Clarkson. How is it possible to have 98 matches with descendants of George Middleton Clarkson, yet he’s not my ancestor?

Many people just see that “98,” which is a high number and think, “well, of course he’s my ancestor, otherwise, I wouldn’t match all those descendants.” It’s not that simple or straightforward though. It’s certainly possible to all be wrong together, especially if you’re dealing with long-held assumptions in the genealogy community and trees copies from other people’s trees for decades.

To view the ThruLine detail for George Middleton Clarkson, just click on the placard.

The ThruLine for George Middleton Clarkson has three attributed children with DNA matches. Let’s evaluate.

  • ThruLines Child 1 is my own James Lee Clarkson that has been erroneously attached to George Middleton Clarkson. However, the Y-DNA of the three various lines, above, does not match. That erroneous connection alone counts for 80 of those 98 matches. If all of those people who match me do descend from our common ancestor, James, those matches all make sense.

According to early histories, James Lee Clarkson was believed to be George’s son based on geographic proximity between the state of Franklin in eastern Tennessee and Russell County, Virginia, but then came DNA testing which said otherwise.

This DNA grouping from the Clarkson/Claxton DNA Project at FamilyTreeDNA shows that the men, above, which includes descendants of James Lee Claxton/Clarkson, all match each other.

  • ThruLines Child 2 is Thomas Clarkston who has 17 DNA matches through 7 of his children.

By clicking on the green evaluate button for Thomas, we see that two of the DNA related trees have records, but three do not.

The first tree is quite interesting for a number of reasons.

  1. Thomas Clarkson is found in Lee County, VA, in relatively close proximity to where James Lee Clarkson is first found in Russell County, VA as an adult in 1795.
  2. There is no actual documentation to connect Thomas Clarkson with George Middleton Clarkson who was hung in 1787 in the lost State of Franklin, Tennessee, now Washington and Greene Counties in Tennessee. It has been “accepted” for years that Thomas descends from George Middleton based on information reportedly passed down within that family long before the internet.

The Claxton/Clarkson DNA Project at FamilyTreeDNA shows the Thomas lineage. This lineage reaches back into England based on Y-DNA matches – a huge and important hint for the Thomas descendants that they won’t be able to obtain anyplace else.

Note that Thomas’s Y-DNA does not match that of James Lee Clarkson/Claxton which means these people must match me through a different line. That’s not surprising given that many of the families of this region intermarried for generations.

  • ThruLines Child 3 is David Claxton, who has one DNA match, so let’s look at that by clicking on the green evaluate button.

You’ll see that this ancestor through David Claxton was recommended based on:

  • One DNA match with a tree with 0 source records, and
  • Zero Ancestry member trees of people whose DNA I don’t match, or that haven’t DNA tested

Checking this tree shows no sources for the following generations either, so I have no way to evaluate the accurace of the tree.

However, I did track his descendants for a generation or so and found them in Wilson County, TN, which allowed me to find them in the Clarkson/Claxton Y DNA Project at FamilyTreeDNA.

In the Clarkson/Claxton DNA project, we see that this David Claxton of Wilson County, TN is in a third DNA group that does not match either the James Lee Claxton or the Thomas Claxton line.

Furthermore, look at the hints for the descendants of David Claxton based on the Y-DNA matches. This link appears to reach back to a Clayton in Kirkington, Yorkshire.

ThruLines Conflation

In this case, three men of similar or the same surnames were cobbled together as sons of George Middleton Clarkson where clearly, based on Y-DNA testing, those three men are not related to each other paternally and do not share a common paternal ancestor. They cannot all three be descendants of George Middleton Clarkson.

It’s amazing how much is missed and erroneously inferred by NOT testing Y-DNA. In very short order, we just proved that the ThruLine that connected all three of these men to George Middleton Clarkson as their ancestor is inaccurate.

In defense of Ancestry, they simply used user-submitted erroneous trees – but you have it within YOUR power to search further, and to utilize Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA testing for additional clarification. This Clarkson/Claxton information was freely available, publicly, by just checking.

You can find surname or other projects at FamilyTreeDNA, by scrolling down, here, or simply google “<surname you seek> DNA Project.”

How Can These People All Match the Tester?

If we know that the male Claxton/Clarkson line is not the link between these matches, then why and how do these people all DNA match the tester? That’s a great question.

It’s possible that:

  • They match the tester through a different ancestor
  • There has been a genetic disconnect in the Claxton/Clarkson line and the match is through the mother, not the Claxton/Clarkson male
  • Some of the other testers’ genealogy is in error by including George Middleton Clarkson in their trees
  • People accept the George Middleton Clarkson suggestion, adding him to their tree, propagating erroneous information
  • The descendants of James Lee Clarkson/Claxton match because he is their common ancestor, but connecting him to George Middleton Clarkson is erroneous
  • The 15 cM match (and potentially others) is identical by chance
  • The Y-DNA disproved this possibility in this case. In other cases, the matches could have been from the same biological Clarkson/Claxton line, but the testers have their ancestor incorrectly attached to George Middleton Clarkson/Claxton. In this case, we can’t say which of David Claxton, James Lee Claxton and/or Thomas Claxton are or are not individually erroneously connected to George Middleton Clarkson, but we know for a fact that David’s, James’ and Thomas’s descendant’s Y-DNA does not match each other, so they can’t all three be descendants of George Middleton Clarkston. Furthermore, there is no solid evidence that ANY of these three men are his descendant. We know that these three men do not share a common direct paternal ancestor.

I recommend for every male line that you check the relevant Y-DNA project at FamilyTreeDNA and see if the information there confirms or conflicts with a suggested ancestor, or if a descendant hasn’t yet tested. I also STRONGLY recommend that a male in the relevant surname line that carries that surname be asked to test in order to verify the lineage.

ThruLine Ranking

I’m going to rank Ancestry’s suggested Potential Ancestors by awarding points for accuracy on their Potential Ancestor ThruLines suggestions and subtracting points for incorrect Potential Ancestor suggestions. This chart is at the end with links to my 52 Ancestor’s articles for those ancestors.

OK, let’s take a look, beginning with the great-grandparent generation.

Great-Grandparents

I entered all of these ancestors and they are connected to their children, the tester’s grandparents. They are not connected to their parents for purposes of this article, although I do know who the parents are, so let’s see how Ancestry does making Potential Ancestor suggestions through ThruLines.

Ancestors (above example) that are NOT framed by a dotted line and who are NOT labeled as a “Potential Ancestor” have been connected in their tree by the DNA tester, meaning you.

The next generations, below, are all framed by dotted lines, meaning they are Potential Ancestor suggestions provided by Ancestry. Potential Ancestors are always clearly marked with the green bar.

Eight 2nd Great Grandparents

In this generation, because I have not connected them, Ancestry has suggested Potential Ancestors for all sixteen 2X Great-Grandparents.

I’ve provided gold stars for the correct ancestor information meaning both the name and the birth and death date within a year or a decade when they died between census years.

Of these 16, three are completely accurate and the rest were at least partially accurate.

I repeated this process for each one of the suggested Potential Ancestors in the 3rd, 4th and 5th great grandparent categories as well, completing a ranking chart as I went.

