DNA, Centimorgans, and Me

One of the joys of having been climbing my own family tree in these days of rapidly-advancing technology is learning more about my ancestors based on that technology and how they are used by successful ancestry-related companies.

As a reader might recall, I have been a paid member of one of the most successful genealogy companies, Ancestry.com, for many years. Because my ancestors only relatively recently arrived in the United States--my grandparents arrived in the 1920s from Scotland (via Quebec), Ireland, and England--most of my ancestral documents are found in those countries, necessitating my paying a higher price for worldwide access. It has been worth it for one reason: my family tree data gets updated regularly as more and more people join Ancestry.com and submit their own family information and DNA samples for analysis.

Recently, my youngest daughter submitted her own DNA sample at my request. Her results came back, and as expected, she now shows on my family tree as a daughter with 3,488 centiMorgans (cM, for short) and with 50% shared DNA, as expected; the other half of her DNA comes from her biological mother. In my daughter's case, I was not expecting surprises, nor was I surprised by any result I found.

But her results and those written by one of my favourite writers about his own family seem to conflict a bit. This is most likely due to my own lack of knowledge, so it led me to a more in-depth study of what a centiMorgan is because I am not a scientist, and my knowledge of genetics comes from a time long ago. Perhaps a brief history of the process is relevant.

Deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA, is a polymer composed of two polynucleotide chains that coil around each other to form the now-famous double helix. The polymer carries genetic instructions for the development, functioning, growth, and reproduction of all known organisms and many viruses. [That is a lot of scientific jargon; using your favourite search engine will help you understand the terms if you want.] DNA has been studied by biologists since the mid-19th century. As the knowledge base expanded, so did interest in the basic helix of all life, leading to modern times and the two most famous scientists in the field, James Watson and Francis Crick. Watson, an American geneticist and molecular biologist, and Crick, a British biophysicist and molecular biologist, were affiliated with the University of Cambridge in England. Together with other scientists and graduate students in 1953, they were successful in obtaining the correct structure of DNA of the human genome. This one event has led to rapid advancement in understanding human cellular biology and genetics, the causes of disease and afflictions, the creation of drugs to combat them and overall increase the quality and length of human life. Simply, the massive international genome project was one of the most important endeavours in human history.

DNA is a very complex double helix; it has been estimated that if the entire collection of DNA strands in a human body were laid out flat in one line, the distance would be equal to that of several trips to and from the sun. But modern advances in the field have shown that DNA is not limited to Earth-bound physical bodies or items. In 2021, scientists at Queen Mary University in London showed for the first time that DNA can be collected from the air, a finding that could provide new techniques for forensics researchers and investigators, and anthropologists; it might even help scientists understand the transmission of airborne diseases like COVID-19.

Though not without controversy, the discovery of the complex secrets in the double helix has also helped accurately identify everything from thousands of years old human fragments to the victims of modern homicides. It has also helped match humans with their long-ago ancestors and more-recent relatives, which is where my interest is.

This is where the function of centiMorgans comes in. The National Genome Research Institute defines it as "a unit of measure for the frequency of genetic recombination. One centimorgan is equal to a 1% chance that two markers on a chromosome will become separated from one another due to a recombination event during meiosis [which occurs during the formation of egg and sperm cells.] On average, one centimorgan corresponds to roughly 1 million base pairs in the human genome." The name came from Thomas Hunt Morgan, an American geneticist who worked on fruit flies (didn't we all in high school biology?), a commonly-used model organism for genetic research.

Quite simply, a centimorgan is a measurement or rate of how often something occurs. In genealogy, a higher cM means a greater likelihood of being more or less closely related. For example, in the example above, my biological daughter has a cM of 3,488, while a 4th-6th cousin from one side of my family (none of which I have accurately identified yet) would have as few as 24 cMs. 

In the case of genetics and genealogy, size matters.

Something New, Something Confusing

Recently, I was digging a bit deeper into my family tree, trying to determine just how strong my Irish roots are. I know that they come from my maternal side of the family; both of my maternal grandfather's grandmothers, my 2nd great-grandmothers (2xGGM), were from Ireland and married native-born US citizens. One generation back from them finds six of my eight maternal ancestors, my 3xGGP, are from Ireland. Starting with the 4th great-grandparent level, my maternal family line comes exclusively from Ireland. 

It is in the maternal 5xGGP level of my family tree, around 1800, that I discovered an unusual, confusing, and not-easily resolved conflict.

First, many of the birth certificates of my Roman Catholic Irish ancestors in that age are actually written in Latin; for example, my 5xGGF is identified as Patricium Ross. His parents are Alexandri Ross and Rosae Flynn. They are later identified as Patrick, Alexander, and Rose in other documents. That would be enough to make a novice stop and start doing research into name conventions in Ireland at the beginning of the 19th Century, but that is not the most challenging factor.

Patericium Ross was born in Athlone, County Roscommon, in Ireland, and according to three different documents was baptized in three different locations, on the same day, 19th March 1800, with the same two parents, Alexandri Ross and Rosae Flynn Ross:

1. Baptism Place: Roscommon, St Peter's Church, Athlone, Ireland;
2. Baptism Place: Drum, Roscommon, Ireland;
3. Baptism Place: Bishops Caundle, Dorset, England

The documents are all Church documents and are legible. How one verifies what information, if any, on them is valid and why they differ with such exact, precise information is the 'brick wall' I have encountered today. The locations are not close to each other; if jurisdictions merge, that might be a partial explanation, and I cannot think of any logical explanation. More study into the history of Ireland and England in 1800 is warranted.

For beginners and for those of us who are a bit more advanced, this is one reason why merely adding information to a tree without thoroughly validating its accuracy can result in an error-filled tree. My work here has not ended!

What Questions Are On The Decennial Census in the United States?

The United States has conducted a census count of its residents every ten years beginning in April 1790. As April 2022 approaches and the decennial Census taken in 1950 becomes public, I have had a question about what questions are asked on each one. I do know the questions are required by law and often are sources of political disagreement, as was the case a couple of years ago when several politicians wanted to add a question about legal residency. There was a great deal of partisan squabbling about potential outcomes and that question was never added.

So which questions have shown up? My research has shown a significant change in number and type of questions over the more than two hundred year history. Here are a few examples:

1790 -- The first; the number and choice of questions makes sense, considering the newness of the country and the reality of enslaved people in this country.

• Name of family head; free white males of 16 years and up; free white males under 16; free white females; slaves; other free persons. 

1800 -- The next one; what a change in the number of questions...downward!

• Names of family head; if white, age and sex; race; slaves.

1840 -- The first with a significant increase in the number of questions

• Name of family head; age; sex; race; number of deaf and dumb; number of blind; number of insane and idiotic and whether in public or private charge; number of persons in each family employed in each of six classes of industry and one of occupation; literacy; pensioners for Revolutionary or military service.

1910 -- Another, even larger large increase in the number of questions

• Address; name; relationship to family head; sex; race; age; marital status; number of years of pres- ent marriage for women, number of children born and number now living; birthplace and mother tongue of person and parents; if foreign born, year of immigration, whether naturalized, and whether able to speak English, or if not, language spoken; occupation, industry, and class of worker; if an employee, whether out of work during year; literacy; school attendance; home owned or rented; if owned, whether mortgaged; whether farm or house; whether a survivor of Union or Confederate Army or Navy; whether blind or deaf and dumb.

1940  -- The most recent decennial Census publicly available

• Address; home owned or rented; value or monthly rental; whether on a farm; name; relationship to household head; sex; race; age; marital status; school attendance; educational attainment; birthplace; citizenship of foreign born; location of residence 5 years ago and whether on a farm; employment status; if at work, whether in private or nonemergency government work, or in public emergency work (WPA, CCC, NYA, etc.); if in private work, hours worked in week; if seeking work or on public emergency work, duration of unemployment; occupation, industry, and class of worker; weeks worked last year, income last year.

1950 -- Finally, here are the questions from the soon-to-be-released decennial 1950 U.S. Census

• Address; whether house is on farm; name; relationship to household head; race; sex; age; marital status; birthplace if foreign born, whether naturalized; employment status; hours worked in week; occupation, industry, and class of worker.

My guess is the upcoming Census most likely be the largest so far by population considering that World War II happened after the 1940 Census, resulting in the Baby Boomer Generation; the 1940 Census has held the distinction of being the largest so far. 

Many of those alive now will see their names in a Census for the first time and perhaps for the only time since the 1960 Census will not be released until 2032, me included. I will be in my 80s, so while it is possible, it is less and less likely as time goes on. How old will YOU be...?

Where Do The Small-percentage Family Lines Come From?

