Smarter than Great-Grandma?

I recently came across this quotation in a book which really has little to do with genealogy otherwise:

"Further, we now know that culture exerts a more powerful effect than strictly biological factors in shaping our brains. Take, for example, the dramatic increase in the average IQ, which has climbed 24 points since 1918. Is this increase due to better education? Healthier diet? The greater amounts of information that our brains must now process compared to only a few years ago? Whichever explanation you favor (I favor the information link), the boost in IQ didn't simply come about simply by natural-selection-driven changes in the brain. The time frame is simply too short for such a degree of brain modification to be wrought by biological influences alone."
(From pp. 215-16 of The Naked Brain by Richard Restak. New York: Harmony Books, 2006.)

The immediate implication is that we are all smarter (on average) than our grandparents, at least by the measurement of the IQ tests. Given the standard deviations of IQ tests, this makes us significantly smarter on average than our great-grandparents. Restak cites a paper for Ronald Kotulak for his statistic. You can read Kotulak's explanation for why people might be getting smarter here.

However, it should be noted that IQ tests only measure certain kinds of intelligence. One test was invented in the early 1900s by Alfred Binet (though he may have disputed that it measured "intelligence") and various others have been introduced since then. Revisions have occured with all of them, naturally, although rigorous testing is usually done on all psychometric tests to see that scores from an older version of the same test or from different IQ tests translate to similar outcomes on the new tests. Still, these revisions and new tests may be imperfecly aligned with the originals.

Intriguingly, studies on the heritability of IQ have indicated fairly consistently that there is a genetic component to performance on the tests, particularly as one grows older. So even though we might be smarter than our great-grandparents, we still owe them a debt for making us smart.

Stirpiculture

The Oneida Community was a communal living experiment (one of many such experiments around the country) begun in Putney, VT and later moved to Oneida NY (where the mansion still stands). The group was founded by John Humphrey Noyes in 1841. Like the Shakers with whom they share some similarities, there were religious teachings behind many of the practices adopted by members.

One of the practices that caused a great stir at the time was "complex marriage" (aaah, Vermont, so many marriage controversies!). Although begun as early as 1846, only leaders of the community initially practiced it. Essentially, complex marriage was group marriage, where men and women did not have to practice monogamy with one another and were, in fact, discouraged from forming monogamous, exclusive relationships. Prior to cohabitation, both parties also had to agree through a third party. This practice was ended in 1879, and monogamous unions were again the norm.

Several of John Noyes religious teachings were related to child-bearing. John Noyes is quoted as saying in 1849:

"We are not opposed to procreation. But we are opposed to involuntary procreation. We are opposed to excessive, and, of course, oppressive procreation, which is almost universal."

By 1868, Noyes had already begun the practice of "male continence" in which men refrained from ejaculation during sex in order to prevent unintended pregnancies. Male teenagers were paired for sex with women in menopause until they learned to do this. As a form of birth control, it laid the foundation for other religious tenets.

In 1868, Noyes pioneered some of the earliest experiments in eugenics through a practice he called "stirpiculture". Essentially, this was a way to precisely control how many children were born and which individuals would become parents. The "central members" of the community initially controlled who was allowed to have children and with what partners. In 1875, a 12 member committee made up of equal numbers of men and women took over the responsibility of pairing child-bearing couples.

In 1869, 38 men and 53 women in the Oneida Community made the following resolutions to John Noyes in support of stirpiculture:

By the men:
The undersigned desire you may feel that we most heartily sympathize with your purposes in regard to scientific propagation, and offer ourselves in forming any combinations that may seem to you desirable. We claim no rights. We ask no privileges. We desire to be servants of the truth. With a prayer that the grace of God will help us in this resolution, we are your true soldiers.

By the women:
1. That we do not belong to ourselves in any respect, but that we do belong first to God and second to Mr. Noyes as God's true representative.
2. That we have no rights or personal feelings in regard to child-bearing which shall in the least degree oppose or embarrass him in his choice of scientific combinations.
3. That we will put aside all envy, childishness, and self-seeking, and rejoice with those who are chosen candidates; that we will, if necessary, become martyrs to science, and cheerfully resign all desire to become mothers, if for any reason Mr. Noyes deems us unfit material for propogation. Above all, we offer ourselves "living sacrifices" to God and true Communion.

