Thursday, October 2, 2014
While it is a better web design, this means updating all your citations if they contained a URL to the PA Digital Repository. The old URL still works but the content isn't there.
Monday, September 29, 2014
|Really, ACOM? Is Laudel, Vest-Agder, Norway|
really in Denmark?
I just got literally hundreds of hints for my Norwegian branch and so far not a single one is accurate. The hints system seems to go off of name and dates only, not locations. I get that people move around and shouldn't be defined by one location... but when I have a birth/baptism location for someone in my tree, why is it giving me hints for births/baptisms in a completely different county or sometimes even nation?! The system doesn't understand how repetitive Scandinavian names are, because they used patronymic names, there will be thousands of Lars Gundersens, for example, and dozens of them born in or around 1833. That doesn't mean someone who was clearly born in Norway matches a birth/baptism record from Denmark! Why are locations not included in the criteria for hints?
It would be fair enough if I was getting a Denmark hint for a marriage when the individual was born in Norway - it's not impossible an individual moved from Norway to Denmark in between their birth and marriage. It also wouldn't be unreasonable if I had no location entered for a birth. But I'm talking about Denmark birth/baptism records popping up for people who have a birth/baptism location as Norway. Likewise, a lot of Norway records are popping up too but they are all in the wrong county!
If it were just a handful of hints, it would not be a big deal. But I now have to go through literally hundreds of hints and make sure they are truly bogus before I delete them. If I could just hit "ignore" it might not be so bad but on half the Norway hints, the location isn't listed until you view the record, which means I can't just look at the hint overview and click ignore, I have to open up the record, compare the locations, then hit ignore.
Thanks for making a whole bunch of tedious busy work for me, ACOM!
Monday, September 15, 2014
Otherwise, some of my complaints may seem minor, and indeed they are not worth cancelling my subscription over. The fact of the matter remains that Ancestry.com has the biggest genealogy record database on the internet and therefore is a valuable resource. But when you're trying to do time consuming work on your tree, it's the little things like this which can really inhibit your work flow and when you're paying about $300 a year for a service, I think it's fair to expect basic problems like this to get resolved quickly.
|Note the blank events the system creates instead of|
attaching the citation to existing events. I leave them
blank so I know which ones to delete but the system
gives you the option to fill them in during attachment.
For starters, it won't allow you to attach the image to an existing fact (shown right) and instead creates a new one. This means if you're trying to add it as a citation for an existing birth event, for example, it will create a new preferred fact for the birth and your original fact will be made the alternate fact. Annoying, right? You then have to edit the citation to switch it over to the correct, original birth fact but this is not easy since, for some reason, the citation did not save the title of the source! If it's the first time you're saving this source, you have to create a new source with the title but at least once you've added it, from then on you can just select it from the drop down menu when adding this source again in the future. Of course, in order to save the citation you also have to enter something into the "Detail" field. This is a problem with many sources, even those indexed - if they do not have a "detail" entered by Ancestry.com's system, you have to enter it yourself when editing the citation.
Once you've finally edited the citation so it has a title, detail, and is attached to the correct facts, you then have to delete the new facts that the system incorrectly created. Because it didn't just create a new birth fact, it also created an alternate name fact.
|There are three Tobias Leechs in my tree but two don't have|
birth or death dates yet, how do I tell them apart? Suffix of
I, II, or III don't appear.
So, if you're going to criticize Ancestry.com, here is something that is honestly wrong with it.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
|Ann Sutch Will 1827 mentioning brother Richard|
Well, in the Proceedings Index for Ann (Shoemaker) Sutch, there were some listings for Orphan Court Dockets. These are often records that have something to do with the will of a deceased person after it was proved. There were two dated 1838 which turned out to be a petition and answer for the replacement of trustee Richard Shoemaker, deceased, with someone else. The petitioners were E. Jones and Job Roberts (I promise this will be important later on). This suggested that Richard Shoemaker, brother of Ann (Shoemaker) Sutch, died sometime in or soon before 1838. So I went looking for a Richard Shoemaker who may have had probate records dated around 1838. There was only one in Montgomery County who fit with this and although there was no will listed, there was an Admin Bond date for Aug 5, 1837 in Horsham and the Admins listed were Job Roberts and Evan Jones. So I knew I had the correct Richard Shoemaker because Jones and Roberts were listed in the Orphan's Court record for Ann Sutch, sister of Richard Shoemaker.
But that's not all. Once I entered Richard's death year as about 1837 in Horsham, a Quaker record on Ancestry.com popped up for a Richard Shoemaker who died July 10, 1837 in Montgomery County (subscription required to view this record). I looked at it and although it didn't say he died in Horsham (there was no death location at all), it did say his father was Ezekiel Shoemaker who had died 1816 in Horsham. I already had a hunch this was my Richard Shoemaker because in the Estate/Proceeding Indices, there was only one Richard Shoemaker who died in or around 1837 in Montgomery County (and if he died in July, a probate record in August made perfect sense). But just in case there was another one who perhaps didn't have any probate listings at all, I decided to research Ezekiel.