A couple of years ago, I sent off to have my DNA checked for ancestry not health, as millions of us have, while I make the climb up my own family tree. When the results came back, I was not surprised to see the highest percentage of English DNA, 56%, a small percentage from Ireland (22%), and an even smaller percentage from Scotland, 11%. After all, both my paternal grandparents hail from Yorkshire, England, my maternal grandfather's lineage starts in Ireland, and my maternal grandmother's ancestors are from Scotland via Quebec, Canada.

What surprised me and for which I had absolutely no explanation was the small but measurable, DNA from Sweden, 2 percent. 

I have no recollection of any family history or stories about relatives from Sweden, I do not have any bodily resemblance to any Swede anyone has ever known, and there is no reason it should be there except this: If we go back far enough, all of us are most likely related to almost anyone else. That explains the less-than-one-per cent DNA from Africa. That is where the human race began all those eons ago. 

Having no reason to spend energy on something I could not explain, or even conceive of a reasonable explanation, and for which I found absolutely no evidence I gave no thought to my own Swedish connection other than believing that somewhere along the line, there might have been an ancestor who passed that way. I stopped looking.

Until January 24, 2021.

That was the day I found the Swedish connection in my family tree. Admittedly, it is way up and way out on one of those small branches that are only seen in the best weather. In this case, the first of my ancestors who came to this country is John Albert Anderson, born 10 Feb 1877, in Lindome, Halland, Sweden. 

He is the "uncle of the husband of a 1st cousin 1x removed of the wife of a 2nd cousin." This is what that looks like in lineal form, starting with my biological mother at the bottom:

Talk about way up and out there! But no matter how remote or far removed from my known ancestry, John Albert Anderson is the first relative of mine from Sweden to arrive in the USA. That would explain the percentage of Swedish DNA I have as not merely chance, but a real blood connection, no matter how long the lineage is between my mother and him.

While I am still working on verifying when he arrived in the USA and how--a very difficult process because "John Anderson" is a very common name, as you can imagine, and this is the first time I have verified that I even have a Swedish connection--I have verified that he took up residence in Worth County, Iowa (though I have not learned who his initial point of contact was), became a US citizen, registered for the World War 1 draft--I do not yet know if he served in the military--and he died in Iowa at 66 years of age in May 1943.

And I thought the most exciting discovery was finding that one English ancestor who had been knighted, Sir Whatzhisname! Who knows? I might just find a very-distant connection to someone in Africa, too.

Two Censuses: England 1921 and United States 1950

 One might wonder what a blog about two Census reports from two separate countries would have to do with each other and why the would be a topic for an occasional blog.

Glad you asked!

Recently, the 1921 Census for England and Wales was released. This was significant because for many people alive today, it would be the first in which their name would appear. It would--and already has--answered questions about great-grandcestors (see what I did there?) because that Census was really taken during a modern time. The questions asked were different, making an amateur genealogist's job of climbing his family tree more...'fruitful.' 

It is significant, too, because it is the first Census in England taken after the Great Migration out of England and into the United States was in full swing. Many residents in England who normally would be counted had boarded ships to immigrant to the USA in search of a better life. In my case, that Census came after my ancestors emigrated, three to the USA and one to Canada in 1909, 12 years before this 1921 Census was taken. I have already verified that their names did not appear; I will not be able to break down a couple of the persistent 'brick walls' that have stymied me for a long time.

So what does that have to do with the 1950 Census? Let me explain.

US law requires that a census count remain 'private' for 72 years. Currently, the latest United States Census available to the general public is the 1940 Census. That one contains the pre-World War II generation, most of whom were born in the 1920s. My father served in the U.S. Army in WWII; he was born in 1927 and appears in the 1940 Census as a young man 13 years of age. That generation, often called the Greatest Generation, is well-documented. Their offspring will show up later.

The generation of their offspring, called the Baby Boomers, resulted from the millions of men and women returning to their homes after the war. My parents were among them and my mother gave birth to her first-born male child in late 1949, me. The 1950 Census will be the first one in which my name is found and it will be the only one in which I will be able to see my name. It will also be the largest Census because of the massive post-war population growth of the Baby Boomer Generation. Those of us still alive will be able to see our names in a Census for the first time. (It is also interesting to note that the 1950 Census will not include Korean War veterans; that conflict began June 25, 1950. It would last three brutal years, killing at least 2.5 million persons.)

The 1950 Census might also be the last time I see my own name unless I live to the year 2032 when the 1960 Census will be released; if I live that long, I will be 83. The problem is that in 1960, the Wilkinson Family was not in the United States; we had moved to the country of Jordan for my Dad's first posting with the United States State Department the year before. How we will have been recorded remains to be seen in 2032; I am sure the U.S. government had a way to enumerate the many folks living in offshore countries since it was a time of nation-building and goodwill after two horrid wars. Time will tell.

