Author: Colleen Greene

#52Ancestors: 2nd Great-Grandfather William Alexander McNamara, First DNA-Identified McNamara Ancestor

William Alexander McNamara

My 18th entry in Amy Johnson Crow’s “52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks” family history blogging challenge for 2015.

The challenge: have one blog post each week devoted to a specific ancestor. It could be a story, a biography, a photograph, an outline of a research problem — anything that focuses on one ancestor.

Amy’s 2015 version of this challenge focuses on a different theme each week.

The theme for week 18 is – Where There’s a Will: Do you have an ancestor who left an interesting will? Have you used a will to solve a problem? Or, what ancestor showed a lot of will in his or her actions?

My 18th ancestor is my husband Jeff’s 2nd great-grandfather, William Alexander McNamara (1860-1929).

My research time this week has been on DNA analysis, or on the people and lines I can incorporate into the homework for my Boston University Certificate Program in Genealogical Research. I just don’t have the extra time to get more creative with my 52 Ancestors picks, so… for the “will” theme, I am going with a William who ties into my current DNA research.

About William Alexander

William Alexander McNamara has been on my radar for a handful of years, but I have not spent any significant time on the McNamara line. What I have found thus far, has been from low-hanging fruit–aside from research I did for the profile I wrote last year on his father, William Jewett McNamara. However, activity in our DNA matches has prompted me to take a closer look at William Alexander.

William Alexander McNamara was allegedly born 29 November 1860, in the new state of Oregon, to William Jewett McNamara (1834-1911) and Anna Mary Chope (1846-1917). I say allegedly, because I have not yet found or even looked for a birth record yet. William was the oldest of seven children I have identified for the couple.

He appears to have been married at least three times, with the first marriage to my husband’s 2nd great-grandmother, Hester Hemphill (1863-1941).

First DNA Match

Jeff’s paternal aunt (Aunt Greene) took both a mitochondrial DNA test and an autosomal DNA test for us back in March. The autosomal results were processed last month according to my standard procedure: testing with AncestryDNA, then transferring the raw data to GEDMatch, and finally to Family Tree DNA (FTDNA). Within a few days of FTDNA processing the transfer and matches, I received an email from one of Aunt Greene’s matches (we’ll call her Cousin McNamara) asking if I might be the daughter of Aunt Greene, whom she has met, and with whom she occasionally corresponds about McNamara family history. I explained my relationship to Aunt Greene, and Cousin McNamara walked me backwards through her own family tree steering me towards who she already knew was our first common ancestor.

My husband Jeff should also in theory come up as a match to Cousin McNamara, but with less shared DNA being one further generation down the tree. However, FTDNA has not yet finished processing his autosomal transfer from AncestryDNA.

Identifying Our Most Recent Common Ancestor

Cousin McNamara and Aunt Greene’s mother (my husband’s paternal grandmother, Jean Alice Harless) had the same grandfather, William Alexander McNamara. Cousin McNamara and Grandmother Harless, however, did not have the same grandmothers. These two lines were born to two different wives. This makes Aunt Greene and Cousin McNamara half-first cousins once removed.

Our paper trails and family trees indicate that William Alexander McNamara is their Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA). Descending from different maternal lines, Aunt Pat and Cousin McNamara do not share a common female ancestor through William Alexander (his mother would be their first female MRCA candidate). William Alexander alone is the first ancestor Aunt Pat and Cousin McNamara have in common — hence, their MRCA.

William Alexander McNamara, MRCA
Showing the relationship between Aunt Greene and Cousin McNamara, and to their Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA). I like to draw up these rough relationship charts (nothing fancy, just a Word doc) for my research and analysis notes.

[contentblock id=48 img=html.png]

Estimated vs. Known Relationship

Having the benefit of knowing their confirmed DNA connection, paper trail relationship, and MRCA, I took a closer look at FTDNA’s estimated relationship between the two based upon their shared DNA. With 141.64 shared Centimorgans (cM), FTDNA projected a 2nd to 3rd cousin relationship (noted in blue below). The actual relationship is flagged in red.

I should point out that I did not manually type the known relationship (noted in red below) into my kit’s Family Finder match list. Family Finder does not allow us to manually enter these relationships; we have to use a pull-down menu of options. And “half” relationships (half siblings, half 1st cousins, half 2nd cousins, etc.) are not included in the menu options. So I had to go with the closes option — 1st cousins once removed. Hopefully FTDNA will provide more fine-tuned options in the future.

Half 1C1XR through William Alexander McNamara
Match listing in Family Tree DNA’s Family Finder. The estimated relationship is in blue, with the confirmed relationship in red.

See FTDNA’s Matches Page documentation to learn more about working with your matches list, and their Known Relationship Page documentation for more details on logging and tracking known relationships with your matches.

Chasing McNamara-Chope DNA

So… cool find and relationship confirmation! But, what now?

Time to chase that shared DNA!

Identifying William Alexander McNamara as their MRCA is just a start. We know that Aunt Greene and Cousin McNamara share DNA inherited from William Alexander, and therefore also from his own parents and his own ancestors. Ideally, we want to be able to identify which pieces of DNA they inherited from each of William Alexander’s parents and each of their ancestors.

Identifying Sizable Shared Segments

To being this long process, we have to first identify each separate chromosome segment on which Aunt Greene and Cousin McNamara match. Well, really, each matching segment of a decent length. Most genetic genealogists recommend analyzing matching segments of 7 cM or longer in length, primarily focusing on the largest matching segments. The ISOGG Wiki recommends segments of 15 cM or more, if one is trying to identify and establish a [previously unknown] genealogical connection. But since we already know the genealogical connection between Aunt Greene and Cousin McNamara, I am focusing on segments of 7 cM or more.

FTDNA’s Family Finder chromosome browser is essential for doing this with your FTDNA matches. By doing a chromosome browser comparison between Aunt Greene and Cousin McNamara, I can see exactly where they share the same DNA–by reviewing each chromosome, and noting which segments they have in common on each chromosome. The two following screenshots are different views of that shared chromosome data: the first one being a table view, the second being the actual visual chromosome browser view. Both show you every bit of DNA data they have in common, from tiny segments that probably won’t be much help, to larger segments on which I will want to focus first. The red arrows show those largest matching segments, the green arrows are smaller but are still within that recommended 7 cM threshold for comparisons and analysis.

MRCA William Alexander McNamara DNA Match 1
Table view of the segments shared between my husband’s aunt, and her first McNamara match. Our Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) is William Alexander McNamara. Family Tree DNA, Family Finder. [Profile name has been blanked out for privacy reasons.]
MRCA William Alexander McNamara DNA Match 1
Chromosome browser view of the segments shared between my husband’s aunt, and her first McNamara match. Our Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) is William Alexander McNamara. Family Tree DNA Family Finder. [Profile names have been blanked out for privacy reasons.]
See FTDNA’s Chromosome Browser Page help documentation, and watch their archived webinar to learn more about working with matches in your chromosome browser.

