Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
The Internet itself is now the world's largest library and holds an enormous amount of information. Unfortunately, it's not all good or even accurate information. As it becomes apparent to all of us at some point in time, there's a lot of bad information out there. The adage that "just because it's in print, it must be true," is falser than false. No, Virginia, at least some of the time the information, be it on DNA, onomastics, gedcoms, or anything else, is bad information no matter how well it's presented. Sometimes the person knows it's false; most times, I'm guessing, they don't. But the end result is the same, you are left with bad information. How do you find out what's good information and what's bad? Verify, verify, verify. If it's on a subject that interests you, learn enough about that subject to know good information when you see it. If it's a gedcom saying your ancestor was a descendant of, say, Alexander 'the Great," learn something about him before you get too attached to the idea.
One very different aspect of genealogy is that we strive for a high standard of proof. Ideally we verify all our facts, we evaluate all our sources, and we no longer use the legal standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) as it is simply too subjective for genealogical purposes. In all cases we're discouraged from guessing at a connection. If there's some way we can find proof of that connection, then we can add that information. If we don't know, then that isn't information most us would use. Genealogists and family historians have a standard of proof called the Genealogical Proof Standard. If you don't know what it is, learn. Because if you're going to use or exchange information, it helps tremendously to understand how it is proven to a standard.
One of the newer and more attractive areas of genealogical research is onomastics, the study of name origins. The term gets bandied around forums and lists and from all appearances, many, I'd dare say, don't seem to understand a great deal about it. We assume it's some kind of evidence that this person has to be related to that one, and since it sounds important we accept it as is. Unfortunately it isn't quite that simple.
First even the best onomastic information only gives us an indication of a connection--it isn't itself proof. The study of onomastics is a vastly complicated one and even experts in the field have to make subjective decisions. Given the facts that English language spelling was not standardized until well after the medieval period; that spelling was based entirely on the speaker's regionalized language skills as well as the regional background and skills of the recorder. The great majority of the records created during this time period was in Latin, the main supply of literate clerks was the Church. Clerics from all over Europe filled this function; all of whom were literate, to varying degrees, in Latin and other languages. Finally, the given name and/or surname was at some point translated back into English, or is anglicized, by later translators and/or writers. And not always accurately.
One example from the British Isles is the development in the late eleventh and early twelfth century of surnames, which later developed into hereditary surnames have numerous origins. These include:
Patronymic surnames - derived from one's father
Metronymic surnames - developed from one's mother
Biblical surnames and surnames derived from other literature
Surnames derived from other family relations
Surnames derived from occupations
Surnames derived from landmarks
Surnames derived from place names
Surnames derived from personality traits or characteristics
Even if an expert recognizes a name pattern here, of given names, surnames or both, there are a number of variables. Was the place named for the person, or the person named for the place? Was a name pattern exclusive to one particular region, area, or continent? Or is that just where we found a number of similar names? You can apply the Infinite Number of Monkeys conjecture easily here. It states that given a finite number of monkeys and a infinite amount of time, where each monkey has a typewriter and is continually banging away at it at random, they will eventually type out the entire collected works of Shakespeare. OK, even if you doubt they can produce Shakespeare, or anything like it, how long might it take for, say, two, three, four, or more of them, each in a different country, to randomly pound out the same surname? While you're pondering that, consider another question. Even if a particular name or surname was particular to a certain region, could that be confused by clerics' lack of familiarity with regional name conventions? For example, could a Norman cleric have perhaps record mac William as Fitz Wilhelm? Did he perhaps think mac was a given name? Could a later copyist think he perhaps made a mistake and change it? And among the thousands of clerics that over the centuries repeatedly and diligently copy this growing myriad of documents, does anyone believe that no mistakes were ever made? Obviously factors such as these can easily mitigate the most educated of guesses by the finest of experts.
Good onomastic information can certainly be helpful to genealogists. But like genealogical DNA testing it has its limitations and can't be widely or indiscriminately used for a number of reasons. Neither application can be a shortcut or substitute for the thousands upon thousands of hours of research which comprise a good many genealogical databases. Certainly there are those who will tell you other things, for whatever their reasons. But if you develop and apply your skills in determining good information from bad, you will find it easier to avoid those with alternate agendas who may not know much about genealogy themselves, but are willing to tell you how to do it. Network yourself. Find those who are willing to help and have good information and can consistently offer good advice. Finally, consider too the story of "doubting Thomas," so named for the disciple Thomas, who doubted until he had proof. If he lacked anything as a good follower, he certainly wouldn't have as a good genealogist. And as such, I'm guessing he'd tell you to verify everything!
Jim
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:No followups yet |
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/plantagenet/messages/1202.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|