Fitting Pieces Together
Many Sources Find Parents
F. WARREN BITTNER, CGSM
info.ancestorsfound@gmail.com
http://vigrgenealogy.com/schedule
© 2016 F. Warren Bittner
Class outline:
I.
The goal of family history is to establish identity and prove relationships. If this goal
is not met, all other family history goals and activities are a waste.
II.
The Genealogical Proof Standard:
A. Relatively exhaustive research.
B. Complete citations for each source.
C. Analyze and compare the data.
D. Resolve conflicting evidence.
E. Write a conclusion based on the evidence.
III. Evidence-Evaluation Standards:*
A. Evidence must be analyzed and compared:
1. Analyzed: scrutinized for details, meaning, nature, context, and impact on the
research project.
2. Correlated: compared with other evidence to find connections and
contradictions.
B. Sources are classified as either:
1. Original: Material in its first recorded form or first recorded utterance. In
general, photocopies, microfilm, digitized images, etc., are considered
original sources if they preserve the integrity of the original.
2. Derivative: Material that has been copied, transcribed, abstracted, repeated,
retold, reproduced with alterations, or summarized.
3. Authored Narratives: hybrid works. Authors of historical narratives will
study many sources and synthesize findings. From that study, they reach
conclusions and then develop a totally new piece of writing.
C. Information is analyzed to determine if it is:
*
Definitions paraphrased from, 1. The Board for Certification of Genealogists, The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual
(Washington, D.C.: Board for Certification of Genealogists, 2000), and 2. Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History
Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace, second edition (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2009). Some of the material is
quoted directly from, 3. Elizabeth Shown Mills, “QuickLesson 17: The Evidence Analysis Process Map” in Evidence Explained:
Historical Analysis, Citation & Source Usage (https://www.evidenceexplained.com, accessed 1 July 2015).
1
1. Primary: information based on firsthand knowledge.
2. Secondary: Secondhand knowledge. “Passing on what others say.”
3. Unknown: Source of the knowledge is not known. Most census records fall
in this category.
D. Evidence: is our interpretation of information to answer the research question. It
is either:
1. Direct evidence: enough to answer the research question by itself.
2. Indirect evidence: combined information from two or more sources to
answer the research question.
3. Negative evidence: a source that has no information about the person can be
used as evidence the person was not in the place at the time.
3 x 3 Evidence Evaluation Standards
Sources
Information
Evidence
Original
Primary
Direct
Derivation
Secondary
Indirect
Authored
Unknown
Negative
IV. Case study.
A. Family records
B. Marriage records
C. City directories
D. Maps
E. Census records
F. Church records
G. Naturalization records
H. Death records
I. Cemetery records
V. Direct Evidence.
A. Multiple pieces of direct evidence in agreement can support a conclusion.
B. However, two pieces of direct evidence are often in conflict, with major or minor
differences. The Genealogical Proof Standard requires resolution of these.
C. Speaking from personal experience, direct evidence frequently tempts me to be a
lazy researcher. For example, I will find a marriage record with the name of the
2
bride and her father. Then I will find a baptism in the right time period with the
right name for the girl and her father. Bingo! I have direct evidence of marriage
and birth and assume I have proven the line and can jump back to the next
generation. I then fail to read all the baptisms and miss the fact that two other
girls in the village have the same name and father, but different mothers and
clearly involve three men of the same name. Or I will not search the death
records completely, where I would find the girl in the baptism died at age six
months.
D. Again, speaking from personal experience, I find direct evidence is rarely enough
to establish identity or prove relationships. This is because people live complex
lives, associate with multiple people, move between towns, immigrate, marry,
have children, die, leave estates, etc. Establishing proof that a series of events
involves the same person among the same group of people requires comparison
of multiple pieces of evidence. Direct evidence does not compare data or
establish identity.
VI. Indirect Evidence.
A. Establishing identity requires comparing multiple pieces of evidence.
B. Often the different pieces of evidence come from multiple sources.
C. Sometimes only one source survives, such as early tax books, or church books,
etc. Indirect evidence of identity can be taken from multiple entries from one
record, such as an early church book that shows the marriage of a couple,
followed by the birth of a set of children in a logical sequence, or the appearance
of a man over a series of years in tax records.
VII. Complex Evidence.
A. Complex Evidence is established by multiple strands of indirect evidence
combined to establish identity and prove relationships. Complex Evidence is
often compared to the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, all joined together to create the
image of a family.
B. It will accentuate similarities or differences in pieces of evidence.
C. It is always the best way to establish identity and prove relationships.
D. It has proven effective to establish identity in any period of time, in any records,
in any county, among any people.
E. It in NOT a complete list of sources, although that is part of it.
F. It is NOT limited to birth, death, and marriage entries for one person.
G. It is NOT a long list of life events or a thorough research log, void of comparison
between records.
3
H. It MUST include the analysis of evidence, and comparison between pieces of
evidence, noting the similarity and differences, and the resolution of conflicts.
I. This analysis and comparison of sources can only be passed to future
generations in writing.
J. Complex Evidence without a written proof summary does NOT establish
relationships or prove identity. The written summary of evidence is essential for
proof of relationships.
VIII. False Research Imperatives.
Computer databases and genealogical software create false research imperatives. An
imperative is a command, something that must happen. A false research imperative is
the creation of the impression that certain things must or must not happen for
successful research. The false imperatives genealogical software and databases create
include impressions that:
A. For successful research you must find birth, death, and marriage dates and that is
all you will ever need.
