The Family Tree Problem Solver: Tried-And-True Tactics for Tracing Elusive Ancestors (38 page)

Figure 11-3
Cornelia Croak's Bible.

When a genealogist sees a page of entries like this, what should they do? Turn to the title page to learn when the Bible was published. In this case, the Bible in question was published after the date of every single entry! The careful researcher should look for another valuable clue on the page next to the front piece: Does the handwriting of the Bible's owner match that of the family entries? If not, as in Cornelia Croak's Bible, who, then, made those entries? We haven't a clue. So, how reliable is the information? Not very. This Bible record is no more reliable than a compiled family genealogy, because one person entered all the information long after the births occurred, and that person probably was not the original owner of the Bible.

Review “Rising's Reminders” at the end of this chapter when you evaluate your genealogical evidence. Look for subtle clues in your records, not just the obvious statements. How likely is it that a given assertion is true? One of the biggest errors you can make is to accept a genealogical record at face value. You must find support from other records, as I did in the case of Joseph Porter's tombstone and the corroborating medical receipt.

Keep the chronology in mind when examining records. Don't separate people and records from their proper time and place. Chronological tools can be used effectively to both support and refute hypotheses about genealogical relationships.

What does it take to prove a relationship? How much is enough?
Technically, there is absolutely no way we can be 100 percent sure of any familial relationship from the past.
There are simply too many human variables. You can, however, strive to improve the probability that your conclusions are accurate by using as many records as you can find. Ideally, these will include original sources, and you will use the most reliable records to build your case. To analyze the information you have, you will stand outside of it — or ask another genealogist to review it — and see how many other explanations there might be for the conclusion you have drawn. If, after a thorough examination, you feel you have the best and least convoluted answer to the problem, you have probably done “enough” — but accept the idea that new evidence might someday change your conclusion.

Genealogists often see their task as one of accumulating as much information as possible about the ancestor and his family. The critical task of evaluating and then perhaps discarding data is either ignored or superficially performed. Ascertaining the reliability and validity of genealogical evidence requires astute and critical thinking. The genealogist must be able to recognize possibilities, study the evidence carefully, and rule out unlikely or impossible conclusions.

Don't
expect one record to prove a relationship. Do assemble many records and weigh and analyze each cautiously and carefully. If you respect these two essentials of genealogical research, you are most likely to reap the reward of an accurate and complete family history.

1.
Examine each document in your possession that pertains to the family or problem at hand. Look not only for the obvious, but for the subtle clues.

2.
Ask of each document, “Does this document actually say what I think it says? Does it appear to be sound and logical? (Is it valid?) Can I depend on this type of document or source to usually reflect the truth? (Is it reliable?) How close was the document or source to the actual event?”

3.
If an event cannot be proved, how likely is it to be true? (a) Impossible. (b) Possible, but highly unlikely. (c) Possible, but not probable. (d) Possible. (e) Probable, but not definite. (f) Very likely true.

4.
Consider the source. What parts are probably true? Likely to be true? May not be true? Are probably incorrect? Learn about standard genealogical sources and their reliability. For instance, it is accepted that Frederick Virkus's
Compendium of American Genealogy
is incorrect about 30 percent of the time. Computerized census indexes have an estimated 10 to 20 percent omission rate, and a 30 to 40 percent inaccuracy rate.

5.
Differentiate between good research and good conclusions. Some genealogists may be competent in finding and exploring records, but cannot adequately analyze or interpret what they find.

6.
Follow the “Occam's Razor” principle: If more than one explanation fits a situation, choose the simplest. Use the fewest assumptions needed to explain a circumstance.

7.
Consider the chronology when examining records. Don't separate people and records from their proper time and place. Chronology can be used effectively to both support and refute hypotheses about genealogical relationships.

8.
“The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies.” Legal Maxim. If you assert that a genealogical connection is accurate, the burden of proof lies with you; not upon the person who disputes it.

9.
Be reasonable. Think about the records and the individuals who created them. Exercise good judgment. Use common sense.

ASSUMPTION:
A notion that one is inclined to believe without complete evidence.

DIRECT EVIDENCE:
Testimony provided by someone who witnessed the event (this does not necessarily make it true); evidence that conclusively establishes a fact without inference or presumption.

EVIDENCE:
An indication that something is true.

INDIRECT EVIDENCE:
Evidence that establishes proof by means of the correlation of various facts, and that can be inferred by logical reasoning. Also called
circumstantial evidence
.

INFERENCE:
The process involved in drawing a reasonable conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct observation.

PRIMARY SOURCE:
A source with firsthand knowledge of a contemporary event; or an official document that records firsthand knowledge of an event soon after it occurs.

RELIABILITY:
Proven dependability in producing consistent results. Characteristic of specific sources that produce the same degree of accuracy over time. For example, contemporary Bible records are considered
reliable
genealogical sources.

SECONDARY SOURCE:
Information recorded on the basis of what someone was told about an event; secondhand knowledge.

VALIDITY:
The extent to which a statement reflects the truth; sound, grounded on principles of evidence, facts, and logic. For example, a deed naming the “heirs and legal representatives” of a deceased individual is considered a valid document on which to base descent.

1.
Confusing or mistaking the identity of individuals or families.

2.
Assuming relationships due to a common surname.

3.
Not sufficiently considering name changes, boundary changes, geographic locations, etc.

4.
Relying on printed or published compilations rather than original records.

5.
Assuming records (particularly old ones) are contemporary with the event.

6.
Misinterpreting terminology.

7.
Reaching premature conclusions.

8.
Not testing conclusions thoroughly.

9.
Neglecting to check documentation and references.

10.
Not considering the social/historical context.

1.
Human mistakes in recording and copying.

2.
Gaps in the time between the event and the recording of it.

3.
Self-serving documents that require certain information. (Read the Wayty Parks Couse Woodworth example on page 200.)

4.
Improper custody during their lifetime: Public records that fall into private hands; Bible records found at garage sales; records stored somewhere other than where they were created.

5.
The recording of irrelevant information that does not fit the purpose of the document.

6.
A recorder with no personal knowledge of the event.

7.
An incompetent recorder.

8.
The desire to protect or enhance the reputation of a family or individual.

9.
Deceit and fraud (although this is not common).

10.
Variations in spelling.

11.
Destruction, damage, or changes to the original record.

Common Errors Found in Genealogical Evidence

Do you now want to go back to the file cabinets or to the old files on your computer and begin again on some of those “lost” families? If so, my goal in writing this book was reached. Perhaps some genealogy will always be “lost,” but how will you know which lines will remain forever blocked and which can be solved unless you apply some of the techniques just learned? Good luck with your research and remember, “No one's genealogy is ever finished.”

• Bamman, Gale Williams. “The Origins of Robert and Elizabeth (Cochran) Black of Smith County, Tennessee: Using Names of Slaves to Trace White Ancestry.”
  The American Genealogist
  69 (October 1994): 219–223.
  

• Devine, Donn. “Do We Really Decide Relationships by a Preponderance of the Evidence?”
  National Genealogical Society Newsletter
  18 (September-October 1992): 131–133.
  

• Jacobus, Donald Lines. “On the Nature of Genealogical Evidence.”
  The New England Historical and Genealogical Register
  92 (July 1938): 213–220.
  

• — — — — . “Confessions of a Genealogical Heretic: Society Regulations and Hearsay Evidence.”
  The New England Historical and Genealogical Register
  112 (April 1958): 81–87.
  

• Johnson, Louise F. “Testing Popular Lore: Marmaduke Swearingen aka Blue Jacket.”
  National Genealogical Society Quarterly
  82 (September 1994): 165–178.
  

• Mills, Elizabeth Shown. “The Search for Margaret Ball.”
  National Genealogical Society Quarterly
  77 (March 1989): 43–65.
  

• — — — — . “In Search of Mr. Ball: An Exercise in Finding Fathers.”
  National Genealogical Society Quarterly
  80 (June 1992): 115–133.
  

• Rising, Marsha Hoffman. “Problematic Parents and Potential Off spring: The Example of Nathan Brown.”
  National Genealogical Society Quarterly
  79 (June 1991): 85–99.
  

• Rubincam, Milton. “Pitfalls in Genealogical Research.”
  National Genealogical Society Quarterly
  43 (June 1955): 41–45.
  

• Sheppard, Walter Lee. “What Proves a Lineage? Acceptable Standards of Evidence.”
  National Genealogical Society Quarterly
  75 (June 1987): 125.
  

• Stevenson, Noel C.
  Genealogical Evidence: A Guide to the Standard of Proof Relating to Pedigrees, Ancestry, Heirship and Family History
  . (Laguna Hills, Calif.: Aegean Park Press, 1979.)
  

• Straney, Shirley Garton, CG. “The Kallikak Family: A Genealogical Examination of a Classic in Psychology.”
  The American Genealogist
  69 (April 1994): 65–80.
  

• Stratton, Eugene A. “Analyzing Evidence.”
  Applied Genealogy
  . (Salt Lake City: Ancestry, 1988.)
  

• Thorndale, William. “The Parents of Colonel Richard Lee of Virginia.”
  National Genealogical Society Quarterly
  76 (December 1988): 253–267.
  

If
Sherlock Holmes were a genealogist, Internet sleuthing could keep him really busy. Although ancestral clues abound on millions of family history websites, online roots research isn't exactly elementary. Finding the missing links to your past involves more than simply clicking to those clues. You still need to verify what you find online — even if Aunt Sophia's purported birth date sounds right or you're pretty sure Great-uncle Frank grew up in Detroit. Researchers of all experience levels publish on the Internet, and errors do crop up. No genealogy gumshoe wants to trace the wrong ancestor because someone didn't get his facts straight. So how do you separate the good online data from the bad and the ugly? Follow these six steps to track down reliable information about your ancestors.

Step 1:
Assess the data.

Identifying the type of information you find on the Internet will help determine how to verify it. Professional genealogists typically label sources
primary
or
secondary
, or
original
or
compiled
. Original, or primary, sources are those created at or close to the time of an event by someone who had personal knowledge of it. Birth records, wills, deeds, passenger lists, and census records qualify as original records. That's not to say that they're always 100 percent accurate, though — any record can contain errors. Compiled, or secondary, sources include online databases, published family histories and county histories.

When we say “original,” that doesn't mean you have to look at the actual document that was created fifty or a hundred years ago. A photocopy, microfilm or digital image of that document works just as well. In fact, digitized versions are sometimes better than the originals because they've been enhanced for readability.

Although more and more digitized records are appearing online, they represent just a fraction of all the family history sources available. Most Web data has been pulled from other sources to create an abstract or searchable index or database. Online indexes can make your research much easier, just as book indexes do. But you wouldn't look up something in a book index, copy down the information, then close the book without checking the cited page — and you should apply the same principle to checking Web data. When you find your ancestor in an index, jot down all the data, and then look for the original source of that information.

Finding your ancestor in a database may be your first hurdle, though. Spelling variations and other mistakes abound on the Internet because transcribers generally create databases from original, handwritten records, which aren't always easy to read. When I searched Ellis Island's passenger-lists database
www.ellisisland.org
for Michael Concannon, who had emigrated from Ireland in 1905 at the age of 25, the closest match was a Michael Concan
m
on, age 75. I took a chance and looked at the original passanger list — and I'm glad I did. The manifest listed his age as 25; the transcriber must have misread it. (Of course, the lesson here is always look at the original record yourself.)

It's no surprise that online databases and indexes generate problems with name spellings. Your ancestor's name — even if it's a common one — could have been entered incorrectly into the database, in which case you might never find that person. Even just a simple transcription mistake, such as transposing two letters or adding a letter —
Havrey Miller
or
Havey Imller
or
Harvey Milller
— can send your ancestor into the black hole of cyberspace, never to be seen or heard from again. But assuming you're lucky enough to find your ancestor's name, it's important to verify the data, so you know you have the right person and the right information.

Step 2:
Find a referenced source.

Assuming there's no link to the referenced source online, how do you go about finding that original record? Most likely, the Family History Library (FHL)
www.familysearch.org
in Salt Lake City has it. The FHL has microfilmed millions of genealogy records from all over the world, and you can borrow most of those microfilms from a branch FamilySearch Center (you can find one near you by visiting the FHL website and clicking on Library, then Family History Centers). To search the library's catalog online, click on the Search tab, then Family History Library Catalog. Running a place search for your ancestors' town will bring up records for that locality, arranged by type.

Let's say you find a website with information about your ancestor John Barnett's Revolutionary War service. The site references page fifteen of the book
Roster of Soldiers and Patriots of the American Revolution Buried in Indiana
, published in 1966. If you go to the FHL catalog and type in the title, you'll find that book was compiled and edited by Mrs. Roscoe C. O'Byrne. Because it's available on microfilm (click on View Film Notes), you can order it through your local Family Search Center.

From that book, you'll learn that the details about John Barnett came from his son's pension record, pension S12963. Turn once again to the FHL catalog, choose the United States as the locality, then scan the military records for the microfilm covering Revolutionary War pension files (in this case, the
Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files
microfilm). When you find the roll containing John Barnett's record (the records are arranged alphabetically), order it through your FamilySearch Center and then check the information you found online. Notice that the original source isn't the one the Web data cited. I had to follow a chain of sources — first a book, then the reference to the pension file — to get to the original record on microfilm.

Once you track down the sources of online data, ask these questions to judge how reliable they are:

How close to the original record is the copy you're looking at? Is it a photocopy, microfilm copy or digitized version of the original document? Or is it an abstract or database entry with only partial information and possibily transcription errors?

What, if any, sources are cited? If the source is another database or compiled source, it may contain more errors than an original document. Even if the source is an original, check it yourself. Some records are hard to read and may require analysis and interpretation. After examining the source yourself, do you agree with the other researcher's conclusions?

Do you have reason to suspect that the person who supplied or compiled the information might have fibbed or stretched the truth? For example, an underage bride whose parents didn't approve of the husband-to-be might have lied about her age. A woman might have fudged her marriage date if her child was conceived before the ceremony. A man might have claimed an older age if he wanted to enlist in the military. People had many reasons for lying, so consider whether your ancestors might have embellished the truth.

Are you relying on just one source for an event? Even original, legal records can contain mistakes. So check a variety of documents. A good rule of thumb: Seek every possible document that might pertain to your ancestor.

Step 3:
Track down a mystery source.

So what do you do when you find ancestral information in an online database, but the site gives no source? How do you verify the facts? This isn't a new problem for genealogists. Before the Internet, we searched for our ancestors in published genealogies and family group sheets submitted by researchers to libraries and genealogical societies. Those compiled genealogies often lacked source citations, too.

When the database doesn't provide the source, ask yourself what type of record might have supplied that data. For instance, a birth date probably came from a birth certificate. If no certificate exists, or you can't locate one, consider other sources that might have that information — such as a family Bible, pension application, Social Security record, death certificate, tombstone inscription, marriage license, school record or passport.

Professional genealogist Marcia Wyett found several entries for a John Martin Judd in the FHL's online databases (under the Search tab), including his second marriage to Rosena Candus Massey Aug. 25, 1892, in Brownsville, Edmonson County, Kentucky. The information came from the International Genealogical Index (IGI) — database of more than 285 million birth and marriage records worldwide — which listed no source. Obviously, to seek proof of the marriage, Wyett needed to look for a marriage record. So she turned to microfilmed marriage records at her local FamilySearch Center. In the records for Edmonson County, she found a marriage for J.M. Judd, age 36, born in Adair County, Kentucky, to Rosanna C. Massey, age 16, born in Edmonson County, Kentucky. But according to the marriage record, they married Dec. 24, 1899 — not Aug. 25,1892, as the IGI reported.

Fortunately, the IGI provided the correct locality, but what would Wyett have done if she'd checked Edmonson County's records and couldn't find John and Rosanna's marriage? She still would have used the place and time reported in the IGI as jumping-off points — even if they weren't completely accurate. The marriage took place in 1890s Kentucky, so her best bet would have been to check the next census (1900) to see where the couple was living and whether any children had been born yet (which might help pinpoint the marriage year and place). Wyett also could have checked marriage records for the surrounding counties, even if they're across state lines.

Step 4:
Resolve conflicting data.

Conflicting information frustrates every genealogist. The best way to resolve it is to take a critical look at each source — whether you found it online or off — and evaluate its reliability. Start with these four questions (you'll find more guidelines in the sidebar on page 210):

1. WHEN WAS THE EVENT RECORDED?
The 1920 census says your grandfather immigrated in 1908, but the 1910 census says 1909. Which is correct? Typically, information in the record closest to the event will be more reliable. In this case, the 1910 census may be more accurate because it was taken closer to the time of immigration.