Sources, Information, Evidence

As I’ve previously mentioned, I’m spending a lot of time on WikiTree building out my family tree and interrelated branches.

I try to keep up with the conversations taking place in the main chat threads, called G2G (genealogist to genealogist), so that I can broaden my understanding of the work taking place within the WikiTree system.

Some of the chats contain a rather disturbing term: “primary source,” an incredibly nonspecific term which relies heavily (and for genealogists, dangerously) on published historical scholarship.

Decades ago, when genealogy as a scholarly pursuit was in its infancy, scholarly or academic genealogists borrowed terms from the law and the study of history, like primary source, to help them discuss the records they found, to analyze them, and to apply the information gleaned from such records and analysis to the body of evidence they then gathered into formal and informal proof arguments.

Those borrowed terms proved inadequate, however, and genealogists eventually derived their own terms, which were then codified in 2013 in Mastering Genealogical Proof, written by Thomas W. Jones and published by the National Genealogical Society.

Jones and others, such as master genealogist Elizabeth Shown Mills, eventually settled on three categories (sources, information, and evidence) and then further divided those categories into useful subdivisions.

Sources are either authored works or records. Records can be further subdivided into original records and derivative records.

Information is either primary, secondary (second-hand), or indeterminate (meaning, the informant for the record cannot be determined; their depth of knowledge of the information shared is unknown).

Evidence comes in three flavors: direct, indirect, and negative. Tax records may not include the object of a search (negative evidence), which can indicate immigration, death, or “aging out” of whatever laws were used to compile those records; but the inclusion of other family members may be used as direct or indirect evidence of the family’s presence, or whatever question it is that we’re trying to answer with our use of those records.

This isn’t a complicated system, but it does break each category down so that genealogists can more easily analyze records and assemble proof of ancestral and other connections. As I stated previously, these distinctions “are important for the same reason that it’s important to separate the form of a source from the information that source contains: because doing so helps us better understand the quality of both the source itself and the information derived from it, which in turn leads to better evidence (of all kinds) and, ultimately, to better proof.”

Our goal should always be to strive for the best proof argument possible, assembled through thorough research and sound analysis.

I encourage every serious genealogist, of whatever skill level, to understand the terminologies used by advanced and professional genealogists. “Primary source” has no meaning to serious genealogists, and its continued use introduces confusion to an otherwise simple system.

William Carpenter’s Date of Death

I’ve previously written about William Carpenter’s date of death:

“William Carpenter wrote his will on 7 January 1836, naming his wife, Peggy, and children David, Bolivar, Humphrey, Henry, Benjamin, Jackson, Caroline, Aveline, Amy [Ann], Sally, and Matilda. He did not name, as some did, any child with which his wife might then be pregnant. William died before 15 June 1838 when the executor of his estate, Jacob Palmer, ‘returned into [Macon Co., NC] Court, the settlement between himself as Executor, and Lewis Vandyke, Alexander Palmer & John Howard, the Committe appointed by [the] court on behalf of the Estate.’ There is a gap in the court records from 16 February 1836 to 11 June 1838, right during the time when William died and court records might help narrow the date of his death.”

That quote came from a post in which I speculated on the parentage of Margaret Carpenter, b. ca 1840 in Macon Co., NC.

The reason his date of death is so important is because it pins down both the advent of his wife Margaret’s widowhood, when her legal status changed and allowed her fuller (legal) control of her own life, and the possibility of his fathering Margaret’s youngest child (or, in other words, determining the parentage of the younger Margaret Carpenter).

I’ve been working on my ancestors in WikiTree over the past few months. Last night, I wrote two sections in the biography of Margaret (McConnell) Carpenter, William’s wife, one about her widowhood, one trying to connect her definitively as the mother of the younger Margaret Carpenter.

This morning I woke up to the realization that I had missed an important clue in another record that might narrow William’s date of death further: a deed dated 27 February 1837 concerning the disposition of land owned by Margaret’s father, William McConnell.

The deed was signed by each of William’s living children, but it was also signed by the surviving spouses of those children.

Guess who was not a signatory to that deed?

That’s right. Margaret’s husband, William Carpenter.

Now, it’s perfectly possible that William was too sick to make the journey from the Tessentee area of Macon County (east of Otto on the south end of the county) to Franklin, the official county seat, a journey which would likely have taken several days in the best of conditions.

But it’s more probable that he had died by that time.

Shaving roughly a year and a half off his date of death may seem inconsequential, but it does more fully eliminate the likelihood that he fathered his wife’s youngest child prior to his death.

What does “research” mean?

My son and I were walking through the Head of Tennessee Baptist Church cemetery (located in Dillard, GA) yesterday when we walked by the burial spot of Benjamin F. Grist, who died in 1869. I tried to explain to Caleb how we’re related to the local Grist family and wound up thinking about a brick wall ancestor, Catherine (–?–) (Darnell) Grist.

I know very little about Catherine:

1. She was born about 1785.
2. She had one child (that we know of) named Harrison Darnell in 1815 in Wilkes Co., NC. (Harrison married Nicey Grist, possibly the daughter of Benjamin F. and Anna Cathcart Grist.)
3. From Wilkes County, she moved to Spartanburg Dist., SC, before settling in Pickens Dist., SC.
4. She married on 2 April 1834 in Pickens District, SC, to Benjamin Grist (1759-1836), a Revolutionay War soldier (and possibly the father of the previously named Benjamin F. Grist) by William Moten at the home of William D. Teague’s father.
5. She was probably the elderly white female who was enumerated in the 1840 Federal census in Pickens District in the household of Harrison Darnell.
6. She was enumerated in the 1850 Federal census of Rabun Co., GA.
7. She was a member of the Head of Tennessee Baptist Church, Dillard, GA.
8. She died in autumn of 1855 in Rabun County and was likely (possibly?) buried in the Head of Tennessee Baptist Church’s cemetery in one of the now-unmarked graves. (Source: Head of Tennessee Baptist Church Minutes, 1847-1873, p. 2, line 40; Georgia Archives, Morrow.)

