Page 28 - index

Genealogical Research Standards 2 7

these publications do not make reference to their sources of
information. Previous compilers depended on gathering oral
history from living descendants, as many of us still do now.
How many of us have asked great-aunt Sally, who lives 1,000
miles away, to fax or e-mail us the BMDs for her children and
grandchildren? Certainly, tahng Sally's word for it is much
quicker and simpler than your having to apply for all those
vital certificates for her family. Are we inadvertently
perpetuating imperfectly remembered events or false
recollections of the past?
A superficially credible citation that provides you with
new information, when thoroughly investigated, may prove
to have an unclear or unsound basis. The basis, for instance,
might have been a family Bible that disappeared years ago,
or an inaccessible application to a lineage society. Even
though family historians have repeated the information
exponentially, can you trust it? The most impeccable
procedure entails a hunt for the first or orz@nal source that
started a chain of blind belief. Circumstances demand a
search for provenance.
For example, a definitive piece of information published
in a widely praised local collection of historical essays, with
a footnote, thrilled the beholder. The footnote took hm to
an older publication that referred vaguely to an early
newspaper article, which was difficult to locate. The article
was an interview with the grandchild of an immigrant settler
who gave "facts" about the pioneer's life in Ireland - facts
that were two generations removed from the speaker and
heavily editorialized by the journalist. Each subsequent
summary of the original article varied somewhat in the
content of "facts." \KThile the true facts may have been
passed down accurately to the grandchild, the current family
historian must report all the published inconsistencies.