Ranking Chart

I’ve ranked Ancestry’s accuracy in their Potential Ancestor recommendations.

  • +2 points means the name AND birth and death years are accurate within a year or decade if they died within a census boundary
  • +1 point means that EITHER the name OR the birth and death dates are (mostly) accurate, but not both
  • 0 means uncertain, so neither positive or negative
  • -1 point means that NEITHER the name NOR birth and death dates are accurate but it’s clear that this is meant to be the correct person. In other words, with some work, this hint could point you in the right direction, but in and of itself, it is inaccurate.
  • -2 means that the person suggested is the wrong person

I’ve been generous where there was some question. I’ve linked these ancestors where I’ve written their 52 Ancestors stories. [LNU] means last name unknown. It’s worth noting that one of the trees Ancestry has available to utilize for Potential Ancestors is my own accurate tree with many source documents for my ancestors.

# Generation Ancestry Name & Birth/Death Years Correct Name & Birth/Death Years # Matches Points Awarded Y or mtDNA Confirmed
1 2nd GGP John R. Estes 1788-1885 John. R. Estes 1787-1885 110 2 Yes
2 2nd GGP Nancy Ann Moore 1789-1865 Ann Moore or Nancy Ann Moore c1785-1860/1870 112 1 Need mtDNA through all females
3 2nd GGP Lazarus Dotson 1785-1861 Lazarus Dodson 1795-1861 46 -1 Yes
4 2nd GGP Elizabeth Campbell 1802-1842 Elizabeth Campbell c 1802-1827/1830 46 1 Yes
5 2nd GGP Elijah R. Vannoy 1782-1850 Elijah Vannoy 1784-1850s 82 -1 Yes
6 2nd GGP Rebecca Lois McNeil 1781-1839 Lois McNiel c1786-c1830s 81 -1 Yes
7 2nd GGP William Crumley ?-1859 William Crumley 1788-1859 97 1 Yes
8 2nd GGP Lydia Brown Crumley 1796-1847 Lydia Brown c1781-1830/1840 112 -1 Yes
9 2nd GGP Henry Bolton 1741-1846 Henry Frederick Bolton 1762-1846 152 -1 Yes
10 2nd GGP Nancy Mann 1777-1841 Nancy Mann c1780-1841 134 1 Yes
11 2nd GGP William Herrel 1803-1859 William Harrell/Herrell c1790-1859 31 1 Yes
12 2nd GGP Mary McDowell 1785-1871 Mary McDowell 1785-after 1872 45 2 Yes
13 2nd GGP Fairwick Clarkson 1800-1874 Fairwix/Fairwick Clarkson/Claxton 1799/1800-1874 82 2 Yes
14 2nd GGP Agnes Sander Muncy 1803-1880 Agnes Muncy 1803-after 1880 106 1 Yes
15 2nd GGP Thomas Charles Speak 1805-1843 Charles Speak 1804/1805-1840/1850 60 1 Yes
16 2nd GGP Ann McKee 1805-1860 Ann McKee 1804/1805-1840/1850 60 1 Yes
17 3rd GGP George M. Estes 1763-1859 George Estes 1763-1859 76 1 Yes
18 3rd GGP Mary C. Younger 1766-1850 Mary Younger c1766-1820/1830 75 -1 Yes
19 3rd GGP William Moore 1756-1810 William Moore 1750-1826 72 1 Yes
20 3rd GGP Susannah Harwell 1748-1795 Lucy [LNU] 1754-1832 69 -2 Need Lucy’s mtDNA through all females
21 3rd GGP Lazarous Dotson 1760-1826 Lazarus Dodson 1760-1826 42 1 Yes
22 3rd GGP Janet Jane Campbell 1762-1826 Jane [LNU] c1760-1830/1840 38 -2 Need mtDNA through all females
23 3rd GGP John Campbell 1772-1836 John Campbell c1772-1838 65 1 Yes
24 3rd GGP Jane Dobkins 1780-1860 Jane Dobkins c1780-c1860 22 2 Yes
25 3rd GGP Francis Vanoy/Vannoy 1746-1822 Daniel Vannoy 1752-after 1794 76 -2 Yes
26 3rd GGP Millicent “Millie” Henderson 1755-1822 Sarah Hickerson 1752/1760-before 1820 76 -2 Need mtDNA through all females
27 3rd GGP William McNeil/McNeal 1760-1830 William McNiel c1760-c1817 116 1 Yes
28 3rd GGP Elizabeth Shepherd McNeil 1766-1820 Elizabeth Shepherd 1766-1830/1840 115 -1 Yes
29 3rd GGP William Crumley 1767-1837 William Crumley c1767-c1839 59 1 Yes
30 3rd GGP Hannah Hanner “Hammer” 1770-1814 unknown 60 -2 Have her mtDNA
31 3rd GGP Jotham Sylvanis Brown 1765-1859 Jotham Brown c1740-c1799 100 -2 Yes
32 3rd GGP Ruth Johnston Brown Phoebe Cole 1747-1802 97 -2 Incorrect person but have correct mtDNA
33 3rd GGP Henry Bolton 1720-1757 Henry Bolton 1729-1765 88 1 Yes
34 3rd GGP Sarah Corry 1729-1797 Sarah Corry 1729-1797 80 2 Need mtDNA through all females
35 3rd GGP Robert James Mann 1753-1801 James Mann 1745-? 77 -1 Need Y-DNA
36 3rd GGP Mary Jane Wilson 1760-1801 Mary Brittain Cantrell c1755-? 80 -2 Incorrect but have correct mtDNA
37 3rd GGP John Herrell 1761-1829 John Harrold c1750-1825 19 -1 Yes
38 3rd GGP Hallie Mary [LNU] c1750-1826 18 -2 Need mtDNA through all females
39 3rd GGP Michael McDowell-McDaniel 1737-1834 Michael McDowell c17471840 25 -2 Yes
40 3rd GGP Sarah Isabel “Liza” Hall Isabel [LNU] c1753-1840/1850 27 -2 Need mtDNA through all females
41 3rd GGP James Lee Clarkson 1775-1815 James Lee Clarkson c1775-1815 170 2 Yes
42 3rd GGP Sarah Helloms Cook 1775-1863 Sarah Cook 1775-1863 188 1 Yes
43 3rd GGP Samuel Munsey-Muncy 1767-1830 Samuel Muncy after 1755-before 1820 108 1 Yes
44 3rd GGP Anne W. Workman 1768-1830 Anne Nancy Workman 1760/1761-after 1860 107 -1 Yes
45 3rd GGP Rev. Nicholas Speak 1782-1852 Nicholas Speak/Speaks 1782-1852 93 2 Yes
46 3rd GGP Sarah Faires Speak 1782-1865 Sarah Faires 1786-1865 93 -1 Yes
47 3rd GGP Andrew McKee 1760-1814 Andrew McKee c1760-1814 86 2 Yes
48 3rd GGP Elizabeth 1765-1839 Elizabeth [LNU] c1767-1838 88 2 Yes
49 4th GGP Moses Estes 1742-1815 Moses Estes c1742-1813 27 1 Yes
50 4th GGP Luremia Susannah Combes 1747-1815 Luremia Combs c1740-c1820 33 -1 Need mtDNA through all females
51 4th GGP Marcus Younger 1735-1816 Marcus Younger 1730/1740-1816 30 2 Yes
52 4th GGP Susanna Hart* 1725-1806 Susanna [possibly] Hart c1740-before 1805 26 -1 Yes
53 4th GGP William Moore 1725-1757 James Moore c1718-c1798 25 -2 Yes
54 4th GGP Margaret Hudspeth 1725-1808 Mary Rice c1723-c1778/1781 26 -2 Need Mary Rice mtDNA through all females
55 4th GGP Samuel “Little Sam” Harwell 1716-1793 Incorrect 36 -2
56 4th GGP Abigail Anne Jackson 1712-1793 Incorrect 33 -2
57 4th GGP Rawleigh “Rolly” Dodson 1730-1793 Raleigh Dodson 1730-c1794 19 2 Yes
58 4th GGP Elizabeth Mary Booth 1728-1793 Mary [LNU] c1730-1807/1808 27 -2 Need Mary’s mtDNA through all females
59 4th GGP Nancy Ann Steele 1728-1836 Unknown mother of Jane [LNU], wife of Lazarus Dodson 16 -2 Need Jane’s mtDNA through all females
