Gene Notes

Some random and some not-so-random thoughts on family history.

Friday, October 28, 2016

Written in Stone

I hate that phrase. It's written in stone. So what. Doesn't mean it's right.

Case in point. This past week I spent some time at the Lexington, Kentucky Public Library, ensconced in the Kentucky Room at a film reader printer, searching for the last three pages of obituaries, marriage and birth announcements. The list ebbs and flows, but it is always there. It is based on abstractions from the Lexington Public Library Local History Index. I have used this index for many years. Indeed, I've been actively searching that index for more than 10 years. And, the oldest items on this list date back more than 12 years. For death notices and obits, I have also cross referenced with the Lexington Cemetery interment index. Imagine my confusion when I found this one:

Name: Amelia Stanhope
Death of Death: 8/12/1849
Date of Burial: 8/30/1867
Section: B
Lot: 3

Three items are correct: her name, the section and lot. If she died August 12, 1849, why was her obit indexed as June 21, 1849? And the burial date? After a lot of research, I discovered that a lot of burials were relocated from family cemeteries into "legal" cemeteries all the way into the 20th century and a lot of my family members were among these reburials.
 Here is the headstone. Clearly says Amelia died Aug 12.

Below is the obituary. It was in the July 21, 1849 issue of the Lexington (KY) Observer & Reporter. It also says that she died of the prevailing epidemic. I presume it means the cholera epidemic of 1849, since every issue I viewed listed the number of dead from Cholera throughout the country. Presumably, the stone carvers were busy, and the death date is just an error.

So when someone tells you something is carved in stone, take it with a grain of salt.

Copyright 2010-2016, ACK for Gene Notes

Thursday, October 13, 2016

The Post DNA Post

Over a year ago, my DH and I got the results of our DNA testing. I had lots of hits - especially the leaf hints on my DNA because I linked a tree to my results. Hubs had lots of "4th cousins or closer" but none of the leaf hints in his DNA result. Most of the "4th cousins or closer" still don't have a linked family tree. Blah!

Now, if my in-laws didn't lie to me/us, I can trace my DH's line back to Poland, and in one instance back into the 1760s. I had one person contact me because we had a link, but that person still hasn't shared their tree.

Color me frustrated. Yes, my DH is an only child. I know who his first cousins are and I think I've met all but one of the living ones.  You would think we'd start filling in some more blanks. Nope. My big concern, still, is the 46% European Jewish result we got. I was so gobsmacked by that, that I had our daughters tested, because that just couldn't be right, could it? I was gobsmacked again because one daughter is 25% and the other 19% European Jewish. Who knew?

If you have done or are intending to have DNA done, link your tree to your results. That's when it works best.

Copyright 2010-2016, ACK for Gene Notes