Introducing DNA Tidbits – DNA Tidbit #1: Triangulation

I know this winter is going to be difficult, but don’t lose heart. I have a plan.

Covid is already spiking and many families have already canceled holiday plans. This situation, combined with the seasonal darkness and cold will make things even more difficult for people in the northern hemisphere. I’ve been trying to think of some way to help make things better, to lift our collective spirits – and I’ve come up with an idea.

Drum roll please…

Today, I’m introducing the first of what will be weekly “DNA Tidbits” – fun genealogy+DNA tasks that might, just might, reveal buried treasure.

You know, tidbits, as in those wonderful tiny little nuggets of luscious goodness that tide you over until you can eat the whole thing, whatever your “thing” is. No, wait…eat the whole thing – that’s not what I meant to say:) Tidbits are about pacing ourselves, right??!!

DNA Tidbits will be enjoyable to do together because we can share our findings. They will range from introductory to a little more complex so everyone can play, and learn.

We will be jumping around between different vendors and third-party tools, so this might be a good time to be sure you’re in the 4 major databases, FamilyTreeDNA, MyHeritage, Ancestry, and 23andMe, either by testing or by transfer, where possible.

Here’s a step-by-step article about how to transfer results to both FamilyTreeDNA and MyHeritage, which are the only two testing vendors that accept transfers:

DNA Tidbits

DNA tidbits will be different from my regular articles in that they aren’t going to be detailed educational lessons on HOW to do specific things. That’s already handled in lots of articles on my blog that are keyword searchable.

Keyword Searchable

For example, if you want to read about triangulation, what it is, and how to use triangulation at the various vendors, use the search box on the blog and type in “triangulation.”

click to enlarge

You’ll find educational and instructional articles along with other articles where I’ve mentioned triangulation, plus lots of examples.

DNA Tidbit #1 – Triangulation

A DNA Tidbit challenge will read something like this:

Challenge: Go to each of the three testing vendors, FamilyTreeDNA, MyHeritage, and 23andMe who provide triangulation, plus GedMatch. View your 5 highest matches that triangulate. Triangulation, of course, means that three people – you, a match plus someone else (not a direct relative meaning not parents or siblings) all match each other on the same segment.

Can you tell how the person or people you triangulate with match? Through which ancestral line? You might be able to discern this by viewing each triangulated match to see:

  • Who else they match in common with you. If they triangulate with you and your first cousin who you already know, that’s a huge hint as to the ancestral line.
  • Who else they match on that same segment.
  • Ancestors share by you and those matches. Look at their surnames, trees, and other tools to see if you can identify common ancestors.

How can or does this help your genealogy?

Have you painted those segments at DNAPainter? That’s yet another way to achieve triangulation.

Triangulation Instructions

When I’ve written articles about how to perform the various tasks referenced in a DNA Tidbit, I’ll include links to instructions.

Why is Ancestry missing from this list?

Because Ancestry doesn’t have a chromosome browser or triangulation, which is why checking at GedMatch is important. At least some Ancestry customers will upload their DNA files to GedMatch and not elsewhere.

Community

During these next few months when we won’t be able to see members of our own families, our genealogy community will be more important than ever. Be sure to post a comment sharing your outcome for each week’s Tidbit. Did you find something unexpected?

Trust me, you’ll inspire others and we all need positive inspiration right now!

This triangulation exercise is DNA Tidbit #1.

I’ll go first with a couple of examples to help you along the way. This is probably more detailed than future Tidbits because Tidbits are designed to be quick for you and me, both. Can’t do everything? That’s OK, do something.

There are no tidbit or chocolate police!

DNA Tidbit #1 – Triangulation Results

Family Tree DNA – My top 5 triangulated autosomal matches are people assigned to one parent or the other. That’s how triangulation occurs at Family Tree DNA. I’ve skipped the people whose relationships I’ve already identified, which I track by notes, and selected my top 5 that I haven’t previously identified. Their note icon is grey meaning nothing recorded there.

click to enlarge

Unfortunately, Christopher has uploaded no tree. He is, however, assigned to my paternal side with a sizeable piece of matching DNA across multiple segments.

Looking at who we match in common, I can discern immediately that we connect through my great-grandparents, Lazarus Estes and Elizabeth Vannoy because we match people who descend from both of those lines upstream of that couple.

Christopher and I match on three significant segments.

  • The first segment also matches a cousin who descends through Lazarus and Elizabeth.
  • The second segment matches a cousin who descends from the Campbell/Dodson line which is Lazarus Estes’s mother’s line.
  • The third segment matches a cousin who also descends through the Campbell line so this segment can be attributed to Elizabeth Campbell of the Elizabeth Campbell/Lazarus Dodson marriage. That means, in generational order, this segment descends to me through my father, his father William George Estes, his father Lazarus Estes, his mother Rutha Dodson, and her mother Elizabeth Campbell and her parents John Campbell and Jenny Dobkins.

Next, I viewed these matches in the chromosome browser of course, and in the matrix tool.

I made a note on the match at FamilyTreeDNA and painted these segments at DNA Painter, noting how I identified the segments.

Unfortunately, none of my top 5 triangulated matches had trees that were productive in terms of identifying a common ancestor.

Have you gotten this far? Good job. Eat a strawberry or chocolate tidbit.

MyHeritage – I chose Jason from my match list, the first person with whom I did not have a note indicating I’ve already worked with the match.

I reviewed the DNA match to see if Jason and I share triangulated segments with other people, indicated by the purple icon on my shared matches with Jason.

click to enlarge

Jason and I triangulate with my cousin Buster, which tells me that we share a common ancestor from either the Lazarus Estes or Elizabeth Vannoy lines, my paternal grandfather’s parents They are my most recent common ancestors with Buster.

However, as I scan on down the list of shared matches that Jason and I triangulate with, I see several people from my paternal grandmother’s side who do not share ancestors with my paternal grandfather’s side. My grandparents were not related to each other.

This indicates that Jason and I are related through two different lines that lived in the same area and intermarried.

I might need two pieces of chocolate for this one!

I need to send Jason a message. He doesn’t have a tree, but I bet he knows at least some of his genealogy since this connection seems to be within the past few generations based on the amount of DNA we share.

23andMe is more difficult because you can’t quickly see which matches have notes. Notes only appear after you’ve clicked on the match, and then at the very bottom of that page after scrolling to the end. Instead, I use the stars to indicate that I’ve worked with the match.

I click on the star to turn it yellow after I’ve analyzed a match, in addition to making notes.

My first match at 23andMe with no yellow star is RA.

Checking who I match in common with RA, I can see that 23andMe has assigned RA to my father’s side of my genetic tree, as a descendant of Lazarus Estes and Elizabeth Vannoy. Keep in mind that this tree is not uploaded, but genetically created by 23andMe with the customer adding the appropriate names of their ancestors in their proper position. This relationship tree can be incorrect, but it’s certainly a useful tool.

click to enlarge

Clicking “Find Relatives in Common” on my match page with RA, I see that RA and I do share DNA, meaning triangulate, with several relatives on my list. That’s what “Shared” means in this context at 23andMe – shared same segment.

Unfortunately, RA has not entered any additional information such as a tree link, family surnames, or locations.

I’ll message RA for more information as soon as I finish my next bite of chocolate.

GEDmatch is a bit different because your match list is not pre-generated, meaning there is no stored match list so no ability to create and save notes for matches.

At GEDmatch, I did a One-to-Many comparison which allowed me to view my match list.

In the far right column, you can see the testing company and test version. A=Ancestry, F=FTDNA, and M=23andMe along with the version when it says the results were migrated to the current platform. Otherwise, you’ll see the name of the testing company your match uploaded from more recently.

I selected an Ancestry match since I’ll match the people from MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA at their respective sites that already have triangulation capability. I will match close matches at 23andMe, but 23andMe caps matches at 1500 (unless you’re on the V5 chip WITH a subscription), so some matches may be here that aren’t there.

Ancestry testers are my best bet for finding new triangulated matches at GEDmatch because Ancestry doesn’t support triangulation on their own platform.

Based on my match’s name, I think the first person on this match list that I can’t identify is the same match, Christopher, that I was working with at Family Tree DNA. He uploaded 4 different files to GEDmatch, including an Ancestry file. This tells me he might have a nice tree at Ancestry since he’s obviously interested enough in genealogy to test multiple places😊

I went back to the main GEDmatch menu and selected Triangulation from the Tier 1 (paid subscription) options. Triangulation selects your closest matches and indeed, Christopher was among the triangulated groups with other people I recognize, providing immediate hints as to how we are related.

Next, I’m going to run over to Ancestry to see if indeed, I can find Christopher and view his tree there.

Unfortunately, I can’t find Christopher at Ancestry by the name he used elsewhere, although I do see a good candidate using initials but who has a private tree☹

Time for another chocolate!

Fortunately, I have Christopher’s email from GEDmatch and FamilyTreeDNA, so I can send him a friendly email introducing myself and asking about his genealogy.

DNA Tidbit #1 – Summary

Surprisingly, with reviewing just 5 triangulated matches at each vendor, I found a LOT to work with and discovered the ancestral lines through which several people are related to me, even if I can’t isolate exactly which ancestor. I painted each of those matches at DNAPainter. I’m currently sitting at 90% of my segments painted, which means they are identified with a specific ancestral line. Every identified match gets me closer to 100%.

I’m left with the distinct impression that after I find genealogical connections with these closest matches, that the leftover matches that triangulate will be the ones to break down brick walls.

Those will be the matches I really need to concentrate on, because somehow these people DO all match each other too, and the common ancestor they share between themselves may be the clue I desperately need. You know, the key to those people waiting just behind that brick wall of burned records and no last names.

Making that discovery will, indeed, be cause to celebrate with more than tidbits!!!

_____________________________________________________________

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 Products and Services

Genealogy Research

Books

Holiday DNA Sales Have Started Early

Wow – the sales started early this year! I understand that Black Friday has morphed into the month of November. I’m good with that!

I’m not really surprised because many people are spending more time at home and let’s face it, genealogy is a great at-home activity. I’m glad the sales are starting earlier and running longer because it encourages more people to become engaged.

Genealogy can even help you produce holiday gifts for others in a myriad of ways. Not just purchasing DNA kits for yourself and family members but creating stories or giving them a book you’ve created with photos of grandma and grandpa’s life, perchance.

Of course, DNA is a HUGE part of genealogy. Even if you’re not going to be able to see Uncle Joe this Thanksgiving, you can certainly have a fun Zoom session and document him swabbing or spitting for his DNA test! Make memories, one way or another

Let’s see what the vendors are offering. Then, be sure to read to the end for a surprise.

FamilyTreeDNA – Early Bird Holiday Sale

click to enlarge

FamilyTreeDNA has more products to offer than any of the other vendors with autosomal, Y DNA and mitochondrial DNA tests, each offering something unique.

Y DNA focuses only on your direct patrilineal (surname) line if you are a male. Mitochondrial DNA follows your matrilineal (mother’s mother’s mother’s) line for both sexes. The Family Finder autosomal test traces all ancestral lines. You can read a quick article about these different tests and how they work in this article:

The Family Finder test uses matches to known family members like parents, aunts, uncles and cousins to assign other matches who match both you and your family member to either maternal or paternal sides of your tree.

You can also use Genetic Affairs AutoCluster, AutoTree and AutoPedigree tools at FamilyTreeDNA to get even more mileage out of your DNA tests.

If you were an early tester with Y and mitochondrial DNA, you can upgrade now to a more robust test to receive more granular results.

click to enlarge

Have you noticed the ancient DNA articles I’ve been writing recently?

Your most refined haplogroup revealed only in the Big Y-700 or mitochondrial mtFull Sequence test allows you to compare your haplogroup with ancient samples most effectively. I promise you, there will be more articles upcoming! These are just pure joy, connecting back in time.

The FamilyTreeDNA sale ends November 24th. Please click here to order or upgrade.

MyHeritage

MyHeritageDNA includes lots of features that other vendors don’t have, such as integrated AutoClusters and Theories of Family Relativity (TOFR) which connects you and your matches through a network of common records and trees. TOFR is surprisingly accurate, either pointing the way to or identifying common ancestors.

I wrote about how to use these and other included tools to unravel your genealogy in this recent article, with a free companion webinar:

Additionally, MyHeritage has a strong focus in Europe that includes lots of European testers – perfect for people whose ancestors are emigrants from another country.

MyHeritageDNA is on sale now for $49, a $30 savings, plus free shipping if you purchase two or more kits. Please click here to order.

This sale ends November 25th.

Ancestry

Best known for their large database, AncestryDNA offers ThruLines which takes advantage of their database size to suggest common ancestors for you and your matches based on multiple trees. I wrote about ThruLines in this article:

The AncestryDNA test is on sale now for $59, a $40 savings, with free US shipping. Please click here to order.

Sale ends November 23rd.

23andMe

23andMe is best known in the genealogy community for the accuracy of their Ancestry Composition, known as ethnicity results, which they paint on your chromosomes.

23andMe also creates a “genetic tree” between you and your closest matches based on who does and who does not match each other, and how they match each other. I wrote about genetic trees and subsequently, how they solved one mystery in these two articles.

While the genetic tree technology isn’t perfected yet, it’s certainly the direction of the future and can provide insight into how you and others are related and where to look for them in your actual genealogy tree.

The 23andMe Ancestry only test is available for a 10% reduction in price at $88.95. Please click here to order.

Of course, 23andMe also offers a health product that includes the ancestry product.

The 23andMe Health + Ancestry test is available for $99, a saving of 50%. Please click here to order.

These sale prices end November 26th.

Surprise!!!

I have an early holiday gift for you too.

Beginning later this week, I’m publishing the first article in a new interactive series aptly named…drum roll…“DNA Tidbits.”

Indeed, there is fruit-of-the-vine to be harvested and that’s exactly what we are going to do – in small steps! Tidbits.

Just like everything else on this blog, it’s completely free of course and we are going to have lots of FUN!

Let me give you a hint – you’ll probably want to have test results at all of these companies because the Tidbits will be bouncing around a bit – so if you need to buy something, please click on the links below.

Thank you and I can’t wait to get started!

_____________________________________________________________

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 Products and Services

Genealogy Research

Books

Ancient Ireland’s Y and Mitochondrial DNA – Do You Match???

Ancient Ireland – the land of Tara and Knowth and the passage tombs of New Grange. Land of legend, romance, and perchance of King Arthur, or at least some ancient king who became Arthur in legend.

The island of Ireland, today Ireland and Northern Ireland, was a destination location, it seems, the westernmost island in the British Isles, and therefore the western shore of Europe. Anyone who sailed further west had better have weeks of food, water, and a great deal of good luck.

But who settled Ireland, when, and where did they come from? How many times was Ireland settled, and did the new settlers simply mingle with those already in residence, or did they displace the original settlers? Oral history recorded in the most ancient texts speaks of waves of settlement and conquest.

According to two papers, discussed below, which analyze ancient DNA, there were two horizon events that changed life dramatically in Europe, the arrival of agriculture about 3750 BC, or about 5770 years ago, and the arrival of metallurgy about 2300 BC, or 4320 years ago.

The people who lived in Ireland originally are classified as the Mesolithic people, generally referred to as hunter-gatherers. The second wave was known as Neolithic or the people who arrived as farmers. The third wave heralded the arrival of the Bronze Age when humans began to work with metals.

Our answers about Irish settlers come from the skeletons of the people who lived in Ireland at one time and whose bones remain in various types of burials and tombs.

The first remains to be processed with high coverage whole genome sequencing were those of 3 males whose remains were found in a cist burial on volcanic Rathlin Island, located in the channel between Ireland and Scotland.

In 795, Rathlin had the dubious honor of being the first target of Viking raiding and pillaging.

Rathlin Island is but a spit of land, with a total population of about 150 people, 4 miles east to west and 2.5 miles north to south. Conflict on the island didn’t stop there, with the Campbell and McDonald clan, among others, having bloody clashes on this tiny piece of land, with losers being tossed from the cliffs.

The island is believed to have been settled during the Mesolithic period, according to O’Sullivan in Maritime Ireland, An Archaeology of Coastal Communities (2007). The original language of Rathlin was Gaelic. Having been a half-way point between Ireland and Scotland, it’s believed that Rathlin served as an important cog in the Dalriada diaspora with Dalriada people taking their language, through Rathlin, into Scotland from about 300 AD, or 1700 years ago.

The first Irish remains whose DNA was sequenced at the whole genome level are from those three men and a much earlier Neolithic woman.

  • Three men from a cist burial in Rathlin Island, Co. Antrim (2026-1534 BC) with associated food vessel pottery.
  • A Neolithic woman (3343-3030 BC) from Ballynahatty, County, Down, south of Belfast, found in an early megalithic passage-like grave

Megalithic tomb at the centre of the Giant’s Ring in Ballynahatty, Ireland, photo by robertpaulyoung – [1], CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3221494

The female is clearly older than the three Rathlin males. According to Cassidy, et al, 2016, she clusters with 5 other Middle Neolithic individuals from Germany, Spain, and Scandinavia, while the males cluster with early Bronze Age genomes from central and northern Europe, reflecting a division between hunter-gatherer and early farmer individuals.

The males reflect genetic components of the Yamnaya, early Bronze Age herders from the Pontic Steppe, along with an equal level of Caucasus admixture.

The threshold between the Neolithic and Bronze Age fell at about 3750 BC in western Europe and Ireland, right between these two burials.

Even Earlier Burials

In 2020, Cassidy et al sequenced another 44 individuals from Irish passage grave burials ranging in age from 4793 to 2910 BC, or about 3000 to 7000 years ago. All of the men are members of haplogroup I, except two who are Y haplogroup H.

The Rathlin males, all haplogroup R1b, combined with evidence provided by later genetic analysis of passage grave remains point decisively towards a population replacement – with haplogroup R males replacing the previous inhabitants of both Europe and the British Isles.

In far western Ireland, haplogroup R and subgroups reach nearly 100% today.

I would encourage you to read the two papers, linked below, along with supplemental information. They are absolutely fascinating and include surprises involving both the history between Ireland and continental Europe, along with the relationships between the people buried at Newgrange.

Not only that, but the oral history regarding an elite sibling relationship involving the sun was passed down through millenia and seems to be corroborated by the genetics revealed today.

The most recent 2020 paper includes extensive archaeological context revolving around passage graves and megalithic tombs. When I visited New Grange in 2017, above, I was told that genetic analysis was underway on remains from several ancient burials.

I’m incredibly grateful that Dr. Dan Bradley’s ancient DNA lab at the Smurfit Institute of Genetics in Dublin, which I was also privileged to visit, was not only working on these historical treasures but that they were successful in obtaining high-quality results for Y DNA, autosomal and mitochondrial.

Dr. Dan Bradley in his ancient DNA lab in Dublin.

Take a look at these fascinating papers and then, see if you match any of the ancient samples.

Papers

Neolithic and Bronze Age migration to Ireland and establishment of the insular Atlantic genome by Cassidy et al 2016

This paper included the Ballynahatty female and the three Rathlin Island males.

Significance

Modern Europe has been shaped by two episodes in prehistory, the advent of agriculture and later metallurgy. These innovations brought not only massive cultural change but also, in certain parts of the continent, a change in genetic structure. The manner in which these transitions affected the islands of Ireland and Britain on the northwestern edge of the continent remains the subject of debate. The first ancient whole genomes from Ireland, including two at high coverage, demonstrate that large-scale genetic shifts accompanied both transitions. We also observe a strong signal of continuity between modern-day Irish populations and the Bronze Age individuals, one of whom is a carrier for the C282Y hemochromatosis mutation, which has its highest frequencies in Ireland today.

Abstract

The Neolithic and Bronze Age transitions were profound cultural shifts catalyzed in parts of Europe by migrations, first of early farmers from the Near East and then Bronze Age herders from the Pontic Steppe. However, a decades-long, unresolved controversy is whether population change or cultural adoption occurred at the Atlantic edge, within the British Isles. We address this issue by using the first whole genome data from prehistoric Irish individuals. A Neolithic woman (3343–3020 cal BC) from a megalithic burial (10.3× coverage) possessed a genome of predominantly Near Eastern origin. She had some hunter–gatherer ancestry but belonged to a population of large effective size, suggesting a substantial influx of early farmers to the island. Three Bronze Age individuals from Rathlin Island (2026–1534 cal BC), including one high coverage (10.5×) genome, showed substantial Steppe genetic heritage indicating that the European population upheavals of the third millennium manifested all of the way from southern Siberia to the western ocean. This turnover invites the possibility of accompanying introduction of Indo-European, perhaps early Celtic, language. Irish Bronze Age haplotypic similarity is strongest within modern Irish, Scottish, and Welsh populations, and several important genetic variants that today show maximal or very high frequencies in Ireland appear at this horizon. These include those coding for lactase persistence, blue eye color, Y chromosome R1b haplotypes, and the hemochromatosis C282Y allele; to our knowledge, the first detection of a known Mendelian disease variant in prehistory. These findings together suggest the establishment of central attributes of the Irish genome 4,000 y ago.

A Dynastic elite in monumental Neolithic society by Cassidy et al, 2020

Poulnabrone Dolmen, County Clare, where disarticulated remains of 35 individuals have been excavated and two, approximately 5500-6000 years old, have resulting haplogroups.

This second article includes a great deal of archaeological and burial information which includes caves, reefs, cist burials, boulder chambers, peat bogs, dry-stone walls, portal tombs (think Stonehenge style structures), megalithic tombs such as the Giant’s Ring, court tombs, and passage tombs, including Newgrange.

