Deciding to Submit a DNA Test

In a past post of mine, I was debating the value of DNA testing in genealogy. When Ancestry offered their test for $69, I placed my order. The test kit will take a week or so to get here, and then I have to send it back in. Results come in a month or two.

The AncestryDNA test is an autosomal DNA analysis which looks at a person's overall DNA makeup, examing his or her genome at 700,000 locations. Ancestry says that I can expect to learn "information about your ethnicity across 26 regions/ethnicities and identify potential relatives through DNA matching to others who have taken the AncestryDNA test".

The 26 regions, using Ancestry's region names, include those that I am certain I am descended from, such as Europe West (which includes Germany) and Great Britain (including England and Scotland), and those that I expect smaller amounts, such as Ireland and Scandinavia. I've speculated about some amounts from Europe East (Some of those German ancestors of mine lived in present day Poland). And my Squibb family name may have derived from Spanish, Esquivel. If that is the case there could be some Iberian Peninsula ethnicity showing up. I think Jewish ancestry is always a possibility with Europeans. Will I see any Europe Jewish or even Middle East ancestry?

I won't be surprised at seeing any of the European regions on my DNA. I will be surprised to see any American Indian, African, Asian or Pacific Islander. But maybe the word surprise is a bit strong. I just don't expect any of those. In actuality, my known genealogy has too many holes, and perhaps too many mistakes, for me to be totally confident of my ethnic makeup. Genealogy can only go back so far. The trail of records we rely on runs out after a few centuries. But our DNA is our makeup. DNA extends the trail, but only in a more general way. For now at least.

The other benefit is in sharing results with others. Perhaps I will find other relatives, or confirm known relationships. Maybe I'll have to put more of my tree up on Ancestry to get the benefit from this. Finding someone who I share DNA with, doesn't tell me how we are related.

Now the wait. I'll post my results in a couple of months.

And for some fun. My prediction:

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?)

Genealogy's Next Frontier: The Bacteria in Your Body?

In genealogy, we usually consider that who-we-are is determined by our genes. It is the nature in the nature vs. nurture argument. Genes determine our physical characteristics. But we don't neglect nurture either. So much of who-we-are is determined by how we were raised.  Everything we learn from our parents, our food preferences, our behaviors, our tradition and culture, and every little quirky thing we see our parents do, becomes a part of us, to be passed down to our children, just as our genes are. That's why it is so important to try to answer the questions about our ancestor's lives, so that we can understand this side of genealogy. This is the nurture side of the equation, and I think, it is as important as the genetics. Nurture doesn't require a genetic relationship. Some relationships are not genetic, yet are just as important. Adopted children may not have the genes of their adoptive parents, but they do share in the nurturing piece just as birth children.

I'm wondering if we can soon add a new dimension to who-we-are. Although the bacteria in our body weigh only a few pounds, they make up roughly half the cells in our body. For every gene we have, our collection of bacteria have one hundred. That collection of organisms is our microbiome. The Smithsonian published an article discussing this and research performed at Ohio State University. It turns out that the our microbiomes differ greatly from each other. We each have a microbiome fingerprint. No two people have the same microbiome. But we do share similarities with others. Researchers were able to develop a model that was fairly accurate at determining race from the types of bacteria in an individual's mouth swabs.

Research is under way to explain the microbiome differences between different individuals. Possible reasons include genetics, diet, stage of life, and antibiotic intake. But it is clear that families do share the same mixes of bacteria, as described by Science Daily.

Some organisms in our body are bad for us, but most aren't, in fact some are very necessary. They are not just passive organisms, sharing our body with us. They have definite effects on us, and different mixes of organisms have been found to effect our health. Other studies, such as one described in Live Science suggest that these microorganisms can even communicate with our brains to affect our mood and who knows what else. And researchers are wondering what diseases may be caused by the  effects of our microbiome. Clearly, our microbiome is an important part of who-we-are, perhaps as important as our genes and our upbringing.

