Book Review: DNA for Native American Genealogy

by Roberta Estes. Genealogical Publishing Co., 2021. 176 pages.

The following book review was written by Bobbi King:

Roberta Estes is a popular lecturer and master educator on Native American research. She writes her blog https://dna-explained.com where a wealth of information offers researchers the latest methodologies and resources for genealogists exploring their Native American heritage. 

Ms. Estes, a prodigious author on genetic genealogy, is featured prominently at the Native Heritage Project at www.nativeheritageproject.com. Her authority on Native genealogy is grounded in meticulous research and historical context.

DNA for Native American Genealogy fills a critical gap in genealogy research, addressing the unique challenges and opportunities in researching Native ancestry. The book is divided into major sections: 

“Seeking Native Ancestors” is a discussion of tribal membership and the First Nations of Canada, cultural appropriation, and the Genealogical Proof Standard;

“Ethnicity and Population Genetics” is a discussion of the DNA complexities of tracing and discovering Native ancestry;

“DNA Testing Vendors and Autosomal Tools” is a discussion of the advantages and unique information available from the four major DNA vendors;

“Mitochondrial DNA - Ancient and Modern” and “Y DNA - Ancient and Modern” analyzes and interprets the different DNA tests utilized in researching Native American heritage; and 

“Your Roadmap and Checklist” is a short, helpful, chapter guide for charting the tasks, tools, and status of your project.

A glossary defines the scientific terms and clarifies the DNA terminology.

The generous use of charts, graphs, illustrations and maps offer visual aids that complement the technical instruction. Plenty of white space rests the eye and eases the comprehension for the brain, and provides plenty of space for personal note-taking.

The author has balanced science, history, and cultural perspective to offer a research guide that is informative as well as enlightening.

DNA for Native American Genealogy is available from the  publisher, Genealogical Publishing Co., at: https://genealogical.com/store/dna-for-native-american-genealogy/.

Learning of early Rowan County immigrants and tips for success in researching one’s ancestors were part of the second annual genealogy conference.  The conference, entitled, “Overcoming Obstacles: Insights to Genealogical Success,” was held in the auditorium at the Rowan Public Library West Branch in Cleveland, Ohio with more than 20 people in attendance.

Dr. Gary Freeze and Rhonda Roederer served as the presenters for the Nov. 16 event.  RPL History Room Supervisor Gretchen Witt said that in addition to the library, the genealogical society was co-hosting this second annual conference and it is anticipated they will have another next year.  She and Paul Birkhead, reference librarian, were there providing assistance and answering questions to those in attendance.  

As noted on the program, Freeze is a retired history professor from Catawba College. A widely recognized historian of the North Carolina Piedmont and early North Carolina history, he is the author of a North Carolina history textbook, Freeze is currently part of a project to write a new history of Rowan County.

Read more at: https://www.salisburypost.com/2024/11/20/conference-provides-history-tips-for-genealogical-success/.

The National Library of Peru’s doors are now open virtually for visitors worldwide through Google Arts & Culture. Explore online stories showcasing the country's rich heritage, where the dramatic landscapes of Peru intertwine with the legacies of ancient civilizations and the echoes of a more recent past.

Here are five highlights to start your trip through Peruvian history and modern-day life.

The library maze

Step into the Pocket Gallery and virtually walk among the highlights of the National Library’s collection, from the first manuscripts printed in Latin America to the art of José María Eguren, the only symbolist poet in Peru.

You can read more at: https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/arts-culture/google-arts-culture-peru/.

atlasbiomed.com that promised clients insights into their genetic disposition has suddenly disappeared. The BBC reports it tried several methods to reach the company but failed in this effort.

London offices are closed, nobody answers the phone, and clients are no longer capable of accessing their online records. All the company’s social media accounts haven’t been updated since 2023 at the latest.

The atlasbiomed.com domain appears to be inactive. Customers were only able to look at their test results online, these were not downloadable, so now they are not only unable to see them, but they also have no idea what has happened to that data.

Although there is no evidence that any of the data has been misused, it is worrying to not know who now has access to the data, especially now that the investigation shows that there might be ties to Russia.

You can read more at: https://freedom.press/about/announcements/our-new-home-on-the-fediverse/ .

 Genetic testing firm 23andMe said on Monday it is reducing about 40%, or 200 employees, from its workforce and discontinuing further development of all its therapies as part of a restructuring program.

"We are taking these difficult but necessary actions as we restructure 23andMe and focus on the long-term success of our core consumer business and research partnerships," said CEO Anne Wojcicki.

The company said it is evaluating strategic alternatives, including licensing agreements and asset sales, for its therapies in development.

Wojcicki, who has been trying to take the company private since April, is facing a tough challenge after independent directors of 23andMe resigned in September, after not receiving a satisfactory take-private offer from the CEO.

In July, the CEO and co-founder proposed to acquire all outstanding shares of the firm not already owned by her or her affiliates for 40 cents each.

It is with sadness that I report the passing of Thomas Kurtz. You see, he taught me (and thousands of others) BASIC when I worked at Dartmouth College in the 1970s.

It is with sadness that we the passing of Thomas E. Kurtz, on November 12th. He was co-inventor of the BASIC programming language back in the 1960s, and though his creation may not receive the attention in 2024 that it would have done in 1984, the legacy of his work lives on in the generation of technologists who gained their first taste of computer programming through it.A BBC Micro BASIC program that writes "HELLO HACKADAY!" to the screen multiple times. For the 1980s kids who got beyond this coding masterpiece, BASIC launched many a technology career.

The origins of BASIC lie in the Dartmouth Timesharing System, like similar timesharing operating systems of the day, designed to allow the resources of a single computer to be shared across many terminals. In this case the computer was at Dartmouth College, and BASIC was designed to be a language with which software could be written by average students who perhaps didn’t have a computing background. In the decade that followed it proved ideal for the new microcomputers, and few were the home computers of the era which didn’t boot into some form of BASIC interpreter. Kurtz continued his work as a distinguished academic and educator until his retirement in 1993, but throughout he remained as the guiding hand of the language.

Should you ask a computer scientist their views on BASIC, you’ll undoubtedly hear about its shortcomings, and no doubt mention will be made of the GOTO statement and how it makes larger projects very difficult to write. This is all true, but at the same time it misses the point of it being a readily understandable language for first-time users of machines with very little in the way of resources. It was the perfect programming start for a 1970s or 1980s beginner, and once its limitations had been reached it provided the impetus for a move to higher things. We’ve not written a serious BASIC program in over three decades, but we’re indebted to Thomas Kurtz and his collaborator for what they gave us.

The Great Twitter Exodus of 2022 is still happening. It's just a little...fractured. A lot of X power users migrated to Bluesky early on, which paved the way for a flood of folks to join that service in 2024. Meanwhile, a lot of technically inclined individuals are still hanging out on Mastodon (at least, that's where I hang out).

Bluesky and Mastodon are both decentralized services, in theory, but users of one service can't really talk to users on the other—or it wasn't possible before Bridgy Fed, anyway. It's a beta service that makes it possible for Bluesky and Fediverse-compatible applications, such as Mastodon, to interact.

What is the Fediverse?

Let's back up a little. Mastodon is part of the Fediverse, a collection of services that connect to the same protocol. Threads, another place where a lot of X users ended up, is starting to connect to the Fediverse; WordPress blogs can also connect. This all points to a future where people can use whatever social network they like and follow people who prefer to use a different one, with one problem: Bluesky, despite being decentralized, isn't part of this network.

This is where Bridgy Fed comes in. With this service, individual users of either service can opt in to "bridging" their accounts. I tested this out with my friend and Lifehacker alumni Eric Ravenscraft, who hangs out on Bluesky more than me. It worked well—we can now see each other's posts, like each other's posts, and even talk to each other, cross-network.

Step-by-step instructions to connect the two may be found at: https://lifehacker.com/tech/use-bridgy-feed-to-link-mastodon-and-bluesky. 

WARNING: This article contains personal opinions.

One thing that constantly puzzles me is why do genealogists keep re-inventing the same wheels? In fact, we have the tools today to reduce this duplication of effort immediately and perhaps to even drive it to zero within a few years. If we do that, the result will be peer-reviewed, high-quality genealogy information available to everyone.

For decades, the standard method of genealogy research has been to look at original records as well as compiled genealogies, looking for information about each ancestor, one fact at a time. In modern times, we typically have used IMAGES of the original records published on microfilm and, more recently, images that appear on our computer screens. We then supplement these original records with compiled genealogies from many sources, including printed books, online web sites, and even GEDCOM files online or on CD-ROM disks. Experienced genealogists also understand the importance of VERIFYING each piece of information, regardless of where it was obtained. Yes, even original hand-written records made at the time of an event may contain errors.

Compiling a genealogy typically requires hundreds of hours of work, sometimes thousands of hours, sometimes great expenditures of money, and, when original records have not been easily available locally, we often spend significant amounts of money on travel. 

To be kind, I will simply say that the results have been variable. Some skilled and careful researchers have produced accurate and carefully documented genealogies. Other genealogists, typically those with less-than-perfect research skills or motivation, have produced compiled genealogies containing errors. A few have produced genealogies that I can only describe as "fairy tales." 

The guidelines that we have all learned for years state that experienced genealogists must educate the newcomers in the proper methods of creating accurate and meaningful genealogies. We must teach every newcomer how to "do it the right way." My opinion is that this hasn't worked very well. I see as many errors being cranked out today as I saw years ago. In fact, due to the efficiencies of computers today, we can crank out more errors in a shorter period of time than ever before. I don't think the percentage of errors has changed much over the years, but the VOLUME of genealogies certainly has increased! 

Today, we produce more garbage than ever before. I will suggest our efforts of "educating the masses" in proper research techniques have been a failure. Yet, I believe there is a better way.

The methods of researching haven't changed much over the years. Erroneous information gets published by well-meaning genealogists who try to do "the right thing" but unwittingly publish and perpetuate errors. Finding and correcting those errors is difficult and frequently never happens. Because the erroneous data becomes widely circulated while corrections rarely receive the same distribution, errors are perpetuated forever.

For instance, a thick book published on my family name in 1901 had a significant error published on page seven concerning the place of birth of the original immigrant of that name. The author contradicted himself and published the correct information on page eight. I have no idea why the author would publish contradictory information within a few paragraphs, but, whatever the reason, he did so. Later examination of original documents by expert genealogists have verified the second claim while the original statement is obviously incorrect. Guess which version has been perpetuated and republished many times over the years? The wrong one!

Despite publication of many, many corrections in books, magazines, and online, the "facts" published in the original book seem to haunt us forever. Thousands of genealogists read the original books but never find the corrections that were published elsewhere. Why don't they find the corrections? Often it is because the corrections are difficult to locate. Another reason is that most genealogists—myself included—are more interested in new facts about newly-identified individuals. Going back and verifying already-found information is never as interesting as finding new information.

A few years ago I had a chance to sit near renowned genealogist Gary Boyd Roberts as he examined pedigree charts and other newly-created documents prepared by a number of genealogists who were seeking his advice. Gary is an expert in several areas of genealogy, including royal ancestry of many early immigrants to the American colonies. Gary has a photographic memory and has memorized huge amounts of genealogy information. He is also passionate about accuracy. 

I listened as Gary examined pedigree chart after pedigree chart, frequently exclaiming "Oh, that's been disproven." I heard him say that dozens of times. One of the attendees at the event later referred to him as “Mr. Gary Oh-that's-been-disproven Roberts. “Of course, Gary did this for good reason: the statements written on recent documents indeed were erroneous, according to the latest research available from a number of respected genealogy scholars.

Gary would always follow up by offering suggestions as to where to find the corrected information. The persons seeking his advice always thanked Gary politely, but, as they walked away, you could see the disappointment in their eyes. After all, they had spent many hours researching their ancestry and now realized they had also been victims of bogus information.

Finding errors in ancestry charts going back to royalty is easy for experts such as Gary Boyd Roberts. However, I would suggest there are many more inaccuracies in our other genealogies, those claiming descent from commoners. Indeed, that's most of us. How many errors are in YOUR compiled genealogy information? I know I have found errors in my own records in the past, and I suspect there are additional errors that I have not yet found.

The first frustration is that erroneous information gets published at all. However, I doubt that we will ever change this. In short, mistakes happen. Some are simple errors while many others are information that once appeared to be accurate, but later discoveries changed the interpretation of facts.

The second frustration is that finding corrections seems to always be more difficult than finding the previously-published information. In fact, published corrections often are never found.

My third frustration occurs when I visit a major genealogy library or a courthouse or other archive to examine original records or compiled genealogies. The more popular documents are often thumb-worn! The microfilms are frequently deeply scratched from frequent use. In fact, hundreds, if not thousands, of genealogists have previously followed the same path that I am presently following, looking for the same information or corrections that I seek. Is this efficient? Why do I have to "re-invent the wheel?" Shouldn't I be looking at the corrected results found by previous genealogists instead of seeking those corrections on my own?

All this is so twentieth-century! We have the technology today to produce better genealogy documentation. In fact, various organizations have already produced terrific documentation tools, but I don't believe that all genealogists are aware of them yet. 

In short, we need central repositories that contain all the known information about every deceased person who ever left records. This sounds like a monumental task, and it is; but it is not impossible. Future genealogists should be able to go to this clearinghouse and identify an ancestor by name, dates, locations, or whatever information is available, and then be able to read EVERY KNOWN FACT ABOUT THAT PERSON, as discovered by all previous genealogists. The facts should include proposed corrections and any other newly-discovered information. In fact, none of the pages should be static. Instead, they should be constantly updated as genealogists make new discoveries and correct previous assumed "facts."

The secret to making these clearinghouses work effectively is PEER REVIEW, something that has never successfully been implemented on a large scale in genealogy in the past.

In fact, there could be more than one such clearinghouse. Competition usually results in better products for all.

I envision a database in which every deceased individual has a separate and distinct page. The contents of each page include every fact known about the individual as contributed by many different people. Indeed, some of the "facts" on a given page might contradict some of the other "facts" on the same page, especially with information contributed by two or more people.

Having contradictory information all summarized on one page, complete with source citation references, is certainly far superior to today's methods of trying to find the same information spread throughout a plethora of books, magazines, and individual web sites. Each "page" in this clearinghouse database could serve as a "court" in which plaintiffs (the interested genealogists) could each "plead their case" by offering the information they found, their interpretation of those facts, and the sources they used. When two or three or more contradictory opinions are published on the page, the eventual reader becomes the "judge and jury," deciding which bits of information to believe, if any. This is peer review in which peers (genealogists) can look at each other's works and then add their own input on an ancestor-by-ancestor basis.

Let's take an example, based on the family history book of my family's surname that I mentioned previously. One person might enter information on Roger Eastman's web page, stating that he was born in Wales, as stated on page seven of the original book. The genealogist may also be able to provide references as to where he or she found the information and perhaps a personal opinion as to why the "fact" is believable. A second genealogist might later offer the opinion that Roger Eastman was born in Downton, Wiltshire, England, as stated on page eight of the book. The second genealogist would also "plead his case," perhaps by offering statements from court cases made later in the immigrant's life or by including a scanned image of court records or even an image of the immigrant's christening record, as found in Salisbury Cathedral, the closest church to the village of Downton.

In no case should any claimed "facts" ever be deleted. Nobody will ever serve as arbitrator of what is right or wrong, other than the later reader who is researching his or her own family tree. All newly-entered information should be APPENDED to the page, never replacing any previously claimed facts. This is peer review with no judge, other than the reader who evaluates all the facts presented.

In fact, such tools exist today and have been available for some time. What I have described is commonly called a wiki.

Ward Cunningham, the developer of the first wiki software, WikiWikiWeb, originally described it as "the simplest online database that could possibly work." Indeed, that is the secret of why wikis work so well: simplicity.

By far, the most successful wiki in the world is Wikipedia at http://www.wikipedia.org. This serves as an online encyclopedia that is ten or twenty times bigger than the Encyclopædia Britannica. Recent studies also suggest that Wikipedia is more accurate than Encyclopædia Britannica. Actually, Wikipedia wasn't all that accurate when it was first created; but, thanks to "grooming" efforts, or peer reviews, by thousands of users, the articles have constantly received corrections and updates. The result is a new encyclopedia of great accuracy.

Wikipedia contains information submitted by tens of thousands of users. Each person contributes whatever information he or she cares about. Most of the information is accurate, but occasional errors do creep in. Sometimes, as in political, religious, or other controversial issues, some users will even attempt to insert biased opinions that may or may not be based on facts. However, each new reader has the ability to submit "second opinions." The more people involved, the greater the number of reviews. The result is constant improvements in accuracy. Wikipedia succeeds simply because of the number of people involved.

Quoting a statement about accuracy found on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia:

Several studies have been done to assess the reliability of Wikipedia. A notable early study in the journal Nature said that in 2005, Wikipedia scientific articles came close to the level of accuracy in Encyclopædia Britannica and had a similar rate of "serious errors". The study by Nature was disputed by Encyclopædia Britannica, and later Nature replied to this refutation with both a formal response and a point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections. Between 2008 and 2012, articles in medical and scientific fields such as pathology, toxicology, oncology, pharmaceuticals, and psychiatry comparing Wikipedia to professional and peer-reviewed sources found that Wikipedia's depth and coverage were of a high standard. 

For further details, go to http://en.wikipedia.org.

Moving to the world of genealogy, the wiki model appears to be a strong tool for identifying and correcting genealogy information. As stated earlier, a genealogy wiki can produce a separate page for every individual who ever lived and left records. Like Wikipedia, the genealogy wiki "is open to anonymous and collaborative editing." 

A genealogy encyclopedia will function in the same manner. There may be inaccuracies in some of the articles when first entered, but those articles will come "close to the level of accuracy" in other respected genealogy publications as they are reviewed and updated by thousands of users.

Two large genealogy wikis are in place today: We Relate at http://www.werelate.org and WikiTree at http://www.wikitree.com/. In addition, FamilySearch has created wikis.

In contrast, We Relate has been in full operation for several years, is growing rapidly, and already contains pages providing information about more than two million people. WeRelate is supported by volunteers and your tax-deductible donations. 

Two million sounds like a lot of people, and it is. However, it is still a small fraction of all the people who ever lived. As more genealogists contribute the information they have found, Werelate.org will grow into a stronger and stronger offering in the marketplace. You can learn more about WeRelate at http://www.werelate.org/.

WikiTree appeared later but has been gathering strength and users quickly with 4.5 million profiles contributed by 65,000 members. More information is available at http://www.wikitree.com/. 

Ancestry.com also offers opportunities to contribute online information about ancestors, both on the main site at www.Ancestry.com and on its RootsWeb subsidiary at http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ although none of those pages are in wiki format. Peer reviews are not handled well on the pages of Ancestry.com or RootsWeb, although there is a capability to add notes to some existing pages. Generally speaking, changes to information on Ancestry.com can only be made by the person who created the original information. However, everyone is able to create NEW pages that may, indeed, contradict earlier pages. However, this is problematic for the later user who is trying to find the correct information. Did he find ALL the pages? Did he perhaps only find the erroneous information but not the corrected version? Having separate web pages about the same individual is never a good solution. 

You can find dozens of smaller genealogy wikis, mostly designed for providing genealogy specific about specific topics although none of these approach the size or have nearly the content of WeRelate.org ir WikiTree.com.

The wikis at We Relate and WikiTree have become very popular tools as thousands of users contribute information AND CORRECTIONS about millions of ancestors. The wiki at FamilySearch also shows similar promise. I expect that we will see additional wikis from other producers in the future. Which one will be "the best wiki?" I don't know, but I do know that competition is a good thing. Historically, whenever two, three, or more organizations compete to provide similar services, the result is better services for everyone. In this case, the primary beneficiaries will be rank-and-file genealogists. In other words, you and I will reap the benefits.

I would suggest that you enter information about your deceased ancestors into all wikis that you believe are relevant or useful. I would also strongly encourage you to add corrections to information already entered by others. If you are not sure which version of information is correct, you should enter both versions and then ask for contributions of more facts from other genealogists who have researched the same individual(s). In all cases, add source citations about where the information was found or, even better, scanned images of the original records whenever possible.

Errors are inevitable. No matter how hard we try to train new genealogists, some will never get "the word." I would suggest that results will be far more accurate if we allow everyone to enter whatever information they have, accurate or not, and then allow others to perform peer reviews of the information, correcting or supplementing what is already entered. The only effective method of making this work is to have these peer reviews visible on the same pages as the original claimed information. Peer reviews have long worked well in academia, in Wikipedia, and elsewhere. I believe the results will be similar in genealogy.

Collaboration is the key. Why should you go out and re-research facts that have already been researched by dozens of other genealogists? In a similar manner, why should future genealogists have to perform the same searches that you have already made? Even more important, why should we all have to grope for corrections when there is an easier way of making corrections easily available to everyone?

Are your ancestors in the wikis?

The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) announced Monday the beta launch of its new legacy website (www.eccc.gov.kh), which is dedicated to preserving the history of the Khmer Rouge trials and fostering awareness of the accountability process in Cambodia.

The ECCC said in a press release that the site is designed as a resource for researchers, educators, and the general public. It provides updated information on court proceedings, open access to the public archives, and a suite of interactive tools aimed at deepening understanding of the legal efforts addressing Khmer Rouge atrocities.

The source added that this new website, available in three languages—Khmer, English, and French—marks a historic milestone by enabling unprecedented access to judicial findings and the work of the ECCC.

Unprecedented Public Access to the Archive

For the first time, users can access the full range of public records related to the Khmer Rouge trials directly from the judicial database. Judicial and non-judicial documents are available in Khmer, English, and French, including over 1,350 judicial decisions and tens of thousands of evidentiary records comprising over a million pages. This digital archive complements the paper archive at the ECCC Resource Centre in Phnom Penh, offering transparency and ease of access for researchers, students, and the general public.

Interactive Tools to Empower Education and Engagement

To bridge the generational gap and overcome challenges in conveying complex information about the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge regime, the website features a series of interactive features and tools designed to engage and educate.

These include a comprehensive overview of the historical context in the form of a timeline which visualizes the rise, disastrous tenure, and fall of the Khmer Rouge regime, as well as the milestones of the ECCC’s establishment and its judicial operations between 2006 and 2022. For the very first time, a dynamic hierarchy casts light on the secretive Khmer Rouge leadership and command structure over time. Furthermore, an interactive crime site map details over 100 crimes and sites investigated by the ECCC, showing the nationwide extent of the ECCC’s investigations and findings.

Supporting Education across Cambodia

Along with the ECCC Mobile Resource Centre’s ongoing outreach activities, the website will be introduced to thousands of students in schools across Cambodia, fostering wider awareness and understanding of Cambodian history and the legacy of the trials, as well as the ECCC’s contributions to Cambodia and the world.

“This website is currently in its beta version, with further features to be progressively added, including a mobile-friendly version. The ECCC welcomes feedback from users by email at pas@eccc.gov.kh,” said the press release. 

The following is a press release announcing a service to the genealogy community. I cannot vouch for this service (although I do hope to check it out soon):

Fourth anniversary celebration Trackuback is celebrating our fourth anniversary. The history platform Trackuback celebrates its fourth anniversary this week During these first years, we have created a new kind of service, pioneering visualization of genealogy and local history with maps, timelines and family trees. New opportunities are constantly emerging for the users. A story tool is our latest news.

30% celebration discount Our committed users are invaluable to our development and we want to repay their efforts with a substantial discount. Between November 14-21 we have a 30% discount to celebrate the event.

A selection of our latest news The Story tool Mobile app Kulturhistoriska Kartan Heraldry Podcasts

Trackuback is an innovative platform for genealogy and history, visualizing disparate data, historical maps, events, statistics, and the user’s own genealogical content. We are a Swedish based startup company with innovative plans for the future of genealogy.  News and discussions on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/trackuback

trackuback.com https://www.facebook.com/trackuback Tunnbindaregatan 37 602 21 Norrköping Sweden