A Pennsylvania Dutch Genealogy

A Beautiful Circle A DNA Circle Happy Dance

Kris Hocker on 31 Aug 2016

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.

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:

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

Pirated?!

Kris Hocker on 22 Aug 2016

Disheartened. Found that someone pirated my ebooks and made them available online for free download.

Does the Spelling of a Name Really Matter? The Importance of Identifiers Beyond Name

Kris Hocker on 12 Aug 2016

Just how much does a surname’s spelling indicate familial relationships or lack thereof? I once had someone tell me that my Hockers of Dauphin County were not related to the Hackers of Lancaster County because the name was spelled differently—even though both spellings (and others) were used in documents in Lancaster County.

Fortunately, in this case, I was dealing with one family with its surname spelled multiple ways. By what happens when you have multiple surnames that all end up sharing the same spellings and misspellings? And when the families both live in the same general area in the same time period? And when they both use some of the same given names for their children?

A mess.

This is the case with my Weidman family. If you followed along with my posts on John Weidman’s pedigree, you got an insight into this with the question of who Mary Adams married—Christopher Witman or Christopher Weidman. The problem of deciphering between the families is not limited to marriage records, though.

It actually starts with the families’ arrival in Pennsylvania. Martin Weidman and his father are listed in Strassburger’s Pennsylvania German Pioneers as “Mathias Whiteman” and “Mathew Whiteman.”¹

Mathias and Martin as listed in ship’s list

Also with the family onboard the ship Elizabeth were Maria Catrina Whitman (aged 38), Margret Whiteman (aged 30), Johanes Whitman (aged 15), Eliza Whitman (aged 13 1/2), Christoffer Whiteman (aged 8), Mathias Whiteman (aged 6), Wendell Whiteman (aged 3 1/2), Elizabeth Whiteman, dead (aged 2).²

The consistency is off even within these records, varying between Whiteman and Whitman. Matthias’ signature, however, is more accurate. It appears to read “Wheidtman,” but is likely “Weidtman” as found in Gräben church records.³

Mathias Weidtman’s signature

The problem doesn’t get better in documents from later years either. Compare the following households in the 1758 tax assessment and tax return for Cocalico Township.

1758 Cocalico Township tax assessment

There are six Whitman/Whiteman men listed in the tax assessment: Christopher, George, John, Peter, Martin and Michael.

Now take a look at the tax return for the same year.

1758 Cocalico Township tax return

As you can see even in records from the same year, written by the same man, the names are spelled differently. Here there are both Weidman and Witman spellings used. Additionally, the “Peter Whitman” from the assessment is listed as “Peter Wittmer” in the return.

I found this to be true in most of the records I reviewed. In some, the spelling varied within the same document. In 1749, Christopher Witman sold land to William Adams. In the deed his surname is variously spelled as Weidman, Wheitman, Wittman, and Weitman.⁴ In the deed where Christopher purchased the land, his surname is Whittman.⁵ This is important because there were two men: “Christopher Weidman” and “Christopher Witman.” Knowing which one sold the land can be critical to getting the family research right.

The importance of consistent spelling—especially with surnames—is a fairly modern construct. People spelled words as they heard them. It wasn’t until the 1830s—at least here in the U.S.—when literacy became a mark of success and “gentility”—that spelling became at all important.⁶

It’s only by tracing these families through time, comparing multiple documents and matching tracts of land based on size, boundaries, location, and neighbors, and identifying children, spouses and associates linked to each family—often through multiple generations—that it’s possible to weed through the confusion and build an understanding of who’s who. Name alone just does not cut it.

What’s a Collection?

Kris Hocker on 9 Aug 2016

I started this site in order to share my genealogy research. When I started I often wrote up my findings on a specific ancestor as a biography and published it as a blog post.

These posts helped me clarify my understanding and interpretation of the research and identify areas for further research. In one particular instance, they led me to understand that problems I was having with the timeline for one family meant my conclusions were incorrect.

