Suggested Best Practices

From the Board for Certification of Genealogists Skillbuilding series, Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL writes "Photocopies. Transcriptions. Abstracts. Extracts. Translations. As genealogists, we have wide-ranging options in the production of our research notes -- so wide that many are baffled as to what these options actually represent and when one is the most appropriate."

You'll want to print and read the full version of this article, which explains these types of genealogical evidence. Originally published in OnBoard - the Newsletter of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, Volume 3, Number 1 (January 1997), you'll find it at URL: http://www.bcgcertification.org/skbld971.html

A transcript, which is a word-for word write-up of a document, provides more information than an abstract, which lists merely the high points. However, both can be fraught with errors due to handwriting & abbreviation interpretations, the age of the document or quality of the microfilm.

In a book or online listing of abstracts of wills you are likely to find:
-- name of deceased -- locality -- date of will -- heirs

However, the full transcript provides details of:
-- real property such as the family homestead
-- equipment such as horses, plows, wagons, buggies
-- personal items such as a watch & chain, furniture, books, a linen shirt -- personal comments such as "my beloved wife" -- unusual notes "my son who went west to Seattle" We actually found this in a Jackson family will in my stepmother's research.

Relying on an abstract or index for merely a name and a date of will is like wearing blinders. You are forced to look in one direction, completely missing the delightful details of the periphery. These details may lead you to other source documents, such as the homestead papers or military service records, thereby giving you a better view of the life and times of your ancestor.

To develop a discerning mind, a family historian must continually hone his research skills as he uncovers the so-called facts in his ancestral quest. Studying guidelines by the National Genealogical Society (NGS) will facilitate an understanding of how to evaluate the reliability of the source documents and compiled genealogies.

Here are the three essential points from the first set of standards, concerning sound genealogical research principles:

1. "Seek original records, or reproduced images of them when there is reasonable assurance they have not been altered, as the basis for their research conclusions."

2. "Use compilations, communications and published works, whether paper or electronic, primarily for their value as guides to locating the original records."

3. "State something as a fact only when it is supported by convincing evidence, and identify the evidence when communicating the fact to others."

TRUE IDENTITIES -- NOT FORCED LINEAGES
We're in the hunt for our ancestors to discover our true heritage, not to make a connection to a famous historical figure. "Forcing the issue" by jumping to unfounded conclusions is simply not in our game plan. We'll locate original documents to prove or disprove traditional family stories. Where we are unsure of our findings, we must state so in our notes for an individual in our genealogy programs.

EVALUATION WORKSHEET
To aid in your evaluation of evidence, let's create a worksheet to list documents you find in your ancestral quest. We'll have three columns, reading left to right: -- less reliable -- possibly reliable – very reliable

Each document you encounter needs to be evaluated and placed on your worksheet. Consider:

-- IS IT FIRST HAND INFO? (more reliable) or "second hand" info (less reliable)?

-- HOW RELIABLE IS THE WITNESS? A doctor signing a birth certificate is generally considered very reliable. A parish priest who has known the family for generations may also be considered a reliable source as he makes entries in the parish register. By contrast, a grieving widow reporting the birthdate of her spouse might be confused. Under obvious stress, she might also make a mistake when reporting the names of her husband's parents.

-- IS THERE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE? By gathering every possible document on an ancestor, we may see a trend that leads us to believe something is true. Concerning a birth we might find documents as in this fictitious scenario:

Family tradition states that a few months after gggrandfather Matthew Smith went to fight for the state of Pennsylvania in the "War of the Rebellion," his wife Mary gave birth to your ggraandfather John.

1. A letter between sisters Alice & Maggie, dated May 1861 which states "Cousin Mary had her baby two weeks ago. All are well. We haven't heard a word from Matthew yet and worry for his safety in this terrible war."
2. 1870 US federal census record for the household of Matthew Smith, listing Mary as the wife, and a son John, age 10 years.
3. The Civil War Pension file of Matthew Smith, where he lists Mary as his wife, and among his seven children, we find Matthew lists John's birth as April 27, 1861.

1. The letter doesn't specify that John was the child, or that "Cousin Mary" is truly Mary, wife of Matthew Smith. In 19th century US, "cousin" was a loosely applied term of endearment, not necessarily reflecting a true cousin connection, per late 20th century definitions. At first blush, the birth is thought to have taken place in May 1861, but actually could have occurred two weeks earlier in April, since we have only "May 1861" as the date of the letter.

At this point in my research, I would not enter the data into my genealogy program on my computer. I'd file the copy of the letter under "Matthew Smith Family - unproved." Eventually all items in the unproved file will be proved or disproved as relating to the family.

2. The US federal census record lists a likely household, indicating John's age and relationship to the head of household. The age of ten years for John seems to be off a year. Was the information given by a neighbor who stated "the boy is about ten" ? We may never know.

At this point in my research, I would enter the data into my genealogy program on my computer. I'd list John's birthdate as "about May 1861" referencing the letter in my possession as the source, noting the conflict of "ten years" from the census. I'd also list his parents, and siblings referencing the federal census record by date, city, county, state, & microfilm number & census page number. I'd file a photocopy of the census record with the family group sheet for Matthew and Mary Smith. The letter, which now looks more promising, would be moved to the same place, with a cover sheet detailing my future goals to identify the "cousins" who wrote and received the letter.

