I'm Shocked!!!! My Life is a Lie!!!

https://youtu.be/xr5f9V4cVYs

Apparently, the genealogical community has finally made it into the supermarket tabloid scene with YouTube videos about people's reactions to their DNA tests from MyHeritage.com, Ancestry.com, and other large online DNA testing websites. It seems to me that the people who are shocked by their DNA results don't even know what to do about their shocking disclosure. I chose the above video at random from a long list of others with similar topics and titles.

I guess I need to start out by saying that the results from my own MyHeritage.com DNA test are entirely consistent with my genealogical research. In the case of the above video, the "shocking" results simply did not agree with family tradition passed down from an aunt. Here are a few other examples of recent online titles. I have omitted links because I don't want to encourage this type of reaction.

• How DNA Testing Botched My Family's Heritage, and Probably Yours
• Why You May Be Reading Your DNA Results All Wrong
• Nearly Half of At-Home DNA Test Results Could Be Wrong
• How Well Do Ancestry DNA Tests Actually Work?

These and similar types of articles are not just from individuals, many are from prominent news outlets and even respected scientific magazines. Almost all of these articles focus on the limitations of genealogical DNA testing and most incorporate issues from testing done years ago such as the issues with DNA testing done by 23andMe.com back in 2013.

Those people who take a DNA test who have never made any inquiries into their family lines may indeed be surprised by the results. From my experience with both Ancestry.com and MyHeritage.com, I see a lot of matches with people who have no family trees in either program. Without a family tree, it is only possible to estimate the degree of relationship but identifying the common ancestor is very difficult. People with extensive family trees will likely see some variations between tests and may also see connections to areas of the world that they have not found evident in their own genealogical research. 

If I examine my own Ethnicity Estimate from MyHeritage.com for example, I find the following percentages. 

These percentages are very consistent with locations identified in my own research. However, in going back more than 10 generations on ALL of my family lines, I have not identified anyone who is obviously from Western Asia, although I suspect some of my family members may have such a connection. However, considering my relatives who are more closely related I get the following results:

None of my close family members have yet to take a MyHeritage.com DNA test. But I do have 11 matches to my Extended Family. As I mentioned above, even with these people categorized as Extended Family, I find that some do not have family trees on the website and my genealogical relationship cannot be determined. I do recognize some of the names and so I do know our common ancestor but that is due solely to my own research. These relationships are not at all controversial and are well documented so there are certainly no surprises. In fact, they are all from my Tanner line. 

The number of identified Distant Relatives is so large that the information may be valuable but it is daunting to think about trying to identify common ancestors for such a large number of people. 

If you were one of those people who had no family tree and had spent little or no effort to determine the identity of their relatives, you might be surprised to learn that you had so many relatives. What the articles that criticize DNA testing per se usually fail to address is that the close family connections that are identified have a very high degree of accuracy. In addition, the general ethnicity estimates are evolving as the number of people in the data pool increases. 

Yes, if you take a DNA test on a whim and without any particular prior knowledge of your family, the results may be surprising, but with some effort and by using the resources of the family tree websites, you can almost always discover that tests have found some of your relatives. At that level, what else are the tests supposed to do? 

On the Inexactness of dates in genealogy

It is not unusual for a genealogical researcher to find several different historical documents with different dates for the same event, such as a birth date or death date. Without spending a lot of time hand-wringing, you should remember Rule Two of the Rules of Genealogy: Absence of an obituary or death record does not mean the person is still alive. A corollary to this Rule is that multiple differing records of the same event do not change the actual date of the event.

When confronted with this situation, you may have to simply assume that the event occurred sometime between the first and last date recorded. However, close analysis of each of the records may show which one, if any, is the most reliable. For example, a death record may contain a birth date calculated from the assumed age at death. Another common example is the fact that birth dates in census records may also be calculated from the age given on the date of the census and are commonly off one year. Calculated dates are "acceptable" as long as they are clearly indicated as calculated.