Abstract

The nature and distribution of political power in Europe during the Neolithic era remains poorly understood1. During this period, many societies began to invest heavily in building monuments, which suggests an increase in social organization. The scale and sophistication of megalithic architecture along the Atlantic seaboard, culminating in the great passage tomb complexes, is particularly impressive2. Although co-operative ideology has often been emphasized as a driver of megalith construction1, the human expenditure required to erect the largest monuments has led some researchers to emphasize hierarchy3—of which the most extreme case is a small elite marshalling the labour of the masses. Here we present evidence that a social stratum of this type was established during the Neolithic period in Ireland. We sampled 44 whole genomes, among which we identify the adult son of a first-degree incestuous union from remains that were discovered within the most elaborate recess of the Newgrange passage tomb. Socially sanctioned matings of this nature are very rare, and are documented almost exclusively among politico-religious elites4—specifically within polygynous and patrilineal royal families that are headed by god-kings5,6. We identify relatives of this individual within two other major complexes of passage tombs 150 km to the west of Newgrange, as well as dietary differences and fine-scale haplotypic structure (which is unprecedented in resolution for a prehistoric population) between passage tomb samples and the larger dataset, which together imply hierarchy. This elite emerged against a backdrop of rapid maritime colonization that displaced a unique Mesolithic isolate population, although we also detected rare Irish hunter-gatherer introgression within the Neolithic population.

Y DNA Analysis at FamilyTreeDNA

Fortunately, the minimum coverage threshold for the Bradley lab was 30X, meaning 30 scanned reads. Of the 37 males sequenced, the lab was able to assign a Y DNA haplogroup to 36.

Family Tree DNA downloaded the BAM files and Michael Sager analyzed the Y DNA. The results split about 8 Y DNA lines, resulting in a total of 16 different haplogroup assignments. There are a couple more that may split with additional tests.

Cassidy et al report that the Y DNA results in several geographic locations, using the ISOGG tree (2018) for haplogroup assignment, although in some cases, I did find some inconsistencies in their haplogroup and SNP names. I would recommend reading the paper in full for the context, including the supplementary information, and not simply extracting the SNP information, because the context is robust as is their analysis.

If your family hails from the Emerald Isle, chances are very good that these people represent your ancestral lines, one way or another – even if you don’t match them exactly. The events they witnessed were experienced by your ancestors too. There appears to have been a vibrant, diverse community, or communities, based on the burials and history revealed.

Of course, we all want to know if our Y DNA or mitochondrial DNA haplogroups, or that of our family members matches any of these ancient samples.

Thank you to Michael Sager, phylogeneticist, and Goran Runfeldt, head of R&D at Family Tree DNA for making this information available. Without their generosity, we would never know that an ancient sample actually split branches of the tree, nor could we see if we match.

Do You Match?

I explained, in this article, here, step-by-step, how to determine if your Y DNA or mitochondrial DNA matches these ancient samples.

If you only have a predicted or base haplogroup, you can certainly see if your haplogroup is upstream of any of these ancient men. However, you’ll receive the best results if you have taken the detailed Big Y-700 test, or for the mitochondrial DNA lines, the full sequence test. You can upgrade or order those tests, here. (Sale started today.)

Sample: Rathlin1 / RM127 (Cassidy et al. 2016)
Sex: Male
Location: Glebe, Rathlin Island, Northern Ireland
Age: Early Bronze Age 2026-1885 cal BC
Y-DNA: R-DF21
mtDNA: U5a1b1e

Sample: Rathlin2 / RSK1 (Cassidy et al. 2016)
Sex: Male
Location: Glebe, Rathlin Island, Northern Ireland
Age: Early Bronze Age 2024-1741 cal BC
Y-DNA: R-DF21
mtDNA: U5b2a2

Sample: Rathlin3 / RSK2 (Cassidy et al. 2016)
Sex: Male
Location: Glebe, Rathlin Island, Northern Ireland
Age: Early Bronze Age 1736-1534 cal BC
Y-DNA: R-L21
mtDNA: J2b1a

Sample: Ballynahatty / BA64 (Cassidy et al. 2016)
Sex: Female
Location: Ballynahatty, Down, Northern Ireland
Age: Middle to Late Neolithic 3343-3020 cal BC
mtDNA: HV0-T195C!

The above 4 samples were from the original 2016 paper, with the additional samples from 2020 added below

Sample: Ashleypark3 / ASH3 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Ashleypark, Tipperary, Ireland
Age: Early-Middle Neolithic 3712-3539 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-FT344600
FTDNA Comment: Ashleypark3, Parknabinnia186, Parknabinnia2031, Parknabinnia672, Parknabinnia675, Parknabinnia768 and Poulnabrone06 split the I2-L1286 (S21204+/L1286-) branch. These samples, along with SBj (Gunther 2018), I1763 (Mathieson 2018), Ajv54 (Malmström 2019) and Ajv52, Ajv58 and Ajv70 (Skoglund 2012) form the branch I-FT344596. All Cassidy samples form an additional branch downstream, I-FT344600. There is further evidence that SBj, Ajv58 and Ajv52 might form an additional branch, sibling to I-FT344600
mtDNA: T2c1d1

Sample: Killuragh6 / KGH6 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Killuragh, Limerick, Ireland
Age: Mesolithic 4793-4608 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-V4921
FTDNA Comment: Joins ancient samples Loschbour, Motala12, Motala3 (Lazaridis 2015) and Steigen (Gunther 2018) at I2-V4921
mtDNA: U5b2a

Loschbour Man is from present-day Luxembourg, Motala is from Sweden and Steigen is from Norway.

Sample: Parknabinnia186 / PB186 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Parknabinnia, Clare, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3518-3355 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-FT344600
FTDNA Comment: See Ashleypark3
mtDNA: X2b-T226C

Sample: Parknabinnia2031 / PB2031 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Parknabinnia, Clare, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3632-3374 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-FT344600
FTDNA Comment: See Ashleypark3
mtDNA: K1a2b

Sample: Parknabinnia672 / PB672 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Parknabinnia, Clare, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3626-3196 cal BC; 3639-3384 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-FT344600
FTDNA Comment: See Ashleypark3
mtDNA: T2c1d-T152C!

Sample: Parknabinnia675 / PB675 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Parknabinnia, Clare, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3263-2910 cal BC; 3632-3372 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-FT344600
FTDNA Comment: See Ashleypark3
mtDNA: H1

Sample: Parknabinnia768 / PB768 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Parknabinnia, Clare, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3642-3375 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-FT344600
FTDNA Comment: See Ashleypark3
mtDNA: H4a1a1

Sample: Poulnabrone06 / PN06 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Poulnabrone, Clare, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3635-3376 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-FT344600
FTDNA Comment: See Ashleypark3
mtDNA: H

Sample: Sramore62 / SRA62 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Sramore, Leitrim, Ireland
Age: Mesolithic 4226-3963 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-S2519
FTDNA Comment: Split the I2-S2519 branch. Pushes Cheddar man and SUC009 down to I-S2497. Other relevant pre-L38s include I2977 (I-Y63727) and R11, I5401, I4971, I4915 I4607 (I-S2599)
mtDNA: U5a2d

This branch is ancestral to Cheddar Man who dates from about 9000 years ago and was found in Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, England. S2497 has 141 subbranches.

Sample: Annagh1 / ANN1 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Annagh, Limerick, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3638-3137 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-Y3712
FTDNA Comment: One of 15 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: K1a-T195C!

Men from Germany and Ireland are also found on this branch which hosts 47 subbranches.

Sample: Annagh2 / ANN2 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Annagh, Limerick, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3705-3379 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-Y3712
FTDNA Comment: One of 15 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: H4a1a1

Along with men from Germany and Ireland, and 47 subbranches.

Sample: Ardcroney2 / ARD2 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Ardcrony, Tipperary, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3624-3367 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-FT354500
FTDNA Comment: Ardcroney2 and Parknabinnia443 split the I2-Y13518 branch and form a branch together (I-FT354500). Additional ancient samples residing on I-Y13518 include I2637, I2979, I6759, and Kelco cave
mtDNA: J2b1a

Kelco Cave is in Yorkshire, England.

Sample: Ashleypark1 / ASH1 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Ashleypark, Tipperary, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3641-3381 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-Y3712
FTDNA Comment: One of 15 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: K2a9

Sample: Baunogenasraid72 / BG72 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Baunogenasraid, Carlow, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3635-3377 cal BC
Y-DNA: H-FT362000
FTDNA Comment: Baunogenasraid72 and Jerpoint14 split the H-SK1180 branch and form branch together (H-FT362000). Several other additional ancient samples belong to this branch as well including FLR001, FLR002, FLR004, GRG022, GRG041 (Rivollat 2020), and BUCH2 (Brunel 2020)
mtDNA: K1a4a1

Y haplogroup H is hen’s-teeth rare.

Sample: Carrowkeel531 / CAK531 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Carrowkeel, Sligo, Ireland
Age: Late Neolithic 2881-2625 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-FT380380
FTDNA Comment: Joins ancient sample prs013 (Sánchez-Quinto 2019)
mtDNA: H1

Sample: Carrowkeel532 / CAK532 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Carrowkeel, Sligo, Ireland
Age: Late Neolithic 3014-2891 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-Y3709
FTDNA Comment: One of 12 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: J1c3

One current sample from Portugal.

Sample: Carrowkeel534 / CAK534 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Carrowkeel, Sligo, Ireland
Age: Neolithic None
Y-DNA: I-M284
mtDNA: X2b4

This branch has several subclades as well as people from Ireland, Scotland, England, British Isles, Germany, France, Denmark, Northern Ireland and Norway.

Sample: Carrowkeel68 / CAK68 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Carrowkeel, Sligo, Ireland
Age: Late Neolithic 2833-2469 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-Y3709
FTDNA Comment: One of 12 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: H

Sample: Cohaw448 / CH448 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Cohaw, Cavan, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3652-3384 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-L1498
mtDNA: H1

This branch has 129 subbranches and men from England, Ireland, UK, France, Germany, Czech Republic, Norway, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Sample: Glennamong1007 / GNM1007 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Glennamong, Mayo, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3507-3106 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-Y3713
FTDNA Comment: Joins VK280
mtDNA: K1a-T195C!

Branch has 42 subbranches and men from Ireland, England, Scotland, France, and Germany. I wrote about VK280, a Viking skeleton from Denmark, here.

Sample: Glennamong1076 / GNM1076 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Glennamong, Mayo, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3364-2940 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-Y3709
FTDNA Comment: One of 12 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: H1c

Sample: MillinBay6 / MB6 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Millin Bay (Keentagh Td.), Down, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3495-3040 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-L1193
FTDNA Comment: One of 6 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: J1c3

Branch has 51 subbranches and men from Ireland and England.

Sample: Jerpoint14 / JP14 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Jerpoint West, Kilkenny, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3694-3369 cal BC
Y-DNA: H-FT362000
FTDNA Comment: Baunogenasraid72 and Jerpoint14 split the H-SK1180 branch and form branch together (H-FT362000). Several other additional ancient samples belong to this branch as well including FLR001, FLR002, FLR004, GRG022, GRG041 (Rivollat 2020), and BUCH2 (Brunel 2020)
mtDNA: T2c1d1

Sample: Newgrange10 / NG10 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Newgrange, Main Chamber, Meath, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3338-3028 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-Y3709
FTDNA Comment: One of 12 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: U5b1-T16189C!-T16192C!

Sample: Parknabinnia1327 / PB1327 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Parknabinnia, Clare, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3631-3353 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-Y3712
FTDNA Comment: One of 15 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: T2b3

Sample: Parknabinnia443 / PB443 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Parknabinnia, Clare, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3636-3378 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-FT354500
FTDNA Comment: Ardcroney2 and Parknabinnia443 split the I2-Y13518 branch and form a branch together (I-FT354500). Additional ancient samples residing on I-Y13518 include I2637, I2979, I6759, and Kelco_cave
mtDNA: K1b1a1

Sample: Parknabinnia581 / PB581 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Parknabinnia, Clare, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3631-3362 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-L1193
FTDNA Comment: One of 6 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: T2b

Sample: Poulnabrone02 / PN02 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Poulnabrone, Clare, Ireland
Age: Early-Middle Neolithic 3704-3522 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-Y3712
FTDNA Comment: One of 15 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: U5b1c1

Sample: Poulnabrone03 / PN03 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Poulnabrone, Clare, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3635-3376 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-Y3709
FTDNA Comment: One of 12 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: K1a1

Sample: Poulnabrone04 / PN04 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Poulnabrone, Clare, Ireland
Age: Early Neolithic 3944-3665 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-Y3709
FTDNA Comment: One of 12 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: H1-T16189C!

Sample: Poulnabrone05 / PN05 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Poulnabrone, Clare, Ireland
Age: Early Neolithic 3941-3661 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-L1193
FTDNA Comment: One of 6 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: K1a-T195C!

Sample: Poulnabrone07 / PN07 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Poulnabrone, Clare, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3629-3371 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-FT370113
FTDNA Comment: Forms a branch with Raschoille_1 (Brace 2019) and I3041 (Olalde 2018). Other relevant ancient samples are Carsington_Pasture_1, I3134, I7638 at I-BY166411, and Coldrum_1 and I2660 at I-BY168618. These 8 ancients all group with two modern men, 1 from Ireland and 1 of unknown origins.
mtDNA: U5b1c

Sample: Poulnabrone107 / PN107 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Poulnabrone, Clare, Ireland
Age: Early Neolithic 3926-3666 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-Y3709
FTDNA Comment: One of 12 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: U4a2f

Sample: Poulnabrone112 / PN112 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Poulnabrone, Clare, Ireland
Age: Early-Middle Neolithic 3696-3535 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-Y3709
FTDNA Comment: One of 12 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: U5b2b

Sample: Poulnabrone12 / PN12 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Poulnabrone, Clare, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3621-3198 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-Y3709
FTDNA Comment: One of 12 ancient samples currently on this branch
mtDNA: H

Sample: Poulnabrone13 / PN13 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Male
Location: Poulnabrone, Clare, Ireland
Age: Early-Middle Neolithic 3704-3536 cal BC
Y-DNA: I-S2639
mtDNA: V

Branch has 172 subclades.

Sample: Carrowkeel530 / CAK530 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Female
Location: Carrowkeel, Sligo, Ireland
Age: Late Neolithic 2883-2634 cal BC
mtDNA: W5b

Sample: Carrowkeel533 / CAK533 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Female
Location: Carrowkeel, Sligo, Ireland
Age: Late Neolithic 3085-2904 cal BC
mtDNA: H

Sample: NewgrangeZ1 / NGZ1 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Female
Location: Site Z, Newgrange, Meath, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3320-2922 cal BC
mtDNA: X2b-T226C

Sample: Parknabinnia1794 / PB1794 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Female
Location: Parknabinnia, Clare, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3647-3377 cal BC
mtDNA: J1c6

Sample: Parknabinnia357 / PB357 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Female
Location: Parknabinnia, Clare, Ireland
Age: Early-Middle Neolithic 3640-3381 cal BC; 3774-3642 cal BC
mtDNA: U8b1b

Sample: Parknabinnia754 / PB754 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Female
Location: Parknabinnia, Clare, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3617-3138 cal BC
mtDNA: U5b2a3

Sample: Poulnabrone10_113 / PN113 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Female
Location: Poulnabrone, Clare, Ireland
Age: Early Neolithic 3940-3703 cal BC
mtDNA: H4a1a1a

Sample: Poulnabrone16 / PN16 (Cassidy et al. 2020)
Sex: Female
Location: Poulnabrone, Clare, Ireland
Age: Middle Neolithic 3633-3374 cal BC
mtDNA: K1b1a1

So, how about it? Do you match?

_____________________________________________________________

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 Products and Services

Genealogy Research

Books

  • com – lots of wonderful genealogy research books

When Did Michael Miller Really Die? The Answer May Lay in the Land – 52 Ancestors #312

It’s been widely reported, including by me, that Johann Michael Miller died in 1771. That’s where the evidence all pointed – until perhaps now.

Do we have it wrong?

There’s conflicting evidence that I can’t resolve, so I’m hoping that perhaps someone else has some insight, or records that I don’t. Plus, this is a great story! So kick back and enjoy while Johann Michael Miller tortures me once again😊

Credit Where Credit is Due!

First, I’d like to thank two other researchers, both of whom reached out to me after I published the primary Michael Miller article. This article dovetails with the earlier one.

Johann Michael Miller (Mueller) the Second (1692-1771), Brethren Immigrant, 52 Ancestors #104

One of the things I love about these articles is that they engage other people. Initially, a year ago, Wayne Diehl contacted me with new information.

Recently, Robert Atteberry wrote to me about what he believes to be a different death year for Michael Miller.

I should have known when I read the first sentence of Robert’s document that he attached!

“You may need to buckle your seat belt, as this will be a rather long and bumpy ride.”

And truly, that was an understatement.

Yep – Buckle Up

It’s ironic that my Johann Michael Mueller, shortened to Michael Miller in the US, isn’t a direct interest of Robert. At least not yet.

Robert needs to resolve the multiple Michael Miller connections to discover more about another Michael Miller, along with Henry Miller, who married the daughters of Jacob French II. Oh, the things genealogists do in the process of tracking down those pesky ancestors.

I’m noting Robert Atteberry’s Miller interest early in this article in the hope that someone may possess some information to help him along his journey. Robert writes:

In my research of my Henry Miller line, I have come across a Michael and Henry Miller living in Berkeley County WV in the latter part of the 18th Century, who appear to have married daughters of Jacob French II. When I encounter other persons of the same surname living contemporaneous and in near geographic proximity to my target ancestor, I am obliged to investigate the ancestry of those allied parties, so that they can either be excluded or included as part of my ancestor’s family. When I discovered that Jacob French, and his brother, George French owned property in Forbush Branch in close proximity to Michael Miller, of course I felt compelled to study Michael Miller. That imperative heightened even more when I found that Jacob Good had actually purchased Huckleberry Hall from Jacob French II.

Note that Martinsburg, West Virginia near Forbush Branch is only about 20 miles south of Ash Swamp, owned by my Michael Miller, the immigrant, in Frederick County.

Jacob Good is believed (but not proven) to have been the step-son-in-law of Michael Miller through his second wife, Elizabeth Garber, widow of Nicholas Garber, along with John Riffe. One thing is for sure, Jacob Good was involved in several land transactions with some Michael Miller in Frederick County, MD whose land was very close to the proven land of our Johann Michael Miller.

There are lots of moving parts, and either we have multiple coincidences, which is possible, or we’re making headway, little by little.

Robert is currently looking for a male Miller descendant from his line of interest to Y DNA test. That would answer the question – well – at least one question.

From Robert:

My interest really lies in a totally separate, and probably unrelated Miller line: Henry Miller and his wife, Magdalena of Martinsburg WV.

Even though I do not at present have any direct evidence that the Michael and Henry Miller, who married daughters of Jacob French II, were kinsman of the Brethren Michael Miller, I cannot as yet rule out that possibility. More to my specific purpose, I cannot even state with any certainty that any of these Washington County Miller’s have any connection to my ancestor, Henry Miller of Opequon Creek.

Please click here for Robert’s story and use your browser search for “Jacob French.”

But before I share Robert’s potentially apple-cart-upsetting discovery, it’s important to flesh out more of the story of Michael Miller’s land. Because the devil is in the details, and the answer may lay in the land.

Johann Michael Miller’s relevant land ownership begins in Pennsylvania with Batchelor’s Choice in what was then Lancaster County, PA, soon to become York and then Adam County.

Batchelor’s Choice

In 1744, the same year our Michael Miller is mentioned in Brethren letters, Batchelor’s Choice was purchased by Michael Miller, Nicholas Garber, Samuel Bechtol and Hans Jacob and Elizabeth Bechtol who lived in Chester Co. PA. These families had migrated from Chester County where they were found on the 1737 tax list.

Batchelor’s Choice was subdivided with 150 acres each to Michael Miller and Samuel Bechtol, Michael’s wife’s brother who is buried in the adjacent cemetery, and 100 acres to Nicholas Garber.

Wayne Diehl plotted the location of Batchelor’s Choice outside of Hanover, PA.

Here’s the land (Batchelors Choice) purchased in 1744 by Michael Miller (plat 3, 150 acres), Samuel Bechtol (plat 2, 150 acres) and Nicholas Gerber (plat 1, 100 acres.)  It’s just outside Hanover, PA, and I visited the site last year and took some pics.

A big thank you to Wayne for allowing me to include his photos.

From York/ Hanover Road, Wayne looked across the fields that Michael owned to see the farm in the distance.

Of course, Michael would have had a barn, probably multiple barns, but no silos back then. Otherwise, this land, once cleared, which would have been a massive undertaking, has probably changed little.

This photo shows Michael’s land that lay south of present-day Gitts Run Road.

Michael’s portion of the land had an old road, now Gitts Run, that runs directly through the middle of the property today. That’s exactly how old farm paths became eventual roads.

Wayne visited in October of 2018 and took this photo driving through Michael’s land, with his fields on both sides. The bridge across Oil Creek is just about where that vehicle is in the photo.

Oil Creek runs alongside, and like all early homesteads, the house was found nearby. Settlers would have walked a few feet to the creek to fill buckets. The closer the creek, the better.

The curve hugs the barn closely, a road design that would never be approved today. The house sits back from the road.

This beautiful, historic home is just stunning. I can’t help but wonder if that tree dates to when Michael lived on this property.

Rounding the curve, we see the back of original farmhouse in the distance, along with a beautiful partly-bricked barn. They don’t build barns like that anymore.

