Finding the Kirks' 18th Century Berkeley County, (West) Virginia Farm

In early 2018, mounting DNA evidence indicated that my fifth great-grandfather, Thomas Kirk (1778-1846), was the younger brother of his neighbor Mary (Kirk) Geiger (1774-1832). Digging into Mary's genealogy, I came across notes from her grandson George W. Geiger that identified her parents as Joseph and Sarah Kirk of Berkeley County, (West) Virginia. 

The genetic link made it plausible that Joseph and Sarah were also Thomas' parents and my sixth great-grandparents.

Naturally, I focused my research on Berkeley County, Virginia [now part of West Virginia]. I soon discovered land and tax records that confirmed there was indeed a Joseph and Sarah Kirk living in the area. On April 9, 1773, just 16 months before Mary was born, Joseph Kirk leased from George William Fairfax a 100-acre farm that was "lying and being in the parish of Norborne in the County of Berkeley being part of a tract of land of [seventeen] hundred acres and called Poplar Spring." 

Joseph died in about 1784. Sarah continued to maintain her lease with Fairfax and lived on the property until at least 1802 (when she was identified as a neighbor in the land indenture for a neighboring farm). Beginning in 1796, a male of legal voting age (over 16) and approximately the same age as Thomas, appeared in Sarah's household. It looked as though Thomas aged into legal voting age and was finally recorded by county tax assessors. Another promising sign that I was investigating the right family.

Where is the Kirks' Berkeley County farm located? Could I find it and walk the property?

Unfortunately, the 1773 lease provided boundary descriptions that were archaic to my Google Maps dependent brain. The property was staked out using ephemeral geographic features like trees: "Beginning at a stake near a black oak, white oak, and hickory and near a corner of Joseph Evans and Michael Close..." Nearly 250 years later, those trees (and Joseph and Michael) were unlikely to still be around to help point me in the right direction!

I quickly learned that the land description was based on the metes-and-bounds system or the indiscriminate-survey system where "the land was chosen indiscriminately (independently) of the survey system." In this system, used in Virginia and the other original colonies, "the crown gave land either to the colony itself or a major proprietor, who then transferred the title to individuals." 

George William Fairfax was one such proprietor who held millions of acres in Virginia's Northern Neck (now much of West Virginia). 

The Library of Virginia notes that, "The Northern Neck Land Office controlled 5,282,000 acres in land grants located between the Rappahannock and Potomac rivers, which were given to seven loyal supporters of King Charles II [in 1649, after he fled England in exile following the execution of his father King Charles I]." The Northern Neck Proprietary (or Fairfax Land Proprietary) was eventually inherited by George William Fairfax, who leased portions of the 1,700-acre tract known as Poplar Spring to men like Joseph Kirk. 

I taught myself how to map or plat metes-and-bounds land descriptions by hand (which required the use of a protractor - who knew it would ever come in handy?!). I platted the 100-acre Kirk farm. When I put my pencil down, I saw that I had drawn a box. I was underwhelmed. 

In isolation, Joseph's platted land didn't help me pinpoint where exactly he lived. I repeated these steps for his neighbors and was slowly able to stitch together chuncks of Fairfax's original 1,700-acre Poplar Spring tract. 

Despite assembling the land like a puzzle, I still had little idea where the farms would be situated on a current day map. 

A break came in January when Jeff Hollis, a member of the Remember in Martinsburg when ........ Facebook group, posted a photograph of a ramshackle limestone farmhouse called Protumna. Hollis, a longtime resident of Martinsburg who was familiar with the area's history, shared that the home was built by Henry Bedinger in 1801 on part of the Poplar Spring tract. 

Protumna, Berkeley County farmhouse built by Henry Bedinger
Photo by Jeff Hollis

My eyes widened when I read about the Poplar Spring tract and the Bedinger name immediately set off alarm bells. Having already mapped out many of Joseph Kirk's neighbors, I knew that Bedinger was a neighbor to the southwest. If I could identify where Bedinger's farmhouse was located, perhaps I could climb my way up to the Kirk farm. 

Unfortunately, the crumbling ruins of the home were removed in 2013 to build a Sheetz convenience store. Berkeley County lost a centuries-old historic home to neglect and development (and one that the widowed Sarah Kirk would have seen, as she was still in the area until at least 1802). 

Family Sleuther at the Berkeley County Sheetz
once the site of Bedinger's Protumna

Tossing the protractor aside, I turned to online platting software integrated with Google Maps. Carefully examining the map, I discovered I could make out the faint lines (tree lines, hedgerows, and roads) of historic property boundaries. Moving west from the Bedinger home, I began to find the borders for Joseph Kirk's neighbors: Adam Tabler's 245-acre farm (bordered along its southern edge by Tabler Station Road - another modern day clue hiding in plain sight). Heading north, I traced the outline of Philip Pendleton's 200-acre farm. Navigating further north brought me to Michael Close's property, which finally revealed (drum roll, please...) Joseph Kirk's 100-acre farm.

Located a few miles southwest of the courthouse in downtown Martinsburg (Berkeley's county seat), the property is now split in half by Interstate 81. On either side of the highway, a few modern homes with expansive yards occupy the remains of the Kirk farm. 

Although it took several years, one clue eventually led to another and finally disclosed the location of Joseph Kirk's farm where his children Mary and Thomas were likely born and raised. Sadly, Jeff Hollis passed away in July. If he hadn't shared his photograph of Bedinger's Protumna home and its location, I would still be searching for a modern day marker to help direct me to the Kirk farm. I am forever grateful! 

In June, I was finally able to visit the Kirks' Berkeley County, West Virginia farm (which you can view on Google Maps here). 

The Ancestral Origins of the Kirk Family

I know we're supposed to love, value, and appreciate all of our forebearers equally, but let's be honest: genealogists have favorite ancestors, right? 

You know, the ancestor who you'd stay up into the wee hours researching even if it was just to turn up some paltry clue (Wahoo! He paid personal property taxes in 1823!). 

My favorite ancestor to research is my fifth great-grandfather Thomas Kirk.  

Once an impenetrable brick wall on my direct paternal line, I've learned that Thomas was likely born in Berkeley County, Virginia in 1778, migrated to Ohio shortly after it received statehood, and made a decent living as a farmer in Licking County until he was "accidentally killed" on December 3, 1846.

