It’s spit and swab day at the Morelli house!

Tomorrow starts the US Open here at Chambers Bay Golf course in Tacoma, Washington about 60 minutes south of Seattle.  What, you might ask, does that have to do with anything related to family history?  A lot–especially when you realize it means that family members are visiting and I have a problem which may be able to be solved using DNA!

I have decided to try to solve the identity problem of the grandfather of my husband.  Many steps are needed just to get to the end point.  First, I need to define my research question [done], develop a testing plan [done with the help of my friend, Karen, in Chicago] and then implement the plan.

So, tomorrow morning, two of the brothers will be swabbing and spitting to help me identify (hopefully) the name of the father of their mother.

Of course, it’s not that easy.  When the results come back, they will be analyzed.  They are taking  the autosomal DNA tests which look at the other 22 chromosomes.  This type of test can reliably identify kinship back about 3-5 generations.  While the test is accurate that far in the past, it is also possible there will be no matches.  Then, we will wait until some descendant of the father of Molly, decides to test.

So, in my lay person’s terms this is what I am doing:

1. by testing the siblings of my husband (there are 4 sibs) we will be able to identify patterns which will show their father, Steve, and mother, Molly.  The test could also show, tho’ not predicted, if there is a non-paternity event at that generation.
2. Steve was tested before he died for Y-DNA and mtDNA.  I need to test his autosomal, so we can identify which part of the pattern of code is attributable to Steve.  I need to get the company to run the autosomal test on Steve’s data.
3. Molly’s DNA is composed of DNA from her mother and her (unidentified) father.  I am hoping to get Molly’s half-brother to test.  If so, we might be able to clarify which parts of the makeup of the Molly’s genome is attributable to the mother, Anna, and by default, what is attributable to the unknown father.
4. We then “remove” the pattern that is attributable to Steve and Anna and what stands alone is that of the unknown father.
5. Then, we check to see if there is anyone who matches the unknown father’s DNA   Hopefully, or eventually, there will be a match for the unknown father.  We will then try to find our common ancestor using the “old-fashioned” method of genealogy–doing the traditional paperwork!

We will see what happens.  It might take years.  I still have to get the half sibling to agree.  I’ll keep you posted.

Happy Hunting!

Jill

What I have done since the last posting: cleaned house in anticipation of company, and worked on the SGS Bulletin but didn’t get far enough along.  It won’t get published until the end of July; attended the Puget Sound-APG meeting where Claudia Breland did an excellent job of presenting on self publishing for commercial purposes.  I have been doing some additional tax record research on my Swedes.  That’s been fun and enlightening. And I have worked sporadically on my proof argument for BCG.

Photo from the Collection of Charles and Rae Eames, Library of Congress.  Used under the fair use doctrine for scholarship and non-commercial use. This is not real DNA but rather a design in a double helix pattern done by the famous architects/designers, the Eames’s.

The community of genealogists….

One of the most satisfying parts about genealogy is the community of genealogists. There are all kinds….from the beginner just starting to work on their family, the serious avocation-er, to the rock stars. (yes, we do have rock stars).  There is room for everyone.

Last night, after my walk down to the river and the park, I decided to have dinner BEFORE I went to Graeter’s (I almost decided to have dessert first but decided I would enjoy it more if it came after the meal!).  I sat down and Karen from Chicago sat down next to me, I invited her to join me and three hours later……

We discovered we had many things in common including having one daughter, going for certification but not yet “on the clock”, and trying hard to be good to great researchers. She is taking the ProGen Study course which I had vaguely heard of but didn’t know the particulars.  It was great fun hearing her talk about her research on the mob of Chicago which was characterized by lots of lands deals and swaps, changing of names without legal documentation! Etc. Fun!

Of course, we walked down to the music and Graeter’s.

Thanks, Karen, for a delightful evening.

Happy Hunting!

Jill

What I have done since the last post: I finally made it back to the exhibit hall.  I wanted to check in with Family Tree DNA for a quick consult. My husband’s mother was born out of wedlock (isn’t there a better term for that or illegitimate?) but I think I know the father. The consultant confirmed that I was on the right track with an autosomal test of a descendant of the two candidates.  Now, “all” I have to do is find a descendant of the two gentlemen who is also willing to be tested. I do not think that will be easy.

Our Thursday lunch: Table of Notables!
in the group were (back row, left to right) Michael Rumage (BCG lawyer), Michael Hait (blogger and cg), Trisha (from Seattle), Nikki (BCG Executive Dtr.), ??, ??. Front row: Willis White (excellent lecturer on creative non-fiction) and ??. All very friendly people.

