How to Analyze Genealogical Sources: Part Seven

This post continues a series about analyzing genealogical sources.

Genealogists love to throw around the idea of proof. I would ask, can you prove anything? Here is a U.S. Army Enlistment Record. What does this document prove?

Despite the fact that this document is called an "Enlistment Record," it is really a discharge document. This document was also recorded in the office of the Apache County Recorder in St. Johns, Arizona (the county seat) on February 12, 1929. My Grandfather LeRoy Tanner served in the Army from October 13, 1918, to June 3, 1919. World War I ended on November 11, 1918. He served in the American Expeditionary Forces. 

When I was younger, we had LeRoy's old Army Uniform. I knew he served during WW I and imagined that he fought in Europe. When I first started doing research about him, I found that his unit had fought in Europe. But my grandfather never fought in the War. He served for one month before the war ended. He would not have had time to travel from New Mexico, where he enlisted, to Europe. He was also 23 years old when he enlisted. He did not qualify as a gunner.

What does this document "prove?"

This question implies that there is some issue that is in dispute. His enlistment was never in dispute. No one questions the accuracy of the details of this document. There are no other documents out there that differ or contradict the information supplied in this document. The document certainly doesn't prove anything because there is no one disputing the information. 

If you think of proof in a legal context, this document could be used in court cast as evidence. From my knowledge of the Rules of Evidence this document would be admissible in court for some purposes. But again, absent such a dispute, the document simply contains information that may or may not be true or accurate. Is the information genealogically valuable? Of course. Will the document help answer questions I might have about my Grandfather?

Here is the definition of mathematical proof: A mathematical proof is an inferential argument for a mathematical statement, showing that the stated assumptions logically guarantee the conclusion. This type of "proof" is more applicable to historical documents than the use of legal terms and assuming that when you make your own conclusion that you have "proved" anything at all. By the way, note that a mathematical proof is based on the Rules of Logic more accurately called the Basic laws of Propositional Logic or First Order Predicate Logic. 

I would rather borrow a couple of terms from math and say that when people talk about historical or genealogical proof they are really saying that they have some arguments (statements) and that they have drawn their own conclusions and I may or may not agree. 

What if I don't agree? Well, you could hire an attorney and file a lawsuit and take me to court to prove to me you are correct. But my experience in court has shown me that a lawsuit will cost you a lot of money and you have absolutely no assurance that you will prove your case and win. 

So you may wish to think more than twice the next time you claim that your opinion proves some historical conclusion. 

What am I really saying? I am saying that historical records provide us with information. We can then form opinions about events that occurred in the past. Those opinions are dependent on the documents we personally review and analyze. The next document may change our opinion of what happened, just like the about enlistment record did for me about my Grandfather's involvement in World War I. 

For the previous parts of this series see the following:

Part One: https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-to-analyze-genealogical-sources.html
Part Two: https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-to-analyze-genealogical-sources_17.html
Part Three: https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-to-analyze-genealogical-sources_20.html
Part Four: https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-to-analyze-genealogical-sources_29.html

Part Five: https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2020/05/how-to-analyze-genealogical-sources.html

Part Six: https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2020/05/how-to-analyze-genealogical-sources_6.html

Two Changes to the FamilySearch Family Tree

Depending on your level of involvement with the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, you may or may not notice two interesting changes. The first involves the internal messaging system. Here is a screenshot showing the location of the link to the messages. If you have a message or messages pending, there will be a red dot.

There are several categories of messages. The new change is that previously when changes were made to people you are watching on the Family Tree, you would receive a weekly email message advising you of the changes. Now, that messaging system is being internalized into the FamilySearch website and will appear in the Messages area. Because some people never look at their email and others never look at the Messages posted on the FamilySearch website, this is still an imperfect communication method. But there seems to be some logic in internalizing the notifications. Since I open FamilySearch almost every day, I will do what I have been doing and read all the messages. But if you are thinking that sending a message to another user of the program is going to solve a problem, you should realize that there are probably fewer people who look at the website regularly than there are people who look at their email. 

