Evolutionary Genealogy!

Aah, yes, our first cousins, the Neanderthals. A lovely family, but so glad we didn't inherit their brains and looks. And now, the discovery of a brand new family of second cousins (on both our maternal and paternal lines... hmmm....). The Hobbits!

The wrist bones of the 3-foot-tall creature, technically known as Homo floresiensis, are basically indistinguishable from an African ape or early hominin-like wrist and nothing at all like that seen in modern humans and Neanderthals, according to the research team led by Matthew W. Tocheri of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History.

And so glad we didn't get their height gene!

Here is the article in which scientists talk about the new evolutionary links that seem to demonstrate that Hobbit fossils descended from the same evolutionary ggggg....-grandparents that Neanderthals and humans later did. Here is how the article puts it:

“Basically, the wrist [bone] evidence tells us that modern humans and Neanderthals share an evolutionary grandparent that the hobbits do not, but all three share an evolutionary great-grandparent. If you think of modern humans and Neanderthals as being first cousins, then the hobbit is more like a second cousin to both,” Tocheri said.

This does not mean that we are the same as apes, just that we evolved from the same root structure they did. Sadly, the paper trail gets lost before then, so we'll never know our ggggg...-grandparents until someone digs up their bones. I wonder if the Hobbits shrank or if the branch leading to humans and Neanderthals just got taller?

The Descendants of Samuel & Permilia Scott

The Search for the Descendants of Samuel & Permilia Scott is an unpublished 1970s manuscript with details about families in and around Cortland County, New York (and their descendants in many other states). At this time, I do not know of any repository of this information, and so information is published here for those individuals who would like to know more about the book.

I've just updated my web site to include an index for this rare book, which lists hundreds of descendants of this couple. As usual, I have tried to protect the privacy of those individuals who are most likely still living. The published birthdates in the book go straight through 1978, but I've deleted all birthdates after 1925 unless a death date was also included. Names are still included in the index, however.

I have also included some of the introductory material from the book which explains the reason for its publication, information on Samuel and Permilia and their children, etc.

Funerary Art - the new thing!

Some of you may be familiar with the late nineteenth century wave of funerary art. It was a way of commemorating the dead. Often pictures might be taken of recently deceased family members (especially children) and/or locks of hair clipped to be placed in lockets (or occasionally made into beads!).

In a mystery series written by Sarah Stewart Taylor, her detective Sweeney St. George is a professor of funerary art. The series is an entertaining way to learn a little bit about funerary art. Here's another fun place to learn about funeral customs: the Museum of Funeral Customs in Springfield, IL.

However, a new form of funerary art has just emerged as a possibility. Now, human remains can be formed into gemstones! That's right, burial and cremation are NOT your only options. You could become a ring or necklace instead! Really, you could.

There is a newly developed process that takes human (or animal) ashes and through intense pressure, forms those carbon molecules into a diamond. This is exactly how real diamonds were formed within the earth: burned animal or plant matter was compressed until diamonds formed. A company called LifeGem has the whole process explained on their website.

It gives an entirely new meaning to the words family heirloom, huh? Just hope that no one ever has to pawn you, I guess.

Seriously though, this doesn't necessarily represent a new trend; just a new way of commemorating the dead, particularly in our age of cremation.

Letters Searches

I have an account with StatCounter.com that tracks the number of visitors I have. It also will track the searches that lead people to my site (on a random tangent, isn't it irritating when people use the word "sight" instead of "site"?). It is interesting to see what brings people to this site. Obvious searches are the most popular: surnames, names of historic events, places, etc.

The searches I enjoy the most though are the ones that are complete sentences or nearly so. And the ones that are looking to copy a letter for specific occasions. Here are a few examples:

• i'm sorry i wasn't there for you when your mother died letter
• a letter of commendation for police officers participated in a funeral service
• regret letter when you cannot attend your sisters wedding

Just for the record, I don't have any of these on my site. But it does point out that there does seem to be a need for a site that will list these kinds of sample personal letters for people to copy. In the age of the form letter, we seem to be unable to write these kinds of things on our own. Actually, it is a little sad that we can't offer regret or commendation in writing without assistance, don't you think? It certainly makes it clear how far away we are from the letter writing of the last century.

