Final draft Visualization – Part 2

Mar 31st, 2014 Posted in Public History | no comment »

 

 
YOU MUST READ THE PART ONE RECAP FIRST so you know where I am going with things.

For starters, HERE IS THE REVISED AND COMPLETED MAP ON GOOGLE MAPS – Mad River Cemeteries.

A screen shot is a little harder for this one, so it’s best to just VISIT THE LINK. and poke around but here’s the idea:
 

 

Mad River Cemeteries Google Maps final draft

 

When you click on a marker, it will give you the lat/long (in some cases, and they are noted, I had to approximate the location based on directions given so some may not be exactly right – I welcome any corrections, please comment) and other information such as whether it is still there, how many burials if known, condition, etc.  There are only three cemeteries still in use today – Myrtle Tree, Nettle Creek, and Terre Haute. Myrtle Tree and Nettle Creek also had churches associated with them. (So did many of the family cemeteries including Shaffer and Zerkle, but that is for another project.)

 

I had a little fun with the markers, don’t hold it against me. I did color code Shaffer, Zerkle, and Terre Haute to correspond with my NodeXL relationship charts.
And that brings me to the NodeXL charts I created.

Cemetery Groups Shaffer Cemetery


Cemetery Groups Shaffer Cemetery

 

Cemetery Groups Zerkle Cemetery 2

Cemetery Groups Zerkle Cemetery

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above two NodeXL charts show the relationships between the people in each cemetery (connections) and where they are buried (color). Corresponding colors in each indicate which families are related. As I said before in my first test, these won’t work for a larger data set so that is why I didn’t include one for Terre Haute. It is the largest cemetery and there is no way I could represent it in a NodeXL file. You can see some of the relations are indicated above in Orange.

 

 

Zerkle Cemetery Families

Zerkle Cemetery Families

Shaffer Cemetery Families

Shaffer Cemetery Families

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The two NodeXL charts above show the relationships between the people buried in the cemetery and between those buried across the cemeteries. The colors indicate relationships. You can see the two largest families are the George and Catherine (Roush) Zirkle families (indicated by aqua) and the Abraham and Margaret (Maurer) Zirkle families (indicated in blue – not exactly the same color blue, oops. It’s a royal blue in the Shaffer cemetery and a dark blue in the Zerkle cemetery). Incidentally, George and Abraham were brothers.

 

Cemetery Cluster Zerkle Cemetery

Cemetery Cluster Zerkle Cemetery

 

The above cluster was just something I used in the analyzation section of NodeXL. I love how it came out but I don’t know how I did it. It shows the different family relations in the Zerkle cemetery. The program chose the colors, so they really don’t indicate anything other than a family relationship. I tried to repeat it in the Shaffer cemetery but couldn’t. You can see how this would never work for a larger data set, it’s almost too much here.

So there we go. I’ve visualized until my eyes were ready to pop out. I welcome feedback. If anyone can tell me how to do a relationship chart for a really BIG set of data, please let me know!

 

 

Final draft Visualization – Part 1: Recap

Mar 30th, 2014 Posted in Public History | no comment »

 
This blog will be in two parts. In this first part, I will summarize what I have done so far and refer back to previous blogs as I have gone along this process of figuring out how to visualize some part of the project I am still thinking through and that will be my final thesis project.

The idea is to use technology to enhance research and discover something new using visualization techniques. Considering my ultimate project of creating a completely open source, collaborative, and crowd sourced cemetery database, I had hoped to have more commentary as I went along on this blog. But since I plan to continue to work on this over the next year, hopefully people will find it and comment.

My first goal was to map all the cemeteries in one area – I chose Mad River, Champaign Co., OH because I have spent a lot of time doing genealogy research in the area. (See my family history blog both here on AOM and my previous blog on Blogger.) I tried several different programs, but none did exactly what I had in mind. I ultimately settled on plain old Google Maps, because they recently changed things so you can upload a spreadsheet of information and I thought that might be useful. So I tried it, even before I had my spreadsheet fully finished. You can see how that worked out on my blog from March 13, 2014.

