As active researchers and writers, there is often a need—or at least a temptation—to cite ourselves as an authoritative source for a particular point. Whether it is appropriate to do so depends upon the circumstances.

On a personal level, we are a valid source only for events or circumstances that we personally experienced in a cognizant state. We cannot, for example, attest our own birth; although we were physically there, we had not developed cognizance. If we have no other authority, we can only attest that we were taught to celebrate our birth on a particular day of the year.

As researchers, citations to our own published work may or may not be justified. For some historical subjects there is a rich body of literature and a wide range of interpretations. In other instances, a subject may be so narrow that no one else has investigated it to the breadth and depth that we have—if at all. 

Five questions can help us determine whether our own prior work can be appropriately cited as one form of “proof ” for our assertions:

• If we are citing a prior conclusion or proof argument, has that conclusion of ours been vetted and the argument published in a peer-reviewed journal?  Assertions that have never been vetted are generally not considered to be authoritative.
• If we are citing underlying research reports, are those reports publicly available—at, say, a website where they can be immediately accessed and studied in depth?
• Are other authorities available? Is the topic a general one on which multiple people have published, including ourselves? Are opinions compatible, although each naturally will have varying nuances? If so, then citing ourselves may strike our readers as self-promotion. 
• What is the scope and focus of our prior research? Is the topic a highly specialized one that no one else has addressed—say, a quantitative analysis of a community, or an intricately solved identity issue, or a reference work that is not otherwise available? If there is no one else to cite, then a reference to our own work would be entirely appropriate.
• Are our conclusions unique? Did our findings or conclusions correct or challenge other significant publications on the subject? If so, then citations to both would be appropriate.

In sum: if our own prior publications have gone into considerably more depth than our current piece of writing allows, then it would be reasonable to cite our prior work for a more in-depth discussion. We might also cite others who hold a counter view, to offer a balanced perspective.

The post Using One’s Self as a Source – by Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CG, FASG appeared first on Genealogical.com.

(EE4: 2.12)
Modern genealogists are blessed to have billions of records easily available—in print, in some derivative format, and as images online.  When we examine a published item to identify the elements that need recording, we should bear in mind that published history materials commonly have two formats in need of identification:

• Original work: Most such material originated in manuscript or published format—whether in modern times or antiquity.
• Modern form: This material is now being published in a new format by a firm or an agency that is not the original creator.

Therefore, our citations should

• distinguish between image copies and other derivatives such as abstracts, transcripts, and information extracted into databases;
• credit properly the original creator;
• credit properly the producer of the images or electronic publication;
• identify clearly the nature of the material;
• identify the images or electronic publication completely enough for others to locate it;
• cite the specific place (webpage, frame, etc.) in the database or on the roll, fiche, etc., at which we found the relevant item; and
• cite the date on which the images or data set were created, updated, or accessed—as well as the date of the original record or original publication.

Some publishers of databases and record images add a preface informing us that they obtained their data from another firm or individual. To analyze the reliability of their material we also need to record

• the identity of the entity (individual or agency) that first assembled that data set;
• the original source(s) from which the data was taken and the year or time frame in which the original was created;
• whether a database entry represents full or partial extraction from those sources; or
• whether the record set was generated from materials randomly encountered by the original compiler.

Tracking the provenance (origin) of derivative material can be difficult. A currently marketed database might have been purchased from a firm no longer in existence, which might have bought its information from a book compiler, who might have assembled materials randomly published elsewhere. Such an entity would be of significantly different quality from, say,

• a new database created by a learned society using skilled copyists to extract every document in a record set; or
• a collection of images created by a company that contracts with an archive to reproduce an entire record series. 

If our attempts to track the origin of the material are unsuccessful, we should say so and explain the efforts we have made. This will help us and others avoid unnecessary repetition of the work. When we carefully report our steps, we or a user of our work may be able later to fill some of the gaps in our current research methods or findings.

The post Using Derivate & Imaged Sources – By Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CG, FASG appeared first on Genealogical.com.

(EE4: 1.3)
Each assertion we make as history researchers must be supported by proof. However, proof is not synonymous with a source. The most reliable proof is a composite of information drawn from multiple sources that meet three criteria:

• They represent quality materials;
• They are independently created; and 
• They accurately report the original circumstances.

For history researchers, there is no such thing as proof that can never be rebutted. We were not there when history happened, and the eyewitness accounts of those who were — if and when those accounts exist — may not be reliable. Every conclusion we reach about circumstances, events, identities, or kinships is simply a decision we base upon the weight of the evidence we have assembled. Our challenge is to accumulate the best information possible and to train ourselves to skillfully analyze and interpret what it has to say.

In this process, we typically reach conclusions of three types, each of which carries a different weight:

• Hypotheses are propositions based upon an analysis of evidence at hand. They are used to define a focus for additional research. In testing any hypothesis, we must labor to disprove it as diligently as we labor to prove it. Our role is not just that of judge and jury, but also devil’s advocate.

• Theories are tentative conclusions reached after a hypothesis has been extensively researched but the evidence still seems short of proof. A theory should never be presented as a fact. Any theory we propose should carry qualifiers. Perhaps, possibly, likely, and similar terms can express our degree of confidence in a theory, but we are still obliged to explain our reasoning.

• Proof is a conclusion based upon the sum of the evidence that supports a valid assertion or deduction. It’s a conclusion drawn from many sources — quality sources, all independently created. Proof must be backed by thorough research and documentation, by reliable information that is correctly interpreted and carefully correlated, and by a well-reasoned and written analysis of the problem and the evidence.

A conclusion cannot always be reached. When the accumulated materials are well appraised, the evidence may not support any decision at all. If it does not, then the question must remain open — the fact of the situation remains unknown — until sufficient evidence is developed. 

If extenuating circumstances pressure for a decision (as with impending court testimony in a dispute over, say, historical property or heirship), then the researcher must present all relevant evidence, interpret it accurately, and appropriately qualify whatever hypothesis seems justified. This is commonly done using terms that denote levels of confidence, as discussed in this chapter at §1.6).

The post Our Research Conclusions: Are they Hypotheses? Theories? Or Proof? – By Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CG, FASG appeared first on Genealogical.com.

Mr. Crowder’s book The First 24 Hours of the American Revolution: An Hour-by-Hour Accounts of the Battle of Lexington, Concord, and the British Retreat on Battle Road, is nothing less than a documentary history of the people, places, times, and events that forever changed the course of our history–based on the writings of the participants and eyewitnesses. While no such story could omit the names of Paul Revere, John Hancock, Lord Percy and other notables, most of this story is told in the words of the common men and women of Massachusetts. Most of our militiamen, for example, were farmers and shopkeepers possessing virtually no military experience. Most were under thirty-five, and some were teenagers. Some, like Benjamin Balch and Samuel Payson, were clergymen. Prudence Wright from Pepperell, organized a group of women to guard the road that passed through the town, ultimately capturing two of the enemy.

Interspersing the sworn testimony of people who survived Lexington and Concord with his own narrative, Jack Crowder keeps us on the edge of our seat as we read about:

• The narrow escape of patriots John Hancock and Samuel Adams at 2:30 AM
• The regional alarms calling upon militiamen to advance upon Lexington
• The names of persons killed or wounded in Lexington, Concord, and in between.
• The Patriot defense of Concord bridge that protected the American arsenal
• Extraordinary acts of heroism on both sides, including by septuagenarians 

The author rounds out this meticulous account with numerous illustrations based on period paintings, photographs, and line drawings. There is also a town-by-town appendix of militiamen who were mortally wounded in the encounters.  A bibliography and a name index to all persons mentioned in the book concludes the work.

The U.S. will mark the important events of the War for Independence over the next eight years (2025-2033), commencing with hostilities at Lexington, Concord, and along Battle Road. There is no better time to reacquaint yourself with how it all started or to teach your children and grandchildren why freedom means so much to our countrymen and women. It’s all there in Jack Darrell Crowder’s The First 24 Hours of the American Revolution.  

Click here to view other Revolutionary War books by Jack Darrell Crowder

The post Book Explains and Celebrates 250th Anniversary of Quest for Independence appeared first on Genealogical.com.

Chapter Two of Drew Smith’s wonderful guidebook, Generation by Generation: A Modern Approach to the Basics of Genealogy, is about relationships: Father and Mother, Siblings, Aunts and Uncles, Cousins, Greats and Grands, Double Cousins, the Removes, and more. Smith discusses the origins of the terms we use to express relationships, and then he goes on to explain how genealogists have come to visualize and arrange them for organizational purposes. The relationship formats that have stood the test of time are the pedigree chart and the family group sheet. Each one has its own benefits. If one or both is new to you, you can have a looksee below at the samples Drew Smith has incorporated into Generation by Generation.

Pedigree Charts and Family Group Sheet Sample

The post Pedigree Charts and Family Group Sheets appeared first on Genealogical.com.

The award-winning Map Guide to the U.S. Federal Censuses, 1790-1920, by William Thorndale and William Dollarhide, published in 1987, is the preeminent tool for assuring researchers that they are searching the census in the correct county.  The maps in the Map Guide show both contemporary boundaries and decennial federal census boundaries on the same map. According to co-author William Dollarhide, “That concept was clearly designed to aid genealogists, not just historians, or demographers. Genealogists are interested in what county their people lived in so they can find the right county courthouse. As you know, the most important part of the three elements in doing genealogical research (Name, Date, Place) is the PLACE where the records are stored today. The Map Guide maps provide that service, by showing both the modern boundaries and the contemporary boundaries on the same map. One can quickly see the counties THEN and the counties NOW.  It is graphic, it is easy, and it is consistent for every state . . . As a testament to [William] Thorndale’s research, there has never been one question about the accuracy of the Map Guide maps . . . .”. 

The principal feature of The Map Guide consists of a county-by-county map for each U.S. state (including territorial maps) for each census of the state/territory’s existence. Each such map displays contemporary boundaries overlaying the boundaries of a particular census year. Users of the volume will also discover a detailed introduction containing an historical essay about the census, an appendix describing the mapping process, and a discussion of state session laws that mandated the thousands of boundary changes.

According to esteemed genealogist Elizabeth Shown Mills:

“Ancestors who lived to a ripe old age on the frontiers of America may have spent their entire lives in one community and yet lived in a dozen different counties.  My first step with any new project is to create a genealogy of the area in which the ancestor lived—charting its parent counties and its offspring—and I begin that effort with Dollarhide and Thorndale’s Map Guide to the U.S. Federal Census, 1790-1920.”

To further illustrate, here are two maps from the Thorndale/Dollarhide volume: (1) A guide for using the book, and (2) the 1890 map for the Montana Territory.

The post Map Guide to the Federal Censuses—Still the Best Source for Boundary Changes appeared first on Genealogical.com.

As Dr. David Dobson has noted in the Introduction to his new book, Scottish Baronial Families, 1250-1750, medieval Scottish kings established administrative units overseen by barons to assure that the King’s laws were enforced, taxes were collected, and, when necessary, knights and other warriors were available to defend the kingdom.

By the late seventeenth century there were hundreds of baronies in Scotland; however, in the aftermath of the Jacobite rising of 1745-1746, the British Government enacted the Heritable Jurisdiction Act of 1747, which reduced the powers of barons and the nobility in general.

Working mostly from primary sources written in Latin—especially the Register of the Great Seal of Scotland from about 1320–Dobson has traced the origin and line of descent of nearly 1,000 Scottish baronies and baronetcies, including some whose progeny eventually moved to the Americas. Representative of the contents of Scottish Baronial Families, are the following two pages describing the barons Graham/Grahame/Graeme/Grayme .

The post Scottish Baronial Families, 1250-1750 | by Dr. David Dobson (Sample) appeared first on Genealogical.com.

The titles to which we refer are the three-volume Adventurers of Purse and Person, Virginia, 1607-1624/25, Fourth Edition by John Frederick Dorman; Virginia Immigrants and Adventurers, 1607-1635: A Biographical Dictionary, by Martha W. McCartney; and Jamestowne Ancestors, 1607-1699, by Virginia Davis. Since 2007, we have published several additional works by Martha McCartney that focus on Virginia’s early settlers, namely, Jamestown People to 1800 and Powhatan Indian Place Names in Tidewater Virginia. 

