Charles Salter was my main focus in 2016

This post uses the Geneameme 2016 list as a border around which to reflect on my 2016 that was. In doing so my paddock is fenced by just a few of the suggested Geneameme 2016 talking points.
Ruth feels at home when she turns west onto the Hamilton Highway. I also feel the same tension disappear when I put city driving and drivers behind me. But for me the feeling of being safely home comes much later in my journey. That feeling of home doesn’t start until I have crossed the Paradise bridge. If it’s early in the night I look for home lights peeping through the plantation at the far corner of the Horse Paddock. But on I go. It’s when I turn right at Campbell’s Paddock that I feel a sense of home.
It may appear that I may have done little in 2016. Yet I have travelled in time to Campbell’s Paddock. It may seem that the year was full of obstacles, detours, Cheshire cats and afternoon tea parties. The reality is that not only 2016 but some of the preceding years have set the scene for 2017 quite nicely. Each year has over 360 days through which to travel before turning the corner at Campbell’s Paddock. It’s when my “driver reviver” reflection time starting at about day 360 that a year falls into place.
2016 wasn’t about laying any notable achievements on the table for all to see. 2016 was all about winding through the path that is my family history research. 2016 was about reviewing, planning and revisiting my research methodology and the tools I use. In this way 2016 was just another family history year. Nevertheless, there were a couple of highlights in 2016.

18 It was exciting to finally meet Clare and Mary.

Edith Learmonth (nee Salter) on the left and Agnes Salter (nee Skene) on the right.
Edith Learmonth (nee Salter) on the left and Agnes Salter (nee Skene) on the right.

It was coffees in one of Melbourne’s arcades that were the highlight of 2016. I met my Salter cousin Clare first. Then I met our cousin Mary. I had heard a lot them from Aunt Agnes when she came to stay with my grandparents over the summer. It was delightful to meet Clare in person some forty years after listening to the stories Aunt Agnes used to tell. These meetings with relatives and listening to their stories is what I enjoy most about family history. 2016 was a double delight when I met another Salter cousin Mary and listened to her in amazement. Mary is following in the footsteps of our great grandfather Charles Salter. But until 2016 she wasn’t aware that she is doing so. Is that genes? Perhaps. More likely, it is the tradition of Christ’s Hospital that has filtered down the generations.

1 Some elusive ancestors I found were the Salter children in boarding school at census time

Mary’s visit caused me to review my research into my Salter ancestors. Charles Salter was at Christ’s Hospital at the time of the 1851 census. I have now found his missing siblings and cousins who weren’t home at census time. They were also away at school. Plotting their whereabouts on Google Maps gave a nice little snapshot of where they went.

10 A social media tool I enjoyed using for genealogy were closed Facebook groups

It’s sad that the potential of closed Facebook groups hasn’t captured more attention from family history researchers. Two closed Facebook groups I am enjoying are Amy Johnson Crow’s course 31 Days to Better Genealogy (for the second years) and the Genealogical Society of Victoria’s one for their GSV Writers Circle.
The planning I did in 2016 has set up 2017 with just four simple goals. Now to polish each those goals into smart genealogy goals.
I wonder how different my Geneameme 2017 will be?

Autosomal DNA and Probability

The general wisdom is that matches on autosomal DNA are only accurate for up to four or five generations (or to second cousins). Beyond this limit any matches that may occur probably occur by chance, not by inheritance. This is because there is always the probability that any match of any kind of 5% or less can be attributed to random chance and not to inheritance.
My purpose here is to suggest that, by referring to our traditional written family history research and by careful planning our DNA tests, we may be able to identify matches way beyond our great grandparents and our second cousins.

My Ancestors
My Ancestors

I have two parents. It is expected that I receive half or 50% of my autosomal DNA from my father and half from my mother. This seems to be an acceptable proposition.
I have four grandparents. It is expected that I receive one quarter or 25% of my autosomal DNA from each of my grandparents. That is, it is expected that I received 25% from my grandfather Bert Baulch, 25% from my grandmother Annie Abbey, 25% from my grandfather Noel Learmonth and 25% from my grandmother Edith Salter.
I have eight great grandparents. It is expected that I received one eighth or 12.5% of my autosomal DNA from each of my eight great grandparents.
At the fifth generation it is expected that I received one sixteenth or 6.25% of my autosomal DNA from each of my two great grandparents. Can the expected values for receiving autosomal DNA from my two greats grandparents definitely be attributed to inheritance? After all, the upper mark of 5% which is used to indicate matches that may be wholly attributed to chance is not all that far removed from the 6.25% that may be attributable to inheritance from one of my two greats grandparents.
Now none of my direct ancestors are alive and so aren’t available for DNA testing. I have to rely upon my siblings and upon my cousins. The expected values of a match on autosomal DNA tests for my ancestors, siblings and cousins can be summarised in tabular form as follows:
The expected value of sharing autosomal DNA with one of my siblings is 50%. I actually share 38% autosomal DNA with one of my brothers. The expected value for shared autosomal DNA with any one of my first cousins once removed is 6.25%. I actually share 7.3% autosomal DNA with one first cousin once removed and 5.4% with another.
Should actual values that differ from expected values be cause for concern? Absolutely not!
However, rather than accepting the relationship for any autosomal DNA match by a testing company as being set in stone, I do believe that my written genealogy confirms the autosomal DNA match result. Equally, the autosomal DNA match is a further independent source that may substantiate my written genealogy. The two are not separate but dependent one upon the other.
The methodology for calculating the likelihood of what autosomal DNA we are expected to have should be familiar to us all.
Consider tossing a coin. The first toss may be heads. The probability of the second toss being heads is still 50%. Even if the second toss is heads the probability of the third toss being heads is still 50%. Thus in a small population of 3 tosses the result of three heads doesn’t indicate that a double headed coin is being used. However, if the result still remains heads after hundreds or thousands of tosses I might be inclined to check whether the coin is biased in some way. According to Bernoulli’s theorem, the more a coin is tossed the more likely it is that the actual value of the number of times a head is tossed approaches the expected value of 50%.
Now consider throwing a die or dice. The first toss may be a 4. The probability of throwing a 4 is one sixth. Indeed for an unbiased die the probability of throwing one of the six numbers is always one sixth irrespective of the previous throws. For a short number of throws there may be a run on a particular number but this in no way alters the probability for the next throw of the die. For each number that probability is one sixth. As for the coin toss, over hundreds and thousands of throws of the die the actual value over all of these throws will approach the expected probability of one sixth for each of the six numbers on the die.
This method of calculating expected values for the toss of a coin and the throw of a die can be applied to the passing of autosomal DNA from two parents to a child. The options for a toss of a coin are either heads or tails. The options for the throw of a die are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6. The options for a child are that the child receives its autosomal DNA half from its father and half from its mother. As for the coin and as for the die the actual value of autosomal DNA received in the short term may differ from the expected value. As for the coin and as for the die over millions and indeed billions of generations the actual value of autosomal DNA a child receives from its parents will approach the expected value of 50% from its father and 50% from its mother.
But is this so? What is it that Family Tree DNA and AncestryDNA testing with respect to autosomal DNA? Is there an equal chance of this autosomal DNA information coming from one parent as from the other parent? Let’s start by looking at DNA in the whole cell before focusing on autosomal DNA.
Each cell in our body contains DNA. In the cell proper DNA can be found in the mitochondria. This DNA is known as mitochondrial DNA. DNA is also found in the cell nucleus which contains 23 pairs of chromosomes each containing DNA. The 23rd pair is known as pair of the sex chromosomes. The 23rd pair for men is made up of one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. Women have 2 X chromosomes.  The first 22 pairs of chromosomes are known as autosomes. Autosomes contain autosomal DNA.

