Saturday, May 26, 2018
Photographers have been manipulating photos since photography was invented. For example, this photo of a fountain in downtown Washington, D.C. had some distracting elements. The people and the sign in the background pulled your eyes away from the swirling water and of course, the small and barely visible duck. Most of the attempts at photo manipulation in the past when the photographer or editor had to work with negatives and prints were painfully obvious. But improvements in technology have made them almost seamless.
I decided to take out the people and the sign. Here is the resultant photo.
I would classify this change as a "quick and dirty" edit of the original. But if you look more closely, more has changed than just the editing of the people and sign. Look at the contrast and the colors. If I were going to do a complete edit of the photo, I would have also removed the flagpole on the right side. I might also have removed the light fixtures on the building. If something is missing from a photo, how can you tell?
Years ago, there was a commonly used phrase that said, "photos don't lie." But today, with digital images, almost any photo is suspect. I could have put people into this photo as easily as it was, using Adobe Photoshop, to take them out.
When we modify an old photograph to "repair" the damage of age or to "mend" the scratches we are changing history. A photograph is a historical artifact and should be conserved but not changed. Since I took the photo and I am not trying to represent that it is accurate in any way, am I justified in altering the original for my own purposes? I am not representing that the edited photo is in any way "reality." I am can change the photo any way I want to. I would suggest that in today's world, virtually 100% of all the published photos you see have been manipulated in Photoshop or a similar program.
Does this view of "artistic license" extend to historical photos? I think not. But changing and editing photos is so common as to be ubiquitous. Here is an example of a page from the FamilySearch.org Memories section showing photos of George Jarvis and his wife. How many of these photos have been manipulated in some way?
What about this photo?
This photo has the notation that it was taken in 1911. Would it help you to evaluate the historical value of this photo to know that color film in sheets for cameras was first introduced in about 1938? You can see from the previous screenshot that this photo was originally in black and white. Where did the color come from? It was painted onto the image. You may like this color photo better than the black and white but is it historically accurate?
When I discuss this issue with those who are preserving photos of their ancestors, they often do not care at all whether or not the photo has been changed. They merely want a photo that looks good. Are genealogists historians? Are we entitled to rewrite our own history just as I can edit my own photos?
These are real issues but seldom discussed or emphasized by the usual genealogical discourse.
Friday, May 25, 2018
|A.J. Russell image of the celebration following the driving of the "Last Spike" at Promontory Summit, U.T., May 10, 1869. Because of temperance feelings, the liquor bottles held in the center of the picture were removed from some later prints.|
The first railroad in America was the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, chartered in 1827. As a side note, we recently viewed the Charles Carroll House here in Annapolis, Maryland. In 1830, Charles Carroll was the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence and he laid the first stone when construction on the track began in Baltimore on July 4, 1828. See AmericasLibrary.gov, "First U.S. Railway Chartered to Transport Freight and Passengers, February 28, 1827."
Many occupational records have survived but finding them can be a challenge. My own ancestors lived in Northern Arizona and worked for the railroad to provide cash for a large family. Their construction experience likely led to their later involvement in road construction and my uncles founded what became, at one time, one of the largest businesses in Arizona. However, if your ancestors worked for the railroad records of their employment could be in an archive or another historical repository such as a railroad museum.
To start your research, you may wish to investigate exactly where your ancestors lived and whether or not they were near a rail line. Millions of Americans worked for the railroads and records of their employment are scattered from the U.S. National Archives to local libraries. Here is an example from the National Archives:
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Proof is a complex subject. Some of the most popular programs on TV and the Internet involve "detectives" who investigate crimes, most usually murders of some sort, and "solve" the crime by gathering evidence. More recent such programs have a standard cast of characters who each have special, almost superhuman, characteristics. There also seems to be a need for a "forensics" lab character who is able to do magical things with technology. The bad people are always confronted with the proof of their evil deeds if they are not shot outright and killed.
This tradition of providing proof of wrongdoing goes back into the haze of prehistory. Interestingly, as I have written in past posts, genealogists have carried this conflict based idea of proof over into the world of historical research. Almost uniformly, genealogists are portrayed in their own writing as detectives who are discovering evidence and proving a relationship. Concomitantly, the words evidence, prove, proof, and other words usually associated with courts cases, criminal investigations, and other such activities have permeated genealogical research reports.