There are currently, several companies that do microbiome testing on individuals. These include UBiome, American Gut Project, SmartDNA and others, but these have no genealogical purposes that I can see. They are strictly for diet and health. But just as the human genome studies eventually worked their way into genealogy, I suspect studies of the human microbiome will as well. While genetics is well understood, just how, and to what extent, we inherit our microbiome, is yet to be determined. I'm willing to bet there will be some application to genealogy in the future. Somebody will have to come up with an addition to nature vs. nurture. How about nature vs. nurture vs. bioture?

Bob Mesenbrink
(c) 2016

Will DNA Testing Help My Genealogy?

I'm debating whether I should take a DNA test or not. I had a distant relative ask me if I've taken a DNA test because he thought it would help tie our families together. But I was under the impression that unless you share the same male or female line, it wouldn't be useful. Since the relative and I don't share the same last name, and more importantly, don't share the same direct male line, I felt it wouldn't be useful. But I wasn't sure.

So after studying the various tests, I've come to the understanding that there are generally three basic types of tests available - one for the male line, one for the female line, and one for general DNA analysis. The test for the male line is especially useful because others having the same male line can be identified. This type of test is called a Y-DNA test because it looks at the Y chromosome. Since women do not inherit a Y chromosome, they have to rely on their father's or brother's Y-DNA test to learn about their own male lines.

Both men and women inherit an X chromosome, but an X-DNA test is usually not provided. It turns out that it more complicated to trace the origin of X chromosome DNA, since both men and women pass it down, men get it from their mother, and women get it from both their father and mother. More commonly, the female line is tested using what is called mitochondrial (mtDNA)  testing. Both men and women inherit mitochondrial DNA and can learn about their maternal lines using this test.

The third type of test commonly used is an autosomal test. This test looks at the remaining chromosomes, which are not X or Y. These tests are used to identify the general heritage mix that you have and can be helpful in proving a fairly close relationship between two people. It is not possible to identify a particular line as you can with Y-DNA and mtDNA.

So, for proving genealogical lines, the Y-DNA and mtDNA tests are the best. They can be used to positively identify paternal and maternal lines, respectively, and can be used to prove common ancestry between people. Unfortunately, these tests are limited to the maternal and paternal lines which excludes most of the family tree.

The autosomal test is interesting because it includes DNA from the entire family tree. Its weakness is that you can't know how the DNA was inherited. Comparisons can be made between individuals to determine a probability of relationship, but it doesn't prove how they are related. Even if you suspect that two individuals share a common ancestor, and the autosomal tests show a relationship, the two may actually have a different relationship than the one you suspect, and the suspected link may or may not even exist.

Its interesting to consider that relatives do not necessarily share any autosomal DNA (atDNA) at all. For example, two cousins could inherit entirely different sets of atDNA from their common grandparents - still cousins, just no DNA in common. The odds are extremely slim, but when you start talking about distant cousins, it becomes more likely. On average, second cousins share just over 3% of their atDNA.

It is also interesting to consider that you may have absolutely no atDNA in common with a known ancestor. In fact, your genetic family tree is considerably smaller than your genealogical family tree, because many ancestors do not contribute to your DNA makeup. It reminds me of pedigree collapse, the situation that occurs as your ancestry goes farther back, where people start showing up more than once in your ancestry.Your actual family tree is much smaller than your theoretical family tree. I wonder how this pedigree collapse and genetic tree collapse are related. It would seem that with an ancestor showing up in your tree multiple times, that it would be more likely that you would actually inherit DNA from him or her.

In any case, I don't have a reason for a Y-DNA test, since I'm pretty confident about my paternal heritage. And I'm not convinced that the atDNA test would help extend my genealogy. Perhaps it would give a few tips regarding general heritage.

But the mtDNA might be interesting. My direct maternal line ends with my 2nd great grandmother and her origins have puzzled me for years. Perhaps submitting mtDNA results to a database would yield some potential relationships. I think its going to take a bit more consideration and understanding. Hopefully what I have uncovered so far is correct. Please understand that I am certainly no expert in the subject. But I do hope that it helps to explain things some.

