BCG Skillbuilding Lecture:
Making Your Case Using The Genealogical Proof Standard
John
W. Konvalinka, CGSM, CGLSM 24 Gordon Way,
Princeton NJ 08540 ©2006. All rights reserved.
email:
john@konvalinka.com website: www.konvalinka.com
Updated 4 June
2006
Background:
:
·
“Genealogical
Proof Standard” (“GPS”) adopted ~1997 with leadership from the Board for
Certification of Genealogists.
·
Replaced
“Preponderance of Evidence” (“POE”) principle – to avoid confusion with legal
field
o (“POE” in legal field
supports conclusion if weight of evidence is 50% or greater)
o Genealogists insist on a
higher ratio:
§
All
evidence must point in same direction;
§
anything
contrary must be resolved
·
Elements
for weighing evidence:
o Traditional:
§
Direct
vs. Indirect
§
Primary
vs. Secondary
o Added with GPS:
§
Original
vs. Derivative
(All of these terms will be defined later
in this handout. They may seem “black
and white” but in reality THERE ARE MANY SHADES OF GRAY!)
The
Genealogical Proof Standard contains five elements:
1.
A
reasonably exhaustive search
2.
Complete
and accurate source citations
3.
Analysis
and correlation of collected information
4.
Resolution
of any conflicting evidence
5.
A
soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion
The
Genealogical Proof Standard is now the accepted standard. It is particularly useful when there is no
direct evidence to prove a conclusion, or when there is a conflict in the
evidence.
Working
With The Genealogical Proof Standard:
Source: The
National Genealogical Society Quarterly, Volume 87, No. 3, September 1999
Definitions:
Sources: A “source” (record) may be either
an ORIGINAL or a DERIVATIVE source:
Per BCG Standards Manual – Standard #21 (pg 8-9):
Original
Source: the person or record whose information did not come from data
already spoken or written. The original
is the most authoritative source. Often,
however, it no longer survives…[and may] be examined only as an image copy (microfilm,
digitized image)
Example: an original will, census entry, or birth/marriage/death
record.
Derivative
Source: a person or record that supplies information
that is repeated, reproduced, transcribed, abstracted or summarized from
something already spoken or written.[1] Because every repetition or recopying of data
is an opportunity for error, the closer the derivative is to the original the
more reliable the data are likely to be.
Example: a transcribed/copied will, census
entry (including SOUNDEX) or BMD record – even a “certified copy”.
(Even an Original Source
– and certainly a Derivative Source
– may contain errors. The person providing the information or making the
record/copy may have erred – unintentionally or intentionally.)
For
a discussion of “clerk’s copy” and other types of “official” sources see: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/APG/2006-04
Information: may be either PRIMARY or
SECONDARY:
Per BCG Standards Manual – Standard #22 (pg 9):
Primary
Information: data contributed by a knowledgeable
eyewitness to or participant in the event that is the subject of the
record. (This provides no guarantee
the information is correct! The
participant/eyewitness may not have a direct recollection of the event [do you
remember the day you were born?]; s/he could be mistaken, or deliberately
providing false information.)
An original
will, census entry, or birth/marriage/death record is Primary Information
as well as an Original
Source.
Useful characteristics to remember: [2]
N earness in time?
E ye witness
account? (and was the witness credible? lucid? unbiased? involved?)
O riginal document or legible photocopy or microfilmed copy?
N on-falisfication by informant?
Secondary Information: data supplied by a person who recorded it
after hearing of the event or its details from someone else. Another useful acronym:
S ources?
Disagreement/inconsistency among sources?
T ime lapse from original – number of times passed on by
others?
A ccuracy / ethic
interest? Bias? Reputation of secondary informant?
R eason for creation?
(The death information on a death certificate is
[probably] primary, but the birth information/data about ancestors is
[probably] secondary.)
Evidence: Information (documents, records, testimony) we use
to reach conclusions about (i.e. to prove or disprove) genealogical
relationships or events. Per BCG
Standards Manual – Preface to Standards
#19-21 (pg 8): “Evidence is the
information that we conclude – after careful evaluation – supports or
contradicts the statement we would like to make, or are about to make, about an
ancestor” [or any other subject of our research.]
Evidence
may be DIRECT – in that it provides an answer to a problem of date, place,
relationship (a town birth register that shows:
Mary Smith was born 2 July 1800 to John and Martha Smith), or INDIRECT – not “circumstantial” – in that it does not directly provide an
answer, but suggests that one can be found (the same register that shows only
that an unnamed female was born 2 July 1800 to John and Martha Smith).
INDIRECT
evidence requires information from other sources to establish the name of the
individual.
Proof: A conclusion reached that meets the Genealogical
Proof Standard; more than just a “strong indication”. “Proof” and “Process” are inseparable!
“Proof
exists, not in a document, but in the mind of the reader when he or she accepts
the evidence and conclusion as worthy of belief.” (Donn Devine article.)
Non-Definitions:
Terms to Avoid:
“Source Document”: This is an inaccurate/incomplete description. A document may be an Original Source,
a Derivative Source, or a combination of both. It may contain Primary Information, Secondary Information, or both.