60 4th GGP James Campbell 1742-1931 Charles Campbell c1750-c1825 28 -2 Y DNA confirmed NOT this line
61 4th GGP Letitia Allison 1759-1844 Incorrect 31 -2
62 4th GGP Jacob Dobkins 1750-1833 Jacob Dobkins 1751-1835 91 1 Yes
63 4th GGP Dorcas (Darcas) Johnson 1750-1831 Darcus Johnson c1750-c1835 92 2 Yes
64 4th GGP John Francis Vannoy 1719-1778 John Francis Vannoy 1719-1778 47 2 Yes
65 4th GGP Susannah Baker Anderson 1720-1816 Susannah Anderson c1721-c1816 59 2 Need mtDNA through all females
66 4th GGP Thomas Hildreth Henderson 1736-1806 Charles Hickerson c1725-before 1793 37 -2 Have Hickerson Y-DNA
67 4th GGP Mary Frances “Frankie” McIntire 1735-1811 Mary Lytle c1730-before 1794 37 -2 Need mtDNA from all females
68 4th GGP Rev. George W. McNeil 1720-1805 George McNiel c1720-1805 143 1 Yes
69 4th GGP Mary Sarah Coates 1732-1782 Sarah/Sallie or Mary [maybe] Coates c1740-1782/1787 139 1 Need mtDNA through all females
70 4th GGP John James Sheppard Shepherd 1734-1810 Robert Shepherd 1739-1817 136 -2 Have Shepherd Y-DNA
71 4th GGP Sarah Ann Rash 1732-1810 Sarah Rash 1748-1829 178 -1 Yes
72 4th GGP John Crumbley 1737-1794 William Crumley 1736-1793 77 -2 Have Crumley Y-DNA
73 4th GGP Hannah Mercer 1742-1774 Hannah Mercer c1740-c1773 73 2 Yes
74 4th GGP John Hanner (Hainer) Incorrect 19 -2
75 4th GGP Jotham Brown 1740-1799 Incorrect 183 -2 Have Brown Y-DNA
76 4th GGP Phoebe Ellen Johnston 1742-1810 Incorrect 182 -2
77 4th GGP Moses Johnston 1746-1828 Incorrect 45 -2
78 4th GGP Eleanor Havis 1753-1837 Incorrect 47 -2
79 4th GGP Henry Boulton 1693-1737 John Bolton before 1693-after 1729 23 -2 Have Bolton Y-DNA
80 4th GGP Elizabeth Bryan 1658-1742 Elizabeth Goaring 1795-1729 22 -2 Need mtDNA through all females
81 4th GGP Thomas Curry (Corry) 1705-1729 Thomas Curry 1705-1729 25 2 Need Curry Y-DNA
82 4th GGP Monique “Moniky” Curry 1704-1729 Monique Demazares 1705-1729 25 1 Need mtDNA through all females
83 4th GGP Robert James Mann 1740-1787 John Mann 1725-1774 26 -2 Need Mann Y-DNA
84 4th GGP Sarah Susannah McCloskey 1716-1797 Frances Carpenter 1728-1833 28 -2 Need mtDNA through all females
85 4th GGP Benjamin “Col. Ben” Colonel Wilson 1733-1814 Incorrect 28 -2
86 4th GGP Mary Ann Seay 1735-1814 Incorrect 29 -2
87 4th GGP John Hugh McDowell 1695-1742 Michael McDowell c1720-after 1755 7 -2 Incorrect but have correct Y-DNA McDowell Y-DNA
88 4th GGP Mary Magdalena Woods 1705-1800 Incorrect 8 -2
89 4th GGP Ebenezer Hall 1721-1801 Incorrect 6 -2
90 4th GGP Dorcas Abbott Hall 1728-1797 Incorrect 6 -2
91 4th GGP George Middleton Clarkston/Clarkson 1745-1787 Incorrect 98 -2 Incorrect but have correct Clarkson Y-DNA
92 4th GGP Catherine Middleton 1764-1855 Incorrect 94 -2
93 4th GGP William Henry Cook 1750-1920 Joel Cook before 1755 – ? 83 -2 Need Cook Y-DNA
94 4th GGP Elizabeth Wall 1747-1826 Alcy [LNU] c 1755-? 91 -2 Yes
95 4th GGP Obediah Samuel Muncy 1735-1806 Samuel Muncy 1740-1799 33 -1 Yes
96 4th GGP UFN Obediah Muncy wife Unknowen (sic) 1728-1843 Agnes Craven 1745-1811 27 -2 Need Agnes Craven Need mtDNA through all females
97 4th GGP Joseph Workman 1732-1813 Joseph Workman c1736-c1813 64 2 Yes
98 4th GGP Phoebe McRay McMahon 1745-1826 Phoebe McMahon c1741-after 1815 64 1 Yes
99 4th GGP Charles Beckworth Speake/Speaks 1741-1794 Charles Speake c1731-1794 47 1 Yes
100 4th GGP Jane Connor 1742-1789 Incorrect, unknown first wife 40 -2 Need mtDNA through all females
101 4th GGP Gideon Farris 1748-1818 Gideon Faires before 1749-1821 54 -1 Yes
102 4th GGP Sarah Elizabeth McSpadden 1745-1821 Sarah McSpadden c1745-c1820 55 1 Yes
103 4th GGP Hugh McKee 1720-1795 Unknown 34 -2
104 4th GGP Mary Nesbit 1732-1795 Unknown 35 -2
105 4th GGP Private (sic) Unknown father of Elizabeth, wife of Andrew McKee 35 -2
106 4th GGP Anna Elizabeth Carney [wife of “private”] Incorrect 35 -2
107 5th GGP Moses Estes 1711-1788 Moses Estes 1711-1787 13 2 Yes
108 5th GGP Elizabeth Jones “Betty” Webb 1718-1782 Elizabeth [LNU] 1715/1720-1772/1782 5 -2 No known daughters
109 5th GGP George W. Combs 1714-1798 John Combs 1705-1762 6 -2 Need Combs Y-DNA
110 5th GGP Phebe Wade ?-1830 Incorrect 6 -2 Need mtDNA of John Combs first wife through all females
111 5th GGP Sarah Ferguson 1700-1781 Incorrect 3 -2
112 5th GGP Anthony Hart 1700-? Possibly Anthony Hart but no evidence 3 0
113 5th GGP Charles Rev. Moore 1685-1734 Incorrect 4 -2
114 5th GGP Mary Margaret Barry Moore 1690-1748 Incorrect 4 -2
115 5th GGP Ralph Hudspeth II* 1690-1776 Incorrect 9 -2
116 5th GGP Mary Carter 1699-1737 Incorrect 3 -2
117 5th GGP Samuel Harwell 1674-1767 Incorrect 3 -2
118 5th GGP Mary Ann Coleman*8th Ggm (sic) 1678-1723 incorrect 6 -2
119 5th GGP Ambrose (Sar) Jackson 1695-1745 Incorrect 6 -2
120 5th GGP Anne Amy Wyche 1692-1765 Incorrect 6 -2
121 5th GGP George E Dodson (DNA) (sic) 1702-1770 George Dodson 1702-after 1756 23 -1 Yes
122 5th GGP Margaret Dogett Dagord 1708-1770 Margaret Dagord 1708-? 24 1 Need mtDNA through all females
123 5th GGP James Booth 1700-1741 Incorrect 4 -2
124 5th GGP Frances Dale Booth (15great aunt) (sic) 1688-1777 Incorrect 3 -2
125 5th GGP Samuel Scurlock Steele 1709-1790 Incorrect 2 -2
126 5th GGP Robert R. Campbell 1718-1810 Incorrect 34 -2
127 5th GGP Lady: Letitia Crockett 1719-1760 Incorrect 8 -2
128 5th GGP John A. Dobkins 1717-1783 John Dobkins c1710-c1788 20 1 Yes
129 5th GGP Mary Elizabeth Betty Moore 1739-1815 Elizabeth [LNU] c1711-? 20 -2 Need mtDNA through all females
130 5th GGP Peter Johnson 1715-1796 Peter Johnson/Johnston c1720-c1794 0 1 Yes
131 5th GGP Mary Polly Phillips 1729-1790 Mary Polly Phillips c1726-? 1 2 Need mtDNA through all females
132 5th GGP Francis Janzen Vannoy Van Noy 1688-1774 Francis Vannoy 1688-1774 8 1 Yes
133 5th GGP Rebecca Anna Catherine Anderson 1698-1785 Rebecca Annahh Andriesen/ Anderson 1697-1727 13 -1 Need mtDNA through all females
134 5th GGP Cornelius Anderson (Andriessen) 1670-1724 Kornelis Andriesen 1670-1724 5 2 Yes
135 5th GGP Annetje Annah Opdyck 1670-1746 Annetje Opdyck c1675-after 1746 5 2 Need mtDNA through all females
136 5th GGP Thomas Hildret Henderson 1715-1794 Incorrect