The practice of stirpiculture lasted for 11 years (1868-1879) with about 100 participants. 81 of these became parents to 58 children. There were 4 still births. Promoters of stirpiculture proclaimed that the benefits included longer life spans, lower rates of disability, and general health and hardiness for the children as well as the cohesion of the Oneida Community. 18 of the adult children intermarried with other children of the Oneida Community.

Children in the Oneida Community, both those born under stirpiculture and those conceived through traditional practices, were cared for by their mothers until they learned to walk. At this time, they would be placed in the "Children's House" for the day. They were allowed to return to their mothers at night until they entered the "play stage" at which point they would live in the Children's House full-time until adolescence. Parents were allowed to visit, but if community leaders felt that an unhealthy attachment was developing, these visits could be disallowed. 193 children lived in this arrangement during the 40 years of the community's existence.

If the materials of the proponents can be believed, the quality of care received in the Children's House was actually quite good: "Much attention was given to diet, clothing, sanitation, and profitable activity" [Noyes, 379]. Of course, the community's isolation helped prevent many deaths from disease through effective quarantine. Still, only 5 deaths occurred in the Children's House over its 40 year history.

But my goodness, the ethical questions this raises! As a short list:

• Who has the right to decide which people are "fit" to reproduce and what "qualities" make them fit?
• Women and men were ostensibly equal in the Oneida Community, receiving equal shares in the incomes, etc. Do the practices of complex marriage and stirpiculture seem equal for both men and women?
• How much should we control a child's genetics through scientific processes? How much of a child's environment should be controlled?
• How is this different from Hitler's campaign to reignite the Aryan race? How is it different from modern genetic testing of fetuses, sperm banking, etc?
• Is complex marriage really marriage?
  
• How much personal liberty and freedom should be accorded members of society?
• When experiments such as this one are not ethically reproducible, how can/should we interpret results?
  

And the list goes on and on. It is a fascinating concept, if only because I can't imagine why people went along with the idea. Now this would probably be called a cult, and certainly the society did fall apart after John Noyes' death, so it owes something to his charisma. There must be descendants of these children out there somewhere. It would be interesting to know how they feel about their ancestors having engaged in "scientific" mating.

(I used as my primary source: The Oneida Community Experiment in Stirpiculture by Hilda Herrick Noyes and George Wallingford Noyes pp 374-86 in Eugenics, Genetics, & the Family: Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921. Volume I. Garland Publishing, New York: 1985.

More information can be found at Syracuse University which holds the Oneida Community archives and in various online sources:
this one
that one
another one
and this Google book)

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.

Faith & Betrayal, Part II

(go to Part I here)

As I mentioned, Faith & Betrayal was particularly interesting to me because of a family connection. While researching my father's line, I made contact with a very distant cousin, who has provided me with additional information regarding the Walsh family, some of which is included below.

James Walsh was born on July 31, 1806 in Over Darwen, Blackburn, Lancashire, England. This area is known for its textile production, an occupation that James Walsh and other family members pursued as well. Typically, the textiles would have been cotton or calico.

Born as the golden age for handweavers was ending, James Walsh would probably have spent most or all of his career in factories, even if he had started in a handweaving family. By the 1830s, steam power had made large-scale industrialization of textile factories possible, largely destroying the handweaving industry. Working and living conditions for these workers were typically abysmal, but a large-scale work force was needed and readily available in the young who had been pushed out of other more agrarian pursuits.

Of the Walsh hometown in Blackburn, I found this piece of information regarding the handweavers:

"The 1830s were a miserable time for the handloom weavers as more types of cloth were woven by power looms, and this caused a reduction in the handloom price for the same type of cloth; there was also a general downward trend over the decade and in 1837, wages were reduced 25% in a single year. There was widespread distress among the handloom weavers in Blackburn.

