A Learning Filled Friday

I spent Friday watching a number of webinars hosted by the Board for Certification of Genealogists which were broadcasted live. They were excellent! If you can, I recommend you visit Legacy Family Tree Webinars and watch. They are free—but only, I believe, for a limited time.

Elizabeth Shown Mills’ presentation was inspiring. She took a really, really, really tough brick wall—can you tell it was a really tough nut to crack?—and used a combination of the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS), the FAN principle (researching friends, associates and neighbors), and DNA to take it from a logical, but unproven hypothesis to proven fact.1

I’m a big fan, ahem… of the FAN principle. I recently used it to identify the maiden name of one of the Hocker wives. This presentation showed me how to use DNA to prove the results FAN research provides. As in this case, it may be all you have when there is no other evidence. But it could also be used to make or bolster a case where limited evidence does exist or is contradictory.

All in all, a great way to spend a Friday afternoon and evening.

Part III: Georg Huber and Anna Maria Hooß

I examined records from Lancaster County for Hans Georg and Anna Maria and  records in Blankenloch for Georg and his three marriages. Yet, I don’t have proof regarding the identity of the immigrant. Was he the father or the son?

Internet data shows it as the father—the man who married Anna Maria Hooß. The Blankenloch ortssippenbuch states it was the son, but has no birth, marriage or death information for the father’s family after 1736.

Can the immigrant’s associations with others from Baden-Durlach tell us anything?

Hans Adam Ulrich

Hans Adam Ulrich was born in Büchig 22 February 1717, son of Hans Georg Ulrich and Anna Catharina Nagel.1 He married Juliana Seeger, daughter of Martin Seeger and Maria Barbara (___), on 7 September 1734.2 They emigrated from Büchig, arriving in Philadelphia on 12 October 1738 aboard the snow Fox.3 In Pennsylvania they were sponsors for Georg and Anna Maria Huber and the Hubers sponsored a number of their children, as well.

Adam Ulrich’s mother was a Nagel, just like Georg Sr.’s first wife, Anna Barbara. Anna Barbara (Nagel) Huber’s mother was an Ulrich. You’d think there would be a connection between families. With the available information, however, I was not able to find one.

However, Juliana (Seeger) Ulrich’s sister, Maria Barbara, married Anna Barbara (Nagel) Huber’s brother Hans Noa Nagel in 1722. So, there was a connection there. Adam Ulrich’s brother-in-law was also Hans Georg Huber Sr.’s brother-in-law for a time. Anna Barbara (Nagel) Huber died in December 1722, twelve years before Adam married Juliana, but Juliana likely knew her sister’s in-laws, especially Georg Jr. who was only eight years her junior.

Sebastian Näss

Sebastian Näss (or Neeß) was a shoemaker from Rußheim, Baden-Durlach. He was born about 1683 and first married sometime before 1706 as his first child Johann Michael was born on 15 March 1706.4 He had seven children with his first wife before her death in 1726. He married Catharina Barbara Brecht on 29 October 1726 and had two more children.5 She died 5 February 1730. I found no connections between Sebastian and Georg based on the available records in the ortissippenbuchs from Rußheim and Blankenloch.

Sebastian’s eldest son Michael emigrated in 17376 and Sebastian, aged 55, followed the next year on the Friendship.7 Sebastian served as a sponsor for two of Georg’s children and Georg sponsored Sebastian’s youngest son, Sebastian, in 1745.

Philipp Jacob Hooß

Anna Maria Hooß’s brother, Philipp, also emigrated in 1738, arriving with Hans Adam Ulrich on the snow Fox on 12 October.8 Philipp’s signature appears next to Adam’s on both lists B and C.

All three men—Georg Huber, Adam Ulrich and Philipp Hooß—had children baptized at Muddy Creek and the Warwick congregation. And yet, Philipp did not sponsor any of Georg and Anna Maria’s children, not even Georg’s first child born in Pennsylvania, Johann Philipp. While it’s hardly proof of anything, I do find it hard to believe that Philipp wouldn’t sponsor any of his sister’s children.

On the other hand, there is a record for “George Hover” from an Orphan’s Court on 7 March 1748/9 which states:9

“JACOB HOVER an Orphan child of George Hover, chooses Philip Hofe his Guardian and he is appointed accordingly and also Guardian over all the younger children of the said George.”

The microfilm copy was a typed, “exact copy of the original” that was created in 1932, likely because the original was damaged. In old script “ss” was often written as “fs.” The typist may not have known that and interpreted as best they could. The name “Philip Hofe” may have actually been “Philip Hoss” or “Philip Hoß.”10

The person appointed as guardian was most often a relative. If Philip was actually Philip Hooß, then this would indicate to me that the estate pertains to Georg Huber, the husband of Anna Maria Hooß. Jacob would have been the couple’s eldest son Johan Jacob Huber, born 4 March 1734 in Blankenloch. At 15 years of age, he would have been old enough to choose his own guardian.

The index to Lancaster County wills indicates that Georg Huber left a last will & testament. However, it was not recorded because it was written in German. Nor does the original still exist. This unfortunate circumstance complicates research into this family.

Conclusions

In the end I didn’t find any clues regarding my ancestor Michael Huber. But since it was a long-shot, I’m not terribly surprised. It ended up being an interesting exercise anyway. I started out thinking I knew who I was researching. I found new and conflicting information that made me question that certainty. And ended up not far from where I began.

Here’s what I think.

The 1737 manumission for Hans Georg Huber, schuster, belongs to the son. I think that most likely the family emigrated in the spring of 1738. They likely travelled with Adam Ulrich’s family and Anna Maria’s brother Philipp and his wife Eva—as well as others who were leaving the Baden-Durlach area for Pennsylvania.

Georg Sr. either became friendly with Sebastian Näss on board ship—assuming they travelled on the same ship—or after arrival in Pennsylvania. They arrived about the same time, were of the same age, from the same area of Germany, had each been married several times,11 and were members of the same congregations.

The family settled in Lancaster County—most likely in Cocalico Township—and Georg died there in early 1749. Anna Maria’s brother served as guardian for her minor children. Any of Georg’s children from his first marriage who travelled with them were of legal age by that time, possibly with families of their own.

That’s my working hypothesis anyway. It’s too bad there are no tax records for the period between his arrival and Georg’s death, nor any land records I could locate, and no will. Those could have been illuminating.

It would be interesting to look at the church records to see who the witnesses were at the children’s baptisms in Blankenloch. I wish that information had been included in the ortssippenbuchs.

Part II: Georg Huber and Anna Maria Hooß

Yesterday I shared what I’ve learned about Hans Georg and Anna Maria (Hooß) Huber in baptismal records in Lancaster County and emigration records. Today I’ll cover what I learned about the pair from German records.

In Blankenloch

According to the Ortssippenbuch Blankenloch-Büchig und dem Studtensee, Georg Huber was a “fränkischer Artillerieschmied.”1 He  was the son of Thomas Huber of Balgheim and first married Anna Barbara Nagel, daughter of Georg Nagel and Anna Margaretha Ulrich, on 26 May 1711 in Blankenloch.2 Barbara was born 28 December 1684 in Blankenloch. They had children:

  1. Anna Margaretha (22 Nov 1711—26 Nov 1711)
  2. Hans Georg (8 Mar 1713—1 Feb 1714)
  3. Hans Adam (20 Aug 1715—)
  4. Georg Friedrich (4 Feb 1717—29 Dec 1773)
  5. Hans Georg (29 Dec 1718—)
  6. Catharina Barbara (25 Nov 1720—)
  7. Thomas (23 Dec 1722—17 Jul 1723)

According to the book, Hans Georg Huber, son of Hans Georg and Anna Barbara (Nagel) Huber, was the man who emigrated to America in 1738—Werner’s emigrant #4357.

Barbara died 20 December 1722 in Blankenloch and Georg married again on 28 June 1723 to Anna Barbara Boch, daughter of Antonius Boch.3 She was born in August 1676 in Blankenloch. She had been married previously to Isaac Heyl of Hagsfeld and had, it appears, one surviving child, Hans Wendel Heyl, born 8 March 1714.4 She died 10 January 1733 in Blankenloch.5

After Barbara’s death, Georg apparently married yet again, this time on 11 August 1733 to Anna Maria Hooß, daughter of Hans Jacob Hooß and Anna Maria Reinau.6 She was born 9 September 1710 in Blankenloch and she, too, had been married previously. She had been married to Hans Michael Hermann—a Soldat, “ein marggräflicher Musquetier.7 They had a son Hans Michel born 12 August 1731 and died 26 October 1731 in Blankenloch. Georg and Anna Maria apparently had two children in Blankenloch:

  1. Hans Jacob (4 Mar 1734—)
  2. Johann Friedrich (26 Jun 1736—)

Father or Son?

So, who was the Georg Huber who arrived in Pennsylvania by 1739? Was it the father born in Balgheim? Or the son born in Blankenloch? Which one married Anna Maria Hooß?

Werner’s entry for Hans Georg Huber provides little information. No age, no indication of whether or not he was traveling with a spouse or children, no occupation.8 The entry in the ortssippenbuch for Hans Georg Huber Jr. states “Bemerkung: Schuster, 1738 nach Amerika auswandert, Regesten Nr. 4357.”9 The son, it appears, was a shoemaker.

Although no birth date is provided for Hans Georg Huber Sr., his first wife was born in 1684 and his second in 1676. I think it’s highly likely that he was in the same age group, possibly born in the mid-1670s to early 1680s. This means he was significantly older than his third wife Anna Maria who was born in 1710.

So, can we tell if he was the man who married Anna Maria? Could it have been the son?

The records in the ortssippenbuch for Georg and his three wives list his occupation. In the first he was a schmied or Artillerieschmied—a blacksmith, one with knowledge of artillery. In the second he’s listed as a hufschmied or farrier. I would presume there’s more need for a farrier than an artillery smith in village life and the skillset is applicable.

The third record which includes Anna Maria also lists his occupation as hufschmied. This would seem to indicate that it was George Sr. who married Anna Maria, not George Jr. Given the practice of apprenticeship in Germany, switching occupations was not easily done, especially in just four years.

Furthermore, George was also a full citizen of Blankenloch at the time of this marriage. There are at least two ways I know to become a bürger. One was to be the child of a bürger and born in the village, the second was to purchase the status.10 The purchase price could be steep and it did not transfer from village to village.

So, for George, who was not born in Blankenloch, to be a bürger in 1733 speaks to both an acceptance by other Blankenloch residents and a certain level of financial success between 1723 and 1733. Would he have given that up in 1737 when, presumably he was in his mid-to-late 50s or early 60s? It’s not unheard of. My ancestor Christoph Hacker and his wife emigrated when they were in their 50s.

There are no death dates provided for George Sr., Anna Maria, and a number of his/their children in the Blankenloch ortssippenbuch. This would mean that there were no death records found for any of these family members in the town church books. In fact, the ortssippenbuch shows no records for this family group after 1736. Why not? If they didn’t leave for America in 1738, where did they go?

The only family member with further information was Georg Friedrich. He married 5 January 1753 and died 29 December 1773 in Gräben where he was a farmhand. Even he did not remain in Blankenloch. Furthermore, there is a note that he applied to emigrate to Denmark with his wife and five children in 1761, though he did not leave.11 None of the Huber families listed in Blankenloch in the early 1700s apparently stayed.

Based on this information, I believe Hans Georg Huber Sr. married Anna Maria Hooß. However, I still can’t tell who was the emigrant—father or son or both.

Check back tomorrow for more analysis. Maybe their ties to and relationships with others will help paint a clearer picture.

Part I: Georg Huber and Anna Maria Hooß

Recently, I’ve been looking into Hans George Huber and his wife Anna Maria Hooß. For no other reason than that he’s a Huber and his children share some of the same given names as my ancestor Michael Huber’s children. It’s a long shot, but I figured it was worth a little research. I like research.

Most of what I have is information I’ve pulled from around the internet. Since quite a bit of it is not sourced, I’ve been verifying information where possible. This couple was Lutheran and had a number of children baptized at Muddy Creek and Warwick in the 1740s:1

  1. Johann Philipp Huber was born 28 Dec 1740 and baptized 26 January 1741 at Muddy Creek. His sponsors were Adam Ulrich and his wife Julianna.
  2. Julianna Huber was born 8 May 1743 and baptized at Warwick on 14 May 1743. She was also sponsored Adam Ulrich and wife.
  3. Anna Maria Huber was born 3 October 1744 and baptized at Warwick on 4 November 1744, sponsored by Adam Ulrich and wife.
  4. Anna Margaretha Huber was born 20 March 1746 and baptized at Warwick on 23 March 1746. She was sponsored by Sebastian Näss and his wife.
  5. Johann Friederich Huber was born 9 January 1748 and baptized 17 January 1748 at Warwick, sponsored also by Sebastian Näss and his wife.

George and Anna Maria also sponsored children of Adam Ulrich and Sebastian Näss, as follows:2

  1. Johan Georg Ulrich, son of Adam and Julianna, was born 6 November 1739 and baptized 16 December 1739 at Muddy Creek.
  2. Anna Maria Ulrich, daughter of Adam and Julianna, was born 10 February 1742 and baptized 28 March 1742 at Muddy Creek.
  3. Julianna Ulrich, daughter of Adam and Julianna, was born 2 April 1744 and baptized 8 April 1744 at Warwick.
  4. Sebastian Näss, son of Sebastian, was born 31 May 1745 and baptized 30 June 1745 at Warwick.

Usually when you see baptismal patterns like this, it suggests a familial relationship between the parents. At a minimum, given the years involved, it suggests that they may have been from the same area in Germany.

Emigration from Germany

I know from my Hacker family research that Sebastian emigrated in 17383 and was from Rußheim, a village in Baden-Durlach.4 He arrived on the Friendship on 20 September 1738. A little research into George and Adam shows that they were from Blankenloch and Büchig, two other villages in Baden-Durlach, just north of Karlsruhe.5

Both George and Adam received permission to leave Germany in October 1737. Adam can be found on the ship’s list for the snow Fox which arrived in Philadelphia on 12 October 1738.6 Werner indicates that, like Sebastian, George arrived on the Friendship. However, the ship’s list contains only “Jacob Hoover” and “Michael Hooverich” as possible matches for George and both men’s age is shown as 25.7

I’m a little perplexed on how to rationalize “George” as “Jacob.”  Take a look at the signature from the ship’s list.

Hans Jacob Huber from ship's list

On both list B and C, Hans Jacob signed with his mark (H).8 List A is not included for this ship in Volume II of Pennsylvania German Pioneers, but his name is given as “Jacob Hoover” on the captain’s list as well, according to the list in Volume I. Since he didn’t actually sign his own name, I suppose it’s possible that the clerk got it wrong, but you would think the captain would have had the correct name for his passenger. Right?

Suffice it to say, that I don’t know for sure exactly when George arrived. It’s extremely likely that he arrived in the fall of 1738 with a number of other emigrants from Baden-Durlach, especially given his later connections to Adam and Sebastian. However, the ships’ lists do not provide evidence of his arrival. He was absolutely here by 9 November 1739 when he and his wife sponsored Adam’s son Georg, but beyond that is not yet determined.

In Blankenloch

Since Adam and George were from Büchig and Blankenloch, I consulted the ortssippenbuch for information on their families.9 While it provided valuable information, I can’t say it cleared much up for me.

Check back tomorrow for the continuation.


Update (10/4)
hans george huber signature

Hans George Huber’s signature

I remembered I had the signatures of the original members of the Warwick congregation in 1743. Hans Georg Huber signed as a member and representative of his family. This makes it even more unlikely, in my opinion, that he was the “Hans Jacob Hoover” on the Friendship’s passenger lists.

Friday Find: Christoph Hacker’s Manumission

I recently ordered Werner Hacker’s Auswanderungen aus Baden und dem Breisgau through Interlibrary Loan for some research I’m doing. I’ve wanted to check it out for a while, so I was really excited when my library notified me it was in. But that was nothing compared to the excitement to come.

I was idly flipping through the book, getting accustomed to it’s contents and organization. I don’t know German, so I was looking more than reading, but keeping an eye out for words and locations that I do know.

The book covers eighteenth century emigrations from Baden, now part of Baden-Württemberg, and Breisgau, then a kingdom ruled by Austria. One section of the book includes examples of manumissions from various locations.1  My eye caught on Baden-Durlach. My Hackers and Weidmans were from the Karlsruhe section of Baden-Durlach. So, I paused and skimmed the text and I saw “…Christoph Hackers von Rußheim Manumissions…”

HOLY SMOKES!

Searching the text I saw the date of 7 March 1752. My ancestor Christoph Hacker, his wife, two daughters and two sons-in-law, arrived in Philadelphia on 23 October 1752.2 They would have had to leave Rußheim in the spring of 1752, and, in fact, may have left on 16 March 1752.3

Name, location and date all seem to indicate that this could be the actual manumission for Christoph and Anna Margaretha (Jock) Hacker. Wow! Talk about a lucky find.

And if Professor Hacker could include it in his book, I could get a copy, too. I always presumed that those records likely didn’t exist anymore due to the destruction of WWI and WWII. Lesson: Don’t presume a record is lost. Always check.

I’m going to have to write to the Archives in Karlsruhe. Anybody know German?

Tombstone Tuesday: Christopher Hocker (1739-1819) Could This Be Adam and Elizabeth's Son?

I was kind of excited when I first found this entry for Christopher Hocker on Find A Grave. Uncle Bill determined through his research that our Christopher left Harrisburg, moved north, and his family settled in Lycoming County. Could this entry be for our Christopher and finally provide a death date and burial place?

Find A Grave Entry: Christopher Hocker

Find A Grave Entry: Christopher Hocker

But in looking at the data, the only things that match are the name and death location.1 The birth date and death date don’t fit. Not at all.

Son of Adam and Elisabetha (Weidman) Hacker

What do we know about our Christopher?

He was born 21 February 1760 in Cocalico Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, baptized at Emanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church, and sponsored by his uncle Christopher Weidman.2 Stophel,3 as he was called, was the third son of Johann Adam Hacker and his wife Maria Elisabetha Weidman.

Like his older brothers Frederick and John, Christopher served in the Lancaster County militia under Captain Michael Oberly in 1781.4 And like his brothers John, and Adam, he moved to Harrisburg after his father’s death. The three of them are listed in Harrisburg tax records in 1791.5 He’s found in various land and tax records in Lower Paxton Township from about 1795 through 1807.

So, about that time he left the Harrisburg area and started moving north. According to the 1810 census for Mohantango Township, Northumberland County, he was an innkeeper with three males between 10 and 26 and four females between 0 and 26, along with himself (45+) and his wife (26-45).6 In 1820, he can be found in the census enumeration for Williamsport.7 His household included one male under 10, one male over 45, one female under 10, one female 10-16, one female 16-26, and one female 26-45. The 1830 census shows him aged 60-70, living in Chapman Township, Union County.8 His household also included a male 5-10, a male 10-15, a female 15-20, a female 20-30, and a female 40-50.

If these records pertain to our Christopher, then he was alive as of 1830 and obviously didn’t die in 1819. Since the record includes a photo of the gravestone, what can it tell us?

If you look at the photo—even enlarged—it’s hard to read. But even so, I’m not seeing a death date in March 1819. To me it looks more like May 183[?], possibly 1839? And his age at death? Seventy something years, maybe two[?] months and [?] days. Since the birth date is not on the stone, the date in the memorial entry is likely calculated from the death date and age at death. If one of those was interpreted incorrectly from the gravestone, then the birthday would be off.

If I’m correct about the gravestone not matching the record entry and if it reads 1830 or 1839 and if his age at death was 70 or 79 years, then it’s possible that it could be a match for our Christopher who would have been 70 years old as of 21 February 1830.

I’ve submitted a request for a new photo—one that I hope is easier to read. Until some kind soul helps, this record will just have to stay in the “I’m hopeful the record is wrong and I’m reading the stone correctly; it could be a match” category.

The Hocker Farm

In 1831 William L. Breton painted a water color, entitled “The Hocker Farm.”1 Breton was an Englishman, a self-made artist of the nineteenth century who painted Philadelphian scenes.2

The question, I have, is whose farm was this?

Johann George Hocker, the immigrant, moved his family to Whitemarsh Township about 1763. He died in 1821 and his property was sold by his administrator, son Martin Hocker, to Casper Schlater. So George’s farm wouldn’t have been the “Hocker farm” by 1831.

By that time, to the best of my knowledge, his only surviving son lived in Virginia. Perhaps it was the farm of one of his grandsons—Martin or John, sons of Martin—who were, as far as I know, the only grandsons still living in Whitemarsh Township. Regardless of whose farm it actually was, the painting provides a glimpse into a nineteenth century farm yard. One which was owned by a member of our Hocker family.

The painting itself apparently descended through Clara Hocker Illman, wife of Henry A. Illman. Although the typed inscription that accompanies the painting states that she was “a daughter of a Civil War General Hocker,” Clara was the daughter of Edward Wellington and Mary Ann (Hocker) Williams of Germantown.3

Her grandparents were Christopher Mason and Mary Ann (Phillips) Hocker. Their son Christopher Mason Hocker Jr., I believe, did serve in the Civil War. However, to the best of my knowledge, not as a General. Christopher Sr. was a stonecutter and the family resided in Germantown. He died 25 June 1847.4 His wife survived him and ran a boarding house until her death 28 July 18935 with the assistance of her daughter Martha.

Fifteen Years Later, A Remembrance

I’ve never actually put my memories of September 9, 2001 down in words. While it’s not a day that I actively try to forget, it’s not one I like to remember either. But…

I’ll never forget.

I was sitting at my desk trying to get ready for the day ahead when a co-worker leaned back from his desk, peering around a wall and announced that a plane had hit the World Trade Center.

At first there was a moment of disbelief. And then the dawning belief that it must have been one of those single engine planes or helicopters that flew up and down the Hudson River all day long. Hadn’t I sat at a desk in another office in Jersey City, directly across from the Twin Towers, and watched those planes zip by all day long? It must have been some kind of crazy accident.

“No,” he said. “They’re saying it was deliberate.”

Beginning in the fall of 2000, I started commuting from my home office in Boston to New York every week to work on a project in the Jersey City office. Along with a couple of my fellow creatives from Boston, I’d fly down on Monday, cab it to the World Trade Center, then take the PATH over to Jersey city. On Friday, we’d take the trip in reverse. Every week for about six months.

So, the events of 9/11 played out, not only on any media I watched, but also on the big screen in my head. Those memories of the World Trade Center—the twice weekly trips through it’s belly, the daily view of the Twin Towers from across the river—they were the stage for my imagination to play upon.

I wasn’t there, but I could, oh, so easily envision what my New York co-workers were seeing, what they were experiencing. And what if any of them were late to work that morning and taking the PATH train across the river? Bad enough to be a witness. The idea of any of them as victim was one I couldn’t face.

That day in Boston was unreal. We all tried to find out what was happening. No one knew if there was more to come. How widespread the attack would be. When reports of the attack on the Pentagon came in, the horror, fear and disbelief grew.

And it wasn’t done, yet.

I was on the phone with my sister when the first tower—the South Tower—came down. She’s the one who told me; her voice shook. It hardly seemed possible that a building of that size and stature could collapse. I was stunned.

And then came the realization that there were still people in the building. People trying to get out. People trapped above the fire caused by the plane crash. People trying to rescue those inside. So many people. The horror show in my head grew.

Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania.

The second tower came down.

I went home. And it only got worse. Because now I didn’t have to imagine anything. The news media broadcasted everything. With a continual voice-over of new information, old information, and ongoing speculation. Newscasters and experts talked and talked and the videos played over and over, hour by hour.

I don’t know that words can fully express the magnitude of what that day meant to those of us who lived through it. Most Americans experienced it like I did. Secondhand. We weren’t there. We didn’t see the planes hit the towers or the Pentagon in person. We didn’t rush to the scene to try to save people. We didn’t run for our lives as the second tower came down. Most important, we didn’t suffer the loss of loved ones.

So, today, I’ll remember that terrible day fifteen years ago. Even if I’d rather not. For those who died. For those who still grieve. And for those who don’t have even a remote possibility of ever forgetting.

But I’ll also remember how immediately afterwards, we remembered that we are the United States, and seemed to feel the meaning of Patrick Henry’s words, “United we stand, divided we fall.”

We could use more—a lot more—of that attitude today. I’m hoping we find it. This time without a tragedy first.

 

How Many Surnames in Your Family Tree Database Sunday Morning Genealogy Fun

Randy Seaver over at Genea-Musings has a weekly blog meme called Saturday Night Genealogy Fun. I never tune in until Sunday morning, though, so I shifted it a bit. 😉 This week’s challenge is to determine the surname count in your family tree database.

I use Reunion for my genealogy database. There is a menu item under “List” for “Last Names.” It will create a table of all the surnames in the database. According to its tally, I have 4,805 unique last names in the database.

Reunion last names list

Some of those names actually represent alternate spellings—for instance Hocker vs. Hacker, the top two names, or Houdeshell vs. Howdyshell.

It also shows me I need to do some clean-up. When I started researching, I used ––?–– for unknown surnames. As I gained experience, I started using the (___) that is used in genealogy periodicals. Time to go back and fix that…

It also shows the earliest and latest date associated with records for a surname and how many people in the database with the surname are still living. The date fields are a little deceiving. I’m not quite sure what fields that information is from. Obviously, it includes more than just birth and death dates and also includes empty fields.

The top 25 surnames are:

  1. Hocker – 1851 people, starting in 1756
  2. Unknown [combining ––?–– and (___)] – 1536 people, starting about 1601
  3. Hacker – 860 people, starting in 1642
  4. Hoover – 379 people, starting about 1735
  5. Houdeshell – 371 people, starting about 1787
  6. Walker – 347 people, starting about 1747
  7. Wieder – 325 people, starting in 1721
  8. Stober – 284 people, starting in 1626
  9. Weidman – 276 people, starting about 1618
  10. Miller – 261 people, starting in 1775
  11. Howdyshell – 234 people, starting 1760
  12. Landis – 217 people, starting about 1666
  13. Smith – 193 people, starting 1766
  14. Askey – 186 people, starting about 1727
  15. Mulhollan – 152 people, starting about 1752
  16. Zimmerman – 150 people, starting about 1646
  17. Davis – 149 people, starting in 1721
  18. Shirk – 143 people, starting in 1711
  19. Klein – 142 people, starting in 1655
  20. Krauss – 138 people, starting in 1706
  21. Hershey – 134 people, starting about 1696
  22. Haushalter – 124 people, starting about 1620
  23. Mayes – 124 people, starting about 1753
  24. Long – 123 people, starting 1754
  25. Yeakel – 113 people, starting 1659

I’ve italicized my direct lines. Surprisingly, a number of the top 25 surnames in the database are for collateral lines.

How about you? What are your top surnames?

A Beautiful Circle A DNA Circle Happy Dance

If you’ve been following along with my research through the years, you know that I’ve spent a significant amount of time researching the Hoover family. I’ve been determined to identify the ancestry of my 3x great grandfather Christian Hoover.

I had located information that led me to believe he was the son of Philip and Hannah (Thomas) Hoover of Armstrong County and could trace the family back to an immigrant ancestor named Andreas Huber. Later I discovered that the connection I’d made between Philip’s grandfather George Huber and Andreas was incorrect. George was actually the son of the immigrant Michael Huber. But, while I could build a circumstantial case that Philip and Hannah were Christian’s parents, I didn’t have any direct evidence of the connection.

And then I took a DNA test.

DNA Circles

This spring I took a DNA test. I was mostly curious about what the results would be. I figured any proof I might get from DNA would come from Y-DNA tests on various male family members.

I found a lot of matches through Ancestry. Like 130 pages of DNA matches. It was totally overwhelming. Some of those matches shared their family tree, some didn’t. Some share ancestors, some share ancestral surnames, some I had no clue where we matched, and some I knew—even without a family tree—exactly who they were and how we were related. But while it’s all very interesting, I mostly haven’t learned anything new.

Then I made my family tree public so I could get DNA circles.

What are DNA circles?

According to Ancestry, they are “a great way to discover other members who are related to you through a common ancestor.” The Legal Genealogist has a great, simple explanation of DNA Circles. She does a great job of explaining what they mean—and what they don’t mean.

In order for a DNA circle to be created for you, several things need to happen. First, you have to have a public family tree. This applies to your DNA matches, too. If you have DNA matches through a common ancestor, but they either don’t have family trees at Ancestry or haven’t made their tree public… no DNA circle.

Two, you have to share a common ancestor in your public family trees and that common ancestor must be within six generations of you—a 4x great grandparent or closer. So, if you’re hoping to see a DNA circle for descendants of your 5x great grandfather, it’s not gonna happen. Furthermore, that common ancestor must be easily identifiable as being the same person. Significant differences in name, dates, etc. may nullify the connection—meaning no circle.

Three, you have to have a DNA match to at least two other people who also share the common ancestor within those same six generations in their public family tree. Oh, your relations—siblings and first cousins—all get lumped into a family group and count as a single person. So, those two other DNA matches must be at least second cousins.

So, after all those must haves in order to create a DNA circle, I actually have circles for Philip Hoover and Hannah Thomas among my matches! I can not tell you how happy that made me—you’ll just have to imagine the happy dance I did when they came up in my account.

Take a look at this diagram and I’ll explain how these matches work.

Philip Hoover DNA Circle

I have three DNA matches in this circle. AncestryDNA does not tell us whether or not we all share the same DNA segments. But each of us shares DNA with the other three matches.

Three of us are descendants of my 2x great grandfather Samuel Thomas Hoover and his wife Victoria Walker. Our great grandfathers were brothers. We are third cousins. The fourth person is a descendant of one of Philip and Hannah (Thomas) Hoover’s daughters. She is one generation closer to the couple, than the other three, so she is a 3x great granddaughter, while we are 4x great grandchildren.

The other two people in the circle do not share DNA with me or the other two descendants of Samuel and Victoria (Walker) Hoover. They only share DNA with the female descendant of Philip and Hannah.

Based on my research, Philip and Hannah (Thomas) Hoover had the following children:

  1. Christian Hoover (c1821-1 Oct 1887)
  2. Mary Ann Hoover (22 Nov 1825-?)
  3. John Thomas Hoover (4 Nov 1827-?)
  4. Margaret Hoover (c1831-?)
  5. Barbara Hoover (c1833-?)
  6. William Hoover (c1835-?)
  7. Jacob Hoover (8 Feb 1836-14 Sep 1909)
  8. Ralston Hoover (c1839-13 Jun 1862)
  9. Sarah Hoover (1 Jul 1842-8 Aug 1906)
  10. Samuel M. Hoover (c1845-?)

According to our family trees, the six persons in this DNA circle are descended through three of Philip and Hannah’s children: Christian (aka Christopher), Margaret, and Sarah. Christian’s descendants share matching DNA with Sarah’s descendant, but not Margaret’s descendants. Sarah and Margaret’s descendants also share DNA.

So does this prove that our Christian was the son of Philip and Hannah (Thomas) Hoover? Well…

I believe it does prove a biological connection between Christian and this family. It’s possible that he could be their eldest son. It’s also possible that Philip is his uncle or his cousin. The research I’ve done into this family provides enough circumstantial evidence to say the Christian is likely the son of Philip and Hannah, not a nephew. But I still have unknowns in prior generations, including two of Philip’s uncles. Without knowing exactly how our DNA matches, I can’t say anything for sure.

But, you know, I’ll take it. It’s one more data point that backs up my supposition that my 3x great grandfather was the son of Philip and Hannah (Thomas) Hoover. And I’ll keep looking for more. Until I find evidence proving otherwise, I’m going with it.