We do have another, not so common, use of the concept of proof in science and particularly mathematics.
|By Norman Megill - http://us2.metamath.org:8888/mpegif/mmset.html, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2538670|
How does all this apply to genealogy? In the past, in an attempt to validate genealogy as a "profession" some very influential lawyer/genealogists have given genealogy a patina of legal jargon. The idea of discovering historical documents and records, recording the information and noting the citations of where those records can be found has, in some instances, into a form of advocacy that involves proof. However, there are no genealogical judges or juries except those that are self-appointed by genealogical entities.
Yet, there are serious and ongoing disagreements between genealogical researchers. On the surface, genealogical research seems to have similarities to scientific, mathematical or legal investigations. We do examine the historical record and try to discover information about our ancestors. This activity has some of the characteristics of detective work and we even use some high-tech tools such as DNA testing. Can we prove our case for an ancestral relationship? Actually, there are more differences than there are similarities. If we can design a DNA test that includes enough individuals from the right lines, we may be able to increase the percentage possibility of a relationship, but unless we are dealing with 1st and 2nd generation relationships, even DNA testing has a measurable degree of uncertainty.
The basic answer to the question in the title of this post is both yes and no. You can believe something because of your own personal experience, but you cannot prove your experience to others unless they are willing to go through the same process you go through to achieve your own certain knowledge. When we are talking about history and historical records, we move into the area of opinion. The degree of believability of your conclusions and opinions is based entirely on the arguments you develop based on the historical records you can use to support your claims. Historical (i.e. genealogical) research is not amenable to the scientific method. I cannot give you a set of steps that you can use to be convinced that I am right in my conclusions. Although, I may be very persuasive and you may believe me. There is always a possibility that one more record will change my opinion.
Conviction or belief is not the same as proof. I may have a strong religious or philosophical belief or conviction in the truth of some fact. Which by the way, I do. But that does not extend to my conclusions derived from historical records. Because of my personal religious beliefs, I do happen to believe in Divine intervention and modern revelation, and as a genealogist, I may feel prompted to find a record or look for an individual, but ultimately, I have to find some historical record or document to support my conclusion of a relationship or depend on a structured and research supported DNA test. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe that life continues after death. See "The Postmortal Spirit World." I personally believe that my deceased relatives, under special circumstances, could intervene in my genealogical research. But this is not the basis for claiming proof of any relationship. I must still do the work of connecting the families with historical research.
Whatever your philosophical or religious beliefs, as a genealogist we base our conclusions on historical documents and records. When we speak of proof, we are merely expressing our belief or opinion.
Monday, May 21, 2018
The common practice of "restoring" old photographs has some practical, historical, and ethical considerations. Photo restoration companies use "before" and "after" pictures to show how much an old photo can be improved. Most of the time, when I talk to people about "restoring" a photo, I get little or no negative response. It is practically universal that people would like to see their photos restored. But there is more than one side to this issue.
If you look at the photo above, can you tell what the original photograph looked like? This photo is probably a print from a glass negative. It is possible that a better paper print exists somewhere that may have been made before the damage occurred to the negative. The apparent damage looks like it was present on the glass negative when the print was made. My best guess of the origin of the white spots is that they were from some type of sticky tape used when the glass plate was stored.
From an archival standpoint, it is extremely important to make sure this photo is reproduced or digitized in its present condition. Nothing at all should be done to enhance or modify the original. If you want to "enhance" or edit the photo, always make sure you are using a copy and not the "original." If I were to enhance this photo, there would be no doubt that my efforts would make the photo more pleasing. Ethically, once I make any changes or enhancements of any kind, no matter how minor, the photo is no longer an archival original. It then becomes an interpretation of the original.
Here is an example of what could be done to this photo. I am using Adobe Lightroom to make some minimal changes.
All I did was to increase the contrast which brings out some of the detail that was not visible in the original. There is a good argument that this type of enhancement should be "allowed" as part of the curation process. Here is another copy of the photo with some additional changes.
It would not be too much of an argument to suggest that the photo now looks better than the original. One of the main issues with old photos is the condition of the original. If the photograph was bad to begin with. i.e. out of focus or similar problem, it is not likely that Photoshop or Lightroom could fix the problems. But if the basic image is in focus and has moderately good contrast, the tools in the programs can make the photo look a lot better. But remember, the edited photo is not a substitute for the original.
Here is an example of more extreme editing. There is usually an incentive to make the people look better than they did in real life. If you look closely at the photo, you can see that the men's suits look like they are covered in lint. Maybe they actually were. But the inclination is to clean up the suits. After moving the photo over to Photoshop from Lightroom, here is a sample of some of the additional changes. Remember, the question is always what is enhancing the original and what is changing or improving on the original.
The more work I do on the photo, the "better" it looks. But at some point, the photo is no longer historically accurate and some of the work is mine rather than what was in the original photo. I could do a lot more work on this photo and then it would become my work and not much left of the original.
Most genealogists would not think twice about improving a photo, but it is extremely important to preserve the originals or as close to the originals as possible. Eventually, if changes continue to be made, the photo ceases to be accurate at all.
Sunday, May 20, 2018
When you hear or read about the hidden or deep web, it’s anything behind a paywall, something with a password, or dynamically generated content on the fly and didn’t have a permanent URL. These are the things you are not going to find with a traditional Google search. So, where can you look? Thankfully, there are deep web search engines available on the web.Of course, there is a component of the Internet that is used for bad or illegal purposes, but a good analogy is that the Internet is like a huge city. You can find a lot of things that are helpful in a huge city, but there are likely dangerous places that you would be better off not visiting. How do you find what you want while avoiding the "bad" sections of town? The main way is to stay on clear and public areas rather than blindly "surfing" the web. If you look for evil things you will find them, so don't look.
For genealogists, one example of searching the deep web is looking for records in libraries and university special collections. Very few of these cataloged items will show up in a general Google search. The most obvious search engine for locating research materials in libraries around the world is WorldCat.org. As genealogists or family historians, we should be familiar with libraries and archives. But as I have seen recently here in Maryland while working at the Maryland State Archives digitizing records, the libraries and archives may still be working with their data a little bit back in the past. Here is a sight I saw during a recent visit to the Library of Congress.
I also see a huge card catalog every day at the Maryland State Archives. No Google search is going to help you find your records if they are still cataloged on a 3 x 5 card. When I write about all the records that are available online, there is always a caveat. There are many records that will not show up in a Google search and there are many others that are not yet discoverable by searching on the Internet.
What all this really boils down to is that research is open-ended. You really never get to the end of the possibilities. I have been searching for my Tanner ancestors in Rhode Island for years and yet I still haven't taken the time to go visit the libraries and archives in Rhode Island so I am undoubtedly missing something. Until I actually spend the time to visit those local libraries and archives, I will likely be missing something. But on the other hand, to make a cursory search of the Internet resources and think you have found everything online is delusional.
Now, I found that there is a book about my Tanner family and the only copy I know about is in a library in Florida. Is it worth the trip?
Saturday, May 19, 2018
The ability to decipher handwriting is an essential tool for the research genealogist and the further you research back in time, the more necessary the skill of reading the handwritten documents becomes.
There are two major challenges in reading old handwriting: the changes in the script and the penmanship of the writer. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to learn how to read old handwriting other than hard work and practice. However, there are some good resources to aid in your efforts. I would start with the help page from the FamilySearch.org Indexing Project. Here is a screenshot of part of the page.
- Alphabet (Secretary Hand)
- Old English Guide - Introduction
- Old English Guide - A to M
- Old English Guide - N to Z
- Lesson 1: Reading Handwritten Letters
- Lesson 2: Reading Handwritten Dates and Words
- Lesson 3: Reading Handwritten Documents
- BYU Script Tutorial
- Palaeography 1500-1800 (UK National Archives)
- Latin Genealogical Word List
- Early American Handwriting Game
Books about old handwriting are also helpful. Here is a selection of books you might consider. I do not usually find these books in a local library but you can search for a library that might have the book on WorldCat.org.
- Barrett, John, and David Iredale. Discovering Old Handwriting. Princes Risborough: Shire, 2001.
- Brook, G. L. An Introduction to Old English. Manchester [England: University Press, 1955.
- Cope, Emma Elizabeth Thoyts. How to Decipher and Study Old Documents: Being a Guide to the Reading of Ancient Manuscripts. Salt Lake City, Utah: Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1978.
- Essex Record Office, and Hilda Elizabeth Poole Grieve. Examples of English Handwriting, 1150-1750, with Transcripts and Translations. Part I: From Essex Parish Records. Part II: From Other Essex Archives. Chelmsford? Essex Education Committee, 1954.
