Conflicting sources and why do we care?

In my last post, I left you with a hypothetical male person (HMP) for which we had two conflicting birth dates, one from an oral interview and one from a birth certificate. As a rational, experienced genealogist, I am now going to rush in and gather my evidence and prove the actual birthdate. Hmm, or have I bought into the pseudo-legal/scientific method applied to genealogy and am really just wasting my time? But wait, shouldn't I evaluate the sources? Don't I need to resolve the discrepancy? Isn't this contradictory evidence an invitation for more research?

Let me ask two simple questions. Why do we care? What does it matter? Well mister smarty pants, you say, what is the point then of doing the genealogical research? Can't we just plug in any old date and leave it at that? Who cares about accuracy anyway? What about all those genealogical journals out there with their detailed proof statements?

Here is the response, another question. What kind of source would I need that would reconcile the two different dates? You see, genealogy is a source based inquiry. I could sit here and argue that the birth certificate was "more reliable" than the oral memory of my HMP and use all sorts of legally and scientifically based analogies, but in the end what we have is two sources with conflicting evidence. Genealogy is the activity of investigating historical sources about individuals and families. The genealogist searches out historical records, extracts the information contained in those records and records it in some organized way. Moving beyond that source based activity, sets up the genealogist as a pseudo-legal/scientific authority. In reality, all a genealogist can do is to formulate an opinion about which of the two (or more) sources is more believable.

In my original hypothetical, the HMP in a telephonic interview gave a birthdate of 5 July 1934. On the other hand, in my hypothetical situation, I discovered a birth certificate with the date of 6 July 1937. Of course, we weigh the evidence. Look at the reliability of the sources. Determine which date is more likely correct and proceed to record the birth date given on the Birth Certificate and simply disregard the date given us by the informant. Why do we do this? Because we have been culturally conditioned to look at genealogy as if it were the law or science. We feel compelled to "resolve the discrepancy" and prove the actual date of birth. Why do we do this? Who cares which birth date is correct? How do we know that either of these two dates is correct?

Here is where these facts matter: if we are trying to differentiate two or more individuals with similar information. Otherwise, we record both sources and simply note the difference. We also keep looking for addition records that have information about our HMP. Let's give our HMP a name and an earlier birth date. Let's call him John Doe and push his birthdate back to 1784. We have been searching for Ancestor John Doe for many years and have found several people named John Doe in the same small area (not unusual, by the way). Lets list them as follows:

• John Doe 1
• John Doe 2
• John Doe 3
• John Doe 4
• John Doe X

The number of John Doe ancestral candidates "X" can be any whole number. Now, you would say, small things like the correct birth date matter. There are several possibilities here.

• There could actually be a number of people born in the same small area at about the same time given the same names. This example could be in a country such as Denmark and the names could be the results of patronymics.
• There could be some of the people with the same name in the same family. I was not unusual in some times and cultures, if a child died young, to name the next child of the same gender with the same name as the deceased child.
• They could all be the same individual with inaccurate and incomplete records.
• Any combination of the earlier possibilities.

Now, wouldn't you think that knowing the exact birthdate of each of the four or five individuals would help in making a determination as to which of the individuals was your ancestor? You are right, but the real question is whether such records exist. Genealogical records have a tendency to peter out about the time we need them. The process of differentiating these individuals involves doing research for records on each of them. With each source found, it should be possible to narrow the field, so to speak, and eliminate some or all of the contenders. Remember, there are always three or more possibilities:

• All of the sources are wrong
• Some of the sources are wrong and some are correct
• All of the sources are correct

Also, it is entirely possible that you are looking for the wrong person altogether. Let's also suppose that after a reasonably exhaustive search that you cannot reconcile which of the Does is your ancestor. Wait, let's be more optimistic. You find documentation that convinces you that John Doe 3 is the correct ancestor. Being a very diligent and experienced genealogists, you want to make sure everyone in your family and in fact, everyone in the world, recognized the wonderful job you did in differentiating these potential Doe ancestors. You write a journal article outlining your "proof." You carefully show every document and source and then your spring the conclusion that Doe 3 is the guy. You follow all the generally accepted formats, punctuation, italics, footnotes etc. Your article is published in a leading genealogical journal for all of posterity to admire. There is just one small problem (this is my hypothetical remember) you are wrong. You missed the one source that conclusively shows that Doe 2 is the real ancestor. 