In the winter of 1841 to 1842 a Committee was formed to administer relief, and their report issued in December 1841 makes gloomy reading. 7,000 people in Blackburn were having to exist off 2s. 8d per week. The section of the Report on Lammack states : 'Most of the cottages in this district are handloom weavers. They were, consequently, found generally employed, but receiving very scanty remuneration for their labour, and the scanty pittance exhibiting an almost weekly reduction. The majority of persons visited were found to be hardworking, clean, managing and patient under their many and great privations. Their principal food is oatmeal porridge, with either churned or sweet milk, and potatoes stewed with a little water, salt and an onion or two for dinner'."

By 1841, we find James Walsh, age 30, married to Elizabeth (Betty) Cranshaw (m. 18 Jan 1828 in Blackburn) and the father of six young children: Richard (b. 1829), Thomas (b. 1831), Elizabeth (b. 1833), Mary Ann (b. 1835), Sarah (b. 1838), and Ellen (b. 1840). They lived in the lower end of Tottington Mills, parish of St. Anne's Church of England.

It is entirely possible that the Walsh family moved to Tottington as a result of the poverty affecting handweavers in Blackburn. Tottington was experiencing a population explosion as the cotton factories expanded production. This website notes that Tottington-Lower End had a "population in 1801 of 4,314, which in 1841 had increased to 9,929, and in 1851 to 10,685 souls".

James Walsh and his family are again mentioned in Tottington-Lower End in 1851. By this time, nine children are living at home, in addition to James and Betty. Since the last census, the family has been enlarged by Susannah (b. 1842), Emma (b. 1845), Joseph Cornelius (b. 1847), and James (b. 1849). Hannah Marie would be born later that year, and Betty's final child Amelia Jane would be born in 1853. Mary Ann is not living at home.

In both the 1841 and 1851 censuses, James is listed as a "machine printer". In all probability, this means that he worked with calicos, using an automated process to apply the colors or dyes to the cloth. It is quite likely that this was done using a roller or cylinder machine, such as the one discussed here. In 1851, several of James' sons are also listed as working as "machine engravers". This was a relatively skilled job, so the family may have been slightly better off than many.

In 1861, the family is still in Tottington. James, age 53, is a calico machine printer. Betty died in 1855, and James had married Sarah Penwright. James and Betty's youngest daughter Amelia Jane also died in 1858. She and Betty were buried in Tottington, Lancashire, England. Seven other children are still living at home, as is Betty's father, Richard Cranshaw, who at age 83 is still working in the mills as a madder dyer. Joseph, age 14, is also working in the mills. For the first time, the girls are also employed. The family seems to have more economic concerns than in years past, based on these factors.

The Walsh family was among the first wave of Britons to be exposed to the Latter Day Saints missionaries. The first LDS missionaries didn't even enter England until 1837. However, they converted many in a short time; by 1852, more than 30 thousand had converted in the United Kingdom alone. James Walsh and his family were among this early wave.

James was ordained Teacher on July 8, 1841/2 in Tottington, Lancashire, just 4 years after LDS missionaries arrived in England. He was ordained Priest (a fully functional LDS church member) on 7 May 1848. He was also president of the Bury District [LDS Church] for a time. Other family members, including the Cranshaws, also joined the church and held positions of authority.

The cotton industry was once again struck a severe economic blow in the 1860s:

"The American Civil War from 1861-65 dealt all the cotton industry a severe blow. It almost decimated the handloom branch, cutting off the market in the rest of America as well as cotton supplies from the South."

In addition to this economic blow, the Walsh family had suffered a personal one, when James lost his leg in the mills in the early 1860s. While not uncommon for mill workers, this disability would have been economically devastating for the family.

James emigrated to the U.S. in 1863. Both religious persecution and economic concerns may have played a role. James brought his wife Sarah and children, Mary Ann 26, Ellen 21, Susannah 19, Emma 16, Joseph 14, James 12, Hannah 10. James was 49 and Sarah was 44.

They sailed on the ship "Antarctic" the 23 May 1863 and arrived the 10 Jul 1863 in New York. They resided on the "Poop" deck as they sailed the ocean. Other friends sailed with them, including John Snowcroft who later became successful in Ogden and Duckworth Grimshaw who was also successful in the valley. Their sons, Richard and Thomas, came to America in 1853/4 and were living in Brooklyn, NY when the rest of the family immigrated. Elizabeth never came to the US.

It is unclear if the Walsh family took advantage of the revolving fund that enabled new Mormon immigrants to come to the United States. If so, they would have had to repay these funds.

The story is told that the Walshes were persuaded to stay on the east coast rather than coming west. James is found in the 1864-92 Directories for Lawrence, MA.

Lawrence, MA also has a strong history of textile industry, being one of the first locations to industrialize textile production in the U.S. Although the area has a stronger connection to wool than cotton, calico printing did apparently exist in the city and the textile factories did well into the 1900s.

It seems plausible that the Walsh family opted to stay in Lawrence, at least in part, due to the economic opportunities. This, in conjunction with the rising disillusionment with the Mormon church by both converts and the general public, may have induced the Walshes to remain in the east.

Disillusionment with the church may also have played a role, however. None of the Walsh children who remained in the East seem to have been in the LDS Church at the time of their deaths. So complete was the erasure of this period of time that I was, in fact, completely unaware of its existence until relatively recently. Certainly, therefore, the Walsh children and future descendants did not mention religion as a reason for immigration, possibly because they were ashamed of their conversion.

Regardless of the reasons, James Walsh did stay in Lawrence, MA until his death. City Directories for Lawrence list James Walsh:

• 1864 printer, house Sutton, near Turnpike s.s.
• 1866 printer h 45 Pacific corp.
• 1868 house 207 Lowell
• 1871-1878 207 Lowell
• 1879-1892 B.S. appears 207 Lowell
• 1892 James B.S. died March 19, 1892
• 1892 Sarah, widow of James B.S. house 207 Lowell
• 1894-1898 Sarah, widow, house 126 Broadway

By the 1870 Census, James was 60 and seems to have retired, being listed with no occupation. The value of his real estate was $3,000. Sarah was 49 & keeping house. In the 1880 Census, James was 73 years old, a printer, and crippled. Sarah was 59 and keeping house.

James died at age 85 years, 2 months, 25 days of General Debility and Paralysis. His obituary on 19 Mar 1892 read:

"James Walsh died last night at his residence, 207 Lowell Street, aged 86 years. Deceased was born in Darwin, Lancashire, England and came to this country in 1862. Deceased was one of the oldest calico printers in this country. He was the father of 13 [12 is the accurate number] children. One of whom, A.G. [Alonzo was a grandson] was president of the Lowell Common Council and another, Thomas, is manager of the Hamilton print works, Lowell. In 1860, he lost his leg while at work on a calico printing machine. "

Faith & Betrayal

I was wandering through the library recently, and passed a book that made me stop. It had an old photo of a woman on the front. Being a fan of history of all sorts, I picked it up and checked it out with very little perusal. As it turns out, it was quite an enjoyable read -- and as I will blog in a future post -- relevant to my family history as well.

Faith and Betrayal by Sally Denton (Vintage Books, New York, 2005) is an intriguing look into the life of Denton's gg-grandmother, Jean Rio Griffiths Baker Pearce. To briefly summarize, Jean Rio was born in England and married and had children there. Upon the death of her husband, she decided to immigrate to the United States with the Latter Day Saints Church (the Mormons). Her children accompanied her on the journey and many individuals can trace their lineage back to her (one son alone had 23 children).

Faith and Betrayal examines Jean Rio's family life, journey from England to Utah and then to California, and religious experiences, but has a broader scope than just her individual life. The book is one that would be interesting to individuals with: Mormon ancestors, U.S. western pioneer ancestors, English emigrant ancestors, female ancestors... aah, yes, that about covers it.

The LDS Church was founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith; Jean Rio was converted in England and immigrated to (what was to become) Utah in 1851. She was among the wave of foreign immigrants who were converted by missionaries abroad and talked into immigrating and moving west with the LDS Church. Utah was at this time not even a part of the United States, and the LDS Church members had moved there very recently as a result of attacks on their members in states further east. It was intended to be a heaven on earth where the church ruled supreme.