Bob Mesenbrink
July 8, 2015

Be an Ancestor Whisperer

Whispering refers to techniques in dealing with animals (commonly, horses and dogs) that emphasize understanding the animal rather than using brute force. Similarly, I like to think that there are a couple of approaches to genealogy. We use brute force when we look up census records, track down vital records or church records, and build up our database of names, dates, and places, and we add "meat" to the genealogy with stories that have been passed down, and information about our ancestors from obituaries, biographies, newspaper articles, etc. But sometimes there just isn't much available. You need to be an "ancestor whisperer". I know that sounds strange, but just as trainers learn about the basic nature of animals to get what they need from them, you need to learn about your ancestors' environments so that you can get the information you need from them.

How many times have you wished you could go back in time and visit one of your ancestors? You could ask any number of questions - the answers for questions which haven't yet been found. Who were your parents? What made you get on the ship to cross the Atlantic? Why did you move west? What was your childhood like? What was your day-to-day life like? Who did you vote for? Who were your friends? How did you learn to play the piano? And the deeper questions: What was the most difficult challenge you had? What was the saddest thing that happened to you? What was your happiest time? But since that isn't possible, we have to use the tools at hand to try to put together a mental picture of their lives. We need to understand our ancestor, his/her environment, and the current events of the time to put things into perspective. We need to use everything available to us to learn about our ancestors environment, to supplement the facts specific to our ancestors. We need to look for clues that say more. We need to be ancestor whisperers. While we may not answer all our questions with certainty, the understanding we gain can point us in the right direction.

Photographs - faces, clothing, others in photo, surroundings, all suggest more than meets the eye. Are the faces young, old, weathered, or delicate? Who else is in the photo? Why are they included? Who is missing and why? Do the surroundings suggest anything? Are the clothes homemade, or finely tailored? Besides the names and dates (hopefully) on the back, what is the photograph telling you?

Maps - I like to try to build a mental image of the surroundings where my ancestors lived. Many places change little over time. The natural geography seldom changes dramatically - lakes, rivers, creeks, hills, and mountains usually take centuries to change the slightest bit. Streets and roads generally run the same course they did when they were first built. Towns and cities don't usually move much. Cathedrals and castles stand for centuries, and even the most humble buildings might still be found a hundred years later. Of course human progress changes things over time. A new factory, bridge, or highway might wipe out an entire section of a city. Old houses are torn down to make room for the new. Nature takes its toll. Things do change. But finding and studying old maps of ancestral homes can be helpful.

Finding the exact location of an ancestor's home is always a thrill for me. Addresses from census, old letters, and other records sometimes reveal the address, but even knowing a village name is helpful. When I have a place to go on, I get on Google Maps and find the location. I love to use Street View to "travel" up and down the current streets and see the neighborhoods where my ancestors lived. Even if the buildings have changed, or if I don't know a street address, I can see what the area was like - hilly or flat, near a river, swamps, farms, forests, village, city. Where were the churches and schools nearby? How far did they travel to town? If I know what they did, I might be able to see where they worked. And then I can start to see the routes they took. Things like that all help me visualize my ancestors' lives. Maps can say a lot about your ancestors, if you take the time to study them and consider what they say about your ancestors.

Visit - Even better than looking at maps is visiting the ancestral homes. As good as Street View is, actually being there lets you more fully experience the sites, sounds, and smells. And local museums and libraries often have collections that are unavailable online.

Study History - Learning about the history of an area is also helpful. Maybe there are significant events that affected the community (and our ancestors). What were the major industries in the area? Were there any major migrations in or out of this location? Where did the people who settled this area come from? History may not mention your ancestor by name, but it tells you a bit about life at that time and place.

Broaden Your Approach - Study the area and learn who the other families were. These are the people that lived and worked and, often, intermarried with your people. Look for their biographies to learn how they lived, and consider how similar they might have been to your ancestral family. Take a broader look at census records to understand the neighbors a bit. Where did they come from? What did they do?

When you are successful, you will have a strong mental image of your ancestor's environment. You will find your imagination transporting you back to a time and place where your ancestors lived. When you think about this ancestor, you'll immediately have details of his or her life come to mind. And the more you learn, the more accurate your image will be. And this will lead to additional sources of information and research paths you had never thought of before. By studying and broadening your approach you can raise your level of understanding and become an ancestor whisperer.

Clarks of Early Clinton County Iowa

In an attempt to find family of my 2 great grandmother, Salucia Clark Squibb, I've studied the various Clark families in Clinton county Iowa, looking for her family. A young Salucia Clark married Robert Squibb in 1857 in Clinton county, so I was interested primarily in the Clarks from shortly before that time through the 1860s, those who could have been parents, siblings, or other close relatives. Although, this study hasn't led me to Salucia's family, I'm hoping others find it useful.

In 1840, Monroe H. Clark, was listed in the federal census for Clinton county. He was listed with a female:

• Monroe H. Clark, b. 1801-1810
• Mrs.(?) Monroe H. Clark, b. 1811-1820

Monroe Clark does not appear in Clinton county again, and may be the M. H. Clark of Newton county, Missouri in 1850.

The 1849 tax lists include J. Clark and M. C. Clark in Bloomfield township.

• J. Clark, Bloomfield twp.
• M. C. Clark, Bloomfield twp.

Also, Rev. Thomas W. Clark appears starting in 1849 in De Witt township. He was a Baptist missionary. He came to Clinton county in 1840 and patented land in 1845. He is also found in 1850, 1852, 1856 and 1860 censuses, and the 1879 county history, where much of the following comes from.

• Rev. Thomas W. Clark, b. 23 Feb 1808 New Brunswick, De Witt twp, d 1883, his wife:
• Ann Turner Clark, m. 1833, d. 1866, and children:
• George W. Clark, b 1844, lived in Nebraska in 1879,
• Amy T. Clark Miles, b 1835 Ohio, m. James M. Miles 1856, d. 1857
• Sarah J. Clark, d age 7
• Loretta L. Clark, 1849-1852
• Eliza J. Clark, 1853 - 1864
• A. Judson Clark, b 1837, Ohio, lived in De Witt twp, his wife:
• Tillie Bell Clark, b 1841 Penn, and five children:
• John W. Clark
• Francis W. Clark
• George H. Clark
• Albert B. Clark
• Anna M. Clark

• Elizabeth Marker Clark married Rev. Thomas W. Clark in 1872
• Alen (Henry) Clark, b 1821 New Brunswick, living with Rev. Thomas W. Clark in 1850, m Fannie Jones 1860, d 1899 Buchanan county

Also in De Witt was William Clark in 1856 and 1860.

• William Clark, b 1829 New York, his wife:
• Eliza Clark, b 1831 New York, and children:
• George Clark, b 1855 Indiana
• Frances Clark, b 1859 Iowa

The 1850 census shows Truman Clark in Bloomfield twp. He patented land in 1849. He is also listed in 1851 tax lists, censuses through 1880, and the 1879 county history.

• Truman Clark, b 1812 NY, d 1883, buried Union Cemetery, in 1834 married
• Axea Potter Clark, b 1815 Mass, d 1899, buried Union Cemetery, had five children:
• Matilda Clark, b 1837 NY, m Daniel Stockbarger 1854, d 1856
• Marietta Clark, b 1839 NY, d 1852, buried Union Cemetery
• Bryson/Byron Clark, b 1845 Illinois, lived in Lincoln, Nebraska
• Pauline Clark, b 1848 Iowa, married J. Taylor
• George T. Clark, b 1841 Illinois, his wife:
• Helen Germond Clark, b 1844 NY, seven children:
• Truman S. Clark
• Milton E. Clark
• Maryett M. Clark
• Carlota Clark
• Fred B. Clark
• Harry Clark
• Frank Clark

• Eli Clark, b 1835 NY, listed with Calvin Davis in 1850 census but isn't a son of Truman

Also in the 1850 census are:

• Arabella Clark, b 1847 Indiana with Andrew M. Johnson of Liberty twp.

The 1856 Iowa state census revealed a few more newcomers. Nathan Clark arrived in 1855 from Vermont and New York to Bloomfield twp. This family seems to have moved back east.

• Nathan M. Clark, b 1796 Vermont, his wife:
• Cynthia Clark, b 1796 Vermont, and children:
• Cynthia Clark, b 1828 Vermont
• Marcellus H. Clark, b 1831 New York
• Juliette Clark, b 1846 New York

Also in 1856 census is Jane Clark, coming from Canada in 1855 or 1856 to Bloomfield twp

• Jane Clark, b 1811 Canada, d 1892, Mount Hope Cemetery, Maquoketa, Iowa
• James B. Clark, d 1855, also buried Mount Hope Cemetery, possibly husband, and children:
• Maryanne Clark, b 1832 Canada
• Frances Clark, b 1834 Canada, lived in Bloomfield twp.
• Estheranne Clark, b 1836 Canada, m. Levi Kittle in 1857, lived in Monona county, Iowa
• William B. Clark, b 1838 Canada, m Harriet Cotton in 1865, d 1926, Evergreen Cemetery, Delmar
• Elizabeth A. Clark, b 1840 Canada
• Jane H. Clark, b 1841 Canada
• John V. Clark, b 1843 Canada
• Benjamin G. Clark, b 1847 Canada
• Emma F. Clark, b 1850 Canada
• James F. Clark, b 1853 Canada
• Hannah L. Clark, b 1855 Canada

Barnabas Clark came to Brookfield twp in 1852. He patented land in 1854. He is in the 1879 county history.

• Barnabas Clark, b 1799 Massachusetts, d 1890, his wife:
• Submit Hitchcock Clark, b 1802 Massachusetts, d 1878 and their children:
• Samuel Clark, b 1827 Massachusetts, and wife Cathrine Clark, Germany, lived in Elwood, d 1906
• Sabra/Sarah Clark, b 1836 Ohio, d 1923, m George Wade 1855
• Fredrick H. Clark, b 1840 New York, m1 Mary Newkirk, m2 Lettie Thornton
• Lorinda R. Clark, b 1842 Ohio, married William A. Stanzel
• Mary Jane Clark, b 1835 New York, m. O.P. Dunkin 1854, lived in Sac county

Nathaniel Clark was in Camanche twp for the 1860 and 1870 census.

• Nathaniel Clark, b 1819 New York, living in Nebraska in 1880 and divorced from his wife:
• Betsy Clark, b 1820 Vermont, their children:
• Hannah Clark, b 1845 New York
• Lucy Clark, b 1847 New York, m Alexander Gordon 1863
• Delia/Adelia Clark, b 1849 New York, lived with Lucy Clark Gordon in 1870
• John Clark, b 1851 New York
• Charles Clark, b 1853 New York, with Udalls in 1870 Eden twp.

A Nathaniel Clark appears in the 1856 state census for Camanche twp as well. No family is listed with him, although he is shown as married and his birthplace is New York and age is close, so this is probably the same person.

Alexander Clark was in Center twp in 1856 and 1860.

• Alexander Clark, b 1832 Ohio, lived in Center twp in 1856 with Jacob Bohart. He married the widow of Peter Bohart in 1858, was in Center twp in 1860
• Martha Jane Bohart Clark, b 1821 Pennsylvania

Rev. Daniel Clark was in Lyons twp preaching at the First Presbyterian Church in 1856 and 1860. Also see Find A Grave Memorial# 55260494.

• Rev. Daniel Clark, b 1805 New York, d 1869 Plainfield Illinois, wife:
• Mary Parker Clark, b 1806 Vermont, living in Iroquois co Illinois in 1870, d 1885, children:
• William P. Clark, b 1842 New York, not in Clinton co in 1860
• Elmira P. Clark, b 1844 New York
• Arthur P. Clark, b 1846 New York, living in Iroquois co Illinois in 1870
• Eliza Clark, listed as Eliza Bird in 1856 census, b 1854 Iowa, living in Iroquois co Illinois in 1870

 De Witt twp had a Samuel Clark in 1856. They were in Iowa City by 1870.