Genetic and paper trail genealogy now suggest that his Licking County neighbor, Mary (Kirk) Geiger, was his sister. Geiger family history firmly identifies her parents as Joseph and Sarah Kirk of Berkeley County. Accordingly, Joseph was likely Thomas' father, too.

Few records survive for Joseph Kirk. The earliest known record dates to April 9, 1773, when he leased a 100-acre farm in Berkeley County. He presumably raised a family in the area while subsisting off the land until his death in about 1784.

Where did Joseph Kirk come from? Was he my immigrant ancestor - the first Kirk in the American Colonies? What were the Kirks' ancestral origins?

I've spent a considerable amount of time meditating on these questions, sifting through the paper trail and boning up on genetic genealogy to surface answers. 

I recently made a film to benchmark my present understanding of the Kirks' ancestral origins and my next research steps. The purpose was to help my Kirk cousins understand the research to-date in a more compelling way. 

 

A Sister Emerges From the Shadows

Although he's not my direct ancestor, George W. Geiger is an important source of information that is helping me pole-vault over my patrilineal brick wall.

Born in 1841, George Geiger was the grandson of Mary (Kirk) Geiger (1774-1832). Mounting evidence has led me to speculate that Mary was the sister of my fifth great-grandfather Thomas Kirk (1778-1846).

George is indispensable to my research because he compiled details about his immediate family's history. Those records endured over time when many others were lost to fire or poor record keeping.

Among his research were exacting details about his grandmother:

Mary (Kirk) Geiger was born in Virginia in 1774. She was of Irish descent and daughter of Joseph and Sarah Kirk. She had two brothers and one sister.

Pinpointing Joseph and Sarah Kirk as Mary's parents has allowed me to infer that they were also Thomas' parents.

If Thomas and Mary were siblings born to Joseph and Sarah Kirk of Virginia, who was the unnamed sister?

Finding family

Although George Geiger's surviving notes do not name Mary's three siblings, there is a candidate up for consideration to be the sister.

When Thomas Kirk died in December 1846, the Licking County, Ohio probate court appointed three men to appraise his estate. One of them was Hugh Ford.

Court-ordered appraisal of Thomas Kirk's estate, names Hugh Ford
March 13, 1847

At the time of Thomas' death, Hugh was his neighbor and lived on a farm to the north in Monroe Township, Licking County.

Detail of 1847 Monroe Township, Licking County, Ohio map
highlighting land owned by Thomas Kirk and Hugh Ford

Fifteen years earlier, on November 29, 1831, Hugh and his wife Ann bought their Monroe Township farm in two separate land transactions. According to their son Hugh Ford Jr., the Ford family moved to the farm in 1832 from Belmont County, Ohio, where they had lived since about 1803.

Curiously, the two deeds were witnessed by, drum roll, please...

Thomas Kirk!

Monroe Township, Licking County, Ohio land deed, purchased by Hugh Ford
witnessed by Thomas Kirk

In 1831, at the time of these transactions, Thomas Kirk lived in Licking Township. He didn't move to Monroe Township, south of the Fords, until seven years later in 1838.

Why would Thomas Kirk be a witness on two land deeds for Hugh Ford who lived ninety miles to the east in Belmont County?

Was there a relationship between the two men?

Identifying the unnamed sister

I began digging into the identity of Hugh's wife Ann.

Again, according to son Hugh Ford Jr., Ann Ford "was born December 26th, 1777, and was married to Hugh Ford September 18th, 1800." Ann lived to be enumerated in the 1850 US Federal Census, which gave her birth location as the state of Virginia (just like Thomas and Mary!).

Junior also wrote that his mother was the daughter of a man named Joseph Kirk.

Kirk!

Ann's maiden name was Kirk!

Ann's father, like Mary (Kirk) Geiger's and likely Thomas', was named Joseph Kirk!

What were the odds that Thomas would be a witness on two land deeds for a man who lived ninety miles away and was married to a woman born in Virginia who was the daughter of a Joseph Kirk?

Prior to his appearance in Belmont County, tax records placed Hugh Ford across the Ohio River in Brooke County, Virginia. Hugh appeared on Brooke County tax records from 1797 to 1802.

It's worth noting that Thomas Kirk was also in Brooke County from 1799 to 1803. It was here that he met and likely married his wife Sarah Bonar.

A brief notation from a Brooke County minister confirmed that Hugh Ford and Nancy Kirk were married on December 18, 1800 [note that this date is three months later - to the exact day - than the marriage date given by their son Hugh Jr]. Also, Nancy was, according to FamilySearch, a common diminutive nickname for Ann.

1800 Brooke County, Virginia marriage of Hugh Ford and Ann "Nancy" Kirk

Presumably Hugh and Ann (Kirk) Ford moved from Brooke County, Virginia to Belmont County, Ohio in about 1803.

According to Bonar family history, Thomas and Sarah (Bonar) Kirk moved to Captina in Belmont County after they left Brooke County. Did Thomas and Sarah follow his sister and brother-in-law into the burgeoning Ohio frontier?

It's also worth flagging the naming patterns employed by all three Kirks:

• It appears that Hugh and Ann Ford named their first four children after their parents. Two of the four were Henry and Rachel - the names of Hugh's parents. The other two were Joseph and Sarah. We know Ann's father was Joseph, so can we infer that her mother was named Sarah? If yes, that would suggest Ann was also the child of a Joseph and Sarah Kirk just like Mary (Kirk) Geiger and Thomas Kirk. Furthermore, Ann's last child, a son, was named Thomas Kirk Ford (middle name Kirk!). Was this an homage to her brother?

• Mary (Kirk) Geiger's first two children were named Joseph and Sarah.

• Thomas Kirk also had children named Joseph and Sarah.

The paper trail seems to suggest a family relationship. What do you think? How off the wall are my interpretations?

Next up is to try and find DNA matches - if possible at this distant relationship level - to help prove that Thomas Kirk and Mary Geiger were siblings with Ann Ford. The research journey continues.

The Linchpin Who Links an 18th Century Family Together

During three decades spanning 1781 to 1812 and across two states, one man repeatedly appeared in records for my Kirk family.

John Beard is the glue holding a cast of characters together, and may prove to be the key to identifying the parents for my fifth great-grandfather Thomas Kirk.

In fact, John Beard is the common denominator - the linchpin - helping me to infer family relationships among a handful of Kirks where the traditional paper trail offers no surviving evidence to confirm family bonds.