But since a blog is ordered by date, these posts became difficult to find fairly quickly. It also became difficult to determine what I’d already written about. And since I couldn’t quickly locate a bio, it was hard to know whether or not I needed to update a family’s information with new research I’d done.

When I redesigned the site, I decided to consolidate them in one area and to call it “collections.” A collection is basically… well, a collection of biographies associated with a particular family, surname, subject, or location. That’s it.

Take a look and see if I’ve covered something you’d be interested in. And if you have a suggestion of what—or who—you’d like to see covered, drop me a line and let me know.

It’s a Really Small World

Kris Hocker on 8 Jul 2016

I’ve recently joined the genetic genealogy club. Mom and I both had our DNA tested through Ancestry DNA. My results just came in. You know how the television commercials show someone making a surprise discovery through their DNA? Surprise, you’re not German, you’re Scottish.

Yeah, my results weren’t anything like that.

Instead, I found out I’m pretty much who I thought I was—genetically speaking—an American of Western European descent. In fact, according to Ancestry, I’m even more Western European than the typical native Western European! I’m 63% Western European, compared to an average of 48%. I’m also 16% Irish, 5% Scandinavian, 11% trace European regions (Iberian Peninsula, Great Britain, Italy/Greece, and European Jewish), 5% West Asian (Caucasus), and 1% South Asian (India). So, 95% European mutt with a little Asian blood thrown in way back.

None of this surprises me. Most of my relatives are of German-descent, including those from Alsace-Lorraine and Switzerland. The rest are from Scotland, Ireland, and Wales—regions reflected in my DNA as Irish and Scandinavian.

Cousins

The surprise came through examining my cousin matches. It seems like there were an awful lot of them! Some of them I even know how we’re related. I had five third cousin matches, including matches from the Hockers, Wieders, and Houdeshells. The rest were fourth-sixth cousins, meaning a common ancestor five or more generations back.

The surprise came in finding out that I match two of my third cousins (siblings) through three of my grandparents! Our match is closest through the Hockers—Albert Curtin and Lillian (Leedy) Hocker. This couple are our great great grandparents. So, we’re third cousins. Our grandfathers knew each other and spent summers visiting their grandparents on the farm in Cumberland County.

But these cousins also match me on the other side of the family! If I go back through my Wieder ancestors through the female line to Abraham and Anna Sibilla (Fuchs) Herb. We descend from their daughters Anna Margaretha (Herb) Bobb and Catharine (Herb) Fronheiser.

And we’re likely related through my ancestor George Heilig whose daughter Eva Elisabetha married Johann Jacob Kline. I’m not sure of the connection, but we both have Heiligs who lived in proximity to one another in our trees.

Furthermore, we match going back through my Hoover family, through Walker, Eckley and Mayes ancestors to the Dotterer family. Catharine Margaret Fetzer, daughter of Andrew and Magdalena (Dotterer) Fetzer, married Andrew Walker about 1791. They settled in Boggs Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania. I descend through their son, John who married Mary Lucas and had a daughter Catharine who married John Eckley, and two of their daughters: Catharine, who married George M. Walker, and Mary Ann who married John Mayes Jr.

It’s a really, really small world.

Encephalitis Lethargica A Mysterious “Sleepy Sickness" that Killed Millions

Kris Hocker on 5 Jul 2016

Recently I’ve been discussing encephalitis lethargica with a family member who contacted me. Her ancestor, Krehl Samuel Hocker, died of the illness back in the 1930s. But, like most people, she had never heard of it.

What is Encephalitis Lethargica?

In the wake of the influenza epidemic of the early twentieth century, another mysterious illness swept ‘round the world. Between 1915 and 1926, more than five million people took ill with the disease.¹ Nearly a third of those stricken died. Those who survived were never the same. Despite all this, most people have never heard of it.

It started with a high fever, sore throat and headache. As it progressed, patients also experienced lethargy, double vision, tremors and strange body movements, and sometimes violent behavior or psychosis. Symptoms rapidly worsened and doctors were at a loss on what to do.