Identifying McNamara vs Chope DNA

In order to start identifying which segments of Aunt Greene and Cousin McNamara’s shared DNA come from their MRCA William Alexander’s paternal McNamara line and which come from his maternal Chope line, we have to find more cousins to test. And we want to test cousins who ONLY descend from ONE of these two lines: a McNamara-line-only cousin (who is not also a descendant of William Alexander’s mother), and/or a Chope-line-only cousin (who is not also a descendant of William Alexander’s father).

This means finding and testing cousins from at least one generation further back in our trees, with whom we share an earlier MRCA.

I also need further verification on these DNA segments shared with Cousin McNamara–that they are indeed inherited from our MRCA William Alexander McNamara. This one-to-one comparison between Aunt Greene and Cousin McNamara and knowing their identified MRCA through our genealogical paper trail and trees isn’t sufficient evidence that these shared segments of DNA are all actually inherited from William Alexander. We need an additional step.

But, that process will be covered in future posts.

How Can this Help?

While it is fun to simply learn about and play with autosomal DNA, I do not have unlimited spare time or money to justify the expenses and time simply for the fun of it. Like all genealogy research and expenses and time, there needs to be a point (beyond lifelong continuous learning) to my efforts. These efforts need to help me answer questions about our family history, and need to help me verify (confirm or refute) facts about our family history.

Finding McNamara vs. Chope Clues

So what exactly are the benefits of including DNA analysis in my research?

  • The ability to prove or disprove a genetic relationship with known relationships.
  • The ability to identify additional previously unknown cousins who might be able to help me grow my own tree and break through brick walls, by identifying new ancestors and collateral relationships.
  • The ability to identify new cousins with an interest in the same family lines, with whom I can collaborate on researching our common lines.

Source List

#52Ancestors: 2nd Great-Uncle Juvenal Joseph Nieto, Trying to Prosper Amid WWI Butte Mining Town Turmoil

During World War I there were three registrations. The first, on June 5, 1917, was for all men between the ages of 21 and 31. The second, on June 5, 1918, registered those who attained age 21 after June 5, 1917. (A supplemental registration was held on August 24, 1918, for those becoming 21 years old after June 5, 1918. This was included in the second registration.) The third registration was held on September 12, 1918, for men age 18 through 45.

My 17th entry in Amy Johnson Crow’s “52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks” family history blogging challenge for 2015.

The challenge: have one blog post each week devoted to a specific ancestor. It could be a story, a biography, a photograph, an outline of a research problem — anything that focuses on one ancestor.

Amy’s 2015 version of this challenge focuses on a different theme each week.

The theme for week 17 is – Prosper. Which ancestor has a rags-to-riches story? Which ancestor prospered despite the odds?

My 17th  ancestor is my 2nd great-uncle, Juvenal Joseph Nieto (1898-1978).

Uncle Juvenal came to the U.S., I imagine, like so many other young immigrants, with the hope of prospering — of building a new life, of making a better life for his parents and siblings, of starting a family of his own. My branch of the family says that our Compean / Sanches / Nieto / Robledo family lost everything in the Mexican Revolution. Juvenal came looking for work, for a new start.

About Juvenal

I never knew Juvenal, nor do I recall ever hearing his name growing up. But his sister Maria Hermalinda Nieto (my great-grandmother Nana) died when I was just a toddler, and Juvenal died when I was just 8 years old. I didn’t even know OF a Juvenal until I found him living with our extended family in Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California on the 1920 U.S. Census. So his name became one I regularly searched, in hopes of finding records pertaining to my Nieto family line.

Juvenal Joseph Nieto was born in 1898 Mexico. I do not yet know the actual date, as I have not found his Mexico baptism or civil registration record of birth. Juvenal’s WWI draft registration claims he was born 15 February 1898, but his death certificate claims 27 March 1898. Both simply indicate Mexico as his place of birth, although it is very likely that he was born — like so many of his family members for generations — in or near the municipality of Armadillo de los Infante, in the state of San Luis Potosi, Mexico.

Montana

I first found Juvenal’s World War I draft registration card in 2003, when it repeatedly came up in searches I conducted on Ancestry. But I initially ignored that hit, because it listed a Montana residence for my 2nd great uncle Juvenal. Montana couldn’t be right. Juvenal came from Mexico. And once he immigrated to the U.S., he settled and lived in Los Angeles County, California with other members of his family. Or so I thought.

When that pesky search hit wouldn’t go away, I finally took a look at the actual digitized record (I NEVER automatically dismiss record hits anymore!), because Juvenal just isn’t a very common name — even among Mexican males.

What I found in the digitized record surprised and delighted me.

It WAS my same Juvenal. And he indeed lived in Montana when he registered for the draft on 12 September 1918. On the draft card, Juvenal identified his mother Mrs. Aurelia Compian [Compean] of San Luis [Potosi], Mexico as his nearest living relative. Aurelia is my 2nd great-grandmother, and our family did originate in San Luis Potosi. No chance of being wrong here. Definitely my Juvenal!

Juvenal Nieto, WWI Draft Registration Card
Juvenal Nieto, WWI Draft Registration Card, dated 12 September 1918. Ancestry.com. U.S., World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2005.

RESEARCH TIP: Mexican Surnames

It is interesting to note that Juvenal identified his mother’s name as Aurelia Compian [Compean] — not Nieto, which was her husband’s surname. Compean was Aurelia’s paternal surname (apellido paterno). Traditional Mexico naming conventions assign dual surnames to a child: their father’s paternal surname, followed by their mother’s paternal surname. Thus, according to tradition, Juvenal’s name was Juvenal Joseph Nieto Compean. Traditionally, women don’t ever go by their husband’s name in Mexico — they retain their original dual surnames even after marriage. So Juvenal identifying his mother’s surname as Compean instead of Nieto was traditionally accurate.

According to the World War I draft card, Juvenal worked as a miner for the North Butte Mining Company in Butte, Silver Bow County, Montana. He is described as 20 years old, white, a non-declarant alien, of medium height and slender build, with black eyes and hair. While the draft card doesn’t state it, Juvenal was still single at this time. Juvenal lists Butte as his residence, and Speculator as his place of employment.

Speculator? We’ll come back to that.

Leaving Home

Juvenal’s son-in-law and I chatted on Facebook a couple days ago about the post I just wrote on Juvenal’s father, in which I also mention Juvenal. The conversation focused on the draft card and the Montana mines. Juvenal’s son-in-law said that Juvenal left home at a young age to work in the mines. I am not sure if that was directly for the Montana mines, or if he first worked the mines in Mexico.

The 1920 U.S. Census indicates that Juvenal immigrated to the U.S. in 1915, but I have not been able to find a border record for his initial entry into the U.S. — only for a much later year, when traveling between the two countries.

Juvenal’s older sister Maria (my great-grandmother) had immigrated in 1915 with her husband and two oldest children. I have a border entry record for Maria and her infant son Refugio (although not yet for Maria’s husband Jose and daughter Guadalupe). According to the draft registration card for Maria’s own husband (my great-grandfather), Maria and Joe were already living in Long Beach, California by 12 June 1918.