I thought about posting a research query on a local genealogy Facebook page, to see if anyone had connected Catherine with her natal family, and immediately dismissed the idea. It’s not that there aren’t local researchers whose research I trust; there are. It’s that I’m looking for a specific type of research and analysis. Uncovering Catherine’s identity may involve both a deep dive into the records and untangling a mess of conflicting “research” posted by other descendants on, for example, Ancestry.

Some People Just Don’t Get It

Note: This post was written in February 2012. Michael is no longer updating his blog; however, the problems described have unfortunately lingered.

I’ve been reading Michael Hait’s blog Planting the Seeds for a while now. One thing I really admire about Michael is his dedication to encouraging genealogists, down to the last one, to conduct research according to accepted standards. I’ll give him this: He’s persistent, even in the face of mule-headed ignorance.

One of Michael’s soapbox issues, for instance, is source citation. We should all cite our sources (he maintains) even in personal blogs that have no readership outside of family members. I absolutely agree. Perhaps if a few more people had cited their sources or even written them down, I wouldn’t have received so many of my own research conclusions sent back to me verbatim as someone else’s…all in the name of “helping,” of course.

The Clayton Tribune, 1902

The Clayton Tribune, 1902 is now available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble, or through Ingram for libraries and bookstores. The latter may also order directly from me by writing to info@bonediggerspress.com.

Those living in the Rabun County, Georgia, area can pick up a copy locally and save shipping and handling charges plus a few dollars off the retail price. To order locally, write to info@bonediggerspress.com.

This volume includes local and regional items abstracted from the thirty-plus extant issues of The Clayton Tribune (the paper of record for Rabun County) for 1902, including community columns, legal notices, school news, and much, much more. Like its earlier companion volume, Rabun County, Georgia, Newspapers, 1894 – 1899, this one includes a master index of every-name and -place, as well as select subjects such as agriculture, beverages (moonshine), and so on.

Individuals wishing to order directly from me should follow the directions laid out here.

Ordering Books and Contact Information

To order books, please see the “Publications” page and follow the directions there.

Check that you’re sending questions to the correct email address (info@bonediggerspress.com).

Finally, I try to reply to all emails within two business days. If you don’t hear back from me within that time frame, be sure to check your spam folder for my reply.

If possible, whitelist my email address so that my response gets through to your inbox.

Paperback Edition: Rabun County, Georgia, Newspapers, 1894 – 1899

The paperback edition of Rabun County, Georgia, Newspapers, 1894 – 1899 is now available at Amazon and other online retailers. No extensive changes were made to the content for this edition, other than updating some language in the front matter and preface.

This paperback is $22.50 at Amazon. It’s available through Ingram to libraries and bookstores for $25.00.

Some hardbound editions are left. The price for those is $30.00 plus shipping and handling. See this page for ordering information, or contact me directly at info@bonediggerspress.com.

I’m excited to get the paperback edition out to you and hope local and regional researchers have found it useful.

Updates

My email and physical addresses have changed. Please note these changes on the appropriate pages.

Currently, I’m working on three things:

1. Converting the hardbound edition of Rabun County, Georgia, Newspapers 1894 – 1899 to a paperback edition. Only a few copies of this edition remain, so it’s time to make it available in other formats. The paperback edition may be available as early as July.
2. Compiling the next newspaper book for Rabun County, which will cover all extant issues of The Clayton Tribune for 1902. I hope to publish this in July or August, depending on how long it takes to finish abstracting each remaining issue.
3. Translating a tragic incident from my father’s childhood into fiction. No estimates on the length of time this will take to finish and publish. It’s a project I’ve been working on for a while now, but since this year marks my father’s 78th birthday, perhaps it’s time to start writing so that he can add his comments to the first draft.

A few years ago, I had every intention of blogging here again. My career as a fiction writer consumes entirely too much of my time at the moment, not to mention the time needed to pack and move four houses in the past two years. I miss blogging and interacting with other family historians, so hopefully this will change soon.

In the meantime, keep an eye out for publication notices of the above titles.

Ordering Slave Importation Affidavit Registers

I am no longer stocking the title Slave Importation Affidavit Registers for Nine Georgia Counties, 1818 – 1847. It’s still available for purchase through CreateSpace, Amazon, and Barnes & Noble. Please order copies through one of those sites. Thank you!

A Sunday Walk around the Blogs

Judy G. Russell puts a fine point on copyright with Courtesy, ethics and law.

On Rootsmithing: Genealogy, Methodology, and Technology, Drew Smith discusses the fact that expertise is neither dead nor sequestered. The short of his argument is that copyright does not keep anyone from using published research and genealogy experts are not to blame because newcomers to the field can’t be bothered to use offline resources, including libraries.

Along similar lines, Michael John Neill, on RootDig, discusses the twin myths of the Genealogy Elite and the Genealogy Police.

The American Historical Society recently published a blog post, Big Changes in Store for the Future Management of Government Records discussing the impact of President Obama’s recent memorandum on managing government records.

I discovered an interesting new blog this weekend written by Kari Roueche, who recently graduated from East Tennessee State University with a Master degree in Liberal Studies/Archival Studies. The blog is called Archiventures and explores various aspects of history in the eastern Tennessee area.