 

3 -2
137 5th GGP Mary Frisby 1709-1794 Incorrect 3 -2
138 5th GGP Alexander (Alex) McEntire 1707-1802 Incorrect 12 -2
139 5th GGP Hannah Janet McPherson 1711-1792 Incorrect 15 -2
140 5th GGP Thomas James McNeil 1699-1803 Incorrect 25 -2
141 5th GGP Mary Hannah Parsons 1697-1784 Incorrect 27 -2
142 5th GGP John Coates 1699-1732 Incorrect 21 -2
143 5th GGP Sarah Ann Titcombe 1710-1732 Incorrect 22 -2
144 5th GGP George Sheppard, Shepherd 1716-1751 George Shepherd c1700-1751 42 1 Have Shepherd Y-DNA
145 5th GGP Elizabeth Mary Angelicke Day (Daye) 1699-? Elizabeth Mary Angelica Daye 1699-after 1750 41 1 Need mtDNA through all females
146 5th GGP Joseph Rash 1722-1776 Joseph Rash before 1728-c1767 36 1 Yes
147 5th GGP Mary Warren 1726-1792 Mary Warren 1726-? 36 1 Yes
148 5th GGP James L Crumley/Cromley 1712-1784 James Crumley c1711-1764 11 -1 Yes
149 5th GGP Catherine Bowen Gilkey 1712-1784 Catherine [LNU] c1712-c1790 11 -1 Need mtDNA through all females
150 5th GGP Edward Willis Mercer 1704-1763 Edward Mercer 1704-1763 5 1 Yes
151 5th GGP Ann Lueretias Coats 1710-1763 Ann [LNU] 1699/1705-c1786/1790 5 -2 Need mtDNA through all females
152 5th GGP Daniel Brown 1710-1798 Incorrect 39 -2
153 5th GGP Mary Brown 1717-1777 Incorrect 40 -2
154 5th GGP Zopher “Elder” Johnson/Johnston* 1700-1804 Incorrect 51 -2
155 5th GGP Elizabeth Williamson Cooper 1703-1794 Incorrect 49 -2
156 5th GGP Joseph Benjamin Johnson (6th ggf) (sic) 1709-1795 Incorrect 3 -2
157 5th GGP Elizabeth Shepard 1709-1786 Incorrect 3 -2
158 5th GGP John (Boulware) Havis (Rev/war) (sic) 1728-1807 Incorrect 4 -2
159 5th GGP Susannah Gentile Boullier (Boulware) 1733-1817 Incorrect 3 -2
160 5th GGP Henry Boulton Jr. 1652-1720 Incorrect 22 -2
161 5th GGP Elizabeth Bryan 1658-1742 Incorrect, linked in two generations Duplicate not processing -2
162 5th GGP Norton Bryan 1634-1672 Incorrect 2 -2
163 5th GGP Elizabeth Middlemore 1640-1658 Incorrect 2 -2
164 5th GGP Guillam Demazure 1685-1706 Guillam Demazares before 1685-after 1705 2 2 Need Y-DNA
165 5th GGP Marie Demazure 1686-1705 Marie [LNU] before 1686-after 1705 2 1 Need mtDNA through all females
166 5th GGP John Robert Mann {Minnis} 1711-1772 Incorrect 3 -2
167 5th GGP Anne Vincent 1711-1747 Incorrect 3 -2
168 5th GGP Joseph David McCluskey 1693-1756 Incorrect 3 -2
169 5th GGP Barbara S Rohlflag 1695-1755 Incorrect 3 -2
170 5th GGP Willis Wilson, Jr. 1710-1794 Incorrect 4 -2
171 5th GGP Elizabeth Goodrich ?-1789 Incorrect 4 -2
172 5th GGP Reverend James Matthew Seay 1696-1757 Incorrect 7 -2
173 5th GGP Elizabeth (James M Seay) Wilson or Lewis 1696-1752 Incorrect 6 -2
174 5th GGP Ephriam Samuel McDowell 1673-1774 Murtough McDowell before 1700-1752 0 -2 Yes
175 5th GGP Margaret Elizabeth Irvine 1674-1728 Eleanor [LNU] before 1700-after 1730 1 -2 Need mtDNA through all females
176 5th GGP Michael Marion Woods 1684-1782 Incorrect 9 -2
177 5th GGP Mary Catherine Woods 1690-1742 Incorrect 9 -2
178 5th GGP Joseph Hall 1680-1750 Incorrect 0 -2
179 5th GGP Sarah Kimball Hall Haley 1686-1752 Incorrect 0 -2
180 5th GGP Edward Abbott 1702-759 Incorrect 0 -2
181 5th GGP Dorcas Mehitable Chandler 1704-1748 Incorrect 0 -2
182 5th GGP James Anderson Clarkston 1717-1816 Incorrect 17 -2
183 5th GGP Thomasina Elizabeth Middleton 1720-1796 Incorrect 17 -2
184 5th GGP Harlace Middleton Incorrect 5 -2
185 5th GGP Capt. Vallentine Felty Kuke Cook 1730-1797 Incorrect 25 -2
186 5th GGP Michael Wall 1728-1749 Incorrect 11 -2
187 5th GGP Rebecca Chapman 1725-1791 Incorrect 11 -2
188 5th GGP Samuel Scott Muncy 1712-1786 Samuel Muncy 1712-after 1798 50 -1 Yes
189 5th GGP Mary Daughtery Skidmore 1710-1797 Mary Skidmore c1710-1811 51 -1 Need mtDNA through all females
190 5th GGP Abraham Woertman Workman 1709-1749 Abraham Workman 1709-1813 26 1 Yes
191 5th GGP Hannah Annetje (Smith) Workman 1706-1747 Annetie Smith 1714-? 26 1 Need mtDNA through all females
192 5th GGP Hugh McMahon 1699-1749 Hugh McMahon 1699-1749 17 2 Need Y-DNA
193 5th GGP Agnas Norton 1699-1747 Agnas Norton after 1700-? 17 2 Need mtDNA through all females
194 5th GGP Thomas Bowling Speake V 1698-1765 Thomas Speak c1634-1681 11 -2 Yes
195 5th GGP Jane Barton/Brisco Smoote 1714-1760 Elizabeth Bowling 1641-before 1692 12 -2 No known daughters
196 5th GGP William Farris 1714-1776 William Faires/Farris before 1728-1776 11 1 Yes
197 5th GGP Deborah Johnson Faries 1734-1812 Deborah [LNU] 1734-1812 11 1 Need mtDNA through all females
198 5th GGP Thomas of Borden’s Grant McSpadden 1720-1765 Thomas McSpadden c1721-1785 19 1 Yes
199 5th GGP Mary Dorothy Edmondson (Edmundson, Edmiston, Edmisten) 1721-1786 Dorothy [possibly Edmiston] 1721-? 28 1 Yes
200 5th GGP Thomas Alexander McKee, Sr 1693-1769 Incorrect 7 -2
201 5th GGP Tecumseh Margaret Opessa Pekowi 1695-1780 Incorrect 6 -2
202 5th GGP Thomas F Nesbit 1707-1783 Incorrect 7 -2
203 5th GGP Jean McKee 1707-1790 Incorrect 7 -2
Total -163