Firstly, I noticed on the Proceedings Index right above my Richard Shoemaker there was another entry for a Richard Shoemaker who died around 1790 in Horsham and his executor was named Ezekiel Shoemaker. I looked at his will first and sure enough, Ezekiel was his son. Best of all, two of his daughters married into the Roberts family, which linked this elder Richard and son Ezekiel back to my Richard, because if you recall Job Roberts was listed in my Richard's probate records (who would have been this elder Richard's grandson). Granted, Roberts is a common name too but there's starting to be too many coincidences to ignore. Additionally, according to other family trees, my Richard also married a Roberts.
|Ezekiel Shoemaker 1816 Will naming his daughter,|
Ann "Such" (Sutch).
To top everything else off, I then found a Quaker death record for Ann Sutch who died 1827 naming her father as Ezekiel Shoemaker of Horsham (subscription required to view this record). These must be new records added to Ancestry.com since I'm sure I scourged the internet looking for another death record for Ann once I found her will and knew she died in or before 1827. My search would have been a hell of a lot easier if I had just found this record first! Regardless, I still would have gone in search of Ezekiel's will to find out more about their family (like his wife's name) so the point still stands that probate records are important.
For some reason, there is a secondary record with no indication of the source or repository attached to some Ancestry.com member trees that claims Ezekiel's daughter Ann "died young". I hope I have been able to conclusively prove that this is not true with all these primary records I've mentioned and provided links to. Family trees put Ann's birth year as 1764, not far off the estimated birth I made around 1760, so if this is true she would have been 63 years old when she died in 1827. She married Daniel Sutch and had four daughters named Jane (b. abt. 1788, m. Charles Gilbert), Sarah (b. abt. 1791, m. William Davis), Ann (b. abt. 1792, m. Homer Dubree), and Hannah (b. abt. 1805, m. Joseph Amber). Some information on their family can be found in the Ambler Gazette.
So don't overlook probate records as an important method for finding that elusive previous generation. It may take a lot of digging and it may not always lead back to what you're looking for but you will likely discover something you didn't know before.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Hoping to get a third opinion, I tested with 23andMe, also because their results show which portions of my chromosomes are categorized in which regions. I'm hoping this will help me determine how I'm related to my DNA matches (if I match someone on a portion of a chromosome that says Italian, theoretically I should be related to them by my Italian branch), but I haven't determined if this is the case or not.
In any case, these are my 23andMe results:
- 99.7% European
- 17.4% French & German
- 16.7% British & Irish
- 4.6% Scandinavian
- 24.3% Broadly Northern European
- 18.9% Italian
- 0.1% Iberian
- 9.3% Broadly Southern European
- 8.5% Broadly European
- 0.1% Middle Eastern & North African
- 0.1% North African
- 0.1% Unassigned
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
|My FTDNA myOrigins results|
|My results from AncestryDNA, trace amounts are in outline|
What it's also probably telling me is that because my British DNA is so influenced by Viking and Germanic DNA, it is almost indistinguishable from those categories. Depending on the control group samples each company used, my British, Scandinavian, and German DNA will therefore naturally have different percentages and it doesn't mean one is more accurate than the other. When you have two or more groups of peoples who are genetically too similar to one another to tell them apart, it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, to accurately place their DNA. It's probably never going to be accurate to say I'm "this much British and that much Scandinavian" - it will be more accurate to say that apart from my Italian heritage, I mostly come from Viking and Germanic blood, regardless of whether that DNA has more recently come from Britain or Norway or Germany.
At least both companies seem to agree that I am about 1/3 Italian - although with FTDNA, I am getting similar influences from the Middle East. According to them, I am 17% Middle Eastern but of course, I know there is no one in my tree from the Middle East. What's happening here is very similar to what is happening with my British DNA - that the Italians, particular southern Italians and Sicilians (which are a known part of my ancestry), have had genetic influences from the Middle East and therefore some of their DNA can be very similar. Even AncestryDNA identified trace amounts from the exact same regions of the Middle East - just one example of why you shouldn't always dismiss those trace amounts as statistical noise.
While it's easy to lump those Middle Eastern results into my Italian ancestry because I have no Middle Eastern ancestors, it's more difficult to distinguish my British, Scandinavian, and German DNA because I do have ancestors from all of those places. But if you take a look at the two maps above and ignore the percentages for a moment, it's interesting to see how almost all the circled regions are the same from both companies. They've both identified "West Europe" or in this case, my German heritage. They've both identified my Scandinavian - or Norwegian heritage. They both identified some small amounts from Finland/NW Russia which I think is coming from an influence on my Norwegian ancestors. And they've both identified my Italian DNA with it's Middle Eastern influences. The only thing missing from FTDNA is a circle around the British Isles, which I think I've been able to explain, and the fact that AncestryDNA's results has less than 1% from Asia South, which is essentially India, but I'm pretty sure this is just statistical noise or somehow again related to my Italian ancestry.
Still, FTDNA results like this can be very misleading for people who don't take the time to consider these possibilities. Equally, Ancestry.com's "trace" amounts of my Scandinavian DNA might be misleading too, when it may be higher than that. There is so much to consider and my varying percentages from these two companies just goes to show that DNA is not such an exact science yet after all.