John Beard: 1753 - February 1814

A published Beard family history says John was born in 1753 in Ireland, married a woman named Margaret Kirk, and died in February 1814 in Licking County, Ohio. He was buried in the Beard-Green Cemetery in Licking County, Ohio.

John Beard grave, Beard-Green Cemetery, Licking County, Ohio
(photo by author)

In an application to join the Daughters of the American Revolution that was submitted by Cora Beard Williams - a great-granddaughter of John Beard - she stated that John married Margaret Kirk who was born April 12, 1758 and died July 7, 1850. Some Beard family histories suggest that she, like John, was also born in Ireland.

Sadly, Margaret's headstone is no longer standing. I presume it is the crumbled heap of stone beside John's memorial.

Likely remains of Margaret (Kirk) Beard's headstone, Beard-Green Cemetery,
Licking County, Ohio (photo by author)

In 1970, the Johnstown Genealogy Society conducted a census of the Beard-Green Cemetery and recorded the most basic bio-data from the memorials still surviving in that year. Fortunately, Margaret's headstone was still upright and legible. Her marker once indicated that she was born in 1758 and died in 1850 and was the wife of John Beard.

Excerpt of Beard-Green Cemetery headstone inscriptions, highlighting
John and Margaret (Kirk) Beard

Margaret's relationship, if any, to my Kirk family is unknown.

Aside from the curious shared surname between my kin and Margaret's maiden name, the Beard-Green Cemetery is an important beginning to the role John Beard played in the lives of my Kirk family. Just yards from John's burial is the grave for my fifth great-grandfather Thomas Kirk (1778-1846).

John's eternal resting place is also near Mary (Kirk) Geiger (1774-1832) - a woman who I speculate was the older sister to my Thomas. Unfortunately, her headstone no longer survives. However, thanks again to the dedicated efforts of the Johnstown Genealogy Society, I know that in 1970 her memorial was still upright and indicated that she was born in 1774, died in 1832, and was the wife of Anthony Geiger.

Excerpt of Beard-Green Cemetery headstone inscriptions, highlighting
Mary (Kirk) Geiger

The paper trail links John with both Thomas and Mary.

John Beard in the Records

I first heard of John Beard when I found a land deed for my Thomas Kirk. In January 1812, Thomas purchased 100 acres in Licking County from John and Margaret Beard.

Thomas Kirk buys land from John and Margaret Beard - January 25, 1812

After discovering the record, I didn't think much of John Beard and carried on merrily with my research narrowly focused on Thomas.

It wasn't until some years later, when a fellow blogger and descendant of another 19th century Licking County resident, Mary (Kirk) Geiger, turned me on to the possibility that Mary and Thomas were siblings, that I happened upon the Beard name again.

Researching Mary Kirk, I discovered that she and her husband, Anthony Geiger, had married in Berkeley County, Virginia (now West Virginia).

A marriage bond, dated September 1797, was signed between Anthony Geiger and [drum roll, please] ... John Beard.

Anthony Geiger and Mary Kirk 1797 marriage bond with John Beard as surety

A review of Berkeley County land records confirmed that there was indeed a John and Margaret Beard living in the area. In June 1786, "John Beard and Margaret his wife" sold 25 acres to a William Roberson.

John and Margaret Beard sell land in Berkeley County, Virginia - June 1786

With a John Beard now affiliated with both Thomas Kirk and his alleged sister Mary (Kirk) Geiger, and all three buried in the same small Ohio cemetery, I continued to dig into Berkeley County records.

Geiger family histories stated - without corroborating evidence - that Mary Kirk was the daughter of Joseph and Sarah Kirk.

Fortunately, land and tax records confirmed that there was a Joseph and Sarah Kirk in Berkeley County.

In 1781, Joseph Kirk was required - like all area farmers - to provide grain to Virginia's Continental troops in support of the Revolutionary War effort.

Joseph Kirk received a certificate detailing his contribution. The certificate, numbered 486, was Joseph's receipt which he could use for later reimbursement with the government.

1781 Public Service War Claim for Joseph Kirk, #486

The certificates appeared to have been issued in the sequential order that they were received from area farmers. Certificate number 487? It belonged to [drum roll, please] ... John Beard.

1781 Public Service War Claim for John Beard, #487

Did Joseph Kirk and John Beard go to submit their war claims together? Perhaps it's a faint hint that there was in fact a relationship between the two men.

By 1784, it appears that Joseph Kirk was gravely ill or had died. The Kirks were hauled into court for falling behind in payments on their leased farm. Sarah Kirk was called into court. Joseph didn't accompany her. Instead, she was represented with, you guessed it, John Beard.

1784 Replevy Bond - Fairfax vs. Sarah Kirk and John Beard

A Theory

With John Beard's reoccurring appearances in the Kirk family records, I'm reminded of Elizabeth Shown Mill's recent admonishment that anyone connected to our family is someone we need to get to know well.

Could all of John Beard's appearances be a coincidence? Sure, of course.

But I suspect there's something more at play. John's multiple appearances have helped me stitch together this theory:

• Perhaps Thomas Kirk and Mary (Kirk) Geiger were siblings. 
• Maybe their parents were Joseph and Sarah Kirk. 
• Maybe Joseph died when both of his children were still minors, and John Beard stepped in to play the role of male guardian. 

Why would John do such a thing? Perhaps he was compelled to look after his family. Was John's wife, Margaret Kirk, a sister to Joseph Kirk thus linking the Beards and Kirks?

Although documentary proof has yet to surface, there's certainly enough here to chew on and ponder. What do you think? Is there anything to this notion?

The Limits of Triangulation

I recently wrote about my difficulties with triangulating DNA cousin matches (see The Trials and Tribulations of Triangulation). Among my challenges were that:

• Most of my DNA matches tested with AncestryDNA, which does not presently give access to the segment data necessary for triangulation.

• Encouraging these cousins to transfer their data to a third-party site that does provide access to segment data is sloooow going. 

I really stepped in it, though, when I said that triangulation was the gold standard for identifying a common ancestor among genetic cousins.

While these challenges are real and resonated with many, genetic genealogists were quick to flag that triangulation “was never the gold standard.”

I’ve spent the last couple weeks boning up on the shortcomings of triangulation to better understand its limits.

Let’s look at those limits in the context of the research question I am investigating.

An 18th Century Siblingship Hypothesis

I believe my fifth great-grandfather Thomas Kirk (1778-1846) was the younger brother of his neighbor Mary (Kirk) Geiger (1774-1832).

From beginning to end, their lives followed similar geographical trajectories:

• Both were born in Virginia
• Both settled in the southern part of Licking County shortly after Ohio gained statehood 
• Both are buried in a small cemetery just yards apart 

I've blogged a considerable amount about Thomas and Mary and the many curious tangential links that led to speculation about a family relationship. Recently, I've turned to genetic genealogy to complement the traditional research.

With more than 40 one-to-one autosomal DNA matches between descendants of Thomas and Mary – and each of those matches sharing amounts of DNA expected for their speculated relationship level if Thomas and Mary were in fact siblings – it seemed there was strong supporting evidence for my theory within reach.

Was there a more conclusive way to interpret what the DNA was telling me and credibly substantiate my hypothesis?

An Example Case Study

I got an idea after I read a case study published in the National Genealogical Society Quarterly.

In a nutshell, a professional genealogist was trying to identify the father of a woman born in 1789. Although traditional genealogy had surfaced a candidate for paternity within her small community, it failed to provide a definitive answer. Turning to genetics, there were significant amounts of shared autosomal DNA between descendants of the woman and her suspected paternal family. To reinforce the argument, these one-to-one matches were supplemented with a handful of triangulated matches among third to sixth great-grandchildren of the alleged father. The case study concluded that the paired and triangulated DNA matches supported the theory that the woman was the daughter of the possible paternal candidate.

This example seemed like a perfect fit that was analogous to my own research hypothesis. If this approach was good enough for a professional case study, then surely it could help me conclude that Thomas and Mary were siblings. I determined I would replicate the model, and search for triangulated matches among the dozens of paired matches already found between Thomas and Mary.

That’s when I crashed head-on with the triangulation trials and tribulations and realized that - while the methodology offers potential value - it was not a gold standard.

Approach with Caution

The odds for finding a triangulated match between descendants of my 5th great-grandfather and his possible sister are not in my favor. In fact, they're downright daunting. I knew that would be the case, but I didn’t realize how poor my chances were.

My DNA is too far removed from Thomas and Mary and their parents, the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA), to be an effective magnet for cousins. As a fifth great-grandson, I could expect – on average - to share less than 1% of Thomas’ DNA (0.78% to be exact).¹ It's easy to imagine how grim the odds are for inheriting any DNA from his parents, my sixth great-grandparents. They're edging on genealogical ancestors who no longer have an imprint on my genetic family tree.²

I needed proxies closer in time to Thomas and Mary who inherited more of their DNA and could boost the odds for matches. Fortunately, several third great-grandchildren of Thomas and Mary are still alive and have tested (all would be fourth great-grandchildren to the parents of Thomas and Mary - the MRCA).

Odds of Inheriting DNA

According to AncestryDNA,³ there's a 100% likelihood that we've inherited DNA from our ancestors up to five generations removed. This means that the tested descendants almost certainly inherited some of their DNA from Thomas and Mary. Although we’re only talking about, on average, 3.12%.

At six generations, AncestryDNA estimates that there’s still a 99.99% chance that we’ve inherited DNA from our ancestors (meaning it’s probable that the tested descendants have inherited DNA from the parents of Thomas and Mary).

Knowing that there’s a 99.99% chance that we inherited DNA dating back at least six generations, but mindful that it’s a slim amount, how likely are these fourth great-grandchildren of the MRCA to share DNA with each other?

Odds of Sharing DNA

According to AncestryDNA, there's a 100% chance that you'll share DNA with siblings through second cousins. Beginning with third cousins there’s a 98% chance, but then the odds dip and decline dramatically for each subsequent generation:

• fourth cousins (71%)
• fifth cousins (32%) 
• sixth cousins (11%) 
• seventh cousins (3.2%) 

Fourth great-grandchildren of the Kirk MRCA would be fifth cousins and, at least at AncestryDNA as a result of their phasing methodologies,⁴ would have a 32% chance of sharing DNA.

While the odds aren't great, they're not entirely insignificant and may explain why I’ve found over 40 one-to-one matches between descendants of Thomas and Mary at AncestryDNA.

Odds of a Triangulated DNA Match

When it comes to triangulation, however, it’s not enough to just find a match. It requires that a group of cousins share the same segments of DNA.

What are the chances of that happening?

Not good.

The process of recombination – how our DNA is randomly mixed up before it’s passed to each new generation – ensures we inherit a mishmash of our parents’ DNA.⁵

This amalgamation of DNA passed from one generation to the next makes it unlikely that three fourth great-grandchildren of the Kirk MRCA would all share overlapping DNA segments.

AncestryDNA found - with a threshold of five centiMorgans (cM) - that three random first cousins shared the same DNA segment 84% of the time. However, when five first cousins were compared, there was only a 40% chance that they each shared the same segment. The likelihood of sharing the same DNA segment among ten first cousins plummeted to 0%.

Even though first cousins will share DNA 100% of the time, the recombination process keeps us on our toes and makes it unlikely that cousins will inherit the exact same pieces of DNA.

Bottom line, the odds are daunting and not in favor of triangulation for recent relationships. Imagine how much grimmer the prospects are for finding triangulated segments among descendants of the Kirk MRCA.

The lesson learned, according to AncestryDNA's computational scientist was that, "We can't rely on those pieces of [matching segments of] DNA in order to bring people together." The odds aren’t in our favor.

And this doesn’t even touch on other complicating factors like

• larger shared segments potentially coming from more distant ancestors, or
• the DNA match actually coming from shared ancestors who are not currently known nor mapped out in the pedigree, or 
• misleading pile ups on certain DNA segments. 

Clearly, triangulation is not the gold standard for identifying and verifying ancestral matches.

The dim probabilities (coupled with challenges inherent to DNA-testing at AncestryDNA) likely explain why I’ve only found, to-date, two triangulated matches between descendants of Thomas and Mary from the 40+ paired matches.

I'm not discounting these triangulated matches or the value of triangulation in certain cases, but I am meditating on alternative approaches to determine how best to leverage these DNA matches to prove or disprove that Thomas Kirk and Mary (Kirk) Geiger were siblings.

---

[1] https://dna-explained.com/2017/06/27/ancestral-dna-percentages-how-much-of-them-is-in-you/
[2] https://gcbias.org/2013/11/11/how-does-your-number-of-genetic-ancestors-grow-back-over-time/
[3] https://www.ancestry.com/academy/course/ancestry-dna-circles
[4] https://cruwys.blogspot.com/2016/01/autosomal-dna-triangulation-part-2.html
[5] https://cruwys.blogspot.com/2016/01/autosomal-dna-triangulation-part-1.html

The Trials and Tribulations of Triangulation

There are millions of consumers spitting and swabbing their way to family history. An entire industry is on the rise, eager to be the spittoon to the masses and their gateway to genetic genealogy.¹

Ethnicity estimates, of course, are a huge draw for the average Joe (“Kiss me, I’m 21% or 39% or 53.9% or 21.9% Irish!).² My head’s already spinning, and I haven’t even had a pint of Guinness, yet.

Test-takers (particularly Americans where market penetration is greatest) are racking up cousin matches by the thousands. This overload abundance of unidentified relationships makes for Mission Impossible when you just want to pinpoint your link to William the Conqueror and make a better case for Liz’s crown.

Serious family historians fight the good fight, trudging through hordes of matches hoping for public trees that align with their own. If they’re lucky they’ll find a paired match with Average Joe who has a well-documented pedigree making it easy to pinpoint a shared ancestor.

While offering important clues to possible family relationships, these one-to-one matches are not entirely conclusive on their own.

Try Triangulation

What if you’re looking for more substantial evidence to untangle a tightly knotted family mystery? Can you do something a little more sophisticated with those DNA results?

Perhaps.

One approach is called triangulation. Genetic genealogist Blaine Bettinger defines it as, "a process or method by which three or more people all sharing an overlapping segment of DNA in common compare their family trees in order to identify a common ancestor or ancestral couple shared by all."³

Triangulation is often touted as the gold standard for verifying a common ancestor among genetic cousins.

I have my own case study where triangulation may provide an answer for a theory of mine. 

Theory: My fifth great-grandfather Thomas Kirk (1778-1846) of Licking County, Ohio was the younger brother to Mary (Kirk) Geiger (1774-1832) also of Licking County. 

I really think they were brother and sister. I've found more than 40 one-to-one DNA matches between descendants of Thomas and Mary. The amounts of shared DNA between those paired matches aligns with the projected relationship-level (usually 5th cousins or 5th cousins once removed) that I would expect to see for the matches if Thomas and Mary were siblings and their parents were the common ancestors for all testers.⁴

Could triangulation provide more substantive, respected evidence so I could confidently conclude that they were siblings?

All I have to do is find living descendants of Thomas and Mary, test their DNA, and compare for overlapping segments. And those first two steps are mostly done. There's just step three to tackle.

Sounds worthwhile and easy enough, right?

Why is it so difficult to triangulate?

I quickly learned that triangulating autosomal DNA was easier said than done. In fact, I think Euclid had an easier go of it.

The first obstacle I encountered was getting access to the information needed to properly triangulate matches.

Nearly all of those 40+ paired matches were discovered on one monolithic genealogy site.

Guess which site does not provide information on whether matches triangulate nor does it give access to the segment data necessary to triangulate? The big monolithic one, of course.

To triangulate, I would need to persuade my genetic cousins to download their data from the monolith and upload to another entity that offers triangulation capabilities. Not impossible, of course, but frustrating that the approach can't be undertaken at the monolith.

The second obstacle I encountered was where to persuade the matches to transfer their results.

A couple years ago, this would have been a straightforward answer. There's one third party website that was the go-to site for testers to upload their data from most of the consumer DNA websites, especially the monolith.

However, following the apprehending of the Golden State Killer and other violent criminals thanks in part to a lead from a consumer genealogy test uploaded at this third party site, sensational headlines have raised privacy concerns.⁵ The subsequent spotlight on the use of the site by investigative authorities and a robust dialogue within the genetic genealogy community has been withering.

Was law enforcement surreptitiously mining users' data without their knowledge and consent? While this conversation is ongoing, concerns around ethics and privacy have created an unease that makes testers more cautious with their data.

Seeking a site that largely escaped the clickbait headlines, I settled on a popular genealogy platform based out of Israel that has proven an innovative player in the consumer DNA game and - most importantly to my case study - has a tool that identifies triangulated matches. Opportunely, they offer FREE uploads of DNA data from other companies (although there's a nominal fee to gain access to tools like the triangulation feature), and their Terms and Conditions of service attempt to put at ease concerns about law enforcement access:

"...using the DNA Services for law enforcement purposes, forensic examinations, criminal investigations, "cold case" investigations, identification of unknown deceased people, location of relatives of deceased people using cadaver DNA, and/or all similar purposes, is strictly prohibited, unless a court order is obtained. It is our policy to resist law enforcement inquiries to protect the privacy of our customers."⁶

The third obstacle I am now encountering has more to do with the science of how DNA is inherited and fades with each subsequent generation, drastically reducing the amount of genetic overlap needed for triangulation. The eldest living generation of Kirk descendants who have tested are 4th and 5th great-grandchildren of Thomas and Mary Kirk's parents.

At this level, there's very little DNA inherited from 4th and 5th great-grandparents: 1.56% and 0.78% respectively.⁷ The odds that the tested matches have inherited any DNA from Thomas and Mary's parents are slim, and the chance that they have inherited the same, overlapping bits of DNA required to triangulate a match are even slimmer!

And yet, despite all of these obstacles, I have identified my first triangulated match.

Two 4th great-grandchildren of Thomas Kirk - each descended from a different line - triangulate with a single descendant of Mary (Kirk) Geiger. It's a small 10.3 cM triangulated match, but, right now, it's my beloved inspiration and motivation to persevere through the trials and tribulations of triangulation.

While I wait for more Kirk and Geiger descendants to transfer their data and pray for overlapping segments, I find myself asking, "Why is triangulation so difficult if the rewards are potentially so great?" Surely it doesn't have to be this hard (shaking fist at that monolith).

---

[1] https://thednageek.com/genealogical-database-growth-slows/

[2] https://www.familysleuther.com/2018/11/the-amalgamation-of-me-dna-ethnicity.html
[3] https://thegeneticgenealogist.com/2016/06/19/a-triangulation-intervention/

[4] https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4
[5] https://www.wired.com/story/the-meteoric-rise-of-family-tree-forensics-to-fight-crimes/
[6] https://www.myheritage.com/FP/Company/popup.php?p=terms_conditions
[7] https://dna-explained.com/2017/06/27/ancestral-dna-percentages-how-much-of-them-is-in-you/

Seeking Sisterhood: A Mitochondrial Research Project

For too long I've neglected the women.

My research has narrowly focused on my fifth great-grandfather Thomas Kirk (1778-1846). If you weren't sporting the Kirk surname or carrying the male Y chromosome, you were secondary to my genealogical investigation.

That's about to change. My Kirk family research is shifting gears and moving in a different direction. Perhaps this approach will yield previously overlooked clues that will help identify Thomas Kirk's parents.

Ladies of Suspicion 

Aside from his wife and daughters, three women have surfaced with biographies that curiously intersect with Thomas Kirk's life.

Were they related to Thomas? Could their histories help bridge the research gaps and pinpoint my Kirk ancestral origins?

The three suspects are Margaret (Kirk) Beard, Mary (Kirk) Geiger, and Ann (Kirk) Ford.

Margaret (Kirk) Beard
With no corroborating documentation, some genealogies claim that Margaret was an older sister to Thomas Kirk. Born twenty years before Thomas, indeed she would be a much older sister. Admittedly, the large age gap doesn't preclude them from being siblings, but it seems more likely - to me - that they would be aunt and nephew (or cousins).

According to an unsourced family history published in 1975 (The Beard Family Genealogy: The Beard Family From Virginia to Ohio and West by Glenneta Schott), "John Beard married Margaret Kirk who was born in Cork County, Ireland April 12, 1758 and who died July 7th 1850 in Ohio."

The Beards lived in Licking County, Ohio - where Thomas Kirk made his home - and are buried in the Beard-Green Cemetery - just steps from Thomas' final resting place. 

In 1812, the Beards sold 100 acres in Licking County to Thomas.

Before moving to Ohio, the Beards lived in Berkeley County, (West) Virginia. On June 17, 1786, they were grantors selling 25^1/2 acres in that county where, coincidentally, Joseph Kirk, a possible father to Thomas, Mary, and Ann, also lived.

Land indenture, John and Margaret Beard sell 25.5 acres
Berkeley County, (West) Virginia 17 June 1786

John Beard was tightly affiliated with Joseph Kirk and his wife Sarah. John even appeared in court with Sarah when the Kirks fell behind on their farm's rent.

Mary (Kirk) Geiger

Mary Kirk, born in about 1774, married Anthony Geiger in 1797 in Martinsburg, Berkeley County, (West) Virginia. John Beard was named a surety (bondsman) on their marriage bond, linking the Beards and Geigers.

Anthony Geiger and Mary Kirk marriage bond with John Beard as surety
Berkeley County, (West) Virginia, 26 September 1797

Mary and Anthony also lived in Licking County, Ohio, and she is buried in the Beard-Green Cemetery just steps from the graves of both the Beards and Thomas Kirk.

Perhaps most compelling of all, a handful of Thomas Kirk's descendants are autosomal DNA matches to descendants of Mary (Kirk) Geiger, confirming a genetic link that supports the theory that they were siblings.

Ann (Kirk) Ford
Ann Kirk was born in 1777, and married Hugh Ford in 1800 in Brooke County, (West) Virginia. They eventually moved and settled in Licking County.

Thomas Kirk was in the area, too, enumerated in Brooke County personal property tax records from 1799 through 1803. Did the Kirks move from Berkeley to Brooke County together?

The Fords named one of their sons Vatchel Ford. The unusual first name was also the name Thomas gave to his eldest son.

In 1838, Thomas Kirk moved from Licking Township to Monroe Township (both located in Licking County). His new farm was south of the Fords who also lived in Monroe Township. In 1847, following Thomas' death, the Probate Court appointed Hugh Ford to appraise the value of Thomas' estate.

Detail of Monroe Township, Licking County, Ohio 1847 Land Owners Map
Kirk and Ford farms

In The Genealogy of the Ford Family, a letter from their son Hugh Ford Jr. - who consulted a family bible in the possession of his sister - noted that Ann Ford was the daughter of Joseph Kirk. Of the cast of characters, this is the only one to have a parent named by an immediate family member who would be best positioned to know. Descendants of Mary Geiger often allege - without documentation that I've seen - that her father was also a Joseph Kirk.

If naming conventions are important, it's worth noting that Thomas Kirk, Margaret Beard, Mary Geiger, and Ann Ford all named a son Joseph.

Mitochondrial DNA Research Project

Could I use DNA - specifically mitochondrial DNA - to determine whether these women shared a common maternal ancestor, supporting the claim that they were sisters?

Mothers pass their Mitochondrial DNA on to all of their children. However, only a mother's daughters can pass that same mitochondrial DNA - mostly unchanged - on to her children.

This unique inheritance pattern allows us to trace a direct maternal line back in time following the path of the mitochondrial DNA.

If I can trace a living direct female descendant from Margaret Beard, Mary Geiger, and Ann Ford, we can test the mitochondrial DNA to see if they match.

If the descendants of all three women share the same mitochondrial DNA, we would know that - at some point in history - they shared a common maternal ancestor.

A match would also complement the pieces of the paper trail that hint at a closer family relationship between the three. To be clear, a mitochondrial DNA test wouldn't tell us that the women were sisters, but it could confirm that as a genetic possibility. And that's what this research project endeavors to prove.

If you are a direct female descendant of one of these women, you're eligible for a mitochondrial DNA test with Family Tree DNA. Congratulations! Reach out to familysleuther@gmail.com.

A Genealogy Cold Case Heats Up

The stage is set: Berkeley County in the late 1700's when it was still part of Virginia.

1796 Map of the United States, Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division

The leading lady is Mary (Kirk) Geiger, a likely sister to my fifth great-grandfather Thomas Kirk. Their genetic link has cast Mary as a central figure - the linchpin, really - in the effort to identify Thomas' parents. Like fame-hungry paparazzi, this investigation has followed her to Berkeley County.

It's there in 1797 that a marriage bond recorded her impending nuptials to Anthony Geiger. The surety for the bond was John Beard, husband of Margaret Kirk, and likely uncle to Mary and Thomas.

Why wasn't the surety a male Kirk? Where was her father? Had he pre-deceased the 1797 marriage? Surely an 18th century single woman wouldn't be too far from her parents. Could pre-1797 Berkeley County records identify her father?

Berkeley County's surviving tax, land, and court records date to the early 1770's. From these records emerge a couple who are of particular interest. Were they Mary and Thomas Kirk's parents?

Joseph and Sarah Kirk

Joseph Kirk, along with his brother John, made their first recorded appearance in Berkeley County on a 1773 land lease, which identified them as siblings. The land was leased to them by George William Fairfax.

1773 Land Lease, Berkeley County, (West) Virginia

In the following decade, the two brothers also appeared in county tax records (as featured in last week's post Building A Reverse Genealogy Case Study). In 1787, following Joseph's death sometime between 1784 and 1788, his presumed widow Sarah first appeared on tax records. She continued to appear in the records intermittently throughout the following decade.

1799 Personal Property Tax List, Berkeley County, (West) Virginia 

The research pauses here. The next step is to review the Berkeley County probate records to see if a file exists for Joseph. Until then, the investigation is currently on hold because the county's digitized records are restricted, only accessible to view from within a family history center. I need to convince my local family history center to let me pull an all nighter.

Replevy Bond

I did manage to make one discovery (from the comfort of my home) in the Berkeley County court order books. In 1783 or 1784, a judgment was recorded between George William Fairfax as plaintiff and Sarah Kirk and John Beard as defendants on a replevy bond.

A replevy bond is "a procedure used by a court to protect against the loss of property sought to be returned to a petitioner."

1783 or 1784 Berkeley County, (West) Virginia Judgment on Replevy Bond

The record states:

Judgment: 

George William Fairfax Plt.
Vs.
Sarah Kirk & John Beard Deft. 

On Replevy Bond 

This day came the Plaintiff by his attorney and it appearing to the Court that the Defendants had legal notice of this motion and not appearing the solemnly called. Therefore it is considered by the Court that the Plaintiff recover against the defendants seven pounds and his costs by him about this suit in this behalf expended and the Defendant in mercy be. But this judgment is to be discharged by next repayment of three pounds and ten shillings with interest these on to be computed after the rate of five [illegible] from the 15th date of December 1783 [illegible] 

Ordered that the court be adjourned [illegible] court in course.
The Minutes of these proceedings concerned by John Cooke

Apparently the Kirks fell behind on their payments to Fairfax, and, per the terms of the lease, he took them to court to recoup his losses. 

It's curious to see John Beard appear with Sarah on the record. Did he do so because both Joseph and John, the original parties to the land lease, were deceased? Was he her go-to male representative because he was her most senior living relative?

I haven't yet located anything further on this case, so it's still not known what the outcome was on the lease for the land. Was the property relinquished back to Fairfax? I need to dive further into those (non-indexed!) court order books. 

What is known is that Joseph Kirk's executors paid land tax as late as 1797, so it seems they were able to get their financial house in order and pay their debts to Fairfax. It's worth reiterating that 1797 was when Mary Kirk married Anthony Geiger.

All of this talk about Joseph, Sarah, and Mary Kirk jogged my memory.

Branches of a Geiger Family Tree

In summer 2017, I visited the Licking County Genealogical Society's Library in Newark, Ohio. With limited research time, I made quick notes from the handful of volumes I reviewed with the intention of pouring over them more carefully at a future date.

The future is now.

Among the books I reviewed was a 1992-published volume by Mary Elizabeth (Geiger) Riggs titled, Branches of a Geiger Family Tree.

Page 15 included this curious snippet on the Geiger family:

"The family lived in Maryland through 1786, at which time they moved to Martinsburg in Berkeley Co., Virginia. Mary Kirk, daughter of Joseph and Sarah Kirk, married Anthony 26 September 1797 in Martinsburg."

There you have it. A descendant of Anthony and Mary (Kirk) Geiger named Mary's parents as the very Joseph and Sarah Kirk that I've been investigating. Now if I could just find a document to corroborate that claim.

Riggs' book adds, "Mary Kirk, of Irish descent, had two brothers and one sister, all of whom had a primary education." 

It's maddening that the siblings weren't named, and I can't help but wonder if Thomas was one of them.

Riggs' narrative included very specific details about Mary, lending an air of added credibility to the family history: "Mary was five feet in height, weighed 180 pounds, had light, brown hair and brown eyes... Mary Kirk Geiger died from 'Head Pleurisy' on 6 June 1832 at the age of 58. She is buried in the Beard Cemetery in Jacksontown, Ohio."

The descriptive details about her physique and the cause of her 1832 death are very specific. No one makes that stuff up, right? The specificity makes them seem persuasively true.

Mary Elizabeth Riggs is my new favorite person, but I learned that, sadly, she passed away in 2009 at the age of 90. 

I wonder if her descendants have kept her genealogy, and whether it includes names for Mary's siblings, or cites substantiating records. 

Regardless, a new avenue of research has opened up, and the once cold case to identify Thomas Kirk's parents has started to heat up.

Building A Reverse Genealogy Case Study With DNA, Land, and Tax Records

I think I'm on the cusp of breaking through one of my most impenetrable brick walls.

Regular readers know that the hunt is on to identify the parents of my fifth great-grandfather Thomas Kirk.

A flurry of recently discovered evidence is finally settling and beginning to coalesce around a person of interest.

Into the Wilds of Virginia

Although he was born in Virginia in 1778, the earliest recorded appearance of Thomas Kirk in the paper trail was an 1806 tax list for Licking County, Ohio. From that document until his death in 1846, he lived in Ohio.

It was just a couple weeks ago that I finally discovered the first evidence of Thomas Kirk in Virginia. A collection of five personal property tax records spanning the years 1799 through 1803 enumerated Thomas in his soon-to-be wife's hometown: Brooke County, Virginia (now West Virginia).

Also enumerated with Thomas in each of those five tax records was a John Kirk. Both men first appeared in Brooke County's tax records in 1799. Neither man was there in 1798. Did they travel to the area together?

If yes, who was John and what relationship, if any, was he to Thomas?

A Sister Moves The Narrative Further Into The Old Dominion

A week before I discovered the Virginia tax records, I shared a DNA case study investigating the possibility that Thomas' Licking County neighbor Mary (Kirk) Geiger was his sister.

Although the distant generations under scrutiny made it difficult to say definitively, the small amounts of shared DNA between descendants of Thomas and Mary matched what one would expect to see if these two Kirks were siblings.

Bottom line: the DNA case study determined that the genetic evidence supported the theory that Thomas and Mary were brother and sister.

Who was sister Mary and what light could she shed on the Kirks' parentage?

Born in 1774, Mary was just four years older than Thomas. On September 26, 1797, a marriage bond in Berkeley County, Virginia (now West Virginia) recorded that a "marriage is suddenly intended to be solemnized between the above-bound Anthony Geiger and Mary Kirk."

1797 Marriage Bond for Anthony Geiger and Mary Kirk, Berkeley County, (West) Virginia

Even before the genetic link between Thomas and Mary was identified, the marriage bond was curious because of the surety, John Beard.

Why was John Beard serving as the surety instead of the bride's father or a brother? What relationship was he to her?

John Beard had lots of overlap with Thomas Kirk's history. He would later surface in Brooke County, Virginia, and eventually make his way to Licking County, Ohio where he sold Thomas 100 acres in 1812.

Furthermore, published genealogies and a DAR application state that the maiden name of John's wife Margaret was Kirk. I've long speculated that, if Margaret was related to Thomas Kirk, she was most likely an aunt due to her age. Born in 1758, she was twenty years older than Thomas.

Was John Beard serving as the surety on Mary Kirk's marriage bond because he was her uncle?

Berkeley County, (West) Virginia Under Scrutiny

Mary (Kirk) Geiger was clearly a person of interest, and her marriage in Berkeley County made the area prime investigative real estate.

Given that a male Kirk did not serve as the surety for her marriage bond, I wondered if Mary's father had died before her 1797 nuptials requiring a maybe-uncle John Beard to fill the role.

Beginning with that year and working backwards, I explored the surviving records now digitized on FamilySearch for any Kirks.

First up were the land deeds, which date to 1772.

On April 9, 1773, an indenture was made "between the Honourable George William Fairfax Esquire of the one part and Joseph Kirk of the County of Berkeley Farmer of the other part..." Joseph Kirk leased 100 acres that, in that year, was located in Norborne Parish in Berkeley County, (West) Virginia.

1773 Lease for Lives between George William Fairfax and Joseph Kirk
Berkeley County, (West) Virginia

In the margins of the indenture, the agreement was classified as a "Lease for Lives" with the following stipulations:

"To have and to hold the said land promises to the said Joseph Kirk his heirs or assigns for and during the natural lives of him the said Joseph Kirk, John Kirk his brother and Joseph Olive son of Joseph Olive yielding and paying unto the said George William Fairfax his certain attorney heirs executors administrators or assigns yearly and every year on the fifteenth day of September the rent or sum of three pounds ten shillings current money of Virginia..."

1773 Lease for Lives between George William Fairfax and Joseph Kirk
Berkeley County, (West) Virginia

Failure to pay the rent would result in George William Fairfax having legal authority to occupy and regain full ownership and possession of the land.

In her book Locating Your Roots: Discover Your Ancestors Using Land Records, Patricia Law Hatcher wrote that the lease for lives concept was widely used in the Northern Neck of Virginia. Hatcher explained that these agreements were "really a land grant, but its language is that of a lease. With a lease, technically the land still was the property of the proprietor (who was trying to retain his right to quitrents or taxes)."

The record's identification of Joseph Kirk's brother John was a great genealogical gem. They were the only enumerated Kirks owning land in late 18th century Berkeley County. Land tax records, beginning in 1782 record Joseph paying tax on the 100 acres leased from Fairfax.

1787 Land Tax List for Berkeley County, (West) Virginia

Sometime between the 1787 and 1788 tax lists, Joseph Kirk died. The 1788 enumeration includes his name, but also the initials "Exrs".

1788 Land Tax List for Berkeley County, (West) Virginia

This peculiar abbreviation follows his name on the next nine years of land tax lists. In 1795, the abbreviation was spelled out: "Executors".

Was Joseph's name still appearing in land tax records because of the terms of the Lease for Lives, which, in the event of Joseph's death, assigned the lease to his brother John Kirk and Joseph Olive?

Personal Property Tax Lists

Owning or leasing real estate in the 1700s seemed like a rarity. Perhaps more Kirks would show up in Berkeley County's personal property tax lists.

Beginning in 1783, the tax lists enumerated just two Kirks: Joseph and John. In that year, Joseph paid tax on 3 horses and 4 cattle. John paid tax on 2 horses and 1 cattle.

Both men appeared on the 1784 personal property tax list with the same amount of livestock. However, I couldn't find either man on the 1785 list.

In 1786, only John Kirk appeared in what would be his last appearance on the tax list. He was enumerated with no livestock. Did the Kirks fall on hard times?

Where was Joseph? Did he actually die earlier than the 1787-1788 range suggested by the land tax lists? Joseph's last appearance in the personal property tax list in 1784 expands the window of his death to 1784-1788.

In the 1787 personal property tax list, a new Kirk emerges: Sarah Kirk. She continued to appear intermittently in the personal property tax lists for 1788, 1792, and each year 1794 through 1799. She was the only Kirk enumerated. In 1799, her name was followed by the notation "Rich Lands" and she was enumerated with 2 horses.

1799 Personal Property Tax List, Berkeley County, (West) Virginia

Was Sarah the widow of Joseph or John? Without a probate record, I don't know. Berkeley County probate materials are digitized on FamilySearch, but are frustratingly only viewable from a designated library or research center.

The Makings For A Reverse Genealogy Case Study

In a recent blog, Amie Bowser Tennant, wrote about using the reverse genealogy approach to break through genealogical brick walls: instead of tracing your ancestors backwards to a brick wall, develop a theory, identify a person of interest, and work their tree forward in time to see if it meets your known pedigree.

Collectively, the DNA, land, and tax records have provided me a cast of characters with the right surname, in the right place, at the right time, and teed me up for a strong reverse genealogy case study.

Since they were the only Kirks recorded in Berkeley County's paper trail, Joseph, John, and Sarah are prime research targets.

It's eyebrow-raising that Joseph Kirk was deceased before the 1797 nuptials of Mary Kirk. Was he her father and his absence from the marriage bond was because he was dead?

John Kirk's disappearance from the tax lists means we can't rule out that he also pre-deceased the 1797 marriage. Maybe he was Mary's father. Or maybe her uncle, and his passing meant that the bondsman role fell to John Beard. Or maybe he was the John Kirk that appeared with Thomas Kirk in the 1799 Brooke County tax list. If that's the case where was he between 1786 and 1799?

I need a probate package for Joseph, John, or Sarah to help me piece together the family relationships.

Do you see what I mean? Answers are within reach.

I feel strongly that I'm almost through. Just one more whack and I may finally crack the Kirk family mystery wide open. I'm salivating at the thought of finding an estate settlement that names the heirs of Joseph or John. Could they include a daughter Mary and maybe just maybe a son, Thomas Kirk?