Butte Mining & Immigrants

The discovery of copper ore in the 1800s — necessary to electrify America — transformed Butte, Montana from a frontier mining town to “‘the Richest Hill on Earth,’ the most lucrative copper mining region in the world.” [1] By 1917, mining operations were booming due to the increased wartime demand for copper. Immigrants made up a considerable portion of the mining labor population.

For the better part of four decades now, Irish, Cornish, Welsh, Serb, Italian, Finnish, Croatian, and Mexican workers had been pouring in to work “the richest hill in the world,” and in the process they turned Butte into a kind of Rocky Mountain Pittsburgh. (Laskin, loc. 1481)[2]

“In early 1917, Butte was a unionized industrial city with a population of 91,000 people. Home to one of the largest mining operations in the world, the abundance of employment opportunities drew workers from every corner of the globe. “No Smoking” signs posted in the mines were printed in 16 different languages. More than 30 languages were spoken among the city streets.” [3]

This is where my Mexico-born 2nd great-uncle Juvenal came to work, at least by June of 1918, when he registered for the draft.

WWI Draft Registration

On 06 April 1917, the United States declared war on Germany, joining the allies of Britain, France, and Russia. Because our armed forces were so depleted, Congress instituted a draft for the first time since the Civil War.

“During World War I there were three registrations. The first, on June 5, 1917, was for all men between the ages of 21 and 31. The second, on June 5, 1918, registered those who attained age 21 after June 5, 1917. (A supplemental registration was held on August 24, 1918, for those becoming 21 years old after June 5, 1918. This was included in the second registration.) The third registration was held on September 12, 1918, for men age 18 through 45.”[4]

Juvenal participated in the third draft registration in 1918.

The first draft registration, on 05 June 1917, was known as National Registration Day.

The Speculator Mine

Now back to Juvenal’s place of employment — Speculator.

Speculator was the name of a copper mine, which has become quite infamous in mining history. Due to the disaster of 1917.

The Disaster of 1917

On the night of 8 June 1917, fire broke out 2,300 feet down in the Granite Mountain shaft of the mine, caused when an employee’s carbide lamp mistakenly ignited a frayed electrical cable. Fire, smoke, and poisonous gas spread quickly. By the time rescue operations ceased on June 16th, 168 men had lost their lives, dubbing the event the worst disaster in Montana history and one of the worst metal mining disasters in the world.

The mine closed for good in 1923.

Anti-War & Labor Hotbed

Butte, like many other mining towns that relied heavily upon large numbers of new immigrant laborers, became a hotbed for antiwar protests leading up to and during the First World War. Allegiances were questioned, primarily among European immigrants who hailed from homelands on the enemy side of the war. Some European immigrant families were torn between wanting to support and fight for their new country, yet knowing that would mean defeat or even death for family members back in the old country — brother versus brother.

At the same time, unions were protesting the dangerous deplorable conditions forced upon mining laborers. And in the face of war, many such labor sentiments were branded as un-American, even treasonous.

The Speculator mine disaster of 1917 happened just three days after National Registration Day, the first of the three WWI drafts.

A seven-month long strike ensued. Federal troops were sent in to restore order.

Was Juvenal There?

Was my 2nd great-uncle Juvenal Nieto present at the time of the Speculator mine disaster, the ensuing strike, and the crackdown against the labor movement? Was he a target of anti-immigrant sentiments, even though he came from Mexico rather than the countries with whom we were at war? Did he have to make his way through federal troops, and striking miners, just to earn a living? Did he join the striking miners?

These questions are impossible to answer at this point in my research.

Juvenal didn’t register for the draft until 12 June 1918, and that draft registration card is the first and only record I find so far placing Juvenal in Butte, Montana. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Juvenal did NOT work and live in Butte at the time of the 1917 mining disaster. He could have been there.

Probably the only chance I have at verifying if Juvenal was working for the mine at the time of the disaster, is to search for some mention of him in the mining company records, which are held by the Montana Historical Society. Perhaps the name of a 19 year old Mexican laborer might appear in some sort of roster, financial, or business record?

Even if Juvenal had not yet been there for the 1917 disaster, he would have heard about it upon arrival and must have thought about it every single time he went down into the Speculator mine to work. Wondering each day if he would make it back out above ground after his shift.

Sources

Sources Cited

  1. IndependentITVS. http://itvs.org/films/butte-america.
  2. Laskin, David. 2010. The Long Way Home: An American Journey from Ellis Island to the Great War. Kindle edition. HarperCollins e-books.
  3. The Granite Mountain Speculator Mine Memorial. 2010. “History: Intro.” The Granite Mountain Speculator Mine Memorial. http://minememorial.org/history/intro.htm.
  4. The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. n.d. “World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, M1509.” National Archives. http://www.archives.gov/research/military/ww1/draft-registration/.

Sources Consulted

  • Gutfeld, Arnon. 1969. “The Speculator Disaster in 1917: Labor Resurgence at Butte, Montana.” Arizona and the West 11 (1): 27–38.
  • Independent Lens | BUTTE AMERICA | Film Clip #2 | PBS. 2009. Independent Lens. https://youtu.be/r_4ofHTXYnA.

[contentblock id=46 img=html.png]

Finally Confirming the Name of My 2nd Great-Grandfather, Refugio Nieto

Nieto Family CrestMy last two blog posts focused on my 2nd great-grandmother Maria Aurelia Compean (1858-1963), and in particular on the discrepancies over her birth year and age. Aurelia immigrated to the U.S. in 1919, with some of her children, from their home state of San Luis Potosi, Mexico. She spent the last 44 years of her life starting anew in Los Angeles County, California. Aurelia, according to U.S. Census records and family recollections, primarily lived at different times with two of her children — her daughter (my great-grandmother) Maria Hermalinda “Nana” Nieto (1887-1973), and her son (my 2nd great-uncle) Juvenal Joseph Nieto (1898-1978).

Aurelia, affectionately referred to as “Little Grandma” was well known by my paternal grandfather and his siblings, and also by my dad and his own cousins. Because Dad went to live with his grandmother (our “Nana”) when he was five years old, he also lived with and grew very close to his Little Grandma, who resided with her daughter Nana at that time. Dad recently shared with me how traumatic it was for him to lose his great-grandmother in 1963. Although I have only just started to make progress on Aurelia’s history, her name has been well known to me despite never having met her.

The name of Aurelia’s husband, however, has been a big mystery. All we have ever known is that his surname was Nieto, and that he died in Mexico before his family immigrated here.

Name Not Known

Dad doesn’t remember ever hearing a first name for his great-grandfather (Little Grandma’s husband). No one in our branch of the Nieto-Robledo family knew his name. Not even Nana’s lone living child (my great-uncle, and Aurelia’s grandson). In a family history questionnaire that I asked my great-uncle to fill out back in 2003, my great-uncle left the name of his maternal grandfather blank (he only filled in the name of his grandmother, Aurelia). The 1963 obituary for Aurelia fails to include my 2nd great-grandfather’s name — he is simply referred to as “her husband.” How does a spouse’s name get left out of an obituary? Aurelia still had living children at that point, who certainly knew their father’s name. Didn’t they realize what sort of frustration this would plunge future generations of family historians into???