“Primary Source”, “Secondary Source”: Sources are
characterized as either " Original Source" or "
Derivative Source", and the terms "Primary Information" and "Secondary Information" are
reserved for describing the individual items of
information found in the sources.
“Circumstantial Evidence”: Evidence is information, which may be
"Primary" or
"Secondary", or “Direct” vs. “Indirect”. Circumstantial, if anything refers to the
“Proof” – that is, how the conclusion,
or proof statement, was arrived at.
“This Proves…” My personal preference: “This establishes…”
(or “This tends to establish…”)
Examples
of Problems with Various Record Types: :
Census
Records:
·
Did
the census taker physically visit the household, meet the people?
·
Did
the people provide correct information (ages, marital status)?
·
Is
the census image we are examining made from the original sheet prepared by the
census taker (vs. a second copy made for county or local use)? Was it prepared directly from the interviews,
or afterwards from the census taker’s “field” notes?
Birth,
Marriage, Death Records:
·
Did
the attending physician, officiating minister record the dates correctly?
·
Was
the record made relatively close to the time of the event?
Bible
Records:
In
evaluating bible records look for things like differences in handwritings (all
entries in the same hand suggests that some of the entries were not
contemporaneous) and check the publication date of the bible vs. the dates of
early entries (entries with dates earlier than the publication date of the bible
are definitely not contemporaneous – at best they were transcribed from an
earlier bible.)
Richard
A. Pence, Fairfax, VA: “One has to
remember that whenever you are dealing with Bible entries, you are always
looking at the ‘best foot forward.’
Marriages dates that are entered to cover ‘premature’ births are not
rare at all. When the person entering
the record or providing the information for the record has a vested interest in
what the record says - watch out.”
Copies, Images
(not necessarily
as good as the original):
·
The
mechanical copy could be missing words (or more) from the original;
·
It
could be less readable than the original, perhaps because of poor copying
techniques or equipment – anything in a color different from the rest of the
record would not be shown as such;
·
Subtle
corrections or changes on the original might not be visible on the copy; ditto for embossed information on the
original
·
The
original could have changed since the mechanical copy was made (information
added or deleted; The INS wrote
naturalization identification numbers on census records - sometimes after
filming). See http://www.archives.gov/genealogy/census/1850-1930.html
for some other examples of changes and additional markings on census records.
One example of this is the Sanborn fire maps. They were updated by using “post-it” type
stickers to show changes in buildings on the map. Looking at a microfilm one would never be
aware that there was a “post-it” there – or be able to see what was underneath
it.
And, of course
photocopies and digital images can be altered or even created from scratch to
appear very genuine or "original".
The Elements of the Genealogical Proof Standard: :
Source: BCG Website:
www.bcgcertification.org/resources/standard.html
Each element contributes to a conclusion's credibility in a different way, described in the table below, but all the elements are necessary to establish proof.
|
Element of
the GPS |
Contribution
to Credibility |
|
Reasonably exhaustive search |
·
Assumes examination
of a wide range of high quality sources ·
Minimizes the probability
that undiscovered evidence will overturn a too-hasty conclusion |
|
Complete and accurate citation of sources |
·
Demonstrates the
extent of the search and the quality of the sources ·
Allows others to
replicate the steps taken to reach the conclusion. (Inability to replicate
the research casts doubt on the conclusion.) |
|
Analysis and correlation of the collected
information |
·
Facilitates sound
interpretation of the data contributed by each source ·
Ensures that the
conclusion reflects all the evidence |
|
Resolution of conflicting evidence. |
·
Substantiates the
conclusion's credibility. (If conflicting evidence is not resolved, a
credible conclusion is not possible.) |
|
Soundly reasoned, coherently written
conclusion. |
·
Eliminates the possibility
that the conclusion is based on bias, preconception, or inadequate
appreciation of the evidence ·
Explains how the
evidence led to the conclusion |
The Genealogical Proof Standard in Action: .
Source: Elizabeth Shown Mills presentation at the
National Genealogical Society Conference in the States, Portland OR, 16-19 May
2001:
A ssess what you have
C
omplete the research
T
rust
nobody!
I
ntegrate and correlate details
O
utline a theory – then try to disprove it
If
it survives…
N
ow write a convincing argument!
Finally: (from Donn Devine
article):
How
much evidence does it take to prove a genealogical conclusion?
A single document that faithfully transmits information from a
reliable informant is sufficient!
Suggestions for Further Reading:
Books:
·
Board for Certification of Genealogists, The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual,, Provo, UT:
Ancestry, 2000.
·
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL,FASG,
FNGS, Evidence!
Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian, Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1997.
·
Christine Rose, CG, CGL, FASG, Genealogical
Proof Standard: Building a Solid Case, San Jose CA, Rose Family Association, 1474 Montelegre Drive, 95120-4831, 2001. (Available by mail for
$5.00)
Articles – in Printed Publications:
·
Donn Devine, CG,
CGI, “Information, Evidence and Proof,” Ancestry
Magazine, May-June 2001: 46-48.
·
“Evidence: A Special
Issue” National Genealogical
Quarterly 87 (September 1999).
* * * * *
* * *
* *
Any problems with
this handout’s links – or questions about the presentation?
Please
email me at john@konvalinka.com.