Some patients improved only to devolve into convulsions and paralysis. These patients were left in a motionless and speechless state, aware and reactive to outside stimulus, but unable to act on their own, living but not really alive. Survivors often ended up in comas, sometimes indefinitely.

What Causes It?

For 70 years, the medical establishment has considered the illness a “medical mystery.” Because it hit so soon after the Spanish Flu, many believed that it may have been related. However, doctors found no evidence of the flu in the brain tissue of it’s victims.

In recent years, however, there have been new patients identified who have been diagnosed with the disease. In studying it’s progression in those patients, doctors found that all the cases started with a sore throat. Further testing showed evidence of a rare form of streptococcus bacteria in all the patients. Additionally, in studying the case records from the earlier epidemic doctors found that not only did the patients present with a sore throat, but there was evidence of diplococcus, a form of streptococcus, involvement.

The thinking now is that encephalitis lethargica is the result of an autoimmune reaction to a bacterial infection—most likely a form of streptococcus. The immune system goes into overdrive and attacks normal cells in the brain, causing brain inflammation, which ultimately results in the wide-range of symptoms experienced by patients.

Our Connection

Two of our Hockers died of this disease.

Krehl Hocker, son of Albert C. and Lillian A. (Leedy) Hocker, was a relatively young man in 1930, just 45 years-old. The only member of his family to go to college, he was living and working in Philadelphia as a chemist.² He’d been married only twelve years and had two young children: Robert, aged ten, and Elizabeth, aged eight. At some point that year, he contracted encephalitis lethargica. Partially paralyzed, he was sick and bedridden for what remained of his life. He died of the disease at home on 7 July 1935.³

Incredibly, he was perhaps the more fortunate of the two.

Laurence Stokes, son of Joseph B. and Emma Matilda (Hocker) Stokes, was also a young man. Born 29 January 1890, he was only 38 years-old when he contracted the disease in 1928.⁴ He was living and working in Philadelphia as a shoemaker at a factory.⁵ Unlike Krehl, he was institutionalized after he became ill.⁶

Without his medical records, it’s impossible to know what exact symptoms he experienced that led to him being confined. Some of the reports from the time are truly terrible. But we can hypothesize that whatever his symptoms, he either couldn’t be cared for in a home environment or had no one to take care of him. He died at the Philadelphia Hospital for Mental Illnesses on 31 March 1932.⁷

Disease affected our ancestors in large ways and in small. In this case, a largely unknown disease affected the lives of two of our Hockers and their families in a profound and painful way.

Shaking Those Little Leafs What I've Learned Using Ancestry's Family Trees

Kris Hocker on 2 Jul 2016

I recently decided to have my DNA tested at Ancestry. Since you really can’t get anything worthwhile out of it without being able to compare family trees with your match, I decided to go ahead build a tree at Ancestry.

While testing my DNA was the main driver, I was also hoping to get help finding records for some of those ancestors that I haven’t done much research on. By the time you get more than a couple of generations back, there are so many ancestors to research, it’s hard to keep up. A little assistance would be appreciated.

Ancestry Hints And for some ancestors, this is what has happened. Ancestry’s shaking leafs have shown me records that I don’t have. And helped me learn more about them. For the most part, however, it’s shown me records that I already have or would have easily located by doing a basic search for that ancestor.

It’s also mostly showing me records after I’ve entered information about my ancestor. Dates, places, relatives. The point when you really need help, however, is when you really don’t know that stuff.

For instance, I’ve seen no hints for baptismal records appear for an ancestor until after I’ve entered the parents names. When you don’t know the parents’ names, that’s when you need the most help, right? So, the shaky leaves are good at finding records mostly for what I already know? Where’s the help in that?

The second thing I’ve learned is that it is so easy to be overwhelmed by hints. Some are good matches, but a lot aren’t. German clues are kinda useless when I only have the US plan. And do I really need to go through the ten copies of the same gravestone image that other people have attached to this ancestor? Especially, if the image was originally from this site! (Yeah, that’s happened.)

