What's in a Name, Part Two

In my previous entry on What's in a Name, I pondered the difficulties in identifying who your ancestors were when a John would go by Ray or a Jennie by Maude.  Eventually, I sorted things out and expanded things to search both names.  I have since been floundering my way through even more name difficulties, some of which I understand and some of which leave me totally perplexed and clueless. 

For example, I totally get families Americanizing their names when they immigrated here from other countries.  I have no problems seeing how a Wilhelm becomes William, Johan becomes John, or Jung becomes Young.  That all kind of makes sense to me.  I can also understand how someone might be listed in census forms under a nickname, especially children, making Wilhelmina into Minnie and Martha into Mattie.  Eventually, with persistance, you get enough information and things make sense.

My recent research, however, makes me wonder how certain decisions regarding names are made by those who possess them.  What makes one half of the family go one way and the other half go another?  I recently moved to working on a different branch of my family tree after I had gotten back 4-5 generations on the branch I was working on.  With the exception of some of the above mentioned name issues, typically resulting from nicknames or Americanizing names, I cruised along without any real issues. 

So I opened this new branch and imported from my main tree the relevant people and merged them.  Everything was nice and smooth through my paternal great-grandparents.  I mean, I was born and raised a Palmer, my dad was born and raised a Palmer, my grandpa was born and raised a Palmer, and I knew my great-grandmother, who became a Palmer upon her marriage to my great-grandfather (how she went from being Carolina to Lena, which is the name on her tombstone, is another matter entirely and one I still haven't a clue about.)  So I was pretty confident in my Palmerness.

Until I was trying to track down my great-great-grandparents, John and Sarah.  I have the information on their marriage (1850 in Indiana).  Only thing is, John is listed as John Parmer, not John Palmer.  But everything else is the same so I'm confident it's the right person.  And, sure enough, I find them living with John's parents in the 1850 census, taken less than a month after their marriage.  Listed, as I expected, as Palmers.  As are John's parents, Joseph and Ruth (although the hard to read census had Ruth transcribed as Auther). 

1860 has them listed as Parma (way off base and put down to a mistranscription of Parmer).  His 1863 Civil War Draft Registration lists both John and his brother Isaih as Palmer.  Still a Palmer in the 1870 and 1880 federal censuses, as well as the 1885 and 1895 Iowa censuses.  In fact, John and Sarah were both still listed as Palmers in 1900 and 1905.  They were rather elderly by then and when I couldn't find them anywhere in the 1910 census, I surmised that they died sometime between 1905 and 1910.  So why couldn't I find them in a cemetery anywhere around where they spent the last 30+ years of their life. 

Because they are buried as John and Sarah Parmer.  All of the information I have matches these tombstones, including birth and death dates.  It is also the local cemetery to the small town, Delmar, where they lived.  It is also the same cemetery where their son, my great-grandfather, is buried.  As a Palmer.  Some of their children are buried here as Palmers and some are buried here as Parmers.  Why the difference?  Why be listed in almost every place I've looked as Palmer (including the reference to Sarah's death in the Iowa death records for 1906, matching the date on her tombstone) and then have Parmer on your tombstone?

I'm still working on John's father, Joseph, who appears to be predominately listed as Parmer, with the odd listing as Palmer (as in the 1850 census).  I've managed to verify his identity and his wife, as well as the listing of their children, including John.  The locations all match, the dates all match, but that last name keeps bouncing around.  So I'll keep digging.  And wondering how half a family chose Palmer and the other half went with Parmer.

When my oldest sister read this, she sent me the following:  

"You know, it's interesting that you found that. I actually went to school with a Parmer and somehow that got mentioned to Dad and he told me that at one time, Parmer & Palmer were the same family and then it split off, one going with Palmer and the other with Parmer. I want to say it was originally Parmer but there was some dispute and someone went off and pouted, determined not to be associated with "that bunch", but that's all the detail he gave me (or that I remember). I'm guessing that a lot of it had to do with penmanship and the hand written records. The family starts as Parmer, but somewhere along the line someone took the r for an l and it stuck. Who knows. Regardless of how old I may be, that was WAY before my time."

Scandanavian? Who knew??

So I finally got the results of the Ancestry.com DNA test I did recently.  And I found the results to be quite interesting and not really what I expected at all.  Since what I have discovered during my research shows that 1) most branches of my family have been here in the US for generations; 2) most of those branches seem to have originated somewhere in the British Isles, predominantly England, with the odd Irish or Scottish ancestor; and 3) most of the branches that are not British in origin were Germanic, I was a little surprised by what the results revealed.

My results showed merely a 43% genetic British Isles ethnicity, which was lower than I expected.  What really surprised me was that following right behind that, with a 42% genetic ethnicity, was Scandanavian.  Huh?  Scandanavian?  What the heck?  I have not traced anyone to Scandanavian countries, at least not back the 200-300 years, I've mostly managed.  I did hit Switzerland once, but that's not Scandanavian.  However, it turns out that if your ancestors are from the British Isles, you are definitely likely to show Scandanavian ethnicity, thanks to those marauding Vikings, the wandering Goths (Sweden), and the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (Denmark).  Some, such as the Goths, Angles, and Saxons, made their way to England from Germany.

So I'm guessing that a combination of invasions by Scandanavians into Germanic regions, followed by later invasions of those peoples into the British Isles, and the original Viking and Jute invasions, lead to that large amount of Scandanavian ancestry that I had no idea about.  It also probably explains the lack of central European ethnicity I expected to find with the German ancestors I've identified.  I admit, however, that I am still a little perplexed by the 8% Southern European DNA identified, which indicates Italy, Spain, and Portugal.  I definitely haven't identified anyone to account for that.

If you've been adding up percentages, you'll find that there is still 7% that is unaccounted for.  Right now, it's listed as "Unknown".  Ancestry.com tells me that  "This means that small traces of a specific genetic population have been found in your DNA, but the probability levels were too low to pinpoint it to a specific ethnicity. This is not uncommon, and as more genetic signatures are discovered with a higher confidence level, we may be able to update this ‘uncertain’ percentage of your ethnicity over time."

I'm anxious to see how the results are updated as more and more people do the test.  I'd kind of like to know what my unknown portions are.  I am a bit disappointed that Ancestry hasn't found anyone more closely related to me than a 5th or 6th cousin at this point.  It would be interesting to discover an unknown relative or two.