I went to GoogleTrends to see what kinds of searches are happening for letters. I got a little sidetracked, and looked to see which was more popular: searches for the correctly spelled "genealogy" or the incorrectly spelled "geneology". It's the correct version, for the record, but not by as strong a lead as you'd like to believe, and it seems to be declining. What does this increase in misspelling ratios indicate? An increase in new genealogists who have yet to learn how to spell the word? An increase in bad spellers in general? Perhaps this too is an indicator of the decline in writing -- greater reliance on spellcheck?

As you might expect, for cities, Salt Lake City leads the pack on genealogy searches, both correctly and incorrectly spelled. New Zealanders seem to be front of the pack for countries with the U.S. in second place. This reflects only English language searches of course. If you look up the French/German (genealogie) and Spanish (genealogia), they are significantly less popular than the correct English spelling. Of course, you have to reflect that this is Google, and so other countries might be using a different search engine more frequently thus skewing the country results.

In a comparison of "family history" vs. "genealogy", genealogy bests family history, as you might expect. Interestingly though, Aussies seem to have about equal interest in both, the U.K is mostly interested in family history, whereas the Kiwis, Canadians, and Americans are all about genealogy. Hmmm....

Sadly, I don't seem to be able to access the searches that contain the words "letter". The best I can do is go to GoogleSuggest and start a search with letter. Up pops a box suggesting "letter of resignation", "letters", "letter writing", "letter of recommendation", "letter of credit", "letter of reference", "letterman", "letterhead", "letters from iwo jima", etc. It also tells you how many results you will get with the search. It is an interesting way to explore the human psyche regarding searches though.

American Colonization Society

An interesting find in Google Books this evening. Abram Brewer is one of Jess's ancestors and I know from other research that he lived in Greenwood, Indiana, so this is likely to be him. Here is an image from The African Repository By American Colonization Society that shows he donated $2.00 (a relatively sizeable sum) in 1847 to the Greenwood (Indiana) Col. Society.



The Greenwood Colonization Society was a chapter of the American Colonization Society that was dedicated to the resettlement of free American blacks in Liberia. Providing land and an opportunity to resettle freed slaves and free African-Americans into a self-governing society, Liberia was supposed to be an idealized society. It was founded by the American Colonization Society in 1820 on the west coast of Africa.

In 1832, the following goals of the American Colonization Society were noted:

I. To rescue the free coloured people from the disqualifications, the degradation, and the proscription to which they are exposed in the United States.

II. To place them in a country where they may enjoy the benefits of free government, with all the blessings which it brings in its train.

III. To avert the dangers of a dreadful collision at a future day of the two castes, which must inevitably be objects of mutual jealousy to each other.

IV. To spread civilization, sound morals and religion throughout the vast continent of Africa, at present sunk in the lowest and most hideous state of barbarism.

V. And though last, not least, to afford slave owners who are conscientiously scrupulous about holding human beings in bondage, an asylum to which they may send their manumitted slaves.

The idea of creating such segregation through a process of deportation now seems very racist, but the idea was then seen by many abolitionists as a progressive solution to slavery. Many people believed that it would be impossible for blacks to live in liberty and improve their situations given the inequality and oppression inherent in American society:

"It is taken for granted, that, in present circumstances, any effort to produce a general and thorough amelioration in the character and condition of the Free People of Colour must be, to a great extent, fruitless. In every part of the United States there is a broad and impassable line of demarcation between every man who has one drop of African blood in his veins, and every other class in the community. The habits, the feelings, all the prejudices of society--prejudices which neither refinement, nor argument, nor education, nor religion itself can subdue--mark the People of Colour, whether bond or free, as the subjects of degradation,inevitable and incurable. The African in this country belongs, by birth, to the very lowest station in society; and from that station be can never rise, be his talents, his enterprise, his virtues, what they may. They constitute a class by themselves--a class out of which no individual can be elevated, and below which none can be depressed. And this is the difficulty, the invariable and insuperable difficulty, in the way of every scheme for their benefit. Much can be done for them--much has been done; but still they are, and in this country always must be, a depressed and abject race."--Address from the Connecticut Colonization Society, 1828

Rather than make changes to the American laws around slavery and free blacks and changes to the prejudices of the American public, colonization was proposed. Integration of society was seen as an impossible goal. In 1859, John Latrobe stated about freed African-Americans:

The free...without an especial protector, dependant upon himself alone, living, as the bills of mortality seem to shew, a shorter life than the slave, and made to feel in a thousand ways his social and political inferiority, either frets away existence in aspirations, which, here, can never be realized, or, yielding hopelessly to circumstances, falls with benumbed faculties into a condition that is little better than the slave's.

As an alternative to integration, many believed resettlement in a far-away land that was to be self-governed would provide greater opportunities for black success, economically, politically, and personally.

Resettlement was also supported by those who didn't entirely believe in the abolition of slavery. The presence of free blacks in a community was believed to be an inducement to slave rebellion, for slaveholders an omnipresent threat. As slaves outnumbered whites in most slaveholding communities, any possibility of rebellion created a crisis. In some places, freed blacks were forced to leave the area or were severely restricted.

The presence of free blacks in any location could also create economic pressure for whites who were competing for jobs. This made the deportation of free blacks attractive to many working-class whites who were not abolitionists. The increases in numbers of free African-Americans were often cited in speeches encouraging support of the colonization scheme.

Further, the presence of African-Americans in Africa was presumed to be a way of spreading the Christian religion into the interior of Africa, and so supported by many religious people. Ironically, while the American Colonization Society encouraged this rationale for colonization, many members also decried the poor morals of free black citizens of the United States, assigning them every sort of vice.

There was opposition to the colonization scheme from the British and from American abolitionists. Perhaps most prominently, William Lloyd Garrison wrote in the 1830s:

If I must become a colonizationist, I insist upon being consistent: there must be no disagreement between my creed and practice. I must be able to give a reason why all our tall citizens should not conspire to remove their more diminutive brethren, and all the corpulent to remove the lean and lank, and all the strong to remove the weak, and all the educated to remove the ignorant, and all the rich to remove the poor, as readily as for the removal of those whose skin is 'not colored like my own;' for Nature has sinned as culpably in diversifying the size as the complexion of her progeny, and Fortune in the distribution of her gifts has been equally fickle. I cannot perceive that I am more excusable in desiring the banishment of my neighbor, because his skin is darker than mine, than I should be in desiring his banishment, because he is a smaller or feebler man than myself.

Emigrants supposedly had to agree to moving to Liberia before they embarked, but probably many emigrants had little real sense of what life would be like in the distant country. Many slaves were emancipated on the condition that they emigrate to Liberia, and opponents to the colonization often claimed that some had been forced to embark. Despite positive reports to the members of the American Colonization Society, life was hard for emigrants. The death rate for early colonists was especially high. Still, few negative reports of the colony seem to survive.

The American black community was split on the organization with some eager to move to a land where life would be easier and others distressed by the implications of deportation of free, black Americans. In 1849, Frederick Douglass, himself free and black, wrote:

We are of the opinion that the free colored people generally mean to live in America, and not in Africa; and to appropriate a large sum for our removal, would merely be a waste of the public money. We do not mean to go to Liberia. Our minds are made up to live here if we can, or die here if we must; so every attempt to remove us will be, as it ought to be, labor lost. Here we are, and here we shall remain. While our brethren are in bondage on these shores, it is idle to think of inducing any considerable number of the free colored people to quit this for a foreign land.