Perhaps I’d be more enamored with the shaking leafs if I were just beginning. If I were just starting my tree with only knowledge of my parents and grandparents, I think it would be much more useful. Recent census records alone would help to identify prior generations. But my holes are in the early 1800s and 1700s. Records for those periods are 1) less likely to be online and 2) harder to find due to spelling inconsistencies for almost any given surname.

Maybe I should’ve known better. I’ve been at this long enough to know it’s not as easy as the Ancestry commercials make it look.

Wish list

If I could create a wishlist for Ancestry’s hints, I’d really like the ability to specify the types of hints I’d like to see. I can limit my search to only historical records. Why can’t I set preferences for my tree to do the same with hints? After all, it’s performing the same function and I can already filter the hints after the fact. Why can’t I do it before the search is performed?

It would also be kinda cool to be able to limit the hints to family lines, only direct ancestors, etc. I understand the value of researching collateral lines; I do it all the time myself. But do I really want to see hints for my first cousin 4x removed’s husband’s parents? When what I really want to know is who are the parents of my 4x great grandfather? Not so much.

Tuesday Tip: Beware Indexing Errors Ancestry's Index of Early Emanuel Lutheran Baptismal Records

Kris Hocker on 28 Jun 2016

I’ve been using the Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Church and Town Records, 1708-1985 to locate records for my ancestors. I keep running into the same error in the index for some of these records—specifically the early baptismal records for Emanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church, also known as the Warwick Congregation in the 18th century.

Here’s an example from my Hacker family:

Adam Hacker family baptisms

At the top of the page, you have “Joann Adam Hacker,” the name of the head of the family. Beneath his name is a list of his children that were baptized at the Warwick congregation, their birthdates, and for two of the children, their baptismal dates, as well.

The problem with these entries is found in the way they are indexed. Each of these children were indexed on Ancestry using the surname of their sponsor. For instance, Fridrich was indexed as “Fridrich Weidman” with “Wendel Wiedman” listed as his father. This is incorrect. I’ve added the correct surnames to the entries, but their baptisms do not show up in search results using the correct surname.

Fridrich Hacker index entry

I don’t know if other records in the collection have this issue; it depends, I would guess, on the format used in the original source. Early records from the Warwick congregation listed baptisms with the children grouped and listed under their father’s name. For some reason the indexers did not understand this format—or that a sponsor, as listed, was not the parent.

This problem is not just limited to my family, but to all baptisms at Emanuel Lutheran through about 1772. The last entry that used this format was that of Susannah, daughter of Henrich Dieterich and his wife Christina. She is listed in the index as “Susannah Süss.”

This is another example of why it’s so important to not stop at the index. If a record should be there, make sure you page through the images before you give up. You might be thrilled by what you find.

Friday Find: Cumberland County Deed Indices Doing the Genealogy Happy Dance

Kris Hocker on 24 Jun 2016

I went looking to rent some films from FamilySearch for some research I’m doing. I discovered that images from the very films I need are available online!

Each of those camera icons indicate that that particular microfilm is available for online viewing.

Although the images aren’t indexed, they’re no more difficult to use than the microfilm would be. And, oh, it’s so much more convenient to be able to instantly use them at home!

Happy happy, joy joy joy.

John Weidman (1756-1830) Continued Was He Christopher Weidman's Son?

Kris Hocker on 21 Jun 2016

In my last post, I posited that John Weidman (1756-1830) could have been the son of Christopher³ Weidman (Martin², Mathias¹), but wasn’t the son of a member of President Buchanan’s direct family. Can we prove that he was (or wasn’t) the son of Christopher?

Christopher Weidman wrote his last will and testament on 20 March 1777. He names his “beloved wife Anna Maria,” his daughters Anna Maria and Catharine, and his sons “Christophel Weidman & John Weidman.”¹ He bequeathed his sons all the personal and real estate that he owned that he hadn’t specifically left to his wife and daughters. He also named his sons as his executors. On 10 December 1794, Christopher and John Weidman received Letters Testamentary on Christopher Sr.’s estate.

Christopher Jr. and his wife Eva sold 95 acres 30 perches of land from her father Wendel Horning’s estate to John Weidman on 20 May 1792.² At the time, Christopher was of Cocalico Township and John was of Warwick Township. Apparently, John sold the land sometime before 1 April 1797, because John Bricker used it as collateral for a mortgage from John Weidman “of the Town of Lebanon” on that date.³ John Bricker was the son of Christian and Barbara (Kissinger?) Brücher. Barbara was Christopher Sr.’s second wife.

On 21 December 1798, Christopher Striegel and his wife Catharine, Christopher’s daughter, sold to “John Weidman of the Town and Township of Lebanon” all their right and title to three tracts of land that Christopher Sr. had owned at the time of his death.⁴

On 20 February 1826, John Weidman “of East Hanover Township in the County of Lebanon” quitclaimed his half share of his father’s land to Michael Schebler of Cocalico Township.⁵ This deed specifically names John as one of the sons of Christopher Sr. It also mentions both of Christopher’s daughters: Catharine, wife of Christopher Striegel, and Anna Maria, wife of Abraham Forney, and states that Christopher Sr.’s widow was now deceased.

According to this deed, Christopher Jr. petitioned the Orphans Court to hold his father’s land and they granted it to him for £1,854. He was to pay the other heirs their shares of this amount. It appears however, that he didn’t. So the other heirs sold their shares of the estate. As reported above, Catharine and her husband Christopher sold their share to her brother John in 1798 when they were living in Virginia. Anna Maria and her husband Abraham sold their share to Michael Schebler on 3 April 1820.⁶ Six years later, John also sold his shares to Michael Schebler. Christopher Jr. died 4 December 1824.⁷ His administrators, sons Henry and William Weidman, sold his share of his father’s lands to Michael Schebler, through his assignee Samuel Eberle.⁸

John Weidman of Union Forge, Lebanon County wrote his last will and testament on 6 June 1830.⁹ He names his wife Elizabeth, son Jacob B. Weidman, daughter Elizabeth wife of Rev. Daniel Ulrich, daughter Maria wife of Dr. John Mish. These children are consistent with the John Weidman Esq. who served in the Revolutionary War.¹⁰

Since John’s wife Catharine died in 1794, Elizabeth was presumably a later wife.¹¹ John makes specific mention of his “wife’s house, stable and fences, situate in the Borough of Lebanon, and which she still owns as her own property.”¹² This indicates to me that she may have been living there at one time, that perhaps that was where they met and married. After Catharine’s death in 1794, John would have had three, possibly four young children. During this time period, most widowers in that situation would have remarried within a couple of years—when John was known to be of Lebanon Borough (see below).

Looking at a timeline for John Weidman, son of Christopher, from these documents, we get:

20 May 1792: of Warwick Township (Lancaster County)
1 Apr 1797: of Lebanon Borough (Dauphin County)
21 Dec 1798: of Lebanon Borough (Dauphin County)
20 Feb 1826: of East Hanover Township (Lebanon County)
6 Jun 1830: of Union Forge (East Hanover Township, Lebanon County)

We can add more by looking at census records.

1793: Warwick Township (Lancaster County)¹³
4 Aug 1800: East Hanover Township (Lebanon County)¹⁴
6 Aug 1810: East Hanover Township (Lebanon County)¹⁵
7 August 1820: [East] Hanover Township (Lebanon County)¹⁶
1 Jun 1830: [East] Hanover Township (Lebanon County)¹⁷

While the deeds pretty much identify John Weidman of East Hanover Township as the son of Christopher Weidman, the additional documents fill in the time between the deeds. Biographies of John’s descendants indicate that he served in the Revolutionary War.

So, I’m reasonably certain that the John Weidman who wrote his will in 1830 was the son of Christopher Weidman Sr. of Cocalico Township and a Revolutionary War veteran.