Lifespan Statistics Revisited, Again

Using my genealogy software, I first generated a lifespan report from six different family databases back in 2008 - Age is Relative, There is a lot of different data contained in the report, as can be seen in the original post, however for this post I am going to focus on average lifespan.

2008 Statistics

Note: The numbers of individuals given are for the entire database, and includes those for whom both birth and death aren't known. The average lifespans are calculated on a smaller number of individuals.

Full Database
695 males: Avg lifespan: 61
603 females: Avg lifespan: 62

"Direct Ancestors" Only
71 males: Avg lifespan: 67
58 females: Avg lifespan: 68

Descendants of Israel David Neimark  (died approx 1890)
55 males: Avg lifespan: 66
53 females: Avg lifespan: 74

Descendants of Me’er Kruvant (born before 1795)
116 males: Avg lifespan: 68
110 females: Avg lifespan: 70

Descendants of William Denyer (1794-1848)
121 males: Avg lifespan: 53
103 females: Avg lifespan: 61

Descendants of Andrew Van Every (1798-1873)
93 males: Avg lifespan: 49
82 females: Avg lifespan: 48

For each of the last four databases, the forebear is a 3rd great grandfather, so they are roughly equivalent in generation. I wondered at the causes of the apparent lower lifespans for my Denyer and Van Every lines. One possible cause included rural vs urban living. Another possible cause included sampling size. Did I just not have enough data? Perhaps, over time, as the database grew, the average lifespans for the different family branches would even out.

2009 Statistics

In 2009, my database had grown, so I generated some updated statistics in Database Size and Lifespan Revisited for the full database, and for one family in particular.

Full Database
1030 males: Avg lifespan: 60
921 females: Avg lifespan: 62

Kruvant Descendants (Me'er and his two brothers)
368 males: Avg lifespan: 58
367 females: Avg lifespan: 62

I discussed the dramatic drop in lifespan for the Kruvant family. It wasn't unsuspected, as I had just entered a large Register I had received from a cousin researcher including many Lithuanian cousins who 'died' in rather graphic ways between 1939-1942. Though one might point out that while the lifespan for that family dropped significantly, the result was pretty close to the full database. Was this really due entirely to the Holocaust, or did the simple growth of data play a role?

Current Statistics

I didn't consider this possibility back in 2009, but as my database has grown even more since then, I thought I would return to this topic, and I realized I needed to address it.

The only way to do that was to generate a separate Kruvant database, run the statistics report, remove from that database every victim of the Holocaust, and then run the statistics report again. While I was just deleting records, and in a database I had generated only for this purpose, the process was a little disturbing, as I clicked on names, and the software asked if I was sure I wanted to delete the individuals.

Full Kruvant Line
380 males: Avg lifespan: 58
374 females: Avg lifespan: 63

Edited Kruvant Line
355 males: Avg lifespan: 63
351 females: Avg lifespan: 69

It appears the Holocaust accounted for almost all of the drop in the lifespan for Kruvant females, but it was only part of the equation for the males.

Below are the current results for several other databases.

Full Database:
1471 males: Avg lifespan: 61
1341 females: Avg lifespan: 63

Ancestors:
79 males: Avg lifespan: 67
78 female: Avg lifespan: 67

Deutsch Line:
95 males: Avg lifespan: 66
80 females: Avg lifespan: 75

Denyer Line:
188 males: Avg lifespan: 57
180 females: Avg lifespan: 62

Van Every Line:
158 males: Avg lifespan: 53
134 females: Avg lifespan: 53

Newmark Line
114 males: Avg lifespan: 69
129 female: Avg lifespan: 73

Dudelczak Line
152 males: Avg lifespan: 63
146 females: Avg lifespan: 73

The average male lifespan for the Denyer descendants has improved with added data, whereas the average female lifespan hasn't by much. The averages for my Van Every line have also improved, but only slightly. While the data so far is sparse, my mother's paternal Deutsch family appears to be among the longer-lived in my tree.

