Google's Blogger has added a views feature that provides five dynamic templates that transform blogs into interactive apps. Just add /view to the URL of a blog that offers full feeds (for example: googlesystem.blogspot.com/view) and you'll be able to try the new views: flipcard, mosaic, sidebar, snapshot and timeline. Blogger's templates offer features like infinite scrolling, progressive image loading, smart search, filtering posts by date, author or label. "These new views use the latest in web technology, including AJAX, HTML5 and CSS3," explains Google.
This feature is now enabled in Genealogy's Star. You might like it or not. I think it works best for photo sites, but that is just my opinion.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Monday, April 11, 2011
Read genealogy books online -- a survey of sources
The world-wide digitizing projects have created a super-fast growing phenomenon, reading books online. I am just now finishing my first complete genealogy book online from Google Books. I have been reading Jacobus, Donald Lines. Genealogy As Pastime and Profession. Baltimore: Genealogical Pub. Co, 1968. I believe I have mentioned before that I could not find the physical book for sale online. I went so far as to actually purchase a copy for sale, only to be notified that the order was cancelled. I suppose I could have tried harder to buy the book, but then I discovered I could buy the eBook for $5.51, quite a bit less than the physical book. I downloaded the book and have been reading it on my iPhone in off moments.
When I said that this was the first genealogy book I had read in eBook format, I meant the first genealogy book from cover to cover (if you can still say that with eBooks). I have read dozens, probably not yet a hundred books on my iPhone and its predecessors. So how does this impact genealogy? Well, for example, I did a search on Google eBooks only for genealogy and got 467,000 results. Try looking at your local library's offering for books on genealogy and see how that compares. Most of these books were on sale, that is, you would have to pay for the eBook copy. If you have a Google account all you have to do is log in to Google Books and open the "My Account" link to get started. But how many of these books were free? I did a search on Free Google eBooks for genealogy and got 330,000. That should keep anyone busy for a few days.
Now how are you going to read these books? I hear a lot of people say how they can't stand to read books online (I think they are some of the same people who are glued to Facebook and play video games) but I think that is a lame excuse. More and more people are reading online; news, weather, sports, everything. Why not books? They will sit and stare at a TV screen for a U.S. average of over 6 hours, but can't stand to read online? See Television and Health. In addition, we now have a huge number of book readers out there, iPads, Kindles, Nooks and many smart phones. Some of which can be used to read the online books.
OK, so Google Books has a huge collection, where else can I go to get books online? How about your local library? I recently signed up to check out books from the Mesa Public Library. Our library uses Adobe Digital Editions, a program for downloading books from the library to read on my computer. The Mesa library has NetLibrary and the Greater Phoenix Digital Library. I got about 150 returns from a search on "genealogy" and most were pretty disappointing. But there this area of online library books is rapidly expanding both in scope and numbers of books. You might try some of the larger libraries in the country, such as the New York Public Library. Oh, and don't forget the Library of Congress.
Where else can I go to look for books? Well, there is always WorldCat.org. They have over a billion entries and for most books they show if a digital edition is available online. Some of the major sources of digital books are the Hathi Trust Digital Library which has 8,433,026 volumes with about 2,204,780 in the public domain. Project Gutenberg with about 100,000 or so free books online is a good source of older books. There is, of course, the Internet Archive with over 2,754,000 books. In conjunction with the Internet Archive, there is the Open Library which lists over 20,000,000 books in its catalog presently and has provided access to over 1.7 million scanned versions of books. There is also the Family History Archive with over 34,000 genealogy books. You might want to look at kobo also.
In addition, nearly every university has some sort of collection of digitized books. For example, Arizona State University has a number of online collections of eBooks. You can probably visit the websites of nearly every library in the U.S. and many other around the world and find millions of additional eBooks. Some of these resources will only be available to students and faculty of the university, but others are available to the public. Also, check out Cornell University's digital collections.
Of course, there is Europeana, the huge collection of digitized material from 1500 different institutions in Europe.
Oh, and don't forget to do a search on line for "digitized books," "digitized genealogy books," and so forth.
Oh, and don't forget to come back with color in your cheeks. Green.
When I said that this was the first genealogy book I had read in eBook format, I meant the first genealogy book from cover to cover (if you can still say that with eBooks). I have read dozens, probably not yet a hundred books on my iPhone and its predecessors. So how does this impact genealogy? Well, for example, I did a search on Google eBooks only for genealogy and got 467,000 results. Try looking at your local library's offering for books on genealogy and see how that compares. Most of these books were on sale, that is, you would have to pay for the eBook copy. If you have a Google account all you have to do is log in to Google Books and open the "My Account" link to get started. But how many of these books were free? I did a search on Free Google eBooks for genealogy and got 330,000. That should keep anyone busy for a few days.
Now how are you going to read these books? I hear a lot of people say how they can't stand to read books online (I think they are some of the same people who are glued to Facebook and play video games) but I think that is a lame excuse. More and more people are reading online; news, weather, sports, everything. Why not books? They will sit and stare at a TV screen for a U.S. average of over 6 hours, but can't stand to read online? See Television and Health. In addition, we now have a huge number of book readers out there, iPads, Kindles, Nooks and many smart phones. Some of which can be used to read the online books.
OK, so Google Books has a huge collection, where else can I go to get books online? How about your local library? I recently signed up to check out books from the Mesa Public Library. Our library uses Adobe Digital Editions, a program for downloading books from the library to read on my computer. The Mesa library has NetLibrary and the Greater Phoenix Digital Library. I got about 150 returns from a search on "genealogy" and most were pretty disappointing. But there this area of online library books is rapidly expanding both in scope and numbers of books. You might try some of the larger libraries in the country, such as the New York Public Library. Oh, and don't forget the Library of Congress.
Where else can I go to look for books? Well, there is always WorldCat.org. They have over a billion entries and for most books they show if a digital edition is available online. Some of the major sources of digital books are the Hathi Trust Digital Library which has 8,433,026 volumes with about 2,204,780 in the public domain. Project Gutenberg with about 100,000 or so free books online is a good source of older books. There is, of course, the Internet Archive with over 2,754,000 books. In conjunction with the Internet Archive, there is the Open Library which lists over 20,000,000 books in its catalog presently and has provided access to over 1.7 million scanned versions of books. There is also the Family History Archive with over 34,000 genealogy books. You might want to look at kobo also.
In addition, nearly every university has some sort of collection of digitized books. For example, Arizona State University has a number of online collections of eBooks. You can probably visit the websites of nearly every library in the U.S. and many other around the world and find millions of additional eBooks. Some of these resources will only be available to students and faculty of the university, but others are available to the public. Also, check out Cornell University's digital collections.
Of course, there is Europeana, the huge collection of digitized material from 1500 different institutions in Europe.
Oh, and don't forget to do a search on line for "digitized books," "digitized genealogy books," and so forth.
Oh, and don't forget to come back with color in your cheeks. Green.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
How much genealogy can you stand? Part Seven on the limits of genealogy
Genealogy is a goal oriented activity. In some ways it is similar to a collectibles hobby such as stamps, coins, figurines and others. There is a finite number of items and variations and at some point you can consider your collection to be complete. For example, I can collect all of the First Day Covers of all of the U.S. Commemorative Stamps in existence. Although, in one sense, my collection may never be considered complete because of the variations in the stamps and the different publishers of first day covers. In genealogy, we are collecting names and information about people and for that reason alone, no genealogy can ever be considered complete. During the last few posts I have explored some of the issues with limits in genealogy. There are limits related to location as well as limits imposed by the passage of time.
If you were sailing across the ocean in a very small ship, like the Mayflower for example, you could almost believe that the trip would never end. But if you kept sailing on a particular bearing, you would always strike land, you might die first, but the trip was never endless. Genealogy is like a trip across the ocean. If you keep following a particular line, you will always reach a limit. It may be a lack of records at a certain place and time, or one of the many more difficult issues imposed by antiquity. You can always come forward from any given ancestor and in that sense the search never ends, but at some point you need to acknowledge that you have done what practically can be done to move back into the past.
Mortality itself provides the ultimate limit to our search. Many of us look forward to the time when we can mingle with our ancestors and ask all the hard questions that never got answered. But until that time comes, we just keep looking and hoping the next round of technological change will open the doors that have been closed to us for so long.
I literally can't believe it. I am in the middle of writing about the topic of limits and I have a member of a class I am teaching start to tell me about tracing her ancestors back to 800 AD. It reminds me of the time that I got tired of filling in the blanks in my stamp album and went out and purchased a set of all the U.S. Commemoratives in one fell swoop. Copying a long pedigree may be satisfying on one level but it begs the issue of limits. All it really does is move the limit to a different place and time and destroys the fun of collecting.
The whole premise of having certified or accredited genealogists assumes that competency in a given area or with a certain set of qualifications defines what it means to be a genealogist. I can claim to be more qualified than you are by virtue of the fact that I accomplished a certain arbitrary set of tasks imposed by the accrediting board. Accreditation is merely another way of looking at limits. In this case the limits are imposed by those who say you cannot play our game unless you follow our rules and by the way, we are the only valid game. In Arizona, you have certain legal rights if you are a licensed contractor. If you try to work as an unlicensed contractor and someone fails to pay your bill, in some cases, you cannot use the court system to collect the debt. Licensing and accreditation both impose very severe limits on their respective professions. Both imply that real work, whether it is contracting or genealogy, can only be done by the "professional" and that anyone else in intruding on the real work.
No where is this attitude more prevalent than with the "professions." Most of the states in the U.S. have so-called unauthorized practice statutes, some make it a criminal act to practice certain professions without a license. Arizona doesn't have an unauthorized practice of law statue, but none the less there is always a running battle going on between the Arizona State Bar Association and those individuals who try to "practice law." Many years ago I represented a client who was in jail. His crime? Operating a moving business without a license. Yes, he had a truck and the temerity to try to help people to move without being licensed. To some extent, all professional organizations would like to be in that position. They would all like to impose limits to benefit their members and make membership more valuable.