Let me now explain what had to happen for me to be listed in the 1950 Census, since there are circumstances beyond mere age.

As mentioned, I was born in late 1949, before the Census was taken in April 1950. Anyone born after the 1940 Census and alive before the 1950 Census would be counted. Unless a mistake happened, I was counted as a 6-month old baby. However, anyone born after the Census enumerators finished their count in 1950 would not show up until the 1960 Census. My next-younger sibling is in that boat. He was born in September 1950 so he will not appear in the 1950 Census. However, he might also not show up in the 1960 Census because he was in Jordan with the rest of the family; the first Census with his name might be the 1970 Census, when he would be about to turn 20 years old. He will have to wait until 2042 for the first chance to see his name in a Census report.

What I missed in the 1921 English Census because my ancestors had emigrated to the USA will partly be made up when the 1950 US Census is released in April 2022 because my parents were married, including my post-WWII father, and I would have been counted. There are some brick walls to break down and some uncertainties about my past to be resolved. Hopefully, that will happen in April.

The Genealogical Proof Standard

What is the Genealogical Proof Standard? Why is it important to a non-professional genealogist, one who is only interested in climbing one's own family tree? Good question.

Though none of my readers are beginning the climb up their own tree, part of the rationale for starting this silly blog was for me to impart my own experience as a beginner as I worked on my own family history. A reader might recall that I come from a background as an accident investigator working for the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration with a small bit of experience as a police officer investigating traffic accidents mostly. I hoped that experience in looking for details that might be very small, hidden, or not even evident would help me with my own difficult journey discovering my own family history. 

I was not part of a strong family unit growing up. My father was the only child of English working-class immigrants who arrived during the heavy immigration of low-skilled workers from Northern and Western Europe in the early decades of the 20th Century. My maternal grandparents were mixed; my maternal grandmother was a Canadian immigrant from Quebec and her husband, my grandfather, was a natural-born citizen of Massachusetts. All four of them moved to the small town of Wilton, New Hampshire, to work in two mills owned by an early New England industrialist, Samuel Abbott. All four of them worked in Wilton their entire working lives and died there.

When I was an 8-year old boy living with my parents, I cared nothing about family history, who came from where, why they moved here, or anything else. I cared about the same things any 8-year old cared about...my friends, mostly, and staying well; I was a fairly sick child. Because I grew up the son of a U.S. diplomat in the Middle East, having moved to Jordan at the aforementioned 8 years old, my connection to my own extended family, including grandparents, was limited to a 3-month period of 'home leave' every two years or so. Many of them died while we were overseas and I never developed a relationship with those who lived.

That inward-focusing selfishness stayed with me through much of my adulthood until (almost overnight) I became interested in where I came from and began the climb up my own family tree. I think it happened when I realized I was repeating the mistakes of my father and not letting my own children know more about their family tree than I knew about mine. It was then that genealogy became a 'thing' in my life. I wanted to know more and learn more.

The more I learned, the more I understood how important high-quality investigations were to creating and maintaining a quality tree, especially in these days when a lot of information is available online internationally. That ease of discovery can lead to inaccurate data being entered and possibly spread farther. It is here that the Genealogical Proof Standard becomes important. Even if one has no intention of becoming a certified or professional genealogist, like me, creating a quality tree is important, as it is to me.

According to the the Board for Certification of Genealogists, Genealogical Standards, 50th Anniversary Edition, "the purpose of the Genealogical Proof Standard is to show what the minimums are that a genealogist must do for his or her work to be credible."

There are five elements to the Genealogical Proof Standard: 

1. Reasonably exhaustive research has been conducted.
2. Each statement of fact has a complete and accurate source citation.
3. The evidence is reliable and has been skillfully correlated and interpreted.
4. Any contradictory evidence has been resolved.
5. The conclusion has been soundly reasoned and coherently written.

Any proof statement is subject to re-evaluation when new evidence arises; as more agencies in more countries make more of their paper records available online, more and more evidence of a familial connection can show up.

This does not mean that every single record should be checked; it means that "reasonably exhaustive research" has been accomplished and that nothing is final until it is, whenever that happens, and that there is a citation, a 'paper trail,' to support the fact. In my own case, I learned a fact that was completely different from what I grew up believing, namely, that my maternal grandfather was not Irish immigrant, but merely of Irish heritage. In fact, he was born and raised in New England, as was his father. It was his grandfather, my maternal great-grandfather, who was the Irish immigrant. Imagine my shock when I validated that bit of information!