Here I come along (still hypothetically) and point out the fatal flaw in your "proof." Do you get the point here. Let me repeat. Genealogy is source based. Anything else is bare opinion and speculation. What happens when sources aren't clear or disagree? You keep looking. You can express your opinion at any time, but you must always realize that it is not a "proof" in the legal or scientific sense. It is always open to finding one more source document. What would be more than fatal to your statement of proof is if you failed to account for all the sources, whether or not they were contradictory or not. 

So what so many call a genealogical proof is nothing more or less than an opinion (or an argument) with sources. I could look at the same exact sources and come up with a completely different opinion. Unlike science, as genealogists, we are not entitled to advance our theories of which of the Does is the actual ancestor based on experimentation. We are confined to the discovered sources. Also, unlike a lawyer, we cannot just make our best argument and hope the judge buys it. There is no genealogical judge who is going to make it all right by deciding the case in your favor. There is no end to genealogy. There is always another source. 

You can gussy up your proof statement with all sorts of formalistic footnotes and tidy it up with citations to journals and authoritative books, but when the final note is played in any given song, there is always one more note and another song. 

Some excuse the whole proof thing by simply saying the word "proof" really doesn't mean that in the the context of genealogy and we all know what we are talking about and so who cares and would Tanner quit writing about this subject before we all go crazy trying to figure out what he is saying.

Let me summarize. Genealogy is not science. Genealogy is not law. Genealogy is genealogy. It is a historical pursuit where the adherents attempt to discover historical documents about their ancestors. When they find documents they can accept what is in the documents as long as it is logical and verified by subsequent documents (sources). In the end however, everything, that is every conclusion and opinion is entirely subject to finding additional sources.

Oh, wait. I didn't mention the alchemy of genealogy: DNA. Isn't this the scientific part of genealogy? Not at all. Basically, it is just one more document. DNA testing can only give you a possibility of a relationship. When accompanied by all the other stuff that makes up genealogical research, it may confirm or change your opinion, but it fails to make genealogy any more scientific than it already is not.

Time to stop. See you next time.

What is a source? What is Proof? Why do we care?

Genealogical proof is a sticky subject. I have been writing recently about my opinions on the relationship of both legal and scientific proofs systems to genealogy and why I think that it is unfortunate that the terminology for both are imposed is a mistake. But that leaves the issue of the relationship of sources to genealogy and what we call the information derived from our historical investigation.

Let me start with a hypothetical male person born in 1935 in Utah. I could choose any state or even any country, but for convenience I will use the place of my current residence. In my first hypothetical situation, this man is still living and is now, in 2014, about 79 years of age. I say "about" because we have yet to ascertain his exact birthdate and he could be 78 waiting for his 79th birthday or already 79. This is easy because according to our way of counting birthdays, he does not have his first "birthday" until 1936 when he "turns one." It would obviously be more accurate to give his age in years, months and days (perhaps hours and seconds) since the time of his birth, but for convenience, we keep track of years in most cases.

Why do I start by making such a point about his age? Because we are talking about a historical fact, i.e. the date of his birth and then we are talking about a culturally imposed concept, age in years, that is calculated from that date of birth. Why is "age" a culturally imposed concept? For a number of reasons. Most basically because of our Western European imposed calendar system. We define a year as 365 days and so forth. I don't need to go into the entire calendar system, but we need to realize that there are other systems of counting "years" and keeping track of age. We arbitrarily begin and end our days at 12:00 midnight. For a completely different calendar, see Wikipedia: Hebrew calendar.

