I am not a professional genealogist, and I suspect very few (if any) of the readers of this blog are professional genealogists. However, there are some things we as genealogy hobbyists ought to be striving for as we research our families and share the information we gather with others. While very few of us have taken steps to formally publish what we have found, we are all in a sense "publishing" our work when we share our information on sites like Ancestry, WikiTree, Family Tree DNA, MyHeritage, and Family Search, and we owe it to each other to be as accurate as we can so we don't spread misinformation about our ancestors among our fellow genealogists.
Standards
As the Board for Certification of Genealogists (BCG) puts it:
"Both professional genealogists and casual family researchers need genealogy standards in order to get their genealogy right. Without standards, inaccuracies and myths can be created and perpetuated. Many of these errors can be avoided by working to genealogy standards." [1]
To guide genealogists with their research, the BCG has developed what is known as the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS). To reach solid conclusions in our research, we ought to meet the following five standards [1]:
1. Reasonably exhaustive research.2. Complete and accurate source citations.3. Thorough analysis and correlation.4. Resolution of conflicting evidence.5. Soundly written conclusion based on the strongest evidence.
So where am I going with this train of thought? I've been looking at a lot of online trees with Ackley ancestors in them lately, and I am seeing many profiles that are supported mostly by assumptions, rumors, myths, legends, and falsehoods. I've written about elements of this in previous posts, but I wanted to address it in a more systematic way in this post.
Common Types of Inaccuracy
First, some definitions of the words I am using here [2]:
assumption - a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
rumor - a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth.
myth - 1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. 2. a widely held but false belief or idea.
legend - 1. a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but unauthenticated. 2. an extremely famous or notorious person, especially in a particular field.
falsehood - the state of being untrue.
These words have slightly different meanings, but what they have in common is that if we report information in our genealogy that falls into any of these categories and don't acknowledge that it may not be true or don't qualify it in some way, we are not supporting this information properly.
Some Examples
To illustrate, consider some of the information below that is widely reported for Nicholas Ackley. While there is a great deal we do know about Nicholas (see this post for his biography), there are some basic items that are still not known for certain, yet are reported as if they are fact. Some of the more common examples:
1. Nicholas Ackley was born in England. While this is a reasonable assumption and is almost certainly true, it is an assumption for which I have never found any actual documentation. There are no passenger lists or other immigration documents that definitively state that Nicholas came from England. It makes logical sense given his name and the origins of the other people in Hartford and later Haddam where he lived, so it does seem a reasonable assumption to make. However, in the absence of any documentation, we should say that it is an assumption rather than a known fact.
2. Nicholas Ackley was born in Shalford, Essex, England. This item has always puzzled me because it is so specific, yet I have never seen a reliable source for this information. I have written several posts relating to Nicholas's birth place, including this one, and this series (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4) on the possible origins of the Ackley surname. Without any proof for this claim, at best it can be viewed as a rumor.
3. Nicholas was born at Hopton Castle, England. Also a very specific assertion, and in direct conflict with #2. However, there is some documentation to support this idea, but it is entwined in a whole series of events related to item #11 below and is discussed in this post. The post raises some pretty fair arguments against accepting this as fact. Further, I have recently written about the fraudulent nature of the work of Gustave Anjou, the genealogist who produced the pedigree for Nicholas's ancestors in this post. Well-known genealogists have warned against using any of Anjou's work in developing pedigrees for our ancestors.
4. Nicholas Ackley was born in 1635. Another puzzling one given the specificity of the data and the lack of any reliable sources to support it. Logically I also have some doubts about this date given the other information we know. We have evidence that Nicholas signed a petition in May 1653 seeking to establish a plantation at Nonotuck, Massachusetts. If he was born in 1635 he would have only been 18 years old when he signed the petition. I am a little skeptical that such a young man would have been allowed to sign such a document; certainly not impossible, but in my opinion not likely. Therefore, I feel that his birth year may have been a little earlier than 1635. But, I have no evidence to back that up, so I can't report any alternative date with any authority.
5. Nicholas Ackley was an immigrant. This item follows naturally from the assertion in item #1, and for the same reasons listed there it is a reasonable assumption. Further, there have been no records found that would suggest Nicholas was born in the colonies, although that is not impossible.
6. Nicholas Ackley was indentured when he came to America.
7. Nicholas came to America to flee the British Civil War. #6 and #7 seem to be the stuff of family legend. I have not seen any documentation to support either assertion, although both are certainly plausible. Indentured servitude was a fairly common way for people to gain the funding necessary to travel to America, and the British Civil War took place between 1642 and 1651, which is consistent with the time period that Nicholas is thought to have come here. However, in the absence of any supporting documentation, these assertions will remain family legend in my eyes.
8. Nicholas Ackley's first wife was Hannah Ford Mitchell and his second wife was Miriam Moore. See this post for details; all we can really prove with reliable documentation is that his first wife was named Hannah (she is mentioned by first name only along with Nicholas in a deed) and that his second wife was named Miriam (she is mentioned by first name only in his will).
9. Nicholas had two other sons (named Nicholas and Benjamin) besides the ten children listed in his will (Thomas, Nathaniel, John, Samuel, James, Elizabeth, Hanna, Mary, Sarah, and Lydia). Although there are a couple of sources that name these two sons, these sources offer no good support for these claims, and one of the more complete references [3] on Nicholas Ackley's family speculates that they are probably grandsons, although even that argument has holes in it. For this reason, I would rate this claim as a rumor at best.
10. Nicholas was a private in the Revolutionary War. This is just a flat-out falsehood and could not possibly be true given the known date of Nicholas's death and the timing of the Revolutionary War. From Nicholas's probate we know that he died on 29 Apr 1695. The Revolutionary War didn't start until 1776, which is 81 years after his death.
11. Nicholas is the son of John Hackley (or some other Hackley). This relationship has been repeated over and over in family trees on Ancestry, WikiTree, and Family Search. I have written extensively about this item here, here, here, and here. Although this issue can probably not be put to bed until we find proof of who Nicholas's parents actually are, I feel that the arguments made in the first post cast serious doubt on the veracity of this claim.
Bottom line: We need to stick to verifiable facts in our genealogy as much as possible. If we report data that is not supported by documentation or logic, we need to state as such so that others who are reading our work know that we are not certain about the data presented. If we don't know a date for certain, we need to use language such as "about 1635" and explain why we think that date makes sense. If we report a location we aren't sure about, we need to use words like "probably England" and include logic to support this speculation. To be sure, assumptions are not always a bad thing, but when assumptions are made, we need to identify them as such and explain why we think they make sense.
Another thing we need to be aware of when attempting to support our research is that not all sources are created equally. The different types of sources are a topic unto themselves, but I do want to mention that the following may or may not be reliable sources:
1. Someone else's Ancestry tree
2. Millennium files on Ancestry
3. LDS IGI records
4. LDS pedigree files
5. U.S. and International Marriage Records, 1560-1900
6. Find-A-Grave
The reason these sources need to be used with caution is that they all are some form of user-provided information, and could suffer from the issues discussed above. It is probably not fair to paint all of these sources with the same broad brush -- many people are very conscientious about sourcing the information in their trees, and their trees can be perfectly good sources if there is supporting documentation. On the other hand, there are also many trees that have little to no documentation associated with them, and are little more than good hints for further research. As such, I tend to use the above types of information as a starting point for a deeper dive into people of interest.
Final Thoughts
I want to emphasize that this post is not meant to be a criticism of anyone who uses some of the information detailed above in support of their trees. While the internet has been an absolute boon to genealogists because it has made billions of records available to us from the comfort of our own homes, it has also been responsible for the proliferation of improperly supported "facts". It can be very tempting to accept this information if "everyone else" has it in their trees. I view this and previous posts about this topic as encouragement to seek out valid documentation when conducting our research and building our trees. A quixotic endeavor perhaps, but one I feel is worth undertaking.
 |
| Don Quixote fighting windmills [4] |
Sources
1. Board for Certification of Genealogists, "Ethics and Standards". https://bcgcertification.org/ethics-standards/
2. Google Online Dictionary (provided by Oxford Languages), accessed online on 9 Sep 2020.
3. Ferris, Mary Walton, Dawes-Gates Ancestral Lines: A Memorial Volume Containing the American Ancestry of Mary Beman (Gates) Dawes Vol. II (Wisconsin: Cuneo Press, 1931), p. 33-54.
4. Wikimedia Commons contributors, "File:Don Quixote fighting windmills.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Don_Quixote_fighting_windmills.jpg&oldid=427763549 (accessed August 30, 2020).
Link of the Day
For an excellent example of using the principles discussed in this post, see the forthcoming book on Nicholas Ackley titled "Discovering Nicholas Ackley, Early Connecticut Settler, 1630-1695" by Nancy Mattison. I have had an opportunity to read the book before publication, and it addresses virtually all of the issues noted above. To learn more about the book, visit the author's website at this link:
Quote of the Day
“If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.”
-- Marcus Aurelius
No comments:
Post a Comment