Maria Aurelia Compean Scanned Obituary Clipping
Clipped obituary, from family files. Independent. Long Beach, California, United States Of America.

And for years, I have struck out on locating a Mexico marriage record for Aurelia and her husband, or a baptism record for their children Maria and Juvenal.

Possibly Raphael

Over the last handful of years, I have come across other grandchildren, grandchildren-in-law, and great-grandchildren of Aurelia who have public trees on Ancestry. Those that identified a spouse for Aurelia recored him with the name Raphael — although no source documents are attached on any of the trees as evidence to support that name.

But, Raphael became  the working name for my 2d great-grandfather, as I kept searching on Ancestry and FamilySearch for records that might substantiate that fact.

Last month, I finally received a copy of my great-grandmother Nana’s 1973 death certificate from Los Angeles County. Noted on her death certificate is the name of her father (Aurelia’s husband)…Raphael Nieto.

The same name in those Ancestry trees. We were starting to get warmer.

Maria Hermalinda Nieto Death Certiificate
Personal data section of the 1973 Los Angeles County death certificate for my great-grandmother, Maria Hermalinda Nieto (married name Robledo).

The death certificate identifies Nana’s second youngest son, my now-deceased uncle Alfred Robledo, as the informant. So Uncle Alfred was most likely the person who provided the names of his mother’s parents. Nana’s father is listed as Raphael Nieto. But the maiden name of Nana’s mother is incorrect. Nana’s mother (Aurelia) is identified with the maiden name Sanchez. It should be Compean. Sanches is Aurelia’s maternal surname (apellido materno), not her paternal surname (apellido paterno) — or what we call a maiden name. Uncle Alfred was clearly not too sure about his grandparents’ names.

I also ordered a copy of Aurelia’s death certificate from Los Angeles County at the same time, however the county sent me a notice that the were unable to locate a death record for her. I had hoped her death certificate would identify a spouse’s name, a name that was hopefully identified by one of Aurelia’s children, who had to know the name of their father.

Possibly Refugio

In that same batch of Los Angeles County vital record requests, I had asked for the 1978 death certificate of my 2nd great-uncle Juvenal, hoping it would provide some clues about Juvenal and Maria’s parents — particularly their father, my 2nd great-grandfather Nieto.

When I received Juvenal’s death certificate in the mail, I encountered a new name for my 2nd great-grandfather — Refugio. The informant on Juvenal’s death certificate is his wife Mary, who might likely have known my 2nd great-grandfather back in Mexico. Mary also got the surname correct (Compean) for Juvenal’s mother, my 2nd great-grandmother Aurelia.

Juvenal Nieto Death Certiificate
Personal data section of the 1978 Los Angeles County death certificate for my 2nd great-uncle, Juvenal Nieto.

This is the first time I encountered the name Refugio used in connection with my 2nd great-grandfather. But it wasn’t the first time I had heard that name used in connection with my family. Refugio is the name that Aurelia’s daughter Maria (my great-grandmother Nana) gave to her first-born son. My great-grandparents Maria Hermalinda Nieto and Jose Robledo named their first boy Refugio Raphael Robledo (born 1915 in Mexico). There were both of those names…Refugio…and Raphael. It would seem my Nana named her first son after her father.

Was Refugio Raphael the name of my 2nd great-grandfather? Was Raphael the name he preferred to go by, which might explain why those Ancestry trees and my uncle Alfred identify him as Raphael?

The namesake grandson, my now-deceased great-uncle Refugio Raphael Robledo (the baby born in 1915) also preferred to go by the name Raphael, or his parents just called him Raphael, because much of the documentation I have identifies him as Raphael. Although his sole living sibling, and his nieces and nephews, say that he actually went by the nickname of Ray.

The search to learn my 2nd great-grandfather’s name was definitely getting warmer now.

Refugio Confirmed

And then last week, that search grew hot. Really hot.

As stated in my last blog post about my 2nd great-grandmother Aurelia, on May 6th I finally — after 15+ years — found the marriage record for Aurelia and her husband, in the non-indexed/non-searchable browse-only collection of Mexico Catholic church records on FamilySearch! The marriage records identifies my 2nd great-grandfather as Refugio Nieto.

Maria Aurelia Compean married Refugio Nieto (1863-1909) on 18 October 1883 in the Villa de Yturbide (now Villa de Hidalgo), a municipality in San Luis Potosi, Mexico.

Marriage declaration by Aurelia Compean to Refugio Nieto, FamilySearch
Marriage declaration made by Aurelia Compean to Refugio Nieto. From the full record of marriage. FamilySearch.”México, San Luis Potosí, registros parroquiales, 1586-1970,” images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-20440-23372-37?cc=1860864&wc=MC48-NZS:167672101,167668102,168345101 : accessed 6 May 2015), Villa Hidalgo > San José > Información matrimonial 1880-1886 > image 491 of 755; parroquias Católicas, San Luis Potosi (Catholic Church parishes, San Luis Potosi).

Now that I had my groove down browsing through those non-indexed/non-searchable Mexico records on FamilySearch, I was on a roll. That same afternoon I came across another record I had been hunting for 15+ years — the Mexico Catholic church baptism record for my great-grandmother Maria Hermalinda “Nana” Nieto. Nana’s baptism record identifies her parents as Aurelia Compean and Refugio Nieto.

Maria Hermalinda Nieto Baptism Record
Baptism record for Maria Hermalinda Nieto, 08 November 1997.
“México, San Luis Potosí, registros parroquiales, 1586-1970,” images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-20131-27076-52?cc=1860864&wc=MC4Z-RP8:167672201,167672202,167990403 : accessed 13 May 2015), Armadillo de los Infante > Santa Isabel > Bautismos 1877-1892 > image 629 of 943; parroquias Católicas, San Luis Potosi (Catholic Church parishes, San Luis Potosi).
Click to view larger image.

I think I may also have found the baptism record for my 2nd great-grandfather Refugio Nieto, but I will save that discussion for another post.

What About Raphael?

At this point, I have to consider Raphael to be a nickname. The name is used by family members too often for it to be dismissed as simply a mistaken name. And since Refugio’s granddaughter Maria Hermalinda (my Nana) named her first-born son Refugio Raphael, I have to think that the name Raphael is rightly associated with my 2nd great-grandfather.

Visiting with Dad this weekend, he had another suggestion. That Raphael might be my 2nd great-grandfather’s Catholic confirmation name. That theory will have to wait to be explored when I have time to browse through the non-indexed/non-searchable Mexico Catholic church confirmation records.