How do I use the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS)?

As genealogists we may understand the point of the GPS but not “get” how to use it.  I thought it might be helpful to put down in writing how I use it in the writing of lineages and even data entry.

Think for a minute about some of the dilemma’s you have had in deciding whether you have the “right” John Smith to be able to say it is “your” John Smith.  Contrary to science, to prove some relationship in genealogy relies on a sliding scale of confidence; in genealogy, there is rarely absolute “proof”.  If you have done the DNA testing (y-DNA, mtDNA and/or autosomal), you may be 99% confident or “reasonably certain” that the parents who raised you were also your biological parents.  Without testing, you can only have that level of confidence that the parents who raised you are your biological mother and father.  For example, your confidence level on your father is based on 1.) your mother’s word 2.) consistent circumstances that surround the birth, 3.) an evidence of marriage, etc.  Added together the evidence may add up to “certainty” but not to the level of a scientific-based test.

The words “possible,” “probable” and “certain” are the words advanced by ESM in the NGS Quarterly article ” Working with Historical Evidence,” of September 1999 as the rating scale for genealogy purposes.

An example: a relationship between a child is mentioned in a probate record as the son of the deceased.  What is the level of surety of the relationship in this case?  Not high.  Mothers and fathers called adopted/foster children “son” and “daughter” all the time.  Your surety in this case should be that it is “possible”.  To raise the confidence rating to “probable” or “certain,” you need to obtain more information where you can extract a greater amount of evidence.  If you find consistent information, your confidence level of this relationship grows to “probable” and maybe even “certain”.

Another example: Jens Torkelson Dahle.  I have only one source, a rootsweb entry, that says he was from Leikanger parish in Norway.  Nothing else points to that parish but importantly, nothing points against it either.  The good news:  a Jens Torkelson was born in Leikanger parish at the right time.  So let’s look to guidance from the GPS for what I should do:

1. Conduct a reasonably exhaustive search:  There are many documents (US based) that state Jens Torkelson Dahle is from Norway but none point to his parish.  County histories (2), military records, naturalization papers, death certificate, census info are mute.  I even wrote an e-mail to the “Jim Larson” who posted the information in 2005 to see if he would respond and I asked my client if she knew Jim.  I came up negative on both.  While there may be other documents out there, I do believe I have done a “reasonably exhaustive search”.
2. Collect and include a complete citation of each item we use:  (somehow this seems out of place)  I am prepared to do this as soon as I find something I can use, besides Jim Larson’s rootsweb posting!
3. Analyze and correlate information:  In my experience this analysis is often done using a table.  For example, a comparison of what I know about Jens T. Dahle in the USA can be compared to the information about Jens Torkelson in Norway (birth, immigration etc) and see what the level of correlation is.  It is important to specifically look for items that are in conflict.
4. Resolve any conflicts:  This may take the form of birth years that differ, etc.
5. Reach a sound, coherent conclusion that is written cogently.:  While this will remain to be seen, the result of this item is to make sure you do not let the audience draw the conclusion but rather you write the concluding remarks so there is no ambiguity of your intent.  The audience then may disagree with your conclusion or new information could be found that obviate the conclusion later but those events are both tolerated within this approach to “proof”.

None of this should be interpreted to imply that there are no conflicts.  In my reading of the NGS Quarterly, conflicts occur, are researched, analyzed and commented upon.  You might check some of these out for examples.  In that same September Quarterly noted above, there are four articles that are illustrative of different types of genealogical issues.

So, my recommendation is that you analyze each relationship carefully.  We all know that “feeling” we get when we just “know” that the guy we are seeing in the record is “our” guy, but the GPS forces us to put into narrative all the clues we have gathered and to analyze their veracity.   I will, probably in the next post or shortly after, share the table comparing the Jens Torkelson in Leikanger parish to “my” USA Jens Dahle.  Beware!  I may not be able to paste in a table into this reader, so it may not look like much of a table when I am done.  I’ll keep you posted.

Happy Hunting! Your thoughts and comments are always welcomed.  And remember, I will be changing the URL of this blog.  You will probably have to sign up again.

Jill

What I have done since the last post:  finished all this quarter’s assignments, talked with a friend of mine to see if I could do an oral history on her father (88) who is visiting this Christmas.  (This is an assignment for the class next quarter.)  Participated in a tour of the genealogical collections at the Seattle Public Library conducted by the head genealogy librarian.