New Native American Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups

Posted on March 2, 2017 by Roberta Estes

111

At the November 2016 Family Tree DNA International Conference on Genetic Genealogy, I was invited to give a presentation about my Native American research findings utilizing the Genographic Project data base in addition to other resources. I was very pleased to be offered the opportunity, especially given that the 2016 conference marked the one year anniversary of the Genographic Project Affiliate Researcher program.

The results of this collaborative research effort have produced an amazing number of newly identified Native American mitochondrial haplogroups. Previously, 145 Native American mitochondrial haplogroups had been identified. This research project increased that number by 79% added another 114 haplogroups, raising the total to 259 Native American haplogroups.

Guilt by Genetic Association

Bennett Greenspan, President of Family Tree DNA, gave a presentation several years ago wherein he described genetic genealogy as “guilt by genetic association.” This description of genetic genealogy is one of the best I have ever heard, especially as it pertains to the identification of ancestral populations by Y and mitochondrial DNA.

As DNA testing has become more mainstream, many people want to see if they have Native ancestry. While autosomal DNA can only measure back in time relative to ethnicity reliably about 5 or 6 generations, Y and mitochondrial DNA due to their unique inheritance paths and the fact that they do not mix with the other parent’s DNA can peer directly back in time thousands of years.

Native American Mitochondrial DNA

Native American mitochondrial DNA consists of five base haplogroups, A, B, C, D and X. Within those five major haplogroups are found many Native as well as non-Native sub-haplogroups. Over the last 15 years, researchers have been documenting haplogroups found within the Native community although progress has been slow for various reasons, including but not limited to the lack of participants with proven Native heritage on the relevant matrilineal genealogical line.

In the paper, “Large scale mitochondrial sequencing in Mexican Americans suggests a reappraisal of Native American origins,” published in 2011, Kumar et al state the following:

For mtDNA variation, some studies have measured Native American, European and African contributions to Mexican and Mexican American populations, revealing 85 to 90% of mtDNA lineages are of Native American origin, with the remainder having European (5-7%) or African ancestry (3-5%). Thus the observed frequency of Native American mtDNA in Mexican/Mexican Americans is higher than was expected on the basis of autosomal estimates of Native American admixture for these populations i.e. ~ 30-46%. The difference is indicative of directional mating involving preferentially immigrant men and Native American women.

The actual Native mtDNA rate in their study of 384 completely sequenced Mexican genomes was 83.3% with 3.1% being African and 13.6% European.

This means that Mexican Americans and those south of the US in Mesoamerica provide a virtually untapped resource for Native American mitochondrial DNA.

The Genographic Project Affiliate Researcher Program

At the Family Tree DNA International Conference in November 2015, Dr. Miguel Vilar announced that the Genographic Project data base would be made available for qualified affiliate researchers outside of academia. There is, of course, an application process and aspiring affiliate researchers are required to submit a research project plan for consideration.

I don’t know if I was the first applicant, but if not, I was certainly one of the first because I wasted absolutely no time in submitting my application. In fact, my proposal likely arrived in Washington DC before Dr. Vilar did!

One of my original personal goals for genetic genealogy was to identify my Native American ancestors. It didn’t take long before I realized that one of the aspects of genetic genealogy where we desperately needed additional research was relative to Native people, specifically within Native language groups or tribes and from individuals who unquestionably know their ancestry and can document that their direct Y or mtDNA ancestors were Native.

Additionally, we needed DNA from pre-European-contact burials to ascertain whether haplogroups found in Europe and Africa were introduced into the Native population post-contact or existed within the Native population as a result of a previously unknown/undocumented contact. Some of both of these types of research has occurred, but not enough.

Slowly, over the years, additional sub-haplogroups have been added for both the Y and mitochondrial Native DNA. In 2007, Tamm et al published the first comprehensive paper providing an overview of the migration pathways and haplogroups in their landmark paper, “Beringian Standstill and the Spread of Native American Founders.” Other research papers have added to that baseline over the years.

“Beringian Standstill and the Spread of Native American Founders” by Tamm et al

In essence, whether you are an advocate of one migration or multiple migration waves, the dates of 10,000 to 25,000 years ago are a safe range for migration from Asia, across the then-present land-mass, Beringia, into the Americas. Recently another alternative suggesting that the migration may have occurred by water, in multiple waves, following coastlines, has been proposed as well – but following the same basic pathway. It makes little difference whether the transportation method was foot or kayak, or both, or one or more migration events. Our interest lies in identifying which haplogroups arrived with the Asians who became the indigenous people of the Americas.

Haplogroups

To date, proven base Native haplogroups are:

Y DNA:

Mitochondrial DNA

Given that the Native, First Nations or aboriginal people, by whatever name you call them, descended from Asia, across the Beringian land bridge sometime between roughly 10,000 and 25,000 years ago, depending on which academic model you choose to embrace, none of the base haplogroups shown above are entirely Native. Only portions, meaning specific subgroups, are known to be Native, while other subgroups are Asian and often European as well. The descendants of the base haplogroups, all born in Asia, expanded North, South, East and West across the globe. Therefore, today, it’s imperative to test mitochondrial DNA to the full sequence level and undergo SNP testing for Y DNA to determine subgroups in order to be able to determine with certainty if your Y or mtDNA ancestor was Native.

And herein lies the rub.

Certainty is relative, pardon the pun.

We know unquestionably that some haplogroups, as defined by Y SNPs and mtDNA full sequence testing, ARE Native, and we know that some haplogroups have never (to date) been found in a Native population, but there are other haplogroup subgroups that are ambiguous and are either found in both Asia/Europe and the Americas, or their origin is uncertain. One by one, as more people test and we obtain additional data, we solve these mysteries.

Let’s look at a recent example.

Haplogroup X2b4

Haplogroup X2b4 was found in the descendants of Radegonde Lambert, an Acadian woman born sometime in the 1620s and found in Acadia (present day Nova Scotia) married to Jean Blanchard as an adult. It was widely believed that she was the daughter of Jean Lambert and his Native wife. However, some years later, a conflicting record arose in which the husband of Radegonde’s great-granddaughter gave a deposition in which he stated that Radegonde came from France with her husband.

Which scenario was true? For years, no one else tested with haplogroup X2b4 that had any information as to the genesis of their ancestors, although several participants tested who descended from Radegonde.

Finally, in 2016, we were able to solve this mystery once and for all. I had formed the X2b4 project with Marie Rundquist and Tom Glad, hoping to attract people with haplogroup X2b4. Two pivotal events happened.

Additional people tested at Family Tree DNA and joined the X2b4 project.
Genographic Project records became available to me as an affiliate researcher.

At Family Tree DNA, we found other occurrences of X2b4 in:

The Czech Republic
Devon in the UK
Birmingham in the UK

Was it possible that X2b4 could be both European and Native, meaning that some descendants had migrated east and crossed the Beringia land bridge, and some has migrated westward into Europe?

Dr. Doron Behar in the supplement to his publication, “A Copernican” Reassessment of the Human Mitochondrial DNA Tree from its Root” provides the creation dates for haplogroup X through X2b4 as follows:

These dates would read 31,718 years ago plus or minus 11,709 (eliminating the numbers after the decimal point) which would give us a range for the birth of haplogroup X from 43,427 years ago to 20,009 years ago, with 31,718 being the most likely date.

Given that X2b4 was “born” between 2,992 and 8,186 years ago, the answer has to be no, X2b4 cannot be found both in the Native population and European population since at the oldest date, 8,100 years ago, the Native people had already been in the Americas between 2,000 and 18,000 years.

Of course, all kinds of speculation could be (and has been) offered, about Native people being taken to Europe, although that speculation is a tad bit difficult to rationalize in the Czech Republic.

The next logical question is if there are documented instances of X2b4 in the Native population in the Americas?

I turned to the Genographic Project where I found no instances of X2b4 in the Native population and the following instances of X2b4 in Europe.

Ireland
Czech
Serbia
Germany (6)
France (2)
Denmark
Switzerland
Russia
Warsaw, Poland
Norway
Romania
England (2)
Slovakia
Scotland (2)

The conclusion relative to X2b4 is clearly that X2b4 is European, and not aboriginally Native.

The Genographic Project Data Base

As a researcher, I was absolutely thrilled to have access to another 700,000+ results, over 475,000 of which are mitochondrial.

The Genographic Project tests people whose identity remains anonymous. One of the benefits to researchers is that individuals in the public participation portion of the project can contribute their own information anonymously for research by answering a series of questions.

I was very pleased to see that one of the questions asked is the location of the birth of the participant’s most distant matrilineal ancestor.

Tabulation and analysis should be a piece of cake, right? Just look at that “most distant ancestor” response, or better yet, utilize the Genographic data base search features, sort, count, and there you go…

Well, guess again, because one trait that is universal, apparently, between people is that they don’t follow instructions well, if at all.

The Genographic Project, whether by design or happy accident, has safeguards built in, to some extent, because they ask respondents for the same or similar information in a number of ways. In any case, this technique provides researchers multiple opportunities to either obtain the answer directly or to put 2+2 together in order to obtain the answer indirectly.

Individuals are identified in the data base by an assigned numeric ID. Fields that provide information that could be relevant to ascertaining mitochondrial ethnicity and ancestral location are:

I utilized these fields in reverse order, giving preference to the earliest maternal ancestor (green) fields first, then maternal grandmother (teal), then mother (yellow), then the tester’s place of birth (grey) supplemented by their location, language and ethnicity if applicable.

Since I was looking for very specific information, such as information that would tell me directly or suggest that the participant was or could be Native, versus someone who very clearly wasn’t, this approach was quite useful.

It also allowed me to compare answers to make sure they made sense. In some cases, people obviously confused answers or didn’t understand the questions, because the three earliest ancestor answers cannot contain information that directly contradict each other. For example, the earliest ancestor place of birth cannot be Ireland and the language be German and the ethnicity be Cherokee. In situations like this, I omitted the entire record from the results because there was no reliable way to resolve the conflicting information.

In other cases, it was obvious that if the maternal grandmother and mother and tester were all born in China, that their earliest maternal ancestor was not very likely to be Native American, so I counted that answer as “China” even though the respondent did not directly answer the earliest maternal ancestor questions.

Unfortunately, that means that every response had to be individually evaluated and tabulated. There was no sort and go! The analysis took several weeks in the fall of 2016.

By Haplogroup – Master and Summary Tables

For each sub-haplogroup, I compiled, minimally, the following information shown as an example for haplogroup A with no subgroup:

The “Previously Proven Native” link is to my article titled Native American Mitochondrial Haplogroups where I maintain an updated list of haplogroups proven or suspected Native, along with the source(s), generally academic papers, for that information.

In some cases, to resolve ambiguity if any remained, I also referenced Phylotree, mtDNA Community and/or GenBank.

For each haplogroup or subgroup within haplogroup, I evaluated and listed the locations for the Genographic “earliest maternal ancestor place of birth” locations, but in the case of the haplogroup A example above, with 4198 responses, the results did not fit into the field so I added the information as supplemental.

By analyzing this information after completing a master tablet for each major haplogroup and subgroups, meaning A, B, C, D and X, I created summary tables provided in the haplogroup sections in this paper.

Family Tree DNA Projects

Another source of haplogroup information is the various mitochondrial DNA projects at Family Tree DNA.

Each project is managed differently, by volunteers, and displays or includes different information publicly. While different information displayed and lack of standardization does present challenges, there is still valuable information available from the public webpages for each mitochondrial haplogroup referenced.

Challenges

The first challenge is haplogroup naming. For those “old enough” to remember when Y DNA haplogroups used to be called by names such as R1b1c and then R1b1a2, as opposed to the current R-M269 – mitochondrial DNA is having the same issue. In other words, when a new branch needs to be added to the tree, or an entire branch needs to be moved someplace else, the haplogroup names can and do change.

In October and November 2016 when I extracted Genographic project data, Family Tree DNA was on Phylotree version 14 and the Genographic Project was on version 16. The information provided in various academic papers often references earlier versions of the phylotree, and the papers seldom indicate which phylotree version they are using. Phylotree is the official name for the mitochondrial DNA haplogroup tree.

Generally, between Phylotree versions, the haplogroup versions, meaning names, such as A1a, remain fairly consistent and the majority of the changes are refinements in haplogroup names where subgroups are added and all or part of A1a becomes A1a1 or A1a2, for example. However, that’s not always true. When new versions are released, some haplogroup names remain entirely unchanged (A1a), some people fall into updated haplogroups as in the example above, and some find themselves in entirely different haplogroups, generally within the same main haplogroup. For example, in Phylotree version 17, all of haplogroup A4 is obsoleted, renamed and shifted elsewhere in the haplogroup A tree.

The good news is that both Family Tree DNA and the Genographic project plan to update to Phylotree V17 in 2017. After that occurs, I plan to “equalize” the results, hopefully “upgrading” the information from academic papers to current haplogroup terminology as well if the authors provided us with the information as to the haplogroup defining mutations that they utilized at publication along with the entire list of sample mutations.

A second challenge is that not all haplogroup projects are created equal. In fact, some are entirely closed to the public, although I have no idea why a haplogroup project would be closed. Other projects show only the map. Some show surnames but not the oldest ancestor or location. There was no consistency between projects, so the project information is clearly incomplete, although I utilized both the public project pages and maps together to compile as much information as possible.

A third challenge is that not every participant enters their most distant ancestor (correctly) nor their ancestral location, which reduces the relevance of results, whether inside of projects, meaning matches to individual testers, or outside of projects.

A fourth challenge is that not every participant enables public project sharing nor do they allow the project administrators to view their coding region results, which makes participant classification within projects difficult and often impossible.

A fifth challenge is that in Family Tree DNA mitochondrial projects, not everyone has tested to the full sequence level, so some people who are noted as base haplogroup “A,” for example, would have a more fully defined haplogroup is they tested further. On the other hand, for some people, haplogroup A is their complete haplogroup designation, so not all designations of haplogroup A are created equal.

A sixth challenge is that in the Genographic Project, everyone has been tested via probes, meaning that haplogroup defining mutation locations are tested to determine full haplogroups, but not all mitochondrial locations are not tested. This removes the possibility of defining additional haplogroups by grouping participants by common mutations outside of haplogroup defining mutations.

A seventh challenge is that some resources for mitochondrial DNA list haplogroup mutations utilizing the CRS (Cambridge Reference Sequence) model and some utilize the RSRS (Reconstructed Sapiens Reference Sequence) model, meaning that the information needs to be converted to be useful.

Resources

Let’s look at the resources available for each resource type utilized to gather information.

The table above summarizes the differences between the various sources of information regarding mitochondrial haplogroups.

Before we look at each Native American haplogroup, let’s look at common myths, family stories and what constitutes proof of Native ancestry.

Family Stories

In the US, especially in families with roots in Appalachia, many families have the “Cherokee” or “Indian Princess” story. The oral history is often that “grandma” was an “Indian princess” and most often, Cherokee as well. That was universally the story in my family, and although it wasn’t grandma, it was great-grandma and every single line of the family carried this same story. The trouble was, it proved to be untrue.

Not only did the mitochondrial DNA disprove this story, the genealogy also disproved it, once I stopped looking frantically for any hint of this family line on the Cherokee rolls and started following where the genealogy research indicated. Now, of course this isn’t to say there is no Native IN that line, but it is to say that great-grandma’s direct matrilineal (mitochondrial) line is NOT Native as the family story suggests. Of course family stories can be misconstrued, mis-repeated and embellished, intentionally or otherwise with retelling.

Family stories and myths are often cherished, having been handed down for generations, and die hard.

In fact, today, some unscrupulous individuals attempt to utilize the family myths of those who “self-identify” their ancestor as “Cherokee” and present the myths and resulting non-Native DNA haplogrouip results as evidence that European and African haplogroups are Native American. Utilizing this methodology, they confirm, of course, that everyone with a myth and a European/African haplogroup is really Native after all!

As the project administrator of several projects including the American Indian and Cherokee projects, I can tell you that I have yet to find anyone who has a documented, as in proven lineage, to a Native tribe on a matrilineal line that does not have a Native American haplogroup. However, it’s going to happen one day, because adoptions of females into tribes did occur, and those adopted females were considered to be full tribal members. In this circumstance, your ancestor would be considered a tribal member, even if their DNA was not Native.

Given the Native tribal adoption culture, tribal membership of an individual who has a non-Native haplogroup would not be proof that the haplogroup itself was aboriginally Native – meaning came from Asia with the other Native people and not from Europe or Africa with post-Columbus contact. However, documenting tribal membership and generational connectivity via proven documentation for every generation between that tribally enrolled ancestor and the tester would be a first step in consideration of other haplogroups as potentially Native.

In Canada, the typical story is French-Canadian or metis, although that’s often not a myth and can often be proven true. We rely on the mtDNA in conjunction with other records to indicate whether or not the direct matrilineal ancestor was French/European or aboriginal Canadian.

In Mexico, the Caribbean and points south, “Spain” in the prevalent family story, probably because the surnames are predominantly Spanish, even when the mtDNA very clearly says “Native.” Many family legends also include the Canary Islands, a stopping point in the journey from Europe to the Caribbean.