B. Proof of these events must come from direct evidence.
C. Any other information you find is unnecessary fluff.
D. Evidence does not need to be analyzed or compared.
E. A source citation is all the analysis that is needed.
F. No written summary of the intellectual process or analysis is needed.
IX. Methodology:
A. False Methodology: I must prove that Minnie was the daughter of Frederick and
Dora!
B. Correct Methodology: Who was Minnie’s parental family?
C. Correct Research Methodology = the Genealogical Proof Standard. If any
element in the standard is left out, identity has not been established and
relationships have not been proven.
D. Register or Modified Register Style family data, research reports, or written
proof argument are conducive to analyzing evidence and comparing records
essential to proving relationships. Computer databases, pedigree charts, or
family group sheets are not. These formats provides opportunity for a much
more complete treatment of a life than is possible on a family group sheet,
pedigree chart, or in most computer databases. This is true even for software
that allows a long list of events.
E. “Putting your family into register style is part of the research process.”
4
PUBLISHED EXAMPLES AND DISCUSSIONS OF
COMPLEX EVIDENCE AND EVIDENCE ANALYSIS
The articles below demonstrate how the best genealogists think, and how they use thorough
research and evidence analysis to solve difficult problems. The best way to learn to think
like an expert genealogist is to read the National Genealogical Society Quarterly. If you do
not read the Quarterly, you are still a beginning genealogist.
1. Caleb Johnson. “New Light on William1 Bradford’s Passenger List of the
Mayflower.” The American Genealogist 80 (April 2005): 94–99. In this short
article, the author revolutionizes our understanding of what is easily the most
scrutinized passenger list since the ark. He applies modern genealogical evidence
evaluation methods and disproves some accepted origins for Mayflower passengers,
and he suggests new avenues of research for others. This is a great case for the
argument, “It doesn’t matter how closely the document has been studied before,
there is more to see if we study it in depth and look beneath the surface.”
2. Linda Bennett Johnson. “Name Changes Within the Melting Pot: The Search for
‘Frances Vera Gilmore’ of Detroit.” National Genealogical Society Quarterly
85 (June 1997): 85–93. A short example of indirect evidence used to solve a
difficult research problem.
3. Thomas W. Jones. “The Children of Calvin Snell: Primary versus Secondary
Evidence.” National Genealogical Society Quarterly 83 (March 1995): 17–31.
One of the classic cases of using indirect evidence to disprove direct evidence. A
must read for an aspiring genealogist.
4. Thomas W. Jones. “The Genealogical Proof Standard: How Simple Can It Be?”
On Board: Newsletter of the Board for Certification of Genealogists 16
(September 2010): 17–20. An informative example of a simple application of the
Genealogical Proof Standard. Mr. Jones demonstrated that the Proof Standard is not
only for difficult problems that require “gargantuan investments” in research and
time, but it also applies to easy research with direct evidence.
5. Thomas W. Jones. “Perils of Source Snobbery.” On Board: Newsletter of the
Board for Certification of Genealogists 18 (May 2012): 10–15. The author argues
against the idea that some genealogical sources are“always right” and others
“worthless.” Some source types have higher error rates than others, but no type is
error-free or without value.
5
6. Elizabeth Shown Mills. “Building a Case When No Record ‘Proves a Point.’”
Ancestry 16 (April-May 1998): 26-31. An easy-to-follow summary of how to build
and case of indirect evidence.
7. Elizabeth Shown Mills. “The Search for Margaret Ball: Building Steps over a
Brick-Wall Research Problem.” National Genealogical Society Quarterly 77
(March 1989): 43–65. This article is a good example of solving a difficult problem
by use of thorough research and creative analysis of indirect evidence. The origins
of a woman who had seemed untraceable are clearly proven with indirect evidence.
8. David S. Ouimette.“Proving the Parentage of John Bettis: Immigrant Ancestor of
Bettis Families in Vermont.” National Genealogical Society Quarterly 98
(September 2010): 189–210. In this award-winning article, David Ouimette
demonstrates how thorough research and indirect evidence can be used to
establishes identity, and why the written proof for the reasoning behind the evidence
is essential.
9. Warren C. Pratt. “Finding the Father of Henry Pratt of Southeastern Kentucky.”
National Genealogical Society Quarterly 100 (June 2012): 85–103. An excellent
example of in-depth research and skillful analysis to solve a very challenging
research problem.
10. Judy G. Russell.“‘Don’t Stop There!’ Connecting Josias Baker to His Burke
County, North Carolina, Parents.” National Genealogical Society Quarterly 99
(March 2011): 25–41. A great example of a the very long and convoluted path that
is sometimes required to establish identity; and also, again, why it is essential to
write down our evidence analysis and reasoning.
11. William B. Saxbe “Thomas2 Walling and His Way with Women” SeventeenthCentury Misconduct as an Aid to Identification.” The American Genealogist 73
(April 1998): 91–100. The author demonstrates the creative use of in-depth
evidence analysis to solve an identity problem. A great example of why writing
down our conclusions is as important as citing our sources, and that the evidence to
prove identity is often not “genealogical” in nature.
12. Debbie Parker Wayne. “Analysis and Correlation of Evidence.” On Board:
Newsletter of the Board for Certification of Genealogists 17 (January 2011):
10–15. “Do we really need to do more research and analysis once we have an
official record or information from a firsthand source that directly states a
relationship? Yes. We all have examples of records that contain erroneous
information.”
6