[this article series is by Carson Turner and specifically copywritten]
Understanding Varying Levels of Certainly of Fact:
The variety of sources or proofs which we genealogists and
family historians use is immense. And like any other type of documentation
they each have their advantages and disadvantages. Some are more reliable
than others and some are subject to much individual interpretation.
The most common of these sources are:
| Personal Knowledge |
| Personal Interview |
| Vital Records (birth and death certificates, marriage licenses, deeds,
and wills for example) |
| Personal Documents (such as letters and photographs) |
| Monuments (such as those remembering veterans and tombstones) |
| Published Works (the family genealogies and histories that have been
published over time) |
| Compiled Works (those GedCom files you find at Ancestry.com and
Rootsweb) |
| Family Records (such as Bibles, insurance policies, school records,
etc...) |
| Family Tradition (information passed on without proofs) |
While some genealogists refer to sources as primary, secondary,
and tertiary; others of us prefer to reference a source according
to its own inherent reliability as fact. Each of these offers different types of information and each varies in
reliability. The reliability of any source is determined by 1) the
closeness of the person providing the information to the subject or location AND 2) the
closeness of the report in relation to the time of the event.
Personal Knowledge is fairly reliable if presented honestly. When I
state that I am a veteran of the Persian Gulf War and that I served in the
Kuwait Theatre from January - May of 1991, that is "probably certain"
information. Since I was present at the time AND I am the subject.
If I provide a copy of my military discharge certificate (DD-214) which
corroborates my assertion then the reliability increases to "almost
certain" or even "certain". Were my son to provide the
information without the DD-214 then the reliability reduces to "possibly
certain" since he is removed in both person and place -- he wasn't there,
he got the information second hand.
Personal Interview is only as reliable as the interviewee. In the
example above, I could provide you with the information about my war experience
and it is probably reliable information -- when you relate that information to
someone else it becomes possibly reliable because you are removed in both time and
place entirely, your restatement is subject to error.
Vital Records are generally prepared "at the time" and "by the
subject" so they are, for the most part, almost certainly reliable sources.
They are only reliable to the facts which relate to the time, place and subject
though. A death certificate includes the names of the deceased persons
parents -- this part of the information is removed in both time and place since
the person making the report (unless it is the deceased's parent making the
report) is removed in
time and place. The information about the cause of death, place of death,
date of death, etc... is properly placed in time and place. Consider all
documents with these issues in mind -- determine which parts can be deemed
reliable to what degree based on time and place.
Letters and photographs are generally a gold mine. They can contradict
certain other documents which would ordinarily be considered fact. Consider
maybe a letter I had written in the above example of my service in the Persian
Gulf War; it provides a certainly reliable source as to where I was in
early 1991 because of the postmark. That it is addressed to my parents
by name and begins "Dear Mom and Dad" does not though prove
that these people are my parents. In my case they are but, they could be
adoptive parents or step-parents and still receive the same salutation.
Using that letter to prove my parents names then is only possibly
reliable.
Photographs are most useful when they have been identified relative to
time (near when they were taken) by someone close in relation (preferably the
subject). You can't assume that the photo of Uncle Joe in a model-T Ford
was taken in the earliest part of the 20th Century, Uncle Joe may have been a
collector of old cars much later. Clothing, hair styles, surroundings,
etc... can all help to identify a photograph by time. A photo of Uncle
Joe in a WWII Army Air Corps uniform standing next to an aircraft with Capt.
Joe Smith painted under the canopy is a pretty solid genealogical and
biographical source.
Some photos and drawings can also help establish ethnicity
and/or affluence by examining the features of those in the photo as well as
their clothing and surroundings. Even with an old photo though -- the melting
pot of America has made many ethnic distinctions fade away completely.
Tombstone transcriptions are some of the easiest to acquire
sources out there. While the death date information found there is almost
certainly reliable, remember that the birth date information was provided
by someone far removed in both time and place to the actual event. The
birth information is more likely possibly certain. In the case of
veterans memorials, that the individual named served in the conflict
memorialized is almost certainly reliable since they were recorded near
the time and place of the veterans service.
When using the resources of published works -- remember that
the information contained in them is only as reliable as the source of that
information. Many published works are meticulously sourced -- a few in
the past were intentionally flawed. It is always best to use such works
as possibly certain and to then search for the more reliable source of
that data yourself.
Compiled works are similarly only possibly certain for
the same reasons. Even more so with a compiled work since it is so easy
for the person making the compilation to make a mistake, to include unproven
data, or to misinterpret data from a source document. In this group are
the many GedComs and family tree web pages that are finding their way onto the
internet these days. I don't imply that these are inherently bad
but only that as a source of information, they are only possibly certain.
Such resources have been a great way to make contact with others researching
the same ancestors and also a great way to finally learn who has that old
family bible.
Family records are especially subject to omission of
information. If vital information was added to the family bible as it
occurred then the family bible is a fantastic source of information. For
many of our ancestral problems, it is the only source of information.
Insurance policies are also a good source of family vital data. School
records are not just fun to read but provide location, parent, and age
data. These documents are subject to omissions and even outright lies in
some cases though. Especially when there is some financial benefit in
applying a little creative record keeping. When reviewing such
information -- if all of the writing appears to have been done by the same
person at the same time -- it was probably created "after the fact"
and then is subject to errors of memory and omission of embarrassing
detail. Such a document prepared "after the fact" becomes a
source between a personal interview and family tradition.
Family traditions are important! Far too many
genealogists are quick to dismiss them because they don't fit nicely into the facts.
Consider each such family tradition outside of the facts though and as if it
were based at least in part on fact or need. Consider that it is
a fact that I lived in Spain for three years and attended high school
there. If an descendant a couple generations from now were to consider
that he might have a really hard time verifying that as a fact since my
birth certificate says I was born in Maryland and my high school diploma is
from Mount Pleasant North Carolina. I lived in Maryland until I was
three and I attended Mount Pleasant HS less than a year. Remember that
the facts don't always negate the tradition. Consider too
the common family traditions of Dutch, Black Dutch, Black Irish, German,
Irish, French, Polish, etc.. descent -- these are rarely if ever recorded in
vital records -- there is just no specificity there. The only way to prove
them is to find the immigration record, and then that is still
questionable without the original birth record. It doesn't make them
false any more than my having lived in Spain for three years and attending
high school there makes me Spanish; Even if there is a proved record
that shows that I came to Virginia from Spain in 1978... ;-)
Always remember that your source citation should be what
you actually heard or saw. If Cousin Susan says that Grandpa Jones
had a brother named Frank and she knows this because she has Uncle Frank's
obituary; your source is "Cousin Susan who states that Uncle
Frank's obituary says..." and not the obituary itself unless you too
get a copy of that obituary. Remember that a transcription or extract of
the will of Uncle Frank is NOT the same as seeing the original will or a
photocopy. Your source with a transcription is the transcriber and the
transcribed document -- it is only probably certain or possibly
certain because the transcriber could have made a mistake or a
misinterpretation.
Any fact that is not absolutely certain is subject to redefinition
when another fact of greater certainty is presented. And, it is possible
for two contrasting facts to both be absolute. A document
might reference great grand mother as Margaret while another references
her as Peggy -- If she was known by both names then they are both her
name...
|