Cultural Pressures

It’s worth noting that culturally there were benefits in the US to being Native (as opposed to mixed blood African) and sometimes as opposed to entirely white. Specifically, the Native people received head-right land payments in the 1890s and early 1900s if they could prove tribal descent by blood. Tribal lands, specifically those in Oklahoma owned by the 5 Civilized Tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole) which had been previously held by the tribe were to be divided and allotted to individual tribal members and could then be sold. Suddenly, many families “remembered” that they were of Native descent, whether they were or not.

Culturally and socially, there may have been benefits to being Spanish over Native in some areas as well.

It’s also easy to see how one could assume that Spain was the genesis of the family if Spanish was the spoken language – so care had to be exercised when interpreting some Genographic answers. Chinese can be interpreted to mean “China” or at least Asia, meaning, in this case, “not Native,” but Spanish in Mexico or south of the US cannot be interpreted to mean Spain without other correlating information.

Language does not (always) equal origins. Speaking English does not mean your ancestors came from England, speaking Spanish does not mean your ancestors came from Spain and speaking French does not mean your ancestors came from France.

However, if your ancestors lived in a country where the predominant language was English, Spanish or French, and your ancestor lived in a location with other Native people and spoke a Native language or dialect, that’s a very compelling piece of evidence – especially in conjunction with a Native DNA haplogroup.

What Constitutes Proof?

What academic papers use as “proof” of Native ancestry varies widely. In many cases, the researchers don’t make a case for what they use as proof, they simply state that they had one instance of A2x from Mexico, for example. In other cases, they include tribal information, if known. When stated in the papers, I’ve included that information on the Native American Mitochondrial Haplogroups page.

Methodology

I have adopted a similar methodology, tempered by the “guilt by genetic association” guideline, keeping in mind that both FTDNA projects and Genographic project public participants all provide their own genealogy and self-identify. In other words, no researcher traveled to Guatemala and took a cheek swab or blood sample. The academic samples and samples taken by the Genographic Project in the field are not included in the Genographic public data base available to researchers.

However, if the participant and their ancestors noted were all born in Guatemala, there is no reason to doubt that their ancestors were also found in the Guatemala region.

Unfortunately, not everything was that straightforward.

Examples:

If there were multiple data base results as subsets of base haplogroups previously known to be Native from Mexico and none from anyplace else in the world, I’m comfortable calling the results “Native.”

If there are 3 results from Mexico, and 10 from Europe, especially if the European results are NOT from Spain or Portugal, I’m NOT comfortable identifying that haplogroup as Native. I would identify it as European so long as the oldest date in the date ranges identifying when the haplogroup was born is AFTER the youngest migration date. For example, if the haplogroup was born 5,000 years ago and the last known Beringia migration date is 10,000 years ago, people with the same haplogroup cannot be found both in Europe and the Americas indigenously. If the haplogroup birth date is 20,000 years ago and the migration date is 10,000 years ago, clearly the haplogroup CAN potentially be found on both continents as indigenous.
In some cases, we have the reverse situation where the majority of results are from south of the US border, but one or two claim Spanish or Portuguese ancestry, which I suspect is incorrect. In this case, I will call the results Native so long as there are a significant number of results that do NOT claim Spanish or Portuguese ancestry AND none of the actual testers were born in Spain or Portugal.
In a few cases, the FTDNA project and/or Genographic data refute or at least challenge previous data from academic papers. Future information may do the same with this information today, especially where the data sample is small.

Because of ambiguity, in the master data table (not provided in this paper) for each base haplogroup, I have listed every one of the sub-haplogroups and all the locations for the oldest ancestors, plus any other information provided when relevant in the actual extracted data.

When in doubt, I have NOT counted a result as Native. When the data itself is questionable or unreliable, I removed the result from the data and count entirely.

I intentionally included all of the information, Native and non-Native, in my master extracted data tables so that others can judge for themselves, although I am only providing summary tables here. Detailed information will be provided in a series of articles or in an academic paper after both the Family Tree DNA data base and the Genographic data base are upgraded to Phylotree V17.

The Haplogroup Summary Table

The summary table format used for each haplogroup includes the following columns and labels:

Hap = Haplogroup as listed at Family Tree DNA, in academic papers and in the Genographic project.
Previous Academic Proven = Previously proven or cited as Native American, generally in Academic papers. A list of these haplogroups and papers is provided in the article, Native American Mitochondrial Haplogroups.
Academic Confirmed = Academic paper haplogroup assignments confirmed by the Genographic Project and/or Family Tree DNA Projects.
Previous Suspected = Not academically proven or cited at Native, but suspected through any number of sources. The reasons each haplogroup is suspected is also noted in the article, Native American Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups.
Suspected Confirmed = Suspected Native haplogroups confirmed as Native.
FTDNA Project Proven = Mitochondrial haplogroup proven or confirmed through FTDNA project(s).
Geno Confirmed = Mitochondrial haplogroup proven or confirmed through the Genographic Project data base.

Color Legend:

Additional Information:

Possibly, probably or uncertain indicates that the data is not clear on whether the haplogroup is Native and additional results are needed before a definitive assignment is made.
No data means that there was no data for this haplogroup through this source.
Hap not listed means that the original haplogroup is not listed in the Genographic data base indicating the original haplogroup has been obsoleted and the haplogroup has been renamed.

The following table shows only the A haplogroups that have now been proven Native, omitting haplogroups proven not to be Native through this process, although the original master data table (not included here) includes all information extracted including for haplogroups that are not Native. Summary tables show only Native or potentially Native results.

Let’s look at the summary results grouped by major haplogroup.

Haplogroup A

Haplogroup A is the largest Native American haplogroup.

More than 43% of the individuals who carry Native American mitochondrial DNA fall into a subgroup of A.

Like the other Native American haplogroups, the base haplogroup was formed in Asia.

Family Tree DNA individual participant pages provide participants with both a Haplogroup Frequency Map, shown above, and a Haplogroup Migration Map, shown below.

The Genographic project provides heat maps showing the distribution of major haplogroups on a continental level. You can see that, according to this heat map from when the Genographic Project was created, the majority of haplogroup A is found in the northern portion of the Americas.

Additionally, the Genographic Project data base also provides a nice tree structure for each haplogroup, beginning with Mitochondrial Eve, in Africa, noted as the root, and progressing to the current day haplogroups.

Haplogroup A Projects

I enjoy the added benefit of being one of the administrators, along with Marie Rundquist, of the haplogroup A project at Family Tree DNA, as well as the A10, A2 and A4 projects. However, in this paper, I only included information available on the projects’ public pages and not information participants sent to the administrators privately.

The Haplogroup A Project at Family Tree DNA is a public project, meaning available for anyone with haplogroup A to join, and fully publicly viewable with the exception of the participant’s surname, since that is meaningless when the surname traditionally changes with every generation. However, both the results, complete with the Maternal Ancestor Name, and the map, are visible. HVR1 and HVR2 results are displayed, but coding region results are never available to be shown in projects, by design.

The map below shows all participants for the entire project who have entered a geographic location. The three markers in the Middle East appear to be mis-located, a result of erroneous user geographic location input. The geographic locations are selected by participants indicating the location of their most distant mitochondrial ancestor. All 3 are Spanish surnames and one is supposed to be in Mexico. Please disregard those 3 Middle Eastern pins on the map below.

Haplogroup A Summary Table

The subgroups of haplogroup A and the resulting summary data are shown in the table below.

Total haplogroups Native – 75
Total haplogroups uncertain – 1
Total haplogroups probable – 1
Total new Native haplogroups – 38, 1 probable.
Total new Native haplogroups proven by FTDNA Projects – 9, 1 possibly
Total new Native haplogroups proven by Genographic Project – 35, 1 probable

Haplogroup B

Haplogroup B is the second largest Native American haplogroup, with 23.53% of Native participants falling into this haplogroup.

The Genographic project provides the following heat map for haplogroup B4, which includes B2, the primary Native subgroup.

The haplogroup B tree looks like this:

B4 and B5 are main branches.

You will note below that B2 falls underneath B4b.

Haplogroup B Projects

At Family Tree DNA, there is no haplogroup B project, but there is a haplogroup B2 project, which is where the majority of the Native results fall. Haplogroup B Project administrators have included a full project display, along with a map. All of the project participants are shown on the map below.

Please note that the pins colored other than violet (haplogroup B) should not be shown in this project. Only haplogroup B pins are violet.

Haplogroup B Summary Table

Total haplogroups Native – 63
Total haplogroups refuted – 1
Total new Native haplogroups – 43
Total new Native haplogroups proven by Family Tree DNA projects – 12
Total new Native haplogroups proven by Genographic Project – 41

Haplogroup C

Haplogroup C is the third largest Native haplogroup with 22.99% of the Native population falling into this haplogroup.

Haplogroup C is primarily found in Asia per the Genographic heat map.

The haplogroup C tree is as follows:

Haplogroup C Project

Unfortunately, at Family Tree DNA, the haplogroup C project has not enabled their project pages, even for project members.

When I first began compiling this data, the Haplogroup C project map was viewable.

Haplogroup C Summary Table

Total haplogroups Native – 61
Total haplogroups refuted – 2
Total haplogroups possible – 1
Total haplogroups probable – 1
Total new Native haplogroups – 8
Total new Native haplogroups proven by Family Tree DNA projects – 6
Total new Native haplogroups proven by Genographic Project – 5, 1 possible, 1 probable

Haplogroup D

Haplogroup D is the 4^th largest, or 2^nd smallest Native haplogroup, depending on your point of view, with 6.38% of Native participants falling into this haplogroup.

Haplogroup D is found throughout Asia, into Europe and throughout the Americas.

Haplogroups D1 and D2 are the two subgroups primarily found in the New World.

The haplogroup D1 heat map is shown above and D2 is shown below.

The Tree for haplogroup D is a subset of M.

Haplogroup D begins as a subhaplogroup of M80..

Haplogroup D Projects

D is publicly viewable, but shows testers last name, no ancestor information and no location, so I utilized maps once again.

Haplogroup D Summary Table

Total haplogroups Native – 50
Total haplogroups possibly both – 3
Total haplogroups uncertain – 2
Total haplogroups probable – 1
Total haplogroups refuted – 3
Total new Native Haplogroups – 25
Total new Native haplogroups proven by Family Tree DNA projects – 2
Total new Native haplogroups proven by Genographic Project – 22, 1 probably

Haplogroup X

Haplogroup X is the smallest of the known Native base haplogroups.

Just over 3% of the Native population falls into haplogroup X.

The heat map for haplogroup X looks very different than haplogroups A-D.

The tree for haplogroup X shows that it too is also a subgroup of M and N.

Haplogroup X Project

At Family Tree DNA, the Haplogroup X project is visible, but with no ancestral locations displayed. I utilized the map, which was visible.

This map of the entire haplogroup X project tells you immediately that the migration route for Native X was not primarily southward, but east. Haplogroup X is found primarily in the US and in the eastern half of Canada.

Haplogroup X Summary Table

Total haplogroups Native – 10
Total haplogroups uncertain, possible or possible both Native and other – 8
Total New Native haplogroups – 0

Haplogroup M

Haplogroup M, a very large, old haplogroup with many subgroups, is not typically considered a Native haplogroup.

The Genographic project shows the following heat map for haplogroup M.

The heat map for haplogroup M includes both North and South America, but according to Dr. Miguel Vilar, Science Manager for the Genographic Project, this is because both haplogroups C and D are subsets of M.

The haplogroup M migration map from the Genographic Project shows haplogroup M expanding across southern Asia.

The tree for haplogroup M, above, is abbreviated, without the various subgroups being expanded.

The M1 and M1a1e haplogroups shown above are discussed in the following section, as is M18b, below.

The Haplogroup M Project

The haplogroup M project at Family Tree DNA shows the worldwide presence of haplogroup M and subgroups.

Native Presence

Haplogroup M was originally reported in two Native burials in the Americas. Dr. Ripan Malhi reported haplogroup M (excluding M7, M8 and M9) from two separate skeletons from the same burial in China Lake, British Columbia, Canada, about 150 miles north of the Washington State border, dating from about 5000 years ago. Both skeletons were sequenced separately in 2007, with identical results and are believed to be related.

While some researchers are suspicious of these findings as being incomplete, a subsequent paper in 2013, Ancient DNA-Analysis of Mid-Holocene Individuals from the Northwest Coast of North America Reveals Different Evolutionary Paths for Mitogenomes, which included Mahli as a co-author states the following:

Two individuals from China Lake, British Columbia, found in the same burial with a radiocarbon date of 4950+/−170 years BP were determined to belong to a form of macrohaplogroup M that has yet to be identified in any extant Native American population [24], [26]. The China Lake study suggests that individuals in the early to mid-Holocene may exhibit mitogenomes that have since gone extinct in a specific geographic region or in all of the Americas.

Haplogroup M Summary Table

One additional source for haplogroup M was found in GenBank noted as M1a1e “USA”, but there were also several Eurasian submissions for M1a1e as well. However, Doron Behar’s dates for M1a1e indicate that the haplogroup was born about 9,813 years ago, plus or minus 4,022 years, giving it a range of 5,971 to 13,835 years ago, meaning that M1a1e could reasonably be found in both Asia and the Americas. There were no Genographic results for M1a1e. At this point, M1a1e cannot be classified as Native, but remains on the radar.

Hapologroup M1 was founded 23,679 years ago +-4377 years. It is found in the Genographic Project in Cuba, Venezuela and is noted as Native in the Midwest US. M1 is also found in Colorado and Missouri in the haplogroup M project at Family Tree DNA, but the individuals did not have full sequence tests nor was additional family information available in the public project.

The following information is from the master data table for haplogroup M potentially Native haplogroups.

Haplogroup M Master Data Table for Potentially Native Haplogroups

The complete master data tables includes all subhaplogroups of M, the partial table below show only the Native haplogroups.

Haplogroup M18b is somewhat different in that two individuals with this haplogroup at Family Tree DNA have no other matches. They both have a proven connection to Native families from interrelated regions in North Carolina.

I initiated communications with both individuals who tested at Family Tree DNA who subsequently provided their genealogical information. Both family histories reach back into the late 1700s, one in the location where the Waccamaw were shown on maps in in the early 1700s, and one near the border of Virginia and NC. One participant is a member of the Waccamaw tribe today. A family migration pattern exists between the NC/VA border region and families to the Waccamaw region as well. An affidavit exists wherein the family of the individual from the NC/VA border region is sworn to be “mixed” but with no negro blood.

In summary:

Haplogroups M and M1 could easily be both Native as well as Asian/European, given the birth age of the haplogroup.
Haplogroup M1a1e needs additional results.
Haplogroup M18b appears to be Native, but could also be found elsewhere given the range of the haplogroup birth age. Additional proven Native results could bolster this evidence.
In addition to the two individuals with ancestors from North Carolina, M18b is also reported in a Sioux individuals with mixed race ethnicity

The Dark Horse Late Arrival – Haplogroup F

I debated whether I should include this information, because it’s tenuous at best.

The American Indian project at Family Tree DNA includes a sample of F1a1 full sequence result whose most distant matrilineal ancestor is found in Mexico.

Haplogroup F is an Asian haplogroup, not found in Europe or in the Americas.

Haplogroup F, according to the Genographic Project, expands across central and southern Asia.

According to Doron Behar, F1a1 was born about 10,863 years ago +- 2990 years, giving it a range of 7,873 – 13,853.

Is this Mexican F1a1 family Native? If not, how did F1a1 arrive in Mexico, and when? F1a1 is not found in either Europe or Africa.

In August, 2015, an article published in Science, Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans by Raghaven et al suggested that a secondary migration occurred from further south in Asia, specifically the Australo-Melanesians, as shown in the diagram below from the paper. If accurate, this East Asian migration originating further south could explain both the haplogroup M and F results.

A second paper, published in Nature in September 2015 titled Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas by Skoglund et al says that South Americans share ancestry with Australasian populations that is not seen in Mesoamericans or North Americans.

The Genographic project has no results for F1a1 outside of Asia.

I have not yet extracted the balance of haplogroup F in the Genographic project to look for other indications of haplogroups that could potentially be Native.

Haplogroup F Project

The haplogroup F project at Family Tree DNA shows no participants in the Americas, but several in Asia, as far south as Indonesia and also into southern Europe and Russia.

Haplogroup F Summary Table

Haplogroup F1a1 deserves additional attention as more people test and additional samples become available.

Native Mitochondrial Haplogroup Summary

Research in partnership with the Genographic Project as well as the publicly available portions of the projects at Family Tree DNA has been very productive. In total, we now have 259 proven Native haplogroups. This research project has identified 114 new Native haplogroups, or 44% of the total known haplogroups being newly discovered within the Genographic Project and the Family Tree DNA projects.

Acknowledgements

National Geographic Society Genographic Project and Dr. Miguel Vilar, Science Manager
Family Tree DNA for providing the projects and support that enables us to further both scientific and genealogical research.
The various haplogroup projects A, A2, A4, A10, B2, C, D, X, M, F and the project administrators of those projects.
Dr. David Pike and Marie Rundquist, my co-administrators for the American Indian project
Dr. Doron Behar for mtDNA Community and his publication, “A Copernican” Reassessment of the Human Mitochondrial DNA Tree from its Root”

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

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 Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Sadowski WWII Scrapbooks Salvaged From Trash Heap, 52 Ancestors #149

Posted on February 26, 2017 by Roberta Estes

In the 2015 Memorial Day article, Frank Sadowski, My Almost Father, I shared the story of the man my mother was engaged to before his untimely death in WWII, killed in action on April 19, 1945.