Cell with nucleus and mitochondria
Cell with nucleus and mitochondria

In a search for genealogical DNA the testing companies test in excess of 700,000 markers on the “junk” DNA portion of our autosomal chromosomes. These markers are the sites of single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs (pronounced snips). A person’s autosomal SNPs can be identified and compared another person’s autosomal SNPs.
Apart from identical twins, each of us is unique. We see this as we walk down the street or glance around a football crowd at the MCG. It is easy, therefore, to apply the law of large numbers as discussed above to the more than 700, 000 SNPs. To me 700,000 seems to be a large number. Surely, for each marker or SNP there is a 50% chance that I inherited that SNP from my father and a 50% chance that I inherited that SNP from my mother. Surely, as with the coin and the die, I had an equal chance of receiving each marker independent of the previous marker and the marker following.
There are two difficulties with this assumption.
Firstly, autosomal DNA tests are not able to distinguish which markers I inherited from my father and which I inherited from my mother.
Secondly, if the first wasn’t a knockout blow, the markers are set out on a strand of DNA. Unlike each toss of a coin or each throw of a die, whether or not I inherit a marker from my father or from my mother is not independent of who I inherited the previous marker from or who I inherited the next marker from. That is, the 700,000 SNPs are linked along the DNA strand. For example, the autosomal DNA I share with my brother on chromosome 3 and which we must have inherited from our father or our mother or a combination of both occurs along most of the chromosome.

Chromosome 3
Chromosome 3

Now we don’t match along the whole of chromosome 3 but where we do match it is mostly in one long strand. Indeed, the longer the strand we share the more closely is our predicted relationship.
Consider a little. This phenomenon of linked markers has helped me detect relationships beyond those predicted by chance – beyond our great grandparents and our second cousins. For example, I have confirmed a relationship with a third cousin twice removed as well as – wait for this – a sixth cousin twice removed! These results are quite beyond my great grandparents and second cousins (that is second cousins without any removes).
DNA testing for family historians is still in its infancy. The databases of results are still very small. Nevertheless I think I can apply traditional genealogical research techniques to my DNA research:

  • DNA is no substitute for quality traditional genealogical research. Sad to say but true.
  • I have started my analysis with an autosomal DNA test and started with myself. Then I moved from my closer relations to my more distant relations.
  • I have tried to optimise my chances of detecting matches by including a family tree of my ancestors and of the names of my ancestors were possible.
  • I have uploaded my information to Gedmatch as some family have tested on Family Tree DNA and some on AncestryDNA. My challenge now is to encourage our family to also share their results by uploading to Gedmatch ( especially those who have tested with AncestryDNA for AncestryDNA has no facility to examine results  (for those who tested with AncestryDNA go to Settings and download the raw DNA data. Create a Gedmatch account and follow the instructions for uploading to Gedmatch. BE WARNED! These raw files are very, very large and take quite some to download and upload).
  • It will involve some of that boring work that doesn’t seem to yield any exciting results but I suspect that it may be worthwhile in the long term to examine my results down to the 1centiMorgan level and by each chromosome. I see this as akin to searching through parish registers or census results.

Canberra Congress – Emigration

The gate by the milking shed was left open. So just for a few days my horizons have changed from looking at land selection records in South Western Victoria – mostly within the triangle Portland, Hamilton and Warrnambool for that is where my ancestors settled.
The vista and the beckoning horizons were set there right in the opening address – by the story woven and told by Dr Mathew Trinca of the National Museum. From the keeper of Phar Lap’s heart no less. The tone and his example has been set for the rest of the Congress.
I have found a couple of themes to follow when possible.
It certainly is time to revisit the emigration stories of my ancestors who came to the colonies like Brown’s cows starting with Robert Ralston’s emigration scout, his niece and my first cousin four times removed, Agnes McClymont in 1823 and finishing with the emigration of my great grandfather Charles Salter fifty years later.
As I listened to Simon Fowler and Roger Kershaw and the voice at the back of the lecture room, I see that there is no avoiding it as I have been for the past decade or so. The circumstances of leaving is not common across them all. They are peculiar to each emigration journey and each deserves to have their story told.
That is, in the flavour of Thomas MacEntee’s Genealogy Do Over, I should set aside what I have done so far and start again. This time considering the factors that caused them to emigrate. Was it just for the sense of adventure? Were they driven out, as was William Lord of Kilmuckridge in County Wexford, by difficulties with their landlords? And I am sure that William Newman’s journey from Westminster is still out there to be found.
Kerry Farmer’s two presentations on DNA were absolutely first class. I have been looking for ways to describe simply the results of an mtDNA search I requested. The presentation of Day 1 was spot on. But then I got completely confused on yesterday. I think, Thomas MacEntee, that these two sessions in particular require to be itemised separately in my further education!
And it is fortunate that we have a four generations chart of Charles Baulch’s descendants. I can see it will be much consulted as more Baulch cousins undertake DNA testing The chart finishes at the end of autosomal DNA searches so will be a good confirming link into further Baulch connections. Well at least I hope so.
But the land selection records never go away. My first discussion yesterday wasn’t about my genealogy software tool, Legacy Family Tree but about land selection around Tarrington (just south of Hamilton). Sure, some of the answers lie in government land records. But one of the best ways to begin is with the local paper, the Hamilton Spectator. Won’t it be great when the Spectator will be finally up there on Trove?