Since that didn’t really seem to turn out to be what I wanted, I decided truly what I wanted was to be able to take the multiple historic maps that I have used in my research, and layer them over a map that indicated where the cemeteries are located now. Many families, like my own, owned property that spilled over the county line between Champaign and Clark counties. I also wanted to see how many of the cemeteries that currently have place names (ie. those that Google Maps actually recognizes without me having to label them. Many of them are listed in the Ohio gazetteer) occurred on property that was owned by someone with the same name. I had a hunch all of them were named after an original land owner. I still want to accomplish this, but what I found out about that process is that it is excruciatingly time consuming, has a huge learning curve that I do not have the time for right now, and will take extra time for the web site to load and maybe that is not ideal for short-attention span blog readers. I have a feeling I will have to take a class on GIS at some point to try to figure this all out. I did learn some things about the cemetery names just from comparing the historic maps to my digital map. You can read about that on my blog from March 16, 2014. I’m still working on some of that as I continue to research those two cemeteries.
Anyway, besides those drawbacks, I also feel like that approach doesn’t address the purpose of the project – to find a visualization that is representative of a larger whole. In other words, what can I do to visualize something small that I can do anywhere? Using historic maps to see if there are cemeteries on the property of a person the cemetery is named after is fine for Champaign and Clark counties in Ohio, but what about other places? Can I do that in Arizona? Maybe, but it’s not going to be quite as effective.

Then I thought I would try to show change over time somehow. You can see my thoughts on this on my blog from March 20, 2014. I was trying to figure out how to show that with maps. I tried to learn to use Omeka and Neatline to do some mapping, but just installing both required a ton of coding knowledge that I don’t have, and help from my husband. (He is the best!!!) We managed to load up both, and successfully wiped out my WordPress blog in the process. Luckily, he figured out how to fix it when I discovered it the next day. Unfortunately right now I don’t have the time to learn to code. Maybe over the summer!

So while the “change over time” angle might work for any area, and I might explore this option some more, I still struggled with the issue of so what? What does this have to do with a crowd sourced database of cemetery information? Who will care? In asking these questions and thinking about Findagrave, which does a little of what I am hoping to do with my project, I thought about relationships. Relationships are at the heart of Findagrave–both the relationships of the deceased AND the relationships of the people making the memorials on Findagrave. Findagrave links people to their spouses and children, and recently added the ability to see someone’s siblings on their page. Since the relationships seem to always get people in a tizzy, I think being able to map relationships would be a good visualization. I went back to my original blog of March 13, 2014 (see link above) and decided I would give NodeXL a try again. This time I figured out how to use it properly!  See my blog from this morning. I think I am on the right track.

I tried to use Manyeyes from IBM to see what their network relationship analysis looked like, but every time I’ve tried (this is the second time) it won’t load Java and says the site is insecure. Even when I ignore that, it still won’t load anything. It’s too frustrating and I don’t even know if it’s going to look any better than what NodeXL does.

Essentially my final draft is a combination of traditional mapping and relationship network analyses. I chose to focus on just two cemeteries, the Shaffer and Zerkle cemeteries, only because as you will see, NodeXL will not work with anything much larger, and even though these two cemeteries have under 30 burials, there are over twice that in relationships mapped out, making them almost unreadable. I really need a program that will allow me to show multiple cemeteries and the relationships between them.  Part Two will go into more detail and show you the visualizations.
 
 

Cemetery Visualization Test #2

Mar 29th, 2014 Posted in Public History | no comment »

I’ve been playing around with NodeXL and trying to see what would work the best. (See here for test #1)

So this time I thought I would try to show the relationships between the people buried in two cemeteries, Shaffer and Zerkle, in Mad River township, Champaign county, OH. If that worked, I could continue to add cemeteries until I had the whole township’s relationships plotted. I started with the Shaffer cemetery database I created.