Climbing ones family tree is informative, exciting, frustrating, and a good way to have a lot of fun in retirement. Enjoy your own climb!

I Thought I Knew the Truth

Wow. I have not posted anything here since December 2019, four months! Today, while I was reading some random posts online today, I encountered a link to an important genealogy-related article about what can happen when one delves into one's own past and begins climbing a family tree.

Basically, it is the story of a woman who was also working on her family tree, as I and millions of others do, when she came across what she thought was a technical glitch on her Ancestry.com account. Her call to the Ancestry help desk proved otherwise. It seems that the person she thought of as her brother was, in fact, her half-brother.

The person she thought of as her father for her entire life turned out to be her step-father. Her biological father was unknown.

Talk about getting the shock of your life. I had a similar experience, though not nearly as profound, some years ago as I was climbing my way up my own family tree. As a young lad, I always thought my four grandparents were immigrants from England - on my father's side - and Ireland and Scotland on my mother's. It turned out those early beliefs were partly wrong.

My paternal grandparents were from England. My study has validated that. The shock came when I learned my maternal grandparents were not immigrants from Ireland and Scotland at all. In fact, my maternal grandfather was a natural-born citizen of the United States and came from a family that had lived in New England for three generations, even though the original Burkes did immigrate to the U.S. from Ireland.

My maternal grandmother, on the other hand, was a true immigrant to the U.S., but not from Scotland. She came from Quebec, Canada. Learning that I have Canadian blood was eye-opening.

My shock was not nearly as severe as the lady in the article - I have verified through DNA, the same test that killed her early memories, that my parents are, in fact, my biological parents. But learning that their ancestry was not what I thought it was made me wonder why I had those thoughts. Did my parents lead me to believe them? Was it a plan by my grandparents?

Such are the joys, questions, and occasional pains that come from climbing your own family tree. It can be a journey not for the faint of heart.

Things I keep learning about my grandfather

As I sit here, writing this post, I am astounded by the information available in the United States Census.

A reader might remember that I have changed how I do my own family tree searching. Instead of climbing up the tree and just adding older and older names, I have decided to focus on learning more about individuals, starting with my most recent ancestors. This day, I am looking at my maternal grandfather, JOHN FRANCIS BURKE in the most recent U.S. census report available, 1940. He was 48. My mother, his oldest daughter of two, was 11. I would be born nine years later; I will appear for the first time in the 1950 Census when it comes out in a couple of years.

As I have written, he is one ancestor about whom I have learned a lot and have had some of what I thought I knew as a child corrected by my discoveries. Today is one of those days.

I thought my Grampy John, as he was called, was a mill worker at one of the plants owned and operated by Samuel Abbott, a very rich industrialist in New Hampshire. My childhood memories are that all four of my grandparents worked for Sam Abbott in one or another of his places, but I have, once again, learned those memories are wrong.

From the 1940 Census, a copy of which I cannot add for some reason (it is probably a Blogger issue), I learned that my maternal grandfather identified himself as a "trucking company owner," not a textile or mill worker!

Having spent the past 8 years as a commercial truck driver myself, there is some satisfaction knowing that my grandfather did it, too.

What amazing information can be learned by digging into the census reports. The next one, the 1950 Census, will be released to the public in April 2022 (the "72-year rule). That will be the first one to include me! I cannot wait to see what my life was like in Wilton, New Hampshire, as a 1-year old. What do I think I know that will not be true? Time will tell.

When In Doubt, Go Back to the Beginning

I have been working on filling out my family tree for several years. My search started slow, using information I thought I knew, and eventually became a pretty serious past-time. In fact, I recently spent a great deal of money on a 3-volume set of books that list the immigrants to New England - New Hampshire is the birthplace of my parents - in what has become known as The Great Migration. I have pretty much validated that the first person in my family tree to arrive in North America is my 9XGGF (ninth great-grandfather) JOHN BALCH, born in England in 1605 and died in Salem, Massachusetts in 1648.

