Big Chunks of DNA

Autosomal DNA match: Michael Shade and CG

I am of East European Ashkenazi Jewish origins. For centuries the East European Jews lived as small minority populations in whichever country they were in, and consistently married within their own community. Married couples were often related to each other, more or less closely, sometimes as closely as first cousins. This phenomenon of near-exclusive intra-community marriage is referred to as endogamy, and it has led to a situation today in which nearly all Ashkenazi Jews seem to be related to each other, more or less distantly.

This has significant consequences for our Autosomal DNA test results. Ashkenazi Jews have many times more ‘matches’ than other groups, and the predicted relationships often seem exaggeratedly close. FamilyTreeDNA have recognised this effect, and have altered their algorithms to try to take it into account, but the results still seem skewed. This makes it particularly difficult to identify genuine matches that can be checked against evidence gained from traditional methods of family history research.

In my own case, I now have over 100 matches at a predicted level of 2nd-to-4th Cousin or closer. However, I have not been able to establish a definite relationship to a single one of them, apart from Katy, the daughter of one of my 1st Cousins. I discussed these issues in the post A Hundred Up, from a couple of months back.

Here I look at the case of a match that came up a couple of months ago with someone who, at first sight, doesn’t seem to be Ashkenazi Jewish at all.

Disclaimer: I must point out before we start that I am a total amateur at this, and may be talking complete rubbish. If you know better, or can suggest a different interpretation, please let me know. Nicely. Many thanks.

FTDNA Family Finder results

As at 14 Jan 2016, CG is my 10th closest match on FTDNA’s Family Finder. I currently have over 5300 matches there altogether, the vast majority being too remote to even consider following up. A look down any page at random suggests that the vast majority of those listed have recognisably Jewish surnames, and a check of the Ancestral Surnames that some have listed seems to confirm this.

However, of the 100-odd 2nd-to-4th Cousin matches, very few show any of my own ancestral surnames or places, and if they have one, they don’t have the other. Of the closest 20, only one lists an ancestral surname that corresponds to any of mine. So they don’t feel like a bunch of 2nd-to-4th Cousins, even if that’s how FTDNA categorises them. That’s Ashkenazi endogamy for you.

CG stands out from the crowd, as his list of 60-odd ancestral surnames includes only 3 that could be considered to be recognisably - though not exclusively - Jewish. One of his great-grandfathers was Jewish, and used the surname Lewis. His parents had immigrated to London in the 1870s, from somewhere in Poland, where their surname was Lisky.

FTDNA: Shared centiMorgans

On the FTDNA Matches page, you can sort by Relationship Range to see a listing in order of genetic closeness to you. In my case this puts my cousin Katy at the top - she’s a 1st Cousin Once-Removed - followed by a few predicted to be 2nd-to-3rds, and then the 2nd-to-4ths. CG is in 10th place - but it turns out this is not because of the total amount of DNA we share, but rather because of the length of the longest shared segment.

The unit used is centiMorgans - don’t ask me to explain what they are, I’ve seen several different explanations, none of which I can claim to understand, but for our purposes it’s the standard measure used for the amount of DNA you may or may not match someone on. The more cMs two people share, the stronger the match.

Here are the relevant numbers for CG and the four people around him in the list - these are my top 5 out of a total of 100 2nd-to-4ths:

	Total shared cM	Longest shared segment, cM
MM	134.98	30.99
GIM	159.43	27.73
MW	113.04	26.54
CG	57.99	26.35
LAE	108.68	24.14

So although CG has only 1 Ashkenazi Jewish great-grandparent, and so is only 1/8 AJ, he shares 1/2 as much DNA with me as the others do. And the longest segment we share is right up there with the best. Looking at these figures aroused my curiosity even more.

FTDNA: In common with

It struck me that the match with CG could be quite helpful, even if we were not able to determine exactly how and where we were related. If I could pin down on which side of my family he matched me, that might help locate some of my other matches, at least on one side or the other of my family.

This is where Katy comes in handy. I know she is on my father’s side, and I can use FTDNA’s ‘in common with’ test to see which of my own matches also match her. It is highly probable that the matches we have in common will be located on my father’s side. At least that halves the problem - they are not on my mother’s side. The converse is also the case - if I run the ‘not in common with’ test, the matches in the resulting list will probably lie on my mother’s side.

It’s actually a little more complicated with Katy, as she has one non-Jewish grandparent, and a Jewish father from a different geographical area to the ancestors we share. But I’m going to ignore those factors for the moment.

Last week I ran the ‘in common with’ test on CG. Katy does not appear, so CG is therefore on my mother’s side. And because he has only two identifiably Jewish great-great-grandparents - the Liskys - the connection must be through them. We haven’t got any further in identifying exactly where it lies, but at least we now know where to look.

FTDNA: Chromosome Browser

I next took a closer look at the ‘in common with’ results, in particular at the top 4 in the list. These are the people whose overall results place them closest to me, and who also match CG. Since they match CG and not my cousin Katy, they too will eventually turn out to be on my mother’s side. Again, I’ll refer to them by initials: MW, SLR, JW, DRT.

The Chromosome Browser test shows where you match each other on each chromosome, and how long the matching segments are. It also tells you how many segments you match on with each of the other people you have included in the test. 

Number of matching segments with me:

MW: 24

SLR: 23

JW: 20

CG: 11

DRT: 36

The point of interest here was that although CG only has one Jewish great-grandparent, as far as I can tell the others in this group all have 8, as do I. And yet despite having only 1/8 the amount of Ashkenazi genetic input, he nevertheless matches me on 1/2 the number of segments that most of the others do. I’m not sure what conclusions can be drawn from this. As we saw before, he also came up with roughly 1/2 the total shared cM as my other top 2nd-to-4ths - a different group of people (see previous section). Might it be that some bits of Ashkenazi DNA are more durable, or more sticky - less likely to mutate - than the average? Or maybe it’s just some of the bits that he and I share?

However, some of these segments are quite small, and may not be of much genetic significance.

I ran 2 checks on the Chromosome Browser, to see where we all matched. When I put the minimum match length at 5cM, there were only 3 points at which more than one person matched me exactly:

Chromosome 5: MW & CG

Chromosome 15: JW & DRT

Chromosome 18: SLR & DRT

The match on Chr 18 between myself, SLR & DRT is quite short, but the other two appear to be quite substantial. Chr 5 is where CG and I have our 26cM match, and MW substantially shares this. The same is the case on Chr 15, with myself, JW and DRT. These look like big chunks of DNA in common between 3 people.

I would like to conclude from this that, if and when CG and I manage to establish exactly where in our respective families our match is located, then we should expect to find one of MW’s ancestors there or thereabouts as well. Or of course the breakthrough may happen with MW’s family, pointing the way to the match with CG. The same thinking applies to the match on Chr 15 - JW and DRT are on my mother’s side, but maybe not in the same branch as CG and MW.

As I said, I would like to be able to come to this conclusion. Either that, or be shown why I shouldn’t.

I then set the bar lower, at 3cM. This gave me:

Chr 3: SLR & DRT

Chr 5: MW & CG

Chr 7: MW & JW

Chr 12: MW & SLR & CG

Chr 15: JW & DRT

Chr 18: SLR & DRT

The results in red are the new ones, and represent fairly short matches at between 3cM and 5cM. They are probably less significant than the longer matches. However, Chromosome 12 catches my eye - MW, SLR and CG all share a short segment there with me. Does that hint at a common ancestor for all 4 of us, somewhere way back in time? Notice that SLR seems to have joined the club formed on Chr 5 by MW, CG and myself, although she does not appear to have a significant match there herself. Could the Chr 12 group be related via a different common ancestor? CG only has 2 candidate ancestors - his Lisky g-grandparents. Could the Chr 5 match be via one of them, and the Chr 12 match via the other?

It feels like there are some tantalising hints here, if only we could work out what they are pointing us to.

GEDmatch to follow

CG has also submitted his DNA results to GEDmatch, as have I. The tests available there are different, and potentially very interesting. Next up. 

A Hundred Up

Three years ago I submitted a DNA sample to FamilyTreeDNA, and sat back and waited for the test results. The genetic 'matches' have duly been coming in, week by week since then, over 5000 of them and counting. Today I received my 100th match at the level of 2nd-to-4th Cousin. A cause for celebration, you would think - a host of new connections, new cousins, the expansion of our family tree, new family stories to hear and tell.

Well, I have not been able to establish a connection with a single one of them, with the exception of one I already knew, since before she was born so to speak - she's my cousin's daughter.

The problem is, my ancestors. And those of my matches. We are Ashkenazi Jews, and belong to a group that has been endogamous - ie, has intermarried within the group - not just for generations, but for centuries. So the DNA testing companies, and the science that underlies them, struggle to fit us into the pattern that works well for most other populations. They say they compensate to take account of the effects of endogamy, and I'm sure they do, but in my experience I have to say they end up grossly over-estimating the closeness of our relationships.

(click if it's too small to read)

Here's the listing of my top 5 matches. Katy, the first one, is a 1st Cousin Once Removed - my cousin's daughter. So I know her. The next four are classed as probable 2nd-3rd Cousins, which means we should share great-great-grandparents, or closer. 

The thing is, I know my family quite well. I know all the descendants of all my grandparents, most of them personally. I know the given and family names of all 8 of my great-grandparents, and where most of them were born and where they lived. I know the names and places for the vast majority of their descendants - ie, the brothers and sisters of my own grandparents, and their children in turn, who are my 2nd Cousins.

Moving back to the previous generation, my great-great-grandparents should in theory be the source of my 2nd-3rd Cousin matches. I know the given and family names of 12 out of 16 of them, including all 8 men and 4 of the women, and many of their places; I also know the given names of the other 4 women. My knowledge of their descendant lines - ie, those of my great-grandparents' siblings - is much more sketchy. In some cases I know only the name of my own ancestor, and have no information at all on possible siblings. Some of my DNA 2nd-4th Cousin matches will undoubtedly come from these unknown lines, maybe most of them. But surely not all 99 of them?

From my grandparents to my great-great-great-grandparents

(click on the image to enlarge it)

To take this one step further, the above implies that I actually know the family names of 12 out of 16 of the families of my great-great-great-grandparents - in other words, I know the family names that all of the siblings of my great-great-grandparents would have had, even if I don't actually know whether they existed or not. And these, of course, are the family names that the men would have passed on to the next generation.

At this point, let's make a few uncontroversial, generalising, assumptions: 

i) that any descendants that married and had children would be more or less equally divided between male and female

ii) that most women would take on their husband's surname on marriage, and thereby not pass on their own

iii) that any children they had would again be 50% male and 50% female, and so on

In this scenario, my knowledge of the surnames of any potential cousins would more or less halve with each generation, as the women don't pass on the known family name. However I do actually know who the siblings are in some cases, in particular who the women were, and who they married, and this knowledge increases the closer we get to the present day - so the halving process I am suggesting here is an exaggeration. I know much more than half of the names in my grandparents generation, but the calculation is easier to follow like this - let's just bear in mind we're being severe with the numbers.

So whereas I know all the family names of my great-great-grandparents' generation - the source of my 3rd Cousins - I will only know about half of those of my great-grandparents' generation, and a quarter of those of my grand-parents'. Which means I should expect to recognise the names of an eighth - 12.5% - of my parents' generation. And 6.25% of my own. Not 0% of any of them, which is where I am with my DNA matches at the moment.

We can halve again to get the picture for 4th Cousins - I should recognise fewer names in each succeeding generation: 12.5% of my 4th Cousins in my grandparents' generation, 6.25% in my parents', and 3.125% in my own. But again, not 0% of any of them. Especially considering we're just being theoretical, and not taking my actual knowledge into account.

And it's not just me recognising names in my own family tree - I am sharing trees with a number of my closer matches - and I don't recognise what's on theirs, nor they what's on mine.

So my conclusion is that FTDNA's match estimates exaggerate the closeness of our relationships. My guess at the moment is that they are a couple of generations out at least. I'm in touch this week with a couple of the 2nd-3rd Cousin matches in the list above, and I'll be surprised if we manage to confirm FTDNA's ratings. More than surprised - I'll be overjoyed! But I'm not expecting anything closer than 4th-5th.

A major issue of course is that most of us are finding it very difficult to trace our families back more than two or three generations, which is where we need to be to locate 3rd Cousins and further. In many areas the documentary trail has been disrupted, by emigration, war, revolution and the Holocaust, not to mention those inconsiderate ancestors who wilfully changed their names when it suited them. And all this makes it even more difficult to trace the descendants of those generations. But I still think I should be able to recognise one or two of them, at least.

On the plus side, it is useful having Katy in the list, as I can do a check on whether the people that match me also match her - she's on my father's side, so this gives me a rough orientation as to which side the others probably match me on. If they match Katy, they're probably on my Schreibman-Ilyutovich side, if they don't, they're probably on my Frankenstein-Waxman side. Reassuringly, across all 5000 matches, there's more or less half on each side.

It would help even more to have a few more known cousins do the test, as this would enable us to refine the analysis further, and get closer to identifying how our matches connect to us. Ideally I would like to have one of each line - a Frankenstein who's not a Waxman, and a Waxman who's not a Frankenstein, and similarly a Schreibman who's not an Ilyutovich, and an Ilyutovich who is not a Schreibman. That woud help us identify matches for each of my four lines.

And of course it's not just for 'my' family - they would all get matches on the other sides of their own families, as well.

Any offers?

Who was Isaac Frankenstein?

My Frankenstein family were originally from Gombin and Plock in Poland, and came to England during the mid-19th-to-early-20th Century. I have recently come across an Isaac Frankenstein, who was born around 1825 in Poland, and appears in the 1851 UK Census. I am attempting to see whether I can connect him to my own family. He emigrated to the USA in 1853, and I have traced him via New York and Alabama, to Savannah, Georgia.

Isaac Frankenstein m Kate Barnett, Brighton, 1853

In 1853 he had married Kate Barnett in Brighton, England, and shortly afterwards they sailed to New York, taking with them Kate’s sister Leah. In the 1851 UK Census, Isaac had been living in the household of Kitty Barnard, mother of the two girls, in Portsmouth. He may have gone there to be apprenticed as a jeweller to Kitty’s late husband Lyon Barnard, who had died in 1849.

Kate died a few months after reaching New York,in 1854. Within a few weeks of Kate's death, Isaac married Leah; like her sister, Leah used the name Barnett at her marriage, rather than Barnard, the name used in the Census. Isaac and Leah had one child in New York, then a second in Alabama, and then settled in Milledgeville, Georgia, at that time the State capital, where they had two more children. By 1861 they were in Savannah, 160 miles away. Isaac died there in September that year.

Who was Woolf Barnett?

The Barnards/Barnetts were also apparently from Poland. There is also a Woolf Barnett, who appears to be related, but does not appear in any UK records with them. He had arrived in Savannah a few years earlier, and married Selina Russell there in 1847. She died in 1850, and I lose track of Woolf for the next few years.

Then, in the 1860 US Census, taken on 18 June, Woolf Barnett, aged 35, was living in Milledgeville, with or next door to Isaac and his family - see below for details. Two months later, he returned to England and remarried. His new wife was Rachel Joel, from another jeweller family. They were married on 22 August, also in Brighton. On the marriage certificate, Rachel gives the same address - 89 St James Street - as Isaac Frankenstein and Kate Barnett had given 7 years earlier. It is the address of Rachel's father Jacob Joel, silversmith, and his family, throughout this period.

Woolf Barnett m Rachel Joel, Brighton 1860

Woolf and Rachel returned immediately to Savannah, where they had three children, then Rachel died in 1864.

In the 1870 US Census Leah Frankenstein and Woolf Barnett, both now widowed, are again living in the same house with their respective children. There is no indication of any relationship between them. In the 1880 Census they are again in the same household, but this time Leah is reported as Woolf’s sister. However, various UK and US records indicate that Leah’s father was Lyon Barnard, and Woolf’s was Elias Barnett. The only explanation I can think of is that they are really half-siblings, and that their mother was married twice, first to Elias, and then to Lyon.

Another thought that occurs is that although Lyon's family appears as Barnard in the 1841 UK Census, and in his own death record in 1849, they call themselves Barnett thereafter, from the 1851 Census onwards. Intriguingly there is one exception where Barnard is used - see below. Kate refers to her father as Lyon Barnett on her marriage certificate. The family seem to regard the names as equivalent. Might Elias Barnett and Lyon Barnard have been brothers, even?

Who was Elias Barnett?

At this point the story gets even more complicated, as there seem to be several Elias Barnetts in the Southern states at this period, as well as a few in the UK. Intriguingly there is an Elias Barnett buying and selling property in Alabama at around the same time as Isaac and Leah Frankenstein are there for the birth of their second child Harris in 1857. However, nowhere is it specified where in Alabama Harris was born, so I have not been able to link them together there with any certainty.

The families of Isaac Frankenstein and Elias Barnett in the 1860 US Census

(Isaac himself is entered at the bottom of the previous page)

In 1860, Elias Barnett (54) is living in Milledgeville with Woolf (35) and Benjamin (25), which sounds very much like a father and two sons, though this is not specified. They are the next household in the list to Isaac and Leah Frankenstein, and may well be living in the same house. Did Isaac and Leah go to Alabama specifically in order to join up with Elias, and then all move together to Milledgeville - always assuming that the Elias Barnett we found in Alabama is the same person?

Elias and Woolf are said to have been born in Poland, Benjamin in England, which suggests Elias may have emigrated from Poland to England at some point between 1825 and 1835.

An Elias Barnet in Liverpool in 1841, with sons Lyons and Berrant

One candidate in the UK could be an Elias Barnett living in Liverpool in the 1841 UK Census, with a wife Sarah and two young sons, Lyons aged 8, and Berrant (sic), 3. Elias is said to have been born in 'Foreign Parts', the others in Liverpool. This family does not seem to appear in later UK Censuses. To add to the intrigue, there is a Lyon Barnett who died in Savannah in 1867, who is said to have been born in 1834 in England, but does not seem to appear in any other records in either country. And could the 'Berrant' from Liverpool in 1841 be the same person as 'Benjamin' in Milledgeville in 1860?

To add to the mix, there is an Elias Barnett indicted of bigamy in Alabama in 1849, and one who played a significant role in the Civil War. I have no idea at the moment whether these are one, two or three different people. The bigamist married twice in the USA, so if he is indeed the same person as ‘our’ Elias, father of Woolf, he was probably married in England at around the same time, and so could quite possibly be a trigamist.

I cannot find birth or marriage records, nor any other census records prior to 1860, for anyone I can identify as ‘our' Elias Barnett. There also appear to be another couple of candidates in the UK, in addition to our Liverpool suspect, but I cannot say with any certainty whether any of them are this one. Although I do quite fancy the Liverpudlian.

One thing I have found is at least one Elias Barnett, and one Woolf Barnett, with criminal convictions in the UK in this period.

Who were Kate and Leah Barnard?

As for Kate and Leah Barnard/Barnett, I have not been able to find birth records for either of them in the UK. They would have been born before statutory records came into effect in 1837. Kate is said to be born in London, Leah in Portsmouth, both around 1830-34 - but who knows?

The most puzzling document was the Passenger Manifest for Isaac, Kate and Leah, when they sailed from London to New York in December 1853. Isaac and Kate are clear enough, but who is their travelling companion?

Isaac, Kate and Lebonard cross the Atlantic, Dec 1853

Lebonard Frankenstine? Lebonard? It was only when I tried saying the name out loud that the penny dropped: Leah Barnard! Note that both Kate (1853) and Leah (1854) married as Barnett.

Who was Harris Frankenstein?

On Isaac's marriage certificate in 1853, his father is said to be Harris Frankenstein, deceased. In accordance with Ashkenazi Jewish tradition, Isaac named his first (and only) son after him. However, I can find no other trace of Harris the father, either in Poland, the UK, or the USA. Both the names ‘Isaac’ and ‘Hersz’, which often transmutes into Harris in English-speaking countries, occur in my Frankenstein family around that period, so this Isaac and Harris could possibly be named after the same common ancestors. However these names were quite common across Poland, so for the moment that has to be classed as a nice idea but nowhere near proven.

So who was Isaac Frankenstein? Although I have managed to map out some of the key points in his life, I still don't have a clue as to where he was born - apart from 'Poland' - or whether he could have been a relative of my own Frankenstein ancestors.

I am hoping that somewhere, somehow, there will be records, that are maybe not yet available online, from Georgia and/or Alabama, that could help throw light on this family. Or from the UK. Or from Poland, even.

Does anyone have any suggestions? Any ideas at all would be most gratefully received!

David Frankenstein, 1899-1918

Last Thursday we laid stones on the grave of my cousin David Frankenstein, also known as Franks, who died nearly 100 years ago. I say "cousin" for short - he's actually my 5th Cousin; our common ancestors are my 4x-great-grandparents Jakob Wolkowicz and Bajla Moskowna, who were probably born around 1760. I had been tracing his branch of the family, and came across his First World War service record a couple of weeks ago. We were going to Belgium for a few days last week, and sought out the cemetery where he is buried on the way back.

David was born in Hackney, London, in 1899. His grandparents Izrael Frankensztajn and Fejga Szajna Rozenblum had come to London from Plock in Poland around 1870, either just before or just after the birth of David's father Harris. David was the eldest of 5 children born to Harris and his wife Ruth Leapman. The other children all went on to marry and raise families in London, as far as I have been able to track them, but I have not as yet managed to establish contact with any of them.

David was called up to serve in the British Army in October 1916. His service record is very difficult to decipher, but he appears to have been sent to France some time during 1917. He seems to have been wounded at some point, and sent back to the UK. He then returned to France on 26 May 1918, to be posted to the Duke of Wellington's Regiment. This regiment took part in the Battle of the Selle, in late October, and in the attack on Valenciennes, a week or so later.

It was during this attack that David lost his life, "killed in action" on 1 November, along with some 60 of his comrades. They are buried in the municipal cemetery in the village of Préseau, a few kilometres south of Valenciennes. There are a hundred or so war graves in this cemetery, and David's grave is the only one marked with the Mogen Dovid, suggesting that he is the only Jewish soldier buried there.

Ten days later the Armistice was signed, and the War ended. The tragedy was not yet over for David's mother Ruth, however, as Harris died the following March. Within 4 months she had lost her eldest son, and then her husband.

Meet the Szwarc family

The Szwarc family, Gombin (Poland) 1918

I have just this weekend had my first contact with another ‘new’ cousin, Belinda from Israel. This afternoon she sent me this photo of her grandparents, Towje Aron Szwarc and Bajla Frankensztajn, with 9 of their children. Two more had died young, and there was one more to come. Bajla was the sister of my own great-great-grandfather, Jankel Josek Frankensztajn, so Belinda is officially my Second Cousin Once Removed. She is named after Bajla, her grandmother.

The little boy seated on the right, whose feet don’t quite touch the floor, is Belinda’s father Pinhas (Paul), here aged about 5. In the middle at the back stands Jankel (Jack), the oldest son, aged about 23.

I had never seen this photo before, and thought it quite wonderful. Now that Belinda has identified all the people in it for me, I think that, for our family, it is also quite historic. Here’s why.

My own grandfather Lajb (Louis) Frankenstein and his cousin Jack Szwarc both left their home town of Gombin, in Poland, during 1913, and came to London. Louis was 21 and Jack 17. They may even have come together, we don’t know. They both found work in tailoring, Jack in the East End of London, Louis possibly in the West End. They both married in 1916. Jack’s first child Phillip was born in September 1917, and Louis’s first child, Esther (my Auntie Essie) was born in April 1918 (sadly, she died earlier this year, aged 95).

I have been trying to trace their lives in Britain for a couple of years now, and a couple of the documents I have come across deal with their military service during the First World War. In 1917 Russia and Britain, allies in the war against Germany, came to an agreement - the 'Allied Convention' - whereby all Russian nationals in the UK who were eligible for military service, would either have to ‘return’ to Russia and enlist in the Russian Army, or they would have to join the British Army. This included people from Poland, which was part of the Russian Empire.

Louis in the British Army

The vast majority of the Jewish community in the East End of London had come from areas within the Russian Empire, and this agreement was particularly aimed at them. The two cousins, along with thousands of others, had difficult decisions to make. They chose different paths: Louis stayed in the UK and joined the British Army, whilst Jack opted to go ‘back’ to Russia.

Under this scheme, a number of boats, with a few thousand men in total on board, sailed from London to Odessa, on the Black Sea, between August and October 1917, and Jack was on one of those. He eventually returned to London in September 1919.

In the end, he did not fight in the War, because the Bolshevik Revolution occurred shortly after he arrived, in November 1917, and Russia immediately withdrew from the War. I do not know whether the recruits from the UK were expected to carry out some form of military service in the Red Army, after the end of the War, or whether they were freed from service altogether.

The War between Britain and Germany continued until November 1918, so Jack would not have been able to travel across Europe to return to London before then. Until I saw this photo, I had no idea where he went, or what he did, in those two years.

What the photo tells us is that he did in fact return to Gombin, some 1300km from Odessa. Belinda’s identification of the younger children dates the photo in 1918 or possibly early 1919, and Jack's presence confirms this. I think it may even have been taken especially for Jack, so that he could take it back to London as a memento of his family, and to show to his wife. It is quite probably the only photo ever taken of the whole family together. I don’t think they were ever again all in the same place at the same time.

Meet my great-great-great-grandmother's family

Lewek and Libe Taube

This is from a Book of Residents covering the villages between Gombin and Plock, in central Poland. It is an entry on the page for the family of my great-great-grandfather, Wolek Frankensztajn, and it identifies his parents. The entry is written in Russian, and probably dates from the 1870s or thereabouts.

Wolek's parents are my great-great-great-grandparents. I had no idea what their names were going to be - I hadn't even known of Wolek until I saw this book in the archives in Plock last June. There isn't an online index for the book, so there's no way of knowing what's in it without going there and asking to see the original.

I can read a bit of Russian, not fluently, but enough to decipher the names in the first line: Lewek and Libe Taube. The word on the second line should be her maiden name - but what is it? I couldn't make it out. I put it aside, intending to post it online to see if anyone could decipher it for me.

Then a couple of days ago I was putting together a little booklet to give to my 'new' cousin Joan. We are third cousins, and this is the document that proves it: Wolek, born in 1839, is our most recent common ancestor, and I wanted to translate the whole of this page into English for her. I could work out all the rest - but I didn't want to leave out our great-great-great-grandmother's maiden name.

I had another look, I blew it up big. Suddenly it dawned on me that the word might start with the Russian character: щ , which gives a sort of double sound 'shch'. I followed through, trying out all the possibilities I could think of for all the other strokes, and laboriously pieced together a candidate: щавинска . Written in Polish, which uses Latin characters, this would be: Szczawinska .

I'd never heard of the name, so I was a bit dubious. Maybe I'd got it wrong. I went to the JRI-Poland web-site, and put in a query. There they were: a handful of Szczawinskis (masculine) and Szczawinskas (feminine) in the area, including two or three in Lewek's home town of Gombin. The database didn't include my Libe Taube, but that was because the time period it covered was wrong for her.

But at least I now know her family name, thanks to Cousin Joan :-), and I also know that there were others with the same name in the same area, so it may be possible to find traces of her family.

And now, three days later, however hard I stare at the word, I can't see it as anything but: щавинска . How come I couldn't see it before?

Can you decipher 267 Jankel?

I have a number of short snippets that I'll be posting here in the hope that someone can help me decipher them. They are from entries in a Book of Residents covering the villages between Gombin and Plock, in Poland. They are handwritten in Polish or in Russian, sometimes both. There's about 20 altogether so I'll post a couple to start with and see how it goes.

267 Jankel

This is from the entry for my great-grandfather, Jankel Josek Frankensztejn. I can see that the second note says "died 2 November 1903" - but I can't make out the first note (Russian). And I can't even work out whether the scribble in red is in Russian or Polish ....

Please feel free to post any comments or translations in the Comments below.