Back to my hypothetical. What if our hypothetical male person (HMP) was born on 5 July 1935, according to the Hebrew calendar, that date would have been 4 Tamuz 5695. According to our calendar, he would have been 79 on 5 July 2014. How old would he have been according to the Hebrew calendar? The point is that most of what we accept as "common knowledge" about people and their lives, is really culturally based. So let me ask a simple question, phrased in the way most genealogists today would put the question, how do I prove how old our HMP is today? You should be able to see now that there is not a simple, single answer to this question. If I think the answer is simple, then I am making a lot of culturally based assumptions, whether I know it or not.

But let's move on the next level of the hypothetical. In the most commonly used parlance of the day for genealogists, how do I "prove" my HMP's date of birth? Why don't I just ask him? So, I take out my cellphone and punch in a few numbers and in a few seconds, he answers the phone and I say, "How old are you HMP? What was your birthdate? So, I record this information in my genealogical record. In the most basic sense, that short telephone call becomes the "source" of the information I just recorded. But let's move on with the hypothetical. Let's suppose that what he just finished telling me on the phone was that he was 80 years old and was born on 5 July 1934. As I stated, my initial information had a different date. What now? My source (the telephone call) is from the actual person. Isn't the person himself the "best evidence." It is if you are talking about proving a law case. But what does a genealogist think about this question?

The answer depends partially about whether or not the genealogist has bought in to the legal/scientific world view of genealogy or is a historian who looks at historical records. As long as genealogy is mired in either legal or scientific proof systems, there will never be an adequate answer to the idea of proof. Was the response I elicited from the HMP evidence? Here we go again. The term "evidence" is another borrowed legal or scientific term. Don't we just accumulate evidence, evaluate that evidence and formulate a proof statement? Isn't that what genealogists do every day? Well, it is what they think they do in some cases, but in fact, that is an entirely mistaken way of looking at the process. Proof is a subjective term in most cases, but in law and science, proof is specifically defined and used in a way that is entirely foreign to genealogical or historical situations. Does my question to the HMP and his answer constitute proof of his birth date and age? The simple answer is no.

Because the concepts of legal and scientific proof have been so entwined in Western European genealogy for so many years, it is practically impossible to talk about genealogy without using the terms that come from these other unrelated disciplines. Let's go back to my hypothetical phone call to the HMP. What if I now tell you that he is a very conservative and traditionally oriented Jew. Would that change you view of the proof of the question of birth date and age? What if he had really just changed his traditional Jewish birthdate into our current Gregorian one by using one of the available online calculators?

OK, it is time to move on a little. How reliable was our 79 year old HMP's memory? Because I am an obsessive and compulsive genealogist, I keep looking for sources. What am I looking for? I am looking for historical records created at or near the time of the event I am investigating that will give me specific information about that event. So looking for a birth certificate jumps to mind. Because I am a meticulous and educated genealogist (speaking hypothetically, of course), I look at the FamilySearch Research Wiki for Utah and find the Vital Records link. By clicking on that link, I get a chart that tells me that birth records began statewide registration in 1905. So there is a very good chance I can find a birth certificate for my HMP. Why this step? Because we are looking for historical records (sources) that give specific information and we need to know if such a record even exists.

After a little bit of a search and spending a few dollars, I get a birth certificate after consulting the "Obtaining Birth Records Research Guide" from the Utah State Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Records. Assuming I qualify, I obtain the record. Low and behold, the birth certificate shows my HMP was born on 6 July 1937. Now what? What happened to my "proof?" Do I now call up my HMP and tell him he has been celebrating the wrong birthday all his life? Do I chock this discrepancy up to bad memory and go with the birth certificate date?

Let's bring this discussion to a close for the time being. I will have a lot more to say on this subject but this is enough for now. Neither the oral statement nor the birth certificate "prove" anything. Remember, proof is not term that really applies to genealogy. These two sources, the oral interview and the birth certificate, are just that, sources. I record the information they both show in my records and leave it like that. Am I upset or bothered by the difference in the two dates? Not at all. They are separate sources. Am I on trial and feel the need to evaluated my evidence and prove my case? Again, not at all. There are simply two different sources recording two different dates. Am I now forced to dig further and try and prove which date is correct? Well, if someone is paying you to do just that, maybe. But for genealogical purposes you record both sources with the different dates and I start looking for more sources about my HMP. But in the end, assuming I find a number of different sources with the HMP's birthdate, aren't I obligated to "draw a conclusion" and give my opinion as to a birth date? There is nothing stopping me from doing so, but why do I care and why would I spend my time doing that? 

The next post in this series will address the issue of conflicting sources and why that matters. 

The Only Constant is Change

I got a notice of yet another update to a genealogy program and during that same time, I was reading a book about the changes in the Internet or World Wide Web. This got me thinking about change in general and specifically about change in the genealogy world. I would guess that there are more changes waiting than we have already seen. I think Franklin Delano Roosevelt said it well in his First Inaugural Address:

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

I think this pretty well sums up a lot of genealogists' attitude towards change. Maybe it comes with age, maybe not. I have grandchildren who can't deal with any changes. They get upset at the slightest difference in their daily routine. All I can say is if you don't like change, you are going to live a hard life. Let's look at some of the changes we have to go through to adapt to the modern 21st Century genealogy world. I can talk about this with some slight authority since I have lived through the entire process.

We started out with paper forms. In my case, thousands of family group records, pedigree charts, and boxes and boxes of photographs, letters, diaries, journals, certificates, business records, and on and on and on. I thought the photo above was a pretty fair representation of where I was when I started entering all that into a computer. I had two things going for me; I learned how to type in high school and I studied languages in both high school and the university. Why do I mention these two? Because they gave me some basic skills that I put to good use when I got my first computer. I was already more adept at typing that handwriting and I wasn't put off by all the computer jargon.

When I was very young, many women didn't drive cars and some women considered typing to be a manual labor fit only for people who "had to work" for a living. I had several close relatives in both categories. I remember my mother learning to drive (pretty scary) and she never did learn to type. Unfortunately, there are a lot of men who learned how to drive but didn't ever learn how to type. Computers are not much of a time saver and are very frustrating to anyone who has few keyboard skills.

But as time passed, it became evident to me that the shear volume of information generated by genealogical research had to have a solution. I saw that solution, in part, in computerizing all of my records. Later, I moved on to digitizing all of my documents. Do I have to remind you that all this means change in a big way. But the changes did not stop there. The driving force for my accepting each level of change going along was time. As each new computer and program came out, I saw that they worked faster. I got my first Apple II computer in about 1982. It was not until the present iMac 2.66 GHz Intel Core i5 that I finally got a computer that could work as fast as I can.

Now, what happens if you haven't gone through 50 or so computer models? What if you are walking into the Apple Store or the Microsoft Store or some other retailer and buying your first computer today? Major change in your life. Apple used to try and sell its computers as "user friendly." That was almost as much of oxymoron as selling genealogy as easy.

I still talk to a residual group of genealogists who bought into the computer world at some point and then refused to change. They maintain the first computer they ever owned running the original operating system and Personal Ancestral File and they will argue with me as long as I want to talk about it, how this setup suits them perfectly well and they don't need all of the bells and whistles of the newer programs. Well, yeah but then along came the Internet.

I have moved to Provo, Utah which has the distinction of being one of the three initial Google Fiber cities in the U.S. We are talking here of speeds that are so far past what is presently available that there is no comparison. Here is a quote from Google:

One gigabit per second (Gbps) is a 1000 megabits per second (Mbps) connection. A gigabit is 100 times faster than the Internet connection that most Americans have today, allowing you to get what you want instantaneously. You no longer have to wait on things buffering; it’ll be all ready to go when you are. So whether you are video chatting, uploading family videos, or playing your favorite online games, all you need to do is click and you’re there.

A good analogy would be my current situation with my garage full of boxes from moving. The old systems are like trying to get a car into my garage. The new system from Google is like having all the boxes put away.

Why is change a problem? Most people naturally resist change. Genealogy is a comfortable persuasion because it has essentially changed very little for over a hundred years. If a person living today, say around 70 years old, learned how to do genealogy when they were in their twenties, they can use almost everything they learned back then today with no problems except where genealogy meets technology. Then you are caught up in all the changes I have mentioned above. 

Is there a solution? Only on an individual basis. I have worked with many people both young and old, that were so motivated by a desire to search out their ancestors, they were able to make the changes necessary to work with the technology. But I still have people confide in me that they are terrified of computers. The main issue is change. Absent some physical limitation or another, the main obstacle is fear of change. What do I suggest to those who are either unable or unwilling to change with the times? I suggest making good friends in genealogy who will help you get all of your work preserved. 

Meanwhile, my computer is getting older each day. I see new operating system releases on the horizon. I suspect that my computer may last one or two more operating system upgrades and then it is out to pasture for the old machine. I am still waiting for Google Fiber to be hooked up in my neighborhood. They say sometime in August or September. That may keep me going for a while, meantime my biggest challenge is still the shear size of my files, presently the backup is 3.2 TB. I am looking for 6 TB hard drives to come down in price. Maybe something will come along and solve the problem with Flash memory or something else. Well, I have to go and update my genealogy program. It is always a new day and a new program or computer.

The Absence of a Source

I ran across this interesting quote concerning the maintenance of a wiki:

[The] absence of an explanation provided prima facie evidence for being suspicious of the changes. See Naughton, John. From Gutenberg to Zuckerberg: Disruptive Innovation in the Age of the Internet. 2014, Page 70.

First an explanation of prima facie evidence. The term is obviously a Latin phrase and it literally means a first sight. It has come to be used in a legal sense that certain facts are accepted as correct until proven otherwise. If you have read my blog for any length of time, you likely realize that I argue against imposing the legal burdens of proof on genealogy. To some extent, I think it unfortunate that genealogical proof borrowed a page from Black's Law Dictionary and incorporated terminology that only imperfectly fits genealogical research and proof statements. In fact, I reject the idea that the process of proving a case, in the strictly legal sense, can be applied to genealogy at all.

The reason for this position is simple. There are no genealogical judges or juries. Historical proof, if you insist on calling it that, is based on documentation and is never absolutely conclusionary. Genealogical assertions are always open to reinterpretation based on the discovery of additional evidence. Whereas legal "proof" is based on a series of procedures that are intended to give a judge and/or a jury a sufficient basis to make a decision as to who is "right" and who is "wrong" in any give controversy. There are no winners and losers in genealogy. Genealogy is highly democratic in the sense that each researcher is entitled to their own personal opinion about the sufficiency of the documentation for any given ancestral fact.

Superficial correspondence between the process of "proving your case" in law and convincing others of the validity of your historical conclusions has been an attractive basis for imposing all sorts of legal terminology on genealogical activities in the past. So why do I bring up a quotation that alludes to this quasi-legal connection?

The answer to this question is complex. But I will begin by asking another question, what is the effect of a lack of genealogical (historical) documentation? If you read my recent post entitled Six of the Basic Rules of Genealogy, you may have noticed Rules Two, "Absence of an obituary or death record does not mean the person is still alive." There are some conclusions we can derive even in the absence of a historical record. But the question here is even deeper than that Rule (which is deep enough if you think about it).

As genealogists we are presently faced with a vast accumulation of conflicting genealogically attributed information. In the past, pre-computer and pre-Internet, it would have been unusual for anyone to find much in the way of published, available and yet contradictory information about his or her ancestors. If you happened to have something approximating my set of ancestors, you had one or maybe more published books that were "your ancestry." Period. End of Story. Of course, there were relatives who did not like the books for one reason or another, usually because they thought that their particular branch of the family got short shrift, but they were the Word as to who you were related to. The problem with most of these books was that they had no documentary evidence (or very little) that could be used to verify the conclusions. They also had the tendency to leave out facts that the author felt were either unimportant or caused "feelings to be hurt" in the family. There were also things that polite society just did not talk about. So given the statement at the beginning of this post, do we just throw the whole set of books out into the nearest dumpster or what?

Now, we are faced with a monumentally more serious and complex issue. What do we do about the millions of online family trees that are devoid of source documentation and therefore subject to our collective genealogical criticism and condemn them also to the dust bin?

That would be an easy way to proceed, but it would also make sure that many people would do the same research over and over again. At this point most experienced genealogists would conclude that the way out of this conundrum would be to document your sources and get on with real genealogical research and yes, condemn those unwashed masses of undocumented family trees to the dump.

Maybe the quote at the beginning gives us a way out of this situation. What if we don't reject a lack of source documentation outright, but merely consider it to be under suspicion? What if we take the opinion that these books, the piles of family group records, the online family trees and all other unsourced stuff is merely a suggestion, a possibility and has no value in the "real world" of proper genealogy until it is sourced. The fact that the stuff continues to pile up is really a matter of no concern because the only part of the mess that is valid is the issue of connecting the dots between historical sources and the facts we assert. If our own conclusions are unsupported, then that is the real issue. But we can then move on to glean what value there is from the piles of stuff and then go on to accumulate our own pile of source supported genealogy. All the time realizing that at any time, another document may surface that will bring down our own construct.

But is there some part of all this that does not have to be rehashed every new generation? The answer is in the quote at the beginning. Some things are self evident. I do not have to go back and question my ancestry for the past four or five (or even six) generations because the accumulation of documentation and a reasonable degree of accuracy makes a prima facie case. If someone wants to doubt the accuracy of my six generations, they have the burden of coming up with the documentation. Meanwhile, I can proceed to investigate those generations where the documentation is not so persuasive.

Genealogy and Wikipedia

One of the most remarkable phenomenon of the rise of online computing is the huge reference website called Wikipedia. With 4.5+ articles in English and millions more in other languages, this giant wiki has grown into the premier resource for timely and accurate information. For those of you out there who are Douglas Adams (1952-2001) fans, this website is beginning to look like The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

From time to time, I hear statements about how school teachers are discouraging their students from using Wikipedia for a variety of reasons. I also commonly find that because of the older demographic of the genealogy community, there is both a lack of awareness of the resource and a skepticism about its accuracy. What many do not realize is that Wikipedia is an immensely useful resource for genealogists. I have written a lot in the past about wikis and their unique value to genealogical researchers, but it seems that Wikipedia seldom gets mentioned by bloggers, conference listings or any other publications in the genealogical community.

There is a smattering of mentions of the FamilySearch Research Wiki as it has grown into a valuable resource and I find, as I teach classes, that there is a marked increase in the number of genealogists familiar with this particular wiki. But that familiarity does not usually extend to Wikipedia.

There are certain topics in Wikipedia that are directly part of genealogy, other topics are of a peripheral interest but constitute valuable tools for genealogical research. The categories of articles that are helpful include the following:

• History
• Family history
• Genealogy
• Geography (searching for specific towns, counties, states or provinces and countries)
• Famous people
• Genealogy websites
• and so forth

Let me give you a couple of examples of what I mean.

Let's suppose your family came from a town called Bedrock. Where would you go to start finding such a place? There are several equally as good answers for this question. I would suggest Wikipedia. If I search Wikipedia for "bedrock wikipedia" I always add the "Wikipedia" word after my search term, I am looking for general locational information. With this search, I am going to get several options or as it is called in Wikipedia "disambiguation." I need to choose the alternative for geography and I find an article on Bedrock, Colorado. The reality is that nearly every populated place in the entire world now has a Wikipedia article. The important thing about these articles is that they give the geographic coordinates of the place and sometimes, a lot of information. Wikipedia opens the geographic door for genealogists. 

Another example. If you wanted to know some of the basics about genealogy as a subject, you can look it up in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia: Genealogy. You would find a good short introduction to the subject with about 100 or so links to other websites, including additional related Wikipedia articles. You can use this Wikipedia-type search for almost any conceivable topic. 

There is a tendency to question the reliability of cooperative-type works such as Wikipedia when the same skepticism is not evident when the work has only one author. As it turns out, in the few instances when people have challenged the reliability of the Wikipedia articles that they are, at least, as reliable as other multiple authored works. See Reliability of Wikipedia. My own experience is that, in the areas relied upon by genealogists, there is little controversy and the articles are very reliable. 

Registration Open for 2014 British Institute

The International Society for British Genealogy and Family History announces the courses for the 14th annual British Institute, to be held 20-24 October in Salt Lake City at the Salt Lake Plaza Hotel, located next door to the LDS Family History Library. In a press release they state:

Your opportunity to study with genealogy professionals

• Award-winning genealogist: Thomas W. Jones, PhD, CG, CGL, FASG, FUGA, FNGS
• Irish research expert: David E. Rencher, AG, CG, FIGRS, FUGA
• Well-known educator Paul Milner on fundamental research in Scottish records
• Strategies and skills for Welsh research with Darris Williams, AG
• Personal research consultations
• Access and instruction with British collections at the Family History Library
• Morning educational program followed by afternoon research sessions in the library

The Institute offer four tracks:

From Simple to Complex: Applying Genealogy’s Standard of Acceptability to British Research – Thomas W. Jones, Ph.D., CG, CGL, FASG, FUGA, FNGS
Through hands-on activities, lectures, and discussions, participants will learn how to use widely accepted standards to measure their genealogical work’s accuracy and to assess others’ genealogical conclusions. In the process they also will learn about genealogical research planning, its implementation, genealogical reasoning, and the preparation of credible genealogical products.


Researching Your Irish Ancestors – David Rencher, AG, CG, FIGRS, FUGA
This course is designed to help the student of Irish genealogical research, whether beginning or advanced. Strategies for establishing a sound beginning and building on that foundation using proven research techniques will be coupled with an understanding of what records sources are available online, on microfilm and in Ireland. Individual consultations are provided with the course coordinator to assist each participant with ways to extend their research.


Scottish Research: The Fundamentals and Beyond – Paul Milner
Scottish laws, regulations and records are different from the rest of the British Isles, yet with enough similarities to create confusion for the unwary. This course will address the fundamentals of all the major record groups, examining how to search the indexes, exploring what is and is not available online. Case studies will highlight the research and record evaluation processes to determine next steps. Individual consultations are available to assist each participant with their personal research.


Welsh Family History Made Simple – Darris Williams, AG
Welsh family history is different from other localities in some significant ways. Those differences are not impossible roadblocks. Understanding the peculiarities is a good first step to success. Record knowledge is important but not the key. Understanding how to search, evaluate evidence and collate information will resolve many difficult research situations. This course will provide examples of problems, aw well as strategies and skills for learning more about your ancestors.

Registration Information

Online registration and hotel booking information is available at the ISBGFH’s website: http://www.isbgfh.org

If preferred, a mail-in registration form is provided. If you have any questions, please e-mail institute_director@isbgfh.org

Six of the Basic Rules of Genealogy

For some years now, I have been trying to distill the essence of genealogy down into basic rules. The last one was added today. Although the last rule may not seem to be pertinent to genealogy, I think you will agree with me when I get through with this brief explanation. Most of the pain and suffering in the genealogical world comes about as a result of ignoring these, often disregarded rules. When the entire genealogical world seems to be against you finding your ancestors, just remember these rules and you will soon be on your way to finding that elusive ancestor.

Rule One
When the baby was born, the mother was there.
This rule seems too obvious, but I cannot tell you how many times it has been entirely disregarded. You will immediately recognize the first corollary; The father does not have to be present when the baby is born. Too many times our genealogical searches are patrilineally determined. We search for the father and forget that the mother may be the key to where the records are located. Granted, following matrilineal lines may be more difficult, but you ignore them at your peril.  However, granted it is much easier to follow the patrilineal lines, but in many cases, little or no effort has been made to identify the women.

This rule is really a statement about where records are located. It means that records are created at the place where an event occurs. See Rule Six. To understand this rule, you have to be aware of political, social, religious and other jurisdictions. That is, areas where certain types of records are created, such as a school district, parish or court district. This rule does not mean that you focus on birth events. It is more of a general statement that records are geographical in nature.

Rule Two
Absence of an obituary or death record does not mean the person is still alive.
Like Rule One, this Rule does not pertain only to death records. It is also a general rule. What it means is that the absence of a record does not negate the existence of an event. Missing records mean nothing more than the record has yet to be found. There is no implication from a missing record about the existence or non-existence of an event. Many genealogist obsess on missing records. I talk to people all the time who have spent years looking for a birth, marriage or death record when all three events were obvious from the records available. This Rule also gets into the issue of separating out people with the same names and similar record dates and places.

This Rule also addresses the idea of presumptive rules. For example, there is a common rule about assuming death after 110 years or whatever. I could have stated the rule that the absence of an obituary or death record does not mean the person is not still alive, but that has some other implications. Usually, in genealogical research, it is possible to estimate a range of dates the encompass the event, even in the absence of a specific record. For example, in the absence of a marriage record, you can estimate the date of marriage from the date of the birth of the first child. Over the years, genealogists have accumulated a number of these "estimated" date rules. My Rule Two is a summary of all those rules and reminds us not to get obsessive about dates.

Rule Three
Every person who ever lived has a unique birth order and a unique set of biological parents.
This is not a Rule so much as it is a statement of fact. But it is a Rule in the sense that we need to constantly remind ourselves that individuals are unique. The parents of an ancestor may be unknown, but they did exist. I am not writing here about the myriad of conjugal arrangements there are in the world, I am simply pointing out that genealogy reflects the physical universe. It is not a theoretical science. The historical record may be incomplete, but the physical fact of your own existence proves that you had biological parents stretching back into pre-history.

Rule Four
There are always more records.
Again, like Rule Three, this is not so much a policy as a statement of fact. It is also a guide to those who think they have searched everywhere. This Rule is also closely related to Rules One and Six. This Rule is also a statement of hope and faith. Our genealogical journey is basically a discovery of how many types of records have existed over the years and surprisingly, how many of those records have survived to the present. Remember, genealogy is about people and records, not just people.

This record applies to those genealogists who give me the excuse that the court house burned down for not finding their ancestors. That excuse is an excuse. It is says nothing at all about the myriad of records that were not kept in court houses. A burned courthouse is not so much of an obstacle as it is an invitation to learn how to do genealogical research.

Rule Five
You cannot get blood out of a turnip.
Granted, this Rule is an old saying usually applied to collecting debts. But I find it is very much applicable to genealogy. I would apply this Rule to all those genealogists who think that they are related to royalty or famous people simply by listing them in their pedigree. Really, I talk to to people all the time who are so proud of their royal heritage when they have done nothing at all to document or prove an actual connection. On the other hand, I talk to people all the time that are convinced they had an ancestor that was a Pilgrim, a Revolutionary War veteran, an Indian Princess or some other connection, without the slightest documentary evidence to support the belief. I think we need to remember the source for a blood connection.

Rule Six
Records Move. 
I also realize that this is a statement of fact. This Rule opens up the vast subject of where records can travel for an almost infinite number of reasons. One of the most common reasons for records traveling is the fact that people travel and move. A birth record generated in one location may be in the possession of a person who travels around the world. Records can move to state archives, university special collections, historical societies, and many, many other locations. Just because you cannot find a record where you think it should be, does not mean a record does not exist. Hmm. that sounds like another rule.

There are a lot more rules about genealogy. I suppose I could write a book about each rule. That might be a good idea. But these are the types of concepts that I have to address almost every time I talk to someone about their difficulties in finding an ancestor. Inevitably, they are ignoring one or more of these rules.