Driving past the silos and barn, I see what might be a farm stand to the right, under the roof. In the Amish/Mennonite area where I grew up, farm stands dotted the landscape with jars or boxes and neighbors paid on the honor system.

There are electrical wires to the home today, so the home is wired for electricity.

The photos above are from Google street view, but Wayne was able to take a lovely photo of the home, below, which I strongly suspect was either Michael Millers’ or built shortly after he sold the property.

Of course we don’t know if this was the original home, but the dual fireplaces with the two small windows at either end of the house tell us that this structure is quite old, very likely pre-1800.

Of course, the homestead is surrounded by farmland all around.

Looking in all directions. The aerial below shows all of Michael’s portion of the land.

The deep black loam of these fields looks incredibly fertile, even yet today.

This view encompasses all of Michael’s land including the Bechtel and Garber tracts, plus some of the neighboring area, including Bairs Mennonite Church. I can’t help but wonder who owned that adjacent tract.

It’s interesting that the Bairs Mennonite Church along with the very large York Road Cemetery, also known as Bair’s Meeting House Cemetery, is located right beside what was once Michael’s land. The Bechtel’s who bought that land from Michael Miller were Mennonite and there are lots of Bechtels buried in the cemetery, including Samuel Bechtel, Michael’s brother-in-law, who died in 1758. This church was established early, along with the cemetery, and is very likely the location where Michael Miller’s wife, Suzanna Bechtel along with Nicholas Garber were buried.

It’s possible that Michael is buried here as well. Given that he married Nicholas Garber’s widow, he could have moved back, and potentially died here.

This meeting house certainly hadn’t been built yet at that time, but an earlier structure could have stood here. There had to be something here by 1758 when Samuel Bechtel was buried, and likely before.

Meetings may have been held exclusively in the homes of members, or clergy, and this cemetery might well have simply been the Garber, Miller, Bechtel extended family cemetery, at least initially. Or, perhaps by that time there was a log cabin meeting house.

The oldest graves would have been located closest to the church, radiating outward with each ensuing generation. Michael’s home was just “over yonder” a bit, within view and just across the field. You could look out the window and see your family members’ resting places as you went about your daily chores. They were always nearby, watching over you.

This aerial shows all of Batchelor’s Run, the land where Michael lived along with his brother-in-law, Samuel Bechtol and Nicholas Garber.

The original portion of this home on Gitts Run with its beautiful barn on the Garber tract may have been the home where Nicholas Garber lived – and perhaps the home where Michael Miller lived after he married the widow of Nicholas Garber.

Whether Michael ever lived here or not, the Garber and Bechtel homes were assuredly like second homes to these families who migrated and established homesteads together. They all would have helped each other build homes and barns, probably all living together in one home until they managed to build the rest. We still had barn-raisings and house-raisings where I grew up in an Amish/Mennonite community, 200+ years later. Everyone depended on their neighbors who often were family.

The Garber property, in particular, becomes important later on in Michael’s story.

Michael may not have actually lived on this property long – or perhaps he actually settled on this land before he purchased in 1744. In any event, a year later, Michael purchased land several miles away, on what was even further out on the edge of the frontier.

Ash Swamp

In 1745, the year after he purchased Batchelor’s Choice, Michael Miller bought land in what was then Prince George County, MD, the part that would become Frederick County in 1748. The deed states that Prince George was where Michael lived at that time, however, this entire region was under dispute. Michael may have thought he lived in Maryland and actually lived in Pennsylvania. As strange as that sounds, it wasn’t. I discussed the border war in the original Michael Miller article.

Regardless of where Michael believed his old or new land to be located at that time, his new land was located unquestionably in the portion of Prince George County that would become Frederick County three years later.

Batchelor’s Choice and Ash Swamp are only about 45 miles apart.

Three years later, on February 24, 1748, Nicholas Garber/Gerber wrote his will which was proved on June 6, 1748, naming his eldest son, Samuel who was to receive his plantation if he lived to be of age, otherwise to the younger son, his eldest daughter, Elizabeth who was to get an additional cow above the others. Other names were not given. Witnesses were Christian Kehr and Samuel Bechtol. Nicholas’s estate wasn’t settled for at least 6 years, because in 1754, Michael Miller was administering his estate.

If further estate papers exist, including land transactions, this could shed a lot of light on when Michael Miller was living, where he lived at the time, and the identity of Nicholas and Elizabeth Garber’s children. It’s believed that in addition to Samuel Garber they had a son Martin Garber, both found in Frederick County, MD in 1776 on the list non-Associators, Elizabeth Garber who married Jacob Good, Anna Garber who married John Riffe, both also listed as non-Associators, and John Garber who married Barbara Miller, rumored daughter of Johann Michael Miller, and joined Jacob Riffe and Lodowick Miller in Rockingham Co., VA.

In 1749, York County, PA, was formed from Lancaster. Batchelor’s Choice is located in York County. There were two Michael Millers in York County at that time.

By October 1751, Michael’s son, Philip Jacob Miller had taken over the Ash Swamp land warrant in Frederick County, MD, and enlarged it to 290 acres. It was resurveyed for Philip Jacob on April 25, 1752 with the patent issued on November 17, 1753.

On March 7, 1752, Michael Miller sold his 150-acre portion of Batchelor’s Choice in York County to Samuel Bechtol. This would have signaled his move to Maryland, or at least that’s what logic would tell us, especially given that’s when the majority of the Brethren community departed York County in Pennsylvania for Frederick County in Maryland due to the continuing and escalating border wars.

But, maybe Michael never moved. Maybe he sold his land for another reason.

Also, in 1752, Ash Swamp was resurveyed for Michael’s son, Philip Jacob Miller. There is no deed conveying this land from Michael to Philip Jacob.

In 1783, Philip Jacob and his brothers Lodowick and John conveyed it to each other, with the outcome being that John owned the portion to the north, Philip Jacob to the south and Lodowich bought an adjoining farm to the south, “Tom’s Chance,” in 1751. The brothers were all living adjacent.

By 1754, one Michael Miller had married Elizabeth Garber, the widow of Nicholas Garber, which would have given him possession of Nicholas Garber’s 100 acres. I have not seen the actual will or administration/court records.

Is this why Michael sold his own land in 1752? Was that when he married Elizabeth Garber? Is that why he in essence “gave” his survey in Frederick County to his son(s)? Did he use the money from the sale of his land in Pennsylvania to purchase more land in Maryland?

An orphans’ court record on December 10, 1754 states that Elizabeth Garber, the widow of Nicholas, is now the wife of Michael Miller and that he is administrating the accounts for the will which suggests that some of the children were yet underage.

Perhaps Michael and Elizabeth had both moved to Frederick County, Maryland by this time.

More Land in Maryland

Some Michael Miller acquired significantly more land in Maryland, subsequently giving most of it to those believed to be his Garber step-children in 1765, with wife Elizabeth relinquishing her dower rights.

By 1762 and 1763, we find three Michael Millers mentioned in Frederick County in the form of Michael Miller Sr. in 1762 and 1763, Michael Miller Jr. in the same years through 1772 and Hans Michael Miller in 1772.

To separate the three Michael Millers, Michael Miller Sr., Michael Miller Jr. and Hans Michael Miller, we use the information that is recorded in the Land Tax records at Annapolis MD in the archives. This is what was found:

Michael Miller Sr. 1762 and 1763
Skipton on Craven – 100 ac – sold in 1765 to Jacob Good and John Riffe
Miller’s Fancy – 36 ac – sold in 1765 to John Riffe but Michael continued to pay taxes on 36 acres
Skipton on Craven – 180 ac – sold in 1765 to John Riffe and Jacob Good, where they now live
Resurvey of Well Taught – 409 ac – sold in 1765 to Jacob Good and John Riffe but Michael continued to pay taxes on 8 acres

Michael Miller Jr. 1762 and 1763
Miller’s Chance – 50 ac – 1762 – the same land seems to be called Blindman’s Choice
Blindman’s Choice – 50 ac – 1763 to 1772
(Most years Miller’s Choice was called Blindman’s Choice)

Hans Michael Miller – 1772
In addition to land in Antrim Twp, Franklin Co, Pa and New Creek, now Mineral Co, WV as given in his will, he paid taxes in 1772 in Frederick Co., MD on the following:
Resurvey of Nicholas Mistake – 1025 ac
Garden’s delight – 146 ac – also called Teagarden’s Delight – combined into Pleasant Garden Resurvey
Add Garden’s delight – 28 ac – became part of Pleasant Garden
Plunket’s Doubt – 133 ac – became part of Pleasant Garden
Maiden’s Walk – 35 ac – became part of Pleasant Gardens
Tonas Lott – 16 ac
Small Hope – 20 ac
Small Hope – 43 ac
Rocky Creek – 150 ac

It’s believed that Hans Michael Miller is the son of Johann Michael Miller, the immigrant because Hans Michael Miller was given 1000 pounds in 1771 by Michael Miller Sr. to purchase Pleasant Gardens according to Gene Edwin Miller in “A History and Genealogy of David Y. Miller 1809-1898.” He noted that activity under 1771, but I wish he had given a specific reference.

I don’t know if the deed states a relationship, but it has been presumed to be a father-son transaction, but it would also be a grandfather-grandson transaction. Looking at the signature on the deed might tell us a great deal, because the Michael who sold property in 1765 signed with an “M” mark, while the one who bought land in 1769 signed with a signature.

We don’t discover more about Pleasant Gardens itself, but on the 1772 tax list, there are two entries called “Garden’s Delight” and “Add Garden’s Delight.” Robert, when plotting deeds, shows 5 different properties condensed into Pleasant Gardens, including those two.

This same Michael Miller owned land in Antrim Twp., Franklin Co., PA which is located just across the Pennsylvania line from Frederick County, and in New Creek, now Mineral Co., WV, “as was given in his will.” I don’t have that will.

New Creek is about 90 miles west of Maugansville.

Information about another Michael Miller’s death about 1792 was found in a deed recorded in 1792 in Frederick County, Maryland Land Record Book WR-11, Pages 365, 366, and 367:

“This Indenture made the twenty-ninth day of October anno Domini seventeen hundred and ninety-two between Tobias Hainley and Elizabeth his wife formerly Elizabeth Miller, Christian Miller, John Bower and Margaret, his wife formerly Margaret Miller, Michael Miller, and Henry Miller heirs at law to Michael Miller late of the County of Frederick and State of Maryland of the one part and Adam Miller of the said County of Frederick of the other part.”

We don’t know the relations between any of these Michael Miller’s other than by inference and the breadcrumbs of their transactions. Garden’s Delight and Add Garden Delight is the land that Michael Miller sold to Jacob Good, believed to be the son-in-law of Elizabeth Garber.

Somehow, these people are connected, but how?

Michael Miller’s death has been reported as 1771 based on a letter written by his old friend and Dunker minister, Nicholas Martin, where he mentions Michael’s death in a letter dated May 24, 1772.

 “You will perhaps know that the dear Brother Michael Miller died a year ago. Brother Jacob Stutzman is again quite improved; he was very feeble this past winter.”

Jacob Stutzman was Michael Miller’s half-brother, a few years younger, which would make sense that they were referenced together. I wrote their story, here.

This means, of course, that the two Michael Millers who paid taxes in 1772 could not have been the Michael Miller who died – limiting the Michael who died in 1771 to only Michael Miller Sr. who had paid taxes on Skipton of Crave, Miller’s Fancy, and Resurvey of Well Taught in 1762 and 1763.

After Michael’s death in 1771, Michael Miller Jr. and Hans Michael Miller were both paying taxes in 1772. The area was vacated due to Indian incursions, and taxes were not paid again until 1768. The lengthy tax debt list from 1769-1772 notes that taxes were paid by “the heirs” of Michael Miller.

In 1768-1769, the delinquent tax list notes that several people are “under the circumstances as renders it out of the power of…to collect the rents.” This is also the same time that Iroquois raids were occurring in Frederick County. On that list we find the following Miller men:

  • Conrad Miller
  • Isaac Miller
  • Jacob Miller Jr.
  • John Miller
  • Lodwick Miller
  • Michael Miller heirs
  • Oliver Miller, Balt. Co
  • Thomas Miller

The entry for “Michael Miller heirs” is very interesting. It’s worth noting that John Riffe paid the taxes on the 481 acres of Resurvey on Wel Taught through 1774. In the years 1768 and 1769, there were two entries in the tax debt book, one for the Heirs of Michael Miller and one for John Riffe which look to be the same. Given that Michael Miller continued to pay taxes on a portion of both Miller’s Fancy and Resurvey on Well Taught after he conveyed the land itself, this makes sense.

John Riffe and Jacob Good have long been attributed as the sons-in-law of Elizabeth Garber, widow of Nicholas Garber and Michael Miller’s second wife. Reading what I can find online, I don’t know why.

The fact that this tax list says “heirs of Michael Miller” combined with the fact that the Riffe land appears to be the same as the Michael Miller land suggests that indeed John Riffe is the heir of Michael Miller and therefore will pay the taxes. Loosely, this could mean “family” but it does confirm that in some sense, John Riffe is considered to be an heir of Michael Miller.

The most logical “heir” would be Michael’s son-in-law, not his second wife’s son-in-law, so Michael’s step-son-in-law, who technically is not an heir of Michael Miller. Michael’s only heirs at law would be his wife at the time of his death and his children since Michael did not leave a will. His second wife’s children would not be Michael’s heirs unless he left a will naming them.

I’m left wondering if we have discovered two of Michael Miller’s daughters and not his step-children. Nicholas Garber’s estate papers have just become even more critical to unraveling Michael Miller’s family.

This information supports that Michael Miller died in 1771. He may well have been behind on his taxes, based on age, infirmity and the fact that warfare had been occurring in the region and families had repeatedly vacated and returned some years later.

In 1783, three Miller men, son of Johann Michael Miller, conveyed the land of Ash Swamp back and forth. On Dec. 9, 1783 we find a deed for 220 acres from Lodowich Miller to Philip Jacob Miller for 5 shillings (Washington Co., Land records, Book C, pages 563-47). On December 26, 1783, Philip Jacob Miller conveys 144 acres to John Peter Miller for 5 shillings “and brotherly affection.” Book C, pages 260-262.

It appears that these men are handling the distribution of their father’s land between themselves. If Michael Miller died on 1771, why wait 11 years to divide his land? If he died before 1752, why wait 31 years? It would appear that this is when Lodowick was preparing to leave the area, so perhaps that’s what precipitated the deed filings.

How Lodowick came to own 220 acres of the 290 acres surveyed to Philip Jacob, without a deed, though, is a complete mystery. Another missing puzzle piece.

Ash Swamp and Ashton Hall

In 1745, Michael Miller purchased land which was subsequently resurveyed in 1752 under the name of his son, Philip Jacob Miller. That land was known as Ash Swamp and was eventually divided between three of Michael’s sons as noted above.

Fortunately, we have the 1752 resurvey, and Wayne overlayed it using Plat Plotter software to discover the actual property lines, outside Hagerstown, Maryland.

For reference, Grace Academy is the location where I sat and photographed the landscape during my visit a few years ago. While I was actually ON the southwest corner of Michael Miller’s land where the left red arrow below is pointing, it appears that perhaps I should have been sitting in the parking lot to the right of the building, looking northward at the subdivision. Most of his land was behind me.

The manor, Ashton Hall, built in 1801, after the land was sold out of the Miller family is located at the red arrow to the right. We believe that Ashton Hall was built where the Miller home had been, or very close. Regardless of whether this was the exact location of Michael’s homestead, given that Ashton Hall still exists, it acts as an anchor for Michael’s land.

Original settlers would have built within a few feet of a water source, both for them and their animals. Generally, you wanted to locate at the head of a spring because you didn’t want anyone or anything contaminating your water upstream.

It’s worth noting that both the Maugan’s homestead and another early local homestead actually built directly OVER a spring, probably due to the danger of Indian attacks. If Michael Miller did the same thing, then his original home, probably initially a log cabin, would have been over the head of this spring which appears to be almost exactly where Ashton Hall is located today.

In fact, Ashton Hall fits that bill, exactly. The tree line shown with red arrows that begins at Ashton Hall is a stream that intersects with Rush Run. In fact, Wayne mentions this as well:

I wrestled with several alternate, close-by locations, as well. Ultimately, I settled on this one because Deed Book BB1, p. 362 Prince Geo. Co., says, “beginning a bounded Spanish Oak Tree standing near the head of an Ashton Swamp…” (modern day Rush Run). Accordingly, I felt that the plat had to be “anchored” on Rush Run with the first survey segment, which this placement satisfies.

Wayne’s email in the fall of 2019 shared the exciting survey information. I’ll let Wayne tell you in his own words:

I have discovered some additional information that I thought might be of interest to you regarding this subject.

First, I secured an actual survey of the 290 acre Ashton Swamp tract from 1752. Using the meets and bounds from the survey and the PlatPlotter program by Jason Rushton I was able to approximate where the plat “fits” on a modern satellite view. The 1752 survey was helpful in anchoring the tract on what is now Rush Creek, stating, “beginning at a Spanish Oak standing near the head of an Ashton Swamp, it being the original beginning tree of the old Land called Ash Swamp.”

The beauty of PlatPlotter is that after constructing an outline of the plat, one is able to move it around a satellite view of the earth in order to find modern day property lines that have survived and coincide with the plat, itself. When there has been a lot of development, this can be especially problematic, as is the case at Maugansville.

Another helpful aid is aerial photographs taken at various times since the 1940’s, often before the development of the past 50 years. These photos are easily accessible at the United States Geological Survey web site.

Lastly, an article regarding the Ashton Hall house, built in 1801 by John Schnebly, led to locating the house which still stands in the middle of a sub-division.

The photo, below, is from Google Streetview. The location is the southwest corner of Chads Terrace and Jennifer Lane.

This home was built by John Snavely in 1804. Note the same double chimney with double small windows on each side of the chimney on the third floor – same style as the Batchelor’s Choice home.

The next photo is the PlatPlotter view of the 290-acre Ash Swamp tract along with the 150-acre Toms Chance tract which was owned by Lodowich Miller. The starting point for both surveys was a Spanish Oak on the northeast corner of the Toms Chance plot and the southeast corner of the Ash Swamp plot. I felt comfortable with the placement of the survey on the map because several modern boundaries coincide. And, now knowing that Ashton Hall, itself, is in the sub-division further confirms this placement.

On May 14, 1745, Johann George Arnold sold Ash Swamp (200 acres at that time), to Michael Miller. The deed stated that Arnold’s house was about 500 yards from the starting point of the survey. The current Ashton Hall is 600 yards from the starting point of the survey, but it could well have been the location of an earlier dwelling. All of this interests me because I am descended from Arnold as well as Lodowich and Johann Michael Miller.

Below: Aerial view of Ash Swamp about 1965

click to enlarge

Robert Atteberry had simultaneously been plotting Ash Swamp, Ashton Hall and other Michael Miller and associated properties, although we hadn’t met yet. That wouldn’t happen until late summer 2020 – and then almost not at all thanks to technical gremlins.

I introduced the three of us, plus Doug, another friend, who weighed in some on the surveys.

Robert writes to our little research group:

Thank you for sharing your plot of Ash Swamp overlaid on the 1960 aerial. It was very useful in our efforts to more precisely identify the location of the Ash Swamp property on the ground.  Attached you will find a .pdf file containing three images.

The first image is of my Ash Swamp layout, which was overlaid on a Google Map base. I have taken Wayne’s aerial map and overlaid it on top of my layout.

click to enlarge

I used the Interstate 81 alignment, and specifically the Maugans Avenue Interchange on the north and the Maugansville Road Exit Ramp on the south to correlate and fit Wayne’s aerial to my Google Map base. As you can see in this image, there is a fairly precise fit. I rendered Wayne’s image with a transparency filter so that the Google Map features are visible in the background.

The second image is an enlarged rendition of my Ash Swamp plat map reconstruction, sans the Google Map base. I have traced a fairly precise copy of Wayne’s layout of the Ash Swamp property, which I have overlaid atop my Ash Swamp plat reconstruction, and positioned it essentially the same as it appeared in the first image. As you can see, Wayne’s layout fits fairly well with my layout, except that it is positioned about 200 feet northerly on my southern boundary. The western boundaries are an almost perfect fit for alignment and placement. There are several variances between Wayne’s rendition and mine along the northern and eastern borders, which I do not believe are important or relevant to our purpose, but which could probably be reconciled if need be.

The third image is a copy of Wayne’s aerial map to which I have applied what I consider to be a more precise location of Ashton Hall. This location was obtained from the first figure, in which I have marked the present-day location of Ashton Hall at the intersection of Jennifer Lane and Chad Terrace.  As you can see, the actual location of Ashton Hall is several 100 feet to the west of the location suggested by Wayne.

click to enlarge

You may do with this information as you will, I simply provide it for your further consideration.

Now, as for the location of the Ash Swamp property on the ground, I do not believe that we can state with any certainty its exact location without knowing its placement within the 196 acres acquired by John Schnebley from Philip Jacob Miller. I believe the only thing we can state with any certainty is that Ashton Hall probably fell somewhere within the boundaries of that property. I have assumed that Ashton Hall fell somewhere near the center of that property, but in fact, it could have been virtually anywhere within the bounds of the Ashton Swamp tract. By placing it near the center of that tract, I have minimized the amount of variance from its true location.

