Touchy Subjects: Native Ancestry

First off a disclaimer: None of the information in this post is presented with the intention of helping people to earn enrollment to any of the tribes currently recognized by the United States. Also, if you found this blog because you're looking for your Cherokee Princess™ ancestor you should probably read this first. And now that I've rained on your parade let's get on with the actual post.

We've all heard someone claim they've "got Indian in them". That statement, especially within the context of citing the source of certain physical characteristics, is a problematic line of thinking. It condenses Native Americans into one mythical group who all have razor sharp cheekbones and strong noses. In reality there were thousands of tribes when colonizers began arriving in North America in the 1600s but even as their numbers began to dwindle after contact they still didn't (and currently don't) all have the same features. This is really obvious looking through the photos of Native North Americans taken by Edward S. Curtis in the 1900s. I didn't mention any of that to imply that physical features can't be indicative of someones ancestry (although it can be an unreliable indicator). I just want to stress that with genealogy it's important to view any family story that isn't backed up by evidence with some skepticism. When attempting to prove (or disprove) the presence of Native ancestors in your family tree keep in mind that the story you've been told may be minus some unpleasant details that the person who lived it couldn't bear to repeat. Things like kidnapping, rape, and women being given as gifts aren't the sort of stories you want to tell the grand kids but those missing details become apparent once you research the history of contact between the Natives, Africans, and Europeans in North and South America. Few people know for example, that when Jamestown colony was founded the workforce was entirely indentured servants from England. When Africans were added to the workforce in Jamestown they conveniently replaced the indentured servants who were already complaining of mistreatment and running away to live with nearby Natives. And yes, Native people owned slaves. The reason many began buying slaves was to demonstrate how "civilized" they were to the invading Europeans. They thought were led to believe that adopting their practices would help them to retain their ancestral lands. Meanwhile the Spanish and Portuguese whose colonizing attempts began a century earlier were behaving in much the same as the British. Mexico, South America, Canada, and the Caribbean all had their own thriving Native populations and all of them came into contact with both free and enslaved African people at some point. But none of those stories are taught in American schools in their entirety; if at all, and I wonder how many people are out there looking for evidence of Native ancestry and not realizing they aren't even looking in the right place or for the right people.

Conquistador and tyrant Juan Onate's graffiti over a Native carving in New Mexico

For anyone wanting to prove a story of Native ancestry without first taking a DNA test...things are going to be difficult for you. Researching the history of an area your ancestor was born or lived in before and after European contact will help you to understand the circumstances under which your African (and likely European) ancestors may have come into contact with Native groups and give you a good idea of what records exist and clues for what to look for in them. The Powhatan tribes of Virginia, the Choctaw of Alabama, and the Cherokee of Georgia all have well documented instances of intermarriage and mixing between the Natives, Africans, and Europeans and can be traced to specific family names. Sometimes people note those things in their family trees (but not always in the most racially sensitive way unfortunately) and sometimes they don't. This is a touchy subject for some people who would rather gloss over the not so nice historical context of how they came to be related to Native or mixed race people or because they've bought into the "one drop rule". Your best bet is to do your own research rather than take someone else's tree as fact (unless they are a certified genealogist with plenty of cited sources and even then you may be aware of information/clues in the form of oral history that they aren't). Even if you know exactly where to look and who to look for you will not be able to pick out who is Native or mixed race from names alone. (Please read the Cherokee princess link at the top of the page if you skipped it for reasons why.) The census specifically can be confusing when it comes to a person race or more accurately their perceived race since the race column was up to the discretion of the enumerator or the neighbor giving the information to them for someone who wasn't home at the time. I have seen within my own family research people go from being white on one census, to mulatto on the next, or from being mulatto on one to black on another. Keeping all of that in mind, a good place to start after you've researched an area and it's original population is the Dawes Rolls for that state.

For those who have taken a DNA test your first step is going to be transferring that data to DNA.land (or Gedmatch.com) where you'll be able to get more detailed information about your ethnic ancestry than what you may have gotten from a DNA testing service due to a more well rounded data set. (In my opinion Ancestry.com in particular tries to distract from a overly European data set by catering to what they think users of African descent want to see. Rather than giving information on individual African or Native groups a user matches with or admitting that their data set is lacking in samples from those groups they instead highlight what they call migrations within the United States and downplay unidentifiable ancestry as "noise" to be dismissed when in reality it's simply what's missing from their data set.) Kits from all of the major testing companies will work on DNA.land and are easy to upload. Results are presented in a simple color coded chart format with a map. DNA.land recently sent out emails to it's users and posted an article to Medium.com stating that the site's original use as a research project operated by Colombia University and the New York Genome Project has ended and it will be relaunched unaffiliated with either group. Additionally all currently uploaded kits on the site will be deleted and will need to be reuploaded after the relaunch. So you might want to hold off on uploading to the site until after the September 30th relaunch to save time but keep in mind that it's unclear whether or not the new version will still be free... 

Continue reading after the jump

Using Fashion To Date Family Photos: Part Two

The examples in this post feature photos from after 1900. To see examples of earlier fashions see the first post here. A timeline of photography and relevant links are at the end of the post. 

The clothing details in an old photograph that will narrow down it's date range the most in both men's and women's wear are found in collars/necklines, sleeves, shoe styles, and hats. Specific to women's wear will be telltale details like a skirts length or fullness and blouse fit. Specific to menswear will be waistcoats/vests, pants, and hats. For photographs that are bust style portraits; the sitters hair style will also be important to consider. 

****

To date this photo I'll look at the following details: skirt, stockings, blouse, and hat. The bustles, hoops, and overskirts of the Victorian period disappeared by 1900 when skirts became less full and more of a straight cut. These then morphed into what we'd call a boho style skirt nowadays between then and 1920. This skirt was slightly gathered at the waist (often by adding a belt) and not as flowy as the modern version. 

It's easy to miss the delicate floral embroidery at the ankle of her stockings. The detail looks out of place when you do notice it but decorated stockings were actually common throughout the Victorian and Edwardian periods. The embroidery on the stockings in this photo are most likely 1905-1910.

Stockings detail

Her blouse is a typical Edwardian tuck waist style popular from about 1910-1920 except that it seems she decided to skip the light shirt/collar that was often attached or worn underneath resulting in a rather low neckline for daytime wear. 

A 1915 tuck waist blouse
Image from AgelessPatterns.com

Her hat is smaller than the picture hats of the Victorian period but still quite large. It's still adorned with feathers like earlier versions but only has two feathers instead of an entire bird. It's probably from between 1910 and 1920 when the large and impractical hats that were covered in flowers and feathers in the previous years had begun to go out of style because they couldn't fit inside of cars.

Hats of 1917
Image from VintageDancer.com

Likely date range of photo: 1910-1920

***

The loose fit of his suit jacket is definitely after 1945. War time rationing didn't allow for unnecessary design elements like wide lapels, flap pockets, or cuffs on pants in order to save fabric but as you can see this suit has both flap pockets and cuffed pants. The subtle pattern on the fabric doesn't seem to quite match up with bright colors and patterns of the rebellious Zoot Suit of the time either although they were worn predominately by men of color.

Continue reading after the jump