I thought when I finished that article, and hit the publish button, Frank’s story was complete. After all, Frank was killed 70 years earlier, now almost 72 years ago.

But Frank’s story wasn’t yet over. In fact, in many ways, that was a new beginning.

Chapter 2

Exactly a month later, Frank’s nephew, Curtis, found me in a moment of spontaneous serendipity when on a whim he typed Frank’s name into Google and discovered my article.

A month after that, in July 2015, I met Curtis and his wife, Janet, half way between where we live and gave Curtis the original photos of Frank and Frank’s father, Curtis’s grandfather. The family photos had all disappeared, so Curtis was extremely grateful for those two, shown above and below.

During the visit with Curtis, I also returned Frank’s class ring to the Sadowski family – the ring my mother had cherished her entire life. Certainly not a decision I reached without a lot of soul-searching.

With mother gone, the ring would have faced a lonely dead end in my family, especially after I join mother on the other side. Frank’s ring belonged with the Sadowski’s…in particular…one special person – and I was on a journey to make that happen.

Now this sounds all matter-of-fact, dry and boring today, but let me assure you, it was anything but. In fact, I cried my way across Indiana that hot July day in 2015. Not only was I about to return Frank’s ring, 70 years later, but I was also “driving through my life,” places I hadn’t visited in years. Where Mom last lived, the farm where my brother, John, lived, past the restaurants where we all met and shared meals on Sunday after church. I passed near where Mom and John both died and are buried and drove through the Indiana of both my and Mom’s childhood – past tractors and corn fields, inhaling the smell of Indiana summertime – all of which brought intense memories rushing back. Every landmark brought fresh tears. All of those things, plus the errand I was on combined into a huge emotional swirley to become a bleary-eyed tornado. I certainly didn’t anticipate any of that. I turned on the radio to divert my mind…only to hear songs that reminded me of…yep…mother and life in Indiana.

Word to the wise – never listen to country music if you’re already crying. It doesn’t help a bit, but you can at least cry with the radio blaring and sing along with the sobbing songs.

Emotional avalanche or not, that trip was destined to be.

At Christmas 2015, when Bert, Curtis’s son was home on leave, Frank’s ring went to Bert who is today serving in Kuwait with a medical unit in the Army. That’s when I published the article, Frank’s Ring Goes Home.

When Bert put that ring on his finger, I felt closure. I knew the ring was where Mom and Frank would have both wanted it to be, protecting Bert, with a future in the Sadowski family.

I thought the Sadowski book was closed for sure then, but it wasn’t.

Chapter 3

A week ago, I received another one of those very unexpected messages on my blog. The kind that makes you blink to be sure you’ve seen what you thought you saw. You read it a second and then a third time, then sit in utter shock for a few minutes, trying to decide if it’s for real. The Sadowski’s seem to produce this kind of unexpected phenomenon.

Joan Mikol, who shall forevermore be referred to as “the angel,” was walking her dog a dozen years or so ago, in Chicago, when she spotted some scrapbooks in the trash. It looked like a home was being cleaned out and there were bags and bags of trash waiting for the trash truck, but one of the bags had popped open and scrapbooks were peeking out.

Curious, Joan stopped and took a look. She saw what appeared to be old letters, and then looking closer, noticed that they were from WWII. Joan couldn’t leave them in the trash. Having lost a family member in that war, Joan gathered them up and took them home.

Then, Joan read the letters, one by one. She sobbed. Her husband couldn’t read them.

Joan didn’t quite know what to do with the scrapbooks, so her sister took them to California for 5 or 6 years and for awhile, considered writing a book. She didn’t, and once again, the scrapbooks came back to Illinois. Thankfully!

Joan contacted a museum in Washington DC who was hesitant to accept them and encouraged her to try to find the family. They suggested she type Frank’s name into a search engine – which is exactly what Joan did and found my article. Next, Joan contacted me. You can click to enlarge Joan’s message, below.

As you’ve probably guessed already, in a very kind and loving gesture, Joan returned the scrapbooks to the Sadowski family.

This is both a beautiful and a heartwrenching story, and I’d like to share it with you.

But before this most recent chapter unfolds, let’s step back in time some 70 years and take a look at how the scrapbooks became lost in the first place.

The Aftermath

Frank’s death was devastating for the Sadowski family, a loss they collectively and individually never recovered from. According to Curtis, it was like someone extinguished a flame and the light never came back on.

When Curtis and I were discussing how Frank’s death dramatically affected so many lives, because in an unmistakable way, Frank’s death affected me too – Curtis quite succinctly said, “We’ve all grown up in the shadow of the same man.”

The three Sadowski children were very close in age, with Frank having been born in 1921, Margie in 1922 and Bobbie in 1924.

Frank’s mother, Harriett, dreamed that all 3 of her children would marry and all live in the Sadowski home together, raising their families under one roof. Not only was that not to be, but two of the Sadowski children never had children and the only one to remain at home was Margie who cared for her parents.

After Frank’s death, the Sadowski family tried to rebuild their lives, but their world was clearly divided into two halves, as was my mother’s. Before Frank’s death, and after. Harriett blamed Frank’s father for encouraging Frank to enlist. Harriett didn’t want either of her sons to serve. She had visited a fortune teller before the war who told her that two sons would serve, but only one would come home. Frank’s father probably blamed himself. At one point after Frank’s death, his parents nearly divorced.

Frank’s brother, Edmund Robert Sadowski, known affectionately as Bobbie, was also serving in the military at the time that Frank was killed and experienced what we today know as survivor guilt. Frank’s father, Dr. Frank Sadowski Sr., a general practice physician, begged Bobbie to come home, sending him letters filled with myriad reasons why he, medically, shouldn’t be serving and encouraging him to seek a medical discharge.

Bobbie finished his tour and eventually did come home, much to the relief of his parents and sister, Margaret Rita Sadowski, known as Margie.

Mother met Margie about 1942 or 1943 when they were both dancing with the Dorothy Hild Dancers at the Edgewater Beach Hotel in Chicago, then a swanky upscale lakefront property where featured acts like Bing Crosby performed. The dancers opened for those acts, and when less famous names weren’t on the marquee, their dance programs were the entertainment.

Bobbie came home the war, married in the early 1950s and started a family. Margie never had children, but that wasn’t the life she had planned.

On December 10, 1952, Margie obtained a marriage license and had a civil marriage ceremony, but never the Catholic wedding her husband promised. In fact, before the all-important church wedding could occur, he abandoned Margie and then, when she divorced the cad, the Catholic Church excommunicated her, so Margie lost both, plus her dreams. Margie did not do well with any of this and spent time “hospitalized” out of state as she tried to recover. At that time, this type of medical event was termed a “nervous breakdown” and both the breakdown and the “failed” secret marriage followed by divorce and excommunication were colored by shame and embarrassment, to be hidden away and never discussed, ever.

One of the ways that Margie dealt with the losses in her life was by volunteering at the St. Mary of Nazareth hospital where her father treated patients as a physician.

In 1956 Margie was a featured speaker for the annual luncheon and in 1957, she received a special award for more than 1000 hours of volunteer work through the women’s auxiliary. Looking at the photos above, with Margie at right, you can see that this was truly a dress up and wear gloves social event. Margie was truly a beautiful woman, inside and out.

Despite the fact that Margie, for the most part, never “worked” outside the home, she had a degree from Northwestern University in Chicago. In the 1941 Steinmetz High School Yearbook, she is quoted as saying she wanted to dance professionally and obtain a music degree. Margie accomplished both goals. She played the piano and had a beautiful voice, in addition to dancing. Margie’s photo from the 1941 yearbook is shown below.

Margie lived in the family home, caring for her aging parents and with Frank’s ever present photo. Curtis tells that Frank’s mother placed his photograph dead center on top of the grand piano in the living room and that Frank’s eyes followed you everyplace you went in the room, the silent sentinel watching everything, always, never resting.

On June 18, 1971, Frank’s mother, Harriett died after a long illness.

I’m sure that Margie and her father struggled after Harriett’s death. Harriet had been an invalid for years, and Margie had probably taken over household duties years before. By this time, Margie was just shy of 50 years old and Dr. Frank was 83 and still practicing medicine.

Margie’s life would change dramatically in the not too distant future.

Murder

Just when you think this story couldn’t possibly get any sadder, it does.

Published Dec. 6, 1971, Chicago Tribune

Dr. Sadowski practiced at a time when doctors dispensed their own prescriptions. Furthermore, doctors still made house calls with their infamous black bags – something doctor Sadowski continued to do, often not returning home until 9 or 10 at night after a full day seeing patients in his office. He would then smoke a cigar and have a beer with a raw egg before turning in.

By Sandrine Z – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0

Everyone knew the local doctors, and when the doctor arrived at your house carrying his black bag, the entire neighborhood knew someone was “too sick” to go to the doctor’s office. Often, doctors of that generation made house calls until they retired or died, but the next generation didn’t, of course.

I recall when I was growing up that you never went to a pharmacy – in fact – there weren’t pharmacies. No need. The doctor had everything you needed and you left the doctor’s office with a small while envelope, about 2 by 3 inches, if not smaller, with instructions for how to take the medication written on the outside with the medicine on the inside.

Apparently, others knew that too. According to the family, drug seekers broke into Dr. Sadowski’s office when he was alone completing paperwork, demanded drugs and beat the good doctor when he refused their demands. At 83, Dr. Sadowski, a former wrestler, was no slouch and could still take his sons arm-wrestling. He put up a good fight, but was outnumbered. Did they simply land a lucky punch? We’ll never know, but that beating eventually proved fatal.

Dr. Sadowski didn’t die right away. He lingered for a couple months in the hospital, finally having a stroke that took him. By that point, it was probably a blessing. He was severely injured, more so than the articled indicated. And in case you’re wondering, two men were tried for murder but not convicted. It’s difficult for the prosecution when the victim who is the only one who can positively identify the perpetrators dies. The defense argued, of course, that it wasn’t their clients who beat the doctor, and that the beating didn’t kill the doctor, the stroke did – and that the stroke was unrelated to the beating. That was before the days of DNA evidence, of course. The trial might have an entirely different outcome today.

The family, who attended the trial daily, said that when the judge dismissed the charges he said, “Well, he was an old man anyway.” They found that comment both incredibly inhumane as well as unbelievable.

Published Feb. 7, 1972, Chicago Tribune

During the time that Margie’s father was in the hospital, she met a man named Ray Stehl whose family member was also in the hospital and also died. After Margie’s father died, she married Ray within months. She also inherited the Sadowski family home.

For some reason, the estate auction wasn’t held for another 6 years, in September of 1978. While the property itself was apparently included in the sale, the home was not sold.

The Memory Keeper

It was Margie that lovingly assembled the scrap books.

Each letter was carefully centered and its envelope exactly centered on the facing page or above the letter, if there was space.

I’d wager she read those letters over and over again. Maybe they were her link to sanity, or comfort when she had none other. These scrapbooks were Margie’s way of memorializing Frank’s life.

Frank wrote letters home to his parents and to Margie as well. She kept all of those letters, mounting them in the scrapbook, plus included other family memorabilia like her grandfather’s naturalization papers.

Frank Sr. wrote letters to son Bobbie when he was in the service, and Bobbie brought those letters home. Margie included them in the scrapbooks too.

It’s easy to tell what Margie felt was important by what she included in the scrapbooks.

Frank’s personal effects were never returned after his death, including any letters he had in his possession. It took Frank’s father 4 years of constant fighting to have Frank’s body returned. I can’t help but wonder if the body shipped home was actually Frank’s, but it really doesn’t matter now and it didn’t matter then if it brought the family comfort.

Talk about an open wound. I hope the family had some semblance of closure when they finally buried Frank and had a funeral in 1949.

The family never forgot and never stopped grieving. I don’t believe they ever healed.

In 1973, Margie placed a memorial in the newspaper on Frank’s death date, April 19th – 28 years after he died.

Later that same year, she memorialized her parents’ 54^th wedding anniversary.

And Frank’s birthday in 1974.

Her father in 1975.

Her mother in 1981.

Margie continued to place memorials for Frank and her parents. In a sense, this is the social equivalent of posting to your Facebook page, except newspaper memorials weren’t free and required advance planning and thought.

In 1996, Bobbie passed away, having blessed Frank and Harriett with grandchildren and great-grandchildren, even if they didn’t all live under the same roof as Harriett had once hoped.

Haunting

After Dr. Frank’s 1971 death and their marriage later that year, Margie and Ray lived in the Sadowski home, referred to by the family as “the big house.” By all reports, the house was extremely haunted. The home, originally build in 1896, shown below as it appears today on Google Maps Streetview.

The Sadowski children and grandchildren report that they saw shadowey figures walking up to the attic, heard footsteps on the second floor when no one was there and continually heard voices in the house, just out of earshot. Neighbors reported repeatedly seeing a woman watching them from the sewing room in the tower. That house was anything but peaceful.

Eventually, Margie and Ray couldn’t stand the haunting anymore, purchased a motor home and lived in the back yard. Sometime later, they moved to the home that Ray inherited, about 10 blocks away, but still owned the Sadowski home although it sat fully furnished, just like it always had been, but abandoned in time. It was burglarized in 1972 while Margie and Ray were on an extended honeymoon, and ransacked, taking Margie and her brother Bobbie and his children years to straighten out entirely.

The ironic part of this equation is that Margie took the Sadowski scrapbooks with her to Ray’s house, because where Joan found them in the trash was on North Luna Street in the Jefferson Park area where Ray lived, not in the 2300 block of North Oak Park Avenue where the Sadowski home was located.

Even in her later years, those scrapbooks obviously meant a lot to Margie. I wonder what happened to Frank’s picture on the piano and the other family photos as well.

Margie’s Death

Margie died in April of 2004.

Joan Mikol tells us that she found the scrapbooks in about 2005, so very near Margie’s death.

According to the Social Security Death Index, Ray died on March 31, 2008.

As her husband, Ray inherited all of Margie’s estate. The Sadowski family was not informed of Ray’s death and his family disposed of his possessions and estate however they saw fit. Ray had no children.

So, now you know the rest of the story…how Frank’s letters came to be found on a trash pile some 60 years after his death a few blocks from the family home. I’m betting Margie turned over in her grave. That’s not all that got thrown away. All of the family photos bit the dust too – all of them. All the family had left were memories of those eyes, watching them from the piano.

Frank’s Voice

These scrapbooks give Frank one last chance to speak. His letters give shape and a personality to the man who died 72 years ago. They also give a contemporary voice to other family members, allowing everyone memorialized in the scrapbook to speak from the other side of the grave.

I can’t help but wonder what was in the letters Frank had in his possession when he was killed in Okinawa. You know as a GI he coveted each letter from home, and especially from his girlfriend, my mother.

And since I’m wondering, I wonder what became of the letters that Frank wrote mother. I know she would never have thrown them away. Given that I never saw them, not as a child nor as an adult – nor at her death – I know beyond any doubt that they were either lost or thrown away by someone else – not mother. I’m sure they were extremely personal and probably quite intimate. Aside from professing their deep love for one another, the letters probably discussed their dreams for their future together, their wedding and their eventual family.

I suspect Frank’s letters to mother were disposed of in a fit of jealousy. Mother told me that my father was insanely jealous of Frank, even though Frank was dead and had been a decade before I was born. Maybe the jealousy was so intense because Frank was dead – and died a hero. You cannot compete with a ghost that someone still loves, and I’m sure in many ways no one could or ever did live up to Frank in mother’s eyes.

Mother must have grieved the loss of those letters too. She, like Margie, probably read them repeatedly, seeking any shred of solace. Another part of Frank taken from her, ripped from her very heart.

The Scrapbooks Go Home

On the morning of February 22, 2017, following a sleepless night due to adrenaline and excitement – Curtis drove from southern Illinois and I drove from Michigan on a grey but unseasonably warm winter day. We met Joan at a McDonalds in Portage, Indiana where she gave us the scrapbooks.

Bless Joan for salvaging what little can be recovered of Frank’s all-too-brief life. My mother too, plays a part in those letters – albeit a bit role.

Curtis’s wife, Janet, is going to scan all 4 scrapbooks and share the images. I started to read one letter, written near Christmastime just four months before Frank’s death, and teared up immediately. I stopped, because blubbering for hours in a McDonalds reading scrapbooks is unacceptable – especially times 3 people and 4 scrapbooks. They would have called the men with the white coats and the butterfly nets to come and get us.

Instead, Curtis, Janet and I had a lovely visit, for about 3 hours. I love e-mail, but visiting in person is just so much fun!

Were it not for that bullet, Curtis and I would have been first cousins. We’d be comparing our DNA results. I’d be part Polish and those scrapbooks that include a few early letters from 1917, written in Polish, would have made my heart quicken and skip a beat.

Curtis and I aren’t biologically related, but our families are certainly indelibly entwined, a kinship, for lack of a better word, formed by the same tragic death almost 72 years ago, before either of us was born.

I never knew before these scrapbooks surfaced that Frank was killed on only his 4^th day on that particular medical unit assignment. Frank had previously been ill with malaria and injured his foot with an ax. Oh, that the malaria had been just a little worse or his foot injury had been severe enough to disqualify him from active duty. As a medic, Frank dove, under fire, to rescue an injured soldier, only to be killed himself. I wonder if the other soldier survived, and if so, if he or his family had any idea what Frank sacrificed. Or did those two soldiers die together on the battlefield that day?