Please note that I will provide a free Y-DNA testing scholarship at FamilyTreeDNA for any male descending through all men from the male ancestor where it’s noted that Y-DNA is needed. Y-DNA is typically the surname line in most western countries.

I will also provide a mitochondrial DNA testing scholarship at FamilyTreeDNA for anyone who descends from the women where it’s noted that mitochondrial DNA is needed. Mitochondrial DNA passes through all females to the current generation, which can be male or female.

If this is you or a family member, please reach out to me.

The Scores

Of the 203 ancestors for which Ancestry provided a Potential Ancestor, they could have amassed a total of 406 points if each one provided an accurate name and accurate birth and death dates within a reasonable margin. If they were completely wrong on every one, they could have earned a negative score of -406.

Ancestry’s ThruLine accuracy score was -163, meaning they were wrong more than right. Zero was the break-even point where there was equally as much accurate information as inaccurate.

In fairness though, the older ancestors are more likely to be wrong than the more recent ones, and there are more older ancestors given that ancestors double in each generation. Once Ancestry provided a wrong ancestor, they continued down that wrong path on up the tree, so once the path was incorrect, it never recovered.

Regardless of why, Ancestry suggested incorrect information, and as we know, many people take that information to heart as gospel. In fact, many people even call these *TrueLines* instead of *ThruLines*.

Ok, how did Ancestry do?

Category Total Percent
+2 – Both Name and Date Accurate or Within Range 24 11.82%
+1 – Name and/or Date Partly Accurate 41 20.2%
0 – Uncertain 1 0.49%
-1 – Neither Name nor Date Accurate, but Enough Context to Figure Out With Research 22 10.84%
-2 – Inaccurate, the wrong person 115 56.65%

 Take Aways – Lessons Learned

This leads us to the lessons learned portion.

  • Never, ever, take ThruLines or Potential Ancestors at face value. They are hints and nothing more. Ancestry states that “ThruLines uses Ancestry trees to suggest how you may be related to your DNA matches through common ancestors.” (Bolding is mine.)
  • Verify everything.
  • Never simply copy something from another tree or accept a hint of any kind without a thorough evaluation. No, your ancestor probably did not zigzag back and forth across the country every other year in the 1800s. If you think they did, then you’ll need lots of information to prove that unusual circumstance. Extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary proof.
  • Never add extraneous “things” to names like “DNA match” or name someone “Private,” unless, of course, that was actually their name. Extraneous “pieces” in names confuses Ancestry’s search routines too, so you’re hurting your own chances of finding relevant information about your ancestor, not to mention ThruLines for others.
  • Naming someone “Private” isn’t useful if they are attached to other non-private people as ancestors, siblings and descendants. Just sayin…
  • Once the first incorrect ancestor is suggested, ThruLines continues to go up the incorrect tree.
  • In the the older or oldest generations, a small number of DNA matches for a particular ancestor may simply mean that lots of people are beyond the ThruLines match reporting thresholds. Unfortunately, Ancestry does NOT have a function where you can hunt for matches by ancestor.
  • In the the older or oldest generations, a small number of DNA matches may also mean it’s either the wrong ancestor, or they have few descendants, or few have tested.
  • The number of matches, in either direction, is not directly predictive of the accuracy of the suggested ancestor.
  • One of the best ways to validate ancestor accuracy is to match other descendants through multiple children of the ancestor, assuming that the children have been assigned to that ancestor properly. Recall George Middleton Clarkson where the three male children assigned to him do not have the same Y-DNA.
  • Another validation technique is to also match descendants of both parents of the ancestor(s) in question, through multiple children.
  • Remember that paper trail documentation is an extremely important aspect of genealogy.
  • Do not rely on trees without sources, or on trees with sources without verifying that every source is actually referencing this specific person.
  • Same name confusion is a very real issue.
  • For male ancestors, always check the Y-DNA projects at FamilyTreeDNA to verify that males attached as children have descendants with matching Y-DNA.
  • Always test males for their surname line. You never know when you’ll either prove or disprove a long-held belief, or discover that someplace, there has been a biological break in that line.
  • Y-DNA matches can provide extremely valuable information on earlier ancestral lines which may lead to breaking through your brick wall.
  • Mitochondrial DNA testing and matching of descendants is sometimes the only way of proving maternity or discovering matches to earlier ancestors.
  • Both Y-DNA and mitochondrial DNA, via haplogroups, can provide origins information for that one specific line, meaning you don’t have to try to figure out which ancestor contributed some percentage of ethnicity or population-based DNA.
  • Everyone can test their mitochondrial DNA, inherited from their direct matrilineal line, and men can test their Y-DNA, which is their surname line.
  • Remember that ThruLines can only be as good as the trees upon which it relies.
  • Review the source trees for each Potential Ancestor provided, evaluating each source carefully, including notes, images and web links. You just never know where that diamond is hiding.