As I point out in the expanded version of Rule Two, referenced above, becoming fixated on finding a record for an exact date is counterproductive. In fact, historical events such as the calendar change from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar created a patchwork of dates depending on when the change went into effect in a particular country. Dates that were recorded from memory are particularly susceptible to inaccuracy. Returning to the issue of census records, most of these records rely on information supplied by the individual or individuals who are subject to the census. It is common for one person to supply information about other family members and no attempt is made, in almost all cases, to verify the information supplied.

It is not unusual for individuals to lie about dates. For example, it is not uncommon for those enlisting in one or the other of the military services to misrepresent their age. Also, the ages given when applying for a marriage license are also suspect and older people may or may not provide an enhanced date of birth. For example, if we find the date of the birth of a child that seems to indicate that the mother was too young or old to have children, it is not a good idea to immediately remove the child from the family, because the date of birth or age of the mother might be wrong.

Estimated dates may be useful for research purposes but may be misleading if left as recorded dates in family records. Genealogists have used "ballpark" dates such as estimating the age of the mother from the birth of the first child or estimating a marriage age based on the local custom.

The further back in history we go, the more likely it is that any particular date may inaccurate. Unfortunately, once we get really far back in time, some of the dates become so widely used and believed that questioning the date can be controversial. This may also occur with more recent dates when family tradition has established a certain date as a fact and later research shows that the date is unreliable.

Since both names and dates can be subject to inexactness, genealogists need to rely on the location of events as the one non-negotiable constant. It is evident, that many of the places recorded in family histories are imprecise but of the three major issues of name, date, or place, the most important is the place. At least one place of at least one event in a person's life must be identified or there is always a major possiblity of having choosen the wrong person.

What would I do differently? A Genealogical Perspective

After many years of intense involvement in genealogical research and its associated activities and we come to the end of another year (2018), it is time to take a step back and review my life as a genealogist. If I had the opportunity, what would I have done differently? It is fundamental that I know a great deal more about doing research and organizing my information than I did 30+ years ago and it is also a given that technology has changed dramatically. If I had access to today's technology back in 1982 when it all started, many of the problems and challenges I have today would have been long ago resolved. That would be the case for any of us, but in this case, what I would like to do is to discuss how I would start differently now than I did back then.

The very first thing that comes to my mind when I speculate that things could have been different is the need for basic education. I had been "practicing" genealogy for years before I found the books and took the classes necessary to advance from copy work to real genealogical research. As a pursuit, genealogy is often classified as a "hobby" and given the extremely broad definition of hobbies, it could be classified as such but the fact that genealogical research deals with families puts it into a unique category. I can participate in photography, as an example, as a hobby and no one else needs to know about my interest or what I produce. Genealogy, on the other hand, is intimately entwined with family relationships. Granted, I do not have to share my "genealogical research" with anyone, but what I produce is de facto shared with all my relatives. Anyone else in my family could produce exactly the same corpus of work as I do.

So, since when I started, I was lacking in the perspective provided by formal or even informal training in genealogical methodology, I had to make it up as I went along. My initial impulse was to determine "what had been done." This impulse came from my academic background. I spent about fifteen or so years simply copying the work that had been done by others. Part of this activity is necessary for anyone who wishes to start investigating their family history, but even though I spent some time evaluating the information I was gathering, I failed to gather source documents or impose an adequate organization on what I gathered. The results of this effort were that I had a huge amount of information and had incidentally accumulated a huge pile of documentation.

Part of the problem in my early days was that I was entirely unaware of the educational resources that were available. This was due primarily to the fact that there was no mechanism for connecting with and benefiting from other genealogical researchers. According to a timeline from Genealogy.com, the first national genealogical conference was held by the National Genealogical Society in 1981 in Atlanta, Georgia about the time I started my genealogical research. There is really no excuse today for anyone to start out on their genealogical journey without some basic training. This is one of the fundamental reasons I have become involved in teaching people over the years. In addition, it is also a motivation for being involved with The Family History Guide (thefhguide.com). If I had had access to such a resource, the entire scope of my genealogical interests would have been tremendously different.