Monday, May 12, 2014
|First German Church on Juniata St.,|
Pittsburgh; my ancestor's place
of worship but not burial
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Family Tree DNA users might have noticed their new and hopefully improved myOrigins which replaces the old and less detailed Population Finder. Most notably, we now have more of a break down of our ethnic background into sub regions. Whereas before I was simply 72% Western European and 28% "Middle Eastern" (this was my Italian heritage), now it's telling me more specific regions such as 34% European Northlands (Norwegian, for me) and 26% European Coastal Plain (my Swiss/German heritage). Additionally, it seems to have regrouped 20% of that so-called Middle East into the more accurate European subgroup North Mediterranean Basin, but it's still telling me 17% Middle Eastern with subgroups 12% Anatolia and Causcasus (mostly Turkey) and 5% Eastern Afroasiatic (Egypt, Jordan, Israel, and part of Saudi Arabia).
It's very interesting but very different results than Ancestry.com tells me (I transferred my ancestry.com test to FTDNA for $69 - worth it, if you ask me). Ancestry.com estimates my ethnicity as around 55% British, 31% Italian, 5% German, and 2% Norwegian. FTDNA thinks my Norwegian and German ancestry is much stronger (34% and 26% respectively), my Italian is about the same at 37% if you combine Mediterranean and Middle East, but my British ancestry doesn't even seem to register on their radar. They also say I'm 3% North Circumpolar which looks similar to ancestry.com's 1% Finland/NW Russia, which I suspect is part of my Norwegian heritage.
Who's right and who's wrong? Well, it's not necessarily a case of right or wrong. The way this is all determined is by taking a control group of people who say all 4 of their grandparents were born in the same region and comparing their DNA to mine. Similarities to the control group for European Northlands, for example, will place a portion of my DNA into that category. Naturally, there can be problems with this. Who knows where the ancestry of the grandparents of the control group were from or how they migrated around Europe (which they will inevitably have done at some point)? Each company will be "correct" based on the control groups they used but different control groups will mean different results. But this is a good thing and reminds us that there is still so much to explore regarding our DNA, so much more it has to tell us. As control groups get bigger and better, we will get more accurate results which both companies continue to update.
I'm thinking that FTDNA might be lumping my British DNA in with European Northlands and European Costal Plain since Britain does, after all, have a history of Viking and Germanic tribe settlers. That would explain why my European Northlands and European Coastal Plain percentages are so much higher than ancestry.com's equivelants.
At least they both seem agree on my Italian makeup being around 31-37%. In addition, some of GEDmatch's admixture proportions agree my Mediterranean or Italian DNA is about 34%. So I can say with some certainty I am about one third Italian. Considering I have only one Italian grandparent so statistically should only be a quarter Italian, it's safe to say my Italian genes are stronger than I had considered. My Nan would be so pleased.
GEDmatch is a great way to get another perspective on your percentages when ancestry.com and FTDNA don't agree but unfortunately they don't have maps or definitions for the regional categories so it can sometimes be difficult to figure out which groups on GEDmatch compare to those in the other companies. My next step is to figure all those out to see whether they agree more with ancestry.com's percentages or FTDNA's regarding my German, Norwegian, and British ancestry.
Monday, April 28, 2014
|With a high percentage of British DNA, do I maybe have|
more British branches than I thought?
Similarly, sometimes an ancestor's church or burial place can be a dead giveaway of their origins. Mennonites were normally German or Swiss German, Quakers were English or sometimes Welsh, although in early PA, these two groups were known to convert to one or the other. Presbyterian was often British but it was not unusual for German Reformed churches to become Presbyterian later so it's important to learn what the church's denomination was at the time your ancestors attended. Something like a "First German Church" is a dead giveaway.
You can also get an idea of their origins by their surnames, using tools like Ancestry.com's Name Meaning Look Up. Of course, names could be subject to change but in combination with the above knowledge, it may help narrow down the options. And sometimes, names which weren't anglicized can be a dead giveaway. I have a few names in my tree which are clearly German, even though I haven't found the immigrant ancestor yet, I know that branch is German. Likewise with a few Scottish names. Sometimes, even a first name can be the indicator. I have a "Willem" in my tree which is the Dutch spelling of William so they must be Dutch even if I haven't found their immigrant ancestor yet.
Lastly, you may also be able to get an idea of their origins by looking at the families they married into. While it was not unusual for people of early, small communities to be forced to marry outside their faith or culture, it was more common for people to marry within their faith and culture so who they married might be a good indicator of their cultural background, especially when comparing who their siblings married too.
Combine all of this together and with some branches, you may be able to say with reasonable certainty where they probably originated from. Here's a quick checklist:
- Where/when they lived in the US
- Religious orientation
- Names (surnames or even given names)
- Background of families they married into
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
|The sources of X chromosome DNA for women, from|
The Genetic Genealogist
If that doesn't make any sense, this article from The Genetic Genealogist, complete with charts, probably explains it a lot better. Being a very visual person myself, the charts made it much easier for me to understand the sources of DNA in the X chromosome.