Some people might wonder at why my full database hasn't grown more in six years of research.  My database could be huge, especially on my maternal line, if I added everything I found from Ancestry's Public Trees, WorldConnect, etc. Early on in my research I found at WorldConnect a 6795 individual database containing every individual from the genealogy: A Genealogical Record of the Descendants of Henry Rosenberger of Franconia, Montgomery Co., Pa, Rev. A.J. Fretz, 1906. I downloaded the database, but I didn't merge it with my own. (Even if I trust Fretz's research, I have no way to know if the person who entered the data copied the data correctly from the book.) It would certainly have impacted my statistics greatly if I had:

Rosenberger Descent
3435 male: Avg lifespan: 33
3360 female: Avg lifespan: 32

I believe the low figures are due mostly to a very high infant mortality rate.

For some perspective I looked at two more databases.

First, I looked at my wife's database. I've only begun researching, and haven't entered all the data from a Register someone else produced. However, so far, it seems the women have a significantly higher lifespan than the men in her family.

Jen’s family
175 males: Avg lifespan: 59
165 females: Avg lifespan: 67

For another perspective, I looked at the Royal database provided with my genealogical software program, iFamily. The data goes back to the middle ages on some lines, so one would expect a lower average lifespan, which is the case.

Royal Database
1686 males: Avg lifespan: 49
1322 females: Avg lifespan: 52

In summary

Regardless of the reasons, whether they may be based on geography, time, genetics, or something else, different families have different average lifespans. The women in my separate family databases seem to have longer lifespans, which is what I have been told is the case in general. However, in my full database, the gender difference is much less. This makes me wonder if there are some branches of my family where the stats are reversed.

Database	Size (M/F)	Lifespan (M/F)
Full	695/603 1030/921 1471/1341	61/62 62/63 61/63
Ancestors	71/58 79/78	67/68 67/67
Newmark	55/53 114/129	66/74 69/73
Kruvant	116/110 368/367 380/374 355/351*	68/70 58/62 58/63 63/69*
Dudelczak	152/146	63/73
Deutsch	95/80	66/75
Denyer	121/103 188/180	53/61 57/62
Van Every	93/82 158/134	49/48 53/53
Jen’s Family	175/165	59/67
Rosenberger	3435/3360	33/32
Royal	1686/1322	49/52

Amanuensis Monday: December 20, 1876 - An untimely death

Amanuensis: A person employed to write what another dictates or to copy what has been written by another.

I continue my project to transcribe family letters, journals, newspaper articles, audiotapes, and other historical artifacts. Not only do the documents contain genealogical information, the words breathe life into kin - some I never met - others I see a time in their life before I knew them.

I began this project back on February 16, 2009.  Since I began, many others have joined in on the meme. I am thrilled that this meme I started has inspired so many to transcribe their family history documents. Why do we transcribe? I provide my three reasons in the linked post. You may find others.

This week I look at a news clipping I found from the Missouri Republican, dated December 20, 1876, concerning a likely relative of my wife.

Amanuensis Monday: Jasper Fulkerson and the Wind Mill

Amanuensis: A person employed to write what another dictates or to copy what has been written by another.

Despite an absence of Amanuensis posts for awhile, I continue my project to transcribe family letters, journals, newspaper articles, audiotapes, and other historical artifacts. Not only do the documents contain genealogical information, the words breathe life into kin - some I never met - others I see a time in their life before I knew them.

I began this project back on February 16, 2009.  Since I began, many others have joined in on the meme. I am thrilled that this meme I started has inspired so many to transcribe their family history documents. Why do we transcribe? I provide my three reasons in the linked post. You may find others.

***
This week I look at a newspaper article found at ChroniclingAmerica, mentioning a possible relative of my wife's.

The importance of handwriting

Being able to identify the author of a document can be very helpful. It can be almost impossible to identify the author of a typed document, but a handwritten document is a different story.

I've shared part of the following image before. I hypothesized it might have been copied from a family bible. In 1918 my great-grandmother used the bible's record of birth dates to prove to FBI agents when my great uncle, Sam, was born. (An ex-wife claimed Sam had lied about his age to avoid being drafted, among other accusations.) 

From the FBI Report: Mrs. Van Every then presented the family Bible with record of births that had been kept by her for many years, and this record shows that on January 15, 1886 a son was born and that his name is Samuel Opham Van Every, the record of this Bible has not been interfered with since the birth of this subject was recorded therein as it is in perfect condition and shows plainly that there has been no erasures of any nature.

In some letters that my great grandfather wrote to my grandmother, he indicated the bible had been lost in the 1920s. I used its one-time existence as a possible explanation for how the 1900 census taker was told that the children Abigal and Delbert were still alive. (This is actually a better explanation if the record in the bible only included dates of birth, and not death, as the FBI report might indicate.)

I have identified the handwriting on this document, as well as a date for when it was written. The handwriting above appears to be a perfect match to the document below, which my grandfather noted in 1965 was created by my grandmother circa 1940. Therefore it couldn't have been copied directly from the bible, but probably came from a combination of family knowledge, and research.

For example, I am fairly certain that the dates for her grandfather's birth and death came from Rev. Abraham Fretz's genealogy on the Fretz Family. The Fretz genealogy is mentioned in some letters that her sister, Minnie, wrote. I am disappointed that no one in the family seemed to remember when Sarah Hartley Denyer Foster died (approx 1898 according to testimony provided to The Dawes Commission in 1900). Minnie was only 12 then, but it means no one recorded the date, or the records had been lost. Of course, in 1940, the only living individuals in that top chart were my grandmother, and her two sisters, Minnie and Evelyn.

My great grandmother, Helen Lichtman Deutsch, lived until 1958. Samuel Deutsch lived until 1938. Knowing my grandmother drew my grandfather's chart circa 1940, when at least one of his parents was still around to answer questions, makes it more likely that the names for his ancestors are accurate. Samuel and Helen were the immigrants, and any records of their parents and grandparents currently lie undiscovered in Transylvania.

My Denyer Ancestors

I've blogged about my research on my Denyer ancestry before, but I thought I would create a summary post of what I have found so far.

Third Great Grandparents

Information on which I am fairly certain ends with my third great grandparents, William Denyer and Elizabeth Sliver. My third great grandather, William, was the immigrant, and he married Elizabeth Sliver in America. Most of my information about the two of them comes from the work of Rev. Abraham J. Fretz, in A Brief History of John and Christian Fretz and a Complete Genealogical Family Register, 1890. And the extent of the information provided about William was "He was born in the county of Southampton, Hampshire, England, November 22, 1794."

Fourth Great Grandparents

Most of my research and 'conclusions' on prior generations could be critiqued as "Cinderella Genealogy" - a term I created for a common fallacy among some family historians. If the shoe fits, the fairy tale Prince's reasoning went, it must belong Cinderella. Because, clearly, no one else in the kingdom wore the exact same size shoe. However, keeping my mind open to other alternatives, these look like the best matches.

Here's what I suspect is the marriage allegation for my fourth great grandparents, William and Jane Denyer.  According to Fretz, my second great grandfather, Ebenezer Denyer, had a sister named Jane Goldfinch, so a connection to the Goldfinch surname is likely. Farlington and Portsea are also both located in Hampshire.

Here are a list of baptisms from the Farlington Parish records. The parents for all of them, except Barnard Goldfinch Denyer, are listed as William and Jane. Barnard's parents are listed as William and Ann. I'm unsure if this is a clerical error or not. I suspect the William baptized in 1795 is my 3rd great grandfather, the immigrant. Baptisms several months after a birth aren't uncommon. FindMyPast indicates John Henry was baptized in 1796, which makes more sense, for if William and John Henry were twins, they likely would have been baptized together. All the public family trees on Ancestry.com that include William and Jane (Goldfinch) Denyer, include these children as theirs, so I am not alone in making this connection.

Absent documentation that the William Denyer who married Elizabeth Sliver was born in Farlington, and not elsewhere in Hampshire, this is supposition.

Fifth Great Grandparents

Here's a baptism record (from FindMyPast) for a William Denyer born in 1763, child of Richard and Elizabeth. 1763 is an unlikely birth year for the William Denyer who married Jane Goldfinch in 1791, as he was supposed to be 21 at the time of the marriage allegation. However, the text of the marriage allegation is a transcription. Someone born in 1763 could have been 27 in 1791, and a 27 could be mis-transcribed easily as a 21.

Here's a 1771 baptism transcription for a William Denyer, illegitiamate son of a William Denyer and Elizabeth Fyfield. This is a more likely possibility, if the marriage allegation is correctly transcribed.

The Farlington Parish burial records include three Denyers (Robert, Ann, and William - with William indicated as their son, and born in 1763) in April of 1807. Most of the public family trees at Ancestry indicate this William as Jane Goldfinch's husband. I haven't found a 1763 baptism for a William, son of Robert and Ann. None of the public family trees cite such a source. It's possible someone somewhere has found birth information for this William, perhaps from his death records, however, without any documentary evidence, I am uncertain this is the same William who married Jane Goldfinch.

It is entirely reasonable to believe there may have been two William Denyers of similar age living in Farlington at the same time. It's a fairly common name.

Onto Jane's parents

Here's a transcription of a 1766 baptism for a Jane Goldfinch, daughter of George and Jane. This is unlikely due to the year, since Jane was also supposed to be 21 in 1791, and neither 24 nor 25 are likely to be mis-transcribed as 21. Many online family trees identify Jane's parents as George and Jane, without any documentary evidence that it is the correct match. Goldfinch is another somewhat common surname.

I haven't found a baptism closer to 1770 for a Jane Goldfinch. However, I have found a Barnard Goldfinch of Portsea, who died in 1789, and whose will indicated he had an unmarried daughter named Jane. The marriage allegation above indicated Jane was from Portsea, not Widley.

One avenue of research I have considered is to try to research the history of ownership of the plot of land that is described in the will, and assigned to Jane. If I'm correct, it should have transferred from the Goldfinch to the Denyer family after William and Jane were married in 1791. Of course, it appears that William and Jane Goldfinch Denyer settled in Farlington, and not Portsea. So even if it was this Jane who inherited Barnard Goldfinch's land, it may not have been kept by her after the marriage. I have done a search for all the Denyers living in Portsea in the 1841 Census. There are a handful.

Memorial Day

A post for this weekend on what Memorial Day is for, besides barbecues.

The above image comes from the Memorial Day page at the US Department of Veterans Affairs, explaining that Memorial Day is a day for remembering those who died in the service of their country.  [Read the full text of the poem.]

Memorial Day is a United States federal holiday observed on the last Monday of May. Formerly known as Decoration Day, it commemorates U.S. men and women who died while in the military service. First enacted to honor Union soldiers of the American Civil War (it is celebrated near the day of reunification after the civil war), it was expanded after World War I to include American casualties of any war or military action. [source]

[More on the history of Memorial Day]


Unnamed Remains the Bravest Soldier - by Walt Whitman (From 'Specimen Days')

OF scenes like these, I say, who writes—whoe’er can write the story? Of many a score—aye, thousands, north and south, of unwrit heroes, unknown heroisms, incredible, impromptu, first-class desperations—who tells? No history ever—no poem sings, no music sounds, those bravest men of all—those deeds. No formal general’s report, nor book in the library, nor column in the paper, embalms the bravest, north or south, east or west. Unnamed, unknown, remain, and still remain, the bravest soldiers. Our manliest—our boys—our hardy darlings; no picture gives them. Likely, the typic one of them (standing, no doubt, for hundreds, thousands,) crawls aside to some bush-clump, or ferny tuft, on receiving his death-shot—there sheltering a little while, soaking roots, grass and soil, with red blood—the battle advances, retreats, flits from the scene, sweeps by—and there, haply with pain and suffering (yet less, far less, than is supposed,) the last lethargy winds like a serpent round him—the eyes glaze in death—none recks—perhaps the burial-squads, in truce, a week afterwards, search not the secluded spot—and there, at last, the Bravest Soldier crumbles in mother earth, unburied and unknown.

The cartoon above is by John T. McCutcheon - published circa 1900

Correction: These Sunken Gardens aren't those Sunken Gardens

A year ago I compared a photograph form the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair to a 1914 postcard of the construction of the St. Louis City Public Library headquarters.

I decided based on the similar design of the pathways and gardens, that the Sunken Gardens behind the library were likely the same Sunken Gardens from the Fair. (Actually, I didn't use the word likely. I should have hedged my bets.)

According to this map of the fairgrounds, the Sunken Gardens were in Forest Park. (Most of the fair was, and I should  have recalled this fact.) If you enlarge the image, you can see it in the center-left, by the northwest corner of the lagoon. Between the Liberal Arts building and the Mines and Metallurgy building. (D2)

The library has a new gallery of images from their construction, including this photo taken in 1908, indicating that their Sunken Gardens were created at the same time the library was built.