More Living Columnists

• Dolores Sanchez Badillo: The view from the fenceline
• Mary Penner: Learning about your past is an awesome journey
• Steve Brewer: Goofy fads can hold fond memories for families

MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
  08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008
• Congressman is indicted
  08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
  08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says
  08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Waterboarding approval probed
  08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008

TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

• Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
• Is Rome Burning?
• Ominous Skies
• The Road to Invalidation
• Albuquerque company participates in “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

The 1860 census listed my ancestor's age as 27, born in Ohio. That suggests a birth date about 1833 - handy information.

Yet, when I looked at the 1870 census, his birthplace had migrated back east to New York, and he was now 47 years old.

Math isn't my strong suit, but adding 20 years to his age after just 10 years doesn't compute.

The 1880 census made the issue even murkier. This time he only aged 7 years in the 10-year span, logging in at age 54; however, his birthplace remained in New York.

Skip 20 years to the 1900 census - his birthplace reverted back to Ohio and his age was 69.

So, he was born in either Ohio or New York and his year of birth was 1833 or 1823 or 1826 or 1831. Maybe.

Clearly my ancestor either had a fuzzy memory for details, was a perpetual liar, or uninformed relatives or acquaintances doled out his curriculum vitae to the census-taker while he was off plowing a field.

Family historians face these dilemmas all the time. Just what is the truth? Unless I could travel back in time and witness his birth, I'll never know for sure when or where he was born.

Even eyewitnesses to an event, though, can get it wrong. Just ask any police detective. Witnesses to a crime each tell a different version.

Abraham Lincoln addressed the dilemma of truth this way: "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

Simply saying my ancestor was born in such and such a place on such and such a date doesn't make it so.

How do genealogists determine what is true and accurate about our research? We rely on the Genealogical Proof Standard.

Adopted by the Board for Certification of Genealogists, it serves as a standard for credibility in the genealogy world.

Genealogical research must satisfy these five elements of the standard in order to establish confidence in its conclusions.

1. Conduct a reasonably exhaustive search. Obviously, those census records don't offer enough evidence about my ancestor's age or birthplace. I'll have to consult additional resources.

2. Cite sources. Anyone can manufacture a family history, but if the research can't be verified through identifiable sources, consider it historical fiction rather than genealogy.

3. Analyze and draw conclusions based on research. We need to think critically about the data we've found.

4. Resolve conflicting evidence. I can't list four birthdates for one person. With further research, I need to determine which birth date is the most probable.

5. Create a written account of the research. We need to compile our research, our conclusions and our sources into a coherent written document.