That being said, I think it worthwhile to share with you one other piece of information regarding my plat map reconstructions. In my enlarged plat map layout, which includes Resurvey on Plunks Doubt, I have included a much larger area extending all the way across the state line into Pennsylvania. By having developed a conjoined layout connecting the Ash Swamp area to the Plunks Doubt resurvey map, I was able to incorporate another piece of historical property, which I was able to utilize as another target for establishing geographic proximity. That property is the historic Kammerer House, which was located within the CitiCorp Industrial Park to the northeast of the Hagerstown Regional Airpark. The Kammerer House still existed until it was demolished about 10 years ago. Its location was somewhere within a 107.44 acre tract sold by Allen and Elizabeth Clopper to the Hagerstown-Washington County Industrial Foundation (CHIEF) on 19Jul1985.

Unlike the Ash Swamp plats, the old Kammerer House property deed contained several fairly precise geographic references, i.e. a point on the south side of State Line Road, and a point on the west side of Route 11. From these geographic references I was able to fairly accurately place the Kammerer House property on my plat map reconstruction. In fact, it was that tract location siting that allowed me to locate and overlay my Resurvey on Plunks Doubt plat map reconstruction on the Google Map base to a fairly high level of precision. Having done that, I then added the Ash Swamp plats to that same Google Map base.

Interestingly enough, it was the Pleasant Garden tract containing 358 acres acquired by Michael Miller from William Teagarden on 30Jun1769, which allowed me to interconnect the Ash Swamp plats with the Resurvey on Plunks Doubt. Now, I recognize that plat map reconstructions and placements on contemporary base maps is fraught with ambiguities, so I cannot say that my work is any better than the next guys. But, what I can say is that by having developed my plat map reconstructions with the methods just described, in the end, the Ash Swamp property location as shown in my plat map reconstructions is what appears in the exhibits I have put forward. Having started from a fairly precise known fixed point (the Kammerer House Property), the Ash Swamp Plats, when combined with the Resurvey on Plunks Doubt, fit almost dead center on the Ashton Hall site.  Make of it what you will.

Using Corel Draw, Robert painstakingly drew not only the Ash Swamp property, but also incorporated other nearby Miller-associated properties. A picture really is worth 1000 words.

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

The Hans Michael Miller who was alive in 1772, owned Pleasant Garden and was deceased by 1792. He owned land very close to the Ash Swamp land owned by the immigrant Johann Michael Miller – less than a mile apart as the crow flies, noted above.

Philip Jacob Miller had acquired Prickly Ash Bottom in 1774, which immediately abutted Pleasant Garden.

Furthermore, Miller’s Desire and Plunket’s Doubt abut the Pleasant Garden land to the northwest.

These three properties may well have been within view of Ash Swamp, making it very likely that this entire region was owned by Miller men, probably sons of Johann Michael Miller, with Hans Michael Miller possibly having been a grandson.

Robert then overlaid that image on the Google Map aerial view.

click to enlarge

The dotted black horizontal line on the map above is the state line between Maryland and Pennsylvania. The lower joining portion of this map is shown below.

click to enlarge

The Great News

The great news is that we’ve established, unquestionably where Michael Miller’s Ash Swamp land was located. Two independent researchers came within a few feet of each other’s work.

Robert gave us an incredible gift and plotted the remainder of Michael Miller’s land purchases in this area over the years which shows us how close they actually were.

All of those pieces of land were originally believed to have been owned by Michael Miller, the immigrant, prior to his death in 1771 as reported by Nicholas Martin.

Now, however, we have a fly in the ointment.

The Problem

The problem is introduced by the language in the 1783 deed between Lodowick Miller and Philip Jacob Miller, his brother, as pointed out by Robert in his transcription, below, red and bolding, mine:

At the request of Philip Jacob Miller was the following deed recorded 26Dec1783, to wit: This indenture made this 9th day of December, 1783 between Lodowick Miller of Frederick County in the state of Maryland, farmer, of the one part, son and heir at law to a certain Michael Miller, deceased, formerly (of) Frederick County, but now of Washington County in this state of Maryland, and a certain Philip Jacob Miller, his brother, of Washington County in the state of Maryland, farmer, of the other part, witnesseth that he, the said Lodowick Miller, for and in consideration of the sum of five shillings of current and lawful money of the state of Maryland and as well as formerly received full satisfaction for my part of my father, Michael Miller’s, estate in the after mentioned land and premises received by me, Lodowick Miller, the above sum of five shillings current money as aforesaid well and truly paid in hand before the signing, sealing and delivery of these presents the receipt whereof, I the said Lodowick Miller, doth hereby acknowledge and himself therewith fully satisfied, contented and paid and from same and every part and parcel thereof doth acquit, exonerate and discharge him, the said Philip Jacob Miller, his brother, his heirs and assigns forever, hath given, granted, bargained, sold, aliened, transferred and made over and by virtue of these presents doth give, grant, bargain, sell, alien, transfer and make over and absolutely confirm unto him, the said Philip Jacob Miller, my brother, his heirs and assigns forever, all my right, estate, title, claims and demand whatsoever of me, the said Lodowick Miller and all my heirs of a certain tract of land situate, lying and being in Washington County in the state of Maryland called Ash Swamp, originally granted by patent to a certain John George Arnold, bearing date the 16th day of January 1739, and by him, the said John George Arnold conveyed by deed of conveyance bearing date on the 14th day of May 1745 unto a certain Michael Miller, deceased, being my father, said deed being recorded amongst the land records of Prince Georges County in said state of Maryland aforesaid, that being this the county wherein said land was laid out in the said state by recourse thereunto had, will more fully appear and afterwards said original tract being resurveyed by and with my consent and free will as son and heir at law to my father, Michael Miller, deceased, and leaving no will, I ordered and agreed that my brother, Philip Jacob Miller, should resurvey the said original tract called Ash Swamp as aforesaid, which was resurveyed on on the 25th day of April 1752, and afterwards patented unto him, my said brother, Philip Jacob Miller, his heirs and assigns for 290 acres, with the vacancy added therein included with the original tract and the whole called the Resurvey on Ash Swamp, which lands and rights, privileges, as above mentioned, both of the original tract called Ash Swamp and the resurvey thereon, I convey all my right, title, estate and property thereof, and the whole as above mentioned unto my brother, Philip Jacob Miller, his heirs and assigns forever…

And yes, Robert sent the original deed along too, and it reads exactly the same.

Let’s take this piece by piece.

  • “John George Arnold conveyed by deed of conveyance bearing date on the 14th day of May 1745 unto a certain Michael Miller, deceased, being my father, said deed being recorded amongst the land records of Prince Georges County in said state of Maryland aforesaid, that being this the county wherein said land was laid out…”

This portion is confirmed by deed, and we know that by 1783, based on the Nicholas Martin letter in 1772, Michael was assuredly deceased by that time.

  • “…original tract being resurveyed by and with my consent and free will as son and heir at law to my father, Michael Miller, deceased, and leaving no will…”

We have never been able to locate a will for Johann Michael Miller. It has always been presumed to be because he had already conveyed his land by 1765, signing only with an M at that time, and possibly had nothing left to give in 1771. Or, of course, the documents could be lost. Records aren’t always complete and things are often misfiled. Not to mention the Indian issues that caused residents to vacate more than once. This confirmed that Michael Miller had no will which probably means he died unexpectedly.

  • “…I ordered and agreed that my brother, Philip Jacob Miller, should resurvey the said original tract called Ash Swamp as aforesaid, which was resurveyed on the 25th day of April 1752, and afterwards patented unto him, my said brother, Philip Jacob Miller, his heirs and assigns for 290 acres…”

This is the really problematic section. It clearly says that Lodowick agreed that his brother should resurvey the tract, which Philip Jacob, under the name Jacob, did, and is confirmed by the grant in 1753.

What this does NOT say is that Johann Michael Miller was deceased when the resurvey occurred, in 1752.

Here’s the resurvey document.

This resurvey, dated April 25, 1752, says that it was originally laid out for 150 acres on October 26, 1751. It says nothing about how an additional 140 acres was added.

I have tried to navigate the Maryland Archives website to find the earlier 1751 survey. I believe that site is the very least intuitive, least helpful website I’ve ever attempted to use. I hoped to discover in the 1751 survey that Michael had signed the land over to Philip Jacob, or both sons perhaps.

This statement about Michael Miller’s death is one of those situations that raises far, far more questions than it answers.

Questions, I Have So Many Questions

  • Does Lodowick say that Michael had no will because Michael died AFTER the resurvey and patent, and Lodowick was saying that the original land grant was agreed upon and conveyed orally, and the resurvey was agreed upon orally too?
  • Was Lodowick saying that everything was agreed upon BEFORE his father’s death and since his father died with no will that he is not disputing the land ownership with his brother? This means his father could have died anytime between 1752 and 1783.
  • Was Lodowick saying that everything was agreed upon AFTER his father’s death and since his father died with no will, and apparently no estate administration either (or it’s lost), that he is not disputing the land ownership? This also does not mean that Michael died before 1752, only that the two men agreed in 1752, perhaps anticipating that they would one day both inherit this land that they had been promised. If Michael died without a will, the land was never actually left to both men, and since it was in Philip Jacob’s name, was Lodowick simply signing off to make the title “clean” because he had already received something else? Lodowich did purchase land in 1751.

The Brethren were known to prefer NOT filing anything with any government body, which is why we have no marriage records. But Michael Miller did file other deeds, even with other family members like Samuel Bechtol. Why not the Ash Swamp land, or was the fact that Philip Jacob applied for the resurvey and received the grant considered “good enough”?

If Michael Miller had died WITH some estate of value, such as this land grant, why was there no administrator appointed? Typically that’s a legal requirement and the judge orders commissioners to report to the court whether the deceased has any property. I found nothing in the Maryland records, checking both Frederick County which was formed from Prince George in 1748, and Prince George County. Perhaps I should check both Lancaster and York Counties in Pennsylvania too.

Let’s look at the timeframe.

Michael Miller sold land that was unquestionably his to Samuel Bechtol in Hanover, PA on March 7, 1752. The Philip Jacob Miller survey took place in October of 1751, and the resurvey took place in April of 1752. If Michael Miller died, it would have had to have been after March 7th of 1752 when he sold his land, and before April 25 when the resurvey took place, based on Lodowich’s 1783 deed language. That’s only a window of about 6 weeks.

Of course, that doesn’t explain why in October of 1751, the survey of the same land was in the name of Philip Jacob Miller if that occurred after Michael’s death.

If the October 1751 survey occurred after Michael’s death, then the land sale to Samuel Bechtel could not have occurred because Michael would have already been deceased.

In 1754, Michael is mentioned as the husband of Elizabeth Garber, administering her husband’s estate. If Michael Miller is dead, he can’t be administering that estate. It’s been suggested that Michael’s son, Michael Jr. married the widow – but based on the ages of the people involved, Michael’s son would be the age of Elizabeth Garber’s children – so that marriage is extremely unlikely.

There are notes from three different authors, but no primary sources, that state that there was a 1752 deed conveying the Ash Swamp land to Michael Miller’s sons. I don’t have that deed and Robert, who does have originals of most deeds, says it doesn’t exist. Robert’s original “page by page” research at the Maryland archives far outstrips my distanced research. Those authors may have meant that the re-survey serves as a deed – except that it isn’t a deed unless the 1751 October original survey includes a conveyance. Again, a missing puzzle piece.

After the Michael Miller 1765 land sales of most of Miller’s Fancy and Resurvey on Well Taught (although he continued to pay taxes on 44 acres) to the (believed) children of Elizabeth Garber, which are detailed in this article, some Michael Miller purchased a large parcel in Frederick County, including parts of 5 different tracts, totaling over 1000 acres in 1769. That Michael signed with a signature, not an M.

Robert provides this:

30Jun1769 – Frederick County Deed Book M, pp 362-4:  Michael Miller purchased from William Teagarden, both of Frederick County, for sum of £1000, parts of five different parts of tracts all contiguous and joining to one another: (1) part of Teagardens Delight containing 146 acres, (2) part of Addition to Teagardens Delight containing 28 acres, (3) part of Resurvey on Plunks Doubt containing 133 acres, (4) part of Maidens Walk containing 35 acres, and (5) part of Joneses Lot containing 16 acres; all combined into a new tract called Pleasant Garden containing 358 acres

It sure would be nice to know what happened to this land, and if it ties in with any other known family members.

Was this Michael, referred to as Jr. on the tax lists, the son of Michael Sr. who either died before the 1752 resurvey or in 1771? Of course, Jr. can simply mean the younger of two men by the same name – it does not necessarily indicate a relationship between those two men.

If so, and if Michael Miller Sr. did NOT convey the Ash Swamp land to his sons Philip Jacob, Lodowick and possibly John before the resurvey in 1752, then why was son Michael Miller (or his descendants) NOT included in the 1783 land swaps involving Ash Swamp after Michael Sr.’s death? At least to sign off, if nothing else.

We know Michael Sr. was alive in 1745 when Ash Swamp was purchased by him, and that he was dead before 1783, certainly deceased in or by 1771, and possibly before 1752.

This region was in an uproar during part of this time and the residents had to flee. A record exists that states the taxes from 1769-1772 were paid by the heirs of Michael Miller. Some records indicate that this tax was owed for many years, so perhaps his heirs paid the taxes for all of those years after his death. But again, this begs the question of what happened to the land he was paying tax on during this period and why no estate administrator was appointed. Perhaps that was the 44 acres that he had already conveyed but was paying taxes on – suggesting that he was living on at least part of that land.

Some Brethren Michael Miller clearly died in 1771. In 1772 and thereafter, Michael Miller Jr. and Hans Michael Miller were still paying taxes on some land, detailed in this article, so it wasn’t one of them that died in 1771.

If things weren’t already complicated enough, we find this deed from another blog reader, Landis, who thinks they may indeed be descended from the original Michael Miller, the immigrant through…you guessed it…Michael Miller Jr.

I believe I am a descendant of Michael Miller Jr., who is supposed to be a son of Michael Miller and Susanna Berchtol. Frederick County, Maryland Land Record, Book WR-11, Pages 365, 366, and 367 shows a deed, “This Indenture made the twenty-ninth day of October anno Domini seventeen hundred and ninety-two Between Tobias Hainley and Elizabeth his wife formerly Elizabeth Miller, Christian Miller, John Bower and Margaret, his wife formerly Margaret Miller, Michael Miller, and Henry Miller heirs at law to Michael Miller late of the County of Frederick and State of Maryland of the one part and Adam Miller of the said County of Frederick of the other part.” – It seems that Adam Miller, who I believe to be my 5th Great Grandfather, 1768-1833 (died Napier, Bedford, PA), had to pay his siblings for land belonging to their father, Michael Miller which he had not paid for in full. Subsequent deeds show Adam Miller and his wife Eve sold the land to a John Bower and moved to Bedford County in 1818.

It’s worth noting that Bedford County was a stepping stone for many Brethren families as they migrated westward to central Ohio (Montgomery, Preble and Darke Counties) and eventually, Elkhart County in northern Indiana.

In this deed, we find a reference to both Henry and Michael, the names Robert is seeking. What we don’t know is where this land was located. Was it part of the Michael Miller real estate empire, and if so, which part?

Perhaps the answer to Robert Atteberry’s Henry and Michael Miller found in New Creek as well as more information about my Johann Michael Miller and his descendants will be revealed in:

  • The Michael Miller and his descendants from Martinsburg, WV, although those locations aren’t exactly close.
  • A clue in the estate of Nicholas Garber and the identification of Nicholas and Elizabeth Garber’s children who would have been the step-children of whichever Michael Miller married their widowed mother.
  • The relationship to other players to John Schnebley, son of Dr. Henry Schnebley, that purchased all of Ash Swamp and additional lands from Philip Jacob Miller, son of Johann Michael Miller, the immigrant, in 1795.
  • Information about Jacob Good, Elizabeth Garber’s presumed son-in-law who seems to be connected to the original Michael Miller who conveyed more than half of Skipton-on-Craven to him in 1765, the land where Jacob Good was living at that time. John Riffe/Rife whose wife is reported to be Jacob Good’s wife’s sister, daughters of Nicholas and Elizabeth Garber, sold out in 1775 and went to Rockingham County, VA along with Lodowick Miller and others of the Brethren faith during the Revolutionary War timeframe when they were being fined and their property confiscated.
  • The same Jacob Good who was deeded land from Michael Miller in 1765 on Little Antietam Creek, also known as Forbush’s Branch. Robert places this land northeast of Hagerstown, near Leitersburg, which is very close proximity to Huckleberry Hall.
  • The same Jacob Good who purchased Huckleberry Hall from John Schnebley in 1787 who bought it from Jacob French, his brother in law.
  • The Michael Miller in New Creek who lived near Jacob French whose 2 daughters married men named Michael and Henry Miller.

Little Antietam Creek is less than 500 feet from Huckleberry Hall.

In fact, today, at the bridge of Poplar Grove Road over Little Antietam Creek, we find an abandoned stone home. Did Jacob Good own this land too? Is this part of Skipton-on Craven, which we know that Jacob Good owned and was living in 1765. Robert couldn’t place that land, exactly, although the tract was situated someplace on Little Antietam Creek. Hmmmm…

How are these people connected, because surely at least some of them are – one way or another.

A long and bumpy ride, indeed, Robert.

Can DNA Help?

Landis joined the Miller-Brethren project at Family Tree DNA to see if he matched other Miller descendants. I hope Robert will too.

I encourage everyone whose Miller family was either Brethren, Amish or Mennonite to join and upload a tree. Members can compare specifically to other members (through the advanced search) who have joined the project which makes common lines much easier to identify. Of course, not everyone joins projects, so reviewing all Miller connections is critical. I would suggest using Genetic Affairs autotree feature to see if each of these men match other people who have Miller lines in their trees.

The Miller-Brethren project welcomes Y DNA Miller testers and people related to Brethren, Amish or Mennonite Miller families though other (non-Y DNA) lines. If you haven’t yet tested, Miller men can order a Y DNA test, and everyone can order the autosomal Family Finder test, here.

If you have tested elsewhere, you can transfer your autosomal DNA file to FamilyTreeDNA for free. Instructions are here.

We may unravel this puzzle yet!!!

No Answers

I realize that there are no answers here, at least not yet. Why couldn’t Michael Miller have just written a will? Is that really too much to ask?

We do have more places to search for additional information, though. Still stones waiting to be turned.

Perhaps a Garber, Good or Riffe researcher will find this article and be able to offer useful information.

Perhaps DNA will provide clues. Perhaps Robert will find a Miller male to test.

Perhaps an old Bible will pop up on e-Bay. Ok, I know, I’m dreaming, but there are many possibilities.

Sometimes asking more questions IS a sign that you’re making progress, albeit slow, halting, and bumpy. Very, very bumpy!.

_____________________________________________________________

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 Products and Services

Genealogy Research

Utilizing MyHeritage AutoClusters to Analyze your DNA Matches

AutoClusters are so much fun and can provide tons of information. I’m going to step through how to analyze your cluster matches easily and productively in conjunction with the MyHeritage tools, but first, a little light housekeeping.

First, please note that this article was presented as a webinar for MyHeritage as part of the MyHeritageDNA Facebook LIVE series. You can watch it anytime, free, at the permanent link, here, courtesy of MyHeritage and me. However, everyone learns differently, and some people do better with written instructions. You can follow the step-by-step instructions in this article.

Second, AutoClusters are a built-in advanced DNA tool at MyHeritage for customers who either:

I would encourage the subscription because many of the MyHeritage tools function best with a large tree. While MyHeritage does offer free trees of up to 250 people, to take full advantage of your DNA test plus tools, you’ll want a larger tree. Subscription features and pricing can be found here and you can try a free trial subscription here.

Third, if you’d like to transfer your DNA file from another vendor, I wrote step-by-step instructions, here.

Fourth, MyHeritage is having a $49 Halloween DNA sale, here, with free shipping if you purchase 2 kits.

And last, Genetic Affairs, the author of AutoClusters, provides additional functionality on their own website for use with FamilyTreeDNA and 23andMe. Customers at Genetic Affairs cannot access MyHeritage data from the Genetic Affairs website since MyHeritage contracts with Genetic Affairs to provide AutoClusters directly to MyHeritage customers at no additional charge. I only mention this because the functionality described in this article and in the companion webinar discusses the functionality by using a combination of AutoClusters and the unique tools available only at MyHeritage.

Ok, housekeeping complete – on to AutoClusters!

Get yourself a cup of coffee or tea. We’re taking a deep dive here, beginning to end, but keep in mind that you don’t have to do everything that’s possible initially, or ever. It’s OK to take baby steps. Just know that AutoClusters can be a superpower to breaking down brick walls. Not only that, AutoClusters are simply FUN!

Let’s start with a basic question.

What is an AutoCluster and Why Do I Care?

An AutoCluster is an artful bouquet of hints, arranged by family group in a puzzle format.

AutoCluster technology, a form of genetic networks, is a way to display your matches who match you and who also match each other in a meaningful, colored-coded group. Each group, or cluster, shares a common ancestral line, somehow. That “how” discovery, or better stated, “which ancestor” discovery is up to you – but clusters provide huge hints!

We’re genealogists, right – we live for hints. Let’s take a look at how this works.

I would suggest reading through this article the first time, then working through the steps as you read it a second time with your own AutoCluster. Don’t worry, I’ll show you how to request one.

This example of my own AutoCluster report, which I’ll be using throughout this article, shows three different clusters.

Everyone within a cluster matches you, but not everyone matches each other. Each cluster is represented by colored cells, each of which represent the intersection of two people who match each other. In the third yellow cluster, everyone matches each other except for two people who don’t match each other.

Grey cells fall into both of the two clusters they are between. For example, the grey cells to the right of the red cluster in the red box match people in both the first red and second tan cluster.

