Repeated names can be clues to an ancestral name in an earlier generation. A clue–which is not the same thing as a fact. I realized in researching one ancestor that they had several first cousins who had the same middle name that they had. It was not proof that there was a family connection to someone with that name. It’s not evidence that they had a connection to someone with that name. It’s a clue. The name’s use could be due to a family connection. The name’s use could be because it was popular to use during the time. It could be the name of a person popular during the time whose name has fallen from use. It could be a coincidence. It’s up to the researcher to […]
Sorting DNA matches is a science, but it is an inexact one and sometimes requires a little bit of creativity in order to see the best way. What worked for DNA matches that were connected to my grandfather was to put matches into one of four groups (if I knew how they were related to me): To help with match analysis, I broke my Neill only matches into those who stayed in the same geographic area as my family and those who left and settled in Montana. The Montana families married into completely different families which makes the analysis easier. I do have three additional groups not shown here: Sometimes just sorting is helpful.
A good reminder… Abbreviations for place names can change over time. What is used for a location today may not be what was used one hundred years ago. Sometimes old forms fall out of use or governmental or postal regulations change the “standard” abbreviation. Some census takers or other record officials make their own abbreviations when they tire of writing the same location over and over. Self-made abbreviations may be unique to the creator and are best analyzed with local geographic names in mind. Sometimes two location can have the same abbreviation. In some US census records Canada and California are both abbreviated “Ca.” Others chose to abbreviate it as “Can.” And sometimes Indiana was abbreviated as “Ia.” Today that’s the state of Iowa. But if you see […]
We are still taking registrants on my two remaining group genealogy research trips–to Salt Lake City and Ft. Wayne, Indiana. Find out more here.
A bondsman on an executor’s or administrator’s bond is guaranteeing that if the executor or administrator of the estate runs off with the estate’s property without paying the bills of the estate that the court can come after the individuals who signed the executor’s or administrator’s bond. Generally speaking, if someone signed the bond your ancestor posted as an estate administrator, that bondsman trusted your ancestor enough to know that he wouldn’t run off leaving unpaid bills of the estate. And the judge knew that the bondsmen were “worth enough” to cover the value of the estate if the administrator defrauded the estate. The value of the bond represented what the bondsmen “were worth” to cover the estate–usually a multiple of the value of the estate. It was […]
There might have been more to your ancestor’s migration on the frontier than heading to new opportunities, cheaper land, and fewer nearby neighbors. Is it possible that your ancestor was migrating along with other members of the same denomination? The connection might not have been biological kin but instead spiritual brothers and sisters. Of course some of those spiritual brothers and sisters could have been biological relatives, but don’t discount religion as a common connection among migrants. One of my ancestral families migrated from Kentucky to Indiana then to Illinois and Iowa along with biological relatives and members of the same faith community.
A listing of your ancestor’s personal property, if included in his estate inventory, may suggest what his occupation was. In certain areas of the United States local records will state occupations as a way of further identifying the individual. In other areas such occupations are not often stated as part of the name. In these places, items in an estate inventory may provide indirect evidence as to what an ancestral occupation was. Records that state the occupation provide direct evidence of the occupation. Estate inventories that list items owned provide indirect evidence–because the mention of such items suggests an occupation instead of stating it directly. Indirect evidence isn’t wrong, it’s just categorizing what type of statement it is.
Every event in your ancestor’s life takes place in context. If your ancestor does something on a specific date, there may be other people doing that same thing on that same date: The commonality of the date may mean nothing. It may also be significant. Just don’t ignore it. Looking for “same day people” is an excellent way to locate your ancestor’s friends, associates, and neighbors, what Elizabeth Shown Mills (author of Evidence Explained) calls the FAN network. Your ancestor didn’t live in a vacuum. Using the FAN approach requires some air <grin>.
A relative was married for ten days when he died in 1918. His widow never remarried and lived until the 1950s. She’s enumerated in the 1920-1950 census with her married name–except for one time when she was listed with her maiden name. I’m not exactly certain why. It’s likely because in that enumeration she is living with relatives whose last name is her maiden name. It’s easy to see how the error could be made. It’s also important to remember that sometimes a mistake is simply a mistake.
Just because the spot for the months on his age is blank does not mean that Henry Dorges was 18 years and 0 months old when this declaration was signed. He could have not provided his age with more precision than 18. He might have simply guessed at his age. It’s hard to say, but saying that this declaration was made on his birthday is a bit of a stretch. What is safe to say is that Henry indicated he was 18 when he signed the declaration. Whether that age was correct, accidentally wrong, or an outright lie is another matter. The year of the declaration is not included in the portion of it used to illustrate this post. There’s the second tip–screenshots and clipped versions of record […]
The reality is that there is no trick or instant solution to genealogical research problems. However, generally speaking the following approaches are helpful: Not one trick and not a guarantee, but these general suggestions will go a long way.
For years, I’ve worked on documenting those aunts and uncles who had no children of their own. These ancestral siblings are sometimes ignored in favor of the ones who married, had children, and have descendants living today. That’s usually because at least one descendant is actively researching them. But those who never grew to adulthood or who didn’t reproduce should be remembered just as much as the ones who did. I’ve decided to expand that project a little bit to include more work on those who had children, but who have no living descendants. I have one uncle who died in Illinois in 1906 and was the father of seven children. Five of those children died in a ten-year time span in the 1800s. The two children who […]
If your ancestors immigrated to a new country or even just moved to a new state, did they have children they left behind in the old country or the state in which they used to live? If your migrant ancestor had grown children, it’s possible that those children decided to stay behind when your ancestor moved to a new location. That’s more likely to be true if the child is married and had children of their own at the time. Your ancestor may have just taken their younger children with them when they moved. Older ones may have elected to stay behind.
Sometimes people just get confused. The obituary for a relative listed her mother’s maiden name. The name in parenthesis was not the name the mother was born with. It was the name of the mother’s second husband-after the relative’s parents were divorced. Wrong names are still wrong. They just may be relevant in ways that we don’t expect. When you discover that a name is “wrong,” keep it in your notes. It may turn out to mean something later.
There’s several ways to organize your research process. Different ones work for different people. Some of us use a modified version of Polya’s 4-step problem-solving process: Problems need to be stated clearly and succinctly (usually involving one person and one key event in their life). Understanding involves knowing all relevant terms, how to access all records in all jurisdictions, etc. That’s not always an easy task, but it’s key to the entire process. Planning what to do comes next, Executing the plan (and tracking it) follows before the evaluation. And then you go back to understanding–because either you solved the problem or you have more problems to solve. Those with an interest in Polya (he was a mathematician) can read his book “How to Solve It” which focuses […]
Recent Comments