I thought the following article is good "continuing education" for us genealogists. It is reprinted with the permission of Ancestry Daily News. Jim Turner "EUCLIDEAN GENEALOGY" by Michael John Neill <<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>> ======================================================= Euclidean Geometry was one of my favorite subjects in high school largely because of the "proofs" that were a part of the class. Genealogists need not re-learn the subject matter, but there are times when organizing your genealogical reasoning in some sort of formal way is a good idea. Simply stating your genealogical belief is not enough. SAYING IT IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS TO EFFECTIVELY "YELL" IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE EITHER. Saying or writing something does not make it true. It may be that opinion is a part of your reasoning process. This is necessary for many reasons, frequently centering on records that are illegible, inconclusive, incomplete, or any combination thereof. Organizing your conclusions is an important part of the genealogical sharing process. There are times when it is sufficient to say "Here is what I found and here it what it says." Or to simply put the fact (and the source) on a family group chart. But research is not always that simple. There are times when records or documents partially or entirely contradict what we have already found, or what someone else had printed. There are also other researchers whose conclusions run counter to ours. Serious genealogical research frequently attempts to integrate or disprove these conflicting theories. It should be remembered that not all conflicting information can be reconciled. Different genealogists may interpret the same information differently. When you are unable to agree with someone else, do so politely and respectfully. A genealogist also researching one of my lines disputed the father I had for one of my ancestors. I supplied her with my source citations, the abstracts of those sources, and some discussion of why I thought those sources backed up my conclusion. I let her know that I was more than willing to work on these lines together and iron out the ancestry as best we could. I asked her for the source information that brought her to her conclusion (which was contrary to mine). She never provided me with any sources to back up her conclusion and I never heard from her again. Her initial note to me solely indicated she had a different father for the ancestor, sans source. Stating your case is not hard, but make certain you have analyzed the evidence completely, have exhausted all possible sources, have thought carefully about your assumptions, and have left your ego behind. This last item is extremely important. Once this has been done, clearly and concisely state your case. Provide complete and accurate citation information for all documents cited or referenced. Extract all information from a document that is relevant to proving your point. Clearly and completely explain your reasoning--why you think the documents cited back up your theory. In some cases, the reasoning may be fairly short--all five documents say the same thing. In some cases, the reasoning may be more involved, especially if the documents are inconsistent or you are inferring things from the documents. It is important to remember that there will not be overwhelming evidence in support of every conclusion. This difficulty becomes more problematic as research extends before vital registration and similar records. I encountered the following statement in an unpublished manuscript: Thomas Johnson Rampley, born ca. 1770 was the son of James Rampley's wife Sarah Johnson and an unknown man. He was later adopted by James Rampley, who died in Harford County, Maryland in 1817. I had citations which I felt proved Thomas Johnson Rampley was the son of James and his wife Sarah. Complete citations are omitted here for the sake of brevity. I have broken the discussion into two categories, what I call "hard" and "circumstantial" evidence. The classification is not absolute, but I try and place in the circumstantial set those items that could easily be coincidence or things for which I have no "proof." Different researchers may choose to classify some facts differently. However, it is important to remember that some items, particularly birth order, names of grandparents, similar names, and coincidences of locations frequently fall under the category of circumstantial evidence (and sometimes, weak evidence at that). Providing complete accurate source citations is an important part of this process. So we have a summary of the information obtained in this case. "Hard" Evidence 1) Thomas Johnson Rampley is listed in the will of James Rampley as "my son." Thomas is provided a bequest at least as valuable as the other children of James Rampley. 2) Thomas Johnson Rampley is listed as "our son" in a legal agreement, which is signed by James and Sarah Rampley before James' death in 1817. 3) A Harford County Court case involving Thomas Johnson Rampley refers to James Rampley as "his father." 4) Sarah was the daughter of William and Ann Gibson (proven by their estate records). She is listed as Sarah Gibson to her marriage to James in 1771. There is no record of any other marriages for Sarah. "Circumstantial" Evidence 1) James Rampley's father was Thomas. Several other Rampley children were also named for family members. 2) Sarah Gibson had a brother Johnson Gibson, which might have been the cause for the name. 3) There was an influential Marylander at the time of Thomas Johnson Rampley's birth whose name was Thomas Johnson. Summarizing your thoughts is more than merely listing the sources. Sometimes it is helpful to list the theories you are trying to disprove, and disprove them one by one. It frequently takes more than one document to prove an idea or to make a point. In the Rampley example despite the first three items of "hard" evidence, it might be said that Thomas was actually James Rampley' s stepson, not his natural son. To dispute this, other records must be used in connection with each other. The fact that Sarah was the daughter of William Gibson and that this was her name at marriage makes the adopted theory less credible. At this point in the research, there is no evidence that Sarah brought Thomas with her to her marriage to James in 1771. In this case, the more circumstantial evidence comes into play--particularly since it coincides with what the "hard" evidence says. In this case, there does not appear to be any doubt that Thomas Johnson Rampley was the son of James and Sarah (Gibson) Rampley. The sources must be tied together with your thoughts and commentary. In the Rampley example there were fortunately two separate documents where James is listed as the son of James. These sources would be considered primary. The document where Thomas lists James as his father would be most likely classified as a secondary source for this relationship. Whether a document is considered primary or secondary plays a role in the analysis. Also whether or not the informant had firsthand knowledge of the event or relationship must be considered. The difficulty is that there will not always be "hard" proof and the researcher may be forced to rely on circumstantial sources. In these cases, the researcher needs to learn about local customs and social practices. This is important as circumstantial clues frequently have some basis in societal norms or practices. The difficulty is that these customs are frequently unwritten and not as easy to document. Nor does each individual live their life by local customs (i.e. not every family named the oldest son for the paternal grandfather). Records created by courts are a little more clear cut in this regard (since somewhere there is likely a legal basis for the record's creation), but they too are subject to interpretation. Proving your genealogical point is not easy. Logically and clearly stating your idea and documenting why you believe it is integral. It is not necessary to adopt a form as formal in a geometry class--however, diagrams and pictures are occasionally helpful. Good luck. ************************************************************ Copyright 1999, Michael John Neill. Michael John Neill, is the Course I Coordinator at the Genealogical Institute of Mid America (GIMA) held annually in Springfield, Illinois, and is also on the faculty of Carl Sandburg College in Galesburg, Illinois. Michael is the Web columnist for the FGS FORUM and is on the editorial board of the Illinois State Genealogical Society Quarterly. He conducts seminars and lectures on a wide variety of genealogical and computer topics and contributes to several genealogical publications, including Ancestry and Genealogical Computing. You can e-mail him at: mailto:mneill@asc.csc.cc.il.us or visit his website at: http://www.rootdig.com/