What this means is that once you’ve identified the genesis of each cluster, you know that people who are grey members of both clusters descend from both lines which could represent the two people in an ancestor couple. In my tree, my maternal great-grandfather Joseph Bolton married Margaret Claxton/Clarkson, and I expect the grey people descend from this couple or from both lines individually. One way or another, they match people from both clusters.

The grey people are an additional hint – so don’t neglect them. In fact, some of these grey squares can be even more important that people within clusters because they span two clusters.

Ok, so how do I generate an AutoCluster at MyHeritage?

Requesting an AutoCluster

You’ll find the AutoCluster featured under the DNA menu, under DNA Tools.

Click “Explore.”

If you manage multiple kits, be sure to select the right kit for the right person.

In my case, I have a transfer kit, then I tested at MyHeritage for the health product, so I have two kits. A MyHeritage kit shows with the MH prefix, while a transfer kit shows a different prefix.

The matches and AutoClusters are slightly different between the two kits because the tests are run on different DNA chips.

click to enlarge

After selecting the correct kit, just click on the purple “Generate” button. Note that if your parents have tested, generating an AutoCluster for one or both of them will help you immensely with your own AutoCluster. If both of your parents have tested, you may want to work only with their AutoCluster reports, and not your own. They will have people in their clusters that you don’t because you didn’t inherit that particular piece of DNA from your parents.

Next, you’ll see a message informing you that your AutoCluster is being generated and will be sent to the email registered to your account.

Queue up Jeopardy countdown thinking music

Just a few minutes later, my AutoCluster arrived in my email box. (Note – check your spam folder.)

If you request multiple AutoClusters for different tests or accounts at the same time, take care not to mix them up. Voice of experience here…

You’ll receive 3 items in zip file. I save my files to my computer.

  • Readme file
  • HTML (with the colored circle)
  • Spreadsheet which is a different format of the html file

I don’t know how well the HTML file and the spreadsheet will display on non-computer devices, although I know the HTML file does display on an iPad. I generally work from my computer.

The HTML File

Just click on the HTML file to display your AutoClusters. You’ll get to enjoy seeing them “flying into place,” assembling into clusters. I told you these were fun!

You can play around a bit with options, but “cluster” is the default view and the only one we’re covering in this article.

Each colored cluster is a group of interrelated matches.

I have a total of 18 clusters.

Scroll towards the bottom to view the parameters used to generate the clusters.

click to enlarge

These parameters are not adjustable and have been optimized by MyHeritage to perform well for all customers, including testers with significant endogamy, such as people with Jewish heritage. At the system-generated threshold, I have 100 qualifying matches. Note that the system optimizes the thresholds individually for each person, and your thresholds might be slightly different than mine.

  • Min threshold 40 cM (often this level of match is in the 5C or more distant range)
  • Max threshold 350 cM (closer than 350 would probably be 1C or closer)
  • Shared DNA match minimum threshold 15 cM (overlap of matching DNA)

You’re probably wondering – where are the highest matches such as parents, siblings, uncles, aunts, etc.?

Close family members would be in many clusters. Placing one person into more than two clusters is simply not technically possible due to the constraints of a two-dimensional grid medium, so close family matches are excluded from clusters as to not be confusing. You can still use close family members in shared matching. In fact, they are extremely useful and we will discuss that shortly.

Fly your cursor over the cluster to view the cluster members and their match status to each other. In the grid, each person who matches another has a colored cell. In this example, my cursor is pointing to the cell where “cro” matches Bonnie. Names are obscured for privacy.

Scroll on down below the cluster box to view additional information about each member of the cluster. Many people don’t realize there’s more because they are excited about viewing their clusters and miss this important information about the cluster members beneath the grid.

click to enlarge

Your notes are critically important and you can search by notes. When I identify how someone is related to me, or even clues, I record that information in the notes. I SHOULD have recorded “TOFR” for the matches who have Theories of Family Relativity, and I have gone back and done that now. We’ll talk about TOFRs in a minute.

You may be able to identify the common line or ancestral couple based on the matches alone. Note that these matches may not all be from the same generation. For example, I have some matches in this group who descend from various Claxton ancestors, spanning at least 4 generations. That commonality is how I know the cluster is “Claxton/Clarkson” and not from one of their wives – at least to the most distant generation where I’m stuck.

Matches can span many generations in a “line” and probably involve multiple DNA segments, especially in larger clusters.

Click on “Tree” to view the tree of your match.

Click on “Name” to review their DNA match with you.

Note that your match may match you on more than one line and possibly on both parents’ sides. Inclusion in this cluster simply tells you they match on this line and does not eliminate any other lines.

Now, let’s begin our cluster analysis and drill down.

Select the Best Match

I always begin my analysis with what I think is the “best” match in a cluster.

  • Best could be the largest tree.
  • Best could be the largest match.
  • Best could be the largest number of ICW (in common with) cluster matches.
  • Best is any match with a TOFR (Theory of Family Relativity)

I make notes for all TOFR matches, after verifying, of course, indicating the common ancestors. I also note “TOFR” so I know, when looking at clusters, why I assigned that specific ancestor. When you have a TOFR, MyHeritage has already done the heavy lifting for you.

I note matches’ inclusion in a cluster to remind me to check those clustered matches first. When a match is in a cluster, AutoCluster has done the heavy lifting for you.

The key to success is to utilize multiple tools, together.

Like what?

The Success Triumvirate

Successfully identifying clusters, ancestors and how each person matches you is accomplished through a combination of three primary tools. I call this the “Success Triumvirate” because the three are quite interwoven.

We are going to use all three of these tools, together, so let’s talk about them individually briefly.

Theories of Family Relativity (TOFR)

TOFRs are super hints – theories about which common ancestors your matches share with you.

I wrote about Theories of Family Relativity complete with step-by-step instructions:

TOFRs connect you to your DNA matches by identifying a potential ancestor through a succession of trees and documents from different sources. You can do a number of things to help TOFRs, (and yourself), along.

  • TOFR formation requires a tree, so create one at MyHeritage, using their free TreeBuilder on your computer, or upload a tree that you’ve already created elsewhere.
  • TOFR does best if you complete the tree through grandchildren of each ancestor, at least, if possible, for each generation. Think of each person as a hand reaching out to latch on to the same person in another person’s tree. The more hands, the better your odds of success.
  • Include birth/death date and location, or as much as you know.
  • Accept Smart Matches where appropriate.
  • Make notes. Notes keep you from retracing your own steps.

click to enlarge

A TOFR connection as offered by MyHeritage may not be exactly accurate, but the common ancestor may be accurately identified anyway. For example, in the above TOFR, Margaret Claxton did not marry William Luke Monday, her sister did. The TOFR isn’t exactly correct, but the common ancestors are easily identified. I can take it from this point – no problem.

Always check to see if multiple TOFR paths exist because important hints may be hidden in those links. Think of yourself as a sleuth😊

Let’s take a look at one cousin in this Claxton cluster, Bonnie. What can we learn, and how? Let’s review Bonnie’s DNA match to me.

Reviewing Bonnie’s DNA Match

Clicking on “Review DNA Match” with Bonnie shows me a host of information divided into sections, beginning with a TOFR.

Bonnie Has a TOFR – Hot Diggity!

The first thing we see is that Bonnie does have a TOFR with the tester (me), so we can identify a potential common ancestor.

click to enlarge

Not only that, but Bonnie has a fairly robust tree of 4043 people, so she must be interested in genealogy at some level.

click to enlarge

Not only that, but there are two separate potential “paths” that connect me and Bonnie at a potential common ancestor. One may be more accurate than the other. Be sure to check all paths.

I can click on the little green dots that bridge trees by connecting what the system believes to be the same ancestor to view and evaluate that information.

click to enlarge

Clicking on this green dot would display the match criteria from both trees.

In this case, the weighted match was 76%. The information for Margaret herself was mostly the same, but her husband(s) and children were different due to the inaccuracy of showing her married to her brother-in-law.

Evaluate all TOFRs, links, trees and hints for accuracy. They aren’t gospel.

Another great source of hints is Smart Matches. You may, and probably will, have Smart Matches with people’s trees who are not DNA matches to you. Smart Matches are not necessarily connected to DNA matches specifically, but they do help TOFR form accurately.

Bonnie Has Smart Matches!

MyHeritage generates Smart Matches WITHOUT factoring in genetic matching. Smart Matches occur when enough common factors exist between a person in your tree and a person in another tree whether you are a DNA match with that person or not.

If you have Smart Matches with a DNA match, they will be listed when you review your DNA match with that person.

click to enlarge

To determine whether or not this Smart Match could be relevant to your DNA autocluster, be sure to notice whether this is a direct ancestor of both people. To be relevant to DNA, the Smart Match must be for a direct ancestor or at least lead to a direct ancestor.

Next, click “Review Smart Match.”

click to enlarge

The first thing you’re going to see is “Confirm Match,” and as a genealogist, that stopped me dead in my tracks.

That’s skull-and-crossbones frightening. I don’t know what “confirm match” means or does? Does it mean that all of their information will automatically be copied to my tree if I click that button? I certainly DON’T WANT THAT!!!

I may not want the “Improved Info” either. That information may not actually be improved. What do I do?

For a long time, I did nothing because I didn’t want to mess something up – but doing nothing isn’t the right answer either – because confirming Smart Matches helps TOFRs for everyone.

I wish MyHeritage provided a bit more information here, because “Confirm Match” doesn’t import any information into your tree automatically. You have the opportunity to review everything first.

There are two questions at this point you need to ask and answer independently:

  1. Is this the same person?
  2. If so, do I want any of this data to be imported to my tree?

If it IS the same person, go ahead and confirm – you’ll get to review each new or “improved” item at that point.

If it’s NOT the same person, scroll to the bottom of the page and reject the match.

In this example, Nicholas Speak is the same person, so I’ve clicked on “Confirm Match” which then allows me to review each piece of information that is different, individually. If I want to import that information into my tree, I click on the little arrow to bring the information into my tree, replacing mine. If I do nothing, no information is copied to my tree. It’s that simple. If I make a mistake, I can always edit my own information.

click to enlarge

Bonnie Has Shared Ancestral Surnames!

Another hint for DNA matches is “Shared Ancestral Surnames.” If you can’t figure out how you are related, take a look at these. Of course, Smith is extremely common, but groups of shared surnames are a huge hint, especially if you also have shared locations.

click to enlarge

You may discover more than one line that connects you to this tester – which sometimes makes things a little more complicated! That’s when location can become a life-saver.

Bonnie Has Shared Ancestral Places!

Shared ancestral places can be very useful, even if you can’t identify common surnames, especially in cases where surnames may not be useful. Unknown parent events and adoptions have always occurred, and a specific location may go a long way in terms of identifying the ancestors of both parties that may be related.

Purple pins with numbers mean you BOTH have ancestors from that location. Bonnie and I share 65 ancestors from one place. I definitely need to evaluate that location!

click to enlarge

Clicking on Tennessee shows the pins in that location. Clicking on a specific pin displays the ancestors from that location.

Note that the purple “65” pin location revealed this common ancestor whose surname is spelled differently in our trees. This surname transitioned back and forth, so there I no “right” or “wrong” way to spell it. However, a different spelling may keep the person from being recognized as the same individual by computer software.

Now, let’s review Bonnie’s shared DNA match information.

Bonnie’s Shared DNA Matches

We know that each of the people in the first cluster match the tester, me, and all but 3 (yellow stars) of the people who match me in the first cluster also match Bonnie

However, don’t think for one minute that there are only 8 people who match me and Bonnie both. There are only 8 who match us both AND are included in the cluster. These are judged to be out “best” common matches.

Looking at my DNA match with Bonnie, I see that there are 162 total shared matches.

The balance, other than the 8 in the cluster, did not meet all of the match threshold ranges to be included in the cluster. In other words, shared matches not in the cluster were either less than 40 cM or more than 350 cM, or the shared piece of the matching segment was less than 15 cM. In other words, the matches in the cluster are the strongest shared matches, other than close relatives, but they certainly aren’t the only shared matches.

I match Bonnie on two segments, one on chromosome 13 and one on chromosome 16.

Just because someone matches me and Bonnie, both, doesn’t necessarily mean the match is on the same segment. For example, they could match me on chromosome 10 and Bonnie on chromosome 1, while Bonnie and I match each other on chromosomes 13 and 16.

However, there’s certainly a good chance that someone matches us both on the same segment(s).

Reviewing the cluster matches between me and Bonnie, we discover the following information regarding these two specific segments on chromosome 13 and 16, only.

Shared Match with Bonnie Triangulation Chromosome & Location
Sharon Yes Chr 16 only
Renee Yes Chr 16 only
Wilma Yes Chr 16 only
John Yes Chr 16 only
Celeste Yes Chr 16 only
Shirley No Neither
Carolyn Yes Chr 16 only
Ray No Neither

Six people match me and Bonnie both on chromosome 16, none match me and Bonnie both on chromosome 13, so that means that both Shirley and Ray match both of us on a completely different chromosome segment.

Now, of course, the question becomes if those 6 people match Bonnie and me on the same or at least an overlapping portion of chromosome 16.

Triangulation

Triangulation, which I wrote about here, occurs when the tester matches two or more people on the same reasonably sized segment of DNA, and they also match each other on that same segment. The “matching each other” part is important, because it verifies the match is from the same side, Mom or Dad, and from a common ancestor, not identical by chance (IBC).

I wrote about identical by chance here, but in essence, IBC means that a piece of your Mom’s DNA and a piece of your Dad’s DNA accidentally combined in you to look like a match with someone else, but it’s a false positive. You do technically “match” that other person, but it’s because of chance recombination, not because you share DNA from a common ancestor on one side of your family or the other.

The matching to other known family members on that segment is the clue to eliminating IBC matches from comparisons. Each of your valid matches will match one of your parents, or the other. If your match doesn’t also match one or the other parent, it’s not a valid match.

This is known as parental phasing and is why it’s extremely important to have both or one of your parents test, if possible.

If the tester’s parents have tested, each of your cluster matches will match to one parent or the other in addition to the people in the cluster.

Bonnie Has Triangulated Matches!

At MyHeritage, when you review shared matches, you can see if your match triangulates with you by the presence of a little purple triangulate icon.

click to enlarge

Looking at my shared match list with Bonnie, I see Wilma has a purple icon, indicating triangulation between Wilma, Bonnie and me. Woohooo!

Clicking on the purple triangulate icon shows me the common triangulated segment(s).

In this case, Bonnie, Wilma and I only triangulate on one segment, on chromosome 16. Do the other cluster members also triangulate with Bonnie, Wilma and me on this segment? The ones who have a triangulation icon should since I’ve already determined that they only match me on chromosome 16 in common with Bonnie. Let’s see.

click to enlarge

I added the other people in the match cluster to see who else triangulates on any portion of chromosome 16. Just type the names from the cluster into the DNA match name box below the profile cards in the chromosome browser to add each person to the view.

Only the triangulated portion for all people compared is bracketed. That’s so important to remember. In the example above, all people match me and each other on the bracketed portion of chromosome 16.

In this example, two of the people compared do NOT triangulate on this segment, so no bracket is drawn. This might lead you to think that the three people whose DNA matches the tester on the same segment don’t also match each other – but you can’t assume.

If you remove the two people not matching on the segment from the chromosome browser, the other three now show the triangulation bracket.

Triangulated segments provide evidence that a specific segment descends from a common ancestor. The challenge, of course, is to identify the ancestors who contributed that segment generationally through time.

I wrote about triangulation at MyHeritage in the article Triangulation in Action at MyHeritage.

Downloads

You can only compare a maximum of 7 people at a time in the chromosome browser, but you can download your entire match list in a spreadsheet and work from there. I do that often.

There are three different downloads that provide different information and serve a different purpose.

Chromosome Browser Match Download

Scroll down to the bottom of the chromosome browser page to download the matching segments (to you) of the people shown on the browser at that time.

You can download the segments for the current matches showing in the chromosome browser by clicking on advanced options on that page.

Click on “Download shared DNA info.”

This download will happen immediately to your system. I use this technique when chromosome painting matches identified to a particular ancestor at DNAPainter. I also note for each match when I’ve painted their matching segments so I don’t waste time doing it twice.

The second and third download options are found on your DNA Match page.

Export Full Match List and Shared DNA Segments

By moving to your main DNA match page, you can download:

  • Your DNA match list which downloads information about each of your matches
  • Your matching DNA segments for all matches

By clicking on the three dots, you will see the two download/export options. Those two files hold different information.

The “entire DNA matches list” provides information ABOUT your matches, such as:

  • Name
  • Age
  • Country
  • Contact link
  • DNA manager
  • Status (new)
  • Estimated relationship
  • Total cMs
  • Percent shared DNA
  • Number of shared segments
  • Largest segment
  • Link to review DNA match
  • Has tree (yes/no)
  • Number of people in tree
  • Tree manager
  • Contract tree link
  • Number of smart matches
  • Shared ancestral surnames
  • All ancestral surnames
  • Notes

This is important, and I use this file a lot because it provides all of the information in one place and I don’t have to click on each match to evaluate. Plus, I can search and sort to my heart’s content.

Option two, the entire “shared segment DNA info” match list will show all matches, including maternal, paternal and IBC. It’s up to you to figure out which are which, but we have lots of tools and hints.

Your shared segment spreadsheet provides information about the shared DNA, only.

Let’s start by looking at Bonnie again.

Bonnie and Chromosome 16 on the Spreadsheet

Here are my two segment matches with Bonnie in the spreadsheet.

The MyHeritage tools, combined, provide you with the ability to sort your matches meaningfully into genealogically relevant clusters and identify ancestors. I’m going to utilize that information with the downloaded spreadsheet segment information.

Let’s take a look at that matching segment with Bonnie on chromosome 16.

In the shared DNA segment spreadsheet, I filtered for chromosome 16, sorted in lowest to highest order (end location, then start) and looked for matches that fall between these two locations.

In reference to the match with Bonnie, look for any match between 79914629 and 87713399.

I am showing only a partial list below. The actual number of matches to be on this segment of chromosome 16 is about three times as large as this graphic.

After downloading the spreadsheet, I added a Triangulation Group column and a comments column, at right.

click to enlarge

I’ve colored the cluster members yellow who match on chromosome 16 to Bonnie AND me in the cluster.

People who match me on chromosome 16 and are NOT in the cluster fall into one of the following categories:

  • Also match to me and Bonnie, but outside of the cluster threshold. You can see that there are a lot of matches below 40 cM, which immediately eliminates them from the cluster.
  • Match me and Bonnie, but on an overlapping piece of DNA not large enough to be included in a cluster – in other words, the overlap of the three people is less than 15 cM..
  • Match to me, but not Bonnie which means that either they are a match from the other parent’s side, or identical by chance.

Discerning which category each match falls into requires looking at each match and evaluating individually.

You can look at each spreadsheet row, individually, below, if you wish, but what I’d like for you to do is to focus on the groups that I created as I analyzed each match on the segment of chromosome 16 where I match Bonnie.

click to enlarge

  • Green row is Bonnie, our baseline person whose match is why I’m analyzing this particular segment.
  • Bright yellow shows the 6 AutoCluster triangulated chromosome 16 cluster members.
  • Lighter yellow rows are also matches and triangulations on the same segment with me and Bonnie, but not included in the AutoCluster
  • Pink indicates matches on Mom’s side on this same chromosome segment. Mom is in the database, so this is easy to discern.
  • Grey is IBC (darker) or likely IBC (lighter) meaning they don’t match either parent’s side entirely.
  • Bright red is a breakthrough!

You’ll notice that the “best” matches, meaning the ones in the cluster, are clustered together on the spreadsheet too.

The second group of matches, below, begins to have more IBC and matches to Mom’s side. A third group, which I’m not including here, is almost entirely Mom’s side.

click to enlarge

When I finished analyzing the matches on this segment of chromosome 16 from the AutoCluster, I had:

  • Bonnie (green) + 6 Claxton matches (bright yellow) reflecting the first cluster triangulation with Bonnie and me
  • 93 total people that matched me on some portion of chromosome 16 that I match in common with Bonnie. However, on this spreadsheet, matches to me on this segment include some matches who will not match Bonnie.
  • People not matching me and Bonnie both on this segment will include both matches on Mom’s side (pink), and IBC (grey).
  • A breakthrough (bright red) identifying this segment as Claxton, as opposed to Sarah Cook’s, James Claxton’s wife, which means that I can focus on other people with trees with common ancestors who match on that segment on Dad’s side. Someplace in those trees is the information that will someday identify James Claxton’s parents/ancestors.
  • Identified 28 (light yellow) paternal matches through this segment assigned to Claxton that match me and Bonnie, both.
  • Identified 30 (pink) Mom segments, some of which are Acadian and some of which are German. On Mom’s side, two different portions of chromosome 16 recombined from two different ancestors and I can tell where that dividing line occurs by using visual phasing and triangulation at DNAPainter.
  • Identified 26 (grey) IBC segments which are false positive (or likely false positive) matches and should be disregarded.
  • Made notes on each of those matches at MyHeritage.
  • Painted each valid segment at DNAPainter.

About That BreakThrough…

Why is this breakthrough important, and what does it tell me?

Bonnie is descended from the same Claxton line as I am, meaning she is a proven descendant of James Lee Claxton born about 1775 and his wife, Sarah Cook through their son, Fairwick/Fairwix Claxton. We don’t know where James Claxton was born, but likely in either VA or NC. He first appeared on the tax list in Russell County, VA, with no other Claxton males, not long before he married Sarah in 1799.

Bonnie and I match Jim on that same segment.

