The Lies That Ancestry Spreads

I love Ancestry.com. I have been a subscriber for many years and believe that it has revolutionized genealogical research. Records that you had to travel or rent microfilms to see, are now available at the click of a button. It has never been easier to collaborate with distant family members, or even just find them. And by joining Ancestry, you can build a family tree just by putting in some data, searching for potential matches, and selecting the right ones.

But I wonder how much of our research is driven by wishful thinking and not by careful analysis. Or most  likely, incomplete analysis. My biggest pet peeve about Ancestry.com is that wrong information spreads like wildfire and seems to be impossible to remove. After a person posts information in a tree and makes it public, other people are free to pull that information into their own trees. There are seldom any clues as to where the information comes from. But the information spreads from tree to tree until it proliferates and is accepted as fact.

Tell a lie often enough and people start to believe it. 

Of course, nobody is trying to be deceitful. People are just looking for answers, perhaps just another generation back in the family tree. And often Ancestry provides the means to jump back many generations by accepting what others have accepted. It might be too tempting. I've fallen for this myself. But I have been burnt by wasting too much time researching the wrong people, people who were no relation to me, just because I took something as fact that had little or no evidence to back it up.

I do look at other people's family trees on Ancestry. But they are just clues, potential leads, unless the tree includes sources. And if you ask the owner of the tree where they got the information they are likely to reply with the equivalent of a blank stare. That's because they got it from somebody who got it from somebody else who saw it somewhere and they forget.

Putting up a family tree on Ancestry.com tears me up. I want to share. But I don't want to post false information. And my ancestry isn't organized enough to include all my sources when I do post it. I hate documenting sources. But I love seeing them in other's work. I suppose that makes me a bad genealogist.

So with all that said and done, I thought an example might be in order.

Ancestry's ThruLines feature shows ancestors and uses a combination of DNA analysis and existing public family trees to identify potential ancestors. One example is my ancestor, Salucia Sophronia Clark Squibb. ThruLines suggests that her father is Avery Proctor Clark and Avis Clark of Twinsburg, Ohio. They have a daughter Sophrona who is nearly the right age and appears to be a good match. So good in fact, that at least seven Ancestry users show these people as Salucia Sophronia's parents.  Even more, Ancestry seems to take these family trees as evidence of relationships.

But with just a little research, one can find a marriage record for ancestor Salucia Sophronia Clark in Clinton County, Iowa in 1857. The Sophrona Clark of Twinsburg, Ohio would have been 12 years old. That is a red flag in my mind, suggesting she could not be the same person. But even more important is the fact that Sophrona was listed in 1860, 1870 and 1880 censuses for Twinsburg, Ohio. Obviously a different person, as my ancestor was married and in Iowa busy having kids during that time.

So these seven trees are wrong. I don't mind people putting things in their trees in Ancestry, because I think it is actually helpful to test out various relationships, and helps to find more records. But for Ancestry to treat these trees as fact is a mistake and misleads its users. Users must be careful to make sure that relationships from family trees makes sense before they accept it. I wish there was a way for Ancestry to certify relationships in posted family trees.

When Photos Lead Genealogists Astray

While researching my wife's ancestry, I came across a photo of her great great grandparents from a photographer in Harlan, Iowa. Her grandparents and great grandparents lived in that area, but this was the first evidence I had seen that her great great grandparents had immigrated from Denmark and lived around Harlan.

So, that photo shows Marianne Jacobsdatter Keldgord and Peder Christensen Keldgord, my wife's 2nd great grandparents. Notice on the bottom, the photographer was Dammand from Harlan Iowa. Now, I see a lot of things that I don't believe. These days, someone who is handy with powerful software can manipulate images and even videos. But this was a photo from the 19th century. It sure seemed to prove that these people were in Harlan Iowa to get the picture taken.

But I never found other evidence that they were in Harlan.

Then I found another family photo.

Okay, well that is Marianne and Peder, again, along with two of their younger children, who I believe to be, Karen and Charles. This one credited to a photographer in Denmark. It would have been taken around 1870.

Notice that Marianne and Peder are exactly the same in the two photos. Apparently, at this early stage of photography, they were able to copy other photographs by taking a picture of them, and blocking out unwanted features. In this case, I suppose the family had few pictures of their parents and wanted to make copies. They didn't want to see themselves in the photo so had the photographer block them out.

Seeing is not  believing, but maybe this photo is worth a thousand words. It does provide evidence, not that Marianne and Peder were in Iowa, but that they were not in Iowa, or else their kids would have actually had their photos taken. 

Looking back at the photo, it is a good job. But a white background. Very unusual. That should have been a clue that this was not an original photo.

Family Narrative as a Genealogical Research Aid

As genealogists, we play many roles. That of historian, detective, archivist, and maybe even a bit of archeologist. We collect information on our ancestors. But facts, alone, are quite dry. Knowing, for example, that Friend Davis served in the Civil War is interesting. But knowing that he was in the Greybeards is a bit more significant. But it is only when we start putting these facts into perspective that the story of our ancestor comes to life. Learning how important military service was to him and his family is the real story.

Genealogical research is based on facts. But we do rely on some educated guesses to lead our research in the right direction. This is necessary when there are just too many holes in the story of our ancestor. I have found that sometimes, there really aren't as many holes as we think. We just don't consider all the evidence, and we don't put all the pieces together.

This is where writing a family narrative is very important. It forces us to fill in the details, to answer the questions of why our ancestors did the things they did, moved where they did, how they met each other, and so on.

There are two tools that I use to do this. The first is creating a timeline for each ancestor. Most genealogy software helps with this. Putting things in order helps put everything in perspective. When you study an ancestor's timeline, you see gaps, where you don't have much information, and points where they made a major change in their life. You start to see their life as they lived it. You start to ask questions and try to get answers. The timeline leads your research in specific directions and a bit deeper, which can be more fruitful that a shotgun approach.

The second tool that I use is an analysis of the ancestor's extended family, of aunts and uncles and cousins in particular. Family is a huge motivator for our ancestor's actions. I have found that seldom did our ancestors strike out for a new land without following others, or at least going in a large group. They needed the support of others. Few were quite as self-reliant as we think. They had support from family and friends, and knowing about these people can help understand why our ancestors did the things they did.

I think of  George W. Brady, an ancestor who was born in Cass County, Michigan, and settled in Harrison County, Iowa. What drew him to that spot? No doubt there was a draw to new lands and opportunity in the west. But why Harrison County, Iowa in particular. It turns out that there were a large number of settlers there from Cass County, Michigan, even naming Lagrange Township after their old home in Michigan. Although we may never know what led this group to Harrison County, Iowa, we can be sure the George W. Brady went there because his friends and family went there. It wasn't that he was a follower, but that he needed the support of friends and family and those he could trust. So in our research, it is beneficial to find out what siblings, aunts and uncles, cousins, and in-laws were doing to understand our ancestors.

An aunt told me that my great grandfather, Jonathan Stephenson, an English immigrant, had settled in Indiana and lost a wife in childbirth there before going to Iowa. But nothing more was passed down and the details were sketchy and difficult to prove not knowing the exact location. But when I discovered that he had two uncles who left England earlier for Indiana, I was able to find my Jonathan's marriage there. He went where he had family so he could get his start in America. Finding that family was key to proving a family anecdote.

When you look at your ancestor's extended family you might find a scandal or tragedy. But maybe you'll just find some interesting stories, and that isn't that what we are all looking for?

So lay out a timeline for each of our ancestors. See what questions are raised. Expand your research into the extended family. Direct your research in ways that will answer the new questions you have. Use your results to write the story of your ancestor, a story that is more than dates and places, but a real story. Our ancestors each had their own story, and our job is to find it.

Ancestry's DNA Ethnicity Updates

Ancestry has recently updated the way the predict ethnicity. I think the changes are substantial and positive. Although DNA is exact, our interpretation of it, and especially our determination of ethnicity from it, are very subjective. Since there really aren't such things as German, Irish or English genes, testing companies can only compare an individual's DNA with those of sample populations. Better understanding and larger sample sizes improve the accuracy of the testing. Ancestry has done a lot of work in those areas.

My original guess as to my ethnicity was as follows:

40% Europe West (Mesenbrink, Van Gundy, Flier)
30% Great Britain (Stephenson, Davis, Squibb)
10% Irish (Brennan and suspected numerous others)
5% Europe East (Nipkow)
5% Scandinavian (Friend - could be Finnish/Russian too)
5% Europe Jewish (Were Squibbs and Cowan's Jewish migrants?)
5% Iberian Peninsula (Squibb name from Esquivel?)

The first results from Ancestry surprised me a bit with a lower percentage of Great Britain, higher Scandinavian, and higher Irish than I expected.



The latest Ancestry ethnicity estimate changed the regions a bit.

This is a drastic change in my mind. The England category, which now includes northwestern Europe, is 50% higher than the old Great Britain category. Germanic Europe is only 17%, but I suppose with a lot of my Germany heritage from northwest Germany, it probably matches northwestern Europe. Irish and Scandinavian are down a bit, closer to what I had guessed.

Probably the most noticeable improvement I've seen was with my father- and mother-in-law. All four of my father-in-law's grandparents were born in Denmark, although he was considered only 40% Scandinavian. My mother-in-law has no known Scandinavian ancestry, yet Ancestry gave her a higher percentage Scandinavian than her Danish husband. Now Ancestry shows my father-in-law at 75% and my mother-in-law at 19%.

Ancestry's new numbers seem better to me, less surprising. They have made strides by increasing the number of samples for each region and using more regions now. Given that people have frequently moved around, there is considerable overlap between neighboring regions. Ethnicity is not an exact science, but I think it is improving.

DNA - Uncovering the Unexpected Truth

When I decided to submit my DNA sample, I was hoping to learn about my ethnic makeup. I hoped to prove the ancestral lines that I have traced over the years, and I hoped to answer questions on some of my dead-end ancestors.

My ethnic makeup wasn't a surprise. I suppose having so much Scandinavian ancestry struck me as odd, given that my only known Scandinavian ancestors were a single family from the 1700s. But I learned that the Vikings had a huge impact on England, especially northern England and Scotland. And I don't think its an exact science, at least not yet. It is inexplicable to me that my son has a higher percentage of English DNA than my wife and I do put together. And that my wife had some Polynesian ancestry baffles me, although we joke about it. I suspect that it is more likely that the Polynesian DNA samples were from those who had some Danish ancestry, from early explorers visiting the islands, and perhaps she and these sampled Polynesians, share some distant common ancestry.

And I have been very pleased with how my DNA matches so many people on my ancestral lines. It does a lot to validate my research.  But I haven't yet had much luck with my dead-ends. DNA testing hasn't yet given me solid answers as to their ancestry, but suggests that my research has been focused in the wrong area. That itself is worth a lot, and hopefully I'll eventually find a close match to one of my dead-ends that breaks down a wall.

I have found that a large percentage of people who have submitted DNA are people who have adoptions in their backgrounds. For me to see this in my family is a bit surprising to me, and I suppose it shouldn't be. These things are fairly common, generally secret and would be a surprise to most people.

One woman I've been in touch with was totally unknown to her half-siblings. Her biological mother had her and gave her up for adoption after the siblings had moved away from home. They couldn't accept that this woman was their half sister, because they found the story absurd.

Another woman I was in touch with is a close DNA relative, but she was adopted and just wanted to know her heritage. She wasn't very interested in finding her biological family and didn't want to cause any trouble with them. I know roughly how she is related to me, but I've left it up to her if she wants to pursue her biological relationship.