Using quotations from letters and Jean's diary throughout, the book references other histories and records to paint a complete picture of what life would have been like for Jean Rio Baker at each stage of her journey. Here's a sample paragraph taken entirely at random that discusses Jean's arrival in New Orleans after her travel from England (page 67):

"With two parlors, two bedrooms, and an outhouse 'answering all the purposes of kitchen and washhouse,' the temporary residence was a welcome respite after months on the water. 'The next discovery I made.' Jean Rio wrote 'was that I wanted a cooking stove, which I purchased with all the utensils belonging for fourteen dollars.' Her children immediately scouted the neighborhood for playmates, enjoying themselves, 'finely in their rambles about the town and the open country beyond.' She stocked her kitchen from the many markets that opened at four a.m. every day. 'All kinds of meat, poultry, and fish are very cheap. The fresh meat is good, but not so large and fat as in the English markets. Vegetables and fruit are abundant and of great variety.'"

As demonstrated by this passage, Denton does an excellent job of weaving details such as cost, supplies, and typical daily activities into her narrative. These details are ones that, while providing information about Jean Rio's life, can also offer insight into what other women, pioneers, Mormons, etc. might have felt, seen, or done.

Historical information about daily life for women, childbirth, life aboard ship and on the wagon train, general descriptions of cities, and so forth all help to provide a better understanding not just of Jean Rio's life, but also of the lives of other similar women/immigrants/Mormons.

Nonetheless, Jean Rio's descendants, Denton included, are unable to preserve an unbiased look at the life of their ancestor. Even within the book, Denton bestows lavish praise on Jean Rio, including these phrases (all taken at random from the same page, 128):

• "Still, the hardship could not erode Jean Rio's essential goodness."
• "generosity prevailed"
• "her high-spirited and curious mind was seductive and comforting"
• "All her grown sons had reputations for showing tenderness in a harsh environment"
• "A love of children and of dogs"
• "Jean Rio rose to the challenge"
• "she cultivated her aptitude"
• "her quick mind"
  

Clearly, the book was written as a tribute to Jean Rio and she was indubitably a remarkable woman. Nonetheless, this does seem to go a little overboard for my tastes. Denton's failure to curb her own and other's hyperbole in relation to Jean Rio leaves one wishing for a more objective source to look at. (It reminds me of that joke about Remus Starr, horse thief.)

Probably the most controversial part of the book, however, is the end. Denton spends some time at the end of the book discussing Jean Rio's later life, after her move from Salt Lake City, Utah to Ogden, Utah, and finally to California. Denton claims this is a time when she gave up her beliefs in the LDS church. However, the diary upon which Denton was able to draw, ends abruptly upon Jean Rio's settlement in Ogden, Utah.

Denton claims that Jean Rio Baker was disillusioned by the church that she had loved, primarily because of the principle of multiple marriages (polygamy) then practiced by male members of the church (including Jean Rio's own son). Denton also claims that the practice of "consecration" (an enforced sharing of wealth with the church) is what lost Jean Rio her beloved piano to the LDS church. She implies that the practice may have cost Jean Rio much of her wealth, although she does not provide any good evidence of this.

While sparse documentary evidence does back up the assertion that Jean Rio was not a member of the LDS church when she died and that she was discouraged by her Utah experiences with the LDS church, it is impossible to say that Jean Rio was as completely disillusioned as Denton claims or to claim the reasons for it. Without the diary as a primary source, it is impossible to truly know what Jean Rio's experiences were in these later years. Denton, herself admits as much, saying, "much of her life remains shrouded. I reassembled her story from untold shattered pieces" (178).

Denton is also the author of American Massacre which examined the horrible murders of an entire wagon train party in southern Utah by Mormon pioneers (itself a highly controversial book). Faith and Betrayal, which is a family history, retains a slight anti-LDS Church feel toward the end. Without the strength of the primary sources, the reader is left to feel as though Denton is trying too hard to convey her perspective. Certainly, documentary evidence that exists could support Denton's point of view. However, it is sketchy enough that we can't be entirely sure what Jean Rio's later perspectives really were.

Certainly, Denton's perspective on her family is different from another member of her family who is quoted in the book speaking of Jean Rio's son:

"Plucked from the lap of luxury and set down in a frontier land of staggering toil and comfortless surroundings... he tackled his job and made good without excuses or regrets. His brothers couldn't stand the privations and hardships and moved to California where life was not so hard. But William stayed with the religion he had embraced as a boy." (174)

This quote again, shows the bias that flows throughout the book (and which is acknowledged by Denton in this instance).