Part of the problem of putting this issue into some sort of perspective is the overwhelming influence technology had and continues to have on genealogical research and methodology. My genealogical activities were concurrent with my immersion in computer technology. Although my involvement with computers predated my interest in genealogy, I immediately began using computers and the rudimentary genealogy programs of the day to try and organize and correct the mass of genealogical data my research produced. You could still start doing genealogical research with a pencil and a piece of paper but you can also walk across the United States, but what is the point? For example, today there is a resurgence in the use of "film" cameras. Some of the companies who used to manufacture film has even begun remanufacturing camera film. Although there are adherents who can defend their use of film, it is interesting that the only way I can see the product of their efforts is if they digitized their film photographs and put them online. The same thing happens today in genealogical research, there are those who adhere to the "traditional methods" of doing genealogy but do so by ignoring the benefits of technology. In fact, in many cases, the technology is demonized.

So, what would be different about my genealogical journey if I had taken advantage of educational opportunities? Everything. Ironically, many of what I consider to be the best books written about genealogical research were already written in 1982, but I was unaware of them and without the internet, there was no real way for me to find these books.

In short, if I had the opportunity to start over, I would learn all I could about genealogical research. I would read every book I could find, I would attend classes, I would use the vast resources of the internet including The Family History Guide, and I would find someone to help me get started.

Ultimately, I did all those things. Part of my learning came from taking Individual Study courses from Brigham Young University for five years. These wonderful classes from great genealogists such as Kip Sperry and George Ryskamp, helped me begin to gain some control over the mass of information that seemed endless. Guess what, even after all these years it is still endless.

Wars, Plagues, and Catastrophes and Genealogy

Wars, plagues, and catastrophes play an important part in history and therefore affect every aspect of genealogical research. As genealogists, we ignore these events at the risk of either failing to make progress in our research or losing our way in our ancestral lines. There are few places on the earth that have entirely escaped the effects of one or another of these major events. If you are in the vast majority in the United States, your knowledge of U.S. history is scant and your knowledge of world history is non-existent. Most surveys to determine the extent of the population's knowledge asks questions general historical events relating to civic education, i.e. what knowledge helps citizens participate in a free society. But from a genealogical standpoint, the impact of national events is compounded by very specific local events.

Let me give a specific example. Quoting Wikipedia, the "Johnstown Flood (locally, the Great Flood of 1889) occurred on May 31, 1889, after the catastrophic failure of the South Fork Dam on the Little Conemaugh River 14 miles (23 km) upstream of the town of Johnstown, Pennsylvania." 2,208 people died in that catastrophe. Did any of your ancestors or other relatives live in Johnstown, Pennsylvania? You might make a quick review of your pedigree and conclude that the flood had no impact, genealogically, on your family. But the larger question is whether or not any of your ancestors came from Pennsylvania and if so, did any of their descendants live in Johnstown? In addition, the follow-up question is what else happened in Pennsylvania in 1889? What else happened in the United States in 1889?

Here are a few additional events that occurred in 1889:

• US President Grover Cleveland signed a bill admitting North and South Dakota, Montana and Washington state to the Union.
• 1.9 million acres of land in the Indian Territory (now Oklahoma) went on sale at noon on April 22, 1889
• The Eiffel Tower opened in Paris on March 31, 1889.
• The Canadian Pacific Railway was completed from coast to coast on June 3, 1889.
• Great Fire in Seattle destroys the center of town on June 6, 1889
• Tijuana, Mexico became a city.

It would be interesting is some of the events actually affected your ancestors, but this list could go on indefinitely. Putting your family into the historical context of their time is not just interesting, it is the only way some genealogical mysteries can be resolved. But many of these mysteries lose their mystique once the background history is investigated. 