• Samuel Clark, b 1827 Connecticut, wife:
• Eliza Clark, b 1828 Connecticut, children:
• Frederick Clark, b 1855 Iowa
• David Clark, b 1858 Iowa

Gideon Clark was in Deep Creek twp in 1860.

• Gideon Clark, b 1806 Vermont, wife:
• Harriet Clark, b 1823 Vermont, children:
• Lambert Clark, b 1842 Vermont, m Amelia Dover 1862, lived in Boone county in 1870, listed with John Collins as laborer in Deep Creek twp in 1856
• Julia Clark, b 1844 Vermont, m Robert Dickey  1861, lived in Deep Creek twp, d 1920, buried Preston Cemetery
• Charles Clark, b 1846 Vermont
• Estell Clark, b 1850 Vermont
• Harriet Clark, b 1852 Vermont
• Isaac W. Clark, b 1857 Vermont, lived in Boone county in 1870
• Eber Clark, b 1860 Iowa, lived in Boone county in 1870

Pulaski Clark was also in Deep Creek  twp in 1860. I haven't found them elsewhere yet.

• Pulaski Clarke, b 1835 New York, m Emily Lawry 1860
• Emily Lawry Clarke, b 1838 Michigan

In Sharon twp there is a Barney Clark(?) from Prussia, although Ancestry indexes the surname as "Cloth". I'm not sure the name is Clark.

• Barney Clark, b 1810 Prussia, wife:
• Elizabeth Clark, b 1820 Prussia, children:
• Mary Clark, b 1842 Prussia, m. William Lumback 1860
• Antoine Clark, b 1850 Prussia

George R. Clark arrived in Brookfield twp from Jackson county in 1867 according to the 1879 county history.

• George R. Clark, b 1819 Mercer co Pennsylvania, his wife:
• Gertie Elwood Clark, b 1824, children:
• Thomas J. Clark
• John A. Clark
• Ettie G. Clark, m R. W. Crane of Jackson co,
• George W. Clark
• Ruth Clark

And finally, my ancestors, Salucia Clark married Robert Squibb in 1857, at age 16. Where were her parents?

• Salucia Clark, b 1841 Ohio, m Robert Squibb. Squibbs lived in Center twp.

Then there are several that cannot clearly be tied to families. From marriage records found at the Clinton Iowa Genweb (http://iagenweb.org/clinton/records/marriages.htm) I've discovered the following:

• Anna Clark married Willis C. Flathers in 1846
• Betsey Clark married Calvin H. Davis in 1847
• Marilla Clark married Nahum W. Doton in 1849
• E. Romaine Clark married Anna M. Kole in 1856
• William Clark married Hannah Jones in 1856
• Lorraine Clark married Phineas Kenicow(?) in 1857
• Frederick H. Clark married Mary Markovitch in 1859
• Alexander Clark married Mary E. McAllister in 1862
• Sarah Clark married Hugh Boyd in 1863
• William Clark married Kate Blain in 1865
• Bryant Clark married Cynthia A. Patton in 1866
• Jane Clark married James McThorston in 1866

Land records are of interest too. They sometimes hint at a few family relationships. But there's no guarantee that the land owners lived on the property. The BLM GLO (http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/) show the following land patentees/warantees:

• Merrilla Clark, Bloomington twp, 1846
• Lincoln Clark, Eden twp, 1850, elected to U.S. Congress in 1850
• Elisha F. Clark, Brookfield twp, 1851 (appears to have dealt in land all over county)
• Allen Clark, De Witt twp, 1851
• George A. Clark, Deep Creek twp, 1851
• John Clark, Elk River twp, 1853
• Eliza W. Clark, Deep Creek twp,1853
• David O. Clark and Elvira Clark, minor children of Benjamin W. Clark deceased, Orange twp, 1854
• Jonas Clark, Waterford twp, 1854
• Peter Clark of Erie co Ohio, Spring Rock twp, 1854

This sampling of Clinton county land records from LDS Microfilm # 1005141 show the following additional Clarks:

• Oliver Clark bought and sold land in 1848 and 1849 in three different townships
• Eli Clark bought land in Bloomfield twp in 1849
• P. W. Clark bought land in Brookfield twp in 1853 and sold it in 1854
• Orlando Clark bought land in Spring Rock twp in 1854
• E. S. Clark sold land in Brookfield twp in 1854

Census records are from Ancestry.com. The 1879 county history mentioned is "The History of Clinton County Iowa" by L. P. Allen.

Bob Mesenbrink
17 January 2015

Locating Ancestral Land in Maryland Land Records

William Biggerstaff was an ancestor of mine. A letter from Elizabeth Davis Thompson, back in the 70s, when I was just starting to dabble in genealogy, mentions several of his land records from 1744 - 1762. Pieces of land with names like Pleasant Level and Long Bottom, mentioning Tom's Creek and Antietem Creek, Frederick County, Prince George's County, and Hampshire County, Virginia.

Growing up on the farm in Iowa, our land didn't have official names. It had a legal description based on township, range, section, and portion of section. But when I was told to go out and plow, it wasn't go plow T5 R34 S34 SW4 NE4. It was go plow the back 40. Or cemetery hill. Or God forbid, goat hill.

If I told you the legal description of the land where I grew up, you could do a bit of research and find it on a map with little uncertainty. I've done this with ancestral land in Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, and Ohio. But this Maryland land, with a name and strange (to me) rivers and creeks and conflicting county names, how was I to find it?

Mrs. Thompson wrote that William Biggerstaff entered a patent for 50 acres call "Pleasant Level" in Prince Georges County in 1744 and sold Pleasant Level in Frederick County in 1748/9. Prince George's County is a long way from Frederick County today. Montgomery County and Washington DC lie in between. But obviously, Frederick County hadn't been formed yet. Wikipedia states that "Frederick County was created in 1748 from parts of Prince George's County and Baltimore County. Prince George's County Historical Society states that prior to the split, the county extended all the way to Pennsylvania. So that explains why Pleasant Level could be in both Prince George's County and Frederick County. But, Frederick County is a big area. Where is this land, exactly?

A little research led me to the Tracey Patent indexes. There is a lot of information on this page and it is tempting to start scrolling through pages of images, but believe me, that's the hard way. Mid-way down the page is the actual index. All that shows is the alphabet across the page with each letter being a link to the tracts of land names starting with that letter. So, in this case, I selected "P" for Pleasant Level. I soon found William Biggerstaff's Pleasant Level among all the other Pleasant Levels, valleys, meadows, hills, etc.

This doesn't tell me where the land is, but it does point to the actual land patent records. Highlighted in yellow are the lines "P G 1713" and "Sheet 283". This is patent number 1713 in Prince George's County, and details are on page 283 of Tracey's map images. More importantly, though, are the coordinates listed above, D 50. Going into the CFW images of the main Tracey page we quickly find those coordinates.

The land is in the highlighted area, an area of 1 square mile. If we zoom out a bit, we can determine roughly where this is.

Obviously, no towns are shown. The only landmarks are rivers and creeks. This land appears to be downstream from Friends Creek and Tom's Creek, which are tributaries of the Monocacy River. You can see Turkey Creek and Middle Creek nearby as well. The two top tiers, A and B of the grid, are in Pennsylvania, so we can tell this land, in the D tier, is only a mile or two south from the Pennsylvania line. With a little work, one can match this map up with a modern map, such as google maps and get within a mile or so of the land. So far we don't have the description of the land, and that will be necessary to really pinpoint it. I really need to see the detail provided on Tracey's images. The index card above points to sheet 283 and I found that sheet 1 is on image 259. I have found these images to be very slow in loading, so its nice to try to hit the right image pretty quickly. Eventually I found sheet 283 on image 562.

There's William Bigerstaff and Pleasant Level.We get a decent plat, gives us the shape, and the arrow points north so its upside down, but the only thing new it tells us that the land is on the south side of a tributary of Tom's Creek.

Another useful site in the Maryland Archives is the Prince George's County Circuit Court Records. Searching those leads us to the copies of the original patent. It provides a full metes and bounds description, but still no more information on the exact location of the land, i.e., where is the white oak tree on the south side of the creek and what creek is it?

At this point, I haven't found a way to pinpoint the property. Best I can do is to locate the features of the maps above on Google Maps.

Further online research into neighboring tracts of land might be helpful. But at this point, I think research in the courthouse might be necessary. Zooming in on Google Maps shows modern tracts of land, but the tracts don't match, which isn't a surprise after over 200 years.

Other ideas are welcome.

Where's the proof?

I absolutely love online genealogy. When I started genealogy in high school, in the mid 1970s, there was no "online". Computers were being used to make indexes, and that really helped, but the research had to be done with actual books and microfilms. Now, with records being scanned and processed with optical character recognition, genealogical records are being made available at an incredible pace. And people are sharing more than ever. The popularity of genealogy has increased steadily over the years, in large part due to the ease of going online to access records. But something really bothers me.

What bothers me is that there is a lot of incorrect information online. While the copies of original records are tremendous, the data shared by genealogists must be taken with a grain of salt. When I see information in personal family trees that is shared over and over again it is tempting to assume that it is correct, because it is so prevalent. But unfortunately, a lie told over and over again is still a lie. Of course, that is way too harsh. Most people have no interest in spreading something that is not true. But they are interested in extending their lines, and hopefully to some interesting ancestor, or even to just break through and continue their research. And sometimes information is posted, not as fact, but as theory, to encourage discussion and collaboration.

I've said that the online records are extremely valuable. But it is important to remember that they are never complete. Even if all the known records for a locality and time are online, it is possible that a birth didn't get recorded, that a page was missed, or records lost. It is too easy to adopt somebody as an ancestor just because they have the right age or name and nobody else can be found. Although that might be a good guess, it isn't proof. That new found ancestor extends the line, perhaps into some well-known line, maybe getting you back to that immigrant. But is it right?

Certainly, that person should be researched. Most people will look at the possibilities. Is the person the right age? Did he/she live in the right place? Could he/she have been the father/mother of the last known ancestor? Often, the answer is "yes". Is there evidence, or is it just the best guess available? Sometimes there isn't much evidence available. Sometimes it's circumstantial. We have to make assumptions. This is where we get into trouble. We need to go a little farther.

What we need to do is to attempt to prove that the proposed ancestor cannot be ours. If we eliminate him, we are closer to the truth. Below is an example from Ancestry.com. I have an ancestor, William Scofield, who was born in Connecticut ca. 1801 and lived in Cass County, Michigan. His adult life is reasonably well documented. But there were more than one William Scofields from Connecticut of his age, so its not a simple job to trace him back to his parents, even though Connecticut records are very good.

If we search the public trees of Ancestry.com for William Scofield, b ca 1801, Connecticut, d. ca. 1863 Cass County, Michigan, we find perhaps thirty or more trees suggesting that this William's parents were Daniel Hoyt Scofield and Abigail Trowbridge and show "William" as "William T." Clearly, the records show that William T. Scofield was the son of Daniel and Abigail, but was he the same as William of Cass County, Michigan? It is easy to blindly accept that as fact, and obviously many have done so.

When doing my search, one tree caught my eye, one tree with different parents listed. This tree, published by Ancestry user "evongohren", includes articles about William Scofield which prove that he cannot be the same person as William T. Scofield. He proves this is not possible by simply reviewing marriage and census records that show William T. stayed in Connecticut while William was in Oswego County, New York and Cass County, Michigan. Evongohren's  research paralleled mine in proving that William was not William T. But he has gone further and proposed other parents for William and has provided his reasoning for that, based on genealogical standards of evidence.

It is better for our research to end at a roadblock, than to accept an incorrect ancestral line. Perhaps we need a way to consider possible ancestors and make it clear that they are not proven.