3. By continuing our research, we find in the handwriting of Matthew Smith, on his official pension application, a listing of each of his children, their birth dates, and the name and birth date of his wife Jane.

At this point in my research, I would correct the data in my genealogy program on my computer by changing John's birth date to April 27, 1861, referencing his father Matthew Smith's official pension application as the source. I'd file the photocopies from the pension file with the Matthew Smith family group sheet for future reference. It will now be easy for to photocopy all documents and the family group sheet should a new researcher request source documentation.

SOME ERRORS ARE UNAVOIDABLE
Sometimes despite our best efforts at evaluating of source documents, we'll still fall prey to outright false information often unknowingly. For instance, my grandmother's birthdate was purposefully misstated on her funeral card. When she married the second time, she was a few years older that her spouse -- a fact which she never divulged. She made my mother promise that she'd never tell, so the birthdate on my grandmother's death certificate, funeral card and obituary is off by several years. [Since my step-grandfather has long since passed away, I guess it doesn't hurt to tell this family secret now.]

If there is documentation that would prove harmful to living individuals, I believe its better to omit the info rather than change it to fit the circumstances.

We need to do our best to responsibly report all source documentation, transcribing as accurately as possible. By providing citations of author, title, microfilm, etc., we leave a big audit trail for future researchers. They may unearth additional documents to support or refute the lineage assumptions we've made.

Its all just part of the challenge of research!

For Further Reading:
-- Examining Evidence to Prove a Pedigree, August 7, 1997 column from Shaking Your Family Tree, by Myra Vanderpool Gormley, C.G.
-- Cyndi's List - Myths, Hoaxes & Scams
-- Using Other People's Research, 8 January 1999 column from "Along Those Lines..." by George G. Morgan.

Early on, you'll need to look at your documents and compiled genealogies with an eye to reliability.

Let's look at this scenario to get you started:
A man's death certificate might state:

• State Department of Vital Records Number
• name of deceased
• death date and time
• death place
• cause of death
• attending physician's signature
• funeral home
• cemetery
• father's name
• mother's name
• birthdate
• birthplace
• usual occupation
• informant

PROBABLE RELIABILITY
Let's consider that the death date & time, death place, cause of death and attending physician's signature -- as well as the state department of heath certificate number are perhaps the most reliable parts of the death certificate, under normal circumstances.

However, even the name of the individual could be misconstrued, if the man died out of town and the physician had not regularly attended him in the past. This could be particularly true where the individual had no next of kin to stipulate the correct name in full. My own step-grandfather and his twin were known as Pat and Mike McDonnell during their adult life, as documents were being created. I had the devil of a time getting Mike's correct birth certificate from the state of Washington until I was informed by Pat's son that they were born Dave and Dana McDonnell.

The name of the funeral home is also considered "very reliable" since its representatives take custody of the body once it is released from the hospital.

QUESTIONABLE RELIABILITY
The name of the cemetery SOUNDS likely until we realize that as society "progresses" cemeteries are sometimes covered over to make room for housing developments, shopping malls and to provide access to interstate highways. The remains may or may not be removed to a newer cemetery across town. You'll have to verify that the cemetery still exists. There have also been so-called "clean-ups" of local cemeteries, where the tombstones were temporarily moved to the side to facilitate regrading of the land, only to be "neatly" replaced in alphabetical order.

This category of reliability includes the information about the birthdate and place and parent's info. Remember that the informant's relationship to the deceased does not necessarily increase the likelihood of reliability. For instance, a grieving widow might make honest mistakes when providing the data requested typically by the funeral home. She has gone through the first shock of losing her spouse, has just completed the choosing of his casket, and the arrangements for music, speakers and prayers at his funeral. She has hit her limit! And now they need info for the obituary and death certificate?!

SOLUTION?
All information in the "questionable" category must be verified throughsome other source documentation. Look for as much "first hand" information as possible. For instance, a death certificate's mention of a birth date is "second hand" evidence, because it is removed from the birth event by a number of years. The mother and her midwife or attending physician are not normally there to verify the information.

A normal birth certificate would be considered "first hand" information, contrasting sharply with a birth announcement in the local newspaper. Published a few weeks after the happy arrival of the stork, such announcements are considered "second hand" information because of more than the time delay. The newspaper typesetter and editor are not usually the parents of the child, so again, innocent, human errors could occur.

So the old adage CONSIDER THE SOURCE really rings true when it comes to sound genealogical research!

ASSIGNMENT:
Your assignment this week has two components:
1. Review the Standards for Sound Genealogical Research, recommended by the National Genealogical Society. http://www.ngsgenealogy.org/about/content/committees/gene_stan.html

Study RootsWeb's Guide to Tracing Family Trees - Lesson 12: Creating Worthwhile Genealogies: Evidence, Sources, Documentation, and Citation http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/lesson12.htm

Consult Elizabeth Shown Mills' Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian. It is found on many library shelves, and is available from Genealogical Publishing Company of Baltimore, MD.

2. Look through the family history documents collected so far, and begin to evaluate the reliability of what you've found. Note discrepancies, thereby leaving a big audit trail for those who follow! Where there are weak spots, resolve to find additional documentation for your ancestral quest.

Other Step By Step Lessons appear at: www.DearMYRTLE.com/stepbystep/index.htm