How do you start? Motivation may come through frustration, but to avoid the need to go through the frustrating experiences, any genealogical research should start by identifying the salient historical facts about the time when some of your ancestors lived. For example, if any one of your ancestors fought in the U. S. Civil War, then all of the other ancestors and relatives who lived during that time period are candidates for extended research into military records or other records associated with that war. This background research is not time wasted. It is part and parcel of doing genealogical research. 

Genealogical Standardization: Friend or Foe?

Genealogical Standardization is a constant background issue in the larger genealogical community. Controversy over standardization has waxed and waned and my own interest in the topic has also cycled as other considerations have become more urgent. A recent online conversation with an old friend brought this topic again to the forefront.

It is probably a good idea to start with some of the basic concepts and where those concepts become controversial and counterproductive. It is also important to mention, right up front, that there is no consensus among genealogists on any aspect of the issues involved.

Standardization involves many levels of concern from the level of uniform data entry to concerns about the methods and standards for exchanging and preserving genealogical data. In this post, I am going to focus on the issue of uniform data entry.

Uniform data entry is primarily an artifact of data processing, i.e. computer programming. However, in genealogy, there is an additional issue and this the is the need to accurately reflect the time and place of historical events to increase accuracy and avoid rampant ambiguity. Let me start with this first example. In different genealogy programs the standard for naming one large country in North America varies as follows:

• United States
• USA
• United States of America
• The United States of America (the actual name of the country)
• U.S.A.
• U S A
• US of A
• US

The problem with using the designation "United States" is the fact that there are other countries that incorporate the term "united states" into their official name. If we are going to "standardize" as name, why not use the official name of the place rather than a mere convention? This particular issue may seem trivial but there are actually TWO countries in North America with "United States" in their name; The United States of America and The United States of Mexico (Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos). Hmm. This brings up another standardization issue, why do we translate all of the names of the countries into English? If we were to use the strict rule of genealogy and use the name of the place at the time an event occurred, then wouldn't we need to acknowledge the language changes of place names also? So is FamilySearch.org correct by choosing "United States" while Ancestry.com is wrong for choosing "USA" or are they both wrong? This is likely a situation where you can choose your own preference unless you are working within the confines of a particular program that has created a "standard" on one or the other of the choices. 

Another messy example involves the question about how you designate the early European Colonies in America. For example, Massachusetts. What is the current correct name of Massachusetts? Well, it is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So why don't the genealogy programs use that as the "Standard?" Good question. This is where we start getting into murky waters. The programmers want consistency but they aren't too much interested in historicity or geographic accuracy. The issue of the exact or official name of a certain locality does not become important to genealogical research until you look at a place that may have had multiple name and boundary changes. It may seem convenient to simply use the common name of the state, i.e. Massachusetts. But what happens as we go back in time?

The early settlers in what has become the state of Massachusetts (think Commenwealth) could have lived in any one of several modern states. To add some additional interest The Massachusetts Bay Colony is actually the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Since this original settlement included what are now the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut and of course, Massachusetts. If you want a small taste of the complications these standardization issues dip into, take some time to read a history of Maine. You will find some of these places mentioned:

• Acadia
• Popham Colony at Phippsburg
• Castine
• Plymouth Colony
• Province of Maine
• Maine (statehood in 1819)

If you attach time periods to these variations you still have the genealogical research issue as to where the records were created and where they ended up being archived or stored. The idea of standardizing this messy sort of history implies that we will give up a strict historical designation in trade for one that is workable and recognized by a particular entity with a particular set of records. 

What do we do with "standard" designations such as "British Colonial America" or "New England" or "British America?" None of these have a real geographic origin but they all are immediately associated with a particular area even if the association is vague. 

Meanwhile, the fact that any particular programs standardizes on a certain label has to be, to some extent, arbitrary. This places the burden on the genealogical researcher to discover where pertinent records might be located. Boundary changes can make these designations even more complicated especially in smaller jurisdictional levels such as counties. 

OK, is there a solution to these issues? Something comprehensive that can apply to every possible iteration and circumstance? Not unless we can get all the genealogists, all the program developers, all the archivists, all the librarians and a lot of other people to all agree.

Patricia Heaton to Keynote at RootsTech Salt Lake City 2019

https://www.rootstech.org/why-attend?cid=tp-rt-6517

Quoting from the RootsTech 2019 announcement:

Nobody knows family quite like Emmy award–winning actress Patricia Heaton. Known for her humorous roles as a typical American housewife in big hit television series like Everybody Loves Raymond and The Middle, Patricia has won many prestigious awards and the hearts of television viewers worldwide. 

Behind the scenes of her career as an actress—and adding some serious fuel for her decades of success—is the fact that she really is a wife and the mother of 4 sons. Patricia has a deep love and appreciation for family, making her a perfect fit for the RootsTech audience.

Patricia Heaton will join Jake Shimabukuro, Saroo Brierley, and FamilySearch's own Steve Rockwood as Keynote Speakers. For the full schedule be sure to check the website: RootsTech 2019.

Alabama State Archives: Wonderful Local Sources for Genealogical Research

http://www.archives.state.al.us/

The Alabama State Archives is part of the Alabama Department of Archives and History. Alabama was the first state in the United States to create an official agency to take care of its history. Quoting from a video about the Department:

The Alabama Department of Archives and History was founded in 1901, becoming the nation's first publicly funded, independent state archives agency. The Archives identifies, preserves, and makes accessible records and artifacts of enduring historical value to the state.  Thomas Owen founded the agency and served as its first director. He was succeeded by his wife, Marie Bankhead Owen, who headed the archives for 35 years and was the second woman to lead a state agency.

The Alabama Department of Archives and History has an extensive YouTube.com Channel with almost 200 videos. Recently, they posted a video introducing the Archives.

86 Discovering Alabama State Archives

Of course, this makes my job of writing about the Archives much easier. The Archives YouTube Channel is part of a larger YouTube collection called "Discovering Alabama." I did, just recently, drive through Alabama on my way from Maryland to Utah, but unfortunately, on this trip, I did not have time to stop and explore the state and the Archives. Here is a link to the Alabama Department of Archives and History YouTube Channel.

https://www.youtube.com/user/AlabamaArchives

The Southern States have a reputation among genealogists as a more difficult place to do research, but that impression should not be uniformly applied. What this series on state archives is intended to demonstrate is that genealogical research does not stop with a superficial review of online sources, but must also include, when necessary, extensive onsite research beginning with the state archives and continuing with the local record repositories including state and local historical societies. Although many records have now been digitized and are available online, a visit to a national, state or other archives will quickly convince you otherwise. The actual number of digitized records in almost any state archives is very small compared to the number of records in their collections.

Here is a screenshot of the main collections in the Alabama Department of Archives and History

http://www.archives.alabama.gov/searchcoll.html

The Digital Collections are extensive but genealogists cannot expect that all of the collections will relate to genealogical research, many of the collections are historical in nature and only incidentally valuable to genealogists.

http://digital.archives.alabama.gov/

Depending on the state, the state archives may or may not have all of the genealogically important records. For example, in Alabama, the probate records are held by the individual counties. However, huge collections of these records are available from the online genealogy websites such as FamilySearch.org, Ancestry.com, and others.

Watch the videos, explore the website, and search for Alabama records online but when you think you are done with your research, take the time to look into a visit to the Alabama Department of Archives and History. Remember to check the requirements for research at the Archives.

http://www.archives.alabama.gov/research.html#

Also, remember that each state archive has its own rules and regulations regarding access to the records and that these rules need to be carefully followed.

http://www.archives.alabama.gov/referenc/policies.html