Wow,
you might say – such big words! What is this all about? Before I get to the
examples of the above in my family tree, let’s first define these three words.
Definitions
Endogamy
is the practice of marrying within a specific social group, caste, or ethnic
group, rejecting those from others as unsuitable for marriage or other close
personal relationships (*1).
Consanguinity,
which is derived from Latin terms “con” (with) and “sanguine” (blood) is
related to the practice of marrying close relatives (*2). In particular, issues
with consanguinity arise with incest laws where marriage or sexual intercourse
between individuals who are closely related, such as first cousins, are
prohibited.
Nepotism
is not related to intermarriage, but to the practice of giving favor to
relatives in such things as business, politics, etc. (*3)
Example 1 – confusing DNA results
I
submitted a DNA sample to ancestry.com a few years ago. Besides showing you which
people groups your DNA came from, they also link you to other relatives with
whom you share some of your DNA. The number of DNA “matches” that they have
identified is in excess of 60,000! But how can I possibly have so many cousins?
The key
to understanding these results is that one of my great-grandfathers, Maurice
Levy, was Jewish and in particular, his parents were Ashkenazi Jews. While they
immigrated to the US in 1850 from England, they had been part of the Jewish
community in east London and their ancestors had come from eastern Europe
before that. That Jewish community is particularly endogenous, both because
they tended to be rejected by those outside of the community and because they
wished to preserve their Jewish customs.
Because
of this, there tends to be a lot of intermarriage between the members of that
community and the parts of their DNA also gets intermixed over and over again.
Thus, nearly every member of that community shares a lot of DNA segments with
every other member of the community. Even those such as myself, where only 1/8th
of my DNA is from my great-grandfather, that entire 1/8th has a lot
in common with every other person from that community. This DNA commonality
causes ancestry.com to mis-read my results and to tag the nearly anyone who has
DNA from that community as being a close relative – when in fact they are only
very distantly related to me.
When
I submitted my DNA results to myheritage.com, I got similar results. Even
though the number of individuals in the DNA database is smaller, I still show
results from over 13,000 “cousins”!
Example 2 – Small communities
Some
times it is not such specific religious aspects such as the above example, but
simply having a small community where the number of available individuals of
marriable age is limited. In these communities there tend to be a lot of
different connections between a small number of families. The town where I grew
up, Wolcott, CT, was a fairly small community for many years – from the first
settlers in the 1730s until the growth that finally happened beginning two
hundred years later in the late 1930s. Thus, it was not unusual for two
families to intermarry a number of times. This sometimes led to close family
members marrying.
One
of the more recent examples that I documented happened between the Frisbie,
Merrill, and Hoadley families (*4).
Elijah
Frisbie and his wife Abigail, had married in Branford in 1743. Their son Reuben
was born in Branford in 1743, but their daughter Sarah was born in 1756 after
the couple had moved to the newly forming town of Wolcott (then still called
Farmingbury). Sarah married Icabod Merrill in the nearby east end of Waterbury
and passed her maiden name along to her son Elijah Frisbie Merrill and later
her grandson Nathan Frisbie Merrill.
Meanwhile,
Reuben married Hannah Wakelee from another local family and eventually their granddaughter,
Alma, married into the Hoadley family. The stage was now set for Nathan Frisbie
Merrill to marry Eunice Almira Hoadley in 1847. But because they shared common
ancestors, Eunice was actually Nathan’s 2nd cousin, once removed –
and all because the families involved lived in close proximity to one another.
This was not an uncommon experience in those days of limited transportation and
small communities.
Example 3 – Shared Mayflower Ancestors
A
task that I recently finished was tracing all my ancestral lines back to the
point where there was an immigrant to the US (or more properly to America) (*5).
Since both sides of my family have roots in early New England, this meant
finding many of my “roots” in the “Great Migration” from England to New England
in the period 1620-1650. The first date in that range is the arrival of the Mayflower
in 1620 which brought the Pilgrims to Plymouth, MA. I have documented nine
direct ancestors who arrived on the vessel.
I
have not done quite so exhaustive study of my wife’s ancestral lines. While her
maiden name has its origins in the settlement of New Netherlands in the 1630s
by the Dutch, there are also several branches of her family tree which go back
to New England. In particular, I have thus far identified eight individuals in
her ancestral lines who arrived on the Mayflower. And, interestingly, all eight
of her (thus far identified) Mayflower ancestors are shared with me! Through
those connections, she is both a 10th cousin, a 9th
cousin, and an 8th cousin! I’m sure that there are more such
connections in the over 1000 ancestors of mine who participated in the Great
Migration.
Example 4 – Vouching for each other
Recently
I was looking at some new evidence of things about my close ancestors and I
noticed that the State of Connecticut had taken a Military Census in early
1917. WWI had begun in Europe in 1914 and the US did not officially enter into
that conflict until April of 1917. But in preparation for what some saw as
inevitable, the State of Connecticut took a “Military Census” to determine who
would be available for a draft, should one be needed.
I
was looking at the military census record for one of my great-grandfathers,
Clarence Elmer Blackman. Clarence had been born in 1870 and so was age 46 and
living in Prospect, CT, when this census record was filled out on March 3rd,
1917. The information on it was interesting to read – giving his height (5’5”),
weight (135 lbs), and the fact that he could ride a horse, handle a team, but
did not know how to drive an automobile.
But
of interest to me was that the signature at the bottom of the page of the “Military
Census Agent” who was certifying Clarence’s answers was “A. S. Talmadge.” That
was Albert Steven Talmadge, another of my relatives, and Clarence’s
brother-in-law (Clarence was married to Alice Talmadge). I wondered if it was
supposed to be allowed that someone could attest to the accuracy of a document
that was about a relative? Further checking seemed in order.
I
then went searching through the database looking for confirmation that Albert
was the “Military Census Agent” for the small town of Prospect (where he lived)
and that would have just been part of his job. It appears that there were 163
men in Prospect in early 1917 and that Albert was the agent who signed many of
these census documents – all of which were completed within a two-week period between
the end of February, 1917, and first part of March, 1917.
In
look through this list of census documents, I also noted that my
great-great-grandfather, Stephen Talmadge, then age 73, had also been
interviewed. And the interviewer was none other than Albert – interviewing his
father on February 26th. But since Albert also lived in Prospect,
who interviewed him? In bringing up that record, the interviewer was (drum roll
please) none other than Stephen! But the handwriting on the form, with the
exception of the signature, is Albert’s. He had filled out his own census form
(also on the 26th) and just gotten his father to sign it for him,
even though it’s highly unlikely that his father was actually a “Military
Census Agent” as this is the only document from that town that bears his
signature.
In
reviewing all these documents, I also noted that there was another agent in
town, Lavergne Clark, who had done many of the interviews and certified them.
(Lavergne is the great-uncle of my aunt, Gertrude [Clark] Pierpont, and part of
the extended Clark family who has lived in Prospect for many generations.) So,
who had certified Lavergne’s census form? Can you guess?
No,
it wasn’t Albert – he lived on the other side of town. Nor did Lavergne fill
out his own form the way that Albert had and gotten someone else to sign it for
him. No, Lavergne, not only filled out his own form (as a simple handwriting
comparison to other forms that he had completed shows), but he had certified
his own form!
I’m
not sure that such practices would be allowed today – interviewing your own
relatives for an official government document, filling out your own form and
having your father (who is not a registered agent) just put his signature on
it, or certifying yourself! But in 1917, all these men (who are all related to
me), did it anyway!
Notes:
That was great, Al. What fun it must be to discover all those different associations.
ReplyDelete