One of the most frustrating things I run into while researching my family history is finding existing pedigrees and compilations containing no source information. While the information may very well be correct, I could encounter difficulty verifying the accuracy of the information if the citations are missing. The marriage date as shown in your cousin's genealogy of Uncle Henry and Aunt Gertrude may have come from their marriage certificate, from county records, from an index, or from the memory of Aunt Gertrude’s 98-year old sister, Gesina (yes, I had an great-Aunt Gesina). Who knows? And who knows if it’s even correct?
Usually, something like a marriage record is simple enough to check out. Well, as long as you know in which county they were married, anyway (assuming they had actually gotten married). But what if you had something a little more difficult to check out? Did an event occur on the date specified in the genealogy? Did your g-grandfather’s cousin-once-removed really graduate from Harvard with a Law degree? Where was the source of that information?
Providing source citations for your research is critical to proving the legitimacy of your work. That way, you will be able to go back to the original source record if you want to review it again for further clues, or for resolving conflicting information from another source, or another researcher.
It is important to keep track of every piece of information, and to record the source of that information as soon as you acquire it. Going back later to “fill in the gaps” can be difficult, if not impossible. I know this from my own experiences early in my research, when I was still “learning the ropes”. Oy! What a mess that was!
Do as I say, not as I did!
Understand your sources:
Citing Sources
Primary and secondary sources –
Primary sources are created at or near the time of the event, recorded by a person with reasonable knowledgeable of the event
Secondary sources are created after a significant amount of time after the event has passed, or by a person not close to the event.
An example: Birth dates recorded on a headstone vs the birth date recorded in a birth certificate that was completed at the time of the birth. Obviously, primary sources carry more weight than secondary sources.
Original and derivative sources –
Original sources are the records themselves. They have not been derived (abstracted, transcribed or copied) from other record.
Derivative sources have been acquired (abstracted, transcribed or copied) from previously existing sources, whether original or itself derivative.
Again, an original source carries more weight than a derived source.
Source citations link the source record to a conclusion. It is important in the citation to clarify whether the source record was written, oral or visual. The citations can be footnotes, or endnotes. Generally, citations are recorded in order of general to specific:
Author
Title (articles are shown in quotations, publications in italics)
Publications details
Books - place, name and date of publication
Periodicals – volume, issue and page numbers
Microfilms – series and roll, including item number
Repository name, location, website name with URL, etc.
Specific details - Page number, entry number & date, date information was obtained (oral history)
Examples of record types –
Published sources (Books, periodicals, newspapers)
Unpublished sources (Oral interviews, letters, photographs, etc)
Official/Vital records (birth, marriage, and death certificates; census records, deeds, wills, etc)
Online sources (from genealogy and personal websites, email, etc)
Just because a published genealogy has no citations doesn’t necessarily mean the information is incorrect. I’ve often used such trees for guidance and they can be very helpful, but I always try to confirm the information with a verifiable source. If I cannot confirm the information with a direct source, then I have to make a decision. Does the preponderance of evidence support my eventual conclusion? Whether yes or no, it would be wise to record the conflict, and list the reasons why you either support or reject the finding.
I’ll finish with one story of my own experience working with an existing tree that was published in a compilation of southern genealogies that I found online. I’ll start off by saying, that at one time, it was important for some families to be linked to prominent historical figures. Hopefully, their families would be linked to royalty or nobility. Such families of means would normally engage the services of a genealogist, and if that genealogist was able to connect the family to their liking, happiness would ensue. Naturally then, genealogists had a vested interest in making sure their patrons were connected “appropriately”. That the connection was dubious was often incidental. Bragging rights was of primary importance.
So I came across this published genealogy that connected my husband’s maternal line to a number of prominent families in 16th century England, including a couple of Lord Mayors of London. Tracing those lines back further brought the family back to – you guessed it – Charlemagne. I’m sure if I kept following back further, I would have connected to biblical figures, maybe even Adam and Eve.
This genealogist (and I use the term loosely) was tricky. He/she included many citations that were easily proven, giving the impression that due diligence and protocol was being faithfully followed. But I decided to get copies of the original source material cited, and discover 2 gaping holes in the genealogist’s conclusions. First, a will cited did not contain the information to support the genealogist’s concussion in any way, shape or form (two families in an area with the same common surname to not a connection make). Second, by linking my husband’s 5X g-grandmother to the man named as her father, she would have been 48-years old when her first child was born, and 56-years old when her last child was born. It made no rational sense. In other words, it was bullshit.
I have several other similar experiences, as I’m sure most of you have.
So, family historians, be cautious, and if I might use the word, conservative (eeeeeeekkkk!!). By being careful, you’ll save yourself a whole lot of needless aggravation and possible expense.
I hope our experienced genealogists will chime in with their valuable advice.
So, do you have any similar horror stories to tell? Let’s hear them.