However, this book illustrates very clearly the value of primary sources in examining the life of an ancestor and how secondary sources can help supplement one's understanding of those writings.

Denton's success in the book was to create a well-written narrative of Jean Rio's life, to interweave primary and secondary sources, and to look at her daily life in addition to the standard genealogical dates, etc. Her weaknesses were in allowing her own biases in relation to her family and the LDS Church to flavor her narrative. A good reminder to those of us engaged in writing family histories!

Harry Potter Genealogy

I just finished the last Harry Potter book, and was thinking about genealogy and family history stuff and decided to see whether anyone has written up the family trees in the books. This newest book should give plenty of data to work with. Trying not to give too much away about the plot, there are cemetery inscriptions, obituaries, births, and general family histories in Book 7.

Since wizarding lines showing "pure" wizarding blood (not mixed with Muggle or giant blood) are valued highly by some, genealogy is rampant in the wizarding community. A wizarding community genealogy (Nature's Nobility: A Wizarding Genealogy) is even listed by this site, as among the texts mentioned in the Harry Potter books. Plus, like many insular communities, genealogy might help if you are worried about marrying your cousin.

Nonetheless, there does seem to be some confusion among Harry Potter fans at least about what "half-blood" means. Here's an example. Say you are the child of a Squib and a wizard. I think you are pure-blood. But what about the child of a wizard who married a half-blood. Well, if any of your grandparents were Muggles, you are a half-blood too, despite being actually only a quarter muggle.

I went looking for trees online to see whether anyone had traced all the trees mentioned. Of course they have...

Harry Potter's Family Tree
Harry Potter Lexicon
Rootsweb's WorldConnect Project: Harry Potter Genealogy

and here's one for J.K. Rowling.

No promises about accuracy, and I suspect all the new data from Book 7 hasn't been added to these trees.

Follow-up on DNA testing

In reading my most recent book, I came across a statistic related to the "milkman" problem I referenced in my last post. In this post, I noted that DNA testing for genealogists could potentially raise problems, especially in the future, with the increased use of sperm banks.

The book I am reading now is Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation by Olivia Judson (Metropolitan Books: New York, 2002). Before you jump to conclusions, let me explain that it is a natural history book that discusses genetics and the many ways that plants and animals have evolved to reproduce. Here is a quotation (p. 163-4) that directly relates to the milkmen:

"For example, in England, children usually get their last name from their father. Boys get something else from their father: their Y chromosome. Thus, if all living males bearing a particular last name are the direct descendants of one man, they should all have the same genetic markers on their Y chromosomes. In the absence of infidelity (or adoption), last names and Y chromosomes should match up. One study analyzed the Y chromosomes of men called Sykes, a name that first appears in written records about seven hundred years ago. It turns out that almost all the Sykeses investigated did indeed have the same markers on their Y chromosome, suggesting that most living Sykeses have the same distant ancestor. The rate at which females married to Sykeses were unfaithful (or adopted sons) over the period of seven hundred years is estimated to be 1.3 percent per generation."

Judson references: Sykes C. and B. Irven, 2000. Surnames and the Y chromosome. American Journal of Human Genetics 66: 1417-19.

That's pretty incredible if you think about it. Of course, I can think of any number of possible flaws with the study, and since I haven't read it directly, have no idea how accurate it might be. Still, a 1.3% infidelity rate seems astronomically low. Added up, though, it can create a huge possibility for biological error (never mind all the possibilities for documentary or research error).

Here's the math based on the 1.3% above: a 98.7% chance you are related to your father, 97.4% chance you are related to your paternal grandfather (but 98.7% for the maternal grandfather), etc. There is a 96.1% chance that you are biologically related to your grandparents... yes, the ones listed on your parents' birth certificates.

By the time you hit your ggg-grandparents, there is only a 59.6% chance that you are biologically related to all of them. The only person you can be sure of in this model is your mother's mother's mother's mother.

This means that there is an exponential rate at which you are likely to not be related to your ancestors. Based on the math, in under 2000 years, you are guaranteed to not be biologically related to your father's father's father...

Ironically, of course, there is also evidence that with the world's population size about 2000 years ago, we are all likely to be related somehow. Just not the way we think.