How Can Ancestry Improve ThruLines, Potential Ancestors and Provide Customers with Better Tools?

To improve ThruLines and/or Potential Ancestors, Ancestry could:

  • My #1 request would be to implement a “search by ancestor” feature for DNA matches. This would be especially beneficial for situations where matches are beyond the 5GG threshold, or if someone is testing a hypothesis to see if they match descendants of a particular person.
  • Provide a “dismiss” function, or even a function where a customer could provide a reason why they don’t believe a connection or suggestion is accurate. This could travel with that link for other users as well so people can benefit from commentary from and collaboration with others.
  • Provide all DNA matches to people who share a specific ancestor, even if one person is beyond the 5 GG level. Currently, if both people are beyond that threshold, the match won’t show for either, so that’s no problem. The hybrid way it works today is both confusing and misleading and the hard cutoff obfuscates matches that have the potential to be extremely useful. Often this is further exacerbated by the 20 cM thresold limit on shared matches.
  • Add a feature similar to the now defunct NADs (New Ancestor Discoveries) where Ancestry shows you a group of your matches that descend from common ancestors, but those ancestors are NOT connected to anyone in your tree. However, DO NOT name the tool New Ancestor Discoveries because these people may not be, and often are not, your ancestors. If you’re related to a group of people who all have these people in THEIR tree as ancestors, that alone is a powerful hint. You might be descended from their ancestors, from the spouse of one of their children – something. But it’s information to work with when you have brick walls where Ancestry cannot connect someone as a potential ancestor directly to someone in your tree. Even locations of those brick-wall-breaker possible ancestors would be a clue. In fact, it’s not terribly different than the Potential Ancestors today, except today’s Potential Ancestors are entirely tree based (beyond ThruLines) and dependent upon connecting with someone in your tree. These new Brick-Wall-Breaker Potential Ancestors are (1.) NOT connected to your tree, and (2.) are all a result of DNA matches with people who have these ancestors in their tree.
  • If you already map your segment information at DNAPainter, the Brick-Wall-Breaker ancestral lineage connection would be immediately evident if Ancestry provided DNA segment location information. In other words, there are answers and significant hints that could be available to Ancestry’s customers.
  • Extend ThruLines for (at least) another two generations. Today ThruLines ends at the point that many people begin running into brick walls about the time the US census began. Using a 25-year generation, the current algorithm gives you 175 years (about 1825 starting with the year 2000), and a 30-year generation gives you 210 years (about 1790). Extending that two additional generations would give testers two more generations, several more Potential Ancestors, and 50-60 more years, approaching or reaching across the US colonial threshold.
  • Extending ThruLines and adding that Brick-Wall-Breaker functionality wouldn’t be nearly as important if customers could search by ancestor and download their match with direct ancestor information, similar to the other vendors, but since we can’t, we’re completely reliant on ThruLines and Potential Ancestors for automated connections by ancestor. Downloading your match list including a list of each person’s direct ancestors and matching segments would provide resources for many of these customer needs, without Ancestry having to do significant major development. If nothing else, it could be an interim stepping-stone.

_____________________________________________________________

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

Project Administrators: How to Prepare Your Project for FamilyTreeDNA’s New Group Time Tree

Last week, FamilyTreeDNA  gave us a sneak peek into their new Group Time Tree that displays Big Y testers in time tree format within group projects that they have joined. I wrote about this in the article, Sneak Preview: Introducing the FamilyTreeDNA Group Time Tree.

The Group Time Tree is an excellent way to recruit new members, because people can see how other people with the same surname fit together in terms of common ancestors. Additionally, the time tree shows when they are related meaning TMRCA, time to the most recent common ancestor.

Here’s an example of the Estes project group time tree with some of the subgroups I’ve defined selected.

Click to enlarge any image

Feel free to view the public Estes project, here, and the Estes Group Time Tree, here.

View my subgroupings, and how they appear on the Group Time Tree. See if that’s how you want your project to work. You can use the search box to search for your own project, or other projects.

Preparation

As a volunteer project administrator, there are a number of things you’ll either need to do, or may want to do to prepare for the wider introduction of the exciting Group Time Tree. You’ll want your project members to benefit as much as possible.

Project Must Be Publicly Displayed

In order for your project to be able to be displayed in the Group Time Tree format, it must be a public project, meaning it has a public presence and viewing is not restricted to members only. The minimal selection for the Group Time Tree is that Y SNPs must be public.

Under Project Administration, Public Website, you’ll see the following configuration options.

Please click to enlarge

  • “Display Project Statistics” must be checked to facilitate displaying the Country Map showing the locations around the world of your Big Y project members.
  • You will want to enable the members Surname, and the Earliest Known Ancestor if you want them to display in the Group Time Tree. If at least one of these is not selected, the Group Time Tree will not be displayed.
  • Option 1: Under “YDNA Options,” at right, if you select “Public” for “Member DNA Test (YDNA) Results,” both SNP and haplogroup results will be shown in the public project, but of course, only Big Y tester’s results are shown on the Group Time Tree. You do NOT have to select public here to enable the Group Time Tree, but if you DON’T select public here, then you MUST select “Public” for “Y DNA SNP” (Option 2) or the Group Time Tree will not be enabled.
  • If you select either “Project Members Only” or “Do Not Display” for “Member DNA Test (YDNA) Results,” there will be no public project display for individual results.
  • Option 2: If you do NOT select “Public” for “Y-DNA SNP”, there will be no Group Time Tree display unless the “Member DNA Test (YDNA) Results” (Option 1) are set to Public.

In other words, for the Group Time Tree to be enabled, Option 1 or Option 2 MUST be set to “Public.”

Here’s a chart to help.

Field Selection Group Time Tree Result
Display Project Statistics Not selected No Country Map displayed.
Display Project Statistics Selected Country Map Displayed if group project publicly enabled.
Members Last Name and/or Earliest Known Ancestor Must select one or both If at least one is not selected, Group Time Tree is not enabled.
Option 1: Member DNA Test (YDNA) Results Public STR and haplogroup results show in BOTH the traditional public project display and the Group Time Tree.
Option 1: Member DNA Test (YDNA) Results Project Members Only or Do Not Display Will not display in the traditional project display. If this option is set to anything but Public, then Option 2 must be Public to enable the Group Time Tree.
Option 2: Y-DNA SNP Public Will display Group Time Tree even if Member DNA Test Results are not public.
Option 2: Y-DNA SNP Not Public Will NOT display Group Time Tree unless Option 1 set to Public.
Option 1 and Option 2 Neither set to Public No public group project display and no Group Time Tree.
Option 1 and Option 2 Both set to Public Public display of STR results, haplogroup, SNP results, and Group Time Tree.