The other new change is more subtle than the messaging system. Here is the announcement. 

After receiving many requests, FamilySearch is excited to announce that patrons can now edit the dates and places found within indexed records. As you find incorrect dates and places on an index, verify the correct information, make the edits, and help yourself and others achieve family history goals!

Here is a link to the complete instructions about the new opportunity. 

https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/editing-dates-places-indexed-records/?et_cid=1706913&et_rid=107108866&linkid=CTA&cid=em-idx-9805

 

Findmypast adds thousands of old photos from World War 2 and beyond

https://www.findmypast.com/page/vintage-photo-collection

Quoiting from an email received from Findmypast.com:

 Findmypast publish new online photographic archive in partnership with the UK’s largest news publisher Reach plc

•  Over 10,000 original images from WWII, many which have never been published before, will offer vivid new insights into a nation at war
• The Findmypast Photo collection will scale over the coming years to include millions of images taken between 1904 - 2000, covering all aspects of British life ranging from sports, education, places of work and daily life to politics, national and local events
• The collection is now available for anyone to search for free from May 8th to May 15th, in celebration of VE Day 2020

The collection was released on May 7, 2020. The notice goes on to state the following:

Today’s release forms the first phase of a vast collection that will continue to grow as Findmypast and Reach publish additional material covering a wide variety of dates, locations and themes. In time, the Findmypast Photo collection will expand in scope and scale to include millions of images taken between 1904 - 2000, covering all aspects of British Life ranging from sports, education, places of work and daily life to politics, national and local events.  

 It was not clear from the announcement if searching the photo collection was included in the basic subscription to Findmypast.com or if access was an additional subscription such as The British Newspaper Archive. 

Top Ten Problems with Online Family Trees for 2020

This is an eraser. I realize that many younger people may not have ever seen one of these.

Online family trees are notorious for being unsupported by source citations and other failings. Some genealogists refuse to put their family trees online likely because they don't want to mingle with the unwashed masses but sometimes for reasons of privacy and incomplete research. Cooperative and collaborative family trees receive the greatest number of complaints. The existence of millions upon millions of online family trees and increased DNA testing will eventually confirm relationships for many people without a significant individual effort at documentation. 

I decided I would categorize the biggest problems with online family trees. Of course, my list is purely subjective but I have examined thousands of family trees over the years and I am pretty well aware of the more egregious failings. I am not going to try to put my list in any kind of ranking or order because the problems are all equally challenging. Here I go with the list. 

1. Having a DNA test published online without a supporting family tree.

I have thousands of DNA matches on two different websites but less than 2 out of 10 of those DNA test results are accompanied by a significant family tree. In fact, most of the family trees listed have fewer than 50 entries. This means that absent a way to contact the people, I cannot tell how I am related to them. Because I have an extensive family tree and know many of the surnames of my living ancestors, I can often guess about the connection. Those people who thought the increased interest in DNA testing would fuel a concurrent increase in interest in genealogical research have yet to see that happen. Interestingly, websites such as Ancestry.com and MyHeritage.com provide me with guesses as to the common ancestor even with insufficient information. 

The lack of family tree information is surprising since the DNA matches do make connections to people, such as me, with extensive family trees. 

2. Missing, inaccurate, or incomplete place names for events in the family trees.

I have written about this issue many times in the past. Without accurate information about the exact location of an event in an ancestor's life, there is no real way to be assured that the right person has been entered into the family tree. I see an abundance of places that say the person was born in England or New York or some other general location. These entries are very often wrong because someone has entered an individual with the same name but not verified that the person is the same person. Accurate place entries are indispensable. 

3. Incomplete, missing, or inaccurate names.

Although not nearly as serious as inaccurate or missing locations, names are important. But this importance works both ways. Having the wrong name is misleading but even the right name might not help all that much. Most names are fairly common. Using names to search and identify only works when the rest of the identifying information is consistent. But adding a female's married name in European derived countries except those that have Spanish or Latin naming patterns is misleading. Other problem areas include all of the countries that have extensive patronymics. 

