Anglo-Saxon Genealogies

Anglo-Saxon Genealogies

Germanic pre-Christian ideas of ancestry wouldn’t necessarily be totally intuitive to a modern person looking back.

This is a favorite topic of mine. I rarely pass up a chance to point out others who agree with me. Here, Simon Roper.

The old, poetic genealogies handed down by our remote ancestors “were probably not completely reflective of genetic relationships in the same way as our modern idea of a family tree would be, so a lot of them seem to go back to a god like Woden, although post-Christianization the royal family trees were retroactively so that the god was somewhere in the middle of the tree rather than at the base. And in fact these genealogies seem to have reflected socio-political associations a bit more than they represented actual, real genetic descent as we would see it.

So, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that probably people coming from elsewhere and integrating into the local society could possibly be accommodated into that genealogy without actually having been a known blood relation of anybody in the group.

It’s clear that not being of genetically Anglo-Saxon ancestry did not preclude a person becoming a very active member of society with a lot of responsibility. So identity was rooted in descent but that descent was not necessarily strictly generation to generation genetic descent; that’s a very modern way of viewing it.

It’s broader than that, even. As an example well-known to historians, the genealogy of the Wessex kings descended from Cerdic seems to have been grafted on to the older and more prestigious genealogy of the kings of Bernica (Kenneth Sisam, “Anglo-Saxon Royal Genealogies”, Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 39, pp. 287–348 (1953)).

These can be difficult concepts if you’re not used to them. I’m reminded of an old professor of mine who used to say, “Objectivity is nothing more than consensual subjectivity.” Powerful stuff. Think about that for a minute.

When we know there might be something to see, it’s not hard to find ways in our own culture where people see genealogical and cultural identity in different ways.

At a different point in this presentation Roper says, “Think of how many different ways people view their identity today – I know people who consider themselves British but have two natively Japanese parents, and people who consider themselves French despite not having had a French ancestor in more than a hundred years. Neither of these is an invalid way of viewing identity, but it goes to show that we cannot agree on what constitutes cultural heritage and identity nowadays. . . .

Our ancestors thought genealogy should reflect cultural relationships. We think genealogy is only true if it represents biological facts. We’re not talking across the generations about similar but different things. We can’t use their information for our purposes.

Eden Bar

Eden Bar

Here’s a very short video of the exterior of the Eden Bar in Farson, Wyoming.

I must have driven by it a million times as a kid and a dozen times as an adult. It never stood out for me. I wouldn’t have thought I ever noticed it. I wouldn’t have thought of it without some kind of prompt. I never lived in Farson-Eden as an adult.

But as soon as I saw the video I knew exactly where and what it was.

I’m linking it here purely for nostalgia.

Farson Dig 1940

Farson Dig 1940

I don’t think I knew the Eden Point was named after Eden, Wyoming. I wondered, of course. My mom knew, though. Of course she did. She grew up at Farson.

Here’s a video clip from a 1940/41 archaeological dig at Farson. The Pennsylvania Museum (University of Pennsylvania) conducted the dig at a site they named the Finley Site.

The Finley Site is an old paleo-Indian bison kill site, where arrowheads had been found on the surface. The site dates from ~9 thousand years ago. It’s now associated with the Cody Cultural Complex, Archaeologists found a type of point that had been found elsewhere, but never before in situ. They named that style “Eden Point“. The site was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2010, long after we all moved away.

There’s also a “related” site, the Farson-Eden Site. It was an American Indian camp site with 12 lodges and large collection of antelope bones. It was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2014.

Most of the video from the Finley Site is field footage, no sound on any of it. I’m focused on the two little local history pieces. The video shows a road sign at 03:33 and a brief shot of Farson Mercantile at 11:53. That sign was just across Highway 191 from the store.

The shot list for the video shows:

  • Fieldwork, dusting of samples. Linton Satterthwaite and Edgar B. Howard.
  • The arrow points from a buffalo kill site, known as Eden Points.
  • Mrs Charles Bache also assisting
  • Sifting artifacts from dirt
  • Surveying landscape
  • Directional Sign with arrows: Eden Rock Springs, Pinedale, Jackson, Yellowstone. Mrs. Bache pointing to Rock Springs.
  • Seated near the buffalo bones
  • Hammering in a post for a shelter
  • Sun/shade shelter next to buffalo bones find.
  • Survey of the land
  • Sifting materials Gathering materials in a tarp
  • Breaking clods. General field activities.
  • Picking up one of the points, extreme close up
  • A visit to town, likely Farson.

I think I would change that last line to “A visit to the Farson Mercantile.” I wrote to them about. We’ll see what they say.

  • Penn Museum, Digging at Farson, Wyoming, YouTube.com, Dec. 5, 2012, retrieved Aug. 16, 2020. “Partially edited footage of the Finley Expedition; Farson Wyoming, Film made possibly by Charles Bache.” Another copy of the video is hosted at Pennsylvania Museum.
Wyoming Brands

Wyoming Brands

There’s a book on the cattle brands of Green River, Wyoming. Branded: History of Green River Valley and Hoback Basin Brands (2016), compiled and published by Green River Valley Cattlewomen.

Branded
Branded, by the Green River Valley Cattlewomen.
Bill Luce
Bill Luce

My great grandfather Bill Luce (1864-194) lived there. I bought the book, thinking his brands might be mentioned. No such luck.

I asked Jonita Sommers. She said, “nobody asked and payed to have them put in.” I guess my psychic skills failed me, here.

Luce brands
Luce brands

Great grandpa’s brands were the LU Quarter Circle, which was his first brand; the Circle Dot; and the Flying Heart. Jonita says, “The Flying Heart is now used by Don Kendall, old CEO of Pepsi who bought the place in the 80s.  Now has old Alexander place on Newfork.  The other two I don’t think are in use.”

Genealogy & Public History

Genealogy & Public History

A few days ago I wrote about public history (Defining Public History, May 22, 2020). Now I’m thinking about the relationship between genealogy and public history.

Remember, public history is typically defined as history work prepared for a non-professional audience. It’s implied that the public historian is a professional, applying professional standards.

So, what about genealogists? Notice how the language herds our thoughts away from seeing genealogists as historians. We have an image of genealogists as old, retired people, often women, often White, puttering around with women’s clubs like Mayflower Descendants and Daughters of the American Revolution. We don’t accord them the status of historians, because historians do real work.

I did some poking around to see if someone has a response, here. I didn’t find an answer but I did find a discussion at National Council on Public History. Perfect. a discussion can be more interesting than an answer.

Here’s the set up.

Jerome de Groot gave the plenary address at a conference of International Federation for Public History in October 2014. He raised the issue (Jerome de Groot. “On Genealogy.” The Public Historian (2015) 37 (3):102–127).

“This article argues for the importance of genealogy and family history to contemporary understanding and experience of the past. Through looking at various ways that genealogy might be undertaken and imagined, the article argues that this important area needs to be further conceptualized and studied by public historians. The article looks at the implications inherent in the broad shift to global online genealogy and family history. The argument is interrogative and assertive in order to provoke debate amongst public historians about how we might investigate, theorize, and interrogate genealogy and family history further in the future.”

"In 'On Genealogy,' a revision of the plenary address delivered in October 2014 at the International Federation for Public History’s conference in Amsterdam, Jerome de Groot argues that widespread popular interest in genealogy, and the availability of massive amounts of information online, challenge established historiography and public history practice. He invites other public historians to contribute to a debate about how we might 'investigate, theorize, and interrogate' the implications of this explosion of interest in genealogy. We invited four scholars to contribute to this discussion."

So here are the four scholars. (Note, they are scholars. The agenda here is for public history to extend its dominion over genealogy, not for genealogists to lay claim to being public historians. Not criticizing. They all seem to be aware, Knevel perhaps more explicitly than the others.) We’ll do just the first paragraph of each. Click through if you want to see how each writer develops their response to de Groot’s challenge.

First, Sara Trevisan, “History and tradition: Genealogical practice before 1700” (Aug. 7, 2015).

"In today’s genealogical search, lack of evidence on a family ancestor signifies the impossibility to assess any further their role within the structure of our genealogical tree. Genealogy is to us 'a gesture to completeness that is continually thwarted by the limitations of the archive,' and thus shows us that knowledge can have an end. The search for family origins is therefore destined to remain ever unfulfilled and frustrated due to the epistemology of 'historical truth' by which it is ultimately guided. Yet, until the second part of the seventeenth century–when the principles of historical method still had not fully taken hold–the 'mythical' aspect of family origins was an integral part of genealogical reconstruction. This was especially true for monarchs and noble families."

Second, Paul Knevel, “Genealogy from below” (Aug. 14, 2015).

"As could be expected by the author of the broad and lucid Consuming History, Jerome de Groot demonstrates in his article in The Public Historian an amazing ability to discuss thoroughly topics and themes that would for others take book-length or even career-length considerations. 'Genealogy and Public History' thus not only deals with the various ways that genealogy and family history could be undertaken and imagined by various people and groups but also with such large and profound issues as the impact and construction of 'knowledge infrastructures' in a digital age, the silencing character of the archive, the ethical sides of dealing with the dead, the neo-liberalisation of public space generated by commercial websites, 'digital labour,' and many other themes and ideas. The result is a clever, multi-layered, insightful, and thought-provoking essay that challenges public historians to rethink today’s digital historical culture and practices, their own role, and the activities of millions of people (see the stunning figures mentioned by De Groot) who are doing genealogy and family history and thus trying to connect themselves with the past. Consequently, it is impossible to address in this short reaction all the topics and themes raised in De Groot’s article."

Third, Regina Poertner, “Genealogy, public history, and cyber kinship” (Aug. 21, 2015).

"To date, historians’ debates on the impact of new technologies have focused primarily on the challenges to the academic profession, raising important questions about, for example, the future tools and methods of professional historical research, the visualisation and archiving of data, sharing of digital resources and research outputs, and more generally the ways in which the current digital revolution is changing our perception of who we are and what we do. The article by Jerome De Groot broadens this debate to encompass the public as the consumer and producer of a new brand of public history in the making: digital genealogical research has become a lucrative commercial venture–significantly, without clearly demarcated national borders–and is becoming the remit of the amateur historian who simultaneously is the object and author of the 'curated self.'"

Fourth, Carolina Jonsson Malm, “Genealogy and the problem of biological essentialism” (Sept. 10, 2015).

"There are many possible explanations as to why genealogy has become one of the most popular hobbies in our time. The last decades’ growing interest in local history and life stories could be one. The increasing public awareness of genetics and the potential of genetic engineering another. People’s sense of rootlessness and lack of social relations in a rapidly changing world yet another. Whatever the reason, it is undeniable that genealogy has become almost a social movement, involving millions of people around the world. In his article, 'On Genealogy,' Jerome de Groot suggests that genealogy in many ways can be described as 'a democratization of access to the past.' As a result of the new digital technology and the improved accessibility of public records, anyone with time and inclination can search for their ancestors in databases and online. People whose lives and fates are not part of the traditional academic historiography are uncovered. Everyone gets their fifteen minutes–at least in the family historian’s genealogical tree."

Interesting articles, all. But they aren’t answering the question I’m asking. They are looking at what it means that there are people doing genealogy. I would like to have found discussions about how public historians are or could be working to normalize genealogy as routine public history.