ESM's QuickLessons A DearMYRTLE Genealogy Study Group Lesson 17

Hilary Gadsby

QuickLesson 17: The Evidence Analysis Process Map    
Elizabeth Shown Mills, “QuickLesson 17: The Evidence Analysis Process Model,” Evidence Explained: Historical Analysis, Citation & Source Usage (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-17-evidence-analysis-process-map : accessed 6 August 2016).    
and
Negative Findings / Negative Evidence
Elizabeth Shown Mills, “Negative Findings / Negative Evidence,"    Evidence Explained: Historical Analysis, Citation & Source Usage (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/negative-findings-negative-evidence    : accessed 6 August 2016).  

Before I start any discussion on this topic I want to highlight what I consider to be the most important point from this lesson "the extent to which we understand the language and structure of evidence analysis will determine the success of our research."

This mindmap I created shows the elements of the Evidence Analysis Process Map as shown on her website. (with additions)

We have talked about how important it is to use reliable sources and to cite the sources we have used. However if we are to do this effectively we need to know what we have and what it is telling us.

We should not overlook the obvious sources such as family with firsthand knowledge, who despite memory lapses, may have more complete firsthand information than anything written on paper.

Getting as close to original records as possible can help reduce bias caused by poor transcribing. Video or sound recordings, letters, photographs and other family memorabilia can all support our family story and can help recall memories.

We may only find sources which are distant from an event, so we need to consider the relevance of this distance, upon the reliability of the information. A person may have been a firsthand witness to an event, but as the years pass their memory concerning exact details may not be the same as it would have been, if recorded close to the time of the event.

Uncertainty regarding the informant for any piece of information casts doubts on its usefulness in building a proof which is why official signed records may be considered more useful than a family legend of unknown origin.

Our interpretation of the information allows us to use it as evidence to support our conclusion.

The best way to show is by example so I am going to show someone I came across on Family Search Family Tree who has 44 sources attached. How many of these are for this person? Can we remove some as we interpret the sources.

If we look at her christening this fits with those of her siblings and is supported by this source.

The marriage as indicated would suggest that she was still in Bedfordshire when she married in 1773.

But did she really have 33 children!

If we look at the birthplaces of these children it is not until we get to Charles Wiltshire christened in 1799 that we find anyone allegedly born or christened in the county of Bedfordshire. The family could have moved elsewhere but many of these children have no source attached or only one.

In fact Charles is the only one I would consider to have a connection to this couple.

This is one of the sources attached to this person.
She was born in 1754.

Contrast this to one of my ancestors who was the son of John Wiltshire and Sarah Ingram. 

He has 27 sources attached some are duplicates many are census records almost all of the children have more than one source attached. Even those that currently have no sources have a date and place of birth consistent with them being a member of that family.

Whilst we know that families did not always remain in one place many did. We look in that area and time period first and then spread our search if records indicate or we can find no trace. 
The "scattergun" approach can be little more than speculation. Not all records are online and we need to use those that are with caution.
I have not relied on online resources alone for my research and there is a great deal that is still a work in progress.

I have only included a few screenshots here but they should be enough for you to see what I am trying to show on the tree. If you wish to see more take a look on the website. (You will need to register for a free account if you do not already have one)

To sum up if you do not understand the information in the source and how to use it you cannot build the evidence to support your family tree.

ESM's QuickLessons A DearMYRTLE Genealogy Study Group

Hilary Gadsby

Sources, Information, Evidence
Elizabeth Shown Mills, “Sources, Information, Evidence," Evidence Explained: Historical Analysis, Citation & Source Usage (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/sources-information-evidence : accessed 25 June 2016).         
and
A Basic Vocabulary for Historical Research
Elizabeth Shown Mills, “A Basic Vocabulary for Historical Research," Evidence Explained: Historical Analysis, Citation & Source Usage (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quicktips/basic-vocabulary-historical-research    : accessed 25 June 2016).    

Much of what we do as genealogists piecing together what we can find about our ancestors can not be "proved" in the way that science calls proof. We can never be certain that history was how it appears to us.

This does not mean that what we create will be a work of fiction. By careful choice of source, extraction of information and analysis of those pieces of information we construct a credible case to support our hypothesis.

The information contained within a single source whilst directly answering a question will invariably not be sufficient to confirm an identity. We need to take all the information we can find and put it into context. Only when we have done this can we have any certainty that the information is relevant to the question we are trying to answer.

Understanding the terminology we use in our historical research as discussed in the Quicktips post is key to ensuring that the lineages and associated family information is as accurate as possible. Many historical documents may not have survived or details regarding our family may not have been recorded. Even when we do find references, to what we believe to be our family, we need to show due diligence and consider what inaccuracies may be present both intended and accidental.

In my blog post I discuss how I started to piece together a part of my husband's family. 
It's still a work in progress with missing parts of the puzzle. 
I need to discover more reliable sources, to provide me with the information, that I can use, as evidence, to support any conclusions I draw.

ESM's QuickLessons A DearMYRTLE Genealogy Study Group Lesson 13

Hilary Gadsby

QuickLesson 13: Classes of Evidence—Direct, Indirect & Negative    
Elizabeth Shown Mills, “QuickLesson 13: Classes of Evidence―Direct, Indirect & Negative,” Evidence Explained: Historical Analysis, Citation & Source Usage (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-13-classes-evidence%E2%80%94direct-indirect-negative : accessed 25 May 2016).              

Evidence is not what we read, see or hear in a source. It is our interpretation of what the information in the source is telling us.

If we are to interprete the information in a source we must be clear as to what we have found and how it can be incorporated.
We may refer to this as the body or wealth of evidence. This is because a single source of information cannot be considered as sufficient to support the answer to our research question.

Like sources and information we classify evidence as it helps us to reach more credible conclusions or working hypotheses.

I shall look at how I determined a date of death for my ancestor Alfred William Wiltshire.
Post 1837, in England and Wales, all births, marriages and deaths should be registered and a certificate will tell you the date and place of death for a named individual.

This information directly states that Alfred William Wiltshire died on 30 January 1911.
But does this provide enough evidence be certain I have the correct answer to my question. How can I be certain that this information refers to the person I am researching?

Can I find some other source to provide either indirect or negative evidence?

Does another record indicate that I have the correct death certificate?
Is he recorded in the 1911 census?

Here we have his widow and the son mentioned on the death certificate is also in the household. The address also fits with what is recorded so this census helps to indirectly answer the question.

I also have a burial record found in the parish register for West End which gave a burial date of 2 February 1911. On the marriage certificate for his daughter its states that he is deceased.

Source	Type of information	Type of Evidence
Death Certificate	Direct	Direct
1911 Census	Indirect	Indirect
Burial Register	Indirect	Indirect
Marriage Certificate	Indirect	Indirect

Research is not always this straightforward and this second example shows that we cannot always get the answer we want as easily.

I could find no trace of Eliza Clarke in the 1911 census so had she died in the 10 years since the previous census?

A death registration for an Eliza Clarke was found in the registration district where she had been living with her husband George and I had found his death certificate and burial near to where they were living.

The death certificate arrived and what did it state? It was not for the same Eliza the name of the spouse and the place of death did not fit.

Where was Eliza? Was she still alive? Had she remarried?

A possible marriage was found 

and another search of the 1911 census reveals

so when did Eliza die.

Thorough research of this family has broken down what could have proved to be an obstacle. The daughter mentioned on the death certificate was her eldest. Both mother and daughter had several surnames during their lifetimes but the information found in various documents has helped to pull it all together.

Source	Type of information	Type of Evidence
Death Certificate Eliza Clarke	Direct	Negative
1911 Census	Indirect	Indirect
Marriage Registration	Indirect	Indirect
Death Certificate Eliza Elliott	Direct	Direct

ESM's QuickLessons A DearMYRTLE Genealogy Study Group Lesson 2

Hilary Gadsby

QuickLesson 2: Sources vs. Information vs. Evidence vs. Proof    
Elizabeth Shown Mills, “QuickLesson 2: Sources vs. Information vs. Evidence vs. Proof,” Evidence Explained: Historical Analysis, Citation & Source Usage (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-2-sources-vs-information-vs-evidence-vs-proof : accessed 18 March 2016).

Only this last week in the MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) I have been part of we were discussing Primary and Secondary sources. Primary being original, contemporary records and Secondary being hearsay and writings of others. However this classification may not truly reflect the nature of the source.
Within a document information may exist which is first hand knowledge alongside other second hand or hearsay. Each piece of information and the assertion or claim that is made must be evaluated for its ability to be used as evidence supporting a proof.
A strong proof is only as good as the building blocks, that is the evidence, that is used in its construction.

In my example from Lesson 1 I had a person who I had gathered some information about and whom I suspected would be someone listed in the 1939 register. I set out with the intention of finding her to support the theory that she was still alive in 1939. If I found her I might also be able to ascertain more information about where she was living her date of birth and possibly who was living with her.

Using the diagram above let us see what I have here.

Source = Find my Past Website Index and scanned images of pages of the 1939 Register with some redaction.

Evaluation = Original page as digital image, Index is a derivative created recently

Information = Other than the address in 1939 the name, occupation and date of birth in the register are reliant on the veracity of the person giving the information, which should generally be the individual or a close relative, though it could be someone unrelated. The information about the date of birth cannot be primary as it is being recorded sometime after the date.

Evidence = Whilst the information in the digital images can be used to form part of a proof none of it can be considered to be more than an assertion. We have no means of determining the absolute truth.

Assertions from other sources may be combined with the ones from this source to build what we may call our current hypothesis, proof or conclusion. 

Conflicting information should not be ignored but discussed in a proof statement or argument.

In discovering the correct person in the register the analysis of the information supports what is already known. 

The conclusions drawn should meet the genealogical proof standard. Should further research be needed, collecting the evidence together will allow us to interpret what we may need to find, to meet the requirement of thorough research.

Whilst I endeavour to look at everything I find I may have not always been diligent. 

Evidentia can help with this analysis and as I work through rebuilding my tree I will be using it to assist with building the evidence into a strong proof. It will at least provide me with some idea as to where the evidence is weak or if I need to look for more information.

At each stage of processing a source and its contents we need to decide whether what we find is convincing, or may contain an error, and these considerations must be included in any discussion of the evidence we are using to support our conclusion.

Nothing is absolute anything can contain an error which is why no single piece of evidence is enough to support our conclusions.