Identified! IL - Batavia, WhtFem UP89934, UnkAge, in wall of residence, Nov'78 - Esther Ann Granger

[imstilla.grandma]

After just three weeks Othram produced an ancestral match and were able to find Granger's great-great-grandson, Wayne Svilar, 69, a retired sergeant from Portland, Oregon. When contacted in April he was wary of taking part.

"To be completely honest we didn't believe a word of it," he told the news conference. "I said, 'you can keep talking if you want but I don't believe you.'"

DNA testing reveals skull found in a wall belonged to teen who died 150 years ago

A skull discovered during renovations at a property in Illinois in 1978 has been matched to Esther Granger, who died after childbirth in 1866.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[dotr]

By Rachel Treisman October 25, 2024

https://news.prairiepublic.org/news-from-npr/2024-10-25/an-indiana-teen-died-in-1866-how-did-her-skull-end-up-in-an-illinois-houses-walls

''The working theory is that somebody who lived in the Batavia home obtained the cadaver (or parts of it) for medical study and, knowing the ramifications, later hid it away in the wall.

“There is no absolute answer to how Esther ended up in that wall or where the rest of her body’s located, but being a victim of grave robbing does fit the bill,” Russell said.

The house where the skull was found is located “right smack-dab in the oldest part of Batavia,” Mayor Jeffrey Schielke said, and dates back to the 1850s.''

 

[Susikatze]

Poor Esther. Not only did she die in childbirth at the very young age of 17, she also had the misfortune of being married off at just 16 to a 27 year old man. And then was the victim of grave robbery!

The age difference was not terribly uncommon back then, men had to be settled in their profession and able to support a family before they were allowed to get married. And women often married in their teens, just because schooling for women ended early and virtually no woman had a profession (rarely you had teachers, seamstresses, nannies and maids but any unmarried woman was "suspicious"). Also she had many siblings and came from a modest background, which meant anyone who did not raise the food bill more was more than welcome.
Unfortunately she died young, i guess childbirth fever or hemmorhaging, since her daughter was not affected and survived.
I really wonder how her remains ended up in the wall. Some city cemeteries unearthed their graves to make space for new burials and put the bones in some burial pit. Probably some 40 to 60 years after she died and her descendants had forgotten where she was buried.
Well preserved skulls were often removed and sold for educational and medical purposes. Even up to the 1970s and 80s, a real skull or even skeleton was standard classroom fare in every school. I attended school in the 1990s and early 2000s and my school still had a genuine skeleton and a human skull they acquired in the 1960s.

 

[summergirl1]

She was buried in a tiny cemetery that did later become abandoned, but up until the 1990s at least the land wasn't touched. Those kinds of cemeteries since they are very old and small, and there's no interest in new burials, sometimes become farmland or are built over or moved during new development, although that is less common if they are out of the way and there's no pressing reason to develop the land.

They do get stuff built around them, though, and I believe that has happened to her original burial site in more recent times going by online maps. It appears from all the info I can find that the cemetery she was originally buried in is intact today, but just a sand hill with not much sign it was ever a cemetery maybe ( the way it is described online), on private? land. Anyway, she wasn't buried in a cemetery that got disturbed later for development or was mis managed or anything. So that doesn't explain why her remains were in the wall, and they'd obviously been there a long time.

So her remains were either snatched by grave robbers at the time or perhaps vandalized much later by bored teenagers, young adults, etc, who probably figured a tiny, old, overgrown and abandoned cemetery that was out of the way would be a good place to vandalize without it being noticed. The remains had been in the wall a very long time though, and that isn't mentioned as a possibility in any of the news articles.

 

[Deleted member 306806]

I swear I read in one of these articles that she was 'identified' using DNA from the skull and a then a distant living relative. The going to the family tree and deducing which person this was from the hisory of thr family tree - ages and death dates. They came upon Esther.

What what about the possibility of this not being a known family tree member (Esther) but an illegitimate family member that was not in the official family tree? What precluded that possibility?

 

[MarziPanda]

I swear I read in one of these articles that she was 'identified' using DNA from the skull and a then a distant living relative. The going to the family tree and deducing which person this was from the hisory of thr family tree - ages and death dates. They came upon Esther.

What what about the possibility of this not being a known family tree member (Esther) but an illegitimate family member that was not in the official family tree? What precluded that possibility?

As I understand it, it wasn't really a 'distant' living relative but her great great grandson. A direct descendant. They may also have triangulated with his cousins etc to rule out all his other great great grandmothers (for context, most people have 8 great great grandmothers though it's not unusual to have less because of intermarriage in small communities). By testing people descended from the siblings of his various ancestors, they can easily rule out different branches. I haven't read enough to know if it was a direct maternal line between them but if it was, then they would also share a maternal haplogroup.

There's also a lot to be said for circumstantial evidence - the age of the skull, both in terms of how long the person was deceased and how old they were when they died. Wayne (said great great grandson) is unlikely to have other great great grandmothers who died so young. Distance is a factor too - for example if one side of his family were recent immigrants then that would rule them out as they wouldn't be in the US in the 1800s. Ethnicity too - they would know Esther's ancestral background from the DNA test, so if there are branches of Wayne's family that were in the US but of the wrong background (for example if Esther were of solely English ancestry but another branch of his family were Russian) they could be essentially ruled out.

It's basically a lot of different techniques they use to narrow it down to one person. It's not 100% with a deceased person this old, but it's almost certainly her.

 

[Deleted member 306806]

As I understand it, it wasn't really a 'distant' living relative but her great great grandson.

I consider this far removed a distant relative.

There's also a lot to be said for circumstantial evidence - the age of the skull, both in terms of how long the person was deceased and how old they were when they died.

The circumstantial evidence is what I am questioning, especially considering Esther was buried in a cemetery when she died. This is a reason I question whether this could be an unknown decendant rather than Esther - a product of an affair or some other situation. I wish I could find the text that basically said DNA teating was done to find a family tree link, and Esther was assumed as her age and date of death fit.

Wayne (said great great grandson) is unlikely to have other great great grandmothers who died so young.

I doubt this. In the 1800s, many people died young.

 

[Susikatze]

I consider this far removed a distant relative.

The circumstantial evidence is what I am questioning, especially considering Esther was buried in a cemetery when she died. This is a reason I question whether this could be an unknown decendant rather than Esther - a product of an affair or some other situation. I wish I could find the text that basically said DNA teating was done to find a family tree link, and Esther was assumed as her age and date of death fit.



I doubt this. In the 1800s, many people died young.

The amount of DNA shared is indicative of the relationship and narrows it down to a few possibilities. Then you combine that with triangulating the relatives matches to rule out other branches of the family. Unless there is substantial recent endogamy, that works well. Then you go into papertrail records and use the anthropological evidence (in this case female and adolescent age). And then you check the circumstances of the burial (old cemetery that was already abandoned in the 1930s, small family cemetery). The possibilities of her being another female relative on another level sharing the same amount of cm is close to zero if all those techniques and evidence are combined.

 

[Susikatze]

Her being an unknown illegitimate relative, certainly possible but unlikely if they built the correct family tree. Also the cemetery Esther was buried in was abandoned and derelict at the beginning of the 20th century. Construction certainly disturbed some of the graves. Possible some workers or teenagers took the skull home, possibly thinking it was Native American (sadly it was sort of a popular pastime to look for Native burials in the early 20th century).

 

[jennytrevor]

The age difference was not terribly uncommon back then, men had to be settled in their profession and able to support a family before they were allowed to get married. And women often married in their teens, just because schooling for women ended early and virtually no woman had a profession (rarely you had teachers, seamstresses, nannies and maids but any unmarried woman was "suspicious"). Also she had many siblings and came from a modest background, which meant anyone who did not raise the food bill more was more than welcome.
Unfortunately she died young, i guess childbirth fever or hemmorhaging, since her daughter was not affected and survived.
I really wonder how her remains ended up in the wall. Some city cemeteries unearthed their graves to make space for new burials and put the bones in some burial pit. Probably some 40 to 60 years after she died and her descendants had forgotten where she was buried.

The average age of marriage for women in that time period was 20-22, from what I can tell online. There were also advantages in poorer families for older girls to stay in the home and earn money in jobs, which beyond what you listed included domestic work in a variety of fields like working in a laundry, hospital. Traditionally poorer women would often get married off later than rich women because of this. So I would say that Esther still got the short end of the stick getting married at a fresh 16 to someone 11 years her senior! And just by today's standards--I'm sure that wasn't the best relationship. In addition, younger age can increase risks in pregnancy/childbirth which Esther was an example of. I just feel for her!

 

[MarziPanda]

I consider this far removed a distant relative.

The circumstantial evidence is what I am questioning, especially considering Esther was buried in a cemetery when she died. This is a reason I question whether this could be an unknown decendant rather than Esther - a product of an affair or some other situation. I wish I could find the text that basically said DNA teating was done to find a family tree link, and Esther was assumed as her age and date of death fit.



I doubt this. In the 1800s, many people died young.

A great great grandparent in the world of genetic genealogy is not a distant relative. You share about 6% DNA with a great great grandparent, meaning about 400 centimorgans. For context, the vast majority of matches you will get on Ancestry sites are less than 100 centimorgans. I don't have anyone that high on any DNA site except my half brother and my biological father. It is a close and reliable match.

The triangulation of the relatives basically proves the circumstantial evidence - the circumstantial evidence just adds more credence.

Again, you only have 8 great great grandmothers. Yes, many people died young, but most people did not - life expectancy was low because child mortality was high. If you survived childhood, most people reached middle age. It's extremely unlikely that you have any great great grandmothers who died in their late teens, simply because the girls who died as teenagers did not have children in most cases - so they cannot be your ancestors. I have done much of my family tree, back to the 1600s, and whilst I've found plenty of siblings of my ancestors who died young, I don't have any direct ancestors who died as young as 17. The chances of Wayne having another great great grandmother who died that young is slim.

 

[summergirl1]

Grave robbers and old bones: DNA connects Camas man to 19th century cold case

Wayne Svilar never knew his great-great-grandmother, but 158 years after her death, his DNA helped identify her remains found 2,000 miles away.

www.king5.com

 

[Blurgle]

The average age of marriage for women in that time period was 20-22, from what I can tell online. There were also advantages in poorer families for older girls to stay in the home and earn money in jobs, which beyond what you listed included domestic work in a variety of fields like working in a laundry, hospital. Traditionally poorer women would often get married off later than rich women because of this. So I would say that Esther still got the short end of the stick getting married at a fresh 16 to someone 11 years her senior! And just by today's standards--I'm sure that wasn't the best relationship. In addition, younger age can increase risks in pregnancy/childbirth which Esther was an example of. I just feel for her!

The idea that girls in the old days were routinely married off at very early ages to older men was invented by pop historians of the late 19th century desperate to normalize May-December marriages. Documentary evidence however shows that only among the upper classes were such marriages common; young women of modest means usually worked, both to support their family and to save up a nest egg so they could eventually set up their own household, into their twenties. And they nearly always married someone their own age.

If you go a couple of generations back the average age at first marriage for women was 24-26. The only poor women who married early were those who...had to, if you get my drift. It shouldn’t be surprising that many of these young women gave birth to seven-pound "premature" babies six months after the wedding.

The myth of historical teen marriage is a very convenient one if you want to brainwash young girls into neglecting their own best interests in favour of pleasing skeezy middle-aged men, but it isn’t factually accurate.

 

[jennytrevor]

The idea that girls in the old days were routinely married off at very early ages to older men was invented by pop historians of the late 19th century desperate to normalize May-December marriages. Documentary evidence however shows that only among the upper classes were such marriages common; young women of modest means usually worked, both to support their family and to save up a nest egg so they could eventually set up their own household, into their twenties. And they nearly always married someone their own age.

If you go a couple of generations back the average age at first marriage for women was 24-26. The only poor women who married early were those who...had to, if you get my drift. It shouldn’t be surprising that many of these young women gave birth to seven-pound "premature" babies six months after the wedding.

The myth of historical teen marriage is a very convenient one if you want to brainwash young girls into neglecting their own best interests in favour of pleasing skeezy middle-aged men, but it isn’t factually accurate.

Thank you!!!