Don’t forget to “Save” when you’re finished with your project configuration.

Country Map

For the Country Map to be displayed, you must enable the Project Statistics, above.

The Country Map reflects Big Y results for everyone within the project. If you do not want to include the Y-DNA of men within the project who not associated with the direct paternal surname of the project, you can disable the public display of their Y-DNA results.

An example would be a male who has joined a surname project because he is autosomally related to the surname, but does not carry the Y-DNA of that surname ancestor. I have this situation a LOT in the Estes project, because I “gather” my family members there and encourage cousins to join.

Here’s how to disable the display of those results within the project.

Suppress Display of Tests of Individuals

Select Public Results Display Settings.

Then, select the option for what you wish to implement for the various project members.

Options are:

  • Show Y DNA
  • Hide Y DNA
  • Show mtDNA
  • Hide mtDNA

Group Project Subgroupings

In the Estes project, I opted to colorize the descendants of Abraham Estes, the immigrant, all teal. Now, with the new Group Time Tree subgroup display, I may wish to change that. I might want the descendants of different sons to be different colors.

I definitely want different genetic Estes lineages to be different colors.

If you have people in your project whose Y-DNA is not relevant to the project, and you don’t want to suppress the display of their Y DNA results, you can group them together in a separate subgroup so you can deselect that group altogether when displaying the Group Time Tree, although their results will appear on the Country Map.

You can create subgroups and then group members under Project Administration, Member Subgrouping.

Weekly Updates

The Group Time Tree is only updated once a week, so there will be approximately a week’s delay after you make project configuration changes before you will see the results reflected in the Group Time Tree.

That’s why it’s a good idea to review your settings now so that when it goes live, you’ll be ready and it will display the way you want.

Padlock

If one of your project members has a padlock in place of their surname and Paternal Ancestor, they are a project member but have not opted-in to the public display within the project.

In their own settings, they can change that by Opting-In to the Group Project Profile Sharing. You can provide them with these instructions.

Under Account Settings, select Project Preferences.

Then, scroll down to Group Project Profile.

Select Opt-in to Sharing.

Encourage Big Y Upgrades and General Fund Donations

I’ve been encouraging everyone in my projects to upgrade to the Big Y-700 and providing several scholarships. Don’t hesitate to send bulk emails to your project members asking for general fund donations to upgrade someone who is willing but needs a scholarship. I’ve had amazingly good luck with the scholarship approach and the Big Y results benefit everyone in the project, including women who don’t have a Y chromosome to test.

Encourage Members to Complete Earliest Known Ancestor and Locations

The three haplotrees supported by FamilyTreeDNA  all depend on location information:

  • The Public Y-DNA and Mitochondrial DNA Haplotrees include country flags
  • The Discover Haplogroup tool includes the Country Frequency and country flags under the Haplogrop Story
  • The Group Time Tree includes country flags for the Earliest Known Ancestor (EKA) of individual testers

Please encourage members to complete their Earliest Known Ancestor name and location. Remember, this information is NOT extracted from uploaded trees.

In a few days, I’ll publish step-by-step instructions for how to add EKA and location information.

Now is a good time to update your project selections so you’ll be ready for the official rollout of the Group Time Tree.

Accessing Your Group Time Tree

Until the official rollout, there are two ways to access your group’s time tree:

  1. Click here and then enter the name of the group project in the search box.
  2. Replace the word “estes” with your project’s exact name in the following url: https://discover.familytreedna.com/groups/estes/tree

_____________________________________________________________

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

Sneak Preview: Introducing the FamilyTreeDNA Group Time Tree

Drum roll please!!!

This is a sneak peek of a new tool being rolled out by FamilyTreeDNA in a VERY EARLY BETA soft launch.

Right now, the only way to view the Group Time Tree is by using the link to my group project, below, then, search for a different project name. I’ll show you, but first, let’s talk about this VERY COOL new tool for Big Y group project results.

The Group Time Tree is a feature that group project administrators and project members have wanted for a VERY long time!

At FamilyTreeDNA, the words “group” and “project” are both used to describe Group Projects which are projects run by volunteer administrators. FamilyTreeDNA customers can join any number of projects to collaborate with other testers who have a common interest.

Four basic types of public group projects exist:

  • Surname Group Projects
  • Haplogroup Group Project
  • Geographic Group Projects which can include other types of special interests
  • Mitochondrial Lineage Group Projects

What Does the Regular Discover Time Tree Do?

The Discover tool that was recently introduced (here) provides a Time Tree view of any specific haplogroup (but no surnames or ancestors) in relation to:

  • Big Y testers (not SNP-only testers and not STR results because they can’t be used for time-to-most-recent-common-ancestor (TMRCA) calculations)
  • Ancient Connections
  • Notable Connections

Using the regular Discover Haplogroup took, here’s an example of the haplogroups of the Estes (and other) men, beginning with the R-BY154784 lineage near the bottom. Time is at the top. The only way you know they are Estes men is because I told you. The Discover tool is haplogroup specific, not surname specific.

What Does the New Group Time Tree Do?

The brand-new Group Time Tree is an extension of the Discover technology, but focused within projects and includes both surnames and earliest known ancestors for people who have opted-in to have their results display in public group projects. This tool only works for group projects that have the public display enabled, and includes only data that the administrator has included. Not all administrators have enabled the display of the “Paternal Ancestor” field, for example.

Now, you can see Big Y group project members:

  • All mapped together on a genetic time tree, or
  • By project subgroups defined by the project administrator

I want to provide a friendly reminder that this is a BETA tool and will be fully rolled out in the not-too-distant future. In the meantime, it’s fun to have a sneak preview!!!

Estes DNA Group Project

Before going further, here are some screen shots of the Estes DNA Group Project for comparison.

I’ve created multiple color-coded groups within the project based on the genealogy and Y-DNA matches of the participants. The teal groups all descend from the Estes line from Kent, England, and match each other. Since not every man with an Estes surname descends from this line, there are also other color-identified groups.

Additionally, in the Estes project, I do not restrict members to males with the Estes surname, so there are several non-Estes men who have joined. Their Y-DNA shows in the project so I have placed them in an “Autosomal – Not Y DNA” group because they are Estes-related autosomally, not through the direct Y-DNA surname line.

I’ve grouped other clusters of Estes-surname males who do not descend from the Kent line into other color-coded groups, which turned out to be extremely beneficial for the new Group Time Tree.

Let’s see how the Estes Project works with the new Group Time Tree.

The Estes Group Time Tree

Here’s the link to the Estes Group Time Tree. I’ll be using the Estes data for this article, then show you how to view other group projects of your choosing from this link. So please read these instructions.

The Group Time Tree shows a genetic family tree of direct paternal lineages on a time scale. It shows how Big Y tested members of Group Projects are related to each other and when their shared ancestors are estimated to have lived.

Click on any image to enlarge

This is the first display I see.