Assisted Emigration

Here I am in Canberra for the 14th Australasian Congress on Genealogy and Heraldry. For those of you also attending, particularly if you are users of Legacy Family Tree software, do stop at the VicGUM stand and say hello.

Here at the Congress I am particularly looking forward to Day 1, Session 1 Simon Fowler’s session Shovelling out paupers: researching assisted emigration in English archives.

I have a handful of ancestors who were able to come to the Australian colonies because of assistance received from the government (mostly) or privately (one or two). Each have their own stories but I view their journey mostly from the prevailing conditions in the colonies and their experiences once they got here. Not from the point of view of the government who made it possible.

The most notable emigrants were my two greats grandparents Francis Baulch and his wife Ann Bowles. They, with their families, emigrated as bounty migrants arriving in Tasmania in 1842. Francis came with his brothers Charles and Enoch Baulch. Also aboard was Charles Bartlett and his family. Francis Baulch and Charles Baulch were granted funds by the Pitney, Somerset churchwardens to help them prepare for emigration. It was the Tasmanian landowners who sent Henry Dowling to select suitable agricultural labourers. It was as agricultural labourers that they later found success around Tower Hill in south western Victoria – when the labour there left for the goldfields in the early 1850s.

It is a no brainer as to why Lazarus Watts left his employment as a young chimney sweep in Nottingham after his mother died in 1858. He came with his sister Lydia and his brother in law William Porter. Both men found work in the goldfields – William as a shoemaker and Lazarus as a sawyer.

Similarly, Thomas Wild would have found his trade of blacksmithing useful in the Victorian colonies. But less so his brother in law, and my two greats grandfather, Brian Abbey a weaver from Elland, Yorkshire. He initially found work as a colporteur.

Which leads to a question. What part did religion play in the emigration of these families? Was it mere coincidence that couples may have met as part of the Methodist Church or did the Methodist Church play a more significant part in the lives of these very poor people?

Enabling my ancestors wasn’t confined to government assistance at the time of emigration. Following the death of his father my great grandfather Charles Salter was sponsored as a pupil of Christ’s Hospital Blue Coat School. This subsequently led to his employment with Royal Insurance Co initially in England but after 1873 in Melbourne where he spent the rest of his working life still with Royal Insurance.

Charles Salter’s experience as a beneficiary of private philanthropy has me wondering about the means by which my two greats grandfather William Newman may have emigrated to Victoria to marry Ann Cathcart, an Eliza Caroline Irish orphan, in November 1852. At the time of the 1851 England Census William was a lodger at the New Model Lodging House in Westminster and his sister Emma was a pupil at the Grey Coat Hospital School nearby. Did he receive government assistance to emigrate or was he the recipient of some private emigration scheme that helped him, and his sister, following the death of their parents?

Even after all these years of doing family history research it seems that I have only looked at the tip of the iceberg. Understanding the circumstances from which my ancestors came also includes understanding how they were able to, or were encouraged to, take advantage of, in particular, government emigration schemes.

Let the Congress begin.