Still, by 1867, about 13,000 immigrants had moved to Liberia.

Liberia was initially governed by the American Colonization Society, but achieved independence in 1847. It existed until 1980, when the government was overthrown. Ironically, the free blacks that governed Liberia had oppressed the native Africans, taking their lands and occasionally impressing them into servitude.

Abram Brewer was 17 at the time of his donation to the Greenwood Colonization Society. D.A. Brewer who donated 25 cents may have been either Abram's brother Daniel or David.

It is impossible to know the motivations behind Abram's donation. Looking at census information, however, it was probably not the increased presence of free blacks locally. According to the statistical information, only a handful of free blacks were enumerated in Johnson County, IN from 1820 to 1850. The high for free "colored" persons was in 1840 with 20 persons, 13 of whom were free colored males, out of a total population of 9,352. Neighboring Marion County, where Indianapolis is located had 625 free colored persons in 1850, but still had a proportionately small number of blacks to whites since the total population was 24,103. No slaves were ever enumerated in Johnson or Marion Counties, Indiana. Abram would not likely have been in competition with free blacks for employment or lands, especially as he was a farmer all his life.

Indiana, however, was a strong proponent of the colonization efforts. In 1851, a law was passed that proposed moving the entire free black population of the state to Liberia and forbade any new free black settlement in the state.

Still, the only possible connection I can make between Abram and anyone of color is that a Caroline Hodges, age 22 and black, lived in Pleasant Township in 1850. She had $800 worth of personal estate, and resided with the George Noble family. Next door was a David Brewer, quite possibly some relation to Abram (maybe his brother?).

The Library of Congress has a collection from the American Colonization Society that provides much information about the immigrants and the society. There is also a timeline that can provide a useful summary of key events and documents. The University of Virginia also has materials related to the colonization, including letters from Liberia. A history of Indiana and the colonization effort can be found here.

Birth Certificate Murkiness, Same-Sex Marriage, and Other Genealogy Controversies

A prelude for the beginning of this post. Please note that this is not actually an invitation for invective regarding homosexuality. It is an opportunity to explore the murky situation of birth certificates, same sex marriage, and genealogy. How we as genealogists and family historians explore the related worlds of biology and family, the ethical dilemmas that result, and how we make changes based on the new definitions of family are some of my favorite topics.

Whether you share my opinions or not, you are welcome to comment. However, inflammatory or derogatory comments will be deleted.

One of my frustrations with my current genealogy program is that same-sex marriages are impossible to create. I use Personal Ancestral File from the LDS Church which doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, so I really shouldn't be surprised. Still, it is aggravating.

Before our son was born, I simply had two different files. One was for my partner's genealogy, and one was for mine and never the twain shall meet. However, after our son was born, I felt like we needed to merge the databases so that both of his parents were recognized. There were two possible work-arounds. One was to label my partner's sex as "male" (or change mine). The other was to add my partner as an "alternate parent".

Unfortunately, this second option would result in two issues. The first was that a marriage would automatically be created for each of us (since children get added to marriages). I could probably have deleted these marriages, but it was still awkward. The other problem was that only one of our trees would be seen at any given point, instead of the nice fan shaped pedigrees that typically result in a two-parent family. Aside from the aesthetics, ease of navigability was a factor in the decision I made to change her sex. I now have lovely report possibilities and so forth, and since I don't print the names of living people on my website anyway, it doesn't really make any difference to other researchers.

Still, I have been wondering how others have solved this solution. With Massachusetts legally recognizing same-sex marriages, there must be genealogy programs that have this capability now... so I went looking online, but instead came up with all kinds of other interesting stuff.

A 2005 blog from Eastman in which he questions the right of the non-biological parent to be on the birth certificate in Massachusetts, likening it to adoptive parents. The problem is one that I've discussed before, but not quite in this way.