The fourth day.

The. Fourth. Day.

And VE Day was just a month away. VJ Day was just 4 months after that. The war was ending. How horribly tragic, in every sense of the word.

Frank came so close to NOT dying. Four days one way, a few seconds perhaps on the battlefield, a few weeks in the other direction and Frank wouldn’t have died. But he did and that bullet irreversibly changed the lives of so many people, snuffing out possibilities in an instant. Giving me a different father a decade later. Making Curtis and I only partners on this bittersweet co-journey and not cousins.

Gratitude

Curtis, Janet and I parted so incredibly grateful for Joan’s generosity and that our reunion was for such a wonderful occasion. A homecoming of the best kind – beyond anything we could ever have imagined in our wildest dreams.

I hope Mom and Frank were watching. Maybe somehow they helped. I can see them smiling and applauding – the young Frank and mother, happy, back in 1944 before Frank left the last time.

After I have an opportunity to read and digest the letters, you’ll be hearing Frank’s voice. I promise you, there will be a Chapter 4 – thanks to Joan and the generosity of the Sadowski family.

Thank you Joan, from the bottom of our hearts. You’ve assuredly earned your halo!

Curtis, Janet and Roberta

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

MyHeritage – Broken Promises and Matching Issues

Posted on February 21, 2017 by Roberta Estes

232

For additional information and updates to parts of this article, written three months later, please see MyHeritage Ethnicity Results. My concerns about imputed matching, discussed in this original article, remain unchanged, but MyHeritage has honored their original ethnicity report promises for uploaders.

As of July 2019, these issues have been resolved.

Original Article below:

My Heritage, now nine months into their DNA foray, so far has proven to be a disappointment. The problems are twofold.

MyHeritage has matching issues, combined with absolutely no tools to be able to work with results. Their product certainly doesn’t seem to be ready for prime time.
Worse yet, MyHeritage has reneged on a promise made to early uploaders that Ethnicity Reports would be free. MyHeritage used the DNA of the early uploaders to build their matching data base, then changed their mind about providing the promised free ethnicity reports.

In May 2016, MyHeritage began encouraging people to upload their DNA kits from other vendors, specifically those who tested at 23andMe, Ancestry and Family Tree DNA and announced that they would provide a free matching service.

Here is what MyHeritage said about ethnicity reports in that announcement:

Initially, I saw no matching benefit to uploading, since I’ve already tested at all 3 vendors and there were no additional possible matches, because everyone that uploaded to MyHeritage would also be in the vendor’s data bases where they had tested, not to mention avid genetic genealogists also upload to GedMatch.

Three months later, in September 2016, when MyHeritage actually began DNA matching, they said this about ethnicity testing:

An “amazing ethnicity report” for free. Ok, I’m sold. I’ll upload so I’m in line for the “amazing ethnicity report.”

Matching Utilizing Imputation

MyHeritage started DNA matching in September, 2016 and frankly, they had a mess, some of which was sorted out by November when they started selling their own DNA tests, but much of which remains today.

MyHeritage facilitates matching between vendors who test on only a small number of overlapping autosomal locations by utilizing a process called imputation. In a nutshell, imputation is the process of an “educated guess” as to what your DNA would look like at locations where you haven’t tested. So, yes, MyHeritage fills in your blanks by estimating what your DNA would look like based on population models.

Here’s what MyHeritage says about imputation.

MyHeritage has created and refined the capability to read the DNA data files that you can export from all main vendors and bring them to the same common ground, a process that is called imputation. Thanks to this capability — which is accomplished with very high accuracy —MyHeritage can, for example, successfully match the DNA of an Ancestry customer (utilizing the recent version 2 chip) with the DNA of a 23andMe customer utilizing 23andMe’s current chip, which is their version 4. We can also match either one of them to any Family Tree DNA customer, or match any customers who have used earlier versions of those chips.

Needless to say, when you’re doing matching to other people – you’re looking for mutations that have occurred in the past few generations, which is after all, what defines genetic cousins. Adding in segments of generic DNA results found in populations is not only incorrect, because it’s not your DNA, it also produces erroneous matches, because it’s not your DNA. Additionally, it can’t report real genealogical mutations in those regions that do match, because it’s not your DNA.

Let’s look at a quick example. Let’s say you and another person are both from a common population, say, Caucasian European. Your values at locations 1-100 are imputed to be all As because you’re a member of the Caucasian European population. The next person, to whom you are NOT related, is also a Caucasian European. Because imputation is being used, their values in locations 1-100 are also imputed to be all As. Voila! A match. Except, it’s not real because it’s based on imputed data.

Selling Their Own DNA Tests

In November, MyHeritage announced that they are selling their own DNA tests and that they were “now out of beta” for DNA matching. The processing lab is Family Tree DNA, so they are testing the same markers, but MyHeritage is providing the analysis and matching. This means that the results you see, as a customer, have nothing in common with the results at Family Tree DNA. The only common factor is the processing lab for the raw DNA data.

Because MyHeritage is a subscription genealogy company that is not America-centric, they have the potential to appeal to testers in Europe that don’t subscribe to Ancestry and perhaps wouldn’t consider DNA testing at all if it wasn’t tied to the company they research through.

Clearly, without the autosomal DNA files of people who uploaded from May to November 2016, MyHeritage would have had no data base to compare their own tests to. Without a matching data base, DNA testing is pointless and useless.

In essence, those of us who uploaded our data files allowed MyHeritage to use our files to build their data base, so they could profitably sell kits with something to compare results to – in exchange for that promised “amazing ethnicity report.” At that time, there was no other draw for uploaders.

We didn’t know, before November, when MyHeritage began selling their own tests, that there would ever be any possibility of matching someone who had not tested at the Big 3. So for early uploaders, the draw wasn’t matching, because that could clearly be done elsewhere, without imputation. The draw was that “amazing ethnicity report” for free.

No Free Ethnicity Reports

In November, when MyHeritage announced that they were selling their own kits, they appeared to be backpedaling on the free ethnicity report for early uploaders and said the following:

Sure enough, today, even for early uploaders who were promised the ethnicity report for free, in order to receive ethnicity estimates, you must purchase a new test. And by the way, I’m a MyHeritage subscriber to the tune of $99.94 in 2016 for a Premium Plus Membership, so it’s not like they aren’t getting anything from me. Irrespective of that, a promise is a promise.

Bait and Renege

When MyHeritage needed our kits to build their data base, they were very accommodating and promised an “amazing ethnicity report” for free. When they actually produced the ethnicity report as part of their product offering, they are requiring those same people whose kits they used to build their data base to purchase a brand new test, from them, for $79.

Frankly, this is unconscionable. It’s not only unethical, their change of direction takes advantage of the good will of the genetic genealogy community. Given that MyHeritage committed to ethnicity reports for transfers, they need to live up to that promise. I guarantee you, had I known the truth, I would never have uploaded my DNA results to allow them to build their data base only to have them rescind that promise after they built that data base. I feel like I’ve been fleeced.

As a basis of comparison, Family Tree DNA, who does NOT make anything off of subscriptions, only charges $19 to unlock ethnicity results for transfers, along with all of their other tools like a chromosome browser which MyHeritage also doesn’t currently have.

Ok, so let’s try to find the silk purse in this sows ear.

So, How’s the Imputed Matching?

I uploaded my Family Tree DNA autosomal file with about 700,000 SNP locations to MyHeritage.

Today, I have a total of 34 matches at MyHeritage, compared to around 2,200 at Family Tree DNA, 1,700 at 23andMe (not all of which share), and thousands at Ancestry. And no, 34 is not a typo. I had 28 matches in December, so matches are being gained at the rate of 3 per month. The MyHeritage data base size is still clearly very small.

MyHeritage has no tree matching and no tools like a chromosome browser today, so I can’t compare actual DNA segments at MyHeritage. There are promises that these types of tools are coming, but based on their track record of promises so far, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

However, I did recognize that my second closest match at MyHeritage is also a match at Ancestry.

My match tested at Ancestry, with about 382,000 common SNPs with a Family Tree DNA test, so MyHeritage would be imputing at least 300,000 SNPs for me – the SNPs that Ancestry tests and Family Tree DNA doesn’t, almost half of the SNPs needed to match to Ancestry files. MyHeritage has to be imputing about that many for my match’s file too, so that we have an equal number of SNPs for comparison. Combined, this would mean that my match and I are comparing 382,000 actual common SNPs that we both tested, and roughly 600,000 SNPs that we did not test and were imputed.

Here’s a rough diagram of how imputation between a Family Tree DNA file and an Ancestry V2 file would work to compare all of the locations in both files to each other.

Please note that for purposes of concept illustration, I have shown all of the common locations, in blue, as contiguous. The common locations are not contiguous, but are scattered across the entire range that each vendor tests.

You can see that the number of imputed locations for matching between two people, shown in tan, is larger than the number of actual matching locations shown in blue. The amount of actual common data being compared is roughly 382,000 of 1,100,000 total locations, or 35%.

Let’s see how the actual matches compare.

Here’s the match at MyHeritage, above, and the same match at Ancestry, below.

In the chart below, you can see the same information at both companies.

Clearly, there’s a significant difference in these results between the same two people at Ancestry and at MyHeritage. Ancestry shows only 13% of the total shared DNA that MyHeritage shows, and only 1 segment as compared to 7.

While I think Ancestry’s Timber strips out too much DNA, there is clearly a HUGE difference in the reported results. I suspect the majority of this issue likely lies with MyHeritage’s imputated DNA data and matching routines.

Regardless of why, and the “why” could be a combination of factors, the matching is not consistent and quite “off.”

Actual match names are used at MyHertiage (unless the user chooses a different display name), and with the exception of MyHeritage’s maddening usage of female married names, it’s easy to search at Family Tree DNA for the same person in your match list. I found three, who, as luck would have it, had also uploaded to GedMatch. Additionally, I also found two at Ancestry. Unfortunately, MyHeritage does not have any download capability, so this is an entirely manual process. Since I only have 34 matches, it’s not overwhelming today.

*We don’t know the matching thresholds at MyHeritage. My smallest cM match at MyHeritage is 12.4 cM. At the other vendors, I have matches equivalent to the actual matching threshold, so I’m guessing that the MyHeritage threshold is someplace near that 12.4. Smaller matches are more plentiful, so I would not expect that it would be under 12cM. Unfortunately, MyHeritage has not provided us with this information. Nor do we know how MyHeritage is counting their total cM, but I suspect it’s total cM over their matching threshold.

For comparison, at Family Tree DNA, I used the chromosome browser default of 5cM and 5cM at GedMatch. This means that if we could truly equalize the matching at 5cM, the MyHeritage totals and number of matching segments might well be higher. Using a 10cM threshold, Family Tree DNA loses Match 3 altogether and GedMatch loses one of the two Match 2 segments.

**I could not find a match for Match 1 at Ancestry, even though based on their kit type uploaded to GedMatch, it’s clear that they tested at Ancestry. Ancestry users often don’t use their name, just their user ID, which may not be readily discernable as their name. It’s also possible that Match 1 is not a match to me at Ancestry.

Summary

Any new vendor is going to have birthing pains. Genetic genealogists who have been around the block a couple of times will give the vendors a lot of space to self-correct, fix bugs, etc.

In the case of MyHeritage, I think their choice to use imputation is hindering accurate matching. Social media is reporting additional matching issues that I have not covered here.

I do understand why MyHeritage chose to utilize imputation as opposed to just matching the subset of common DNA for any two matches from disparate vendors. MyHeritage wanted to be able to provide more matches than just that overlapping subset of data would provide. When matching only half of the DNA, because the vendors don’t test the same locations, you’ll likely only have half the matches. Family Tree DNA now imports both the 23andMe V4 file and the Ancestry V2 file, who test just over half the same locations at Family Tree DNA, and Family Tree DNA provides transfer customers with their closest matches. For more distant or speculative matches, you need to test on the same platform.

However, if MyHeritage provides inaccurate matches due to imputation, that’s the worst possible scenario for everyone and could prove especially detrimental to the adoptee/parent search community.

Companies bear the responsibility to do beta testing in house before releasing a product. Once MyHeritage announced they were out of beta testing, the matching results should be reliable. The genetic genealogy community should not be debugging MyHeritage matching on Facebook. Minimally, testers should be informed that their results and matches should still be considered beta and they are part of an experiment. This isn’t a new feature to an existing product, it’s THE product.

I hope MyHeritage rethinks their approach. In the case of matching actual DNA to determine genealogical genetic relationships, quality is far, far more important than quantity. We absolutely must have accuracy. Triangulation and identifying common ancestors based on common matching segments requires that those matching segments be OUR OWN DNA, and the matches be accurate.

I view the matching issues as technical issues that (still) need to be resolved and have been complicated by the introduction of imputation. However, the broken promise relative to ethnicity reports falls into another category entirely – that of willful deception – a choice, not a mistake or birthing pains. While I’m relatively tolerant of what I perceive to be (hopefully) transient matching issues, I’m not at all tolerant of being lied to, especially not with the intention of exploiting my DNA.

Relative to the “amazing ethnicity reports”, breaking promises, meaning bait and switch or simply bait and renege in this case, is completely unacceptable. This lapse of moral judgement will color the community’s perception of MyHeritage. Taking unfair advantage of people is never a good idea. Under these circumstances, I would never recommend MyHeritage.

I would hope that this is not the way MyHeritage plans to do business in the genetic genealogy arena and that they will see fit to reconsider and do right by the people whose uploaded tests they used as a foundation for their DNA business with a promise of a future “amazing ethnicity report.”

I don’t know if the ethnicity report is actually amazing, because I guarantee you, I won’t be paying $79, or any price, for something that was promised for free. It’s a matter of principle.

If MyHeritage does decide to reconsider, honor their promise and provide ethnicity reports to uploaders, I’ll be glad to share its relative amazingness with you.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Andreas Kirsch (1774-1819) of Fussgoenheim, Bayern, Germany, 52 Ancestors #148

Posted on February 19, 2017 by Roberta Estes

Andreas.

Such a beautiful name. I’ve loved it since I first saw the name as part of our family history, although that first time was in such a sad context.

When researching the Kirsch family in Ripley County, Indiana, I ran across a cemetery listing for the child, Andreas Kirsch, by himself in a long-abandoned cemetery. I wondered to myself, was this child “ours,” and why was he all alone?

The child, Andreas Kirsch, was born right after the immigrants, Philip Jacob Kirsch and Katharina Barbara Lemmert arrived in the US in 1848. Andreas was recorded in the 1850 census with his parents in Ripley County, Indiana, but died in 1851 or so, still a toddler. He is buried in the “Old Lutheran Cemetery” near Milan, the location of a Lutheran Church founded by German immigrants, probably a log cabin, long gone now and remembered by none.

The only reminder is a few old gravestones, including Andreas’ now illegible marker. Andreas is buried alone, with no other family members close by. After the church was abandoned, the family attended church elsewhere, and eventually, the parents died and were buried near Aurora near where their son, Jacob Kirsch, lived.

Andreas was the youngest son of Philip Jacob Kirsch, whose father was an earlier Andreas Kirsch…a man who never left Germany. The younger Andreas was named after his grandfather nearly 30 years after the elder Andreas died.

Andreas married Margaretha Elisabetha Kohler or Koehler sometime before December 1798 when their (probably first) child was born, also in Fussgoenheim. If this isn’t their first child, it’s the first child that we know survived. Unfortunately, the church records don’t appear to be complete.

Equally as unfortunately, there were multiple men named Andreas Kirsch living in Fussgoenheim at the same time, so figuring out who was who was challenging, to say the least. Family records failed me. It was church records that saved me. Fortunately, Germans recorded almost everything in the church records. If you missed a birth, you’d have another opportunity to glean information about the child’s parents when they married, or died, and perhaps at other times as well.

Philip Jacob Kirsch and his wife, Katharine Barbara Lemmert weren’t the only people from the Kirsch family to immigrate to Indiana. Philip Jacob Kirsch’s sister, Anna Margaretha Kirsch married Johann Martin Koehler and the two families immigrated together and settled in Ripley County, Indiana.

Another family who immigrated with the Kirschs, on the same ship, and is found living beside them in Ripley County in the 1850 census is the Andrew (Andreas in German) Weynacht family. The Weynacht’s are also found functioning as Godparents for Kirsch baptisms in Fussgoenheim. I’m not sure how, but the Weynacht family is surely related in one or perhaps several ways. Often children were named for their Godparent, so I wonder if Andreas Weynacht was the Godfather to baby Andreas Kirsch when he was born and christened in the now-forgotten Lutheran church in Ripley County, just weeks after these families arrived from Germany. So perhaps Andreas Kirsch was named after his grandfather with his name given by his godfather as well. At that time, it was the Godparents’ responsibility to raise the child if something happened to the parents. This would have been very important to immigrants to a land where they knew no one nor the language. All they had was their circle of immigrants.

The marriage record from the Fussgoenheim Lutheran Church of Andreas Kirsch’s daughter, Anna Margaretha Kirsch to Johann Martin Koehler in 1821 states that Andreas Kirsch is deceased by this time.

Translated by Elke, a German interpreter and my friend, back in the 1980s, the record says:

Johann Martin Koehler, farmer, single, 24 years 11 months born and residing in Ellerstadt son of Philipp Jacob Koehler son of Peter Koehler farmer in Ellerstadt, present and consenting and his wife who died in Ellerstadt, Maria Katharina Merck and Anna Margaretha Kirsch, single, no profession 17 years 7 months born and residing here daughter of the deceased Andreas Kirsch and his surviving wife Elisabeth Koehler, present and consenting.

Witnesses Ludwig Merck (brother of Maria Katharina, his mother), farmer in Ellerstadt 10 years 6 months old uncle of the groom, Peer Merck, farmer, from here, 43 years old, uncle of the groom (his mother’s other brother) and Johannes Koob, farmer, from here 70 years old, uncle of the bride and Mathias Koob, farmer from here, cousin of the bride.

You might be wondering if Johann Martin Koehler who married Anna Margaretha Kirsch was related to Anna Margaretha’s mother, Margaretha Elisabetha Koehler. Why, as a matter of fact, yes. Johann Martin Koehler’s father was Philip Jacob Koehler, brother of Margaretha Elisabetha Koehler, making Anna Margaretha Kirsch and Johann Martin Koehler first cousins, shown in yellow below.

Are you getting the idea that these families in Mutterstadt were all heavily intermarried?

And because I wasn’t confused enough, the son of Anna Margaretha Kirsch and Johann Martin Koehler Sr., shown above in green as Johann Martin Koehler born in 1829, married his mother’s youngest sister, his aunt, Katharina Barbara Kirsch born in 1833. One of Anna Margaretha Kirsch and Johann Martin Koehler’s other children, Philip Jacob Koehler married Anna Elisabetha Kirsch, but she wasn’t as closely related. These families married and intermarried for generations, using the same names repeatedly, causing massive confusion trying to sort through the families and who belonged to whom.

Noting the relationships mentioned in the 1821 marriage record, if Johannes Koob, age 70, so born about 1751, was Anna Margaretha’s uncle, he had to be either a sibling of one of Anna Margaretha’s parents (Andreas Kirsch or Anna Margaretha Koehler) or the husband of a sibling of one of her parents.

We know that Anna Margaretha (Andreas’ wife) was a Koehler, not a Koob, so Johannes had to be the husband of one of Anna Margaretha’s aunts through either her mother, Margaretha Elisabetha Koehler, or father, Andreas Kirsch.

Checking the church records, I’ve only found 3 of Andreas Kirsch’s siblings. One is female, Maria Catharina Kirsch born Sept. 30, 1772 and I don’t know who she married.

The records shows that Margaetha Elisabetha Koehler had at least 7 sisters. Of those, Anna Elisabeth Koehler born October 3, 1781 married Johann Mathias Koob, born November 9, 1774. This could be one of the Koob men in question, although I don’t have marriages for 5 of the daughters. The Kirsch, Koob and Koehler families intermarried often and for generations.

A second record confirms that Andreas Kirsch married Margaretha Koehler. Philip Jacob Kirsch’s marriage record, shown from the original church record as follows:

It translates as:

Today the 22nd of December 1829 were married and blessed Philipp Jacob Kirsch from Fussgoenheim, the legitimate, unmarried son of the deceased couple, Andreas Kirsch and Margaretha Koehler and Katharina Barbara Lemmerth the legitimate unmarried daughter of the deceased local citizen Jacob Lemmerth and his surviving wife Gertrude Steiger, both of protestant religion.

This tells us that by 1829, both Andreas and his wife, Margaretha had passed away.

This marriage record and translation is further confirmed by this record at FamilySearch.

We know from Anna Margaretha Kirsch’s 1821 marriage record that her father, Andreas had already passed away by that time. We discover his death date through a record from Ancestry.

Ancestry has select deaths and burials, 1582-1958 and Andreas Kirsch’s burial date is listed as May 22, 1819 in Fussgonheim with his wife listed as Margaretha Elisabetha Kohler. That’s now three independent confirmations that Andreas Kirsch’s wife was Margaretha Elisabeth Koehler.

Generally, burials are recorded in the church record, because that’s when the minister was involved. People died a day or two before they were buried.- never longer in the days before refrigeration, at least not unless it was winter.

Why Are These Three Records So Important?

There was a great amount of confusion surrounding who Andreas Kirsch married, and for good reason.

The church records show that the Andreas married to Margaretha Elisabetha Koehler died before 1821. Andreas’ wife’s name is again confirmed by the 1829 marriage record, followed by discovering Andreas’ own 1819 death record.

However, a now deceased cousin and long-time researcher, Irene, showed the couple as Johannes Andreas Kirsch married to Anna Margaretha Koob, not Koehler.

Walter, another cousin, showed Andreas’ wife as Anna Margaretha Koob, his occupation as schmiedemeister – master smithy. Andreas is noted as Johannes II “der Junge” in Walter’s records, so there may be some generational confusion.

As it turns out, Walter wasn’t entirely wrong – but he wasn’t entirely right either. That couple did exist – but the husband wasn’t our Andreas Kirsch.

There was an Anna Margaretha Koob married to a Johannes Kirsch. Their son, Johannes Kirsch married Maria Catharina Koob born in 1802.

Anna Elisabetha Kirsch (1828-1876), daughter of Johannes Kirsch and Maria Catharina Koob (above) married Philip Jacob Koehler (1821-1873), son of Anna Margaretha Kirsch (1804-1888, daughter of our Andreas Kirsch and Margaretha Elisabetha Koehler) and Johann Martin Koehler (1765-1847/8), and moved with the immigrating group to Ripley County, Indiana. It’s no wonder people living more than 100 years later were confused.

Two additional cousins, Joyce from Indiana and Marliese, who still resided in Germany, also showed that Andreas was married to Anna Margaretha Koob, born in 1771 and who died in 1833, instead of to Margaretha Elizabetha Koehler. Marliese indicated that this information was from family records. The family history stated that the Kirsch brothers were married to Koob twin sisters.

The death record of Anna Margaretha Koob shows her husband as Johannes Kirsch Senior, not Andreas Kirsch – but I didn’t have this record yet at that time.

I began to wonder if I was losing my mind and if the original record I had was wrong – or for the wrong person with all of the same name confusion. However, the marriage record for Philip Jacob Kirsch and Katharina Barbara Lemmert clearly said that Andreas Kirsch was his father and Margaretha Elisabetha Koehler was his mother. Philip Jacob and Katharina Barbara are my ancestors, and the Lemmert family was from Mutterstadt, so not heavily intermarried with the Kirsch line – meaning that mistaking this couple for any other couple was a remote possibility. Furthermore, the church records indicate that they and their children all immigrated, and Katherina Barbara’s obituary in Indiana gives her birth location – so it’s unquestionably the same couple. Their 1829 marriage record is very clear, but still, I was doubting.

Mistakes do sometimes happen and at that point, it was 4 researchers who I respected with the same information, against one, me, with one church record. Was the church record somehow wrong? Elke, my friend and interpreter said no, it wasn’t wrong, and dug harder and deeper and searched for more records, eventually finding the second marriage record from 1821 that also indicated Andreas Kirsch’s wife was Margaretha Elisabetha Koehler.

Before additional records surfaced, given these conflicts, I struggled with knowing what to believe. Now, given three different church records that show Andreas as married to Margaretha Elisabetha Koehler, it would take a lot to convince me otherwise. I am so grateful for those German church records.

Of course, the repeated use of the same names make this puzzle even more difficult to unravel. It seems that all women were named either Maria, Katharina, Barbara or Elizabetha, sometimes with a Margaretha thrown in for good measure. Men almost always had the given name of Johann or Johannes and were generally called by their middle name, if they had one, which was the same as many of their cousins of course. You could have shouted “Andreas” or “Johannes” in the middle of the main street in Fussgoenheim, been heard to each end of town, and at least one person would probably have answered from each household.

DNA and Endogamy

To make this confusing situation even more difficult by rendering autosomal DNA useless, these families all resided in the small village of Fussgoenheim and the neighboring village of Ellerstadt, and were likely already very intermarried and had been for 200 years or so by the time our family immigrated. This is the very definition of endogamy.

Not to mention that Germans aren’t terribly enamored with DNA testing for genealogy. Most of the families in Germany feel they don’t need to DNA test because they have been there “forever.” No need to discover where you are “from” because you’re not “from” anyplace else.

One of the challenges in Fussgoenheim is that the church records are incomplete, leaving holes in the history and therefore out knowledge. Limited numbers of families meant little choice in marriage partners. Young people had to live close enough to court, on foot – generally at church, school and at the girl’s parents home. You married your neighbors, who were also your relatives at some level. There was no other choice. Endogamy was the norm.

Y DNA

Autosomal DNA is probably too far removed generationally to be useful, not to mention the endogamy. However, I’d love to find out for sure if a group of Kirsch/Koehler descendants would test. Being an immigrant line, there are few descendants in the US, at least not as compared to lines descending from colonial immigrants in the 1600s.

On the other hand, Y DNA, were we able to obtain the Kirsch Y DNA, would be very useful. Y DNA provides us with a periscope to look back in time hundreds and thousands of years, since the Y chromosome is only inherited by men from their fathers. The Y chromosome is like looking backwards through time to see where your Kirsch ancestor came from, and when, meaning before Fussgoenheim. Yes, there was a “before Fussgoenheim,” believe it or not.

Andreas Kirsch (1774-1819) didn’t have a lot of sons. Only two are confirmed as his sons and had male children.

Johann Adam Kirsch was born on December 5, 1798, married Maria Katherina Koob and died in 1863 in Fussgoenheim, noted as a deceased farmer. Family documents suggest he was one of the wealthiest farmers in the valley. Johann Adam had sons Andreas born in 1817, Valentine born in 1819, Johannes born in 1822 and Carl born in 1826, all in Fussgoenheim. It’s certainly possible that some of these men lived long and prospered, having sons who have Kirsch male descendants who live today.
Johann Wilhelm Kirsch married Katharina Barbara Koob. This person may not be a son of Andreas. The relationship is assumed because this couple acted as the godparents of the child of Philip Jacob Kirsch. This may NOT be a valid assumption. It’s unknown if Johann Wilhelm Kirsch had male children.
Philip Jacob Kirsch, the immigrant to Indiana did have several sons, all of whom immigrated with their parents to Indiana. Philip Jacob Kirsch born in 1830 never married. Johann William Kirsch married Caroline Kuntz, had two sons, but neither had sons that lived to adulthood, ending that male Kirsch line. Johannes, or John, born in 1835 married Mary Blatz in Ripley County, Indiana and moved to Marion County where he died in February 1927. John had sons Frank and Andrew Kirsch. Frank died in August, 1927 and left sons Albert and John Kirsch. Philip Jacob’s son, Jacob, had son Martin who had a son Edgar who had no children. Jacob also had son Edward who had son Deveraux “Devero” who had son William Kirsch, who has living male descendants today.

Summary

Fortunately, we finally confirmed who Andreas married – Margaretha Elisabetha Koehler. Andreas, if he is watching, is probably greatly relieved that we have him married to the correct wife now…or maybe he’s just amused.

Looking back, Marliese’s family in Germany reestablished communications with the Kirsch/Koehler family in Indiana during the 1930s and shared her family genealogical information. By that time, the Kirsch/Koehler families here had no information on the historical family back in Germany.

These families maintained some level of interaction, writing letters, for the next two generations. I think that the family genealogy information from Germany, much of it from family memory, was inadvertently in error relative to Andreas Kirsch’s wife. The German family members graciously shared their information with various researchers in the US, who shared it with others. Therefore, the original “remembered” information was incorrect in exactly the same way when gathered some 50 years later from descendants. I don’t know how the US researchers would have obtained the identically incorrect information otherwise. That was before the days of online trees that could easily be copied and even before the days of the LDS church’s microfilmed records, which is where I found the records for Elke to translate in the 1980s. Of course, there are even more records available today through FamilySearch and Ancestry.

Sadly, my Kirsch cousins have all passed on now. I would love to share this with them. I’m sure they would be grateful to learn that we know unquestionably, confirmed by three individual church records, who Andreas married. That was a brick wall and sticking point for a very long time.

Andreas did not live a long life. He was born in 1774 and died in 1819. Surely, at roughly 45 years of age, he didn’t die because he was elderly. Perhaps one day, we’ll obtain the actual death record from the church which may include his cause of death. Some churches were religious (pardon the pun) about recording as much information as possible, including causes of death and scriptures read at the funeral, and others recorded the bare minimum.

I’m grateful to know Andreas a little better. I like to think he was rooting for me as I searched for accurate records. I hope that someday, a record will be found to tell us a little more about his actual life – like his occupation, perhaps. Hope springs eternal!

For more information about Andreas Kirsch, please read Andreas Kirsch (1774-1819) Gets New and Improved Parents – 52 Ancestors #224.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Seventh Season “Who Do You Think You Are?” Airing March 5th

Posted on February 17, 2017 by Roberta Estes

I received a very welcome e-mail this week about the 7^th season of my favorite genealogy program, WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? (WDYTYA). I can hardly wait!

These programs are inspiring to everyone, novices to experienced genealogists. They embody the search and the discoveries we all seek. Not only are the shows just plain fun and interesting, we can pick up valuable research tips and historical information relevant to our own family. We all seek those AHA moments that the featured celebrities often find – and you just never know where your AHA-producing tidbit will be found.

I mean, let’s face it (pardon the pun), who among us DOESN’T want this expression on our face relative to a genealogy discovery?

From the press release:

TLC’s Emmy Award-winning series, WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? returns this spring with a new group of celebrities ready to delve into their lineage and get answers to the questions they’ve wondered about their entire lives. Eight new one-hour episodes bring more unexpected turns and surprising discoveries of great historical significance. Executive Produced by Lisa Kudrow and Dan Bucatinsky, the new season premieres on Sunday, March 5^th at 10/9c.

This season’s celebrity contributors include:

Jessica Biel makes surprising discoveries that change what she thought knew about her heritage.
Julie Bowen uncovers the story of two relatives whose moral codes are from opposite ends of the spectrum.
Courteney Cox traces her maternal line back seven centuries to the Medieval times to discover royalty in her lineage and an unbelievable tale of family drama.
Jennifer Grey uncovers new information about the grandfather she thought she knew, learning how he survived adversity to become a beacon of his community.
Smokey Robinson searches for answers behind the mystery of why his grandfather disappeared from his children’s lives and finds a man tangled in a swirl of controversy.
John Stamos digs into the mystery of how his grandfather became an orphan, and learns of tensions between families that led to a horrible crime.
Liv Tyler learns that her family is tied into the complicated racial narrative of America.
Noah Wyle unravels the mystery of his maternal line, uncovering an ancestor who survived one of America’s bloodiest battles.

For a sneak peek, take a look at this link.

I’ll be writing about each episode and I hope many will include DNA. If not, we’ll discuss how DNA might aid and abet the search!

All Matches Now FREE at Family Tree DNA for Transfer Kits

Posted on February 16, 2017 by Roberta Estes

Family Tree DNA just sent the following e-mail to the project administrators regarding the new Ancestry and 23andMe file upload ability. It’s full of good news! This information is in addition to my article this morning, available here.

Exciting new points are that ALL of your matches are free for transfer kits, not just the first 20 matches. In addition, the matrix feature is free too, so you can see if your matches also match each other. Great added free features and a reduced unlock price for the rest of Family Tree DNA’s nine autosomal tools.

Did you already upload your results, but never unlocked? Now you can unlock for just $19.

Dear Project Administrators,

You’ve all been waiting for it, and it’s finally here – transfers for 23andMe© V4 and AncestryDNA™ V2 files!

Here are the details, point by point.

Customers can now transfer 23andMe© V4 and AncestryDNA™ V2 files in addition to the 23andMe© V3 and AncestryDNA™ V1 files that Family Tree DNA accepted previously. MyHeritage and Genographic transfers will be supported in the coming weeks.
Family Tree DNA still does not accept 23andMe© processed prior to November 2010. A Family Finder test will need to be purchased.
23andMe© V3 and AncestryDNA™ V1 now receive a full list of matches and the ability to use the Matrix feature FOR FREE. For only $19, the customer can unlock the Chromosome Browser, myOrigins, and ancientOrigins.

23andMe© V4 and AncestryDNA™ V2 receive all but the most speculative matches (6th to remote cousins), also for free. After transferring, if the customer wants to receive speculative matches, they will have to submit a sample and have a Family Finder run at the reduced price of $59.
Matches should take somewhere between one and 24 hours to appear, depending on the volume of tests in the autosomal pipeline.
myOrigins update will be released in the coming weeks. Until then transfers will include only broad populations.
Additionally, all previously transferred files that have not been unlocked will receive their matches and have access to the Matrix feature for free as long as the release form is signed. These kits will be also be able to unlock the other Family Finder features for $19. If the transfer was on a kit with another product where the release form has already been signed, then the matches will appear with no further action necessary.
The Autosomal Transfer webpage has been enhanced to include a new image and a FAQ section. The FAQ section is displayed towards the bottom of the page.

If a customer tries to transfer the same autosomal file a second time, a message will be displayed that the file is a duplicate and will list the kit number of the original kit.
The main Autosomal Transfer topic in the Learning Center has been updated. This topic contains the most recent information and now includes all transfer subtopics on the same page. Additional FAQ information will be added to this topic as needed in the future.

Click here to get started!!!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Family Tree DNA Now Accepts All Ancestry Autosomal Transfers Plus 23andMe V3 and V4

Posted on February 16, 2017 by Roberta Estes

107

Great news!

Family Tree DNA now accepts autosomal file transfers for all Ancestry tests (meaning both V1 and V2) along with 23andMe V3 and V4 files.

Before today, Family Tree DNA had only accepted Ancestry V1 and 23andMe V3 transfers, the files before Ancestry and 23andMe changed to proprietary chips. As of today, Family Tree DNA accepts all Ancestry files and all contemporary 23andMe files (since November 2013).

You’ll need to download your autosomal raw data file from either Ancestry or 23andMe, then upload it to Family Tree DNA. You’ll be able to do the actual transfer for free, and see your 20 top matches – but to utilize and access the rest of the tools including the chromosome browser, ethnicity estimates and the balance of your matches, you’ll need to pay the $19 unlock fee.

Previously, the unlock fee was $39, so this too is a great value. The cost of purchasing the autosomal Family Finder test at Family Tree DNA is $79, so the $19 unlock fee represents a substantial savings of $60 if you’ve already tested elsewhere.

To get started, click here and you’ll see the following “autosomal transfer” menu option in the upper left hand corner of the Family Tree DNA page:

The process is now drag and drop, and includes instructions for how to download your files from both 23andMe and Ancestry.

Please note that if you already have an autosomal test at Family Tree DNA, there is no benefit to adding a second test. So if you have taken the Family Finder test or already transferred an Ancestry V1 or 23andMe V3 kit, you won’t be able to add a second autosomal test to the same account. If you really want to transfer a second kit, you’ll need to set up a new account for the second autosomal kit, because every kit at Family Tree DNA needs to be able to have it’s own unique kit number – and if you already have an autosomal test on your account, you can’t add a second one.

What will you discover today? I hope you didn’t have anything else planned. Have fun!!!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Valentine’s Day – Can You Really Love Your Facebook Cousins and Friends?

Posted on February 14, 2017 by Roberta Estes

In the new world of DNA testing, now combined with social media, the word cousin and its meaning have morphed a bit.

Classically, historically, your cousins were the children of your parents’ siblings. Often you were the same age and grew up with them as neighbors, especially in a rural, small town or farming community. Typically your cousins were your playmates and the people you got into trouble with when you were teenagers, and maybe who you married as an adult. You would likely be lifelong friends as well, attending the same church and social functions. Your kids knew each other too, and the pattern repeated itself generation after generation. Your cousins were the people you saw every single day of your life, cradle to grave.

But often, that’s not the case anymore.

My Neighbor, My Cousin

A good example of a historical cousin relationship would be my grandfather, John, who lived across the street in the tiny town of Silver Lake from his brother, Roscoe. Their children, first cousins, grew up as neighbors. My mother’s first cousin is Cheryl.

The stories of Cheryl and Mom are typical of small town America where there were no jobs. Mom moved away for a job and married. Mom visited her parents often, living an hour or so away, but after her parents died, Mom had no reason to go back to Silver Lake. Mom did keep track of family members and exchanged letters and Christmas cards with many, updating addresses and phone numbers religiously in her address book. Phone calls, being “long distance” were expensive, reserved for Sunday evenings when the rates were lower, and often placed only in emergencies.

Mom’s brother, Lore, went to college and eventually moved out of state, living in several locations in his lifetime. After moving away, he seldom returned to Indiana. His daughter, Nancy, lived a couple hours away and was close to Mom, but his son, Mike, moved to Arizona and then on to China. A world apart.

Cheryl, Mom’s first cousin, the first woman in our family to graduate from college, moved about 40 miles away, also for employment. Cheryl’s degree was in education, and sadly, her incredible aptitude for science wasn’t realized, at least not in a professional setting. Women of her generation simply weren’t encouraged or allowed to study science. Even when I was in school, a number of years later, I was told that a seat in an advanced placement science class wasn’t going to be” wasted on a girl” and was going to be “saved for a boy who would make something of himself.” Cheryl did amazingly well for herself, especially considering what she had to contend with throughout her career. She was indeed a woman on the frontier.

Cheryl’s brother Don, after serving in the military, still lives in Silver Lake near where he grew up. He’s the only one – everyone else is gone – scattered like dust in the wind.

I’m one generation removed, and I never met Cheryl until I was in my late 30s. I knew she existed, but really wasn’t sure how we were related. That all changed due to genealogy and in a very ironic twist of fate, Cheryl and I are much closer than Mom and Cheryl were, or than I am to any other family members in that line.

If Cheryl and I look like we’re having a wonderful time and maybe engaged in a bit of mischief, we were, I assure you. You’ll get to read about those stories when I write the articles about our Dutch ancestors and our visit to Holland.

Moving Away

Moving, across the state, the country or the world bifurcated families, especially before the days of the internet and Facebook. The family moved, and while that generation may have remained in touch through occasional letters, the next generation didn’t know each other, and the next generation didn’t even know OF each other, let alone know each other. You can see the perfect example in the pedigree chart of my own family, above. There was no family connection at all after a couple generations. I guarantee you, my children can’t recall the names of Lore’s children, let alone Nancy’s children who they’ve never met.

The past 20 years or so has dramatically changed the nature of moving away and distance. E-mail made communications easy and Facebook made it instantaneous. “Long distance” phone charges no longer apply and for the most part communicating with family has never been easier.

Bifurcated Families

This past week, the message about bifurcated families came home to roost.

My first cousin, Nancy, died….last July…and no one, not one person, notified me, or my sister-in-law, or Cheryl or Don. Nancy had a sibling and children and a spouse, all of whom we knew. Yet no one in this day of electronic media and incredible findability made a phone call or sent a note.

I knew Nancy my entire life. Nancy was beautiful and lovely and smart and talented – shown here with our shared grandmother.

Nancy’s father was my mother’s brother, and they visited the farm where I grew up. There was never a family issue or rift.

Mother’s brother, Lore, and daughter Nancy at the table on the farm in 1977. Mom even used the “special occasion” plates and was always thrilled when family visited.

After Dad died in1994 and Mom moved to town, she drove to Ohio to visit Nancy several times. I visited Nancy a few years ago, but Nancy did not reply to e-mails nor did she reply to letters. You cannot sustain a one-sided relationship. There didn’t seem to be any hard feelings, and we had a lovely visit, but apparently communicating wasn’t Nancy’s strong suite. Nancy also had a degenerative disease that I’m sure eventually took her life.

I discovered Nancy’s death by googling the surname for something genealogical in nature, when her obituary popped up. Imagine my surprise. And then the sorrow. And then realizing that we hadn’t been notified of her death.

What is Family?

I’ve thought about this a lot the past few days, and about the definition of family. I realize that I’m very close to several cousins who aren’t my first cousins and some who turned out not to be cousins at all. In fact, I met all of them (except one) as a result of either genealogy or DNA testing.

Before genealogy, DNA testing and Facebook, my world of cousins would have been a lot smaller.

Ironically, Cheryl isn’t on Facebook, but the rest are. I’m still working on Cheryl.

While I met these folks as a result of common ancestors, and genealogy was our introduction, I’ve become close friends with many.

Daryl

Daryl and I met through genealogy about 15 years ago now, when we met for lunch and coffee, and managed to consume the entire afternoon. Since we virtually disappeared, and both of us were meeting someone we “met on the internet,” both husbands were nearly ready to call the police about our disappearance. Fortunately, we went home in time to avert that phone call – but it was close! After that, we journeyed across the country on many genealogy adventures together.

In fact, our adventures are legendary. Daryl and I have the distinction of being cornered in a cemetery by a bull. We think he wanted to add us to his harem. We were held captive until Mr. Bull got bored with courting us – and then we ran like hell for the car. That would have been very comical to watch.

Quite a handsome guy, wouldn’t you say???

Daryl and I have been through some really rough spots, including the death of both of our mothers. Now, Daryl’s son Brent desperately needs a kidney donor, and we are going through that together as well.

Daryl and I wading in a cool creek one miserably hot summer day on a genealogy adventure. Love you Daryl!

Dolores

My cousin Dolores and I used to write handwritten letters on stationery back in the 1980s, believe it or not. I still have them. Now we communicate regularly through our Facebook feed and an occasional e-mail. I feel much more involved in her life. Before, I only knew her as a genealogist, and she is an incredible wealth of knowledge, but now, I know her on a much more personal level. We recently discovered, thanks to Facebook, that Dolores’s neighbor is my other cousin, Kay. Small world!

In Dolores’ recent “Friend’s Day” video I noticed a quilt that I made for another cousin and presented when several of us were together for an event in Richmond, Virginia. Seeing that made me feel good and brought back such warm memories. Yes, I love Dolores.

Lola-Margaret

And there’s Lola-Margaret, that “other cousin” mentioned above – bless Lola-Margaret. She and I share the same ancestor that Dolores and I do, Nicholas Speaks. Should I admit in public that I kinda sorta kidnapped Lola-Margaret and Dolores in Middlesboro, KY one time? Ummm…probably not. I don’t think the statute of limitations has yet expired. However, they were willing victims, especially after they discovered that I had kidnapped them to see the newly rediscovered and restored cabin of our ancestor, Nicholas.

Lola-Margaret and I have been on several adventures together, the last one returning to the land of our ancestor in Maryland, with another dear cousin, Susan, between Lola-Margaret and me, below.

I met Lola-Margaret in the hazy past through the Speaks Family Association although I feel like she has been in my life forever. We are very different but have some undefinable bond that neither of us fully understands. I clearly love her, very much.

In the photo above, we three cousins are walking the land of our ancestor together in what can only be described as a spiritual adventure. That day was such an incredible blessing – especially given that Lola-Margaret traveled across the country just 10 days out of back surgery. To say Lola-Margaret is incredible would be an understatement.

Susan

Susan, another cousin who is near and dear to my heart arranged a trip to England after we discovered, through DNA testing, where our Speaks ancestor was from.

Descendants of the Speak family, cousins from literally around the globe rendezvoused in England, many meeting for the first time. As I look at this photo, I think about how fortunate I am, in so many ways – and were it not for DNA testing, Susan and social media – none of this would have happened. I love Susan for her tenacity and wonderful ability to get things done.

I love this group photo, because I see Mary, another cousin that I love, and John, and Dolores is there too….you get the idea.

Mary

At the church where our ancestors worshipped, cousin Mary and I exchange hugs. Yep, I love Mary too! Bless her heart, she called me to see how I was doing this past week – when she herself has had so many challenges this past year.

These are all people, so far, that I’ve eventually met, but there are many I have never met in person.

Kathy

Looking at my Facebook feed, just today, I see my Estes line cousin Kathy who I love and supported through a health challenge that she thankfully overcame. I felt incredibly powerless – all I could do was make her a quilt and say prayers.

I’ve never met Kathy personally, but I now “know” her family, and her cat who is an honorary cousin to my cats. I always look forward to her posts and to seeing what she is doing. Sometimes having someone to talk to who cares about you but that isn’t right in the middle of the emotional dilemma is a blessing. I also know that if I had a health crisis, she would be there for me too.

In the middle of her own health issue, she helped me post daily flower pictures for my brother John (when I had to be gone) to help him through a very rough spot in his journey. I know that doesn’t sound like much, but it meant the world to John during very dark days when that is literally all he had to look forward to, and Kathy’s help meant the world to me. Yes, I love Kathy and John too.

John

John, my “brother” who is neither my biological brother nor even a bio-cousin, but my adopted brother, as of a couple years ago. John’s story and our bond are very unique. We met through an e-mail list about the Cumberland Gap region that I began as an offshoot of the Cumberland Gap DNA project. He offered to send me fabrics from Japan where he lived at the time to help with making quilts for a fund-raiser.

John is an amazing example of bravery and triumph over tragedy and is incredibly inspiring after cheating the grim reaper, not once, but twice. In fact, John was the inspiration for this new blog, Victory Garden Day by Day with the hope that it will inspire others.

I love this picture of John and his son, because it shows his inner spirit of courage and joy. Love you oceans, JT!!!

Los and Denise

There’s Los with his two lovely children. I would never have met Los or cousin Denise were it not for our naughty ancestor, William Harrell, with two wives. This all came to light with genealogy followed by DNA testing.

I love that ancestor story, but I love even more Carlos and what he has made of his life, what it represents, his intelligence, drive and conviction. Can I brag on Los for a minute? He’s a double PhD teaching at a university and he’s an absolutely incredible father, driving across the country alone with 2 small children for the genealogy reunion in the photo below. He’s an amazing man. I love my cousin, Los and his wonderful babies, who aren’t exactly babies anymore. I’ve gotten to watch them grow up, thanks to Facebook. I would love to be their honorary grandma if we lived closer.

Here, me, Carlos, his daughter and our cousin Denise meet for the first (and so far, only) time. Denise has an amazing story of resilience and success of her own. Denise found our cousin group, scattered across the country, through genealogy, drew us together, and the rest, as they say, is history. I’m so fortunate to have been found by these wonderful cousins and so proud to claim them as my own.

Denny

I love my amazing cousin, Denny, aka Santa. Denny’s Santa activities are focused on nursing homes, the elderly and often forgotten. Denny just dropped me a line to say that he is thinking about me. Sometimes it’s just nice to know that someone cares about you. Obviously, I’m not on Santa’s bad list – maybe it’s still too early in the year. Give me time!

I made Denny’s acquaintance a dozen years ago by accident when someone at his high school reunion told him that some lady was looking for Lore family descendants from Warren County, PA on a rootsweb forum. That woman was me, and Denny replied.

I met Denny and his lovely wife when I visited during a research trip the next summer. A few years later, we lamented on the phone that we wished were siblings. Denny’s research and knowledge of Warren County, PA were indispensable in understanding the life of Anthony Lore, our own personal adventurer, trader, pirate, whatever. I see his resilient spirit in Denny and recognize it, because I have it too.

Kathy and Mary

One last cousin story that falls in the “truth is stranger than fiction” category.

I was working at a client site about 16 or 17 years ago, when I became increasingly close to one particular woman, Kathy. We went to lunch often, and we just seemed to be on the same page repeatedly. She told me she was trying to finish a quilt, and I invited her to my house to “quilt day” with a few of my friends. I never, ever did this with clients, but Kathy was the exception and we got along so well.

One day, Kathy and I were the only two people on time for a meeting, and we were discussing technology in the conference room as we waited for the tardy attendees. I made a comment that my Brethren great-grandmother would roll over in her grave to know that her great-granddaughter not only drove a car (gasp), but embraced all things technology – you know – like electricity and telephones – not to mention computers. Kathy said that she had Brethren family as well.

The following conversation went something like this:

Me: “I didn’t know there were any Brethren communities in this area.”

Kathy: “My family was from northern Indiana.”

Me: “Where in Northern Indiana?”

Kathy: “Around Elkhart.”

Me: “My family too. What is their name?”

Kathy: “Miller.”

Me: “SERIOUSLY???? Mine too.”

Kathy: I’ll bring my genealogy file tomorrow.

I’m sure you’ve guessed by now that Kathy and I are cousins too through our ancestor, Daniel Miller, whose children settled in Elkhart County, Indiana.

Not only is Kathy my cousin, she is my very close friend, all these years later, and my quilt sister too.

Here, Kathy, at left above, and I are presenting our other quilt sister, Mary, at right, in the photo below, with a memory quilt for her 50^th wedding anniversary. Yes, Kathy and Mary and I all follow each other on Facebook and that’s how we keep track of each other and each other’s families – which are our families too!

Do I love Kathy and Mary? You bet your britches I do. In fact, my husband and I have spent every Christmas Eve evening with Mary and her family since my mother passed away a decade ago. I do believe we have created a new tradition. Above, Mary and I are working on a care quilt together at her son’s house.

No, Mary and I aren’t biologically related – and yes, she tested her DNA just to be sure.

Kathy and Mary are family in every sense of the word – whether by blood or not. Which brings us full circle.

A New Definition of Family

Sometimes the family we were born into slips away, intentionally or otherwise. But family we choose, our family of heart is what sustains us. All of the people above are my family, in various ways and for differing reasons – but the common unifying fact is that they are family and live in my heart – along with many more people not mentioned.

Today, with the availability of Facebook and other electronic communications, we can follow families as they grow up and remain in touch outside of that yearly Christmas card. Those relationships we cultivate and nurture are the ones that survive. The rest starve to death and die of neglect.

In my case, this social evolution or maybe revolution has redefined what cousin means, as well as family. Aside from Cheryl and her brother, I can’t tell you how distantly or closely related I am to any of my cousins, at least not without cheating and looking at my genealogy software. But I know we are “cousins” and that’s really all I need to know.

Occasionally, “cousin” might just mean a close relationship with someone I “feel” is a cousin. In some cases, cousin refers to someone we thought was a cousin, only to discover they weren’t, genealogically or biologically, but they are still “cousins” of heart and referred to as such.

In the south, elder cousins (and sometimes elders that aren’t related) that you are close to and respect are referred to as “aunt” and “uncle,” as in Uncle Buster who was really my first cousin once removed. So yes, the word cousin is now redefined a bit and has become more a term of affection or simply stating that one is related in some fashion rather than referring to a specific degree of relationship. In a way, it harkens back to the southern word, “kin.” “We’re kin” means “we’re somehow related but I’m not sure how.”