4. Extending pedigrees based on supposed family traditions or beliefs.

According to my own family traditions, I was supposed to be related to some famous people. Some of those traditions turned out to be myths. This is not uncommon but traditions about connections to royalty and Native Americans are more common. Granted, some of these extended pedigrees are based on historical references but I commonly find that there are few or no sources supporting the claimed connection to the first royal or noble family member. 

5. Including children in a family who are not verified members of the family.

This is an extremely common problem and one of the reasons why I could not rank these issues. Depending on your personal experience, you could easily rank this as the #1 problem. The main cause of this problem is adding a person to a family without verifying the location of the family and finding a source that confirms that the child was an actual member of that specific family. This issue is particularly common in countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway where there are so many people with the same names. The solution to this problem (and almost all of the others) is careful, knowledgeable research. 

6. Merging individuals without enough information to determine if they are the same individual.

This is another same name = same person error. This problem is also confined to collaborative family trees such as the FamilySearch.org Family Tree that actually have a way to merge duplicates. Although, you can find and merge duplicates on websites that host your own personal family tree such as Ancestry.com. Merging is a fairly complex procedure and is only warranted when the information is sufficient to adequately establish that the possible duplicate is really the same person. 

7. Copying information from an old GEDCOM file or from Personal Ancestral File without systematically verifying all of the entries.

This is really two problems in one. The first problem is assuming that the GEDCOM or PAF file you inherited is correct and verified. The second is the problem as stated above; adding that information to a collaborative family tree or using the information as the basis for your own family tree. Either way, you are probably inheriting a lot of inaccurate information even if your donating ancestor was a "professional" genealogist. We aren't infallible and none of our ancestors were infallible. Just don't do it. 

8. Violating one of the current Twelve Rules of Genealogy.

See https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2019/10/expanded-commentary-on-rules-of_21.html

9. Using a fan chart to determine what work "needs to be done" on your family tree.

When someone asks for help with their family tree and begins by pulling up a fan chart and pointing to a blank space, I almost always determine that they know little or nothing about all the people connecting them to this elusive ancestor. I can say a lot more about fan charts such as the fact that they ignore children and other relatives, but so do traditional pedigree charts to some extent. It is just too easy to ignore the accuracy of a pedigree line using a fan chart. 

10. Failing to research or record the source where information was obtained for events in an ancestor's life. 

Documenting the source of your information is absolutely essential for an accurate family tree. A source is the only way that you or anyone else can tell if what is recorded has some basis in reality. A family tree without valid sources is pure fantasy. But remember, your personal information is a source. But if you do some research, you may find you do not know your own birthdate and your parents are not really your parents. Never assume anything. 

You may have some more of your own pet peeves and you are welcome to add them by comments. 

How to Analyze Genealogical Sources: Part Six

After you have reviewed a few thousand documents, you will work out your own method for analyzing the document or record and the information contained in the document or record. But meanwhile, it is a good idea to think about the process and make sure that you ask a series of questions before blindly copying the information and sticking it into someone on your family tree. Here is an example of a document suggested by FamilySearch.org as a Record Hint for the Reverend Alonzo Torrey (b. 1813, d. 1892).

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/9768108

This is a FindAGrave.com entry. This entry is in my part of the Family Tree because one of my relatives married Torrey when he was 78 years old and she was 41 years old. He only lived one year after the marriage date. Why this all occurred after my relative had been married previously and had two children is not yet explained. But let's look at the FindAGrave entry. First of all, It is obviously the right person. The entry makes no mention of the late-in-life marriage but that might be expected. In this particular case, the birth and death dates on the grave marker match the ones in FamilySearch. Now we need to ask the standard questions about the information contained in the FindAGrave memorial. 