None of my ancestors are alive; my parents died long ago as did my grandparents, so when I began to climb my family tree, I had no person to whom I could to to ask questions. My initial searching had to be done online. As you might remember, I grew up thinking all four of my grandparents were immigrants from England and Ireland and I learned that is incorrect. My maternal grandmother is French-Canadian by birth, and her husband, my maternal grandfather, was born and raised in New England. My paternal grandparents emigrated from Lancashire, England, to the same small town in southern New Hampshire, Wilton, as did hundreds of other immigrants to work in the factories and mills owned by the Abbott family, specifically, Samuel Abbott. Wilton became my hometown, even though I grew up the son of a US diplomat in Amman, Jordan, and went to school in Amman, Beirut, Lebanon, and Ankara, Turkey.

(As an aside, my paternal grandmother worked her entire New Hampshire life in a worsted mill weaving the fabric for what would be sewn into expensive Brooks Brothers suits in New York. When she retired, she was making just over the minimum wage, but to her, the security she had was worth it; she lived in a "company town" and everything was available at "company town" prices. She was a simple woman who had immigrated to the USA to improve her life; she was not used to "fancy" anything, including anything made of the cloth she wove for a living, and lived her life accordingly.)

So now that I have climbed to the high branches of my own family tree, I have come to a point where climbing higher - going back even farther in my genealogy - has become very challenging and troublesome. Validating or even finding records is far more difficult when the source is another country's church records from 400 years ago!

I have come to the decision to change how I work my history. Now, instead of merely 'finding' more ancestors, I will find out more about each of them. I am researching my history for the benefit of children, grandchildren, or any subsequent generation seeking information and a connections with their ancestors (me!) and I hope to give them the full benefit of my research efforts by filling out the picture I have of them.

Since my parents are well-covered with records, I will start with my grandparents, about whom I knew little as a child - and as I mentioned, some of what I thought I knew turned out to be incorrect - and will work to fill in details. I want to know original names (fortunately, with one exception, my immigrant ancestors came from countries where English is the primary language, so I do not have to deal with translation or transliteration.

I will begin with my paternal grandfather, FRED WILKINSON. I know he had no middle name and I already have records that indicate his original name might have been Frederick, but I have neither proven nor disproven that yet. I know his father's name, but I do not know his mother's original name; there are two of them and I cannot find many records to tell me what her name was.

I hope that by spending my energy on one or two people at a time and not just growing my list of ancestors, I can fill in many blanks and perhaps write a story about my most recent immigrant arrivals. It will be a challenge, one that I need.

Validating Information is Tough...and Necessary!

As I have moved farther up my own family tree, the branches themselves branch out to more branches that, themselves, branch out.

I have been working on trying to validate the first person in my own family history who arrived in this country as an immigrant. For the most part, learning when my relatives arrived has not been difficult. My paternal grandparents were from Lancashire, England, and became naturalized US citizens, thus making my Dad a first-generation American-born citizen. My maternal grandfather was two generations removed from immigrant status and he married a Canadian citizen who became my maternal grandmother.

It was when I started looking into my maternal grandfather's grandmother, my own Great Grandmother Burke, that things started getting interesting.

And difficult.

As I worked her family history backward, I was able to confirm - with the not insignificant help of an experienced genealogist who happens to be a cousin, a fact we discovered as I worked! - that my 8XGGF (eighth great-grandfather) is BENJAMIN BALCH, born, raised, and died in what is now known as Salem, Massachusetts, the Salem of witch trial fame, though he was not part of that. Also, having been born in 1629, he was not a passenger on the Mayflower, which arrived in 1620.

However, going backward from him is far more challenging. There are many well-researched books on the Great Migration of people, mostly from England, that arrived in that time period, but the records of folks prior to that are found in England.

That is what I am working on now. Here is what I think I know.

• BENJAMIN BALCH was born here. His father, JOHN BALCH, was born and died in England. I am fairly sure about that.
• JOHN BALCH's father was also JOHN BALCH, which is not uncommon (there is no "Jr" added; that came much later and in a different country...ours.) He was born in England, made the trip on a ship to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and died in Salem in 1648.
• That John Balch's father was also named JOHN BALCH, but he was born, baptized, lived, and died in England. He died in 1620, the year the Mayflower made its journey.

The challenging part is trying to validate information from those early-1600 records. What follows is most likely the baptismal record for John Balch, my 10XGGF. Because the penmanship is beautifully hand-done, and almost completely illegible to my eye, you can see how difficult it is to verify any bit of information from this record. Remember, we are talking about a record from the early 17th Century...



I have the entire record and it all looks like this. I think I can make out the word "Marriage" in one section on one page, but that is about all.

Methinks at some point I might have to pay a professional genealogist to help me validate the information! But hey! I have said before if it was easy, everyone would do it.

Onward and upward, space fans!