Ancestry DNA showed that I have a close match, first cousin level, that I couldn't explain. I couldn't imagine a first cousin that I didn't know about, an uncle or aunt who had a baby outside of marriage and given up for adoption. I heard back from this man who shared a DNA match with me, but it wasn't immediately obvious how we were connected. His mother was from Charter Oak, Iowa, near my family, but I couldn't find a connection. He said he never knew his birth father, and that his birth father himself was adopted. I warned him that I might uncover some sensitive things, especially dealing with adoptions, but he assured me that it was not a problem. I eventually proved my statement to be right, but not in the way I expected.

The man said his father was Keith Palmer and I found him in the 1940 census, near Castana, Iowa.

Right there in the census record, the circled Stephenson, was my clue. Was that his birth name? Was he given that name by his adoptive parents as a reminder of his origins? Could this Keith Palmer have had a mother named Stephenson?

My mother was a Stephenson. She had five sisters and two brothers, and one of them was probably Keith Palmer's biological parent given the close DNA match with Keith's son. I ruled out the brothers as father, because their child would be considered the mother's, not the father's, and wouldn't have had the Stephenson notation in that case. The two older sisters were married by 1940, and it didn't seem reasonable that Keith could have been theirs. Three younger sisters were no older than 15, and not likely prospects to be Keith's birth mother, at least not in those days. That left my mother, single, age 20, as the most likely candidate for mother of Keith Palmer. That was impossible though. Surely, I would have known about this.

I thought about the closeness of the match I was investigating. My match was with Keith's son, who was predicted to be as close as first cousin. Keith would have been even closer than that. If he had been the child of one of my aunts or uncles, he would be just half cousin. It only made sense that he and I shared the same mother. If that was the case, he would be my half brother and his son would be my half nephew. A bit of study on the topic revealed to me that a half nephew is just as close a DNA relationship as first cousin. It was looking more and more likely that my mother was Keith Palmer's mother.

I sent out a few emails, made a phone call, and learned that this was true. (And that I was the last to find out). I found out what happened. Apparently, my mother was at a party where she was with another woman who got drunk and couldn't walk home. She asked a guy at the party to drive them home, and he raped Mom. She got pregnant with this man's baby. She was unmarried, living at home in a small house with her parents and three younger sisters, barely making a living after the depression, and now pregnant. Exactly what happened next isn't totally clear to me, but I suspect she went to live with her sister in Castana until Keith was born. The sister arranged the adoption through the family doctor, Dr. McBurney. Keith was adopted by the Palmers.

Keith died in 1985, so I never knew him. He met my Mom and brother once (and me as a four year old apparently). Keith had three children, the man whose DNA match prompted my search, another son, and daughter. All are biologically half nephews and nieces to me.

My head swirls with all this new information. New family. Family secrets. Secrets the family didn't share with me. But most importantly, I wonder about the struggle my Mom must have had. The shame of a single woman getting pregnant. Having to carry a child full term, only to give it up, and not being able to talk about it. I wonder what it was like for Keith, being adopted, being given up, wondering why, and how it affected his life. And I'd like to know a bit about Keith's family. But do they want to know about me? Do they even know Keith was adopted?

I am very happy to have found out what I did. It is a puzzle piece that I didn't know was missing. But yet, the piece fits and helps me understand my Mom. And I'm glad to have found this out in time to learn what really happened, so that my brother and I didn't get the wrong idea about what happened to Mom. I warned Keith's son that these adoption scenarios can be a bit sensitive. I was right, but I had no idea what an effect this would have on me.

When you submit your DNA sample, you just might find out the truth. Truth you weren't even looking for. Have an open mind.

Epigenetics - More than Genes

To me, genealogy is about understanding who we are. Traditional genealogy takes us through historical records, pictures, and stories about our ancestors, allowing us to add names, dates, and places to our family tree. And we strive to understand what our ancestors did, why they did those things, and just what their lives might have been like. As genealogists, we see all this as important to understanding who we are.

In a previous post I speculated about new studies of the DNA of the bacteria in our body, and how the biome contained in our body was essentially inherited and influenced our lives in subtle ways.