1. Where did the event occur?
2. What are the levels of jurisdiction
3. What was the date of the event?
4. Who recorded the event?
5. When was the event recorded?
6. How was the report preserved?
7. Is this a copy of the original report?

There can be more or fewer questions but this list is sufficient for the present post series. FindAGrave.com is basically a website that has a database of cemeteries and graves. There seems to be no controversy over the location of the burial (the event) in Flint, Genesee, Michigan, United States. The jurisdictional question is partially answered by the location. There is a death date but no burial year. We don't know who recorded the event because there is no indication as to who paid for and erected the grave marker. We also do not know when the dates were recorded. The grave marker could have been placed contemporaneously with the burial but usually, the marker is placed sometime after the burial. The events were recorded on the grave marker itself but it may or may not be the original marker. 

Are any of these dates "original?' No. All of the information on the website, including the images, are user-submitted. While grave markers are usually accurate about the death or burial date, they are not necessarily accurate about the birth date. On the other hand, these might be the most accurate dates available at all. This is one reason that the dichotomy created by the legalistic terms such as "primary vs. secondary" lose their usefulness. Arguably, someone who knew the deceased person paid for and placed the grave marker. They probably knew first hand the person's birth, death, and burial dates. The only reason that a researcher would seriously doubt the accuracy of these dates on the grave marker is if there were other documents and records with conflicting information. What if there were no image of the grave marker. Then the information loses its veracity and becomes no better or worse than an unsupported entry in an online family tree. Can we tell from the FindAGrave.com entry who supplied the information? Yes, usually there is a contact name and this may be a way to verify the information supplied. 

For the previous parts of this series see the following:

Part One: https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-to-analyze-genealogical-sources.html
Part Two: https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-to-analyze-genealogical-sources_17.html
Part Three: https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-to-analyze-genealogical-sources_20.html
Part Four: https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-to-analyze-genealogical-sources_29.html

Part Five: https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2020/05/how-to-analyze-genealogical-sources.html

How to Analyze Genealogical Sources: Part Five

Analyzing genealogical records and documents boils down to making decisions about the accuracy of the records and documents. One of the most common categorizations of documents makes a distinction between an original document and a copy. This distinction is sometimes referred to as the difference between direct and indirect evidence. The analogy of building a case for trial is unavoidable. Using this definition, finding a document such as a birth certificate gives you some evidence. Here is a copy of a birth certificate to see what we can do to analyze this "evidence."

Before I get into any analysis, here are a few questions I might want to answer before I start making conclusions.

1. Where did the event occur?
2. What are the levels of jurisdiction
3. What was the date of the event?
4. Who recorded the event?
5. When was the event recorded?
6. How was the report preserved?
7. Is this a copy of the original report?

Let's look at the birth certificate and answer each of these questions. I could have added more questions but this is enough for now. Here are the numbered answers.

1. Saint Johns, Arizona
2. Saint Johns, Apache, Arizona, United States. There may be other jurisdictions but these are the obvious ones. 
3. 13 April 1929
4. Mrs. Margaret Jarvis. This happens to be my Great-great-grandmother. 
5. 4 May 1929
6. State File No. 7, Local Registrar's Number 15, Arizona Board of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics, Standard Certificate of Birth
7. I don't know if this question can be answered. 

Another question, who filled out the form and where did the information come from? The birth occurred on April 13 but the certificate wasn't filed until May 4th. Who provided the information? My note above indicates that the person signing the certificate, Margaret Jarvis, was my Great-great-grandmother. The mother, Eva Overson, was my Grandmother and Margaret Jarvis was her grandmother. Margaret Jarvis indicates that she was present at the birth. Who signed the document as the Registrar? If you look closely, you can see that the name of the Registrar is Martin Jensen and if you look at the handwriting, it is apparent that he was the one who filled out the form. I have looked at other birth certificates from Saint Johns (St. Johns), Arizona and they are also filled out by the Registrar.