Now, don't start sending me angry comments about how necessary it is to have professional organizations. I support professionalism, but still you have to recognize that in some cases, genealogical professional organizations impose limits.
I know that some would argue that limits are necessary and even beneficial. I suggest that unless we recognize the reality of limits, we cannot ever attain any degree of competency. Genealogy itself imposes its own limits on what we can and cannot do with our time. There are many who choose shuffleboard, cards, fishing, sports, or whatever instead of genealogy. Making those choices is a matter of limits. It is unlikely that you will be become a world class bass fisherman and still have time to be a genealogist. It might be done, but only by moving the limit on to some other area of interest.
Too many times, I have heard people say that they always wanted to investigate their family but had some excuse. Too old, too young, too many children at home, too much work, too little work, too many obligations, on and on and on. All of them are expressing limits.
Next time, looking at real vs. unreal limits. Yep, this series is going on.
If you were sailing across the ocean in a very small ship, like the Mayflower for example, you could almost believe that the trip would never end. But if you kept sailing on a particular bearing, you would always strike land, you might die first, but the trip was never endless. Genealogy is like a trip across the ocean. If you keep following a particular line, you will always reach a limit. It may be a lack of records at a certain place and time, or one of the many more difficult issues imposed by antiquity. You can always come forward from any given ancestor and in that sense the search never ends, but at some point you need to acknowledge that you have done what practically can be done to move back into the past.
Mortality itself provides the ultimate limit to our search. Many of us look forward to the time when we can mingle with our ancestors and ask all the hard questions that never got answered. But until that time comes, we just keep looking and hoping the next round of technological change will open the doors that have been closed to us for so long.
I literally can't believe it. I am in the middle of writing about the topic of limits and I have a member of a class I am teaching start to tell me about tracing her ancestors back to 800 AD. It reminds me of the time that I got tired of filling in the blanks in my stamp album and went out and purchased a set of all the U.S. Commemoratives in one fell swoop. Copying a long pedigree may be satisfying on one level but it begs the issue of limits. All it really does is move the limit to a different place and time and destroys the fun of collecting.
The whole premise of having certified or accredited genealogists assumes that competency in a given area or with a certain set of qualifications defines what it means to be a genealogist. I can claim to be more qualified than you are by virtue of the fact that I accomplished a certain arbitrary set of tasks imposed by the accrediting board. Accreditation is merely another way of looking at limits. In this case the limits are imposed by those who say you cannot play our game unless you follow our rules and by the way, we are the only valid game. In Arizona, you have certain legal rights if you are a licensed contractor. If you try to work as an unlicensed contractor and someone fails to pay your bill, in some cases, you cannot use the court system to collect the debt. Licensing and accreditation both impose very severe limits on their respective professions. Both imply that real work, whether it is contracting or genealogy, can only be done by the "professional" and that anyone else in intruding on the real work.
No where is this attitude more prevalent than with the "professions." Most of the states in the U.S. have so-called unauthorized practice statutes, some make it a criminal act to practice certain professions without a license. Arizona doesn't have an unauthorized practice of law statue, but none the less there is always a running battle going on between the Arizona State Bar Association and those individuals who try to "practice law." Many years ago I represented a client who was in jail. His crime? Operating a moving business without a license. Yes, he had a truck and the temerity to try to help people to move without being licensed. To some extent, all professional organizations would like to be in that position. They would all like to impose limits to benefit their members and make membership more valuable.
Now, don't start sending me angry comments about how necessary it is to have professional organizations. I support professionalism, but still you have to recognize that in some cases, genealogical professional organizations impose limits.
I know that some would argue that limits are necessary and even beneficial. I suggest that unless we recognize the reality of limits, we cannot ever attain any degree of competency. Genealogy itself imposes its own limits on what we can and cannot do with our time. There are many who choose shuffleboard, cards, fishing, sports, or whatever instead of genealogy. Making those choices is a matter of limits. It is unlikely that you will be become a world class bass fisherman and still have time to be a genealogist. It might be done, but only by moving the limit on to some other area of interest.
Too many times, I have heard people say that they always wanted to investigate their family but had some excuse. Too old, too young, too many children at home, too much work, too little work, too many obligations, on and on and on. All of them are expressing limits.
Next time, looking at real vs. unreal limits. Yep, this series is going on.
Friday, April 8, 2011
The outer limits? -- Part Six of the limits of genealogical research
What are you willing to do to extend your genealogical research? People who are interested in their family history come with all kinds of backgrounds and skill levels. Those who work at the outer limits of genealogical research must acquire some highly specialized skills. Those skills may include reading old handwritten records, translating almost dead languages, working in difficult and sometimes dangerous surroundings, getting along with people who may be totally opposed to your research and many other difficult activities. One of my commentators pointed out that there are still many Medieval manuscripts waiting to be discovered and researched. That may be true, but are you the person that will spend years learning Latin, Old French, Old German or Old English and then spend the additional years needed to become sufficiently proficient in the historical context to actually translate those old documents?
Let's hope that there are still enough people left who value their history and genealogy enough to spend the time to acquire those skills, but some of us don't have enough years left in our lives, or the educational or physical ability to do so. When I speak of limits, I mean all of those factors that would keep up from pursuing research on any given ancestral line. I have yet to meet anyone who had enough background to step right in and do genealogical research without a huge amount of study and experience. That lack of experience is also one of the basic limiting factors in our research.
My original example in this series talked about the historical limits in any particular geographic area or jurisdiction. I would like to follow that line of thought a little further. My parents were born in Utah and Arizona. Both of these states have severely limited historical time depth for people of European extraction. The first U.S. non-Indian settlers in Utah arrived around the middle of the 1800s. Although I am well aware that there was some exploration before that time. As I already pointed out, unless your ancestors spoke Spanish, the first English speaking settlers in Arizona also began arriving in the 1800s. My ancestors did not arrive until the 1870s. From the time of the arrival of the original pioneers in both states, there are a huge amount of records. I could easily spend the rest of my life concentrating on just those of my ancestors who lived in Arizona and Utah and never run out of new material to examine.
But let's further assume that I want to push the research back a little into the past. I will have to move out of both states because I have reached a limit. The limit of written records about a particular location. Going back in time, my ancestors on the Tanner line were born in California, New York, Rhode Island, Ohio, Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts. The other lines have the same pattern. Very soon, the lines go to Europe, mainly England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland with two or more lines in Denmark. If I look at each of those states or countries, I will find that there is a temporal limit to the availability of documentation containing genealogically valuable information.
Probably, long before I reach the theoretical limit of records in any given locality, I will find that one of my particular ancestors has dropped off the stage of life. In other words, there may generally be records available but I can't find any more information about that line. In my case the first missing individuals are in the seventh generation. That means that my research, to extend any line, begins in the 1700s. I quickly learned that even that far back, I needed a lot of background and education to start to do research in the existing records. Believe me, you don't just type one of those names into Ancestry.com and get additional documents with their little green leaf.
But every minute I spend on any one of those lines means I do not spend time on some other line. So here is another limit. The physical time limit we have in this life to do research. Sure, we can cooperate and collaborate, but what if you just don't happen to have a conveniently interested family? What if that interested family is still waiting to be born?
Although I think entirely too much attention has been paid to records that were destroyed by fires, floods and so forth, it is a fact that some records have disappeared. My answer is yes and knowing that the records burned in a court house fire help me how? All that means is I have to look somewhere else. But it is a fact that record loss imposes some limits. Your great-grandfather may have written the most detailed journal or diary in history, but if that documents was thrown away by his children, it is gone an there is no reason to spend even one minute worrying about it.
OK, so here we are at the end of another post. Why am I writing about limits? One main reason is that I see a lot of people banging their collective heads against the wall, when they should be working on more productive lines or learning a lot more about what they are doing. Next, I will talk about how we determine we have reached some limit or another.
Let's hope that there are still enough people left who value their history and genealogy enough to spend the time to acquire those skills, but some of us don't have enough years left in our lives, or the educational or physical ability to do so. When I speak of limits, I mean all of those factors that would keep up from pursuing research on any given ancestral line. I have yet to meet anyone who had enough background to step right in and do genealogical research without a huge amount of study and experience. That lack of experience is also one of the basic limiting factors in our research.
My original example in this series talked about the historical limits in any particular geographic area or jurisdiction. I would like to follow that line of thought a little further. My parents were born in Utah and Arizona. Both of these states have severely limited historical time depth for people of European extraction. The first U.S. non-Indian settlers in Utah arrived around the middle of the 1800s. Although I am well aware that there was some exploration before that time. As I already pointed out, unless your ancestors spoke Spanish, the first English speaking settlers in Arizona also began arriving in the 1800s. My ancestors did not arrive until the 1870s. From the time of the arrival of the original pioneers in both states, there are a huge amount of records. I could easily spend the rest of my life concentrating on just those of my ancestors who lived in Arizona and Utah and never run out of new material to examine.
But let's further assume that I want to push the research back a little into the past. I will have to move out of both states because I have reached a limit. The limit of written records about a particular location. Going back in time, my ancestors on the Tanner line were born in California, New York, Rhode Island, Ohio, Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts. The other lines have the same pattern. Very soon, the lines go to Europe, mainly England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland with two or more lines in Denmark. If I look at each of those states or countries, I will find that there is a temporal limit to the availability of documentation containing genealogically valuable information.
Probably, long before I reach the theoretical limit of records in any given locality, I will find that one of my particular ancestors has dropped off the stage of life. In other words, there may generally be records available but I can't find any more information about that line. In my case the first missing individuals are in the seventh generation. That means that my research, to extend any line, begins in the 1700s. I quickly learned that even that far back, I needed a lot of background and education to start to do research in the existing records. Believe me, you don't just type one of those names into Ancestry.com and get additional documents with their little green leaf.
But every minute I spend on any one of those lines means I do not spend time on some other line. So here is another limit. The physical time limit we have in this life to do research. Sure, we can cooperate and collaborate, but what if you just don't happen to have a conveniently interested family? What if that interested family is still waiting to be born?
Although I think entirely too much attention has been paid to records that were destroyed by fires, floods and so forth, it is a fact that some records have disappeared. My answer is yes and knowing that the records burned in a court house fire help me how? All that means is I have to look somewhere else. But it is a fact that record loss imposes some limits. Your great-grandfather may have written the most detailed journal or diary in history, but if that documents was thrown away by his children, it is gone an there is no reason to spend even one minute worrying about it.
OK, so here we are at the end of another post. Why am I writing about limits? One main reason is that I see a lot of people banging their collective heads against the wall, when they should be working on more productive lines or learning a lot more about what they are doing. Next, I will talk about how we determine we have reached some limit or another.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Can I read this stuff? Part Five of the limits of genealogical research
Copying is not research. That is why we have sources. We have sources with our records so we can tell if what we are looking at is reliable. But we also have sources so we can see where the information came from. Take my Tanner family as an example. There are a series of surname books dating back to the 1800s that talk about my ancestors. Guess what? Everything after the original books is nothing more than a copy of the previous books. Do you think any one of the authors would have thought to include a source or attribution? It did not happen. At the beginning of the first book in the series, the author mentions searching records in Rhode Island and names a few records, but none of the information in the book is cited to any particular source. Later authors omitted the references to the Rhode Island records entirely.
But I digress. The issue this post addresses is the concept of what is genealogical research and are there limits? If I find a marvelous book published about one of the people or lines in my pedigree, shouldn't I just copy the information and consider that line done? Do I as a genealogist have any obligation, moral or otherwise, to reasonably verify information that has no sources listed? If there are sources listed, do I have any obligation to make sure the sources are valid? So, what if I find a book like Gatfield, George. Guide to Printed Books and Manuscripts Relating to English and Foreign Heraldry and Genealogy; Being a Classified Catalogue of Works of Those Branches of Literature. London: Mitchell and Hughes, 1892 and through that source, I find a book on my surname published back in the 1800s. Wait, I think a quote from Donald Lines Jacobus is appropriate, "In a field where professional genealogists so often show their ineptitude, the amateur is a lost lamb. In fact, amateurs are responsible for many of the erroneous royal lines that have appeared in print; and once they have originated, they have been copied and reprinted by the type of professional incompetent who believes that the printed word can never lie."
It is my opinion, whatever that is worth, that genealogy without verified sources is nothing more than fiction in pedigree format. Do I have to verify my parents' birth dates? Am I to doubt my own origins? Do you have any idea how many people find that the dates given for near ancestors, including parents, are wrongly recorded? I have two different dates for my parents' wedding? Which is correct? What if I have documents showing both dates?
If dates in close proximity can be erroneous, then how much more should we doubt those going back into antiquity? Let's get a definition going here. A brick wall in genealogy is the inability to establish a relationship, name or date where records should and can exist. A genealogical limit is the inability to continue research because of lack of any records at all or at a time before records became available. If you would like to read an interesting perspective on extending lines back into the past, published 8 August 2010 by Martin Hollick, the Slovak Yankee, read Royal Lines, Medieval Genealogy and Ancient Lineages.
So let's discuss a little more about the availability of records. The Patroligia Latina is an enormous collection of the writings ecclesiastical writers published by Jacques-Paul Migne between 1844 and 1855. In that book, which is essentially a bibliography, there is a demonstrated decline in the number of extant volumes in the collection in the 7th, 8th and 10th centuries. In other words, very few manuscripts were written during that time period. Those that do exist have been mostly exhaustively studied. See Wikipedia. So by about the 10th Century, you will begin to run out, not only of genealogy, but books altogether.
Let me repeat, I am not discussing whether or not you or anyone else can prove a royal lineage. I do not doubt that a great deal of competent history has gone into research a few of these lines, but my question is, do you accept that research or is there some obligation to verify your own lines? And if there is an obligation, how far back can you practically go? By the way, if you interested in answering questions on royal lines, try looking for books on royal lines in the Family History Archives. They have digitized many of the early books on that subject online.
Genealogy is really history and history has its limits. A real lack of sources, not an inability to find what is there, imposes a practical end to research. There are few people who are willing to spend the time and effort necessary to become competent researchers in very old records. Very long an ancient pedigrees are possible but are hardly unique and have a high degree of uncertainty. Copying a royal line or any ancestral line you find in a book without doing your own independent research to verify sources, may be personally satisfying but is hardly believable and not genealogy.
But I digress. The issue this post addresses is the concept of what is genealogical research and are there limits? If I find a marvelous book published about one of the people or lines in my pedigree, shouldn't I just copy the information and consider that line done? Do I as a genealogist have any obligation, moral or otherwise, to reasonably verify information that has no sources listed? If there are sources listed, do I have any obligation to make sure the sources are valid? So, what if I find a book like Gatfield, George. Guide to Printed Books and Manuscripts Relating to English and Foreign Heraldry and Genealogy; Being a Classified Catalogue of Works of Those Branches of Literature. London: Mitchell and Hughes, 1892 and through that source, I find a book on my surname published back in the 1800s. Wait, I think a quote from Donald Lines Jacobus is appropriate, "In a field where professional genealogists so often show their ineptitude, the amateur is a lost lamb. In fact, amateurs are responsible for many of the erroneous royal lines that have appeared in print; and once they have originated, they have been copied and reprinted by the type of professional incompetent who believes that the printed word can never lie."
It is my opinion, whatever that is worth, that genealogy without verified sources is nothing more than fiction in pedigree format. Do I have to verify my parents' birth dates? Am I to doubt my own origins? Do you have any idea how many people find that the dates given for near ancestors, including parents, are wrongly recorded? I have two different dates for my parents' wedding? Which is correct? What if I have documents showing both dates?
If dates in close proximity can be erroneous, then how much more should we doubt those going back into antiquity? Let's get a definition going here. A brick wall in genealogy is the inability to establish a relationship, name or date where records should and can exist. A genealogical limit is the inability to continue research because of lack of any records at all or at a time before records became available. If you would like to read an interesting perspective on extending lines back into the past, published 8 August 2010 by Martin Hollick, the Slovak Yankee, read Royal Lines, Medieval Genealogy and Ancient Lineages.
So let's discuss a little more about the availability of records. The Patroligia Latina is an enormous collection of the writings ecclesiastical writers published by Jacques-Paul Migne between 1844 and 1855. In that book, which is essentially a bibliography, there is a demonstrated decline in the number of extant volumes in the collection in the 7th, 8th and 10th centuries. In other words, very few manuscripts were written during that time period. Those that do exist have been mostly exhaustively studied. See Wikipedia. So by about the 10th Century, you will begin to run out, not only of genealogy, but books altogether.
Let me repeat, I am not discussing whether or not you or anyone else can prove a royal lineage. I do not doubt that a great deal of competent history has gone into research a few of these lines, but my question is, do you accept that research or is there some obligation to verify your own lines? And if there is an obligation, how far back can you practically go? By the way, if you interested in answering questions on royal lines, try looking for books on royal lines in the Family History Archives. They have digitized many of the early books on that subject online.
Genealogy is really history and history has its limits. A real lack of sources, not an inability to find what is there, imposes a practical end to research. There are few people who are willing to spend the time and effort necessary to become competent researchers in very old records. Very long an ancient pedigrees are possible but are hardly unique and have a high degree of uncertainty. Copying a royal line or any ancestral line you find in a book without doing your own independent research to verify sources, may be personally satisfying but is hardly believable and not genealogy.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Taking up the gauntlet - Part Four of the limits of genealogical research
One phrase of a recent comment keeps coming back to me, "Anybody (sic) educated person in medieval genealogy knows..." (Note: I need to proof read more and so do my commentators). I guess my question is who is this person who is educated in Medieval Genealogy? What does it take to push your genealogy back beyond the 1500s?
Let me be perfectly clear. Anyone can copy a line of descent from someone else, for example, assuming you can trace your genealogy back to one of the 185 or so American Colonists who are in the book,
Richardson, Douglas, Kimball G. Everingham, and David Faris. Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families. Baltimore, Md: Genealogical Pub. Co, 2004
If you can read and write, you can copy all that stuff into your own computer program. Is that research? I know of only one person, who I have yet to meet, that is actually extending lines in Medieval times in Norway. She is working closely with the the folks at FamilySearch and actually finding new people. But if you read the ProGenealogists article on Medieval British Isles Families, you will realize what a huge undertaking it is to extend those lines.
First there is the language barrier. Here is a copy of a page from a parish register in the 1800s. I just took one at random from the Czech Republic, Northern Bohemia, Litoměřice Archive Church Books, 1552-1905 on FamilySearch.org:
You can click on the image if you wish to see it enlarged.
I know hundreds of researchers that slog through that kind of stuff every day (or frequently). But what happens when you go back a few years? Here is the 1700s example from England, Durham Diocese, Calendar of Marriage Bonds & Allegations, 1594-1815:
Hmm. Looks like typewriter to me. Oh well, not all of it is as hard as others. I left this in to see if you were awake. Let's go back another hundred years or so to the 1600s. How about the Austria, Oberösterreich, Catholic Church Records, 1581-1910? By the way, it gets harder and harder to find any images that date back that far.
Look at the record. What do you see? Can you read the record? Can you even tell what language it is written in? Do you read old Latin mixed with old German? Let's try another hundred years to the 1500s. Here is the England, Norfolk Marriage Bonds, 1557-1915:
Look folks, we are only back to the 1500s. I suggest an educated person in Medieval genealogy probably reads this for breakfast and moves on to more difficult stuff in the afternoon. When was the last time you brushed up on your old Church Slavic or old Norse? Can I find an example from the 1400s? How about Switzerland, Basel City Church Books, 1380-1917, Sankt Theodor, Evangelisch Reformiert, Taufen 1490-1503?
Not only do we have the language barrier, but also the handwriting. This example is beautiful and clear. Not all of the old records are in such great shape. I am talking about the limits of genealogy, not the brick walls. How long would you spend learning what you need to know to read these records? I thought I might go back another hundred years looking for genealogical records but that gets almost impossible to find an example.
You might want to read Jones, William Jervis. German Kinship Terms, (750-1500): Documentation and Analysis. New York: W. de Gruyter, 1990. It is online in Google Books. But if you are educated in Medieval genealogy, you have probably already have the book in your library. But here we go with a 14th Century manuscript, this one happens to be a musical score:
On to the next in the series, where I might be a little more serious about the subject.
Let me be perfectly clear. Anyone can copy a line of descent from someone else, for example, assuming you can trace your genealogy back to one of the 185 or so American Colonists who are in the book,
Richardson, Douglas, Kimball G. Everingham, and David Faris. Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families. Baltimore, Md: Genealogical Pub. Co, 2004
If you can read and write, you can copy all that stuff into your own computer program. Is that research? I know of only one person, who I have yet to meet, that is actually extending lines in Medieval times in Norway. She is working closely with the the folks at FamilySearch and actually finding new people. But if you read the ProGenealogists article on Medieval British Isles Families, you will realize what a huge undertaking it is to extend those lines.
First there is the language barrier. Here is a copy of a page from a parish register in the 1800s. I just took one at random from the Czech Republic, Northern Bohemia, Litoměřice Archive Church Books, 1552-1905 on FamilySearch.org:
You can click on the image if you wish to see it enlarged.
I know hundreds of researchers that slog through that kind of stuff every day (or frequently). But what happens when you go back a few years? Here is the 1700s example from England, Durham Diocese, Calendar of Marriage Bonds & Allegations, 1594-1815:
Look at the record. What do you see? Can you read the record? Can you even tell what language it is written in? Do you read old Latin mixed with old German? Let's try another hundred years to the 1500s. Here is the England, Norfolk Marriage Bonds, 1557-1915:
Look folks, we are only back to the 1500s. I suggest an educated person in Medieval genealogy probably reads this for breakfast and moves on to more difficult stuff in the afternoon. When was the last time you brushed up on your old Church Slavic or old Norse? Can I find an example from the 1400s? How about Switzerland, Basel City Church Books, 1380-1917, Sankt Theodor, Evangelisch Reformiert, Taufen 1490-1503?
Not only do we have the language barrier, but also the handwriting. This example is beautiful and clear. Not all of the old records are in such great shape. I am talking about the limits of genealogy, not the brick walls. How long would you spend learning what you need to know to read these records? I thought I might go back another hundred years looking for genealogical records but that gets almost impossible to find an example.
You might want to read Jones, William Jervis. German Kinship Terms, (750-1500): Documentation and Analysis. New York: W. de Gruyter, 1990. It is online in Google Books. But if you are educated in Medieval genealogy, you have probably already have the book in your library. But here we go with a 14th Century manuscript, this one happens to be a musical score:
On to the next in the series, where I might be a little more serious about the subject.
The limits of genealogical research -- Part Three
Apparently someone thought my last post was, in effect, throwing down the gauntlet. I got a response from an anonymous commentator that said, "I don't see why claims further back than parish registers exist are implausible. There are plenty of other records available, most of which amateur genealogists know nothing about. Anybody educated person in medieval genealogy knows that lines back to Charlemagne and beyond have already been established. See: http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/at.htm for a well written, scholarly account of the ancestry of Henry II (which includes Charlemagne). Henry II is the ancestor of many immigrant colonists and lines connecting the two can be found in Douglas Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry book, which has just been updated for 2011 and re-released."
Let's see what others in the genealogical history business have to say about the Medieval lines of ascent. I would strongly suggest reading the entire commentary by ProGenealogists the official Ancestry.com research firm. Their comments in part say, "The interest in tracing noble families has been high. However, because of sources that are difficult to use and the large number of people interested in these families, there is a lot of duplication and errors in this work" The site goes on to say:
The commentator is correct that the Richardson book is considered a mostly reliable source, however, that book points out that royal lines can only be established for about 185 individuals who emigrated from the British Isles to the Colonies in the 17th Century. The book traces the descents of Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou who died in about 1151. By the way, here is the citation to the 2004 edition, the 2011 edition is just now for sale.
Richardson, Douglas, Kimball G. Everingham, and David Faris. Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families. Baltimore, Md: Genealogical Pub. Co, 2004.
I will go back to one of my own posts in January, 2010 and re-quote an article in The Ensign Magazine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for February, 1984, Robert C. Gunderson, Senior Royalty Research Specialist of the Church Genealogical Department wrote a short article entitled "I've heard that some people have extended their ancestral lines back to Adam." He states,"In thirty-five years of genealogical research, I have yet to see a pedigree back to Adam that can be documented. By assignment, I have reviewed hundreds of pedigrees over the years. I have not found one where each connection on the pedigree can be justified by evidence from contemporary documents. In my opinion it is not even possible to verify historically a connected European pedigree earlier than the time of the Merovingian Kings (c. a.d. 450–a.d. 752). Every pedigree I have seen which attempts to bridge the gap between that time and the biblical pedigree appears to be based on questionable tradition, or at worst, plain fabrication. Generally these pedigrees offer no evidence as to the origin of the information, or they cite a vague source."
By the way, in my comment about Charlemagne in my last post I did not say that documenting a line to Charlemagne was impossible. However, any pedigree that goes beyond 1500 must be considered with caution. You might want to check out the International Society of Descendants of Charlemagne. They have list of gateway ancestors that will get you back to Charlemagne. Or if you still insist, try The Society of the Descendants of Charlemagne.
Boy, I am way off my point however. Back to the records. Inevitably, on every single line of your genealogy, you will run out of records sooner or later. Now, here is the point: Don't give up. Most genealogist's lines end long before the records run out. But on the other hand, don't get so caught up trying to latch onto royalty that you neglect your real family history.
When you reach an end-of-line, you just might want to check to see if it corresponds with some end-of-record situation. I recently did some research for a friend, which I probably already talked about, but the point was that his family tradition had the person born in a place and at a time before the place was even part of the U.S. It was still unsettled Indian Territory. Possible, but likely a mistake.
Now really, back to the records. But I will have to do that in Part Four.
Let's see what others in the genealogical history business have to say about the Medieval lines of ascent. I would strongly suggest reading the entire commentary by ProGenealogists the official Ancestry.com research firm. Their comments in part say, "The interest in tracing noble families has been high. However, because of sources that are difficult to use and the large number of people interested in these families, there is a lot of duplication and errors in this work" The site goes on to say:
When tracing medieval genealogies one should be aware of some areas where difficulties and errors are found. Difficulties and errors that you will want to be careful of include:Here is one last quote, "Most claims to the British noble class in America are unfounded and unsupported by evidence. If you have a connection to royalty through a colonial North American immigrant ancestor, you should look carefully at the documentation for that connection."
You should be especially careful in the following cases:
- Accepting undocumented pedigrees as truth.
- Separating fact from fiction.
- Unverified or incorrect pedigree links.
- False information.
- Genealogies back to Adam.
- Ancestry of Colonial American Families.
- Fabricated lineages.
- Lineages through illegitimacy.
The commentator is correct that the Richardson book is considered a mostly reliable source, however, that book points out that royal lines can only be established for about 185 individuals who emigrated from the British Isles to the Colonies in the 17th Century. The book traces the descents of Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou who died in about 1151. By the way, here is the citation to the 2004 edition, the 2011 edition is just now for sale.
Richardson, Douglas, Kimball G. Everingham, and David Faris. Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families. Baltimore, Md: Genealogical Pub. Co, 2004.
I will go back to one of my own posts in January, 2010 and re-quote an article in The Ensign Magazine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for February, 1984, Robert C. Gunderson, Senior Royalty Research Specialist of the Church Genealogical Department wrote a short article entitled "I've heard that some people have extended their ancestral lines back to Adam." He states,"In thirty-five years of genealogical research, I have yet to see a pedigree back to Adam that can be documented. By assignment, I have reviewed hundreds of pedigrees over the years. I have not found one where each connection on the pedigree can be justified by evidence from contemporary documents. In my opinion it is not even possible to verify historically a connected European pedigree earlier than the time of the Merovingian Kings (c. a.d. 450–a.d. 752). Every pedigree I have seen which attempts to bridge the gap between that time and the biblical pedigree appears to be based on questionable tradition, or at worst, plain fabrication. Generally these pedigrees offer no evidence as to the origin of the information, or they cite a vague source."
By the way, in my comment about Charlemagne in my last post I did not say that documenting a line to Charlemagne was impossible. However, any pedigree that goes beyond 1500 must be considered with caution. You might want to check out the International Society of Descendants of Charlemagne. They have list of gateway ancestors that will get you back to Charlemagne. Or if you still insist, try The Society of the Descendants of Charlemagne.
Boy, I am way off my point however. Back to the records. Inevitably, on every single line of your genealogy, you will run out of records sooner or later. Now, here is the point: Don't give up. Most genealogist's lines end long before the records run out. But on the other hand, don't get so caught up trying to latch onto royalty that you neglect your real family history.
When you reach an end-of-line, you just might want to check to see if it corresponds with some end-of-record situation. I recently did some research for a friend, which I probably already talked about, but the point was that his family tradition had the person born in a place and at a time before the place was even part of the U.S. It was still unsettled Indian Territory. Possible, but likely a mistake.
Now really, back to the records. But I will have to do that in Part Four.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)