Looking around, I notice the menu.

Select either “All search results” or the group or groups you want to view.

If you compare the groups above on the menu to the project screen shots, you’ll notice that the colors along the left side equate to the colors of the project subgroupings. We have Eastridge, meaning those who are not genetically Estes, then “Estes Autosomal, Not Y DNA,” then a group of teal project groupings who descend from the Estes Kent line.

I clicked on “Select All Search Results” which displayed everyone in the project from all haplogroups. This resulted in the Estes men being scrunched on the right-hand side, below, due to the long timeframe involved, which is not useful.

What is VERY useful is the Paternal Ancestor column which is the earliest known ancestor (EKA) for each tester’s line. Hopefully, this will encourage everyone to enter their EKA and location. You can find instructions, here.

Ok, let’s “De-select all” and just focus on specific groups.

Much better. I can see a much more relevant timeline for the men in the line being researched. The Estes men are no longer scrunched up along the right side because the left-to-right time is much shorter – 1500ish vs 100,000ish years.

The colored dot on the location flag indicates which colored group these men have been assigned to by the project administrator.

It’s very easy to see if two groups (or two men) descend from the same paternal line.

Next, I added the Eastridge group back into the display as an experiment.

The common ancestor between the single Eastridge Big Y tester and the Estes men is back in the Stone Age, about 35,000 BCE.

I do feel compelled to mention that this information can’t necessarily be extrapolated for all Eastridge men, because there are a few men with Eastridge surnames that are actually genetically Estes men. Someplace along the line, the name got changed. This is the perfect example of why every man needs to test their Y-DNA.

You can remove the menu by clicking on Subgroups.

You make the menu re-appear by clicking on Subgroups again.

I LOVE – LOVE – LOVE that I can see the ancestors and the clusters and I didn’t have to do this grouping myself. These men could have been in one big group in the project and the software would have created the clusters for me.

For example, there has been debate for decades about whether or not Moses Estes of South Carolina was descended from Abraham Estes, the immigrant, and if so, through which son.

Based on the Big Y-700 test (the Big Y-500 did not reveal this) and clustering, we know assuredly that Moses Estes of SC:

  • Descended from the Kent line
  • Descended from Abraham who has mutation R-BY490
  • Did NOT descend from Abraham’s son Moses whose descendants have mutation R-ZS3700

I’ve been keeping this project spreadsheet for years now. It’s wonderful to be able to see a genetic tree visualization. The Big Y men are blocked in red.

I’m hopeful that the balance of the men who have NOT yet taken the Big Y-700 will upgrade now because there’s so much more to learn. This is especially true for men who reach a brick wall prior to Abraham. The Big Y-700 test, perhaps combined with STRs, will place them in a lineage.

I’m sure that we would discover new haplogroups among Abraham’s descendants if they would all upgrade. There are more men who have not tested at the Big Y level than those that have.

Display Options

Under display options, you can add Ancient or Notable connections, remove confidence bars, and adjust the tree height.

Discoveries for Administrators

As a project administrator, one thing I discovered is that I might want to regroup within some of my projects to take full advantage of the color coding on the Group Time Tree. If you are a project administrator, you may want to ponder the same.

I also discovered that when I clicked on Country Map, I did not have Project Statistics enabled.

If you make project configuration changes, this report will only be updated weekly, so it’s not immediate.

The country map shows the distribution of all the countries within the project, not specific groups within projects

You can view Country Maps in either map or table format, but remember that if the project is a surname project and includes autosomal testers, the map view will not be representative of the surname itself. This view shows all groups.

Viewing Another Group Project

To view a different group project, simply enter that project name in the search box. For now, this is how you’ll be able to view group projects until this tool is fully rolled out.

I entered the surname “Speak” and was presented with these options.

Obviously, the surname Speak or a variation is found in these projects. Just click to view.

Your Turn

If you have not yet taken or upgraded to the Big Y-700 test, now’s the time. Order or upgrade, here.

If you have already taken the Big Y-700 test, or want to view a project, click on this link, and search for your project of choice.

Have fun!!!

_____________________________________________________________

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 Theme is “Uniting” – Registration is Open – Free Pass Giveaway

The RootsTech theme for this year is “Uniting,” and RootsTech registration is now open. The dates this year are March 2-4 in Salt Lake City, but of course you could always arrive early or stay late and visit the Family History Library for some intensive genealogy therapy – ummm – I mean research.

That’s what I’m hoping to do.

FamilySearch has combined the super-successful virtual RootsTech format of 2021 and 2022 with the tried and true in-person conference loved by so many.

I don’t know about you, but I was extremely grateful for virtual RootsTech in 2021 and 2022, but I’m also VERY MUCH looking forward to gathering with my genea-friends and family again.

I’m glad to see this hybrid event because it makes RootsTech more widely available to a larger audience.

You can read about RootsTech 2023 in the press release here.

Classes

Classes and speakers will be announced shortly, but we know there are over 200 sessions that will be available for free, virtually. That means you could watch one a day, everyday, from the beginning of RootsTech through the middle of September. Sounds like genealogy-Heaven to me.

Classes will be announced soon, but let me give you a sneak-peek about my classes.

  • Big Y for the Win – When, where and how to use the BIG Y test to unravel or at least make sense of your genealogy.
  • DNA for Native American Genealogy – 10 Ways to Find Your Native American Ancestor (even if they don’t show up in your ethnicity.)
  • DNA Journey – Follow Your Ancestor’s Path – Let your ancestor’s DNA guide you home. Literally! Y-DNA, mitochondrial and autosomal DNA all play roles in this journey.

In addition, I’m finalizing multiple sessions in two different vendors’ booths. More about this as it firms up.

Book Signing

I’m also attempting to organize a book-signing for my book, DNA for Native American Genealogy.

More on this later too.

Registration

The in-person pass is $98 for three full days, but the Expo Hall is open and free for everyone during that time.

In addition to the virtual classes, there will be about 210 in-person classes as well. According to the RootsTech team, there will be 16 classes taking place simultaneously, with 2 or 3 being live-streamed.

There will be 5 blocks of session-time on Thursday and Friday, and 4 blocks on Saturday. Each of those blocks will have 16 class slots available, so you’re sure to find something you’ll enjoy. Of course, many of the vendors host mini-sessions in their booths too, so there’s a lot going on and educational opportunities everyplace you look.

You can view registration details, here.

Free Pass Giveaway

I’m giving one free three-day pass to a lucky blog reader. Of course, you’ll need to get yourself there and such, but a $98 value is nothing to sneeze at.

Already purchased your pass? Don’t despair. If you win and you’ve already purchased a pass, just let me know and RootsTech will reimburse you.

How Do You Enter?

Just make a comment on this article – something about an ancestor. Maybe the Uniting theme. To prevent dustups, please DO NOT make any type of political comment, nor include a link, nor reference a vendor.

On January 25th, I will literally pull a name out of some type of old-fashioned “hat” and notify the winner by email. The winner will need to provide their registration information to RootsTech.

How fun is this!

Ok, for those who would like to attend RootsTech in person: ready – set – go.

Tell me something interesting about one of your ancestors in the comments.

_____________________________________________________________

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