TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L Archives

Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2009-12 > 1261663534


From: "LBoswell" <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Absence vs. Availability of Evidence
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:05:34 -0500
References: <mailman.1110.1261626875.32213.transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com><a06240807c7589fab349b@[192.168.1.3]>
In-Reply-To: <a06240807c7589fab349b@[192.168.1.3]>


I think you go where the evidence takes you. You come to the best
conclusion that you can based on what's available, but also by considering
what's not there. You can't ignore the reality that there are missing
records that could hold information that would dramatically alter your
conclusions, and you have to acknowledge that in your argument. You could
also explore alternative ways of obtaining the information that might have
been in those records (establish family connections by inference based on
indirect evidence).

But here, I'd also say the 'traditional' view has gone too far in the other
direction. They're taking the point of view that the destroyed records are
supportive of their conclusions. Those missing records don't support
anyone's point of view, how could they? They're saying that "we're right
because the proof *could* be in the destroyed records." That may be true,
but it's a bogus argument, not one that a serious researcher would entertain
at all.

But there are different versions of these types of research problems. In my
case there were indirect links between certain individuals who appeared to
exhibit some type of connection; they were known to have come from a
particular area earlier; and that area is known to have missing records. So
there is a reasonable argument that can be made, one that employs the fact
of missing records but also a wide range of other information. And also
examines alternative family connections and shows why the individuals
concerned could not be connected to those alternatives.

In the case you describe, it looks like they're assuming the missing records
will support their case, but without sufficient information to back it up.

But no conclusions, no matter what the evidence is, can be absolute.
There's always room for doubt. We only have the written (and sometimes
oral) record to go on. What's written can also have been contrived to
intentionally hide private truths that are now lost in time.

You've built a good case on the available evidence. The case is solid.
That's all you can do.

Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jillaine Smith" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: [TGF] Absence vs. Availability of Evidence


> Let me try again.
>
> Regarding my correspondents who do not accept the recent Register
> (and my upcoming) findings, their point is that there is a lot of
> missing information from this time period. The vital records were
> burned during King Philip's war. They therefore surmise that it's
> possible that in those missing records could be alternative answers
> that would support their claims.
>
> I cannot deny that those burned records contain information that
> would greatly clarify who was married to whom and what children were
> born to whom when.
>
> But I only have to go on what IS available.
>
> So I say: within the existing documentation, there is proof of only one
> Ruth.
> They say: but in the missing information, there could be proof of a
> second Ruth.
>
> What's a genealogist/researcher to do?
>
> I realize I have a second, somewhat related question.
>
> Somewhere back in 1860, a researcher -- could have been Savage and/or
> Freeman -- had sufficient data to make the claim in print that one
> Richard Taylor married Ruth Burgess in the 1640s. This print document
> has therefore been quoted again and again and again through the
> present time. Neither of these two researchers included their sources
> in their printed research, and since then, no contemporaneous record
> has been found to confirm the existence of Ruth Burgess. But
> Savage/Freeman had some reason at some point in time to make the
> claim. Neither of these people pulled this name out of thin air. It
> came from somewhere. How do you deal with THAT? How do you figure out
> where the heck that name came from?
>
> Thanks for all the responses so far.
>
> --
> ~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
> Jillaine Smith - Bethesda, Maryland
> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jillaine
> http://www.werelate.org/wiki/User:jillaine
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word
> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the
> message

This thread: