Over 30 years, that's how long my sister and I have been tracing our family lines. This represents hours of pre-Internet research; depending instead on microfilm, microfiche, books, etc. When we started, Genealogy Proof Standards had not been developed and DNA had not become a standard genealogy tool.
PROOF. Gathering proof and then citing that proof are the two mainstays of genealogical research.
First there are, at least, three types of resources to use for proof:
Direct - This is a record created at the time of the event, or shortly after. I have found these need to be further qualified into primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are first-hand records, which come from the main people such as marriage records and birth records. I have yet to find a mistake in any of my primary sources. Secondary sources come from someone telling another person what they believe to be true, such as census data and death certificates. The death certificate for both my dad and maternal grandmother have errors in them. Both my aunt and sister gave what they believe to be correct information.
Derivative - information from original records which have been abstracted, copied, etc. Always try to find the original records mentioned in this type of source. There are many trees concerning a John and "Aney" Oldham found in abstracts, on Ancestry, and other places on the Internet. If anyone had really read John's original will or estate papers, her name is spelled "Amy".
Authored works - family history which has been researched and published by another researcher. These are very valuable for the proof research collected, copies of wills, land grants, etc. Be very careful of the how the author has use the proof to derived conclusions. For the last few month, I have been busy unravelling incorrect conclusions on the Oldham family. Conclusions were made based on similar names and not all the data possible being collected. I do realize that, due to the Internet, it is much easier to collect research material.
Determining proof:
1. Proof is NOT clicking on the leaf and gathering others information. There are so many errors in family trees related to me that it gets to be exasperating. If a tree doesn't have any proof or citations, it cannot be believed. Use a leaf only as a hint, not as proof. Study the tree, does it make sense? I've seen trees where I know the family has stayed in Virginia, yet a birth in England is thrown in.
2. Same name does NOT mean same person. Too often people have combined a name into their tree because another person had the name. Gather and analyze the proof. I will be posting an example I'm working on where William Odean's will mentioned "son Richard". Unfortunately, others have attached the wrong Richard as a son. I will use the Genealogy Proof Standard to show the correct son in another post.
3. Spelling was NOT standard. When gathering proof, look at phonetic spelling of a name. In different census, my Oldham family has been spelled: Oldham, Odem, Howdum, etc. Take the time to scroll through an entire county census to see if your family might have been spelled differently. Just because it's a "weird" spelling don't miscount it.
4. The use of Sr., Jr., or "in-law" in past times has had different meanings than today. Sr. and Jr. does NOT necessarily mean father and son. In a census, Richard Smith Sr. and Richard Smith Jr. could simply show that one of the Smiths is older and one is younger. Like wise, I have seen the "in-law" term applied to stepchildren, nieces and nephews. Gather proof to find the correct relationship.
5. Oral history is NOT proof. It might sound quite lovely, but not have a grain of accuracy. Use it as a starting point to try and prove. There were two family stories in Dad's paternal line: 1. his great-grandmother, Nancy Brown, was Cherokee and 2. there is German heritage in the line somewhere. After gathering proof on Nancy, she is not at all Cherokee. However, she's part of the German line in the family, her ancestors changed the name to Brown from Braun.
6. A DNA match cannot be used alone to prove a line. I have one DNA match where we actually have four lines in common; deriving from dad's paternal and maternal lines.
7. One source does NOT constitute proof. A birth certificate can tell you a couple had a child. Do other sources support that is the child you are looking for? For example, take my great-grandfather Linzy Oldham. By using the 1850 census, taken June 1, there is recorded a Lindsay, male, age 2. Many researchers stopped there and used his birth year as 1848. Luckily, my dad and his cousins knew their grandfather and knew he was born Dec 20, 1850. The first son, Lindsey, must have died after the census was taken and our Linzy was named after him. Which brings a conundrum -- if it was important to name two children Lindsey/Linzy is Lindsey a family name? Still investigating.
Over the years, we've been very conscientious in gathering proof for our lines. That is not to say that when we first started, typical newbies, we didn't understand all aspects of what proof is. We started before personal computers were the norm. When we started to use a genealogy software program, we made sure all of our proof was entered. Unfortunately, we didn't cite the proof. So now, we have the tedious job of adding citations to all the proof. Do NOT make that mistake.
My purpose in this blog, is to give some advise to, hopefully, prevent someone from making the mistakes we first made. Also, clear up some family lines which have glaring errors in them.
Happy Hunting, until next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment