- This topic has 2 voices and 2 replies.
-
Posts
-
What is considered proof on geneology and on history?
I wanted to get some feed back about the topic of proof and what exactly constitutes proof. I have some understanding about it, but I wanted to find out in more detail how proof is acheived or established.
Also does circumstancial evidence ever constitute proof?
If you combine irregular racial designations, living in a generally accepted native community of a certain time period or place, and surname association with a particular ethnic group does this at any time amount to proof?
Thanks
It’s a complicated subject to explain in the context of this Forum.
This is a sample of what Elizabeth Shown Mills thought about the subject of evidence in her book “Evidence” , ‘ Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian’ , c.1997, Genealogical Publishing Co., Balto., Md:
(most online genealogy bookstores carry it)
“Any satement of Fact that is not common knowledge must carry its own individual statement of source.”
Paraphrased, distinguishing ‘common knowledge’ from a fact that needs documentation is a matter of common sense. If we say that the Civil War broke out in 1861, that statement needs no supporting evidence, most historical researchers know the date.
If we say that John Smith enlisted on a particular date in such and such military unit, then that requires a reliable citation of source.
Source notes have two purposes:
a) To record the specific location (the source) of each piece of data so that anyone can retrieve the cited source if necessary.
b) To record details that affect the use or evaluation of that data.
Most people recognize the importance of the first purpose.
The second one treats a quagmire in which good intentions are often sunk, by not adding observations covered by the formal citation and their related problems, we may confuse ourself, or confuse and mislead others. ‘Race’ and how different parts of the country at different times regarded/recorded a Native or a person of Native descent, are some of those we deal with all the time.
“Guidelines for analyzing evidence:
1. Direct evidence is easier to understand, but indirect evidence can carry equal weight.
2. Reliable genealogical conclusions are based on the weight – not quantity – of the evidence found.
3. Evidence should be drawn from a variety of independently created sources (to the extent that is possible).
4. Original source material generally is more reliable than derivative material.
5. The reliability of a derivative work is influenced by the degree of processing it has undergone.
6. The purpose of a record and the motivation of its creators frequently affect its truthfulness.
7. The most reliable informants have firsthand knowledge of the events to which they testify.
8. The veracity and skill of a record’s creator will have shaped its content.
9. Timeliness generally adds to a document’s credibility.
10. Penmanship can establish identity, date and authenticity.
11. A record’s custodial history affects its trustworthiness.
12. All known records should be used and a thorough effort made to identify unknown materials.
13. The case is never closed on a genealogical conclusion. “
Each of these are commented on in detail in her book.
“Scientific citation such as “Humphrey (1989), 2″ should not be used in Genealogical citations because many genealogists who publish record abstracts often issue several or many each year and each citation must be specific.”
(altho ‘scientific citation’ may work for historical sources, I think it should generally be avoided on a forum – just a thought)
……………………..
She goes on and it’s necessary information to understand but some of this ‘purist’ therom may not always apply to some special circumstances, regardless of how definite we want to be in proving descent from people that many authorities of a given time regarded as of no particular value, i.e., poor people of any race.
(Then there’s the “economic transition” where anyone amassing considerable property suddenly appears noted as “gentleman” in colonial records 🙂 regardless of race.
We often run into some very unclear, undocumented and sometimes intentionally misleading information. She covers some of that, too.
We often run into the ‘family story’ which is derivitive information and some or all of the story may be true, but too often there are ‘facts’ passed down which are intentionally misleading to hide what an earlier generation regarded as scandalous. “You get what you accept” .
…………………………………….
Circumstantial evidence?
It can be regarded as proof. It depends upon the number and ‘quality’ of the conclusions we reach.
It’s not an open-ended continuum and depends upon specific cases. If you are looking at a census record of a household containing an adult male, adult female and several preteen kids, it is ‘circumstantial evidence’ that the adults are the kids’ parents. Only if the adults gave the census taker accurate information and the relationships are noted on the record, does this rise to “objective proof” as we commonly regard it and this can be supported by locating them on additional years’ records – the multiple record standard cited above. Or, it is regarded as circumstancial evidence.
If a family is living in a community generally regarded as Native or mixed, they may be also and the ‘birds of a feather’ consideration can be made, but it is no sure thing. More documents or circumstantial evidence would need to be found.
Is the ‘mulatto’ or ‘black’ “servant” living in a household an employee or a relative? And what exactly did these racial designations mean in that time period and location? Again, we get what we accept and sometimes we get what we want to believe.
If the family relationship is not noted, but they are found together on multiple records, associated in the same way, then there is a “perponderance of the evidence” of the childrens’ relationship to the adults. (The “servant” question is different)
Even here, more documentation is always best. When it’s not available, take a very hard look at all “circumstancial” conclusions reached.
We often run into the ‘no documentation’ problem. Common sense has to be used.
Hundreds and thousands of white and black people lived in “Indian country”. When a person’s ancestors lived there is more important than that they lived there. Were they Native, mixed race or just squatters? Was their tribal affliation the same as the Native peoples whose land they lived on? We know from a lot of sources that this wasn’t the case. Each case has to be considered as a seperate case so I’m not going to ‘cite’ any sources here. It’s a difficult question to answer. The general historical record sometimes helps and sometimes not.
Too many people of mixed-race ancestry today only consider the possibility in light of current attitudes on the subject. When considering this in a genealogical context – remember, a Native person/family might regard it as equally ‘horrible’ to marry a white person or black person and any of them may have regarded “it” in the same way many people have. From that, one arrives at the common statement that “there’s never just one” when referring to an ancestor of a ‘different’ race. During some time periods in some places it was acceptable and in others in the same time periods, different locations and circumstances, it was generally ‘frowned’ on.
If you find a ‘white’ family living next door to a ‘black’ family, are they related? Could be. If you find them moving across the country together, it becomes circumstantial, regardless of how their ‘race’ is designated on subsequent records. Be careful when reaching a conclusion, there may be an economic association instead of a blood association, or not.
And needless to say, the ‘white’ family may not be ‘all white’ and the ‘black’ family may not be ‘all black’ and few Native people were ever listed on earlier records as “Indian” but were more often than not, recorded as ‘mulatto’ and ‘black’ and even ‘white’ .
It’s a complicated and often confusing subject.
Bill
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