- Gardner, David E, and Frank Smith. Old English Handwriting, Latin, Research Standards and Procedures. Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1966.
- Hamilton, Charles. The Signature of America: A Fresh Look at Famous Handwriting. New York: Harper & Row, 1979.
- Jaunay, Graham. Cracking the Code of Old Handwriting, 2016.
- ———. How to Read Old Handwriting. Glandore, SA: Adelaide Proformat, 2006.
- Kirkham, E. Kay. The Handwriting of American Records for a Period of 300 Years. Logan, Utah: Everton Publishers, 1973.
- Leftwich, Ralph Winnington. Shakespeare’s Handwriting and Other Papers. Worthing: The Worthing Gazette Co., 1921.
- McLaughlin, Eve. Reading Old Handwriting. Haddenham: Eve McLaughlin, 2007.
- Murray, Sabina J. Deciphering Old Handwriting & Commonly Found Abbreviations. Place of publication not identified: publisher not identified, 1999.
- National Archives (Great Britain). The National Archives Palaeography Tutorial: (how to Read Old Handwriting). Kew, Richmond, Surrey, UK: National Archives, 2003. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/palaeography/.
- Sperry, Kip. Reading Early American Handwriting, 2008.
- Thoyts, Emma Elizabeth. How to Read Old Documents. London: Phillimore, 1980.
- Ward Lock Educational Co. The Old Fashioned Handwriting Book: The No-Nonsense Hand-Writing Book to Help You Practise a Writing Style. London: Ward Lock Educational, 1981.
I took a class from Kip Sperry at Brigham Young University and used his book as the text. It was a very good class and helped me get started with deciphering some really old, difficult handwriting. But sometimes you just have to study it out. I usually start by staring at the handwriting for a while and then come back to it the next day and keep staring and trying to see the letters until finally it starts to click and I can begin to see words and letters. It sometimes takes a week or more of this practice to make out what was written.
Friday, May 18, 2018
The stereotypical idea of a genealogist is an older, sort of out-of-touch with reality, dowdy aunt or uncle that collects and relates stories and spends time gathering names and dates about your family. He or she is usually the person you want to avoid at a family gathering. As I have mentioned several times before, the demographic for this blog is usually an older person with a university degree and with no children at home. I suggest we start to move beyond the stereotype and realize that genealogy is dramatically changing.
The main problem with the old model genealogist is that he or she worked alone. The new version of a genealogist is someone who is definitely part of a larger, online genealogical community and is collaborating with a network of others who are researching the same family lines. We no longer have to rely on the interest level of our close relatives, we can now reach out to people who share our interest and are willing to cooperate in researching shared family lines.
What is strange about this "new" model is that the lone genealogist was only lone because of a lack of ability to network with others who shared the same interest. In the past, you could join a genealogical society, but it would be pure chance that anyone in your circle of genealogists was working on the same family lines you were working on. With today's online family trees, finding relatives is usually pretty simple. Deciding you want to talk to them and collaborate with them is still a challenge.
I "grew up" in total isolation from anything that could be considered to be a genealogical community. My family was mostly allergic to genealogy. The mere mention of the word made most of them break out in hives. Today, I have a huge circle of people who are working on my ancestral lines and helping me to find sources and making progress with the "end-of-line" ancestors.
For many years now, I have been immersed in collaborating with a number of people who share my interest and enthusiasm for research. Unfortunately, I still encounter a considerable number of genealogists who think that they own their genealogy and are afraid that others will steal their information. Some are so concerned about protecting their information that even when I am trying to help them, they are afraid to let me see their pedigree chart or look at the sources they have copied.
The irony is that genealogy is about families. The isolation comes from failing to involve those around you even when they do not have your level of interest. It is true that some families are dysfunctional, but in many cases, it is possible to find those who share an interest in the photos, stories, and memorabilia but may not have an interest in the dates and places.
You might think that the benefits of collaboration are so obvious that it would be natural for genealogists to freely share their information with family members. But my own experience leads me to believe that there are more people out there who are worried about protecting their data than is logical. One factor that I see that will break down this isolation is the movement to use DNA testing as a component of genealogical research. Once a person has "relatives" that they did not previously know and who are related by "blood" it makes the idea of genealogical research take on a new dimension.