Ancestry.com or MyHeritage.com? It’s not clear. 

Should you choose Ancestry.com or MyHeritage.com for online genealogy research? Of these two services, Ancestry.com advertises the most aggressively, is the better known of the two, and has an edge in the attractiveness and usability of the online tools it offers. Ancestry also claims to offer the the greatest number of records online, and from what I can tell, this appears to be true. Both Ancestry and MyHeritage offer the same basic resources for vital records such as birth and marriage records, census data and so forth, but there are types of records that are not yet available through MyHeritage. All in all, they both offer impressive repositories, and to cut to the chase, I think they are both perfectly viable options. I have used, and will probably contine to make use of, both of them. 

Of course, there are disadvantages to Ancestry.com, too. The desktop tool, Family Tree Maker, is not free, though it is reasonably priced. By contrast, MyHeritage.com offere a free tool called Family Tree Builder. To me (a Mac user), it feels a little clunky, particularly if you run it under OS X using Wine. But it offers validation tools not available, at least as a report, in Family Tree Maker. It also gives you the opportunity to export data in the form of spreadsheets. With Family Tree Maker, your only option is GEDCOM 5.5, and your data is otherwise pretty much locked up. On the plus side, MyHeritage.com offers superior integration with FamilySearch.org, the family history site operated by the LDS church and with GENi World Tree. With MyHeritage, you can extract data from both of these services with suitable source citations. With Ancestry.com, you do get matches against FamilySearch.org as historical records (in their terminology, which is a bit misleading in my opinion). 

Another area where Ancestry.com has an advantage is in the handling of multimedia. First, it makes it easier to discover photos and images and to include them in your database. You can do this with MyHeritage.com, too, but the process is not as well integrated with the software. Another really nice feature of Ancestry.com is that it saves digital images of your source documents when available. I find this very useful, and have often opened these files, either to validated indexed data or because I was looking for additional information. Having ready access to digital images is a huge boon, though it can really add to the size of your database. 

That brings us to the topic of bugs and design problems. Both Ancestry.com and MyHeritage.com have iOS apps, and of the two, I like the Ancestry.com app much better. It offers many more features and makes research a lot easier. You can search using the MyHeritage.com app using their Super Search pane, and you can edit records, but that’s pretty much it. One unfortunate thing about the Ancestry app is that it doesn’t add proper source citations. It does include a hyperlink so that you can go into Family Tree Maker later and add the source citation later, but I can’t understand why the app doesn’t do this. I consider this a bug, and hope that it will be addressed in a future version. 

So, what is the conclusion here? I don’t think there is a clear winner, and I actually use both, though it is certainly an inconvenience to do so. Beyond that, neither service is free. They do offer free accounts, but there are either limits on the records you have access to, the size of your database, or both. If you’re LDS and doing family history research for religious reasons, you may find MyHeritage.com a bit easier, and may wish to look at Roots Magic, but beyond that, I can’t make a clear recommendation for one rather than the other. 

Using GeoNames for Genealogical Research

EuropeWe’ve talked about the importance of normalizing place names in your family tree. You may find the same state name written “Massachusetts”, “Massachusetts, USA”,”Mass.”,  or just  “MA”, and that’s just the beginning. Within states there are counties, boroughs, cities, towns, and local geographic references. The same places will frequently be referred to differently in different records, and it is important to know when two records refer to the same geographic location. There are several reasons for this, the most obvious being that you need to know whether the records refer to the same person. As an example, I have a grand aunt who seemed, according to some records, to have died in Florida. I was pretty sure this was not the case, but thought there was a small possibility that she could have moved there late in life, and I didn’t know. It turns out that another woman with the same first and last name (married name) who was born on the very same day, did die and was buried in Florida. But my grand aunt was buried in Utah, just as I suspected. In this case, the place names were so different that Citrus, Florida stuck out like a sore thumb, and I didn’t miss it. But it could have been different. What if my aunt were buried in a different part of Florida, possibly somewhere with a name I didn’t know? That’s the kind of discrepancy that it would be easy to miss, and I very well could have added quite a bit more inaccurate data to my family tree before the error was discovered.

Software can be very helpful in working with place names, but it can also make us vulnerable to other errors. As a simple example, I once encountered references to a colonial ancestor living in Germany. How could that be? In case you haven’t already guessed, she lived in Delaware, and someone recorded it as DE, the standard U.S. state abbreviation for Delaware. But DE is also the International 2-letter code for Germany (Deutschland in German). International standards (such as ISO 3166 for country codes) are indispensable in representing place names unambiguously and, if you’re like me, you use state abbreviations without giving it much thought. Unfortunately, computer applications often simply digitize paper forms, and since people have been writing addresses on one or a few lines for ages, computer programs tend to provide so-called free text fields for place names. And that’s where the trouble starts. In order to compare place names software needs to parse these fields into their constituent components.This is often done heuristically, so “Dover, DE” will be correctly interpreted as Dover, Delaware, and “Hamburg, DE” will correctly be interpreted as Hamburg, Germany. But in this case, something went wrong. Most likely, the software was unable to identify the name of the town or settlement after consulting a geographic database, so it fell back on the interpretation of DE as referring to Germany. The moral of the story is that you should always manually review place names before storing them in your family tree or database.

Of course, there is a problem, there are a lot of place names, and no matter how extensive our geographic knowledge, we are likely to encounter names we don’t recognize. Worse, we may think a place name is correct or complete when, in fact, it is not. This is where tool support comes in. Popular genealogy applications such as Family Tree Maker include geographic databases and include tools allow you to validate and correct place names. But what if you don’t use one of these tools? GeoNames is an open source database (licensed under the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution license) that includes over eight million records, and it is freely available on the web. You can either use the web based interface, download the database or make use of the web service interface. Most of the time, you’ll probably want to use the form on the web site to look up place names using your browser. The other options are primarily of interest to application developers.

So, how does it work? Let’s suppose that the place name Adwick Le Street, Yorkshire, England is unfamiliar to us, or we are unsure it is spelled correctly. Head over to GeoNames at http://www.geonames.org and type “Adwick Le Street” in the search box, and select “United Kingdom” from the drop down box to the right of it. Press Search. You will see something like this

2 records found for “Adwick Le Street”
Name Country Feature class Latitude Longitude
1 P Adwick le Street  wikipedia article
United Kingdom, England
Doncaster > Brodsworth
populated place N 53° 34′ 14” W 1° 11′ 4”
2 S Adwick le Street Castle Hills
United Kingdom, England
Doncaster
castle N 53° 33′ 14” W 1° 10′ 9”

In this case, there is no need to use the advanced search option. If you like, you can click on the hyperlink to see Adwick Le Street on a map. This can help to resolve apparent ambiguities. For example, in the case of my ancestor John Woodhouse, I had seen him described as living in Doncaster as well as Adwick Le Street. As it happens, Doncaster is the nearest town. That tells me that I’m not looking at two place names (well, distant ones, anyway), and I don’t have to worry about having made a mistake. But if one source said he was born in London and another in Doncaster, I would have a problem, and would need to do further research to resolve the ambiguity.

It’s time to start writing

pocket watch

Image credit: Kayla Kandzorra

It’s  February, time for The Family History Writing Challenge. You have signed up, haven’t you? Regardless of whether you’ve formally registered, now is a perfect time to start recording your family history in a reader friendly form. You probably have quite a bit of information stored in some type of data files. Depending on the software you use, it may be stored online, in the native file format of programs like Family Tree Maker, or possibly in GEDCOM files. You may also keep your records in paper charts and notebooks. Regardless of which of these techniques you use, your family history is not likely to be in a format the most members of your family are likely to sit down and read. That’s what the writing challenge is all about.

A good way to get started is by writing life sketches, short summaries of your ancestor’s life story. Fortunately, you have most of the information you need to get started. If you’re using software such as Family Tree Maker or a web application such as Ancestry.com, there is probably a timeline view. What it’s called may vary from application to application, but it is a list of facts or events in your ancestor’s life in chronological order, along with supporting documentation for each. If you’re not using software that does this get out a piece of paper and start listing events in chronological order. Include the time and place (if you have it), a description of the event, an information source (such as a birth certificate, parish register or grave marker), and be sure to leave room for additional details. Most of the time this will be all you have, but keep your eyes out for additional details. Maybe you will know a bit about the church where your ancestors were married, or the town where they lived. Perhaps your ancestor owned property. How much? Where? What did he or she do with it? It may have been a farm or ranch, or it may have been a business such as store or blacksmith shop. It’s details like this that allow you to piece together a picture of your ancestor’s life.

The next step is to write this information out in the form of declarative sentences. In can help to imagine that a family member or friend has asked you to tell him or her about your ancestor. You might say something like: “David Andrews was born in a small town not far from Cleveland, Ohio. He was the third of seven children.” Don’t worry if you only have one or a few sentences for each event you have recorded. That’s okay. You can always go back and add more information later, when it becomes available to you. Right now, you’re just trying to take compiled information and put it down in narrative form. You can worry about polishing it later. Remember also that you have a lot of ancestors, and multiple life events for each of them. You will be busy!

There’s a funny thing about writing. When you start writing life sketches you will most likely start thinking of questions you hadn’t thought to ask, and you may discover you know more than you realized. So just start. Recording life events in narrative form may seem like a mechanical exercise at first, but you’re sure to find that some of your ancestors’ life stories will really start coming together, and you will soon discover that you have some interesting stories to tell. You probably already do. And if other people in your family are asking you about your ancestors, you know that you do.

Can genealogy actually help to unite us?

What role does family history play in shaping our worldview? For me, that can be  perplexing question because learning more about our ancestors can have very two very different effects on how we look at society and our place in it. Consider, first of all, that family history is just that, family history. That means that the people we spend our time studying will, to put it bluntly, be very much like us. They may have lived in a different time, they may have earned a living in a very different way, but they will belong to the same ethnic group that we do, probably speak the same language, and very possibly believe very much the same way we do. This means that we can end up with a very narrow view of the past. For many years, I didn’t have much interest in researching my genealogy and, in retrospect, I can see that this is a big part of why. I’ve been fortunate enough to grow up in a world that values diversity, and in which people have the opportunity to learn about different cultures, different religions, and different value systems. Why then should I be interested in focusing on white European immigrants (and, in my case, largely Mormon pioneers)? There are obvious answers, of course, beginning with the fact that the people I was learning about are my family, and preserving information about our families and our history is a worthy undertaking. But there is still an obvious tension here between the values of multiculturalism and diversity on the one hand, and studying our genealogy, and our blood lines (a term that still makes me cringe a bit), on the other. Truth be told, as a teenager and young adult, genealogy was also a bit boring to me! It’s all well and good to make a high-sounding argument about why we shouldn’t be interested in a subject when, truth be told, we’re just bored.

On the other hand, genealogical research can tell us a lot about what we have in common. Many of my ancestors go back to Colonial America, some of them came from England much later (in the nineteenth century), with still others coming hear from Scotland or Ireland. But they all have something in common: they were immigrants. Immigration has become a divisive issue in recent years, and those of us whose families have been in America “forever” all came from somewhere, and learning about our ancestors can help to make the immigrant experience real to us in a more personal way than historical accounts of people with whom we have no immediate connection  does. As an aside, I should note that I’m not thinking about the experience of Native Americans, or the original inhabitants of other parts of the world. I’ll return to that in a moment.

Traditional genealogical research is vulnerable to what is called confirmation bias. Put simply, we may start out with certain assumptions about our ancestry. We may think of ourselves as being from New England, Canada, France or India. We may (and likely do) have something more specific in mind such as  Mayflower descendants, Pennsylvania Quakers, Mormon pioneers, or Irish immigrants (say in the wake of the potato famine). Then when we start looking for evidence we tend to find what we are looking for. Confirmation bias occurs when we start out with a belief and then think see that  the evidence favors our belief, while overlooking evidence to the contrary. If we have a particular story in mind, it’s easy to go looking for evidence to back up that story, and this can create for us a skewed view of our heritage. In my case, I came across the name Bradford while researching something else and couldn’t help but be curious as to whether this was the same Bradford line we know from history. It turned out that the answer was yes, I am a descendant of William Bradford, governor of Plymouth and signer of the Mayflower compact. But trying to connect ourselves with famous people is just one of a number of genealogy pitfalls. It can be fun, and those people are part of our ancestry, But starting with a particular conclusion in mind and then trying to find evidence that will bear it out is not the right way to get a realistic picture of our ancestry. Worse, it can lead us to ignore important evidence, and come to conclusions that aren’t really accurate, or at least balanced.

Fortunately, changes in technology and the sheer number of records that are available online and indexed are leading to greater accuracy and coverage (the extent to which there are not gaps) in our family trees. Using just traditional methods, search tools, such as those at Ancestry.com will often provide us with extensive lists of potential matching records. It makes it harder to miss large branches of our family tree because we don’t know how to get started. To be sure, the potential matches need to be evaluated, we need to identify and document our sources, and identify multiple sources of evidence where possible, but it’s hard to overlook entire branches of our family tree when they’re staring us in the face on our computer screen. Another area in which technology tends to keep us from overlooking information we may not have been looking for is the use of DNA techniques in genealogical research. A funny thing about our DNA is that it’s not vulnerable to confirmation bias. We are going to find out whether our ancestors go back to Europe, Africa or are Native American (for example) whether we like it or not. Now, the amount of detailed information we end up finding depends on what is available for the DNA sequences to match, but general information on ethnicity (at least for some 4 or 5 generations) is pretty much unavoidable. What that information means to us is a different matter. And regardless of the methods we use to learn about our ancestors, what our newfound knowledge means to us is, well, pretty much up to us. Still, I can’t help but wonder if improved research methods and greater knowledge about our ancestors will tend to break down barriers, and we will end up feeling more connected to people we might not otherwise meet and, finally, that greater knowledge of who are ancestors are will tend to be positive influence. This won’t always be the case. Unfortunately, some people will only find their prejudices reinforced, but we can hope this will be the exception rather than the rule.

Of Icebergs and the Internet

iceberg

The use of online databases and search tools in family history research has provoked a kind of backlash among more traditional genealogists. It is often said that the Internet is just the tip of the iceberg with real research taking place in libraries, family history centers and archives. And it really is true that only a fraction of the genealogical data available can be found online. That is changing, of course, more information becomes available online every day, and the amount of data available now was undreamed of a few years ago, but creating new digital repositories is no easy task, and it’s not free. So, for the foreseeable future, we should expect family history to involve working with microfilm, reference works, and even physical papers stored in libraries, churches and private collections.

But the value of digital libraries should not be underestimated, they really have revolutionized genealogical research. In part, I think, there is a kind of nostalgia for traditional methods and archives, and it is thoroughly understandable. But depending on whether you identify more strongly with the digital camp or the traditional camp, you may find yourself either exaggerating or understating both the sheer amount of information available in digital form and the relative comprehensiveness of that information. A bit of explanation is in order here: no matter how much data is available online, if the information you’re looking for is not available, it won’t matter (to you) how much information there is out there that you can download using just a web browser and an Internet connection. Comprehensiveness is the degree to which an archive or digital repository includes all of the data you might need, and not just certain resources, or data of a particular type. Right now, comprehensiveness is the Achilles heel of digital repositories. Sooner or later, you’re going to find yourself needing data that hasn’t been digitized and indexed or documents that haven’t been scanned or photographed. Sure, there will be plenty of data out there to keep you busy, but there will always be those questions that remain unanswered until you start digging into special collections at the library, or spend some time ordering and reviewing microfilm at your local family history center.

[Read more…]

Looking at place names

he clipper ship Cairngorm under full sailIf you’re like me, you want to know more about your ancestors than just when they lived and who their parents were. You want a picture of who they were, what was important to them, and what they hoped to accomplish in life. In other words, you want a picture of them as people. Unfortunately, vital records don’t necessarily tell you that much about your ancestors’ day to day lives, at least not directly. But they do offer you a number of clues, the most obvious of which is where they lived. If you know that a person lived in the Bronx (in New York) or London, rather than a fishing village in Scotland, or in rural Idaho, you already know quite a bit. Pay attention to the place names in your records and when your ancestors lived there. It’s easy to forget that places change over time, and what you think of when you see the words London, England may or may not match up well with the city in which you ancestor lived.

Fortunately, there are tools available that can help. I’ll use my second great grandfather John Woodhouse as an example. For some time, I thought he was born in Adwick Le Street, Yorkshire, England. He was christened there, and lived there for a time, but other records show that he was probably born in Campsall. What can we say about these places? After doing some Google  searches, the search key historic place names brought up A Vision of Britain Through Time, a web site I find tremendously useful, given that so many of my ancestors either came from Great Britain in the nineteenth century or later, or lived in colonial America. If your ancestors come from elsewhere, you will need to consult other resources. Don’t forget print publications and, of course, Wikipedia. You may not want to cite it as a primary source of information, but it’s a great place to start when what you want is general information, or an overview of a particular topic.

To return to John Woodhouse, I typed “Campsall” into the search box and found a map and some basic information about the township, including the following quote from John Marius Wilson, Imperial Gazetteer of England and Wales (1870-1872):

CAMPSALL, a township, a parish, and a subdistrict in Doncaster district, W. R. Yorkshire. The township adjoins the Doncaster and Wakefield railway, 1½ mile W of Askern station, and 7½ N by W of Doncaster; and includes the hamlet of Barnsdale. Acres, 1,470. Real property, £2,480. Pop., 349. Houses, 64. The parish contains also the townships of Askern, Norton, Fenwick, Moss, and part of Sutton; and its Post Town is Askern under Doncaster. Acres, 9,390. Real property, with the rest of Sutton, £14,816….

John Woodhouse did not live there in 1870, he left for the United States in 1851, but that is close enough in time to give a pretty good picture of where he lived. In addition, it explains why certain records list John Woodhouse’s place of birth a Doncaster and others do not. Even more, I’ve seen the name Chipping Norton associated with his father Charles Woodhouse. It turns out that there is a Norton in the district of Doncaster, too. Or at least that’s what I thought. Returning to the main page of A Vision of Britain and typing “chipping norton” into the search box, I found a rather different place, this time in Oxfordshire. Included was the following excerpt from John Bartholomew’s Gazetteer of the British Isles (1887):

Chipping Norton, mun. bor., township, and par. with ry. sta., NW. Oxfordshire, 12 miles SW. of Banbury and 89 miles NW. of London — par., 4872 ac., pop. 4607; township and bor., pop. 4167; P.O., T.O., 2 Banks, 1 newspaper. Market-day, WednesdayChipping Norton Junction, ry. sta., is 5 miles SW. of Chipping Norton.

A much bigger, and different, place! With a railway station and two banks, it is quite likely that Chipping Norton had an industrial base, and may have been a good place to seek employment. Of course, we should not neglect the possibility of error here. It is possible that someone mistakenly wrote down Chipping Norton when, in fact, they should have simply written Norton. This is something I need to investigate further. As a general rule, if your source of information is a secondary or tertiary source such as a census, this type of error is more likely, particularly if the record was made in the United States by someone unfamiliar with the geography of Britain. But it’s not impossible, Charles Woodhouse and his son were both tailors, and it is entirely possible that they may have sought work in a larger town. Incidentally, I know he was a tailor because he was recorded as such on the ship’s register when they emigrated to the United States. Almost all of us here in the States have ancestors that came here from somewhere else, and if they came by ship, you may be able to find the ship’s register. This may not be the most obvious source of information such as occupation but, when you think about it, a journey by sea is was not a small undertaking, and knowing who on board is tailor or an ironsmith or a doctor could be very useful. As it happens, John Woodhouse records in his journal that he earned extra money by doing tailoring work for the officers, which is good because the journey cost him most of what he had.

This is all well and good, but how do you go about finding place names in the first place? Vital records such as birth and death certificates will often tell you where people lived when they were born and when they died. If you cannot find them (or if they aren’t available), you can often look at parish registries, particularly for baptism or christening dates and locations. How easily you can find records like this depends on when and where your ancestors lived. For example, vital records were maintained in New England back into colonial times, so if you have roots in New England, you are fortunate. In other states, the systematic maintenance of birth and death certificates didn’t come until later (the exact time varying from state to state). If your ancestors lived in another country, then parish records or other types of records may be available (and they may or may not be online). Another thing to keep in mind is that different religious groups have different traditions regarding maintaining records. One that may not be obvious is that Quaker meetings maintain minutes, often in considerable detail, and scanned images of these records are starting to become available online. I actually did not know I had Quaker ancestors until searches at Ancestry.com started to turn up Quaker meeting minutes, so don’t assume that you have no Quaker ancestors simply because you don’t know about it. Probably the religious group in America most famous for maintaining records is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormon church. If you haven’t looked at FamilySearch.org, you should It is the genealogy site created by the LDS (or Mormon) church, and you don’t need to belong to the church to get an account. If you have Mormon ancestors, you’ll definitely want to look at this resource, and if you don’t it’s still worth a look. That being said, I should note that documentation on this site is not always what it could be, and alternative data is not always recorded when it should be, so you’ll want to check your sources. This is really true of any source of compiled information.