Jim’s ancestor was Solomon Claxton, born in 1801 in NC. In other words, Jim does NOT share James Claxton as a common ancestor. This means that Jim and Bonnie and I share DNA from a common Claxton ancestor. That segment of chromosome 16 cannot be from the Cook side, because Jim does not descend from the James Claxton/Sarah Cook line.

Therefore, other people who triangulate on that segment, who don’t show trees with Claxton ancestors, and have matching trees to each other will one day hold the key to our common ancestors who contributed that segment to all of us on chromosome 16.

That means I need to take the time to evaluate every one of their trees looking for their common ancestors with each other. It’s likely that common ancestor could be mine as well, or lead to mine.

Just One!!!

Remember, all of the discoveries above were made from analyzing just one chromosome segment match from the Bonnie row in the first AutoCluster. Just one!

Autoclusters intentionally only utilize your “best” non-close family member matches. This allows you to see the genetic relationships between multiple people, even without trees.

You then use the trees, TOFR, surnames, locations, Smart Matches, shared matches, triangulation, and previous research to identify the ancestral connection.

Just scanning this AutoCluster report, I can immediately discern that people share matches between groups of clusters. For example, clusters 1, 2, and 4 share members – for starters. That tells me that these clusters are related to each other. In fact, that’s exactly correct as shown after analysis when I was able to assign each cluster to either an ancestor or ancestral couple.

I discovered a HUGE amount of information researching just one common segment with one match, including a breakthrough which may, one day, if not today, lead to the identification of James Claxton’s parents.

Just think how much more there is left to discover! I need to review the match to Bonnie on chromosome 13 and the other 99 people in my AutoCluster, utilizing the same tools and techniques.

I can hardly wait to get started!

Clusters are Genetic Super-Powers

Clusters are your super-power matches. Take full advantage of them.

  • Every cluster tells a story.
  • If you can identify the common ancestors with one or two people, and it’s the same line, you’ve probably identified the genetic “cluster.”
  • Every match tells a story.
  • You may triangulate on multiple segments with different people.
  • Every individual segment tells a story
  • Each segment stands alone, meaning one segment can descend from the mother of the couple, and another segment from the father. Don’t assume that each shared segment descends from the same ancestor.
  • Don’t assume that if you match one person on two segments, that they both necessarily descend from the same line or couple. It’s possible that you are related on another, known or unknown, line.
  • Every segment match has an individual genealogical history that can lead to different ancestors, meaning that the genetic line is the same, but the ancestors may be different. You may match one person who descends from the son of another match, for example.
  • Each triangulated segment descended from common ancestors who contributed that segment to all triangulation group members.
  • The history of brick walls is held in unidentified matches to segments.

An example is worth 1000 words.

Walking Back In Time

Based on multiple triangulated matches to various people, the triangulated segment on chromosome 16 belongs to the following ancestors:

Generation Ancestor Via Match to…
1 Dad Assigned to Dad’s side via triangulated matches to known relatives
2 Ollie Bolton Culley, Stacey
3 Margaret Clarkson Fred, John
4 Samuel Claxton Wilma
5 Fairwick Claxton Joy, Eugene, Billy, I.B., Bonnie
6 James Claxton, Sarah Cook Brent, Delilah
7 Unknown Claxton parents Jim (NC), Kelsey (TN)

As you can see, based on the genealogy of my matches, I’ve walked the segment on chromosome 16 back in time 7 generations.

How do I get to generation 8?

Clusters are Genetic Super-Powers

Now I need to search the trees of matches on this same segment, but without identified common ancestors to me, looking for common lineages in their trees with each other.

This Claxton segment descended from some unknown ancestor(s) upstream of James Claxton. The key to the identity of those ancestors is held in their DNA segments and matches.

What I’m looking for are common ancestors of those chromosome 16 matches to each other. For example, if James Claxton’s father was named John Claxton and his mother was Jane Doe, finding several people with trees connecting to the Doe family would be especially relevant. Those are the more deeply hidden clues.

I need to do the exact same thing, following the same process, with each segment of every cluster match!

The solution to brick walls is held in unidentified matches to triangulated segments which point the way – like invisible “this way” arrows through that door from our ancestors.

AutoClusters are the genetic superpower!

_____________________________________________________________

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 Products and Services

Genealogy Research

More Losses at 23andMe – Including No Ethnicity Update for V2, V3 or V4 Chip Customers

12-31-2020: Update to this article. 23andMe has reversed their position and provided ethnicity updates to both V3 and V4 chip testers. The status of V2 kits is unclear. Those kits show an update date in early December, but no update tag and nothing has changed in their ethnicity results. Additionally, 23andMe has restored the matches that were removed – although it’s unclear whether or not they have simply restored existing matches or if the previous threshold of 2000 matches is back in place as well. They have also restored some search functionality, such as within user-entered notes, but not all functionality. For example, you still cannot search matches by haplogroup.

Original article begins here:

Did you test with 23andMe prior to August 2017? If you were among the millions of customers who tested in the decade between 2007 and 2017, you tested on the V1-V4 chip.

Unfortunately, 23andMe has made the decision to no longer provide ethnicity updates for customers who have NOT tested on the current V5 chip.

Moving to the V5 chip is not an upgrade – it’s a completely new test that customers must purchase and spit-to-submit again. This means that if your family member that you purchased a test for died, you’re just out of luck. Too bad – so sad.

Last week, 23andMe published this article detailing their new ethnicity improvements. Everyone was excited, but then the article ended with this spoiler at the very bottom.

click to enlarge

I still can’t believe my eyes.

What – No Ethnicity Updates?????

In this industry, no company that I can recall has EVER failed to update ethnicity for earlier chips. Especially given that ethnicity is the hook that companies have used to entice many, many customers to test.

When FamilyTreeDNA changed from the Affymetrix chip to the Illumina chip in 2011, they retested every single customer FOR FREE.

FamilyTreeDNA, MyHeritage, and Ancestry have continued to update results for all customers on any chip level. Those companies would be publicly skewered alive if they did anything else.

As far as I’m concerned, this is a betrayal of the trust of 23andMe customers.

We know now that companies can easily utilize imputation for equalizing different chips for genealogy purposes. All three other major companies do exactly that with their own tests and in the case of MyHeritage and FamilyTreeDNA, with transfers from the other three major companies, including 23andMe’s current and older chip levels. Of course, imputation “fills in blanks” with “realistic values,” which is not appropriate for medical testing – and the underlying goal of 23andMe is medical research, not genealogy

Therefore, genealogy customers are being penalized in an effort to force them to the V5 chip if they want to view their new ethnicity updates or have more than 1500 matches, and then, only with a subscription.

This “sales strategy” is simply not acceptable.

Matches Restricted

This no-ethnicity-update revelation comes on the heels of 23andMe reducing the match threshold to 1500 FOR ALL CUSTOMERS unless customers have tested on the V5 chip AND subscribe, both.

I wrote about that change, here.

That’s Not All – No Search by Common Surname or Ancestral Location

The genealogy community continues to discover more losses. Hat tip to my blog subscriber who noticed that customers can no longer search by common surname or ancestral location.

23andMe confirmed that change in an email saying:

  • You can search for profile names and current locations in the DNA Relatives search section.

Wow, I don’t want my matches knowing where I currently live. is that really what’s happening? Surely not.

But sure enough, here’s one of my matches, minus their name of course.

This gives me cold chills. This information should never, ever, be available unless the tester gives it directly to another specific person.

Why would 23andMe ever implement a feature like this that causes potential physical security risks to their customers? I’d wager most people have no idea that this information is displayed to all of their matches. Fortunately, it’s only displayed if you specifically enter the information.

To check your location status, remove or update this information, click on the down arrow beside your name in the upper right-hand corner of your 23andMe page, then on “Settings”.

Scroll down and click on “Edit Enhanced Profile.”

click to enlarge

Make any changes.

click to enlarge

This is also the section where you enter other information that will help you connect with matches in a meaningful way. Be sure to share a link to a family tree someplace. While 23andMe is discontinuing some of the features that are important for genealogists, that makes it even more important to utilize the remaining features.

23andMe also confirmed that:

  • You can no longer search for family surnames, other locations, or any other user entered information.

This change is infinitely sad, because surnames, especially unusual ones are critically important to genealogists, and in combination with locations.

You can filter by ancestor birthplaces, but that only means through the grandparent level.

Not terribly useful for genealogists, and the US is a very big place. Knowing someone’s grandparents were born in the US is not helpful. However, if I have an ancestor from a location like Germany, this might be more useful.

You can also filter by SOME of your family surnames, but not all of them. Apparently, only your top 20 in terms of how many people share that surname. Just take a guess which one is highest on my list. Probably yours too.

My own surname and that of all 4 of my grandparents is missing from this list. I don’t find an ancestral surname until one of my great-grandparents’ surnames, Miller, appears. This list is really only a list of the most common surnames in the US that I happen to have in my genealogy.

No Haplogroup Search

Another feature that has disappeared is the ability to search your DNA Relatives by haplogroup. Granted, they were only partial haplogroups, but they could rule out a lineage connection to your direct matrilineal line or, if a male, your patrilineal line. If you knew your grandparents or other haplogroup lineages, you could do the same for them.

But not anymore

Where Are the Genealogists?

How has 23andMe moved so far away from the genealogy community? This feels like death by 1000 tiny cuts. Whittling away our features along with our trust.

At one time, 23andMe had a genealogy ambassadors program where experienced genealogical ambassadors represented the genealogy community and provided input. Unfortunately, 23andMe dissolved the program a year or so ago, but then again, they didn’t seem to listen much to their ambassadors anyway.

Health AND Ancestry

23andMe is increasingly pushing the health AND ancestry test on the V5 chip. I’d wager their medical and research partners want specific data on this chip that’s not available on previous versions.

When clicking on my V4 account, the upgrade available is only for both health and ancestry. There is no “ancestry only” test available like there used to be.

The $99 price for the V5 upgrade is the same for my V3 kit. Yes, I tested twice (three times actually on V2, V3, and V4) to understand the matching differences between the V3 and the V4 chip.

Truthfully, given the way 23andMe is treating their current clients, I have absolutely no desire to gift them with my health information to turn into revenue.

Consent or WithDraw Consent to Share Genetic Information

While 23andMe can utilize research information from surveys in some ways without your explicit consent, assuming you answer their surveys, which I do not, they currently don’t share your genetic data unless you opt-in to consent.

I’m not comfortable with not knowing who is using my DNA information and for what research purpose – but your comfort level may vary. 23andMe’s “designer baby” patent in 2013 ended my participation in research.

If you click on “Research,” then “Surveys and Studies,” 23andMe will remind you if you haven’t opted in for research.

You can check your current consent status by scrolling to the bottom of this page after you sign in.

click to enlarge

You will see your current consent status, and you have the ability to update your status with a different choice. Please read every document provided before consenting.

You can also access your Research Consent and other account settings by clicking on the down arrow by your name, at the far right top, and then on “Settings.”

Research Consent is very near the bottom, under Preferences.

click to enlarge

May the Fleas of 1000 Camels Infest Your Armpits

May fleas infest your armpits, 23andMe, for removing the services and features that genealogists purchased and expect to continue to receive. Worse yet, you’ve damaged our collective credibility, because we’ve been recommending 23andMe to our family members and friends for years now, and purchasing kits for them, all in good faith. Now, we get the opportunity to apologize to our family members for your behavior. We trusted you, and we shouldn’t have.

In the past, 23andMe has always updated ethnicity for everyone. New medical and health reports weren’t always added, ostensibly because the necessary genetic locations weren’t on older chips, but genealogy features and updates were never held hostage before – nor was existing functionality removed except for trees.

In retrospect, the removal of trees was probably the first sign that 23andMe was seriously moving away from genealogists and was only paying lip-service in order to obtain our DNA for the very lucrative medical research business.

I haven’t always agreed with the decisions made by 23andMe in the past, but this time, I feel that 23andMe is intentionally acting disingenuously – blatantly arm-twisting their long-time genealogy customers by withholding updates we have every right to expect. Odd way to treat the community that stood by 23andMe and kept buying tests while the FDA had their health and medical reports shut down for two years, from 2013 to 2015 when they finally reached an agreement and began selling their health product again.

As a customer, your only recourse, other than complaining, which I encourage you to do (customercare@23andMe.com), is to opt-out of research consent. 23andMe may not hear our voices or care about our ethnicity or matches, but I bet they will notice the revocation of consent. Our DNA is a cash-cow for 23andMe as a DNA-broker.

Your other alternative to receive your updated ethnicity results, of course, is to purchase an upgrade and pay to test, again. Just like the only way to get more than 1500 matches is to upgrade plus pay a subscription fee – and then you’re still limited to 5000 matches. Upgrade or not, you won’t receive the other features they’ve removed.

Truthfully, there’s no way in bloody h*ll that a company is going to get me to spend MORE money by abusing my trust and attempting to strong-arm me in this fashion. Nada. That’s simply not going to happen.

I’d wager that treating genealogists in this manner is a very short-sighted strategy. We talk within this community and make recommendations to each other. 23andMe is generating a great deal of bad-will right now.

I left wondering what else existing customers will lose, and when the V5 customers will be arm-twisted to purchase a new test, yet again.

_____________________________________________________________

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 Products and Services

Genealogy Research

Is Adam Greulich’s Daughter the Mother of Johann Michael Kirsch? – 52 Ancestors #311

Not that this is confusing or anything. Just sayin’…😊

So, who was Johann Michael Kirsch‘s mother, and was she Adam Greulich’s daughter? I thought this was all settled, but come to find out, it’s not! Maybe I should have named this article, “Who Tipped Over My Apple Cart?” All it takes is one new piece of evidence to bring everything into question.

Hot on the Miniscule Breadcrumb Trail

Let’s follow this trail of tiny breadcrumbs and see where we emerge. We’ll start with the evidence we know, positively, to frame the quandary.

  • We know that Johann Georg “Jerg” Kirsch was married in 1650 in Dürkheim to Margretha Koch.
  • We know that in 1660, Jerg was mentioned in a feudal letter as a co-lessee of the Josten estate in Fussgoenheim.
  • Based on that information, it’s presumed that Jerg and his family moved back to Fussgoenheim, from Dürkheim about 1660.
  • We also know that about 1684, probably until after 1695, the family had to take shelter again in Dürkheim. In fact, Jerg’s son, Johann Wilhelm Kirsch married in 1695 in Dürkheim.
  • We know that by 1701, Johann Adam Kirsch, Jerg’s son is the mayor of the northern half of Fussgoenheim.

These records are all proven with documented evidence.

My deceased cousin, Walter Schnebel who lived in Fussgoenheim and descended from the Kirsch family included a reference about Adam Kirsch’s testimony in 1717 before the village council as they attempted to record information. The old records had been lost, and the only way to recover anything was to record what the oldest few people in the village knew. Adam’s brother, Wilhelm Kirsch was the “court man” who recorded the testimony.

Records, history, and customs had disappeared and faded away because of the need to seek refuge outside the village from about 1618 to after 1648 during the 30 Years’ War and from about 1684 to about 1698 during subsequent French aggressions that again burned and totally destroyed the quaint town and surrounding fields of Fussgoenheim.

Published village history revealed part of the Kirsch story, but unfortunately, it referred to an earlier book, Ortsgeschichte von Fußgönheim, written in 1925 by Ernst Merk that was only available in two locations in the US. One is the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints Family History Library in Salt Lake City, stored offsite, and not available online. This tells me that this old book has not been scanned – and the library is not open during the present Covid situation. For now, this option is off the table.

The second location is the library in Buffalo, NY.

I called my local library, although they do not participate in interlibrary loan outside of Michigan. I’ve never, not once, had any success obtaining any book through this library. Out-of-state libraries, generally, will only work with a local library, not individual out-of-state patrons to loan books. Talk about caught between a rock and a hard place.

Fortunately, a nice young man in the local library called the interlibrary loan librarian in Buffalo and explained the situation. He couldn’t actually “help” me in the traditional way, but he did by explaining to her what I needed and asked if I could call her directly. She indicated that I could, and I did.

I offered to pay, I explained about genealogy, and pretty much – I begged.

She told me that she could NOT scan this entire historical book for me (rats!), but she WOULD scan the cover, the table of contents, the first page in the section where Adam was mentioned, and the page plus next page that was referenced in the earlier work. Bless that woman! Beggars can’t be choosers!

I feel like I’m chasing a magic pink unicorn squirrel down a rabbit hole.

How did I get here anyway?

Walter’s Record

Walter’s exact verbiage, in German, about Adam Kirsch is as follows:

(?) N.N. Greulich (* um 1680 † vor 1706, T.v. Adam Greulich); seit ca. 1677 in Fgh. (OG Merk, siehe Weistuhm 1717 Vern. 1717)

Using Deepl translator, this translated to:

(?) N.N. Greulich (* about 1680 † before 1706, T.v. Adam Greulich); since about 1677 in Fgh. (OG Merk, see Weistuhm 1717 Vern. 1717)

This means that Adam was married to a Greulich female who was born about 1680 and died before 1706, the daughter of Adam Greulich, and that Adam Kirsch had lived in Fussgoenheim since about 1677.

I’m still not sure exactly what the Weistuhm 1717 and Vern. 1717 means, or how to access whatever those records are. Note – I’ve discovered that weistuhm means wisdom and in this context, conveyed in 1717.

Then, Walter shows all of Adam Kirsch’s children as being born to his wife, Anna Maria Koob, including Johann Michael Kirsch who was born about 1700.

Wait?

What?

Anna Maria Koob

The only reason we know about Anna Maria Koob is because she died on March 18, 1734, and was buried in Fussgoenheim. Her burial was recorded in church records indicating that she was buried on March 21st, age 54 years, which tells us that she was born in either 1679 or 1680, depending on when her actual birthday occurred. That record also tells us that she was the wife of Adam Kirsch.

This means that Anna Maria Koob would likely have married no earlier than 1700, and likely between 1700 and 1705.

Church records don’t begin in Fussgoenheim until 1726, but through death and other records Walter shows Johann Adam Kirsch’s children being born as follows:

  • Johann Michael Kirsch (eventually the Mayor) born about 1700 and died before 1759.
  • Johann Wilhelm Kirsch born in 1706, married in 1727.
  • Johann Jacob Kirsch born about 1710
  • Maria Catharina Kirsch born about 1715 and died in 1778.
  • Johann Peter Kirsch born in 1716 and died before 1760.

Johann Michael Kirsch is my ancestor, which means, of course, he’s the child of Adam Kirsch I’m most interested in.

Michael is Adam’s oldest known child.

If Adam had two wives, meaning that Anna Maria Koob was not his first wife, Michael Kirsch was the most likely of any of those children to descend from Adam’s first spouse – if any do. It would be very unusual for a couple to have no children, assuming the wife didn’t die in childbirth and also assuming that those children survived.

  1. Walter indicated in his spreadsheet that Adam’s first wife was deceased by 1706, but he gave no indication as to why he recorded that information.
  2. Walter also indicated, in Johann Michael Kirsch’s spreadsheet row that he was born about 1700 and that his mother was Anna Maria Koob.

Even more confounding – where did Walter find the information about Anna Maria Koob being Michael’s mother?

Both of those things can’t be true. One has to be false. Michael could not have been married to Ms. Greulich at the same time as Anna Maria Koob was the mother of the child born before Ms. Greulich died. Not only that, but Anna Maria Koob would have been barely old enough to marry by 1699/1700.

I’m so confused!!!

But now you understand why I felt that book was beg-worthy. It’s my last possible source.

The Long-Awaited Book

I waited, and waited, and waited, and waited.

I didn’t want to be “that person,” but 4 weeks later, I finally called to see if the library had been able to send the scans.

They had sent them, the next day, directly from their scanner which does not provide feedback regarding bounced email messages, etc. My e-mail provider didn’t recognize some strange email address consisting of all numbers, apparently, decided it was not legitimate, and bounced the email. I’ve been having issues with my email provider. Genealogy is difficult enough with email interfering!

Therefore, the library was done and I was waiting. I would have waited forever.

Thankfully, my friendly librarian found that file again.

So, the very first question I have is how a foot is connected to Fussgoenheim? As it turns out, fuss=foot in German, so this is a “canting arm,” meaning that it’s a sort of medieval play on words – or play on the town’s coat of arms. One mystery solved!

Next, the table of contents.

The following page reveals some of the early history of Fussgoenheim. We don’t know where the Kirsch family lived before the 30 Years’ War, but we do know that Jerg Kirsch’s wife, Margretha Koch’s family did indeed come from Fussgoenheim.

Maybe I can convince the Family History Library to scan this booklet when they open again. Maybe I can even go there myself and scan the book. Maybe I can find a portable OCR scanner. One way or another, I really, REALLY, want to read this entire history. I do have a newer 2 volume set of Fussgoenheim history, published in 1993 and 2001, but there is no index. I wonder if the local library in Fussgoenheim has an index, perhaps. Hmmm….

Adam is first mentioned on page 153 of the Merk book.

The portion involving Adam Kirsch’s testimony begins in item 5 and continues on to page 154.

Adam’s testimony is delivered in quotes, so this is literally what he said. His words, preserved 313 years later. If I could find the actual original document, the handwriting is probably that of his brother, Wilhelm, who is also my ancestor. In a way, it’s like being in the room with them, just for a moment.

Challenges

However, we have three challenges.

First, this page was scanned as an image, not text or copyable to be pasted into a translator. That means, of course, that I needed to retype this.

Second, this script is just awful. I struggled mightily to just read the letters, especially since I don’t speak German, so I can’t figure anything out based on known words.