Social media is an incredibly powerful venue – as politicians have recently discovered. But for family, both close and distant, social media has the ability to help us forge relationships and nurture them, keeping them strong and allowing us to maintain a continuity never before available – an advantage our ancestors never had. Genealogy and DNA testing has allowed us to expand the size of our known family, and social media has facilitated easily becoming more inclusionary – encompassing and cultivating our ever-expanding family.

Don

As I was finishing this article, I received one of those phone calls no one wants to receive. It wasn’t about a cousin’s death, but that of a friend. Yes, my cousins didn’t call, but my friend did.

Our mutual friend, Don, died unexpectedly this morning. I didn’t always agree with Don, but I valued his friendship and always looked forward to his research and what he had to say. We were warriors on a common path, seeking the truth.

We are all bonded and bound by the seeds we sew, those common causes that draw us together, and we are united by years on a collective journey.

I will miss Don. He always sent me a Jackie Lawson card e-mail at various holidays and when I was feeling blue. His e-mails, contentious or reflective, will no longer grace my inbox. His journey is finished, but ours wasn’t, nor was his work complete. I am gravely saddened. I hope I enriched his life as much as he enriched mine.

However, Don’s death vividly points out that while I was related to Nancy, our only commonality was that we were born into the same family, while my common journey with my “Facebook cousins” and close friends is one of reciprocal caring, shared experiences and mutual interests – having walked side by side, step by step and sometimes hand in hand over the rocky road of life for many years.

Love

Fortunately, love is not like a pie that is divided into pieces and when it’s gone, it’s gone. It’s the only resource in our human arsenal that isn’t decreased when some is given away. Love is boundless and endless, a renewable and ever-expanding resource that enriches both the giver and receiver. The more you give, the more you receive. I am so very blessed to have many “cousins” and family members of heart. While I have only mentioned a few cousins and friends, I am unbelievably blessed to have a great many. So if your name isn’t here, it’s not because I don’t love you.

Sometimes family isn’t who you are, or the relatives you are born to, but the family you make, woven into a whole from the strands and fibers of love from each individual, colorful and unique person. The most beautiful patchwork quilt imaginable.

We are all on a journey together – enriching each others lives. That enrichment is what we will be remembered for – and why we will be missed when it’s our turn to finish our earthly journey.

So yes, you can indeed love your Facebook cousins and friends! What a wonderful unintended consequence of genealogy and DNA testing!

Love, it’s a renewable resource – give it away! Tell your family and friends you love them. You never know when it will be the last opportunity – don’t miss it.

Here’s wishing you a Happy Valentine’s Day and many wonderful cousins to love!!!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

LeVar Burton’s Keynote at RootsTech 2017 – From Kunta Kinte to Star Trek and The Power of Imagination

Posted on February 12, 2017 by Roberta Estes

Not only is LeVar Burton an incredible actor, portraying Kunta Kinte in 1977 in Alex Haley’s roots, followed by Lt. Commander Geordi La Forge in Star Trek, but he’s an unbelievably insightful man with a powerful story to tell.

I wasn’t able to attend Rootstech this year, but thankfully LeVar Burton’s absolutely incredible keynote is finally available online. I’ve been hearing about it for days and I was finally able to watch this morning.

If you watch only one thing this year, watch LeVar’s keynote. And I don’t mean if you’re black, I mean if you’re human. It’s only half an hour and, I promise, you’ll not regret it. In fact, you’ll need a box of Kleenex and leave feeling wonderful, renewed and inspired.

And please, do the “One Minute Exercise” with LeVar.

Aside from LeVar’s incredibly interesting delivery and poignant stories about his mother, Roots and Star Trek, he made the following points:

LeVar said his mother was determined that he would reach his full potential, “even if she had to kill me.” I’m sure we can all related to that.
We all have an important story to tell and an equally important contribution to make to humanity.
Close your eyes and bring into your mind a person who has seen your potential in life and helped you realize your gift, what your contribution to the world might be. Someone who saw you and recognized your brilliance and helped bring it into being.
None of us get through this life on our own. We all have assistance on this journey.
You can do what you can imagine. Focus equals manifestation.
Unless you can be still you may never hear that voice of God within. Pay attention or you might miss something incredibly important that is key to delivering our gift to the world.

The Desert News provided some additional coverage here.

LeVar’s session is not on the RootsTech video selection, but other sessions are available for free viewing here if you scroll down a bit.

Thank you LeVar for the single most incredible, inspiring keynote speech on any topic I have ever witnessed.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Margaret Dagord (1708-?) of North Farnham Parish, 52 Ancestors #147

Posted on February 12, 2017 by Roberta Estes

Margaret Dagord (Dagod, Doggett, Doged, Doget, Dogged, Dogett, Dogget and probably a few more) was born in North Farnham Parish, Richmond County, VA on April 30, 1708 to Henry Doggett (Dagod) and an unknown wife. She was married on April 30, 1726, her 18th birthday, in the same location to George Dodson, son of Thomas Dodson.

I can’t help but wonder if there is any significance to the fact that she married on her 18th birthday. Was that the age in Virginia in 1726 that a female could marry without her father’s permission? The records I could find say that the age of majority and also to marry without approval for males and females was 21, although I’m sure I’ve seen otherwise. Margaret’s father or a male in the family would have had to approve and post bond. Did Margaret’s father not approve of the marriage? Were there extenuating circumstances? On the other hand, maybe the fact that Margaret married on her 18th birthday is purely circumstantial or celebratory with no other inferences at all. We’ll never know. So many questions with no answers.

I’m not really sure how Margaret came to be called Margaret Dagord instead of Margaret Doggett or Dagod, given the marriage transcription above. Nonetheless – that is how she is known within the Dodson family, so that is how I’m referring to her, even though it looks for all the world to me that she should be called Margaret Doggett.

Cheryl Sendtko, on her website reports that Margaret’s surname and that of her father are recorded numerous ways in the North Farnham Parish Registers, and that the surname is probably a variant of Doggett. She also states that Henry came from Scotland before 1649. I have not found this information elsewhere nor have I been able to verify, but I’m researching with the hope of doing so. I’m aware that the website contains unsourced and some incorrect information, but all information can serve as a clue for additional research.

Clearly, Margaret Dagord grew up near where she was born and married a local boy in the same location. George Dodson was about 6 years older than Margaret Dagord, so when she was in grade school, he would have been a bit older. They were not likely playmates as children, but had probably always known each other.

As George matured into a young man in his early or mid-20s, Margaret was probably a vivacious teen and the attraction blossomed. This was the typical age and time for young people to marry at that time in Virginia, and marry they did.

Clearly, Henry, Margaret’s father, assuming he did not pass away, also lived in the same region.

To discover more about Margaret Dagord’s family, Lancaster, York, Old Rappahannock and Richmond County land and court records need to be checked closely for any of the variant spellings of Dagord.

Richmond County was formed in 1692 from Old Rappahannok County which was formed in 1656 from Lancaster County. These early county records may hold clues before Richmond County.

The Early Church

North Farnham Parish was originally constituted as Farnham Parish in about 1656 in Old Rappahannock County. North Farnham Parish was created about 1683 when South Farnham was also created, splitting the parish in half.

The current North Farnham Parish Church was built about 1737, so clearly, there was an earlier church someplace, if not in the same location. What little we do know about the earlier church comes from the book, “Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia: In Two Volumes” written by William Meade in 1861 which discusses that there was indeed an earlier church and as a bonus, describes the typical burial vaults used by the Northern Neck families.

Margaret would have been baptized in that original church whose foundation was only left in 1861 when Meade was gathering historical information and writing.

I sure wish we knew where that original church was located today, and I can’t help but wonder if there was a cemetery adjacent or if all burials were in vaults on family land. What few references I could find, and none with pictures, indicated the vaults were in private family cemeteries or were the cemetery. I wonder if the water level was too high to bury people in the ground. The old burial vaults all seem to have deteriorated and collapsed today. Of course, they would have been more than 300 years old and their shape was an arch.

If the original church was half way between the present-day church, at the red balloon, and Warsaw, the county seat, the church would probably have been someplace near Emmerton and where the highway crosses Totuskey Creek, northwest of Emmerton.

Margaret and George in Richmond County

Margaret Dagord and George Dodson lived in Richmond County, much as their parents did, for the first 30 years of their married life. They settled down on land owned by George’s father, Thomas Dodson. They likely cleared this land, built a cabin and farmed the land until Thomas’s death in 1739 when he leaves them “150 acres of land whereon the said George Dodson is now living.”

If Thomas Dodson’s funeral was held in a church, it would have been held in the new North Farnham Parish Church, built two years earlier in 1737. Margaret and George would have stood in this very building for Thomas’s funeral services.

The North Farnham Parish Church building, having been refurbished a few times, and used as a stable during and several decades prior to the Civil War, still stands today.

The births of the children of George and Margaret are also recorded in the North Farnham Parish Register, as follows:

Mary Dodson born December 21, 1726
Lazarus Dodson born October 7, 1728
Rawleigh Dodson born February 16, 1730
Thomas Dodson born May, 25, 1735
George Dodson born October 31, 1737

It was about the time of George’s birth that the new North Farnham Parish Church was built.

Fortunatus Dodson born March 31, 1740
Hannah Dodson born May 2, 1747

Children were born to colonial couples about every two years, and sure enough, true to form, Margaret had a baby every other year or so, until the gap between 1740 and 1747.

We don’t really know for sure if the birth date given in the North Farnham Parish Registers is actually a birth date, or if it is a baptism date. If a child was born and died, that birth is likely not registered. It’s very unlikely that Margaret had no children between 1740 and 1747 when at least 2 children would have been expected to have been born.

The Reverend Elias Dodson, writing in 1859 indicates that a David Dodson, later found in Pittsylvania County, VA, alongside many of Margaret’s children, was born to Margaret Dagord and George Dodson as well. If that’s accurate, David was certainly born after 1740, because there were no available birth spaces before 1740.

Margaret would have been age 32 in 1740, and age 39 in 1747. We could expect her to have additional children in approximately 1749 and possibly 1751 and 1753. Most women stopped having children sometime in their early/mid 40s.

In other words, there are two children missing in 1743 and 1745 and at least 2 missing between 1749-1753, and possibly more.

I don’t know if the North Farnham Parish Register records are missing or incomplete during this timeframe. If so, then those births may have been recorded and subsequently went missing.

If the records are complete, but these births are missing, then the children probably died before the births were recorded, or before they were baptized.

The Chicken or the Egg

Margaret was born into the Anglican Church and her family as well as the Dodson’s were clearly active. However, that doesn’t mean by choice, necessarily.

Citizens at that time in Virginia were required to be church members and to attend church regularly, upon penalty of a fine for every missed Sunday service. Holding any public office required one to be a church member in good standing. Church vestries handled many government functions including moral breaches, such as adultery, and took care of the poor. The churches owned “glebe land” purchased with tax money for the support of the minister and the poor in the care of the church.

By the 1760s, dissenting religions of both Methodists and Baptists were taking hold as itinerant preachers rode and preached wherever they could. One could join a dissenting church, but one still had to pay taxes to the Anglican church until the 1780s. Dissenters were also barred from public office, and in many ways, treated as second class citizens. Often the dissenters formed an enclave unto themselves.

By 1786, after the revolution, Virginia passed a Religious Freedom Act crafted by Thomas Jefferson and the disadvantages inherent in attending a dissenting church disappeared.

We know that in Richmond County, the Dodson family was involved with the North Farnham Parish Church where their births and marriages are recorded. We don’t know if George and Margaret left that church before selling their land in 1756. Could they have sold their land with the intention of moving west where their children could find land too, and joining the dissenting Baptists? That’s certainly possible. It’s also possible that they moved west, but did not join the Baptists, even though their children did.

Was the move a reaction to the dissenting religion, or was founding the Broad Run Baptist Church in 1762 a result of missionaries on the frontier after the Dodson family sold their land and moved west?

It’s most likely that the Dodsons had already moved when the Baptist circuit riding preachers came through a few years later in the early 1760s and inspired the entire family, and many of their neighbors. 1756 was probably on the early side for the move to be inspired by religion, but we can’t say for sure.

Selling Land

In 1756, George and Margaret sell their land in Richmond County, with Margaret signing the deed, and go…someplace…but we don’t know where. At that time, their oldest children were probably already married and having children – or ready to marry. Land on the Northern Neck of Virginia was limited, and there was likely little room for expansion. Many people were moving further west where land was both plentiful and cheap.

George Sightings

After George and Margaret sold their land, most of their children moved to Faquier County, VA, but we lose George, Margaret and their son, Rawleigh, in the process. Our only hint is that there is one George Dodson on the Faquier County rent roll in 1770, but none before and none after. That George could be any one of the other three known Georges as well as the George married to Margaret Dagord. There are no Georges in Faquier County before or after in any records.

The next George sighting is in Pittsylvania County with a land transaction in 1771, although again, we don’t know which George. Rawleigh, George and Margaret’s son, appeared with his siblings in Halifax County in 1766. Rawleigh’s siblings, but not Rawleigh, were dismissed from the Broad Run Church in Fauquier County.

Margaret’s daughters, Mary and Hannah Dodson either died or married as we lose them entirely.

Margaret and George’s son, George Dodson born in 1737 could be the George in 1771, but who knows with a name like George Dodson. The good news is that George Dodson was obviously well thought of which is why there were several George Dodsons in the next generation. The bad news is that there were several George Dodsons and it’s impossible to tell them apart, or even exactly how many different George’s there actually were.

The Migration

There has been a lot of speculation and no conclusive facts about what happened to George and Margaret. In 1756, George was about 54 and Margaret was 48. They could have sold their land and one or both of them died during or after a move.

They could have moved elsewhere – meaning away from Richmond County but not to Faquier County with at least some of their children.

They could have moved to Faquier County, but not joined the Broad Run Baptist Church, a dissenting church at that time.

One hint may be the fact that in 1762, Thomas Dodson of Faquier County, George’s brother, released his right to his claim on his father’s estate to George’s brothers; Greenham Dodson of Amelia County, as well as Abraham, Joshua and Elisha of Farguier County. George Dodson isn’t mentioned.

George’s omission could have been due to any one of four things:

An oversight
A feud
George’s siblings together bought Thomas’s share, but George did not
George is dead and Thomas chose to relinquish his share only to his living male siblings and not to George’s heirs

Even if Thomas had relinquished part of his share to George’s heirs, that still wouldn’t tell us if Margaret was living, because at that time, a widow was due one third of her husband’s estate, but if George was already deceased when Thomas relinquished his share, George’s share of Thomas’s portion would not have fallen into George’s estate, which would have been assessed immediately after his death. Instead, the funds would have gone directly to George’s children. Colonial wives got left out…a lot.

George and Margaret Confusion

To make matters worse, there is a great deal of confusion surrounding multiple George Dodsons in Pittsylvania and Halifax County, Virginia where many of the Dodson families wound up in the 1760s and after. At least one George MAY have been married to a Margaret in 1777, but we’re really not sure. One George was for sure married to a Margaret in 1825 when he died, but that George and Margaret lived way too long to be the couple we are looking for. Margaret Dagord Dodson was born in 1708. However, the George and Margaret of 1825 may have been the George and Margaret of the 1777 land transaction who could have been the same George as the 1771 land transaction.

I just love the woulda, coulda, shouldas in the form of “may have been” and “could have been.” Not.

I discussed the various George and Margaret possibilities ad nauseum in George Dodson’s article, so if you have a bad case of insomnia, read that article. Guaranteed, all those George’s will put you to sleep!

After 1756, the best we can do is to tell the story of Margaret through her children.

Margaret and George’s Children

Mary Dodson – born on December 21, 1726, just 8 months after Margaret married George on April 20th. While I’m not passing any judgement on George and Margaret in terms of pre-marital behavior, I am interested in Mary’s birth because it may have been premature. Based on a conception calculator, for Mary to have been born a full term 40-week baby, she would have been conceived between March 26 and April 3. Today, a baby that is a month early stands a wonderful chance of survival, that wasn’t necessarily true in 1726.

We don’t hear any more about Mary, so it’s certainly possible that she died.

However, since the next child isn’t born for 22 months, it’s unlikely that she died immediately, or the next child would have been born 9 or 10 months later, not 22. So, if Mary died, it probably wasn’t due to a premature birth. It would certainly have been tragic if Mary survived a premature birth but then died of something else anyway.

Death was a regular visitor to colonial couples who lost many children, often half of the children born to them.

Lazarus Dodson – born October 7, 1728, Lazarus Dodson was a Baptist minister at the Sandy Creek Church in Pittsylvania County, VA. He married Alice Dodson, his first cousin, the daughter of Thomas Dodson and Elizabeth Rose. In 1763, Lazarus was a member of the Broad Run Baptist Church in Faquier County and was dismissed to Halifax County, the part that later became Pittsylvania County. He may also have been a minister in Faquier County. Lazarus died in 1799, leaving a will written on May 2, 1795 and proven on Sept. 16, 1799. His heirs were his widow Alice, 5 daughters, Elizabeth, Rachel, Rhoda, Margaret and Tabitha, and 2 sons George and Elisha. Another son, Rolly, is attributed to this couple by the Rev. Elias Dodson, but not mentioned in the will.

Rawleigh Dodson – born Feb. 16, 1730, Rawleigh Dodson married a wife named Mary whose surname is unknown. Raleigh was in Halifax County by 1766. Rawleigh purchased land in Caswell County, NC, across the border from Pittsylvania County, VA, which they subsequently sold in 1778 to move to the Holston River settlement that was then in western North Carolina, but would eventually become Hawkins County, TN. Raleigh, a Revolutionary War Veteran, died about 1794, leaving a will dated July 20, 1793. Raleigh and Mary had 4 sons, Rawleigh (Jr.), Lazarus, Tolliver and James, and 3 daughters Margaret, Eleanor (Nellie) and a daughter who was deceased by 1793 but who had married a Shelton and had 2 daughters.

George Dodson – born Oct. 31, 1737 in Richmond County, VA and recorded in the North Farnham Church Parish Register. Unfortunately, there are so many George Dodsons in Pittsylvania and Halifax County, Virginia, that it’s virtually impossible to tell them apart. I created a chart detailing what we do know in George Dodson’s article. There is a George Dodson who died and whose will is recorded in Pittsylvania County in 1825 who could possibly be the son of George Dodson and Margaret Dagord. Until we have some proof that the George who died in 1825 is George and Margaret’s son, I’m very hesitate to attribute any additional information to him, because I feel it will just make a confusing situation even moreso.

Fortunatis (Fortune) Dodson – born March 31, 1740 in Richmond County, married Margaret Dodson, his first cousin, the daughter of Elisha and Sarah Averitt Dodson. After his death, Margaret, his widow married one of the Raleigh Dodsons. Fortune is first recorded in Pittsylvania County with the other Dodson families. His will was dated Oct. 2, 1776 and was probated May 22, 1777, leaving his widow, one son, David and three daughters, Lydia, Sarah and Deborah.

David Dodson (possibly) – born after 1740, in Richmond County (if he is Margaret and George’s child) and is reported by the Rev. Elias Dodson to have married Betty, the daughter of Second Fork Thomas Dodson – although based on the ages and generations of the individuals involved, that is somewhat doubtful if Second Fork Thomas is who we think he is. David is in Pittsylvania County by 1773 and eventually migrated to Pulaski County, KY by about 1800, then on to Maury County, TN where he apparently died sometime before 1816. His wife may have been Elizabeth, enumerated on the 1820 census with children. He had at least 6 sons, Fortunatus, Asa, Abner, David, Joseph and Absalom and two daughters, Ann and Elizabeth.

Hannah Dodson – born May 2, 1747 in Richmond County, VA and recorded in the North Farnham County Parish Register. We have no further information about Hannah, so she may have died.

For two of Margaret and George’s sons, Lazarus and Fortunatis, to have married their first cousins, they would have to have been living nearby, close enough to court. Lazarus married the daughter of Thomas Dodson and Elizabeth Rose and Fortunatis married the daughter of Elisha Dodson and Sarah Averett. The 1762 deed from Thomas to his siblings tells us that both of these men were living in Fauquier County at that time, which also means that Fortunatis and Lazarus were probably living in Fauquier County at that time as well, before they married, which implies that would have been while they were living with their parents. Single men generally didn’t live alone before marriage. The only way Lazarus and Fortunatis would NOT have been living with their parents is if their parents were deceased and they were living with other family members instead. So, the logical conclusion is that either Margaret and George were deceased or they were living in Fauquier County or very close by.

Was Judith Kenner a Daughter of Margaret Dagord?

Virginia is full of mysteries – in part because so many records are missing that it leaves us with something that looks like historical swiss cheese.

We know that many of the early colonial Virginia families migrated across the country together, county by county and then state by state as the ever-moving frontier line inched further westward. Most often, if you find one family member, you’ll find more.

Raleigh Dodson, Margaret Dagord’s son moved to Hawkins County in 1778. Another Dodson, Elisha was there very early as well and owned land amid Raleigh and his sons. The identity of this Elisha still escapes Dodson researchers.

Across the Holston river from Raleigh lived one Thomas Dodson who had purchased land by 1792. This Thomas could well have been Raleigh’s brother, but we just don’t know.

Another player on the Hawkins County frontier was Rodham Kenner. Rodham is clearly involved with Raleigh Dodson, witnessing his will. Raleigh made Rodham co-executor with his son, Lazarus, a position of trust likely given only to a family member or exceptionally close friend.

It’s certainly reasonable that one could and would make their brother-in-law their executor. The brother-in-law would have nothing to gain personally, so there would be no conflict of interest, and being of the same generation, they probably had a long history together – especially if the families had bonded journeying and establishing homes on the frontier.

Family on the frontier often made the difference between life and death.

In addition to Rodham witnessing Raleigh’s will, he also witnessed the sale of Raleigh’s land in November 1808, by Raleigh Jr.

There is some evidence to suggest that Judith Kenner, wife of Rodham Kenner is the daughter of Margaret Duguard. Is Duguard yet another spelling for Dagord? It certainly could be. The deeper I dug, the more seemingly conflicting information I found.

Margaret Dugourd, by whatever spelling, is a very unusual name. How many of these women could there be in Virginia? And what are the chances of two children of two different Margaret Dagord/Duguard’s winding up being near neighbors on the Holston River in Hawkins County in the late 1700s?

Let’s take a look at what we have.

The Quandry About Judith Kenner

Judith Kenner wrote her will November 16, 1819 and died March 3, 1833 in Hawkins County, TN, stating that she is the daughter of Margaret Duguard.

Her husband was Rodham Kenner, although there were multiple Rodham Kenners.

Rodham Kenner witnessed the will of Raleigh Dodson in Hawkins County in 1793. Raleigh Dodson appointed “my son Lazarus and my neighbor Rodham Kenner my executors.”

The Rodham Kenner Ford is located just above the Dodson Ford, where Raleigh Dodson had a ferry business, on the Holston River.

According to FindAGrave:

The Rodham Kenner Cemetery is located on the north bank of the Holston River near a site formerly known as the “Rodham Kenner Ford”. The location is on the site of the original Rodham Kenner Plantation, which was established before Tennessee Statehood [1796]. Publications of the DAR verify that this is the last resting place of Rodham Kenner, and possibly many other family members. Unfortunately, extended usage for pasture has caused most of the headstones to be overturned by cattle.

Unfortunately, the location is not marked on a map on FindAGrave and instead it says:

Plot: Private Cemetery in disrepair; North side of Holston River, on bluff not far from power plant. Cattle have overturned some headstones, but a few remain upright.

The FindAGrave memorial shows Rodham Kenner married to Malinda Payne.

Judith Kenner’s will was written on November 16, 1819, with the following extracted section:

Gave to my mother Margaret Duguard the use or profits of all my estate real & personal during her life, provided nevertheless that the same shall be under the care and management of my executor from the time of my death and during the lifetime of my mother. Gave to daughter Lucy Beverly Winston the use of my negro girl Mary during her life, and after the death of my daughter Lucy, I give my said negro Mary and Mary’s increase to my granddaughter Margaret Winston. Gave to son Lawrence Sterns Kenner one horse, one bed and furniture, and one Beaufat. Gave to daughter Judith Cardin one bed and furniture. Gave to daughters Lucy Beverly Winston and Judith Cardin all my wearing apparel to be equally divided. Gave to grandson William Winston Kenner the tract of land whereon I now live containing 110 acres by estimation. Gave to grandson Roaham Beverly Kenner my negro girl Eliza and her increase. Gave the residue of estate real and personal to grand children, equally divided. Names “my worthey friend” William Simpson of Rogersville executor. Signed Judith Kenner. Wits. Hezekiah Hamblen, George McCollough

Summary:

Margaret Duguard – mother
Lucy Beverly Winston – daughter
Margaret Winston – daughter of Lucy above
Lawrence Sterns Kenner – son
Judity Cardin – daughter
William Winston Kenner – grandson
Roaham Beverly Kenner – grandson

Clearly, if our Margaret Dagord Dodson is Judith Kenner’s mother, she is not still living in 1819 at age 111, or at least it’s very doubtful – but was this will transcribed into the will book from the original, and then from the will book correctly?

Think you’re confused? Wait till you read this next item.

1821, 12 Oct: Judith Kenner of the state of TN of the 1st part, and Mackenzie Beverly of Caroline Co., VA of the 2nd part, and Wm. Gray of the town of Port Royal of the 3rd part. M. Beverley instituted a suit against the representatives of Rodham Kenner in the county court of Westmoreland for the purpose of recovering damages for a fraud supposed to have been practiced upon the said Beverley by said Rodham Kenner in his lifetime. That suit is pending and undetermined and the said Judith Kenner is entitled to the estate and effects of the said Rodham by virtue of his will, duly recorded in Westmoreland, and is about to remove part of the same out of the state. Said Beverly obtained a ne exent against Judith KENNER & who has a balance in the hands of one Leroy Boulware of 200 pounds VA currency, which she devised from the will of her brother, Rodham KENNER. Judith Kenner wishes that, in case the said M. Beverley shall recover damages against her said brother’s representative, that the same shall be secured to the said Beverley, she does grant to Gray, in consideration of $1 paid by William Gray, her right in the claim and tenement which she has in her hands of Peter Boulware, that is to say 100 pounds VA currency due 1 Jan next, and the 100 pounds due 1 Jan 1823, and does also sell her interest in the hands of one Thomas Dillard for the years 1822 and 1823, which annolment amounts to 42 pounds VA currency, which said sums she is entitled to by her brother Rodham’s will. The said Wm. Gray is to collect the rents as soon as they are due & to lend them out to some responsible person will pay the interest. The aforesaid conveyance is upon the express condition that in case McKenzie Beverly shall recover against the said Rodham Kenner’s representatives, that William Gray shall pay over and satisfy the said judgments and all costs thereon out of the monies to be recovered of the said Leroy Boulware and Thomas Dillard. But in case Beverly loses the suit, that then these presents shall cease and be void. And it is expressly understood by Judith Kenner and McKenzie Beverley that this conveyance is not to affect the merits of the suit. Signed by Judith Kenner, McKenzie Beverly, Wm. Gray. Wits. James Gray, Richard C. Corbin, Corn’s Tuomey, Daniel Turner. Should there be a balance left in the hands of the trustee after satisfying the said McKenzie Beverly, should he recover the suit, the balance is to be paid over in full to us Judith Kenner on her order, and if the said Beverly should lose, the full amount is to be paid over to Judith Kenner on her order. Signed William Gray. Wits. James Gray, Corns. Twomey, Dn’l Turner.

It looks for all the world like Judith Kenner was a Kenner by birth, given that her brother was Rodham Kenner, and she married a Kenner. However, if she was born a Kenner, then how is her mother Margaret Duguard? Or did her mother remarry perhaps after Judith’s father died? In which case, Judith Kenner is NOT the daughter of Margaret Dagord who married George Dodson. I’m still scratching my head. I feel like I need a roadmap and a score card.

And then:

1829, 13 Feb: Judith Kenner of Hawkins Co., TN made her wilI. Gave to two grandsons Rodham Kenner and William W. Kenner all my land containing about 300 acres, their heirs and assigns in fee simple, to be equally divided when William W. Kenner comes of age. Gave to said grandsons William W. Kenner and Rodham Kenner one negro woman called Eliza together with her offspring, equally divided, when William W. Kenner cones of age. Gave to said grandson Rodham Kenner my walking cane, marked on the head with Rodham Kenner, also my silver table spoons. Gave to said grandson William W. Kenner my silver watch, also I give and bequeath unto the said William W. Kenner my silver teaspoons. It is my desire that my negro man called Martin shall be sold and one half of the money to be put in the hands of my grandson William 0. Winston for the special benefit of his mother, my daughter Lucy, and the other half to be equally divided between my two grandsons Columbus Carden and Joseph Carden, children of my daughter Judith Carden, to be put out on interest till Joseph comes of age. In case one of them should die, the whole of said half to go to the survivor. Gave to all my grand children all my claims and interests in the State of Virginia, to be equally divided between them, share and share alike whenever settled. Gave to granddaughter Beverly J. Carden the bed and bed furniture on which I lay. It is my desire that my negroes called John, Nann & Caroline shall remain on the place whereon I now live, that all my stock and household furniture and farming utensils shall be kept together and nothing sold till the time herein after mentioned, and it is my desire that Lucy Winston my daughter shall take possession & live on the place & the house whereon & wherein I now reside till William W. Kenner comes of age or so long as my said daughter Lucy sees fit to reside on said place till the coming of age of said William W. Kenner, it is also my desire that my negro woman Eliza with her children shall remain on the said place, together with John, Nann & Caroline and assist in making provisions for my two grandsons Rodham Kenner and William W. Kenner and my daughter Lucy Winston till William W. Kenner comes of age, and it is my desire that all things be kept together on said place by my daughter Lucy just in the situation as I leave them till William W. Kenner comes of age, and then my old negroes John, Nann & Caroline are to always find a home on the place whereon I now live or live with whomsoever of my daughters or grand children they see fit, that when said William comes of age it is my desire that all my stock and household furniture be sold and out of the proceeds of said sale, I give and bequeath unto my grand daughter Margaret Findley $60.00, unto my grandson John G. Winston $60.00 & unto my grandson Columbus Carden $60.00, and after paying over the said sums, I give and bequeath unto my daughters Lucy Winston & Judith Carden the residue of said proceeds. Appoints William Simpson executor, revoking all former wills. Signed Judith Kenner. (1a) Will proved by oaths of witnesses 0. Rice, G. W. Huntsman

Summary:

Rodham Kenner – grandson
William W. Kenner – grandson underage
William O. Winston – grandson
Lucy Winston – daughter
Columbus Carden – grandson
Joseph Carden – grandson underage
Judith Carden – daughter
Beverly J. Carden – granddaughter
Margaret Findley – granddaughter
John G. Winston – grandson

The Judith Kenner with the 1829 will is clearly the same woman who wrote the 1819 will. Obviously, she thought she was going to die, and didn’t.

The will book in Hawkins County burned during the Civil War, and the wills were recopied from originals into a will book sometime later. Of course, the probate dates and estate information were burned, but at least the individual wills were preserved.

I have compiled information about the Kenner family from the Hawkins County Tennessee wills, from FindAGrave and from WikiTree, one of the few genealogy websites that allows and encourages the copying of free form text like wills, and citing sources.

If this is accurate, the following tree shows the interrelationships of Judith Kenner. Judith is married to the Rodham Kenner noted in green. Just like George Dodsons, there seem to be a plethora of Rodham Kenners too.

This does indeed show Judith’s mother as Margaret who was apparently living in 1819, but not in 1829 and had apparently remarried to a Duguard by 1819, because if Judith’s father was living and her mother had not remarried, she would have been called Mrs. Rodham Kenner or Margaret Kenner if a widow – never by her maiden name.

If George Kenner (see tree) was born about the time of Rodham Kenner’s death, then his eventual wife, Margaret, would have been born about the same time, meaning about 1733. This means that she would not have had daughter Judith Kenner before 1750 or 51, at the earliest. Therefore, Judith Kenner’s mother, Margaret, referenced as Margaret Duguard, born about 1733 is not our Margaret Dagord born in 1708. These two Margarets are an entire generation offset. I’d actually much rather for this relationship to be impossible than ambiguous.

Whew, what a time unraveling that knotted up ball of twine.

Margaret’s Mitochondrial DNA

Now for the bad news. Because Judith Kenner is NOT the daughter of our Margaret Dagord, the mitochondrial DNA of our Margaret Dagord appears to be deader than a doornail.

Mothers contribute their mitochondrial DNA to each child, but only the females pass it on. So to find Margaret’s mitochondrial DNA today, we would need to track it through all females from Margaret to the current generation, where the DNA recipients can be male.

We know that Margaret had daughters Mary and Hannah, but either they both died or married and are lost to us in time.

Now that we know that Judith Kenner wasn’t Margaret’s daughter, either, that pretty much ends our possibilities.

I mentioned in the beginning of this article that Cheryl Sendtko indicated that Dagord was spelled numerous ways in the North Farnham Parish Registers, but in searching those records at both Ancestry and MyHeritage, I didn’t find any surnames that began with Dag or Dog, so I’m not sure quite what Cheryl was seeing or perhaps she was referencing what others had said previously.

I do know that the North Farnham Parish Church registers have been indexed, but there are comments that the quality of the original records was poor, and that they were apparently transcribed from a copy of a copy. Sometimes you just have to be happy that anything survived!

I was searching for any other births to Henry Dagord, by any surname variant. I even looked up all Henry’s by first name with nothing resembling Dagord beginning with either Dag or Dog. I was hopeful of discovering that Margaret Dagord had a sister, but I was unable to find any record of another Dagord birth. One thing is for sure, if Henry Dagord’s daughter, Margaret, was born in North Farnham Parish in 1708 and married there in 1726, there is little question that they lived there between 1708 and 1726. Someplace, Margaret likely had siblings.

Focused research needs to be done in Virginia.

Acknowledgements

Much of the information about the early Dodson lines, specifically prior to Raleigh, comes from the wonderful two volume set written by the Reverend Silas Lucas, published originally in 1988, titled The Dodson (Dotson) Family of North Farnham Parish, Richmond County, Virginia – A History and Genealogy of Their Descendants.

I am extremely grateful to Reverend Lucas for the thousands of hours and years he spent compiling not just genealogical information, but searching through county records in Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and more. His work from his first publication in 1958 to his two-volume set 30 years later in 1988 stands as a model of what can and should be done for each colonial family – especially given that they were known to move from state to state without leaving any type of “forwarding address” for genealogists seeking them a few hundred years later. Without his books, Dodson researchers would be greatly hindered, if not entirely lost, today.