Each of these publications is unique in its own way, although researchers will find some small overlap. Jamestowne Ancestors names individuals who served in the Virginia legislature (House of Burgesses or Governor’s Council) or owned land on Jamestown Island during the 17th century, along with a place of origin and associated date(s). 

Martha McCartney’s Virginia Immigrants and Adventurers, a biographical dictionary of the earliest Virginians, is a work of much broader scope, if narrower in its chronological focus. The author has assembled in a single volume every significant detail concerning the 5,500 persons–whether or not they are known to have had progeny–who set foot along the banks of the James and York rivers and the communities (“hundreds”) established there as of 1635. Ms. McCartney’s sequel biographical dictionary takes that town’s inhabitants to 1800.

Lastly, the three-volume Adventurers of Purse and Person, Virginia is the most expansive title of all and the most genealogical in nature. Based on the “Muster” of 1624/5–essentially a census taken by the Royal Commission that succeeded the Virginia Company–this three-volume set traces the descent for six generations of about 150 families known to have had progeny. Its editor, John Frederick Dorman, was the foremost authority on colonial Virginia genealogy.

For more information concerning these titles–which, in the aggregate, comprise the cornerstone of Jamestown and early Virginia genealogy–please visit the following pages:

• Jamestowne Ancestors 1607-1699
• Virginia Immigrants and Adventurers, 1607-1635: A Biographical Dictionary
• Jamestown People to 1800
• Powhatan Indian Place Names in Tidewater Virginia
• Adventurers of Purse and Person Virginia 1607-1624/5. Fourth Edition. Volume One, Families A-F
• Adventurers of Purse and Person Virginia 1607-1624/5. Fourth Edition. Volume Two, Families G-P
• Adventurers of Purse and Person Virginia 1607-1624/25. Fourth Edition. Volume Three, Families R-Z

The post Pre-Eminent Works on Virginia’s Founders appeared first on Genealogical.com.

Smithtown, New York, situated about 50 miles east of New York City in Suffolk County, was founded by Richard Smith and his family in 1665. The famous 1698 census enumerations for Smithtown have not survived; however, Kory Meyerink, author of New York in 1698: A Comprehensive List of Residents Based on Census, Tax, and Other Lists, was able to reconstruct the missing census from probate records initiated in 1702 by Richard Smith’s wife, Sarah Smith. You can see Mr. Meyerink’s reconstruction of the 1698 census for Smithtown below. Smithtown is just one of the score of New York localities whose population the author has identified for this important book. The work includes a complete name index and an appendix of Dutch names in common usage at the time of the census. Readers should also consult the Introduction to New York in 1698, which we reproduced in the November 12, 2024 issue of “Genealogy Pointers.”

The post Smithtown, Long Island, New York circa 1698 appeared first on Genealogical.com.

The late Leonard H. Smith, Jr., and his wife Norma H. Smith were great students of New England and Nova Scotia ancestry.  Together they compiled numerous works on these two subjects; however, probably their greatest genealogical contribution is their two-volume work, Nova Scotia Immigrants to 1867. The Smiths’ interest was spawned by Mr. Smith’s parents’ birthplace, Digby County, Nova Scotia. The couple eventually immigrated to Massachusetts, where their son Leonard was born. As the authors note in the Introduction to Volume I of their book, “No one who has worked with United States censuses of New England can have failed to notice the frequency with which the words “Nova Scotia” appear in the columns headed, ”Birthplace of Father” and Birthplace of Mother.” It is clear that thousands of persons enumerated trace their ancestry through that province.”

Researchers whose forebears came–or might have come–to New England via Nova Scotia before 1867 face no small problem, as that year marks the beginning of official recordkeeping. “With the exception of [some] passenger lists and town records, however, the usual sources only rarely offer information as to the former home of an immigrant. The scarcity of those records in early Nova Scotia magnifies the problem.”

If you are hunting for your New England and/or Nova Scotian origins prior to 1867, you would do well to read the Introduction to Nova Scotia Immigrants to 1867, and examine a sample page of immigrants found therein; which is why we have reproduced those pages below.

The post Connecting New England and Nova Scotia Ancestors appeared first on Genealogical.com.