Okay, that’s birth and death. What about the time in between? If your ancestors lived at a place and time where census records were maintained, you’re in luck. Census records will  tell you where your ancestors lived when the census was taken, typically every ten years. You may find that they stayed in the same place year after year, or that they moved more frequently. A word of warning, though: vital dates recorded in a census are often based on memory, perhaps well after the fact, so you should look for better information sources such as birth certificates, parish registries, family bibles for the same information. But if you want to know where your ancestors lived and when they moved from one place to another, census records can be very useful. Finally, there are deeds and land grants. Any time someone acquires land, whether through purchase, inheritance or other means such as land bounty, there will be a record. And because land is so valuable, these records tend to be very reliable and less error prone than, say census records.

The very least you need to know about sources and documentation

sample chart

When we think about genealogy we tend to think about the various types of charts and diagrams that are used to present results. What we tend not to think of, at least at first, are source citations, annotations, and supporting documents. This is natural enough. For one thing, we always start with a certain amount of information we just know, and which we want to record right away, without stopping to record references for every data item. Another reason is that it is just human nature to think in terms of the finished product, rather than the process we go through to arrive at our final product, be it a chart, a narrative or something else. And this is fine. I started out by recording what I already knew on a pedigree chart. Everybody does. But presentation is only part of the story: we want our genealogy to look good, but we also want it to be accurate and as complete as possible.

Notice that I’m not just talking about persuading your audience that your conclusions are correct. That’s important. Anyone could write down a few names and dates chosen at random (and that’s basically what I did to produce the above chart), but you want people to have confidence in your conclusions. You want to be systematic and precise, and not leave important information out through a simple oversight. Of course, your readers will appreciate your thoroughness, and they will be more likely (and able) to make use of your work if they have confidence in it. Even if your readers are not planning on doing any research of their own, they’ll still want to know if the information you present is accurate.

So, how do you get there? Genealogical research is very much like doing research for a term paper, and preparing charts and other diagrams is vey much like writing the paper. You no doubt remember being expected to document your sources in the form of footnotes or endnotes. Why do you do this (except, of course, for the obvious reason that your teacher requires it)? The obvious answer is that doing so, you provide support for your conclusions. Your paper becomes more persuasive. Certainly, this is what my teachers told me when I was in school, and it’s true, of course. But it’s only part of the story. You also want to have confidence in your conclusions independent of any consideration of how persuasive the paper you write may or may not be. You also want to be systematic in your research: you don’t to omit important aspects of the story. Conversely, you don’t want to get bogged down in details or lines of research that ultimately don’t really matter, or which detract from other aspects of your work. In short, you need a systematic way of keeping track of the main points of your presentation, how solid they are, what needs more work, and what you have pretty much nailed down. In the context of genealogy, this can mean not spending a lot of time compiling information about people who are not actually ancestors, but who have similar names and vital dates (such as birthdates) and were mistakenly included in one of your charts. To put it succinctly, proper documentation is not only important as a means of proving or demonstrating the correctness of your conclusions, it is equally important as a research tool. It helps you to guide and organize your research, even if relatively few people will actually want to check your sources.

In spite of the benefits of citing sources in genealogical research, many people do not include extensive documentation. Instead, explanatory footnotes will be included only for selected entries, or there will be no documentation at all. Why is this? Two obvious reasons for this are lack of tool support and lack of familiarity with the process of writing proper source citations. I find that having tools that help me to record, organize and manage information is indispensable. It’s not my goal here to advocate the use of any particular product, and I certainly don’t mean to imply that there is only one software tool that should be the one that everyone uses. But whether you use a specialized tool such as Family Tree Maker, general purpose tools such as spreadsheets and word processors, or paper and a physical filing system, you still need to keep track of your sources and document your charts by citing sources as appropriate. You can start out with a paper record, but the further you go, the more you will benefit from using a specialized tool. Fortunately, there are a number of genealogy tools available, and web sites such as Ancestry.com provide much of the same functionality. But to be blunt about it, even though you can do everything with paper an pencil if you want to, automated tools will make life much easier for you, and decrease the likelihood that you’ll leave out crucial documentation for lack of time. I strongly recommend using a specialized tool or web site (or both).