Now, let's think about the document. The birth occurred on April 13 and the document was filled out by the Registrar about May 4th. Who provided the information to the Registrar? Can we assume that the information came from Margaret Jarvis? Did Margaret Jarvis fill out the form and sign for the Registrar? Is this an original document or a copy? Is it direct or indirect evidence of the birth?

Would it help if I showed you another copy of the same birth certificate?

Why is there a Supplementary Report of Birth? If you look at the "original" birth certificate, you can see that the name on the certificate was filled in with different handwriting and with a different pen. How reliable is this information? How does the existence of a Supplementary Report of Birth change your opinion about the reliability of the original or first document? When was the supplement made?

Now, who supplied the information about the parents' ages, and place of birth? Is this information correct?

Which of the two documents is more reliable? Does it help that the information is the same in both documents? Perhaps, that raises an issue about the reliability of both of the documents.

What would be your decision about the two documents? What other documents would you like to see? Would a Social Security Death Index document showing the same birthdate help?

Think about this and I will continue writing the next installment.

For the previous parts of this series see the following:

Part One: https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-to-analyze-genealogical-sources.html
Part Two: https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-to-analyze-genealogical-sources_17.html
Part Three: https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-to-analyze-genealogical-sources_20.html
Part Four: https://genealogysstar.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-to-analyze-genealogical-sources_29.html

Another Modern Myth: All end of family lines can be found

Almost invariably, I hear someone who is working on their family history make the comment that they have been searching for a particular relative for years without success. In some instances, the comments include a long recitation of the efforts spent and the research done all for finding this one person. Finding this person has become the sole goal of the researcher's efforts. Variations of this fixation include finding the parents or children of a particular person.

One thing I can say with certainty about genealogical research is Rule Twelve of the Rules of Genealogy: The end is always there. This rule seems to contradict Rule Four that states that "There are always more records" but in reality, there is always a caveat. As I stated in my post entitled, "Expanded Commentary on the Rules of Genealogy: Rule Four,"

Before I go too far with this commentary, I need to point out that there really are people who cannot be found in the records that do exist such as people who lived in extreme poverty and people who intentionally dropped out of the society where they lived. It is important to distinguish between individuals who are left out of records or managed to avoid being recorded from the concept of somehow the records are not available.

Most genealogical investigations in the past concentrated on a male surname line. This interest corresponds to the prevalent laws regarding inheritance. Quoting from Wikipedia: Primogeniture,

Primogeniture (pronounced /priːmədʒɛnɪtʃər/) is the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn legitimate son to inherit his parent's entire or main estate in preference to shared inheritance among all or some children, any illegitimate child or any collateral relative. In some contexts it instead means the inheritance of the firstborn child (absolute primogeniture) or the firstborn daughter (matrilineal primogeniture). 

In fact, most of the Western European genealogical lines that are discoverable beyond the 16th Century in European countries were recorded and maintained because of this inheritance issue. In other countries of the world, the extant historical genealogical records usually follow the legal inheritance pattern. Any individual outside of the inheritance pattern gets short shrift. Although tying your family into one of these inheritance lines may be personally satisfying, once you start copying the royal or noble line you have stopped doing genealogy at all. Remember, the winners write the history (or at least try to do so).

What does all this mean for genealogical researchers? It means that you should not fixate on one end-of-line situation. If your end-of-line is your parents, get a DNA test, and start learning how to analyze DNA matches. Remember the geometric progression of ancestors. Here is a chart of base two increasing numbers.

Of course, because of pedigree collapse, these numbers of ancestors are hypothetical but, for example, in my case my 16th Century ancestors are in about my tenth generation, and theoretically, I have 1024 direct line grandparents in that tenth generation. I have spent a large percentage of my life documenting my first six generations and I am finding the seventh generation to be about the limit. Of course, I have lines that go back further than six generations, but each of those lines effectively ends long before I get too far into the 16th Century even though tradition has some of those lines going back indefinitely.

Try to be an "equal opportunity" researcher and spend some of your valuable research time on descendants and on more than just a few (or just one) ancestral lines.