Now I learned about another factor in determining who we are, something called epigenetics. The idea is that much of our DNA is dormant until activated. External factors, such as our diet, our environment, lifestyle, etc. can cause various traits to be activated. And even more important is the finding that these traits can be passed on to our children. They aren't part of the DNA you and I study for genealogy. That never changes. But these traits aren't permanent. They can be deactivated. At this point, I don't think scientists understand all the ways epigenetics affects our lives. The field is still very new.

Epigenetics seems to fall in the "nurture" side of the "nature vs. nurture" debate, which is not what we would expect from a genetic field.

I'm sure we'll learn more about this and its implications, if any, for genealogy in the future. My takeaway for now is that our parents and grandparents affected us more than we could have imagined, even if we didn't know them.

My apologies to those who know more than me about genetics and recognize my oversimplifications.

Ancestry DNA and Making the Most of Matches

I wasn't really sure how  DNA testing could help me extend my genealogy until recently. I've got some ideas, now, on how to approach it.

Ancestry DNA reports people who have matching DNA to you. They simplify the analysis so we don't need to be DNA experts. Based on the amount of DNA we share, matches are given a predicted relationship range. I have found these to be fairly accurate. I can make a good guess as to whether it is great grandparents, or great great grandparents, that we share. And if a tree is provided for the match, sometimes I can identify the family, or even the ancestor we share. But there are thousands of matches. Where does one begin?

Genealogy is always about working from the known to the unknown. It is the same with this. Take things step-by-step. Start with the best matches. These are the ones that have known common ancestors. They show up as "hints" in the list of matches. Ancestry allows you to filter them. Besides their tree, they each have a set of matches that you share. These matches are all on the same family line, perhaps a few generations back. Sometimes they will have a tree, which confirms this, and helps pinpoint your relationship.

First thing I did was to make a circular pedigree chart with mostly blank space, I added surnames in the spaces provided, leaving as much blank space as possible. Then I went through all the best matches, looking for the appropriate space on the chart. I found that the cousin level for that match corresponded to the generation on the chart, making it easy to plot the match in the right generation. When I was certain of the relationship, both family and generation, I put the match on the chart in ink.

Some matches pose a bit of a dilemma. These are matches with fairly complete trees, but no obvious common ancestry. Since these matches do have trees, the map of locations that ancestry provides for matches can be helpful. These seem to be matches for your dead-ends. Maybe the surname of a female ancestor is not known, or maybe its from a first marriage, or changed for some other reason. I think this is what I am seeing with my Salucia Sophronia Clark line. I see a group of people who match a Squibb/Clark 3rd cousin and myself, but not some of the known Squibb 4th and 5th cousins. They may be my "Clark"s. Or they may be her husband Robert Squibb's mother's family. also a dea-end. I have one group of matches with 25 - 30 centiMorgans of DNA match which could be 3rd, 4th or 5th cousin. There are charts with this information. This is probably the most technical piece of information that Ancestry reports, and it is buried a bit. Click on the information symbol by your matches confidence level, and it will report this. I don't think Ancestry considers it essential, since they give you an estimated relationship.

Most matches just don't have trees. Sometimes its for privacy. I have already uncovered two adoptions in my very extended family that are understandably sensitive issues. Usually, I think it is because people don't see the advantage in sharing this information or don't know much about their specific ancestry. Most just want to see their heritage report.

But even these matches are useful. Digging deeper, by looking at the matches you share with them, will add to your knowledge a bit. Based on the relationship with other matches, and the reported generation, you can plot these matches on the chart as well. But use pencil. There are too many uncertainties with these, since you don't have a proven relationship, neither family nor generation. Eventually it will all come together, maybe with more work on your part, or in time as more people submit their DNA tests to Ancestry.

Another thing I've explored a bit is downloading my raw DNA file from Ancestry. This too, is a bit hidden, being in the settings, but it is available. Other services accept this file and do their own analysis and matching. Some are even free. Most are a bit more technical than Ancestry. Gedmatch.com takes the Ancestry DNA and a tree and can be used to report matches as well, but with chromosome number and location of common DNA. At this point I haven't found a good use for that, but it is early in my learning process.

Bob Mesenbrink
January 2017