Four issues occurred:
1) I first realized that in order to relate this to the much larger project (that being a cemetery database and website that I am currently formulating and just have ideas about so can’t share much yet), I needed to use the information (names and relationships) solely from Findagrave.com and not any of the other resources I had used to compile my list. It had to be the crowd-sourced information.  So that is what I used.
(2) I realized I could not be true to the actual name as it is spelled on each headstone, otherwise the information wouldn’t graph properly. So I had to standardize a little. (For example, Abraham Zerkel is spelled that way on his headstone, but his wife Margaret’s stone says she is wife of Abraham Zirkle. If I showed their relationship that way, the program would think I had two different Abrahams.) I also had to change some surname spellings due to duplicates. Jacob, Jonathan, and Michael all had same surname spellings for multiple different people. I did the best I could but I had to make sure the relationships graphed properly.
(3) I saved it as a TIFF file and used Paint to add the legend and a title. I learned that you cannot upload a TIFF file to WordPress. Frustrating! I had to convert it to JPEG so I didn’t have to re-do the legend that I made.
(4) And lastly, as you can see I only graphed the Shaffer cemetery. Why? Because if I did more than one, you’d never be able to read it. You can barely read this graph as it is! NodeXL is kind of frustrating in that I can’t share this on the web so that it is interactive. I had to save it as a Tiff file and post it here. Looking at it in NodeXL itself I can click on each node and it will highlight the relationship line so that you can see just everyone that person is related to. But even that on the tiny laptop screen was hard to see, so I know I need to make some small tweaks to this but I can barely see it. I already noticed that at first I had some duplicated names and I couldn’t figure out why (George Stange Jr was there twice – why? because in one field I’d put in George Stange Jr. and the other was George Stange Jr — details!!!)
Shaffer Cemetery NodeXL

So although I am scrapping this idea, I did learn a couple of things that are relevant to my genealogy research, though perhaps not this project.

On to test number three…which I hope is the last! Please comment if you have any suggestions or anything you’d like to add.

52 Ancestors – Week 12: George Stange

Mar 23rd, 2014 Posted in Shaffer and Zirkle Descendants | no comment »

I’m continuing this week with individuals buried in the Shaffer cemetery.
George Stange
So here is a burial that intrigued me for several reasons. First, he only lived a day: 7 Jun 1861-8 Jun 1861. Secondly, he was absolutely not any relation to anyone else in this cemetery, nor was he related to my family. What the heck is he doing in this place? Well, it’s not uncommon for these family burial plots to include neighbors. And because I know there was a church here in 1855, perhaps they were members of the church. The Findagrave.com information states that the family  had lived in Clark County, OH since 1855, but had moved to Illinois by 1870. Perhaps they just needed a plot to bury little George before they moved on. It’s sad that he is there all alone without any family nearby. A similar thing happened in my  immediate family: little Herbert Shaffer was born while my grandparents lived in Troy, and he only lived 7 Jun-16 Jun 1934. Aww, I just realized he and George shared the same birthday! Anyway, my grandparents were too poor to afford a grave marker so he is buried between two other people in an unmarked grave in Troy Riverside cemetery. The rest of the family is buried in Piqua, where they later moved and stayed.

It’s interesting to see the number of child burials between the Shaffer and Zerkle cemeteries and think about what this meant for families in the early 1800s. Consider that there are 57 total burials between the two (as per Findagrave for right now, I am still working on getting definitive information for these cemeteries this summer) and 24 of them are children under the age of 10. All of them have their own headstones. Clearly, the children were important enough to memorialize and be given a place to be remembered. Compared then with my uncle Herbert, who has no headstone, can we say that things were different in the 1930s with regards to the way people viewed death and memory? Maybe but there’s not enough information to say that definitively. And I also know that economics played a factor. Most of the families represented in the Shaffer and Zerkle cemeteries were not poor in the 1800s, at least by standards of the time. They all owned land. My grandparents, however, lived during the Great Depression and at the time they lived in Troy did not own their own property. In fact, I don’t think they ever owned their own property, at least not during census years.

I was thinking about the cultural statements that these family cemeteries can make today as I was reading Death, Memory, and Material Culture (Hallam and Hockey 2001) where they briefly touch upon the practice of burying and memorializing stillborn babies. “Prior to the 1970s, foetal (sic) remains were disposed of with no religious or institutional attempt to provide them with a social body and therefore a memorable identity.” (p.4) I am not sure whether this is entirely true, in some religious cultures all stillborn babies have an identity and I don’t believe that is a new thing. I would love commentary.

 

 

Musings and questions surrounding my cemetery visualization project

Mar 20th, 2014 Posted in Public History | no comment »

I am still trying to get my database updated with all the information I can find on the cemeteries in Mad River township, Champaign, Ohio. What I am trying to do is figure out how cemeteries change over time, and with this I want to know how they reflect the change in the town’s own identity. For example, the Shaffer and Zerkle cemeteries included burials until 1883. What happened in 1883? What I suspect happened – and I am not sure yet as I am still gathering that information – is twofold: the family no longer owned the property (yes, according to the deed records the cemeteries were deeded to the Lutheran Church in St. Paris) and the city cemetery, Terre Haute, was built (not sure, I need to go there in person to look at their records). By comparing the number of family burial sites listed in the historic records to the number of family burial sites still in existence today, I can hopefully make some kind of statement about the changes in views on the importance of cemeteries. Findagrave.com fits in here, it’s become such a huge resource for many people interested in finding their family information, yet you really aren’t necessarily always getting the right information. Ownership of the “memorial” becomes a contested area of family vs. other and there is no way to fix this within FAG’s TOS. What does that say about society’s current views on cemeteries? Is photographing our cemeteries a game or a serious attempt at virtual conservation? These are the kinds of questions I am trying to work through in this project.

52 Ancestors – Week 11 – Bowers

Mar 16th, 2014 Posted in Shaffer and Zirkle Descendants | no comment »

First, some business — I’ve been blogging for a year now! I actually missed my blogiversary – March 2nd. Here’s a link to my very first blog post on ShafferandZirkleDescendants.blogspot.com . I’ve now retired that blog, but I’ll leave it up as some cousin bait and hopefully as posts are discovered there they will find me over here!

I’m taking a (sort of) detour this week. If you’ve been following my posts, I’m concurrently researching the Zerkle cemetery, which is about a half mile away from the Shaffer cemetery. (And also all my family) In creating my databases, I noticed a set of Bowers in this cemetery that died at the same time. This cemetery was built on the Zerkle property, Abraham Zerkle was the son of George and Catherine (Roush) Zerkle (my 5th great grandparents). His sister Sarah married Solomon Shaffer. (They are mentioned in my last post on the old blog. They are my 4th great grandparents)

Anyway, back to the Bowers. Susannah Bowers and her son Silas Bowers died one day apart, in 1854. A quick search revealed that they died during the 3rd cholera epidemic. I tried to find a death record for them but no luck. I don’t have Ancestry.com access anymore. I assume this had something to do with their death, Silas was 21 years old, so she didn’t die giving birth. If anyone knows, let me know!

Cemetery Visualization Project

Mar 16th, 2014 Posted in Public History, Shaffer and Zirkle Descendants | no comment »

Working on this visualization project I think I’ve stumbled on something interesting.

-In my database I have two cemeteries: Zerkle and Shaffer. They are named thusly per Google Maps. The story behind Shaffer is that a family member placed the sign there because it needed a name. I assume that’s why Google maps gives it that place name. I don’t know why the Zerkle cemetery is given that place name, other than because there are Zerkles (all spellings) buried there. But there are Zerkles (all spellings) also buried in Shaffer. That’s not a surprise, they are all intermarried into each other and the land all around both was once owned by Shaffers and Zerkles.

– My spreadsheet that I created shows the earliest burial in Shaffer was 1855, and latest was 1883. Zerkle was 1842 and last 1883.
– The current acreage that I was given by a Mad River Township Trustee was over an acre for Shaffer and just over a half acre for Zerkle.
– The 1874 map I have showing cemetery markings indicates a cemetery near where the current Google maps lists the Shaffer cemetery. Farther down, near where the current Google maps shows the Zerkle cemetery, is the Zerkle Lutheran church. But NO cemetery marker on the 1874 map. In 1874, the Zerkle Lutheran church was still there so it should be showing on the map.
– The deed I have a copy of from 1846 showing Abraham Zerkle deeded 1 acre to the Lutheran Church Trustees for a church and burial ground.
– The Shaffer Huston cemetery mentioned in a couple of sources does not exist anymore. The numbers of burials in the various records of Shaffer and Zerkle cemetery vary — much less in the pre-1950 literature available.

Conclusions:
1) I think the Shaffer and Zerkle cemeteries are misnamed. Zerkle should be an acre or more.
2) Shaffer-Huston was moved into the “Shaffer” cemetery – hence why there are more burials than originally accounted for.
3) The earliest burial in the “Zerkle” cemetery was Elizabeth Shaffer. Another reason this was probably the family cemetery located on the Shaffer property not the Zerkle property. The Zerkle cemetery, attached to the Zerkle Lutheran Church didn’t exist until 1846-7.

Now, how do I show all this visually?! Other than the fun color-coded map I made myself using colored pens. :)

Mapping My Cemetery Project

Mar 13th, 2014 Posted in Public History | no comment »

I’ve created a preliminary map…missing some info of course but here is what I have so far. I used the new Google Maps to plot the cemeteries. I have found the location of the ones I don’t have lat/long for, and based on research and an 1874 map I know where they are located but just need to figure out how to transfer those locations to a map.

It’s a work in progress… but here’s the first step.

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zSmpFkoNLLP8.kNqgZxPm3xV4

 

And here’s a quick screen shot because I think it will change once I update my spreadsheet some more. Here is the map:

Mad River Cemeteries Map Google Map created by JSM

Mad River Cemeteries Map Google Map created by JSM

And here’s a screen shot of what it looks like when you click on one of the cemeteries….obviously, I am not finished with my database yet because most of them look like this at the moment.

Mad River Cemeteries Screen Shot 2 w: DB info

Stanford Adams

Mar 12th, 2014 Posted in Adams and Merry Descendants | no comment »

I had the opportunity to speak at my DAR meeting last night about many things. Our program included a session where everyone brought a family photo or some heirloom and a story. I forgot about that, but through the magic of technology I always have my genealogy files available from my phone so the first thing I thought about was this photo:

Stanford_Enlistment

Stanford Adams enlistment photo

The story behind this photo is that it is what got me into genealogy this most recent time. I’ve been interested in genealogy since I was in high school, but I was always under the impression that my family was “all done.” So when I married a man whose father had passed away when he was 16, I thought I would try again. I asked his mother all kinds of questions about the family, but hit so many brick walls that I gave up. I never thought to ask about her family. As is so often the case, however, she passed away unexpectedly before I could talk about her genealogy.

We found in her things after her death several old photos. Many were unlabeled. One of the photos, though, was labeled “Stanford Adams”. It was an enlistment photograph. I joined Ancestry.com to try to find out who he was. My mother-in-law’s maiden name was Adams, so we figured he must have been related. She was an only child, so he had to have been an uncle or great uncle. Let me back up a bit and mention that my husband and I had bought our house from his mother and stepfather several years prior to this. When they moved, they left a TON of stuff they didn’t go thru, as they were moving to a smaller residence. My husband remembered the stack of pictures that was left in the garage, and pulled those out. Among the framed photos was Stanford’s purple heart certificate and letter from President Roosevelt, along with a photo of a group in front of a B-17 bomber. So now we knew when and where he died. We just didn’t know how he was related. My mother in law never spoke of any aunts or uncles except one – Aunt Roberta lived in Florida, and her father visited her in the winters. In the summers he lived in Maine with my husband’s family. A quick google search of Stanford Adams revealed that he was a member of the Joel Gatewood crew of the “Chief Sly II” the 322nd Bomb Squad, 91st Bomb Group, Maine. It was shot down during the Schweinfurt raid of 17 August 1943, with a loss of 5 crewman. Lt. Joel Gatewood and navigator 2nd Lt. Daniel A. Downey were two of the four that survived, ejecting from the aircraft and spending 20 months as POWs. I was able to figure out that Stanford was indeed an uncle to my mother in law. After much research, I eventually learned that there were 8 members of her father’s family. I have been researching this family ever since, hitting multiple brick walls, especially with her grandmother.

Chief Sly II Joel Gatewood Crew before their mission

Chief Sly II Joel Gatewood Crew before their mission

 

Stanford was born 9 Sept 1913 in Limestone, Aroostook, Maine. He was the 6th living child of Robie Adams and Crissie Cora Johnson. Crissie was born in New Denmark, New Brunswick as best as I can figure out; and Robie was born to Benjamin Adams and Ellen Tuttle in Limestone. He enlisted from Governor’s Island, New York 18 Aug. 1842. He was unmarried and no children.

From  http://www.8thafhs.org/bomber/91bg.htm about the Chief Sly II:

42-5139 Delivered: Cheyenne 2/10/42; West Palm Beach 14/12/42;
Assigned: 322BS/91BG [LG-V] Bassingbourn 13/3/43; MIA
Schweinfurt 17/8/43 Pilot: Joel Gatewood, Navigator: Dan Downy,
Bombardier: Harry Hammond, Waist Gunner: Tom Parfitt (4POW-all
caught after nine days at Saarbrucken), Co-Pilot: George Riegel,
Engineer / Top Turret Gunner: Ray Canada, Radio Operator: Dan
Butler, Ball Turret Gunner: Stanford Adams, Waist Gunner: George
Hite, Tail Gunner: Fred Pearce (6KIA); Enemy aircraft KO’d #3 & #4
and wing on fire, crashed Geisenheim, 12 miles W of Weisbaden,
Germany. MACR 276. CHIEF SLY II.
Source: B-17 Master Log – Dave Osbourne

Another great resource for the story is from “Mary Ruth” Memories of Mobile…We Still Remember Chapter 4, “One Came Home, The Stories of Those Left Behind.” 

We wish we got to know you, Stanford. Thank you for your service to our country.

Stanford Purple Heart Letter from president

Purple Heart Letter

Stanford is buried in Lorraine American Cemetery and Memorial  Saint-Avold Departement de la Moselle Lorraine, France. Someone has created a memorial on Findagrave for him, as well: Stanford Adams. I hope to get a photo of his grave sometime soon.

52 Ancestors – Week 10 – Bowman

Mar 8th, 2014 Posted in Shaffer and Zirkle Descendants | no comment »

This is going to be a short one, as I don’t have a lot of time. Continuing with the Shaffer cemetery theme…

Buried in the Shaffer Cemetery are 6 Bowman children. They are all the children of Joseph Bowman and Sarah Bowers Bowman. Joseph and Sarah, according to Findagrave.com, are buried in Indiana. It’s interesting to see that four of their children died in October of 1867, and all were under 10.
Jacob died 15 Oct. 1867
Joseph, Jr. died 19 Oct. 1867
Isabelle died 24 Oct. 1867
John William died 27 Oct. 1867

George Bowman lived 1 month, died in 1859. Moses Bowman was 2 and died in 1869.

But it makes you wonder about the other four! What was going on in 1867? I did a quick internet search and came up with a record on the Clark County OH GenWeb that listed COD for both Joseph Jr. (croup) and John William (diptheria). So no crazy disease there. I didn’t find anything else ~ no epidemic or other cause. Could they have just been that unlucky to lose four children in less than 3 weeks? Seems unlikely.I also wonder what they were doing in this cemetery. Evan Middleton lists Mrs. Sarah Bowman as a member of the first Zerkle Lutheran church; however the rest of the members of the 2nd Lutheran Church started by Solomon Shaffer are the ones actually buried in this cemetery. I’m still working on this list of Evan Middleton’s. (p.500, History of Champaign County, Ohio: Its People, Industries and …, Volume 1)

But as this family is not related to mine, I can’t spend much time on them at the moment. If anyone knows anything about their deaths, please drop me a line.Also drop me a line if you have some ideas about the Zerkle Lutheran church split in 1848!