There has been some discussion recently on a genealogy librarians' mailing list concerning inaccurate or bogus genealogies. These are materials that, as researchers, are difficult to understand, but about which we must be wary. In "Along Those Lines. . ." this week, let's explore some of the reasons why bogus genealogical information seems to be so widespread and how we can protect ourselves from this problem.

A Little Background
In previous centuries, it was not unusual for wealthy people to hire someone to research their ancestral lines and produce a genealogical report. There were certainly cases where the wealthy patron requested a connection to kings, queens, heads of state, and other famous personages. Researchers may have also fabricated such links in anticipation of more favorable payment. (This is one of the reasons why, as genealogists, we start our research with ourselves and work backward, rather than starting with Charlemagne and "forcing" a connection to our line of descent.)

These days, most professional genealogical researchers adhere to more stringent codes of conduct and ethics. These are set forth by such excellent professional standards organizations as the Board for Certification of Genealogists. [This is not to say there are no unscrupulous or sloppy professional researchers. It is always important to check the credentials and references of any professional researcher you might consider hiring.]

However, despite these standards, fabrication has continued in recent times. For instance, some people have been eager to connect themselves to famous personages or families in order to join a hereditary society. As a result, some of them may have "fudged" the facts, the dates, and/or the connections in order to make the cut. The societies themselves have had to institute rigorous standards of proof and meticulously check the documentation submitted with membership applications. In some societies, it has been necessary to conduct a retroactive evaluation of all documentation to re-prove valid connections. I have personally seen information in societies' records that I can prove is incorrect through my own careful research, and I have seen these same documents used in others' published research.

Reasons Behind Bogus and/or Inaccurate Genealogies
Why would someone write a bogus genealogy? As I mentioned earlier, there may have been financial incentives for creating such a family connection. Being a descendant of a famous or wealthy ancestor does have some benefits: fame, fortune (perhaps in the form of an inheritance), position in society, and membership in certain organizations, to mention a few. As a result, a published or privately printed genealogy may well contain a little or a lot of fabricated data.

In other instances, inaccurate genealogies may simply be the result of inattentive or sloppy work. A genealogist may have obtained the information from another person or from a printed genealogy; he or she may have assumed the data was correct without conducting personal research to verify the evidence. The problem is that, once published, a substantial number of other researchers accept the information as fact. Some just don't know any better, while others are just plain lazy. These people may then perpetuate the errors or inaccuracies in their own charts or, worse yet, in another published genealogy. Let me give you an example.

John Bennett Boddie, on page 387 of his book Seventeenth Century Isle of Wight Virginia, Vol. I, lists the names of 13 children of Nathan Bodie and Mary Edna Eidson. The names are supposedly presented in birth sequence and with names of spouses, beginning with James Russell, Jesse, Mary, Ann, Manda, Elizabeth, Amorilla, Susan, Jane, Virginia, Daniel, Jennie, and Andrew (all with surname Bodie). Two children's names listed there are of particular interest. Manda is listed as the fifth child, with no birth year, and her spouse is shown as Willis Holmes. Another daughter, Amorilla, is listed as the seventh child, born in 1839, but with no spouse's name shown. An examination of the 1850 census shows the name "Amanda" written in such a way (with curlicues and flourishes) that it could easily be interpreted as "Amorilla." There is no Manda listed. The conclusion, then, is that the author misinterpreted the handwriting in the 1850 census. However, a later marriage record indicates that Willis Holmes was, in fact, the spouse of Amanda Bodie—not of Manda or Amorilla.

In a subsequent book, A Documented History of the Long Family, on page 237, Eytive Long Evans includes the names of Nathan Bodie and Mary Edna Eidsen's children as "James Russell, Jesse, Mary, Ann, Susan, Jane, and others." While the author does not cite the aforementioned book (or anything else) as her source, one might conjecture that she recognized potential problems with the Manda and Amorilla entries and therefore omitted them, especially since she listed some earlier-born and later-born children.

But what is also of significant interest is both books' treatment of the children's birth sequence. In the first book, Jesse Bodie's birth date is given as 1830 and he is listed second. Jesse's birth date was actually in 1826, and he preceded his brother, James Russell Bodie. But the incorrect sequence is also listed in Evans' book. Inasmuch as Boddie's book was the only printed genealogy concerning this branch of the Bodie family in existence when Evans' book was written, and since the two lists of children are in the same sequence (although the children are listed differently in the 1850 census), it is probable that Evans used and accepted Boddie's work and perpetuated his conclusions, albeit with some errors.

Thus, this is an example of a case where there are two printed sources with similar information, and one probably derived from the other. Because Evans' did not document her source for the Bodie family data (contrary to the title of her book, I might add), it is impossible to be certain that Boddie's data was her source. However, had she examined the 1850 census page herself and subsequently pursued the census records for all of the Bodie children, she would not have perpetuated the chronological sequence error of John Russell Bodie being born before Jesse Bodie.

So this is also an excellent example of why you should verify source evidence for yourself. In this case, finding the truth required a personal examination of both printed sources, the 1850 census, and at least one marriage record.

Protecting Yourself
Most of us still conduct a significant amount of research in person at libraries, archives, courthouses, and other venues, or we are corresponding to obtain copies of records. As you work with printed materials, what do you do when you find two or more printed resources with conflicting information? You should (and must) start looking for additional resources, preferably in the form of the actual records from which the data was derived. Examine them for yourself, and make your own interpretation. Remember also that yet a third printed genealogy could exist, perpetuating errors or inaccuracies from one or both of the others.

Certainly, the Internet has expanded our horizons and our research range. Databases filled with other people's genealogical research are found in many places, and you must assume from the outset that what you will find is, at best, a tertiary source—a source derived from a primary or secondary source, transcribed from other sources, or maybe even taken from fourth- or fifth-hand data. The same holds true for information received from another researcher.

All of this illustrates the fact that you must be meticulous in verifying information you receive from sources other than original documents. While I am not saying that there are people who consciously perpetrate genealogical fraud or purposely falsify records, I am suggesting that we all maintain a healthy skepticism and look beyond making assumptions regarding the accuracy of the things we see in print. Regardless of the source—printed genealogy, database of any kind, GEDCOM file, e-mail message, message board posting, or whatever—protect your research by obtaining source citations, and follow through to review them for yourself.

Happy Hunting!

George

Bibliography
Evans, Eytive Long. A Documented History of the Long Family. Decatur, GA: Bowen Press. 1956.

Boddie, John Bennett. Seventeenth Century Isle of Wight Virginia. Vol. I. Chicago: Chicago Law Printing. 1938.

George G. Morgan is a proud member of the International Society of Family History Writers and Editors, Inc. He would like to hear from you at atl@ahaseminars.com, but due to the volume of e-mail received, he is unable to answer every message. Please note that he cannot assist you with your individual research. Visit George's Web site for information about speaking engagements. George is also the author of The Genealogy Forum on America Online.

© Copyright 2000, MyFamily.com. All rights reserved.