Re: The age of ease
Q
> I was noodling around on the net recently, looking for some more
> ancestor leads. Yet again, I hit the pattern of 5-6 generations
> back being very difficult. But 8-10 suddenly being vastly easier.
> At least in the sense of leads. Sourced leads, being rather a
> different matter.
>
> One part is, I wonder if this is something you-all have noticed in
> your own work?
>
> A different thing is ... I wonder if it is actually a reasonable
> thing. My concern when I first thought about it was that it
> represented sloppy or wishful genealogy -- someone with
> approximately the right name, in approximately the right place
> 'must' be the ancestor, so gets filled in. Then I had a second
> thought on it, and maybe it's reasonable. Namely, when I'm looking
> for someone 5 generations back (call it early-mid 1800s), I'm
> looking far enough back that the people now living don't have much,
> if any memory of that ancestor. Also, at that remove, the person
> has only a moderate number of currently living descendants. I'll
> only find prior work if one of that modest number has done some
> research already. But what are the chances that they have? Not
> impressive.
>
> Make it 10 generations instead of 5, and there are buckets of
> current descendants. Chances of at least one of them already having
> done some work get to be pretty good.
>
> How does that sound?
>
> Robert Grumbine <bo...@saltmine.radix.net>
Insightfull! This would also explain the difficulty in working with
uncommon names. Uncommon names also means fewer people searching
today. But in either case, this only applies if you are getting
your information through existing lineages that others have worked
out. If you're doing it through original research, looking for
primary/original source documentation to establish your connections,
it probably wouldn't apply. In that case, it should simply get
harder the further back you go. Fewer records being kept, fewer
records surviving, makes it harder to establish those connections.
The number of people searching the same ground would not be
meaningful.
Q <quo...@gmail.com>
SHARON Zingery
Actually, I HAVE thought about the same thing and came to much of
the same conclusion. Though there are more readily accessible
records on the more recent ancestors, fewer people have spent time
on the research. Yet, our relatively recent flood of online records
should/could be advancing the research on the recent years.
Was genealogy research of more interest during certain periods of
time? Has there been a different feeling about privacy and
accessibility of records at different times. My Swiss research
suddenly became more difficult when the time period on privacy
protection was extended back extremely far, maybe forever back. I
don't remember the exact details but I do recall that the cost of
obtaining records became extremely high.
Did the work of the Mormons initially focus on a particular time?
So many things may have contributed to the difference in quantities
of old research, as you have noted, and yet my guess is that the
number of descendants IS the main reason??
It is kinda cool finding someone who has thought out one of my own
questions and come to a similar conclusion. I had assumed I was too
inexperienced to have even asked the question.
Thank you, Sharon
SHARON Zingery <szin...@sbcglobal.net>
SHARON Zingery
> > I was noodling around on the net recently, looking for some more
> > ancestor leads. Yet again, I hit the pattern of 5-6 generations
> > back being very difficult. But 8-10 suddenly being vastly easier.
> > At least in the sense of leads. Sourced leads, being rather a
> > different matter.
> >
> > your own work?
> >
> > A different thing is ... I wonder if it is actually a reasonable
> > thing. My concern when I first thought about it was that it
> > represented sloppy or wishful genealogy -- someone with
> > approximately the right name, in approximately the right place
> > 'must' be the ancestor, so gets filled in. Then I had a second
> > thought on it, and maybe it's reasonable. Namely, when I'm looking
> > for someone 5 generations back (call it early-mid 1800s), I'm
> > looking far enough back that the people now living don't have much,
> > if any memory of that ancestor. Also, at that remove, the person
> > has only a moderate number of currently living descendants. I'll
> > only find prior work if one of that modest number has done some
> > research already. But what are the chances that they have? Not
> > impressive.
> >
> > Make it 10 generations instead of 5, and there are buckets of
> > current descendants. Chances of at least one of them already having
> > done some work get to be pretty good.
> >
> > How does that sound?
> >
> > Robert Grumbine <bo...@saltmine.radix.net>
>
> uncommon names. Uncommon names also means fewer people searching
> today. But in either case, this only applies if you are getting
> your information through existing lineages that others have worked
> out. If you're doing it through original research, looking for
> primary/original source documentation to establish your connections,
> it probably wouldn't apply. In that case, it should simply get
> harder the further back you go. Fewer records being kept, fewer
> records surviving, makes it harder to establish those connections.
> The number of people searching the same ground would not be
> meaningful.
>
> Q <quo...@gmail.com>
It still applies in the way that other's research can help point us
to the primary sources. Good research of course means we verify,
verify, verify!! It has been helpful to me finding others' previous
research to focus my research.
Robert Grumbine
> the same conclusion.
Great minds think alike.
> Though there are more readily accessible
> records on the more recent ancestors, fewer people have spent time
> on the research. Yet, our relatively recent flood of online records
> should/could be advancing the research on the recent years.
>
> Was genealogy research of more interest during certain periods of
> time?
Certainly. (Interest in everything else has rises and falls;
it'd be astonishing if Genealogy were immune.)
> Has there been a different feeling about privacy and
> accessibility of records at different times. My Swiss research
> suddenly became more difficult when the time period on privacy
> protection was extended back extremely far, maybe forever back. I
> don't remember the exact details but I do recall that the cost of
> obtaining records became extremely high.
>
> Did the work of the Mormons initially focus on a particular time?
Not that I know of. At least not specifically.
I expect, though, that something does operate analogously to
my areas of science. Namely, that with very old records,
there's a desire to ensure that the oldest ones are not lost
forever. As one comes towards the present, there are more
versions (one hopes), so less concern about one decaying
before you can scan/transcribe/... it.
> So many things may have contributed to the difference in quantities
> of old research, as you have noted, and yet my guess is that the
> number of descendants IS the main reason??
>
> It is kinda cool finding someone who has thought out one of my own
> questions and come to a similar conclusion. I had assumed I was too
> inexperienced to have even asked the question.
I'm awfully inexperienced myself, so don't make much conclusion
from my saying something.
Still, I'm a firm believer in asking questions, early and often.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Robert Grumbine <bo...@saltmine.radix.net>
Robert Grumbine
In article <h7u2a7$1ph$1...@askin-17.linkpendium.com>, Q wrote:
[trim of my original]
> Insightfull! This would also explain the difficulty in working with
> uncommon names. Uncommon names also means fewer people searching
> today. But in either case, this only applies if you are getting
> your information through existing lineages that others have worked
> out. If you're doing it through original research, looking for
> primary/original source documentation to establish your connections,
> it probably wouldn't apply. In that case, it should simply get
> harder the further back you go. Fewer records being kept, fewer
> records surviving, makes it harder to establish those connections.
> The number of people searching the same ground would not be
> meaningful.
I almost took this to its own thread, but will stay here for now.
In my day job, I'm a scientist/engineer. From my fields, I've
had fairly extended training that reinventing the wheel is not a
good idea. I've carried that sentiment into my fooling around with
genealogy. That rule doesn't work so well over here.
Still, I think it ought to. And the fact that it doesn't,
represents a serious problem.
The thing is, at some point, you cannot read all the original
documents yourself. In that generation, say 10th, where you've
got 1024 ancestors, there are simply too many people for you to
acquire all the originals*. Further, the access to the originals
(10 generations back of someone born today is ca. 1700) is very
likely limited. Those are delicate old papers, not something sitting
on the shelf for everyone to yank down and photocopy/photograph/...
Even if they exist, there comes a time when time, money, or access
run out.
At some point, we need to be able to have some confidence about
sources. Say that someone correctly (or at least reasonably
correctly) transcribed gravestones, or marriage licences, or tax
rolls (a couple of my remoter ancestors show up as neighbors in
the 1670s, but they don't link up genealogically until their
great-granddaughter's generation), etc.. In practice, we seldom
can. Too many of the 'researchers' have been in a hunt to find
what they want to find (hence the many trees for a certain ancestor
of mine which have a parent being born after the child -- so as
to link up with someone reasonably famous). Still, it'd be
a great thing to have some higher quality/more reliable sources,
and some ratings as to their reliability.
* If you've (a generic 'you') already made it to 10 generations,
or at least order 1000 certificates, then proceed with the argument
being 15 or 20 generations (32 k or 1 million).
Ian Goddard
Robert Grumbine wrote:
> I almost took this to its own thread, but will stay here for now.
Good.
What you need is publication of original material.
For my area at least images are available on microfiche for PRs going
back as far as they exist. They are the product of the county archives
who hold the originals. As I live in the area I can have access either
via the public library or at the local family history society. I
believe Mormon FHCs can also obtain copies.
Although such images get round the conservation issues you outline
they're still not ideal. In some cases material is missing due to
decay. In others the nature of the original is such that it isn't
easily rendered in a monochrome image. Ideally one would like to see
such material imaged using colour, IR, IR luminescence etc. in the hope
that what's obscure to one technique is legible to another.
An alternative is a good, scholarly critical edition which uses not just
the PRs but also the BTs (Bishop's Transcripts) which sometimes make
good missing material in the PRs. This also highlights conflicts in the
entries for the same event between PRs & BTs. Whilst one is relying on
someone else's reading (and it's alarming to find an entry in the
transcript's index which isn't on the page!) that someone else has
almost certainly spent much longer with the material & got their eye in
for the condition of the document and the various hands and, most
importantly, worked from the originals.
> * If you've (a generic 'you') already made it to 10 generations,
> or at least order 1000 certificates, then proceed with the argument
> being 15 or 20 generations (32 k or 1 million).
I don't know about your jurisdiction but here there are only
certificates from 1837 onwards - a bit short to cram in 10 gernerations ;-)
--
Ian
Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk
Ian Goddard <godd...@hotmail.co.uk>
singhals
Robert Grumbine wrote:
> In article <h7u2jq$2th$1...@askin-17.linkpendium.com>, SHARON Zingery wrote:
>
>>Actually, I HAVE thought about the same thing and came to much of
>>the same conclusion.
>
>
> Great minds think alike.
>
>
>>Though there are more readily accessible
>>records on the more recent ancestors, fewer people have spent time
>>on the research. Yet, our relatively recent flood of online records
>>should/could be advancing the research on the recent years.
>>
>>Was genealogy research of more interest during certain periods of
>>time?
>
>
> Certainly. (Interest in everything else has rises and falls;
> it'd be astonishing if Genealogy were immune.)
>
>
>>Has there been a different feeling about privacy and
>>accessibility of records at different times. My Swiss research
>>suddenly became more difficult when the time period on privacy
>>protection was extended back extremely far, maybe forever back. I
>>don't remember the exact details but I do recall that the cost of
>>obtaining records became extremely high.
>>
>>Did the work of the Mormons initially focus on a particular time?
>
>
> Not that I know of. At least not specifically.
>From the beginning of Mormon church, in the early 19th century,
members were expected to document their ancestors. That would mean
"names" from the late 1700s through mid-1800s.
Then, there was a period in the middle of the 20th century where
members were expected to provide 4 generations of ancestors... in
most cases, hooking back into the mid-1800s or earlier.
> I expect, though, that something does operate analogously to
> my areas of science. Namely, that with very old records,
> there's a desire to ensure that the oldest ones are not lost
> forever. As one comes towards the present, there are more
> versions (one hopes), so less concern about one decaying
> before you can scan/transcribe/... it.
>
>
>>So many things may have contributed to the difference in quantities
>>of old research, as you have noted, and yet my guess is that the
>>number of descendants IS the main reason??
Possible, but ... no matter how many descendants there are, if the
records do not exist because they were never made, then the info is
unavailable. F'instance, you can get back to about 1650 fairly
easily in England; before 1600 -- not even the Catholic Church made
baptismal records, so you're not going to find one. Ask me -- I'm
one of 13,000 known descendants of a man born ca 1695 in England, I
even know his parents, but I STILL can't find the baptismal record.
Also, pedigree collapse means a lot of people are looking for the
SAME person, so finding that person seems easier (the fewer choices
there are the easier it is to make one).
IMO and YMMV and IBWB.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Ian Goddard
singhals wrote:
> F'instance, you can get back to about 1650 fairly
> easily in England; before 1600 -- not even the Catholic Church made
> baptismal records, so you're not going to find one. Ask me -- I'm
> one of 13,000 known descendants of a man born ca 1695 in England, I
> even know his parents, but I STILL can't find the baptismal record.
Huh????
Compulsory PRs were introduced in 1538 in England. I suspect your
1600 date refers to the fact that binding of registers wasn't
enforced until 1597 so that in many, but not all, parishes the
earlier entries were lost. Also in 1597 BTs were introduced so
there's a double chance of getting material from that date.
Having said that there are many problems. I've encountered decay
removal of pages, failure to write up records from chapels (with
luck the chapelry records may have survived independently), failure
to write up events which took place in the parish church itself and
failure to write up BTs (entire blocks of one or more whole years).
You also have to take account of the burgeoning number of sects
outside the CoE and its record keeping. I've also come across a
diary of a C17th curate who was sympathetic to nonconformists and
baptised children of nonconformists outside his own parish; what, if
any, registry entries would have been made in such circumstances?
singhals
> singhals wrote:
>
> > F'instance, you can get back to about 1650 fairly
> > easily in England; before 1600 -- not even the Catholic Church made
> > baptismal records, so you're not going to find one. Ask me -- I'm
> > one of 13,000 known descendants of a man born ca 1695 in England, I
> > even know his parents, but I STILL can't find the baptismal record.
>
>
> Compulsory PRs were introduced in 1538 in England. I suspect your
> 1600 date refers to the fact that binding of registers wasn't
> enforced until 1597 so that in many, but not all, parishes the
> earlier entries were lost. Also in 1597 BTs were introduced so
> there's a double chance of getting material from that date.
>
> Having said that there are many problems. I've encountered decay
> removal of pages, failure to write up records from chapels (with
> luck the chapelry records may have survived independently), failure
> to write up events which took place in the parish church itself and
> failure to write up BTs (entire blocks of one or more whole years).
>
> You also have to take account of the burgeoning number of sects
> outside the CoE and its record keeping. I've also come across a
> diary of a C17th curate who was sympathetic to nonconformists and
> baptised children of nonconformists outside his own parish; what, if
> any, registry entries would have been made in such circumstances?
>
I defer to Ian's greater expertise.
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>
Ian Goddard
Ian Goddard wrote:
> singhals wrote:
>
> > F'instance, you can get back to about 1650 fairly
> > easily in England; before 1600 -- not even the Catholic Church made
> > baptismal records, so you're not going to find one. Ask me -- I'm
> > one of 13,000 known descendants of a man born ca 1695 in England, I
> > even know his parents, but I STILL can't find the baptismal record.
>
> You also have to take account of the burgeoning number of sects
> outside the CoE and its record keeping.
Just a thought - if your ancestor was non-conformist you might find
him here
http://www.bmdregisters.co.uk/
singhals
Ian Goddard wrote:
> Ian Goddard wrote:
>
> > singhals wrote:
> >
> >
> > > F'instance, you can get back to about 1650 fairly
> > > easily in England; before 1600 -- not even the Catholic Church made
> > > baptismal records, so you're not going to find one. Ask me -- I'm
> > > one of 13,000 known descendants of a man born ca 1695 in England, I
> > > even know his parents, but I STILL can't find the baptismal record.
> >
> > You also have to take account of the burgeoning number of sects
> >outside the CoE and its record keeping.
>
> Just a thought - if your ancestor was non-conformist you might find
> him here
>
> http://www.bmdregisters.co.uk/
If there was one thing in the wide-wide world Tom Cresap /was/, it
was non-conformist! Although, I suspect, not in the sense you mean --
worst luck.
But no -- lookit there! a 1709 marriage in London ... which fits
NOTHING we currently know about him .. except, RG-7?!?
ROTFLMSS!!! I /KNEW/ it!!!
Snicker, giggle ...
THANKS, Ian!
Cheryl
singhals <sing...@erols.com>