In another similar study, Y-chromosomes and the extent of patrilineal ancestry in Irish surnames, the authors note that: "Notwithstanding differences in their early origins, all surnames have been extensively affected by later male introgession." In other words, although we were all once 'pure' lines descended from one or multiple males (depending on the surname), we're mostly all bastards now! There was about a 50% likelihood of relatedness in this study between two males with the same surname. Not bad, but less than you'd expect without the 'introgession'.

The Genius Factory

I just finished reading The Genius Factory by David Plotz the other day. In brief, it is a summary of a sperm bank that tried to sell sperm from Nobel Prize winners and "geniuses". The author connected a number of the children with their anonymous donors.

I think that the book has some interesting relevancy to genealogy. Or, not so much the book itself, but the topics it covers. For example, there is a chapter devoted to eugenics, which was a huge movement in the early part of the 1900s Basically, eugenics is the belief in engineering "better" human beings through careful breeding. In its worst moments eugenics was a cover for racism and the castration of individuals with disabilities (or murder - see Hitler). "Positive" eugenics focused more on the selection of "fitter families" that could pass on their traits of intelligence or physical attributes to their children. I actually think there is some connection between members of my family and the eugenics movement, which I am exploring, so more on that in another post.

The concept of sperm banks is also an interesting dilemma for family historians. Many of the children conceived by sperm banks were never told. Especially early on, children who were conceived were usually born to couples where the husband was infertile, and then raised as though they were his biological children. Now, things tend to be a little different and banks are working more with lesbians and single women. Still, I think this is an interesting issue.

With the advent of genealogy through DNA, anyone in the future may have difficulty connecting descendants. Siblings may have had different donors. And although the dad might be on the birth certificate and in other documentary records, his DNA won't be a match to his kids' DNA. As someone once said about genealogy, "all it takes is one milkman". This, of course, has always been true. It is definitely one of the limitations of genealogy with or without DNA testing.

Jess's family has an ancestor who was adopted in the mid-1800s (Ella Shaw). She was adopted into the Mikeworth family, appearing with them in every census, beginning when she was just 5 years old. She was born in 1863 in Illinois, and from her death certificate, it seems her father's name was Samuel. Samuel Shaw is just too common a name for me to be able to identify him based on that. However, it is an interesting conundrum to think about. I'm not sure whether her birth family is necessarily all that important. After all, the people who raised her were almost certainly more important to her. Nonetheless, she maintained her birth name, staying a Shaw until she was married (to Lewis Bowman). I could probably track down her father with a little more effort, but am uncertain what to do about this adoption/birth family business. Do I research the Mikeworth family? How important is the biological connection?

This bears an interesting relationship to our nuclear family, where Jess is not Asa's biological mother. Nonetheless, she is clearly his mother, and I felt it was equally important for me to investigate her family tree (although I fully expect him to have NO interest in these topics).

Sweet & Low

I'm reading Sweet & Low by Rich Cohen (New York: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 2006) right now. It's interesting to read as a family history buff. For all intents and purposes, that's what the book is. It takes a family story and family characters and blends that information with history and context. It does this extremely well.

Although most of the people that Cohen is writing about are still alive, he is distanced from many of them, both emotionally and physically (he grew up in IL, while they lived in NYC). In this way, he is your typical family historian.

Cohen uses the tools of all family historians: wills, newspapers and court documents, but also has the luxury of interviews with living family members. The story he creates is an excellent read. In an article for Slate.com, Cohen writes that he "would write as if everyone had died long ago." In fact, this is sometimes how it feels.

As the son of the daughter who was disinherited from the family fortune, however, he is far from neutral. So although he uses primary sources and interviews, there is a decided slant to his writing that leaves you wondering what the other side might be. At times, he ascribes motives to his family characters or describes them from childhood memories that leave you squirming; who can tell what others are really thinking or meaning from such limited information? Unfortunately, I haven't yet turned up any rebuttals or corrections from other family members (so maybe it's all true).

All in all, though, I would recommend the book as an interesting read, particularly for those of us writing family history stories. If nothing else, it is a good reminder that even primary sources and people may sometimes skew our glimpses into the past.