Third, according to Christoph, a native German-speaker, the words Adam spoke were somewhat medieval and archaic – the German spoken in 1717, of course. It literally doesn’t translate well to today’s meaning, and we can’t discern any nuances.

The best we can do is to type it and combine the translation with Christoph’s interpretation.

Thankfully, my friend Tom typed it too, and between us all, I think we have the important gist of this passage, beginning with item 5.

Here’s Tom’s German version:

Hatte die gemeinde im oberen und niederen dorf die villige fronfreiheit and stunde hierbeivon undenklichen Jahren her in ruhigem besiss und genuss dergeftalten, oass hierinnen weder den dorfherrfchaften (damals Lothringen und Leiningen) noch der Liebsherrschaft (damals Kurpsalz) nichts zukommen mag. Adam Kirsch sagte zu diesem Punkt: “Sei wahr und wusste er in den vierzig Jahren, da er hier hauslich wohnte, oasf niemalen den Dorfherrschaften gesront worden, solches auch von seinen Dorfahren gehort; erinnert sich doch, als der hr. Graf Joh. Kahimir von Leiningen, Kammerprasident, auf Spener in vorigen Zeiten gezogen und er durch diefen Ort Fussgoenheim gezogen, die Untertanen ersucht worden waren diefelben Bagages nach ged. Spener zu fuhren, oass auch gemeldte Untertanen zum schuldigsten Respekt gegen der gnadigen Mitherrschaft folches eingegangen, doch aber dieses Angefinen bei dem loblichen Oberamt Neustadt durch Ad. Gruelich, Feinem Schwagervater fel. Anbringen lassen, welcher dann zuruckgebracht, dass diefes begehrten Zumutens wegen Gnad oder Freiheit obhanden fei. Es ware aber nachgehends diefem Schultheissen wieder acht Malter Habern in dessen Scheuer gestellt gewesen, welche aber die Gemeinda nicht wegfuhren wollen nach ?Spener, fodern der Schultheiss batte solche selbsten nach Spener fuhren mussen; ja als deffen, fuhr zuruckgekommen, aren sieben asen im Keller gehangen, welche der Schultheiss ebenmassig durch seine Leut (bat) fortschafen mussen und der Gemeind diesertwegen keine Fron aufburden dorfen.”

Und Jakob Antes bekundet: “Wenn er auch einen lieblichen Eid ablegen sollte, wisse er nicht, dass jemalen gefrant oder mur ein Pferd bis nor nas Dorf gegeben habe, desgleiden auch von feinem alten Nater, der fleichwohlen 88 Jajre alt geworden, niemalen gehort, dass sie gefront. Doch lieferte jesco ein jedes Dorf (das Ober – und das Unterdorf) fein Beethkorn der 14 Malter der gnadigen herrschaft der 4 Stunden weit, so sonsten porthero durch die Pachtgeber auf ihr Rathhaus…

Next, the translation using both Deepl and Google translate.

Adam’s Testimony

If the community in the upper and lower village had complete freedom from the civil liberty, and if it had been in quiet possession and enjoyment from time immemorial, it would have been able to ensure that neither the village lordships (then Lorraine and Leiningen) nor the body rule (then the Electoral Palatinate) would have nothing to do with it.

Adam Kirsch said on this point: “Be true and if he knew in the forty years since he lived here at home that no indulgence was ever given to the village rulers, and that he had heard such things from his ancestors; for he remembers when Count Johann Kasimir of Leiningen, chamber president, moved to Speyer in former times and he passed through this village of Fußgonheim, the subjects would have been asked to follow the same bagages to ged. Speyer, that even registered subjects had received such a request to show the same bagages to ged. Speyer, that they too had shown the most due respect for the gracious co-signership [co-rulership?], but that this request had been made to the commendable Oberamt Neustadt by Ad. Greulich, by his father-in-law himself, who then returned that this coveted unreasonableness was in custody because of grace or freedom.

Alternate last sentence translation: …but this turning to the laudable Oberamt Neustadt through Ad. Greulich, had blessed his father-in-law affixed, who then brought back that this coveted impertinence was incumbent on account of grace or freedom.

But it would have been placed after this sheriff against eight times in his barn, but which do not want to lead the congregation away to Speyer, but the sheriff would have had to lead such of his own to Speyer; yes, when he went back, there would have been a great number of hares hung in the cellar, which the sheriff (had to) remove evenly by his people, and for this reason the congregation must not burden any front.

Alternate translation: But afterwards it would have been put against eight Maltern in his barn against this mayor, who, however, did not want to lead the community away to Speyer, but the mayor himself would have had to lead them to Speyer; Yes, when he came back, there would have been bunnies hanging in the cellar, which the mayor had to carry away with his people and which the community could not burden the community with.

And Jacob Antes testifies: Even if he were to make a bodily oath, he did not know that someone had indulged himself or only gave a pure horse to the village, nor did he ever hear from his old father, who, though he was 88 years old, that she indulged herself. But each village (the upper and the lower village) delivered its grain of beets [beethkorn] to the 14 maltsters of the gracious dominion of the 4 hours far, otherwise the tenants to their town hall…

Father-in-Law

Of course, for me, the important sections are twofold:

First, Adam tells us that he has lived in Fussgoenheim for 40 years.

What we don’t know is whether that means that Adam was born in Fussgoenheim, or elsewhere.

We don’t know if that means Adam is currently age 40, so born in 1677.

We don’t know if it means that Adam was born someplace earlier and has simply lived in Fussgoenheim for a total of 40 years.

We do know that Adam’s parents were married in 1650, so Adam was born sometime after that and before 1678.

We also know that Adam didn’t live in Fussgoenheim for this entire time, because this entire area evacuated again in 1684 for more than a decade.

We know Adam was Mayor in 1701, but we don’t know when he became Mayor.

When Adam was mayor in 1701, if he was born in 1677, he would only have been 24 years of age. Part of me is doubtful, but I also know that the surrounding village histories tell us that very few people returned to the villages in the countryside to rebuild. So it’s possible that there were only a few people to choose from. His father, Jerg, the Josten estate leaseholder, was dead so perhaps Adam was the choice to become mayor. He was the youngest son, not the eldest. Maybe at that time, he was the only Kirsch son who had returned, although we know that eventually, more brothers lived in Fussgoenheim.

Does Adam mean he lived in Fussgoenheim for a total of 40 years? If we know the Kirsch family returned by about 1697 or no later than 1701, and had left in 1684, then Adam might have been born between 1661 and 1664, not in 1677. That’s certainly possible too and would get us to a total of 40 years actually living in Fussgoenheim.

The men testifying were referred to as “elder men,” the definition of which was not provided. I’m not sure a man of age 40 would qualify as either elder or elderly. AGe 60 might have been elderly at that time, and having been Mayor, he would have been considered a “village elder,” regardless. Given his father’s position and with his mother’s family having been from Fussgoenheim a century earlier, that alone might have been enough. He would have heard about the village customs through his parents and perhaps grandparents, providing him with perspective into the past.

Second, Adam Kirsch says very specifically that Adam Greulich is his father-in-law. Christoph indicated that Adam Greulich is deceased in 1717.

So Adam Greulich’s daughter, at some point, was indeed Adam Kirsch’s wife and may have been Michael Kirsch’s mother.

There is no marriage record in Dürkheim for Adam and either wife, which could mean he married in Fussgoenheim before 1726, or elsewhere, or simply that the record no longer exists.

The fact that there is no marriage record for Adam Kirsch and his second wife, Anna Maria Koob suggests that marriage occurred before 1726 when the Fussgoenheim church records began, However, we also know that those existing records are incomplete.

What we do know positively is that in 1734, when Anna Maria died, Adam was still alive and she was married to Adam at that time.

What I Don’t Know

What I don’t know is whether there is documentation providing information that any of Adam’s children were born to Anna Maria Koob, although Walter attributed Adam’s children to Anna Maria.

It’s possible that some of Adam’s grandchildren, if born before 1734 when Anna Maria died could have been baptized with their grandmother, Anna Maria Koob, standing up at their baptism. If this occurred, that might explain why Walter would have assigned Johann Wilhelm Kirsch born in or around 1706 as the child of Anna Maria Koob.

I have only found one child that is even a possibility. Johann Wilhelm’s brother, Mayor Michael Kirsch and his wife served as Godparents to their child born in 1732. If other grandchildren were born and baptized before that time, it occurred in a neighbor village.

I don’t know if Walter simply noted Adam Kirsch’s testimony, but accidentally assigned Anna Maria Koob as the mother of all his children. Or perhaps he found that passage after he assigned her as the parent to Mayor Michael Kirsch who was born about 1700 and simply forgot to remove Anna Maria as Michael’s mother.

Walter seemed to be a meticulous genealogist with decades of experience reading original records, which is why I was so surprised to see him record conflicting information for Adam’s first wife and Johann Michael Kirsch’s mother.

For that matter, I would absolutely love to know why Walter assigned Anna Maria Koob as the mother of any of Johann Adam’s children and where he obtained that “died before 1706” information. To me, this would suggest he discovered something indicating that Anna Maria Koob was the mother of Johann Wilhelm Kirsch born in 1706.

(?) N.N. Greulich (* about 1680 † before 1706, T.v. Adam Greulich); since about 1677 in Fgh. (OG Merk, see Weistuhm 1717 Vern. 1717)

Walter might have entered Anna Maria Koob as Michael’s mother by accident or a copy error. But Walter would never have written that Adam Gruelich’s daughter’s death occurred before 1706 if he hadn’t found something, someplace.

But what was it that Walter found, and where?

I don’t know.

Will DNA Help?

I checked church records in the database at Ancestry for Fussgoenheim and for any Greulich in the Pfalz in the right timeframes. Nothing. I can’t locate the family or even a candidate.

Unfortunately, Y DNA won’t help because I don’t carry the Y DNA of this line. Neither will mitochondrial, so we’re left with autosomal DNA.

Johann Adam Kirsch is my 7th great-grandfather. His wife, whichever one is my ancestor, would be as well. That means that she’s 9 generations back in time.

Carrying some autosomal DNA wouldn’t be unheard of at that distance, but I’d need to be able to identify someone else from the Greulich family.

Fortunately, I do have my mother’s autosomal DNA at both Family Tree DNA and MyHeritage. She’s a generation closer so more likely to match.

I checked for matches to the Greulich surname at both vendors. Of course, descendants might spell that name differently today. Three people had Gruelich in their tree at Family Tree DNA, but neither the trees nor the common segment track to that line. There is no match for Greulich at MyHeritage.

Searching for Koob won’t help, because Mom and I descend from Koob through at least one other line.

My Mom’s DNA is not at Ancestry, but I did search for the Greulich surname there in my own DNA match list. Three people have Greulich in their tree, but one definitely matches on a much closer, different line.

The shared matches with the other two suggest that we match through the same “other” line. Without a chromosome browser, there’s no way to discern more.

The End of the Line

I’m at the end of the line, up against that brick wall. Either way – whether Adam’s wife who gave birth to Michael Kirsch was Ms. Greulich or Anna Maria Koob. He was unquestionably married to both women.

Fortunately, we know the name of the father of Ms. Greulich. Based on what Adam Kirsch said in 1717, Adam Gruelich came “back” from Neustadt which suggests he lived in Fussgoenheim, even though there are no Greulich in the church records after they began in 1726. Perhaps the rest of his family was lost in the wars or eventually settled elsewhere. If his daughter who married Adam Kirsch was born about 1680, Adam Greulich would have probably been born before 1655 and maybe as early as 1630.

If Michael’s mother is Anna Maria Koob, we can’t identify her father either. There is a Johann Nicholas (Hans Nickel) Kob who is Mayor of the lower part of Fussgoenheim in 1701, the same year that Adam Kirsch is Mayor of the upper part of the village.

We have identified three of Hans Nickel’s children. Anna Maria could be another daughter.

The Koob family has lived in and near Fussgoenheim since the beginning of recorded history. In 1480, Debalt Kalbe was Mayor. Kalbe could be the phonetic pronunciation of Koob. In 1528, Lorenz Kob was Mayor. We also find the Koob family in Dürkheim during the 30 Years’ War, living in nearby villages and eventually, leasing the Munchoff estate just south of neighboring Schaurnheim.

There are several Koob men in the region in 1485 when a tax was collected to raise money to fight the Turks. The Koob family is found early in at least three nearby villages, within walking distance, plus Fussgoenheim, of course.

If Walter is correct and Ms. Greulich died before 1706, Michael Kirsch probably only remembered his mother vaguely, if at all.

If she passed away while Michael was young, regardless of which woman was Michael’s biological mother, Anna Maria Koob would have raised him. She would have kissed his boo-boos and comforted him, taken him to church, watched proudly as he married and celebrated the birth of his first 5 children – her grandchildren one way or another.

If Michael’s mother died when he was older, and Anna Maria Koob didn’t raise him from childhood, she likely knew him his entire life. She may have even been related to his mother – a very common occurrence in small villages. If Anna Maria Koob wasn’t Michael’s birth mother, she was still his step-mother, probably having married Adam Kirsch sometime before the church records began in 1726.

Anna Maria Koob passed on when Michael was about 34 years old, before Adam who would join both wives within just a few years.

Michael would have sat with his father, perhaps with his hand resting on his leg or around his shoulders for comfort, in the church pew while the minister preached one last sermon that March day in 1734. Was Anna Maria’s death unexpected? She wasn’t elderly – only 54, with at least three children still at home. Michael was the oldest.

After the service, they would have carried Anna Maria’s casket out the side door, directly into the churchyard where Michael and Adam, along with the rest of the family, stood over her coffin – someplace near the graves of his maternal grandparents.

Michael would have said a somber goodbye over the grave of his mother, or perhaps both of his mothers, as the nesting spring birds sang them off to Heaven together.

Perhaps he watched them take flight.

_____________________________________________________________

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 Products and Services

Genealogy Research

Join Me For “How to Use AutoClusters to Analyze Your DNA Matches,” Live and Free

Please accept this invitation to join me this Wednesday, October 21, at 2 PM EST, for the MyHeritage Facebook LIVE event, “How to Use AutoClusters to Analyze Your DNA Matches,” presented by yours truly! Please note that if you can’t join us for the live presentation, it will be available to view later. I’ll post a link when it becomes available – after the live session.

The live webinar is free, courtesy of MyHeritage, and me.

You can read about this event and other free October seminars in the MyHeritage blog article, here.

To view the session, simply click on the MyHeritage Facebook page, at this link, near that time and the session will appear as a posting. I can’t give you the link in advance because until the live session is occurring, there isn’t a link to post.

We will be covering how to use the AutoCluster feature that’s included for all MyHeritage DNA users, incorporating cluster information with other MyHeritage DNA tools such as Theories of Family Relativity, Smart Matches, Ancestral Surnames, Shared Matches, Locations and Triangulation to solve genealogical puzzles.

I even made a discovery when creating this workshop and I’ll share how that happened and why it’s important.

You have surprises waiting for you too. AutoCluster opens doors and breaks down brick walls.

It’s Not Too Late!

If you haven’t DNA tested at MyHeritage, you can purchase a test, here.

However, if you’ve already tested elsewhere, it’s much quicker and less expensive to upload your DNA file for free, here, and pay the $29 unlock fee to access the advanced tools, including AutoCluster. Step-by-step transfer instructions for all vendors are found, here.

Instead of paying the $29 unlock fee, you can subscribe to the MyHeritage genealogy research package and that will gain you access to the advanced DNA tools as well. You can sign up for a trial subscription for free, here.

See you on Wednesday!!!

_____________________________________________________________

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 Products and Services

Genealogy Research

Kirsch House Facelift, and a Brick – 52 Ancestors #310

Twice now, I’ve been fortunate enough to visit the Kirsch House, or at least that’s what it was called when Jacob Kirsch and his wife, Barbara Drechsel owned the property.

Jacob and Barbara were immigrants, both born to German parents who immigrated in the 1850s and settled in Aurora, Indiana, a riverfront town a few blocks long nestled between the railroad depot and the Ohio River. The Depot is shown at the red arrow, beside the Kirsch House at the red pin.

In this postcard, you can see the Kirsch House to the right of the depot, with the freight ticket office – the white area behind the pole – where a large window is positioned today.

Behind these people on the platform, you can see the freight and ticket sales window. This had to be a good thing for the Kirsch House, because it encouraged travelers to mosey over that way. If Jacob and Barbara were early innovators, they might just have sold cold (or hot) drinks and snacks through that window for travelers who didn’t have time to go inside, sit down, and enjoy some beer or wine along with their renowned (mock) turtle soup, made every Tuesday by Barbara.

A door existed to the left of the little boy that doesn’t exist today. The sign on the door says “hotel” and the sign on the window says “hotel and bar.” Nothing like advertising facing the depot.

The family living quarters were located upstairs. When Mom and I visited in the 1980s, the bar was the front portion of the building and the restaurant was the room to the rear, starting with the “hotel” door and to the left in the photo above. The upstairs rooms were rented. We were able to see the public portions, but not the rest at that time.

In the 1800s, prime retail land in Aurora consisted of an establishment high enough from the river not to flood but close enough to both the river and the bustling depot to attract travelers.

Then as now, location, location, location!!! The Ohio River is at the end of the street, four blocks away.

When you look at the geography of the area, Aurora is surrounded on three sides by water, so floods are a real and present danger. The Ohio River is as far across as Aurora is wide. In other words, just about the entire town would fit in the river.

On May 27, 1866, Jacob and Barbara were married in St. John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church, then held in the old Baptist church house.

A few years later, in August of 1875, Jacob and Barbara bought the property, named The French House, from James and Ellen French and renamed it the Kirsch House.

Their Kirsch House advertisement read, “The house is pleasantly situated near the railroad depot and will be found the most desirable place in the city of Aurora at which to stop. Good wines, liquors and cigars.” Of course, they forgot to mention Barbara’s wonderful German food, ordered by the locals and delivered by their daughters pulling a wagon.

The census notes Jacob as a saloon keeper and says that they ran a boarding house.

This photo was taken in front of the Kirsch House and shows 5 of Jacob and Barbara’s 6 children probably around the turn of the century. Bicycle-riding was quite the rage, even in skirts.

The street in front was still dirt, but Earl Huffman who knew Jacob Kirsch and the Kirsch House said that “The Kirsch House catered to tobacco buyers and other prominent businessmen who visited Aurora. It was a plush and modern hotel at that time, with a resplendent history and a stone gutter and a wooden portico over the cement sidewalk which was laid in 1905. Jacob Kirsch catered to only high-level traveling men.”

This undated photo shows part of the Kirsch House and the depot and was laminated onto the bar in the Kirsch House in the 1980s when Mom and I visited. Apparently, the sidewalk covered with a roof was quite the status symbol. Nora’s daughter, Eloise, and my mother, Nora’s granddaughter through daughter Edith both mentioned that covered walkway.

From 1875 until 1921, the Kirsch House was operated by Jacob and Barbara and functioned as the hub of the extended Kirsch and Drechsel families for almost half a century. This photo below, probably taken in 1907 but definitely after 1905 and before 1909 is the only known family photo that includes all of the Kirsch children, along with two grandchildren.

The identities are not entirely certain, but seated left to right, probably Carrie Kirsch, Nora Kirsch Lore, standing child, probably Eloise Lore, adult female sitting behind child, probably Lou Kirsch, woman seated with black skirt, Barbara Drechsel Kirsch, probably Curtis Lore. Standing left to right, C. B. Lore, probably Edward Kirsch, probably Martin Kirsch, probably Ida Kirsch, Jacob Kirsch.

During this time, the Kirsch family saw their fair share of drama and tragedy. Perhaps more than their fair share.

  • In 1879, Jacob’s brother-in-law, Martin Koehler died.
  • In March 1880, Jacob entered politics in a bid for local councilman.
  • In May 1880, Barbara’s brother, John Drechsel, died unexpectedly.
  • In May 1880, Jacob’s father, Philip Jacob Kirsch, died.
  • In 1887, Jacob “sold” the Kirsch house to his wife, Barbara, because he was being sued for his part in the 1886 lynching of an itinerant brick mason who was caught in the act of murdering a local resident.
  • In 1889, Barbara’s sister, Margaretha died, leaving 5 young children, having already buried 2.
  • In 1889, Jacob’s brother, William was involved in some kind of accident going over the Platte River Bridge and died in 1891 from those injuries.
  • In 1889, a boarder shot himself in the right groin at the Kirsch House while target shooting.
  • Jacob’s elderly mother, Katharina Barbara Lemmert, lived, and died, at the Kirsch House in 1889.
  • Jacob and Barbara’s granddaughter, Hazel Kirsch, died in August of 1891.
  • In 1892, Jacob lost one eye in a hunting accident. It was questionable whether he would live as the entire side of his face was affected. He was also a sharpshooter and won the tri-State championship AFTER this devastating accident that in essence destroyed half of his face. Jacob wore a glass eye after the accident and loved to scare the children by popping his eye out.
  • Jacob and Barbara’s granddaughter, Pauline Kirsch, died in July of 1896.
  • Jacob’s sister, Katharina Kirsch Koehler died in 1900.
  • Jacob’s brother, a Civil War veteran and disabled pensioner lived with the family and died at the Kirsch House in 1905.
  • Barbara’s parents, Barbara Mehlheimer and Georg Drechsel died in 1906 and 1908, respectively.
  • Jacob and Barbara’s granddaughter, Curtis Lore, died in February 1912 after contracting tuberculosis from her father.

Floods!

Amidst all of this, they fought the ever-present danger of massive floods and the soggy, stinky moldy mildewy aftermath.

