Saturday 16 April 2016

A-Z Challenge 2016: N is for Negative Proof

http://www.a-to-zchallenge.com
'Negative proof' is surely a phrase coined especially for the genealogical community.  Certainly, it is much used by us.  What exactly is negative proof?

Say you have an ancestor called John Smith, who lived in a small parish in the West of England.  You know the year of his baptism, you know the place, you even know his parents' names, so you merrily head off to the internet/county record office to search for him.  You find him, and are about to input his name into <insert name of genealogical software here>.

John, son of Thomas and Mary Smith.  And, right underneath his baptismal entry, is another John, son of Thomas and Mary Smith.  Is it the same one?  Was the parish clerk forgetful, and/or seeing double? You turn the page.  There's another John, son of Thomas and Mary Smith.  This is where negative proof comes in.  In order to make sure that you have the right John, you have to prove that all the other Johns were not 'yours' - within a radius of about 15 miles is about right.  Or, if you are doing a Surname Study, you have to prove that all these Johns were indeed separate individuals and not the result of the clerk having the flu and not seeing straight.

Or maybe you have found what looks like John, son of Thomas and Mary Smith.  But those names are not exactly unusual, so the logic of negative proof is to search all the registers around, to make sure there are no other John-son-of-Thomas-and-Mary-Smiths.

Of course, if your ancestor is called Severus Adolphus Ambrose Smith, you are unlikely to come up against too many duplicates.




© 2016 Ros Haywood. All Rights Reserved

12 comments:

  1. Oh my goodness - what a lot of work - I never really thought about it but I can see why you would have to do this to make sure you were actually tracing the right lineage!!
    Pempi
    A Stormy Sidekick
    Special Teaching at Pempi’s Palace

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does look like a lot of work, but most genealogists are drooling at the thought of all that luverly research they simply HAVE to do *wink*

      Delete
  2. It amazes me how many people accept/guess that a person is a relative without confirming it. My tree is different to so many on Ancestry because I have done the "negative proof' exercise and know that the others have assumed incorrectly! "Near enough is good enough" doesn't work for me :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nor for me. I am so used to 'negative proof' searching, because most of my ancestors came from little rural villages where everybody was related to everybody else and they all called their children John, or James, or Elizabeth...

      Delete
  3. Interesting. I hadn't heard that term before, but I sure have had my share of John Smiths!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funnily enough, I haven't got a single 'John Smith' in my database! Thanks for stopping by.

      Delete
  4. There are so many with our last name, husbands surname, they can't be relatives. Great information!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, actually, as I said to Sharon above, most of mine WERE related, because they lived in small/tiny towns and villages. *grin*

      Delete
  5. no doubt, lots of chance for error in proving lineage. Very interesting

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you found it interesting. Thanks for stopping by.

      Delete
  6. I do find it a lot easier searching for my Cleage ancestors than for my Grahams.
    Finding Eliza

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can relate! I find it much easier searching for my Murch ancestors than my Brook(e)s or Leys.

      Delete

Copyright

You may NOT use the contents of this site for commercial purposes without explicit written permission from the author and blog owner. Commercial purposes includes blogs with ads and income generating features, and/or blogs or sites using feed content as a replacement for original content. Full content usage is not permitted.

You Might Also Be Interested In

Total Pageviews

Blog Archive