In fact, there are a few problems with this whole debate. The first is the assumption that there is a known biological father for same-sex parents. The second problem is the assumption that there was no other way for same-sex couples to be listed on the child's birth certificate. And the last is that birth certificates are reliable indicators of biological parentage for anyone.

Many children who are born to same-sex couples were conceived using an anonymous donor (and for those of you new to this debate, it is always "the donor" and never "the father" in these situations). For many children born to same-sex couples, sperm banks were used (in fact this is the fastest growing segment of the sperm bank industry). The legal reasons for couples to use anonymous donors from banks is clear, since it alleviates possible paternity custody battles after the birth of the child.

The legal reasons to have both parents on the birth certificate are similar. Imagine (or just look in the news for) the custody battles if one partner were to die, be incapacitated, etc. Think about children's need for health insurance, Social Security, child support, etc. This issue was important enough that there have been (for years) ways for both members of a same-sex couple to be listed on the birth certificate. In some states, same-sex couples can put their names on the child's birth certificate after the child's birth by doing a "second parent adoption". Legally, this makes the situation much more clear for everyone, and paves the way for non-biological parents to interact easily with the child care program, school, doctors, and others. In situations where the biological father is known, he has to sign away his paternity rights for these to go through. Also, a federal court ruled that all states have to recognize these birth certificates.

Massachusetts was already one of the states allowing second parent adoption, so many same sex parents had their names on their children's birth certificates before the marriage law was passed. The change to the birth certificate only means that same sex partners don't have to jump through additional legal hoops to have their names listed, but instead do so at the time of the child's birth. It doesn't actually change anything for genealogists looking at these birth certificates.

Incidentally, this second parent adoption law was originally used for stepparent adoptions, but now also covers many same-sex parents and some parents who have used a surrogate to carry the child. Interesting biological and adoptive convolutions can result if a surrogate carries the biological child of another couple. Addressing that through a birth certificate would be pretty challenging!

As seen from the above example, same-sex couples aren't the only ones who create havoc with birth certificates. In all anonymous donor situations (like virtually all done by banks), you wouldn't have any name to enter on the birth certificate anyway. For heterosexual couples who used sperm banks (typically because of male infertility), the father listed on the birth certificate was usually the man who was married to the mother. Many of these children were actually not told how they were conceived.

This is no different (in practical terms) from the Massachusetts debates over the non-biological mother. The only difference is that future genealogists will come across the same-sex birth certificates and immediately know that two women or two men are unlikely to have been the biological parents of the child -- not something that can be said of the opposite-sex couples.

Further, birth certificates in the case of adoption have long been altered to reflect the adoptive parents' names. Birth certificates for children whose mothers are having children born of adultery nearly always reflect their husband's name. Birth certificates for single mothers often don't list a father at all. The many convolutions of the birth certificate make this argument regarding biology a moot point.

So here is the way birth certificates for same-sex couples seem to stand. It appears that Massachusetts still has the mother and father categories and that same-sex parents just cross out the category titles and write in "Parent A" and "Parent B". In Vermont (where there are civil unions), couples are listed on the birth certificate as parents at the time of the baby's birth. A New Jersey couple also recently won this right. In Texas, adoptive couples who are of the same sex must choose one of them to be listed as "mother" and another to be listed as "father". In Virginia, there was a court battle because adoptive homosexual couples had to choose only one of them to be listed on the birth certificate. The adoptive families won and now both parents are listed as Parent 1 and Parent 2. In Canada, Quebec and Ontario list same-sex partners automatically on the birth certificates.

As a complete side note, there was an interesting controversy with a newspaper birth notice as well.

Anyway after getting a little sidetracked, I did find that many other genealogy programs would allow me to add my partner and child. According to the other bloggers, I could switch to the Master Genealogist, Legacy, Reunion, or Family Tree Maker. So I can switch.

Another Use for those Cemetery Visits!