Floodwaters reached the Kirsch house in 1883, 1884, 1907, twice, three months apart in 1913, and in 1917. 1913 must have been brutal. It would have destroyed lesser people.

The 1884 flood was said to have reached the second floor of the Kirsch House. In the above picture, people are standing on second-floor balconies along an Aurora street.

The April 1913 legendary flood was said to be “the greatest disaster of modern times.” The basement and walls of the Kirsch House carry those flood scars.

And then, there was the never-ceasing daughter drama!

Daughter Drama!

  • Jacob’s daughter, Carolyn “Carrie” Kirsch married in 1902 to Joseph Wymond, the wealthy son of a local businessman who owned the Wymond Cooperage. Joseph, however, was a debonair ladies’ man and riverboat gambler who carried a dapper gold-headed and gold-tipped cane. The problem was that he caught syphilis and of course gave it to Carrie. Syphilis was fatal. There was no cure. Amazingly, Jacob Kirsch didn’t kill the man, so Joe eventually took his own life in 1910. Sixteen years later, Carrie, institutionalized, succumbed to that horrific disease as well.
  • Jacob’s daughter, Louise, known as “Aunt Lou” married Todd Fiske in 1899, son of the owners of the local Fiske Carriage Business. A civil engineer, Todd found himself out of work. Despondent, he took his own life with a gunshot to the head in the garden of the Kirsch House on October 31, 1908.

When Mom and I visited, there was no sign of a lovely garden, although Nora Kirsch’s daughter, Aunt Eloise, who visited the Kirsch House, spoke of it. The only place a “private garden” could have been located was on these two triangles of land.

Eloise and her sister, MIldred, at the depot beside the Kirsch House in 1907.

  • Jacob’s daughter, Nora Kirsch, lost her husband, C. B. Lore, to tuberculosis in 1909. It’s unclear if Nora ever knew that C.B. had not divorced his previous wife in Pennsylvania before the shotgun wedding to Nora in 1888 – likely at the end of a shotgun held by Jacob himself. C. B. Lore was a handsome wildcatter, an oilman who likely stayed at the Kirsch House while he drilled for oil and gas locally, consuming wine, liquors, and fine cigars – and winning the heart of Nora in the process.

Nora made her own wedding gown and descended the stairs at the Kirsch House to meet her groom on their wedding day.

Nora was quite the seamstress, earning her living for decades with that trade after her husband died.

In 1933, Nora represented the State of Indiana at the Chicago World’s fair with one of her quilts.

Nora’s granddaughter, my mother, me, and my daughter many years ago with Nora’s winning quilt when it was honored at a museum exhibition.

I might have, just might, have inherited that “quilt gene” from Nora😊

  • Daughter Ida had a physical disability and remained single for a long time, but married in 1921 to a man 15 years her senior who eventually died of “acute alcoholism” in 1946 and was known to be extremely mean and abusive.

Somehow, between cooking and cleaning, the Kirsch girls found time for sewing, quilting, and lacemaking.

This crazy quilt, sewn together by the Kirsch daughters incorporates a block dated 1884 and was made at the Kirsch House.

They surely sewed their hopes, dreams, cares, and tears into this quilt, together, probably by candlelight in the evenings.

Servicemen

During WWI and WWII, the bodies of servicemen lost in war were transported to the railroad depot, then carried next door to the Kirsch House where they were taken to private rooms and covered with flags while waiting for their families to claim their fallen members.

Jacob’s Death

Jacob died, after a long battle with cancer in 1917, but Barbara struggled on to run the Kirsch House alone until 1921 when she sold it to the Neaman family who renamed it the Neaman House.

The 1989 Trip

In 1989, Mom, my daughter, and I traveled to Aurora and located the former Kirsch House. We planned our trip carefully with the hope of finding information about our ancestors. This was long before “online” anything existed. All we had to go on was oral history and the knowledge that it was beside the Depot.

We were very fortunate in that the former Kirsch House was a local restaurant and we could go inside and see for ourselves, including that stunning hand-carved bar. We were also in the right place at the right time, because Telford Walker, the local historian who had actually known Jacob Kirsch when Telford was a child happened to be eating lunch there with the Rotary Club on the day Mom and I visited.

Looking at the side of the Kirsch House building in the 1980s, you can see the structures of the earlier Depot era building. While the rear section of the Kirsch House was obviously added later than the original construction, it was already in place on an 1875 map, so Jacob and Barbara Kirsch bought this property in its current basic configuration.

Eventually, the restaurant closed and the property was abandoned. I visited again in 2008 when the Kirsch House, for sale, was in terrible shape. I wondered if there was any prayer of salvaging this building and wished that I could have afforded to do so.

After that visit, I became friendly with the local historian, Jenny Awad, who told me she would keep her eye on the Kirsch House property.

Then, miraculously, two things happened. And no, neither one was me winning the lottery.

You’ve Got Mail!

My husband went to retrieve the mail one day recently and came in telling me I had a very heavy padded envelope.

“What did you do,” he asked, “convince someone to mail you a brick?”

I laughed and said, “Well, I hope so.” He knows my penchant for having “something” of my ancestors, be it a brick or a rock from their land. Something to connect us.

But, as it turns out, he was right.

It really WAS a brick, from the Kirsch House, mailed by Jenny.

I was thrilled to receive this brick that connects me tangibly to my ancestors, 4 of them who lived in this building during their lifetimes, and two that died there, wrapped in love and history.

At first, I thought perhaps that the Kirsch House been torn down, but that wasn’t the case at all.

Jenny had another surprise for me.

Remodel!

Jenny reported that a new owner had purchased the Kirsch House and was doing an extensive remodel, turning the downstairs into retail stores with four apartments upstairs.

Jenny visited the local tire store where someone told her that a remodel was happening at the Kirsch House and that there were nails everyplace. Indeed, I’m sure there were. Jenny drove over to see and photograph.

Jenny, I can’t thank you enough!! What an amazing gift.

The great thing is that with the last century of updating stripped away, we can actually see the original building that would have been familiar to Jacob Kirsch and Barbara Drechsel as they went about their daily lives. The room where Barbara’s sisters lived as they worked in the Kirsch House before they married. The room that Nora grew up and quilted in. The room where Jacob and his mother both died. The room where Barbara slept by herself after Jacob’s death, until that last time she walked out the door. Forty-seven years, a half-century of our family history, exposed beneath the plaster.

Over the years as the building deteriorated, so did the clientele and the once resplendent Kirsch House became a flophouse, all too familiar to the local EMTs.

The family had once lived upstairs, above the restaurant and tavern, along with travelers and boarders.

You can see the roof of the Depot through the window above. The sound of the train whistle must have been so familiar that they probably didn’t even “hear” it anymore.

I wonder if those original floors were oak. These would have been the floors that Barbara and the girls scrubbed.

Oh, the stories these walls could tell if they could but talk.

The hallways were quite narrow. It wasn’t obvious if there were owners quarters separate from visitor rooms in the boarding house. Heat and electricity were retrofitted years later, of course.

Since these rooms connect, I wonder if they were some of the original Kirsch living quarters. Aside from bedrooms, they would have wanted some sort of family area, such as a living room or parlor where they could gather with some degree of privacy.

I can’t wait to see what the new owner does with these historic, haunted hallways.

This hand-shaped banister protects the one stairway between the floors and the landing from where Nora would have descended in her wedding dress.

I can see Nora walking, slowly, down, each step, one by one. Looking in the eyes of C.B. Lore, waiting for her.

C.B. Lore would have stood here, at the bottom waiting for his bride, hoping his father-in-law didn’t discover his guilty secret that included children.

We don’t know where Jacob’s office would have been in this building.

If you close your eyes, you can imagine Jacob’s desk looking much like this as he managed the boarding house, the tavern, cigar store, and the restaurant, along with family matters. Jenny sent this photo. We don’t know who it is, but it would have been a businessman that Jacob knew and probably frequented the Kirsch House.

Back to the Brick

What was I going to do with my brick? I love it, but what does one DO with a brick?

I had an idea.

I needed a doorstop, but I didn’t want to break a toe kicking the brick. I didn’t want to damage the wood floor with the brick scooting over the surface, and I didn’t want the brick to deteriorate. After all, the historical commission estimates the age of the building to be 1855ish – so this brick is 170ish years old and tiny pieces are shedding.

As I pondered the brick, I realized that the brick was passed to me, and so was the DNA of the ancestors who lived there. Both were random events.

As you know, I’m sure, I speak regularly at conferences, and each year I make a new DNA clothing item to wear.

In 2017, for my Ireland visit, I made a reversible DNA vest.

The way I construct the vests is to have the fabrics quilted first, then cut out and construct the vest. This means that I have pieces of quilted fabric left over.

Now, to figure out how to make a quilted brick cover that would allow me to see the brick, but that would protect both the brick, the floor, and my toes.

Hmmm, do I have any quilted DNA material scraps left anyplace? I had already made a bag, a laptop sleeve, and a few other things.

Yes, as it turns out, I did!

A few hours later I had made a quilted brick basket.

If you’re interested in how I did this, I’m including instructions so you can do something similar. If not, just scroll down to the next picture.

I measured my brick across the bottom and up the sides. I allowed an extra half inch at the top so that I could make a hem.

So, if the brick is 3 inches across and 6 inches long, and the sides are 2.5 inches each, the piece of already quilted fabric I cut was calculated:

Fabric Width:

  • 3 inches wide brick
  • 2 X 2.5 inch sides = 5 inches
  • Extra half inch on both sides = 1 inch
  • Total = 9 inches

Fabric Length

  • 9 inches long brick
  • 2 X 2.5 inch sides = 5 inches
  • Extra half inch on both sides = 1 inch
  • Total = 15 inches

The handle was 2.5 inches wide and long enough that the brick could fit in the basket under the handle after allowing about 1.5 inches to sew both ends inside the basket. So, my handle is about 6 inches showing, with 1.5 inches sewn inside the basket on both ends for a cut piece of fabric of 9 inches by 2.5 inches.

First, I zigzagged all of the quilted fabric edges to avoid fraying. You can see that if you look closely inside.

Then, I turned the edges inside and zigzagged them flat for a hem on the main brick piece of fabric.

At that point, you have a large flat piece of fabric and you need a basket-shaped piece of fabric.

I sat the brick on the fabric, centering it exactly using a ruler, then folded the corners up like I was wrapping a gift. I pinned each corner in place. In my case, that meant when I took the brick out and went to sew the corners in place, I sewed a seam 2 inches exactly from the tip of the folded corner triangle of fabric.

After I sewed all 4 corners, I had these little ear flaps sticking out. I tried the basket on the brick for size. It fit, so I then flattened the corner triangles against the corners and sewed them flat on the basket edge. That gave me the cute little cat-ears. It also serves to buffer the corner of the brick which protects my toes from the brick, along with the corners of the brick.

You can practice with a sheet of paper to get the idea and dimensions. You can purchase pre-quilted fabrics at stores like Joann and online.

To finish the handle, fold the sides to the middle back and zigzag in place. Sew the bottom of the handle inside the basket at the bottom of the handle piece and again at the top of the handle where it touches the top of the basket.

Next, put your brick in your basket and you’re done. This project isn’t “quilt show” grade – but I was going for fun and function, and this was both!

I felt this was a wonderful way to honor my great-grandmother, Nora, her struggles, and her beautiful, creative quilting. It allowed me to remember wonderful adventures with my mother, now gone forever, and daughter, now grown, chasing those ancestors. I honored Jacob and Barbara Drechsel Kirsch, proprietors of the Kirsch House whose DNA I carry today. In all of their honor, I created a DNA-themed keepsake, a nod to me, that I hope will one day be an heirloom, holding a door open and loved by my descendants too.

_____________________________________________________________

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 Products and Services

Genealogy Research

Longobards Ancient DNA from Pannonia and Italy – What Does Their DNA Tell Us? Are You Related?

The Longobards, Lombards, also known as the Long-beards – who were they? Where did they come from? And when?

Perhaps more important – are you related to these ancient people?

In the paper, Understanding 6th-century barbarian social organizatoin and migration through paleogenomics, by Amorim et al, the authors tell us in the abstract:

Despite centuries of research, much about the barbarian migrations that took place between the fourth and sixth centuries in Europe remains hotly debated. To better understand this key era that marks the dawn of modern European societies, we obtained ancient genomic DNA from 63 samples from two cemeteries (from Hungary and Northern Italy) that have been previously associated with the Longobards, a barbarian people that ruled large parts of Italy for over 200 years after invading from Pannonia in 568 CE. Our dense cemetery-based sampling revealed that each cemetery was primarily organized around one large pedigree, suggesting that biological relationships played an important role in these early medieval societies. Moreover, we identified genetic structure in each cemetery involving at least two groups with different ancestry that were very distinct in terms of their funerary customs. Finally, our data are consistent with the proposed long-distance migration from Pannonia to Northern Italy.

Both the Germans and French have descriptions of this time of upheaval in their history. Völkerwanderung in German and Les invasions barbares in French refer to the various waves of invasions by Goths, Franks, Anglo-Saxons, Vandals, and Huns. All of these groups left a genetic imprint, a story told without admixture by their Y and mitochondrial DNA.

click to enlarge

The authors provide this map of Pannonia, the Longobards kingdom, and the two cemeteries with burial locations.

One of their findings is that the burials are organized around biological kinship. Perhaps they weren’t so terribly different from us today.

Much as genealogists do, the authors created a pedigree chart – the only difference being that their chart is genetically constructed and lacks names, other than sample ID.

One man is buried with a horse, and one of his relatives, a female, is not buried in a family unit but in a half-ring of female graves.

The data suggests that the cemetery in Pannonia, Szolad, shown in burgundy on the map, may have been a “single-generation” cemetery, in use for only a limited time as the migration continued westward. Collegno, in contrast, seems to have been used for multiple generations, with the burials radiating outward over time from the progenitor individual.

Because the entire cemetery was analyzed, it’s possible to identify those individuals with northern or northeastern European ancestry, east of the Rhine and north of the Danube, and to differentiate from southern European ancestry in the Lombard cemetery – in addition to reassembling their family pedigrees. The story is told, not just by one individual’s DNA, but how the group is related to each other, and their individual and group origins.

For anyone with roots in Germany, Hungary, or the eastern portion of Europe, you know that this region has been embroiled in upheaval and warfare seemingly as long as there have been people to fight over who lived in and controlled these lands.

Are You Related?

Goran Runfeldt’s R&D group at Family Tree DNA reanalyzed the Y DNA samples from this paper and has been kind enough to provide a summary of the results. Michael Sager has utilized them to branch the Y DNA tree – in a dozen places.

Mitochondrial DNA haplogroups have been included where available from the authors, but have not been reanalyzed.

Note the comments added by FTDNA during analysis.

Many new branches were formed. I included step-by-step instructions, here, so you can see if your Y DNA results match either the new branch or any of these samples upstream.

If you’re a male and you haven’t yet tested your Y DNA or you would like to upgrade to the Big Y-700 to obtain your most detailed haplogroup, you can do either by clicking here. My husband’s family is from Hungary and I just upgraded his Y DNA test to the Big Y-700. I want to know where his ancestors came from.

And yes, this first sample really is rare haplogroup T. Each sample is linked to the Family Tree DNA public tree. We find haplogroups G and E as well as the more common R and I. Some ancient samples match contemporary testers from France (2), the UK, England, Morocco, Denmark (5), and Italy. Fascinating!

Sample: CL23
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: T-BY45363
mtDNA: H

Sample: CL30
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-P312
mtDNA: I1b

Sample: CL31
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: G-FGC693
FTDNA Comment: Authors warn of possible contamination. Y chromosome looks good – and there is support for splitting this branch. However, because of the contamination warning – we will not act on this split until more data is available.
mtDNA: H18

Sample: CL38
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: E-BY3880
mtDNA: X2

Sample: CL49
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-CTS6889

Sample: CL53
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-FGC24138
mtDNA: H11a

Sample: CL57
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-BY48364
mtDNA: H24a

Sample: CL63
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: I-FT104588
mtDNA: H

Sample: CL84
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-U198
mtDNA: H1t

Sample: CL92
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-S22519
mtDNA: H

Sample: CL93
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-S22519
mtDNA: J2b1a

Sample: CL94
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-DF99
mtDNA: K1c1

Sample: CL97
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-L23

Sample: CL110
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-L754

Sample: CL121
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-BY70163
FTDNA Comment: Shares 2 SNPs with a man from France. Forms a new branch down of R-BY70163 (Z2103). New branch = R-BY197053
mtDNA: T2b

Sample: CL145
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-S22519
mtDNA: T2b

Sample: CL146
Location: Collegno, Piedmont, Italy
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-A8472
mtDNA: T2b3

Sample: SZ1
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Study Information: The skeletal remains from an individual dating to the Bronze Age 10 m north of the cemetery.
Age: Bronze Age
Y-DNA: R-Y20746
mtDNA: J1b

Sample: SZ2
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-Z338
FTDNA Comment: Shares 5 SNPs with a man from the UK. Forms a new branch down of R-Z338 (U106). New branch = R-BY176786
mtDNA: T1a1

Sample: SZ3
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: I-BY3605
mtDNA: H18

Sample: SZ4
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-ZP200
FTDNA Comment: Splits R-ZP200 (U106). Derived (positive) for 2 SNPs and ancestral (negative) for 19 SNPs. New path = R-Y98441>R-ZP200
mtDNA: H1c9

Sample: SZ5
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-BY3194
FTDNA Comment: Splits R-BY3194 (DF27). Derived for 19 SNPs, ancestral for 9 SNPs. New path = R-BY3195>R-BY3194
mtDNA: J2b1

Sample: SZ6
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: I-P214

Sample: SZ7
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: I-S8104
FTDNA Comment: SZ13, SZ7 and SZ12 share 2 SNPs with a man from Denmark, forming a branch down of I-S8104 (M223). New branch = I-FT45324. Note that SZ22 and SZ24 (and even SZ14) fall on the same path to I-S8104 but lack coverage for intermediate branches.
mtDNA: T2e

Sample: SZ11
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-FGC13492
FTDNA Comment: Shares 1 SNP with a man from Italy. Forms a new branch down of R-FGC13492 (U106). New branch = R-BY138397
mtDNA: K2a3a

Sample: SZ12
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: I-S8104
FTDNA Comment: SZ13, SZ7 and SZ12 share 2 SNPs with a man from Denmark, forming a branch down of I-S8104 (M223). New branch = I-FT45324. Note that SZ22 and SZ24 (and even SZ14) fall on the same path to I-S8104 but lack coverage for intermediate branches.
mtDNA: W6

Sample: SZ13
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century 422-541 cal CE
Y-DNA: I-S8104
FTDNA Comment: SZ13, SZ7 and SZ12 share 2 SNPs with a man from Denmark, forming a branch down of I-S8104 (M223). New branch = I-FT45324. Note that SZ22 and SZ24 (and even SZ14) fall on the same path to I-S8104 but lack coverage for intermediate branches.
mtDNA: N1b1b1

Sample: SZ14
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: I-CTS616
FTDNA Comment: SZ13, SZ7 and SZ12 share 2 SNPs with a man from Denmark, forming a branch down of I-S8104 (M223). New branch = I-FT45324. Note that SZ22 and SZ24 (and even SZ14) fall on the same path to I-S8104 but lack coverage for intermediate branches.
mtDNA: I3

Sample: SZ15
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-YP986
mtDNA: H1c1

Sample: SZ16
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-U106
mtDNA: U4b1b

Sample: SZ18
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: E-BY6865
FTDNA Comment: Shares 1 SNP with a man from Morocco. Forms a new branch down of E-BY6865. New branch = E-FT198679
mtDNA: H13a1a2

Sample: SZ22
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: I-Y6876
FTDNA Comment: SZ13, SZ7 and SZ12 share 2 SNPs with a man from Denmark, forming a branch down of I-S8104 (M223). New branch = I-FT45324. Note that SZ22 and SZ24 (and even SZ14) fall on the same path to I-S8104 but lack coverage for intermediate branches.
mtDNA: N1b1b1

Sample: SZ23
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-S10271
mtDNA: H13a1a2

Sample: SZ24
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: I-ZS3
FTDNA Comment: SZ13, SZ7 and SZ12 share 2 SNPs with a man from Denmark, forming a branch down of I-S8104 (M223). New branch = I-FT45324. Note that SZ22 and SZ24 (and even SZ14) fall on the same path to I-S8104 but lack coverage for intermediate branches.
mtDNA: U4b

Sample: SZ27B
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century 412-538 cal CE
Y-DNA: R-FGC4166
FTDNA Comment: Shares 1 SNP with a man from France. Forms a new branch down of R-FGC4166 (U152). New branch = R-FT190624
mtDNA: N1a1a1a1

Sample: SZ36
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: T-Y15712
mtDNA: U4c2a

Sample: SZ37
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century 430-577 cal CE
Y-DNA: R-P312
mtDNA: H66a

Sample: SZ42
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: R-P312
mtDNA: K2a6

Sample: SZ43
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Age: Longobard 6th Century 435-604 cal CE
Y-DNA: I-BY138
mtDNA: H1e

Sample: SZ45
Location: Szólád, Somogy County, Hungary
Study Information: ADMIXTURE analysis showed SZ45 to possess a unique ancestry profile.
Age: Longobard 6th Century
Y-DNA: I-FGC21819
FTDNA Comment: Shares 2 SNPs with a man from England forms a new branch down of FGC21819. New branch = I-FGC21810
mtDNA: J1c

_____________________________________________________________

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 Products and Services

Genealogy Research