[contentblock id=45 img=html.png]

Maria Aurelia Compean (1858-1963): Correct Birth Year is Likely 1864

Maria Aurelia CompeanMy last post discussed the discrepancies that exist among records regarding the birth year and age of my 2nd great-grandmother Maria Aurelia Compean (1858-1963), whom my family affectionately called “Little Grandma.”

In that post, I explained that my extended family has always claimed Little Grandma lived to be 105 years old, which would indicate she was born in 1858. But after reviewing the records generated throughout her life that provide an age, I concluded that the best evidence indicates that Aurelia was actually born in 1864, the year of her baptism.

Maria Aurelia Compean Sanches (using the traditional Mexican naming convention) was baptized on 10 January 1864 at the age of 10 days old. This would make her date of birth 01 January 1864, and would mean she lived to be 99 years old at the time of her death on 17 February 1963, not 105 years old as my extended family has thought for most of our lives.

Aurelia Compean baptism entry in transcribed index. Mexico, Select Baptisms, 1560-1950. Source: FamiilySearch.
Baptism transcription index card. Ancestry.com. Mexico, Select Baptisms, 1560-1950 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2014.
Aurelia’s baptism record is the record, among those I have identified so far, most contemporaneously created at the time closest to her actual birth. But the only record I had for her baptism is a translated transcribed index entry (shown above) in Ancestry and FamilySearch, which leaves at least a couple opportunities for human error. As stated in my last post, I needed to find a copy of her original Spanish-language full baptism record. But those records are not yet fully indexed and searchable on FamilySearch, meaning I would have to browse image-by-image in the collection — something I had not set aside time for just yet.

Digitized Baptism Record

Within one hour of my last blog post going live, my genealogy buddy Cathy Meder-Dempsey kindly found and messaged me a link to Aurelia’s digitized baptism record.

Maria Aurelia Compean, Baptism
Baptism record for Maria Aurelia Compean, 10 January 1864.
“México, San Luis Potosí, registros parroquiales, 1586-1970,” images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-20441-15039-36?cc=1860864&wc=MC4Z-4WL:167671401,167671402,167737601 : accessed 5 May 2015), San Nicolás Tolentino > San Nicolás Tolentino > Bautismos 1863-1880 > image 13 of 921; parroquias Católicas, San Luis Potosi (Catholic Church parishes, San Luis Potosi).

The digitized copy of Aurelia’s original Spanish-language baptism record confirms that she was baptized on 10 January 1864 at the age of 10 days old — making her date of birth 01 January 1864. There are no translation or transcription errors in that English index entry. Pretty strong proof to refute my extended family’s longtime claim that Little Grandma was born in 1858 and lived to be 105 years old (claims made on her death record and in her obituary).

But, as stated in my last blog post, I had more record types to review in this attempt to verify Aurelia’s birth year.

Digitized Marriage Record

The next day I scored another big find…the 1883 marriage record for Aurelia and my 2nd great-grandfather

Marriage declaration by Aurelia Compean to Refugio Nieto, FamilySearch
Declaration of intent for Aurelia Compean to marry Refugio Nieto. From the full record of marriage. FamilySearch.”México, San Luis Potosí, registros parroquiales, 1586-1970,” images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-20440-23372-37?cc=1860864&wc=MC48-NZS:167672101,167668102,168345101 : accessed 6 May 2015), Villa Hidalgo > San José > Información matrimonial 1880-1886 > image 491 of 755; parroquias Católicas, San Luis Potosi (Catholic Church parishes, San Luis Potosi).

Maria Aurelia Compean married Refugio Nieto (1863-1909) on 18 October 1883 in the Villa de Yturbide (now Villa de Hidalgo), a municipality in the state of San Luis Potosi, Mexico. Aurelia’s section of the prerequisite declaration of intent to marry (dated 20 September 1883) notes that she was 18 years old at the time.

The age on this marriage record is still off. If Aurelia was 18 years old in October of 1883, her birth year would calculate out to 1865 (since she was born in the month of January). Yet she was baptized in 1864. She had to have been 19 years old at the time of her marriage, since one cannot be born AFTER being baptized.

Further Analysis & Investigation

My hope had been that finding Aurelia’s marriage record would substantiate the birth year implied in her baptism record, or at the very least would substantiate one of the other conflicting birth years — not offer forth yet ANOTHER birth year possibility. However, since (as stated above), Aurelia could not have been baptized prior to being born, the 1864 birth year provided on her baptism record still seems the most likely candidate. The baptism record remains the most contemporaneously created record for the time of her actual birth. And since the church wrote these baptism entries in chronological order in a log book, it’s not like the hand-written entry for Aurelia got mistakenly filed in the wrong year — the baptism entries immediately before and after hers are for the same date, with those three January 10th 1864 baptisms sandwiched between records for January 9th and 11th.

Obtaining copies of the actual baptism and marriage records does at least allow me to check off two of the four “next steps” I identified in my last post. I need to also try to find civil registration records for Aurelia’s birth and marriage. And a discussion with my father this past weekend raised another record source to investigate as well — a church confirmation record.

Until then, I’m still leaving Aurelia’s birth year noted as 1858 in my database, research log, family tree, and Snapshot Box below. I will also have to change the birth year built into the custom URL I use to pull together all posts in this blog pertaining to Aurelia, which means writing a permanent URL redirect so people don’t land on a broken link — hence, the wait until more hopeful birth year confirmation.

[contentblock id=5 img=html.png]

#52Ancestors: Maria Aurelia Compean (1858-1963), Lived to Be 105 or 100 or 95 Years of Age

Maria Aurelia CompeanMy 16th entry in Amy Johnson Crow’s “52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks” family history blogging challenge for 2015.

The challenge: have one blog post each week devoted to a specific ancestor. It could be a story, a biography, a photograph, an outline of a research problem — anything that focuses on one ancestor.

Amy’s 2015 version of this challenge focuses on a different theme each week.

The theme for week 16 is – Live Long. Time to feature a long-lived ancestor. Any centenarians in the family?

My 16th ancestor is my 2nd great-grandmother Maria Aurelia Compean (1858-1963), who lived to the age of 105 years. Or so my family has always thought. Other records place her at 100 years and 95 years old.

Aurelia was one of at least three daughters born to Jose Santiago Compean (b. abt. 1840) and Maria Eutimia Sanches (b. abt. 1834). Her full name was Maria Aurelia Compean Sanches — with Maria being her Saint/Biblical first name, Aurelia her common first name, Compean her paternal surname, and Sanches her maternal surname (see last week’s post about Mexican naming conventions). U.S. records often identify her by the last name of Nieto, the surname of her husband, my 2nd great-grandfather.

Age Discrepancies

Why the discrepancy and uncertainty about Aurelia’s age?

As Reported by Her Children

Aurelia’s children and grandchildren claim she was born in 1858. Whichever of them reported her death on 17 February 1963 gave an 01 January 1858 date of birth to officials for Aurelia, and they also ran an obituary in the Long Beach, California Independent proudly crediting her with 105 years of age. The death record info I have is just the transcribed entry from the California Death Index — which has Aurelia’s birthplace wrong (it lists Maine instead of Mexico!). I am still waiting on the death certificate I ordered from Los Angeles County in March.

Compean Maria Aurelia Obituary 1963-02-19
Obituary from 19 February 1963. Ancestry.com. Independent (Long Beach, California) [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2007.
Maria Aurelia Compean Scanned Obituary Clipping
Same clipped obituary, from family files. Independent. Long Beach, California, United States Of America.
Aurelia Compean, California Death Index
California Death Index, 1940-1997. Index entry for Aurelia Compean. Index transcribers have her birth place incorrectly identified as Main instead of Mexico. Source: Ancestry.com.

As Reported on the Census

The 1920 U.S. Census and the 1930 U.S. Census estimate a birth year of 1868, based upon the age reported (52 and 64 respectively). Not ages that support the 1858 birth year noted on the California Death Index or in her obituary. I have not yet been successful at finding Aurelia on the 1940 U.S. Census.

Robledo, Nieto, Sanches, Perez Households - 1920 Census - Long Beach
Robledo, Nieto, Sanches, Perez Households. 1920 US Census, Long Beach, Los Angeles County, California. Courtesy of Ancestry.com. Aurelia is highlighted in yellow, line 21. Click image for a larger view.
Juvenal Nieto and Aurelia Compean, 1930 US Census
Juvenal Nieto household, with Aurelia Compean. 1930 U.S. Census, Glendale, Los Angeles County, California. Courtesy of Ancestry.com. Click image for larger view.

As Reported on Her Baptism Record

Aurelia was baptized 10 January 1864 in San Nicolas Tolentino, San Luis Potosi, Mexico. The baptism transcription index card says she was 10 days old at the time, which would make her born 01 January 1864 or 31 December 1863 — depending on how that 10 days was calculated. Either way, this record does not jive with the 1858 birth year claimed by our family, nor does it correspond with the estimated 1868 birth year calculated in the censuses.

Aurelia Compean baptism entry in transcribed index. Mexico, Select Baptisms, 1560-1950. Source: FamiilySearch.

As Reported on Her Border Crossing Record

The border crossing record for Aurelia, estimates her birth year as 1864. Aurelia was admitted into the U.S. on 14 March 1919, in Laredo, Texas, destined for Long Beach, California. The age noted on this record matches what her baptism record age would calculate out to in 1919.

Aurelia Compean Border Crossing Card
Aurelia Compean Border Crossing Card, 1919, Ancestry.com. Click image for larger view.

My Hunch

My suspicion is that 1864 is the accurate year, since it is the year most contemporaneously reported at the time closest to her actual birth (10 days after her birth, at her baptism), and the year that was likely self-reported by Aurelia to (Spanish-speaking?) immigration officials at the time of her border crossing.  Besides, if she were born in 1858 as her family claims, that means Aurelia’s parents waited six years to have her baptized — something that would never have been acceptable to practicing Catholics. I mentally noted that issue when I first came across her baptism info years ago, and it never sat right with me.

The Census records are close, with an 1868 estimated birth, but somehow I doubt Aurelia is the one who talked to the Census takers — it seems more likely her children would have done so. Although I would think that Aurelia — who did not work outside of the home — would have been present as well.

Although my extended family probably doesn’t want to hear that “Little Grandma” did not live to be 105 years old, I think that 1858 date is the most unlikely of birth years noted for Aurelia, since it was information provided by older children upon Aurelia’s death. Also because I can’t imagine her parents waited six-years to baptize their daughter in a staunch Mexican catholic home and community.

Next Steps

But, I still have more digging to do:

  • Locate the actual microfilmed baptism record. If it is included in the Mexico Catholic Church records that have already been digitized, it has not yet been indexed by FamilySearch.
  • Investigate if a Civil Registration record exists for her birth. Civil Registration went into effect in Mexico in 1859. If Aurelia was born 1858, there won’t be a record. But if she was born after 1858, there is a chance a record exists, although Civil Registration did not become strictly enforced until 1867.
  • Locate the microfilmed copy of her 1883 marriage record, since the Catholic Church usually noted ages for each spouse. If it is included in the Mexico Catholic Church records that have already been digitized, it has not yet been indexed by FamilySearch.
  • Locate a Civil Registration record for her 1883 marriage.

I have never found any evidence that Aurelia applied for a Social Security card or for naturalization. If she had, those applications would be written in her own hand (or verbally reported by her to someone who filled out the applications on her behalf), and would include her self-reported birth year.

Once I verify the records outlined above, I will update my database, trees, research log, and the Snapshot box below. Until then, I will let my extended family have their claim to 105 years.

Still…living to “just” 95 years old is pretty darn admirable. I hope Dad inherited her genes!

[contentblock id=5 img=html.png]

#52Ancestors: Fourth great-grandfather Jose Victoriano Compean exemplifies Mexican naming conventions

Compean Coat of ArmsMy 15th entry in Amy Johnson Crow’s “52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks” family history blogging challenge for 2015.

The challenge: have one blog post each week devoted to a specific ancestor. It could be a story, a biography, a photograph, an outline of a research problem — anything that focuses on one ancestor.

Amy’s 2015 version of this challenge focuses on a different theme each week.

The theme for week 15 is — How Do You Spell That? What ancestor do you imagine was frequently asked that? Which ancestor did you have a hard time finding because of an unusual name?

My 15th ancestor is my 4th great-grandfather, Jose Victoriano Compean (b. abt. 1803). Jose Victoriano is the oldest identified ancestor in my paternal Compean line. I do not know much about Jose Victoriano — not even where in Mexico he was born, nor the names of his parents or siblings.

His name isn’t difficult to spell or to pronounce. It is not an unusual name for a Mexican-born male.  So why him for this particular challenge? Because of how difficult Mexican naming conventions can make genealogical research, and how easy Mexican naming conventions can make genealogical research. My 4th great-grandfather Jose Victoriano Compean and his family are a very good representation of this dichotomy.

Mexican Surnames

When dealing with Mexican names one must be mindful of the traditional Spanish naming convention of using dual surnames. In Mexico, the dual surname consists of both parents’ surnames: the paternal surname (apellido paterno), followed by the maternal surname (apellido materno). This means that Mexican wives do not take on the surname of their husbands upon marriage. In Mexican records, they remain identified by their maiden names (paternal, maternal).

So within the traditional Mexico household, there can be at least three sets of surnames for a single family: the husband’s dual surnames, the wife’s dual surnames, and a combination of their surnames used as dual surnames for each child.

Upon immigration to the U.S., all sorts of different surname scenarios end up in the records. Often the wife is recorded now just under a single surname — that of her husband. Sometimes a male is recorded under just a single surname (a crapshoot if it’s the paternal or maternal one). Both of which can make it difficult to try to find a paper trail back in Mexico.

Mexican Given Names

It wasn’t until a few years ago that I became aware of another traditional naming convention — multiple first names. I thought that the string of names found on ancestral records was a first name with one, two, or sometimes three middle names. Not the case with Mexican names. Mexican naming conventions do not employ the concept of a middle name.

Often the first of the given names is in honor of a saint or biblical figure, such as Maria/Mary or Jose/Joseph — which seem to be the two most common such names among my ancestors and their children.  According to the FamilySearch Wiki, “In Mexico the child was usually called by the second or third name given at baptism, especially if the first name was María or José.”

Names of Jose Victoriano’s Family

Reviewing the names found in records for my 4th great-grandfather’s children and grandchildren exemplifies these traditional Mexican naming conventions.

I sometimes find Jose Victoriano Compean identified just as Victoriano Compean. I also find his paternal surname spelled Compian (including on records for his children). What I have not found so far is a record referencing his dual surnames, which is very odd for early to mid-1800s Mexico church records.

His Wife

Jose Victoriano Compean married Maria Ignacia Martines, my 4th great-grandmother. Like with Victoriano, I do not yet find Maria Ignacia recorded with two surnames in the traditional Mexican fashion. Only with the single surname, which I assume is her paternal surname, particularly since the name Martines/Martinez was usually included as part of her children’s surnames in church records. Sometimes Maria Ignacia is found under the spelling of Maria Ygnacia, with her paternal surname spelled with a “z”, as Martinez, and also as just Ygnacia Martinez (no Maria).

I do not yet know when and where Jose Victoriano and Maria Ignacia married. It seems likely they were married shortly before 1840, the estimated birth year of their first baptized child. I think it also likely they married at San Isabel church, where three of their four children were baptized, in the municipality of Armadillo de los Infante, San Luis Potosi, Mexico.

Santa Isabel Church San Luis Potosi

Their Children

So far I have identified four children for Victoriano and Ignacia.

  1. Jose Santiago Compean (b. abt. 1840). My 3rd great grandfather. Also found under Jose Santiago Compean Martinez, and just Santiago Compean.
  2. Maria Felisitas Compean (b. abt. 1843).  Also found under Maria Felisitas Compean Martinez.
  3. Jose Calisto Compean (b. abt. 1848 ). Also found under Jose Calisto Compean Martinez.
  4. Jose Cipriano Compean (b. abt. 1857). Also found under Jose Cipriano Compean Martinez.

Although Victoriano and Ignacia had at least four children, in this blog post, I am only focusing on one of those children. My 3rd great-grandfather Jose Santiago Compean is the oldest child I have identified. Known by our family as just Santiago, I learned of this ancestor’s name when my father contacted the cemetery at which Santiago’s daughter Aurelia is buried. Aurelia’s burial records identify her parents as Santiago Compean and Eutimia Sanches. Further research into Mexican church records revealed Santiago and Eutimia’s full given names — with the traditional Jose and Maria.

Maria Eutimia Sanches Nieto (b. 1835), my 3rd great-grandmother, married Jose Santiago Compean on 14 September 1859 at San Isabel church in Armadillo de los Infante, San Luis Potosi, Mexico. The same church where both were baptized as infants. Eutimia can also be found under just her paternal surname, Sanches.

Their Grandchildren

I have identified three children born to Santiago and Eutimia, all daughters.

  1. Maria Aurelia Compean (1858-1963). My 2nd great-grandmother. Also found under Aurelia Compean.
  2. Maria Francisca Compean Sanchez (b. abt. 1862).
  3. Maria Pilar Compean (b. abt. 1865).

One of Aurelia’s daughters became my great-grandmother, Maria Hermalinda Nieto Compean (1887-1974). Maria was the only first name I ever knew for my Nana — no one in our family ever knew her as Hermalinda. So when I first discovered that her mother Aurelia’s full first name was Maria Aurelia, and that her grandmother Eutimia’s full first name was actually Maria Eutimia, I naively assumed each mother had simply passed down her own first name to these daughters, and chose to go by a middle name.

Why the Dichotomy?

I mentioned at the beginning of this post the dichotomy of how difficult Mexican naming conventions can make genealogical research, and how easy Mexican naming conventions can make genealogical research.

Because of the inconsistencies in how our Mexican ancestors’ names are recorded on various records and transcriptions (for both Mexico and U.S. records), it can make identifying which type of surname is being used — the maternal, paternal, or for females even their husband’s surname — a bit of a nightmare. Even in FamilySearch, transcriptions of the same records can inconsistently use given names and surnames for the same individuals — I usually find this occurring in different indexing projects for the same records.

On the other hand, knowing how this dual-surnames convention works among Mexican records, researchers can immediately identify the surnames of an ancestor’s parents. For a female ancestor, that would be immediate identification of her father’s surname and her mother’s surname — something that in Anglo records we usually cannot readily identify if a female ancestor is referenced only by her married surname. For Anglo male ancestors, we usually assume that ancestor shares the same surname as his father. But in Mexican records, we often are able to also identify the paternal surname (what we call a maiden name) for that male ancestor’s mother.

Understanding now about multiple first names, especially saints’ names, when I see a record for a Mexican-born ancestor that simply uses the first name Maria/Mary or Jose/Joseph, I immediately begin to look for clues to a more complete given name.

But sometimes those clues are just not there, and I end up with a brick wall ancestor like my great-grandfather Jose/Joseph Robledo (1875-1937) — who immigrated to the U.S. with his wife Maria Hermalinda Nieto Compean and their two oldest children. Jose or Joseph is the only name by which his children or grandchildren ever knew him. No records found identify a second first name. And yet, according to that FamilySearch Wiki article, Mexican males rarely went by Jose as a first name.

Among my fellow Hispanic genealogists, the listservs and forums are packed with folks lamenting about how difficult it is to make Mexican naming conventions fit into the confines of predominantly Anglo-designed genealogy databases, such as Ancestry Member Trees. It is like trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. Ancestry.com has a field titled “First and Middle Name” and one titled “Last Name” (singular). Do we put the full dual surname in the Last Name field? Or is that going to mess up possible searches and hints? FamilySearch, who has a more global focus, handles these field names better in its Family Tree — “First Names” (instead of first and middle), but still only a “Last Name” (singular) field.

As with any of our ancestors, it is critical that we genealogists take the time to learn and understand the conventions used in an ancestor’s country of origin, culture, religion, and various places of residence.

Sources Consulted

[contentblock id=44 img=html.png]

My Bio Family: My Ethnicity Estimates on AncestryDNA vs Family Tree DNA

Colleen Robledo, DNA Testing
Taking my AncestryDNA autosomal test.

I have always been very open about being adopted, when that fact seemed pertinent to a conversation. Which was usually the case if I met another adoptee, parents considering adopting, and especially parents with young adopted children. Also whenever people comment about how much I look or sound like my mom (it happens a lot!), or look like my brother (not so much anymore, but often in K-12) — my family gets a good laugh when hearing this.

Being named Colleen Robledo, people just automatically assume I am Irish and Mexican (or some sort of Hispanic). Once I turned drinking age, I started calling myself a Latin Leprechaun (like the bar drink). I rarely bothered to correct people about those ethnic assumptions. The story was just too long. And having been raised by parents and extended families who are both very proud of their ethnic heritage and traditions, I just always felt Irish and Mexican.

After doing Dad’s autosomal DNA analysis recently though, I became a bit more curious about my own genetic ethnicity. I blogged recently about finally taking my own autosomal DNA test, and beginning the search for my birth mother. That whole birth mom discovery has been quite a whirlwind process this past month. I finally have time to catch my breath a bit and take a harder look at the ethnicity projections about my own DNA.

Ethnicity Comparison

What My Adoption Letter Claims

I mentioned in my initial March 25th post about my adoption that the County of Los Angeles provided my parents with a letter at the time of my adoption to help them share with me a little bit about my birth parents — including their ethnicity. My adoption letter claims that my birth mom is of German and Dutch descent, while my birth dad is of Spanish and French descent.

By Spanish, I always assumed Mexican. The Chicano movement in Southern California hadn’t yet made being Mexican a more socially acceptable claim. The term “Spanish” was often still used as a euphemism for Mexican ancestry. So I just assumed that Los Angeles County did the same thing here — thinking that labeling an infant as Spanish instead of Mexican would make the baby more adoptable. Or that even my birth parents felt the same, and misidentified me to the county as Spanish instead of Mexican.

Colleen Robledo, Adoption Letter
My adoption letter that went home to my parents with me on 23 March 1970.

What DNA Tells Us

My adoption letter had been dead on accurate. Well, mostly accurate. The German, Dutch, and French part were all correct. So was the Spanish part. But, Spanish wasn’t my only Hispanic ethnicity. I am Spanish and Mexican.

Because I tested through AncestryDNA, theirs was the first set of ethnicity results to come back. I immediately transferred the raw Ancestry data to Family Tree DNA (FTDNA), and impatiently waited for their interpretation of my ethnicity. The two services did not provide me with as clean a comparison as I had first experienced reviewing Dad’s DNA results (his was like apples to apples, whereas mine felt like apples to oranges). Ancestry and FTDNA label and break down ethnic origins a bit differently, with Ancestry also providing estimates for much smaller sub-regions. Although from what I learned at RootsTech and FGS this past February, estimates at these smaller regional levels are not considered very accurate.

AncestryDNA Family Tree DNA
Europe 76% European 80%
Europe West 32% Western & Central Europe 11%
Great Britain < 1% British Isles 30%
Ireland 6 %
Iberian Peninsula 16% Southern Europe 29%
Scandinavia 16% Scandinavia 9%
Finland & Northern Siberia 1%
Italy/Greece 5%
European Jewish 1%
America 21% New World 13%
Native American 21% Native American 13%
Africa < 1%
Africa North < 1%
West Asia < 1% Middle Eastern 1%
Middle East < 1% North Africa 1%
Pacific Islander < 1% East Asian 5%
Polynesia < 1% Northeast Asia 5%

Both Ancestry and FTDNA identify European origins as my primary ethnicity (76% per Ancestry, 80% per FTDNA). Ancestry breaks this into three sub-regions: the largest being Western Europe (Figure 1), and the Iberian Peninsula (Figure 2) tied with Scandinavia (Figure 3). This seems very much in line with the German, Dutch, French, and Spanish origins claimed in my adoption letter. FTDNA however breaks this down into four sub-regions: with the largest being the British Isles, followed by Southern Europe, then Western & Central Europe, and finally Scandinavia (Figure 6). My adoption letter mentioned nothing indicating genetic roots in the British Isles. Yet, if you look at Ancestry’s full ethnicity estimate overview (Figure 5), Ancestry does calculate some British Isles origins in my DNA.

Native American (indigenous peoples) ancestry is identified by both companies as my second largest ethnic region of origin, in the New World (the Americas). This is that Mexican part that I suspected my adoption letter misattributed as just Spanish, so it is not a surprise to me. Although who knows, perhaps I have some actual true Native American (American Indian) in me too! What is surprising though, is that like I saw with Dad’s DNA, the two companies have a discrepancy in numbers. Ancestry estimates 21% (Figure 2), while FTDNA only estimates 13% (Figure 7). But as I mentioned in the post about Dad, Ancestry includes a much larger geographic area than FTDNA in its Native American region.

The African, Asian, and Middle Eastern estimates get harder to interpret because the estimates are much smaller, and because each company classifies these differently (Figures 5 and 10). Ancestry puts North Africa as a sub-region under Africa, while FTDNA puts it as a sub-region under Middle Eastern. Yet Ancestry identifies the Middle East as a sub-region of West Africa.

AncestryDNA

Following are the visual representations for how AncestryDNA interprets my ethnicity. See this blog post from Ancestry.com to learn how they estimate ethnicity.

AncestryDNA Colleen Greene Europe West
FIGURE 1: Western Europe ethnicity estimate. Click image for a larger view.
AncestryDNA Colleen Greene Native American
FIGURE 2: Native American ethnicity estimate. Click image for a larger view.
AncestryDNA Colleen Greene Iberian Peninsula
FIGURE 3: Iberian Peninsula ethnicity estimate. Click image for a larger view.
AncestryDNA Colleen Greene Scandinavia
FIGURE 4: Scandinavia ethnicity estimate. Click image for a larger view.
AncestryDNA Colleen Greene All Regions
FIGURE 5: Full ethnicity estimate overview. Click image for larger view.

Family Tree DNA

Following are visual representations of how FTDNA interprets my ethnicity.

Note that FTDNA shows you Family Finder Matches, genetic cousins in their database, who share your ethnic origins for your top three ethnic groups.These get displayed on the maps as Shared Origins (I have blocked out the names and faces of my matches, to respect their privacy). FTDNA members must opt-in to allow matches to see their ethnicity as Shared Origins. AncestryDNA does not provide this type of visual aid for genetic cousins and ethnic origins; you have to open up each individual cousin match to see their ethnicities.

FTDNA Colleen Greene European
FIGURE 6: European ethnic makeup. Click image for a larger view.
FTDNA Colleen Greene New World
FIGURE 7: New World ethnic makeup. Click image for a larger view.
FTDNA Colleen Greene East Asian
FIGURE 8: East Asian ethnic makeup. Click image for a larger view.
FTDNA Colleen Greene Middle Eastern
FIGURE 9: Middle Eastern ethnic makeup. Click image for a larger view.
FTDNA Colleen Greene All Regions
FIGURE 10: FTDNA ethnic makeup overview. Click image for a larger view.

What About the Irish?

Based on my adoption letter, I assumed this Colleen was just Irish by cultural inheritance.

But it is just simply impossible for one to have a grandfather with a name like Michael John Flanagan, who proudly dressed up as a leprechaun every St. Paddy’s Day, if one were not Irish.

Because Ancestry estimates I am 6% Irish (Figure 5), and FTDNA must surely account for some Irish in its 30% of British Isles ethnicity (Figure 6).

Michael John Flanagan, Leprechaun
My grandfather, Michael John Flanagan, on the left. St. Paddy’s Day at the bar he owned.