That takes us to the matter of mechanics. The basic data of genealogy are people, attributes or “facts” (which I place in quotes because the information we record may be incorrect or incomplete, or simply not proven), and relationships such as parent-child relationships, marriage, and so forth. As a matter of terminology, things  like birth, death, marriage, residence, national identifier and the like are called facts or events. We tend to say that things like birth, christening, immigration, marriage and the like are events. An identifier such as a social security number or a national identification number is a fact. But in genealogy, facts and events are generally treated together and are essentially the same sort of thing. It is facts and events that we document. This is crucial. One might think that relationships such as “A is married to B” or “A is the son of B and C” would be documented directly, but instead we document the marriage of A and B, or the birth of A to B and C. Now, events usually have attributes, usually a date and a location, and sometimes others, but it is the events that we document. This is really a design decision. Tools and standards (such as GEDCOM) could have been designed to document relationships (or even people) directly, but if you think about it, documenting events makes sense, and you’ll want to follow this approach.

Okay, so how do you document an event? By referring to a source. What is a source? It can be something concrete like a birth or death certificate, a parish registry, a book, or something a little more abstract like the 1860 census of the United States. A source can also be an index such as a listing of the people buried in a cemetery. What a source is typically not is a page in a book, a particular roll of microfilm, or a record in an online database (such as findagrave.com). As a rule of thumb, if it’s part that can be separately indexed, it’s not an independent source. You should try to include one or more source citations for each fact in your database. A source citation refers to a source (of course), but includes additional indexical information such as page numbers or record numbers where this makes sense. In Family Tree Maker and at Ancestry.com, this is called the citation detail. In addition, you can add citation text, which is generally freer in form, and generally includes a transcription of the cited text or other details. If you are using one of these tools, two additional details you can add are a URL for an online resource and a multimedia item such a scanned document.

leaf exampleFinally, I should say a bit about Ancestry.com and the hint (or leaf) mechanism it uses to help you discover (and sometimes document) information. If you use Family Tree Maker (in this case, Family Tree Maker 3 for the Macintosh) and it is linked to Ancestry. You my see a leaf like this. If you click on the leaf, you will be given the opportunity to review information and decide if you want to add it to your tree. If you use the web site instead, you will see the same leaf icon, but the interface is a little different. If you use this mechanism, Ancestry will add source citations for you, citing the resources it matched against your family tree. At this time, they can be any of a number of things, including census records, indexed birth and death certificates, immigration records, land grants and other types of records. This doesn’t mean you don’t want to review the source citations, and you don’t want to limit yourself to using this search tool. Add your own sources and source citations as appropriate. And if you use public member trees in Ancestry as sources, be sure to click on the tree names and review their sources. Member trees can be a great search tool, but they are not what you want to use as information sources in your final product. Different genealogists will tell you different things here, but my position is that it’s fine to use member trees as a tool as long as you’re careful to document your sources and you don’t treat them as the last word.

Can it really be that easy?

If you’re like me, you have watched commercials for Ancestry.com with considerable skepticism. After all, genealogy is supposed to be hard work, involving countless hours digging through library stacks and perusing microfilms. On television, on the other hand, we see people entering only as small amount of information and then seeing a leaf appear indicating that a clue to further information is available. Can it really be that easy? I thought the obvious answer was that it wasn’t, it couldn’t be. So, for the longest time, I just ignored these commercials and didn’t even consider trying it. Well, of course, family history research is not easy, it can be hard work, it can be frustrating. But I eventually decided to try it out and was surprised at how fast I was provided with information about my ancestors. Now, it really isn’t my intention to make this into a testimonial, but suffice it to say that I now use Family Tree Maker and Ancestry.com as one of primary research tools. Now, to be fair, I’m part of a Mormon family that goes back to pioneer days, and have many ancestors from Colonial America (one sort of implies the other), so there are a lot of people who have been looking into my ancestors’ family lines for years. So, it might be argued that I’m not a very good test case, of course the information will be out there for the taking, and of course a family tree on Ancestry.com will only grow, and grow quickly.

But is that really right? First of all, we should note that data in the form of pedigree charts, family records and published genealogies are out there, but how much information does that raw data really provide us with? Data can be thought of as a collection of statements, the source and reliability of which may or may not be known. Of course, data comes from somewhere and designers of repositories of data known as databases are usually careful to record the source of the recorded data, and this information (known to database professionals as metadata) can be very valuable to us as we analyze the data and try to  glean useful information from it. Okay, that’s a lot of terminology. Let’s break it down. First off, data is pretty much anything that can be written down. It can be unstructured (like a journal) or structured (like a list of names and birth dates in a parish registry). What we know about information is called metadata (or “data about data”). Before I go on, I should make it clear that this terminology is taken from information science, not genealogy. So, if you get funny looks from other researchers if you ask about metadata, you’ll know why. That’s actually not quite the whole story: metadata is generally systematic recording such things as authorship, language, time recorded and so forth. One thing that metadata is not, though, is evaluation or even interpretation. A document may list  3 Jan 1840 as the birthdate of Mary Williams, but how confident are we? This is a bit of a digression, but if the information source is a birth certificate, we can be fairly confident, but if it’s a death certificate, it has to come from some other source. The type of document from which we get our data is yet another issue to consider when interpreting that data. As an aside, I’ll note that it’s not uncommon to see the date of birth and christening date for a person to be listed as the very same day? How likely is that? It is certainly possible, but is certainly not expected. If the date doesn’t come from a primary source it is possible that, somewhere along the way, someone needed a birthdate but the only information they had was the date of christening. We also need to consider the cultural context. Was the christening considered the more important event? Was it more important to record that information correctly or the date of birth? The point is that there is a necessary analysis phase that may be described as trying to ascertain what the available data is telling us. At this point, the question isn’t whether it’s true or false, but simply what it means. When we have performed this task, the analyzed data becomes information.

But to return to the topic of online genealogical research, we’re likely to find ourselves confronted with a wealth of often conflicting information (at this point, I’ll stop being pedantic about the distinction between the two). My genealogical database is full of alternative dates and places for what should be a single event, and I imagine yours is, too. Of course, we work hard to resolve these discrepancies, but that’s not always easy. This is why a technology can seem to give us a lot of answers very quickly, but then we find out that we’re not as sure of the information in our charts (or electronic databases). Does that mean that online search tools and social media just give us a false sense of knowledge, leading us to believe things that have yet to be proven? It would be easy for a cynic to take this position, but I think it is a mistake. The Internet is a powerful tool, and can be extremely helpful to us as we dig into our family history. It’s not a panacea, though, and we have to be critical of the information we’re able to find using search tools. We just need to do the work of evaluating, cross-referencing and verifying that information. This isn’t really so different from genealogy in the pre-Internet days. The difference is that instead of getting our raw data from microfilm or microfiche, we are likely to get it from a web-based tool. The amount of time we spend performing these various tasks may change, but the tasks themselves do not. Modern technology really can help us to find information more quickly, but we do need to be careful and methodical in our analysis if we want to avoid mistakes.

Haun’s mill and bottom-up research

Back in 1838, a contingent of Missouri militia members attacked a mill belonging to Jacob Haun that was serving as a settlement for some forty Mormon families. This incident, which occurred during a time of truce, has come to be known as the Haun’s mill massacre. Of course, I grew up learning about this event in Sunday School and other church settings. It is, after all, one of the iconic events of the Missouri period of Mormon history, and one in which the Mormons suffered violence at the hands of others. It was also included in the film Legacy. What I didn’t know is that I had any connection to Haun’s mill.

IMG_0730.PNG

Until now, anyway. Last time, I posted a biographical sketch of Ira M Judd, written by his daughter Sarah. Ira is my second great grandfather and his wife Hannah Louise Lewis. It’s his first wife, Nancy Ann Norton, that actually has family that goes back to Haun’s mill. In case you’re wondering, yes, Hannah was a plural (or polygamous) wife. It’s one of those things that makes Mormon genealogy, well, interesting (and confusing!). To me, the most interesting thing about family history, the term I prefer to genealogy in most cases, is that it’s a sort of a bottom up approach to history. We start out with what we know best, our immediate families, and work outward from there. This is, in some sense the opposite of traditional historiography in which we start out with big narratives, and then examine them in ever greater detail, trying to reconstruct a coherent narrative and, maybe more to the point, try to learn why things happened the way they did.

In my case, I started looking at what I knew about Ira M Judd, trying to find more information, if I could. I really had no thought of looking at Nancy at the time, but added historical records as I found them. Once I learned that her father was John Wesley Norton (a name that meant nothing to me) and then that her mother was Rebecca Hammer, the historical records would come quickly, usually a good indication that something interesting is coming. And, indeed, her father, Austin Hammer, was one of those that died at Haun’s mill. In this case, what I stumbled across in this way was a well-known and well-documented historical event, so I didn’t really learn anything about history writ large. At least not this time. Family records could just as easily have led to something new, or to a new perspective on something that’s already known. Then again, family history need not be anything more than learning more about our ancestors and their lives. That’s my goal.