To those of you who have spent hours of your life in cemeteries, I have good news! You have actually been completing a unit in earth science. In fact, you have (perhaps unknowingly) been working on the following key science concepts:

Key Stage 3, Sc3 - 2. Geological changes
“Pupils should be taught:
d) how forces generated by expansion, contraction and the freezing of water can
lead to the physical weathering of rocks;
e) about the formation of rocks by processes that take place over different
timescales, and that the mode of formation determines their texture and the
minerals they contain;
f) how igneous rocks are formed by the cooling of magma, sedimentary rocks by
processes including the deposition of rock fragments or organic material, or as a
result of evaporation, and metamorphic rocks by the action of heat and pressure
on existing rocks;
Key Stage 3, Sc3 - 3. Acids and bases
g) how acids in the environment can lead to corrosion of some metals and chemical
weathering of rock [for example, limestone]”
Key Stage 3, Sc1 – Scientific enquiry
The field study offers scope for developing many of the investigative skills involved in planning,
obtaining and presenting evidence, considering evidence and in evaluating it.
Of particular relevance is:
2. Investigative skills
“Pupils should be taught to:
d) consider key factors that need to be taken into account when collecting
evidence, and how evidence may be collected in contexts [for example,
fieldwork, surveys] in which the variables cannot readily be controlled”.
Coverage of QCA Scheme of Work
Unit 8G Rocks and Weathering – Most of the ‘lessons’ in the QCA Schemes are applied to the
outdoor situation in ‘Will my Gravestone Last?’. Aspects of Unit 9G Environmental Chemistry are
also dealt with.

That is, you have been learning about the process of gravestones and weathering and erosion. You know, when you finally find the spot in the cemetery where your ancestor is buried, but you can't read the stone anymore or can only decipher the parts that give information you already know.

You didn't know that you'd learned any more than how to cope with frustration? Well, perhaps not. Nonetheless, there is a whole unit of study that you could do! I especially like the charts and kid-friendly worksheets at the end of the document. A nice way to introduce children to cemeteries. Or something for them to do while you look for the one stone you want.

There are other units online with a similar focus. The GraveNet Project is one that incorporates math, social studies, and other subjects as well as science. They even have a list of symbols commonly found on gravestones with their meanings. They are also collecting data on cemeteries, with a focus in Massachusetts. (As a side note, this same organization recently started a roadkill data collection project -- really!)

The Association for Gravestone Studies is another resource, especially for those interested in preservation or looking for more "adult" materials.

Here are some interesting notes regarding gravestone weathering:

• Erosion refers to the processes of wind, rain, etc. on gravestones.
• Vandalism and weathering can sometimes be difficult to distinguish, since both can break stones.
  
• Different types of stones will weather at different rates and in different ways. Some will flake, whereas others will simply begin to wear away and feel rougher. Some will develop a mottled complexion.
• Even on the same stone the weathering may be different depending on the make-up of the minerals in the stone; no stone will be entirely uniform throughout. Also, most stones will show more wear on the bottom.
  
• The environment is a critical factor in how gravestones will weather. The amount of rain, types of native mosses, lichens, and other plants, the temperatures, and so forth all affect gravestone weathering. The amount of acid rain or salt will also affect stones. Pollution is a prime cause of gravestone weathering.
  
• Even within a graveyard, the environment may be different, since a stone in a slight depression or on a hill will have different environments. Also, imagine the difference between a stone in the shade or in full sun with regard to moss production.
• Researchers have a variety of ways to measure the amount of weathering to a stone.

I found one site that recommended that if you'd like to have a stone that lasts a long time, that you choose granite. If you'd like to be forgotten quickly, you should "choose limestone or sandstone, and make sure that it was cut parallel to the bedding planes, to ensure maximum weathering potential." Good thought. I'll just have to remember to buy my tombstone a little early.

While I'm at it, I should choose the font! Sounds like Garamond is NOT the stylish way to go these days. Of course, maybe it will come back in a few years... hard to pick "stylishly" for something that will last so many years.